WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
  Water Pollution Aspects
       of Urban Runoff
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
         L WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
                                     WP-20-15

-------
   WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES

The Water Pollution Control Research Reports describe the results
of research  studies of water pollution.- They provide a  central
source of information on the intramural research activities of the
Federal  Water  Pollution  Control  Administration in the  U.S.
Department   of the  Interior  and  on the  research  program's
cooperative and contractual activities with Federal, State, and local
agencies, research institutions, and industrial organizations.

Triplicate tear-out abstract cards are placed inside the back cover
to facilitate information retrieval. Space is provided on the card for
the user's accession number and for additional uniterms.

Water Pollution Control Research  Series will be distributed to
requesters as supplies permit.  Requests should  be sent  to the
Publications Office, Department of the Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D.C. 20242.

Previously issued  reports  on  the Storm  and Combined Sewer
Pollution Control Program:

    Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities and Overflows—1967
    WP-20-11
                          WP-20-15

-------
                                   WP2015
      WATER POLLUTION ASPECTS
            OF URBAN RUNOFF
   Final Report on The Causes and Remedies of Water Pollution
  from Surface Drainage of Urban Areas-Research Project No. 120

                     of the

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                     by the

           American Public Works Association

                 Contract No. WA 66-23
                  January, 1969

-------
                            Contents
Abstract   	            	v

SECTION 1     Findings and Recommendations	    1

SECTION 2     An Introductory Appraisal of the Water
              Pollution Potential of Surface Drainage
              from Urban Areas	      ...          11

SECTION 3     Objectives and Goals of the Study  ...     	15

SECTION 4     Sources of Solids Causing Surface Pollution
              of a Unit Area in the City of Chicago	   23

SECTION 5     Sources and Amounts of Storm Water Runoff
              Pollution     	       	35
              Street Refuse	,	35
              Catch Basins	  7?
              Chemicals        	95
              Air Pollution	104
              The Sewer System         	110
              Sources of Urban Environmental
              Refuse—A Survey   . .       	 121

SECTION 6     Measures for Reducing the Pollution
              Potential of Urban Environmental Soiling	127
              Control of Street Litter by Public
              Cooperation    	      . . 127
              Improved Street Cleaning Practices      .  .       ..133
              Catch Basins—Elimination or Im-
              provement of Design and Operation  .     	134
              Control of Roof Runoff Drainage	135
              Regulations and Enforcement Pro-
              cedures 	          .  .        ..      .. 136
              Regulation of Drainage	138
              Minimizing Effects of Litter and
              of Yard and Garden Debris	139
              Minimizing Effects of Chemicals           	140
              Better Labor-Management Relations	142

SECTION 7     Cost of Prevention and Treatments	145

SECTION 8     Responsibilities and Guidelines for the
              Elimination or Reduction of the Pollution
              Potential of Urban Environment Wastes	151

SECTION 9     Acknowledgements  	153

SECTION 10   Appendices   	       . . 161

-------
                              Figures



 1. Typical Unit Residential Area, Chicago	      ^

 2. 1966 Monthly Dustfall Loadings on Unit Area, Chicago .  ••  •    25

 3. Seasonal Pattern of Sweeping Loadings, Chicago	     ^

 4. Variations in Street Sweeping Loadings for a High and Low
   Pollution Density Ward in Comparison With the Average
   City-WideLoading, Chicago	     29

 5. AverageComponentsofStreetLitter,Chicago	      46

 6. Efficiency of Sweeping Dust and Dirt	     74

 7. CatchBasinDesign,Chicago	     80

 8. Rainfall Runoff Relationships for Unit Area, Chicago	     82

 9. Relationship  of Flow Into Catch Basin  and  Reduction on
   Salt(NaCl)	     88

10. Salt Applied As Compared to Salt Discharged, Kennedy
   Expressway, February 24 to April 1,1967	     99

11. Seasonal Grit Removal Versus Precipitation, Chicago	    112

12. Sweeping Efficiency TestCourse	   215

-------
                            Tables
 1. Characteristics of Storm Water    	           	21
 2. Monthly Distribution of Garbage and
    Household Refuse from a 10-acre (4 ha)
    Residential Area, Chicago	27
 3. Average Components of Street Sweepings
    from Residential Areas, Chicago, June 19, to
    August 29, 1967 .          	       .  .28
 4. Monthly Summary of Estimated Street Litter
    Components, from a 10-acre (4 ha)
    Residential Area, Chicago   	30
 5. Estimated Monthly Quantity of Identifiable
    Solids from a Typical 10-acre (4 ha)
    Residential Area, Chicago   . .      . .           	32
 6. Characteristics of Street Refuse Test
    Areas—Summer 1967, Chicago	38
6A. Pedestrian and Vehicle Counts at Spaced
    One-hour Intervals For Street Refuse Test
    Areas, August, 1967	        	40
 7. Summary of Street Litter Components  	43
 8. Summary of Amount of Dust and Dirt
    Components	        44
 9. Control Area Data—Machine Swept      .    .   . .             .48
10. Summary of Laboratory Reports of Street
    Litter Components  	     . .    . .      . .      .53
11. Analyses of Frequency  of Street-cleaning
    Activities	          	         .65
12. Twenty-year Hourly Frequencies of
    Rainfall Events, Chicago  . .      	68
13. Material Remaining After Street Cleaning       	71
14. Analyses of Special Sweeping Tests on
    Michigan Avenue   . .       	72
15. Types of Storms Contributing to Storm-
    Water Overflows  	83
16. Estimated Quality of Storm-Water Over
    flows from 10-acre (4 ha) Unit Area,
    Chicago	         . .   .84
17. Test Results, Catch Basin Mixing by
    Increasing Flow	      	          .86
                                in

-------
18. Trends in Catch Basin Cleaning
     Practices, Chicago      	                 .       •
19. Analyses of Flow, Salt Applied, and Salt
     Discharged John F. Kennedy Expressway, February 23            fi
     to April 6, 1967	     •  • •   y8
                                                               1 C\^)
20. Use of Pesticides and Insecticides	     •  • • •
21. Annual Emissions of Air Pollution Con-
     stituents 	IQ4
22. Minimum and Maximum Concentration of
     Selected Particulate Contaminants       	107
23. Trends in Combined Sewer Cleaning
     Practice, Chicago	HI
24. Summary of Primary Sources of Storm-
     Water Solids ...        	US
25. Allowable Sewer Connections .      	H7
26. Points of Solid Removal  	       	!19
27. Sources of Streets Refuse—A Survey  	124
28. Ordinance Control of Sources of Street
     Litter	138
29. Comparative Toxicity of Several Organic
     Phosphorus and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
     Insecticides to Bluegills in Soft Water at 25  C	  141
30. Historical Unit Costs  of Catch Basin
     Cleaning, Sewer Cleaning, and Mechanical
     Street Sweeping, Chicago	146
31. Comparative Unit Cost of Solids
     Control Within a 10-Acre (4 ha) Area of
     Origin	      .   .146
32. Relative Costs of Street Cleaning       	        148
                                IV

-------
                     Abstract
    study was conducted to determine the factors in the
urban environment which contribute to the pollution of
urban^ storm water runoff and to determine methods to
limit this source of water pollution. It was found that
street refuse—litter—could be a significant factor when
the nature  of the  shock discharge  of the pollution  is
considered.

An evaluation  was  made  of the efficiency  of  street
cleaning methods  and  limitations of commonly used
equipment explored.

Catch basins in conjunction with street inlets to the
storm water disposal system were also determined to be
a potential major source of pollution as large quantities
of septic liquid are  released during periods of storm
water runoff.

Other potential sources of pollution considered included
air pollution, roof discharges, and chemicals used in the
urban environment.  Surveys  were made to determine
national patterns,  a  comprehensive  set  of  "typical"
ordinances   governing   a wide sampling of  possible
sources  of urban  storm water runoff pollution  were
compiled and are included in the report.

Findings and Recommendations are included in sum-
mary form.

This  report  is  submitted  in fulfillment  of Contract
WA66-23 between the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration and the American Public Works Asso-
ciation.

-------
                            Section 1
                Findings and Recommendations
     Under a contract with the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
     tration the American Public Works Association has carried out a
searching investigation of the  sources  and  extent  of  water pollution
resulting from the surface drainage of urban areas. The  information
sought  has  been brought  to light by means of actual  field studies  in
representative  urban  areas,  national  surveys of  municipal sanitation
practices and policies, and studies of specific technical problems by staff
and advisory personnel.
The studies have brought  to light out-of-doors environmental pollution
factors  in combined sewer and separate storm sewer discharges which are
not included in the "conventional" concept of water pollution sources such
as those stemming from used water discharged from  homes,  commercial
establishments, and industries.  This insight into community  wastes of a
solid and gaseous origin, and the evaluation of them as specific sources  of
water pollution, is important because so little attention has been paid  to
these pollution potentials in the past. If today's concern over sewage and
industrial wastewater pollution  results in the elimination  or minimization
of the  more obvious  sewage  and industrial waste threats to  the nation's
water resources, and if intensive investigation of ways to reduce the effect
of combined sewer  overflows  on  receiving waters  paves the  way for
correction of  this problem,  the "secondary" sources of pollution with
which this project has been involved will take on greater,importance.
This project has provided much-needed data on  the sources  of these
environmental  wastes  of  urban   areas,  the  nature and amounts   of
contaminants,  and their potential ppllutional effects resulting from the
water-wastes interfacial contacts during precipitation and runoff incidents.
It is true that some of the study data have been preliminary in nature; this
does not detract from their  validity. It is merely evidence that  much of the
work carried out under this project has been of an original nature and that
such studies as these are intended to point out the need for further work  in
uncovering more facts and  reaching additional findings and recommenda-
tions.
Thus, this  project has  had two values:  It has provided  procedures for
measuring the  water  pollution  potential of urban environmental wastes
and evaluating  their water  resources effects in comparison with so-called
"conventional" water pollution  sources; and it has disclosed the relation-
ship between better urban "housekeeping"  practices and  policies and the
reduction of water  pollution threats,  thus  adding another  reason for
community cleanliness and beauty.
The study has made it possible  to reach the following Findings, and offer
the following Recommendations.


                                  1

-------
                           Findings

1   Street refuse—litter—creates a water pollution potential when it
    comes in contact with runoff waters resulting from precipitation or
    thaws, in direct proportion to the amount and nature of these urban
    environment wastes. This pollution potential can  be reduced and
    minimized by better municipal sanitation practices, the use of more
    sophisticated equipment,  and  improved  public  cooperation and
    participation.
2.   Water pollution from storm-water runoff can affect many American
    communities. A study "Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities and
    Overflows—1967," by  the  American Public Works Association
    under contract with the FWPCA, disclosed that 1,329 municipal
    jurisdictions, with a total population of 54 to 55 million, are wholly
    or partially  served by combined sewers. Thirty-six million persons
    are directly served by combined  sewers. Some 70  million urban
    residents are served by separate sanitary sewers, of whom perhaps
    60 to 65 million are also served by separate storm sewers. The urban
    population explosion of the next three decades could increase the
    potential  water  pollution hazard  from  street wastes and related
    out-of-doors wastewaters  by extending storm-sewer  conduits  and
    increasing the amounts of manproduced litter accumulations.
3.   The amount of street litter deposited from Various sources  was
    determined, by a study of  18 test areas of representative occupancy,
    land use and other zoning characteristics, to vary from 0.5 to eight
    pounds  per  100 feet of curb per day. The average varied from 4.7
    pounds  per  day per 100 feet  of curb for commercial areas to 2.4
    pounds  per  day per 100 feet  of  curb  for single family residential
    areas. The amount and nature  of street litter was found to vary with
    land use, population, traffic flow,  and other indigenous factors. The
    actual amount of litter material on the street at  any one time is
    largely  dependent  upon the frequency and effectiveness  of street
    cleaning operations. A national  survey of street  sweeping  and
    flushing operations demonstrated  a broad range  in  frequency of
    sweeping, with many areas cleaned on an every other week schedule.
4.   The most significant component of street litter, in terms of producing
    water pollution potential by runoff, is the dust and dirt fraction, as
    found in the test street areas, varied from 0.4 to 5.2 pounds per day
    per 100 feet of curb. The weighted average was 1.5 pounds per day
    per 100 feet of curb. Of this material,  approximately three percent
    were found  to be soluble and readily transportable. This represents
    the solids subject to the creation of water pollution potential.
5.   This soluble dust and dirt contained appreciable amounts of water
    pollution  contaminants measured  as: BOD, COD, nitrogen forms,
    phosphates, total bacteria counts,  coliforms, and fecal enterococci.
    The weighted average amounts of these constituents were respective-
    ly:  5 mg/g,  40 mg/g, 0.48 mg/g, less than 0.05 mg/g,  more than 10

-------
     million, more than 1 million, and 5400/g. Analysis of the dust and
     dirt fraction was  carried out on liquid extractions  produced by a
     laboratory  mixing  device.  This  procedure  gave   a  "maximum
     solubility"  which  may not  be  reproducable with  storm-runoff
     conditions. On the other hand, the constituents tested did not include
     the coarser street litter (over 1/8 inch).
6.   Coarse or crude materials in street litter—the materials of over 1/8
     inch size—also have pollutional impact on receiving waters. These
     visible suspended solids can be washed into street inlets of storm and
     combined sewers and create objectionable conditions at sewer outlets
     when they float or shoal in receiving waters. In addition, some of
     these  materials  may decompose  and  create  additional  oxygen
     demands upon receiving waters.
7.   The most determinable measure of pollution potential of street litter
     was deemed to be the BOD of the soluble dust and dirt fraction. This
     BOD varied from three to 14 mg/g of dry material. As stated, the
     average was 5 mg/g. This amounted to 0.40 pound of BOD per day
     per  curb mile. Compared  to  the BOD reduction  of 80 percent
     considered attainable for secondary treatment of sewage, the BOD of
     the street litter was equivalent to  25 persons per  day  per  mile.
     National population densities  per  mile  of  roadways  and streets
     indicate that for a city of Chicago's size, 500  persons would live
     adjacent to each  mile of street.  Thus, with a street  litter BOD
     equivalency of five persons per day per mile, street litter would have
     a  pollution potential of one percent  of the raw  sewage pollution
     loading  and  five  percent  of  the secondary  treatment  effluent
     described above.
8.   On the  basis that contact between street litter and precipitation
     runoff water could occur with a 14-day accumulation of material,
     and  that all of the soluble and transportable BOD in the  dust and
     dirt fraction would be discharged into street inlets during a two-hour
     storm, the shock pollution load, or the peak flush effect, on receiving
     waters per mile of street could be 160 percent of the  raw sewage
     BOD and 800 percent of the secondary treatment effluent during the
     two-hour runoff period. If the runoff occurred during night hours of
     low  sewage or effluent discharges, the comparative  effect of street
     litter contaminated  runoff would be greater than  these average
     figures.  Marked  oxygen  sags  could result  in  the  vicinity of
     storm-water overflows or discharges. The shock effect of other street
     litter contaminants on receiving waters has not been ascertained but
     it  could be  appreciable,  particularly in terms  of  coliform  and
     fecal-orgin organisms which could degrade recreational waters and
     endanger water supplies.
9.   Street  litter  stems from  various  sources  and practices  including
     debris dropped or  scattered by individuals; sidewalk sweepings;
     debris washed  from vacant land, yards and other indigenous open
     areas;  building and demolition  wastes;  materials  eroded  from

-------
     pavements; fecal droppings from dogs and birds and other anin1  ^
     remmants  of household  refuse  dropped  during the  c°urseers-
     collection or scattered by animals or wind action from contain   >
     fallout of air pollution particulates; and  dust and dirt blown   y
     winds. Whatever is done to eliminate or reduce the wastes will re   ^
     in a diminution of the runoff contact and pollution potential and
     cleaner and more attractive community.
10.   Street sweeping equipment and methods of operation vary wide-.y
     according to a national sampling survey carried out  in connection
     with the project. A field survey showed the relative ineffectiveness 01
     broom sweeping in the removal of the dust and dirt fraction ol street
     wastes, an important source of water pollution potential. Additional
     studies were made to ascertain the effectiveness of vacuum cleaning
     equipment for municipal street cleaning. The tests demonstrated  the
     ability of  such  equipment  to  remove  dust and  dirt  fractions
     remaining after mechanical sweeping operations. Removal of more
     than 95  percent  of the material from the surface over  which it
     operated was accomplished during the tests. However,  presently
     available equipment does not appear  suitable  for complete removal
     of street wastes or litter which contains appreciable amounts of clay.
11.   Catch basins can be a source of first-flush  or shock pollution. The
     studies disclosed that the liquid remaining in a basin between runoff
     events tends to become septic and that the solids trapped in the basin
     take on the general characteristics of septic or anaerobic sludge. The
     liquid in catch basins displaced by fresh runoff water in the ratio of
     one-half the volume for every equal volume of added liquid. During
     even minor rainfall or thaw this  displacement factor can release the
     major  amount of the retained liquid and some  solids. The catch
     basin liquid  was found to have a BOD  content  of 60  ppm in a
     residential area. For even minor storms, the BOD of the catch basin
     liquid would be seven-and-one-half (7-1/2) times that of the  runoff
     which  had been  in  contact with street litter. Improved  design of
     catch basins, and  better operational and maintenance  practices,
     could reduce this first-flush pollutional effect.
12.   Drainage from roofs into  storm  and  combined sewers results in the
     washout  of  pollution-producing materials such  as air  pollution
     fallout particulates, leaves, and bird  and animal droppings.  The
     amount of runoff water adds to the hydraulic burden on sewer lines.
     If this material and roof  liquid  could be  discharged onto previous
     ground areas or temporarily  impounded, the peak runoff to sewers
     could be reduced.
13.   The chemical era  has  produced  street  and  additional  urban
     environmental pollutants such as salt  and other ice-control chemicals
     used during  the winter season;  and chemical compounds used by
     municipalities and property owners for pesticide, herbicide, rodenti-
     cide,  insecticide, and fertilizer  purposes.  Chemicals used become
     potential components of runoff  or thaw waters  which enter street

-------
     inlets and affect the quality of receiving streams. No data were
     developed on chemicals other than salt, but the latter represented a
     sizable pollution potential.
14.  A national sampling survey carried out for this study disclosed the
     extent of the use  of various  chemicals in urban  practices.  An
     investigation of the salt content of expressway runoff water showed
     that the chloride content  averaged  14,000 ppm and reached  a
     maximum  strength of 25,000  ppm during periods of snow-melt
     runoff. A national survey of roadway  salting and other ice-control
     methods showed the importance of this chemical phase of urban-en-
     vironmental pollution.
15.  Aerial discharges from industries, commercial establishments, and
     residential buildings add pollutants to the urban environment and
     these substances become water pollution potentials due to washout
     and runoff. This  source of urban pollution should be minimized as
     current air pollution control measures become more widely used.
16.  Another pollution source is the wash-water discharged into separate
     storm sewers and combined sewers by industries  and commercial
     establishments after the use of these waters for air pollution control
     purposes. An attempt to evaluate this pollution source by means of
     an  in-structure survey of representative  industries using scrubbing
     facilities in the Chicago metropolitan area failed to materialize but
     examination of this problem has indicated that it can be a factor in
     urban environmental pollution potential.
                       Recommendations

On the basis of the findings of the studies, the following recommendations
are offered. Remedial action and research of the nature herein proposed
would  reduce or eliminate the threat of water pollution stemming from
contact between  urban  environmental wastes, and precipitation  and
runoff.
 1.  The studies established the relationship between street refuse-—litter
     —and the pollution effect  of urban runoff after contact  with these
     wastes on the quality of  water resources receiving storm sewer
     discharges and  combined  sewer overflows.  The impact of  the
     quantities and quality of these surface wastes  on the pollutional
     potential is firmly established.
     It  is  recommended  that efforts  be  made  by  governmental
     agencies  to limit the  amounts  of litter accumulation  by various
     means, and from various sources, in order to reduce their pollution
     effect and to enhance  community cleanliness and beauty. This  will
     involve, among other things, more frequent and more effective street
     cleaning procedures in areas  where such efforts  and expense are
     warranted.

-------
2.  Improved street cleaning procedures can result in more complete
    pickup of the dust and dirt fraction of street litter. Variations, tor
    example, in the speed of sweepers and broom speed should be testea
    to determine their effect on  pickup efficiency.  The demonstrate*!
    efficiency of vacuum equipment likewise draws attention  to trus
    method of cleansing.
    It  is  recommended  that further research  be  undertaken  to
    develop  improved  street cleaning equipment  and processes  by
    governmental officials, manufacturers, and  other agencies in the
    interest of water pollution control as well as community cleanliness
    and beauty.
3.  Much  of the street  litter stems from the careless or  thoughtless
    scattering of materials and other practices by the public. Reduction
    of  the amount  of street  litter  requires  a full  measure of public
    cooperation and participation.
    It  is  recommended that  greater  efforts be devoted  to public
    education  programs and to  the  establishment of effective  and
    workable regulations and ordinances, relating to street cleanliness,
    and to their proper enforcement.  This  must include anti-littering
    campaigns, and  regulatory measures such  as  those  designed to
    control spillage of materials in transit. Public support, without which
    no such  efforts can succeed,  must be  gained  through education.
    Enforcement actions must be recognized as only a means toward the
    ultimate goal of voluntary public participation.
4.  The principle of "go thou  and do likewise" must be the guiding
    symbol in any community cleanup program. Governmental agencies
    must set the example before they can demand public action. Untidy
    governmental practices will  never catalyze  individual orderliness.
    The potential pollution effect of street wastes on the Nation's water
    resources adds an important incentive for urban cleanliness.
     It  is recommended that governmental  practices  be  improved in
    an effort  to minimize accumulations of street  debris. This must
    include the purchase and placement of convenient litter containers,
    maintenance of these receptacles in presentable condition, prompt
    collection  of litter basket contents,  maintenance of street sanitation
    equipment in attractive condition designed to encourage community
    pride and respect, better cleanliness practices on the part of waste
    collection  forces, and, of course, better street cleaning operations
    with  equipment of effective   design.   These  examples must be
    accompanied by public relations efforts which utilize every available
    source of communication.
5.  Too little study has been given to the actual quality of waste waters
    discharged into receiving waters from separate storm sewers and
    combined sewers. Previous studies  of overflow waters  disclosed the
    astonishing sparcity of monitoring  information of this nature. This
    study  has based  its findings  on  empirical  computations of  the
    pollutional potential of street litter resulting from precipitation and

-------
    runoff contacts. It would be advantageous to know more specifically
    the characteristics  of the  runoff resulting  from  such interface
    contacts, as a means of  confirming the computations made in this
    project.
    It is  recommended  that an intensive research  effort be made to
    determine the actual quality of representative discharges,  particular-
    ly from storm-water  sewers because  these  liquids will not  be
    affected by  the presence of sanitary sewage and industrial wastes.
    Such studies should cover discharges from areas with various ranges
    of accumulated street  refuse  and precipitation  runoff,  sampled
    during  the  complete discharge period to ascertain  the first-flush
    effects and prolonged changes in runoff quality. The studies shall of
    course,  include examination of receiving waters  before and after
    discharge incidents.
6.  Efforts  made during  the  study  to ascertain the movement  and
    shoaling of solids in storm sewers and combined sewers  after these
    materials have passed through catch basins were not successful. This
    resulted from the lack of time and inability  to obtain meaningful
    data on sewer cleaning operations. The possibility of using closed-
    circuit TV equipment to obtain an approximation of the amounts
    and character of deposited material in various parts of sewer lines
    was  considered.  Unfortunately it was not  feasible to  use  this
    technique for such an investigation. Information  of this nature is
    sorely needed to  augment  present knowledge of what happens to
    suspended solids not intercepted by catch basins.  Data obtained by a
    national sampling survey were not adequately  revealing but they
    demonstrated the need for further information of this nature.
    It is  recommended  that  investigations  be  carried  out on  the
    deposition   and movement  of solids  in  sewers under varying
    conditions  of material  inflow, and the intensity  and duration of
    precipitation and runoff. Such studies will throw light on the value
    of catch basin structures as  intercepting devices and indicate design
    and operation-maintenance practices  which  could increase  their
    effectiveness, if their use  is continued.
1.  Ths use of catch basins as appurtenances of street inlet structures in
    separate storm sewers and combined sewers has been common in the
    past.  This practice continues despite the fact that questions have
    been  raised as to the need for these  facilities with  paved street
    surfaces and hydraulic flow patterns in sewer systems. The study has
    demonstrated the shock  loading  on receiving waters  which could
    occur when septic  liquid  and sludge  solids are  dislodged  and
    displaced from catch basins. The  engineering evaluations made in
    connection with this study tend to support the position of those who
    question the need  for  catch basins  in modern  urban  sanitation
    practice.
    It is  recommended that the function and  effectiveness  of catch
    basins be more thoroughly investigated to determine the conditions

-------
     under which  they  may be  useful, if and  when  they should   e
     eliminated and what improvements should be made in their design,
     operation, and maintenance if their use is continued.
 8.  The study indicated, at least in general terms, the potential impact of
     roof leader waste-water discharges into storm and combined sewers
     on  the  total water pollution attributable to wastes  in the  urD.J*n
     environment. This effect is magnified because of the rapidity with
     which roof drainage water  reaches sewer systems, and the nature or
     the pollutants that it carries.
     It is  recommended that  studies  be carried out on  the Quantity
     and quality of roof drainage  waters under  varying precipitation
     amounts and intensities  at different  times of  the year.  The
     advisability and feasibility of diverting  such drainage  waters  to
     pervious ground,  temporary impounding  areas,  or  to  leaching
     devices  should be investigated.
 9.  Efforts  made  to determine the policies,  practices, and quality  of
     wastewater discharges  from representative industries and commer-
     cial establishments using scrubbing or other water-processing meth-
     ods of cleaning stack gases to alleviate air pollution emissions were
     not productive.  Time  was not available, nor was it  possible,  to
     obtain participation of private and public agencies in such a study.
     Information of this nature can be of value in determining whether
     such air pollution control measures contribute to the water pollution
     problem by discharging contaminants into storm or combined sewer
     systems.
     It  is   recommended   that  an   investigation   be  instituted   to
     ascertain the air pollution  control policies, practices,  and processes
     used by representative industries and to determine the amounts and
     the quality of wash waters discharged to sewers.
10.  Entry of deleterious or hard-to-treat industrial wastes into sanitary
     sewers and combined sewers  is being more universally prohibited in
     order to protect sewer systems and to assure the effectiveness  of
     biological processes at water  pollution control plants.  Unfortunately
     some communities have no regulations  prohibiting the  discharge of
     wastes into separate storm sewers.
     It is  recommended that the discharge of pollutional  wastewaters
     into separate storm sewers be regulated by rules or ordinances and
     that enforcement of such pollution  control practices be vigorously
     carried  out.
11.  The study defiried, at  least  in  preliminary  manner, the pollution
     potential  of residues  from  chemicals  used  in  public or private
     operations, which are  then washed out by precipitation and runoff
     and discharged  into storm or combined sewer  street inlets. This
     relates particularly to ice-control chemicals utilized in treating street
     and road surfaces.

-------
     It is recommended  that  a  study be  made  of the pollutional
     effects of all types of urban environment chemicals on the nation's
     rivers, lakes, and coastal estuaries; and that guidelines  be developed
     to discourage the use or over-use of any deleterious materials which
     can  be  replaced by less objectionable  compounds for  the  same
     purposes.
12.  The  study  indicated the pollution potential  of street litter  when
     contact  is made with such materials by precipitation, runoff, and
     other drainage waters.  The  study  used  the  soluble dust and dirt
     fraction of street litter as the measure of this  pollutional hazard. It
     then placed emphasis on the BOD of these wastes as the tangible and
     translatable yardstick of water pollution in terms of the equivalent
     population effect on watercourses.
     It is  recommended   that  studies  be made  to  evaluate  the
     pollutional effects of other constituents of street refuse, such  as
     nitrogen and phosphate  nutrients, total  bacterial  counts,  coliforms
     and fecal enterococci organisms, on  various  water uses,  including
     bathing and public water supply.
13.  In all areas sampled during the field tests, relatively large amounts of
     dust and dirt were present even in completely  built-up areas with
     limited pervious land in the immediate vicinity.
     It is recommended that a  detailed analysis of street  dust and
     dirt be  made to determine the origin of the material  in order that
     more effective control measures can be evaluated.
14.  The cost of reducing pollution of surface drainage water from urban
     areas may be  very  high and in  some  instances it  may become
     necessary to treat storm water runoff before it  is  allowed to  be
     discharged into receiving waters.
     It  is   recommended  that   designers   of  separate   storm  and
     combined  sewer systems  minimize  the number of outfall and
     overflow points within the limits  of feasibility and practicality  in
     order  to reduce  the  number  of points of  treatment  of such
     wastewater discharges, should such action be necessary.

-------
                            Section 2

                 An Introductory Appraisal
             of the Water Pollution Potential
          of Surface Drainage from Urban Areas
  T"1 he United States is experiencing a population explosion which has
     had a profound effect on the quality and usefulness of its  water
resources for the multiple purposes associated with national growth and
progress. The problems of water quality degradation are caused mainly by
the phenomenal growth of urban areas and the expansion of industrial
operations which are centered in such areas or in their general environs.
The present national population of over 200 million may burgeon to well
over 250 million by 1975 and to 300 million bythe turn of the century.
The bulk of the population is  concentrated in urban centers and the
metropolitan complexes which are filling in the spaces between communi-
ties. It is projected that industry will more than double the gross national
production by the year 2000.
Successful  urban  existence  is  dependent on  the protection  of the
environment in a safe and livable condition. The three basic essentials of a
protected environment are clean air, clean land, and  clean water. The
problems of maintaining the vital ingredients of a sanitary environment
against  the  thrust  of  urbanization  becomes  increasingly  difficult  as
urbanization intensifies.
To meet this conflict of man and his industrial  activities with  a clean
environment, public works and  related urban sanitation practices  have
been devised to protect the air blanket from defoulment, to keep the urban
land free from  accumulated debris, and to protect water resources  from
pollution which may affect man's  ability to use and  reuse this great
resource essential for national growth and prosperity.
Every use of water  exposes it to contamination and creates the threat of
quality degradation. The unending cycle of water in the environment is
from contamination to purification and then back to contamination. The
moisture evaporated  from land and  air  surfaces and. transpired  from
vegetation  is  purified  by  nature's  own  distillation  process,  leaving
indigenous  pollutional  components  behind. The  precipitation of the
condensed atmospheric moisture begins another contamination cycle.
The fall of rain and snow through  the  atmosphere cleans  the  air by
dissolving out  contaminants  and  physically washing out  particulate
matters.  The flow  of waters  over  the land in the form  of runoff to
watercourses adds further soluble and insoluble natural contaminants to
the water cycle. Even the percolation of waters into the soil and  their
eventual  flow  into  watercourses  and lakes adds soluble  and insoluble
substances which may or may not be of a pollutional nature. Thus,  even
                                11

-------
 without the  effect of man's urban existence, nature creates pollu '
 conditions.
 The urban environment magnifies these pollution producing c°n^ more
 The air washing  of  the urban  atmosphere contributes more an  ^^
 diverse pollutional substances to precipitation. The drainage or   llutants
 area adds contaminants that far exceed those nature-induced p     ^^
 added to runoff by solution and erosion in open non-urban ar ^^ ^
 conversion of pervious open land to impervious urban surfaces,     tgrs
 roads, walks, streets,  roofed structures, parking areas, shoppmg        >
 and airports, produces greater faster runoff along with scour P011"""  •
 The use of water for public and industrial services produces waste waters
 containing the waste products of human life and living as well as industrial
 processing.
 The discharge of these wastes into receiving waters constitutes the major
 water pollution problem. The ever-increasing amounts of such pollutants
 and the  growing complexity of these water-borne wastes have created  a
 deepened concern  for the  safety and usefulness  of the nation's  water
 resources and have led to action on state, federal,  and interstate levels to
 consummate  massive cleanup programs in the next decade.
 Efforts  are being directed  toward the  elimination of obvious and major
 sources of pollution—the discharge of untreated or  inadequately treated
 municipal sanitary sewage and industrial wastes—the goal being appropri-
 ate treatment of all such waste waters.  However, control over what might
 be called "gross pollution" from these sources will not adequately protect
 the nation's water resources: Ultimately, attention must be directed toward
 dealing  with the   less obvious  pollutional  vectors  which have been
 relatively disregarded while large amounts of sewage and industrial wastes
 went untreated or were only partially purified. Progressive reclamation of
 the nation's water resources dictates that other sources of pollution must
 be examined  and evaluated in terms of their relative importance as water
 degradation  factors.  Ways of eliminating or abating them,  the costs
 involved, and the benefits to be derived must be ascertained.
 In  the  category of  less  obvious pollution sources  are  C1)  recurring
 overflows of admixed  sewage and industrial wastes with storm water flows
 in combined sanitary-storm sewers; and (2)  recurring separate storm sewer
 discharges during  periods of precipitation, thaw or runoff, and drainage
 from other sources.
The problem  of combined sewer overflows  and means for minimizing the
same is being investigated at an intensive rate and on an extensive scSale;
primarily with the support of demonstration and matching grant  funds
appropriated  and  administered  for this  purpose by  the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Administration, Department of the Interior. Evaluation
of the problem and demonstration of the effectiveness of various types of
control and/or treatment of combined sewer overflows are underway in  a
number  of communities and  research location  in various parts of the
country.
                                 12

-------
In  1965,  "A  Preliminary  Appraisal  of the  Pollution Effects  of Storm
Water and Overflows from Combined Sewer Systems" was prepared by the
U.S. Public Health Service. It focused attention on the widespread use of
combined sewers and resultant overflow episodes that contribute to the
pollution of receiving waters.
The American Public Works Association conducted  a detailed  investiga-
tion titled "Problems  of Combined  Sewer  Facilities and  Overflows—
1967" for the  Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. The study
was designed  as a "National  Inventory of  the  Effects  and Means of
Correcting Combined Sewer Overflows  and Separate Storm  and Sanitary
Sewer Discharges in  the  United States." References to separate storm
sewers as a source of pollution in this study are significant as precursors of
mounting interest in the pollutional wastes which have been discharged
untreated from  these drainage facilities. Thus, pollution from sanitary
sewers,  combined sewers,  and separate storm sewers, must be-considered
in the total pollution abatement program.
There is  a direct  relationship between the cleanliness of the urban
environment and the  cleanliness of storm-water  runoff—or, conversely,
between poor urban housekeeping and the  pollutional effect  of runoff
waters which  come in contact with urban-created street and land debris
and aerial pollutants. Regardless of the  sources of urban pollution of this
nature,  the connecting  link is the  street inlet structure  to  the separate
storm sewer  or the combined sewer.  The relationship  between urban
cleanliness and water pollution appears obvious; what is not so obvious is
the extent of this relationship and what can be done to eliminate or reduce
it. So little has been done in the past to correlate the influence of street
debris and air  pollutants with the delivery of these contaminants to
separate storm or combined sewers,  precipitation, and runoff, that the
problem must be approached as a relatively unexplored area of urban
operations.
However, it must not be assumed that  all runoff pollution is man-made
and urban-based. Contamination of land runoff in  rural and  semirural
regions  results  from  the  solution  and  physical entrainment of land
organics,  animal wastes,  fertilizers,  fungicides,  herbicides, algaecides,
rodenticides, pesticides and other chemicals, as well as eroded soils. While
it  is true that the  perviousness of open land and  natural topographic
conditions impede  runoff and pollution, this facet  of water  pollution
cannot be ignored.
This project is aimed at denning the nature of urban pollution via street
entry into storm and  combined  sewers. This involves  a quantitative
evaluation of the pollutional impact and its relative importance compared
to known sewage and industrial wastewater discharges. In addition it leads
to development of guidelines for the introduction of municipal practices to
minimize  these  pollution  sources by  means  of economical  and  feasible
changes in equipment operations, regulations,  and controls.
The earlier APWA study previously referred to disclosed that there are
some 1,329 municipal jurisdictions in the United States served totally or

                                  13

-------
 partially by combined sewers. They have a population of 54 fflil'1^  ^Q
 approximately  36 million served  directly  by  combined seW?me(j or
 national urban  population reported to be served by either c°m ujation
 separate sanitary sewers as of 1962 was 125 million. Thus, the.p°^teiy  70
 served by  separate sanitary  sewers may have  been aPProXimerveci bv
 million (125 million minus 54 million). A majority of the areass^ers fa
 separate sanitary lines are also now served by separate storm
 drainage purposes, or they will be when urban development r^uir<=
 prompt removal of storm waters. Since the areas not sewered witn
 storm lines are, in the  main, lightly populated,  it may be assumed
 upwards of 60 to 65 million persons reside in areas so served.
 Separate storm sewers, as well as combined sewers, are potential recipients
 of the type of urban pollution to which this current study addresses itself:
 street litter and airborne debris. In addition these separate storm conduits
 are  utilized as discharge  points for other  wastes not classified  as
 "out-of-doors"  pollutants  that  are  the  result  of urban environment
 conditions.  These other waste  waters include:  so-called clean  waters
 discharged from cooling and refrigeration systems,  contaminated waters
 from stack-washing operation in commercial and industrial establish-
 ments, and surreptitious  or illegal discharges of actual waste waters from
 commercial and  industrial operations into separate storm sewers. Indeed,
 it  is not unknown for  municipalities to provide relief  for  surcharged
 sanitary sewers by diverting their excess flow  into storm sewer systems. In
 some cases, illegal discharges of individual septic tank systems have been
 made into convenient separate storm  sewer lines.
 In combined sewers, waste discharges can be considered, more or less, as
 indigenous components of the combined sanitary storm-water flows.  In the
 case of separate storm sewers, these pollutants are  not treated  and they
 add a burden to  receiving waters. Their elimination may be a problem of
 enforcement of regulations, the enactment of  rules where none exists, and
the institution of surveillance programs to insure compliance with rules
 and regulations.  This project focuses attention on the need for better urban
land and air sanitation practices  and on the importance  of regulations
covering  the use of separate storm sewers. Control  of  separate  storm
sewers is an additional step in sewer control designed to supplement present
trends to  regulate the use of sanitary sewers and combined sewer systems.
                                 14

-------
                            Section 3
                      Objectives and Coals
                           of the Study
  T he proposal for the study stated the need for the investigation of the
     sources of urban storm water runoff pollutants and their magnitude.
In investigating the pollution of storm-water runoff, the principal objective
was to evaluate those factors affected by public works practices that may
be controllable by changes in governmental operations and the enactment
and enforcement of rules and regulations.
Without doubt, the impact of the normal waste flows  from municipalities
and industries exceed the effects  of the sporadic pollutional discharges
examined by this project.  However, as these main sources will be subject
to  continuing reduction by  adequate sewage and  industrial treatment
facilities, attention must center on other contributors to the overall water
pollution problem. It is significant that interest already has been aimed at
correction, or  at least  alleviation,  of the  combined  sewer overflow
problem; now, the impact of urban drainage on protection of the safety
and usefulness of the nation's water resources deserves consideration.
This  "stage  approach" to the  subject, with first  efforts on the  main
problem and subsequent  action  on the other significant though lesser
pollutional factors, is a rational application of the principle of cost-benefit
evaluation of public  expenditures.  The questions involved are: how much
of a factor is urban environment pollution, does it merit correction, how
can it be done, how  much will  it cost, and what benefits will  be derived?
Study of the impact of urban environment  pollution on water pollution
and the identification of the component ingredients and amounts  of such
environmental contaminants indicates that a problem of some degree
exists and that it may  be  corrected or minimized by governmental
sanitation procedures.
Expressed in another way,  over and above the identification of the so-called
secondary pollutional factors involved in storm-water runoff and washout
phenomena,  the project  has  a  more sustained function,  namely:  to
correlate the nature  and amounts of such pollutants with governmental
practices, to alert the public and governmental officials regarding methods
for solving the  problem  at  least in part,  to  inform the public of  its
responsibilities for making the  urban environment less of a water-pollu-
tion factor, and to provide guidelines  for the practice of preventive and
corrective measures  that can stand the test of practical workability and
economic feasibility.
This  investigation involves facets  of governmental operatioris that have
remained  relatively   unexplored  and unevaluated  in  terms  of water
pollution,  such as street sanitation practices, use of insecticides, pesticides,
herbicides and fertilizer chemicals  in public work and by urban residents;
use of  chemicals  for  ice  and  snow control  and for the inhibition  of
corrosion;  and  air  pollution  and control  procedures  that  affect  the
atmosphere as well as the land. The methodology utilized in this study has

                                 15

-------
 been designed to translate intangible pollutional concepts into measur
 terms and to develop facts where only conjecture existed heretofore-
 Specific  factors of public area sanitation  that have, or could h^jon
 bearing on the conversion of land and air pollution into water po
 factors include:
 •  Street litter debris which can be washed  into sewer inlets, in bulk or in
    the form of washout of soluble constituents
 •  Debris washed into streets from vacant land or contiguous open urban
    areas into  street gutters, and  street or pavement  surface  material
    eroded or unravelled where it is subject to water-buoyancy or washout
    into street inlets to storm  or combined sewers
 •  Salt  or other ice  control  chemicals,  and anti-skid  traction  ma-
    terials, with or  without  corrosion  inhibitors, which can be carried
    into sewers in suspended or dissolved form
 •  Chemicals used  in public operations or by citizens to control pests.
    insects,  weeds,  and  rodents, and as soil conditioners or fertilizers,
    which are then carried into sewer inlets by washoff from vegetation or
    land surfaces
 •  Droppings from  animal or bird sources which are deposited on streets
    and contiguous land, lawns, parkways or buildings
 •  Lawn  and  garden  litter  and  other  vegetation  wastes  including
    deciduous leaves
 •  Remnants of household or commercial refuse which are strewn into
    streets by the action of winds, animals, or collection crews
 •  Air  deposited substances which originate  as particulates or gaseous
    emissions  from  stacks and which are dissolved by  precipitation  or
    washed  out in  dissolved or suspended form  after  they have been
    deposited on urban land surfaces,  and
 •  Direct  discharges of  waste waters from such  operations as  air
    scrubbing which  convert  air polluting ingredients into water polluting
    substances  without  utilizing  the so-called "aerial sewer"  as the
    connecting link to street sewer inlets.
Many public-works  practices result in concurrent reduction of pollution
from storm water. However, this has not  been necessarily the primary
consideration in developing current procedures. For instance, air pollution
control   devices  are being  installed  on  municipal incinerators,  and
ordinances are being passed  and enforced to reduce air pollution. These
acts are designed to improve  air quality. However, they also play a role in
reducing storm-water pollution.  In like manner, municipalities  have
traditionally  swept  public  streets to  remove litter  and  improve the
aesthetic conditions  of neighborhoods, as well  as to reduce  public safety
hazards  from  fire, clogging  of  drainage facilities,  and  impediments  to
traffic. As revealed by this study, street cleaning also reduces the pollution
potential of drainage runoff.
                                 16

-------
It  now becomes apparent  that  a new dimension must be  added  to
measurement of the effectiveness of  public works services, namely  the
reduction or control of storm-water pollution.


                          Study Rationale

There are  several basic methods  by  which a governmental agency may
reduce pollution of storm waters.  Obviously, if the agency could require
the cooperation of each individual  in preventing the polluting  of the
environment,  storm water  would flow  to the  drainage facilities  with
minimal exposure to pollution-causing material. This is an  over-simplifi-
cation of the problem inasmuch as there are many types of  material with
which storm  water  will come in contact and which are  not directly
controllable by any individual.
There are  many ordinances,  rules,  and regulations which, if enforced,
could  be effective in controlling pollution, particularly in streets and
public ways  where storm water is readily polluted. Such  requirements
include the control of open-area erosion, littering prohibitions,  regulating
sidewalk sweeping, stipulating refuse storage and handling methods, and
stipulating methods for handling construction materials.
Any program  to reduce storm-water pollution in a relatively efficient
manner requires public  cooperation.  Keep America Beautiful, Inc. and
local beautification and "clean-city" organizations have done much  in past
years  to  promote anti-littering  activities. Prevention of  storm-water
pollution adds further  justification for the activities  of  many of these
citizens groups.
Public  participation  in  litter-control efforts  places  further burden  on
public officials to improve existing community  sanitation programs and
initiate others. Improved public works practices would include:
1. Greater care in refuse collection  to prevent spillage of materials  on
   streets or impervious areas
2. Improved catch basin cleaning methods
3. Installation of additional litter baskets at appropriate locations, and
4. More frequent and effective street cleaning.
If public-works  agencies are  to succeed in  controlling  storm-water
pollution, they must rely on new or improved sanitation practices. Some,
which readily suggest themselves are:
• Vacuum sweeping of streets
• More frequent sweeping  of streets, with  additional dust and dirt
   control as an objective
• The possible elimination of catch basins on combined sewers
• Initiation of scheduled periodic sewer flushing or other sewer cleaning
   procedures
• Banning street parking, and
                                  17

-------
 •  Improved construction, operation, and maintenance of combined-se
    er regulators.
The APWA in its report entitled "Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities
and Overflows—1967,"  estimated  on  the basis of  the  information
available that  it would cost  approximately  $15 billion for the facilities
needed for treating combined-sewer overflows. While no estimates have
been made of the cost to treat storm-water discharges,  it can be assumed
that this would be significantly greater inasmuch as the peak flows would
require high hydraulic capacities for handling dilute liquids, thus making
treatment more expensive. The emphasis for this study, therefore, was on
evaluating the causes of runoff pollution and the  practices which might
avert or alleviate pollution.

                      Setting for the Study

The extent  of storm  water  as  a significant, albeit sporadic source of
pollution of receiving bodies of water has  been recognized only  within
recent years. PalmerO) sampled storm-water runoff from land  surfaces at
street catch  basins in downtown Detroit in  1949.  He found Biochemical
Oxygen Demands (BOD) on the order of 96 to 234 mg/1; total  solids, 310
to 914 mg/1; and coliform ranges of 25,000 to 930,000/100 ml. He also
reported similar samplings during  a number of Detroit storms in 1960.(2)
These 1960 studies revealed that the mean suspended solids for a number
of samples from two storms were 213 and 102 mg/1, respectively.  The
coliform levels for four storms ranged from 2,300 to 430,000. Concentra-
tions varied widely between points and at the same point during runoff. To
quote Palmer: "In some cases the quality of the material became worse as
the storm progressed and in others it became better, and in still others no
pattern was apparent."
In 1954,  a study of surface runoff from a 611-acre (248-hectare*) estate
with separate sewers at Oxney, England, (3) showed  BOD's  up to  100
mg/1  and  suspended solids contents up to 2,045 mg/1. BOD's tended to
increase with the length of the antecedent dry-weather  period up to eight
to ten days;  after that little further change developed. Computations were
made to compare discharges  to the river from the  separate system with a
hypothetical combined system wherein all flow would  receive  treatment.
On the basis of assumed treatment plant effluent  levels of 20 mg/1 for
BOD  and 30 mg/1 for suspended solids, it was concluded that the separate
system reduced  the BOD  loading on  the stream,  but increased the
suspended solids  loading by six  or seven times.  First flushes were not
much more polluting than subsequent flows, except after long  antecedent
dry periods.
A translation of a report on the results of a sampling study of storm-water
runoff in  Moscow,  U.S.S.R., in  1936, indicated BOD's of 186  to  285
mg/1, and suspended solids of 1,000 to 3,500 mg/. Runoff samples from
Note*: 1 hectare (ha) = 2.47 acres

                                18

-------
Leningrad's cobblestone paved streets in 1948-50 contained BOD's of 36
mg/1 and suspended solids of 14,541 mg/l.(4)
Storm-water samples  from  Seattle  street gutters,  in a study made by
Sylvester in 1959  and 1960,(5) contained constituent values  as follows:
turbidities, up to 1,290 units; color, to 350  units; BOD's with aerated
Green Lake water as the diluent, about 10 mg/1; coliforms, to 16,100
MPN's/100 ml. Nutrient values were: organic nitrogen, up to 9.0  mg/1;
nitrate nitrogen, to 2.80 mg/1; and phosphorus, to 784 mg/1 soluble, and
to 1,400 mg/1 total, as P. The highest constituent concentrations usually
were found when antecedent rainfall had been low.
Summer rainwater drainage samples mainly  from streets and  parks in
Stockholm, Sweden, from 1945 to  1948,(6) indicated median values for
coliforms at 4,000/100 ml; COD, 188 mg/1; total solids, 300 mg/1; fixed
residue, 210 mg/1; and BOD, 17 mg/1. The levels for individual samples
ranged as high as 200,000/100 ml for coliforms; 3,100 mg/1 COD;  3,000
mg/1 total solids; 2,420 mg/1 fixed residue; and 80 mg/1 BOD.
Storm-water samples  from residential, park,  school, and  sports ground
type areas in  Pretoria,  South Africa,(7) revealed  coliform counts  of
240,000/100  ml;  total organic nitrogen,  5.4 mg/1;  COD, 29  mg/1;
dissolved solids, 228 mg/1; and BOD, 30 mg/1. From a business and flat
area,  the concentrations were: coliforms, 230,000/100 ml; total organic
nitrogen, 3.5 mg/1; COD,  28 mg/1; dissolved solids, 154 mg/1; and  BOD,
34 mg/1.
Study  of  storm-water runoff  from  a  27-acre (11  ha) residential and
light-commercial urban area in Cincinnati, Ohio,(8) reported  in  1966,
indicated the following constituent averages: suspended solids, 227  mg/1;
volatile suspended solids,  57  mg/1; COD,  111 mg/1;  BOD, 17  mg/1;
inorganic nitrogen, 1.0 mg/1; total hydrolyzable phosphate, 1.1 mg/1; and
organic chlorine, 1.7 mg/1. Some or all of these could be of significance,
depending  on the environment. Constituent loads in the urban runoff,
calculated both on an annual basis and on the basis of daily discharges
during  storms,  and  compared with  sanitary  sewage production at  a
nine-person/acre  (22  person/ha)  population   in the  runoff  equal 160
percent of those produced as sanitary sewage; COD, 33 percent;  BOD,
seven  percent; total  hydrolyzable  phosphate, five  percent; and total
nitrogen,  14 percent. During  runoff,  storm water runoff  constituent
discharge rates, expressed as percentages of average raw sewage constitu-
ent production rates at the same population Density mentioned above are
suspended solids, 2,400 percent; COD, 520 percent; BOD, 110 percent;
total hydrolyzable phosphate, 70 percent; and  total nitrogen, 200 percent.
Coliform densities were greater than 2,900/100 ml in 90  percent of the
samples and exceeds the standard for swimming water quality  in use in
many places in the United  States.
Table 1, Characteristics of Storm-Water Runoff, presents the information
from the various studies that have been made in order that the magnitude
of the pollution of storm-water runoff may be compared with  ordinary
sanitary sewage and drinking water. Storm-water runoff has been found in
                                 19

-------
 many instances to be akin to sanitary sewage in its pollutional charac
 tics and in a few instances some parameters of pollution are even gre   •
 Because of the increasing needs for conservation and effective use
 available water resources, urban-storm water may plav an importa
 as a readily available raw-water resource. Studies that have been
 indicate that  in  many cases  storm water will  require modification in
 character before it is acceptable for the varied beneficial uses to which it
 can be put.
 The  interception  of storm-water  runoff, its  impoundment  in  leaching
 basins, and its use to supplement ground water resources, such as now
 practiced in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, N.Y., indicates the
 potential value of such waste waters for reuse purposes. It emphasizes the
 need to protect runoff waters against  preventable urban pollution from
 larid and air sources.
 Public Health Service publication No. 1246, "Pollutional Effects of Storm
 Water and  Overflows  from Combined Sewers Systems," appraised the
 extent of combined  sewer overflows  and pollution from storm-water
 discharges.  Reports from 39  municipalities  were  examined  and the
 preliminary interpretation was made that storm water and combined sewer
 overflows are responsible for major amounts of polluting material in the
 nation's receiving waters. Increased urbanization will increase discharges
which adversely affect most water uses in receiving  watercourses. Thus,
the PHS recommended that a comprehensive study should be initiated to
expand on the preliminary study and explore, in depth, causes and control
of storm-water pollution. The subject project and  this  report thereon
satisfies, at least in part, the Number 1 recommendation of the PHS study
in that it provides further understanding of many of the factors influencing
pollution  of storm water and  furnishes guides for future methods of
control.
                                20

-------
TABLE  I .  Characteristics of Storm Water
             (Other Studies)
City
1 . East Bay Sanitary
District
Minimum
Maximum
Average
2. Cincinnati, Ohio
Maximum Seasonal Means
Average
3. Los Angetes County
Average 1962-63
4. Washington, D. C.
Catch-basin samples during storm
Minimum
Maximum
Average
5. Seattle, Washington
6. Oxney, England
7. Moscow, U.S.S.R.
8. Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
9. Stockholm, Sweden
10. Pretoria, South Africa
Residential
Business
1 1 . Detroit, Michigan
Criteria* for:
A. Potable woter
(to be filtered)
(not to be filtered)
B. Body contact water
*New York State
•'Max.
••'Mean
BOD Total Sal ids Suspended Solids Coliform
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 /I


3 726 16 4
7,700 4,400 70,000
87 1,401 613 11,800

12 260
17 227

161 2,909


6 26
625 36,250
126 2,100
10 16,100
100** 2,045
186-285 1,000-3,500**
36 14,541
17-80 30-8,000 40-200,000

30 240,000
34 230,000
96-234 310-914 102-213*** 930,000'*


5,000
50
2,400



Chlorides COD
mg/1 mg/1


300
10,260
5,100

110
III

199


11
160
42




18-3,100

29
28



600" 10
10
NA




-------
                          References

 1. PALMER, C. L. "The Pollutional Effects of Storm-Water Overflows
   from Combined Sewers." Sewage and Industrial Wastes. 22,  2,  154.
   Feb. 1950.

 2. PALMER, C. L. "Feasibility  of Combined  Sewer System."  Journal
   Water Pollution Control Federation. 35, 2, 162. Feb. 1963.

 3. WILKINSON, R. "The Quality of Rainfall Run-Off  Water From  A
   Housing Estate." Jour. Inst. Pub. Health Eng. (Brit.). London.  1962.

 4. SHIGORIN,  G.  G.  "The  Problem of City Surface Run-Off  Water."
   Vodosnabzhenie i Sanitarnaya Tekhnika. 2, 19.  1956.

 5. SYLVESTER, R. O. "An Engineering and Ecological Study for the
   Rehabilitation  of Green  Lake." University of Washington.  Seattle,
   Washington. 1960.

6. AKERLINCH,  G. "The   Quality of  Storm Water Flow."  Nordisk
   Hygienish Tidskrift (Stockholm). 31,  1. 1950.

7. STANDER,  G.  J. "Topographical Pollution—The Problems of the
   Water and Sanitary Engineer." 40th Annual Conference. Institution of
   Municipal Engineers. National Institute for Water Research. 1961.

8. WEIBEL, S.  R., ANDERSON, R. J., and WOODWARD, R. L.  "Urban
   Land Runoff as a Factor in Stream Pollution." Journal  Water Pollution
   Control Federation. 36, 7, 914. July, 1964.
                              22

-------
                             Section 4
          Sources of solids causing surface pollution
              of a unit area in the city of Chicago
 Tnterdependencies exist among the many environmental factors which
   have an effect on water pollution including air pollution dustfall levels,
street sweeping loadings, refuse  collection quantities,  catch basin solids,
sewer solids, and sewage treatment plant influent and effluent characteris-
tics. The pertinent question is how important are these interactions and
how can existing practices be modified to achieve optimal programs for
air,  water, and  land quality  management?  The following  .preliminary
evaluation is based on a literature review and contact with the appropriate
public agencies  in  the  Metropolitan Chicago area. It serves as a data
preamble to the actual  studies carried out on environmental wastes and
their pollution impact on runoff water.

The purpose of this analysis was to explore the relative importance of the
sources of urban solids that create potential storm water runoff pollution.
A preliminary quantification of the magnitude of the various solids sources
is presented.

The Chicago Metropolitan area  is characterized by flat topography. The
streets follow a grid pattern that partitions the city into a system of blocks.
A methodology for  sewer design, called the Chicago Hydrograph Method
(CHM),  evaluates  the  hydrology of typical unit  areas. (])  Figure 1,
Typical Unit Residential Area,  Chicago, shows the drainage  plan for a
typical two-block unit area. The source and  controls  of solids from this
unit area will be analyzed.

                          Air Pollution

Dustfall from air pollution is a source of solids that can be characterized.
During 1966,  the average annual dustfall loading in  Chicago was 36.9
tons per square mile per month as compared with a corresponding average
of 41.0 tons in 1965. (2) These  dustfalls levels are significantly less than
the  levels that prevailed a decade earlier when the average loading during
the  period from 1954 to 1965 was 54.9 tons per square mile per month.
The dustfall particulates range from 20 to  40 microns in diameter. The
chemical composition of dustfall is described  in an article by Johnson et.
al. (3) For the purposes of this report it  is sufficient to categorize dustfall
as "fines" relative to other solid wastes.
                                 23

-------
FIGURE 1.  Typical Unit Residential Area, Chicago
!

-i
-k
-ii
~i

D
f 	
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
U
D
U
u
D
U
U
U
D
U
D
P-f* LATEfiAL . U . SEWER p[U
/ O ! C FRONT STREET O
/" CHOUSE DRAIN ^
D
D
[]
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
6
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
D
D
D
D
n
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
D
D
D
D
D
D
«.-.
^ j
O_ LATERAL 	 |_ CJ SEWEft O
b FRONT STREET Q " ri
f ^

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
D
D
D
D
D'
D
D
D
\a LOTS
D
D
AT 33'=
D
n
D
D
D
d
s
n
ID
TYPICAL
— "
D
IDT D1
D
MENSIO
D
NS
D
A
D
D
O 	 CATCH BASINS
ZZIQ — - MANHOLES
1
P
IF
lh
E
t
b
E
r
i
                    24

-------
The expanse of the unit area is 10 acres (4 ha) which is  equivalent to
0.0157 square miles. Consequently, the quantity of dustfall settling on this
unit area would average 0.58. tons per month for 1966 conditions. The
seasonal distribution of dustfall loadings on this unit area, presented in
Figure 2,  1966  Monthly  Dustfall Loadings  on Unit  Area  Chicago,
demonstrates the commonly observed heavier loadings in  the winter
months.
Analysis of the spatial distribution of  dustfall levels in Chicago reveals a
range from 20.6 to 61.4 tons per square mile per month at the 20 stations
during 1966. With this many sampling stations it is possible to make
relatively good estimates of dustfall levels on any given area of the city.
FIGURE 2.   1966 Monthly Dustfall Loadings on Unit Area, Chicago
O
.o
7
i
A
2
1









F
X








\






M f-

/






\ C

\
\
\







^







\
\






/
/





/
/





s
X






^






i i i
* J J A S O N D
                               Month of Year: 1966
                                25

-------
                          Sanitary Wastes

 For the purpose of this section, sanitary wastes are denned as household
 liquid wastes, with the exception of garbage, which are discharged to the
 public sewer system. Since no direct data were available regarding sanitary
 wastes  alone it was necessary to rely on  published  estimates. Fair and
 Geyer estimated the average per capita solids in domestic sewage to  be
 250 grams per capita per day. (4) This estimate is further partitioned into
 two components: 90 grams of suspended solids and 160 grams of dissolved
 solids.
 There are 72 single-unit dwellings in the study area. The average number
 of persons per family is 3.9 for the City of Chicago. Based on these data,
 the estimated total solids load from  this source is 2.4 tons per month for
 the unit area. For this evaluation it will be assumed that this estimated
 monthly load remains constant over the year.
 An alternative method of estimating the quantity of sanitary  wastes was
 employed which indicated that this estimate was reasonable. Data for the
 Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago Sewage Treatment plants show
 that the average annual quantity of grit removed was 7,200 tons, and other
 solids removed  averaged  312,000  tons/year  for the 1960 to  1966
 period. (6) The estimated population served was  5,000,000. Thus, the
 pro-rated solids from  the  unit area  would be 0.41 tons/year of grit and
 17.6 tons/year of other solids.
                      Rubbish and Garbage

Solid wastes  refer  to  the unused,  unwanted,  or  discarded materials
resulting from normal community activities, and includes such classifica-
tions as garbage, rubbish,  ashes, street refuse, dead animals,  abandoned
automobiles, and industrial wastes other than liquid. Rubbish is classified
as combustible or noncombustible  and is the major share of the solid
wastes generated by the normal urban resident.
Garbage is the animal and vegetable residue resulting from the handling,
preparation, cooking, and serving of foods. If garbage grinders are used,
most of these solids  are  discharged to  the  sewer system.  Otherwise,
garbage is removed via orthodox refuse collection services.
Because refuse-collection records ordinarily •do not provide a breakdown
of the total quantity of solid wastes by types, it was necessary to use
several sources of information as a basis for the estimate.
The results of an APWA questionnaire survey  of 85  cities in 1955
indicated a median quantity of 148  pounds of garbage/capita/year with a
range of 74  to 263 pounds. (7) With regard  to  the effect of garbage
grinders, the  average annual garbage collection in Los Angeles was 129
Ib/capita as compared  to 210  Ib/capita in Washington, D.C.  (7)  it was
                                26

-------
concluded  that  this  large  disparity  is  primarily attributable  to  the
difference in the use of garbage grinders in the two cities: one grinder unit
for each eight persons in Los Angeles as compared with one for every 50
persons in Washington, D.C.
Based on these data,  the expected annual  amount of garbage, in  the
absence of  garbage grinders, is  16 Ib./capita/month, or  approximately
one-half Ib./capita/day.
Significant seasonal variations in  the quantity of garbage  have been
observed.  The  availability  of relatively abundant amounts  of fresh
vegetables and fruits at lower prices  in  the summer months causes an
increase in garbage production during this period. (7) There has also been
a  significant decrease  in the portion of refuse thai is  attributable  to
garbage over the past  10 or 20 years due to the growing popularity of
frozen, packaged,  and  ready-prepared food.  It will be assumed  that the
portion of garbage loading relative to the average is as follows: 75 percent
in winter,  100 percent in spring and fall, and 125 percent in summer.
The  annual quantity of total household  refuse is estimated to be 715
Ib./capita/year (7)  or about 2/lb./capita/day. This amount  considers only
refuse from  a residential area in contrast to the four to 4.5 Ib./capita/day
for total refuse which includes commercial and industrial refuse.
Based on the  above assumptions,  the  estimated monthly  quantity  of
garbage and total refuse is tabulated for the unit area in Table 2, Monthly
Distribution of Garbage and Household Refuse, From A 10-Acre (4 ha)
Residential Area, Chicago. This reveals that of the  100.2 tons per year of
refuse from the unit area, 27.6 tons, or 27 percent, is garbage.

        TABLE 2.  Monthly Distribution of Garbage  and Household Refuse,
                from a 10-acre (4 ha) Residential Area, Chicago
Month
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Garbage
(Tons/Month)
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.8
Total Household Refuse*
(Tons/Month)
7.2
6.8
7.9
8.8
8.5
9.2
8.7
9.3
8.9
8.3
8.4
8.2
 TOTAL                   27.6                          100.2

 *lncludes garbage.


                                27

-------
                   Unclassified Solids Sources

 Finally,  miscellaneous  solids  accumulate  in  the  street  8""^
 elsewhere and must be removed. The  magnitude of this solids c^gory
 was estimated using street-sweeping and catch basin cleanm.g.," ,tp J tn
 should be noted that a portion of the street sweepings can be attnouieu 10
 air pollution dustfall.
 The average volume of solids collected by mechanical street sweepers m
 the City  of Chicago was 28.8 cu. yd./curb mile/year for the 1904-1*00
 period. (8)
 There are 0.688  curb  miles in the unit area and the average quantity of
 street sweepings removed from the unit area is estimated to be 19.7 cubic
 yards. Analysis of the seasonal distribution of street sweepings indicates a
 surprisingly  uniform pattern. Figure  3,  Seasonal Pattern of Sweeping
 Loadings, Chicago, shows the monthly distribution of sweepings for the
 months when the sweepers are in operation.  Examination of the figure
 reveals three distinct seasons:  (1) the spring-cleaning  period during which
 the winter residue plus  the  spring loading  must be  removed,  (2) the
 summer period with a constant buildup rate, and (3)  a heavier loading in
 the fall due to the leaves.
 Preliminary  analysis  of data for the 50  wards in  Chicago revealed a
 relatively small variance  from the average city-wide sweeping loadings
 with the  exception  of October,  the month  with  the heaviest sweeper
 loading.  Data regarding tree  density for various areas of the  city were
 unavailable. It could be hypothesized that population density would vary
 indirectly with tree  density in established residential  areas  of the city.
Figure 4, Variations  in Street Sweeping  Loadings for a High and Low
 Population Density  Ward in Comparison with the Average City-wide
 Loading, Chicago, illustrates the variation in sweepings for a high and low
 population density ward, in  comparison  with the entire city. Only in
October when leaves are  heaviest is there a significant difference in the
 amount of street sweepings per curb mile.
Based  on Figure 3, it will be assumed that a  base loading of  1.5 cu.
yd./curb-mile prevails in  the  unit area. The results  of a study of street
 sweepings in Chicago provides a breakdown of components. Table 3,
Average Components of Street Sweepings  from Residential Areas, shows
 the breakdown for general residential areas.
        TABLE 3. Average Components of Street Sweepings from Residential Areas,
                      Chicago, June 19 to August29, 1967

                              (By Weight)

                                   Dust &
  Item         Rags       Paper         Dirt        Vegetation        Inorganic
  . Wgt.
             0.2         4.7          72.0          11.1
                                28

-------
   FIGURE 3.   Seasonal Pattern of Sweeping Loadings, Chicago
(J
\J
°
    3-
2-
Winter Residue and
Base Loading




1




:


' ~~

VI f

	
^ — — —

k /i

v
"^•^


^\
Base
Loading





.



^'^



^.
-•"

1
A S
Leaves and
Base Loading

/,
¥

C

^^


D

1965
1966
1964

M C
                             Month
FIGURE 4.  Variation in Street Sweeping  Loadings for a High and
Low  Population  Density Wards  in  Comparison  with  the Average
City-wide Loading, Chicago
 _Q
 3
 "O
 u
-a
 8
    4-
    2-


1
h
L
F












"s^
^^?S

1 1
F M A
1
ligh Po
ow Pop
ntire C


I^r:

.EGEN
>ulatio
ulation
ity


~-C^~-

i
M J
5
n Densi
Densit


• 	

J


ty Ward
y Ward



=^-—

A



-"^^

* S

i
i
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
I/
y

a

\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
^


D r




\
\
\
\j

M D
                            Month, 1966
                             29

-------
 It  will  be  assumed that  this  breakdown  is  representative  of  street
 sweepings  for  December  through  September.  The  heavier loading in
 October and November, relative to other months, is assumed to be caused
 by  leaves. Table  4,  Monthly  Summary of  Estimated  Street Refuse
 Components, From A  10-Acre (4 ha) Residential Area, Chicago, shows
 the estimated accumulation of street sweepings within the study area for
 each month of the year. The most important component of the solids is
 dust and dirt. However, during  the fall of the year, leaves become the
 dominant solids components. While these data are approximations, they
 provide a rough measure of the relative importance of these components.
          TABLE 4. Monthly Summary of Estimated Street Litter Components, from a
                      10-acre (4 ha) Residential Area, Chicago
Month
Street
D D Dust &
Rags Paper ^
Refuse Components
(Tons/Month)
Vegetation Inorganic Total*
 Jan.       .0015      .036        .55          .00           .09         .68
 Feb.       .0015      .036        .55          .00           .09         ^68
 March      .0015      .036        .55          .08           .09         .76
 April       .0015      .036        .55          .08           .09         .76
 May       .0015      .036        .55          .08           .09         .76
 June       .0015      .036        .55          .08           .09         '.76
 July       .0015      .036        .55          .08           .09         '.76
 Aug.       .0015      .036        .55          .08           .09          76
 Sept.       .0015      .036        .55          .08           .09         .76
 Oct.       .0015      .036        .55          .83           .09        1.56
 Nov.       .0015      .036        .55          .83           .09        1 '.56
 Dec.       .0015      .036        .55          .00           .09         ^68

 TOTAL*    .0180      .432       6.60         2.22          1.08       10.48

 *Some totals have been rounded off.
Not all of the street solids are removed at the surface; the remainder enter
the sewer system through street inlets. Many cities use catch basins below
the street inlet. These facilities  contain a sump to capture the heavier
solids to prevent sewer clogging.
                                  30

-------
There are 20 catch basins within the unit area, with an estimated annual
solids removal of .87 cu. yd./catch basin/year. (9) Using a density of 0.3
ton/cu. yd.* the quantity of solids removed from the unit area is 5.2
tons/year. Analysis  of monthly data  regarding  catch basin  cleaning
revealed  no discernible seasonal variation. This result was expected since
the catch basins were cleaned an average of two and one-half times per
year during  the  1959 to 1960 period. (9) Consequently, the catch  basin
solids represent an aggregate over a period of four to six months.  Little
information  is available regarding the individual  constituents  of  catch
basin solids. However, it appears that the material is composed of some of
the components of street sweepings.

              Summary of Identifiable Solids Sources
A summary of  the solids sources discussed is presented in Table  5,
Estimated Monthly Quantity of Identifiable Solids From Typical 10-Acre
(4ha) Residential Area, Chicago. For the unit area, approximately 179
tons per year of solids will be generated—air pollution dustfall contributes
2.9 percent; domestic sanitary wastes,  16.1 percent; garbage, 15.4 percent;
rubbish,  56  percent; street sweepings, 5.7 percent; and catch basins, 2.9
percent.  Public  sewers  can remove no more than 20  percent  (sanitary
wastes and ground garbage). At least part of the remaining 80 percent, if
not promptly removed or stored, can add to storm-water pollution.
The magnitude of the component sources has been estimated in order to
provide  a preliminary  appraisal of their individual importance  in the
overall problem of solid-wastes management. Previous studies  of  water
pollution have focused on the effluent of the  system, using the  given
observed pollutional load at the outfall of the sewer system to determine
the optimal (least cost, in this situation) combination of pollution control
facilities in order to meet a specified water quality management objective.
This investigation has examined the influent end of the sewer system in  an
attempt to identify the community wastes which are created and must  be
collected  and disposed. If the  scope  of the  analysis is  restricted  to
minimization of water pollution, without regard to air and land pollution,
then it would be desirable to minimize the quantity of solids entering the
sewer system. This could be achieved by forbidding the discharge of food
wastes  into  combined sewer  systems,  increased  programs of  street
sweepings to eliminate all waste contacts with  runoff waters and other-
stringent alternatives. However, the desirability of pursuing such alterna-
tives is dependent not only on water quality management objectives but
also on factors of public service and convenience, community cleanliness,
health  and safety,  and air and land quality management objectives within
the urban area.
::The estimated density of catch basin solids is 0.5 tons/cu. yd. However, much of this
 is water so that a figure of 0.3 tons/cu. yd. of actual solids was used.


                                 31

-------
         TABLE 5. Estimated Monthly Quantity of Identifiable Solids from a Typical
                 10-acre (4 ha) Residential Area, Chicago, Illinois

                     Quantity of Solids Sources (Tons/Month)

Month

Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total**
Air
Pollution
0.68
0.78
0.80
0.60
0.72
0.40
0.46
0.30
0.45
0.56
0.61
0.66
7.00


2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
28.8
Household
Garbage
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.8
27.6
Refuse
Rubbish
7.2
6.8
7.9
8.8
8.5
9.2
8.7
9.3
8.9
8.3
8.4
8.2
100.2
Exterior
Sweeps
0.68
0.68
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
1.56
1.56
0.68
10.50
Solids
L^s
.43
.43
.43
.43
.43
.43
.43
.43
.43
.43
.43
.43
5.20

Total**
13.2
12.9
14.6
15.3
15.1
16.0
15.6
16.0
15.3
15.5
15.6
14.2
179.3
 *Solids in Iitter baskets are not included, as litter baskets are not used in general residential areas.

 **Totals are rounded.
The purpose of the above discussion is to point out the fact that control of
urban storm water runoff must be consistent with the long-range objective
of  determining the  optimal waste   management  program  by  giving
simultaneous consideration to the land; air, and water resources of the
area.
                            References

1. Unpublished Data. Dept. of Air Pollution. City of Chicago.
2. THALIN, A. L. and KEIBER, C. J. "They Hydrology of Urban Runoff."
   Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division. Proc. American Society
   of Civil Engineers. 85. SA2. 1959.
3. JOHNSON, R. E., A. T. ROSSANO, JR., and R. O. SYLVESTER. "Dustfall
   as a Source of Water Quality Impairment."  Journal of the Sanitary
   Engineering Division.  Proc. American Society of Civil Engineers. 92.
   SA  1..1966.
4. FAIR, G. M. and J. C. GEYER. Water Supply and Waste- Water Disposal.
   John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1954.
5. KlTAGAWA, E.  M.  and K. E. TAEUHER (Eds.).  Local Community
   Fact Book: Chicago Metropolitan Area—1960. University of Chicago
   1963.
6. Annual Reports. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
   111.

