Bum,
Bury Or What?
-------
FILMSCRIPTS ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
This script is one of a series published to help
lecturers, teachers, and group leaders prepare for viewing
and discussion of solid waste management films. It is
also intended for those in an audience who want
a permanent record of the data presented in a film.
It was written by Stuart Finley, Inc.,
the producer of the film, in close cooperation with staff of the
Federal solid waste management program.
Titles and publication numbers of scripts
for solid waste management films are shown below.
The Third Pollution SW-39c.l
Burn, Bury, or What? SW-39c.2
Recycling SW-39c.3
5000 Dumps SW-39c.4
In the Bag SW-39c.5
The Green Box SW-39c.6
The Stuff We Throw Away SW-39c.7
What's New in Solid Waste Management? SW-39c.8
Instructions for borrowing or purchasing these films are
given with each script and are summarized in the
brochure Films Tell the Story, available from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., 20402.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1972
-------
BURN, BURY, OR WHAT?
19 minutes, 16-mm motion picture, sound, color, 1970. Order no. M-2098-X*
BURN, BURY, OR WHAT? illustrates the solid waste disposal problems faced by
the District of Columbia and gives the rationale for the selection of component
facilities needed to serve this large city adequately. The film is designed to assist
local officials in explaining technical information to civic groups and to engender
public support for a comprehensive disposal system. Washington's program utilizes
accepted and innovative techniques, such as shredding, baling, barging, incin-
erating, and sanitary landfilling.
Old map of Washington
Current map of Washington
Burning refuse at Kenilworth
Kenilworth Landfill operation
Here is how a visitor described our new Nation's Capital in
1800:
"No stranger can be here a day .. . without conceiving
himself in the company of crazy people . .. With great
trouble and expense, much mischief has been done
which will be almost impossible to remedy."
But Washington grew and prospered . . .
. . . despite an occasional fiasco.
One of the most notable of these was the city's burning dump
at Kenilworth.
It burned from 1942 to 1968 ... for over 25 years. A quarter
of a million tons of refuse went up in smoke every year.
Kenilworth was the largest single contributor to air pollution
in the Washington area.
On Feb. 16, 1968, Mayor Walter Washington ordered the
flames extinguished.
Kenilworth has been transformed from an obnoxious burning
dump into a model sanitary landfill. The United States Public
Health Service awarded a demonstration grant. National Park
Service planners, District of Columbia Sanitary Engineers, and
their consulting engineers designed contours and operating
procedures to permit the National Park Service (which owns
the land) to convert it into a park.
*Borrow from: National Medical Audiovisual Center
Purchase from: Stuart Finley, Inc.
3428 Mansfield Road, Falls Church, Va. 22041
Area Code 703/820-7700
Prints-$225
Cleared for TV.
-------
Earth cover being applied By the end of every day, the refuse is covered with clean earth.
The advantage is that there is no more open burning. -. no
more air pollution... and the area is being converted into a
beautiful and useful park. The disadvantage is that the life of
Kenilworth as a disposal area for Washington’s solid waste was
cut from perhaps 25 years to 15 months. The problem has
changed from “how can we stop polluting the air”.., to
“how can we get rid of our city’s 700,000 tons of solid waste a
year”.
Pan of Kenllworth showing c m The city is on the spot. Refuse collections continue at the rate
plate earth cover of about 2,200 tons a day. Where to put it?... How to
process it? . . . Should we bum, bury, or what?
There are various alternatives. . . some more practical than
others.
Compost at Houston composting One alternative is composting. The refuse is sorted to remove
plant items which are inappropriate, have salvage value, are over-
sized, or cause processing difficulties. The rest is ground and
subjected to biological degradation. The end product
resembles peat moss.
Stream of compost pours out of This operating plant in Houston makes excellent compost but
Houston plant panning to nearby has considerable difficulty selling it. Composting is ideal for
stacks of unsold Compost converting organic material into a stable and consistent form,
but so far the process has not proven economical for cities
disposing of large quantities of refuse because:
• you stifi have to dispose of the end product,
• there is no significant reduction in volume,
• the process requires considerable working area,
• it is expensive.
