Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118565102
label
[Waste Management] - Final Report by the Governoräó»s Task Force on Solid Waste Management, January 1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118565102
contentType
document
title
[Waste Management] - Final Report by the Governoräó»s Task Force on Solid Waste Management, January 1970
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118565102
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
dd3896312929bd10
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Waste Management] - Final Report
by the Governor's Task Force on
Solid Waste Management, January 1970
Box: P38
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
*
PRESS*
FINAL REPORT BY THE GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
January 1970
I. INTRODUCTION-THE PROBLEM
The greatest asset possessed by the State of California is its environment. By virtue
of its unparalleled natural beauty and diversity, California has prospered until today it is the
richest, most populous, most technologically advanced State in the Union. It is paradoxical,
therefore, that as the State aspires to even greater eminence, these aesthetic qualities which
contributed to the State's growth are now in jeopardy as a result of its success. The State's
population explosion, urbanization, and technological expansion are all harbingers of suffo-
cating influences to the environment. To its credit, California has recognized the magnitude,
complexity and urgency of the various factors that are adversely affecting its natural environ-
ment, and concern for their effective solution has been prompt. The Governor, Executive
Branch, Legislature and the appropriate agencies of the State have publicly dedicated them-
selves to preserving, restoring, and promoting the highest environmental quality attainable.
1
As an example: the Comprehensive Health Planning Act of 1966, Public Law 89-749, states
as a policy goal the achievement of "an environment which contributes positively to health."
The legislation establishing the Environmental Quality Study Council of 1968 stated
"improvement of the quality of California's physical environment consistent with the maxi-
mum benefit to the people of the State is a matter of State-wide, regional, and local concern
calling for coordinated public and private action in the interest of health, safety, and welfare
of present and future generations." This concern has manifested itself in the establishment
of specific legislation and standards by State councils and ancillary organizations in an
attempt to protect the environment. In these efforts to date, the principal emphasis has
been placed upon air and water pollution. Unfortunately, a third pollutant, equally impor-
tant and an intrinsically interrelated despoiler of the environment, remains to be adequately
addressed and controlled: solid waste.
The extent of the solid waste management problem is, unfortunately, not as obvious
to the average citizen as air and water pollution. In actual fact, solid waste will soon reach
unmanageable proportions if serious action is not taken to change the management pattern
on a State-wide basis. The problem might be better visualized by recourse to some startling
statistics generated in 1967:
The municipalities, industry, and agriculture of California generated an estimated
70.5 million tons of solid waste, the equivalent of a pile 100 feet wide, 30 feet
high, and as long as the entire state! Viewed on a per capita basis, this averages
about 20 pounds per resident per day.
There were 716 general-use solid waste disposal sites in the State and less than
10 percent of them were considered sanitary landfills; i.e., 90 percent were
dumps of various sorts harboring rats, flies, odors, etc.
Thirty-three disposal sites were found to be discharging solid wastes directly
into surface water.
Open burning dumps were allowed in the majority of the counties of the State.
Agricultural waste was the largest source of solid waste in the State, over 50 per-
cent, and it was not even accepted for disposal by landfill operators nor were
there any regulations or provisions for its management.
The foregoing data were published by the California Department of Public Health in
1968 in an in-depth appraisal of the status of solid waste management in the State of
California. The report verified that the status of solid waste management is inadequate to
permit the preservation of the quality of the land, air and water resources at acceptable
levels, and a resultant encroachment on the health and well-being of the people of the
State is occurring. The overall deficiencies, viewed on a State-wide basis, include:
Fragmented authority
Inadequate planning
2
Nonexistent or inadequate standards
Primitive technology
Inadequate financing
In view of the urgency and complexity of the problem, Governor Reagan, on
April 10, 1969, established the Task Force on Solid Waste Management to evaluate the
problems of solid waste in California and to recommend a course of action for the State. The
Task Force was drawn from a cross section of public-spirited citizens representing business,
industry, the professions, government and academic sectors. More specifically, there were
owners and operators of refuse collection, salvage and disposal companies, a banker, an
economist, an architect, lawyers, aerospace technologists, a commissary owner, a surgeon,
public officials, etc. Significantly, the Task Force had access to a wide range of viewpoints
and expert knowledge, but all were quite dedicated in a common interest to help solve the
waste management problems of the State.
The Task Force was urged to work closely with other units of State government hav-
ing solid waste interests, and to complete its review by January 1970. In order to respond to
the specific charge of the Governor and because of the wide scope of the contributing prob-
lems, the Task Force was organized into six Working Groups:
Generation and Production
Storage Collection and Transportation
Disposal and Land Use
Governmental Relations
Technology
Hazardous Wastes
The Working Groups operated in parallel in an effort to delve as deeply as possible
into each of the foregoing segments of solid waste management. They obtained and assimi-
lated representative literature in the field, conducted interviews with trade associations and
consultants, and attended seminars and conferences. The groups met and exchanged perti-
nent results on a regular basis. The following sections of the report describe the conclusions
reached by the Task Force and define a series of recommendations which, in the opinion of
the Task Force, must be implemented in the near future if the State hopes to gain control of
the solid waste problem. Finally, a summary review is presented of the detailed findings of
each of the foregoing six Working Groups.
3
II. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the conclusion of the Task Force that present practices of solid waste management
within the State of California are inadequate - i.e., there is a real problem and it is getting
worse. Further, it was concluded that assurance of proper solid waste management is the
responsibility of the State itself. Lesser governmental bodies and private industry by them-
selves cannot effect an adequate solution to the State-wide problem. Finally, the Task Force
wishes to emphasize that action is needed now.
In concert with the foregoing conclusions, the Task Force offers as its basic recom-
mendation that the State acknowledge that the overall leadership for the management of
solid wastes within the State is in fact a State government responsibility; and that in dis-
charging this responsibility a comprehensive State-wide program of solid waste management
4
be undertaken. The basic objectives of the State-wide program should be to protect the
health, welfare and well-being of the public, and prevent degradation of the quality of the
environment by controlling location and regulating operational practices of collection, han-
dling, and disposal of solid waste. In addition, the program should strive to lessen the rising
economic burden of solid wastes and should seek means of conserving the natural resources
inherent in solid wastes. Further, the program, to be successful and responsive to the people,
must include roles for State, regional, and local government bodies as well as private industry.
Elements of the State program should include: policy; planning; standards; technology;
public education; enforcement; monitoring and surveillance; and financing. The Task Force
recommends that primary responsibility be assigned to a single State agency. At this point in
time that agency should be the Department of Public Health. At some future time a
Department of Environment, covering all aspects of land, air, and water resources, should be
established.