                                 32

-------
7.  American  Public Works Association.  Municipal  Refuse  Disposal.
   Chicago, 111. 1966.
8.  Unpublished Data. Dept. of Streets and Sanitation. City of Chicago.
9.  Annual Reports. Bureau of Sewers. City of Chicago.
                                33

-------
                            Section 5

   Sources and Amounts of Storm Water Runoff Pollution
     ollution of rainfall (storm water) may occur in three general zones:
     (1) the sky, (2) on the ground and man-made structures, and (3) in
the storm  drainage  system.  Pollution occurs in the atmosphere from
rainout or  washout of the local  atmosphere.  Once the precipitation  has
reached the surface it may be intercepted by impervious areas. Precipita-
tion on previous  areas from small storms does not produce immediate
runoff and thus may  be disregarded  as  a matter of general concern.
Precipitation falling on impervious areas will runoff rather quickly during
the course  of which  it dissolves  or washouts any polluting material with
which it comes  in contact.
Runoff reaching the drainage system may be further polluted by  contact
with debris in a catch basin or, in the case of combined sewers, by mixing
with  sewage or  industrial  waste  with  resuspended solids previously
shoaled. Although  some portion of storm-water flow in a combined sewer
generally goes to the waste water treatment facility, excessive amounts are
diverted to the nearest waterway because of lack of capacity in interceptor
sewers or at the treatment plant. Sometimes diversions occur before sewer
capacity  is exceeded  because  of maladjustment or  malfunctioning of
overflow regulator  devices.
                           Street Refuse

Street refuse or litter is defined as the accumulation of materials found on
the street, sidewalk, or along the curb and gutter which can be removed by
sweeping. All components of street litter contribute to water pollution, in
the form  of floating material,  suspended or dissolved solids,  and by
bacterial contamination. The amount and composition of street litter
varies widely. However, no systematic effort previously has been made to
determine its rate of accumulation and composition over a period of time.
The sources of street litter vary from community  to community, from
season to season, and from  area to area of the  same community. Street
litter  is the product of both human and natural  actions. Litter (which is
defined as  waste scattered about—a clutter), includes remnants resulting
from  careless public and private waste collection operations; animal  and
bird fecal droppings; soil washed or eroded from land surfaces; construc-
tion debris;  road  surfacing materials  ravelled by  travel, impact, frost
action or other  causes; air pollution dustfall; wind-blown dirt from open
areas; and a host of subsidary materials.
An examination of these sources indicates practical approaches to their
elimination or reduction by such practices as:
                                 35

-------
• Inducing better cleanliness practices on the part of the public        ^
• Instituting better waste  collection  practices—relating to  W    ,
   storage receptacles  for refuse in homes and commercial estaoiiMi-
   ments, types of collection vehicles and methods of handling material
   by collectors                                              .       ,
• Reducing conditions that  are the cause of soil washout or erosion, and
• Regulating aerial emissions from commercial, industrial and residen-
   tial stacks.
The composition of litter is varied, depending upon density of population,
habits of residents, number of vehicles and pedestrians, intensity of street
use, the nature of abutting property, and seasonal and climatic conditions.
This study has relied on specified areas of the City of Chicago for test and
study purposes. The data on the nature of litter  components  and  their
amounts give an insight into the solids with which precipitation runoff
comes in contact under various urban conditions.
Data contained in this section of the report provide  information on:
• Amount of litter accumulation in the areas chosen as test  sites for the
    project studies
•  Relationship between  amounts  of litter and  the  specific  land use
    patterns of each test area
• Components of street  litter and variations in composition for the
    various test areas
• Correlations between amounts of litter, frequency of precipitation, and
    litter depositions, and
• Frequency  of  street cleaning operations and methods  used in those
    operations for the Chicago test areas and for other American cities.
Field Studies

In the summer of 1967, during the period from June 19 to August 29,
field  tests on  streets  were conducted in 18  Chicago areas. Areas for
conducting the studies  were  chosen to represent a  varying range of
urban-land uses.
Table 6, Characteristics of Street Refuse Test Areas—Summer, 1967—
Chicago, summarizes certain characteristics of the 18 test areas. The areas
can be categorized as representative of three business, two industrial, and
four residential zoned groupings. The overall length of the area swept
represents the distance from the building line at one end of the area to the
building line at the other end. The width of the intersecting sidewalks and
street  (measured parallel with the  gutter) at  the intersection were not
swept and are not included  in the data. Also computed, in Table 6, is the
blockfrontage of buildings  and open areas. This was done to indicate
possible sources of washout  during rainstorms. Note that test Areas 11 and
12 were discontinued early in the test and data is not reported here.
The quantity and character of street litter may vary considerably from day
to day during a weekly period, as well as from season to season. In

                                36

-------
congested shopping  areas, large  quantities  of litter would  be expected
during shopping days but little when stores are closed. During the fall,
leaves may be a major street cleaning problem  in  some areas. Another
factor influencing the quantity of street litter is  traffic—both  pedestrian
and vehicular.
Table 6A, Pedestrian and Vehicle Counts at Spaced One-Hour Intervals
for Street Refuse Test Areas—August, 1967, gives a sampling of one-hour
pedestrian and vehicular counts in 14 of the  18 areas. Business streets
show peak pedestrian volumes during the going-to-work, luch-hour, and
going-home  periods. Litter from  pedestrians tends to reflect such peaks.
Vehicles also tend to  produce  litter  in  proportion to traffic  volume.
Additional descriptions of the test areas are given in Appendix A.
Generally a four-man crew was used to obtain the street litter samples and
from two to  four men were used to sort the samples for analysis. Initially,
a small vacuum type sidewalk sweeper was used to obtain the samples.
However, experience revealed that the rough and varying types of material
in the  street prevented the  vacuum  device from  accomplishing  full
removal. Therefore, most samples were obtained  by hand sweeping of the
gutter area, using standard street-type brooms.
Test  areas  were  swept on  a varying schedule, depending upon  the
anticipated amount of litter, presence of parked vehicles, and crew time
available. Tests were started at 5:30 A.M. each weekday and concluded by
1 P.M.  One  area (No.  3) characterized by large volumes  of pedestrian
traffic adjacent to  a transfer point between city buslines  and rapid-rail
transit was swept twice a day. Two other commercial (No. 1 & 2) and one
industrial area (No. 4) were swept daily. Other areas were swept biweekly
or weekly.
Where rain,  standing water,  or parked vehicles  hampered access  to the
curb area, the area was not swept. Areas swept weekly were posted for no
parking on the day prior to  sweeping. Samples  which were damp upon
receipt were  warmed by a heater to drive off excess moisture and then
air-dried in sunlight to three-to-five-percent moisture.
The  samples were initially weighed and  then sorted into  the  following
categories:  paper, glass,  metal,  plastics, rock  and  inorganic, organic
including food, vegetation, wood  (diameter in excess of one inch), cloth,
and dust and dirt. Dust and dirt was specified as  solids passing a 1/8-inch
hardware cloth. Efforts were made to minimize the adhesion of dust and
dirt to the larger components.
Test sections were generally 300 feet or greater in length. Close attention
was  given to determine whether or not  adjacent residents would take
advantage of the  tests by placing additional material in the  streets for
pickup. This did not occur, although a few store owners were observed to
sweep their sidewalk debris into the street. During the tests, there was no
construction  activity in  the immediate  area, except in Area 1 where the
curb and gutter section was replaced by city forces. During the period of
this  construction,   field tests  were  discontinued.  No other  unusual
conditions were noted.

                                37

-------
TABLE 6.  Characteristics of Street Refuse Test Areas, Summer, 1967, Chicago





Test
Area
1

2

3


4


5


6

7



8







Street From— To
N/S 63rd St. from
Ellis to Ingleside
E/S Stony Island
from 68th to 69th
West half-inter-
section of 63rd &
Stony Island
S/S South Chicago
Ave. from Clyde
to Jeffrey
W/S East End Ave.
from 91st PI. to
92nd PI .
N/S 81st St. from
Bennett to Jeffrey
E/S Blackstone &
S/S E. 61st from
E . 60th to Dor-
chester
E/S Kenwood Ave.
from 60th to 61st St.



Over-
all
Length
Zoning Feet*
B3-3 382

B5-3 583

B4-3 344^


MI-2 600


R-2 538


R-2 538

R-5 775



R-5 576



Half-
Width
of
Street
Feet
24.5

32

22; v
24.5^

36


13


14

14.5
17.5


24

Property Frontage on Test Streets


Residential

Fami-
Bldgs. lies
_ _

3 76

_


_


3 4


4 4

2 14



3 37



Commercial


Bldgs. Stores
8 16

9 25

5 11


1 1


-


_

2 11



1 1



Industrial

Busi-
Bldgs. nesses
_ _

2 2

.


1 1


-


_

1 1



2 2

Street
Front-
age
of
Bldgs.
Feet
382

583

344


350


n/a


276

650



445


Non-
Bldg.
Front-
age
Feet
0

0

0


250





262

125



131


Percent
Front-
age
Built
on
100

100

100


42





51.4

84



77.2

Percent
Front-
age
not
Built
on
0

0

0


58





48.6

16



22.


-------
9


10


13

14

15


16

17


18

19


20

N/S Marquette
from Blackstone to
Stony Island
N/S Marquette from
Minerva to Green-
wood
Federal from 53rd
to 51st St.
W/S Dearborn from
Garfield to 54th St.
N/S 5 1st St. from
St. Lawrence to
Cottage Grove
E/S Woodlawn from
48th to 49th St.
S/S48th St. from
Woodlawn to Keen-
wood
E/S Jeffrey from
89th to 91st St.
W/S Union Ave.
from Pershing Rd.
to 41st St.
E/S Kimbark from
60th to 61st St.
R-5


R-4


R-4

R-4

R-5


R-l

R-l


R-2

M2-3


R-2

594


520


1,139

581

990


587

727


585

1,062


610

16.5


16.5


21

15

18


16.3

18


19.3

19.3


15

                                                           10
                                                           16
                                                           15
                                                                   62
                                                                   98
                                                                   n/a
                                                                   56
                                                                  262
                                                          32
                                                                   32
                                                                   61
*Bldg. line at end of area to bldg. line at other end—ignoring sidewalk widths and intersections
NOTES -  (a)  First no.  for 63rd St. and second for Stony Island
          (b)  Includes both sides of 63rd St., also unusual concentration of birds
          (c)  From divider to curb; concentration of garbage cans at one location
          (d)  First number for Blackstone, and second for E. 61st St., also construction activity in area.
              Unusual concentration of dogs on south side Marquette; refreshment stand along test curb.
455     139     76.7      23.3


492       28     94.6        5.4


705     434     62        38

392      189     67.5      32.5

980       10     99          1


355     232     60.5      39.5

380     347     52.3      47.7


420     165     71.8      28.2

561     501     52.8      47.2
                                                                                                              439      171      72
                                                                                                                                         28

-------
TABLE 6A:   Pedestrian and Vehicle Counts at Spaced One-hour Intervals for Street Refuse Test Areas - August, 1967
Test Area
1





2



3

1
^

6



7



8

10



Zoning
B3-3





B5-3



B4-3



R-2



R-5



R-5

R-4



Type
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest .
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Date
8/30
—
8/31
	
9/1

'8/30
—
/31
—
8/30

8/31
—
8/31
	
9/1

8/31
—
9/11
—
9/1
—
8/31
—
9/1
—
Day
Wed.
-
Thur.
-
Fri.
-
Wed.
-
Thur.
-
Wed.
_
Thur.
-
Thur.
_
Fri.
-
Thur.
_
Fri.
-
Fri.
-
Thur.
-
Fri.
-
6AM-7AM 9AM-10AM 12N-1PM 3PM-4PM 6PM-7PM 9PM-10PM 12AM-1AM
99 315 279 215 230
529 375 552 691 454
335 253 - - 405 -
456 393 - - 642 -
242 397 440 452 530 137
563 491 535 550 481 501
104 151 134 -
1,271 1,543 1,775 ...
24 - -
1,100
565 292 233 440 - - 73
775 452 395 870 - 680 2VO
325 300 460 -
540 485 662 -
128 - 155 189 275 184
433 - 480 595 876 610
76 153 134 247 258
398 476 511 465 600
42 62
41 52
11 - - - - - -
30 -
21 43
149 145 - -
49 51 69 -
389 289 529 -
- -
- - -

-------
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
R-4



R-4



R-5



R-l



R-l



R-2



R-5

Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto.
Pedest.
Auto
Pedest.
Auto.
8/30
—
8/31
—
8/31
~
9/1
~
8/30
—
8/31
—
8/31
~
9/1
—
8/31
—
9/1
—
8/30
—
8/31
—
8/31

Wed.
-
Thur.
-
Thur.
-
Fri.
-
Wed.
-
Thur.
-
Thur.
-
Fri.
-
Thur.
-
Fri.
-
Wed.
-
Thur.
-
Thur.

25 43 33
76 88 98
18 - - -
79 - -
20 29
9 18 -
10 - 66
13 - - 25
44 63 67
437 505 594
53 - -
299 - -
6 2 -
239 222
1 - - 12
120 - - 222
2 1
46 54 -
1 - 15
18 - 47
8 18 12
571 746 974
6 - - -
496 - - -
8 15 17
74 96 106

-------
 The summer of 1967 was unusually rainy. This offered ample °PPortu™ty
 to determine the affect of precipitation on the accumulation of street utter.
 Rainfall data are  presented in Appendix B, Table B-l. Total rainfall is
 given for the Chicago Woodlawn Station, which was close to the test areas.
 The  time  when  rainfall  occurred, however,  was not  available  for
 Woodlawn  and is given for Midway, a distance of eight  miles from the
 center of the test area.
 The data gathered in the 18 test areas were divided into two categories (1)
 those not affected by rain, and (2) those where rain had occurred between
 successive sweepings.  As  previously mentioned,  the component of the
 street litter which passed  through the  hardware cloth  was classified  as
 "dust and dirt" (D/D). It was this component which was considered  to
 have the greatest pollution-causing effect.  To  reduce  various  cleaning
 frequencies and gutter  lengths to a common unit of measurement, "pounds
 per day per 100  feet of gutter (or curb) swept" was used. For the areas
 which were swept less frequently, such a unit tends to  smooth out daily
 fluctuations as compared with data obtained for an area  which is swept
 daily. Sweepings from the initial cleaning  were not considered  since it
 established an initial "Clean" condition for the subsequent  sweepings.
 The material retained on the hardware cloth  was sorted out into nine other
 categories,  as  shown  in detail in Table 7,  Summary of Street Litter
 Components—for Areas 1, 2  and 4.
 Nine areas  that were similiar to  many of the 18 hand swept areas were
 selected for machine cleaning to provide further data. Thus it was possible
 to analyze substantially longer gutter lengths with machine sweeping.


 Findings

                            Dust and Dirt

 Table 8, Summary of Amount of Dust and Dirt Component, tabulates the
 data in terms of Unaffected by Rain, Affected by Rain, and Disregarding
 Rain. It might have been  expected  that frequent  rainfall  would tend to
 diminish the quantity  of dust and dirt  component on the street, due to
 hydraulic washaway.  However,  this was  not the case.  There  was  a
 tendency  for  the  rain-affected results to show  higher  values  than  the
 non-rain-affected data, for the dust  and dirt which was air-dried before
 weighing. The rains tended to increase the quantity of hand-swept dust
 and dirt rather than to decrease it.  An  examination of the 18 areas in
 Table 8 shows that in nine  of the areas there were none,  or only one
 sample, in the non-rain-affected category. These  are disregarded because
 of insufficient number of samples. For the other nine test areas, each had
 at least five  rain-affected and  non-rain-affected samples.  Six  of  the
 averages of the rain-affected samples show greater weights of dust and dirt
components than their counterpart non-rain-affected samples.
An attempt  was  made  to correlate the increased amounts  from the
rain-affected samples with the frontage data  presented in Table 6  on the

                                42

-------
                                          TABLE 7.  Summary of Street Litter Components (For Areas  1-2-4—Ib./day/100 ft)
Component

Dust & Dirt
Gloss
Poper
Metal
Plastics
Rock ond
Organic:
Organics
Vegetation
Wood
Cloth

No. of
Samples
Unaffected by Rain a>
Max.

25
27
30
27
18
28
23
2
24
9
9.40
.940
1.93
.431
.112
15.457
.073
.156
.151
.083
Min.
Average
Median

.55
.008
.04
.008
.008
.100
.004
.017
.008
.008
2.73
.193
.51
.100
.002
1.331
.028
.087
.038
.037
2.45
.152
.42
.080
.016
.326
.016
.087
.018
.017
Affected by Rain b>
No. of
Samples
Max.
Area 1
13
15
13
14
12
15
12
1
13
6
4.53
.398
2.34
.320
.048
1.813
.200
.066
.175
.224
Min.
Average

.55
.004
.15
.039
.004
.162
.004
.066
.009
.012
2.11
.129
.70
.093
.016
.459
.040
.066
.040
.072
Median

2.04
.087
A7
.079
.009
.289
.020
.066
.022
.038
Disregarding Rain c)
No. of
Samples
Max.

38
42
43
41
30
43
35
3
37
15
9.40
.940
2.34
.431
.112
15.457
.200
.156
.175
.224
Area 2
Dust & Dirt
Glass
Paper
Metal
Plastics
Rock and
Organics
Organics
Vegetation
Wood
29
29
29
27
24
29
23
7
23
Cloth 20

Dust & Dirt : 29
Glass 12
Paper ; 28
Metal 22
Plastics
Rocks and
Organics
Organics
Vegetation
Wood
Cloth
12
28
10
27
7
9
25.08
.621
2.655
.659
.030
4.311
.070
.258
.365
.136
.44
.005
.020
.017
.005
.036
.005
.017
.005
.005

24.28
.133
.47
.125
.017
2.578
.131
.305
.076
.052
.58
.001
.03
.004
.003
.125
.001
.004
.001
.001
7.00
.167
1.045
.130
.012
1.046
.024
.068
.046
.039

3.60
.030
.15
.032
.006
.422
.033
.028
.028
.021
5.22
.134
.652
.096
.010
.783
.017
.029
.020
.024

1.61
.009
.12
.023
.005
.285
.008
.015
.027
.020
16
14
16
16
13
16
1 1
2
12
11

17
8
18
16
9
17
8
16
6
6
16.33
.636
1.143
.336
.099
1.218
.046
.041
.149
.113
.78
.012
.109
.006
.002
.041
.003
.005
.003
.003
Area 4
52.63
.10V
2.74
.173
.011
4.905
.050
.499
.162
.022
.18
.004
.02
.004
.001
.052
.002
.005
.002
.002
4.72
.173
.474
.096
.018
.429
.016
.023
.031
.033

3.76
.033
.44
.028
3.32
.138
.419
.070
.011
.290
.012
.023
.015
.021

2.88
.016
.22
.015
.004 1 .003
.711
.009
.066
.058
.011
.226
.004
.020
.036
.009
45
43
45
43
37
45
34
9
35
31

46
20
46
38
21
45
18
43
13
15
25.08
.636
2.655^
.659
.099
4.311
.070
.258
.365
.136

52.63
.133
2.74
.173
.017
4.905
.131
.499
.162
.052
Min.
Average
Median

.55
.004
.04
.008
.004
.100
.004
.017
.008
.008

.44
.005
.020
.006
.002
.036
.003
.005
.003
.003

.58
.001
.02
.004
.001
.052
.001
.004
.001
.001
2.53
.170
.57
.097
.019
.867
.032
.080
.039
.051

6.19
.169
.674
. 1 17
.014
.827
.021
.058
.041
.037
2.24
.147
.44
.080
.014
.289
.016
.066
.020
.028

4.65
.134
.587
.087
.010
.617
.017
.029
.020
.023

5.37
.031
.26
.030
.005
.531
.022
.042
.042
.017
2.11
.012
.13
.018
.004
.251
.055
.018
.027
.013
a) No rain between cleaning events



b) Rain  between cleaning events



c) Total in both groups

-------
TABLE 8.  Summary of Amount of Dust and Dirt Component (lb/day/100 ft)
Unaffected by
Area

1
3
2

4
19

16
17
5
6
18
10
13
14
7
8
9
15
20
Zoning
BUS.
B3-3
B4-3
B5-3
INO.
M 1-2
M2-3
RES.
R-l
R-l
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-5
R-5
R-5
R-5
R-5
No. of
Samples

25
27
29

29
1

0
1
5
7
1
7
1
1
5
0
5
0
0
Max.

9.40
3.58
25.08

24.28
7.16

_
.06
.29
1.19
.44
1.06
16.94
1.98
4.48
-
.72
-
-
Min.

.55
.45
.44

.58
7.16

_
.06
.03
.34
.44
.21
16.94
1.98
.92
-
.43
-
-
Rain
Avg.

2.73
1.52
7.00

3.60
7.16

_
.06
.14
.59
.44
.70
16.94
1.98
2.70
-
.60
-
-
Affected by Rain
Median

2.45
1.36
5.22

1.61
7.16

_
.06
.12
.51
.44
.72
16.94
1.98
2.98
-
.64
-
-
No. of
Samples

13
16
16

17
8

8
7
12
11
8
13
7
8
11
6
13
7
9
Max.

4.53
4.96
16.33

52.63
24.02

1.89
1.91
1.14
1.95
7.41
2.97
58.27
5.16
5.42
1.64
5.74
5.53
7.59
Min.

.55
.02
.78

1.18
3.55

.04
.05
.05
.21
.31
.86
3.59
1.08
.47
.27
.49
.19
.90
Avg.

2.11
1.81
4.72

8.76
10.53

.36
.42
.46
.62
2.00
1.44
17.09
2.62
2.12
.67
1.90
2.80
2.90
Median

2.04
1.41
3.32

2.88
9.96

.17
.21
.32
.33
.97
1.14
6.52
2.25
1.58
.53
.99
2.58
1.92
No. of
Samples

38
43
45

46
9

8
8
17
18
9
20
8
9
16
6
18
7
9
Disregarding Rain
Max.

9.40
4.96
25.08

52.63
24.02

1.89
1.91
1.14
1.95
7.41
2.97
58.27
5.16
5.42
1.64
5.74
5.53
7.59
Min.

.55
.02
.44

.58
3.55

.04
.05
.03
.21
.31
.21
3.59
1.08
.47
.27
.43
.19
.90
Avg.

2.53
1.88
6.19

5.37
10.16

.36
.37
.36
.61
1.82
1.18
17.07
2.55
2.30
.67
1.54
2.30
2.90
Median

2.24
1.35
4.65

2.11
7.85

.17
.20
.18
.45
.69
1.06
9.00
2.00
1.60
.53
.77
2.58
1.92

-------
 hypothesis  that  dirt  washouts  from  adjacent  areas  were  occurring.
 However, no consistent correlation was found. Field checks were made of
 the  areas to see if there were identifiable sources of the dirt such as
 washouts from yards and unpaved driveways. The field observations failed
 to indicate the specific sources of the additional material, although some of
 it may have been washed onto the streets from passing motor vehicles and
 the remainder from adjacent pervious and impervious areas.
                          Other Components

 Table 7, summary of Street Litter Components, tabulates data for three
 test areas. A comparison of the average weight of street refuse components
 for  the  Unaffected by Rain vs.  Affected  by Rain street  sweeping
 occurrences excluding dust and dirt shows  a definite tendency  for the
 Affected by Rain amounts to be generally lower. In Area 1, only organics
 (food, animal droppings), wood, and cloth were heavier in the rain-affect-
 ed category. In Area 2, only rain-affected glass and plastics were heavier.
 In Area 4, rain-affected glass, rock and inorganics, vegetation, and wood
 components were greater. It is also apparent that the dust and dirt fraction
 was  the  higher component  in all three  areas.  Figure  5, Average
 Components of Street Litter, presents  in graphical form the relative
 amounts of the major portion of the street litter collected during the entire
 testing period by weight. In all but low density residential areas, dust and
 dirt was the major component.
                            Control Areas

Table  9, Control  Area Data-Machine  Swept,  summarizes  the data
gathered  in  the longer machine-swept  areas: these were  cleaned at
intervals of seven to fourteen days. In general, the weight/day/hundred feet
of curb of the dust and dirt fraction fell within, or close to, the ranges
shown in Table 8 in the "ignoring rain" columns. Since there were only a
few samples taken in each of the nine control areas, the data are presented
in chronological order and not computed fully into ranges, averages, and
medians, or divided into rain-affected and non-rain-affected categories.


Conclusions

                            Dust and Dirt

A major conclusion is that the amount of rain may be ignored in the dust
and dirt fraction. This seems to be true regardless of sweeping frequency,
since Area 3 was swept twice daily, and  yet showed higher values after
rain than without rain in a business area that was 100 percent built-up and

                                 45

-------
  FIGURE 5 Average Components of Street Litter, Chicago
             LEGEND

             = Rock
             = Metal
             = Paper
             = Dirt
             = Vegetation
     illinium  = Wood
             = Glass
10 -
                          Test Area Number
                              46

-------
FIGURE 5 (Cont.) Average Components of Street Litter, Chicago
            LEGEND
            = Rock
            = Metal
            = Paper
            = Dirt
            = Vegetation
    Illlllllllll = Wood
 100-
  90-
10
              13
14
15
16
17
18
19
                          Test Area  Number
                           47

-------
                         TABLE 9.  Control Area Data-machine Swept




                                     (7-14 Day Intervals)




                  (All areas machine swept two weeks prior to first date shown)
CONTROL AREAS
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Similar*
To These
Test Areas
5,17
5, 6, 17
9, 16
6
7, 8,
10, 20
7, 8,
10, 20
8, 9,
10, 15
15, 20
15,20
Description**
88-91
Cregier- Euclid
84-85
Phillips- Escanaba
68-70
Merrill-Oglesby
67-70
Bennett- Euclid
71 -74
Klmbark-Blackstone
64-66
Eberhart-
Evans
61 -62
Drexel-
Dorchester
56-58
Woodlawn-
Blackstone
52-54
Berkeley-
Woodlawn
Machine
Swept
Length,
Ft.
8,925
8,325
6,300
7,125
9,050
10,150
8,920
6,175
6,375
Dates
Swept
7/5, 7/12,
7/20, 8/3
7/5, 7/12,
7/20, 8/3
7/5, 7/12,
7/20, 8/3
7/5, 7/12,
7/20, 8/3
7/20
8/3
7/19
8/2
8/16
7/19
8/2
8/16
8/2
7/5
8/16
8/2
7/5
8/16
Dust and Dirt
Ib/day/lOOft
In Chronological
Sequence
.60- .41- 1.22-
-.44
1.09-1.66- .32-
-.38
3.84-1.95-1.20-
.47
. 52-. 35-. 18-
.25
4.30
1.43
2.22
.26
.45
4.11
1.07
1.93
1.04
.67
.33
.45
.86
.31
Average
.67
.86
1.86
.32
-
"



 * Similarity judged by land use character




** Each area encompasses approximately n
istics and visual assessment of amount of street litter.




ine city blocks.
                                            48

-------
with a minimum potential for earth washout from upland areas. Industrial
areas tended to provide maximum street litter and this may be related to
washout. Commercial areas tend to generate a somewhat lesser quantity of
dust and dirt than industrial areas, but higher than residential areas. The
residential areas tend to show increasing amounts of dust and dirt as the
population density increases, this, no doubt, reflects the increasing usage
made of the streets by pedestrians  and vehicles. The unusually heavy
sweeping for Area 13 reflects the high values of the initial three sweepings
and may be disregarded as not typical.
                         Other Components

Organics  (food, animal droppings) and vegetation  could affect  BOD
readings but the amounts of such material were generally substantially less
than amounts of dust and dirt. Paper, wood, and cloth were likewise small
quantitatively, but are of interest because of their potential for "esthetic
pollution." The other components are of interest because of potential
deposition in sewers and watercourses but were small in weight, except for
relatively heavy amounts of rock and inorganics.
                            Control Areas

The data from the nine areas generated from machine swept long gutter
areas substantiates, in general, the more extensive findings in the shorter
hand-swept areas.
In summary:
•  For purposes of classification of the amount of street litter generated,
    the  areas studied can be considered in three categories: (a) intense
    commercial  and low-income  high-density  areas, (b)  single-family
    moderate to high-income areas, (c) all other areas
•  Total  average  street litter hand-swept in the 18 test areas for  the
    10-week study period in 1967 ranged from 0.5 pounds to 8  lb/100 ft
    of curb/day
•  The average amount of  street refuse  for the  test  areas  was  2.4
    lb/day/100 ft of curb for single family residential areas, 3.5 lb/day/100
    ft of curb for multiple family areas, and 4.7 lb/day/100 ft of curb for
    commercial areas
•  The total dust and  dirt fraction (-Vs. in.)  of the street litter varied
    from 45 to  83 percent of the total litter. The amount of this  dust and
    dirt fraction varied from 0.4 pound to 5.2 lb/day/100 ft of curb and
•  The average amount of dust and dirt was 0.7 lb/day/100  ft of curb for
    single  family residential areas, 2.3 lb/day/100 ft  of curb for multiple
    family areas, and 3.3 lb/day/100 ft of curb for commercial areas.
                                 49

-------
                 Pollution Potential of Street Litter

The study of the test areas defined the  amounts and compositionL of^the
street litter. However, it was not possible to capture the runoff water itself
and by  analysis, define the amounts of pollution carried by the runoff
during all or parts of storms of varying length and intensity. In lieu of such
test data, information on other studies of the quality of runoff Water was
reported in Section III.
In  the absence of specific information  on the effects of washout and
washaway on  street  debris,  the  study approached  the  problem of
translating the waterwastes contacts into water pollution terms on the basis
of maximum potential pollution  effect  of certain litter components on
runoff waters  and  the effect  of those  polluted runoff-borne flows  on
receiving waters.
What actually happens  to street litter varies with so many factors that no
single  evaluation of actual pollution potential is representative of all
conditions which might occur in practice. The variable factors include:
•  Street litter can be removed from a street area  before any precipation
    occurs and runoff water comes  in contact with it,  in which case and
    under ideal conditions  no  significant pollutional effect would result.
    This  is a theoretical assumption because  street  sweeping operations
    are never successful in removing all dust and dirt from the surface
    even  though gross  debris may  be removed by  mechanical  or hand
    operations
•  During periods of no precipitation and runoff,  some litter can enter a
    street inlet by various  means and be retained in  the catch-basin area
    until  it is washed, scoured, or dissolved by subsequent runoff
•  During a runoff period, some or all  of the street litter can be carried
    into  a sewer  inlet in dissolved form or  even  be  water-buoyed,
    depending on the amount, duration, and intensity of the storm runoff,
    and
•  By water classification, the lighter components can be washed into a
    street inlet and the heavier materials can remain stranded in the gutter
    line—the actual nature of material classification will  vary  under
    different combinations  of circumstances, including intensity of precipi-
    tation, runoff, and gradient of the street.

For the purpose of translating street litter into pollution potential, certain
assumptions  were made:
•  All litter that can accumulate between sweepings  will be on the street
    at the time of the precipitation and runoff incident
•  The major constituent in the street litter that can produce pollution in
    the runoff water  is the  dust and dirt fraction—solids which are minus
    1/8 inch in size
•  Only the soluble material will produce  chemical  and bacteriological
    pollution

-------
• All the soluble material will be dissolved out or washed out by the
   runoff water and become pollution
• The BOD of the dissolved washout material can be used as the most
   tangible measure of the "pollution equivalent" caused by street litter
• Thus,  the maximum pollution potential, in terms of BOD, is assumed
   to be produced by the washout of all soluble material in all the dust
   and dirt of all the street litter that will accumulate during a two-week
   period without any runoff incidents during the interim period, and
• The maximum peak pollution flush  into receiving waters will occur
   when all soluble contaminants  in  such a two-week  accumulation are
   washed out within or during a single two-hour runoff period.

Computation of Pollution Potential of Litter

The  analytical procedures used to  determine the pollutional components
of street litter involved the following steps:
1. Collection of litter by hand-sweeping specific lengths of curb line in 18
   test areas, as described elsewhere in this report
2. Examination of total litter for the  purpose of ascertaining the various
   constituents of the debris and the percentages of such items as dust and
   dirt, paper, glass, metal, wood, vegetation, and rock
3. Analyses of composite representative samples of dust and dirt from the
   18  test  areas  by  the  Pollution  Control  Laboratory, Chicago,  to
   ascertain the amounts  of contaminants in this material, in terms of
   mg/g of dry weight, including:  water soluble material; volatile water
   soluble;  phosphates  as  PO4;   5-day  BOD; COD;  moisture  and
   volatile content of the litter material; nitrogen as N; ammonia nitrogen
   as N; nitrate nitrogen as N; total bacteria plate counts per gram of dust
   and dirt; confirmed coliform, MPN/g; and fecal enterococci/g.
4. Determination of the specific gravity of fractions  of the dust and dirt
   retained on screens of USS sizes 10, 16, 20, 30, and
5. Analyses of samples of swept leaves for 20-day BOD and COD on the
   basis of "as received" condition.
The methods of preparing samples  for the analyses and the analytical
procedures used  (based on  the A.P.H.A. Standard  Methods  for  the
Examination  of Water  and  Sewerage)  are described in the following
excerpts of a memorandum prepared by the Pollution Control Laboratory,
the commercial laboratory which performed the laboratory analysis for

thiSStUdy'                                   July 6, 1967
     Collection of Samples

     Samples are to be collected by the personnel of the American Public
     Works Association  from an area roughly bounded by 39th Street, the
     Dan Ryan Expressway,  92nd Street and Lake Michigan. They will
     represent  materials  "wasted"  to  the street  and  gutters  by  the

                                 51

-------
     populace living under several different social-economic conditions in
     the area.

     Type of Samples

     Samples consist of materials passing through  a 1/8-inch  hardware
     cloth.

     Analytical Procedures

     (a) A  portion of the material passing the L/8-inch sieve  will be
     pulverized to pass a 40-mesh screen.  A  weighed  amount of the
     pulverized material will be blended in a Waring blender with sterile,
     distilled water and made up to a definite, known volume with sterile
     distilled water.  The  blended  sample  will  be  divided  into  two
     portions.
     Portion one will be filtered through No. 1 Whitman filter paper or its
     equivalent. Water soluble  matter,  volatile water  soluble  matter,
     nitrate, and phosphate  will  be determined on the filtrate using
     "Standard Methods." Content will be reported as milligram per liter
     in filtrate and milligram per gram in dry material.
     Portion two will be analyzed for five-day BOD, 20-day BOD(a), COD
     bacteria plate count, coliform organisms (presumptive  and  con-
     firmed), and enterococcus organisms (presumptive confirmed.)
     Note: Equipment and water must be  sterile for bacteriological tests.
     Tests will be made as described in "Standard Methods." Content will
     be reported in milligram per gram of dry material. Coliform bacteria
     will be expressed as MPN per gram of dry material.
     (b) The material  passing the  1/8-inch sieve will be screened into five
     sieve fractions and the specific gravity will be determined on  each
     fractions and the  specific gravity will be determined on each fraction.
     Specific gravity will be determined as described in ASTM D153-54
     (1966). Note: Screen sizes used: 10, 16,  20 and 30.
     Phosphate,  nitrate, BOD, COD and water soluble  matter  will be
     reported in milligrams per gram of dry material. Bacterial  content
     will be  reported  as MPN per  gram of sample as received and per
     gram of dry material.

A tabular summary presentation of the analyses for each sampling station
is included in Table 10, Summary of Laboratory Reports of Street Litter
Components. A summary of averages for each of the 18 test areas is given
for the  following items: lb/day/100 ft of curb for total litter  and the dust
and dirt fraction, water soluble, volatile water soluble, PO4,  5-day, BOD,
COD, plate counts, confirmed coliforms, and fecal enterococci. The actual
amounts of street litter and the dust and di^ fraction for each test area are
 (a) The 20-day BOD test was discontinued after the second set of samples as there
 was no significant increase over the 5-day BOD.

                                 52

-------
                                         TABLE 10.  Summary of Laboratory Reports of Street Litter Components
Average Strength
Test
Area
Number

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Ib./day/lOO1
total refuse
rank
10
17
9
15
1
3
11
4
66
5
7
13
14
16
2
7
18
12
Ibs.
4.15
8.05
3.81
5.80
0.45
1.20
4.70
1.50
2.65
1.60
3.50
4.85
4.90
6.80
0.90
3.50
16.50
4.80
Ib./day/lOO1
dust & dirt
rank
11
17
6
16
1
4
9
14
7
5
9
12
13
1
3
8
18
15
Ibs.
2.53
6.19
1.35
5.37
0.36
0.61
2.30
2.81
1.54
1.18
2.30
2.55
2.80
0.36
0.37
1.82
10.16
2.90
"Water Sol.
rank
7
15
18
9
1
14
7
4
13
10
2
12
7
6
16
5
11
3
mg/g
998
847
1907
536
31
808
518
458
774
580
362
704
528
494
904
484
658
432
"Vol. Water Sol.
rank
16
12
18
4
1
13
3
6
15
10
2
14
9
8
17
7
11
5
mg/g
525
479
1078
253
140
498
245
276
524
358
189
520
331
306
651
279
398
267
Phosphate as PO ,
rank
13
7
18
8
2
15
18
4
14
8
5
16
2
5
17
8
1
8
mg/g
.038
.027
.142
.030
.020
.070
.142
.021
.063
.030
.024
.073
.020
.024
.109
.028
.014
.030
NOTE:  Test areas 11 and 12 were not sampled                                                                                                    Cont.

-------
TABLE 10.  Summary of Laboratory Reports of Street Litter Components
Average Strength
Test
Area
Number
5 day BOD
mg/g
rank dry wt .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
14
12
18
•9
1
16
4
6
13
8
3
15
5
11
17
2
7
10
505
403
1454
295
172
91
218
281
477
290
203
632
228
324
943
194
282
322
COD
mg/g
rank dry wt.
6
5
17
2
1
15
14
7
16
10
11
13
4
3
18
9
8
12
267
248
667
230
183
531
507
295
613
326
340
456
246
245
728
321
318
346
Col onies
/g
rank dry wt .
15
1
8
6
7
4
5
9
11
3
12
14
13
10
17
2
16
18
23,209,000
2,163,400
9,908,000
5,992,000
6,428,000
4,964,000
5,880,000
10,765,000
16,212,000
4,196,000
17,168,000
21,118,000
20,680,000
11,440,000
29,720,000
2,430,000
25,976,000
34,984,000
Col iform
Organis ms
(Confirmed)
MPN/g
rank dry wt.
16 3,456,922
3 576,170
5 1,022,633
1 324,900
6 1,050,200
7 1,128,500
9 1,340,000
8 1,210,000
13 2,644,000
10 1,620,000
15 3,059,000
18 5,379,000
17 4,122,000
4 1,020,000
14 2,970,000
2 389,750
12 2,589,200
11 2,076,360
Fecal
Enterococci
(Conf ir.ned)
MPN/g
rank dry wt.
15
4
1
3
6
5
14
12
13
7
8
10
9
17
18
2
11
16
955
32
4
27
130
41
700
572
605
188
266
451
402
1211
1293
15
530
1013
Ni t rogen
as N
rank
9
1
8
7
2
11
11
16
4
5
17
15
18
14
11
10
6
3
mg/g
480
323
457
431
325
523
523
773
377
405
845
670
961
525
523
482
410
356

-------
shown in Appendix B, Table B-l. The reports of the laboratory analyses
made on the dust and dirt samples is contained in Appendix B, Table
B-3, Summary of Laboratory Reports on Street Refuse Components.
The following tabulation highlights the findings with respect to the average
amount of soluble matter in the dust and dirt samples:
                      Amount of Pollutant by Type of Land Use

 Item                          Single Family     Multiple Family      Commercial
 Water Soluble (mg/g)                   6.0             5.6             12.4
 Volatile Water Soluble (mg/g)             3.8             3.4             6.9
 BOD (mg/g)                          5.0             3.6             7.7
 COD (mg/g)                         40              40               39
 PO4 (mg/g)                          .05             .05              .07
 N (mg/g)                            .48             .61              .4]
 Total plate counts/g (x 1000)          10,900           18,000            11,700
 Confirmed coliform/g (x 1000)         1,300            2,700            1,700
 Fecal enterococci/g                  645              518              329
Computation of Pollution Potential of Street Litter

The following computations show the pollution potential of street litter,
using the above average data for soluble BOD per gram of the dry dust
and dirt fraction of the amounts of litter swept in the test areas.
Steps that  can  be  used  for  any  community areas  and condition  to
determine the pollution effect of street litter are:
1.  Determine the curb or gutter mileage for each category of zoning  or
   land use
2.  Determine the average pounds of dust and dirt (D/D)/unit of curb and
   street length (100 feet, 1,000 feet, mile) for the various types of zoning
   or landuse areas
3.  Multiply the length  of street in each category by appropriate  average
   D/D accumulations for the different zoning or land use classifications
4.  Determine the water-soluble portion of the D/D fraction, ascertain the
   BOD  of this  fraction, and  compute the amount of BOD/day/unit  of
   street length
5.  Assume that this  BOD of the soluble D/D is the actual pollution factor
   of the total street  litter
6.  Convert the D/D BOD potential into population equivalent on the basis
   of raw sanitary sewage BOD of 0.17 pound/day/person
7.  On the basis  that sewage will be treated to meet state  and federal
   requirements,  convert the D/D potential BOD into population equiva-
   lent of sewage treatment plant effluent, assuming 80 percent removal of
   BOD  by some form of secondary treatment, i.e.—effluent will be  20
   percent or 0.034 pound of BOD/day/capita, and
8.  Compute the "peak  shock"  effect of litter BOD pollution on receiving
   water on the  assumption that street litter will  accumulate between
   periodic  sweepings  and  that the total pollution  potential  of this

                                55

-------
   accumulation will be  washed by storm  runoff  into  sewers  in  a
   prescribed period of precipitation, (for example, 14-day intervals
   between sweepings and the washing out or solution of soluble BOD in
   the litter within a two-hour period).

The following computations show how these data and relationships were
determined for the Chicago test areas:
               Amount of Dust and Dirt and Strength of BOD by Land Use



                                                      BOD of D/D
        Land Use

        Commercial
        Industrial
        Multiple family
        Single family residence
        Assumed weighted average
Amt. of D/D
by land use
Ib/day/IOOftof curb
3.3
4.6
2.3
0.7
1.5
                        7.7
                        3
                        3.6
                        5
 Then:
 Total street litter accumulation
 Total D/D street litter accumulation
 Average D/D in street litter
 D/D soluble BOD
 D/D per mile of curb
 D/D per mile of street (2 curb miles)
 D/D BOD per mile of street
        0.5 to 8.0 lb/day/100 ft curb
        0.4to5.21b/day/100ftcurb
        1.5 lb/day/100 ft curb
        5 mg/dry D/D; or 5 lb/1,000 Ib
        1.5 X  52.8 = 80/lb/day
        80  X 2 = 1601b/day
        51b X 160/1,000 =0.81b/day
D/D BOD population equivalent
0.8/0.17 = 5 persons/day/mile street

For 80 percent BOD removal in sewage treatment plants: (100/20)

D/D BOD equivalent of treated sewage effluent

0.8/(0.17 X —— ) =  25 persons/day/mile of street—approx.


The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Public Roads, statistics on
population densities in American cities of various sizes per mile of street
length (as of 1961) give the following values:
                                  56

-------
     Population Groups                     Persons per Mile
     0 to 4,999                                    128
     5,000 to 9,999                               233
     10,000 to 24,999                             302
     25,000 to 49,999                             371
     50,000 to 99,999                             379
     100,000  and over                             494

 For Chicago, using 500 persons per mile, the D/D BOD equivalent would
 be: 5/500 = 1% of the raw sanitary sewage BOD potential of raw sewage

 For a community of 5,000 to 10,000 population, the potential—using
 the Chicago litter D/D data—would be as follows:

 Raw Sewage BOD 0.17 X  233 persons/mile = 40 Ib/day
 D/D BOD   0.80 pounds/mile of street/day
 D/D BOD equivalent 0.80/40  X 100  = 2 percent

 Litter accumulations/day/mile for such a small community would be less
 than 1.5 lb/day/100 ft of each, since litter is a product of people. Thus, the
 D/D BOD equivalent for a smaller community than Chicago  may hold to
 the one percent value, as computed above.
 For New York City, a similiar theoretical computation might be:
  Street mileage                   6,000 miles
  Population                      8,000,000
  Persons/mile of street             8,000,000/6,000 =  1,300/mile
  Potential BOD of raw sewage      1,300  X 0.17 = 200 pounds/day/
                                                 mile street
Using Chicago litter data:

D/D BOD population equivalency   0.80/220 = 0.4%

However, the New  York City litter accumulation may be higher than the
1.5  Ib/day because of greater population densities (no data is available
from New York City litter quantities) and, here again, the  one percent
factor may be found to apply.
This one percent and five  percent formula  expresses  a rule-of-thumb
evaluation of the D/D pollution potential, as compared to raw sewage and
secondary effluent potentials, respectively. In the case of any community
                                57

-------
 using combined sewers, the percentage effect of D/D BOD in relation to
 SSSSVt effluent goes down markedly due to the grater effect of
 raw sewage which overflows with storm water during runoff periods. In
 short the same climatic conditions that cause storm runoff pollution also
 cause sewage overflow pollution, even in cases where sanitary sewage is
 treated by secondary processes.
 Note- Communities can compute the D/D BOD potential for their street
 litter on the basis of actual population densities per mile of street and litter
 accumulations by land use areas and street sweeping frequency as in the
 steps previously outlined.  In the absence of such data for each community,
 it might be assumed that the litter BOD potential would vary somewhat in
 proportion to  the population and the  actual composition of litter D/D
 fraction. The one percent and five percent values are suggested merely as
 representing one set of urban conditions, for the purpose  of providing a
 general guideline in estimating the potential pollution effect of street litter.


 Peak-Flush Shock-Loading Effect of Dust and Dirt

 The project  included  a survey on a national scale for the purpose of
 ascertaining street cleaning practices in representative communities. These
 survey data are included in a later portion of this section.
 It is evident  that the frequency of cleaning varies  widely and that no
 specific data can be provided here to represent the potential peak-flush
 effect of street litter dust and dirt washout during periods of precipitation.
 In addition, the effect of rainfall on dust and dirt washout during interim
 periods of non-sweeping  is not ascertainable under such varying condi-
 tions.  (Note:  Data  for  the  test  areas indicate  minimal  effects of
 precipitation  on litter  accumulations,  as previously  described.) If the
 potential BOD of the soluble dust and dirt  fraction of street litter were
 discharged uniformly each day  over the entire city, the one percent and
 five  percent factors might  be utilized to show  the  actual comparative
 pollutional effect—raw sewage or treated sewage  effluents versus litter
 pollution—on  receiving waters. (Note: Sewage  BOD  is not discharged
 uriiformly  throughout any  24-hour  period. Sewage flow  peak  of 250
 percent,  more  or less, of  average daily flows occur, and night-hour flows
 may be only 50 percent, more or less, of the average daily flow. The BOD
 momentarily discharged may vary in more or less proportional amounts.)
 But street refuse BOD runoffs are not uniformly discharged. This study
 assumes that the potential  litter BOD will  continue  to increase as the
 amount of litter on the street increases between  sweepings, and that the
 soluble BOD will be washed out  in mass  amounts when actual runoff
 occurs, thus producing a peak-flush phenomenon which can impose shock
 loadings on receiving waters.
 In order to determine the possible effect of such peak-flush conditions, this
 study has assumed that street sweeping is carried out on a 14-day interval
basis and that all of the potential BOD in the accumulated street litter will
be washed out by precipitation runoff within a two-hour period. The time

                                58

-------
period was chosen on the basis of local rainfall records which tended to
indicate that for most precipitation events,  a large portion of the totai
precipitation would occur in a two-hour period. For some precipitation
events, the two-hour length might not  be sufficient to adequately dissolve
the soluble  portion of the dust and  dirt. For other events,  because of
rainfall intensity and other conditions, the  soluble portion conceivably
could be  dissolved in a  shorter period. Thus the two-hour period is
suggested  as an average figure. On the basis of the two-hour  period,  the
shock loading effect of dust and dirt BOD would be:
     0.08  Ib of BOD/day/mile of street  X 14 days =  11.2  Ib of BOD
     washout in a two-hour period. This BOD would be discharged in two
     hours of runoff.
     The Chicago raw sewage BOD is  500 persons/mile X 0.17 Ib/person
     = 85 Ib/mile/day.
     For a two-hour period, the raw sewage BOD would be 85/12 = 7 Ib.
     (Note:  the two-hour BOD would  vary with the time of day; it could
     be relatively  low if  the storm occurred  during the early morning
     hours).
     Therefore, the  street litter D/D  BOD potential  for the two-hour
     period would  be 11.2 lb/7 Ib or  approximately 160 percent that of
     the raw sewage pollution potential.
For Chicago treated sewage effluent, the street litter BOD potential would
be:
     160 X  100/20 = 800% greater than the treated sewage effluent
While this is a theoretical computation of peak-flush conditions, which
may never be produced under "average" conditions, it could occur under
certain circumstances.
The calculations demonstrate that:
• The actual overall  effect of the pollution potential of street litter as
   measured by the BOD of soluble dust and dirt fraction, is small—one
   percent of raw sewage and five percent of treated sewage effluent BOD
• The possible momentary peak-flush shock loading on receiving waters
   could  be  considerably  higher—-'160 percent  of  the  raw  sewage
   pollution and 800 percent of the treated sewage effluent pollution from
   the assumed 14-day accumulation during the two-hour flush period,
   and
• This shock loading could produce major oxygen depletion or sag in the
   vicinity  of storm water discharge  points and in a wider area until
   dilution or displacement occur.
These percentage effects of street litter runoff, as compared with treated
sewage effluent discharges could be markedly reduced by  the pollution
effect of combined sanitary sewage and storm water overflows in the case
of combined sewers.
                                59

-------
Other Pollution Potentials in Street Litter

The foregoing computations are limited to the
BOD constituent of the dust and dirt fraction of total street
based on:
 •  The  theoretical washout of all BOD in the dust and dirt fraction of
    street refuse, a condition which admittedly may not occur, at least in
    the majority of precipitation incidents
 •  The  so-called soluble  portions of the dust and dirt, obtained in the
    laboratory by means  of the production of a slurry in a laboratory
    mixer and the nitration of the admixture through No. 1 Whatman filter
    paper, thus resulting  in a total washout of all solubles. (Admittedly
    some solids  may  have been "liquified" by blender-action  and thus
    increasing, in minor amount,  the "soluble" fraction of the  dust and
    dirt), and
 • The BOD values may have been  less than actual, because of some
    possibility that any organics capable of "flash" oxidation may have
    been so oxidized  by the aeration "whip" action in  the mixing device
    used in preparing samples for analysis.

 It  is obvious that these "ideal" laboratory sample conditions cannot be
 reproduced  in the street,  and that the laboratory BOD values may have
 been  greater  than  would  be  produced  by  street runoff  conditions.
 However, it is equally obvious that street litter contains BOD-producing
 substances,  other than  the  minus  1/8-inch material (D/D)  used in  the
 laboratory  determinations.  This would include  dirt adhering  to  gross
 paper, glass, metal, rags, uncomminuted  animal droppings,  rocks, and
 organic  material  such as  vegetation, cellulose materials and foodstuffs.
 These material were not washed in the laboratory to ascertain the "total"
 pollution effect of total street litter. All analyses were carried out on minus
 1/8-inch solids.
 There is no way,  from  the  study  data,  to prove the validity of any
 assumption that the additional gross-material washout not included in the
 analytical findings  would be  equal to, less than,  or  greater  than  the
 "over-effect" of the laboratory procedures. However, the "minus" from
 such  plus 1/8-inch solids would help more or less to cancel out any "plus"
 due to the higher-than-actual-street-effects produced in the laboratory.
 Over and above the pollution  potential resulting  from dissolved BOD in
 the dust and dirt fraction of street refuse,  this fraction contained  other
 pollution components.
 COD  The analyses indicated  that  street litter dust and dirt COD was
 approximately ten times  as high  as the BOD. In terms of pollutional
 effect, the shock loading of this pollutional constituent must be considered
 Other Pollutional Constituents  In addition to  the effect  of BOD and
COD loadings in receiving waters by street litter washout-runoff,  the litter
contained appreciable amounts of nitrogen in various forms:  phosphates;
                                  60

-------
total bacteria; coliforms; and fecal enterococci organisms.  These pollu-
tional  factors must also be considered in evaluating the effect of street
refuse on receiving waters.
The following tabulation lists the average values  of these constituents in
Chicago raw sewage and treatment plant effluents, as compared with the
street refuse dust and  dirt contents assuming average per capita BOD of
0.171b/day.
These average  figures  are  shown  in  terms of the amount  of litter
components in pounds/day/mile of street, and the  comparable amounts of
sewage and effluent components for 500 persons/day/mile of street.
           Comparison of Sanitary Sewage and Street Litter Pollution Components

Item

BOD (ppm)
COD (ppm)
Phosphorous
P04 (ppm)
Total Nitrogen
as N (ppm)
Total coliform/
100 ml
Fecal coliform/
100 ml
Streng
Sanita
raw
85
238


16.8

*

*

th of
ry Sewage
treated
11
34.7
13.5

11.0

28x1 O4

16,000

Street +
Litter/g

5,000
40,000
50

500**

13x16°

540**

Ib pollutants/mile
Sanitary
raw
85
238


16.8





Sewage
treated
11
34.7
13.5

11

25x1 O8

14xl07

Street
1 day
0.8
6.4
0.008

0.08

47xl010

39x1 O5

Litter
14 days
11.2
89.2
.112

1.12

66x1 O11

55x1 O6

 *not determined
 **from dust and dirt fraction
 ^assumed weighted average
 "^assumed value of 1 .5 lb/day/100 ft of curb


Suspended Solids  Pollution  It is evident that some coarse insoluble
litter will be mechanically washed into street inlets and carried through
sewer lines to points of discharge. These materials create visible pollution
that may  be  relatively  low  in  stream  solids loading  effects  but  of
importance in terms  of stream  "aesthetics."  These materials include:
paper, fruit and vegetable remnants; vegetation and garden litter; and
cloth  and  wood.  (It  is significant  that  state  stream  standards  usually
require absence of  visible floating  solids.)  The decomposition of  such
material in catch basins, as discussed elsewhere in this report, adds to the
adverse condition of floating and suspended substances and it may convert
suspended  solids into  soluble forms by such decomposition.  Odors from
catch basins attest to  the active putrefaction of decomposable materials
stranded and retained in the basins.
These are the visible pollution components that the public associates with
storm-water overflows. Casual observers know little or nothing about the
BOD effect of soluble material because it does not litter the  waters or
shoal on shores in the vicinity of  storm and  combined sewer  outlets. The

                                 61

-------
 public's support of water pollution control programs has resulted from the
 visual evidence of pollution.
                       Control of Street Litter

 The control of street litter must begin at its source. Educational programs
 are needed to create a recognition among citizens of a community of the
 need for cleanliness in public and private areas and of the importance of
 such cleanliness to water pollution control. Traditionally, this has been
 accomplished by  appealing to  civic pride, stressing the cost to each
 individual of cleanup efforts, and denning  the penalties of non-coopera-
 tion as set forth by local ordinances.
 These efforts  have  had  varying degrees  of success.  This  has  been
 attributed to the  lack of  individual incentive  or reward,  the lack  of
 enforcement of existing ordinances, and the lack of adequate housekeeping
 efforts by the government jurisdiction itself. An  adequate  solid waste
 system is  a basic community need. It is generally believed that litter left in
 the street tends to  invite the deposition of more litter. Thus it is concluded
 that the presence  of some of litter on the street reduces the  incentive  to
 refrain from further littering. This aspect of human reaction  has often
 been described. It is significant that throughout the street litter sampling
 tests no clear evidence was found to support this contention.
 Mr. Christopher Gilson,  executive director, Citizens Committee to Keep
 New York City Clean, Inc., at the 1966 American Public Works Congress
 and Equipment Show stated that:
  "The hard facts are, however, that no city can afford any longer to stay
  dirty. There are three compelling reasons:
  1.  The cost of maintaining municipal  services in  run-down  areas  is
      is mounting because those areas are  spreading  as  the  result of
      deterioration that begins with dirt
  2.  The cost of physically replacing slums is skyrocketing beyond what
      even a  combination of Federal and municipal governments conceiv-
      able can afford to pay. Thus the practical cure is to halt corrosion in
      the first place. The beginning point for that is to get rid of dirt
  3.  More and more industries are refusing to locate new plants in dirty
      towns. It doesn't require a calculator to figure out what a community
      loses in dollars and  cents when  it  is passed over by a new industrial
      facility."
 Thus, a jurisdiction must balance the cost of adequate street cleaning
 against the returns from reduced blight, improved sewer maintenance, less
 danger to moving vehicles and pedestrians, reduced storm water pollution,
 and increased economic development.
 Public education,  however,  will not eliminate all street litter.  Debris will
 still  accumulate  from  air  pollution fallout,  animals,  drippings  from
vehicles, and other sources.
                                 62

-------
Street Cleaning Methods

The usual method to keep streets clean is to sweep up the debris so that it
can be economically loaded in a conveyance for removal to a disposal site.
Two types of sweepers  have been  developed:  one utilizes  mechanical
pickup equipment and the second uses a vacuum system. Few American
vacuum-type sweepers are produced for street use. Their use is limited to
areas with flat surfaces and for cleaning in areas where there is little litter
or as a followup after other cleaning to remove remaining small solids.
Vacuum sweepers are also available  for airports and in small models for
sidewalk, warehouse, and parking lot use.
There  are several manufacturers of sweepers using brooms for mechanical
pickup. For many years, the principal machines in use by municipalities
were three-wheel units with a capacity of three to four  cubic yards. In
recent  years two manufacturers have developed four-wheel units, which
incorporate a separate engine to drive the broom.
Generally, sweepers are equipped with a gutter broom. This is a circular
device with steel strips, which  is mounted on  a  controllable frame to
dislodge material near the gutter and move the material across  the front of
the pickup broom.  This device is necessary because at least 80 percent of
the street litter is within 18 inches of the curb. The wind action and the
effect  of traffic move  most material to this location. Where continuous
curb-side parking is permitted,  litter may accumulate across the  entire
parking lane.
In dislodging street litter which is dry  and contains fine particles such as
silt, the  gutter broom creates  dust. Therefore, sweepers incorporate  a
spray  bar across the  front of the machine  to moisten  the litter with
sufficient water to minimize the dust nuisance.
Following the spreading of the litter  by the gutter broom,  a vertically
revolving broom is used to flick the material from the street to  a conveyor.
There  are many types of broom material. Natural fibers such as palmayra,
bass, and hickory were popular  for many years.  Recently plastic and steel
fibers have been used. These latter materials have been used with a variety
of stiffness factors and cross sections.
Natural fibers are generally wound about a cable with a length of fiber
26-inches long bent in the middle to make a 13-inch broom length. When
the  fiber length from the core  wears down to a length  of six to seven
inches, the  broom is refilled  with new fibers. Natural fiber brooms
normally can be used to sweep 100 to 150 curb-miles. The newer fibers
are  available  in a  disc  or coil pattern  for placement  on  the broom.
Sweeping service of 1,500 to 3,000 curb-miles has been reported for the
newer fibers.(')
                                63

-------
Wear on the broom is largely governed by the type of surface to be .swept,
operator care in adjusting the broom, and the broom pattern—or width of
broom in contact with the street surface.
Practice has shown that a four to six inch broom pattern is sufficient to
remove street litter such as paper, cans, and most dirt and dust.
The frequency of street sweeping varies widely. Many downtown business
area streets are swept daily, whereas residential areas receive cleaning on
a biweekly or monthly schedule. A survey was conducted as a part of this
study  to determine current  street cleaning  practices  by  sending a
questionnaire to some 500 cities. Replies were received from 149 cities.
Cities were asked to  designate  the frequency with  which they flushed
and/or  swept  various  categories  of  streets: residential,  commercial,
downtown business, arterial,  industrial, park, private, and other. Under
both the flushing  and  sweeping  categories  the  choices  given as to
frequency of cleaning were daily, biweekly, weekly, bimonthly, monthly,
and other. Analysis of the survey data was difficult because  of the large
number of responses in the "other" category.
A  summary of the results  of this survey  will be found in Table  11,
Analysis of Frequency of Street-Cleaning  Activities by City Size and
Geographical Location. Some practices tend to be the same throughout the
country for each category of street.
Approximately 25 percent of the cities that responded flush some of their
residential streets; the majority do so on either a .weekly  or monthly
schedule. Of the nearly 80 percent of the responding cities which regularly
sweep their residential streets, over half do so either weekly or monthly.
While the amount of survey data relating to the cleaning of commercial
streets were not as numerous as for residential areas, it appears that most
cities flush some of their commercial streets weekly while sweeping them
either daily or weekly.
Twenty-five percent of the cities flush their arterial streets, primarily on a
weekly basis. Nearly  half of the responding  cities  report sweeping of
arterial streets on  a weekly basis.
Some streets in downtown business areas are flushed in approximately 40
percent of the responding cities, while nearly 70 percent sweep them daily.
Few cities had the  classification "industrial street"  and those that did
indicated little uniformity in cleaning  schedule. Only 15 percent of the
responding  cities  flushed some  industrial  streets;  30 percent regularly
swept them. Of those reporting, most cleaned these streets weekly.
On the remaining streets listed—park, private, and "other,"  which were
quite often state highways—only about 20 percent of the responding cities
carried out any routine  cleaning program. Where sweeping was scheduled,
it generally varied between weekly and monthly.
A possible explanation as to why  residential streets seem to have a more
frequent cleaning  schedule than the other classifications of streets is that
many cities do not have their streets separated  into the categories listed in
the  survey questionnaire. While  most  cities  have residential or local
                                 64

-------
TABLE 11 . Analysis of Frequency of Street Cleaning Acl
          (By City Size and Geographical Location}

Comn
nercia
Flushing Fr

Gty Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,000-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total
>,
&

2
4
2
1

2
3
2

2
9
t
S

1
1
2



4
2

2
8
Sweeping F
City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total


5
9
10
1

8
4
5
1
7
25


1
4
2


2

1
2
2
7
Streets
equency
^ ^
oj E
S £
2
5
5
10
1

10 1

6

4
20 1
requency

2
7 1
11 2
12 1
1

II 1
4
11 2

7 1
33 4


-C 1_
III
2
8
1 2 14
1 7 22
2

2 15
7
2214
1 1
4 12
2 9 49


2 4
1 2 17
2 5 33
2 1 28
2

2 4 28
2 10
1 1 21
1 4
2 2 21
5 10 84



City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total
Residential
Flushing Fre
- f
Q ia
1

^



3
1



4
Sweeping Fr


1 2
4 4
1 3


4 3
1 2
1
2
1 1
6 9
Streets
quertcy
~tu °
1 I

3
5
3
1

3
3
3

3 1
12 1
equency

3
1 1 4
11 5
7 3


11 3
3 1
7 5

11 3
32 12


f -^
1 O

2
3 4
3 7
1

3 3
3
4 4
1
1 1
8 12


2 3
6 3
8 11
17 7
1 1

14 13
1 5
11 3
2 2
6 2
34 25


-5
£
2
6
14
13
2

12
7
1 1
1
6
37


8
27
43
38
2

48
13
27
6
24
118
Do


City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
wntown Business Streets
Flushing Frequency
^ 5 S 1
& S J S
2
5 3
9 1 4
14 2 4
1

8 8
6
7 5

8212
29 3 14 2
Sweeping Frequency

2 2
1123
25 1 5
30 1 2
1

24 5
8
14 2 5
5 1
18 3


c -c S
1 6 £
2
2 1 11
1 3 18
1 3 25
1 2

1 4 21
6
3 17
1 1
13
2 8 58


4
5 21
4 36
1 34
1 2

7 38
2 10
1 22
6
1 22

-------
ON
ON

Arter
iol St
Flushing Fre<
>-
City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geogrophic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total
S



1




1



H

1
3
2
1

3

2

2
7
Sweeping Fre<
City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geogrophic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total


1
1
5



1
1
2
3
7


1
6
1
1

3
2
2

2
9
eets
uency
1 1


7
7
1

4
2
5

4 1
15 1
luency


2 1
14 4
19 1
1

11 2
5
9 1
3 1
8 2
36 6


1 5

3
3
1 5


2 1
1
3 2
1
1 1
7 5


2
3
2 4
3


3 3
1
2 2

3
5 9


|

5
13
16
2

10
3
13
1
9
36


2
8
31
29
2

22
9
17
6
18
72




City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geogrophic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total
Industrial Streets
Flushing Frequency
„ I 3 i
"SUE
a £ 5 tn

2
1 4
2 2
1

1 2
2
2 1

1 3
4 8
Sweeping Frequency


3
1192
1 13 2


1 1 6
1 5
4 2

10 1
2 2 25 4


£
C
1

1
2
2


2

2

1
5



1
1
4


3


3

6



-c
6

i

4


2

2

1
5


1
1
3
2


2
1
1
1
2
7



a
t£

4
8
10
1

8
2
7

6
23


1
5
17
22
1

14
7
8
4
13
46
Pork,

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geogrophic Lacatio
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geogrophic Locatio
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total
Private, and Other Streets
Flushing Frequency
^ >- •£ -^
dm 5 m S

1
2
1
1





2 2
1321
Sweeping Frequency

1
3 2
213 2
4 6
1
n
1 3 3
1 1
2 4
2
1 6
2 1 12 10


0 1

I
1 4
1 3
1

1 3

1 2

4
2 9


2 3
5
5 13
2 12
1

6 13
2
3 10
2

9 34

-------
streets,  the classes  of commercial,  downtown business,  arterial,  and
industrial may be divided as such or be separated into the more functional
classification of "collector," "arterial," and "freeway." Some cities did not
even report this type of breakdown and listed all their streets under only
one or two categories. The questionnaire form is included in the appendix
to this report to indicate the scope of the inquiry.
The  frequency  of street cleaning, if  pollution  control is  regarded as a
major consideration,  should  be based on neighborhood characteristics,
notably   the  tendency  to  create  street litter, and  the  frequency  of
precipitation. In an effort to determine the frequency of precipitation, a
computer program was developed by Consoer, Townsend, and Associates,
Consulting Engineers,  to analyze the hourly precipitation-event records
maintained by the National Weather Bureau Center. Precipitation events
for Midway Station, Chicago, were analyzed. The maximum, minimum,
and average intervals between events with 0.04, 0.5,  1.0, and 2.0 inches of
rainfall  were analyzed for a 20-year period of record by one-half month
periods.  In the hope of consolidating small, semi-continuous events, the
precipitation was  considered to represent only one event if not more than
two hours without precipitation elapsed between individual hourly events.
The  results of this analysis are summarized in Table  12, Twenty-Year
Hourly Frequency of Rainfall Events, Chicago, Illinois.
If this type of information were used as a guide and it were desired to
minimize the amount of litter  on  a street prior to precipitation events,
street cleaning would be required,  for example, from every three days in
April to every seven days in August.
During  the  study, several tests were  made to  determine the amount of
material that remained after regular street cleaning. Sections  tested were
taken at random.  It was observed that the material  not picked up by the
sweeper  represented a uniform layer  of dust and  dirt. A sidewalk type
sweeper was used to cover a 24-inch swath of pavement previously swept
and the amount collected was converted to lb/100 ft of curb.  The results
are summarized in Table 13, Material Remaining After Street Cleaning.
In all cases, the  test street  was cleaned twice  and the  sample obtained
immediately following the second cleaning.
Two additional tests were made to determine the efficiency of pickup by
weighing the street sweepings  collected as opposed to  the material left
behind. A distance of one  mile was cleaned by one pass of a regular
mechanical sweeper and a representative sample taken  to determine the
composition of the material. The sidewalk type sweeper was then used to
clean a 283-foot long swath that appeared to be representative of the total
length swept. Following this,  a small shop-type  vacuum was used to
determine  if there was additional  material  left on the surface that the
larger vacuum device had  not removed. Five 4x10 foot squares were
vacuumed. Test results verified that  the vacuum sidewalk sweeper had
removed almost all of the material. A section of the vacuumed area was
then tested to determine the amount of dust and dirt left in the interstices
of the paved surface material. The entire test was repeated the next day on
the opposite side of the one-way street.

                                 67

-------
TABLE 12.  Twenty-year Hourly Frequency of Rainfall Events, Chicago
  Part 1  For Precipitation Equal/Greater than 0.04 inches Per Event

From

Jan.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
May
May
Jun.
Jun.
Jul.
Jul.
Aug.
Aug.
Sep.
Sep.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.


From

Jan.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
May.
May.
Jun.
Jun.
Jul.
Jul.
Aug.
Aug.
Sep.
Sep.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov .
Dec.
Dec.
Period

Thru

1 - Jan.
16 - Jan.
1 - Feb.
16 - Feb.
1 - Mar.
16 - Mar.
1 - Apr.
16 - Apr.
1 - May
16 - May
1 - Jun.
16- Jun.
1 - Jul.
16- Jul.
1 - Aug.
16- Aug.
1 - Sep.
16 - Sep.
1 - Oct .
16 - Oct.
1 - Nov.
1 6 - Nov .
1 - Dec .
16- Dec.
Part
Period
Th

1 - Jan.
16 - Jan.
1 - Feb.
16 - Feb.
1 - Mar.
16 - Mar.
1 - Apr.
16 - Apr.
1 - May
16 - May
1 - Jun.
16 - Jun.
1 Jul.
16 - Jul.
1 - Aug.
16 - Aug.
1 - Sep.
16 - Sep.
1 - Oct.
16 - Oct.
1 - Nov.
16 - Nov.
1 - Dec .
16 - Dec.

15
31
15
28
15
31
15
30
15
31
15
30
15
31
15
31
15
30
15
31
15
30
15
31
2 For

ru

15
31
15
28
15
31
15
30
15
31
15
30
15
31
15
31
15
30
15
31
15
30
15
31
Max. Interval
Between Events
(Mrs.)
405
428
347
304
330
394
306
343
425
352
442
560
321
302
547
623
394
580
596
658
639
707
526
480
Min. Interval
Between Events
(Hrs.)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
Precipitation Equal/Greater than 0
Max. Interval
Between Events
(Mrs.)
1,787
3,092
1,141
1,619
1,091
763
919
1,422
1,397
807
1,042
669
734
1,391
2,423
2,399
1,709
1,482
3,039
1,207
3,633
1,497
1,138
1,965
Min. Interval
Between Events
(Hrs.)
171
3
3
72
41
93
48
9
104
25
6
48
8
10
5
20
18
7
5
3
6
33
4
7
Average No
of Events
Per Period
2.89
3.84
3.10
3.15
4.31
4.52
4.36
5.94
3.21
4.63
4.15
3.52
3.35
4.80
3.35
3.25
2.30
3.25
2.65
2.60
3.05
3.15
3.35
2.60
.50 inches Per
Average No
of Events
Per Period
0.42
0.63
0.42
0.36
0.63
0.68
0.73
1.47
0.42
0.89
1.36
0.63
0.95
1.65
0.95
0.95
0.65
1.05
0.80
0.40
0.50
0.45
0.50
0.70
Average Interval
Between Events
(Hrs.)
109.1
94.7
97.0
80.6
66.8
79.5
69.0
56.1
95.9
76.1
84.2
87.8
85.7
74.7
108.7
125.2
113.5
124.7
104.7
128.0
100.3
101.9
102.9
117.1
Event
Average Interval
Between Events
(Hrs.)
829.7
683.5
530.6
707.0
382.5
380.5
382.0
299.2
534.2
350.0
304.4
329.0
299.1
297.6
433.8
576.8
424.1
337.0
616.6
541.6
1,060.3
594.1
395.3
519.4
                                68

-------
            Part 3 For Precipitation Equal/Greater than 1 .00 inches Per Event

From

Jan.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
May
May
Jan.
Jun.
Jul.
Jul.
Aug.
Aug.
Sep.
Sep.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.


