Imagini ale paginilor

ment which are low enough to protect itself. The waste management system must be responsible for operating in such a way that the environmental quality standards are met.

Amounts of waste generated today and projected for 1990: With this concept in mind, we proceeded to measure the amounts of waste generated in California today and develop methods of projecting the amounts of waste which are to be anticipated by the year 1990. The liquid waste sewage and industrial liquid are in billions of tons per year and solid wastes are in tens of millions of tons per year. Thus the actual figures for sewage for 1965 are 3.3 billion tons per year. For the year 1990, they are 6.2 billion tons per year. dustrial liquid for 1965 will be 830 million tons and for 1990, 2.5 billion tons per year. Municipal refuse for 1965 amounts to 12 million tons per year and this will increase by 1990 to slightly over 40 million tons per year. Agriculture solids presently amount to 13.3 million tons per year and we project them to increase by 1990 to 22.3 million tons per year.


In the generation of gaseous waste we have separated hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide and aerosols because our projections take into account the effect of automobile emission control devices which will be required beginning next year. These devices will have a considerable effect in the reduction of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, but very little effect upon oxides of nitrogen and sulfur oxides. The amount of total hydrocarbons for this year is 2.3 million tons. For the year 1990, it will be 3.3 million tons. Oxides of nitrogen go up from 800,000 tons to 1.5 million tons. Sulfur oxides increase from 300,000 tons to 600,000 tons. Carbon monoxide this year will amount to 10.2 million tons and will increase by 1990 to 11.3 million tons per year. Aerosols will increase from 500,000 to 900,000 tons per year. The total tonage of pollutants thrown into the atmosphere of California this year will be approximately 15 million tons and assume significant proportions when one realizes that this amounts to considerably more than 10 percent of the total steel tonnage produced in the United States during this year. Some systems analysis aspects: In our effort to apply systems analysis to the waste and pollution problem of California, we searched for specifications which a waste management system would have to meet since system specifications provide the starting point for a design effort.

We looked first at air pollution and found that the State of California Department of Public Health over the past 6 years has been in the process of establishing atmospheric quality standards for the State. These standards are being set at three levels: The adverse level, serious level, and emergency level. The adverse level is defined as that point where sensory irritation, damage to vegetation, reduction in visibility or other such effects may occur. The serious level is one at which alteration in body function may lead to chronic disease, and the emergency level is one at which acute sickness or death in sensitized persons may occur. The identification of these levels in terms of pollutants is an extremely difficult one and only a few have been identified even on a tentative basis.

The public health service has also set automobile emission specifications for some materials which contribute to pollution. The exhaust

71-392 0-67—5

concentrations are based upon projections of automobile population in the Los Angeles basin between now and 1970 and the hope exists the required reduction in the amount of pollutants put out by automobile exhausts will reduce concentrations in the atmosphere of southern California below the adverse level by 1970. The Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District supports these standards, but feel they fall short of meeting the county's needs..

The State recognizes that we need air quality standards for ozone, hydrocarbons, and all other possible constituents of smog which cause adverse effects of any kind. The Department of Public Health is exercising great caution by not establishing a standard until sound scientific evidence is available to support the level set. Until the setting of standards, the effects of smog will continue to increase in California beyond those of today.

The present area of reduced visibility in California, during conditions favorable for air pollution, is approximately 70,000 square miles and it is the home of 97 percent of California's population.

When we turn our attention to the problem of environmental standards for water, we see further evidence of the difficulty of establishing standards; there are water quality standards of a variety of sorts. We note that both the World Health Organization and the U.S. Public Health Service agree on the total dissolved solvents at 500 parts per million. The Public Health Service standards for sulfate and chloride are 20 percent higher than those set for the World Health Organization. The establishment of drinking water standards in this country goes back to 1914 and represents a great deal of experience.

