CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
April 29, 1969
Page 10608
S. 2005 -- INTRODUCTION OF THE RESOURCE RECOVERY ACT OF 1969
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, there was a time in this country when material of any kind was known to be scarce and expensive. String and wax drippings were saved, and bent nails were pounded straight.
In those days, most Americans were producers of food and goods for their own use. They lived in rural areas, and they understood what waste meant: It was simply the negligent use of scarce materials. "Waste not, want not," was more than a moral or religious precept. It was a law of American economic life.
But today, most of us live in urban areas. And most of us make our living from providing services rather than producing food or goods.
In our current view, materials are relatively cheap. We buy, we use, and we throw away.
I think that Austin C. Daley, chief of the division of air pollution control of the Rhode Island Department of Health, accurately summarized our national attitude during a hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution at Boston on April 10. Mr. Daley remarked:
We are a nation of users, not consumers. Most Americans would be astonished by how much we use but do not consume.
The national solid wastes survey of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare reported that Americans soon will discard each year more than 30 million tons of paper, 4 million tons of plastics, 48 billion cans, and 26 billion bottles; more than 3.5 billion tons of solid wastes are being thrown away in this country every year. The annual cost of handling and disposing these wastes amounts to $4.5 billion; and during the past 30 years, more than 20 billion tons of solid wastes have been deposited by mining, milling, and processing. These wastes have covered or damaged 7,000 square miles of land.
Mr. President, at the recent hearing held by our subcommittee in Boston, the Honorable John F. Collins, the former mayor of that city, gave us a keen insight into the problems we are facing in solid wastes disposal. He reminded us that there are basically two ways to manage solid wastes effectively.
The first is to attack the problem at its source–
Mayor Collins said–
by reducing the generation of solid wastes and changing their nature and composition. The other method–
He added–
is to increase vastly the efficiency of application of current technology and managerial techniques.
We are a long way from effective management of solid wastes. Public commitment to the solution of this problem is inadequate. Local governments remain primarily responsible for collecting, processing, and disposing of solid wastes. The States still pay a very minor role.
The Federal Government did not even enter the field until 1965. Until that time there had been slight awareness of the problem, little innovation in our approaches, and little coordination of our efforts.
Congress passed the solid waste disposal act in 1965 and placed the Federal Government in direct contact with the growing problems of solid wastes for the first time. The act set up a 3-year program of grants for demonstrations of new technologies, for planning of State and local solid waste management programs, and for technical assistance to solid waste agencies. In 1968, the program was extended for an additional year.
These pilot programs have been successful, but they have been limited in their approach. If our efforts in this field are to offer any hope in light of the dimensions of the problem, the Congress must sustain the progress made thus far and expand our efforts in new directions.
We must begin to consider some way to attach the cost of solid waste disposal to the value of the products we use but do not consume. Incentives for effective solid wastes management should be related to the persistency of the product in the environment. For example, paper products which degrade rather quickly would have a low recovery value. But cans, bottles, and plastics would have increasingly higher recovery values.
So that we may move toward the goals I have described, I introduce for myself and Senators BAYH, BOGGS, COOPER, EAGLETON, METCALF, MONTOYA, RANDOLPH, SPONG, YARBOROUGH, and YOUNG of Ohio, the Resource Recovery Act of 1969. This bill amends, strengthens, and extends for an additional 4 years the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965; it also contains two new provisions.
First, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is directed to conduct studies and report to the President and the Congress on economical means of recovering useful materials from solid wastes, recommended uses of such materials for national and international welfare, and the market of such recovery; recommended incentive programs -- including tax incentives -- to assist in solving the problems of solid waste disposal; and recommended changes in current production and packaging practices to reduce the amount of solid wastes.
The Secretary also would be authorized to carry out demonstration projects to test and demonstrate the recovery techniques developed by these studies. Second, the Secretary would be authorized to make grants to any State, municipality, or interstate or inter-municipal agency for the construction of solid waste disposal facilities, with incentives for new and improved methods for dealing with solid wastes.
Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill, a summary of its provisions, and the texts of the remarks of Mayor Collins and Mr. Daley at the Boston hearing on April 10 be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my statement.
I offer this legislation because I do not believe that America can continue indefinitely to burn, bury, or throw away the solid wastes generated by its people. There simply are not enough resources, enough land area, or enough clear air and clear water to permit the mere refinement of existing approaches to solid waste management.
If future generations of Americans are to inherit adequate, economical supplies of our natural resources, we must move now to find new ways of reusing solid wastes. If we are to preserve and enhance the quality of our environment, we must find ways to reduce the sheer quantities of solid wastes and to lessen the burden on our air and water resources.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the bill, summary of its provisions, and text of the remarks of Mayor Collins and Mr. Daley at the Boston hearing, will be printed in the RECORD.
The bill (S. 2005) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act in order to provide financial assistance for the construction of solid waste disposal facilities, to improve research programs pursuant to such act, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. MUSKIE (for himself and other Senators), was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Public Works, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 2005
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Resource Recovery Act of 1969".
Sec. 2. Section 203 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following:
"(7) The term 'municipality' means a city, town, borough, county, parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State law and having jurisdiction over the disposal of solid wastes."
Sec. 3. (a) Subsection (a) of section 204 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by striking out all beginning with "the development and application" through the end of such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "the reduction of the amount of such waste and unsalvageable waste materials, and the development and application of new and improved methods of collecting and disposing of solid waste and processing and recovering usable materials from solid waste (including devices and facilities therefor) . "
(b) Such section 204 is further amended by striking out subsection (d).
Sec. 4. The Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by redesignating sections 205 and 206 as sections 206 and 207, respectively, and by inserting after section 204 a. new section as follows:
"SPECIAL STUDY AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ON RECOVERY OF USEFUL MATERIALS
"Sec. 205. (a) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall as soon as practicable carry out an investigation and study to determine
"(1) economical means of recovering useful materials from solid waste, recommended uses of such materials for national or international welfare, and the market impact of such recovery;
"(2) appropriate incentive programs (including tax incentives) to assist in solving the problems of solid waste disposal;
"(3) practicable changes in current production and packaging practices which would reduce the amount of solid waste; and
"(4) practicable methods of collection and containerization which will encourage efficient utilization of facilities and contribute to more effective programs of reduction, reuse or disposal of wastes.
The Secretary shall report the results of such investigation and study to the President and the Congress.
"(b) The Secretary is also authorized to carry out demonstration projects to test and demonstrate recovery techniques developed pursuant to subsection (a).
