POLICIES
FOR
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
-------
-------
As a part of the Division of Engineering of the National Research Coun-
cil, the Committees on Pollution Abatement and Control perform study,
evaluation, or advisory functions through groups composed of individuals
selected from academic, governmental, and industrial sources for their
competence or interest in the subject under consideration. Members of
these groups serve as individuals contributing their personal knowledge
and judgments and not as representatives of any organization in which
they are employed or with which they may be associated.
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 77-606275
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PUBLICATION NO. 2018
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402 Price 50 cents
-------
FOREWORD
Within months following passage of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
of 1965, the fledgling Federal solid wastes program was carefully but
steadily awarding grant monies as authorized—for research, training,
demonstrations, and planning. Earlier Public Health Service solid-waste-
related activities were gathered into the new program. The range of even
these early grant titles indicates the diverse fields in which solutions
to the Nation's mounting solid waste problem were being sought.
Under authority of the Act, and because of the program'= limited in-
house research capabilities, the deepening and a broadening of the baseline
of the early investigations would depend heavily on the contract mecha-
nism. Funds authorized by the Act were not large, and, as with the grants,
the new Federal program had to exercise a high degree of selectivity in
selecting contracts from a wide range of projects judged to have the
greatest possibility for pay off in developing the most useful informa-
tion.
It was just at this time that the Spilhaus report Waste Management
and Control became available.1 "Descriptively, qualitatively, and com-
prehensively," the National Academy of Sciences and its National Research
Council had set forth the challenging pollution problem—of the Nation's
waters, air, and land—in all its pervasive complexity. For the first
time, the full array of discrete groups of factors that relate to
pollution were identified; areas where science and technology could
'•National Academy of Sciences—National Research Council, Committee
on Pollution. Waste management and control; a report to the Federal
Council for Science and Technology. Publication 1400. Washington,
NAS-NRC, 1966. 257 p. [Athelstan Spilhaus, chairman of the committee.]
- iii -
-------
effectively assist in controlling pollution were determined. The impact
of the NAS-NRC report was far-reaching. Its affirmation of waste
management contributed to changes in our concept of the intrinsic value
of waste, making more positive our attitude toward waste handling. Per-
haps the report's most significant influence was the impetus given to
the ecological approach to environmental impairment—how much pollution
can the environment absorb without detrimental, or even irreversible,
effect upon the balance of nature? Today, four years later, President
Nixon has voiced the Nation's growing concern in his State of the Union
message:
The great question of the seventies is, shall we
surrender to our surroundings, or shall we make our peace
with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage
we have done to our air, our land, and our water?
Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause
beyond party and beyond factions. It has become a
common cause of all the people of this country. It
is a cause of particular concern to young Americans—
because they more than we will reap the grim consequences
of our failure to act on programs which are needed now
if we are to prevent disaster later.
At the time of publication, in 1966, the relevance of Waste Manage-
ment and Control to the work of the young Federal solid wastes program
was quickly recognized. The NAS-NRC's comprehensive assessment of the
pollution problem was a key project already accomplished, which would
inevitably influence the direction of the solid waste mission. In the
program's quest for contract work with greatest potential for pay off,
what could be more fruitful than a contract with the National Academy
of Sciences stemming from its epochal pollution study? To this end,
the program (now the Bureau of Solid Waste Management), contracted with
NAS to establish a committee on solid waste management in the National
- iv
-------
Research Council's Division of Engineering. In particular, the Committee
would be asked to advise the Bureau on the feasibility of implementing
the NAS-NRC recommendations as they related to solid wastes.
The present volume is the result of that contract effort. In this
study the Committee chose to concentrate on solid wastes generated from
urban areas, although, of course, the interests of the Bureau of Solid
Waste Management and the Congress include the wastes generated from all
sources. The contract has resulted in a new set of recommendations,
with far-reaching implications, for policies for solid waste management.
These are national in scope, for the Committee had in mind the opening
up of leadership towards solving the Nation*s solid waste problem beyond
the Federal program. We too would stress that there are contributions
to be made by individuals and by government of all levels.
—RICHARD D. VAUGHAN, Direotor
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
-------
PREFACE
Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Man processes
and uses matter. In so doing he may change its chemical form or alter
its physical state; but, in some combination of gases, liquids, or
solids, all of the original material continues to be a part of the world
about us. As a nation we are proud of the products of our agricultural
and industrial activities. As individuals we use this output mostly to
our benefit so long as it is useful to us—then we discard it. By such
discarding, the goods portion of our gross national product, plus a
substantial portion of the residues of industrial processing, enters
our air, water, or land environments as gaseous, liquid, or solid wastes.
Water and air have a natural cleansing or assimilative
capacity. Until fairly recently, they were generally capable of self-
renewal so there was little noticeable deterioration of their utility or
appeal to man, or effect on natural ecosystems which in one way or
another contribute to the well-being of man. However, this assimilative
capacity is now too often exceeded and national, state, and local pro-
grams are underway to achieve through regulatory measures a restoration
of the quality of our air and' water resources.
This report deals with the management of solid wastes. Solid
wastes are significantly different from.air and water pollutants and
require unique environmental-control measures. In preparing this report,
the Committee has attempted to evaluate the problems and place them in
proper perspective. An attempt has been made to outline an action
program based-on problem definition, a study of need, a study of con-
straints, and an analysis of engineering requirements and alternatives.
No attempt has been made to cover the entire spectrum of solid wastes;
rather, attention is directed to the urban-generated portion and its
resulting urban-centered problems, and to some effects of related
agricultural, industrial, and commercial activity.
It is hoped this report will provide a logical basis for sub-
stantially increased governmental and public understanding and direct
attention to the nation's problems of solid waste management and control.
Donald N. Frey, Chairman
-------
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING-NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Donald N. Frey, Chairman
President
General Cable Corporation
New York, New York 10017
Frank R. Bowerman
Group Vice President
Zurn Industries
Van Nuys, California 91406
David J. Damiano
Chief Sanitation Engineer
Department of Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Samuel A. Hart
Professor, Department of
Agricultural Engineering
University of California
Davis, California 95616
Project Officer
Ralph J. Black, Director
Office of Information
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
P. H. McGauhey, Director
Sanitary Engineering Research
Laboratory
University of California-Berkeley
Richmond, California 94804
Leo Weaver, General Manager
Institute for Solid Wastes
American Public Works Association
Washington, D.C. 20036
Hendrik W. Bode, ex officio
Gordon McKay Professor of
Systems Engineering
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Staff
R.-W. Crozier, Executive Secretary
Committees on Pollution Abatement
and Control
National Research Council
Washington, D.C. 20418
Liaison Representatives
Irwin Billick
Deputy Director for Environmental
Quality Control
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Washington, D.C. 20410
John L. Buckley*
Technical Assistant
Office of Science and Technology
Executive Office of the President
Washington, D.C. 20506
Frank J. Cservenyak**
Manager, Solid Wastes Research Program
Bureau of Mines
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
* Replaced Donald R. King, Technical Assistant, Office of Science and
Technology, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 20506.
** Replaced Earl T. Hayes, Deputy Director, Bureau of Mines, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.
- ix -
-------
H. A. Hewlett
Chief Engineer
Delaware River Basin Commission
Norman Jackson
Director
Department of Sanitary Engineering
District of Columbia Government
William B. Johnson
Chief, Street Cleaning Branch
Sanitation Division
Department of Sanitary Engineering
District of Columbia Government
Kenneth Karch
Environmental Health Engineer
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments
J. W. Kearns
Trash Removal Service
McLean, Virginia
Harry Kletter
Industrial Services of America
John Lentz
Director of Environmental Health
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments
Ling Li-Cho
Planning
Puget Sound Governmental Conference
John A. Logan
President
Rose Polytechnic Institute
Robert R. McAbee
Director
Puget Sound Governmental Conference
Louis C. McCabe
Chairman of the Board
Hazleton Laboratories, Inc.
H. N. MacFarland
Director, Inhalation Division
Hazleton Laboratories, Inc.
Anton J. Munich, Director
Division of Demonstration Operations
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
National Association of Counties
Research Foundation
Washington, D.C.
Robert R. Perry
Deputy Chief, Sanitation Division
Department of Sanitary Engineering
District of Columbia Government
Dan S. Petty
Director of Urban Affairs
North Central Texas Council of
Governments/Regional Planning
Commission
William J. Pitstick
Executive Director
North Central Texas Council of
Governments/Regional Planning
Commission
Ralph Forges
Head, Water Quality Branch
Delaware River Basin Commission
Arthur J. Pulos
Pulos Design Associates, Inc.
Paul W. Reed
Chief, Office of Program Planning
and Review
Sanitation Division
Department of Sanitary Engineering
District of Columbia Government
Paul Reid
Director, Division of Planning
Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments
-------
Edward A. Robeson John C. Schmidt
News Department Assistant Manager-Manufacturing
The Ford Motor Company St. Regis Paper Company
William F. Roeder Charles Seldenridge
Chief, Sanitation Division Planning
Department of Sanitary Engineering Puget Sound Governmental Conference
District of Columbia Government
Richard D. Vaughan
W. M. Russell Director, Bureau of Solid Waste
National Committee for Paper Stock Management
Conservation U.S. Department of Health,
Paperboard Group Education, and Welfare
American Paper Institute, Inc.
Robert L. Wegner
Walter Scheiber Director of Regional Planning
Executive Director North Central Texas Council of
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments/Regional Planning
Governments Commission
Warren Schmid J. F. Wright
Executive Director Executive Director
Association of Bay Area Delaware River Basin Commission
Governments
- xi -
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Numerous individuals and organizations assisted the Committee
in the deliberations that led to this report. Among those to whom the
Committee is particularly indebted are the following:
John J. Bosley
Deputy Director and General Counsel
Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments
Blair T. Bower
Associate Director
Quality of the Environment Program
Resources for the Future, Inc.
Robert D. Bugher
Executive Director
American Public Works Association
Fred Cheek
Deputy Director, Division of
Planning
Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments
Citizen's Committee for Solid
Disposal
Syracuse, New York
Waste
William A. Cosby
Staff Engineer
Building Research Advisory Board
National Research Council
James W. Dempster
President
Dempster Brothers, Inc.
Harrison P. Eddy, Jr.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Richard W. Eldredge
Director, Office of Program
Development
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
Rolf Eliassen
Professor of Environmental
Engineering
Stanford University
Robert Farley
Acting Director
Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments
J. C. Gagliardi
The Ford Motor Company
Emanuel Galeone
Director
Philadelphia More Beautiful Committee
Charles V. Gibbs
Executive Director
Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle
Harold B. Gotaas
Dean, The Technological Institute
Northwestern University
Francis A. Govan
York Research Company
James H. Hickey
Planning Director
Association of Bay Area Governments
H. Lanier Hickman, Director
Division of Technical Operations
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
- xii -
-------
CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1
I. INTRODUCTION 5
Background of Study 5
Nature and Scope of Study 6
Nature of the Report T 7
II. SOLID WASTES AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM 8
Role of the Public Health Service , 8
Role of the Bureau of Mines . . . T , 9
Solid Wastes as a Problem in Environmental
Management f 9
Solid Waste versus Environmental Control 10
Considerations in Solid Waste Handling 11
Changes in Environmental Goals 12
III. EVALUATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
RECOMMENDATIONS 14
Rationale and Criteria for Evaluation 14
Specific Evaluations , 14
WMC Recommendation No. 1 14
WMC Recommendation No. 2 , 17
WMC Recommendation No. 3 19
WMC Recommendation No. 4. . . . , , 20
WMC Recommendation No. 5 24
IV. THE FUTURE 26
Solid Waste Management Objectives 26
Systems Analysis and Management . , 27
Systems Approach to Solid Waste Management 28
Development and Demonstration of Improved
Engineering Subsystems and Components 29
Source, Composition, and Quantity 30
Storage 30
Collection, Handling, and Transportation 31
Processing , 33
Separation 33
Compaction, Size Reduction, and Baling 34
Incineration , 34
Landfill and Final Deposit 35
Reuse of Resources 36
Paper and Paper Products , 37
Metals and Minerals 38
Junk-Auto Scrap 38
Incinerator Residues . , 39
Organic Matter , 40
Other Changes in the Waste Stream 40
Selected Administrative Considerations 41
- xiii -
-------
Business Management
Public-Utility Concept 41
Health, Safety, and Training of Operating
Personnel 42
Communication and Information 43
The Rural-Urban Interface 44
V. PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 46
Recommendation No . 1 46
Recommendation No. 2 47
Recommendation No. 3 47
VI. RECOMMENDED FUNDING LEVELS 49
Funding Levels Based on the Size of the Total
Business 49
Funding Levels Based on Estimated Costs of
Implementing the Committee's Recommendations 50
Recommended Allocation of Funds by Specific Category
of Need FT 1970-1974 51
Appendixes
A. New Haven, Connecticut, On-Site Solid Waste Research Program . .52
B. A Systems Study of Solid Waste Management in the Fresno,
California, Area 55
C. Selected Bibliography 58
- xiv -
-------
FIG. 1. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY MATRIX
PROCESSING (OFF-SITE1
DISCHARGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT CONSTRAINTS
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Solid waste management differs in important respects from
air- and water-pollution control. The difference derives from the fact
that there are two pollutant transport systems: natural (air and water)
and artificial (vehicular transport). In general, air and flowing water
carry pollutants across political boundaries in response to natural laws
that are not subject to legislative repeal. In contrast, solid wastes
must be left where they are generated or transported by mechanical means.
The bulk of solid wastes are deposited on land, and disposal
tends to be a local problem. Thus, the principal solutions to solid
waste management lie in providing operational systems that employ
physical procedures rather than in regulation. Such handling, along
with reclamation and reuse as the solid waste management goal, offers
the ultimate solution.
This report deals with the management of solid wastes genera-
ted in urban areas. Such wastes amount to more than 200 million tons
per year of out of place materials that everyone helps to generate and
almost no one wants. Refuse storage, collection, transportation, and
processing directly and intimately affect some 80 percent of the pop-
ulation, largely in urban areas. Storage represents the average person's
most intimate contact with refuse and is the most direct and personal
result of the individual's effect upon his own environment. Adverse
effects range from minor irritations to significant contributions to the
degeneration of entire neighborhoods and are usually almost directly
related to the concentration of people. As is true of all services,
costs of waste handling are rising , and when this is combined with
concentration of the problem in dense, revenue-limited urban areas,
the efficiency of solid waste management is of major importance.
However, historically solid waste management has been characterized by
minimum attention, minimum funding, and minimum application of technology.
Much of the problem of solid waste management derives from the
continued reluctance of those concerned to come to grips with it and
apply existing technology, systems, and organizational know-how to its
solution—above all, to pay for these services.
In general, people have been willing to pay the cost of re-
moving refuse from their premises, and once it has been removed from
sight, they have been unconcerned with the system's complexities, con-
straints, and costs of collection, transportation, processing, reuse,
and disposal.
The present annual direct national costs for solid waste col-
lection and disposal are in excess of $4.5 billion. This figure does not
include such important costs as the internal costs to industry and agri-
culture for solid waste management, householder and institutional costs
for storage and handling of refuse, losses in property values due to in-
adequacies in collection and disposal of solid wastes, the value of
- 1 -
-------
potentially reusable fractions, or individual medical or loss-of-health
costs from the various forms of pollution and inadequate control of vectors
(flies, rats, mosquitoes, etc.).
Nationally, an estimated 337,000 people are directly employed
full-time in the collection, transportation, processing, and disposal of
urban solid wastes. The administrators and personnel of these systems
have long been plagued by high rates of accidents, illness, absenteeism,
and labor turnover. Reliable figures for comparison are not available, but
the Committee believes these rates in total are probably the highest for
any major occupational group in the nation.
The 200 million tons per year of solid waste material represent
a national resource and will in time be a major one. Return of fractions
of solid wastes to economical reuse must in the long run become common
practice and must be a national objective. Some mineral fractions of the
total solid waste stream are recycled today—notably steel and copper.
But lesser value fractions in the aggregated waste streams must eventually
be recycled.
The Committee believes, therefore, that there should be four
principal objectives of solid waste management:
1. To improve the quality and coverage of the service;
2. To improve efficiency of operation through increased
mechanisation and reduced labor requirements of the
system;
3. To reduce the accident rate and improve the skills of
operating personnel through manpower-development programs;
4. To economically recover and adequately process for recycle
increasing portions of the solid waste streams.
