MANAGEMENT
PLAN
status report 197O
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Status Report 1970
This report (SW-4tsg) WOB prepared
by the District of Columbia for
the Federal solid waste management program
under State planning grant (UI-00030)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1971
-------
An environmental protection publication in
the solid waste management series (SW-4tsg).
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.25
Stock Number 5602-0029
-------
FOREWORD
TO ENCOURAGE SYSTEMATIC PLANNING for better management of the Nation's
solid wastes, Congress in the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act provided
grant monies for the States for solid waste planning. By June 1966,
fourteen States had met the stipulations of the Act and had embarked
upon the planning process with the help of the Federal funds. Today,
several interstate agencies, the District of Columbia, and almost every
2
State have applied for and received a solid waste planning grant.
From each of the grants the Federal government expects two practical
results: first, a plan (and report) for the State's management of its
solid wastes; second, development of an agency for the managing function.
The present document describes the District of Columbia's solid waste
storage, collection, and disposal practices existing at the time of the
study. The two-year study was made by the District under a Federal
solid waste management planning grant that went into effect February 1,
1968. The findings provide the base for the plan recommended herein.
But, the planning process is dynamic; future revision will be an
]The Solid Waste Disposal Act; Title II of Public Law 89-272, 89th
Congress, S.306, October 20, 1965. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1965. 5 p.
o
Toftner, R. 0., D. D. Swavely, W. T. Dehh, and B. L. Sweeney, comps.
State solid waste planning grants, agencies, and progress--1970; report
of activities through June 30, 1970. Public Health Service Publication
No. 2109. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 26 p.
^Toftner, R. 0. Developing a state solid waste management plan.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2031. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1970. 50 p.
iii
-------
Important part of the process to take account of changing conditions
and better data. Moreover, a plan Is not an end in itself, its
formulation is the key to action: to legislation, standards, technical
assistance, public relations, and enforcement.
Besides providing the District of Columbia solid waste management
agency with a guide for action, the District's plan will help to guide
local regional solid waste planning and subsequent implementation. The
plan can also provide support for improved legislation related to solid
waste management.
The District of Columbia's plan is designed, therefore, to:
(1) establish the continuing process of planning; (2) establish
policies and procedures to guide the District solid waste agency,
the Department of Sanitary Engineering; (3) interface with regional
planning; (4) provide a documented base for improved solid waste
legislation and operating regulations. With these objectives in
mind, this plan report presents and analyzes pertinent solid waste
.data, identifies problems indicated by the data, sets objectives that
if achieved would solve identified problems, and finally, proposes
immediate, intermediate, and long-range measures for achieving ob-
jectives. This plan should thus provide the District's solid waste
agency with an invaluable management tool with which to begin solving
its solid waste management problems.
-RICHARD D. VAUGHAN
Assistant Surgeon General
Acting Commissioner
Solid Waste Management Office
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Summary and Recommended Plan 1
Chapter One: Laws and Regulations 7
Chapter Two: Hospital Solid Waste Management 11
Chapter Three: On-Site Solid Waste Handling 17
Chapter Four: Collection 31
Chapter Five: Disposal 59
APPENDICES
A. Proposed Health Regulations
Title 8, Chapter 3, Part 6
Solid Waste Regulations 83
B. Service Charges for Collection and
Disposal of Solid Waste 95
C. Demolition and Excavation 103
D. Commercial Haulers and
U.S. Government Haulers . 107
E. Abandoned Automobiles 111
F. Other District of Columbia Collections 113
G. Boundary Maps of Existing Collection Branches
and of Proposed Collection Districts 117
H. Proposed Operation of An Area-Based
Collection Organization 123
I. Method for Determining Staffing
Requirements for the Area-Based
System of Solid Waste Collection 129
-------
INTRODUCTION
This document reports upon the findings of a two-year study of
solid waste storage, collection and disposal practices in the District
of Columbia. This was a joint study by the D C. Health Services
Administration (formerly the Department of Public Health) which accepted
responsibility for studies relating to laws and regulations, storage and
disposal of hospital wastes, and storage and disposal of waste at house-
holds and commercial establishments, and the D. C. Department of Sanitary
Engineering which devoted itself to a study of the collection and disposal
of solid wastes.
Throughout the study there was close coordination between the
two departments and with other departments when the studies being per-
formed related to their responsibilities.
The preparation of this study and report was financially aided in
part by a grant from the U. S. Public Health Service, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. *
No study of the scope of the present study can be successfully
concluded without the cooperation and assistance of many people. It
would be impossible to list all of those who made a contribution to this
report and a listing of some without proper acknowledgement of others
would be basically unfair. It has been decided, therefore, not to list
any individuals but to express gratitude to all who helped.
*The Bureau of Solid Waste Management of the U.S. Public Health,
Service which aided in funding this grant is now the Solid Waste Management
Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
VI
-------
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED PLAN
This report describes the District of Columbia's solid waste
collection and disposal situation as it existed at the time of the study.
The various problems are analyzed and improvements are recommended.
The aggregate of these improvements constitutes the plan which is
recommended herein. This section of the report will consider the major
elements of the plan. However, it must be recognized that there are
many supporting details which must be accomplished if these major ele-
ments of the plan are to be implemented. Those responsible for imple-
menting the plan should consider these details as well as the major items
carefully.
Special attention must be drawn here to the proposed D. C. solid
waste regulations which are included in this report as Appendix A.
Adoption of these regulations is recommended and reference should be
made to them as a supplement to the information and plan provided by
this report.
A summary of the conclusions and major elements of the recommended
plan are as follows:
1. Official responsibility for the development of a satisfactory
waste collection and disposal system in the District of Columbia is
scattered among many agencies. In order to improve the management of
on-site storage of solid wastes, the responsibility for regulation should
be assigned to a single agency. This report recommends that the District
of Columbia Government assign this responsibility to the District of
Columbia Health Services Administration since this agency's broad interestin
the health of the people more aptly fits the responsibilities envisioned
than the assigned responsibilities of any other department of the District
Government.
2. The large number of unregulated private and commercial refuse
collectors and haulers employing a variety of equipment and practices
requires that regulations be enacted to govern their actions. The respon-
sibility for enforcing such regulations should also be delegated to the
Health Services Administration.
3. The District of Columbia Health Services Administration is
not adequately staffed to carry out the plan elements 1 and 2 above.
-------
It is necessary, therefore, that implementation of the recommended action
by the District of Columbia Government on Items 1 and 2 also provide for
adequate staff to discharge the assigned responsibilities. Provision of
such staff would allow the D. C. Health Services Administration to begin
to develop the necessary regulations in cooperation with other interested
departments and agencies and to provide the necessary inspection and
enforcement of the regulations.
4. The collection and disposal of solid waste should be viewed
as a utility function and made self supporting. This element of the plan
is discussed in Appendix B. The service charges should vary with the
services provided. Household units having collection service by the District
would pay for both collection and disposal. The billing for the service
could be added to the water and sewer service charge bill. Commercial
collectors, federal installations and others who deliver directly to the
disposal facility would pay only for disposal on a tonnage basis. The
cleaning of public space (streets, alleys) would continue to be supported
by appropriated general funds.
5. The Department of Sanitary Engineering has a planned program
for the conversion to an area-based system of administration of sanitary
services. This system will provide for closer supervision, establishment
of responsibility, and pride of accomplishment. This proposal is completely
endorsed as part of the solid waste plan with the recommendation that it
be implemented as soon as possible.
6. During the course of the study, the Department of Sanitary
Engineering began the implementation of the previously planned program
to convert its collection vehicle fleet to packer type equipment and to
begin the collection of combined garbage and refuse on a twice per week
basis. This improvement is completely endorsed as an essential element
of the plan with the suggestion that the improved service be evaluated for
effectiveness after implementation. Should the evaluation indicate the
necessity for more frequent collection in some parts of the city, provision
should be made to provide this needed service.
7. Trash cans are being issued free or sold at cost to needy families
(depending upon their financial circumstances), under the "War on Rats"
program to the extent that funds are available for this purpose. The
effectiveness of this program should be determined in order to evaluate the
feasibility of the establishment of this procedure as a city-wide service.
8. As the District of Columbia converts to combined collection of
garbage and refuse, the present separate collection of garbage will be
discontinued. Regulations should be revised to include among other things
that all new food establishments and residential buildings provide garbage
grinding units at the time of construction, and that all existing commer-
cial food establishments install garbage grinders by July 1, 1971. At
other locations where trash collection service is not provided by the
-------
District, arrangements should be made with the commercial collector to
collect garbage as well as trash.
9. The Department of Sanitary Engineering should continue its
efforts to obtain adequate disposal capacity. Insofar as possible, this
disposal capacity should be incorporated in several facilities in order
to provide flexibility in the event of emergencies caused by breakdown.
At the time this report was written the Department of Sanitary Engineering
was attempting to implement a disposal plan which incorporated:
a. The construction of Incinerator No. 5 with a capacity of
1500 tons per day having sophisticated air pollution control equipment
designed to meet air quality criteria. This incinerator will be located
off Benning Road adjacent to the Potomac Electric Power Company generating
plant.
b. A transfer and baling station which is being designed to
handle 1000 tons per day; r.his capacity can be expanded by operating the
station an extra shift. Transportation from the station to sanitary land-
fills would be by barge.
c. A railhaul system from the District of Columbia to a distant
sanitary landfill. A tentative commitment had been made to the Washington
Metropolitan Council of Governments to participate in a regional disposal
program to the extent of 1000 tons per day, provided the metropolitan
system operation could be assured soon enough. In the event that the
Council of Governments' system cannot be assured in time to meet the
District of Columbia's very tight deadlines for disposal alternatives, an
effort will be made to obtain bids from railroads to operate a complete
system including the transfer station and sanitary landfill.
d. The operation of the Oxon Cove Sanitary Landfill in a
manner which would permit the eventual development of a golf course on the
site. This is estimated to require two years which would allow time for
the completion of construction of Incinerator No. 5.
10. Upon the implementation of the disposal plan mentioned in
paragraph 9, adequate capacity will be available and can be expanded as
needed. At that time the incinerators now in operation should be removed
from service.
11. Consideration should be given to the utilization of intermediate
transfer facilities to provide more effective use of collection vehicles
and personnel and to minimize the concentration of collection vehicles at
the disposal point,
12. The enforcement of the air quality control regulations which
require the present flue-fed single chamber private incinerator to be
-------
replaced with more effective units )r abandoned altogether will probably
result in a significant increase in the amount of solid wastes for which
the District must provide disposal facilities. This factor must be
recognized in the long range planning for adequate capacity of facilities.
13. The special services provided for the incineration of confidential
material seriously interfere with the normal operation of D. C, incinerators,
thus reducing their effective capacity. The practice of providing this
special service should be discontinued. Confidential materials should
receive preliminary processing such as shredding so that they may be deliv-
ered to, and handled by, the incinerators in the same fashion as other
trash.
14. The Department of Sanitary Engineering's plan to incinerate
sewage sludge at the waste treatment plant in a facility equipped with
modern air pollution control devices appears to be the best solution to
the problem and is endorsed. The ash resulting from that incineration
may be then transported to a sanitary landfill together with the incinerator
residue from trash incinerators.
15. At the present time the District of Columbia transfer station
located at New Jersey Avenue and 'K' Streets S.E. is used for garbage
grinding wi n. discharge to the sewer, for the transfer of materials to
Cherry Hill, and for transfer of incinerator residue. Upon the imple-
mentation of the disposal plan mentioned in Paragraph 9 and the conversion
of the entire city to combined garbage and refuse collection, this facili-
ty will no longer be needed for its present function.
16. The leaf disposal program provides for a maximum utilization
of this compost material as a soil conditioner and should be continued in
cooperation with the National Park Service. Since the number of availa-
ble sites for composting is limited, provision should be made for the
incineration or landfilling of the remainder.
17. The collection and disposal of abandoned automobiles has been
a most difficult problem. Abandoned autos not only are a source of litter
in themselves, but also appear to encourage the accumulation of litter.
Abandoned vehicles whether on private or public property should be rapidly
identified and removed for disposal.
18. The Health Services Administration should require all hospitals
and other related medical facilities to publish and implement effective
regulations for the proper handling and disposal of hazardous wastes and
to train all professional and sub-professional personnel adequately in the
proper techniques and procedures for handling such wastes.
19. The Health Services Administration should encourage hospital
and related medical facilities to use heavy duty plastic bags with metal-
lic strip tie or a liner of similar material for the storage of solid wastes.
-------
20. All hospitals and other medical facilities should consider the
use of heavy duty compactors and modern on-site storage and disposal sys-
tems in the solution of their solid waste disposal problems.
-------
CHAPTER ONE. LAWS AND REGULATIONS
I. EXISTING PROVISIONS
The District Government has the responsibility for the regulation
of all facets of solid waste handling including on-site storage, reduc-
tion and disposal, collection, transportation and central disposal. It
also has the responsibility of providing for the collection and disposal
of solid waste from residences of not more than three units and for the
disposal of all refuse generated within the District. Several departments
within the District Government are responsible for various aspects of
solid waste management, resulting in fragmentation of solid waste control
and enforcement authority. The four departments directly involved in the
management of solid waste are the Departments of Sanitary Engineering and
Economic Development, the Health Services Administration and the Metro-
politan Police.
The Health Services Administration's solid waste functions under
the general supervision of the Associate Director for Environmental Health
are as follows:
1. The Bureau of Public Health Engineering is responsible for
certain public health aspects of solid waste disposal and other environ-
mental engineering activities, e.g., research, planning, development of
laws and regulations, consultations.
2. The Bureau of Food and Drugs is responsible for the enforcement
of the provisions of pertinent regulations for the on-site storage of solid
waste at food and drug establishments.
3. The Bureau of Community Hygiene is responsible for surveillance
over the on-site storage of solid waste at industrial, institutional, and
commercial (except hotels and motels) establishments and vacant lots.
4. The Bureau of Milk Control has jurisdiction over milk and ice
cream plants.
The Department of Economic Development's solid waste functions under
the general supervision of the Chief, Bureau of Licenses and Inspection,
are as follows:
-------
1. The Housing Division is responsible for the enforcement of those
provisions of the Housing Regulations pertaining to the on-site storage of
solid waste and the cleanliness of premises at all residential dwellings,
hotels and motels.
2. The Board for the Condemnation of Insanitary Buildings is
responsible for insuring the removal of solid waste from condemned build-
ings and the premises thereof.
3. The License and Permit Division is responsible for licensing
garbage collection vehicles upon the recommendation of-the Bureau of
Sanitation Services, Department of Sanitary Engineering.
The Metropolitan Police Department's solid waste functions are as
follows:
1. Their field operations are responsible for the investigation and
declaration of abandoned vehicles, the collection of such vehicles from
private property and public spaces, and their subsequent disposition.
2. The Property Division is responsible for the impounding of
abandoned vehicles and their ultimate disposal.
The Department of Sanitary Engineering^ is responsible for carrying
out the following solid waste functions under the Bureau of Sanitation
Services:
1. Collection and transportation of all solid waste from one, two
and three family dwellings, and public spaces and parks not under the juris-
diction of the Federal Government.
2. Operation of the District's disposal facilities incinerators,
sanitary landfills and transfer station.
3. Cleaning the streets, alleys and other public spaces not under
the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
4. Inspection of private garbage collection vehicles and recom-
mendations for approval of the Licensing of such vehicles by the Licensing
and Permit Division, Department of Economic Development.
5. Collection, transportation and disposal of solid waste from
certain District-owned facilities.
The current solid waste laws and regulations are prescribed under
various titles and authorities. Public Law 86-104 limits the Government
of the District of Columbia's trash collection service to dwellings in
which fewer than four units share a central heating system. The law also
authorized that funds be expended for the separate collection of garbage
8
-------
and for the disposal of all solid waste. Title 6 of the District of
Columbia code authorizes the Commissioner to provide solid waste collec-
tion and disposal service; however, the conditions under which this service
is to be accomplished are not clearly defined.
Primary solid waste control and enforcement authority is prescribed
in Articles 3 and 21, Police Regulations, and Article 260, Housing Regula-
tions. Article 21, Police Regulations, prescribes the key provisions for
the implementation of overall solid waste management within the District.
However, most of the pertinent provisions of the article are obsolete and
not readily enforceable.
The Congress enacted Public Law 90-440, entitled "District of
Columbia Air Pollution Control Act," for incorporation in the District of
Columbia Code. In order to implement: this act, the Air Quality Control
Regulations were promulgated as District of Columbia Health Regulations on
February 7, 1969. These regulations will effectively curtail the opera-
tion of most of the present single chamber and flue-fed incinerators.
All newly constructed private incinerators must be in compliance with the
regulations; existing units have up to three years from the date of promul-
gation of these regulations to meet the new criteria.
In view of the variety and complexity of solid waste laws and
regulations, a compilation^ of these regulations along with recommenda-
tions for their improvement was included as one of the major elements of
this study. The necessary research and study to formulate the compila-
tion and recommendation of the existing laws and regulations was accom-
plished under contract with the Health Services Administration by a
member of the District of Columbia Bar and former Assistant Corporation
Counsel, District of Columbia.
The consultant strongly emphasized that Article 21, Police Regula-
tions, was obsolete and difficult to enforce. In essence, the consultant's
conclusions were to the effect that the District of Columbia could achieve
improved solid waste management by taking the following actions:
1. Replace Article 21, Police Regulations, "Garbage, Ashes, and
Other Refuse," with modern and readily enforceable solid waste regulations.
2. Centralize solid waste control and enforcement authority in
one department.
3. Place all private solid waste collection service under District
control through a collection vehicle licensing and inspection system.
Faircloth, OliveG. Laws and Regulations Relating to Solid Waste Manage-
ment Affecting the District of. Columbia. Washington, D.C. Health Services
Administration. 1969. 310 pp.
-------
II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report supports the consultant's conclusions and recommends
the following actions:
1. Revision of Article 21, Police Regulations, to include improved
solid waste regulations.
2. Organization of a centralized enforcement agency in the Health
Services Administration. In addition to the regulation of the environmental
health aspects of the storage, collection, transportation and disposal of
solid waste and routine surveillance over all vacant lots and public spaces
its functions should include review and development of related legislation,
field study and consultations. The agency should be adequately staffed
with engineers, sanitarians, technicians, and administrative and clerical
personnel.
3. Establishment of District control over private solid waste
collection service by a collection vehicle licensing and inspection
system, to be conducted by the Health Services Administration. There are
approximately 1700 vehicles engaged in private collection service and the
license fees collected therefrom would help defray some of the cost for
personal services to be provided by the proposed enforcement agency.
10
-------
CHAPTER TWO. HOSPITAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
Hospital solid waste management was analyzed separately for this
report in an effort to improve specifically the management of the handling
of hospital wastes which present unique hazards to those who handle them
and to the environment. Studies were made to observe and evaluate the
present practices at hospitals for the handling of hazardous wastes, such
as infectious wastes, laboratory animals, unused pharmaceuticals and their
containers, and single-service hypodermic needles.
In order to obtain reliable information on the handling of hazardous
wastes, it was necessary to study the total amount of solid waste that
was generated at each hospital. Solid waste problems were observed at
twelve of the seventeen hospitals which are located in the District of
Columbia. Standards for evaluation of hazardous waste collection, storage
and disposal practices were in line with those recommended by recognized
authorities and interdepartmental experts.
II. FINDINGS
Solid waste is generated in D. C. hospitals at an average rate in
excess of 11 pounds per patient per day or nine pounds per bed per day.
This figure does not,include an estimate of the amount of garbage which
is ground and discharged to the sewer system, or of specially handled
wastes such as pathological or infectious materials which are incinerated.
Data on methods for handling solid wastes are given in Table 1
for the twelve hospitals surveyed. The first three columns describe the
hospital and are indicators of the hospital size. Column 1 is a code
representing the twelve hospitals studied: column 2, the number of beds
in the hospital; column 3, the average patient load. The next three
columns, 4, 5 and 6, describe the methods of solid waste handling used
in disposing of the refuse. The disposal of hazardous wastes, column 4,
is for the most part accomplished by on-site incineration. The remainder
is placed in large metal containers or on-site compactors for transfer to
compactor trucks for transport to the disposal sites. Garbage, column 5,
is disposed of by grinding to sewers. Column 6 describes the disposal
of general refuse, either by incineration or by removal to compactor
trucks.
11
-------
TABLE 1
Hosp.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
No. of
beds
152
250
406
367
236
85
1100
523
335
447
80
396
Average
patient
load
117
250
330
312
156
69
1045
450
300
375
50
322
Disposal
of
H.W *
Incin.**
Incin.**
Incin.
Incin.
Incin.
Incin.
Incin.**
& port.oort.
Incin.
Incin.
Compac .
Corapac.
Incin.i
port .cOnt .
Disposal
of
garbage
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Fed to
hogs
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Disposal
of gen.
refuse
Portable
containers
Portable
containers
Port. cont.
<:* incin.
Port .cont.
< incin.
Incin. &
port .cont.
Port. cont.
& incin.
Port. cont.
Freq, of
coll. (gen.
refuse/wk)
12
6
6
6
6
4
6
Incin.
residue
(Ibs/day)
413
224
228
300
Gen.
refuse
Ibs/day
1,980
2,060
1,880
555
912
56
12,390
Total s/w
Ibs/day/
bed
13
8
7
3
3
10
11
.02
.25
.17
.95
.87
.23
.25
Total s/w
Ibs/day/
patient
16.9
8.25
8.82
4.65
5.85
12.6
11.85
& compactor
Incin.
port .cont.
Incin. a
port. cont.
Port. cont.
Port. cont.
Incin. J*
port. cont.
2
6
2
3
6
680
320
285
960
840
4,077
1,370
2,591
8
6
9
15
10
.81
.44
.12
.62
.13
10.42
7.20
10.87
2S.OO
12.47
NOTE: Pathological waste and garbage are not included in the total refuse (pounds per patient per day) due to
their insignificant effect on overall generation of solid waste.
* Hazardous waste
** Pathological waste only
-------
Most of the solid waste generated at the twelve hospitals is
incinerated on-site (see Table 2 for hospital incinerator data) or col-
lected by private collectors for disposal at D. C. facilities. It is
common practice for these private collectors to provide large containers
which can be emptied mechanically, thus minimizing the possibility of
health and safety hazards. These containers may be used in conjunction
with stationary compaction units.
Compactors were in use at three of the twelve hospitals and a
fourth plans to convert from incineration to compaction in the near
future. A heavy duty compactor was installed at one of the main build-
ings of a local 1100-bed hospital on a trial basis. The operation of
this compactor has been highly satisfactory.
Most of the hospitals had garbage grinders. Although most had
incinerators they were generally used as auxiliary systems for wastes
which would present hazards to collectors in the normal methods of
collection.
The use of disposables has increased considerably in the past
several years. Random sampling of the use of disposables at five hos-
pitals indicated an increase of 15 to 30 percent. The sampling also re-
lated that the average patient generated about 1 to 1.5 pounds of dis-
posables daily.
Disposable refuse containers are now in general use. In most of
the hospitals surveyed, these have been plastic bags, of 20 to 40 gallon
capacity and one to five mill thickness, which are used as liners and
containers. They are easily torn, however, and seldom fastened with the
proper metallic strip ties prior to transportation for ultimate disposal.
Hospital professional and subprofessional personnel showed insuf-
ficient knowledge of the safe handling and disposal of hazardous waste.
