You had already touched on that in your statement and I certainly would be willing to do anything I could to help. It would mean a great deal to the community if we could start such a movement going, Mr. WEAVER. We appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to be here this morning. Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Weaver.

The Honorable Walter N. Tobriner, President of the Board of District Commissioners. Is Mr. Tobriner here?

General MATHE. I am the Engineer Commissioner representing the Board of Commissioners.

Senator TYDINGS. Will you come forward and bring any of your staff with you?

General Mathe, we are delighted to welcome you to this subcommittee. I wonder if you would be kind enough to introduce for the record your associates from the District government.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. ROBERT E. MATHE, ENGINEER COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM F. ROEDER, CHIEF, SANITATION AND EQUPIMENT DIVISION; ROY L. ORNDORFF, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SANITARY ENGINEERING; AND WILLIAM H. CARY, JR., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

General MATHE. It is a pleasure to be here this morning and to represent the Board of Commissioners at your hearing. I am accompanied by Mr. Roy Orndorff, Director of the Department of Sanitary Engineering; Mr. William Roeder, Chief of the Sanitation Division; and William H. Cary, Jr., Associate Director, Environmental Health. I would like to say, Senator Tydings, we are glad to see Senator Spong here because as far as we are concerned, the problem we are discussing today definitely is a metropolitan area problem and it involves the Virginia and Maryland jurisdictions as well as the District of Columbia.

Since today's hearing is devoted to the Kenilworth dump situation, I would like to briefly go into the history of our involvement at Kenilworth and then describe our proposal to alleviate this deplorable situation.

With the completion of its first two incinerators in 1932, the District of Columbia adopted incineration as the method of reduction and disposal of combustible rubbish. However, by the early forties, the increased trash production from population growth together with the ever-increasing per capita load had caused the capacity of the two small incinerators to be exceeded and resort to open burning was necessary.

Arrangements were made with the National Park Service, in 1942, to conduct a burning, land fill operation on the low areas on the east bank of the Anacostia River at Kenilworth. This has been conducted under permits from the National Park Service, who set the limits of fill elevation, and has been in more or less continuous operation since that time.

Due to continued increases in trash production, additional and larger incinerators were completed in 1956 (Mount Olivet) and 1961 (Fort Totten). On each of these occasions it was possible, for some

77-536 0-67- 42

time after the additional incinerator capacity became available, to radically reduce the open burning, restricting it to periods of optimum weather conditions. However, in time, the effects of population growth to some extent-but more significantly of per capita trash generationmade it necessary that almost daily burning be practiced. We have a chart here which will show the increase in generation of trash over the period of years. This chart also shows the difference between incinerator capacity and rubbish generation and it shows that over a period of years, why we built up a great generation of rubbish, we were able to reduce this with each new incinerator put into operation. However, the capacity of incinerators have never totally caught up to the production of trash and rubbish.

Presently the production of combustible refuse in the District of Columbia amounts to more than 2,100 tons per day. Although the combined rated capacity of the four existing incinerators is 1,595 tons per day, the actual capacity is somewhat less than this leaving about 600 tons per day for which the District has no alternative, at this time, but to burn in the open at Kenilworth.

Recognizing the public nuisance which results from the open burning of rubbish, the Department of Sanitary Engineering several years ago proposed the construction of an additional 800 ton-per-day incinerator. Funds for site acquisition and design were allowed in the

1965 fiscal year Appropriation Act and construction funds in amount of $4 million were provided in the 1966 Appropriation Act.

Even before any appropriation was available, the search for an acceptable site for this facility was initiated. Because of the shortage of available land in the District, finding a suitable site has proved to be a most difficult task. However, after nearly 3 years of joint effort of the District and the National Capital Planning Commission, with the assistance of the National Park Service, a suitable site has now been found and was approved by the Board of Commissioners on December 1, 1966. This site was given final approval by the National Capital Planning Commission last month.

It has not been possible to begin actual designs prior to site selection but work preliminary to design has been in progress for several months. This has consisted of comprehensive studies looking toward inclusion of advanced features to make this a model facility for the Nation. For these studies we have had grant assistance from the Office of Solid Wastes, HEW, and we anticipate that further help toward provision of such features in the construction will be forthcoming.

Dr. Weaver testified on this matter. While these new features will undoubtedly increase the cost of incinerator construction we feel that the time is propitious for construction of a facility that will minimize air pollution as well as eliminate refuse.

We estimate that a period of 9 to 12 months will be required for design and another 21 to 24 months for construction. In other words, we expect to have an incinerator No. 5 in full operation during the summer of 1970.

Beyond the construction of this fifth incinerator, our long-range plans for rubbish reduction and disposal are not crystallized. Our direction in this field undoubtedly will be influenced by the results of the current study, by a firm under the sponsorship of the Council of Governments, of future needs and possibilities for solid waste disposal for the metropolitan region.

This study has been underway for about 18 months and the District of Columbia has been participating in the study and has made a contribution of $22,000 for the study which we hope will produce the long-range plans, the long-range approach toward the disposal of solid wastes in the metropolitan area.

Obviously, the delay of perhaps 3 years in locating a site for incinerator No. 5 has brought on conditions at Kenilworth which require almost daily burning of huge quantities of rubbish. The effect of the resulting smoke pall over large sectors of closely populated area in both the District and Maryland is esthetically deplorable

at best and is unquestionably the largest single source of air pollution in the District. It is most desirable, therefore, that measures to alleviate or correct the condition be implemented if at all possible, and as soon as possible.

We have already explored the possibility that the District might arrange with suburban jurisdictions having interim surplus capacity in their incinerators to accept significant quantities of trash from the District on some reimbursable basis. An exploration of this possibility through the offices of COG and its Regional Sanitary Advisory Board revealed this was not feasible.

Presently we are proposing an interim alternative to the open burning pending completion of incinerator No. 5. This proposal involves establishing and operating a trash transfer station in the District, preferably at Kenilworth, and a sanitary landfill at a District-controlled site at Muirkirk, Md., to dispose of trash presently being burned at Kenilworth. In this operation we plan to use the most modern methods and equipment to insure no nuisance would be created at the landfill site or in transit. We would, of course, work closely with Prince Georges County authorities to insure that this is a mutually acceptable and satisfactory operation. Incidentally, I am told that Prince Georges County has now embarked on a landbuying program for three sites for sanitary landfills and a trash transfer station as part of their solid waste disposal program.

I have charts which I would like to use to explain in a general way how this interim measure would be carried out.

We would continue to receive the excess trash at a central point where a trash transfer station would be erected to facilitate transferring the trash from the collection trucks to large covered trailers which would haul the compacted trash to the land fill. This would haul the compacted trash to the landfill, as I state here. You will notice trailers are totally enclosed in vans in which the material would be compacted and they would haul sizable quantities and they would certainly eliminate our carrying any trash or rubbish out into the suburban areas in vehicles which would create a nuisance.

This picture here is an actual photo of one of the types of trucks that would be used in this operation. The picture also shows a trailer actually discharging the refuse which it would carry.

Assuming we could locate the transfer station at Kenilworth, the large trailers would use John Hansen Highway to the Beltway and U.S. No. 1 from the Beltway to reach the Muirkirk landfill. This would mean most of the haul route would be over interstate routes and would reduce any movement through residential areas to a bare minimum.