From

Jan.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
May
May
Jun.
Jun.
Jul.
Jul.
Aug.
Aug.
Sep.
Sep.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
Period
Thru

1 - Jan. 15
16 -Jan. 31
1 - Feb. 15
16 -Feb. 28
1 - Mar. 15
16 -Mar. 31
1 - Apr. 15
16 - Apr. 30
1 - May 15
16 - May 31
1 - Jun. 15
16 -Jun. 30
1 -Jul. 15
16 -Jul. 31
1 - Aug. 15
16 -Aug. 31
1 - Sep. 15
16 - Sep. 30
1 -Oct. 15
16 -Oct. 31
1 - Nov. 15
16 -Nov. 30
1 - Dec. 15
16 -Dec. 31
Part 4 For
Period
Thru

1 -Jan. 15
16 -Jan. 31
1 - Feb. 15
16 - Feb. 28
1 - Mar. 15
16 - Mar. 31
1-Apr- 15
16 - Apr. 30
1 - May 15
16 - May 31
1 - Jun. 15
16 -Jun. 30
1 - Jul. 15
16 -Jul. 31
1 - Aug. 15
16 - Aug. 31
1 - Sep. 15
16 - Sep. 30
1 -Oct. 15
16 -Oct. 31
1 - Nov. 15
16 -Nov. 30
1 - Dec. 15
16 -Dec. 31
Max. Interval
Between Events
(Hrs.)
4,205
1,254
1,085
0
2,130
2,658
2,459
2,526
1,384
1,744
2,287
1,010
1,866
6,715
2,409
5,616
5,149
4,524
5,373
5,489
4,730
2,716
2,500
3,259
Min. Interval
Between Events
(Hrs.)
1,623
587
1,085
0
665
343
393
18
275
178
7
118
54
43
5
41
18
17
26
503
6
1,426
230
468
Precipitation Equal/Greater than 2.
Max. Interval
Between Events
(Hrs.)
4,097
0
0
0
0
4,576
0
1,835
1,804
0
7,593
4,769
9,401
12,503
16,082
16,290
14,154
0
7,697
0
0
0
0
3,259
Min. Interval
Between Events
(Hrs.)
4,097
0
0
0
0
4,576
0
1,404
1,384
0
6,861
535
661
4,377
791
0
233
0
147
0
0
0
0
3,259
Average No.
of Events
Per Period
0.15
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.21
0.15
0.47
0.05
0.36
0.47
0.15
0.50
0.80
0.40
0.40
0.25
0.40
0.25
0.10
0.20
0.05
0.10
0.10
00 inches Per Event
Average No.
of Events
Per Period
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Average Interval
Between Events
(Hrs.)
3,735.3
920.5
0.0
0.0
2,795.0
1,236.2
1,700.3
842.2
1,659.0
982.8
782.3
598.3
684.7
1,352.8
1,079.0
1,107.1
1,654.2
1,629.6
2,347.8
3,924.5
2,476.2
4,142.0
1,522.5
2,124.0

Average Interval
Between Events
(Hrs.)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,239.0
3,188.0
0.0
14,454.0
5,304.0
9,030.5
10,910.6
16,873.0
0.0
14,387.0
0.0
7,844.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Study'period from July 1, 1948 to December 31, 1967.
Data obtained thru U.S. Weather Bureau at Midway Airport, Chicago.
                                           69

-------
The results of these two tests are summarized in Table 14, Analysis of
Special Sweeping Tests on Michigan Avenue. Although conditions on both
sides of the street appeared identical, there was a large difference in the
amount of street litter and the efficiency of the sweeper. In this test, only
one sweeping was performed, not two, as is the usual practice in Chicago.
In an effort to define the pollutional characteristics of in-place  dust and
dirt, swept dust and  dirt,  and dust and  dirt  left after street  cleaning,
samples of each type were obtained from a single location. The laboratory
analysis of the samples showed no significant difference in the amount of
pollutants present.
Findings from these sweeping studies made it  apparent that a controlled
test should be made to determine the actual capability of mechanical-type
pickup  sweepers. Inasmuch as any such comprehensive testing program
—involving  variations   in  machine  design,  broom construction and
material, and operating  conditions—would be time consuming and costly,
it was concluded that a pilot test,  using sweeping machines and brooms
identical to that used by the City of Chicago should be undertaken. The
Wayne  Manufacturing Company of Pomona, California, under a contract
with the APWA, conducted tests to determine the maximum performance
of their sweeper and  Mark I Milemaster Broom to pick up the dirt and
dust fraction of street litter. The tests were conducted in Pomona on new,
level, open-graded and well-rolled, asphaltic concrete pavement, under the
observation of a representative  of the study.  Procedure  and results  are
contained in Appendix E.
For comparison purposes, both a three-wheel Model 984 and a four-wheel
Model 945 were used. Different broom speeds and amounts of simulated
litter (dust and dirt) were used and broom patterns of five, seven, and nine
inches utilized.  In addition,  two vacuum sweepers  were evaluated, an
Airjet  Model 770, used for  airport runway cleaning, and a Starsweep
Model  554,  used  for  factory  floor and sidewalk cleaning.  The test
parameters represented  reasonable ranges for the sweeping machines, as
recommended by their manufacturer.
Efficiency of cleaning was measured as the ratio of material swept up to
the original  amount of material. The material chosen was Number 16
sand; the screen size and distribution of sizes approximately the dust and
dirt fractions of Chicago street litter.
The amount  of dust and dirt used in the tests was 0.05  and 0.1 Ib/sq ft.
This represented a range of 1.07 to 2.14 lb/day/100 ft assuming  sweeping
every 14 days. These amounts fall within the usual ranges of accumulation
in Chicago.  The broom pattern widths of nine and seven  inches are in
excess of that normally  used and would result in greatly increased broom
wear, with a resulting increase in cost.
Test results are summarized in Figure 6, Efficiency of Sweeping  Dust and
Dirt. The performance was high for all combinations tested. Best results
were obtained with the vacuum units where an efficiency in excess of 95
percent was obtained.
                                70

-------
                    TABLE 13. Material Remaining After Street Cleaning
Col. No.
Date
July 26
July 26
Aug. 8
Aug. 9
Aug. 9
Aug. 9
Aug. 23
Aug. 23
Aug. 23
Aug. 23
1
Zone
R-l
R-l
R-5
R-4
R-4
R-4
C-l
R-3
R-3
R-3
2
Length
246'
250'
200'
198.75'
192'
200'
200'
200'
200'
200'
3
Material Picked
up by Vacuum in
2' Width*
54 oz.
115. 5 oz.
31 oz.
124. 5 oz.
22 oz.
10 oz.
13.5 oz.
8.5 oz.
28 oz.
4.5 oz.
4
Dust - Dirt
Picked up
Adjacent to
Curb
38 oz.
35.5 oz.
5.5 oz.
1.5 oz.
12 oz.
24 oz.
56.5oz.
49.5 oz.
66 oz.
17.5 oz.
5
Estimated Remaining
Total Ib. of Dust -
Dirt per 100 Ft.
/- i **
Curb
8.25 Ibs.
12.44 Ibs.
4.06 Ibs.
15.62 Ibs.
3.12 Ibs.
2.0 Ibs.
3.44 Ibs.
2.61 Ibs.
5.56 Ibs.
1.12 Ibs.
 *Multiply by 4 for total



**(((Col. 3 x 4) + Col. 4) -i- Col.  2)
                                              71

-------
TABLE 14. Analysis of Special Sweeping Tests on Michigan Avenue

A.
B.
C.
D.

Item
Machine Sweeping
Length, (ft.)
Lb. Swept
Lb./lOOft.)
Dust & Dirt (by weight)
Dust& Dirt (Ib./lOO ft.)
Vacuum Sweeping
Length, (ft.)
Lb. Swept
Lb./lOOft.)
Dust & Dirt (by weight)
Dust & Dirt (Ib./lOO ft.)
Shop Vacuum
Area Swept (sq. ft.)
Total Wt. Swept
Washing Test
Area Washed (sq. ft.)
Water Used (1)
Water Used to wet surface (1)
Length/sq. ft.)
Vol. Dust & Dirt Collected
DustS. Dirt (Ib./lOO ft.)
Total Dust & Dirt (Ib./lOO ft.)

Sept. 5
East Side
5,102
220
4.31
65.2%
2.81
283.5
11.5
4.07
92.8%
3.76
150.2
6 oz.
28.41
15.56
3.96
0.14
24.4 or 56 g
4.1
11.7
Sample
Sept. 6
West Side
4,803
260
5.44
51 .2%
2.79
250
1.4
.56
57.7%
0.32



150.2
or 1 Ib./lOO ft. of curb
28.41
15.56
1.74
0.06
12. 4 or 28. 5g
2.17
6.28
From
Shop Type Vacuum Sidewalk Type Vacuum Machine
E.










Composite
Laboratory Findings
5-day BOD (mg/g) 4.32
COD(mg/g) 62.5
Nitrogen N (mg/g) .794
Water Soluble (mg/g) 10.08
Volatile Water
Soluble (mg/g) 6.24
Phosphate as PO .
(mg/g) .04
Plate Count (no.)
(xlOOO) 4,420
Confirmed Coliform
(MPN/g) (xlOOO) 2,900
Fecal Enterococci
(MPN/g) 420

East Side

7.52
147.3
.686
13.00
7.30
0.04
2,740
1,900
0
72
West Side East Side

5.76 7.36
62.3 66.9
.794 1 .028
13.66 11.76
7.74 7.30
.06 0.04
3,960 2.700
1,300 1,200
240 46


Sweeper
West Side

2.26
32.2
.720
5.52
2.42
0.02
3,540
1,200
240


-------
Sweeping efficiency of conventional sweepers generally varied with the
broom pattern, being highest for the nine inch and lowest for the five inch.
Despite great care, the results of runs were not closely reproducable, as
indicated by the scattering of data points in Figure 6. The total efficiency
of a mechanical sweeper is the combination of the efficiencies of both the
gutter  and pick up broom.  Thus if both  brooms had  an efficiency of
90  percent, the resulting total  efficiency  would  be 81  percent. As
mentioned, the  gutter  brooms were not used in the tests in order to
eliminate one variable and because  of visually determined apparent high
efficiency of gutter brooms in Chicago.
The efficiencies  determined must be considered as optimal. It should be
noted that the material was collected dry—no water spray was used. In
addition, the gutter  broom  was  not used, as the material was spread
uniformly along the  test patch. Excessive  dust  conditions were not
encountered,  due perhaps to the particle sizes involved and  perhaps
because a gutter broom was not used to dislodge the material.
The efficiencies  of the pickup broom of the  sweepers tests, at a broom
pattern of five inches, is indicated in  the following tabulation.
Broom Speed     Forward Speed       Average Efficiency of Pickup
  R.P.M.          M.P.H.        3 wheel model     4 wheel model
                                     No. 984          No. 945

   137                5               94.4
   175                6.4             91.3
   110                5                —              88.4
   130                5                	              91.9
At the end of each test, the amount of material "plowed" or pushed ahead
of the broom was determined to range from three to 30 ounces. The
vacuum sweepers did not produce this effect. Had there been depressions,
cracks, or other uneveness  in the surface, this "plowed"  material could
have been left behind, thus reducing the efficiency rating.


Discussion

Street sweeping operations are severely hampered in most cities by parked
vehicles at the curb. A variety of methods have been used successfully by
many cities  to deal with this problem. These include scheduling of the
sweeper operation for  periods of the day or night when  parking is at a
minimum, prohibiting parking during specified hours or on certain days,
and posting notices of "no parking"  during times scheduled  for street
cleaning. The latter method is widely used  in Chicago where population
density and lack of off-street parking space has resulted in  almost constant
use of the streets for parking.


                                73

-------
      FIGURE 6-a. Efficiency of Sweeping Dust and Dirt
32
                                                NET SAND
                                               (Ib. Gram
                                               100 ft flat a
        5. RESIDUA
         on 3 ft x
        halt course)
                             Residual (Ib.)
      5         6

(a) Pick-up Broom
                                74

-------
        FIGURE 6-b. Efficiency of Sweeping Dust and Dirt
   32
   28
   24
   20
"oi
Z
   12
                     95%
                                CONS
                                      ANT SWEEPING EFFICIEN
                                     /NET SAND
                                       (Ib. Grain
                                        Flat asphal
           :Y LINES
           /85%
 VS. RESIDU/.L
land on 3 ft.
 course)
100 ft.
SYM.
O
a
O
#
O
a
A
V
PUB
RPM
175
137
175
137
175
137
175
137
TRAV
SPEED
6.4
5.0
6.4
5.0
6.4
5.0
6.4
5.0
PUB
DIA
NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
20.75
20.75
STRIKI
9
9
7
7
5
5
5
5
                               Residual (Ib.)
                                   75

-------
  FIGURE 6-c. Efficiency of Sweeping Dust and Dirt
   20
o
LO
   16
   12
        99%   97°/<
           98%
96%
   95%
                    NET SAN
                    (16 Groin
                    flat A/phi
CONP;
SWEi
EFFI
                                       4-
 ANT
/ING
IENCY LINES
            VS. RESIDU|AL
          Sand on 3ft x
           It Course)
                            SYM.
               [TRAV.
               SPEED
                              a
                                  3.5
                                 5.0
                     STARSWtEP MODEL NJO. 554
                     (375 STRIKE/NEW PUty

                    OSYMBCflL FOR AIR J
     MODELT-10. 770

   (AGITATOR STRIKE 1.
   ENG 2400
    100ft
                                       /AUX.
                1           2

                     Residual (Ib.)
                        76

-------
The operation in Chicago involves the placement of cardboard signs on
trees or posts, or setting out wooden signs the day before sweeping and
removing the signs after sweeping, except on arterial streets where parking
is prohibited during rush hours in the direction of the heaviest traffic.
The hours of the parking restrictions  are limited  to the  period when
residents normally may be away working, namely 9 A.M.  4 P.M.  The
street cleaning operation is costly and the system does not allow flexibility
in meeting changes in weather conditions, equipment breakdown,  and
changing field conditions encountered.
Parking needs are so great in some areas that even temporary restrictions
are not acceptable to motorists. New York  City  recently attempted a
program of having vehicles park  18 inches from the curb  in order that
hand  sweeping  could  be used to clean  the  area of greatest  litter
accumulation next to the  curb. Motorists could not be educated to park
that far from the curb during the limited trial and in most states parking
laws require parked vehicles to be within  12 to 18 inches of the curb.
It would appear that to achieve high efficiency in removing dust and dirt
from streets that vacuum removal could be used. However, a re-evaluation
of the design of the  sweeper would also  be  appropriate. For  instance,
existing equipment removes most of the litter from the gutter and spreads
it out across the  street surface. A second broom, which cannot be adjusted
to changing street conditions,  then attempts  to  flick the material on a
conveyor. Efficiency might be improved if the material could be picked up
directly from the gutter area where it has been deposited. An additional
factor in the pickup of dust and dirt is electrical attraction between dust
and dirt particles and the broom fiber. Perhaps this force of electrostatic
attraction should be explored as a method to remove fine material.
The significance of street  sweeping practices to the pollution potential of
litter  is obvious. The better and more frequent the cleansing operations,
the less the pollution effect.
Regulations of many jurisdictions require that  off-street parking spaces be
provided  for businesses and residential  structures. Such  regulations are
constantly being reviewed because of resistance from property owners to
the high  cost of  providing  such parking  facilities. The problem  is
particularly acute where structures are remodeled to provide for additional
and multiple-dwelling units and in situations where there may be more
than one automobile per family. Development of off-street parking areas
is needed in many areas  before regulations can  be enforced that would
facilitate frequent street sweeping.
Street Flushing

Street flushing by means of mechanical flushers or the use of fire hydrants
and long hoses appears to play only a small role in the cleaning of streets.
A 1955 survey by the American Public Works Association revealed that
of the 493 flushing units in use by 64 of the 96 cities reporting, 231 were
owned by one municipality. Ninety-one cities in the same survey reported

                                 77

-------
 the  use  of 811 machine sweepers, 259 of which  were owned by one
 municipality.
 At one time the general  practice was to "flood" the street, that is, use
 enough water  to  wash all material to the gutter  and to flush lighter
 materials to the sewer inlet. Other jurisdictions have used flushers in
 conjunction with street sweepers, either before or after sweeping.
 The use of flushers to "flood"  a street is time-consuming and requires
 liberal quantities of water. The capacity of the machines used varies from
 1,000 to 5,000 gallons, necessitating frequent refilling.
 Several jurisdictions have installed high-pressure nozzles on their flushers
 in an attempt to move material  from the travel  lanes over to the parking
 lane. The flusher can thus clean a portion of the street while  moving at
 near normal street traffic speeds.
 Street flushing prior to motor sweeping is also practiced in many locations
 where the  center divider  is defined by street markings  on  grade—not by
 raised traffic islands—in order to force the material to the roadside where
 it is then picked up by the sweeper.
 Streets are also flushed following mechanical sweeping to remove fine dust
 and dirt. Flushing is also used to washaway "sweeper trails" in localities
 where there is considerable dry weather water flow in the gutters  from
 excessive lawn sprinkling. Such conditions create a smearing pattern in the
 curb lanes  behind sweepers which can best be removed by flushing.
 Inasmuch as street flushing is not used to any great extent  by municipali-
 ties, and where used, only small amounts of water reach the street inlets,
 field tests of flushers were not conducted. As mentioned in the report of
 the special tests made on  Michigan Avenue, (Table 14), a pilot test of the
 effects of flushing was carried out to ascertain the pollutional potential of
 dust  and dirt  material remaining on the street surface after  complete
 sweeping. The dust and dirt found in the wash water from this test were an
 indication  of the pollution that could be added to sewer inlets by effective
 flushing, over and above  the pollution potential of litter collected by the
 routine street-sweeping operations evaluated in the project studies.


                           References

 1. MORTON, JOHN P. "The Street Cleaning Revolution." The American
  City. LXXVlll, 4. pp 104-106. April, 1963.

                          Catch Basins

Storm-water runoff in urban areas normally flows for  a short period of
time in the gutter and is diverted  by  an inlet structure  leading to an
underground conduit or open channel for transport to a receiving body of
water. The underground conduit, either storm sewers or  combined sewers,
may be  protected by  catch basins  built in conjunction with  the  inlet
structures. In Chicago, storm-water inlets with catch basins are installed at
both ends of the curb return at an intersection (to prevent the ponding of

                                 78

-------
drainage where  pedestrians cross a street) and at very regular  intervals
along the curb.
A sketch of the catch basin design used by the City of Chicago is shown in
Figure 7. The practice of trapping the catch basin as indicated in the
sketch was discontinued for several years but is now required.b)
Historically,  the purpose of catch basins  was to  prevent  sewer clogging
and to prevent odor emanations from the sewers by providing a water seal.
The first function served by catch basins was especially important prior to
the existence of good quality street pavements. In areas where streets were
partially or  wholly  unpaved,  significant quantities of stone, sand, and
other materials were washed  into the  sewer system  during periods  of
rainfall. Also, during the earlier years of sewer construction, little attempt
was made to  maintain self-cleaning velocities in sewers of at least two feet
per second.
Catch basins are normally built under the inlet gratings or openings in the
street. The typical  catch basin  is made  of  concrete, brick, or precast
concrete with a total depth of about eight feet and with a holding capacity
below the outlet sewer invert of about one cubic yard.(J)
The range in sump capacity  of catch basins is from one cubic foot  to 81
cubic feet  (3 cubic yards). A water seal is commonly  included in a  catch
basin to prevent the  escape of sewer odors.
A review of the literature indicates that the usefulness of catch basins was
considered marginal even as early as  the turn of the century. Folwell(2)
presented the following discussion of catch basins  in a textbook published
in 1900.
     "Objection to  catch basins  is that several  days must  elapset and
     several  weeks usually do, between the beginning of a storm and
     cleaning of catch basins; and during this time the organic matter has
     been  washed or thrown into inlets including horsedroppings,  fruit
     and vegetable refuse, et cetera is putrefying  and frequently emitting
     foul odors. . . .A small  catch basin is worse than useless. A  catch
     basin is desirable  where  sewers grades  are flat and  velocity is less
     than  three feet/second; also on combined sewers where streets are
     unpaved. ... To be at all efficient, catch basins should extend more
     than  18 inches below connection pipe, since  a heavy rain will keep
     the water in it  so stirred  up as to wash  out any deposits above that
     point. . .  . Instead  of placing  a catch basin  at each inlet  it  is
     sometimes preferable to  place silt-basins along line of  sewers  at
     intervals of 1,000 feet or  more with a manhole above for ventilation
     and cleaning."
Subsequent texts  generally  concurred with  Folwell's analysis  of  catch
basins, e.g., reference(3) and current texts generally provide only a short
disclaimer regarding the  value of catch basins. For  example, the recent
text by Fair et al. states:(4)
     "Catch  basins need much maintenance; they should be cleaned after
     every storm and may have to  be oiled to prevent production of large

b)Historically,  sewer gas was fe't to  be a health hazard and the traps were included for
that purpose.)5)
                                  79

-------
               FIGURE 7. Catch Basin Design, Chicago
+
1

u
4 d
(?*'


1
3* .fi ** °oPaA& &

*


1 1
V
V
$,



                       Scale 1/2"
1 ft.
     crops  of mosquitoes.  On the  whole  there is little  reason for
     continuing their use in modern sewer systems."
Despite the purported reduced need for catch basins, they are still widely
used in many jurisdictions in all parts of the country as shown by the 1956
survey  of the  American Public Works  Association^1)  In answer to  a
questionnaire sent out in conjunction with this study, all (23) jurisdictions
with combined sewers reported the continued use of catch  basins.
To evaluate the role of catch basins in the pollution of storm-water runoff,
the hydrology of a typical area and the hydraulic characteristics of catch
basins for a 10-acre (4  ha) residential area typical of the Chicago area
was studied.
A recent  report analyzed the precipitation-runoff relationship that exists
in the Chicago Metropolitan area, using the characteristics of the unit area
described earlier as a basis for estimates.(6) The results of this  report
provide an excellent source of information for this study.
The unit area is 36 percent impervious. Approximately 54 percent of the
impervious area is composed of streets and alleys and 46 percent is roof
area. Thus, there are three area components of storm-water runoff: (1)
runoff from streets and alleys, (2) runoff from rooftops connected directly
to the sewer, and (3) runoff from pervious areas.
Figure 8  Rainfall-Runoff Relationships  for Unit  Area,  Chicago,  shows
tne ramtall-runoff relationship  for the unit area,  partitioned into these
                                 80

-------
three components. It may be seen that for rainfalls of less than 2.2 inches,
the runoff from pervious areas is negligible.
Table 15, Types of Storms Contributing to Storm-Water Overflows, shows
the rainfall-runoff relationship and the quantity of overflow attributable to
individual  categories  of  rainfall.  Analysis  of this  data  reveals  the
important fact that  the lighter rainfalls, due to their greater  frequencies,
are a prime cause of storm-water overflows. Also, only about one or two
percent of the annual overflow  is from  pervious  areas. Consequently,
investigation of significant sources of pollution can generally be restricted
to the impervious portion of the drainage area.-
The  estimated sanitary-sewage flow is about 100 gallons per capita  per
day.  Since there are 281 persons in the area, the equivalent hourly sewage
flow  is equivalent to 0.0043  inches of runoff per hour from the 10-acre
area, a small portion of the runoff shown in Table 15.
A recent study by Harza Engineers and by Bauer Engineers  presents  the
estimated BOD  and suspended solids in storm-water overflows from  the
unit  area. These results are summarized in Table 16, Estimated Quality of
Storm-Water Overflows. From 10-acre (4 ha) Unit Area, Chicago. They
indicate that approximately 87-percent of the overflow, 74-percent of the
BOD,  and 71 -percent of the suspended solids are caused by rainfalls of
one  inch or less. Consequently, these lighter, more frequent rains are a
significant source of pollution from combined sewer overflows.
Role of Catch Basins in Storm Water Pollution

Although research has been conducted on the hydraulic characteristics of
flow at the storm-water inlet, little investigation has been done regarding
the hydraulic characteristics of flow within a catch basin.  The only data
disclosed by a bibliographical search were reports of investigations at the
University  of Illinois. (7 8) These  reports concluded that catch basins are
relatively inefficient as far as their hydraulic characteristics are concerned.
For example, the sheet of water falling from the inlet to the ponded water
in the basin creates currents that  impede efficient discharge. Also, there is
a tendency for air entrainment which causes  a reduction in fluid density
and subsequent increase in volume discharged. These tests were conducted
in a basin with a sump of 20 inches depth, a commonly used size.
As a part of this  study, a field test was made to determine whether full
mixing of the incoming fluid  (with the liquid already in the catch basin)
occurred. A catch basin serving a street gutter drain had previously been
substantially cleaned of solid  sediments. This basin was filled with water,
derived in part from the previous day's rain and in part from flow from a
nearby hydrant.
The test  procedure  used was as follows: A hose and  water meter  were
connected to a nearby hydrant, so that the volume (and approximate flow
rate) of water could be measured.  The hose  outlet  discharged to the
surface of the street about six feet from  the curb and about twenty feet

-------
FIGURE 8. Rainfall Runoff Relationships for Unit Area, Chicago
4.0 -
3.5 -
3.0 -
2.5
„ 2.0
(0
_c
2
^ 1-5 -
^o
i 1.0 -
C£
A C
0







^







X
X'
;





/
^
•"""
) ;



/
/
x
/
^,

i ^
/
/
^

X
X
.--"

t ;
/ RUN
PER\



X
X"

•^

<
DFF R
IOUS /


X^

^


OM
.RE A


JNOF
FPEETS

--'


1
7



FROA/
& ML
R
. -^c
h


3 5



i DIREC
:YS
INOFI
IRECTL
ECTED





TLY
FRO/\
YCOf
ROOF







~


10 11 12
                     Rainfall in Inches
                            82

-------
TABLE 15. Types of "Storms Contributing to Storm-water Overflows
Rainfall
Interval
Inches
0 to .2
.2 to .4
.4 to .6
.6 to .8
.8 to 1.0
1.0 to 1.2
1 .2 to 1 .4
1 .4 to 1 .6
1.6 to 1.8
1.8to2.0
2.0to2.2
2.2 to 2.4
>2.4
Average
Rainfall
Inches
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
3.0
Average
Runoff
Inches
.03
.09
.15
.21
.28
.35
.42
.49
.56
.63
.70
.76
1.26
No. of
Events Per
Year
78.0
19.8
9.6
5.2
3.2
2.4
1.3
.92
.53
.36
.22
.14
.53
Average
Overflow
Inches
.015
.07
.12
.17
.23
.29
.34
.41
.47
.53
.58
.64
.91
Inches of
Overflow
Per Year
1.17
1.39
1.15
.88
.74
.70
.44
.38
.25
.19
.13
.09
.48
Cum . % of
Annual
Overflow
14.7
32.1
46.5
57.5
66.7
75.5
81.0
85.8
88.9
91.3
92.9
94.0
100.0
                                 Total Overflows  7.99"
                              83

-------
TABLE  16. Estimated Quality of Storm-water Overflows from 10-Acre (4 ha) Unit Area, Chicago
Rainfall
Interval
0 to .2
.2 to .4
.4 to .6
.6 to .8
.8 to 1.0
1 .0 to 1 .2
1.2 to 1.4
1 .4 to 1 .6
1.6 to 1.8
1.8 to 2.0
2.0 to 2. 2
2.2 to 2. 4
>2.4
Average
5-Day
BOD
mg/1
175
125
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
Average
Suspended
Solids
mg/1
290
270
250
230
210
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
5-Day
BOD per
Year
Ibs.
33.0
28.0
13.0
10.0
8.4
3.4
5.3
4.2
2.6
1.6
1.1
.8
7.9
Suspended
Solids for
Year
Ibs.
546
610
400
337
305
230
147
125
84
63
52
32
152
Cumulat
Overflow
14.1
32.1
46.5
57.5
66.7
75.5
81.0
85.8
88.9
91.3
92.9
94.0
100.0
ive % of Total
BOD
26.6
49.1
59.7
67 .7
74.5
81.3
85.5
88.9
97.0
92.3
93.1
93.7
100.0
S.S.
17.0
37.5
50.5
61.4
71.3
78.8
83.6
87.7
90.4
92.4
94.1
95.1
100.0
                                   Total  124.3        3086
                                           84

-------
from the drain. All the metered water thus flowed down the gutter to the
drain, in the same manner as rainwater would collect and flow during a
rain storm. Tests were made at various flow rates and various periods of
flow.
A stirring device was arranged so that the contents of the catch basin could
be thoroughly  mixed before each sample was taken for analysis. At the
start of each test series, a quantity of salt (NaCl), between about 15 and 45
pounds was dissolved  in water and then dumped into the catch basin and
stirred for  15 minutes. The concentration of chloride was determined by
the Bolhard method  both  at  the  beginning of the test and after  each
measured quantity of water had passed through the drain. (The volume of
the catch basin was estimated at 353 gallons.)
Test Results:
The results of the tests are tabulated in Table 17, Test Results, Catch
Basin Mixing by Incoming Flow.
The results of the tests are summarized in Figure 9, Relationship of Flow
Into Catch Basin  and Reduction of Concentration  of NaCl.  When
compared to the ideal  case of complete mixing, it  was found  that a
consistent pattern of  mixing with  some minor displacement occurred.
However,  the  results  indicate that for  all practical purposes complete
mixing occurred.
Several  samples of the liquid  retained in catch basins were obtained  in
May,  1968 after several days without rainfall. Temperatures averaged in
the sixties  during this period. The 5-day BOD of the samples was  as
follows. The location  refers to the previously described street refuse test
areas.
   Number       Location           Zoning      BOD mg/1 (ppm)
      1              1            Commercial           225
      2              1            Commercial           150
      3              1            Commercial            35
      4              2            Commercial           160
      5              2            Commercial            60
      6            16-17          Residential             50
      7            16-17          Residential             85
If the previously described 10-acre (4ha) unit area of Chicago is used as a
basis, the following  magnitude of the pollution  potential of the liquid
retained in catch basins is obtained.
The 10-acre (4 ha) area contains 20 catch basins and has 72 dwelling units
at an estimated occupancy of 3.9 persons per unit. The volume of liquid in
a catch basin is approximately 350 gallons and the BOD of the liquid is
assumed to be 60 mg/1. Therefore:
                                 85

-------
               TABLE 17.  Test Results, Catch  Basin Mixing by Incoming Flow
                              A.  Flow ot 7 CFM (1st Series)
Sample Description


1 Solt added,
stirred 6 min.
2 Stirred 7 min. more
3 After water flow

4 After water flow

Flow
(min.)

None

None
10

5

Total
(eg. ft.)

None

None
75
(562 gal.)
35
(262 gal.)
Salt
(as NaCI)
(% wt/vol .)
0.490

0.625
0.20S

0.160

Percent
Reduction


-

-
67

23

Nol-e:  The analyses of samples J_and^ indicate that possibly there was incomplete dissolving or
non-uniform distribution  of the initial  charge of rock salt at the time test 3. was started. {How-
ever, sampling the bottom of the catch basin with a long handled "spoon" after sample 4_had been
taken showed  no undissolved salt particles.)  The results of tests _3 and 4^ are considered valid, as it
is probable that all the salt  had been dissolved and uniformly dispersed by the end  of the 13
minutes stirring of test^.

In view of the possible error the tests were recommenced,  but with all salt additions made  in the
form of brine,  i.e., the salt was predissolved in a small quantity of water and  the  solution added
to the catch basin.

                                      B.  Flow at 7 CFM
5

6

7

8


9


Salt added,
stirred 15 min.
Stirred 5 min.
more
After water flow

After additional
water flow

After additional
water flow

Note: A "blank" test on the water
chloride concentiation (as NaCI) w
cent).
None

None

10

20
(additional
to test 7)
30
(additional
to test 7)
as it came from
as found to be 0
None

None

76
(570 gal.)
143
(1070 gal.)

225
(1685 gal.)

the hydrant
.0020 percer
0.610

0.626

0.165 74

0.020 38


0.028


was made at this time. The
it (probable erroi + 0.0004 per-
C. Flow ot 4 CFM
10

11

12


13

14

15
16
17
Salt added,
stirred 20 min.
Aftei water flow

After additional
water flow

Salt added,
stirred 20 min.
After water flow

Salt added,
stirred 20 min.
After water flow
After additional
wotei flow
None

20

10
(additional
to test 1 1)
None

30

D. Flow at
None
10
30
(additional
to test 1 1)
None

83
(620 gal.)
45
(336 gal.)

None

121
(905 gal.)
1 CFM
None
11
(82. 3 gal.)
33
(247 go 1.)
0.363

0.085 77

0.034 60


0.304

0.044 85

0.887
0.685 23
0.430 37
                                          86

-------
Volume of catch basin liquid (20 x 350 gal.) = 7000 gal.
BOD of catch basin liquid  =  60 mg/1 or 60 X 8.333 Ib/gal.  =  504
Ib/million gal.
Ib BOD in catch basins  = 504 Ib/mg X 7000 gal =  3.53  Ib

Population equivalent of catch basin  liquid per storm = ^, n .V3.	
                                       M    v             0.17 Ib/person
                                                       = 21 persons

r,     *  f            c              21 persons
Percent of raw sewage from area  =	
                                     282 persons = 7.5  percent

If the  population equivalent per  storm were compared  to 80 percent
secondary treatment effluent:

   PE  = 7.5 x 1°° =  37.5
                 20

The BOD loading possible from catch basin liquid when the catch basin
has been  flushed is, therefore, seven  and  one-half (7-1/2)  times that
contained in runoff water due to street litter-water contact.
The  calculated runoff through  the catch  basin for various sized  storms
based on 100 percent runoff from the catchment area  is:

                        Rainfall        Gallons/catch basin
                        0.04                156
                        0.10                390
                        0.50               1950
                        1.00               3900


Thus for rainfalls as low as 0.1 inch, over half of the BOD in the catch
basin liquid would be removed, and for 0.2 inch rain over 80 percent and
for 0.3 inch rain, 94 percent.
The  impact of this source of pollution,  following the rationale developed
in the analysis of the pollution potential of street litter and  assuming a
two-hour storm and BOD of 60 mg/1 would be:


                                                      BOD Released as
                          	Shock	        a Percent of	
  Amount      Ib  BOD       PE raw        PE          Sanitary      Treated
  of rain      release        sanitary       secondary     flow        flow
  (inches)      catch basin     sewage       treatment
                                       effluent

  0.04        .093           6.6           33           65       325
  0.10        .114            8.1           40           82       410
  0.20        .182          12.8           64           130       650
  0.30        .207          14.7           73           150       750
  0.40        .218          15.4           77           157       785
  0.50        .220          15.6           78           159       795


                                   87

-------
 FIGURE 9. Relationship of Flow Into Catch  Basin and Reduction of

                    Concentration on Salt (NaCI)
  100 -











   80 -











"S  60 -
DJ


£
U

5

c
o

J  40 -


£

c

-------
This BOD loading on storm-water flow is in addition to the BOD acquired
by the storm water on the surface. Samples were not obtained over a long
enough period of time to determine the rate of increase of BOD with time
in the catch basin. However, as the catch basins tested had been regularly
cleaned, the weather was cool, and a relatively short period had elapsed
since the preceeding rainfall, it may be assumed that the BOD used in the
calculation would be at least an average and that the BOD strength would
generally be higher during the warmer summer months.
The purpose of catch basins was to prevent sewer clogging caused by sand,
stones, and similar materials that would settle to the bottom of the sewer.
However, the quantity of sand, stone, and related materials entering catch
basins has been reduced tremendously with the provision of paved streets.
Nevertheless, significant quantities of organic matter continue to find their
way  into the catch basins in the form of leaves, grass clippings, dust and
dirt, and miscellaneous substances. During periods of appreciable rainfall
much of this material may  be expected to stay  in suspension  and pass
through the catch basin and into the sewer system. Some  of this material
remains in the basin during periods  of light rainfall or  in dry weather
periods following street-cleaning operations. In brief, significant quantities
of organic  matter are lodged in catch basins, based on visual inspection
and the odors that emanate from them.
There is little data as to the composition of solids retained in catch basins.
The City of Winnipeg, Canada,  in  1953 conducted a test of the solids in
two catch basins and found:
                                  Percent of Catch Basin Contents
                                   Number one    Number two
      Moisture                        39.4          43.3

      Solids
        organic                        3.6           4.4
        cinders & sand                  8.0          18.4
        mud                          49.0          33.9
        total solids                    60.6          56.7
Attempts were made during the study to obtain undisturbed samples of
catch-basin solids using a-tube-within-a-tube thief device. Unfortunately,
core samples could be obtained by this method from only one catch basin,
a basin that was completely  full of solids.  In all others,  the  moisture

                                 89

-------
content of the  mixture was so high that a column of solids could not 6e
lifted out of the basin in undisturbed condition for examination.
Cores taken from  the  one catch basin (one wall of which was broken)
revealed that much of the  solids had been washed in from under the
adjoining gutter. There was almost complete  classification or  hydraulic
sorting of the solids within the basin; those obtained from the  center were
composed of black, organic material, while the solids near the  sides of the
basin appeared to be of washed sand. Laboratory tests of the core material
provided the following information:


      Tests                           Organic Material      Washed Sand

      Total solids                           58.6   %          75.2  %
      Fixed solids                           45.2              62.8
      Volatile solids                         13.3              12.4
      Screen analysis
        Retained on No. 10                  33.5              6.6
        Retained on No. 16                   7.8              1.0
        Retained on No. 20                   5.0              0.8
        Retained on No. 30                   6.1              1.4
        Retained on No. 325                  47.6              90.2

      Specific gravities of screen fractions:
        No. 10                             3.250            2.692
        No. 16                             3.190            3.111
        No. 20                             3.178            3.081
        No. 30                             3.220            3.130
        No. 325                            3.237            3.515
 Catch basins containing significant quantities of organic  matter act as a
 biological treatment unit. Indeed, the catch-basin configuration is closely
 akin to that of a single-cell  septic tank.  Three functions  take place in a
 septic tank and might also be expected to take place in a catch basin:(9)
 (1)  solids  removal,  (2)  sludge and scum storage,  and (3) biological
 decomposition. However, the catch basin would be expected  to be much
 less efficient in accomplishing these objectives for reasons which  will be
 outlined below.
 The  efficiency of any anaerobic  (septic) digestion system  is  a function
 of:(10) (1) mixing, (2) solids retention time, (3) nutrient  availability, (4)
 alkalinity,  (5)  loading,  and  (6)  temperature. Biological reactions are
 encouraged when organisms are continuously  mixed  with the organic
 material. Since quiescent conditions exist in a  catch  basin  during dry
 periods, there is  little mixing. In addition, dehydration of basins during
 protracted dry spells would impede any biological digestion action. During
 rainfall periods, the entire contents of the catch basin may be agitated and
 flow  from  the basin. By comparison,  the  inflow  to  a septic tank is
 relatively uniform and the tank is baffled in order to prevent  disturbance
 of the scum blanket and sludge deposit.
 The solids retention in a catch basin depends on the rainfall  pattern and
 may vary from a few minutes during a rainstorm to several months during
 prolonged periods of insignificant runoff.

                                  90

-------
Limited field tests were undertaken to determine the change of sludge level
in a catch basin. These indicated that with a flow of 1,060 gallons in 30
minutes, the depth of sludge above the invert level was eroded 11/16 inch.
The same catch basin from which the solid cores were obtained was used
for this test. Visual observation indicated that the organic material tended
to washout in greater proportion than the heavier sand, although the two
components were still separated as previously noted.
The COD of the top layer of the solids in the catch basin was measured
before and after the washing of the solids which occurred during the test.
The initial COD was 38,300 mg/kg and the BOD was 1,750 mg/kg. After
the test  the COD was 24,900 mg/kg, a reduction of 35 percent in the top
layer material.
Light storms would  be expected to cause significant disturbance of the
sludge deposit. This  is especially  true if the  catch basins  are  cleaned
infrequently. In such cases, the catch basin would supply a smaller initial
flushout  of polluted  liquid. However, the subsequent  resuspension  of
sludge solids would serve as a continuing source of pollution during the
rainfall,  caused  by the elutriation of organics  from the disturbed and
resettled heavy sludge solids, or by the actual washout of the sludge itself.
The catch basin is a poor sedimentation device. The University of Illinois
study indicates that catch basins are prone to resuspend the  solids in the
sludge  deposits  even at moderate inflow rates.(7 8) Attempts  by  the
University group  to  baffle  a  catch basin to  improve  settling  showed
additional adverse effects.
All in all, it can be concluded that catch basins cannot satisfy efficiently
the competing  objectives of good  hydraulic characteristics and  solids
retention. If solids retention is desired then it appears that a facility for
that  specific purpose—or a dual-purpose facility to also store flows to
reduce the rate of flow should be incorporated as part of the sewer system.
The difference in sizes of catch basins could explain the variance that has
been  observed  in  overflow pollutant-concentration time. In cities with
large  catch basins, the length  of time  for the  flushing  effect would be
longer. Conversely, cities with smaller catch basins would be expected to
have a more uniform concentration of pollutants  due to the shorter time of
discharge of the basin water in this first flush,  and then the subsequent
discharge of resuspended sludge bed solids.

Field Test of Storm-Water Runoff

An attempt was made to correlate the amount and strength of pollution of
street litter with the  pollution in storm-water runoff as it reached a catch
basin. A mobile sampling trailer (described in the following section, chem-
icals) was placed adjacent to a catch basin in a residential neighborhood
on the  north side of the city. The City  of Chicago has done extensive
research  in rainfall-runoff relationships in  this  immediate area.   A
recording rain gauge and a flow meter on the combined sewer are both
in place and connected to the Public Works Department office in down-
town Chicago.

                                 91

-------
Samples were obtained by placing a 10-gallon receptacle on a stand within
the catch basin so that the lip of the receptacle was six inches under the
grate on the catch basin. Plastic was used around the curb side of the inlet
to funnel runoff  into the  receptacle.  A screen was placed  over the
receptacle to strain out leaves and vegetation and a siphon was constructed
within the receptacle to aid in obtaining at any one time a representative
sample.
The sample controls were activated upon the collection of 0.04 inches of
rainfall in a 12  X  12 inch pan, concentrated in a 2  X 3 inch receiving
basin.
Throughout the  tests,  mechanical failures  of various types occurred.
Insufficient samples were obtained to determine relationships between the
amount of street litter and the pollution of storm-water runoff with time
and intensity of precipitation.
The following  laboratory results were obtained from  samples collected
during the testing period.

Date
July
"
Aug.
11
"


Date
Sept.
11
"
"

"



26
26
1
1
3



20
20
20
20

20

Time From
Beginning
of Runoff
0
5 Min.
0
15 Min.
0


Time
5 Min.
15 Min.
25 Min.
Composite
30-60 Min.
Composite
70-130 Min.
Plate Count
(Colonies/ml)
120
94




BOD
mg/1
185
90
20
65

40

,000
,000
250
670
240

COD
mg/1
588
216
59
267

114

Coliform organism
(confirmed MPN/
100 ml)
70,000
49,000
23
240
240
Total
Nitrogen
pH (as N-mg/1)
7.3 7.50
7." 6.60
7.3 9.70
7.6 10.00

6.8 4.60

Fecal Enter-
cocci (con-
firmed MPN/
100 ml)
240
0
0
23
23
Total
Phosphate
(as PO4-mg/l)
0.40
0.10
0.80
4.40

2.80








Dissol-
ved Sol-
ids mg/1
—
—
—
228

141

 Throughout the testing period, large  amounts  of leaves restricted the
 operation by their presence in the sampling receptacle. On November 3,
 leaves from the area, primarily oak and elm, were sampled by macerating
 them to a puree for 10 minutes in a  Waring blender, using 100 ml of
 distilled water/5g of leaves. The 20-day BOD and COD of the supernatant
 liquor were:
   20 Day BOD =  25.4 mg/g of sample
   20 Day COD =  26.9 mg/g of sample
 Thus the presence of vegetation, and leaves in particular, could exert a
 strong BOD load  when allowed to  decompose in a catch basin  or in
 standing water in the street gutter.

                                 92

-------
 Summary

 Catch basins may be one of the most important single sources of pollution
 from storm-water flows. Tests of catch basins indicates that the stagnant
 pool of water in the basins is polluted. For  Chicago catch basins the
 maximum sump depth is 54 inches, providing the basins when cleaned are
 completely emptied. Based on averages for the entire city the depth of the
 sludge deposit when cleaned would be about nine inches as indicated in
 Table 18, Trends in Catch Basin Cleaning Practices; the expected depth of
 the  sludge  deposit is only four to five inches  for Chicago catch  basins.
 Consequently, it  would be expected that light storms would not cause
 significant  disturbance of this  sludge deposit so the majority  of the
 pollution from these catch basins can be attributed to the first flush of the
 runoff. However, practice seems to vary between complete cleaning and
 removal to only 24 inches below the outlet pipe invert. Because the data
 reflects average values, some catch basins in critical locations, such  as near
 the  beach or at underpasses, may be cleaned very frequently and catch
 basins in other areas may receive infrequent cleaning.
                          References

 1. AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION, Street Cleaning Practice.
   Chicago, Illinois. 1959.
 2. FOLWELL, A. P., Sewerage. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. 1900.
 3. METCALF. L. and H. P. EDDY.  American Sewerage Practice. Volume
   I, Design  of Sewers. McGraw-Hill Book Company,  Incorporated.
   1914.
 4. FAIR, G. M., J. C. GEYER, and D. A. OKUN. Water and Wastewater
   Engineering. Vol. I John Wiley & Sons, New York 1966.
 5. GARRY, T. D.  (Supt. of Sewers).  "History of Chicago  Sewers."
   Chicago, Illinois. 1941.
 6. HARZA  ENGINEERING COMPANY,  and BAUER  ENGINEERING,
   INCORPORATED.  Flood and Pollution  Control:  A Deep Tunnel Plan
   For the  Chicagoland Area.  1966.
 7. MAHAN, R. D. "Flow Characteristics of a Catch Basin." M.S. Thesis.
   University of Illinois. 1949.
 8. Unknown. "1:2  Model-Toe of Slope  and Pavement Edge Gutters and
   Structures." Unpublished Memorandum Report No. 5, Cooperative
   Research, Highway Drainage. University of Illinois. 1952.
 9. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE Manual  of Septic Tank Practice. P.H.S.
   Publication No. 526.  1957.
10. LOEHR, R. C.   "Design of Anaerobic Digestion Systems." Journal of
   the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proc.  American Society of Civil
   Engineers. Vol. 92, No. SAk. 1966.
                                93

-------
TABLE 18. Trends in Catch Basin Cleaning Practices,  Chicago
          (Cu Yds of Material Removed/Catch Basin)
Number
of
Catch
Basins
in
Place
in
Year 1000's
1947 187.
1949 188.
1950 188.
1951 188.5
1952 189.
1959 197.5
1960 200.5
Method of Catch-Basin Cleaning
Hand
Number Cubic Cubic
Cleaned Yard Yard/
in in Catch
1000's 1000's Basin
165 .50 82
210 .48 101
147 .50 73
158 .50 79
254 .33 84
338 .29 97
339 .29 99
Eductor
Number Cubic Cubic
Cleaned Yard Yard/
in in Catch
1000's 1000's Basin
43 34 .79
52 39 .75
50 38 .74
50 36 .72
51 37 .73
90 44 .49
91 44 .48
Orange Peel
Number Cubic Cubic
Cleaned Yard Yard/
in in Catch
1000's 1000's Basin
0 0 -
0 0 -
0 0 -
0 0 -
0 0 -
66 33 .50
75 35 .47
Total
Number Cubic Cubic
Cleaned Yard Yard/
in in Catch
1000's 1000's Basin
198 116 .59
262 140 .53
197 111 .56
208 115 .55
305 121 .40
494 174 .35
505 178 .35


Cubic
Annual Yard/
Fre- Catch
quency Basin
1.11 .66
1 .39 .74
1 .05 .59
1.10 .60
1.61 .64
2.50 .87
2.50 .87

-------
                             Chemicals
Some forms of urban storm water runoff pollution occur as the result of
man's deliberate efforts to  solve other pressing  environment problems.
Increasing use of chemicals for control purposes offers a case in point.
Such  purposes include:  (1) control  of snow and  ice  on  streets and
highways, (2) prevention of corrosion from chemicals used for snow and
ice control, and (3) use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers to control
unwanted insect infestations or  to aid  and stimulate plant and  other
vegetative growths.
Pollution from the above listed sources is of relatively  recent origin. The
use of salt (sodium chloride) and calcium chloride for snow and ice control
is a recent innovation in governmental practice. The need for corrosion-
prevention additives  followed the use of salt. The market for pesticides,
herbicides, other chemical inhibitors and for fertilizer used by government
and local residents has expanded rapidly with the increased urbanization
following World War II.

 Salt and Calcium Chloride

 The two chemicals which public jurisdictions have come to rely upon in
 very recent years for control of snow and ice are salt and calcium chloride.
 Salt is very effective in melting snow, preventing icing conditions,  and
 breaking the bond between the pavement and the snow at temperatures
 down to about 20 °F. However, many jurisdictions find salt effective to 5
 to 10°F where there are large volumes of fast traffic. Calcium chloride  is
 generally used alone at temperatures below  10°F and  in the temperature
 range of  10 to 20° F a combination  of sodium  and calcium chloride  is
 often used.
 Use of these  chemicals has replaced the widespread use of sand  and
 cinders, and it has supplanted the plowing of light snow. Their use has had
 a demonstrable effect in reducing accidents and public inconvenience. The
 Salt Institute  estimates that salt use has increased each year during the
 period 1961 to  1965. 0) For the winter of 1964 to 1965  it is estimated
 that 5,000,000 tons of salt were used by all agencies for snow and ice
 control. Of this total, one million tons were used directly by cities; state
 highway departments, counties and toll-road authorities used 3,600,000
 tons—a portion of which was used within urban areas.  The use of calcium
 chloride averages about five percent of the weight of salt used.
 Typical applications of salt vary from  100  pounds  to 2,000 pounds per
 lane mile.  The average single application is from 200  to 400 pounds per
 lane mile. During  a winter season several states apply as much as 20 tons
 per  lane  mile.  Toll  road  authorities appear to be  using  the greatest
 applications.
 Runoff containing these chemicals has had an  effect upon the immediate
 environs. Thirteen states have  reported damage to vegetation and twelve
states have reported pollution  caused by chemical intrusion into surface
and ground water sources. (2)
                                 95

-------
Street  trees in the City of Chicago are reported to have been killed or
stunted by the effects of salt. A great deal of research on the effects of salt
on  trees  and grasses  has  been conducted to identify  salt-resistant or
salt-tolerant  strains which  may be used  in areas  subject to snow-melt
runoff. The  Department of  Agronomy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute,
currently  has a project underway for the National Cooperative Research
Program,  Highway Research Board, National Academy of Science-Na-
tional Research Council. (2)
In addition to their effects on plants, there is increasing evidence that salt
is changing the aquatic environment of small  lakes that receive highway
drainage.  A  study by the Wisconsin Committee  on Water Pollution (3)
reports that three lakes near Madison where the known sources of the inlet
waters had not been altered have experienced a four to eight-fold buildup
in salt concentration although the concentration at this time has still not
reached dangerous levels. John A. Judd (4) has reported on the changes in
the ecology of a lake located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The disappearance
of  bottom  organisms  and  changes  in  the  benthic  population  may
significantly reduce the ability  of the lake to recover from temperature
overturns  resulting in reduction in oxygen levels.
During the winter of  1966 to  1967, field investigations were made to
determine the chloride content of the storm-water discharge from a section
of the Kennedy  Expressway in downtown  Chicago. The drainage is
sharply defined and excellent controls were available to ensure that only
water from the specific area was sampled. The  total area was 101.8 acres,
including  52 acres of impervious terrain. All discharges were pumped
from the highway sewer collection system to an intercepting sewer of the
Metropolitan Sanitary Sewer District of Greater Chicago.
To obtain the runoff samples, a mobile sampling trailer, developed at the
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering  Center was used.  The sampler
permitted the collection  of up to 72 one-gallon samples,  taken at
controllable time intervals.  Samples were taken from a wet well in which
two 350-gpm sump pumps are located. A sample was  taken each time
approximately 3,000 gallons of liquid  had accumulated  in the sump. If
there was  continuous flow an additional sample was taken each half hour.
Individual samples  were  composited  daily  for  laboratory  analyses.
Separate  hourly samples were  taken when possible during  periods of
salting.
This section  of the expressway is maintained  by  the Illinois Division of
Highways. In the winter of 1966 to 1967, approximately 17.6 tons of salt
per lane mile were used. This amount does not include the quantities of
salt used  during the major snow of January  26 when records were not
maintained. The usual  individual application  was 200  pounds per lane
mile. The testing program began February 16 and was completed April 1.
During the period February 16 to April 1, 14.1 inches of snow fell and
126 tons of salt were used in the test area. Equipment failures invalidated
the information obtained from February  16 to February 23, a period when
76  tons  of  salt  were  used. Except for  periods  of the most  severe
temperatures, an infiltration flow of at least 45 gpm was experienced.

                                96

-------
During periods when salting was not conducted, the chloride concentration
ranged from 1,900 to 4,500 ppm, with an average of about 2,000 ppm.
Flows during this period were  as high  as 0.3 cfs. During periods of
snowfall, chloride concentrations of  11,000 to  25,000  ppm were found,
with an average of about 14,000 ppm. Flow varied from 0.1 to 1.5 cfs.
From Table 19, Analyses of Flow,  Salt Applied, and Salt Discharged,
Kennedy Expressway February 23 to April 1, 1967, it may be noted that
for the  period  February 24  to  April  1,  101,600 pounds of salt were
applied and that 105,800 pounds of salt were discharged,  (a) The results
are shown  graphically in Figure 10, Salt Applied as Compared to Salt
Discharged, Kennedy Expressway, February 24  April  1,  1967. Previous
studies on  highway runoff have indicated  that only  one-half of the  salt
applied was discharged. In this urban area it appears that salt recovery is
very high.
Associated with the use of salt for snow and ice control is the use of ferric
ferrocyanide (prussian blue), which  is added  to  salt to prevent caking.
Prussian blue is insoluble in  water and  thus does not contribute to
pollution. However, some jurisdictions have also used sodium  ferrocya-
nide (yellow prussiate of potash). This compound notably is soluble in
water but releases cyanide in the presence of sunlight.
Another  problem  that has  accompanied  the  necessary  use of  salt is
accelerated corrosion  of vehicles. Two  chemical additives have been
marketed to reduce the corrosion effects  of salt. To date,  there has been
limited use of these chemicals because of the extra cost, a lack of reliable
statistical evidence that corrosion is reduced, and the lack of agreement of
adjacent  jurisdictions to  use the material. For several years a sodium
hexametaphosphate material has been used by some jurisdictions. How-
ever, its phosphate content acts as a nutrient in receiving waters  and
thus contributes to pollution by speeding eutrophication.
In recent years  a sodium chromate product, employing a hexavalent form
of chromium has been used by some jurisdictions. Hexavalent chromium
is toxic, and its  presence in water used for drinking is limited to 0.05 mg/1.
Field tests were conducted in Harvey,  Illinois, in  February, 1967 to
determine the concentration of hexavelent chromium in the melted snow
along the gutter. Concentrations of less than 0.01 mg/1 were found.
During  the course of another  research  project  being directed by  the
APWA   in Minneapolis, Minnesota to  determine  the effectiveness of
sodium  chromate as a corrosion inhibitor, samples of gutter water  and
slush were analyzed. Concentrations of hexavalent chromium ranging
from 0.1 to 116 mg/1 were found. During extensive testing of the product
in  Minneapolis and  Hennepin  County  in  earlier  years,  the highest
concentration of hexavalent  chromium  found was  1.689  mg/1  in  the
receiving stream. (5)
In addition to salt, other chemicals have been used to melt snow and ice.
The primary ingredient in these compounds are urea and ammonia nitrate.
(a)Some of the salt applied prior to February 24 was discharged during this runoff
period.

                                97

-------
TABLE 19. Analysis of Flow, Salt Applied, and Salt Discharged
  John F. Kennedy Expressway, February 23 to April 6, 1967
Date
2/23
24
25
26
27
28
V 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
V 1
2
3
4
5
6
Daily
Flow
(g°l.)
28,080
30,660
41,040
45,800
59,850
55,600
42,800
33,050
44,640
39,000
38,780
37,200
22,600
20,700
31,310
57,660
76,200
43,400
69,160
44,100
54,180
26,550
27,800
17,400
15,700
193,750
105,300
44,640
44,640
77,800
44,640
46,000
159,500
41,000
25,400
25,000
186,200
1,001,550
171,900
380,500
45,000
46,000
41,000
Average
Chloride Salt
Concentration Applied
(ppm) (Ibs.)

25,100 16,100
6,900
6,900
6,900
3,400
2,700
3,000
1,900
2,700 24,200
2,700
4,250
4,350
4,100
3,250
2,100
2,040
2,040
2,040
2,398
9,970 29,100
4,030
4,870
4,920
4,920 32,200
4,920
1,800
2,750
1,420
2,300
2,660
2,170
2,300
2,300
2,435
2,485
2,085
350
350
350
1,795
1,995
1,995
Total
Salt Salt
Applied Discharged
(Ibs.) (Ibs.)

16,100 10,400
3,840
4,280
5,600
2,560
1,570
1,340
1,150
40,300 1,430
1,430
2,140
1,330
1,150
1,380
1,640
2,110
1,200
1,920
1,430
69,400 9,490
1,450
1,830
1,160
101,600 1,050
12,900
2,570
1 ,660
850
2,430
1,600
1,350
4,970
1,280
840
840
5,250
4,700
810
1,800
1,100
1 ,240
1,110
Total Salt
Discharged
(Ibs.)

10,400
14,240
18,520
24,120
26,680
28,250
29,590
30,740
32,170
33,600
35,740
37,070
38,220
39,600
41,240
43,350
44,550
46,470
47,900
52,390
53,840
55,670
56,830
57,880
70,780
73,350
75,010
75,860
78,290
79,890
81,240
86,210
87,490
88,330
89,170
94,420
99,120
99,930
101,730
102,830
104,070
105,180
                           98

-------
FIGURE 10. Salt Applied as Compared to Salt Discharged, Kennedy
               Expressway Feb. 24-April 1, 1967
100 000
90 000
80 000
70 000
60 000 -
50 000

30 000
on nnn
in nnn































/
/
1

24
Feb.

SA









X




.T APR




^
X




JED -




'

f






-9-






/

f








/







1
A
/








1 6 11 16 21! 26
March

.LT Dl!









"April
                                                    CHARGED
                            99

-------
Both of these act as nutrients in receiving bodies of water. Use of such
chemicals is common on airports because salt is corrosive to airplanes.
In recent years the sale of products to individual homeowners for use on
sidewalks  has  greatly  increased.  Calcium chloride  is  the principal
household  chemical, although ammonium nitrate  and potassium pyro-
phosphate  compounds are also  sold. While these are  used, it can  be
expected that receiving waters will be affected by them during periods of
snow melt.
Pesticides, Herbicides, and Fertilizers

Use of chemical formulations such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers
have  become  a matter  of  increasing concern with  respect  to  their
concentrations in runoff from treated areas.  Two distinct problems are
recognized: (1) many synthetic organic chemicals used for control of pests
or plant growth are extremely toxic and in addition resist degradation to
less toxic forms, and (2)  some of these chemicals contribute to nutrient
enrichment of receiving waters and thus stimulate algae  growths—and
otherwise promote natural eutrophication processes.
A national survey was carried out, as part of this project, to ascertain the
type and extent of the use of chemicals for various environmental control
purposes  by municipal agencies. The  questionnaire  sought  details on
chemical  usage for pesticide and herbicide purposes, and for  fertilizer
functions.  The inquiry  was  sent  to  about 500 municipalities. The
questionnaire form  used in the survey is included in appendix D.
Findings ot tne survey are disclosed in the following evaluation of the
pertinent data.
The questionnaire,  which was  returned by  118 cities, was analyzed in
three areas of chemical usage:  (1)  pesticides and insecticides  (excluding
rodent control), (2) herbicides,  and  (3) chemical fertilizers. The analyses
took into account geographic location and size of the city. The distribution
of answers received with respect to area and population grouping is shown
in the following tabulation.

                               Size  of City
Part of
Country
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
0-
10,000
0
0
0
0
0
10,001-
25,000
7
4
9
1
6
25,001-
100,000
17
8
15
4
15
100,001-
1,000,000
10
3
3
6
8
Over
1,000,001
1
0
1
0
0
Total
35
15
28
11
29
 TOTAL
                      27
                                 59
                                             30
                                                                 118
                                 100

-------
Almost 90 percent of the cities responding to the questionnaire reported
the use of chemicals to control pests and insects. While the use of a great
variety of chemicals was reported, only four were found to be used with
any  regularity throughout the  country.  The four—carbaryl  (sevin),
chlorodene, DDT, and melathion—were reportedly used in from 21 to 49
percent of the cities, depending  upon city size. For details see Table 20,
Use of Pesticides and Insectcides.
The tabulated chart indicates that there is great variation in use of certain
type of chemicals  depending upon  geographic location.  Melathion, the
most commonly used  pesticide, is used by 66 percent  of the cities in the
Far West, but only  37 percent of the cities in the Midwest. The East and
the Midwest reported  the use of DDT more frequently  than in other parts
of the country. However, only seven percent of the cities in the Midwest
used chlorodene and the same percentage used carbaryl.  In comparison,
45 percent of the cities in the Southwest and 37 percent of the cities in the
East used chlorodene  and carbaryl respectively. The percentage of cities
using pesticides increases with increasing city size.
Trends of future pesticide and insecticide may be gauged by the fact that
the reporting cities  planned to either increase or continue similar use of
over two-thirds of the  chemicals  presently  used, while  an  expected
decrease in usage was  reported for only eight percent of the chemicals now
used. Nearly 90 percent of the reporting cities used pesticides on public
lands, 43 percent of the  cities on parkways,  and slightly over 10 percent
on private lands.
Herbicides

Use  of herbicides  was  reported by  nearly 85  percent of  the  cities
responding to the questionnaire.  In contrast to the pesticides situations
where little difference could be noted in their use by either size of city or
geographic location, a fairly  wide  geographic  variation in the use. of
herbicides was found. Nearly 30 percent of the cities in the Midwest and
23 percenf of those in  the East  stated  they  did not use herbicides,
contrasted with less than ten percent of the remaining cities.
Of the many chemicals listed, only  one received widespread usage as a
herbicide throughout the country. Over 50 percent of the cities reported
the use of 2, 4D as part of their program to  inhibit unwanted plant growth.
The percentage of cities using 2, 4D varied from 33 percent in the South
to 64 percent in the Southwest. Usage also increased with increasing city
size. Cities reported that 45 percent of the herbicides presently used would
receive increased usage in the future and only 10 percent decreased usage.
                                101

-------
TABLE 20. Use of Pesticides and Insecticides
     Future Planned Use
                                          Where Used
City Size

0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
Over 1,000,000
TOTAL
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
Over 1,000,000
TOTAL
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
Over 1,000,000
TOTAL
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
Over 1,000,000
TOTAL
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
No. Using


3
11
10
1
25

13
1
2
1
8



3
17
9
1
30

9
5
2
5
9



6
19
14
2
41

15
2
12
3
9



12
27
18
1
58

14
8
11
6
19
Increased Same Decreased

-
1
3
5

9

3
1
1
1
3



1
4
5

10

3


3
3



3
4
3
1
11

1
1
4
1
4



5
15
6

26

5
3
4
3
11
Carbaryl (Sevin)

2
4 1
3 1
-
9 2

6 2

1

2
Chlorodane


2
7 2
3 2

12 4

4
3 1
1
1 1
4 1
DDT


2
7 4
5 1
1
15 5

8 4

4 1
1
3
Malathion


5
7 1
8
1
21 1

7
3
3
2
6 1
Parkway


3
5
6
1
15

8
1
1
1
4



2
5
3

10


4

2
4



4
9
9
2
24

6
1
9
2
6



9
12
8
1
30

7
2
5
3
12
Public Land


2
9
8
1
20

10
1
2

7



1
15
7
1
24

8
1
2
5
8



6
18
12
2
38

14
2
11
3
8



11
25
15

51

10
7
10
6
18
Private Land

_

1
1

2

1
_
1

1




3
1
-
4

2



2



2
3
2

7

3

2
1




3
3
3
1
10

3

4
1
2
                    102

-------
Fertilizers

Use of chemical  fertilizers  was reported by  80 percent of the cities
surveyed. However, their use varied from over 90 percent of the cities in
the Far West to less than 70 percent of the cities in the Midwest; from 60
percent of the cities with populations of less than 25,000 to almost 90
percent of the cities with populations of greater than 100,000.
Fertilizers are generally purchased on  the  basis of their plant-nutrient
content, which is  referred  to  by the name of the formulation.  These
formulation numbers specify the percentage of nitrogen (N), phosphate
(PzOs), and potash (K.2O), in that order, contained in the fertilizer. (For
example, a 4-12-4 fertilizer  would contain 4%  N, 12% PgOs,  and  4%
K.2O, and would have  a plant-nutrient content equal to the sum of those
figures, or 20 percent.) The purchase of fertilizers with higher concentra-
tions of plant nutrients decreases the volume of fertilizer which must be
purchased to obtain the desired nutrient value for the land being covered.
For this reason, it  was felt that evaluations of the use of fertilizers could
not be done simply on the basis of product or amount used.
                            References

 1.  "Use of Salt for  Snow and  Ice  Control  in  the  United States  and
    Canada." Salt Institute.  Report HI-66. 1966.
 2.  HANES, R.  E., ZELAZNY, L. W.,  and BLASER, R.  E.  "Effects of
    Deicing Salts on Roadside Plants and Water Supplies." Department of
    Agronomy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Blackburg, Virginia. 1967.
 3.  SCHRANFNAGEL, F. H. "Chlorides." Wisconsin Committee on Water
    Pollution Monograph. August, 1965.
 4.  JUDD,  JOHN A.  "Affect  of Salts from Street  Runoff  on  Benthic
    Organisms." University  of Wisconsin. Milwaukee. 1967.
 5.  "Toxicity and Pollution Study of Carguard Chemicals 1965-1966."
    Cargill, Incorporated. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1966.
                                103

-------
                            Air Pollution

The three pollution-causing  interfaces have been defined in this study
report as air, ground surface,  and the storm water drainage facility. In this
section, sources of pollution at the air interface will be considered.
Air pollution is a source of storm-water pollution that cannot be ignored
in evaluating the composition of runoff. Control of air pollution may also
result  in water pollution and thus add to the polluting effects of combined
sewer  overflows.
General

Air contaminants exist in the form of particulates (aerosols) and gases. A
substantial amount of air pollution is of natural origin—weathering, dust
storms,  forest fires, volcanic eruptions—and is relatively uncontrollable.
In  most communities, however,  the  significant harmful air pollution is
manmade—resulting from  mining, refining, manufacturing, incineration,
construction, and combustion of fuels for power production, heating, and
automotive power. It is  largely controllable by improved design, opera-
tion, and  maintenance of  equipment for which proper technology now
exists. Although the cost  of control equipment varies from a fraction up to
 100 percent of that of the process equipment,  this cost can be offset in
some cases by the value of the products reclaimed or salvaged from the
raw gas emissions, or through improved combustion efficiencies.
The U.S. Public Health Service has identified five  principal categories of
air pollutants: carbon monoxide, sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrocar-
bons,  and particulate matter.  Table 21  lists for  the United  States the
estimated  contribution in millions of tons of air pollutants from motor
vehicles, industry, power plants, space heating, and refuse disposal. Motor
vehicles, industry, and power plants are the largest sources of pollution.
Industry is-estimated to contribute one-half of the particulates.
       TABLE 21.  Annual Emissions of Air Pollution Constituents
Motor Vehicles

Industry

Power Plants

Space Heating

Refuse Disposal
                   Carbon
                  Monoxide
          Sulfur
         Oxides
Nitrogen
 Oxides
 Hydro-
carbons
Particulate
  Matter
             (in millions of tons)

66          1         6         12         1

 29246

 1         12         3          13

 23111

 1          1         1          1         1
                           Source: U.S.P.H.S.
                                  104

-------
Dustfalls

Particulates are minute separate particles (aerosols) of matter or liquid
varying in size from 0.1 to 100 microns or larger (1  micron = 1/25,400
in.). Relatively heavy particles settle out readily at varying distances from
the source of emission to the atmosphere depending on their size, specific
gravity,  and climatic conditions.  To  illustrate, the approximate settling
rates of spherical particulates with specific gravity of one (1) are:
a.  Particulates less than 1 micron in size have a rate of settlement ranging
   from 0.0 to 0.1 feet per minute and consequently remain more or less
   permanently in the atmosphere.
b.  Particulates  varying from  1 to  100 microns in  size have a rate of
   settlement ranging from .01 to 100  feet per minute and stay only
   temporarily  in the atmosphere. These particulates form the  bulk of
   suspended solids.
c.  Particulates above 100 microns in size have a rate of settlement ranging
   from 100 to 1000 feet per minute. Consequently they settle  out readily
   at varying  distances  from  point  of emission,  depending on  wind
   velocities and other  atmospheric conditions. These are the particulates
   that comprise dustfalls.
Total annual dustfall in urban areas ranges from 500 to 900  tons per
square mile. Present air-quality objectives call  for a range varying from
120 for rural areas to 700 for  heavy industrialized areas. Dustfalls are of
concern mostly because  of their  potential  injury to property, and their
effect on human comfort and convenience. However, intermittent flushing
of dustfall into storm and combined sewers and surface waters lays claim
for concern because of its potential  injurious  effect and  the necessary
attendant costs it may impose for removal by treatment processes.

Suspended Solids
As previously  noted, particles finer than  10 microns normally stay in
suspension unless they increase in weight and  size by agglomeration or
electrostatic attraction  and thus precipitate as dustfall,  unless they are
washed out (scavenged) by rain,  snow,  or  ice precipitation. Particulates
removed below the clouds are termed  "washouts"  and are carried out
mostly by the inertial impact action of rain and snow droplets which range
in size from 0.1 to 3.0 mm. in diameter. Particles removed from within the
clouds are termed "rainouts" and are carried out mostly by electrostatic
effects and by nucleation.
Findings from  the National Air Sampling Network (NASN) in more than
300  cities indicate that the concentration of suspended particulates has
been slowly decreasing from a mean in  1957 of 120 to a low  in  1963 of
100  micrograms  per cubic meter. Their organic content  approximated
seven percent  by weight. Present air-quality objectives call for  a range
from  40  for rural areas to about 100  for  heavily  industrialized areas.
Although  suspended particulates comprise  only about one percent by
weight of the six major gaseous pollutants, they are significant  because of
                                105

-------
their potential impact on health. They act as  a vehicle for transmitting
absorbed toxic gases into lungs and other vulnerable parts of the body.
Noxious Gases

The six major gaseous pollutants are sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen
dioxide, total hydrocarbons,  carbon monoxide, and  total oxidant. Al-
though less obvious than dust,  smoke, and fly  ash, the impact of these
gaseous pollutants on vegetation and animal life can be more injurious and
far-reaching. Scavenging of these gases by rain  and ice precipitation is a
process of molecular diffusion of the gas to the  water or ice surface. The
washout coefficient  (fraction  washed out per unit of time) for gases is
directly proportional to the rate of rainfall. These washed-out gases also
create pollution of storm-water runoff.
Composition of Suspended Solids

A  summary  analysis of  17,608  samples  (14,494 urban and  3,114
nonurban) collected during 1957 to 1961 by the National Air Sampling
Network  is shown in Table 22, Mean and Maximum  Concentration of
Selected Particulate Contaminants.
Air Pollution Abatement Equipment

Particulate matter can be removed by filtration, precipitation, wash-water
entrainment, or centrifugal force. Gaseous substances can be removed by
liquid scrubbing, vapor recovery, combustion, and absorption.
The liquid wastes from water-using control processes, such as wet-bottom
subsidence  chambers  and  from  scrubbers,  both commonly  used on
pollution  abatement equipment,  is a  potential source  of pollution.
Discharge of such contaminated waters  into storm or combined sewers
further degrades the quality of storm-water discharges or overflows. Local
regulations on sewer use, if-enforced, will dictate the methods used for the
treatment, and/or reclamation, of such air pollution control waste waters,
and their points of disposal.
            Relationship Between Air-Pollution Control
               and Urban Water Pollution Potential

The 1967 Clean Air Act provides additional impetus to the installation of
air-pollution control devices. Installations that use water in the control
process could add to the pollutional characteristics and volumes of flow in
combined sewers. Without adequate  in-house treatment, discharge of the

                                106

-------
             TABLE 22.  Minimum and Maximum Concentrations
                    of Selected Particulate Contaminants

                               1957 to 1961

                       (Micrograms per cubic meter)

                                      Urban                  Nonurban

Suspended particulates ....
Benzene-soluble organics. . .
Nitrates 	
Sulfates 	




Cobalt 	


Lead . 	


Nickel
Tin


Zinc

Mean
104
7.6
1.7
9.6
(a)
(a)
(a)
0.020
(a)
0.04
1 .5
0.6
0.04
(a)
0.028
0 03
0 03
(crt
0 01
b4.6
Maximum Mean Maximum
1706 27 461
123.9 1.5 23.55
24.8 	
94.0 	
0.230 	
0.032 	
0.170 	
0.998 	
0.003 	
2.50 	
45.0 	
6.3 	
2.60 	
0.34 	
0.830 	
1 .00 	
1.14 	
1 .200 	
8.40 	
b5435.0 	
a. Less than minimum detectable quantity.
b. Picocuries per cubic meter.
                                   107

-------
flows to  other sewer systems would also result in pollution  of receiving
bodies.
Industrial-waste disposal and sewer  use ordinances  of a municipality
should propose  limitations on the effluent quality of such discharges. In
addition, it appears desirable to establish service charges for handling such
discharges on the basis of quantity and quality of effluents. The value of
reclaiming and reusing water and byproducts merits consideration.
Specific Examination of the Problem

Two  efforts  were  made  to  add  greater  specificity  to the  general
information available on the impact of air pollution on the water-pollution
potentials of urban  environment wastes. These two efforts were planned
as:
1. A survey  of manufacturers of air pollution control  equipment to
   ascertain from  them  the practices  of  users  of  their processes  and
   products  in eliminating aerial discharges  and in preventing water
   pollution caused  by the discharge of waste waters to public sewers from
   stack scrubbing and other water-using operations.
2. A survey of typical industrial and commercial operations in a "typical"
   community—-Chicago, Illinois—to determine in actual practice what
   water-using operations are employed for air pollution control purposes
   and the methods  used  for disposal of their waste waters.
Information of this nature was not found, with any specificity which could
be translated into water pollution potential of urban environmental wastes,
despite an earnest search of available literature on air pollution control
practices. It must be  recorded at the outset that efforts to consummate
these two phases of research were not successful. However, the rationale
for the two-faceted  study and the means outlined for  approaching these
fact-finding tasks are  placed on record in  this report.  They point to the
need for a more detailed and intensive effort to uncover information of
this nature.
The current commitment to improve air  pollution control on national,
state,  interstate, and local levels will  lead  to increased cleansing of
airborne emissions.  This  effort could  result in an increase in water-pollu-
tion at a time when preservation of the nation's water resources is a matter
of major concern.
The fact is there is little reliable information available on the relationship
between water based  air pollution control devices  and water pollution
resulting from  the disposal of waste waters produced by such operations.
While impact on water pollution may be small, nevertheless it should be
evaluated particularly  in terms of the  increased large volumes of flow that
may be introduced into combined sewers and thus increase the number of
overflow incidents and their duration.
                                 108

-------
Manufacturers' Survey

During January,  1968 an  effort  was  made  to obtain  from leading
manufacturer of air pollution control equipment information on the use of
water-based facilities and the extent of treatment and reuse of such spent
waters prior to disposal into sewers or water course. Six manufacturers
submitted pertinent catalogs and bulletins on this subject, and additional
data were made  available for study from other sources. In general, the
manufacturers could supply little or no information on what treatment is
given waste waters from stack-cleansing operations by the purchasers and
users of  their equipment and processes. It was their  view that their
responsibility and authority ended with the proper and effective applica-
tion, installation and operation of the facilities they supplied.
However, a number of manufacturers pointed out that they offered their
customers water  treatment equipment for the purpose of purifying stack
waste waters and reusing these waters and  reclaiming  any  intercepted
end-products of stack washing operations.
This "dead-end" dearth of information from manufacturers'  sources has
emphasized  the  need for  a  specific study of water-using industrial  air
pollution control measures by representative industries.
 Survey of Industry Practices

 To meet this need, the project study made an effort to obtain the specific
 industry information referred to above. However, the help of governmen-
 tal agencies  involved  in  regulating  sewer  connections was  deemed
 necessary. At a meting with representatives of The Metropolitan Sanitary
 District of Greater Chicago and the Department of Air Pollution Control,
 City of Chicago it was learned that:
 1. Inasmuch as combined sewers are used, all wastes are allowed into the
   sewers, namely no  effect is made to separate "clean" wastes from the
   flow requiring treatment
 2. No records are available as to which industries have in-house treatment
   facilities for discharges from air pollution control operations
 3. Industrial  plants do not separate their  waste systems as there  is no
   direct charge for the treatment of wastes based on volume or strength
 4. Where water is used in air pollution control  devices either process
   water or "clean" water is used and most systems are "closed" without a
   suitable spot for obtaining  samples, and
 5. Departmental policy would not  make cooperation possible in finding
   locations which might readily be sampled. No authorization exists for
   the city to sample  such waste streams and the policies of the sanitary
   district are to sample only at the sewer connection and not to publish
   any data which would identify products or processes conducted by the
   industry.
 It was  therefore determined that  within the  resources  of the  present
 project, the study could not be undertaken.