In many instances, unused pharmaceuticals and infectious waste were
stored and disposed of along with other solid waste. The majority of
the hospitals surveyed had not published and/or implemented effective
in-house regulations on the safe handling and disposal of hazardous
was te.
III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The majority of the institutions surveyed were equipped with
undesirable, hazardous or uneconomical solid waste on-site storage or
disposal systems. The report recommends the following specific actions
to hospitals and other medical facilities (e.g., private clinics, health
centers, nursing homes, laboratories):
13
-------
TABLE 2
HOSPITAL INCINERATOR DATA
Hosp.
A
B
C
C
D
E
F
G
H
H
I
J
K
L
L
Type
Pathological
Pathological
General refuse
Pathological
General refuse
General refuse
General refuse
Pathological
Pathological
General refuse
General refuse
Pathological
None
General refuse
Pathological
Cham-
bers
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
_
2
2
Auxiliary
fuel
burners
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
_
2
1
Capacity
(Ibs/hr)
150
50
400
75
450
450
350
250
200
700
350
150
-
500
75
Combustion
(temp. °F)
2500
2000
1100
2500
2200
1400
2300
2000
2000
2000
500
1500
-
unknown
unknown
Stack
height
(feet)
90
45
90
60
80
80
60
75
100
50
100
80
-
150
50
Hours of
operation
(weekly)
28
48
as needed
150
48
168
56
36
49
48
45
-
96
46
Air pollution
controls
After burner a
fly ash screen
None
None
After burner &
fly ash screen
None
None
Fly ash screen
After burner &
fly ash screen
Washwater scrul
Washwater scrul
None
Fly ash screen
After burner &
fly ash screen
After burner &
fly ash screen
NOTE: Residue from incinerators are hauled to landfills.
All incinerators are gas fired.
-------
1. Publication and implementation of effective regulations for the
proper handling and disposal of hazardous waste.
2. Training in techniques and procedures for the proper handling
and disposal of hazardous waste.
3. Consideration and study of the feasibility of greater use
of compactors and of other improved on-site storage and disposal systems,
e.g., balers, vacuum and pulping systems, and high efficiency destructor
incinerators.
4. Use of heavy duty plastic bags with metallic strip to the
fullest extent as liners or containers for the on-site storage of
solid waste.
5. Utilization of food waste grinders for garbage disposal.
6. Replacement or modification of existing incinerators, as
necessary, to meet the requirements of the new Air Quality Control
Regulations.
15
-------
CHAPTER THREE. ON-SITE SOLID WASTE HANDLING
I. INTRODUCTION
On-site storage, reduction and disposal of solid waste prior to
its collection and subsequent disposal is that part of a solid waste
management program which will have the most direct effect on public
health. Major disruption in the collection service or inadequacy of
central disposal facilities are generally resolved before becoming a
critical threat to the health of the public. Improper on-site handling,
however, presents more immediate problems.
Storage containers discussed in this report include metal boxes
larger than one cubic yard in capacity (and designed to be machine-emptied),
standard sized domestic containers usually 20 to 40 gallon capacity,
and disposable containers. Reduction methods include stationary compactors
which compact the refuse for on-site storage, and garbage grinders which
macerate refuse for discharge to sanitary sewers. Hammermills, shredders,
or other methods of general refuse pulverization are not in common
usage within the District of Columbia and so were not considered in this
report. Discussion of* disposal is limited to incineration for this same
reason.
The statistical information for on-site solid waste storage,
reduction and disposal methods was obtained through on-site surveys of
a 10 percent random sample of each significant land use code from the
D. C. Real Property Data Bank. The random samples were selected by an
Automatic Data Processing System from the Data Bank.
II. FINDINGS
A. ON-SITE STORAGE
On-site storage problems are most prominent in areas of high
population density and low income such as the Model Cities areas of Shaw,
Northwest No. 1., Stanton Park, Trinidad and Lower Cardoza. However,
scattered pockets with similar on-site storage problems were found through-
out the city. The extent of these problems may be seen in Table 3 for
the Shaw Area.
17
-------
Table 4 shows by percentages the locations of domestic solid
waste storage areas, types of storages areas, and the incidence of
littered storage areas for each of the 17 statistical areas in the
city. The map at the end of this chapter shows the boundaries of these
areas. Table 5 shows the relationship of the number and condition of
trash cans and the number of garbage disposal units to population
density as express by the number of occupants per unit and rooms per
occupant within each statistical area. Table 6 shows the percentage
occurrences of odor and pests associated with solid waste storage with-
in each of the statistical areas.
The following are factors contributing to solid waste storage
problems:
1. Inadequate storage capacity and substandard containers.
2. Insufficient collection frequencies by the Bureau of Sanitation
Services and by the private solid waste collectors.
3. Separation of garbage and trash.
4. Lack of an effective environmental health education program
for the general public.
5. Lack of enforcement of existing regulations.
6. Inadquacy of regulations concerning both on-site storage and
handling practices and commercial collection practices.
The following are some of the specific problems observed during
the survey:
1. At some apartment buildings open containers such as laundry
hampers were used for internal collection and storage.
2. Many householders did not provide a sufficient number of
approved containers to accommodate a seven day generation of trash; the
overflow of trash was placed in assorted containers such as cardboard
boxes, baskets and paper sacks.
3. The storage of garbage was especially unsatisfactory in
apartment buildings with four to 12 units. Subsurface garbage can
storage was occasionally noted, with its associated problems of stagnant
water, fly breeding and obnoxious odors.
4. In areas of high population density a significant number of
cans were damaged through rough handling by collectors. A sizeable portion
of the container damage, however, was attributed to flimsy construction
material.
18
-------
TABLE 3
SANITARY CONDITIONS OF SOLID WASTE "STORAGE AT OWNER-OCCUPIED AND RENTED BUILDINGS IN THE SHAW AREA
Number Renting
Land use surveyed (%)
Institu-
tional
Offices
Stores
Shops
Gas
Stations
Apartment
Buildings
Homes (own-
3
20
99
57
11
197
er occupied) 250
Homes
(rented)
Rooming
houses
338
163
50
64
79
90
100
100
0
100
94
Average no. Container/
S/W con- no tight Damaged S/W Littered
No vector tainers / fitting containers S/W stor-
control (%) activity lids (%) (%) age area(
0
33
26
33
44
25
11
25
27
3
3
3
3
5
4
3
3
4
33
41
47
28
54
39
12
24
36
0
12
14
15
50
34
20
45
38
0
12
20
13
10
26
10
23
31
Rodents Flies
fO/ \fO/ \ /QJ
33
25
30
30
36
59
25
54
56
33
0
16
34
30
53
27
64
65
. Odor
f/\
\'°t
0
12
7
6
10*
12
5
13
23
NOTE: Shaw Area is one of the five Model Cities Areas.
Approximately twenty-five percent of all structures were surveyed.
-------
5. In the Model Cities areas, as well as in some fringe areas,
practically none of the trash containers were properly covered, although
in the more affluent areas most containers had lids which were tight fitting.
6. In many of the low and moderate income areas, back and front
yards were heavily littered with all types of refuse. This refuse over-
flowed onto the sidewalks, in street gutters, alleys, and vacant lots.
There was evidence of heavy rodent infestations and fly breeding.
7. On some occasions, the District did not collect trash on the
scheduled day or collected only a portion of the trash. This situation
was particularly evident in the Model Cities areas. Often bulky items
were not collected on the date promised by the Bureau of Sanitation
Services and would remain on-site, presenting additional health and
safety hazards and nuisances.
8. Many commercialand institutional establishments utilized 55 gallon
drums for on-site storage. These are too large to be easily handled by
collectors. Many had no lids. Some establishments used other unapproved
containers. A considerable number of establishments had no containers
and placed refuse on the ground or concrete. Many small establishments
had no collection service of their own and parasited on other establish-
ments which had contracted for such service.
9. Commercial and institutional establishments often left the
lid open on detachable containers allowing refuse to be scattered by
wind.
10. Many occupants or owners of premises practice some form of
pest control, but the presence or evidence of insects and rodents was
noted at numerous buildings and premises. (In the Model Cities areas,
a "War on Rats" program was launched under a grant from the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare. However, insect control in the Model
Cities and some fringe areas appeared to be carried out only on a limited
basis.)
11. The managers of apartment buildings and commercial and institu-
tional establishments reported a considerable number of cases of unsatis-
factory service provided by some private collectors. Since these collec-
tors are not under the District's control, there was no agency to receive
the complaints and to ascertain that the complainant received proper
redress.
12. The District did not provide a sufficient number of field
supervisors to maintain close surveillance over its collection crews.
There was practically no way to verify whether the collection crews had
fulfilled their daily assignments unless complaints were received from
the occupant or owner concerned.
20
-------
TABLE 4 - PERCENTAGE OF LOCATION. TYPES AND CONDITIONS OF ON-SITE DOMESTIC SOLID WASTE STORAGE AREAS
Location
Type
Condition
Statistical
area
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
to VII
I-"
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
Dwellings
surveyed
56
206
476
295
47
137
65
70
52
370
32
91
173
71
363
99
224
Front
yard
s torage (%)
12.5
2.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
2.9
1.5
4.2
1.9
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
Back
yard
s torage (%)
73.2
91.2
95.7
97.2
87.2
96.3
92.3
95.7
88.4
96.2
93.7
96.7
100.0
95.7
97.7
93.9
99.5
Basement
or
garage
s torage (?<,)
14.3
6.7
4.2
2.4
12.8
0.7
6.2
0.0
9.6
3.7
3.1
3.3
0.0
7.1
1.9
6.1
0.4
Concrete
storage
area (%)
75.0
35.9
50.2
51.8
59.5
10.9
64.6
34.2
26.9
37.8
0.0
42.8
5.2
45.0
66.9
70.7
71.8
Ground
storage
area(%)
23.2
63.5
46.0
45.7
34.0
51.8
20.0
57.1
69.2
60.5
100.0
48.3
94.2
26.7
23.1
24.2
19.6
Wooden
storage
area (%)
1.8
0.5
3.8
2.4
6.4
0.7
15.3
8.6
3.8
1.6
0.0
8.7
0.6
28.1
9.9
5.1
8.5
Littered
storage
area (%)
0.0
2.4
1.3
0.3
6.4
7.2
3.1
7.1
1.9
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
2.8
7.2
2.0
8.0
-------
TABLE 5
AVERAGE NUMBER OF SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS AND PERCENTAGE OF GARBAGE DISPOSAL UNITS AS RELATED TO THE DENSITY OF POPULATION
Statistical
area
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
IS VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
Units
surveyed
56
206
476
295
47
137
65
70
52
370
32
91
173
71
363
99
224
Average
number -
occupants
per unit
2.66
3.40
3.70
4.34
4.46
3.97
4.98
3.28
2.96
4.11
3.00
3.83
3.76
4.18
3.98
4.16
3.61
Average
number -
rooms per
occupant
2.7
2.13
1.85
1.62
1.41
1.73
1.33
1.92
1.92
1.63
2.18
1.78
1.69
1.45
1.51
1.54
1.82
Average
number- trash
cans per
unit
3.35
3.86
3.89
4.24
4.46
3.99
3.96
3.72
4.17
3.78
3.53
3.13
3.73
3.83
3.58
3.78
3.87
Average
number trash
cans per
occupant
1.26
1.13
1.05
.97
1.00
1.00
.79
1.13
1.40
.92
1.17
.81
.99
.91
.89
.91
1.07
Trash cans/
tight fitting
lids
(7.)
10.7
3.9
8.1
10.5
4.3
3.7
1.5
2.9
17.3
6.8
6.3
16.4
6.9
12.6
24.2
15.1
14.7
Damaged
trash
cans
7.1
6.9
10.3
9.8
e.4
5.8
18.5
11.4
19.2
7.8
3.1
19.7
7.5
23.9
28.4
25.3
18.3
Garbage
disposal
units (%)
41.0
19.4
11.1
3.7
2.1
1.5
3.1
2.8
3.8
1.9
0.0
2.2
3.5
2.8
0.8
2.0
26.3
-------
TABLE 6
DATA AND INFORMATION ON PEST CONTROL AND NUISANCES ASSOCIATED WITH ON-SITE DOMESTIC SOLID WASTE STORAGE
CO
Statistical
area
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
Dwellings
surveyed
56
206
476
295
47
137
65
70
52
370
32
91
173
71
363
99
224
No pest
control (%)
12.5
22.8
49.7
46.4
27.6
24.8
53.8
72.8
32.6
34.3
75.0
63.7
23.1
19.17
33.8
32.3
42.8
Flies (%)
8.9
2. -9
3.4
6.4
14.8
11.7
15.3
4.2
3.8
7.2
0.0
16.4
1.7
8.5
23.4
19.1
7.1
Rodents (%)
1.8
4.8
6.9
9.2
23.4
28.4
33.8
8.6
13.5
17.8
3.1
3.3
1.7
8.5
23.4
19.1
7.1
Cockroaches (%,)
8.9
9.7
14.1
10.0
44.6
35.0
46.1
7.1
23.1
28.9
0.0
22.0
9.2
23.9
32.5
26.2
7.5
Odors (%)
0.0
0.5
3.2
0.3
4.2
5.8
1.5
7.1
0.0
4.6
6.2
2.2
0.0
0.0
9.1
1.0
2.7
-------
TABLE 7
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PRIVATE INCINERATORS BY LAND USE IN THE DISTRICT
Taxable land use
Apartments
Hospitals
Super markets
Hotels - motels
Offices
Restaurants
Public schools
Shops
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
Total in
number
9,200
17
90
82
1,000
1,382
200
700
1,000
13,671
Percent with
incinerators
37.2%
100
17.5
12
4
12
65
3
1
N/A
Percent of
total number of Total nun
incinerators incinerat
89.097, 3,420
00.65 25
00.42 16
00.26 10
1.04 40
4.32 166
3.41 131
00.55 21
00.26 10
100 % 3,839
-------
B. ON-SITE REDUCTION
Grinding of garbage is the most commonly used on-site reduction
method in the District. A garbage grinder is a device for pulverizing
food waste for discharge into the sanitary sewerage system. In the
foreseeable future a significant increase in the use of garbage disposal
units is expected. The construction from urban renewal and Model Cities
projects and from other new buildings with kitchen facilities will con-
tribute to this increase. There is no expectation that grinding will be
generally utilized as a disposal method for other solid waste, however.
The use of heavy duty compactors is increasing in the District of
Columbia. The majority of the compactors are located at Department of
Defense and other federal installations. It is believed that there are
also many compactors located in high-rise apartment buildings.
Some solid waste collection companies utilized balers to volumet-
rically reduce salvageable items, e.g., cloth, paper, cardboard. Area
warehouses of several major supermarket chains utilized heavy duty balers
to compress and bind daily accumulations of cardboard boxes. Also, many
department stores, office buildings and apartment buildings utilized
balers for similar purposes.
C. ON-SITE DISPOSAL
Prior to this study, there was no reliable information on number,
types and specifications of private incinerators installed in the District.
Table 7 shows the distribution of incinerators by land use category.
Approximately ninety percent of the private incinerators are installed
in apartment buildings and schools. The other ten percent are located in
hospitals, hotels, motels, office buildings, restaurants and supermarkets.
Most of the private incinerators are located in high rise apartment
buildings in affluent areas.
Generally, incinerator rooms or areas are readily accessible to
unauthorized persons. Safety and operating instructions are not posted.
Face masks and fire extinguishers are available only in a few locations.
In most cases the material incinerated in apartment buildings
consists of mixed domestic refuse (trash and garbage) unless a garbage
grinding unit is available. Even when these grinders are available,
many tenants still mix garbage with the trash.
In order to estimate the total amount of solid waste combusted by
private incineration, residue weighings were conducted at a representative
number of premises in a ten percent random sample of each land use cate-
gory. Based upon those weighings, the initial estimate was approximately
456 tons of solid waste daily. However, since approximately five percent
25
-------
of existing private incinerators were not in operation, this figure may
be five percent too high. The stringent new air quality control standards
will have the effect of reducing the number of private incinerators in
operation and thus increasing the quantity of refuse received at D. C.
disposal facilities. Based upon surveys made in 1968 and 1969 (see table 8)
it is estimated that the rate of discontinuation of the use of flue-fed '
and single chamber types of incinerators will be twenty-five percent during
each of the first two years of the grace period, and fifty percent in the
third year.
Compactors are installed in three hospitals in lieu of general
refuse incinerators and have proven to be more efficient and economical.
Some D. C. hospitals and new private medical facilities plan to use
compaction equipment in the place of general refuse incinerators (see
Chapter 2, Hospital Solid Wastes).
During 1962, regulations were passed which required that all
newly constructed, installed or altered incinerators be equipped with
multiple chambers or with combustion equipment that would substantially
reduce gaseous and particulate emissions. The majority of the private
incinerators, however, are still single-chambered or flue-fed and,
therefore, play a key role in the contamination of the ambient air through
particulate and gaseous emissions. Since the previous D. C. regulations
had not provided effective air pollution control standards, the Air
Quality Control Regulations were promulgated and put into effect on
February 7, 1969. These regulations prescribe that the use of single-
chamber and flue-fed incinerators will not be permitted after a three-year
period. A similar grace period is provided for the modification and
updating of current multichamber private incinerators to meet minimum
emission standards.
III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Many of the proposals recommended in Chapters 1, 2, and 4, will
have the effect of improving conditions of on-site solid waste storage.
The proposed ammendment to Article 21 (see Appendix A) will provide
enforceable standards for solid waste containers. The proposed reorgani-
zation of the Health Services Administration will provide for more
effective routine surveillance of on-site storage at premises in all land
use categories.
Improvements in the collection service, by both the Department of
Sanitary Engineering and the private collectors as recommended in Chapter 4
will reduce the volume of material stored on-site and thus will ameliorate
many of the problems associated with storage. Nevertheless, citizen
cooperation must be elicited to alleviate unsanitary conditions noted
particularly in impoverished areas. Assuming that the "War on Rats"
Program will be successful, most problems associated with the on-site
26
-------
TABLE 8
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF PRIVATE INCINERATORS BY TYPES AND PERCENT DECREASE IN USAGE DURING THE PERIOD 1968-1969
Type
Flue-fed, single chamber
Direct fed, single chamber
Direct fed, one burner, single chamber
Direct fed, one burner, double chamber
Direct fed, two burners, double chamber
Total
number - 1968
2,724
614
171
168
162
Percent of total
Total number of incinera-
number - 1969 tors in D.C.
2,533
596
171
168
162
69.8%
16.4
4.7
4.6
4.5
% decrease
in
usage
7%
TOTAL
3,839
3,630
100%
-------
storage of solid waste should be minimized during the early years of the
project. A more intensified effort toward educating the public to clean-
up and maintain acceptable sanitary conditions may have to be in effect
for a number of years in order to achieve the desired goals.
The following specific actions are recommended:
A. ON-SITE STORAGE
1. Initially, collection of all solid waste in the Model Cities
and other problem areas regardless of whether it is in an approved
container.
2. Initiate an environmental health educational campaign for resi-
dents of low and moderate income areas, to be followed by strict enforce-
ment of the proposed solid waste regulations.
3. Evaluate and increase che frequency of collection as necessary
after a test of the Department of Sanitary Engineering's twice weekly
combined solid waste (trash and garbage) collection service.
4. Evaluation of the present issue of free or at cost trash cans
to needy families under the "War on Rats" program to determine if this
procedure should be continued and put on a city-wide basis.
B. ON-SITE REDUCTION AND DISPOSAL
1. Installation, in commercial and institutional buildings, of
efficient reduction systems (e.g., compactors, balers, shredders, etc.)
as replacements when the flue-fed and the single-chamber type incinera-
tors are banned.
2. Inclusion in new solid waste legislation the requirement that
garbage disposal units (grinders) be installed at the following:
a. All new construction of food service establishments and
residential buildings.
b. All existing food establishments after a reasonable grace
period.
3. Provision and enforcement of safety regulations regarding private
incinerators.
28
-------
t-
1964 Estin
lated
TOTAL POPULATION
AREA A
Statistical
Area
AREA R
Statistical
Area
AREA C
Statistical
Area
AREA D
Statistical
Area
I
II
VIII
III
IV
V
VI
XVII
VII
IX
X
XIV
XV
XVI
XI
XII
XIII
'Inat Population
811,000'
146.900
52.300
59,600
35,000
261, 2OO
59,400
6S.OOO
33,700
58.900
44.200
255.800
43.OOO
31,300
39 400
45.100
59.1OO
37.9OO
136,300
41,900
56,000
39,400
10 460
Health Service Areas
for Community Health Centers
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Government of the District of Columbia
" ''
Area C Mental Health Canter
Howard University
College of Med
-------
CHAPTER FOUR. COLLECTION
I. INTRODUCTION
Approximately 700,000 tons of refuse is collected in the District
of Columbia annually. Abandoned autpmobiles and demolition and excava-
tion wastes bring the total annual solid waste accumulation to nearly
four million tons as shown in Table 9.
More than one-half of the refuse is collected by commercial haulers.
Demolition and excavation waste is generally collected by the contractors
and owners who produce it as described in Appendix C. Several of the
larger commercial enterprises use their own collection crews and equip-
ment as do several government agencies (Appendix D) and, of course,
some private individuals. This is expecially true of sporadically pro-
duced waste including home carpentry and gardening, demolition and
excavation. The identification, collection and disposal of abandoned
automobiles are under the control of the Metropolitan Police Department,
as described in Appendix E.
Table 13 shows the categories of solid waste collected by the D.C.
Department of Sanitary Engineering in each of the six proposed sanitation
districts, which are based on the six recently revised police precincts.
This collection service is provided for residential buildings consisting
of fewer than four dwelling units, for non-profit organizations, and for
public property, such as municipal buildings, schools, D. C. parks and
public thoroughfares, at a cost of over $8 million annually. As noted in
Chapter 1, public law prohibits the use of municipal funds for the col-
lection of any solid wastes other than garbage from commercial establish-
ments. Tenements, rooming houses, and apartment buildings are also
classified as commercial enterprises and as such must contract for or
provide their own trash removal service. As mentioned in Chapter 1 of this
report, there is little control exerted over these haulers.
Among other District of Columbia agencies collecting and trans-
porting solid wastes are the Department of Highways and Traffic and the
Sewer Operations Division of the Department of Sanitary Engineering. The
operations of the latter are discussed in Appendix F.
The annual rate of production of refuse is relatively stable in the
District of Columbia. Table 10 compares the quantities collected in FY 1968
to those in FY 1969.
31
-------
TABLE 9. SOLID WASTE COLLECTED IN FY 1969
Tons Cu.Yds.
Department of Sanitary Engineering
Trash Collection and Incineration Branch 127,385 1,019,080
Garbage Collection & Disposal Branch 24,348 48,696
Ash Collection and Special Service
Household collections 7,571 60,567
Special cleanup drives 862 6,890
Trash D.C. Government buildings 5,275 42,207
Public space and alleys 561 4,484
Abatement of nuisances 981 7,855
Dead animals 396 396
Sub-total 15,646 122,399
Street Cleaning Branch
Street Cleaning Sections 35,999 288,078
Alley Section 6.635 53.078
Sub-total 42.634 341.156
Department total 210,013 1,531,331
Other D.C. agencies 23,887 103,736
U.S. Government collections 34,895 249,094
Confidential material 1,520 12,160
Commercial collections 414,436 3,119,413
Commercial garbage received at Transfer Station 2,662 5,324
Garbage collected by farmers 18.OOP 36,OQQ
Total refuse 705,413 5,057,058
Demolition* 520,000 520,000
Excavation* 2,700,000 1,800,000
Abandoned automobiles* 9.407 56.448
Total solid waste 3,934,820 7,433,506
* Estimates from special FY 1968 surveys.
