Maintaining a quality environment in Georgia; report of the Environmental Task Force to the Georgia Comprehensive Health Planning Council

TASKFORCE:
MAINTAINING A QUALITY ENVIRONMENT IN GEORGIA

GEORGIA OFFICE OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

1971

1280 WEST PEACHTREE STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309

MAINTAINING A QUALITY ENVIRONMENT IN GEORGIA
REPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE TO THE GEORGIA COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL
Compiled by the
OFFICE OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH January 1971

Members of the GEORGIA COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL While the Environmental Health Task Force was in Existence

Thomas J. Anderson, M.D., Chairman Atlanta

Mrs. J. Mac Barber Athens

Ernest Napier Moultrie

J. Gordon Barrow, M.D. Georgia Regional Medical Program

Jack P. Nix Georgia Department of Education

Louis C. Brown, M.D. Atlanta

Glen P. Robinson, Jr. Atlanta

A.E. Burell Smyrna

Jack Runninger, O.D. Rome

Norman Burkett Hamilton Memorial Hospital Dalton
Mrs. Hunter M. Clay Savannah
John Cromartie Gainesville
Mrs. R. M. Hair, Jr. Buena Vista
Boisfeuillet Jones Atlanta
Dr. Eugenia Lee Medical College of Georgia Augusta
Ha ro1d Lurrnnu s Columbus

George L. Simpson, Jr., ph.D. University System of Georgia
J. V. Skinner Macon
Horace Tate, Ph.D. Atlanta
R. L. Tindol, Jr. Atlanta
Miss Mary Webb Atlanta
H. Oliver Welch Atlanta
Jack Williams, Jr. Waycross
Lewis H. Williams, D.D.S. Toccoa

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
1280 West Peachtree Street
Office of Comprehensive Health Planning Atlanta, Geargia 30309 Area Code 404 688-4033
February 3, 1971
John H. Venable, M. D, Director Georgia Department of Public Health 47 Trinity Avenue, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Dear Dr. Venable:
On behalf of the Georgia Comprehensive Health Planning Council, I am forwarding to you the report of the Environmental Health Task Force, Maintaining a Quality Environment in Georgia. We thank the Task Force for its long hours of deliberations and the efforts it made to be truly comprehensive in its view. Mr. Robert Stiemke of Georgia Tech, the Chairman of the group, is to be commended for his work, as is each of the 24 members of the Task Force, three of whom were Council members.
The Council unanimously adopted and urged implementation of the report, and requests that full consideration be given to the recommended prioritie s and one hundred sixteen sugge sted specific actions as a means of maintaining a quality environment in Georgia.
Sincerely,
~O:~ Thomas J. Anderson, M. D., Chairman Georgia Comprehensive Health Planning Council

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE

Robert E. Stiemke, Chairman Professor of Civil Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta

James H. Aldredge, Chairman Fulton County Commission Atlanta

"i<Ernes t Nap ier Businessman Moultrie

Reverend William Holmes Borders Pastor, Wheat Street Baptist Church Atlanta
W. D. Bowdoin Continental Can Company Augusta
Cyrus M. Chapman State Senator Smyrna

Harold L. Nix, ph.D.
Institute of Community & Area
Development University of Georgia Athens
James T. O'Kelley District Director of Environmental Sanitation Laurens County Health Department Dublin

Mrs. Xernona Clayton Model Cities Program Atlanta
Miss Louise Cording Atlanta Adolescent Pregnancy Project Atlanta
>'<John Cromartie Businessman and former Mayor Gainesville
Charles E. Drummond, Jr.
Wiedeman & Singleton Engineers
Atlanta
Allyn M. Herrick, Ph.D., Dean School of Forest Resources University of Georgia Athens
Mrs. Alice Latham District Health Department Nursing Director Jesup

Dixon R. Olive District Director of Environmental Sanitation Muscogee County Health Department Columbus
William L. Quinn Walker County Commissioner LaFayette
Thomas F. Sellers, M.D. Emory University School of MedicinE Atlanta
Virgil T. Smith State Representative Dalton
Harold Suit Atlanta
* R. L. Tindol, Jr., President
Tindol Industries Atlanta

J. Robert Logan, M.D. Savannah
James McIntyre Deputy Revenue Commissioner Georgia Department of Revenue Atlanta

Dr. Ernest C. Tsivoglou Professor of Sanitary Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta
John Wright, President Atlanta Labor Council Atlanta

* Members of the Georgia Comprehensive Health Planning Council

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ATLANTA. GEORGIA. 30332

TO:
FROM: DATE: SUBJECT:

Dr. Thomas J. Anderson, Chairman Georgia Comprehensive Health Planning Council Office of Comprehensive Health Planning Georgia Department of Public Health
Robert E. Stiemke, Chairman Task Force on Environmental Health State of Georgia
January 27, 1971
Task Force Final Report: Maintaining a Quality Environment in Georgia.

Transmitted herewith is the final report of the task force you appointed in December, 1969. The group of 24 concerned citizens met nine times in full day, formal meetings, and sub-committees met at interim periods. With the help of many resource persons--from the Georgia Department of Public Health and other State agencies, from the appropriate, concerned Federal agencies, from official and voluntary groups at local levels, from the business and industrial community and from the public and private universities in our State--we have made a conscientious effort to assess our environmental problems and to make realistic recommendations for coping with them.
Financial and manpower resources of our State are limited. It is imperative that we use them as wisely as possible. It is to this goal that this study was directed. Each of us who has worked on it sincerely hopes that this resulting report will attract the constructive attention of those who are in positions to implement the recommendations in the best interests of all Georgians.
A study such as this has a finite, fleeting life. It needs to be kept current as cond~tions change. This is our first recommendation.
I wish to express my appreciation to all of the members of the Task Force for the many days they devoted to its mission. And without the help of the professional staffs of the local, state, federal, and private agencies upon whom we called, our conclusions might have been unrealistic. Our sincere thanks to them also. We have avoided "grinding axes", and we have avoided political nuances.

Dr. Thomas J. Anderson January 27, 1971 Page two
The State Department of Public Health is currently charged with most of the responsibilities for carrying out the functions with which this report is concerned. The factual contributions of its staff are gratefully acknowledged. A study such as the one on which this report is based tends to appear to be critical of the persons and agencies engaged in ongoing programs. In fact, however, Georgia is blessed in having unusually well qualified professional people working in environmental health, and the programs are good. Nonetheless, they deserve far better support from those of us who stand to benefit from their efforts.
No citizens' group can be productive without first-class staff support. Such support was superbly rendered by the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning of the State Health Department. Our sincere appreciation is extended to its Director, Dr. Eugene J. Gillespie and his competent staff.

OFFICE OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING STAFF
Eugene J. Gillespie, M. D., Director
Miss Lucile Brookshaw, Research Statistician Miss Karen Butler, Health Program Planning Analyst Mr. Francis Crowder, Community Organization Consultant Mrs. Estelle Greene, Health Program Planning Analyst Mrs. Patricia Leet, Assistant to the Director Mrs. Gloria McCain, Secretary Mr. Wilson Morgan, Health Manpower Advisor Mrs. Emily Stern, Secretary Mrs. Marian Tanner, Secretary Mr. Lamar White, Economist
OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE
Coordinating Consultant: Billy H. Kornegay, Ph.D. Professor of Sanitary Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta
Systems Consultant: Gerald Delon, Ph.D. Health Systems Research Center Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta
7

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2
Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10

PAGE

Lines of Responsibility for Communication and

Implementation of Task Force Recommendations

.

18

Process for Task Force Election, Information

Exchange, Formation of Recommendations and

Setting of Priori ties

.

21

Recommended Priorities for Environmental Con-

trol ...........................................

35

Per Capita Water Consumption, U.S. and Georgia,

1900 - 2000

.

59

The Population Growth of Georgia and Its Major

Metropolitan Areas During the Period 1900-1985

72

1970 Population Density Distributions for the

State of Georgia ................................

73

The National Average of Per Capita Refuse Produc-

tion

.

75

Automotive Hydrocarbon and Carbon Monoxide Emissions

in Urban Areas ..................................

76

The Decrease in Available Land as a Result of In-

creasing Populations ...........................

77

Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response

.

112

TABLES Table I: Table II:

Estimated Nationwide Emissions in Millions of Tons

Per Year

.

Gram-Per-Mile Emission Standards Get Tighter .....

PAGE
50 51

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Sununary ...............................

13

I.
II. III.

THE WORK OF THE TASK FORCE

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

'"

ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES

THE TASK FORCE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

.

17

27

.

33

Water Pollution ....................................

37

Sol id Waste ....................................

43

Air pollution ....................................

49

Water Supply ..................................

57

Housing .........................................

65

Population .......................................

71

Injury Control .....................................

83

Pesticides .................................

87

Milk and Food Sanitation ..............................

93

Occupational Health ............................

99

Vector Control ........................................ 103

Institutional Sanitation........................................ 107

Noise pollution ................................... 111

Recreational Sanitation......................................... 115

Radiological Health ................................ 121

IV. APPENDIX ...................................... , .... 125 V. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MATERIALS SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE ..... 161

9

P~F~E
The State Environmental Health Task Force was formed in late 1969 by the Georgia Comprehensive Health Planning Council, in response to a need for evaluation of the State's environmental problems. In nine full-day meetings and two subcommittee meetings over a period of nearly a year, the Task Force listened to experienced persons describe 15 major problem areas, studied the problems, then devised solutions, including priorities for maintaining the quality of the State's environment.
Considerable difficulties faced the Task Force and its working staff. For one thing, there were few models on which to base its work. The Task Force was formed before the National Council on Environmental Quality, which released a report in August of last year, began to function, and few other states had done comprehensive studies. Thus, basic questions regarding study of the limitless subject of environmental quality had to be solved.
Secondly, information with which to evaluate the state's environmental needs was available in some fields, while in others, very little state data could be obtained. The Task Force had to rely strongly on the experience and professional opinions of its resource group in assessing these needs, as there are few valid indicators and statistics with which to evaluate the status of the environment.
The Task Force has just begun an evaluative activity that must be carried out regularly, as more information becomes available and as recommendations are implemented. An Environmental Plan of Action has been devised by which all levels of government, industry, and individual citizens all can take a part in maintaining the quality of the environment. Implementation is in progress for some recommendations, but others call for new, bold actions. The goal of the Task Force is full implementation of its recommendations by a wide variety of agencies, organizations and individuals, as well as continuous updating of this plan of action. This continuous evaluation is necessary in order for a true picture to be developed of how far we have come and how far we have to go in order to maintain the quality of the environment.
11

SUMMARY
The Report of the Environmental Health Task Force is the result of nearly a year of study by the Task Force, which was formed in late 1969 at the request of the Georgia Comprehensive Health Planning Council. The Council, which is appointed by the Governor, advises the Georgia Department of Public Health on long-range planning for environmental, mental and physical health in the state of Georgia. The lines of responsibility for the Task Force and the Council are illustrated in Figure 1, Page 18.
As explained in Section I beginning on Page 17, the Task Force represented a cross-section of the Georgia public that is interested in solving the problems of the environment. Because a broad view was sought, those employed in state programs to improve the environment were not included in the membership. Rather, interested citizens were asked to be members. The persons most knowledgeable about the problems, such as those operating state and federal environmental control programs, were called upon to provide information about the extent of the problems, as well as the alternatives for solving them, to the Task Force.
During the year 1970, the Task Force investigated 15 problem areas and possible solutions, and subsequently devised an Environmental Plan of Action. This Plan, which is detailed in Sections II and III, includes recommended priorities for emphases that should be placed on solving each of the problem areas as a means of maintaining the overall quality of the environment, as well as specific recommendations for each area.
The priorities--in Section III, commencing with Page 33--suggest strongly that maintaining a quality environment will depend on a balanced attack on all 15 problem areas, rather than simply being concerned about one particularly visible problem, such as water pollution.
The Task Force recommended that priorities be placed on dealing with problem areas in the following order:
1. Water pollution 2. Solid Waste Disposal 3. Air Pollution 4. Water Supply 5. Housing 6. Population 7. Injury Control 8. Pesticides 9. Milk and Food Sanitation 10. Occupational Health 11. Vector Control 12. Institutional Sanitation 13. Noise pollution 14. Recreational Sanitation 15. Radiological Health
13

The proportion of emphasis that the Task Force recommended for solution or containment of the problem areas was as follows:

1. Water Pollution (11.7%)

12. Institutional Sanitation
(3.7%) 11. Vector Control (4.2%)
10. Occupational
Health (4.7%)
9.
Milk and Food Sanitation
(5.3%)

5.
Housing (9.3%)

6.
Population (8.6%)

14

The Task Force thus indicated priorities that the decision-makers of the State should keep in mind when allocating funds for environmental control and for other purposes, when designing programs to improve environmental quality, and when making day-to-day choices that will eventually have an effect on the environment.
In addition, the Task Force suggested specific ways that all citizens of the State, whether high-level decision-makers, businessmen or individuals, might take a part in maintaining the quality of the state's environment. Background and recommendations concerning each of the 15 major environmental concerns are in Section III beginning on Page 37. These 116 recommendations included provisions for adequate planning, education (of the public as well as of manpower), research, and legislation and enforcement to control the environment. Commentary accompanying these recommendations also tentatively suggests organizations and groups that might inspire or accomplish implementation of each of the recommendations.
15

Z-
-t
o;llClI
ncc:
o-t
Z

I. THE WORK OF THE TASK FORCE
The state Environmental Health Task Force was formed in late 1969 and met regularly during 1970 to take a comprehensive look at Georgia's environmental health problems and to suggest priorities and methods for reducing them.
The Task Force was formed just prior to an unprecedented period of local, state and national attention on the deteriorating quality of the environment. At the same time, government and private industry were recognizing the value of long-range planning and priority-setting as aids to rational allocation of limited resources to accomplish their goals. There was also a widespread trend to increase the responsiveness of institutions, including environmental agencies, to the people they serve by involving those persons in the long-range planning process.
The Georgia Comprehensive Health Planning Council, a health advisory commission whose members are appointed by the Governor and who are predomin~,.,\tly "consumers" of health services rather than "providers", or professionals in health fields, anticipated these trends, and formed the state Environmental Health Task Force accordingly.
GENESIS
The Council early in 1969 listened to a panel of local, state and federal officials interested in the environment describe the severity of the state's environmental health prob1ems--water and air pollution, accidents, and several others. The Council recognized the need to protect the environment as a part of a long-range plan for protecting the health and well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the Council saw the need for evaluating Georgia's problems and seeing how they might differ in their scope and seriousness from national environmental problems. The Council chairman, Thomas J. Anderson, M. D., of Atlanta, subsequently called for formation of the state Environmental Health Task Force.
The Comprehensive Health Planning Council, which was formed in 1967 following passage of federal legislation, is in a unique position to consider the problems of Georgia's environment. It has a mandate to promote and assure "the highest level of health attainable for every person, in an environment which contributes positively to healthful individual and family living (P.L. 89-749)."
MISSION
The Council and its staff, the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning in the Georgia Department of Public Health, are concerned with all programs that may affect man's health and well-being, whether they are embodied in traditional public activity or in private or voluntary institutions. Called the "Partnership for Health," the comprehensive health planning movement seeks to involve all in-
17

.- -



GOVERNOR OF

*

GEORGIA


GEORGiA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE

..


GEORGIA COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING
COUNCIL

Figure 1 - Lines of Responsibility for Communication and Implementation of Task Force Recommendations
18

stitutions affecting the total needs of man--environmental, educational, social and economic--because physical health and general well-being is affected when these needs are not met. The Council's Environmental Health Task Force, therefore, is concerned with the total environment insofar as it directly or indirectly affects man's health and well-being.

The Task Force, aided by resource persons with a wide variety of experience, has looked beyond the range of "health" programs already in existence, and into some traditionally "nonheal th" areas in order to determine the effec ts of the environment on individual Georgians. Its recommendations are directed to the Governor, through the Council and the State Health Department, as illustrated in Figure 1.

The task of looking at the total environment is great, and the Task Force recognizes that there is much yet to be done. rhe task has meant looking at the existing programs affecting the environment and suggesting ways that these programs can be improved or altered to better accomplish their original objectives, and ways to change some of their objectives in order to accomplish the ultimate goal: An environment that contributes positively to healthful individual and family living.

MEMBERSHIP

Thoughtful consideration was given to the Task Force membership because of the unique mission of the group. First of all, it was hoped that the Task Force's advice would be acceptable to all agencies and organizations, private and public, which have environmental interest. Thus membership suggestions were sought from a wide variety of organizations for persons who would serve as interested individuals rather than as official representatives of those organizations.

Secondly, the Task Force was to seek a general overview of as many areas of the environment as was possible, not merely the issues receiving the most attention, and to recognize their interrelationship. As a result, the membership consisted of persons without a vested interest or employment in one categorical program or activity of environmental control.

Thirdly, the Task Force was to set priorities for action among the different environmental problems, and it was intended that these priorities would reflect the feelings of a large part of the citizenry. Thus, members were sought from all parts of the state and from a wide variety of backgrounds.

The Georgia Comprehensive Health Planning Council members were polled to determine who among them would like to serve on the Task Force (three are on the Task Force), and were asked for names of other persons who might be Task Force members. Nominations for members and for those who might serve as technical advisers to the Task Force were solicited from a number of persons and organizations in late 1969. The organizations contacted were:

American Society of Civil Engineers-Georgia Chapter;

Association County Commissioners of Georgia;

Georgia Association of Broadcasters;

Georgia Department of Public Health;

Georgia Jaycees;

19

Georgia Municipal Association;
Georgia Press Association;
Georgia Public Health Association;
Georgia Safety Council, Inc.;
Georgia Society of Professional Engineers;
Georgia Society of Registered Professionals Sanitarians;
Georgia State Medical Association;
Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association;
Georgia Water Quality Control Board;
League of Women Voters of Georgia;
Medical Association of Georgia;
State Bar of Georgia;
U.S. Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, and
University of Georgia Institute of Community and Area Development.
Dr. Anderson, Council chairman, made the final selection of Task Force members, after the nominations were submitted (See Figure 2).
Because persons from all sectors of Georgia's citizenry actively participated in planning Task Force meetings, investigating and discussing environmental problems, and drafting recommendations, the chances of the Task Force findings and recommendations being communicated to and agreed to by all Georgians were improved.
The Task Force evaluated 15 major areas of the environment, and then made recommendations for a plan of action. This plan has two major parts. The first part, detailed in Section II, suggests how much relative emphasis should be put on each of the concerns. It is interesting to note, that, despite the lack of public attention being paid to many of the traditional sanitation activities, such as institutional sanitation, attention to all aspects of environmental control was considered essential to the total plan to maintain a quality environment in Georgia.
The second part, beginning in Section III, consist of recommendations for specific activities that should be undertaken, keeping in mind the relative priorities for emphasis on each problem, in order to assure control of each problem area. While the general recommendations beginning on Page 27 sum up the kinds of actions that will be needed, the specific recommendations outline the particular needs of each problem area.
20

1

Figure 2 - Process for Task Force election, information exchange,

N t-'

formation of recommendations and setting of priorities.

The plan of action that the Task Force devised is relevant to the issues in 1970, but can be easily updated as the huge gap of information about pollution is slowly closed. It can also be altered to deal with even greater changes in the environment that might be created through new technology.
Perhaps the greatest value in the work of the Task Force is that a start has been made in investigating and evaluating problems and making relevant recommendations for action. It is the first step toward a comprehensive plan of action for protecting the environment in all parts of Georgia.
RESOURCE PERSONS
Responses from the many organizations named previously resulted in selection of an initial core of consultants in environmental fields. Subsequent discussions between the Task Force chairman and the assisting staff led to identification of many other persons in the state who were knowledgeable in such areas. These men, who worked in the federal government, the State Health Department and other state agencies, the Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University, the University of Georgia, the State Legislature, the medical profession, and industry, together provided information on almost every aspect of the environment. A full listing of names of resources persons appears in the Appendix beginning on Page 125.
The information given by these individuals contributed greatly to the Task Force members' understanding of the problems and formed the basis of the background material which is presented in this report. Their advise was considered as the recommendations were developed in each of the problem areas. The resource persons were also consulted frequently by the assisting staff as the work of the Task Force progressed. (See Figure 2).
The resource group was invaluable in helping the Task Force point out in its report that something already is being done to improve the environment. Environmental control programs, however undermanned and inadequately funded, have been in existence for years, while widespread interest in the environment is a 1970 phenomenon.
It is essential to build on mechanisms for action that already exist. The recommendations in Section III often include activities that have been conceived by these environmentalists but which, for lack of money or other reasons, have not been implemented adequately. In such cases, the Task Force notes the fact, and intends that its recommendation reinforce support for that activity. The recommendations, then, are a blend of new suggestions as well as support for on-going activities that need new or continued emphasis.
THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE CONSIDERED
The term "environmental quality" means many things to many people: To some, it is open space in which to recreate; to others, it is aesthetic beauty; to still others, it is physical health as a result of control over certain environmental phenomena which are thought to have a direct or indirect effect on physical health. The Task Force dealt primarily with environmental quality as it related to physical health, because this consideration is ultimately of greatest importance to the population.
22

It is obvious, however, that the line can hardly be drawn between those aspects of the environment that can affect health and those that apparently do not alter it. The Task Force did not hesitate to investigate areas of the environment, such as population, in which effects are manifest, but not clearly understood. This is because it is the belief of the Task Force that a quality environment is a healthy environment, and that efforts to bring about a quality environment will have positive effects on the health and well-being of Georgia's citizens.
As the Task Force trained its view on Georgia's environmental problems, it was soon recognized that they are not necessarily the same as those being highlighted on the national level. The state has its own particular problems, some of which are regional problems not confined by state boundaries, but which nevertheless are Georgia's concerns. The Task Force, while not hesitating to address itself to problems that could be handled only on a national level, paid particular attention to those changes or interventions which could be effected best on a state or local level. It was felt that by emphasizing those problems which seemed most serious to Georgians and subject to their control, the Task Force would help bring the state closer to dealing with the issues in the places where they originate.
Fifteen general concerns were surveyed in depth to determine the extent to which they are an environmental health hazard. These problems are:
-unhealthful air;
-unsafe housing conditions;
-accidental injury and death in the home, in the community and on the highway;
-unsafe conditions in schools, hospitals, prisons and other ins ti tu t ions;
-contaminated milk and food supplies;
-unsafe levels of noise exposure;
-unsafe levels of pesticides;
-general environmental harm due to demands and growth trends of the population in general;
-hazardous occupational conditions;
-unhealthy levels of radiation exposure;
-unhealthful conditions in recreational areas;
-improper disposal of solid waste;
-harmful effects of vectors;
-general pollution of water resources; and
-unsafe public water supplies.

Problems were selected either because they had already been identified as environmental health concerns, or were suspected of having a role in undermininghealth through alteration of the environment. Within state government, programs had been established to deal with all of the problems, with the exception of those created by population in general and noise. While these two areas are recognized as indirect or direct environmental hazards, there are no full programs established in the state at present to handle them from an environmental standpoint. On the other hand, the other 13 problems had previously been identified as environmental hazards, and are a concern of a state agency--in some cases more than one state agency.
Ever since Georgia became industrialized, the words "progress" and "industrialization" have been used interchangeably to signify growth in Georgia. Such growth has been unquestioned, as has been the "free enterprise" system which allowed and fostered this progress in the form of numerous industries that polluted the air and water and created solid waste problems without regard for the eventual effects on the environment. In fact, government "controls," as infrequently as they have been enacted into law, have seemed to counter the idea of "free enterprise."
Unquestioned, too, have been the rapid urbanization and growing affluence of the state. Any questions, in fact, have been considered contradictory to the basic freedoms of citizens, despite the fact that such trends are ultimately harmful to the health, welfare, and even freedom of citizens, in that pollution eventually will limit the options an individual has for the "pursuit of happiness."
Lines of responsibility to effect real controls of the environment have not been recognized as essential. Thus, such lines of authority are either not present or not sufficiently clear as to be effective. However, the consequences of complete disregard for the environment are becoming apparent, and Georgians are demanding that these controls be enacted and vigorously enforced--not for the purpose of abridging "free enterprise," but in order to maintain a balance between use and abuse of the state's resources.
Hopefully, a future environmental planning group will delve into this important issue of organization for environmental control. Preliminary investigation by the Task Force showed that many agencies of government, both state and local as ~ell as federal, are involved in programs which affect the environment. Using water as an example, investigation showed that there are at least 22 state agencies and five interstate agencies having some effect on thewater of the state (See Page 132). Some programs are designed to encourage consumption of resources with little or no provisions for maintaining resources for different, or future use. Other programs are designed to protect the resources. Inevitably, these agencies are often working at cross purposes, and serious conflicts already existing over uses of resources, particularly water, can be expected to surface into the public eye with increasing frequency in the months to come.
What is needed is a close look at all government agencies affecting the state's resources, followed by efforts to coordinate their activities so as to minimize conflicts. There may be a need for legislation to be enacted in order to resolve such conflicts, in the event that cooperative efforts fail.
24

At the same time that government agencies are being studied, non-government groups such as industries, economic development associations, voluntary health associations and conservationist groups, should be studied for their effects--whether positive or negative--on the environment. Adequate "controls" to assure compliance with environmental standards should be coupled with efforts to promote dialogue and cooperation among all groups affecting the environment, whether private or public.
HOW THIS REPORT SHOULD BE USED
The Comprehensive Health Planning concept is based on the belief that effective changes will be brought about only by involving in the consensus process all those who stand to be affected by changes that are being considered: the public, the agencies responsible for carrying out policies, and the decision-makers themselves.
It is also an essentially voluntary process grounded in a philosophy that says that, given vehicles for communication, men of integrity will devise appropriate solutions to a problem and act firmly to implement them.
All of the key elements--interested citizens, decision-makers at all levels of government, and implementers of environmental programs--were involved in the Task Force process. Some of these elements were represented in the membership, while others formed the resource group. Citizens, decision-makers and program implementers gave each other insights into the extent and complexity of the environmental problems. This process provided a valuable "feedback" mechanism by which all involved reached a greater understanding of environmental issues and of needs for change.
In effect, the first step towards implementation of the Task Force plan of action--understanding of the reasons for changes being suggested--was being accomplished as the resource persons and the Task Force members exchanged views in open forum fashion. However, until all persons involved in activity affecting the environment appreciate the priorities and the need for the suggested changes, there will be difficulty in realizing substantial improvements in Georgia's environment.
Two suggestions are made to insure maximum utilization of the Task Force report.
First of all, the findings of the Task Force should be well publicized in the state's press, and the recommendations of the Task Force, with full information about how they were devised, should be communicated directly to those persons whose activities may affect the environment.
This should be done by the Georgia Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, members of the Council, the Georgia Department of Public Health, and the Governor's office, as outlined in Figure 1.
Second, efforts should be made to encourage implementation of the recommended changes by those whose activities are concerned in each of the problem areas. This will require more communication with these agencies, organizations and individuals, and a continuing concern for the results of that communication.
25

ozU')
~~=Qi
zwwZ
Cw)::::EE
ouw
~

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
In-depth investigation of the 15 major environmental problem areas revealed many complicating factors, and a wide variety of suggestions were made for improving particular aspects of each problem. The results of the investigation into each area are found in Section III.
There were, however, some common threads that ran through all the recommendations in each area. It became obvious, also, that a single approach could not completely solve any problem. Solutions lie in balanced approach including adequate planning, proper education of the public and of manpower, sufficient research and effective legislation and enforcement efforts.
The recommendations that follow, therefore, are a composite of all the suggestions made in each area. It is important that all of these points be taken into consideration when planning for control of specific or aggregate environmental problems.
Aspects of problems that are not the concern or within the capability of an official agency, e.g., innovative techniques of public education, should be coordinated with groups, public or voluntary, that are in a position to meet such needs.
Planning
1. A permanent activity should be begun which would include responsibility for coordinating the implementation of Environmental Health Task Force recommendations, for bringing the recommendations up to date, and for continually reassessing the findings and priorities set by the Task Force, using the new information about technical capability for solving the problems, and the most current information about the extent of the problems in Georgia.
The Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, which staffed the Environmental Health Task Force, should take responsibility for seeing that the Task Force activity is continued, through such means as: employing an environmental health planner with technical expertise in environmental fields; convening groups such as the Task Force in the future to periodically evaluate the findings and priorities of the Task Force; or encouraging appropriate state agencies or voluntary associations to continue its work.
2. Increased mechanization and adequate computer support should be provided in order to speed up and make more valid the process of evaluating environmental health problems and making programs designed to control these problems more effective.
While programs in the Federal Water Quality Administration and the U.S. Environmental Health Service (now a part of the federal Environmental Protection Agency) have planning and evaluation capability, including computer support, such capability is generally lacking on the state and local levels. Efforts should be made to develop criteria, computer capacity and data inputs that are necessary for effective planning and evaluation of environmental control programs.
27

