&EPA
United States Solid Waste and
Environmental Protection Emergency Response
Agency (5305)
EPA530-R-94-008
February 8,1994
Municipal Solid Waste
Flow Control
Summary of Public
Comments
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
1
Table 1
2
I. Impacts of Flow Controls on Solid Waste Management and Capacity 3
State and Local Governments j
Waste Management Industry \ 3
Recycling Industry 8
Financial Institutions 8
Environmental Groups and Individuals 9
9
II. Impacts of Flow Controls on Source Reduction and Recycling .....;..' u
State and Local Governments |
Waste Management Industry [ 11
Recycling Industry \\\ i '' 13
Financial Institutions | " ° 14
Environmental Groups and Individuals 15
in. Impacts of Flow Controls on Economics
17
State and Local Governments
Waste Management Industry < ', 17
Recycling Industry ' ' '•'* • • • • • *8
Financial Institutions . ' '•''. '••-.. 20
Environmental Groups and Individuals V 21
'. .21
IV. Impacts of Flow Controls on Recyclable Material
* 22
State and Local Governments
Waste Management Industry . .'. '' 22
Recycling Industry ' ' ' 2S
Financial Institutions " 25
Environmental Groups and Individuals ' 26
• 26
V. Impacts of Flow Controls on Human Health and the Environment ... ! , 0
• »•».....,..,..,.. ^jj
State, and Local Governments !
Waste Management Industry ' 28
Recycling Industry 28
Environmental Groups and Individuals ' 29
' '' *' 29
VI. Alternatives to Flow Controls . .
31
State and Local Governments
Waste Management Industry .. ' ' 31
r 32
-------
Recycling Industry
Financial Institutions ..;
Environmental Groups and Individuals
33
34
34
List of Commenters
35
-------
SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROL COMMENTS
INTRODUCTION
control
?;h
preparation of the RePort to c™&™ on municipal solid waste flow
P * efress their *™ ^ Providing written comments and participating in
etm "T11' ^^ (AUgUSt 1?' 1993); San Francisco' C^0
^
control of MSW, also referred to as designation, is a high priority issue fo^S
t C°mmenters included 74 '*te and local governments, 60 s
and idividuals
r™m,n f bmitted ^"^ materials at the meetings and also provided additional
comments to the pubhc docket. This report is strictly a summary of the various positions discussed in the
written comments up to and including docket number 00195.1 The summary does not contain anj
d±n±°TentS' U0r d°^ k reflCCt EPA'S P°Siti0n °n ^ °f the issues ^ised. Tb.e purpose of this
Report ?o 3"26 P°Slti°nS °f intereSt6d *"** °n fl°W C°ntr°ls in 1™P™«™ tor the
This summary also helps identify areas in which further research may be necessary Much of the
information provided in the written comments is anecdotal and lacks quantitative details.\ addition L
written comments did not always provide examples or explanation of opinions, especially on the S of
alternatives to flow controls. While many of the comments and perspectives are enlightLta^ theyPdo not
provide all of the necessary information or documentation for preparing the Report to Congress
fh, n, f breakdown ^ respondent type (e.g., state and local government) that identifies
the number of commenters, number of commenters who support or oppose flow controls and the
areas that received comment. This report organizes the information inio six lss« S£ (D ?m
anTrSS- mn m "f ° ^^^ ?* ^^ (D) impaCtS °f fl°W ""^ on source
mfteriaT rS?'/ } T*?* C°ntr°1S On economics' (IV) ™P*^ of flow controls on recyclable
material, (V) impacts of flow controls on human health and the environment; and (VI) alternatives to flow
controls. Within each issue area, the report is organized by respondent type. Afte the issue
the summary provides a list of commenters that provided written materials to the clocktt
«icte
contradict the i
Some commenters submitted more than one copy of their comments: this explains the
eg ™ "^ "" ^ ^
t
contained in the state matrix, the discrepancy will be identified in a footnote
(throu8h
* *
February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 2
TABLE 1
NUMBER OF COMMENTERS BY ISSUE AND NUMBER OF COMMENTERS IN FAVOR OF AND AGAINST FLOW-CONTROL
Commenters
State and Local
Governments
'Waste Management
Industry
Recycling Industry
Financial Institutions
Environmental Groups
and Individuals
TOTAL
— ================
======
Total
Number, of
Commenters
74
' 60
29
2
14
179
=====
Number of
Commenters
For/Against Flow
Controls
66/5
1 had no opinion
2 did not comment
10/50
3/11
15 opposed flow
control of
recyclables only
1/0
1 had no opinion ,
7/6
1 had no opinion
. For - 87
Against - 72
• No Opinion - 5
Oppose FC of
recyclables- 15
=^
Total Number of Commenters That Discuss the Impacts of Flow Controls on:
Solid Waste
Management
and Capacity
61
13
7
2
4
========
Source
Reduction and
Recycling
33-recycling
10-source
reduction
29
17
1
4
'
Economics
54
46
18
2
5
•
Recyclable
Materials
36
7
17
1
4
•
=====
Human Health
and the
Environment
17
20
8
0
6
=
Alternatives
to Flow
Controls
• 13
8
8
1
1
=====
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 3
I.
IMPACTS OF FLOW CONTROLS ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND CAPACITY
State and Local Governments \
Sixty-one of the 74 state and local government commehters addressed the impact of flow control
on solid waste management and capacity (i.e., 13 did not specifically comment on this issue). Of these 61
commenters, 59 support flow control and two local governments oppose it in favor of free market
approaches. The issues of effective and environmentally responsible solid waste management planning and
capacity development are central to the flow control concerns of state and local governments. The 59
commenters supporting flow control include 10 state agencies and 49 local governments or local
government organizations involved in municipal solid waste management. These commenters urge EPA
and Congress to explicitly grant flow control authority to state and local governments. Based on the
written comments, it is unclear what Massachusetts' position is on flow control. Also, the submission from
Ohio EPA does not state an opinion for or against flow control. Instead, it answers specific questions
posed by the U.S. EPA in the July 12, 1993 Federal Register.
One municipality, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, advocates improved flow control, not the
elimination of it. It suggests that regulators identify and resolve the problems with existing systems and
educate and train local government officials who will be planning and implementing municipal solid waste
management in the future. Lancaster County also recommends that EPA establish the following:
• A national requirement for local governments to develop and implement a long-term plan
for managing all municipal solid waste and recyclables generated within the community;
• Planning standards, materials definitions, and plan adoption procedures that incorporate
public participation; .
• , Procedures allowing commercial and industrial generators of municipal solid waste to "opt
out" of a local waste management system at the time of plan adoption if the generator can
assure adequate disposition and meet recycling and waste management goals; and
• Indisputable authorization of local government flow control authority for municipal solid
waste, including recyclables, as necessary, to implement their plans.
Responsibility/Right to Manage Waste. Eighteen state and local government commenters,
including the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System in Washington State, view municipal
solid waste management and planning as the "natural" responsibility of local governments.; Five of the 18
commenters went even further by categorizing municipal solid waste management as a public utility,
similar to sewage disposal and electricity. Both the National Association of Counties (NACo) and the
United States Conference of Mayors pointed out that the only difference between solid waste flow control
and sewage waste flow control is whether the waste moves by truck or by pipe. Two commenters noted
that without flow, control, New Jersey would be unable to finance and develop the additional capacity
needed to meet its goal of achieving self-sufficiency for solid waste management before the 21st Century.
Flow control is needed for effective management, capacity planning, and to keep "foreign" waste out of the
facilities. Since solid waste management is a government's inherent responsibility, derived from its police
powers, government should have the legal authority to exercise control over the flow of waste.
i
One commenter noted that when there are waste management problecas (e.g., garbage is not
collected), citizens automatically call the local government, regardless of whether tide local government
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 4
runs the collection services. Thus, citizens view solid waste management as a public service. Two
commenters added that the public interest should come before economics. The Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources cited court cases from as early as 1905 that declare municipal governments
responsible for managing their own wastes. Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania claimed that it is their
Bright to pursue viable, long-term land-use planning," which is not protected by the free market system, and
it is their "right of self-determination of how we want to use our land, water, and resources."
Ensuring Economic Viability of Environmentally Preferred Facilities. One of the issues receiving
the most attention is the use of flow control to finance solid waste management facilities. Nineteen
commenters noted this benefit of flow control. Flow control provides the financial assurance that the
investor communities and bond rating agencies require, by guaranteeing, over the life of the facility,
contracts for a definite amount of solid waste and/or recyclables for which the facility will receive a'
specified revenue (tipping fee). Some local governments have "put or pay" contracts with solid waste
management facilities that require a definite amount of solid waste and/or recyclables to be delivered or
the local government must pay for the shortfall in waste or recyclables. Flow controls allow local
governments to meet these contracts by requiring that solid waste or recyclables be managed at, specific
faculties. Flow control also reduces the risk faced by the bondholders (i.e., more tonnage equals more
money, which increases the security of the bonds). Once the facility is constructed, flow control allows for
its .financial viability and continued operation. As two commenters explained, flow control guarantees
sufficient revenues for the facility owners (either a private company or local government unit) to repay the
debt incurred during initial start-up and to guarantee the long-term financial viability for the facility
(usually 30-year bonds). ,
A related issue, noted by 17 commenters, is that flow control guarantees the flow of particular
types of waste to the designated facilities. How control ensures that food and yard wastes go to the
compost facility, mixed waste goes to a transfer station to separate out the recyclables, and combustible
waste goes to the incinerator. In this manner, facilities are guaranteed efficient operations, such as the
incinerator receiving an ample amount of waste to maintain environmentally safe temperatures. In
addition, this guaranteed flow of waste allows facilities to predict their revenues and, as mentioned above,
repay their debt on a fixed schedule. One commenter noted that if facilities, operating under a "put or pay
contract," did experience shortfallsJn waste received, tax dollars would be wasted since local governments
would still need to pay the facilities to meet contractual obligations.
. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Clinton County, Michigan, -both
commented that voluntary agreements to ensure the flow of waste to a facility are not strong enough
guarantees to build facilities. Only flow control can assure the controlled movement of waste and protect
against competitors undermining rates and diverting waste streams. Likewise, Winnebago County,
Wisconsin, noted that flow control is necessary to protect municipalities from competition so that'they can
properly manage and finance their facilities.
Ensuring Adequate Long-term Capacity. According to 14 commenters, flow control protects and
ensures long-term capacity. Future capacity also is protected financially through guaranteed revenues
which foster the continued, long-term operation of a facility. These flow control assurances, for example
allow Delaware to guarantee capacity through the year 2009. In Honolulu, flow control is used to ensure
that waste is sent to the waste-to-energy facility, which is necessary to extend landfill capacity and to keep
the city from "being swamped with garbage." Long-term capacity also is guaranteed when flow control is
used to minimize the amount of waste actually disposed by emphasizing source reduction and recycling.
One commenter added that source reduction and resource recovery are not economically appealing to the
February 8, 1994 *
-------
PageS
waste management industry; therefore, flow control is needed to ensure that these environmentally
beneficial management options, which ensure long-term capacity, are implemented.
Flow control can prohibit facilities from accepting waste generated outside of the designated
planning area; this legal issue is currently a problem in Illinois. Federal and state courts are examining the
legality of flow control prohibitions and restrictions on the movement of municipal solid waste. Legal
decisions may affect the ability of flow controls to protect and ensure capacity.