32
-------
TABLE 10. REFUSE COLLECTED IN FY 1968 AND FY 1969
Tons
FY 1968 FY 1969
D.C. Department of Sanitary Engineering
Trash Collection and Incineration Branch 127,455 127,385
Garbage Collection and Disposal Branch 27,347 24,348
Ash Collection and Special Services Branch 15,617 15,646
Street Cleaning Branch 37.007 42,634
DSE TOTAL 207,426 210,013
Other D. C. agencies 20,284 23,887
U. S. Government collections 35,063 34,895
Confidential material (incinerable trash) 1,788 1,520
Commercial forces, general refuse 400,255 414,436
Commercial garbage received at Transfer Station 2,849 2,662
Garbage collected by farmers 28,000 18,000
TOTAL 695,665 705,413
II. FINDINGS
A. MANPOWER UTILIZATION AND PRODUCTIVITY
1. Commercial and Private Collections
Over sixty percent of the refuse collected in the District of
Columbia is collected by commercial haulers. Since commercial col-
lection is made primarily from sites with a high rate of refuse generation
e.g-> tenements, apartment buildings, office and commercial buildings
the use of on-site reduction, large containers, and mechanical material
handling aids permits one-man collection crews to collect a large amount
of refuse quickly and economically. In fact, the economies afforded by
the use of advanced materials handling equipment enable six companies
out of over 100 commercial refuse collection organizations operating
in the metropolitan area to handle an estimated three-fourths of the
total commercially collected refuse within the city limits. These companies
33
-------
OF
SANITARY
ENGINEERING
OFFICE
of
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE
of PERSONNEL
BUREAU of
ENGINEERING
and
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION and REPAIR
DIVISION
OFFICE of
PROGRAM PLANNING
and
REVIEW
RUREAU
f
SANITATION
SEiVICES
SYSTEM PLANNING
DIVISION
DESIGN and ENGINEERING
DIVISION
MOBILE
EQUIPMENT
DIVISION
BUREAU
of
WATER SERVICES
J_
SEWER OPERATIONS
DIVISION
OPERATIONS
EVALUATION
DIVISION
WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
DIVISION
WATER OPERATIONS
DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE
WASTt
CMJlCTieN
IVISIfN
MSTNICT Nt. 1
DISTRICT IU. 3
AMI
DISTRICT N*. 2
DRAWN
WASTE
DISPOSAL
DIVISION
DISTRICT Nt. S
RANCN
DISTRICT N*. 4
SPECIAL SERVICES
NRANCN
DISTRICT N*. «
-------
employ fewer than 300 laborers. One company limits its service to custo-
mers using hydraulically liftable containers of over one cubic yard
capacity. Those companies giving more door-to-door service use a pro-
portionally higher ratio of labor to tonnage collected. Most of the refuse
generated at federal facilities, which also use predominantly large-volume
containers requiring minimal manpower, is collected by commercial contract.
Those federal agencies handling their own collections employ approximately
thirty laborers in refuse collection. Commercial and federal haulers
are further discussed in Appendix D.
Private garbage collectors bring to municipal disposal facilities
over 2,500 tons annually. No cost figures are available on the collec-
tion and transportation of this material, but at the present Bureau of
Sanitation Services cost per ton they would amount to over $100,000.
Some garbage generated within the District of Columbia is collected
by hog farmers. This quantity is estimated at 18,000 tons or 36,000
cubic yards per year. However, outbreaks of hog cholera have curtailed
the practice of allowing farmers to pickup garbage at the Transfer Station,
and this practice should not be resumed.
2. Collections Made by the Bureau of Sanitation Services
D. C. Department of Sanitary Engineering
When this study began, the bureau was then a division and was
organized into branches, each responsible for a particular waste handling
function on a city-wide basis. During the study period, a reorganization,
as shown in Chart 1, was initiated and in part implemented. Collection
procedures are being changed from city-wide collection by type of refuse
to area collections of all types of refuse. In addition, the bureau has
begun to collect combined trash and garbage and is replacing open body
trucks with packer trucks. As this study is being completed, the area-
based system is in operation in only one of the six proposed sanitation
districts while the five - branch functional collection system is still
in use in the rest of the city. (Appendix H presents the proposed organi-
zation of the future collection branches.) Four of the functional branches
are directly involved in the collection of solid waste, the fifth is a
support branch. Each branch is headed by a chief who is responsible to
and reports directly to the chief of the Bureau of Sanitation Services.
The bureau employs 1,690 persons for the handling of solid wastes.
Of this number, 1,195 are laborers and drivers directly involved in the
collection of solid waste, 175 in equipment repair and maintenance, and
52 in administrative and clerical positions. The remaining 268 are employed
in disposal services. The number of laborers directly employed in waste
handling and the quantities collected by each branch are shown in Table 11.
The total manpower cost during FY 1969 for the collection of solid
waste by the bureau was $8,138,230. The cost per ton by branch is shown
35
-------
TABLE 11
BUREAU OF SANITATION SERVICES
COLLECTION PERSONNEL AND QUANTITIES COLLECTED - FY 1969
Number of Quantities
Branch workers collected (tons)
Trash Collection
and Incineration 306 127,385
Garbage Collection
and Disposal 105 24,348
Ash Collection and
Special Services 87 15,646
Street Cleaning
Street Section 348 35,999
Alley Section 40 6,635
Mechanical
(drivers) 309
TOTAL 1,195 210,013
36
-------
TABLE 12 - LABOR COSTS AND PRODUCTIVITY, FY 19691
Function Annual labor cost
Trash
collection 2,589,120
Garbage
collection 991,470
Ash
collection 765,410
Street cleaning 3,792,230
street section
alley section
TOTAL 8,138,230
Quantity collected (tons) Labor cost/ton Total cost/ton^ Labor cost/
% of total cost
127,385 $20.33 $23.66 85.9
24,348 $40.72 $47.80 85.2
15,646 $48.92 $57.08 85.7
$88.95 $105.94 84.0
35,999
6,635
210,013 $38.76 $45.66 84.9
Annual Financial Statement and Summary of Expenditures of the Sanitation Division for the FY ending June 30, 1969
Includes wages of collectors, operating costs of facilities and equipment, and salaries of supervisory personnel
directly responsible for the particular collection service.
-------
in Table 12. Drivers received a median of $3.30 per hour, while the
median salaries for laborers and labor leaders were $2.94 and $3.23
respectively. The wage range for foremen was $3.87 to $4.73. These
figures are presently being modified and will be slightly higher by the
time this report is published.
a. Organization
Under the existing organization as shown in Chart 2, each of the
four present collection branches has specific responsibilities leading
to different management structures.
(1) Trash Collection and Incineration Branch
The branch office consists of the chief, his deupty, the assistant
chief for incineration and the assistant chief for trash collection. The
office force is made up to two clerk typists, two record clerks, two
timekeepers and a clerical aide.
There are 52 trash collection crews. Crews on packer trucks con-
sist of a labor leader, two laborers and a driver. Crews on open body
trucks consist of a labor leader and three laborers and a driver. These
52 collection crews are grouped into seven sections serving the seven
geographical areas shown in Appendix G- Each section is headed by a
foreman supervising seven or eight crews and is subdivided into routes.
Each crew is assigned a daily route for a total of 260 routes to cover the
entire city an estimated 135,000 dwelling units once a week on a
five day basis, resulting in a total annual manpower input of 13,520
crew-days. The branch annually collected 130,000 tons of refuse; the
collection average is ten tons per crew per day. A separate section has
been established as a labor pool of thirty-five laborers to provide sub-
stitutions for absent crew members in the seven regular trash collection
sections.
(2) Garbage Collection and Disposal Branch
The garbage collection operation is presently organized parallel
to but independently of trash collection. The Garbage Collection and
Disposal Branch is led by the branch chief and his deputy assisted by
one clerk. There are five collection sections with three to five crews
serving 11 to 13 routes per section. Twice a week collection is given
to 60 routes, requiring 480 man-days per week. The operational boundaries
of the five sections are shown in Appendix G-
(3) Ash Collection and Special Services Branch
The collection of household ash and bulky objects, collection
services for public buildings, cleaning of vacant lots, and other special
services, are performed by the Ash Collection and Special Services Branch.
It it led by the branch chief and a deputy, assisted by two clerks.
38
-------
DEPARTMENT
OP
SANITARY
ENGINEERING
OFFICE
of
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE
of PERSONNEL
BUREAU of
ENGINEERING
and
CONSTRUCTION
U>
CONSTRUCTION and REPAIR
DIVISION
OFFICE of
PROGRAM PLANNING
and
REVIEW
SANITATION DIVISION
SYSTEM PLANNING
DIVISION
DESIGN and ENGINEERING
DIVISION
AMINISTMTIVE
ASSISTANT,
PERFORMANCE,
COMPLAINTS,
INSPECTION
AM COLLECTION
art
SPECIAL SERVICES
MANCR
BUREAU
of
WATER SERVICES
SEWER OPERATIONS
DIVISION
STAFF ENOINEEN
WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
DIVISION
WATER OPERATIONS
DIVISION
COLLECTION
and
DISPOSAL
RANCH
MECHANICAL
BRANCH
STREET CLEANING
RANCH
REFUSE DISPOSAL
BRANCH
TRASH
COLLECTION
and
INCINERATION
RANCH
Chart 3.Former Organisation of the Sanitation Diriclon.
-------
There are five sections, each headed by a foreman and assigned an
area of the city for route collections as shown in Appendix G. Each of
these sections has fifteen crews of four men using open-body trucks.
Special crews are also assigned to these sections to operate such equip-
ment as packers for school and public building services, vacuum trucks and
chippers. A sixth section has no area assignment but serves the entire
city for abatement of nuisances and for special cleanups. Its full
complement is eight crews of which it presently has two.
(4) Street Cleaning Branch
The Street Cleaning Branch, charged with the responsibility of
cleaning public thoroughfares, is led by the branch chief and two
deputies. It consists of 14 street cleaning and three alley cleaning
sections with a foreman and from 10 to 40 men assigned to each section.
The 14 street cleaning sections have 348 laborers to cover 207 pushcart
routes and 45 truck crews. The three alley cleaning sections have 40
men in 12 crews. Laborers serving cart routes report to foremen or labor
leaders at tool houses located in the vicinity of their route. Routes are
designed to begin and end as near the tool houses as possible. Considera-
ble delay was noted between the time the laborers report for work and the
time they actually begin to work. Absenteeism, typically a problem in
refuse collection services, is especially critical when it occurs among
these cartmen, whose absence requires extensive route rearrangement and
results in less effective coverage.
Most of the street refuse is collected by laborers using hand
brooms and shovels. The litter collected by these cartmen is deposited
at designated locations for pickup by truck crews. The daily coverage
for cartmen is a function of the land use, the population density, the
season of the year, and whether or not the sidewalks and tree boxes
require cleaning. The daily coverage for cartmen in high intensity com-
mercial areas where sidewalks must be swept is 3.1 miles.
Truck crews are assigned regular street cleaning tasks. Since they
are mobile, they are assigned to scattered areas with high intensity of
litter and to areas where regularly scheduled cartmen are absent. The
use of truck crews for street cleaning has many built-in inefficiencies
in comparison to the use of cartmen. The truck bodies are higher and
require more time and effort to load. The driver does not assist in
loading. The loaders spend considerable time waiting for each other and
for the truck. A study showed that under similar conditions cartmen
perform the same task with a small fraction of the equipment cost and
40 percent less labor expenditure.
The pushcart deposit points and the litter baskets are generally
adjacent to household or public building waste collection routes.
Collections at most of these points could be scheduled on those routes.
40
-------
Mechanical sweepers are used except in freezing weather; they
require only one individual and are probably the most effective street
cleaning method.
Leaf vacuuming trucks are employed in the fall in areas of high
tree density. These are operated by a crew of four men: a driver, labor
leader and two laborers. The laborers precede the truck, sweeping leaves
from tree boxes and from between parked cars. The vacuum hose is opera-
ted by the labor leader.
Separate accounting of amounts collected by truck crews, cartmen
and mechanical sweepers is not maintained. The branch collects 42,600
tons annually. Cartmen clean 100 feet of curb in five minutes in a
residential area with heavy leaf accumulation. Four-man truck crews
clean 100 feet of curb in seven man-minutes under similar conditions.
The mechanical sweepers can generally average about 20 miles per day,
or 100 feet of curb in 0.44 minutes.
b. Productivity Factor
(1) Task System
The trash and garbage collection crews are on a task system.
Under this system routes are designed for a full day's work. The work
day is ended upon completion of the assigned task. This system has the
advantage of inducing the workers to maintain a fast and steady pace
and to load trucks to capacity before going to the disposal facility,
and it is a good morale factor. The system may induce haste occasionally
at the expense of safety and equipment maintenance, and would be a factor
in the number of missed stops and complaints. The street cleaning and
special services branches of the bureau have functions which are harder
to define and supervise. For this reason, assignments are not made on
a task basis, but on the conventional eight hour day. However, as
reorganization proceeds under the area concept, street cleaning and
special collection functions may be assigned on the task system basis.
Performance standards are presently being evaluated for these functions.
Under the task system for trash and garbage collection, the assigned
work load required about 80 percent of the normal eight hour day during the
study period. An analysis of reported time in the field over a three
month period revealed that 39 percent of the routes required between six
and seven hours to complete with 35 percent requiring less than six hours
and 26 percent requiring more than seven hours.
(2) Collection Practices
Standards are not uniform in establishing the location of house-
hold storage points throughout the city. In fact, in many instances
they are not uniform within the same block. The collection points
should be adjacent to the public space in areas accessible to the collection
41
-------
crews. However, a variety of collection points was found: some con-
venient to public access and others in garages, under front steps, next
to buildings and behind buildings.
On-site storage regulations have not been effectively enforced.
Approximately 30 percent of all households serviced do not have adequate
legal container capacity and require supplemental space in cardboard and
paper containers. This practice attracts rodents and insects, induces
spillage, and is unattractive; it is time consuming and introduces a safety
problem for the collector. While the practice will not be eliminated,
enforcement and public education programs should reduce it considerably.
As shown in Chapter 3, On-Site Solid Waste Handling, regulations
governing the standards for containers (construction material, volume
and loaded weight) are poorly enforced; moreover, many of the otherwise
legal containers are broken, mashed and bent to such a degree that they
are dangerous for the men to handle.
A recent development in containerization which speeds up collec-
tion and improves the condition of storage sites is the use of poly-
ethylene disposable bags. An analysis showed that these disposable bags
amounted to five percent of the total number of containers used in the
District.
A study of the collection crew's time showed that one-half of
its productive time is spent handling containers, and that one-half of
this handling time is spent emptying cans and returning them from the
truck to the pickup point. A complete change-over to the use of these
one-way containers could result in an hour saved per crew-day.
Complaints for missed pickups, special requests and new services
are received at the bureau headquarters. They are transmitted to the
foremen who inform the appropriate crew and insure that the collection
is made. If the collection was not made because the container or the
point of collection was not acceptable, the foreman will explain this to
the resident.
(3) Personnel Practices
Foremen in the field recruit men on referral from their laborers;
men seeking employment approach their neighborhood foremen. This approach
provides an effective pool from which qualified men may be selected. While
the evaluation of potential laborers should be made by foremen, some de-
gree of centralization may be warranted. Screening should be made con-
sistent throughout the bureau to complement the probation system. The
ratio of the number failing probation to the number of new hires in FY 1969
was 1 to 6, not including those who resigned to avoid being fired.
42
-------
The average tenure of laborers engaged in trash and garbage col-
lections is six years. However, as of August 1969, approximately
30 percent of the force had been employed for less than one year,
indicating that there is a significant number of longer term employees.
The training program for the collection function is being improved:
a department-wide course for foremen has been established, safety training
has been strengthened, and training for collectors in connection with the
reorganization under the area concept is being conducted.
(4) Route Design
The 1195 sanitation laborers and drivers engaged in the daily
collection of refuse are detailed in independent crews or singly to the
approximately 750 collection routes and street cleaning assignments
throughout the city. Thus, on the job supervision is minimal and ef-
fective performance of collection assignments requires that jobs be well
planned in both scope and methods. In this regard, present route
designs are now being revised.
B. METHODS
The regulatory and the operational departments of the D.C.
Government, in their role of protecting public health and safety, place
few restrictions on solid waste collectors regarding collection methods.
These methods are largely a function of the type of collection vehicle;
restrictions on the type of vehicle, however, are virtually non-existent.
There are presently in effect municipal standards for garbage and dead
animal collection vehicles as described in Chapter 1, but the vast majori-
ty of these is operated by the bureau. Thus, most of the commercial fleet
remains unaffected. Competition for business is the only incentive to
improve collection methods.
The area's more progressive commercial hauling firms are using
methods as modern and effective as are industrially available. These
methods are more competitive in large volume handling. The commercial
handling of household refuse in which door-to-door collection is involved
can be competitively performed by those firms which are able to retain
their competitive prices by use of marginal methods.
The collection methods used in the city by federal agencies are
compatible with public health and safety standards. Some packer trucks
are in use and the type of material collected is generally easy to
handle. Those agencies which perform their own collections handle only
paper wastes and floor sweepings. Garbage and industrial wastes are
generally handled by commercial concerns under contract.
Private citizens generating sporatic but bulky accumulations of
refuse from gardening, home carpentry and other occasional pursuits used
private vehicles or rented trucks to collect this debris and transport
43
-------
it to disposal facilities. Random sampling at the landfill shows that
fifty to seventy-five automobiles per week haul to authorized disposal
areas; the amount of waste hauled, however, is small.
Chapter 1, Laws and Regulations, describes the proposed legisla-
tion necessary to control the methods of all refuse collectors including
commercial, federal and private, insofar as their actions affect the public
health.
The methods employed by the Bureau of Sanitation Services in pro-
viding collection service will be discussed below for each of the
following types of services: household, schools, public buildings, dead
animals, and street cleaning.
1. Household
At present, domestic wastes (trash, garbage, ashes, and bulky
objects) are collected by three branches, Trash, Garbage, and Ash and
Special Services. Trash is collected once a week; garbage twice a week;
weekly ash collections and special pick-up of bulky objects are scheduled
upon request.
The service rendered is a function of the neighborhood housing
pattern. Row houses, town houses, houses with fencing, and other single
family units whose rear yards are inaccessible, are given curbslde
collection only. In blocks with wide enough alleys, the trucks drive
through the alleys and the loaders collect from backyard storage points.
Special situations, such as residences of the infirm and elderly, are
provided collection at the point of storage. In such cases, garbage is
transferred from the resident's container into a can carried by the col-
lectQr. Two or three houses may be serviced by the collector before he
returns to the truck. Similarly, trash is collected in burlap containers
which are carried to the curb for loading. Where convenient, the crew
will split, allowing part of the crew to travel ahead and prepare the
route by setting-out or by burlapping. This procedure may continue
while the truck is unloading or making alley collections. A collection
route often comprises a variety of these situations.
In alleys and low density residential streets, both sides are
collected simultaneously, crews crossing the street to the truck. This
is more frequently the case for garbage collectors, since volumes per
household are less and more collections may be made before returning to
the truck. On wider, more heavily traveled streets, foremen require that
the sides be collected one at a time.
Household ashes and bulky objects are collected by the Ash Collection
and Special Services Branch. The service is performed upon the resident's
request for either a special collection of bulky items and appliances
or scheduled service. Collection routes are defined by boundary and date,
44
-------
but are not formally set up with listed stops. Instruction for frequency
and coverage are not logged.
Household ash collection is now one of the lesser functions of
the branch; however, there are still approximately 500 collection points
receiving weekly service during the winter months. The branch also makes
a special Christmas tree collection.
The Ash Collection and Special Services Branch collects 7,500 tons
of special household refuse annually. A study during calendar year 1968
showed that this included 5,100 appliances (2,000 refrigerators, 1,700
washers, 1,400 stoves and water heaters). The Garbage and Trash Branches
collects a total of 150,000 tons. This figure includes a small amount
of trash from nonprofit institutions and garbage collections from commer-
cial sources.
2. Schools and Public Buildings
Municipally owned buildings are served by the Ash Collection and
Special Services Branch. Collections are made from regular pre-established
points at all D.C. buildings. This refuse consists of trash, furnace
ashes and incinerator ashes. The frequency of collection is variable
and depends upon the material collected, storage space on-site, and
generation rate. Some collections are made semi-weekly, others only upon
request.
The method of collection from several of the older public school
buildings is to raise singly each 32 gallon container from the basement
of the buildings with a winch. This is a slow, inefficient operation
requiring considerable time per can. The only on-site reduction method
presently being used is incineration.
Five to six thousand tons of trash are collected annually from
schools and public buildings. This amount comprises 40 percent of the
branch's total collection. An additional small amount is collected
from these sources by the Trash Collection and Incineration Branch crews
when their domestic routes include small D.C. buildings such as fire and
police stations.
3. Street Cleaning
As described on page 40 under Manpower, both manual and mechanical
street cleaning methods are employed. The cartmen clean streets, curbs
and gutters with push brooms. Bureau responsibility does not include
cleaning the sidewalks or the tree boxes. However, in practice, any
accumulations in these areas are swept up. The pushcarts are being
converted for use with disposable paper bags, which will eliminate the
problem of leaving loose refuse in the designated deposit areas for truck
crew pickup. Some truck crews are assigned areas to clean early in the
45
-------
TABLE 13
AMOUNTS OF SOLID WASTE AND DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONNEL WITHIN THE COLLECTION AREAS
BUREAU OF SANITATION SERVICES (FY 1968
Area
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Personnel
Foremen
Leaders
Laborers
Drivers
Foremen
Leaders
Laborers
Drivers
Foremen
Leaders
Laborers
Drivers
Foremen
Leaders
Laborers
Drivers
Foremen
Leaders
Laborers
Drivers
Foremen
Leaders
Laborers
Drivers
Total tons
of refuse
Street cleaning
Hrs/wk tons/yr
191 6,920
462
3,996
462
104 7,579
379
2,608
379
83 3,769
261
1,902
261
104 8,832
548
1,780
548
120 5,167
412
2,158
412
78 4,740
418
1,186
418
37,007
Garbage
collection
Hrs/wk tons/yr
66 3,432
126
238
126
54 2,774
101
191 1
101
51 2,682
98
185
98
127 6,631
243
459 1
243
129 6,763
247
466 1
247
97 5,065
185
349
185
27,347
Trash
collection
Hrs/wk tons/yr
49 12,159
198
533
198
93 23,190
378
,017
378
41 10,121
165
444
165
141 35,143
573
,542
573
117 29,203
478
,282
478
71 17,639
288
774
288
127,455
Data)
Ash and
Special services
Hrs/wk tons/yr
88 2,697
185
37
181
62 3,241
132
264
132
27 1,664
69
138
69
83 3,395
134
267
134
49 3,109
130
261
126
27 1,511
62
124
62
15,617
Total
hrs/wk
394
971
4,804
967
313
990
4,080
967
202
593
2,669
593
455
1,498
4,048
1,498
415
1,267
4,167
1,263
273
953
2,433
953
Equiv.
men
9.85
24.28
120.10
24,18
7.83
24.75
102.00
24.75
5.05
14.83
66.73
14.83
11.38
37.45
101.20
37.45
10.38
31.68
104.18
31,58
6.83
23.83
60.83
23.83
Total
tons/yr
25,208
36,784
18,236
54,001
44,242
28,955
207,426
-------
morning and for the remainder of the day collect from public litter
boxes and from the cartmen's designated points of deposit. Others
spend the entire day cleaning streets.