Composting: solution to the District of Columbia’s solid waste
dilemma? “No!” say the specialists.
Frostburg, Maryland abandoned Another ostensibly ideal solution is landfihling abandoned strip
strip nine landfill operation mines. Most early coal mining operations were violently
disruptive. Some abandoned land might be rehabilitated by
using solid waste disposal funds to finance the project.
However, a distant city is faced with the multiple costs of:
hauling and packaging solid wastes, transporting them by truck
or railroad, and paying a royalty to local interests who, even
then, are often disinterested in receiving someone else’s trash.
This regional landfill at Frostburg, Maryland is practical for
2
-------
the nearby area it serves. . . but would be very expensive for
cities as far away as Washington.
Brown Station Road Landfill in
Prince Georges County, Maryland
being compacted; cover being ap-
plied
Ansonia, Connecticut incinerator
being viewed by engineers
Engineers on roof of incinerator at
Ansonia inspecting scrubbers
Stamford, Connecticut incinerator
panning to stack to show insignifi-
cant smoke
Landfilling is today’s most commonly acceptable solid waste
disposal method. The Brown Station Road Landfill in Prince
Georges County, Maryland is typical of a well-operated
sanitary landfill. In flat terrain, the working face may be 8 to
10 feet high on a 4 to 1 slope so the heavy compactors can
apply the maximum possible pressure to the refuse.
Compaction eliminates voids which could harbor rodents and
would cause differential settling later. A bulk density of about
1000 pounds per cubic yard can be achieved. The face is kept
as narrow as possible to minimize equipment, personnel and
the cover required.
The operating cost of a professionally run landfill usually
amounts to S3-S3.50 a ton. When a city has adequate space
nearby, landfilling is the most economical, acceptable method
of solid waste disposal. Most city officials try to base their
disposal program on landfilling, and turn to incineration only
if available land is expensive or distant.
Incineration is another practical and economical alternative.
By simply burning the combustible component of municipal
refuse, volume can be reduced by up to 90 percent. These
engineers are visiting a new incinerator at Ansonia,
Connecticut - . . inspecting combustion temperatures, refuse
feeding and handling.., factors which determine incinerator
efficiency.
Because cities today must set and enforce air pollution
standards for industry, municipal engineers can’t build or
operate an incinerator which will contribute significantly to
local air pollution problems. This incinerator has wetted
baffles which greatly reduce stack emissions. Also, heat from
the combustion process is used in this spray dryer for
dewatering sewage sludge.
Another new incinerator design . . this one at Stamford,
Connecticut. This unit disposes of oversized wastes and is
equipped with electrostatic precipitators to control air
pollution. Here, incineration was the most economical
alternative because of high land costs.
Although outstanding results can be obtained by using both
scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators, the precipitators here
at Stamford appear to have solved an air pollution problem.
3
-------
Yes, the efficient, modern incinerator is a practical alternative.
D. C Sanitary Engineering Reports The District of Columbia has developed a plan. It involves:
Incinerator • a new incinerator
Baler • abaler
Barge • a barging system
Landfill • a new, extensive sanitary landfill.
Washington area map Here is how it will work.
Four present incinerators with All four existing incinerators will either be closed entirely, or
smoke; smoke dissolves off will be equipped with modern air pollution control devices.
Georgetown Incinerator The Georgetown Incinerator site may be used as a transfer
station serving the Western portion of the city.
Fort Totten Incinerator The Fort Totten Incinerator
Add the Mount Olivet Incinerator and the Mount Olivet Incinerator will probably be modernized
and share the load with...
Add new Kenilworth Incinerator a new, large, efficient incinerator to be built near the Benning
Road Power Generating Station. The long range plan calls for
all Washington incinerators to be equipped with both
scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators.