3. Agencies, organizations and individuals responsible for attracting new industry to Georgia should become fully aware of the effects of their activities on the environment, and obtain agreement from all prospects that they will abide by all environmental legislation before they install facilities in the state.
Such organizations as the Georgia Department of Industry and Trade, chambers of commerce, economic development groups, and public utility and finance organizations, who work to attract new industry, should receive full information about the environmental effects of population distribution due to location of industry in the state. In addition, they should be impressed with the importance, from both an economic and health standpoint, of securing agreements to abide by antipollution legislation.
4. Proper guidance and support should be given to local communities, at their request, to organize regional, or multi-county environmental health planning groups to promote coordinated study, planning and implementation of measures that would improve the environment.
The process used by the Environmental Health Task Force on the State level, i.e., having a citizen group advise on the basis of technical inputs, is adaptable to the situation at the local level. Guidance is needed in identifying needs, resources and methods of action that will be effective at the local level. Because of its experience with the state Task Force in outlining the problems, identifying resource persons and devising solutions, the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, together with consultants and resources persons used in the Task Force process, would probably be the most appropriate implementers of this recommendation. It should be recognized that no one group could conduct actual planning for all problems, but such a group could stimulate and coordinate planning done on a problem-shed basis, even if these problem sheds were different.
5. Jobs should be upgraded and more positions should be provided for in order to insure that there are enough adequately trained personnel supplying sufficient services at all levels of government and industry to maintain a healthy environment.
There are serious lacks in personnel in all areas of the environment, from water works operators to administrative personnel to legal manpower. Environmental planning on all levels must recognize the need for funds for this manpower and for adequate services in order for efforts to be rewarding.
6. Financial mechanisms on the federal, state and local levels that directly or indirectly affect the quality of the environment should be streamlined in order to provide sound resources for bringing hazards under control, through such means as tax reform at the state level and larger and more comprehensive state grants to cities.
rhe issue that became obvious many times in the Task Force's investigation of environmental problems was the lack of revenue at state and local levels to implement control programs. More reform at all levels through such means as increased revenue sharing and creation of new revenue sources will free more funds for improving environmental con-
28

trols at all levels, especially at the local level, where control activities are best carried out. New techniques such as planning-program budgeting systems (PPBS) should be utilized where feasible to make the most effective use of government funds available.
Education
7. A thorough public education campaign should be conducted to inform the public of environmental hazards and to motivate them to take personal and political actions that will result ultimately in upgrading the environment.
The public is awakened to the problems of pollution in Georgia, but more information is needed on the multiple causes of the problems, including individual actions, such as roadside dumping and collective lack of action at the voting polls to elect representatives who are aware of environmental problems. While public education is probably one of the most subtle tasks to be undertaken, the message can be presented in such a way as to make the public's actions more thoughtful. An example is the anti-smoking campaign, which utilized professional advertising techniques to change public opinion and habits. The need is to make each Georgian aware that he personally affects the environment and that he has the choice of making an effect positive or negative.
Efforts of such groups as the Georgia Conservancy and the state Sierra Club to stimulate appreciation of the state's natural resources should be recognized as a powerful vehicle for public education on the environment. Student groups in colleges, high schools and elementary schools should be encouraged in their educative efforts.
Emphasis in all educative efforts should be placed on outlining the conflicts between advanced industrialization--with its accompanying affluence and convenient way of life--and environmental quality. The public should not be misled into thinking that improving the environment will not require compromises on its part, either by paying more for products that internalize pollution control costs, or by allOWing more pollution.
In addition to efforts to educate the public on environmental matters, steps should be taken to make students at all levels of education aware of their personal effects on the environment. A long-range goal would be to inform teachers in institutions of higher education, particularly teachers' schools, about the total environment, and to encourage them to promote awareness among their students of the interrelationships of the students and the air, water and land environments. A short-range goal would be to devise ways to assist teachers who wish to incorporate ecological principles or environmental issues in their lessons at the present time.
An aid to this short-range goal is the program coordinated by the National Park Service, in which entire school systems or individual schools and classes may become involved in learning about the environment in special Environmental Study Areas within or outside the parks. The ~ennesaw National Battlefield Park Environmental Study Area has recently been the site of study for more than 4,000 persons, including 600 teachers. Cobb County schools have utilized the park for environmental studies in a two-year-old project. Other parks in Georgia that have Environmental Study Areas and personnel to guide teachers in en-
29

vironmental education are the Chattanooga-Chickamauga National Military Park and the Ocmulgee National Monument near Macon. In addition, such manuals as the National Education Association's Man and His Environment can be obtained for teachers wishing to incorporate environmental principles in their lessons. Also, health educators can create teaching devices to further instruct students at all levels about the technical aspects of environmental issues.
8. Manpower at all levels of education should be trained in sufficient quantity to carry out all phases of work involved in maintaining a healthy environment.
There are adequate sources for manpower training in the state--schools and universities with well developed programs of higher education, vocational and technical schools, and a number of government and professional organizations with capability for in-service training. Cooperative efforts among these elements can result in coordinated programs that will better satisfy Georgia's needs for manpower training. There is a particular need for development of training for environmental health planners, i.e., persons who would be capable of helping communities evaluate environmental needs, and take action to solve problems.
9. Expertise from qualified organizations in both technical and management aspects of environmental control should be provided to environmental agencies in order to encourage innovative approaches to environmental control.
Government agencies, including those charged with controlling the environment lack the incentives that exist in private industry to be constantly improving on the old way of producing results. Assistance in developing innovative, efficient approaches to environmental control, either through technical assistance or assistance in managerial improvements, should be provided to program administrators by outside consultants and other means. The Task Force recognized that very often administrators are forced to pay more attention to "putting out brush fires," and do not have the time or the expertise to develop alternative methods of environmental control. In such cases, assistance should be provided by outside sources qualified to give such assistance.
Research
10. More research should be conducted and its results applied in order to provide alternatives to or to improve present methods of environmental control.
In some areas of the environment, there is lack of basic information about the problems, and without such information it is impossible to pose solutions. In still other areas, the alternatives are limited because of the lack of research into other methods which might provide better solutions.
11. Realistic, flexible standards should be developed and promoted in each environmental field in order to assure a healthy environment.
Many laws controlling environmental hazards are very broad, and can be interpreted in a variety of ways without guidelines to unequivocally define what constitutes a hazard. Rules and regulations are developed as an aid to this effort, and provide helpful details for assuring that environmental conditions are optimum. 30

While some environmental fields have sufficient standards, some are without rules and regulations, due to lack of attention to the problems and a dearth of information about their effects. Still others are governed by outdated standards. Effective standards should be developed through expanded basic research, and once developed, should be revised periodically to reflect new problems and advanced technology.
Legislation and Enforcement
12. Legal responsibility in each of the environmental areas should be stated in the law and unequivocably interpreted so that federal, state and local government agencies, industries and individuals know their responsibilities.
Administrators of environmental control programs must recognize that standards are desirable and must be upheld in the interest of maintaining a healthy environment. For this reason, existing laws dealing with the environment should be clearly understood by all implementers, at all levels. Where there is confusion, legal rulings should be sought. Additionally, the legislation should be clearly communicated to all concerned, including industries and the public in general.
13. Legislative needs should be determined and adequate legislation enacted where the existing law does not provide sufficient authority for environmental control.
In some areas, legislation is lacking, and there is a need for changes in existing law, or for a new law, in order to control specific hazards. While the Environmental Health Task Force noted some of these, there are other legislative needs that program administrators are acquainted with. The recommendations of the administrators and of the Task Force should be communicated to legislators and their support should be vigorously enlisted in order to assure that legislation for environmental control is adequate.
14. Authorized agencies should vigorously enforce legislation for environmental control, and penalties sufficient to encourage compliance should be applied.
Many environmental agencies have not made use of the power that presently exists in the law to bring about compliance with legislation. Until a show of power is exhibited, efforts to obtain voluntary compliance will be frustrated. Penalties sufficient to encourage compliance, fairly and forcefully applied, are a necessary part of the enforcement of environmental standards.
15. Procedures for enfcrcing state environmental laws should be streamlined to make legal activities for environmental control less cumbersome.
The Administrative Procedures Act requires that rules and regulations be given a public hearing before adoption, and that appeals for relief from the requirements be heard by a judge, from the record, without a jury. Such procedures make development and application of standards
31

valid and less cumbersome. However, appeals on air quality, food service establishment, radiation control, solid waste and water supply requirements can conceivably be tied up in court indefinitely if an aggrieved party seeks a trial in which the case must be begun anew, "de novo", and a jury trial render the decision. Meanwhile, the violation may continue pending final settlement of the court case. By contrast, water quality control regulations can be enforced with less legal red tape. A less cumbersome enforcement procedure would result if all environmental programs were subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, as are water control regulations, or if the Georgia Health Code were amended to delete the provisions for a "de novo" trial. The State Health Department will attempt to secure passage of legislation to streamline legal procedures during the next legislative session, and the Task Force endorses this effort.
16. Legal counsel should be made available to persons charged with enforcing environmental laws at the federal, state, and local levels.
The Task Force learned that access to legal counsel to prosecute under state environmental laws was lacking, particularly in rural areas. While urban areas utilize local laws and attorneys, the less populous parts of the state suffer from a lack of local legislation, and lack of interest on the part of county attorneys, where they exist. Local sanitarians, who are in the main responsible for enforcement actions, are unaware of options in enforcing the law. Enforcement of many state environmental rules and regulatLons is further hampered by county boards of health, which are not always supportive of such efforts.
An alternative might be for the State Board of Health, which has jurisdiction over many of the environmental areas, to assume responsibility for prosecuting cases not being handled properly on the local level, and to use legal counsel that should be provided by the State Attorney General's Office to provide advice and to prosecute violations. It is essential that sufficient legal manpower be assigned to the implementing agency in order to have vigorous enforcement.
17. Adequate support from local and state courts should be provided in order to reduce the time necessary for enforcement of environmental laws.
In many areas of the state, courts are not appreciative of the value of environmental controls, and fail to support efforts to prosecute violations of environmental requirements. The State Bar Association and other organizations should be made more aware of environmental enforcement needs, and of the role that the courts play in resolving conflicts over environmental issues in the state.
32

II. ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES

THE NEED FOR PRIORITIES

The explosion of technology in recent decades has been both a blessing and a burden to men. It is a blessing because it makes possible the production of goods necessary to life and conducive to convenient living. It is a burden because it is expensive, and requires that painful and difficult decisions be made about allocation of resources, as financial means are not unlimited.

Very often these choices are made on the basis of political expediency, without the benefit of the opinion of the public at large, and lacking a comprehensive view of all related programs.

THE TASK FORCE APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM

An alternative method of determining needs of our society is being developed to provide more objective decision-making at all levels. One method, used by the Environmental Health Task Force, was to utilize the broad experience of citizens, who were given more information about environmental problems by resource persons over a period of months, in order to recommend priorities for dealing with environmental problems.

The recommended priorities are intended to be a guide for the state's decision-makers in allocating resources for environmental control, notably the State Health Department, which presently has authority for most control programs.

Fully cognizant of the fact that there is no "economic Santa Claus" that

will eventually fulfill all the needs of the nation, and that national

needs can only be evaluated when all sub-areas of the nation know their

particular lacks, the Task Force listened to speakers, read materials,

discussed priorities

problems, and accordingly.

i

eventually,

made

informed

judgments,

and

set

The recommended priorities, however, were determined in a unique process that sought to express the group opinion of Task Force members in quantitative fashion.

The Task Force evaluated the state's environmental needs in terms of the relative emphasis--meaning general attention, funds and manpower, planning and coordination efforts that should be directed toward each of the 15 major areas. Among the criteria for selecting priorities were:

-relative importance of the problem to the health and welfare of the state; -the numbers of persons that would benefit by improvements; -whether or not the state is active in the problem area at the present time;

1 This process is described more fully in the Appendix paper, "Determination of Priorities for Task Force Recommendations," by Dr. Gerald L. Delon.
33

-prospects of quick and effective solutions for the problems as they exist, and for prevention of these problems from spreading; -possibilities for financing, particularly from federal sources; -accepttbility to the people (political and economic feasibility); and -secondary effects on other health problems.
RESULTS OF TASK FORCE PRIORITY-SETTING
Each of the Task Force members was asked, first, to express his op~n~on about the importance of each of the environmental problem areas, in numerical order. An average was then taken, to reflect group opinion as to the priority of the problems. The opinion was as follows, where the most important is ranked first:
1. Water pollution 2. Solid Waste 3. Air Pollution 4. Water Supply 5. Housing 6. Population 7. Injury Control 8. Pesticides 9. Milk and Food Sanitation 10. Occupational Health 11. Vector Control 12. Institutional Sanitation 13. Noise pollution 14. Recreational Sanitation 15. Radiological Health
"Weights," or indications of how much relative emphasis one problem should receive as compared to all others, were assigned mathematically by each Task Force member. This relative priority, representing the average of the individual Task Force weights, is depicted in the diagram on the following page. Illustration is thus made of the fact that ranking a problem first does not necessarily mean that that problem should receive all or most of the attention.
The priorities, then, indicate that all the problems have importance to maintaining a quality environment, and that neglecting some that are rated lowest may result in that problem becoming much greater in the future.
What is advocated is a rational, balanced attack on the problems of the environment. Specific proposals for solution of the problems are made in Section III of this report, but these proposals are subject to the overall priorities set by the Task Force. In other words, the decisionmakers to whom this plan of action is addressed should recognize that seizing on one proposed solution for one problem area and placing disproportionate emphasis on that one solution for that one problem would be defeating the whole purpose of the Task Force work. The report summarizing that work suggests a comprehensive, balanced plan of action for maintaining the quality of Georgia's environment.
34

oz
i=
o:....;..)..
A. all: LLI
~

III. THE TASK FORCE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND: WATER POLLUTION
Water pollution resulting from the addition of physical, chemical or biological contaminants to Georgia's waterways degrades these streams for future use. The physical contaminants block the sun's rays and inhibit aquatic growth essential for balanced systems. The chemical contaminants may be detrimental in several ways. First, these contaminants may be lethal in themselves, as are DDT and mercury, or they may be biologically degraded to produce excessive microbial growth and deplete the oxygen resources of the stream. In the latter case, fish kills and odoriferous conditions normally result. In addition, wastes may contain pathogenic bateria and virus and therefore make Georgia's streams potential sources of disease.
Although water pollution in Georgia is not as serious as that in many states, it is a serious problem and growing. The major sources of pollution are the domestic wastes from Georgia's 159 counties and 594 municipalities, and the numerous industrial discharges.
The Georgia Water Quality Control Board reported that in 1969, "only 185, or 49 percent of Georgia's 377 municipal and county waste discharges were afforded treatment by adequate facilities either in operation or under construction." More than half the systems provided inadequate treatment.
"Twenty-five percent of Georgia's population is now served by adequate sewage treatment, 28 percent by inadequate sewage treatment, and 47 percent by individual disposal systems (septic tanks, privies, etc.)," the Board said in its 1969 annual report.
In addition to the estimated 210 million gallons per day of inadequately treated domestic wastes, an equal volume of industrial wastes was also placed in our streams. As a result, many streams are highly polluted. For example, the Chattahoochee river is polluted for 100 miles below Atlanta and the Savannah river for 22 miles below Savannah.
To correct these serious pollution problems, approximately 200 additional municipal and county plants are required at an estimated cost of $300 million (1970 costs). In addition, improved operations must be implemented at many of the 770 plants now in existence. An important part of this program will be improvement in operator ability and compensation. However, these are not the only problems. Many combined sewers will have to be replaced with separate sanitary and storm sewers. In addition, efforts will have to be made to reduce the percentage--47 percent--of Georgians still serve by individual treatment systems. Many of these individual systems are within metro-
37

politan areas and should be replaced by central sewerage systems. Those individual systems that remain must be maintained to reduce the frequency of failures.
In short we must: a) adequately treat all domestic and industrial wastes now being collected; b) extend collection systems to replace individual systems whenever possible; c) provide better supervision for the installation and maintenance of individual systems where they are required; and d) anticipate and provide for treatment at new pollution sources, such as animal feed lots. To insure that these steps are adequate it will be necessary to monitor the plants involved and more than 4,000 miles of interstate and major intrastate waterways, 602 square miles of coastal waterways and numerous smaller streams.
If adequate steps are not taken to alleviate the pollution problem in Georgia, it could become acute. In the United States in the past 50 years municipal pollution has increased 200 percent while industrial pollution has increased a staggering 2900 percent. With Georgia's rapid growth similar trends in pollution may result.
Although the expenditure of $300 million over the next five years appears to be enormous, it may not be so staggering when the alternatives are considered. If pollution is not abated, the costs of water treatment will increase, many recreational areas will have to be abandoned, fish and wildlife will be adversely affected, and the value of the commercial fish and shellfish industry will be reduced or eliminated altogether. If the benefits of these water uses could be enumerated, we would find that the costs of pollution abatement are less expensive than the costs of pollution. On additional effect of water pollution in Georgia is its eventual impact on the flora and fauna of the ocean. In recent years, several studies have indicated that pollution adversely affects the marine phytoplankton which regenerates approximately 70 percent of the world's oxygen resources. Therefore, the problem is not contained to state boundaries. Eventually, lack of effective action to control water pollution in Georgia and in other states and nations could have a serious impact on handling the world's CO2 supply.
38

WATER POLLUTION RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The state of Georgia should provide sufficient funds to help municipalities and other local governmental units match federal grants for water pollution control.
At present approximately 200 new treatment plants are required at an estimated cost of $300 million (1970 costs) to insure adequate treatment of domestic wastes. Even if local municipalities obtain federal grants, 67 to 70 percent of the cost must still be born by local governments. In most cases these funds are difficult to obtain. The Georgia Water Quality Control Board is attempting to obtain state funds to help cities obtain federal funds. Additional revenue sources should be developed on the local level in order to enable cities to cope with the problems that increased construction brings. Efforts should also be made to correlate physical development of the city through industrial activity, commercial property gains and housing construction, with sewage treatment needs, in advance of such development. The state should also require that sewage systems be constructed for multi-county or multi-government areas wherever feasible, in order to reduce costs.
2. Georgia's educational institutions, state agencies and technical societies concerned with water pollution should expand their joint program to provide adequate training for all waste treatment plant operators.
It has been estimated that fewer than 200 of the 770 waste treatment plants in Georgia are now properly operated. In 1968, there were 1601 full-time personnel in water pollution control occupations, and by 1973, it is estimated that at least 2,300 additional workers will be required to operate Georgia's municipally-owned water pollution control plants. In 1968, only 429 of the 1,601 operators of Georgia's water pollution control facilities were certified under the voluntary Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association program. More vigorous efforts are required to meet the needs for mandatory certification of operators under a new law by which the state requires that all operators be certified by July 1, 1972. To demonstrate the importance of proper operation, it should be pointed out that a decrease in plant efficiency from 90 to 80 percent increases the pollutional load in the receiving stream by 100 percent, not 10 percent.
3. Sufficient legal manpower should be provided in order to properly enforce the provisions of the Georgia Water Quality Act.
The state's water pollution control program has been characterized by vigorous use of legal powers in order to encourage compliance with legislation. However, as in most environmental programs, legal manpower is not sufficient to handle all the actions needed. The State Attorney General's office should be made more aware of the importance of environmental control, and more resources should be applied to this activity.
39

4. Adequate financing for local sewerage systems should be provided through realistic rate regulation and bond issues on the local level that provide adequate waste treatment facilities and income that will pay for the sewerage operation. Whenever feasible, governmental units should be encouraged to share facilities.
In many municipalities sewerage charges are not realistically established to reflect the cost of the services provided. In addition, the funds which are collected often go into general operating funds and are therefore not available for maintenance and operation of sewerage systems. If adequate collection and treatment of municipal wastes is to be achieved, greater efforts must be made to insure that realistic charges are established, and the funds collected are used to build, maintain and operate sewerage systems. Increased efforts by such organizations as the Georgia Municipal Association and the Association County Commissioners of Georgia should be made in order to bring Georgia's cities and counties to a sophisticated level of financial operation. These organizations and the local area planning and development commissions should promote regional sewerage systems whenever feasible.
See Recommendation No. 3 under Water Supply.
5. State Policy should specify industry's responsibility for treatment and disposal of their waste products and appropriate incentives should be developed to encourage early compliance.
To insure compliance with the Water Quality Act, treatment requirements and enforcement provisions of the state should be made known to all industries. This should be coordinated through industry-seeking organizations, which should recruit only industries that indicate willingness to abide by pollution laws. Agreements to comply with these laws should be sought by such economic development groups. This should be done prior to plant construction or expansion so that treatment facilities can be an integral part of the construction project. This would also insure that industry does not take an invitation to locate in Georgia as a license to pollute. In both existing and new projects consideration should be given to incentives that would promote treatment performance.
6. Applications for rezoning on the local level should be subject to certification by the Georgia Water Quality Control Board that the rezoning will not cause overloading of sewage treatment facilities in the community. This should be required in cases where the rezoning would mean significant increased demand for sewage treatment.
Many of Georgia's communities are subject to great pressure to permit rezoning for development without first assuring that proper sewage treatment will be provided. Certification by the Georgia Water Quality Control Board would assure that increased connections to existing facilities would not overload the sewage treatment facilities. Such certification would also help communities which find it difficult to assess sewage treatment needs, and consequently are unable to raise funds for support of sewage treatment systems commensurate with the demands on the systems.
40

(At least three members of the 24-member Task Force did not agree that the State Water Quality Control Board should be given such authority over rezoning applications. Two of these members said that they agreed that there should be some control by objective standards such as the State Water Quality Control Board would set, but only in areas of the State that do not have the capability for doing their own planning. Mr. James Aldredge and Mr. Dixon Olive disagreed with the wording of the Task Force recommendation, and favored one which would advocate such control by the State Water Quality Control Board only in areas of the state where there was no local planning authority or where the governmental unit did not employ a professional engineer. Some areas of the state, particularly urban areas, the two men said, were capable of obtaining the information necessary for making rezoning decisions where that rezoning would mean significant increased demand for sewage treatment.)
7. Treatment requirements should be evaluated continuously and revised as necessary in order to protect the waters of Georgia.
Technology for improving Georgia's water quality is growing rapidly. However, the increasing population of the state places even greater demands, because of greater industrialization and more per capita needs, on the waterways of Georgia. Therefore, more stringent treatment requirements will not only be technologically possible, they will be absolutely necessary, in order to protect Georgia's valuable water resource.
8. Greater attention should be directed to installation and maintenance of individual treatment systems.
Almost half the State's population relies on septic tanks and privies for disposal of domestic waste. The majority of this section of the population uses septic tanks and drain fields. Due to improper installation or maintenance, many of these systems fail and provide potential hazards. This is a particular hazard in areas such as Lake Lanier where tract lots too small to handle septic tank and drainfield sewerage systems are being sold and developed in great numbers. Consideration should be given to legislation which would require utility companies and community water systems to refuse connection of service to buildings in which septic tank and individual water supplies do not have health department approval. Such a law would help assure that individual systems meet health standards.
41

BACKGROUND: SOLID WASTE
The United States is one of the world's greatest producers of solid wastes and, until recently, little consideration was given to the problem. Rapid population growth, migration toward urban areas, and the acceptance of a "use and discard" attitude has appreciably increased the solid waste problem since World War II. In 1969, it was estimated that Americans produced 270 million tons of trash, garbage, rusting automobiles, demolition scrap and other debris. Even after compaction, this mass of debris would form a wall of trash 50 feet wide and four stories high from New York to Los Angeles. Nationally, the source of this waste is 50 percent from agriculture, 30.8 percent from mineral production, 1.2 percent from federal installations, seven percent from urban sources (domestic, commercial, municipal) and three percent from industrial sources. Although only seven percent of the waste is generated by urban sources this is probably the major source of the problem and ranks third in local expenditures--exceeded only by outlays for education and roads.
Most solid wastes generated by agricultural and mineral production operations are disposed of by the producer, while disposal of urban wastes depends on incineration--a practice which contributes to air pollution--or the sanitary landfill method, a term which in many cities is a euphemism for an open dump. Georgia, like the rest of the nation is plagued with an increasing solid waste problem. State Health Department engineers estimate that each Georgian produces 3~ to five pounds of household wastes per day. When wastes from other sources are included, it is estimated that approximately 45 million pounds of refuse must be disposed of daily. In 1968, 2.968 million tons of refuse was disposed of in this state--an amount equal to a mass 50 feet wide, 30 feet high and 44 miles long. Not all of the collected wastes were disposed of in an approved manner. Surveys indicate that only six percent of this material produced in Georgia communities of 5,000 or more was disposed of in an approved manner. Only 11 percent of the population within Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) is served by solid waste disposal systems and very little population outside SMSAs has such services.
The problem is expected to double in 10 years. And the major increase in solid wastes production will be in the major metropolitan areas which are experiencing large increases in population. This means that more disposal sites must be procured in areas where land is scarce and expensive. Present sites are definitely inadequate. For example, by 1980 all of the existing landfill sites in the Metropolitan Atlanta Area will be filled and all except those in Cobb County will be filled between 1971 and 1973, according to the June, 1970 solid waste study by the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission.
In the future years, it may be expected that greater quantities of wastes will be produced, that greater haul distances will be required to reach disposal sites, that better operation of these sites will be required and that more recycling will be practiced. Improper collection, storage and disposal of solid wastes may contribute to the insect and rodent problem, water pollution and the contamination of the air.
43