It is the opinion of the Task Force that lack of proper management of solid waste in
the State has assumed such proportions that suitable legislation is imperative. It is strongly
recommended that initial legislation be enacted in 1970.
The Task Force further makes the following recommendations relative to the solid
waste management organizational requirements, policies and specific responsibilities of the
designated State agency.
1) A broadly based Advisory Board should be appointed to assist in guiding the
designated State agency in discharging its duties.
2) It should be State policy to assure that all personnel and organizations involved
in the solid waste management process within the State demonstrate technical
capability and financial responsibility.
3)
It should be State policy to assure provision of a "minimum" level of collection
service to all persons in the State.
4)
It should be State policy to require the development of master plans for solid
waste management facilities for county or multi-county regional authority.
5)
It should be State policy to assure the provision of adequate disposal service to
the population and industry of the State. The counties should be responsible for
implementation of these efforts.
6) The State should encourage a continuing, comprehensive program of public
information, education, and training regarding solid waste management. The
designated State agency should develop and conduct such a program.
7) The State should encourage and finance solid waste research and development
studies. The designated State agency should conduct studies and coordinate
projects in the State.
5
8)
State and local government should encourage reclamation, recycling, research
and development and demonstration projects directed toward developing addi-
tional recycling methods.
9)
The designated State agency should:
a)
Serve as the focal point for policy development and planning.
b)
Develop and maintain an adequate bank of information and data.
c)
Develop and issue standards, and develop mechanisms to assure their
enforcement.
d)
Develop methods of monitoring and control to assure an adequate level of
compliance with standards.
e)
Perform detailed studies of the problems associated with hazardous wastes
and to develop, review and update, as appropriate, standards of design
and/or operation of all phases of hazardous solid waste management.
f)
Explore means of reducing the generation of wastes at the source and/or
improving materials and processes to simplify disposal problems.
10)
Agricultural wastes should be the subject of a special study leading to a com-
prehensive State-wide program.
These recommendations are discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections of this
Task Force report.
6
III. GUIDELINES FOR
THE STATE PROGRAM
The Task Force has defined a series of guiding principles upon which the basic
recommendation, that of the State undertaking a comprehensive solid waste management
program, should be structured. It was the opinion of the Task Force that for the program
to be successful, it must take into account the following principles, policies, and division of
responsibility:
1)
It is essential that a coordinated State-local government-private industry program
be developed. It is impossible in California for any one level of government to
implement all of the responsibilities for a comprehensive approach to solid
waste management. Each governmental level, however, must assume its proper
share of the responsibilities of solid waste management, avoiding duplication
7
and conflicts where possible and cooperating with other agencies to the maximum
degree feasible.
2)
The coordinated program should strive to lessen the rising economic burden of
solid wastes and should seek ways and means of conserving the natural resources
inherent in solid wastes.
3)
It must be understood that clear lines of division are impossible and, in many
cases, both State and local governments find themselves involved in certain
elements. This fact stresses the need for cooperation and flexible interaction
between State and local governments. The underlying philosophy should be,
however, that the State should concern itself with those aspects of solid waste
management that are of State-wide interest, leaving matters of purely local con-
cern to local agencies.
For the purpose of this report, "local governments" refers to incorporated cities,
counties, and special purpose districts that are empowered to become involved
in solid waste management. While the regional approach to solid waste manage-
ment is highly desirable and should be encouraged, and since there is no form
of this type of government in existence at the present time, the Task Force
believes that the county is the lowest level of government to accomplish com-
prehensive planning. This should not prevent local agencies, however, from
seeking regional solutions through cooperative action.
4)
In addition to governmental action, the capabilities of private enterprises should
be fully utilized to meet the objectives of this program. This should be encour-
aged in all areas - system operation, equipment and hardware development, tech-
nical research, disposal site and land end use planning, salvage and reclamation.
5)
The Task Force recommends that responsibility for solid waste management be
divided between State and local government as follows:
State Responsibilities
The program at the State level should centralize policy formulation, pro-
vide overall direction and guidance, coordinate State and local efforts,
emphasize conservation of resources, develop environmental objectives and
standards, and stimulate improved technology.
Local Responsibilities
The solid waste program responsibilities at the local level (city, county,
district) should be consistent with the policies and standards of the State
and should basically include localized policy establishment and adminis-
tration, detailed planning, operation and control, and financing of local
solid waste programs and systems.
8
IV. DISCUSSION OF
SPECIFIC PROGRAM ELEMENTS
As previously indicated in Section II of this report, the Task Force, in its study of
the problems of solid waste management in California, identified a series of aspects of the
current practice that were clearly inadequate. It is the opinion of the Task Force that for a
comprehensive program to be successful, it must address itself to the following:
Policy
Planning
Standards
Technology
Public Education
9
Enforcement
Monitoring and Surveillance
Financing
A. POLICY
Better solid waste management has only recently been recognized as a major need,
and policy in this regard is greatly lacking. Conflicting restrictions are frequently placed upon
solid waste management by a single-purpose decision which unintentionally imposes a dis-
proportionate burden on another area of environment. An example of this variance is the
attempt to curtail the use of incinerators for disposal of infectious wastes which might con-
tribute a minimum to air pollution, forcing use of solutions which would create greater
hazards to public health. Any policy that is developed must recognize the total environmental
outlook and emphasize the overall needs of California and its population. An intrinsic part
of a new policy should be education of the public to encourage and gain support for improved
waste management facilities.
B. PLANNING
Planning for solid waste management must obviously be done to avoid inadequate
and short-lived solutions to the problems at hand. If the planning is performed cognizant of
the guiding philosophies set forth in Section III of this report, the existing haphazard and
crisis approach to facility and system design can be overcome and blended into a long-range
effective scheme for management of solid wastes in California. Overall guiding policy and
direction is needed at the State level to provide leadership in solid waste planning. The State
Department of Public Health has been directed to investigate the needs of the State in this
field through the Environmental Quality Study Act of 1968. The recommendations and
guidelines of the Task Force and the results of the Department's solid waste planning study
should help provide a foundation for a development of State policy.
Broad general plans must be developed by each county or groups of counties working
together for solution of their area's solid waste management needs. Provisions should be
included in these plans for the needs of the incorporated cities within the respective jurisdic-
tions. As part of these plans, the disposal and collection aspects should be coordinated to
provide for the most effective system. To aid the local agencies in developing effective plans,
guidelines should be developed at the State level. The local plans should be compatible with
the county general land-use planning and also with the overall goals and objectives necessary
to conserve the resources and environmental qualities of the State.
In addition to the general planning, detailed plans must be developed for each disposal
facility. These plans should be prepared by qualified individuals and provide for the effective
and nuisance-free operation of the facility as well as provide ultimate compatibility with the
10
surrounding land uses. Where land disposal facilities are utilized, particular attention should
also be given to the future reuse of the land including provision for open space development
when disposal operations are completed.
