Interstate Movement Of Municipal Solid Waste

Transcription

1 1.S: P'E C I A L R E P 0 R T: 2 Interstate Movement Of Municipal Solid Waste February 1992 The United States has an intricate web of beneficial interstate movements of municipal solid waste. Where interstate movement is a problem, it usually results from failure of the exporting state to develop adequate disposal capacity. The solution is neither a ban on interstate movement of wastes nor exclusionary fees, but rather a requirement for all states to site capacity to meet their fair share of waste disposal needs. National Solid Wastes Management Association 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC (202)

2 Until the past decade or so, the disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) occurred close to the point where the waste was generated. Most communities had their own landfills. In recent years, disposal sites have moved farther and farther from collection points as existing sites were closed and not replaced because of environmental regulations, zoning restrictions, and political and economic considerations. There are two principal reasons that MSW moves in interstate commerce from the state in which it is generated to another state for disposal. The first reason is that it makes good sense from an economic, social, and environmental standpoint. Natural wastesheds have developed over time. They reflect a cooperative and collective strategy for people in a region to solve their common problem -how to dispose of their wastes in the most efficient, safe, environmentally protective, and cost-effective manner. The answer in many cases has been to send MSW from one state to a landfill or waste-to-energy site in another state. This often involves an interstate shipment of only a few miles between contiguous states. The second reason for interstate movement of waste is that adequate disposal capacity is either not available or not affordable in the generating state because that state has failed to make the hard decisions necessary to develop such capacity. This second reason is distinguished from the first by the fact that it is primarily political and, only secondarily, economic or environmental. Generating states in this second case have environmentally suitable sites, but they don t use them because of NIMBYism (the Not-In-My-Backyard syndrome), land costs, or other reasons. The political and economic costs of disposal in the generating state become so high that it is less expensive to transport the MSW to other states for disposal. Beneficial movements of MSW Interstate movement of MSW is not inherently bad. In fact, it has been, and continues to be, essential and beneficial to both generating and receiving states. A host community can gain a number of benefits. Its own MSW will be managed safely and economically, while the old, less protective facility is closed. The community s tax base is also broadened. It is increasingly common for the host communities to play a major role in planning and designing state-of-the-art facilities, as well as receiving host fees based on the volumes of waste received. More and more of these public-private partnerships are being developed. On the other side, the generating community is able to dispose of its MSW safely and economically instead of being pressured into keeping open an environmentally unsafe facility. Without the opportunity to send its waste to a facility in another area, a community that does not have the resources to develop new management options or upgrade existing ones may be delayed or prevented from closing a poorly run home site. 2

3 For many communities, the challenge to upgrade old disposal facilities or build new ones will increase as a result of new federal landfill regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in October These regulations, mandated by Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, establish for the first time minimum federal standards for the siting, design, construction, operation and closure of MSW landfills. As they take effect in the next two years, these regulations will raise costs in many states that do not already impose such standards. The higher costs of compliance with Subtitle D rules may only be sustainable with revenues derived from a large wasteshed, such as one that crosses a state border. In fact, the new federal rules will help eliminate one of the reasons that interstate movement of waste becomes a problem-that is, the failure of a receiving state to enact or enforce appropriate environmental standards for waste management facilities. Substandard facilities compete unfairly in the marketplace, are bad citizens in host communities, and create potential liability for generating communities as well. The new federal rules are a big step toward solving this problem. In instances where states simply fail to develop adequate disposal capacity of their own, thus threatening to use up the capacity of receiving states, the solution is not a ban on interstate movements of MSW. but rather for those and other states to site capacity to meet their fair share of waste disposal needs. It should be noted that and are far and away the two largest exporters of municipal solid waste, accounting for about half the total interstate shipments during Neither state takes imports from surrounding states, and both ship to 10 or more other states. Some of the waste is shipped under contract to state-of-the-art facilities in willing communities in other states, and some is shipped to marginal facilities with doors open to all comers. The exports from these states have declined since due to increased recycling and new disposal capacity brought on-line. Extensive interstate web Good, reliable, and complete data on interstate movement of MSW are not collected or analyzed, even by EPA. This is partly because interstate waste movement has not been seen as an acute problem warranting the attention, time, or resources of waste management professionals in most states. Data were therefore gathered by the National Solid Wastes Management Association from state government officials, published reports, and the private waste industry. The limited data that are available confirm that extensive interstate movements form an intricate web of interactions that represent complex and valuable relationships 3

