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 while they are in the planning stages.

Demolition Debris

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 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 demolished 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 United States 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.

That concludes my statement, Senator Muskie.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Daley, for your excellent statement. I suspect that Rhode Island, being relatively densely populated, finds it especially difficult to solve waste problems.

Mr. DALEY. Yes, we do, Senator. It is a very difficult problem and I am attempting now to get a statewide ban on open burning, but the

way the legislature drew the act, each one of the 39 cities and towns. in our tiny State have a right to draw up their own laws and we think we should supersede it if we are ever going to get something done, especially about the particulate matter which is spread by these open

fires.

INTERSTATE POLLUTION

Senator MUSKIE. It there much interstate pollution as between Rhode Island and Massachusetts?

Mr. DALEY. Yes, there is considerable. Our city of Pawtucket is contiguous with the Massachusetts border and we send some pollution over there. The State of Massachusetts is contiguous to our border and it sends pollution into Rhode Island. Fall River, Mass., has a scrap metal dealer right on the State line who burns junked car bodies and the pollution blows into our area.

We do have considerable trouble with open burning but feel that these two great agencies, the Department of Transportation and HUD), should set the pace by specifying before their great projects are started that all burning connected with them will be banned. Perhaps we could induce the municipalities and States particularly in the clustered East here to get into the act so to speak and to put a stop to this business.

For example, I am going home shortly and I will get into the rat race on the Southeast Expressway down to Route 128 and then pick up Route 95 and I understand you are honoring us to speak in Providence and if you look at the map, 95 is going to be extended out from here to Dedham, as indicated on the dotted lines. In order to put that in through the heart of Boston, they are going to have to take down many buildings. So, I feel before they start this work, a solid wasteman from the U.S. Public Health Service solid waste program should be on the team.

We are going to take down all these buildings. What will we do with the debris? It is not just going to disappear. This is why I am trying to say we can neither create nor destroy matter. We must dispose of the debris in a decent, civilized manner.

I would like to add some data on the burning of landscape refuse contained in the Gerstle and Kemnitz report. For every ton of landscape refuse burned 65 pounds of carbon monoxide are released into the atmosphere and 17 pounds of particulate matter, along with many other poisons and gases which are termed carcinogenic by the medical experts. Often, in brush burning, highway contractors lace the brush with tires, which are an auto component. The same report tells us that for every ton of auto components burned there are 125 pounds of carbon monoxide and 100 pounds of particulate matter released into the atmosphere. This is not a civilized method of waste disposal and we are discouraged at its practice. I feel that the Department of Transportation should step into the act and say, since we are footing 90 percent of the bills, we will allow a member from the solid waste team or the solid waste program of the Public Health Service to step in and organize the program right on the drawing board. These terms will be written in the specifications and a site will be found to get rid of the debris, even if we have to drive a few miles. Burning at the demolition site is clearly wrong, as was done when they cleared Scollay Square, where we are today. I am told by Dr. First and other members

of the Massachusetts Air Use Management staff, that as you can understand, the pollution was something fierce and visible for miles. and the amount of toxicity that was transmitted into the air from the activity was appalling.

Senator MUSKIE. Let alone the dirt.

Mr. DALEY. Yes, sir, dust and so forth.

ON-SITE BURNING

Senator MUSKIE. The soil in houses. Well, I understand that in Massachusetts and Rhode Island demolition debris is disposed of almost wholly by the hit or miss, onsite burning?

Mr. DALEY. We are trying to stop the onsite burning of this demolition debris. It is being carted out of the larger cities. We have a surprising rural area which is not yet built up, but it is not fair to burn out there either. I feel that proper solid waste disposal should be included as part and parcel of these big Government projects. Everything done by DOT and HUD for their projects in highways and urban renewal is done in a superb manner, except for waste disposal. These people, as I have said, are, in a broad sense, manufacturers. Ever since man made his first stone axe, the generated waste and manufacturing has always resulted in waste.

These people, manufacturing highways and new segments of cities, are producing waste. Planning teams for these multimillion dollar projects are loaded with great talent but I do believe that from now on the team should include a solid waste expert from the U.S. Public Health Service who will say we know we are going to create waste and what will we do about it? He will make sure that the project plans include a decent, civilized method for the disposal of the debris.

I might add that at the Taft Lab in Cincinnati, they have qualified men on the faculty and they have done a wonderful job on incineration. If we are going to get our first decent incinerator in this country, I think these dedicated and talented people of the Taft Lab will be instrumental in achieving it for us.

MUNICIPAL-PRIVATE INCINERATORS

Senator MUSKIE. Which are the greater producers of pollution, municipal incinerators or private incinerators in institutional buildings and apartment houses; and so on?