The development of a general plan should be a condition for the receipt of any future
financial assistance in the form of loans or grants.
C. STANDARDS
Minimum standards must be developed to rid the State of the existing poor solid
waste management practices which contribute health nuisances, fire hazards, and overall
environmental pollution. Present regulation at the State level is limited to the water pollu-
tion aspects of disposal, fire protection near dump sites, and selected controls to avoid
damage to agricultural products. Conspicuously lacking are comprehensive regulations
designed to protect the health and well-being of the people, and measures offering broad
protection of the environment. More comprehensive standards must be developed by the
State to reinforce present regulations and to act in the absence of local controls. State regu-
lations should provide for the varied conditions found throughout the State and recognize
the variety of wastes and their varied characteristics. State standards should also provide the
latitude for more reasonable, restrictive, and detailed standards established by local jurisdic-
tions to meet their particular needs. Basic State laws are necessary so that minimum regula-
tions may be enforced within all local jurisdictions and not be hindered, as is the case now,
where county ordinances do not apply in cities or the converse. Minimum standards at the
State level should focus on all aspects of solid waste management.
D. TECHNOLOGY
The present management system for solid wastes does not encourage anything but the
least cost operation; consequently, there has been little emphasis on the development of
technology beyond the refinement of the existing techniques. Deficiencies in technology
are of two principal types: (1) those requiring further research, and (2) those calling for
demonstration of the applicability of known techniques.
The advent of Federal grants has created a great impetus to develop and demonstrate
technology throughout the nation. Emphasis is needed on solutions that are applicable to
California's conditions, and reliance should not be solely upon Federal programs and monies
in this area. It is necessary for the State to support research and demonstration in certain
areas in order to cope with the problems in California. Coordination of all research should be
accomplished at the State level for the dissemination of information to researchers and local
agencies. In this manner, projects could be stimulated in the areas of need, and the duplica-
tion of identical investigations would be prevented.
11
E. PUBLIC EDUCATION
Basic to the solution of any problem is a thorough understanding of the problem and
solution by those people involved. A program to continue to make the general public and
decision makers aware of solid waste problems is needed to improve our management meth-
ods. Technical training is also necessary for those individuals charged with the responsibility
of design and operation of the necessary facilities. The State should provide information
through reports, training sessions, and speaking engagements. Special training programs and
training aids also need to be developed for those areas where waste management programs
are to be improved from the crude state that now exists. It will be necessary for the State
program to have the prerequisite technical resources available to provide consultation to
local agencies and individuals requesting technical information in waste management. State
program personnel should continue to keep abreast of the latest developments coming from
the research and development projects being carried on, and should seek the cooperation of
the waste management industry and industrial complex for the guidance of State programs
and priorities.
There is an almost total lack of formal instruction through college and university
courses in the field of solid waste management. The State program should provide the neces-
sary resource material and technical personnel to aid in the establishment of formalized
instruction in this field.
F. ENFORCEMENT
Axiomatic to the effective accomplishment of any program involving improvement
of existing conditions through planning and standards will be a strong program to meet and
enforce the desired objectives. Routine inspections and enforcement might be best carried
on by the local agencies because of their proximity and acute awareness of local needs and
conditions. The State should take action where the local agencies do not act, or where these
agencies would be in a position of enforcing regulations upon themselves.
G. MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE
In conjunction with appropriate agencies, the State should routinely evaluate solid
waste programs and facilities to determine their adequacy and efficacy to meet required
goals and objectives. An adequate base of information should be maintained to develop and
formulate sound policies, identify areas of needs, and evaluate solid waste management in
California. The basic data should be compiled and coordinated through the State program
and be available as a source of information for local agencies and interested persons. Data
should also be maintained on existing programs and facilities as well as those proposed.
12
Special studies or surveys should be conducted to evaluate actual or potential problems, and
to investigate new proposals to provide the information necessary to guide the decision-making
process.
H. FINANCING
Financial considerations relate to all of the problems already mentioned. It is obvious
that small units of government do not have large sums of money for research and for effec-
tive planning for managing solid wastes. Adoption of new and advanced technology will also
probably be hampered by the limited funds available. Frequently, solutions are developed
only on the basis of the immediate costs, and stimulation is necessary to encourage recogni-
tion of the indirect and overall costs associated with a particular solution. Some form of
financial incentive or direct loans or grants to local government may well be necessary in
order to bring about acceptable solid waste management practices. In a similar manner, con-
sideration should also be given to development of the private enterprise sector involved in the
solid waste management field.
13
V. SUMMARY OF THE
FINDINGS OF THE TASK FORCE
BY PROBLEM AREA
The following paragraphs of this section are summaries of the findings of the Task
Force by problem areas, and consist specifically of identification of the problems and appli-
cable recommendations.
14
A. PRODUCTION AND GENERATION
Problems Identified
1) Accurate data on quantities and characteristics of solid waste produced are
generally unavailable and when available are sometimes unreliable. This is par-
ticularly true for industrial, agricultural, and other nonresidential wastes.
2) The volume of solid waste generated is increasing at a greater rate than popula-
tion growth. The types and varieties of waste are continually changing. Con-
sumer goods from reusable to disposable, limited-use items resulting from new
manufacturing processes, materials and packaging, and new, difficult-to-manage
wastes are continually being injected into the waste stream. Present management
methods are inadequate to cope with increasing volumes and types of solid
waste.
3) Most levels of government have failed to recognize and assume their public
responsibility in dealing with special, hard-to-control, solid wastes. This is
especially true of industrial and agricultural wastes.
4) The responsibility of the producer of a product that eventually will become
solid or otherwise waste, as well as the responsibility of the user of that product,
have not been defined.
5) General awareness of the problems of solid waste production and its effect on
the environment is lacking in almost all segments of society.
6) The problem of natural resources in short supply is coming into sharper focus
each year and must be considered in waste management planning.
7) Impending legislation and controls imposed by air pollution and water pollu-
tion control regions may make methods of disposal which have been utilized
heretofore unacceptable in the future due to the interaction with other pollu-
tion sources. This may impose sharp increases in waste quantities to be disposed
through acceptable public use disposal sites.
Recommendations
The following broad objectives were defined as vital to a recommended program on
the production and generation aspects of solid waste management.
1) To create an awareness of the problems of solid waste and generate acceptance
of responsibility for proper management of all solid waste by government,
industry, and the public.
15
2) To minimize the adverse effects on public health and the environment caused
by the generation of all types of solid waste.
3)
To encourage maximum reutilization and recycling of waste material in order to
conserve our natural resources, and to reduce the amount of waste to be disposed.