                                109

-------
                        The Sewer System
Storm  water  in  built-up  urban  areas  usually  is  transported  by an
underground conduit from  a curb inlet to the point of disposal  in a
receiving body. In this process, storm water may be further polluted by the
nature of the conduit or by the  maintenance practices and rules and
regulations of the local jurisdiction.
Storm water in combined sewers will mix with the normal flow of sanitary
sewage and transport previously deposited solids.  Combined sewers and
combined sewer regulators  must be adequately maintained,  or needless
pollution will occur during combined sewer overflows. The buildup of
shoaled solids during periods of dry weather can result  in concentrated
discharges as soon as storm flows produce hydraulic surges.
Any materials introduced in either storm or combined sewers as a result of
inadequate regulations of the governmental jurisdiction will magnify this
pollution condition.
Effect of Grit Deposition and Sewer Cleaning

It is again stated that the primary purpose of catch basins is to prevent
sewer clogging. A group at the Johns Hopkins University conducted an
extensive study of the causes of sewer clogging in sanitary lines. Based on
detailed data for several cities, the report concluded that the major cause
of sewer clogging is  root penetration^1) Accumulation of debris in the
absence of roots was  found to be most prevalent in the upper reaches of
the sewer system, and little clogging was found in sewers larger than 15
inches in diameter.
The causes of deposition in an eight inch sanitary sewer were investigated
by Raths and McCauley.(2) They concluded that deposition is not induced
by the  suspended solids in sewage. Furthermore,  pipe joints, not sewer
slope, were the principal factors in causing deposition.
Table  23, Trends  in  Combined Sewer Cleaning  Practices,  Chicago,
summarizes 10 years  of sewer cleaning records which  provide an insight
into maintenance practices in combined systems.  It  is shown that the
frequency of sewer scraping ranges from six to ten years. Flushing of the
upper reaches of sewers is done every four to eight months. Analysis of the
quantity of solids removed during sewer scraping indicates an average of
about 5.0 cubic yards  removed per sewer mile scraped.
                                110

-------
         TABLE 23. Trends in Combined Sewer Cleaning Practices, Chicago
Year
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1958
1959
1960
Miles of
Sewers
3495
3500
3505
3510
3525
3540
3560
3720
3750
3815
Miles Cleaned per Year
Scraping Flushing
430
445
450
480
403
415
382
590
620
645
5,200
5,300
5,500
5,500
4,500
4,650
4,850
11,100
11,300
12,300
Annual Cleaning Frequency
Scraping Flushing
.120
.130
.135
.135
.115
.115
.105
.50
.50
.55
.55
.30
.30
.35
.160 3.00
.165 3.00
.170 3.20
In addition to catch basins, grit chambers at water pollution control plants
are used to remove solids. Historically, grit chambers were first specified
and used only where  combined  sewer systems were installed. With the
increased  mechanization  of sewage  treatment  plants and attendant
consideration of equipment protection, they now are used also in separate
sanitary sewer systems. It was hypothesized that the monthly loading on a
grit chamber  is  a function  of the  precipitation,  since the  heavier
precipitation levels would be expected to wash more solids into the sewer
system.
Figure  11, Seasonal Grit Removal vs Precipitation,  Chicago, shows the
seasonal grit removal as a function of precipitation, based on monthly data
for the 1960 to  1966  period. These  curves  were  fitted by eye  for  this
preliminary analysis. Three preliminary conclusions can be drawn from
examination of these curves:
1. The amount of grit removed increases with precipitation for all seasons
  of the year
2. There  is  a winter  residual of solids washed into the sewers in the
  spring.  (Note  that if the spring and winter curves are averaged, the
  resultant curve is similar to summer and fall conditions), and
3. Based on examination of the data for months with low precipitation, it
  appears that the base grit loading is approximately 200 to 300 tons per
  month in the absence of precipitation.
The analysis indicates that the  primary source of grit  in these  sewage
treatment plants is storm-water inflows from combined-sewer systems.
The  average annual quantity of grit removed from the Metropolitan
Chicago Sanitary District's three major treatment plants was  7,200 tons;
that is, less than 2.5 percent of the average annual removal of other solids
(313,000 tons) for the 1960 to 1966 period.(3)
A review was made to determine an economical method for determining
the amount and character of solids deposited in a sewer line.  Attempts at
direct observations  using  television were unsuccessful  inasmuch as  the
action of threading the pull cable through the line and then pulling the

                                111

-------
FIGURE 11. Seasonal Grit Removal vs. Precipitation, Chicago



             Grit Removal - 100 Tons/Month
   01
   o

   -o|

   3"

   5°



   5"
   o
   o

   !•
                          112

-------
cable back with the camera was reported to disturb the material. A further
complication was the fact that before a sewer line can be examined for its
physical condition or notable infiltration, it must be completely clean and
the flow must be below the midpoint of the pipe.
The FMC Corporation has recently completed an initial investigation of
sewer flushing in  connection with a research  project conducted  for the
FWPCA. Their model studies indicate that deposited material is moved by
a flushing wave. However, a study conducted at Northampton, England(4)
indicated that  deposited  solids tended to rapidly  cement themselves in
shoals.
The movement of solids within the sewer appears to be a function of
particle  size,  flow  velocity,  condition of pipe  joints, vertical  pipe
alignment, and the amount of grease and detergent scum buildup in the
conduit. Nevertheless, greater amounts  of solids are  transported by the
sewage to water pollution control  plants,  where  the heavier inorganic
solids in the influent are removed in the grit chambers.
Grit chambers serve three primary functions:(5)
1. Protection of moving  mechanical equipment from  abrasion and other
   physical damage
2. Reduction of pipe clogging caused by deposition  of grit particles or
   heavy sludge in pipes and channels, particularly at changes in direction
   or gradient of the conduit or at valves and gates, and
3. Reduction in frequency of digester and settling tank cleaning required
   as the result of excessive accumulations of grit in these units.
Combined Sewer Regulators

The  major effects of  urban storm  water runoff pollution have been
considered to be the  result of combined-sewer overflows. As determined
by the APWA study for FWPCA, 1967, approximately 54 million people
reside in jurisdictions  that are  partially or totally served  by combined
sewers.  These combined sewer  systems are estimated to  have  20,000
overflow points. (6)
The  overflow points may  be at the  waste water treatment  plant, at
pumping stations, or  at the connection between collector and interceptor
sewers. At the latter overflow points,  generally a facility or "regulator" is
constructed to divide the  flow in the collector sewer to the interceptor
sewer for treatment, and to receiving waters for disposal.
The  APWA  study revealed  that many regulators did not adequately
control the flow, and that still others were not properly maintained  and
operated. The installation of effective  sewer regulators  coupled  with
proper operation and maintenance procedures were pointed out to be an
effective and economical means for preventing or reducing pollution from
combined sewer overflows.

                                113

-------
Sources of Solids Deposits in Sewer Systems

As  part  of the study,  a national survey was conducted to ascertain the
extent and nature of solids deposition in sewer  systems  along with an
inventory of practices  in authorizing various types of sewer connections.
The questionnaires were sent to 500 cities and were returned by 115. The
distribution of the cities responding was as follows:
                               SIZE OF CITY

East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Up to
10,000
0
0
0
0
0
10,001
25,000
18
2
9
0
0
25,001 -
100,000
13
8
13
4
10
100,001-
1,000,000
9
7
6
8
6
Over
1,000,000
0
0
1
0
1
Total
40
17
29
12
17
   TOTAL        0        29         48         36           2     115
 Evaluation of the data reported on this portion of the survey have been
 based on consideration of these  primary classifications:  (1) primary
 sources of solids, (2) allowable sewer connections, and (3) points of solids
 removal.
 Primary Sources of Solids

 The primary sources of solids in storm sewers have been summarized in
 Table 24, Primary Sources of Storm Sewer Solids. The sources mentioned
 as having a major influence on the production of storm-water solids can be
 categorized in four groups: unimproved or vacant areas (streets and land),
 trash and street dirt, leaves and grass, and winter sanding.
 Nearly 50  percent of the responding cities mentioned  either  or both
 unimproved areas and trash and street dirt as primary sources of solids
 that are deposited in the sewer system. The distribution of responses,
 especially among sections of the country, shows marked differences. The
 Midwest and Southwest considered unimproved areas to be a major source
 of  solids,  with  80 percent of  the  cities in each area mentioning it.
 Unimproved areas and street dirt were cited as a major source of solids in
 the South, where it was  mentioned by  71 percent of the cities. Street  dirt
 was designated  as relatively unimportant in the Southwest where only 25
 percent of the cities listed it as a problem.
                                 114

-------
               TABLE 24. Summary of Primary Sources of Storm-water Solids
                          (By City Size and Geographic Location)






Characteristics or Sources
Unimproved
Areas'
Street Dirt
and Trash^
Leaves and
Grass3
Winter
Sanding
Other4
City Size

10
25,
0-10
,001-25
001-100
100,001-1,000
Over 1,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000

15
22
22

-
15
23
22
1

8
23
13
-
-
12
9
7


13
15
27
1
Geographic Location
East
South




Midwest
Southwest
West
Total




13
5
23
10
8
59
22
12
12
3
12
61
14
7
9
2
12
44
13
4
9

2
28
19
13
9
5
10
56
Unimproved areas include:  unpaved and unimproved streets,  alleys and parking lots; developing
areas; grading soil, and wind blown dust.

Street dirt and  trash include:  cans, bottles, sticks, garbage,  various other refuse, street scal-
ing,  street washing and dirt.

Leaves and grass also include trees and plant growth.

Other includes:  spillage, commercial, industrial and residential litter; beach sand; construc-
tion; carnival parade route litter.
                                           115

-------
Slightly over one-third (36 percent)  of the respondent cities mentioned
leaves and grass as a primary source of sewer solids. Again, this seemed to
be relatively unimportant in the Southwest, where only 17 percent of the
cities considered this a primary source.
Winter  sanding was  listed as a  separate  category  rather  than being
combined with trash and street dirt because it was specifically mentioned
by  one-fourth  of the cities responding to  the question. As would be
expected, this is mentioned by very  few cities  in the Southwest and Far
West.
Allowable Sewer Connections

One portion of the questionnaire asked cities to designate into which type
of sewer (combined, storm, or sanitary), if any, they allowed connections
for the discharge of: (1) swimming pools, (2) foundation drains, (3) roof
leaders, (4)  sump pumps, (5) cooling water,  (6) pretreated industrial
process water, and (7) untreated industrial process water. The results of
this inquiry are shown in Table 25, Allowable Sewer Connections. The
type  of sewer seems to be  the  determining factor in  deciding which
connections are allowable.  Geographical location or size of city seem to
have little bearing on governmental sewer connections policies.
Connections were  allowed by the  vast majority of  cities into combined
sewer systems for the discharge of all seven items. Roof leaders was the
only  one on which there was much difference  of opinion as to whether
connections  should  be allowed.  In  the Midwest  and  in  cities  with
populations between 25,001  to 100,000, the majority of cities do not
allow the connection of roof leaders into the combined sewer systems.
Most cities allow the connection of all the previously listed seven types of
discharges except industrial process water into the  storm sewer system.
Slightly over half of the cities allow treated industrial process water to be
discharged into the storm sewer system. In the South and Southwest, over
two-thirds of the cities permit this type of connection, as do the cities with
populations between 100,001 to 1,000,000. Few cities allow the connec-
tion  of untreated  industrial process  water to  storm-sewer   systems.
Exceptions to this policy were reported in the Southern part of the country
and in cities  with populations between 10,001  and 25,000. An  equal
number of cities reported  that they did and did  not allow this type of
connection.
The discharge of industrial  process water, either treated or untreated, into
the sanitary sewer system is  permitted by almost all cities. However in
cities  of  10,001-25,000  population,  only  half the cities allow  the
connection of untreated industrial process  water  into sanitary  sewer
systems.
About  60 percent of the  cities allow swimming  pool discharges  to be
connected Into the sanitary system. Only half the cities in the West permit

                                 116

-------
   TABLE 25. Allowable Sewer Connections
   (By City Size and Geographic Location)

Connections are allowed for the discharge of:
Swimming
Pools


City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,000-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Yes


_
8
9
13
-

15
1
7
1
5
29


_
14
27
21
1
No


_
4
3
2
-

5
-
4
-
-
9


_
5
6
5
-
Foundation
Drains
Yes


_
9
10
12
-

15
2
9
1
4
31


_
19
32
23
1
No


_
3
2
3
-

5
-
2
-
1
8


_
2
2
3
-
Roof Leaders
Yes


.
8
5
12
-

14
1
5
1
4
25


„
18
35
25
1
No
Combine

_
4
7
3
-

6
1
6
-
1
14
Storm

_
2
1
2
-
Sump Pump
Yes
id Sewers

_
10
11
14
-

17
2
10
1
5
35
Sewers

_
15
26
23
1
No


.
2
1
1
-

3
-
1
-
-
4


_
5
4
5
1
Cooling
Water
Yes


_
8
9
15
-

15
2
10
1
4
32


_
16
27
28
1
No


_
3
2
0
-

3
-
1
-
1
5


_
2
6
1
-
Treated
Industrial
Process
Yes


_
6
8
12
-

13
2
7
1
3
26


_
6
15
16
-
Water
No


„
4
1
1
-

2
-
2
-
2
6


_
7
13
7
1
Untreated
Industrial
Process Water
Yes


_
5
7
9
-

10
1
6
1
3
21


_
5
4
8
-
No


_
4
2
3
-

5
1
2
-
1
9


-
6
19
15
-

-------
          Geographic Location
CXI
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Total

City Size
0-10;000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
17
10
15
9
11
62


_
10
20
20
1

15
6
15
7
8
9
-
4
-
3
16


_
7
13
_
1

9
4
6
3
8
26
11
14
7
17
75


_
3
14
_
-

14
2
6
2
2
2
-
3
1
1
7


«
12
24
20
2

16
6
16
6
14
26
11
15
9
17
78


_.
_
_
1
-

-
-
-
2
1
2
-
2
-
1
5
Sanitary

_
15
31
26
2

23
8
20
7
15
23
10
13
6
12
64
Sewers

_
8
21
15
1

11
5
14
6
9
6
-
3
3
3
15


_
8
11
14
1

12
5
8
4
5
26
11
16
6
13
72


_
8
16
11
-

9
3
8
7
8
3
-
3
2
2
10


_
8
15
15
2

14
5
11
3
7
13
6
7
5
6
37


_
11
27
25
1

17
10
14
9
15
12
2
6
1
7
28


-
4
3
2
1

6
_
3
-
-
7
4
3
1
2
17


.
7
30
20
1

15
6
19
6
12
16
3
8
5
8
40


-
7
3
6
-

7
3
-
3
3
          Total                       51     30         26      58          3     73         45      34         35     40         65        9        58       16

-------
                             TABLE 26. Points of Solids Removal
Size of City
Catch Basins
Use
Yes
No
Require
Yes
No
Have
sion
Grit R
Yes
Provi-
s for
emoval
No
Removal of
Material Re-
quired at
Outfall
Yes
No
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
Over 1,000,000
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
-
34
37
29
1

37
12
24
7
21
-
1
7
5
-

1
4
1
5
2
-
27
34
22
1

31
11
18
4
20
-
6
9
10
-

6
4
6
7
2
-
25
35
28
2

32
10
22
10
16
-
5
8
1
-

3
2
5
-
4
-
2
5
2
-

-
2
4
1
2
-
26
33
26
1

30
10
20
9
17
Total
101
13
84
25
90
14
86

-------
 this type of connection. Sump pump connections are also allowed by about
 60 percent of the cities. Slightly less than half the cities permit cooling
 water to be  discharged  into  the  sanitary sewer system. Only  in the
 Southwest do a great majority  of the cities allow cooling water discharge
 connections.
 Only one-third of the cities replying permit the connection of foundation
 drain discharges into sanitary sewers and only three out of 76 cities allow
 roof leader connections to sanitary sewers.
                      Point of Solids Removal
The results of this analysis shown in Table 26, Points of Solids Removal,
were quite consistent throughout the country. Close to 90 percent of the
cities use catch basins, while only 77  percent presently require them in
new construction. The Southwest is the only area of the country where the
percentages using and requiring catch basins deviate greatly from these
countrywide figures. Less than 60 percent of the cities in the Southwest use
catch basins and slightly less than 40 percent of the cities presently require
them. Eighty-five percent of the respondent cities have facilities  for grit
removal in their sewage treatment plants. Less than  10  percent of the
cities must have dredging or other  removal  work carried out at sewer
outfalls. Only three of the 115 respondent cities contract with private firms
for catch basin cleaning.
                           Reference

1.  GEYER, J. C. and J.  J. LENTZ. "An Evaluation of the Problems of
   Sanitary Sewer System  Design." Dept.  of Sanitary Engineering and
   Water Resources. John Hopkins U. Baltimore, Maryland.
2.  RATHS, C.  H. and  R. F. McCAULEY.  "Deposition in a Sanitary
   Sewer." Water and Sewage Works. 1962.
3.  Annual Reports. Metropolitan  Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,
   Illinois.
4.  WILKINSON, R., "The Quality of Rainfall Run-off Water from  a
   Housing Estate." Jour. Inst.  Public  Health Engr. (Brit.), London.
   1962.
5.  Ward Superintendent's Manual. Dept. of Streets and Sanitation, City of
   Chicago. 1966.
6.  AMERICAN PUBLIC  WORKS ASSOCIATION. "Problems of Combined
   Sewer Facilities and Overflows—7967." Chicago, Illinois. 1967.
                                 120

-------
          Sources of Urban Environmental Refuse
In May, 1967, a national survey was instituted to  determine municipal
data in the general area of urban-refuse generation. Included were street
cleaning activities and the use of inspectors by cities to insure compliance
with local ordinances covering storage, placing, and handling of refuse and
yard trimmings, the sweeping of sidewalks in commercial areas, hauling
and other features of street sanitation.
A questionnaire on these subjects was sent to 500 cities of various sizes in
various areas of the nation, for the purpose of establishing the relationship
between these municipal  practices and the water pollution  potentials of
runoff from urban areas. The specific purpose of the survey was to identify
the major litter-producing sources in various-sized communities  and to
determine the extent to which  litter can be reduced  by enforcement of
regulations or other governmental and public procedures.
One hundred and  forty-nine cities responded  to this survey. The 149
replies were distributed in the following manner:


                             SIZE OF CITY
Geographical
Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
Up to
10,000
3
2
3
1
1
10,001-
25,000
15
1
9

5
25,001-
100,000
32
5
9
2
11
100,001-
1,000,000
11
6
10
10
10
over
1,000,000
2



1

TOTAL
63
14
31
13
28
 Total           10       30         59         47         3        149
Each  city  was  asked to  rate, in  order  of their importance  to the
community, 21 factors that might be controlled or altered by the action of
public officials and which  would result in a more  attractive debris-free
urban community. The factors were to be ranked  from one to 26 (five
spaces were left for "others" to be specified).  Number one (1)  was to
indicate the most serious; each number was to be used only once.
The questionnaire form used in this survey is included as an Appendix D
to this report. The 21 items suggested for evaluation are listed as items "a"
through  "u".
                                121

-------
a. Spillage from overloaded trucks

b. Litter from parades and large
   public events

c. Disintegration of poorly
   surfaced streets

d. Lack of paving at driveway
   and alley entrances

e. Yard refuse (leaves, lawn
   clippings)

f. Animal droppings

g. Deposition from windstorms

h. Improperly used trash
   receptacles

i. Improper storage of
   household refuse

j. Debris from construction
   and demolition

k. Roadside dumping
1.  Lack of satisfactory street
   cleaning equipment

m. Poor refuse collection
   practices

n. Street trees, type or placement

o. Lack of catch basin and storm
   water inlet maintenance

p. Air pollution

q. Droppings from vehicles
   (grease, oil, etc.)

r.  Poor public cooperation

s.  Lack of adequate public trash
   receptacles

t.  Lack of public education

u. Inadequate budget for street
   cleaning
                   Sources of Urban Street Refuse


The survey disclosed that six sources of street litter could be identified as
problems:  (1)  spillage from  overloaded trucks, (2) yard refuse (leaves,
lawn clippings),  (3)  improperly used trash receptacles,  (4) debris from
construction and demolition, (5) roadside dumping, and (6) poor public
cooperation. These six factors were  listed as  problems by  at least  81
percent of the cities responding to the questionnaire. The tabulation of
results  for  these six  items  is  given in Table 27,  Sources of Street
Refuse—A Survey.
It appears that yard refuse was the most pressing problem of the factors
listed. Sixty percent of the cities rated this factor between one and seven;
77 percent ranked it as one of the top 20 problems. This factor was
classified as a major problem especially in the South where 77 percent of
the cities ranked yard refuse  between  one and seven. As an  overall
problem, yard refuse affected the cities in the West more than in the other
parts of the country. Eighty-six percent of the  cities in the West ranked
                                 122

-------
yard refuse as one of the top 20 problems. Generally, yard refuse becomes
a greater problem as city size increases.
Spillage from overloaded trucks ranked second both as a serious problem
and as  an overall problem throughout the country. Eighty-two of the 149
cities (55%) responding to the questionnaire listed this item as one of the
top seven; 76 percent ranked it between one and 20. The  cities in the
Midwest reported this to be their most common problem, with 74 percent
of the cities ranking overloaded trucks between one and seven. Overall,
spillage from overloaded  trucks  is  more  of a problem west  of  the
Mississippi—where 86 percent of the cities ranked this item in the top 20
—than in the East where only 66 percent of the cities found this source to
be of sufficient  importance to be ranked in  the top 20. The problem
generally increases in importance with increasing city size.
Ranking third as a major problem, with 48 percent of the cities rating  it
between one and  seven,  was roadside dumping.  In the Southwest 62
percent of the cities ranked it in the top seven. As an overall problem, the
Midwest and Southwest ranked it high,  with 85 percent and 79 percent,
respectively. The South did not list this source  as a problem. Again, city
size seems to correlate strongly with the importance of the problem. Over
90 percent of the cities with populations over  100,000 ranked roadside
dumping in the top 20.
Poor public cooperation ranked fourth in  importance both  as a major
problem (43% ranked it between 1  and 7), and as an overall problem
(72%  ranked it in the  top 20). Fifty-four  percent  of the cities in the
Southwest classified this as a major problem, the highest of the five area
groupings of the cities. As an overall problem, the West considered it most
important, with  85 percent of the cities ranking it in the top 20. This
problem seems to increase with city size, with 83 percent of the cities with
populations between 100,000 and 1,000,000 ranking it between one and
20.
Improperly used trash receptacles as an overall problem  ranked third in
importance, with 73 percent of the respondent cities rating it in the top 20.
This was a major problem with 42 percent of the cities rating it between
one and seven. The Midwest characterized it the most pressing of all
sources, (55% rating it in the top 7  and 87%  in the top 20). The West
also considered it an appreciable overall problem, with 82 percent of the
cities ranking it between one and 20. The problem increases with city size.
The lowest ranking of the top six  factors affecting cities throughout the
country was debris from  construction and demolition. Forty-two percent
of the cities rated this in the top seven and 71 percent ranked it in the top
20. Correlation of this factor with city size is poor. Population groupings
from 10,001-25,000,  100,001-1,000,000, and  over  1,000,001  showed
more than 80 percent of the cities ranking this in the top 20; and in the
other two  population groups  it ranked only 40 percent and 71 percent,
respectively.
                                123

-------
  TABLE 27. Sources of Street Refuse -
(by City Size and Geographic Location)

Item A — Spillage from Overload Trucks
Rating between 1-7
No. %
City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
TOTAL
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
TOTAL

3
14
33
32
0
82

29
6
23
8
16
82

30
47
56
68
0
55

46
43
74
62
57
55
Rating between 8-20
No. %

2
5
12
10
2
31

13
3
4
3
8
31

20
17
20
21
67
21

21
21
13
23
29
21
Total
No. %

5
19
45
42
2
113

42
9
27
11
24
113

50
64
76
89
67
76

67
64
87
85
86
76
E — Yard Refuse
City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
TOTAL
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
TOTAL

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
TOTAL
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
TOTAL

5
20
35
29
0
89

36
9
18
10
16
89
Item H ~

3
11
24
21
3
62

26
5
17
2
12
62

50
67
59
62
0
60

57
64
58
77
57
60
Improperly

30
37
41
45
100
42

41
36
55
15
43
42

0
0
13
10
2
25

9
2
6
0
8
25

0
0
22
21
67
17

14
14
19
0
29
17

5
20
48
39
2
114

45
11
24
10
24
114

50
67
81
83
67
77

71
78
77
77
86
77
Used Trash Receptacles

1
8
18
19
0
46

16
2
10
7
11
46

10
27
31
40
0
31

25
14
32
54
39
31

4
19
42
40
3
108

32
7
27
9
23
98

40
64
72
85
100
73

66
50
87
69
82
73
               124

-------
               Item J — Debris from Construction and Demolition
Rating between 1-7

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
TOTAL
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
TOTAL

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
TOTAL
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
TOTAL

City Size
0-10,000
10,001-25,000
25,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
over 1,000,000
TOTAL
Geographic Location
East
South
Midwest
Southwest
West
No.

2
14
24
21
2
63

29
2
20
2
10
63
Item K

1
13
27
30
1
72

31
6
15
8
12
72
Item R —

2
9
25
27
1
64

28
6
12
7
11
%

20
47
41
45
67
42

46
14
65
15
36
42
— Roadside

10
43
46
64
33
48

49
43
48
62
43
48
Poor Public

20
30
42
57
33
43

44
43
39
54
39
Rating between
No.

2
3
18
19
1
43

14
5
7
6
11
43
Dumping

1
7
12
12
2
34

12
1
8
3
10
34
Cooperation

1
8
21
12
1
43

14
2
11
3
13
8-20
%

20
33
30
40
33
29

22
36
23
46
39
29


10
23
20
26
67
23

19
7
26
23
36
23


10
27
36
26
33
29

22
14
35
23
46
Total
No.

4
17
42
40
3
106

43
7
27
8
21
106


2
20
39
42
3
106

43
7
23
11
22
106


3
17
46
39
2
107

42
8
23
10
24

%

40
80
71
85
100
71

68
50
88
61
75
71


20
66
66
90
100
71

68
50
74
85
79
71


30
57
78
83
66
72

66
57
74
77
85
TOTAL                64         43           43        29          107        72
                                   125

-------
Summary of Findings

In summary, yard refuse was found to be the greatest problem in all parts
of the country, and in fact it ranked first as a problem in all areas except
the Midwest. Spillage from overloaded trucks ranked second, followed by
roadside  dumping,  poor  public  cooperation,  improperly  used  trash
receptacles, and debris from construction and demolition.
These problem areas, as characterized by the public  works officials, are
subject  to control by the enforcement of appropriate  local ordinances.
However, there first must be public understanding and awareness of the
need for such control measures.
                                126

-------
                            Section 6

      Measures for Reducing the Pollution Potential
              of Urban Environmental Soiling
   1 he project has identified the sources of urban environmental soiling
    and evaluated its pollution potential following exposure to precipita-
tion and runoff. The contaminants are carried into storm and combined
sewers via street inlets and other connections.
A distinction has been made between the inevitable and the preventable
aspects of pollution from street litter and other environmental soiling. The
problem is how to prevent the preventable and minimize the impact of the
other sources of contact with runoff waters.
This section of  the  report  outlines  measures  for  reducing  the water
pollution  potential  of environment  soiling. The  suggested  remedial
practices  and  solutions  to  the reduction  of water  pollution include
emphasis  on:
1.  Public cooperation—in reducing the amounts of street litter
2.  Street  sweeping improvements—for reducing accumulations of urban
    street litter
3.  Catch  basin design and operation  improvements—for  reducing dis-
    charges of supernatant liquids and entrained sludge
4.  Roof drainage controls—to reduce overloading of combined sewers
5.  Improved regulation and enforcement procedures—for reducing urban
    littering
6.  Land drainage modifications—for reducing or eliminating the runoff of
    polluted waste waters and to minimize the import of waters containing
    snow and ice control chemicals
7.  Reduction in indiscriminate use of chemicals—for control of unwanted
    pest  infestations and the improvement of  soil and plant  nutrient
    conditions, and
8.  Management-labor relations  practices—to minimize waste collection
    and other municipal sanitation work stoppages.

          Control of Street Litter by Public Cooperation

Community Interest
Since much of  the street litter is preventable through citizen cooperation,
the motivation  of proper  attitudes is important. Public awareness must be
aroused to  discourage the casual discarding of unwanted  objects on
sidewalks and gutters. Furthermore, it will be difficult in the absence of
public interest and support to obtain  an appropriate  budget  for street-
cleaning operations.
                               127

-------
Litter Potential
Criticism has often been leveled at American cities and the public because
urban environs are not as clean as those in Europe. Studies have shown
that the potential for littering is  much greater here than in foreign
countries.  Cigarette  consumption  per  capita,  as well  as newsprint
consumption per capita, are far greater in the United States than abroad.
Thus, the sheer abundance for discard is much greater here.
Land Use
The use of property, as well  as prevailing attitudes in a district, have a
marked influence on the quantities and kinds of street litter that ihay be
produced. In outlying  suburban areas, where there are one-family homes
on large plots of ground, customarily, there is greater pride of ownership
and  little littering. In congested apartment-house neighborhoods, more
litter is found due to the greater intensity of use of streets. In commercial
and  shopping areas, the increase in  pedestrian and  vehicular movement
generate large amounts of street litter.  In areas such as produce markets
and  industrial  and  factory  neighborhoods, it   is  customary  to  find
substantial amounts of street litter, reflecting heavy trucking, spillage, and
other activities.
Vehicle Parking
Increases in the use of automobiles and the unavailability of off-street
parking spaces result in the occupancy of the guttters by parked  vehicles.
In  congested urban neighborhoods, it  is not  unusual to find  virtually
bumper-to-bumper parking, around the clock, seven days a week. In many
such neighborhoods, the requirements of street cleaning operations have
resulted in the imposition of parking regulations solely for the purpose of
expediting the removal of street refuse.
Traffic
Automobile traffic contributes to street litter from the abrasion of tires on
the pavement in proportion to the volume of traffic. There is also spillage
from carelessly loaded trucks.  Experience has shown that vehicles carrying
wastepaper are particularly prone to littering  when bundles are insecurely
tied or when bags of scrap paper are jarred loose.
Other Factors
Other factors that play a role  in the creation of the amount of street litter
include the condition of pavement surfaces, street-cleaning practices, the
topography and climate of the urban area, and refuse collection practices.
       Basic Elements of a Street Litter Prevention Program
Planning to control street littering requires a  detailed knowledge of many
local factors in order to develop an effective  program. Key elements that
claim attention include the following.
Public Support
Experience has shown that an effective way to generate public support is
through  the formation of citizen groups, notably  with  the cooperation of
local service clubs. A citizens' committee, headed by a prominent resident,
can  often obtain newspaper space, as well as  time on radio and television
programs,  that  would be  difficult  for  a public official  to command.

                                 128

-------
Guidance for the conduct of community programs may be obtained from
"Keep America Beautiful, Inc.," 99 Park Avenue, New York, New York
10016.
Governmental Efforts
Exhortations to the public for control of littering will fall on deaf ears if
there are serious defects or omissions in governmental operations. Where
the community  has provided inadequate funds for operational needs for
street cleaning efforts, it quickly may become apparent as public interest is
stimulated by an  active citizens'  campaign. A campaign will stimulate
complaints to the street cleaning agency and may reveal its shortcomings.
Thus,  before a citizens' campaign fully gets underway, local government
officials will find it necessary to examine closely their own operations to
determine where improvement is needed. For example, if there is spillage
from refuse collection operations, this will provoke comment and is a
factor which must be  reviewed  by the appropriate officials. Another
deficiency may be the inadequate  number of public litter containers into
which pedestrians may discard newspapers and other debris.
Legislation and Enforcement
An  enforcement campaign  cannot be  mounted  without definitive ordi-
nances describing improper practices and prescribing penalties for their
violation. Existing legislation should include the  requirements for house-
hold refuse  receptacles and place specific responsibility for the cleanliness
of sidewalks, the curbing of dogs, the control of scavengers, the control of
the  distribution of handbills and  advertising matter, etc. Keep America
Beautiful Project Guide Number 3, Litter Laws, Appendix A of APWA's
Street Cleaning Practice, 2nd edition, page  297,  and Appendix F of this
section, may be used as check lists  for the adequacy of local ordinances.
Public Education
A comprehensive program to inform the public of its responsibilities needs
to be undertaken by the governmental agency responsible for clean streets.
The basic elements of a program may include all or part of the following:
1. Digest of Ordinances—The legal requirements for handling household
    refuse,  the curbing of dogs,  the proper use of public litter receptacles,
    etc., should be available in leaflet form. In some communities these
    requirements  are printed  on heavy cardboard and  given to  new
    residents.  If  there  are foreign-language-speaking  groups  in  the
    community, it may be worthwhile to translate these requirements into
    the  appropriate language, so that all citizens may understand what is
    expected of them
2. School Program—A "Clean  Community" message may be  developed
    into a  standardized format,  illustrated with  appropriate  slides or
    movies, which can be presented to school children. This is considered
    an excellent means for instilling cooperation
3. Civic and Other Groups—If a public-education unit is active, it will,
    no doubt,  receive requests  from local civic  organizations and other
    groups  for a representative to  speak on keeping the community clean.
                                129

-------
    These speaking  opportunities  provide a  means of  disseminating
    information
4. Press,  Radio, and Television—An aggressive public-education office
    will utilize occurances  related  to  the delivery  of new sanitation
    equipment, or the commencement of a new program, etc., as a means
    to obtain space in the various communication media which can carry
    the clean community message to a wide audience
5. "Cleanup Weeks"—A common practice in the spring is to organize a
    "cleanup week," during which the public is motivated to clean their
    premises and dispose of accumulated trash.  These cleanup weeks
    provide  an  opportunity for a  concentrated educational program
    stressing the public's responsibilities for keeping the community clean
6. Litter Containers—There is a wide variety of litter containers which
    may  be deployed  on  the  streets for pedestrians'  convenience.
    Containers may vary from a small, open basket type, which fits on
    parking meter posts, to large, 5 5-gallon containers painted in suitable
    fashion.  (See Keep America Beautiful, Project Guide No. 2, Litter
    Receptacles, for a non-technical discussion and description of various
    types), and
7. Campaigns—Experience  has shown that  a multipronged  attack  on
    litter must rely  upon a variety of techniques for a successful effort.
    Extensive  campaigns have been conducted  in several major cities,
    where an active citizens' committee and the local government have
    combined  to attack the  problem of street refuse with a coordinated
    program.
As an example, one major city's program was designed to obtain cleaner
streets by enlisting the public's assistance and by more effective use of its
own personnel. The program relied on the following:
• An Estimate of the  Problem—Surveys and studies were made to
   prepare a comprehensive action plan. Detailed field inspections were
   done in those neighborhoods known to contain large amounts of street
   dirt and  litter. Maps  were prepared, indicating the location of the
   areas specifically targeted for cleanup, including chronically littered
   streets, vacant lots, and backyards
• Operational Planning—After the  basic data and related informa-
   tion was collected, planning begins on how the excess refuse was to be
   collected, the local organizations to be contacted for cooperation, etc.
• Interdepartmental  Participation—A Mayor's  Interdepartmental
   Committee  for a Clean City brought together all local governmental
   agencies concerned with  making  inspections  and enforcing the laws
   that have  a bearing on street dirt. For example, the Police Department
   was involved in moving-vehicle violations, preventing the dumping'of
   refuse  illegally on the streets by truckers or others, and regulating the
   storage of construction materials  on the sidewalks and streets. The
   Fire Department was  concerned with the storage of refuse within a
   building,  in a manner that might create a fire  hazard. The Health
   Department was concerned with the handling and storage of refuse by

                                130

-------
food-handling establishments. Other city depanments extended relat-
ed cooperation
Organized  Citizens'  Participation—A  mayor-appointed  Citizens'
Committee for a Clean City was active  and was able to obtain free
advertising space in the newspapers and time on radio and television
Community Relations—Through  governmental  agencies efforts,
and attempt was made to seek  public cooperation directly. This was
done by making speeches, distributing leaflets to the press, radio and
television,  and  promoting  knowledge of the Department's  activities
and services. There was an extensive  program directed to  school
children. A talk, usually given in the school auditorium, supplemented
by a documentary  film and other visual  aids, was used and has been
well received
Enforcement—When  appeals  to  civic pride do  not produce  the
necessary cooperation, punitive  measures must be used. Generally, the
flagrant violators are a small minority with whom the public has little
sympathy.  Summonses  were issued for  the littering of streets and
sidewalks; dumping or throwing garbage or waste into the streets or
vacant lots; neglecting to sweep sidewalks or sweeping rubbish into
the streets; dropping  waste from vehicles;  placing  over-filled  or
uncovered garbage cans, and loose  or untied newspapers  outside for
collection;  etc. Personnel in other city departments were assigned to
serve summonses for related violations
Litter Baskets and Anti-Littering Signs—The city purchased, and
placed on the streets, more litter baskets. It also posted anti-littering
warning  signs advertising  the  penalties  for littering.  Citizens often
excuse their untidy habits by complaining that they do not have a
place to throw litter and are, therefore, compelled to throw these items
on the streets and  sidewalks. Thousands  of warning signs, of striking
design, were placed on public lighting poles throughout the city
Littered  Lots—The location  of littered  lots was  determined.  An
attempt was made  to have the property owners clean their lots. Where
this was not done, the  city cleaned the  lots and billed the property
owner  for the cost. As  part of this program, a special bulky refuse
service was instituted which offered free pickup of unwanted large
household objects, such as mattresses, sofas, etc. This proved to  be
very popular and was continued on a year-round basis, #nd
Operation "Big  Sweep"—Early in the spring the action program
was planned. Generally it consisted of  two phases:  an educational
phase,  in which the public was notified  of the various methods that
were going to  be taken and  requesting their cooperation; and  an
enforcement phase, which commenced  after a preliminary warning
period, in which summonses were issued to all violators.
                             131

-------
              Current Street Refuse Control Practices

In addition to the street refuse control practices previously described,
some special problems are commonly encountered in keeping streets clean.

Abandoned Automobiles
Abandoned automobiles become a target for children and vandals to break
glass, to strip valuable components, etc. The result is an  area of litter
around  an  abandoned vehicle.  To  cope with  this problem the local
government either arranges for automobile removal with its own forces, or
hires a  local contractor to do so. The auction or public sale of abandoned
vehicles may generate sufficient revenue to defray all, or part, of the
towing  and disposal costs. (See: Automobile Disposal—A National Prob-
lem, U.S. Dept of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,  1967.)

Leaves
In streets shaded by deciduous trees there will be a few weeks in the fall
when large quantities of leaves have to removed. Leaves are difficult to
handle because of their bulk and, when dried, may be easily blown by the
wind. Leaves may clog catch basins. Recent studies have shown that leaves
may contribute to water pollution. (See K. V. Slack and H. R. Feltz, Tree
Leaf Control of Low Flow Water Quality  in a Small Virginia Stream,
Environmental Science and Technology, 2:2:126 Feb. 1968.) A variety of
material handling equipment,  including suction devices are used to pick
up leaves.
Construction Sites
Demolition and construction of buildings will generate  street  debris
because of the heavy trucking and carting of materials. At times, bulk
construction materials, such as sand, gravel, brick, etc., may be stored on
the streets and sidewalks. The storage of such loose bulk materials may
generate large quantities of debris unless carefully controlled. Inspection
and  enforcement actions are required  to deal with this  source of street
debris.  The issuance of permits for  demolition  and  construction of
structures  may  facilitate community  control of nuisances arising from
these activities.

Sidewalks
Litter  moves  readily  from the sidewalk to the street. Local legislation
should  specify  who  is  responsible  for cleaning  the  sidewalks  and a
continuing enforcement campaign may be necessary to insure that those
responsible meet their  obligations.  Otherwise  much  of the litter  that
originates on the sidewalk, will find its way into the streets.
Vacant Lots
Owners are generally  responsible for the maintenance of vacant lots in a
nuisance-free  condition. Rainstorms may wash  out debris from lots onto
the public streets. To prevent littering of lots,  fencing may be required.
The apprehension of vacant lot litterers may be difficult. The problem may
be passed on to the property owners if legal proceedings are taken.

                                  132

-------
Dead Animals
Small dead animals, such as cats and dogs, are often found on streets. Such
animals  should  be picked up promptly  and disposed of to prevent a
nuisance.
Spring Cleaning
Communities in the snow belt that use abrasives for improving traction on
ice and packed snow, must deal with the accumulation of sand and cinders
that remain on the streets. The prompt removal of this debris is necessary
to avoid clogging of the catch basins and sewers.  If possible,  it should be
removed periodically between winter thaws. During spring cleanup drives,
additional refuse collection service for bulky household objects  may be
offered by the community's refuse collection agency. Other communities
may offer this service on a year-round basis.
               Improved Street Cleaning Practices

Every pound of street litter that is  removed  from curb  areas before
precipitation and runoff come in contact with it means a reduction in the
contaminants that are washed off and transported to street inlets and to
storm and combined sewers. Means for reducing the waste volume at the
water interface are obvious: more effective and more frequent cleaning.
The dust and dirt fraction of street litter is the most difficult to remove
effectively, and the impact of runoff pollution increases mathematically by
the number  of days the street litter  has accumulated prior to  a runoff
incident. As stated, reduction of this  progressive pollution potential  may
be accomplished by more effective pickup of the dust and dirt fraction and
by modifying the frequency of cleaning.
The value of vacuum sweeping in the pickup of the sand material in the
sweeper evaluation tests which were made was demonstrated. Here again
it is important that the local governmental jurisdiction carefully evaluate
its local problem.  For instance, in 1961, the City of Winnepeg, Canada
found while evaluating a foreign-made vacuum sweeper that the  presence
of clay particles in their  street litter effectively clogged the air hoses
employed in the sweeper because of the amount of water needed to control
dust. American made vacuum-type machines, which do not use a water
spray, have had difficulty with clay size particles blocking the air filters.
Presently vacuum-type sweepers must operate on level pavement in order
for the vacuum to be  effective.  Their efficiency could be expected to be
low on deteriorated streets or on those with uneven pavement.
Pure-vacuum sweepers appear unable to dislodge accumulated litter which
adheres to the surface. Therefore,  the available machine uses a broom to
dislodge the material and a vacuum to carry the litter into the machine.
Additional  development  of vacuum-type machines will be necessary
before they can be generally used.
Increased frequency of operations increases the number of curb miles that
one machine can cover per day. Where large amounts of street  litter are

                                133

-------
allowed to accumulate and cleaning intervals range from 14 to 30 days,
more than one pass of the sweeper is  necessary. Inasmuch as heavy
accumulations  of litter  reduce the  efficiency  of vacuum sweeping, it
appears desirable to use a vacuum sweeper in tandem with mechanical
pickup sweepers to accomplish a "clean sweep." However, the most likely
approach  is the improvement of existing equipment and the establishment
of standards for a "clean" street.
The esiaoiishment of standards for a clean street has been elusive. Streets
have been cleaned for years but no one has established criteria for judging
when a street is clean. As much as  five to ten pounds of dust and dirt along
100 feet of curb, in the absence of other types of street refuse, does not
appear particularly dirty. The field tests made for this study indicated that
as much as five pounds  of dust and dirt per 100 feet  may be left after
street cleaning operations. In actual practice, in many neighborhoods, the
amount of paper tolerated by the public will govern sweeping frequency.
It would appear that a standard for well built-up areas of the order of one
day's contribution of dust and dirt, say 1.5  lb/100  ft should be  the
maximum remaining, after street  cleaning. The maximum accumulation
prior to cleaning could be on the order of a weeks' accumulation, say 10.5
pounds plus the 1.5 pounds residual or 12 pounds.
Where  adjacent  driveways  and parking  lots are unpaved, or the area
between the curb and sidewalk is not properly maintained, these suggested
standards will be almost impossible to achieve, as indicated by the field
tests made.
          Catch Basins—Elimination or Improvement of
                       Design and Operation


The role of catch basins as  intercepting devices in  storm and combined
sewer system street inlet structures has been explored in Section 5 of this
.report. The studies have clarified the problems induced by the retention of
liquids and sludge solids in these catchment chambers and the subsequent
disturbance and displacement of these materials during periods of runoff.
The pollution potential of catch basins and their contents are dependent,
in some  measure, on the time period between the runoff incident and the
antecedent precipitation and  runoff. The longer the period, the greater the
septicity encountered and the more severe the pollutional first-flush effect
with the release of the old retained liquid and the partially decomposed
organic matter in the basin solids.
Even with the obvious drawbacks of catch basins, there  is some value in
intercepting solids from the runoff waters entering separate and combined
sewers.  The solids  might otherwise shoal in sections  of underground
sewers and at  sewer appurtenance structures which are less accessible for
cleaning  than  are basins. Furthermore, the value of basins for trapping
inlet connections from the street into combined sewers and preventing the
emission of sewer odors can be important.
                                 134

-------
Based on the analysis presented in this report, it is concluded that catch
basins under certain circumstances may be an unnecessary component in
combined or storm sewer systems  as far as their primary  purpose  of
preventing sewer clogging is concerned. This obsolescence of their former
function is  due to two factors (1)  greatly reduced quantities of  solids
entering the sewer system, via the street inlets, and  (2)  technological
advances in  sewer design and cleaning as well as street cleaning.
During  the early years of sewer systems, catch basins were important due
to unpaved streets, the use of flat grades,  inefficient means of  sewer
cleaning, lack of routine street cleaning, and low flows in the sewer system.
Subsequent  paving of streets and designed sewers that provided adequate
self-cleaning velocities ensued  after the turn of the century. Mechanized
methods  of sewer cleaning  now  permit cleaning  of  sewer  lengths
approximately  1,000 feet at a time.
In addition, mechanical street sweepers now remove substantial quantities
of solids from  the  streets even though dust and dirt residues do remain
after sweeping. The impact of street sweeping on catch-basin loadings has
been shown in  this report. Despite the fact that catch basins  in Chicago
were cleaned twice as often from 1959  to 1960 as compared  with the
1947-1952 period, the quantity of solids removed increased by only about
30 percent. This  reduction is attributed to  the  introduction of routine
street sweeping in  1955. Water use  and subsequent sewage flow also has
increased tremendously relative to the flows that prevailed 50 to 100 years
ago. Increased  water use provides a desirable flushing effect on the sewer
system.
In lieu of  elimination  of basins  (and  it  must  be pointed  out that
widespread  use of basins was reported in the  national survey described in
this report), basic design of such structures could be improved to minimize
the volume  of  liquid retained  and to induce greater stilling effects. The
design  of catch basins merits the attention of technical organizations,
regulatory agencies and design engineers.
Maintenance practices command attention. Greater frequency  of cleaning
would minimize the amounts of sludge retained and subject to  flush-out
during storms.  It is obvious that a full basin ceases to perform  its function
as a retention  device.  It is noted that some cleaning operations do not
remove  all  of  the deposited  solids allowing resuspension of deposited
solids by incoming flow.

                 Control of Roof Runoff Drainage

In urban areas, roofs of structures represent a large part of the  impervious
surfaces which  increase runoff.  In many combined-sewer communities, the
drainage from  such roof areas is  discharged into public sewers, via the
single property sewers used in  such cases. The APWA study of Problems
of Combined Sewer Facilities  and Overflows 1967 emphasized the great
cost of  separating  such house lines to make complete separation of storm
and sanitary sewers a reality.
                                135

-------
The emphasis  placed on urban waste pollution potential in this study
raises the question of whether the elimination of roof drainage from storm
and combined sewer  systems would be a feasible and practical means of
reducing this pollution hazard. It would appear that the three major solids
sources on roofs would be air pollution dustfall, tree leaves, and bird or
squirrel droppings.
The estimated annual quantity of dustfall onto the roofs in the 10 acre (4
ha) residential  area discussed in Section 4 was 0.42  tons  per year. For
structures with flat roofs, the majority of this dustfall would be expected to
be washed into  the sewer system. The quantity of dustfall remaining on
gabled roofs would be minimal due to the direct exposure to the wind. The
total annual quantity  of suspended solids discharged as overflows is about
1.5 tons from the 10  acre (4 ha) residential area so that the dustfall from
roofs is a factor meriting more detailed study.
If the sole objective is control of storm-water pollution, then it would be
desirable to disconnect roof leaders and discharge the runoff onto pervious
areas. This remedial measure  would virtually eliminate this solids source
for the more important lighter storms  in  the unit  area under study.
Approximately 40 percent of the study area overflows might be eliminated
if all roof leaders were disconnected.
An additional   benefit from  disconnecting  roof leaders  would  be  a
reduction  in the  size  of  the  drainage  facility needed. Indeed this
alternative is frequently considered in sewer planning studies. Sewer
systems are usually designed to provide adequate service for a  rare event
occurring under future conditions. The "trade-off may  be analyzed in the
incremental savings in the sewer system by  eliminating roof drainage
versus  the  inconvenience that is incurred by residents occasioned by the
discharge of  roof drainage to the surface. Storm water pollution control
adds a new dimension to this  analysis. Other things being equal, surface
discharge of roof drainage permits an urban area to take advantage of the
ground's natural purifying action whereas otherwise it may be necessary to
provide treatment of this storm water. Thus, water quality considerations
provide a "plus" factor in favor of surface discharge of roof discharge.
It does not appear possible to  develop a prima facie argument for or
against surface  discharge of roof drainage. Surface  drainage is only of use1
in those portions of the urban area that now have or are expected to have
the requisite  topographic-geographical features. An alternate method for
use on combined sewer  systems where pervious areas are not available
could involve a system of temporary on-site storage of roof runoff with
gradual release  of the flow after the storm.

             Regulations and Enforcement Procedures

Adequate legal authority must be available to  local public officials who
have the responsibility of maintaining clean streets  and reducing pollution
of storm-water  runoff. As  previously mentioned, both Keep America
Beautiful,  Inc.,  and the  APWA in its  book "Street Cleaning  Practices"
have published typical and model anti-litter ordinances. As a part of this
                                 136

-------
study, 224 U.S. cities of varying sizes and geographical locations were
asked to  supply copies of ordinances in  specific  categories related  to
control of pollutants capable of entering storm or combined sewers  to
supplement the existing published information. Replies received from well
over half the cities, supplemented by "model" ordinances, were analyzed
within the following eighteen classifications:
a. Anti-litter                          i.  Cleanliness of Private Property
b. Debris, etc., on vacant lots         j.  Street excavations
c. Erosion control                     k. Vehicular spillage and littering
d. Parking lots and garage             1.  Moving and demolition of bldgs
e. Handbills                          m. Bonfires and incineration
f. Site cleanup of circuses, carnivals    n. Bldg construction materials
g- Produce markets                   o. Animals and animal care estab-
  Weed  control                        lishments
h. Discharges into sewers              p. Storage and disposition of
                                    q. garbage  and rubbish
                                    r.  Authorized and unauthorized
                                       dumping
The results are presented in Appendix F.
Ordinance Enactment and Enforcement
As a part of the nationwide survey to determine the types of street refuse
problems encountered by local public works officials, respondees were
asked to indicate for which sources of street litter the local jurisdiction has
enacted and is enforcing control ordinances.
Only five sources of street litter were reported to be controlled by city
ordinances in the majority of the  responding cities. A sixth source was
controlled by ordinance in nearly 50 percent of the cities. Ordinances
affecting  15  items also  listed were found in less than 25 percent of the
cities. Table 28, Ordinance Control of Sources of Street Litter, summariz-
es the responses for  the six  categories most frequently  controlled by
ordinance.
It should be noted that five of the items found in Table 28—spillage from
overloaded trucks, yard refuse, debris from  construction and demolition,
roadside  dumping and improperly  used trash  receptacles—were  also
among the six factors found to be nationwide problems. Although from 53
percent to 77  percent of the  cities  have existing ordinances to control
problems caused by each of the items, and from 52 percent to 82 percent
of these cities reportedly enforce  their existing ordinances, satisfactory
solutions  have  not been found  for these   problems.  The sixth  item,
improper storage of household refuse, has  evidently become less of  a
concern  to  cities through  the existence  of ordinances  that  impose
restrictions upon methods of refuse storage.

                                137

-------
         TABLE 28. Ordinance Control of Sources of Street Litter

                     (Data From 120 Cities)

                             Number of Cities         Cities Enforcing
             Item           With Existing Ordinance     Existing Ordinance

    Spillage from overloaded
    trucks                           1'4                   82
    Yard refuse                        90                   47
    Debris from construction
    and demolition                      86                   61
    Roadside dumping                    84                   69
    Improperly used trash
    receptacle                         79                   48
    Improper storage of house-
    hold refuse                        68                   44

                       Regulation of Drainage

Precipitation and runoff are the inevitable factors with which urban areas
must cope. The  fact that runoff rates are increased by the imperviousness
of these community areas is given careful consideration by designers of
storm ard combined sewer systems because these rates affect conduit sizes,
gradients, and locations of these public utilities.
Emphasis on reducing the pollutional effect of runoff waters adds a new
dimension to the drainage of urban areas. If the amount and rate of runoff
can be reduced,  and thereby reduce the contact of these waters with street
litter, the pollution potential could be minimized. This  points up the
possibility of providing structures that will impede  storm-water runoff in
suitable locations. This may be feasible even in certain congested urban
areas.
The interception of storm-water runoff for use in recreational areas, or for
leaching into, and supplementing  ground  water  resources, is becoming a
common practice. For example, Suffolk County and Nassau County, on
Long Island, New York, intercept runoff water in seepage basins located
in numerous points along roadways,  in order to supplement the ground
waters  from which both counties derive all their water  supplies,  both
public and private.
Catchment  areas designed for use  on storm sewer systems in order to
minimize the  cost of sewer construction have also  been constructed. For
example, in regions where  precipitation is  not  prolonged, parks and
recreational facilities have been built, designed to be flooded to a depth of
several  feet during  storms. Small diameter pipes discharge the runoff over
a long period of time.
During the  project study, the preliminary plans for the Town of Dollard
Des Ormeaus, Montreal, Canada were reviewed^1) These plans call for
the storm runoff from the entire urban area of 2,320 acres (940 ha) to be
concentrated in  a permanent lake of 27.5 acres (11.1 ha) having a capacity

                                 138

-------
of 203  acre-feet of water as a feature of a Town Park. Similar projects
have been  constructed  in  Minneapolis,  Minnesota  and  St. Boniface,
Manitoba. The latter project has been stocked with game fish.
Such facilities should enhance the quality of the receiving waters, reduce
pollution shock loads, minimize storm water collection costs, and perhaps
provide a needed recreational  facility.  These benefits will be negated if
pollution control  is not systematically practiced to reduce pollution of
storm water runoff.
The  design of drainage facilities where  the runoff is  primarily from
streets  that are  salted  for the  control of  snow ana1 ice is extremely
important. Runoff must be  discharged  to an area where there will be
adequate dilution to prevent salt concentration. If street drainage is the
major source of water for a small lake or impoundment, such as in a park,
increasing salinity may cause fish kills or impair the intended uses of the
latter discharges.  Unfortunately, it is difficult to predict the extent that salt
will be used in a particular community. Some jurisdictions  already salt
local residential  streets, and the total  use of  salt by all jurisdictions
appears to be increasing.
Minimizing Effects of Litter and iof Yard and Garden Debris

Reference has been made of the importance of litter containers and public
education in reducing the amounts of street  litter and the eventual contact
of such debris with runoff water. Such control containers are of minimal
value if they are not available in adequate  numbers, at proper locations,
and kept emptied by scheduled collections.
Collection  schedules must be adjusted to actual experience and  times of
their  use by pedestrians. For example,  litter  containers are often the
recipients of garbage and rubbish from nearby dwellings and even business
establishments.  This  points  up to the  need for adequate  regulations
covering the use of public litter receptacles and the enforcement of such
rules.
Over and above the pollution control value of these refuse containers, they
augment community cleanliness and beauty. The use of such receptacles is
as an inducement for street tidiness that can lead to even more important
litter control efforts on the part of the public.
Yard and  garden  litter  also  must  be  given   special  consideration  if
accumulations of leaves and grass are not to add to the pollution potential
from the  urban environment. It is a  paradox  that  the  greater the
cleanliness and beauty of properties,  the greater are the amounts of such
on-site  wastes produced—much of it of vegetative origin—and the more
frequent are the required collections of this material.
Over and above the seasonal increase in such refuse during spring cleanup
periods, there is need for regular all-season  handling practices on the part
of public forces. Workable rules must be invoked  and enforced  covering
the manner in which yard and garden  debris is handled on-property, how

                                139

-------
it is stored at the street line, and how and when it will be collected and
removed from the urban environment.
Inasmuch  as yard and garden refuse was reported by public works officials
as a major source of street refuse  in most communities,  it would seem
appropriate that greater efforts be  made to accommodate the  public in
removing  such  refuse. In  many  instances the  public has shown  its
willingness to participate in the removal of such material, particularly
when large  amounts are involved.  Such practices as having convenient
weekend hours at disposal sites or stationing adequate refuse facilities at
strategic locations allow the public to  help remove such refuse. As  an
example,  in  some western cities "garbage  train" containers are placed
about the  city and  emptied by the "mother" truck as  required. The
locations are varied each weekend on a regular schedule to further aid the
public.
                  Minimizing Effects of Chemicals

The potency of various compounds to control environmental vectors of
human discomfort, inconvenience,  and safety hazards has  led to their
increased use as pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, rodenti-
cides, and soil conditioners and sources of plant nutrients.
Such municipal operations as tree spraying, weed control along streets and
on open areas; rat control, control  of starlings, pigeons,  gulls and other
birds; and the fertilization of park and parkway areas, add to  the presence
of chemical residues in  the urban  environment.  Similary,  use of such
materials by property owners adds to the chemical burden of street refuse
and the pollution potential resulting  from rainfall and runoff contacts.
Any program to  minimize  pollution stemming from such  sources will
require a choice of materials which  will have the least residual effect and
the closest possible control of the amounts used. It can be said, almost as
an axiom, that such materials are used in greater amounts than necessary
by most people.
Snow and Ice Control
Field tests indicated that  high salt concentrations occurred in storm water
runoff. It would be preferable to use a non-polluting material in place of
salt. However, the  other chemicals that have been used have perhaps even
greater adverse after effects  than salt. It appears that in small watersheds
draining highways and streets, the  drainage designer must  consider  the
possible accumulation of salt that will occur and seek to use  salt-resistant
grasses and vegetation, as well as endeavor to bring about dilution of street
runoff with flow from non-salted areas.
Additionally,  in the case of larger watersheds, where controls are placed
on  industries to  limit the discharge of  salt  brine  to  optimize river
conditions, the political jurisdictions using salt must be accounted for in
determining the "salt balance" for  the system.  During low  flow periods
before the spring thaw, it may be necessary to limit industrial discharges

                                140

-------
into some receiving waters or sewers to accommodate the discharge of the
salt used on streets and highways.
Pesticides, Herbicides, and Fertilizers

The use of chemical formulations for controlling insect and plant growth is
increasing. Local public works officials must be alert to  the pollution
potential of these materials and govern  their use of the chemicals in a
manner that will minimize pollution.

Table  29,  Comparative  Toxicity of Several Organic  Phosphorus and
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides to Bluegills in Soft Water at 25 °C,
lists  18  commonly used formulations  and  their relative toxicity.  In
addition to toxicity, some pesticides impart highly objectionable tastes and
odors to water.

    TABLE 29.  Comparative Toxicity of Several Organic Phosphorus and Chlorinated
           Hydrocarbon Insecticides to Bluegills in Soft Water at 25°C. ^

 Organic                   96-hour            Chlorinated            96-hour
 Phosphorus                  TLm              Hydrocarbon              TLm
 Insecticides                 mg/L             Insecticides             mg/L
 Guthion                   0.0052             Endrin                0.0006
 Delnav                    0.0340             Toxaphene             0.0035
 Di-Syston                  0.0630             Dieldrin               0.0079
 Malathion                 0.0900             Aldrin                0.0130
 Parathion                  0.0950             DDT                  0.0160
 EPN                      0.1000             Heptachlor             0.0190
 Chlorthion                 0.7000             Chlordane             0.0220
 Methyl Parathion            1.9000             Methoxychlor          0.0620
 Dipterex                  3.8000             BHC                  0.7900

 (1) Values from Pickering, Q.H., C.  Henderson and A. E. Lemke. "The Toxicity
 of Organic Phosphorus Insecticides to Different Species of Warmwater Fishes."  Trans.
 Amer.  Fish. Society.  91. 175-184. April  1962.


To be  effective as a pesticide, a chemical compound must  be stable and
long lasting—and it is this characteristic that makes it a continuing threat
after it is used. Most formulations do not degrade fast enough to remove
undesirable properties and thus continue to be concentrated in  the food
chain,  as higher forms feed upon affected lower forms of life.
Although most common formulations are stable,  there  are  some that are
less  stable.  For  instance, phosphorus-based  compounds degrade  faster
than chlorinated hydrocarbons.

                                  141

-------
Degradation  of most  chlorinated  hydrocarbons  is  more rapid under
anaerobic as opposed to aerobic conditions except for heptachlor epoxide
and dieldrin.(2)  Thus,  degradation could be  expected to take place in
bottom-mud deposits when water temperatures are at least 20°C.
The local jurisdiction plays only a small role in the total use of all of these
chemicals. Agriculture  is by far the largest user. Individual home owners
constitute a substantial user within the municipality.  However, the local
public works officials does have the  responsibility of ensuring that the
choice of the least toxic and most degradable formulation is used, and that
all formulations are applied in a manner that will minimize storm-water
pollution.
                Better Labor-Management Relations
A new  factor  in  America's  urban-industrial  growth  is influencing
governmental sanitation practices and costs—the necessity  to cope with
demands for better working conditions and wages by  governmental
employees. The 10-day strike in 1968 that literally buried New York City
under more than 100,000 tons of uncollected garbage and rubbish became
a  matter of national  interest,  while  it created  conditions  variously
described as "a health emergency," "a  community disgrace," and "a
political football."
Work stoppages have involved cities all over the country. The calamitous
refuse collectors' strike in Memphis,  Tennessee, embroiled  the city in a
dispute which had repercussions with national and racial overtones. These
events  and  their social-economic-political impacts  are  yet fully to be
assessed. To guard against the cessation of essential munnicipal services
upon which the health, safety, and economic  welfare of urban residents
depend, laws have been invoked prohibiting strikes by public employees.
But  these laws and the punitive  actions invoked against strikers  in the
public service  have failed to prevent labor unrest and have given ample
warning of the threat of uncollected garbage and refuse, uncleaned streets,
and  other insanitary conditions.  Something must be done to prevent the
proliferation of such situations or to minimize their effects.
The  sporadic incidents referred to have emphasised the dependence of the
modern urban environment on systematic and uninterrupted sanitation
services.  In addition, they have made the public more appreciative of the
problems faced by city workers, administrators, and  officials. If it likewise
has alerted municipal management personnel to the hazards  involved and
forewarned them of the need for prevention of such  conditions by modern
labor-management practices, the unauthorized and "illegal" strikes of
recent months will have served a valuable service.
Conditions  increase the  amount  of litter  accumulations  and provide
greater contact with precipitation and runoff. The action taken by the New
                                142

-------
York City Board of Health in declaring a health emergency during the
1968 waste collectors' strike offers dramatic proof of the greatly increased
pollution potential which can result from work stoppages of this nature.
The challenge is self-evident: strikes against government are intolerable,
but they  are not  inevitable.  Efforts  must be  made  to prevent  the
breakdown  of labor-management  relations which  can maintain  the
equilibrium of such essential services as street sanitation  and other facets
of environmental cleanliness.
                           References

 1. "Storm  Water  Drainage System Incorporating a  Lake."  Lindsay,
   Cosgrove, and Associates. 1966.
 2. HILL, DAVID W., and MCCARTY, PERRY L. "Anaerobic Degradation
   of Selected  Chlorinated Hydrocarbon  Pesticides." Journal  Water
   Pollution Control Federation 39.  8. August,  1967.
                                143

-------
                            Section 7


               Cost of Prevention and Treatment
     e  information contained  in preceeding  sections of this study has
    described various activities that a local agency can initiate to reduce
the  pollution of urban storm-water  runoff.  These  activities  may  be
summarized as:
1. Establishment of public education and cooperation programs
2. Enactment and enforcement of appropriate ordinances
3. Increased street cleaning operations
4. Improved design and operation of drainage control systems, and
5. Awareness of the  pollution  potential of street  refuse  and  other
    pollutants which may  come into contact  with  storm  water,  and
    effective actions to be taken each time such identification is made.

Interdependencies and Economic Aspects of
Solids Control Facilities.

Various litter-control  program  components  have  been  described. A
preliminary  evaluation of  the  tradeoffs that may  exist among these
facilities for the unit  area  described  in Section  4  will be made  for
comparative purposes. The unit labor costs of catch-basin cleaning, sewer
cleaning, and street sweeping are shown in Table 30, Historical Unit Cost
of Catch Basin Cleaning, Sewer Cleaning and Mechanical Street Sweep-
ing, Chicago, for ten years of record.
The estimated cost of mechanical sweeping as  shown in Table 30 is $100
per  eight-hour shift. The $100 is broken down into  $70 for  the sweeper
and $30  for the operator.  This figure  will  be used for comparative
purposes.
Based on the above estimates, the cost of removing  debris from the unit
area have been tabulated in Table 31, Comparative  Unit Costs of Solids
Control Within a 10-Acre (4 ha) Area of Origin
The much higher catch basin cleaning costs as compared with the cost of
street sweeping  per ton removed  suggests that  more intensified street
sweeping could serve as an alternate for catch-basin cleaning.

Street Cleaning
In order to minimize pollution, the frequency of street cleaning operations
should be set by the relative production of street litter-of individual areas
and the relative frequency of precipitation events at various times  of .the
year considered. Scheduling of street cleaning activities could become very
                               145

-------
         TABLE 30 Historical Unit Costs of Catch Basin Cleaning, Sewer Cleaning and
                          Mechanical Street Sweeping, Chicago
Catch-Basin Cleaning Sewer Cleaning
Year ($/Catch Basin*) ($/1000 lin. foot*)
Hand
1946 $1.66
1947 K57
1948 1.81
1949 1.91
1950 2.20
1951 2.22
1952 2.30
1958 3.33
1959 3.25
1960 3.29
Labor cost only.
of total costs for
City of Chicago.
Eductor
$1.75
2.49
2.04
2.18
2.56
2.65
3.82
3.74
3.47
Labor is about
sewer cleaning
Orange Peel Flushing
$4.27
4.07
5.08
4.81
4.79
4.05
5.60
$4.36 8.92
4.14 8.84
4.38 8.12
Scraping
$65.80
69.40
93.50
100.60
101.70
121.40
150.90
189.40
198.40
187.00
90 percent of total cost for catch-basin cleaning,
are unknown. Source — Annual Reports, Bureau
Mechanical
Street
Sweeping
($/Shift**)
-
_
-
-
-
-
-

$100Est.
. Proportion
of Services,
** Labor ($30) +sweeper ($70).
   TABLE 31 Comparative Unit Costs of Solids Control Within a  10-acre (4 ha) Area of Origin
                              Cu. Yd/yr
Tons/yr
$/Ton
$/year
       Control

Catch Basin0'

Mechanical Sweepers '

Sewer Scrapingc)

Sewer Flushing0)

Garbage:  l/2-Grindingd)

          1/2 as Refuse6)


a)  Source:  Tables 18 and 30 For 1960 Conditions

b)  Source:  Tables 30 and unpublished data for City of Chicago

c)  Source:  Tables 23 and 30

d)  Source:  Table 5 and estimated annual cost of home garbage grinders equal $15 — 72 dwel-
    ling units in unit area

e)  Source:  Table 5 and unpublished 1965 unit refuse collection cost for City of Chicago
17.4
19.7
1.0
-
-

5.2
10.1
.3
-
13.8
13.8
34.00
13.30
137.00
-
178.00
13.80
177
134
41
32
1080
190
                                          146

-------
complex and  might require the use of a  computer  program  to  permit
flexibility in scheduling the necessary operations.
A cost-benefit analysis is also needed to determine the  best combination of
street-cleaning equipment  for the  desired frequency  and  degree  of
cleaning.  For instance, in Chicago, to accomplish maximum removal of
dust and dirt, the second pass might well be made by a vacuum sweeper
working,  in tandem  with a  mechanical  pickup sweeper.  If a  second
mechanical sweeper were used in tandem, the second sweeper could use a
wider broom pattern to increase sweeping efficiency. The number of
factors which must be considered in  a cost  analysis  are complex, but a
simplified hypothetical analysis follows. It will be assumed that a specific
area is being evaluated to determine the optimum sweeping frequency and
equipment.


       Cost per shift including operation, maintenance and labor             $100
       Cost to post streets, per 5 curb miles                           $ 40
   Curb Miles Cleaned per Shift
         Mechanical    @ 30 day frequency     10
                     @ 14 day frequency     15
                     @  7 day frequency     20
                     For second pass        20

         Vacuum       For second pass        20

   Percent Cleaning Efficiency Considering only Dust and Dirt

Mechanical


Vacuum
Cleaning
Frequency
30
14
7

First Pass
60
70
75

Second Pass
70
75
80
95
Third Pass
80
80
80

Table 32, Relative Cost of Street Cleaning, uses the listed factors and
characteristics to compare the cost of using mechanical sweepers alone at
30, 14, and seven-day frequencies and then in conjunction with a vacuum
sweeper. As expected the lowest remaining  amount  of  dust and dirt is
associated with higher monthly costs. The use of a vacuum sweeper for the
second pass lowers the total cost per curb mile and reduces the amount of
street dust and dirt left on the street. For a total cost evaluation, the cost of
removing the solids  from the  catch basins and sewers that were  not
removed  by street cleaning needs  to  be determined  on  the basis  of
frequency of precipitation.
The example used, at the values assumed, indicates that sweeping weekly
would cost approximately the same  amount  of money  as at  14-day
intervals, with a 50-percent  reduction in the  average  amount of material

                                147

-------
                                                     TABLE 32.  Relative Costs of Street Cleaning
Number of


Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
Days
between
Sweepings
28
14
7
28
14
7
Mech-
anical Vacuum
Sweepers Sweepers
2
3.3
1
1 .5
1 .75
1 1

Posting
Crews
2
4
XX
2
3
XX

Passes by
Sweepers
3
3
2
2
2
2
Per Shift
Curb
Miles
Cleaned
10
20
10
10
15
20
Cost/
Curb
Mile
$28.00
24.65
10.00
23.00
19.66
10.00
Dust & Dirt * lb/100 ft of Curb

After
Sweeping
1.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.3
0.13

Collected
28 days
41.0
41.4
39.6
41.1
41.4
41.4

Average
on Street
21.5
10.7
5.5
21.5
10.7
5.3
Cost/
Curb
Mile/
28 days
$28.00
49.30
40.00
23.00
39.32
40.00
 * assume dust and dirt accumulates at 1.5 lb/day/100 ft of curb or 42  lb/28 days/100 ft of curb




xx assume use of permanent no parking sign for sweeping period, which is feasible with a weekly parking prohibition

-------
on the street at any one time. This decrease in average street litter should
also reduce the amount of material carried into catch basins or the sewer,
an additional cost benefit.
The local governmental agency  should evaluate the entire solid  waste
removal system  to determine  the  optimum  conditions  in terms  of
minimizing potential pollution.
                                 149

-------
                             Section 8
     Responsibilities and Guidelines for the Elimination
          or Reduction of the Pollution Potential of
                  Urban Environment Wastes
 The studies undertaken have evaluated the  nature  of environmental
    wastes, determined their amounts and compositions in representative
test areas,  analyzed them to  determine the constituents which create the
pollution  potential  and  have  correlated  these  pollutants  with  those
emanating from sewers.
No translation of such urban wastes into water pollution  potential could be
made without an evaluation of the governmental operations that cope with
these  environmental wastes, including street  cleaning practices,  sewer
system maintenance, public sanitation ordinances,  and regulations of
drainage policies. Thus, the study covered the causes as  well as the effects
of the conditions under investigation. It brought to light  specific guidelines
for the correction of urban conditions which create the  water pollution
hazard, small though it may be in its overall impact on  the total pollution
loading of receiving waters.
In the recording of the findings of the various studies, it followed that the
details of the test procedures  and the step-by-step  evaluation methods
would be described. This type of information has been  set forth in  detail,
not only to validate the findings and recommendations emanating from the
project, but to inform  public officials on  how they can carry out similar
investigations under the specific conditions of their own  environments and
public and governmental actions and policies.
Thus, this report offers other governmental jurisdictions two alternatives:
to retrace the research procedures under local conditions, or by translation
and interpolation to apply the basic research facts to their own data.
In this way,  this project has fulfilled several current needs:  The need for
accumulation of reliable field data regarding existing pollution resulting
from storm sewer and combined sewer discharges; the need for making
knowledge concerning  pollution of storm-water runoff  available  to cities
and responsible public officials; and the need for a source of facts  which
constitute a portion of the research necessary to make  an impact on the
existing pollution of this country's lakes and streams.
However,  the  primary value  of the  study findings  is that the  facts
automatically impose the challenge to  do something about them, to the
extent that the importance of the problem merits such  action in terms of
costs versus  benefits to be derived! The fact that corrective actions will
produce a cleaner environment in which to  live, while it achieves a
reduction in  the pollution potential of urban wastes,  lifts  these actions
above a mere dollar-and-cents evaluation of their benefits.
                                151

-------
                          Section 9

                     Acknowledgements

 The American Public Works Association is deeply  indebted to the
 -*- following  persons  and their  organizations  for  the  services  they
rendered to the APWA Research Foundation in carrying out this study for
the Federal Water Pollution  Control  Administration.  Without  their
cooperation and assistance the study would not have been possible.

