Readings on solid waste management and resource recovery


Material Information

Readings on solid waste management and resource recovery
Series Title:
Serial no. 94-Y
Physical Description:
xii, 196 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Library of Congress -- Congressional Research Service
Reisch, Mark E. Anthony ( comp )
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on Science and Technology. -- Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere
Library of Congress -- Congressional Research Service
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication:
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Recycling (Waste, etc.) -- United States   ( lcsh )
Resource recovery facilities -- United States   ( lcsh )
Refuse and refuse disposal -- United States   ( lcsh )
Recycling (Waste, etc.)   ( lcsh )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session ; compiled by Mark E. Anthony Reisch ; Congressional Research Service Library of Congress ... April 1976.
General Note:
At head of title: Committee print.
General Note:
"Serial Y"

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 025790224
oclc - 02375124
lccn - 76601811 //r852
lcc - TD788 .R4
System ID:

Full Text














fie t


APRIL 1976

Printed -for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology


OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas, Chairman KEN HECHLER, West Virginia CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio
DON FUQUA, Florida JOHN JARMAN, Oklahoma
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida
MIKE McCORMACK, Washington BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California PHILIP H. HAYES, Indiana TOM HARKIN, Iowa JIM LLOYD, California JEROME A. AMBRO, New York CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut MICHAEL T. BLOUIN, Iowa TIM L. HALL, Illinois ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado JOHN L. SWIGERT, Jr., Executive Director HAROLD A. GOULD, Deputy Director PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Coun8el JAMES E. WILSON, Technical Consultant J. THOMAS RATCHFORD, science Consultant JOHN D. HOLMFELD, Science Consultant RALPH N. READ, Technical Consultant ROBERT C. KETCHAM, Counsel REGINA A. DAVIS, Clerk MICHAEL A. SUPERATA, Minority Counsel

GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California, Chairman
KEN HECHLER, West Virginia MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan
MIKE McCORMACK, Washington LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas
DALE MILFORD, Texas GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania


House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology March 30, 1976

Honorable Olin E. Teague Chairman, Committee on Science
and Technology
U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am transmitting herewith an annotated literature compilation dealing with solid waste and energy and resource recovery from solid waste. This will be used as a background document for our upcoming hearings on legislation on this subject which is now before our Committee.

I commend the Report to you and all Members of the Committee.


Geor E. Brown, Jr. Chairman, Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere


I OP4 The Library of Congress

Congressional Research Service

Washington, D.C. 20540

March 30, 1976


The Honorable George E. Brown U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. Dear Congressman Brown:

In response to your request to provide background for hearings, we have prepared the following collection of "Readings on Solid Waste Manage ment and Resource Recovery. 11

The first two chapters focus on the magnitude of the solid waste problem, and review existing legislation. Programs of the Federal government are outlined in Chapter HI, followed by a look at the technical and institutional obstacles to resource recovery in the fourth and fifth sections. The final chapter examines ongoing areas of research, and touches on the problems of hazardous wastes and sewage sludge.

The compiler was Mark E. Anthony 4eisch of the Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.


Norman etan Acting Director, CRS


Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013.

V o 1 The Lirary of Congress

do Congressional Research Service
Washington, D.C. 20540


Prepared by the Mark E. Anthony Reisch, Analyst Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division Congressional Research Service Library of Congress

At the request of the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere
of the Committee on Science and Technology U. S. House of Representatives




SUMMARY ..................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 13

1. Country Trash Profiles
From Richard N. Farmer, Farmer's Law: Junk in a World
of Affluence. New York.- Stein and Day, I .............. 15

2. The Quantity and Composition of Post-Consumer Solid Waste
From U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Third Report to
Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction. WasFington:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975 ..................... 16

3. The Benefits of Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction
From U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Third Repoyt to
Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction. Washington:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975 ..................... 22


4. A Brief Description of Existing Legislation.
From U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Environmental Protection Affairs of the Ninety-Third
Congress. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1975 .................................................. 29

5. The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as Amended by the Resource ReCovery Act of 1970 ...................................... 31


6. EPA's Solid Waste Management Strategy
From Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Solid
Waste Management Strategy. Washington: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1974 .................................. 49

7. Summary of OSWMP Activities in Fiscal Year 1975
From H. Lanier Hickman, Jr., comp., Activities of the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Fiscal Year 1975: Annual
Report. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
I T_ ................................................. 67





8. Bureau of Mines Resource Recovery Activities
From U.S. House of Representatives, Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Waste Control
Act of 1975, Hearings, April 8-l7, 1975.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1975 ...................... **.* ................. 71

IV. RESOURCE RECOVERY: Potentials and Problems

9. Quantity of Energy Potentially Recoverable
From U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Third Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and
Wa-ste Reduction. Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1975 ~ ~........................ ... 95

10. Recycled Materials Markets: February 1975
By Stephen A. Lingle. Cincinnati: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. (EPA/530/SW-149). ... ..... 100

11. The Emerging Resource Recovery Industry
"The Dollars Mount Up for Resource Recovery,"
Business Week, Augustl18, 1975................10

12. Description of Six EPA-Supported Resource Recovery
Technology Demonstrations
From U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Third Report
to Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975 .. ...... 110

13. Problems with the St. Louis Demonstration
"Power from Trash: A Solution with Problems,"
Business Week, Februaryl16, 1976 .............. 120

14. The Delaware Project: GAO's Questions and EPA's Reply
From U.S. General Accounting Office, Using Solid Waste
to Conserve Resources and to Create Energy. Washington:
U.S. General Accounting Office, 1975........... 121

15. Electricity from Trash: the CPU-400 Gas Turbine
From U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commnerce, Solid Waste Disposal Act Extension1974, Hearings, March 27-28, 1974. Washington: U.S.
G-overnment Printing Office, 1974 ................12

16. The Nashville Project
"Nashville Points the Way," Catalyst, Vol. 4, no. 4,




11. Economic and Technical Problems in Nashville
"Nashville's Trash Crisis," Business Week,
February 23, 1976 ..... .....................135

18. Methane Gas from Landfills
"Tapping Garbage for Pipeline Gas," Chemical Week, July
9, 1975.... #.........................................136

19. "Methane Gas Recovery from Sanitary Landfills A
Promising Energy Source"..
From Compilation of Papersfrom Third National Congress: Waste Management Technology and Resour-ce Recovery, cosponsored by National Solid Wastes Management Association
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [Washington]
National Solid Wastes Management Association, 1975 .......137

20. An Alternative to High Technology Resource Recovery Systems
Neil N. Seidman, "High Technology Recycling Mainly
Benefits Polluters," Environment Action Bulletin,
February 7, 1976 ..... .. .. . ... . . ... .. .. . 144


21. Federal Procurement of Products Containing Recycled
From U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Second Report
to Congress: Resource Recovery and Source Reduction.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974......... 149

22. Tax Benefits for Virgin Materials
From U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Second Report
to Congress: Resource Recovery and Source Reuction.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,-1974......... 154

23. Constraints to Energy Recovery System Implementation
From U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Third Report to
Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduc'tion.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1915 ........ 161

24. "Municipal Solid Waste Facilities ... Financing Alternatives"
By Robert H. Aldrich and Neil A. Eisner, NCRR Bulletin,
Spring 1975 ................ .. .. ............. ... 165

25. "Tax-Exempt Financing for Recovery Facilities"
By Eugene Wingerter, NCRR Bulletin, Fall 1975 ............. 170




26. Saugus, Massachusetts Plant Financed by Tax-Exempt
Revenue Bonds
Lindley B. Richert, "Garbage-to-Energy Conversion Fuels Bond-Section Interest," Wall Street Jourha-l,,
August 11, 1975 ........................... ... 172


27. "The Views of the Academic Community on Solid Waste
Management Research Priorities"
From Compilation of Papers from Third National Congress:
Waste Management Technology and Resource Recovery, cosponsored U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
[Washington?] National Solid Wastes Management
Association, 1975 ...................................... 175

28. "Universities Attack Solid Waste ... Research in Recovery"
By-David Gordon Wilson, NCRR Bulletin, Fall 1974 .......... 177

29. "Reclamation of Energy from Domestic Refuse: Anaerobic
Digestion Processes"
From Compilation of Papers from Third National Congress:
Waste Management Technology and Resource Recovery, cosponsored U.S. Environment Protection Agency.
[Washington?] National Solid Wastes Management
Association, 1975 ...................................... 182

30. "Fermentation Process ... A Survey"
NCRR Bulletin, Winter 1975 .............................. 188

31. EPA Recommends Regulation of Hazardous Wastes
From U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress: Disposal of Hazardous Wastes. Washington:
U.S. Government Printing Office, lT74 ........ ........... 191

32. Sewage Sludge Disposal Alternatives
"Containing the Flow of Sewage Sludge," Environmental
Science & Technology, August 1974 ........................ 195


One would be hard put to think of an economic activity so efficient that it generated no residue of any kind. And if one does come up with such an activity -- say, a teacher speaking to his students, or a musician performing for his audience -- it must be narrowly defined, and, in all probability, the support systems of the teacher, the musician, and their congregations must be ignored. The teacher must speak with no notes, the musician perform with instruments having a long life -expectancy. Needless to say, the audience cannot be permitted to litter, not even their ticket stubs. In short, the economic activity must be of short duration and have few people involved.

Societies do not grow this way; civilizations do not rise without waste products. (Even more so are they incapable of declining without creating trash. )

Given the fact of solid wastes, then, society's question must be what to do with them. Primitive communities use next to everything. There is little they produce that cannot be burned for heat or plowed into the ground when it has no more use. If a knife blade is brought in from afar, it will be honed and honed again until only its rust is left to be returned to the earth.

We do not live in such a place.

As citizens of the most technologically advanced nation in history, we import goods and materials from every corner of our world. The United States is so wealthy that our discards are seized by other peoples. Scrap iron and waste paper are shipped from our ports to become the inputs of industries thousands of miles away. We think our land so rich that we export sewage sludge to become fertilizer on other continents.




In recent years this attitude has been changing. Some observers have named Earth Day as the turning point; others cite the oil embargo of the winter of 1973-74. One event brought the issue to the publics consciousness, the other emphasized the need for alternative fuel sources, and permanently changed the economics of energy recovery from solid waste. During the same period pilot plants and demonstration projects were showing that the technology for reclaiming materials and energy from trash existed, even if not quite perfected.

The first three chapters of this collection may be considered as basic background an the issue and on the Federal role. Chapter IV deals mainly with the technology and its problems, and Chapter V with the institutional constraints encountered in an economy oriented to virgin material use. The last chapter is on current research, hazardous wastes, and sewage sludge. For the reader who wishes to be selective in his approach the following summary will provide a guide.

The introductory selections of Chapter I take a statistical look at solid waste and discuss the benefits of resource recovery. The chart that is item 1 simply points out that the quantity of trash grows as economic development rises. The second selection presents data on and interpretation of the quantity and composition of solid wastes. For 1973 total post-consumer municipal wastes amounted to 135 million tons, a per capita rate of 3.5 pounds per day. Overall, only about 7 percent was recycled, and of this amount 93 percent was paper. It is projected that by 1990 municipal wastes will be generated at the rate of 225 million tons annually, and 26 percent (58 million tons) will be recovered. The projections are particularly uncertain due to present conditions of rising material and energy prices and changing international bargaining relationships.


Item 3, the benefits of resource recovery and waste reduction, discusses impacts on local waste management. the conservation of natural resources. and environmental protection. With municipal collection and disposal costs expected to double in the 1974-85 decade, alternative methods will be sought. Resource. recovery eases the pres ure on landfill sites by reducing the quantity of residue by as much as 95 percent, and it permits the closing of incinerators which, as a group, have a poor air pollutant control record.- dangers of leachate from open dumps and landfills contaminating ground and surface waters are likewise reduced. Increasing pressure on the world's natural resource base is already being felt and is anticipated to increase over time. The post-consumer waste stream could provide between 6 and I I percent of current annual U.S. production of various major metals, up to 20 percent of paper, and between I and 2 percent of energy requirements. This also has implications for the international balance of trade, and supply from foreign sources in the face of instances of nationalization and organization of cartels. Lastly, while it is difficult to quantify and analyze, the preservation and improvement of environmental quality represents a third set of problems for which resource recovery and waste reduction can contribute some measure of solution.

Chapter H describes the requirements, primarily research and development. of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. The text of the amended law appears as item 5.

The legislation gave the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Mines the prime Federal responsibility. Their programs are dealt with in Chapter III. Within EPA, the designated organization is the



Office of Solid Waste Management Programs (OSWMP), which issued its Solid Waste Management Strategy (item 6) in October, 1974. The strategy identifies the major issue as one of improper waste management, resulting in problems ranging from extreme health and environmental damages to resource wastage. The primary reason is that improper disposal is cheap compared to environentally acceptable practices. OSWMP's program has two goals, the first being environental protection, with particular emphasis on preparing for a hazardous waste regulatory role. It is anticipated that the States will play a large part, and a principal objective is to strengthen their ability to do so, both administratively and legislatively by establishing authority over the disposal of allwastes. The second goal is resource conservation, with particular attention to energy recovery from mixed urban wastes. Other objectives are to promote materials recovery, to conduct studies on source reduction, and to encourage the consumption of secondary materials through Federal procurement and other actions.

An excerpt from OSWMP's annual report for fiscal year 1975 is item 7. The Hazardous Waste Management Division is establishing a data base, and conducting major studies in 13 industry groupings to define quantitatively and qualitatively their hazardous waste streams. It is also developing the tools and capabilities to regulate hazardous wastes, and is assisting the States to dothe same. Major program elements of the Systems Management Division are technical assistance to municipalities, and research into land disposal and special wastes. During FY 1975 an increased effort was made at understanding the effects of disposing sewage sludge on land. The Resource Recovery Division manages five large demonstration pro-


jects, and conducts studies and analyses to determine means of increasing the demand for secondary materials. In addition, it is responsible for developing the guidelines on resource recovery mandated by law.

Next, thedirector of theBureau of Mines describes recent activities of his organization, including the development of two processes for materials recovery, one from incinerator residues, the other from raw refuse. The Bureau has also worked on better methods of processing junked autos. His testimony contains several interesting charts on quantities of new minerals required each year, amounts imported and exported, and their costs.

Chapter IV examines the potential for resource recovery and looks at several projects and the problems they have encountered. In the first selection (item 9) EPA estimates that 900 trillion Btu' s were available in the municipal refuse of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in 1973. This is equal to the amount of energy in 154 million barrels of oil; other equivalents are 10 percent of all the coal consumed by utilities in 1973, and 28 percent of the oil projected to be delivered through the Alaskan pipeline. Based on current plains, it is projected that by 1980 almost 30 cities and counties will be operating the equivalent of about thirty-six 1, 000 ton/day plants recovering 85 trillion Btu's per year. The agency notes that at present the only technologies that can be considered "commercially available" are the generation of steam in waterfall incinerators fueled solely by unprocessed wastes, and the use of prepared solid waste as a supplement to pulverized coal in electric utility boilers.

Item 10 reviews the markets for recycled materials during a recent period of severe fluctuation and discusses some of the market factors involved. The next piece could be described as a businessman's look at

68-863 0 76 2



the resource recovery industry. Problems encountered by the different companies marketing recovery systems are noted, and the positive side of the slow implementation of resource recovery is pointed out: a rash of cities selling reclaimed materials would glut the market and prices would fall drastically; and, with many of the systems unproven at full-scale, there would be failures that would not only be expensive, but would deter other cities considering resource recovery.

The technology and economics of six resource recovery demonstrations supported by EPA are described in item 12. The six demonstrations are

(1) the use of shredded, classified waste as a coal substitute in St. Louis;

(2) pyrolysis to produce a gaseous fuel for steam generation in Baltimore;

(3) pyrolysis to produce a liquid fuel in San Diego County; (4) the use of processed waste as a fuel oil substitute in Delaware; (5) the wet pulping of waste for materials recovery in Franklin, Ohio; and (6) the recovery of materials from incinerator residue in Lowell, Massachusetts. The Lowell project was cancelled when it was discovered that the incinerator could not meet air pollution standards without very expensive capital improvements.