4) To encourage the development of improved methods and techniques of produc-
ing consumer products, which would create less waste material, or which would
improve their disposability.
5) To improve our knowledge of waste quantities and characteristics and develop
improved technology regarding materials, handling, reclamation and salvage, and
solid waste disposal.
6) To evaluate the waste management problems on a State-wide basis so that waste
materials which may have negative value in some areas might be transported to
areas where they might have positive worth.
7) To encourage development of new products from waste materials.
8) To rigidly control the management of materials which can become health haz-
ards in their disposal.
Generally the mechanisms for achieving the objectives are: establishment of a respon-
sible agency, regulation, creation of incentives, imposition of taxes, establishment of research
and development efforts, and education efforts.
It is mandatory that an organization be established at the State level and charged
with the responsibility of solid waste management. The State agency should probably be
assigned total environmental responsibility with solid waste management as a primary depart-
ment and production and generation as a branch of that department.
A comprehensive educational program must be established to make all segments of
society aware of the solid waste management problems to include:
Consumer programs
School programs
Industry programs
Solid wastes information center
Research and development efforts can be performed by existing state institutions
such as the Department of Public Health for health-related problems; universities or state col-
leges in fundamental research; and the private sector, which should be encouraged and finan-
cially supported if necessary. Maximum use should be made of Federal grants which could
supply financial amplification to the State financial contributions.
16
One of the most fruitful areas where research should be directed is in the development
of automatic materials separation techniques to improve the economics of salvage and
reclamation.
While the secondary materials industry of California - scrap metals, forest products,
paper goods, etc. - are engaged in the recycling of resources, industry in general should be
further encouraged to engage in research and development of recycling resources. The mech-
anism for such encouragement could be State and Federal grants. In addition, emphasis
should be directed toward design of packaging with materials that can be reclaimed and
recycled.
B. STORAGE, COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION
Problems Identified
1)
In general, collection service is provided in the metropolitan and in many sub-
urban areas of the State. In most of these areas, government actively concerns
itself with the level of collection service by specifying "minimum" levels of
service. In the unincorporated and sparsely populated areas of the State, collec-
tion service is generally inadequate, and in some of these areas collection
service is nonexistent.
2) While most "owner-occupied" residential properties in the State subscribe to a
regularly scheduled refuse collection service, many rented individual units and
multiple dwelling units in various parts of the State are not currently receiving
adequate refuse collection service.
3) As population increases, land available for sanitary landfill operations is becom-
ing scarcer. As existing disposal sites adjacent to the larger metropolitan areas
are exhausted, the use of disposal sites farther removed from the source will
become more prevalent. This will result in the need for large and expensive
"transfer" facilities and equipment. These expenses, coupled with the expenses
resulting from more stringent requirements and operational standards, will make
disposal costs for many smaller communities almost prohibitive on an individual
basis.
Recommendations
1)
For health and aesthetic reasons, it is highly desirable for all persons in the State
to be provided with a minimum level of service by a regulated refuse collection
service. Thus, it is recommended that, in order to assure the provision of a
17
"minimum" level of collection service to all persons in the State, a State-wide
standard should be issued which requires every individual dwelling unit in the
State to have at least once-a-week refuse collection service. (This standard is
similar to the requirements presently being enforced in some of the larger cities.)
It is further recommended that owners of rental property be required to provide
adequate facilities and services for refuse collection and that the owner of the
property should be financially responsible for the provision of collection services.
2)
Responsibility for the enforcement of this minimum standard should be dele-
gated to the counties. Collection service requirements vary from area to area and
county to county depending on specific area characteristics such as temperature
ranges, weather problems, types and volumes of wastes created, population den-
sities, seasonal population changes, road networks, etc. Additional service stand-
ards and regulations, tailored to local problems, should be developed by the
counties, or by the cities, or by both in combination. These standards would
apply to additional service frequency above the State minimum, type of services
to be provided, type of containers, etc.
3)
It does not appear possible to provide a minimum level of collection service to
the rural and sparsely populated areas of the State at a reasonable service fee
(due to the long distances that must be driven between collection stops). Thus,
to achieve an adequate level of service for residents in these areas, some form of
subsidy may be required.
4)
Refuse collection agencies should be subject to minimum State-wide standards
for refuse collection operations. These standards may be supplemented at the
county level, if required. For example, vehicle safety standards should be set at
a State level. Minimum standards for workers' safety and sanitation could also
be established at the State level, and improved (if required) by the county or
city. Rate setting and actual enforcement of collection standards and regulations
should be at the county or local governmental jurisdiction where the collection
service is operating.
5) Any contractor desiring to offer his services to a community should be able to
prove responsible ownership, financial capability, experience, adequate equip-
ment, and all other factors deemed necessary to provide the service required by
the community. Contractors meeting these standards should be licensed by the
county or possibly by the State.
6)
"Open competition" for refuse collection is, in a sense, an American tradition.
However, should open competition continue to prevail, it will be almost impos-
sible to enforce standards and to provide an adequate level of service at mini-
mum cost. In order to provide adequate, regulated service at minimum cost
18
(with effective enforcement), franchises and contracts might be put out to bid
for geographic areas on the basis of providing "total collection service." To
attract qualified contractors and to encourage investments in improved capital
equipment, facilities and technological development contracts should be of long-
term duration (possibly 10 years).
7)
Some counties will have to seek regional solutions for refuse disposal, not only
for its obvious economic advantages but out of pure inability to afford the costs.
Therefore, it is recommended that the counties should publicly endorse the
development of "regional" concepts. The county's role should also include
assistance in the acquisition of sites for transfer stations and landfills, financial
assistance if required, and public endorsements of all the steps necessary to
assure their residents are provided with adequate, economical collection service.
C. DISPOSAL AND LAND USE
Problems Identified
1)
Comprehensive legislation for solid waste is inadequate, and authority and
responsibility for disposal practices are fragmented. Minimum regulatory and
operating standards for many parts of the State have not been formulated.
Thus, city, county, and private practices lack coordination and in many instances
are in direct contradiction.
2) Awareness is lacking on the part of both the public at large and local govern-
mental agencies of the extent to which present disposal practices are degrading
the environment, threatening public health, and destroying ecological balance.
(In the absence of a clear understanding of the problem by governmental agen-
cies and the public at large, resistance to standards which will increase disposal
costs can be anticipated.)
3)
Further research into the technology of solid waste disposal is needed.
4)
Relationships between the privately and governmentally owned sectors of the
disposal industry need to be structured to encourage the investment of risk capi-
tal for technological innovation, land acquisition and planning, and improved
services by the private sector of the industry.