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Solid waste disposal should be a required function of local government, and should be planned, funded and carried out with due recognition of local government's responsibility for the health and welfare of the community.
In many Georgia communities, there is a solid waste collection system, but no provision for disposal, other than an open dump. Recognition should be given to the fact that collection represents 80 percent of the cost of a total system, and that the additional 20 percent cost could provide a relatively inexpensive sanitary landfill operation.
While many local governments would find operating an effective solid waste disposal system a hardship, provision should be made for handling contracts to private firms. It should be local government's responsibility to inform certain industries of their obligation to provide their own approved solid waste disposal system or pay their proportionate share to a political jurisdiction which disposes of industry-generated wastes.
2. State agencies and other organizations should increase their efforts to promote regional planning for solid waste services in order to eliminate duplicatLon, inadequacies and inequities within areas of the state.
Intergovernmental cooperation should be encouraged in planning for solid waste disposal, as the problems supersede political boundaries, and the high initial costs of such methods as sanitary landfill can be reduced through group purchases of machinery. The l2-county area of the Northwest GeorgLa Regional Health Advisory Council has successfully operated a regional sanitary landfill project, which enable savings through group equipment purchases, and has reduced considerably the amount of illegal roadside dumping in that area. (See Appendix, Page 151).
3. The State should consider sharing the costs of solid waste disposal operations on the local level by making funds available to localities for this purpose. Regional or multi-county systems should be encouraged.
Collection and disposal of solid wastes is the third most expensive function of urban governments. Georgia's experience with garbage strikes and its low level of approved disposal systems indicates that large financial investluents will be needed to provide total disposal systems in some areas. However, local tax bases in Georgia have been strained to the saturation point, and more financial assistance and innovations such as regional systems are needed to help provide effective solid waste disposal systems throughout the state. State subsidies may be requested of the 1971 General Assembly to help cities and counties develop effective solid waste disposal systems. The Task Force supports this request that would enable establishment of effective solid waste disposal systems and that would encourage regional systems.
45

4. Statewide guidelines, standards, and regulations on solid waste control should be developed and communicated to all concerned agencies and organizations, and clearly interpreted for those responsible for enforcing them. They should lead to a meaningful system of evaluating progress.
The State Health Department's Solid Waste Management Service has developed official rules and regulations regarding operation of sanitary landfills. However, the responsibilities of state, district and local health personnel in enforcing these rules and regulations should be clarified so as to enable clear understanding of the requirements. Also, a valid system of evaluating all permitted solid waste operations should be derived from enforcement of the rules and regulations, by organizing information gathered for the permits by computer.
5. The public should be fully informed of important aspects of the solid waste problem and of methods for solving it.
Increased individual consumption of goods is one of the reasons for the growth of the per capita volume of solid waste. Cooperation by the public is needed in dealing with this aspect of the problem, because solving the solid waste problem will involve attacking the "use and discard" attitude held by many Georgians. In addition, effective financing for solid waste disposal methods requires firm public support.
6. Training for all personnel responsible for solid waste operations should be provided by the appropriate agencies.
Solid Waste Management requires skills of varying degrees. In sanitary landfill operations, equipment drivers and supervisors need training and a good deal of planning expertise is also required. Regular training, which is now nonexistent except for the offered in the Northwest Georgia project, should be made available.
7. Appropriate agencies should expand their present arrangements for disseminating information on technological developments and for providing technical assistance to local governments with solid waste disposal responsibilities.
It should be fully recognized that solid waste disposal is dealt with, or not dealt with, at the local level, and that technical aid should be directed to that level by all concerned: state and federal solid waste programs, city and county improvement organizations, and manufacturers of solid waste disposal equipment. Such materials as the State Health Department's Solid Waste Management Service report on sanitary landfills should be regularly made available and consultation services should be offered for new methods for disposal.
46

8. Federal and state agencies, together with private industry, should stimulate and/or conduct more basic research into feasibility of methods of solid waste disposal, recycling, and reuse, in order to provide alternatives to or to improve on the present methods of volume reduction and disposal.
The sanitary landfill method of solid waste disposal is recognized as perhaps the most feasible for most of Georgia at the present time. However, problems of disposing of certain bulky or hazardous materials, such as automobiles and pesticides, remain. Also, the landfill method may not be best for urban areas, as indicated by a recent study of solid waste issued by the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission. Methods such as railroad transport to distant landfill areas, and use of decentralized points for collection and transfer of solid waste need to be studied.
9 The statewide litter and roadside dumping control program should be made more effective by improved coordination and enforcement.
While Georgia presently has a law forbidding littering, there is no single agency given the responsibility of enforcing this law. Authority should be designated, and that agency should work with local officials to improve enforcement. The Georgia Highway Department spent $1,119,000 in 1969 collect and dispose of highway and rest area refuse. Roadside dumping would be prohibited under a State Health Department proposal before the legislature, and the Task Force supports this proposal.
10. State policy should specify industry's responsibility for treatment, disposal, or recycling of its waste products, and appropriate incentives should be developed.
Traditionally, little thought has been given to the tremendous burden industrial solid wastes place on local communities. For example, it is estimated that Whitfield County's numerous factories produce one million cubic yards of carpet wastes annually, yet the manufacturers are not required to provide for its disposition. Organizations which attract industries to Georgia should apprise prospects of state solid waste disposal requirements and encourage compliance.
11. The State of Georgia should exercise initiative in developing national standards governing packaging of products, in order to reduce the solid waste handling and disposal problem.
A large part of the problem of solid waste is the increase in volume and types of packaging materials. Non-biodegradable materials such as oneway beverage bottles are a particular hazard that could be done away with very easily. Innovations in packaging are the concern of many industries, including major paper industries in Georgia. Those in government should be aware of the innovations that are contemplated, and should encourage development of packaging techniques and recycling methods that will help reduce environmental hazards caused by excessive solid wastes. While federal action might be more appropriate, Georgia standards to eliminate certain packaging practices would give impetus to the national need for packaging standards, and to eliminate one of the greatest contributors to the solid waste problem.
47

12. Legal assistance should be made available to persons who are given responsibility for enforcing solid waste disposal legislation in order to assure compliance with the legislation. While there is a great deal of need for technical assistance to Georgia communities in order to guide development of approved solid waste disposal systems, there is also need for legal advice and assistance in seeing that the health of the people is protected through legal action. There is need for legal assistance on the local level, through such means as the State requiring local health departments to hire attorneys. An alternative would be to have local legal problems referred to the state level, and to have state attorneys assigned to the solid waste program so that they might guide and initiate legal actions where they are needed.
48

oz
.i=
:o..a....).....
-ac::
~

BACKGROUND: AIR POLLUTION
Air pollution, like other forms of pollution in Georgia, is due to the multiplicative effect of population growth and increasing per capita demands for goods and services. In the process of meeting these demands, millions of tons of gaseous and particulate pollutants are dumped into the atmospherein Georgia. These pollutants soil, produce corrosion, and may be harmful to both plants and animals. In fact, the potential damage of any pollutant may be inferred from the report of the Committee on Pollution of the National Academy of Science-National Research Council which states that pollution is "an undesirable change in the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of our air, land, and water that mayor will harmfully affect human life or that of any other desirable species, or industrial process, living conditions, or cultural assets; or that mayor will waste or deteriorate our raw material resources." Air pollution produces all of these detrimental effects.
Recent estimates have placed the loss of crops and flowers at $500 million per year in the United States alone. And recent studies by Dr. L. B. Lave and E. P. Seskin of the Carnegie-Mellon School of Industrial Management indicate that if air pollution were cut by 50 percent in major cities a) a new born baby would have an additional three-five years life expectancy; b) deaths from lung cancer and in fact all lung disease would be cut 25 percent; c) death and disease from heart and blood vessel disorders might be cut by 10-15 percent; and d) all disease and death would be reduced by 4.5 percent yearly, and the annual saving to the nation would be at least $2 billion. In fact it was estimated that a 50 percent reduction in air pollution would save nearly as much in money and life as a complete cure for cancer.
Fortunately, air pollution in Georgia is not as severe as that found in many states when average conditions are used as indicators. However, there is cause for concern. Local air pollution problems now exist and others are potentially possible since Georgia has a high frequency of undesirable stagnant air and a rapid rate of increase in pollution sources.
The principal sources of air pollution in Georgia at present are motor vehicles, industrial plants, power generating stations, solid waste disposal by burning, agricultural operations, and commercial and domestic heating.
The major sources of pollution at any particular place depend on the relative manufacturing vs. comercia1 activity and controls placed on pollution sources. For example, emissions from motor vehicles account for approximately 80 percent of Atlanta's air pollution while vehicular emissions account for less than 10 percent of the problem in Louisville, Kentucky. This does not mean that automotive pollution in Louisville is not important, but simply that uncontrolled pollution from other sources is much greater.
Two of the major sources of pol1ution--motor vehicles and power production-are increasing much faster than the population growth. In fact, on a national average, two-thirds of the increase in automobiles and 90 percent of the increase in power production is due to increased per capita demands. Similar trends are noted in Georgia. During the 14-year period from 1955 to 1969, motor vehicular registration in Georgia increased from 1,306,089 to 2,676,464, or 105 percent, while the population increase was less than 30 percent. This
49

rapid increase in the consumption of fossil fuels could be a serious indicator of things to come. After all, the major problems in Los Angeles have evolved since 1950.
The problems that must be corrected in Georgia are different in magnitude, but similar in scope, to those facing the nation and are indicated by the facts in Table I. The first and most important step is the control of the combustion operations which contribute the major portion of the carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur and particulate material.

TABLE I

ESTIMATED NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS, IN MILLIONS OF TONS PER YEAR

S" ource

CyOv

Particulates

S02 ~~L

..HC~

N02 L'tVL

Transportation

63.8

1.2

0.8 16.6 8.1

Fuel combus-

1.9

8.9

24.4

0.7 10.0

tion in stationary

sources

Industrial Processes

9.7

7.5

7.3

4.6 0.2

Solid Waste Disposal

7.8

1.1

0.1

1.6 0.6

Miscellaneous

16.9

9.6

0.6

8.5 1.7

Percent By Source
42 21
13 5
17

Total

100.1

28.3

33.2 32.0 20.6

100

Source: National Air Pollution Control Administration, 1968

A major thrust of this effort must be the control of vehicular pollutants. Steps in this direction have and are being taken through national emission standards as shown in Table II, but Georgia must insure that these standards are enforced and in fact institute more stringent standards if the Federal standards are not sufficient.

50

TABLE II

GRAM-PER-MILE EMISSION STANDARDS GET TIGHTER*

Pollutant

Prior to Control

California (1966 ) and Federal (1968 )

1970 1971 1972

Hydrocarbons
CO N02

11.0
80.0 4.0

,'rAu t omob i 1e exhaust.

3.4 34.0

2.2 23.0

2.2
23.0 4.0

1.5
23.0 3.0

1974
1.5 23.0
1.3

1975 (Proposed) California Federal

0.5
12.0 1.0

0.6
11.0 0.95

However, Georgia's air pollution problems or those of the nation may not be solved simply by obtaining more complete combustion in the internal combustion engine. Ideally this mode of power is only 23 percent efficient and requires an unrealistic expenditure of natural resources. In addition, it will still produce carbon dioxide, which is now produced faster than nature can regenerate it to oxygen. In fact, the C02 content of the atmosphere has increased more than 10 percent since the mass uses of fossil fuels began.
Air pollution is obviously a result of industrial and technological growth. Scientists tell lli that energy sources are unlimited, and we know that we can do anything technologically--even go to the moon--if we want to. When comtemplating the problems of the environment, particularly air pollution, a question inevitably arises: Should we not now de-emphasize production of ~ods and concentrate on management and improvement of what we have in order to maintain a quality environment?

51

AIR POLLUTION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Agencies and organizations responsible for attracting new industry to communities should be made aware of the air pollution problems associated with many industries, and should take responsibility for securing agreement from the prospects to abide by all legislation regarding air quality.
Air pollution from industry should be stopped before it is begun, as installation of anti-pollution devices is more difficult and more expensive to bring about after facilities have been built. Metropolitan areas of Georgia especially are in a position to be able to choose among industrial prospects. These choices should be based upon information indicating alternatives that will least harm the environment. The Air Quality Control Branch of the State Health Department should initiate discussions with the State Department of Industry and Trade as a beginning in the effort to inform those seeking industry's effect on the environment.
2. Areas of the state shou~d plan for air quality on a regional or problem-shed basis in order to coordinate efforts being taken in areas affected by particular air pollution problems.
Three areas of the state, including Metropolitan Atlanta, Metropolitan Columbus, and Georgia counties that are part of Metropolitan Chattanooga, Tennessee have been designated federal Air Quality Control Regions. Such "regions" are being identified in other parts of the state as a step towards approaching the problem on a problem-wide basis, and the Task Force advocates such a regional approach. Air pollution problems in particular exceed political boundaries, and intergovernmental cooperation in planning and implementing control measures is especially helpful.
3. Information on compliance and non-compliance with air pollution standards should be computerized as an aid to planning and evaluation of control activities.
The Air Quality Control Branch recently has increased its capability for estimating levels of contamination, and has proposed ambient air standards for adoption. Scientific computer support would be helpful in evaluating sources of contamination and planning for their control.
4. Innovative ways of alerting the general public to the perils of air pollution, such as the State Health Department's Air-lert system and the air pollution watch incorporated into news report, should be encouraged among all groups interested in controlling air pollution.
Such innovations have served the purpose of creating greater understanding of the subtleties of environmental control. More innovative approaches should be forthcoming from concerned citizens groups and voluntary health associations, such as the state Respiratory Disease Association, which have performed a valuable educative service for many people of the state.
53

Further efforts, however, should educate the public about the "costs" of clean air. For instance, as noted previously, the internal combustion engine is a potential health hazard even with 1975 proposed emission standards. Completely eliminating major causes of air pollution will require a decision of the American public to adopt an alternative to automobiles as we know them today.
5. Georgia's existing air quality control regulations should be strengthened to require permits for the construction and operation of incinerators, steam generating plants, and other facilities which can contribute significantly to air pollution; and to insure compliance with air quality control standards.
The Air Quality Control Branch has devised rules and regulations dealing with general air pollution sources. Standards have recently been developed to limit the amounts of harmful particulates in the air. A natural third step is to require permits for sources of pollution. Only by controlling such sources will healthful air be possible. It should be noted that establishment of such a system for new facilities is necessary in order to secure full compliance with air quality standards among existing industries.
6 Consideration should be given to legislation insuring that air pollution control devices on motor vehicles operating in Georgia be maintained in proper working order. Such devices should be covered in Georgia's annual motor vehicle inspections.
Legislation to this effect was introduced into the Georgia General Assembly 1970, but no significant action was taken. Federal legislatLon requires all vehicles made after certain dates (See Table II) to have such devices. A state law is necessary in order to assure that the devices are retained on the vehicles.
7. Georgia should adopt and enforce legislation designed to limit emissions from all motor vehicles operating in Georgia.
Legislation is needed which would assure that pollution from vehicles not covered in Recommendation 6 would be controlled.
8. Air sampling and visual observations in the vicinity of airports should be continued, with a view to taking appropriate follow-up action at the state level if the airlines fail to effect significant reduction in air pollution from aircraft engines.
It should be noted that the role airplanes have in air pollution has been misunderstood; while they are great noise polluters, they contribute very little to air pollution, when compared to automobiles. However, agreement has been reached between the federal government and major commercial airlines to reduce the large amounts of air pollution created by aircraft engines. The Air Quality Control Branch should continue surveillance to assure that the agreement is being carried out, and be prepared to take strong action if it is not.
54

9. Legal counsel should be provided to agencies charged with implementing state air pollution laws. Enforcement of air pollution legislation is the responsibility of the State Health Department's Air Quality Control Branch. Advice on legal aspects of air pollution control, as well as assistance in prosecuting air pollution cases, is vital to enforcement of these laws. While legal assistance has been lacking in the past, the State Attorney General's Office is reorganizing in order to provide more assistance in air pollution control. The Task Force endorses this effort as significant in helping to control air pollution.
55

BACKGROUND: WATER SUPPLY
Georgia, like most of the Southeast, receives an abundance of rainfall and therefore has an adequate supply of water. Approximately 50 inches of rainfall occurs each year over the 58,274 square-mile area of the state and produces approximately 39 billion gallons of water per day. However, not all of this water is considered manageable. Approximately 70 per cent of this runoff evenutally returns to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration and the remaining 30 per cent is controlled by waterways until it reaches the ocean. Prior to returning to the atmosphere or reaching the ocean, the runoff may be, and in fact is, used several times.
The total water use in 1960 was 44 billion gallons per day, or 112 percent of the available supply. Of this amount, 98 percent or 41 billion gallons per day was used for the production of hydroelectric powe~ and its quality was not altered to such an extent that further use was precluded. In addition, approximately 80 percent of the 2.1 billion gallons per day of water treated by private industry was used for cooling and most returned to Georgia streams. The major consumptive use of water was the 37 million gallons per day used for irrigation and a s~all per cent of the 91 million gallons of water produced by individual ~Ater supplies, and of the 370 million gallons per day treated by public water services. In fact, the consumptive use of water in Georgia in 1960 was less than one-half of one percent of the available supply. The real problem in most cases, then, is not water quantity but water quality.
The water that falls as rain and flows in the stream is both abundant and free, but it is not fit for drinking or most other uses for which water is intended. Nor is it readily available to most users. Providing a safe, palatable water in the user's home, office or industry at an acceptable pressure and quantity costs money, for both facilities and personnel, and this is probably the crux of the problem in Georgia.
In 1970 it was estimated that the public water supply facilities in America numbered 23,000 and were valued at more than $50 billion. Among all industries, only electrical utilities have a greater investment in plants and equipment. Approximately 3,000 of these central water services facilities were in Georgia and served three-fourths of the state's 4.59 million people. Many of these water systems take their raw water from waterways which have been degraded through pollution. This means that the plants must operate more efficiently in order to produce water which meets acceptable drinking water standards.
The remaining one-fourth of Georgia's population, or approximately 1.15 million people, are served by more than 360,000 individual supplies. Insuring that these numerous sources comply with acceptable standards is a major endeavor. However, efforts must also be made to insure that both individual and multiple supply systems do not become contaminated by poor sanitation practices during storage and distribution. In addition, such potentially dangerous materials as biocides, radioactive materials and heavy metals must be looked for since some of these are not removed in normal treatment plants.
57

Since no major epidemics have occurred in Georgia in recent years many people have become complacent and have forgotten that such diseases as typhoid fever, cholera, infectious hepatitis and dysentery are waterborne. In fact, in 1969, Holy Cross College in Massachusetts was forced to cancel its football schedule when contamination of the water source at the practice field disabled their entire team. To illustrate the importance of a safe water supply, it has been estimated that the pasteurization of milk and chlorination of water have been responsible for saving more lives than all the drugs ever devised. This should also indicate the potential danger if proper water treatment ceased.
The demands for water in Georgia are expected to increase considerably in the future as a result of population increases and increased per capita consumption. This latter point is indicated in Figure 4, which shows the per capita consumption of the U.S. from 1900 to 2000 and the per capita consumption of Georgia for 1945, 1955, 1960 and 1970. Although the values for Georgia vary slightly, they indicate that per capita consumption in Georgia closely parallels the national trend. Based on the projected per capita consumption of 200 gallons per person per day from Figure 5 and a service population of 4.7 million persons, a requirement of 940 million gallons per day may be anticipated. The service population of 4.7 million persons is based on the assumption that approximately 1.15 million Georgians will continue to be served by individual systems. This 940 million gallons per day is, of course, a substantial increase over the 370 million gallons per day produced in 1960. The rapid expansion of Georgia's water supply needs is also indicated by the fact that each year additional services must be provided for approximately 70,000 persons. Since most of this growth occurs in urban areas, this normally involves public or community systems. Such systems are now expanding at a rate of one or two systems per week.
Not only must more water be produced in the future, but the difficulty and cost of treating this water will also go up, as pollution increases the cost of treating water for consumption. In addition, new problems are constantly occurring. It was recently discovered that micro-quantities of organic pollutants in drinking water supplies produce symptoms characteristics of mental and physical stress. And by now everyone is familiar with the mercury pollution problems. These new problems must be anticipated and corrected as they arise.
To provide the water required in the future it will be necessary to a) protect water sources from pollution; b) design, build, and operate effective water treatment plants; c) store and distribute the water produced in a manner which will prevent contamination; and d) insure an adequate quantity of water at reasonable pressures and cost.
Financing for the construction, operation and maintenance of these facilities is of course a major problem. Many of the funds collected from water and sewerage charges are diverted to general revenue funds and are not available for the proper expansion, maintenance and operation of water supply systems. This is mostly due to lack of understanding and support in local government of adequate financing practices, and a lack of revenue sources on the local level.
58

Figure 4
240 220 200 180 160

Per Capita Water Consumption, U.S. and Georgia, 1900-2000.
U.S. Average
- Georgia Average
....................................
.......................................................

140

120

100

80 1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

59

WATER SUPPLY
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Agencies and quasi-governmental organizations should increase their efforts to promote regional planning for water supply services in order to eliminate duplication, inadequacies, and inequities within areas of the state.
A disjointed, expensive system of water supply operations results when municipalities and other local government units attempt to provide these services individually. Efforts should be made by influential groups such as the Georgia Municipal Association and the Association County Commissioners of Georgia to provide their members with data on savings and quality of services to be had through intergovernmental cooperation.
2. Appropriate state agencies should continue to work closely with statewide and local civic organizations to improve ongoing programs to insure safe water supplies in every Georgia community by insisting on adequate manpower and financing for monitoring and improving Georgia's water supply systems.
The Task Force was informed of inadequately staffed water supply systems, where operators might be the local policeman, and where operator pay might range from $200 to $400 monthly.
The attainment of a safe water supply requires support from the general populace. In many cases the support of management of the water supply operations by municipal officials is meager. This is normally due to either a lack 0 f interest or knowledge or both. A concerted effort by civic organizations, assisted by such organizations as the State Health Department's Water Supply Service, can help coorrect these difficiencies and generate public support for an efficient water works system.
3. Quasi-govermental and civic organizations should be encouraged to increase their efforts to promote efficient finance policies in local governments to insure adequate income for maintenance and extension of water supplies and to further insure that such income is not diverted to other governmental functions to the detriment of the safety and abundance of the water supplies.
A major problem in providing safe water is the erroneous notion that water is free. The capital invested in water utilities (more than $50 billion in the U.S.) is second only to the power industry. The true cost of providing safe water should be reflected in the cost of water and the revenues collected should be used for operation, maintenance and expansion. Of 19 of 32 cities in Georgia with populations over 10,000 more is reaped in revenues from water supply-sewerage systems than is placed back into these operations. This practice may drain badly needed funds from the water supply facilities. Increased efforts by such organizations as the Georgia Municipal Association and the Association County Commissioners of Georgia should be made in order to bring Georgia's cities and counties to a sophisticated level of financial operation.
61

See Recommendation 4 under Water Pollution Recommendations.
4. State and local agencies should improve the utilization of existing environmental health manpower, and should recruit additional manpower, for monitoring water supplies throughout Georgia, especially small supplies.
Considerable manpower and coordination are required in order for the State Health Department to insure that the estimated 3,000 public water supply systems in Georgia meet acceptable standards, and to evaluate applications for the one or two new systems added each week. At present, the total manpower is insufficient and not always coordinated by the various levels of government to achieve maximum efficiency of available personnel. By providing a qualified environmental sanitation director in each of the new public health distircts, many of these problems could conceivably by solved closer to the problem source and improve the utilization of available manpower.
5. The appropriate state agencies, in concert with quasi-governmental associations and education institutions, should develop a workable plan for assuring that every community supply is serviced by competent operators.
Only a small proportion of the operators of Georgia's approximately 3,000 community water supply systems have been certified under the voluntary Georgia Water and pollution Control Association Program. Although operator certification will not cure all problems, it will provide a vital safety barrier against waterborne disease. It will place an individual in the water plant who has been afforded the opportunity to attain the skills required for effective purification and who has demonstrated proven competence in the area. Since the skill level will increase the compensation must also increase if these specialists are to be retained.
Grants are available for individuals from Georgia water supply systems who want to attend Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association training cources. These are made available by the Water and Waste-water Manufacturers Association, but the Georgia Water and pollution Control Association reported that no Georgians had taken advantage of these grants. It is often a case of municipalities not being aware of opportunities. Any plan to improve effectiveness should also consider: (a) special training tailored to the varying needs and educational levels of recruits and existing operators; and (b) cooperative arrangements for two or more water supply jurisdictions to share the services of a competent operator.
6. Increased efforts should be directed toward the determination of metallic and organic micropollutants in water supplies and research undertaken to enumerate their cumulative effects and methods of removal.
As industrialization in Georgia increases, the number of metallic and organic wastes can also be expected to increases. These may be the product formulation (such as DDT), waste products from production (mercury from chlorine-caustic soda process) or impurities in the product (cadmium in tires). Most of these products are present in small concentrations and
62

were formerly assumed to be negligible. However, many of these organic and metallic materials are cumulative in individual species or through various food chains and several have been shown to be detrimental. Efforts should, therefore, be made to enumerate their long term effects and, if necessary, to eliminate them from potable water. Many of the present standards designed to prevent such contamination should be reviewed to reflect results of more conclusive research.
7. Well drillers should be required to obtain a license for practice and a permit for each well installation. Logs for the completed well should be filed with the appropriate state agency upon the completion of each well.
A closer control of well installations could have several beneficial effects if properly enforced. First, it would eliminate many of the unqualified operators and help protect the home owner. Second, it should reduce or eliminate the number of wells installed that are inadequately protected from potential sources of contamination. Third, the well logs would be of assistance in insuring proper sealing of the well when it is taken out of service and, fourth, the logs should help detect depletion of underground water supplies. While individual water supply rules and regulations are being developed which would require permitting wells to be drilled, steps should also be taken to regulate the well driller.
8. State standards for construction of individual water supplies should be adopted and vigorously enforced.
Approximately one-fourth of Georgia's population or about 1.15 million persons obtain their water from more than 360,000 individual supplies. These supplies are too numerous to be afforded the surveillance received by public systems. However, individual water supply regulations, which are now in the development process, should be adopted and enforced. This will at least insure that individual supplies are not contaminated from surface drainage or individual waste disposal systems which were improperly located or installed.
Consideration should be given to legislation which would require utility companies and water and sewerage systems to refuse connection of services to buildings in which septic tank and individual water supplies do not have health department approval.
9. Applications for rezoning should stipulate the increased water demands produced by such rezoning, and the costs and methods for meeting these demands should be enumerated. Rezoning should not be permitted incases where it will jeopardize the safety or adequacy of the water supply system.
Adequate prOVLSLon of water for community use is contingent upon proper planning. Zoning authorities should require applicants for rezoning for development purpcses to enumerate the potential impact on the local water supply system, its costs, and methods of meeting those costs.
63

