United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5305)
EPA530-R-95-008
PB95-179263
March 1995
vvEPA
Report to Congress on
Flow Control and
Municipal Solid Waste
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
WHAT DID CONGRESS ASK EPA TO DO? ES-1
WHAT ARE FLOW CONTROLS? ES-1
WHAT FACTORS ENCOURAGE USE OF FLOW CONTROLS? ES-1
HOW DID EPA APPROACH THE CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST? ES-2
WHAT ARE THE FINDINGS? ES-3
ARE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE OTHER THAN FLOW CONTROL? ES-12
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION M
A. RCRA AND FLOW CONTROLS 1-2
B. FACTORS ENCOURAGING THE USE OF FLOW CONTROLS 1-3
C INTERESTED PARTIES' POSITIONS ON KEY FLOW CONTROL
ISSUES !_5
D. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT 1-5
CHAPTER II: STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES AND IMPACT ON
HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT H-l
A. METHODOLOGY H-l
B. STATE AUTHORITIES : n-1
C HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT II-5
CHAPTER III: MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS HI-1
INTRODUCTION nj.j
The Market Analysis ni-3
Limits of the Market Analysis . HI-5
Methodology IK-6
Outline of Remainder of Chapter HI-7
A. THE DEMAND FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES IH-7
A.1 Available Data on Waste Stream HI-8
A.2 Methodology Used to Estimate Market Size HI-8
Market Definition HI_g
-------
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Examination of Methodologies EI-9
Comparison of EPA and BioCycle 1990 Estimates by Market
Segment > m-11
Comparison of BioCycle Landfill Estimates with Available State
Data • m"12
A3 1992 Estimate of Waste Received at MSW Facilities HI-12
A.4 1992 Estimate by Waste Management Method 111-12
B. COMPOSTING MARKET SEGMENT HI-14
Key Findings ni44
Data Limitations ; 111-15
B.I Overview of Growth Trends m-15
B.2 Market Subsegments IH-17
B.3 Market Segment Competitive Structure IH-18
Yard Trimmings Landfill and Combustion Bans - • • HI-18
Competitive Economics 111-19
Capital Requirements and Scale of Operations 111-21
Public/Private Infrastructure 111-22
Flow Controls and MSW Composting 111-23
B.4 Market Segment Potential 111-24
Supply of Compostable Waste 111-24
End-Market Demand for Compost • • • HI-25
C. RECYCLING MARKET SEGMENT HI-26
Key Findings m'26
Data Limitations In-27
C.1 Overview of Growth Trends HI-28
C.2 Market Subsegments i 111-33
C.3 Market Segment Competitive Structure 111-35
Recycling Laws and Landfill/WTE Bans IH-36
Competitive Economics 111-37
Capital Requirements and Scale of Operations 111-40
Public/Private Infrastructure 111-41
Flow Control Role in Recycling Growth 111-42
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Hi
Page
C.4 Market Segment Potential IH-45
Supply of MSW Recyclables 111-45
End-Market Demand for Recyclables 111-46
D. WASTE-TO-ENERGY MARKET SEGMENT 111-46
Key Findings IH-46
Data Sources and Limitations IH-47
D.I Overview of Growth Trends 111-47
D.2 Market Subsegments 111-49
Throughput of Market Subsegments ffl-50
Geographic Distribution of WEE Market Subsegments HI-50
D.3 Market Segment Competitive Structure IEI-51
Role of Flow Control in WTE Market ni-52
Competitive Economics 111-55
Tipping Fees HI-56
Public/Private Infrastructure IH-58
D.4 Market Segment Potential 111-58
Existing Facilities 111-59
New Facilities ni-59
Other Factors Inhibiting Future Growth Rates 111-61
E. LANDFILL MARKET SEGMENT HI-62
Key Findings HI-62
Data Limitations 111-62
E.1 Overview of Growth Trends IH-63
Number of Landfills 111-63
Landfill Capacity HI-64
E.2 Market Subsegments 111-67
E.3 Market Segment Competitive Structure HI-68
Competitive Economics 111-69
Capital Requirements and Scale of Operations 111-69
Tipping Fees m.71
Flow Controls 111-72
E.4 Market Segment Potential 111-73
-------
Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F.
Page
ANALYSIS OF KEY ISSUES IN FLOW CONTROL DEBATE 111-74
F.I Are Flow Controls Necessary to Ensure Adequate Waste
Management Capacity? 111-76
Recycling and Composting Capacity 111-76
Waste-to-Energy Capacity 111-77
Landfill Capacity , In-78
Use of Flow Controls to Ensure Adequate In-State Capacity 111-78
Are Row Controls Needed tp Achieve State Recycling Goals? 111-79
Direct Impact of Flow Control on Recycling Rates 111-79
Integrated Solid Waste Management 111-79
F.2
F.3
ALTERNATIVES TO FLOW CONTROL IH-80
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX I-A:
APPENDIX I-B:
APPENDIX H-A:
APPENDIX E-B:
APPENDIX m-A:
APPENDIX m-B:
APPENDIX m-C:
APPENDIX m-D:
APPENDIX m-E:
Flow Controls and Municipal Solid Waste: Summary of
Public Comments
Legal Decisions Concerning Municipal Solid Waste Flow
Controls
Summary Matrix of State Flow Control Authorities
Flow Control Case Studies
Technical Analysis: Waste Generation
Technical Analysis: 'Compost Segment
Technical Analysis: Recycling Segment
Technical Analysis: WTE Segment
Technical Analysis: Landfill Segment
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WHAT DID CONGRESS ASK EPA TO DO?
In September 1992, Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop
and submit a Report to Congress on flow controls as a means of municipal solid waste (MSW)
management Congress asked EPA to:
4 present a comparative review of States with and without flow control authority;
4 identify the impact of flow control ordinances on protection of human health
and the environment; and
4 identify the impact of flow control on the development of State and local
waste management capacity and on the achievement of State and local goals
.for source reduction, reuse and recycling.
WHAT ARE FLOW CONTROLS?
Flow controls are legal authorities used by State and local governments to designate where
MSW must be taken for processing, treatment or disposal. This waste management approach requires
waste to be delivered to specific facilities such as waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities, materials recovery
facilities (MRFs), composting facilities, transfer stations and/or landfills. The facilities can be either
publicly or privately owned. One of the direct effects of flow control is that designated facilities are
assured of receiving a guaranteed amount of MSW and/or recyclable materials. If the designated
facilities charge a "tipping fee" for receipt of the MSW/recyclables, flow control assures a source of
revenue to meet their capital and operating costs.
WHAT FACTORS ENCOURAGE USE OF FLOW CONTROLS?
Use of flow controls took hold in the late 1970s. State and local governments began using
flow controls primarily to support the development of new MSW capacity, particularly if it required
large capital investment (e.g., financing of WTE facilities). How controls assisted State and local
governments in financing these facilities by ensuring long-term receipt of enough waste to generate
sufficient revenues to pay facility debt service and other costs.
-------
Page ES-2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Also influencing use of flow controls were State goals and mandates for increased recycling or
diversion of specific wastes (e.g., yard trimmings) from landfills. Flow control was one mechanism
used by local governments to generate needed revenues to pay for programs and to direct waste to
recycling/composting facilities. This enabled them to respond to State recycling goals and mandates.
As local governments expanded waste management services, flow controls were utilized as a
mechanism to ensure funding for various components of their solid waste management systems such as
source reduction programs, household hazardous waste collection, and public education. These
services typically do not lend themselves to collection of revenues as do facility-based components
(e.g., tipping fees at transfer stations, WTE facilities and landfills). The most frequent rationale for
adopting flow control is to assure the financial viability of waste management facilities by providing a
reliable, long-term supply of waste. This assurance can be instrumental in securing capital, to finance
the construction of a facility.
Flow control also may facilitate solid waste planning and management. State and local
governments can plan for the appropriate type, number, and size of facilities to handle the long-term
generation of waste within a specific area.
HOW DID EPA APPROACH THE CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST?
In an effort to analyze the issues posed by Congress, EPA
4 held public meetings to obtain information from interested stakeholders;
4 examined States' solid waste management laws to compare flow control
authorities across the United States; and
4 performed a market analysis of the four primary MSW management segments
(i.e., composting, recycling, combustion and landfills) to assess the role of
flow control in ensuring MSW management capacity and in attaining goals for
source reduction, reuse and recycling.
The approach provided EPA with a national view of the need for flow controls. The Agency
recognizes that local circumstances may differ substantially from the national perspective. Each State
and local government needs to consider local conditions and alternatives when determining the need
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page ES-3
for flow control. If a State or local government has relied on flow control to achieve certain ends,
sudden elimination of flow control may disrupt ongoing solid waste practices.
WHAT ARE THE FINDINGS?
Congressional Question:
Present a comparative review of States with and without flow
control authority.
Finding: Thirty-five States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands authorize flow
control directly; four additional States authorize flow control indirectly through
mechanisms such as local solid waste management plans and home rule
authority; eleven States have no flow control authority.
Discussion: No primary source of information was available which identified States with and
without flow control authority or those local governments implementing flow control within the States.
Developing a complete picture of the nationwide scope of flow control laws would be an extremely
complex task due to the differences among State laws, the dynamics of the solid waste industry, and
the variability of infrastructures among local governments across the nation. EPA determined that a
comparative review of State flow control authorities could be presented by (1) reviewing State statutes
and regulations, and (2) developing case studies to illustrate how local MSW programs are
implemented with and without flow controls.
As shown in Exhibit ES-1, 35 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands
explicitly authorize flow control. However, not all jurisdictions exercise this authority. For example,
Illinois has authority to implement flow control, but there is no evidence that local governments within
the State currently use it. Also, a number of States impose administrative requirements which must be
met before local governments can implement flow control, such as demonstrating a need for flow
control, holding public hearings, and/or first attempting to negotiate contracts with the private sector.
Of the 35 States which authorize flow control, 23 (and the District of Columbia) limit some or all
recyclable materials from coverage under flow control.
Four States authorize flow control indirectly through mechanisms such as home rule (MA,
MD) or the State/local solid waste management planning process (MI, TX). In a home rule State,
municipalities may exercise power over local issues to the extent not prohibited or regulated by the
State. Using home rule authority, municipalities may establish flow controls over their solid waste. In
-------
Page ES-4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXfflBIT ES-1
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITY
States with Flow Control provisions (35)
States which authorize Flow Control Indirectly through home rule
authority or the local planning process (4)
States with no Flow Control authority (11)
Michigan and Texas, municipal solid waste planning documents determine capacity needs and can
authorize flow control as part of the plans' requirements.
Eleven States (AK, AZ, CA, ID, IN, KY, KS, NV, NM, SC, UT) have no flow control
authority. !
Congressional Question:
Identify the impact of flow control ordinances on protection of
human health and the environment
Finding: Protection of human health and the environment is directly related to the
implementation and enforcement of federal, State, and local environmental
regulations. Regardless of whether State or local governments administer flow
control programs, States are required to implement and enforce federally approved
regulations that fully protect human health and the environment Accordingly,
there are no empirical data showing that flow control provides more or less
protection.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page ES-5
Discussion: In the United States, approximately 80 percent of MSW is managed in landfills
and combustors. Landfills and municipal waste combustors are controlled by State and federal
regulations which are implemented through facility permitting and compliance assurance programs.
These programs are designed for the express purpose of protecting human health and the environment
and require the same level of control whether or not the waste is subject to flow controls.
In recent years, States have begun regulating composting and recycling facilities to protect
human health and the environment, without regard to whether the materials are subject to flow
controls. Further, our market analysis shows that only a small percentage of recovered materials
managed by the composting and recycling segments is affected by flow control ordinances. Also,
many States that authorize flow control explicitly exclude certain recyclables from flow control
restrictions.
Congressional Question: Identify the impact of flow control on the development of State
and local waste management capacity and on the achievement of
State and local goals for source reduction, reuse, and recycling.
Finding: Flow controls play a limited role in the solid waste market as a whole. Flow
controls are not typically utilized by landfills or composting facilities. Less than
3 percent of the recycling market is subject to flow controls,- however,
approximately 19 percent of the materials handled by existing MRF-based
recycling programs are supported by flow controls. Flow controls play the largest
role in the waste-to-energy market where at least 58 percent of the throughput is
supported by flow controls.
Although flow controls have provided an administratively efficient mechanism for
local governments to plan for and fund their solid waste management systems,
there are alternatives. Implementation of these alternatives by communities
currently relying onflow controls could be disruptive and take time.
Accordingly, there are no data showing that flow controls are essential either for
the development of new solid waste capacity or for the long term achievement of
State and local goals for source reduction, reuse and recycling.
Discussion: EPA conducted a market analysis to determine whether market intervention in the
form of flow controls is needed to ensure adequate capacity or to achieve State and local recycling
goals. Our analysis addressed discrete market segments (i.e., composting, recycling, combustion, and
landfills) that both work together and compete to perform the complete job of solid waste management
-------
Page ES-6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
in communities. The analysis uses a number of indicators to assess market conditions and the
prevalence of flow controls for these segments. The indicators include growth trends, ownership
patterns, cost competitiveness, and capital requirements. These indicators are rough measures that
enable an assessment of the role of flow controls in ensuring MSW management capacity and in
attaining State and local goals. However, they cannot capture the realities of every specific MSW
market. Due to data limitations, the report does not analyze price-cost relationships in jurisdictions
with and without flow control. Appendix I-A presents a summary of public comments, some of which
discuss the economic impacts of flow control.
Following is a summary of the analysis of each of the four market segments, as well as a
discussion of integrated solid waste management (ISWM) systems.
COMPOSTING i
The two subsegments reviewed included yard trimmings composting and mixed-waste
composting. Yard trimmings composting accounts for 06 percent of this segment. From a national
perspective, flow controls generally have not been an important factor in the compost segment.
However, in some communities, higher tipping fees at flow control facilities have provided a
funding mechanism to subsidize compost facilities.
Market Growth
The composting market segment grew from 0.5 million tons of recovered material in 1988 to
over 9.2 million tons in 1992. In addition, the number of yard trimmings composting facilities
increased by 361 percent between 1989 and 1993, going from 651 to 3,000 facilities. Enactment by
27 States (and the District of Columbia) of bans on landfilling of yard trimmings has fostered the
rapid expansion of the composting market segment.
The trend is for continued growth in the number of yard trimmings composting facilities; such
growth in the mixed waste composting sector is not as likely. Based on the following factors, the
composting market segment should be capable of ensuring additional capacity independent of flow
control:
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page ES-7
recent growth;
an expanding number of States with bans on landfilling of yard trimmings;
an ample supply of compostable materials and expanding end-markets
especially in the agricultural sector; and
the increasing number of governmental agencies which are establishing
procurement policies that favor the purchase of compost for public spaces and
parks.
Impact of Flow Controls
Although flow controls are used to guarantee waste for some of the 21 mixed waste
composting facilities, EPA found no evidence that they are used widely to guarantee waste flows for
yard trimmings composting facilities. However, local jurisdictions will sometimes subsidize
composting facilities with part of the revenue received from the higher tipping fees at flow control
facilities.
RECYCLING • . .
The recycling market subsegments reviewed included materials recovery facilities (MRFs) and
other recycling operations (i.e., independent recovered paper and paperboard dealers, industry-
sponsored buy-back programs and drop-off centers, and mixed waste processing facilities). For the
recycling segment, flow control has been an important factor for MRFs, particularly MRFs that
require substantial capital investments. Thirty-two (32) percent of waste handled by "high
technology" MRFs is supported by flow controls. An additional 50 percent of high technology
MRFs have waste guaranteed through contractual arrangements, some of which may be
supported by flow control.
Market Growth
Between 1985 and 1992, there was a 150 percent increase in the recycling market going from
16 million tons of recycled materials in 1985 to over 40 million tons in 1992. The growth in the
recycling market is demonstrated by the following factors:
-------
Page ES-8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Curbside collection programs grew from 1,000 programs in 1988 to over 6,600
programs in 1993 (568 percent increase);
* Recycling or waste reduction goals have been established in 43 States and the
District of Columbia; some of these States also have banned the landfilling of
recoverable items such as batteries and tires;
* The number of MRFs increased from 13 facilities in 1985 to 198 in 1992, with
a 100 percent increase between 1990 and 1992.
A continuing expansion of end-market facilities that use recycled materials (e.g., paper mill de-
inking facilities) indicates that the recycling segment will continue to account for an increasing share
of the MSW management market .
Impact of Flow Controls
EPA estimates that only 2.7 percent of the 40 million tons of recyclable materials is subject to
flow controls. The analysis indicates that flow controls are not used for paper packers and buy-
back/drop-off programs, which represent 85 percent of the recycling market. Conversely, flow
controls do play a role in the MRF segment of the recycling market. In 1992, 13 percent of MRFs
(26 facilities), with 19 percent (1.1 million tons) of the throughput, received waste guaranteed by flow
control. In addition to MRFs supported by flow control, a significant amount of MRF throughput is
guaranteed by contractual arrangement: 41 percent of MRF (82 facilities), with 44 percent (2.5 million
tons) of total throughput. Local government may use flow control to ensure that enough waste is
' delivered to meet the terms of the contract.
How controls have been more important for high-technology MRFs than for low-technology
MRFs. Flow controls direct 32 percent of the throughput at high technology MRFs (17 facilities),
compared to only seven percent of throughput in low-technology MRFs (9 facilities). Another 24
MRFs were planned to be operational after 1992; these will be predominately (i.e., 17 out of 24) high-
technology MRFs. Six of the high tech MRFs, with 18 percent of the throughput, are expected to be
supported by flow controls. For the seven low-technology MRFs that are planned to be operational
after 1992, only one is expected to be supported by flow controls. The difference in use of flow
controls by high-technology and low-technology MRFs reflects the greater capital costs of the former
($4.8 million on average) compared to the latter ($1.9 million on average).
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PageES-9
Flow control support of MRFs is largely regional. Of the 26 MRFs supported by flow control,
20 are located in the Northeast. The throughput of these MRFs (928,000 tons/year) represents 86
percent of the total MRF throughput nationwide that is supported by flow controls.
COMBUSTION
MSW is burned in (1) waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities that recover heat from the combustion
of waste to produce either steam or electricity, and (2) incinerators that combust waste without energy
recovery. Of the 32 million tons of MSW that were combusted in 1992, WTE facilities accounted for
31 million tons, and incinerators accounted for 1 million tons. Flow controls have played a
significant role in the waste-to-energy market segment, with at least 58 percent of the waste
throughput supported by flow control.
Market Growth
There was a ten-fold increase in the number of WTE facilities operating between 1980 and
1990. However, only a modest gain in the amount of waste managed by the WTE sector is expected
in the future for the following reasons:
4 significant slow down in the planning and construction of new WTE facilities
in recent years;
4 higher capital requirements due to the cost of land and pollution control
measures;
4 increased emphasis on recycling and waste reduction strategies;
4 public opposition; and
4 State moratoria.
Impact of Flow Controls
Flow controls have played a significant role in the WTE market segment. Of the 145 existing
WTE facilities, 61 have waste guaranteed by flow control ordinances, representing 58 percent of total
WTE throughput. One reason for this high percentage is the substantial capital investment required to
construct WTE facilities, which typically are financed over long time periods. WTE facility owners
-------
Page ES-10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
and operators need to ensure adequate, long-term supplies of waste and operate at sufficient levels of
capacity in order to generate revenues to meet debt payments.
An additional 40 facilities receive waste guaranteed by contracts, representing 31 percent of
the total WTE throughput. The contractual arrangements may, but need not, be supported by some
form of municipal control over waste disposition: the municipality may collect the waste itself, use
contracts or franchises to control the ultimate destination of waste collected, and/or enact a flow
control ordinance. For example, a local government may use a flow control ordinance to ensure that
enough waste is delivered to meet the terms of its contract with the facility. As a result, some of the
facilities with contracts also may be backed by local governments' use of flow controls. However,
data are not available currently to assess how often this situation occurs:
LANDFILLS j
i
Historically, landfills have received the majority of solid waste generated in the United States.
Landfills will continue to be important elements of ISWM systems. The Agency could find no
evidence that flow controls have played a significant role in financing new landfills or landfill
expansions. ;
Market Growth
The number of MSW landfills has declined rapidly since 1988, but this does not appear to
have significantly affected total landfill capacity. Very small landfills appear to account for most
landfill closings, and large, regional landfill openings and expansions have offset this lost capacity.
Anticipated growth in the composting and recycling segments, combined with source reduction
efforts, likely will result in a continuing decline in the amount of waste received at MSW landfills in
the future.
Impact of Flow Controls
Flow controls do not appear to have played a significant role in financing new landfills or
landfill expansions. Private landfill firms have demonstrated their ability to raise substantial capital
from publicly-issued equity offerings, indicating that investors are willing to provide capital for the
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page ES-11
expansion of landfills without flow control guarantees, in response to a perceived market demand for
this segment.
INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
State and local government officials indicated at the flow controls meetings that revenues
generated by flow controls are used by some local governments to support various elements of
integrated solid waste management (ISWM) systems. In addition to the facilities discussed above,
flow controls are used to support waste collection services such as curbside collection for recycling.
Flow controls also, are used to support solid waste services and practices that generally do not lend
themselves to generation of their own revenues (e.g., household hazardous waste collection, source
reduction programs, solid waste planning, public awareness programs, and, in limited instances,
corrective action for past practices).
Where this is done, the costs of the various facility and service elements of the system are
built into the tipping fee of the WTE or other facilities to which wastes are directed through flow
controls. These tipping fees often are higher than the market level. Flow controls ensure that the
waste goes to these facilities, rather than to facilities with lower tipping fees. The additional revenues
generated by the flow control-derived tipping fees are used to fund other elements of the waste
management system such as those noted above.
IN-STATE CAPACITY
Flow control is one mechanism that State and local governments can use to foster
development of in-State capacity to manage municipal solid waste. Flow controls can foster local
capacity by making it easier to adequately size and finance waste management facilities. Controlling
the disposition of locally-generated MSW allows planners to determine more accurately how much
waste must be managed. Similarly, control of the waste ensures that waste management facilities will
be fully utilized, which should result in cost-efficient operations.
This Report does not assess the relative importance of flow controls, compared to other
available mechanisms, for achieving in-State capacity goals. Nor was this Report designed to
determine how many State and local governments consider in-State capacity to be an important goal or
how much additional waste management costs (if any) would be incurred in pursuit of such a goal.
-------
Page ES-12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ARE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE OTHER THAN FLOW CONTROL?
Approaches other than flow control which are used to produce revenues for constructing and
operating solid waste management facilities can be categorized as organizational and financial
alternatives.
\
Organizational Alternatives
By using various organizational arrangements, 'municipalities can direct waste to specific
facilities, similar to what is accomplished through flow control. One approach is for a local
government to own and operate its waste collection system, delivering the waste to the facility of its
choice. Another approach is for the local government to employ the private sector, through contract or
franchise arrangements, for collection services. Contract or franchise agreements can incorporate
specific requirements such as the frequency of collection, inclusion of recyclables, and designation of
facilities to which the collected waste is to be delivered.
i
Special purpose districts or utilities also can be established to manage municipal solid waste.
The special district or utility then would be able to provide services directly or use a contract or
franchise arrangement with the private sector for services.
I
Financial Alternatives
Whichever organizational alternative is chosen^ the question of how to pay for the system also
must be addressed. The local jurisdiction can use property taxes or other general taxes as a source of
funds. User fees (either uniform or variable to reflect the amount of waste thrown away) specifically
designated for MSW services can be levied on the generator by the jurisdiction or the private sector
provider. Finally, market-based tip fees can be charged which take into account the facility's cost and
!
the prices charged at competing facilities. i
Taxes and user fees imposed on generators prdvide a reliable source of revenue. Taxes may
be politically unpopular, but they are relatively easy to administer and serve as the basis for issuing
general obligation bonds. User fees may be seen as equitable, especially if they vary with the amount
of waste thrown away, but they involve relatively greater administrative effort. Even when
administered by private service providers, user fees can provide local governments with necessary
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page ES-13
assurance of financial support when combined with long-term contracts to deliver waste to a given
solid waste management facility.
Some MSW activities, such as planning and household hazardous waste collection programs,
do not readily lend themselves to user charges. For example, the purpose of household hazardous
waste collection programs would be defeated if user fees discouraged participation. Funding to correct
environmental problems that exist at a waste management facility also may be needed. Market-based
tip fees may not be able to include amounts to account for the extra costs associated with other service
elements of ISWM and remain competitive. As alternatives, taxes, and user fees imposed on
generators are possible sources of funding for these activities.
-------
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In September 1992, Congress directed the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to submit a Report to Congress on flow control as a means of municipal solid
waste (MSW) management. The Report is to review States with and without flow control
authority and describe the impact of flow control on:
4 protection of human health and the environment; and
4 development of State and local waste management capacity and the
achievement of State and local goals for source reduction, reuse, and
recycling.
Flow controls, as defined in this Report, are legal provisions that allow State and local
governments to designate where MSW must be taken for processing, treatment, or disposal. Due
to flow controls, designated management facilities have a local monopoly on MSW and/or
recyclable materials.
Flow controls have become a heavily debated issue among State and local governments,
the waste management industry, recyclers, and environmental groups. Financial institutions have
been a part of the discussion because of the relationship between flow controls and financing of
waste management facilities. These interested parties hold differing views on the environmental,
planning, and economic benefits of flow controls. (Appendix I-A summarizes the positions of
interested parties.) During the 1990s, several court decisions ruled against the use of flow
controls. Notably, in May 1994, the United States Supreme Court in C &.A Carbone, Inc. v.
Town of Clarkstown1 decided that the use of flow control can discriminate against interstate
commerce and, therefore, can violate the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.
(Appendix I-B summarizes the relevant litigation.) Legislation was introduced during the 103rd
Congress to clarify the legal status of flow controls. A consensus bill was passed by the House of
Representatives late in the session; the Senate did not act and the legislation died with this
Congress. Similar legislation has been introduced in the 104th Congress.
1 114 S.Ct. 1677, 128 L.Ed.2d 399 (1994).
-------
Page 1-2
INTRODUCTION
A. RCRA AND FLOW CONTROLS 5
[
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, is the primary
federal statute governing solid waste management.2 The principal objectives of RCRA are far-
reaching and complementary: ;
4 promote the protection of human health and the environment from
potential adverse effects of improper solid waste management;
4 conserve material and energy resources through source reduction and
recycling;
4 assist in the development of solid waste management plans;
4 improve solid waste management practices; and
4 promote the demonstration, construction, and application of solid waste
management, resource recovery, and resource conservation systems which
preserve and enhance the quality of air, water, and land resources.
RCRA does not directly address the role of flow controls in accomplishing these objectives.
RCRA identifies State and local governments as the historic and appropriate leads for
managing solid waste. The federal government's role primarily is to facilitate implementation of
State and local solid waste management by developing national standards, providing technical
assistance, and promoting a national research and development program. Subtitle D of RCRA
directs States to prepare comprehensive solid waste management plans. Subtitle D places great
emphasis on State, regional, and local planning and contains numerous provisions concerning the
scope and content of State plans. Among the RCRA criteria for approval of State solid waste
plans are the following minimum requirements:
provision that no State or local government shall be prohibited from
entering into long-term contracts for the supply of solid waste to resource
recovery facilities or from entering into long-term contracts for the
operation of such facilities; and
2 42 U.S.C §§ 6901 to 6992K.
3 42 U.S.C § 6902(a).
-------
INTRODUCTION
Page 1-3
provision for recycling and for the disposal of solid waste in a manner that
is environmentally sound.4
State plans must provide for adequate recycling and disposal capacity and must address facility
planning and development. RCRA is silent on the place of flow controls in State solid waste
management plans.
Congress recognized in RCRA the importance of regional solutions and directed States to
"... identifjy] the boundaries of each area ... which, as a result of urban concentrations,
geographic conditions, markets, and other factors, is appropriate for carrying out regional solid
waste management."5 Congress further contemplated that the identification of regions with
common solid waste management problems could encompass two or more States.6
Congress directed EPA to prepare guidelines to assist States in the development and
implementation of solid waste management plans. EPA's Guidelines for Development and
Implementation of State Solid Waste Management Plans contain recommendations for complying
with RCRA requirements.7 One recommendation is to assess "current and projected movement
of solid and hazardous waste across State and local boundaries."8 The recommendations further
specify that "[t]he State plan should provide for substate [local government or regional solid waste
management district] cooperation and policies for free and unrestricted movement of solid and
hazardous waste across State and local boundaries."9
B. FACTORS ENCOURAGING THE USE OF FLOW CONTROLS
Use of flow controls took hold in the late 1970s. State and local governments began using
flow controls to support the development of new waste management facilities, particularly those
4 42 U.S.C. § 6943(a) (4), (5),
5 42 U.S.C. § 6946(a).
6 42 U.S.C. § 6946(c).
7 40 CFR § 256.41.
8 40 CFR § 256.41 (a)(3).
9 40 CFR § 256.42(h).
and (6).
-------
Page 1-4
INTRODUCTION
requiring relatively large capital investments such as waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities and high-
technology materials recovery facilities (MRFs). Flow controls were one mechanism State and
local governments could use so help finance these costly facilities. To construct these facilities,
local governments often issued revenue bonds, which were to be repaid out of the revenues
(tipping fees) the facilities generated. Flow controls ensured receipt of enough waste or
recyclable materials to generate sufficient revenue to pay facility debt service and other fixed
[
costs. '
I
Also influencing use of flow controls were State goals and mandates for increased
recycling or diversion of specific wastes (e.g., yard trimmings) from landfills. Row control was one
mechanism used by local governments to generate needed revenues and to direct waste in
responding to these goals and mandates.
i
Some State and local government officials indicated during the public meetings that, as
State laws spurred local governments to expand waste management services, flow control was a
useful mechanism to raise funds for local integrated solid waste management (ISWM) systems
including programs such as source reduction, curbside recycling, household hazardous waste
collection, education and outreach, and, in limited instances, Superfund cleanups. These services
typically do not lend themselves to collection of revenues as do other components (e.g., tipping
fees from landfills) of ISWM systems. Flow controls have been used to support these other
waste management programs through the revenues generated by tipping fees, which can be set at
rates higher than prevailing market prices. >
In some cases, flow control may facilitate local government planning. Local governments
may find flow control to be an expeditious tool to plan for solid waste capacity necessary to
manage an area's solid waste. I
The most common reason for adopting flow control is to assure the financial viability of
waste management facilities by providing a reliable, long-term supply of waste. This assurance can
be instrumental in securing capital to finance the construction of a facility.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Page 1-5
C. INTERESTED PARTIES' POSITIONS ON KEY FLOW CONTROL ISSUES
EPA held three public meetings10 during August and September 1993 to provide
interested parties with opportunities to present information and their views on flow controls.11
In addition to asking for comments on the three flow control issues raised by Congress (i.e.,
impact of flow controls on human health and environment, waste management capacity, and
source reduction and recycling), the Agency asked for input on the following issues:
4 What materials are/should be covered by flow control laws?
4 How can local governments implement integrated solid waste management
plans without flow controls?
4 What alternatives to flow controls exist that achieve the same public policy
goals?
Over 100 people commented during the public meetings. In total, 179 commenters
submitted written materials to the RCRA docket. The commenters included representatives from
State and local governments (74), the waste management industry (60), the recycling industry (29),
financial institutions (2), and environmental groups and individuals (14). See Appendix I-A for a
synopsis of the public comments. The information provided was anecdotal; comments offered no
empirical data on the key issues the Agency was to address on flow control.
D. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
The remainder of this Report to Congress is organized as follows:
4 Chapter II provides a comparative review of State flow control authorities
across all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands,
including the materials covered by existing flow controls. Chapter II also
10 EPA held public meetings in Arlington, Virginia; San Francisco, California; and Chicago, Illinois.
11 Comments from the public hearings distinguished legal flow controls from "economic" flow controls.
Economic flow controls occur when a State or local government subsidizes a designated solid waste
management facility. The subsidy reduces the tipping fee (i.e., service charge) to a level competitive with
other management options in the area, thereby ensuring a steady supply of waste. Similar to legal flow
controls, economic flow controls result in the delivery of waste and/or materials to specific waste
management facilities.
-------
Page 1-6
INTRODUCTION
discusses EPA's finding on the human health and environmental need for
flow controls in light of existing federal and State laws.
Chapter IE analyzes composting, recycling, waste-to-energy, and land
disposal markets to assess the impact of flow controls on ensuring adequate
waste management capacity and promoting State and local goals for source
reduction, reuse, and recycling. Chapter III also summarizes organizational
and financial alternatives for supporting integrated waste management
programs, including financing the capital costs of facilities and funding the
operating expenses of MSW programs.
i
Appendix I includes a summary of public comments received by EPA on
flow controls, analyzes the litigation over flow controls, and provides
synopses of key legal decisions on flow controls.
Appendix n summarizes State flow control authorities, recycling goals, and
planning responsibilities for all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the
Virgin Islands. The Appendix also presents 4 case studies that examine
solid waste management in municipalities where flow controls are or are
not used. :
Appendix HI consists of supporting technical analyses for the
market analysis component (Chapter III) of this Report.
-------
CHAPTER H
STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES AND
IMPACT ON HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
As directed by Congress, EPA conducted a review of States with and without flow control
authority and investigated the impact of flow control ordinances on protection of human health and the
environment. This chapter discusses the methodology and summarizes the findings for both the State
review and impact on human health and the environment Appendix II-B describes four case studies
of how local governments implement MSW programs with and without flow controls.
A.
METHODOLOGY
EPA initially considered administering a survey of all the States to obtain comprehensive
information. However, EPA concluded that a comparative State review of flow control authorities
could be conducted through performing the following two tasks: (1) reviewing published State statutes
and regulations; and, (2) developing case studies to provide examples of how local governments
implement MSW programs with and without flow controls.
After collecting the relevant data from published State environmental statutes and regulations,
EPA developed a summary matrix on flow controls and solid waste management planning. Federal,
State, and local government officials familiar with the flow control issue verified the accuracy of the
matrix.
B.
STATE AUTHORITIES
Finding: Thirty-five States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands authorize
flow control directly; four additional States authorize flow control indirectly
through mechanisms such as local solid waste management plans or home
rule authority; eleven States have no flow control authority.
-------
Page 11-2
STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
EPA researched published State environmental Jaws and developed a State-by-State summary
of statutory and regulatory authorities to manage municipal solid waste (see Appendix II- A). EPA
found that State flow control laws vary in the degree of authority and discretion given to local
governments to manage and control the flow of MSW within their political jurisdictions. Based on the
review, EPA classified States into three categories as follows: (1) States that explicitly authorize the
use of flow controls, (2) States that authorize flow controls indirectly through granting municipalities
powers such as home rule,1 and (3) States that do not authorize flow controls. Exhibit II-l presents a
map of the States showing their flow control authorities, if any.
EXHIBIT H-l
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITY
States with Row Control provisions (35)
States which authorize Row Control Indirectly through home rule
authority or the local planning process (4)
States with no Flow Control authority (11)
Based on review of this data, key findings concerning flow controls and municipal solid waste
management include the following:
1 Municipalities that have home rule authority may exercise power over local issues to the extent not
prohibited or regulated by the State. Using home rule authority, municipalities may establish flow controls over
their solid waste.
-------
STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
Page II-3
Thirty five (35) States, the District of
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands
explicitly authorize the use of flow
controls. These States and territories
specifically allow local governments to
use flow controls, to designate facilities
where waste must be managed, and to
require mandatory participation in
municipal solid waste management
services. Exhibit II-2 lists these States.
Although they have the authority to use
flow control, some States and territories
(e.g., Illinois, South Dakota, and the
District of Columbia) do not use it in
practice.
Four other States authorize flow
controls indirectly through
mechanisms such as home rule
authority or the local solid waste
management planning process. These
mechanisms allow local governments to
adopt flow control ordinances. These
States can be grouped as follows:
Exhibit n-2
STATES WITH
„ FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
4 Alabama
4 Arkansas
4 Colorado
4 Connecticnt
4 Delaware
4 Boritfa
4 GettTgia
4 Hawaii
4 Iffina-ts
4 Iowa
4 Louisiana
4 Maine
* Minnesota
4 Mississippi
4 Missouri
4 Montana
4 Nebraska
4 Nev? -Hajtapsh
4 Jfewfosey
4 NewTfork
4 North CaroEaa
4 North. Dakota
4 Ohio
4 Oklahoma
* Oxegon
4 Pennsylvania.
4 JihodeManfl
* South Dakota
4 Tennessee
4 Vermont
4 Virginia
4 Washington
* West Virginia
4 'Wisconsin
4 Wyoming
Sre 4 District of Cotocsbia
4 Virgin Islands
Maryland and Massachusetts are home rule States. In a home rule
State, municipalities have autonomy over local issues and may exercise
this power in areas not prohibited by the State. For example, although
Maryland does not have a State statute authorizing the use of flow
controls, Prince George's County, under home rule authority,
established a flow control ordinance to designate where MSW must be
managed.
Michigan and Texas allow local governments to designate where
MSW must be managed as part of their local planning authority.
In Michigan, a municipality's MSW planning document determines
capacity needs and can authorize flow control as part of the plan's
requirements. In Texas, cities and counties may impose flow controls
as part of local MSW management planning.
Eleven States have no flow control
provisions. Indiana is a special case: By
State law, Indianapolis, Indiana has flow
control authority. In the rest of Indiana, a
solid waste management district is not
authorized to use flow controls unless a
local government within the district
already used flow controls at the time the
district was formed; this exception allows
STATES WITH MO FLOW CONTROL
AtSTHORlTY
4 Alaska
* Arizona
4 California
4 Idalio
4 Indiana
4 Kaasas
* Kentucky
4 Nevada
4 Nfew Mexico
4 South Carolina
4 Utah
-------
Page II-4
STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
some districts to renew any flow control contracts, although the use of flow
controls generally is restricted. ;
Scope of materials covered by flow controls varies among the 35
States that explicitly authorize flow controls. Twelve (12) States
(and the Virgin Islands) authorize flow controls without restrictions on
what types of materials may be controlled.2 These States allow flow
control ordinances to direct solid waste and recyclable materials to
designated management facilities. Illinois authorizes local
governments to decide what materials can be subject to flow
controls.3 New York explicitly states that flow controls may cover
even source separated recyclable materials.4.
The remaining 23 States (and the District of Columbia) that allow flow
controls, limit the recyclable materials or MSW that may be controlled. For
example, Mississippi, North Carolina, and New Jersey do not authorize flow
controls for source separated recyclable materials. Other States (e.g.,
Louisiana, Ohio, and Rhode Island) allow flow controls only for source
separated materials that have been discarded, abandoned, disposed, or left at
the curb. Two States, Maine and Missouri, exclude only specifically
designated recyclable materials from flow controls, while 2 others, Connecticut
and Delaware, allow flow controls for only designated recyclable materials.
Florida and Washington exclude commercial source separated recyclables from
their flow control regulations. In addition, Vermont authorizes the control of
recyclables only when flow controls do not adversely affect existing recycling
centers.
Local governments in some States must address administrative hurdles
prior to implementing flow controls. Mississippi and Tennessee require a
solid waste management authority to demonstrate the necessity of mandatory
flow controls (e.g., after considering the use of existing facilities and
examining other alternatives, a jurisdiction must demonstrate that flow controls
are essential). In Colorado, a county or municipality must hold a public
hearing prior to establishing flow controls. Wisconsin requires a municipality
to attempt to develop a contractual agreement with persons who would be
subject to a flow control ordinance. Minnesota requires a municipality or
2 The States include: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
York, North Dakota, Oregon, West Virginia, and Wyoming. In these States and the Virgin Islands, flow controls
can cover all MSW. See the matrix in Appendix II-A for details.
3 Currently, no local government has implemented flow control in Illinois.
4 Source separated materials are defined as specific materials that are segregated at the point of generation
for separate collection. For example, individual households may separate certain recyclable materials, such as
newspapers, from MSW prior to placing the materials at the curb for pick-up.
5 The 23 States are: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
-------
STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
Page II-5
district, prior to establishing flow controls, to comply with both of the
administrative requirements described above and also to demonstrate the need
for flow controls. New York requires counties or public authorities to seek
State legislative authorization for individual flow control ordinances.
In the majority of States, local governments or solid waste management
districts have responsibility for MSW planning. Most States require
municipalities or solid waste management districts to develop MSW
management plans. A few States (e.g., Arizona and Georgia) require
coordination with local governments in developing State plans. In the District
of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, the Mayor and the Virgin Islands
Department of Public Works, respectively, must develop solid waste
management plans. Alaska places some responsibility for MSW planning on
individuals who own or manage facilities open to the public (e.g., restaurants,
•shopping centers, campgrounds).
Forty-three (43) States and the District of Columbia have established
recycling or waste reduction goals.6 These goals range from Maryland's 20
percent recycling goal (for counties over 100,000) to Rhode Island's 70
percent recycling goal.7 State and local government representatives claim that
flow controls provide a means to help achieve State recycling, goals. (See
Appendix I-A, Municipal Solid Waste Flow Control: Summary of Public
Comments.)
C.
HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Finding: Protection of human health and the environment is directly related to the
implementation and enforcement of federal, State, and local environmental
regulations. Regardless of whether State or local governments administer flow
control programs, States are required to implement and enforce federally
approved regulations that fully protect human health and the environment.
Accordingly, there are no empirical data showing that flow control provides
more or less protection.
Discussion: The landfill and combustion segments represent approximately 80 percent of the
MSW managed in the United States. These two segments are controlled by extensive and stringent
Robert Steuteville, "The State of Garbage in America: Part II "Biocycle, May 1994, pp. 30-36. Of the 43
States, 36 States specifically adopted statutes with recycling and/or source reduction goals. The other 7 States
adopted goals through different means, such as executive orders by State governors.
States differ as to what materials count when assessing recycling rates.
-------
Page II-6
STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
State and federal regulations that are implemented through facility permitting and compliance
assurance programs. These programs are designed for the express purpose of protecting human health
and the environment and require the same level of control whether or not the waste is subject to flow
control. Regardless of whether a State or local government requires flow control, each regulated
facility is required to adhere to a minimum level of federal regulation that is deemed to be protective
of human health and the environment as well as to State regulations that may be more stringent.
There is no evidence that flow control either positively or negatively impacts the statutorily assured
level of environmental protection, because the underlying regulatory requirements are controlling.
In recent years, States have begun regulating composting and recycling facilities to protect
human health and the environment independent of flow controls. Further, the market analysis shows
that only a small percentage of MSW managed by the composting and recycling segments is affected
by flow control. Also, many States that authorize flow control explicitly exclude certain recyclables
from flow control restrictions. !
-------
CHAPTER HI
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Chapter is to present the research and analysis EPA conducted on solid
waste management capacity and recycling and their relationship to flow controls. There are many
variables and confounding factors that must be taken into account when answering the questions posed
by Congress. The Chapter starts with a discussion of why EPA chose a market analysis approach and
the methodology EPA applied. This market analysis highlights current market conditions and
dynamics in order to assess whether flow controls appear necessary to ensure adequate waste
management capacity and to promote recycling efforts. The Chapter also reviews other organizational
and financial mechanisms that communities can use to meet these same objectives.
To report to Congress in a systematic and comprehensive way on the impact of flow controls
on State and local capacity and recycling/source reduction would require answers to questions such as
the following:
Are. States and local governments that authorize flow controls more likely to have
adequate waste management capacity than States and local governments that do not
authorize flow controls?
Are States and local governments that authorize flow controls more likely to achieve
State and/or local goals for source reduction, reuse, and recycling than States and
local governments that do not authorize flow controls?
Answering these questions would require substantial data - much of it not readily available -
and the development of new analytical and performance measurement methodologies. Each question
poses distinct analytical challenges. For example, although available data indicate which States
authorize flow controls, there is no systematic data on which of over 3,000 counties and 19,000
municipalities actually employ flow controls. Collecting such data would entail a major research effort
to detennine which communities impose flow controls, whether those flow controls cover mixed waste
only or include recyclables, and whether there are exemptions for established recycling programs,
construction and demolition debris (C&D) wastes, or other special scenarios. A comparative analysis
of communities with and without flow controls also would require data on all involved parties
-------
Page in-2
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
including waste haulers, waste management facilities, State and local governments, and residential,
commercial, institutional, and industrial generators of MSW. The analysis of how flow controls affect
waste management capacity would need to consider and adjust for differences in quantities and types
of waste generated as well as in the underlying financial resources of States and local governments,
which can affect how they arrange for capacity.
