Page images
PDF
EPUB

the Department of Sanitary Engineering has exacerbated the situation by providing street cleaning services in the area east of the River which are significantly inferior to those provided in other sections of the City.

(57) During the years 1967-1969, the Department of Sanitary Engineering allocated only approximately 10 percent of its streetcleaning personnel to the area east of the River, despite the fact that said area accounts for approximately 30 percent of the total population of the City and approximately 21 percent of the total miles of streets in the City. During the same years, the Department made annual street-cleaning collections of only approximately 145 cubic yards of refuse per street mile in the area east of the River, as compared to approximately 240 cubic yards per street mile in the area west of the River and 285 cubic yards per street mile in the area west of the Park. Similarly, during the period 1967-1969, the Department collected only approximately 4,000 cubic yards of leaves per year in the area east of the River but collected approximately 44,000 cubic yards of leaves per year in the area west of the River, including approximately 28,000 cubic yards in the area west of the Park alone.

(58) The defendant Commissioner and the defendant members of the Council have failed to provide adequate refuse collection services for residents east of the Anacostia River and have failed to remedy the inequities of the present system of refuse collection or to allocate refuse collection resources so as to take into account the rapid increase in population east of the River caused by the actions taken by the Zoning Commission, the BZA, HUD and NCHA and the consequent proliferation of relatively low-income, multi-family apartment buildings and public housing projects in the area east of the River, as described in paragraphs (13)-(40) above. Residents of the area east of the River are thus afforded refuse collection services which are significantly inferior to those provided in other sections of the City, particularly the area west of the Park, and are forced to live in an environment which, because of the disproportionately high incidence of uncollected trash and garbage which litters the surroundings and causes the infestation of rats, mice, roaches and other vermin, is unhealthy, unsightly and significantly inferior to that in other sections of the City, particularly the area west of the Park.

3. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

A. President's 1973 State of the Union Message on Natural Resources and the Environment, February 15, 1973:

[blocks in formation]

As we strive to transform our concern into action, our efforts will be guided by five basic principles:

The first principle is that we must strike a balance so that the protection of our irreplaceable heritage becomes as important as its use. The price of economic growth need not and will not be deterioration in the quality of our lives and our surroundings.

Second, because there are no local or State boundaries to the problems of our environment, the Federal Government must play an active, positive role. We can and will set standards and exercise leadership.

We are providing necessary funding support. And we will provide encouragement and incentive for others to help with the job. But Washington must not displace State and local initiative, and we shall expect that State and local governments-along with the private sector-to play the central role in making the difficult, particular decisions which lie ahead.

Third, the costs of pollution should be more fully met in the free marketplace, not in the Federal budget. For example, the price of pollution control devices for automobiles should be borne by the owner and the user and not by the general taxpayer. The costs of eliminating pollution should be reflected in the costs of goods and services.

Fourth, we must realize that each individual must take the responsibility for looking after his own home and workplace. These daily surroundings are the environment where most Americans spend most of their time. They reflect people's pride in themselves and their consideration for their communities. A person's backyard is not the domain of the Federal Government.

Finally, we must remain confident that America's technological and economic ingenuity will be equal to our environmental challenges. We will not look upon these challenges as insurmountable obstacles.

*

*

*

*

*

Hazardous Wastes. Land disposal of hazardous wastes has always been widely practiced but is now becoming more prevalent because of strict air and water pollution control programs. The disposal of the extremely hazardous wastes which endanger the health of humans and other organisms is a problem requiring direct Federal regulation. For other hazardous wastes, Federal standards should be established with guidelines for State regulatory programs to carry them out.

B. Final Report of the National Commission on Materials Policy, "Material Needs and the Environment Today and Tomorrow" (June 1973), pp. 1-4, 4d-11-4d-19:

Three summary directives for policymakers have evolved from this study, which the Commission believes will move the Nation toward meeting the challenges of securing a sufficient supply of materials while managing and conserving the physical basis of our national life.

Strike a balance between the "need to produce goods" and the "need to protect the environment" by modifying the materials system so that all resources, including environmental, are paid for by users.

Strive for an equilibrium between the supply of materials and the demand for their use by increasing primary materials production and by conserving materials through accelerated waste recycling and greater efficiency-of-use of materials.

Manage materials policy more effectively by recognizing the complex interrelations of the materials-energy environment system so that laws, executive orders, and administrative practices reinforce policy and not counteract it.

INCREASING RESOURCE RECOVERY

In order to stimulate a supply of secondary materials of a quality and at a price that will command a market, three approaches are possible: introduce mechanisms for upgrading municipal waste at lower cost; create incentives for disposers of goods to prepare, deliver, and perhaps pay for recycling; and encourage product designs that facilitate recycling. Such policies will help to push waste material towards reuse.

MECHANISMS FOR UPGRADING WASTE

Municipal solid wastes have not been recycled in the past because disposal in readily available dumping sites was more economical. The patterns and traditions that developed as a result have made it more difficult to close the materials system, even though today the economics. begin to favor a closed system.

Some of the major options of the sanitation industry result in dumping, others in recycling. (11). The options are:

Incineration: This is outright burning of wastes, without energy recovery. Its cost has risen with the public's increased concern about air pollution.

Sanitary landfill: This is disposal and burial of wastes in the earth. As land around urban areas has become scarce, waste handling and land acquisition costs have raised the total cost of this option.

Skimming: This involves separation of several types of wastes at the source and separate collection followed by recycling of such components as paper, glass, and metal.