Solid Waste Management Planning. Seventeen government commenters stated that flow control
allows for effective and environmentally responsible solid waste planning and management. State and local
governments can plan for and manage the appropriate type and number of facilities to handle the long-
term generation of waste within a specified area. Additionally, effective planning also can predict and
manage facility closure. Six commenters noted the benefit of being able to predict the quantity of solid
waste over- time. This predictability allows state and local governments to plan for and develop future
capacity. The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) indicated that Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania, through its flow control ordinance, has assured capacity through the year 2015. Six
commenters indicated that flow control allows local governments to meet their goals, such as source
reduction, recycling, and capacity goals. For example, New Jersey has the goal of a 60 percent municipal
solid waste stream recycling rate by 1995. New Jersey believes that this goal is attainable only through
effective flow control. Two commenters also indicated that flow control allows for the appropriate
selection, planning, and management of the costs associated with a reliable solid waste management
system. .
Not only does flow control allow for the effective planning of solid waste management systems, it
also provides for the implementation of solid waste management plans, as noted by 15 commenters. With
flow control as the foundation, all aspects of the plan, particularly an integrated solid waste management
system, can be implemented. More specifically, four commenters noted that flow control allows for the
development of capacity needed to (1) make this integrated system a reality, (2) replace the capacity lost
by closing landfills, and (3) meet recycling goals. As a result of planning and the use of flow control, little
uncertainty about the amount of waste exists, and financial obstacles, if any, are minimal. The system can
integrate source reduction initiatives, recyclables collection and processing, resource recovery, and ,
landfilling (as the option of last resort) to manage waste in an efficient and environmentally protective
manner. This type of system has been the goal of the Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia
(SPSA) and, as SPSA indicated, it has been quite successful. The system will succeed because haulers will
not have the option of diverting waste from the local materials recovery facility to a cheaper landfill.
Many states require development of integrated solid waste management plans, Local governments are
fulfilling their legal responsibility by implementing their plans and, therefore, should be empowered to use
the necessary tools, such as flow control, to achieve effective implementation.
I
Eight commenters focused on general waste management hierarchy issues related to flow control
and solid waste management planning. Five commenters indicated that flow control allows local
governments to decide the best and most protective methods to handle their waste, based upon the solid
waste management hierarchy. Source reduction and recycling take priority over incineration, and
landfilling. The local governments can then plan for the necessary facilities to implement the chosen
methods of management, and flow control guarantees that the waste will be sent to the proper facilities.
For example, in Florida, a county must meet a 30 percent recycling goal, have a commercial recycling
program, and have some type of yard waste management program as a prerequisite to siting a waste-to-
energy facility. Two commenters added that the result of flow control will be less waste sent to landfills.
The City of Springfield, Missouri expanded on this issue by stating that without flow control, law suits may
** Februarys, 1994**
-------
Page 6
arise over the "improper disposal of solid'waste." An additional commenter, the Greater Lebanon Refuse
Authority in Pennsylvania, discussed the concept of recycling landfills, or landfill mining. Through
recycling, a 200-ton per day 15-acre landfill serving 100,000 people could operate for 100 years, based on
several repetitive periods of use, recycling, and reuse. This would limit the need for new landfill capacity.
Five commenters indicated that local governments also are obligated to provide and/or fund all
supplementary waste management services, such as household hazardous waste collection, curbside
recycling programs, composting programs, and community education programs. Flow control is essential
to keep local governments from going bankrupt trying to fulfill these obligations, in addition to covering
the costs of meeting regulatory requirements, planning, and public participation in decision making
activities.
Three commenters argued that citizens are willing to pay more for integrated solid waste
management systems that are technologically advanced and, thus, more protective of human health and the
environment. As SWANA pointed out, in many instances, the public has even voted in favor of paying
higher tipping/user fees than they would for private landfilling in order to obtain the services provided by
the integrated systems. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania adds that, in its experience, flow control authority
is'what allows the citizens to strive for and achieve the highest quality services and the maximum value for
their investment. Finally, SWANA asserts that, without flow control, state and local governments cannot
have the municipal solid waste management system of the future that the public is demanding.
Liability Issues. Six state and local government commenters addressed liability issues. As
described by NACo, local governments are subject to "arranger liability," which is premised on the theory
of actual or potential local government control of the solid waste stream, based on the police power
authority and the government's right to monopolize waste disposal if it so chooses. If a private
owner/operator abandons a dump site or landfill, the local government may be liable for clean-up, closure,
and post-closure care under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA or Superfund), if they designated (or arranged) that waste be sent there. Further, NACo stated
that these activities are extremely expensive, and many local governments nationwide, such as Tacoma,
Washington, are incurring significant debt to fund remediation activities. If local governments might incur
these future liabilities, they should be granted flow control now to build up funds to cover future clean-up
and closure activities. In addition, flow control is a positive mechanism for limiting a local government's
future liability since the local government would have the authority to direct municipal solid waste to the
most environmentally protective facilities. These commenters hold that if local governments cannot have
flow control authority, they should not be held accountable for how the waste is managed by the' private
sector. * ) v
Waste Import/Export Four commenters addressed waste import and export issues. Michigan
DNR noted that the control of imports and exports of waste across state boundaries is a key requirement
in establishing and maintaining a comprehensive solid waste management system. This control has been
threatened by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Fort Gratiot. The Supreme Court held that a Michigan
law restricting landfill operators from receiving waste generated outside of the county, unless it was
approved in the integrated solid waste management plan, violates the Commerce Clause of the
Constitution. Michigan DNR views this decision as jeopardizing the ability of counties to ensure long-
term capacity, which could eventually lead to a nationwide disposal crisis. Clinton County, Michigan,
referred to the Fort Gratiot decision.as crippling the planning process. If waste generated in Michigan is
taken out of state, waste from other states will be needed to maintain a sufficient flow of waste to facilities
in Michigan. NACo stated that Congress needs to declare that flow control, and local government
management of its own waste, is not unlawful interference or an unreasonable burden upon interstate
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page?
commerce. Finally, Minnesota remarked that a state cannot ensure the environmentally safe management
of waste sent outside of its borders. Only if other states have equal or better standards and policies would
waste exportation be a viable option.
I
Use of Flow Control in Negotiations. Minnesota commented that flow control, or waste
designation, can often be used as a leveraging tool to motivate voluntary delivery to designated facilities
when negotiating contracts. In Minnesota, flow control is the tool of last resort. In order to adopt a flow
control ordinance, a county or group of counties must undergo a series of public hearings and state or
regional approval. They must attempt to achieve flow control by voluntary delivery before an ordinance
can be implemented. The City of Urbana, Illinois, echoed this benefit of using flow control as a leveraging
tool during solid waste management negotiations.
Private Sector Issues. Four commenters raised issues regarding the private sector and flow
control. San Diego County, California, pointed out that private companies, when entering contracts, rely
upon negotiating the type and volume of waste to be sent to their facilities; in effect, a form of flow
control. Similarly, granting flow control authority to local governments would allow them to compete with
private firms and enter into comparable agreements. Private industry would continue to play a significant
role in solid waste management, as they do today in areas where local governmeats exercise flow control.
i
Hennepin County, Minnesota, recalled that when it was deciding to finance an integrated solid
waste management system and impose waste designation (i.e., mandated flow control), companies did not
raise: opposition. However, companies are now complaining because, as Hennepin County believes, they
were not successful enough in selling their facilities and technologies when local governments were
contracting for waste-to-energy facilities. Hennepin County asserts that EPA and Congress should not be
persuaded by these companies who want the rules changed for their own financial benefit. Similarly, the
Greater Lebanon Refuse Authority (GLRA) asserted that many private companies develop business'plans
that include the receipt of waste from, or into, flow controlled areas and, therefore, planned for a greater
volume of municipal solid waste than is reasonable to expect under the state and municipal regulatory
plans. For example, a company may decide to site a landfill 15 miles outside of a county that has flow
control ordinances designating where the county's waste is sent. The company, however, may disregard
this flow control authority and plan to obtain a portion of its waste from that county. GLRA asserts that
this should not be allowed. The new facilities, not the old ones, are the chief flow control antagonists.
In addition, Clinton County, Michigan, believes that the private sector is too unpredictable to be a
reliable manager of waste. Citizens would be vulnerable to pricing monopolies, choices between vendors
would be removed, and communities could be unwilling recipients of waste from unknown origins. The
local government would end up dealing with frustrated citizens who experience lapses in service.
Arguments Against Flow Control. The Village of Westbury, New York, resists flow control and
believes it to be inimical to their interests and to the general public interest for the following planning-
and capacity-related reasons: (1) flow control locks out capacity to those who need it; (2) burdens citizens
with paying for any excess capacity; and (3) leads to unnecessary transport of waste.
Ventura County, California, also raised several arguments against flow control. The county
believes that flow control and the creation of service monopolies are not necessaiiy to implement
integrated solid waste management plans and ensure capacity. Through the exercise of police powers, local
governments can solicit private sector proposals for materials collection and designated facilities;
February 8, 1994 *
-------
PageS
encourage the development of diverse merchant ventures; set service rates and standards; assess fees to
finance local diversion programs; and provide regulatory incentives to service providers and manufacturers
who offer system enhancements. Ventura County further asserts that local government could still make
financial guarantees if they choose to own and operate all solid waste collection services.
Capacity objectives also can be met through smaller, more diversified facilities with multiple
operators and processes. This more market driven system, in which government serves as a skillful buyer
of privately financed and competitively priced services, provides greater flexibility, minimizes public sector
risk, and catalyzes the development of innovative technologies and markets. A waste management facility
does not need to be large, monolithic, and expensive.
For example, in Ventura County, processing curbside program materials costs $65 per ton net of
revenue at the local materials recovery facility, but only $15 per ton net at smaller process lines operated
by independent haulers at their service yards. Establishing small, strategically located green materials
mulching and vermiculture operations in the County has alleviated the need for construction of a capital-
intensive regional composting facility which would quadruple per ton processing costs. In all of these
cases, cost-effective and market-sensitive capacity has been created in the absence of flow control. Even
where large capital projects are essential to integrated solid waste management systems, these regional
facilities, such as the waste-by-rail megafills of eastern Washington, Oregon, and the western deserts do
develop with private capital and without flow guarantees.
Waste Management Industry
Six waste management industry commenters that support flow control, and six that oppose it,
addressed solid waste management and capacity. Another commenter, WMX Technologies, Inc., generally
supports NSWMA's anti-flow control arguments, but stated that they would not oppose legislation
establishing flow control of residential recyclables as long as certain conditions were included (e.g., the
designation is made under a competitive process, facilities not limited to collecting from specific
geographic areas, and prior investments and arrangements are protected).
Capacity Issues. One commenter indicated that flow controls guarantee that waste will flow
through facilities developed under solid waste management plans, thus allowing for the development of
increased capacity, and guaranteeing its viability and efficient use. Two commenters, however, believe that
flow control does not create increased capacity. One company commented that flow control actually may
lead to .reduced capacity by forcing privately-owned facilities out of business. The other company cited
New Jersey as an example. New Jersey relies heavily on flow control, yet it has still failed to provide
adequate disposal capacity for its own waste.
Planning Issues. One commenter, Ogden Martin Systems, stated that flow control is an essential
solid waste management planning tool. Local governments need to determine the amount of waste within
their jurisdictions, and the expected growth of that waste, so that they can estimate the amount of waste
reduction possible with proposed recycling and composting programs. A second commenter, California ...
Refuse Removal Council, echoed this belief, indicating that planned, ambitious recycling and waste v
reduction goals could not be achieved without flow control.
BetycUng Industry
Four recycling industry commenters that support flow control, and two that oppose it, addressed
issues related to solid waste management and capacity. Another recycling industry commenter, the
** February 8, 1994 **
-------
Page 9
California Resource Recovery Association, supports flow control for solid waste, but not for source
separated recyclables. i
-j
Capacity Issues. The California Resource Recovery Association recognizes the value of flow
control for financing materials recovery facilities and increasing the overall waste management capacity in
a region. Flow control of source separated recyclables, however, does not accomplish these ends. In fact,
when exclusive franchises for recycling have been implemented, business generators reportedly have had to
stop recycling some materials because the exclusive hauler chosen was unable to manage the amount of
material and no other recyclers could service the account.