Similarly, an empirical analysis of how flow controls impact progress towards goals for source
reduction, reuse, and recycling must consider not only (1) State and local waste generation and
financial resources, which can strongly affect levels of program activities to encourage source
reduction, reuse, and recycling but also (2) how the goals are defined and what targets are chosen.
Some States and local governments have set more ambitious goals than others. Achievement of the
goals may be more a matter of variables such as demographics, the local economy, and how high the
goals are set than a reflection of the use of flow controls.
i
Another complicating factor is that State and local governments have alternative ways of
accomplishing the same results as flow controls can produce. These include the following:
4
4
providing collection services, either directly by local government employees or
through contractors, to deliver the wastes and materials to designated facilities;
awarding collection and hauling franchises that require waste to be taken to
designated facilities; ;
i
subsidizing the tipping fees at selected facilities to attract sufficient waste; and
supporting solid waste programs using funds raised through taxes, issuance of
bonds, and/or user fees, such as variable rate charges, imposed on generators.
Thus, flow controls may be unnecessary for jurisdictions that directly perform or contract for
waste collection and hauling themselves. The existence and use of alternatives to flow controls that
achieve the same goals substantially complicates the analysis, making it more difficult to isolate the
effects of flow controls. 1
Even a case study approach, which would not attempt to answer the above questions for every
State and locality, would require a sophisticated sampling methodology for selecting cases (i.e.,
jurisdictions with flow controls) and controls (i.e., jurisdictions without flow controls) for unbiased
analysis, given the potentially confounding factors described above.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page IU-3
Because the findings could differ across States and localities (e.g., flow controls may help
some States and local governments, but not others), EPA would need to develop a methodology for
weighting the findings across States and local governments and testing the statistical significance of
the results.
The data and methodological challenges are accentuated by the rapid pace of change in this
area. Not only do the amounts of waste generated change, but so do the technologies, programs, and
goals for managing and recycling the waste. State and local governments vary in the types of
programs they pursue and the pace of program evolution. This dynamic context and lack of data call
for a different type of analysis.
After considering the requirements of a data-intensive "bottom-up" micro-level analysis, EPA
evaluated an alternative approach: a "top-down" macro-level analysis of the waste management
market. The focus of this type of analysis is to assess whether market forces overall appear capable of
providing an adequate and environmentally sound infrastructure for solid waste management or
whether market intervention in the form of flow controls is needed to ensure adequate capacity or
achieve recycling goals. EPA chose to conduct this type of market analysis.
THE MARKET ANALYSIS
This study recognizes discrete market segments that both work together and compete to
perform the complete job of solid waste management in communities. These segments include:
• composting (i.e., yard trimmings composting, mixed waste composting);
• recycling (i.e., materials recovery facilities (MRFs) for commingled
recyclables, mixed waste processing facilities (MWPFs) that extract recyclables
from mixed waste, paper packers and buy-back/drop-off centers for
recyclables);
• combustion (i.e., waste-to-energy (WTE) conversion, incineration without
energy recovery); and
• landfills.
The study uses several indicators to assess market conditions and the prevalence of flow
controls for these segments:
-------
Page IP-4
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
• growth trends ;
• ownership patterns !
• cost competitiveness, and \
• capital requirements i
Because these indicators are used throughout this chapter, each one is briefly described in the
following paragraphs and related back to the central topics of this Report to Congress.
Growth Trends. Growth in any waste management market serves as an indicator of its
viability. Growth suggests that there is an ample supply of waste input and that facilities may not
need flow controls to guarantee an adequate waste supply. This indicator works particularly well for
composting and recycling markets, both of which have grown significantly, largely without depending
on flow control; their growth also reflects State intervention in the form of establishing recycling goals
and landfill bans. On the other hand, the growth of the combustion (WTE) market largely reflects the ,
use of flow controls or comparable waste guarantee arrangements to ensure sufficient revenues to
cover debt service. '
Ownership Patterns. The relative share of public and private ownership of waste management
facilities also can serve as an indicator of how well markets are working. Initially, the risks and
uncertainties of new waste management methods may discourage private sector participation; as a
result, so-called "infant industry" may need special support, such as flow controls. Once a new
industry is demonstrated and established, private sector entrepreneurs may view the risk-reward ratio
as more attractive. Thus, private sector ownership of waste management facilities can serve as an
indicator of market development This indicator works well for composting, recycling, and landfilling
as a measure of the ability of the marketplace to provide adequate capacity and help achieve recycling
goals. This indicator does not work as well for WTE facilities; although many are privately owned, a
large portion are supported by flow controls or may qualify as public-private partnerships where the
public sector guarantees a supply of waste sufficient to meet high utilization rates.
Cost Competitiveness. One way that government can support a desirable industry or facility is
through subsidies or other mechanisms (e.g., minority or small business set-asides, protection from
competition) that enable it to prosper in the marketplace. Such support may be required for the
foreseeable future (e.g., domestic shipbuilding) or only until the industry or facility attains
competitiveness. Once the industry becomes cost-comjpetitive, the need for special support may
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS Page III-5
diminish or vanish. In the waste management sector, cost-competitiveness is a good indicator that
further government support may not be needed.
Capital Requirements. Capital-intensive industries have what are called "high barriers to
entry." Even if the industry can compete in the marketplace in terms of its operating costs, the private
sector may be deterred by the necessity to raise or finance the capital costs needed at the start. Both
magnitude and timing of capital requirements, therefore, can serve together as an indicator of the
ability of the marketplace to meet MSW needs without special government support. This indicator
works very well for most segments of the MSW management market; capital requirements correlate
well with use of flow controls. For example, low-technology composting and recycling have the
lowest capital requirements and the least need for flow controls; high-technology MRFs have greater
up-front capital needs and make greater use of flow controls. WTE has the largest capital
requirements and the greatest reliance on flow controls; the larger the facility, the more likely it is
supported by flow controls. Landfills can spread much of their capital requirements over time by
opening cells on an as-needed basis, thus reducing the need for flow controls.
LIMITS OF THE MARKET ANALYSIS
The above indicators have their limitations. 'But together the indicators serve to help describe
the key segments of the MSW market, their degree of flow control use, and their ability to provide
adequate capacity. They are rough measures that cannot capture the realities of every local MSW
market but can provide a national overview to enable an assessment of the role of flow controls in
ensuring MSW management capacity and in attaining goals for source reduction, reuse, and recycling.
The market analysis provides a dynamic assessment of the competitive forces nationwide that affect
MSW management capacity and recycling rates over time. The role of flow controls is assessed in the
context of these broad market dynamics. Data limitations for the individual market segments are
specified in greater detail at the beginning of Sections B, C, D, and E.
Source reduction as a market segment is not considered, because flow controls direct waste
flows after waste generation (i.e., after the potential for source reduction). This Report recognizes,
however, that source reduction or waste prevention can help alleviate the need for additional disposal
capacity in the future, much as the growth of recycling and composting does. Source reduction
practices include eliminating and minimizing packaging, efficient use and reuse of products and
supplies, and procurement of products and packaging which result in less waste.
-------
Page in-6
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
METHODOLOGY
EPA conducted its market analysis in three steps:
Characterize the overall demand for MSW management services. As a
first step in the market analysis, EPA characterized waste generation that is
relevant to the analysis of flow controls. Waste generation creates the demand
for waste management services and defines the relevant market size for the
analysis. The market size estimate provides a basis for determining the
percentage "market share" attributable to each waste management service
segment. ,
Evaluate the supply of waste management services provided by the waste
management industry (both public and private). After estimating the size
of the relevant waste stream, EPA examined the role of four major market
segments in managing this waste: combosting, recycling, waste-to-energy
(WTE), and landfills. EPA's analysis of each major market segment has four
components:
3.
Overview of Growth Trends. The analysis of each market segment
begins with a description of recent growth trends.
Market Subsegments. This subsection describes the subsegments and
their market shares. !
Market Segment Competitive Structure. This subsection examines the
competitive factors that affect capacity and recycling rates. Key
factors that compel or restrain market segment growth include
competitive economics (cost comparison with other management
options), capital requirements and required scale of operations, the
influence of flow controls and other government initiatives (e.g.,
curbside recycling, yard trimmings landfill bans), and the extent of the
public/private infrastructure available to support market segment
expansion.
Market Segment Potential. Finally, each market section ends with a
discussion of the potential for that segment to provide additional waste
management capacity, based on recent trends and the segment's
competitive structure. With respect to recycling goals, the analysis of
composting and recycling potential also examines the important role of
end-markets for compost and recycled materials.
Analyze current waste management market dynamics and recent market
developments to evaluate impacts of flow controls. As a final step, EPA
used the findings of the market segment evaluations together with basic
economic and financial principles to assess the impact of flow controls and the
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page III-7
need for the use of flow controls to ensure adequate capacity and/or to achieve
recycling goals.
OUTLINE OF REMAINDER OF CHAPTER
Section A estimates the size of the waste stream managed at MSW facilities
and defines these facilities. Supporting technical analyses and background
information appear in Appendix III-A.
Sections B, C, D, and E discuss the role of the composting, recycling, WTE,
and landfill market segments, respectively, in managing the waste stream
described in Section A. Each section examines the growth of the market
segment over recent years, the subsegments that make up each market
segment, the competitive structure of the market segment and its subsegments,
and the potential growth of the market segment. Supporting technical analyses
and background information comprise Appendices m-B, ffl-C, IH-D, and HI-E,
respectively.
Section F assesses the results of the market segment analysis to address.
Congress' questions concerning the impact of flow controls on ensuring
adequate waste management capacity and promoting recycling goals.
Section G reviews organizational and financial alternatives to the use of flow
controls.
A. THE DEMAND FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Waste generation is a critical element in
assessing the adequacy of waste management
capacity and in calculating recycling rates.
Therefore, an appropriate definition and
quantification of the relevant waste stream are
essential foundations for the market analysis of flow
controls. This section uses available data sources to
estimate the size of the waste stream managed in
MSW facilities. Appendix III-A contains the results of technical analyses used to prepare this section.
The central issue of this market analysis is
whether market forces are capable of
providing an adequate and environmentally
sound infrastructure for solid waste
management, or whether market intervention
in the form of flow controls is needed to
ensure adequate capacity or achieve
recycling goals.
-------
Page m-8 MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
A.I AVAILABLE DATA ON WASTE STREAM
Two frequently cited data sources contain estimates of the relevant waste streams:
(1) Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. This is a
biennial series of EPA reports that characterize MSW generation in the United
States. The version used for this Report is the 1992 Update, which estimates
1990 waste generation.
(2) The State of Garbage in America. This is an annual (since 1991) article
published in BioCycle that compiles waste stream estimates collected from a
survey of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. This Report uses the
May 1993 article, which compiles 1992 waste stream estimates, as well as the
1991 article, which compiles data for 1990.
i
\
These two sources present different estimates of the size of the waste stream. BioCycle's 1990
waste stream estimate is approximately 294 million tons, while EPA's 1990 estimate is approximately
196 million tons, a difference of 98 million tons. The difference appears to reflect the fact that the
amount of MSW generated, which EPA estimates, is less than the total amount of waste handled at
MSW facilities, which BioCycle estimates. ;
A.2 METHODOLOGY USED TO ESTIMATE MARKET SIZE
Market Definition
In order to assess the need for flow controls to ensure adequate MSW management capacity
and recycling, this analysis defines the MSW management market to include (1) all facilities receiving
MSW ("MSW facilities") and (2) all non-MSW (defined below) that is managed at MSW facilities,
since this non-MSW competes for available MSW management capacity. This definition does not
include facilities, such as industrial waste landfills, that receive only specific types of waste excluded
from EPA's definition of MSW.
[
Using three steps, EPA analyzed available data to determine the best estimate of total MSW
and non-MSW managed at MSW facilities:
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page III-9
1. Examine the different estimation methodologies used by BioCycle and by
EPA's Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. This
examination indicates that non-MSW wastes account for most of the difference
in waste estimates.
2. Compare EPA and BioCycle 1990 estimates by market segment. This
comparison indicates that the landfill market segment accounts for virtually all
of the difference between these two estimates.
3. Compare BioCycle landfill estimates with available State data. This
comparison confirms that the BioCycle waste estimates generally include non-
MSW wastes managed at MSW landfills and exclude non-MSW wastes
managed at separate non-MSW landfills, which is consistent with the approach
used in this Report.
Examination of Methodologies
EPA's Estimation Methodology. EPA's biennial update uses a materials flow methodology to
estimate MSW generation nationwide. This methodology is based on production data (by weight) as
provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce and trade associations, where available, for materials
and products that end up in the municipal waste stream. EPA adjusts these production data to account
for imports and exports, for diversions from the MSW waste stream (e.g., for building materials made
of paperboard that eventually become construction and demolition waste), and for the lifetimes of
products. Finally, EPA uses waste sampling data to develop estimates for food wastes, yard
trimmings, and other wastes for which production data are unavailable. EPA adjusts the sampling data
to take into account moisture transferred from food and yard trimmings to other materials in the waste
stream. The result is a material-by-material and product-by-product estimate of MSW generation
nationwide. EPA's estimate is useful to this market analysis of flow controls in two ways:
1. Estimates MSW generation only. EPA defines MSW to include "wastes
such as durable goods, nondurable goods, containers and packaging, food
scraps, yard trimmings, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes from residential,
commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. Examples of waste from
these categories include appliances, newspapers, clothing, boxes, disposable
tableware, office and classroom paper, wood pallets, and cafeteria wastes..
MSW does not include wastes from other sources, such as construction and
demolition (C&D) waste, municipal sludges, combustion ash, and industrial
process wastes that might also be disposed of in municipal waste landfills or
incinerators."1 EPA's estimate of waste generation is an estimate of the
1 "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1992 Update," EPA, July 1992, p. ES-2.
-------
Page in-10
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
generation of EPA-defined MSW only. Wastes excluded from EPA's
definition of MSW are referred to as "rion-MSW" in this Report.
2. Facilitates calculations of recycling rates and assessments of the waste
management infrastructure. EPA's estimates of MSW generation, which are
developed by material type (paper, glass, etc.) with additional detail within
each material type (e.g., containers versus durables, different grades of paper
and paperboard), can facilitate the calculation of recycling rates by product and
material types. Understanding MSW generation by material type also can be
important when assessing the adequacy of the waste management
infrastructure, because different materials and products may be handled more
easily and/or economically by different types of facilities.
With respect to.this market analysis, however, EPA's estimate does not include non-MSW that
is co-managed with MSW in MSW facilities, such as sanitary landfills.
BioCycle's Estimation Methodology. In preparing its annual survey, BioCycle asks each State
to (1) estimate the amount of MSW generation in the State; (2) divide this estimate into commercial,
residential, and industrial segments; and (3) describe the source of the data.2 In practice, however,
BioCycle finds that States do not always provide an estimate of MSW generation only. Rather, States
may include non-MSW in their generation estimates and/or report the total amount of waste (MSW
and non-MSW) received at MSW facilities, instead of the amount of MSW generated.3 BioCycle
footnotes confirm that many States include substantial amounts of non-MSW in their reported waste
totals. However, not all States distinguish between MSW and non-MSW when reporting to BioCycle,
and some States do not appear to make this distinction on a consistent basis from year to year.4
Because of this approach, the BioCycle methodology covers more waste than is included in
EPA's definition of MSW. Nevertheless, the BioCycle approach benefits this analysis of flow controls
by measuring additional non-MSW that may affect State MSW'management capacity.
2 Conversation with Mr. Bob Steuteville, BioCycle, May 4, 1994.
3 "The State of Garbage in America," BioCycle, May 1993, page 42 and telephone conversation with Robert
SteutevUle, May 4, 1994.
4 This inconsistency is illustrated by waste generation estimates for the State of Alabama from 1990 to
1992. In 1990, the State reported a waste generation .amount of 4.4 million tons, which BioCycle noted included
"some [C&D] and industrial waste." In 1991, Alabama reported waste generation of 4.5 million tons, which
BioCycle noted to include "C&D, industrial, and sewage sludge." In 1992, Alabama reported waste generation of
5.2 million tons, but BioCycle noted no non-MSW inclusions. Based on the 1990 and 1991 data, however, it
appears that non-MSW ;:J,NO was included in the 1992 estimate, because Alabama reported a substantial increase
in waste generation in 1^2 (relative to 1991), and the 1991 [estimate included non-MSW wastes.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-11
Comparison of EPA and BioCycle 1990 Estimates by Market Segment
Exhibit III-l compares EPA and BioCycle 1990 waste estimates by management method (i.e.,
recycling/composting, landfill, and combustion) to illustrate which market segments account for the
difference in waste estimates provided by the two data sources. As this exhibit shows, the landfill
market segment accounts for almost the entire difference between the two estimates.
EXHIBIT ni-1
EPA and BioCycle 1990 Waste Estimates by Management Method
I2 150
33 35
Compost/Recycle
226
Combustion
Market Segment
8 EPA
Landfill
BioCycle
BioCycle reported that 226 million tons of waste were landfilled in 1990, while EPA estimated
130 million tons of MSW landfilled. The difference in these estimates (96 million tons) is nearly
equal to the difference (98 million tons) in the total size of the waste stream reported by the two data
sources in 1990. This suggests that many States provide BioCycle with estimates of the total amount
of waste received at MSW landfills, not just the amount of MSW received. In contrast, both data
sources present similar estimates for the amount of waste composted/recycled and combusted;5 such
facilities do not typically receive much non-MSW.
5 The difference in estimates for composting/recycling (35 million for BioCycle and 33 million for EPA)
could be due to rounding error.
-------
Page in-12
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Comparison of BioCycle Landfill Estimates with Available State Data
Because non-MSW managed at MSW facilities affects remaining MSW management capacity,
EPA contacted each of the 50 States to request available data on waste generation and MSW
management methods to confirm whether non-MSW reported in BioCycle was managed at MSW
facilities or at non-MSW facilities (e.g., C&D landfills). The results of this analysis appear in
Exhibit ID-A.1 in Appendix A. Although most States were unable to provide necessary data, a limited
number of States supplied data EPA could use. Based on this data, EPA determined that the amount
of waste reported to BioCycle as landfilled is very close to the actual amount of waste received at
MSW landfills. Therefore, EPA concluded that the BioCycle data provides the best available estimate
of MSW and non-MSW received at MSW landfills nationwide.
A3 1992 ESTIMATE OF WASTE RECEIVED AT MSW FACILITIES
E
BioCycle reports that MSW facilities in 1992 received approximately 292 million tons of
MSW and non-MSW.6 For comparability, Exhibit III-2 adjusts EPA's 1990 MSW estimate of 196
million tons, a per capita generation rate of 4.3 pounds per day, by the percent change in population to
arrive at a tonnage estimate for 1992.7 In total, EPA's population-adjusted 1992 MSW generation
estimate equals approximately 200 million tons. As discussed above, EPA believes that the difference
between the EPA and BioCycle estimates is non-MSW that is managed in MSW landfills.
t
A.4 1992 ESTIMATE BY WASTE MANAGEMENT METHOD
Exhibit m-3 shows how the 292 million tons of waste were managed in 1992 by the four
management methods: composting, recycling, waste-to-energy, and landfill. (Appendices III-B, III-C,
III-D, and HI-E detail the bases for these estimates.) As the exhibit indicates, EPA believes that all
the waste that was composted, recycled, and combusted in WTE facilities was primarily EPA-defined
MSW, while nearly one-half of the waste landfilled was non-MSW.
6 BioCycle's 1994 annual survey (reporting 1993 data) was not available at the time this analysis was
prepared.
7 EPA's 1994 Update of MSW in the U.S. (with 1993; data) was not available in time for this Report.
Exhibit m-2 lists the 1990 per capita generation rates by material type and uses a 1992 population of
255,082,000. This population-adjusted amount does not consider changes in per capita generation rates, only
changes in population. !
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-13
EXHIBIT III-2
EPA Estimate of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Generation in 1992 by Material Type
, JBPA &&W Material Ty$&
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood Waste
Food Waste
Yard Trimmings
Other Waste*
' ' 150&1 Ej^*|te®ae^,'S!JiSWjGSeHet»SBn
EP4-Reported
Toasi»*r Capita
(19&&
0.295
0.053
0.065
0.065
0.018
0.023
0.049
0.053
0.141
0.025
•8.7S?
! "Poiialatiott-Adjssfedf
Estimate
(I^miliKwfcws) ,
75.3
13.5
16.6
16.6
4.6
5.9
12.5
13.5
36.0
6.4
, 2fl»^
&- % o %
a "Other Waste" includes the EPA MSW categories of "other products" and "miscellaneous inorganics.
b Numbers do not add to 200 due to rounding.
EXHIBIT III-3
Management of 1992 Waste Stream by Market Segment
S100
Compost
Recycle Combustion I
Market Segment
i EPA-Defined MSW 11 Non-MSW
-------
Page 111-14
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
To summarize, EPA estimates that in 1992, 292 million tons of waste were managed in MSW
facilities. Of this amount, 9 million tons were composted, 40 million tons were recycled, and
32 million tons were combusted. EPA further estimates that virtually all of the waste managed in
these three market segments was EPA-defined MSW. The remaining waste, 211 million tons, of
which 92 million tons were non-MSW, was disposed in MSW landfills. The next four sections
discuss the dynamics of each of these four market segments.
B.
COMPOSTING MARKET SEGMENT
Key Findings
Composting has expanded rapidly over recent years to become a significant
MSW market segment, accounting for 'approximately 9 million tons of waste
received at MSW management facilities in 1992.
Yard trimmings composting accounts for approximately 96 percent of the
9 million tons of waste managed by m|e compost market segment, with mixed
waste composting accounting for the remaining 4 percent of this market
segment.
Yard trimmings landfill bans, adopted by 27 States as of July 1993, have
played a significant role in accelerating the growth of yard trimmings
composting.8 |
In some communities, the cost of yard trimmings collection and composting is
competitive with Hie cost of mixed waste collection and disposal in landfills
and WTEs; mixed waste composting, on the other hand, entails significantly
higher costs that may make this market subsegment less competitive with
landfill disposal. ;
Limited data on public sector versus private sector composting indicate that a
variety of private firms are playing a significant and expanding role in this
market segment; these firms' can provide an infrastructure of technical and
managerial resources for communities that do not wish to own and/or operate
composting facilities.
The use of flow controls to direct yard trimmings to specific composting
facilities has not been found to be a common practice or a significant factor
affecting the growth of this market segment.
8 "Yard Waste Legislation: Disposal Bans and Similar Passed Bills as of July, 1993" (Composting Council
Fact Sheet). ,
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page III-15
4 The compost market segment should be capable of ensuring additional MSW
management capacity based on recent growth, an expanding number of States
with yard trimmings landfill bans, and an ample supply of compostable waste.
Data Limitations
Appendix III-B presents available data on the amount of waste managed by the compost
segment. Although detailed data are available for mixed waste composting facilities, data are limited
on the amount of waste managed by yard trimmings composting facilities. EPA's estimate of yard
trimmings composting in 1992 is based on an analysis of available State data on the throughput of
yard trimmings composting facilities and BioCycle's data on the total number of such facilities.
EPA has identified no compilation of data on use of flow controls by composting facilities.
Although anecdotal data confirm that flow controls are used to guarantee waste flows for at least some
mixed waste composting facilities, EPA has found no evidence that flow controls are used widely for
yard trimmings composting facilities. Many States that authorize flow controls for mixed waste
explicitly exclude recyclables such as yard trimmings from flow controls.
B.I OVERVIEW OF GROWTH TRENDS
Over the past several years, composting facilities have expanded from a negligible role in
MSW management to a significant market segment. The composting market segment managed
approximately 9 million tons of waste in 1992 (as explained in Appendix ffl-B). In EPA's
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update, the Agency estimated
that only 0.5 million tons of MSW were composted in 1988. In the Agency's 7992 Update, EPA
estimated that 4 million tons of MSW were composted in 1990 and projected that the amount of MSW
composted would reach approximately 11 million tons by 1995. Exhibit III-4 shows this trend line,
together with this Report's estimate of 9 million tons for 1992.
The main impetus for this growth in composting has been the substantial increase in the
number of States that have adopted yard trimming landfill bans. This has led to significant growth in
the number of yard trimmings composting facilities, which account for approximately 96 percent of all
MSW composted. Exhibit III-5 shows that the number of yard trimmings composting facilities in the
U.S., as reported by BioCycle, has increased nearly five-fold from 651 in 1989 to 3,100 in 1993.
-------
Page m-16
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
EXHIBIT HI-4
Estimated Growth in Composting Market Segment
1988
(P) = Projection
Year
EXHIBIT m-5
Growth in Number of Yard Trimmings Composting Facilities
(1989 to 1993)
3,500
3,100
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page ffi-17
B.2 MARKET SUBSEGMENTS
Exhibit III-6 divides the composting market segment into the following two market
subsegments:
EXHIBIT HI-6
Composting Market Subsegments
(1992)
Yard Trimmings Composting:
96 percent
Mixed Waste
Composting:
4 percent
Total Composted = 9 million tons
Yard Trimmings Composting. As of 1992, BioCycle reported 2,981 yard
trimmings composting facilities in operation in the U.S. Together these
facilities managed 96 percent of the 9 million tons of MSW composted in
1992. (See Appendix III-B for estimates.) For 1993, BioCycle reported 3,100
composting facilities.
Mixed Waste Composting. As of 1992, 21 mixed waste composting facilities
were operational, although several were temporarily shut down for repairs or
other problems. Together these facilities managed approximately 4 percent of
the 9 million tons of MSW managed by the composting market segment in
1992 (see Appendix III-B for estimates).9
The estimate for mixed-waste composting includes two facilities that actually receive a source-separated
feedstock of food waste, soiled paper, corrugated cardboard, and other commingled compostables, as opposed to
completely mixed solid waste (requiring the separation and removal of non-compostables). The waste processed
by source-separated organics composting appears to have been negligible in 1992, but this type of composting
may constitute another distinct and significant market subsegment in future years. The potential for source- °
separated organics composting is being assessed by a number of pilot plants and demonstration projects
-------
Page IH-18
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
B3 MARKET SEGMENT COMPETITIVE STRUCTURE
The explosive growth in the composting market segment is driven by at least four separate
factors:
1. A large and increasing number of States and the District of Columbia have
banned the landfill disposal of yard trimmings (27 States by 1993).10
2. Even in the absence of landfill bans, yard trimmings composting is an
economical alternative to landfill disposal and combustion in some
communities. ;
t
3. Yard trimmings composting can effectively employ existing waste management
equipment (e.g., packer trucks) and can operate efficiently on a relatively small
scale, allowing for the incremental expansion of composting activity without
the risk of substantial capital investments for new facilities.
4. There is an expanding universe of private firms providing compost facility
design, operation, and management services for local governments, which may
facilitate composting activities in communities that do not wish to own and/or
operate their own composting facilities.
Flow controls have not been identified as a significant factor for composting facilities, as
discussed below. ;
i
Yard Trimmings Landfill and Combustion Bans
Twenty-seven (27) States had adopted bans on the landfill disposal of yard trimmings as of
July, 1993,11 and many of these States also banned yard trimmings from combustion in WTE
facilities and incinerators.12 Such bans may be described as "flow constraints," because they
constrain the extent to which yard trimmings composting facilities must compete with other MSW
underway, sponsored by organizations as diverse as the Composting Council, the National Audubon Society, the
Grocery Manufacturers of America, and the Food Marketing Institute. ("Composting Collection," Waste Age,
July 1993.) \
\
10 "Yard Waste Legislation: Disposal Bans and Similar Passed Bills as of July, 1993" (Composting Council
Fact Sheet).
11 "Yard Waste Legislation: Disposal Bans and Similar Passed Bills as of July, 1993" (Composting Council
Fact Sheet).
12
"Solid Waste Legislation: The State of Garbage in America," BioCycle, June 1993.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-19
market segments, essentially limiting yard trimmings management to a competition among different
composting facilities and source reduction (e.g., backyard composting, the use of mulching
lawnmowers). While flow controls require that certain wastes and materials be directed to particular
management facilities, eliminating the competitive forces that may encourage efficiency, bans eliminate
only certain types of competition (e.g., landfill disposal) but still allow waste generators and waste
haulers to direct wastes to the facility of their choice.
Competitive Economics
Although landfill and combustion bans have accelerated yard trimmings composting trends,
economic factors also support the growth of this market segment. Available data on yard trimmings
composting costs versus landfill costs, for example, indicate that yard trimmings composting is an
economical alternative to land disposal in some communities. Exhibit III-7 presents recent data on the
EXHIBIT III-7
Yard Trimmings Collection and Composting Costs Versus
Mixed Waste Collection and Disposal Costs
**• '•:-.
*.: : v-f
Camtmmfty i
Berlin Township, NJ
KMtgCoan^WA' ' !
Lafayette, LA
IMwfa P#k, f#
Naperville, IL
PerfcasiSj. PA s ,
Takoma Park, MD
We$t'Li9»,0R. ,-v|
West Palm Beach, FL
_I>^fi|kirard
Trtnsnungs
Betsw^ed
39
, 7
6
, ,:$i
13
,„ 2i
18
% N/A'"
18
.... Yard TrimnHRgs
Collectio« &
CampoStiag Cost
P*ri3Peiit^)
$10
:, ^fe^^'
109
if .... ..32 , „
106
39 '
90
40
63 •
"', Mfarea^Waste
. Collection and
l^esalCesStBsar ^
^ , T«OI-^;' "I
$108
1S7 i
62
ff
173 !
111
m ;
132
144
102
Cos* '
Advantage
FerTon
$98
11
(47)
150
5
74
42
104 ,~
39
-------
Page m-20
MkRKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
cost of yard trimmings collection and composting versus mixed waste collection and disposal costs in
f
nine communities across the country. ;
In 8 of these 9 communities, yard trimmings collection and composting costs range from $5 to
$150 per ton less than mixed waste collection and disposal. The one community where yard
trimmings composting reportedly is more expensive than landfill disposal is located in Louisiana,
where landfill tipping 'fees average a mere $15 per ton, according to BioCycle. Average landfill
tipping fees in the other States shown in Exhibit HI-7 range from $40 to $74 per ton. Most yard
trimmings compost is distributed to users without charge,14 and the cost comparisons in Exhibit III-7
indicate that most of these communities do not need compost revenues to make composting
1
economical. \
Exhibit ffl-7 also indicates a strong inverse correlation between the percentage of yard
trimmings recovered and the average cost per ton for collection and composting. For example, the
three communities with recovery rates between 6 and 13 percent incur costs between $96 and $109 per
ton. Conversely, the two communities with recovery rates above 30 percent report costs of just $10
and $23 per ton; although these low costs raise questions about whether the full costs of collection are
included above, the point is that higher participation rates from residents can spread the fixed costs of
yard trimmings collection and composting . |
and reduce the average cost per ton.
Exhibit m-8 presents data on the
average operating and capital costs and
design capacity (tons per day) for yard
trimmings and mixed waste composting
facilities.15 The yard trimmings
composting capital costs in Exhibit ni-8
may understate the actual capital
EXHIBIT m-8
Average Cost and Capacity
of Compost Facilities
• ,<•' '*',* , '
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS Page 111-21
and do not reflect a rigorous cost analysis. The composting of yard trimmings can be accomplished
with low-cost technology or with investment in high-cost equipment. Higher technology yard
trimmings facilities may require capital investments of $2,000 to $12,000 per ton of daily processing
capacity, equivalent to $140,000 to $840,000 total capital cost for 70 tons per day design capacity.16
The capital cost estimates shown in Exhibit III-8 appear to reflect the predominance of low technology
yard trimmings composting nationwide. Also, the cost estimates reported by many communities may
not reflect a detailed accounting for the full costs of their composting operations.
Although the cost estimates in Exhibit ni-8 do not represent a rigorous cost analysis for any
single type of composting facility, a comparison of the costs reported for different types of facilities
clearly indicates that mixed waste composting is substantially more expensive than yard trimmings
composting. Furthermore, at $59 per ton, the average operating cost alone for mixed waste
composting is higher than the average tipping fee for landfill disposal reported by BioCycle17 for 46
States.
Capital Requirements and Scale of Operations
Exhibit III-8 also illustrates that mixed waste composting requires a large capital investment,
entailing greater financial risk, which constitutes another competitive disadvantage for this market
subsegment. Yard trimmings composting facilities, by contrast, do not require substantial initial
capital investments.
Low technology yard trimmings facilities may require only the placing of yard trimmings in
piles or windrows and turning them. This process generally requires at least one year to produce
mature compost.
Higher technology facilities may be appropriate for urban or suburban communities with
limited space and large quantities of yard trimmings. Higher technology yard trimmings facilities
require capital investments for equipment to grind, shred, or screen yard trimmings prior to putting
them in windrows, plus equipment for turning and mixing windrows more frequently, as well as sheds
16 "The Cost Effectiveness Of Yard Debris Recovery," Resource Recycling, April 1993.
17 Robert Steuteville and Nora Goldstein, "1993 Nationwide Survey: The State of Garbage in America,"
BioCycle, May 1993.
-------
Page IH-22
IViARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
for curing the compost to maturity. This type of active management program reduces the potential for
odor generation, produces very low residuals for disposal (i.e., approximately two percent of waste
received), and reduces the composting process to less than eight months.
The variety of cost-effective yard trimmings composting technologies makes the investment in
composting facilities a viable alternative to landfilling for many communities. Communities can
conduct cost-effective yard trimmings collection with existing packer trucks, although many
communities use leaf-vacuum trucks or other specialized collection equipment. Small municipalities
can use citizen drop-off systems. The ability to leverage existing collection equipment and the limited
capital investment required for low technology yard trimmings composting facilities also reduce the
lead time required for the expansion of composting activities. In summary, the range of facility and
collection options allows communities to make incremental investments in yard trimmings composting
I
programs without assuming substantial financial risk.
I
Public/Private Infrastructure I
Although State and local governments have taken the lead in expanding the composting market
segment, the Composting Council estimates that one-third of composting facilities are now owned
and/or operated by private firms.18 The limited amount of available data on public versus private
activity in this market segment confirms that the private sector is expanding the infrastructure of
technical and managerial resources available for composting:
Private firms account for 31 percent of yard trimmings composting in the State
of Florida;
Privately-owned facilities account for 11 of the 17 composting facilities
reported by the State of Washington;
One firm in New York, specializing in; the design and management of
municipal, commercial, and industrial composting programs, now manages
over 50 sites throughout the Northeastern U.S. and Canada;19
18 Conversation with Randy Monk, Director of Operations for the Composting Council, March 21, 1994.
19 "Private-Public Partnership Proves Profitable for Regional Processing of Yard Trimmings," Resource
Recycling, April 1992.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-23
The combined throughput of private facilities operated by four sludge
composting firms in New England accounts for 40 percent of the total sludge
composted in the region;20
Several small waste firms are now investing in low-capital-cost food
composting facilities, targeting source-separated organics from grocery stores,
restaurants, educational institutions, prisons, hospitals, and large food
processing companies;21 and
Most of the firms involved in contract operations for sludge, yard trimmings,
and mixed waste composting facilities typically supply part or all of the
facility design and required equipment.22
The expanding.infrastructure of private sector composting services may facilitate the growth of
this market segment in communities reluctant to assume the program or facility management risks
associated with new methods of waste management.23
Flow Controls and MSW Composting
Unlike certain other MSW market segments such as MRFs and WTEs, data on the use of flow
controls by composting facilities are not available; therefore, EPA reviewed a wide range of literature
to identify anecdotal reports or indicators of flow control use. In all of the literature reviewed for this
analysis, EPA has not identified any references to yard trimmings composting facilities subject to flow
controls. Furthermore, BioCycle (April 1994 "State of Garbage") reported that New Jersey has just
recently updated its list of yard trimmings composting facilities and found that many facilities had
consolidated into larger composting facilities. Similar trends also have been found in other State (e.g.,
Indiana) reports. Such consolidation would not be occurring at such rates if yard trimmings
composting facilities were being supported by flow controls; rather, market forces are encouraging
consolidation of composting facilities to achieve greater economies of scale, and thereby lower unit
costs and prices.
20 "Compost Marketing in New England," BioCycle, August 1993.
21 "Composting Collection," Waste Age, July 1993.
22 "Contract Operations for Composting Facilities," BioCycle, April 1993.
23 "When Privatization Makes Sense," BioCycle, July 1992.
-------
Page m-24
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
There were only 21 mixed waste composting facilities operating in 1992. Although complete
data on their use of flow controls is unavailable, some of these mixed waste facilities appear to use
flow controls. One facility was the subject of a court case on flow controls, and 6 of these 21
facilities charge tipping fees of more than $80 per ton,24 which is not cost-competitive with other
disposal alternatives, indicating support by flow controls.
t
B.4 MARKET SEGMENT POTENTIAL •
EXHIBIT III-9
Current Supply and Composting of
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
(million tons)
The potential size of the
composting market segment is subject to
two constraints: (1) the supply of
compostable waste; and, (2) the end-market
demand for compost.
Supply of Compostable Waste
The major compostable components
of MSW are paper and paperboard, food
waste, wood waste, and yard trimmings.
Exhibit in-9 presents estimates for 1992
generation of these compostable materials
and the current amount of each type being
composted.
The generation estimates in Exhibit III-9 are derived from multiplying EPA's 1990 estimate of
per capita generation of these material types by the 1992 population (see Exhibit III-2 in Section A).
The estimates of the amount of waste composted in 1992 reflect the Agency's estimate of 8.8 million
tons of composted yard trimmings and 0.4 million tons of composted mixed waste.25
J- < > '•
- "''", - - -
"^•.g *
..^:tv?*$tev^"' 'f
Paper & Paperboard
Food Waste
Wood Waste
Yard Trimmings
^-^'ly^fsw.
,?,%?/'' -I.. '•
Amount f\
Generated
JDWH8 ff .
75.3
13.5
12.5
36.0
'" - fi$m
> "^
Aaiotatf f ,
• Composted
, !'0»m f
0.4
8.8
.' "^V :
The ample supply of compostable waste indicates that it is theoretically feasible for this market
segment to substantially expand its capacity for MSW management. The growing number of States
24 U.S. Solid Waste Composting Facility Profiles, Vol. II, U.S. Conference of Mayors, March 1993.
25 EPA's 1994 Update of MSW in the U.S. (with 1993 data) was not finalized in time for use in this Report.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page IH-25
with yard trimmings disposal bans (27 States in 1993) and the favorable economics of this market
subsegment support the continued growth of yard trimmings composting. There is also significant
growth potential for source-separated organics composting. Residential participation rates for source-
separated organics collection have ranged from 60 to 95 percent of households served by pilot
programs and demonstration projects.26 Commercial waste generators also could provide a large
supply of source-separated organics. For example, the Grocery Industry Committee on Solid Waste
estimates that six million tons of compostable food and paper waste are generated each year by
grocery stores alone.27
End-Market Demand for Compost
Although the supply of compostable waste is ample, the end-market demand for compost is
uncertain, even for compost that is available free of charge. A recent study by Battelle estimates that
there is substantial potential for expanding end-markets for compost far in excess of the available
supply of compostable waste.28 However, although Battelle estimates that agriculture markets
account for almost 90 percent of this potential demand, it is not clear to EPA whether a substantial
expansion of agricultural demand is economically viable due to the cost of transporting and spreading
compost.
End-market observations reported by other sources include the following:
4 Many communities report that residents and other consumers are willing to
take yard trimmings compost when it is distributed at no charge;29
* One composting facility in New England reports that it charges $15 per cubic
yard for its compost, but the average price received by facilities that use
brokers is $0.50 per cubic yard; one facility pays a broker up to $1.50 per
cubic yard to find end users more than 45 miles away from the composting
facility;30
26 "Pulling Compostables from the Waste Stream," BioCycle, May 1993.
27 "Composting Collection," Waste Age, July 1993.
28 "Compost Supply and Demand," BioCycle, January 1993.
29 "The Cost Effectiveness of Yard Debris Recovery," Resource Recycling, April 1993.
30 "Compost Marketing in New England," BioCycle, August 1993.
-------
Page IH-26
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
* Two mixed waste composting facilities in Minnesota use their compost as
alternative daily cover at landfills, even though they have contracts with tree
farms willing to take the compost, because the cost of hauling the compost to
the tree farms and spreading the material is too expensive;31 and
* Use of compost for pollution control (e.g., wetlands restoration, biofilters, site
remediation) is in the preliminary research phase.
Finally, State and local governments can and are taking a variety of actions to expand end-
market demand for compost by establishing procurement policies that favor the purchase of compost
for public landscape and park maintenance uses. Similarly, EPA published in April 1994 a
Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) which includes yard trimming compost among 21 items
designated; once the CPG is finalized, procuring agencies (including federal agencies, State and local
agencies using federal funds, and their contractors) will be required to develop affirmative procurement
practices for yard trimmings compost. This could increase demand substantially.
C. RECYCLING MARKET SEGMENT
Key Findings
Recycling has expanded rapidly over recent years to account for approximately
40 million tons of all waste received at MSW management facilities in 1992.
Private sector paper and paperboard recyclers account for 62.5 percent of this
market segment, with buy-back and drop-off programs accounting for 22.5
percent, material recovery facilities (]\iRFs) 14.3 percent, and mixed waste
processing facilities (MWPFs) less than 1 percent
Flow control has been an important factor for MRFs, particularly MRFs that
require substantial capital investments.
In 1992, 13 percent of MRFs (26 facilities) with 19 percent of total MRF
throughput (close to 1.1 million tons) received waste guaranteed by flow
control. This represents 2.7 percent of the 40 million tons of MSW recycled
in 1992. MRFs operating under contractual agreements represent an additional
41 percent (81 facilities) with 44 percent of total MRF throughput
(approximately 2.5 million tons). Some of these contracts may be supported
by flow control. ,
31 "The Key to a Successful Composting Program," MSW Management, 1994.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-21
Low-technology MRFs and other recycling activities generally can be initiated
on a small scale, require relatively limited initial capital investments, and allow
for an incremental approach to expanding the recycling infrastructure.
There is a strong association between magnitude of capital costs and use of
flow control by MRFs. Seven (7) percent of the throughput of low-technology
MRFs is supported by flow controls, compared to 32 percent of the throughput
of high-technology MRFs.
In some cases, tipping fees supported by flow controls for mixed waste
disposal (e.g., WTE) have provided a funding mechanism for the development
and operation of curbside recycling programs and MRFs.
A majority of recycling facilities are owned and operated by private firms,
including about 69 percent of all MRFs, indicating future growth potential
because private investors view this market segment as viable.
An available supply of recyclable materials and a continuing expansion of end-
market users (e.g., de-inking facilities) indicate that the recycling segment will
continue to account for an increasing share of the MSW management market.
Data Limitations
Appendix III-C presents available data on the amount of waste managed by the recycling
segment. EPA obtained data on 1992 recycling of some materials from industry trade associations and
updated prior EPA estimates for other materials. The resulting total estimate of 40 million tons of
recycled MSW plus EPA's estimate of 9 million tons of composted MSW (discussed in Section B) is
consistent with BioCycle's estimate of 49 million tons of recycled/composted waste in 1992.
Appendix III-C also presents a summary of data on materials recovery by MRFs (which
separate commingled recyclables) and MWPFs (which accept mixed waste). Data on MRFs' use of
flow controls is derived from information reported in Government Advisory Associate's (GAA) 7992-
93 Materials Recovery and Recycling Yearbook. There is no similar source of information on MWPF
use of flow controls, although EPA found some anecdotal information in its literature reviews. EPA
assumed that recycled materials not recovered at MRFs and MWPFs are recovered by paper and
paperboard recyclers ("paper packers") and other recycling centers (e.g., buy-back and drop-off
programs). Although data show that flow controls are used to guarantee recyclable waste flows for an
estimated 13 percent of MRFs (19 percent of MRF throughput) and some MWPFs, EPA has not found
any data that flow controls apply to other recycling subsegments.