10. When the health of a community is endangered because of inadequate water supply testing or maintenance, the authority of the State Board of Health over local health departments should be fully exercised in order to assure healthful water. Since water is so rapidly and widely distributed, very close quality control is required to prevent such potential waterborne diseases as typhoid fever, cholera, infectious hepatitis and dysentary. To avoid such disasters, close supervision is required, with immediate corrective action when maintenance or testing are inadequate. Legal assistance should be available through state attorneys assigned to the State Health Department to take the necessary legal action to protect the health of the people.
64

BACKGROUND: HOUSING
If the state of Georgia is to assist in improving the quality of life of its citizens, it must take a more active interest in housing. In 1960, it was found that 42 percent of the approximately 1.2 million dwellings in Georgia were substandard due to structural defects or lack of adequate plumbing facilities. Since low income groups have high occupancy rates, approximately 50 percent of all Georgians live in these substandard dwellings. Not only do such bUildings constitute a poor environment, they also contribute to accidents, insect and rodent problems and to the occurrences of disease.
The problem of substandard housing is not restricted to specific areas, but is state-wide in scope. The percentage of the dwellings which were listed as substandard in 1960 varied from approximately 10 percent in DeKalb county to 80 percent in Hancock County. However, these percentages are somewhat misleading since the number of housing units in metropolitan regions is higher. Actually, 41 percent of the half-million dwellings classified as substandard were in urban areas and 59 percent were rural.
If all of Georgia's citizens are to obtain adequate housing, the number of dwellings constructed must be increased substantially and methods of financing must be improved. It is estimated that 44,000 new housing units must be provided each year to meet housing demands. In the 1960's the average rate of construction was only 28,000 units per year, and many of these were beyond the financial means of those Georgian's requiring housing. Due to the increasing costs of labor, land and materials and the limited funds available, little progress was made in the 1960's toward the elimination of inferior housing despite a trend toward multiple family dwellings.
In the quest to provide adequate housing units it is imperative to prevent "instant slums." In order to prevent the accumulation or development of undesirable living conditions, steps must be taken to 1) insure the construction and maintenance of sound buildings, and 2) develop land use plans which will contribute to livable surroundings. Many of the deficiencies in existing dwellings could be prevented or eliminated if reasonable housing codes were adopted and enforced. Building codes are also required to prevent the construction of new housing units of inferior quality. In addition the practice of punishing a homeowner for maintaining or improving his property through increased taxation should be explored. However, the development and maintenance of quality housing may be partially negated if neighborhoods are made unlivable through poor land use planning.
65

HOUSING
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. All Georgians should have access to accurate information and competent counselling on the practical aspects of sound residential construction, household sanitation and proper maintenance, and home financing.
Families generally, and newly married couples in particular, have a need for competent counselling and a~curate information about home financing, sound residential construction, proper housing maintenance, and household sanitation. Most citizens' general education does not provide such knowledge, especially as to the technical, legal, or financial aspects of construction, home ownership, and proper maintenance. Existing information sources tend to be fragmented and inaccessible. Such information and counselling might be provided through housing information centers at the regional level, and might include referral services for competent technical or legal advice.
2. Receptive local governments should be encouraged to institute effective overall community planning, including adequate control powers and close teamwork among local health officers, licensing and permitting authorities, and other groups that are involved, to assure more orderly development.
Many of today's housing problems reflect past failures to adopt and practice effective orverall community planning. More often than not, housing projects and nonresidential construction have proceeded in haphazard fashion, with little or no regard for sound land-use principles or for the cumulative impact on such basic community facilities as sewer systems. Too often, a "profitable" project has imposed heavy long-term costs (and debt burdens) on the community's taxpayers. The social costs of inadequate planning (or not planning) have been extremely high, and tax burdens reflecting these costs are felt to be far in excess of the value of current public services. Any expansions in the capacities of sewer systems, traffic arteries, or other basic community facilities needed to support such demand-generating projects as new buildings or mobile home parks should be planned in advance of completion of those projects.
3. A "residential development checklist" should be developed to aid local government officials and real estate developers in assuring that new residential construction projects meet proper standards for community health and orderly development.
See commentary under Recommendation 2. Concerned state agencies, in cooperation with such private organizations as the Home Builders Association of Georgia, should construct the proposed checklist, which would be based on existing state and local laws on building, zoning, housing, sewerage, water supplies, etc.
67

4. Certain changes in general property tax policy should be considered to lessen the relative tax load on residential real estate and encourage owners of residential property to upgrade existing housing by making needed structural repairs and other approved maintenance outlays.
Governmental action at the State and local levels affects housing largely in terms of tax policy. Up to the present, perhaps the net effect of tax policy has been negative. Residential real estate, despite homestead exemptions, probably bears an unduly heavy share of the tax load in Georgia, as elsewhere. Property improvements bring tax increases; this aspect of tax policy penalizes the upgrading of housing, and indeed may penalize proper maintenance. Mobile homes have been taxed as personal property, while conventional homes have been taxed as real property. In some communities where conventional housing is financially out of reach for low and moderate-income families, registration requirements or zoning restrictions also remove mobile homes as an alternative.
5. Statewide guiding principles for residential subdivisions and mobile home E,arks shQuld_be adopted as soon as possible. Such rules and regulations should be desi~ned to advance the concept of overall community planning for orderly development.
Rules and regulations covering many separate aspects of community development already exist or are being prepared. However, it is also important to coordinate the separate aspects and to provide additional guides, such as space and landscaping requirements for mobile home parks, in order to encourage better community development. Commentary for Recommendation 2 and 3 also applies.
6. The General Assembly should be asked to review the local registration requirements for mobile homes, to determine the appropriate tax classification of mobile homes (as property), and to consider related aspects of this growing segment of Georgia's housing supply.
See commentary under Recommendation 4.
7. A model standard building code should be encouraged for adoption by local governments as the minimum code in their respective jurisdictions.
While a housing code outlines maintenance standards for homes, a building code establishes standards for elements of home-building, such as electrical and plumbing requirements. A model minimum code has been developed by the Southern Building Congress and is considered adequate for assuring building quality. This Southern Standard Building Code should be adopted in all communities in order to assure housing that is substantial and not likely to become unsafe in a short period of time.
8. State and local efforts should be made to adopt and enforce model minimum housing codes as a means of upgrading housing in all areas of the State.
68

In the absence of adequate, well-enforced building and housing codes, cost pressures will dictate that "catch-up" housing construction create "instant slums." Ample evidence abounds that how a house was built and maintained is far more indicative of its livability than when it was built. The Southern Standard Housing Code has been developed, and the State Health Department Housing Section is working on a model code for voluntary adoption at the local level. Consideration is also being given to a basic statewide minimum housing code and to the questions of effective enforcement which a mandatory statewide code would entail. Consideration should be given to expanding inspection services by training persons to inspect for and enforce all applicable requirements of the code, and to offer a comprehensive range of technical assistance. For instance, in cities where local health department personnel inspect homes for some of the code requirements, and another person inspects for other requirements, the inspection services might be carried out by one person trained to inspect for all requirements.
9. Local health officers should encourage the adoption, and initiate the enforcement, of all housing code (and related code) provisions affecting environmental health in their respective service areas.
See commentary under Recommendation 8.
10. Concerned agencies should provide for cross-training and close teamwork of all persons involved in inspections for health, housing and building code violation, in order to bring about coordinated enforcement of these codes.
See commentary under Recommendation 8.
11. Legal assistance should be made available to persons who are given responsibility for enforcing housing codes in order to assure uniform compliance with the codes.
As in other environmental problems, there is a need for legal assistance in determining alternative for enforcement of housing codes. Because of the complex nature of the problems, it is essential that the lawyer be intimately acquainted with the operations of the regulatory agency, which usually means that he is permanently assigned to the agency. At the present time, the State Health Department has the broadest responsibility of state agency for seeing that homes are not health hazards. It does this through local health departments. Legal assistance should be provided, either on the local level through such means as the state requiring local health departments to hire attorneys, or on the state level, by having state attorneys assigned to the housing program.
69

.oz...
~
::;)
oa.
a.

BACKGROUND: POPULATION
The increase in population in the state of Georgia is an environmental problem that will contimue, and place even greater burdens on the state's environment in coming years. While the term "overpopulation" is difficult to define, ecologists have predicted that the state and the nation may be "overpopulated" by the year 2000.(See Appendix, Page 158).
The Task Force found that population growth and increased demands in Georgia are major factors in the increase of most environmental problems, and that dealing wisely with population growth and demands will have a great effect on the solution of all environmental hazards. Conversely, if there is little improvement in efforts to handle the population problem, all other environmental problems can only be expected to worsen. The Task Force's recommendations to establish a population task force and to initiate a state level activity to deal with population effects indicate the complexity and seriousness of this problem.
Georgia's population is increasing at the rate of two percent a year. The present population according to 1970 U.S. Census figures, is 4.59 million. Projections by the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning indicate that the state's population will be 5.8 million in 1985. There are estimates that, at the present rate of growth, Georgia's population will double in 35 years, by 2005. The previous doubling of population occurred in 70 years, from 2.2 million in 1900 to the present estimated population.
The population growth has resulted from an increase in new births, coupled with a trend for the state to attract population rather than lose it,as has been the pattern in previous decades. The net growth has been increased somewhat, also, by a relatively low death rate.
In addition to increasing population, Georgia is seeing more of its population pour into urban centers. Figure 5 illustrates the point that Georgia's increase in population is primarily due to the growth of the six metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Albany, Columbus, Macon, and Savannah.
By 1985, it is predicted that 35.2 percent of all Georgians will dwell in the 1,723 square-mile area of metropolitan Atlantal , which comprises less than three percent of the state's land. In that same year it is expected that approximately 58 percent of the population will live on 6.9 percent of Georgia's 58,274 square miles. The distribution of Georgia's population and the densities which result from this trend toward metropolitan living are shown in Figure 6.
lClayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties
71

-...j

7

N

-,' ~

, ,- -~ ,.

GEORGIA

",",",",",

"","" "

"~"~,ll' ""



.

"~"~,ll"~"~"~

SIX MAJOR METROPOLIT AN

/

-

~

AREAS

.' ."'
~ tII'-

--",'"

~ .~--;;

It::

,., ...............

....... ........



ATLANTA

I

1900

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

6
5
4
'8
s:'l;;l 3 t-'
ll)
,r..t..
0 ::l
2 ":,":.s.".:.'
t-'
,t..-..'
0 ::l '-"
1
o
2000

YEAR

Figure 5 - The Population Growth of Georgia and Its Major Metropolitan Areas During the Period 1900 - 1985

Figure 6 1970 POPULATION DENSITY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR THE

DADE

!.,.
'~.-'i'-,..,j

\ 'J GIL"'.'

J.

r

--,J
J

"1"i-.J !~ ".'T[

...

CHATTooc;. I ,

GOAOON

, - . _ .A.A..A.~

I " l.: , ..... ~

PICK[NS

"LUMPKIN

STATE OF
GEORGIA
D o - 100 persons/sq.mi.

.... RTOW

eM(ROK[E

i FORSYTH

_'-r --_.

(;-..1 ~..........

i . OL'

.'.'.:'.. .

-

-

-

-

.

-

-

-

A

.....

./ PAULDING

. ,1._. .'.ALSON


~!a~'.

...... ..-J

B~~~~. "L.N . ' .

E

C."Jl:OLL



"\..~. ./Y--._ ..-<)--............,-

JACKSON

. . _......./

_

"

' '., -\. , '\

\.

I ....OISON \

ELltRT

'''--,~.'''( .

/ .",'

\ \"

100 - 500 persons/sq,mi
III 500 - 1000 persons/sq.mi.

I. -'''7'\ON[[

OClLU.OOP< / ' "'L."

\ LI.COLN

t....... '\ \ WALTON

/.

",

/

"'.;. -'

.I

\

, ..( ",OAGAN \.

......._ GREENE

....., \
)-.J')TALI.vF.[r..~.-...?..o(~

r--~\ V(-
)

r

-

'

-

> 1000 persons/sq.mi.

.)~"~J!L~~-<;'"'

_ _ _ . _ . , ).... /

\.' "YlTn

"\

\ cown...,.\

-

Io+[A"O \..i. -...,.._._~.~. .

*r' \. \. ......)

1

'.(

/~''''''...... .-.-' \

\ _.;
.,A.~.-1..

'.Meou"."'" COLU"'"

/ , ~J'' I \ v\r' J".'.

I,
I PUTNA"

\

/
)

/

i

~.

'j

N"

\

\ . ..- "/', '.

,':~-__ ' .....

, > IUTT,

I

H.HCOCK /.\;:UCOCK/'

.,

j\.
T.-OUP

.J

;:;.

1
'I

~i

,MERIWETHER (

puu

. ',i'-'-'--i\-'-'-' _'-' . .

! L....... I
I (

\\..



! !

i ~.-._-- -~~
,..I I.

MON"O

\

JONU

.>'

./;'
. .-.'"

l,"'-~.l(

/ I

. . . ."'\ I' " J[f'f'[RSON

('\(

WASHINGTON

\,

"

\

f

/

IURtc,[

__ . _.......

I'

(

_.~._._.L._. _ _ ~.I). UP'ON

'

c.\

\.1\....,..

1-._._.
l"

\.

(,L

"

/

t--\... . '"\
WILKINSON

........... .~. .~._

.

'V..

",,)

\. JENKINS,I

SCllIfll[N

V\J., \ TALIOT / '

C........O .

, / . _ . . . . . . . . . JOHN'ON (

\

I

.

)',

'\ /' /'

... ~ .....~ /? [MANU[L >,,. .......... ...:-.'\.,

r I \ I

J

i,

TAYLOR

-.

. V'"

~~mii

. . . . ,ON

li'1

/ 1r'

1. -. r '-. I.' .........

"'CON

"
i
I

L.,,_,.~;..:..c-.L.-'Y._I'.~I

~...........1i\'/

"

,

F
_.OOLY

/ ,/

I(

/'../.

'......./

./ '.

./.

\

IJ. .-ro- '~'''''/'' ''''1

----...,\.,

{.-.-t., ~ i 'UCKLn .~, ,/ '. " ".y'( \\.

L.U.'N'

I('

'1)

\

T"UTL.N'

C'NOL" ,

'ULLOCH

/".'('-; '-' . .-.-.;-J-.......

I.' \
.\'

<
< I .ULASKI " '
rI '--'---V

DODG[

r! \ >

/' (~,

\

\ .- /_/ / ' \ ......". .....L

'l I
)

~.9..

I.I

I I TOOMII5,

. \ \.....
\ IV.NS \0--

_

-

-

'

...I.\
I

l

'.
?o'

i " . --_./ ..... .sT[W",Jl:T

I

I , ''r------.....\) C....! \ ,./,/ . i r/..'.''.)i. \.._.-,\" ! i i ~.~..,...-~.~.. !L..l.~ -I"-.

'U..T"

! ' ...\ )._ QUITIl,IIAN
I

I T[""ELL..:

1

'

")

....... _._._.-1

\

WILCOX't

/',

/

'.

/

....\

'\~... ~

I TATTN.LL

,

1_.... _;- .

...:

.....~-_._.

\

~. ''1. /

TEL,.'R

;,.../

I'1 ..................-'1.

1,"-

.J

j_.

---.1 I """"......

JEFr DAVI"

_~ -~...s,/.

,"'\-._or ; 1 r '.... L[[)

I'

j-_....r.~ BEN HILL

I

~

.PPLING

<' . 1'1 ! \ / \ . _ .\ NOOLPH

\,I

I

\

I TU'N'..I ) '~ 1

r'-'~I

'
L

__....

_

'-.

1

""

'.

\~.

,~ " .

LIItRT'"

""'.

LONO

......... ,""'

....

, ....- .

c.._._._f.'...'. . . . L ;-,. ') .

n
_.

...Y
-.

-

<,t , ' C"'LHOUN

,



1 . L.-""1-_~

WORTH

't-..,

'-'./ .J I R W I N '

cO"f'[

'\

~

I
I
i

I

...

'
CON

.

.
"

...
A ",,\

.

,~I

"'" /

W ...YN[

;; ... \. ./' c I NTOSM

,~_

(

~ T"T ;::.__Y

'-.....,r.(

.'

'-'-''-' . I' "-r' . ~

i.--~

I

r ! ' ...:...--r '\ '-',\._._--1 ".,..c. ~~lllli~\ II [ARL'"

I

'.MEA ,.,J",J.

w- . r r--.--.J_,

~j MITCM[LL

i j t i i "'LL'.

'I

r/"'(

~--_ I



.

.

,.

r'

I

t

I

COLQUITT

."
J '-\
j.
COOK

. \
~ .ERRIEN

ATKIN'ON

I
l.....-J

~'T'---'-'\

f--JI

\.

l

\)-_--J....

'.

r'-

'\",.'t"'- ,..... IRANTLEY

.....

j r-''Y.J

~

T _-J._._.

-_

.

...

l

.L

!

r



_



_



-l-1 ,-'_.

-

"

,

r-

.

--

.

_-

( ' -~

\

- ' ,I I L ...NIER

, \...

r---~I-_J'

<; $

I
j O[C.TU.
!

iI
I GR'OY

! "I

THOW.S

I,
!i I~OOK.s

.1.

CLINCH

i ...... ji

CH'.L TON

)
7

v ---1

L. '

I'

I

1

,/

ii

t.

\::

, 1L ._._.-,
~ ! .CHOL......- ....._...../. .! I

73

In addition to a net increase in population and in urban population densities, Georgia has experienced economic growth and a boost in the average Georgian's income, which makes it possible for him to purchase more goods. However, with purchasing power comes an increase in wastes, and in environmental pollution. The relationship between population increase, per capita consumption and waste is demonstrated by comparing Figure 5 to Figure 4 on Page 59, depicting the consumption of water--which makes possible production of hydroelectric power and the manufacture of goods--and Figure 7, showing the rapid increase in per capita solid waste production. Another example of how population increase, greater consumption of goods, and the result--production of wastes--are related is illustrated by Figure 8, showing the rate of increase of urban populations, of automobiles and of increased pollutants in the urban environment. Per capita land available is an important factor in the environmental picture, as land supplies the human needs not only for food, but also for natural purposes and for artificial uses such as highways and cities. Figure 9 notes that the per capita land available to Georgians was cut in half in the first 70 years of this century, and will probably be halved again resulting in a little over four acres per person, in the next 30 years. Notably, ecologists have estimated that a minimum of five acres per person is needed to maintain a quality environment, at the present standard of living. An additional problem is that, while such amounts of land may presently be available, they are not in fact usable by Georgians in the recommended amounts. (See Appendix, Pages 157 and 159). Although there are many agencies and organizations in Georgia with demographic capabilities, there is not standard population estimate for the years between census counts, nor is there a standard method for determining population distribution between census years, or for projecting population. There are many sources of measures of environmental pollution, but there is little activity specifically relating environmental pollution to population distribution and density, with population characteristics or with population growth.
74

8.0 7.0

6.0

5.0 r~ o
Q

H
(])
P;

....r..o....
r0o..

4.0

U

H
(])
P-i

C1l

'0

~ ~

3.0

0

P;

2.0

1.0

,tI
t
1970
Projection
t f
f1J. ~~
" " .., Previous Projection

20

30

40

50

60

Year

70

80

Figure 7 - The National Average of Per Capita Refuse Production

75

FIGURE S-AUTOMOTIVE HYDROCARBON AND CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS IN URBAN AREAS

1c-o1
(J)
:>"1-1
1-1 co
(J) (J)
0.:>"
rn 1-1
os:: (J)
0.
.u rn
os:: s::
.,-l .0u

::::: s::
s j .,-l 0

s:::;:l
.B s

n rnn

~
.,-l

ac

2 oos~::,oc1(-o)1
~

,oco:":CO:>:..

c1-o1

U

IlS
16 14 12 10
S 6
4.~~
2

~

A 2SO 240

I I 200

160 120
SO 40
0

rn

os::

rn
s::

.,-l 0

.--l .,-l

.--l .--l

.,-l.--l
s S .,-l

n

Q) n
.--l rn

o0.1-c1o
Q) U P-<

cco,sco:o:
,0 1-1
I-I:=> :=>

1960

1970

19S0

1990

2000

Source: "Health, Education, and Welfare Indicators, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, November 1965.

76

16

14

~

12

;J>

~
~

10

~

w~

~

8

~
;J>
\.l '":i (j)

Cf.l
'--....

6

~

'":i

Cf.l



4

2

'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.",

1900

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time (Year)

80

90

2000

""

Figure 9 - THE DECREASE IN AVAILABLE LAND AS A RESULT OF INCREASING POPULATIONS

POPULATION RECOMMENDATIONS

1. A separate study should be made of the problem of population in order to better define the problem and to offer further recommendations for dealing wLth it.
Although it recognized the severity of the population problem, the Task Force was unable to fully define its scope because of the complexity of the problem. Further study should determine if the nature of the problem is numbers, density, distribution, excess fertility, economic level of the population, or other factors. The Task Force recognized that the study should be done by an independent group, that would be coordinated wLth the Georgia Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, the Bureau of State Planning and Community Affairs, and all other groups having a major interest in this area.

2. A state-level activity should be initiated that would conduct and/or stimulate basic research into particular aspects of population that would provide the background information needed for determining the effects of population on the quality of the state's environment.
The Task Force was made aware that the surface has barely been scratched in determining the effects of population on the environment.

Funds and coordination of effort are needed to enable research in many areas, including the specific environmental effects of population density, of populations having certain health, social or economic characteristics and of population growth; the effects of family planning activities on population growth; and optimum populations for all sectors of Georgia-urban, suburban and rural. A determination might also be made of the advisability of attempting, through tax incentives, etc., to encourage development of regional cities as an alternative to "megalapolis.'l

2. Allocation of funds should be made on the state level to educate the public on the known environmental effects of population densities, population characteristics, and populatLon growth, through innovative uses of mass media and through effective use of junior and senior high school curricula.

As more information is made available through such research as that which is recommended above, the known effects should be made known in the mass media and should be incorporated in school curricula.

4.

Present activity in family planning education and services should be en-

hanced and supplemented, in recognition of the vital role that such acti-

vity plays in balancing population growth.

Family planning activity in Georgia has been shown to be effective in limiting the number of unwanted pregnancies among target (high risk for economic and health reasons) populations. Effectiveness of existing agencies and organizations could be increased through additional funds for education and services.

79

The State is fortunate in having two organizations, the Georgia Voluntary Family Planning Council, and the Atlanta Area Family Planning Council, which can effectively coordinate the activities of the agencies and organizations involved in family planning activity.
A major goal of these programs is making methods of family planning freely available to all Georgians regardless of age, sex or income level and having this availability widely known.
5. Standards and frequent data estimates should be developed on a state-level basis for current population, population projections and population distribution.
The Task Force found that, while estimates are made by various agencies and organizations as to current population, population projections and distribution, there are no commonly accepted and available standard estimates. The State Bureau of Planning and Community Affairs has authority to develop standard estimates, but the Task Force noted that such estimates should be developed with the help of concerned agencies and organizations in order to have estimates that are truly "standard." Still another problem is obtaining valid population estimates between U.S. Census years. There has been strong support for a mid-decennial census of population, and it is still possible that there will be one in 1975.
6. Programs designed to control environmental hazards should utilize in their plans all available information on the effects of population densities on the environment, on the effects of population having certain health, economic or social characteristics on the environment, and on the effects that projected population growth will have on the environment.
This recommendation is contingent upon preceeding ones. Population estimates are difficult to project, hence many agencies find it difficult to plan for future population growth. In addition, there are few accurate formulae which can help estimate the impact that population growth will have on the environment. Implementation of Recommendation 2 would contribute to solving this planning problem.
7. There should be a state-level activity concerned with educating local zoning commissions on the effects of population on the environment and encouraging them to plan land use accordingly.
Zoning activity is essential to planning uses of land that will be beneficial and not detrimental to Georgia's population. Zoning operations are currently feasible only on the local or areawide level, but often zoning commissions are not aware of the full implications of their actions. For instance, it is often assumed that a factory will be an economic boon to an area. However, if there are many such facilities polluting the air already, such an addition may not be such an economic asset, but may further limit the area's ability to provide a healthy, aesthetically pleasing atmosphere, which is an attracting factor for many needed professionals such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.
Planning and community development experts have recommended that cities not try to compete in population growth rates, as population growth is not always the best thing for a city, particularly one that cannot provide adequate services to its present population.
80

8. The State should consider creating a land use plan to serve as a guide for wise development of the state's land resources, in the interest of the overall quality of life for Georgia's population. Initial studies have begun which indicate land needs for the Georgia population's food, clothing, shelter, natural area, and artificial systems requirements (See Appendix, Page 157). Such studies should lead to development of a plan to insure that the population's needs are met through wise use of the great quantity of land in Georgia. Such a plan might encourage overall development of the state's land in the same way that the coastal wetlands are being developed; that is, utilizing ecological principles by allowing some areas to be developed commercially, and leaving other parts of the area in their natural state. Depending on the results of further study, part of the plan may include acquisition of more private land for public use, and development of incentives to encourage private land owners to establish scenic easements and industry to create "environmental parks" as a way of preserving more land in its natural state.
81

.oa...:.
I-
oZ
u
~
~
z~

BACKGROUND: INJURY CONTROL
One might question why injury control should be classified as an environmental health problem. A few statistics, as distasteful as they might be, may answer the question and may point up the need to provide more emphasis on this area. In Georgia, accidents kill the most persons between ages one and 44 and represent the fourth leading cause of death for all ages. Last year, over 3,100 persons were killed in this state by accidents of all types. Over 100,000 were injured seriously enough to receive medical attention. The human suffering and financial loses are staggering. The National Safety Council estimates the economic loss per highway death to be $185,000. This factor alone, then, costs Georgians over $300 million per year, not including loss due to injuries. Total loss, in terms of human suffering and loss,can hardly be estimated. At the state level, the Department of Public Safety has primary responsibility for highway safety. The efforts of the State Patrol have been commendable, but shortages of manpower and equipment limit their effectiveness. The Georgia Department of Public Health is concerned primarily with home safety, poison control, institutional and recreational safety, employee safety and emergency medical services. Its total budget for the injury control program is under $100,000. Public apathy is probably the greatest obstacle to be overcome. The "accidents will happen" philosophy must be combatted through the development and use of better methods of communication between the professional and lay groups who should be served by the appropriate agencies. The complexities of the problem are many, but this fact should not discourage efforts in research, study, applications of research findings, or control.
83

INJURY CONTROL
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adequate resources, including funds and personnel, should be provided for all activities designed to control accidental injury and death.
Despite the great loss of life and tremendous costs accrued by Georgia's public due to accidents of all types, the resources allocated for their control are very limited. For instance, the State Health Department has only one person and a small budget with which to conduct a "statewide" injury control program. State Patrol efforts to control highway accidents are also limited by the lack of personnel. Thought should be given to placing accident prevention specialists in district health departments in order to provide more coordination to accident control efforts, and to increasing the capability of the State Patrol to control highway injury and death.
2. Additional training in the basics of accident prevention should be provided to all health personnel? whether or not they are specifically involved in accident prevention programs.
Most local health departments, which would be appropriate locations for accident prevention programs, do not have personnel who are adequately trained to carry out such programs. State-level accident prevention personnel are also in need of further training. In addition, accident prevention training should be given to all health personnel, as there are many opportunities for them to prevent accidents, if they are alerted to these opportunities. An example is a local sanitarian on an inspection visit to a restaurant, where he is in a unique position to observe activities and recommend precautions for greater safety.
3. Research should be conducted to further identify high risk individuals and groups and to develop more evidence concerning the etiology of accidents. The information already available and that obtained from further research should be used to solve the problems at their source.
Surveys indicate that alcoholics, aged and handicapped drivers and other groups are responsible for a great number of automobile accidents. More knowledge of these should be sought through cooperative efforts by health and safety agencies and organizations. Coordination should be made with health department programs, voluntary agencies, driver's licensing authorities and other groups dealing with high risk persons to make them more aware of the role their efforts have to play in preventing accidents. For example, efforts should be made to further identify the hazard of persons driving under the influence of drugs, including prescribed drugs. Cooperation of medical societies should then be sought in bringing this hazard to the attention of all physicians.
85

4. Research should be conducted and applied that would reveal the psychology of accidents and offer more insight into ways that behavior can be modified to bring about more responsible personal actions which will result in fewer accidents. Attitudes can be changed, as they have been in the anti-smoking campaign, through application of modern advertising techniques. These techniques are based on careful research that determines what people respond to and identify with. An objective in all environmental programs, but especially in accident prevention, is to make those who create the problem feel that they are personally responsible for the situation and that they can do something about it. While more research is needed, more coordination between those implementing accident control programs and those already researching accident psychology is also needed.
5. Increased guidance and support should be given to communities in order to improve their capability for providing emergency health services. A quick and trained response to emergency situations--whether accidents or natural disasters--can limit personal injury and death to their victims. Communities should improve their readiness through thorough planning in order to prevent fragmentation of efforts, duplication of services and isolated planning, which are particularly likely to happen in areas where there is more than one hospital. The State Health Department's Emergency Health Service is active in helping organize local Emergency Medical Service Councils which can improve on or provide: a) broad-based training of the public for on-the-spot aid; b) a communications system which assures prompt response to the need; c) ambulances staffed by attendants trained and equipped to provide life-sustaining care; and, most importantly, d) an organizational structure capable of guiding and coordinating the efforts of all concerned, including health, fire, and police activities. Attempts to organize such Councils and to coordinate activities in communities should be encouraged and supported as a means of reducing the harm that springs from environmental conditions.
86

-'"LLI
C
u i=
'"LLI
Q.