With these objectives in mind, the Committee re-examined the 1966
recommendations of the NAS-NRC Committee on Pollution (which helped lead
to the original Solid Waste Disposal Act), and with the benefit of the
intervening years' perspective, found them only partially applicable to
current conditions and needs.
To arrive at new recommendations, the Committee then examined the
management of solid waste from a systems-engineering point of view, which
makes possible an analysis of the solid waste disposal system as a whole,
the parts of the system (subsystems), and the interrelationships between
parts and the whole.
In studying such subsystems parts as collection, transportation,
processing (including incineration and separation) , and salvage or disposal,
the Committee found great potential for new technology, and new operating
and management methods, but suggests that progress is unlikely to come from
a massive breakthrough that will simultaneously solve a wide range of problems
More likely, it will come from a series of step-by-step efforts that solve
or reduce one problem at a time.
2 -
-------
Improvements of any single part of the system are likely to be small and
undramatic. But, in the aggregate, a series of small improvements
systematically applied can bring substantial progress. The same applies
to components, or hardware, that will better serve specific requirements
or increase the options available to engineers in designing and operat-
ing systems to meet local or regional conditions and objectives.
In addition to the need for new technology and management con-
cepts, the Committee concluded that sufficient technology is now avail-
able to permit progress toward solution of many current solid waste
management problems. It is suggested that, in general, local operating
agencies are not applying available technology on a systematic basis.
This is possibly caused by: (1) lack of a basic policy decision to
provide the service, (2) lack of broad recognition or acceptance of the
problem, (3) political and jurisdictional limitations, (4) inadequately
trained personnel, (5) limitations in funding and funding methods, or
(6) inadequate information on available technology that might be applied.
These limitations are recommended for detailed study by the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management.
The Committee, therefore, confirmed that a strong federal
program is needed to carry on a variety of activities beneficial to
local, regional, state, and private solid waste management groups. These
activities would include: (1) dissemination of technical, operational,
and management information, (2) encouraging and supporting research and
development on equipment and systems, (3) demonstration of improved
solid waste handling systems, subsystems, and components, and (4) devel-
opment of funding systems, planning procedures, and personnel-training
programs.
The Committee also made the following recommendations to guide
the Bureau of Solid Waste Management in the accomplishment of its respon-
sibilities under the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965.
1. That there be established a solid waste management
information center to accumulate, evaluate, and
disseminate all applicable information, both foreign
and domestic, with the general objective of increasing
the rate of application of present and future
technology and implementing improved waste management
at all levels (see page 46• 7 specific objectives).
2. That research, development, and large- or full-scale
demonstrations of solid waste systems and components be
carried out with demonstrations in metropolitan areas
where solid waste problems derive from the several
sectors of the community—these activities to include
the technological, operational, and economic factors
for the newest and best approaches to storage,
separation, collection, transportation, salvage,
processing, preparation for recycle, and deposit
(see page 47; 7 specific objectives).
- 3 -
-------
3. That there be substantial effort to improve system
business management, planning, and manpower training
including coordination with other federal, state,
regional, and local government groups and with private
operators (see pages 47^48; 10 specific objectives).
Excellent work consistent with these recommendations has al-
ready been started in many specific areas by the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management and the Bureau of Mines. The Committee recommends some
redirection of emphasis, particularly towards improving the efficiency
of the collection and transportation subsystems of solid waste handling,
recycling for economic recovery, improved training of personnel, and
increased emphasis on solid waste information services.
The Committee recommends almost a tripling of funds for the
federal Bureau of Solid Waste Management program over the next 5 years
from the present level of about $14 million, to cover recommended
increases in breadth of the work and to cover the transition from
purely research and development of solid waste systems and subsystems to
the more costly demonstration phases of the most promising new develop-
ments (pages 49-51) .
Specifically excluded from the recommended funding levels
are grants or cost sharing for installation of essentially conventional
or normal advances in the state-of-the-art facilities and equipment.
Also excluded are funds for study of problems predominantly related to
agricultural and industrial activities.
The Committee is aware of the possible use of economic incen-
tives or penalties to further the national development of good solid
waste management practices. However, such questions are considered to
be beyond the scope of this study.
4 -
-------
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF STUDY
The urban-industrial-agricultural activities of man have in re-
cent decades resulted in a progressive degradation of the overall envir-
onment in the United States. The ordinary citizen is increasingly aware
of this. He is aware also that government concern exists and finds ex-
pression in a multiplicity of agencies, districts, and boards dealing
with health, air pollution, water pollution, refuse disposal, and relat-
ed matters. Without attempting to evaluate the degree to which the
citizen's awareness of pollution effects is the result of governmental
interest, or vice versa, it may be said, in truth, that a need to measure
the dimensions of the national pollution problem and to reduce its
degrading effects on human environment to acceptable levels is recog-
nized at every level from the voter to the President.
Pursuant to this need, the Federal Council for Science and
Technology in 1964 arranged with the National Academy of Sciences and
its National Research Council (NAS-NRC) to prepare a report on the
national problem of pollution. Accordingly, the NAS-NRC, with the
support of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, established an ad hoc Committee on Pollution
under the chairmanship of Dr. Athelstan Spilhaus. This committee in
1966 published its now well-known report Waste Management and Control.
In the words of the report, it represented "an effort to determine areas
in which science and technology could effectively assist in reducing
and controlling pollution." It drew attention to the interactions be-
tween air, water, and land pollution and to the effects of these com-
plex relationships on living systems; and it identified a framework
within which a coordinated attack on pollution might be launched. It
did not, however, seek to blueprint the specific investigations or the
legal, socioeconomic, and engineering activities that such an attack
might entail.
The committee noted that a greatly expanded program of study
and research is needed to identify and evaluate options, generate new
technology, and improve design concepts. To this end, it concluded
that the federal government "might serve as a catalyst to action," not
only in relation to technical and economic problems, but also in answer-
ing a host of legal questions.
Finally, the committee made five major recommendations as to
how the federal government might proceed (see Chapter III) through es-
tablishment of appropriate agencies and programs.
Waste Management and Control, Publication 1400 (Washington, D.C.:
National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1966),
257 pp.
- 5 -
-------
NATURE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
Implementation of the recommendations of the NAS-NRC Committee
on Pollution first required an examination of the institutions to deter-
mine whether appropriate agencies, policies, and programs already exist-
ed within the structure of the federal government. The Public Health
Service elected to have some of its activities evaluated in relation to
the committee's recommendations. To this end, the Solid Wastes Program
(now the Bureau of Solid Waste Management) of the Public Health Service
in 1967 enlisted the service of the National Academy of Sciences-
National Academy of Engineering-National Research Council to conduct
this study. Specifically, it contracted to establish a Committee on
Solid Waste Management in the National Research Council's Division of
Engineering with the following objectives:
A. To advise the Bureau of Solid Waste Management on:
1. The feasibility of the recommendations of the NAS-NRC
report Waste Management and Control as they relate to
the handling and disposal of solid wastes.
2. Whether other similar courses of action are feasible
or should be studied.
3. A priority rating for the courses of action under (1)
and (2), and the estimated costs of implementing these
actions.
4. Criteria for the selection of sites for actual studies
or demonstrations of the recommendations.
B. To advise on research and development efforts in the solid
waste field which are necessary for developing required
indexes and parameters for implementation of a systems
concept.
Shortly after the Public Health Service asked for this study,
the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering
decided to establish a joint Environmental Studies Board (ESB) to co-
ordinate all activities of the two Academies in the environmental field.
One of the first acts of this Board was to set up four committees with-
in the Division of Engineering of the National Research Council, one
each on air, 'water, noise, and solid waste management. These groups
have an engineering orientation and are to be available for advice and
assistance to the Congress and to those agencies of the executive branch
having responsibility in the areas of air, water, noise, and solid
waste. Needed interaction and cooperation of the committees in these
four overlapping fields is to be provided through liaison activities of
the ESB. The initial Committee on Solid Waste Management was establish-
ed as an ad hoc committee with its membership chosen for their potential
to achieve the specific objectives of the study requested by the Bureau
of Solid Waste Management.
6 -
-------
NATURE OF THE REPORT
To the NAE-NAS-NRC ad hoc Committee on Solid Waste Management,
the objectives of the study seemed logically to fall into two major
categories—one dealing with those aspects that concern the realities
and institutional activities of the present and the recent past; the
other, with appropriate courses of action for the future. The first of
these is dealt with in Chapter III, which is concerned with the pertin-
ence of the recommendations of the NAS-NRC Waste Management and Control
report to the activities and functions of the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management; and with reinterpretations of those recommendations that
the ad hoc Committee on Solid Waste Management deems necessary to make
them directly relevant to the Bureau. The second is the subject of
Chapter IV, which deals with the principal objectives to which solid
waste management should be directed in the future, Chapter V, which in-
cludes priorities and recommendations, and Chapter VI, which details the
estimated costs of implementing the recommended actions.
So that its evaluation of the five NAS-NRC recommendations
might be of value to a wider audience than the contracting agency's
technical staff, the Committee on Solid Waste Management has in Chapter
II presented a section summarizing pertinent historical and conceptual
aspects of solid waste management as an environmental problem.
As pointed out in Chapter II, the technology of solid waste
management is different than the technologies needed for air- and water-
pollution control. Even the concepts of standards and control are
different.
— 7 —
-------
CHAPTER II. SOLID WASTES AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM
A clear understanding of the emergence of solid wastes as a
national problem in environmental management and of the growth of
governmental interest in solid waste management is a necessary back-
ground to an evaluation of any recommended program intended to resolve
the problem. Of particular significance to the subject of this report
are two pertinent historical and conceptual aspects:
1. The changing role of the Public Health Service
(and the Consumer Protection and Environmental
Health Service) in pollution control.
2. Solid waste as a problem in environmental management.
Role of the Public Health Service
In the early 1960's, prior to the Waste Management and
Control report of the NAS-NRC, the Public Health Service was the
principal federal agency responsible for protecting man from air and
water pollution. However, as waste management in relation to environ-
mental protection problems became increasingly critical, the Congress
began passing a series of bills and appropriating funds to strengthen
and broaden the effort for improvement and correction of the pollution
situation.
A Federal Water Pollution Control Act and a Federal Water
Quality Improvement Act were passed in 1961. A Clean Air Act was
passed in 1963. On October 20, 1965, President Johnson signed amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act, Title II of which is now referred to as the
Solid Waste Disposal Act [P.L. 89-272]. These three acts, in particu-
lar, tremendously broadened the scope and the role of the federal
government in the fields of waste management and environmental quality.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act directed two federal departments
to the particular problems of management of solid waste. The Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare was given the principal re-
sponsibility for implementation of the act > and the Department of
Interior was given the responsibility for solid waste problems result-
ing from the extraction, processing, or utilization of minerals or
fossil fuels. Other activities of the Department of Interior related
to the result of the nonrenewable resources portion of residues of the
national resources inventory were delegated by earlier legislation.
Both agencies were charged with concern for the environment,
but environmental goals were to be achieved through the management of
solid waste to minimize pollution and improve the reuse and recycle of
discarded materials.
Prior to the passage of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965,
the Public Health Service had a limited program in the solid waste
field dating back over a long period of minimal budgetary support.
-------
However, with the passage of the act, the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare-Public Health Service activity in that field was given added
status. An Office of Solid Wastes was first created. In January 1967, it
was redesignated as the Solid Waste Program within the Center for Urban and
Industrial Health, which has its headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio.
On January 19, 1969, the Solid Waste Program was redesignated the
Bureau of Solid Waste Management in the newly formed Environmental Control
Administration of the Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service,
Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Role of the Bureau of Mines
The Bureau of Mines has had a modest research program in secondary
waste metals for more than 20 years, but these studies have generally con-
cerned high-value metallic wastes, such as scrap metals, drosses, and resi-
dues from metallurgical processing. After the passage of the Solid Waste
Act, the Bureau of Mines initiated a program on research and development of
methods to recover, utilize, or stabilize the wastes generated by the mineral
and associated industries. The primary objective of the program is the
development and demonstration to industry of new or improved techniques for
the economic recovery and reuse of valuable metal and mineral constituents
from solid wastes produced during mineral and metal mining, refining, and
utilization.
Solid Wastes as a Problem in
Environmental Management
The distinction between goals and methods is particularly import-
ant to any study of the relevance of the recommendations of the NAS-NRC
report Waste Management and Control to the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
and to feasible alternatives to such recommendations. The recommendations
of the NAS-NRC Committee on Pollution were based on a consideration of
pollution in general—air, water, and land—and the vast interrelationships
of the three, as well as of scientifically possible ideas for achieving
environmental goals of pollution control. The objectives of Chapter III of
the study reported upon herr- concern the feasibility of those recommendations
"as they relate to the handling and disposal of solid waste." This intro-
duces engineering factors that, although not necessarily constrained by
current concepts of economic feasibility, must inevitably be related to
the price tag on any scientifically possible solution. Moreover, it makes
the management of specific physical matter, rather than manipulation of the
overall environment, the means by which any desired environmental quality
is to be obtained. Three aspects of particular significance in the manage-
ment of solid wastes are:
1. The relation of solid waste management to environmental
control objectives and techniques.
9 -
-------
2. The spectrum of problems involved in solid waste
handling.
3. Changes in national environmental goals and in
political, economic, and technological goals that
have occurred since the NAS-NRC report and that
might modify the recommendations if the committee
were to restudy the national problem of pollution
in 1969.
Solid Waste versus Environmental Control. The term ''solid
waste" is defined as those presently unwanted residues of used natural
or man-made resources, and of human activity, which are handled or
managed in the solid state. From this definition it is evident that
solid wastes are significantly different from other so-called pol-
lutants and so affect environmental quality-control measures in unique
ways.
Many "pollutants" are solids. When dispersed in the atmo-
sphere as smoke or other particulate matter, however, they are, along
with gaseous and liquid materials that are air transported, called "air
pollutants." When suspended or dissolved in water, they are called
"water pollutants." Both air and water pollutants are subject to
special control techniques, some of which may separate out some frac-
tion for handling as solid wastes. Similarly, management of solid
wastes may involve techniques in which the air- and water-pollution-con-
trol standards become the constraints. This fact, however, only under-
scores the interrelationship of air, water, and land resources in the
matter of environmental control. It does not reveal the fundamental
differences that derive from the concept of transport systems
versus sinks.
In general, the earth's atmosphere and flowing water are
natural transport systems, whereas the land and the oceans are
basically sinks. Thus, if wastes are discharged into the air or the
streams, they may be transported across political boundaries in re-
sponse to natural laws. In contrast, although the land may sometimes
serve as a reservoir for natural transport systems, solid wastes de-
posited on it tend to remain a local problem of the area in which they
were generated. The same is true of material deposited on the ocean
floor. Exceptions occur when combustibles are incinerated, food wastes
are ground to the sewer, or refuse is discharged directly into water.
But, for the most part, the movement of solid wastes upon the earth de-
pends upon controllable man-made systems of transportation, rather than
on the whims of nature. Hence transportation is a part of the overall
solid waste management problem and is subject to administrative and
legal control. However, much of the existing legislation based on
interstate considerations is not applicable, except in a few specific
instances such as agricultural regulations governing the interstate
shipment of raw garbage for swine feeding.
From a historic viewpoint, the national approach to control
of water quality, and ultimately of the water environment, evolved
- 10
-------
from enabling legislation aimed at interstate waters. Later on, air-
pollution control followed to a large degree the water-pollution-con-
trol precedent and from the similarity of air and water as regards
natural flow across state boundaries. In both cases, control of pol-
lution, and alleviation of the environmental degradation resulting from
pollution, came under a regulatory concept aimed at limiting the
quantity of waste material that would be tolerated in the atmosphere or
in the water. Because of mixing or dispersion in the air or water
medium , the concentration pf pollutants was a valid measure and relat-
able to some concentration known or presumed to be detrimental to liv-
ing systems. In contrast, solid wastes discharged upon the land do
not, with only minor exceptions, disperse and mingle with the soil mass.