-------
Page in-28
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
C.1 OVERVIEW OF GROWTH TRENDS
Over the past decade, recycling has accounted for an increasingly significant share of the
MSW management market The recycling market segment managed approximately 40 million tons of
solid waste in 1992 (as explained in Appendix III-C). ;
^
Recycling of certain commodities (especially paper and paperboard) has long been a significant
segment of the MSW management market, because recycling often is an economical alternative to
disposal. Historical data confirm that percentage changes in recycling over the last two decades
generally tracked similar changes in economic growth. The recovery of old newsprint (ONP) and old
corrugated cardboard (OCC) illustrates this point. Exhibits HMO and IH-11 compare percentage
changes in ONP and OCC recovery, respectively, with percentage changes in gross national product
(GNP). A departure from this historical linkage between recycling growth and GNP growth occurred
between 1988 and 1992, when ONP recycling grew at a rapid rate, in spite of a stagnant economy (see
Exhibit in-10); over the same period, OCC recycling performed relatively well, compared to earlier
periods (Exhibit-m-ll).
EXHIBIT III-10
Annual Percentage Change in Old Newsprint (ONP) Recycling and GNP
20
10
I °
o
is
j?
§ (10)
o
Q.
(20)
V
I—I
GNP
ONP
J_
1 1 1 L
i—i—i—i—i—t-
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992
Year
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-29
EXHIBIT III-ll
Annual Percentage Change in Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) Recycling and GNP
10
g
O
§ (10)
E
£
(20)
GNP
OCC
J - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 I I I I i i
i
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992
Year
As Exhibit 111-12 shows, this growth in newspaper recycling (due to growth in local curbside
programs discussed later in this section) resulted in ONP prices declining sharply between 1988 and
EXHIBIT HI-12
Old Newsprint Prices Paid by End-Users
($/Ton)
1991
1992
1993
Year
-------
Page m-30
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
1993, due to both increased supply and decreased demand. Aluminum prices also dropped nearly 40
percent in 1991 and hit an all time low in 1993, primarily due to an influx of aluminum from the
former Soviet Union. Despite low prices for some materials collected by curbside programs, recycling
has continued to increase in most areas, primarily due to the strong growth in government-sponsored
recycling programs. Although depressed prices made these recycling programs more costly than
expected for many communities, prices have rebounded in 1994, making recycling more economically
attractive. j
The number of curbside recycling programs and MRFs has increased dramatically. This
proliferation of curbside programs and MRFs has produced a reliable supply of relatively clean
recyclables and has led to an expansion of end-markets. For example, the paper and glass industry
i
both have developed an expanded capacity for recycling. These expanded end-markets have stabilized
some recycled material prices, while communities have developed more efficient collection and
processing methods. As a result, many communities now are finding recycling more cost effective
than in previous years. \
I
Exhibit III-13 shows that the number of curbside recycling programs reported by BioCycle
grew by more than 560 percent between 1988 and 1993.32 The growth in households served by
curbside programs may be even greater, because many communities also are expanding the number of
households served by existing programs. For example, in 1992, New York City added 630,000
housing units to its recycling program. Similar expansions took place in other major cities, such as
Philadelphia, Houston, and Los Angeles.33 Currently, there are more than 6,600 such programs
reaching over 101 million people.34 j
32 Robert Steuteville, "1994 Nationwide Survey: The Sltate of Garbage in America," BioCycle, April 1994.
33 Robert Steuteville, "Year End Review of Recycling," BioCycle, December 1993, page 32.
34 Robert Steuteville, "1994 Nationwide Survey: The State of Garbage in America," BioCycle, April 1994.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-31
EXHIBIT HI-13
Reported Growth in Number of Curbside Recycling Programs
(1988 to 1993)
E
TO
2
Q_
O
JO
E
Z3
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1,000
1988
6,678
5,404.
4,000,
2,700,
1,400,
_L
1989
1990 1991
Year
1992
1993
Exhibit ID-14 illustrates MRF growth between 1985 and 1992, with the most significant
development occurring in the early 1990s. For example, MRFs showed a record 100 percent growth
from 1990 to 1992. For the purpose of this analysis, the definition of a MRF is limited to a facility
that sorts and processes commingled residential recyclables into marketable raw materials for end-
market use. Buy-back and drop-off centers and other recycling facilities that receive source-separated
non-commingled recyclables are not considered as MRFs in this Report. According to GAA's biennial
survey, 198 MRFs either were operational or planned to be operational in 1992.35 (This varies
slightly from BioCycle's estimate of 192 MRFs in operation in 1992.)36
_
QC
1992-93 Materials Recovery and Recycling Yearbook: Directory & Guide, GAA, 1992.
36 Jim Glenn, "Maturation of Materials Recovery," BioCycle, August 1992, page 34.
-------
Page m-32
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
EXHIBIT HI-14
Operational Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs)
(1985 to 1992)
250
1985
198(ost.)
1992
The growth in curbside programs and MRFs has propelled the remarkable growth in the
recycling market segment EPA's Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:
1992 Update projected that by 1995, 41 million tons of MSW would be recycled.37 More recent
data show that this projection already has been reached, and trends indicate continued growth in
recycling. Exhibit ni-15 shows this trend line, with recycling accounting for 40 million tons of the
solid waste managed in MSW facilities in 1992. (Appendix HI-C provides analytical detail and State-
specific estimates of recycling.) The paper industry alone anticipates 50 percent recovery by the year
2000 - an increase of 17.4 million tons recovered compared to 1992.
37 As noted in Appendix ffl-C, recycling estimates rejy on recent industry data to supplement EPA
projections.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-33
EXHIBIT 111-15
Reported Growth in Recycling Market Segment
(1985 to 1992)
so
40
20
1985
1988
1991
•1992
Year
C.2 MARKET SUBSEGMENTS
The recycling market segment can be divided into four subsegments:
1.
Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs). In 1992, an estimated 198 MRFs were
either operational or expected to be operational and to process approximately
5.7 million tons of MSW recyclables. MRFs represent 14.3 percent of the
overall recycling market segment. MRFs include low-technology and high-
technology operations. About two-thirds of the operational MRFs are low-
technology but the waste throughput is divided about 50/50, because high-
technology MRFs process twice as much throughput on average. The
Northeast region38 accounted for 43.4 percent of all MRFs and 47.4 percent
of all recyclables processed at MRFs. However, the Northeast accounts for
less than one-fourth of the total volume of materials recycled! (Appendix III-C
provides a detailed State-by-State listing of recycling estimates.) Nineteen (19)
OQ
- Northeast States include Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont
-------
Page III-34
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
States do not have MRFs located within their borders.39 This indicates that
competition from MRFs IP the Northeast may have reduced the amount of
recycling by other market ••nbsegments in that region.
2. Mixed Waste Processing Facilities (MWPFs). MWPFs accept mixed waste
(just as mixed waste would be received at a landfill or WTE facility) in order
to separate out recyclable materials. Djue to higher degrees of contamination,
such recyclables may not appeal to the same end-markets as materials from
MRFs. This subsegment was in the nascent stage of development in 1992 and
consequently recovered only 300,000 tons of recyclables, constituting less than
1 percent of the recycling market Twenty-one (21) MWPFs either were
planned or operational that year.
3. Paper Packers. Independent recovered paper and paperboard dealers,
recycling centers, or processors (comnionly referred to collectively as "paper
packers") receive paper and paperboard that generally is source-separated by
material type (e.g., used corrugated froin large commercial sources). The
American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA) estimates that there are 600
recovered paper dealers in the U.S.40 As of 1992, AFPA directories
identified paper dealers in all but 11 Slates and the District of Columbia. In
addition, some of the major paper manufacturers, such as Weyerhauser and
Stone Container, have paper collection and brokerage divisions.41 Paper
packers recycled approximately 25 million tons of paper and paperboard in
1992, accounting for 62.5 percent of the overall recycling market.
(Newspapers processed by MRFs are not included in these figures.)
4. Other Recycling Centers. EPA defines this subsegment to include any
recycled materials facilities not included in other subsegments. These facilities
generally receive materials directly from consumers or via agreements with
municipalities. In 1992, approximately 9 million tons of recyclables were
recovered through a combination of industry-sponsored buy-back programs and
drop-off centers (e.g., for glass, plastic, and metal containers). For example,
the aluminum industry alone has over 10,000 industry-sponsored buy-back
locations and agreements with more than 4,000 municipal curbside
programs.42 EPA estimates that most 'aluminum (used beverage cans) is
recovered through these buy-backs, since the analysis of MRFs reveals that
less than one half of all aluminum recovered comes through MRFs.
39 States that had no MRFs in 1992 include: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
West Virginia, and Wyoming. .
i
40 PaperMatcher: A Directory of Paper Recycling Resources. American Forest Products Association, July
1992.
41 Ronald Kopicki, Leslie Legg, and Michael Berg, Reuse and Recycling - Reverse Logistics Opportunities.
Council of Logistics Management, 1993, page 91.
42 Can Manufacturers Institute, "Turn Aluminum Cans into Cash: A Recycling and Fundraising Guide,"
1993. i
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page m-35
Exhibit III-16 illustrates the amount of waste recycled by these four market subsegments.
EXHIBIT 111-16
Recycling Market Subsegments
(1992 tons)
Paper Packers
(25 million)
Materials Recovery Facilities
(5.7 million)
Mixed Waste
Processing Facilities
(0.3 million)
Other Recycling Centers
(3 million)
Total Recycling = 40 million tons
C.3 MARKET SEGMENT COMPETITIVE STRUCTURE
The growth in the recycling market segment is driven by at least six separate factors:
(1) Forty-three (43) States and the District of Columbia have recycling and/or
source reduction laws or goals and landfill bans on certain recyclable
materials;
(2) Even in the absence of such laws, recycling can be an economical alternative
to landfill disposal and waste combustion;
(3) Recycling programs often can operate efficiently on a relatively small scale,
allowing for the expansion of recycling activity without the risk of substantial
capital investments for new facilities;
(4) The private sector is heavily involved with recycling. A major portion of
recycled materials goes directly to the private sector. This especially is true in
the case of paper recycling. Private sector paper packers accounted for 62.5
percent (25 million tons) of the recycling market in 1992;
-------
Page m-36
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
(5) There is an expanding infrastructure of privately owned capacity for providing
MRF facility design, operation, and management services for local
governments that do not wish to own and/or operate their own facilities; and
(6) Data show that flow controls play a smaller role for low-technology MRFs (7
percent) and a larger role for high-technology MRFs (32 percent); most of the
MRFs supported by flow controls are located in the Northeast.
Recycling Laws and Landfill/WTE Bans ;
i
Recycling Laws. Forty-three (43) States and the District of Columbia have adopted recycling
laws/goals.43 These laws include provisions such as recycling goals for State or local governments,
recycled-content legislation, curbside collection requirements, commercial recycling requirements, and
general mandates to establish recycling programs. Over the past decade, these laws have fostered
rapid expansion of the infrastructure for collecting and processing recyclables. Also, the demonstrated
commitment of State and local governments to recycling has encouraged industries to invest in
infrastructure to respond to the increased supply of recyclables and the increased demand for goods
made from recyclables. For example, in 1992, 27 mills in North America had the capacity to de-ink
recovered newsprint, up from just 9 mills in 1989. AFPA estimated 13 new newsprint de-inking mills
or expansions slated for 1993-1995 with an increased de-inking capacity of nearly 1.5 million tons
annually.44 Additional industry investments also may result from State and federal procurement
requirements for minimum recycled content
Landfill and WTE Bans. As mentioned in the previous section on composting, 27 States
currently have yard trimmings disposal bans. These States and others also have begun to ban certain
other materials from solid waste landfills and WTE facilities. Prohibited wastes include such items as
lead-acid batteries, tires, used oil, small batteries, and appliances. Other States have extended landfill
bans to paper and various forms of packaging. For example, Wisconsin bans the disposal of most
paper and packaging materials, unless the community has a State-certified recycling program. These
bans generally were enacted in order to foster recycling and typically place the recycling burden on
waste generators and haulers, rather than product manufacturers.
43 Robert Steuteville, "The State of Garbage in America: Part II," BioCycle, May 1994, pp. 30-36. Of the
43 States, 36 States specifically adopted statutes with recycling and/or source reduction goals. The other 7 States
adopted goals through different means, such as executive orders by State governors.
44 American Forest and Paper Association, Economics and Materials Department, "Recovered Paper De-
inking Facilities," September 1993.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-37
Competitive Economics
This subsection examines available data only on MRF processing costs and the costs of
curbside collection programs. Cost data for other recycling subsegments generally are unavailable.
MRF processing costs include the relatively significant cost of separating commingled recyclables. By
contrast, other recycling subsegments incur lower costs since they generally require source-separation
by material type (e.g., separation of OCC and ONP for paper recyclers, and separate bins for glass,
aluminum, and other containers received at drop-off and buy-back centers).
Exhibit 111-17 presents estimates of average material collection and processing costs. These
estimates are drawn from a number of sources and provide an indication of potential costs. Many
variables contribute to the costs of MSW programs. As with most commodities, regional variations in
EXHIBIT HI-17
Average Estimated Collection and Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) Processing Costs
($ per ton)
s •.'
, Material
Newspaper (ONP)
Glass4
Aluminum
Steel
Plastic5
CoIteeiiOB
Cosfe3
(A)
$72
$60
$581
$240
$1,089
MRF
Ptt«sessiaj* •
Cosfer" ' '
m ••;
$34
$73
$143
$68
$184
"Beveaece2' •
(Q !
$17
$51
$609
$65
$137
Weighted Average CoBecHoai and Prooessfog Costs
'"SfetCqSt ;
Per f oa ;
!A*BI:C^ !
$88
$82
$116
$242
$1,136
' '$131
F*jse«sit of
Total '"
MSW
Collated3
60
27
2
8
3
Sources: National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), The Cost to Recycle, at a Materials Recovery Facility,
1992; NSWMA, The Cost of Recycling, 1993; and analysis of data from Governmental Advisory Associates.
Notes:
1. Costs per ton are much lower for dense, heavy materials, like ONP and glass, because a single truck can collect a
higher tonnage. Collection costs assume a 50 percent set out rate for curbside collection.
Average 1993 prices paid by end-users as reported in "Year in Markets," Recycling Times, December 28, 1993. End-
user prices may include transportation to the buyer of the recycled materials, and thus may overestimate net revenue.
3. Percentage based on materials processed at MRFs operational in 1992. Mixed containers reallocated to glass and
plastic according to percentages reported by NSWMA.
4. Glass costs represent clear glass only.
5. Plastic costs represent PET only.
2.
-------
Page HI-38
MJARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
prices (i.e., revenues) can be significant in affecting net costs. Exhibit 111-17 shows that the net cost
per ton can vary greatly for different recyclable materials; this means that community costs will be
affected by the relative mix of recyclables collected, among other factors.
i
Exhibit III-18 presents sample MRF cost data for eight cities with MSW curbside collection
and processing programs, including data on mixed waste collection and landfill disposal for four of
these cities. The weighted average cost shown in Exhibit III-17 ($131 per ton) is within the range of
both recycling and mixed waste disposal costs provided for the programs covered in Exhibit 111-18,
which suggests that recycling costs may now be cost-competitive with mixed waste disposal in many
communities. Net recycling costs for the surveyed programs range from $90 per ton to $168 per ton,
because costs depend on many factors, such as program design, labor costs, and collection routes.
Unfortunately, there is little comparative data available.
In addition, a recent survey of the costs of 17 curbside collection programs showed collection
costs ranging from $77 per ton to $263 per ton, with a weighted average cost of $138 per ton.45
This estimate is within the range shown in Exhibit HI-18; this survey did not compile information on
the costs associated with processing of recyclables.
Exhibit III-18 shows that net recycling costs for the surveyed programs range from $90 per ton
to $168 per ton. This range is attributable to the unique nature of each program, for example:
4 Regional markets for recyclables offer revenues from $0 to $41 per ton;
4 Collection costs vary with the set-out rate, population and demographics, and
crew size, among other variables; and
4 The mix of materials significantly affects all recycling costs (see
Exhibit IE-17).
45 Steve Apotheker, "Curbside Recycling Collection Trends in the 40 Largest Cities," Resource Recycling,
December 1993.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-39
EXHIBIT 111-18
Overview of Curbside Collection and Processing Costs from Eight City Sample
f f
City <,
; r Reeling ., ••, '
Bfeposiil Coste $ $&v 'Jtoa)
C
-------
Page IH-40
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Capital Requirements and Scale of Operations
The explosive growth in the MRF market over the past few years has shown that the lag time
from planning to operational status for these facilities is relatively short. MRF development does not
face the same public opposition or complicated and time-consuming processes that affect the siting and
building of other waste management options, such as combustors and landfills. However, MRFs may
entail significant capital costs, as summarized in Exhibit HI-1946 for 134 MRFs for which data are
available.
EXHIBIT HI-19
Average Capital Costs of
Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs)
High Technology MRFs $4,797,292
Weighted Average
$2,951,192
Exhibit in-20 represents the weighted
average and median costs and design capacity
calculated for the 198 MRFs estimated to be in
Operation in 1992. The median capital costs per ton
are somewhat higher than the average costs per ton,
indicating that larger MRFs realize some economies
of scale. This may explain why 71 percent of
planned facilities will be high-technology, large scale
plants with higher total capital costs but lower
capital costs per ton of capacity than existing
facilities.47
EXHIBIT 111-20
Median and Weighted Average
Cost and Design Capacity of
Materials Recovery Facilities
•. V. -. >
f f •f f-ffj '
l^ype Of
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-41
Most MRFs charge tipping fees far below the operating costs shown above and more than half
charge no tipping fees or even pay for materials received; this indicates that the MRF subsegment is
highly competitive. MRFs depend on the fluctuating markets for recyclables to earn revenues to cover
their costs.
Public/Private Infrastructure
Analysis of MRFs operating or expected to be operating in 1992 indicates that the majority of
MRFs were privately owned and operated:
•
•
69 percent were privately owned and operated;
17 percent were publicly owned facilities operated by the private sector; and
14 percent (primarily in the Northeast) were publicly owned and operated
facilities.
A relatively small proportion (9 percent) of privately owned and operated MRFs are supported
by flow controls; in comparison, flow controls support 25 percent of publicly owned and operated
MRFs and 21 percent of publicly-owned and privately-operated MRFs.48 (See Exhibit C.8 in
Appendix III-C.)
The five largest private MRF firms represent approximately 50 percent of MRF processing
capacity.49 Three of these firms operate 30 sorting plants for commingled residential recyclables,
which represent a combined capacity of 7,500 tons per day, and generate more than $55 million in
annual revenues.50 The other two firms each operate between 20 and 30 commingled sorting plants
in conjunction with their waste hauling services. All of these firms saw vastly increased growth in the
early 1990s. The growth in the MRF subsegment is beginning to level off to a more moderate rate of
increase. Although the growth in the number of MRFs coming on-line is slowing, newer MRFs have
larger capacities and often are owned by integrated companies.
48
Ibid.
49 Jerry Powell, "Materials Recovery Facilities: Who are the big actors and what are they up to?" Resource
Recycling, October 1993, page 47.
50 Ibid, page 48.
-------
Page IH-42
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Flow Control Role in Recycling Growth
Available data suggest that flow controls pertain to the MRF subsegment only. Although
many States that authorize flow controls for mixed waste exclude recyclables from flow control
restrictions, Exhibit HI-21 shows that approximately 13 percent of MRFs (19 percent of MRF
throughput) are supported by flow controls. Based on data from the GAA Yearbook, EPA estimates
EXHIBIT HI-21
Use of Flow Controls by Materials Recovery Facilities in 1992
•• * f-t; "f '..., f
•** ' «%*«v " *•*'•>' J
:V,V^' *&'<*.
> - "?* v ; -* N
Flow Control
QcHSkaeT^ %%<>
% *-.f£s; S<*
Neither
-N/A S/,v i
1 ,,-,,« V , :
Total
# ^
26
B2
'79
\->
, ,;1K ,
-. -. ^S -5
; ,s ' :
13%:
41% \
40%,
6*v !
< "";
f fesroughpiiil:
1,081,587
"i,4m,m:\
2,034,156
wjm ;
% "
19%
44f0
36%
2%
198 5,703,981
that about 2.7 percent (i.e., about 1.1 million tons) of the 40 million tons of waste recycled is subject
to flow controls, as shown in the following exhibit.
Flow controls have been more important for high-technology MRFs than for low-technology
MRFs. Exhibit ni-22 shows that flow controls support 32 percent of throughput in high-technology
MRFs, compared to only seven percent of throughput in low-technology MRFs. Another 24 MRFs are
planned to be operational after 1992; the trend is for relatively greater development of high-technology
MRFs (i.e., 17 of out of 24) with six facilities to be supported by flow controls. For the seven low-
technology MRFs that are planned to be operational after 1992, only one is expected to be supported
by flow controls. (See Exhibit C.10 in Appendix III-C.)
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-43
EXHIBIT 111-22
Use of Flow Controls by High-Technology and
Low-Technology Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in 1992
Flow Control
Contract
Neither
8/A
Total
Hig
# i
17
- 2£
14
r ;
h-Technology 1VJ
S&raug^p&t
890,426
1,414*590
492,868
26,222 :
[RFs
%
32%
" 50%
18%
1%
61 2,819,106
Low
f
9
53
65
1 JO
-Technology Ml
T&raagliput
191,161
l,076i58Q
1,540,288
76,864
ElFs
%
7%
37% f
53%
5%
137 2,884,893
As shown in Exhibit 111-23, there is a strong association between the capital costs of MRFs
and their support by flow control. Regardless of whether a MRF is high-technology or low-
technology, facilities supported by flow controls have higher capital costs on average than MRFs not
EXHIBIT EU-23
Capital Costs and Use of Flow Controls by
Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in 1992
^,,,,.
Flow Control
eona-act 'y
Neither
,*&A -",
Total
Hig
;-\;j
13
26
9
Q :
48
fa-Technology MRFs
Average ^Capifed Costs '
$6,788,462
4,-605,769
2,474,444
0
4,797,292
Lov
* ;
8
i 46 '••
36
4 ;
86
^•Technology MRFs
•* ^ tf
ATerage Capital Cost
$3,256,250
i^55,«02. ,
2,035,889
*&&&%., ',,
1,920,810
Note: Only 134 of the 198 MRFs reported capital costs; of these 134, all but 4
provided data on use of waste guarantees (e.g., flow controls). Only 21 of the 26
MRFs supported by flow controls reported capital cost information.
-------
Page m-44
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
supported by flow controls. The difference in use of flow controls by high-technology and low-
technology MRFs reflects the greater capital costs of the former ($4.8 million on average) compared to
the latter ($1.9 million on average). (See Exhibit IH-19.)
To date, the use of flow control to support MRFs has been concentrated in the northeast.
Exhibit in-24 shows that 77 percent (20 out of 26) of the MRFs supported by flow controls, with a
corresponding 86 percent of the MRF throughput supported by flow controls, are located in the
Northeast Nineteen (19) States have no MRF facilities at all.
EXHIBIT HI-24
Use of Flow Controls by Materials Recovery Facilities in the Northeast
(n = 86 of 198)
High-Technology
(tais} -
Low-Technology
&""••'<,*
Total
Flow Control
13
764,680
163,661
20
928,341
Contact
Neither
321,451
21
338,433
29
659,884
WA
Total
41
1,902,069
45
837,085
86
2,739,154
In addition to throughput supported by flow controls, a significant amount of MRF throughput
is guaranteed through contractual arrangements. The contractual arrangements may, but need not, be
supported by some form of municipal control over waste disposition: the municipality may either
collect the waste itself, contract out for collection, use franchises to control the ultimate destination of
waste collected, and/or enact a flow control ordinance; For example, a local government under
contract to provide waste to a privately-owned MRF may use a flow control ordinance to ensure that
enough waste is delivered to meet the terms of the contract. As a result, some of the waste guaranteed
by contracts also may be backed by local government,use of flow controls; however, data are not
available to assess how often this situation occurs.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page ffl-45
Flow controls on mixed waste disposal facilities (e.g., WTEs) also may have an impact on
recycling by allowing State and local governments to increase tipping fees above market levels. These
higher tipping fees can make recycling more cost-competitive with mixed waste disposal and can
provide a funding mechanism to subsidize curbside recycling programs and recycling promotion and
education programs. Data describing the extent and magnitude of such use of flow controls is not
available.
At EPA's public hearings on flow control, many local governments indicated that recycling
subsidies, resulting from tipping fees supported by flow controls, played an important role in
developing curbside collection programs and MRF infrastructure over the past few years. During this
time, cost-effective residential recycling methods generally were in a developmental stage; economic
conditions limited end-market demand; and many communities incurred significant "start-up" costs for
recycling programs, including public education costs to raise recycling participation rates.
C.4 MARKET SEGMENT POTENTIAL
The potential size of the MSW recycling market segment is subject to two constraints: (1) the
supply of recyclable MSW; and, (2) the end-market demand for recyclables.
Supply of MSW Recyclables
The major recyclable MSW
materials are paper and paperboard, glass,
plastics, metals, textiles and wood. Exhibit
111-25 presents 1992 generation estimates for
these recyclables (see Appendix ni-A) and
the current amount of each recovered (see
Appendix III-C). The improving economics
of recycling and the ample supply of
recyclable MSW should support continuing
growth in the recovery of recyclable MSW.
EXHIBIT 111-25
Current Supply and Recovery of
EPA-Defined Municipal Solid Waste
(million tons)
>
,;Mat«ri^'l^pe - \
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Plastic
Metals
Textiles, wood, and
other waste
(appliances, batteries)
Total Recyclable :
1W2 ;-" j
' ^e)jjejra$i0a j
75.3
13.5
16.6
16.6
24.8
TM&
fo&2 ''•'
•. t,yyAy,;, „'
&e«x*very
29.1
4.15
.65
3.8
2.3
W&
-------
Page m-46
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
End-Market Demand for Recyclables
Although projecting end-maiket demand is beyond the scope of this market analysis, the
prospects for increased recovery of recyclable MSW are reflected in a variety of industry investments
to expand the end-market demand for recycled materials.51 For example, the paper industry
anticipates an increased demand for nearly 5 million tons of OCC, with expansions at 18
containerboard mills from 1993 to 1995; and AFPA reports that nearly four million tons of expanded
de-inking capacity will come on-line by 1995. The paper industry has set a goal of 50 percent
recovery (an additional 17.4 million tons compared to 1992) by 2000.
Anecdotal data also indicate expanding end-markets for other recycled materials. For example,
the largest plastics processor in the country plans to increase processing capacity in one of its plants
by 70 percent for post-consumer PET containers - adding 40,000 tons of annual capacity for PET
bottles by the end of 1994. Also, 6 more glass cullet beneficiation plants came on-line in 1993, and
3 major steel companies have new facilities that utilize 100 percent recycled material scheduled to
come on-line .in the next few years.
f
D. WASTE-TO-ENERGY MARKET SEGMENT
Key Findings
WTE facilities and incinerators together combusted approximately 32 million
tons of MSW in 1992. Respectively, WTE accounted for approximately 31
million tons, and incinerators, approximately 1 million tons.
The use of flow controls to guarantee waste flows to WTE facilities is
significant; approximately 58 percent of WTE throughput (from 61 facilities) is
guaranteed by flow control. One reason for this high percentage is the
substantial debt service entailed by the large initial capital investment required
to construct WTE facilities.52 WTE facility operators and owners need to
ensure adequate, long-term supplies of waste and operate at high capacity
utilization rates (e.g, 85 percent) in order to generate sufficient tipping fee
51 See Lisa Rabasca, "1993 Recycling Market - Ebbs and Flows," Recycling Times, December 1993; and
Robert Steuteville, "Year End Review of Recycling," BioCycle, December 1993. (Unless otherwise noted.)
52 In 1992, the average initial capital cost for existing WTE facilities was $60 million (adjusted for
inflation). For facilities being constructed, the average capital cost was approximately $136 million.
Because they are more modem, larger, and include more up-to-date pollution control equipment,
facilities under construction cost more than existing facilities.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page IH-47
revenues to meet debt service payments. Data show a strong association
between magnitude of capital costs and use of flow controls by WTEs.
Data also reveal that the use of flow controls is strongly associated with the
size (throughput) of WTE facilities. WTEs supported by flow control have an
average throughput three times the average throughput of WTEs that are not
supported by flow controls or long-term contracts. Regardless of ownership,
the larger facilities on average were much more likely to be supported by flow
controls than the smaller WTEs.
Although WTE facilities require substantial initial capital investments, they are
cost-competitive with landfills in regions of the country where land and energy
costs are relatively high, such as the Northeast. Higher land costs raise the
cost of landfill disposal, and higher energy prices reduce the net cost of WTE
facilities. Nearly half of all MSW combusted in 1992 took place in WTE
facilities located in the Northeast
There will be only a modest gain in the amount of waste managed by this
market segment in the future for the following reasons: (1) existing facilities
already operate at nearly 85 percent of capacity; (2) the number of new
facilities being planned and constructed has declined significantly from 202
expected in 1988 (as reported by GAA) to 53 expected in 1993; and, (3)
various other factors, such as increasingly higher initial capital investments due
to land and pollution control costs, increased emphasis on recycling and waste
reduction strategies, and public opposition likely will limit potential growth of
this segment
Data Sources and Limitations
The primary source of information for this section is the 1993-94 Resource Recovery
Yearbook: Directory & Guide, published by Government Advisory Associates, Inc. (GAA). This
biennial survey of all WTE facilities located in the United States provides detailed operating data on
each facility, as well as data on use of flow controls. This section relies primarily on the raw data for
each facility, sorted according to parameters necessary for this analysis. Appendix HI-D presents data
used to prepare this section. Where footnoted, several other data sources also were used in preparation
of this section.
D.I OVERVIEW OF GROWTH TRENDS
MSW is combusted in two types of facilities: (1) waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities, which
recover heat from the combustion of waste to produce either steam or electricity; and, (2) incinerators,
which combust waste without energy recovery. Exhibit m-26 illustrates the amount of waste
_
-------
Page m-48
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
EXHIBIT ni-2653
Combustion Market Since 1960: Throughput of Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
Facilities and Incinerators
40
35 h
30
§
ja 25
o
« 20
I
S 15
10
0
Incinerators
WTE
*.«^_ —
0.2
.qg. ?2--- -
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
Year
1985
1990
1 (est.)
1992
combusted in both WTE facilities and incinerators from 1960 to 1992. As this exhibit shows, WTE
facilities have largely replaced the older and now obsolete incinerators. Since WTE is dominant, this
section discusses WTE only.
i
There are three stages of development for WTE facilities (for a complete listing of all WTE
facilities and location by State, see Appendix IH-D):
53 Data on incineration are provided in EPA's Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 1992 Update, EPA. The estimated anlount of waste incinerated without energy
recovery in 1992 (1 million tons) is based on the trenfl line decline in the amount of waste incinerated
as reported in that publication.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-49
Existing. In 1992, there were 145 existing WTE facilities, including 135 that
were operating and 10 that were temporarily shutdown for rebuilding or
retrofitting. The 135 facilities in operation combusted 31.1 million tons of
MSW in 1992. The remaining 10 facilities temporarily shutdown represent a
potential throughput of an additional 0.6 million tons. Six (6) are expected to
come back on-line by 1995.54
Advanced Planned. An "advanced planned" facility is defined as one in
which the sponsors have initiated the permitting process, established
construction schedules, and determined vendors. In 1992, 26 WTE facilities
were advanced planned, of which 5 were under construction.
Conceptually Planned. Twenty-seven (27) facilities were conceptually
planned in 1992. Sponsors of a "conceptually planned" facility have
completed a feasibility study and submitted requests for qualifications and
proposals. These sponsors had not initiated the permitting process as of 1992.
D.2 MARKET SUBSEGMENTS
The 135 operational WTE facilities can be divided into 3 subsegments- based on the type of
technology employed:
1. Mass Burn plants combust unprocessed MSW, with or without removal of
recyclables prior to combustion.
2. Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) plants pre-process the incoming MSW to remove
noncombustibles and prepare a more homogenous fuel product (i.e., RDF).
The refuse usually is shredded to reduce particle size for burning in semi-
suspension or suspension-fired furnaces.5
3. Modular Mass Burn facilities employ 1 or more small-scale combustion units
to process lesser quantities of wastes than the more typical mass burn facilities.
The average existing modular facility has a design capacity of 147 tpd or 15
percent of the design capacity of an average size mass burn facility. 6
The GAA Yearbook notes that 6 facilities are expected to resume operations by 1995, with the
expected start-up date of the other 4 listed as "unknown."
The RDF either is sold to outside customers or burned in a dedicated furnace. Facilities that
sell RDF (and do not combust on site) do not have boilers and/or turbines, which lowers their capital
costs (see Section D.3).
56 Modular facilities usually are pre-fabricated and can be shipped fully assembled or in modules
to a site. In contrast, mass burn facilities typically are custom designed and field-erected.
-------
Page in-50
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Throughput of Market Subsegments
r
Exhibit m-27 illustrates that mass bum facilities accounted for almost two-thirds of WTE
waste throughput in 1992 (20.6 million tons). Modular facilities combusted only 1.5 million tons, and
RDF facilities accounted for 9.0 million tons of total throughput.
EXHIBIT JII-27
Waste-to-Energy Market SubSegments by Throughput
Mass Bum
(20.6)
Modular
(1.5)
Refuse-Derived Fuel
(9.0)
Geographic Distribution of WTE Market Subsegments
Exhibit m-28 shows the distribution of throughput for WTE facilities by 4 geographic regions
of the nation. (Appendix m-D includes a detailed listing of throughput for each State by the 3 market
Subsegments.) As this exhibit indicates, nearly 47 percent of all MSW combusted took place in WTE
facilities located in the Northeast, where land and electricity costs are relatively higher than in other
parts of the nation. In this region, WTE facilities are more likely to be cost-competitive since high
land costs raise the costs of landfills, and high energy prices reduce the net costs of WTE facilities.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-51
EXHIBIT III-2857
Geographic Distribution of Waste-to-Energy Market Subsegments
North east (14.5)
West (2.8)
South (8.9)
Midwest (4.9)
TOTAL = 31.1 million tons
D.3 MARKET SEGMENT COMPETITIVE STRUCTURE
WTE facilities rely on flow controls or long-term contracts to ensure high capacity utilization.
Consistently high utilization is essential for facilities to meet their high debt service costs and achieve
a net cost that is competitive with landfill costs. WTE costs are competitive with modern landfill
costs, especially in the Northeast. However, even though WTE costs are competitive with landfill
costs, WTE tipping fees supported by flow controls generally are higher than landfill tipping fees.
Due to flow control, such WTE tipping fees need not be constrained by competition and often cover
other municipal system costs (e.g., curbside recycling). In contrast, private regional landfills are more
likely to set tipping fees at (lower) levels that recover disposal costs only (including return on
investment), in order to remain competitive. Landfill tipping fees also may be lower due to
Regions with States containing 1 or more WTE facilities are as follows: Northeast Region -
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Vermont; South Region - Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia; Midwest Region - Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin; and West Region - Alaska, California, Hawaii, Montana,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. States that have no existing WTE facilities include:
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky; Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
-------
Page m-52
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
competitive pressures, lower costs (for older landfills), and lack of full cost accounting in the landfill
segment (discussed in Section III.E below). As stated previously, due to data limitations, the Report
does not analyze price-cost relationships in jurisdictions with and without flow control authority. This
section describes the competitive economics of the WTE market, use of flow controls, and level of
tipping fees to assess the role of flow controls for this market segment
Role of Flow Control in WTE Market
Flow controls play a significant "role in the WTE market segment. As Exhibit ni-29 shows,
58 percent of waste throughput is subject to flow controls.
EXHIBIT 1(11-29
Guaranteed Flows of Municipal Solid Waste to Existing Facilities
NuiBlrer of \
KaeifttfeS
61
40
34
10
14S ^
> •Jy^v' < ^ «. '•* v '.•y'"' s
, l^rr^«ar#Bjee.: " ""
„ ; ; „';-' .M-ecfeaal&n: '""-
^^v-XV s- <• f-v, •. s "" i * •. >
Flow Controls
Contract
None
N/A (Temporarily Shutdown)
, "" ll^fJX " /f „ > '4 * f
''>PF
flow control ordinance to ensure that enough waste is Delivered to meet the terms of the contract.
Thus, some of the waste guaranteed by contracts also may be backed by local government use of flow
controls; however, data are not currently available to assess how often this situation occurs. Finally,
only 11 percent of waste received at WTE facilities was not guaranteed.
58 Telephone conversation with Mr. Mark Ryan, formerly Director of Municipal Finance for
Standard & Poor's, and with Ms. Marie Pisecki, Vice President and Manager of the Solid Waste
Group for Moody's (May 12, 1994).
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-53
The types of waste guarantees, if any, used by WTEs differ across the three different types of
WTE facilities. As shown in Exhibit IH-30, most mass bum facilities, are supported by flow controls;
most RDF facilities rely on either flow controls or contracts; most modular facilities do not rely on
flow controls, instead they operate with either contracts or no form of waste guarantee. These
differences mirror differences in average size (measured as throughput) and capital cost for the three
types of WTEs.
EXHIBIT m-30
Use of Waste Guarantees by Type of
Waste-to-Energy Facility Operational in 1992
--
',
Facing
Mass
Bum
W *j
Modular
3*f |
F3
•> .•" ••$•• '"
Fatuities
44
- <•«
6
ft*/
0w CoBtpaJs
^ «jjj^
14,365,752
' MM#&
337,623
^ftSMT'
" :
TataJ i
69.9
38.1 |
22.2
*U|
Wast
-- \ -
»J!Li
15
» j
12
> I
e Guaicaafe'
OmtmA ^
put
5376,367
3,64543?:
593,547
0^SSI
»' """
Total i
26.1
me i
39.0
^!
"" f f **
Eadlftieis,
6
S'
20
34
; j,
Jfeltfeer
,*sr|
826,886
-1^1,159 i
591,327
3^*5,342 I
•,
i;
4.0
2U
38.8
li,0 ^
As shown in Exhibit IE-SI, average facility throughput for the 61 WTE's with flow controls is
three times the average throughput of the 34 WTE facilities without guarantees. Publicly-owned and
operated facilities have both the smallest average throughput and the lowest level (i.e., 2.4 million tons
out of 4.7 million tons or about 50 percent) of flow control support. In general, the throughput of
privately owned and/or operated facilities averages almost three times the throughput of publicly
owned and operated WTEs. Facilities owned and operated by the private sector and lacking the
support of flow controls or contracts are among the smallest WTEs, in terms of average throughput;
however, over 97 percent of the throughput of WTEs owned and operated by the private sector has the
support of either flow controls or contracts.
-------
Page m-54
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
EXHIBIT tn-3i
Waste-to-Energy Ownership and Use of Flow Controls
Privately
Owned and
Operated
Privately
.Operate^
Publicly
Owned
Publicly
Owned and
Operated
Total
Flow Control
, S I,;
\< f ;•
'1~' A-:
v#
23
,& \
15
•• v,
6i -i
•> ^-v :
";-^ Total,..,; !
'vTtecagi^,%;
JS^yl
8,843,776
(384,512)
^r-x^Z" i
^fsa^&r i
" x ¥S/ttftt •>fi3?\ >:
v S-. •.'•T;*'**''^1?"**'^^ ;
"* "" ^\$'^#i$$j?ty' '>£•'•;£' \
2,356,588
(157,106)
^ <, »• ••?," s-w :
^^1^98Sv;-,-
*'A4/--\:
"\\-tt- ,' /•• :
Contract
5
\
'- •»
•. V
27
vg-"-
ss %v.^
s %<*••"
7
A ^.
\f!,
^ (iji%
„ 1?eto |
TitraogiipufE ;
|a*6i^gej "I
7,083,744
(262,361)
' "" , J' '•
'~,^mjm \
,''"• |
439,385
(62,769)
;'-^64i5Si '}
"(24J»J.50) ;
Neither
»
8
5 %
21
34 ;
Total ',
1flBf»UgNpB:l
,
430,364
(53,796)
^0-414 -
$OQ£23?
V
1,888,884
(89,947)
' 3319,342'
' (??,62$> ,
Total
# .
58
'34
43
J35
.fetel
Throaghput ,
l^r^e)
f..'..
16,357,884
(282,032)
<2.95^52|-
4,684,857
(108,950)
51,694,901
' '{Ss^aD
Data indicate that WTEs supported by flow controls are more likely to have greater throughput
than WTEs not supported by flow controls. The association between the capital costs of WTE
facilities and use of flow controls is similarly strong. WTEs supported by flow controls generally
have higher mean and median capital costs, regardless of facility type (mass burn, RDF, or modular).
Facilities supported by neither flow controls nor contracts generally have lower capital costs. (See
Exhibits m-D.7 and ffl-D.8 in Appendix ni-D.) Because of the large capital costs, financing is
important; the better the terms, the lower the resulting net operating costs, due to reduced debt service
costs.
Individuals with Standard & Poor's (S&P) and Moody's estimate that WTE facilities account
for 50 percent ($12 billion) of the total dollar volume of outstanding solid waste bonds, both general
obligation and revenue bonds.59 Moody's and S&P view flow controls as a positive rating factor
but also state that flow controls are only one factor in the rating of solid waste bonds. Moody's states
59 Telephone conversations with Mr. Mark Ryan,; formerly Director of Municipal Finance for
Standard & Poor's, and Ms. Marie Pisecki, Vice President and Manager of the Solid Waste Group at
Moody's (May 12, 1994).
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS Page 111-55
that its "ratings are not based solely on legal structures; factors involving comparative efficiency and
cost effectiveness are taken into account."60 S&P notes that:
"While important, legal waste flow control is not a requirement for receiving a rating.
It is not necessarily even a requirement for receiving a high rating. If a system can
provide solid waste disposal at a cost level below the surrounding market, the
incentive for a hauler to avoid the system is eliminated. The more competitive the
rate, the higher the rating the system's debt is likely to enjoy."61
In sum, this is one market segment in which existing market conditions reflect a high use of
flow controls and other mechanisms to guarantee waste flows particularly for larger capacity facilities.
Competitive Economics
Mass bum and RDF facilities have total capital costs that are an order of magnitude larger
than the capital costs of modular facilities; however, because of their greater throughput, the former's
capital costs per ton, and resulting debt service costs, are competitive with modular facilities. For each
market subsegment, Exhibit ffl-32 lists the weighted average costs of operation and maintenance
(O&M), debt service, and ash disposal, as well as revenues from the sale of electricity and net cost per
ton of throughput.
Mass burn facilities operate at the lowest net cost, $38 per ton of throughput Even though
these facilities have the highest debt service cost, $30 per ton, they have relatively low costs of O&M
per ton. Because they are smaller than mass burn facilities and cannot achieve similar economies of
scale, modular facilities have higher O&M costs. O&M costs at RDF facilities also are high because,
unlike mass burn facilities, they separate incoming waste and process it into a fuel for combustion.
It is important to note that debt service costs listed in Exhibit ni-32 account for more than 60
percent of net WTE cost (79 percent at mass-burn facilities). This is one reason why many WTE
60 "Solid Waste Flow Control Ordinances," Perspective on Solid Waste, Moody's Public Finance,
Octobers, 1993.
61 "Courts Complicate Solid Waste Financings," Standard and Poor's Creditweek Municipal,
November 9, 1992.
-------
Page in-56
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
EXHIBIT III-3262
Average Costs and Revenues of Waste-to-Energy Market Subsegments
S
.
tielrt Service
Asfe- Disposal
N^. Cost
Mass Bum
24
30
10
26
38
Modular
RDF
32
28
11
26
45
facilities rely on flow controls or long-term contracts: to guarantee enough waste to spread their fixed
costs of debt service and lower their net costs per ton.
The costs in Exhibit ffl-32 do not include facility siting cost, contingency cost (e.g., the costs
incurred during a temporary shutdown), or profit. When these factors are considered, WTE costs are
likely to be similar to modem landfill costs, although posts will vary due to location-specific factors.
S&P and Moody's agree that most WTE facilities could compete with landfills on the basis of net
operating costs.
