Congresses and Conferences

L. I. Vinokurov (Moscow)

First All-Union Conference on Urban Sanitation

On May 25–29, a conference on urban sanitation was held in Leningrad, organized by the All-Union Council of Municipal Services and the All-Union State Sanitary Inspectorate.

The conference was attended by more than 180 representatives from 11 Union republics and 46 cities, of which 11 were republic capitals, 16 were oblast and krai centers, and 19 were district centers. They included 78 physicians, 59 engineers, 9 technicians, 2 soil scientists, and 35 representatives of administrative and economic bodies.

Municipal services agencies were represented at the conference by 84 delegates, the State Sanitary Inspectorate by 62, industry and supply organizations by 21, and research institutes by 16.

The leaders of municipal services, however, did not give the conference sufficient attention. Only a representative of the People’s Commissariat of Municipal Services of the RSFSR attended; there were no representatives from the corresponding commissariats of the other republics.

It should also be noted that Stakhanovites and workers were entirely absent from the conference.

Opening the conference, Comrade Pridannikov, representing the All-Union Council of Municipal Services, noted that sanitation lagged considerably behind other branches of municipal services, which was undoubtedly connected with the sabotage uncovered in many places. In the Azov–Black Sea Krai, the Trotskyist Malte had been active; in Khabarovsk, the Trotskyist Shmitt; in the Stroynarkomkhoz trust, Kotov; and in the Crimean People’s Commissariat of Municipal Services, Makhotkin.

Comrade Pridannikov noted that the conference was meeting while the third five-year plan for municipal services was being developed. It was therefore necessary to obtain concrete organizational and technical proposals from the participants, to be submitted to the Government and used as a basis for the third five-year plan.

The principal report on municipal urban sanitation was delivered by Comrade Spivak of the All-Union Council of Municipal Services.

Comrade Spivak reported that before the revolution municipal waste-collection fleets existed in 72 cities; by January 1, 1936, they existed in 434. The number of motor vehicles exceeds 700, and there are also approximately 1,500 other machines. Although waste removal has increased, it still does not meet the established standards. Thus, in 1936, 204 kg per person was removed, whereas 530 kg should have been removed. The utilization rate of motorized transport is also low. Horse-drawn transport is used more effectively, though still inadequately. The People’s Commissariats of Municipal Services and the All-Union Council of Municipal Services provide insufficient direction of sanitation. The inadequate municipal fleet is used to a considerable extent for unrelated haulage. In a number of cities, including Minsk and Yerevan, nonmunicipal carting services are expanding, and rates are excessively high. The inadequate appropriations are not fully spent. Between 1932 and 1936, the number of horses fell from 16,500 to 9,000. The development of urban sewerage is seriously lagging: although the number of cities with sewers has doubled, their sewerage systems remain incomplete.

In the third five-year plan, the first priority must be to ensure proper use of the existing material resources. The existing form of sanitation is outdated. Strengthening the material base will make it possible to address and resolve the question of municipal sanitation. Preparations must be made in 1938 to introduce municipal sanitation in seven cities. It has already been introduced in Baku, but in Kharkov only in two districts. Unless its introduction is supported by appropriate targets for 1938, the undertaking will fail. Introducing municipal sanitation will require thorough planning of every aspect of refuse-disposal operations.

According to the All-Union State Sanitary Inspectorate and the Academy of Municipal Services, sanitation under the third five-year plan is envisaged as follows. Cities are divided into four groups. Group I includes capital cities, resorts of all-Union importance, and major new developments, with 100% mechanization and advanced methods of waste treatment. Group II comprises cities with populations above 300,000, with 75% mechanization of transport. Group III includes cities with populations from 50,000 to 300,000, with 40% mechanization. The remaining cities constitute Group IV.

In the first three groups, a municipal sanitation system should be introduced; in Group IV, sanitation services would be provided in the usual manner, under contracts or upon request. Expenditure on sanitation during the Third Five-Year Plan is projected at approximately 400 million rubles. To put this capital investment to use, a production base and a design center must be established within the People’s Commissariat of Municipal Services of the RSFSR, with research institutes brought into the work. Sanitation projects must be carried through, and the training of the necessary sanitary and technical personnel intensified.