"(c) The authority contained in section 204 for the purpose of carrying out research and demonstration projects shall be applicable to the provisions of this section"
Sec. 5. Section 207 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as redesignated by the previous section of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
"GRANTS FOR STATE, INTERSTATE, AND LOCAL PLANNING
"Sec. 207. (a) The Secretary may from time to time, upon such terms and conditions consistent with this section as he finds appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act, make grants to State, interstate, municipal, and intermunicipal agencies, and organizations composed of public officials which are eligible for assistance under section 701 (g) of the Housing Act of 1954, of not to exceed 66⅔ per centum of the cost in the case of a single municipality, and not to exceed 75 per centum of the cost in the case of an area including more than one municipality, of (1) making surveys of solid waste disposal practices and problems within the jurisdictional areas of such agencies and (2) developing solid waste disposal plans as part of regional environmental protection systems for such areas, including planning for the reuse, as appropriate, of solid waste disposal areas and studies of the effect and relationship of solid waste disposal practices on areas adjacent to waste disposal sites, and not to exceed 50 per centum of the cost of overseeing the implementation, including enforcement, and modification of such plans.
"(b) Grants pursuant to this section shall be made upon application therefor which
"(1) designates or establishes a single agency as the sole agency for carrying out the purposes of this section for the area involved;
"(2) indicates the manner in which provision will be made to assure full consideration of all aspects of planning essential to areawide planning for proper and effective solid waste disposal consistent with the protection of the public health, including such factors as population growth, urban and metropolitan development, land use planning, water pollution control, air pollution control, and the feasibility of regional disposal programs;
"(3) sets forth plans for expenditure of such grant, which plans provide reasonable assurance of carrying out the purposes of this section;
"(4) provides for submission of a final report of the activities of the agency in carrying out the purposes of this section, and for the submission of such other reports, in such form and containing such information, as the Secretary may from time to time find necessary for carrying out the purposes of this section and for keeping such records and affording such access thereto as he may find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports; and
"(5) provides for such fiscal-control and fund-accounting procedures as may be necessary to assure proper disbursement of and accounting for funds paid to the agency under this section.
"(c) The Secretary shall make a grant under this section only if he finds that there is satisfactory assurance that the planning of solid waste disposal will be coordinated, so far as practicable, with, and not duplicative of, other related State, interstate, regional, and local planning activities, including those financed in part with funds pursuant to section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954."
Sec. 6. The Solid Waste Disposal Act is further amended by redesignating the last four sections in such Act as sections 211 through 214, respectively, and by inserting after section 207, as redesignated by this Act, the following new sections:
" GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
"Sec. 208. (a) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized to make grants pursuant to this section to any State, municipality, or interstate or intermunicipal agency for the construction of solid waste disposal and resource recovery facilities, including completion and Improvement of existing facilities.
"(b) Any such grant
"(1) shall be made for a project only if it is consistent with any State or interstate plan for solid waste disposal, is included in a comprehensive plan for the area involved which is satisfactory to the Secretary for the purposes of this Act, and is consistent with any standards developed pursuant to section 209;
"(2) (A) shall be made in amounts not exceeding 25 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost of the project as determined by the Secretary in the case of a project serving a single municipality and not exceeding 50 per centum of such cost in the case of a project serving an area including more than one municipality, and only if the applicant is unable to obtain such amounts from other sources upon terms and conditions equally favorable;
"(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the Secretary may increase the amount of a grant made under (A) by an additional 50 per centum of such grant for any project which utilizes new or improved techniques of demonstrated usefulness in reducing the environmental impact of solid waste disposal, recovery of resources, or recycling useful materials.
"(3) shall not be made until the applicant has made provision satisfactory to the Secretary for proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the project after completion;
"(4) shall not be made unless such project is consistent with the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Clean Air Act; and
"(5) may be made subject to such conditions and requirements, in addition to those provided in this section, as the Secretary may require to properly carry out his functions pursuant to this Act.
"(c) In determining the desirability of projects and of approving Federal financial aid in connection therewith, consideration shall be given by the Secretary to the public benefits to be derived by the construction and the propriety of Federal aid in such construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of the project to the public interest and to the public necessity for the project, and the use by the applicant of comprehensive regional or metropolitan area planning.
"(d) Not more than 15 per centum of the total of funds appropriated for the purposes of this section in any fiscal year shall be granted for projects in any one State. In the case of a grant for a program in an area crossing State boundaries, the Secretary shall determine the portion of such grant which is chargeable to the percentage limitation under this subsection for each State into which such area extends.
"RECOMMENDED STANDARDS
"Sec. 209. (a) The Secretary of Health. Education, and Welfare Shall, in cooperation with appropriate State, interstate, and regional and local agencies, within eighteen months following the date of enactment of this section, recommend to appropriate agencies standards for solid waste collection and disposal systems (including systems for private use) which are consistent with health, air, and water pollution standards and can be adapted to applicable land use plans.
"(b) Further, the Secretary shall, as soon as practicable, recommend model codes, ordinances, and statutes which are designed to implement this section and the purposes of this Act."
Sec. 6. (a) Subsection (a) of section 214 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking out "not to exceed $19,750,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970." and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "not to exceed $46,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, not to exceed $83,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, not to exceed $152,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, not to exceed $216,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and not to exceed $236,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974. The sums so appropriated shall remain available until expended."
(b) Subsection (b) of such section 214 is amended by striking out "not to exceed $12,250,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970." and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "not to exceed $15.000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, not to exceed $17.500.000 for the fiscal year ending June 30. 1971, not to exceed $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, not to exceed $22,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and not to exceed $25.000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974."
Sec. 7. The amendments made by this Act shall be effective for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1969.
The material, presented by Mr. MUSKIE, follows:
RESOURCE RECOVERY ACT OF 1969
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS
1. Definition.
2. Addition to existing research provision to emphasize development of new methods to reduce, re-use and recycle wastes.
3. Authorization of special study of (a) economical means resource recovery, (b) incentives to assist in solving solid waste problems, (c) changes in production and packaging techniques to reduce unused byproducts of consumption, (d) methods of containerization and collection of wastes to facilitate disposal.
4. Authorizes grants and contracts to test and demonstrate methods developed pursuant to the special study.
5. Expands existing planning grant authority to provide grants for implementation, including enforcement, and modification of solid waste disposal plans.
6. Authorizes grants for construction of local and regional solid waste disposal and resource recovery facilities; authorizes 25% grants for single community facilities and 50% grants for regional programs with 50% increase in the amount of any construction grants for application of new or improved technology.
7. Authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to recommend standards for solid waste disposal and collection systems and to develop model codes, ordinances and statutes for effective implementation of solid waste disposal programs.
8. Authorizes $733 million for b years to carry out Department of Health, Education, and Welfare activities under the Act and authorizes $100 million to carry out Department of Interior activities.
STATEMENT OF AUSTIN C. DALEY, CHIEF OF THE DIVISION ON AIR POLLUTION CONTROL, RHODE ISLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BEFORE HEARING OF U.S. SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION, UNDER CHAIRMANSHIP OF SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE, AT BOSTON CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER, APRIL 10, 1969
My name is Austin C. Daley. I am the Chief of the Division of Air Pollution Control of the State of Rhode Island. Prior to my present position for seven years I was Director of the Air Pollution Control Department of the City of Providence, Rhode Island. I am a registered professional engineer in Rhode Island and a Diplomate in the American Academy of Environmental Engineers. I have been a member of the Air Pollution Control Association for 20 years.
First, I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Muskie and the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution for the honor of receiving an invitation to testify here today.
The problems in solid waste disposal in Rhode Island are basically no different from any other Atlantic coastal state. They are growing rapidly and will soon reach nightmare proportions. At present the two most satisfactory methods of disposing of this waste are by means of the sanitary landfill and by the reduction of combustible waste by incineration. Unfortunately, there are very few municipal incinerators in this country that do not cause air pollution, and the residue from these incinerators also has to be deposited in a landfill. Lack of space, particularly in congested urban areas, makes it apparent that the landfill is not a long range solution, and science will have to come up with a breakthrough in research as to a satisfactory method of disposal. Since private industry has not been successful in devising solutions, greater support for this research must be given to the Solid Wastes Program of the United States Public Health Service and to the universities which are working on solid waste disposal projects. It is imperative that we come up with answers before our urban society chokes in its own solid waste.
In our efforts to cope with this problem it is important that we recognize two basic facts: first, we can neither create nor destroy matter and, second, we are a nation of users, not consumers.
However, while waiting hopefully for the needed breakthrough in solid waste disposal, whether it be in recycling and re-use of material or a more efficient reduction process, we must meanwhile make a greater effort to improve conditions with the means we have at hand. One of the most serious solid waste disposal problems is created by the nation's largest industry, i.e. junked car bodies. Millions of them are being left on our streets and open spaces annually.
On October 9, 1968 the Rhode Island Division of Air Pollution Control sponsored a conference on the disposal of junked car bodies which was well attended by scrap metal dealers, including out-of-state people, a representative from the Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel in Washington and many state and federal health officials. We were told that this was the first conference of such scope ever held in this country. We offered several plans for cooperation among the scrap metal dealers. These schemes included a big nuisance-free incinerator financed on a cooperative venture by members of the industry. Such cooperative arrangements have been worked successfully by dairy farmers and fishing fleets for years. To our disappointment very little enthusiasm was manifested by those in attendance. Today many still continue to strip car bodies and dispose of components by clandestine open fires, usually burning after dark. For obvious reasons this arrangement is bad, particularly when it is realized that the junked car dealers, in picking up these abandoned cars, are performing a useful solid waste disposal function.
The automobile industry should be induced and encouraged to work out with the scrap metal dealers a coordinated, efficient and inoffensive system of processing these junked cars for steel reclamation. Similar steps should be taken to encourage the manufacturers of glass and plastic bottles and containers and aluminum cans to assist in devising means in the proper disposal of the solid waste they create. We are confident that this committee has heard these views expressed before, but we in Rhode Island want to add our voice to those in other states as to the urgency of the solid waste problem confronting this country.
Those of us engaged in fighting air and water pollution and tackling solid waste problems have found that our activities overlap, and we are in fact members of a team battling for environmental survival. Because of the interstate travel of pollution, the role of the federal government in combating it has, of necessity, been increased, and we in Rhode Island appreciate both the financial and professional assistance we have received from federal agencies. However, we would like to point out, particularly in two great undertaking, of the federal government, some activities creating serious solid waste problems that are not being handled properly.
The Department of Transportation pays for 90 percent of the interstate highway program costs, and this road construction frequently entails the removal of miles of trees and brush and hundreds of buildings in the path of a new highway. In Rhode Island the contractors clear this brush by burning it. Since they claim the brush is green, even in winter, they always lace it with old auto tires to sustain combustion. The resulting heavy pollution is visible for miles.
We have repeatedly protested against this pollution but our state law does not give us authority over this type of open burning. It is under the authority of the municipality where it takes place and, although nearby residents often complain, no city or town has ever made a move to stop it.
We have suggested that a logging and wood chipping program be inaugurated. These chippers can handle logs up to eight inches in diameter and wood chips make excellent mulch. So far our suggestions have been fruitless and it is particularly frustrating, after the pavement is poured, to witness the arrival of truckloads of expensive wood chip mulch to be spread on the banks for highway beautification. We believe that to chip the brush and store it at the site would not only eliminate air pollution, but would result in considerable savings. We also object to the open burning of buildings that have to be removed from the path of the highways, but we will offer our proposed solution for this problem in our discussion of urban renewal demolition.
Virtually all of Rhode Island's 39 municipalities have present or future plans to participate in urban renewal programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development grants, which provide from two-thirds to three-quarters of total project cost. This will necessitate the razing of approximately 1,900 buildings in the next five years in our little state. Sometimes these buildings are burned on the site. Our colleagues in the Massachusetts Air Use Management Division can tell you about the evils of this practice. A few years ago scores of buildings were
burned down for urban renewal clearance at this very spot where we are meeting today. The Boston urban renewal people were interested solely in creating this present attractive downtown complex. Vast quantities of poisons and dust entering the atmosphere were of no concern to them. This same attitude is frequently displayed by the people building our interstate highways.
Since these two activities, interstate highway construction and urban renewal, are so heavily financed by federal agencies, we feel that the Department of Transportation and HUD have a responsibility to make arrangements for decent waste disposal as part of their projects when they are in the planning stages. In a broad sense, these two government agencies are engaged in manufacturing and all manufacturing processes generate waste. We cannot ask the Rhode Island city of Central Falls, with 19,000 people in its 1.27 square mile area, to find room to dispose of the rubble and timber from a cluster of buildings demolished in the path of a highway or urban renewal. The same situation holds true for most of our congested cities.