The amount of waste to be disposed of as solids is affected markedly by
the amount incinerated or mixed into sewage. It is difficult, there-
fore, to support any concept of "land pollution" comparable to that of
air and water pollution. Further, the total problem of interstate
shipment of refuse, while locally significant in some instances, is
relatively small. If man is not satisfied to live with his solid waste,
he must either effect some acceptable degree of control over the gener-
ation of such wastes—an extremely difficult task—or undertake to col-
lect, transport, process, and recycle or sequester them in high concen-
tration at some point on the earth. Thus, the principal solutions to
solid waste management "lie in physical procedures rather than in fed-
eral-state regulation. Such physical procedures coupled with recycling
and reclamation as the solid waste management goal offer the ultimate
solution.
This does not mean that local regulation is unnecessary. The
task of physical management from the point of collection to final con-
tainment of wastes must be accomplished in a manner acceptable to the
locality in all aspects from aesthetics to land use. But regulation in
this context is a matter quite different than in air- and water-pollu-
tion control. Although'very high levels of environmental quality may
derive from planning organizations, zoning boards, and County Boards of
Supervisors, all regulating where a community can or cannot discharge
wastes, these agencies are in reality regulating land use—where and
how the wastes are put—not the actual wastes. Their regulations can
have meaning only as methods of enforcing solid waste management tech-
niques found by others to be feasible and desirable.
Considerations in Solid Waste Handling. In differentiating
between the problem of solid waste management and air-pollution or
water-pollution control, it is sufficient to use the word "management"
in the general sense of physically handling solid material in an organ-
ized and systematic manner that is efficient, economical, noninjurious
to health, and aesthetically acceptable to people. However, when the
objective of evaluating scientifically feasible recommendations is
approached, it becomes necessary to consider that the term "solid
waste" more nearly describes a physical state of matter and engineering
technology, plus a human attitude toward it, than the material that is
to be managed. The word "management" is equally unrevealing of the
spectrum of activities involved.
11 -
-------
To remind the reader of what is involved in solid waste man-
agement, Figure 1 has been prepared. It summarizes in graphic form
the source and types of materials commonly known as solid wastes,
together with the types of hardware and engineered subsystems associated
with the storage, collection, transportation, processing, salvage, and
disposal of solid waste.
Changes in Environmental Goals. Closely related to the in-
herent difference between solid waste and air and water pollutants is
the matter of goals of public policy in environmental control. While
it now seems that air and water pollution might have been approached
from either a regulatory or management point of view, the choice was a
matter of policy goals adopted by man. The regulatory approach was
deemed most logical at the time because "pollution control" was the
stated objective of public policy. Under this regulatory concept, water
and air "pollutants" pei> se were the factors to be controlled; standards
were developed to describe in quantitative terms the maximum amount of
each pollutant that would be tolerated in the water and air resources;
and criteria were adopted by which to judge the suitability of the re-
source for beneficial use.
This regulatory approach to environmental control is not di-
rectly applicable to solid waste management because the concept of con-
centration of pollutants in the land was not valid. As long as pollu-
tion control by regulation of pollutants dominated public policy, any
national attack on the solid waste problem was infeasible on rational
grounds. At least a long interval elapsed between the productive re-
search on solid wastes in the early 1950's and the onset of the solid
waste program of the Public Health Service in the 1960's, which cannot
be fully explained by public unawareness of the solid waste problem.
However, it should be noted that when specific regulatory measures
were needed, in 1953, to control the spread of the swine disease,
Vesicular exanthema, a requirement that garbage be "pasteurized" before
it was fed to hogs was accomplished in all of the then 48 states within
a 2-year period.
The factor that resulted in formation of the Bureau of Solid
Waste Management was a shift from "pollution control" to "quality of
the environment" as the objective of national policy. This objective
was developed in recent years and finds expression in such goals as
clean air, pure water, and quality of life—goals that have derived
more from desired effects and idealistic and aesthetic considerations
than from the stubborn realities of pollutant removal from waste dis-
charges .
The tendency to place greater emphasis on what the envir-
onment should be, rather than on to what the materials discarded in it
should measure up to is reflected in the report of the NAS-NRC Committee
on Pollution. During the 3 years that have ensued since the committee's
deliberations, objectives of clean air, pure water, and quality of life
have increasingly dominated public policy. These objectives have wide
popular support, and because they can be approached only by minimizing,
controlling, or setting levels of "pollutants" permitted to be
12 -
-------
discharged to the air, water, and land, the effect on waste management
is profound.
Changes in environmental goals have been reflected in changes
in institutional arrangements within government. The concept that en-
vironmental concern for water transcends considerations of public
health has already changed the federal program in water pollution that
prevailed at the time the NAS-NRC Committee on Pollution prepared its
recommendations. In 1969 solid wastes are as much a matter of resource
management and land use as of health and aesthetics, and may require
new institutional arrangements of importance in terms of the appropri-
ateness of the Committee's recommendations to the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management.
- 13 -
-------
CHAPTER III. EVALUATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate the five recommenda-
tions of the NAS-NRC report on Waste Management and Control (WHO for
pertinence to the Bureau of Solid Waste Management under 1969 conditions.
Rational and Criteria for Evaluation
From the considerations discussed in Chapter II, the rationale
from which the ad hoc Committee on Solid Waste Management (hereinafter
designated as the Committee) proceeded to evaluate the foregoing recom-
mendations may be summarized as follows:
1. Solid wastes are in some significant degree different
from other so-called pollutants and affect environmental
quality and quality-control measures in predictable and
unique ways.
2. The main problem of solid wastes is one of physical
management as opposed to regulation. Some regulation of
storage, point of collection, and other aspects of solid
waste management must be enforced, but such regulation
is peripheral to the principal factor of management.
3. Any program of solid waste control must start from a
systems-management rather than a regulatory viewpoint.
4. Air and water as receivers of waste move across state
lines largely in response to natural laws , while solid
wastes discarded on land tend to be a local problem of
the area in which they are generated and discarded.
5. The national goals in air- and water-pollution control
have shifted from pollution control to control of the
quality of the environment.
6. Although the Bureau of Solid Waste Management is concerned
primarily with one segment of the pollution problem, it is
oriented to environmental-quality objectives, and so must
consider the related questions of air and water quality.
The Committee evaluated the five recommendations within the
foregoing framework, as follows.
Specific Evaluations
Recommendation No. 1
"That a full-scale experimental residue-control system be plan-
ned, designed, and constructed in a new city—this system to embody the
newest and best principles of recycling, re-using, and recovering
14 -
-------
residues, and to serve as demonstration model."
i
Discussion
The needs upon which this recommendation is based are as valid
in 1969 as they were in 1966, when the Waste Management and Control docu-
ment was written. As a specific guide for action for the Bureau of Solid
Waste Management, however, the recommendation must be interpreted somewhat
broadly.
The recommendation calls for an advanced solid waste management
system to be incorporated into a "new city," to serve as a demonstration
model. There are very few completely new cities being designed or con-
structed. Disneyland, Florida; Valencia, California; Columbia, Maryland;
and Co-op City, New York, might be so considered, and the Committee con-
tacted officials involved with these efforts. It was pointed out that the
nature of those private-venture programs is not conducive to experiments in
advanced wastes-management technology. Understandably, developers will not
choose to install unproven systems.
The possibility of installing an advanced waste-management system
in a federally sponsored new city such as the NASA Center, or a new military
base was also examined. However, here again, the purpose of the new city
is contrary to demonstrating an innovative system of waste-management
technology.
The "Experimental City'1 concept of the University of Minnesota
seemed to the Committee to most closely fulfill the intent of the WMC
recommendation. Its goal of creating an urban environment in which the way
of life is commensurate with the level of our technology is in line with the
Waste Management and Control recommendation. In preparing for its construc-
tion in the 1970's, the University of Minnesota has evaluated the concept of
a completely new collection, transport, and storage system for the manage-
ment of solid wastes from the commercial and residential sectors. This has
included such innovations as hydraulic or pneumatic pipelines. The Public
Health Service, in participating in the design, has thus been active within
the spirit of the recommendation.
The term "new city" should be viewed broadly. The nation is embarked
upon a massive urban-renewal program and innovative solid waste management
systems—or subsystems—might be incorporated into some of these reconstruc-
tion projects. This can, of course, be done although possibly at some sub-
sidy cost. The urban-renewal program in itself is subsidized, thus a sub-
sidy for an innovative solid waste management system would be appropriate.
The basic recommendation refers to the "full-scale experimental
residue 'control systems'...this system to embody the newest and the best
principles of recycling, re-using, and recovering residues..." Again the
Committee interpretation of the wording is broad. A full-scale system may
mean either community-wide, or may mean complete—from storage through
ultimate disposal or reuse. In either case, "full-scale" and "newest and
best" may not be the most appropriate. The Committee can conceive of
15
-------
pilot installations, and installations demonstrating only one or two parts
of the total solid waste management system, as being more appropriate a
beginning than a complete system.
In evaluating these factors, the Committee found it necessary
to differentiate between two aspects of solid waste management—collec-
tion and transportation on the one hand, and salvage and disposal on the
other. The Committee noted that although 80 percent of the present cost
of solid waste management is in the collection and transportation phases,
most of the money being spent by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management is
directed to disposal activities. The explanation found for this priority
from public-works officials is that the public will provide money to pur-
chase trucks and to employ men rather than tolerate wastes in the streets;
but finding any place in the environment where the public will permit the
trucks to be unloaded is the critical operation problem.
In the case of the collection phase of solid waste, the recom-
mendation is presently of limited applicability because there are few
systems ready for demonstration on a city-wide scale. Pneumatic systems
of collection and problems of logistics and economics might be evaluated
through demonstration, but, as later noted in Chapter IV of the report,
the need in this area is for the development of mechanized, low-labor,
highly reliable systems of a type unique in the field of public utilities.
Such systems are not currently ready for demonstration.
To an important degree there is also only a United opportunity
to demonstrate a disposal system that has application to more than one
unique situation. In the judgment of the Committee, an experimental
plant should develop the technology, evaluate the performance of the
necessary hardware, and establish the economics of residue-management
systems involving the most imaginative new ideas and principles which
will promote public acceptance. The funding of such projects is a
proper function of the federal government.
In the judgment of the Committee, the development of design
parameters and economic factors needed by consulting and city engineers
in designing systems for a particular situation; the stimulation of
appropriate attention to land-use needs; and a program to assure adequate
operational performance should be carried out at the expense of the
federal government. In the spirit of Recommendation No. 1 and its under-
lying rationale, this would cast the Bureau of Solid Waste Management in
the role of catalyst and initiator of solutions to problems. It would
demonstrate what others need to know in solving their problems as con-
trasted with demonstration of the applicability of a given system to any
individual situation. To this end, Recommendation No. 1 should be re-
phrased.
Conclusions
Relative to Recommendation No. 1 of the Waste Management and
Control report the Committee on Solid Waste Management reached the fol-
lowing conclusions concerning its pertinence to the Bureau of Solid
Waste Management:
- 16
-------
1. The recommendations as written must be interpreted rather
broadly.
2. The most likely and appropriate place to install and demon-
strate innovative components or subsystems of solid waste
management systems is in urban-redevelopment projects where
subsidy financing is an integral part of the project.
3. Neither "full-scale" nor "newest and best" is the key phrase
to the recommendation; rather the underlying rationale is to
demonstrate—and to prove out—better solid waste management
techniques.
4. In funding research on methodology and systems, the Bureau
of Solid Waste Management is carrying out a part of the
recommendation through development of new methods and
procedures.
5. By research and development on components of both the col-
lection and disposal systems, design parameters and economic
factors can be developed with which engineers can design and
operate new components and systems with confidence. It is
possible that in many cases the nature of collection systems
can strongly influence the nature of disposal systems, e.g.,
high-pressure compaction, separation or other processing at
the source could affect design of incinerators.
Recommendation No. 2
"That one or more experimental, regional, environmental design
groups be established to:
a. Develop residue-management plans in concert with comprehen-
sive land-use plans.
b. Advise agencies and bureaus of the several federal departments
as to information, data, instrumentation, and other needs of
local (state, city, subregional) bodies to design and construct
plans and systems.
c. Assist local planners and authorities with needed data,
services, and techniques to develop subplans compatible with
regional design."
Discussion
In the judgment of the Committee, the ideas, intentions, and
expectations behind this specific recommendation are particularly pertinent
to the Bureau of Solid Waste Management. Some reinterpretations, or perhaps
rephrasing, seem necessary, however, to adapt it to an activity such as that
of solid waste management.
One of the serious problems of solid waste management derives
from the fact that land-use planning has seldom been of a comprehensive
17
-------
nature and has essentially never included solid waste disposal among its
objectives. Local planners, once they become aware of this deficiency,
are in urgent need of information and data such as the recommendation is
intended to provide, as well as assistance in incorporating it into plans
that treat with solid wastes realistically. What, one may inquire, is an
experimental environmental-design group? And what type of experiments
might it perform? If the experiments are conceptual, it must be noted
that numerous highly imaginative proposals have already been developed
by environmental designers but the inertia of custom and the marketplace
has prevented their becoming a reality. As a result, there are very few
examples of "greenbelt" communities, experimental cities, discrete com-
munities of optimum size, and the like. Moreover, the prospects for such,
as discussed in relation to Recommendation No. 1, are not bright, at
least, within a reasonable time span.
Since the recommendation was prepared, the government has
actively implemented the regional concept through the interstate and
interlocal cooperation provisions of the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Twenty-six Demonstration Grants for study and investigation have been
awarded. These have used federal support to undertake comprehensive,
interjurisdictional planning and action on the total solid waste problem
of certain areas. Thus, they carry out the spirit of Recommendation No. 2
as applied to solid waste problems, although they do not in fact represent
environmental design groups of the federal government.
The research program supported by the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, its own in-house studies, and, to some extent, its demon-
stration grant program—all these are generating and assembling the kind
of data needed by planners, designers, and others concerned with solid
waste systems.
Conclusions
In relation to Recommendation No. 2, the Committee finds that:
1. The Bureau of Solid Waste Management is presently carrying
out the concepts of Recommendation No. 2 at a level sub-
stantially below optimum compared with the problems of the
management of solid waste.
2. The degree of its efforts should be intensified by measures
such as the following:
a. Substantial expansion of the technical services,
planning, and manpower-training assistance already
being rendered by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
to state, regional, and other local authorities and
their consultants.
b. Intensified coordination of the research, development,
training, and technical activities of the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management with similar activities of other
- 18
-------
federal agencies involved in environmental control
(such as the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, Department of Agriculture, Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration, Bureau of Mines, National
Air Pollution Control Administration, and similar agen-
cies.) The Bureau of Solid Waste Management is urged
to take the initiative in developing this coordination.
c. Expansion of federal financial aid "risk capital" for
development of solid waste management facilities. Such
risk capital support in the solid waste management
field, both public and private, could underwrite the
field-scale testing and demonstration of experimentally
and bench-scale proven system components, as suggested
in relation to Recommendation No. 1.
d. An improved and expanded public-information effort to
increase public knowledge of specific solid waste manage-
ment schemes, such as neighborhood sanitary landfilling,
reuse versus disposal of paper and packaging materials,
litter control, and understanding the costs of solid
waste management.
Recommendation No. 3
"That there be provided within the structure of the fed-
government :
a. A Center for Criteria and Standards, to collect, com-
pile , and issue critical data from national and inter-
national sources on acceptable levels of residue con-
centrations for guidance of regional and local bodies.
b. A Development Center for the testing and evaluation of
system and subsystem components, with strong ties to
professional associations, industry, and state and
municipal authorities."
Discussion
The first section of this recommendation (item a) seems in-
appropriate to the Bureau of Solid Waste Management and the concept on
which it is founded. Clearly it applies to the regulatory concept under-
lying the air- and water-pollution programs, in which the ability of the
resource to accept pollutants is to be quantified. As discussed in
Chapter II-of this report, the Bureau of Solid Waste Management emerged
from the rationale that it is wastes themselves that are to be managed.
Hence, the Bureau of Solid Waste Management becomes a service organiza-
tion rather than a regulatory agency. As previously noted, there is
evidence that air- and water-pollution-control programs are becoming
resource oriented and will likewise move in the direction of management.