Mechanical sweeper routes are established in several sections of
the city. Experimental areas have been set up to aid sweeper efficiency
by providing parking on alternate sides of the street to be cleaned.
Evening use of the sweepers was curtailed as a safety precaution after
several drivers were attacked. The operation is severely limited by
freezing and other unfavorable conditions.
The streets in business areas and other areas of high litter
generation are to be cleaned daily while secondary streets are to be
cleaned two or three times per week. Outlying areas and areas from which
few complaints are received often experience six month intervals between
cleanings.
In actual practice, the number of complaints and the rate at which
the litter accumulates override the established cleaning frequencies and
determine the allocation of men. Those streets cleaned twice per day
are generally in critical areas from which many complaints are received.
Table 14 shows the amount of refuse collected and the miles of street in
each section.
Alleys are cleaned as often as three times per week, either because
of heavy litter or in response to complaints. Alleys requiring less
attention are cleaned less frequently.
Control over the cleaning of streets and alleys is maintained by
the foreman subject to the approval of the branch chief. Log books and
check-off sheets are maintained indicating areas which were not cleaned
according to schedule. Entries are made noting the date of cleaning in
the infrequently scheduled locations. Check-off sheets are used to keep
records of the areas cleaned by alley crews, flushers, sweepers, vacuum
trucks, and for work done on weekends.
Leaf collection, a seasonal function from October through December,
is a function of the Street Cleaning Branch. It disrupts the normal
street cleaning activities and requires special equipment and collection
procedures. Special leaf-vacuum trucks as well as other street cleaning
equipment are used for leaf collection.
The major leaf producing sections of the city are in street
cleaning sections 5, 6 and 9. Those areas in which most leaves accumu-
late are scheduled for cyclic collection on a three week interval during
the season. In the other city areas leaves are collected by street
cleaners on the same basis as litter. (See Table 14)
Leaf-vacuum crews and open-top truck crews are used in those areas
of heaviest leaf accumulation. The vacuums are served by three man crews
47
-------
TABLE 14
FY 1968 STREET CLEANING QUANTITIES
Street cleaning Miles of Total collections
section streets cu.yds. cu. yd/mi
1 44
2 47
3 23
4 58
5 139
6 87
7 40
8 59
9 141
10 44
11 129
12 114
13 61
14 144
Total 1130
12,640
13,311
10,365
13,820
37,248
26,690
13,028
16,380
33,384
7,772
17,814
12,594
13,204
22,168
250,418
287
283
450
238
268
307
326
278
237
177
138
110
216
154
212
Leaf collections
cu . yds . *
248
298
182
0
17,238
10,454
162
1,306
10,626
124
2,017
2,149
584
2,658
48,046
* Compacted quantities.
48
-------
plus driver. The two laborers rake leaves from tree box spaces and
from between parked cars. The labor leader operates the vacuum hose.
Column 4 in Table 14 shows the total compacted volume of leaves
collected by special leaf crews; the figures are from a special study
done in FY 1968. Data on FY 1967 and FY 1969 street cleaning are very
similar to FY 1968, suggesting that 50,000 cubic yards is a typical
annual volume.
4. Other Collections
Over 500 tons of refuse is collected from public space and
alleys be crews from the Ash Collection and Special Services Branch.
The abatement of nuisances results in the collection of 500 to 1,000
tons annually. Vacant lots, abandoned and condemned buildings, and
littered areas are cleaned in response to Commissioner's Orders from the
Executive Office of the city. This work is done on a reimbursable basis;
the cost of the service is added to the owner's property tax.
Collections of the refuse resulting from cleanup campaigns by
civic and other organizations ranges from 800 to 1,500 tons. Both the
ash and trash branches participate in this collection.
Dead animal collection is handled separately. Requests are re-
ceived from sanitation foremen, police, citizens, laboratories, and the
National Zoological Park. Collected carcasses are refrigerated until
picked up by a local rendering company. Approximately 40,000 carcasses
are collected annually. Cost figures were not tabulated separately for
this function. However, since there are four men with assigned vehicles
it is estimated that the cost is about $30,000 per year.
C. EQUIPMENT
The lack of control of solid waste handling in the District has
permitted a wide variety of collection equipment. Modern packers work
alongside flat bed trucks converted by the addition of makeshift sides.
There is no reliable estimate of the number of vehicles serving the city.
The six major commercial haulers report the use of an aggregate of 118
trucks within the city limits. It is expected that those smaller com-
panies which use less efficient trucks expand this number considerably.
Federal agencies use nine open trucks and nine packers for nonconfidential
waste collection within the city.
The Bureau of Sanitation Services owned 543 pieces of automotive
equipment in November 1969. Of these, 270 were collection vehicles
including 52 packers and 141 open dump trucks. Seventy-five are admin-
istrative vehicles and the remainder are miscellaneous categories including
repair vehicles, trailers, salt spreading equipment and disposal equipment.
Sixty-two packers are on order for FY 1970 purchase. Table 15 lists the
equipment used by each branch, its age and mileage.
49
-------
TABLE 15
AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT BY TYPE. AGE, AND MILEAGE
Number
I
38
68
2
1
4
1
FY 1969
Type of
vehicle
General service
& maintenance
Tanker
Passenger cars
Jeeps & pickups
Wreckers
Bus
Sta:ke body truck
Compressor truck
Average
age/yrs
1
3
4
4
8
14
16
Mileage
4,497
364,453
485,183
8,227
1,221
8,438
604
Street Cleaning Collection
28
6
1
7
10
6
85
42
28
Sweepers
Packers
Vac-All
Self -loaders
Flushers
Truck- mounted
vacuums
Open-body trucks
Trash Collection
Packers
Open-body trucks
1
1
2
2
3
3
6
1
3
50,220
34,247
6,667
33,790
74,875
25,730
655,496
121,795
319,672
50
-------
TABLE 15
AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT BY TYPE, AGE. AND MILEAGE
Number
26
1
4
4
25
1
FY 1969
(cont.)
Type of
vehicle
Garbage Collection
Open-body trucks
Semi-truck w/2 trls.
Ash Collection
Packers
Dead-animal trucks
Open-body trucks
Ash puller
Average Mileage
age/yrs
9 232,727
14 6,743
1 6,181
1 12,597
7 181,532
13 6,787
The bureau's FY 1968 financial report shows that an average of
$189'89 was spent for fuel and an average of $687.86 spent on repairs for
each of the fuel consuming vehicles while FY 1969 reports as shown below
indicate $200.94 spent for fuel and $592.95 for repairs. Thus, the average
cost per fueled unit is just under $800.
Type of equipment Units Fuel costs Repair costs Total cost
Vehicles, gasoline
operated 446 $103,807.57 $283,172.78 $386,980.35
Miscellaneous equipment,
gasoline operated 55 495.08 16,231.87 16,726.95
Miscellaneous diesel
operated 28 1,995.97 14,265.26 16,261.23
Total operated 529 $106,298.62 $313,669.91 $419,968.53
Average per unit $200.94 $592.95 $793.89
51
-------
The average age of all automotive equipment in FY 1969 was 6.45
years. Sixty percent of the non-packer truck fleet was over six years
old.
Since these vehicles spend a great deal of time idling or driving
slowly, a true measure of their utilization is not reflected in their
mileage records. The Preventive Maintenance Section is analyzing vehi-
cle oil samples to provide a more accurate method of measuring vehicle
utilization, in order to improve the overhaul and repair schedule.
Cost records are kept on each vehicle. They are reviewed by the
head of the Production Control Unit and all unusually high repair or
operating costs are referred to the chief of the branch for his review
and action.
The Mechanical Branch continually reviews vehicle types and speci-
fications used within the bureau and recommends necessary changes. It is
responsible for drafting detailed specifications for procurement purposes.
For instance, it has redesigned the residue trucks to triple their
volume. The branch has also been instrumental in improving the design
of open trucks purchased for collection, lowering their height and widening
their beds to allow for increased capacity. Equipment color is being
changed from gray to white in an attempt to improve visibility, safety
and public image.
The bureau is in the process of changing from open-body trucks for
household waste collection to packer units. Both types are presently
16 cubic yard capacity, although five 20 cubic yard packers are on
order. Garbage trucks used in household collection are equipped with
sliding metal covers. These trucks will be phased out as the bureau
proceeds in its change to combined collection of garbage and trash.
The packer trucks delivered 14,400 loads during FY 1969 averaging
7,900 pounds per loader. Pounds per loader per hour on packer trucks is
1,140 compared with 740 for open-body trucks.
The Maintenance Branch is responsible for the repair and mainte-
nance of all the mobile equipment used in refuse collection. There are
three levels of branch activities: minor repair, preventive maintenance
and major repair. Inadequate facilities and understaffing are common
to all three. Major repair and preventive maintenance each have one
central facility. Minor repairs are performed at three separate garages.
Minor and preventive work is scheduled for evenings as much as possible
so as not to interfere with equipment usage.
The preventive maintenance program is effective in prolonging the
life of mobile equipment. Crews perform preventive maintenance according
to the following schedule unless oil analysis indicates that attention is
needed.
52
-------
Equipment type Operating time
Sweepers 5 days
Flushers (16 hr. duty) 5 days
Flushers (8 hr. duty) 15 days
Packer trucks 5 days
All other equipment 41 days
Complete inspections are scheduled at 6,000 mile intervals unless
greater frequency is suggested by the oil analysis. Mobile equipment
in poor mechanical condition is sent to the Major Repair Section. The
major repair facility is a heavy duty automotive repair shop capable of
handling all equipment used in the various branches. All major repairs
are done in this section engine rebuilding, fabrication of needed items,
body repainting and body work.
The projected annual replacement cost is $500,000 for collection
equipment. When disposal equipment, snow, and miscellaneous categories
are added, plus projected inflation and cost increases, the total annual
replacement cost is $1 million.
III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Many of the issues raised in the preceding pages of this chapter
are problems for which active programs of correction have already begun.
The problems regarding commercial and private collectors are largely
ones of control. Remedies were discussed in Chapter 1; the chief recom-
mendation is that the District exercise control through a vehicle licensing
and inspection system. This report endorses the recommended regulations
and their effective enforcement.
During the course of the study, the Department of Sanitary
Engineering started the implementation of the previously planned reorgani-
zation of the municipal solid waste collection forces based on a concept
which holds a particular supervisor responsible for all solid waste
collection within a defined geographic area. This establishment of the
accountability of supervisory personnel is expected to be very beneficial
and is fully endorsed.
This type of organization lends itself to physical decentralization.
Operational facilities, insofar as practicable, should be located within
the sanitation district with consideration given to future expansion and
neighborhood compatibility.
53
-------
A. MANPOWER
Manpower utilization and productivity is expected to be greatly
improved under the area-based system of control, since it allows flexi-
bility in allocating the available manpower according to task requirements.
The background of future supervisors will be broadened since each man will
become familiar with the total operation. Supervisory talents will be
utilized to fullest advantage by providing foremen with sufficient clerical
staff within each district.
Qualification procedures need review to insure that they are in
operation, are standard, and are realistic. Encouragement should be given
to collectors to take self-improvement courses to prepare themselves for
promotion.
Active recruiting should broaden the base of applicants, permitting
more selectivity. The establishment of a formal waiting list should be
evaluated; it provides a screening technique to hinder those seeking short
periods, of employment, and tends to make employees value the employment
more. The rehire of former employees is another area in which study may
prove beneficial. The men in this group do have a knowledge of the tasks
so require little or no additional training.
Training programs are particularly important for the effective
operation of the bureau. Areas for training should include:
1. Orientation
2. Safety
3. Job skills
4. Interpersonal relationships: union - worker - management,
worker - public, etc.
5. Promotion, advancement, leadership
6. Basic needs of urban existence such as communication skills,
consumer judgment.
Each position should be reviewed to establish that it has potential
for advancement. Consistent standards should be established and applied
for promotions in conjunction with the newly enacted merit system. This
system will improve the chances for merit promotions, but it needs care
in implementation to insure that a proper balance is maintained which re-
tains full use of the judgment of foremen yet fosters employee faith in the
system's fairness.
B. METHODS
Proposals for improvement of methods must include:
1. Periodic analysis and review of methods to determine changes in
workloads, deficiencies and requirements.
54
-------
2. Establishment of a program of orderly development of effec-
tive management and administration on a city-wide basis.
3. Establishment of effective scheduling and dispatching of
personnel and equipment.
Improvements in the methods of handling solid waste could reduce
manpower requirements of the present services thus freeing men for more
thorough coverage and increased collection frequency. For example,
cooperation with the schools has resulted in the consideration of
changes to solid waste handling systems which will greatly increase
efficiency. This type of study should be made in all instances where the
volumes handled provide opportunities for savings due to on-site reduc-
tion and mechanization.
Improved organization and management controls are to be developed
for more effective collection of solid waste as shown in Appendix H.
As the area-based system of control is effected, selection of areas,
design and installation of routes, development of management information
requirements, and development of a set of standards defining the adequacy
of collection and cleaning within an area will be accomplished.
Staffing and route designs will be developed to cover all types
of solid waste collections. Appendix I shows the methods and techniques
to be followed.
Participation of the private sector in the planning and establish-
ing of changes in methods and system for municipal management of solid
waste handling should be continued and expanded. This participation wpuld
be valuable to the bureau as a means of allowing direct comparison of the
detail of such techniques as equipment handling methods, repair, supply
and bookkeeping. Conferences and other appropriate information exchange
should be developed in the formulation and amendment of standards and
regulations for the industry and to foster their cooperation and profes-
sional attitude.
C. EQUIPMENT
A thorough analysis should be made of the fleet and of the fleet
maintenance facilities. The vehicle analysis should include not only
maintenance and operating costs for each type but also production limiting
factors such as compaction, cycle time, hopper dimensions, observed
compaction ratios, and whether or not the compaction mechanism is opera-
tive while the vehicle is in motion. Safety considerations and statistics
should continue to be categorized by vehicle and included in vehicle
analysis. The fleet maintenance facilities must be studied to determine
the most effective distribution in conjunction with the area-based organi-
zation.
55
-------
The Department of Sanitary Engineering should continually study
the effectiveness of its equipment and compare it to other types availa-
ble on the market, thus enabling the District to recognize and take advan-
tage of improvements in equipment and methodology.
Improvements are needed in the maintenance program. Some will
result from the decentralization of the organization. Minor mainte-
nance (including washing) facilities should be situated within each
sanitation district, relieving the congestion at the major repair facili-
ty. Record keeping and policies for procurement of parts and supplies
need immediate attention. Training programs are being established for
maintenance personnel, operators and supervisors.
IV. SCHEDULE OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
During the course of this study there has been close liaison with
the operating organization, and the experience of that group has resulted
in many of these recommendations. Consequently, much of the work proposed
in this report has already begun. Preliminary studies and implementing
procedures for the establishment of the area control concept were to be
completed by January 1970 for the pilot study area in Anacostia. A
program of orderly development of effective management and administra-
tion on a city-wide basis will be scheduled on a basis of the feedback
of information from the pilot study area.
Reorganization and development of management controls for the
improvement of manpower utilization and productivity are needed. Con-
tinued effort will be required to maintain and operate these controls.
The development of a refuse collection management system was begun
in August 1969, and is expected to be completed by the end of calendar
year 1971. It will include the establishment of revised collection routes
for the area-based system of control along with the establishment of an
organization within the Bureau of Sanitation Services to maintain the
system.
A study of methods of recruiting, training and promoting of
personnel is being conducted concurrently by the department personnel
office and should be completed as required parallel to the establishment
of management controls.
The development of an improved system for District of Columbia
equipment selection, maintenance and repair is to be included in a
department-wide program to be conducted during the next year and
scheduled for completion by the end of 1971. Standards for commercial
haulers as discussed in Chapter 1 of this report should closely parallel
the developments of the District's improved system. Federal haulers,
private citizens, demolition and excavation contractors and others
collecting and transporting should also be covered by these regulations.
56
-------
A study should be made of the effects on refuse collection practices
of the various types of on-site containers. This study will require approx-
imately one man-year of engineering and technician time to be followed by
a three month test period to give sufficient data across a range of weather
conditions. This study should include the development of a firm, consistent
policy for location of pickup points.
V. BENEFITS
The overall benefits to the collection system resulting from the
proposals listed in this chapter will be returned to the citizen as
productivity and service improvements. These benefits include the fol-
lowing: twice per week collection, more thorough street cleaning, combined
collection of garbage and trash, closer supervision resulting in neater
work and fewer missed collections, cleaner and more dependable vehicles,
upgrading of practices of private and contracted collectors, health and
aesthetic benefits in the use of one-way containers, increased efficiency
in the cleaning of vacant lots and in the assisting of public cleanup
campaigns, and a general improvement in the responsiveness of the depart-
ment to public demands.
The results which will benefit the department and its employees
include improvement in the training offered, increased promotion possi-
bilities, adoption of a more effective safety program, establishment of
more efficient repair and maintenance procedures, time and effort savings
accompanying the use of one-way containers, and the acquisition of
improved equipment.
Implementation of management controls in the .collection of solid
waste by the bureau should increase productivity and result in considera-
ble savings leading to higher standards in city street cleaning and refuse
collection.
The cost of vehicle repairs is another area in which marked savings
are envisioned. Acquisition of improved garage facilities will result in
a considerable reduction in the cost of repairs to these facilities, which
at $521,000, is currently higher than the cost of vehicle repair.
57
-------
CHAPTER FIVE. DISPOSAL
1. PRESENT DISPOSAL FACILITIES
A. INCINERATORS
The District of Columbia, Bureau of Sanitation Services, operates
four incinerator plants having a combined design capacity of 1,595 tons
of refuse per 24-hour day. All plants are batch-fed with rectangular
furnaces having either fixed or rocking grates. The two older plants
have no provisions for air pollution control. The newer plants were
designed with large subsidence chambers in which some of the larger and
more dense particulates settle before the flue gases enter the stacks.
Changes in the residential area adjacent to these plants and the
air pollution caused by stack emissions of the plants have required a
reduction in their aggregate operating capacity to approximately 1120
tons of refuse per 24-hour day. This 25 percent reduction in operating
capability has reduced the air polluting emissions from the plants but has
also placed a greater burden on the waste disposal operations at the
sanitary landfills.
1. Georgetown Incinerator
The Georgetown Incinerator is the smallest of the four existing
incinerator plants. This plant was constructed in 1932 on South Street
near 31st Street in the northwest section of the city. The plant con-
tains two furnaces, each rated at a capacity of 85 tons per 24-hour day,
providing a total plant capacity of 170 tons of refuse per 24-hour day.
This plant is 37 years old with furnaces that require considerable
hand labor. Since it operates at 50 percent of its design capacity and
reduces the weight by only 30 percent, at a cost of $12.00 per ton of
raw refuse, retirement of this plant is contemplated as soon as alternate
capacity is available.
2. '0' Street Incinerator
The '0' Street Incinerator was also constructed in 1932 and is
located at the intersection of '0' Street and Canal Street, S.E. The
plant contains five furnaces, each rated at a capacity of 85 tons per
24-hour day providing a total plant capacity of 425 tons per 24-hour day.
59
-------
This plant operated in FY 1969 at a rate of 250 tons of refuse
per 24-hour day, a reduction of almost 40 percent from its design capac-
ity. Operating costs averaged $9.42 per ton of raw refuse. One furnace
in this plant is made available for the destruction of confidential
material during the day shift. The special loading and burning procedures
associated with this operation greatly reduce the effective capacity of
this furnace. Raw refuse weight reduction in fiscal year 1969 averaged
40 percent. Retirement of this plant is contemplated when new disposal
facilities become available.
3. Mount Olivet Incinerator
The Mount Olivet Incinerator, constructed in 1955 and located
near West Virginia Avenue and Mount Olivet Road, N.E., contains four
furnaces each rated to burn 125 tons per 24-hour day, or 500 tons total
capacity per 24-hour day. The plant operates on a six-day week and
24-hour per day basis. In FY 1969 it averaged 360 tons per day, at an
operating cost of $7.18 per ton of raw refuse and a weight reduction of
42 percent.
4. Fort Totten Incinerator
The design and rated capacity of the FortTotten Incinerator, built
in 1961 near Fort Totten Drive and Hawaii Avenue, N.E. are the same as
for the Mount Olivet Incinerator. In FY 1969 it averaged 410 tons per
day, at an operating cost of $7.45 per ton of raw refuse and a weight
reduction of 41 percent.
B. LANDFILLS
In FY 1969 a total of 531,200 tons of refuse were placed in land-
fills by the District (including incinerator residue). Below is the
breakdown to the various landfills. The Oxon Cove Landfill replaced the
Kenilworth landfill in October 1969 and, therefore, is not included in
the listing which follows:
Total Refuse
Disposal Sites (Including Incinerator Residua,)
tons
Kenilworth Landfill 458,300
51st and Fitch Street Landfill 30,900
Dyke Marsh Landfill 32,300*
Cherry Hill Landfill 9,700
Total 531,200
Incinerator residue not accepted.
60
-------
TABLE 16
INCINERATION COSTS FOR EXISTING PLANTS - FISCAL YEAR 1969
Incinerator Plant
Rated capacity - tons/day
Annual refuse handled
Annual Cost
Personnel
Utilities
Maintenance (Incinerators)
Maintenance (Automotive equipment,
e.g., ash trucks)
Miscellaneous
Total Cost (Annual)
Per ton
Fort Totten
500
127,800
$552,900
15,400
104,700
82,500
195,800
$951,300
$7.44
Mount Olivet
500
113,600
$599,400
10,000
57,200
43,800
105 f 300
$815,700
$7.18
0 Street
425
64,800
$479,200
4,700
30,800
23,600
72,000
$610,300
$9.42
Georgetown
175
23,000
$191,700
3,400
24,500
18,500
38,000
$276,100
$12.00
Total
1,595
329,200
$1,823,200
33,500
217,200
168,400
411,100
$2,653,400
$8.06
-------
In FY 1969, 205,900 tons of incinerator residue were deposited
at the landfills. This amount represents almost 40 percent of the total
annual amount received at the landfills. Its high density is a factor
reducing the cost per ton in landfill operations, which was $1.89 in
FY 1969 including personnel, equipment and transfer facilities, but
excluding real estate values.
1. Dyke Marsh Landfill
The Dyke Marsh Landfill is located south of Alexandria, Virginia
with access from the George Washington Memorial Parkway and has been in'
operation since June 1966. It is owned by the National Park Service.
The landfill is being filled with demolition material, utilizing excavated
material from federal government installations as daily cover. Dredging
operations are being carried on offshore for sand and gravel companies in
the area. The National Park Service estimates that dredging operations to
1981 will create approximately 5,000 acre-feet of fill space. However
only 700 acre-feet of this will be used for the landfill. The current
life expectancy of this site is approximately 3.5 years based on the
average daily fill rate of 120 cubic yards generated in FY 1969.