The St. Louis demonstration, in particular, has received wide attention in the press and has been the model for a number of other cities contemplating similar projects. The Union Electric Co.. in whose boilers the waste was fired, subsequently announced plans to build additional processing facilities in order to use the entire waste output of the St. Louis metropolitan area. Problems have been encountered, however, with air pollution, ash removal, and possible health hazards as described in item 13.



The Delaware project has not yet been constructed, but it has already been the subject of controversy. At first rejected by EPA for a demonstration grant, and later approved, the project required a change in scope. The General Accounting Office questioned the usefulness of the demonstration. Their review of the facts and EPA's reply are presented in item 14.

The CPU-400 project is an innovative research and development effort that has encountered a number of technical problems. The waste is burned in a pressurized fluid bed incinerator, and the gases are used to turn a turbine which moves an electrical generator. Particles in the gases, however, eroded the blades of the turbine. The problem was to clean the gas without reducing the pressure to such an extent that it could not turn the turbine. An executive from the contracting Combustion Power Company discussed the difficulties in hearings held in March 1974 (item 15).

The next two articles present the bright and cloudy sides of the Nashville Thermal Transfer Corp. Established as a nonprofit corporation, it was financed by a bond issue and received no Federal assistance. Air pollution and other technical problems have caused financial predicaments both for the company and their private customers.

Items 18 and 19 deal with the recovery of methane gas from sanitary landfills. While this method offers no solution to the waste disposal problem of cities, its comparatively low cost makes it an attractive minor energy source. The methane, along with other gases and water, is produced naturally as the garbage in the landfill decomposes. Wells are drilled, and the gas is captured and purified. Projects in Palos Verdes, California, and Mountain View, California are described.



The last article in this chapter argues against the high technology systems like those reviewed above. If individual households spent 6 minutes a week separating their trash, the author states, a $100, 000 plant could do the job of a multi-million dollar facility.

The problems discussed in Chapter IV were primarily technological. Chapter V deals with obstacles in existing law and institutional arrangements, and the availability of capital. Item 21 considers the role that the Federal procurement process can play in creating demand for products containing recycled material. While the U. S. Government is a large consumer of many products, its purchases represent only a smanpercentage of national output. At least as important as the direct impact, though, is the fact that Federal procurement specifications are widely copied by State and local governments and some industries. Three Federal recycling programs are also reviewed: the General Services Administration's procurement of recycled paper, the army's tire retreading program, and the Joint Committee on Printing's use of secondary fibers in printing and publishing papers.

Item 22 is actually a continuation of the previous excerpt and deals with the tax benefits available to producers of virgin materials. Inasmuch as they do not apply to secondary materials industries they constitute a subsidyfor virgin materials. The tax benefits are depletion allowances, the ability to deduct from current income certain development costs (expensing of capital expenditures), capital gains treatment, and several foreign tax allowances. EPA conducted an analysis of virgin materials which compete with material that could be recycled from solid waste. Covered were timber, oil, gas, coal, iron ore, primary aluminum, and glass sand


for the year 1970. The tax benefits to these industries came to over $2 billion, of which $1. 8 billion was for petroleum and natural gas. The situation has changed completely since the passage of P. L. 94-12 in 1975, which repealed, with some exceptions, the depletion allowance on oil and gas.

Another institutional factor affected by recent legislation is the topic of discriminatory freight rates. Scrap materials are subject to higher, purportedly discriminatory, rates than virgin ores with which they compete. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act which was signed into law in February, 1976, should lead to an end to this problem. The new law calls for an investigation of the rate structure and establishes procedures for eliminating any unjust or unreasonable rate differentials between new and recycled materials.

Item 23 discusses several constraints to implementation of energy recovery systems. Technical and market uncertainties present a chicken and egg situation: risks exist because the systems have not operated successfully for long periods of time, but the risks will be reduced only after a number of cities and companies have taken a chance and accumulated operating data. Lack of information and failure to engage in adequate planning by municipalities is another difficulty because of the complicated nature of the endeavor and because so many of the variables are dependent on the local situation. And, there are a variety of State laws, such as those restricting contract length and requiring competitive bidding, that jeopardize resource recovery systems. In the last part of this piece EPA considers the availability of financing, and concludes that, while there may belsome difficulties, no major shortage of capital is anticipated.



The next two articles also deal with financing. The authors of number 24 are with a major investment bank and discuss alternative approaches, and risk-sharing options. Item 25 analyzes the recently revised Internal Revenue Service regulations permitting tax-exempt financing of solid waste management resource recovery facilities.

Finally, item 26 is a report from the Wall Street Journal on the bonds issued for the Saugus, Massachusetts plant that will generate and sell steam.

Two views from academia open Chapter VI. Item 27 recounts the areas in which university research in solid waste management is being carried out. Effects of land disposal, and particularly the leachate problem, have engendered a great deal of interest, as have the biological processes involving such things as methane and ethanol production. Two other areas mentioned are sludge disposal and the application of systems analysis to solid waste management. The author closes with a plea for support for the training of personnel. Item 28 concentrates on several projects directed at the recovery of consumer wastes. The author reports on cryogenic treatment of automobile tires, the separation of nonferrous scrap by induction. the hydrolysis of refuse to produce ethyl alcohol, and computer-based mechanical sorting of municipal solid waste.

The next piece is an excerpt of an article on anaerobic digestion. Like drilling wells in sanitary landfills, which was dealt with in Chapter IV, the product recovered is methane gas. The difference is that the natural degradation process is speeded up by controlling the temperature and other variables in a mechanical digester.

Article number 30 surveys several fermentation processes. Briefly described are: protein from bagasse by bacterial fermentation, production of fungal protein from cellulose, photodegradation of cellulose, fungal enzymes to produce glucose from waste cellulose, protein production using fungi fermentation, protein from alcohols, and growing yeast from solid waste.

From research, we switch to hazardous wastes in item 31. Section 212 of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 required that EPA prepare a comprehensive report to Congress on the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. The summary and conclusions of that report are presented in item 31, in which EPA recommends a regulatory program for their treatment and disposal. The States would implement the program subject to Federal standards in most cases.

The final selection is an article from Environmental Science & Technolooz which discusses the problems involved in disposing of sewage sludge and reviews the various methods employed.


(Excerpted from Richard N. Farter, Farmer's Law: Junk
in a World of Affluence. New Yorks Stein and Day, 1973.)

Introduction 21

Figure 1: Country Trash Profiles

Countries or Ares Per Capimt Observable Trash
GNP Per Yr.
South Sea Islands, under $50 Everything-nothing
Primitive, and remote gets used.
African tribes,
Desert nomads

Afghanistan, Senegal, $ 51-s 200 Nothing or very littleSudan, Tanganyika, everything gets used
India, Pakistan, for some purpose, often
Cambodia, Tunisia, in ingenious ways--autos
Bolivia, Jordan, totally stripped.
Nepal, Upper Volta,
Yemen, etc.

Argentina, Brazil, $201-$ 500 Low-grade materialMexico, Lebanon, broken bottles, cement
Morocco, Jamaica, fragments, occasional
Greece, Malaya, etc. tires (rare), leaking
plastic bottles, and
similar autos almost,
but not quite totally

Japan, Venezuela, $ 50141200 Beginnings of affluence:
Israel, Fimland, usable trash accumulates.
keland Bottles, cans, tires,
occasional abandoned
cars, etc.

West Germany, United Trash problems becomes
Kingdom, Switzerland, $120142500 a public issue: what to
Norway, Australia, do with it? Abandoned
France, etc. cars, throwaway containers,
paper as a key problem.



(Excerpted from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Third Report to Congress:- Resource Recovery and Waste Redu-ction. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.)


The Second Report to Congress (March 1974) indicated considerable improvement in our knowledge of both total quantity and composition of the nation's post-consumer solid waste stream. For the first time, estimates were presented detailing the composition of the 1971 waste stream both by material and by product type.2' -p. 3 The work done in the year since that report has not provided reasons to reject or significantly alter' the bases for the 1971 estimates. 3 4 They have been updated to 1973 and additional details developed on composition by product type, on recycling, and on projections of future trends.

Estimates for 1973
EPA's current estimates for U.S. post-consumer municipal waste for 1973, based on reported material flow statistics for 1973 and earlier years, are presented in Table 1. This table is organized in the same format as the original table for 1971 appearing in the last Report to Congress, with all figures updated to 1973 values. The same definitions and similar methods of calculation are used, so the 1973 data are directly comparable to the 1971 estimates.2 They are preliminary in the sense that they are based in part on industry statistics for 1973 that are still subject to revision by government and trade association sources. The following were the more significant changes between 1971 and 1973 (Table 2):

Total waste generation:
Total post-consumer municipal waste increased
by 10 million tons (8 percent) from 125 to 135
million tons.
Per capita generation increased from 3.3 to 3.5
pounds per day (6.3-percent growth).


A n ~ -1 I AA n V e

It. ~q~nqqq
.4 9

qpq IcO I I qq 4

o, qr 04 64 o c

r~q i0 i

ci IiI V; 4.0J:




(As-generated wet weight, in millions of tons)

Growth, Percent
Materials and products 1971 1973 1971.73 change

Material composition:
Paper 39.1 44.2 5.1 13.0
Qua 12.0 13.2 1.2 10.0
Metal 11.8 12.5 0.7 5.9
Ferrous (10.6) (11.0) 0.4 3.8
Aluminum ( 0.8) ( 1.0) 0.2 25.0
Other ( 0.4) ( 0.4) 0.0 6.0
Plastics 4.2 5.0 0.8 19.0
Rubber and leather 3.3 3.6 0.3 9.0
Textiles 1.8 1.9 0.1 5.5
Wood 4.6 4.9 0.3 6.5
Total nonfood product waste 76.9 85.4 8.5 11.1
Food waste 22.0 22.4 0.4 1.8
Total product waste 98.9 107.8 8.9 9.0
Yard waste 24.1 25.0 0.9 3.7
MisceUaneous inorganics 1.8 1.9 0.1 5.6
Total 124.8 134.8 10.0 8.0

Product composition:
Newspapers, books, magznes 10.3 11.3 1.0 9.7
Containers and packaging 41.7 46.9 5.2 12.5
Major household appliances 2.1 2.1 0.0 0.0
Furniture and furnishings 3.2 3.4 0.2 6.3
Clothing and footwear 1.2 1.3 0.1 8.3
Other products 18.4 20.5 2.1 11.4
Total nonfood product waste 76.9 85A 8.5 11.1
Food waste 22.0 22.4 0.4 1
Total product waste 98.9 107.8 8.9 9.0
Add: Yard ad mibe. inotguio 25.9 26.9 1.0 3.9
Total 124.8 134.8 10.0 8.0
1974. *Smith, F. A., and F. L. Smith, Office of Solid Wast Managment Pr ams, Resou Recovery Division. Data revised Dec.

tNet solid vamte disposal defined as net residual mateal after accounting for recycled materials diverted from waste stream.

Kinds of materials: Product categories:

a Total nonfood product wastes accounted for 0 Containers and packaging wastes increased by
most of the growth-8.5 million tons, or a 5.2 million tons (12.5 percent) and in 1973
11.1 -percent increase. constituted 55 percent of all nonfood product
Paper and paperboard wastes were up by 5.1 waste and 35 percent of total post-consumer
million tons (13 percent). waste. (In 1971 the correspmonding percentages
Glass up 1.2 million tons (10 percent). were 54 percent and 34 percent, respectively.)
Metals up 0.7 million tons (5.9 percent) 0 Waste newspapers, books, and magazines were
Plastics up 0.8 million tons (19 percent). up by 1.0 million tons (9.7 percent).
No major waste material decreased in tonnage. In interpreting these growth rates, it should be

noted that 1971 was not a very strong year for many



products, whereas 1973 was generally a boom year by Future Trend Projections
comparison. Therefore, the growth rates presented in EPA's most recent projections of waste generation
Table 2 should not be used as trends on which to base rates to 1990 are presented in Table 5. Unlike the future projections, either short-term, or long-term. simple extrapolations in last year's Report to ConReaders are also cautioned that data in this section gress, the new projections are based mainly on a relate to nationwide totals- they may prove to be very
detailed product-by-product analysis.' In addition, as inaccurate indicators of conditions in any given State with the 1973 estimates, an attempt has been made or local area. to project the quantities of waste that will be
A much more detailed accounting of product recycled or otherwise recovered as resources.
categories has been prepared for this report (Table 3). The projections are "baseline" figures in the sense This yields a considerably clearer picture of how the that they are based on an assumption of no new waste flows originate, which should be particularly intervention by the Federal Government into the solid useful in analyses of waste reduction and source waste management field via incentives for resource
separation at the national level. In addition, Table 3 recovery or waste reduction or new regulations on estimates the relationships between "gross discards" disposal of municipal solid waste. The future projec(total waste generation before recycling or disposal), tions do assume a continuation of average historical "material recycled" from post-consumer gross dis- growth rates for national income and gross national
cards, and "net waste disposed of" (final residual product, although not necessarily for individual
waste remaining after material recovery). Table 4 product categories. Basically, the projections for
provides similar estimates by material, rather than future years are based on the same type of material product, categories. flow analysis and historical data sources used to
It should be recognized that the quantities shown develop EPA's 1971 and 1973 estimates.
here as recycled include only post-consumer residen- Projection of future solid waste generation has
tial and commercial wastes recovered from the
product sources listed in- Table 3. They do not never been subject to greater uncertainties than under
include material recycled from "pre-ccrisurner" indus- present conditions of rising material and energy prices trial processing, fabricating, or converting operations and changing international bargaining relationships. It or from certain post-consumer sources such as dom- is still too early to judge the extent to which the volition or junk auto shredding. Thus, the recycling materials pricing structure has been permanently altered by the recent massive increases in fuel prices,
quantities and percentages shown in Tables 3 and 4 or whether this should significantly affect either the
will differ from other reported sources and estimates. total picture presented in Table 5 or the underlying This is the first time that comprehensive estimates of data components. post-consumer recycling have been developed for all
major materials. The current projection is that total gross discards
Two major conclusions regarding recycling in 1973 will increase quite significantly, up to 225 million can be drawn from Tables 3 and 4. The first is that tons by 1990. Resource recovery- including both very little of the post-consumer wastes (excluding recycling and energy conversion-is projected as inautomobiles) is currently recycled. Overall, only creasing quite dramatically, but it must be noted
about 7 percent of total waste or 10 percent of -that these figures -(especially those for 1985 and
nonfood product waste was diverted from disposal to 1990) represent the least certain numbers in the table recycling in 1973. The second conclusion is that most since they are based in part on projections of the of the recycling (93 percent of total tonnage) is number of future large-scale waste-processing installaaccounted for by paper products -principally old tions. Thus, these numbers should be taken with great
newspapers, office papers, and paperboard packaging. caution, as should the net waste figures derived from Of the total amount of paper discarded, 16.5 percent them. As a percent of gross discards, the baseline was recycled in 1973. For no other material does the recovery rate is projected to grow from about 7 recycled percentage amount to as much as 10 percent in 1973 to 17 percent in 1985 and 26 percent
percent. in 1990.