V. A. Gorbov (VGSI) reported on the tasks of the State Sanitary Inspectorate in the sanitation of populated areas. Comrade Gorbov noted that municipal service authorities do not pay sanitation the attention it deserves and that it is not included in urban reconstruction plans. For example, appropriations for urban sanitation in Georgia accounted for 0.6% of total capital investment in 1933 and 0.4% in 1936. Sabotage has been uncovered in sanitation work. Sanitation planning is abysmally poor. Cities report exceeding their targets by 150–270%, yet epidemics are not declining. The targets are set too low. This points to an extremely low level of technical competence among municipal service workers. Such practices result in severe contamination of urban soils. The reconstruction of sanitation services in populated areas must become a central concern of municipal service workers and sanitary inspectors. Gastrointestinal diseases cannot be eliminated through special anti-epidemic measures without improving the infrastructure of our cities. Waterborne epidemics have receded in recent years, so greater emphasis must now be placed on the sanitary protection of soil. The gap between the construction of water supply and sewerage systems persists. In cities with complete sewerage systems, the incidence of typhoid fever has fallen sharply, whereas it remains high in cities with inadequate sewerage. Sanitation appropriations should be allocated in accordance with epidemiological indicators. In particular, serious attention must be given to sanitation at health resorts and medical and preventive care institutions. To bring about a decisive improvement in sanitation, a municipal system must be introduced in the near future, accompanied by legislation regulating its implementation. Special attention must be paid to combating flies. From this standpoint, biothermal methods of rendering refuse harmless are particularly recommended: the chamber method, improved dumps where waste is covered with earth, composting, use in greenhouses, and so forth.

Sewage disposal fields may be used, subject to sanitary requirements, where other, more advanced methods cannot be used for some reason. Such fields often serve as breeding grounds for flies. The extension of sewerage systems in cities must be vigorously promoted; where sewerage exists, discharge stations should be established.

Comrade Gorbov also reported on Mosoblproekt’s work in preparing sanitation projects.

A developed municipal sanitation system requires projects to be prepared in advance. Sanitation projects are designed by Mosoblproekt, the Institute of Municipal Economy in Rostov-on-Don, Giprogorod in Ukraine, the All-Ukrainian Institute of Municipal Hygiene, and the Leningrad Institute of Municipal Economy. Sanitation projects have many shortcomings. The quantity and composition of waste are not studied beforehand. Nor are sanitary and hydrogeological surveys of cities carried out. There are almost no specialist design personnel. The machinery recommended in the projects has not been tested in practice. Completed projects lie unused for years and are scarcely put into practice. The speaker recommends a framework for drawing up projects. Among other things, Comrade Gorbov noted that he had become convinced that it was impossible to make cesspits completely impermeable; in Kursk, for example, removing the liquid waste if this measure were implemented would require enormous expenditure.

Thirty-four people spoke on the reports. The main propositions of the VGSI report were supported unanimously. Representatives of several institutes objected to the so-called improved dumps. The question of these dumps and of refuse disposal fields was debated with great passion, somewhat diverting attention from the broader major sanitation tasks that must be resolved during the Third Five-Year Plan. Many noted the poor preparation of the conference, both in its organization—the absence of Stakhanovites, representatives of the militia and the special inspectorate, the failure to familiarize delegates with the report topics in advance, and the absence of representatives of the People’s Commissariat of Municipal Services—and, especially, in the insufficiently concrete nature of the VSKKh report and, to some extent, the VGSI report. Speakers emphasized the need for more thorough preparation of concrete plans for the proper expenditure of the 400 million rubles appropriated. In particular, they pointed out that the question of machinery production had not been addressed at all and that the proposed plan for developing a specialized industry would not provide for the manufacture of the planned number of machines. All speakers noted the People’s Commissariat of Municipal Services’ lack of concern for sanitation, the reduction in sanitation appropriations, the absence of even minimal oversight of work in localities, and the complete absence of [[unclear: word continues on next page]].

…a satisfactory effect even in cases where substantial funds were spent, and so on.