The future use of this site will be as a refuge for migratory
waterfowl and aquatic life. It is being constructed at mean tide ele-
vation to provide an environment conducive to aquatic growth.
2. Cherry Hill Landfill
The Cherry Hill Landfill is located in Prince William County,
Virginia. It may be reached by road from U.S. 1, by rail on the Richmond-
Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad System, or by water from the Potomac
River. The area of the landfill is approximately 25 acres.
In FY 1969, 9,700 tons of solid waste were shipped to Cherry Hill
by rail. Available fill space is calculated at 250 acre-feet or 400,000
cubic yards. The density of material in place is presently estimated to
be % ton per cubic yard. The life expectancy of the landfill is 5,000
days, based on the current daily fill rate of approximately 80 cubic
yards.
Refuse consisting of contaminated foodstuffs, incinerator residue
street sweepings, sewage screenings and grit, is shipped by rail to the
Cherry Hill Landfill two to three times weekly.
3. Kenilworth Landfill
For many years an open burning dump was operated at Kenilworth.
While the Department of Sanitary Engineering desired to eliminate this
dump as part of its disposal program inadequate funds and extreme shortac
of available land were obstacles.
62
-------
During the Conference on Solid Waste Management for the Metro-
politan Washington Area in July 1967, the Public Health Service made
a public announcement that they would provide grant-in-aid assistance in
the conversion of this dump to a model sanitary landfill. Following this
offer negotiations with the National Park Service concerning final eleva-
tions and a park development plan were completed, and the sanitary landfill
was begun in February 1968.
Operation of the sanitary landfill continued for 20 months; it was
closed for general trash in October 1969. The receipt of incinerator
residue from District incinerators was continued beyond this closing,
however, to bring this section to final grade. Final landscaping will
begin in the spring of 1970.
In FY 1969, 458,300 tons of solid waste were landfilled at a daily
fill rate of 1,470 tons. Exclusive of incinerator residue, 900 tons of
general refuse were handled.
4. 51st and Fitch Street Landfill
This 6.5 acre landfill, located in the District, was opened in
January 1969. In FY 1969, 31,000 tons of solid waste were deposited at the
landfill with 22,000 tons of incinerator residue being the major constit-
uent. The other 9,000 tons consisted of street sweepings, sewage screenings
and grit. This landfill has an expected life of approximately 18 months.
5. Oxon Cove Landfill
The Oxon Cove Sanitary Landfill was opened in October 1969. This
landfill site is owned by the National Park Service which has agreed to
allow the District to use the site as a sanitary landfill. The site will
be developed as a public golf course.
That portion of the site within the District of Columbia consists
of 40 acres. It is expected that this area will have been filled to
agreed upon elevations by February 1970. At that time, the operation of
the landfill will be continued in the 110 acres of the site in Maryland.
The life expectancy of this portion is approximately two and one-half
years at the present fill rate of 1,100 tons per day, six days per week,
without accepting residue from D.C. incinerators.
C. LEAF DISPOSAL
Leaf disposal sites are located on municipal and park lands in
cooperation with the National Park Service. In FY 1969, 5,500 tons of
leaves were deposited at these sites.
63
-------
D. TRANSFER STATION GRINDER
The District of Columbia has a central garbage grinding station at
its transfer station located at New Jersey Avenue and K Street, S.E.
At this site, garbage is ground and discharged to the sewers for disposal
in the D C. Water Pollution Control Plant. In FY 1969, 4,400 tons of
refuse were discharged to the sewers through this facility.
II. FUTURE DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
A. REFUSE QUANTITIES
In order to determine facilities and space requirements for
disposal of refuse, future quantities of various types of refuse generated
and the final disposal space required per unit of quantity have been
estimated. Due to indeterminable factors which may affect future refuse
characteristics and quantities, the heterogeneity of wastes, and the
variation of volumetric reduction achieved by different disposal methods
forecasts of disposal needs are approximate.
1. Population
In 1968 the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments obtained
the results of a population study by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates that
is used to estimate future solid waste disposal needs. The median of the
project high and low values of this study follow.
Actual Projected
1968 1969 197Q 1980 1990
809,000 811,400 814,700 851,900 932,300 1,041,700
2. Classification of Refuse
a. Incinerabies
Incinerable refuse is that refuse which may be effectively reduced
in volume and weight by burning at ordinary municipal incinerator tempera-
ture ranges. This includes most wastes routinely collected from resi-
dences and institutions and a substantial part of commercial and industrial
refuse. Incinerable refuse collected in the District of Columbia is
largely paper, cardboard, bottles, tin cans, plastics, yard and garden
rubbish, wood chips and small furniture. Dry leaves and garbage are
incinerable when mixed with other incinerable materials, but large
quantities of garbage and wet leaves are difficult to burn in the D.C.
incinerator plants and for this reason are generally handled by the Bureau
of Sanitation Services as non-incinerables.
64
-------
b. Non-incinerables
Won-incinerable refuse includes those wastes which are not reduced
in volume by burning, are hazardous, are injurious to an incinerator, or
which, without preprocessing, are too large to be handled in the present
or planned incinerator or will not be reduced in the normal incinerator
burning cycle. Such wastes are usually disposed of by landfill, either
with or without burning to reduce the volume of combustible components.
Major items of non-incinerable refuse fall into several categories.
(1) Bulky Combustibles
These are materials which could be reduced in volume by burning
but are too bulky for present B.C. incinerators, e.g., logs, stumps,
brush, large crates, large lumber, large furniture.
(2) Bulky Non-combustibles
These are materials which cannot be reduced in volume by burning and
are too bulky to be suitable for solid fill, such as refrigerators, stoves,
bedsprings, and bicycles. Much of this material has potential salvage
value and is delivered to a salvage company.
(3) Solid Fill Materials
These are materials resulting from demolition and excavation such
as earth, sand, gravel, brick, concrete, masonry and plaster. These
materials are suitable for constructing stable landfills.
(4) Abandoned Vehicles
Abandoned passenger automobiles, trucks, trailers, and large parts
of these that are no longer useful for their original purpose and have been
left unattended, constitute a growing volume of non-incinerable solid
waste for disposal. In some cases these vehicles are processed for their
metal value but this is a marginal economic operation.
3. Quantity of Incinerable Refuse
The approximate quantity of incinerable refuse for municipal disposal
in the District of Columbia for FY 1969 is reported in Table 17. These
figures are from Bureau of Sanitation Services records, supplemented by
population data from special surveys.
Historical data present a mixed picture regarding the trend in per
capita quantities of incinerable refuse in the District of Columbia.
Available data do not support detailed assumptions of trends in per capita
quantities. However, the following factors could significantly increase
the per capita rate of 3.91 pounds per day in the future.
65
-------
1. The retirement of a large number of the older private incinera-
tors in apartment buildings and commercial sites is expected to amount
to 187,000 tons per year when the new Air Pollution Control Regulation
takes effect in 1972.
2. Technological developments in packaging and in the increased
use of disposal substitutes for reusable items will tend to increase
the per capita refuse.
3. Improvements in the standard of living especially in what
are now impoverished areas should also increase the amount of refuse
generated.
TABLE 17
QUANTITY OF INCINERABLE REFUSE FY 1969
Incinerated
District of Columbia facilities
Landfilled
District of Columbia
(and ash from on-site
incinerators) 249,600
Total incinerable refuse 578.700
Pounds per capita, per year 1,426*
Pounds per capita, per calendar day 3.91*
* based upon a population of 811,400.
Projections of estimated capacity requirements are predicated on
per capita generation rate increases of two percent per annum over 1969
production. This factor, which is conservative, allows for the increase
mentioned above; it was suggested for the area by Black and Veatch,
Consulting Engineers, in their Solid Waste Disposal Study; Washington
Metropolitan Region. 1967. Annual quantities of incinerable refuse are
projected in Table 18 on the following basis:
1. A 1969 average of 3.91 pounds per capita per day within the
city increasing at a rate of 2.0 percent per annum to FY 1971.
2. In 1972, an average of 5.47 pounds per capita per day increasing
at a rate of 2.0 percent per annum to FY 2000. This will include the on-
site refuse increase expected due to phasing out of incinerators in
apartment buildings and commercial sites.
66
-------
TABLE 18
ESTIMATED POPULATION AND FUTURE QUANTITIES OF INCINERABLE REFUSE
Actual 1969
Projected 1970
Projected 1980
Projected 1990
Projected 2000
Population
811,400
814,700
855,000
932,300
1,041,700
Pounds/ capita/day
3.91
3.99
6.35
7.44
8.53
Tons annually
578,700
593,300
992,200
1,270,500
1,630,500
The quantity of refuse produced in the District varies seasonally.
The magnitude of variation is important in the design of disposal facili-
ties since sufficient capacity must be provided to dispose of the maximum
quantity received in a limited time interval. Analysis of District
records as well as generally accepted experience indicates that peak
monthly quantities of incinerable refuse approaches 114 percent of the
average 6-day weekly quantity.
Incineration does not provide complete disposal for refuse but is
rather a method of reducing the volume and weight for final disposal.
Incinerator plant records show that a ton of normal incinerable refuse
results in 1.0 cubic yard or 0.60 tons of quenched (wet) residue.
Studies conducted by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines, at the University of Maryland, show densities and moisture contents
of residue from incinerator plants in the District as follows:
Wet bulk density
lbs/yd.3
Dry bulk density
lbs/yd.3
Moisture, percent
of wet weight
Approximate Range
820-1050
520-635
25-40
4. Quantity of_Non-incinerable Refuse
Non-incinerable refuse produced by the District is even more hetero-
geneous than the normal incinerable refuse. The rate of production is also
67
-------
more variable due to the seasonal or irregular schedules of city
activities which produce significant quantities of various types.
Non-incinerable refuse is usually recorded by estimated volumes
without regard to composition or unit weight. A significant amount of
non-incinerable refuse produced in the District is not brought to District
operated disposal facilities but is disposed at privately owned sites;
hence, basic quantitative data for non-incinerable refuse are meager.
Future quantities of non-incinerable refuse exclusive of solid
fill materials, abandoned automobiles, and incinerator residue are
projected on the following basis:
1. Per capita quantities will increase at the annual rate of
two percent of 1969 quantities.
2. Population as projected in Table 17.
Table 19 shows projected per capita and annual quantities of non-
incinerable refuse for the District of Columbia.
TABLE 19
ESTIMATED FUTURE QUANTITIES OF NON-INCINERABLE REFUSE
Actual 1969
Projected 1970
Projected 1980
Projected 1990
Projected 2000
Pounds/capita/day
0.35
0.36
0.43
0.50
0.57
Tons annually
51,700
53,500
67,300
85,600
109,000
a. Solid Fill Material
(1) Demolition
A special study in 1968 showed that debris and rubble generated
by demolition amounted to approximately 520,000 cubic yards. This
estimate originated from an analysis and compilation made by the District
of Columbia Demolition Contractors Association.
68
-------
Demolition contractors generally subcontract for rolling stock to
transport the material to disposal. A representative of the D.C. Contract
Hauler's Association estimates that members will haul 600,000 cubic yards
annually from sites within the District, and places this estimate as 90
percent of the city's total. On this basis approximately 700,000 cubic
yards of demolition material are expected to be generated annually in the
District.
(2) Excavation
Quantity records for most excavation material generated in the
District are not available. The D.C. Contract Hauler^ Association esti-
mates that 1.6 million cubic yards of building construction excavation are
produced annually in the District.
With the advent of increased highway and building construction and
the construction of the subway system, the projected annual rate of genera-
tion of excess excavation material in the District is 2.5 million cubic
yards for the duration of those activities. This estimate was obtained
through consultation with representatives of the major excavation and
hauling firms operating in the District.
b. Abandoned Automobiles
Since July 1963 the District has disposed of approximately 42,000
abandoned vehicles through auction sales and local scrap dealers. This
represents an annual average of 6,000 vehicles.
The present annual rate of increase in the number of abandoned auto-
mobiles is approximately 6 percent. Using this figure the projected annual
number of abandoned vehicles that will be received for disposal are shown
below:
1970 1975 1980 1985
6,740 8,760 11,390 14,810
B. DISPOSAL CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS
Projected annual refuse quantities exclusive of solid fill materials
and abandoned automobiles for the District are shown in Table 20, which
follows on the next page.
69
-------
TABLE 20
PROJECTED ANNUAL REFUSE QUANTITIES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Year
1969
1970
1980
1990
2000
Incinerables Non-incinerables Total
tons
578,700
593,300
992,200
1,270,500
1,630,500
Combustibles Non-Comb
tons tons
12,900 38,800
13,400 40,100
16,800 50,500
21,400 64,200
27,300 81,700
. Total Refuse
tons tons
51,700 630,400
53,500 646,800
67,300 1£59,500
85,600 1356,100
109,000 1,739,500
Incinerables
& Bulky Comb.
tons
591,600
606,700
1,009,000
1,291,900
1,657,800
1. Incineration
Bureau of Sanitation Services records show the following quantities
of refuse incinerated in the existing District of Columbia incinerator
plants for the past five fiscal years:
Annual Refuse
Year Incinerated
(tons)
1965 366,590
1966 345,372
1967 312,628
1968 354,817
1969 329,115
The average amount of raw refuse incinerated over this period was
342,000 tons. Since the design capacities of the plants were constant
during the period, the variations in the amounts handled reflect opera-
ting conditions: combustion quality of material received, time required
for plant repairs, skill of operators and other factors.
The incineration capacity required, shown in Table 21, are based
upon the following assumptions.
a. The District of Columbia will need to place maximum reliance on
incineration since citizens of other states may object to the transport
of solid waste to or through their jurisdictions to sanitary landfills.
b. Maximum daily refuse quantities will equal approximately 114
percent of average daily quantities for a 6-day week.
70
-------
c. Firm capacity will be available to burn in continuous 6-day
operation all refuse received during the maximum week.
d. Procedures will be modified to eliminate the special handling
of classified materials.
e. Incinerator residue and other non-incinerables will be shipped
by rail or barge to distant landfills.
TABLE 21
ESTIMATED INCINERATION CAPACITY REQUIRED FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Year
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
(Assuming maximum emphasis
Average daily quantity
of incinerable refuse
Abased on 6-day week)
tons /day
2060
3020
3480
3820
4320
4900
5530
on incineration)
Required incineration capacity
(Based on peak monthly 6-da.wk.)
1147o of avR. daily quan.
tons/day
2350
3440
3970
4350
4920
5590
6300
2. Land_Requirements
The land area required for final disposal of refuse from the
District will depend upon a number of factors, including:
a. The quantity of various types of refuse produced.
b. The amount of preprocessing by incineration, salvaging, shredding,
baling) or other methods prior to final disposal by landfill.
c. The depth to which disposal sites are filled.
71
-------
a. Unit Landfill Space Requirements by Refuse Type
(1) Incinerable Refuse
Space requirements for sanitary landfilling of incinerable refuse
are premised on incinerable refuse occupying two cubic yards of landfill
space per ton.
(2) Bulky Non-incinerable
Bulky non-incinerables are also estimated to occupy two cubic
yards of landfill space per ton.
(3) Preprocessed Bulky Non-incinerable Refuse
Preprocessed bulky non-incinerables, considering combustibles
and non-combustibles together, are assumed to require one cubic yard of
landfill space per ton of unprocessed material.
(4) Incinerator Residue
Landfill requirements for incinerator residue are premised on a
ton of raw incinerable refuse being reduced by incineration and subse-
quent compaction to occupy a volume of 0.4 cubic yard in a landfill.
b. Projected Landfill Space Requirements
Cumulative landfill space requirements for all refuse except
demolition and excavation materials, starting in 1970, are shown in
Table 22. Space requirements are indicated for two conditions. The
maximum would be required if all waste was landfilled without preproces-
sing. The minimum space requirements assume maximum preprocessing by
shredding and incineration.
72
-------
TABLE 22
PROJECTED LANDFILL SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Year
Cumulative quantities of
(tons)
raw refuse
Incinerables Non-incinerables total
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
593,300
4,606,600
9,337,800
14,684,300
20,738,300
27,600,400
35,364,500
53,500
342,800
665,700
1,026,800
1,434,100
1,892,800
2,411,500
646,800
4,949,400
10,003,500
15,711,100
22,172,400
29,493,200
37,776,000
Cumulative landfill space req
(acre feet)
Raw refuse1 Residue2
809
6,187
12,504
19,639
27,716
36,867
47,220
248
1,900
3,840
6,031
8,511
11,322
14,501
^Maximum space requirements based on all refuse being sanitary landfilled
without preprocessing.
^Minimum space requirements based on refuse being reduced in volume by
shredding of bulky combustibles and incineration of normal incinerables
and shredded bulky combustibles prior to final disposal by landfill.
III. ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL METHODS
A. INCINERATION AT CENTRAL PLANTS
Refuse incineration, the volumetric reduction of combustible wastes
by high temperature burning, is not a complete disposal method. A non-
combustible residue remains for disposal by other methods.
The advantages of incineration include a smaller land requirement,
a central location with a short refuse haul, and a relatively inert and
nuisance-free end product suitable for reclaiming marginal land or con-
structing stable landfills.
Disadvantages of incineration include relatively high investment
and operating costs, high labor requirements, incomplete disposal and the
need for complex equipment to overcome air pollution and nuisance.
73
-------
B. INCINERATION OF BULKY COMBUSTIBLE WASTES
Stumps, logs, brush, large lumber and other bulky combustible
wastes too large or too slow burning for conventional municipal incin-
erator plants can satisfactorily be incinerated in furnaces specially
designed to accommodate such material. Incineration offers certain
advantages over landfilling, the prevalent disposal method for bulky
combustible waste in the District. Advantages include:
1. Incineration residue requires only a small fraction of the
landfill space required for the unburned materials.
2. For remote landfills, the hauling costs for unburned material
is substantially greater than those for the residue of the same material
To date, few incinerators have been build to process bulky wastes.
Additional research and developmental work is needed to produce incinera-
tion equipment to handle satisfactorily the wide range of bulky combusti-
ble waste.
C. SHREDDING OF BULKY WASTES
With equipment now on the market, virtually all forms of bulky
refuse can be shredded or crushed into sizes which greatly facilitate
both salvage and disposal. After shredding, bulky combustibles can be
burned along with normal household refuse. Non-combustibles can be
further processed by methods such as baling or disposal directly into
landfills, with considerable savings in space requirements.
D. SANITARY LANDFILL
Sanitary landfilling, the compaction of refuse to a minimum prac-
tical volume and covering it with earth or other inert materials, is the
only acceptable landfill method for solid wastes containing decomposable
materials.
The operation of the model sanitary landfill at Kenilworth has show
that properly located and operated sanitary landfills can provide satis- **
factory, economical, and nuisance-free disposal for virtually all types
of refuse, even within a densely populated metropolitan area. Sanitary
landfills have advantages over other acceptable disposal methods. They
are economical, usually require relatively little capital investment, may
reclaim land for certain uses, do not cause air pollution and require
a minimum of skilled labor for satisfactory operation.
However, sanitary landfills require much more land area than most
other disposal methods and future sites may be hard to acquire. Sites
74
-------
distant from areas of refuse production, as future District sites will
be, may require high haul costs. Conventional transportation by truck
and highway mav be inadequate requiring the development of rail and barge
transport to marginal land needing reclamation.
E. FEEDING GARBAGE TO HOGS
Until June 1969, the District of Columbia supplied garbage to farmers
for feeding to hogs. Due to the decreasing quantity of garbage in house-
hold refuse, the use of household refuse grinders, and the inherent health
hazards to both men and hogs, feeding of garbage to hogs has dwindled to
insignificance as a refuse disposal method in most parts of the U.S. The
outbreak of hog cholera in May 1969, caused the Bureau of Sanitation
Services to stop supplying garbage to farmers. However, some farmers
still collect garbage directly from District hotels, restaurants and other
similar establishments. The planned conversion to combined garbage and
refuse collections by the District will eliminate the resumption of the
supply of garbage to farmers by the District.
F. GRINDING AND DISCHARGING TO SANITARY SEWERS
A substantial part of the garbage produced in the District is
ground and discharged to sanitary sewers at residences and commercial
establishments. Its convenience and economy suggest that the use of this
method will increase in the future. However, it presently provides
disposal for only a small percentage of refuse. A major advantage of this
practice is elimination of putrescible material and moisture from the
remaining refuse, making it easier to store and handle. Grinding of
garbage and its disposal via sewers, it must be noted, is an interim dis-
posal method as it transfers the problem to one of wastewater treatment.
G. ON-SITE INCINERATION
On-site incineration in apartment buildings and commercial and
industrial establishments reduces the quantity of refuse delivered for
disposal at the District disposal facilities by a substantial percentage.
On-site incineration will continue in the future but may be reduced
significantly when the Air Pollution Control Regulation places strict
control on the type of private incinerators which may be used. It is
anticipated that die enforcement of this regulation will increase the amount
for which the District must provide disposal facilities by nearly 500 tons
per day.
H. BALING
Although not a disposal method, baling is being considered as a
possible means for reducing the volume and improving the handling charac-
teristics of domestic and commercial wastes, thus minimizing hauling costs
75
-------
and landfill space requirements. A transfer and baling station is in the
final design stage with barging to downriver sanitary landfills assumed.
A local railroad is also considering this volume reduction method in
connection with their proposal for a disposal program based upon rail-
haul. Preliminary design of this transfer station assumes that it will
handle 1,000 tons per day plus incinerator ash and other non-incinerables.
I. SALVAGE
Salvaging, or the reclamation of material of value from solid waste
prior to disposal, is applied in the District only to large metal appli-
ances such as stoves and refrigerators which are given to a scrap metal
dealer. Abandoned automobiles are salvaged through auction and by local
scrap dealers. In spite of high and relatively stable generations of
reusable paper wastes in the area, there is only a small unstable market
for it. No private salvage is allowed or carried on at the central dispos-
al facilities in the District because of safety considerations and possible
interference with the landfill operation. In recent years, there has been
decreasing market for tin cans and virtually no market for the low grade
iron and steel scrap found in District refuse.
In general, the only salvage operations warranting consideration
are those which: (1) do not interfere with the primary objective of
disposal, (2) are largely mechanized and require little labor, and (3)
recover items which remain relatively stable in value and for which mar-
kets are reasonable assured.
Because of high labor requirements and instability of markets for
most salvage items, intensive salvage from refuse has proved unfeasible
whether privately or District operated. The situation is not expected t6
change significantly in the foreseeable future.
J. COMPOSTING OF LEAVES
The District of Columbia composts leaves for use as a soil condi-
tioner; the process is carried out on municipally owned lots, on park
lands where it does not interfere with park usage, and on private lots
volunteered by owners. Composting is a low cost, inoffensive, practical
method of leaf disposal resulting in considerable reduction in the sea-
sonal load on refuse-hauling and incineration facilities.
As a refuse disposal method, composting has the advantage of
producing a useful end product, with small land requirement in a rela-
tively nuisance-free manner. Potential disadvantages include wind
scattering and the lack of a market for the end product.
IV. DISPOSAL PLAN
The recommended disposal plan for the District of Columbia is shown
graphically on Chart 3. Alternative No. 1 is shown on Chart 4, and
alternative No. 2 is shown on Chart 5.