Planning Issues. Three commenters indicated that flow control allows local governments to
achieve landfill diversion and recycling goals set forth in solid waste management plans and/or mandated
by state laws. In reaching this end, two commenters noted that flow control allows for investment in
landfill alternatives, such as incinerators and composting facilities, which would, otherwise be impossible.
Local governments may find that these alternative facilities will result in lower overall costs for municipal
solid waste disposal. On the other hand, another commenter believes that facilities should be financed by
their users and, if they are not viable without flow control, then they probably are unnecessary in the free
market. j
j.
One recycling industry commenter stated that local governments cannot easily implement
comprehensive, integrated waste management plans without flow control.
Financial Institutions
Planning Issues. Both Paine Webber and Standard & Poors commented on solid waste
management and capacity. Paine Webber supports flow control and believes that it is necessary for state
and local governments to effectively plan capacity and determine the amount of capital needed to
implement the plans. While Standard & Poors took no position on flow control, it stated that, "Without
legal waste flow to limit competition, the result will be significantly lower rated bonds with higher costs
which will make funding an integrated solid waste management system much mbre difficult."
Environmental Groups and Individuals
i
Capacity Issues. A University of Wisconsin research assistant stated that flow control is necessary
to help provide more accurate predictions of quantities of solid waste in order to effectively plan for future
capacity needs. J
The Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club stated that standardized fees under flow control help
to insure capacity and that many Pennsylvania counties use flow control as a necessary planning tool. In
addition, Pennsylvania would benefit from using flow control to protect itself from the inundation of out-
of-state waste. I
Hierarchy Issues. The Californians Against Waste Foundation opposes put-or-pay contracts
because they may run counter to the waste management hierarchy. Source reduction and recycling should
be top priorities. If flow control of recyclables is prohibited, local governments still should provide
recycling services (e.g., collection) in competition with other local recyclers. Lcical governments could
adopt mandatory recycling ordinances that prohibit residential and commercial generators from disposing
of certain garbage.
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 10
Supporting Other Waste Management Programs. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce raised the
issue of communities using flow control to collect fees to pay for other waste management programs, such
as household hazardous waste collection or recycling. Flow control allows for cross subsidies from one
class of rate payer to another. The Chamber of Commerce opposed this use of flow control because
industrial waste generators should not have to pay for programs in which they are not involved.
* February 8, 1994
-------
II.
IMPACTS OF FLOW CONTROLS ON SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
Page 11
The commenters that directly addressed the impact of flow controls on source reduction and
recycling could generally be divided into the following three categories:
• Encourages source reduction and recycling efforts;
• No effect on source reduction and recycling efforts; and
• Detrimental to source reduction and recycling efforts.
State and Local Governments
Encourages Source Reduction and Recycling Efforts. Of the ten state and local governments that
addressed the issue of source reduction, six commenters noted that flow control either had been or was
expected to be beneficial to the source reduction efforts in their states or counties. It specifically was
noted that increased disposal fees tended to encourage source reduction. The more a generator has to pay
per;volume disposed, the greater the economic incentive the generator has to reduce the amount of solid
waste generated. One commenter noted that flow controls are necessary to help states meet source
reduction goals. i
Of the 33 commenters from state and local government that addressed the issue of recycling,
twenty-six stated that flow control is either beneficial for or encourages recycling efforts. In the absence of
flow control, low tipping fees could result in less recycling overall. Most of the commenters noted that
without flow control there would be no economic incentive to recycle because the cost to landfill is
cheaper.
For example, according to the Minnesota Legislative Commission on Waste Management,
mandatory flow control in Minnesota encourages source reduction and recycling because the cost of
managing waste in a mixed waste facility ($156-200 per ton) is higher than the cost of recycling ($100-156
per ton). Additionally, the commenter from the Maine Waste Management Agency indicated that with
incinerators that depend upon flow control, those who create the waste pay the true costs of waste
disposal. This provides a financial incentive for waste generators to reduce at the source and to recycle
whenever possible in order to avoid the costs of incineration. Specifically, in Maine, recycling increased
from 16 to 30 percent from 1988 to 1991; incineration fell from 45 to 37 percent; and landfilling fell from
9.5 to 4 percent. In this case, flow control had an extremely positive impact on recycling efforts.2
Thirteen of the commenters in favor of flow control observed that flow control was necessary for
states and localities to meet their mandatory recycling goals. The National Association of Counties
observed that many state laws mandate recycling and diversion from landfill requirements. Local
governments, not private industry, have the responsibility to meet these requirements. Virtually every
option considered for recycling and diversion is more expensive than landfilling.. Thus, flow controls are
necessary for states to meet recycling and diversion goals, because without them haulers would simply
choose the cheapest option, landfilling. j
These percentages do not add up to 100 percent, however, they are the:numbers that appear in the
comment.
February 8, 1994 * *
-------
: Page 12
Hennepin County, Minnesota wiii recycle and compost 50% of its waste in 1993; in 1992 only 2%
of its waste was unprocessed and landfilled. This achievement is attributed to the successful use of flow
controls. New Jersey has a mandatory recycling goal of 60% and flow controls are expected to help the
state meet that goal.
Also, according to Union City, New Jersey, solid waste collectors and facilities are regulated as
public utilities whereby rates are subject to regulation to avoid price gouging and to ensure reasonable
rates. Since the govejnment is responsible for ensuring services, flow control positively impacts the
delivery of solid waste recycling and disposal service by county implementing agencies. With the adoption
of mandatory recycling goals (e.g., 60% by 1995), solid waste management districts have an obligation to
provide a management strategy whereby at least 60% of their waste streams are returned to the economic
mainstream as raw materials. Thus, as a result of the recycling mandate, source reduction and recycling
are encouraged in New Jersey.
The commenter from the City of Milwaukee noted that without flow control, recycling would
suffer as a result of the fluctuations in market conditions. Without flow control as the market,varies,
private haulers have to adjust the cost of processing to reflect these changes. Further, the vendors of
recyclable processing and marketing services suffer because they are unable to guarantee end users a
reliable quantity and quality of product. While Milwaukee implied that with the implementation of flow
controls, the market would fluctuates less, they did not address specifically how this situation would be
made more effective under flow control.
No Effect on Source Reduction and Recycling Efforts. Three of the state and local government
commenters noted that flow controls were not incompatible with nor an impediment to source reduction
efforts. As one commenter noted, flow control has little impact on source reduction because companies
have always taken their own source reduction initiatives (e.g., in Delaware companies now fabricate 27 to
29 cans per pound of aluminum as compared to 20 to 28 cans when cans were first introduced into the
marketplace).
One commenter, from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, noted that flow
control would have no significant impact on recycling efforts in the state since recycling is mandatory for
most of the state. Currently, recyclables are not subject to flow control.
Detrimental to Source Reduction and Recycling Efforts. One commenter found flow control to
have negative impacts on source reduction efforts. The commenter from Ventura County observed that
solid waste management obligations and source reduction are inherently in conflict. Flow controls that
require collectors to maintain a steady stream of waste to a facility can provide disincentives for source
reduction.
Six commenters noted that flow control has some negative effects on recycling efforts. The
commenter from the Minnesota Legislative Commission on Waste Management noted that flow controls
may stultify recycling as a permanent waste management practice rather than allow it to develop into a
materials marketing system. According to the commenters, the development of a materials marketing
system is the only way recycling will become a permanent part of the production process.
Mayor Sheri Barnard, of Spokane, Washington, stated that under flow control, local governments
contract primarily with large national corporations, making competition by small recycling.firms nearly
impossible. In some cases, when all waste is designated to a specific incinerator, small recyclers are
February 8, 1994 *
-------
Page 13
prevented from using their new recycling technologies. Therefore, the overall level of recycline
diminished. , / "s
is
The commenter from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources stated that flow controls
might hurt recycling efforts, unless revenues from the disposal facility could be used to support recovery
facilities through an integrated waste management program. The commenter from the Greater Detroit
Resource Recovery Authority observed that flow control ordinances could possibly result in a build up of
recyclable materials, which might result in the unsanitary storage of recyclable material or possibly even
lead to illegal dumping. ; J
. i
Although three state and local -government commenters noted some negative impacts of flow
control, two of the six commenters were vehemently opposed to flow control. The comments of the
Incorporated Villages of Westbury, Mineola, and New Hyde Park, New York, noted that with flow control
recyclables become a burden, not an opportunity. This burden occurs because unnecessary transportation
costs add to the management costs for recyclables. j
Ventura County observed that flow control eliminates competition over the supply of wastes and
ignores the effect of the recyclable market dynamics on planning, program development, and service
delivery. Specifically, Ventura County noted that flow controls inhibit the development of a recyclables
market. Long-term commitments to facilities both decrease the local government's ability to respond
effectively to changes in the commodities marketplace and provide a disincentive to develop and utilize
innovative and more cost effective waste management alternatives. Moreover,' costs increase due to a lack
ot competition, and lower service choices and quality lead to customer disenfranchisement Flow controls
also restrict a manufacturer's access to recyclables, thus limiting essential market development.
Waste Management Industry \
Encourages Source Reduction and Recycling PMrirte. Four commenters observed that flow control
can provide benefits for recycling efforts. Two commenters noted that flow controls allow local
governments the ability to maximize recycling and meet recycling goals. With flow controls, localities can
require that collectors recycle materials that cannot be recycled economically. Another commenter added
that flow controls help to develop new markets for recyclable goods because of the increased predictability
of quantity and quality of recyclable material. Another commenter stated that because of the financial'
security provided by flow control, major investments are made in new facilities that use recycled raw
materials. Therefore, increased recycling is a benefit of flow control. i
„ No Effect on Source Reduction and Recvclmy Effort. Four commenters stated the position that
flow control neither ensures nor encourages recycling. Two commenters in particular noted that the only
way to ensure recycling is to strengthen the market for recycled materials.
th . Detrimental to Source Reduction and Recycling Efforts. Most of the commenters did not address
the issue of source reduction directly.. A few commenters did note that flow control did not encourage
WHSlc rCuUCtljDIl. '
01 . , .,9 tommenters from the ^^e management industry that addressed the issue of recycling
21 stated that flow control would be detrimental to the recycling industry and recycling efforts. Some of
the reasons cited for disapproving of flow controls include-
February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 14
• The creation of a monopolistic environment that inhibits innovation in the recycling
marketplace;
• Protection of hauling practices that allow wastes to be mixed, thus degrading the
resources; and •
• An increase in the fixed costs for recyclers.
Frank Perrotti & Sons, Inc of Woodbridge, Connecticut stated that when municipalities fall short
of meeting their put or pay obligations, they have an incentive to reduce recycling to meet their other
obligations. The commenter noted further that, the more effective a municipality is at meeting its
recycling goals, the less likely it is to meet its put or pay obligations under its solid waste contract with a
Resource Recovery Authority.
The commenter from Waste Stream, Inc. (WSI), located in New York, used their firm as evidence
of the fact that flow control thwarts the efforts of successful recycling firms. In WSI's case, the St.
Lawrence Solid Waste Disposal Authority planned to build a waste-to-energy facility, but worried more
about having enough waste volume to guarantee adequate cash flow for financing the facility than about
the development of an effective recycling program.
SEMASS, which is a waste-to-energy facility located in Massachusetts, represented a different
perspective.3 They stated that if flow controls were implemented in the SEMASS service area, and waste
were directed to a landfill rather than the SEMASS facility, many potentially recyclable materials would be
landfilled, and society would lose the recovery value of those materials.