Senior representatives of the People’s Commissariat of Municipal Services of the RSFSR were forced to acknowledge that the commissariat’s management had indeed been unsatisfactory. In some cases this had led to very serious consequences. For example, municipal services had nowhere been provided with land reserves. The work of factories producing tank trucks had not been monitored, resulting in a large discrepancy between the number of vehicles received for conversion and the number of tank trucks produced. The commissariat considers the concentration of mechanized vehicles in Moscow, Leningrad, and other major centers appropriate: there are about 4,000 centers in the USSR, including district centers, and an even distribution would disperse mechanized equipment and produce no tangible results. Sewerage should be expanded, especially in large cities. The RSFSR People’s Commissariat of Municipal Services plans to introduce comprehensive sanitation services in 50 cities, including the construction of disposal stations and garages and the provision of mechanized vehicles; in 100 cities it plans to introduce tank trucks and street-watering vehicles and augment horse-drawn fleets. The equipment being introduced comprises 350 street-watering vehicles, excluding Moscow and Leningrad, 2,825 tank trucks, and up to 2,000 refuse trucks; 7,000 horses are also being added. Project preparation must be intensified, but the projects themselves should be simplified.

In his concluding remarks, Comrade Gorbov again emphasized that the preparation of sanitation plans must be expanded in all 11 republics, while the work must also be placed on an orderly footing.

Comrade Syritsky reported on the state of street cleaning in Moscow. The street-cleaning trust was established only six months ago. The great width of the roadways and the intensity of street traffic—there are 28,000 automobiles in Moscow—make mechanized cleaning necessary. The large area of unpaved roadways, construction of the metro, reconstruction of roadways, and construction of buildings and municipal facilities complicate cleaning operations. The street-cleaning trust and its 23 district offices clean 5,300,000 m² of roadway, of which 3.5 million m² have improved paving. As of May 1, 1937, the trust had 1,007 machines at its disposal, including 265 transport vehicles and tractors, 38 street-washing and watering vehicles, 118 snow loaders, and so on. Cleaning is carried out by 26 operational crews. There are two garages for the equipment. The trust has no shortage of personnel. It employs 2,000 people in all, including more than 100 with specialized training—engineers and technicians—and 450 drivers, among others, but it has no machinery specialists. It also lacks a substantial production base and design specialists. This area, too, has not escaped sabotage. Because of the commissariat’s inaction, the design of new machines is proceeding in a highly inconsistent manner. Comrade Syritsky described individual machines and mechanisms and stated that the commissariat should devote close attention to design in order to introduce mechanization throughout the Union and train personnel for the task.

Comrade Leiman reported on the state of sanitation at residential properties in Moscow. Despite major achievements in household sanitation and substantial assistance from Comrade Khrushchev, the trust had not made sufficient use of the opportunities available to it or adequately organized the work. The trust’s organizational structure is wholly unsatisfactory: its 23 district offices are subordinate to it neither operationally nor financially, so vehicles are allocated improperly. The trust has 189 tank trucks and 133 flatbed trucks, which are controlled by the district offices. The flatbed trucks lack special bodies and do not provide sanitary conditions for transporting waste. The collection and storage of waste at residential properties are unsatisfactory: cesspools leak, and food scraps are poured into the refuse, making it wet. The question of separate collection of salvageable materials and refuse has not been resolved. Courtyards are in poor condition. Our sanitary inspectors still have much work to do here. The trust could remove all the sewage and excreta with its own vehicles, yet it fulfilled only about 50% of the plan. This is explained by the fact that the housing cooperatives do not place orders. Their debt to the trust exceeds 2.5 million rubles. The 1937 plan calls for doubling the removal of sewage, excreta, and refuse, but even this will not meet the city’s sanitary needs. There is no system and no mandatory removal of sewage and waste from residential properties. Refuse treatment is inadequately organized. Only now are improved dumps being established and the refuse incineration plant being put in order. The sorting of salvageable materials has been organized. The trust’s five disposal stations are insufficiently mechanized. Suitable vehicles are being designed to remove thick sewage. In 1936, 26 public toilets of an improved type were built; these are pay facilities where visitors are provided with clothes brushes, thread, needles, cologne, and so on. In 1937, two mobile toilets were built that can be placed over any inspection manhole. The trust also undertakes floor polishing and window cleaning.