We feel that when all the interstate highway programs and urban renewal projects are on the drawing boards, a Solid Waste Program expert from the U.S. Public Health Service should be included as an integral member of the planning team, and he should Stay with each project until its completion. His duties would be to plan for the proper removal and disposal of all solid waste.
In the highway projects he would arrange for the logging and chipping of brush and the carting of rubble and timber from demolished buildings to a proper disposal site. The disposal of demolition debris would be coordinated with urban renewal waste disposal.
For demolition debris disposal the solid waste disposal engineer would select sites for a defined region which could conceivably cover an area as large as Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts. All demolition debris would be trucked in suitable vehicles without spillage to the disposal site where adequate personnel and equipment would work the landfill. If the disposal sites have sufficient area, municipalities could deposit other solid wastes there on a fee basis.
This would cost money but comparatively little when computed as a proportionate cost of the entire project. And air pollution is costing us more than money today. It is a sad commentary on our affluent society when we permit these vast, polluting open fires to vitiate our atmosphere because of economics. Solid waste disposal is a vital function in any urbanized community, and it should not be neglected because it costs money. Soap, hot water, towels, toothpaste and brushes cost money but, because of this, should we discard personal hygiene? Since the activities of federal agencies create some of our biggest solid waste problems, these departments should set the pace in decent solid waste disposal. By doing so, they would be offering a splendid example for our states and municipalities to follow. The U.S. Public Health Service Solid Waste Program has the experts to provide the know-how as planning team members for all future highway and urban renewal projects. Let us put these people to work immediately.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROBLEM
(Remarks by Hon. John F. Collins, visiting professor of urban affairs, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works. U.S. Senate, Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, chairman, Boston, Mass., April 10, 1969.)
INTRODUCTION
The solid waste problem is becoming increasingly severe in our major metropolitan areas. The efficient management of solid wastes is important not only because of its high cost, but also because of its significant impact on other crucial problems of the urban environment. These other problems include the deteriorating quality of the visual environment in our central cities, the potential pollution of our air, water and land resources; the need for gainful employment and business opportunities for disadvantaged groups; the scarcity of land in urban areas; and the severely limited amount of municipal human and capital resources. Solid waste management must pay attention to these important urban problems if we are to avoid exacerbating the urban crisis still further.
The problem of solid waste management in urban areas is very much like other problems of urban environmental management: our advanced technology and growing enocomy have created ever greater volumes of wastes and ever greater problems of proper waste disposal, but at the same time our technology and managerial skills also offer the hope of solving these problems, if only we have the skill and the wisdom to utilize them properly.
One of the most neglected paths to solving our problems is more efficient management of exsiting technology. Too often, we have falsely laid our hopes on technological solutions to what are essentially managerial problems. As is the case in other urban problem areas, our institutions are not designed to enable our technical and managerial resources to serve us properly. The boundaries of the solid waste problem unfortunately do not coincide with the boundaries of our political jurisdictions.
Improved management, regional cooperation in solid wastes handling, and several new collection and disposal technologies offer the opportunity of cost savings on the order of twenty-five percent or more. In urban areas, municipal expenditures for solid waste collection and disposal are exceeded only by outlays for education and roads. We desperately need all of the scarce resources which we can free from an essentially non-productive activity such as waste management. We need also to begin to modify our generation of wastes so that we can more efficiently recycle and reuse our waste products, as part of a national policy of resource conservation.
Finally, we must pay particular attention to the effects of poor waste management on the quality of our urban environment. We are all well aware of the visual and aesthetic blight caused by improper and careless waste disposal methods. More subtle environmental interactions are the air pollution from incinerators and open dumps; the virtually unknown effects on marine ecology of ocean disposal of wastes, both solids and liquid; stream and river pollution caused by drainage from poorly designed and maintained landfills and dumps, and by agricultural runoff; and pollution of the groundwater, caused by leaching and infiltration of noxious substances from landfills and sumps. Clearly, if solid wastes are not properly treated and disposed of, they may undermine all of our other efforts to improve environmental quality.
THE URBAN SYSTEM AND THE SOLID WASTE PROBLEM
In examining the solid waste problem in metropolitan areas, we are dealing with a large and complex system permeated by subtle and far-reaching interactions between wastes, their management, other urban activities, and the natural and man-made environment. The methodology of systems analysis is particularly applicable to these types of problems and is used in this paper to provide an overview of urban solid waste management.
To make the analysis, we must consider, first, both the urban and the solid waste systems and their important interactions. We must then define the objectives of solid waste handling and disposal. With these in mind, available solutions can be examined and evaluated against the objectives, and the operable constraints on using particular solutions can be used to reduce the range of alternative solutions. More detailed studies can then pinpoint both the optimal waste management solution in a given urban area and the benefits to be derived from changes in the constraints.
Finally, problems of implementation of appropriate solutions must be considered, and an appropriate role for the apparatus of government and for public policy must be defined.
THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
Man's economic activities provide a wide variety of goods and services and an almost equally large assortment of residues, in the form of solid, liquid and gaseous substances as well as heat and noise. In looking at the solid waste problem, we should remember that these residues can be transformed into one another by various processes, so that "solid" wastes may appear in liquid form, as in the case of sewage solids, and they may be transformed into other gaseous, solid, liquid, heat or noise residues. Thus, we must initially consider the entire spectrum of wastes in looking at the solid waste problem.
Today's urban solid waste problem is directly a function of our ever-increasing population, of continued high densities and crowding in metropolitan areas, and of the crazy pattern of urban and suburban sprawl which characterizes the American metropolis. The problem has been exacerbated by our affluence, resulting in a steadily increasing per capita use and production of waste materials, and by the "packaging revolution" to which this affluence has given rise and which it openly fosters and promotes. The packaging revolution and our increasingly complex industrial processes produce a variety of exotic substances which natural processes are scarcely designed to degrade and assimilate. In thinking about solid wastes in the urban environment, we would do well to remember that, sooner or later, everything that goes into a metropolitan area will either be degraded, reclaimed or appear again as a waste product or residue.
The magnitude of municipal wastes has been estimated at five pounds per person per day, or a billion pounds a day for the United States! Not included in this total are the solid wastes in our liquid and gaseous effluents, which amount to roughly three pounds daily per capita. Thus, municipal wastes total almost 200 million tons annually. To this total must be added the unknown hundreds of millions of tons of industrial wastes produced annually and the approximately 700 million tons of agricultural wastes generated yearly. Thus, we produce something over a billion tons of waste materials every year -- it is a tribute to the assimilative capacity of the environment that our solid waste disposal problems are not much worse!