Material recycled Net waste disposed of
Gross. ...
Product category Gicrs
discards % of total % of nonfood
Quantity Percent Quantity waste product waste

Durable goods: 14,700 300 2 14,400 11 17
Major appliances 2,200 100 4 2,100 2 2
Furniture, furnishings 3,400 0 0 3,400 3 4
Rubber tires 2,000 200 10 1,800 1 2
Miscellaneous durables 7,100 0 0 7,100 5 8
Nondurable goods, exc. food: 27,930 3,770 13 24,160 18 28
Newspapers 10,400 2,450 24 7,950 6 9
Books, magasinei 3,720 330 9 3,390 3 4
Office paper 6,390 990 15 5,400 4 6
Tissue paper, inc. towels 2,320 0 0 2,320 2 3
Paper plat., cups 600 0 0 600 t 1
Other nonpackaging paper 1,300 0 0 1,300 1 2
Clothing, footwa 1,300 0 0 1300 1 2
Other misc. nondurabls 1,900 0 0 1,900 1 2
Containers and packaging: 52,270 5,330 10 46,940 35 55
Glass containers: 12,400 275 2 12,125 9 14
Ber, soft drink 6,100 190 3 5,910 4 7
Wine, liquor 1,970 25 1 1,945 1 2
Food and other 4,330 60 1 4,270 3 5
Stem es: 5,650 60 1 5,590 4 7
Bow, soft drink 1,550 15 1 1,535 1 2
Food 3,140 35 1 3,105 2 4
Other nonfood 960 10 1 950 1 1
Aluminum: 820 35 4 78 1 I
Beer, soft drinks 440 30 7 410 t t
Other1,0 50 1 2 45 t
AIUMlnumARfoil 330 4 1 330 t t
Paper, paperboard: 28,230 4,960 18 23,270 17 27
Corrugated 15,100 3,290 22 11,810 9 14
Other paperboard 6,925 1,045 15 5,880 4 7
Paper packgn 6,205 625 10 5,580 4 7
Plastics: 3,090 0 0 3,090 2 4
Plastic outalne 510 0 0 510 t 1
Other plastic paclagng 2,580 0 0 2,580 2 3
Wood packaIng 1,900 0 0 1,900 1 2
Other misc. packaging 180 0 0 180 t t
Total nonfood product wate 94,900 9,400 10 85,500 63 100
Add: Food waste 22,400 0 0 22,400 17 26
Yard waste 25,000 0 0 25,000 19 29
Misc. inorganic wastes 1,900 0 0 1,900 1 2
Total 144.200 9,400 7 134,800 100 158
*Smith, F.A., Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division. Nov. 1974.
tLeu than 0.5%.
t Includes all-aluminum cans and aluminum ends from nonaluminum containers.




Material recycledt Net waste disposed of
Material Groe
teg y discards % of total % of nonfood
Quantity Percent Quantity waste product waste

Paper 53.0 8.7 16.5 44.2 32.8 51.8
Glass 13.5 0.3 2.1 13.2 9.9 15.5
Mtal 12.7 0.20 1.6 12.5 9.3 14.6
PrFeurom 11.2 0.2 1.4 11.0 8.2 12.9
Aluminum 1.0 0.04 4.0 1.0 0.7 1.2
Other monfemous 0.4 0.0 0.0 OA 0.3 0.5
Plastics 5.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 37 5.9
Rubber 2.8 0.2 7.1 2.6 1.9 3.0
Leather 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 1.2
'Txtloes 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.4 2.2
W.od 4.9 0.0 0.0 4.9 3.6 5.7

Total nonfood product waste 94.2 9.4 9.9 85A 63.4 100.0

Food waste 22.4 0.0 0.0 22.4 16.6 26.2
Yad waste 25.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 18.5 29.3
Misc. oorgenic wastes 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 1A 2.2

Total 144.0 9.4 6.5 134.8 100.0 157.8
*Estimates by the Resource Recovery Division, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
tResource recovery in 1973 included only material recycling. Energy recovery accounted for neglgible amounts.


Estimated Projected
1971 1973 1980 1985 1990

Total gross discards:
MiBlon tons per year 133 144 175 201 225
Pounds per person per day 3.52 3.75 4.28 4.67 5.00
Les: remaoutces recovered:
Million tons per year 8 9 19 35 58
Pounds per person per day 0.21 0.23 0.46 0.81 1.29
Equals net waste disposed of:
Million tons per year 125 135 156 166 167
Pounds per persona per day 3.31 3.52 3.81 3.86 3.71
*Offoce of Solid Waste Management Programs, Resource Revey Division. Data revised Dec. 1974. Projections for 1980 to 1990 based in part on contract work by Midwest Resmarch Institute.

68=863 0 76 3



The amount of net waste is shown as growing at a It is expected that a majority of communities will
decreasing rate to 1985, and then essentially leveling experience increasing costs over the next 5 to 10 off as the increase in recovery equals the increment of years. These will be increases in "real" costs-Le., gross discards. increases over and above those expected due to
Even at this point, however, the nation still would general effects of inflation on wage rates and prices of be faced with disposing of an annual aggregate equipment and materials. These increases will have
post-consumer waste load about 30 million tons (23 two main causes: pollution controls and increased
percent) greater than at present. This increase is scarcity of available landfill sits.
projected to occur even with resource recovery Increased requirements for pollution control,
tonnage quadrupling by 1965 and increasing by more Iposed yqSttemad tregonalenvionmenalnprtlc
thansixold y 190.imposed by State and regional environmental protecthan sixfold by 1990. tion agencies in conjunction with Federal guidelines,
THE BENEFITS OF RESOURCE RECOVERY will impact directly on both incinerator costs and
AND WASTE REDUCTION sanitary landfill costs. Increasing scarcity of available
An increase in resource recovery and waste landfill sites, brought on by suburban growth, will
reduction would have a positive impact on a number also mean increased costs, not only for land itself but
of recognized national problems. Among these a also for transporting waste over longer haul distances
problems relating to community solid waste manage- to outlying sites and for additional processing, such as
ment, the conservation of scarce material and energy shredding or baling, that may be required to extend resources, international trade and balance of pay- the capacity of landfill.
ments, and environmental protection. For the most
part, however, potential benefit relationships are still It is not possible to predict accurately what the very poorly understood, both in conceptual and combined impacts of these various factors will be on
quantitative terms. The purpose of this section is to average national cot over the next decade or so. summarize some of the more important facts and However, it is not unreasonable to expect that the
issues regarding the potential dgnificanc. of resource average community will face a 20- to 30-percent inrecovery and waste reduction to these areas of crease in its direct real costs of solid waste disposal
national concern, by 1985, even without adding on the effects of
Community So/ld Waste Management general inflation. This implies a national arage cmt
Solid waste nagemet problems at the local by 1985 of $8 to $12 per ton for disposal (including
level can be grouped into three interreltda te- mnsfer stations and processing) and perhaps $30 to gories: (1) increasing costs of collection and disposal; $35 per ton for collecton and disposal combined.
(2) increasing political and social difficulties in The effects of general inflation on wage rates and locating new land dispose sites; and (3) increasing other cost factors would, of course, push these requirements for Controlling pollution from local estimates to higher levels. Adding on an average 4 incinerators and landfill site. These problems am percent per year inflation rate, for example, would
shared by virtually all of our cities to some degree. imply a 1985 collwt and disposal cmt for the They will continue to become more severe over time aseage city of $S0 per ton
so long as waste generation continues at its present Landfill Sitng. As many community leaders will
high and rising level. attest, obtaining new ln disposal sites involves
Collection and Dispos Coos. It currently cots social and political problems that go far beyond the
$21 to collect a ton of solid waste and $5 per ton to
process and landfill It. Them are national average
figures for 1974 reflectn current practices in which *Depedig n local ek wastanom and level of evice
a majority of communities do not provide environ- ovid*d, reported collection omu vary between $10
mentally adequate disposal facilities.* From a nia- d 830 per ton among different lolities. Actual disposal
tonal Perspective, these average local cost figure oM my range from under $I per ton for uncontrolled land dumpknq up to as high m $15 to S20 per ton for incineration
Imply a total direct cost of about $3.5 billion to (with air polution control) and landfilling of the residue.
Collect and dispose of the nations' 135 minion tons of Thee ae direct costs oly and do not include any imputed eoomo Valu for *a "9e90rn"" saironmentally related
Post-consumer solid wase in 1973. social costs of wat disposal.



question of landeost aloe. IncreasingIly, local zoning classified as dump still operated in the United States. ordnanes and neighborhood political pressure And although sanitary landfills have usually been groups ae becoming effective instruments for pre- consiered environmentally acceptable, very few have venting any new landfill sate devopmet within been designed to control leachate. There is increasing
certain political jurisdictions. The opposition stems evidence that potential underground leachate mainly from concern about the effects on the status, problems ae more serious than previously thought, esthetic qualities, traffic patterns, etc., of the areas with adverse implications for the quality of both surrounding proposed sites, and the consequent effect ground and surface waters.' on property values. In a very real sense, the extent of There ar real questions regarding how rapidly local opposition to new landfill sites is a proxy local agencies can progree toward environmentally measure of the implicit costs that people who live in acceptable incinerators and landmls in the fw of the vicinity of such sites typically experience. In rising waste loads and rising costs of Implementing aort, it is a reflection of expected "external costs" the desired controls. To the extnt that such progress of future land disposal-costs that ae never reflected is made, it will be reflected in steeply higher costs of in community budget figures, but which are nonethe- wte disposal. To the extent that control implaemwn. lIi. real. A community's inability to establish new tation lags, environmetal quality will deteriorate landfill sites can result in continued operation of further due to the increasing per capita solid waste obsolete or inadequate incinerators or verburdening generation rates. of current landfill faclities. It can also lead to o
inordinately high dumping fees at private By a variety nm es, we becoming an
By a maisty of nesu, we are becoming an
Such problems are becoming a primary motivating S
c r m a becor a pr ry ang increasingly "matenial-intensive" society. Not only
force at the local level for resource recovery and
have we increased our per capita ormnptin at
waste reduction programs that can reduce the amount
of w i landf. goods and srves in many cases we have also
increased our rate at material use per unit of product
Pollution Control Requirements. Evio tal consumed. This is reflected both in the waste flow
protection objectives require the control of solid estimates and in baic production and consumption waste incineration and landfill operations for public statistics. For example, U.S. consumption of most halth, ecological, and esthetic reasons. classes of raw materials has been growing by 20 to
As of mid-1972, nearly 200 municipalscale in- 40 percent per decade in the 20th century, and there cinerators operated in the United States, processing is some evidence of an increasing rate of growth waste at a rate of about 17 million tons per year. I during the most recent decades., P 'a EPA's projecIncinerators produce a variety of atmospheric emis. tions indicate 10- to 60-percent increases in consumpsions, and many are also a significant souce of tion at various raw materials and fuels by 1985 over untreated wastewater effluent. Historically, inciner- 1972 levels. Typical projections by independent ators have had a very poor air pollutant control resource economists forecast at least a doubling in record. Most are in the Northeast quarter of the U.S. consumption of most raw materials by the year nation, with over one-half being in the densely 2000., s
populated eastern seaboard States. Thus, their princi- Along with increasing material consumption has pal contributions to pollution are in areas where the come an apparently increasing dependency on foreign damages are likely to be the greatest. mineral resources during the post-Wosid War II era.'
Most of the solid waste tonnage goes directly to This undoubtedly has been largely a function of the open dumps and landfills. Although open dumps have economics of mpply rather than our own "running long been considered unacceptable from both esthetic out of resources" In any absolute sense. An important and public health standpoints, theim greater part of factor here was the overvaluation of the dollar in municipal waste is probably still disposed of in this international trade during most of the pest three manner. As recently as the summer of 1972, it was decades. However, it also reflects the fact that for determined that more than 14.000 disposal sites some raw materials suchh as tin and nickel) the



United States does not possess known commercial in monetary or other terms. Nevertheless, few would
scale deposits, and that for some others (such as iron deny that conservation values are important even ore) most of our higher grade and more accessible though we may not be able at this time to quantify deposits have already been largely depleted, them.
In the context of international trade, a new system Last year's Report to Congress indicated the of floating exchange rates together with new in- approximate contributions that a maximum feasible stances of nationalization and cartelization of the nationwide resource recovery effort might make world's natural resources has to a significant degree toward meeting current demands for materials. 4 created new ground rules regarding access to foreign Those EPA estimates suggested that 6 to 11 percent raw material and energy sources. At the same time, of current annual U.S. production of various major the structure of competition for foreign resources has metals and up to 20 percent of current paper drastically changed with the rapid economic growth production could technically be supplied by recycling of the U.S.S.R., Japan, and a number of other materials from the post-consumer solid waste stream
nations. (as defined in Table 1). Additional resource conservation and foreign trade benefits would stem from
The general conclusion is that the world's natural tion and forei de benefits would stem from
waste reduction measures.
resource base, including that of the United States,
More recent work has focused on quantifying the
will be subject to increasingly extreme pressures over poraniaeryags sct wth
Me, and that the international system of disributing potential national energy savings associated with
time, and that the inteational system of distributing maealrccigovrsnofraicwteno material recycling convention of organic waste into
these mource wAll be less favorable to U.S.
reels, and waste reduction The calculaconsumption than in the past. This implies an altered nd e a s e ces
future price structure, with the United State facing i d t btaen1gy angs ecn of
generally higher world market prices for many if not 1,000 bilon tu (bet 1.5 and 2.0 t o
most of its imported raw materials and fuels. Under total US. energy requirements) could have ben acivdin 1972 through waste reduction and
such circumstances, the natural response will be to achieved in 1972 through waste reduction and turn increasingly ward to domestic sourcs, whee resource recovery measure using currently available
possible, in order to reduce adverse effects on specific t cnology. is suggests the relative order of product prices and fomreign trade balances, and to atu future national potenals for
conservation through improved solid waste manappreserve national political autonomy. Our policy of m domestic energy deveopment-Project Independ- meit.
ence-is a case i polat. Although n mapdMtu could not be
sided, by themselves, to be ultimate solutions to
From a domestic eonomc standpoint, the key y a ty would erthe
our seoume supply peodem, tiny would nvetheismss relate to posiilities of fture portage o s represl it substantil contributions in both raw
important industrial raw materials and tuels with m ad y m.
attendant decreases in mateal wilare. These shortages could occur from a technological inability of the Jftn ta ecdo
United States and other countries to develop a The Mpreservation and improvement of environlow-coat raw material supplies in pace with rising mental quality represents a third set at problems for world demands They could so result rom trade which resource recovery and waste reduction can
restricos associated with lat powr aug contribute some measure of solution. Degradation of
gles, or simply from attempts of key supplying tim evironma et lrommes physical, chmic, and
nations to maxIdmIbe their returns from trade. igkl damages tr, sch muem as: the physical
The extent and timing of future shortages is of land sures by mining and construcsubject to much conjecture and debate.'- Because ic, soil erosion ftom imp apier forestry and agricul-. there is no adequate way at resent to asse the a practices, the contamination ar and water by
relative quantitative importance of these passd industrial effluents, the eutrophication of lakes and
Problems, there is no satisfactory basis for quantify- ponds, task cemals introduced into logical ing the present social value resource coseva iood ans a accumulations of industrial and