                      Steering Committee
VINTON W.  BACON,  General  Superintendent,  Metropolitan Sanitary
  District of Greater Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
THEODORE EPPIG, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Streets and
  Sanitation, Chicago, Illinois
JAMES  V. FITZPATRICK, Commissioner,  Department of Streets and
  Sanitation, Chicago, Illinois
JAMES W. JARDINE, Commissioner, Department of Water and Sewers,
  Chicago, Illinois
MILTON PIKARSKY, Commissioner of Public Works, Chicago, Illinois
H.  W.  POSTON, Acting Regional Director, Federal Water  Pollution
  Control Administration, Chicago, Illinois
WILLIAM J.  STANLEY, Director of Air Pollution  Control,  Chicago,
  Illinois

                      Manuscript Review

SAMUEL S. BAXTER, Water Commissioner, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
FRED J. BENSON, Dean, College of Engineering, Texas A & M University,
  College Station, Texas
EDWARD J. CLEARY, Executive Director,  Ohio River  Valley Water
  Sanitation Commission, Cincinnati, Ohio (Retired)
WILLIAM S. FOSTER, Editor, American City Magazine, New York, New
  York
NORMAN B. HUME, Member, State Water Resources Control Board, Los
  Angeles, California (Retired)
WILLIAM D. HURST, City Engineer  and Commissioner of Buildings,
  Winnipeg, Man., Canada
MILTON OFFNER, Secretary, Board  of Public Works,  Los  Angeles,
  California (Retired)
CHARLES WRIGHT, Jr., Mayor, Topeka, Kansas

                         Consultants

DR. MORRIS M. COHN, former City Manager, Schenectady, New York
RICHARD FENTON, former Assistant to the President, City Council, New,
  York, New York

                              153

-------
BEN R. PARIS,  former  Director,  Bureau of Street Maintenance, Los
  Angeles, California
CASIMIR A. ROGUS,  former  Director of Engineering, Department  of
  Sanitation, New York, New York

      Federal Water Water Pollution Control Administration

DARWIN R. WRIGHT, Project Officer, and
WILLIAM  A.  ROSENKRANZ, Chief, Storm  and Combined Sewer
  Pollution  Control  Branch,  Division  of   Applied  Science  and
  Technology.

                         Public Agencies

City of Chicago:
    Department of Public Works
    Department of Water and Services
    Department of Streets and Sanitation
    Department of Air Pollution Control
Great Lakes Field Office, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
State of Illinois, Department of Public Works and Buildings

                       Commercial Firms

Consoer, Townsend and Associates, Consulting Engineers
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
Pollution Control Laboratories, Chicago
Wayne Manufacturing Company, Pamona, California
                             154

-------
          APWA RESEARCH FOUNDATION


                  Project No. 120
    The Causes and Remedies of Water Pollution


       From Surface Drainage of Urban Areas
                  Steering Committee

               VlNTON W. BACON, Chairman
                   THEODORE EPPIG
                 JAMES V. FITZPATRICK
                   JAMES W. JARDINE
                   MILTON PIKARSKY
                     H.W. POSTON
                  WILLIAM J. STANLEY
            ROBERT D. BUGHER, Project Director

         RICHARD H. SULLIVAN, Principal Investigator


                  Special Consultants

                  DR. MORRIS M.COHN
                   RICHARD FENTON
                      BEN PARIS
                    CASIMIR ROGUS


                     APWA Staff
ROBERT PARKER
ELLEN FILLER
OLGA VYDRA
VIOLET PERLMAN
RITA WERTZ
MICHAEL RADOWSKI
ALFRED J. KUHN
LOISBORTON
ANTHONY PARISE
ADELE STALL
BARBARA SHAPIRO
MARY ANN ZIMMERMAN
JOHNKERSTETTER
PAULO'KEEFE
JOEL KERSTETTER
JOHN WUBBOLDING
PHILLIP WUBBOLDING
ASHOOK LAGVANKAR
STANLEY A. KUMIEGA
GEORGE TOMSHO
MAXINECOOP
KAY MANOLIS
JOSEPH BOSSLET
JAMES HEANEY
Jo ANN ZALEWSKI
MICHAEL HARDY
KENNETH S. STOLLAR
                          155

-------
          American Public Works Association







                      Board of Directors



                  JOHN A. LAMBIE, President





KARK B. STALLINGS, Vice President    HUGO G. ERICKSON, Past President



LYMAN C. LOVELL       WILLIAM G. WILLIS         L. C. CHEEK, R.



WILLIAM W. PAGAN      Ross L. CLARK          MYRON D. CALKINS



ERWIN F. HENSCH       LYALL A. PARDEE    GILBERT M. SCHUSTER




             ROBERT D. BUGHER, Executive Director









                 APWA Research Foundation



                       Board of Trustees



                 SAMUEL S.  BAXTER, Chairman



               WILLIAM D. HURST, Vice Chairman




  FRED J. BENSON                        JAMES V. FITZPATRICK



  WILLIAM S. FOSTER                        EDWARD J. CLEARY



  D. GRANT MICKLE                           MILTON OPEN ER



  CHARLES D. WRIGHT, JR.          ROBERT D. BUGHER, Secy.-Treas.




             HERBERT G. POERTNER, General Manager
                              157

-------
                    APWA FOREWORD

             As Contained In Original Printing
The detailed report which follows gives the results of studies -iade by the
APWA Research  Foundation  under contract  with the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, and the findings and recommendations
resulting therefrom. The concept behind these  studies was to determine
what possible effects better urban housekeeping  might have on the quality
of urban storm water runoff.
The field studies were in the main carried out in the City of Chicago with
the direct help of its public officials. The city's  help on this investigation
has  been of the highest order  and  without the help received, the study
would not have been possible. Further insight into problems and practices
in urban environmental sanitation  on a national scale was obtained  by
searching studies of the literature and by data obtained from respondent
cities on a number of  questionnaire surveys. The  cooperation of these
municipalities and their officials is acknowledged.
The conditions and practices analyzed are typical of those found in many
other  communities throughout the  nation. The  concept of  relating
municipal sanitation  practices to  water pollution  is  new and in only
isolated localities have local governmental agencies considered the impact
on receiving waters caused by pollution from urban storm water runoff.
Within the  coming years, as the current programs  to  abate  pollution
become effective, more attention will be focused on "secondary" sources,
such as combined  sewer overflows and storm water discharges. Effective
urban housekeeping will be a key factor in the correction of both these
sources of pollution. Sight must not be lost, however, of the immediate
benefits which can be gained by increasing the level of urban housekeeping
over and above the possible benefits to preserving  the usefulness of our
water resources. Municipal cleanliness is an important factor in preventing
neighborhood deterioration and in  nurturing the pride residents take in
their community.
The APWA  Research  Foundation has appreciated the opportunity to
serve the FWPCA  on this project.
                                 SAMUEL S.  BAXTER, Chairman
                                Board of Trustees
                               APWA RESEARCH FOUNDATION
                                159

-------
                         Section 10


                         Appendices




A. Street Refuse Test Areas and Additional Correlations

B. Supplemental Information Regarding the Amount and Nature of
   Sheet Refuse Collected from Eighteen Test Areas in Chicago, Illinois

C. Salt Concentration in Expressway Runoff Test

D. Survey Questionnaires Used and Guidelines for their Evaluation

E. Special Analyses Made

F. Abstract of Ordinances Designed to Reduce the Pollution
   Potential of Urban Wastes
                              161

-------
                          Appendix A

   Street Refuse Test Areas and Additional Correlations
The following pages describe in  words and pictures the eighteen areas
selected for sampling. The commercial areas (1,2, and 3) are typical of
neighborhood  shopping districts  in large metropolitan  areas, and  the
downtown central business district of smaller jurisdictions. The industrial
areas (4 and 19) are typical of intense and undeveloped areas respectively.
The multi-family residential areas (7, 8, 9,  10, 11,  12, 13,  14 and 15) vary
from well-kept apartments (9, 10, and 15) to high-rise apartments (14) to
very low-income areas (7  and 13). The single family residential areas (5,
6, 16, 17 and 18) varied from estates (16 and 17) to modern suburban (5)
to older, well-established middle income housing (6 and 18). Thus a good
cross section of characteristics of urban land use was sampled. Figure A-l,
Key Map Street Refuse Testing Program, indicates the general location of
the  18 test areas, designated  by their identification number, and the nine
control areas which were  machine-swept every two weeks, alphabetically
identified.

       Index of Land Use  Allowed by Zoning Classification
R-l       One-family detached dwelling
R-2       Includes two-family dwelling
R-4       Includes colleges, apartment hotels
R-5       Same as R-4
R-8       Includes restaurants and retail food shops
B3-3      Dwelling units not allowed on ground floor, business other than
          wholesale distributors, all commercial activity within building
Ml-2 &   Manufacturing not classified as "heavy"
M2-3
                               163

-------
FIGURE A-1 Key Map, Street Litter Test Areas (1 to 10 and 13 to 20
hand swept A-1 to A-9 machine swept)
                                  LAKE MICHIGAN
  BLUE ISLAND
                             164

-------
    AREA No. 1
    North  Side    63 Street Ellis to
    Drexel

    Estimated average daily traffic
    7,950

    Zoning B3-3

    The street  is lined with active
    commercial  stores. Elevated rap-
    id transit tracks  is overhead. The
    street was swept daily. The  curb
    and gutter was installed immedi-
    ately prior to beginning  the  test
    and the pavement in the  parking
    land was completely replaced so
    that the  surface was relatively
    smooth and  in  excellent  condi-
    tion.
    FINDINGS:

    Average amount
    Litter:
       4.15 Ib/day/lOOftofcurb

    Dust and Dirt:
       2.53 Ib/day/lOOftofcurb

    BOD:  5.05 mg/g

    COD: 26.7 mg/g
165

-------
     AREA NO. 2

     East Side - Stony Island,
     68th - 69th Street

     Estimated average daily
     traffic - 20,400

     Zoning B3-3

     The street is a heavily traveled
     arterial  with  many small com-
     mercial stores on the ground floor
     of   apartment  buildings.  The
     street was swept daily.
     FINDINGS:

     Average Amounts
     Litter:
       8.051b/day/100ftofcurb

     Dust and Dirt:
       6.191b/day/100ftofcurb

     BOD: 4.03 mg/g

     COD: 24.8 mg/g
166

-------
    AREA NO. 3

    West half of the inter-section of
    63rd and Stony Island

    Zoning B4-3

    An  extremely  congested  corner
    with  heavy traffic and  a great
    number  of  pedestrians transfer-
    ring between busses and the  ter-
    minal  of the rapid transit station.
    The street was swept twice a  day
    - early morning and at noon.
     FINDINGS:

     Average amount
     Litter:
       3.81 Ib/day/lOOftofcurb

     Dust and Dirt:
       1.3 Sib/day/I 00 ft of curb

     BOD:  14.54 mg/g

     COD:  66.7 mg/g
167

-------
     AREA NO. 4
     South Side - South Chicago Ave-
     nue, Jeffery to Clyde

     Estimated average daily traffic
     11,140

     Zoning M1 -2

     This is a major arterial street in
     an  industrial  area.  Parking is
     general. Pavement is in fair con-
     dition.  There is relatively  minor
     residential traffic. Some unpaved
     parking areas in  vicinity. The
     street was swept daily.
     FINDINGS:

     Average amount
     Litter:
       5. Sib/day/100 ft of curb

     Dust and Dirt:
       5.371b/day/100ftofcurb

     BOD: 2.95 mg/g

     COD: 2.30 mg/g
168

-------
    AREA NO. 5

    East Side   East End, 91st Place
    to 92nd Place

I   Minimum traffic

    Zoning R-2

    A relatively modern,  high class,
    single  family  residential  area.
    The street  was swept  twice  a
    week.
     FINDINGS:

     Average amount
     Litter:
       0.45 Ib/day/lOOftofcurb

     Dust and Dirt:
       0.361b/day/100ftofcurb

     BOD: 1.72mg/g

     COD: 18.3 mg/g
169

-------
      AREA NO. 6

      North Side  81st Street, Bennet
      to Jeffery

      Estimated  average daily traffic
      1,000

      Zoning R-2

      An  area  developed with single
      family homes, built several years
      ago  and  occupied by families of
      middle level income. The  street
      was  swept twice a week.
 <::•   FINDINGS:

%||   Average amounts
     Litter:
        1.21b/day/100ftofcurb

     Dust and Dirt:
        0.61  Ib/day/lOOftofcurb

     BOD: 9.1 mg/g

     COD: 53.1 mg/g
  170

-------
     AREA NO. 7

     East  Side    Blackstone,  60th
     Street to 61st, and 61st   Black-
     stone to Dorchester

     Estimated average daily  traffic
     700

     Zoning R-5

     The street is on  a bus route, and
     no  parking  is allowed along the
     major  portion of the  test  area.
     Abutting  the street is  a power
     generating plant, a small neigh-
     borhood grocery  store,   several
     marginal  commercial  establish-
     ments, and apartments with occu-
     pants in a low income level. The
     street was swept  twice a week.
^   FINDINGS:
  \

     Average amounts
     Litter:
        4.71b/day/100 ft of curb

     Dust and Dirt:
        2.30 lb/day/100 ft of curb
     BOD: 2.18 mg/g

     COD: 50.7 mg/g
 171

-------
    AREA NO. 8

    East  Side   Kenwood,  60th  to
    61 st Street

    Estimated average daily traffic
    1,980

    Zoning R-8

    The abutting property is used for
    apartments for persons  with low
    income level. The street is one-
    way  and is normally  congested
    with  long  term  parking. Pave-
    ment is  deteriorating. Yards  are
    well   maintained.   Street  was
    cleaned twice a week.
    FINDINGS:

    Average amounts
    Litter:
      1.5 Ib/day/lOOftofcurb

    Dust and Dirt:
      2.81  Ib/day/lOOftofcurb

    BOD: 2.81 mg/g

    COD: 29.5 mg/g
172

-------
    AREA NO. 9

    North Side   Marquette Road,
    Stony Island to Blackstone

    Estimated  average daily  traffic
    5,860

    Zoning R-5

    The  street is  a collector  with
    heavy traffic. There  is  a ham-
    burger stand with a high volume
    of traffic and a large amount of
    litter associated with  a carry-out
    business. At one end of the test
    area the  stand has employees who
    daily clean discarded paper for
    several hundred  feet. The street
    was swept twice per week.
    FINDINGS:

    Average amounts
    Litter:
       2.65 Ib/day/lOOftofcurb

    Dust and Dirt:
       1.541b/day/100ftofcurb

    BOD: 4.77 mg/g

    COD: 61.3 mg/g
173

-------
    AREA NO. 10

    North Side   Marquette  Road,
    Minerva to Greenwood

    Estimated average daily traffic
    5,860

    Zoning R-4

    This  portion of Marquette Road
    is  about one-fourth  (1A)  mile
    from  area No.  10.  Abutting de-
    velopment  is well kept  apart-
    ments in an area populated  by
    persons  with low level income.
    The  street  was  swept  twice  a
    week.
    FINDINGS:

    Average amounts
    Litter:
       1. Gib/day/loo ft of curb

    Dust and Dirt:
       1.1 Sib/day/100 ft of curb

    BOD: 2.9 mg/g

    COD: 32.6 mg/g
174

-------
    AREA NO. 13
    East Side
    Street
Federal, 51st to 53rd
    Estimated average daily traffic
    1,828

    Zoning R-4

    Abutting the street on one side is
    a railroad right-of-way and  the
    other a  high-rise  Chicago Hous-
    ing Authority  project,  set  well
    back from the street. Heavy park-
    ing on the street  with considera-
    ble  turn-over.  The   street  was
    cleaned  twice a week.
    FINDINGS:

    Average amounts
    Litter:
       3.Slb/day/100 ft of curb

    Dirt and Dust:
       2. Sib/day/I 00 ft of curb

    BOD: 2.03 mg/g

    COD: 34.0 mg/g
175

-------
    AREA NO. 14
    East Side
    Garfield
Dearborn, 54th to
    Minimum traffic

    Zoning R-4

    One side of the street is the rear
    of a school,  and the other side
    has   deteriorated   multi-family
    apartments.   The    street  was
    cleaned twice per week.

    FINDINGS:

    Average amounts
    Litter:
      4.85 Ib/day/lOOftofcurb

    Dust and Dirt:
      2.55 Ib/day/lOOftofcurb

    BOD:  6.32 mg/g

    COD:  45.6 mg/g
176

-------
    AREA NO. 15

    North  Side     51st Street,  St.
    Lawrence to Cottage Grove

    Estimated average daily traffic
    14,070

    Zoning R-5

    An arterial street with  a grassed
    parking area. The street is lined
    with three-story, well-maintained
    apartment buildings adjacent to a
    rapidly  deteriorating area. Gen-
    erally the street pavement is in
    good condition  but the curbs are
    deteriorating.  The  street  was
    cleaned twice per week.
    FINDINGS:

    Average amounts
    Litter:
       4.91b/day/100ftofcurb

    Dust and Dirt:
       2.801b/day/100ftofcurb

    BOD:   2.28 mg/g

    COD: 24.6 mg/g
177

-------
     AREA NO. 16

     East side — Woodlawn, 48th to
     49th Street

     Zoning R-1

     An area of large homes and some
     professional  offices,  one  block
     South of a commercially devel-
     oped  area   along  47th  Street.
     There is a wide grass area adja-
     cent to the street. All day parking
     is general. Heavy accumulations
     of grass and leaves is common.
     The street was cleaned weekly.
     FINDINGS:

     Average amount
     Litter:
       6.81b/day/100ftofcurb

     Dust and dirt:
       0.361b/day/100ftofcurb

     BOD:
        3.24mg/g

     COD:
       24.5 mg/g
178

-------
    AREA NO. 17

    North side -- 48th Street, Wood-
    lawn to Kenwood

    Minimum daily traffic

    Zoning R-l

    An area  adjacent to and similar
    to area No.  16, developed with
    multi-family apartments for per-
    sons with medium  to high in-
    come. The street  pavement is in
    good condition. Many trees  and
    large grassed  areas  are adjacent
    to  the  street. The   street  was
    cleaned weekly.


    FINDINGS:

    Average amount
    Litter:
       0.91b/day/100ftofcurb

    Dust and dirt:
       0.37 lb/day/100 ft of curb

    BOD:
        9.43 mg/g

    COD:
       72.8 mg/g
179

-------
     AREA NO. 18

     East side  -- Jeffrey, 89th to 91st
     Street

     Est. average daily traffic  17,300

     Zoning R-2

     Jeffrey is  a collector street with a
     relative  large  vehicle count. Bus
     lines operate on the street. Most
     of the dwellings are single family
     residential units constructed sev-
     eral years ago and are well main-
     tained. Street was swept twice per
     week.
     FINDINGS:

     Average amount
     Litter:
       3. Sib/day/100 ft of curb

     Dust and dirt:
       1.821b/day/100ftofcurb

     BOD:
         1.94 mg/g

     COD:
       32.1 mg/g
180

-------
    AREA NO. 19
    East  side  —  Union,  Pershing
    Road to 41 st Street

    Minimum traffic

    Zoning M2-3

    The concrete  pavement  is  dis-
    tressed.  Over  large  areas,  rain
    water washes  large  amounts of
    dirt  and gravel  onto the street
    surface. There is no development
    on either side  and the streets are
    not  used  for  parking.  Area is
    adjacent to the Stockyards Indus-
    trial  area.  Street  litter  was so
    heavy that difficulty was encoun-
    tered in handling  the  material
    and the findings  of  the analysis
    were not generally used. In addi-
    tion to  the  dust  and dirt, large
    amounts of rock were found.
    FINDINGS:

    Average amount
    Litter:
       16.5 Ib/day/lOOftofcurb

    Dust and dirt:
       10.161b/day/100ftofcurb

    BOD:
       2.82 mg/g

    COD:
       31.8 mg/g
181

-------
    AREA NO. 20

    East side —  Kimbark, 60th to
    61st Street

    Est. average daily traffic 1,620

    Zoning R-5

    Abutting the  one-way  street are
    3-story apartment buildings in a
    rapidly deterriorating area. The
    area is adjacent  to area No. 8,
    although  the exterior appearance
    of the buildings and the level of
    maintenance of the yards is supe-
    rior.  The  street was cleaned
    weekly.
    FINDINGS:

    Average amount
    Litter:
      4. Slb/day/100 ft of curb

    Dust and dirt:
      2.901b/day/100ftofcurb

    BOD:
      3.22 mg/g

    COD;
      34.6 mg/g
182

-------
                          Correlations

Figures A-2 and A-3 show the frequency of observed values of 5-day
BOD and COD from the street litter dust and dirt samples.
Figures A-4 through A-9 show the average amounts per week of the major
components of street litter collected from test areas Nos. 1 through 6.
Figure A-10 compares the average amount per day per 100 feet of curb of
street litter for  area Nos. 1 through 8, by dust and dirt, paper, inorganic,
and total amount.
                                183

-------
FIGURE A-2 Frequency Distribution of Observed 5-Day BOD
on
c ,c
1
o
'o
i
z

T
L




-n
[






n
bl





,^r





K












5 10 15
5- Day BOD mg/g
   FIGURE A-3 Frequency Distribution of Observed COD

12
11
10
9
R
7
6
S
4
3
•>
1














/




























/I
0
























































12










































24
COD






































































36
(mg/g)
























































48










































60
                        184

-------
FIGURE A-4 Average Amount of Street Liner Components by Week
                        Area No. 1
            LEGEND
                 Dirt
                 Rock
                 Paper
                 Glass
           123456789
      July 8
 FIGURE A-5 Average Amount of Street Litter Components by Week
                        Area No. 3
                         Week
                            185

-------
FIGURE A-6 Average Amount of Street Litter Components by Week
                        Area No. 2
                                          8    9    10

                                                Aug. 21-27
                          186

-------
FIGURE A-7 Average Amount of Street Litter Components by Week
                        Area No. 4
£  2-
     Dirt
       \
   '--Rock,
7
                                        Dirt
                                        Rock
                                        Paper
    12345678

   July 1-7                         Aug. 21-27
                    Week
FIGURE A-8 Average Amount of Street Litter Components by Week
                        Area No. 5

"
sj 4
u
'S
n 0
1 '
Jur


Dirt
\
\
Rock^
\





_----





^





-~~-~.
1 2 3 4 i
e 19-25





'-"





X



/


6 7 £
Week



\\
\
\



/
/
y^



L

1
Dirt
Rock
J 9 10 11
Aug. 28
                           187

-------
FIGURE A-9 Average Amount of Street Litter Components by Week
                        Area No. 6
                                                   Vegetation
                         Week
   FIGURE A-10 Average Street Litter Components by Test Area
                           188

-------
                     Appendix B



Supplemental Information Regarding the Amount and

   Nature of Street Refuse Collected from Eighteen

            Test Areas in Chicago, Illinois
    Table B-l Rainfall During Street Sweeping Tests—June
                19, 1968 to August 29,1968

    Table B-2 Summary of Laboratory Reports on Street
                   Refuse Components
                          189

-------
TABLE B-l .  Rainfall During Street Sweeping
  Tests - June 19, 1968 to August 29, 1968
                 Rainfall
Date
1967
June




July







Aug.






20
21
24
27
28
1
2
9
10
18
23
26
27
2
3
8
18
19
27
Day
of
Week
Tues.
Wed.
Sat.
Tues.
Wed.
Sat.
Sun.
Sun.
Mon.
Tues.
Sun.
Wed.
Thur.
Wed.
Thur.
Tues.
Fri.
Sat.
Sun.
Total
@
Wood lawn
inches
.10
.86
.49
.03
.63
.01
.10
.63
.02
.23
.60
.37
.09
.23
.04
.28
1.33
.41
.16
Total Time
@
Midway
hrs.
1
8
2
3
4
3
1
5
4
1
2
5
4
1
3
6
4
7
6
.08
.08
.47
.35
.23
.00
.68
.58
.57
.63
.70
.53
.95
.78
.63
.87
.57
.72
.60
Start-Finish
(may not be
continuous)
2:
7:
11:
5:
3:
4:
12:
4:
14- 3
20- 5
01- 6
24-9
37- 8
02-11
05- 4
18-12
:19
:05
:10
:24
:34
:40
:18
Mid
12 Mid.- 1:10
11:
4:
10:
3:
6:
16- 2
23-10
45-11
01-12
02- 7
8:22- 8
1:
3:
8:
3:
01-10
30- 6
03- 6
08- 3
:20
:43
:40
Mid
:02
:40
:40
:40
:20
:20
AM
PM
PM
PM
AM
PM
PM
.
PM
PM
AM
PM

PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
                    190

-------
TABLE B-2,  Summary of Laboratory Reports on Street Refuse Componen



   Note:  All measurements based on arr,-^ijnt per gram of dry material
Test
Area
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5

Date
6/19-23
7/ 3- 7
7/17-21
7/31-8/3
8/14-17
Ave , , Area
7/ 3- 7
7/ 3- 7
7/17-21
7/20-23
7/31-8/4
8/14-17
Ave . , Area
6/19-23
7/ 3- 7
7/11-14
7/17-21
7/31-8/4
8/14-17
Ave . , Area
6/19-23
6/26-30
7/ 3- 7
7/17-21
7/31-8/4
8/14-17
Ave , , Area
6/21, 26
7/3, 5, 14
7/17 20
24^ 27'
Sample
1
10
29
38
75
1
2
5
18
7
39
76
2
6
69
8
70
40
77
3
3
9
4
19
41
78
4
50
42

20
Water
Soluble
(mg/g)
8.0
6.74
14.2
7.48
13.48
9.98
6.2
7.6
10.4
5.4
7.04
14.2
8.47
16.0
9.78
11.6
13.98
19.7
43.36
19.07
4.4
3.4
5.6
6.9
4.3
7.54
5.36
2.44
3.7

2.8
Volatile
Water
Soluble
(mg/g)
3.4
3.44
7.0
3.96
8.44
5.25
3.3
4.5
5.14
3.0
4.18
8.64
4.79
7.2
4.78
5.8
7.0
11.8
28.18
10.78
1.4
1.7
2.7
2.8
2.39
4.2
2.53
1.0
1.54

1.3
Differ-
ence
(Inorg.)
(mg/g)
4.6
3.3
7.2
3.52
5.02
4.73
2.9
3.1
5.26
2.4
2.86
5.56
3.68
8.8
5.0
5.8
6.98
7.9
15.18
8.29
3.0
1.7
2.9
4.1
1.96
3.34
2.83
1.44
2.16

1 .5
Phos-
Phate
As PO4
(mg/g)
< .02
<.04
.052
< .01
.07
.038
< .02
.04
< .04
< .04
.015
< .01
.027
.04
.06
.04
.08
.084
.55
.142
<.02
< .04
<.02
.08
< .01
< .01
.03
< .01
< .01

< .04
Moisture
& Volume
1.3
3.79
2.5
1.64
1.27
2.1
2.62
3.0
1.76
2.83
.96
.82
1.87
6.23
8.2
3.12
4.95
4.17
2.78
4.91
3.01
3.29
.54
.75
1.99
1.13
1.79
8.08
8.1

2.36
5 Day
BOD
(mg/g)
5.0
3.04
7.0
1 .9
8.32
5.05
4.1
3.2
3.84
2.2
1.9
8.96
4.03
7.0
4.96
5.4
7.52
19.5
42.88
14.54
7.3
.8
4.5
1.0
1.3
2.98
2.95
1.44
.8

.6
20 day
BOD COD
(mg/g) (mg/g)
6.0 25.0
23.0
32.2
24.0
29.2
26.7
5.1 24.5
4.0 34.4
15.0
2.6 30.8
15.5
30.2
24.8
7.8 38.8
63.8
6.5 33.6
42.8
22.0
209.1
66.7
8.2 42.0
1.2 19.3
6.0 24.1
13.8
24.7
14.3
23.0
11.9
19.1

11.7
Plate
Count
Colonies/g
x 1000
25.0
820.0
46,400.0
64,000.0
4,800.0
23,209.0
110.5
60.0
1,188.0
30.0
7,200.0
4,400.0
2,163.4
64.0
3,440.0
44.0
600.0
52,800.0
' 25,000.0
9,908.0
80.0
32.0
50.0
150.0
33,000.0
2,640.0
5,992.0
1,000.0
22,400.0

3,040.0
Col iform
Organism
(mpn/g)
y 1000
1.6
183.6
11,000.0
4,600.0
1,500.0
3,456.9
1.6
21.8
321.8
18.8
93.0
3,000.0
576.2
14.0
2,400.0
21.8
400.0
2,100.0
1,200.0
1,022.6
1 .6
28.2
1 .6
18.0
400.0
1,500.0
324.9
110.0
2,100.0

141.0
Fiscal
Entero-
cocci
(mpn/g)
6
0
420
2,200
2,200
965
2
2
-
10
180
-
32
2
-
3
-
14
8
4
1
10
4
3
56
86
27
86
280

10
Total
Nitro-
gen as
N (mg/g)
_
-
.3
.828
.311
.48
_
-
-
-
.34
.306
.323
_
.352
-
232
.598
.597
.457
_
-
_
_
.45
.412
.4?!
.125
.598



-------
TABLE B-2.  Summary of Laboratory Reports on Street Refuse Components (Cont'd)





       Note:  All measurements based on amount per gram of dry material
Test
Area
~5~
5


6
A

£

s
K>
6


7
7
7
7
7


8
8
8
8

Date
7/31, 8/
3, 7
8/14 17
2l' 24'
Ave., Area
6/20-30
7/4 7
'/^/ ' /
11, 14
7/21 25
2s'
8/1, 4, 8,
11
8/15 18
22, 25
Ave . , Area
6/19, 21,
26
7/3, 5, 13
7/17, 19,
24
7/31, 8/
4, 8, 11
8/15, 21 ,
24'
Ave., Area
6/19, 27
7/21, 27
8/4, 11
8/18, 25
Ave . , Area
Sample
51

79
5
21

11

64
52

80
6
53
43
54
55

81
7
44
22
56
82
8
Water
Soluble
(mg/g)
3.24

3.52
3.1
3.4

12.2

7.84
6.64

10.3
8.08
3.0
4.3
4.72
8.82

5.06
5.18
4.62
4.5
4.68
4.52
4.58
Volatile
Water
Soluble
(mg/g)
1 .04

1.54
1.4
1.6

7.96

5.66
2.28

7.42
4.98
1.52
2.2
2.16
3.54

1.78
2.45
2.98
2.4
2.96
2.58
2.76
Differ-
ence
(Inorg.)
(mg/g)
1.6

1.98
1.7
1.8

4.24

2.18
4.36

2.88
3.1
1.48
2.1
2.56
5.28

3.28
2.73
1.64
2.1
1.72
1.94
1.82
Phos-
Phate
As PO4
(mg/g)
<.01

.04
.02
.04

.04

.11
.072

.09
.07
.024
<.01
.016
.48

.18
.142
.01
<.04
.016
.02
.021
Moisture
& Volume
(%)
11.17

4.82
5.75
4.46

9.34

2.39
3.28

11.93
4.28
2.95
4.43
5.79
3.84

2.67
3.94
1.83
2.88
4.53
4.12
3.34
5 Day
BOD
(mg/g)
4.8

.96
1 .72
1.7

15.5

9.44
4.16

14.8
9.1
1.36
1.4
2.4
3.0

2.72
2.18
1.4
2.7
3.04
4.08
2.81
20 day
BOD COD
(mg/g) (mg/g)
36.4

12.4
18.3
25.4

83.3

54.1
36.9

65.2
53.1
32.4
41.8
106.4
36.7

36.0
50.7
16.5
30.7
56.4
14.2
29.5
Plate
Count
Colonies/g
* 1000
2,400.0

3,300.0
6,428.0
3,600.0

500.0

7,680.0
9,600.0

3,440.0
4,964.0
2,240.0
20,000.0
3,040.0
2,560.0

1,600.0
5,888.0
30,400.0
2,240.0
8,320.0
2,100.0
10,765.0
Co li form
Organism
(mpn/g)
x 1000
1,100.0

1,800.0
1,050.2
109.0

183.6

1,750.0
1,500.0

2,100.0
1,128.5
1,100.0
1,100.0
2,400.0
1,100.0

1,000.0
1,340.0
2,000.0
141.0
900.0
1,800.0
1,210.9
Fecal
Entero-
cocci
(mpn/g)
186

86
130
4

-

-
14

186
41
420
860
2,200
22

-
700
80
2
2,200
8
. 572
Total
Nitro-
gen as
N (mg/g)
.308

.27
.325
_

-

.366
.238

.967
.523
.8
.51
.394
.51

.403
.523
.65

.448
1.22
.773

-------
TABLE B-2.  Summary of  Laboratory Reports on Street Refuse Components (Cont'd)




       Note:  All measurements based on amount per gram of dry material
Test
Area
9
9
9

9
9


10
10
10
10
10

13
13
13
13
13

14
14
14
14
14

Date
6/19, 21,
26
7/3, 5,
13, 14
7/17 19
24, 27'
7/31, 8/
2, 7, 10
8/14, 17,
21 ', 24
Ave., Area
6/20, 23,
27, 30
7/4, 7, 11
7/18, 20,
25, 27
8/1, 4, 10
8/14, 17,
22, 25
Ave . , Area
6/20
7/5, 11
7/18, 25
8/1, B
8/15, 22
Ave - , Area
6/20, 27
7/5, 11
7/18, 25
8/1, 8
8/15, 22
Ave . , Area
Sample
57
45

23
58

83
9
71
72
24
59
84
10
46
30
25
60
73
13
12
31
26
61
85
14
Water
Soluble
(mg/g)
.96
5.06

6.4
12.6

13.68
7.74
2.74
4.4
5.8
8.5
7.58
5.8
3.16
3.44
3.2
2.56
5.72
3.62
2.96
9.88
11.4
5.36
5.62
7.04
Volatile
Water
Soluble
(mg/g)
.08
3.62

3.8
8.56

10.14
5.24
.96
2.66
3.3
6.04
4.94
3.58
1.8
1.26
1.9
1.3
3.18
1.89
1.36
6.36
7.1
3.42
2.74
5.2
Differ-
ence
(Inorg.)
(mg/g)
.88
1.44

2.6
4.04

3.54
2.5
1.88
1.74
2.5
2.46
2.64
2.22
1.36
2.18
1.3
1.26
2.54
1.73
1.6
3.52
4.3
1.94
2.88
1.84
Phos-
Phate
As PC>4
(mg/g)
.04
.01

<.04
.115

.11
.063
< .01
.048
< .04
.04
.01
.03
<.01
<.01
< .04
< .01
.05
.024
< .04
.135
< .04
.08
.07
.073
Moisture
& Volume
(%)
.84
1.83

1.69
2.03

3.62
2.0
10.06
.79
1.72
1.0
1.02
2.92
6.87
.9
1 .21
.79
1.98
2.35
6.22
6.68
2.25
1.49
2.33
3.79
5 Day 20 day
BOD BOD
(mg/g) (mg/g)
1.28
1.7

2.4
13.12

5.36
4.77
.80
1.52
2.1
4.96
5.12
2.9
.7
1.5
2.4
1.4
4.16
2.03
1.76
7.7
15.4
4.48
2.24
6.32
COD
(mg/g)
20.5
24.2

22.7
112.6

126.3
61.3
28.4
21.5
30.5
36.6
46.0
32.6
36.7
34.0
33.1
34.9
31.2
34.0
34.7
15.0
71.6
67.0
39.7
45.6
Plate
Count
Colonies/g
x 1000
1,440.0
70,400.0

1,980.0
3,040.0

4,200.0
16,212.0
10,080.0
1,840.0
1,520.0
4,960.0
2,580.0
4,196.0
48,000.0
30,400.0
1,760.0
4,480.0
1,200.0
17,168.0
490.0
96,000.0
1,360.0
2,240.0
5,500.0
21,118.0
Coliform
Organism
(mpn/g)
X 1000
460.0
11,000.0

141.0
700.0

1,200.0
2,643.8
4,600.0
230.0
70.0
2,100.0
1,100.0
1,620.0
3,000.0
9,300.0
94.0
2,100.0
800.0
3,058.8
183.6
24,000.0
109.0
700.0
29,000.0
5,578.5
Fecal
Entero-
cocc i
(mpn/g)
8
3,000

6
8

~
605
420
240
10
86
186
188
860
460
10
-
-
266
-
-
4
-
2,200
451
Total
Nitro-
gen as
N (mg/g)
.144
.45

-
.698

.594
.377
.149
.842
-
.312
.318
.405
1 2
.598
-
.98
.602
.845
-
.77
-
866
.373
.67

-------
TABLE B-2.  Summery of loborotory Reports on Street Refuse Components (Cont'd)





      More:  All measurements based on amount per gram of dry material
Test
Area
15
15
15
15
15

16
16
16
16
Date
6/23
7/7, 14
7/21, 28
8/4, 11
8/18, 25
Ave., Area
7/6, 13
7/20, 28
8/3, 10
8/17, 24
Sample
47
13
32
62
86
15
14
33
63
87
Ave., Area 16
17
17
17
17

18
18
18
18

19
19
19
19
19

20
20
20
20
20

7/6, 13
7/20, 28
8/3, 10
8/17, 24
Ave., Area
6/21, 29
7/4-12
7/26
8/3, 10
Ave., Area
6/19, 26
7/3, 11
7/17, 24
7/31, 8/7
8/14, 21
Ave . , Area
6/30
7/7, 14
7/21, 25
8/2, 8
8/15, 22
Ave . , Area
15
34
65
88
17
27
16
28
66
18
48
35
36
67
74
19
49
17
37
68
89
20
Water
Soluble
(mg/g)
2.74
9.16
4.8
3.66
6.02
5.28
5.06
5.48
2.96
6.26
4.94
8.26
6.5
5.82
15.6
9.04
4.0
5.24
6.1
4.02
4.84
4.56
3.78
5.02
5.34
14.2
6.58
2.7
6 02
5.84
3.56
3.5
4.32
Volatile
Water
Soluble
(mg/g)
1.92
6.02
2.76
2.3
3.56
3.31
3.04
3.28
1.94
3.94
3.06
5.62
4.5
4.1
11.82
6.51
2.1
2.62
3.9
2.44
2.79
2.66
2.1
2.72
3.76
8.64
3.98
1.08
4.12
3.92
2.34
1.9
2.67
Differ-
ence
(Inorg.)
(mg/g)
.62
3.14
2.04
1.36
2.46
1.97
2.02
2.2
1.02
2.32
1.88
2.64
2.0
1.72
3.78
2.53
1.9
2.62
2.2
1.58
2.06
1.9
1.68
2.3
1.58
5.56
2.6
1.62
1.9
1 92
1.22
1.6
1.65
Phos-
Priote
As PO4
(mg/g)
.01
^ .04
< .01
.032
.02
.02
< .04
.015
< .01
.03
.024
<.04
.05
.105
.24
.109
< .04
< .04
< .02
.01
.028
< .01
<.01
.032
<.01
<.01
.014
<.01
< .04
08
< .01
.02
.03
Moisture
& Volume
(%)
6.87
11.46
1.43
1.79
.82
4.48
2.16
15.2
7.27
1.48
6.52
1.31
9.62
2.31
2.69
3.98
6.84
1.31
2.81
9.92
5.22
1.66
7.18
.78
.97
.82
2.28
7.63
2.67
1.33
3.02
3.88
3.71
5 Day 20 day
BOD BOD COD
(mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g)
1.1
3.68
2.4
2.56
1.68
2.28
2.24
4.1
2.64
4.0
3.24
8.01
5.7
8.0
16.0
9.43
2.1
1.84
2.4
1.44
1.94
.7
3.2
1.3
6.32
2.56
2.82
.6
3 84
3.8
6.72
1.12
3 22
20.4
31.2
23.8
25.9
21.7
24.6
22.0
8.5
31.5
36.0
24.5
34.7
7.8
55.3
193.5
72.8
28.2
30.8
28.4
41.1
32.1
27.3
30.5
27.3
50.3
23.8
31.8
9.0
32.2
51 7
36.8
43.5
34.6
Plate Coliform Fecal
Count Organism Entero-
Colonies/g (mpn/g) cocci
x 1000 x 1000 (mpn/g)
67,200.0
900.0
27,800.0
3,680.0
3,820.0
20,680.0
2,000.0
36,800.0
3,440.0
3,080.0
11,440.0
1,240.0
102,400.0
9,600.0
5,640.0
29,720.0
1,200.0
1,140.0
980.0
6,400.0
2,430.0
40,000.0
20,800.0
59,200.0
7,680.0
2,200.0
25,976.0
98,000.0
1,660.0
67,200.0
1,860.0
6,200.0
34,984.0
15,000.0
321.8
900.0
2,300.0
2,100.0
4,122.4
321.8
460.0
1,300.0
2,000.0
1,020.5
321.8
460.0
7,500.0
3,600.0
2,970.5
109.0
321.8
28.2
1,100.0
389.8
9,300.0
46.0
1,100.0
1,500.0
1,000.0
2,589.2
230.0
321.8
4,600.0
430.0
4,800.0
2,076.4
1,500
_
80
8
420
402
_
4,800
-
46
1,211
_
4,800
186
186
1,293
6
_
10
46
15
780
1,500
140
46
186
530
780
_
oO
-
2,200
1,013
Total
Nitro-
gen as
N(mg/g)
.34
_
.54
.7
2.266
.961

,8
.322
.453
.525
_
.45
.7
.421
.523
„
-
_
.482
.482
.31
.626
31
.533
.250
.41
.48
_
.51
.166
.27
.356

-------
                          Appendix C


       Salt Concentration in Expressway Runoff Test


Testing Equipment Used

The sampling equipment used during  the salt concentration tests was
developed by the personnel of the FWPCA at the Robert A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Research Center, Cincinnati,  Ohio. The equipment was field
tested  during the course of the project. The basic operation  of the
equipment follows.
• A  liquid level pressure  gauge is  used at an elevation above which
   height a water sample will be taken
• Upon activation  of the liquid level guage, a pump is started which
   sends a flow of the water to be sampled into the sampling equipment
   located in a 14 foot camp-type trailer
• Controls allow for the length of time that a sample will be taken and
   the interval between samples while the  liquid level guage is activated
• Samples are taken when a solenoid valve is opened which releases the
   sample to a rotary arm distributor
• The distributor has 72 positions, controlled by gears and an electrical
   relay connected to the solenoid valve
• The  distributor  arm positions in successive   order  over the  72
   positions, each of which is  piped to a one-gallon jar located  on
   removable trays in two layers, and
• When the level of the liquid being sampled drops below the liquid
   level guage the pump is turned off and all equipment cycles to start
   over again upon activation of the liquid level guage.

The sampling trailer also can be used with a rain indicator in series in the
electrical circuit to allow the liquid level guage to be  activated only when a
predetermined amount of precipitation has accumulated in a collection
pan. The unit was built to meet the need  for a portable sampling device.
Equipment in the trailer would also allow the collection of samples based
on the flow past a sampling tube based on  the use of equipment developed
by the Department of Agriculture. This capability was not tested.
A four channel event recorder was used to monitor the various operations
of the sampling cycle  in order to determine the validity of a particular
sample.
A ring adjacent to the distributor arm  had been constructed to hold  72
sterile test tubes for collection of samples for bacteriological sampling. To
this end, a refrigeration unit for cooling a water bath for all samples was
also provided.
                               195

-------
                          Appendix D

        Survey Questionnaires Used and Guidelines for
                        Their Evaluation
As discussed in the text, survey questionnaires were sent to a large number
of cities of varying size and geographical distribution to determine local
practices and problems in the  fields of street refuse, sewer solids, and the
use  of chemicals. Individual jurisdictions generally received only one of
the  surveys  and the questionnaires were directed to the local  official
thought to  have the information desired.
The questionnaires were so detailed that a poor response was obtained.
Three separate followup mailings were made  and eventually between 100
and 150 replies to each questionnaire were received.
The responses were separated  into five groupings according to the part of
the  country in which each city was located and then, according to one of
five population categories. The five groupings were:
                            State Groupings
East
Connecticut
Delaware
Indiana
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
South
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee





Midwest
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin.





South-
west West
Arizona Alaska
New Mexico California
Oklahoma Colorado
Texas Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming





Copies of the three questionnaires used follow.
                               197

-------
              AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION RESEARCH  FOUNDATION

                                       SURVEY- LITTER
   City
   Prepored by
   Mailing Address
State
Title
Date_
DeptT
  A.   Please rate the following factors, which may be controlled or altered by the action of public
       officials, and result in a more attractive waste-free urban community, in their order of im-
       portance from 1  to 26 as related to your community.  Please use number one (1) to indicate
       most serious.  Use each number once only.




Item
Rating
in
Order
(See A-
above)
Check (when
applicable)
if controlled
by existing
ordinance
Check (when
applicable)
if existing
ordinance
enforced
Check if
penalties
are acces-
sed on of-
fenders
Check if
not a
problem
in your
city
  a.  Spillage from overloaded
      trucks
  b.  Litter from parades and
      large public events
  i..  Disintegration of poorly
      surfaced streets
  d.  Lack of paving at drivewpy
      and alley entrances
  e.  Yard refuse (leaves, lawn
      clippings)
  f.   Animal droppings
  g.  Deposition from windstorms
  h.  Improperly used trash
      receptacles
  i.   Improper storage of house-
      hold refuse
  j.   Debris from construction
      and demolition
  k.   Roadside dumping
  I.   Lack  of satisfactory street
      cleaning equipment
  m.  Poor refuse collection
      practices
  n.   Street trees, type or
      placement
 o.   Lack of catch basin and
      storm  water inlet main-
      tenance
 p.   Air pollution
 q.   Droppings from vehicles
      (grease,  oil, etc.)
 i.    Poor public cooperation
 s.    Lack of adequate public
      trash receptacles
 t.    Lack of public education
_u.    Inadequate budget  for
     street cleaning
                                             198

-------
,.  Other (Specify)
w. Other
x.  Other
y.  Other
z.  Other
B.  Street Cleaning Frequency (days per week,  weekly, monthly, etc.) (Check)
                                                       Frequency
                                  Total curb            designate                  No
                     Miles as      miles swept    (daily-weekly-monthly)   Year    Winter
Type Street            Classified    Annually       Flushed           Swept   Round   Sweeping
Residential
Commercial
Downtown business
Arterial (4 or more
lanes)
Industrial
Park roads
Private (if applicable)
Other (specify)
C.  Amount of Street Refuse
    1.   Area served                                       Population served
                                       Volume         Weight       (If by City (Check);
                                       Cu. yds.         Tons        If by contract - Specify)
 Annual amount street refuse removed
 Annual amount from  litter recepticles
 removed
 Annual amount leaves & yard trim-
 mings removed  (from streets)
 D.  Annual Labor for Street Refuse Removal                            Period_
                                             Total Hours
                                       Labor          Equipment
    Hand sweeping
    Mechanical flushing
    Mechanical sweeping
    Disposal of sweepings
    Catch basin cleaning
    Litter basket emptying
    Other
           TOTAL
                                             199

-------
 E.   Refuse Sanitation Inspection Activities
     1 .   Inspection activities are carried out by public works department	   police
         department               Health department	Other	
     2.   Number of city refuse sanitation inspectors assigned to:
                        Type area                   Number of equivalent full time employees
                        Residential                         	
                        Commercial
                        Industrie I                           	
     3.   Primary function of inspector is to require proper placement of refuse
         require proper containers for refuse
         improve customer relations
         enforce collection standards
         other	
    4.   Performance of inspector is judged by (title)
    5.   Litter control activities are coordinated by (title)
    6.   Placement of litter baskets is determined by (title)
    7.   (Check one)     Private	Public	Contract	Collects contained residential
    8.   (Check one)     Private	Public      Contract        Collects commercial
    9.   (Check one)     Private	Public	Contract	 Collection industrial
F.  Other comments (if any)
                                             200

-------
          AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION RESEARCH  FOUNDATION

                            SURVEY -  STORM SEWER  SOLIDS

C!ty_	State	Date	

Prepared by	Title	Department

Mailing Address	

I.  General Information





   Sanitary Sewers

   Storm Sewers

   Combined Sewers

        TOTAL
                                                      Length Sewers*
Area Serviced (sq. mi.)         Population served           (Miles)
   Average annual rainfall	In.       Annual average snowfal

                       or	equivalent in. of rainfall

   (*Omit house connections)

II.  Points of solid removal

   A.  Catch basins

       1. Are catch basins used:  Yes            No
       2. Are catch basins currently required on new storm sewers:  Yes            No

       3. Are catch basins cleaned by Sewer Dept. Yes             No

          by Street Dept./Div.  Yes             No            or other (specify)

       4. Approximate number of catch basins

       5. Have regular cleaning policy:  Yes            No

          If yes, please attach copy of policy.

       6. Approximate annual volume solids removed	    cu . yds.

          How determined?
          What are neighborhood characteristics most effecting amount of solids?
       7. Annual:  Salaries                Equipment	Other	

          Totof	

       8. No. and composition of catch basin cleaning crews: Number           (Describe crew

          and equipment)	___^__	
          Total man hours/year          	

          Frequency of cleaning catch basins	times/year
                                             201

-------
     9. What type of trap do you use on catch basin?
        What was basis for selection of type of trap?
        Please attach copy of standard drawing.
    10.  Principal source of solids believed to be from
    11 .  Where and how do you dispose of the solids collected?
    12.  Do you contract with private firms to clean catch basins?  Yes	  No
        If yes, per cent of work done by contract           %, annual cost of contract
        $	
B. Sewer Cleaning
                                         Combined Sewers   Sanitary Sewer  Storm Sewer
     1.  Estimated infiltration
        (a) gal./in-diam./mile
        (b) total m.g.d.  (for the
           system)
    2.  Miles in system
        (a) 6-12" diameter
        (b) 15-24" diameter               	
        (c) 27-72" diameter               	
        (d) over
    3.  Average volume of solids removed
        per mile (cu. yds.) per year        	
    4.  Annual equipment and labor
                                         Crew Size    Man Hours   Type equipment used
        Combined
        Sanitary
        Storm
               TOTAL
    5.  Volume dry weather flow in storm sewers (m.g.d.)
                                          202

-------
C. Overflow diversion chambers on combined systems (answer only for combined sewers)
   1.  Do you have equipment installed to indicate when overflow occurs?
      Yes	  No	  If yes, please describe
   2. Usual overflow setting:	X dry weather flow
   3. Special maintenance problems encountered
   4.  Have you determined if there is unused capacity  in the interceptor system?
       Yes             No	  If yes, how
D. Grit removal
   1.  Sewage treatment plant has provisions for grit removal.  Yes           No
       If yes:
   2.  Annual volume of solids removed (cu. yds.)	
   3.  Special problems encountered	
   4.  Annual operation cost of grit removal     	
E. Outfall removal
   1.  Dredging or other removal activities at sewer outfall required:  Yes	No_
       If yes:
   2.  Frequency of removal (per year)	
   3.  Volume removed (cu. yds./year)_
   4.  Describe nature of material
                                          203

-------
    5.  Where is material disposed	
    6.  Annual cost                             Annual man hours
F.  Other comments (if any)
G.

For sewer system please check allowable connections for discharge of
Combined Storm

Sanitary
Yes No Yes No Yes No
   Swimming pools
   Foundation drains
   Roof drains
   Sump pump
   Cooling water
   Ind. process water (treated)
   Ind. process water (untreated)
                                         204

-------
           AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION

                             SURVEY - USE OF CHEMICALS

                                                                         Date
Prepared by	Title	  Dept.
Mailing Address	

A. This report covers the one year period from              196    to             196
   (The latest annual period for which records are available should be used)

B. Pesticides and  insecticides used (exclude rodent control):

             Dept. or     Pest     Amount  Amount Used in Future          Used on
Major active  Activity     to be      used            to be                   Public Private
 Ingredients    Using    Controlled  (gal.)   Increased   Decreased  Parkway Area   Area
C.  Herbicides used:

             Dept. or     Pest     Amount  Amount Used in Future           Used on
Major active  Activity     to be      used           to be                    Public  Private
 Ingredients     Using   Controlled  (gal.)    Increased   Decreased  Parkway   Area   Area
                                            205

-------
D.  Chemical fertilizers used:
              Major active          Annual Amount           Area Covered
              Ingredients or              Used
              Identification             (Tons)                  (Acres)
E.  (Check one) This report covers the use of all such chemicals by the city: Yes_
    |s|0            |f no, to whom would additional copies be sent?	
    Mailing address
F.  What city official determines the chemical to be used?
G.  What city official  determines the amount of chemical to be used?_
H.  On what basis  is the type and amount selected?
I .   Is there any evidence in your city of stream pollution or fish kill caused by runoff from
    storm sewers carrying dissolved pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers?  Yes         No
J.   Has any action been taken by the city to  eliminate or reduce this pollution or fish kill?
    Explain
K.  Other comments (if any)
                                             206

-------
                         Appendix E





                   Special Analyses Made





1. Sieve Analysis of Street Sweeping Tests
Area No.
Area No.
 Area No.
 Area No.
  A-9

Date
June 19-23
(hand swept)





Date
June 19 - 23
(hand swept)





Date
June 14 - 23
(hand swept)





Date
June 19-23
(hand swept)





Date
August 2
(machine swept)



Screen
TDssy
10
16
20
30
Thru 30
Loss
Screen
(USS)
10
16
20
30
Thru 30
Loss
Screen
(USS)
10
16
20
30
Thru 30
Loss
Screen
(USS)
10
16
20
30
Thru 30
Loss
Screen
(USS)
10
16
20
30
Thru 30
Loss
Percent
Retained
2.66%
5.21
4.06
5.03
82.5
0.54
Percent
Retained
2.53%
5.69
4.51
6.23
80.2
0.84
Percent
Retained
12.37%
12.35
6.93
8.40
58.8
1.15
Percent
Retained
3.45%
7.04
6.43
12.8
69.1
1.21
Percent
Retained
58.0%
19.0
2.18
4.38
13.6
2.80
Specific
Gravity
3.027
2.638
2.772
2.676
2.588
—
Specific
Gravity
2.578
2.364
2.353
2.295
2.508
~
Specific
Gravity
2.198
2.248
2.381
2.197
2.484
—
Specific
Gravity
2.602
2.605
2.652
2.637
2.488
—
Specific
Gravity
2.153
2.439
2.876
2.456
2.481
~
                              207

-------
Area No.
   A-3
    Date

July 20
(machine swept)
                  Percent
                  Retained

                  22.8%
                  66.98
                    1.46
                    2.10
                    4.03
                    2.62
                    Specific
                    Gravity

                     2.230
                     2.354
                     2.237
                     2.530
                     2.536
Area No.
   A-3
   Date

July 5, 19
(machine swept)
                    (Vacuum clean-
                     ing following
                     machine sweep-
                     ing)
                    (Hand broom
                     following
                     machine sweep-
                     ing)
                    (Vacuum clean-
                     ing following
                     machine sweep-
                     ing)
  10
  16
  20
  30
Thru 30
  Loss

Screen
"(ussy

  10
  16
  20
  30
Thru 30
  Loss

Screen
Tyssf

  10
  16
  20
  30
Thru 30
  Loss

Screen
Tussy

  10
  16
  20
  30
Thru 30
  Loss
Percent
Retained

28.0%
67.2
 0.57
 0.84
 1.05
 2.28
                                      Percent
                                      Retained

                                        2.47%
                                        1.71
                                        0.57
                                        1.86
                                      93.18
                                        0.22

                                      Percent
                                      Retained
                                        3.30%
                                      24.92
                                        3.35
                                        6.96
                                      59.96
                                        1.50

                                      Percent
                                      Retained

                                        1.02%
                                        4.16
                                        3.86
                                      18.34
                                      72.10
                                        0.52
301
345
976
867
118
                   Specific
                   Gravity

                    2.065
                    2.584
                    1.938
                    2.411
                    2.587
                    2.202
                    2.558
                    2.406
                    2.409
                    2.295
                                         208

-------
Area

Michigan Ave.
East Side
Area

Michigan Ave0
East Side
Area

Michigan Ave.
West Side
 Area

 Michigan Ave.
 West Side
(Machine swept)
(Vacuum clean-
 ing fol lowing
 machine sweep-
(Machine swept)
(Vacuum clean-
 ing following
 machine sweep-
Screen
(USS)
10
16
20
30
Thru 30
Loss
Screen
(USS)
10
16
20
30
Thru 30
Loss
Screen
Tussy
10
16
220
30
Thru 30
Loss
Screen
(USS)
10
16
20
30
Thru 30
Loss
Percent
Refrained
4.57%
8.83
4.96
39.44
42.06
0.14
Percent
Retained
2.25%
4.24
2.73
17.77
72.71
0.30
Percent
Retained
47.83%
46.77
0.09
1.97
0.62
2.72
Percent
Retained
4.54%
13.03
6.66
8.93
65.48
1.35
Specific
Gravity
2.251
2.731
2.226
2.523
2.439
~
Specific
Gravity
2.577
2.576
2.849
2.686
2.497
—
Specific
Gravity
2.450
2.649
2.753
2.882
2.476
—
Specific
Gravity
2.518
2.274
2.358
2.435
2.435
—
 2. Analysis of Dog Droppings

 Three laboratory  examinations were made of dog droppings found within
 the test sections. The results of the analysis were as follows:
            Item
Water Soluble mg/100 ml
Volatile Water Soluble mg/ 100 ml
5-Day BOD mg/g
COD
Coliform Organism MPN/g

1
16.5
10.3
78
200.7
16,090
Sample
2
20.2
15.9
377.3
552
16,090

3
178.3
145.8
300
720
14X105
                                     209

-------
3. Sweeping Efficiency Tests

  A.   In order to determine effectiveness when sweeping 16 grain sand,
       uniformly distributed over a 300 ft2 surface, comparative testing
       was conducted on four different types of sweepers:
       (1)4 Wheel Model 945 (SN 677) with Mark I Milemaster Broom
       (2)  3 Wheel Model 984 (SN 320) with Mark I Milemaster Broom
       (3)  Air Jet (SN 707-699)
       (4)  Starsweep Model 554 (SN 999)
   B.   Utilizing the  test  course  (see Figure  12), the following outline
       describes the procedure followed to collect  the test data.
       (1)  A known weight of 16 grain sand was placed in a commercial
           hand powered spreader.
       (2)  The sand was spread  on the 3 foot by 100 foot test course
           lapping over both ends of the course  to eliminate starting or
           stopping inconsistencies. Figure E-l describes the test layout.
       (3)  The sand remaining in the spreader and that amount lapped
           over the ends of the course were swept up and weighed. The
           difference of  that initially placed in  the spreader  and that
           remaining was entered into the data sheet as "Sand Placed."
   C.   A spot check  on the evenness of the distribution of the sand was
       made  by randomly selecting one  3  foot by   10 foot  section,
       manually sweeping it clean and  weighing the sand obtained. The
       weight of this sand was entered on the data sheet as "Spot Check"
       and ideally should equal 10 percent of the "Sand Placed."
   D.   The difference of "Sand Placed" and  "Spot Check" is the "Net
       Sand."
   E.   The course  was then swept using the  sweeper being tested. The
       sweeper was stopped at a point approximately 15 feet beyond the
       end of the test course. The Pickup Broom and Elevator (if the
       sweeper  had one)  was left  running for  a short time then stopped
       and raised. The vehicle was then driven forward. That sand which
       remained on the asphalt ahead  of the Pickup Broom and behind
       the  Elevator was manually swept, weighed and recorded on the
       data sheet as "Residual."
   F.   Sand remaining  on the test course and 10  feet beyond the end of
       the course was then swept up, weighed, and recorded on the data
       sheet as "Residual."
   G.   This procedure was conducted a minimum of three times for each
       set of test parameters to check for result consistency.
   H.   The following table summarizes, for each sweeper, the parameters
       tested.
                               210

-------
Test
Sweeper

4 Wheel
S/N677




3 Wheel
S/N



Air Jet

Starsweep
Model 554
Test Course
Traverse
Speed
5 MPH





5 MPH &
6. 4 MPH



5 MPH

3.5 MPH &
5 MPH
Sand Con-
centration

.05& .10
Ibs/ft2




.05& .10
Ibs/ft2



.05 & .10
Ibs/ft2
.05 & .10
Ibs/ft2
Pickup
Broom
Diameter
Std new
broom
dia &
20.75"
dia

Std new
broom
dia &
20.75"
dia
Std new
agitator
Std new
broom
Pickup
Broom R.P.M.

110 RPM
(aux eng
2200) &
130 RPM
(aux eng
2600)
137 RPM
(5 MPH)
175 RPM
(6. 4 MPH)

Aux eng
2400 RPM


                                                        Strike
                                                        Pattern
                                                       5", 6" & 7"
                                                       5", 7" & 9"
                                                        1 .5" agitator
                                                        brm strike

                                                        2.75"
I.
J.
Results appear in Tables E-1, E-2, E-3
The sweeping efficiencies were calculated by the equation:

Sweeping Efficiency = Net Sand - Residual   , QQ
                           Net Sand
                              211

-------
                                      TABLE E-l
E
o
o
£
a
a> f
T-SS
-T .!£ Q_
co a. o;
9 175
9 175
9 137
9 137
7 175
7 175
7 137
7 137
5 175
5 175
5 175
5 175
5 175
5 175
5 137
5 137
5 137
5 137
5 137
5 137
5 175
5 175
5 137
5 137
TRAVERSE
SPEED (MPH)
6.4
6.4
5.0
5.0
6.4
6.4
5.0
5.0
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.4
6.4
5.0
5.0
o
5il
a
a c
5 5
II II
5 5
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
m
m
m
m
1st RUN
a
Z
<
un
^-
z
22.25
12.62
27.75
11.56
31.38
15.19
32.19
16.19
24.31
15.44
27.00
28.81
16.19
14.88
25.62
13.88
29.25
27.88
16.94
16.00
28.19
13.50
31.56
17.25
Net Sand
-Residual
21.75
12.31
27.25
11.31
30.88
14.44
31.31
15.56
22.44
13.88
24.75
26.50
13.38
12.44
23.44
12.68
28.50
24.06
14.56
12.62
26.00
12.44
30.75
16.75
Sweeping
Efficiency
97.6
97.6
98.3
98.0
98.5
95.3
97.3
96.1
92.5
89.8
91 .6
91.9
82.6
83.8
91.5
91 .4
97.4
86.2
85.9
79.0
92.4
92.2
97.5
97.1
2nd RUN
•g
o
IS)
0)
28.25
15.56
30.25
12.25
31.25
15.25
27.31
14.94
27.50
18.19
28.12
27.94
15.25
16.50
26.25
14.44
27.19
26.68
16.25
14.00
25.25
14.81
33.94
12.00
Net Sand
-Residual
27.68
15.31
29.68
11.88
30.81
14.94
26.62
14.38
25.88
16.25
26.94
23.19
14.12
12.81
24.12
13.50
26.06
22.50
14.94
11.88
22.25
14.38
33.00
11.56
Sweeping
Efficiency
48.0
98.5
98.1
96.9
98.6
98.0
97.6
96.2
94.1
89.5
95.9
83.0
92.6
77.7
91.8
93.5
95.9
84.3
92.0
84.8
88.2
96.9
97.3
96.4
3rd RUN
-o
c
o
CO

-------
             TABLE E-2
0.
« ?
-* -i 5
•=.<;£
i/> a. a;
7 110
7 no
6 no
6 no
7 130
7 130
6 130
6 130
5 110
5 110
5 110
5 no
5 130
5 130
5 130
5 130

M=Max Pub Die
m=Min Pub Dia
M
M
m
m
M
M
m
m
M
M
m
m
M
M
m
mi
1st RUN
T3
C
Ji
0)
z
26.88
13.75
31.06
11.38
25.56
13.19
16.44
34.81
28.00
14.44
31.50
13.31
14.25
26.19
25.94
16.38
Net Sand
-Residual
26.25
13.31
29.56
10.56
25.06
12.81
15.31
33.25
25.12
13.50
25.31
10.56
13.56
25.19
21.88
15.25
Sweeping
Efficiency
97.7
96.9
95.0
92.9
98.2
97.4
93.2
95.5
89.8
93.4
80.4
79.2
95.1
96.2
84.4
93.1
2nd RUN
-a
c
Ji
"5
Z
28.62
12.88
29.56
15.44
25.88
14.50
12.31
23.63
28.06
14.44
24.38
18.38
14.38
26.81
27.31
13.75
"?-§
£|
II
28.00
12.47
27.68
14.00
25.50
14.12
11.50
22.25
26.00
13.50
19.75
16.38
13.62
26.06
23.25
12.63
Sweeping
Efficiency
97.7
96.9
93.8
90.6
98.5
97.4
93.2
94.1
92.7
93.4
81.1
89.1
94.9
97.1
85.2
92.1
3rd RUN
1
D
C/>
"o
27.06
11.56
32.50
13.75
27.44
15.56
12.44
23.00
25.62
14.31
23.44
13.50
12.94
26.85
28.12
13.31
Net Sand
-Residual
26.56
11.09
31.25
12.75
27.00
15.00
11.66
21.94
23.62
13.25
20.06
12.25
12.12
25.81
23.81
11.84
Sweeping
Efficiency
98.0
95.9
96.3
92.7
98.3
96.5
93.6
95.4
92.2
92.5
85.5
90.8
93.7
96.1
84.8
89.0
AVERAGE
Net Sand
-Residual
82.56
33.19
93.12
40.57
78.88
43.25
41.19
81.49
31.68
43.19
79.32
45.19
41.57
79.88
81.37
43.44
2 Net Sand
- SResidual
80.81
36.87
83.49
37.31
77.56
41.93
38.47
77.44
74.74
40.25
65.12
39.19
39.30
77.06
68.94
39.77
Avg. Sweeping
Efficiency
97.8
96.7
94.9
91.8
98.4
|96.9
93.4
95.0
91.6
93.2
82.1
86.6
94.5
96.5
84.8
91.7
       4 Wheel Model No. 945
Mark I Milemaster, Traverse Speed 5 MPH
                 213

-------
                           TABLE E-3
Traverse
Speed (MPH)
3.5
3.5
5.0
5.0
1st RUN
-O
C
G

01 &
Z w
W 1
72.12
44.86
77.06
41.80
Avg. Sweeping
Efficiency
98.9
98.9
98.4
97.3
                  Sfarsweep Model No. 554
         New Broom  in All Tests, Strike Pattern = 2.75
1st RUN

-o
o
"oi
25.25
29.94
18.88

1|
24.69
29.88
18.81

Sweeping
Efficiency
97.8
99.8
99.7
2nd RUN

Z
22.31

16.44

Net Sand
-Residual
22.00

16.41

'5-.«
IE
CO LU
98.7

99.9
3rd RUN

-a
c
J?
Z
22.31

17.44

Net Sand
-Residual
22.25

17.41

Sweeping
Efficiency
99.8

99.9
AVERAGE

1
D
CO
•5
w

99.81
52.76

o
D
TO
0)
W H

98.82
52.63
O)
c
8-x
a) x
s g
(^ ^m

99.1
99.8
                Air Jet Model No. 770
Agitator Strike 1.5  In., Auxiliary Engine Speed 2400 RPM
                            214

-------
                                STOPPING POSITION OF PICKUP BROOM &  ELEVATOR
•
3rT
r 1
1 2
1
345
1 1
DIRECTION OF SWEEPER
TRAVERSE
< inn
6 7
1
CT
8


irki/-»TLj ii A k n i A i i w c\Aier>T cr\a ncciniiAi
9 10
1


10 FT.
CAMP! fe
X

]
                                                                 LOCATION OF
                                                                "PLOWED" SAND
TEST COURSE SURFACE: COMMON MUNICIPAL QUALITY FLAT ASPHALT PAYING
            FIGURE 12  SWEEPING EFFICIENCY TEST COURSE

-------
                                     Appendix F


                    Abstract of Ordinances Designed to Reduce
                      The Pollution Potential of Urban Wastes

   Grouped within the eighteen categories which follow are pertinent provisions of actual and model
ordinances which have been assembled and analyzed in the course of this study.
   The actual  ordinances have been received from  city officials—customarily  the  city clerk—of
some 120 cities  of various size and location, each of which  is identified in the references thereto. The
excerpts presented here were  selected as typical of provisions likely to be  effective or, in a few cases,
as novel or exceptional in their approach. By inference these may be deemed worthy of emulation but
they are not .designed or submitted as "model" ordinances. They are simply ordinances which have
been enacted and are in force in the particular city—upon which another jurisdiction might "pattern"
an enactment, but only after careful consideration of its distinctive legal and operational situation.
   In a  number  of the sections  there  are references  to  truly  "model"  ordinances,  carefully
designed and authoritatively published by the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, 839 I7th
Street, N.W., Washington,  D.C. This organization,  preeminent in the  field  of municipal law, is
customarily and herein desigrtated by its initials as N1MLO. All excerpted provisions herein  are from
the organization's copyright "N1MLO Model Ordinance Service" and used by its permission. Each is
specifically identified as  of NIMLO  origin. The  reference may identify the  model ordinance by its
individual title—or, when only "the NIMLO model" is stated, it accords with the section heading just
preceding. No so-called "model ordinance" provisions from any other source appear herein.

Anti-Litter Ordinances

Within the past ten or so years the American public has become very conscious of" "litter" as a
despoiler  of natural scenic  beauty,  as a slovenly  method utilized by many thoughtless people  for
"disposal" of their rapidly growing share of the waste materials (mainly of paper or plastic in the form
of product containers or wrappings) of current civilization, and as a mounting bill of expense for
public cleanup and sanitation services.
So intense has  been the  concern with the  litter problem that  a  compulsion  toward attacking  it  via
comprehensive  and  all-encompassing "anti-litter"  laws  and ordinances has become apparent. The
objective has been considerably advanced by the development and publication  of a "Model Anti-Litter
Ordinance" by  the National  Institute of Municipal  Law Officers.  In its introduction to the document
the organization recounts that:
   "Traditionally,  sections  pertaining to litter,  in  its many forms,  are scattered throughout  the
   typical municipal code.  The  problem is so vast, and  the  sources of litter  so varied, that litter
   necessarily  has  been dealt  with at many  different  points  in  municipal  codes.  The  NIMLO
   Model . . . attempts to extract from comprehensive, basic codes and collect in  one place all those
   regulatory provisions having particular reference to the  litter problem tt\ the public ihink.\ of it
   today.
   "Careful  study and  analysis of scores  of municipal  codes . . . clearly  indicated  that  a model
   ordinance going to the heart of the modern  litter problem must concern itself with the origins,
   kinds  and gathering places of litter . . .
   "The  broad, generic term 'litter' has been selected for definition and use  throughout the model
   ordinance because  it is the  labeling phrase around which public awareness and action have been
   rallied. 'Litter,' now  more than any other word or collection of words, best  identifies the problem
   as the public  understands it. Moreover,  from the standpoint of draftsmanship, the old and
   cumbersome practice of listing the infinite sources of  litter is ineffective and  unwieldy. At best,
   the lengthiest, comma-separated collection of likely  contributors to the litter problem will be
   incomplete, and the public is very often led to believe that the ordinance  strikes only at the kinds
   of litter listed."
The definition in Sec. 8-2402  (6) of the NIMLO model  asserts that: " 'Litter' is'garbage,' 'refuse,' and
'rubbish' as defined  herein and all  other waste  material  which, if thrown  or deposited as herein
prohibited, tends to create  a danger to  public  health, safety and welfare."—and the  annotation
indicates that,  as respects the  three "constituent" items, "classifications of  the American Public
Works Association are adopted for the definitions of those terms."
Overall the NIMLO model  contains twenty substantive  sections (in  addition to its "short title,"
Penalty, separability and repealer sections). The "model" has been adopted wholly or substantially in
tola by many cities; among the larger ones are Cleveland, Dallas and Toledo—the list also including
Lincoln, Nebraska,  Albuquerque,  New  Mexico,  Fairbanks, Alaska,  Oak  Ridge,  Tennessee, Des
Moines, Iowa, and Newport News, Virginia.


                                            217

-------
In this comprehensive exploration of ordinances relevant to possibilities of stream pollution via access
of surface waters we have considered the subject matter of many of the sections of the NIMLO model,
or any other  comprehensive -anti-litter- enactment, elsewhere in the  study and separately in direct
relation to the  particular subjects. This has been  the case in relation to such matters as handbills,
spillage from trucks,  cleanliness of occupied  and  unoccupied  private  property,  sweeping onto
sidewalks, etc.
There remain  within the overall "anti-litter" ordinance framework,  n  few aspects covered wholly
adequately, and briefly, by  the appropriate NIMLO section,  and a few others where individual-city
provisions may  be helpfully  adduced in addition to the model language.

