Maria Liubarskaia

Comparative Analysis of Contemporary

Russian and American Solid Waste
Management Practices

Introduction

Maria Liubarskaia,
Professor,
SaintPetersburg State
University of Engineering
and Economics
Advisor:
Ronald L. Mersky,
Associate Professor,
Widener University, Ph.D.

The key to improving solid waste management systems (SWMS) in different countries is identification and remediation of the weaknesses
of SWMS and identification and strengthening of the advantages of
SWMS. This is best done by comparison between or among different
systems. So this research is concentrated on comparative analyses of
SWMS in the Russian Federation and the United States of America to
develop recommendations on improving their functioning in both countries.
In modern societies the quality of the population's life is a key determinant of development for countries and regions, and the effective organization of SWMS is an important component of this criterion. The purpose
of SWMS is minimization of the harmful influence of waste on the environment and health of the population, i.e. reduction of distribution of pollutants. The Russian Federation and the United States of America are
among the largest countries of the world so their SWMS have great influence on the global environment.
Cities in most of the world face two solid waste problems: increasing
solid waste quantities and limited area. That is the reason for long distances between places of waste generation and points of their processing
or landfilling. This is manifested in increasing costs of solid wastes handling
and, in particular, of their transportation.
Unfortunately, the traditional approach assumes that waste is viewed
only as garbage to be thrown out. But wastes that have accumulated
in official landfills and illegal dumps, or have been recovered, represent
a valuable source of raw materials for industry, construction and other
branches of society. Their use can become a basis for increased economic
potential of a region. All aspects of a garbage problem (environmental,
economic and social) must be considered in the optimization of SWMS
at all stages.
Considering that household waste influences deterioration of the environment and reduces quality of human life, it is critical to create an effective SWMS. Developing a solution to this problem within the limits of traditional administrative methods and with current operating technologies
is almost impossible. Therefore it is integral to apply a complex approach,
allowing for the comprehensive evaluation of a current solid waste management situation and the determination of the most effective management
decisions that should be promoted.

1
www.irex.org www.usrf.ru

Legislative Base
and Organizational Structure
To examine SWMS effectively, we must start with
legislation, which has the greatest impact on it.
Legislation sets policy in this area, provides a framework for the rights and obligations of the participants
of SWMS, and influences public awareness of the importance of this issue. As noted in the introduction,
it is necessary to apply a complex approach to improvement of SWMS (technological, economic, organizational, and informational elements), but all these
changes should be reflected in the legislation.
The highest level of law both in the Russian Federation and in the US is the Constitution. The American Constitution was written in 1787 and became
effective in 1789. It has been modified several times,
most recently in 1992. This document makes no specific mention of environmental issues or issues of waste
management [16]. The Constitution of the Russian
Federation [1] was adopted in 1993. This law also does
not directly address problems of solid waste management. But Article 42 states: Everyone has the right
to a favorable environment, reliable information on
its condition and compensation for damage caused
to his health or property by ecological violations [2].
Legislative laws in both countries must be in accordance with the Constitution.
The legislative base in the sphere of solid waste
management, both in the Russian Federation and the
United States of America, is determined at three levels:
1) national (federal);
2) regional; and
3) local (municipal).
The procedure for approving federal laws in the
United States of America is stated in the Constitution
(Article 1, Section 7) [16]. To be ratified, a law must
usually be approved by three parties: the two national
parliamentary bodies (the Senate and the House of
Representatives, collectively referred to as Congress)
and the President. Both bodies of Congress have
established many specialized committees to organize
their legislative work [20, 22]. In the House of Repre-