In any event, there is no sound rationale on which to generate a concept
of "land pollution" comparable to that of air and water pollution and to
- 19 -
-------
control it by establishing standards specifying the concentration of
wastes in the land. In such a context Recommendation No. 3(a) must be
puled infeasible.
There is, however, a place for guidelines and criteria, al-
though probably not for standards in the regulatory sense. In relation
to such aspects of solid wastes as on-site storage, processing, and
handling, some control measures are already in existence. For example,
the household garbage can is quite rigidly specified; household garbage
grinders have been subjected to controls exercised by regulatory agencies
for the purpose of insuring nuisance-free, safe, sanitary, efficient
operation, or in some cases have denied their use. Basically such
"standards," although not necessarily beyond improvement, concern
hardware that might more appropriately be considered in relation to
Recommendation No. 3(b). In a somewhat different context 3(a) might be
reworded to concern minimum requirements for such things as on-site
incineration, on-site processing such as grinding, pulping, and baling,
and on-site storage and conveying systems. Certainly there is need for
information of this type in the engineering, planning, and design of
solid waste management systems. Therefore, the Committee recommends
that federal activity be concerned with developing guidelines for sat-
isfactory components of solid waste management systems.
Conclusions
In the judgment of the Committee, Recommendation No. 3 is
generally infeasible in relation to the Bureau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment, and to the extent that it is appropriate to that Bureau, it is
covered by Recommendations Nos. 2 and 4.
Recommendation No. 4
"That there also be provided, within the structure of the
federal government, a program including contract work, to
support the following:
a. A legal study on legislative precedents and needs, in-
cluding questions of equity, simplification of access to
courts, and development of model legislation relating to
society's use of national resources of air, inland and
coastal waters, and land.
b. Biological and ecological studies.
c. Engineering studies, including economic considerations,
relating to residue management.
d. All relevant studies toward closing the loop from re-
source to user to reuse as a resource."
20
-------
Discussion
This recommendation covers a very wide spectrum of activities that
the Committee concludes to be appropriate to the in-house and out-of-house
activities of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management. Institutional changes
since the recommendation was made, however, may have limited the feasibility
of including in a single program all aspects envisioned under item (a) of the
recommendation. Therefore, it is concluded that although the Bureau may not
encompass the entire field suggested in the Waste Management and Control
report, all sections of the recommendation are appropriate to the Bureau.
It was also concluded that a fifth area of study be included, covering
psychology and sociology of waste generation and psychometric research devoted
to analyzing the reasons why we do not meet the problem of solid waste manage-
ment.
Section (a). The emphasis in the original recommendation upon
contract work is particularly appropriate for legal and legislative studies,
at least in the initial phases, because the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
is not presently staffed with legal experts. The authors of Waste Management
and Control who were responsible for the recommendation note that "the law
of pollution is a specialized and technical subject." There is a consider-
able body of legal precedent in the air, water, and land spheres, but the
specific ordinances and past legal decisions governing solid waste systems
seem to be related to local political levels, based on long existing public-
health and nuisance statutes. It seems appropriate that the Bureau support
a basic study on the legal aspects of solid waste management. This study
should include a review of past legal actions, local and state, and should
propose possible legislation and ordinances for the future. The study
should relate the legal problems of solid waste management with the body of
legislation and legal decision-making that controls the use and management
of land, water, and air resources and the operation of community systems.
Section (b). In evaluating the biological and ecological aspects
of solid waste management, it may be useful to identify the type of study
that would be particularly appropriate in these broad fields.
The most pertinent biological studies perhaps are those directed
to objectives such as the following:
1. The feasibility of utilizing biological systems in the
degradation, stabilization, recycling or reclamation, or
disposal of solid wastes or of any individual fraction of
the total mass of solid wastes.
2. The isolation and culturing of organisms capable of degrading
or fractionating organic wastes or any individual fraction
of the total; or the establishment of environmental conditions
under which such biological activity is optimized.
3. Method of exploiting known biological or biochemical reactions
by engineered systems adapted either to a wide range of ,
solid wastes or to individual components thereof, including
- 21 -
-------
the development of design parameters.
Similarly, ecological studies might be concerned with:
1. The ultimate fate of any dangerous component of solid
wastes or of the products of degradation of such wastes
entering into plants or animals.
2. The significance to local communities of the production of
flies, rats, and other disease vectors generated in solid
wastes.
3. The pathways by which any dangerous components or products
of solid wastes move through the ecosystem.
4 The significance to man of the concentration of toxic com-
pounds, originating in or derived from solid wastes, in any
ecological stream.
5. The effect of solid waste disposal aside from toxicity, on
ecosystems such as swamps and tidal flats.
To a very marked degree the Bureau of Solid Waste Management is
already supporting research in the biological and ecological aspects of
solid waste management. A review of the 49 Bureau of Solid Waste Man-
agement demonstration grants and 41 research grants in effect on
January 1, 1968, gives some idea of the status of biological and ecolog-
ical studies. Of the 49 demonstration grants, three involved biological
studies within the definition set forth in a preceding paragraph. Of the
research grants, however, 27 of the 41 involved biological studies. Of
this 27, five are identifiable as being ecological in nautre. The nature
of these biological studies ranged from the application of the composting
process to municipal refuse, animal manures, or agricultural wastes to
the science and technology of biofractionation of organic wastes to pro-
duce useful resource materials. They include such problems as the move-
ment of fractions and degradation products of solid wastes into the soil
and water around landfills, the management of pesticide containers, and
the public-health implications of numerous components of solid wastes
going into all types of disposal and treatment methods.
Section (c). A major shortcoming in solid waste management has
been the lack of accurate quantity and composition information and re-
liable cost data, making it very difficult to evaluate alternate methods.
From an engineering viewpoint, one of the greatest risks derives from the
inability to identify wastes and to determine the concentration of various
fractions that will upset handling and disposal methods. The Bureau of
Solid Waste Management, however, together with the states, is completing
a survey and inventory of wastes and present practices. Thus, the Bureau
is already embarked on studies of engineering-related data of the type
needed under the concept of both Recommendations Nos. 2 and 4. To some
extent, the demonstration grant activity is also in the context of engine-
ering studies. These, however, relate to the cost of existing systems in
standard practice and fail to yield information on the cost of achieving
22 -
-------
optimum levels of performance from existing disposal systems. Engineering
and economic studies are required, for example, in waste-heat utilization
from incineration and marketing of products developed from waste processing.
Of particular importance is the development of systems techniques that yield
new engineering management approaches. This is discussed further in Chapter
IV. In all these aspects the Bureau of Solid Waste Management is making some
impact and failure to achieve the full potential of the recommendation lies
in the scale of activities of the Bureau under existing financing, rather
than in its orientation or the vision of its leaders.
Section (d) . The -ideal ultimate resolution of the solid waste
management problem is the development of a closed system in which all residues
are reprocessed or otherwise made suitable for return to the national
resources. The recommendation has particular relevance to solid wastes
because they are earth-bound in nature and, unlike air or water pollutants,
are not associated with any natural transport system by the act of discarding.
Recycling, however, is to some degree dependent upon transport and a defining
of the path the waste traces from its point of generation until its final
reuse. This same factor is inherent in disposal methods as well and so has
relevance also to the economic and engineering studies of Section (c).
Throughout the research activity of the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management and the Bureau of Mines, there is attention to and awareness of
the need to complete the refuse-to-resource link. However, significant
technological progress directly pertinent to Recommendation 4(d) is to a
major degree dependent upon achievement in research, development, and demon-
stration projects related to Recommendations such as Nos. 1, 2, 4(a), and
4(c). Progress in these areas is more limited by levels of funding than by
the imagination and technical competence of personnel of the Bureau of Solid
Waste Management and the Bureau of Mines.
Section (e). This recommendation suggested by the Committee
envisions study of the social and psychological reasons why people litter
their environment, how solid wastes contribute to urban deterioration, what
are the attitudes toward waste-management costs and practices, how the at-
titudes of people are reflected in feasibility of disposal or recycle proce-
dures, and why people oppose the acquisition of sites for facilities. Like
the legal problems, [Section 4(a)], the study should probably be done by
contract with knowledgeable specialists. Its results, although conceptual
and qualitative in nature, should be useful in the planning and design of
local collection and disposal systems and in achieving the environmental
goals of solid waste management.
Section (f). Like Section (e), this section is suggested by
the Committee, which notes that much of the problem of solid waste man-
agement derives from a continued reluctance of those concerned to come to
grips with it and to apply existing technology, systems, and organizational
know-how to its solution—above all, to pay for these services. To some
extent the social and psychological attitudes noted in Section (e) are
involved. Similarly, the legal and economic aspects noted in Sections
(a) and (c) are relative. However, there is no particular program aimed at
analyzing why we have not realistically faced these problems. Such a
study might well be made by contract with knowledgeable specialists in a
- 23 -
-------
variety of disciplines.
However, as in Section (e), in many respects the solutions to
these problems lie more in the "getting started" and doing than in further
study.
Conclusions
The Committee finds that:
1. Recommendation No. 4 is generally appropriate to the Bureau
of Solid Waste Management.
2. For a maximum degree of pertinence to solid wastes, the
recommendations might be rephrased to be more specific and
to include studies in the areas of sociology and political
science.
Recommendation No. 5
"That a National Commission for Environmental Protection be
established under presidential appointment to:
a. Promote national awareness of the need and opportunities
to preserve the health and beauty of our national environ-
ment.
b. Promote better use of the resources we mine and consume.
c. Draw attention to notable progress in innovation, design,
and practice developed by national and local authorities
and industry.
d. Monitor progress of the composit national program.
e. Advise the President and people of needed remedies and
desired goals."
Discussion
The Committee strongly supports the view that public information
activities relative to solid waste management and environmental-quality
improvement should be strengthened.
The recommended commission, if organized, would unquestionably
relate to the total environment, and, hence, to the management of all
wastes, not merely solid wastes. It might be expected that personnel from
the Bureau of Solid Waste Management would, along with representatives of
other federal environment-management agencies, inform the commission—but
they would not constitute the commission. If the objectives of environ-
mental quality for which the Bureau of Solid Waste Management was estab-
lished are to be realized, there must be developed the type of public and
governmental awareness of the problems of solid waste management that
24 -
-------
the NAS-NRC Committee on Pollution had in mind when the recommendation
was written.
Public awareness and support of solid waste management systems
and solutions are frequently not at a sufficiently high level for better
systems to be demanded and the costs accepted. This is particularly true
at the local or regional level—the level of action in most cases. Such
local support (assuming the problems merit the solutions) is an integral
part of the larger management of solid wastes. The Bureau of Solid
Waste Management can be of assistance to local authorities through making
available the accumulated experience of other successful local efforts.
Conclusion
The Committee concludes that establishment of a national
commission for environmental protection is outside the purview of the
Bureau of Solid Waste Management. However, the Committee strongly en-
dorses the need for achieving the proposed objectives of such a commission.
particularly those related to increased public knowledge and information.
- 25
-------
CHAPTER IV. THE FUTURE
An evaluation in Chapter III of the 1966 recommendations of the
NAS-NRC Committee on Pollution, and suggestions as to how they may now be
made pertinent to solid waste management led to evident activities that
might be undertaken by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management. In further
advising the Bureau on future research-and-development efforts and to clearly
distinguish between goals and methods, the objectives of solid waste man-
agement were first established and then the systems concept was used to
analyze the complex solid waste disposal system to arrive at methods to
achieve the goals. Use of the systems concept was also responsive to ob-
jective B, Chapter I, of the study requirements.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
The Committee envisions the Bureau of Solid Waste Management as
the principal source of information in the field of solid wastes; as the
federal unit, which in close cooperation with other federal agencies, is
responsible for planning, coordination, and communication; and the source
of direction and funds for research, development, and demonstration of
broadly acceptable systems, subsystems, and components as required. Its
overriding objective is to improve environmental quality by bringing to-
gether the disciplines and technology necessary to give well-planned ob-
jectivity and emphasis to the random efforts that are evident in present
solid waste storage, collection, reuse, and disposal activities.
So that the Bureau may effectively perform its leadership role
in achieving its main objective, the Committee concluded that it must be
concerned with four primary objectives in relation to the urban-generated
portion of solid wastes:
1. To improve the quality and coverage of the service;
2. To -improve efficiency of operation through increased
mechanization and reduced labor requirements of the
system;
3. To reduce the accident rate and improve the skills of
operating personnel through manpower-development programs;
4. To economically recover and adequately process for re-
cycle increasing portions of the solid waste streams.
Objective No. 1 is general enough probably to be acceptable at
face value. However, the Committee concluded that general lack of quality
and coverage of the service is an important factor in the deterioration of
many major parts of metropolitan areas. Lack of "quality" disposal is a
common source of citizen complaint from adjacent neighborhoods. The cur-
rent limitations in on-site storage methods are also an aggravation to
people generally and to operators of retail, commercial, and institutional
establishments in particular.
- 26 -
-------
Improvement in quality and coverage of service will inevitably
cost money. In addition, in common with other services, the costs of
solid waste disposal are rising rapidly. The need for reducing unit costs
of operation is imperative through such means as mechanization and further
optimization of operating patterns. The Committee believes that possi-
bilities to do this are very real and that important progress can be made.
Training in the safe way to do a job and training in the effi-
cient technical performance of a job are in most important respects par-
allel and complementary. High accident rates, high rates of labor
turnover, high rates of absenteeism, and high equipment-maintenance costs
all indicate the serious need for a broad-based, comprehensive training
program for all levels of solid waste operating personnel.
Recycle of some values in solid wastes is practiced today.
Salvage of worn-out automobiles and the recovery of lead and copper from
discarded equipment are examples. The Committee was impressed, however,
by the gxtensive values potentially salvageable in today's urban solid
wastes, even though these "conglomerate" wastes are normally considered
very highly degraded. To the Committee, the development of technology to
economically restore these values is of paramount importance.
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT
The systems approach is a useful and disciplined way of looking
at a total system and analyzing the interrelated subsystems as well as
the interrelationships with other systems. Although first developed on
the basis of mathematical models into which quantitative inputs are nec-
essary to permit "hard" solutions, the concept is increasingly applied to
systems in which many of the interrelationships and constraints are qual-
itative in nature. Thus, while a mathematical solution independent of
human value judgments may not be possible, or is impractical, the systems
discipline does facilitate and demand: evaluation of feasible alterna-
tives, prediction of present and future consequences of specific action,
evaluation of impact of change in one or another element of the system,
indication of priorities, and selection of the most acceptable course of
action.
Approximately 25 million tons of paper and paper products, 14 million
tons of glass, 12 million tons of assorted metals (excluding junk
automobiles), 2.2 million tons of rubber, plus other potentially
reusable fractions, represent a significant portion of our national
material wealth.
- 27 -
-------
SYSTEMS APPROACH TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
The urban-generated fraction of the solid waste management
problem was singled out by the Committee for particular attention because
it directly and adversely affects the most people and is the most urgent
portion of the total problem. Similar analyses could be made relative to
other sources or combinations of sources shown in Figure 1. Lack of in-
formation characterizes many of these sources of waste and evaluation of
their role in the total waste-management system is a matter beyond the
scope of this report. This, however, identifies a study area to the
Bureau of Solid Waste Management, discussed in Section 4-D, Communication
and Information (pages 43—44),
In studying solid waste systems, the Committee suggests that
progress in the field of solid waste management is unlikely to come from
a massive breakthrough that will obliterate difficulties and simulta-
neously solve a wide range of problems. More likely, it will come from a
series of step-by-step efforts that solve one problem at a time. Gains
in the management of any single part of the system are likely to be small
and undramatic. But in the aggregate, a series of small improvements
systematically applied will bring substantial progress.
Although the principles of the systems approach are simple, a
systematic analysis of the total solid waste problem is exceedingly com-
plex. The proper management of a solid waste system is dependent upon the
input of knowledge from many disciplines. Legal, social, medical, and
economic factors introduce myriad qualitative inputs and constraints upon
the free functioning of the system. Engineering considerations include
the source, composition, storage, collection, transportation, separation,
salvage, processing, and reuse or final deposit of solid wastes. These
comprise the principal subsystems to be analyzed. They are subject to
quantification in physical and numerical terms. Yet solutions based on
engineered subsystems and components are themselves constrained by social,
economic, political, technological, ecological, and legal constraints.