The nature of solid wastes is extremely varied. Municipal wastes consist basically of rubbish and garbage, and occasional household bulk wastes thrown in. Municipal wastes also include construction and demolition wastes which are often very difficult to dispose of. Industiral production wastes constitute an extremely heavy burden on the assimilative capacity of the environment, especially such dangerous substances as nuclear wastes. At the present, they are normally disposed of privately or on-site, so that they are as yet not a heavy burden on municipal facilities. Nonetheless, they must be considered in any solid waste disposal analysis because they must be disposed of by someone. Agricultural wastes consist largely of feces and soiled straw and constitute an extremely heavy potential pollution load and are also a disease potential. As agricultural production comes more and more to resemble industrial processes, the solid wastes will become more concentrated and we will not be able to ignore them as cavalierly as we have to date. In addition, the cemetery functions occupy more space per unit weight than any subject yet discussed. Many of our major cities will run out of currently allocated cemetery space in the next decade or two, and we must certainly begin to come to grips with this problem.
We must begin to evaluate the effects of the pattern of urban activities on present and future waste loads. We need to improve our forecasting powers, so that future waste handling and disposal will be done as efficiently as possible. Wastes are increasing in volume at the rate of 4% annually; half of this is caused by population growth and half is attributable to the growth in per capita consumption which leads to waste products. We should remember the principle that steady economic growth produces an ever increasing annual volume of wastes. To forecast future waste loads we need to know more about waste generation. We will also need to engage in technological forecasting. which will have to be used in conjunction with the notion of regional mass or materials balances, in order to forecast accurately the future temporal and spatial pattern of waste generation.
THE SOLID WASTE SYSTEM
In order to adequately understand and properly deal with the problems of solid wastes handling and disposal, it is important that we have an accurate picture of the entire solid waste system. The solid waste system begins with the input of energy and materials into the urban environment, which then metabolizes them and outputs them into the waste generation part of the system. The wastes are then collected by a fleet of vehicles, usually no more complicated than a compaction device in a closed truck, and transported to an intermediate or final processing and disposal site.
The waste may be modified in the interim by volume reduction, as in incineration, or by a change of form, as when solid wastes are piped as a slurry. Storage may be provided at the site of generation or disposal, or at intermediate transfer stations. It should be noted that wastes may be recycled at any point in the system. Recycling usually consists of separation, processing, recovery and reuse, although this routine may be circumvented, as when agricultural wastes are returned directly to the land.
Our techniques for solid waste collection and disposal have not changed much in this century.
Even though we are currently investigating a wide variety of new technologies, we still rely on hand pick-up and truck transport in the collection system. In disposal, we sometimes barge solid wastes to sea or salvage them, but for the most part we still rely on the venerable technologies of incineration and landfilling. Incineration accomplishes volume reduction and land disposal consists basically of putting back into the ground what we originally took out of it. After disposal, there is relatively little volume reduction over time for any but the most biodegradable wastes. It should be noted that the assimilative capacity of the land is much more manipulable than that of the water or air environments and therefore we can be more creative in our use of that capacity.
THE SOLID WASTE PROBLEM IN THE URBAN PERSPECTIVE
In the urban setting, the solid waste problem has basically three aspects: its impact on environmental quality, the large costs expended and scarce resources utilized, and the interactions with other important urban problems.
The lists of environmental quality effects includes pollution of the air, water and land resources and from the noise and heat residues. It should be noted that pollution should be distinguished from environmental impacts, since the former is defined into existence by the politically expressed preferences of the people, while the latter is intrinsic to the natural setting. Here the terms are used somewhat loosely and interchangeably. Air pollution may result from particles, gases and odors emanating from improperly maintained incinerators, uncollected solid wastes, and burning trash dumps. Water pollution can result from surface and subsurface drainage from waste piles and from improper disposal of agricultural and industrial wastes. Noise pollution may arise from collection vehicles and waste processing equipment. Incineration of wastes adds heat to the environment. These last two effects are extremely localized in extent. Finally, there is the visual and aesthetic pollution caused by uncollected trash and debris, rusting auto bodies, and the like.
The costs of solid waste disposal are large and on the increase. Municipal waste disposal currently costs about $3.5 billion annually, or about $17.50 per capita per year. This figure amounts to $70 per year for a household of four persons. Looked at another way, about ten cents out of every municipal tax dollar goes to solid waste collection and disposal, making it the third largest municipal expenditure, behind education and highway construction. This fact alone justifies our concern with the topic. Some people have estimated that New York City could reduce its annual solid waste collection and disposal bill of $140 million by 50% if the private capacity were available and willing; these cost savings could be used to supply $500 worth of extra education to 140,000 disadvantaged children, or free school lunches to about 500,000 children. Clearly, we should do our utmost to eliminate any unnecessary solid waste disposal costs, through the adoption of cost-reducing new technologies and modern management methods.
We should also be aware that 75%-85% of the total costs of disposal occur during the collection and transportation of wastes to the disposal site, and that most of these costs are labor costs.
Basically, our concern here is that large amounts of scarce municipal resources are employed in what is essentially a non-productive activity.
One of the major impacts of the solid waste problem is on the other urban problem areas mentioned in the introduction. One of the most important impacts is on the environmental quality of inner-city living. There is an intense need for sanitation services in the central city, even outside the neighborhoods usually thought of as slums or ghettos. There are a number of reasons for this need. Waste loads are more dense, because the population density is higher. Garbage grinders and other forms of disposal are almost non-existent in older buildings, and thus garbage is a major inner-city problem. Older buildings often lack refuse storage facilities and are consequently overloaded. This implies that a higher frequency of collection in the inner city (than elsewhere in the city) is desirable. Further, the necessity of taking garbage and refuse cans out to curbside and of leaving them there opens the way to excessive spillage, as well as creating the ugliness of row upon row of trash cans, sitting in the street for days. Another inner-city solid waste problem is the heavy load of bulk wastes from a large number of abandoned cars, from demolition activities, and from the high relocation rates of core city residents and businesses.
Also, excessive traffic congestion blocks efficient street sanitation and garbage and trash collection. Uncollected wastes serve as a breeding ground for rodents and vermin, such as rats and flies, who are noted primarily for their nuisance value (largely biting) rather than for disease transmission or death. Finally, it is important to remember that the inner-city population makes use of the streets for outdoor living and for recreation, especially during the summertime, with the result that cleanliness (in the form of absence of solid wastes) is doubly important, because of its high visibility and because of the heightened sensitivity of the residents to garbage and refuse.