Recycling Industry
Encourages Source Reduction and Recycling Efforts. Two commenters noted that flow control
might be beneficial for recycling efforts. National Recovery Technologies, Inc. observed that flow controls
could encourage recycling if the waste stream is directed toward facilities that process mixed solid waste.
Flow control also might encourage recycling if some of the tipping fees collected at public facilities could
be used to pay for recycling and composting programs including curbside and drop off programs. Marin
Resource Recovery and Recycling Association (California), observed that flow controls will enhance
recycling opportunities and the ability of individuals to participate in local recycling programs, however,
they never provided any examples.
Detrimental to Source Reduction and Recycling Efforts. Of the 17 commenters from the recycling
industry that addressed the issue of recycling, 15 stated that flow control would have negative effects on
recycling efforts, particularly on the future of the recycling industry. Ten commenters noted that the
monopolistic nature of flow control would be detrimental to the recycling industry and efforts for future
expansion. As one commenter from the Chicago Paperboard Commission stated that even the threat of
flow controls reduces the incentive to invest in the recycling industry. The most noted opposition to flow
control is that without free markets for recyclables, recycling firms would be unable to do business because
of the restricted access to raw materials. Recyclers also oppose flow control because they are concerned
that the lack of competition will reduce innovations in the recycling industry. Another obstacle flow
control imposes on the recycling industry, noted by six commenters, was the potential degradation of
3 Some states including Rhode Island classify waste-to-energy facilities as recycling facilities.
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 15
hau"ng o( mixed
Financial Institutions
. . . Encourages Source Reduction and Recycling Effort.. Paine Webber was the only financial
institution that addressed the impacts that flow control would have on recycling. They commented that
programs by improving the abty of Iocal
Environmental Groups and Individuals \
P . Encourages Source Reduction and Recycling Effort.. On* ^mm<.nt<.ryni rh~ In;titutc for
Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin stated that flow control is necessary to help
Wisconsin meet its recycling goals. I v
f > , Sierra Club °bServed that if states are Pe™itted to exclude waste generated out-
of-state through the use of flow controls, each state will have more incentive w effectively promote
recycling and source reduction within their state. Governments need to be able develop integrated solid
waste management plans that incorporate recycling. Flow control provides a tool that will permit state
and local governments to meet their responsibility to implement such plans.
Bio-Engineering Fuels, an alternative energy company located in Washmgton, observed another
way m which flow control has positive effects on recycling efforts: i Coiner
Without flow controls, recycling and source reduction will suffer because it is cheaper to
landfill everything. Many private companies do not want the expense or the hassle of
reducing their use of landfills to manage their solid waste. | .
t
Detrimental to Recycling Efforts. The California^ Against Waste Foundation noted that flow
control has the following negative effects on the recycling industry: *
Flow controls limit the amount of material ultimately diverted. ! An exclusive franchise on
recyclable material could prevent a recycler from collecting material that a franchise
hauler does not collect.
• ' ' !
Flow controls limit the quality of the material that is collected and marketed The
exclusive hauler may offer only mixed waste processing or minimal source separation.
Flow controls reduce the incentive for a company to reduce costs via source reduction or
recycling. An exclusive franchise that controls both solid waste and recyclables may offer
a flat rate for services. In this case, a company must pay the same amount to have both
its solid waste and recyclables removed regardless of the volume of waste to be recycled
mis situation might be remedied by the introduction of a tiered fee structure to
encourage the hierarchy of source reduction, recycling, and then disposal. With such a fee
structure, the franchisee might charge the company less money to remove recyclable
material. '
February 8, 1994
-------
Page 16
Generators want to have the flexibility to choose the recycling company with which they
do business, especially when the generator is a chain with outlets in different states. Flow
control may hinder the development of company-wide recycling programs for generators in
this position if different outlets of the company must operate under different flow control
restrictions. .
* *
February 8,1994 * *
-------
Page 17
III.
IMPACTS OF FLOW CONTROLS ON ECONOMICS
State and Local Governments
Increased Disposal Costs. One of the main points stressed by state and local governments was
that the goals of government and private industry differ in providing waste management services. Private
industry seeks profit, while government seeks the safest, most cost effective method for managing waste
and protecting human health and the environment, without producing a profit. Governments reach their
goals by developing comprehensive waste management plans, which often incorporate recycling and
composting programs as well as construction plans for state-of-the-art, environmentally sound, disposal
facilities. Realizing that their plans are expensive to implement, 22 governments defended increased costs
stating that the higher goals of long-term waste minimization and increased protection of public health and
the environment supersede any short-term negative impacts of increased costs.
Fifteen commenters claimed that flow controls are necessary to acquire waste for facilities and
guarantee revenue to finance them. Four government commenters specifically stated that current solid
waste management systems would suffer greatly if flow control authority were removed. Existing facilities
would not receive adequate quantities of waste and, thus, could not repay their debts. State and local
governments that have already invested large amounts of money and capital in facilities dependent on flow
control, financially would be devastated. The Concord Regional Solid Waste/Resource Recovery
Cooperative, formed by 36 municipalities in New Hampshire to manage the financing, construction, and
operation of waste-to-energy facilities, fears that the municipalities will not be able to meet their 20 year
put-or-pay commitment to deliver solid waste without flow control. A put-or-pay commitment means that
a municipality must deliver a specified amount of solid waste and must pay its vendor (e.g., the
Cooperative) its fee, whether or not the solid waste is delivered to the facility. Haulers will choose to take
the waste to cheaper facilities, such as far-off landfills, for disposal. The League of California Cities
advocates that "one size does not fit all," and that current flow control flexibility must be retained.
Five state and local governments stated that flow control does not create inefficiency. They said
instead that flow control will ensure that the least expensive and least risky method of financing facilities is
implemented. One commenter took the argument a step further implying that the current approach to
waste management, without flow controls, is inefficient. j '
Market Inefficiencies. Sixteen commenters countered the argument that flow control inevitably
results in a monopoly stating that with flow control, competition is still an integral part of the waste
management process. Vendors must compete to win bids when local governments contract with the
private sector to provide waste management services.
Five commenters remarked that flow control establishes a fair and level playing field by stabilizing
solid waste management prices and disposal/tipping fees. As the City of Tampa, Florida, stated, "In order
to keep the price manageable, one entity must be able to balance the total fiscal aind waste stream picture."
Delaware levies uniform fees on commercial and residential generators of waste such that all residents
share the total cost of solid waste management, which is treated as a public utility. As experienced by
Marion County, Oregon, flow control ensures that waste is sent to the local waste-to-energy facility, so that
the county can meet its contractual obligations. Failure to meet this commitment would cause increased
garbage rates. "The control was, and still is, necessary to keep rates stable." Finally, two commenters
noted the economies of scale gained by aggregating waste for collection and processing on a regional or
state basis.
February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 18
The Town of Wallingford, Connecticut, commented that there is no evidence to indicate that there
are either more or less inefficiencies in flow control municipalities than in other communities They stated
that, "Connecticut, which allows flow control by statute, is one of the most successful states in the U S in
its construction and utilization of waste-to-energy, plants and MRFs."
Waste Management Industry
Increased Disposal Costs. The majority of waste management industry commenters (35 of 60) ' >•
specifically stated that flow controls foster the monopolistic control of solid waste by local governments
and inevitably lead to increases in cost without concurrent increases in benefits. "The commenters
generally stated that when laws restrict or abolish competition, the natural market forces that keep prices
from unnecessarily rising disappear.
Many waste management commenters provided examples of situations where disposal costs in
counties with flow controls exceeded disposal costs in neighboring free market counties. A solid waste
collector in Mercer County, New Jersey (the name was not provided), where flow controls presently exist
described such a situation. The commenter stated that under flow controls in Mercer County trash
haulers must pay S117.81 per ton to dispose of municipal solid waste and $13636 per ton to dispose of
construction debris at a transfer station owned by the county. All trash from the transfer station is then
delivered to a privately owned and competitively operated landfill in Pennsylvania where the fee for
dumping is only $55 per ton for either municipal solid waste or construction debris. The result is that
haulers in Pennsylvania pay $55 while haulers in Mercer County pay $117.81 or $136.36 for disposing the
same amount of trash that will eventually go to the same place.
The Waste Material Trucking Company Inc., located in Southington, Connecticut, provided
another example of increased disposal costs due to monopoly control. Residents and haulers in
Southington, once accustomed to free trash disposal at the now closed Southington landfill currently must
deliver their waste to the nearby Bristol waste-to-energy facility. Tipping fees have increased since the
time the Bristol facility opened from $37.50 in January of 1988 to $55 in July of 1993 Rates increase
every year, and they now more than double the disposal fees charged in nearby Massachusetts towns that
operate under free market conditions. The Waste Material Trucking-Company is outraged because it
cannot take advantage of lower cost options, though they are available.
Some comments made by the waste management industry dealt with taxation issues Five firms
implied distrust of governments in their use of revenues resulting from flow control. These firms stated
that government officials use flow controls to create hidden taxes that sometimes support projects
unrelated to waste management. In addition, three commenters noted that ironically, as governments
attempt to raise more revenues with flow control, excessive costs are actually driving private firms out of
business, leading to an overall decline in tax revenues.
Market Inefficiencies. Almost half of the waste management industry commenters (27 of 60)
specifically stated that flow control leads to inefficiency. Commenters addressed the inefficiencies
experienced both by government owned or government subsidized firms in general, and the inefficiencies
experienced by private firms as a result of flow control.
Because government owned businesses do not fear competition and loss of revenue they do not
have incentives to cut costs and improve efficiency. Flow control effectively shields government owned
waste management facilities from free market forces by guaranteeing waste and revenue. Consequently
prices increase and efficiency suffers. In support of this argument, one commenter (Container Corporation
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 19
of Carolina, Inc.) pointed to a Virginia study comparing public and private trash collection services in the
Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. The study determined that in general, publi'p facilities were much
more expensive and far less efficient than private ones (e.g., municipal departments used smaller trucks
and therefore, had to make more trips to dump sites, they also used larger pick-up crews but served fewer
homes per shift, and public employees were absent a greater percentage of time).
Not only were commenters displeased by the inefficiencies of government owned facilities, they
also were unhappy about the inefficiencies forced upon private firms by flow control. Private firms
described situations in which they were forced to haul waste long distances to comply with flow control
laws when more conveniently located disposal sites were available. Being forced to dispose of waste in
inconvenient, distant locations often resulted in backtracking of waste, longer hours for haulers, and higher
costs due to extra fuel use. Other, less obvious consequences included increased air pollution, greater
probability of accidents due to more hours on the road, and more wear and tear on roads and highways.
York Waste Disposal Inc. provided an example of the inefficiencies private firms must endure as a
result of flow controls that prohibit waste export. York cites a specific example involving the Township of
Deny in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania whose waste, prior to flow control laws, was hauled to the waste-
to-energy facility in York county as out-of-county waste. Because the hauling distance was only five miles,
waste disposal was being handled efficiently. However, flow control laws forced Deny to transport its
waste to the Dauphin Meadows Landfill, 35 miles away. The additional hauling distance requires more
diesel fuel, more wear and tear on trucks, and causes more air pollution. Additionally, York stressed that
absolutely nothing is gained from choosing one disposal site over another because, they are both
environmentally safe (double lined landfill versus incinerator).
With flow controls, private firms also complained that they had to choose facilities with
unfavorable credit terms and operating hours. These are often serious considerations for smaller
companies, which do not have the financial flexibility of larger firms.
Four representatives of the waste management industry commented that flow control is a form of
economic protectionism. They believed that shielding facilities, whether or not they are government- *
owned and operated, is often detrimental to the economy, unproductive, and inefficient. Commenters
believe that flow control should not be allowed to keep facilities operating by guaranteeing waste, when
those facilities would not otherwise survive under free market conditions. One company questions why
government-owned facilities need economic protection to survive, when privately-owned facilities operate
successfully without any form of revenue guarantee. . ,.
i
One commenter stated that large government construction projects, such as those resulting from
flow control, are often unnecessarily costly and highly inefficient. Local governments often waste tax
money on poorly planned projects. Projects are more likely to succeed if handled by the private sector,
which is driven by the free market.