0 Street Incinerator The old 0 Street Incinerator will be torn down and replaced
with...
Dissolve on baling-barging complex a baling and barging complex nearby.
Barge route on the Potomac The baled refuse will be barged down the Potomac River to a
new long term sanitary landfill in Virginia.
D. C. Sanitary Engineering Reports District of Columbia Solid Waste Management plans...
projecting at least 25 years into the future.. . solving today’s
problen and preventing tomorrow’s crises.
Oxon Run being laudfllled Kenilworth is filled. Now this new landfill at Oxon Cove is
taking the city’s refuse. Again, it’s parkiand owned by the
National Park Service.
Same s ne panning off to future If the city could install,in the wink of an eye, the nearly $35
fill areas million worth of improvements called for in its long-range
plan. . - then the District of Columbia’s new program could go
into effect instantly. But, this preparation and construction
will take about 2½ years. Meantime, you can’t just stack up
4
-------
the city’s refuse. It must be properly disposed of somewhere.
Architect’s plan for golf course A noted golf course architect is designing a new eighteen hole
golf course. . . working with a representative of the
Department of the Interior. It’s to be located at the site owned
by the National Park Service at Oxon Cove, partly in the
District of Columbia and partly in Prince Georges County,
Maryland. The Oxon Cove landfill will be designed and
engineered like Kenilworth. Interesting contours will provide a
challenging golf course. .. another example of multiple
benefits which can result from interagency project
coordination . . . and another instance of refuse being used as a
resource, providing a valuable service to the community.
Mount Olivet Inanerator The Mount Olivet Incinerator was built in 1956 and has a
nominal capacity of 500 tons a day. Air pollution control
devices can be added and other improvements made.
Fort Totten Incinerator The Fort Totten Incinerator was built in 1961. Here air
pollution filters can also be added.
Georgetown Incinerator The Georgetown Incinerator, built in 1932, is out of date, has
a small capacity, and little land. Here, incineration will be
discontinued and this facility may be converted into a transfer
station.
0 Street Incinerator The 0 Street Incinerator, also built in 1932, cannot readily be
modernized. It will be razed and...
Renderings of 0 Street baling- a new unit built designed to receive refuse, shred it, bale it,
barging unit and load it on barges.
New Kenilworth Incinerator draw- Meantime, a new large-capacity incinerator is being built near
the Benning Road Power Generating Station. When completed,
it wifi be one of the world’s most modern. A combination of
cyclone mechanical separators and electrostatic precipitators
will remove 99 percent of the particulate matter. These
pollution controls are desired and needed by the public.
who will ultimately pay for them.
Hanunern*ll Refuse which is going to be disposed of in a landfill must be
compacted somewhere. When a distant landfill is to be used, it
is cheaper to compact it before hauling. This hammermill
shreds the refuse, thus reducing volume and making it easier to
handle. Several shredders like this will be part of the 0 Street
baling-barging complex.
5
-------
Shredded refuse pours out of shred- This shredded refuse is comparable to...
der
Papei into baler waste paper which has been successfully baled for years.
The big refuse balers at 0 Street will be capable of accepting
everying except oversized or nonshreddable items and
incinerator residue.
Baling refuse will solve many problems: provide further
compaction, facilitate handling, and minimize dirt and dust.
Bale strength test But if a bale must be loaded on a barge, unloaded, transported
by truck to the landfill, then placed in the fill . . . it must be
strong enough to withstand an exacting test like this.
Bent. . . but not broken!
Rail Haul on way to Cherry Hill The District of Columbia’s proposed, longterm sanitary landfill
Landfill site is located at Cherry Hill in Prince William County,
Virginia. For years, some of Washington’s refuse has been
brought to Cherry Hill by train and landiuiled.
Beautiful sane at Featherstone Additional capacity was recently obtained here by an
Point exchange in which other, more attractive waterfront property
at Featherstone Point was abandoned as a landfill site in order
to preserve valuable wetlands along the Potomac.
