DC Environmental Agenda 99: Next | Table of Contents
The management of trash and toxic wastes in the District can be greatly improved. New approaches to these old problems are available at less cost to the City than current approaches and with lower impact on our neighborhoods and natural resources. Implementation of these measures can save millions in tax dollars and reduce the chemical exposure of those who live and work in D.C.
Expand Recycling
More than 10 years after enactment of the D.C. Solid Waste Management & Multi-Material Recycling Act of 1988, recycling is just getting started in Washington. Curbside collections were recently reintroduced, but in the aggregate they have been conducted by the Department of Public Works (DPW) for less than four years. While our neighboring counties and other cities are achieving recycling rates of 30% to 52% of all solid waste, D.C.'s high water mark was 22% in 1995. The current rate is probably somewhere in the range of 5% to 15%.
The 1988 Recycling Act requires recycling in all commercial buildings. However, spot-checking of private-sector solid waste facilities (i.e., downtown dumpsters) indicates that recycling is generally not being conducted in these buildings. DPW once employed a team of six inspectors to monitor and enforce commercial-sector compliance, but laid off those employees in 1995.
Similarly, relatively little recycling takes place in the D.C. public school system. The school administration has consistently avoided recycling even though contract waste haulers offered a reduction in costs if recycling were introduced. About 20 schools out of 200 are recycling as a result of initiatives by individual principles, teachers, and students.
Even D.C. government employees do not recycle according to a recent article in the City Paper. This has been confirmed by spot checks. Federal agencies in the District, by contrast, began organized office recycling programs more than 20 years ago.
Given that the District's municipal trash is transported, against the prevailing winds, to an incinerator in Fairfax, it is fair to say that we can either recycle our used newspapers or inhale the byproducts of their combustion. Detailed analyses conducted since 1995 by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, the Sierra Club, and DPW all show that the cost of recycling is lower than the cost of solid waste disposal (and at times has been significantly lower). There is, therefore, no fiscal reason not to recycle.
In addition, recycling produces a range of other environmental and energy-saving benefits to the District and to society at large. Recycling also produces local jobs – considerably more jobs than trash disposal on a per-ton basis.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) Institute recycling in the D.C. public schools. Because recycling at schools is more efficient and cost-effective than residential recycling (due to large volumes per pick-up and less contaminated material) this would save the City $1.5 million per year according to a March 5, 1997 report by the Council's Committee on Public Works. Moreover, an active recycling program would help instill in our students an appreciation for conservation. The science and economics of recycling are easily integrated into middle school curricula.
(2) Institute recycling in City government offices. City offices generate approximately 2.5 tons of recyclable materials per year, most of which is office paper. Because of the high grade of this material, the City could generate revenues of $400 - $800,000 per year by recycling it.
(3) Promote and enforce commercial-sector recycling laws. A combined
education and enforcement campaign would significantly increase recycling
in the District.
(a) The education program should include the provision of technical
assistance to building owners and tenants that sets forth the economics
of recycling and provides lists of commercial recycling services.
(b) Enforcement actions should be instituted against businesses that
refuse to obey the law and recycle. Hiring and training six recycling inspectors
would generate revenues that would entirely or largely pay for their salaries.
(4) Conduct a pro-recycling public education campaign. Through the use of free media and public-private partnerships, the rate of public participation in recycling activities can be significantly increased, at very little public expense.
(5) Install and maintain downtown sidewalk recycling receptacles like those that have been in place on the Mall, in Rock Creek Park, and other Federal lands for many years. Such receptacles would not only pay for themselves by reducing solid waste collections and increasing economies of scale at the City's recycling center, they would publicly re-affirm the District's policies and requirements.
(6) Establish a household and school composting program.
(7) Reestablish the citizens advisory committee mandated by the 1988 law. Citizens have been leaders in forcing DPW to recycle. The advisory committee is needed for assisting DPW and for monitoring its progress.
Contact for more information: Neil Seldman Institute for Local Self-Reliance; Jim Dougherty, Sierra Club New Columbia Chapter.
Improve Trash Collection and Management
The District's solid waste collection and disposal system is antiquated and inefficient. DPW's fleet of compactor trucks are old and in poor repair. The Department's single transfer facility – Fort Totten – employs terribly outdated transfer equipment that often requires compactor trucks to wait in long lines to drop their loads, or to drive all the way down I-95 to the Fairfax incinerator, which is grossly inefficient.
In addition, little is done to regulate commercial-sector trash handling at private trash transfer stations. These facilities receive not only the 75% of the City's waste that is not collected by DPW, but an additional one million tons per year of imported trash. As a result of these high volumes and weak regulation, many District neighborhoods endure high levels of noise, odors, vermin, and heavy truck traffic. Property damage is extensive in areas surrounding these transfer stations. Legislation addressing this problem was passed in 1998 and should be swiftly implemented.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) Renovate Fort Totten. An investment of $4-5 million in new equipment and facility upgrades will produce annual savings of around $3 million, according to a 1997 Council report.
