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
-------