Mr. DALEY. Well, proportionately speaking, I think the apartment house incinerators are literally the stinkers, but the big municipal incinerators, many of recent design, are a terrible indictment of some of the biggest engineering houses in the country. Frequently engineers put a building jacket around poorly-designed furnace equipment with little or no dust collection facilities. Often this is to keep installation costs down. In fairness to most municipalities, very few city-employed engineers have had training in incinerator design and the community suffers. The people at Taft Lab are training engineers both for public service, such as myself, and for private industry on the whole problem of solid waste from pickup to furnace residue and stack effluence. Frequently our giant incinerators merely concentrate the waste by

For instance, the quench water very frequently comes through with bacteria in it and it is amazing how bacteria can survive those furnace temperatures and the whole science of burning and incineration is a difficult one. For example, if some engineers tonight wanted to start a new town somewhere in the Midwest, you could go to MIT and Harvard or Yale and get several books on water supply and sewage disposals, but you can't get a good one on municipal incineration. There is no good book written on it and one of the difficulties is that the nature of the composition of the fuel is changing constantly and the age of plastics has arrived, raising havoc with incinerator heat recovery. It is virtually fruitless attempting to capture waste heat from the incinerator, but I do feel that these people in the Taft Lab are doing magnificent work and I would respect fully recommend that you stop there some time in the course of your work with the committee and see what these people are doing.

I would like to take the liberty of mentioning one other factor. I appreciate the efforts that the men in your office are doing. As far as I am concerned, Don Nicoll and Leon Billings here have done more work to help us in the country than any other staff down there. Of course, many other staffs are working on other projects.

Senator MUSKIE. I don't know whether it is a good idea to make that a matter of public record. [Laughter.]

HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS

Mr. DALEY. The hot-mix asphalt paving plant is considered to be exclusively an air pollution nuisance, but if you are living near one and are being covered by a half-inch of dust daily you would call it solid waste. During the past year we have succeeded in persuading seven hot-mix asphalt plants to install dust collection equipment equal to Los Angeles standards. However, in this area you can go from one State to the next in half an hour and you have competitive bidding for interstate highway construction. Therefore, I feel that the Department of Transportation should have very rigid specifications as to dust emissions from all hot-mix asphalt plants supplying Federal projects, regardless of the plant location, even if a plant is located in a rural area.

All plants supplying interstate projects should work under the same conditions. It is not fair to the owner who has to put in dust collection equipment costing $10 to $15 thousand when he has to meet competition from a plant in a nearby State requiring at best only rudimentary dust collectors. As I said, the emissions from these plants come under the category of air pollution, but I would like to emphasize again that to the people living near the offending plant the emissions are definitely solid waste.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.

The next witness will be Robert G. Davidson, of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council of Boston. Mr. Davidson?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. DAVIDSON, METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL, BOSTON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, I am delighted to appear before this committee today to discuss the Metropolitan Boston regional plan for dealing with solid wastes.

POPULATION DENSITY

Before I discuss the immediate problem that we are all here for today, I would like to very briefly describe the Boston metropolitan area. Our 2.6 million people live in the seventh most populous metropolitan area in the country. Land is a precious cominodity. We are second only to the New York metropolitan area in population density. Our average density is nearly 2,700 persons per square mile but the range varies from 16,000 to 24,000 persons per square mile in the core cities to 40 or 50 persons per square mile in the outer suburbs. About half of the entire population of the Commonwealth lives on one-eighth of its total land area in Metropolitan Boston.

The Metropolitan Area Planning Council has projected that by the year 1990 the metropolitan population will be approaching 4 million, perhaps more, and that the fastest rate of growth will appear in the rapidly approaching 1970's. At current rates of land consumption, we may well exhaust over 400,000 acres, or nearly one-half of our present supply of vacant, developable land.

It is obvious that there will be tremendous development pressures in our cities and suburban areas. There will be great demand for all kinds of public services and public works, and a great need for cooperative approaches involving all levels of government dealing with water supply, sewerage, refuse disposal, highways, transit facilities, schools, hospitals, housing, and the many related problems. And in the core cities there are the tremendous tasks of renewing an old plant, of providing the many services of rehabilitation, and rebuilding of old and perhaps new neighborhoods.

We have estimated that the metropolitan development challenges ahead require a public and private investment of $1 billion per year over the next 25 years. The public investments required in this metropolitan area are in the order of, and this is a correction, $400 to $450 million per year. And incidentally that number is rising by the day.

These are staggering demands on our local and metropolitan resources. And in the face of these investment requirements will be the normal and highly expensive costs of paying our teachers, our firemen and police, of paying for our courts, of financing a just welfare system. But we are here to discuss a particular problem, metropolitan solid waste disposal, a problem that becomes even more difficult in the light of the foregoing.

The point being in that case that it is difficult indeed to balance national, international, and foreign and domestic budgets, but so, too, is it that much more a problem in the years ahead to appropriately appropriate the right amounts of money for the various domestic problems and urban problems. I am sure that you have heard this before. Well, I am going to skip that paragraph, please, Senator.