Another important urban interaction is with employment and business opportunities. Although minority group members no longer want to be regarded as garbage collectors, they remain drawn to the job by the relatively high pay and opportunities for the unskilled to gain training and gainful employment.
Perhaps we should create the concept of a "public works competence," so that the trash collector may be employed in other public works areas, such as sewage treatment plant operation, road building and maintenance, equipment repair and maintenance, and other similar activities. In some places, individual entrepreneurship (such as one-man businesses) is being fostered, where trash collectors are assigned routes, own their own trucks, and essentially hire themselves out to a disposal company on a commission basis. This arrangement leads to salaries in excess of $12,000 for good routes in the Boston area, for example; is highly motivating; and may lead to reduced overall costs of disposal. The increased recovery and reuse of solid wastes would open the doors to new business and jobs in salvage activities. We should recognize, however, that new technologies and more efficient management may reduce the number of jobs available to unskilled and semi-skilled workers and, in this context, the idea of training them for other public works jobs makes eminent good sense, especially given the shortage of trained workers in other public works areas.
Another municipal problem is the scarcity of land in the major metropolitan areas in this country.
Although land reclamation from solid waste disposal by sanitary landfills is an accomplished fact, such reclaimable land may not be available in urban areas, and, therefore, land disposal may use up extremely valuable land, thus making the real social costs of solid waste disposal much higher than the actual dollar costs. Further, improperly maintained disposal sites may depress surrounding property values. This land scarcity also means that the central city should actively pursue cooperative disposal activities with surrounding, suburban communities. Such cooperation, given the economies of scale existing in transportation and disposal, might easily result in lower total costs to all parties concerned. (Another problem of land use is the vast area required for cemeteries, roughly twenty-five square feet per person, or about one acre for every 1600 bodies. Most of our available cemetery space will be gone in a very few years and we can only guess at the clamor which will be raised unless we make more efficient use of our existing cemetery capacity.) We should be careful further to evaluate the efficacy of long-distance transport and disposal of wastes to such places as abandoned strip mines. There is substantial potential for groundwater pollution from such activities. This type of pollution potential is one which was not carefully enough evaluated prior to the inception of the City of Philadelphia-Penn Central Railroad rail-haul disposal program.
The solid waste problem also demands regional action, and an adequate solution to solid waste problems is hampered by the same jurisdictional and institutional problems which inhibit the efficient solution of other urban environmental management problems. Regional cooperation and planning can help to encompass all of the external effects which make solid waste disposal in metropolitan areas so difficult. Finally, there is a pressing need for the introduction and application of new technology and modern management techniques to relieve some of the burden of solid waste disposal from the increasingly empty municipal pocketbook.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Similarity to other environmental management problems
One of the first things which should be realized is that solid waste management exhibits more similarities to other environmental waste management problems, such as air and water resources management, than it does differences. The waste materials are basically the same; only the receiving environment and possibly the state of the material are different. This implies that the set of management and policy tools and objectives which have been developed for, and applied to, air and water pollution control, can be modified to fit the needs of solid waste management. It also implies that our objectives will be just as hard to quantify and to apply consistently as in the other two cases mentioned. Finally, we find that improved managerial efficiency is much more the needed panacea than new technology, but that there are also a few very promising technological innovations on the horizon, which will substantially improve the efficiency of our managerial institutions.
The dimensions of solid waste management
The basic concerns of solid waste management are with the residuals from urban production processes, their efficient processing, and their harmless or even beneficial return to the environment. The range of management activities necessary to accomplish. these concerns should be understood to include research and data collection; planning and systems analysis; financing; the design and construction of facilities; operation of collection, treatment and disposal systems and attendant facilities; the establishment and enforcement of quality standards to be maintained in operating the system; the regulation and monitoring of operation and management activities; the development of economic incentive systems, including assessing waste effluent fees and charges, and providing direct subsidies; and the development of appropriate procedures, regulations and legislation.
The objectives of management
In examining the proper objectives of solid wastes management, we must consider that we are trying either to maximize net social benefits from this activity, or to minimize the costs of disposal (including re-use) subject to appropriate constraints on environmental quality. We need also to consider the relationship between planning and the nature of management objectives.
If we desire to maximize the net social benefits from the residuals cycle, we are faced with several problems. The concept of social benefits is not a very operable one; for example, how do we measure the impact of inefficient solid wastes management on the other urban problem areas discussed above? Further, we would need to quantify a number of subtle and intangible benefits, which may not be possible. We can do somewhat better in quantifying costs, especially when comparing collection and disposal alternatives and in looking at the economics of separation and re-use. Also, we would need to include the generation of wastes in the management system to capture the external effects of generation. Finally, the benefit maximization must be made subject to the constraints of available technology, and these technologic production functions may be hard to write.
Perhaps the only reasonably operable objective is to minimize the costs of maintaining a given level of environmental quality, while still handling the total amount of wastes generated and subject to the limitations of available technology and our institutions. This implies that we need to clearly specify the relevant constraints and that we will have to develop standards and criteria to define the quality objectives. Further, we need to consider all of the costs, including the impact of solid waste management on the other areas of the urban environment mentioned earlier. Also, we can use the constraints to estimate the benefits which they ascribe to environmental quality objectives, since the cost of increasing an operable constraint by one unit is equivalent to the marginal benefit of that quality objective, if we are trying to develop optimal policies. We can then examine the benefits ascribable to the various quality objectives and revise the set of constraints accordingly. Using the concept of minimizing the cost of solid waste handling and disposal, we can then develop sets of policies and procedures to allow us to approximate this goal.
Finally, we should be clear about the interplay between solid waste planning and the nature of our objectives. It should be recognized basically that planning is a creative process, and that planning for environmental management defines many of the objectives of management during the planning process itself. That this is indeed the case is clearly seen when we consider that the public's preferences for environmental quality objectives is rather ill-defined and subject often to a large degree of manipulation. Hence, planners must often guess the public's reaction to explicit or implicit environmental quality objectives during the planning process and this makes further complicated the task of producing good solutions.
AVAILABLE SOLUTIONS
There are basically two ways to effectively manage solid wastes. The first is to attack the problem at its source, by reducing the generation of solid wastes and changing their nature and composition. The other method is to vastly increase the efficiency of application of current technology and managerial techniques. Within the binding realms of political and economic feasibility, a major assault on the current structure of solid waste production may not be possible, and it may be more prudent to devote our efforts substantially to improving the efficiency of the existing solid waste management system.