sentatives, there is the House Committee on Natural

Resources. Also, the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce has a Subcommittee on Environment
and Economy. There are other committees/subcommittees that may be involved with environmental
issues [20]. In the Senate, there is the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and others
that may be involved with the environment [20, 21].
Laws at the federal level in the Russian Federation,
including in the field of waste management, are approved by the supreme representative and legislative
body: the Federal Assembly (the Parliament) (under
Article #94 of the Constitution of the Russian
Federation [3]). The status of the Federal Assembly
is defined in Chapter #5 of the Constitution of
the Russian Federation. The functions and powers of
the Federal Assembly are divided between two chambers the State Duma (lower house) and the
Federation Council (upper house) (under Article #95
of the Constitution of the Russian Federation [3]).
As part of the State Duma, there is a special Committee dealing with solid waste management issues.
It is the State Duma Committee on Natural Resources, Environment and Ecology [4], which provides:
preliminary consideration of the laws and their
preparation for the State Duma;
issuance of opinions on draft laws and draft
decisions, appeals, complaints received by the State
Duma; and
analysis of law enforcement on matters pertaining to the Committee.
While laws in the US are enacted by the Congress
and President, executive agencies are created to carry
out the directives of those laws. The President has
the authority to issue Executive Orders to manage
the operations of the federal government [17]. In 1970,
the President issued an executive order creating the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [18, 19].
The administrative activities of 15 existing environmental programs were moved to the EPA, making it
the executive agency for most environmental laws.
All American federal regulations that have been
issued are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations.

2
www.irex.org www.usrf.ru

Maria Liubarskaia. Comparative Analysis of Contemporary

Russian and American Solid Waste Management Practices

Title 40 of that code contains EPA-issued regulations

[26, 27].
The most significant American solid waste legislative act is the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). This act is divided into subtitles;
Subtitle C involves hazardous wastes while Subtitle D
involves municipal solid wastes (MSW) [23].
For hazardous wastes, RCRA Subtitle C gives
the EPA authority to control generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal. For MSW,
RCRA Subtitle D only provides a general framework
for management. Most authority is left to state and
local levels of government [23, 24].
The EPA defines a waste as hazardous if it meets
one or both of the following criteria: it is mentioned
on one of four lists established by EPA regulations,
or it exhibits at least one hazardous characteristic
defined by the EPA [25].
In the Russian Federation, contemporary structure
of Federal Executive Bodies was approved by the
Decree #636 of the President on 21 May 2012 [5].
According to this Decree, at the federal level there are
two main Federal Executive Authority bodies dealing
with solid waste management. First is the Ministry
of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian
Federation [6], with subordinate the Federal Service
for Supervision of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor) [7]. Second is the Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Supervision
(Rostekhnadzor) [8].
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
independently carries legal regulation, as well as
developing and submitting to the government draft
federal constitutional laws, federal laws, and acts
of the President of Russia and the Government of
the Russian Federation on the following issues:
use and protection of water bodies;
air protection;
environmental protection and ecological safety;
management of waste of production and consumption (excluding radioactive); and
improvement of the economic mechanism of
environmental management and environmental protection.

The Federal Service for Supervision of Natural

Resources (Rosprirodnadzor) is responsible for control
and supervision in the sphere of natural resources use,
as well as within its competence in the field of environmental protection [7].
The Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Supervision (Rostekhnadzor) is subordinated directly to the Government of the Russian
Federation [8]. This Service implements the functions
of the adopted regulations, as well as providing control and supervision in the field of environmental protection to limit the negative effects of man-made
activities (including in the field of management
of waste of production and consumption).
At the regional level, the territorial units of the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources
(Rosprirodnadzor) and the Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Supervision
(Rostekhnadzor) provide relevant responsibilities.
There are also special executive bodies allocated with
functions of solid waste management at the regional
level. For example, in Saint-Petersburg, such functions are carried out by Department of Management
of Waste of Production and Consumption of SaintPetersburg [9].
The main objectives of the Department are:
implementation of the functions in the field
of management of waste of production and consumption in the territory of Saint-Petersburg;
coordination of activities of other executive
bodies of Saint-Petersburg, as well as subordinated
to the Department State unitary enterprises and public institutions in the field of handling of waste of production and consumption; and
organization of collection, disposal, recycling
and processing of household and industrial waste,
if these powers are not assigned to local issues of local
government in Saint-Petersburg.
Active Federal involvement with the solid waste
management system in the USA began in 1965, when
Congress enacted the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA). This Act provided the first federal statutory provisions designed to improve solid waste disposal practice. The SWDA was amended in 1970 by