Recommendations
The Task Force is particularly concerned with the existing fragmented authority of
State and local agencies and is of the opinion that there is urgent need for the development
of a comprehensive solid waste management program.
19
1)
The State should, insofar as possible, centralize authority for controlling all
aspects of solid waste management in a single unit of State government in order
to avoid fragmentation and duplication. The minimum level of local planning,
inspection, and supervision should exist at the county level, and perferably at
the regional level.
2) The designated State agency should be empowered to develop and establish
minimum standards for the disposal of all solid wastes. These standards should
cover the handling of wastes, location and operation of facilities, and design and
planning criteria. These standards should be related to urban and rural popula-
tion density variations and should be "open ended" to allow continued review
and revision as necessary. Special standards for the handling and disposal of
agricultural and certain industrial wastes should be included.
3)
A continual inventory of disposal facilities should be maintained. In addition to
gathering information on geographic locations, restrictions, operating practices,
physical conditions of site, etc., the State should determine the specific identity
of the persons responsible for compliance with regulations and standards for
each site.
4)
An advisory group should be appointed by the Governor to assist in the formu-
lation and revision of minimum State-wide disposal and operating standards.
The composition of such an advisory group should include informed citizens,
State and local officials, professionals from such fields as sanitary engineering,
ecology, economics, public health, municipal planning, land use, disposal sys-
tem operation, etc., along with representatives from affected public and private
concerns.
5) Any disposal operating or planning standards that involve any portion of waste
disposal into the atmosphere should be reviewed and approved by the appropri-
ate agency responsible for air quality of the State. Any waste disposal operating
or planning standards that involve the underground, surface, or coastal waters
of the State should be similarly reviewed by the appropriate State agencies
concerned with protecting the water resources of the State. In those areas where
consideration of air and water pollution are involved, serious priority should be
given to the long-range ecological effects to the State's environment rather than
short-term economic dislocations which might be involved. (If necessary, eco-
nomic subsidy might be considered where environmental quality control creates
serious economic losses.)
6)
Legislation is recommended that will require every county or multi-county
regional authority to develop a master plan for adequate solid waste disposal
20
facilities. All local master plans should be reviewed and approved by the
designated State agency. Criteria for approval or disapproval of plans should
include:
a)
Conformity with minimum State standards
b) Consideration of all forms of solid waste generated within the area
c)
Provision for future disposal facilities which are consistent with projected
population growth and industrial expansion
d)
Compatibility of the proposed master plan with those of adjacent local
jurisdictions
e)
Integration of the solid waste disposal plans with the area's overall master
plan for land uses, circulation, and public services.
Particularly for high density urban areas where disposal sites are becoming
scarce, special plans which consider regional transfer stations that efficiently
utilize truck and rail transportation systems, technological innovations that result
in increased capacity of disposal sites, and a rational salvage and reclamation
program should be formulated.
7)
Land use planning for disposal landfills, disposal transfer stations, or processing
facilities should be consistent with sound planning standards for harmonious
land uses. Consideration should be given to factors such as sufficient buffering
or screening between noncompatible land uses, adequate circulation require-
ments, and a reasonable end-use of disposal sites which have been filled.
8) Where a potential disposal site is considered by local agencies to be the most
desirable, and where such a site is in conformity with State and local standards,
the local agency should be vested with the power of eminent domain to acquire
such a site and either resell or lease such a site to private disposal operators on
the basis of competitive bidding by individuals or firms qualified by experience
and financial resources.
9)
Inasmuch as sound planning requires reliable data on the rate of disposal gener-
ation, uniform and reliable measurements of waste material are needed. Such
data should be considered public information to assist all levels of public and
private planning and to provide the quality of data which will encourage "risk
capital."
10) The designated State agency should develop a comprehensive public education
program which will alert the public to the hazards of inadequate disposal sys-
tems and to the need for solid waste disposal systems which will not endanger
their health and environment.
21
11)
Improved technology and standards will require a higher degree of skill in
operation of facilities and programs. The State should provide technical train-
ing programs for operators, program managers, and solid waste officials.
D. GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
Problems Identified
1) Only 16 of 58 counties have developed some form of master plan. Many of
these are deficient or incomplete, some have not been implemented, and none
have considered all of the types of wastes produced. Cooperative planning is
greatly lacking between cities and/or counties, and no mechanism exists to
encourage or require cooperation.
2) Solid waste management appears to be a regional problem, and no centralized
authority exists at the State level to stimulate regional approaches or encourage
cooperation.
3) Improved solid waste handling and disposal systems will require greater direct
costs. While the larger systems can generally absorb these costs, many smaller
programs find it financially difficult to absorb the capital costs of improved
systems. The initial cost-hurdle of land and equipment acquisition appears to be
a major problem. While it appears that the State should require counties to pre-
pare master plans for solid waste management, there is no financial planning
grant or loan programs for solid waste in existence to aid in developing these
plans.
4) No comprehensive standards for solid waste management exist at the State level
and no agency has authority for setting such standards. Relatively few counties
have adopted standards for solid waste disposal, and some of these are not
enforced uniformly or not enforced at all.
5)
Fragmentation of authority has made it difficult to provide uniformity in estab-
lishing regulations. Enforcement has also been difficult. Cooperation is fre-
quently lacking between local jurisdictions. No State agency has primary respon-
sibility for solid waste management. The result has been an uncoordinated,
piecemeal set of laws and policies established by individual agencies, and appli-
cable only to their own narrow field of interest.
6) A large number of local jurisdictions have failed to assume or recognize any
responsibility in planning for or assuring sanitary and efficient management of
solid wastes.
22
7)
Lack of public awareness of the problems and needs of solid waste management
has seriously hampered solid waste program efforts. Information regarding solid
waste management is vital to planning and program efforts. No mechanism exists
at the present time for periodic inventory, surveillance, and gathering of this
information.
Recommendations
It is recommended that responsibility for solid waste management be divided between
State and local government as follows:
The program at the State level should centralize policy formulation; provide overall
direction and guidance; coordinate State and local efforts; emphasize conservation of
resources; develop environmental objectives and standards, and stimulate improved tech-
nology. Specifically, the State should:
1)
Serve as the focal point for developing basic policies regarding solid waste man-
agement and its relationship to public interest, health, welfare, and the
environment.
2) Develop solid waste planning guidelines; review and approve county plans for
consistency with State policies, and coordinate county plans into regional or
State-wide, long-range solid waste management plans.
3) Develop and adopt minimum State standards for the storage, collection, trans-
portation, processing, disposal, and utilization of solid wastes, and establish an
effective means of enforcement.
4) Provide technical assistance and consultation on solid waste management for the
benefit of local, public and private agencies within the State requesting such
assistance.