Aircraft and Vehicles, Lakes and Fountains, Posting of Notices

The  above-captioned  headings  clue  subjects  on  which  recitation  of  NIMLO's  language,  of
characteristic brevity, should be fully sufficient for present purposes; to  wit:
    "No person in an aircraft shall throw out. drop or deposit within  the City any litter, handbill or
    any other object." Sec.  8-2416
    -No person, while a driver or passenger in a vehicle, shall throw or deposit litter upon any street
    or other  public place within the City, or upon private properly." Sec. 8-2407
    "No person shall throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, lake, stream, bay or any other
    body of water in a park or elsewhere within the City." .SVc. 8-2410
    "No person shall post or affix any notice, poster or other paper or device, calculated to attract the
    attention of the  public, to  any  lamp post, public utility  pole or shade  tree, or upon any public
    structure or building, except as may be authorized or required by law." Sec. 8-2417

Litter in Public Parks

With the observation that "Parks, too, arc ptiblic places" and arc therefore covered within the basic
section, the annotations to  the NIMI.O'1  model assert that "However, because so much of the litter
problem is concerned with  the pollution of otherwise restful  and beautiful areas set aside for public
recreation it  is felt, . . . that park litter should be stressed in a  separate section," Accordingly  the
separate section appears as  follows:
    "No person shall  throw or deposit litter in any park within  the City except in public receptacles
    and in such a manner  that  the litter will be prevented from  being  carried or deposited by  the
    elements upon  any part  of the  park or upon any street or  other  ptiblic place.  Where public
    receptacles arc  not provided, all such litter  shall be carried away from the park by the person
    responsible for its presence and properly disposed of elsewhere as provided herein." Si'c. 8-2409
As typical of more detailed  litter-related and pollution-related matters covered in overall "Park Rules
and Regulations" Honolulu includes the following  items among  those banned, or  authorized only by
permit, respectively:
    "Within  the limits of any public park, it shall be unlawful for any person to: ... (3) Swim, bathe,
    wade  in, or pollute the water of any ornamental  pool or fountain. (4) Throw or dispose of any
    refuse or waste material, except in receptacles placed therein. ... (7) Distribute,  post or place
    any commercial handbills or circulars,  notices, or other  advertising  devices or matter, except as
    permitted by the terms  of any agreement relating to the use of park property. .  . . (9) Construct or
    fabricate surfboards. (10) Permit any dog to enter  and remain within the confines of any park area
    where signs prohibiting dogs arc posted.  . . ." Code, Sec.  13-18.2. ii
    "Except  as authorized  by permits of, and subject to the terms and conditions imposed by,  the
    Department of Parks and Recreation, it  shall be unlawful for any person, within the limits of any
    public park, to: (I) Lead or let loose any cattle,  horse, mule, goat,  sheep, swine or fowl of any
    kind.  ... (4) Camp or  erect or maintain a tent or camping facilities. (5) Sell or offer for sale any
    merchandise, article or thing, whatsoever. ...  (7) Repair or  condition any surfboard. (8) Ride or
    drive  any horse or other animal." lode.  Sec. 11-18.2 b
With further  reference to surfboards, mentioned in both the above excerpts, Honolulu further provides
that:

        "In addition to the requirements . .  . above, the repair or conditioning of any  surfboard shall
    be performed only  by  a  concessionaire . . . who has a surfboard concession.  Such repair work
    shall be  conducted  only  in an enclosed building or structure, approved  by  the  Department  of
    Parks and  Recreation  and the Stale Department of  Health. The terms and conditions to be
    imposed  . .  . shall include, together with the requirements necessary to safeguard the health and
    safety of the public, the securing  of adequate insurance to  protect the City  from any  liability
    resulting from such  repair work." Code,  Sec. I3-18.2.d
                                             218

-------
Public Litter Receptacles

The care and ••feeding" of public liner receptacles, and (heir placemen! and protection, constitutes a
substantially new clement of the ••anti-litter" ordinance not usually found in prior provisions of earlier
codes. The NIMI.O model specifies that:
    -Persons placing liner in public receptacles or  in authorized private  receptacles shall do so in
    such a manner as to prevent it from being curried or deposited by the elements upon any street,
    sidewalk or other public place or upon private property." .Vet1. 8-2404
Cilies have often found additional necessities for authorizing or installing such receptacles, to regulate
their use and to protect them from  vandalism  and theft. Such arc the objectives of such ordinances as
the following of Miami, San Antonio and Roekville, Maryland, respectively:
    -The City  will provide . . .  trash  containers to be placed in strategic locations throughout the
    City . . . with special consideration to be given to high density population and trafficked areas,
    which shall be used for pedestrians only and not by abutting store owners or vendors " Ord  Nu
    7.102 nf 515165, Set: 2
    -It shall be lawful, with the consent of the city,  to place public trash receptacles upon the streets,
    plazas and  parks of the city at such points as not to obstruct traffic on any street, for the reception
    of such trash. It  shall be unlawful for any person to  tamper with,  injure or deface any public
    receptacles for trash in the city." C rule. Sec*. 17-14 anil 17-15
    -It shall be unlawful for any person or persons  to  take and carry away, or  willfully break, injure
    or destroy  any box or other receptacle  maintained upon any street or alley .  . . for the reception of
    paper, filth or  waste matter." C tuff, See. 12-1.10
Forbidding  HII'MIU- of this equipment  often  demands legislative attention. Publicly provided litter
receptacles—placed on the sidewalks  and elsewhere  for  public convenience—arc not, of course,
intended as depositories for garbage or other  than casual refuse. This point is made in ordinances of
Weslporl, Connecticut, Council  Bluffs, Iowa, and  Seattle, Washington,  in terms respectively as
follows:
    "The deposit of garbage or any other organic matter in the rubbish containers provided by the
    Town ... is hereby prohibited." 511129 Oi-dnuinee Amended 3117152, Sec. 2
    "When  the city shall have .  . .  provided for the placing of wastepaper boxes or receptacles along
    and upon the  sidewalks . . . wastepaper, cloth, rags or  any like light combustible matter may be
    placed in such receptacle . . . but it shall be unlawful to deposit in said boxes any sweepings,
    ashes, garbage, manure, earth or other refuse . .  ." Code, Sec. 8.50.020
    "It shall be unlawful to place  litter accumulated on private property,  or burning or smoldering
    materials,  or dead  animals, in any receptacle provided by the City  for litter disposal . . ."  Orel.
    No. W021 of 2124160. Sec. j

Debris, etc. on Vacant Lots

The problems stemming from the growth of deleterious vegetation or the accumulation  of litter  and
refuse on vacant lots have been attacked by cities in  a variety of ways. Protection of such uninhabited
spaces from "dump and run" drivers is the objective of such legislation as the Prichard, Alabama,
ordinance which decrees that:
    "No person shall  throw . . . upon any vacant lot  or lots, ... or upon any other ground . . . any old
    lumber,  trash, combustible  material ... or  garbage  under such   penalty as  the  Court  may
    prescribe .  . ." Code, Sec. 88 (42) 12)
A brief provision in Dallas, Texas, asserts simply that:
    "No person shall  throw or deposit litter on any open or vacant property within the City whether
    owned by stich person  or not."  (.ode. Sec. 7-4-79
In San Francisco it is made the owner's responsibility to remove rubbish after notice:
    "Owners of all vacant lots ... are  hereby required to remove  all  rubbish and debris thereon
    within thirty  (30) days after the receipt  of notice to remove  the same. Notice to remove  such
    rubbish  and debris shall be given by the Police Department and  served  by delivering a copy
    thereof to  the owner or his agent personally, or if such  owner or agent be not known, then by
    posting  the same in a  conspicuous place  on the  lot to  be  described  in  the  notice." Police Code,
    Sec. 79.
Hawaii County, Hawaii, requires owners  in  Hilo to clear underbrush from their vacant lots, while
Daytona Beach, Florida,  declares  that the  city will  not  collect such  cleared  material. Pertinent
excerpts from their respective ordinances follow:
    "Every owner of any unoccupied lot the  frontage of which abuts or adjoins any public street or
    highway within the City of Hilo, shall clear such lot of all refuse and uncultivated  undergrowth
    thereon to  a depth  of  not exceeding 100 feet from any  street or highway adjoining,  whenever on
                                             219

-------
     such lot there is refuse or uncultivated undergrowth to such an extent that such lot has become or
     is likely to become a fire, health or crime hazard." Ordinance No. .?J, Sec. I
     -No collection ofmaterial from the clearing of lots shall be assumed by the city. This shall be the
     responsibility of the owner or contractor . . ." Code, Sec. 17-16
Enforcement for the clearance of litter from vacant lots is typified  in the ordinance of Newport News,
Virginia, from which the following excerpted provisions are taken:
     "The Health Officer ... is hereby  authorized ... to  notify the owner of any open or vacant
     private  property ... to properly dispose of litter ... on such . .  . property which is dangerous to
     public health, safety or welfare.  . . . Upon the failure, neglect or  refusal ... to properly dispose of
     litter. . . within ten (10) days  ... the Health Officer is hereby authorized and  empowered to order
     its disposal by the City. When  the City  has effected the removal ... the  actual cost thereof,
     plus . . . interest at ... six percent . . . shall be charged to the owner ... on  the next regular tax
     bill . . . Where the full amount due the City is not paid . . . within ten (10) days after the disposal
     of such  litter, ... the Health Officer shall cause to be recorded ... a sworn statement showing the
     cost and expense  incurred ... which ... shall  constitute  a  lien ... and shall  remain  in  full
     force . . . until final payment has been made.  . . ." Ordinance No. 178, Sec. 19

Presumably Vacant Lands

    Several ordinances of apparently primary applicability  to vacant lots, though not specifically so
    restricted, are worthy of notice  in relation to this subject matter. One such  is an enactment of
    Morris Township, New Jersey, stipulating that:
     "It shall be  unlawful for  any owner or possessor of  land in this  Township  to do any of the
     following: (a) Permit such land to be covered with or contain brush, weeds, dead and dying trees,
     stumps,  roots,  obnoxious  growths, filth,  garbage,  manure,  trash,  refuse or  debris or any
     combination  of said items, which would either tend to start a fire, increase the intensity of a fire
     already  started, . . . cause poisoning or irritation to human beings from the obnoxious growths or
     cause or tend  to cause an unhealthy  or  obnoxious condition . . . (b) Permit such  land to be
     covered with  or contain refuse or debris resulting from the construction, demolition or neglect of
     a  building, . . .  where such refuse or debris is inimical to the preservation of the public  health,
     safety or general welfare . . . (c) Permit on such land an abandoned, unused or unprotected well,
     cellar or other unnatural declivity in which stagnant water or debris is retained . . . (d) Permit to
     be stored or  placed on such land . . .junk, paper, clothes, glass  or refuse or  any combination of
     them, which  is either a fire  hazard, retains stagnant  water, emits foul or obnoxious odors, or
     which is dangerous to a person,  including a child, being or coming upon said  land.  , . ." Ord. No.
     6-64 ,1/51141*4  Sec. 1
New Orleans in 1948 enacted an ordinance which is well outlined in the title of same, as follows:
     . . . providing  for  the  cuttting,  destroying  and removal of weeds or grass, or deleterious,
     unhealthful growths, or other  noxious matter,  growing,  lying or located in or  upon any lot, place,
     area, or sidewalk abutting same, within the City of New Orleans; authorizing the Commissioner
     of Public Property ... to cut, destroy  and  remove  the  same upon failure of the owner, or
     agent ... to do so after written notice, and charge the cost thereof, together with six percent (6%)
     accrued interest on  the next regular bill  of said owner; providing for the payment often percent
     (\07it delinquent interest;  providing that such charge and interest,  after recordation ... shall
     constitute a lien .  .on said property in favor of the City .  ." Onl. No. 17,32V oj 6125148
Little Rock, Arkansas, by ordinance (with emphasis supplied) empowers:
    "the head of the city department of sanitation, in his discretion, ... to order ... the owner of «IIJP
    lot or lots or  other real properly within the city to cut weeds, remove garbage, rubbish and other
    unsightly and  unsanitary articles and things . .  . and to eliminate, fill up, or remove stagnant pools
    of water or any other unsanitary . . .  condition . . ."  Code,  Sec. 15-18

As to Vacant or Occupied Property

Two ordinances  obviously aimed at  vacant lolx bill  specifically made  applicable (per emphasis
supplied) lo occupied properly as well are those  of Louisville, Kentucky,  and New Rochelle, New
York, which follow:
"It shall  be unlawful for  the owner, agent or occupant of a lot whereon a biiildinn of any kind may
    exist, or the owner or agent in charge of any vacant lot  ... to permit any growth of weeds, ... or
    collection of garbage or filth ... to remain on the lot ... longer .  . . than three days after notice to
    remove same  . . ." Code, Sec.  1101.03
    "No person shall throw . . . ashes, offal, garbage, dross, ... or rubbish . . . upon any vacant lot or
    public place nor shall the owner of any vacant lot or parcel of land upon which any building or
    improvements may  stand  permit  or suffer to remain  upon his property . .  . any accumulation
    whatsoever of ashes, offal, garbage, dross, ...  or rubbish . . ."  Code, Sec. 7-l.c.l


                                            220

-------
Stagnant Water


In some of the ordinances already cited "stagnant water" appears in the itemization of objectionable
conditions  to be corrected; this is  true  also  in  the ordinance excerpts (emphasis  supplied) of
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, and Jonesboro.  Arkansas, which follow:
    ••It   is   hereby    declared   unlawful   to    maintain ... any    nuisance	specifically
    including .  . . accumulations  of garbage or  other  refuse material,  accumulations of waste or
    stagnant waters, etc." Ortt. No. 278 of 515144, Sec. I
    ••It shall hereafter be unlawful ... to neglect or refuse ... to remove garbage, rubbish and other
    unsightly and unsanitary articles and things from .  . . lots and real property or to eliminate, fill up
    or remove  stagnant pools  of water or other unsanitary . .  . conditions .   ." Ordinance  No  717
    Sec. 1
Ordinances specifically in relation to stagnant water are those which follow—of Portland, Oregon (the
section in its entirety), and of Nebraska City, Nebraska.
(principal sections briefed), respectively:

        "It shall be unlawful for any person to permit or suffer water to flow onto or be cast upon any
    yard, lot, block, place or  premises or  into or upon any street, gutter, or place adjacent  to or
    abutting upon any yard, lot,  block, or premises so  that the same may become stagnant or impure
    and  cause  an  offensive smell. It  shall  also  be  unlawful for any person  to permit  or suffer to
    accumulate any stagnant,  impure,  or odorous  water in  or  upon any yard, lot, block, place, or
    premises, or upon any  street or street gutter adjacent to or adjoining any yard, lot, block, place, or
    premises owned or occupied  by him, or for which he may be agent." Health and Sanitation Code,
    Sec. 18-1706
    "The permitting or maintaining of. . . stagnant water on any lot or piece of ground ... is hereby
    prohibited, and every  owner or occupant ... is hereby required ... to drain or fill up said lot or
    piece of ground ... so as to  prevent stagnant water . . . accumulating thereon ... It shall  be the
    duty of the owners  ... to drain or fill or otherwise  dispose of any of the stagnant water . . . within
    ten (10) days from the  time that they are notified . . . by resolution passed by the City Council and
    served  upon-the  owners... In  case that such owners ... fail   to  remove ...  the  stagnant
    water... it shall be  the  dtity  of the Superintendent  of the  Department of Streets,  Public
    Improvements  and Public  Property ... to drain or fill such lots ... or pieces of ground so as to
    remove all  stagnant water . .  . upon being  authorized so to do by a resolution of the Council. The
    resolution authorizing the  Superintendent ... to so drain or fill such lots  . . . shall designate and
    describe ... the kind and quality  and the estimated amount of work to be done ...  It shall be the
    duty of the Superintendent .  . . within ten (10) days ... to drain and fill  such lots ... as provided
    for in the resolution .  . . The cost . . . shall be assessed against the ... lots and pieces of ground,
    and  shall be a special assessment . . . collected  as other taxes. The costs  . . . shall be levied and
    assessed by the Council . . . and such taxes or assessments . . . shall become delinquent within fifty
    (50) days .  . . and .  . . bear  interest  at the  same rate ... as other delinquent taxes and shall be a
    lien  npon the property . . ." Ortl. No. 908 of 816/51, Sees. 1-7
Parking Lots and Garages

Pertinent regulations of off-street parking facilities basically  relate  to surface cleanliness and/or the
accumulation of litter and refuse. The NIMLO model stresses the former is requiring that:
    "The ground or floor space of each parking lot or garage, if made of dirt, sand, cinders or other
    loose mixture, shall at  all times be kept thoroughly sprinkled or treated with water, calcium or
    other means,  so  that the dust,  sand, cinders, or other substance of which said ground or floor
    space  is made will not  be raised,  carried or blown by the wind, movement of vehicles, or other
    causes, into or upon public property, or the  adjacent property of others. . .  ." Sec. 5-517 (b)
Denver, Colorado,  incorporates in its parking lot regulations substantially the same provisions, except
that the surface shall be treated:
    '. . . with oil or some other suitable mixture, substance, material, or preparation . . ." Orel. No. 45
    of 5/29146, Sec. 8
Regulations respectively more stringent and less stringent are provided in the governing ordinances of
Newark, New Jersey, and Bettendorf, Iowa, as follows:
    "Parking lots shall be paved with a smooth, hard surface which shall be maintained in good  and
    safe condition. . . ." Code, Sec.  8.263  (3;
    "Ground surfaces . . . paved or adequately  treated to  keep dust, dirt  and mud at a minimum."
    Onl. No. 296 of 7/1152, Sec. 4 (d)
                                            221

-------
About midway between the foregoing is the stipulation by Bedford Park, Illinois, that:
    "In order to minimize atmospheric pollution and to reduce the amount of dirt, mud, debris or
    other substances, whether liquid or solid, from being deposited upon the streets and public ways
    in the Village, it shall be unlawful ... to maintain, keep or conduct . . . any parking lot... unless
    the entire surface thereof is graded and  is covered with either  blacktopping or concrete. . . ."
    Code, Sec. 5-14-2
Des  Moines, Iowa,  goes  into considerably greater detail—and with a  broadened scope  that also
includes lots". . . which are used or to be used for the sale of motor vehicles by a dealer  in such
vehicles . . ."—in providing that:
    ••It shall be  unlawful for any person to  operate .  . . any outdoor motor vehicle parking space
    unless the surface . . .  shall first have been covered with concrete to a depth of at least six inches,
    or with plant-mixed asphalt to a depth of at least two inches laid upon stone bracing of not less
    than three  inches  in depth, or unless the surface shall be covered with a quantity of road oil,
    calcium chloride or other dust-preventive substance sufficient to prevent the accumulation and
    blowing of dust or dirt upon or from the surface."—and further requiring that  the operator must:
         renew the dust-preventive covering on the surface of such space as often as shall be necessary
    to prevent the accumulation and blowing of dust upon and  from such  surface.  In spaces on which
    road oil is used, this shall be construed to require thorough covering  of the  surface with such oil
    at least once every four months." Code, Sec. 33-2
Provisions  which  Boise,  Idaho, specifically aims at "littering public  parking  facilities" exclude
automobile sales  lots but do  include the grounds of drive-in restaurants and mercantile  free parking
space. The pertinent four Code sections, recently enacted, follow in their entirety:
    6-13-1: Definition*: For the purpose of this Chapter "public parking facility" is defined as any
    place or grounds where the parking of motor vehicles in connection with grocery or  other stores,
    or premises or grounds maintained in connection  with businesses  commonly known as 'Drive-ins'
    where food, beverages or refreshments  are  served  to patrons in motor  vehicles, or at  tables or
    stands in open area, for consumption either in or off the premises.
    6-13-2:  Install No-Litter Sign: Persons  owning, operating, managing  or conducting  a public
    parking facility  shall  place  in conspicuous places  at  said facility,  signs on  which are written
    in legible English, in  letters at least two  inches  in  height  on contrasting background,  words or
    phrases requesting patrons to refrain from throwing of any  waste material upon the parking area,
    sidewalk, street,  roadway, or gutter, or adjoining property.
    6-13-3: Littering  Public  Ways Prohibited: No person  shall  place, throw or  deposit any waste
    material upon the outside premises or parking area  of a public parking facility or on  any street or
    alley adjoining such public parking facility, except  in adequate receptacles provided for that
    purpose.
    6-13-4: Obligation of Operator: The owner or his agent  or operator shall  keep  the  premises
    whereon the public parking facility is located,  together with the parking  area and that portion of
    any street or alley adjoining such  facility free from waste material.  The owner or  his agent or
    operator shall provide the public  parking facility  with a  sufficient  number of adequate- refuse
    containers. Code, Art. 6, Chap. 13
Relating solely to used car lots, a recent licensing ordinance of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, provides that
"All  premises whereon is conducted the business herein licensed shall be paved with a hard surface"
and requires the  license application  to  include "a  statement of the type of surface with which the
lot ... is paved" and stipulated that:
    "The  Board  of Public Works shall  approve the surfacing of all used car  lots so  as to insure
    adequate and proper drainage; . . ." Cmle, Sec. 6.10  (9)

"Drive-in" Establishments

In addition to the foregoing, establishments inviting auto-borne patronage of a more transient nature
may also be sources of litter and other potential surface pollutants.

Drive-in Theatres

The NIMLO model takes account of both refuse and dust problems in providing that:
    "No person  shall  place, throw  or deposit any  food,  beverage, paper, bottle or  other waste
    materials upon the premises of any drive-in theater, nor shall the licensee permit such conduct"
    and that "All drives and areas used by vehicles  must be satisfactorily paved by the licensee or
    treated to avoid creating dust." Sec. 6-510IB), (11) and (2)
As to the latter the Rockville, Maryland, requirement is similar, i.e.:
    "The parking and driving areas shall be so treated as to prevent the creating of dust,  either by
    chemical treatment or hard surfacing." Coile, Sec. 13-1.06(1) (8)
                                             222

-------
Drive-in Restaurants

In drive-in eating establishments, customers' refuse is of much more serious  concern than surface
construction. The NIMLO model disposes of the latter by requiring that:
   "The parking area on the premises of a drive-in restaurant shall be satisfactorily paved or treated
   by the licensee so as to avoid creating dust and so as to provide for adequate drainage of surface
   water." Sec. 8-2318
The sections, however,  are devoted to the refuse  problem—aimed at the  patron  and the  operator,
respectively:
   "No person shall place, throw or deposit any waste material upon the outside premises or parking
   area of a drive-in restaurant or on any street,  alley or adjoining property or in the vicinity of a
   drive-in restaurant, except  in adequate receptacles provided for  that  purpose, nor shall  the li-
   censee permit such conduct." Sec.  8-2311

   The licensee  shall at least once in 24  hours dispose of waste materials which tend to create a
   public nuisance on  the premises. The licensee shall keep the premises whereon the drive-in
   restaurant  is located,  together  with  the parking area and that  portion of any  street or alley
   adjoining the drive-in restaurant free from waste material. The licensee shall provide the drive-in
   restaurant with a sufficient number of adequate refuse containers. Any incinerator which may be
   installed shall conform with  the rules and regulations of the Bureau of Smoke Abatement of the
   Department of Buildings and Safety Engineering (substitute appropriate title)." Sec. 8-2312
In its ordinance on "Drive-in Take-out Restaurants" Lakewbod, California, departs from the above to
relieve the licensee of the1 responsibility to police  his customers or clean adjacent street or alley space.
and to allow 48 hours for waste disposal, its pertinent sections providing that:
   No person shall place, throw or deposit any garbage,  refuse or waste material upon, in or outside
   of the said premises, except in waste or refuse  receptacles provided  therefor on said  premises.
   Code, Sec. 6410(e-3), par. 7(b)
   The permittee shall, at least once  in every forty-eight hours, dispose of waste materials or refuse
   deposited or accumulating  on  the premises of the permittee. The permittee  shall provide and
   maintain on  said premises a sufficient number of adequate waste  receptacles, not less than 2  in
   number, for  the use of consumers and said permittee. Waste or  refuse as used herein includes
   paper cups, paper plates, straws, napkins, food, beverage,  drink, frozen dessert,, garbage, and all
   other waste  material  intended for disposal and which,  if not placed  in  a  proper receptacle
   therefor, tends  to create a public nuisance by  rendering  said property  unclean, unsafe, and
   unsightly. Code, Sec. 7420(e-3), par. 4

Trailer or Tourist Courts
Surface cleanliness  of "camps" or "courts" established for the  accommodation of "house trailers" or
"mobile homes" usually receives only cursory attention within the comprehensive enactments.which
customarily provide for the regulation and licensing of such establishments. The NIMLO  model on
"Automobile Trailer and  Tourist  Camps" covers disposal of solid  wastes by providing,  in Sec.
8-910ld), that "Every unit shall be provided with  a  substantial fly tight metal garbage depository from
which the contents shall be removed  by the city garbage collection service"—and general sanitation by
stating that:
   "It is hereby made the duty of  the attendant or person in charge,  together with the licensee, to:
   ... (2) Maintain the camp in a clean, orderly and sanitary  condition at  all times."  Sec. 8-912(b)
The state "Trailer Coach Park" law of Michigan (emphasis supplied) stipulates,  as to  roadways, that
"All  streets and  driveways in  every trailer coach park  shall be maintained in a passable and
reasonably dustproof condition at all times," (Sec. 75) and takes account of the presence of animals in
its provisions that "No animal  washing, car washing or other  slop creating practices shall be carried
on in any trailer coach park, in any building, structure, or any  place within the trailer  coach park not
designated  and approved for such purposes" (Sec.  74) and "No domestic animals or house pets shall
be allowed to run at large or commit any nuisances within the limits of the trailer coach park" (Sec.
78)— and likewise provides that:
   "Every trailer coach park shall  be in charge of a responsible attendant or caretaker at all times,
   who shall  maintain the park, its facilities and  equipment in a clean,  sanitary condition . . ." Act
   No. 243 of 1959, ax amended (10165 edition).  Sec. 77
Seattle, Washington, employs a variant, in its requirement that:
   "Mobile Home Parks shall be maintained  in  a safe and  sanitary condition, free from rodents,
   vermin, trash and litter." Ord. No. 89715 of 1112/60, Sec: 5.010
In Ketchikan, Alaska, some responsibility is placed upon trailer occupants by the assertion that:
   "It shall be unlawful  for any person occupying or using any  automobile trailer as a place  of
   human habitation to drain therefrom or permit to be drained therefrom and on to  the ground any


                                            223

-------
    wasie water, sewage, or other liquids or to deposit upon the ground any garbage, trash, drainage,
    or filth therefrom." Code. Sec. 5-32
This approach is amplified in the ordinance of Nebraska City, Nebraska, which provides that:
    "There shall be provided by the operator of every trailer home court, a tight receptacle with close
    fitting  metal cover  for  garbage,  refuse,  rubbish, and  ashes,  for  each  unit  space,  and such
    receptacles  shall at all  times be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. It  shall be unlawful
    for any person to deposit any garbage,  refuse, rubbish, or ashes, or any other waste matter in any
    place within any trailer home court except in a receptacle provided therefor." Ord. No. 1084, Sec.
    15
Specifies for  the disposal of solid wastes in  trailer courts are set  forth by Nashville and  Davidson
Counties, Tennessee, in a comprehensive section providing that:
    "The storage,  collection  and disposal of refuse in the court shall be so managed as to  create no
    health  hazards, rodent harborage, insect-breeding areas, accident hazards, or air  pollution. All
    refuse  shall  be stored in fly-tight,  water-tight, rodentproof containers, which shall be provided in
    sufficient number and  capacity to prevent any refuse from overflowing.  Satisfactory  container
    racks or  holders  shall  be provided, and  shall be  located  not more  than 150 feet from any
    trailer-coach space. Garbage shall be collected and disposed of in an approved manner, at least
    twice per week. Public Health Code, Chap. 8. Sec. 3.809
The refuse containers required by Ogden, Utah, are described in some detail  in its specification that:
    Tightly covered garbage containers shall be provided within  a reasonable distance from  all trailer
    coach spaces. Racks or holders shall be provided for all garbage and other refuse containers. Such
    container racks  or holders shall be  so designed and constructed as to prevent containers  from
    being tipped and  to minimize spillage  and container deterioration and to  facilitate cleaning
    around them." Code, Sec. 26-3-9

The site and placement of the containers is more emphasized in the comprehensive section of the New
Orleans ordinance on mobile home parks which details that:
    "Sufficient containers for the storage, in a sanitary manner,  of one  week's  accumulation of
    garbage  and trash shall be  provided. Three  or  four cubic yard containers,  approved by the
    Department of Sanitation shall be provided for the disposal of garbage and trash. The unit(s) shall
    be located in an enclosed (fenced)  area, paved with asphalt or concrete . . . provided with coping
    and floor drain connected to the sanitary sewer. The area shall  be maintained free of insects and
    rodents. The location of the pick-up area  and the containers must be approved by the Department
    of Sanitation. No garbage or trash will be picked  up at the individual trailer sites. It shall be the
    obligation of the  owner-operator  of a Trailer Park to require that all  garbage  and  trash be
    disposed of in a sanitary  manner and  it  shall  be  his  responsibility to maintain  the Park free of
    litter and debris."  Code, Sec. 36A-7
Paving of tourist court surfaces is required in San Antonio, Texas, by the provision that:
    "All  land used as an  automobile tourist court . . . shall be hard surfaced, and shall be located on
    well  drained sites of ample size approved  by the public health department.  . . ." Code, Sec. 37-13
Broad-scale brevity is typified by the Euless, Texas, requirement that:
    "AH owners or operators of any tourist court,  trailer courts  and hotels,  inns and rooming houses
    shall provide every practical facility essential to keeping the entire area of each of said courts in a
    sanitary condition." Ord. No. 27 of 3/7/55, Sec. 16-C

Handbills

Unsolicited advertising leaflets and like materials, which are prolific sources of litter,  are generally
characterized  as "Handbills" in numerous  ordinances  for the control of their distribution.  The
NIMLO model is a multi-section ordinance  directed toward various facets of the problem. In the most
direct approach,  it deals with "throwing handbills broadcast in public places" as follows:
    "It shall be unlawful for any person to deposit, place, throw, scatter or cast  any commercial
    handbill  in or upon any  public place within this City;  and it  shall be also unlawful for any person
    to hand out  or distribute or sell any commercial handbill in any public place; Provided, however,
    that  it  shall not be unlawful for any person  to hand out or distribute,  without charge to the
    receiver thereof, any non-commercial handbill  in any public  place to any person  willing to accept
    such non-commercial handbill." Sec. 8-104
Distribution into or onto motor vehicles is covered  in the next section of the Model, thus:
   "It shall  be  unlawful for  any person to distribute,  deposit, place,  throw, scatter or  cast any
    commercial  or non-commercial  handbill  in or  upon  any automobile or other  vehicle.  The
    provisions of this section shall not be deemed to prohibit the  handing, transmitting or distributing
    of any  non-commercial  handbill  to  the  owner or other occupant of any automobile  or other
    vehicle, who is willing to accept the same."  Sec. 8-104
                                            224

-------
Substantially similar provisions are found  in numerous city ordinances—e.g., of Dallas (Code, Sec.
7A-11) and Denver (Cotle, Sec. 352.13-1)—and for "advertising matter" in Berkeley  California  (Onl
No.2847-N.S..Sec.S).
The "consent" specified to legalize the distribution is that of the "owner or person  in charge of the
vehicle in San Antonio, Texas, (Coile, Sec. 26-5,1 and of its "owner or custodian" in Des Momes,  Iowa,
(Coile, Sec. 3-2)—(he former covering". . . any circular, dodger, handbill or  other advertising or other
advertising or printed  matter of any  character whatsoever . . ." and the latter". . . any kind of paper,
circular, card, dodger,  handbill or other advertising  matter . . ."
Distinctions  as to the  activity  or inactivity of the  vehicle  are  illustrated  by pertinent  excerpts
(emphasis supplied) of the ordinances of Greensboro, North Carolina, Peoria, Illinois, and Salina,
Kansas—respectively:
    -It shall be unlawful to distribute advertising or matter of any kind by placing the same in or on
    any motor vehicle thai i\ parked on any street, in other  public places, or in a public or private
    parking lot or facility . . ." Code, Sec. 3-2
    "It shall be unlawful ... to place or cause to be placed, any handbills, circulars, cards, posters,
    leaflets, pamphlets, booklets, showbills, or other advertising matter in, or attach the same upon
    any part of any motor vehicle, while such motor vehicle  ;'.\ in m,c upon the streets or Mamting
    parked upon the streets or public parking lots . .  ." Code, Sec. 3-1
The orientation to littering is clearly apparent in the stipulation by Grand Junction, Colorado, that:
    "It shall be unlawful to post,  affix  or distribute any handbill, poster, placard, circular, writing,
    paper or similar device in any vehicle or in  such  a manner that it is liable to be blown or scattered
    about in the city." Code, Sec. 3-3
Automotive  and  other  locations,  pedestrians and motorists,  are  combined  in  the  prohibitory
ordinances of certain cities, of which those of Concord, New Hampshire, Daytona Beach, Florida,
New Rochelle, New York, and Saginaw, Michigan, respectively, arc here excerpted:
    "No  person  shall, in any . . . public place . . . distribute to the persons or place in any vehicle,
    there being  or  passing, any  handbills, cards,   papers  or advertising matter  of  any kind or
    description .  . ." Code, Sec. 10.1
    "It shall  be unlawful  to distribute to pedestrians ... or  to throw  into or  upon any bus or
    automobile or  other  vehicle,  any  handbill, dodger or  advertising  notice  of a commercial
    character." Code, Sec. 3-5(1)
    "No  person  shall  throw, cast or distribute . . . any commercial handbill,  circular, card or other
    commercial advertising matter whatsoever, in or upon any street or public place ... or in or upon
    any motor vehicle . . ."  Code, Sec. 7-8
    "No  person  shall distribute,  throw, drop or scatter in any . . . public place or in  or  upon any
    vehicle . . . any posters, handbills ... or other . .  . advertising in such a manner as to result in the
    littering of any street, alley or public place." Code, Sec. 107.1
In relation to non-vehicular distribution a -pattern" is found in the  handbill ordinances of several
cities—for which  that of Des Moines, Iowa, will serve for a starting point:
    "It shall be unlawful for any person  to distribute or  to throw or to cause to be thrown or scattered
    any kind of paper, circular, cards, dodger, handbills or advertising matter of any kind upon the
    public highways, streets, avenues,  boulevards,  alleys and public passageways,  public parks or
    public buildings . . ." Code, Sec. 3-1
San Antonio, Texas,  directs the proscription  against ". .  . any handbill, circular, card, booklet, placard
or other advertising  matter whatsoever . . ." (Code, Sec. 26-4), which  is also the description used by
the ordinances  of Albany, Georgia, (Code, Sec.  19-12) and Newport News, Virginia (Code, Sec. 3-2)
the locale in the latter being ". . . in or upon any street or sidewalk or upon any public parking lot."
Phraseology of different patterns is applied by the ordinances of Owensboro, Kentucky, and El Paso,
Texas,—which provide, respectively, that:
   "It shall  be unlawful for any person to distribute or scatter any  handbills,  advertising cards or
   other advertising matter on or upon any of the streets, alleys or public ways of the city ... or to
   permit any such cards, papers or other advertising to be  scattered upon  the  streets,  sidewalks,
   alleys or other public ways in the city." Code, Sec. 13-40
   "No person shall hand out, scatter,  throw or distribute commercial handbills, circulars, cards, or
   advertising devices in any street, public park, public grounds, or public building . . ." Code. Sec.
   18-6
                                             225

-------
Distribution to Private Premises

Three sections of the NIMLO model relate to distribution of handbills to private premises, thus:
    ••It shall be unlawful for any person  to  distribute, deposit, place, throw, scatter or cast any
    commercial or non-commercial handbill in or upon any private premises which are temporarily or
    continuously uninhabited or vacant." Sec. 8-106
    "It shall be unlawful ... to  distribute . . . any commercial or non-commercial  handbill upon any
    premises, if requested by anyone thereon not to do so, or if there is placed on said  premises in a,
    conspicuous position near the entrance thereof, a sign bearing the works: 'No Trespassing,' 'No
    Peddlers or Agents,' 'No Advertisement,' or any similar notice, indicating in any manner that the
    occupants of said premises do not desire ... to have any such handbills left upon such premises."
    Sec. 8-108
    "No person . . . shall distribute . . .  any commercial or non-commercial handbill  in or upon any
    private  premises which  are inhabited, except  by handling or  transmitting  any such handbill
    directly  to the owner, occupant, or  any other person  then present  in or  upon  such private
    premises; Provided however, that in case of inhabited private premises which are not posted as
    provided  in this ordinance, the  aforesaid . . . person, unless requested  by  anyone  upon such
    premises not to do so, may place or deposit  any such handbill . .  . if such handbill is so placed or
    deposited as to secure or prevent such handbill from being blown or drifted about such premises
    or elsewhere . . ." Sec. 8-108
Substantially the above provisions are carried in  such ordinances as those of Newport News, Virginia,
Dallas, Texas, and Berkeley, California—with the latter adding, as to  poste premises,
    "It shall be unlawful to ring the bell  or  to knock at any  residence,  building or place for  the
    purpose of distributing or circulating advertising matter where such a sign is displayed." Ord. No.
    2847-N.S., Sec.  7
Denver prescribes the distribution procedure, and puts "teeth" in its regulations, as follows:
    "If circulars,  handbills,  advertisements,  or  other  literature  are  distributed  to  private
    premises ... the distribution shall be only in compliance with the following procedure:

      (1)      The circulars,   handbills, advertisemtnts, or other literature shall first be firmly bound
              or folded or shall be  securely affixed or confined in  some  position near a principal
              entrance to the premises to obviate the likelihood of dispersal by the wind  or the
              littering-of any area.

      (2)      It shall  be unlawful not to comply with  the  procedure outlined . . . and it shall be
              unlawful to  select or   employ  any  person   who distributes circulars,  handbills,
              advertisements, or other literature except in accordance with such procedure.

      (3)      Proof that   any particular area was found unduly littered and unsightly by a specific
              kind of circular, handbill, advertisement or other literature which was distributed by
              an identified distributor shall  be prima  facie evidence of a violation ... by such
              distributor." Code, Sec. 352.13-2
Licensing Distributors

Among other approaches the NIMLO model contemplates controlling the problem of handbills by
control of those who engage in their distribution. The pertinent provisions, here sharply abbreviated,
are as follows:
    "(a) It shall be unlawful ... for any person to distribute commercial or non-commercial handbills,
    without . . . complying with .  . . this ordinance .  . . Provided, that nothing contained herein shall
    apply to any person advertising . . . upon his own premises . . . (b) Any person desiring to engage .
    . .  in the business of distributing  . . . handbills for hire, shall . . . receive ... a license ... for the
    period prescribed by ... this ordinance and ... the municipal code. Such applicant shall make
    written application . . . upon a form . . . (which) shall contain ... the name, the business address,
    and a brief description of...  the business  to be conducted . . . (c) Without excluding other just
    grounds . . . the City Council .  . . may revoke any license .  . . under an application ... to obtain a
    license by means of false or fraudulent representations or for violation of this ordinance, or any
    other grounds specified by law. . . . License fees . . . shall be ... (rates optional) .  . . Provided,
    that persons acting for license as agents or employees, . . . shall not be required to obtain a license
    ... but ... shall comply with each and all of the oUVr provisions hereof. .  ." Sec. 8-110


                                             226

-------
City  ordinances noted in  this  study,  however,  limit  licensing to  distributors  of "advertising
matter"—i.e., in the NIMLO language, "commercial" handbills only. Newark, New Jersey, requires
each distributor of". . . Handbills or other advertising matter .  . ." to secure a no-fee permit from the
Chief of Police,'based upon an application, accompanied by  a photo  and disclosing his name and
address, age,  height and weight, birthplace, marital  status,  place and  length of residence, criminal
record and name and address of employer. The ordinance further stipulates (with emphasis supplied)
that:
    "The chief of police shall have the power to grant the permit . . . (but) . .  . shall refuse to issue a
    permit in all cases where the application upon its face, or  upon further investigation, . . . shows
    that the applicant is not of good character  or that he  is distributing advertising matter for a
    project or a business that is not free from fraud. Every permit . .  . shall specify  the  number of
    hours or days that the permit shall specify the number of hours or days that the permit shall be in
    effect. The chief of police shall revoke any permit ... for failure or refusal ... to comply with . . .
    this article.  A  copy of the  permittee's photograph  shall  be carried on  his permit, .   . The
    permittee shall exhibit  his permit ... on request. The permittee shall be courteous . .  . and shall
    not importune nor annoy any of the inhabitants . . . and shall conduct himself in a lawful manner .
    . . On expiration of the permit the holder thereof shall surrender the same to the chief of police.
    This article shall  not   . . authorize any person to scatter  or throw upon the streets,  sidewalks,
    alleys or public places in the city, poster, handbills, advertisements or paper, . .  " Code,.Sees.
    8124 - 8.28
Simpler  regulatory  ordinances  encompass  both bill  posting and  handbill  distribution—e.g.,  at
Pocatello. Idaho, and Kalamazoo, Michigan, which respectively  provide  that:
    "Any person desiring to do bill posting, distribute handbills or perform sign advertising shall  be
    licensed by the  Clerk upon  the payment of     $25 ... for the term of one  year    . and said
    person shall perform ... in a good, lawful and proper manner in compliance with the provisions .
    . . governing the character of the matter . . .  distributed and the manner of ... distributing the
    same." Code, Sec. 5-3-2
    "It shall be unlawful ... to engage in, or carry on, the business of bill posting,  bill  distributing or
    the distribution of advertising matter, . . . without first obtaining a license . . . (which) . . . shall  be
    obtained by making application ... to the City Clerk. Such application shall .  . . specify whether
    bill posting and bill distributing alone,  or      with the distribution of advertising matter  are
    desired to be engaged in ... The license fee for bill posting, bill distributing and the distribution
    of advertising matter shall  be ... $20 . . . (and)   .  for bill distributing  and  the  distribution of
    advertising (only)  . . . shall be ... $8 ... per license year. .  . ." Code, Sec. PL1311
As is the case with the three, foregoing. Council Bluffs, Iowa, exempts those who distribute handbills
advertising their own business (limiting the exemption to "any local merchant with  a permanent place
of business within the city"), but also provides a  preferential rate for distribution "incidental" to a
business, thus:
    "Any person,     . who follows  the  calling . . . and occupation and engages  in the business of
    distributing handbills,       shall  be required to  secure  a  permit   . . and  the fee  . . shall  be
    twenty-five dollars per year . . . Any person . . . who shall distribute handbills ... as an incident to
    the conduct of his business or profession but who does not follow the calling .  . . and  business of
    an advertising distributor shall be required to secure a permit .   . and the fee ... shall be five
    dollars per year; provided ... the requirements . . . shall not be applicable to public or charitable
    enterprises or entertainments where private gain or profit is not sought." Code. Sees. 3.11.030 and
    3.11.040
General Exemptions

While the NIMLO model provides merely that "The provisions of this ordinance shall not be deemed
to  apply to the distribution  of mail by  the United States, nor to  newspapers  as defined  in this
ordinance." (Sec. 8-111),  certain  cities go  further  in  exempting particular  handbills  from their
controlling ordinance. San Francisco exempts in relation to content, thus:
    "This  section shall  not      prohibit or restrict the  distribution of written or printed matter
    devoted to the expression of views, opinions, beliefs  or contentions relating to religious, political
    or sociological subjects, or to public or civic affairs, or to labor disputes or  other controversies or
    to community state regional, national or international affairs;  or which are aimed to  redress any
    grievance or which otherwise are not distributed for the purpose of soliciting business, trade or
    custom- nor     to include the printed notice, of an event  which is not arranged for  profit or to
                                              227

-------
     stimulate the business, trade, or traffic of the person who causes the dissemination of the notice,
     even though a monetary contribution of an admission fee be requested or accepted in connection
     with such event." Police Code, Sec. 685(b)

New Orleans considers not only content but also size and transmission in framing the rather dubious
exemption (emphasis supplied) that:
          nothing in  this section shall  interfere with or prevent the distribution of invitaiions to
    religious meetings, nor prevent the distribution of cards, dodgers or handbills measuring not more
    than eight  and one-half inches in width by eleven inches  in length, directly from the hand of the
    distributor into the hands of another person." Onl. No. 828 M.C.S., Sec. 3-5. ax amended

Finally, numerous cities follow the lead of the Albany, Georgia, ordinance, that:
          is not intended to prevent the lawful distribution of anything other than commercial and
    business advertising matter." Orel. No. 1379 of 9112144

Permanently mounted ground level billboards are likely to be a source of litter, especially as a result of
bill-posting changes. TheNlMLO model on "Signs" provides merely that:
      AII ground signs and the  premises surrounding  the  same shall be  maintained by the owner
    thereof in  a  clean,  sanitary, and inoffensive condition,  and free and  clear of all obnoxious
    substances, rubbish and weeds." Sec. 12-323 (e)

Operator  responsibility   for  general  site  cleanliness  is the  evident  objective  of two Texas
ordinances—of El  Paso and San Antonio—which respectively provide that:
    "It shall be the duty  of any person  maintaining billboards within the city to keep the property
    enclosed, or partly enclosed by such billboards, free from  the accumulation of filth, weeds, papers
    and trash."  Code.  Sec. 18-4

    "All billboards within the city shall be kept in a safe and sanitary condition . .  . The  duty shall
    rest upon  any  person owning, maintaining or  controlling billboards to see  that the ground
    immediately  surrounding  such billboards or any other ground  sign  owned, maintained or
    controlled by  him  is kept in  a clean and sanitary condition." Code, Sec. 34-44

 The  bill-posting operation is accented  in  ordinance provisions  of San Francisco,  California, and
 Peoria, Illinois, respectively specifying that:
     "No person,  firm or corporation shall scatter,  daub  or leave  any paint, paste, glue, or  other
     substance used for painting or affixing advertising matters upon  any public street or sidewalks or
     scatter or throw  or  permit to  be scattered or thrown any  bills, waste  matter, paper, cloth or
     materials  of whatsoever kind  removed  from  billboards on any  public street or on private
     property." Police Code. Sec. 87

    "It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in the business of outdoor advertising to permit any
    refuse resulting from  the erection or maintenance of any signs, display boards or billboards
    erected or maintained  by such licensee to accumulate anywhere in the city, except by placing it in
    properly established   and  maintained  refuse receptacles. ... All refuse  resulting  from  the
    operation of the business of an outdoor advertiser must be carefully gathered up and disposed of."
    Code. Sec. 23-7

Vending on or  Along the Streets

 Akin to Handbills, in  their litter-producing potential, are various vending activities conducted  along
 the streets or sidewalks and which may be called "instant refuse" operations.

 A broad-gauge  requirement contained in the Albany,  New  York,  licensing  ordinance for venders
 including hawkers, peddlers, salesmen, canvassers and solicitors "for the  sale or purchase  of goods,
 wares and merchandise in the public streets and places" prescribes that the licensee:
      . . . shall  not directly or indirectly  cause or permit the  public  streets and places to be littered
    with papers, wrappings or other debris or refuse;  . . ." Ord. of 6116152,  Sec. 9(c)
 Vehicular sales of food products and beverages via •'mobile canteen units" in  Little Rock, Arkansas,
 and  "mobile restaurants" in Tacoma, Washington,  are governed by ordinances which respectively
 require that:

    "All waste products shall be disposed of so as not to create any nuisance upon public or private
    property. The owner or operator of any mobile canteen  unit shall provide suitable containers,
    approved by the public health director, for the disposal of all waste products, including used paper
    cups and containers."  Code, Sec. 14-26(d)
                                             228

-------
    •Operators of mobile restaurants must at all times keep the premises upon which said rcNtmininlN
    are located clean and sanitary and free from all litter and refuse and provide proper rcccplnclcn
    for all refuse, etc." Ord. No. 17582 of 4114164, Sec. JO
A similar provision relates to vehicular vendine of icecream in Rockville, Maryland stipulating thai:

   "All vehicles shall be equipped with a suitable receptacle in a location convenient to patrons lor
   the disposal  of wrappers  and other  disposable products sold  from the vehicle."  Code,  Sec
   l3-1.14
    "Every person or corporation  keeping for  sale at  retail  on  premises adjoining a public street.
    fruit, nuts or other goods from which waste is liable to be thrown upon such street shall keep the
    highway abutting . . . free and clear of waste substances and matter from such class of goods as
    kept for sale by him at such store, and shall  keep and maintain in a wholesome condition all such
    receptacles for waste matter  as  may be located  by the  Cit>  upon or  adjoining  the  premises
    occupied by him." Code. Chap. 11. Sec. 3

Sidewalk Photographers

Sidewalk photographers who snap "candid" photos of passers-b> on downtown  streets are usualh
producers of "second-hand litter"  as a great many of their  inadvertent "subjects" ma> prompil>
discard the serially-numbered "order form" handed to them. Milwaukee. Wisconsin,  licenses the
occupation, but provides that grounds for revocation of a license shall include:
   "Littering the street or highway  with  cards, circulars or literature or an\ other paper or  ma-
   terial." Code, 84-2.5(a)
San Antonio, Texas, not only requires the sidewalk  photographer to  secure a permit,  which is good
only for a designated location (on one  side of the street in a specific block), but also provides that:
    "Each permit holder shall be required to keep the street and sidewalk w ithin three hundred feet in
    both directions from  his location free from discarded handbills, circulars, or advertising matter
    used incident to his business." Code, Sec. 28-13
This kind  of litter is eliminated  by prohibiting this type of enterprise as at  Greensboro, North
Carolina, and Portland, Oregon, which respectively provide that:
    "It shall be unlawful to  use the  streets or  sidewalks of the city for the purpose of operating a
    photographer's business  whereby photographs are snapped or made of passers-by and a card.
   ticket,  tag,  emblem or other thing is given  to any person who may by the payment of a sum of
   money obtain a photograph or picture." Code, Sec. 18-14

    "It shall be  unlawful  for any  person ... to  engage in business as  a photographer taking
    photographs  of any  person or  persons upon any street,  sidewalk,  alley,  or public way or
    place, . . . without such person's prior consent; . . ."  Police Code,  Sec. 16-2023
In the latter city theCouncil  explained why it was foreclosing pursuit of the occupation, which:
    ". .. has resulted in  a  situation which hereby is  found to  be a  public nuisance  in  that the
    photographing of persons  without their prior consent is  a violation of the  individual's right of
    privacy,  and in the  littering of streets, sidewalks,  doorways and  business premises with order
    blanks,  envelopes,    cards,  and  other  printed  matter   distributed   by  such  sidewalk
    photographers, . .  ."  Ord. No. 96086 of 1952, Sec. 1

Flower Vendors

In San Francisco, the Director of Public Works  is enpowered to issue permits  for day-and-evening
operation of "sidewalk flower-vending stands" (7 a.m. to 9 p.m.) at specified locations. The ordinance
provides that:
    ... the sidewalk and street  surrounding each stand shall be kept free of  rubbish, cuttings or
   debris resulting from the operation of the stand:  —however,  "No rubbish  or cuttings shall be
   deposited in any public waste container." Public Work!, Code, Sec. 161(g) and If)


                                             229

-------
Produce Peddlers

The vehicles of produce peddlers are regulated as "mobile markets" in Richmond, California, with
requirements that:
         Mobile markets shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition at all times, and no waste,
    litter, or other material shall be allowed to drop  on the streets or other public places. .  . ." and
         shall  provide in their vehicle a metal garbage can with a tight-fitting cover to be used for the
    disposal of waste matter." Orel.  No. 1746 of 10116161, Sec. 4.4 (F-20) and (F-19)

Site Cleanup of Circuses, Carnivals, etc.

The best way to avoid being left with a wasteland of litter when a circus or carnival leaves town seems
to be  to  require  that its operators, upon  obtaining their license, must also post a bond to assure site;
cleanup at the  end of their stay. A selection of representative ordinances shows variations from $50 to
$1,000 in the  amount of the bond,  but  similarities  in its application to site cleaning costs when
necessary and  in site inspection before releasing the security. Bonds often may also cover compliance
with other  ordinance  requirements  and  safeguards (e.g., protection of city property), but excerpts
herein are restricted to site cleanup aspects.
Scottsdale,  Arizona,  is not  specific  as to  administration of  its bonding requirement  set up in its
ordinance which merely provides that:
     ... the following special  fees  shall be charged  and collected  in  advance for the carrying on
    of...(d)  Carnivals  $100.  p/day;  $1000 cleanup bond (e)  Circus $100.  p/day; $1000 cleanup
    bond . . ." Ord. No. 123 of 715161
Certification of a cleaned-up site is prerequisite to release of the $1,000 bond in two widely separated
cities—Flint, Michigan, and Dalles City (The Dalles), Oregon—as follows:
    "Before any license for a circus or menagerie, ... or amusement  rides or wildwest show is
    issued ... the applicant  shall deposit with the  City Clerk a  cash  bond  in  the sum'of  One
    Thousand Dollars (1,000.00) conditioned upon the faithful observance of this ordinance  and
    conditioned  further that no damage will be done to the streets, sewers or other public or private
    property and that the same will be restored to  the  condition which existed prior to use  by said
    licensee, and that no dirt, paper, litter or other debris will be permitted to remain upon the streets
    or upon any public or private property by such  licensee. Such  cash  bond . . .  shall be returned
    upon certification of the Director of Public Works and Chief of Police . . . that the property, both
    public and private, and  streets where such circus  or menagerie,  ... or amusement rides,  or wild
    west show has been held is placed in  a  neat condition and  all debris removed . . ." Ord. No. 1894
    of 3121166
    "It shall be unlawful  ... to erect or cause to be erected any temporary structure composed wholly
    or partly of canvas or similar material to be used as a place of  amusement or for any religious,
    educational  or recreational purposes or for any other public assemblages whatsoever . . . without
    first. .  . receiving permission to do so in accordance with . . . this ordinance . .  . (c) The applicant
    shall  deposit... a  cash  bond  in  the  sum  of  $1,000.00, or  a  surety  bond  in  the same
    amount. . . conditioned further  that no damage  will be  done  to  the streets, sewers,  trees or
    adjoining property and that no dirt, paper, litter, or other debris will be permitted to remain upon
    the  streets or upon any private-property by such applicant.  Such cash bond or surety bond shall be
    returned  to  the applicant upon certification by  the chief of police  that all conditions of  this
    ordinance have been complied with .  . ." Ord. No. 710of 417154


Bonding requirements at lower monetary  levels are  more specific as to providing for cleanup city
forces when the licensee does not leave  the site  in satisfactory condition. As an  example, Albany,
Georgia, provides that:
      . . . Before any license is issued for  a  circus, carnival, or any similar performance, the applicant
    shall deposit. . . $500 . . . upon  the condition that the applicant  will clean up all litter caused by
    the applicant so that the premises will be left in  approximately  the same condition as they were
    prior to being used by applicant. ... In the event  applicant fails  to comolv with these conditions.
Another city  bonding at the $500 level  but evidently  contemplating outright  forfeiture  is Reno,
Nevada, whose ordinance provides that:
        . Every person who shall exhibit any circus, caravan or managerie in the city, or exhibit or

                                                                                  . shall require
                                                                                tioned  that the
                                                                              r pay for cleaning


                                             230

-------
   of the streets and alleys upon which the circus, caravan or menagerie may be, ... and that any
   violation of any of the conditions of such bond shall cause a forfeiture of the same-    " Cmle
   Sees. 4.01.460, 4.01.470
Reno also has similar provisions to cover ". . . any carnival or other performance in the open air, or
under a tent . . . except a circus, caravan or menagerie . .  ." (Code, Sees. 4.01.430, 4.01.450)
The City Manager is charged  with  certification of compliance  for refunding the bond under the
ordinance of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which provides that:
   "It shall be unlawful ... to conduct . . . any rodeo, wild west show, menagerie, circus, carnival, or
   similar type of itinerant show . .  . without . . . having received permission to do so in accordance
   with  . . . this  Ordinance. .  . ,C    The applicant shall deposit ... a  cash  bond  in  the sum
   of. .  . $300 .  . . conditioned that  ... no dirt, paper, litter  or other debris  will be permitted to
    remain upon the streets or upon  any private property by such applicant. Such cash bond shall be
   returned . . .  upon certification . . . that  all conditions . . . have been complied with    " Orel  Ni>
   36-62 oj 1216162
Setting  their bond requirements at  $250  and specifying  city cleanup when necessary are Seattle,
Washington, whose ordinance  covers   also circus parades,  and  Daytona Beach, Florida, whose
regulations pertain to "any tent"—thus:
     . . .  No license shall be issued to any person for any circus, menagerie,  trained animal show, wild
   west  show, or a similar show, or any combination thereof, or for a circus parade, . . . until such
   person has deposited .  . . $250 $200 for carnivals ...  as a indemnity ... to be used, if necessary to
    restore the ground where such show is held to a sanitary condition, . . ." Ord. 92204 of 7118163
 ...The erection of  any  tent within  the... City  of  Daytona  Beach  without a permit ... is
prohibited.  . . . Before  any  permit   is  issued,  applicants  shall  post a cash  bond in  the  amount
of. .. $250 ... to insure cleaning of the premises after the  tent is removed.  Such bonds  shall be
forfeited in the amount of $10 per day ... for each day . . . that the premises shall not be cleaned of all
debris, garbage, refuse and signs. In the event it becomes necessary  for the City of Daytona Beach to
clean the premises, the cost of such  cleaning shall be deducted from the bond." Ord. No. 66-260 of
1118167
Bonus in the comparatively small amount of $50 are specified in the ordinances of two cities which
make post-departure inspections. Pocatello, Idaho, inferenlially escheats the deposit on non-compli-
ance  under its ordinance providing that:
     • ... Before a license shall be issued ... a circus, menagerie or carnival, . . . shall he required to
    deposit with  the Clerk a cash bond  of. . . $50 ... to be a guarantee that . . .-the grounds or streets
    used for such operation be  cleaned  of all trash, paper and other debris . . . Before returning said
    bond . . . the Clerk shall have such grounds inspected  for the purpose of ascertaining that such
    cleaning has  been done." Code, Sec. 5-1-7
Dollar amounts in the 1925 ordinance of Council Bluffs, Iowa, are obviously outdated, but its language
provides that the licensee shall  pay for the city's site inspection in addition to paying its cleanup costs
(with an over-write) if required, thus:
     ...  At the  time the City  Clerk shall issue  any license to any circus, menagerie,  show or other
    exhibition to be given in  tents or other temporary enclosure . . . the Clerk shall  require the
    licensee  to   deposit. . . fifty  dollars  as  a  guaranty that  the  premises   and  surrounding
    streets... shall  be left  in a  clean  and  sanitary  condition. ...Upon  the removal  of the
    licensee ... the Clerk  shall  direct the City Engineer to  make an inspection of  such premises, and
    if the same are left in a clean and sanitary condition, the Clerk shall refund .  . . forty-eight dollars,
    retaining  the balance  to reimburse the city for the expense of making  such examination. ... In
    the event such examination shows  a breach of such guaranty, the City Engineer shall direct the
   cleaning of such premises and surrounding streets, keeping an accurate record of the cost of such
    work . . . including a fee of five dollars for such superintendence and the Clerk shall deduct from
    such  deposit  the amount thereof and refund the balance . . ." Ord. 2652 of 514125

Confetti
Even the parade-related minuscule "litter" of confetti is placed under  legislative restraint  in some
cities. In Boise, Idaho, the  City Council granted itself some latitude for exceptions on providing that:
   "It shall be  unlawful  for any person on the streets or in  any public places, to throw upon any
   person  confetti	provided, however, that the Council may .  . . suspend the provisions of this
   Section . . .'only for limited periods during carnivals, fairs, chautauquas or other occasions of like
   character . . ." Code, Sec. 6-1-28
Exceptions were  also made, but for type rather  than time, in far-distant Columbia, South Carolina,
whose ordinance  provides that:
   "It shall be unlawful for any person to engage during any festival occasion or at any other time in
   the throwing of confetti (excepting that known and designated as "ribbon confetti," being and



                                             231

-------
    consisting of rolls of lightest tissue), flour, rubber ball, iodoform or other drugs or any material
    whatsoever serving the same purpose, upon any other person.  . . ." Code, Sec. 23-9 (b)
The latter ordinance forbids not only the use,  but the sale of confetti (with the same exception) as
follows:
         It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale . . . "confetti," excepting, however,
    what is known and designated as ribbon confetti, being and consisting of long rolls of lightest
    tissue paper." Code, Sec. 23-9 (a)
San Antonio specifically includes fiestas and festivajs within fts ban on the throwing of confetti (which
provides no exceptions), thus:
    ••It shall be unlawful for any person  when on any street, park, public ground or other public place
    during any festival, carnival, fiesta  or other  public gathering, celebration or demonstration, to
    throw,  spread,  place,  put,  apply  or otherwise use any confetti . .  . talcum  powder, flour,
    meal ... or to have in his possession any of such . . . materials or substances whatsoever for such
    use." Code, Sec. 26-9
STORAGE AND DISPOSITION OF GARBAGE AND RUBBISH

The whole gamin of subjects covered,  and problems dealt with, in  a  comprehensive ordinance to
establish and regulate a municipal  refuse collection system, of whatever type, goes far beyond the
scope  of our present  interest  within  the  bounds  of  this  current study. Some aspects of typical
enactments—such  as construction  of  collection vehicles  and  spillage  therefrom,  authorized  and
unauthorized dumping, and  the  disposition of dead  animals  and garden  refuse—are considered
elsewhere in this exploration of pertinent ordinances. Some other matters that are very pertinent and
sometimes  thorny  aspects of  a  comprehensive "system" ordinance—such as separation and/or
wrapping of garbage, collection points and frequency, and service charges or other means of financing
—are not considered germane to this study. The primary areas here  significant appear to be the
sanitary (not generally safety  or efficiency) aspects of regulations relating to containers  for, and other
means of storing, refuse prior to  scheduled pick-ups, at whatever points and times they may occur.
Other minor related aspects will also be considered in due course.
Within (he outlined scope, the  NIMLO model "Municipal Refuse Collection" ordinance provisions
run as follows:
    "Refuse containers shall  be provided by the owner, tenant, lessee, or occupant of the premises.
    Refuse containers shall be maintained in good condition. Any container that does not conform to
    the provisions  of this ordinance .   . shall be promptly  replaced  upon  notice.     . Garbage
    containers  shall be made of metal,  equipped with  suitable handles and tight fitting covers,  and
    shall be  water  tight. .     Garbage  containers shall be of a type approved by the City Health
    Officer  and shall  be kept  in a clean, neat and sanitary  condition at all  times.  .  . .  Rubbish
    containers  shall be of a kind suitable for collection purposes .    . No  person shall place  any
    refuse in any street, alley or other public place, or upon any private property whether owned by
    such person or not, within the City except it  be  in  proper containers  for collection  or  under
    express approval granted by the Director. Nor shall any person throw or deposit any refuse in any
    stream or  other body of water. Any unauthroized accumulation of refuse on any premises is
    hereby declared to be a  nuisance and  is prohibited. .   .  No person shall cast, place,  sweep or
    deposit anywhere within  the City any refuse  in such a manner that it  may be carried or deposited
    by the elements upon any street, sidewalk, alley, sewer, parkway or other public place, or into any
    occupied premises within the City." Sec. 10-605 13} ami (4)

Containers

Considerations  most  germane to  refuse  (and  particularly garbage)  containers  relate  to usage,
adequacy, construction, and condition.
The ordained specifications  for the construction of refuse  containers which follow (with emphasis
supplied  as  necessary)  range from sketchy to  detailed,  in phraseology ranging  from rigorous to
permissive. Reno, Nevada, and Cranston. Rhode  Island, leave the material to be used unspecified:
    "It shall be the duty of every tenant, lessee or occupant .    and of every other person having
    garbage,  to provide . . .  suitable ana sufficient watertight cans or receptacles with  suitable bales
    or handles and each having a tight-fitting cover, for receiving  and holding without leakage, or
    escape of odors, all garbage which  would ordinarily accumulate  on the  premises in one week's
    time, and all garbage shall be  placed in  such receptacles.      " Code, Sec. 5.28.060
    "The  owner   or   occupant  .   . provide   a  covered,  watertight  receptacle .   . and   shall
    deposit  .   . garbage in such receptacle." Code, Sec. 11-11
                                            232

-------
' InFlonda the material must be "impervious" at Daytona Beach and "solid and durable" at Miami:
     "Garbage  shall  be . .   placed  in  watertight containers or receptacles  of impervious material
     which are provided with tight-fitting covers .     " Code, Sec. 17-9 (I)
     "The  container  shall be  a water  tight receptacle,  which .   . shall have a tightly  fitting lid
     equipped with a handle.  Such container shall  be made of a  solid and durable material. The
     container must not have  any  inside structures  such as inside bands and reinforcing  angles, or
     anything within  that would  prevent the  free discharge of the contents. .    " On/.  No. 68W aj
     7/18/61, Sec. 2

 Metal is predominantly the most specified material, for which  simpler  requirements are typified by
 ordinance  provisions of Greenwich,  Connecticut,  Grand Forks, North Dakota, and Great  Falls,
 Montana, as follows:
     "Covered watertight metal containers shall  be  provided .     for the storage of refuse.
     Sanitary Code, Sec. 58.2
     "Each property owner or  occupant shall furnish . . .  one or more  suitable metal garbage cans
     equipped with close fitting  tops ..." Code, Sec. 13-0504
     "It shall be the  duty of property owners  . . and .     persons occupying  business places and
     residences  .   . to  provide .     portable vessels or  cans for holding garbage. Such vessels or
     cans .  . shall be metallic, .     " Code,  Sec. 14-1-5

 A  preference  for  galvanised  metal is expressed in the ordinances of Owensboro  and  Louisville.
 Kentucky,  thus:
     "Containers provided as herein required  shall be of metal, preferably of galvanized iron or other
     noimi.siing metal of substantial construction, with tight  fitting covers and water tight .     " C'otle,
     Sec. 9-9
     '"Waste containers_fqr combustible waste shall be of metal, preferably of galvanized iron or other
     nonrns'ting  metal,  of stibstantial  construction, with  light-filling covers,  and waiertight.
     I'ttblic Ways and Services Code. Sec. 913.05

 A requirement for this t-ype of metal is imposed at Kalamazoo, Michigan, St. Minnesota, and Lincoln,
 Nebraska (the latter with further cover specification),  respectively as follows:

     "Garbage containers .   .  sltall be galvani-cd literal containers  .    in good repair,  leak proof,
     rodent proof and free from holes." Public Health Code, Sec.  VII  1-u
     "The owner, occupant or  lessee of  every btiidling  .     in which any garbage is  produced, shall
     maintain sufficient, proper and suitable containers  for  receiving and  holding  garbage. Containers
     shall be of galvanized iron or other melal  which will  not easily rust and which  can be readily
     cleaned, shall be  smaller in diameter at the bottom  than at the top, shall be provided with a close,
     well-fitting lid of the same material,       " Code, Sec. 320.10
     "It  shall  be  the duty   of  every householder .     to maintain  one  or more  receptacles
     for .   . household refuse, which shall be of galvanized nteial with  matching  cover, shall be
     water-tighl  and fly-tight;  the cover  shall be a recessed lid  constructed with at least a one-inch
     extension rim  on all sides,  overlapping Ihe sides of Ihe receptacle, to prevent the entrance of rain
     water  into the receptacle.       " Code, Sec. X.28.170

 A variation on requiring melal  is provided by the Dululh, Minnesota, stipulation that:
     "It shall be  the duty of every tenant, lessee or occupant   . to provide .     watertight vessels or
     cans to hold all  of the garbage which accumulates  on such premises .    . Such  vessels or cans
     shall  be  . .   provided  with  handles  and  a tight  and  securely  fitted cover      and shall be
     constructed of or lined with metal in  such form and manner as  to make  them watertight. .
     Legislative Code, Sec. 24-12

 Containers of metal or plastic  construction are authorized by such ordinances as (hose of Richmond,
 Virginia, and El Paso, Texas, which follow:
     "Containers for  refuse shall  be of  melal,  plastic or  oilier  fire  resistant  material, .     with
     tight-filling  covers, watertight, and shall be kept in  good, serviceable  condition,  kept clean,  and
     covered at all  times." Code,  Sec. 30-11
     "All cans shall be made of plastic or galvanized iron, or lined with galvanized iron,    . shall be
     watertight,       shall be provided with a close-filling  lid, and shall  be kept  in good  repair al all
     times." Code, Sec. 11-311)
 Acceptable  co
 California, and sp
 excerpts:
mtainer  materials arc enlarged  to include rubber and  other  materials al Fresno.
J specially fabricated paper bags al Sail Lake City, Utah, as per the following ordinance
                                                233

-------
        "The occupant, tenant, or lessee . .  . shall provide and keep in an accessible place and where
    they will not constitute a nuisance, garbage receptacles, equipped with handles and tight fitting
    covers,  constructed of galvanized  metal,  rubber,  plastic,  or other material  approved by  the
    Superintendent of the Waste Disposal Division for receiving and holding .  . . garbage . . ." Code,
    Sec. 9-402
    "Every owner,  lessee  or occupant  of  any  building, premises or  place  of business, shal
    provide      suitable and sufficient garbage  receptacles, either metallic  receptacles with tighi
    fitting lids  or properly  cunt sufficiently  treated  weather-resistant paper bags  manufactured
    specifically for use  in  garbage anil  refuse collection .    for receiving  and  holding  garbage,
    market waste and other refuse .   . All garbage and market waste must be placed in rain-proof
    and fly-proof receptacles, either a metallic  container with proper  covers or  weather-resistant
    paper bags specifically for use in garbage and refuse collection having a method  oft-losing the bag
    lightly      " Code, Sees. 18-2-15

Containers of metal  or other approved materials are allowable  under, the Richmond, California,
ordinance, and at Seattle, Washington, via a "definition" in Us ordinance:
    "Everv owner or person  in       control  of any  boarding  house,  .   .  dwelling  house or
    flat .     shall provide .   . a watertight galvanized metallic can, or such other  type o] container
    as mar be approved by the Director of I'ublic Health, with suitable bails or  handles and with
    tight-filling cover      " Cmle, Sec. 9.20.030 fc)
    " 'GARBAGE CAN' means round walerlighi sheet  metal  raised bottom container    . fitted
    with two sturdy handles, one on each side, and a tight cover equipped with  a handle, except in  the
    case  of 'sunken  cans/ The  term shall also  apply  to containers of other material     when
    approved by the City Engineer." Ord. No. 91356 w/'S/7/62, Sec.  I-L

Container materials are wholly matters for approved by city officials in Los Angeles,  California and in
Worcester, Massachusetts, under their respective stipulations that:
    "It shall be  the duty of every owner, manager, or person in  .    control of any boarding house,
    restaurant,  hotel, apartment or  eating  house, and  every  person  occupying a dwelling  or
    flat .     to provide,  and at all times  to keep, portable vessels, tanks or receptacles for  holding
    garbage. Each vessel, lank or receptacle shall  be consmicled waler tighi .    , and  provided wilh
    handles and a light filling cover. Each such vessel, lank or receplacle and cover shall be made of
    such materials as may be approved for such use by the Board (of I'ublic Works) and by the City
    Council. The cover shall noi be removed except when necessary  lo plajce garbage Iherein or to
    remove garbage Ihcrefrom.      " Code, Sec. 66.02 (a)
    "Any person in conlrol of any  premises where garbage shall accumulalc shall provide on ihe
    premises a covered, waterlighl receplacle, of such .      type as the commissioner of public works
    shall determine, for such garbage. .     " Code. Chap. 6, Sec. 2

Finally, n rather  unusual  location requirement is  imposed by Sandusky, Ohio, and an option as to
containers is offered at Modeslo. California, rcspeclivcly as follows:
    "Garbage containers shall be made of galvanized or non-corrosive melal, equipped wilh suitable
    handles and tight filing covers, and shall be water lighi.     They shall be kepi in a neal, clean
    and sanitary  condition  al all limes, and xhall not  be placed in direct contact  with the  earth."
    Board of Health Resolution No. 102 oj 4125160, Sec. 5 
    "All garbage    . shall be placed ...  in a mclal container   .   of a  design satisfactory to Ihe
    Health Otricer, which container shall  be kepi  clean .   . and shall al all limes be closed  against
    Ihe access of flies and rodents lo the contents thereof.      If the producer thereof shall  elect lo
    segregate non-put refuctive material from Lite  oilier garbage, the  said non-putrefactive material
    may be placed in  a box or barrel located near ihe said galvanised container, bill the material so
    segregated shall be kepi in a dry condition      " Code, Sec. 5-5.03


Storage Areas and Circumstances

The cleanliness, usage, and construction of refuse siorage areas are  subjecis of municipal legislaiion in
Wauwatosa. Wisconsin, Wichita,  Kansas, and Miami, Florida, respectively as follows:
    "Each owner     . or occupant of every dwelling, building, or porlion thereof,  shall  be responsible
    tor keeping the close-filling covers properly affixed al all limes, and for mainlaining Ihe conlainer
    siorage area  free and  clear of paper,  debris, ice and snow, and easily accessible  lo public
    employees.      " Cmle, Sec. 5.09 13) (b)U)
    "All garbage or refuse      consisting of waste animal or vegetable mailer upon which rals may
    leed, shall be  placed  and stored  until collected in lightly-covered, mclal conlainers  of a lype
    prescribed by the director of public health.      li shall be unlawful for any person lo .   . permit


                                             234

-------
    to accumulate any garbage, rubbish, trash or debris ... on any property ... or alley on the city
    so that the same shall or may afford food or harborage for rats. It shall be unlawful .  .   to
    accumulate on any property .    . or alley in the city any salvage or waste, lumber, boxes, barrels,
    bottles, cans, containers or similar materials unless the same shall be placed on open racks that
    are sufficiently elevated .    to prevent rat harborage." Code, Sees. 7.48 (.130, .140, .150)
    "The garbage or  household  trash  container site shall be: (a) Situated in  an  easily accessible
    location for collectors, (b) Be a platform constructed of wood or concrete above ground  level, (c)
    Constructed in such a manner as to discourage or eliminate possibility of rodents breeding under
    the platform, (d) The Director of the Department of Public Service is hereby granted full power
    and authority to designate  the location of containers and the  number of containers to be kept  in
    each location."  Onl.  No. 6899 o/7fl9/6l. Sec. 3

Outlawing accumulation of refuse is the objective of such ordinances as those of Lewiston, Maine, and
Council Bluffs,  Iowa, which provide that:
    "Waste material  and rubbish  shall not be stored nor  allowed to accumulate      but  shall  be
    removed from the premises as rapidly as practicable. . .  ." Cndr. Sec. 1314
    "It shall be unlawful    . to accumulate rubbish in such  an  amount  as to  render the property
    upon which the same is situated unsightly or in such an  amount as to constitute a nuisance, a fire
    hazard, or a hazard to health.  .    " Code, Sec. 4.12.130

Exceptions  for firewood  are contained  in  the  enactments  (emphasis supplied)  of Stroudsburg,
Pennsylvania, and Reno, Nevada, thus:                                  ^
    "Any unauthorized accumulation of refuse on any premises is hereby  declared to be a nuisance
    and  is prohibited. .   . A reasonable  amount of material,  Mich a\  scrap lumber and fire wood,
    may be kept on the  premises, but it  shall be  racked and  stacked twelve (12) inches  above the
    ground." Ord. No. 436 of 715161, Sec. 2 (c)
    "It shall be unlawful .  .  to  suffer,  allow  or  permit  to collect and  remain upon  any lot  or
    premises, any garbage, rubbish, or waste  material. Provided,  however, that  this provision shall
    not be construed as interfering with building under a building permit, or wood neatly piled for
    kitchen or household use." Code, Sec. 5.28.030