BACKGROUND: PESTICIDES
The use of pesticides for the prevention of disease and increase in food production has produced tremendous benefits, but recent evidence has also demonstrated the determental effect possible on wildlife and human health. If beneficial use is to be made of pesticides, then it is imperative to know the risks involved in its use, the potential benefits obtained and the alternate methods of pest control. There are approximately 200,000 living species in the United States and most of these are considered to be essential to the well-being of man. In most cases, pesticides applied to isolated species have a broad-spectrum biological effect and destroy non-target as well as target species. One major problem that has faced most pesticide users is the large number of pesticides available for use. There are now some 600 active pesticidal chemicals which may be formulated into more than 60,000 preparations. Keeping track of the proper formulation, storage, transport, use and disposal of such a wide variety of toxic materials is an awesome task. The problem is compounded even further by the mass of these materials praduced. In 1967, more than 400 million pounds of pesticides were produced in the United States. Half of these pesticides were organochlorines and 50 percent of this amount was DDT. The production of pesticides has generally increased approximately 15 percent per year, although there has been a reduction in the persistent varieties since 1957. The misuse of pesticides represents a dangerous hazard which must be eliminated. Not only does it destroy wildlife but it can kill and cause disabilities in human beings. In 1968, pesticides accounted for one-third of poisoning incidents in Georgia with 91 cases reported. Although it is impossible at this time to assess the long-term damage to human beings, this could be significant.
87

PESTICIDES RECOMMENDATIONS
1. An activity should be further developed in the state which would maintain an inventory of pesticides being used in the state, the amounts of each kind of pesticide, the purposes for which they are applied, and the areas of the state in which they are used in order to estimate the effects of these pesticides on the state food supply, and on the public health.
The potential dangers of pesticides are such that use should be cautious until its ultimate safety is proven. In order to know what pesticides should be evaluated for safety, it is necessary to determine which ones are in use at the present time in Georgia. Because pesticides are so widely used, this survey would be a major activity, and the necessary resources should be devoted to it.
A survey of pesticides use in the state is now in progress in the State Health Department pesticides program. Such a study, coupled with the activities mentioned above, would indicate areas where safeguards should be applied. Standards could be developed, in coordination with federal agencies which are primarily concerned with pesticides research, which would ensure that the most important sources of public health hazards were dealt with. Such an approach would be better than taking singleminded, and dangerous, action by dealing with the source that happens to get the most public attention, as has happened with the banning of DDT pesticides. Since DDT has been banned, compounds more immediately hazardous to the user, such as parathion--which has caused deaths in the nation--are being used.
2. Provision should be made for thorough and continuing review of the results of research on pesticides being used in Georgia, and for communication of the results of such research to the appropriate persons.
It is presently estimated that there are approximately 600 active pesticidal chemicals, which may be formulated into 60,000 preparations. It is not fully known which are safe and unsafe, nor at what level they are not safe.
A multi-million dollar research effort is presently being carried out by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of the Interior, the National Science Foundation and industry. State efforts should be directed to surveying the results of this research and developing programs that would communicate the results to those concerned, including the State Department of Agriculture, which has responsibility for labeling pesticides for safe use, and local sanitarians, who investigate incidents of pesticides misuse.
89

3. The state should consider research to acquire detailed data on pesticide residues in the state's environment.
While general environmental surveys are being conducted by the Federal government, the state should attempt to supplement these through investigations into the state's water, soil, fish and other forms of aquatic life, upland wildlife and food products being sold to the consumer.
4. Efforts of all agencies and groups concerned with pesticides usage should be coordinated, and allowance made for all concerned to have a direct voice in making pesticide usage recommendations.
A number of programs, agencies and industries are concerned with pesticides manufacture and usage. It is recommended that these coordinate their activities so that there is no duplication of efforts or confusion as to responsibility and authority among health, agriculture, fish and game, and industry groups. An attempt is already being made towards this end in state government through the formation of the interagency pesticides monitoring committee. The Task Force recognizes and encourages this committee in its work. It further recommends that industry and others outside government be involved in this cooperative effort.
This body should include representatives of at least the following groups:
College or University Entomologists Consumers Custom and Agricultural Applicators Extension Service Representatives Georgia Pest Control Association Georgia Department of Agriculture Georgia Department of Public Health Georgia Fish and Game Department Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators
5. Industries and the general public should be encouraged to rely less on pesticides for total control of pests, and the public in particular should be educated to be selective about using pesticides at all.
Task Force discussion revealed that, in recent years, pesticides have been used more frequently and general sanitation practices, which would decrease the need for pesticides, have been utilized less frequently. In addition, pesticide abuse is encouraged by general availability of pesticides to the consuming public, which is largely unaware of the dangers involved, and a widespread misconception that pesticides are essential for many purposes for which they are not.
90

6. Steps should be taken by the appropriate agencies to insure that pesticides applications are made by persons properly trained to do so, especially in multi-family housing units, and in institutions providing custodial care. The Task Force was informed of the potential health hazard created by the allowance of untrained persons to apply pesticides, particularly in apartment houses, and in institutions such as hospitals and nursing homes. This hazard was recognized, and the Task Force recommends that the appropriate agency, in this case the Structural Pest Control Commission, take action to see that the public health is not endangered through such practices. (Task Force member Dixon Olive commented that simply outlawing pesticides applications by owners of rental or custodial property or their employees, unless they were licensed by the Structural Pest Control Commission, could be dangerous. He said that such action could preclude instruction of an unlicensed person to apply certain pesticides; also, he said, "In many instances the owners would simply use this law to avoid any pest control in their facilities, resulting in occupants being exposed to hazards as a result of no pest control.")
91

BACKGROUND: MILK AND FOOD SANITATION
Both milk and food are capable of transmitting pathogenic organisms and toxic material and must, therefore, be closely controlled. Since these consumable products are so widely distributed, milk or food-borne outbreaks could have serious health implications for large segments of Georgia's population.
There are approximately 1,400 dairy farms in Georgia producing 375,000 gallons of milk per day for human consumption. This and various quantities of imported milk are processed, pasteurized and packaged by 43 milk processing plants for distribution. In order to produce a safe product, it is first necessary to obtain the milk from a safe herd. Beyond this, proper pasteurization, chemical analysis, sanitary handling, distribution and storage are required to insure the safety and palatability of the milk. Some counties do not have the staff to inspect all phases of milk processing, and in other counties the responsibility of the various regulatory agencies is vague. The problem is now being studied by a special inter-agency task force to further ascertain the needs of milk production and safety in Georgia.
Based on current information, there are about 10,500 food service establishments serving more than 2,000,000 meals daily in Georgia. At present about 20 percent of food service establishments, which are the smaller ones, are not inspected and have not been issued permits to operate.
The food service industry in Georgia employs approximately 125,000 people, which is a sizable industry, and growing. The rapid increase in the number of food service establishments, and the high turnover rate of employees is a major concern, since human error in the sanitary handling of food is the primary problem at the industry level. Another more recent concern is the increase in food vending machines and catering trucks.
Between 1961 and 1968 there were 74 reported food-borne outbreaks in Georgia, involving 7,942 cases; and, due to poor reporting, it is estimated that this represents only 10 percent of the actual number. Statewide regulations designed to prevent food-borne outbreaks were adopted in 1966 to cover those establishments serving or selling prepared foods. These establishments are under the jurisdiction of the Georgia Department of Public Health, but regulations are enforced at the local level. The inspection of wholesale food processing plants, abattoirs, retail groceries and similar establishments is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture.
93

MILK SANITATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Close coordination should be effected between all agencies, including those out of the state, that are involved in the inspection of dairy cows and milk and milk-based products used in the state of Georgia. Milk being brought across state lines into Georgia should meet state inspection requirements.
Two kinds of agencies in the state, as well as agencies outside the state, are involved in assuring that Georgia's milk supply is safe. While coordinative efforts between the State Agriculture Department and local health departments are being made, and while milk from both within and outside the State is generally considered safe, it is important to point out the necessity of continuing these efforts in order to assure high milk quality. In the mean time, it is hoped that fragmentation of authority, as indicated in Recommendation 5, will be eliminated.
2 There should be adequate inspection services for all operations handling milk and milk-based products in the state of Georgia.
While the state's milk supply is considered safe, constant vigilance through provision of adequate inspection services and personnel is necessary in order to prevent outbreaks of milkborne diseases.
3. Adequate training should be provided for all personnel involved in inspections of milk and milk-based products.
As in the case of other inspection programs, there needs to be adequate emphasis on the educative and regulatory aspects of the inspector's jobs. In-service training to enable sanitarians to provide technical assistance to establishments being inspected should be provided. They should also be informed of legal procedures to be followed in the event that voluntary compliance does not occur.
4. The authority of all agencies having responsibility for the safety of milk and milk-based products should be clearly defined to insure animal health and the safety of milk products, and to insure that there is no duplication of responsibilities and that no gaps are left in these responsibilities.
The Task Force learned that lines of authority are somewhat confused and duplicated for assuring that Georgia's milk supply is safe. Both the Department of Agriculture and the local health departments have authority, although the concern of the former is for the health of the cow, and the health department is concerned with the quality of the milk supply itself. The situation is made more curious by the fact that health department personnel carry out inspections for agriculture department standards. Authority as well as development of standards and inspection services should be consolidated in one agency that will fulfill all needs.
95

FOOD SANITATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adequate inspection services should be provided for all food service establishments in Georgia.
Inspections in the past have primarily consisted of indicating areas of non-compliance to food establishment operators. There is a need for more inspections, as well as an improvement in methods of inspection. Such improvements would involve better communications between state and locallevel personnel so as to encourage unequivocal understanding of rules and regulations, and a proper appreciation of balancing technical assistance and enforcement aspects of food sanitation programs.
2. Results of inspections should be computerized in order to have comprehensive evaluative information about the safety of food service establishments in Georgia.
Because of the large number of restaurants and other food service establishments, computerization of results of inspections is essential to evaluating the success of the activity, and to determining potential health hazards.
3. Technical assistance should be provided to operators in chains of food service establishments to encourage self-inspections based on uniform standards of safety.
Chain food service establishments constitute a large portion of the state's restaurants, and unsanitary conditions in one establishment reflects on the others. The State Health Department has recently begun a self-inspection program to encourage commercial chain food service establishments and school lunch programs to supervise their own units for health conditions. Impressing such operators with the fact that maintaining high public health standards is good business with give the chain establishments incentive to uphold those standards.
4. Public information efforts should be directed at encouraging the public to avoid unsatisfactory food service establishments and motivating them to patronize those whose operations conform to uniform standards of safety.
Members of the public should be made aware that, while illnesses due to consumption of unhealthy foods are not often reported, the chances are greater that they will contact such diseases if they are not discriminating in the places where they eat. Valid indicators of food contamination should be publicized in an innovative way in order to encourage such discernment.
5. Food vending operations should be studied for possible problem areas, and appropriate actions taken to ensure that the public health is not endangered by dispensing operations.
97

While food kept in enclosed vending machines has not, so far as is known, been a health problem, there is concern about perishable food such as sandwiches being sold on counters outside restaurants. Consideration should be given to adopting vending machine food rules and regulations in order to prevent contamination before it is reported. In the case of food outside of vending machines, but not in restaurants, existing food service rules and regulations would apply and should be utilized.
6. Enforcement procedures should be streamlined and legal counsel made accessible in order to reduce the number of businesses operating with unhealthful conditions, rather than allow them to continue business while in non-compliance with health standards.
Enforcement of food service standards is often frustrated by a local sanitarian's lack of knowledge or access to advice about legal alternatives for enforcement of the standards. It should be acknowledged that effective food sanitation hinges on both an educative and regulatory effort, and that adequate assistance should be provided for both. Alternatives for providing legal assistance include the state's requiring that local health boards allot appropriations for legal fees. Should this not be possible, local cases should be turned over to the State Board of Health for prosecution, and sufficient legal assistance should be provided to the State Board through the State Attorney General's Office.
7. Permits that certify compliance with State Health Department rules and regulations should be subject to periodic review and made easily revocable for non-compliance with the standards.
A permit, once granted, is in effect for an indefinite period of time. While it may be revoked after considerable time and effort, it is not subject to renewal. A renewable permit system would promote continuation of healthful conditions in establishments that are granted permits.
8. A rating system should be established that would grade food service establishments as to relative safety. The rating should be displayed prominently in the establishment.
Many other states in the U. S. have used a rating system of relative food establishment safety, thus encouraging their operators to comply with health standards. Implementation of such a program would require adequate public education in order to be effective, as the educated consumer is the one who would choose one restaurant rated over another.
98

o.z...
i=
~
ou~ u

BACKGROUND: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
More than 1.25 million persons make up the work force in Georgia, and many are exposed to potentially hazardous conditions due to their work or working environment. Approximately half a million of these individuals are employed in the 7,000 to 8,000 industries scattered throughout the state and are frequently exposed to health hazards such as sharp instruments, moving parts, poor lighting, high temperatures, high noise levels, toxic dusts, gases, fumes, solvents, acids and alkalies. The disabilities suffered by workers at their place of employment are difficult to assess either state-wide or nationally, due to inadequate reporting of occupational morbidity and mortality data. However, the information obtained from the Workmen's Compensations Board and Vital Records Service indicates that occupational hazards are significant. Damage claims totaling thousands of dollars are made each year due to dermatitis, which is the most prevalent occupational disease. In fiscal year 1968 there were four deaths due to silicosis, five due to silico-tuberculosis as contributory cause, one from byssinosis and chronic bronchitis, two from asbestosis and three from asphyxiation with argon gas. The major causes of most occupational health problems are inadequate safety and occupational health programs. Few employers, especially the small ones, can afford these services. However, if these needless injuries and deaths are to be prevented, some method must be found to educate the workers, eliminate or minimize working hazards and conduct medical examinations to insure that workers do not have potential health problems that are incompatible with the intended work or working environment.
99

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Preventive health services, including screening for chronic diseases and to determine the compatibility of a person's medical problems with his job requirements, should be promoted for all persons employed in establishments now lacking such services.
The screening procedure provides for early detection when there are no symptoms, permits application of other preventive measures, and indicates the compatibility of individual medical problems with the requirements of particular jobs, with or without work restrictions. Employees, ~surance companies, the health authorities and employers have a mutual interest in such preventive techniques, and should cooperate in an effort to place such services in industries allover the state.
2. Legislative action should be sought to make the workmen's compensation occupational disease schedule more inclusive, and to broaden the coverage of workmen's compensation to include agricultural workers and other employed groups not now protected against work-related illnesses.
Workmen's compensation does not allow for many illnesses, including workrelated hearing loss, that are subtle but real results of the work environment. A comprehensive review should be carried out for ways to expand the workmen's compensation coverage, and appropriate remedies made through legislation.
3. Georgia's occupational illness reporting service should be improved so that job-related health hazards throughout the state can be adequately analyzed and reduced by appropriate follow-up measures.
Evaluation of the State's occupational health hazards is contingent upon effective reporting to the State Health Department's Occupational Health Service by the State Workmen's Compensation Board. Relationships between the two state agencies should be strengthened, and the causes of diseases sufficiently pin-pointed to make effective evaluation possible~
4. The feasibility of an employee's health service, including screening, counseling and referral, and easily accessible to all state and local government personnel, should be explored and, if feasible, the service should be activated.
Presently, the Occupational Health Service offers multi-phasic screening, counseling and referral services to all state employees in Atlanta. However, such services are not available outside the city. District and local health departments would appear to be the most appropriate sites for such services, were they found feasible, for government employees allover the state.
101

5. To help employees gain a better understanding of the health problems of their working environment, educational materials dealing with the health hazards of particular industries or occupations should be made available to them from voluntary health agencies and other sources. Industrial physicians, voluntary health agencies, insurers, the Occupational Health Service, and employee representatives should cooperate in development of materials that will relate health hazards in particular working environments to employees. For instance, farm workers should know about dangers in applying certain pesticides, and chemical manufacturing employees should be fully cognizant of potential hazards in their work.
6. Consideration should be given to expanding the occupational health program to include inspections and enforcement procedures to assure that working environments in Georgia do not contribute to employee injuries or illnesses. Resources presently allocated to the Occupational Health Service do not make routine inspections of working environments possible, nor are there sufficient uniform standards by which to judge working places. As Georgia's industries grow in number, size and complexity, consideration should be given to the need for uniform health and safety standards for industries.
102

o...I
~
t-
oZu o~
t-
Uw
>

BACKGROUND: VECTOR CONTROL
Insects and rodents have always posed a serious threat to life and health. Georgia has experienced outbreaks of most vector-borne diseases. After years of little concern, the State Health Department, with the help of municipal agencies such as those in Atlanta, and with the stimulus of the U.S. Public Health Service, proved that many of these diseases could be eradicated. However, a constant threat of reintroduction exists. Malaria, Typhus, yellow fever, and dengue are examples. Since 1953, nearly 800 cases of malaria were reported in the state, primarily from returning Southeast Asia veterans. Other vector-borne diseases, such as Rocky Mountain spotted fever, tularemia, typhoid fever and encephalitis are endemic within Georgia. Only environmental measures can keep them under control. Vector control measures impinge on many other environmental problems. For example, surveys show that in larger cities (over 5,000 population) threefourths of the land disposal sites for solid waste have insect and rodent problems, and in smaller cities this figure rises to nearly 100 per cent. Concern over use of certain pesticides for controlling vectors, which have been most effective in that mission, will require searching for some new methods of control. The benefit-risk ratio must be ascertained. In addition to disease transmission, insects and rodents affect the wellbeing of Georgia's citizens by causing irritation from bites, discomfort, by adversely affecting property values and tourist trade. Further efforts should be aimed at nuisance insects in addition to proven disease vectors. At present, vector control activities at the state level include cooperating with local health agencies in the training of personnel and the implementation of local programs. Only some of the larger metropolitan areas have well-organized programs.
103

VECTOR CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Continuous, comprehensive surveys should be made of the public health dangers due to presence of certain vectors in Georgia, and standards and activities revised in order to deal most effectively with the most important problems.
This field of environmental control is very complex, due to the changing problems within it. Vectors may be of greater or less pUblic health significance, depending on their concentrations and the conditions in which they exist. In order to determine which vectors should be controlled, information on the situation should be constantly updated, and standards and activities tailored to the most pressing needs. Coordination should be effected between all agencies, organizations, and industries involved to avoid duplication of efforts, and adequate resources should be applied to the entire effort.
2. Vector control activities should be a part of the health and welfare program in every area of the state.
The information gathered from the activity described above should be transmitted quickly and clearly to health department and other agencies concerned with control on the local level, in order to promote effective response to public health and other hazards created by vectors. Additional training should be given to local personnel in order to foster appreciation of the relative economic as well as health importance of control programs, and of the need for applying appropriate control techniques. Welfare caseworkers should be trained to look for rodent and insect problems during home visits and to refer them to local health departments.
3. The public and sanitation officiam should be educated on steps that can be taken to prevent disease-bearing vectors from causing a public health hazard.
Problems with rats and insects are concentrated in certain identifiable areas, particularly in inner city areas where there is poor housing and general lack of sanitation. While the inner city resident may not be able to satisfy the greater need for adequate housing, short-range solutions can be found through education in preventive techniques, such as proper handling of food wastes, placement of garbage cans and storage of refuse out of reach of rats. Sanitation officials dealing with collection and disposal of wastes should be fully aware of preventive measures that need to be taken in order to control vectors.
105

.z.... oz
0i= i= =!:: !::z
- zen ''e.1n-

BACKGROUND: INSTITUTIONAL SANITATION
There are about 3,500 institutional environments in Georgia which affect the lives of over a million and a half persons. Insuring that these institutions maintain clean, safe and healthy environments is within the realm of institutional sanitation. The types of institutions included in this category are schools, hospitals, work camps, prisons, nursing homes, and development and care centers. In each institution any factors which may influence the health or safety of the individual must be considered. Therefore, it is necessary to insure adequate water supplies, liquid and solid waste disposal systems, food service, maintenance, safety measures, space allocation, heating, lighting, ventilation and general sanitation. Based on program plans submitted by local health departments, it is estimated that nearly 200,000 people are housed in or are attending approximately 800 institutions which do not meet acceptable health standards. This indicates that one out of every seven institutionalized persons is exposed to potentially hazardous conditions. The problems in institutional sanitation involve inadequate funding and personnel to carry out inspections. In addition, regulations and standards are not as comprehensive as desired for all institutions. Inadequate funding and inadequately trained personnel are normally a problem for the institutions and regulatory agency. The Georgia Department of Public Health has only three full time employees in the Institutional Sanitation Section to review school plans, to make site inspections or to supervise inspections by local health officials for the numerous institutions involved.
107

INSTITUTIONAL SANITATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adequate administrative and inspection staff should be provided to insure that institutional sanitation standards are enforced. These should be properly distributed in order to effectively enforce standards for privately-owned facilities and for publicly-owned facilities.
In view of the large part of Georgia's population--nearly a third--that spends a good deal of time in institutions such as schools, hospitals and prisons, adequate manpower and services on all levels--state and local--should be provided. Inspections should be made regularly and regardless of whether, as is the case with schools, the institution's plan for construction has been approved and the constructed facility has been approved. Cross-training of inspectors to enforce all applicable standards, such as hospital licensure, food sanitation, fire and safety regulations would increase the number of inspectors, and make more comprehensive inspections possible.
2. The various educational, professional and regulatory agencies of the state should be more effectively used in special educational programs for persons charged with institutional sanitation responsibilities.
More in-service training is needed for inspectors. Such training should be designed to increase the competence and confidence of inspection personnel in acting as consultants to institutions, as well as enforcers of applicable rules and regulations. Cross-training of personnel, as suggested in Recommendation 1, would increase manpower, and it would also increase the competence of inspectors. An important part of training for institutional sanitation is adequate explanation of legal procedures involved in enforcing standards.
3. Standards covering water supply, liquid and solid waste disposal, food service, maintenance, safety, space, heating, lighting, ventilation and general sanitation should be improved, or developed where they are lacking, in order to assure healthful surroundings for persons in Georgia's institutions.
While rules and regulations have been developed for some aspects of the institutional environment, standards regarding maintenance, safety, space, heating, lighting and ventilation have not been developed. There is a need for these in order that both inspector and administrator will have a clear definition of institutional health. Standards relating to water supply, liquid and solid waste disposal and food service have often been designed for establishments other than institutions and should continue to be reviewed for their applicability.
109

oz
~
o..~ ........
D.
w
o&I)
z

BACKGROUND: NOISE POLLUTION
Noise has often been described as unwanted sound, sound without value or vibrational energy out of control. Regardless of the definition used, noise in the envrionment has reached a level of national concern and is an increasing problem. Generally, this noise is grouped into three types, depending upon its source. These groupings are related to noise resulting from transportation, occupational or industrial and communities. Since any noise is capable of producing both physical and psychological damage, all sources must be controlled.
Aircraft noises usually come to mind when discussing transportation noises. However, noise from surface vehicles such as trains, boats, trucks, automobiles and motorcycles are more widespread and therefore are more significant. The noise levels emitted by various sources are given in Figure 10 A Federal law (PL 90-411) requires the certification of all commercial aircraft, and FAA standards issued in 1969 will result in lower noise levels for all new aircraft of the turbofan variety. Laws to limit other forms of transportation noise are lacking or they are not enforced.
Most occupational noise results from metal to metal contact or high-speed equipment such as blowers. Occupational noise is therefore a serious problem in such industries as steel, paper, textile and petrochemical. However, occupations other than the heavy production industries are also affected. Printing is an expample. The physical damages which result are normally a loss of hearing, and the magnitude of the impairment depends upon the time-intensity exposure. Unfortunately, long exposure usually results in permanent hearing loss in varying degrees. The Walsh-Healey Health and Safety Regulations specify a maximum exposure of 90 dBA for a continuous exposure of eight hours. But this law applies only to industries holding federal government contracts in excess of $10,000, and thus provides only minimum protection for the citizens of Georgia. (See Page 114).
Even in the coufines of their own homes, Georgians are bombarded with noise. The number and type of convenience items such as radios, record players, dishwashers, lawnmowers, disposals and ice crushers are increasing to such an extent that the noise level in the home is approaching that in mechanized industry.
The noise problem in Georgia may be reduced in three ways. The first is to reduce noise at the source through the design of better machinery, quieter engines, highway tires and home appliances. The second is to institute operational procedures for machinery operation or aircraft landings and takeoff. The third is personnel protection through the wearing of such devices as ear plugs.
All of these noise reduction methods cost money and require the education of the general public. If steps are not taken to reduce noise, we will continue to pay for our inaction through hearing loss and numerous lesser impairments. For example, it is estimated that $4 million is lost in the U.S. each day through decreased work efficiency due to noise. In 1971 the Federal Government is expected to spend only $34 million in noise abatement and this is primarily for aircraft noise. Very little effort is now being exerted by the State of Georgia to abate noise pollution.
III

Figure 10 - WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS AND HUMAN RESPONSE

SOUND SOURCE

dB (A)-k 150

RESPONSE CRITERIA

Carrier Deck Jet Operation

140 Painfully Loud
130 Limit Amplified Speech

Jet Takeoff (200 feet)

120

Discotheque

Auto Horn (3 feet)

Riveting Machine

110

Jet Takeoff (2000 feet)

Shout (0.5 feet)

100

N. Y. Subway Station

Heavy Truck (50 feet)

90

Pneumatic Drill (50 feet)

80

Freight Train (50 feet)

Freeway Traffic (50 feet)

70

Air Conditioning Unit (20 feet) 60

Light Auto Traffic (50 feet)

50 Living room

Bedroom

40

Library

Soft Whisper (15 feet)

30

Broadcasting Studio

20

Maximum Vocal Effort
Very Annoying Hearing Damage (8 hours) Annoying Telephone Use Difficult Intrusive
Quiet
Very Quiet

10 Just Audible
o Threshold of Hearing

* Typical A--Weighted sound levels taken with a sound-level meter and ex-
pressed as decibels on the scale. The "A" scale approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
Source: Department of Transportation

112

NOISE CONTROL
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. State and local government agencies having responsibilities for control of hazardous noise levels should develop mechanisms for dealing with the problems on a regional basis, in order to handle problems that originate in different political jurisdictions.
As with most environmental problems, the hazard affects more than one local government unit. Regional agreements should be developed to deal effectively with sources of noise pollution, such as airports, which affect more than a single political jurisdiction. The state's antinoise program which is presently being developed in the State Health Department should consider creating mechanisms in the program that would make interstate agreements possible.
2. A statewide effort should be made to conserve the hearing of Georgia's citizens through coordinated activities that would make individuals and manufacturing and transport industries aware of and responsive to the need for preventive measures to protect hearing.
Civic organizations in Georgia, which have been enthusiastic sources of many needed community services, should be encouraged to develop programs for hearing conservation as hearing loss, with some exceptions, is permanent loss and cannot be repaired. An important part of a conservation program is to make the average citizen aware of how he unwittingly endangers his hearing, for instance, through misuse of stereo equipment. The Lions Clubs of Georgia have provided corrective services for the visually handicapped through their "Lighthouse for the Blind" program. Civic groups could prove to be a valuable aid in the hearing conservation effort as well. Agencies such as health authorities should provide the technical assistance necessary. State and local health departmen~ should work with manufacturing and transportation industries to make them aware of the need for engineering and operational measures to conserve the hearing of persons that may be affected by noise from factory and transportation sources. Both types of efforts--by civic club or by official agency--will require accurate, accessible information on noise hazards. The official agency should be responsible for gathering this information and making it available to groups carrying out hearing conservation programs.
3. A special public education campaign should be undertaken in order to educate Georgia youths about the hazards of high intensity rock music in live or recorded form.
The Task Force learned that such music is a particular hazard to youth, and that the problem merits special attention, due to the fact that irreparable damage can be cause, and the fact that the source of the hazard is so popular. Techniques of education should be developed that would appeal particularly to the youthful population.
113

4. Standards for noise levels and exposure limits should be developed for transportation, industrial and community noise sources.