76
-------
A, RECOMMENDED PLAN
The recommended plan of this report is an endorsement of the
Department of Sanitary Engineering's plan which the latter is attempting
to implement. It provides maximum flexibility and reliability by a three-
prong approach:
1. Construction of a 1500 tons per day incinerator (No. 5) with
sophisticated air pollution control equipment which will assure that rigid
air quality standards are met. The residue from this incinerator will be
shipped to a distant sanitary landfill by barge or rail.
2. Construction of a 1000 tons per day transfer and baling sta-
tion on the shores of the Anacostia River. The bales of refuse will be
hauled to a downstream sanitary landfill. The District owns a downstream
site for a sanitary landfill that it proposes to use. Objections developed,
however, and at the time this report was prepared negotiations were pro-
ceeding for the use of an alternate site.
3. The third element of the plan anticipates rail-haul to a distant
sanitary landfill. At the time the report was nearing completion, there
were two possibilities:
(a) The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments was
attempting to develop a regional program. The details of the plan were not
fully developed but is was understood that planning was based upon the
construction and operation of transfer facilities in the cooperating
jurisdictions either by the jurisdiction itself or by COG. The refuse,
which would be either baled on containerized, would be hauled by rail to
a sanitary landfill site in Virginia which the Council of Governments
would operate. It was understood that the Council of Government's plan
for the operation of the sanitary landfill had been approved by Virginia
state and local officials. The District agreed to cooperate with a
regional program to the extent of 1000 tons per day, provided a reliable
system which was economically competitive with other solutions available
to the District could be assured by April 1970.
(b) The Southern Railroad reported that they had developed a
system on which they were ready to make a proposal to the District.
This private enterprise project proposes a complete system and includes
the construction and operation of the transfer station, rail-haul and
operation of the sanitary landfill. All elements were reported to have
been approved by necessary authorities and could be implemented within
18 months after a contract was signed.
One of the obstacles to the implementation of this third element
of the program was the lack of authority by District officials to sign
long term contracts for this purpose. At the time this report was pre-
pared, the District was seeking this authority from Congress in order that
it might meet its responsibilities.
77
-------
B. ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 TO RECOMMENDED PLAN
Alternate No. L to the recommended plan is composed of the same
elements as the recommended plan. The only difference is that it is
anticipated that the railhaul contract or participation in a regional
program would be for a relatively constant amount in the early years
with an expansion of the transfer and haling station to 1500 tons per
day in 1980.
C. ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 TO RECOMMENDED PLAN
Alternate No. 2 differs considerably from the recommended plan
and first alternate in that much more reliance is placed upon incinera-
tion. This alternate would be necessary in the event the Congress denied
District officials the authority for long term rail-haul contracts. In
this eventuality, incinerator No. 5 will be constructed as planned. The
initial capacity of the haling and barging facility, however, would be
increased to 1500 urns per day and the reconstruction of Mt. Olivet and
Ft. Tot ten incinerators would lie scheduled.
Since the existing incinerators must he used until the time
Incinerator No. 5 and the baling and barging facility are in operation
Mt. Olivet and Ft. Tot ten cannot be removed from operation for recon-
struction immediately. Alternate No. 2 contemplates that Ft. Tot ten.
incinerator will continue to operate during the period Mt. Olivet is
being reconstructed, at which time it will be removed from operation
and reconstructed itself.
While detailed engineering studies have not been accomplished, it
is generally believed that the existing sites for the Ft. Tot ten and
ML. Olivet incinerators will be adequateonly for a 500 tons per day
installation in view of the considerable space required for air quality
control equipment. Assuming that the projections of incinerables and
non-incinerables are accurate an additional incinerator must be placed
in operation by 1985. An effort should begin at once to find a suitable
site, preferably in the northwest quadrant of the city since that would
reduce the haul distance to a disposal facility. Incinerator No. 5,
Mt. Olivet and Ft. Totten are all three in the northeast quadrant of the
District.
78
-------
1800
Chart No. 3
160C
1400
1200
w
'
09
I
H
1000
5 800
-
Q
H
^
600
400
200
DEPARTMENT OF SANITARY ENGINEERING
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REFUSE PRODUCTION VS. DISPOSAL CAPACITY
Recommended Plan
Projections of Total Refuse (Incinerables
and Non-incinerables)
Noter The total tonnage to sanitary
landfill by barging or railhaul
must be increased by the amount
of incinerator residue.
Existing Landfills.
Total Refuse
Existing Incinerators
Baling with Barging
(1000 tons/day)
New Incinerator No,
(1200 tons/day)
1930
1940
1950 I960
FISCAL YEARS
1970
1980
1990
2000
-------
180
Chart No. 4
160
140
120
o 1000
800
I'l
600
i
1<
400
200
0
1930
DEPARTMENT OF SANITARY ENGINEERING
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REFUSE PRODUCTION VS. DISPOSAL CAPACITY
Alternate No, 1 to Recommended Plan
Projections of Total Refuse (incinerables
and Non-incinerables)
Note: The total tonnage to sanitary
landfill by barging or railhaul
must be increased by the amount
of incinerator residue.
Railhaul
Contract
Additional Baling
Capacity
-(500 tons/day)
Existing Landfil
Baling with Barging
(1000 tons/day)
New Incinerator No S
(1200 tons/day)
Existing Incinerators
1940
1950
1960 1970
FISCAL YEARS
2000
80
-------
Chart No. 5
180Q
160C
DEPARTMENT OF SANITARY ENGINEERING
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REFUSE PRODUCTION VS. DISPOSAL CAPACITY
Alternate No. 2 to Recommended Plan
1400
1200
'
1000
800
3
600
400
200
0
Projections of Total Refuse (Incinerables
and Non-incinerables
Note: The total tonnage to sanitary
landfill by barging or railhaul
must be increased by the amount
of incinerator residue.
Fort Totten Incinerator-
Existing Landfills
Existing Incinerators
Ft. Totten
Incinerator.
Reconstructed ////
(500 tons/day) /, '
\\\ \V\X\NN
Mt. Olivet Incinerator\
Reconstructed
tons/day)
v\\\
Baling with Barging
or Railhaul
(1500 tons/day)
New Incinerator No. 5
(1200 tons/day)
1930
1940
1950 1960
FISCAL YEARS
1970
1980
1990
2000
81
-------
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED HEALTH REGULATIONS
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 3, PART 6
SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS
These proposed regulations developed jointly by representatives of
the Department of Economic Development, Department of Sanitary Engineering,
and the Health Services Administration constitute an up-dating and sub-
stantial revision of the current Police Regulations covering trash and
garbage handling. The primary need for revision of the existing regulations
stems from a conversion from separate to combined pickup of refuse within
the District through the use of compactor trucks. While the changes are
not complete as of the moment, combined collection is being instituted in
progressive areas of the District as the new compactor trucks become
available.
The proposed regulations contain a number of significant features,
the most important of which relates to the licensing of private collectors.
There has been a continuing problem within the District as a result of
improper practices being carried on by a limited number of collectors who
are at the present time not subject to any degree of regulation or control.
It is anticipated that the regulations will provide an adequate basis on
which such control can be established. In addition, the regulations require
the installation of food waste grinders in all food handling establishments
after an established date as well as the installation of such devices in
new residential units or such units which are being substantially remodeled
and altered.
83
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGULATIONS
TITLE 8, HEALTH REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 3, BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
PART 6, SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS
8-3:601 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
(a) Purpose
The purpose of this regulation is to enhance and improve the
environment and thus promote the health, safety and welfare of the people
of the District of Columbia by establishing minimum standards for the
storage, collection, transportation and disposal of solid wastes.
These regulations shall apply to all solid waste storage, collec'
tion, transportation and disposal within the District.
8-3:602 DEFINITIONS
Approved means compliance with published standards specifically applicable
to the device, method, thing, procedure, or facility under consideration
and which standards have been approved by the Commissioner. In this
instance, Commissioner means that official and not his agent.
Abandoned Vehicles means motor vehicles and trailers left on public or
private property for an extended period of time and usually in an inoper-
able or hazardous condition and having only scrap value.
Ashes means the residue from the burning of wood, coal, coke, or other
combustible materials.
Baler means a machine used to compress and bind a quantity of solid waste
or other material.
Bulky Waste means the large items of solid waste such as appliances,
furniture, large auto parts, trees and branches, stumps, flotage, and the
like.
Carry Container means a container used to transfer solid wastes from
premises to a collection vehicle.
85
-------
Catch Basin means an enlarged and trapped inlet to a sewer designed to
capture debris and heavy solids carried by storm or surface water.
Collector means any person who is engaged in the collection or transport-
ation of solid waste.
Combustible Rubbish means miscellaneous burnable materials.
Commissioner means the Commissioner of the District of Columbia or his
duly authorized agent.
Compactor Collection Vehicle means an enclosed vehicle provided with
special mechanical devices for conveying the refuse into the main com-
partment of the body and compressing the loaded materials.
Composting means a controlled microbial degradation of organic waste
yielding a nuisance free product of potential value as a soil conditioner
Construction and Demolition Wastes means the waste building materials
and rubble resulting from construction, remodeling, repair, and demolition
operation on houses, commercial buildings, pavements, and other structure
Dead AnimaljB means those that die naturally or from disease, or are
accidentally killed.
Disposal Area means any site, location, tract of land, area, building
structure or premises used or intended to be used for partial or total
solid waste disposal.
District means the District of Columbia.
Domestic Refuse means all those types which normally originate in the
residential household or apartment house.
Food Waste (Garbage) means animal and vegetable waste resulting from the
storage, handling, preparation, cooking or serving of foods.
Food Waste (Garbage) Grinder means a device for pulverizing food wastes
(garbage) for discharge into the sanitary sewerage system.
Hazardous Wastes means those wastes that can cause serious injury or
disease during the normal storage, collection and disposal cycle,
but not limited to explosives, pathological and infectious wastes,
active materials, and dangerous chemicals.
Incinerator means any equipment, device or contrivance and all appurtena
thereof used for the destruction by burning of solid, semi-solid, liquid °eS
gaseous combustible wastes. °r
86
-------
Incinerator Residue means solid materials remaining after reduction in an
Incinerator.
Industrial Waste means solid wastes which result from industrial processes
and manufacturing operations such as factories, processing plants, repair
and cleaning establishments, refineries and rendering plants.
Junk means a collection of sorted salvageable materials.
Non-combustible Refuse means miscellaneous refuse materials that are unburn-
able at ordinary incinerator temperatures (1300°F to 2000°F).
Open Dump means an area on which there is an accumulation of solid waste
from one or more sources without proper cover materials.
person means any individual, firm, partnership, company, corporation,
trustee, association, or any other private or public entity.
premises means a building, together with any fences, walls, sheds, garages,
or other accessory buildings appurtenant to such building, and the area
of land surrounding the building and actually or by legal construction
forming one enclosure in which such building is located.
putrescible Wastes means wastes that are capable of being decomposed by
microorganisms with sufficient rapidity as to cause nuisance from odors,
gases, and similar objectionable conditions. Kitchen wastes, offal, and
dead animals are examples of putrescible components of solid waste.
Refuse see Solid Waste.
Residue means the solid materials remaining after burning, comprising ash,
metal, glass, ceramics, and unburned organic substances.
Rubbish means nonputrescible solid wastes, including ashes, consisting of
both combustible and non-combustible wastes, such as paper, cardboard,
tin cans, yard rubbish, wood, glass, bedding, crockery, or litter of any
kind.
j^caveneing means the uncontrolled picking or sorting of solid wastes
either before, during or following collection.
Solid Waste (Refuse) means putrescible and nonputrescible solid wastes,
except body wastes, and including abandoned vehicles, food waste (garbage),
rubbish, ashes, incinerator residue, street cleanings, tree debris, and
solid market and industrial wastes.
Solid Waste Storage means the temporary on-site storage of solid waste.
Street Refuse means material picked up by manual or mechanical sweeping
of alleys, streets and sidewalks, litter from public litter receptacles,
and dirt removed from catch basins.
87
-------
Waste means useless, unwanted, or discarded materials resulting from
normal community activities. Wastes include solids, liquids, and gases.
Solid wastes are classed as refuse.
Yard Rubbish means prunings, grass clippings, weeds, leaves, and general
yard and garden wastes.
8-3:603 STORAGE OF SOLID WASTES
(a) All solid wastes shall be stored in such manner as not to
provide food, harborage or breeding places for insects or rodents, or
to create a nuisance or fire hazard.
(b) No person shall deposit, throw or place, or cause to be
deposited, thrown or placed any solid waste in any alley, street, catch
basin or other public space, or into the Potomac River or other waters
in the District, or onto any premises under the control of others.
(c) Containers used for the storage of solid wastes shall be of
approved design and materials.
(d) No single filled container or bundle to be collected by the
District and to be handled manually shall exceed sixty pounds in weight.
(e) Where containers are used for the storage of rubbish, or a
combination of rubbish and food waste (garbage), a sufficient number
shall be provided to store such solid wastes which may apcumulate on the
premises during the usual interval between collections.
(f) Containers shall be kept clean and in good repair.
(g) Ashes shall be stored in metal containers. When stored in the
open such containers shall be covered.
(h) Unless food waste (garbage) is disposed of by grinding and
flushing to the sanitary sewerage system or is collected by licensed
collectors for animal feeding, it shall be drained, wrapped and stored
for collection with rubbish.
(i) Solid wastes for collection by the District, excluding bulky
wastes handled by special collection, shall be placed at the designated
point of collection adjacent to public space on the designated days of
collection and not later than 6:00 A.M. on such days.
(j) Liquid wastes shall not be included with solid wastes.
8-3:604 COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION
(a) Every premises or part thereof where solid wastes are generated
and where such wastes are not collected by the District shall be served bv
88
-------
a licensed collector.
(b) Solid wastes shall be collected at least twice per week unless
fewer collections are specifically approved.
(c) Collectors shall not permit spillage from solid waste containers
or collection vehicles, or otherwise contribute debris at the point or
area of collection.
(d) Containers used for carryout collection service shall be of
approved design and materials: Provided, that this subsection shall not
be effective until two years after the promulgation of these regulations.
(e) Collection vehicles shall be operated in such manner that
they do not create a nuisance, nor shall they be parked in front of any
premises other than that occupied by the owner of such vehicle for more
than thirty minutes beyond the time they are actually servicing such
premises.
(f) Collection vehicles shall be properly maintained and kept clean.
(g) The collection of non-compacted rubbish or a combination of
wrapped food waste (garbage) and non-compacted rubbish in other than
compactor collection vehicles is prohibited: Provided, that collection
vehicles that otherwise comply with these regulations and are in use at
the time of the promulgation of these regulations may continue to be
used for a period not in excess of three years following the date of
promulgation.
8-3:605 SPECIAL COLLECTIONS
(a) Leaves will be collected by the District on announced schedules
during the period of September through December. Occupants of premises
where leaves accumulate may, in lieu of placing leaves in approved contain-
ers, place their leaves in neat piles at the front curb prior to the
announced dates of collection. Leaves shall not be permitted to obstruct
any thoroughfare, sidewalk, drain or gutter.
(b) Persons occupying premises where solid waste collection service
is provided by the District shall notify the Department of Sanitary
Engineering when they desire collection of bulky wastes. The safety pre-
cautions of Article 39 of the Police Regulations apply to all discarded
refrigerators, iceboxes, freezer boxes, and other boxes or containers
having a capacity of one and one-half cubic feet or more.
(c) All dead animals, and gross quantities of decayed fish, meat
or vegetable products shall be collected in covered vehicles specifically
approved for this purpose. It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere
in any manner with the collection and disposal of such materials by the
District or a licensed collector.
89
-------
8-3;606 LICENSING
(a) Other than the District, no person shall by himself or other-
wise use any vehicle for the collection or transportation of solid wastes
in or through the District either for himself or for others without first
having obtained a collector's license so to do and a collection vehicle
license for each vehicle so used.
(b) Applications for solid waste collector's and collection
vehicle licenses shall be submitted on approved forms to the Director
of the Department of Economic Development or his duly authorized agent
These applications shall include the name of the person to be licensed
and if this be other than an individual, the name and title of the
applicant, the address and telephone number of the location to which the
license will apply, and the following information concerning each vehicle
to be licensed: type, make, year of manufacture, tare weight in pounds
capacity in cubic yards, jurisdiction of registration and motor vehicle
license number.
(c) Each vehicle to be licensed shall have the name, business ad-
dress and telephone number of the licensee, and the vehicle tare weight
printed legibly in letters and figures at least four inches in height
on each door of the vehicle cab.
(d) No collection vehicle license shall be granted until the
vehicle has been inspected by the Director of Health Services Admin-
istration or his duly authorized agent and found to comply with the
following requirements:
(1) Collection vehicles shall be sufficiently tight to prevent
leakage of any drainage from the vehicle.
(2) Where open body vehicles are to be used for the trans-
portation of solid wastes, provision shall be made to
prevent the loss of wastes by wind or spillage.
(e) The fees for solid waste collector's and collection vehicle
licenses shall be submitted with the applications to the Director of the
Department of Economic Development or his duly authorized agent. License
shall date from the first day of November of each year and expire on the *
thirty-first day of the following October, but may be otherwise pro-rated
as permitted in Title 47, Section 2305, D. C. Code, 1967 Edition. Each
business and each vehicle shall be separately licensed.
(f) The Director of the Department of Economic Development will
provide two metal tags with each collection vehicle license issued
indicating the collection vehicle license number. Such tags shall be
affixed to each side of the body of the respective collection vehicle in
such manner as to be clearly visible at all times.
90
-------
(g) During the period of the validity of each such license, the
licensee shall notify the Director of the Department of Economic Develop-
ment or his duly authorized agent of any change in the information shown on
his application within ten days of such change.
(h) Each licensee shall provide off street parking or storage for
each collection vehicle and suitable facilities for cleansing the same.
8-3:607 SOLID WASTE REDUCTION AND DISPOSAL
(a) Open burning is prohibited by the Air Quality Control and Fuel
Burning Equipment Regulations.
(b) Construction and operation of incinerators shall comply with
the applicable provisions of the Air Quality Control and Fuel Burning
Equipment Regulations.
(c) Plans for on-site disposal or reduction systems, such as com-
pactors', balers, shredders, grinders and similar installations shall be
submitted to the Commissioner for approval prior to installation.
(d) Each food establishment served by a sanitary sewer and conduct-
ing activities any of which generate food wastes (garbage) shall have and
use one or more food waste (garbage) grinders which are conveniently locat-
ed to each such activity and which are adequate in capacity to dispose of
all readily grindable food wastes (garbage) produced: Provided, that exist-
ing food establishments shall not be required'to have food waste (garbage)
grinders until two years after the date of the promulgation of these
regulations. Each kitchen sink that is newly installed in any dwelling
unit, or which is replaced or substantially repaired such that a plumbing
permit is required, six months or more after these regulations are pro-
mulgated, shall be provided with a food waste (garbage) grinder. Food
waste grinders shall be maintained in good repair and operating condition.
(e) The operation of an open dump for the disposal of solid waste
is prohibited.
(f) Any method for the disposal ot solid wastes by the establishment
of a disposal area shall be approved and a permit shall be obtained from
the Commissioner before such activity is undertaken: Provided, that the
controlled composting of leaves is not subject to this requirement.
(g) Hazardous wastes shall be transported and disposed of only by
approved methods.
(h) Scavenging is prohibited. Solid wastes shall not be collected
or hauled to any central location for the purpose of scavenging: Provided,
that licensed junk and second hand dealers may carry out such activities
on salvageable materials.
91
-------
8-3:608 DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES AT THE DISTRICT'S INCINERATORS
(a) Solid wastes to be acceptable for disposal at the District's
incinerators shall conform with the following requirements:
(1) Shall be readily combustible.
(2) Shall not contain hazardous wastes except as approved.
(3) Shall not contain heavy timbers, logs, stumps or large
quantities of ashes, dirt or rubble.
(4) Shall not contain large quantities of rubbish with a high
moisture content.
(5) Bulky combustible materials shall not exceed four feet in
length or two feet by two feet in cross-section.
(6) Brush and tree debris shall not exceed four feet in length
or four inches in diameter.
(7) Timbers may not exceed four feet in length or four inches
by four inches or two inches by twelve inches in cross-
section.
8-3:609 SUSPENSION OF PRIVATE COLLECTOR'S ACCESS TO DISTRICT DISPOSAL
FACILITIES~~
(a) Solid wastes generated outside the District shall not be deliver-
ed to any of the disposal facilities operated by the District unless prior
arrangements for acceptance have been made in writing with the Director of
the Department of Sanitary Engineering.
(b) Should any licensee or his agent violate this section, all
vehicles operated by said licensee may be denied access to any or all
District disposal facilities for a period not to exceed thirty days for
each such violation. Prior to such denial of access the licensee may re-
quest and shall be afforded an administrative hearing by the Director of
the Department of Sanitary Engineering or his duly authorized agent on
the proposed denial. Nothing in this subsection shall prevent a licensee
from being prosecuted for violation on the regulations in this Part.
8-3:610 INSPECTION
(a) The Commissioner is authorized to make such inspections of
solid waste storage, containers, collection systems, collection vehicles
collection vehicle storage and cleansing facilities, disposal and reduction
facilities, and disposal sites as may be necessary to determine that the
intent and purpose of these regulations are being met".
92
-------
(b) Every premises or part of a premises served by a licensed
collector shall maintain evidence including the name and address of the
licensee providing such services, which evidence shall be available at
all reasonable hours for inspection by the Commissioner.
8-3:611 REVOCATION. SUSPENSION. OR DENIAL. OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTOR'S
OR COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSES
Continued or repeated violation of, or continued or repeated failure
to comply with, any of the provisions of this Article shall be grounds for
the revocation, suspension, or denial, of any solid waste collector's
license or any collection vehicle license: Provided, that the licensee
shall be given an opportunity to answer and be heard by the Commissioner
upon the charges against him.
8-3:612 PENALTY
Any person who fails to comply with any provision of this Part, or
who refuses, interferes with, or prevents any inspection authorized thereby
shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $300 or imprisonment not to exceed
ninety days, or both. In the event of any violation of, or failure to
comply with this Part, each and every day of such violation shall consti-
tute a separate offense and the penalties described herein shall be appli-
cable to each such separate offense.
£-3:613 INDEPENDENCE OF SECTIONS
Each section and every part of each section of this Part is hereby
declared independent of every other section or part thereof, and the find-
ing or holding of any section or part thereof to be void or ineffective
for cause shall not be deemed to affect any other section or part thereof.
93
-------
APPENDIX B
SERVICE CHARGES FOR COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
An analysis of the cost of refuse collection and disposal was made
to determine the feasibility of charging fees to users of solid waste
services.
TABLE 1
OPERATIONAL COSTS OF SERVICE BY TYPE - FY 1969
Households
District of Columbia facilities
Abatement of nuisances
(reimbursed)
Cleanup of public space
Commercial
Federal
TOTAL
Collection
$ 4,433,316
$32.89/unit/yr.
$ 660.128*
$48.67/ton
$ 58,500*
$ 4,961,357
$134.98/ton
$126,941**
$ 63,470**
$10,684,535
Disposal
$ 873,119
$ 6.48/unit/yr.
$ 144,418
$ 6.30/ton
$ 6.30/ton
$ 222,910
$ 6.30/ton
$ 2,499,342
$ 6.30/ton
$ 213,341
$ 6.30/ton
$ 3,970,861
$14,655,396
* Now being reimbursed in part.
** Prorated share of garbage collection costs.
Table 1 summarizes departmental costs in fiscal year 1969.