Despite this long experience, if now we look at the quality of water distributed by the metropolitan water district, we see that presently in Los Angeles the water contains 704 parts per million of dissolved solids and exceeds the Public Health Service limit for sulfates by 47 parts per million. There is absolutely no indication that the water being supplied to southern California homes is detrimental to health. There is very little complaint on the part of the residents of Los Angeles about the quality of the water. Consequently, it is difficult to believe that the Public Health Service's standards have been set on any meaningful basis.

If we turn our attention to the maximum permissible concentrations for the Sacramento River at Knight's Landing which is near the lower reaches of the Sacramento River, concentrations which have been set by the Central Valley Water Pollution Control District, we see that in most cases, the river water with respect to inorganic components is of considerably better quality than that being delivered to the homes of southern California. This observation is also true when we look at the proposed water standards for the California water plan. One might conclude that water in the Sacramento River and in the California water plan system is kept at a significantly better quality because of its use for agriculture purposes. However, we know that most crops can tolerate water considerably inferior to that required for human consumption.

I use these comparisons only to illustrate the difficulty in setting meaningful water quality standards and I use them to reinforce our statement that prior to designing an effective pollution control system

in the State of California, we need meaningful environmental quality standards to serve as basis for system design.

Despite the general lack of environmental quality standards, we tried in our study to project the effects of three different systems for the handling of California wastes and developed rough order-of magnitude cost estimates for these systems. The goal in doing this was to establish whether a systematic approach to the management of waste was feasible and if feasible, whether it would be meaningful to California in terms of cost savings.

The first system can only be called a system in the broadest interpretation of the word in that it represents the continuation of handling wastes in the manner presently used in California and incorporates only the expansion of the existing processing techniques to dispose of the increased amounts of wastes generated as a result of population growth and technological change. Since our present wastehandling techniques do today result in the pollution of our environment, the expansion of this system to meet the loading of 1990 would result in increasing pollution of our environment, since we can already see that our environment has a limited capacity for the dilution and conversion of pollutants. This first system we term the expanded existing system. The expanded existing system will incur the direct. costs of operation, maintenance, and equipment depreciation of $1.1 billion per year by 1990. The indirect costs attributed to crop damage, reduced industrial productivity, metropolitan obsolescence, recreational losses, etc., will amount to $7.4 billion per year or a total cost assignable to this way of handling waste of $8.5 billion per year. The second system which we projected for the year 1990 is one utilizing all of our present technology in the most efficient way, taking advantage of integrating the treatment of solids, liquids, and gases wherever feasible. The direct costs assigned to this system are considerably greater than those of the expanded existing system and amount to $2.2 billion per year. This system, however, because of its more comprehensive treatment of waste and its more appropriate disposition of unused materials results in an environment which is markedly improved over that of the existing method and, consequently, the indirect costs are greatly reduced and amount to only $1.5 billion per year.

The third system which we projected for 1990, we have termed the development system since it would incorporate new and novel means of transporting, treating, reclaiming, and disposing of wastes. The goal in the development of improved techniques is primarily one of improving efficiency and reducing costs and, consequently, the direct costs for this system are less than the previous system amounting to $1.5 billion per year. The performance specifications for this system are the same as those of the state-of-the-art system and thus the same improvement in the environment and, consequently, the same reduction in indirect costs result. As a consequence of this exercise, we are firmly convinced that a planned approach to the development of waste management in the State of California is feasible and must be implemented. In its implementation, however, it is impractical to consider the State of California as one integrated system since topographical features, geological, and meteorological conditions and

other factors such as population density, land usage, and transportation patterns vary widely throughout the State. Consequently, we have tentatively identified seven separate regions within the State which we believe from our preliminary analysis represent regions in which a systematic approach to waste management would be practical. Recommendations for future work: Let me tell you then what we recommend as a result of our study. The region which we have identified as the Central Basin-San Francisco Bay region is the one with the greatest number of pressing problems. We recommend that immediate steps be initiated to develop a coordinated waste management system for this region. The steps involved in developing a system for this region are the steps followed in almost any development cycle. They begin with a primitive need which is purely a statement that someone believes that there is a problem. The succeeding steps are a feasibility study, a preliminary design, a detail design, an acquisition phase, and then system operation. These steps do not proceed smoothly from one to the next, however, without careful planning and guidance. This element is indicated by a parallel activity for system management and the development and updating of a program plan for the guidance and monitoring of this effort through all of its phases.