The trust is beginning to develop a comprehensive city sanitation plan with the participation of specialists.

During the third five-year plan, it is proposed to switch to municipal sanitation services, replace refuse boxes with metal refuse containers, and organize refuse collection…

by rail, tram, and water transport. The design and manufacture of machines and equipment are in a very poor state; this work must be fundamentally reorganized. The Moscow trust believes that the time is fully ripe for a transition to municipal sanitation services.

Comrade Kostromin presented a report on the state of sanitation services in Leningrad.

Before the Revolution, Leningrad had no mechanized transport for sanitation whatsoever. Refuse and sewage were taken to dumps that impaired the city’s sanitary condition. The dumps have now been replaced by sewage farms; sewage and refuse are no longer dumped, but are put to use and rendered harmless in the process. In summer, sewage is taken out to sea on barges. The Vasileostrovskaya refuse incineration plant has been restored. A new rendering plant has been built to process animal carcasses and remains. Special vehicles have been designed and put into use for transporting sewage and for watering and cleaning streets; horse-drawn transport and manual labor are gradually being replaced by machinery. The trust has equipped a repair and engineering workshop. Over the past four years (1933–1936), approximately 10 million rubles have been invested in sanitation. Municipal cleaning services cover only 25% of the paved area, and manual cleaning methods predominate. The trust’s transport fleet meets only 15–20% of the city’s refuse removal needs. The network of public toilets is inadequate. The principal causes have been: (a) unsatisfactory organization and lack of planning; (b) technical backwardness and limited mechanization; and (c) the failure of housing cooperatives and other organizations to appreciate the importance of the daily struggle for cleanliness, together with diminished attention to sanitation on the part of governing bodies. For 1937, plans call for investing 8 million rubles in sanitation, increasing the number of transport vehicles to 300, and building three new depots. The trust has also set itself the task of achieving complete utilization of refuse. A distinctive feature of Leningrad is the presence of cesspits in buildings connected to domestic sewer networks. Of these 50,000 cesspits, the liquid portion overflows through special pipes into the rivers; until now, the trust has removed the sediment in sealed trucks filled by means of ladles. A Schmerling-type vehicle is now available, with which the sediment will be pumped out. In 1938, these vehicles will serve all of Leningrad. Until 1937, sanitation work was carried out on request; the council has now granted the trust a monopoly on the systematic cleaning of residential properties. A switch to a container system is planned for 1938, without which motor transport operations are unprofitable. The vehicles supplied by the Promet factory are of unsatisfactory quality: four of the latest batch of eight were rejected. By the end of the year, the trust will have 10 container trucks, which are especially convenient for housing cooperatives with large populations; there is also a refuse vehicle with a movable floor and compactor, and, finally, vehicles with enclosed bodies will be introduced. In winter, sewage in Leningrad is discharged onto sewage farms, which are plowed by tractors in spring and yield good harvests. Refuse is also placed in compost heaps on the sewage farms. Construction debris is used for road building. Refuse incineration at the Vasileostrovskaya plant costs 12–15 rubles per ton. In 1938 Leningrad will have machines and equipment for street cleaning. Roadways are treated with calcium chloride and oil emulsion to suppress dust. The third Five-Year Plan envisages complete mechanization of transport, complete removal of accumulated refuse of all kinds from the city, and gradual mechanization of street cleaning. The lack of policy guidance hampers this work. There is no exchange of experience.

Of great interest was the report by engineer Lvovich, “On the Use of Municipal Sanitation Resources for Chemical Defense.”

The speaker divided the task into two parts: (a) the suitability of sanitation vehicles and equipment for collecting and removing street sweepings, snow, and refuse contaminated with toxic agents; and (b) special equipment for vehicles to enable their use for defense purposes. He explained that the entire municipal sanitation system could readily be used in both of these ways. Sewage farms, refuse incineration plants, and rendering plants are particularly important in this respect. In conclusion, the speaker proposed that the People’s Commissariat of Municipal Services issue specific instructions to local authorities to develop sanitation services with their use for defense purposes in mind.