3
www.irex.org www.usrf.ru

the Resource Recovery Act, and amended again

in 1976 by RCRA. The changes embodied in RCRA
restructured the nation's waste management practice
by adding provisions for proper hazardous waste
management [28, 29].
Active development of the Russian solid waste
management system began in 1998, when the main
law regulating activity in this sphere was adopted,
called On Waste of Production and Consumption [10]. Up to that point the solid waste management sphere was not considered a separate object of
management, and its mediating influence on the concept environmental protection was estimated only.
The law of the Russian Federation, On Waste
of Production and Consumption (1998) [10]:
provides definitions of the basic concepts which
are used in questions of solid waste management;
defines legal bases of the production and handling of waste management;
serves the purposes of prevention of harmful
influence of production and handling waste on health
of population and surrounding environment; and
involves production and handling of waste in
economic circulation as additional sources of raw
materials.
This law also mandates that Subjects of Federation (official territorial parts of the Russian Federation which possess independence and powers within
differentiation of areas of jurisdiction between Federation and subjects) provide state policy in the field
of solid waste management in the territory. Individual
powers of Subjects of Federation in the field of solid
waste management are limited to the following functions [10]:
designing and building objects for placing, processing and neutralization of waste;
planning and implementing regional target
programs in the sphere of solid waste management;
and
maintaining economic, social and legal conditions for minimization of quantity of waste and its
fuller use as secondary raw materials.

Waste Generation
and Morphological Structure
of Household Waste
The Russian Federation and the United States
of America are among the biggest waste producers
in the world. Experts estimate solid waste generation
in the Russian Federation is about 27 million tons
a year [11] (4th place in Europe after Germany, France
and Great Britain). The EPA estimates 250 million
tons in the US each year [13]. Population of the Russian Federation (2012) is 143.3 million [14], population
of the United States of America (2012) is 315.6 million [15]. So by official statistics, the population of
the US generates 792 kilograms per person per year
and the population of Russia generates 188 kilograms
per person per year. This is a difference of about four
times. But collecting and analyzing such statistics are
not easy; in the USA such statistics are available
at the EPA's official website and in Russia only from
surveying the Internet.
Solid waste generation in the Russian Federation
is growing. This is demonstrated by the example of
big cities: In 2004, through the system of housing and
communal services of Saint-Petersburg, 1.28 million
tons of waste generated in available housing was
removed; in 2010 this amount was estimated to be
1.40 million tons [12]. It is possible to explain
the growth of waste generation in recent years by
the influence of several factors. First, it is necessary
to note gradual growth of real incomes of the population during the period after the transition which
occurred in Russia in 1998. An increase in the average
level of consumption has caused an increase in average
waste generation.
The second important factor leading to increasing
waste generation volume is the decrease of specific
gravity of waste that occurs because of growth in the
use of plastic, cardboard, metal and other packaging
(Table 1). For this reason sharp growth of waste generation in volume units (cubic meter) is accompanied
by less considerable growth of weight of waste (ton).
However, as an official change of standard density has

4
www.irex.org www.usrf.ru

Maria Liubarskaia. Comparative Analysis of Contemporary

Russian and American Solid Waste Management Practices

not occurred, calculations quite often are based on

overestimated density. Until recently control of generation, transportation and placing of waste, and also
management of the process, was not effective.
When wastes produced by the population are collected in containers, their generation is measured in
units of volume. When that waste arrives at the enterprises of the municipal complex, it is measured in tons.
Based on reported research, the current conversion factor in Russia is 0.192 (i.e. the weight of 1 cubic meter
of waste is 192 kg). The morphological structure of
household waste in Russia for the last 15-20 years has
sharply changed [12]. These changes are connected with
the increasing share of used packing materials in waste.
According to expert estimates, in modern Russia
the average share of waste used as secondary raw materials (recycled) doesn't exceed 10%. Waste to energy
in Russia also is not a large amount. In Russia there is
no system for collecting and recycling waste of electrical and electronic equipment, used tires, batteries and
accumulators, end-of-life vehicles, etc.
In 2006 2007, Russia replaced a considerable part
of its containers for waste collection. For example,
during that time the Housing Committee of the Government of Saint-Petersburg received 4,132 containers for
separate collection of waste, and also 3,110 containers
for collection of bulky waste [12]. But the percentage

of the people who actually participate in the program

of separate collection is very low at the moment.
Features of solid waste management in large
Russian cities include:
long distances between waste generation and
facilities for their recycling or landfilling;
large variety of groups participating in solid
waste management process (population, offices of firms,
trade enterprises, public institutions, the housingoperational organizations, specialized transport enterprises, waste processing plants, landfills, etc.);
compound structure of household waste (big
share of packing, electrical and electronic equipment,
end-of-life vehicles, etc.); and
presence of a considerable quantity and a variety of facilities of waste handling infrastructure
(complex waste processing plants, landfills, enterprises for processing of certain flows of a waste, etc.).
Schemes of household waste collection in Russian
cities:
Unitary, providing collection of all kinds of waste
in one container; and
Separate, providing collection of different
kinds of waste in separate containers, usually three
containers.