Moreover, the total solid waste problem is but one aspect of an overall
waste problem that includes airborne and waterborne wastes, hence the
interrelationships between land, water, and air systems would be fully
considered when the solid waste system is examined in detail.
Employment of the techniques of systems analysis and highly ad-
vanced mathematical modeling in solid waste management systems depends
upon accurate information on all elements of the system. The National
Solid Wastes Survey (which is being conducted by the states with the as-
sistance of funds provided under the Solid Waste Disposal Act) is de-
signed to provide a portion of the needed information on such aspects of
the problem as sources, quantity, composition, collection, transportation,
In this context, urban is defined as a geographical area that has a
population density of 1,500 per square mile or greater. Waste
sources may include residential, commercial, industrial, governmen-
tal, and agricultural activities.
- 28 -
-------
reuse, and disposal of wastes.
Both qualitative and quantitative information is important in
the detailed planning of new components and systems. However, consider-
able additional data on these activities, plus data on processing-
equipment operation and costs, will be required before application of
operations-research-eomputer-programming techniques to complete systems
operation will be practical.
Additional cost and operating data are particularly important,
both for systems analysis and evaluation of alternatives, and for eval-
uation of future needs. Solid waste disposal, even in the public sector,
is already big business and promises to become larger. Two and one-half
billion dollars is estimated as the current annual public cost of solid
waste collection, transportation, processing, and disposal. The total
national costs are in excess of $4.5 billion. This represents the direct
cost of solid waste management, which is distributed through the present
tax structure, or is payable by special user charges to public or private
groups. It does not include such important costs as the internal costs
to industries for solid waste management, householder and institutional
costs for storage and handling of wastes, losses in property value due to
inadequacies in collection and disposal of solid wastes, the value of
potentially reusable fractions of solid wastes, or individual medical or
loss-of-health costs from the various forms of pollution and inadequate
control of vectors (flies, rats, mosquitoes, etc.).
In the future, solid wastes are going to change in both magni-
tude and type in this increasingly market-oriented, large metropolis-
concentrated, affluent society. Input-output analysis can show the details
of recycling with changing mixes and future capacity needs.
Despite the magnitude of the task of assembling the necessary
quantitative data, including cost data, for fully applying the systems
approach to solid waste management, and despite the limitations of present
data, the Committee urges that the Bureau continue to accumulate and eval-
uate solid waste systems data and, at the same time, proceed without undue
delay in the preparation of simulation models that can make the best use
of existing information and can be refined as the required additional
information becomes available.
The evaluation of constraints imposed by legal, social, cultural,
and other qualitative considerations is probably not subject to rigid
mathematical formulae and will likely have to be handled by some accept-
able sensitivity rating determined by local conditions.
1. Development and Demonstration of Improved Engineering Subsystems
and Components
Improvements in the performance of existing engineering compo-
nents of waste-management systems; the demonstration of new engineering
concepts in storage, collection, transportation, and disposal, to give
improvements in costs, quality, and acceptability of systems performance;
and the establishment of economically attractive processes for separation
29 -
-------
and Tense of the resources now being discarded are the areas of major
potential for satisfying the local and national objectives of solid waste
management.
Information is particularly necessary on source, composition,
and quantities. Engineering parameters are needed for better storage,
collection, handling and transportation, processing (including separation),
incineration, and final deposit of solid wastes.
A. Source, Composition, and Quantity
The source, composition, and quantity of refuse generated, par-
ticularly from residential sources, varies widely with seasons, economic
levels, economic base of the area, ethnic background of the inhabitants,
and the effects of technology on the neighborhood.
It is important to recognize the ever-changing composition of
solid wastes. A continuous program of data gathering is needed, with
changes in the primary factors influencing solid waste generation as the
criterion. Among the most important of these factors are:
1. Design of products leading to accelerated obsolescence;
2. Broader distribution of higher real income that makes
possible the increased manufacture and sale of consumer
items;
3. Packaging to improve sales appeal, prolong shelf life,
and reduce marketing costs per unit;
4. Increasing concentration of people in urban areas;
5. Changes in individual economic levels and aspirations,
which contribute to rapid style changes and desire for
status, convenience, comfort, or a sense of well-being
that can be achieved by accumulation of goods that are
easily used and discarded.
Because of the dynamic nature of these data, it is particularly
important to establish at least six carefully selected locations where
the long-term trends in per capita generation of refuse can be determined.
Detailed information from various types of sources will also be
particularly useful when reuse decisions are being made. To this end,
the Committee endorses and encourages the Bureau in its program of gath-
ering data of source, composition, and quantity, and suggests that the
program be expanded to include all solid waste streams.
Storage represents the average person's most intimate contact
with solid waste and is the most direct personal result of man's effect
upon his environment. Storage of refuse at the point of generation is
- 30 -
-------
usually a prelude to collection. For reasons related to collection tech-
niques and often the value of building floor space, the storage aspect of
solid waste management is characterized by limited volume of containers,
limited space, unsightliness, and auite commonly, by flies, odors, rats,
and fire hazards.
The needs fall generally into the following categories:
1. Substantially broadened concepts of health, convenience,
space, and access requirements;
2. Provision for separate storage of potentially reusable
waste materials;
3. Development of low-cost domestic and commercial incin-
erators that will meet all air and water quality
standards, health and safety regulations, and require
only minimum technical competence for their efficient
operation;
4. Improved stationary compaction equipment.
For resolution of the problems of on-site storage, attention
should be paid to the physical premises themselves. In only a few in-
stances have builders, planners, owners, architects, developers, or
others concerned made adequate provisions in terms of space and access
for on-site storage of refuse. Further, there has generally been no
compelling need for separation of the potentially reusable portions.
Both these matters will have to be given greater attention in the future.
Components us.ed under any particular set of conditions will be
determined by individual objectives, local ordinances, and local services
and economics. However, components of common interest to improved storage
include the conventional garbage can and larger containers. Alternative
or adjunct systems include domestic incinerators; commercial-sized in-
cinerators for apartments, hotels, hospitals, offices, and business
establishments; on-site compaction equipment; and systems that continually
scavenge the premises of wastes or facilitate the transfer of wastes to
collection systems.
Pneumatic and hydraulic collection systems and mechanical load-
ing equipment are in need of particular attention to reduce space require-
ments for on-site storage.
In relation to on-site storage the Bureau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment should assist in the development and demonstration of systems that
will minimize local storage and at the same time expedite the solution to
collection and transportation problems.
C. Collection, Handling, and Transportation
The collection, handling, and transportation of urban solid
- 31 -
-------
wastes directly, Intimately, and, in most cases, adversely affect the
senses of sight, smell, touch, and well-being of some 80 percent of the
population, and requires about 80 percent of the total systems-operating
costs. Adverse effects, which range from minor irritation to important
contribution to the degeneration of entire neighborhoods, are in almost
direct relationship with the concentration of people.
Complaints on collection and handling center mostly on noise
and the creation of unsanitary conditions at the point of collection,
delays in pickup, required packaging, infrequency of pickup, and restric-
tions on what will be picked up. There have, however, been better orga-
nized and more serious complaints about processing and discharge to the
land from citizens who object to having the required facilities near
their homes or who live along main transportation routes to the facilities.
In addition, more restrictive air- and water-pollution-control standards
have resulted in requirements for increased engineering attention to the
incineration and final components of the system. The result is that the
major portion of research and development funds were assigned to process-
ing and discharge studies.
The Bureau presently assigns about 7.5 percent of its research,
development, and demonstration funds to the collection, handling, separa"
tion, and transportation components of the system. On the other hand,
the discharge to the environment portions of the system—incineration,
sanitary landfills, composting, transfer stations, etc.—is presently
requiring about 20 percent of the systems-operating costs and is assigned
about 90 percent of the available research, development, and demonstra-
tion funds.
The rationale for this division of funds is easy enough to under-
stand. People have been willing to pay the high labor cost of removing
refuse from their premises, and once it has been removed from sight, they
have simply put it out of mind. Except for those who live near process-
ing or disposal facilities, people have been unconcerned with what happened
to their refuse once it left their premises.
Labor-management developments over the past few years lend addi-
tional urgency to the need for substantial improvements in the collection
and transportation components of the systems.
Other problems related to transportation by truck, rail, and
water are high maintenance costs and less than optimum performance of the
equipment. These problems are usually the result of some combination of
the following: (1) equipment inadequately designed or inadequately sized
for the job, (2) purchasing on inadequate specifications rather than rigid
performance, and (3) inadequate training of the maintenance and operating
crews. Objectives should be to improve equipment reliability and reduce
unit costs of wastes handled by increasing density of the compacted load,
reduce labor required for loading, reduce maintenance costs, improve the
utility of the vehicles for the specific function and area to be served,
and improve safety for personnel.
Several projects are presently under way to develop rail
32 -
-------
transport of compacted refuse from urban centers to areas in need of fill
material resulting from strip mining, land erosion, or reclamation of sub-
marginal lands. Well-managed reclamation projects of this type are a very
real benefit to all concerned: (1) They result in improvement of local
land resources in the receiving area; (2) they utilize existing trans-
portation systems that bring material into urban areas; and (3) they pro-
vide a solution to a critical portion of the urban solid waste management
objectives.
Other forms of local transport that are being considered include
pneumatic and hydraulic transportation. Both these methods deserve ade-
quate assignment of resources to develop new technology, assure proper
application of the best technology presently available, and determine the
operating characteristics including capital and operating costs, advan-
tages and disadvantages of each method. The Bureau's New Haven project
(Appendix A, page 52) is a good example of this activity. The Committee
strongly endorses and encourages increased emphasis on new concepts of
hardware and equipment, including demonstration, directly related to
specific solid waste storage, collection, and transportation problems.
The primary equipment used in residential storage and collection
is, and will continue in the foreseeable future to be, the refuse container,
paper and plastic bags, and the compactor truck. Thus, so that this
equipment and its operation can be improved in acceptability and efficien-
cy and the costs of providing this service reduced, the Committee recom-
mends that technical studies of the highest priority begin forthwith to
increase the mechanization, improve productivity per unit of labor, upgrade
the skills required, and improve health and safety.
D. Processing
The concept of processing may be applied to a number of steps in
the management of solid wastes and be directed to a number of objectives.
For example, such processes as compaction, baling, shredding, and other
size-reduction procedures may serve to preprocess wastes for ready segre-
gation of its components for further processing into resource materials.
On the other hand, they may prepare wastes for incineration, composting,
or landfill, which are normally considered to be disposal systems. These
subsystems, however, may also be recovery processes. Incineration is now
sometimes used for recovery of minerals; composting is used to salvage
organic humus; and landfill is being conceived as a storage of resource
materials pending the time when it may be economical to recover them. Each
of these processing steps require components that serve specific require-
ments and broaden the selection of options available to engineers in design-
ing to meet local or regional conditions and objectives.
1. Separation
Virtually all the urban-generated solid wastes (approximately
200 million tons per year) will have to be processed in some manner to
make progress in recovering the contained resource materials and reducing
the systems-operating costs. Although some materials such as newspaper,
for example, may be kept separate by the householder, it is unrealistic to
- 33
-------
expect much separation at the source. Thus, there is a massive materials-
handling problem. This means that a large quantity of material of highly
variable composition must be separated into identifiable parts with the
useful fractions returning to the resource inventory and the residue
deposited on land in an acceptable manner.
Methods of mechanical processing or separation that deserve
attention include screening, air tables, flotation, magnetic and heavy
media separation, vibration, and chemical treatment.
Economic advantages of separation may well go beyond the value
of reusing resources. Lower cost of disposal can result from a decrease
in residue left after separation. Upstream separation can significantly
reduce the costs and problems of final handling, reuse, and disposal. For
example, the problems and costs of disposal could be greatly reduced if
reusable paper, glass, other inorganic refractory materials, rubber
products, metals, and plastics were removed, separated, processed, and
returned to industry.
In past years efforts have been made to separate selected mate-
rials by hand, usually from conveyor belts prior to incineration or deposit.
Because of rapid increases in labor rates and low job appeal these efforts
have now been almost totally discontinued. Therefore, it must be assumed
that mechanical separation will be necessary and that the feasibility of
separation will be finally determined by the economics and efficiency of
the operation and the utility and marketability of the product.
2. Compaction, Size Reduction, and Baling
Compaction is required to reduce volume and increase the density
of refuse in order to reduce transportation costs or facilitate final
deposit. There is need for greater compaction in stationary storage and
wheeled collection equipment to reduce the volume requirements and reduce
the number of trips. Progress along these lines has been reported in
Europe. The Bureau's press project in Chicago is designed to determine
the feasibility of compressing refuse to about 75 pounds per cubic foot,
to reduce sanitary landfill volume requirements and to reduce rail and other
types of long-haul costs.
Some methods of shredding, crushing, or other forms of size
reduction have a wide variety of application related to preparation of the
material for shipping, storage, disposal, or further processing.
Baling is the final step in compaction of salvaged materials such
as paper, rags, etc. Requirements for these applications appear to be
provided where needs are adequately defined. Baling as a. method of retain-
ing density of mixed refuse after compaction for deposit needs additional
development work to improve the long-term stability and assure prevention
of air and water pollution.
E. Incineration
Even with the most optimistic assumptions for separation and
34 -
-------
utilization of certain portions of the urban waste streams, there will be
need in the indefinite future for incineration with sanitary landfill of
a considerable fraction of the solid waste stream. Much has been written
and said about the high costs, inefficiency, undesirable location, un-
sightliness, and contributions to air and water pollution of incinerator
operations. In most cases these adverse comments are richly deserved.
However, it is the opinion of the Committee that adequate technology is
available to make possible the construction and operation of acceptable
incinerator facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
1. Public acceptance of financing that provides for
design, construction, and operation based on rigid
minimum-performance standards.
2. Public recognition and acceptance of minimum
critical-size requirements to make possible lowest
practical cost per unit of throughput.
3. Site selection fully recognizes local conditions
and objectives.
4. Professional engineering is employed in the estab-
lishment of specifications, design, construction,
and operation.
5. Competent supervisory and operating personnel are
employed.
6. Acceptable performance standards based on present
and projected local composition and quantity of
solid waste with full recognition of requirements
for prevention of air and water pollution.
F. Landfill and Final Deposit
Landfill is widely used as a method of land reclamation. In
addition, landfill as a solid waste management system component of the
future may be viewed in two contexts. It may represent a stockpiling of
material until such time as the contained values become sufficiently
important to justify segregating and reprocessing. Or it may represent
the final deposit of worthless residue, such as broken ceramics and con-
crete. Concerted efforts to reduce the waste streams by salvage of usable
fractions and greater compaction or incineration of the economically un-
usable portions will reduce the volume requirement for final deposit.
However, there will be, in the foreseeable future, a continuing need for
final deposit sites.
The problems involved in sanitary landfill or final deposit of
wastes are more involved with siting and public acceptance than with tech-
nology, although known technology is by no means fully employed. Available
records indicate that there are about 90,000 more or less recognized land-
disposal sites in the United States. Of this number, about 19,000 were
planned, and some 12,000 are subject to a degree of local control that
- 35
-------
identifies them as "sanitary." Less than 14 percent of these partially
controlled sites enjoy any degree of local acceptance. There is no
question as to the low esteem in which the remaining 78,000 are now held
by the public. The National Solid Wastes Survey has detailed information
on about 6,000 sites, and finds that only 6 percent of these meet the
minimum requirements for designation as "sanitary landfills." The Com-
mittee feels that this condition has developed more from a lack of use of
available information and training than for any other reason.
Final deposit sites are becoming increasingly difficult to
establish, not only in urban areas, but also in areas where stringent
control of past operations has not been exercised.
The Committee stresses the importance of continued research-and-
development effort directed to the technology of producing landfills with
a minimum of larid requirements and a maximum of flexibility of subsequent
land use; and the need for measures to inform the public and its repre-
sentatives of the guidelines that lead to fully acceptable landfilling
operations.
2. Reuse of Resources
There can be no reasonable doubt that a mayor long-term objec-
tive of any waste management system must be to return the value fractions
to the resources inventory. Determination of the value of the various
fractions will depend upon the normal economics of utility, time, and
place. Moreover, the Committee concludes that there can now be only lim-
ited determination of values until separation of the various fractions are
made on a demonstration basis and specific technical and marketing research
projects directed toward their utilization.