Reduce waste generation
Reducing waste generation basically would consist of decreasing the amount of waste created and increasing the reuse and recycling of items we presently discard. It should be noted that unless re-use occurs before collection and transportation is done, we will be unable to substantially reduce the costs of solid waste management, since it will be recalled that 75%-85% of total disposal costs are attributable to these preliminary activities.
Clearly, the social, political and economic costs of significantly modifying our existing waste generation system would be enormous. Instead of prohibiting the manufacture of hard-to-dispose -of aluminum cans, for example, we might concentrate our efforts on developing aluminum degrading bacteria.
Many exotic plastics could probably be modified to be biodegradable, as was done with detergents. One thing is clear, however: at the present time, most producers have no economic incentive to consider problems of disposal in designing their products and packages. The development of such incentives or of standards for degradability is a prerequisite to any comprehensive attack on the waste generation problem. In considering incentives, we would do well to avoid depending heavily on the consumer, since his cost saving likely would be rather small and, in this affluent society perhaps not worth the effort. Incentive systems will have to combat this familiar tendency for the benefits of environmental management to be small to the individual (although large to the total community) and the costs to be concentrated on a single producer or industry. It might be possible, however, to levy a charge on the consumer proportional to the amount of waste produced (an effluent charge of a sort) and thus indirectly provide incentives to producers to make packaging more re-usable.
It is evident that we must begin to restructure our private and industrial incentive system, one which seems, rather perversely, to place a premium on generating large quantities of solid wastes and ones which are difficult to easily collect and dispose of. We should investigate the same types of industrial and private incentives which have been considered in the fight against water pollution, particularly incentives to waste-reducing, beneficial process change by producers.
Incentives to scrap utilization should be extensively investigated since this may be a great deal cheaper in the long run than improving the technology and management of solid waste collection, handling and disposal.
As a first step in reducing the generation of wastes, we will need to carefully examine the factors influencing the production of solid wastes. We will need especially to monitor, not the aggregate amount of solid waste appearing at the town dump, for example, but the generation of residues by individual sources, over a period of time.
Finally, we will need to prepare for extensive recovery and re-use of wastes, if waste generation is to be substantially reduced. It should be noted that we can't hide the overall problem by putting residues into the waste water system, for example. Garbage grinders eventually transform the waste solids into sewage sludge, which should be considered a solid waste, and which is extremely expensive and difficult to dispose of. An example of this mentality, which tries to solve the problem by shifting the burden to another form of waste management, is a federally sponsored project to create a glass container which will dissolve in water upon being broken; this would eliminate the solid waste problem of glass bottle disposal, but it will not eliminate the solids in the glass, and these will appear as waste products in another part of the environment. It may be either beneficial or harmful to shift our residues from one part of the environment to the other, but common sense dictates that we make a careful study of the benefits and costs of so doing.
In examining problems of re-use, we must be conscious of the fact that separation is intimately tied to re-use and that economical re-use must precede any real attempts at separation. We should further be conscious of the fact that separation normally requires large on-site storage space, a commodity in short supply in our inner cities. Re-use should be looked at as providing factor inputs to industrial production processes. This indicates that we must be cognizant of re-use from the very beginning of the production process because the characteristics of the original product often clearly determine the extent to which recycling is possible and the degree of reprocessing necessary to make reuse possible. One way out of the separation problem is to concentrate efforts on separation of the aggregate waste material, after volume reduction, for example, to eliminate the costs and inefficiencies of expensive hand-sorting of refuse.
Clearly, if we fail to pay attention to reducing waste generation, we will be forced to rely solely on increasing the efficiency of managerial and technological solutions to the solid waste management problem. We will fall increasingly behind our massive generation of wastes, cost reductions will likely be only temporary. and environmental quality will be unable to rise above its current low levels.
Increase waste management efficiency
Current solid waste management is incredibly inefficient. Opportunities for large cost savings lie in the rationalization of existing collection and disposal systems. The role of systems analysis and the mathematical optimization techniques of operations research in the optimal design of these systems has barely begun to be explored. There is also an important role in managerial efficiency for new technologies, which cut down on high labor costs and which increase production efficiency tremendously. One of the most promising of these is a new and improved compaction and shedding refuse collection truck, about to be demonstrated in New York City, which offers excellent possibilities for substantial cost reduction in solid waste management systems since it can handle almost all of the municipal bulk refuse which now requires expensive special pick-up. There are a number of outstanding foreign technologies which await introduction into this country. If we are really interested in increasing the efficiency of solid waste disposal, we should not discriminate against these technologies on the sole basis of foreign origin. Finally, there is a pressing need for more research on the collection and transportation of solid wastes, on new disposal techniques and technologies, and on the environmental effects, both short-term and long-term, of our current disposal methods.
CONSTRAINTS
In considering the solid waste management problem, it is extremely important that we clearly understand the nature and scope of the constraints on our ability to efficiently manage our solid wastes. Constraints help to define and limit the range of acceptable solutions to a given problem, they limit the maximum obtainable efficiency of the system, and they indicate the necessary directions that changes for the better must take. Changing the constraints on the operation of municipal public services is the only way to achieve breakthroughs to optimal longrun solutions.
We should recognize especially that solid wastes and other residues result from a complex system of social and economic processes, and that the operation of these processes itself constrains our ability to deal adequately with the waste management problem.
Constraints may be thought of as falling into four basic categories: jurisdictional and legal: economic and financial; social and cultural; physical and technological. The definitions are fairly obvious. Jurisdictional and legal constraints form part of the old problem that the efficient problem-solving dimensions do not correspond to the boundaries imposed by the institutional system. There are large economies of scale possible in the operation of regional solid waste disposal systems and we must extend our efforts to promote regional cooperation, since this kind of institutional constraint is one we can modify with federal policy. Another reason for regional wastes management is the need to bring adequately under the management system the external effects of solid waste disposal, so that these will be adequately accounted for in future planning efforts.
Economic constraints include our current system of industrial incentives, which hinders rather than promotes our attempts to attack the generation of solid wastes. We must realize that, for reasons beneficial to other aspects of our modified free-enterprise economy, industry is basically in an adversary position vis-a-vis the solid waste problem and we should structure our incentive systems accordingly.
Another major constraint is the financial dilemma of most of our urban areas, which inhibits major capital investments in new waste management technologies and processes, and favors paying initially lower operating expenses for existing inefficient equipment and products, even though this may be a more expensive longrun solution.