5
www.irex.org www.usrf.ru

The unitary scheme of household waste collection is

the most common. There are some experiments introducing a system of separate household waste collection, but
they don't find wide application for a number of reasons.
It is connected not only with a low level of involvement
by the population, but also the need to provide special
means for transportation of separately collected waste.
Solid waste generation in the US also has a growth
trend, but in recent years this is the result of increased
population, not a per-capita generation increase. Between

1990 and 2000, total waste generation increased from

205,210,000 tons/year to 239,050,000 tons/year, an average annual rate of increase of 1.65%. From 2005 to
2007, the increase was 250,430,000 to 254,140 tons/year,
an annual average increase of 0.74%. Prior to 1990,
the generation increase was due to a combination of
population growth and increased per capita waste
production. Since 1990, however, the per-capita production has remained fairly constant, at slightly under
five pounds/person/day [37].

Schemes of household waste collection in cities of

USA are:
Unitary, similar to Russia. This was the typical
method until approximately the late 1980s. Since that
time the increase of large-scale recycling has reduced
the popularity of this scheme.
Unitary with drop-off recycling. In this scheme
non-recyclable waste is placed in a single container for
collection at the home while at drop-off recycling
centers, multiple containers are provided for collection
of separated materials.
Two containers, one for non-recyclable waste and
one for all materials to be recycled (commonly referred
to as co-mingled or single stream recycling).
Multiple containers, one for non-recyclable waste
and others for various categories of recyclable materials.

6
www.irex.org www.usrf.ru

Maria Liubarskaia. Comparative Analysis of Contemporary

Russian and American Solid Waste Management Practices

Economic and Technological

Base
In the European Union, one of the basic principles
of the financial and economic mechanism of solid
waste management is responsibility for the organization to process its collection and recycling after
loss of consumer properties. Funds allocated to help
with these principles maintain an economical basis
for the European solid waste management system.
In Russia these principles are not legislatively established, so the Russian solid waste management system
lacks financial resources. In the US this principle
works on a voluntary basis.
Transportation of the basic part of the waste collected in Russian households is carried out by a number of special transportation enterprises, most of
which are private. For example, in Saint-Petersburg
the two largest specialized transport enterprises
(JSC Spectrans 1 and JSC Spectrans 6)
accounted for more than 73% of total waste transportation in 2010. City special transportation enterprises frequently apply technology in two stages.
They transfer waste from the containers used for
waste collection in households into high-capacity
containers (mainly from 6 cubic meters containers
into 27 cubic meters containers). The main objective

of this transfer is crushing bulky waste and pressing waste in high-capacity containers. Technology
in two stages allows reducing both transportation
routes and the number of trucks needed. This
results in higher productivity of transportation and
decreasing fuel consumption and cost of transportation. Based on official data at the beginning of 2011,
five waste reloading stations have been operating
in the Saint-Petersburg solid waste management
system. The real volume of the waste which has
arrived at these stations has exceeded 1 million tons
per year.
In Russia there are four big waste incineration
plants (Table 3) and four big waste processing plants
(Table 4). For example, in Saint-Petersburg processing of household waste is carried out at the mechanized enterprises for processing of household waste
MPBO-1 and MPBO-2. Industrial processing of
municipal solid waste of Saint-Petersburg in 2010
totals 310 thousand tons (15% of total amount).
And it's one of the highest rates among Russian
cities, the basic part of municipal waste going to
landfills.
Since their origin, waste processing plants in SaintPetersburg have been focused on processing biodegradable parts of MSW into compost, suitable for
use in agricultural production, and also on recovery
of ferrous metals by means of magnetic separation.