Advance approval for waste storage facilities of certain large commercial or residential developments
is called for in Miami Springs, Florida, by an ordinance provision which asserts that:
    "Before building  permits may be  issued for  construction of shopping centers, mulit-family
    dwellings or three or more dwelling units and  super-markets,  plans for storage of garbage and
    waste  must be  approved by  the Director of Public Service  as to location, accessibility and
    adequacy." Onl. No.  351 of 4/11/66. Sec. 6

Inadequate or substandard receptacle.1' are  dealt with  in a variety of ways, as typified by the ordinances
of Peekskill, New York, Fairbanks, Alaska, Pocatello,  Idaho, and Greensboro, North Carolina which
follow:
    "Should the  container  deteriorate  to  such   an extent  that  the  handles  thereof  become
    dangerous  .  .  or should it leak, it must be replaced by a proper container within one week after
    receipt of a written notice from the Department  of Public Works of said  condition." Garbage
    Collection Ordinance o/j/1/60. Sec. 4 (b)
    "No person shall keep on or about the premises  .   . any garbage unless the  same shall be kept  in
    a metal receptacle with a tight-fitting cover.  A receptacle  which does not comply with  this
    subsection  in which garbage is kept is unlawful  and constitutes a nuisance and shall be summarily
    abated by the city sanitarian or his agents by confiscation and removal. .    " Code, Sec. 12.204
    I")
    "Oil drums, washtubs, and similar containers shall not  be  used for garbage  and ashes. Worn out
    or unsightly garbage  cans are to be discarded. .    " Onl. No. 1467 O/5/20/65, Sec. 15 (A)
    "No wooden boxes,  barrels, or any  other  wooden receptacle, or any other receptacles except
    approved containers shall  be  used for garbage or kitchen refuse, and  the  garbage  and waste
    collectors shall be required to remove all such wooden boxes and other receptacles, if so used. All
    garbage receptacles must, at all times, be so constructed and maintained  and  so covered as  to
    prevent the entrance of flies therein.  Any receptacle not in good condition for  the purpose used
    and  not in conformity with the provision of this chapter  will be hauled off by and disposed  of
    as refuse." Code, Sec. 8-6 (c)

The latter city also places a related responsibility upon refuse collectors by  the requirement that:
    "All garbage and household waste collectors shall exercise every reasonable care in handling of
    garbage receptacles and shall not willfully break, deface or injure the same." Code, Sec. 8-6 (a)



                                                235

-------
Cleanliness of garbage cans is imposed  by such ordinance provisions as the following of Newpori
News, Virginia, Phoenix, Arizona, Vancouver, Washington, and Westporl, Connecticut, respectively:
    "All receptacles used for the deposit  of organic waste shall be cleaned or disinfected by the owner
    thereof as often as may be necessary to prevent the breeding of flies." Ortl. No. 125 of 4127159,
    Sec. 10
           The can or container shall be maintained in a sanitary condition  and shall be thoroughly
    cleaned as needed. . . ." Code, Sec. 22-3
    •'. .  . Each can shall be kept clean inside and out so that no odor nuisance shall exist. . . ." Cotle,
    Sec. 6.12.110
           Such  containers shall be  kept in  good  repair  and  in  a  sanitary  condition at all
    times.      If in the opinion  of the Director of Health or his agent as unsanitary or unhygienic
    condition exists      the Director of Health  or his agent may require the  user to lake such action
    as is necessary to correct the  situation including the construction of refuse storage bins, racks or
    enclosures, and  the  treatment of refuse,  refuse containers and  refuse storage bins, racks and
    enclosures with disinfectants, deodorizers  and/or exterminating compounds.  All such action shall
    be  under the direction of. and subject to  the approval of the Director of Health of his agent."
    Cmle, An.  VI. Sec. 1

Collection  Malpractices

Requirements for cleanliness  in  their operations are imposed upon licensed  refuse  collectors by
ordinance stipulations in  Modesto, California, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that:
  "The  collector  shall transfer the contents of  all containers  into  the vehicle  provided therefor
  without spilling any materials on stairs, walks, yards or streets . . ." Cotle, Sec.  5-5.04
  "Any  person,  persons,  firm  or  corporation licensed to  make  collections  of  garbage or
  rubbish  . .  . shall (a) make such collections in an orderly manner,    . (b) see that no garbage
  or rubbish  is dropped or scattered on  the premises from which  collections are made, or on the
  streets .    " Cmle, Sec. 313.14
 Rummaging Through Refuse

 General proscription of meddling with refuse containers is provided in ordinances of West Memphis,
 Arkansas, and of Boston and Gardner, Massachusetts, respectively as follows:
     "It  shall  be unlawful for any person or persons to damage, remove, destroy or in any manner
     interfere with garbage containers or the contents thereof     " Ot-d. No. IHO a.s amended by /Vav.
     339 ami 513, Sec. 9
     "No person shall in  any public way, public alley or other public place . .   or upon any roadway
     or walk thereof rummage in or through rubbish or refuse of any kind or interfere with any bundle
     of rubbish or refuse or any receptacle containing rubbish or refuse." Code, Chap. 40, Sec. 39C
     "No person shall overhaul or in any way disturb the contents of receptacles of waste materials set
     out to be removed by the City Truck or any truck engaged in the collection of waste material."
     Code, An.  XXV, Sec. 18

 The  latter  city  elsewhere  extends the  protection to  containers  even  when  not "set out" and
 incorporates some "exemptions" which arc of uncertain effect (emphasis supplied), thus:
     "It  shall be unlawful for anyone,  (filter than tfie tenants or occupants of the premises on which
     rubbish containers are  stored, or the authorized agents.,  employees or licensees of the  City to
     disturb any refuse containers  or  to  remove the contents thereof, or to cause to be strewn  or
     scattered on the lawns, sidewalks "or streets." Ord. No. 35 of 412152, Sec. 4  (a)

 Other exceptions for "authorized" persons appear in  such ordinances as those  of Cranston, Rhode
 Island, Newark, New Jersey, and Peoria, Illinois, which follow:
     "No person other than the owner thereof or a duly authorized agent of the city shall examine,
     disturb, interfere with or  remove any of the contents of  any can, box or receptacle  containing
     rubbish, and placed-by  such owner upon the sidewalks or  highways of the city for collection and
     removal by the department of public works of the city." ('title, Sec. 11-13
     "It  shall not be lawful for a.iy person,  excepting an employee of the city in  the discharge of his
     duties,  or an authorized ash, garbage and waste collector, to collect, pick in, rake up or in any
     way disturb the  ashes,  garbage or other refuse material  of whatsoever nature  deposited in any
     receptacle laid or placed on any street or public place." Code, Sec. 15.641
                                            236

-------
   •Ml shall be unlawful  for any person, other than a scavenger employed or licensed by  the city, or
   the owner, occupam,  tenant or person in charge of possession of the premises for which a vessel
   for garbage, ashes or miscellaneous waste, or any  of them, has been provided, or his agcnl,
   employees or servants, to deposit  any article, substance or thing in  such  vessel, or  to remove,
   displace, injure, deface, destroy, uncover or in any manner disturb such vessel, or any portion of
   its contents." Code, Sec. 14-7

Honolulu bans scattering on  site  or  in transit, and requires cleanup, while Little Rock, Arkansas,
ordains in considerable detail—as  reflected by their provisions which  follow successively:
   -It shall be unlawful for any person to  scatter or spill or cause to be scattered or  spilled  any
   refuse set out for collection, cither at the location at which it is collected or while transporting the
   same for disposal, unless the refuse so scattered and spilled is immediately gathered up  and
   removed." Ortt. No. 1503  of 515156, See.  10 (b)
   "The commission of any  of  the following acts shall be deemed a nuisance: (a) Emptying the
   contents of any garbage can in any alley, public street, vacant lot, or any other place not provided
   for such use; (b) Uncovering, and leaving uncovered, the contents of  any garbage can located in
   the city,  thereby  permitting  flies  to have  access  to same; (c)  Disturbing the  contents of  any
   garbage can located within the city whether anything  is taken  therefrom or not. .    " Code. Sec.
   15-16
AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED DUMPING

Indiscriminate dumping or  disposal of refuse is specifically prohibited in many cities, though under
quite varied "ground rules" aimed at sometimes divergent objectives. The NIMLO model "Offenses"
ordinance provides simply that:
    "No  person in the City shall     . Throw  or  permit  to be  deposited or scattered  upon any
    sidewalk, alley, street, bridge or public passageway, or upon any private property, any waste  or
    other material of any kind." Sec. 7-506

An  emphasis specifically on "highways"  and  streets  ranges from  the brevity of  the  Weslporl,
Connecticut, stipulation that "The throwing or placing of waste materials and paper in the  Highways
of this Town is hereby prohibited" (5/7/29 fly-Law  ciiuended 413152,  Sec.  1)  to the  regulations  in
Cranston, Rhode Island, Twin Falls, Idaho, and Sheboygan. Wisconsin,  which follow:
    "It shall be unlawful for any person to throw or  deposit any waste material or debris upon any
    public highway or platted street, or within three hundred feet thereof, except in  public receptacle,
    or in authorized private receptacles for collection  .    " Ot'd. No. 31  of 5124165,  Sec. 11-3
    "No person shall willfully or negligently deposit or throw from any  vehicle or place upon or along
    side any highway, street, alley or easement used by the public for public travel any debris, paper,
    litter      trash or garbage,     . or other waste substances." Code, Sec. 20
    "No person shall,  for any cause  or purpose, deposit, throw or scatter or permit <~>r  allow the
    accumulation  of refuse, litter,  rubbish, or waste material,  in, upon or along  any street, alley,
    bridge, sidewalk, or in any gutter of any street in the city      " Code, Page 104

Extension  of the prohibitions  to all "public  grounds"  is exemplified  in  the ordinances of Bowdle,
South Dakota, and Wauwalosa, Wisconsin, respectively providing that:
    "It shall be unlawful .     to throw  or deposit in any  of the streets, avenues, alleys  or public
    grounds  . . . any offal,    .  manure, garbage      tin cans or any matter or materials offensive
    to the public .    " Code, Chap. 6, Sec. 8
    "It is hereby made unlawful  .     to place, throw, or leave any slops, dirty water, or other liquid
    of offensive smell    .  or other nauseous or unwholesome matter  or substance, or any rubbish,
    asher,  paper,  dirt,  stones,  bricks,  manure,   tin  cans,  boxes,  barrels,  or other substances
    whatsoever ... or to drain or pour, or to permit to drain or flow, oil, kerosene,  benzine, or other
    similar oil or oily  substance or liquid,  in  or upon  any sidewalk, street, alley, or other public
    place, park or ground, within the City . . ." Code, Sec. 5.11  (1)

It will be noted that the last-quoted  ordinance includes references to liquid*  within its provisions. An
ordinance specifically directed to fluid  matter is the following of Decatur, Georgia, which asserts that:
          it shall be unlawful      to allow waste water from washing cars or  from other  sources  to
    run across the sidewalk. .    for any person to  use the streets or sidewalks or gutters as a means
    of drainage to  carry off any  used  and dirty water or      to throw or discharge from  any lot  or
    building any water, fluid or  liquid substance so as  to make it unsafe for travel." Ordinance  of
    613158. .SVo. /-.;


                                             237

-------
Beaches and Environs

To control  disposition of refuse in and about its famous beach,  the City of Daytona Beach, Florida,
provides that "It is unlawful to dispose of or discard any trash, garbage, bottles, cans or other refuse
in or upon  the Atlantic  Ocean beach within the corporate limits of the city." (Code, Sec. 17-4), and
also stipulates that:
    ••(1) Any person or persons  operating  a private business or concession on or adjacent to  the
    Broadwalk or the Atlantic Ocean  beach shall be prohibited from placing any garbage or trash
    resulting from the operation of said business or concession in containers provided by the city for
    use of the general  public  unless they shall have secured the written approval of the city.  (2) If
    necessary,  the city shall  designate  points on public property at  which such  refuse may be
    deposited or collected, and nothing in subsection (I) shall be held to prohibit  the city from
    designating  a  reasonable charge or  fee for the use of such public facilities. (3) The city may
    suspend or revoke  the  occupational license of any  business or party violating the terms of this
    section." Code, Sec. 17-6


Catch  Basins and Sewers

The too-direct disposal of wastes  is proscribed  in Cranston, Rhode Island, and St.  Paul, Minnesota,
which respectively  provide that:
    "No person shall place or deposit  in any street opening  to any sewer or in any catch basin any
    animal or vegetable  matter, solid or liquid, nor any filthy substance." (.'ode. Sec. 11-16
    "No butcher's offal or garbage,  dead animals, kitchen slops or any substance or obstruction of
    any kind whatever shall be placed, thrown or deposited in any catch basin, and no person shall
    obstruct the mouth of any sewer or drain." Code, Sec. 230.20


Waterways

Despite this study's overall concern with indirect or derivative water pollution, some attention may be
paid to  that occurring as a  result of direct or original actions. These have been sought to be controlled
by various cities, in respect to their waterways or drainage courses, by such language as is used (with
emphasis supplied) in  the  following ordinances,  respectively, or  Honolulu, Denver, Reno, Nevada,
West Memphis. Arkansas, and Council Bluffs, Iowa:
    "It shall be  unlawful  for any person to dump  or dispose  of refuse into any watercourse or
    drainage facility, whether publicly or privately owned .    " Code, Sec. 9-3.9 (d)
    "No person shall throw, place, or deposit .    . any dung, carrion, dead animal, offal, garbage, or
    any putrid or  offensive substance .   . upon the margin or banks or into the waters of any lake,
    reservoir, ditch, creek or river  .    No dung, carrion,  dead animal, offal, or putrid or  offen-
    sive substance ._. . shall be thrown, placed or deposited  upon any street, alley, public or private
    ground,  the natural drainage or flow of the surface waters  of which is  into any  river creek,
    reservoir, lake or other body of water     " Code, Sec. 862.5
    "It shall be unlawful  for     . any person having the management or control of . .  . any ditch,
    canal or water way running through the city to permit the accumulation or depositing therein of
    any driftwood, rubbish, offal, filth or  other  matter or  substance tending to  make the waters
    therein impure, unwholesome or offensive .     "  Code, Sec. 11.48.020
    "It shall be unlawful      to throw,  discharge, dump, deposit or otherwise leave in any ditch or
    stream within the  city limits, any substance .     including, but  not limited to, bottles, broken
    glass, ashes, paper,, boxes, cans, dirt, rubbish, waste, garbage, refuse, or other trash." Ord. Nn.
    488 of 12116165, Sec. 1
    "Throwing  or putting any ashes, dirt, rubbish or other substance  in  any ditch,  gutter or
    watercourse      is declared a misdemeanor      " Code, Sec. 8.50.050

Such prohibitions  often  incorporate the names of local rivers, etc.; the following, of Flint, Michigan,
Plaquemine, Louisiana,  and Grand Forks, North Dakota (with emphasis supplied), are typical:
    "No person or persons, firm  or corporation shall  .    place, deposit, throw, or empty     into
    the waters of the Flint River or any  other  stream or streams .   . any dead carcass or any
    decaying animal, vegetable or mineral matter,  or any waste, oil, coal  tar,  or sawdust, or any
    chemical refuse or  any industrial  waste, or any  straw, hay, green boughs, manure, cord wood,
    vegetables, excrement, bones, horns, shells,  meats, hides, offal,  rubbish, garbage or any  other
    substance of any unwholesome, unsightly, malodorous, contaminating, polluting or obnoxious
    nature." Code, Sec. 20.9
                                             238

-------
   "It shall be unlawful for any person to drain or permit to be drained, or to dispose of in any other
   manner, oil or other waste matter, which may tend to pollute fresh water, into Bavou I'laqnemine
   or any  navigable  stream  which n
-------
Designation of Dumping Areas
Some cities ban dumping except in particular areas designated for the purpose; typical provisions are
the following (emphasis supplied)  from the  ordinances of Milford, Delaware, South Bend,  Indiana,
Cranston, Rhode Island, and Denver, Colorado:
    "No person shall throw  into or deposit dirt, rubish, garbage or filth .  . . anywhere  within the
    limits of the City     . except in such place or places as may be designated for that purpose by the
    City Council." Code, Sec. 337 (a)
    "It shall be unlawful     . to dump any garbage or household rubbish or trash of any type, kind or
    nature,  within the city  limits .    . except  in  such areas  as are designated    .  as  land-Jill
    areas .    " Code, Chap. 11 A, Sec. 7
    "It  shall  be  unlawful  for any  person  to  throw or  deposit . . . any  decomposable   organic
    matter ... or any combustible material . . . upon any vacant lane  in the city,  unless such land
    shall have previously been designated by the director of public health as a proper and suitablt
    place fnr virh use." Oril.  No. 31 of 5/24/65, Sec. 11-1
    "It shall be unlawful ...  in disposing of or removing any rubbish or other waste matter,  to litter,
    deposit  or  cause  to be deposited  on any premises other than those  designated as official city
    dumps . . ." Code, Sec. 352.8-1

Permission and/or Permit Required
Dumping on public or private property often specifically requires the owner's permission, sometimes
additionally to formal site designation.  Even when the owner of private property consents, a permit
from  the city may  also be required. The various approaches are illustrated by the following  excerpts
(emphasis supplied) from ordinances of Twin Falls, Idaho, Modesta, California, Des Moines, Iowa,
and Minneapolis, Minnesota:
    "No person shall willfully  or  negligently deposit upon  any public or private property . . . any
    debris, paper,  litter . . .  trash, garbage, lighted materials or other waste substances on any place
    not authorized by the state, county, city or the owner of the private property." Code, Sec.  21
    ". . . it shall be unlawful  for any  person  to ... dump upon any of the public . . . ways or  parks of
    the City . .  . without first obtaining the consent in writing from the  Director of Public Works . . .
    or . .  upon any lots or property  owned by any other person within the City .   without firm
    obtaining the written consent of the owner or legal occupant of such property." Code, Sees. 5-5.31
    and 5-5.32
    "It shall be unlawful to dump garbage ... on any street, alley or private property; and to dump
    rags, bottles, liquid waste, tin cans or excessive amounts  of manure, leaves, grass or brush on any
    privately owned property without  the consent of the owner and the city;  and to dump  cinders,
    ashes or dirt on any street, alley or public ground without the consent of the city." Code, Sec. 22-7
    "The owner, agent, lessee or occupant of any private property may fill in or deposit upon property
    owned, leased, managed or occupied by  him, ashes or other substances which are free from dead
    animals or vegetable matter and other unwholesome or putrid substances or materials, and such
    substances may be placed or deposited upon any vacant lot or premises by a person other than the
    owner, agent,  lessee or occupant  thereof if such person has first secured the consent  of such
    owner, agent,  lessee  or occupant so to do and has also first secured a permit therefor from the
    City Engineer." Code, Sec. 770.020

Residence Requirement

Among the many ordinances  reviewed  in the course of this study, one was noted to  restrict dumping
privileges to residents and businesses  within the city and prohibit "importation" of solid wastes. Other
jurisdictions where adequacy  of disposal facilities poses a grievous problem may be  interested in the
pertinent provisions (excluding the penalty,  severability and emergency sections) of the Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, ordinance:
    "No person who is a non-resident of the City ... or who does not operate an established  place of
    business in the City shall deposit any garbage, rubbish,  or waste of any kind upon the grounds
    designated by the C ity as a C ity Sanitary Landfill  or upon any other ground, street, or place inside
    the City; nor shall any  such person go upon such grounds for the purpose of depositing  thereon
    any garbage, rubbish, or waste. No person who is a non-resident . .  . shall transport  into or cause
    to be transported into  the City     . any garbage, rubbish, or other waste of any kind for the
    purpose of depositing such garbage, rubbish, or waste upon any ground, street, or place within the
    City." Ord. No. 54-60, Sees. 1 and 2
Residents of Scottsdale  and  Mesa,  Arizona, must  present authorized identification cards when
"hauling refuse from their homes in private vehicles no larger than a pickup truck O/i-ton capacity)"
for free  disposal (for which  the proper city  pays, however) at  a sanitary landfill established, by
agreement, on an adjoining Indian Reservation. Persons not residents of either city or the reservation
may use the facility, however, upon paying  (minimum 50c) at the rate of 50c per cubic  yard, though
the Tribe may apply to them a limitation that "shall not be exercised in an unreasonable manner."

                                            240

-------
Licensing Dumps

Except  as provided in its garbage collection  ordinances the City of Flint,  Michigan, makes it
"unlawful for  any person  ... to dump, deposit, or drop on any premises ... any tin cans, rubbish,
refuse or other waste  products unless the same is placed upon some  dumping ground licensed  as
hereinafter provided" (Code. Sec. 2S.2>_and also "unlawful for any person ... to maintain or operate
a dumping ground . . . unless such person . . . shall have obtained a license to maintain and operate
such dumping ground .  . ." (Code, Sec. 28.4).
The license application shall indicate the name of the applicant, who will be in charge, what area is to
be used, what waste products will be received and from whence, and the hours and type of operation.
Prior to its approval by the city governing body it must receive approving endorsements by the health,
fire, and public works departments and the applicant "shall have demonstrated ... his familiarity with
the terms of this  ordinance  and his ability  to  maintain and operate  a  dumping ground  in  strict
conformity with the terms of this ordinance" (Code. Sec. 2S.S (b) 4). The annual license fee  is $50, and
a $200 deposit must be paid and  maintained  to reimburse the city  for  fire  calls (at  $50 each)
necessitated and for any resultant damage to fire hose or equipment.
San Francisco's regulation of dumps requires each operator to obtain and have  annually renewed, a
"conditional use"  (revocable) permit from the  Department  of Public  Works.  Landfill is the only
allowable disposal method. Fees for  the  original  and  renewal  applications  are  $100 and  $25,
respectively—they  are to cover the cost of investigation, review, and (if it occurs) issuance, and are
not refundable even if the  permit or  renewal is denied. The application must identify the  applicant,
locate and briefly describe the dump site, include two copies of a detailed site map drawn to scale and
"such other appropriate information as the director (of public works) may  require" (Public Works
Code, Sec. 853).

Site Cleanliness

Under a new Michigan law (Act 87 of 1965) the state's department  of public health has promulgated
"Regulations Governing  Solid Waste  Disposal   Areas"  (Filed  11/23/65;  Supp.  No.  45 to  1954
Administrative Code) which establish sanitary standards for all kinds of disposal procedures. With
reference to dumps, landfill, and hog reeding, respectively, they provide that:
   "Open dumps shall  not be permitted unless the location and specific method of operation has been
   approved in writing . .  . and provided  further that the isolation and operation and maintenance
   does not constitute  a nuisance or hazard to health." R 325.1106
   "Measures shall be provided  to control dust  and  blowing paper. The entire area shall  be kept
   clean and orderly." R 325.1105 (4)
   "(1) Garbage  . . . when fed to hogs shall be fed on a readily cleanable  impervious feeding area. (2)
   The general area including cooking facilities, when provided, shall be  kept in a sanitary manner to
   prevent the attraction,  harborage and breeding of  insects and rodents and shall not create  a
   nuisance. (3)  All residues resulting from the day's feeding operation  shall  be disposed of by  a
   method approved by the health department having jurisdiction." R 325.1107

In relation to central garbage grinders and incinerators ("refuse burners") the Michigan rules provide
that "The general sanitation in  and around  the (facility) as well as  the  operational procedures
employed shall be  subject to the approval of the health  department." R 325.1108 and .1109
The  aforementioned "licensing" cities—Flint  and  San  Francisco—incorporate  site cleanliness
requirements into  their  ordinances, respectively as follows:
   "Every person licensed hereunder shall  so  operate and  maintain  said dumping  ground as to
   prevent any material which may be thereon from being blown about  by the wind on  to streets,
   alleys or other public places or upon private property of any other person." Code. Sec. 28.7
   "Dumps shall be  enclosed  by  fences not  less  than  six feet high  and adequate to prevent
   unauthorized  dumping  and to prevent  the blowing of rubbish from the dump. . .  . Dust shall not
   be  permitted  to blow from a dump to adjacent properties and  the permittee shall by sprinkling
   with water or other means prevent such blowing of dust." Public Works Code, Sees. 856, S57

CLEANLINESS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

Requirements that private properties be maintained in a neat and sanitary condition take a variety of
forms in numerous cities. A few of these are exemplified in excerpts from the pertinent ordinances of
Prichard, Alaska,  Daytona Beach, Florida, Sandusky,  Ohio, and Fargo, North Dakota, which follow:
   "It shall be unlawful ... to maintain any lot or yard or premises in  an unsanitary condition  . . ."
   Code, Sec. 93 (36) (S)
                                            241

-------
    "All lots and yards shall be kept clean and neat by the owner of the premises, and material shall
    not be permitted to be kept at any time which will be deemed unsanitary . . ."  Code, Sec. 17-2
    "No person owning, occupying,  or otherwise having charge of or control  of any  property shall
    place or permit to be placed on such property any paper, dirt, ashes, cartons,  boxes, or any scrap
    or waste materials,  so that such matter or materials could be blown onto any street, sidewalk,
    alley, park, public ground, or property of another." Code, Sec. 37.4
    "No person shall permit to accumulate in or about any yard, lot, or premises, or upon any street
    or sidewalk adjacent to or abutting upon any lot, block, or primises, owned or occupied by him or
    for which he may be agent, within the city limits, any manure, ashes, rubbish, or other foreign
    matter which is detrimental to the cleanliness of the city or the health and safety of its residents."
    Code, Sec. 11-0801
Dwellings Specifically

Focussing on residential cleanliness particularly are such ordinances as those of Rockville, Maryland,
and Bettendorf, Iowa, whose pertinent provisions assert that:
    "Every dwelling within the City . . . shall be kept so clean and free  from any accumulation of
    dirt, filth, rubbish, garbage or similar matter as not  to be a danger  to the health of any occu-
    pant thereof, and shall be kept free from vermin and rodent infestation. All yards, lawns and
    vacant lots shall be similar kept clean . . ." Code, Sec. 10-1.01
     '. . . The owner of every dwelling, and in  the case of a private dwelling the occupant thereof, shall
    thoroughly cleanse or cause to be cleansed all the rooms, passages, stairs, floors, windows, doors,
    walls, ceilings, privies,  water-closets, cesspools, drains, halls, cellars, roofs, and all other parts of
    the dwelling, or part of the dwelling of which he is the owner or in case of a private dwelling the
    occupant . . ."  Code, Sec. 25.38

In numerous cities the requirement of cleanliness of private land and buildings is extended beyond
property lines, most usually to include  adjoining sidewalks.  Some  take a negative approach, as in
Jackson. Mississippi, for business properties, and in Weirton, West Virginia, for all, thus:
    "It shall be unlawful     to fail to keep the  sidewalks and gutters in front of one's place of
    business clear  and  free from all  trash,  dirt, slush or  slops, and  any  or all  obstructions
    whatsoever." Code, Sec. 1023
    "It shall be unlawful for the owner of any lot in the city, or the agent in charge thereof, to permit
    the accumulation of leaves, waste paper  or other litter on the sidewalks in  front of or abutting
    upon such property for  a period of more than twenty-four hours . . ." Code, Sec. 23-14

Others take a positive approach  by  imposing a  definite  obligation,  as in  the following applicable
ordinances (with emphasis supplied) of Honolulu, Phoenix, Arizona,  and Council Bluff, Iowa, thus:
    "After the establishment of the grades of streets . . .  every property owner whose land abuts or
    adjoins such streets shall continuously maintain and keep clean passable and  free from weeds and
    noxious growths,  the sidewalk area which abuts or adjoins his  property. The term  'sidewalk' as
    used herein  shall mean that  portion of  a  street between  a curb line, or the lateral line of a
    roadway,  and  the adjacent  property line  intended for  the use of pedestrians, including  any
    set-back area acquired ... for road widening purposes." Code, Sec. 20-5.2
    "All persons owning or occupying any building, grounds, or premises within the city are hereby
    required to remove from the same and all sidewalks adjacent thereto all dirt piles, debris, rubbish,
    garbage, weeds, and brush and to keep  and  maintain the same free  and clear of all dirt piles,
    debris, rubbish, garbage, weeds, and brush." Code, Sec. 27-66(a)
    "When any such waste . . . shall have been deposited in front of any building or lot  ... the same
    shall be removed by the owner or tenant of said property in possession of said premises and it
    shall be the duty of such persons to remove any dirt, earth, ashes, garbage, sweepings, manure or
    other refuse that  may be found upon said streets or sidewalks  or in the gutters thereof from in
    front of the said  premises, and to keep  the said sidewalks clean and free from dirt, litter and
    refuse matter." Code, Sec. 8.50.030
Responsibilities placed upon property own
                                        ers to an appreciable distance from their property lines go
supplied) of Seattle, Washington, and Newport News, Vi
                                             242

-------
    "It shall be unlawful to allow the accumulation of litter on sidewalks or planting strips (parking
    strips) by the owner or_occupant of abutting private property, whether such litter is deposited
    by such owner or occupant or not." Ord. No. 89021 of 2/24/60, Sec. 6
    "It shall be unlawful for the occupant, owner, the beneficiary of any easement or other right of
    use, or any person in possession or one having charge  ... of any real property within the City,
    including the area adjoining *,,ch property extending to the curb line, to permit the accumulation
    of any grass, weeds, . . . debris, litter or rubbish, on such property within 100 feet of any dwelling
    or structure, whenever such ... are in any way detrimental . . ." Code, Sec. 21-21

Inspection

To facilitate  detection and elimination of objectionable conditions some  cities empower existing
inspectors, or create new ones, to view properties and perform specified corrective functions. Utilizing
pre-existing positions. Little Rock, Arkansas, provides that:
    "Inspectors employed by the health department and/or the sanitation department of the city shall
    make regular inspections of all premises, alleys, and vacant lots and/or properties  in the city and
    shall have the power to notify the owner or owners thereof of any unsanitary conditions existing
    thereon.  Within  ten  days ... if  such  owner  or owners do  not, . . the inspectors . .  . shall be
    authorized to immediately correct such unsanitary  condition . .  ." Code, Sec. 15-9

Brigham, Utah, on the other hand, created a new position in the course of enacting a 1966 ordinance:
   ". . . to establish a means whereby this municipality may remove or abate or cause the removal or
   abatement of injurious and noxious weeds and of garbage,  refuse or  unsightly or deleterious
   objects or structures pursuant to the powers granted to it  by chapter 11  of title 10, Utah Code
   Annotated, 1953,  as  amended,  and pursuant  to its general  power to  abate nuisances." and
    declared that "the above listed weeds, objects and structures shall constitute a nuisance when they
    create afire hazard, a source of contamination  or pollution of water, air, or property, a danger to
    health, a  breeding place or habitation for insects or rodents or other forms of life  deleterious to
    human habitations and are unsightly or deleterious to their surroundings." Code, Sec. 24-14.A

The new position came into being via the stipulation that:
    "The office of inspector  is hereby created for the purpose of administering the provisions of this
    section and the powers delegated to this municipality  by such statutes subject to such control and
    review as the city council may  from time to time direct. . . . The city council may appoint such
    assistant  inspectors and delegate to them such powers and duties as it may  from time to time
    determine by resolution. The powers and duties of the assistants shall be the same as those of the
    inspector, unless otherwise so specified by resolution." Code, Sec. 24-14.B

The powers, duties,  and responsibilities of  the  position are  set forth in broad but explicit terms as
follows:
    "The inspector is hereby authorized and directed to  inspect and examine real property situated
    within the municipality for the purpose of determining  whether or not  it contains injurious or
    noxious weeds, garbage, refuse or unsightly or  deleterious objects or structures, and for the pur-
    pose of determining whether or not the existence of such weeds or objects creates a fire hazard
    or constitutes a source of contamination or other danger to health and safety, or otherwise cre-
    ates nuisances, as above declared. If the inspector  concludes that such conditions exist  in whole
    or in part, he shall: (a) Ascertain the names of the  owners and occupants and descriptions of the
    premises where such objects and conditions exist, (b) Serve notice in writing upon the owner and
    occupant of such land, either personally or by  mailing .  . . requiring such owner or occupant . .  .
    to eradicate or destroy and remove the  same within . . .  ten days from the date of service of such
    notice, (c) Inform the  owner or occupant . .  . that in the  event he disagrees . .  . and does not wish
    to remove such objects or objectionable conditions, be may request in writing a hearing before the
    governing body .  . ." Code, Sec. 24-14.C

Abatement

Enforce
tory con
excerpted examples
provided that:
    "At the written request of an owner or occupant ...  the governing body shall conduct an informal
    hearing     Thereafter within not more than ten days the governing body shall     . render its
    written decision     In the event the decision  . . .  upholds the determination of the inspector, the
    notice originally given . . . shall ... be sufficient to require the owner or occupant to remove or


                                             243

-------
    abate such objects or conditions and he shall have up to ten days . .  . within which to conform
    thereto. ... In the event ... the governing body either overrules or modifies the determination of
    the inspector, the written decision . . . shall apprise him of that fact and set forth the details and
    extent  to which  the owner or occupant  must make  removal or other abatement .    if any. .  .
    .within ten days after service of mailing of a copy of such decision . . . If any owner or occupant .  .
    . shall fail or neglect to conform to the requirements ... the inspector shall mail a copy thereof to
    the owner  or occupant, or both, demanding payment within twenty days ... In the  event  the
    owner or  occupant   fails  to  make  payment . . . the inspector  either may  cause suit  to be
    brought... or may refer the matter  to  the county treasurer ... In the  event  that the inspector
    elects to icier the expenses ... to the  county  treasurer for inclusion  in the tax notice  of the
    property owner, he shall  make in triplicate  an itemized statement ... to the county treasurer
    within ten days after  the completion of the work . . ." Code, Sec. 24-14.E-J

The gist of provisions of three other cities—Salina, Kansas, Pine Bluff,  Arkansas, and Scottsdale,
Arizona,—excerpted  for brevity, follow as additionally illustrative:
    "Whenever the health officer of the city shall determine that a nuisance or unhealthful condition
    ... is detrimental to  the health of the inhabitants . . . then the health officer shall forthwith issue
    notice  requiring  the owner ... of the premises  ... to remove and abate ... the thing or things
    therein  described . .    within ten  (10) days .    . If such owner or agent shall fail or neglect to
    comply  . . . then  the city manager shall have the thing or things . . .  removed and abated .  . . and
    the cost . . . shall be  assessed . . .  against the lot ... on which nuisance was located;  . . . and it
    shall be collected by the county treasurer and paid to the city as other taxes are collected and
    paid. The health officer shall adopt all necessary measures for  ... cleansing  and abating of all
    nuisances . . . and he  may do or cause to  be done whatsoever  in his judgment shall be necessary to
    carry out such measures.  The health officer shall,  in all cases      necessary for the. speedy
    execution of his orders, cause any unhealthful condition or nuisance ...  to be abated or removed
    at  the expense of the city; . . . The said officer shall certify . . . the cost .  . . and such amount shall
    be assessed upon such property ...  to be collected as other special assessments. Code, Sees. 15-1  -
    15-5
    "If the owner of any  . . . real property .  . . shall neglect or refuse to remove, abate, or eliminate
    any such condition .   . after .  . . ten (10) days' notice in writing .    the Housing Inspector or
    other atithority ... is authorized to do whatever may be necessary to correct said condition  and to
    charge the  cost thereof to  the owner . . . and  the city shall have a lien against such-property  for
    said cost.  ...  In fixing the cost . . . (he) . .  . shall keep a careful record  of the cost to the city of
    doing said  work,     which shall be considered the  base  cost, plus a charge  of twenty percent
    (20%) of said base cost ... to cover administrative, clerical, office and supervisory expenses, all
    of which, collectively, shall be considered the total cost. In no event shall any single . . . parcel of
    land be assessed  . . . less than five dollars . . . the City Collector . . . shall . . . record same .  . . and
    give notice that the City . . . claims a lien against the property . .  . When the total cost . .  . shall
    have been paid, the City Collector . . . shall .  . . release said lien . .  " Ord.  No. 4004  of 7118166,
    Sec. 2
    When any owner or occupant of any  . .  . premises within the City . .  . fails, neglects, or refuses,
    for more than thirty (30)  days from .   . notice, to remove   . . all dirt  piles,  debris, rubbish,
    garbage, weeds, and brush, the City Manager is ... directed to remove and dispose of any and all
    such ... at the expense of such owner or  occupant. The City Manager is ... to  prepare a varified
    . .  . account of all the  expenses  incurred . . . and file  such . . . account  with the County As-
    sessor ... All such expenses . . . are hereby declared as a-tax lien . . . and shall  be collected  . .  .
    as other city taxes are collected . . . Every owner or occupant . . . who  shall fail, neglect,  or re-
    fuse . . . shall also be  guilty of a misdemeanor." Ord. No. 162 of 10116162, Sees. 3-5

EROSION CONTROL

An important aspect of excavation and grading regulation is the avoidance or control of erosion. In its
regulation of removal of soil, sand and gravel, Duluth, M innesota, indicates that "dust pallatives when
deemed necessary" may be administratively required—Code, Sec. 50-47(9.6)—and specifically requires
that;

    "The proposed excavation, removal or processing shall not result in the creation of any hazardous
    sharp pits,  steep banks, soil erosion, drainage or sewerage problems or other conditions which
    would ultimately impair the use of the property in accordance with the general purpose and intent
    of the zoning regulation for that district." Code, Sec. 50-47(9.3)

Erosion control figures in  the grading regulatory ordinance of Honolulu, which requires that:
    "Adequate provisions shall be made to prevent any surface waters from  damaging the cut face of
    an excavation or the sloping surface of a fill. . . . The Chief Engineer may require such drainage
                                            244

-------
   structures or piping to be constructed or installed which  in his opinion, are necessary to prevent
   erosion damage and to satisfactorily carry off surface waters." Orel. tk(l614 of 10124157, Sec. 14

The requirements at Akron, Ohio, are that:

       "After the grading operations are completed     surface drainage facilities shall be created
   which will accumulate and channel all rainfall runoff into proper drainage 'courses . . . This shall
   be done in such a manner that flooding, erosion, and washing of sediment U?on adjoining areas
   will be avoided. No silt, sand or other sediment shall be carried to public streets or sewers. Where
   necessary to prevent erosion, planting will be required  as approved by the Planning Director."
   Code, Sec. 1974.07 (b)

Contractors on construction projects in  St. Paul, Minnesota, are made cognizant of erosion by  the
requirement that:
   "Contractors  shall maintain  . .  public places adjacent to construction,  demolition or building
   sites free from dust, litter, or other matter  originating from  their construction, demolition or
   building sites, including that effected  by erosion and landslides." Ord. No.  12524, Sec. 3

Drifting Dirt

In San Francisco sand and dirt drifting or being blown  is officially ". .  . declared  to be a menaceto
persons, property and/or vehicular traffic and a public  nuisance" (Public  Works Code, Sec. 727) and \t
is provided that:
   "Whenever sand or dirt is found to be drifting  or blowing upon  any street, sidewalk,  or  the
   improved private property  of any community, neighborhood or considerable portion  thereof,  . . .
   the Director of Public Works  shall  cause  a survey to be made  of surrounding  property to
   determine the immediate source of such sand or dirt and what preventative measures should be
   taken . .. The Board of Supervisors may then,  by resolution, declare such blowing or drifting sand
   or dirt to be a public nuisance and said resolution shall . . . describe the property from which said
   sand or dirt is blowing or has blown or drifted  . . ." Public Works Code, Sec. 728

Quarries in Honolulu are governed by the following, among other regulations,
   "The emission of process dust, either from the area of operations or from the excavated materials
   themselves,  shall be minimized by frequent watering or by such other means as the Chief Engineer
   or his representative shall direct." Code, Sec. 13-16.2f4)(a)(2)

GRADING

Grading and related operations are customarily regulated by issuance of  permits,  to which specific
conditions may be attached. As examples,  Richmond, California, includes two conditions particularly
pertinent to our interest—"Cleaning up area and planting  in accordance with approved grading plans"
and "Reasonable provisions for controlling excessive dust" (Code,  Sec. 12.44.090)—and includes  the
following among grounds for revocation of a permit, that:
   "The applicant, in  transporting materials, or operating equipment in, around, to and from the site
   and in connection  with the grading operations for which the permit was issued, fails to operate
   the equipment properly on or along public road, or  allows materials or litter to approach, obstruct
   or be deposited on pavement, or in drainage channels, or otherwise within  the  road right of way,
   to the detriment of the  public road or creates a hazard on the public road; or causes unauthorized
   obstruction or diversion of drainage channels within the site areas." Code, Sec.  12.44.100(a)

Stockpiling

In connection with grading, Honolulu provisions for stockpiling fill material are of interest:
   "Any person to whom a grading permit has been issued may, with the  prior approval of the Chief
   Engineer, stockpile earth, gravel, sand or other like substances on the premises where the work
   is proposed to be done for the purpose of, or as a result of, any grading,  fill or excavation. The
   approval . . . shall be subject to  the condition that the permittee shall at all times lake adequate
   measures to control  the creation  of dust. The determination as to whether the control measures
   are adequate shall be  made by the Chief Engineer. Factors  to be considered in making such
   determination shall include . . . the type and condition to the  soil, wind  direction and velocity,
   rainfall, location of the stockpile and proximity to adjacent residence or business establishments.
   If the stockpiling becomes unnecessary ... or the  permit  has expired, ... the  permittee  shall
   immediately remove such  materials . . . Whenever any  stockpiling ... is  being done contrary  to
   the  provisions of this  section.  The  Chief Engineer may require the  permittee  to suspend all
   work being performed by him on the  premises . . ." Code, Sec. 23-3.5


                                            245

-------
 Fill

 Both filling  operations and the composition of fill  materials are subject  to  regulation, as in the
 following ordinances of Decatur, Georgia, and Oklahoma City, respectively:
          any and all fill d'rt and/or n" material so deposited upon any property within the corporate
     limits    shall be free of glass, metal, construction debris, and organic materials ... it shall be
     the responsibility of the owner of such property upon which said fill dirt  and/or fill material is
     placed to cause same to be  rough graded to 5/10 of a foot within the thirty (30) day period . . ."
     Ordinance of 11122165
     "It shall  be unlawful  . . . without. . . permit of the Health Department ... to dump or deposit any
        refuse matter, on any public or private grounds ... for the purpose either of filling low ground
     or of disposing of said materials, or for any purpose whatsoever . . ." Code,  Sec. 9.10.12

 STREET EXCAVATIONS

 The sanitary  aspects of regulating street excavations are covered  in three sections of the NIMLO
 mode! which  follow, dealing with "Care of Excavated Material," "Cleanup" and "Noise, Dust and
 Debris" respectively:
     "All  material excavated from trenches and piled adjacent to  the trench or  in any street shall be
    piled and maintained ... so that as little inconvenience as possible is caused to those using streets
    and adjoining  property. Where the confines of the area being excavated are too narrow ... the
    City Engineer shall have the authority to require that the permittee haul the excavated material to
    a storage site and  then rehaul it . . ." Sec. 10-1017
    "As the excavation work progresses all streets and private properties shall be thoroughly cleaned
    of all rubbish, excess  earth,  rock and other debris resulting from  such work.  All  clean-up
    operations at  the  location  of such excavation  shall  be accomplished at the expense of the
    permittee . . . From time to  time , . . and in any event immediately after completion of said work,
    the permittee shall at his or its own expense clean up and remove all refuse and unused materials
    of any kind resulting  from said work . . ." Sec. 10-1020
    "Each permittee shall  conduct and carry out the excavation work  in such manner as to avoid
    unnecessary  inconvenience  and annoyance to the general  public and occupants of neighboring
    property. The permittee shall  take appropriate measures to reduce . . . noise, dust and unsightly
    debris . .  ." Sec. 10-1035

Handling Excavated Materials

Aimed more  specifically at the  litter potential  are the  Oklahoma  City  requirements (emphasis
supplied) that:
    "In making  excavations or  making improvements  in or to any street,  sidewalk, alley, or other
    public grounds, all material or earth removed and new material necessary for repairs or for new
    work, must  be  handled in  a manner  and  placed  where it  will  cause the least possible
     inconvenience to the public. In no cane shall any of such material or earth be scattered over the
    surface of the pavement. At  all  times a clear and unobstructed waterway shall be maintained
    along the gutter, the cross  section of  which  shall be not less than one (I)  square foot in area."
     Code, Sec. 15.2.15

Clean-up after Backfilling

Tidying up after  backfilling of street excavations is briefly handled in two Texas cutues—El Paso and
San Antonio—respectively as follows:
    "The permittee shall  clean up and remove all  surplus earth, rock and rubbish within twenty-four
    hours after the refill has been completed." Code, Sec. 19-21 (c)
    "Upon the expiration of the time provided in the permit... all surplus dirt or other material shall
    be hauled away and  the street cleaned and placed in the same condition  as it was before such
    excavation was made . . ." Code, Sec. 35-43

Of  similar import are ordinance  requirements of  Wichita,  Kansas, Fargo, North Dakota,  and
Peekskill, New York, respectively as follows:
    ". . . All  surplus excavated material shall be removed from  the location by the person making the
    excavation." Code, Sec. 10.20.070
       . . After filling the excavations, the street, alley,  or sidewalk shall be left  in  a condition
    satisfactory to the city engineer.  All excess dirt  or rubbish must be removed immediately after
    completion of the work . . ." Code, Sec. 18-0412


                                              246

-------
     The permittee shall clean up and remove promptly from the site of the work, upon completion
    tnereot  all surplus excavated material and debris, and shall leave the site of the work in a neat
    and orderly condition. Where top soil, seeded areas or sod are disturbed in the course of  the
    work, permittee shall restore the ground surface to a condition as good as they were previously."
    Ordinance of 5/23/66, An. I, Sec. 9

The connection between cleanup and repaving is established by San Francisco in its stipulations that:
    "In every case the work of repaving over all trenches must be commenced immediately after said
    trenches are backfilled, and the work of clearing up the streets is to be  considered a part of the
    repaving work, and shall be finished within the same time allowed in all cases for said repaving
    and to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. ... In every case and at all times the
    work of removal from the streets of all obstructions, surplus materials and debris or waste matter
    of every  description caused and accumulated by said work of opening and restoring public streets
    and thoroughfares, shall be kept up jointly with the work of backfilling and repaving ... and in all
    cases the surface of the street shall be restored to as good  a condition  as it was in before the work
    of opening commenced." Public  Works Code, Sees. 346 and 348

Extension of cleanup requirements to lawns, etc., is set forth  by Dayton,  Ohio, by  the following two
excerpts from its "Rules and Regulations Governing the Making of Openings in Streets, etc.":
    "Upon completion of the work, all equipment, materials . . .  excavated materials and such,  shall
    be promptly removed  from the street, alley or public place. The  surface of the street, sidewalk,
    lawns and private property shall be cleaned, leaving same in as neat, clean and usable condition  as
    originally found. .  .   Lawns damaged by  the work shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the
    Director of Service and Buildings." Rules and Regulations," Sec. 8
    ". . . every effort must be made to replace not only the actual disturbed area,  but any adjacent
    area which may have been injured or destroyed by the Permittee's work. If the existing  sod can be
    removed and is not injured thereby, it may be replaced, but any damaged sod must be replaced by
    new sod. Restoration will not be considered complete until restored sod  shall have knitted with
    the sub-grade, and any maintenance necessary (such as watering), shall  be considered a  part of the
    restoration." "Rules and Regulations," Sec. 6, Art. 7

Extension to  excavators' vehicles is typified  by ordinances of  Rockville, Maryland, and San  Diego,
California, which respectively assert that:
    "No person engaged in excavating ... or having charge or control of excavation ... or who may
    be engaged in or have charge or control of conveying material to  or from excavations . . .  shall
    deposit, or permit to be deposited,  in any manner, upon the surface of any street, alley, avenue,
    highway, footway,  sidewalk,  parking, or  other  public space       either by  placing, spilling,
    dropping, or tracking  from wheels or vehicles,  or from the feet of animals, or otherwise,  any
    earth, clay, mud, sand,  gravel, or other material. If any such deposit occurs every person whose
    duty it is under this Section to prevent such deposit shall promptly remove the same. .  . ." Code,
    Sec. 12-1.17 (a)
    "Any rock, earth, or other material which may be dropped or deposited on any public street or
    place from any vehicle transporting such materials from any such excavation shall be immediately
    removed in a manner and to ari extent satisfactory to  the Superintendent of Streets, at the expense
    of the person to whom the permit to excavate was issued." Code, Sec. 54.20.7 
-------
In Richmond, California, a local amendment to the Uniform Building Code prescribes that:
    "Where the existing drainage of a building site for which a building permit is issued has been
    disturbed or altered by the filling or excavation of ground or the placing of top soil or the erection
    of a building, ... or other appurtenance on the site, the resulting rain waters collected from such
    structures and appurtenances, as well as any ground or surface waters, shall not be channelized or
    obstructed  in such a manner as to spill onto any adjacent  property, or that may endanger the
    stability of any structure, or  cause the erosion of any land area,  or cause  the  damming,
    backflowing or ponding of excess water on any adjacent property. Such  waters shall be conducted
    by means of an approved drainage system to that street, alley, easement, or public way that will
    best conform with the design  of the city drainage system or to such other water courses or storm
    drainage systems which dispose of such excess waters." Code, Sec. 6.04.020 (AA}

VEHICULAR SPILLAGE AND LITTERING

Vehicles, primarily trucks, that proceed along the streets dribbling or scattering their contens as they
go are subjected to a variety of controls via ordinances of cities of all sizes throughout the country.
A "performance" type requirement is that of a New Orleans ordinance, effective in January 1967,
which declares that:
    "It shall be unlawful ...  to operate . . . any vehicle ... for the hauling of earth, waste materials,
    garbage, trash, or other loose materials,  in such manner  as to cause  or permit  the spillage,
    dropping or casting of any portion thereof upon the streets, sidewalks, or public ways ..." Code,
    Sec. 28-20(a}

Other provisions of similar type are found in ordinances of White Plains,  New York, and Wichita,
Kansas,—respectively as follows:
    "No one being the owner, driver or manager of any car or other vehicle . . . shall scatter, drop or
    spill, or permit to be scattered, dropped or  spilled, any dirt, gravel, sand, clay,  loam, stone or
    building rubbish or hay, straw, oats, sawdust, shaving or other light  materials of any sort, or
    manufacturing, trade or household waste, refuse rubbish or any sort, or ashes or manure, garbage
    or other organic refuse or other offensive matter therefrom, or permit the same to  be  blown off
    therefrom by the wind, upon any street or public place of the city." Ord. of 6/20149 ax amended
    thru 1013155, Sec. S
    "It shall be ... unlawful for any person transporting or hauling any rubbish or  trash, garbage,
    waste  materials produced  from construction,  remodeling or demolition,  dirt, rock,  concrete,
    masonry materials or salvage materials over  or along the streets ... or other public ways of the
    city, to scatter or spill such materials upon, or to litter the streets and public ways of the city with
    the same, or lo permit, allow or suffer any rubbish, trash, garbage, waste materials produced from
    construction,  remodeling or demolition,  dirt,  rock, concrete,  masonry materials or  salvage
    materials to be spilled or scattered, or to remain upon the streets ... or other public ways of the
    city. Code, Sec. 7.08,130

Construction is alluded to in general language in  at least three city ordinances which require that the
vehicle be ". . . so constructed or loaded as to prevent its contents from dropping,  sifting, leaking, or
otherwise escaping therefrom .  . ."—those of Fargo, North Dakota, and Bingham and Ogden, Utah.
Each  adds different stipulations, however,  respectively as follows:
    ". . . sand  may be dropped for the purpose of securing traction or water or other substance may
    be sprinkled on a roadway in  cleaning or maintaining the roadway." Code, Sec. 8-0909
    "There shall at all times be a  minimum of three inches between the top of the contents and the top
    of the sideboards and endgate of the vehicle." Code, Sec. 24-20
    "If necessary to prevent such littering ... the material . .  . shall be securely tied down, or shall be
    tightly covered with heavy canvas or other suitable covering." Code, Sec. 14-18-26(b)

More specific construction detail is contemplated in the Salina, Kansas prohibition against those:
    "... who shall haul . . . loose material, dirt, manure, trash, slop or any  other material of any kind
    except in a vehicle having a tight box or tank so constructed to prevent the splashing or  spilling of
    any substance therein contained upon any street, avenue or alley . . ." Code, Sec.31.1

Oil and Grease

A particular type of spillage—of  oil and other  petroleum products—receives special attention in the
ordinances of several cities. Los Angeles provides simply that:
    "No person  shall  pour,  spill or permit to  drip from  any  tank vehicle, upon any asphalt or
    bituminous pavement laid upon any street, any  oil, petroleum, kerosene, benzine, or  other similar
    oil or oily substance or liquid." Code, Sec. 62.79
                                             248

-------
Kalamazoo, Michigan, has the same requirement as to "any" pavement and adds certain specifics in
the two sections following:
    "All oil delivery wagons or tanks shall have securely fastened under the taps or faucets  thereunto
    attached an absolutely oil or water tight zinc lined box or tray; and in filling any measure,  or
    other vessel, must be held so that  any drip  or overflow shall flow into  said box or tray;  and  in
    removing the  same over the pavement,  no drip  or overflow from such  measure or other vessel
    shall be permitted to fall upon any  pavement, and no receptacle for holding oil shall be  placed on
    the pavement . . ." Code, Sec. PL702
    ••All automobiles, motorcycles, or motor vehicles shall be provided with an absolutely oil or water
    tight receptacle or receptacles, so placed  that any drip or overflow from the machine shall fall into
    said receptacle or receptacles. No such receptacle shall be emptied or allowed to drip or overflow
    upon any pavement." Code. Sec. PL703

Provisions of similar import in Oakland. California, stipulate that:
    "It shall be unlawful for any person to drain or deposit upon any street, sidewalk, park or  public
    land or into any dump, gutter, catch basin, manhole, conduit, sewer, lake or waterway . . . any tar.
    asphaltum, gasoline, lubricating oil, greases,  waste oil from motor vehicle crank cases or any
    by-product of petroleum. Every motor vehicle machine or apparatus using electricity, gasoline .  . .
    or any product of petroleum for its motive power shall have attached thereto suitable devices for
    . . preventing deposits from leaks or drippings . .  . and every person engaged in transporting . . .
    coal, oil, petroleum, distillate or gasoline, when the  same is contained in tanks, must provide drip
    pans to be  placed under the faucets  of such tanks to prevent  Ihe leakage of said product upon the
    streets." Code, Sec. 2-1.78

Again, a "performance" type  of restriction, but applicable only to asphalt pavement, is utilized in St.
Paul, Minnesota, thus:
    "it is unlawful ... to scatter, pour or drop upon any asphalt pavement any oil. gasoline,  kerosene
    or other oily  substance  or product of coal  or tar, pitch  or  turpentine;  and  all persons  are
    forbidden  from  driving or conducting  over  any of said pavement  any vehicle or receptacle
    containing any of said substances  without having  the  same carefully and  completely secured
    against any waste of any said substances  or the spilling of any of the same from any part of said
    vehicle or receptacle." Code, Sec. 211.01

Garbage

Vehicles specifically for transportation of  garbage  must  receive  the  approval of public health
authorities in cities as far distant as  Cranston, Rhode Island, and Salt Lake  City, whose ordinances
respectively provide that:
    "All swill and house offal shall be removed ... in watertight covered vehicles. No  vehicles shall
    be used for the removal .  . . unless first examined and approved  by the director of public health . .
     " Code, Sec. 11-14
    "It shall be unlawful  for  any person to convey,  transport  or haul through or upon any  of the
    public streets, any  garbage,  swill,  market waste,  night soil or other  similar refuse  except in
    sanitary receptacles especially constructed for that purpose, the same to be subject to the approval
    of the Board of Health. Code. Sec. 18-3-21, par. 2

Specifics as to construction and equipment of trucks transporting garbage are  set forth by Des Moines,
Iowa, as follows:
    ". . . the body or bed of every truck . . . shall be so constructed as to be sufficiently tight  on the
    sides and end gate so as not to permit the contents of the truck to be dropped on the streets .  . .
    The truck shall also be equipped with a right cover or tarpulin . . . securely fastened on the front,
    sides and rear of the truck body  at all times when the truck is in motion,  and ... as to contain the
    contents within the truck  and not  permit blowing or spillage upon the  streets or  alleys." Code,
    Sec. 22-12

Refuge and Rubbish

A comprehensive regulation of non-garbage transportation is provided in the ordinance of Lewiston,
Main, which sets forth that:
    "No person shall operate a vehicle upon any street in such a manner that material, rubbish,
    refuse junk or litter of any kind drips, sifts,  leaks,  drops or otherwise escapes therefrom or drops
    upon the surface of such highway, street or alley and without limiting the foregoing, all open
    trucks carrying cotton waste, wool waste, waste paper, refuse,  sawdust, wood shavings, and loose


                                             249

-------
    building salvage shall be equipped with, and use, a device suitable to prevent the latter mentioned
    materials from falling or being blown therefrom and littering the surface of any highway, street or
    alley." Code, Sec. 510

A "performance" type regulation is provided by the Albany, Georgia, requirement that:
    "It shall be unlawful for any person to haul or transport . . . any dirt, soil, sand, rubbish or like
    substance ... in any wagon, cart, wheelbarrow or other vehicle from which such dirt, soil, sand,
    rubbish or  like substance escapes or leaks-." Code, Sec. 29-5

The "wheelbarrow" receives its only observed recognition in the foregoing; the "sleigh" is included
among vehicles enumerated by two Michigan cities—Flint (Code, Sec. 177.1) and Kalamazoo (Code,
Sec. PL706).

Coping specifically with "blowabte" materials, Honolulu has ordained that:
    "No vehicle shall  be driven or  moved  on any highway with  any load  consisting partially or
    entirely of loose paper, empty cartons, crates, or any other material susceptible of being blown or
    carried by the wind, unless such load is  entirely covered by  tarpaulin, net, canopy or other
    suitable material, effectively preventing any part of such load from being blown or carried by the
    wind; provided, however,  this paragraph shall not  apply to any  vehicle carrying a load consisting
    entirely of soil, sand, coral or gravel, if such load is wetted down to prevent particles thereof from
    being blown or carried by  the wind." Traffic Code, Sec. 15-21.4(3)

Somewhat similarly Westport,  Connecticut, attacks transportation of dust-producing substances thus:
    "No dust-producing  substance shall be transported . . . unless the vehicle . .  is so constructed,
    loaded, covered, or protected at  all times as to effectually prevent the spreading or dissemination
    of dust . .  . into the air or  upon any public or private property .  . . No person, firm or corporation
    shall operate or cause to be operated . . . any vehicle transporting sand, gravel, loam, stones, or
    dirt unless the said vehicle is so constructed and so loaded that the level of the load so transported
    at the  periphy is at least two (2) inches below the level of the side  boards and  tail  board, or the
    load is so covered or protected at all times as to effecutally prevent any material from said load
    from falling or being blown upon any public or private property . . ." Ordinance of 4/10157, Sees. 2
    and J

Provisions  that vehicles be "so constructed" take opposite  routes  to the same purpose  in  the
ordinances (emphasis supplied) of San Francisco, California, and Greenwich, Connecticut, thus:
    "It shall be unlawful ...  to use any car, wagon or other vehicle for the purpose of transporting
    sand, earth or rock  .   . unless  such vehicle be  no constructed  fl.v to prevent the deposit of the
    contents ... in or upon any public streets . . ." Public Works Code, Sec. 759
    "No person shall . . . transport such refuse, trash, waste paper,  scraps or junk through the streets
    in vehicles so constructed as to permit'any part of the load toescape."  Code, Sec. 58.5
Scavengers' Vehicles

In the course of licensing and  regulating private collectors of garbage and/or refuse, cities often
establish standards of construction and/or operation of the vehicles they use.

A modern vehicle definition is carried in the St. Paul, Minnesota, ordinance:
    "For the purpose of this ordinance,  the  vehicle which actually carries  the rubbish  or waste
    material is denned as follows: the word 'vehicle' shall be any trailer or semi-trailer unit of 2 cubic
    yard capacity or greater which is used for the hauling of rubbish or waste materials, in addition to
    all trucks, compactors or other vehicles which are regularly used for the  hauling of rubbish or
    waste materials and for which a state vehicle license is required. This shall  not include containers
    which are carried on the bed of a vehicle rather than towed  as a separate unit." Code, Sec. 321.08

Akron, Ohio, specifies that garbage, etc., may not be transported:
    "... except in  vehicles of the Packer type construction,  barrels or other receptacles that are
    effectually covered and watertight. . ." Code, Sec. 571.07

Both  the foregoing make the vehicles subject to city  inspection—St. Paul initially by the Sanitation
Bureau and Akron annually by the director of public service or his agent.
Oklahoma  City also provides  for  vehicle inspection (by  the  Health  Department) initially  and
optionally later as deemed necessary, stipulating tnat  "upon such inspection, approval or rejection of


                                             250

-------
«,Cahhlkh^";S,nna" T If S6d UPO" the stand<>rds herein set forth .  . ." (Code, Sec. 10.35.05) which are
established separately for garbage and trash vehicles, as follows:
    "Any vehicle whose use in such hauling is intended for garbage, either wet or dry, shall be of a
    type capable of being fully enclosed in a manner to prevent the escape therefrom of any noxious
    or disagreeable odors, or the escape therefrom of any noxious  or disagreeable odors, or the escape
    of any of the contents of such vehicle. Filler openings of such vehicle shall be and remain  fully
    closed except at the times such garbage actually is  being placed in such vehicle, or being emptied

             '      VehiC'e Sha"  ^ °aPable °f bei"g  comP|ete|y emP'ied and Cleaned."  Code.  Sec.
    "Any vehicle whose use is intended for dry wastes such as trash, rubbish, empty boxes, papers,
    grass and tree trimmings, cans, bottles and all similar material, may be of open body type, but
    shall be equipped with eye-hooks, cleats or similar hold-fast facility fixed to sides and ends of the
    body of said vehicle for use in lashing  down the contents of said vehicle and prevent the blow-
    ing off, spilling or scattering of same along the route of haul.  Equipment for such lashing down-
    shall be appropriate to  the kind of material  transported,  and shall consist of tarpaulin covering
    for loads composed of small,  light-weight  material  reasonably  susceptible  of  being spilled or
    blown." Code, Sec. 1035.08


Enforcement

Provisions for recourse against those whose loads leak, spill or are otherwise deposited on the streets
— beyond simple ordinance-violation penalties — have been developed by  some  cities.  Jonesboro,
Arkansas ordains that:
    "A Writ of attachment may be  issued against any vehicle used in violating the provisions of this
    Ordinance for the collection of  any fine assessed for such violation." Ord. No. 989 of 8/3/59, Sec.
    Ill
Two cities requiring cleanup of spilled,  dropped or "wasted" matter  are New Rochelle, New  York,
and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma — respectively providing that:
    "In addition to any penalty provided by this Ordinance any person violating . . . this section shall
    immediately clean or cause to be cleaned, the street or public place upon which any  earth, dirt,
    sand, or other matter . .  . has been scattered, dropped or spilled." Code, Sec. 7.6(b)
    "All such material  or dirt wasted shall  be  immediately removed by either  such driver or the
    person, firm or corporation by whom he is employed. The failure to immediately remove all of the
    material or earth so wasted shall render both the driver and the  person, firm or corporation by
    whom he is employed, subject to a fine. Each day that such material or dirt so wasted,  remains on
    such pavements shall constitute  a separate and distinct offense." Code, Sec. 9.15.13

The  pollution  potential  of uncleared  sites  following  the moving or  demolition  of buildings is
recognized in the requirement of the N1MLO model building moving ordinance that permittees must:
    "Remove all rubbish and materials and fill all  excavations to  existing grade  at the  original
    building site so that the premises are left in a safe and  sanitary condition." Sec. 10-207 (8)

Two Alabama cities — Mobile (Code. Sec. 10-13 h) and Fairfield (Code, Sec. 7-26 e) — are among those
enacting identical language.
Somewhat more expansive language is used in the Fresno, California, ordinance provision  that:
    "It shall be the duty of any person to whom any permit  is issued  for the demolition or for the
    removal of any building, or any section or portion of any building . .  . and of any person leasing,
    owning, occupying or controlling any lot or parcel of ground from which a building is removed or
    demolished to  remove  all weeds,  concrete,  stone, debris, and other loose, miscellaneous, and
    useless material from such lot or parcel  of ground . . ." Code, Sec. 13-217

Moving

In Richmond, California, the terms and conditions of a house moving permit include the requirement
that:
         after the said  building is moved,  the  site  from which it  was moved be  cleared of all loose
    debris and rubbish . . ." Ord. No. 1373 of 117152, Sec.  3 (k) (5)

Hazel Park Michigan requires moving contractors to make a $500 cash deposit to assure compliance
with several regulations, subject to  subsequent check by the building inspector among them that:
    "He shall fill all excavations which result from the moving of the building and the removal of all
    materials  and debris from the premises from  which the house  is to be moved,  in case said
    premises are located within the City." Ord. No. 283 of 8122160, Sec. 8


                                              251

-------
Demolition

Among ordinance provisions relative to site clearance after demolition of a building, the greatest
observed brevity characterized the requirements of Phoenix, Arizona, that:
    ". . . The material to be removed shall be properly wet down to lay dust incident to removal. All
    debris shall be entirely removed from  the lot after demolition of any building." Building Code,
    Sec. 1403

The timing of clearance is variously  scheduled in such ordinances  as those of Duluth, Minnesota,
Rhinelander, Wisconsin, and Wethersfield, Connecticut which follow:
    "All  materials not used  for  filling in  excavated  areas shall  be removed from  premises as
    demolition work  progresses. On  completion of demolition, the premises  shall be filled where
    necessary with soil, cinders or other approved inorganic material and  graded to the level of the lot
    grade adjoining the building site .  . ." Building Code, Sec. 201 (e)(12)
    "All debris, rubbish and other materials  not used for fill shall be removed from the premises on
    completion of the  demolition work, and  the site graded to conform  with the grade of adjoining
    premises. .  . ." Code, Sec. 14.10 (5)
    When the work of demolition has been carried to completion, the premises shall be left  free and
    clear of any material or debris . . ." Building Code, Art. II (8)
                                                                                        lerator
                                                                                     aspects of
BONFIRES AND INCINERATION

The major objectives of city regulation of the burning of any materials, whether within an incim
or outside,  are related  to fire prevention and air pollution control. Accordingly, identified aspe
litter control and surface cleanliness are relatively few.