municipal solid wastes as litter or at dump sites. insensitive to small changes in material throughput. Environmental degradation adversely affects virtually One of the real difficulties in evaluating the total all of the measure of human welfare-health, environmental significance of waste reduction and .
economic, and esthetic resource recovery efforts is the diffusion of individual
Resource recovery and waste reduction most effects across many different industries and geoobviously can affect the direct environmental impacts graphic regions. As with material and energy conser. of waste colection and disposal, as discussed earlier. vation benefits, these environmental benefits are not z However, the, vion ental implications of these likely to appear either obvious or of much real
nMdispasal approaches extend far beyond the local significance to those at the local decision-making I
incinerator and dump site, since they are inetricably level. In fact, the national industrial pollution control linked to the industrial structure of the economy. benefits from any one State or local resource
Thus, for ample, whenever a waste reduction recovery or waste reduction project are likely to be so
measure r educes the quantity of a material consumed, small as to be virtually undetectable. Nevertheless, the quantities of all direct and indirect raw material the total benefits from a multitude of individual local and energy inputs-and their associated environ- actions can add up to results of national significance.
mental impacts-are correspondingly reduced to some
extent. These direct and indirect industrial impacts
include not only the raw materials physically in- REFERENCES
eluded in the Sial product (such as the iron,
aluminum, tin, and lead in a tinptated can) but also 1. Frnkia, W. E., at al. [Midwest Research Institute).
Base line forecasts of resource recovery, v
the ancillary process chemicals and the fuels required 1972 to 1990. Washington, U.S. Environfor heat, power, electricity, and transportation. The m roteactm Agmency, ORis ofr Sol
waste Management Programs, Resource Rereduced demands extend back through the material o Division, Mar. 1975. 376 p. (Unpubrefining stages to crude material preparation and listed report.)
2. U.S. Evim Protection Agency. Oface of Solid
extraction from the earth. They could in some waste Management Programs. Resource reinstances also extend indirectly through the industrial covery and source reduction; second report
to Congress. EnAronmental Protection Pubstructure to capital equipment requirements and the icanon SW-122. Washington, U.S. Governindustries that supply them. meant Printing Office, 1974.112 p.
3. Smith, F. L, Jr. A solid waste estimation procedure;
Resource recovery has similar implications, except matter fows approach. Environmental
that some off getting adverse environmental effects Protection Publication SW-147. [Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection
can be expected, both in mixed-waste recovery and Agency, May 1975. 56 p.
subsequent industrial processing of the recovered 4. Smith, F. A. Comparative etimates of post-consumer
sold waste. Savironmental Protection Publmaterial (such as secondary mselting). Thus far, catio SW14a. [washington), U.S. E vironresearch results indicate that the environmental mental Protection Agency, May 1975. 18 p.
effects of recycling are almost always significantly S. Ad'a eo W. C. nd R. L. dake. Evinenta.
assmenmt of mn~olpl-scale inertons.
mless-usually only a small fraction -compared with Environmeuntal Protection Publication
those resulting from virgin production.'"" With rare SW-111. Caclnal, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1973. 31 p. [Open-fie
exceptions, this holds for all air and water pollutants report, restricted distribution.]
(both process and energy-related) as well as solid 6. GariUand, 0. A., and D. C. Masher. Leachate effects of improper land disposal. Wastare Age, 6(3): 42,
waste geneation and degradation of land surfaces. 44.48, Mar. 1975.
At this time it is not possible to predict how 7. R. t on e sourc requSimet, and
environmental benefits of particular actions, in the Population Growth and the American Puform of reduced environmental impacts from indus- ture. Population, resources, and the environmenat. Washmbington, U.S. Government Printtry, wQ1 be distributed across geographic areas and ig Offtice, 1972. p. 35-37. (Commai.m
industry groups. Small increments of waste reduction Research Reports Vol. 3.)
8. National Commission on Materials Policy. Towards a
or recovery may have no observabe impact at all, national materials policy; basic data and
ance many effects of industrial processes may be issues- an interim report. Washington, U.S.


(Excerpted from: U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Erivironjntal Protection Affairs of the Ninety-third Conqress. Washington: g"S; GoVernment
Printing Office, 1975.)

The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 and the Resource Recovery Act, passed 5 years later, initiated the Federal Government's major efforts in the field of solid waste management. Essentially fostering a research and development approach, and containing no regulatory provisions, the two laws are administered by theOffice of Solidi
proison fcE ofro lidta
Waste Management Programs (OSWMP) in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by the Bureau of Mines. OSWMP was the successor to the Bureau of Solid Waste Management which had been in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare until EPA was created by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970.
The legislation directed EPA to carry out a number of special study and demonstration projects including methods of recovering materials and, energy from solid wastes, reduction of solid waste by requiring changes in product characteristics and packaging practices, and incentives and disincentives to recycling both in the marketplace and in public policies. Second, grants were authorized to State, interstate, municipal, and intermunicipal agencies and organizations for planning purposes. The plans could encompass surveys of disposal practices and problems, the development of regional or local recycling systems, and programs for the removal or processing of abandoned aut omobiles.
Grants to demonstrate resource recovery systems or to construct new or improved disposal facilities could be made to public agencies. As with the planning grants, cooperative efforts between two or more municipalities' entitled them to receive up to 75 percent of the costs; communities acting alone received less. Fourth, EPA was directed to publish guidelines on the collection, separation, recovery, and disposal. of solid wastes- consistent with public health and welfare and the environment. The guidelines -are mandatory on Federal agencies and on anyone receiving a permit to dispose of- solid wastes on Federal land. The Agency was also required to recommend model codes, ordinances, and statutes to States and municipalities to implement the guidelines and purposes of the act; and to issue technical and cost information on feasible processes and methods of dealing with solid wastes,
Grants for training personnel (including instructors and supervisory personnel) working in solid wastes or resource recovery were authorized; and EPA was directed to carry out an extensive study on manpower availability and requirements.


One final investigation required of EPA called for planning a national system for the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes, including radioactive, toxic chemical, and biological wastes. These materials were to be identified, current methods of disposal cataloged, and recommendations made concerning their reduction, neutralization, recovery, and dispsal. An inventory) of possible diss sitas was called for, and long- and Short-tenvi costs of developing and maintaining them were to be estimated.
Title 11 of the Resource itecare -Act created a seven-member National Commission on Materials Policy to make a 2-year study of present resources and technology, anticipated requirements of the United States and the world, ind to make recommendations on the supply, use, recovery, and disposal of materials. Economic and demographic factors were to be considered along with the natural resources, energy, and environmental components. "Materials" was defined as all "natural resources intended to be utilized by industry for the production of goods", with the exception of food. The Commission's final report and recommendations for a national materials policy appeared in 1973 and the group was subsequently disbanded.
e responsibility for implementation of the laws was vested in the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs and the Bureau of Mines. The Bureau's programs have been directed to four areas: extraction of metals, minerals, and energy from municipal refuse; improving the methods of recovery of automotive and related scrap; utilization and stabilization of mine, mill, and smelter wastes; and the recovery of materials and energy from industrial wastes.



Solid Waste



Title 11 of Public Law 89-272 89th Congress, S. 306 October 20, 1965

by The Resource Recovery Act of 1970 Public Law 91-512-91st Congress, H. R. 11833-October 26, 1970

by Public Law 93-14-93rd Congress, L. R. 5446-April 9, 1973 (To extend the amended Solid Waste Disposal Act-for one year)

and by Public Law 93-611-93rd Congress, H. R. 16045-January 2, 1975 (To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1975)


4th revision 1975

Office of Solid Waste Management Program


[Puauo Law 89-272--89T CoxosRs, S. 306, APPROVD
Oronam 20, 1965]
AN ACT To authoristue a research and development program with
respect to solid-waste dispoal, and for other purposes.
** *
Szc. 201. This title (hereinafter referred to as "this solid wase. Act") may be cited as the "Solid Waste Disposal Act". m.poS At
Szc. 202. (a) The Congress finds-(1) that the continuing technological progress and
improvement in methods of manufacture, packaging, and marketing of consumer products has resulted in an ever-mounting increase, and in a change in the characteristics, of the mass of material discarded
by the purchaser of such products;
(2) that the economic and population growth of
our Nation, and the improvements in the standard of living enjoyed by our population, have required increased industrial production to meet our needs, and have made necessary the demolition of old buildings, the construction of new buildings, and the provision of highways and other avenues of transportation, which, together with related industrial, commercial, and agricultural operations, have resulted in a rising tide of scrap, discarded, and waste materials;
(3) that the continuing concentration of our population in expanding metropolitan and other urban areas has presented these communities with serious financial, management, intergovernmental, and technical problems in the disposal of solid wastes resulting from the industrial, commercial, domestic, and
other activities carried on in such areas;
(4) that inefficient and improper methods of disposa of solid wastes result in scenic blights, create serious hazards to th6 public health, including pollution of air and water resources, accident hazards, and increase in rodent and insect vectors of disease,
Title I of P.L. 89-272 amended the Clean Air Act (P.L 88-906).

have an adverse effect on land values, create public nuisances, otherwise interfere with community life
and development;
(5) that the failure or inability to salvage and reuse such materials economically results in the unnecessary waste and depletion of our natural resources and
(6) iit while the collection and disposal of solid
wastes should continue to be primarily the function of State, regional, and local agencies the pro of waste disposal as set forth above have become a matter national in scope and in concern and necessitate Federal action through financial and technical assistance and leadership in the development, demonstration, and application of new and improved methods and processes to reduce the amount of waste and unsalvageable materials and to provide for proper and economical solid-waste disposal
(b)2 The purposes of this Act therefore are(1) to promote the demonstration, construction,
and application of solid waste management and resource recovery systems which preserve and enhance
the quality or air, water, and land resources;
(2) to provide technical and financial assistance to
States and local governments and interstate agencies in the planning and development of resource recovery and solid waste disposal programs;
(3) to promote a national research and develo
ment program for improved management tec9niques, more effective organizational arrangement-, and new and improved methods of collection, separation, recovery, and recycling of solid wastes, and the environmentally safe disposal of nonrecoverable
(4) to provide for the promulgation of guidelines
for solid waste collection, transport, separation, recovery, and disposal systems; and
(5) to Idefor training grants in occupations
involving the design, operation, and maintenance of
solid waste disposal systems.
SiXJ. 203.3 When used in this Act:
(1) U The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; except that such term
2See. 202(b) amended by see. 101. P.L. 91-512.
& See. 203 amended by se. 102, PL. 91-512.
"By reason of the establishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in December 1970, the references in the cited legislation to "The Secretary' or to "The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare" should be chunged to read "The Administrator" or "The Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency." Authority for this change: The President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. There are 30 or more places in the legislation where such changes should be made, beginning with Section 203 (p. 2), entitled "Definitions."
Specific references in the legislation to the Secretary of any other Department of the Executive Branch should not be changed.

means the Secretary of the Interior with respect to problems of solid waste resulting from the extraction, processing, or utilization of minerals or fossil fuels where the generation production, or reuse of such waste is or maybe controlled within the extraction, processing, or utiization facility or facilities and where such control is a feature of the technology or economy of the operation of such facility or facilities.
(2)The term "State" means a State, the District of Coumbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands Guam, and American Samoa.
(3) ih term "interstate agenc.y" means an agency of two or more municipalities in different States, or an agency established by two or more States, with authority to provide for the disposal of solid wastes and serving two or more municipalities located in different States.
(4) The term "solid wast" means garbage, refuse,
other discarded solid materials includingsolid-waste materials resultinK from industrial, commercial, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solids or dissolved material in domestic sewage or other significant pollutants in water resource such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in indus al waste water effluents, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or other common water pollutants.
(5) The term "solid-waste disposal" means the collection, storage, treatment, utilization, processing, or final dispoal -o solid waste.
(6) The term "construction," with respect to any project of construction under this act, means (A) the erection or building of new structures and acquisition of lands or interests therein, or the acquisition, replacement, expansion, remodeling, alteration, modernization, or extension of existing structures, and (B) the acquisition and installation of initial equipment of, or required in connection with, new or newly acquired structures or the expanded remodeled, altered, modernized or extended part# existing structures (including trucks and other motor vehicles, and tractors, cranes, and other machinery) necessary for the proper utilization and operation of the facility after completion of.the project; and includes plmnary planning to determine the economic and engineering feasibility and the public health and safety aspects of the project, the engineering, architectural legal, fiscal, and -economic investigations and studies, and any surveys, designs, Plans, working drawings, specifications, and other action necessary for the carrying out of the project, and (C) the inspection and supervision of the process of carrying out the project to completion.
(7) the term "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county, parish, district or other public body created by or pursuant to State law with responsibility for

the planning or administration of solid waste disposal, or
an Indian tribe.
(8).The term "intermunicipal agency" means an agency
estabhshe. by two or more munici palities with responsibility for planning or administration of solid waste
disposl. ...
(9) The term "recovered resources" means materials
or energy recovered from solid wastes.
(10) The term "resource recovery system" means a
sohlid waste management system which, provides for collection, separation, recycling, and .recovery of solid wastes, including disposal of nonrecoverable waste
smar. Sc. 204.' (a) The Secretary shall conduct, and encourse tu or age, cooperate with, and render financial and other as42 USC A1is distance to app opriate public (whether Federal, State,
interstate, or local) authorities, agencies, and institutions, private agencies and institutions, and individuals in the conduct of, and promote the coordination of, research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, ani studies relating to(1) any adverse health and welfare effects of the release into the environment of material present in solid
waste, and methods to eliminate such eects;
(2) the operation and financing of solid waste disposal programs;
(3) the reduction of the amount of such -waste and
unsalvageable waste materials;
(4) te development and application of new and improved methods of collecting and disposing of solid waste and processing and recovering materials and energy from
Solid wastes; and
'(5) the identification of solid waste components and
potential materials and energy recoverable from such
waste components.
(b) In carrying out the provisions of the preceding
subsection, the Secretary is authorized toS(1) collect and make available, through publications and other appropriate means, the results. of, and other information pertaining to, such research and other activities, including a appropriate recommendations in connection therewith;
(2) .cooperate with public and private agencies,
institutions, and organizations, and with any industries involved, in the preparation and the conduct of
such research and other activities; and
(8) make grante-in-aid to ptiblic or private agenSee. 20(a) amended by See. 108, P.L.91-412.

cies and institutions and to individuals for research, training projects, surveys, and demonstrations (includingconstruction of facilities), and provide for the conduct of research, traiing, surveys, and demonstrations by contract with public or private agenciesand institutions and with individuals; and such contracts for research or demonstrations or both (including contracts for construction) may be made in accordance with and subject to the limitations provided with respect to research contracts of the military departments in title 10, United States Code,
section 2353, except that the determination, ap- roA stat. is
proval, and certification required thereby shall be
made by the Secretary.
(c) Any grant, agreement, or contract made or entered into under this section shall contain provisions effective to insure that all information, uses, processes, patents and other developments resulting from any activity undertaken pursuant to such grant, agreement, or contract will be made readily available on fair and equitable terms to industries utilizing methods of solid-waste disposal and industries engaging in furnish devices, facilities, equipment, an d supplies to be use in connection with solid-waste disposal. In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Secretary and each department, agency, and officer of the Federal Government having functions or duties under this Act shall make use of and adhere to the Statement of Government Patent Policy which was promulgated by the President in his memorandum of October10, 1963. (3 CFR, 1963 Supp., p. 238.)
Sao. 205. (a) The Secretary shall carry out an investigation and study to determine(1) means of recovering materials and energy
from solid waste, recommended uses of such materials and energy for national or international welfare, including identification of potential markets for such recovered resources, and the impact of distribution of such resources on existing markets;
(2) changes in current product characteristics and
production and packaging practices which would
reduce the amount of solid waste;
(8) methods of collection, separation, and containerization which will encourage efficient utilization of facilities and contribute to more effective programs
of reduction, reuse or dissal of wastes;
(4) the use of Federal procurement to develop
market demand for recovered resources;
*Se. 30 added by see. 104(a) et PL. 91-51.