The Task Force was informed that sufficient research has been done to enable at least preliminary standards to be set to control the three sources of noise and to prevent hearing loss. Standards based on present knowledge should be developed and revised as more information about causes of hearing loss is uncpvered.

Standards for noise exposures contained in the federal Walsh-Healy Act are recognized as acceptable for all environments. However, the Act covers only industries supplying more than $10,000 in materials to the federal government. The standards are as follows:

PERMISSIBLE NOISE EXPOSURES

Duration per day hours

Sound level dBA

8

90

6

92

4

95

3

97

2

100

11~----------------------------110502

~

110

t or less

115

Exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dBA peak sound pressure level.
5. Research should be conducted in order to determine the long-term physical, social, and psychological effects of noise above the tolerance level; to assess the sources of the most damaging noise; and to determine more exact criteria for limitation of personnel noise exposures in all environments.
More research is needed to provide further information about the effects of noise so that preliminary standards, once developed, can be perfected.
6. Effective legislation should be developed and enforced to the most practicable degree at the most feasible level of government in order to prevent hearing loss and annoyance due to transportation, industrial or community noise.
Local ordinances should be devised and/or State legislation drafted which would, when effectively applied, safeguard the physical and mental health of the State's citizens. Along with this legislation, legal procedures should be outlined and communicated to those charged with implementation so that enforcement will be vigorous and comprehensive.

114

....
Z<Coz
0_ t--
~:!
,, ~..L~ ....'.UZ<"C-

BACKGROUND: RECREATIONAL SANITATION
Recreation in Georgia is increasing along with a higher standard of living and more leisure time. In 1969, an estimated 35.5 million persons visited all recreational areas in Georgia. These facilities include 40 state parks, 40 U. S. Forest Service recreational areas, 118 U. S. Corps of Engineers recreational areas, four State authorities areas and numerous privately operated recreational facilities. In addition, Georgia has approximately 2,500 public swimming pools and 1,000 major water impoundments. And the number of visitors using the recreational facilities in Georgia is increasing at a rate of 10 percent per year. If recreational areas are to provide the relaxed, healthy atmosphere all citizens seek and expect, then recreational areas must be sanitary and free from environmental hazards. This requires close surveillance by public health officials to insure that water supplies, solid and liquid waste disposal systems, lodging, food, grounds and air meet or exceed public health standards. This presents a particular problem at recreational sites since the user load is highly variable. It is difficult to justify large expenditures of funds for equipment such as that required for solid waste disposal and then allow it to remain idle for a major part of the time. In addition, biological waste treatment systems are highly sensitive to fluctuating waste loads. This is a major problem in recreational areas where flows go from essentially zero to several times the design flow in a single weekend as a result of overcrowding. In many cases adequate sanitary facilities may not be available, and in other areas they are overtaxed during peak periods.
115

RECREATIONAL SANITATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Emphasis should be placed on the enforcement of existing state regulations relating to water supply, sewage dLsposal, food serVLce, solLd waste disposal, and tourist accommodation. All recreational facilities coming under a permitting regulation should be permitted by that health agency responsible for issuing such certificates.
Regulation of recreational facilities by health authorities extends to the above-named systems. In order for the recreational areas to be maintained with healthful conditions, it is imperative that all the agencies-state and local--that have to do with these systems assure that they are permitted only if they meet health standards.
2. Standards should be adopted and enforced that will require all Georgia recreational areas to comply with rules and regulations which are designed to assure healthful conditions in such areas.
As noted above, water supply, sewage disposal, food service, solid waste disposal and tourist accommodation operations are already provided for under existing rules and regulations. The State Health Department has developed rules and regulations which would supplement these and require all recreational areas to register with the health authorities, and to meet requirements for recreational areas as well before being permitted. These requirements cover such aspects as space allotted for each campsite. In addition, they would have to comply with the regulations already existing. At the present time, there are no official rules and regulations for the whole camping area, nor do recreational areas other than state parks routinely report their existence to health authorities. Adoption of standards for recreational areas, and requiring all recreational areas to be registered and permitted would help improve health conditions in such places. This is increasingly important as persons increase their incomes and have more time for leisure.
3. Operators of recreation areas, including the State, should place priority on efforts to provide recreational facilities which are in compliance with health standards.
Georgia's state and national parks are recognized as being among the finest for recreation. However, these facilities should be safe as well. Operators of parks should recognize that allowing more persons into the area than a particular park is built for creates a health hazard to the visitors and decreases the recreational potential of the park, as well as causing considerable damage to the facilities through overloading. Consideration should be given to limiting visitors to the number for which facilities were built.
4. Routine field sanitation surveys and water sampling of all recreational areas should be continued with greater emphasis being placed on increased District and local support in assisting with these activities.
117

The Recreational Sanitation program in the state is carried out by State level specialists working together with district and local health personnel. With redistricting of health regions, more responsibility will be placed on the district and local personnel for assuring the health of recreational areas, while state level people will be able to consult with district personnel more frequently. However, this means that the program's effectiveness will depend more on the attention of the local and district personnel to inspections of recreational areas.
5. Georgia's revised water impoundment regulations should be adopted and enforced in order to cope with environmental hazards which have been increased as a result of population growth and greater recreational use of water impoundments.
Originally, the state's water impoundment regulations were designed to control spread of malaria through mosquito control. There are now 40,000 water impoundments in the state, ranging from a half-acre farm pond to Lake Lanier. Recreational use of even remote impoundments has increased rapidly in recent years, and more precautions need to be taken for the health and safety of Georgians using these lakes. The Health Department is revising its regulations to include safeguards for persons, such as assuring that there are no protruding objects to harm water skiers, and that slopes of lake shores are not too sharp and hazardous to swimmers. The Task Force recommends adoption of such regulations.
6. Administrators of parks in the state should consider granting portions of park land to governmental units seeking to establish sanitary landfills as a way to meet the parks' needs for solid waste disposal.
Parks in the state have problems with solid waste disposal which might be solved in some parts of the state by having portions of the park turned over to governmental units for sanitary landfills, in return for the governmental units' disposing of the park's solid waste material. It would thus be possible to utilize parts of parkland not feasible for recreation, by doing such things as filling in ravines, and then later turning it to better recreational use.
7. The state should support pilot demonstration programs for testing advanced methods of waste disposal in public parks.
Because park visitors are subject to certain restrictions anyway, Georgia's public parks would be ideal locations for experimenting with new methods of waste disposal, such as allowing only biodegradable packaging to be disposed of, or testing new equipment, such as composting and waste-packing machinery.
8. More parks and recreational areas should be provided in Georgia in order to meet present needs, and to assure adequate facilities in the future.
Georgia is already overpopulated, in terms of the population's needs for "natural areas." According to ecologists in the state, the amount of natural area needed for recreation, watersheds, "buffers," and pollution control, is two acres per persons. However, of Georgia's 37.7 million acres, only 2.86 million acres, or one-half acre per person, is set aside for "natural use" only. (See Appendix, Page 158) Unless significant steps are taken to preserve open space for natural purposes, Georgia is in danger of over population in terms of need for accessible open space. Particular
118

emphasis should be given to developing recreational areas around centers of population.
119

:J:
I...-..
<wC
:J:
.....
u<C (;
o.....
Q
Q
:!

BACKGROUND: RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH
Since excessive exposure to any source of radiant energy can produce biological damage, including death, all sources of radiation must be controlled. The major sources of radiation in Georgia are x-ray equipment, radioactive material~ microwave equipment and environmental radiation. The primary radiation problem in Georgia relates to the use of x-ray equipment. The potential dangers are created by defective or sub-standard x-ray equipment and inadequately trained operators. Past inspection of approximately 8,000 radiographic or flouroscopic x-ray units in Georgia indicated that 80 percent were substandard from a radiation safety point of view, and constitute the greatest source of radiation exposure to the public. Most x-ray equipment can be made safer by physical shielding of one kind or another but if the operator does not use the equipment and the built-in protection properly, exposure of patients or users will occur. Anothersource of radiation exposure is radioactive material. The initial survey of 46 medical users of radium in Georgia indicated that four percent had serious leakage sources, 67 percent had dangerously contaminated areas and 33 percent had inadequate storage facilities. In addition, there are 325 licensees who use radioactive by-product materials which directly affect thousands of people. More than four thousand microwave generating units also contibute to the radiation p~oblem in Georgia. These devices include microwave ovens, cold cathode gaseous discharge tubes, color television sets,diathermy sources, radar sources, communication and telemetry sources and lasers. To prevent excessive exposure and potential public damage it is imperative that the state expand its programs of regulation, education, and enforcement now being pursued.
121

RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Coordination and education activities should continue between regulatory agents and both operators and consumers (including patients), of radiation generating services in order that maximum benefit may be obtained from such equipment without endangering the health of either operators or consumers.
Because of the complex nature of the problem of radioactivity, current regulatory activity is carried out in coordination with the Radiation Control Council. The Council is composed of operators and specialists in uses and effects of radiation generating equipment, and is a vehicle of communication and education between users and regulators of radiationgenerating equipment. The Task Force endorses such educative efforts.
2. Scientific computer support should be initiated in the state's regulatory program in order to have an effective evaluation of radiological health hazards in the state.
There are many sources of radiation in the state, and the numbers will continue to increase, particularly as equipment such as the microwave oven is used more commonly. Advanced data processing techniques should be used in order to have full information on the state's radiation-generating equipment at any time.
3. Adequate inspection services for all types of radiation generating equipment that are subject to control by regulatory authority should be provided statewide.
As with many other environmental control programs, there is a general lack of personnel to carry out inspection and enforcement services. It should be noted that of all the environmental hazards, radiation is one of the most subtle and potentially harmful, and its control is contingent upon vigorous and vigilant regulatory practices.
4. A central state depository for all ranges of radioactive wastes and other toxic
waste material should be established. Safe transportation of materials to the depository should be recognized as an essential part of waste disposal.
If there is no coordinated system of depositing radioactive wastes, there will be increased danger to the health of the public due to improper disposal. Water supplies in particular are susceptible to contamination through inadequate burial of such wastes. Although testimony before the Task Force revealed that there will probably eventually be established a federal central depository, efforts should be made to establish a state center, including provision for interim storage and transportation to a central site.
5. Adequate services should be provided in order to monitor environmental effects of nuclear power facilities now under construction in Georgia.
Nuclear power facilities represent a special hazard to the environment, as radiation may contaminate the air, land or water around them. Every precaution should be made to assure that this important source of power does not also endanger the health of the people it serves.
123

6. Additional technical assistance should be given to persons who handle radiation generating equipment in order to prevent radiation damage to all persons subject to radioactive exposure.
Radiation has many positive uses, but if the operator of equipment is not adequately trained, both the operator and others coming into contact with the equipment may be exposed to radiation. Adequate resources should be made available to the radiation control program to provide education, in addition to inspection and enforcement services.
7. Additional legislation is needed to give the State authority over nonionizing radiation sources such as microwave and ultrasonic radiation generating equipment, so as to compel registry of these sources and to make inventory and control of these sources possible.
While x-ray equipment use is regulated by the state, and laser equipment soon will be, legislation is lacking that would make possible inventory and control of microwave and ultrasonic equipment in the state. Achange in the Georgia Health Code is needed in order to give authority for control of non-ionizing radiation sources, which the microwave and ultrasonic equipment represent.
8. Regulations are needed to standardize the use, maintenance and repair of radiation generating equipment, and to establish minimum qualifications (including training) of the personnel who use, maintain or repair such equipment in Georgia.
Currently there is no such regulation in the state regarding equipment and personnel. There is a need for such regulation particularly for equipment such as x-ray, microwave and laser equipment, which may be used by a variety of persons of varying degrees of training. Also, while federal regulations may cover manufacturing standards of equipment such as microwave ovens, safeguards are needed to insure that such equipment is properly maintained so as not to present a hazard to the user.
9. Rules and regulations should be vigorously enforced as a protection for all who may be exposed to radioactive materials.
The Georgia radiological health program has been praised for its strong emphasis on educating the users, or operators, of radiation-generating equipment and materials in order to protect all who may come into contact with it. However, the problem of radioactive contamination is so serious that threats must be dealt with swiftly and firmly, with a minimum of red tape. While the Task Force was not sufficiently informed so as to make a judgment on health hazards that may need legal action, the Task Force felt that the enforcement aspects of the programs need to be given additional emphasis.
124

~c
Z LaL.I
a.

IV. APPENDIX
SUBJECT GENERAL

Resource Persons for
Environmental Health Task Force
RESOURCE
Roy J. Boston, Consultant Division of Environmental Health Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Howard Chapman, Regional Assistant Administrator Environmental Health Service Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Atlanta
Richard F. Clapp, Chief Sanitarian D2ve1opment Activities Health Professions Branch Training Program Center for Disease Control Atlanta
Gary Davis, Administrative Assistant Office of the Hearing Examiner Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Gene Dyson, Vice President Georgia Association of Businesses and Industry, Inc. Atlanta
William A. Hansell, Director Division of Environmental Health Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta

Carl Kindsvater, Director Environmental Resources Center Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta
Malcolm Little, Professor of City Planning Georgia Institute of Technology Atanta
John D. Prien, Jr., Executive Director Georgia Society of Professional Engineers Atlanta
Flay sellers, Chairman Georgia Association of Nation Health Agencies Atlanta

W. Scott Sprinkle, Director

Branch of Sanitation

Georgia D~partment of Public Health

Atlanta

125

SUBJ:EGT GENERAL AIR
HOUSING
126

RESOURCE
Robert O. Van Norte, Hearing Examiner Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
James H. Westbrook Environmental Health Service Department of Health, Education and Welfare Atlanta
Georgia I. Whitlatch, ph.D. Principal Research Scientist Industrial Development Division Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta
Robert H. Collom, Jr., Director Air Quality Control Board Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Richard King, M.D. School of Civil Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta
Marvin Lowry, Director Air Pollution Control Service Branch of Air Quality Control Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Michael J. Matteson, Ph.D. School of Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta
Mason Adams, Housing Coordinator of Regional Planning Division Bureau of State Planning and Community Affairs Atlanta
Frank J. Clarke Senior Research Scientist Engineering Experiment Station Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta
Rep. Jule W. Felton Georgia General Assembly Atlanta
Wilton O. Garrett, Chief Housing Section Housing and Institutional Sanitation Service Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta

SUBJECT HOUSING INJURY CONTROL
INSTITUTIONAL SANITATION MILK SANITATION

RESOURCE
James p. Gibbs, Director Housing and Institutional Sanitation Service Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Howard Schretter, Research Assistant Institute of Community and Area Development University of Georgia Athens
Lyndon Beall, Director Emergency Health Service Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
James Ingram, Coordinator Emergency Medical Services Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Roger Justice, Chief Injury Control Section Georgia Depratment of Public Health Atlanta
Cpl. George W. Murray Accident Reporting Division Georgia Department of Public Safety Atlanta
John Otterbourg Injury Control Consultant Department of Hea1th,Education, and Welfare Atlanta
Paul Wright, Ph.D., Associate Professor Civil Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta
John McKinley, Environmental Technologist Institutional Sanitation Section Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
John Cu1p, Environmental Technologist Food Sanitation Section Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Wilbur Lundquist, M.D. District Director of Public Health Chatham County Health Department Savannah
127

SUBJECT MILK SANITATION FOOD SANITATION NOISE CONTROL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
POPULATION

RESOURCE
Raymond Summerlin, Director Consumer Protection Division Georgia Department of Agriculture Atlanta
C.A. Ward, Assistant Commissioner Georgia Department of Agriculture Atlanta
Garnett H. DeHart, Chief Food Sanitation Section Branch of Sanitation Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
John Ballentine Associate Director of Research Lockheed-Marietta Company Marietta
Robert Logan, M.D. Task Force Member Savannah
Joseph Davis, M.D., Medical Director Southern Service Region Western Electric Company Atlanta
Kenneth J. Kronoveter Regional Representative for Occupational Health Environmental Health Service Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Atlanta
Hugh L. Parker, Director Industrial Hygiene Service Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
H. Karl Sessions, M.D., Director Occupational Health Branch Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Raphael Levine, Director Metropolitan Atlanta Council for Health Atlanta
Roger Rochet, M.D. Family Planning Evaluation Consultant Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta

128

SUBJECT POPULATION
PESTICIDES
RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH RECREATIONAL SANITATION

RESOURCE
Albert Schoenbucher, M.D., Director Maternal Health Service Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Rep.Virgi1 T. Smith Georgia General Assembly Task Force Member Dalton
George Violin, M.D. Georgia Citizens for Hospital Abortions Atlanta
Dr. H. Page Nicholson, Chief Agricultural and Industrial Water Pollution Control Research Southeast Water Laboratory Department of the Interior Athens
John W. Parker, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Biology Georgia State University Atlanta
John Ridley, Assistant Director Division of Entomology Georgia Department of Agriculture Atlanta
John Taylor, Pollution Control Specialist Solid Waste Management Service Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Mark Brown, M.D., Chairman Department of Radiology Medical College of Georgia Augusta
Richard H. Fetz, Director Radiological Health Service Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Marion Brown, Environmental Techno1og~st Environmental Sanitation Service Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta

129

SUBJECT RECREATIONAL SANITATION
SOLID WASTE
VECTOR CONTROL 130

RESOURCE
Lovett Flethcer, Environmental Technologist Environmental Sanitation Service Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Russell F. Hall, Director Environmental Sanitation Service Branch of Sanitation Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Jeff Naugle, Chief of Operations Georgia Department of Parks Atlanta
M. Devon Bogue, Environmental Control Director Environmental Control Administration Environmental Health Service Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Atlanta
Elmer Cleveland Regional Representative for Solid Waste Management Environmental Health Service Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Atlanta
Joseph W. Hunt, Director Solid Waste Disposal Program Northwest Georgia Regional Health Advisory Council Cartersville
Moses McCall, Director Solid Waste Management Service Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
Clyde Roberts, Chief Planning and Evaluation Section Solid Waste Management Service Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta
B. F. Bjornson, Vector Control Consultant Environmental Health Service Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Atlanta
James Dunbar, pollution Control Specialist Branch of Sanitation Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta

VECTOR CONTROL WATER POLLUTION
WATER SUPPLY

Kent S. Littig, Assistant Chief Insect and Rodent Control Environmental Health Service Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Atlanta
Warren Griffin Assistant to the Executive Secretary Georgia Water Quality ContrGl Board Atlanta
R.S. Howard,Jr., Executive Secretary Georgia Water Quality Control Board Atlanta
Leonard Ledbetter, Director Water Quality Surveys Service Georgia Water Quality Control Board Atlanta
Paul Weir, General Manager Atlanta Water Works Atlanta
Wade L. Nutter, ph.D. Assistant Professor of Forest Hydrology School of Forest Resources University of Georgia Athens
Robert H. Byers, Director Water Supply Service Georgia Department of Public Health Atlanta

131

STATE OF GEORGIA ORGANIZATION FOR WATER RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION*
Agencies of the State of Georgia Whose Activities Have an Important Relation to Water Resources
1. Department of Agriculture 2. Forestry Commission 3. Game and Fish Commission 4. Department of Industry and Trade 5. Department of Mines, Mining, and Geology 6. Department of State Parks 7. Department of Public Health 8. State Soil and Water Conservation Committee
(27 Soil and Water Conservation Districts) 9. Water Quality Control Board 100 State Planning Bureau
(17 Area Planning and Development Commissions) 11. Ocean Science Center of the Atlantic 12. Forest Research Council 13. State Highway Department 14. Jekyll Island--State Park Authority 15. Georgia Ports Authority 16. Georgia Science and Technology Commission 17. Georgia Waterways Commission 18. Georgia Recreation Commission 19. Rivers and Harbors Development Commission 20. Georgia Commission for the Development of the
Chattahoochee River Basin 21. Engineering Advisory Board 22. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
Interstate Agencies with Georgia Membership Whose Activities Have an Important Relation to Water Resources
1. Appalachian Regional Commission 2. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 3. Resources Advisory Board, Southeast River Basins 4. Southeast Basins Inter-Agency Committee 5. Coastal plains Regional Commission
*Source: Carl Kindsvater, Regents Professor and Director, Environmental Resources Center, Georgia Tech.
132

NOTE The following paper, Determination of Priorities for Task Force Recommendations, was developed by Dr. Gerald Delon, a Consultant to the Task Force from the Health Systems Research Center at Georgia Tech. Dr. Delon applied theories of systems analysis to the work of the Task Force with the goal of devising a systematic, logical way of assigning priorities to the objective (or problem) areas of the Task Force. While the Task Force report reflects only partial accomplishment of the process outlined by Dr. Delon, it was felt that his description of the ideal process would be helpful to those wishing to apply a systems approach to solution of any major complicated problem, not just that of environmental control.
133

DETERMINATION 06 PRIORITIES
60~
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
This paper describes a general technique that can be used in assiening priorities within a planned multi-purpose program in Environmental Health Systems or in evaluating the degree to which the objectives of existing programs are being achieved. Emphasis is on the system as a functioning whole, not as individual components. Thus the concern 1s with obtaining an over cll effectiveness of the total system relative to its stated objectives.
The approach is as follows: First, a set of major objectives are developed which describe the purpose or reasons for being of the system. It would be highly desirable to be able to accurately assess the degree of attainment of each of these objectives and apply a numerical value to it. ~1ajor objectives, however, are often subjective in nature and are seldom directly expressable in numerical terms. Too often, studies of this nature are thwarteu at this point by the apparent inability to put a precise numerical value on the assessment of these abstract objectives. It is valuable therefore to identify milestones along the road toward these objectives which will serve as interim measures. What we need then is realistic yardsticks for measuring progress toward these objectives. So for each major objective, the next step is to develop as many subobjectives in numerical or measureable criteria as are necessary to permit as rigo rous a determination as practical of the degree to which the major objective is being met.The latter refers to the fact that one often hos to measure intangible results by measuring factors which are tangible and are thought to be highly correlated with achievin~ t~e less tangible objectives, thus arriving at an evaluation "by proxy" as it were.
The list of major objectives are nade the keystone about which a group of subobjectives and criteria are built up to uniquely define it. In the case of the Environmental Health Task Force, the 15 defined areas constitute the "~'''ajor Objectives" and include aims such as elirl~inating air pollution. The detailed recommendations of the Task Force for each of the 15 areas constitute the subobjectives. That is, through achieving the recommendations or subobjectives which are concrete and tangible, we are in turn able to achieve the major objectives, which are somewhat less expressible in numerical or measureable dimensions. These subobjectives and criteria are the milestones and yardsticks. There should be general agreement that the subobjectives or specific criteria chosen provide the best method of determining if a goal to which they are associatea is being met. They are referred to as "Heasurable
134

Page 2
Environmental Task Force Priority Determination Dr. G. L. Delon

Criteria", emphasizing the importance of their objective or measurable by nature. "Proxy ;1easures. is another term used to describe them.

being
"

The purpose of this procedure is to derive a numerical value for System Effectiveness and assigning priorities through a repetitive process of grading, weighting, and combining begun at the lowest, most detailed level of the analysis (the criteria), and repeated through the major objectives. Two methods can be considered for grading each level of this process: an analytical approach and a subjective approach; both discussed at length later in this paper. The choice of which approach to use at any particular level of evaluation (for instance, rating of criteria is one level, rating of Major Objectives another) depends on the ease or difficulty with which one approach or the other might be employed; and on the sensitivity of the final outcome to a poorly graded or inaccurately rated parameter. As a general principle, the use of the analytical approach derived from actual physical measurements is to be preferred wherever practical. However, such an approach often demands more time and effort than is available; and particularly, when it is difficult to obtain highly significant objective measurements, the accuracy of the data doesn't support the precision implied by the analytical approach. Under these circumstances, the use of the subjective approach is justified.