Tipping Fees
Although WTEs appear competitive with landfills on the basis of net operating costs, reported
tipping fees at WTE facilities in several major WTE States are substantially higher than tipping fees at
landfills in those same States. BioCycle's 1993 survey of MSW generation and management lists
average tipping fees charged by landfills and WTE facilities in States that reported this
information.63 For major WTE States that reported tipping fees for both landfills and WTE
facilities, the average tipping fees charged are listed irl Exhibit EI-33. Average WTE tipping fees for
62 This exhibit includes all 135 operating facilities and the 10 facilities temporarily shutdown.
Costs may vary depending on the efficiency of the facility, debt service arrangement (e.g., interest
rate), and location (e.g., costs for ash disposal). Electricity sale revenues may vary depending on
location, contractual arrangement with end user, and the amount of electricity generated per ton of
waste throughput. Exhibit DI-25 reflects an average revenue of approximately 5.5 cents/kwh, which
varies considerably across regions of the country (e.g., 3.2 cents/kwh in the South to 6.8 cents/kwh in
the Northeast).
63 "The State of Garbage in America," BioCycle, May 1993.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page IIJ-57
these States, with the exception of
Massachusetts, are higher than the average
tipping fees at landfills in these States. This
tipping fee differential is consistent with the
inference that, because their waste flows are
guaranteed, WTE facilities are more likely
to charge higher prices to cover other
municipal system costs, whereas competition
will limit the ability of private landfills to
recover amounts greatly in excess of costs.
It is worth noting that the tipping fees at
landfills in most of these major WTE States
are already much higher than landfill tipping
fees in the other 43 States.
EXHIBIT 111-33
Tipping Fees: Landfills Versus
Waste-to-Energy Facilities (WTE)
($/ton)
--
, S-tefe
.<
Connecticut
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
New York
Virginia
'£3?
"TlppJng
F*E
65
43
65
50
74
62
25
wm
TIpjHfeg
Ifee i
74
49
65
84
93
75
' 35
difference
+9
+6
0
+34
+19
+13
+10
The financial community has
confirmed as common practice that tipping
fees at many WTE facilities (and some municipal landfills) are used by local governments to recover
the costs of other integrated waste management activities, such as collection and disposal of household
hazardous waste, closure and remediation of older landfills, and recycling programs:64
"The fee structure at most municipal systems [e.g., WTE facilities and municipal landfills]
covers other costs in addition to disposal, such as recycling programs and transfer stations. In
contrast, charges at private landfills cover only disposal costs. When the tipping fee is broken
down into its component parts, prices are usually comparable for facilities sited in similar
locations and built about the same time."65
64
Telephone conversations with Mr. Mark Ryan, Director of Municipal Finance for Standard &
Poor's, and Ms. Marie Pisecki, Vice President and Manager of Solid Waste Group at Moody's (May
12, 1994.)
65
Moody's Public Finance, Perspective on Solid Waste, August 16,1993, page 3.
-------
Page in-58
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Public/Private Infrastructure
Exhibit IH-34 shows WTE throughput by ownership status. In this market segment the
distinction between publicly- and privately-owned facilities alone does not necessarily determine
whether a facility is more likely to be supported by flow controls.
EXHIBIT ni-34
Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Ownership Status and Throughput
WTE Ownership
WTE
Throughput
Privately owned and operated
i
Publicly owned and privately operated
Publicly owned and operated
52%
32%
16%
100%
It is noteworthy that the private sector has an ownership or operational role for 84 percent of WTE
throughput, including most of the larger WTEs. As noted above in connection with the discussion of
Exhibit HI-SI, WTE throughput for these facilities averages nearly three times the amount of the
.throughput at facilities owned and operated exclusively by the public sector. The involvement of the
private sector has been critical to the growth of this market. Conversely, the public sector has an
ownership stake in 48 percent of WTE throughput. Sbme of the largest WTE facilities represent
public-private partnerships. Without the involvement and support of the public sector, this market
segment would be much smaller.
D.4 MARKET SEGMENT POTENTIAL
[
Between 1980 and 1990 the amount of MSW jcombusted in WTE facilities increased ten-fold.
Recent trends indicate that the WTE market segment will continue to grow but not at the rate
experienced in the 1980s. The reasons for this limited rate of growth are discussed below.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page IH-59
Existing Facilities
Exhibit III-35 indicates that the
average ton per day capacity of
operating facilities is 742 tons, while
the average throughput per day is 630
tons. As a result, the average facility
is operating at 84.9 percent of capacity.
In addition, the average facility is
operating 6.5 days per week or 338
days per year. This high capacity
utilization rate means that potential
growth resulting from higher utilization
of operating facilities is limited.
EXHIBIT 111-35
Waste-to-Energy Market Subsegment Capacity
and Utilization Rate
Subsegmeot
Mass Bum
Modular
RDF
W«$gtrted A wage ..
Capadly ;
(*P<$ :
983
147
1,035
742 ,;
Ttewgfepnt ;
%<9 i
848
123
855
630 _ i
U8IIza«oa
(percen^ "
86.3
83.7
82.6
,84.9- '
As of 1992, 10 facilities were temporarily shutdown for rebuilding or retrofitting. These 10
facilities together represent 0.6 million tons of additional annual throughput. Six (6) of these facilities
are expected to come on-line by 1995, while the re-start date for the other 4 is unknown.
New Facilities
The number of new facilities being planned and coming on-line has decreased in recent years,
further suggesting that future growth will not keep pace with the growth experienced since 1980.
Exhibit 111-36 shows the number of facilities that were reported as conceptually planned and advanced
planned in Government Advisory Associate, Inc. (GAA) surveys from 1986 to 1993. For example, in
1988, GAA found that 139 facilities were in the conceptual planning stages of development, and 63
facilities were advanced planned. By 1993, however, GAA found only 27 conceptual and 26 advanced
planned facilities.
This decrease in the number of conceptual and advanced planned facilities has affected the
number of new facilities coming on-line. The number of new facilities coming on-line peaked in
1988. For example, in the four years prior to 1988, 60 new WTE facilities came on-line; while in the
4 years following 1988, only 41 new facilities came on-line.
-------
Page m-60
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
EXHIBIT III-36
Number of Conceptually Planned and Advanced Planned/Under Construction Facilities
1986 to 1993
140
120
»100
.§
1 8°
u.
I 60
^ 40
20
1986
1988 1991
Report Year for GAA Surveys
1993
Another indicator of diminished growth in future capacity from new WTE facilities is the
number of facilities under construction. In its survey* GAA found only 5 facilities in 1992 under
construction: three in the Northeast, one in the South, and one in the West. Four (4) of these
facilities are expected to come on-line by 1995, with |the fifth scheduled to come on-line by 2000.
Together, these five facilities would add approximately 1.6 million tons of annual throughput.
Should the 10 facilities temporarily shut down (discussed above) and the 5 facilities under
construction all come on-line by 2000 as planned, 2.2 million tons of throughput will be added to the
existing throughput of 31.1 million tons, an increase of seven percent. The remaining 21 facilities that
are advanced planned (but not under construction) could add up to an additional 6.5 million tons of
throughput. However, GAA data indicate that many ladvanced planned projects have been abandoned
in recent years prior to beginning construction. Therefore, it is uncertain whether facilities not actually
under construction will ever come on-line.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-61
Other Factors Inhibiting Future Growth Rates
Other factors occurring both inside and outside the market may limit future growth in WTE
throughput, for example:
High capital investment. Relative to the other market segments, WTE
facilities require a substantial initial capital investment. The average capital
investment for planned facilities is approximately $136 million, which is much
greater than the original capital investment for existing WTE facilities. Even
high technology MRFs require capital of no more than $7 million, on average;
capital costs of landfills can be spread out over time as cells are opened and
closed.
Increased emphasis on recycling, composting, and waste reduction
strategies. Recycling and composting rates have increased significantly in
recent years as many State and local governments attempt to reach recycling
goals. Increased recycling and composting, as well as source reduction,
decrease the amount of waste available for combustion in WTE facilities.
Landfill competition. Price competition from landfills has left many WTE
facilities at a relative price disadvantage. Solid Waste Price Digest
(November, 1992), for example, estimates that the average price of disposal at
a landfill is $28 per ton versus $56 per ton at WTE facilities. (These estimates
are similar to those reported in BioCycle, May 1993). Competition for waste
can be seen in the tipping fees charged by WTE facilities for local waste
versus waste brought in from outside of the area of operation. For example, in
Broward County, Florida, the tipping fee for local waste is $55 per ton, while
the fee for outside waste is $42 per ton. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
charges $63.50 per ton for local waste, but $41 per ton for outside waste.
Both localities use flow controls to guarantee local waste inflows at higher
tipping fees.66
Public opposition. In the past 5 years, Massachusetts, Florida, and New
Jersey (all States with significant amounts of existing WTE capacity) placed
temporary moratoria on new WTE development This led to a general
decrease in the number of planned WTE facilities, as well as increases in the
number of cancelled and delayed projects.67
The combination of high capital costs, competition from other market segments, and political
uncertainties are likely to limit the growth of this market segment in future years.
66
"Fading Garbage Crisis Leaves Incinerators Competing for Trash," The Wall Street Journal,
Jeff Bailey, August 11, 1993.
67
GAA Yearbook, 1993-94.
-------
Page m-62
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
E. LANDFILL MARKET SEGMENT
Key Findings
The number of municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) has declined rapidly
since 1988, although estimated total landfill capacity has not shown this same
decline. On a national basis, very small landfills account for most landfill
closings, and large, regional landfill openings and expansions have offset this
lost capacity.
Large private landfills account for approximately 30 percent of the landfill
market segment, smaller private landfills are estimated to account for 25
percent, and government-owned landfills are estimated to account for 45
percent of this market segment.
No evidence was found that flow controls have played a significant role in
financing new landfills or landfill expansions. Private firms have demonstrated
their ability to raise substantial capital! from publicly-issued equity offerings,
indicating that investors have been willing to provide capital for the expansion
of landfill capacity in response to a perceived market demand for this segment
and its cost-competitiveness. :
Modem landfills are more cost-competitive when designed for large-scale
operations receiving 750 tons per dayior more. The cost for such large
landfills is approximately $40 to $50 per ton. Smaller, older landfills
generally charge lower tipping fees at present, due to lower historical landfill
costs, including land acquisition costs. New landfills incur higher land
acquisition costs and regulatory costs.
Anticipated growth in composting an4 recycling, modest growth in WTE, and
increased source reduction efforts likely will result in a continuing decline in
the share of waste received at MSW landfills. However, the nation will
continue to rely on landfills as a component of integrated solid waste
management for the foreseeable future.
Data Limitations
Available data on the total number of landfills are not entirely consistent. In addition, there
are no systematic data on the total amount of remaining landfill capacity; however, available reports
over recent years indicate that remaining national landfill capacity has not been significantly reduced
by the closing of many small landfills.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-63
Quantitative data on the role of flow controls in this market segment also are unavailable.
However, indirect evidence indicates that flow controls are not a major factor in this market segment.
For example, private firms have demonstrated their ability to raise capital from publicly-issued equity
offerings, indicating that investors are willing to provide capital for capacity expansion on a general
nationwide basis (e.g., without site-specific flow control guarantees). Also, financial experts68
familiar with publicly-issued solid waste bonds have indicated that flow controls are not as significant
in the financing of landfills as they are for WTE facilities because of the much greater amounts of
upfront capital required for WTEs.
E.1 OVERVIEW OF GROWTH TRENDS
Landfills have long been the dominant segment of the MSW management market. Although
the majority of waste still is managed in landfills, recent growth in all of the other segments (i.e.,
recycling, composting, and WTE) slowly has eroded the landfill segment's market share. In 1992,
landfills managed approximately 211 million tons of MSW and non-MSW (see Appendix III-E).
Number of Landfills
Several sources have estimated the number of MSW landfills in the U.S. Exhibit D3-37 charts
estimates from four different sources: National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA),
BioCycle, EPA, and the Government Accounting Office (GAO). The differing estimates from these
sources can be explained in part by continuous landfill closures and openings; changing State
definitions of landfills (e.g., revisions to exclude open dumps, inclusion of C&D or industrial
landfills); different survey mechanisms; or lack of formal tracking mechanisms in some States.
Although the estimates tend to vary (with annual discrepancies among sources ranging from
100 to over 1,000 landfills), all estimates indicate a substantial, constant decline in the number of
landfills over the past decade. For example, BioCycle reported 8,000 landfills nationwide in 1988; five
years later, nearly 50 percent of these landfills were closed. Two main reasons for this decline are:
(1) facilities reaching capacity and closing; or (2) facilities closing due to failure to meet
environmental standards. For instance, to avoid new RCRA Subtitle D regulations mandating stricter
liner and site management standards (although not fully implemented as yet), over 900 landfills are
68
Mr. Mark Ryan, Standard & Poor's, and Mr. Michael Decker, Public Securities Association.
-------
Page m-64
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
EXHIBIT HI-37
Estimated Number of U.S. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
9,000
8,000
o 7,000
•3
z
§ 6,000
5,000
4,000
7,220
1936
.4,482
1987
1988
1989 1990
Year
1991
1992
1993
believed to have closed between 1992 and 1993 alone, according to BioCycle.69 Moreover, this
observation is consistent across the nation, as 36 States reported a decline in the number of landfills in
1993.
Landfill Capacity \
In the 1980s, the landfill capacity situation oftpn was characterized as a disposal crisis. The
substantial decline in the total number of landfills, however, has not significantly affected total landfill
capacity. Exhibit HI-38 presents the results of two surveys conducted by NSWMA. In 1986,
NSWMA identified eight States with less than five years of remaining landfill capacity. The 1991
NSWMA survey, however, found that five of these States were still reporting less than five years of
remaining capacity, two were reporting five to 10 years of capacity, and one was reporting more than
10 years of capacity. Also, two States, reporting five to 10 years of remaining capacity in 1986,
reported more than 10 years remaining capacity in 199^1. These data show that some combination of
expanded landfill capacity and growth in other market segments, causing a decrease in demand for
69 Robert Steuteville, "The State of Garbage in America," BioCycle, May 1994.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-65
landfill capacity, has either stabilized or
increased remaining capacity in States that had
reported imminent shortfalls in 1986.
BioCyde's surveys of remaining
capacity in 21 States conducted in 1990 and
1993 found that, although the number of
landfills declined between those years, capacity
in these States actually increased by 68 percent
from 9.5 years to 16 years. Only two (Indiana
and Missouri) of the 21 States showed a net
decline in remaining capacity. More
significantly, all reporting States showed
increases in recycling and composting, which
closely corresponded to increased or stabilized
landfill capacity over this period. (See
Appendix in-E for more detail on this
comparison.)
EXHIBIT m-38
Estimated Remaining Landfill Capacity
In Selected States
Status to imt
sm«s ft i$#i
<5 years remaining
Connecticut
Kentucky
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Connecticut
Kentucky
New Jersey
Virginia
West Virginia
5 to 10 years remaining
Colorado
Oklahoma
Massachusetts
Ohio
>10 years remaining
Colorado
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Source: NSWMA, "Landfill Capacity in North America: 1991
Update"
Another NSWMA study (summarized in
Exhibit 111-39) compares the change in the
number of landfills with remaining capacity in 8 States. This study found that the decline in the
number of landfills did not result in a decline in capacity; rather, capacity increased in many of the
States. This increase in capacity is due to the fact that newer and expanded facilities are much larger
in size than facilities that are closing.
A review of the largest private companies in the industry confirms this general trend toward
opening large new landfills, expanding existing facilities, and acquiring smaller facilities with
expansion potential, for example:
-------
Page in-66
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
EXHIBIT IH-39
State Estimates for Landfill Closings, Openings, and Expansions
1986-1991
State
"' Capaeity
California
46
[Unknown
(41)
Delaware
0
Massachusetts
43
72
(40)
0.4
Nevada
New Hampshire
22
(17)
0.03*
Rhode Island ,
••'V- fi , ,1
,y, "'•.;
Texas
191
60
29
(131)
n/a
Wiscoaslo , * -'
Source: "LandfiU Capacity in North America: 1991 Update," 1992; NSWMA; * Volume in tons per year, rather than total
tonnage.
Waste Management Services reported in 1992 that it was developing 30 new
sites and expanding approximately 50 other sites.70
In 1992, Mid-American Waste Systems obtained permits to expand 8 facilities
and was seeking permits to expand another 9. The company reported a
projected expansion of more than 100, million tons of landfill space.
71
Chambers Development Company reported in 1992 that it was opening 3 new
landfills, expanding operations at 2 sites, and beginning development for
several others.72
70 Waste Management Services, Inc., 1992 Annual Report, page 23.
71 Securities and Exchange Commission, Form 10K, Mid-American Waste Systems, 1992, page
13.
72 Securities and Exchange Commission, Form 10K, Chambers Development Company, Inc.,
1992, pages 6,7. ;
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-67
Sanifill reported in 1992 that it replaced more than 5 times the amount of
landfill space it used and achieved an additional 21 percent expansion hi
permitted capacity.73
The continuing expansion of landfill capacity by large waste management firms indicates that these
firms will account for an increasing share of the landfill market segment.
E.2 MARKET SUBSEGMENTS
MSW landfills existing in 1992 can be classified in 3 categories:
Large private landfills owned by publicly-held companies. The landfills
generally range from 500 to 1,500 tons per day capacity, with a few facilities
having capacities greater than 2,000 tons per day. Landfills owned by large,
publicly-held corporations accounted for 30 percent of the landfill market
segment, based on EPA's analysis of available data on MSW landfill capacity
for 13 large waste management firms (see Appendix ni-E).
Smaller, independently-owned private landfills. These landfills tend to have
less than 500 tons per day capacity and probably have an average disposal rate
of less than 100 tons per day.
Government-owned landfills. These facilities generally have less than 500
tons per day capacity and probably have an average disposal rate of less than
100 tons per day.
There are no verifiable data on the amount of waste managed by small private landfills and
government landfills, but one large waste management firm estimated that large firms account for 30
percent of landfill revenues, small firms 25 percent, and government landfills 45 percent74 The 30
percent revenue estimate for large firms is consistent with EPA's analysis of the share of landfilled
waste managed by large firms. In general, landfill revenue share should be proportional to the share
of waste received, because tipping fees produce revenues on a dollar per ton basis. Therefore, in the
absence of more definitive data, EPA estimates that large firms account for 30 percent of the landfill
market; small firms, 25 percent; and government landfills, 45 percent.
73 Sanifill 1992 Annual Report, page 8.
74 Sanifill 1992 Annual Report, Page 8. Sanifill cites "EPA estimates," but does not indicate
where these estimates were found.
-------
Page m-68
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Also, there is no available data detailing the number of large and small government-owned
landfills. However, EPA's review of landfill disposal in 14 States (see Appendix III-E) found that
large landfills have the capacity, on average, to disposfe of 41 percent of all waste landfilled in these
States. If all large landfills account for 41 percent of this market segment, and large private landfills
account for 30 percent of the market, then large goverbment-owned landfills must account for the
remaining 11 percent of the landfill market. If all government landfills account for 45 percent of this
market segment, and large government landfills account for 11 percent, then small government
landfills must account for 34 percent. Exhibit ffl-40 presents landfill market share estimates based on
this analysis of limited available data.
EXHIBIT DI-40
Landfill Market Share
Large Private:
30 percent
Large Government:
11 percent
Small Government:
34 percent
E3 MARKET SEGMENT COMPETITIVE STRUCTURE
This section discusses the competitive economics of the landfill market, capital requirements
and scale of operations, the availability of investment; capital, and the role of flow controls in
guaranteeing waste for landfills.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page IU-69
Competitive Economics
Financial reports from large waste management firms indicate that the landfill market segment
has been highly competitive in recent years. For example, one company reported experiencing intense
price competition largely due to the rapid use of existing capacity by many older landfills seeking to
fill capacity and close rather than comply with EPA revised MSWLF criteria,75 Another firm noted
that the recession caused some competitors to accept lower profit margins to maintain market
share. Another source noted that the continued decline in disposal rates, coupled with increases in
capacity within the industry, could result in "further softening of disposal rates ... and increased
competitive pressure."77 Finally, independent financial analysts confirm that waste minimization and
recycling ". . . are altering the supply-demand side of the landfill business. This situation has
intensified competitive price pressures."78
Capital Requirements and Scale of Operations
Although estimates vary depending on location and facility type, landfill development and
expansion involves substantial capital requirements. For example, one company estimated that start-up
costs, including site preparation, excavation, and installation for a liner system at the base elevation,
require significant capital expenditures - often exceeding $200,000 per acre.79 However, unlike
WTE facilities, landfills do not incur all of their capital costs "upfront" before any waste is received.
Large landfills operate in cells (i.e., opening one section of the landfill as another section is closed),
allowing some capital expenditures to be incurred over the life of the entire landfill.
Exhibit m-41 shows that there are substantial economies of scale associated with the
development and operation of modern landfills ranging from 100 to 1,500 tons per day. Although
multiple factors cause costs to vary, Exhibit ffl-41 provides an example of the costs for modem
75 Securities and Exchange Commission, Form 10K, Chambers Development Company, Inc.,
1992, page 9.
Securities and Exchange Commission, Form 10K, Browning-Ferris Industries, 1993, page 14.
77 American Waste Services 1992 Annual Report, page 16.
78 Value Line, March 25, 1994, p. 339.
79 Chambers Development Company, Inc., 1991 Annual Report, page 3.
-------
Page m-70
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
EXHIBIT HI-41
Economies of Scale at Landfills
160
140
120
c
£ 100
£
I-
0
60
40
•$144
20
100 250
500
750 . 1000
Tons Per Day (tpd)
Source Kr 100 tpd. •WlHsAg*.- M«reh1991;For2SO-1SOOtpd.NSWWA.
1250
1500
landfills. These costs reflect site development, operating costs, closure and post-closure care costs for
meeting EPA revised MSWLF criteria, as well as profit and corporate overhead costs.
As shown in Exhibit DI-41, landfills with capacity less than 250 tons per day cost twice as
much per ton as those facilities with capacity of 750 tyns per day. The cost triples for 100 ton per
day facilities. The economies of scale begin to level dut for facilities between 750 and 1,500 tons per
day.
The economies of scale realized by regional landfills may encourage some amount of inter-
State and intra-State waste transport. This does not mfean that a few, extremely large landfills will
dominate this market segment in the future. Because additional economies of scale are minimal for
F
facilities exceeding 750 tons per day, transportation costs and transfer facility costs would eventually
so
render long-distance waste hauling non-competitive. u, Therefore, it appears that landfills with
capacity between 500 and 1,500 tons per day will reniain competitive in the waste disposal sector.
80 One source provides a rough estimate of $4 per ton for transfer facility costs, and $4 and $7
per ton for every 100 miles for rail and truck hauling,:respectively. Konheim and Ketcham,
"Exporting Waste: A Report on Locations, Quantities,land Costs of Out-of-City/State Disposal of New
York City Commercial Waste," April 1991.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-71
The economies of scale demonstrated above support the conclusion that regional (often
privately owned and operated) landfills potentially are more cost-effective for small communities than
smaller, closer landfills. Other analyses have found that regional landfills use land more efficiently,
lowering the risk of adverse environmental impacts, and are supported by a larger tax base than local
landfills; private companies also are able to buy materials and equipment in bulk at lower cost.81
Tipping Fees
Exhibit 111-42 compares tipping fees of
larger landfills (greater than 500 ton per day
capacity) with those of all landfills. Although
the previous sections demonstrate economies of
scale for larger landfills, tipping fees nationwide
are slightly higher for larger landfills than for all
landfills. This is likely due to the fact that large
landfills tend to be newer and designed to
spread the fixed costs of new environmental
requirements. Small landfills, on the other hand,
tend to be older, having been established when
the lack of rigorous environmental requirements
encouraged small towns to have their own
landfills to minimize waste transport costs.
Many older landfills have lower tipping fees,
which do not recover their full costs of
EXHIBIT HI-42
Comparison of 1992 Tipping Fees at Large
Facilities and All Facilities
($/ton)
,;./1i:egi0it ;
Northeast
South
MidWest
West
,,-;>, J&ttaaalj
l^ir^rFaeStefes \
frSDfrtfflQ j
59.81
25.34
26.92
28.58
~r %£* % !
All
i?»dili*le$
51.63
22.71
23.13
23.45
»*
Sources: Larger facility fees from Solid Waste Digest, October
1992; all facility fees reported in "The State of Garbage in
America," BioCycle, May 1993.
operation; for example, they may not cover costs such as proper closure and post-closure care. Also,
older landfills have lower costs due to lower historical land acquisition and site development costs
compared to newer landfills. Finally, some older landfills facing imminent closure have lowered
tipping fees in order to attract customers and use up remaining capacity.
81 James Powell, "Regionalization of Landfills: A Solution for 21st Century Solid Waste
Disposal," Florida League of Cities, January 1993.
-------
Page m-72
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Flow Controls
Although quantitative data on the use of flow controls in the landfill segment are unavailable,
the private sector has demonstrated its ability to raise iiivestment capital through issuance of common
stock to expand landfill capacity nationwide without site-specific flow control guarantees. Public stock
offerings raised substantial equity capital for both well-established and relatively new landfill disposal
firms in recent years. This ability to raise capital quickly in response to the closure of many small
landfills allowed the private sector to significantly expand its share of the landfill market segment.
An examination of recent (1990-92)
financing activities of major publicly-held firms
in the industry documents substantial cash flows
raised through issuance of common stock.
Exhibit ni-43 shows the nearly $1.25 billion
equity capital raised by selected landfill
companies. These landfill firms also raised
substantial capital through debt issues and
retained earnings. Companies have been able to
raise this investment capital on the basis of their
general business acumen and prospects, not on
the basis of specific proposed developments
supported by flow controls.
Financial experts familiar with municipal
solid waste bonds also have stated that flow
controls are not as significant in the financing of
landfills as they are for WTE facilities.82
EXHIBIT 111-43
Equity Raised Through Issuance of
Common Stock ($ million)
/Company
American
Chambers
Eastern
Laidlaw
Mid-American
Republic
Sanifill
USA
Western
, ". ,,%KfeI
|9SB
60.2*-
5.3
448.8
75.5*
13.5*
9.6*
4.2
27.9
6&&
mi '
0.2
164.7
10.7
42.2
93.4
30.5
2.0
2.8
1.0
34?,S ,
$992
0.5
0
217.2
20.6
11.5
0
1.3
,451.1
* Year of initial public offering.
Information obtained through company 10K reports filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
82 Telephone conversations with Mr. Mark Ryan, [formerly Director of Municipal Finance for
Standard & Poor's, and Mr. Michael Decker, Director jof Policy Analysis at the Public Securities
Association (May 13, 1994).
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-73
Furthermore, municipal waste contracts cited in Solid Waste Digest and Value Line*3 report major
landfill contracts with 6 and 3-year terms, as opposed to the 20-year commitments common in the
WTE segment. Landfills can operate under shorter term contracts, because they incur many fixed
costs in increments as they open new cells. WTE facilities, by contrast, must operate at high
utilization rates over 20 years to spread the cost of large up-front capital investments.
E.4 MARKET SEGMENT POTENTIAL
As discussed above, the landfill market segment share has shrunk over the past decade. The
continued growth projected in the recycling segment and potentially dramatic growth in composting
will continue to erode the landfill market segment share. Although growth in the WTE segment is
slowing, this segment is not expected to drop the way that landfills have. Also, the relatively high
capital costs (and debt service needs) of WTE facilities mean that these facilities are likely to "bid"
aggressively for new garbage to maintain capacity utilization (and energy output), forcing landfills to
absorb market losses to recycling and composting. This reduced flow of waste to landfills will be
compounded each year and could result in a significant extension in the operating life and remaining
capacity at existing landfills.
Also, there is significant growth potential for the recycling and composting of non-MSW that
competes for management capacity at MSW landfills. For example, regional data indicate that 6 New
England States increased their sewage sludge composting from 150 dry tons per day in 1990 to 250
dry tons per day in 1993.84 The State of New York reported that sludge composting increased from
24,715 tons in 1991 to 85,783 tons in 1992. Further expansion of sewage sludge composting will
reduce the amount of sewage sludge received by MSW landfills, extending landfill capacity.
In addition, it is technically possible to recycle a large amount of C&D wastes, and one expert
estimates that 90 percent of C&D wastes could be recycled.85 Available information reveals that a
growing number of facilities throughout the country are processing C&D wastes for recycling. One
_
83 Value Line, March 25, 1994, p. 343 and Solid Waste Digest, September 1993, p. 3.
84 "Compost Marketing in New England," BioCycle, August 1993.
85 Gershmann, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., (GBB), "Construction Waste and Demolition Debris
Recycling ... A Primer - Draft," June 30, 1992.
-------
Page in-74
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
source estimates approximately 150 facilities nationwide,86 while another estimates 58 facilities in
the Northeast alone.87 Further expansion of C&D recycling could significantly reduce C&D waste
disposal at MSW landfills, thus extending available MSW landfill capacity.
Although the landfill market segment will continue to shrink, MSW landfills are a necessary
component of any MSW management system. Recycling and composting can divert a significant
portion of MSW from landfills, but not all MSW is recyclable or compostable. Likewise, although
WTE technologies can reduce the volume of MSW, all WTE facilities produce residual ash that must
be landfilled. Finally, modern landfills are cost-competitive with WTE facilities and in some areas of
the country may be more cost-effective for consumers.
F.
ANALYSIS OF KEY ISSUES IN FLOW CONTROL DEBATE
EPA's analysis of the MSW facility market and its use of flow controls supports the following
findings on issues raised by Congress:
Findings
4 Flow controls play a limited role in the soliil waste market as a whole. Flow controls
are not typically utilized by landfills or composting facilities. Less than 3 percent of the
recycling market is subject to flow controls; however, approximately 19 percent of the
materials handled by existing MRF-based recycling programs is supported by flow
controls. Flow controls play the largest role in the waste-to-energy market where at
least 58 percent of the throughput is supported by flow controls.
4 Although flow controls have provided an administratively efficient mechanism for local
governments to plan for and fund their solid waste management systems, there are
alternatives. Implementation of these alternatives by communities currently relying on
flow controls may be disruptive and take time.
f
4 Accordingly, there are no data showing that flow controls are essential either for the
development of new solid waste capacity or for the long term achievement of State and
local goals for source reduction, reuse and recycling.
86 Robert Brickner, Gershmann, Brickner, and Bratton, August 1993.
87 C.T. Donovan Associates, Inc., "Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste in Rhode
Wand," December 1992.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page IU-75
Evaluation of the four MSW market segments indicates that sufficient capacity exists on a
national basis to manage the waste stream. Recycling and composting rates have increased
substantially in recent years; WTE has grown, then leveled off; and landfill capacity has been extended
due to increased recycling/composting efforts and landfill bans. This analysis also reveals that flow
controls play a limited role in the solid waste management market as a whole. Only a small
percentage of the waste managed by the composting, recycling, and landfill market segments is
affected by flow controls. The MRF segment, currently handling 5.7 million tons of MSW, is the only
one of these segments making any significant use of flow controls: about 13 percent of MRFs (with
over 1 million tons of throughput) are supported by flow controls. Flow control has been used more
extensively for MRFs that require substantial capital investment, with over 32 percent of the
throughput of high technology facilities being flow controlled. The WTE market segment, accounting
for 31 million tons of the 292 million ton MSW facility market, is the segment where flow controls
play the largest role; a minimum of 58 percent (i.e., 18 million tons) of WTE throughput is supported
by flow controls.
Adequate MSW management capacity, along with the increase in recycling and composting
rates, results from competitive waste management markets that are increasingly intertwined with other
dynamic markets (i.e., energy, recycled materials, paper, compost). Over recent years, unforeseen
market developments repeatedly have altered the competitive position of different market segments and
subsegments. Recent and ongoing changes in waste management market segments include the
following examples:
In the early 1980s, rising energy prices and concern about the risks of land
disposal appeared to offer unlimited potential to the WTE segment of the
waste management market; but the explosive growth in new WTE facilities
coming online between 1985 and 1990 coincided with an unanticipated plunge
in world energy prices and increasing public concerns about the risks of waste
combustion.
Landfill capacity, perceived to be in extremely short supply in the 1980s, has
been unexpectedly extended by the successful diversion of waste materials to
the growing recycling and composting markets. Economies of scale,
successful siting of large regional landfills, competitive waste transport
markets, and legal decisions removing obstacles to interstate waste transport
also have expanded the geographic range of modern landfills, making their
capacity available to more locations.
The recycling segment offered tremendous growth potential in the late 1980s,
relative to WTE costs and an apparent shortage of landfill capacity. However,
-------
Page m-76
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
the sudden expansion in the supply of recyclables, coinciding with depressed
demand for recycled materials during the 1990-1991 recession, resulted in
some calls for a critical review of recycling costs. More recently, collection
vehicles and collection crew staffing specifically designed for recycling and
improved MRF processing appear to be reducing the cost of recycling at a
time when end-market demand is growing with the economic expansion.
These factors are now serving to enhance the growth of the recycling market
segment ' •
«• Just a few years ago, the potential of the composting segment was virtually
unrecognized by many waste management experts, but yard trimmings landfill
bans and competitive costs in some communities now hold the potential for
substantial expansion of this market segment. Also, more competitive
technologies and collection strategies for composting are evolving, as mixed
waste composting competes with yard trimmings composting and source-
separated organics composting. |
The remainder of this section addresses in more detail congressional questions concerning the
role of flow controls in ensuring adequate capacity and achieving recycling goals.
F.I ARE FLOW CONTROLS NECESSARY TO ENSURE ADEQUATE WASTE MANAGEMENT
CAPACITY?
In a relatively short time period, adequate capacity for national and regional MSW
management has been developed. Prospectively, the need for flow controls appears limited. As
explained below, however, flow controls may be desirable to provide self-sufficient capacity for State
and local political jurisdictions.
Recycling and Composting Capacity
The recycling and composting market segments have grown significantly in recent years. This
growth was not primarily a direct result of the use of flow controls within these two market segments.
Rather, the evaluation of these segments shows that:
A minimum of 13 percent of MRFs, with 19 percent of total MRF throughput,
are supported by flow controls. This Represents 2.7 percent (about 1 million
tons) of the waste managed by the recycling market and a minor fraction of all
waste managed in MSW facilities.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page 111-77
4 Flow controls have been a more important factor for MRFs requiring
substantial capital investment; 32 percent of the throughput at high technology
MRFs is supported by flow controls.
4 Even though some of the 21 mixed MSW composting facilities may have
waste guaranteed by flow controls, these facilities in total managed only 0.4
million tons in 1992, which was less than one percent of all recycled MSW
and a negligible portion of all waste managed in MSW facilities.
* Although the "flow constraint" of yard trimmings landfill bans has had a
positive impact on the composting segment, flow controls are not used to
direct a large amount of yard trimmings to specific composting facilities.
These findings are consistent with the fact that many of the States mat authorize flow controls exclude
certain recyclables.
Waste-to-Energy Capacity
Approximately 58 percent (i.e., 18 million tons) of all waste managed by WTE facilities is
guaranteed by flow controls and an additional 31 percent is guaranteed by contractual arrangements.
Moreover, representatives from bond rating agencies (Standard and Poor's and Moody's) indicate that
many WTE contracts are long-term "put-or-pay" contracts, which require local governments to provide
an agreed upon amount of waste or pay for the difference. Local governments, in turn, may use flow
control (or other mechanisms) to ensure that they can deliver a sufficient amount of waste to meet the
terms of such contracts.
The number of new WTE facilities actually beginning operations has slowed significantly in
recent years. Even with continued use of flow controls, the future growth of this market segment will
slow considerably due to market forces such as:
* The decrease in energy prices in recent years is removing one of the main
reasons for investment in WTE facilities; and
4 Greater use of recycling and composting may remove waste from WTE waste
inflows.
Although these market developments will slow the growth in WTE market share, existing
facilities and those under construction will continue to supply substantial MSW management capacity.
-------
Page IP-78
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Without flow controls, what would become of this waste management capacity? Some WTEs
and local governments would use alternative mechanisms to secure needed waste flows; these
mechanisms could include contracts, franchises, and subsidies (i.e., economic flow controls). Some
waste no longer directed to WTEs would be managed at composting, recycling, and landfill facilities;
on a national basis, all of these market segments have adequate capacity and could absorb wastes not
managed by WTEs.
Landfill Capacity
Although the number of MSWLFs has decreased significantly over the past five years, several
factors have contributed to maintaining a consistent level of landfill capacity:
4 Most of the landfills that have closed had relatively small capacities and could
not benefit from economies of scale;
* The private sector has made substantial' investment in new regional landfills
and landfill expansions, which have offset loss of capacity resulting from
landfill closures; and
4 Growth in recycling and composting activities, yard trimmings and other
landfill bans, and WTE facilities have ill diverted waste from landfills, thus
extending capacity.
These market developments indicate that there (is no national shortage of landfill capacity and
no anticipated shortage in the foreseeable future.
Use of Flow Controls to Ensure Adequate In-State Capacity
i
Whether States and local governments consider in-State capacity to be an important goal, or
how much additional waste management costs (if any) should be incurred in pursuit of such goals are
issues beyond the scope of this Report. However, flow control is one of a variety of mechanisms that
States and local governments can use to provide for the development of in-State or local capacity to
manage MSW.
Flow controls can foster local capacity by making it easier to properly size and finance waste
management facilities. Controlling the disposition of locally-generated MSW allows planners to more
accurately determine how much waste must be handled and the types and sizes of facilities needed.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page IH-79
Similarly, control of the waste ensures that waste management facilities will be amply utilized, which
should result in cost-efficient operations. Finally, legal control over MSW can help assure investors
that proposed projects are financially viable, thus securing financing at relatively favorable rates.
F.2 ARE FLOW CONTROLS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE STATE RECYCLING GOALS?
There are two potential ways in which flow controls might aid in achieving State recycling
goals:
(1) The direct impact of flow controls explicitly requiring that recyclables be sent
to specified recycling facilities (e.g., MRFs); and
(2) The indirect impact of State and local governments using higher tipping fees
under flow controls as a funding mechanism to subsidize curbside recycling
programs, MRFs, recycling promotion and education programs, and household
hazardous waste programs. (Addressed in Section F.3 below.)
Direct Impact of Flow Control on Recycling Rates
As noted earlier, flow controls direct less than 3 percent of recycled materials to specific
recycling facilities, and there is no evidence that flow controls commonly are used to direct yard
trimmings to specific composting facilities. Furthermore, some of the States that authorize flow
controls for mixed waste explicitly exclude recyclables from flow control restrictions. Therefore, the
use of flow controls to direct recyclable and compostable materials to specific facilities does not
appear to be a major factor in the future growth of the recycling and composting segments except for
high technology MRFs.
F.3 INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) involves using different approaches for handling
the entire MSW stream in a State or community. ISWM allows each type of waste to be managed
according to the waste management hierarchy, taking into account environmental and economic
considerations. The waste management hierarchy emphasizes a preferred order of solid waste
management approaches: source reduction, recycling, waste combustion with energy recovery, and
landfilling. ISWM can be a cost-effective MSW management approach.
-------
Page in-80
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Some desirable components of an ISWM program do not lend themselves to generation of
their own revenues. For example, outreach and education on source reduction generally are performed
at no direct charge (i.e., a separate fee) to the target audiences. Household hazardous waste programs
similarly are offered at no direct charge in order to encourage participation. These activities all require
sources of funding.
State and local officials indicated at the flow control meetings that revenues generated by flow
controls are used by some jurisdictions to support various elements of ISWM systems. Where flow
controls are used to support ISWM, costs' of the varioiis service elements of the system are built into
the tipping fees of the designated facilities. As a result, these tipping usually are higher than the
market level. How controls ensure that the MSW goek to these facilities, rather than to facilities with
lower tipping fees. The revenues generated by the floiv control-supported tipping fees are used to
fund elements such as those noted above that comprise the ISWM system. Thus, prior to the Supreme
Court Carbone ruling, flow controls provided an administratively efficient mechanism for local
governments to fund ISWM.
G. ALTERNATIVES TO FLOW CONTROL
One of the primary purposes of flow control has been to generate revenues to finance solid
waste facilities and other components of an ISWM system that cannot generate sufficient revenue to
cover program costs (e.g., curbside collection programs, outreach and education, household hazardous
waste collection). The Agency explored various alternatives, both in terms of organizational options
and funding mechanisms, that State and local governments could or are employing to support solid
waste management systems. This section describes the alternatives and discusses how solid waste
managers might assess them when planning a new or inodified system of fees and charges.
Organizational Alternatives
By using various organizational arrangements, municipalities can direct waste to specific
facilities, an effect similar to that produced by flow control. Among the options available to local
governments are:
4 providing waste collection services themselves and delivering waste and
discarded recyclables to selected facilities;
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS Page 111-81
4 hiring contractors to perform collection services and using the contracts to
require delivery of wastes to selected facilities;
* awarding franchises for collection and hauling services within given collection
districts; haulers agree to deliver waste to the facility designated by the
community; and,
4 establishing special purpose districts or utilities to manage MSW collection and
delivery to designated facilities.
Financial Alternatives
Among the financial mechanisms which State and local governments can use are the
following: (1) taxes, (2) uniform user fees, (3) unit-based (i.e., variable) fees, and (4) market-based tip
fees. The following paragraphs describe each of these alternatives.
Taxes, which can apply to property, income, and/or sales, are the primary mechanism most
State and local governments use to generate funds. Taxes serve as the basis for the issuance of
general obligation bonds, which can be used to finance capital investments in facilities such as WTEs
and MRFs. A number of States restrict the amount of money that can be raised through property
taxes. As a result, local governments may be subject to debt limitations or restrictions on the amount
of bonds that can be supported by taxes. Also, special purpose entities, such as waste management
districts, may lack the authority to tax.
Uniform User Fees are commonly employed to recover the costs of public services such as
waste management. These user fees are termed "uniform" because they do not vary by the amount of
waste discarded. User fees are attractive for the following reasons: (1) they may not be subject to
legal limitations that apply to taxes, (2) they may be better accepted by the public than taxes, and (3)
they can be set on a user basis (e.g., per person, per household), whereas taxes are tied to measures of
property ownership, income, or spending. For capital investments or new facility development, a
"special assessment" can be imposed to aid in raising up-front funds.
Unit-Based Pricing is a method of charging service users for the costs of waste management
on the basis of how much waste is discarded. The more waste discarded means a higher charge. Also
termed "pay as you throw" or "variable rate pricing", this system creates incentives to reduce the
amount of waste that generators discard. Over 1,000 communities have unit pricing programs in place.
-------
Page m-82
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Market-Based Tip Fees mean that the fees changed are based on the facility's costs and the
prices charged by its competitors. The difference between fees charged and costs incurred is profit or
loss; depending on market conditions, a waste management facility may be more or less profitable. In
contrast, a tip fee supported by flow controls need not1 be based on costs or competition but can be set
at any level. As a basis for financing capital costs, the market-based tip fee can be secured through
long-term contracts, negotiated between willing buyers and sellers. Local governments can use such
contracts to demonstrate commitment of sufficient waste flows to convince lenders to arrange
financing of proposed facilities.
Among the considerations used by solid waste1 managers when they weigh alternative
approaches or combinations of approaches are adequacy of revenue, equity, political feasibility,
administrative ease, impact on innovation, and efficiency. These criteria are described below.
Adequacy of revenue means the ability of an alternative to (1) generate funds
for financing up-front costs of capital-intensive facilities; (2) provide long-term
funding stability (i.e., for debt-service or program costs); and (3) support
source reduction education, recycling/Composting, household hazardous waste,
and related public services that do not! directly generate their own revenues.
Equity has at least two relevant aspects. First, it considers the degree to
which costs or prices of MSW services are "hidden" from the parties paying
the bills. For example, when MSW services are funded out of general taxes,
the tax bill does not indicate how much is for MSW; in effect, the price of
solid waste management is hidden fro^n the taxpayer. Second, equity measures
the degree to which the costs or prices are related to the amount of waste
discarded by generators or disposed at facilities; the closer the relationship, the
more equitable the alternative.
Political feasibility refers to the needifor legislative or regulatory authority to
enact an alternative and the willingness of the public to accept a new fee
system.
Administrative ease reflects the burden of using an alternative, considering
both the required resources and costs Of designing and implementing new
systems or expanding existing systems.