68-863 O 76 4


(5) recommended incentives (including Federal grants, loans, and other assistance) and disincentives to accelerate the reclamation or recycling of materials from solid wastes, with special emphasis on
motor vehicle hulks;
(6) the effect of existing public policies, including subsidies and economic incentives and disincentives, percentage depletion allowances, capital gains treat, ment and other tax incentives and disincentives, upon the recycling and reuse of materials, and the likely effect of the modification or elimination of such incentives and disincentives upon the reuse, recycling
and conservation of such'materials; and
(7) the necessity and method of imposing diiposal or other charges on packaging, containers, vehicles, and other manufactured goods which charges would reflect the cost of final disposal, the value of recoverable components of the item, and any social costs associated with nonrecycling or uncontrolled disposal
of such items.
Report to The Secretary shall from time to time, but not less frePresident and quently than annually, report the results of such invesCongress igation and study to the President and the Congress.
Demonstration b) The Secretary is also authorized to carry out demproject onstration projects to test and demonstrate methods and
techniques developed pursuant to subsection (a).
(c) Section 204 (b) and (c) shall be applicable to investigations, studies, and projects carried out under this
SEc. 206.6 The Secretary shall encourage cooperative
activities by the States ana local governments in connection with solid-waste disposal programs; encourage where practicable, interstate, interlocal, and regional planning for, and the conduct of, interstate, interlocal, and regional solid-waste disposal programs; and encourage the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform State and local laws governing solid-waste
SC. 207.7 (a) The Secretary may from time to time,
upon such terms and conditions consistent with this section as he finds appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act, make grants to State, interstate, muicial, and intermunicipal agencies, and organizations composed of
Previous see. 205 redesignated as see. 206 by see. 104(a) of
P.L. 91-512.
SSee. 207 added by see. 104 (b) of P.L. 91-512.

public ocials which are eligible for assistaNce under section 701(g) of the Housing Act of 1954, of note to as eat
exceed 66% per centum of the cost in the case of an appli- cM Ut 40 cation with respect to an area including only one muicipality, and not to exceed 75 per centum of the cost in any other cam, of- -.(1) makmg surveys of solid waste disposal pra-C
tices and problems within the jurisdictional areas of
such agencies and
(2) developing and revisin solid waste disposal i plans as part of regional environmental protection systems for such areas, providing for recycling or
recovery of materials from wastes whenever possible I= sat is
and including planning for the reuse of solid waste 1
disposal areas and studies of the effect and relationship of solid waste disposal practices on areas adj~cent to waste disposal sites,
(3) developing proposals for projects to be carried
out ursuant to section 208 of this Act, or
S(4) planning programs for the removal and proeesing of abandon ned motor vehicle hulks.
(b) Grants pursuant to this section may be made upon application therefor which(1) designates or establishes a single agency
(which may be an interdepartmental agency) as the sole agency for carrying out the purposes of this
section for the area involved;
(2) indicates the manner in which provision will
be made to assure full consideration of all aspect of planning essential to areawide inning for proper and effective solid waste consistent with the
protection of the public and welfare, including such factors as population growth, urban and metropolitan development, land use planning, water polution control air pollution control, and the feasbility of re onal ispoal and resource fecovery programs;
(8 sets forth plans for expenditure of such grant,
whic plans provide reasonable assurance of carrying
out the purposes of this section
(4) provides for submission of such rts of the
activities of the agency in carrying out te purpo ses of this section, in such form and containing suc information, as the Secretary may from time to time find necessary for carrying out the p urposesof this section and for keeping such records and affording
such access thereto as he may find neceary; and
(5) provides for such fiscal-control and fundaccounting procedures as may be necessary to assure proper disbursement of and accounting for funds
paid to the agency under this section.


(c) The Secretary shall make a grant under this section only if he finds that there is satisfacty assurance that the planning of solid waste disposal will be coordinated, so far as practicable, with and not duplicate other related State, interstate, regional, and local planning activities, including those financed in part with fundf
pursuant to section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954
Sz,. 208.1 (a) The Secretary is authorized to make
grants pursuant to this section to any State, municipal, or interstate or intermunicipal agency for the demonstrtion of resource recovery systems or for the construction
of new or improved solid waste disposal facilities.
(b) (1) Any grant under this section for the demonstration of a resource recovery system may be made only if it (A) is consistent with any plans which meet the requirements of section 207(b) (2) of this Act; (B) is consistent with the guidelines recommended pursuant to section 209 of this Act; (C) is designed to provide areawide resource recovery systems consistent with the purposes of this Act, as determined by the Secretary, pursuant to regulations promulgated under subsection pd) of this section; and (D) provides an equitable system for distributing the costs associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of any resource recovery
system among the users of such system.
Federal (2) The Federal share for any project to which para'a.otia graph (1) applies shall not be more than 75 percent.
(c) (1) A, grant under this section for the construction
of a new.or improved solid waste disposal facility may be
made only if-.
(A) a State or interstate plan for solid waste disposal has been adopted which applies to the area
involved, and the facihty to be .constructed (i) is
consistent with such plan, (ii) is included in a comprehensive plan for the area involved which is satisfactry to the Secretary for the purpose of this Act, and (iii) is consistent with the guidelines recommended under section 209, and
(B) the project advances the state of the art by
applying new and improved techniques in reducing the environmental impact of solid waste disposal, in achieving recovery of energy or resources, or in recycling useful materials.
(2) The-Federal share for any project to which paragraph (1) applies shall be not more than 50 percent in
See. 208 added by see. 104 (b) P.L. 91-512.

the case of a project serving an area which includes only one municipality, and not more than 75 percent in any other case.
(d) (1) The Secretary, within ninety days after the date seguehSm of enactment of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, shall promulgate regulations establishing a procedure for awarding grants under this section whieh(A) provides that projects will be carried out in
communities of varying sizes, under such conditions as will assist in solving the community waste problems of urban-industrial centers, metropolitan regions, and rural areas, under representative geographic and environmental conditions; and
(B) provides deadlines for submission of, and
action on, grant requests.
(2) In taking action on applications for grants under this section, consideration shall be given by the Secretary
(A) to the public benefits to be derived by the construction and the propriety of Federal aid in making such grant; (B) to the extent applicable, to the economic and commercial viability of the project (including contractual arrangements with the private sector to market any resources recovered); (C) to the potential of such project for general application to community solid waste disposal problems; and (D) to the use by the applicant of comprehensive regional or metropolitan area planning.
(e) A grant under this section(1) may be made only in the amount of the Fed eral share of (A) the estimated total design and construction costs, plus (B) in the case of a grant to which subsection (b) (1) applies, the first-year operation and maintenance costs;
(2) may not be provided for land acquisition or
(except as otherwise provided in paragraph (1) (B))
for operating or maintenance costs;
,(3) may not be made until the applicant has made
provision satisfactory to the Secretary for proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the project (subject to paragraph (1) (B))- and
(4) may be made sub ject to such conditions and
requirements, in addition to those provided in th*
section, as the Secretary may require top
carry out his functions pursuant to th A. ....
Forpuposs f a ra hpursuan
For purposes of paragraph (1), the;non-Federal share may be any form, including, but not limited to, lands or interests teren needd for the project or personal poperty or services, the value of which shall be determined by the Secretary.
(f) (1) Not more than 15 percent.of the total of funds
authorized to be appropriated uidei section. 216(a) (3) Umitai for any fiscal year.t6 carry out this section shall be grtj under this section for projects in any one State.


Regulation (2) The Secretary shall prescrbe by r action the
manner in which this subsection shall apply to a grant under this section for a project in an area which includes
all or part of more than one State.
SEC. 209.9 (a) The Secretary shall, in cooperation with
appropriate State, Federal, interstate, regional, and local Agencies, allowing for public comment by other intereted parties, as soon as practicable after the enactment of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, recommend to Publication in appropriate agencies and publish in the Federal RegisFederal
Register ter guidelines for solid waste recovery, collection, sep.aration, and disposal systems (inchiding systems for private use), which shall be consistent with public health and welfare, and air and water quality standards and adaptable to appropriate land-use plans. Such guidelines shall apply to such systems whether on land or
water and shall be revised from time to time.
(b) (1) The Secretary shall, as soon as practicable,
recommend model codes, ordinances, and statutes which are designed to implement this section and the purposes
of this Act.
(2) The Secretary shall issue to appropriate Federal,
interstate, regional, and local agencies information on technically feasible solid waste collection, separation, disposal, recycling, and recovery methods, including data on the cost of construction, operation, and maintenance of
such methods.
Smc. 210.10 (a) The Secretary is authorized to make "Eligible grants to, and contracts with, any eligible organization. organizations." For purposes of this section the term "eligible organization means a State or interstate agency, a municipality, educational institution, and any other organization which is capable of effectively carrying out a project which may be funded by grant under subsection (b) of this section.
(b)(1) Subjeat to the provisions of paragraph (2),
grants or contracts may be made to pay all or a part of the costs, as may be determined by the Secretary, of any project operated or to be opera by an eligible organzation, which is designed(A) to develop, expand, or cry out a program (which m ay combine training, education, and employment) for training persons for occu nations involving the management, supervision, Tesi gn, op0 See. 209 added by seM. 104(b) P.L. 91--12.
see. 210 added by see. 104 (b) P.L. 91-512.

ration, or maintenance of solid waste disposal and
resources recovery equipment and facilities; or
(B) to train instructors and supervisory personnel to tramin or supervise persons min occupations involving the design, operation, and maintenance of solid waste disposal and resource recovery equipment and facilities.
(2) A grant or contract authorized by paragraph (1) of this subsection may be made, only upon application to the Secretary at such time or times and containing such information as he may prescribe, except that no such application shall be approved unless it provides for the same rocedures and reports (and access to such reports and to other records) as is required by section 207(b) (4) and (5) with respect to applications made under such section.
(c) The Secretary shall make a complete investigation study and Mudy to determineS(1) the need for additional trained State and local
personnel to carry out plans assisted under this Act and other solid waste and resource recovery programs; .. -n
(2) means of using existing training programs to
train such personnel; and
(3) the extent and nature of obstacles to employment and occupational advancement in the solid waste disposal and resource recovery field which may limit either available manpower or the advancement
of personnel in such field.
He shall report the results of such investigation and Report to study, including his recommendations to the President a t and the Congress not later than one year after enactment d Co of this Act.
SEc. 211.1" (a)(1) If(A) an Executive agency (as defined in section
105 of title 5, United states Code) has jurisdiction over any real property or facility the operation or administration of which involves such agency in
solid waste disposal activities, or
(B) such an agency enters into a contract with an
person for the operation by such person of any Federal property or facility, ~nd the performance of such contract involves" such person in solid waste
disposal activities,
then such agency shall insure compliance with the guide- paae lines recommended under section 209 and the purposes
See. 211 aE by see. 104 (b) P.L. 91-61

of this Act in the operation or administration of such property or facility, or the performance of such contract,
as the case may be.
(2) Each Executive agency which conduct any
activity(A) which generates solid waste, and
(B) which, if conducted by a-person other than
such agency, would require a permit or license from such agency in order to dispose of such solid waste,
shall insure compliance with such guidelines and the purposes of this Act in conducting such activlty.
(3) Each Executive agency whwih permits the of
Federal property for purposes of disposal of solid waste shall insure compliance with such guidelines and the
purposes of this Act in the disposal of such waste.
(4) The President shall prescribe regulations to carry
out this subsection.
MW~t (b) Each Executive agency which issues any license or
permit for disposal of solid waste shall, prior to the issuance of such license or permit, consult with the Secretary to insure compliance with guidelines recommended
under section 209 and the purposes of this Act.
to Szc. 212.12 The Secretary shall submit to the Congress no later than two years after the date of enactment of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, a comprehensive report and plan for the creation of a system of national disposal sites for the storage and disposal of 'hazardous wastes, including radioactive, toxic chemical, biological, and other wastes which may endanger public health or welfare. Such report shall include: (1) a-list of materials which should be subject to disposal in any such site; (2) current methods of disposal of such materials; (3) recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of such materials; (4) an inventory of possible sites including existing land or water disposal sites operated or licensed by Federal agencies; (5) an. esimate of the cost of developing and maintaining sites including consideration of means for distributing the short- and long-term costs of operating such sites among the users thereof; and (6) such other information as may be appropriate.

40 U.s.c. 4 SEc. 213.13 No grant for a project of construction
under this Act shall be made unless the Secretary finds that the application contains or is supported by reason2see. 212 added by sec. 104 (b) of P.L. 91-512.
'Former sees. 207 through 210 redetlgnated as am.; 218 though
216 by see. 104(b) of P.L. 91-512.

able assurance that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on projects of the type covered by the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5), will be paid wages at rates not less than 49 stat. 1101; those revailing on similar work in the locality as deter- 8 sttm 2 mined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with that Act; and the Secretary of Labor shall have with respect to the labor standards specified in this section the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15) and stt s section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (40 stat. r1267 U.S.C. 278s).
Suc. 214. This Act shall not be construed as superseding or limiting the authorities and res ponsibilities under any other provisions of law, of the Secretary o Health, Education, and Welfare, the Secretary of the Interior, or any other Federal officer, department, or agency.
Szc. 215.14 (a) Payments of grants under this Act may be made (after necessary adjustment on account of previously made underpayments or overpayments) in advance or by way of reimbursement, and in such installments and on such conditions as the Secretary may determine.
(b) No grant may be made under this Act to any pri- Gtu~. proW* vate profitmaking organization. hibitio.
Sic. 216.15 (a) (1) There are authorized to be appro- Approp o priated to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for carrying out the provisions of this Act (including, but not limited to, section 208), not to exceed $41,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.
(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out the provisions of this Act, other than section 208, not to exceed $72,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and not to exceed $76,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, not to exceed $76,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and not to exceed $76,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975.'"
(3) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out section 208 of this Act not to exceed $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
"See. 215 as redesirated by see. 104(b) of P.L. 91-512 further amended by see. 104(e) of that Act.
SSce. 216 as redesiated by see. 104(b) of P.L. 91-512 turther amended by sec. 105 of that Act.
I P.L. 98-14 extended authorization of funding to June 30, 1974; P.L. 98-411 extended authorization to June 30, 1975.


not to exceed $140,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and not to exceed $140,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974.17
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Interior to carry out this Act not to exceed $8,750,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, not to exceed $20,000,000 for the fiscal -year ending June 80, 1972, not to exceed $22,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and not to exceed $22,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974. 17 Prior to expending any funds authorized to be appropriated by this subsection, the Secretary of the Interior shall consult with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to assure that the expenditure of such funds will be
consistent with the purposes of this Act.
(c) Such portion as the Secretary may determine, but
not more than 1 per centum, of any appropriation for grats, contracts, or other payments under any Provision of this Act for any fiscal, year beginning after June 80, 1970, shall be available for evaluation (directly, or by
rantsor contracts) of any program authorized by this (d) Sums appropriated under this scion shall remain stu available until expended.

I? P.L. 98-14 extended authorization of funding to June 30. 1974.



Solid Waste

Management Strategy

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
October 31, 1974





1. Purpose and Summary .............. 1

ii. The Problem ................... 4

Ill. Major Causes of the Problem ......... 6

IV. Strategic Goals ................. 7

V. Constraints to Strategic Formulation .... 8

V I. Tools . . . . . . . . . . . 9

vii. Discussion of Basic Strategic Approach . 10

Vill. Summary of Programmatic
Implementation . . . . . . . 14

Summary of Program Thrust . . . . 14




Purpose and Summary

The purpose of this document is to present an EPA solid waste program strategy for FY 1975. This document lays the ground work for guidance to EPA headquarters, EPA Regions, and to the States. It is meant to ensure that activities undertaken will conform to this strategy and are consistent with each other. As a statement of EPA's intentions, this paper is also meant to serve as a means of promoting public awareness, encouraging public participation and guiding the public on EPA solid waste management policies. The strategy should be viewed as a dynamic document, intended to be responsive to situations that develop. It will undergo revision to accommodate new needs, problems, and legislative thrusts, but the basic philosophy and framework will be continued.

This strategy is designed to encompass the activities of all agency elements involved in solid waste related activities, and most activities described will involve or require the participation of several offices within EPA. The strategy is designed to serve as a general guide for all types of wastes and residuals disposed of on land, but it is recognized that lead activity related to some residuals falls under the aegis of water or air programs or their respective research counterparts and that these wastes are covered by other agency strategies in more detail.

In summary, the major issue being addressed is one of improper waste management, resulting in problems ranging from extreme health and environmental damages to resource wastage.

The problem is caused by the fact that improper disposal is cheap compared to environmentally acceptable practices. Problems tend to result from improper actions over long periods of time, and result from practices not easily understood or visualized. Aesthetic damages are easily visualized, and represent varying impacts on human health or animal life. On the other hand, for example, groundwater contamination which is not visible can result without a proper understanding and application of the necessary environmental control procedures.

We know that leachate is formed in land disposal sites and that this liquid enters groundwater aquifers. As rain water percolates through soil, it is more or less purified depending on the constituents of the leachate and the type of soil through which it flows. In areas of high water tables and high precipitation, there is a significant potential for groundwater contamination. The extent and seriousness of this problem is now being investigated, but a current presumption of damage exists.