The Utopia of a totally closed-resource cvcle with 100 percent
recycling will, of course, never be achieved. Nevertheless, the Committee
believes major fractions of virtually all solid waste streams can have
utility, but long-term-development plans recognizing this need for con-
servation and for upgrading the quality of the environment must be imple-
mented.
Progress in salvage of various fractions of solid waste streams
will be accelerated by the success of separation as far upstream as is
practical. This will require, on one hand, specific and determined
efforts in educating people at all levels to understand the needs and
advantages of adequate separation at the point of generation, and, on the
other, the development of mechanical equipment to make separation at the
closest downstream point after the refuse is mixed.
Economic reuse of salvaged materials will finally depend on
preparation of well-characterized and useful products and delivery of
these products at a competitive price to the point where they are accept-
able as a resource or process material by industry. Worthwhile accomplish-
ment along these lines will require determination, close coordination, and
understanding between waste-management groups in providing usable materials
36 -
-------
to industry and industry groups in providing processing methods and
determining product specifications that will accept the salvaged material.
It is quite probable that many salvage and recycle activities
will not be self-supporting during the process, pilot, and marketing-
development stages. Significant development funds will thus be needed,
as well as hard-headed realism in eliminating quickly from further devel-
opment those schemes that will ultimately fail.
Of the potentially reclaimable fractions, paper and paper pro-
ducts and certain metals now seem the most likely in terms of volume of
material and known technology of recovery. However, recycle of glass,
rubber, and plastics should be studied in the research-and-development
phases.
A. Paper and Paper Products
Approximately 50 million net tons of paper and paper products
were used in the United States in 1967. The best figures available indi-
cate that more than 80 percent of this production goes into one-time use
and discard applications. Of this quantity, about 10 million net tons
were reused. A substantial portion of the remainder became solid waste
and contributed some 35 to 50 percent of many domestic and commercial
solid waste collections. Newsprint usage was about 9 million net tons,
paperboard products about 24 million net tons, nonpackaging printing paper
about 5.6 million net tons, and miscellaneous about 11.4 million net tons.
Of the 10 million net tons of paper and paper products reused,
a substantial portion is generated as scrap from printing and publishing
activities, manufacturing scrap, and industrial and large commercial and
government establishments. A relatively small percentage is collected
from domestic, schools, smaller government, office, and smaller commercial
sources. These last sources account for a substantial portion of the
waste-paper accumulation. Collection from these sources is almost exclu-
sively by churches, civic groups, and Boy Scouts, and does not presently
constitute a reliable raw-materials source for a large paper mill designed
to operate on a high percentage of recycle material.
There are no major technological limitations to the reuse of
newsprint and paperboard.
There are technological and economic problems in the reuse of
magazines and most miscellaneous grades because of filler materials, such
as clay, resins and starches, hot-melt adhesives, certain types of inks,
and noncellulosic inserts and staples. None of these problems appears to
be of overwhelming magnitude.
This figure breaks down approximately as follows (in thousands of
net tons): magazines 1,954; commercial printing 1,956; catalogs
and directories 655; books 642; and converting (stationery, tablets,
tape, etc.) 433.
- 37 -
-------
In addition to what appear to be solvable technological reuse
problems, there is the problem of separate accumulation and storage by
the housewife, the office staff, and the smaller commercial and industrial
manager, and the separate collection, processing, and transportation to the
point of further processing or the point of reuse. Initial separation,
accumulation, storage, and collection will depend on habit, willingness
to cooperate, and a thorough understanding of the problems. The Com-
mittee believes that the motivations of good housekeeping and other social
and economic factors may elicit the support of a well-informed public.
But realism also says that development of mechanical equipment to separate
paper from mixed refuse deserves a very high priority.
The growth rate of the paper and paper-products industry is pro-
jected by the industry at 100 percent in the next 16 years or production
of 100 million net tons by 1985. A goal of supplying at least 50 percent
of this growth from the increased usage of recycled material seems to the
Committee to be a realistically attainable, technologically possible, and
economically feasible objective. Success in attaining this objective
would release 91.5 million acres of forest land for other beneficial uses.
The percentage of production that is recycled is historically about 20
percent. If, in addition, the annual recycle can be increased by 50 per-
cent of the projected growth, or 25 million net tons by 1985, the saving
would be equivalent to 31 million cords of wood—more than two and one-
half times the present total annual production of the four leading states—
Georgia, Washington, Alabama, and Florida. Even including 25 million
ton increase in recycling, the projected 1985 production will require
an additional 55 million acres of forest lands. The potentials are
staggering and the national benefit to risk payoff is many thousands.
This is in addition to reducing the waste load in the selected areas
by perhaps as much as 25 percent.
The Committee believes that the recycle of paper and paper pro-
ducts presents a timely opportunity. The need is well identified, the paper
industry seems interested, technological problems appear to be of manage-
able size, economics seem to be favorable, and market development does not
appear to present any overriding problems. The Committee, therefore, urges
that the Bureau of Solid Waste Management sponsor a broad-based study of
the social, technological, and economic problems involved in increasing
the recycle of paper and paper products to supply a mayor portion of the
increased pulp-wood requirements during the next 16 years.
B. Metals and Minerals
Of the metals and minerals in solid wastes, junk-auto scrap and
incinerator residues seem most worthy of attention, beyond the normal
handpicking and metal-salvage operations currently in practice.
Junk-Auto Scrap
In 1966, it was estimated that about 6 million scrap cars were
processed and sold to the steel and other metalworking industries for reuse,
nearly equaling the number of cars being junked. This was the first time
that reuse of scrapped automobiles equaled the scrapping rate, but the way
- 38
-------
in which the record was achieved is unique. Large, high capital cost
auto-shredding plants, constructed in the large urban centers in recent
years, processed more automobile hulks from the accumulated backlog of
cars in the urban centers than were junked in those same areas. At the
same time, however, more scrapped automobiles were being added to the
accumulation of junk cars, estimated at 10 to 20 million units, scattered
in wrecking yards throughout the United States, in some areas where op-
eration of the high-cost shredding plants is impractical. Thus, although
the accumulation of junk cars near urban centers decreased, the number
of cars added to junk yards in other areas increased. This pattern of
scrap-automobile accumulation threatens to continue. Furthermore, the
rising quality standards for ferrous scrap will, in the near future,
probably again cause autos to accumulate in excess of their scrapping
rate.
Atmospheric-pollution laws by many communities now prohibit the
open burning of auto bodies. Small yards cannot afford the capital in-
vestment necessary to install an incinerator with the required air-
pollution-control equipment. The increasing need for cleaner auto scrap
has had a noticeable effect on the collection of unusable automobiles.
Salvage yards often offer nothing for delivered, unstripped cars, and in
many parts of the country the wrecking operators refuse to tow cars away
unless they are paid to do so. Scrap yards offer as little as $7 per ton
for clean, stripped or burned auto bodies delivered to the yards. Autos
are now being left on city streets, highways, and vacant lots in ever-
increasing numbers, as owners find it cheaper to abandon the old cars
than to have them towed to a collection point. In 1968, 43,000 cars were
abandoned in New York City and 24,500 were abandoned in Chicago. In rural
areas, cars are left along roads and in the fields. Nationwide, over half
a million cars were abandoned in 1967. In many states the abandoned junk
car must be held for a period of 30 to 90 days while an attempt is made
to locate its owner. All these factors have contributed to the present
problem of disposal and utilization of scrap automobiles.
The Committee strongly supports the continuation of work leading
toward the efficient private-sector production of usable scrap from junked
cars and appliances. The Committee also recommends studies on the admin-
istrative or legislative possibilities for further control of, or pro-
vision for, scrap-automobile transport and processing for disposal at the
end of their economic life.
Incinerator Residues
The Bureau of Mines has reported that metal mineral resources
are present in incinerator ash in such amounts as to justify exploration
of the technology and economics of their recovery. It is estimated that
if all refuse were burned in properly designed incinerators, the residue
might contain some 10 million tons of iron; almost 1 million tons of
nonferrous metal including aluminum, lead, zinc, copper, and tin; 14
million tons of glass; lesser amounts of nonmetallic minerals; and small
quantities of precious metals such as tungsten, silver, and gold. The
Committee supports an intensification of work leading to an estimate of
the economics of removal of mineral values from solid waste streams both
- 39
-------
before and after -incineration.
C. Organic Matter
The recovery of organic matter represents a long-term rather
than immediate reuse of an important fraction of solid wastes, although
it may well decline in importance if paper is otherwise recycled from the
wastes stream. Nevertheless, the technology of recycling organic resources
by use of the composting process is well established.
Composting is a method of processing that produces from the
organic fraction of urban wastes a humus suitable for use as a soil con-
ditioner. Because of its potential to salvage organic matter, in contrast
with incineration, which oxidizes it, compost has had wide public appeal
to conservation-minded citizens, but little success in the marketplace.
It requires generally that wastes be preprocessed by segregating and
grinding or shredding and so may be worth re-evaluating where segregating
is being practiced for other reasons.
Failure of composting as an economical method of waste repro-
cessing has stemmed largely from the concept that marketability must be
a feature of the system. However, in more recent studies sponsored by
the Bureau of Solid Waste Management in Fresno, California, in which the
systems approach was applied to solid waste management, composting emerged
as a feature of the most economical systems. In this context, the process
was used to prepare wastes for landfill and so also represented a stock-
piling of recovered resource materials in the earth until such time as
they might become economically exploitable.
In general, however, concern with the composting process itself
does not offer a particularly fruitful avenue of commercial development.
Modest attention should be given to the place of the composting process
in the overall waste-management system in the context of recycling of
resource materials.
3. Other Changes in the Waste Stream
The Committee considered several other possibilities of changing
the waste streams, including the problems of: development of bio-
degradable plastics, reclamation of aluminum cans, and design of consumer
hard goods, such as automobiles, for easier salvage.
Increased attention by government agencies and the threats of
legislation could act as further incentives for the private sector to
solve these problems, much as the nondegradable detergent problem was
solved.
The Committee concluded that little economic incentive for
design changes exists. Other pressures are thought more likely to accom-
plish such ends, including design for easier servicing—a pressing consu-
mer need.
40 -
-------
4. Selected Administrative Considerations
A. Business Management
The Committee found that there is much need for improvements in
the business management of solid waste disposal systems. There are indi-
vidual systems hoth public and private that are very well managed indeed,
but they represent a relatively small fraction of the total number of
systems.
Part of the problem lies with operating methods of personnel
charged with managing a waste-disposal system, and part lies with the
ambivalent nature of the system itself. Many systems are partly a service
business and partly a political fief. The operator of the system is ex-
pected to run an efficient service, but he has numerous other political
constraints.
One product of ambivalence toward objectives is a serious
shortage of good cost accounting. In many instances there is no account-
ing of the total cost of operating the entire system. Cost may be
scattered among several different departments or imposed on the house-
holder in many instances.
The Committee recommends implementation of a project to design
a cost-accounting system. It should be developed in a simplified form
that will give operators a realistic periodic review of costs of operating
each segment of the system as well as an overall picture of costs. This
effort to obtain good cost control is part of the attack on a larger
problem—the lack of good operations planning. The Committee encourages
the efforts of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management in developing better
cost and management planning data.
B. Public-Utility Concept
In most metropolitan areas, organization for solid waste dispos-
al leaves much to be desired. Political fragmentation is a serious
problem. Adjacent political subdivisions many times prefer to go it
alone, and too often the effect is as if the lord of each fief has a
vested interest in maintaining his autonomy.
Regional authorities for handling solid waste offer one avenue
for improvement. However, many local political groups object strenuously
to yielding control of local affairs to regional authorities. The very
term "regional authority" appears in some respects to have become a
politically polarizing word. Many local political leaders have become
extremely concerned about the establishment of regional authorities, which
they feel may not be adequately responsive to the electorate.
The Committee believes that as the volume of solid wastes in-
creases and problems of disposal mount, more viable systems of organi-
zation must be devised if chaos is to be avoided. Such systems should be
planned before the problem reaches a crisis stage.
- 41 -
-------
Most political subdivisions have had experience with service
utilities and have found them an acceptable system of organization. The
Committee believes that a regulated solid waste utility might well become
the organizational vehicle that could bring increased order, efficiency,
and economy to the field of solid waste management. Such an organization
could solve the problem of political fragmentation because it would be
able to cross political boundaries and organize service on an efficient
and economical area wide basis. It would have no vested interest in
inefficiency. On the contrary, it would have strong incentive to become
as efficient as possible. It could attract personnel who understand and
can apply modern management techniques. Although regulated by governmen-
tal authority, it would be far enough removed from day-to-day political
exigencies to resist those who are tempted to bend operating procedures
to meet political objectives. Policies for a utility would be established
by the political process but operations would be left in the hands of
qualified professional managers.
The Committee recommends that a study be launched to determine
how a solid waste disposal utility might be organized, financed, regulated,
and operated in a metropolitan area. The study should delve into such
questions as government ownership versus investor ownership, source and
type of regulation, and whether a utility should attempt to operate the
entire system from collection through final disposal, or whether it should
manage only the processing and disposal segments of the system. The study
should concern itself with legal bases for such an organization and explore
techniques for obtaining the revenues that would be necessary to ensure
successful operation. The Committee recommends a study of the public-
utility concept of solid waste management.
C. Health, Safety, and Training of Operating Personnel
Nationally, there are an estimated 337,000 people directly em-
ployed full time in the collection, transportation, processing, and dis-
posal of urban solid wastes. The administrators and personnel of these
systems have long been plagued by high rates of accidents, illness, ab-
senteeism, and labor turnover. Reliable figures for comparison are not
available, but the Committee believes these rates in total are probably
the highest for any major occupational group in the nation.
Labor turnover rates have been reported to range from 5 percent
to 480 percent per year. The Committee has no firm idea what the national
experience is but strongly suspects that the average is somewhere in the
200 percent range. By any yardstick this is a most difficult problem,
which emphasizes the critical need for a comprehensive program designed
to train employees at all levels in the safe and efficient performance of
their jobs, prepare them for acceptance of more highly skilled jobs, and
develop pride in the safe and efficient performance of a worthwhile job.
Along with even modest progress in the improvement of solid
waste management, the equipment in use will become more sophisticated and
efficient, maintenance and operations planning and performance should im-
prove by several orders, and job requirements will be substantially up-
graded. The skills of the people who manage and operate the system must be
- 42 -
-------
upgraded if the investments in equipment and facilities are to have a
commensurate public benefit.
In 1967, the National Safety Council and the American Public
Works Association conducted a survey of municipal safety experiences.
Of the 245 cities that reported an active safety and training program,
only 39 reported usable data on accident ratings. Of the 39, 12 were
chosen as supplying data that could be reasonably well matched and repre-
sentative of national experience. The condensed results were:
Frequency Severity
Refuse handling and disposal 60.77 2,012
All industry 6.91 689
Underground mining 36.64 6,165
This is an appalling safety record.
The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 was enacted
to appraise the manpower requirements and resources of the nation and to
develop and apply the information and methods needed to deal with problems
of unemployment resulting from automated and technological change. There
is little evidence that the intent of this Act has been brought to bear
on the needs of employees in the labor systems of community waste-collec-
tion or disposal agencies. Both the Department of Labor and the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare have been designated responsible
for the administration of the Act. Considerable benefit to workers and
the public and private agencies concerned with basic community services
could be realized if this already available resource is brought to bear on
the problem.
The Committee urges that the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
take the initiative in securing the assistance of appropriate divisions
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of Labor,
and possibly other agencies in planning and executing a comprehensive
technical-training and safety program to upgrade the skills and supply
adequately trained personnel for all levels of local and regional solid
waste management activities.
D. Communication and Information
In its deliberations, the Committee found a discouraging but
understandable lack of communication at virtually all levels between
groups who, by law, profession, or avocation, should be making significant
Frequency rate = Number of disabling in.-juries x 1,000,000
Employee hours of exposure
Severity rate = Total man days charged x 1,000,000
Employee hours of exposure
- 43 -
-------
contributions to the solution of all types of solid waste management
problems. This condition is particularly apparent at the federal govern-
ment and local official levels. However, it is a major problem at all
levels of interest and activity.