Impact of innovation considers how use of an alternative might create barriers
or incentives for the development of improved practices or technologies for
waste reduction, recycling, or management.
Efficiency refers to the optimum use of scarce resources to obtain the desired
goods or level of service while protecting human health and the environment.
For example, the use of flow control vs. open competition may impact total
system costs and the level of services ^provided.
-------
MARKET ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONTROLS
Page m-83
Taxes can provide a reliable source of funding. Although taxes may be politically unpopular,
they are relatively easy to administer. Taxes can be set at levels sufficient to support integrated solid
waste management programs, although potential tax caps and exemptions may h'mit thek usefulness in
financing very high capital cost facilities. Taxes have the disadvantage of masking the costs of MSW
services from taxpayers and not being based directly on waste generation or services provided.
Uniform user fees also can provide local governments with a reliable source of funding,
support revenue bonds to raise money for capital outlays, and fund integrated solid waste management
programs. Uniform user fees may be more politically acceptable than taxes.
Unit-based user fees' greatest advantage is that they directly relate waste management charges
to the number of waste units discarded by generators. However, unit-based pricing offers a less stable
basis for program funding due to the potential for declining revenues over time, if waste generators
respond to the waste reduction incentives this option creates. Unit-based fees have proven to be
politically acceptable in many communities. However, they can pose administrative challenges, both
in setting up the system and operating it over time.
The market-based tip fee may be the most feasible politically; this option entails no
authorization issues and is familiar to the public. However, market-based tip fees may not be able to
generate sufficient profits to fund other MSW activities and remain competitive. In general, free
market systems pose the fewest obstacles to innovation.
It is important to emphasize that communities can use a combination of options to support
their programs. The alternatives described need not be mutually exclusive.
-------
-------
APPENDIX I-A
Flow Controls and Municipal Solid Waste
Summary of Public Comments
INTRODUCTION
Flow control of MSW, also referred to as designation, is a high priority issue for a wide
spectrum of parties involved in municipal solid waste management. In preparing the Report to
Congress on municipal solid waste flow control, EPA actively sought information from business,
industry, government, and the public. EPA invited both written comments and participation in
any of three public meetings in Arlington, Virginia (August 17, 1993); San Francisco, California
(August 31, 1993); and Chicago, Illinois (September 15, 1993). Commenters included 74 State
and local governments, 60 waste management companies, 29 recycling companies, two financial
institutions, and 14 environmental groups and individuals for a total of 179 commenters.
These commenters submitted written materials at the meetings and also provided
additional comments to the public docket. This report is strictly a summary of the various
positions discussed in the written comments.1 The summary does not contain editorial
comments, nor does it reflect EPA's position on any of the issues raised.
Much of the information provided in the written comments is anecdotal and lacks
quantitative details. In addition, the written comments did not always provide examples or
explanation of opinions, especially on the topic of alternatives to flow controls. While many of
the comments and perspectives are enlightening, they do not provide all of the necessary
information or documentation for preparing the Report to Congress.
Table 1 provides a breakdown by respondent type (e.g., State and local government) that
identifies the number of commenters, number of commenters who support or oppose flow
1 Some commenters submitted more than one copy of their comments. Also, if the comments
submitted contradict the information contained in the state matrix, the discrepancy will be identified in a
footnote. An additional six comments were received and reviewed. Generally, no new issues were raised
by the additional commenters.
-------
Page I-A-2
APPENDIX I-A
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
3711"
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 oh:
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
-------
APPENDIX I-A
Page I-A-3
controls and the issue areas that received comment. This report organizes the information into
six. issue areas: (I)-impacts of flow control on solid waste management and capacity; (II) impacts
of flow control on source reduction and recycling; (III) impacts of flow control on economics;
(IV) impacts of flow control on recyclable material; (V) impacts of flow control on human health
and the environment; and (VI) alternatives to flow controls. Within each issue area, the report is
organized by respondent type. After the issue area sections, the summary provides a list of
commenters that provided written materials to EPA.
-------
Page I-A-4
APPENDIX I-A
I. IMPACTS OF FLOW CONTROLS ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND CAPACITY
State and Local Governments
Sixty-one of the 74 state and local government commenters 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 aiid 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; I
Planning standards, materials definitions, and plan adoption procedures that
incorporate public participation; j
i
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.
-------
APPENDIX I-A Page I-A-5
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.
One commenter noted that when there are waste management problems (e.g., garbage is
not collected), citizens automatically call the local government, regardless of whether the local
government 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 "right 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. Row controls allow local governments to meet these
-------
Page I-A-6
APPENDIX I-A
contracts by requiring that solid waste or recyclables be managed at specific facilities. 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. Flow 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
shortfalls in waste received, tax dollars would be waste
-------
APPENDIX I-A Page f-A-7
source reduction and resource recovery are not economically appealing to the waste management
industry; therefore, flow control is needed to ensure that these environmentally beneficial
management options, which ensure long-term capacity, are implemented.
Row 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
-------
Page I-A-8
APPENDIX I-A
source reduction initiatives, recyclables collection and processing, resource recovery, and
landfilling (as the option of last resort) to manage wa^te 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 pf 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.
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. Sburce 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
t
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 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, a,nd 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, arid community education programs. Row
control is essential to keep local governments from gping bankrupt trying to fulfill these
obligations, in addition to covering the costs of meeting regulatory requirements, planning, and
public participation in decision making activities. :
-------
APPENDIX I-A
Page I-A-9
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.
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
-------
Page I-A-10
APPENDIX I-A
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 flo^v of waste to facilities in Michigan. NACo
stated that Congress needs to declare that flow contrql, and local government management of its
own waste, is not unlawful interference or an unreasonable burden upon interstate commerce.
Finally, Minnesota remarked that a state cannot ensure the environmentally safe management of
waste sent outside of its borders. Only if other states Ihave equal or better standards and policies
would waste exportation be a viable option.
Use of Flow Control in Negotiations. Minnesota commented that flow control, or waste
designation, can often be used as a leveraging tool to jnotivate 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 inust 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 center into comparable agreements. Private
industry would continue to play a significant role in solid waste management, as they do today in
areas where local governments exercise flow control.
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
i
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
i
(GLRA) asserted that many private companies develop business plans that include the receipt of
-------
APPENDIX I-A Page l-A-ll
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 necessary 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; 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,
-------
Page I-A-12
APPENDIX I-A
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 ci^rbside 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 jyards. 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
-------
APPENDIX I-A Page I-A-13
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 reduction goals could not be achieved
without flow control.
Recycling 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 California Resource Recovery Association, supports flow control for solid waste,
but not for source separated recyclables.
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. Row 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.
One recycling industry commenter stated that local governments cannot easily implement
comprehensive, integrated waste management plans without flow control.
-------
Page I-A-14
APPENDIX I-A
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 & Po'ors 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 more difficult."
Environmental Groups and Individuals
Capacity Issues. A University of Wisconsin research assistant stated that flow control is
necessary to help provide more accurate predictions oft quantities of solid waste in order to
effectively plan for future capacity needs.
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.
Hierarchy Issues. The Californians Against V^aste 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. Local governments could adopt mandatory (recycling ordinances that prohibit residential
and commercial generators from disposing of certain garbage.
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.
-------
APPENDIX I-A. Page [-A-IS
II. IMPACTS OF FLOW CONTROLS ON SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
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;
4 No effect on source reduction and recycling efforts; and
4- 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.
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
-------
Page I-A-16
APPENDIX I-A
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.
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.
Hennepin County, Minnesota will recycle and icompost 50 percent of its waste in 1993; in
1992 only two percent of its waste was unprocessed and landfilled. This -achievement is attributed
to the successful use of flow controls. New Jersey ha? a mandatory recycling goal of 60 percent
and flow controls are expected to help the state meet! that goal.
Also, according to Union City, New Jersey, sojUkl 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 government 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 percent by 1995), solid waste
management districts have an obligation to provide a -management strategy whereby at least 60
percent 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
2 These percentages do not add up to 100 percent, ihowever, they are the numbers that appear in the
comment.
-------
APPENDIX I-A. Page I-A-17
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. Row 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 prevented from using their new recycling technologies. Therefore,
the overall level of recycling is diminished.
-------
Page I-A-18 j APPENDIX I-A
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.
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.
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 of 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 Efforts. 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 riiaterials 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. \
-------
APPENDIX I-A
Page f-A-19
No Effect on Source Reduction and Recycling Efforts. 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.
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 waste reduction.
Of the 29 commenters from the waste 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:
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 then: 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 hi 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.
-------
Page I-A-20
APPENDIX I-A
SEMASS, which is a waste-to-energy facility lofcated 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 rathfer 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.
i
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
t
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 resources that results from hauling of mixed wastes. The quality of recyclable materials may be
decreased by mixed waste processing. ,
3 Some states including Rhode Island classify waste--to-energy facilities as recycling facilities.
-------
APPENDIX I-A.
Page I-A-2I
Financial Institutions
Encourages Source Reduction and Recycling Efforts. Paine Webber was the only
financial institution that addressed the impacts that flow control would have on recycling. They
commented that flow control might enhance and foster recycling programs by improving the
ability of local governments to fund materials recovery facilities.
Environmental Groups and Individuals
Encourages Source Reduction and Recycling Efforts. One commenter from the Institute
for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin stated that flow control is necessary to
help Wisconsin meet its recycling goals.
The Pennsylvania Sierra Club observed that if states are permitted to exclude waste
generated out-of-state through the use of flow controls, each state will have more incentive to
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 Washington, observed
another way in which flow control has positive effects on recycling efforts:
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.
Detrimental to Recycling Efforts. The Californians Against Waste Foundation noted that
flow control has the following negative effects on the recycling industry:
Row 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.
-------
Page I-A-22
APPENDIX I-A
Flow controls limit the quality of the rriaterial that is collected and marketed. The
excjusive 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. This 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.
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.
-------
APPENDIX I-A
Page L-A-23
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.
-------
Page I-A-24
APPENDIX I-A
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 and 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.
The Town of Wallingford, Connecticut, commented that there is no evidence to indicate
that there are either more or less inefficiencies hi 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
46) 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 disapjpear.
Many waste management commenters provide^ 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
-------
APPENDIX I-A Page I-A-25
controls in Mercer County, trash haulers must pay $117.81 per ton to dispose of municipal solid
waste and $136.36'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. Over half of the waste management industry commenters (27 of
46) 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,
-------
Page I-A-26 APPENDIX I-A
one commenter (Container Corporation 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, public facilities were much imore expensive and far less efficient than
private ones (e.g., municipal departments used smaller jtrucks 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).
l
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
Grms 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
i
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
-------
APPENDIX I-A Page I-A-27
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.
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.
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 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.
EAC asserts that flow control 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 required 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 example of a successfully operating facility that never
utilized flow controls. In order to secure financing, SEMASS was required by its lenders to
secure 1,000 tons of waste under long term contract. They were able to do this successfully by
negotiating with 32 cities and towns and by demonstrating that they would provide the most cost
effective disposal option.
-------
Page I-A-28
APPENDIX I-A
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, provided 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. Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. commented that flow controls in northern Virginia
actually caused competition to flourish and pointed out that over 800 individual trash collection
and disposal contractors compete for business within Arlington County, Fairfax County, and the
City of Alexandria. Four of the companies argue that flow control is necessary to guarantee
waste to facilities, which in turn guarantees 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
Increased Disposal Costs. Ten recycling industry commenters either explicitly stated or
implied that 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 (e.g., system upgrades, improved quality of service, market development, and low
prices).
One recycler also believes that flow control is a tool used 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.
Market Inefficiencies. Six of the recycling industry commenters feel that flow controls
would result in 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
recycling market by blocking local businesses with the potential to use recycled feedstock from
obtaining the material from monopoly collectors.
Disincentive to Investment Two recyclers addressed the effects of flow control on
incentives to invest. They stated that flow controls that regulate recycling will prevent further
-------
APPENDIX I-A Page I-A-29
private investment in recycling efforts. Often, existing flow controls compete with private sector
recycling investments and crush any incentive to invest in the recycling industry. In addition, the
municipal operations taking control of 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.
Financial Institutions
Market Inefficiencies. Only two financial institutions commented, Paine 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 not 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.
-------
Page I-A-30
APPENDIX I-A
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 plan and finance new, state-of-the-art facilities would be greatly reduced.
-------
APPENDIX I-A
Page I-A-31
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;
4 Limited exclusion of recyclables; and
4 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 recycling facility).
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 Recyclables. 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
-------
Page I-A-32 APPENDIX I-A
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 mandate to recycle 50 percent by January
1, 1994. If a municipality fails to make reasonable progress towards this goal, it will be assessed
SI.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
In September 1992, New York City approved a Solid Waste Management Plan consisting
of ambitious source reduction, recycling, landfllling, 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.
Limited Exclusion of Recyclables. Ten commbnters 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
4 According to state regulations, municipalities may [designate certain materials as recyclables and
exempt them from flow control. \
5 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
-------
APPENDIX I-A Page I-A-33
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.
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 management
hierarchy (source reduction, recycling, waste-to-energy, landfilling). This approach allows
designation only for 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.
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.
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.
-------
Page I-A-34 ' APPENDIX I-A
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 fight 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 ajid 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.
-------
APPENDIX I-A Page I-A-35
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
Complete Exclusion of Recyclables. Twelve state and local governments hold that
recyclable material should be excluded from flow controls. Most of these twelve noted that flow
control should be applicable only to municipal solid waste, which should be defined to exclude
recyclables.
Waste Management Industry
No Exclusion of Recyclables. One commenter from the waste management industry
stated that recyclables were no different than any other material in the solid waste stream. In
their opinion, no basis exists for excluding some materials from flow controls while including
others.
Limited Exclusion of Recvclables. Of the seven waste management industry commenters
on this issue, three noted that certain types of recyclable material should be exempt from flow
controls. Specifically, one commenter stated that only materials to be sold or donated materials
can safely be 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 control. According to WMX, local government should not assume the
responsibility or burden of managing commercial and industrial wastes except to the extent that
regulations are necessary to protect human health and the environment. Commercial recycling
has a long history of being successful and there is no need for it to be disrupted or limited by
government.
7 Under current regulations, municipalities in Connecticut may designate where solid waste and
specified residential recyclables may be managed.
-------
Page I-A-36 APPENDIX I-A
Complete Exclusion of Recvclables. Three waste management industry commenters stated
t
that it was inappropriate for government to subject recyclables or materials of any value to flow
control. These three commenters accepted that local governments need to control municipal solid
f
waste (one commenter defined municipal solid waste as residential waste and another commenter
referred to municipal solid waste as any materials that| have been discarded).
Recycling Industry
Among the 17 commenters from the recycling [industry that addressed the issue of
materials covered, the main issue was the need to clearly define the extent to which recyclables
should be subject to flow controls. One commenter stated that clarifying the materials covered by
flow control ordinances is essential.
No Exclusion of Recvclables. One commenter observed that even if a material is
potentially recyclable, it is still a solid waste and inherently could present many of the same
potential risks to public health and safety as any other solid waste and therefore should be treated
no differently. It is the availability of markets that determines a material's recyclability.
Limited Exclusion of Recvclables. Seven commenters stated that flow control of
recyclables is only appropriate when the materials have not been separated from the waste stream
or when materials have been discarded through actions such as placing the materials on the
curbside. One commenter elaborated on the need to;categorize recyclables into at least two types
based on their management pathways. The first type entails removal of recyclable materials from
discarded solid waste. Since this is a regulated solid waste activity, recyclables following this path
may be subject to flow controls. The second pathway^ 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 controls are not appropriate here. Recovered
materials are not solid waste and not subject to flow control.
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. Tfyis source of usable raw material would not
-------
APPENDIX I-A Page I-A-37
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 Recvclables. 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 percent 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.
-------
Page I-A-38 J APPENDIX I-A
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 generator for the purposes of rfeuse, 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 w^th 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
t
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.
8 California Public Resources Code protects the right; of persons to sell, donate, or otherwise dispose
of recyclables. ;
-------
APPENDIX I-A. Page I-A-39
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.
-------
Page I-A-40 J APPENDIX I-A
Two commenters stated that illegal dumping occurs in the absence of flow control and
i
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
s on h
supported it.
controls on human health and the environment. Seventeen opposed flow control, while three
Ten commenters believe that flow control is unnecessary as a means of protecting human
health and the environment. They stated that RCRAJs 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.
Two commenters, a solid waste collector in Mercer County, New Jersey, where flow
controls presently exist, and the National Solid Waste? 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 coniaminates 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.
Another concern, voiced by 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 Rliode 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
-------
APPENDIX I-A.
Page I-A-41
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.
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.
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 tiie Manner in Which These Facilities are
Regulated." The analysis showed that the environmental impacts of processing 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
-------
eI.A.42 APPENDIX I-A
Manufacturers Association (AAMA), "If a waste generator were limited by a flow control statute
or regulation to manage waste at certain facilities, and [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 Ifork where flow control forced waste to be
disposed in an environmentally inferior facility. This cpmmenter stated that, "[d]espite 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 Californiank Against Waste Foundation suggested that
the degree of regulation should be proportional to the degree of environmental impact.
-------
APPENDIX I-A
Page I-A-43
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.
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.
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.
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 solid waste or recyclables be
collected and delivered to specific management facilities.
-------
Page I-A-44 APPENDIX I-A
_—, _ .
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 on 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.
Another possibility (suggested by Minnesota) is to create landfill surcharges 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.
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.
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. L
i
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.
10 This alternative already is required under RCRA's Subtitle D.
-------
APPENDIX I-A
Page I-A-45
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:
4 General obligation bonds;
+ Pollution control revenue bonds;
*• Leveraged leasing; and
4 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.
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.
-------
Page I-A-46
APPENDIX I-A
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 creatiou 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: ,
Promote the expertise and investment
-------
APPENDIX I-A.
Page I-A-47
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 conunenter suggested that
governments begin mandatory recycling programs, which, with better record keeping and
monitoring requirements, would obtain the same results.
-------
Page I-A-48
APPENDIX I-A
LIST OF COMMENTERS
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTERS
State Governments
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection^ Hartford, Connecticut
Delaware Solid Waste Authority, N.C. Vasuki, Chief Executive Officer, Dover, Delaware
Rorida Department of Environmental Protection, Wiljiam Hinkley, Chief, Bureau of Solid and
Hazardous Waste, Tallahassee, Rorida j
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 Sygq, 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 I
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection! and Energy, Office of Recycling and
Planning, Gary Sondenneyer, Assistant Director
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Kate Bartter, Deputy Director for Policy and Legislation,
Columbus, Ohio \
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources , Arthur Davis, Secretary
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
-------
APPENDIX I-A
Page f-A-49
Bristol Resource Recovery Facility Operating Committee and Tunxis Recycling Operating
Committee, Jonathan Bilmes, Connecticut
Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority, New Jersey
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
City of Tampa, Horida, Sandra Freedman
City of Urbana, Illinois, Tod Satterthwaite, Mayor
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 Fresher,
Director, (represents 27 municipalities)
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.
-------
Page I-A-50
APPENDIX I-A
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 I
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 w^aste 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
L
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 i
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 ;
i
Marion County, Oregon, Department of Solid Wastei 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
-------
APPENDIX I-A
Page I-A-51
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.)
Pollution Control Financing Authority of Warren County, 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 Row 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 Hadfield, Deputy Executive Director
(represents 8 communities)
Spokane, Washington, Sheri S. Barnard, Mayor (on behalf of herself and other concerned
citizens)
-------
Page I-A-52
APPENDIX I-A
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, ItVisconsin, Leonard Leverence, Director of
Solid Waste
WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY COMMENTERS
Alliance Environmental Services, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Allied Waste Industries, Inc., Apache Junction, Arizoria
Arena Trucking Co., Inc., Rice, Virginia
Attwoods Inc., Coconut Grove, Florida
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., Houston, Texas
C&R Sanitation Co., Inc. Collection & Recycling, Ne^vington, Connecticut
i
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
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
-------
APPENDIX I-A.
Page I-A-53
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
C9mpanies 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
i
Rumpke Waste Systems, Cincinnati, Ohio
Santek Environmental, Inc., Cleveland, Tennessee
-------
Page I-A-54
APPENDIX I-A
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
t
Waste Material Trucking Company, Inc., Southington,' Connecticut
Waste Industries, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina i
Waste Systems Corporation, Minnesota ;
Waste-Stream Inc., Potsdam, New York
WMX Technologies, Inc., Oak Brook, Illinois
York Waste Disposal, Inc., York, Pennsylvania
RECYCLING INDUSTRY COMMENTERS
i
American Forest & Paper Association, Washington, D.C.
Automated Material Handling, Kensington, Connecticut
C.F. Justice, Hesperia, California
California Wastepaper Dealers Association, Baldwin Park, California
-------
APPENDIX I-A
Page I-A-55
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
Recycling Products of Rockland and C & A Carbone, New York
Sonoco Product Company, Hartsville, South Carolina, for Paper Recycling Coalition (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 Recycling 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
-------
Page I-A-56
APPENDIX I-A
Weyerhauser Company, Tacoma, Washington
t
Winzinger Incorporated, Hainesport, New Jersey
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
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, Califopiia
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
-------
APPENDIX I-B
Legal Decisions Concerning Municipal Solid Waste
Flow Controls
This appendix describes recent litigation over flow controls and provides synopses of
several important court decisions related to flow control. The discussion of each decision
highlights the legal issues raised, describes the laws/ordinances challenged, and summarizes the
case and decision reached. This appendix concludes with a summary matrix describing the flow
control mechanism, materials covered by the flow controls, facilities affected, issues raised,
decision, and rationale in each case.
LITIGATION OVER FLOW CONTROLS
Although many jurisdictions have used flow controls and related mechanisms for a number
of years, legal challenges continue to occur. Row control laws have been challenged primarily
the following 3 issues:
on
(1) Antitrust claims concerning the creation of monopolies,
(2) Takings claims concerning the unlawful taking of private property for
public use, without just compensation, and,
(3) Commerce Clause claims regarding discrimination against interstate
commerce.
This section summarizes recent litigation over flow controls.
ANTITRUST CLAIMS
From the late 1970s till the mid-1980s, a major challenge to flow controls was on antitrust
grounds. Haulers claimed that requiring waste to be disposed at a municipally-designated facility
violated federal antitrust laws because the local government acted in a monopolistic fashion. The
leading case on this issue is Hybud Equipment Corp. v. City of Akron.11 The United States
654 F.2d 1187 (6th Cir. 1981), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 455 U S 931 (1982} on
remand, 742 F.2d 949 (6th Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 471 U.S. 1004 (1985). "
-------
Page I-B-2
APPENDIX I-B
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed an Akron ordinance that required all collected
MSW, including recyclables, to be delivered to a city-operated WTE facility. The ordinance also
barred haulers from removing recyclables at transfer 'stations and delivering the remaining solid
waste to other management facilities. Trash haulers challenged the city ordinance as a violation
of the Sherman Antitrust Act.12 The Court held that the federal antitrust laws were not
applicable because the City was acting to implement;a State policy designed to substitute
competition with monopoly public service. Since the mid-1980s, antitrust challenges have not
been successful, because federal appellate courts consistently have determined that flow control
laws comply with antitrust requirements where Stateis have authorized local governments to be
involved in solid waste management.13
TAKINGS CLAIMS
Opponents of flow controls also have made Claims based on the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution! "nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation." With regard to the takings issue, the court in the Hybud
case held that control of sanitation was a proper exercise of police power, similar to fire and
police protection.14 Therefore, this exercise of police power did not legally result in a taking
requiring compensation even if the city in fact appropriated some valuable materials, because the
control of MSW was such a significant public function.
In 1994, a takings claim was made in a case involving the authority of a city to control the
flow of recyclable materials. In this California case,^ a recycler claimed that the exclusive franchise
for solid waste handling services was invalid and caused a taking when applied to recyclable
12 The haulers also made claims that the ordinance violated the Commerce Clause and was a taking of
property without just compensation.
13 The general purpose clauses of State solid waste management statutes provide sufficient
authorization for anticompetitive activities by local governments. This authorization also may be inferred
(e.g., planning requirements that encourage local governments to join together to provide management
facilities for solid waste). Central Iowa Refuse System v.\Des Moines Metro Solid Waste Agency, 715 F.2d
419, 426-27 (8th Cir. 1983), cert denied, 471 U.S. 1003 (1985).
14 Hybud Equipment Corp. v. City of Akron, 654 F.2d 1187 (6th Cir. 1981), vacated and remanded on
other grounds, 455 U.S. 931 (1982), on remand, 742 F.2d 949 (6th Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 471 U.S. 1004
(1985).
-------
APPENDIX 1-E
Page I-B-3
materials that had not been discarded as waste.15 Although the California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) authorizes cities to grant exclusive franchises for the provision
of solid waste handling services, the California Supreme Court decided that, because recyclable
materials have some economic value, they are not solid waste as defined by AB 939. The Court
concluded that owners of undiscarded recyclable materials cannot be required to transfer these
materials to the holder of an exclusive franchise. The Court, however, did not explicitly state that
such an involuntary transfer would be a taking. The Court noted that once recyclable materials
were, discarded, they were subject to the exclusive franchise. For example, if an owner puts
recyclable material at the curb, the owner discards or abandons the property and thereby renders
it waste that is subject to the exclusive franchise.
COMMERCE CLAUSE CLAIMS
As State and local governments successfully defeated antitrust challenges to their authority
to direct the flow of MSW, other challenges arose, based on the Commerce Clause of the United
States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court decided in City of Philadelphia v. New
Jersey that solid waste should be considered an article of commerce, and its interstate movement is
therefore protected by the Constitution from undue interference by the States.16 This decision
allowed parties to challenge flow controls on the grounds that mandating waste management at
designated facilities discriminates against interstate commerce (e.g., out-of-State landfills could not
compete to obtain in-State waste).
The applicability of the Commerce Clause to flow control laws depends upon the facts of
each particular situation. During the early to mid-1980s, courts often upheld flow controls against
challenges that those laws discriminated against interstate commerce. In many of these cases, the
courts decided that the flow controls did not discriminate because the laws legitimately served the
public interest (e.g., assuring proper disposal of MSW, reducing truck traffic) and applied evenly
1 Waste Management of the Desert, Inc. v. Palm Springs Recycling Center, Inc., 28 Cal. Rptr.2d 461, 869
P.2d 440 (1994). The city ordinance authorized an exclusive franchise for all solid waste and recyclable
materials between the City of Rancho Mirage and Waste Management of the Desert.
16 437 U.S. 617 (1978).
-------
Page I-B-4
APPENDIX I-B
to in-State and out-of-State waste. In addition, flow [controls did not result in sufficient economic
injury to out-of-State interests.
17
More recent court decisions, on the other hand, have found that flow control laws do
discriminate against interstate commerce. In May 1994, the United States Supreme Court decided
in C &A Carbons, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown^ that a flow control ordinance unfairly gave a
designated waste management facility a competitive advantage over out-of-state facilities. The
Court also determined that the town did not lack other means to achieve its waste management
goals. The Court mentioned, for example, that the tjown can address health and safety concerns
by enacting more stringent environmental protection standards. To raise revenue, the town could
increase taxes or issue municipal bonds. The Court concluded that ensuring the financial viability
of a publicly-owned facility was not a sufficiently compelling State interest justifying interference
with interstate commerce.
SUMMARY OF COURT CASES
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Case:
Court:
C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown
U.S. Supreme Court
114 S.Ct. 1677, 128 L.Ed.2d 399 (1994)
Issue Raised: Commerce Clause
Law/Ordinance
Challenged:
A Clarkstown flow control ordinance required that all solid waste
originating in the town, as well as out-of-town waste processed in the
town, be processed at the town's designated solid waste transfer facility.
This ordinance did not cover recyclable materials.
17 Hybud Equipment Corp. v. City of Akron, 654 F.2d 1187 (6th Cir. 1981), vacated and remanded on
other grounds, 455 U.S. 931 (1982), on remand, 742 F.2d 949 (6th Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 471 U.S. 1004
(1985); /. Filiberto Sanitation, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 857 F.2d 913 (3d
Cir. 1988); Harvey & Harvey, Inc. v. Delaware Solid Waste Authority, 600 F.Supp. 1369 (D.Del. 1985).
18 114 S.Ct. 1677, 128 L.Ed.2d 399 (1994). |
19 The Clarkstown ordinance required that all solid waste originating in the town, as well as out-of-
town waste processed in the town, be processed at the town's designated solid waste transfer facility.
Haulers could not deliver waste directly to cheaper out-of-state waste management facilities.
-------
APPENDIX I-B
Page I-B-5
Summary of
Case:
C&A Carbone, a waste hauler, operated a recycling center. While the
flow control ordinance allowed recyclers, such as Carbone, to continue
receiving solid wastes, it required that non-recyclable residues be brought
to the designated transfer station. The tipping fee at the transfer station
exceeded the disposal cost of solid waste on the private market.
Carbone separated recyclable materials from solid waste and sent non-
recyclable residues out-of-state rather than to the transfer station.
Clarkstown filed a lawsuit in State court seeking an injunction requiring
that Carbone send its waste to the transfer station. Carbone responded
by suing in federal court, claiming that the local law violated the
Commerce Clause, because it prohibited the shipment of solid waste to
out-of-state facilities.
Decision: Overturned flow control ordinance.
The Supreme Court overturned Clarkstown's flow control ordinance on
the basis that it both regulates and discriminates against interstate
commerce. The Court held that the ordinance deprives out-of-state
businesses access to local markets because only the favored local
operator can process waste in the town.
The Court determined that the town does not lack other means to
achieve its goals; for example, the town can address health and safety
concerns by enacting more stringent standards, or, to raise revenue, the
town could increase taxes or issue municipal bonds.
Case:
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey
437 U.S. 617 (1978)
Issue Raised: Commerce Clause
Law/Ordinance
Challenged: New Jersey law banned disposal of out-of-state waste at all in-state
landfills.
Summary of
Case:
Decision:
Philadelphia challenged New Jersey's authority to ban the disposal of
out-of-state waste at in-state landfills as a violation of the interstate
Commerce Clause.
Overturned law.
Supreme Court held that solid waste is an article of interstate commerce
and its interstate movement is constitutionally protected from
interference by the States.
-------
Page I-B-6
APPENDIX I-B
i
Supreme Court held that legislative intent to conserve in-state capacity
and to protect the environment is not a sufficient reason to discriminate
against out-of-state waste. (
Therefore, the New Jeresyllaw violated the Commerce Clause as an
economic protectionist measure.
Case:
Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill v. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources 1
504 U.S. ,a 112 S.Ct. 2019 (1992)
Issue Raised: Commerce Clause
Law/Ordinance
Challenged:
Michigan law required private landfill operators to limit their business to
accepting wastes only from! the county in which the landfill is located
unless a county's State-approved solid waste management plan
authorized otherwise.
Summary of
Case:
Decision:
The county solid waste planning committee denied a landfill operator's
petition to accept out-of-state waste at its landfill. The landfill operator
claimed that the Michigan MSW import restrictions violated the
Commerce Clause because; they discriminated against the free flow of
goods and services across state lines.
Overturned law.
Although the law applied ^venly to all out-of-county (both in-state and
out-of-state) waste, the Supreme Court held that the law discriminated
against interstate commerce. In order to render its law constitutional,
Michigan had the burden of proving that the law furthered health and
safety concerns and that these concerns could not be served by
nondiscriminatory alternatives.
Page cite not available as of November 1994.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS' DECISIONS
Case: Hybud Equipment Corp vj City of Akron
654 R2d 1187 (6th Cir. 1981), vacated and remanded on other grounds,
455 U.S. 931 (1982), on remand. 742 F.2d 949 (6th Cir. 1984), cert.
denied, 471 U.S. 1004 (1985)
Issue Raised: Antitrust, Commerce Clause, and taking of property.
-------
APPENDIX I-B
Paee I-B-7
Law/Ordinance
Challenged:
Summary of
Case:
Decision:
Akron ordinance directed that all collected MSW, including recyclables,
be delivered to a city-operated waste-to-energy facility. The ordinance
also barred haulers from removing recyclables at transfer stations and
delivering the remaining solid waste to other management facilities.
Trash haulers challenged the city ordinance as a violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, the Commerce Clause, and a taking of property
without just compensation.
Upheld flow control ordinance.
The court held that the federal antitrust laws were not applicable,
because the city was acting to implement a State policy designed to
substitute competition with monopoly public service.
The court also found that the ordinance primarily burdened residents of
Akron, and any impact on interstate commerce was incidental.
Therefore, no violation of the Commerce Clause occurred.
With regard to the "taking" issue, the court held that control of
sanitation was a proper exercise of police power, similar to fire and
police protection. The exercise of the police power does not result in a
taking even if the city appropriates some valuable materials, because the
control of MSW is such a significant public function.
Case:
J. Filiberto Sanitation, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
857 F.2d 913 (3d Cir. 1988)
Issue Raised: Commerce Clause
Law/Ordinance
Challenged:
Summary of
Case:
Decision:
State flow control regulation required that all waste originating within a
county be transported to a county transfer station to be processed before
disposal outside the State.
J. Filiberto Sanitation, Inc. wanted to transport waste directly to an out-
of-state landfill without stopping at the designated transfer station.
Filiberto argued that the cost of disposal at out-of-state landfills was
approximately half the cost of the tipping fee charged by the county
transfer station. Filiberto claimed that the State regulation was
unconstitutional because it discriminated against interstate commerce.
Upheld flow control regulation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals held that the State regulation did not
discriminate against interstate commerce because the regulation applied
-------
Page I-B-8
APPENDIX I-B
evenly to in-state and out-of-state waste, and did not result in sufficient
economic injury to out-of-state interests. In addition, the court
concluded that the regulation legitimately served the public interest (e.g.,
assuring proper disposal of trash, reducing truck traffic).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS' DECISIONS
Case: Harvey & Harvey, Inc. v. Delaware Solid Waste Authority
600 RSupp. 1369 (D. Del. 1985)
Issue Raised: Commerce Clause
Law/Ordinance
Challenged:
Summary of
Case:
Decision:
Delaware Solid Waste Authority flow control ordinance required that all
solid waste within the State, whether it originated in-state or out-of-state,
must be transported and managed at Delaware Solid Waste Authority-
operated facilities.
Harvey & Harvey, Inc. transported commercial and industrial solid waste
to disposal sites located both inside and outside of Delaware. To take
advantage of lower tipping fees, the company disposed out-of-state 95
percent of the solid waste collected at its transfer station. Harvey &
Harvey challenged the ordinance under the Commerce Clause and
claimed that it discriminated against interstate commerce.
Upheld flow control ordinance.
The court held that since the regulations apply equally to all generators
and transporters of solid waste, both in-state and out-of-state, the
requirements did not significantly discriminate against out-of-state
economic interests. The regulations also served the legitimate State
interest of protecting human health and the environment.
Case:
Stephen P. DeVito, Jr. Trucking, Inc. v. Rhode Island Solid Waste
Management Corporation
770 F. Supp. 775 (D.R.I. 1991), affd. 947 F.2d 1004 (1st Cir. 1991)
Issue Raised: Commerce Clause ;
Law/Ordinance
Challenged: State flow control regulation directed that all solid waste generated or
collected in Rhode Island must be managed at in-state facilities.
Summary of
Case:
Prior to the enactment of the regulation, DeVito transported solid waste
generated or collected in Rhode Island to waste management facilities in
Maine and Massachusetts, because the tipping fees charged by out-of-
-------
APPENDIX I-B
Page l-B-9
state facilities were lower than the fees charged by the Rhode Island
facility. Stephen P. DeVito, Jr. Trucking, Inc. sought injunctive relief,
claiming that the regulation was an unreasonable interference with
interstate commerce.
Decision: Overturned flow control regulation.
The U.S. District Court held that the regulation resulted in a positive
advantage to in-state economic interests at the expense of interstate
commerce. Revenues at in-state facilities were increased, because
commercially-generated waste could not be transported out-of-state.
The court also decided that Rhode Island failed to demonstrate the
compelling need for the flow control regulation or that less burdensome
alternatives did not exist. The court concluded that health and safety
could be achieved by inspections and that a financially viable waste
management system could be achieved by local taxation.
Case:
Waste Systems Corp. v. County of Martin, et al
784 F. Supp. 641 (D. Minn. 1992), affd. 985 F.2d 1381 (8th Cir. 1993)
Issue Raised: Commerce Clause
Law/Ordinance
Challenged: A flow control ordinance enacted by Martin and Faribault counties in
Minnesota required all locally generated wastes to be disposed at a
publicly-owned and operated composting facility.
Summary of
Case:
Decision:
Waste Systems Corp. operated a landfill in Iowa that had been receiving
about two-thirds of the MSW generated in the bi-county area. Waste
Systems argued that the ordinance was a violation of the Commerce
Clause and also violated their civil rights (e.g., protection against
discrimination by the government).
Overturned flow control ordinance.
The U.S. District Court ruled that ensuring the financial viability of a
publicly-owned waste handling facility was not a sufficiently compelling
State interest to justify interference with interstate commerce. The court
noted that less discriminatory means existed to maintain the financial
viability of the project, such as community taxes to lower the price of
disposal and attract waste on an economic rather than compulsory basis.
The court concluded that the flow controls resulted in giving the
publicly-owned facility a "competitive advantage" over out-of-state
facilities.
-------
Page I-B-10
APPENDIX I-B
Case:
Waste Recycling, Inc. v. Southeast Alabama Solid Waste Disposal
Authority
814 RSupp. 1566 (M.D. Ala; 1993)
Issue Raised: Commerce Clause
Law/Ordinance
Challenged: Municipal flow control ordinances restricted the disposal of solid waste
in a four-county area to a regional publicly-owned disposal facility.
Summary of
Case:
Decision:
Approximately 36 local governments created a regional solid waste
management authority and enacted flow control ordinances to assist the
Southeast Alabama Solid Waste Disposal Authority (Authority) in
financing a regional landfill and several transfer stations.
Waste management companies that collect, haul, and dispose of solid
waste argued that the ordinances violated the Commerce Clause.
The cities and the Authority defended the ordinance and the regional
operations as market participation (where the Authority operates as a
commercial business), arguing that government conduct is exempted from
Commerce Clause scrutiny where it is similar to private sector trading or
business activity.
Overturned flow control ordinances.
The United States District Court found that the ordinances clearly
discriminated against interstate commerce and did not result in market
participation; rather, the ordinances resulted in market regulation. The
ordinances restricted the ability of private companies to compete with
the regional publicly-owned disposal facility.
The court concluded that the ordinances represented a significant barrier
to the free flow of wastes through interstate commerce and decided that
the Authority had failed to substantiate any interest besides local
economic protectionism.
Though the purpose of the ordinances was to ensure an adequate flow
of waste to the facility, the Authority failed to demonstrate that the
ordinances were the least restrictive alternatives. The court suggested
several alternatives to ensure the economic viability of the facility,
including charging competitive rates and financing the facility through
bank loans, property taxes, private investors, or utility bill assessments.
The court also cited the Authority's failure to justify the ordinance based
on health and safety concerns.
-------
APPENDIX I-B
Page I-B-11
STATE COURT DECISIONS
Case:
Court:
Waste Management of the Desert, Inc. v. Palm Springs Recycling
Center, Inc.
California Supreme Court
28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 461; 869 P.2d 440 (1994)
Issue Raised: Taking of Private Property
Law/Ordinance
Challenged:
Summary of
Case:
Decision:
A city ordinance authorized an exclusive franchise between the City of
Rancho Mirage and Waste Management of the Desert, Inc. to provide
handling and disposal services for all residential and commercial solid
waste and recyclables.
The City of Rancho Mirage awarded an exclusive franchise to Waste
Management for all solid waste and recyclables services and asserted that
all recyclable materials in the City were covered under this agreement.
Waste Management and the City took legal action to stop a competing
recycler, Palm Spring Recycling Center, from collecting recyclable
materials from commercial clients. The California Supreme Court
considered whether the State authorized cities to prohibit owners of
recyclable materials from selling these materials to someone other than
the exclusive franchisee.
Overturned ordinance.
The California Supreme Court held the exclusive franchise between the
City and Waste Management invalid and unenforceable when applied to
recyclable materials that have not been discarded by the generator as
waste.
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939)
allows cities to grant exclusive rights (e.g., franchisees to private haulers)
for the provision of solid waste handling services. The Court found that
because recyclable materials have some economic value, they are not
solid waste as defined by the Act. The Court concluded that owners of
undiscarded recyclable material cannot be required to transfer these
materials to the holder of an exclusive franchise.
Once materials are "discarded", however, they are subject to the exclusive
franchise.
-------
Page I-B-12
APPENDIX I-B
LEGAL DECISIONS CONCERNING
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROLS
NAME OF CASE
U.S. SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS
C&A Carbone, Inc., et
al. v. Town of
Clarkstown
114 S.Ct. 1677, 128
L.Ed.2d 299. (1994)
City of Philadelphia v.
New Jersey
437 U.S. 617 (1978)
FLOW
CONTROL
MECHANISM
Local ordinance
State statute
SCOPE OF
MATERIALS
COVERED1
MSW, excluding
recyclables
MSW sent to
landfills
TYPES OF
FACILITIES
Transfer
Station
Landfills
ISSUES RAISED
ANTITRUST2
COMMERCE
CLAUSE3
/
/
TAKING11
DECISION
FLOW
CONTROL
OVER-
TURNED
- /
/
FLOW
CONTROL
UPHELD
RATIONALE FOR
DECISION
A local ordinance that
required delivery of out-
of-state waste to
designated facility at an
additional cost.
discriminates against
out-of-state businesses.
Solid waste is an article
of interstate commerce;
and state law that bans
disposal of out-of-state
MSW into in-state
landfills violates the
Commerce Clause
because it discriminates
against the import of
out-of-state waste
without a legitimate
local concern.
-------
APPENDIX I-B
Page I-B-13
LEGAL DECISIONS CONCERNING
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROLS
NAME OF CASE
Fort Gratiot Sanitary
Landfill, Inc. v.
Michigan Department
of Natural Resources
504U.S. , 112S.CI.
2019 (1992)
FEDERAL COURT
OF APPEALS
DECISIONS
Hybud Equipment
Corp. v. City of Akron
654 F.2d 1187 (6th
Cir. 1981), vacated
and remanded on
other grounds, 455
U.S. 931 (1982), on
remand, 742 F.2d 949
(6th Cir. 1984), cert.
denied, 471 U.S. 1004
(1985)
FLOW
CONTROL
MECHANISM
State statute
City ordinance
SCOPE OF
MATERIALS
COVERED1
MSW
MSW, including
recyclables
TYPES OF
FACILITIES
Landfill
Waste-to-
energy plants
ISSUES RAISED
ANTITRUST2
/
COMMERCE
CLAUSE3
/
/
TAKING*
/
DECISION
FLOW
CONTROL
OVER-
TURNED
/
FLOW
CONTROL
UPHELD
/
RATIONALE FOR
DECISION
Requirement that a
person not accept solid
waste that is generated
outside the county
where the facility is
located violates the
Commerce Clause
because "
nondiscriminatory
alternatives existed.
City ordinance that
monopolized solid waste
collection and disposal
and required private
disposal firms to
transport all waste to a
city-sponsored facility
does not interfere with
interstate commerce,
violate federal antitrust
laws, or constitute a
taking.
-------
Page I-B-14
APPENDIX 1-B
LEGAL DECISIONS CONCERNING
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROLS
NAME OF CASE
J. Filiberto Sanitation,
Inc. v. New Jersey
Department of
Environmental
Protection
857 F.2d 913 (3d Cir.
1988)
FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT DECISIONS
Harvey & Harvey, Inc.
v. Delaware Solid
Waste Authority
600 F. Supp. 1369
(D.Del. 1985)
FLOW
CONTROL
MECHANISM
State regulation
Authority
ordinance
SCOPE OF
MATERIALS
COVERED1
MSW
MSW
TYPES OF
FACILITIES
Transfer
station
State-operated
landfills,
recycling
centers, and
waste-to-
energy
facilities
ISSUES RAISED
ANTITRUST2
COMMERCE
CLAUSE3
/
/
TAKING4
DECISION
FLOW
CONTROL
OVER-
TURNED
FLOW
CONTROL
UPHELD
/
/
RATIONALE FOR
DECISION
State regulation that
required that all waste,
whether originating in-
state or out-of-state, be
processed at an in-
county transfer station
does not discriminate
against interstate
commerce.