Materials recovery: This involves an aggregate collection, as with incineration and landfill, followed by material recovery for recycling by the use of special equipment that separates and sorts the collected wastes.

Fuel recovery: This uses collected wastes as an energy source in power plants or industrial furnaces.

Studies by the Environmental Protection Agency of the different approaches show that skimming, when well executed, is most economical. In their present states, all techniques of waste management are unprofitable. The costs must be supported by user fees paid to private operators or by public monies paid from local taxes. (See Table 4D.5.) Close-in sanitary landfill is the cheapest option after skimming, followered by fuel recovery, materials recovery, remote landfill, and incineration.

Close-in landfill is also the least capital-intensive option (see the sixth column of Table 4D.5), and therefore municipalities prefer sanitary landfill when open dumping is prohibited.

But cheap landfill is not always an option; some cities are paying more for disposal than the estimated average costs for materials or fuel recovery, $4.77 or $2.71, respectively (11). For instance, estimated disposal costs in Philadelphia and San Francisco are as high as $8 per ton.

29-925-74- -7

Few municipalities opt for resource recovery as opposed to dumping for three reasons:

Inadequate markets for recovered materials. Municipal officials cannot rely on finding buyers for secondary materials when virgin materials are favored. As a marginal commodity, scrap is subject to wide swings in demand and price. If officials are to have confidence in recovery as an economical option for waste management, a steady, reliable outlet for the recovered materials is essential. If demand for the product drops, the municipality again has a mountain of expensive wastes on its hands. Figure 4D.3 shows how a 50 percent drop in price for the recovered materials makes remote landfill less costly than recovery (11).

Capital costs. Given the volatility of the secondary materials market, municipalities or private companies are reluctant to commit themselves to invest heavily in the sophisticated industrial technology required for resource recovery. (See comparative investment costs in Table 4D.5, column 6.) As the risk associated with resource recovery is high, the familiar means of disposal are utilized even at increasing expense. Considering that disposal costs are low in comparison to those of collection, the amount that recovery may save is a mere fraction of total disposal costs. Given the uncertainties, recovery seems not to justify the substantial investment required.

Tradition and structure. Sanitation officials have not been concerned with recovery of resources in the past. Their mission traditionally has been to abate waste as a public nuisance or threat to health, not to treat waste as a resource. Therefore, sanitary landfill, which required minimal changes in goals and operating procedures, was adopted where open dumping became impossible.

If sanitation officials would strengthen working contacts with the recycling industries, materials processors, and electric power companies that are necessary for resource recovery, the contacts could facilitate effective negotiations, coordination, and cooperation for

recovery.

In

Energy recovery is the target of opportunity for municipal government today. It is cheap conservative of resources, and requires only new technology for its introduction, whereas skimming would require profound changes in consumer habits. In Europe, virtually all new refuse-burning incineration plants are designed for heat recovery. the United States, however, only about 10 such incinerators are in use (1). The mixed organic fraction of community waste often has an energy content one-half that of bituminous coal (12). By mixing this fraction of the solid waste with coal or fuel oil it is possible to reduce both the volume of solid waste that must be disposed and the quantity of other fuel needed by power plants.

Use of solid waste for this purpose would require conversion of present power plants. The solid waste received would have to be separated, sized, and evaluated for heating value. A proper amount of coal or fuel oil then added would supply the required heat. Any increased capital and operational costs for the power plant could be offset by disposal cost savings.

We conclude that

before cities can realize the potential of resource recovery, they must change their attitudes toward solid waste and the institutional structures that deal with it. Many will decide that private entrepreneurs offer the most efficient mechanism for resource recovery and will enter into long-term contracts for this service

. . not all cities will find that resource recovery is the most economical option; each municipality has its own problems and perspective. Some may wish to enter into agreements with other local governments to capture economies of scale unavailable to them individually. State governments should encourage such regional approaches through solid waste regulatory programs.

We recommend that

4D.1 ... the Federal Government offer loans at low rates of interest to private firms for recovery of resources from municipal waste.

INCENTIVES FOR DISPOSERS

Table 4D.5 indicates that skimming is the least costly recovery option because it captures valuable wastes before they are thrown out. Through disposers' cooperation, skimming precludes the need for sophisticated and expensive separation after rubbish has been mixed or compacted. Skimming has always been practiced in cost-conscious industrial and commercial firms. Residential skimming is practiced to a lesser extent. Although household habits which favor skimming have been established, private citizens need more of an incentive to pursue the practice.

Today the incentive is to dispose. The average citizen regards waste disposal as a free service. The trash he generates is picked up for a flat fee that often is hidden in his total tax bill, unrelated to its weight or recyclability. The price paid by the disposer is never in line with the true cost of removal and disposal, either because general tax revenues subsidize disposal or because disposal techniques and charges do not cover the external costs to the community of environmental depreciation and losses in property values. As a result, the feedback mechanism of a well-functioning market, which would identify these costs and so encourage recycling, does not exist.

The private citizen's so-called right to low-cost waste disposal is being challenged as a burden on the environment. Solid waste can be stemmed by putting the cost of an effective recovery system on all responsible parties, from the producer to the consumer.

High-cost disposal would have two important effects. First, it would influence consumers to purchase fewer items that add to the trash load. Consumer reaction would encourage manufacturers, in turn, to design products and packages with an eye to conservation and recovery of materials. Eventually, the consumer may calculate the "best buy" on the basis of the cost of the product during its entire lifetime, from purchase to disposal.

Second, consumers would work to recycle materials because of the incentive. A stiff price would be charged for removal of aggregated trash, while segregated and prepared materials would be removed at

« PreviousContinue »