•i
Disincentive to Investment Another complaint made by nineteen waste management industry
representatives was that incentives to invest are often curtailed by the prospect of flow control. If
companies believe their revenue stream will be removed by government-owned facilities that are supported
by flow control, they are unlikely to invest millions of dollars on new and potentially risky ventures.
Energy Answers Corporation (EAC), stated that, contrary to arguments claiming that flow control
reduces financial risks by guaranteeing waste and revenue, flow control does not guarantee financial
success, and lenders and bondholders oppose flow control because it creates uncertainty when planning
i
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
and developing a project. For example, if social or economic changes occur, such as shifting populations
then facilities will have no mechanism to adjust their disposal options if they are limited to a specific '
geographic area. *y^u.^
rt^m c, flowucontj01 is not necessary to support a facility. EAC is responsible for the
development of SEMASS, a three hundred million dollar resource recovery facility in Massachusetts
Although SEMASS is one of the nation's largest waste-to-energy facilities in the country, EAC has never
requ,red flow control for any aspect of its development or operation. All of EAC's projects are privately
financed and rely on long-term negotiated contracts. The SEMASS Partnership, owned by EAC is an
SSS oo a '"""^lly operating facility that never utilized flow controls. In order to secure financing
fhtt H T re(1Uired ^ '? lenders to secure i'000 t°ns of waste under long term contract. They were'
able to do th,s successfully by negotiating with 32 cities and towns and by demonstrating that they would
provide the most cost effective disposal option.
Supporters of Flow Control. Ten of the 60 waste management industry commenters supported
flow control. Two stated that flow control did not result in monopoly control and instead, provMed a
balanced playing field for all waste management companies. With flow controls, smaller firms could
compete evenly with larger firms; without flow controls, larger firms, especially those with their own
management facilities, could undercut prices and capture most of the waste market. Oeden Martin
fnTnn-', H' C°mmented l!)a' flow controls in northern Virg™a Dually caused competition to flourish
IK? ? ?• °Ver 8°° mdividual trash collection and disposal contractors compete for business
within Arlington County, Fairfax County, and the City of Alexandria. Four of the confpamS argue that
?,°LC° r° K neCCSSaiy t0 gU3rantee W3Ste t0 fadUtieS' Which in tum grantees that the facility owners
(either local governments or private firms) will pay off their debts. Minnesota Resource Recovery
Association added that haulers would simply choose cheaper alternatives.
Recycling Industry
.. t . Incr^sed Disposal Costs. Ten recycling industry commenters either explicitly stated or implied
toat flow controls create monopolies and cause price escalation. These commenters agree that the free
market is responsible for keeping prices at reasonable levels and that flow controls interfere with the free
market system causing all the benefits associated with competitive markets to disappear eg Tystem
upgrades, improved quality of service, market development, and low prices).
C,*,»H K alS° belieV6S that fl°W C0ntr°1 is a t001 "** to disguise new taxes. However, as
stated by another commenter, increased costs resulting from flow control can drive private recycling firms
out of business and therefore reduce tax revenues. lowing nrms
°f phC rCCyCling indUStry "Centers feel that flow controls would
result in p
result m either inefficient collection of recyclable goods or inefficient waste disposal in general Four
commenters also stated that flow controls would retard the development of the^ecycinf ma ket by
from
™
'
the e£fects of flow contro1 °« ^centives to
that regulate recycling will prevent further private investment in
fl°W C°ntr0lS ""8* ^ Private sector recycli"g investments and crush
, - ' T mg °W C°ntr0lS ""P8* ^ Private sector recycli"g investments and cru
any mcentive to invest m the recycling industry. In addition, the municipal operations taking control of
* February 8, 1994 * *
-------
; s | j Page 21
i
i
recycling efforts have less incentive to invest in state-of-the-art facilities in an .effort to increase efficiency,
because they are protected from the forces of the free market. i
Financial Institutions
Market Inefficiencies. Only two financial institutions commented, Painle Webber, Inc. and
Standard & Poor's Corporation. Paine Webber stated that competition still exists with flow control since
haulers must competitively bid to haul waste for municipalities. Standard & Poors also commented on the
market effects of flow control stating that flow control would limit competition., In general, Standard &
Poors is neutral on the flow control issue, stating both that, "flow control is noi: necessary for a solid waste
issue to receive a high rating" and yet "if municipal solid waste facilities are to be financed with tipping
fees, legal waste flow is needed to have strong investment grade ratings and the lowest possible borrowing
costs to the municipality."
Environmental Groups and Individuals
Increased Disposal Costs. Three commenters opposing flow control stated that it creates
monopolies and results in higher costs to consumers. They said that when a monopoly replaces the free
market system, prices increase and the consumer suffers. [
A University of Wisconsin research assistant supporting flow controls, stated that if large regional
landfills are allowed to underbid the services provided by county-wide or municipal disposal systems, the
government-owned facilities will not be able to compete. Consumers will choose the cheaper option in a
free market system. Flow control ensures that consumers will pay the higher disposal costs necessary for
an environmentally safe facility.
The Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club agreed stating that flow control is needed to help
cover the costs of existing solid waste disposal facilities.
i
. Incentives to Investment. One commenter also stated that flow control is necessary to.convince
investors^to buy the bonds that finance facilities. Without revenue guarantees, the ability to plafrand
finance new,.state-of-the-art facilities would be greatly reduced.
* *
February 8,1994 * *
-------
Page 22
IV. IMPACTS OF FLOW CONTROLS ON RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
Comments concerning recyclables and flow controls could be divided into the following three
categories:
• No exclusion of recyclables;
• Limited exclusion of recyclables; and
• Complete exclusion of recyclables.
Addressing the exclusion of certain materials from flow controls, most of the comments from the
recycling industry raised the issue of discarded versus non-discarded materials. The position of these
commenters on the use of flow controls to manage materials depended on whether flow controls could
regulate all materials or only materials discarded (e.g., placed at the curb or delivered to a recvcline
facility). } B
Some of the commenters included in the. "Complete Exclusion" category did not provide a
definition of recyclables or differentiate between clean and mixed recyclables in their comments. As more
information concerning this distinction was acquired, it appears that most commenters believe that source
separated recyclables should be excluded from flow control.
State and Local Governments
Of the 74 commenters from state and local government, 36 commenters directly addressed the
issue of materials covered by flow control ordinances. The central issue raised in most of the comments
was defining recyclables and determining who has the right to regulate them.
No Exclusion of Recvclables. Fourteen commenters noted that the government had the authority
and/or the need to control the flow of all municipal solid waste, including recyclables.
Two commenters justified the authority of municipalities to implement flow control over
recyclables by explaining that it enables them to meet state recycling goals. The commenter representing
the League of California Cities observed that without the authority to control the flow of recyclables, cities
will not be able to meet the ambitious diversion mandates established by California law and by 1995 will
be subject to fines of $10,000 per day. Further, if recyclables are exempted, many contracts will be void
and exclusive franchisees will be unable to meet their obligations. Local governments also will experience
similar revenue/tonnage problems.
Regional Waste Services, Inc. (RWS is an organization representing 21 municipalities in Maine)
expanded on this by adding that all household, commercial, industrial, municipal, and institutional solid
waste, including the recyclable component of the waste stream in Maine, is the property of RWS As a
result of this ownership, RWS has the right to subject all discarded and unused materials regardless of
their material value to flow controls.4 RWS stated that recyclables need to be included to help each
municipality in Maine meet its mandatory recycling goals. Each municipality in Maine is under a statutory
According to state regulations, municipalities may designate certain materials as recyclables and
exempt them from flow control.
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
— : : I Page 23
. j ....
mandate to recycle 50% by January 1, 1994. If a municipality fails to make reasonable progress towards
this goal, it will be assessed $1.50 per ton on its tipping fee. Since the responsibility to meet these
recycling goals ultimately falls on the municipalities/it is likely that the encouragement of voluntary
recycling by generators will result in the imposition of penalties against the municipalities.5
i
In September 1992, New York City approved a Solid Waste Management Plan consisting of
ambitious source reduction, recycling, landfilling, and incineration programs. As part of the plan, New
York City will consider promulgating flow control pursuant to New York City Administrative code §16-
201 et seq., that will facilitate the recycling and composting of some categories of residential, institutional
and commercial solid waste. Since the Department of Sanitation only collects waste from residential and
certain institutional generators, flow control may need to be employed to direct certain categories of
recyclables and/or compostable solid waste currently collected by the private sector to specialized handling
facilities in order to meet planning goals. I
Limited Exclusion of Recvclables. Ten commenters stated that while recyclables were different
from the rest of the municipal solid waste stream, it was important to be selective in excluding recyclables
from flow control. Most importantly, there was considerable concern that "recyclables" and "recycling" be
clearly, universally, and equitably defined. Some commenters described the recyclable materials excluded
from flow controls in their own state. These exclusions are implemented in two ways: some states list
specific materials to be excluded from flow controls and other states list the materials actually subject to
flow controls. j
According to the Maine Waste Management Agency, Maine flow controls cover residential,
commercial, and industrial waste, as well as recyclables that are abandoned or discarded by the owner. In
Maine, commercial businesses with their own disposal facilities are an additional exception.6
According to the Minnesota Legislative Commission on Waste Management, municipal solid waste
flow control or waste designation in the state is based on a waste managemenl: hierarchy (source reduction
recycling, waste-to-energy, landfilling). This approach allows designation onlyifor wastes that would
otherwise be managed in a less environmentally sound manner. The state will not authorize the use of
flow controls for waste that is being managed at a facility using a method that occupies the same or higher
place on the state's waste management hierarchy (e.g., flow controls could not: be applied to MSW
currently being managed at a waste-to-energy facility in order to send the waste to a landfill). Waste
designation may not be applied to source separated recyclables. Also exempt from designation is waste
processed at a resource recovery facility in operation at the time a designation ordinance goes into effect.
Anyone can apply for exclusion from designation, and it must be granted if it would not financially impair
the facility. Designation encourages source reduction, recycling, and waste management facilities at the
higher end of the hierarchy and discourages the use of landfills.
The municipality may have trouble tracking the voluntary quantities recycled and thus may not be
able to demonstrate that they have met their recycling goal.
This differs slightly from the language in the state regulations, which states that municipalities
may require delivery of solid waste to a designated facility. Under the regulations, municipalities may
designate certain materials as recyclables and exempt them from flow control.
February 8, 1994
-------
Page 24
> -
While the Michigan Solid Waste Management Act does not authorize flow control, it does
regulate the entire solid waste stream except for hazardous and liquid wastes. According to the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Michigan also exempts certain recyclable materials from the Solid
Waste Management Act, "if they are separated and actually being recycled." In Prince Georges County,
Maryland, the local government has the authority to direct all solid waste, but exempts construction
demolition debris, commercial recyclables (i.e., white paper and corrugated cardboard), old cars, sludge,
and asphalt.'
According to Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, flow control is authorized for curbside separated
recyclables and delivered recyclables for all commercial, industrial, household, or institutional recyclables
(i.e., flow control is authorized for discarded materials). Lycoming does exempt charities, private industry,
and residential drop-off or buy-back centers from flow controls. The Solid Waste Authority of Central
Ohio, excludes secondary materials recovered from a materials recovery facility, as long as they are
destined for market and not another disposal facility.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection states that recovered materials, (defined as
those with known recycling potential that have been diverted from the solid waste stream for sale, use, or
reuse) are exempt from municipal solid waste flow control if the materials are used within one year, they
do not cause pollution, and they are not hazardous or derived from hazardous wastes. While local
governments have the right to exclusive collection of recovered material from residences, they cannot
restrict the flow of commercial source-separated recovered material.