4 ~ among the people of the various states. This should be no surprise. It is just another manifestation of why unburdened interstate commerce that is protected by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution has been considered so critically important to the success of the nation s economic and political system. Data on the 48 contiguous states show: 132 different and regular interactions occurred between states in Each interaction reflects the fact that MSW moves between two states, as an import or an export; 42 states plus the District of Columbia exported some portion of their MSW for disposal; 42 states imported some MSW for disposal; 2 states (Montana and Delaware) had no known interstate activity; An estimated 15 million tons of MSW was moved annually in interstate commerce during 1989 and This is 8% of the 180 million tons that EPA estimates is generated each year; 16 states plus the District of Columbia exported more than 100,000 tons; and 26 states exported less than 100,000 tons. A ban or excessive fees would be counterproductive Large, new state-of-the-art landfills and waste-to-energy facilities are expensive. Increasingly, they rely on revenues derived from volumes of MSW coming for disposal from regional wastesheds. Funds necessary for planning, design, engineering, and construction of the badly needed new capacity they offer will not be committed if there is a risk that the flow of waste to the site will be interrupted or cut off, causing projected revenues to decline sharply. Neither private nor public investors will readily assume that risk. Existing facilities that were built in reliance on revenue from out-of-state MSW would also be affected by a ban or discriminatory fees. They could be forced to cease operations if the lost revenue could not be recovered through higher rates for in-state waste so as to meet the costs of debt service and operations. In the absence of sufficient volume to sustain an efficient, large facility, smaller facilities would likely need to be built to meet a state s disposal needs. Thus, ironically, the imposition of a ban, or even the risk that a ban might be imposed, could lead to the need to site more, rather than fewer, facilities at more locations. There is every reason to believe that NIMBYism will continue to frustrate the siting of those additional facilities. INTERSTATE STATE IMPORTS FROM EXPORTS TO ALABAMA Georgia Florida Georgia Mississippi ARIZONA California California Nevada Utah ARKANSAS Oklahoma Louisiana Mississippi Oklahoma CALIFORNIA Arizona Arizona Nevada Utah COLORADO Nebraska Nebraska New Mexico CONNECTICUT Massachusetts Massachusetts Rhode Island DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Maryland North Carolina FLORIDA Alabama Georgia Georgia GEORGIA Alabama Alabama Florida Florida South Carolina South Carolina IDAHO Washington 4

5 SOLID WASTE MOVEMENTS STATE IMPORTS FROM EXPORTS TO STATE IMPORTS FROM EXPORTS TO ILLINOIS MASSACHUSElTS Connecticut Connecticut Iowa Maine Maine New Hampshire New Hampshire Minnesota Vermont Wisconsin Rhode Island Wisconsin Vermont INDIANA Illinois Illinois IOWA Wisconsin Illinois Minnesota Nebraska KANSAS Oklahoma MICHIGAN Illinois Illinois MINNESOTA Iowa Illinois Wisconsin North Dakota South Dakota MISSISSIPPI Alabama Arkansas Louisiana KENTUCKY Illinois LOUISIANA Arkansas Mississippi MISSOURI Arkansas Illinois Illinois Kansas Kansas NEBRASKA Colorado Colorado Iowa South Dakota Wyoming MAINE Massachusetts Massachusetts New Hampshire New Hampshire NEVADA Arizona California MARYLAND Dist. of Columbia NEW HAMPSHIRE Maine Maine Massachusetts Massachusetts Rhode Island Vermont Vermont 5

6 STATE IMPORTS FROM EXPORTS TO NEW JERSEY Illinois Maryland NEW M EXlCO Colorado NEW YORK Connecticut Florida Illinois Maryland Massachusetts Vermont NORTH Dist. of Columbia South Carolina CAROLINA South Carolina NORTH DAKOTA Minnesota South Dakota OHIO Connecticut OKLAHOMA Arkansas Arkansas Kansas OREGON Washington Washington PENNSYLVANIA Dist. of Columbia Maryland STATE IMPORTS FROM EXPORTS TO RHODE ISLAND Connecticut Massachusetts New Hampshire SOUTH Georgia Georgia CAROLINA North Carolina North Carolina SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE Minnesota Nebraska North Dakota Arkansas Georgia Mississippi Alabama Georgia Mississippi TEXAS Arkansas Arkansas Louisiana Louisiana New Mexico New Mexico Oklahoma UTAH Arizona California VERMONT Massachusetts Massachusetts New Hampshire New Hampshire VIRGIN I A Dist. of Columbia South Carolina Pennsyivania WASH I NGTON Idaho Oregon Oregon WEST VlRGlNA WlSCONSl N Illinois Illinois Iowa Minnesota WYOMING Nebraska 6

7 Since the development of new, safe, environmentally protective disposal capacity would be hampered by a ban, the former importing state could be forced to keep open less environmentally protective facilities to dispose of its own MSW. The nation needs capacity Since the country is not knee-deep in garbage borderto-border and coast-to-coast, the characterization of the problem as a national solid waste crisis seems inappropriate. A time bomb would be more accurate. Americans are generating more and more trash with less and less space set aside to bury it and without sufficient alternatives in place to make up the difference. The result is local problems with national implications. Source and volume reduction methods are vital to our nation s waste management strategy and should be actively encouraged. Yet reduction cannot obviate the need for disposal. Very large quantities of garbage will still have to be disposed. There is a natural tendency to want to preserve disposal capacity for the community, the county or the state in which it is located, and to prevent it from being diminished by those from outside a certain geographic boundary. Ideally, every state should have the capacity to treat and dispose of most, if not all, of its own MSW. But once it has that capacity, it should not be limited to using it to dispose of only its waste, as long as there is assurance that its MSW will be managed responsibly. Earning the right to apply sanctions The grant of authority to impose a ban or exclusionary fees on out-of-state waste holds no promise, by itself, that the importing or exporting state will develop the capacity to manage its own MSW. If developing adequate capacity for disposal is the goal, as it must be, then states should be required by federal law to site and permit sufficient disposal capacity within the immediate future unless legitimate environmental considerations would dictate otherwise. If exporting states fail to do so and continue to be excessive net exporters of MSW, they should be subject to sanctions. Federal law could allow states with adequate and approved capacity to restrict imports from a net exporter that fails to develop its own capacity consistent with specified federal requirements. 0 No known exports * (All believed to be well below 100,000)

8 For more information, contact: National Solid Wastes Management Association 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC (202) Copyright 1992 NSWMA