In a technically oriented activity, the question of communica-
tion and dissemination of information among the diverse disciplinary
groups and even within the same discipline usually is, or rapidly becomes,
a critical problem as objective activity is broadened and expanded.
In addition to the scientific aid engineering disciplines, the
improvement of environmental quality requires interaction between social,
political, legal, and medical sciences x.'ith heavy dependence on economists
and industry.
Because of the lack of understanding of need, poorly defined
market identification and potential, and inadequate research, development,
and prototype funding; there has been a critical lack of public, scientif-
ic, engineering, and industrial attention directed toward accomplishment of
solid waste management objectives. It is hoped that all groups will rec-
ognize the opportunities for improvements in systems performance and the
recovery and reuse of the discards of our affluence as an opportunity to
apply on a complete cycle basis, the full benefits of our technology.
An area of prime responsibility of the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management must be one of collection, evaluation, and dissemination of
information relating to solid wastes and solid waste management. The
Committee urges that as first priority a vastly expanded activity lie
established to amass, evaluate, and. disseminate technical, economic,
legal, social, and medical information on the source, quantity, nature,
and management of solid wastes, with particular reference to the respon-
sibility of local officials and the public in managing, reusing, and
disposing of such wastes in conformity with environmental objectives.
E. The Rural-Urban Interface
In addition to the consideration of all the urban solid wastes
previously discussed, there is a significant nonurban waste-management
problem that has an effect upon the metropolitan community. A city is
generally surrounded by agricultural lands that supply the food for the
city dwellers. Agriculture also generates wastes—animal manures, crop
remains, and pesticide residues are three typical examples. There is
often a most serious technological and social problem of agricultural
waste management at the edge of the city and beginning of the farmland—
at the rural-urban interface. The city edge often consists of suburban
housing of higher than average income families that come to the area for
its pastoral and aesthetic values; pollution of the environment from any
source is dimly viewed. On the other hand, in response to the increased
food demand of the expanding city, farmers intensify their farming opera-
tions. They cultivate their land more intensively, and they confine more
animals on their acreage—they create more wastes per unit of time and unit
of area. Since, in many instances, these wastes can no longer be disposed
of on the farm, they are hauled to public disposal sites. These wastes,
44 -
-------
and the environmental degradation they cause, are a serious source of
friction at the city-rural area interface.
There is no single answer to the problem, and solutions will
ultimately be as much political and economic as they will be technological,
However, significant research and engineering has been conducted in agri-
cultural waste management to minimize pollution from agricultural sources.
Regrettably, such minimization has a significant cost, and the farmer must
balance this against the financial result of moving to a more rural area
where waste-management problems are less critical.
The Committee recognizes the solid waste management problems at
the urban-rural interface, and encourages the Department of Agriculture
and the Bureau of Solid Waste Management'to undertake complementary re-
search to minimise both the problems and the costs of agricultural waste
handling. The Bureau should address itself to the problem with a real-
istic proportion of the funds available, concentrating on handling and
management of agricultural wastes where they are disposed of at public
sites rather than on the farmers' land.
- 45 -
-------
CHAPTER V. PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To accomplish the four objectives of solid waste management
(page 26) and combining the conclusions of Chapters III and IV, the
Committee makes the following recommendations, with items under each
recommended action in order of priority:
Recommendation No. 1
That there be established a solid waste management -information
center designed to accumulate all applicable present and future informa-
tion from both foreign and domestic sources, evaluate, and disseminate
this information to various groups. The objectives of the center would
include:
1. Provision of technical news and information designed to
inform elected and appointed officials and to assist them
in solving their specific solid waste management problems.
2. Provision of technical information concerning the scientific,
engineering, salvage, and manufacturing needs of solid waste
management designed to inform universities, research insti-
tutes, inventors, news media, engineering, and industrial
groups of opportunities in contributing to improvements in
solid waste management.
3. Publication of engineering data, performance requirements,
economic information, site requirements, and other perti-
nent information for those who plan, design, construct, and
operate solid waste management facilities.
4. Publication of management data as developed under activities
outlined in Recommendation No. 3.
5. Creation and distribution of general public information
releases concerning solid waste management, particularly
to local radio, TV, newspapers, and other mass media, as
well as to schools, service clubs, and civic groups.
6. Give public-relations guidance to regional and local
authorities to aid them in accomplishing local solid waste
management objectives.
7. Planning and participating in symposia, professional
meetings, conferences, and conventions as required to
promote the accomplishment of solid waste management objec-
tives and encourage participation by the private sector.
46 -
-------
Recommendation Ifo. 2
That research, development, and large- or full-scale demonstra-
tions on solid waste systems and components be carried out -in metropolitan
areas where solid waste problems derive from the several sectors of the
community—these activities to include the technological, operational,
and economic factors for the newest and best approaches to storage
separation, collection, transportation, salvage, processing, preparation
for recycle, and deposit. Specific objectives to include:
1. To determine design parameters and economic factors required
for the design, and manufacture of improved equipment and
demonstrate such improved equipment, with priority on
increased mechanisation, reduced labor usage, and improved
safety, storage, collection, and transportation.
2. To determine design parameters and to demonstrate equipment
for separation and salvage of the potentially useful com-
ponents of solid wastes with first priority on paper and
paper products, junked automobiles and major appliances,
and on the mineral values before and after incineration.
Reducing and improving local storage and encouraging up-
stream separation is of particular priority. Industrial
participation in these determinations is vitally necessary.
3. To develop the necessary hardware, establish the engineering
and economic requirements, and demonstrate residue disposal
systems involving the most imaginative new ideas and
principles that will promote public acceptance.
4. To develop data, information, and other needs for those
who design and construct waste-management systems and
facilities.
5. To develop specifications for minimum performance, includ-
ing safety requirements, of solid waste systems hard-
ware.
6. To conduct biological and ecological studies directly re-
lated to solid waste management.
7. To support and urge the solution by the packaging industry
of the growing disposal problems of plastic and aluminum
packaging materials.
Recommendation No. 3
That there be substantial expansion of efforts to improve
management information, planning, and manpower training including co-
ordination with other federal, state, regional, and local government
groups and with private enterprise along the following lines:
1. Establishment of a simplified standardized cost-accounting
- 47
-------
system fox- use by local and regional authorities.
2. Development of guidelines, techniques, and procedures fop
comprehensive regional land-use planning in which residue
management programs are adequately considered.
3. Planning and executing a comprehensive technical-training
program to improve the productivity, upgrade the skills,
and supply adequately trained personnel for local and re-
gional solid waste management activities.
4. Initiation of a study of the legal aspects (local, regional,
state, federal, and international) of solid waste manage-
ment including legislative needs, and institutional,
jurisdictional, and legal roadblocks to resolution of
problems.
5. Study of the feasibility of solid waste disposal utilities
both government- and investor-owned.
6. Continuing and expanding the data-gathering activities of
the state solid waste agencies that make possible the
National Solid Wastes Survey.
7. Expanding of the systems analysis and modeling of solid
waste systems for future capacity and cost planning.
8. Advising on legislation for local, state, or federal action
to provide for recycle of junked automobiles and major
appliances at the end of their economic life.
9. Conducting studies to determine if householders or businesses
can be induced to separate their solid wastes at the point
of storage. Particular reference should be made to paper
and paper products.
10. Initiating a study of political, sociological, cultural,
and economic aspects of solid waste management to determine
the reasons solid waste problems are not being resolved at
the level of technical capability.
- 48
-------
CHAPTER VI. RECOMMENDED FUNDING LEVELS
The question of minimum adequate funding of the federal respon-
sibility under the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act (P. L. 89-272) and the
costs of implementing the recommendations of this report were considered
by the Committee from two points of view:
1. Based on the size of the total waste-disposal business
(in the public sector), the level of technological maturity,
the magnitude of the problem, and the number of people in-
volved, what is the proper level of funding relative to the
total costs of the activity?
2. Based upon an analysis of present identifiable disposal-
system expenditures, the potential for improving the
environment, improving the service, or reducing costs for
each category of expenditure, and the urgency of each prob-
lem area relative to the present state of the art, what is
the minimum realistic level of funding that should result
in adequate progress toward solution of the complex of
problems in a 5-year period of time?
In each of these analyses, the Committee restricted its de-
liberations to consideration of research, development, and demonstration
needs to support the acquisition of basic data and information designed
primarily to advance the state of the art, improve the dissemination of
information, and support the legal and planning needs directly related to
the recommendations of this report. Specifically excluded are considera-
tions of grants or cost sharing for installation of essentially conven-
tional or normal advances in -the state-of-the-art facilities and equipment.
Also excluded are funds for study of problems predominately related to
agricultural and industrial activities.
1. FUNDING LEVELS BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE TOTAL BUSINESS
Estimates of the present total annual costs of solid waste
management, both public and private, range somewhere between $4 and $6
billion with the average somewhere around $4.5 billion.
The Fresno study (Appendix B, page 55) in 1968 estimated the
total expenditures for solid wastes management in Fresno County, Califor-
nia, were 0.93 percent of the gross county product. Fresno County has a
substantial agricultural and industrial base and may not be representative
of the nation. The Committee was not able to accurately judge the rela-
tiveness of the Fresno costs to the total national costs, but believes
this figure may be somewhat high.
In considering the type of business, the low level of tech-
nological development, the potentials for reducing costs and increasing
recycle of resources, and the potentials for significantly improving
man's feeling of well-being and the quality of his environment, the
- 49
-------
Committee suggests that annual federal expenditures of 2 percent of the
waste-disposal business gross would be in line with good business prac-
tice. This would be an annual federal expenditure of about $90 million,
assuming a total annual system's cost of $4.5 billion.
It may well be that the long-term costs of funding what the
Committee feels is the proper federal government responsibility for
research, development, demonstration, and information related to the
adequate management of solid wastes could reach $90 million. However,
the Committee cannot at this time recommend such a level. Even if funds
were available, such expansion of the effort could probably not be effi-
ciently carried out in a time period of less than 5 years unless a crash
program were initiated.
2. FUNDING LEVELS BASED ON ESTIMATED COSTS OF
IMPLEMENTING THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee reviewed the various individual recommendations,
the present state of the art, the present level of support under the
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, the rate of buildup and the realistical-
ly attainable levels of progress in the next 5 years, given adequate funds.
This to the Committee proved to be the more useful method of arriving at
recommended funding.
The total costs of the recommended actions will rise to higher
levels than the present costs under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. For
example, the costs of demonstration will be largely incremental to the
present program costs. Work on new concepts in solid waste management
has up to now been largely concentrated in the research phase. Out of
this will come a number of projects that will, in accordance with
Recommendation No. 2, have to be piloted or demonstrated in nearly
full scale on operational or "real world" sites in order to be properly
developed and thus acceptable for local or regional use. (It should be
noted that urban-development works of other federal agencies could include
funds for carrying out some of the demonstration purposes of Recommenda-
tion No. 2.)
The annual rate of expenditures for solid waste management
research and development cannot be increased indefinitely. A longer
range balance between research and the more expensive demonstration or
pilot operations should come about and cause a leveling out; ultimately
the total level could be established as a percentage of the total public-
sector solid waste disposal expenditures. As noted above, comparison
with technically similar private-sector businesses suggests 2 percent per
annum would be an efficient use of funds.
A table of minimum activity levels of funding major recommenda-
tions, endorsed and recommended by the Committee, is shown on the fol-
lowing page.
50 -
-------
RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
BY
SPECIFIC CATEGORY OF NEED FISCAL YEARS 1970-1974 ($'000)
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT OF 1965, PUBLIC LAW 89-272
(BUREAU OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ONLY)
1968 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Recommendation No. 1
Information and communication - 500 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Recommendation No. 2
Systems and components,
research, development
and demonstration 8,445 13,500 19,000 23,500 26,000 26,500
Recommendation No. 3
Management information,
planning, and manpower
training 2,925 3,000 3,500 3,500 4,000 4,000
Administrative costs 2,645 3,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Total 14,115 19,500 27,000 32,000 35,500 36,000
Expenditures under Recommendation No. 2 are expected to be
approximately one-fifth research and four-fifths demonstration within
about 3 years.
Unexpected progress or failure in any particular area could,
of course, substantially change the requirement for funds.
Greater participation of the private sector in the planning
and design of new and innovative systems and components for present
and future needs must also be fostered. It appeared to the Committee
that more private-sector participation would now be timely. Public
awareness of the degradation of the environment from solid wastes can be
counted upon today. Dramatic (and dangerous) breakdowns in solid waste
handling and disposal systems have also been demonstrated recently. All
of this is to say that there is growing public concern for solid waste
disposal, and there will be growing commercial markets for waste disposal
equipment and systems thereby. These market forces should be tapped.
Private-sector participation could take two forms: (a) greater
utilization and dissemination of know-how from private waste collection
and disposal companies through the medium of conferences, and other
appropriate information-exchange media; (b) interchange, including both
personnel and information, between systems research and development
personnel and private equipment makers and design firms. Recommendation
1-7 is intended to cover this (page 46).
-51
-------
APPENDIX A
Synopsis
of
New Haven, Connecticut, On-Site Solid Waste Research Program*1
The need to dispose of the solid wastes generated each day by
individuals and their families is a problem of major proportions for
every city. The problem is accentuated as the cost associated with col-
lection of solid wastes continues to increase with increasing population,
traffic congestion, and demands of labor.
One means of simplifying the local and regional problems of
handling and disposing of refuse would be to decrease the weight and/or
volume of refuse at its source. In the past, incineration of refuse on
the site of individual high-rise multifamily dwelling units has contri-
buted significantly to this end. However, recently enacted or pending
legislation aimed at mitigating the problems of air pollution within most
of the nation's largest cities by limiting on-site incineration of refuse—
either through prohibition or performance criteria—plus the attention
now being given to the solid waste problem in general has resulted in
development of alternative methods for on-site handling of the wastes as
well as advances in the state of the art of incineration and attendant
air-pollution-control equipment.
These events have led to repeated inquiries to both the Bureau
of Solid Waste Management and the Building Research Advisory Board con-
cerning the reliability and efficiency of the alternatives and improve-
ments, concerning their capability to maintain aesthetically pleasing and
healthful environmental conditions at the site, and concerning the impact
their use would have on ultimate waste-disposal plans of municipalities
or regions. Consequently, faced with the absence of reliable and useful
field data in sufficient quantity to yield quantitative answers to such
inquiries, the Bureau of Solid Waste Management requested the National
Research Council through the Building Research Advisory Board to establish
an advisory committee to undertake an extensive program involving col-
lection and evaluation of data on the alternatives and improvements to
provide an objective basis for responses to the technical inquiries.
For further information contact:
Building Research Advisory Board
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20418
- 52
-------
The overall 3-year study that has evolved specifically is de-
signed and intended to permit, through use of existing high-rise multi-
family structures, concurrent on-site investigation of an incinerator
system in one structure, a system of the compactor type in a second struc-
ture, and a wet pulper/presser system in a third structure. In addition,
household garbage grinders will be investigated as a variable parameter
with respect to these three different refuse-handling techniques. The
overall objective of the 3-year program has been established to be:
Study currently available equipment and/or techniques for
handling solid waste within high-rise multifamily structures.
considering user needs and acceptance, public-health concerns,
and performance, with secondary concern for the interface
between the on- and off-site system.
Specific objectives of the study include, but are not necessar-
ily limited to, preparation of guidelines concerning:
1. Extent of contribution to air pollution of on-site incin-
eration, utilizing sound combustion principles and pol-
lution-control devices.
2. Effectiveness and efficiency of on-site incineration, compac-
tion, and wet pulverization.
3. Weight, volume, and composition of solid waste before and
after incineration, compaction, and wet pulverization.
4. Environmental conditions maintained with on-site incinera-
tion, compaction, and wet pulverization.
5. Power requirements, costs, and owner/tenant/custodian
acceptance of on-site incineration, compaction, and wet
pulverization.
6. Effects of separating putrescible wastes from rubbish with
the use of garbage grinders on environmental conditions
maintained by each of the different techniques for handling
refuse.
7. Extent of contribution to building sewer system associated
with incineration, compaction and pulverization, and the
use of food-waste disposers.
8. Acceptable refuse collection-chute configurations, sizes,
materials, and methods of cleaning.