Union City, New Jersey explains that flow control should govern all residential, commercial, and
industrial solid waste, including recyclable material, unless they are separated at the point of generation
(e.g., source separated). This is necessary because only a public entity will resist market forces and recycle
material instead of opting for the cheaper landfilling.
Illinois authorizes flow controls for the management of all municipal solid waste including
recyclables. However, Illinois considers that each planning jurisdiction should have the authority to decide
what materials to include for flow control in their municipal solid waste management plans.
Champaign, Illinois considers that municipalities need to control the entire residential waste
stream in order to achieve economies of scale and to assure adequate volumes to finance programs and
facilities. To achieve this, Champaign suggests that all residential waste (including recyclables), all
commercial solid waste (excluding source-separated recyclables), all industrial waste (excluding source-
separated recyclables), and all landscape waste should be covered by flow control.
The commenter from the Resource Recovery Project in Wallingford, Connecticut, which
represents 5 counties, explained that the authority to control the flow of municipal solid waste and
residential recyclables is essential to enable states to finance waste-to-energy plants, landfills, and materials
recovery facilities. Many Connecticut municipalities have guaranteed waste and/or recyclable streams to
enable the financing of such facilities. At the same time, the commenter also noted that it seems logical
to treat recyclables as separate once they have been segregated.7
Under current regulations, municipalities in Connecticut may designate where solid waste and
specified residential recyclables may be managed. •
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
' — : — • - - - : - : — . _ j ____ Page 25
I
. Complete Exclusion of Recyclable*. Twelve state and local governments hold that recvclahle
material should be excluded from flow controls. Most of these twelve noted that flow contSou Id be
applicable only to municipal solid waste, which should be defined to exclude recyclables.
Waste Management Industry
~ !
r^,HQMN° Exclusio" °f ««^I"M^. One-commenter from the waste management industry stated that
recyclables were no different than any other material in the solid waste stream. In their opTn on no basis
exists for excluding some materials from flow controls while including others.
Limited Exclusion of Recyclahles. Of the seven waste management industry commenters on this
n°ted ^ "*»** **"* °f feCyClable materfal Should be exemP< from7ow ZSr
m! i? thafl' only materials to be sold or donated materials «" safely *
exempted from municipal solid waste flow control. Two other commenters from WMX Technologies and
Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. stated that while they were not opposed to the flow control of
residential recyclables, commercial recyclables should not be subject to flow con^l L LSrd iL to WMX
local government should not assume the responsibility or burden of managing conun^
wastes except to the extent that regulations are necessary to protect human health and the
as a Iong histoiy of being
. Complete Exclusion of Recyclahles. Three waste management industry commenters stated that it
was inappropriate for government to subject recyclables or materials of any vaL toTow «n£T T^ese
defineeCd0rnenter; T/^ ""' ^ §°vernments need <° control municipal solid waste ™e "enter
defined municipal solid waste as residential waste and another commenter referred to municipal solTd
waste as any materials that have been discarded). uiumwp«u sona
Recycling Industry \
]
ll c°™menters from, the recycling industry that addressed the issue of materials
SUC ^ the'need t0 ClCarly define the extent to which recJclaWes should be subject to
C°mmenter Stated that ^^ the Aerials covered by -flow control ordinanSs
r
ssendaf
No Exclusion of Recyclahles. One commenter observed that even if a material is
" tU1 ' SOUdVaSte and inhCrently "^ Present many of the ™nTo^
health and safety as any other solid waste and 'ito^^^^Z^E^™^
availability of markets that determines a material's recyclability. merentiy. it is the
Limited Exclusion of Recyclahles. Seven commenters stated that flow control of recvclables is onlv
appropriate when the materials have not been separated from the waste stream or wtf maSak have Y
been discarded through actions such as placing the materials on the curbside. Qne colTenSr Iborated
on the need to categorize recyclables into at least two types based on their management pathway? Trfe
first type entails removal of recyclable materials from discarded solid waste. Since this is a reS'ted solid
waste activity recyclables following this path may be subject to flow controls. T£ ec^ndVattway
however, involves source separated materials that have never been part of the solid waste stream This
second category is not waste management but resource management Flow ^nT
here. Recovered materials are not solid waste and not subject to flow control.
February 8, 1994 * *
-------
| • • Page 26
The commenter from the Free-Flow Packaging Corporation (FFP) also noted that the ability to
collect source-separated recyclable material directly from the generator is essential to maintaining the high
quality raw material for their polystyrene needs. Specifically, FFP collects polystyrene directly from its
generators (e.g., Apple Computer, Sony, Saturn Motor Company), so that it is clean, dry, and free of all
contamination. This source of usable raw material would not be available if flow controls included
recovered materials in the definition of solid waste. It is not feasible for FFP to purchase polystyrene
from a municipal transfer station because if the polystyrene is collected by a garbage hauler, it is
commingled with other plastics, cans, and covered with dust.
Six of these seven commenters that are in favor of limited exclusions noted that flow controls
should not interfere with the property rights of the generator. One commenter also noted that the right of
commercial businesses to contract directly with scrap metal dealers for the collection of materials
separated prior to disposal must be protected.
Complete Exclusion of Recyclables. Nine of the commenters from the recycling industry stated
that recyclables should be excluded from the materials covered by flow controls because (1) recyclables are
a commodity; and (2) the personal property rights of the owner need to be protected. Generators should
have the right to dispose of materials as they choose.
Financial Institutions
One commenter addressed the issue of what materials ought to be covered by flow controls. Paine
Webber's position is that bondholder security is greatest when the commitment of flow includes 100% of
all waste generated in a region. However, Paine Webber has successfully financed projects where local
community recycling efforts have been exempted. They feel that the role of recyclables in the waste stream
needs to be further evaluated.
Environmental Groups and Individuals
No Exclusion of Recyclables. Two commenters stated that recyclables should not be exempt from
flow control ordinances. The Pennsylvania Sierra Club noted that all materials should be covered by flow
control including commercial, residential, and industrial solid waste as well as curbside separated
recyclables and commercially generated recyclables.
One commenter observed that in California "recyclables" are legally a part of the solid waste
stream. Consequently, local governments have legal justification for their authority to regulate
"recyclables."8
Limited Exclusion of Recyclables. Of the four individual and environmental group commenters
that addressed the issue of materials covered by flow controls, two commenters noted that certain.
exclusions were necessary.
The Californians Against Waste Foundation (environmental group) stated that flow control should
be limited to mixed solid wastes. Source separated recyclable materials which have been separated by the
8 California Public Resources Code protects the right of persons to sell, donate, or otherwise dispose
of recyclables.
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
. i Page 27
.....,, - , . [' '
I
generator for the purposes of reuse, recycling, or composting should not be defined as solid waste, nor
should they be subject to the flow control authority of local government. The definition of solid waste
should, not depend upon the value of the material. Generators should be able to recycle their materials
with the recycler of their choice whether it is on a donate, sale, or fee for service basis.
The American Automobile Manufacturers Association noted that flow control must include
certain exclusions. Solid wastes transported for the purpose of recycling to a facility owned or operated by
the generator should be excluded. Recyclable materials separated from municipal waste should be
excluded as well. The definition of municipal solid waste also should exclude industrial process waste, or
other solid wastes resulting from industrial activity that are unlike general refuse and trash, including
construction, demolition, and any renovation debris; used oil; scrap metal; machinery and equipment; and
any solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste under section 3001 of RCRA, or any solid waste
containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that is regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
February 8, 1994
-------
Page 28
V.
IMPACTS OF FLOW CONTROLS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
State and Local Governments
Seventeen state and local governments commenters addressed the impacts of flow controls on
human health and the environment. All of the 17 commenters favor the use of flow controls. The general
opinion of 14 state and local governments is that improperly handled waste can present serious
environmental and human health problems that do not arise in the handling of most other commodities.
State and local governments seem most concerned that without flow controls, economics would cause
haulers to bring waste to the cheapest disposal facilities regardless of their level of environmental
protection. In addition, incentives would remain for environmentally unsound facilities to continue
operating indefinitely without upgrading. Since substandard and minimally standard facilities contaminate
ground water, impose health risks to citizens and cost tremendous amounts of money to clean up and
upgrade, it is wise to implement flow controls to steer waste away from unsound and often
environmentally hazardous facilities.
According to one government commenter, repeal of waste flow control would benefit those
entities that have made the least effort in pursuing and implementing balanced and environmentally
correct solid waste solutions. In contrast, flow control rewards those striving to meet environmental
objectives.
The City of Tacoma, Washington believes that flow controls can play an important role in funding
the clean up of Superfund sites. In Tacoma, solid waste rates approximately doubled between 1989 and
1993 in order to pay for debt service on the revenue bonds used to fund remediation activities at a Tacoma
Superfund site. Without flow control, funding the remediation activities would have been extremely
difficult and complete remediation would not have^been accomplished as rapidly as it was.
Six state and local governments feel that limitations of the use of flow control impinge on
government's rights. They believe that if local governments are ultimately responsible for the waste in
their jurisdiction, they should be allowed to decide how and where that waste is disposed. If flow control
is the most suitable method for ensuring that waste is disposed in the safest way possible, municipalities
should be allowed to implement it.
Two commenters stated that illegal dumping occurs in the absence of flow control and that flow
control would provide the authority to reduce backyard dumping.
Waste Management Industry
Twenty representatives of the waste management industry addressed the impact of flow controls on
human health and the environment. Seventeen opposed flow control, while three supported it.
Ten commenters believe that flow control is unnecessary as a means of protecting human health
and the environment. They stated that RCRA's Subtitle D Rule for municipal landfills, once
implemented, would provide adequate protection and therefore, environmental protection is not a valid
justification for flow controls. One commenter suggested that stricter enforcement of existing rules and
regulations governing waste disposal sites would achieve greater environmental protection without loss of
competition.
* *
February 8, 1994 * *
-------
-- - - _____ _ __ Page 29
i
Two commenters, a solid waste collector in Mercer County, New Jersey, where flow controls
presently exist, and the National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), oppose flow control
stating that it leads to illegal dumping. Since residents are not willing to pay more to have their trash
removed, they find other means of disposal such as backyard burying or dumping. This illegal dumping
damages soils and contaminates ground water. According to NSWMA, illegal dumping already occurs in
some localities such as Saint Lawrence County, New York, where flow controls currently are in place. "
xxro,,™" concern' voiced fey two commenters, the National Solid Wastes Management Association
(NSWMA) and United States Pollution Control Inc., is that flow control actually will channel waste to
environmentally unsound disposal sites or possibly even to known Superfund sites According to
NSWMA, flow controls forced Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation to haul waste to a
known Superfund site. The commenters fear that all residents and organizations that used the
environmentally unsound facility will be responsible for cleanup costs through increased rates.
