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
------- |