(2) Invest in a new fleet of collection, transfer, and smaller trucks.
(3) Implement and enforce transfer station legislation that substantially reduces or eliminates the adverse effects of trash transfer stations on city neighborhoods and businesses.
Contact for more information: Neil Seldman, Institute for Local Self-Reliance; Jim Schulman, Sustainable Community Initiatives.
Restore Household Hazardous Waste Collections
A significant environmental threat to the health of District residents is presented by the variety of aging, unused household products found in garages, basements, and under kitchen sinks. Many of these products are highly toxic – lead-based paint, pesticides, acids, batteries, medicines, household cleansers, etc. As their packages age they also deteriorate, increasing the likelihood of direct exposure to residents.
Hundreds of municipalities around the country, including Montgomery County, regularly operate household hazardous waste collection programs. The Department of Public Works has operated a program on a sporadic basis over the years. Restoration of this program is a cost-effect way of reducing in-home health hazards, diminishing the flow of toxic chemicals into the Fairfax incinerator, and reducing indiscriminate dumping of toxics into sanitary sewers and storm drains. Effective public outreach is crucial to the program's success.
Recommendation for Action:
(1) DPW should operate a drop-off site (or sites) for household hazardous waste twice each year. To be effective, widespread advance notice of times, locations, and accepted materials is essential.
Contact for more information: Jim Dougherty, Sierra Club New Columbia Chapter.
Encourage "Deconstruction" before Demolition
Deconstruction is an alternative or supplement to the more-typical demolition of unwanted structures. Deconstruction dismantles buildings piece by piece and makes the components available for resale and reuse. This activity makes beneficial use of materials that would otherwise be land-filled, while creating jobs and developing community-based businesses.
What happens to a crumbled building after demolition? It makes its way into our solid waste stream. Demolishing a building of 10,000 square feet puts about 40,000 tons into a landfill or incinerator at a cost of $50,000 to $160,000. The implosion itself creates toxic dust containing particulates, heavy metals, mold, and other substances that may harm both human health and land, air, and water quality.
In contrast, deconstruction benefits communities by --
Though deconstruction is not widely employed on the East Coast, reports indicate that deconstruction businesses have turned a profit and have the potential to increase their profits. James Dandridge of the Chesapeake Sustainability Council estimated that in the 1970's, the Baltimore salvage market grossed $3.9 million annually using only 10 percent of the demolition market and 30 percent of the salvageable materials from that market share. The amounts salvaged in Washington are currently minuscule.
Recommendation for Action:
(1) The Council should enact legislation requiring a reasonable waiting period for the salvage of usable materials from buildings approved for being razed by the city government. During this period, fully-insured and indemnified salvage contractors would be permitted access to the premises to harvest building materials not wanted by the property owner. Such a law will prevent land, air, and water pollution, and further promote economic development.
Contact for more information: Jim Schulman, Sustainable Community Initiatives.
Implement Integrated Pest Management
Pesticides are used in schools, public housing, hospitals and other government agencies, often applied directly to kitchens, living spaces, and work areas. They are a prime source of exposure to hazardous chemicals for the city's children, workers, the elderly, and chemically sensitive citizens.
The Environmental Health Administration (EHA) regulates commercial applicators of pesticides. The Hazardous Waste Pesticides Division has a staff of about three that certifies applicators and conducts inspections. The Division lacks empirical data as to the amount or nature of the pesticides that are being applied in residences and commercial buildings in the District. There may be reason to believe that pesticide use in the District is declining slightly, and that there is a gradual trend favoring the use of less hazardous chemicals, such as non-aromatic gels. However, the Division has not adopted a policy of persuading or compelling applicators to adopt modern pesticide practices, such as use reduction strategies and integrated pest management (IPM).
The City imposes a 6% tax on pesticide application services that is applied directly to the funding of the pesticides program. This is much less than the tax that is prevalent in surrounding jurisdictions. If our tax were increased accordingly, the pesticide regulation program could be improved and expanded without additional expenditures from the general fund.
Beginning with D.C. public facilities, the City should implement an IPM system using non-toxic products and biological control methods. These products are potentially cheaper and clearly reduce the health and environmental problems associated with exposure to pesticides.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) The Mayor should issue an Executive Order on pesticides requiring --
(a) the development of an Integrated Pest Management strategy for all
D.C. Government-owned facilities, including schools; and
(b) that the total application of conventional pesticides at D.C. Government-owned
facilities be reduced by 50% citywide within three years.
(2) EHA should add pesticide use reduction and IPM to the mission of the Pesticide Division.
(3) The City Council should enact a substantial increase in the D.C. tax on pesticide products and application services. Funding should be directed to increase the Pesticide Division's inspection service in public housing and in D.C. public schools.
Contact for more information: Neil Seldman, Institute for Local Self-Reliance.