Engineer Nikitin (Moscow) presented a report entitled “Recent Developments in Foreign Sanitation Technology.”

Delegates were shown the machinery and installations of the Leningrad sanitation trust.

Comrade Arkhipov (Leningrad) noted that the sewage farms were far from being in exemplary sanitary condition: there were piles of refuse that had not been plowed under and masses of flies; dormitories were located on the farms themselves, and there was a smell of rotting refuse. The platforms for loading sewage onto barges were heavily contaminated with feces, and transport was spreading fecal contamination. The rendering plant, although not without defects, was incomparably better than Moscow’s. It was especially gratifying to see the steady development of occupational safety and personal hygiene measures for workers—the provision of clean linen and good showers—as well as the provision of sufficient bright rooms for instruction and laboratory research. The trust’s workshops are

a major achievement. They fully ensure not only the timely repair of vehicles and machinery but also make it possible to refit the machines. The demonstration of the machines confirmed this. Leningrad’s relatively small vehicle fleet stands out for the good appearance of its machines. The demonstration of watering vehicles for use as fire engines and to create a water curtain against chemical warfare agents was highly convincing evidence of how much can be achieved with initiative and perseverance. Also of interest is a Soviet-made Schmerling-type machine, which unfortunately had not been tested. The brush sweeper with water spray, as in Moscow, leaves dry patches and does not remove accumulations of dirt everywhere.

One day of the conference was devoted to reports from institutes.

On behalf of the Ukrainian Central Institute of Municipal Hygiene, Comrade Zhabotinsky gave a report on the tasks of scientific research in sanitation; on behalf of the Central Institute of Municipal Hygiene and Sanitation, Comrade Vinokurov gave a report on the sanitary condition of Moscow’s soil; Comrade Akopyan (Yerevan) reported on six years of work with the Beccari chamber. As a result of this work, specialists became convinced that the chambers could be located near residential districts and that not all salvageable material decomposes in the chamber.

Professor Babayants reported the results of the Leningrad Institute of Municipal Economy’s work in recent years; a total of 18 research studies had been completed.

Comrade Vinogradov (Moscow, VGSI laboratory) reported the results of a study of the Beccari chamber.

What overall assessment, then, can be made of the First All-Union Conference on Sanitation?

Judging by the number of people who signed up to speak, the character of their remarks, filled with lively and sharp criticism, and finally the structure of the reports themselves, which emphasized weaknesses in the work, the conference had the character of a meeting of active workers. In each section, no more than 40% of those who had signed up managed to speak. Almost all contributions were specific in character.

Mutual criticism by sanitation workers—from operating agencies, the State Sanitary Inspectorate, and research institutions—brought practical clarity to many aspects of sanitation. Specific questions were raised about the need to ensure that substantial sanitation appropriations could be put to use by providing machinery, construction, and personnel. The conference highlighted the inadequate leadership of the People’s Commissariats of Municipal Economy (NKKH) and their inaction in the principal areas of sanitation, their lack of contact with local agencies, and their failure to supervise local work and expenditure or to oversee industry.

The conference came out firmly in favor of introducing municipal sanitation services as soon as possible. It emphasized the need to mechanize sanitation, especially street cleaning. Shortcomings were also noted in the work of the State Sanitary Inspectorate, which underestimated its own organizing role and importance. It was rightly pointed out that sanitary supervision must be established over the condition of residential courtyards and grounds, which determine the sanitary condition of dwellings and streets. The State Sanitary Inspectorate was also found to have underestimated the sanitary importance of street cleaning.

The exchange of experience made clear that the conference could not recommend any particular system for rendering solid waste harmless. Sharp disagreements emerged in this field. At the conference, all methods were subjected only to severe criticism. No answer was given to this problem, and an answer is needed. This requires not only a clear sense of purpose, mutual understanding, and coordination of all measures and actions by both municipal authorities and the sanitary inspectorate, but also the most urgent selection of one of the most appropriate sanitation methods. Life does not wait, and the demands of socialist construction and the reconstruction of populated places must not be held up by questions left unresolved at the conference.