Integrated Solid Waste Management in the United States

Abstract

In this editorial, we examine the meaning of integrated solid waste management, discuss its application in practice, and identify areas where both technological and regulatory development are needed. Let us recognize that like water and wastewater treatment, solid waste must be managed by virtually every community to protect human health and the environment. The U.S. EPA ~2002! defines municipal solid waste ~MSW! to include waste generated in the residential, commercial, and institutional sectors. Of the 232 million tons generated in 2000, approximately 55.4% was disposed of in landfills, 23% was recovered for recycling, 7.1% was recovered for composting ~primarily yard waste!, and 14.5% was combusted in waste-to-energy facilities. In addition to MSW, many other nonhazardous wastes are managed in these same facilities, including construction and demolition ~C&D! waste, water and wastewater treatment plant sludges, and nonhazardous industrial wastes ranging from foodprocessing wastes to foundry sands. We often find that the best way to analyze waste management is to understand how the money flows. For waste generated in the residential and institutional sectors, the cost of solid waste management is typically borne by residents through a unit of government, which means that the costs for collection, recycling, composting, combustion, and disposal are constantly competing for always scarce tax revenue. MSW management may also be funded through user fees. Some have advocated the implementation of ‘‘pay as you throw’’ ~PAYT! systems, in which waste generators are charged for refuse collection in proportion to the volume discarded. Conceptually, this should encourage people to reduce waste generation and to recycle wherever possible. The implementation of such systems is increasing in the United States. Of course, PAYT is standard practice for commercial waste generators. MSW is frequently managed by a combination of public and private entities. The local government’s responsibility for protection of public health and the local environment is cost-effectively discharged through public-private partnerships. Thus, the waste management infrastructure consists of numerous public-private partnerships that together are charged with protecting human health and the environment in a cost-effective manner. The EPA identified a hierarchy for waste management in which source reduction is considered to be most favorable, followed by recycling, treatment, and ultimately landfill disposal. While seemingly intuitive, we suggest that this hierarchy is most useful when both economic feasibility and environmental sustain-