A number of causes for inadequate waste management have been cited (e.g., municipalities have no money, technology is inadequate, trained manpower is lacking). However, EPA believes that these problems could be overcome if a mAjor national commitment were made to control the adverse cffccts of waste management. Such a commitment would result in adequate standards and their vigorous enforcement. In turn, fiscal and other barriers would fall or be minimized.

EPA has formulated two strategic goals: to achieve acceptable and safe waste management, and to conserve natural resources. EPA is constrained in effectively formulating and implementing this strategy primarily by a lack of direct regulatory power to assure proper land disposal or groundwater quality protection. Authority to set standards on hazardous wastes has been sought from Congress.

EPA can (1) stimulate regulation by others, (2) provide limited planning support to States,
(3) carry out research, development, and demonstration, and (4) provide technical assistance.

A. Environmental Protection

The strategy to achieve environmentally acceptable, safe solid waste management relies primarily on the eventual establishment of a regulatory approach. It is the most direct attack on environmental, health, and associated problems. The approach is to direct the most dangerous types of wastes to a limited number of strictly controlled processing/disposal sites, leaving a larger number of sites to process and dispose of less hazardous wastes.

This strategy relies heavily on the States. From the State perspective, the problem is one of land disposal States generally have the power to issue regulations for all wastes and all sites and to relate the degree of control to the potential degree of hazard. Typically, however, States have issued site regulations that prohibit acceptance of hazardous wastes. The exclusion of certain wastes from disposal sites has virtually resulted in no controls for these excluded wastes. State enforcement of these regulations is severely hampered by low resources. A principal objective of the strategy is to strengthen the State role, particularly with regards to establishing authority over the disposal of all wastes. Adequate disposal site control also implies control of the movenientof at least hazardous waste from generator to disposal sites lest indiscriminate dumping take place.

The major headquarters thrust will include: developing a data base on hazardous wastes; demonstration programs to advance certain treatment and disposal methods; developing a hazardous waste regulatory strategy; augmenting knowledge on the inter-media effects of land disposal; consolidating technical/economic data on all aspects of solid waste management; and technical assistance support to improve local practices.



B. Conservation

The approach to natural resource conservation by waste recovery and source reduction relies primarily on technical assistance. The primary barriers to waste recovery implementation are institutional constraints.

The plan is to concentrate on the evaluation and dissemination of information about existing systems to reduce perceived risk, and on working with communities seriously considering recovery options, helping them make sound decisions.

Headquarters will conduct a program of studies related to the concept of conservation through source reduction, primarily addressing benefit/cost trade-offs of economic product regulation.

Some States have emerged as strong supporters of recovery system implementation, primarily through the provision of financial assistance. Connecticut has a unique program in that it addresses institutional problems through a Waste Management Authority. The Authority puts together a package (site, system, financing backed by State bonding, contracts with firms to operate the system) for a competitive disposal fee, which covers the full cost of the system. This concept is attractive for disposal sites, as well as for resource recovery. The approach is to utilize Federal demonstration funds in one or more States to stimulate establishment of similar institutions.

C. Regional Activities

The Agency approach anticipates a strengthening of the role of EPA Regional Offices primarily to (1) provide better and more intensive relationships with States to help achieve national objectives; (2) to support enforcement efforts by States and to utilize existing enforcement powers where appropriate, and (3) to become the cutting edge of technical assistance efforts for waste management and resource recovery.

The headquarters role in support of the regions is to (1) provide policy guidance, (2) assess specific approaches taken by the Regions; (3) develop the knowledge on the state-of-theart of all types of waste management practices; and (4) provide the specialized expertise for technical assistance.


68-863 0 76 5


D. Basic Strategy Assumptions

The Federal solid waste management program was originally established to improve solid waste management nationally through research, development, demonstration, training, and planning activities. The major focus of the program in the 1965-1970 period was on municipal waste collection, processing, and ultimate disposal activities; and on State, local, and regional planning. In the 1970-1973 period, the focus was broadened to resource recovery, support of regulatory activities by States, and investigation of hazardous waste management problems.

It is assumed that the program will continue to evolve in a generally regulatory direction related to waste treatment and disposal activities, while in the resource recovery activities the Federal role will consist of implementation stimulation through technical assistance, information dissemination, planning activities, and demonstrations.

In FY 1975, the program is expected to operate under an extension of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended. However, passage of legislation incorporating the provisions of the proposed Hazardous Waste Management Act is expected ultimately.

II. The Problem

Waste management presents a spectrum of problems, from extreme health and environmental hazard to municipal management inefficiency. The extremely diverse nature of the wastes (dead animals, mercury-rich industrial sludges, dredge spoils, abandoned cars, septic tank pumping, residential solid waste, infectious hospital wastes, demolition debris, feedlot wastes, etc.) and their manner of occurrence (in or near concentrations of population, in rural areas, etc.), means that the dimensions of waste management are very diverse. Any abstraction of the problem into categories is a dangerous oversimplification.

The problem cannot be disaggregated neatly into "hazardous" and "non-hazardous" components. Solid waste is not merely residential trash and food wastes. Such an oversimplification obscures the real situation. The early stress on municipal solid waste (by the program and by others) was because this waste is most apparent to concerned environmentalists and is easier to understand than the management of many closely related industrial, institutional, and agricultural residuals.

The basic problem is improper land disposal of wastes-all wastes-with adverse environmental consequences. Appendix B provides a more detailed discussion of this subject. A categorization, recognizing the fact that it oversimplifies the issue, follows:

Health and Environmental Effects Occur Under Five Headings



0 Health and Environmental Effeci.s Occur Under Five Headings

Water. Ground and surface waters can be polluted y land deposition of wastes. The problem ranges from contamination of waters by heavy metals and other toxic chemicals to introduction of organics and soluble gases (CO 2).

Air. Air pollution can result from incineration, open burning, or sublimation of chemicals at land sites; odors are also associated with processing and disposal facilities, especially with organic waste dumps and lagoons.

Health. Disease vectors arise from improper waste management and waste movement and disposal. The problem is associated especially with improper storage and collection of residential wastes in the inner city.

Land Use. Waste disposal alters soil biota and soil chemistry and thus affects future potential land use. For example, land contaminated by heavy metals cannot be used for food or feed crop production.

Human Safety is endangered in accidents during waste collection and at land disposal sites where hazardous wastes are handled. Migration of methane or carbon monoxide from land sites to confined areas can cause explosion or suffocation respectively.

Aesthetic and Other Problems also accompany waste management, especially the

Litter, ugly accumulations, and uncontrolled dumping; Adverse economic impact of disposal sites on land values-due to historically poor practice in management of disposal sites;
Inequitable population effects-disposal sites typically impact on a small portion of the population but serve the total population; and Inefficient management of wastes-which causes higher than required expenditures on this function by the people.

Resource Wastage. Waste management is accompanied by little or no materials or energy recovery because recovery is most often more expensive than simple dumping. This activity is wasteful so long as simple dumping is an unacceptable
practice for other reasons.

The resource aspect of waste management, however, goes beyond the fact that waste materials are not usually recovered. Waste generation is itself a symptom of national



practices that impact on the ability of the economy to supply materials and energy at requisite levels.

Ill. Nlajor Causes of the Problem

The chief environmental problems exist for a number of interrelated reasons:

Regulatory and Enforcement Gaps. Some States do not regulate disposal
effectively and most do not enforce regulations vigorously because of low
manpower resource commitments.

Resource Allocation. Municipalities do not devote required resources to
environmentally sound disposal and efficient management where such poor practice is tolerated by an apathetic population or where the impacted population
has no political power.

Aesthetic vs. Environmental Control Since litter and ugliness are typically the most obvious target of popular displeasure, municipalities may manage disposal 46 cosmetically" but not environmentally no blowing paper, no odor, but leachate
into the groundwater unless environmental regulations are enforced.

0 Barriers to Recovery. Poor disposal practice is cheaper than r--source recovery,
and the cheap option retards the consideration of recovery or other more environmentally sound practices. In this connection, however, it should be noted that recovery today is primarily a resident ial/commercial waste management
option and not a solution for all types of wastes.

Especially acute is the effect of an absence of regulate ion in the industrial, and above all the hazardous waste areas, where the cost differential between dumping and proper treatment may be twenty-fold or greater. This results in under-utilization of the private sector industrial waste detoxification, treatment, and disposal services (the existing, small industrial waste management industry operates at 25
percent capacity).

Typically a number of other "causes" for the problem are cited e.g., municipalities have no money, disposal technology is inadequate, manpower resources are lacking or poorly trained, consultants are poorly qualified, etc. All of these are true to some extent somewhere. However, where a community makes a commitment to control the adverse effects of waste management, such problems
can be overcome.



Absence of regulatory control (envif-onmental standards, strictly enforced) is due
to some of the following factors:

9 Ignorance of the Problem. The problem has been identified recently. This is the
case with highly hazardous wastes and with the potential of groundwater contamination by leachate. General recognition of the special nature of these wastes or effluents and their adverse effect on life and the environment is a recent

Absence of Alternatives. Courts or regulatory agencies do not move against disposal site operators if there is no alternative available. Shut-down of an operation is impossible politically unless wastes can be placed somewhere else. Site operators can "blackmail" the public by threatening shut-down rather than expending resources for upgrading. This problem is closely linked with the next one, and is probably the chief obstacle to environmentally acceptable waste
management where standards exist but are not enforced.

Public Resistance to Disposal Type Land Use. Public resistance to the siting of a new disposal site is usually intense and flows from public knowledge.of poor disposal practices in the past and reduction of land values (real or presumed). This makes creation of alternatives very difficult, prevents institution of the most economical logistical systems, and thwarts enforcement of regulations where they
are in force.

Imbalance in Po;ver Between States and Large Metropolitan Areas. This
phenomenon sometimes results in enforcement of regulations in small, rural places by the State but a "hands off" policy vis-a-vis large cities that have political and
fiscal strength.

Absence of Provenl7ested Technology. This phenomenon is applicable especially for hazardous waste disposal sites. It is difficult to mandate, for instance, the disposal of pesticides in landfills without hydrological connections unless such sites exist. It is d Ifficult, to establish such sites without the necessary engineering and testing programs to identify appropriate designs and to ascertain their viability. To a lesser extent, this issue also retards recovery of some types of
resources e.g., nonferrous metals and glass.

IV. Strategic Goals

From the problem statement the following goals are formulated for solid waste management:



0 Achieve acceptable and safe waste management to protect public health and
welfare and the environment.

Conserve natural resources through institution of resource recovery or by other
means where economically feasible.

Acceptable and safe waste management (for environmental, health, and safety reasons) necessarily results in the elimination of most site-related land and groundwater pollution, litter and blight, should improve the land values around disposal sites, will minimize adverse inter-population effects, and (by imposing higher costs on disposal operators) will create incentives for fiscal efficiency and other environmentally acceptable options. Roadside litter, accumulations of abandoned automobiles or other bulky wastes, and similar littering without a health or environmental impact would not be addressed by this goal. Resource conservation would be indirectly aided by the achievement of this goal in that it would raise the costs of disposal and thus make higher cost recovery a better option.

Conservation through, recovery and other means, while indirectly supported by environmental, health, and safety related upgrading of waste management,, is singled out as a national goal because resource recovery is a new activity at this time, not yet a selfevident waste management option. Institution of recovery systems (or other measures) will require more than regulatory pressure to achieve. Achievement of the highest feasible recovery is seen as a worthwhile national goal for national efficiency, strategic, and general public welfare reasons to forestall shortages and disruptions attendant on shortages.

Both national goals are appropriate Federal or EPA goals. Environmental and health protection is the chief mission of EPA. Resource conservation is the mission of the FEA (for energy) and of Interior (for minerals). Conservation of materials and energy from ivaste can and should properly be an EPA mission in that the achievement of such recovery is inextricably intertwined with considerations of waste management and ultimate disposal and achievement of environmental and conservation objectives are mutually supportive.

V. Constraints to Strategy Formulation

A. Regulatory Power.

There is no Federal regulatory power directly applicable to all land disposal sites and land disposal practices. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act does address the issue of land application systems for the treatment of municipal wastewater. The Clean Air Act is fairly effective in addressing problems from open burning. But no effectively clear control over groundwater exists for the many other kinds of wastes and disposal practices. Control over surface water pollution from disposal sites is weak. Section 209 of the existing Solid Waste Disposal Act provides the authority to issue guidelines which are mandatory for Federal



agencies but no one else. Until regulatorN power is provided to the Agency, work will be carried out under the authority and malidates, of Section 209.

B. Knowledge.

The extent of systematic knowledge (suitable for broad trade-off analysis and regulatory program justification) is relatively poor. This is especially true with regard to (1) industrial hazardous (and not-so-hazardous) waste quantities and compositions as they actually occur; current data are in the form of chemicals, not chemicals in actual waste streams;
(2) land, air, water inter-media consequences of various types of disposal, (3) the effect of hazardous and toxic materials on plant and animal life, (4) hazardous waste treatment and disposal technology, and (5) the qualities,, nature, occurrence, and handling methods related to numerous special wastes not heretofore given priority (crop wastes, animal wastes, hospital wastes, demolition debris, dredging, and a variety of nonhazardous or 44 situationally" hazardous sludges, (6) treatment and processes of the consequences of the use of the land as a disposal media, and (7) the costs and benefits of product regulation for recovery or source reduction.

C. Diversity.

State and municipal government structures, philosophies, and procedures vary greatly from region to region and within regions. Differences in geography, geology, population density, and many other factors exist. A uniform strategy for all States or all wastes or all regions is unrealistic and probably counterproductive.

V 1. Tools

Basic tools that could be used to achieve the strategic goals are listed below. Not all of these are available under existing authorities.

0 Regulatory action at various levels (Federal, State, local) including combinations
such as Federal standards, state enforcement, local implementation, etc. This includes the semi-regulatory use of guidelines and recommended procedures. Land
condemnation procedures would fall into this category.

Fiscal support such as grants, loans, subsidies, tax credits (to various levels of government and various types of organizations for a diversity of purposes) designed primarily to support capital acquisition and/or operations. This category
could include provision of land as a fiscal support mechanism.



Research, development, and demonstration, in-house or through contracts and grants, aimed at systems development and testing and environmental, health, and
safety assessment.

0 Technical assistance, consultation, and other foems of communications to transfer
knowledge, to facilitate project or program implementation, to persuade others,
e t C.

VIL Discussion of Basic Strategic Approach

A general strategic approach to achieve the two goals formulated above is presented and discussed here. A program array for the period of this strategy assessment is presented in the next section.

A. Strategy to Achieve Environmentally Acceptable and Safe Waste Management,
and Protect Public Health

The basic elements to achieve this strategy include:

(1) Regulatory control of waste storage, treatment and disposal.

(2) Mixed Federal and State implementation based on degree of harm assoc iated with
types of wastes.

(3) Program thrust supported by fiscal support to States, R&D, demonstrations and
technical assistance.

(4) Direct regulation and enforcement relative to Federal facilities.

Discussion. A regulatory approach is the single strategy likely to achieve a number of ends as discussed earlier. If consistently followed over a period of tim"e, it moves toward the most equitable distribution of the costs of control, provides for maximum participation by the private sector, provides incentives for efficiency and thus for cost reductions, and represents the most direct attack on environmental, health, and associated safety problems.

Significant differences in environmental and health damage are associated with types of waste, from innocuous (glass bottle) to severe (arsenic-containing pesticide). The level of attention that should be paid by the Federal government to waste management can be related to the degree of harm involved, the inter-state or national extent of damages resulting from poor management, etc. Given the ever-present resource constraints it is logical to some extent to concentrate Federal action in those areas where waste management problems have the most direct adverse impact.



General Approach. The approach is tc. direct the most severe types of wastes to a few, strictly controlled processing/disposal ;,ites, leaving the overwhelming number of other sites to process/dispose of other wastes. Thus the above strategy envisions a "cascading" regulatory strategy %vith direct Federal regulation and enforcement of very hazardous wastes, Federal standard-setting and state implementation of other hazardous wastes, and State responsibility for "'other" wastes guided by Federal guidelines.