Four commenters maintained that flow control does not protect human health and the
environment. One commenter, York Disposal Services, stated that flow control can actually damage the
environment when it forces private haulers to carry waste long distances, increasing fuel use and air
pollution. York feels that if flow control is potentially harmful to the environment, it is not a reasonable
solution to the waste problem. I
•
Finally, three proponents of flow control expressed concern that without flow control laws local
governments cannot properly manage waste disposal and ensure human health and environmental safety
If local governments are to be held responsible for waste within their jurisdictions, they must be armed
with all available tools to prevent the mismanagement of that waste. |
i
Recycling Industry |
Eight recyclers commented on the impacts of flow control on human health and the environment
All eight either stated explicitly or implied that flow control does not provide benefits to human health
and the environment. Two of the eight commenters specifically oppose flow control of recyclables which
in their view have no hazardous effects on health or safety. The California Resource Recovery Association
cited a study of over 600 recycling facilities by the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CAIWMB) entitled, "Effects to Human Health and the Environment of Recycling Facilities and the
Manner in Which These Facilities are Regulated." The analysis showed that the environmental impacts of
processmg source separated materials are minimal, so they could be excluded from flow controls without
great risk to the public. •
•
One recycler stated that flow controls cause problems with illegal dumping. When fees increase
people try to avoid them by dumping waste illegally. Another recycler claimed that in the past flow '
controls have directed waste to sites known to be environmentally unsound. '
Environmental Groups and Individuals
The six environmental groups and individuals commenting on the impact of flow controls on '
human health and the environment oppose the use of flow control. Two feel that flow control impinges
on the generators' right to choose the most environmentally protective waste management facility In
effect, the waste generator loses control of the management of his or her waste but retains liability for any
mismanagement. According to the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) "If a waste
generator were limited by a flow control statute or regulation to manage waste at certain facilities, and
* * February 8, 1994 * * j
-------
. _____ Page 30
these facilities subsequently became Superfund sites, the generator should be relieved of CERCLA liability
with respect to response costs at these facilities. In such a case, it would be Congress, EPA, or the local
government and not the generator that actually 'arranged for disposal' of the material."
Another commenter described a case in New York where flow control forced waste to be disposed
in an environmentally inferior facility. This commenter stated that, "[djespite the presence of a state of
the art waste-to-energy plant in the neighboring Town of Hempstead, the Town of North Hempstead
invoked its flow control authority to direct all commercial, industrial, and residential solid waste generated
within its boundaries to an unpermitted Town transfer facility for out-of-state export."
Finally, one commenter, the Californians Against Waste Foundation, stated that preliminary
evidence shows that the majority of problems occur with facilities that process mixed solid waste. Hence,
recycling facilities should not be penalized with flow controls when they are not causing environmental
problems. The Californians Against Waste Foundation suggested that the degree of regulation should be
proportional to the degree of environmental impact.
* February 8, 1994 * *
-------
j Page 31
i
VI. ALTERNATIVES TO FLOW CONTROLS !
State and Local Governments
Most of the 13 state and local governments that suggested alternatives either stated explicitly or
implied that waste management policy goals could not be achieved without flow control. Consequently,
governments suggested alternatives cautiously, often warning that they were not completely feasible.
I
Contracts or Franchising Agreements. The most popular alternative (Suggested by 7 commenters)
was government contracts with the private sector to guarantee adequate flow of waste to planned facilities.
Though effective in the short run, one commenter stated that contracts do not provide any means of
financing future capacity or for funding landfill closure and remediation. Another commenter pointed out
that contracts are really a form of flow control since they restrict competition and limit opportunities for
small rubbish haulers. i
i - - ,
|
Three commenters suggested that if legislative authority exists, local governments could establish
franchises. With franchises, instead of entering into contracts, municipalities could give a limited number
of haulers franchise agreements or the right to enter into private contracts in a specified district.9 The
United States Conference of Mayors stated that both contracts and franchise agreements are "less flexible"
and "more cumbersome" than flow controls and may involve higher costs to consumers. The United States
Conference of Mayors also stated that these alternatives disrupt competition more than flow controls do
because they limit the destination of waste as well as the opportunity to haul it.
Taxation. Two commenters suggested increasing local or state property taxes. However, according
to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, most entities do not have the enabling
authority. In addition, increased taxation is politically difficult to implement, j
Alternative Bonds. The United States Conference of Mayors suggested replacing revenue bonds
with general obligation bonds which rely on the taxing authority of the local government to provide
financing. <" • ( -
Fee Systems. Four commenters considered the possibility of levying a fee oh residences,
businesses, and apartments to pay for growth and expansion of solid waste management facilities. This fee
would subsidize facilities. According to the commenters, one problem with this approach is that it does
not encourage the internalization of the true costs of waste disposal: Hence, generators lack incentives to
reduce waste.
i
i
Another possibility (suggested by Minnesota) is to create landfill surcharge;; for future
closure/post-closure care and possible remediation costs. This approach forces greater internalization of
the true costs of landfilling and reduces some of the differences in tipping fees between landfills and other
waste management facilities. , i
A franchise is the right or license granted to a person to market a company's services within a
particular territory. Franchises are often awarded through a competitive bidding process. Franchises could
limit the number of waste management or recycling companies within a jurisdiction. As part of this
franchise agreement^ a company may sign a contract requiring that municipal sd'lid waste or recyclables be
collected and delivered to specific management facilities.
* * February 8, 1994 * * !
-------
Page 32
One commenter stated that local governments could establish license fees for waste haulers,
charging them for their licenses to operate such that the fees would cover the basic costs of operating a
waste management facility. Operators then could charge minimal tipping fees.
*t
Increased Government Involvement. Five commenters suggested complete government ownership
and operation of all elements of the waste disposal industry. This approach would ensure both the
financial viability of facilities and effective waste management; however, it would remove the free market
from the system altogether and would be extremely complicated and expensive to implement. Another
difficulty mentioned by the commenters is that government displacement of private waste companies might
cause undesired disruption of the flow of commerce.
Another suggested alternative was to force landfills to upgrade and set aside funds for cleanup,
closure, and post-closure care.10 This alternative would be similar to the landfill surcharge suggestion.
Again, landfills would be forced to internalize the true costs of waste disposal and would have to increase
fees. As a result, state-of-the-art facilities with higher fees would be better able to compete.
Waste Management Industry
Contracts or Franchising Agreements. Five of the 8 waste management industry firms
commenting on alternatives to flow control suggested that municipalities contract with disposal services to
ensure waste flow. Through contracts, government-owned facilities still would have guaranteed waste flow
without the monopolistic environment created by flow controls. Another firm suggested franchising waste
collection using a competitive bidding process.
Taxation. One firm suggested raising taxes to finance facilities.
Alternative Bonds. The following bond alternatives were suggested by a waste management
company:
• General obligation bonds;
• Pollution control revenue bonds;
• Leveraged leasing; and
• Industrial bonds.
Unfortunately, no discussion accompanied the suggested alternatives.
Increased Government Involvement The National Solid Wastes Management Association
(NSWMA) advocated the establishment of increased partnerships between the government and private
waste service firms.
10 This alternative already is required under RCRA's Subtitle D.
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 33
Recycling Industry
Seven of the 8 recycling firms commenting on alternatives to flow control either stated that
competition was the best option or mentioned that free market options in general should be explored in
greater depth. The following alternatives were offered: !
Contracts or Franchising Agreements. Four commenters suggested the use of contracts or '
franchising agreements as,competitive alternatives to flow control. j
One commenter suggested establishing government and recycler alliances. Through the alliances,
recyclables are either separated from municipal solid waste or reclaimed after collection but before
disposal. The alliances allow recyclers to access recyclable material while still appeasing the health and
safety concerns of local governments.
Taxation. Individual recycling companies stated that taxes could provide an alternative to flow
controls. State or local governments could levy permit taxes on all vehicles transporting waste and/or
finance new facilities through the creation of new taxes. |
Fee Systems. Two commenters suggested establishing system fees to create recycling incentives.
'
Increased Government Involvement The California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA)
suggested each of the following alternatives: 1
j
• Promote the expertise and investment of existing recyclers to provide reuse, recycling and
composting services to generators; j
• Build smaller MRFs that encourage (or at least allow) independent recyclers to continue
recycling. Instead of building facilities that handle all recyclables, CRRA proposed
designing facilities that target only the recyclables that the private sector cannot handle;
• Finance MRFs with flow control of solid waste only (i.e., not including source separated
materials); ,
•
• Have state or local governments establish a license and reporting system for independent
recyclers; . . , , -
• Ban recyclable or compostable materials from landfills (as San Diego is doing with a
mandatory recycling ordinance). This ban would achieve the same objectives of flow
control of recyclable materials; and j
• Require generators who do not meet recycling goals to develop, comprehensive waste
reduction plans. ! . . ...
February 8, 1994 *
-------
—— Page 34
Financial Institutions
Standard and Poors was the only financial institution to comment on alternatives.
Taxation. Standard and Poors raised the possibility of using ad valorem taxes (property taxes') to
fund projects.
Increased Government Involvement They also suggested special assessments, which may
accomplish the same effect as legal flow controls. A system can levy an assessment on all residents and
businesses and charge no or low tipping fees at the waste management facility, creating the equivalent of
an economic monopoly without waste flow laws. The assessment would provide credit strength and allow
local governments to obtain financing for waste management facilities.
Environmental Groups and Individuals
Increased Government Involvement. One reason for flow controls is to meet state recycling goals.
However, instead of establishing flow controls, one commenter suggested that governments begin
mandatory recycling programs, which, with better record keeping and monitoring requirements, would
obtain the same results.
Februaiy 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 35
LIST OF COMMENTERS
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTERS
State Governments
I
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, Connecticut
Delaware Solid Waste Authority, N.C. Vasuki, Chief Executive Officer, Dover,: Delaware
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, William Hinkley, Chief, Bureau of Solid and Hazardous
Waste, Tallahassee, Florida
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Mary Gade, Director, Springfield, Illinois
Maine Waste Management Agency, Sherry Huber, Executive Director, Augusta, Maine
Massachusetts Office of the State Auditor, Division of Local Mandates, Joseph DeNucci, Auditor, Boston
Massachusetts ' '
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Jim Sygo, Chief, Waste Management Division, Lansing,
Michigan
Minnesota Legislative Commission on Waste Management, MN Office of Waste Management,
MN Pollution Control Agency, and MN Attorney General ,
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Joe Francis, Assistant Director, Lincoln, Nebraska
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Office of Recycling and Planning, Gary
Sondermeyer, Assistant Director
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Kate Banter, Deputy Director for Policy and Legislation
Columbus, Ohio '
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources , Arthur Davis, Secretaiy
Local Governments and Organizations Representing Local Governments '
•
American Public Works Association, Ray Reurket, Director, Federal Programs^ Washington, D.C.