5) Conduct studies related to solid waste management in both the public and pri-
vate sectors. These studies may be conducted by the State independently, or
jointly with another agency, or by contract, and may utilize State, Federal, or
contract funds for this purpose.
6)
Encourage, coordinate, and finance solid waste research and technological devel-
opment studies and projects in the State; evaluate new or improved methods of
solid waste management, and serve as a source for exchange of information
regarding these efforts.
7)
Establish a continuing program of surveillance and monitoring regarding solid
waste management practices in the State, and maintain a current inventory of
solid waste generation facilities and practices. This inventory will be a source of
information for all interested agencies and persons.
23
8) Establish and maintain liaison with Federal solid waste programs, including
coordination and administration of research and planning, as well as administra-
tion of solid waste loan or grant programs.
9) Carry on a continuing program of training and public education regarding solid
waste management.
The solid waste program responsibilities at the local level (city, county, district)
should be consistent with the policies and standards of the State and should basically include
localized policy establishment and administration, detailed planning, operation and control,
and financing of local solid waste programs and systems. Specifically, within their jurisdic-
tions, these agencies should be responsible for:
1) Assuring that all solid waste systems comply with all applicable State and local
standards and ordinances, and providing necessary inspection services therefor.
2) Determining the methods of disposal to be utilized, as well as the locations of
disposal facilities, provided these do not conflict with the policies and standards
established by the State.
3) Developing detailed, long-range plans for solid waste disposal within the bound-
aries of their respective jurisdictions. These plans may be made jointly or indi-
vidually; however, the county should have the responsibility for developing an
overall, coordinated plan (which should include plans of applicable cities or
districts) for the entire county. The plan should be submitted to the State for
review and approval.
4) Developing, adopting, and enforcing local ordinances governing storage, collec-
tion, transportation, and disposal of solid wastes. These ordinances shall not be
in conflict with the minimum standards established by the State, but may be
more restrictive and comprehensive if desired, as long as they are not unreason-
able or discriminatory.
5) Assuring adequate operation of collection, transportation, and disposal systems
either directly, by private firms or by agreement with another jurisdiction. This
may include the regulation of collection agencies; establishment of collection
areas; establishing the type and level of service, permits and franchises, and other
administrative functions.
6) Assuring ways and means of adequately financing local solid waste management
programs.
It is further recommended that:
1)
The State develop a loan or grant program to aid counties in the preparation of
solid waste master plans and to stimulate cooperative regional approaches.
24
2) A uniform permit system for solid waste disposal facilities be developed and
administered by the assigned State agency or its authorized representatives.
3) The State develop a comprehensive program of public information, education,
and training.
4) An advisory group representing the public and all solid waste interests should
be appointed to assist the State agency in carrying out its duties.
5) State and local government should encourage the reclamation and recycling of
solid waste in order to conserve our natural resources, and reduce the cost of
solid waste disposal.
It is recognized that agricultural wastes create serious problems; however, we make
no specific recommendations. It is suggested that agricultural wastes be the subject of a spe-
cial study by appropriate State agencies, and that as soon as possible, a comprehensive State-
wide program be established to alleviate the health hazards and environmental quality prob-
lems caused by agricultural wastes.
E. TECHNOLOGY
Problems Identified
1) Existing technology for solid waste management is clearly inadequate to the
changing needs, and lags that of other pollution sources such as water or air
by many years. Changes that have occurred have been small steps and have
come about only by virtue of extreme pressures which were required to keep
the system from breaking down. Some specific aspects of the problem are
listed below:
a)
Although landfill is used to a predominant degree in California, the ever
increasing demand for land and skyrocketing value mean that new tech-
niques for disposal or more efficient use of landfill must be developed.
b) An accurate assessment and projection of waste production and disposal is
generally unavailable. Making such information available will provide a basis
for defining the research and development needs and will provide lead time
for technological advances.
c) We are facing natural resource shortages in the future which define a need
for recycling or reclamation of the waste materials. Considerable effort
must be devoted to research on wastes prevention and wastes utilization.
25
d)
Advances in the use of more automated collection equipment are needed
to make significant economies in the costliest of the solid waste manage-
ment functions.
e)
The primary methods of solid waste disposal have been variations of bury-
ing or burning but significant improvements in these methods have not
been made.
f)
Development of new equipment for compaction or particle size reduction
will increase efficiency of collection equipment and landfill requirements.
g)
Little attention has been given to the agricultural waste problem.
2)
To successfully mount a large-scale program to overcome technological gaps
requires an intensive coordinated and comprehensive effort involving Federal
and State governments, local and regional public agencies, universitiesand research
organizations, and private industry groups. There appears to be a deficiency in
coordination in relation to overall planning of national and State research, devel-
opment and planning of solid waste programs, university grants, matching city
grants, and industrial activity. In California, there is no State agency currently
given responsibility for this coordination.
3)
Lack of basic data on current aspects of technology has hindered research and
planning. There is no central data bank so that what information is available is
not properly disseminated. This creates a gap between researcher and user.
4)
There is a gross lack of education throughout the field. Solid waste management
has suffered from lack of prestige as an occupation and has therefore had diffi-
culty in attracting qualified professionals to the field. Inadequate information
on the solid waste problems and ill-defined goals for a plan have resulted in pub-
lic unawareness or apathy; therefore, politicians have lacked the impetus to
expend funds on technology.
5)
The interaction of the technological problems of the pollution areas of air, water,
and solid waste are becoming better understood but are generally treated
independently.
6)
A major cause of the difficulty of getting acceptance for a research and devel-
opment program is that there is no direct way of assessing the intrinsic value or
cost of waste pollution. Since waste generally has no direct economic value, the
logic for expenditure of funds for technological advancement is not purely
economic. The reasons may be subjective and relate to such things as reduction
in land insult, aesthetics, disease, odors, etc.
26
Recommendations
1)
In many cases, collection and transportation are handled by small operators who
cannot invest in research to improve the efficiency of their activities. There is
no real motivation for the private investor to do more than meet minimum
specifications. While many new ideas and concepts may have potential merit,
local governments with limited budgets for solid waste management cannot risk
expenditures of public money to test out unproven concepts. Demonstration
and development of these techniques, therefore, must be financed by private
interests or by some means of financial assistance through a public grant pro-
gram. Some form of incentive to stimulate high risk achievements would attract
private sector funding.
2)
The conclusions derived from the current state of the art indicate that there are
specific technology projects which should receive initial emphasis:
a)
Recycling or reclamation of resources
b)
Reduction of waste at the source
c)
Reduction of total volume of waste by means of efficient compaction or
particle reduction methods.
d)
Highly automated salvage systems
e)
Reduction in labor requirements by automation of collection systems
f)
Improved methods of incineration
g)
Advances in economics of utilization of agricultural wastes
3)
A central data bank is needed for solid generation data, operational practices,
techniques, methods, experience, etc. Most logically, this would appear to be a
State function. In the near term, the Public Health Department would appear to
be the most appropriate state unit. In the longer term, perhaps a State
Environmental Department would be more logical.