9. Applicability and effectiveness of different methods of
waste containerization (e.g., disposable paper and plastic
sacks, metallic and plastic cans, wheeled containers, etc.).
10. On-site storage requirements for incineration, compaction,
and wet pulverization, and effects thereon of the different
- 53 -
-------
methods of waste containerization.
11. Training requirements of janitor/maintenance personnel for
on-site incineration, compaction, and wet pulverization.
12. Guidelines for architects/engineers/builders in providing
acceptable and convenient refuse collection, reduction,
storage, and removal facilities.
13. Descriptive techniques demonstrating the manner in which a
building owner could select between the alternatives avail-
able for handling refuse on the site.
- 54 -
-------
APPENDIX B
Synopsis
of
A Systems Study of Solid Waste Management in the Fresno, California, Area*
This study was undertaken to develop a plan for the management
of solid wastes in a rapidly urbanizing agricultural region of California
on the premise that solid waste management involves such complexities
and interdependencies that a sophisticated and systematic approach is
needed if more than immediate and partial solutions are to be achieved.
The prime objectives of the study were: (a) to determine an
optimum solution to the solid waste management problems of a specific
region (the Fresno area), and (b) to develop a technology for study of
the region that could be applied to solve solid waste management problems
in other similar regions. Accomplishment of these objectives required the
performance of three essential elements of work in such a manner that the
methodology and the experience gained in its application might be readily
applied elsewhere. These elements were:
The development and documentation of a method of measure-
ment by which the effectiveness of any system or means of man-
aging solid wastes might be evaluated and compared with alter-
native systems in terms of the extent to which they solve the
health, air, water, and land pollution, socioeconomic, aesthetic,
and other problems engendered by solid wastes.
An assessment of the effectiveness of the region's present
solid waste management system and the concomitant identifica-
tion of the magnitude of the present problem by means of the
method of measurement, including an estimate of future problems
if appropriate action is not taken now or in the near future.
An evaluation of alternative systems by means of the method
of measurement to identify the solution that will best provide,
at reasonable cost, a solid waste management system for the study
region.
*Aerojet-General Corporation. A Systems Study of Solid Waste Management
in the Fresno Area; Final Report an a Solid Waste Management Demon-
stration. Public Health Service Publication No. 1959. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. [411 p.]
- 55 -
-------
The basic plan covered five major sequential steps. The first
step developed a measure by which alternative proposed systems could be
evaluated against a common criterion, so that superior systems could be
recognized. The second step concentrated on the conceptual design of
potentially good, alternative solid waste management systems. The per-
formance score and cost of each alternative was identified in the third
step. The fourth step compared the alternatives in terms of performance
score and cost of other important factors to determine which alternative
should be chosen for implementation. The fifth and final step of the
study considered the data and methods developed for the study region to
determine how they might be best applied to help solve solid waste manage-
ment problems in other similar regions.
The 18-month effort has developed data and methods encompassing:
1. Identification of the solid wastes in the study region and
the problems created, and identification of the groups,
agencies, and agency representatives affected by these
problems.
2. A procedure for measuring the effectiveness of any proposed
system or means for managing solid wastes in the region in
terms of the extent to which it solves solid waste problems.
3. Identification of the conditions under which any solid
waste management system for the region must operate, includ-
ing waste loads projected to the year 2000; regional topo-
graphical, geological, climatological, hydrological, economic,
and demographic data; projected land-use, laws, and policy
criteria; technical and cost data; and jurisdictional rela-
tionships .
4. Conceptual designs of alternative systems for the management
of solid wastes in the region.
5. Provision of itemized and charted data relative to estimated
performance-score ranges and costs of each alternative system
concept considered, plus a list of application scores re-
flecting any adverse or beneficial effects the various systems
would impose on the environment in which they would operate.
6. Provision of a rationale for the ranking of the alternative
system concepts, with specific attention to the rationale
for the highest ranking system for the study region.
7. A detailed description of the concept recommended for use
in long-term management of solid wastes in the region, plus
recommendations for immediate action to alleviate current
problems (including legal, quasi-legal, jurisdictional,
political, and financial considerations).
8. Generalization of the findings and procedures so they may
be applied to similar regions.
- 56 -
-------
9. Background data pertinent to the main body of the final
report not previously published in the interim report.
10. Recommendations for further study and research needed to
develop future techniques to solve problems for which
current techniques are inadequate technically or economically.
- 57 -
-------
APPENDIX C
Selected Bibliography
PERIODICALS
Bowerman, Frank R. "Land Pollution Abatement." INVESTMENT Dealers'
DIGEST, Section II, May 27, 1969, pp. 62-64.
Cohen, Wilbur J. "Grants for Solid Waste Disposal Projects." Federal
Register, 31(61):5180-5183, March 1966. Reprinted as amended,
June 1967.
Kennedy, J. C. "Current Concepts in the Disposal of Solid Wastes."
Journal of Environmental Health, 31(2):149-153, September-October
1968.
McGauhey, P. H. "Processing, Converting and Utilizing Solid Wastes."
Compost Science, 5(2).-8-14, Summer 1964.
Mix, Sheldon A. "Solid Wastes: Every Day, Another 800 Million Pounds."
Today's Health, 44(3):46-48, March 1966.
1969: Sanitation Industry Yearbook, 6th Edition. New York, RRJ
Publishing Corporation, 1969. 124 p.
"Solid Wastes: The Job Ahead," APWA Reporter, 33(8):l-7, August 1966.
Townley, D. A. "Solid Wastes Problems and Programs: A Challenge to the
Professional Sanitarian. Journal of Milk and Food Technology, 32(2):
63-65, February 1969.
NONPERIODICALS
Aerojet-General Corporation. A Systems Study of Solid Waste Management
in the Fresno Area; Final Report on a Solid Waste Management Demon-
stration. Public Health Service Publication No. 1959. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. [411 p.]
American Public Works Association. Municipal Refuse Disposal, 2nd ed.
Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1966. 528 p.
Committee on Solid Wastes. Refuse Collection, Practice,
3rd. ed. Chicaeo, Public Administration Service, 1966. 525 p.
Institute for Solid Wastes. Proceedings of the First Annual
Meeting of the Institute for Solid Wastes of the American Public Works
Association. September 13-15, 1966. Chicago, [1966]. 78 p.
- 58
-------
. Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Institute
for Solid Wastes of the American Public Works Association. Boston,
October 3-5, 1967. [1967]. 67 p.
. Research Foundation. National Conference on Solid Waste
Research, Proceedings, December 1963. Special Report no. 29.
Chicago, 1964. 228 p.
_. Prospectus for Cooperative Research, 4th ed. Chicago, 1968.
10 p.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Management of Farm Animal
Wastes, Proceedings, of the National Symposium on Animal Waste
Management, May 5-7, 1966. ASAE pub. no. SP-0366. St. Joseph, Mich.,
1966. 161 p.
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Incinerator Committee.
Proceedings of 1966 National Incinerator Conference. New York, 1966.
266 p.
Association of Bay Area Governments. Grant Application Review. Chicago,
Public Administration Service, 1968. 48 p.
Banta, Joseph, et. al. Sanitary Landfill. A.S.C.E. Manuals of Engineering
Practice, No. 39. New York, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1959.
61 p.
Black & Veatch, Consulting Engineers. Solid Waste Disposal Study. For
Washington Metropolitan Region. Kansas City, Mo., Black & Veatch,
1967. Iv. (various pagings).
Bower, Blair T., et. al. Waste Management: Generation and Disposal of
Solid, Liquid and Gaseous Wastes in the New York Region. New York,
Regional Plan Association, Inc. 1968. 107 p.
Bugher, Robert D. Solid Wastes Research Needs, Project No. 113, Special
Report. Chicago, American Public Works Association, 1962. 80 p.
California Institute of Technology. Office for Industrial Associates.
The Next Ninety years, Proceedings, March 7-8, 1967. Pasadena, 1967.
186 p.
Committee of One Hundred. Final Report of the Committee of One Hundred,
A Proposal for a Voluntary Council of Governments in Southeast Michigan.
Detroit, 1966. 37 p.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Governor's Science Advisory Committee.
Science and Technology: Opportunities for Economic Growth. Harrisburg,
1966. 97 p.
Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. The Role of Packaging in Solid Waste
Management, 2966 to 1976. Public Health Service Publication
No. 1855. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 205 p.
- 59 -
-------
Day & Zimmermann, Engineers and Architects. Special Studies for
Incinerators; for the Government of the District of Columbia,
Department of Sanitary Engineering. Public Health Service
Publication No. 1748. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1968. 80 p.
Delaware River Basin Commission. Annual Report, 1967. Trenton, 1967.
16 p.
Engineering Foundation. Solid Waste Research and Development: Engineering
Foundation Research Conference. July 24-28, 1967. Milwaukee, [1967].
Iv. (various pagings).
Golueke, C. G., (ed.), et. al. Comprehensive Studies of Solid Wastes
Management: Abstracts and Excerpts from the Literature. SERL report
no. 68-3. Berkeley, University of California, 1968. 308 p.
, and P. H. McGauhey. Comprehensive Studies of Solid Wastes
Management: First Annual Report. SERL report no. 67-7. Berkeley,
University of California, 1967. 202 p.
, and P. H. McGauhey. Comprehensive Studies of Solid Wastes
Management: Second Annual Report. SERL report no. 69-1. Berkeley,
University of California, 1969. 245 p.
Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc. Collection and Disposal of Solid
Waste for the Des Moines Metropolitan Area; A Systems Approach to
the Overall Problem of Solid Waste Management; An Interim Report.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. 326 p.
Herflndahl, Orris C. , and Allen V. Kneese. Quality of the Environment:
An Economic Approach to Some Problems in Using Land, Water and Air.
Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. 96 p.
Institute for Local Self Government. ABAC Appraised: A Quinquenniel
Review of Voluntary Regional Co-operative Action Through the
Association of Bay Area Governments, rev. ed. Berkeley, 1967. 101 p.
Metropolitan Engineers. Report on Operations, January 1, 1966-December Zl,
1966, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Seattle, [1967]. 54 p.
Metropolitan Fund, Inc. Regional Information Program: A Study of Personal
and Community Information Service in the Southeast Michigan Six-County
Region. Detroit, 1966. 41 p.
. Regional Public Transit: A Study of Public Transit in the
Southeast Michigan Six-County Region, by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade
& Douglas. Detroit, 1967. 34 p.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Common Goals: Uncommon
Progress. Washington, [1968]. 26 p.
- 60
-------
Muhich, A. J., A. J. Klee, and P. W. Britton. Preliminary Data Analysis:
1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices. Public
Health Service Publication No. 1867. Washington, B.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1968. 483 p.
National Academy of Sciences. Applied Science and Technological Progress.
Report to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of
Representatives. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
434 p.
Soienoe, Engineering, and the City. Publication 1498.
Washington, 1967. 142 p.
. Waste Management and Control. Publication 1400. Washington,
1966. 257 p.
National Sanitation Foundation. Package Sewage Treatment Plant Criteria
Development—Part II: Contact Stabilization. Ann Arbor, National
Sanitation Foundation, 1968. 27 p.
National Security Industrial Association. Proceedings of the Symposium,
October 18-19, 1967: National R & D for the 1970's. Washington, 1968.
234 p.
Parker, Merwin W. Summary Report: Project Open Space. Seattle, Puget
Sound Regional Planning Council, 1966. 119 p.
Scott, Stanley, and John C. Bollens. Government: Regional Organization
for Bay Conservation and Development. San Francisco, San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 1967. 23 p.
Steiner, R. L., and Renee Kantz. Sanitary Landfill; a Bibliography.
Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. Automobile Disposal. A National Problem. Washington,
U.S. Department of the Interior, 1967. 569 p.
Review of the Bureau of Mines Coal Program 1967, by
John D. Spencer. Information circular 8385. Washington, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1968. 99 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Use of Regression Equations
for Projecting Trends in Demand for Paper and Board: With Projection
of Demand to 1985 for Major Grades of Paper and Board, Wood Pulp,
and Pulpwood, by Dwight Hair. Forest Resource Report No. 18.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. 178 p.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service.
Abstracts; Selected Patents on Refuse Handling Facilities for
Buildings, John A. Connolly (ed.). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1968.
- 61 -
-------
_. Applying Teohnology to Unmet Heeds: Report on the Solid
Waste Problem. Washington, B.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office,
1966.
. The National Solid Wastes Survey, An Interim Report, by
Ralph J. Black, et. al. Cincinnati: Consumer Protection and
Environmental Health Service, 1968.
Proceedings: The Surgeon General's Conference on Solid
Waste Management; for Metropolitan Washington, July 19-20, 1967,
Leo Weaver (ed.) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1967.
. Refuse, Collection and Disposal: Annotated Bibliography,
1962-1963, by Ralph J. Black, John B.'Wheeler, and William G. Henderson.
Washington, B.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
. Solid Waste/Disease Relationships: A Literature Survey,
by Thrift G. Hanks. Cincinnati: National Center for Urban and
Industrial Health, 1967.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act. Washington, B.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1966.
Solid Waste Handling in Metropolitan Areas. Washington, B.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.
. Solid Waste Management/Composting: European Activity and
American Potential, by Samuel A. Hart. Washington, B.C.; U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1968.
Solid Wastes Management in Germany: Report of the U.S.
Solid Wastes Study Team Visit, June 25-July 8, 1967, by
Samuel A. Hart. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1968.
. State/Interstate Solid Waste Planning Grant Listing.
Cincinnati: National Center for Urban and Industrial Health.
. State Solid Waste Planning Agencies. Cincinnati: National
Center for Urban and Industrial Health.
Summaries: Solid Wastes Demonstration Grant Projects—1968,
by C. E. Sponangle. Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1967.
. Summaries of Solid Wastes Research and Training Grants —1968,
Louis W. Lefke, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1968.
• Washington, D.C.; Metropolitan Area Air Pollution Abatement
Activity. Cincinnati: National Center for Air Pollution Control,
1967. 215 p.
- 62
-------
The Task Force on Environmental Health and Related Problems.
A Strategy for a Livable Environment. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967. 90 p.
U.S. Department of Interior. Research Summaries. Vol. I and II.
Washington, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1968. 476 p.
. Surface Mining and Our Environment. Washington, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1967. 124 p.
University of California. Solid Wastes Management: Proceedings of the
National Conference. April 4-5, 1966. Davis, [1966]. 214 p.
Vaughan, R. D. "Management of Solid Wastes from Hospitals: Problems and
Technology." In Report of a National Conference on the Use and
Disposal of Single-Use Items in Health Care Facilities, Ann Arbor,
December 4-5, 1968. Monograph No. 6. National Sanitation Foundation.
p. 41-46.
Vaughan, Richard D., and Ralph J. Black. The Federal Solid Wastes Program.
In Proceedings; 1968 National Incinerator Conference, New York,
May 5-8, 1968. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. 318-321.
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Astronautics. The
Adequacy of Technology for Pollution Abatement. Report of the
Research Management Advisory Panel through the Subcommittee on
Science, Research and Development, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., Serial "Q".
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. 17 p.
Environmental Pollution: A Challenge to Science and
Technology, Report of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and
Development, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., Serial "S". Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1966. 60 p.
. Environmental Quality, Hearings before the Subcommittee on
Science and Astronautics, on H.R. 7796, H.R. 13211, H.R. 14605,
H.R. 14627, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1968. 588 p.
. Science, Technology and Public Policy During the Eighty-Ninth
Congress, January 1965 through December 1966, Report of the
Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development, 90th Cong.,
1st Sess., Serial "G". Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1967. 212 p.
. Science, Technology and Public Policy During the ninetieth
Congress, First Session, 1967, Report of the Subcommittee on Science,
Research and Development, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., Serial "0".
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. 245 p.
- 63 -
-------
U.S. Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Subcommittee on Economic
Progress. Environmental Pollution, Vol. II, Part 5, by Robert U.
Ayres and Allen V. Kneese. In Federal Programs for the Development
of Human Resources, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1968. p. 626-648.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. House.
Committee on Science and Astronautics. Joint House-Senate Colloquium
to Discuss a National Policy for the Environment, Hearing, before
the Committees, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1968. 233 p.
64
-------
This report has been reproduced as
received from the contractor. No
editorial or other changes have been
made, although a new title page and
foreword have been added and the
pages are reduced in size.
------- |