642MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENTThe most recent comprehensive document produced by the
federal government characterizes the materials commonly
referred to as “municipal solid waste” (“MSW”) as follows:
“... residential solid waste, with some contribution
from commercial, institutional and industrial sources. In
some areas, nonresidential wastes are managed separately,
largely because industrial and some commercial sources
produce relatively uniform waste in large quantities, which
makes them more suitable for alternate disposal techniques
or recycling. Hazardous wastes, as defined by Federal and
State regulation, generally are managed outside the munici-
pal solid waste stream. Exceptions are household hazardous
wastes and hazardous wastes generated in very small quan-
tities, which are often placed in the municipal solid waste
stream by the generator.”^1
One of the most significant developments in municipal
solid waste is the growing acceptance by citizens, all levels
of government, and industries of a new overall philosophy
concerning the management options available to address the
problem of increased waste generation in the face of ever-
decreasing land disposal sites. This philosophy is commonly
known as “integrated waste management” and involves the
reliance upon a hierarchy of options from most desirable to
least desirable. The options are as follows:Source reduction, limitation of the amount and/or
toxicity of waste produced
Recycling, reuse of materials
Incineration, thermal reduction
Sanitary landfill, land disposalWhile this hierarchy is little more than a common sense
approach to municipal solid waste problems and the unit
operations represented are not new, emphasis on the source
reduction and recycling options as preferred represents a pro-
found shift in attitudes toward municipal waste management.
The traditional perspective that generators could produce dis-
cards without limit and depend on technological approaches
to mitigate such wastes and any associated effects of treat-
ment is no longer acceptable. This approach is not unique
to the solid waste area but is a part of federal and state “pol-
lution prevention” strategies, which emphasize avoidance of
all types of pollution as preferable to “end of pipe” and other
traditional methods of environmental regulation.LEGISLATIONIn 1984, amendments were made to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (“RCRA”), the existing federal
legislation covering solid waste management. Although the
majority of these amendments were concerned with the
regulation of hazardous waste as were the original RCRA
mandates, some changes and additions were made to those
provisions which were directed at nonhazardous waste.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)
was directed to determine whether the existing criteria for
land disposal of waste previously promulgated pursuant to
Sections 1008(a) and 4004 of RCRA are adequate to protect
human health and the environment from groundwater con-
tamination and whether additional authorities are needed to
enforce them. In addition, EPA must revise the criteria for
those facilities which may receive hazardous household or
small quantity generator waste. Furthermore, States were
given three years to develop a program to ensure that munici-
pal facilities met the existing criteria and the revised crite-
ria when they are promulgated. Although enforcement is
still largely a state matter, EPA is empowered, though not
required, to enforce the criteria if states fail to comply with
their obligations. As of this writing, revised criteria have been
proposed but not yet adopted.^2
Perhaps the most significant aspects of the federal law
and its implementation involve initiatives with legislative
roots in the original RCRA legislation which had historically
received less attention than the Act’s mandate to establish a
hazardous waste management regulatory system. EPA has
begun pursuing a number of activities such as conservation
of virgin materials through guidelines establishing revised
product specifications and similar initiatives.
State legislation has also witnessed a marked shift toward
more conservation-oriented management schemes as well as
stricter standards for processing and land disposal facilities.
For example, at least twenty-four states have laws mandating
the use of recovered materials in procurement processes. As
of this writing, nine states had legislation requiring deposits
on beverage containers and four states had mandatory recy-
cling laws covering a wide range of materials. The scope of
these new legislative initiatives and the myriad of options
and alternatives they entail is beyond the purview of this
analysis. What is apparent, however, is that source reduction
and recycling represent an important part of modern waste
management systems.C013_002_r03.indd 642C013_002_r03.indd 642 11/18/2005 2:27:17 PM11/18/2005 2:27:17 PM