7
www.irex.org www.usrf.ru

Furthermore, sorting of waste on the conveyor was

carried out. For the period of 1960 2010, the morphological structure of waste and technologies of agriculture have changed. Now MSW contains a considerable quantity of hardly processed and hazardous
components, including heavy metals (zinc, copper,
cadmium, etc.), which get to compost, mainly, from
used electrical batteries. Consequently public health
services do not allow using compost made of this
waste in vegetable growing operations. For similar
reasons, compost cannot be used for fertilizer where
animals graze. As a result, the compost made at
plants has no commodity sale and is used only for
covering landfills.
In all regions of the Russian Federation, residents
pay for collection, transportation and disposal of
household waste. These fees are set at the local level
and are included in general receipt for communal utilities [30]. In Saint-Petersburg the total fee for collection, transportation and disposal of household waste
is calculated based on the rates listed in Table 5 and
on the cost of household waste transportation, provided by specialized transport organizations (on 1 Sep
2012) of $10.7 per cubic meter. The fee includes economically reasonable expenses of household waste disposal facilities and takes into account the distribution

of waste flows between processing and landfilling

facilities as 21% and 79%. This fee amounts to $3.7
per cubic meter for waste disposal ($4.3 with VAT).
The total fee is $15 per cubic meter per person in 2013,
based on the standard generation of household waste
for the population of Saint-Petersburg, at the rate
of 1.88 cubic meters of household waste per person
per year [36]. This fee is paid according to the size
of the apartment where the resident lives. For example, fee for collection, transportation and disposal of
household waste in Saint-Petersburg is $1.4 per year
per square meter of the total area of apartment
(including $1 for wastes collection and transportation
and $0.4 for their disposal) [34].
Solid waste facilities (collection, transfer, landfill,
recycling, composting) in the US may be owned by
government (state, county or local) or private forprofit businesses. In some cases one entity (government or private) performs all operations from collection through disposal/sale of recyclables. In other
cases the waste may pass through the facilities of multiple entities.
Funding for solid waste management in the US
varies between residential and commercial waste.
Almost all commercial (and large multiple-unit residential) waste producers pay a volume-based fee to

8
www.irex.org www.usrf.ru

Maria Liubarskaia. Comparative Analysis of Contemporary

Russian and American Solid Waste Management Practices

private waste management service providers. These

providers collect the waste and arrange for all subsequent disposal/recovery operations (either through
their own facilities or by facilities owned by other
entities). For single-unit residential waste, there are
multiple funding schemes in use in the US. In some
communities waste management is paid for by general municipal or county tax revenues. In other cases
residents pay a special solid waste fee/tax. In some
communities there is no government involvement in
funding and residents contract with private waste
companies. Some fees paid by residents of single-unit
homes are flat rates and some are volume based.
In the US, 26% of waste is recycled, 8.1% is composted, 11.7% is burned for energy recovery, and
54.2% is landfilled or burned without energy recovery [13]. There are 1908 landfills in the country.
This number has been decreasing in recent years,
but total landfill capacity has not, indicating an
increasing average capacity per landfill [13, 37].
There are 86 operational waste-to-energy plants
[13]. In 2011 there were a total of 8441 solid waste
facilities of all kinds in the US. In addition to the
mentioned landfills and waste-to-energy plants, that
number includes transfer stations, recycling and
composting facilities [39].

Informational base
One of the major components of efficient management in any sector is access to reliable, comprehensive information necessary for the analysis of a current situation, for elaboration of strategic directions
of development, and for acceptance of tactical decisions.
Unfortunately, statistical data about actual
quantity of waste generation from various sources
(population, cultural, community and administrative agencies, trading organizations, industrial
enterprises) in settlements of the Russian Federation is not collected. Statistical reports of legal entities on waste generation and their further movement
(so-called report 2 a waste) according to
requirements of the existing legislation are given
to regional authority bodies.
In the US, reliable information on a national
scale is compiled and posted by the EPA [13].
State, county and local governments also maintain
detailed records of generation rates and material
quantities that are processed at individual facilities.
These data are mostly publicly available.

9
www.irex.org www.usrf.ru

Conclusions
Russia and USA SWMS similarities:
Administrative structure
Three levels of legislation
Most waste is landfilled
Inadequate solid waste awareness
No mandatory producer responsibility
Low level of packaging deposits
Russia and USA SWMS differences:
Data availability
Generation rate
Composition rate
Use of waste-to-energy
Funding system
Structure of regional/state systems

General conclusions
Need for uniform data collection and reporting
on SWMS
Russia needs to establish an adequate information
base of SWMS, as currently collected data on the
amount of waste generated are not analyzed or
posted on the official websites of the authorities
responsible for waste management. The United
States shows that the availability of information
on SWMS (e.g. at the official website of the EPA)
allows an analysis of the effectiveness of measures for
waste management: changes in the amount of waste
generated, the percentage change of recycling, etc.
Furthermore, for both the United States and Russia
it is reasonable to create a uniform approach (at least
at the country level) to collection and distribution
of the data on SWMS on official websites. Currently,
different sources use different classifications of waste
generated (e.g. organics or food waste and yard
waste, etc.). And there is no standard definition
of what is included in these categories of waste.

