|
|
|
History
|
|
You
may print one copy of this page for personal use. Please report any
other use to FORESTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., using the online form at
http://216.55.25.242/crv_report.html
|
|
A Brief History of Solid Waste Management in the US During the Last 50 Years Prt
2: Of Mosquitoes, Flies, Rats, Swine, and Smoke by H. Lanier Hickman, Jr. and Richard W. Eldredge
Those engaged in the management of solid wastes can attribute much of what integrated solid waste management is today to mosquitoes, flies, rats, swine, odor, and smoke. This is because:
These undesirable attributes offered the challenge to change to a better way to manage refuse. The end of this millennium's integrated solid waste management approach is a direct result of the changes started in the later 1940s. Mosquitoes, Flies, and Rats Poor sanitation results in the presence of mosquitoes, flies, and rats. Poor sanitation can be described as the presence of organic wastes and environments that mosquitoes, flies, and rats like, either as nourishment or harborage, sometimes both. Inevitably these refuse residents become carriers of human diseases and are called "vectors" of communicable diseases. Old tires at open-burning dumps will hold enough water to serve very well as mosquito swimming and mating pools. Of particular note is the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which has been documented as a carrier of yellow fever and dengue. The common housefly abounds in the urban and rural setting and is greatly attracted to garbage---where it eats and deposits its eggs. In seven days or less, a well-fed adult fly emerges---not to fly away but to become a mature, breeding adult. Flies can serve as vectors by carrying disease-causing organisms on their feet or in their feces. The exposed garbage in an open dump was a veritable Garden of Eden where fly families could eat, breed, and repeat the cycle. It has been said that the black rat or the common rat can swim at least 0.5 mi., tread water for three days, and carry up to 35 diseases (especially plague). The rat loves garbage, and the harborage provided by trash heaps and dumps serves as super rat condos. Consequently, if the rat is a host for communicable diseases, poor sanitation practices (dumps, inadequate storage, litter, and so on) certainly make the rats' job easier. Swine Swine used to be an important part of refuse management. Foodwaste or the garbage portion of the refuse was routinely recycled as feed for pigs up until the late 1960s. Often the pig was allowed to wander over and into the dumped refuse. In later years, foodwastes/garbage were collected separately and fed raw directly to pigs. Many historians tell us that we stopped feeding refuse to pigs because undercooked pork spread a disease to humans called trichinosis (an infestation of the intestines and muscles). While this is indeed the case, it was not because humans might become infected with trichinosis that the practice of feeding uncooked garbage to pigs was stopped. In the late 1950s it became apparent that raw garbage, or undercooked garbage that contained pork scraps, spread a disease among swine that was not known to affect humans. But this disease, vesicular exanthema (an eruptive disease in the veins of the pigs), was deadly to pigs and threatened to wipe out many piggeries. New laws/regulations were established, requiring that the garbage be cooked to combat vesicular exanthema. This process was distasteful, expensive, and sometimes ineffective. This early failed attempt at recycling ceased and is seldom considered today---thank heavens! Smoke The smoking dump is like the smoking gun: It is clear that a crime has been or is being committed. As with other crimes, the full impact on the local community is not clear. In the 1950s, many urban areas enjoyed close-in, open-burning dumps because they reduced the volume of refuse received at the dump and therefore extended the life of the site. But not everyone shared in the "enjoyment." The burning dumps' impact on local air quality was a primary reason that early efforts after World War II to address the problems of dumps were directed toward putting out the fires. Similarly, the smoking backyard incinerator or smoking 55-gal. trash barrel, which were very popular in the 1940s and '50s, were eventually also recognized as major contributors to air pollution in urban areas. Onsite open burning of commercial and industrial refuse was also practiced. In many areas, open burning of refuse stopped in the 1950s. The Sanitary Landfill The significance of putting out the fires had several major impacts on refuse management. The elimination of open-burning dumps while lessening air pollution also increased the opportunity for vector growth since the garbage was no longer cooked at the dump. Increased vector growth increased the threats to human health. The elimination of refuse burning in backyards, plants, and factories resulted in increases in the amount of refuse to be collected for disposal. Part one of this series discussed the fact that the 1940-1970 impetus for the national movement in solid waste management was based primarily on public health concerns. Since most of these problems were attributed to the "smoking gun" open-burning dumps of the nation, the US Public Health Service used its limited resources to try to