Cherry Hill waterfront For large-volume hauling, the planned barging system down
the Potomac will be the most feasible and economical
transportation method for the District of Columbia. Bales will
be unloaded on a pier at this site
Cherry Hill fill and trucked to nearby gullies which will be filled and
contoured into useable land . .. providing Prince William
County with new opportunities for development.
Cl iry 11111 gully to be J jfjfl j The capacity at Cherry Hill is sufficient to accommodate
Washington’s anticipated volume of solid wastes for the next
25 years... provided the Fort Totten, Mount Olivet, and
Kenilworth Incinerators are operated as planned.
Cherry Hili opemtional plan This new relationship between Washington, D.C. and Prince
William County will be consistent with the proposed
Washington Area solid waste interjurisdictional agreement as
recommended by the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments.
6
-------
Baltimore’s burning dump Solid waste disposal problems plague all big cities. Here a
nearby community still has its burning dump.. . befouling the
air, risking the lives of scavengers, and blighting the landscape.
Arlington’s smoky incinerator Here, an East Coast city’s incinerator pollutes the neighboring
area.
San Francisco bay filling And a West Coast city fills its bay to get rid of solid
wastes. . while conservationists protest.
Mayor Washington’s car arrives at Mayor Walter Washington returns to the Kenilworth dump he
Kenilworth once extinguished... but, it’s no longer a dump.. . now it’s a
model sanitary landfill.
Officials and members of the Officials of the District of Columbia and nearby jurisdictions
eat lunch and t ii and members of the press eat lunch.
It’s true, Kenilworth’s useful life as a solid waste disposal area
was drastically shortened. . . but the inception of Kenilworth
Park was correspondingly hastened, to the great benefit of this
section of the city. The new program is based on planning
concepts developed under grants to the city from the Public
Health Service and the Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
Solid waste disposal for Washington will be handled by a
system of incinerators upgraded to modern standards and a
two-phase landfill program with long term capacity.
Reverse view showing cover being As the last refuse is buried at Kenilworth, Washington, D.C.
applied over refuse; Kenilworth moves on to a long-range solid waste program. . . replacing an
Park elan unending series of emergencies with a planned system...
replacing a dump with beautiful and useful parkiand.
Kenilworth burning The burning Kenilworth of yesterday had some very real
causes. While the city’s professional engineers proposed proper
programs, funds were not made available to put them in effect.
Public apathy permitted even greater quantities to be burned.
Kenilworth being la dfilled Then, as air pollution became more evident and neighborhood
complaints began to increase, the situation changed, pressures
built, and funds became available. The City and the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management cooperated to create a sanitary
landfill which could serve as a model for other cities. It was
funded in part by a federal demonstration grant. But, what if
the District of Columbia plan cannot be funded for one reason
or another, or if interjurisdictional strife or local dissension
tears apart the operating agreements which have been made,
what then?
7
-------
Probably some substandard or makeshift scheme would have
to be devised to dispose of the 2,200 tons of solid wastes the
city prcxhlCeS every day.
Collection of solid wastes in The District of Columbia solid waste disposal plan is a
Wsshington long-range program requiring:
• $22 million for a new incinerator,
• several million more for incinerator improvements and
conversions,
• $9 million for a transfer and baling complex,
• the purchase of landfIll equipment,
• the preparation of an extensive area for a sophisticated
landfill...
• an improved program for citywide collection.
Expensive? Yes. . . but the requirement is urgent because:
• the average resident of Washington discards about 4 lb
of refuse a day,
• total Washington solid wastes amount to about 700,000
tons a year.
Public opinion creates policy. Public pressure solves problems.
There is no pressure greater than a city cluttered with
uncollected refuse.
The District of Columbia has no choice. Its Department of
Sanitary Engineering must collect and dispose of the city’s
huge volume of garbage and trash. This carefully prepared
long-range plan is the most sensible solution.
1icr633
8 * U W JtTP (TIacFU.• 1972— 759-397/136
------- |