In the future, it would be valuable to develop a unified approach to data collection and analysis
throughout the world to be able to make comparisons between countries.
Need for economic incentives for participants
of SWMS
To improve the efficiency of waste management systems, Russia and the United States need to strengthen
the use of economic incentives for participants of SWMS.
Currently, participation in recycling programs does
not bring any economic benefit to the population and
therefore is not very active. For example, in European
countries, where there is a high enough deposit for
the packaging (plastic bottles, cans, etc.), the population is much more involved and the percentage of recycling of this category of waste is very high (up to
100%). The fee for the collection and disposal of waste
paid by the public and organizations in Russia is quite
low, determined by norms, and does not encourage
participants of SWMS to reduce the amount of waste
generated. In the United States, the pricing methods
for the collection and disposal of waste are transferred
to the local level, and in most of the country it is difficult to trace the link between a specific amount
of waste generated by households and the level of the
fees. For Russia and the United States it is reasonable
to establish a clear link between a specific amount
of waste generated by household or organization, and
the waste collection and disposal fee, which would
also encourage the reduction of waste and participation
in recycling programs.
Need for a public education campaign
All the improvements of SWMS, in addition to legislative consolidation, must be accompanied by public
information campaigns. Benefits, which organizations
and the public can get by participating in the recycling programs, should be promoted through the
media. For example, to reduce the use of plastic bags
in supermarkets, economic measures should be combined with information: prevent uncontrolled free dis-

10
www.irex.org www.usrf.ru

Maria Liubarskaia. Comparative Analysis of Contemporary

Russian and American Solid Waste Management Practices

tribution of plastic bags, provide customers with more

environmentally friendly alternatives (for example,
reusable bags), and deliver information to all stakeholders on the benefits of using more environmentally
friendly initiatives.

References
1. Constitution of the Russian Federation http://www.constitution.ru/ Accessed February 23, 2013
2. Constitution of the Russian Federation http://www.constitution.ru/10003000/10003000-4.htm Accessed February 23, 2013
3. Constitution of the Russian Federation http://www.constitution.ru/10003000/10003000-7.htm Accessed February 23, 2013
4. State Duma Committee on Natural Resources, Environment and
Ecology. Official web-site http://www.duma.gov.ru/structure/
committees/131037/ Accessed February 23, 2013
5. On the Structure of The Federal Executive Bodies. Decree
of the President of the Russian Federation of #636
http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=
LAW;n=131690 Accessed February 23, 2013

12. The long-term target investment program for management

of solid household and industrial waste in Saint-Petersburg for
20122020 http://www.greenpeace.org/russia/Global/russia/
report/toxics/recycle/LIP-part1.pdf Accessed February 23, 2013
13. Materials Generated in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960
to 2010 http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/
pubs/2010_MSW_Tables_and_Figures_508.pdf Accessed
February 23, 2013
14. Demographic of Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Russia#Population_data Accessed February 23, 2013
15. Demographic of the United States http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Population_of_the_United_States Accessed 23 Feb
2013 Accessed February 28, 2013
16. Constitution of the United States http://www.senate.gov/
civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm Accessed February
28, 2013
17. Executive Orders FAQs, http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/executive-orders/about.html Accessed February 28, 2013
18. Reference For Business, Encyclopedia of Business 2nd Edition,
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Ent-Fac/
Environmental-Protection-Agency-EPA.html Accessed February
28, 2013
19. EPA History, http://www.epa.gov/history/ Accessed February
28, 2013

6. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian

Federation. Official website http://www.mnr.gov.ru/ Accessed
February 23, 2013

20. Congress Merge Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/committee_list.cgi?site=congressmerge Accessed February 28, 2013

7. Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources

(Rosprirodnadzor) Official web-site http://rpn.gov.ru/node/1
Accessed February 23, 2013

21. govtrack.us, Committees, Senate Environment and Public

Works, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/SSEV
Accessed February 28, 2013

8. Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and

Nuclear Supervision (Rostekhnadzor) Official website
http://www.gosnadzor.ru/about_gosnadzor/
Accessed
February 23, 2013

22. American Government 6c, The Importance of Committees,

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/6c.asp Accessed March 7, 2013

9. On Measures of Optimization of Activity of State Executive

Bodies of Saint-Petersburg in the Field of Management of
Waste of Production and Consumption. Judgment of the Government of Saint-Petersburg #965 http://base.consultant.ru/
cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=SPB;n=92620
Accessed
February 23, 2013

23. Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,

http://www.epa.gov/regulations/laws/rcra.html
Accessed
March 7, 2013
24. Discussion with James May, Professor of Law, Widener
University, February 19, 2013
25. Hazardous Waste Regulations, http://www.epa.gov/osw/lawsregs/regs-haz.htm, Accessed March 7, 2013

10. On waste of production and consumption. Federal law #89-FZ

http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=
LAW;n=131656 Accessed February 23, 2013

26. Non-hazardous waste Regulations, http://www.epa.gov/osw/

laws-regs/regs-non-haz.htm, Accessed March 7, 2013

11. DISCOVERY Research Group forecast in research of the Russian market of processing of waste http://www.waste.ru/
modules/news/article.php?storyid=2505 Accessed February
23, 2013

27. Code of Federal Regulations, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR&searchPath=
Title+40&oldPath=Title+40&isCollapsed=true&selectedYear
From=2012&ycord=1764, Accessed March 7, 2013

11
www.irex.org www.usrf.ru

Maria Liubarskaia. Comparative Analysis of Contemporary

Russian and American Solid Waste Management Practices

28. General Services Administration, Office of Real Property Disposal Fact Sheet, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and Real Property Disposal https://extportal.pbs.gsa.gov/
RedinetDocs/staticdocs/rc/ env/RCRA.pdf Accessed April 11,
2013
29. EPA, History of RCRA http://www.epa.gov/osw/laws-regs/
rcrahistory.htm Accessed April 11, 2013
30. Housing Code of the Russian Federation http://www.zhilkod.ru/
Accessed March 1, 2013
31. Order of the Tariff Committee of Saint-Petersburg of 30 Nov
2012 #425-p http://gov.spb.ru/helper/tarif/tarify-2013goda/tarify-na-uslugi-po-utilizacii-i-zahoroneniyu-tverdyhbytovyh-othodov/ Accessed March 2, 2013
32. Order of the Tariff Committee of Saint-Petersburg of 30 Nov
2012 #426-p http://gov.spb.ru/helper/tarif/tarify-2013goda/tarify-na-uslugi-po-utilizacii-i-zahoroneniyu-tverdyhbytovyh-othodov/ Accessed March 2, 2013
33. Order of the Tariff Committee of Saint-Petersburg of 30
Nov 2012 #427-p http://gov.spb.ru/helper/tarif/tarify-2013-

goda/tarify-na-uslugi-po-utilizacii-i-zahoroneniyu-tverdyhbytovyh-othodov/ Accessed March 2, 2013

34. Information Letter of the Tariff Committee of Saint-Petersburg
of 29 Aug 2012 #01-14-1691/12-0-0 http://base.consultant.ru/
cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=SPB;n=126222 Accessed
March 2, 2013
35. The analysis of existing situation of waste management
http://www.e-gorod.ru/documents/programs/eko-mag/zavod.htm
Accessed March 1, 2013
36. Order of the Tariff Committee of Saint-Petersburg of 09 Jul
2008 #30-p http://docs.cntd.ru/document/8478401 Accessed
March 1, 2013
37. Mersky, Ronald L., State of Solid Waste-Issues and Opportunities, 2009 Educational Conference on Litter Control and Solid
Waste Management, Morgantown, WV, October 18 20, 2009
38. Chicago Department of Environment Waste Characterization
Study, April 2, 2010
39. Waste Business Journal's Directory of Waste Processing & Disposal Sites 2011

The Yegor Gaidar Fellowship Program in Economics is a program of the U.S. Russia Foundation for Economic Advancement and the Rule of Law (USRF) and IREX. The Gaidar Program
supports the longterm development of Russias market economy by providing opportunities for leading Russian economists to conduct collaborative research with U.S. economic
experts. It is named in honor of Yegor Gaidar, the first Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation. http://www.irex.org/project/yegorgaidarfellowshipprogrameconomics