find alternatives to the open-burning dump. Disposal options in the 1950s included incineration, composting, recycling and salvaging, and the sanitary landfill. Economics, flexibility, and broad geographical applicability made the sanitary disposal of refuse on the land the disposal option of choice. It was also clear that improved land disposal practices, in addition to removing the smoke, could eliminate mosquitoes, flies, rats, and any potential disease spread by feeding garbage to swine. It is not clear as to when burying refuse became an idea. Some say that the first written description of the sanitary landfill concept can be found in the Bible.1 Literature dating back to 1929 includes an article on garbage disposal by "sanitary fill."2 The early approaches included burial without compaction. But it was learned early on that covering refuse with soil or ash helped eliminate odors. Similar experimentation was being done in England and Germany. Compaction was eventually added to the process as a means of getting more refuse into less space. The actual history of each of these findings is lost in the mists of the past. Ralph Black attributes the coining of the term sanitary landfill to Jean Vincenz of Fresno, CA, sometime in the late 1930s or early '40s3 (see Note 1). The logic of this term is clear when one considers that what was being done was to fill land with refuse in a sanitary manner. The sanitary landfill of that time lacked definition and description. Issues such as compaction requirements, densities to be achieved, frequency and depth of cover placement, and limited access were not a part of the sanitary-landfill construction-procedure description. During WWII, the economic and technical feasibility of the sanitary landfill was much more clearly defined. The tremendous growth of new military bases, as the United States mobilized for war, made the methods for managing refuse an essential part of the war effort. Studies by the US Army determined that the sanitary landfill was adaptable to changing conditions and would accommodate varying quantities of refuse with little significant change in equipment need or operating procedures. The army also determined that the use of a heavy piece of equipment called a "bullclam" (a dozer with a moveable flap or blade that could form a bucket or basket to hold quantities of refuse or cover material as the dozer moved across the fill) would allow for the movement of refuse and compaction upon placement, and it also facilitated the movement, placement, and compaction of earth-cover material. The army also determined that for larger operations, draglines and scrapers could be used for cut and cover (see Note 2). Based on these army findings, the landfill became the refuse method of choice at military bases. The influence of military practices no doubt led to adoption by civilian refuse operations. By the end of 1945, almost 100 cities in the US were using sanitary landfills, and by 1960, some 1,400 cities were using sanitary landfills.4 Although an increasing number of sanitary landfills were reported in use, others reported that some were sanitary in name only. Some writers were convinced that some of the so-called sanitary landfills were nothing but "mechanized dumps."5 The significance of the cessation of open burning at dumps and backyards, as well as commercial and industrial open burning, cannot be overstated. The issue of stopping open burning at landfills was the first real national effort to change the management of refuse. The elimination of backyard burning and similar practices at industrial and commercial enterprises resulted in an enormous increase in the amount of refuse to collect and manage. Clearly, if the landfill was to be the means to manage what was collected and done so in a manner to protect public health, the sanitary landfill had to be defined, criteria or standards had to be developed, and practices had to embrace the definition and criteria/standards. Part 3 of this series will discuss how that was done. Notes 1. Jean Vincenz appears early in the history of changing refuse management practices. While commissioner of public works and city engineer for the City of Fresno, CA, he served on the American Public Works Association Committee on Refuse Collection and Disposal when it developed the 1941 Refuse Collection Practice publication. In Fresno, Vincenz experimented with the concepts of sanitary fill and cut and cover. Using draglines, his experimentation can be credited with the evolution of the trench method of landfilling. Vincenz subsequently became the director of public works for San Diego County, CA, and established the county's sanitary landfill program. He continued to experiment with improved methods of sanitary refuse disposal. His program in San Diego was viewed as visionary and adopted by other communities in California. 2. It is interesting to note that the US Army work presented the art of sanitary landfilling with several valuable contributions, including the recognition of the flexibility of a sanitary landfill, the application of equipment still in use in sanitary landfill construction today, and the use of the term cut and cover in landfilling. Notes
To read the other parts in this feature please click on the relevant links below:
MSW Erosion
Control Magazine | Grading and Excavation Contractor
Magazine |
|
|
|