It is stressed that a clean demarcation between "'hazardous" and "tion-hazardous" wastes does not exist except at the extremes of the spectrum. As more experience is gained the basic strategy is expected to change as well and reflect the gaining of clearer of the demarcation.

Federal Facilities. The chief exception to this general strategy is waste management on Federal facilities which is controlled under Sections 209 and 211 of the Act and Executive Order 11752. Relative to these sites, the strategy is development and direct enforcement of Section 209 guidelines (mandatory for Federal agencies) together with the necessary supporting technical assistance and administrative efforts.

State Role. This strategy relies heavily on State implementation of a Federal hazardous waste regulatory program and on a vigorous State regulation and enforcement of -other" waste management. This strategy envisions strengthening the State role through fiscal support on a flexible basis for both enforcement and for other preparation for a greater hazardous implementation role. Thus, EPA is attempting to "strengthen the State role" in all aspects of waste management.

From the State perspective, the problem is one of land disposal. States generally have authority to promulgate regulations for disposal sites and to relate the degree of regulation to the potential degree of hazard. Many States have issued regulations only for sites that receive non-hazardous wastes; a few have regulations promulgated for both. First, States that do not have the power to issue disposal regulations should acquire that capability. Second, States that have general authority should issue regulations. Third, States that have issued regulations should implement them, emphasizing the establishment of hazardous disposal sites separate from sites for other wastes where needed, available in proximity to the major waste generators. Thus, to "strengthen the State role" implies more aggressive, use of existing State permit, site approval, and enforcement powers-particularly with regards to using existing legislation to develop stricter criteria for hazardous waste disposal sites, distinct from "other" sites. Finally, States must take a more aggressive role in regulating all sites.

States can get ready for the control of hazardous waste. Current EPA. concepts rely on a waste stream-by-strearn approach to direct the worst wastes to selected sites and requires generators to show the disposition of their wastes. Few States have the authority to place



similar requirements on generators, and none have implemented authority (although the NPDES does provide some leverage). States that do not have this power should obtain authority; those with authority should implement it, As a first step, this approach implies that States should obtain knowledge of generators of wastes, a nd present management practices.

States can act to provide a facilitating role (apart from the incentives which result from appropriate enforcement) for desirable practices if the State desires-for resource recovery, hazardous waste disposal, or municipal waste disposal. Actions may include State involvement in local siting actions, use of State eminent domain powers, implementation of low cost, self-financing concept. The Connecticut Authority appears to be an attractive approach to address institutional and financial constraints in disposal, as well as in resource recovery.

To achieve the strategy, EPA will use its existing authorities to support planning and demonstration activities at the State level that (a) achieve progress toward hazardous waste control, (b) increase the pace of standard -set ti ng and enforcement relative to "other" wastes, and (c) lead to the establishment of facilitating institutions for implementation of resource recovery and hazardous waste treatment facilities.

It is recognized that the States will require some incentive for stepped-up action. Current authorities limit the range of Federal influence over State action. However,,it is assumed that a Federal standard -set t ing role will emerge from the current legislative cycle, which would require state implementation. Failing that, EPA will depend on persuasion and fiscal support for carrying out the strategy.

Hazardous Waste Technology and Effects. Because the level of knowledge is very low about control technology and effects of hazardous wastes, and because the Federal government will require hard data for standard-setting, a R&D and a demonstration element is absolutely necessary as a means of developing and justifying standards.

"Other" Wastes. In the "other" waste areas, the level of knowledge about the environmental and health effects associated with the many waste streams (animal, crop, and mining wastes; industrial slags; septic wastes; dredge spoils; various sludges and residues; and urban waste mixed or disposed of in combination with special wastes) is inadequate-particularly inter-media effects, effects on ground and surface waters, relationships between types of soils and leachate generation, etc. This strategy envisions investigations to obtain such understanding to guide better the assessment of Federal strategies in the future.



B. Strategy to Conserve Natural Resources by Waste Recovery and Source

The basic elements to achieve this strategy include:

(1) Technical assistance to promote implementation of energy and materials recovery

(2) One-time state recovery program support.

(3) Limited demonstration of technology to enlarge the technical options.

(4) Investigation of cost/benefit aspects of product regulation and other source
reduction methods.

Discussion. The fundamental barriers to implementation of waste recovery are (1) institutional constraints arising from the need to form novel institutional arrangements to practice recovery and (2) the high risk associated with full scale demonstration of new technology, which prevents demonstration of such technology with private or State/local funds.

EPA analyses indicate that resource recovery is already economically feasible in many areas, will become more so as regulatory thrusts are initiated, and is not impeded by fiscal constraints (State, private, and municipal funds' are available).

The ability of the consulting community to provide technical aid and consultation is severely limited largely by the fact that new systems are proprietary and the basic information is Federally held (in demonstrations). Thus this strategy envisions a two-fold thrust to provide technical assistance to communities and States and to improve the ability of the consulting community to provide services.

Some States have emerged as strong supporters of recovery system implementation: Connecticut, for instance, with Federal support, established a state-wide plan, an independent authority with funding powers ($250 million in bonding authority), and a strong state regulatory program (to foreclose cheap options). The state-wide scale provided by such programs, the State financing potentially available after an initial planning/implementation effort, and the ability to establish large and intelligently located facilities (that provide needed specialized as well as general purpose facilities) indicates that the State role in recovery can be strengthened by intelligent use of Federal resources.

Measures to reduce the generation of waste in essence represent changes in products and distribution systems undertaken either voluntarily or by legislative fiat. Such interventions,



unless minor, tend to be associated with costs to the economy in terms of disruption (jobs lost, equipment obsoleted, locational shifts, etc.) and must be carefully weighed against benefits. The benefits are reduced pollution, conservation of rawv materials, and avoidance or minimization of the disposal function. Because the benefits of reduced consumption (achieved through less materials-intensive or longer-lived products or through substitution of reusable for one-time-use products) are very significant, assessment of such conservation options is a key part of the EPA strategy. However, because of the great variety of products that must be examined, the approach will be selective, targeted to products or product categories that promise the most success of achievement at lowest cost.

V11I. Summary of Programmatic Implementation

Through FY 1975, the following program thrusts are envisioned to carry out the strategies broadly described above. The programs are arranged in order of priority within each major goal area and are presented in categories that group related activities as closely as possible.


A. Environmental Protection

1. Prepare for a hazardous waste regulatory role

a. Develop the data base-health/environmental
effects, quantification/qualification of waste streams, treatment/disposal technology b. Develop a regulatory strategy-type of standard,
State role, fiscal and land-use issues C. Strengthen States to implement a hazardous
waste role
d. Implement Section 19, FIFRA

2. Support Federal/State/local efforts

a. Develop technical expertise in special wastes
b. Consolidate/augment technical knowledge or
inter-media effects of land disposal C. Consolidate/disseminate technical/economic
data on processing and disposal methods d. Support State regulatory/enforcement programs



e. Implement Section 209 guidelines at Federal
f. Other (complete demonstrations and provide
technical assistance)

B. Resource Conservation

1. Promote implementation of energy recovery from
mixed urban wastes

a. Technical assistance to States, localities,
and the private sector
b. Operation and evaluation of projects-EPA
demonstrations and others-to support TA thrust C. Support of selected State implementation
d. Identification and demonstration of new
technological concepts

2. Promote materials recovery through technical
assistance and information exchange in the establishment of separate collection/recycling programs

3. Conduct a program of studies related to the concept
of conservation through source reduction

a. Benefit/cost trade-offs of economic product
b. Development and dissemination of information
to foster voluntary source reduction practices

4. Promote the consumption of secondary materials
through Federal procurement and other actions


(Excerpted fromt H. Lanier Hickmang Jr.9 comp.9 Activities of the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Fiscal Year 1975: Annual ft,t. /Washingtop/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency$ 1975.)


The Office of Solid Waste Management Programs is a small program in the Environmental Protection Agency. It consists of a staff of 125 and in Fiscal Year 1975 had a base budget of about $12.3 million. Additional funding received subsequent to approval of the base budget raised the total amount of dollars managed by 1975 to approximately $20 million, Other portions of the Agency, the office of Research and Development and the 10 EPA Regional offices also are involved in solid waste management.

The OSWMP is not a regulatory program. The existing Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended, was extended in FY 75. Several hearings were held on substantive amendments to the present Act but new legislation did not pass either the House or the Senate.

A major accomplishment in Fiscal Year 1975 was the publication of
an Agency solid waste management strategy in October 1974. This strategy statement gives the priorities for the Agency's solid waste management efforts, and details the programmatic thrusts of the program. The Agency goals as stated in the solid waste management strategy are to achieve acceptable and safe waste management, and to conserve natural resources.

To meet these goals the Office is attempting to develop a better
understanding of the environmental problems caused by improper management of certain wastes that may be "potentially hazardous." Our Hazardous Waste Management Division (HWND) focused on this effort. HWMD is establishing a data base to understand the sources of wastes (mostly industrial sources), the potential environmental damages that are or may be caused by improper management of those wastes, and the technology options that may be applied or be needed to reduce or eliminate potential damages. Major studies are underway in 13 industry groupings in the U.S. to define quantitatively and qualitatively thir hazardous waste streams. A large study is underway to test the acceptability of various thermal reduction processes to destroy certain hazardous wastes and a major project to demonstrate the land disposal of chemical (hazardous) wastes was initiated in FY 75. This Division is also developing the necessary tools and capabilities necessary to enable hazardous wastes to be regulated to protect environmental quality and public health. Studies are underway to interpret and understand other environmental regulatory programs and to develop recommended procedures for hazardous waste management. This Division has been delegated the responsibility to issue disposal regulations for pesticides and pesticide wastes under the FIFRA, as amended. This Division also works with the States and others who are developing their own regulatory programs directed toward potentially hazardous" wastes. Major program elements of HWMD are guidelines development, data base development, and program implementation. Major projects in the HWMD are described under these headings in Section III of this report.



A major focus of the Systems Management Division (SMD) is the
development of a better understanding of land disposal practices for wastes. In the past, OSWMP focused primarily on land disposal for municipal solid wastes, but during FY 75 increased resources were devoted to understanding the effects and practices of disposal and/or utilization of municipal sewage sludge on the land. SMD, is supporting the Water Supply Office of EPA by preparing a Report to Congress, as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, on the impacts of all land disposal practices on groundwater. Our land disposal efforts are to characterize the nature of leachate generated and potential or actual groundwater contamination from a variety of land disposal practices, to understand the technology of leachate collection and treatment, and to work with communities to better implement sound waste disposal practices. SMD has initiated a project to demonstrate anaerobic treatment of leachate and has underway a project to determine the acceptability of utilizing municipal sewage sludge as a soil conditioner and supplement in growing turf. This Division also addresses conventional solid waste management; with significant efforts directed toward the promotion of collection efficiency and safety in solid waste management. Of particular interest is the technical assistance capability and supportive tools of SMD which when utilized by cities and industries can significantly reduce their collection costs. SMD is also developing guidelines for the collection of municipal, commercial and institutional solid wastes under Section 209 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended. Major program elements of SMD are technical assistance, land disposal and special wastes. Major projects in the SMD are described under these headings in Section III of this report.

A major focus of the Resource Recovery Division (RRD) is the
implementation of systems to recover energy and materials from solid waste. RRD currently manages 5 large resource recovery demonstration projects, (two in materials recovery and 3 in energy recovery) and is attempting to stimulate the adoption of systems to separate wastes at their generation source for separate collection and recovery. RRD devotes considerable effort in studies and analyses to determine what actions are needed to stimulate increased demands for secondary materials and increase the practice of waste redUction. RRD also is responsible for the preparation of the annual Report to Congress on Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction as mandated by Section 205 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended. This Division is also responsible for developing
4 guidelines for resource recovery under Section 209 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, These guidelines address the sale of returnable beverage containers at Federal facilities, source separation and separate collection of wastes for recycling; implementation of large scale resource recovery facilities to recover materials and energy; and Federal procurement of products containing material recovered from post consumer wastes. major program elements of RRD are materials recovery# energy recovery, and waste reduction. Major projects in the RRD are described under these headings in Section III of.this report.


During FY 75 $3.0 million was allocated to the Agency's Regional offices to fund planning, d nstration and training projects of State solid waste management programs. The Regional Administrators were allowed maximum flexibility in awarding grants to State programs in order to implement the State role as envisioned in the Agency's Solid Waste Manag nt Strategy for PY 75.

Grant funds were utilized by the State solid waste management
program to increase efforts in the enforcement of State regulations for solid waste processing and disposal facilities, to initiate State-wide hazardous waste surveys,, and to conduct the planning necessary to encourage material and energy recovery from solid waste.

68-863 0 76 6

(Excerpted from: U.S. House of Representatives, Conittee on Interstate and Foreign Co erce, Waste Control Act of
1 Hearings, April 8-17, 1975, Washingtona U.S. G.P.O.,

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. thank you for asking me to participate in these hearings and to discuss with you our views on solid waste management. We have always supported the twin objectives of increased recycling o wastes and improved waste disposal practices. In our view, secondary resure recovery is not only desirable as a means of augmenting our primary supplies of raw materials, but is also essential from an environmental standpoint to reduce the ever-increasing volumes of wastes that must be disposed of. Since its creation by the Congress in 1910, the Bureau of Mines has been concerned with recycling mineral-processing wastes and with the refining of secondar metals such as lead, zinc. copper, and brass. In recent years, we have focused attention on recovering metals and minerals from urban refuse and a variet-y of industrial wastes, and on devising methods for more effectively processing junk autos to encourage more complete recycling of the metals and nonmeral ic constituents. I would like to describe what is being done and what can be done to assure more effective reuse of these wastes.

o om4.

.% ........................................

Tt l ................................................. ... .............................
*IGLR ,1- i r


Glass (U~ss

Tobt .e...............-------------------------------------------------- 035


Urban refuse is a rich potential source of recyclable minerals and metals. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, about 125 million tons of refuse-cmprising household, commercial, and some industrial wastes-are collected and disposed of yearly by our cities and municipalities (table 1). These wastes contain 9 million tons of iron and steel, more than 1 million tons of nonferro is metals, about 12 million tons of glass, and over 90 million tons of combustibles. The heating value of the coml)ustil)les is equivalent to about 45 million tons of coal. or inore than 200 million barrels of oil per year, which could reduce our dependency on interruptible and high cost fuels from abroad. The estimated griss value of the recoverable materials in the refuse is $1.4 billion.
Two processes have been developed in our laboratories for recovering the valuable materials from the refuse. One process is applicable to incinerated refuse and the other to treatment of the raw refuse. Both processes employ simple techniques and equipment that have been used in the minerals processing industry for many years in recovering metals and minerals from their ores. Bureau of Mines metallurgists have taken these techniques and equipment and adapted them for the job of waste prevention.


z 0-ft.