An example might be made of the criterion "Degree of Compliance with Air Pollution Laws by Georgia Industry". A very thorough, continuous audit might be instituted to follow up every industrial firm to obtain a precise "per cen tage-of comp liance" However, if th is cri t er ia is only one of 36 which help define six separate subobjectives which, in turn, permit the establishment of a single Major Objective rating, it can be seen that such a high degree of accuracy is not justifiable in light of the heavy use of resources required. A simpler sampling technique for assessing compliance would normally be satisfactory. Results could be expressed in approximate percentages (i.e. Good, Poor, Unacceptable, etc.).

135

Page 3

Environmental Task Force Priority Determination
Dr. G. L. Delon

On the other hand, when dealing with the relative ratings of the 15 Major Objectives which make up the overall Effectiveness Rating, an indecisiveness of 15-20% could have significant implications on the measured effectiveness. For this reason, manipulation of Major Objective ratings should be handled mathematically, and a table has been developed to simplify this task.
Major Objectives
Effectiveness is defined as the degree to which Major Objectives are been met. It is, therefore, evident that the proper selection of Major Objectives is most crucial. The term is used here in the context of that which is basic or elemental; that which cannot readily be subdivided into other elements of the same order of importance as that which is being divided. The principal characteristic that delineates an elemental Major Objective is that it is a major factor in the "reasons for existence" and is semiautonomous of all other objectives. In other words, it can be considered separately in its effects on the system. The Major Objectives are often broad in scope and can only be specifically defined through a set of subobjectives and/or criteria that must be met in order to sufficiently achieve the Major Objective. Major Objectives are rarely of the nature that their achievement can be readily measured or expressed in numerical dimensions.
The first task is to derive a list of Major Objectives, based on the discussions above. The recommended method of making such a selection is to utilize the thoughts and opinions of the most knowledgable "experts" available. Such experts would be drawn from those individuals responsible for, and most experienced in , the operation and functioning of the system. In conference, the experts are instructed as to what is being defined as Major Objectives. The conferees should then be urged to express their ideas in their own words on what are the Major Objectives and to discuss what factors and influences might affect their relative

136

Page 4

Environmental Task Force Priority Determination
Dr. G. L. Delon

importance and validity. Then a list of Major Objectives is solicited from each conferee. Where it is apparent that a submitted objective is in a compound form that is best expressed as several elemental Major Objectives, this reduction should be made with the concurrence of its originator. All submittals are then collated to show where there is common agreement and where there is divergence of opinion.
All members are shown the composite list and urged to question the validity or necessity of each item. Members are expected to defend their own choices as well as others which now appear valid. A new caucus is then taken and the new data again collated, tabulated and discussed. Usually, three to five rounds are all that is needed to achieve a high degree of unanimity on a final listing of Major Objectives. Experience has indicated that there are usually five to teu Major Objectives for any system. If fewer, consideration should be given as to whether one or more of those selected are too all encompassing or are compound in nature and cml be subdiviued into more basic objectives. If there are significantly more than ten, it probably implies that some are not truly major objectives but are possibly subobjectives of other Major Objectives aud thus should be dropped or combined in another Hajor Objective.
Deriving Weighting Factors ! Major Objectives
Once the list of Major Objectives has been agreed upon, the next task is to carefully weigh their relative importance to the system as a whole. It is fully recognized that the "relative importance" is a subjective measurement, and that the validity of any subjective judgment can always be held in doubt. But to conclude that no judgment of value can be made if its validity can be questioned is an even more serious breach of logic.
The process of applying weighting factors to each of these objectives can be arrived at in exactly the same manner as were the Major Objectives. When the Major Objectives are

137

Page 5

Environ8ental Task Force Priority Determination
Dr. G. L. Delon

agreed upon a concensus is sought for the one objective that all, or at least most, hold to be the most important. This objective is given a rating of 100. This number was preferred since one is accustomed to dealing with relative matters in terms of percents. Again, through a procedure of successive polls, each Major Objective can be rated relative to the "most important" Objective. For instance: if all agree that Clean Air is the highest objective (thus given a rating of 100) and is four (4) times as important as Solid Waste, then this latter Major Objective would be given a weight of 25 (100/4). In trying to arrive at a logical ratio of "worth" between two seemingly intangible items it sometimes helps to ask questions such as:
1. Can I justify in my own mind spending twice as much to achieve this objective as I would have to, to achieve that one (a 2 to 1 ratio)? 2. How much sooner can I justify dropping this goal rather than that one if I am forced to reduce staff? 3. How much harder (how many times harder) would I find it to defend this progrE than that one? 4. How much more serious are the consequences if this objective is poorly met than that one?
A consensus on weights is usually achieved readily if all contributors understand that it is not necessary to have a very high degree of accuracy in order for this technique to be legitimate.
Since the principle reason for deriVing weights is to make possible a relative measure of overall effectiveness through a combining of the ratings for all of the Major Objectives, the final outcome will be only an approximation of the highly subjective Effectiveness of the system. However, as a technique that is capable of indicating relative improvements resulting from changes or modifications in the system, it is a very useful tool.
If a Major Objective is assessed to have a weight less than 5% (or 0.05) of the most significant objective, it is probably best combined with some other related Major

138

Page 6

Environmental Task Force Priority Determination
Dr. G. L. Delon

Objective or dropped altogether as an objective because of its minor role in affecting effectiveness. Having achieved a relative rating for each Major Objective, these should now be converted to a "normalized weight" such that the sum of all "weights" adds up to 1.0 (or 100%). If we let the ratings obtained by consensus above be designated as rl, rZ,
etc., corresponding to Major Objectives 1, Z,
etc., and the related normalized weights designated as WI, W2, etc.

Then: WI rl / r total, WZ rZ / r total, etc.

Where: r total rl + rZ + r3

Example: Assume the committee has selected three Objectives with ratings of 100, 80, and 50 (total equals 230) for rl, rZ, and r3.

Then:

WI 100/Z30 .44 W2 80/230 .34 W3 50/230 .22

Sum 1.00 or (100%)

The values derived for the W's must be retained for use in constructing the Effectiveness Matrix, described fully later.

139

Page 7

Environmental Task Force Priority Determination
Dr. G. L. Delon

It should be kept in mind that the chief function of accumulating data relative to the criteria derived is to amass a wealth of facts bearing on each subobjective so that an intelligent assessment can be made of the degree to which that objective is being met. Two points can be made here: (1) Not every objective criteria that could be conceived of need be used to obtain intelligent results, and (2) It will often be required that some subjective judgment be combined with objective measurements in arriving at a final assessment of a subobjective. Therefore there are some general Dos and Dontts which might be kept in mind in developing the subobjectives and criteria.

Do: 1. Select sufficient subobjectives to adequately define the Major Objective. 2. Select criteria that are objective or readily measurable whenever possible. 3. Select criteria that can be correlated as closely as possible with achievement of the associated objectives. 4. Look for valid criteria that are already available in existing records.

Don't: 1. Specify criteria for which information cannot be

obtained in a reasonable time, or for a reasonable cost. 2.

Use criteria whose significance or relevance are not

apparent to the individuals charged witrl assessing

the

associated subobjectives. J. Confuse methods or activities

applied to achieve subobjectives with the subobjectives

themselves.

A large percentage of these "yardsticks" can be described numerically. Even where the milestones (subobjectives) are subjective in nature, it is possible to include then in a quantitative analysis by converting subjective verbal data into a numerical "neasure".
The situation here is somewhat analogous to the more familiar process by which a professor converts an evaluation of an essay into a student's final semester grade, when to a large degree, his judgment is subjective. He may clearly

140

Page 8

Environmental Task Force Priority Determination
Dr. G. L. Delon

tabulate such objective observations as the number of spelling errors, the number of imp ~per or ungrammatical sentences, the number of valid arguments given in support of the question, and other similar yardsticks to aid in arriving at a grade for the paper. However, he will also have to rate other aspects in terms of judgmental evaluations. Use of subject material, form of presentation, soundness of logic, adequacy, etc. are all aspects which are individually judged, and for which verbal descriptions can be applied (i.e.: excellent, good, average, poor, etc.). In order to combine these verbal ratings with the previously mentioned numerical ratings, a number count can be applied to each (100 for Excellent, 85 for Good, etc.) From this point on, the applying of more or less weight to each partial score in order to arrive at a final grade for the term paper can be a precise arithmetic operation; just as giving the term paper a certain weight when combining it with the scores of daily papers makes possible a precise operation of the mechanics of deriving a term grade. Work Sheets similar to that shown in Figure 1 provide for convenient tabulation of the results. A separate Work Sheet should be used for each Major Objective. Fill in the stated Major Objectives, one to each sheet, on line 1. For each Major Objective, list the requisite subobjectives on lines 2 through 6 (if mo re than six lines are required, use a second sheet). Under each subobjective listing, list the associated criteria in the spaces provided.
The following sections will describe how the subobjectives and criteria can be rated completely through either an analytical (mathematical) approach or a subjective approach. As discussed previously, the choice is largely dependent on the time and resources available and the desire for more precise measurements. It is felt that most of the time a combination of the two approaches will be most practical. Where a particular subobjective can readily be graded through use of the analytical approach, this should be done because of the greater precision obtained. However, for those subobjectives for which the analytical approach would

141

Page 9

Environmental Task Force Priority Determination
Dr. G. L. Delon

be highly time-consuming or difficult, the approach would be utilized.

subjective

Analytical Approach

1. Gr de each of the criteria utilized to define a given
subobjective in terms of 0 to 100. A "a" gr ade implies
total unacceptability; a "100" grade implies the optimum, ultimate, or total acceptability. Some criteria readily
lend themselves to such grading. A questionnaire can be
structured to be gr med in just such a manner. Any parameter normally expressed in percentages might be readily
transferred to this system. For those measurements or parameters expressed in other terms, a conversion process needs to be devised. Even the percentage example used above
might need a conversion process. If, for instance, an adequate housing rate in an underprivileged area of only 50% was held to be totally and unequivocally unacceptable, then
50% must be gr aled as "a". Normally then, either 100% or
some percentage less than 100% which is held to be the ideal or maximum achievable, is given the top grade of 100 and the
interval between the top grade and 50% proportioned evenly
for the intervening scores (if 90% is graded "laO" and 50%
is graded "0", then 70% would be graded "50").

All criteria which are objective and

measurabl~

can

generally be converted to the 0-100 scale in much the sa~e

manner as the example above. The interval between totally

acceptable and totally unacceptable is first determined.

Again, this interval is proportioned evenly between "0" and

"laO" and grading done on the basis of totally acceptable

being lOa, etc. As an example, an incident rate for air

pollution induced lung cancer of four per thousand may be

judged to be the lowest rate that miCht be hoped for. At

the other end of the scale, an air pollution induced lung

cancer rate of 50 per thousand may be judged so poor as to

warr ant scrapping the present program for a new appro ach,

and hence would be gr aded as "0".

This same conversion technique is repeated as each criteria

is assessed. Only by having each "measure" defined in the

142

Page 10
Environmental Task Force Priority Determination Dr. G. L. Delon

same units (0 - 100) can we proceed with the numerical summation of criteria by which the analytical approach gives a grade to the next higher element of the analysis; (in this case, the subobjective). Record the gr ade in the assigned block of the appropriate Work Sheet.

One last type of criteria "grade" must be considered; that

dealing with the subjectively measured criteria. As

mentioned before, not all criteria are objective in nature.

Because these are more subjective in nature, one is not

prohibited from using the analytical approach.

By

"measuring" the criteria in terms of word descriptions and

then converting these to a numerical grade scale ran~ing
from a to 100, such criteria can readily aggregate with the

purely objective measurements. For instance; "experience

levels" may be grouped into: Extremely well experienced

( grad e 0 flO 0 ) , hi b hI y exper i en c e d (g r a d e 0 f 8 5 ), a v era g e

experience (grade of 70), relatively inexperienced (grade of

50), very little related experience (grade of 30), totally

inadequate experience level (grade of 0).

2. To complete the derivation of a subobjective ratin3 in the analytical approacll, relative weights or priorities are assiGned to each criteria such that their grades (G) may be accumulated in one final "score" for the subobjective. (The methodology of assigning weights is described elsewhere.) Deriving weighting factors for each criteria is accomplished in precisely the same manner as for Major Objectives except that the group of Environ~ental Health experts should be chosen here on the basis of their sensitivity to the value of the criteria chosen. Because of the similarities to earlier procedures the weighting procedure will not be
repeated here. Values of W (WI, W2, W3, etc.) are tabulated
for each criteria.

3. To obtain the rating or grade for a particular

subobjective, multiply the grade (Gl, G2, G3 -- etc.) of

each criteria that relate to the desired subobjective by the

~ormalized Weight (Wl, W2, W3

etc.) assigned to that

criteria. Then, sum up all of the resultant products to

143

Page 11
Environmental Task Force Priority Determination
Dr. G. L. Delon
achieve the subobjective rating and record on the Work Sheet. It should be noted that if each criteria had a perfect "score" of 100. the sum of the products would also produce a perfect score of 100 fo 1 the subobjective. as might be expected.
Subobjective Rating (Gl x WI) + (G2 x W2) + (G3 x
W3) etc.
4. The derivation of r ~ings for each Major Objective is an iteration of the process discussed above in rating the subobjectives. Another set of weighting factors is derived to describe the relative contribution that each subobjective makes towards achieving the ~ajor Objective. In the same manner as in 3 above. each subobjective rating is multiplied by its respective Normalized Weight and the resultant products summed together to achieve the Major Objective Gr me. Record this on the Work Sheet.
Subjective Approach
1. Obtain all of the data called for by each criterion. Where this information is in the foro of numerical measurements. record these measurements directly on the Work Sheet in the appropriate space. Where the criteria refers to a subjective measurement. amass all of the pertinent facts available and provide a short verbal assessoent of the accomplishment of that criteria. Such "word measures" might be" Ex cell e tl t. Abo v e Ave r ag e
2. When all criteria associated with a given Major Objective have been measured and recorded on the Work Sheet. another session is held for the purpose of deriving the "degree to which the subobjectives are being met. The principle purpose of the data acquisition phase is to supply the Environmental Health experts. upon whose subjective judgment final ratings are to be made. with adequate facts to permit good judgments to be made.
144

Page 12
Environmental Task Force Priority Determination Dr. G. L. Delon

In committee. the Moderator and those whom he has selected

for their expertise in the areas under discussion discuss

the facts (the data accumulated on each criterion) as

presented by the systems analyst. These deliberations.

combined with considerations as to the relative correlation

between the measurements and the subobjective they are

attempting to rate. have as their outcome a rating as to how

well each subobjective is being achieved. As before. these

can be "verbal indices" or a numerical grade can be

assigned.

This rating for each subobjective is also

recorded on the appropriate Work Sheet for easy reference.

3. The process of arriving at a rating for the "Achievement

of Major Objective" is a repetition of the process described

immediately above. The ratings of the various subobjectives

are cons ider ed. along wi th their rela t i ve s ignif icanc e to

the Major Objective and a final judgment made as to how well

the Major Objective is being achieved. This is again

expressed in word form with an associated grade number. For

instance. the sample Effectivity Matrix. Figure 2 provides

six grades for Major Objectives having word ratings such as

"Fully Heets Stated Objectives" (grade of

100).

" Con sid e r ab 1 y Sh 0 r t 0 f ~1 e e tin gOb j e c t i v e s" ( g r a d e 0 f 5 0)

etc.

When the grade has been selected for each Major Objective. this is recorded on line 7 of the Work Sheet for that particular objective.

Develop Effectiveness Matrix

The Effectiveness Rating for the systen under test is derived with the aid of the Effectiveness Matrix. This matrix provides a convenient tabulation of the Major Objectives. and by combining the grme derived in the previous section for each objective with the weight assigned to that particular objective. it makes possible a simple summation of the combined weighted grades. This in turn can readily be transferred to a single index of overall effectiveness known as the Effectiveness Rating and

145

Page 13
Environmental Task Force Priority Determination Dr. G. L. Delon

expressed in the same numerical terms as the individual Major Objectives; that is, a rating of 1.0 or 100% iMplies a fully satisfactory goal from the standpoint of effectiveness.

The steps in utilizing this uatrix follow: (a) Enter in the row "Hajor Objectives" all of the llajor Objectives being evaluated, one to a column. (b) In the row directly below the objectives, fill in the appropriate normalized weights (WI, W2, etc) for each Hajor Objective.

When the Subjective Approach is used: (c) List under the column "Word Ratiut;s" the various \olord-statements expressing the J.egree to which ~'lajor Objectives are being achieved, in descenaillg order, as derived in the section immediately above. Insert the desired "grade" value for each word rating in the column so designated on the matrix. (d) From each Major Objective Work Sheet obtain the Rating or Gr ~e, and locate the intersection of this Rating row and the column headed by the Major Objective from the work sheet. Mark the intersection as in the sample Matrix. Multiply that specific gr de value by the normalized weighting factor in that column and enter the result in the Objective Grade line. When this process has been repeated for all ~ajor Objectives, each column will have a value listed in one of its weighted Grade blocks.

When the Analytical Approach is used:

(e) Instead of

filling in the column "liord Ratings" as was done above,

place in the first blank space the words "Major Objective

Grade (initial)". (f) From each Work Sheet obtain the grade

value arrived at for that Major Objective and enter it in

the Major Objective Grade row immediately below the

weighting factor (W) for that specific Objective. (g) For

each listed Hajor Obj ective, multiply the gr ade value by the

associated normalized weighting factor and enter the result

in the proper Objective Grade (weighted) block.

To derive a final Effectiveness Grade: (h) Sum up the total set of values determined in either step (d) or (g) above.

146

Page 14 Environmental Task Force Priority Determination Dr. G. L. Delon
The completed matrix should now be held for future review by the Environmental Health Task Force. Also, as plans or proposals are put forth to effect changes in the original Task Force plan, the effect of the changes of these ratings will need to be assessed. In order to facilitate this last objective, space has been reserved on the Effectiveness Matrix Form for recording a second set of weighted Objective Grades and a resultant Effectiveness Rating for the reevaluated system.
147

WORKSHEET I

Page 15

Environmental Task Force P"riority Determination Dr. G. L. Delon

RATING ACHIEVEMENT OF PRIME OBJECTIVE

148

1. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF PRIME OBJECTIVE

2. SUB OBJECTIVE NO.1:

., CRITERIA
bl

c:I dl

.1

3 SUB OBJECTIVE NO.2:

CRITERIA

.,

bl cl dl

e' 4. SUB OBJECTIVE NO.3

DESCRIPTION

MEASUREMENT RATING. OR GRADE

CRITERIA .1 bl cl dl

el S SUB OBJECTIVE NO.4

CRITERIA

.,

1>.

cl dl

el

COMBINED ACHIEVEMENT OF SUB OBJECTIVES ACHIEvEM~,~r OF PRIME OBJECTIVES

Figure 1

Example of Work Sheet

WORK SHEET NO.2

EFFECTIVITY MATRIX FORM

11 to e
"1
~
t-J
m
X OJ
3
iJ
~
-m
.(~.).
-5.
'<
~

PRIME OBJECTIVES
NORMALIZED WEIGHTS WORD RATINGS

1.

2.

3.

OPTIMIZE



QUALITY MAXIMIZE

PATIENT

OF CARE

COVERAGE

ACCEPT.



Wl = .23 W2 = .20 W3 = .14

GRADE

EXCEEDS GOALS

110

FULL Y MEETS

STATED OBJECTIVES

100

ALMOST TOTALL Y

ACCEPTABLE

90

SOMEWHAT SHORT OF

MEETING OBJECTIVES

75

X

X

CONSI DE RABL Y SHORT OF MEETING OBJECTIVES
GENERALLY UNACCEPTABLE

__ 50
... _ - - - - -

_.

.-

25 -

X -- - _.

OBJECTIVE GRADE (WEIGHTED} GRADE MULTIPLIED BY WEIGHT

P!!

4.

5.

6.

7.

s.

g.

TRAINING \PROF.I

TRAINING MEDICAL (NONPROF.I RESEARCH

RESEARCH IN HEALTH DELIVERY

W4 = .07 W5 = .Og W6 = .16 W7= .11 Ws=

Wg=

I

,,

I

I

I

IX

X

I
I

X

- - - -I

X

I
--_.

I

,

!

,

I

!

10. WlO=
I

:OJ;

THESE SPACES RESERVED FOR

x

FUTURE RE EVALUATION

EFFECTIVITY RATING -- SUMMATION OF ALL OBJECTIVE GRADES NUMERICAL PRODUCTIVITY -- NO. OF PATIENT VISITS PER Sloo COSTS

INITIAL
77.3
5.2

_ - R-E---E-V-A_L.U-.A. TION

I-'
-I"
\0

t'tl ~ QQ
(I)
.....
0\

tr1

.tt1.'t.l.=..<:.l.

~0t1
t1 t1 0
.... ::s rtS
~'< (I)



=:l

t:::rt
t'""(1)~

rt ....

ID

t:::t1t-'}
ID S ~

::s ........ o

,C.ll:

=:l ~

rt~

.... 0
o t1

=:l to

NOTE
Permission to reprint this article, which appeared in the August, 1970 issue of Appalachia, has been granted by the editors.

GEORGIA PIONEERS IN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

In a double-barreled effort to improve the environment, the Northwest Georgia Regional Health Advisory Council, Inc., has undertaken a solid waste disposal program which abates pollution while simultaneously reclaiming useless land. Under this program, solid waste is deposited in sanitary landfills, which can then be covered and used for reforestation or recreation. The program is financed jointly by the council (one of the ten demonstration health areas funded by the Appalachian Regional Commission) and by the twelve counties and two cities participating in the program. (The counties are Bartow, Chattooga, Cherokee, Fannin, Floyd, Gilmer, Gordon, Murray, Paulding, Pickens, Polk and Whitfield; the cities are Rome in Floyd County and Dalton in Whitfield County.)
THE PROBLEM The solid waste disposal problem is
particularly severe in northwest Georgia, and has been increasing rapidly in both scope and complexity. In 1966, it was estimated that 750,000 cubic yards of refuse were produced annually in the 12-county area. By mid-1970, the volume had more than tripled; during the first four months of the year alone, 850,000 cubic yards were deposited in the 17 sanitary landfills operated under the new program.
One important reason for the growth of the waste disposal problem in the area is the expansion of the tufted carpet industry, which now has plants in nine of the twelve counties and which it is predicted may double its production within the next four years. The wastes produced by these plants-liquid latex and fibers-are practically indestructible; they will not satisfactorily burn, compact, crush or deteriorate. Prior to the operation

of the new program, these wastesplus the normal solid wastes which accumulate in an area with a population of approximately 300,000 people -were hauled to unsightly, smelly and unsanitary dumps. It became daily more apparent that there was a need for an efficient, attractive and inexpensive disposal system, and that the only practical way to handle these unusual industrial wastes was to bury them in a sanitary landfill.
THE PROGRAM The new program, which was fund-
ed in]une 1968, began operation in November of the same year and is under the direction of Joseph Hunt, an environmental sanitarian who has worked in 40 of the 50 states of the United States during his career with the U.S. Public Health Service. Under this program, each of the twelve counties plus the two cities signed a contract with the Northwest Georgia Regional Health Advisory Council and agreed to operate at least one landfill according to specifications, which included furnishing an appropriate site for each landfill, obtaining the necessary personnel, maintaining the equipment used in the program and taking any legal actions required to close the old dumps as the new landfills became available for use. The council agreed to provide 80 percent of the purchase cost of the necessary equipment and to pay the costs of preparing the landfill site, closing old dumps and building a grease pit and an equipment and personnel shelter. The program staff of the council also provided the counties and cities with technical assistance as required. The council agreed to pay 100 percent of operating costs during the first and

second years of operation. The funds are provided under Section 202 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act. During the third. fourth and fifth years, the council and the counties (or cities) will pay operating costs on a 50-50 basis.
A total of 21 tractors have been purchased for the program, the type of equipment ordered for each landfill depending on the type of terrain where it is to be used. Of the 21 tractors, nine are bulldozers (which are equipped with a blade that pushes waste and dirt into place) and twelve are front-end loaders (which are able not only to push the dirt and refuse but also to pick it up and deposit it in a new location).
There are always special equipment maintenance problems involved in sanitary landfill work. In this case the problems are complicated by the troublesome nature of the tufted carpet wastes, which are damaging to the cooling system of earth-moving equipment. As a result, the tractors used in the program had to be equipped
with what is now called a "sanitary landfill packet," a series of special equipment items including a complete hood engine enclosure, a screened and mounted air intake, heavy duty filters, a counterweight to balance the landfill blades, a dry chemical fire extinguisher and a seim-enclosed cab for the driver.
The multicounty nature of the effort and the economies of mass bidding and purchase resulted in substantial financial savings in the purchase of this equipment; the council saved more than $165,000 on the list price of the tractors used in the program. The cost of the disposal program to date has averaged 24 cents per cubic yard of waste. Since this cost includes
151

heavy initial expenditures for equipment, the average is expected to decline as the program continues. If the minimum expected equipment life of five years is achieved, the average cost will decline to only five cents per cubic yard.
DISPOSAL SITES Obtaining the landfill sites posed
some initial problems for the counties. "The first site is always hard to get," according to Mr. Hunt. "After the first one has been filled up and covered over, and people see how nice it looks, it's a different story. Then they come to us and ask that we use their land for our program." The initial landfill sites have included two abandoned strip mines in Bartow County near Cartersville and several plots of marginal eroded land, frequently on hillsides where timber has been harvested.
When strip mines are used, the open
pits are filled with compacted wastes, which are covered with a final layer of soil approximately two feet deep. These areas can then be used as playgrounds or parks. Planting of row crops is not recommended because plowing might disturb the underlying solid waste if the layers of waste are not perfectly even or if the plow penetrates to varying depths. Completion of landfills at the two Bartow County strip mine sites was handled so efficiently and made such a significant improvement in the appearance of the area that the mining company offered a third and much larger mine site (four miles long and 100 feet deep), and the new site is already in use.
When deforested land is used as a disposal site, deep trenches are dug in the hillsides, filled with compacted solid wastes and then brought to the original level with a three-foot cover of soil. Since these areas can then be reforested, and since the landfill program eliminates promiscuous dumping which causes fires, several timber companies in the area have given the counties inexpensive leases on cutover land for use as landfill sites.
PERFORMANCE When all 17 of the landfill sites are
fully operational, they will serve approximately three-fourths of the population of the twelve-county area. To date the program has been very successful in terms of both efficiency
152

~
Tllfted carpet wastes, which are practically indestructible, are bun'ed in a sanitary lalldfill ill Ilorthwest Georgia.

and convenience to users. Of the present 17 sites, 16 have been rated Class A and one Class B on the basis of efficiency rating procedures prepared by the U.S. Public Health Service. User convenience has been augmented by the fact that, because of the multicounty nature of the program, all 17 landfill sites are open for use by any resident, r'egardless of where he lives or which county is operating a given landfill. Directions to the disposal sites are clearly marked on the area's roads and highways, and people drive their cars or trucks directly to the par_tion of
the site currently being filled, as indicated by a series of large arrows.
During the first six months of 1970,124,001 vehicles visited the landfills to dump more than

1,250,000 cubic yards of refuse. All twelve county health boards have passed, or are in the process of passing, regulations which will close all the old open dumps and require the disposal of solid waste in the new network of sanitary landfills. To date, approximately 300 roadside dumps have been closed, and more are in the process of being cleaned out by county road crews.
SERVICE IN RURAL AREAS The program has also tackled the
problem of furnishing disposal sites to serve the small incorporated communities (400 to 1,000 population) and the strictly rural areas which are located too far away from the central

Lalldfills have already been completed at two strip mine sites, and a third is now in use.

landfills to be used by residents on a regular basis. In a three-county area, a pilot project is being developed to construct six conveniently located mobile disposal sites.
The key to this program is the imaginative use of very large multivehicle trailers which haul automobiles across country. These trailers, which are retired as new automobile models are put on the market, can be purchased at low cost ($200-$500, depending primarily on the condition of the tires). Under this program, steel plates will be installed on the bottom and sides of the trailers, transforming them into large receptacles or bins, each of which can hold from 60 to 70 cubic yards of refuse. At selected sites, trenches will be dug and lined with reinforced concrete. The trailers, which will be pulled to the site by tow truck, will be inserted into the trenches through cleared areas prepared at both ends. Since the area on one side of each trench will be blacktopped for all-weather use as a parking ramp, and since the side of the trailer will extend only one foot above the ground, residents can easily drive their cars or trucks directly to the trailer and dump their trash into

it. At regular intervals, the tow truck will pull an empty trailer to each site, pull out the trailer full of refuse, substitute the empty trailer and then pull the full trailer (which has been carefully covered to prevent blowing or spilling) to the nearest central landfill site, where it will be emptied and readied for its next tour of duty. With the purchase of a used tow truck and seven trailers (one for each of the six sites plus one extra for use as the "empty"), this pilot program will service the six locations on a twice-aweek basis.
RECORDS Extensive records are maintained
by each county and the two cities to show the amount and type of solid wastes being handled for each site, the sour~es of the wastes and the cost and effectiveness of the program. These records enable the staff to recognize the deficiencies of a given site, schedule the manpower required at the site at various times of day, maintain equipment, make adjustments in the estimated life of the site, determine the magnitude of the waste disposal problem in the county

or city and develop cost data for future sites.
FUTURE PLANS In addition to expanding the mobile
dumping station network described earlier in this article, future plans call for various types of research and action designed to improve the physical environment of the area. A study of the potential recycling or reclaiming of waste products, particularly manufacturing waste, has been proposed. Studies of the refuse collection systems in Rome and Dalton are currently under way, and similar studies are planned for all major communities and selected rural areas in the twelve county area. Overall surveys of the exterior environment in the major communities will also be conducted in order to inform officials and the public about the quality of the environment and how it can be improved. Any recommended improvement programs-general cleanup, enforcement of a large animal ordinance, improved refuse storage containers, removal of junk and/or abandoned cars-will be handled on an areawide basis and will disregard geographic boundaries.