Association of Minnesota Counties, Barbara Johnson, Attorney (represents 86 of the 87 counties in
Minnesota)
Board of Hennepin County Commissioners, Minnesota, Randy Johnson, Commissioner "* '
Bristol Resource Recovery. Facility Operating Committee and Tunxis Recycling Operating Committee,
Jonathan Bilmes, Connecticut
Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority, New Jersey I
City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, Department of Public Works, Robert Young
City of New York Department of Sanitation, Jane Levine, Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs
City of Springfield, Missouri, Jim O'Neal, Councilman
City of Sunnyvale, California, Mark Bowers, Solid Waste Program Manager j
City of Tampa, Florida, Sandra Freedman j
City of Urbana, Illinois, Tod Satterthwaite, Mayor i
City of Houston, Texas, Department of Solid Waste Management, Everett Bass., Director
City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Department of Public Works, Steven Brachman, Resource Recovery
Manager,
City of Tacoma, Washington, Department of Public Works, Phillip Ringrose, Public Works Division
Manager
Clay-Owen-Vigo Solid Waste Management District, Indiana, Donna Klewer, Director
Clinton County, Michigan, Department of Waste Management, Ann Mason
Concord Regional Solid Waste/Resource Recovery Cooperative, New Hampshire, James Presher Director
(represents 27 municipalities) j ' '
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 36
Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, New Haven, Connecticut
County of Lehigh Department of Planning and Development, Office of Solid Waste Management,
Allentown, Pennsylvania, Julia Stamm, Solid Waste Coordinator
County of San Diego, California, Scott Peters, Deputy County Counsel
County of Ventura, California, Solid Waste Management Department, Kay Martin, Director
Delaware County Council, Media, Pennsylvania
Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Authority (represents 21 municipalities)
Greater Lebanon Refuse Authority, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, Michael Pavelek II, Executive Director
Joint Comments on behalf of City of Indianapolis, Indiana; Davis County Solid Waste Management and
Energy Recovery Special Service District; Delaware County Solid Waste Authority; Eastern
Renssalaer County Solid Waste Management Authority; Greater Detroit Resource Recovery
Authority; Marion County, Oregon; Minnesota Resource Recovery Association; National Institute
of Municipal Law Officers; Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency; Resource Authority in
Sumner County, Tennessee; Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio; Town of North Hempstead,
New York; Wisconsin County Solid Waste Management Association; and York County Solid
Waste and Refuse Authority
King County Solid Waste Division, Department of Public Works, Seattle, Washington, Rodney Hansen,
Manager
Lackawanna County Solid Waste Management Authority, Pennsylvania
La Crosse County, Wisconsin, Brian Tippetts, Solid Waste Manager
Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority, Pennsylvania, Herbert Flosdorf, Executive Director
Latah County, Idaho, Board of Latah County Commissioners
Law Firm of DeCotiis & Pinto for 7 of the 22 solid waste management districts in New Jersey,
Hackensack, New Jersey
Law Firm of Fulbright & Jaworski for the Incorporated Villages of Westbury, Mineola, and New Hyde
Park, New York; The New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials; and
American Ref-Fuel Company of Hempstead, New York
Law Firm of McManimon & Scotland for the Mercer County Improvement Authority, New Jersey
Law Firm of Michael D. Diederich, Jr. for the County of Rockland Department of Solid Waste
Management
Law Firm of Tock and Miller, LTD. for the Intergovernmental Organization in Champaign County, Illinois
League of California Cities, Yvonne Hunter, Legislative Representative, Sacramento, California
(represents 468 incorporated cities in California)
Lycoming County Planning Commission and Lycoming County Solid Waste Department, Pennsylvania,
Jerry Walls, Executive Director
Marion County, Oregon, Department of Solid Waste Management, James Sears, Director, Salem, Oregon
Medina County Sanitary Engineering Department, Ohio, K.W. Hutz, County Sanitary Engineer
Metro Dade Solid Waste Management, Miami Florida, Paul Mauriello, Solid Waste Management Planner
Monmouth County Planning Board, New Jersey, Lawrence Zaayenga, Solid Waste Coordinator
National Association of Counties, Washington, D.C.
Newark, New Jersey, Sharpe James, Mayor
Northeast Indiana Solid Waste Management District, Brian Miller, Executive Director
Organization of Solid Waste Districts of Ohio, Michael D. Long, Executive Director of the Solid Waste
Authority of Central Ohio (Mr. Long's comments represent the opinion of the Organization of
Solid Waste Districts of Ohio which is comprised of 40 of Ohio's 48 solid waste management
districts.)
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
__ Page 37
Pollution Control Financing Authority of Warren Co'unty, Oxford, New Jersey, Bart Cahart, Executive
Director
Prince Georges County, Maryland, Dept of Environmental Resources, Eugene Lauer, Director
Regional Waste Services, Inc., Portland, Maine, Gary Lorfano, Chairman of the Board of Directors
(Regional Waste Services represents 21 municipalities)
Solid Waste Association of North America, John Abernethy, Vice President, (also Public Works Director,
Sacramento County, California) Mr. Abernathy's comments represent SWANA's opinions
regarding the flow control issue.
Solid Waste Association of North America, Durwood Curling, International Secretary (also Executive
Director of Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia) Mr. Curling's comments represent
SWANA's opinion on the flow control issue.
Solid Waste Association of North America, Curt Kemppainen, President (also Public Works Director,
Kent county, Grand Rapids, Michigan) Mr. Kemppainens' comments represent SWANA's
opinions regarding the flow control issue.
Solid Waste Association of North America's "Response to Questions Raised by the USEPA for Their Flow
Control Public Meetings"
Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio, Jack Foulk, President of the Franklin County, Ohio Board of
Commissioners and Chairman of the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio Finance Committee.
Mr. Foulk's comments represent the Solid Waste Authority of Ohio's opinions regarding the flow
control issue. „ :
Minnesota Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, Paul McCarron, County Commissioner
(represents the 7 counties that surround and include Minneapolis and St. Paul)
Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia, John Hadfleld, Deputy Executive Director (represents 8
communities)
Spokane, Washington, Sheri S. Barnard, Mayor (on behalf of herself and other concerned citizens)
Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, Washington, Phil Williams, Executive Director
Town of Hamden, Connecticut, Mayor Lillian D. dayman
Town of Wallingford, Connecticut, Philip Hamelm, Jr., Resource Recovery Project Coordinator (represents
5 counties)
Union County Utilities Authority, Linden, New Jersey, Jeffrey Callahan, Executive Director
United States Conference of Mayors, Washington, D.C., J. Thomas Cochran, Executive Director
Winnebago County Solid Waste Management Board, Wisconsin, Leonard Leverence, Director of Solid
Waste
WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY COMMENTERS ' "
i
Alliance Environmental Services, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin I
Allied Waste Industries, Inc., Apache Junction, Arizona j
Arena Trucking Co., Inc., Rice, Virginia
Attwoods Inc., Coconut Grove, Florida
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., Houston, Texas
C&R Sanitation Co., Inc. Collection & Recycling, Newington, Connecticut
California Refuse Removal Council, Sacramento, California
California Waste Removal Systems, Lodi, California
CDT Landfill Corporation, Joliet, Illinois
Cedar Disposal Inc., Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin
Chambers Development Co., Inc., County of Anson, North Carolina
Commercial Disposal Co., Inc., West Springfield, Massachusetts
Council of Trade Waste Association, Inc., Flushing, New York
* *
February 8, 1994 * *
-------
—— . - Page 38
CSX Transportation, Jacksonville, Florida
Daneco, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota
E&K General Hauling Inc. (President), Sheboygan, Wisconsin
E&K General Hauling Inc. (Vice President), Sheboygan, Wisconsin
Energy Answers Corporation, Albany, New York
Expert Disposal Service, Inc., Hartland, Wisconsin
Frank Perrotti & Sons, Inc., Woodbridge, Connecticut
Grand Central Sanitation, Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania
Handy Dump Waste Diverting Technologies, Inc., Roanoke, Virginia
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill, Inc., Horicon, Wisconsin
Knutson Services, Inc., Rosemount, Minnesota
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc., Burlington, Ontario
McCaughey Standard, Inc., Pawtucket, Rhode Island
McGuire, Woods, Battle, & Boothe REP: Container Corporation of Carolina, Inc., Fort Mill South
Carolina
Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc., Canal Winchester, Ohio
Minnesota Resource Recovery Association, Trudy Gasteazoro, Executive Director, St. Paul, Minnesota
(represents waste-to-energy facilities serving 29 counties and 2 cities. Other members of the
Association include Dakota county, Northern States Power Company, United Power Association
Quadrant Company and Richards Asphalt
Multi Material Management & Marketing, Oakland, California
National Serv-All, Inc., Ft. Wayne, Indiana
National Solid Wastes Management Association, Washington, D.C. (represents 2500 member companies in
the U.S. and Canada) ^
Norcal Waste Systems, Inc., California
Ogden Martin Systems, Inc., Arlington, Virginia
Paine's Inc. Recycling and Rubbish Removal, Simsbury, Connecticut
PASCO (Palo Alto Sanitation Co.), Palo Alto, California
Richmond Sanitary Service, Richmond, California
Ritters Sanitary Service Inc., Lyon County, Minnesota
Rumpke Waste Systems, Cincinnati, Ohio
Santek Environmental, Inc., Cleveland, Tennessee
Sawyer Environmental, Hampden, Maine
Semass Partnership, Rochester, Massachusetts
South Coast Refuse Corp., Irvine, California,
Superior Environmental Services (President), West Allis, Wisconsin
Superior Environmental Services (Chief Executive Officer), West Allis, Wisconsin
Testimony of a Solid Waste Collector in Mercer County, New Jersey
United States Pollution Control, Inc.
Upper Valley Disposal Service, St. Helena, California
Valley Sanitation Co., Inc. (Vice President), Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin
Valley Sanitation Co., Inc. (General Manager, Leonard Cerrentano), Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin
Valley Sanitation Co., Inc. (President), Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin
Valley Sanitation Co., Inc. (General Manager, Deborah Vaughn), Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin
Virginia Waste Industries Association, Richmond, Virginia
Vogel Disposal Services, Mars, Pennsylvania
Waste Material Trucking Company, Inc., Southington, Connecticut
Waste Industries, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina
Waste Systems Corporation, Minnesota
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 39
Waste-Stream Inc., Potsdam, New York
WMX Technologies, Inc., Oak Brook, Illinois
York Waste Disposal, Inc., York, Pennsylvania
RECYCLING INDUSTRY COMMENTERS
American Forest & Paper Association, Washington, D.C.
Automated Material Handling, Kensington, Connecticut
C.F. Justice, Hesperia, California
California Wastepaper Dealers Association, Baldwin Park, California
California Resource Recovery Association, Loomis, California
Chicago Paperboard Corporation, Chicago, Illinois
E. L. Harvey & Sons, Westboro, Massachusetts
Free-Flow Packaging Corporation, Redwood City, California
Independent Recycler's Association, Oakland, California
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries: Chicago Chapter, Chicago, Illinois
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries: Southwestern Chapter, California
IVEX Packaging Corporation, Lincolnshire, Illinois
Jefferson Smurfit Corporation* St. Louis, Missouri
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Association, San Rafael, California
National Recovery Technologies, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee
Northern California Recycling Association, Berkeley, California
Omni Recycling Paper Recycling Coalition, Westbury, New York
Recycling Products of Rockland, New York i
Recycling Products of Rockland and C & A Carbone, New York
Sonoco Product Company, Hartsville, South Carolina, for Paper Recycling Cozilition (a group of 11
companies that operate paper mills which exclusively use recovered paper, as raw material)
Southeastern Paper Manufacturing Company, Dublin, Georgia, for the RecycliEg Paper Coalition (PRC)
The Pick Up Artists, Culver City, California
The Business Recyclers Educational Assistance Link, Loomis, California (a technical council of the
California Resource Recovery Association formed to specifically address generator's issues
regarding source reduction, resource recovery and recycling)
Tidewater Fibre Corporation, Chesapeake, Virginia
Urban Ore, Inc., Richmond, California |
Waste Recovery Systems, Inc., Newport Beach, California and Franklin, Tennessee
Weyerhauser Company, Tacoma, Washington
Winzinger Incorporated, Hainesport, New Jersey i
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION COMMENTERS
Paine Webber, Inc., New York, New York
Standard & Poor's Corporation, New York, New York
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AND INDEPENDENT COMMENTERS
American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Michigan
Bio-Fuels Engineering Corp., Kalama, Washington
Californians Against Waste Foundation, Sacramento, California
* * February 8, 1994 * *
-------
Page 40
Charlotte Zieve, PhD., Institute for Environmental Studies, Madison, Wisconsin
Citizens Coordinating For Clean Water, Lebanon, Pennsylvania
Dirk Plessner, Esq., Eastman & Smith, Toledo, Ohio
John Pugliaresi, Waste Resource Technologies, California
John McCabe, Independent Waste Management Consultant, Palo Alto, California
Lawrence R. Schillinger Environmental Consultants, Albany, New York
Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Columbus, Ohio
Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Rufus C. Young, Jr. of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Los Angeles, California (this attorney and his firm
have represented California municipalities on solid waste management issues; however, the
comments submitted were not on behalf of any specific municipality.)
Tammie Wallace, Fort Myers, Florida
W. Dexter Bellamy, PhD, Fort Myers, Florida
* February 8, 1994 * *
------- |