Permits

To require  permits for rubbish-burning or bonfires is a frequent practice. Fargo, North Dakota, and
Cranston, Rhode Island, are two cities which identically provide that:
    "No person shall kindle or maintain any bonfire or rubbish fire or authorize any such fire to be
    kindled or  maintained on or in any  public  street, alley, road or other public ground without a
    permit or other proper authorization. . . ." Fire Prevention Code, Sec. 28.1fa)

While  the  foregoing apply to "public"  space, the restriction is dropped  by Duluth, Minnesota, in
its provision that:
    "No person shall kindle or maintain any bonfire or rubbish fire or authorize any such fire to be
    kindled or maintained without a permit therefor. . . ." Code, Sec. 28.1 (a)

At St. Paul, Minnesota, a differently phrased  requirement specifically adds  private premises but
provides an exception (emphasis supplied), thus:
    "No person shall kindle or maintain any bonfire or shall knowingly furnish the materials for any
    such fire, or authorize  any such fire to  be kindled or maintained on or in any street, alley,  road,
    land, or public grounds or upon any private lot, unless a written permit to do so shall first have
    been secured  from  the  Bureau  of Fire  Prevention.  This shall not prohibit  the burning of
    inconsiderable quantities of rubbish on private premises on any day between the hours of 3:00
    p.m. to 8:00 p.m. when placed and contained in a noncombustible container of any type approved
    by the  Chief of the Bureau of Fire Prevention." Code, Sec. 192.01


Regulation

Among the various  regulations of fire control ordinances the following of Wethersfield, Connecticut,
relate to litter aspects to some extent:
    "Fires may be kindled or allowed to burn outdoors if they shall satisfy each and all the following
    conditions:  (1)  be contained in an incinerator  or  other receptacle sufficient  to restrain the
    materials to be  burned and resulting fly ash; (2) be thoroughly extinguished no later than 8:00
    p.m., any subsequent smoldering to be considered a violation of this ordinance, and (3) be limited
    to any dry. readily combustible materials, excluding garbage in any form, rubber, or any material
    creating unreasonable smoke, odor,  nuisance or other hazard to person or  property.  Fires
    outdoors which  would not satisfy the foregoing requirements may be kindled or allowed to burn
    nevertheless, upon application to and permission granted by the Fire Marshal or his designees for


                                              252

-------
    crearp U,rP°Se' UP°" the determinati°n of such authorizing official that the circumstances will not
                              ^"^ °d°r"  nUJSanCe Or other  hazard to perSOn Or  P™^1*'"
Specialized Burning


auMfbmirthftW"d'S  "* ^"""^  " ^  SUbJect °f an  explicit ordinance provision pf  Oakland,

    -It shall be unlawful for any person to start or cause to be started any open outdoor fire for the
    purpose of weed and rubbish abatement, except by permission from the Fire Marshal.  The Fire
    Marshall shall give his permission only in exceptional  and extraordinary cases when all methods
    of weed batement other than by burning (including chemical  spraying, discing, or cutting) are
    impractical." Code, Sec. 2-1.761

timning junked automobiles and other scrap is regulated at San Antonio, Texas, in this manner:
    "The burning  of wrecked or discarded automobiles or any  parts thereof or junk or any waste
    materials shall be  done only in  designated open spaces or incinerator enclosures approved for
    burning purposes under special permit, issued for such action, by the fire chief. No waste burning
    shall be permitted and same shall  be unlawful, unless special permit has  been  issued  and is
    conspicuously posted on the premises, or in the office  at  such location " Fire Prevention Code,
    Sec. 15-332

The inclusion of sweepings is noted  in the control ordinance of Independence,  Missouri, providing
that:
    "No person, firm or corporation shall burn or cause to be burned, any sweepings, trash, paper,
    lumber, leaves, straw, hay or any combustible material within the city limits . . .  unless the same
    is securely confined in a refuse  burner constructed of brick,  concrete,  plate iron, steel  or wire,
    with all openings in said burner securely covered by a cover of screen  wire. No  burner shall be
    used with wire meshes of over one (1) inch. . . ." Charter Ord. No. 278 of 3125163,  Sec. I

Particular Locales

Bonfires on bituminous pavements are governed by an Oakland, California, provision that:
    "It  shall be unlawful for any person to set fire to or burn or to cause to be set fire to or burned
    any rags, paper, wood, or any rubbish . . . upon any street or sidewalk paved with, or constructed
    of bituminous rock or any other combustible material,  without  first obtaining a  written permit
    from the Superintendent of Streets.1' Code, Sec. 6-2.59

Bonfires on any pavement in Fresno, California, are forbidden:
    "No person shall burn a bonfire on a permanently  paved  street at any time." Code, Sec. °-lQ10 tb)

Regulations of fires on any street, etc., in Saginaw, Michigan, are rather explicit, thus:
    "No person shall  kindle fire in or upon any street, alley or other public place, except in publicly
    owned park ovens and  except in cases where  written permission has been  granted by the Fire
    Chief, subject to such reasonable conditions and restrictions as he may determine  to be necessary
    to protect life and property. No person shall permit a trash burner to be placed, maintained or
    used upon any  portion of a street, alley or other public  place, nor within five (5)  feet thereof. In
    any proceeding for violation of this  section, the fact of possession of the  premises or of the
    premises abutting the street, alley or other public place where such trash burner was located, shall
    constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that the person in possession  was the person
    who placed, maintained or used trash burner." Code, Sec. 304

Only certain roofs are acceptable fire sites in San  Diego, California, which has ordained that:
    "It shall be unlawful  to build or maintain a fire  on any roof, except that the provisions of this
    sub-section  shall  not apply  to  those  buildings which have a concrete slab roof."  Code, Sec.
    55.30.8 (d)

Incineration

Outdoor moveable or "homemade" incinerators are banned by a Concord, New Hampshire, ordinance
which stipulates that:
    "The use of outdoor portable incinerators, drums, barrels or other containers for the burning of
    trash garbage or refuse is hereby prohibited.  . .  . This ordinance shall  not .  . . exclude the use of


                                             253

-------
    outdoor fireplaces or portable charcoal cooking devices designed and used for cooking purposes."
    Code, Sec. 10.2

On the West Coast regulation via revocable permit is established in ordinances (emphasis supplied) of
the following three cities—Portland, Oregon, and Fontana and Richmond, California—thus:
    "No incinerator or other device or appliance for burning rubbish or other waste material shall be
    erected  or  used, and no enclosed fire shall be built, set  or  maintained outside the walls of a
    building without a revocable permit from the Fire Marshal. .  . . The burning or garbage, rubber,
    insulation and  like materials  is  permitted  only  in  incinerators  specifically designed for such
    purposes. The permits herein provided for may be revoked by the Fire Marshal if, in his opinion,
    conditions of incinerator use become dangerous or objectionable ..." Fire Code, Sec. 14-713 (a)
    "No incinerator shall be constructed,  located, installed, equipped, maintained, or used  unless by
    virture of a permit secured from the Chief Engineer of the Fontana Fire Department, or from  his
    duly authorized Deputy, approving the type and location of such incinerator.  .'. . If the location
    thus approved should thereafter  create a public  or  private nuisance or fire hazard, the Chief
    Engineer of the Fire Department or his duly authorized Deputy may revoke his previous approval
    and the person owning or using the incinerator shall immediately cease burning therein and move
    the incinerator to a location approved by the Chief Engineer or his duly authorized Deputy. Ord.
    No. 1316, fl.v amended. Sec*. 3 and 8
    "No person shall operate or maintain  . . . any commercial  incinerator . . . without first obtaining
    a license so to do from the Fire Marshal . . . Wherever, in the opinion of the Fire Marshal, any
    incinerator is operated or maintained  in a manner to  create a nuisance by reason of the emission
    from such incinerator of srnoke, fumes, noxious odors, dust, ashes or other materials, the Fire
    Marshal shall forthwith  cancel and withdraw any license which may heretofore have been issued
    pursuant to this ordinance for the operation or maintenance of such incinerator." Ord. No. 1316,
    as amended. Sec.f. 3 and  8
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

The litter potential of materials stored and debris accumulating at the  site of building construction
projects is recognized  and dealt with in various ways by different cities.
Requiring a permit for  any use  of street space in connection with building activity is an approach
taken by several cities,  including at least three in Utah. The  Ogden ordinance (Code,  Sec. 23-1-5) is
virtually identical with that of Brigharn City:
    "It shall be unlawful  for any person to occupy or use any portion of the public streets for the
    erection or repair of any building upon land abutting thereon, without first making application to
    and receiving  from  the council a permit for the occupation or use, for building purposes, of such
    portions of streets and for such periods of time and under such limitations and restrictions as may
    be required by the council;  provided, that  no permit shall be granted to occupy more than fifteen
    feet of  any  street,  measured from the curb line, and any such permit may be revoked by the
    council  at any time when the  holder thereof fails to comply with any rule  or  regulation under
    which  it is granted or when  in the opinion of the  council,  the  public  good  requires such
    revocation." Code,  Sec. 24-5

Substantially similar language, without the proviso, is also used in the ordinance (Code, Sec. 41-5-23)
of Salt Lake City.
In Minneapolis,  Minnesota, the mayor is the permit issuing authority, pursuant to provisions that:
    "Any person building or repairing a building near any street, avenue, alley or public ground . . .
    may apply  to  the Mayor for a license to  place building material upon such  street ... or public
    ground  during the progress  of such building or repairing . . . and the Mayor may, in his discretion
    . . . grant such license under such conditions and  restrictions (to set forth  in such license) as will
     in his judgment prevent needless inconveniences to the public. Such license shall  be in writing and
    may be  revoked by  the Mayor at will . . ." Code, Sec. 583.090

Regulations to govern the accumulation  and removal of rubbish and debris may be relatively brief, as
in the ordinance of Des  Plaines, Illinois, which follows:
    "Waste material  and rubbish shall not be stored nor allowed to accumulate within the building or
     in the immediate vicinity, but shall be removed from the premises as rapidly as practicable. No
    material shall  be disposed  of by burning on the premises or in  the  immediate vicinity.  Dry
    material or  rubbish shall be  wetted down, if necessary, to lay dust or prevent  being blown about."
     Code, Sec. 4.4-14


                                             254

-------
St. Paul, Minnesota, has an identical provision, with one sentence inserted to require that:
    ". . . Combustible waste and rubbish shall be removed at least daily." Legislative Code; Sec. 11.07

Phoenix, Arizona, specifies who shall dispose of construction debris and how it shall not be handled:
    ••Debris resulting from the construction, reconstruction or repair of premises shall not be placed
    with other refuse for collection, but shall be disposed of directly by the person owning, occupying
    or leasing the  premises  wherein such debris is accumulated. All construction  debris and waste
    materials shall be  removed  promptly and shall not be stored in any  location where it may be
    blown beyond the construction site." Cotlc. Sec. 22-5 (f)

Little Rock, Arkansas, is very specific as to who is not responsible for removing such refuse:
    ••It is  distinctly provided that  this chapter does not in any way obligate city  employees or  city
    trucks to clean or  pick  up refuse or  debris  resulting from construction on  property  where
    buildings are being repaired or are under construction" Code, Sec. 15-10


Litter Aspects Particularly

In a 1962  enactment Fargo,  North Dakota,  adopted  a comprehensive Article  on  the "Littering of
Public Places by Contractors" which includes the following:
    "No contractor shall  allow any  vehicle to operate out  of  any construction site, regardless of
    whether the same shall be operated by the contractor, his agents, employees, or subcontractors, in
    such a manner as to dump, scatter, or deposit  any rubbish, stones, wire, earth,  ashes,  cinders,
    sawdust, hay, glass, manure, filth, paper, snow, ice, dirt, grass, leaves, twigs, shrubs, construction
    waste, garbage, or other offensive or nauseous material on any street, alley, or  public place. The
    commissioner of streets shall be and hereby is empowered to order any contractor to take such
    precautions as  he deems necessary to prevent any such foreign materials from being deposited on
    the street, alley, or public place and to remove all foreign material on  the street, alley, or public
    place.  If and in the event any contractor shall fail to comply with the order of the commissioner of
    streets, said commissioner, or the chief of police, may order all construction stopped.
    "No contractor or other person  shall  permit  a  vehicle  to  enter upon  a public street,  alley,
    sidewalk, or other public  place without first (a) having its tires and wheels cleaned so as not  to
    litter of soil  any street ... or other  public place, and  (b) having any material removed from  the
    interior or exterior of vehicle body which might  fall or be deposited upon any street ... or public
    place by normal movement of vehicle in traveling over  such places.
    "All streets,  alleys, sidewalks, or  public places adjacent to any building or construction site shall
    be maintained  in a litter-free condition  at all times. This shall  include such soiling  or  littering
    caused by erosion, landslides, or general  construction activities at  any such site.
    "Whenever a contractor is engaged in  any construction or  maintenance activity,  it  shall  be  his
    responsibility to see that none of the provisions of this article are violated by himself, his agents,
    employees, subcontractors, or haulers of materials and  supplies.  If more than one contractor or
    any governmental unit is involved  in work which contributes to the  littering of  streets,  alleys,
    sidewalks, or other public places in the smae  site or area,  they shall be  separately and jointly
    responsible for compliance with the  provisions of this article." Code, Sees. ll-9ni - 11-904

Transportation from construction or  demolition  sites in St.   Paul, Minnesota,  is  controlled,  in
somewhat similar vein, by requirements that:
    "No contractor or  other  person shall  operate or  permit  or cause  his  agents,  employees or
    subcontractors to operate any vehicle from  construction or demolition sites or  from  property
    adjacent to a street,  alley, or  other public place onto and  upon any  street ... or  other public
    place:  (1) in such a manner or so loaded as to dump, scatter or deposit any rubbish, stones, earth,
    sand, gravel, filth, paper, construction waste, or any other offensive or nauseous material  on  any
    street     or other public place;  (2) Without first having its tires and  wheels cleaned so as not to
    litter  scatter or deposit any foreign material  upon any street ... or any public place; (3) Without
    having tailgates of sufficient height  and  closed tightly at all times while the vehicle is in operation
    so as to keep dirt, sand, gravel or  any  other material being transported from spilling,  falling or
    being blown from the vehicle." Ord. No. 12524, Sec. 2

Special Activities

Mortar and concrete  receive special  attention  inOakland, California,  and Salt Lake City, Utah,
respectively under requirements that:
    "It shall be  unlawful for any person to place or cause to be placed anywhere upon the  surface of
    the roadway of any  public streets ... or upon ... any improved sidewalk . . , mortar in a moist


                                               255

-------
    state for any purpose whatsoever, or to mix or prepare the same upon such roadway or sidewalk,
    unless such mortar be placed, mixed or prepared in a tight box or upon a close fitted platform or
    bed. No moist concrete shall be allowed to stand on the surface of any street  or improved
    sidewalk for a longer period than one hour after mixing, and on completion of the job all surplus
    material shall be removed and the street or sidewalk surface washed, cleaned and  left in the same
    condition  as before  mixing. No rock, sand, gravel, or cement shall be washed into  and left in
    either gutters or catch basins or allowed to find its way into catch basins." Code, Sec. 6-2.55
    "It shall be unlawful to place . . .  any sand, gravel,  lime, cement, mortar, plaster, concrete, or any
    other substance or mixture, or to  allow the same to remain on any portion of any  paved street or
    sidewalk ... or to make or mix, . . . any mortar, plaster, concrete, or any other like substance or
    mixture on any portion of any paved street or sidewalk . . . provided that in cases where work is
    being done on buildings or pavements, the board of commissioners  may grant . .  . permission to
    mix cement, concrete or building materials  in tight boxes, or on tightly joined boards, on  such
    pavements or walk unders such restrictions  as  the board of commissioners may  deem proper."
    Code, Sec. 41-5-33

Sandblasting is alluded  to in a brief  requirement of Dayton, Ohio, that "Dust, sandblasts or other
harmful agents when employed or occurring in construction operations shall be disposed of at or  near
the point of origin to prevent their diffusion over adjoining premises or streets" (Code, Sec. 1316.01).
At  Salina, Kansas,  however, it  is the subject of a special Article which  defines  "dry"  and "wet"
sandblasting, requires  that a permit be obtained, and further provides that:

    "The building official shall determine whether the side of the building, adjacent buildings or other
    structures, vehicles, implements or other things kept or stored upon adjacent or nearby areas or
    vehicles parked in a street render  it advisable to use wet sandblasting or whether dry sandblasting
    may be used and whether the precautions hereafter prescribed should be taken  and issue a permit
    in accordance therewith.  (I) Wei  sandblasting. If wet sandblasting is required  by  the permit, the
    permittee  shall use a canvas or other shield to keep the sand from splattering upon or against the
    property of others except by their consent. (2) Dry  sandblasting. If dry  sandblasting is permitted,
    a canvas or other  sufficient guard shall be used to prevent sand, dust and other particles from
    being detrimental  to or  injuring  adjacent property, pedestrians, sidewalks,  vehicles  using  the
    streets in the vicinity of the operation, and vehicles, implements or other things kept or stored on
    adjacent property. (3) Waiver. If the building  official believes that the  side  of  the building is
    where the operation will not be detrimental or injurious to the  property of others, he may permit
    the operation without the precautions herein specified. But,  if after sandblasting is  begun,  the
    building official finds that the precaution  being taken is not sufficient, he shall  have power to
    order the stoppage of work until sufficient precaution  is provided and used." Code, Sees. 9-371 -
    9-373
Enforcement

Three  different  but  sharp and  decisive sanctions to enforce anti-litter regulations  against those
conducting construction operations are typified in these requirements, respectively, of Miami, Florida,
San Francisco, California, and Fargo, North Dakota:
     '. . . applicants for building permits shall clear all rubbish, construction sheds or other materials
    which  accumulate during and by reason of construction from the building or repair site. . . . The
    Building Division ... is hereby authorized and directed to withhold the issuance of a certificate of
    occupancy issued under  the provisions of ... the Building Code,  for noncompliance with this
    ordinance." Ord. No. 4908 of 10/28153, Sees. 1-3
    "A deposit of ...  $30 ... will be required for each fifty  feet ... of the lost frontage, or fraction
    thereof, as a guaranty that  the permittee will remove all dirt, debris, materials and equipment
    from the street in  the allotted time and restore the pavement  to its original condition. If not so
    removed the Director, after five (5) days' notice in writing posted  on the  premises, may use as
    much  of the guaranty money as is necessary  for cleaning the street,  removing  materials and
    equipment, and restoring the pavement.  . . ."  Public Works Code, Sec. 724.1
    "If a street, alley,  sidewalk, or public place should become soiled or littered through any of the
    means outlined ...  the person or persons responsible shall cause such soiling or  littering to be
    cleaned up forthwith. If and when the person or persons responsible  fail to comply with any order
    of the  chief of police or commissioner of streets to clean  up or take  such  precautions as the chief
    of police or commissioner deems necessary to prevent foreign  materials from being deposited on
    any street, alley, or public place, then the chief of police  or commissioner may order (in writing)
    all  ingress and egress to the site or area involved stopped until compliance with the order is
    effected." Code, Sec. 11-0905


                                             256

-------
ANIMALS AND ANIMAL-CARE ESTABLISHMENTS

In relation to pollution potential of animal life in the cities  the most  numerous control ordinances
relate to dogs-and particularly those that "commit a nuisance" in the wrong place. Cities employing
,he euphemism  include San  Francisco, Las Vegas,  Nevada,  and  New Rochelle, New York, whose
ordinances respectively provide that:

   "No person having the right and  ability to prevent, shall  knowingly, or carelessly or negligently,
   permit any dog or other  animal to commit any .nuisance upon any sidewalk of any public street.
   avenue, park, public square, or place . . ."  Health Code,  Part II, Chap. V., Sec. 40(a)
   "It shall be unlawful ... to permit, either willfully or through failure to exercise due  care or
   control, any such dog or animal to commit any musance  upon any sidewalk of any public street or
   public park; or any nuisance  upon any real  property  . .   of any other person;  .  . or upon any
   entranceway, stairway or wall  immediately abutting on  a public  sidewalk;      " Code,  Sec.
   6-2-4(K)
   "A person who owns, possesses or controls a dog, cat or  other animal shall not permit the animal
   to commit a nuisance upon any  paved sidewalk,  upon any public premises,  or  upon  private
   premises owned by another, except at the curb." Code, Sec. 11-6.02

Expanded in coverage (emphasis supplied) is the Richmond, California, provision that:
   "It shall be unlawful for any person . . . having charge, care, control, custody, or possession of any
   dog or other animal, including fowl, to allow or permit such dog or other animal, including fowl,
   to commit  any nuisance  upon, or damage the property of any other person, or upon a public
   street, alley or other public place." Ord. No. 1746  of 3112162, Sec. 6.5

The euphemism is discarded, in part or completely, in the ordinances of  Boston,  Massachusetts,
Haverford, Pennsylvania, and  University Heights, Ohio,  respectively:
   "No person owning, keeping, harboring or having control of a  dog shall  permit it to foul any
   sidewalk of any street in the city."  Code, Chap. 29, Sec. 40 A
   "It shall  be unlawful for the owner of any  dog to permit such dog to damage or  injure personal
   property, real  estate, shrubs, hedges,  flowers, or  any growing thing  by running over or running
   across the said property or by urinating thereon or  defiling the same, or by causing  excrement to
   be placed thereon." Ord. No. 980 of 12112/55, Sec.  7
   . . . which destroys or damages any lawn,  tree, shrub, plant, building  or other property, . .  by
   scratching, digging, running, defecating, urinating or otherwise, is declared to be  a nuisance. No
   person being the owner or in charge or control of any animal  shall permit such animal to be or to
   create a nuisance as herein defined." Code,  Sec. 511.19

Late  in 1966 the latter city inaugurated a program to enlist the support of citizens for enforcement and
their cooperation in retraining their dogs to comply and thus avoid violations. A principal feature was
a bulletin of October 15 to dog owners, that set a December 1 date for beginning "rigid enforcement"
of the ordinance. It requested that "    . dog  owners . . . immediately  begin to train  their dogs to
eliminate in prepared locations in their own backyard." (as was successfully accomplished),  adding
that "We realize that an occasional accident will occur while you are taking your dog for a walk. In
such  instances  you will be  expected to clean up the droppings  and  dispose  them on your own
property." This is not, of course, directly required in the ordinance.
Such  a "cleanup" requirement iX however, incorporated into a  recent (4/12/65) ordinance of Evanston,
Illinois, to the effect that:
   "If any dog shall commit a nuisance on any street, sidewalk, alley or public place  in the city, or
   upon any private property, other than that  of the dog owner, the owner or agent of the owner
   having control of said dog shall immediately abate said nuisance by cleaning the premises and
   removing the subject matter of the nuisance." Code. Sec. 5-16.1



Other Specified Animals

The keeping of rabbits in Oklahoma City includes   . . "any manner of keeping or raising rabbits,
whether for sale, exchange, breeding, for pets  or other purposes,"  as set forth in its ordinance, which
contains the following specifics as to sanitation:
   "Onlv enough food shall be supplied each day for the daily needs of each rabbit. Any waste feed
                  d each day     Surplus feeds shall be  stored in a place ... so constructed that the
   feed doesenTspill upon the ground or into the hutches. Each hutch must be swept and cleaned  at
   least once every forty-eight hours and the manure and other  refuse must be disposed of at least
   twice each week .  . ." Code, Sec. 4.2.06


                                             257

-------
In the rabbit and poultry  licensing ordinance of Hazel Park, Michigan, the sanitary  provisions are
simply that:
    "All persons keeping any rabbits or poultry shall keep the places wherein they are kept, in a clean
    and sanitary condition and in accordance with such rules and regulations as may be made from
    time to time by the Health Officer . . . Upon failure to comply with any  such ... the City Manager
    may revoke the permit . .  ." Ord. No. 33 of 9114143, Sec. 4

Keeping  chickens  in  Mobile, Alabama, requires  a  permit and  adherance to,  among  others,  the
following conditions:
    "The chicken  house and yard shall at all times  be kept free from trash and  accumulation of
    droppings.  If droppings and trash obtained from cleaning the house and yard are allowed to
    accumulate on the  premises, they shall be  stored  in a metal  or concrete  container  which is
    provided with  a tightly fitting cover ... If garbage is fed, the remains shall be removed from the
    chicken house  and yard daily and disposed of in the same manner as the droppings or otherwise
    in accordance  with city ordinances. No feed of any type  shall remain in a chicken  house or yard,
    outside of a rat-proof bin, after dark or before daylight.  . . ." Code, Sec. 7-39

Those  keeping  chickens and other fowl  in Neenah, Wisconsin, must register with the  Building
Inspector and be governed  by ordinance stipulations that:
    "All chicken coops and yards, dove cotes and other buildings or yards . . . shall be  kept in a clean
    and sanitary manner and  condition . . . and shall be subject  to the inspection and approval of the
    Health Officer  or the Street and Sanitation Committee." Code, Sec. 10.08(2)
Livestock

Prohibitions against "running at large"—and licensing—are principal livestock control measures so
far as sanitary aspects are concerned. Examples are  the following of Shelbe, North Carolina,  and
Hawaii County, Hawaii, respectively:
    "It shall be unlawful for any person, owning or having in his care or custody any horse, mule,
    cow, calf, oxen, hog, pig, sheep, lamb, goat or any other animal, to permit the same to run at large
    upon the streets or sidewalks or the property of another. It shall be unlawful for any person to
    graze or permit to be grazed any cow or other livestock upon any street or sidewalk in the city."
    Code, Sec.\. 4-1 and 4-3
    "No  person owning, controlling or having the  possession of any livestock of animals, such as
    cattle, horses, mules, donkeys, swine, sheep or goats, shall suffer or permit any such livestock or
    animal to roam, graze or stray upon any public  land, highway, street, road, lane or alley .  . . No
    person . . . shall suffer or permit any such livestock or animals to roam, graze or stray upon the
    land or premises . . . held or occupied by another . . . without having first obtained  the permission
    of the occupier or holder thereof.  . ." Ord. No. 49, Sees. 1 and 2

In locations and within limits governed by its zoning ordinance, Duluth, Minnesota, provides  for
revocable permits for keeping livestock, conditioned  that:
    "The premises . . . shall be open to the inspection of the director of public health or his agents at
    any  time. Such premises      where such animals are kept shall be kept in a  clean, sanitary
    well-drained condition at all times." Code, Sec. 6-17

Location of Animal Housing

Frequently "buffer zones" between trie places where  animals  are kept and residences, etc.  are
established by regulatory ordinances. Examples are those of Ogden, Utah, Little Rock, Arkansas,  and
Greenwich, Connecticut, as follows:
    "It shall be unlawful ... to keep or maintain any barn, stable, shed, corral, or hive in which are
    kept  horses, cows, poultry, animals, or bees, within seventy-five feet  of any  dwelling, house or
    residence or public street . . ." Code, Sec. 15-1-14
    "It shall  be unlawful  to  keep cows, goats, or other hoofed  animals in a  pen or lot within
    seventy-five feet of any residence other than the residence of the livestock owner.  It shall be
    unlawful to keep cows, goats or other hoofed animals  in a pen or lot within  seventy-five feet of
    any business establishment which is regularly used by large numbers of people." Code, Sec. 7-1
    ". . . No house for goats, swine, poultry, or pigeons and no yard or run for the same shall be built
    or maintained within fifty (50) feet of any dwelling,  apartment, tenement,  or other  inhabited
    buildings, or of any  reservoir,  well, artesion or otherwise,  lake, pond,  brook,  stream, river or
    drainage ditch." Sanitary Code. Sec. 1.2


                                             258

-------
Stables, Etc.

While in some cases detailed «no^;«^».-
here  limited  to  nr,fr,,-    ,  specincatlons for construction of stables are enacted, consideration is
condi o^' L «eSednh tShan"aH0n-  °Vera"  re'u^men,s to maintain  a "clean and  sanitary
^F^UISSr^l^y?" °rdlnanC£S °f Rhinela"d£r' Wisc0"sin' 'Dependence, Missouri, and

    "A!lSnedU[nS; T*' ^"^ stables' C°°PS °r yards wherein animals or fowl are kept, shall be
    ™ Code  Sec 1206^3,    ^""^ CO"dMon' free of rodents, vermin and  objectionable odors. .  .

    •'. . . Every stable or other structure wherein any horses,  mules, asses, ponies, goats, sheep, swine,
    or cattle are  kept shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary conouion at all  times devoid of all
    rodents and vermin, and free from objectionable odors. .  . ." Code, Sec. 3.12
    "Animals locations,  structures, pens, corral's and any other premises or structure used for the
    keeping of and maintaining of horses, cows, sheep, goats, rabbits, chickens, doves and pigeons or
    any other animals must be kept in a clean and  sanitary condition, free from obnoxious odors and
    substances. . . ." Code, Chaps. VII, Art. 1, Sec.  7

Specific requirements as to cleansing such facilities have been deemed necessary in certain cases,  as
per the following of Mobile, Alabama, Nashville and Davidson Counties, Tennessee, and Des Plaines,
Illinois, respectively:
    "Every stable, shed or lot where a horse, mule or cow is kept .  . . shall be thoroughly cleaned  at
    least once each day and every stable, shed, or other building in which such animals are kept shall
    have sufficient light to make cleaning practicable . . ." Code, Sec. 7-15
    ". . . Any owner, agent or occupant of any stable ... in which any horse,  cattle or swine or any
    other animal  shall be kept . . . who shall fail to comply with  the nocie of the (Health) Department
    to cleanse, remove or repair such stable  . .   or to keep  same  in a sanitary condition, shall be
    guilty of a misdemeanor." Public Health Code, Chap. 11
    "It shall be unlawful ... to construct any stable, barn or shed for the housing or keeping of horses
    or other animals on any lot on any street or alley in which a public sewer is constructed without
    providing the stable,  barn  or shed with an impervious floor  properly drained to the sewer."
    Code, Sec. 6-3-1

Characterization as nuisances is an approach to coping with unsanitary conditions which numerous
cities use, includihg three so geographically spaced as Portland, Oregon, Grand Forks, North Dakota,
and Concord, New Hampshire—whose ordinances, respectively, provide that:
    "Any barn, stable, shed, coop, or other building  or structure  of whatsoever kind or nature in
    which any domestic animal or domestic fowl is or  are kept or housed and which is unsanitary or
    unhealthful to man or beast, is hereby declared to  be a nuisance. The owner, occupant or person
    responsible for said building or  its conditions  shall upon 48 hours notice from the Bureau of
    Health forthwith abade said nuisance." Health &  Sanitation Code, Sec. 18-1802
    "Whenever any ..  . barn, stable, livery stable, cow yard,  shed, hog pen or sty ... shall be ... in
    such a condition... as  to  endanger the public  health,  the same ... is hereby  declared  a
    nuistance . . ." Code, Sec. 10-0104
    "No person .  . . shall keep or use any hog-pen, goat-pen, cmcken-coop, or barnyard so near to any
    highway, park, or  other public place, as to be offensive, or a menace to the public health, or
    offensive, or  a menace to any  person or persons residing on an adjoining  or abutting lot ... All
    petitions for the cleansing, removing, or abatement of any nuisance shall be made to the sanitary
    inspector . . . stating distinctly the character of such nuisance,  the premises where situated, and
    the reason for its removal or abatement . . ." Code, Sec. 11.5 and 11.6

Manure

To cope with a major byproduct of stables, San Antonio, Texas, requires that:
    "All manure and  other animal wastes from  livestock shall be  removed from pens,  corrals  or
    standings at  least  once each day. This material  shall be deposited in a  manure  storage bin of
    concrete or metal  construction and shall be provided with a fly-tight lid. Such manure and other
    animal wastes shall be removed from this bin at least once each week to a disposal site approved
    by the director of public health." Code, Sec. 6-14(b)

More frequent  summer-time removals  are  required by Des Moines, Iowa,  and  New Orleans,
Louisiana, respectively, to wit:
    "It shall be the duty of the owner or occupant or tenant or keeper of any boarding, sales, livery or
    other  stables, where any horse, mule, cow or other animal  is  kept,  to  remove or cause  to be
    removed, all manure from such stables or premises at least tw!ce weekly  from March  fifteenth to


                                             259

-------
     December first or oftener as deemed necessary and once a week from the first of December to Ihe
     fifteenth day of March, and such owner or occupant or tenant or keeper shall be required to store
     in fly-proof receptacles, not accessible to flies, all such manure pending its removal." Code. Sec.
     24-64
     "Any person,  firm or corporation, . . . having or permitting on his or its premises less than six
     horses,  mules, cows or other animals, shall remove or cause  to be removed daily all manure, and
     straw, hay or similar material used for bedding and contaminated with manure and/or urine . .  .
     which' matter shall be stored in leak-proof containers, having solid metal covers, tightly fitted so
     as to render the contents thereof inaccessible to flies. All such stored matter shall be removed
     from such premises not less than twice weekly from March fifteenth to December first and not less
     than once each week from December first to March  fifteenth.  Any person .  . . having .  . .  more
     than five horses, mules, cows or other animals shall remove . . . the contents thereof. . . from the
     premises daily . . ." Code. Sec. 29-60

A comprehensive chapter on the subject has been enacted by Louisville, Kentucky, which is briefed as
follows:
     "It shall be the duty of every  person .   .  having charge of any public or private stable, barn or
     place where . .  . livestock are kept, to have ... at all  times upon the premises ... a receptacle of
     sufficient dimensions  which shall  be flyproof from  March  to November of each  year, for the
     purposes of containing  the  droppings of manure .   .  each  day     . deposited therein .    the
     contents of  such receptacle to  be removed from the premises at least once a week and oftener if
     required by  the Health Department, such requirements applying to the period between March and
     November of  each year. No  receptacle shall be constructed  or  used for holding  manure, the
     bottom  of which  is below  the  surface of the surrounding earth,  unless it be constructed  of
     substantial cement or masonry and connected with the public sewers. Manure shall be removed . .
     . at the  expense of the owner .  . . and shall not be used as fertilizer . . . without the permission, in
     writing, from the Health Department. . . ." Code, Chap. 1103


Animal-Care Establishments

Sanitary  regulation  of kennels is exemplified by ordinances of Des Plaines, Illinois, (which includes
catteries), and Duluth, Minnesota (which includes dog and cat hospitals), respectively:
    "All dog kennels and catteries shall be kept free and  clean from decaying food and from filth of
    any kind. The kennels, buildings and pens shall be whitewashed or disinfected, from  time to time,
    and shall be kept  in a sanitary condition satisfactory to the Building Commissioner and Zoning
    Administrator  and the Health Officer." Code,  Sec. 5-4-13.7
    "It shall be  the duty of each operator of a  licensed dog and cat hospital to operate and maintain
    such hospital,  as well as all of its pens,  cates, runways and all the premises upon which  it is
    situated, or which constitute a  part of its operational area, in a  clean and sanitary manner, ... to
    dispose  of urine and fecal  material through an approved sewer system;  ... to keep  the premises
    vermin  free; and  to conduct its operations  in  such  a manner that no public nuisance will be
    created  . . ." Code, Sec. 6-31

Dead Animals

When the family pet,  or any  animal,  passes  on  he becomes  a.  different  type of sanitary  disposal
problem. As a class of urban refuse, "dead animals" are those that die naturally or from disease or are
accidentally  killed;  excluded are condemned or slaughtered animals. Common requirements are that
dead animals be  disposed of promptly but not by being deposited or  abandoned in any public place.
Considered  as a nuisance, Dayton, Ohio, asserts that:
     "It is hereby declared to be a nuisance and to be unlawful for  any person being the owner of an
     animal  to fail  to remove the carcass of any such animal within ten hours after the death of said
     animal; said removal shall  be either to  a point  beyond  the City corporate  limits or to any
     regularly established reduction plant for the disposal of carcasses . . ." Code, Sec. 835

Depositing carcasses in public places is treated briefly in Salina, Kansas, and at greater length in Des
Moines, Iowa, as reflected by their respective ordinances:
     "Any person who shall place any carcass of dead animals  .  . upon any street or alley, shall be
     guilty of a misdemeanor."  Code, Sec. 32-6
     "It shall be  unlawful for any person to place any dead animal in any street, alley or other public
     place in the city, or to allow any dead  animal,  which he owned, or of which he had control, to
     remain  in any  street, alley or other public  place or on the premises of any person within the city
     for more than five hours.


                                             260

-------
    within th" anf'ma' d'e '" any street- ailev or other public place or on the premises of any person
    death shall    '      "^ person who owr>ed or had possession and control of the animal prior to
    dips  n rf i   em°ve or callse to be removed the carcass within five hours from the time the animal
      es  ana nave the same desiccated or cremated. It shall be the duty of the owner, possessor and
    all persons having knowledge of any dead animal in the city to report the same  to the department
    ot public health, giving  the name of the person who owned or had possession or control of the
    animal prior to its death and the place where the same may be found and it shall be the duty of
    the department of public health to immediately notify the person who owned or had possession
    and control of such  animal  to cause the  same  to be removed  and desiccated or  cremated as
    provided by ... this Code." Code, Sec. 5-15 and 5-16

Carcasses in water or waterways are of course particularly objectionable and their placement in such
situations is proscribed by various ordinance  including those of St.  Paul,  Minnesota, Grand  Forks,
North Dakota, and Ogden, Utah, which follow (with emphasis supplied) respectively:
    ••No owner or possessor  of any animal which shall have died shall suffer the same to lie on any
    public ground, street,  alley  or any private lot or place  within the city; nor shall  any person throw
    or leave any such animal . .  . into any pool of water in  said city." Code, Sec. 265.31
    ". . . no person shall throw, place, or deposit, or cause to be thrown, placed, or  deposited,  at any
    place within the city,  remains of any animal whatever and no person shall allow or suffer  any
    horse, cow, ox, hog, or other animal belonging to him or in his charge,  which  may  come to its
    death by drowning or  otherwise, to be or lie in the Red River of the North, or in any other water*
    of said city, or  in or  upon any lot, ground, street, lane, avenue, or alley or other place  either
    public or private, within the city. . . ."  Code,  Sec. 10-0109
    "It shall be  unlawful  for  any  person  to leave exposed  in  any street, avenue, highway, alley,  lot,
    public ground or water course within  the city  the carcases of any dead animal, or any unsound
    meat, fish, or other substance or to permit the same to be done with his consent, ... It  shall be the
    duty of all persons owning or having charge of animals, which shall die or be found dead, to have
    the said dead animals  removed, at his or their own expense, to the city dump or  to an authorized
    by-products company,  . . . and if the persons whose duty it is to dispose of said animals . . . shall
    fail for twenty-four hours to discharge their duties as herein required, it shall be the  duty of the
    Health Official  to have the same disposed of at the expense of the  party whose duty it may be to
    dispose of the same."  Code, Sec. 15-1-2, 15-1-3

Moribund animals are also specifically within the proscription at Saginaw, Michigan,  whose ordinance
(emphasis supplied) stipulates that:
    "No person  shall deposit, place or throw any dead or fatally sick or injured animal   .  on any
    public or private place, or into or on the banks of, any stream, lake, pond, sewer, well or other
    body of water." Code,  Sec. 105.9

Disposal by incineration is prescribed by Des Plaines, Illinois,  which requires that:
    "Any person being the owner or occupant of any premises within this City, having a dead animal
    on the premises shall at once remove or cause the removal of the animal to the C  ity 1 ncinerator to
    be disposed of there."  Code, Sec. 6-3-5

Regulated burial is authorized in  some cases, usually as an alternative, in such ordinances (emphasis
supplied)  as those  of Dayton,  Ohio,  Oakland,  California,  Denver, Colorado, and Westport,
Connecticut, respectively:
         if any person shall place ... in any street, lane,  alley, lot, common, or water course . .  . the
    carcass of any  dead animal . . .  and shall leave the same exposed or imburied, such person .
    shall pay a fine . . ." Code,  Sec. 937
    "It shall be the duty  of  all persons having dead animals  upon premises,    .  to bury the same
    under at least four (4) feet  of packed earth cover, except cats, dogs of fowl and  birds, which shall
    be buried under at least three (3)  feet of packed earth cover, either upon the premises of the
    owner or upon the premises where such animal  if found,  or in other  approved burial  places for
    dead animals, or to have such dead animal  cremated  by private contract or by  the City Pound . .
     " Code, Sec. 3-9.21
    "It shall be the duty of the  owner of any animal found  dead .  .  . within six (6) hours after the
    death of said animal  to  arrange  for its removal  and  burial or rendering in accordance with  . .
    applicable law." Code, Sec. 750.7-2 (2)
    "No small  dead animals  shall be disposed of except as herein provided. It  may  either  (a) be
    buried in * hole and covered with dirt to a depth of at least  two feet, or (b) be  prepared for
    disposal at the disposal area by placing it in a carton,  heavy paper  bag or burlap sack clearly
    labeled -Dead  Animal' in  large letters and shall  not be  intermixed  with  garbage."  Refuse
    Ordinance Art. Vll

                                              261

-------
However,  other cities forbid burial (as  in the case of Duluth,  Minnesota),  though often  narrowly
limited exceptions are provided (as in the case of Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Saginaw, Michigan. Their
ordinances (with emphasis supplied) follow, respectively:
    ".  . No such owner or possessor of any such animal shall suffer the same to lie on or be buried in
    any public grounds, street, lane or alley  or any private lot or place within the city." Code, Sec.
    24-27
    "It  shall be unlawful for any person to bury and dead animal  upon property within the city except
    in duly  constituted cemeteries and  no dead animal shall be otherwise disposed of except as
    hereinafter provided." Code, Sec. 4.12.180
    "No person shall  bury any   . . animal ... in the city except that the owner or occupant of any
    unplatted property may bury thereon any dead animal  owned by him dying on such premises,
    after having obtained a written permit to do so from the Health Officer. Such burial shall be made
    at a distance of not less than two hundred (200) yards from any residence and the carcass shall be
    placed underground and well covered with at least four  (4) feet of earth from the surface of the
    ground to the upper part of the carcass." Code, Sec. 105.10

Specific contract disposal is utilized in Denver, Colorado, whose pertinent ordinance provides that:
    "The Manager of Public Works is hereby authorized and directed ... to contract for the removal
    of carcasses of all dead  animals lying in the streets, alleys, or other public ways and places of the
    City and County of Denver, or on private premises therein. The Contractor . . . shall execute ... a
    bond ... of Ten  Thousand Dollars .  . . conditioned for the faithful and punctual performance of
    the  duties imposed . . . The Contractor . . . shall have the exclusive right to remove and dispose of
    all carcasses of dead animals found  lying in  the   . . public ways and places ... or on private
    premises . . . not removed by the owner within six (6) hours of daylight time following the death
    of such animal. It shall  be the duty of the Contractor, twenty-four (24) hours after notification of
    the  whereabouts of any  dead animal,  to remove and dispose of the same. Utmost precaution shall
    be used in the removal of such dead animals, that the same may be  conveyed in the most
    inoffensive manner possible.  . . ." Code, Sec. 750.7-3

Public officers are responsible for removal of dead animals in various jurisdictions as typified by the
ordinances of Saginaw, Michigan, and Independence, Missouri, which follow:
    "Any  dead animal or part thereof, lying upon any street, alley or public place, shall be removed
    by the Police Department forthwith.  If any dead animal, or part thereof, is upon private property,
    the  owner or person in charge of such animal at the time of its death shall dispose of the same, or
    shall immediately report the facts to  the Police Department, which department shall remove such
    animal forthwith. When any  dead animal, or part thereof, is removed from the  private property
    by the Police Department, a fee shall be charged to the owner of the animal for such  removal,
    which fee shall be determined by administrative  regulation." Code, Sec. 105.12
    "The public humane officer shall be responsible  for the prompt removal of all dead animals found
    within the city whenever reported to him or when requested to do so by the director of health.
    The removal and disposal of dead animals shall be by a sanitary method approved by the director
    of health. No person owning or having in his possession a carcass of any animal . . . shall suffer
    the same to be or remain in or on any . . . public ground, or any private lot or  place without at
    once giving immediate notice thereof to the chief of police or public humane officer. In case  the
    owner or person having charge of any dead animal  shall  neglect or refuse to remove the  same
    within ten  (10)  hours  of its death, the public humane  officer,  director  of health,  or police
    department shall cause  the same to  be removed at the expense of such owner or person having
    charge of the same, such expense to be recovered by civil action. Whenever  the owner of any dead
    animal cannot  be found or ascertained, it shall be the duty of the public humane officer, health
    department, or police department to  cause such animal to be removed and buried at the expense
    of the city, in a method and manner  prescribed by the director of public health."  Code,  Sees. 3.21
    -3.23
PRODUCE MARKETS

Varied approaches  to cleanliness in and  around public market areas are typified by  ordinances
received from various cities. Their construction is regulated by an ordinance of San Antonio, Texas,
which requires that:

    "Curb or farmers' markets in which fruit or vegetables or any other food products are exposed
    and offered for sale . . .  shall have floors paved with concrete or asphalt for the entire surface area
    of the market. . . ." Code, Sec. 18-50


                                            262

-------
Sanitation requirements are incorporated into leases for market spaces in Richmond, Virginia, under
uniform contracts which include a provision that:
    "the lessee will  keep the space leased  in a clean and  sanitary condition at all  times and will
    dispose of his refuse in a manner and at the place required by the director; . . ." Code, Sec. 9-9

This is backed up by  an ordinance which declares that, among other things:

    "It shall  be unlawful  for any  farmer or  other person using leased space in any building in the
    market areas: (1) To  fail, refuse  or neglect to keep the leased space in a  clean  and sanitary
    condition at all  times: (2) To fail, refuse or neglect to dispose  of his refuse in a manner or at
    the place required by the director, . . ." Code, Sec. 9-11

Substantially the same requirements apply to:
    "Every farmer selling or offering farm products for sale on a street in the market areas (who)
    shall keep the space in the street so used in a clean and sanitary condition at all times and shall
    dispose of his refuse in a manner and at  the place or places required by the director." Code, Sec.
    9-13

San Antonio imposes several specific requirements for cleansing, asserting that:
    "(a) All  vegetable and fruit  stands  shall be  thoroughly cleaned by occupants  and ready for
    inspection by the market master by ten o'clock a.m. on each day" and "(d) Occupants  of stands
    are required to assist in keeping clean the immediate vicinity  of the stands in their charge, and
    shall keep on hand the necessary brooms and other tools for that purpose." Code, Sec. 21-9

San Antonio also governs operations of the produce stands via four-stage provisions for "disposal of
garbage and waste" which ascent in intensity as follows:
    "(a) No leaves or litter of any kind shall be thrown upon the floor while vegetables are being
    cleaned or picked over, but  such leaves  and other matter must be placed in  a  container and
    transferred to the garbage can in the rear of all stands; (b) All rotten or decayed vegetable matter
    to be disposed of must be placed in  the garbage can immediately after being picked over and such
    garbage can shall be  kept  covered; (c)  Slightly decayed fruits and  other such substances to be
    removed from the market places as soon as possible;  and (d) All spoiled or unsaleable meat and
    offal must be placed  in a  well-covered garbage  can  or  immediately removed from  the market
    places." Code, Sec. 21-10

FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS

Akin to tne produce markets are various food-processing and food-handling establishments which are
customarily subjected to detailed  and stringent sanitary  regulations. While  these customarily and
predominantly relate to their interior facilities  and internal operations, our interest here is confined to
"externals"—cleanliness of premises and environs and disposition of waste.

Slaughter Houses and  Meat Packing

With  respect  to the  premises  of meat-processing  establishments, Saginaw,  Michigan,  has in its
comprehensive ordinance a relatively simple provision  that:
    "Any slaughterhouses,  pens and enclosures connected  therewith shall be kept in a clean, sanitary
    condition free from an accumulation of refuse, garbage and offensive material, and nuisances of
    every kind." Code, Sec.  1004.17

The  physical  premises are emphasized  in  a provision of the   Meat  Inspector Ordinance of
Albuquerque,  New Mexico that:
    "The premises of every establishment, including the docks and  areas where cars and vehicles are
    loaded and unloaded, and the driveways,  approaches, yards, pens, and alleys should be paved, or
    properly graded  and drained, and  kept clean and  in an  orderly condition."  Ord. No. 1503  of
    4128/59, Sec. 20(A)

 Hawaii County, Hawaii, carries virtually the same language, adding  that:
    "All catch basins on the premises shall be of such construction and location  and be given such
    attention  as will insure  their being kept in acceptable condition as regards odors and cleanliness.
    The accumulation on the premises of any material is which flies may breed, such as  hog hair,
    bones, paunch contents, or manure, is forbidden.  . . ." Ord. No. 47, Sec. 7(f>

Paving  is specified in the  ordinances  of Little Rock,  Arkansas, and of Nashville  and  Davidson
Counties, Tennessee,  which respectively prescribe that:
    "All yards  pens  chutes and alleys adjacent  to  the abbattoir  shall be concreted and  kept in  a
    sanitary condition." Code. Sec. I4-46IJ)


                                             263

-------
    "The premises inside and out shall be well drained and kept free of debris, flies, vermin, insects,
    rodents, dust, and kept in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Holding pens, alleys, loading
    areas and ramps shall be properly paved and kept clean, well drained and free of vermin.  .  "
    Public Health Code. Sec. 3.208

Des Moines, Iowa, stresses "materials" and "facilities" in two provisions which prescribe that:
    "All pens, chutes, alleyways . . . and all floors thereof, of any stockyard, salebarn, packing house,
    slaughterhouse or other place where animals are confined shall be constructed of material capable
    of being washed, cleaned and disinfected." Code, Sec. 24-83
    "All stockyards,  salebarns, packing  houses, slaughterhouses,  and other places where  animals
    are confined      shall  be  equipped with water facilities adequate to wash and hose  all pens,
    chutes, alleyways and floors thereof, and with adequate and proper drainage." Code, Sec. 24-82

Waste  disposal  from  meat-processing  establishments  is  governed   in  Saginaw,  Michigan,  by
requirements that:
    "Water-tight, fly-tight, properly covered, metal containers shall be provided for temporary storage
    of waste and garbage. All bones and meat scraps shall be kept in a refrigerator in covered metal
    containers. Waste and garbage shall be removed and cans washed as frequently as is necessary to
    prevent any nuisance or unsanitary condition." Code, Sec. 1514.1

The requirement in Albuquerque, New Mexico, is similar:
    "All waste shall be properly disposed of, and  all inedible  products and  trash shall be kept in
    suitable receptacles in  such a manner as not to become a nuisance. Containers used for the
    collection and holding of solid wastes  shall be kept covered or otherwise protected at all times so
    that such wastes shall not be accessible to flies, rodents, or other vermin."

Little Rock, Arkansas, governs waste  disposal at fish-dressing plants and at poultry-and rabbit-dress-
ing plants under identical provisions that:
    "Waste matter  as hereinafter defined  must be disposed of as follows: (a) Liquid wastes. Proper
    facilities must be provided for the collection and disposal of all liquid wastes, including blood,
    floor washings,  and other material. These wastes shall not  be  discharged on the surface of the
    ground nor into a flowing stream or body of water that may endanger a public or private water
    supply or be determined to public health, (b) Solid wastes. Offal, fat, refuse and waste  material
    must be placed in covered metal  containers and disposed of in a  sanitary manner  immediately
    after the day's operation. All garbage  receptacles shall be washed when emptied and treated with
    a disinfectant. . . ." Code, Sees. 14-69  find 14-103

Twin Falls, Idaho, provides rather broadly that:
    "It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, place or conduct into or upon any  street, alley, lot,
    or into any  aqueduct, glitter or canal, any putrid or unsound meat, fish,  hides, or  skins of any
    kind, or filth, offal, dead animals,  vegetables, or any unsound or offensive matter whatsoever;
    provided, however, that this section shall not apply to the  spreading of manure upon land for the
    purpose of fertilizing the soil." Code, Art. IV, Sec. 10 Ip. 1012)

FOOD  HANDLING ESTABLISHMENTS

The environmental sanitation and waste disposal aspects of businesses purveying or  serving food are
covered  in  greater  or less detail in  various  ordinances examined. The comprehensive  "Food
Ordinance" of Hazel  Park,  Michigan, which provides thorough inspection procedures contains only
two brief specifice, to the effect that:
    "The premises of all  food  establishments shall be kept clean and free of litter  or rubbish" and
    "All wastes shall be properly  disposed of and all garbage and rubbish shall be kept in suitable
     receptacles in such a manner as not to become a nuisance.  . . ." Ord.  No. 347 of 1110164, Sees. 32
    find 28.

In its "Food Service  Sanitation Ordinance" Albuquerque, New Mexico, offers  greater  specifics,
especially as to waste disposal,  in providing that:
    "All parts of the establishment and its premises shall be  kept neat, clean, and free of litter and
     rubbish. ..."  and  "All  refuse  containing food wastes  shall,  prior to disposal, be kept  in
     leakproof, nonabsorbent containers which shall be kept covered with  tightfitting lids when filled
     or stored, or not in continuous use;  provided, that such containers need not be covered when
     stored in a special vermm-proofed room or enclosure, or in a food-waste  refrigerator.  All other
     refuses shall be  stored in containers,  rooms, or  areas  in an approved manner.  The rooms,
     enclosures, areas, and containers  used shall be adequate for  the storage of all refuse accumulating
     on the premises. Adequate cleaning facilities shall be provided, and each container, room, or area
     shall be thoroughly cleaned after the emptying or removal  of refuse. Food-waste grinders, if used,


                                             264

-------
    constructi'nStA!fd  '" compliance  wi
-------
    crop under cultivation, to grow to a greater height than twelve (12) inches upon any such real
    property within 150 feet  of any  property line, or within 50  feet of any residence, barn  or
    commercial building . . .It shall be the duty of such person to keep the area from the line of his
    propertv to the curb line  next adjacent to it free  and clear of weeds, brush and objectionable
    vegetation . . ." Ord. No. 223 of 5112164, Sec. 2

Noxious Weeds

Similar requirements, but focussed upon "noxious" vegetation, are found in the Ogden, Utah, and
Salina, Kansas, stipulations that:
    "It shall be  unlawful for any person   . .  controlling  any real property   . .  to allow weeds  or
    noxious vegetable growth to grow  and remain in or upon such real property or in alleys abutting
    thereon, or the  sidewalk areas in the front thereof to any height exceeding one foot." Code, Sec.
    15-1-27
    "It shall be unlawful for any  . . .  person in charge of  any lot or piece of land within the  city  to
    permit the growth thereon or in the streets and alleys in front of and abutting upon any such lot  or
    piece of land of weeds, rank grass or other obnoxious growths of vegetation . . ." Code, Sec. 15-40

The Bettendorf,  Iowa,  ordinance not  only lists "noxious" weeds (sow thistle,  Canada  thistle,  bull
thistle, European morning glory or field bindweed, horse nettle, leafy spurge, pepper-grass, Russian
knapweed, butterprint,  cocklebur, wild mustard, wild carrot, buckhorn,  sheep sorrel, sour dock,
smooth dock, puncture vine) but relates destruction requirements to their life cycle, thus:
    "The owner and person in the possession or control of any lands within the city shall cut, burn,  or
    otherwise destroy all noxious weeds thereon at such times in each year and in such manner  as
    shall prevent such weeds from blooming or coming to maturity . . . Noxious weeds shall be cut  or
    otherwise destroyed on or before June 10 of each year and as often thereafter as is necessary  to
    prevent  seed reproduction.11 Code, Sec. 7.15 (b) and (c)

Specialized definitions of weeds subjected to controls are written into the Albuquerque, New Mexico,
and San Francisco, California ordinances, respectively as follows:
    ". . . shall include, but shall not be limited to tumbleweeds, grass and all rank, noxious, poisonous,
    harmful, unhealthful vegetation, and any growth whatsoever of an offensive nature or deleterious
    to health." Ord. No. 270J of 8110165, Sec. 2  (6)
    "All weeds . . . which bear seeds of a wingy or downy  nature or attain such a large growth as  to
    become  a fire menace when dry, or which are otherwise noxious or dangerous . . ." Public  Works
    Code, Sec. 741

The Nuisance Concept

A usual regulatory procedure is to declare stipulated weeds  a "nuisance" which can then be abated by
city forces at the owner's expense  when he has failed after due notice, to take the corrective action.  A
very sweeping provision aimed  in that direction is that of Grand Forks, North Dakota, asserting that:
    "All weeds growing within the limits of the City are hereby declared to be a common nuisance
    and  it shall be the  duty of every person owning, occupying, or in charge of any premises,  lot,  or
    parcel of land in said city to keep  such premises, lot, or parcel of land free from all weeds  and  to
    cut and  destroy the same at all times during the growing season." Code, Sec. 10-0115

Time Cycles for Clearance

Regulatory  ordinances  sometimes provide  rather  specified schedules for  cutting  and  removing
weeds—such as the following of Wethersfield, Connecticut, Lincoln, Nebraska,  and  New Rochelle,
New York, respectively:
    "In  May and August of each year every  . . person in possession of land shall cut to a height  of
    not more than eight inches all weeds and similar vegetation . . ." Ordinance of 11119162, Sec. 1
    "It shall be the duty of every owner of real estate ... to cut and clear ... all weeds and worthless
    vegetation on or before the fifteenth day of May, again on or before the first day of July, again  on
    or before the fifteenth day of August, and again on or before  the fifteenth day of November  of
    each year. .  . ." Ord. No. 3780 of 11/18140,  Sec. 1
    "It shall be  the duty of any owner, lessee  or occupant of any lot or land to cut and remove .  . .
    weeds, grass or other rank, poisonous or  harmful  vegetation as often as may be necessary
    provided that cutting and removing such weeds, grass  and vegetation at least once in every three
    weeks between  May 15 and September 15 shall be deemed to be a complian . . ." Code, Sec. 11-9
                                            266

-------
Refuse—Combination and Concealment

In its regulatory ordinance definitions, St. Paul,  Minnesota makes the point (emphasis supplied) that
weeds have other than their own inherent vices where public sanitation is concerned:
    ". .  . The word 'weeds' shall also be construed 10 mean .  . . high and rank vegetable growth that
    may conceal filthy deposits." Cmle. Sec. 456.01

In similar vein, Ogden, Utah, notes "pollution of water" (emphasis supplied) among the deleterious
possibilities justifying weed control, thus:
    "It  is the purpose ... to establish a means . . .  (for) the  removal or abatement of injurious and
    noxious weeds, and of garbage,  refuse, or unsightly or deleterious objects or structures ... It is
    hereby declared that  the above  listed weeds, objects and structures shall  constitute a nuisance
    when they create a fire hazard, a source of contamination,  or pollution of water, air or property, a
    danger to  health,  a breeding  place  or habitation for  insects or rodents or other  forms of life
    deleterious  to human habitations or are unsightly or deleterious to their surroundings." Coite.
    Sec. 15-3-1

Examples of refuse bracketed with vegetation are shown below (with emphasis supplied) in the weed
control ordinances of Richmond. California,  Greensboro, North Carolina, and Daytona Beach,
Florida, respectively:
    "It shall  be unlawful ... to cause or permit any weeds, or lo place, cause or permit any rubbish,
    to be or remain on any real property  in the City .  . ." Ord.  No. 1457 oj 8/23165, Sec. 3
    "Every person owning or occupying any premises in the city shall keep such premises free from
    noxious weeds, trash ami all other forms of offensive animal or vegetable matter or refuse which
    may be dangerous or  prejudicial to the public health or which may constitute a public nuisance."
    Code, Sec. 8-20
    "If at any time the commission shall deem  it necessary . . .  that any lot, tract, or parcel of land . . .
    be cleaned of weeds, trash, undergrowth, brush, filth, garbage or other refuse, it shall have power
    to direct and require the owner ... to clean the same . . ."  Code, Sec. 16

GARDEN REFUSE

Tree trimmings, grass clippings and other types of lawn and garden refuse are often included in  bans
upon the throwing or  depositing of litter, as exemplified  by  the  pertinent ordinances of Pnchard,
Alabama, Sturgis, Michigan, and Scottsdale, Arizona,  respectively:
    "It shall be unlawful .  . to place, throw, deposit, or ... cause to be placed ... or left  on any street,
    alley or driveway,  between the curb  lines thereof. . . . any trash from lawns, cuttings from lawn,
    cuttings from trees, or any other debris of any kind or description of a nature likely to  stop up or
    impede the flow of water through  the storm sewers or other drains . . ." Ord.  No.  389 of 112140,
    Sec. 1
    "It shall be unlawful ... to throw, scatter, sweep, deposit or leave in any public street, sidewalk,
    alley, parkway, or  public parking lot or upon any other grounds, either public or private, any . . .
    leaves, grass, clippings, garden wastes, trees, branches of trees, shrubbery or other litter."  Ord.
    No.  46-A, Sec. 1
    "No paper, lawn cuttings or rakings, leaves, weeds, ashes,  or any refuse material whatsoever shall
    be thrown or  swept  into any street, gutter, sewer,  alley, vacant lot, park, greenbelt, or other
    property  whether public or  private. It shall be the duty of every owner, occupant, or person in
    charge of any property at all  times  to maintain said  premises in a clean and orderly  condition,
    permitting no  deposit or accumulation of materials other than those ordinarily attendant upon the
    day to day use for which said premises are use. . . ."  Ord.  No. 116 of 5116161, Sec. 5
The location of lawn and garden refuse, when placed for collection, is regulated by such ordinances as
those of Daytona Beach, Florida, and Modesto, California, which follow:
    "Grass, leaves, small  twigs, branches, yard trimmings, etc., shall be neatly  piled together on the
    parking or next to the street line so they may be handled with ease, but no such piling shall be
    done in the street, gutters, nor so that water may wash it into other locations.    " Code. Sec.
    17-14
    "The following regulations shall govern the placement of  garden refuse for collection by the City.
    (a) Place  Persons desiring to have garden refuse collected by the City shall place it in the abutting
    alley if one exists. Where alleys do not exist, garden refuse shall be placed in  the abutting street
    for collection  (b)  Location. Garden refuse placed in streets shall be placed  in a compact manner
    and  shall  not  extend  into the street more  than four (4') feet, nor shall the closest edge of the pile
    be placed less than one (D  foot from the face of the curb, or in case no curb exists, from the low
                                             267

-------
    point of the gutter, so as to permit drainage. Garden refuse placed in alleys shall be placed in a
    compact manner and shall not extend into the alley more than three (3') feet, (c) Piling. Garden
    refuse shall be placed in a single compact pile and only in front of, in the rear of, or on the side
    of, as the case may be,  the property where it was accumulated, td) Quantity. Not more than two
    (2) cubic yards of garden  refuse shall be placed in the street or alley for any one collection, (e)
    Size. All tree limbs, cuttings or shrubbery put out for collection shall not exceed eight (8') feet in
    length or six (6") inches in diameter, and no single piece shall weigh more than fifty (50) pounds.
    (f) Containers. When practicable,  alt  small refuse, (grass, clippings, leaves, twigs, etc.) shall be
    placed  in containers of not more than twenty (20) gallons capacity;  provided,  however  that
    between October  1 and December 31 of each year, leaves need not be placed in containers.
    Containers used for small refuse shall be removed from the street or alley on the same day  they
    are emptied, (g) Time. Garden refuse  shall be put out for collection not  later than 7 o'clock  a.m.
    on collection day,  and shall not be placed in the street more than  one (1) day prior to the day of
    collection.  . . ."

In Hawaii  the collection of garden refuse is governed  by  such dimensional regulations as Honolulu's
stipulation that:
    "All rubbish consisting of tree branches, tree trunks  and stumps,  hedge  and plant cuttings, palm
    and coconut branches, vinces and other similar materials shall be cut into lengths not exceeding
    three feet and  shall be tied in bundles which shall not  weigh more than 50 pounds each." Orel. No.
    1478 of 1215155. Sec. 3(a)

Neighboring Maui County's similar provision (Code, Sec.  16-1.3) allows a 75 pound weight per bundle
and limits stumps to 75 pounds, but is otherwise identical.
Mobile, Alabama,  also regulated primarily in terms of dimension and weight,  thus:
    "Any person desiring  to place tree trimmings or hedge cuttings or shrubbery of any kind for
    removal shall  cause the same to be securely  tied in bundles not heavier than seventy-five pounds
    nor more than five feet in  length nor more than eighteen inches in diameter. Not more than  two
    bundles shall be placed for removal on any one  collection day. Ten bundles shall be placed in the
    same place, time and manner as provided for garbage and only on  regularly designated collection
    days." Code, Sec. 24-9
Special Situations

For the benefit of persons in the lawn-care and related businesses, Scottsdale, Arizona, provides for a
revocable  permit  to exempt them from a ban on private collection of trash, etc.  and thus facilitate
their work:
    "... any person engaged in the business  of priming and caring for trees, shrubs and flowers and
    the care and mowing of lawns may remove any rubbish resulting therefrom after first obtaining a
    permit so as to do from the Town Clerk . . ." Ord.  No. 7 of 2113/52, Sec. 11

Special authorization  for  compost is provided  in  the Boise,  Idaho,  ordinance, which specifies
(emphasis supplied) that:
    "Trash consisting only of pasteboard, or wooden boxes, brush, leaves,  weeds and cuttings from
    trees, lawns,  shrubs and gardens may be kept separately without  depositing same in  cans or
    receptacles.  Compost piles may be maintained for fertilization purposes,  and matter used for
    fertilization purposes only may be transported, kept and used. . . ." Code, Sec. 8-10-10
DISCHARGE INTO SEWERS

All of the previously discussed categories deal with potential pollutants which may find their way into
sewers—storm sewers, primarily—as  a result of natural or  rainstorm  drainage, but in a basically
unintentional manner. This final category, however, deals with pollutants which are introduced into
sewers intentionally.  More  accurately they are substances sought to be so  introduced  but  which
governing  authorities  seek  to debar from  entry. The regulation and prohibition  of particular
discharges into sewers may be approached in  relation to  the  recipient sewer or the  substances  in
question.  Both are considered in  a standard reference in the field—Special  Report No. 23  of the
American  Public Works  Association, a  1959  booklet of "Guide-Lines for  Drafting  a  Municipal
Ordinance on Industrial  Waste  Regulations  and Surcharges" by Edward J.  Cleary. It  includes
"suggested phraseology for an ordinance" which is subsequently cited.
                                             268

-------
 Sanitary Sewers


 In communities with separate systems of storm and  sanitary sewers there should  be a prohibition
 against the use ot sanitary sewers for any purpose other than the carriage of sewage and industrial
 wastes. TheCleary  'suggested phraseology from APWA Special Report 23  provided that:
     "No person shall cause to be discharged any storm water, sub-surface drainage, ground-water.
     roof runoff, cooling water or unpolluted water into any sanitary sewer."  Sec. .101

 In substantial conformity is the Milford, Delaware, stipulation that:
     "No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any storm water, surface  water, ground
     water, roof runoff, sub-surface drainage, cooling water or unpolluted industrial process waters to
     any sewer designated by the Council as a sanitary sewer." Code. Sec. 411.3.C

 Different in language but of similar import is the Prichard, Alabama, provision that:
     "It shall be unlawful ...  to cause or allow . .  . any discharge of surface waters  or other waters
     customarily and naturally discharging into drains,  ditches,  storm sewers or substitutes therefor,
     into any portion of the Sanitary Sewage System . . ." On1. No. 556 of 5119152

 A  particular  reference  to  construction excavations was  recently enacted  at  Miami,  Florida,  in
 providing that:
     "It shall be illegal to discharge waste water from a construction excavation into a city sanitary
     sewer." Code. Sec. 54-9

 Des Moines, Iowa, acts to protect its sanitary sewerage system against "deleterious" matter in this
 manner:
     "The sewage shall not contain any substance which is deemed deleterious to the operation of the
     sewerage system. If the user of the sewer system contributes any objectionable substances he shall
     be required to discontinue the discharge of such substance into the sanitary sewer system. If after
     due notice he continues to permit  the discharge of any  deleterious  substance into the sanitary
     sewer system  he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each calendar day in which  he continues to
     permit the discharge of any objectionable substance into the sanitary sewer shall be considered as
     a separate  violation." Code, Sec. 48-41

 Combined or Storm Sewers

 In relation to recipient sewers used wholly or in part for storm-water drainage, the Cleary phraseology
 in the APWA report specifies that:
     "Storm water, surface drainage, sub-surface drainage, ground water,  roof run-off, cooling water
     or unpolluted water may be admitted to such sewers as  are specifically designated as combined
     sewers or storm sewers and which  have  adequate capacity for their accommodation.  No person
     shall use such  sewers without first having obtained the consent  of the  Approving Authority." Sec.
    302

 The Milford, Delaware, stipulation substantially conforms, thus:
    "Storm waters  and all other unpolluted  drainage shall  be discharged to such sewers as  are
    designated as combined sewers by Council or to a natural outlet approved by Council. Industrial
    cooling water  and air conditioning water may be discharged, upon approval of the Council, to a
    storm sewer or natural outlet." Code. Sec. 411.3.C

 Miami, Florida provides for conditional acceptance of construction waste-water in its new provision
 that:
    "It shall be illegal to discharge waste water from construction excavations into a city storm sewer
    until the rules, regulations and requirements of the Department of Public Works governing such
    discharge have  been fulfilled  and a  permit  has  been obtained from said  Department  allowing
    same." Code, Sec. 54-10

Specific Wastes

Prohibitions of limitations based on the nature of waste discharges  may be broadly classified as falling
into four categories  First  are those which  may  directly  or indirectly  impair the construction and
durability of the sewer system  or its hydraulic functioning. Second are those wastes  that may have a
deleterious effect  on  the  treatment-plant structures  or processes.  Third,  there  are  wastes  whose
pollmional effect is not mitigated by (he treatment process and whose presence in the receiving stream


                                             269

-------
would  violate stale or interstate standards of water quality. And finally, there are wastes  whose
presence in the sewers could create a hazard to public health and safety, or which otherwise might
cause conditions inimical to the public interest.
For  the  purposes  of this study the third category is  of primary, and  the  second of secondary,
importance.  The third class, wastes that have harmful characteristics not  modified by the treatment
process, may cause concentrations in the receiving stream that are inimical to persons, livestock or
aquatic-life.  A municipality  must carefully guard  against  discharging  into  a stream  an effluent
containing  radioactivity  or  toxic  substances.  Wastes  that  should be prohibited because  of their
possible effect on  the treatment works include  those that contain inert solids (e.g., cinders, sand,
feathers, bones, hair, wood products, plastics and viscous substances) wastes of large volume having
either a low or high pH value (say below 5.5 or above 9.5), which may result in damage or hazard to
treatment-plant  processing,  and  wastes containing metallic ions, which  may inhibit  treatment
functions. Such  interferences with treatment processes might result in downstream pollution that
would not otherwise occur.
The  Cleary-APWA  phraseology  provides,  under "Prohibitions  and Limitations," the following
pertment specifies:
    "Except as hereinafter provided, no person shall discharge into the public  sewers: (a) any solids,
    liquids or gases which by themselves or by interaction with other substances may  ... be injurious
    to ... the operation of the sewage-disposal works; . . . (b) any solids, greases, slurries or viscous
    material  of such character or in such  quantity that, in the opinion of the  Approving Authority,
    may      interfere with the proper  functioning of the sewage-disposal  works; (c)  any toxic
    substances, chemical elements or compounds in quantities sufficient to impair the operation or
    efficiency of the sewage-treatment facilities, or that will pass through the sewage-treatment plant
    and cause the effluent thereof to exceed state or interstate water-quality requirements for the
    receiving stream; (d) any liquids having a pH lower than	or higher than	, or having any
    corrosive  property cabable of causing damage or hazards to ... the sewage disposal works; (e)
    any radioactive isotopes without obtaining a special permit from the Approving Authority; (f) any
    liquid or vapor having a temperature greater than	degrees Fahrenheit; (g) any garbage that
    has not been ground or shredded." Sec. 303

It thereupon suggests a  so-called  special-agreements clause  to vest discretion with the approving
authority to negotiate arrangements on discharge of wastes of an unusual character. To permit the
exercise of administrative flexibility, the wording suggested is:
    "No statement contained in this article shall be construed as prohibiting any special agreement or
    arrangement between the City and any person whereby an industrial waste  of unusual strength or
    character may be admitted to the sewage disposal  works, either before or after pretreatment,
    provided that there is no impairment of the functioning of the sewage-disposal works by reason of
    the admission  of such wastes, and no extra costs are incurred  by the City without recompense  by
    the person." Sec. 304

Of similar import,  and with specifics provided, Milford, Delaware,  requires that:
    "Except as hereinafter provided, no person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any  of the
    following described  waters or  wastes  to  any public  sewer:. (I) any  liquid or vapor having a
    temperature higher than 150  F; (2) any water or waste which may contain more than 100 parts
    per million by weight, or fat, oil or grease;  (3)  any gasoline, benzene, naptha, fuel oil. or other
    flammable or explosive liquid, solid or gas; (4) any garbage that has not been properly shredded;
    (5) any ashes,  cinders, sand, mud, straw, shavings, metal,  glass, rags, feathers, tar, plastics,  wood,
    paunch manure or other solid or viscous substance capable of causing obstruction to the flow in
    sewers or other interference with proper operation of the sewage works; (6) any waters or wastes
    having a pH lower than 4.5 or higher than 9.0 or having any other corrosive property capable of
    causing damage or hazard to structures, equipment or  personnel of the sewage works: (7) any
    waters or wastes containing a  toxic or poisonous substance in sufficient quantity  to  injure or
    interfere with  any sewage treatment process, constitute a hazard to humans or animals or  create
    any hazard in  the receiving waters of the sewage treatment plant (toxic wastes shall include wastes
    containing cyanide, copper and/or chromium ions); (8) any waters or wastes containing suspended
    solids of such  character and quantity that unusual attention or expense is required to handle such
    materials at the sewage treatment plant except as may be approved by Council; (9) any noxious or
    malodorous gas or substance capable of creating a public nuisance." Sec. 411.3.D
                                            270

-------
                            Glossary

 "CLEAN "  WATERS—Used  waters  from industrial  and commercial
 operations which are unpolluted by such uses and are relatively equivalent
 to the quality of the waters prior to such uses.
 COMBINED SEWER—A sewer which receives and  transports sanitary
 sewage, with or without industrial wastes, and storm-water runoff.
 COMBINED  SEWER  OVERFLOW	The  discharge  into  receiving
 waters of liquid wastes from combined sewers through outlet structures
 which regulate the amounts of flows either carried by trunk sewers or
 disposed of into such receiving water resources.
 CURB-MILE—The  distance of one mile of single curb length, or the
 length of one side of a street or other thoroughfare (distinguished  from
 street-mile which normally represents two or more curbs or two sides of a
 street or other thoroughfare).
 DUST AND DIRT FRACTION—The portion of street refuse which is
 smaller than Ys inch size.
 MAXIMUM POLLUTIONAL POTENTIAL—The assumed amount of
 contaminants removed,  in solution or suspended form, by precipitation
 and  runoff waters from the maximum accumulation of street refuse
 between street cleaning operation. (In this  report, the term relates to the
 amount of BOD potentially removable from an accumulation of 14 days of
 street litter during a two-hour runoff period).
 PERVIOUS  SOIL—Natural  or  indigenous  soil  which permits surface
 waters to filter or leach into the ground by natural drainage or percolation.
 PRECIPITA TION—Includes all forms—such as rain, snow, sleet, etc.
 RUNOFF—The flow of waters from precipitation or thaw incidents  from
 gutters into  street inlets  or  from  other connections  into  storm  or
 combined-sewer systems.
 SEPARATE STORM SEWER—A sewer  which receives and transports
 storm-water runoff and not sanitary or industrial wastes.
 SEPARATE STORM  SEWER  DISCHARGES—'Waste waters which
 discharge  into receiving waters through  direct  outlet pipes whenever
 runoff waters flow through separate storm sewers.
 STREET REFUSE—Material which accumulates  on  streets and conti-
guous areas from various sources in the urban environment (term  used
 interchangeably with  street litter and street  debris).
                               271

-------
                        Abbreviations
avg.—average
BOD—Biochemical Oxygen Demand
cfm—cubic feet per minute
cfs—cubic feet per second
COD—Chemical Oxygen Demand
Cum.—Cumulative
cu. yd.—cubic yard
D/D—dust and dirt
D.U.—dwelling units
g—gram
gpm—gallons per minute
ha—hectare
kg—kilogram
Ib—pound
1—litter
Max.—Maximum
mg—milligram
Min.—Minimum
MPH—miles per hour
MPN—most probable number
N—Nitrogen
P—Phosphorus
PE—Population Equivalent
ppm—parts per million
RPM—revolutions per minute
wt.—weight
                              272
                                r U.S. GOVERNME
                                                 CE : 19690—338-180

-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC: American Public Works Association-Research Foundation,
     The Causes and Remedies of Water Pollution from Surface Drainage of
     Water  Pollution  Aspects  of  Urban   Runoff,  FWPCA  Publication
     No. WP-20-15, 1969.
ABSTRACT: The environmental  pollution factors and their potential pollu-
     tional effects resulting from the water-wastes interfacial  contracts
     during precipitation  and  runoff have  been  analysed based  upon
     collected  field  data  and theoretical  calculations. The  surface urban
     environment  factors studied included, street refuse and litter, catch
     basins, environmentally used chemicals, contributions from air pollu-
     tion and its control, and sewer solids  deposition.
     It was found that street refuse could present a significant pollution
     load.  It is estimated that a pollution load (measured in terms of BOD)
ACCESSION NO.:

KEYWORDS:

   Environmental Pollution

   Storm Water Pollution

   Urban Drainage

   Street Refuse

     Air Pollution-Dustfall

   Catch  Basins

   Ordinances
BIBLIOGRAPHIC: American Public Works Association-Research Foundation,
     The Causes and Remedies of Water Pollution from Surface Drainage of
     Water  Pollution  Aspects  of  Urban   Runoff,  FWPCA Publication
     No. WP-20-15, 1969.
ABSTRACT: The environmental  pollution factors and their potential pollu-
     tional effects resulting from the water-wastes interfacial  contracts
     during precipitation  and  runoff have  been  analysed  based  upon
     collected field data and theoretical  calculations. The surface urban
     environment  factors studied included, street refuse and litter, catch
     basins, environmentally used chemicals, contributions from air pollu-
     tion and its control, and sewer solids  deposition.
     It was found that street refuse could present a significant pollution
     load. It is estimated that a pollution load (measured in terms of BOD)
ACCESSION NO.

KEY WORDS:

   Environmental Pollution

   Storm Water Pollution

   Urban Drainage

   Street Refuse

    Air Pollution-Dustfall

   Catch Basins

   Ordinances
BIBLIOGRAPHIC: American  Public Works Association-Research Foundation,
     The Causes and Remedies of Water Pollution from Surface Drainage of
     Water  Pollution  Aspects  of  Urban  Runoff, FWPCA Publication
     No.  WP-20-15,  1969.
ABSTRACT: The environmental pollution factors and  their potential pollu-
     tional effects resulting  from the water-wastes  interfacial contracts
     during  precipitation  and  runoff have  been analysed  based  upon
     collected field data and theoretical calculations. The surface urban
     environment factors studied included, street refuse and litter, catch
     basins, environmentally used chemicals, contributions from air pollu-
     tion and its control, and sewer solids deposition.
    It was found that street refuse could present a significant pollution
    load.  It is estimated that a pollution load (measured in terms of BOD)
ACCESSION NO.:

KEY WORDS:

  Environmental Pollution

  Storm Water Pollution

  Urban Drainage

  Street Refuse

    Air Pollution-Dustfall

  Catch Basins

  Ordinances

-------
of (a) one percent of the total raw sewage or five percent of the total
secondary treatment effluent in terms of average daily  load,  and (b)
160 percent  of  the  raw  sewage and  800 percent of the secondary
effluent load, expressed in terms of the  shock pollution load on the
receiving body of water results from  the dust/dirt fraction of street
litter.
Findings and Recommendations are presented in summary form. Raw
data collected, survey questionnaires, and a comprehensive set of
"typical" ordinances governing a wide sampling of possible sources of
urban storm water pollution are compiled in the report.
This report was submitted  in fulfillment of  Contract  No.  WA66-23
between the Federal Water  Pollution Control  Administration and the
American Public Works Association-Research Foundation.
of (a) one percent of the total raw sewage or five percent of the total
secondary treatment  effluent in terms of average daily load, and (b)
160 percent of the raw sewage and 800  percent of the secondary
effluent load, expressed in  terms of the shock pollution load on the
receiving body of water results from the dust/dirt fraction of street
litter.
Findings and Recommendations are presented in summary form. Raw
data collected, survey questionnaires,  and a comprehensive  set  of
"typical" ordinances governing a wide sampling of possible sources of
urban storm water pollution are compiled in the report.
This report  was submitted in fulfillment  of Contract No. WA66-23
between the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and the
American Public Works Association-Research Foundation.
 Street Sweepers—Efficiency

 Storm Sewers

 Sewer Solids

 Combined Sewers

 Pesticides

 Salt-Ice Control

 Corrosion Inhibitors

 Economics

 Guidelines

 Roof Runoff
Street Sweepers—Efficiency

Storm Sewers

Sewer Solids

Combined Sewers

Pesticides

Salt-Ice  Control

Corrosion Inhibitors

Economics

Guidelines

Roof Runoff
of (a) one percent of the total raw sewage or five percent of the total
secondary treatment effluent in terms of average daily load, and (b)
160 percent of the raw sewage and 800  percent of the secondary
effluent load, expressed in  terms of the shock pollution load on the
receiving body of water results from the dust/dirt fraction of street
litter.
Findings and Recommendations are presented in summary form. Raw
data collected, survey questionnaires,  and a comprehensive set  of
"typical" ordinances governing a wide sampling of possible sources of
urban storm water pollution are compiled in the report.
This report  was submitted  in fulfillment  of  Contract  No.  WA66-23
between the Federal Water Pollution Control  Administration and the
American Public Works Association-Research Foundation.
Street Sweepers—Efficiency

Storm Sewers

Sewer Solids

Combined Sewers

Pesticides

Salt-Ice Control

Corrosion Inhibitors

Economics

Guidelines

Roof Runoff

-------