Mobile dumping stations furnish waste disposal service to small towns and rural areas.
153

"The optimum population for a highly-developed, industrialized nation with a high per capita G.N.P. (gross national product) is very much lower than the population that can be supported at a subsistence level in an undeveloped nation, because the per capita consumption of resources and the production of wastes are so much greater in the developed countries."

Optimum Population and Environment: A Georgian Microcosm

By EUGENE P. GnUM
Director, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia

THE WORLD SEEMS to be getting smaller and more limited in its ca-
pacity to support human beings be-
cause the per capita use of resources in developed countries, and the per capita expectations in undeveloped countries, keep
going up. Thoughtful persons everywhere are agreeing, perhaps reluctantly in many
cases, that if a high quality human existence is to be achieved man must now "manage" his own population as well as the natural re-
sources on which he depends.*
To the ecologist, this means first and fore-
most that the population growth rate must be drastically reduced so that an equilibrium can
be reached in the very near future if we are to avoid the very high risk of excessive population, reduction in the per capita availability
of resources and a loss in the individual's freedom of action. If this is indeed the case,
then the question of what constitutes an optimum population density for man becomes
* This article is based on the sixth and final pre-
sentation in a public lecture series: "Ecology 1970 -Principles for Action," sponsored by the Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Winter Quarter, 1970. Copyright held by the author.
1 See, for example, historian Lynn White's essay entitled "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis," originally published in SCIENCE, 115: 1203, 1967, and widely reprinted in paperback.
2 See Natural Resources: Quality and Quantity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 7-18.

a key issue. An ecological approach to this problem involves considering the total demands that an individual makes on his environment, and how these demands can be met without degrading or destroying his living space or lebensraum.
Since the environment is both a "supply depot" and a "house" for man, the concept of the integrated system, the "ecosystem," is the basis for the relevant ecology of today. In the conduct of human affairs in the past, these two functions of the environment have been considered as separate and unrelated problems, as many writers are now pointing out.1 The dramatic change in peoples' attitude towards their environment and the rise of a sort of "populist" ecology in the 1970's stem from a general recognition that the quality of the lebensraum is so intimately interrelated with the rate of production and consumption of resources that the total "manin-nature" ecosystem must now be the basis for intelligent management. Lewis Mumford places this concept in more general terms when he says that "Ideological misconceptions have impelled us to promote the expansion of knowledge, power, productivity, without inventing any adequate systems of controls," and that therefore "the problem of our age" is how to use quality to control quantity.2 In actual fact, it will be much

355

155

356 CURRENT HISTORY, JUNE, 1970

TABLE 1. WORLD DISTRIBUTION OF PER CAPITA G.N.P.

Per capita G.N.P.
($)

Number of countries

% world
population

40-149

31

56.5

150-299

25

8.8

300-599

15

4.7

600-2400

16

30.0

Source: Revelle in Prospects of the W orld Food Supply (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science, 1966) Table 1, p. 24.

easier to "invent" controls than to agree on a "set point," or optimum level, for the "population-stat."

THE GEORGIAN MICROCOSM
In the fall of 1969, my class in advanced ecology at the University of Georgia elected to tackle the question of "the optimum population for Georgia" on the assumption that this state was large enough and typical enough to be a sort of "microcosm" for the nation and the world. The basic question asked was: How many people can Georgia support at a reasonably high standard of living on a continuing, self-contained equilibrium basis, in the sense that imports and exports of food and resources would be balanced. As it turned out, Georgia is a good microcosm for the United States because its present density and growth rate, and the distribution of its human and domestic animal population are close to the mean for the whole nation. Likewise, food production and land use patterns in Georgia are average. Furthermore, since pollution, overcrowding and loss of non-renewable resources have not yet reached very serious proportions, the state, like most of the nation, has the opportunity to plan ahead for a new kind of "progress," based on the right of the indIvidual to have a quality environment and to share in the economic benefits of wise use and recycling of resources.
It is self-evident that such planning must start at the local and state level. The ecological and population situation is so varied in the nation as a whole that it is not likely that a nationwide plan for optimum population

and environment can be initiated until states and regions take their inventories and set tentative standards. For example, the impetus to redesign the internal combustion engine to reduce air pollution started in California where the problem was locally acute. And once California sets rigorous control standards the nation must quickly follow, because manufacturers have to meet maximum, not minimum, standards, since they cannot (for long, at least) build one kind of car for California and another for other states.
As background for the Georgia inventory, two general principles were adopted. The first principle can be stated as follows: "The optimum is almost always less than the maximum." In terms of human population density, the number of people in a given area that would be optimum from the standpoint of the quality of the individual's life and his environment is considerably fewer than the maximum number of people that might be supported, that is, merely fed, housed and clothed as dehumanized robots or "domestic animals." The same principle can be applied to automobiles; certainly the greatest number of cars that can be accommodated bumperto-bumper on a freeway is not optimum for the forward progress of the individual automobile. Perhaps, then, the idea of the "greatest good for the greatest number" is not really a tenable principle. Maybe Dr. George Wald's slogan, "a better world for fewer babies" is more relevant to our times.
A second principle is that afRuence actually reduces the number of people who can be supported by a given resource base. Thus, the optimum population for a highly developed, industrialized nation with a high per capita G.N.P. (gross national product) is very much lower than the population that can be supported at a subsistence level in an undeveloped nation, because the per capita consumption of resources and the production of wastes are so much greater in the developed countries. Thus, if one person in the United States exerts 50 times more demand on his environment than does an Asian, then it is obvious that no environment can support as

156

Optimum Population and Environment 357

many Americans as Asians without disastrous deterioration in the quality of that environment. Table 1 illustrates how sharply our world is divided into "developed" and "undeveloped" nations. The distribution of G.N.P. is strongly bimodal, with very few people living in intermediate (so called "developing") nations. Shocking as it may seem, the United States is now in as much danger of overpopulation at its level of per capita living as is India at her present standard of living. Population control must be an overriding issue in both the developed and undeveloped worlds, but the levels that are critical, the limiting factors and the strategy of control are quite different.
MINIMUM AMERICAN PER CAPITA ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS
Table 2 is the consensus estimate made by the students of the minimum acreage necessary to support one person at a standard of living now enjoyed by Americans, including a pollution-free living space, room for outdoor recreation and adequate biological capacity to recycle air, water and other vital resources. The per capita area required for food was obtained by taking the diet recommended by the President's Council on Physical Fitness and determining how much crop and grazing land is required to supply the annual requirement for each item. If Americans would be satisfied with merely getting enough calories and greatly reducing their consumption of meat, as little as a third of an acre per person would be adequate, but the kind of diet Americans now enjoy including orange juice, bacon and eggs for breakfast and steaks for dinner-all of which require a great deal of land space to produce -takes at least 1.5 acres per capita. Thus, the American "demands" from his agricultural environment 10 times the space that is required to produce the rice diet of the Oriental (assuming equally efficient crop production in both cases). The one-acre requirement for "fibers" is based on present per capita use of paper, wood, cotton and so forth, that equals the average annual production of one acre of forest and other fiber-

TABLE 2. MINIMUM PER CAPITA ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR A QUALITY ENVIRONMENT

Food-producing land Fiber-producing land Natural use areas (watershed,
airshed, greenbelt, recreation, waste disposal, etc.) Artificial systems (urban, industrial, highways, waste treatment facilities, etc.)
TOTAL

1.5 acres 1 acre
2 acres
0.5 acres '5.0 acres

producing land. The two acres for "natural area use" are based on the minimum space needs for watersheds, airsheds, green belt zones in urban areas, recreation areas (state golf courses) as estimated by recent land use surveys. Again, we could do with less by designing more artificial waste recycling systems and doing away with outdoor recreation, but at a high cost to society as a whole.
In considering the five-acre per capita estimate, two points must he emphasized: (1) If the per capita use goes up in the future, either more land is needed or greater production per acre must be forced by increased use of chemical controls that, in turn, tend to pollute the total environment, creating a cost in taxes that would reduce the individual's "take home" pay. (2) The five-acre estimate is relevant only to an area such as Georgia that has a favorable climate (adequate rainfall and moderate temperature). The per capita area requirement would be much greater in regions with large areas of deserts, steep mountains or other extreme ecosystems.
The inventory of Georgia is summarized in Tables 3-6. The per capita density (Table 3) of 1 in 8 acres compares with the national average of 1 in 10 acres. The urban-rural distribution is comparable to the national average. A domestic animal population 5 times that of people is also close to the national average, as is the 10 per cent of land devoted to agriculture (see Table 4). In considering the impact of man on his environment, the importance of the domestic animal is too often overlooked; yet such animals are actually consuming more "primary production" (i.e., photosynthetic con-

157

358 CURRENT HISTORY, JUNE, 1970

TABLE 3. GEORGIA: AREA AND DENSITY, PEOPLE AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS

Total area

37.7 million acres

Total people

4.8 million

Per capita density

1 in 8 acres

Population density-

(31 % Atlanta met. area.:

60% urban, 56% under 30 yrs. of age.)

Domestic Animals

Population equivalent*

21 million

Total Man-Animal

26 million

Population equivalent*

1 in 1.5 acres

* Population equivalent is a unit of animal weight equivalent in metabolism to one adult person.

version of sun energy to organic matter) than man, and they require huge amounts of land. Also, in this country, pets such as dogs and cats are estimated to consume enough food to support five million people. We could do away with all domestic animals, of course, and substitute people, but to the ecologist that would mean not only giving up meat in the diet, but also dehumanizing man to the level of a domestic animal. It is interesting that Georgia now produces enough food to feed 12 million people, provided that people actually consumed the crops directly. A diet of corn, other grains, soy beans, peanuts and vegetables could supply adequate calories and protein. In actual practice, of course, very little of Georgia's crop production is consumed directly; most of it is fed to animals or shipped out of state in exchange for food from elsewhere.
If we consider for the moment that one person in five acres is a reasonable per capita density, then Georgia is rapidly approaching that level. As shown in Table 6, the net growth rate is two per cent which, if continued, would mean a doubling of the population (leaving only four acres per capita) in 35 years. Almost before we realize it Georgia is moving from what was considered essentially a sparsely populated state to one that is beginning to feel the adverse effects of population pressure. As emphasized, this

4 Several such models were prepared for the University of Georgia lecture series. See footnote*
above, p. 355.

pressure is due not so much to the number of people, but to the great increase in the per capita demands on space and resources. It comes as a shock to everyone that Georgia and the nation could be badly overpopulated by the year 2000.

NATURAL REGULATORS
It is possible to prepare graphic models for population growth and stabilization to show how animal populations in nature normally regulate their density well below the limit that would be imposed by the food supply.4 In this event the quality of both the individual and the environment is insured, since the individual is neither likely to run out of food (or other resources) nor to "overgraze" or otherwise permanently damage his habitat in his efforts to obtain the necessities of life. In some populations, death controlled by predators, disease or parasites is the regulator; in other populations, birth control is the mechanism. In some of the best regulated species of the most highly evolved animals, namely the birds and the mammals, the essential control is behavior that restricts the use of space.
This sort of "territorial control" would seem to be relevant to the human population problem. Best of all, planned and controlled land use mutually agreed upon through the democratic process can be accomplished at the local and state level right now, while we continue the discussions about birth control and abortion in an effort to reach some kind

TABLE 4. GEORGIA-LAND USE IN 1968

Crops food fiber idle (rotated)
Pasture Forest
private public Recreation (public) Coastal wetlands Urban, etc.

(per cent)
7.5 .8
3.7 7.4
66.3 4.5* 1.8* 1.3* 4.5

* Total of these 3 categories or 7.6% is all land now set aside for "natural use" only (i.e., protected from exploitation).

158

Optimum Population and Environment 359

TABLE 5. FOOD PRODUCTION IN GEORGIA -1969
KcaI/year x 1012*

Corn Grain Sweet Potatoes Soy Beans Peanuts Vegetables
Total

8.5 0.6 0.03 1.8 1.4 0.05 12 x 1012

* 106 Kcal will support one person one year.

of national and international consensus that can make these approaches effective nationwide and worldwide. Consequently, it certainly will be worthwhile to consider what we might accomplish along the lines of territorial control through land use planning.

LAND USE PLANNING
In actual fact, Georgia is extremely vulnerable to overpopulation for two reasons: (1) the immigration rate is high and can be expected to increase as people flee from the crowded, polluted and deteriorated part of our country and (2) land is open to immediate exploitation on a huge scale because there are so few protective laws and so little land in public ownership. Many of these factors apply to other areas of the nation. Even if the birth rate drops in Georgia and other less crowded states, population growth rate would remain high because of immigration that will come as people discover the relatively cheap and quickly available "open spaces." As already indicated, a growth rate of two per cent per year means that Georgians would be down to one man in 4 acres in 35 years.
A land speculation spiral that is economically ruinous to all but a few speculators could well result unless plans are made now, and control legislation is enacted. Georgia has a lot of open land now but very little has been set aside to remain so. Only about seven per cent of Georgia (see Table 4) is reserved in national, state or city parks, refuges, greenbelts or other protected categories; even our best farmland is vulnerable to real estate exploitation.
As citizens, what can Georgians do? First, they can instigate and support drives,

both at the local and state levels, to get more land into public ownership (parks, state and national forests, greenbelts) and can work to have an "open space" bill passed that will enable private owners to establish scenic easements and other restrictions on the use of land that is valuable in its natural state. Second, they can work towards the establishment of metro-commissions and state-wide environmental commissions with strong zoning powers. The passage by the Georgia legislature of the marshlands protection bill early in 1970 was a step in this direction because almost half a million acres were put into a protective category with an agency empowered to insure the best and highest use of a natural resource that otherwise is very vulnerable to destructive types of exploitation.

TABLE 6. 1970 ESTIMATES OF POPULATION GROWTH-RATE IN GEORGIA

Birth rate Immigration Death rate Net growth rate

(per year) 2.4% 0.4% 0.8% 2.0%

If about one-third of the area of Georgia were in a protected category, then we would be well protected against overpopulation, and we would have a big buffer that would make the technical problems of pollution control much easier. It is important to note that Western states are fortunate in that 40-50 per cent of their land is already in public ownership. The battle there will be to mobilize public opinion to prevent overdevelopment and degradation of these lands.
The third function that citizens can perform is to be more selective about the type
(Continued on page 365)

Eugene P. Odum is the Alumni Foundation Professor of Zoology and director of the Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia in Athens. He is the author of numerous articles in scientific journals and of Ecology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963) and Fundamentals of Ecology (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1959).

159

OPTIMUM POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT
(Continued from page 359) and location of new industry. Citizens will be doing industry and society a favor by establishing tough pollution ~tandards and requiring advance waste treatment because it is much cheaper to engineer and internalize the costs of complete waste treatment, water and air recycling at the beginning than to take action later and also pay for repairing a damaged environment. There is no longer a need nor excuse for "dirty" industries that pollute and pay low wages. Any state can now attract industries that have the resources to pay good wages and the public conscience to do what is necessary in waste management.
In summary, our microcosm study makes a case for basing the optimum population on total space requirement and not on food as such. The world can feed more "warm bodies" than it can support high quality human beings.
NOTE Permission to reprint this article, which appeared in the June, 1970 issue of Current History, has been granted by Current History, Inc.
160

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MATERIALS SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE*
ARTICLES:
Alexander, Tom. "Where Will We Put All That Garbage?" reprint from Fortune Magazine, October, 1967, by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Cassell, Eric J., M.D. "Reviewing the Right to a Clean Environment," The American Health Foundation Newsletter, I, 4 (July, 1969), 1-4.
Committee on Environment of the American Public Health Association. "Environmental Factors in Health Planning." American Journal of Public Health, LVIII, 2 (February, 1968), 358-361.
"GMA to Study State Laws on Local Government," Urban Georgia, XIX, 9 (September, 1969), 6.
Hatcher, Robert A., M.D. "Sterilization of Males Easy," Atlanta Constitution, April 17, 1970, 1.
Lieberman, E. James, M.D. "Reserving a Womb: Case for the Small Family," American Journal of Public Health, LX,l (January, 1970), 87-92.
Metts, Albert, M.P.H. "Relationship Between Comprehensive and Environmental Health Planning," Public Health Reports, LXXXIV, 7 (July, 1969~ 647-654.
"New Water and Sewer Regulations Benefit Homeowners," Georgia's Health, XLIX, 11 (November, 1969), 2.
"The Pollution of Georgia's Environment," Georgia's Health, L, 2 (February, 1970).
Pridle, Richard A., M.D. "The Population Crisis," Archives of Environmental Health, XIX (October, 1969), 564-569.
Waxler, Alan. "New Techniques in Housing Construction Needed," Urban Georgia, XIX, 9 (September, 1969), 10-12.
BOOK:
National Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association. Air pollution Primer. New York: NTRDA, 1969.
* Excludes the numerous sources used by consultants and resource persons in preparing information for presentation to the Task Force, as well as sources available to Task Force members individually. 161

GOVERNMENT REPORTS:

Georgia Department of Public Health. Residential Environment Profile: Hall County, Georgia, 1968. Atlanta: GDPH, 1969.

Georgia Department of Public Health. Unwanted Births in Georgia: 1968. Atlanta: GDPH Maternal Health Service, 1970.

Hickman, H. Lanier, and Sorg, Thomas J. Sanitary Landfill Facts. U.S. Public Health Service Publication No. 1792. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

The Task Force on Environmental Health and Related Problems. A Strategy for a Livable Environment. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Abortion Surveillance Report: Annual Summary, 1969. Atlanta: National Communicable Disease Center, 1970.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Clean and Green. Public Health Service Bureau of Solid Waste Management Project Number l-D01-UI-00178.

U.S.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Environmental Health Planning Guide. Public Health Service Publication No. 823. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Estimate of Accidental Deaths Involving Various Environmental Factors. Cincinnati: Environmental Control Administration, Environmental Epidemiology Branch, 1970.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. How Accidents Affect the Nation's Health. Cincinnati: Environmental Control Administration, Environmental Epidemiology Branch, 1970.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Medical Services Required for Injuries. Cincinnati: Environmental Control Ad-
ministration, Environmental Epidemiology Branch, 1970.

162

GOVERN:MENT REPORTS - PAMPHLET:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This is Operation Breakthrough. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1969.
NEWS RELEASES:
"Caution Urged in Setting Goals to Correct Georgia's Environment," Georgia Department of Public Health, Atlanta, January 22, 1970.
"Environmental Health Task Force Set in Motion," Georgia Department of Public Health, Atlanta, January 13, 1970.
"Health Board Sets Rules for Private Sewage Systems in State," Georgia State Board of Health, Atlanta, Georgia, September 30, 1969.
"Health Department Tells Macon to 'Tear Up' Burning Dump," Georgia Department of Public Health, Atlanta, February 27, 1970.
"Nader's Savannah Statement Draws Howard's Fire," Georgia Water Quality Control Board, Atlanta, March 12, 1970.
"New Water Supply Rules Beef Up Health Checks--Also Aid Home Buyers," Georgia State Board of Health, Atlanta, Georgia, October 28, 1969.
REPORTS:
Bonitatibus, Ronald W. Solid Waste--Its Relationship to Environmental Health. Augusta, Georgia: Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, 1969.
Caterpillar Tractor Company. Recommended Standards for Sanitary Landfill Operations.
Community Health, Incorporated. What of Environmental Health Planning? New York: CHI, 1970.
SPEECHES:
Anderson, Thomas J., M.D. "Comprehensive Health Planning," Delivered before the Environmental Health Task Force on January 22, 1970.
163

SPEECHES:
Gillespie, Eugene J., M.D. "Speech Before Task Force on Environmental Health," January 22, 1970.
"Excerpts from Speech of Howard W. Chapman, Regional Assistant Administrator, Environmental Health Service, Public Health Service, Region IV, to the Task Force on Environmental Health," January 22, 1970.
Hanlon, John J., M. D. "Compreventive Health, A New Proposal?" Thirteenth Annual Lectureship, American College of Preventive Medicine. Philadelphia, November 12, 1969.
Hanlon, John J., M.D. "Conservation of the Environment Through Epidemiology and Comprehensive Health Planning." Presented at the University of Chicago Center for Health Administration Studies, Institute for Areawide Health Planning Agency Executives. Chicago, December 5, 1968.
Kindsvater, Carl E. "Environmental Health: Water Resources," Delivered at a meeting of the Environmental Health Task Force, January 22, 1970.
Venable, John H., M.D."Quality in Environment--A Must for Quality in Life," Delivered Before the Governor's Conference on Environmental Quality, July 10, 1970.
Venable, John H., M.D. "Remarks Before the Task Force on Environmental Health," January 22, 1970.
UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS:
"Highlights of 'Solid Waste Practices in Tennessee' by James C. Ault in The Tennessee Planner, Spring, 1969."
Georgia Department of Pub 1 ic Heal th. "Program Plan for Fiscal 1970." Excerpts.
Northwest Georgia Regional Health Advisory Council, Inc. "Location and Evaluation of Sanitary Landfills in the Area," December 3, 1969.
UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS - LETTERS AND MEMORANDA*
Letter from Jerry O. Bange, Executive Director, Altamaha Area Planning and Development Commission, Baxley, Georgia, January 6, 1970.
*These letters and memoranda are replies to a query to key persons about the seriousness of environmental problems throughout the state.
164

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS:
Letter from Glenn E. Bennett, Executive Director, Atlanta Regional Metropolitan Planning Commission, Atlanta, Georgia, December 18, 1969.
Letter from Ronald W. Bonitatibus, Solid Waste Consultant, Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, Augusta, Georgia, January 5, 1970.
Letter from G. B. Creagh, M.D., District Director, Department of Public Health, Athens, Georgia, January 2, 1970.
Letter from M. K. Cureton, M.D., District Director, Department of Public Health, LaFayette, Georgia, December 29, 1969.
Letter from Gilbert Chancey, Public Health Sanitarian, Catoosa County Department of Public Health, Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, December 19, 1969.
Letter from Ralph C. Davis, District Director of EnVironmental Sanitation, Department of Public Health, Griffin, Georgia, December 19, 1969.
Letter from C. M. Graham, Jr., District Director of Environmental Sanitation, Department of Public Health, Jesup, Georgia, December 23, 1969.
Letter from James D. Harless, Public Health Sanitarian, Walker County Health Department, LaFayette, Georgia, December 17, 1969.
Letter from Thomas Fox, Public Health Sanitarian, Chattooga County Health Center, Summerville, Georgia, December 17, 1969.
Letter from Max W. Harral, Director Slash Pine Area Planning and Development Commission, Waycross, Georgia, December 15, 1969.
Letter from Lewis W. de Jarnette, District Director of Environmental Sanitation, Department of Public Health, Decatur, Georgia, December 17, 1970.
Letter from George W. Lee, Jr., District Director of Environmental Sanitation, Department of Public Health, Lawrenceville, Georgia, December 29, 1969.
165

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS:
Letter from Jesse F. Piland, District Director of Environmental Sanitation, Moultrie, Georgia, January 12, 1970.
Letter from F. D. Richardson, Public Health Sanitarian, Walker County Health Department, LaFayette, Georgia, December 18, 1969.
Letter from Frank M. Tidwell, Public Health Sanitarian, Walker County Department of Public Health, Rossville, Georgia, December 18, 1969.
Letter from Jack D. Whelchel District Director, of Environmental Sanitation, Department of Public Health, Statesboro, Georgia, December 29, 1969.
Letter from James M. Womack, Public Health Engineer, Cobb County Health Department, Marietta, Georgia, December 17, 1969.
Memorandum from Lyndon Beall, Director, Emergency Health Service, Georgia Department of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia, December 9, 1969.
Memorandum from Robert H. Byers, Director, Water Supply Service, Georgia Department of Public Health, November 25, 1969.
Memorandum from Richard H. Fetz, Director, Radiological Health Service, Georgia Department of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia, November 26, 1969.
Memorandum from James P. Gibbs, Director, Housing Hygiene and Accident Prevention Service, Georgia Department of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia, December 5, 1969.
Memorandum from William A. Hansell, Director, Air Quality Control Branch, Georgia Department of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia, December 8, 1969.
Memorandum from Hugh L. Parker, Director, Industrial Hygiene Service, Georgia Department of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia, November 25, 1969.
166

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS: Memorandum from W. Scott Sprinkle, Director,
Environmental Sanitation Service, Georgia Department of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia, December 9, 1969.
167