The systems management and program planning can be the function of either industry or government. Both approaches have produced notable results in the aerospace industry and we have no reason to believe that they would not produce similar accomplishment in this State and community problem. We believe that it is more advantageous for the State to go to some outside organization for systems management since there will be large fluctuations in the manpower needs as the program proceeds through the various steps leading to systems operation.

It is difficult to have clear insight into all of the details of all of the activities which will be involved in the various steps listed here. However, as a result of our study, we can look in more depth into the feasibility study.

This is the first step toward the acquisition of an operating system. The feasibility study outlined here does not merely represent more information gathering, but serves as the working foundation for everything which is to come later. Let me discuss in a bit of detail the feasibility study. The primitive needs have been voiced by a large multitude in the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay area. There is unhappiness with the encroachment of bay waters into the delta region. There is unhappiness with the increasing salt content in the agricultural lands in the Central Valley. There is unhappiness in San Francisco Bay with pollution of the waters and smog in the air. We need, however, to go from this statement of primitive need to a real definition of the problem.

We require an "analysis of needs" in terms of effects. What are the health effects? How does the pollution cause discomfort? What are the economic costs in terms of agricultural losses, in terms of cost to industry? What are the requirements in this region for recreation and for a beautiful and pleasing environment in which to live? When these needs have been defined in reasonably concrete terms, the feasibility study then turns to an analysis of what must be done in order to develop a solution. The amounts and types of waste being

generated in this region must be measured and projections must be developed for the coming years during which the system will be in service. Data must be developed to provide a measurement of the capacity of the environment for receiving diluting and processing wastes. Quantitative relationships between pollution levels and the effects measured in the "analysis of need" step must be developed and then decisions must be made about the system boundaries and the interfaces which this system has with other activities of man of this region. When we have done this, then we have truly defined the problem and we are now in a position to initiate a search for plausible solutions.

A variety of plausible solutions must be identified and these can be sorted on the basis of which of these are potentially useful in terms of physical reliability, economical worth, and financial feasibility.

The set of potentially useful solutions should have varying capability to reduce environmental pollution and will vary in their costs of implementation and operation. Their performance capability in terms of reducing pollution must be described in the same terms used during the "analysis of need" in order that the public or their representatives can make a selection of the type of system they want to buy. Only after there is clear understanding of potential costs and cost savings can the decision be made to enter upon the next step, that of preliminary design.

It should be pointed out that feasibility study is a difficult one and extremely costly. Already large amounts of money have been spent in this region of California just trying to measure the amounts of pollution in the environment. The study and understanding of the relationship between amounts of pollution and their effects in the terms used under the "needs analysis" is a major research program in itself. The measurement of environmental processing capacity is another major research program. We anticipate that for this region a feasibility study to a depth adequate to permit proceeding to the next step in the development program will consume 3 to 5 years and cost between $8 and $10 million. Final costs and time spent to this point will depend upon other research and development programs being conducted by the State and Federal Government to provide fundamental information on the two research areas identified.

In addition to the need for a number of models and computer programs, our study has identified the need for a national environmental simulation facility for the study of the complex problems associated with environmental processing capacity and the relationship between pollution and effect. In an artist's conception of this facility is a geodesic dome covering approximately 10 acres providing the capacity for experimentally determining the complex interactions of pollutants with environmental factors which can be controlled experimentally. This simulator would deal not only with gaseous pollutants but with liquid and solid pollutants and the interchange among all three States. Other simulators on a smaller scale are located in an attached building and are for the study of interactions of pollutants with environmental factors using only one or two variables. A central building is a supporting laboratory facility. A standby powerplant, shops, and maintenance facilities are to the left of the powerplant and

« ÎnapoiContinuă »