Z U = 0 Z 1 X. < 0

Z Z Cf)
iz <
w CD


cn r9l w
oo Z crw g
C/) 0 C/) 00 U)
w z <
C, > 'W R- z x u
w w CD LLJ -i
z cr- L)
Lli 0
z C/) Cl)


Fmm cf).
Cl) w

LJLJ W w 2Q- a.
z 0 L)
C/) L) Z

L* Z) :i N cr- Z) 66 X Z Cl) LLI U) U- < z =)A=
-J a3 0<



Of the refuse generated, about 30 million tons are currently burned in some 200 municipal incinerators operating through the United States. Incineration is expensive, but it serves to reduce the volume of the refuse by some 90 percent. Thus substantially less land space is required for disposal of incinerated refuse (incinerator residues), than for raw refuse. The incinerator residue is like a mineral ore, containing iron, glass, and nonferrous metals such as aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc (figure 1). These components are readily separated by a series of screening, grinding, jigging, and magnetic separaeon steps, as shown in figure 2. The process has been developed in a pilot plant, capable of treating about 12 tons of residue daily, which the Bureau has been operating at its Metallurgy Research Center just outside of Washington, at College Park, Maryland (figure 3). This process will be demonstrated in a plant having a daily capacity of 1250 tons of residue. The plant is being constructed by the city of Lowell, Massachusetts, on a cost-sharing basis with funds provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, and will treat the residues from several incinerators in the Lowell area. On the basis of extensive tests in our pilot plant, we estimate that recovery of the metals and glass from incinerator residue can provide a net credit, exclusive of marketing, transportation, and other indirect costs, of almost $15.84 per ton of incinerator residue processed (table 2).'


t Ile



0 1W 14 a



Fiauim &-Bureau of Mines' incinerator residue recovery plot plant


5 Q

W cr 0

co_j 0 j u
CL 0 > C; 4c
ui CK 4 ow
ol cm W 0 4c
F 3k

z co
ir V)
>- cc >-Uj =)
uj cr W cc U- co cr
140 z 2
0 a 0- 00 tij
z w 0(n :D 0 x
cc z (A
co 0 04
u x U -i
w W WQ
Fmm W w W
D cr x
< 2 4%
0 Le


D (r LAJ
uno U) r
< W
-i w
LLJ Zt co
U) 0
0 U) 4 0
0 D
2 D
0 0
(r z n..o

w z
cr rrw w 2 a: 4
0 w (A
OU0 il:t z c> zo> C,- C> 0>

<10 ul z < z
41" IV)
0. 1.- 2 Ix IV) w W w w

z z Ix 4
0 uj
z cri IV)
cc zx 0 v

Z w -1 w
Z 49 U0 ZVI z
cr 't at 0 LLI pa
u z r: OF
z >-bi 0.
4. X 0 0

FIGuRE: 4.


-N W
.. u *" 4............w

iisJ~ q'~



FIGURE 5.-Partial view of iaw refuse separation pilot plant.

Nationwide, most refuse-amiounting to about 95 million tons per year-is not incinerated but disposed of in landfills. Treatment of this raw or unburned refuse with techniques developed by the Bureau of Mines yields a combustible fraction as well as metal and glass products (figure 4). This process is being demonstrated in a pilot plant having a capacity of 5 tons per hour which is operating at our College Park Metallurgy Research Center. Figure 5 shows a view of the plant, and typical feed material appears in figure 6.
Our tests indicate that operating costs for a plant processing 1,000 tons of refuse daily would be about $2.70 per ton (table 3). The estimated gross value of the product obtained in such an operation would be $10.91 per ton, netting a gain of $8.21 per ton of refuse. In addition, $3.00 per tonl in landfill costs would be saved. The processing system (figure 7) has attracted national and international attention, and adaptations of the process have been announced by several local governments, such as Mlonroe County (Rochester), New York, and Baltimore County, Maryland, as well as the governments of France and Spain. The Bureau offers technical assistance to all parties interested in applying all or part of the system, to the solution of their solid waste management problems.
Technology developed by the Bureau of Mines and others has stimulated widespread activity to implement solid waste management through recycling.


-~ X\



FloU 6.-Raw refuse entering Bureau of Mines' resource recovery pilot plant.



F IGuRE 7 -Model of 1,000-ton-per-day raw refuse resource recovery plant.



Product Pounds scrap value

Ferrous metals ------------------------------------------------------------------ 400 $6.00
Aluminum ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 5.25
Copper, lead, zinc ----- ---------------------------------------------------------- 15 6.00
Clean glass --------------------------------------------------------------------- 600 6.00
Fine ash and slag ---------------------------------------------------------------- 950 0
Gross value ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ 23.25
Treatment cost (250 tons per day) I ---------------------------------------- ---------------------- 7.41
Net gain2......................................... ------------------------------------- 15.84

I Includes amortization of capital investment and depreciation of 5 percent over a period of 20 yrs.
2 Exclusive of marketing, transportation, and other indirect costs.


Product Pounds scrap value

Ferrous metals ------------------------------------------------------------- 144 $2.98
Aluminum ------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 1.92
Copper. lead, zinc ----------------------------------------------------------- 4 1.20
Clean glass -_---------- : ----------------------------------------------- I --- 188 1.88
Combustibles (fuel) --------------------------------------------------------- 1,516 3.03
Waste (ceramics, dirt, etc.) .......... 7 ---------------------------- I ----------- 132 0
Gross value ---------------------------------------------------------- 2,000 10.91
Treatment cost (1,000 tons per day) I ---------------------------------------------------------- -2.70
Net gain 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8.21
Saving-hauling and landfill ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3.00
Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.21

I Includes amortization- of capital investment and depreciation of 5 percent over a period.of 20 yr.
2 Exclusive of marketinL transportation, and other indirect costs.



Oki Ac
to -Z

01 uj -4
0 0
oo. re
A 0j
g i i "it a

2fz lz
w 0

w z
> z

w 01C 0 0
g r
cr- X
0 (X i
10 ------- 4
:0) co


lo w
bi z

0%. 1 0 00 W


FrGuRE 8


Figure 8 indicates the extent of demonstration projects and commercial installation.-s planned, under construction, or operating on the State and local levels. The techniques being adopted include a variety of pyrolysis. fuel substitution, and materials recovery processes. Much-Iprogress has been made and we are sure that continued effort will lead to further advances in the future as the country progresses toward extensive )ractice of solid waste recycling.
Concurrent with work on urban refuse, we have been developing new and
better methods for processing junked motor vehicles at our Salt Lake City (Utah) 'Metallurgy Research Center. About 9 million cars, trucks, and buses arejunked annually here in the United States (table 4). Approximately 8 million of these vehicles are scrapped to recover the iron and steel: 4 million by shredding and 4 million by hand dismantling. However, a large proportion of the nonferrous metals and nonmetallic materials simply goes to waste. In addition. about 1 raillion junked vehicles per year are not recycled and instead enter an idle "inventory" estimated at between 12 and 20 million units.
One of the immediate problems faced by small-scale processors of junk cars several years ago was the promulgation of air quality regulations which prohibited the open burning of cars. B(ause burning is a vital step in the preparation of jnk cars for hand dismantling and shearing or bundling, the Bureau developed an improved smokeless incinerator for automobiles which junk car lpr(cessors can construct at minimal cost (figure 9). Currently there are more than 30 incinerators of this design operating in the United States.
Large-scale processors mechanically shred junk cars at a rate of 25,000 to 300,000 units per year to produce fist-sized chunks of metal.


Weight, million Units,
tons I millions I

Vehicles junked ------------------------------------------------------------ 13. 5 9
Vehicles shredded ---------------------------------------------------------- 6.0 4
Iron ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4.5 ..............
Nonmagnetics --------------------------------------------------------- 1. 5 ---------------Metal -------------------------------------------------------------.3 ..............
Glass, rubber, plastics ---------------------------------------------- 1.2 .............
Vehicles hand dismantled, bundled, sheared ------------------------------------ 6.0 4
Vehicles not processed ----------------------------------------------------- 5 1

I Estimate.




-Nr k-~

nomE9.-mokeessjunkcarincieraor howig to cas i postio fo

Thesrde aeil ste eaae mgeial orcli h r' n
steel, levn aj.-.' nomS iei fratio cotiigfbirbegas lsis
an a itr4o4ofrou eassuha opeauinm n in fgr

Altough on-Smokelesy curntl cricnersatrt howin tweonfcariosition for caiamstel leain ahoetalyvlal nonmagneticfato otiigfbic rubbera glas, pascsed Our research has demonstrated a simple method for reclaiming a nonfer 'rous metal concentrate f rom. the nonmagnetic material by air classification and water separation. Today, there are about a half dozen commercial facilities in operation


ouner construction. which utilize this technology. We are now investigating
tcniques for further separation of this nonferrous metal concentrate into
almum, zinc, and copper alloy fractions.
Because the makeup of cars is steadily changing, wve foresee new and challenging separation problems when vehicles now in showrooms and on drawing boards fr future prouction have served out their useful life and are ready to reenter the raw materials supply chain through recycling. We are now working on applicaton of air- and water-separation techniques to recovery of plastics for reuse
frmnew model cars. Several late-model cars -have been furnished by the automble industry so that we can identify their materials of construction for comnprison with those of older cars now being scrapped, and can devise suitable, lwcst separation techniques. Substantial differences in the proportions of plstcs aluiminuin, magnesium, and low-alloy steels have already been identified figuree 11), and the Information Is being used by our researchers.

-N, *


4 t .

FIGURE 10.-Rejlect material from junk car shredding operations containing valuable nonferrous metals.


e al ufo

3. Catirn16 ube


5.IGlass ILD8.sme 192Mrcr crylicuooil sd o un a
6. Acticatedsitrion s9.ies.

1. Lighou steeldd 20/-hthcns)1. Alumiynum
2. Heavy irnantel(%inh1. Zin faiecs
10thicnlessse 15. ABspatl plastic
11. abst ion 16 ':!. Ruber

Bec. s Mi terhg iiblt otegneral wol1.Poluethan urbam euea n
5. Gase that ishre osehhntoAcllysgican.Ti aeoyhc 6.nctivs aenrteed caby indstia Vi nylcuigoeatos ead atteNylon (mauold e 20.runt itrPolenstpothyeewieefenus
S. Baeltsres thrug 1eyln. Polyproplesnlo etespemao poluio Lead em 2hat Nol ereue yonericpluat n atst usefu Sta ilales ste shows typca pnutilan nuctrgwastes,

eauple of their highatisilto that genera public an huanl reueents junk ats have reeatiowide aei, ben aiered athoerin metals -ateor

ofmineral freourthese thouhvecylngrse wastes--le ls somscemesa pseurries, pluges, pcrolmstnat olbrutions byrinering poluantsrp and ste-t usefl aeril.Tbessostyia.nutilad auatrn ats
example.%~~-- of th prtosta eeaeteadtevlal lmnsta

mineral 11.-Disassemblre12 MaseuryMotego utomles usedmoricallrris
sludeselecropatinwateomption stundis.afbteyscaadids

tria cknaesse)1.Apatlk.lsi


Substantial progress has been made in treating some of them. For examl)le, in primary alumninum smelting operations, about 200 lbs of dross are produced for each ton of metal I)rocessed. This dross contains a significant quantity of metallic aluminum that must be recovered to maintain the effliciency of the overall smelting process. In current industrial practice, recovering the aluminum produces a high-salt slag that is difficult to dispose of because of the possibility of water pollution. AInd it still conltalins some Iinely-(livide1 aluminum that should be recovered. In cooperation with firms that process dross, we are working to improve the efficiency of aluminum recovery and to avoid the rLsk of water pollution. We are also looking into the practicability of alternative procedures that would bypass the high-salt slag altogether.


Waste Source Component

Slags and drosses...........------------... Smelting and refining............ ---------Lead, zinc, aluminum, copper, manganese,
chromium, nickel, titanium.
Waste solutions-------------................. Electroplating, etching, and pick- Cadmium, nickel copper, chromium, cobalt,
ling. gold, silver, molybdenum, mercury.
Metallurgical dusts.............. -----------Smelting and fabrication--------......... Iron, zinc, lead, copper, arsenic, antimony,
bismuth, chromium, nickel, cobalt.
Sludges and grinding swarfs.-----..... Machining and manufacturing-..... Chromium, nickel, cobalt, iron, manganese,
tungsten, zircon, diamonds.
Slimes and tailings.............. -----------Leaching and ore treatment...... Alumina, iron, copper, precious metals, phosphate uranium.
Industrial gases-------------................. Pyrometallurgical operations ----.... Sulfur, fluorine.

TABLE 6.-Lead battery scrap
Number scrapped - ----------------------. 42,000,000.
Lead recovered - ----------------------- -- 348,000 tons.
Antimony recovered -------------- ---------- 17,000 tons.
Current processing problem - --------------------- SO evolution.
New, nonpolluting process .----------------------. Commercial adoption.
Water pollution-alnd the loss of valuable materials-affects many other in*dustrial operations. For instance, waste solutions from electroplating operations are a problem in virtually every in(dustrialized area of the country. If disposed of without treatment, they pollute the water and often release toxic constituents. They also carry valuable metals out of the recycling circuit. We solved part of the problem by the simple step of bringing together, in physical combination, waste solutions from different, adjacent operations. By combining acid waste and cyanide solutions, metal cyanide compounds are precipl)itated, the acid is neutralized, and water acceptable for reuse or discharge to streams is produced. The metals can then be recovered from the solid precipitate that is produced. We call this the wvaste-plus-waste technique, and it works.
Lead storage batteries are as ubiquitous as our automobiles. When the batteries are worn out, the lead in them is recovered for reuse. Table 6 shows how much lead and antimony (alloyed with the lead to make it stronger )is recovered. Current practice uses Ilast-furnace smelting of lead-battery scrap to produce secondary lead, but this opeIration also generates sulfur dioxide. To avoid the productionmi of this pollutant the Bureau of Mines developed a technique to tie up the sulfur with lime as calcium sulfate, before smelting. One West Coast processor addel the step to his operations almost as soon as we announced its development.
Sulfur dioxide in industrial stack gases cannot always be handled by a simple preliminary treatment of the material being processed or burned. To meet air pollution requirements, this sulfur dioxide must be removed from stack and flue gases. And in major operations like copper smelting and electric power generation, the sulfur in the gas waste represents a significant resource loss if it is not recovered in a reusable form. The most prominent method now receiving attention for desulfurizing these gases is limestone scrubbing, which produces enormous quantities of waste calcium sulfate sludge, and does not recover the sulfur for use. We feel that the Citrate Process developed by the Bureau of .Mines offers a better alternative for gas cleaning bec-ause it recovers elemental sulfur, an easily used material.

68-863 0 76 7





w 3:

z Z 0

w Cl. z
Z5 w in
-i D

z C)
IL 06


z a Cm
Z 4j
.4 z C -5
w C3 0 0
-i Z -J W Ij
0 A

ut X

FiouRE 12.-Generalized citrate process flowsheet.


Figure 12 shows the essential steps of this process. After sulfur dioxide is scrubbed from the gas stream by the citrate solution, it is reacted with hydrogen sulfide to produce sulfur and release the citrate solution for reuse. The process was originally developed to clean up smelter smoke. Now we are moving ahead with a major pilot plant to apply the Citrate Process to powerplant flue gas. For a typical powerplant burning 3-percent sulfur coal, we estimate that the citrate scruIbbing step will add about 2 mills to the cost of a kilowatt-hour of-electricity.
The progress in solid waste imanagenient to date., and the rate which new technology is being accepted and utilized, clearly indicate that our Nation is headed in the right direction. Therefore, we believe that the technologic approach should be continued. Many unsolved waste problems still require technical solutions, and much of the technology currently being developed will require large-scale demonstration as part of the technology transfer process. H.R. 406 and H.R. 5487, however, would divert our country's attention from this urgently needed effort and channel national efforts instead into an extensive regulatory program. Rules and regulations, we believe, are best decided as local issues, and waste management laws, in our views, should be left in the hands of State, County and local governmients. The most effective Federal role in solid wastes is one of technical assistance and research and development. With regard to H.R. 406, we agree that the legislation could help reduce the amount of metal and glass being discarded. However, the effect of banning noureturnable containers would be minimal in terms of our overall solid waste burden in that many other items besides beverage containers are disposed of in solid wastes. In addition, it could result in other adverse consequences, not all of which are entirely clear. Furthermore, enactment of H.R. 406 might lull citizens into a mistaken belief that the country's solid waste management needs have all been taken care of. With respect to H.R. 5487, we believe existing authorities are adequate to meet existing needs and to carry out an appropriate Federal program. In any event, consideration of an expanded program such as this measure contemplates should be deferred in view of the economic and budgetary considerations outlined by the President in recent months.





9250 LBS. 8500 LBS. 800 LBS. 650 LBS. 450 LBS. 1200 LBS.

1300 LBS. 65 LBS. 25 LBS. 15 LBS. 15 LBS. 35 LBS. OTHER


8000 L8S. 5150 LBS. COAL 4700LBS. 1/10 LB URANIUM