4) Although the Federal government spends a great deal of money each year, the
State should finance research that is unique to California's problems. The
research efforts should be guided by a steering committee of State and private
parties.
5) State standards pertaining to all aspects of solid waste management should be
continually upgraded to produce improved environmental conditions. This would
provide an impetus for technological advances.
6)
There has been a general apathy by the public which has only recently begun to
change. Although specific local issues often generate a considerable amount of
27
political interest, there has been no large State-wide political movements on
solid waste management. Thus, generally, the only items that are controlled are
those that have become crucial local problems. A comprehensive State-wide edu-
cational program should be established to make all segments of society aware of
solid waste management problems. The program should encompass all segments
of the society and include consumer programs, school programs, industry pro-
grams, and a solid waste management information center.
F. HAZARDOUS WASTES
Problems Identified
1)
Rapid acceleration of industrial technology has resulted in the introduction of
new and exotic materials into man's environment at an increasingly rapid rate.
Little or nothing is known about the effects on humans or the environment of
many of these compounds, individually or in combination.
2) Surveillance necessary to prevent deleterious concentrations of potentially toxic
compounds at disposal sites and unauthorized disposal of toxic or hazardous
industrial wastes is lacking; and chemical substances which could cause long-
lasting damage to the environment must be identified and neutralized.
3) Additional research is required to develop information on such factors as: leach-
ing, movements of pesticides through the soil, carcinogenic substances and other
compounds, chemical reactions of materials, ultimate fate and nature of mate-
rials, etc.
4)
Information is incomplete in the following areas:
a)
Hazards of human exposure to carcinogenic substances
b)
Interaction of pesticides with solid wastes
c)
Trace element chemical pollutants
d) Migration of disease organisms through soil
e)
Pathogen detection and treatment
5) Additional information is required before employing widespread use of ocean
disposal methods. Research is needed to gain an understanding of the long-term
ecological effects of ocean disposal.
28
Recommendations
1)
It is recommended that the designated State agency institute and maintain an
accurate inventory and appropriate projections of hazardous solid waste gen-
eration. Detailed information should include:
a)
Generation of wastes by location of point of generation
b)
Amount of waste generated by type and degree of hazard
c)
Identification of company ownership and specific identification of the
official responsible for disposal
d)
Description of the current means of disposal and identification of the
points of disposal or discharge.
Special attention should be directed to the early completion of detailed field
surveys of the following specific problem areas:
a)
Chemical and petroleum industry wastes
b)
Drug industry wastes, including discarded drugs and containers
c)
Syringes and other contaminated or single-use medical supplies as used by
physicians, hospitals, clinics and similar health care facilities
d)
Radioactive wastes
e)
Sewage treatment sludges
f)
Federal and military wastes
2)
A vested right cannot be acquired to generate or to dispose of waste into the
environment, or to continue to generate or dispose of waste at any particular
level of quality, once initiated. Periodic revision and upgrading of requirements
will be necessary to adapt to changing conditions. It is therefore recommended
that for each class of hazardous wastes, the designated State agency be directed
to develop special standards of design and/or operation for collection, storage,
transport and/or for disposal sites receiving hazardous wastes and to periodi-
cally review and update these standards.
3) Since current monitoring and surveillance programs are inadequate and enforce-
ment will be a greater and more difficult problem in the future, it is recom-
mended that the designated State agency be directed to develop methods of
audit and control to assure an adequate level of compliance with the standards.
29
4)
It is recommended that an advisory group composed of informed citizens in the
areas of sanitary engineering, ecology, economics, public health, municipal
planning, land use, disposal system operation, etc., along with representatives
from other affected public and private concerns, should be appointed to work
with the responsible agency of the State in formulating the guidelines and/or
standards.
5) The designated State agency should conduct a formal reexamination of current
radioactive wastes management practices in California to assure that they are
adequate in meeting the needs of the State.
6) The designated State agency should study changes in ecology of all the shallow
coastal waters off the populated areas of California brought about by the treat-
ment and disposal of sewage sludge.
7)
The designated State agency shall conduct surveys of Federal and military waste
practices, establish standards, procedures and regulations for possible incorpora-
tion in Federal legislation, and request the support of California's congressional
representation in the preparation of legislation to prevent further pollution.
8) In addition to identifying hazardous waste generators and personnel of respon-
sibility in the waste generation process, to assure the adequate and open devel-
opment of public policy and fair, impartial and adequate enforcement of stand-
ards and regulations, it is necessary to identify all persons of responsibility
within the entire solid waste management process. Therefore, it is recommended
that as a minimum, licensing and inspection requirements should include the
requirement for complete disclosure of all parties engaged in the collection,
transfer, transport or disposal of waste material destined for introduction to the
land or water environment of California.
As noted, various classes of hazardous wastes were examined by the Task Force in
some detail. Detailed recommendations for these problem areas are contained in "Selected
Problems of Hazardous Waste Management in California," and are incorporated by reference
in this Task Force report.
30
VI. TASK FORCE ORGANIZATION
AND RESPONSIBILITIES
In view of the high priority assigned to the problems of solid waste management,
Governor Reagan established a Task Force to undertake a broad review of this area and
recommend approaches to short- and long-term solutions with respect to the various classi-
fications of solid wastes. On April 10, 1969, in his charge to the Task Force, the Governor
stated:
"
in view of the urgency and complexity of the problem, I have asked a group of
public spirited citizens who are knowledgeable and interested in the subject to serve
on a Governor's Task Force on Solid Waste. I am asking the Task Force to undertake
a broad review of California's solid waste problems and to recommend approaches
that could lead to solutions. I am also asking the Task Force to work closely with
31
the Environmental Quality Study Council, the State Department of Public Health,
and other units of State government that have solid waste concerns. I expect the
Task Force to complete its review by January 1970.
"The Task Force may examine into any aspect of the solid waste problems, but I
should like particular attention to be directed to the following questions:
"1) How much solid waste is being generated in California, of what types, and
where? What are the projections for the next 25 years?
"2) What kinds of problems are associated with the collection and transportation of
solid wastes?
"3) What kind of problems are associated with the disposal of solid wastes?
"4) What kinds of problems are associated with solid wastes that are not "collected
and disposed of" in the usual sense; e.g., agricultural wastes?
"5) Are there legal or administrative barriers to effective and efficient solid waste
management? Technological barriers?