Flow control ordinance
that required all MSW
to be managed at state-
operated facilities does
not violate the
Commerce Clause
because it treats all
interests, both in-state
and out-of-state,
equally.
-------
APPENDIX I-B
Page I-B-15
LEGAL DECISIONS CONCERNING
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROLS
NAME OF CASE
Stephen P. DeVito, Jr.
Trucking, Inc. v.
Rhode Island Solid
Waste Management
Corp.
770 F.Supp. 775
(D.R.I. 1991), aff'd,
947 F.2d 1004 (1st
Cir. 1991)
Waste Systems Corp.
v. County of Martin,
et al
784 F.Supp. 641
(D.Minn. 1992), afPd.
985 F.2d 1381 (8th
Cir. 1993)
FLOW
CONTROL
MECHANISM
Stale regulation
Bi-county
ordinance
SCOPE OF
MATERIALS
COVERED1
MSW
*
MSW
TYPES OF
FACILITIES
Landfill and
proposed
waste-to-
energy facility
MSW
Composting
facility
ISSUES RAISED
ANTITRUST2
COMMERCE
CLAUSE3
/
/
TAKING*
DECISION
FLOW
CONTROL
OVER-
TURNED
/
/
FLOW
CONTROL
UPHELD
RATIONALE FOR
DECISION
State regulation that
directed all solid waste
to be managed at state-
operated facilities
discriminates against
interstate commerce
because the state failed
to demonstrate a
compelling need or the
absence of less
burdensome
alternatives.
Bi-county ordinance
that directed all MSW
to be managed at a
public composting
facility discriminates
against interstate
commerce because the
ordinance's primary
interest is in ensuring
the financial viability of
a publicly-owned
management facility.
-------
Page I-B-16
APPENDIX I-B
LEGAL DECISIONS CONCERNING
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PLOW CONTROLS
NAME OF CASE
Waste Recycling, Inc.
v. Southeast Alabama
Solid Waste Disposal
Authority
814 F. Supp. 1566
(M.D. Ala. 1993)
STATE COURT
DECISIONS
Waste Management of
the Desert, Inc. v
Palm Springs
Recycling Center,
Inc.
28 Cal.Rptr. 2d 461;
869 P.2d 440 (1994)
FLOW
CONTROL
MECHANISM
Municipal
ordinances
City ordinance
SCOPE OF
MATERIALS
COVERED1
MSW
MSW, including
residential and
commercial
recyclables
TYPES OF
FACILITIES
Landfill and
transfer
stations
Landfills and
recycling
centers
ISSUES RAISED
ANTITRUST2
COMMERCE
CLAUSE3
/
TAKING4
/
DECISION
FLOW
CONTROL
OVER-
TURNED
/
/
FLOW
CONTROL
UPHELD
RATIONALE FOR
DECISION
Municipal ordinances
that directed all waste
to publicly-owned
facilities result in
economic protectionism
and violate the
Commerce Clause.
City ordinance that
restricted access to the
collection and removal
of recyclable materials
is void, because these
materials are not
considered a solid waste
under State law until
they have been
discarded bv their
owners.
1. MSW refers to municipal solid waste and does not necessarily include recyclables unless specifically noted.
2. Antitrust refers to the Sherman Antitrust Act which restricts monopolies.
3. The Commerce Clause is the provision of the United States Constitution which gives Congress the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce.
4. A taking is an unlawful taking of properly in violation of a person's due process rights.
-------
APPENDIX II-A
Summary Matrix of State Flow Control Authorities
This Appendix contains a summary matrix of flow control authorities for all 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. The purpose of this matrix is to provide Congress
with a comparative review of States with and without flow control authorities. The matrix
demonstrates that State flow control laws vary in the degree of authority and discretion given to
local governments. Row controls also differ in the types of wastes or recyclable materials
covered.
The matrix is divided by State or territory into the following major sections:
4 State recycling goals list the source reduction and recycling goals
established by State legislatures.20
4 Responsibility for MSW Planning provides the statutory and/or regulatory
title and citation along with the governmental entity responsible for solid
waste management planning.
4 Specific Delegation of Flow Controls identifies those States or territories
, that explicitly authorize flow controls by statute or regulation. A footnote
explains the flow control authority in those States that do not authorize
flow control directly but have established other mechanisms such as home
rule authority, the power to award franchises, or the local solid waste
management planning process.
4 Scope of Materials Covered by Flow Controls lists the types of wastes or
recyclable materials that may be flow controlled.
4 Comments discuss the State solid waste management planning or flow
control authorities in further detail.
Information on source reduction and recycling goals obtained from Robert Steuteville "The State of
Garbage in America: Part II," BioCycle, May 1994, pp. 30-36. The Steuteville survey includes States where
the goals were established by statute as well as States where the source reduction and recycling goals were
established by other means, such as executive orders by State governors.
_
-------
Page II-A-2
APPENDIX II-A
How FLOW CONTROLS ARE IMPLEMENTED
State and local governments use flow controls to require that wastes and/or recyclable
materials be delivered to designated facilities such as WTE facilities, MRFs, landfills, composting
facilities, and transfer stations. State statutes explicitly may require that municipal solid waste be
sent to a designated facility or may authorize award of contracts or franchises that mandate
delivery to a specific facility.
State flow control laws vary in the degree of authority and discretion given to local
governments to control the flow of MSW within their political jurisdictions. For example, the
States of Rhode Island and Delaware (and not their local governments) have the authority to
develop flow controls. Most other States that allow flow controls authorize local governments
and regional solid waste management districts to implement flow controls.
Local governments in some States also must address administrative requirements prior to
implementing flow controls. Mississippi and Tennessee require a solid waste management
authority to demonstrate the necessity of implementing mandatory flow controls (e.g., after
considering the use of existing facilities and examining other alternatives). Other administrative
hurdles include holding public hearings prior to establishing flow controls (e.g., Colorado, >
Minnesota), attempting to develop a contractual agreement with haulers as an alternative to using
flow controls, and requiring each municipality that wants to implement flow controls to seek
specific State legislative authorization.
Flow control laws may cover a wide range of solid wastes and materials, such as:
4 Commercial and residential waste;
4 Mixed waste;
4 Recyclables in mixed waste; !
4 Curbside and drop-off center commingled recyclables; and
4 Source separated recyclables.
Twenty-three (23) States (and the District of Columbia) that authorize flow controls limit the
recyclable materials or MSW that may be controlled. For example, Mississippi, Montana, and
New Jersey do not authorize flow controls for source separated recyclable materials.
-------
APPENDIX II-A
Page ll-A-3
METHODOLOGY
To collect information on State flow control authorities, EPA reviewed information from
the following sources:
4 . State statutes and regulations;
4 Public comments and materials submitted to the RCRA docket;
4 Discussions and citations from court decisions and legal briefs; and
4 Contacts with knowledgeable sources.
Federal, State, and local government personnel familiar with the flow control issue corroborated
the information obtained by the statutory and regulatory reviews.
-------
Page II-A-4
APPENDIX II-A
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Goals)2
Alabama
(25% by 1991)
Alaska
(No Goal)
Arizona
(No Goal)
MSW Authorities
Responsibility tor MSW
Planning
Solid Waste Disposal Act, Ala.
Code §22-27-45, §22-27-47(a)
(State, county and
municipality)
Solid Waste Management
Regulations,
Alaska Admin. Code tit. 18,
§60.015(b)
(individuals who manage
facilities open to the public
(e.g., restaurants, stores))
Solid Waste Management Law,
Ariz. Rev Stat §§49-721 and
49-741; Solid Waste
Management Regulations, Ariz
Comp. Admin. R. and Regs.
§18-8-402 (State, in
cooperation with local
governments or management
planning regions)
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Solid Waste Disposal Act, Ala.
Code §22-27-3(a), §22-27-5(b)
(county or municipality)
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
MSW
Comments
• Local government has responsibility to assure
proper management of solid wastes;
• Local government may require mandatory
participation in solid waste management services;
• Local government may establish service fees,
enter into contracts, or assign territories for waste
management services.
• Person who manages facilities open to the public
(e.g., campgrounds, shopping centers, schools)
must dispose of solid waste at an approved
management facility or contract for proper
_ ^management of waste. _..
• Local government must provide or contract for
safe and sanitary disposal;
• Municipality must not prohibit or "unreasonably"
restrain a private enterprise from providing
commercial or industrial recycling or solid waste
management services (may limit number of
service companies);
• When set out for collection and upon acceptance,
MSW becomes property of the management
agency or public facility.
2 Information on recycling and source reduction goals obtained from Robert Steuteville, "The State of Garbage in America: Part II," Biocycle, May
1994. pp. 30-36.
-------
APPENDIX II-A
Page II-A-5
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Goals)2
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
Comments
Arkansas
(40% by 2000)
Solid Waste Management Act,
Ark. Stat. Ann. §8-6-210 -
8-6-212
(municipalities and counties)
Ark. Stat. Ann. §8-6-704
MSW
Responsibility of county or municipality to
adequately provide for solid waste management;
Solid Waste District can authorize movement of
waste in/out of district with notification to the
State.
California3
(50% by 2000)
Cal. Pub. Res. Code §40002;
§§40900 - 41903; §41750,
Countywide Integrated Waste
Management Plans; §41780
Counties and cities may grant franchises for solid
waste management;
Franchises may be exclusive.
Colorado
(50% by 2000)
Solid Waste Disposal Sites and
Facilities Law,
Col. Rev. Stat. §30-20-100.5(d)
(State and local governments)
Solid Waste Disposal Sites and
Facilities Law,
Col. Rev. Stat. §30-20-107
(county or municipality)
MSW
County or municipality may designate specific
waste management facility as its exclusive facility;
Flow control authority applies to "solid waste
disposal sites and facilities," but these facilities
may include recycling operations; ;>
Prior to designation, a public hearing must be
held.
Connecticut
(40% by 2000)
Solid Waste Management Act,
Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-211
(State); §22a-220
(municipality)
Solid Waste Management Act,
Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-220a
(municipality)
MSW including only
specific recyclable
materials
• Municipality may designate where solid waste
must be managed;
• Municipality may also designate where the
following residential recyclables must be
processed or sold: cardboard; glass food and
beverage containers; leaves; metal food and
' beverage containers; newspapers; storage
batteries; waste oil; and plastic food and beverage
containers;
> Recyclables are not solid waste until they are
discarded or prepared for collection.
3 California provides authority to grant exclusive franchises (Cal. Pub. Res. §40059; §§49200 - 49523). These franchises may cover MSW
including recyclable materials that have been discarded.
-------
Page II-A-6
APPENDIX II-A
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Goals)2
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
Comments
Delaware
(21% by 2000)
Solid Waste Authority Act,
Del. Code Ann. tit. 7, §§6404
and 6452
(Del. Solid Waste Authority)
Solid Waste Authority Act
Del. Code Ann. tit. 7, §6406
(31)
(Del. Solid Waste Authority)
MSW including only
specific recyclable
materials
• The Authority may divert solid waste generated
within the State to designated Authority-owned
waste management facilities;
• Solid waste generated outside of the State may
not be managed at State facilities;
• The Authority may divert the following recyclable
materials: newsprint; computer paper; white
paper; corrugated and other cardboard; plastics;
ferrous metals; nonferrous metals; white goods;
organic yard waste; used motor oil; asphalt;
batteries; and household paint, solvent, pesticide,
and insecticide containers;
• Based on State comments, source separated
recyclables can be recycled or reused without
government interference or direction;
• Based on State comments, the Authority
encourages private activities in the collection and
recycling of cardboard, beer containers used in
restaurants and bars, computer printout, office
paper, used motor oil, scrap metal, yard
trimmings, tires, asphalt, and concrete;
• Recyclables separated at the point of generation
are not subject to flow controls.
District of Columbia
(45% by 1995)
Solid Waste Management and
Multi-Material Recycling Act,
D.C. Code Ann. §6-3404
(Mayor)
Solid Waste Law,
D.C. Code Ann. §6-507
(Mayor)
MSW except for source
separated recyclable
material
Flow controls may require that all combustible
refuse be delivered to designated combustors;
Persons (e.g., owners of hotels or apartment
buildings) may dispose of their solid waste in
their own incinerators;
The right of an individual to donate, sell, or
otherwise dispose of his or her recyclables may
not be limited.
-------
APPENDIX II-A
Page II-A-7
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Goals)2
Florida
(30% by 1995)
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Act,
Fla. Stat. Ann. §403.705
(State); §403.706 (county)
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Act,
Fla. Stat. Ann. §403.713
(county or municipality)
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
MSW except for
commercial source
separated recyclable
materials
Comments
Flow controls may only be used to ensure
resource recovery facility receives adequate
supply of MSW from waste generated within the
jurisdiction;
Flow controls do not apply to commercial source
separated recyclables;
Flow controls do not extend to recovered
materials, whether separated at the point of
generation or after collection, that are intended
to be held for the purposes of recycling.
Georgia
(25% by 1996)
Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Act,
Ga. Code Ann. §12-8-31
(State, in cooperation with
local governments);
§12-8-31 (local government)
Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Act,
Ga. Code Ann. §12-8-51(b)
(regional solid waste
management authorities)
MSW except for
recyclable materials
The State solid waste management plan will serve
as a guide for the development of local and
regional plans for solid waste management.
Hawaii
(50% by 2000)
Integrated Solid Waste
Management, Haw. Rev. Stat.
Chap. 342G; Solid Waste
Management, Chap. 342H
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Haw. Rev. Stat. §340A-3
(county)
MSW except for source
separated recyclable
materials and
agricultural solid waste
The county may require that all solid waste
transported by the county agency, collectors,
businesses, or individuals be disposed in
designated facilities.
Idaho"1
(25% by 1995)
Counties and Counties Law,
Idaho Code §§31-4401 - 31-
4403
(county)
Duty of county to acquire, maintain, and operate
a solid waste management system (including
collection, storage, recycling, and disposal
facilities);
County is authorized to enter into contracts or
award franchises for solid waste management
with or without competitive bidding.
4 Idaho authorizes counties to award franchises with or without competitive bidding and these franchises can require that MSW be managed at
designated facilities.
-------
Page II-A-8
APPENDIX H-A
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Goals)2
••••
Illinois
(25% by 2000)
MSW Autfiorit !es
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Solid Waste Planning and
Recycling Act,
III. Rev. Stat. tit. 85, §4
(counties and municipalities)
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Counties Law,
III. Rev. Stat. tit. 34, §5-1047
(counties)5
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
MSW; scope of covered
material determined by
each jurisdiction
Comments
A county that has prepared a solid waste
management plan may require that all solid waste
be managed at a designated facility;
Each jurisdiction has the authority to decide what
materials to include under flow control in their
plans.
Indiana6
(50% by 2000)
Solid Waste Management Act,
Ind. Code Ann. §13-9.5 (State
and solid waste management
districts)
Collection and Disposal of
Waste in Indianapolis, Ind.
Code. Ann. §36-9-31-3 & 4
(City of Indianapolis only)
City of Indianapolis
only: MSW except for
waste that is to be
reused or reclaimed as
salvage
A district solid waste management plan, to the
extent constitutional, may restrict or prohibit the
disposal of out-of-state solid waste;
City of Indianapolis may require all wastes to be
deposited at specific sites.
Iowa. - . - ._
(50% by 2000)
Environmental Quality Act,
Iowa Code Ann. §455B.302
(cities and counties)
Solid Waste Monopoly Act,
Iowa Code Ann. §28G.4
(local government)
MSW
Local government must implement a _
comprehensive solid waste reduction program
and sanitary disposal project (may contract for
services);
Local government may designate a specific facility
for solid waste management, but designation may
not require the incineration of recyclable
materials.
5 No local government has implemented flow control.
6 Indiana specifically authorizes the city of Indianapolis to use flow controls for MSW except for waste that is to be reused or reclaimed as
salvage (Ind. Code Ann. §36-9-31-3 & 4). For the rest of the State, Indiana does not empower solid waste management districts to use solid waste
flow controls unless the governmental entity within the district, at the time of district formation, is already a party to a flow control contract; in
such cases, the district can renew.
-------
APPENDIX II-A
Page ll-A-9
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
iStates
(Recycling
Kansas
(No Goal)
Kentucky7
(25% by 1997)
Louisiana
(25% by 1992)
Maine
(50% by 1994)
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Solid Waste Management Act,
Kan. Stat. Ann. §65-3406(5)
(State); §65-3405, (county or
city)
Waste Management Act,
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §224.43-
310 (State); §224.43-340
(counties or waste
management districts)
Solid Waste Management and
Resource Recovery Law,
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §2154
(State)
Refuse Disposal District
Enabling Act,
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38,
§1731
(disposal districts)
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Resource Recovery and
Development Act,
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §30:2302
(La. Resource Recovery and
Development Authority)
Hazardous Waste Septage and
Solid Waste Management Act,
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38,
§1304-B(2) (municipalities);
§2103(K and L) (State)
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
MSW including
discarded recyclables
MSW except for
specified recyclables
Comments
Any county having a solid waste management
plan may restrict disposal of solid waste coming
from outside of planning area;
Title to solid waste vests in the owner of the
management facility upon delivery;
Private waste collectors may extract recyclables
prior to delivery, to the resource recovery facility.
Counties must provide universal collection for
MSW;
Collection services may be provided by" the
county, by contract, or by franchise.
Resource Recovery and Development Authority
may require persons to use designated, facilities
for solid waste management;
Row control applies to recyclables that have been
discarded.
Municipality may require delivery of solid waste
to .a designated disposal or reclamation facility;
delivery of yard trimmings to a compost facility;
and/or may designate certain materials as
recyclables and exempt them from flow control;
Recyclables that have been abandoned or
discarded by the owner are defined by Maine law
as solid waste regardless of their potential value.
Kentucky allows counties and waste management districts to grant franchises for MSW management.
-------
Page II-A-10
APPENDIX II-A
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Goals)2
- '' i- -"-•-
Maryland8
(20% by 1994 for
counties over
100,000 population
and 15% for
counties under
100,000)
Massachusetts9
(46% by 2000)
Michigan10
(25% recycling, 10%
composting, 10%
source reduction,
and 5% reuse by
2005)
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
County Waste and Sewerage
Plans,
Md. Env. Code Ann. §§9-503
and 9-505 (counties);
Northeast Maryland Waste
Disposal Authority Act,
Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. §3-
903 (Northeast Maryland
Waste Disposal Authority)
Solid Waste Disposal Law,
Mass Gen. Laws. Ann. ch.16,
§21 (State)
Solid Waste Management Act
Mich. Comp. Laws §299.427
(State); §299.425 (municipality
or county)
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
Comments
Each county plan and the Northeast Maryland
Waste Disposal Authority plan must provide for
facilities that are adequate to treat, recover, or
dispose of solid waste;
Each county or the Authority must also develop
. recycling plans;
Under home rule authority, local governments
can authorize flow controls.
Cities or towns may prepare local solid waste
management plans to assist the State in
developing the State plan;
Under home rule authority, local governments
can authorize flow controls.
• A solid waste management plan must include an
enforceable program and process to assure that
solid waste is properly managed.
8 Although Maryland does not have a State statute authorizing the use of flow controls, Prince George's County, under home rule authority,
established a flow control ordinance to designate where MSW must be managed (Prince George's County Code §21-103.1).
9 Similar to Maryland, Massachusetts does not have a State statute authorizing the use of flow controls, but is a home rule State. Under home
rule authority, local governments may establish MSW flow controls.
10 MSW planning documents determine capacity and flow control for local jurisdictions. Plans also specify import/export requirements between
counties. If flow control is implemented, source separated materials are excluded.
-------
APPENDIX II-A
Page II-A-11
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling
Minnesota
(30% by 1996 for
greater Minnesota
and 45% by 1996 in
the 7 county Twin
Cities area)
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Fanning
Waste Management Act,
Minn Stat. Ann. §115A.46,
(county or solid waste
management district)
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Waste Management Act,
Minn. Stat. Ann. §115A.80-
115A.893, (county and solid
waste management district)
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
MSW; however waste
designation may not be
applied to source
separated recyclables or
to waste currently being
managed at a facility
that uses a method that
occupies the same or
higher place on the
State's waste
management hierarchy.
Comments
A county or district must submit a plan to
designate a facility, demonstrate that (1) the
designation is necessary and (2) prudent
alternatives do not exist;
A public hearing must be held and for 90 days
afterward, the county or district must attempt to
negotiate contracts with waste collectors in the
area in an attempt to avoid using designation;
The State will not authorize 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);
After a designation ordinance is in effect, a party
may apply for an exclusion for waste to be
delivered to a processing facility other than the
designated facility;
Based on comments submitted by the Minn.
Legislative Commission on Waste Management,
designation may not apply to materials processed
at a resource recovery facility in operation at the
time the designated plan is approved.
Mississippi
(25% by 1996)
Solid Waste Disposal Act,
Miss. Code Ann. §§17-17-325
and §17-17-315
(local plan)
Regional Solid Waste
Management Authority Act,
Miss. Code Ann. §17-17-319
(regional solid waste
management authority)
MSW except for source
separated recyclables or
materials that collectors
of MSW recycle from
the waste stream
The authority must demonstrate the necessity of
mandatory flow controls to ensure viability of
facility (e.g., consider the use of existing
management facilities);
MSW becomes property of the local government
upon collection or upon delivery to a disposal
facility.
-------
Page II-A-12
APPENDIX II-A
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Goals)2
«M««IHH«Bil
Missouri
(40% by 1998)
Montana
(25% by 1996)
-Nebraska
(50% by 2002)
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Solid Waste Rules,
Mo. Code Regs. tit. 10,
§80-6.010
(city or county)
Solid Waste and Litter Control
Act,
Mont. Code Ann. §§75-10-111
and 75-10-112
(State in conjunction with local
governments)
Solid Waste Management P!anr
Neb. Rev. Stat. §§81-15, 166
(State),
Integrated Solid Waste
Management Act,
Neb. Rev. Stat. §§13-2001 -
13-2043
Solid Waste Law,
Mo. Rev. Stats. §§260,201,and
202
(city or county)
Solid Waste and Litter Control
Act,
Mont. Code Ann. §75-10-112
(local governments)
Integrated Solid Waste
Management Act,
Neb. Rev. Stat. §§13-2026,
§13-2033 - 13-2034
(municipalities, counties, and
natural resource districts acting
alone or in cooperation under
the Inter-local Cooperation
Act)
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
Comments
MSW except for paper
fibers, plastic, glass, or
metals to be reused or
residue from timber
harvest or production
MSW except for
marketable by-products
MSWrJnay cover
recyclables
A city or county that has voted to increase
service fees to finance a waste management
facility may use flow controls;
Cities and counties have responsibility for solid
waste management planning and implementation.
A local government may control the disposition
of solid waste generated within its jurisdiction.
Comprehensive.S.olid Waste_ Management J*lan
developed by the State to assist political
subdivisions in the planning and implementation
of their individual, joint, or regional solid waste
management systems;
Counties and municipalities required to develop
and submit to State for approval an integrated
solid waste management plan. Minimum
requirements that must be addressed in each
plan include information pertaining to facility and
system capacity for a twenty year period, and
implementation of waste reduction and recycling
programs with emphasis on meeting waste
disposal reduction goals and managing certain
land-banned items;
Counties, municipalities, and agencies may govern
solid waste management within their jurisdictions
including the establishment of conditions to
assure that a specified amount and type of solid
waste will be delivered to a specific facility;
Flow controls may cover recyclable materials.
-------
APPENDIX II-A
Page II-A-13
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Goals)2
Nevada
(25% by 1994)
New Hampshire
(40% by 2000)
New Jersey
(60% by 1995)
New Mexico
(50% by 2000)
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Solid Waste Disposal Law,
Nev. Rev. Stat. §444.510
(municipality or district board
of health); §444.570 (State in
cooperation with
municipalities)
Solid Waste Management Law,
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §149-
M:l(State); §149-M:17(towns);
§149-M:18 (solid waste
management districts)
Solid Waste Management Act,
N.J. Stat. Ann. §§13:1E-
2(b)(2) and 13:1E-20 (counties
and Hackensack/Meadowlands
district);
§31:lE-2(b)(6) (State)
Solid Waste Act,
NM Stat. Ann. §74-9-4
(State)
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §47:17,
XIV; §§147: 43, 46, and 47;
and §§149M: 13 and 21
Solid Waste Act,
N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 13:lE-22
and 4&13A-5;
Solid Waste Management
Regulations,
Admin. Code §7:26-6
(State)
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
MSW
MSW except for source
separated recyclable
materials
Comments
When recyclable materials are placed at curbside
or at a designated site for collection, the
materials become the property of the private
recycling company or the person designated by
the local government to collect recyclables.
State policy holds that solid waste management
competition and enterprise may be displaced or
limited by towns, counties, and districts.
The State has the authority to direct the flow of
solid waste;
Flow controls are modified each year to reflect
changes in county plans as well as waste flow
modifications;
The State may award exclusive franchises for the
disposal of solid waste;
Franchises may not be awarded for recyclable
materials whenever markets are available.
In preparing the State plan, the State will request
information from each county and municipality;
State will establish solid waste districts;
The State and each municipality must provide a
means to dispose of solid waste generated within
its jurisdiction.
-------
Page II-A-14
APPENDIX II-A
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Goals)2
New York
(50% by 2000)
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Laws,
N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law §27-
0103 (State), §27-0107 (county
or solid waste authority)
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
N.Y. Pub. Auth. Law, or
Chapter law (laws passed
during regular legislative
session)
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
Comments
MSW including source
separated recyclable
materials
County or public authority must seek State
legislative authorization for specific flow control;
The State legislature has granted this authority to
38 counties or public authorities;
Flow controls may place reasonable limitations on
competition.
North Carolina
(40% by 2001)
North-Dakota...
(40% by 2000)
Solid Waste Management Act,
N.C. Gen. Stat. §130A-
309.06(1) (State)
Solid Waste Management Act,
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-294
(local government)
MSW except for source
separated recyclable
materials
Flow controls may not prohibit source separation
or limit access to recyclable materials;
If its solid waste management plan is approved
by the State, a local government may adopt flow
control ordinances.
Solid Waste Management. Act,
N.D. Code §23-29-06(9)
(State);
§23-29-06(8) (solid waste
management districts);
Solid Waste Management Act,
N.D. Code §23-29-06(6)
(solid waste management
districts)
MSW
• Solid waste must be managed at facilities
identified in the district's solid waste management
plan.
-------
APPENDIX II-A
Page II-A-15
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
;•-. ? States
(Recycling
Ohio
(25% by 1994)
Oklahoma
(No Goal)
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Solid Waste Management Act,
Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§3734.50 (State);
Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§3734.53 (county or solid
waste management district)
Solid Waste Management Act,
Okla. Stat. tit. 63, §l-2412(a)
(cities and towns);
§1-2413(A) (counties)
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Solid Waste Management Act,
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3734.53
(12); §343.01; §343.013,
§343.014; §343.015 (county or
solid waste management
district)
Solid Waste Management Act,
Okla. Stat. tit. 63, §1-2412 (c)
(cities and towns)
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
MSW11
MSW, except for
source separated
materials'
Comments
Solid waste management districts must identify
solid waste disposal, transfer, and resource
recovery facilities and recycling activities for
purposes of capacity planning. Districts may
designate facilities and activities for purposes of
restricting or directing the flow of waste
generated within or outside the district;
Designation of publicly-owned facilities with
outstanding public debt may be done at any time
by resolution; flow control to such facilities
expires when public debt is retired. Flow control
to any other facilities can be initiated only
through a multiple-resolution procedure requiring
extensive public notice and comment.
Enforcement of district flow control i&.-a local
responsibility;
The State may override local flow control
restrictions to allow the temporary disposal of
waste from other Ohio districts in specific cases
of emergency disposal capacity shortfall.
Cities and towns may control the collection,
transportation, storage, and disposal of solid
waste generated or existing within the
jurisdiction;
Flow control may require delivery of solid waste
only to facilities in compliance with State
requirements.
11 Ohio EPA issued guidance in 1990, stating that separated and abandoned materials (e.g., curbside recyclables) are considered solid waste for
the purposes of flow control; materials separated but not abandoned are not subject to flow control.
-------
Page II-A-16
APPENDIX II-A
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Goals)2
-"-• •'-•
Oregon
(50% by 2000)
Pennsylvania
(25% by 1997)
Rhode Island
(70%)
South Carolina
(30% by 1997)
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Solid Waste Control Law,
Or. Rev. Stat. §459.017(l)(b)
(local government)
Municipal Waste Planning,
Recycling, and Waste
Reduction Act,
Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 53,
§4000.303
(counties)
Solid Waste Management
Corporation Act,
R.I. Gen. Laws §23-19-11
(solid waste management
corporation)
Solid Waste Policy and
Management Act,
S.C. Code Ann. §44-96-20
(State); §44-96-80(A)
(county or regional
organization)
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
Comments
Metropolitan Service Districts,
Or. Rev. Stat. §268.317(3) &
(4)
(metropolitan service districts)
Municipal Waste Planning,
Recycling, and Waste
Reduction Act,
Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 53,
§4000.303, §4000.502 and
§4000.513
-(counties)
Solid Waste Management
Corporation Act,
R.I. Gen Laws § 23-19-10(40)
(solid waste management
corporation)
MSW
MSW except for source
separated recyclable
materials.
MSW including
curbside recyclables.
Does not include waste
from federal facilities.
A metropolitan service district may require
generators and/or collectors of solid waste to
make use of designated disposal, transfer, or
resource recovery facilities;
Local governments have the primary
responsibility for solid waste management.
A county with an approved municipal solid waste
management plan must ensure that MSW
generated within its boundaries is processed or
disposed at facilities selected by the county in its
plan. The Act identifies a variety of mechanisms
which a county may utilize to meet this duty;
-MSW does not include .source separated
recyclable materials;
Flow controls may not apply to MSW managed
in on-site, captive commercial disposal facilities.
The solid waste management corporation may
control the transportation, storage, and final
disposal of all solid waste and designate
management facilities.
County or regional organization has the
responsibility and authority to provide solid
waste management;
Local government gains right to recycled material
only at time of pickup or delivery;
A generator of source separated recyclable
materials may not be prohibited from arranging
for transportation of materials to a recycler.
-------
APPENDIX II-A
Page II-A-17
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
Sitates
South Dakota12
(50% by 2001)
Tennessee
(25% by 1996)
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Solid Waste Disposal Act,
S.D. Codified Laws Ann.
§34A-6-23
(municipalities)
Solid Waste Management Act,
Tenn. Code Ann. §§68-31-
813(c) - 815
(MSW planning region)
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
S.D. Codified Laws Ann.
§34A-16 (counties and
municipalities)
Solid Waste Management Act,
Tenn. Code Ann. §68-31-814
(MSW planning region or solid
waste authority)
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
MSW except source
separated materials
MSW except for source
separated or recovered
materials
Comments
Municipality must provide for the disposal of
solid waste generated or existing within the
jurisdiction;
Municipality may grant and regulate franchises
for the purpose of collection and disposal of solid
waste;
A municipality must submit the proposition of
issuing such a franchise to a vote by the people
of the municipality.
Recovered materials include those materials that
have been diverted from the waste stream for
sale or recycling, whether or not the materials
require further processing;
Region or solid waste authority may. regulate the
flow of MSW generated within the Region;
Prior to adoption of flow controls, the Region or
authority must demonstrate the necessity of flow
controls (e.g., existing facilities inadequate).
12 In 1983, legislature approved a special purpose governmental entity that municipalities and counties can form. Legislature allows flow
control upon presentation of certain findings to the State. State may approve/disapprove request. No County or municipality has ever used flow
controls.
-------
Page II-A-18
APPENDIX II-A
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Goals)2
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
Comments
Texas"
(40% by 1994)
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Texas Health and Safety Code
Ann. §361.020 (State);
Municipal Solid Waste Act,
Texas Health and Safety Code
Ann. §363.004 (State);
§363.063 (local government);
§363.062 (planning region)
Solid waste management has become a matter of
State concern and requires State financial
assistance to plan and implement solid waste
management practices;
Control of solid waste collection and disposal
continues to be a responsibility of local
government; and
No limits or restrictions may be placed on
separating or recovering recyclable materials from
solid waste.
Local government may award exclusive franchises
Utah"
(No Goal)
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Act,
Utah Code Ann. § 19-6-104
(State)
for solid waste management
Vermont
(40% by 2000)
Solid Waste Management Law,
Vt. Stat. Ann. §6604
(State);
Municipal and County
Government Law,
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, §2202a
(solid waste management
district or regional planning
commission)
Municipal and County
Government Law,
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24,
§2203a&b
(municipality)
MSW, but may control
recyclables only if no
adverse effects to
existing private recycling
centers
Municipality may designate exclusive solid waste
management facilities;
Municipality may exercise control over recyclables
if such control does not adversely affect an
existing private recycling center.
13 Cities/counties are authorized to impose MSW flow controls through local planning authority (Comprehensive Municipal Solid Waste
Management, Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, Texas Health and Safety Code §363; County Solid Waste Control Act (county)).
14 Utah authorizes local governments to award franchises for MSW management.
-------
APPENDIX II-A
Page II-A-19
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Gtoals)2
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
Comments
Virginia
(25% by 1995)
Solid Waste Management Act,
Va. Code Ann. §10.1-1411
(local governments and
regional planning districts)
Counties, Cities, and Towns
Laws,
Va. Code Ann. §15.1-28.01
(counties, cities, and towns)
MSW except for source
separated recyclable
materials, construction
debris, and waste oil.
Municipality may adopt flow control ordinances,
if, after public hearings, the municipality can
demonstrate that existing facilities are inadequate
or the ordinance is necessary to ensure financing;
The Commonwealth authorizes municipalities to
displace or limit solid waste management
competition.
Virgin Islands
(No Goal)
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Act,
V.I. Code Ann. tit. 19, §1553
(Department of Public Works)
Solid Waste Disposal, Resource
Recovery, and Desalination
Facility Development Act,
-V.I. Code Ann. tit. 19, §1570f
(territory)
MSW
All solid waste, however collected, must be
delivered to the Solid Waste Disposal, Resource
Recovery, and Desalination Facility;
The Department of Public Works is required to
develop and implement a solid waste
management plan for the territory. .
Washington
(50% by 1995)
Solid Waste Management Law,
Wash. Ann. §70.95.080
(counties, in cooperation with
cities)
Cities and Town Laws,
Wash. Rev. Code. Ann.
§35.21.120-130
(cities and towns);
Counties Law,
Wash. Rev. Code. Ann.
§36.58.040
(counties)
MSW except for
commercial recyclables
Cities, towns, or counties may use a solid waste
or recyclable materials collection ordinance to
designate management facilities;
Flow controls may not prevent a recycling
company or nonprofit entity from collecting
recyclable material from a buy-back center, drop
box, or a commercial generator;
Flow controls may not apply to commercial
recyclables.
West Virginia
(50% by 2010)
Solid Waste Management Act,
W.Va. Code §§20-9-7 and 20-
11-4
(State and county or regional
solid waste authority)
Public Service Commission,
W. Va. Code Ann. §24-2-lh
(Public Service Commission)
MSW
Public Service Commission may designate where
solid waste is processed or disposed;
Flow controls may not cover reuse or recycling of
solid waste or disposal of solid waste at a captive
facility.
-------
Page II-A-20
APPENDIX H-A
SUMMARY OF STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
States
(Recycling Goals)2
Wisconsin
(No goal)15
Wyoming
(No Goal)
MSW Authorities
Responsibility for MSW
Planning
Environmental Protection Law,
Wis. Stat. Ann. §144.437
(State authorizes, but does not
require, counties to plan)
Counties Law,
Wyo. Stat. §15-1-103
(cities/towns)
Specific Delegation of Flow
Controls
Recycling Act,
Wis. Stat. Ann. §§159.13 (2),
(3), and (11)
(municipality)
Counties Law,
Wyo. Stat. §15-1-103
(cities/towns)
Scope of Materials
Covered by Flow
Controls
MSW except for source
separated recyclable
material
MSW
Comments
• A municipality may require use of a facility for
the recycling of solid waste or for the recovery of
resources from solid waste generated within the
limits of the municipality;
• The statute contains exemptions for certain solid
wastes (e.g., source separated recyclable
materials);
• For 90 days prior to implementing a required use
order, a municipality must negotiate and attempt
to develop a contractual agreement with persons
subject to the required use order;
• Additional administrative procedures exist for
persons adversely affected (e.g., public hearings,
'appeals). -----.
• County or solid waste disposal district may
require the disposal of solid waste at designated
sites.
15 Wisconsin's law does not set a specific recycling goal. Instead, it bans disposal of most recyclable and compostable materials and requires
"effective recycling programs" at the local level. Program approval creates an exemption from the ban.
-------
APPENDIX II-B
Flow Control Case Studies
FLOW CONTROL CASE STUDIES
The following case studies provide examples of
waste management practices both in jurisdictions that use
flow controls and in jurisdictions that do not. The case
studies represent a snapshot of waste management
practices, illustrating the role of flow controls. The case
studies do not, however, present a comprehensive analysis
of flow control implementation.
*
•.
CONTROL.
' * ;v Spokane. Cpunty, Washfagtoii
FASI PSE -OF PLOW CONTROL ,
In developing ttie four case studies, EPA primarily relied on information provided by
commenters during the public meetings, written materials submitted to the RCRA docket, and
information obtained for the market analysis (see Chapter HI of this Report) for which 35 States
submitted State solid waste management plans, recycling plans, waste characterization studies, and
related data. Because the materials collected did not contain all of the information necessary to
complete the case studies, EPA contacted representatives from each of the four chosen locations for
supplemental information.
In selecting the individual locations for the case studies, EPA used the following combination
of factors:
Information from the public meetings and materials submitted by public
commenters identified potential case study locations.
Recommendations by representatives of State and local governments, waste
management industry, trade associations, and other interested parties aided in
narrowing the list of candidate case study locations. For example, several
parties recommended Montgomery County as a case study location where flow
controls are not used.
Specific mechanisms that municipalities used to implement or fund solid
waste management programs provided another selection criterion. To give an
idea of options available to local governments, EPA chose case study locations
using a range of solid waste management mechanisms.
-------
Page II-B-2
APPENDIX II-B
4 Geographical diversity of candidate sites became the final criterion. In
reviewing case study candidates, EPA selected locations that provide
geographical diversity.
Each case study is divided into the following major sections:
Overview of State structure describes State waste management planning
requirements and State authority for the use of flow controls;
Planning and flow control discusses how the municipality implements its
solid waste management plan and the role of flow controls (if the jurisdiction
uses flow controls);
Municipal solid waste management provides an overview of the jurisdiction's
current management system, including a description of its solid waste disposal
facilities and recycling programs; and
Funding solid waste management shows the methods used to support the
systems' capital and operating costs, such as tipping fees, recycling fees, State
grants, and taxes.
-------
APPENDIX Il-B
Page II-B-3
UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Overview of State Structure
New Jersey uses flow controls throughout the State to
direct residential, commercial, and industrial solid waste to be
managed at specific waste disposal facilities. The State does not
control the movement of source separated recyclable
materials.16 Row control authority, when combined with data
on the.amounts and types of solid wastes generated in each
municipality, assists the State and its counties in planning and
constructing solid waste management facilities. Flow controls
ensure that a steady supply of waste is delivered to appropriate
processing or disposal facilities. This steady supply, in turn,
guarantees that sufficient revenues will be generated to pay debt
service and other fixed costs of waste management facilities.
New Jersey uses flow controls to achieve its goal of developing
self-sufficiency in solid waste disposal capacity.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy's (NJDEPE) flow control
regulations specifically direct that solid waste must be
managed at designated facilities. NJDEPE regulates
the solid waste management industry as a utility and
closely monitors prices to protect consumers and
control waste management costs.
OVERVIEW OF UNION COUNTY
Union County is located in northeastern
New Jersey and is a densely-populated
urban region within the Newark
metropolitan area. The county nas a
population of approximately 493,000.
Recyclable materials are defined as "materials which would otherwise become solid waste and which
may be collected, separated or processed and returned to the economic mainstream in the form of raw materials
or products." NJ. Admin. Code § 7:26A-1.3. Examples of recyclable materials are newspapers, glass
containers, aluminum cans, ferrous cans, plastic containers, corrugated cardboard, mixed paper, car batteries,
white goods, used motor oil, roofing materials, and yard trimmings. New Jersey includes more items under'its
definition of recyclable materials than most other States.
-------
Page II-B-4
APPENDIX II-B
Planning and Flow Control
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
COMPONENTS
Current solid waste generation and
composition;
Future solid waste generation and
composition;
Inventory of existing solid waste management
facilities within the county;
Analysis of existing collection systems and
transportation routes;
Long-term solid waste disposal strategy;
Site plans of existing and future facilities
needed to accommodate projected solid waste
generation; and
Methods of financing the solid waste
management system.
In New Jersey, each county/solid waste
' management district must establish a solid waste
! management plan that describes the strategy and
means by which waste will be managed over a
10-year planning period. Union County (the
"County") uses flow controls to implement its
Solid Waste Management Plan and achieve the
State's goal for disposal self-sufficiency. Union
County also established the Union County
Utilities Authority (UCUA)17 to provide
! comprehensive solid waste recycling and
disposal services.
Implementing the Plan
After review and approval of a county solid waste management plan, NJDEPE incorporates
provisions from the plan into the State flow control regulations, which designate specific facilities to
manage solid waste. For Union County, the State flow control regulations specifically direct that all
processible solid waste must be delivered to UCUA's waste-to-energy (WTE) facility or the municipal
landfill. Non-processible waste (i.e., waste that cannbt be combusted or recycled) must be disposed in
the municipal landfill. The ash from the WTE facility also must be managed in UCUA's disposal
system. Source separated recyclable materials are exempt from the flow control regulations.
NJDEPE annually reviews whether revisions to the flow control rules are necessary and holds
public hearings on a Statewide or regional basis to accept comments on flow control changes.
Because the flow controls are State regulations that NJDEPE enforces, UCUA believes it can
implement and fund its solid waste management program more effectively. With direct State support,
flow controls readily guarantee the delivery of waste to the designated waste management facilities.
17
New Jersey authorizes the creation of public utility authorities and subjects them to statutory and
regulatory oversight. NJ. StaL Ann. §§ 40:1B-1 et seq.
-------
APPENDIX II-B
Page II-B-5
In addition to the flow control authority, NJDEPE awarded UGUA a franchise or exclusive
right to control disposal of solid waste generated within Union County.18 As the holder of the
franchise, UCUA is deemed the owner of all of the waste within the County and is responsible for
proper management of the waste. The franchise provides UCUA with additional enforcement rights in
a court of law against any person who interferes with the franchise, such as haulers transporting waste
out of the County without authorization. NJDEPE claims that the franchise right also helps UCUA
ensure delivery of waste to specific waste management facilities, secure financing, and stabilize rates,
because of the guaranteed waste flow to the County's WTE facility. In NJDEPE's opinion, because
municipalities control market conditions, rates fluctuate less than they would in the free market.
Municipal Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Of the 834,000 tons of solid waste generated
by Union County, UCUA's waste disposal system
disposes of approximately 452,000 tons (54%).19
This system includes the following facilities:
A WTE facility provides capacity to
burn 1,440 tons per day (tpd) of
municipal solid waste. Besides
MSW from Union County, the
facility also accepts 400 tpd (or
150,000 tons per year (tpy)) of MSW
from nearby Bergen County. The
WASTE MANAGED IN 1992
-------
Page II-B-6
APPENDIX II-B
A small municipal landfill accepts all non-processible waste from the
entire County (approximately 45,000 itpy).
A Pennsylvania landfill accepts
all the ash from the WTE
facility under a long-term
contract with UCUA
(approximately 116,000 tpy).
These facilities supply Union County with the
capacity to manage all of its wastes for the next
20 years. Nevertheless, the State requires the
County to identify in-state disposal sites for ash
because the out-of-state disposal contract with
the Pennsylvania landfill is inconsistent with the
State's self-sufficiency goal.20
Recycling Programs
UCUA MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
PUBLICLY-OWNED
4 1 Waste-to-energy facility;
• 1 Small municipal landfill;
4 3 Composting facilities; and
* 1 Transfer station/materials recovery facility.