The cost to the District of Columbia during FY 1969 for the collection
95
-------
and disposal of solid waste from residential buildings with fewer than
four units amounted to $5,306,435. This figure includes trash, garbage,
bulky items requiring special pickup, special cleanup drives, and disposal.
If this operating cost is prorated among the 134,800 units receiving
collection service, the cost for collection is $32.89 per household per
year and the disposal cost is $6.48 per household per year or a total
of $39.37.
The department also provides services to other District of
Columbia facilities such as police stations, fire stations, schools,
office buildings, and a variety of institutions. The collection and
disposal of solid wastes from these facilities cost the department
$804,546 in FY 1969 or $48.67/ton and $6.30/ton for disposal.
The clean up of public space (streets and alleys) cost $4,961,357
or $134.98/ton. This is the highest unit cost operation in the depart-
ment and results from the large areas that must be covered to collect a
ton of material. This cost is expected to be reduced with the increased
utilization of mechanical equipment. The disposal of the material
collected cost $222,910 or $6.30/ton.
There is a growing practice in this country to view the
services rendered in the collection and disposal of solid waste as
a utility function and to finance the operation through service charges.
This method of financing provides specific identity with the service
provided, and income grows approximately in proportion to the growth
of the problem. It has the disadvantage of causing a slight increase
in the cost of the operation due to the administration of the service
charge system.
If solid waste collection and disposal is to become self supporting
the service charges which are collected must also include an amount to
amortize the facilities constructed.
The recent award of a contract to construct Incinerator No. 5
provides a base for estimating the cost of operation and the amorti-
zation for replacement of facilities when required. The estimated
future cost of disposal using this technique is shown in Table 2 at
$9.81 per ton.
The mobile equipment service shops and the proposed service
centers are valued at three million dollars. The shops serve
collection, disposal and street cleaning and the costs are spread
equally. The service centers will serve collection and street cleaning
only, so the assessment is limited to those functions. Using an estimated
life of 20 years and an interest rate of 6 percent this adds $1.13 per
year per unit to the cost of collection and $ .15 per ton to the cost
of disposal.
96
-------
TABLE 2
CAPITAL INVESTMENT & OPERATING COST ESTIMATE
Incenerator No. 5
Investment Cost
Direct Costs
Labor (3 shifts)
Direct supervision:
1 Superintendent (@ $15,000)
3 Shift foremen (@ $10,000)
Fringe benefits @ 31.57. of labor &
supervision
Utilities: gas, water, electricity
Maintenance & supplies @ 27. of investment/
yr.
Residue removal
$ 18,080,000
.$/ton $/year
$1.88 $ 704,000
.12
45,000
Sub-total
.63
.79
.96
.83
5.21
236,000
295,000
361,600
312.000
$ 1,954,400
Indirect Costs
Amortization over 20 years @ 67.
Administrative overhead @ 207. of labor
& supervision
Sub-total
TOTAL
4.20
.40
4.60
9.81
1,580,000
152.100
1.732.100
3,471,500
97
-------
When the amortization costs are added to the operational costs
the annual cost for collection increases to $34.17 per household. The
disposal cost of $10.06 per household makes a total of $44.23 per year
or $3.69 per month. The per ton cost of disposal is $9.81 plus 0.15
for a total of $9.96 for all users.
Recommendations
1. Since continued financing of the program from the General Fund is
likely to result in continued budgetary restrictions which prevent
a satisfactory job, it is recommended that legislation be developed
which would:
a. Authorize the establishment of fees for the collection and/or
disposal of solid waste which would be adequate to cover the cost of
providing such service including the amortization of the costs of con-
structing the necessary facilities. The legislation should provide the
flexibility necessary to allow the Council to revise rates periodically
to reflect changes in costs. Some additional costs will be incurred in
the administration of a service charge system. The cost of billing for
collection services can be minimized through incorporation into the
existing water and sewer billing procedures.
Since it will be very difficult to keep the service fee perfectly
coordinated with costs there should also be a provision for using appro-
priated general funds to supplement the fees whenever the District
Council determines that this method of financing is preferable to a
rate increase. Surpluses, if any, will be accumulated in the fund to
offset unexpected costs.
b. Establish a solid waste fund to receive all service fees and
appropriated general funds in reimbursement for the costs of street and
alley cleaning, special cleanup of public space and collection of dead
animals. All sanitation services would then be financed from this fund.
c. Authorize the sale of bonds or borrowing of funds from the United
States Treasury adequate to construct facilities or purchase equipment
necessary to provide the collection or disposal service.
2. Cleaning of Public Space
It is recommended that the costs of street and alley cleaning,
special cleanup of public space, and collection of dead animals continue
to be financed by appropriated general funds. This should be accomplished
by an annual appropriation to the solid waste fund adequate to defray
the cost of cleaning public space. Records should be maintained of the
cost of such services in order to enable supplementary appropriations to
the fund whenever services requested exceed normal levels.
98
-------
3. Collection and Disposal Charges to Tax Free Institutions
It is recommended that a charge be developed to cover collection
and disposal costs provided tax free institutions. A fee would be
developed for each institution which would include the cost of labor
and equipment considering the amount of refuse and accessibility of
the storage site.
The collection of the fees for this service would be through
individual billing or along with the water and sewer bills.
4. Collection and Disposal Charges to District of Columbia Facilities
It is recommended that the service charge to cover the collection
and disposal services provided District of Columbia agencies continue.
Fees should be developed for each agency considering the cost of labor
and equipment required for the services rendered. No change would be
made to the present reimbursement procedures which is by transfer of
appropriations.
5. Collection and Disposal Charges for Abatement of Nuisances
The costs of cleanup of private property are at present being
charged the owners of the property. Bills are sent to the Health Services
Administration to cover the cost of labor and equipment required for each
case. The Health Services Administration in turn bills the owner of the
property and collects the charges. An additional charge should be added
to this fee for disposal of the solid waste. No changes in the method of
collecting these fees for abatement of nuisances on private property is
recommended.
6. Manpower Utilization and Productivity
The program to improve the utilization and productivity of man-
power should be expedited. This program includes equitable workload
distribution through proper collection route design, productivity analysis
to reward above average performance and provision of the optimum tools
and mechanical equipment to carry out the collection and disposal function.
Such a program will improve the morale and attitude of sanitation workers
as well as provide better service at a reduced cost.
99
-------
SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES SANITATION DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF SANITARY ENGINEERING
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1969
Collection
Garbage
Trash
Aah & special services
Household
Special cleanup drives
Public space
Abatement of nuisances
D. C. buildings' trash
Dead animals
Street & alley cleaning
Snow removal
Total Collection
Disposal
Incineration
Landfill
Total Disposal
Total
Total
Expenditures
FY - 1969
$ 1,269,407
3,272,111
975,003
468,002
58,500
39,000
58,500
331,501
19,500
4,902,857
265.157
$10,684,535
Sanitation
Division
(General Fund)
$ 1,204,190
3,257,744
820,181
466,095
57,261
38,842
237,563
19,420
4,837,154
23,412
$10,202,681
Reimbursements
(All Sources)
$ 481,854
2,887,456
1,083,405
$ 3.970,861
$14,655,396
2,875,600
1,078,900
$ 3.954.500
$14,157,181
11,856
4..5QS
$ 16.361^
$ 498,215
100
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURES CONT.
Commercial Federal
Household Household General Private
Units Less Units Four Fund Reimbursement
Collection
Garbage
Trash
Ash & special services
Household
Special cleanup drives
Public space
Abatement of nuisances
D. C. buildings' trash
Dead animals
Street and alley cleaning
Snow removal
Total Collection
than Four or More
$ 126,941 $63,470 $ 634,703 $380,823
3,272,111
468,002
58,500
$ 39,000
19,500
4,902,857
$58,500
District of
Columbia
Departments
$ 63,470
331,501
265,157
$ 126.941 $63.470 $4.433.316 $380.823 $4.961.357 $58.500 $660.128
Disposal
Inceneration-
Landfill
$ 2,446,306 $205,092 $ 872,265 $ 12,562 $ 218,887 $ 4,994 $113,676
53.036 8.249 854 81 4.023 94 30.742
Total Disposal
$ 2.499.342 $213.341 $ 873.119 $ 12.643 $ 222.910 $ 5.088
$144.418
Total
$ 2.626.283 $276.811 $5.306.435 $393.466 $5.184.267 $63.588
$804.546
-------
APPENDIX C
DEMOLITION AND EXCAVATION
Demolition
Debris and rubble generated by demolition during 1968 amounted to
approximately 520,000 cubic yards. This estimate originates from a
study made by the District of Columbia Demolition Contractors Association.
Data as contained in the real property file maintained by the District
of Columbia and data maintained by other government and private organ-
izations substantiate this figure.
The presence of such variables as civil disorders, special cleanup
campaigns, use of on-site disposal (burning or basement fill), urban
renewal, reduction in salvage operations, federal construction, and
other accelerating generators will continually affect the value of the
>stimate. Other factors include variances in amounts legally disposed
of due to landfill site availability; shifts in public attitude as to
the relative merits of renovation over demolition; and the employment
of the city's condemnation powers. The city government is not charged
with the responsibility for handling or disposing of demolition material.
The Bureau of Sanitation Services collects only such demolition
debris as that resulting from normal household maintenance, if left for
collect*-011 in proper containers, and from on-site collections of the
cleanups of lots under Commissioner's Orders. Collections are not made
for material generated by federal activities or from clearly commercial
ventures.
There is little direct control over the management of the solid
waste which results from demolition of buildings. The Bureau of
Licenses and Inspections issues permits to raze buildings; Chapter 21
of the Police Regulations provides that all non-federal demolition of
structures performed within the District must be covered by such a
permit. It is the general intent of this law to provide for public
safety. Files of the applications for these permits are maintained
by the Bureau of Licenses and Inspections and are comprehensive where
structures are demolished. Permits do not cover demolition of interiors
of structures. Pertinent entries include external building dimensions,
material of construction, and number of floors. Desirable statistics
such as basement volumes, partitioning, reinforcing or design
capacities, type of roof, and volume of debris expected are not pro-
vided. Two buildings of similar description and dimension on these
103
-------
forms could differ greatly in the amount of debris, however, so this is
an inaccurate source of data on generation.
Of the 23 local contractors actively bidding on contracts for
demolition, twelve perform over 90 percent of the volume contracted;
the remainder is performed by owners, by firms contracted to build on
the site, and by smaller contractors and scavengers. The contracts to raze
include provision for removal of debris. These contractors frequently
subcontract for removal of debris from the larger jobs. Contractors often
ignore landfill sites provided by the city and carry debris to closer sites
privately owned. Theoretically, these are areas whose owners have given
permission for dumping. Malpractice instances have been reported such
as after hour dumping at adjacent or nearby construction and demolition
sites. There are two large private landfills in Virginia and two in
Maryland, which conduct some salvage separation. They are generally
well maintained. Smaller sites are available from time to time through-
out the area, but as they are at a premium, the contractors are loath to
publicize their whereabouts.
The two major restrictions on municipal disposal at municipal facili-
ties which induce the contractors to seek private landfills are segre-
gation and location. Since only non-floating material is accepted at
Dyke Marsh and plaster, bricks and other bulky rubble are not accepted
at Oxon Cove, brick and concrete materials must be separated from wood and
other degradable materials. The cost of labor required to separate these
materials makes such disposal uneconomical for large scale contractors.
The Dyke Marsh Landfill and all future landfill sites contemplated are"
remote from most demolition sites. Both of these factors encourage
contractors to provide their own sites.
Demolition contractors generally subcontract for rolling stock to
transport the material to disposal. A representative of the trade assocl*
ation of transportation'contractors estimates that members haul 600,000
cubic yards annually from sites within the District, and place this volume
as 90 percent of the city's total. This figure generally substantiates
the estimate of the District of Columbia Demolition Contractors Association
104
-------
Excavation
Solid wastes resulting from excavation amounted to approximately
1.8 million cubic yards. This amount is expected to increase to 2.5
million with the advent of increased highway construction and the con-
struction of the subway system. Disposal is handled by the excavators
without municipal management. The three major sources in the future will
be construction of highways, buildings and subways. Other contributing
operations are harbor dredging, utility line emplacement, and landscaping.
Most excavated material is suitable fill and is employed in filling
marshy or swampy areas, in making embankments and in landscaping. The
Department of Sanitary Engineering provides a disposal site at Dyke
Marsh. River bottom excavation and dredging is monitored by the Corps
of Engineers which enforces pollution control standards. The Department
of Highways and Traffic coordinates with the Redevelopment Land Agency
and the Bureau of Public Roads to provide borrow. The Bureau of Public
Roads manages earth moving in the metropolitan area to provide a balancing
of cut and fill among the several highway departments.
There are no records maintained on amounts excavated. Estimates
of the annual rate of generation, which were made by the excavators who
perform major earth moving in the District, total 2,500,000 cubic yards.
The largest single source of excavation waste during the next
several years will be the construction of the subway system. The volume
is expected to be 8 million cubic yards from excavation within the District
and twenty million from the metropolitan area. Peak yearly rates will
occur between 1972 and 1974; completion is scheduled for the 1980's.
The Department of Highways and Traffic expects -to produce between
2 and 6 million cubic yards by construction of the interstate system.
These figures are based on estimated cuts of 9 million cubic yards
against 4.7 million cubic yards of fill. If cut and fill sections are
unexpectedly re-scheduled, excess fill may result at one time and borrow
tnay be needed later. Elevated sections may be converted to cut and cover
sections as new legislation on air-space rights is formulated. The
construction of non-interstate roads will contribute 120,000 cubic yards
of spoil.
The Department of Licenses and Inspections maintains fifes of
applications for construction; they exclude federal construction, but
include all commercial and private construction and redevelopment actions
by the Redevelopment Land Agency and National Capital Housing Authority.
The files indicate an average volume of over 1 million cubic yards of
excavation annually. The D. C. Contract Haulers Association has estimated
all building construction excavation, including federal, at 1.6 million
cubic yards. F. W. Dodge, Inc., which compiles a newsletter of construe*
tion data for contractors' information, estimates this excavation volume
105
-------
at 1.8 million cubic yards per year.
Utilities with underground duct systems produce an annual average
excavation waste of 100,000 cubic yards. Two fifths of this total
results from water and sewer main construction, two-fifths from electrical
power duct laying, and one-fifth from laying telephone ducts.
Dredging of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers is the responsibility
of the Corps of Engineers. Every three years 50,000 cubic yards of
material is dredged from the Anacostia and deposited by agreement on
adjacent property owned by the National Park Service and others. The
capacity of acceptable fill areas is being exhausted and alternatives
such as barging or piping to downstream disposal must soon be considered.
While the Potomac River is generally self-cleansing within the District,
at 10 year intervals the area south of Washington National Airport at the
Pour Mile Run discharge point must be dredged.
106
-------
APPENDIX D
COMMERCIAL HAULERS AND U. S. GOVERNMENT HAULERS
The refuse collected by commercial haulers and by U. S. Government
haulers amounted to 435,000 tons or 3,453,775 cubic yards in FY 1968.
Of this total, 35,000 tons were carried by federal installations collecting
their own accumulations and 400,000 tons by commercial haulers. However,
81,000 tons hauled commercially were generated at federal installations.
Residential establishments larger than three units as well as
commercial establishments must arrange for trash collection through
private contractors. At least 11 private collectors each have four or
more packer trucks at their disposal. Smaller companies, however, are
permitted to operate with marginal equipment. These private collectors
deposit the trash at District incinerators. However, the Bureau of
Sanitation Services has priority. When the incinerator storage space
is exhausted the private collectors must deposit the trash at sanitary
landfills.
There is no centralized management of solid waste generated at
federal facilities. Disposal service is provided at Bureau of Sanitation
Services facilities on the same no-charge basis as for commercial enter-
prise. Volumes deposited by those trucks which are marked U. S. Govern-
ment are recorded at the municipal landfills and incenerators.
The District does not require a permit to dump. Such a require-
ment would make it less difficult to prevent disposal of wastes generated
outside the municipal limits.
Refuse has been generated within the District at a constant rate
during the past several years. It is expected that on-site volume re-
duction practices and salvage efforts will become more prevalent as
agencies and enterprises become more aware of potential savings. These
practices result in a decrease in the amount of solid waste reaching the
District disposal facilities, and should offset increases in the amount
generated.
There is no available estimate of the total amount of classified
document destruction in the city; 1,788 tons of classified waste were
collected in 1968 and brought to municipal facilities for destruction
(See Chapter 5, Disposal), but many agencies burn or otherwise destroy
their material on-site.
The total of all quantities of solid waste reported by several
agencies in the District in 1968 was 969,950 cubic yar,ls of uncompacted
107
-------
refuse. Of this amount 43,450 cubic yards were reusable and were sold as
salvage. Federally owned incinerators handled 42,000 cubic yards. Munici-
pal facilities received the remaining 884,500 cubic yards or 92 percent of the
total; 647,300 cubic yards were reported delivered by contractors and
237,200 cubic yards by federally owned trucks. The actual amount in
federal trucks reported by District monitors stationed at the disposal
sites amounted to 279,487 cubic yards. The difference in the federal
figures could be attributed to the following factors:
1. Unauthorized dumping by federal agencies not located within the
District.
2. Unscheduled or sporadic delivery.
3. Inaccuracies in estimating by those agencies which maintain no
records.
4. Incomplete data due to inability to identify all agencies
contributing.
5. Failure of monitors to identify trucks as federal, due to poor
or improper marking.
108
-------
FEDERAL REFUSE: FY 1968
Agency
1. Boiling A.F.8.
2. Capital Grounds
Division
3. Civil Aeronautics
Board
4. Corps of Snginaers
(harbor debris)
5. Executive Office
Building
6. Federal Bureau of
Investigation
7. Freedman's Hospital
8. Government Printing
Office
9. General Services
Administration
Volume in
10.
Howard University
Library of Congress
Marine Barracks
National Park Service
National Zoological Park
Soldiers Home
15.
16. Post
If, St. Elizabeths Hospital
1 8 Camp Sims
Disposal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Salvage
Municipal
Classified
Municipal
Municipal
Salvage
Municipal
Municipal
Salvage
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Own Property
Own Property
Municipal
Own Property
Municipal
Collector
Contractor
Self
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Self
Self
Self
Contractor
Self
Contractor
Contractor
Self
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Self
Self
Self
Contractor
Self
Contractor
Cubic yards
140,880
3,000
Unknown
2,736
480
300
3,000
30,000
8,746
40,000
55,000
84,000
155,000
65,200
5,290
6,000
23,100
54,260
20,000
10,000
13,760
12,000
2,000
109
-------
19. Smithsonian Institution
20. Social Secutity and
Internal Revenue Service
21. Treasury Department
Bureau of Engraving &
Printing
Main Treasury & Annex
22. U. S. Army:
Harry Diamond Labs
Walter Reed Army
Medical Center
Fort McNair
23. U. S. Navy:
Observatory
Security Station
Research Laboratories
Washington Navy Yard
Bellevue Housing
24. Veterans Administration
Hospital
Disposal
Municipal
Municipal
Salvage
Collector
Contractor
Municipal Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Municipal Contractor
Municipal Contractor
Municipal Contractor
Municipal Self
Volume in
Cubic yards
6,908
3,000
27,597
3,148
5,480
Municipal Contractor 8,000
Municipal Contractor 70,000
43,800
3,750
13,950
20,924
137,872
8,000
110
-------
APPENDIX E
ABANDONED AUTOMOBILES
The Metropolitan Police Department is responsible for the collec-
tion and disposal of abandoned vehicles. Sixty percent of the collection
and disposal operations are handled by private contractors under the
supervision of the Police Department; the remainder is handled by the
department itself. Since July 1963, the department efforts resulted in
the removal of approximately 24,000 vehicles at an average rate of 4,800
vehicles annually. A high density of these are found in the N.E. sector
adjacent to Prince George County, Maryland. Many automobiles of
various values remain in alleys and in garages, front and rear yards
vacant lots and other private spaces.
Police officer reports and requests from the citizenry originate
most complaints. Other District agencies, such as those concerned with
housing, public health, fire, and refuse collection service, also origi-
nate such complaints. All referrals are processed through the Community
Relations Division of the Police Department.
When cars are abandoned on public space, they are ticketed. After
five days the vehicles are towed to staging lots near precinct station
houses. The vehicles are kept there for five more days during which
owners can claim them by paying towing charges. Cars remaining after
the five day period are then taken to an impoundment lot located at Blue
plains. A six month holding period is observed at the Blue Plains impound-
ment facility to permit car owners to secure their property after payment
for towing charges and penalties. Upon expiration of the holding period,
an auction is held and all cars not sold to bidders are hauled to scrap
dealers.
Currently, the profit in separating metals for reuse is marginal.
As improved processes can be developed to separate reusable metals, the
problem of abandoned cars will be lessened.
A major reason for the excessive accumulation of abandoned autos
is an increase in auto thefts and stripping. The incidence of abandoned
and stripped autos is related to certain neighborhood socio-economic
characteristics. The police precincts reporting the highest crime rate
are those which have the most abandonments. City police officials
111
-------
estimate that nearly twenty-five percent of the abandoned cars collected
in the District are titled in nearby Maryland and Virginia.
Surrounding communities have a less acute problem in handling
abandoned autos. They have shorter detention requirements, and in many
instances contract directly with the scrapper for both removal and
storage.
112
-------
APPENDIX F
OTHER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLECTIONS
District of Columbia collections other than those collected by
the Bureau of Sanitation Services amounted to 20,284 tons or 126,358
cubic yards in FY 1968. This includes the sewage screenings, grit and
catch basin cleanings collected by the Sewer Operations Division and
the refuse from the Department of Buildings and Grounds and the Depart-
ment of Highways and Traffic delivered to municipal disposal points.
Sewage Screenings and Grit
Sewage screenings, the coarse substances suspended or floating
in sewage which are large enough to be screened out of the flowing
water, are collected at each sewage pumping station and stored on-site
in 32-gallon metal containers. A crew consisting of a driver and laborer,
using an open-body, four cubic yard capacity dump truck, collects the
screenings from all of the sewage pumping stations.
The screenings are taken to the municipal transfer station,
transferred to railroad gondola cars and shipped to the Cherry Hill
Sanitary Landfill. If gondola space is unavailable, the screenings are
taken to other landfills.
Grit, sand and other heavy and inert matter that collects in the
grit chambers at the Water Pollution Control Plant is removed by three
truck drivers, one per eight hour shift, using a six cubic yard capacity
dump truck. The grit chambers are mechanically emptied by means of a
conveyor belt. Since the grit also contains putrescible matter, it is
transported to the transfer station, transferred to railroad gondola cars
and taken to the Cherry Hill Sanitary Landfill with the screenings.
The quantities and projections of sewage screenings and grit are
shown on the following page.
113
-------
QUANTITIES MEASURED IN SPECIAL STUDY FOR FY-1967
Volume, cu»yds.
Weight, tons
Sewage flow, mg
Density/lbs./cu. yds
Lbs./mg
Cu. ft./mg
Volume, cu. yds.
Weight, tons
Sewage flow, mg
Density/lbs./cu. yds
Lbs.