One of the hardest constraints to deal with is that which may be termed social or cultural. As we have become more affluent, we have become more wasteful, and have demanded more and more to be relieved of the burden of salvage and re-use of materials. A typical soft-drink bottle used to make 25 trips between producer and consumer before being discarded. Probably no one here now bothers to return a bottle even once. We might think differently if the deposit was a dollar instead of three cents, but such an incentive might prove difficult indeed to establish. Basically, we are not a very future-oriented society, and it may be nearly impossible to change this attitude to one which would be willing to sacrifice a little convenience to help resolve a tremendous problem such as solid wastes. We will not get very far in our attack on this problem until we come to grips with the difficulties inherent in altering people's deep-seated consumption and disposal habits.
Finally, we must be aware of the physical and technological constraints on the solutions we propose. A fundamental physical constraint is conservation of matter: we can shove wastes all around our environment, manipulate them, decrease their volume, and change their state, but we cannot ultimately destroy most of our waste residues. The solid waste problem will not disappear through any technological miracles. Lastly, we must be aware more exactly of the technological constraints imposed by currently available processes. Here there is much room for improvement.
It is a surprising and distressing fact that most solid waste managers are not really aware of the range of technological opportunities available to them and are not really trained or motivated to keep up with our rapidly advancing technology. Perhaps a major effort in explaining the concepts, benefits and possibilities of modern technology and management would help to bridge this technical skills gap and would substantially increase the efficiency of existing systems.
CHOOSING AMONG ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
When we are finally ready to make a decision as to which technological and managerial alternatives we will favor for solid waste management, it is important that we consciously and conscientiously bring economics to bear on the analysis of alternative solutions. The need for careful economic analysis is evident from the large expenditures involved and from consideration of the impacts of solid waste management on the efficiency of other aspects of urban management. Economic analysis will aid us in achieving a high degree of efficiency in the allocation of our scarce urban human and capital resources. In this regard, the use of cost-benefit analysts is imperative in any comparison of the relative merits of alternative solutions. But we must be careful to recognize that there are many benefits and costs which cannot be quantified, and we must be aware of the consequent danger of ignoring them in benefit-cost calculations. We may find, for example, that two-shift refuse collection is an efficient procedure in cities, but it is clear that the dollar costs for trucks and labor in no way measure, for example, the social cost of the noise from the type of trucks presently used in cities. One way to get around the problem of non-quantifiable benefits and costs is to set standards and constraints to ensure that intangible values are adequately represented in the benefit-cost calculations.
Clearly, the range of economic considerations must include not only dollar costs, but also the external impact costs such as the effect of solid wastes management on urban land uses and land values, on problems of air pollution control and sewage sludge disposal, and on the quality of the environment in our inner cities. There are certainly large social costs associated with further exacerbating core-city tensions by maintaining environmental blight, and these costs must be kept in mind by our solid-waste managers.
Economic considerations, on the national level, must extend to questions of the economics of waste separation, processing, recycling and re-use; and the necessary economic incentives to industry to reduce the magnitude and nature of industrial and municipal solid wastes. These incentives might take the form of direct subsidies, effluent charges, tax incentives or direct regulations and standards. The establishment of efficient incentive schemes deserves careful study and consideration and early implementation. Finally, we must conduct our other urban management activities with a careful eye toward their impact on solid waste management. These considerations include sewage sludge disposal, street congestion, urban sprawl, land scarcity, the proliferation of governmental jurisdictions, urban renewal and the deterioration of the central city.
PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The need for regional cooperation in solid waste management, the requirement for more efficient management of the solid waste effort, the inadequate financial capability of many communities, and the development of an appropriate incentive structure for waste management present policy makers with a set of tasks which require legislation.
Because of the substantial economies of scale associated with regional waste management, because of the need for technologic know-how to develop materials more suitable for disposal and re-use, and because of the benefits derived from considering the solid wastes problem as a total system in terms of the production of materials, the collection of wastes and the effects of alternative disposal methods on the environment, new legislation at the federal level is required.
The federal government should explore the feasibility of incentive plans to encourage producers of packaging materials and wastes to deal with this problem at its source, if studies show this to be efficient.
In making recommendations for public policy at the national level, to increase the efficiency of solid-waste management in this country, we have basically two alternatives: we can focus our attack on the generation of wastes, that is, we can attack the problem at its source; or we can focus on the collection and disposal aspects of the problem; that is, we assume that the quality and the nature of the solid waste are given to us as fixed amounts and then it is up to us to dispose of them in the most efficient manner possible. If we attempt to attack the problem at its source, that is, if we focus on the generation of wastes, then one recommendation that immediately follows is that we need to know more about the factors influencing waste generation. We need to know this information to aid in our future planning efforts and to aid in developing incentives to industry to reduce the generation of waste. We also need to understand waste generation because of the importance of this understanding in the question of promoting re-use of waste. The initial product must be designed so that it can be removed from the waste cycle, reprocessed and reintroduced as a factor in the production process. Only if re-use is considered in the initial stages of production can we ever insure that we will get efficient and adequate recovery and recycling of our waste products.
If, on the other hand, we focus on the management of the great quantities of solid wastes, over which we assume we have no control, then we must be sure that we attack this problem at crucial junctures. In particular, we must be careful not to focus strictly on disposal of solid wastes, which only constitutes 20% to 25% of the total cost of the entire solid-waste management system, but rather we must instead focus special attention of collection systems. If the focus is on collection systems, then we will need to bring to bear on the problem all of our managerial and technical resources. In particular, we will need to use systems analysis and operations research in a much greater way than at present to rationalize the management of our solid wastes. Further, we will need to introduce cost-saving and efficiency-promoting new technology into our management efforts and into our efforts to re-use waste products. In particular, we must be careful to assure ourselves of an adequate supply of new technology, and in particular, we must be careful that we take full advantage of the opportunities afforded by major advances in other countries in various technological areas. We must make sure that we provide all of the necessary technical and financial assistance to local communities to take advantage of new technology and managerial methods. This is certainly a top-priority item for consideration at the federal level. Further, we must promote and encourage and extend our research and development efforts to encompass all promising new technologies and all available management methods. But we must be particularly careful to focus our research and development efforts on those aspects of the solid-waste system which promise the greatest reduction of cost and the greatest increase in efficiency. This is not being done consciously at present. One change which is drastically needed is to remove our focus from disposal methods and concentrate on understanding the factors influencing the generation of waste, and further focus major attention on improving the efficiency of existing collection and transportation systems. Finally, it should be federal policy to foster regional cooperation in solid waste management through granting of planning financial aid only to those organizations which represent groups of communities acting together for the common good. An evaluation component should also be inserted into federal grant programs to ensure this result.