PmVAIELY-OWNED
4 2 Transfer station/materials recovery facilitj.es;
4 6 Class A recycling facilities '(Class A
facilities accept glass, paper, plastic,
cardboard, etc.); and
4 4 Class B recycling facilities (Class B
facilities, accept components of construction
and demolition debris — brick, concrete,
asphalt, wood, rock, tree stumps — and tires).
Flow controls do not have a direct impact on recycling in New Jersey, because the State
exempts source separated recyclable materials from flow controls. Even without flow control over
recyclable materials, Union County has increased its recycling rate annually. In 1992, Union County
recycled 46 percent of its waste (382,000 tons). UCUA likely will achieve New Jersey's goals of 50
percent municipal solid waste recycling by 1995.21
UCUA provides curbside recycling, operates drop-off centers, collects household hazardous
waste, manages composting facilities, and encourages commercial recycling. UCUA also contracts
with private management companies for materials recovery and processing services. Individual
municipalities within the County may participate in UCUA's curbside collection program, contract
with private recyclers, or conduct their own municipal recycling collection programs. UCUA also
20 Currently, no in-state disposal capacity is available for the County's ash, and the County does not expect
to be able to develop an ash monofill within Union County.
21 NJ. Stat Ann. § 13:lE-99.13(b). The State also established source reduction goals that limit per capita
waste generation to 1990 levels and limit aggregate wastej generation in the State by 1998. See New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Solid Waste Management State Plan Update: 1993-2002,
January 1993, Ex. Sum. p. 14.
-------
APPENDIX II-B
Page Il-B-7
provides education and public information programs to residents and businesses on source reduction
and recycling (for a discussion on funding recycling programs, see sections on Recycling Fees and
State Grants and Taxes, below).
The County requires all generators to separate the following recyclable materials prior to
collection:
* Newspapers; *
* Glass containers; 4
4 Aluminum cans; 4
4 Vehicular and consumer batteries; 4
4 Plastic containers (HDPE and PET); 4
4 Corrugated cardboard; 4
Mixed paper;
Ferrous cans;
White goods;
Used motor oil;
Roofing materials; and
Yard trimmings.
In order to track recycling progress, the County requires governmental, commercial, institutional, and
industrial facilities to document recycling activities and report information quarterly to UCUA. The
County also requires information from the private materials recovery and recycling facilities. The
County combines this information with data from its composting activities to calculate an annual
recycling rate. The County submits an annual recycling report to the State for certification. Through
its various recycling programs, UCUA recycled 46 percent of its solid waste in 1992 and is well on its
way to achieving the State's 50 percent goal.
Funding Solid Waste Management
UCUA funds its integrated waste management program through a combination of mechanisms
that include: tipping fees at disposal facilities, recycling fees charged to individual households, State
grants, and special State taxes.
Tipping Fees
UCUA issued close to $280 million in long-term revenue bonds to finance its waste disposal
system including building the WTE facility, contracting for out-of-State landfill capacity (for ash
-------
Page II-B-8
APPENDIX II-B
management), and establishing recycling and household hazardous waste programs. Revenue
generated by the WTE facility backs the bonds. Revenue sources include both tipping fees and the
sale of electricity.22 Tipping fees currently are $71.50 per ton of MSW disposed.at the WTE facility
and $78.79 per ton for bulky/residual waste.23 The WTE tipping fee covers the debt service on the
revenue bonds, operating costs at the WTE facility, and any administrative costs associated with the
WTE facility. In addition, the tipping fee also partially subsidizes household hazardous waste
collection and recycling education programs.
By guaranteeing a steady supply of waste, flow controls ensure that the WTE facility can
generate sufficient revenues to pay debt service and other fixed costs. In addition, flow controls
reduce investor risk and thus reduce the cost of financing the facility.
Recycling Fees \
Each municipality charges a recycling fee of $23.45 per household per year to fund collection
and processing of recyclable materials and composting of yard trimmings and vegetative wastes. This
fee also covers most public education and administrative costs of the recycling programs.
State Grants and Taxes •
New Jersey's "Recycling Program Planning and Recycling Education Grants" assist UCUA in
funding recycling programs.24 In addition, a State recycling tax provides funds for low interest
loans, research and market studies, recycling program planning, administrative costs, and public
*)0 _^__
Due to the recent start-up of the WTE facility, no actual revenue numbers from the sale of electricity
were available.
23
Prior to the start-up of the WTE facility, tipping fe^s at transfer stations were $102 per ton. That tipping
fee covered the costs of processing, shipping, and disposal of waste at out-of-state landfills.
24
The New Jersey Statewide Mandatory Source Separation and Recycling Act of 1987 (NJ. StaL Ann. §§
13:1E-99.11 et seq.) levies a tax of $1.50 per ton of solid vyaste accepted for disposal at a landfill or accepted for
transfer to an out-of-state facility for disposal. These tax revenues, in addition to a one-time $8 million
appropriation from the general fund for recycling start-up activities, help fund recycling activities.
-------
APPENDIX II-B
Page II-B-9
information and education programs. The State also provides some funds for implementing county
solid waste management plans and subsidizing the rates for WTE facilities.25
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
4 All counties in the State of New Jersey use flow controls.
* Flow controls promote recycling indirectly as they generate revenues that partially subsidize recycling
education programs. How controls, however, do not directly promote recycling, because source
separated recyclable materials are excluded from all New Jersey flow control ordinances.
* Union County recycles approximately 46 percent of its waste stream (1992).
4 New Jersey authorizes flow controls as a means to develop disposal self-sufficiency and achieve State
capacity goals. Union County developed solid waste management capacity to dispose of all of its
s wastes for the next 20 years, except for WTE ash. Flow controls provide a guaranteed revenue
source that allowed UCUA to obtain financing for new facilities.
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Overview of State Structure
The State of Washington authorizes each county to control solid waste or to designate disposal
sites for all solid waste generated in a county's unincorporated areas. Spokane County (the "County")
uses flow'controls to provide a County-wide solution for solid waste disposal and to finance its waste
management programs and facilities. The Washington Solid Waste Management Act authorizes flow
controls for all MSW except commercial recyclables. Spokane County does not use the full authority
granted by the State. Instead, Spokane County's flow control ordinance excludes all source separated
iyc
Revenues from the Solid Waste Services Tax and the Resource Recovery Investment Tax provide these
funds, which are available to all counties based on the amount of waste generated and disposed at in-state
landfills. N.J. StaL Ann. § 13: IE. Union County uses the Solid Waste Services Tax to fund household
hazardous waste programs and other solid waste facility development projects. Union County uses the Resource
Recovery Investment Tax to subsidize the tipping fee at the WTE facility and to subsidize other WTE related
projects.
-------
Page II-B-10
APPENDIX II-B
OVERVIEW OF SPOKANE COUNTY
Spokane County is located on the eastern border
of Washington State and has an approximate
population of 385,000. The major urban area is
Spokane City, which is located in the center of
the County.
recyclables, whether they are generated in the
commercial or residential sectors.26
In Washington, each county, in
cooperation with the cities within its borders,
must prepare a comprehensive solid waste
management plan and develop a solid waste
management system to meet the plan's objectives.27 To execute its plan, Spokane County
established the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Disposal System to manage solid waste and to develop
waste reduction and recycling programs. Municipalities within Spokane County may join the solid
waste management system or develop their own systems.
Planning and Flow Control
In 1985, Spokane County established a flow control ordinance,28 amended in 1988,
specifically designating the City of Spokane's Regional Solid Waste Disposal System (System)29 as
the exclusive management agency for all solid waste collected in the unincorporated areas of the
County. In addition, individual cities located within the borders of the County may participate in the
System by signing the Regional Cities Inter-local Cooperation Agreement. This Agreement requires a
participating city to deliver its waste to the System for a period of 25 years. All 11 cities (including
the City of Spokane) within the County and Fairchild Air Force Base have signed inter-local
agreements and currently use the System.
26 "Recyclable materials may include, but shall not Be limited to, bottles, aluminum cans, newspapers,
cardboard, paper materials, or other specific commercially ^marketable items, where and only where such
materials have been specially sorted prior to collection, apart from the common municipal solid waste stream for
commercial manufacture or recycling." (Ordinance No. C3 31014).
27 RCW 70.95.080.
28 Ordinance 85-0395, authorized by RCW 36.58.040.
29
The System is comparable to Union County's Utility Authority.
-------
APPENDIX II-B
Pagell-fc-ll
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
COMPONENTS
Inventory of all existing facilities;
Estimate of facility needs for the next 20
years;
Program for development of solid waste
handling facilities;
Program for surveillance and control;
Inventory of solid waste collection needs;
Review of potential areas that meet disposal
facility siting criteria;
Comprehensive waste redaction and
recycling program; and
Assessment of the plan's impact on the costs
of solid waste collection.
Implementing the Plan
Spokane County established its flow
control ordinance to guarantee the delivery of
wastes necessary to pay for debt service and
other fixed costs of the Regional Solid Waste
Disposal System and to provide for long-term
capacity to ensure self-sufficiency. The
ordinance states that "it is unlawful for any
collecting agency or other person to deliver or
deposit any solid waste generated and collected
within the unincorporated areas of the County
outside the borders of Spokane County or within
the County except at a disposal site consistent
with the comprehensive plan and approved as a
disposal site by the board of County commissioners." By controlling where waste generated within the
County must be managed, the ordinance guarantees waste and revenue streams to the System.
The Solid Waste Disposal System consists primarily of a $110 million WTE facility and two
transfer stations that cost $5.5 million and $4.5 million each. Spokane financed these facilities with
revenue bonds and $60 million in State grants.
Spokane County pays the facility operator, Wheelabrator Spokane Inc., a fixed fee if 220,000
tons or less of waste are delivered to the WTE facility annually. For any amount of waste exceeding
220,000 tons, Spokane County pays Wheelabrator on a per ton basis. Spokane County is not obligated
to deliver any specified minimum amount of waste per year to the WTE facility.
Municipal Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Of the 521,900 tons of waste generated by Spokane County in 1993, approximately 317,200
tons (61 percent) were managed in the County's waste disposal System, which includes the following
facilities:
-------
Page II-B-12
APPENDIX II-B
A WTE facility with an operational
capacity of 800 tpd (the facility can
be expanded to accommodate 1200
tpd) combusts County MSW. A
private contractor maintains and
operates the facility. In 1993, the
WTE facility burned approximately
294,700 tons of waste. The County
delivers ash residue by rail to an ash
monofill, 210 miles away, in
Klickitat County, Washington.
30
WASTE MANAGED IN 1993 (IN TONS)
Total Waste Generated: 521,900
Amount Recycled: 204,700
IN-STATE
Amount Combusted:
Amount Landfilled:
294,700
22,500
A landfill (actually a landfill cell)
receives non-processible wastes (i.e., wastes that cannot be recycled or
combusted). In 1993, the landfill managed 22,500 tons of waste, consisting
mostly of construction and demolition wastes such as concrete and sheetrock.
4
4
*
4
Recycling Programs
No direct impact on recycling occurs
from the County's flow control ordinance,
because the ordinance, does not cover source
separated recyclables. However, as a condition
of a grant agreement that provided funds for
planning and implementing the County's WTE
program, the Washington State Department of
Ecology required the County to develop a
comprehensive recycling plan.31
The County is moving steadily toward
the State's 1995 goal of 50 percent recycling. Spokane County recycled 32 percent (167,959 tons) of
its waste in 1992 and 39 percent (204,700 tons) in 1993. The County's recycling rate has increased
steadily since 1985.
SPOKANE REGIONAL SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL SYSTEM FACILITIES
POBLICLY-OWNED
I Landfill; '
2 Transfer centers (centers include recycling
and household hazardous waste collection);
1 Yard trimmings compost facility; and,
1 Waste-to-energy facility,
PRIVATELY-OWNED
12 Full-service private recyclers (newspaper,
cardboard, glass, and aluminum cans);
Approximately 20 specialized private
recycling centers that accept only one or two
types of materials; and
Over 100 drop-off facilities.
30
This is the only element of the Spokane County Solid Waste Management System that is located outside
Spokane County.
31
The State already required Spokane County to include waste reduction and recycb'ng elements in its
solid waste management plan. The new directive, however, required that Spokane County develop a separate
comprehensive recycling plan, which Spokane submitted to the Department of Ecology in March of 1989.
-------
APPENDIX II-B Page II-B-13
About 35 private companies in Spokane County collect and process recyclable materials from
both the residential and commercial sectors. Recycling services include buy-back centers, drop-off
facilities, and pick-up services. Private recyclers accept various materials, such as paper, plastics,
glass, metals, tins, used oil, and batteries.
Public sector recycling programs include the System's voluntary curbside recycling program,
which serves approximately 90,000 households, a recently constructed yard trimmings composting
facility, and two household hazardous waste collection centers located at the transfer stations. In 1994,
the County expects to receive approximately 30,000 tons of yard trimmings for composting.
Spokane County also actively promotes waste reduction programs. Education and technical
assistance aid residents and commercial businesses in identifying ways to reduce waste. Other waste
reduction and recycling activities include a waste exchange, in-house source reduction programs, waste
audits, and a recycling hotline.
The recycling and source reduction programs largely are funded by tipping fees at the transfer
stations and the WTE facility. A smaller percentage of the costs is funded by other sources of
revenue, such as State grants (see section on Funding Solid Waste Management below).
Funding Solid Waste Management
In order to establish a comprehensive system of solid waste management, the County incurred
capital costs of close to $124 million to pay for construction of the WTE facility, construction of the
two transfer stations, electric utility interconnection (i.e., connection of the WTE facility with, a local
power company's electrical transmission lines), landfill expansion, administrative expenses,
contingency planning, and closure/post-closure expenses at existing landfills (approximately $8 million
is needed for the initial costs of cleaning up contaminated landfill sites). The capital costs were
financed by $64 million in revenue bonds and $60 million in State grants.
Spokane County funds the System's operating expenses through tipping fees, State grants,
interest income, revenue from a rate stabilization fund, and revenues from the sale of recyclables and
-------
Page II-B-14
APPENDIX II-B
electricity. The County anticipates that 1994 operating expenses will total approximately $34 million.
County revenues for 1994 are estimated at $28,311,000.32
Tipping Fees
Spokane County currently charges $85 per ton in tipping fees for residential waste received at
the two transfer stations and the WTE facility (the fee was increased from $75 per ton on March 1,
1994).33 Spokane County charges a slightly higher fee of $90 per ton for commercial waste
delivered to the WTE facility and the transfer stations. Total revenue from tipping fees in 1994 is
expected to be $22,959,000. The tipping fees fund approximately 81 percent of the County's solid
waste management program.
State Grants and Interest Income
The County expects to receive a total of $653,000 in State grants and interest income in 1994.
Activities eligible for funding through State grants include recycling, composting, educational
activities, and household hazardous waste collection. State grants, however, cover only a small
percentage (approximately 2 percent) of the Spokane County waste management program's total
operating expenses.
Other Sources of Funds
Three additional sources of funds include sale of recyclables, electricity receipts, and a rate
stabilization fund. In 1994, Spokane County expects ;to receive $4,657,000 in electricity revenues and
$42,000 from the sale of recyclable materials. The Cjounty also established a rate stabilization fund
32 The difference between operating revenues and expenses (i.e., the shortfall of $5,248,000) will be
covered through (1) an increase in tipping fees (from $75/tbn to $85/ton) that will increase revenues by
$2,573,000, and (2) a transfer of $2,675,000 from a rate stabilization fund. The rate stabilization fund is a
special fund established by Spokane County to stabilize rates during the early years of the WTE facility's
operation. Money for the Fund has been collected since March 1988 from tipping fees at landfills. The County
transfers the proceeds to a revenue fund and uses them to pay a portion of the solid waste management system's
operating expenses. The transfers generally stabilize tipping fees at all facilities.
HA
" Haulers deliver waste directly to either the WTE facility or the transfer stations. The County sends
processible waste to the landfill. No tipping fees are charged at the composting facility.
non-
-------
APPENDIX II-B
Page II-B-15
with money raised from the sale of revenue bonds for waste management facilities; money from this
fund provides additional support for the System.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
Spokane County (aH cities and unincorporated areas) uses flow control.
"* atff 'J J
In Spokane County, flow controls do not have a direct role in increasing recycling rates, because
Spokane's flow control ordinance does not include source separated recyclable materials. Flow
controls do, however, promote recycling indirectly as they generate funds through tipping fees, which
partially subsidize recycling, composting, household hazardous waste collection, and recycling
education.
The County currently is recycling approximately 39 percent of hs waste stream.
The County manages all of its waste, including ash, in-state.
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Overview of State Structure
The Minnesota Waste Management Act requires all
counties to develop solid waste management plans either
individually or in groups of counties. To aid in implementation
of the plans, the Act authorizes each county to use waste
designation, or flow controls, but only after the county performs
a rigorous analysis and shows that other, less restrictive methods
of handling waste cannot be employed.34 Basically, the State
established flow controls as a means of last resort In addition,
flow controls in Minnesota do not apply to recyclable
materials.35
34 Minn. Stat. §§ 115A.80 to 115A.893.
35
Recyclable materials are defined as "materials that are separated from mixed municipal solid waste for
the purpose of recycling, including paper, glass, metals, automobile oil, and batteries. Refuse derived fuel or
other material that is destroyed by incineration is not a recyclable material." (Minn. Stat. § 115A.03)
-------
Page II-B-16
APPENDIX II-B
Planning and Flow Control
As a result of a United States Court of Appeals' decision in Waste Systems Corp. v. County of
Martin?6 Hennepin County (the "County") became concerned that its flow control ordinance also
might be ruled unconstitutional. In the County of Martin case, the court held that Martin and Faribault
Counties' municipal ordinances, which directed that all MSW be managed at a public composting
facility, discriminated against interstate commerce. The court ruled that the ordinance's primary
interest was to ensure the financial viability of a publicly-owned waste management facility and was
not a sufficiently compelling State interest to justify interference with interstate commerce.
Due to the Court's ruling, Hennepin County
decided to avoid the potential for litigation over its
own flow control ordinance and arranged other
means of funding its solid waste management
system. The following discussion, however,
primarily describes how Hennepin County funded
waste management when it still used flow controls.
OVERVIEW OF HENNEPIN COUNTY
Hennepin County is a heavily populated
urban/suburban county in Minnesota with a
population of approximately 1.1 million.
The County contains a total of 47 cities,
including Minneapolis and its suburbs.
Hennepin County implemented waste designation to reduce landfill usage in accordance with
State goals, to ensure that non-recyclable materials were handled in the most environmentally sound
manner possible, and to ensure disposal capacity. Hennepin County's flow control ordinance
designated two privately-owned WTE facilities, one privately-owned transfer station, and two publicly-
owned transfer stations to handle County waste.37 In addition, the flow control ordinance did not
oo
direct waste to one privately-owned WTE facility that mostly processed commercial waste. .
Implementing the Plan
Counties choosing to use flow controls must Submit a plan to either the Minnesota Office of
Waste Management or the Metropolitan Council for approval. The plan must show that alternatives to
36 784 F. Supp. 641 (D. Minn. 1992), affd 985 F. 2d 1381 (8th Or. 1993).
37 Hennepin County owns one transfer station and the City of Minneapolis owns the other publicly-owned
transfer station.
38
This facility managed some County waste.
-------
APPENDIX II-B
Page 1I-B-17
flow controls do not exist and that flow controls will not negatively affect recycling and source
reduction. If the plan is approved, the county must hold a public hearing on flow controls and for 90
days must attempt to negotiate contracts with licensed waste haulers that operate in the proposed flow
control area. After the 90-day negotiation period, the county may develop a flow control ordinance.
In Minnesota, flow controls have been used to direct waste only to WTE and composting facilities.39
Municipal Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Of the 1,393,900 tons of waste generated in
Hennepin County in 1993, approximately 598,600
tons were managed in Hennepin County's waste
disposal system, which includes facilities located
outside the County:
3 privately-owned and operated
WTE facilities receive processible
wastes. Only one facility, the
Hennepin Energy Resource Company
(HERC), is located in Hennepin
WASTE MANAGED IN 1993 (IN TONS)
Total Waste Generated: 1,393,900
Amount Recycled: 676,300
IN-STATE
Amount Combusted:
Amount Landfilled:
OUT-OF-STATE
Amount Landfilled:
580,700
17,900
119,000
County. HERC is a 1000 ton per day (tpd) mass bum facility. The other
facilities consist of a 1500 tpd refuse derived fuel (RDF) facility and a
modular facility (the flow control ordinance did not direct waste to the
modular facility); both of these facilities are located outside the County.
Collectively, these WTE plants combust about 50 percent of Hennepin
County's waste (580,700 tons).
4 3 transfer stations receive waste for transport to the WTE facilities.
« 3 out-of-state ash monofills accept the ash generated by the WTE facilities.
39 Although it is possible to direct waste to landfills, the Minnesota Waste Management Act discourages
landfilling and mandates that waste currently being managed in a composting or WTE facility cannot be directed
to a landfill through flow controls.
-------
Page II-B-18
APPENDIX II-B
Recycling Programs
Row controls in Hennepin County did
not directly affect recycling because: (1) source
separated recyclable materials could not be
directed to designated facilities40; and, (2)
Minnesota law prohibits WTE facilities from
burning recyclable materials unless "no other
person [is] willing to accept the recyclable
materials."41 Flow controls indirectly
supported recycling because Hennepin County
used a portion of the tipping fee, which was set
artificially high, to fund its curbside recycling
and household hazardous waste programs.42
FACILITIES USED BY HENNEPIN
COUNTY
PUBLICLY-OWNED
* 2 Transfer stations (1 is Owned by Hennepin
County and 1 is owned by the City of
Minneapolis); and
* 2 Citizen waste drop-off centers.
PRIVATELY-OWNED
* 1 Transfer station;
* 3 Out-of-state ash. monofills;
* 14 Recycling centers;
* 22 Recycling stations;
* 5 Materials recovery facilities; and
* 3 Waste-to-energy facilities.
Hennepin County has surpassed the State's 40 percent recycling goal. The County recycled
approximately 46 percent of its waste in 1991, 48 percent in 1992, and 48.5 percent (676,364 tons) in
1993. Part of this high recycling rate stems from the County's curbside recycling program that serves
more than 1,000,000 people. In addition, all cities in the County provide curbside recycling programs
for their residents. As part of its recycling program, the County relies on 14 recycling centers, 22
recycling stations, and 5 privately-owned and operated materials recovery facilities.43
In addition, Hennepin County operates an independent program to collect household hazardous
waste. The County received a grant from the State Solid Waste Processing Facilities Capital
Assistance Grant Program to build a household hazardous waste facility. The County also promotes
40 Minn. Stat § 115A.83.
41 Minn.StaL§ 115A.95.
With the U.S. Court of Appeals' judgment and the County's decision to stop using flow controls, new
mechanisms were needed to fund the programs. Hennepin County made up for lost revenues by imposing a
waste management fee on residents and businesses.
43 Minnesota defines recycling centers as facilities that are open at least 12 hours per week, 12 months per
year, and accept at least four types of materials. The State defines recycling stations as drop-off facilities that do
not meet the requirements of recycling centers. Minnesota also defines materials recovery facilities as facilities
that prepare at least three different material types for market by baling, shredding, etc.
-------
APPENDIX II-B page II-B-19
source reduction by providing educational materials on the identification, reduction, and proper
management of household hazardous waste.
Funding Solid Waste Management
A. Funding System With Flow Controls
Tipping Fees. When Hennepin County used flow controls, it set tipping fees, pursuant to
service agreements with private vendors. These tipping fees funded its integrated solid waste
management program. Fees collected at the facilities repaid the $111 million in revenue bonds issued
for the HERC WTE facility and the $12.6 million issued for a transfer station.44 The fees also
funded other operating costs. For example, the County established a $95.00 per ton tipping fee for
waste delivered to the HERC facility. That fee included approximately $12.00 for reduction,
composting, and recycling; $56.00 for combustion; $15.00 for transfer stations; $7.00 for
administration; and $5.00 for household hazardous waste management.
B. Funding System Without Flow Controls
After the court ruled that the Martin and Faribault Counties' flow controls were
unconstitutional, Hennepin County changed its strategy for funding solid waste management, fearing
that its own flow controls would be contested.
Tipping Fees. In order to compete with facilities not part of the County system, Hennepin
County lowered its tipping fees to $60 per ton. Nevertheless, Hennepin County now loses almost 17
percent (325 tpd) of its waste to out-of-state facilities.
Waste Management Fees. In order to continue paying for existing waste programs using a
$60 tipping fee, the County added a 9 percent waste management fee (similar to a sales tax) to
residential waste collection accounts and a 14 percent waste management fee to commercial
While the HERC facility is privately-owned and operated, the County, under its service agreement with
the owner, is responsible for paying the debt service.
-------
Page II-B-20 APPENDIX II-B
accounts.45 Waste haulers collect the waste management fee as part of their regular waste collection
bills and are responsible for remitting the revenues to the County.
Curbside recycling in Hennepin County is handled separately by each city. The County
currently subsidizes curbside recycling by allotting cities $1.75 per month for each household where
recyclable materials are collected. On average, cities receive 80 percent of the funding to operate
curbside recycling programs. Residents pay the remaining 20 percent through property taxes or added
charges on utility bills.
In 1994, Hennepin County anticipates that total waste management expenses will reach
approximately $59 million. The HERC WTE facility will require the largest share of annual expenses,
costing almost 53% of the total waste management budget.
SIMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
* Prior to the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Waste Systems Corp, v. County of Martin, Hennepin
County used flow control guarantees to raise revenue for its solid waste management program.
Because the court overturned a similar flow control ordinance, Hennepin County decided to
discontinue the use of its own flow control ordinance. Now, the County uses tipping fees and waste
management fees {taxes) to fund its integrated waste management programs.
"'''-.' s
•f How controls promoted recycling indirectly as tipping fees helped fund curbside recycling, household
hazardous waste collection, and composting programs. Because State law excludes source separated
recyclable materials from flow controls, flow controls did not directly affect recycling,
4 Without flow controls, the County currently is recycling and composting approximately 4^.5* percent of
its MSW waste stream, , [ ' * " .-J f *," ""*'/" j" **"•"" ""'
. , ^ >,:„, " '-•• - ; >'„, ; '" - -
•f Hennepin County developed new capacity (a waste-to-energy facility and MRFs). The County used
flow controls to help fund its waste management programs and facilities. However, after the court
ruling in the County of Martin case, Hennepin County switched its method of funding from flow
controlled tipping fees to a combination of waste management fees and lower market-based tipping
fees.
45 Recently, waste haulers and the owners of a Minnesota landfill and an Iowa landfill filed a lawsuit
challenging the legality of imposing these waste management fees. (Oehrleins v. Hennepin County (D. Min
filed January 1994)). The haulers and landfill owners also challenged the constitutionality of the flow contr
ordinance because, although it is not being used, the ordinance has never been rescinded officially.
-------
APPENDIX II-B
Page II-B-21
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Overview of State Structure
The State of Maryland does not specifically
authorize the use of flow controls for waste management
purposes. However, because it is a home rule State,
Maryland municipalities can independently determine
whether they want to use flow controls.46
Planning
Due to opposition to flow controls and uncertainty concerning their legality as waste
management tools, Montgomery County (the "County") chose not to use flow.controls. Instead, it
developed other means (e.g., service charges, tipping fees) of funding its facilities and achieving its
solid waste management goals.
In order to fund its integrated waste management program, Montgomery County established a
Collection and Disposal District (the District"). The District includes all single family residences in
the unincorporated areas of the County and in municipalities that decide to participate. Currently, only
two very small municipalities (actually, special taxing districts) participate. Waste generators in the
District pay for all waste collection and disposal
services through service charges added to annual tax
bills (see section on Funding Solid Waste
Management).
OVERVIEW OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Montgomery County is located north and
west of Washington, D.C. and has a
population of approximately 760,000.
The County contracts with private haulers
for collection of residential wastes within the District. Generators in the District may contract
independently with private collection and disposal services if they choose; however, these generators
still will be charged for the County's waste disposal services. Private haulers collect all residential
Generally, under home rule authority, municipalities may exercise power over local issues to the extent
not profartnted or regulated by the State. For example, Prince George's County, Maryland established flow
controls over its solid waste.
-------
Page II-B-22 APPENDIX II-B
waste generated outside the Collection and Disposal District and all commercial waste both inside and
outside of the District. Private haulers enter into contracts with the waste generators and may deliver
waste to the County facilities but are not obligated to do so.
Under Maryland State law, each county must provide for the management of solid waste
generated within its borders. Counties must prepare solid waste management plans to cover at least a
ten year period.47 They must review their solid waste management plans every two years and
submit revised plans to the Maryland Department of the Environment. The Montgomery County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan states that the management and disposal methods
selected will follow the State solid waste management hierarchy: source reduction and recycling
followed by combustion, and, finally, landfilling.
To implement its plan, Montgomery County developed a solid waste strategy that involves
construction of a new landfill, expansion of recycling facilities, closure of the Oaks Landfill, and
construction of the Montgomery County Resource Recovery Project (the Project). The Project will
consist of: (1) a WTE facility with a maximum capacity of 1800 tons per day (tpd) and an annual
effective operating capacity of 558,450 tons per year t(tpy); (2) improvements to an existing transfer
station owned by Montgomery County; and, (3) a solid waste transportation system. The Project is
currently under construction and is expected to be operational in 1996.
The WTE facility is the major component of the solid waste management system upgrade.
Once constructed, the WTE facility will generate 643 kilowatt hours of electricity per ton of waste
processed. All non-recyclable processible waste generated in Montgomery County will be combusted
at the WTE facility. The facility will replace the Oaks Landfill as the County's primary disposal
facility. Any remaining non-processible waste will be disposed at a new landfill to be constructed as
part of the plan.
47 Annotated Code of Maryland §9-503.
48 The Project will be owned and financed by the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, which
was established in 1980 to assist political subdivisions hi the State. The estimated construction cost of the
Project is approximately $278,000,000, which the Authority plans to finance from revenue bonds issued in 1993.
Montgomery County will pay the Authority for solid waste management services pursuant to a Waste Disposal
Agreement between Montgomery County and the Authority.
-------
APPENDIX IJ-B
Page II-B-23
Municipal Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
In 1993, Montgomery County estimated that
approximately 428,000 tons of waste would be
disposed at the Oaks Landfill, while 190,000 tons of
waste would be disposed at out-of-state disposal
facilities. The following disposal facilities are
located in Montgomery County:
WASTE MANAGED IN 1993
-------
Page II-B-24
APPENDIX II-B
Montgomery County currently mandates recycling in both the residential and commercial
sectors. Single and multi-family houses are required to recycle the following materials:
*
4
Newspaper;
Yard trimmings;
Aluminum and steel cans;
Glass; and
Some plastic bottles.
Commercial recycling regulations require businesses
to recycle the following materials:
4 Corrugated cardboard containers;
4 Office paper;
4 Newspaper;
4 Aluminum and bi-metal cans;
4 Glass containers;
4 Plastic containers; and
4 Yard trimmings.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
PUBLICLY-OWNED
4 1 Landfill;
4 1 Transfer station;
* 1 Resource recovery facility (under
construction);
4 1 Materials recovery facility; and
4 1 Yard trimmings composting site.
The County and all municipalities operate curbside recycling programs that collect newspaper
and commingled recyclable materials from single family residences. The programs also provide for
the collection of yard trimmings from single family homes in response to the County's April 4, 1994,
yard trimmings ban. The County's composting facility manages the leaves and grass clippings
collected by the County's recycling program. Approximately 24,000 tons of yard trimmings were
collected in 1992.
In an effort to reduce waste generation, Montgomery County established a goal to achieve a
zero percent increase over 1992 per capita generation rates. The County plans to promote waste
reduction through education and support of national and State reforms, such as recycled content
procurement and packaging initiatives. The County is establishing a unit-based pricing mechanism on
-------
APPENDIX II-B Page Il-B-25
yard trimmings to assist in its waste reduction goals and eventually may expand this effort to cover all
solid waste.49
Financing Solid Waste Management
Montgomery County funds its integrated waste management program through a combination of
the following mechanisms: service charges; tipping fees; fees from County institutions (e.g.,
government office buildings, the fire department); revenues from the sale of recyclables, methane, and
compost; and, investment earnings.
Service Charges
Montgomery County imposes a service charge on residents in the Collection and Disposal
District that covers collection costs, recycling, and disposal. In 1993, the average annual charge per
household was $205.03. The County also charges residents who use the County's recycling facilities
but live outside the Collection and Disposal District; these charges, however, cover only recycling
services (i.e., the charges do not cover MSW collection and disposal costs, because residents who live
outside the District enter into contracts with private haulers for waste collection).
Tipping Fees
The County charges a $53 per ton tipping fee at the transfer station to private haulers and
municipalities that use County management facilities.50 Haulers delivering residential waste from
households located in the District are not charged tipping fees.
Fees for County Institutions
The County pays fees for services rendered to certain County institutions (such as government
office buildings and the fire department) utilizing County solid waste management facilities.
Starting in 1995, the County will establish a per-bag fee on yard trimmings that will be implemented
through a tag program. This unit-based pricing mechanism is expected to provide an economic incentive for
home composting and will reduce the volume of yard trimmings to be managed.
All solid waste is delivered directly to the transfer station and distributed to other facilities from there.
-------
Page II-B-26 APPENDIX II-B
Revenues from the Sale of Recyclable Materials, Yard Trimmings Compost, and Methane
Gas
I
The County collects revenues from the sale of recyclable materials and yard trimmings
compost. The County also sells methane gas generated at the Gude landfill, which closed in 1982.
Investment Earnings
Montgomery County collects interest income on money generated from the sale of revenue
bonds for the WTE facility and landfill. Interest is earned until the money is spent for the
construction of the WTE facility or landfill.
i
Systems Benefit Charge
The County originally planned to implement a "systems benefit charge" (i.e., a tax) on all
generators (residents and businesses) of waste in Montgomery County regardless of whether or not
their waste was disposed in the County system. Montgomery County voters, however, blocked the
legislation with a referendum. If the voters eventually approve the benefit charge, it will supersede the
existing funding system.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
•f Montgomery County manages its solid waste program without flow controls. :
4 Montgomery County taxes residents within the Collection and Disposal District for, solid waste ':
management regardless of whether or not they use County facilities. :
4- Without flow controls, the County exceeds State recycling goals and currently recycles approximately
23 percent of its waste. \ ' ' ;
* Montgomery County plans to bufld a resource recovery facility and a new landfill to meet future
capacity needs.
-------
STATE FLOW CONTROL AUTHORITIES
Page II-27
Exhibit II-2
SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES
Case Study Location
Union County, New
Jersey
Spokane County,
Washington
Hennepin County,
Minnesota
Montgomery County,
Maryland
Flow Controls
yes*
yes*
no longer uses flow
controls
no
County
Recycling Rate
46% (1992)
39% (1993)
49% (1993)
23% (1993)
State Recycling
Goal
50% of MSW
and 60% of total
waste stream by
1995
50% by 1995
40% by 1996
20% by 1994
Achieving In-State Capacity Goals
New Jersey facilities handle all of Union
County's waste with the exception of
combustion ash, which is disposed in a
Pennsylvania landfill.
All of Spokane County's waste, with the
exception of combustion ash, is handled by
facilities located within Spokane County.
Spokane County delivers its ash to a monofill
in Klickitat County, Washington.
Approximately 17% (325 tpd) of Hennepin
County's waste is disposed in out-of-state
facilities.
Montgomery County disposes approximately
24% of its MSW in out-of-county or out-of-
state facilities.
Flow control statute excludes source separated recyclable materials.
-------
-------
APPENDIX III-A
Technical Analysis: Waste Stream Estimate
A.1 USING BIOCYCLE DATA TO ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF WASTE STREAM RECEIVED
AT MSW FACILITIES
In order to prepare this Report, EPA needed to determine the best estimate of the
amount of waste received at MSW management facilities, including the amount of non-MSW that
may compete for MSW management capacity. For the following reasons, EPA concluded that the
BioCycle estimate of 292 million tons for 1992 appeared to be the most appropriate estimate for
the size of the waste stream for this market analysis of flow controls:
Measures non-MSW affecting MSW management capacity. States
reporting to BioCycle often measure the total amount of waste received at
MSW management facilities, including such. non-MSW waste types as
C&D, sewage sludge, and industrial non-hazardous waste. This approach
quantifies additional wastes that are relevant to the issue of adequate
future capacity since it measures waste received at MSW facilities.
However, BioCycle does not provide a complete measure of all non-MSW
wastes received at MSW facilities, since States may or may not provide this
data.
Measures additional waste disposal capacity needed for residuals.
Counting both materials processed at recycling and combustion facilities as
well as the residues of these processes managed at landfills allows for a
more accurate assessment of waste management capacity; data on recycling
and combustion facility capacity and throughput are often reported on a
"tons received" basis, and landfill disposal capacity is needed to manage
residuals from these facilities. However, States do not consistently report
this data to BioCycle.
A.2 RECONCILING EPA AND BIOCYCLE ESTIMATES
To confirm that BioCycle includes non-MSW amounts in State estimates for the amount
of waste landfilled, EPA reviewed State reports on waste generation and management. Exhibits
III-A.1 and IH-A2 show the results of this review. Exhibit IH-Al compares BioCycle landfill
estimates with available State data on waste received at MSW landfills (MSWLFs), excluding
waste received at C&D and other non-MSW landfills dedicated to the disposal of these non-MSW
types. Column A shows the amount of 1992 waste each State reported to BioCycle. Column B
-------
Pagem-A-2 j APPENDIX III-A
shows the percent of waste landfilled as reported by each State. Column C is the result of
Column A multiplied by Column B. Column D shows the amount of waste disposed in MSWLFs
according to State reports. Column E is the difference between the BioCycle landfill estimate
(Column C) and the State data for MSWLFs (Column D). Although Column E indicates some
discrepancies between the BioCycle estimate and the reported amount of waste received by
MSWLFs, the largest differences are for two States (Indiana and New York) that are major waste
importers/exporters, and the net difference for the 12 States listed in the exhibit (420,050 tons) is
relatively small. For example:
4 In 1992, Arkansas reported MSW generation to BioCycle of 2,154,000 tons
(Column A). A review of data provided by Arkansas on the amount of
waste received at MSWLFs in 1992 showed a total of 2,153,532, almost
exactly the same amount reported as [generation.1 This example shows
that Arkansas is reporting the amount of waste received at MSWLFs and
not the amount of MSW generated.
+ The State of Indiana reported 8.4 million tons of MSW generation to
BioCycle in 1992. Again, this number closely matches the amount of waste
disposed in MSWLFs in that year, as j provided in a State report.2
However, the amount of waste received at Indiana MSWLFs includes 1.8
million tons of waste imports. Moreover, an Indiana report indicates that
the waste disposed in MSWLFs inclujdes some non-MSW, such as C&D
waste and industrial process waste, although the report also indicates that a
substantial amount of non-MSW is managed by non-MSW facilities, such as
dedicated C&D landfills. In this example, the BioCycle estimate is a
reasonable approximation of waste received at MSWLFs, with non-MSW
that is shipped to dedicated non-MSW facilities excluded.
EPA received six other State reports that are not current and/or do not clarify whether
the data they present are for all landfills or just for MSWLFs. Nonetheless, Exhibit III-A.2
compares BioCycle reported landfill estimates for these 6 States with other relevant information
provided in State reports. This exhibit illustrates the data anomalies and uncertainties inherent in
available State landfill disposal data. For example, one Texas report appears to indicate that total
waste received at "MSWLFs" is 16 million tons greater than the amount reported to BioCycle, but
another State report seems to suggest that these additional tons are non-MSW that may be
1 As reported in a printout of waste amounts received at Arkansas sanitary landfills as submitted by
the State.
2 "Summary of Solid Waste Facility Data for Indiana: 1992 Annual Report," Department of
Environmental Management, 1992.
-------
APPENDIX III-A
Page IH-A-3
managed at dedicated non-MSW facilities. The BioCyde estimates appear to include C&D wastes
in Maine and exclude C&D wastes in Massachusetts — State reports confirm that C&D wastes
generally are sent to MSWLFs in Maine and to dedicated commercial C&D facilities in
Massachusetts.
-------
Page III-A-4
APPENDIX III-A
EXHIBIT UI-A.1
BioCycIe Reported Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Disposal Versus State Reported Data
; State';'
;''j ;
•X %
1,274,400
2jfiQpG&
3,380,850
;;W^T»wtevi
'/; tot; ', -vf:
"mswMs't
biw:'?*
'•,„', ,''r,f,', •,„',!;;,»
2,153,532
*' i'T%V
V" ^ J? %
v* •- v ' #
i. .^r.;:
12,313,649
^4tS^5
% \%
V ,, f*
•,"" f*.<:
1,350,535
I jW«y»t;
\^
•* *• \ :
2,895,947
/D&fteae^;
x ""^ / / ' * 'f",
' ? * \ •>•"•>•
i 4' •• C ',
(.ni ^ i^^ '^IJ^
' •• /rt^ ^/^\ ts- "*
''£ iylyy; '%f
322,632
/U,|M^
| ;" ^"^"^
£ " '•'•
11,849
-; ^iiMas
•>
5i -, 0 ' 5-< ,
SJ* ,^ ^:'^
76,135
% n5,oh :
' s
"-^ :
-484,903
A /Jf ff x'-"jb-jrF 14XJ' f * f * f ff* f ' ^ ~*~ "- "°"*^""
',<:',,-f£s/, ',&"'&•'/<• ''f<'z{ ''', -uXi" "' " %' '" ''
k/^i^r'V''^^^e^^m^tatefepo^^^^ '/'/ x5- ' '*
^I^>J^? / ^^v/'-,^ - -,, , - ,, », *-?-*- ':-r>
$fcffi>&Z^).!.Z",.C'.\J.^*\'"L^^, ' ' - ' • - '-' '-' - •-
• Amount reported to BioCycIe is the amount of waste disposed in MSWLFs in
1992.
*•' AmDaat repotted to;BfoiC^d.e incudes §3 million terns of CM) waste arid O.Y -
x.; ^!lqtttOfi«af0xte'mfetafe, ^ t " ,' $ --. ,
^* ^jno^nt of Wste teidfill^ mc.lHefes v?aste ctisposerf in active MSWLFs in 19&1. , /
|« Acti^- ^iassft (aidtils (l^iDi tltfb, Otilfe? mart waste) f.. .- 1. <"..'..>'
• Difference is statistical error (actual amount of waste disposed is 87.1 percent).
• State uses average per capita MSW generation rate of 6.2 Ibs/day to estimate
14.2 million tons and subtracts 100,000 tons for "net exports" and notes, "In 1992,
14.1 million tons of non-hazardous solid waste were handled."
• Landscape wastes banned from landfills since July 1990.
"*, Amom reperteii to BM^ete i* the ajnouut eflhveste beefrea 4tf MSWLB in ; ' s
^ 10p, Aj3prtKi(aate{y1.SmffiofiJ:ona{sottt'.of-Staifi waste.
; « Waste feceive^ at i^WSPS% ificlufl&$ "C&& waste, iddustfial proeess waste,
'- '-sladgej ash, -asbestos, an^^QniatniJsstetisolfe^
• Approximately 110,000 tons of industrial non-hazardous waste was co-disposed in
MSWLFs in 1992.
l5^moad.tof wasless^aMed to Bfoc^cte feme aftioutjl of waste aispas<;<3 iti 199D.
•• -State pp$ an isveiage g8tieraUaa rate oMft.12 Ibs/persan/day,
* Amoaar of waste disposed in MSWLF& includes disposal figures from Ciass; i
„ MSWLFS receiving fester iftau iO-,600 ipy>
• Amount disposed in MSWLFs is from 12 of 37 MSWLFs.
-------
APPENDIX HI-A
Page III-A-5
EXHIBIT III-A.1 (continued)
BioCycle Reported Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Disposal Versus State Reported Data
\' "• *
,
State '
- '
New York
^
- " -
5
; ; ;
North Carolina
Qfefo
_
'' ^
._
% v
Utah
> " Bfotycte
Reporied
- (A)
;22,800>00&
-
-
7,788,000
t^400,000
•,
-
.