"6) Can we afford indefinitely to "bury" solid waste that can be reclaimed and
reused in the interest of resource conservation?
"7) What should the State's role be in solid waste management? Regional or local
government? Private enterprise?
"8) What are the recommended short term and long term solutions with respect to
the various classifications of solid wastes?"
The members of the Task Force were drawn from business and industry, the profes-
sions and government so that a wide range of viewpoints and many areas of expertise were
available to the Task Force. However, the scope of problems is so wide, and the variety of
the possible impacts of these problems is so large that no task force (of manageable size)
could include all the required areas of expertise, nor could any task force fully represent all
the possible viewpoints of concern. Thus, it should be emphasized that each member of this
Task Force was serving as an individual, rather than as a representative of a group and that
each member was responsible for adequately representing the broad interests of the citizens
of California.
The Task Force organized itself into working groups to respond to the specifics of
the Governor's charge, as well as to the general problems presented by the charge. Since its
establishment, the deliberations of the Task Force have been a continuous process. There
has been full and active interchange of information among the members: about half of the
members served on two working groups; members from Government Relations and from
Technology also served on each of the functional working groups; the chairmen of each of
the working groups distributed minutes of the meetings to the group members and to each
32
of the other chairmen; the Executive Board reviewed the progress of the working groups. In
its explorations, the Task Force interfaced with the Environmental Quality Study Council,
the State Department of Public Health, other units of state and local government, interested
associations and private industry. Membership of the Task Force, and the organization of the
Task Force and responsibilities are shown on the following tables.
33
MEMBERS OF THE
GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE
ON
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
EXECUTIVE BOARD
CHAIRMAN
Frank R. Dansby
Frank R. Dansby
Robert R. Darby
VICE CHAIRMAN
Robert L. Foreman
Dr. Howard Laitin
Dr. John M. Heslep
Dr. Howard Laitin
Donald H. Lee
Carl C. Sexton
Dewey Vittori
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Z. Harry Astor, Attorney at Law
Dr. John M. Heslep
California Refuse Removal Council
Deputy Director for Environmental Health
and Consumer Protection
Ruth Benell, Deputy Executive Officer
State Department of Public Health
Local Agency Formation Commission
Ben J. Kazarian Jr., President
Dr. Ralph A. Clave
California Solid Waste Research Institute
Assistant Clinical Professor of Surgery
School of Medicine
Ronald M. Ketcham, Executive Assistant
University of Southern California
Southern California Edison Company
John R. Danch, Partner
Dr. Howard Laitin, Manager, Systems Analysis
Danch, Ferro, Lagomarsino & Cooper
Hughes Aircraft Company and
Adjunct Professor of Industrial and Systems
Frank R. Dansby, Vice President
Engineering
Union Bank
University of Southern California
Robert R. Darby, President
Donald H. Lee, Manager, Technology Laboratory
Dar-San Commissary
TRW Systems Group, TRW, Inc.
Edwin A. Estudillo
Charles J. Lyons, Jr.
Sanitary Landfill Manager
Attorney at Law
B.K.K. Company
John P. Moscone, President
Robert L. Foreman, Consulting Appraiser
Golden Gate Disposal Company and
Shattuck Company
Sanitary Fill Company
Carl Fossette, General Manager
James E. Ogden
Central and West Basin Water
Liquid Waste Consultant
Replenishment District
William Ohanesian, Vice President and
Victor Gomer
General Manager
Paso Robles Waste Disposal
System Disposal Service
Harley K. Gray, Water Quality Engineer
J. E. Pilon, General Sales Manager
Southern California Water Company
Shepherd Machinery Company
34
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Carl C. Sexton, President
Robert Van Roekal
Los Angeles By-Products Company
Architect
Cliff May Associates
W.W. Steiner, District Manager,
Real Estate Department
Southern Pacific Company
Dewey Vittori
Oakland Scavenger Company
Rudolph L. Vaccarezza, President
California Refuse Removal Council,
Northern District
TECHNICAL ADVISORS
Ralph H. Dudley
Dr. Rolf R. Piekarz
Member of the Technical Staff
Senior Economist
Aerospace Corporation
Institute for Defense Analyses
Dr. Solomon W. Golomb
Dr. Harold Steingold
Professor of Electrical Engineering
Senior Research Engineer
University of Southern California
RAND Corporation
Kenneth K. Hekimian
Robert B. Wheelock
Senior Systems Analyst
Assistant Manager
Environmental Systems Division
Systems Development Operations
Aero-Jet General Corporation
Systems Associates, Inc.
Bernard B. Levitt
Senior Staff, Civil Systems Applications
TRW Systems
35
ORGANIZATION OF THE
GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE
ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
EXECUTIVE BOARD
Chairman
Dr. Howard Laitin
Frank R. Dansby
Robert R. Darby
Robert L. Foreman
Dr. John M. Heslep
Donald H. Lee
Carl C. Sexton
Dewey Vittori
PRODUCTION AND GENERATION
STORAGE, COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION
Robert R. Darby, Chairman
Dewey Vittori, Chairman
Ben J. Kazarian, Jr.
Z. Harry Astor
Ronald M. Ketcham
Victor Gomer
Donald H. Lee
John P. Moscone
Charles J. Lyons, Jr.
William Ohanesian
James E. Ogden
Rudolph L. Vaccarezza
William Ohanesian
Quantitative and qualitative characteristics of solid
Adequacy of current level of service in rural and urban
waste generation. Potential actions to reduce
areas. Current and future methods, techniques, and
quantities and prevent problems. Forecasts of future
equipment. Identification of current status and needs
trends, concerning new products, materials packaging
for laws, standards, and regulations. Consideration of
methods. Definition of roles and responsibilities of
financing and labor problems. Roles and responsibilities
state and local governments.
of State and local governments.
DISPOSAL AND LAND USE
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
Robert L. Foreman, Chairman
Carl C. Sexton, Chairman
John R. Danch
Z. Harry Astor
Edwin A. Estudillo
Ruth Benell
Ben J. Kazarian, Jr.
Robert R. Darby
J. E. Pilon
Edwin A. Estudillo
Carl C. Sexton
Robert L. Foreman
W.W. Steiner
Carl Fossette
Robert Van Roekal
Dr. John M. Heslep
Current and potential processing and ultimate disposal
methods of solid waste. Problems of recycling wastes
Problems, roles, and responsibilities of the many levels of
which are not collected. Current status of solid waste
governmental jurisdiction involved in solid waste manage-
disposal planning and its relationship to overall land use
ment. Legal and administrative barriers to effective
planning. Requirements for laws, standards and regula-
management, policy formulation, planning and financing.
tions. Roles and responsibilities of State and local
Relation of solid waste management to air, land, and water
governments.
resource management.
36
and
-