Cu. ft./mg
WITH ESTIMATED QUANTITIES
FOR
FY - 1967
1,951
649
79,800
yds 665
16.3
0.66
FY - 1967
4,690
5,323
79,800
yds. 2,270
133.4
1.6
1970, 1975 & 1980
SCREENINGS
1970 1975
1,980 2,115
660 705
81,030 86,505
GRIT
1970 1975
4,800 5,130
5,410 5,770
81,030 86,505
* « « M
1980
2,275
760
93,075
1980
5,520
6,210
93,075
" » «
M M
114
-------
Catch Basin Cleaning
There are approximately 21,600 catch basins within the District
of Columbia. Their cleaning is the responsibility of the Sewer Mainte-
nance Branch of the Sewer Operations Division. The branch has reorganized
this function as a result of recent studies which showed that a six month
cleaning cycle which produces an average debris accumulation of 9 to 12
inches was the optimal frequency for all but a few problem catch basins.
The average crew productivity was 24 basins per day at this frequency.
To attain this schedule, one vacuum crew is assigned to each of
seven sections of the city. The sections are adjusted to enable each
crew to finish its area within the six month period.
The studies also showed that the previous method of manually
cleaning the basins covered only an average of seven catch basins per
day while a vacuum crew can clean an average of 24 basins. A vacuum
crew averages two loads per day of 9 to 13 cubic yards each while a
manual crew averages one load of 2 to 3 cubic yards per day. Mechanical
cleaning is easier and neater than manual cleaning; it is also more
thorough since a substantial part of the fine material is also collected.
Studies regarding the effects of rainfall on the quantity of
solids in the catch basin, the quantity of screenings and the quantity of
grit and sand are being conducted.
115
-------
APPENDIX G
BOUNDARY MAPS OF EXISTING COLLECTION BRANCHES
AND OF PROPOSED COLLECTION DISTRICTS
117
-------
TRASH COLLECTION BRANCH
SECTION AREAS
GARBAGE COLLECTION BRANCH
SECTION AREAS
118
-------
STREET CLEANING BRANCH
ALLEY SECTIONS
STREET CLEANING BRANCH
STREET SECTIONS
119
-------
ASH & SPECIAL SERVICES BRANCH
SECTION AREAS
VACUUM LEAF COLLECTION
SCHEDULE
120
-------
PROPOSED BOUNDARIES FOR SANITATION DISTRICTS UNDER THE
REORGANIZATION OF BUREAU OF SANITATION SERVICES ON AN
AREA-BASED SYSTEM OF CONTROL
121
-------
APPENDIX H
PROPOSED OPERATION OF AN
AREA-BASED COLLECTION
ORGANIZATION
I. ORGANIZATION
The organization of a typical sanitation district will consist of
a supervisory and office force, refuse collection crews, street cleaning
crews, and a dead animal collector. The office of the district chief
will consist of the chief, deputy chief, a dispatcher at the same level
as the foreman and a scheduling clerk*
There will be five foremen assigned to the area; four of these
will have a regular assignment of a section, the fifth being an assistant
foreman who will r*eplace the other foremen during their absence and
when all are present, he will assist the dispatcher in scheduling and
assigning crews.
There will be fourteen refuse collection crews. These will
consist of thirteen assigned to regular twice weekly collection routes
and the fourteenth assigned to schools and special collection as required.
There will be one dead animal collector assigned to the area.
There will be four street cleaning crews consisting of a
mechanical street cleaning driver and a street cleaning broomer or
mechanical sweeper driver assistant.
There will be six laborers assigned to cart routes.
II. TRAINING
Three separate training programs will be given. One will be for
the district chief's office personnel and the foremen, the second for the
collection crews and the third for the street cleaning personnel. The
instructions given to the district chief, foreman, dispatcher and sched-
uling clerk will include the training given all supervisors plus special
emphasis on the area concept, scheduling of personnel following pre-
scribed procedures, reports analysis aimed at the specific reports
that will be presented, workload responsibilities in relation to Area 6,
and finally, the inspection requirements that they will be required to
carry out.
123
-------
The training to be given to the collection crews will consist of
the description of the area-based concept of organization, the proper
method of handling and picking up of refuse, the proper operation of the
packer, proper safety practices, how the concept of the area organization
will be implemented and finally, the audits of the routes to assure
proper worklaod distribution.
The street cleaning program will cover the same points as the
collection crews' program but will be designed for the former.
III. DISPATCHING AND SCHEDULING
The dispatching and scheduling operation will be conducted through
a master monthly schedule and a daily work assignment sheet prepared the
day before the regular work day. The daily sheet will designate the
work assignments and personnel assigned for each crew. The scheduled
time to begin and complete each task is entered by the dispatcher, along
with a brief description of the task, the location where the task is to
be performed, and the sequence of performance of tasks.
Refuse collection crews. Refuse collection crews assigned to
collection routes will cover routes on Monday and Thursday and Tuesday
and Friday. On Wednesday the tasks will be described identifying the
alleys to be cleaned, streets to be cleaned, special collections to be
made and so forth throughout the normal work day. Scheduling of each
task will allow time for travel to and from the site and time to accomplish
the given workload. Each task will be assigned a beginning and completion
clock time. Thirty minutes will be allowed at the end of each day as an
incentive.
Schools. Special Collections and Complaints. The school
collection crew will work during the hours of 9:30 to 5:00 to provide
for special collections after the finish of the normal work day of the
remainder of the area personnel. A task sheet will be prepared for the
special collection crew in the same manner as for the Wednesday work of
the normal refuse route collection crews. The time and amount of each
load taken to the disposal point will be entered by the driver.
Street Cleaning. The work should also be planned for the mechani-
cal sweeper driver. Again the scheduled time to begin and complete each
portion of the route will be entered or, in the case of following the
designated routes, the route number will be entered. The task will
describe the route or portion of route to be cleaned and the driver
will enter the actual beginning and completion times. The driver will
also enter in the task portion the time and size of the load deposited
at his dumping point and the location of the dumping point.
The work plan for the assistant to the mechanical sweeper will
outline the areas and the time scheduled for the man to sweep the refuse
into the street for pickup by the sweeper. This schedule will be
124
-------
coordinated with the mechanical sweeper route schedule.
Cart Route. The cart route assignments will be made showing the
confines of a normal route along with changes or additions. The cart
man should enter the number of bags filled and the location where these
bags were deposited.
Mechanical Sweeper Pickup. The mechanical sweeper pickup truck
will be scheduled to coordinate with the mechanical sweeper driver.
His pickups should be scheduled so that they will follow the time
for the last dump of the mechanical sweeper.
Dead Animal Collections. Calls for dead animal collections will
be made to the area office and scheduled in a similar manner to the
task assignments for other crews.
Complaints. Complaints and service calls will be received in the
area office and assigned by the dispatcher to the appropriate crew in
the most expeditious manner possible. For the most part the school
and special collection crew will be assigned most service calls;
however, other crews can also be assigned as necessary.
Dispatching. Crews and drivers will be dispatched in accordance
with the work plans which have been prepared on the preceding day.
Late changes due to absenteeism and additional task requests should
be prepared in the morning prior to the dispatch time of the crew.
Every attempt should be made to have the crews and workers leave on
time. The foremen, assistant foremen or deputy chiefs should bring
latecomers and replacement personnel to scheduled crew locations at
the time the latecomers arrive.
Monthly Schedule. The monthly schedule for the area will be
prepared by the dispatcher and scheduler in a Gantt chart-type
presentation. The job, task or workload that is routinely scheduled
will be listed on the left side of the sheet with the days and weeks
of the month displayed across the top. On the bottom of the line ex-
tending from the task description, the days on which the task is to
be performed will be entered. On the top of the line the days that
the task is actually performed will be entered.
IV. INSPECTION
Inspections will be performed periodically or at random intervals
by the foremen, district chiefs and inspectors from the Bureau of
Sanitation Services Operations Analysis Division. A cleaning
inspection report should be filled out for each inspection made. The
area in which the inspection is made should be noted, the district
chief's name, the foreman responsible and the inspector if he makes
the inspection. The locations covered by the inspection should show
125
-------
the approximate geographic area. Items to be inspected in street cleaning
will be the main street area, the curb area, tree boxes, sidewalks and
alleyways. Items to be inspected in collection will be the pickup
points and surrounding areas, street or alley area surrounding the pickup
point, the condition of the containers and the condition of street boxes.
The rating codes to be used are: superior -- those areas much better
cleaned than would normally be expected; outstanding -- those areas
relatively free of litter, and clearly above the average; acceptable --
those areas of average condition with the normal amount of litter and
effort by the cleaning personnel; fair -- those areas of a less than
acceptable condition which require improvement; ppor -- those areas
which would ordinarily create a complaint by anyone casually observing
the area. Specific items relating to the ratings should be listed as
special comments. In the future these comments should be used to describe
more adequately the conditions expected of the rating codes.
Each foreman should inspect his entire area each month. The
branch chief's office should make periodic checks of each of the foreman's
areas. The frequency of inspection by the district chief will depend
upon the quality of the foreman's report, but at a minimum, he should
make two inspection in each foreman's area per month.
The Operations Analysis Division inspectors will make their
inspections periodically throughout all areas. The purpose of these
inspections will be to instruct the district chief or foreman in the
technique of conducting inspections, to maintain consistancy in
inspections, to evaluate differences among the branches and to analyze
those areas where complaints are frequent.
V. MANAGEMENT REPORTS
Crew and Personnel Performance. Reports should be prepared to
show the actual performance of personnel against the standard performance
the amounts of refuse collected by the various methods, and an analysis
of complaints by type and area. The performance report will show for
each crew or individual the amounts of refuse collected and the time
spent in collecting it in comparison to the amount scheduled to be
collected and the time allowed for collection. Also, the year-to-date
performance against the weight schedule, and the performance against
the time schedule will be tabulated.
Sanitation District Performance. The sanitation district per-
formance analysis should show the ability of the district to follow
the pre-established schedule as laid out on the Gantt charts by the
dispatcher, scheduler and foreman. This report is divided into a direct
labor section, which shows the comparison between the planned distri-
bution and actual distribution of man-hours by type of work for the
current month and year-to-date, and the indirect labor section, which
shows the planned and actual distribution of supervision, dispatching
scheduling and the leave categories of sick, annual, holiday, other,
126
-------
AWOL and LWOP; the third portion of the report presents performance
data consisting of a summary of data from the individual performance
reports.
The labor man-hour portion of this report is used to evaluate
the ability to schedule and perform the workload assigned to the district.
In any one of the types of labor where the scheduled amount varies from
that actually used, a further analysis should be made to determine
the cause, since this means that some work either requires more time
than allowed to accomplish it or that people are being misassigned.
The performance data portion of this report shows selected data
from the above crew and personnel performance report. This portion
includes crew performance and weight actually collected as compared
to the standard weight projected.
VI. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION TO RESIDENTS
Prior to the implementation of procedures in each new area,
information must be given to the residents within the area concerning
the methods of handling refuse under the new concept.
Those occupants whose garbage and trash are now collected
separately must be informed of the necessity to combine their refuse
in single containers for collection. In addition, municipal garbage
collections for commercial establishments will no longer be made.
The residents of the area will have to be informed that col-
lections will be made twice weekly rather than once weekly and be
notified of the days of the week on which their collections will be
made. They should also be advised to put all refuse out on the regular
collection day and to put bulky objects and yard refuse out for col-
lection on Wednesday. The driver can put in special requests for heavy
metal objects and items which will not go into the packer.
Residents will have to be advised of the new district office
telephone number where complaints can be made, since these will no
longer be processed at the central Bureau of Sanitation Services
office number.
VII. RESCHEDULING ADJOINING SECTIONS
The implementation of the area-based organization and collection
practices in a given area will disrupt work in adjacent areas. Some
area boundaries overlap with existing section boundaries. The work for
the affected crews will have to be rescheduled during the interim period
between the implementation of revised adjacent sanitation districts.
This rescheduling will be required for trash, garbage and street cleaning
routes.
127
-------
APPENDIX I
METHOD FOR DETERMINING STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE AREA-BASED SYSTEM OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
1. Inventory of Workload
This inventory should be made from the branches as they exist
at the present time: household trash collection, garbage collaction,
ash and special services and street and alley cleaning.
Trash Collection. The inventory of the workload for the trash
branch should consist of on-site observation of the crew following
each existing route. This should be accomplished by recording the
information on the "Collection Stop Data Sheet" and the "Summary Sheet -
Trash Collection Data," as shown on the following pages. On the Trash
Collection Data Summary Sheet the recorder enters the summary information
including the route designation*crew and pertinent information about each
load collected. The Collection Stop Data Sheet is prepared to tabulate
the detailed information on the location, stop, pickup points, dwelling
units and types of containers picked up on each block during the normal
run of trash collection.
Garbage Collection. The following information should be gathered
regarding garbage collection within the area: Determine the amount of
garbage that is collected, the location of commercial establishments
where garbage will no longer be collected by District forces and deter-
mine those apartments where combined collection will be instituted.
Special Services. Determine the amounts and location of the refuse
collected by the Ash and Special Services Branch. From the inventory of
trash collected at schools and from discussions with foremen, enter each
school by name and location, the truck loads and the type of refuse col-
lected, the number of cans collected from each of the visits to the
school.
The amount of workload involved in community cleanup campaigns
should be tabulated as follows: the date of the cleanup, the association
sponsoring it, the number of loads collected and the number of days
involved, and the boundaries of the area.
A listing of the ash collection sites, the frequency of collection
and the amounts collected should be tabulated.
129
-------
SE-647T
(2/70)
Route
Date
Driver
Lead man
_Day_
1.
TRASH COLLECTION DATA
TRUCK No.
.Foreman
Recorder
2.
3.
1 . Time at start or finish
2. Mileage at start or finish
3. Time at first pickup
4. Mileage at first pickup
5. Location of first pickup
6. No. of Containers
7. Number of pickup" points
8. Time at last pickup
9. Mileage at last pickup
10. Location of last pickup
11. No. of men burlapping
12. Man minutes burlapped
13. No. of illegal containers
14. Weight
15. Time of unloading
16. Location of unloading
1st Load
2nd Load
3d Load
-4th Load
5th Load
Summary
Time in field
Travel time
Loading time
Burlapping time
Idle time
Mileage on route
Mileage to & from route
Total weight in pounds
Temperature
Weather
1. 2. 3.
One family
Two family
Row houses
Four family
co
o
-------
COLLECTION STOP DATA
Date
Day
Sheet of
Tine Began __
Route
Load
Time Ended
Alley - Street
Location H
^8
Description
1 Location
Stop No.
* Star 1
P. Polnta
leates not
D.U.
picked
tegal Cans
up.
Illegal Can* *
Box/Bag
Large
laitic
Bag
1
Other
SE-648T
(2/70^
-------
A tabulation of the collections made from nontaxable or char-
itible institutions should include the location of the institution, the
quantities collected and the frequency of the collection.
Street Cleaning. The street cleaning workload inventory is
developed using a map scaled at 1 to 200 and the street cleaning map
key (shown below). This key lists the items to be observed and the
code to be used in marking the map for the development of the route and
the workload.
STREET CLEANING MAP KEY
Type of Area:
Light Residential
Dense Residential
__ Light Commecial
HC Heavy Commercial
Additional Details:
Sidewalk to be Cleaned
Sidewalk and Tree Area to be Cleaned
Sidewalk not to be Cleaned
Sidewalk and Tree Area not to be Cleaned
Median Area
Pole Boxes
Paper Boxes
Roadway:
A Asphalt
S Rough
Smooth
Cone. Concrete
Type of Equipment Recommended;
Mechanical Sweeper
Push Cart
Mechanical and Man
Truck Crews
Passes Necessary:
(D Number of Recommended Passes
132
-------
Parking:
Light
Medium
Heavy
No restriction
BZ Bus Zone
Show parking violation times
AM More than 10 Feet Wide
Less than 10 Feet Wide
AV Unsurfaced
Note potential sweeper dumping spots.
The present workload for street cleaning should be developed
showing the assignment of truck crews, white wing pushcarts, and
mechanical sweepers within the area. This should be obtained from the
foreman and noted on a map.
2. Staffing Workload
Refuse Route Planning. Refuse route planning is accomplished
using a 1 to 200 scale map of the city and a refuse collection route
worksheet. The first step is the preparation of the map. Using the
data on the collection stop data sheet and summary identify the dwelling
units where collections are made on the map,and for each block show the
number of pickup points, the containers and the average weight per con-
tainer. These data are shown for each alley area within a block; for
a street length between two connecting streets; or for any other convenient
breakdown of street or alley.
Next, develop the combined collection workload for the first day's
collection on which the routes will be based. This workload is developed
using 70 percent of the containers and 60 percent of the weight. Show
the location of pedestrian paper boxes that will be emptied by the
collection crew and the frequency of the collection that will be required
from the boxes. Show D. C. buildings and the number of cans and the
frequency of collection that will be required from these buildings.
133
-------
The refuse collection route worksheet is used to tabulate the
crew time and the weight for each load of refuse collected for the
revised routes. The weights should be a maximum of 9,000 pounds per
load and the total crew time should not exceed 1920 minutes.
The time values are applied as shown on the worksheet. The
time value for that work associated with the handling of containers is
constant at .44 minutes per container. The time value for that work
associated with the pickup points is selected from one of five values.
These values are based primarily on the distance between pickup points
caused by the dispersion of houses within the area. The average, or
what could be considered a normal situation, is a mixture of single,
detached dwellings and duplexes and should use the time of .99 minutes
per pickup point. Separated single unit dwellings should require 1.24
minutes per pickup point and the higher concentrations of row houses
mixed with multi-family dwellings would require .74 minutes per pickup
point. The extreme situations of isolated single dwelling units should
use the time of 1.49 per pickup point while two sided alley collection
from multi-family units would use .49 per pickup point.
The time for laborers to travel to and from the area is taken
from the travel map of the city. The time allowed from the dispatch
point to the route area plus the time from the route area to the dispatch
point is multiplied by 4 for the three laborers and the driver to make
one round trip.
The driver travel time is calculated by multiplying the number of
trips to the disposal site times .the travel time plus the time required
to dump the load.
The personal, wait and contingent allowance is calculated next.
The morning and evening delays are applied to the first and last loads
of the day. This is a total of four times 12 or 48 minutes which can
be entered in the total column. The rest breaks are considered to be
ten minutes for each person in the morning and ten minutes for each
person in the afternoon, exclusive of the driver. This amounts to a
total of 60 minutes. These rest breaks for the laborers should be
taken during the time the packer is making the trip to the disposal site.
The "wait for packer" time is calculated by multiplying the time required
for the trip to and from the disposal site times three, and subtracting
the sixty minute break time. In addition, another thirty minutes is
allowed for each of the four ciew members at the end of the day to compen
sate for the incentive pace and for heavy days following holidays and
rain storms. The total personal, wait and contingent time should bt a
minimum of 320 minutes.
The refuse collection route worksheet is prepared by entering
time and weight calculated for each load. The number of pickup points
for each load is listed under the units column and multiplied by the uuit
factor giving the time for each category of pickup point. The number of
134
-------
REFUSE COLLECTION ROUTE WORK SHEET
ACTIVITY
Pickup Points
Containers
Labor Travel to and From Route, 2 (T x 4) =
Driver Travel to Disp., (T? + Td) N =
Personal, Wait and Incentive Allowance
Morning fe Evening, 4x12
Rest Breaks 2x (3x10) = 60
Wait for Packer 3 ( ) - 60
Incentive (Balance)
Total
Total Dav
Weieht
UNIT
FACTOR
4
-------
containers is entered in the units column and multiplied by .44 giving
the time for container handling. The point at which to go from load 1
to load 2 and to load 3 must be made considering the three following
points: first, it should be about 1/3 of the productive time for the work
day, or second, when the weight of the load approaches 9,000 pounds and
third, at a convenient breakpoint within the route area. The travel time
to and from the route is entered in the unit factor column and four times
this factor is entered under load 1 and four times the factor from the
route is entered under the last load column. The morning and evening
allowances are four times six or 24 entered in the load 1 column and the
last load column. The rest breaks are entered in the first and last load
columns. These are three times ten or thirty minutes for each break. The
wait for packer is three times the driver travel time to and from the
disposal site minus the 60 minutes break and is entered under the second
load. The contigent allowance is four times thirty minutes or the time
necessary to add the total up to a 1920 minute workday. This figure is
entered in the total column. The calculated weight is shown at the bottom
of the page. The average weights for loads or portions of loads and the
number of containers are multiplied to get a weight for each load and a
total weight for the day.
A route map will then be prepared for use by the drivers and others
concerned on a scale of 1 to 400. This map will provide a directional
line showing the driver the route to take during pickup of the refuse in
the prescribed route. Residences, public buildings, pole boxes, and any
other pickup points or special indications will be marked on the map.
A travel time map of the city should be prepared and maintained.
This map wilL show the travel time required from all pertinent points,
such as garages, incinerators, area branch offices, to all areas that
are expected to be serviced from these points. This map should be
developed by driving the various routes from the points of origin and
marking off the map at 1/10 of an hour or six minute intervals along
the way. A look at the map can then easily define distances to and from
the origin points to the nearest six minutes or average to the nearest
three minutes.
Normal route collections are to be made on Monday and Thursday, or
Tuesday and Friday, leaving the workload for Wednesday to be developed.
Wednesday's work will consist of the collection of bulky objects, special
requests, and alley and street cleaning by the truck crew method. The
amount of work to be accomplished on Wednesday by the refuse collection
crew will be laid out on a daily assignment sheet by the foreman in con-
junction with the dispatcher. The personal, wait and contingent allowance
and travel to and from the route will be calculated first, leaving the
remainder of the time of the work day for the performance of productive
collection work. The time for each task will be calculated using a task
benchmark book to be developed.
137
-------
Routes for the collection of school refuse and large tnetal objects
will be developed. These will be collected by a special packer and
crew which will also be on standby for emergencies or other contingencies.
This crew will work on an eight hour day beginning at 8 or 9 A. h. . A
daily assignment sheet will be prepared for this crew in the same manner
as that for the Wednesday work of the regular collection crews.
The street cleaning route development workload will consist of
three types of work. These are the white wing cart routes, mechanical
sweepers with mechanical sweeper assistant and finally the crew which
picks up the refuse1 that is collected and dumped by the mechanical
sweeper at convenient collection points.
The white wing cart routes are developed for those area as noted
on a street cleaning inventory map. The white wing cart routes are
calculated at 2,577 minutes per 100 curb feet or 3.1 curb miles per work
day for light commercial. Allowances are given white wing cart routes
for travel time to and from the route and two ten minute breaks.
The mechanical sweeper routes are developed corresponding to that
marked on the street cleaning inventory map. The length of each street
is measured and entered on the map. These are then totaled, multiplied
by the rate that mechanical sweeper can move and the route plotted.
Each sweeper route is calculated using the time values as shown.
Mechanical sweeper assistants are provided in those areas where
assistance is required to sweep refuse into the streets from sidewalks,
between parked cars, and other areas where mechanical sweepers cannot
reach.
The time required for mechanical sweeper pickup crews is developed
by allowing the travel time from the travel map plus a constant per pickup
point. The mechanical sweeper pickup route is -prepared daily by the
foreman on the work assignment sheet.
Mechanical Sweeper Speeds
To and From Route
To and From Dump
MPH Sweep
Alleys - 3.74
Streets - 4.46
Miles/day no-sweep
MPH no-sweep
6.62 mph (traffic)
10.00 mph max. (freeway)
7.40 mph
5% of miles swept
7.4
y
------- |