/ :'
X f \f
% \ "•
1,500,00
%
Land-
{tiled
(B)
«&
..
^
'
95
75,
f
•.
s '
'
80
JSfcQMfeV"
kanami
Estimate
(C)«0, v '
*^ St0te6&tjffiate (109Q) fot M$W disposal js 18,366,972 ajid. recycling is 4»054$a!f
» State esllftlste (1990) fof p^J>"g6n|ir^UOii i^ 3- mjfJioa and jR^u$Cria{ nOp- "
haiardoas waste is 5,6 raillicsn, "Report indicates that mast iHd.u&te'aJ -waste neverj'
ttadfc, although State has 7? teowa C&D taadfilis, with about 25 Staving ,' '
• Difficult to determine how State arrived at estimate reported to BioCycle.
• State reports (FY 1991-92) 6,681,578 tons disposed in MSWLFs, 19,859 tons in
tire monofills, 121,944 in incinerators, 267,428 tons yard trimmings
collection/compost, and 432,430 tons recycling, (total is 7,523,239).;.;
» BioCycfe estimate is tne-anioant of waste delivered to landfills sad incinerators in
19&1 la 1992, tttase Jaciftfjes .received 17.5 million tons, of waste froni the
Mowing Soiir^ M^riaJ waste (<54 Mltion tens); "exempt wmty e^ a&hs. -
€&D ((tS tailliofl toi>&); ^nerat «oiiiJ waste," defined to iftclude MSW as well as
canta.nttttat64 soifes MW treafr^m sl«dget MSW inejiwator ^(i»
i * Captive in&tslfial JanuJfiiis, received 3<8 miliion tons^amd incinerators received t5
Million tdtj$, leav% ^pjpf%?tft}afefy 1^.2 i»illjQfi tons, deposed Jn MSWL!%, 1m
total iBcifj^es'i:8 miiiton tons of out-of-State waste* ;
« % tfte ajaottftt of wasie disposes is MsWtFs is tafceu ffoo a detailed listing of
MSWlPWtf&fortm ^ ^. -
• Difficult to determine how State arrived at estimate reported to BioCycle. State
report notes 1.9 million tons of residential and commercial waste generated in
1992.
• State report indicates 1.8 million tons disposed in MSWLFs and 0.5 million tons
of C&D waste disposed in dedicated C&D landfills.
-------
Page III-A-6
APPENDIX III-A
EXHIBIT III-A.1 (continued)
BioCycle Reported Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Disposal Versus State Reported Data
J< %'.,,, ,
,:..'', State,
V^" '; , '
' &* ,'V ,
'•.*•< ' '',„/• '
Washington^ *\
BtoCyete ^
Re|iQf1e
NET
. -fitatyde
; : ,^artanil; '>:
EsUraate ',
:(C)i«.^n^1Tf..1A •;
* ^M«>r:,
-\^ 178,892
% xt - /
if- * , -:-
420,050
,,, , V' '''-.' ' { /- . j ;'^ <" ^ '^ ' ,'
"'" ' ,;,-" 's ''<^«ftjnettts fettw^fete U6jpom''ll«vlWd b/EPA , ,' VJ"-r'/;'
'- >'/X5/fy" , '* ,A ' ' '-',!"'"
', (V;-;iS, <, '- -, ft', ? 5 ", •' ^ ^ ' ',''", i «••? ' '"' ,,
' '-*„>*??}' »H' s ",-""',,, '"/ - '/:,-,/ f ; ;,, <,v ^,^
„ ; '>;r 41' ,?>^;: -,- . f-;,, 4 /"•"-/, -;---* 'w^ '^'^^ ^-^
' + Amount of •svasfelandfilled (199t figure) Jaetodea demoMotyaste, industrial
, vidita, sjudge, aad pft'et? jva$te (tires, j^t'fo|eum co^tejtildate'fl soils, eo'toptwt
mklril, $^&to,l ' % '- " ,' ;- ' * ' r\ '-,: *
-------
APPENDIX IH-A
Page III-A-7
EXHIBIT III-A.2
BioCycle Reported Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Disposal Compared to Information Obtained from State Reports
State
StoCyete
Reported
Waste
fltltd
Mliaafe
-------
Page III-A-8
APPENDIX IH-A
EXHIBIT III-A.2 (continued)
BioCycIe Reported Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Disposal Compared to Information Obtained from State Reports
State
Wisconsin
BtoCycle
Depo
Waste
3,352,000
72
BtaCyde
2,413,440
- Comments from State Reports Itevtewetit by EPA
Amount of waste reported to BioCycIe is based on a 1990 characterization study by Franklin
Associates and includes only EPA-defined MSW.
State reports generation of an additional 6.3 million tons of non-MSW.
Of MSW generated, State reported that in 1990 2.6 million tons were landfilled.
There is no indication that non-MSW is managed in MSW facilities.
-------
APPENDIX III-B
Technical Analysis: Compost Segment
This appendix details the basis for estimating the amount of MSW managed by the
composting market segment in 1992 (9 million tons) as well as the amount of waste composted in
individual States. This appendix corresponds to Section B in Chapter HI.
B.1 ESTIMATE OF MIXED-WASTE COMPOSTING
Exhibit III-B.l lists the 21 mixed-waste composting facilities in operation in 1992. Most of
these facilities report mixed MSW as their only feedstock. However, five facilities process a
mixture of MSW and sludge, one of these receives industrial waste (i.e., brewery waste), and
another receives agricultural waste (i.e., manure). Also, the Fillmore and Swift County facilities in
Minnesota are actually source-separated organics composting facilities; these facilities receive a
feedstock of food and other compostables separated by households and commercial waste
generators (e.g., food and paper waste from grocery stores).
The combined design capacity of the 21 facilities listed in Exhibit III-B.l is 4,472.6 tons
per day, or approximately 1.2 million tons per year based on 260 days of operation. However, the
exhibit also shows that the 1992 throughput for these facilities is substantially lower than their
design capacity - 1,876 tons per day, or approximately 0.5 million tons per year based on 260 days
of operation. The estimate of 0.5 million tons should be revised downward, however, for two
reasons: (1) one large facility in Florida, accounting for almost 30 percent of the total ton per
day throughput of all mixed-waste facilities, suspended operations in late 1992; and (2) the annual
throughput at several other facilities includes some amount of sewage sludge, which should be
excluded from the estimate of MSW composting and included in the estimate of non-MSW
composting to avoid double counting. For these reasons, EPA believes that 0.4 million tons is a
better approximation of the amount of MSW managed in mixed-waste composting facilities in
1992.
_
-------
Page m-B-2
APPENDIX III-B
EXHffilT III-B.13
Mixed Waste Composting Facilities Operating in 1992
Facility
Pinetop-Lakeside, AZ
New Castle, DB "C-
Escambia, EL
Pembroke Pises, £&
Sumter County, EL
Buena Vista, JA s j,
Montgomery County, KS
Mackinac Istend, MI * ^
Fillmore County, MN
Lake of ifce Woods,. &|N<,
Mora, MN
Peaningura Couatyj MK
Prairieland, MN
Su Ctoud,;MJNf , {""
Swift County, MN
Wright County, MN ' , v
Sevier County, TN
Big Sandy, TX
Whatcom County, WA
Columbia CotiRty,"^ O:
"'>•. V.S y?-. J%
Portage, WI
TO3&L
- -> >x , - '' $e#dstot& , '''' \
v ** •.-.•. •• •* '•' * f
MSW/sludge
s\ ' ;3S$S^tJdge
MSW
- „ 5 , %®w , ft ;',,
MSW
^ :\- ^MsW
^ASS "• ^, •• "* * ff f ff
MSW
S^**V; M^WV-®^8818
source separated organics
, -!X- ytf&r*
MSW
'^ r +~ ,MSW " '' "-;
MSW
;MW '
•i *.» ••
source separated organics
_;?^r-^F^^
MSW/sludge
MSW^twi^Krjr-wasiejifelodgig-
MSW
y/v - ,y -wsw,:
MSW/sludge
•.,«
•• .. < ••
Bfesiga
'Gapa^jr^)
\ l5
-&5Q
\ 400
, ,„«'&&..
200
[
70
f 300
1.6
11
ia
-• sf»fSss S
\ 500
; ' SO
100
,75
40
1#5 -
225
', '„' 25
125
: '"§o
40
; - 4*472^^
^Percent
Composted
75
, SO-
95
?$
55
52
65
45
43
m
72
M
63
7$'"-
45
$2 %
75
,,35
60
,,S3
N/A
,
Ciirr«tti i
H«K>»gliip»t |tP«l)
15
'22SJ'
2002
5$Q3
50
16^
50
N/A
11
,S
170
, ' s ;'
85
' 50
6
410 '
150
-Ujjavaiiabfe
100s
" 55 '
20
1^7^ ,>
1 Composting has stopped at the Delaware Reclamation Plant pending the result of an appeal by the facility operator.
It had been composting 200-225 tons/day (tpd) of MSW with biosolids.
2 No MSW composting in Escambia County since February 1993. County plans to restart (at 200 tpd) by first quarter
1994. ;
3 Pembroke Pines stopped composting in November, 1992. Facility repairs are nearing completion. A phased in start-
up is expected to begin in early 1994. The facility had been composting 550 tpd.
* Reported annual throughput (4,200 tons) divided by 260 days.
5 At one point, Recomp of Washington was composting 100 tpd of MSW. That portion of the facility is essentially shut
down pending the issuance of composting regulations by the Washington Department of Ecology.
3 Throughput data from "Solid Waste Composting Update," BioCycle, November 1993; all other data
from U.S. Solid Waste Composting Facility Profiles, Volume II, The United States Conference of Mayors,
March 1993.
-------
APPENDIX HI-B
Page ffl-B-3
B.2 ESTIMATE OF YARD TRIMMINGS COMPOSTING
The estimate of the amount of yard trimmings composted in 1992 is based on the
convergence of two different estimates.
National Yard Trimmings Composting Estimate Based on EPA and BioCycle Data
BioCyde reported that the number of yard trimmings facilities grew from 1,407 in 1990 to
2,981 in 1992. In other words, the number of operating yard trimmings facilities in 1992 was 212
percent of the number of facilities in 1990 (2,981/1,407 = 2.12). Applying this percentage change
to EPA's estimate of the total amount of yard trimmings composted in 1990 (4.2 million tons)
suggests that a reasonable estimate of the amount of yard trimmings composted in 1992 is
approximately 8.9 million tons (2.12 multiplied by 4.2 = 8.9).
Estimating the growth in yard trimmings composting based on the growth in the number
of facilities implicitly assumes that the average amount of yard trimmings composted per facility
did not change substantially between 1990 and 1992. (Note: use of the average does not mean
that all facilities are assumed to be of equal size in terms of quantity of yard trimmings
composted.) However, BioCycle also reports that among those yard trimmings facilities specifying
incoming feedstocks in 1990, 64 percent reported that they accepted only leaves, and 36 percent
accepted all yard trimmings; in 1992, 94 percent of the facilities specifying feedstock reported that
they accepted all yard trimmings.4 Thus, this data suggests that yard trimmings composting is
growing not only in terms of the number of facilities but also in the average amount of yard
trimmings that facilities process. If the average quantity of yard trimmings composted per facility
increased between 1990 and 1992, then the estimate of 8.9 million tons of yard trimmings
composted in 1992 may understate the actual amount of yard trimmings managed by this market
subsegment.
4 The number of facilities specifying feedstock was 811 in 1990, or 58 percent of all 1,407 yard
trimmings facilities in 1990. The number of facilities specifying feedstock in 1992 was 1,944, or 65 percent
f\f Oil O QS21 VTftfA i-«-it-m*vt«nn-r> £n A«1« + ;.n..n I— 1 OfV»
of all 2,981 yard trimmings facilities in 1992.
-------
Page m-B-4 I APPENDIX III-B
National Yard Trimmings Composting Estimate Based on BioCycle and State Data
In order to estimate the average amount of yard trimmings received at yard trimmings
composting facilities and to develop a second estimate of the total amount of yard trimmings
composted in 1992, EPA requested available data on composting from all 50 States. A total of
eight States provided data on the amount of yard trimmings composted in 1992. Because of the
rapid growth in yard trimmings composting, the data! reported by the eight State sample may
somewhat understate the amount of yard trimmings [composted by these States during calendar
year 1992, because some of these State reports are for fiscal years ending prior to the end of the
1992 calendar year (e.g., Illinois data is for the year Bending April 1, 1992). If composting activity
continued to grow throughout the remainder of the year, then the fiscal year data would
understate the amount of yard trimmings composting during the 1992 calendar year.
Exhibit IH.B-2 presents the yard trimmings composting tonnage reported by the eight-
State sample, the number of yard trimmings composting facilities reported by BioCycle for each of
these States, and the average quantity of yard trimmings composted per facility for each State
(i.e., yard trimmings tonnage divided by number of facilities). These eight States provide a
reasonably good sample because they are regionally; diverse, and they account for 38 percent of all
the yard trimmings facilities reported by BioCycle. On average, the yard trimmings facilities in
these States receive 2,950 tons of yard trimmings per year. The average or mean throughput is
statistically the best point estimate to use in extrapolating to the larger population of all
composting facilities active in 1992; use of the mean does not imply that EPA assumes all
composting facilities are equal in amount of yard trimmings accepted. Extrapolating the average
throughput of the eight State sample to all of the 1992 facilities reported by BioCycle suggests
that the amount of yard trimmings composted in 1992 was approximately 8.8 million tons (2,950
tons per facility times 2,981 facilities = 8.8 million tons).
Using the average throughput per facility from the eight State sample to estimate the total
national tonnage of yard trimmings composted in 1992 results in an estimate that is very close to
the estimate developed above using a different methodology. The convergence of these estimates
enhances confidence in the estimate of 8.8 million tons of yard trimmings composted nationwide
in 1992. However, statistical issues of selection and measurement bias, as well as natural
variation, imply that large confidence limits (e.g., error bands) may be in fact appropriate for this
estimate. For example:
-------
APPENDIX ffl-B
Page III-B-5
EXHIBIT III-B.2
Eight State Sample
Sfete "'
California
Florida
Illinois
Minnesota
North Carolina
New York
Pennsylvania
Washington
SAMPLE TOtAL
State Estimates of
Toas of Yard
Trinunrngs
C0ittpO$t0d itt Z$$Z
* '' CA) ,
575,491
847,900
418,331
328,470
267,428
467,858
267,104
157,673
3,33
22,134
42,395
4,358
827
3,566
2,339
890
10,512
,,2,950' i
{Average^
The eight States in Exhibit ni-B.2 present a very wide range of average
annual throughputs - from 827 tons per facility in Minnesota to 42,395
tons per facility in Florida. Part of this variation in average throughput
may be due to climatic variations among the sample States, because the
highest average throughputs are reported by Florida and California where
yard trimmings facilities can receive yard trimmings all year,5 and the
lowest average throughput is reported by Minnesota which has a very short
yard trimmings generation season. However, because these States were not
selected randomly, an element of selection bias may also justify large
confidence limits around the observed mean.
Variation in the calculated average throughputs for different States may
also reflect the rapid changes in this market subsegment which can result
from impositions of landfill bans on yard trimmings as well as from market
forces. For example, Illinois reported that its amount of yard trimmings
composted almost doubled from 221,515 tons in 1991 to 418,331 tons in
1992, while the number of Illinois facilities reported in BioCycle declined
from 106 in 1991 to 96 in 1992, due to facility consolidations. By contrast,
Pennsylvania reported the largest year-to-year increase in total facilities
5 Florida's reported generation of yard trimmings per capita (0.234 tons per year) is 66 percent
greater than the EPA's estimate for national per capita yard trimmings generation (.141 tons per year).
-------
Page III-B-6
APPENDIX III-B
reported by BioCycle, rising from 169'facilities in 1991 to 300 facilities in
1992; Pennsylvania's low average throughput compared to Illinois may
reflect a large number of new facilities that were not in operation for the
entire 1992 calendar year, which would reflect an element of measurement
bias.
Such natural variation and potential sources of bias mean that the error bands (confidence
limits) surrounding the national composting estimate; may be larger than suggested by the
convergence of the results of the two different estimating methodologies.
B.3 STATE-SPECIFIC COMPOSTING ESTIMATES
In the context of the market analysis of flow controls, State-specific estimates of the
amount of yard trimmings composted are useful in identifying important State or regional
variations in MSW management markets. Exhibit IH-B.3 provides preliminary estimates of total
1992 MSW composting (mixed-waste and yard trimmings) in the 50 States and the District of
Columbia. EPA undertook the following steps to develop this exhibit:
State estimates of yard trimmings composting were used for the eight
States reporting this information (Exhibit III-B.2);
For the remaining 42 States and the District of Columbia, EPA multiplied
the number of yard trimmings composting facilities reported to BioCycle by
the average throughput calculated in'Exhibit III-B.2 (2,950 tons); and
The amount of mixed-waste composting reported in Exhibit III-B. 1 was
listed for those States with such facilities.6
As the exhibit indicates, the total amount of MSW composted nationwide was 9,181,415 tons in
1992.
Exhibit HI-B.4 provides a "reality check" on State-specific composting estimates developed
in Exhibit III-B.3, by comparing the preliminary State estimates with BioCycle's reported estimates
for State recycling and composting. Columns A and B, respectively, list each State's 1992 waste
6 The aggregated tons per year of mixed-waste composting in Florida was reduced by 0.1 million to
account for the November shutdown of the 550 ton per ^ay facility in Florida, and to avoid double
counting yard trimmings received at mixed waste composting facilities that might have been included in the
yard trimmings composting data reported by Florida.
-------
APPENDIX IH-B
Page III-B-7
EXHIBIT IH-B3
Preliminary Estimate of Municipal Solid Waste Composting in Each State
State' '
,, -^ '",
<"**..
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
==========
BfaQfcie
Y&t&
Trimmings
£acJ3i86»
«8 *
12
0
2
17
26
5
84
2
1
20
88
5
6
96
128
30
30
26
13
22
8
265
200
397
8
50
9
==========
Estimated
Yatti Xftsiamittgs
Composteti
(toasjfcsr jsear)
35,400
0
5,900
50,150
575,491
14,750
247,800
5,900
2,950
847,900
259,600
14,750
17,700
418,331
377,600
88,500
88,500
76,700
38,350
64,900
23,600
781,750
590,000
328,470
23,600
147,500
26,550
Other MSW
Composed
{toas per year)
#>
-
-
3,900
-
-
-
-
58,500
-
108,000
-
-
-
-
~
4,160
13,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
115,700
-
-
=================
Total
JSdSW Caiaj»d$fc4
{tons jper year)
CU>=(»H
-------
Page III-B-8
APPENDIX III-B
EXHIBIT III-B3 (continued)
Preliminary Estimate of Municipal Solid Waste Composting in Each State
State
,. \
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
YOtAL
r <• ^ ** s
^""B&tyetfa" J
' 7%<* " s ';
l^tottfttogs
" "'EaciiieeS f
* 0 ' M)
15
1
78
270
1
200
75
5
78
2
20
300
16
25
3
4
75
1
12
19
15
N/A
213
3
Vla^i'
EstimaJed ;
Yard frlntmiHgis ;
€t>Biposee
f <, ••
44,250
2,950
230,100
796,500
2,950
467,858
267,428
14,750
230,100
5,900
59,000
267,104
47,200
73,750
8,850
1 1,800
221,250
2,950
35,400
56,050
157,673
0
628,350
i 8,850
,s qmj6s&\
f f s -. fS f
'«(8H(C2
44,250
2,950
230,100
796,500
2,950
467,858
267,428
14,750
230,100
5,900
59,000
267,104
47,200
73,750
8,850
50,800
221,250
2,950
35,400
56,050
183,673
0
647,850
8,850
' a,isi,4is
-------
APPENDIX Itt-B
Page III-B-9
EXHIBIT IH-B.4
Revised State-Specific Composting Estimates
Spate s
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
BiaCyele
15#2 Waste
<3«ier0goH
{jaiBfoa tons)
w'
5.20
0.50
4.15
2.15
44.54
3.50
2.90
0.79
0.92
19.40
6.00
1.30
0.85
14.14
8.40
2.09
2.40
4.65
3.48
1.25
5.00
6.60
13.00
4.27
1.40
7.50
Reported %
CeHJ|>«sted/
Recycled
'{») '
12
6
7
10
11
26
19
16
30
27
12
4
10
11
8
23
5
15
10
30
15
30
26
38
8
13
AmoHEt
Oanp&sted/
Recycled
(juiUloa terns)
CQ«CA>*<»)
0.62
0.03
0.29
0.22
4.90
0.91
0.55
0.13
0.28
5.24
0.72
0.05
0.09
1.56
0.67
0.48
0.12
0.70
0.35
0.37
0.75
1.98
3.38
1.62
0.11
0.98
Preliminary
CotflpOSt
Estimate
(jniHioo teas)
-------
Page III-B-10
APPENDIX III-B
EXfflBIT IH-B.4 (continued)
Revised State-Specific!Composting Estimates
State
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAJL
" •'BiaCyefe''
1992 "Waste '
"oste4/
Recycled '
A
,,-'$'"'""
5
10
10
10
34
6
21
4
17
19
10
23
11
15
10
10
10
11
13
25
24
33
10
24
4
17
: Amount
, Cast i
Estimates
<#'
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.08
0.80
0.00
0.47
0.27
0.01
0.23
0.01
0.06
0.27
0.05
0.07
0.01
0.05
0.22
0.00
0.04
0.06
0.18
0.00
0.65
0.01
sus
-------
APPENDIX rn-B
Page III-B-11
generation amount and percent of waste composted/recycled as reported to BioCycle. Column C
multiplies the values in the first two columns to calculate the total amount of waste
composted/recycled in each State. Column D shows the preliminary estimate as determined in
Exhibit III-B.3. Column E divides the preliminary estimate (Column D) by the BioCycle estimate
(Column C) to determine the percentage of the composting/recycling tonnage attributable to
composting in each State.
This analysis indicates that the percentage of composting/recycling that is attributable to
composting varies substantially from State to State. A large part of this variation may be due to
the data limitations reflected in composting estimates for individual States. However, one of the
States where composting accounts for a very high percentage of composting/recycling (i.e., more
than 90 percent) is Pennsylvania, and the composting estimate for this State is based on reported
State data.
The percent of composting/recycling tonnage attributable to composting is greater than
100 for just one State, New Hampshire. This indicates that the preliminary estimate of
composting in New Hampshire (Exhibit III-B.3) accounts for more than 100 percent (in fact,
more than 200 percent) of BioCycle's estimate of recycling and composting combined. To correct
this anomaly, and retain the national estimate of waste composting, the revised estimate for New
Hampshire reduces the preliminary estimate by 0.15 million tons, and increases the preliminary
estimate for the neighboring State of Maine by an equal amount. This adjustment also retains the
regional estimate for composting in New England. The revised composting estimates for Maine
and New Hampshire are shown in Column F. EPA chose 0.15 million tons because it was the
smallest adjustment needed to bring New Hampshire within the range of observed values of
Column E; EPA could have made a larger adjustment. EPA chose to assign this 0.15 million tons
to Maine because, compared to the other States bordering New Hampshire, Maine had the lowest
value in Column E; the adjustment could have been added, instead, to Massachusetts and/or
Vermont. These revised estimates preserve the integrity of available reported data on regional
composting markets, and minimize adjustments to individual State data, while reconciling an
obvious inconsistency in State data estimates (i.e., composting exceeding the sum of composting
and recycling in New Hampshire). These adjustments have no significant effect on the findings
presented in this Report.
-------
-------
APPENDIX III-C
Technical Analysis: Recycling Segment
This appendix details the basis for estimating (1) the amount of waste managed by the
recycling market segment in 1992 (40 million tons), (2) the amount of waste recycled in each
State, and (3) the amount of waste recycled by each recycling market subsegment. This appendix
corresponds to Section C of Chapter III.
C.1
STATE RECYCLING ESTIMATES BASED ON BIOCYCLE, GAA, AND STATE DATA
Exhibit III-C.l presents a preliminary estimate of recycling in each state as well as the
national total. This estimate relies primarily upon estimates calculated for the composting market
segment in Appendix HI-B. For example, Column A and Column B respectively list the amount
of 1992 waste generated and the percentage of waste recycled/composted as reported by each
state to BioCyde. Column C multiplies the first two columns to calculate the total amount of
waste recycled/composted in each State. Column D lists the amount of waste composted as
estimated in Appendix III-B, while Column E is the result of Column C minus Column D, or the
State-specific recycling estimate. The sum of State-specific estimates for recycling (Column E) is
approximately 40 million tons.
Exhibit III-C.2 provides a "reality check" on the preliminary recycling estimate by
comparing the estimated amount of waste recycled to the amount of waste managed at in-State
MRFs. Column A lists the amount of waste recycled/composted as reported by BioCyde and
Column B lists the preliminary State-specific estimate as determined by Exhibit III-C.1. Column
C lists the amount of recyclables processed at MRFs as found in the Government Advisory
Associate's (GAA) 7992-95 Materials Recovery and Recycling Yearbook Directory and Guide.
Column D shows the percentage of each State's preliminary estimate of recyclables that are
processed at MRFs (i.e., Column C divided by Column B). For the nineteen States that do not
have in-State MRFs, Column D reads "-." Exhibit IH-C.2 lists States by U.S. Census Regions.
The portion of recyclables processed at MRFs ranges from 7 percent in the Mid-West to 31
percent in the Northeast.
-------
Page m-C-2
APPENDIX III-C
EXHIBIT III-C.1
Preliminary Estimate of Recycling for Each State
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona f / ^
Arkansas
California:
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Cofarafeia ',<.
Florida
Georgia ', >
Hawaii
lejabo- ^^,
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas ' f '(
Kentucky
Louisiana; /
Maine
MaiylawJ * '" "'£•
Massachusetts
Michigan ' " - '
Minnesota
Mississippi „ w ^ -^T
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada " .,
,-..,.,. V*! *,•««*.•>, ,A Iff <* •£•!.**
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
BioCycle 1992
Waste Generation
(million tons)
(A)
, "&aT"-"
0.50
2.15
3.50
; 0V{ 2JO-
0.79
19.40
1.30
14.14
2.09
4.65
"\ "/- -JUS ^ f ""„
6.60
v - ,13x60- " -
4.27
750
1.40
1.14
1.49
BioCycle %,
Recycled/ i
Composted;
12%
•[
6%
10%
: it%
26%
19% ,,„ ,
16%
;' ' 3b% ',
27% ,
4% 1
11%
8% s
23%
"'""'"&k "
15%
•. "••> ' '
30%
30%
38%
13%
10%
10%
6%
23.% -
Amount
Recycled/
Composted
(million
tons)
(C)=(A)*(B)
*& ""
0.03
0.22
4.90- _
0.91
-0^
0.13
5.24
>. a.72
0.05
1.56
V&57
0.48
0.70
0.37
1.98
, ^ SJ8
1.62
0.98
0.14
0.11
- 255, "
0.09
-4,?9
Compost
Estimate
(million
tons)
(D)
&*
0.00
0.05
0.01
<5x25
0.06
0.96
0.01
0.42
0.09
0.08
ff f V
0.21
0.78
0.44
0.15
0.04
0.08
0.00
Recycling
Estimate
(million
tons)
(E)=(C)-(D)
&S2 j
0.03
0.17
432 -
0.90
030
0.06
4.28
0.04
1.14
0.39
0.62
0.16
1.20
1.18
0.83
OJl,
0.10
0.03
0.09
432
-------
APPENDIX ffl-C
Page III-C-3
EXHIBIT III-C.1 (continued)
Preliminary Estimate of Recycling for Each State
State
&ortfe Carolina i
North Dakota
G&o s i
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Js!ai|tg i
South Carolina
So^Dateka
Tennessee
Texas .. s j
Utah
Vetmoot i
Virginia
Wa$h><»
West Virginia
Yxotom -/
Wyoming
TOTAL7
BioCyde 1992
Waste Generation
(million tons)
. (A)
7.79
0.47
1440
3.00
- 335
8.98
1 V®
5.00
$8)
5.80
14,4?
1.50
' US5
7.60
5.71
1.70
3.35
0.32
292.0
BioCycle %
Recycled/
Composted
(B)
4% j
17%
19% 1
10%
*&%
11%
15%. j
10%
W%
10%
11% i
13%
2$%- :,
24%
" &% 0
10%
24% i
4%
17%
Amount
Recycled/
Composted
(million
tons)
(C)=(A)*(B)
M '
0.05
422
0.00
^,64
0.06
6-3t«,
0.00
' S.S5 '
0.01
9
Recycling
Estimate
(million
tons)
(E)=(C)-(D)
#04
0.06
' '£8*
0.29
&71
0.72
flLi3
0.43
'-mi.
0.53
isf
0.19
^,2^
1.77
'" 1,79
0.17
^ " ' $M
0.00
40
As Exhibit III-C.2 indicates, the percentage of recycled tonnage managed in MRFs is
greater than 100 for three States: Connecticut (111 percent), Nevada (111 percent), and North
Carolina (214 percent). These discrepancies most likely are explained by MRFs receiving
recyclables from out of State. To correct this anomaly, and retain the preliminary national
estimate of recycling, EPA "reallocated" to neighboring States some of the waste managed in
MRFs in these three States. This reallocation, shown in Exhibit III-C.3, retains the regional
estimates for recycling. In reallocating recycled tonnage, EPA selected the smallest amounts
needed to bring the three States down to a range no greater than 90-99 percent for Column D.
Tonnage was assigned to the bordering State with the lowest value for Column D (e.g.,
7 Numbers may not add due to rounding errors.
-------
Page III-C-4
APPENDIX III-C
EXHIBIT III-C.2
Regional- and State-Specific Recycling Estimates
State
Northeast
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region Total
South
Alabama , ..
Arkansas
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky ] s i
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Nocta Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virpaia
Region Total
BioCycle
Amount
Recycled/Composted
(million tons)
(A)
" x^V&£~ *'%V~'~-j
0.37
-\ ;: ;^JIi , "
0.11
4.79
0.18
V ., o * "XMfr ,""'"' -'
11.67
- "£ ',",'- ^-- " ,~ '
0.22
0.28
0.72
0.35
0.11
'\,.S,'» mt'[ jS^
0.30
' :\v, &»% '
0.58
' -- , --1.S? , **"" T
1.82
''' - ..'"%'' -&31 _/-
14.38
Preliminary
Recycling Estimate
(million tons)
(B)
036
0.16
""1,26 - ^>-
0.03
f"'/ *
4.32
•"" •• "-ity' -. < & f f"ff
f i\ TO^ ~f
0.13
, ' ' 0
-------
APPENDIX III-C
Page III-C-5
EXHIBIT III-C.2 (continued)
Regional- and State-Specific Recycling Estimates
State
MidWest
injaofc.
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
MlC&Jgga
Minnesota
Missouri :
Nebraska
Jfetrth. Datosta
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin
Region Total
West
Alaska
Arizona
Cafi&nm ";
Colorado
Bawaa
Idaho
Moassnsa
Nevada
NewMeaaco
Oregon
tltah ,„ >
Washington
WyoBMBg' "
Region Total
All States Total8
BioCycfe
Amount
Recycled/Composted
(million tons)
(A)
- l&f -
0.67
G.4S
0.12
338
1.62
0.9S
0.14
, &DS ' '
3.12
, ' oar " " -
0.80
13.02
•QbBB.
0.29
S4$6
0.91
'„„- -0.05 - ~
0.09
?^
1.18
«**
0.10
O.C6
2.89
' rft|j7 i
0.16
9.91
om.
0.28
432
0.90
O.i>4 ,
0.07
Qffi. f \
0.23
•a(»
0.71
as?
1.70
-------
Page m-C-6
APPENDIX III-C
EXHIBIT IH-C3
Revised Regional- and State-Specific Recycling Estimates
State
Northeast
Connecticut
Maine
.. — ,,.. — ,.,,,...„#,.,, «.» ft f ^
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvaota
Rhode Island
Vermont:
Region Total
South
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
District of Columbia
: Fjoricia
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North CaroSna
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Region Total
BioCycIe Amount
Recycled/Composted
(million tons)
(A)
, ; ,o.ssV
037
^ y "• .. " "•
•> **£?"„ *
0.11
i?~$*t: ?-
4.79
s \ ' ,&a? -;
0.18
: -\ >& s ,,
11.67
' ,^» 0,i$2 , -
S ^ W. V.s V.
0.22
, ' * OlS. v
f •> *S " >» %v > J » m
0.28
; * ^,
0.72
{*} \'f ^9 ; ;r \'
035
v <. *,; -XA-, AS -.>••<•:% ff, f-f > ff •*
^ ^^^?5f
0.11
^1:1>^V,
0.30
\"»' 'OkStf; '
0.58
\*^?''^\
1.82
s ' s ^i?'", ; * ' '*
1438
Preliminary
Recycling Estimate
(million tons)
(B)
fe^ ,
0.16
m ''^ v-
0.03
- ^ , iM :
4.32 >
f f f ^ f -•
S.72. <
•. , , ,"' , „ , r
0.13 ,
j. , , , ,
$i<*
8.73
- «5?- ' - ,
0.17
&&**
0.27
428-",,'^ ' '
0.46
-, *&
031
""""""&&"
0.09 j
§m, ,
0.29'
4S; , »
"» ft ••f.f".
0.53
IS?' ^
1.77;
.____^£li>_Ji-
12.18
Recyclables
Processed at MRFs
(million tons)
(Q
,;,&3£
0.00
, f^i , „
0.02
JbM-
0.945
«4^ ' ,
0.08
feea -
2.715
- ^ %/"
--
, '• &&1
0.09
04a
0.11
0.02
"&»,,'
-
«/«M
-
issi, . -
0.06
- f, %£& "'"
0.09
" '/'' '' «';' '
1.24
Percent of Tons
Recycled at MRFs
(million tons)
(D)=(C)/(B)
9&.9W*
0.08%
WM%
59.29%
, &J38% ' '
f ff ,.
21.9%
ff$3Z%
62.17%
&&&,
31.1%
' 3M% ,
-
1631%
33.41%
104^ ,
24.96%
•" j-
5.74% .
' " 4&23<&
•.Sff
-
WWk
-
'^3$,%
10.76%
3.04%
4.93%
10.20%
-------
APPENDIX III-C
Page III-C-7
EXHIBIT IH-C3 (continued)
Revised Regional- and State-SpecifiS Recycling Estimates
State
MidWest
llfinofe
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Mfciapa
Minnesota
Mssoss
Nebraska
NBfta Dakota \ -
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region Total
West
Alaska
Arizona
CaBfcaxaa -----
Colorado
Bawaf - '
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
$$sw Mexico
Oregon
V&b
Washington
Wyonsag
Region Total
All States Total*
BioCyde Amount
Recycled/Composted
(million tons)
(A)
1S6
0.67
&48
0.12
338
1.62
0,98
0.14
GJ3&
3.12
0.80
13.02
GJOB, ', "
f
0.29
4JO
0.91
, fc&S
0.09
-V ;«$>4
0.23
&S9
0.77
0.20
1.88
0,01
9.48
49
— *•
Preliminary
Recycling Estimate
(million tons)
(B)
134
0.29
, &3£
0.02
' s •&&<
1.18
&S3-
0.10
«fi6
2.89
0.16
9.91
% «-m ' '1
0.28
432
0.90
fc&g
0.07
- -¥r^"
0.23
0.09 ' ' "
0.71
' &19-
1.70
«M
8.57
40
Recyclables
Processed at
MRFs
(million tons)
(C)
0JS
Ml
—
-------
Page m-C-8
APPENDIX III-C
Connecticut's tonnage was assigned to Massachusetts rather than Rhode Island or New York).
These revised estimates preserve the integrity of available reported data on regional recycling
markets, and minimize adjustments to individual State data, while reconciling inconsistencies in
State data estimates (i.e, MRF recycling alone in a $tate exceeding total recycling in that State).
These adjustments have no significant effect on the findings presented in this Report.
C.2 NATIONAL RECYCLING ESTIMATE BASJED ON EPA AND INDUSTRY DATA
The previous section relied on BioCycle, GAA, and State data to develop preliminary
national estimates of the amount of waste managed by the recycling market segment. This section
reconciles those preliminary estimates with other national estimates of materials recovery. Exhibit
ni-C.4 lists estimates of 1992 materials recycled provided by various trade associations and EPA
population-adjusted estimates from the Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1992 Update. These trade association and EPA data also total 40 million tons of
recycling.
EXHIBIT III-C.4
National Estimates of Material Recovery
V-X "<""
>';*"?
MSWJVJaterlai <""„"*
•. •* > f v v
Paper
Gtess ;;
Other Plastic/Glass
Altttfclmim Cans ; '- -
Steel or Bi-Metal Cans
Other Metal "- ,.-; ,,
Other Material (Wood
Pallets, Tires, Textiles,
Batteries)
AllMa&lals,
' u
;^tf*HateaMSW'
^letjjcled in &92
••" minion tous
29.1
£' CJ41\
0.7
: - " u
1.1
/ " , 1*
V
2.3
'' ,-' - 4fc6ft
' f
j 'ff "" / s ; f ss V. •>-,'•
' ' Source fi;f E$tiffiate
Atnerican Forest and Paper Association (1993)
Glass 1?acfcagiag JjaMtute (1993)
American Plastics Council (1993)
Cast Ma*M&dfoe«? Ins-tltot-e ^1993)
Stfeel Can Institute (1993)
SPA(i9$£)^ ' '..-.'
EPA (1992)10
ff *"/ f s f ..
10 1990 numbers reported in 1992 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste were adjusted to reflect
population growth and increased recycling. In particular, recycling of certain materials (i.e., batteries,
tires) has increased at a faster pace than other materials; due to landfill bans and other disposal trends.
-------
APPENDIX III-C
Page III-C-9
C.3 ALLOCATION OF RECYCLING ESTIMATE BY MARKET SUBSEGMENT
• -.'
As discussed in Section C, the MSW recycling market consists of four subsegments:
4 Independent paper recyclers, dealers, brokers, and processors;
4 Various industry buy-back, drop-off, and local recycling centers;
4 MRFs; and
4- Mixed-waste processing facilities (MWPFs).
Estimates of Material Recovered by Independent Paper Recyclers, Dealers, and Brokers
The American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA) estimated that 33.6 million tons of
paper and paperboard were recovered in 1992.n From this amount, EPA subtracted recovery
estimates of pulp substitutes,12 because these materials would not be counted in MSW,
estimates of composted paper, and estimates of paper and paperboard processed at MRFs. The
result, 25 million tons, is estimated to have been processed by independent paper recyclers,
dealers, and brokers (so-called "paper packers"). In order to simplify the presentation of the
recycling market and to avoid double counting recycled materials, EPA assumes that paper
packing facilities process all paper not recovered at MRFs (or MWPFs). In reality, however,
some amount of recycled paper and paperboard may be recovered by other recycling facilities.
Estimates of Material Recovered from Other Recycling Centers
EPA assumed that materials not managed at MRFs, MWPFs, or paper packing facilities
were managed at drop-off, buy- back, or recycling centers. In general, these facilities receive
source-separated recyclables from consumers. Again, to simplify the presentation of the recycling
market, EPA assumed that all remaining materials (except paper) were processed at such
facilities. Thus, EPA allocated 9 million tons of waste to these centers. This allocation
methodology indicates the following:
11 Recovered Paper Statistical Highlights 1992, AFPA (April, 1993).
12 Recovered Paper Statistical Highlights 1992, AFPA (April, 1993).
-------
e m-C-10
APPENDIX III-C
Approximately one half of all mixed containers are managed at other
recycling centers (including recovery in bottle bill States).
The majority of used aluminum beverage cans appear to be recovered at
the more than 10,000 industry buy-back centers throughout the nation. It
is reasonable to assume that consumers are more likely to return this high-
value recyclable, especially given the number of can drives to raise funds
for community and other organizations.
i
Other recycling centers receive all other materials not commonly received
at MRFs - other plastics, metals, textiles, tires, batteries, and wood pallets.
Overall, EPA's estimate of this market subsegment is consistent with other available data
sources. For example, BioCycle reports that States estimated 1,015 facilities processing recyclables
in 1992 - including MRFs, mixed waste processing facilities, and other recycling centers.13
Removing EPA's estimate of MRFs and MWPFs (see below) from this figure leaves 794 other
facilities processing recyclables. These other facilities are likely to be small, local processing
facilities with much lower throughput than high-tech MRFs.
Estimates of Material Recovered at MRFs
GAA's 1992-93 Materials Recovery and Recycling Yearbook: Directory and Guide provides
data (e.g., throughput, costs, capacities) on MRFs located nationwide. MRFs expected to be in
operation in 1992 managed approximately 5.7 millioft tons of material annually. This amount does
not include compostable waste or C&D waste, both of which are rarely processed at MRFs
included in GAA's Yearbook. Specific material tonriages are as follows:
4 Paper accounted for 3.4 million tons, or 60 percent of all materials;
4 Mixed containers (and any separate glass and plastic container estimates)
accounted for a little more than 1.7 million tons, or approximately 30
percent of the total;
4 Steel/bi-metal cans accounted for approximately 225,000 tons, or about 4
percent of the total; and
4 Aluminum cans represented about 56,000 tons, less than one percent of the
total.
13 Robert Steuteville and Nora Goldstein, "The State of Garbage - 1993 Nationwide Survey," BioCycle,
May 1993, page 49.
-------
APPENDIX Itt-C
Page III-C-11
• In addition, other materials (e.g., oil, other commercial) represented less than 4 percent of the
total.
Estimates of Material Recovered by MWPFs
EPA relied upon data reported for MWPFs in existence in 1992 or planning to begin
operations in 1992, as reported in the GAA Yearbook. The GAA Yearbook provided capacity and
estimated material throughput for 21 such facilities. In sum, these facilities processed
approximately 0.3 million tons of waste, excluding residuals. Because most facilities did not report
the distribution of material types, EPA allocated the materials in the same percentages as
reported by other recycling facilities.
C.4 RECYCLING NON-MSW
As discussed in Appendix III-A, some States include non-MSW (e.g., C&D waste)
amounts in their estimates of MSW generation to BioCyde. However, comparing the latest EPA
combined estimate of recycling and composting (33 million tons in 1990) to BioCycle's combined
estimate (35 million tons in 1990) suggests that non-MSW composting and recycling at MSW
facilities is negligible. (The difference could be rounding errors or minor differences in estimation
methodologies, for example.) EPA assumed this was the case in 1992.
C.5 MRFs AND FLOW CONTROL
Using data from the GAA Yearbook, Exhibit III-C.5 presents the total number of MRF
facilities expected to be operating in 1992 and their respective throughput supported by flow
controls, by contractual arrangements, by neither, or for which data were unavailable. The exhibit
shows that 13 percent of total MRFs in 1992, with 19 percent of the total throughput, were
supported by flow controls.
_
-------
Page m-C-12
APPENDIX III-C
EXHIBIT IH-C.5
Use of Flow Controls by Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in 1992
^X " s /" J
Flow Control
Contraci \, "
Neither
N/A-V ,
Total
- #• ;
26
' 82
79
: EL'
' % ,
13%'
t
41%. ,
40%;
.\6%
ThTOt^hpB*
1,081,587
2,49U7^
2,034,156
^7,068
',^7*,
%
19%
44% "
36%
2%
198 5,703,981
Exhibit m-C.6 shows the respective use of flow controls by high-technology and low-
technology MRFs. As shown, a much higher percentage (i.e., 32 percent) of the throughput of
high-technology MRFs is supported by flow controls than is the case for low-technology MRFs
(i.e., 7 percent of throughput). In fact, the majority of low-technology MRFs for which data are
available use neither flow controls nor contractual guarantees.
EXHIBIT m-C.6
Use of Flow Controls by High-Technology and Low-Technology
Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in 1992
"X
Flow Control
Contract , /
Neither
N/A ^ ;
Total
High-Technology MRF,s
&• s&Ff* **_., ;
17
' ,29
V4'-'
14
' \^V
f f "^-yf. •. *. i -. f ^
Thmughpnt
890,426
1 " 1,414,590
492,868
- / - 20,222
% '
32%
"3&fo
18%
' 1%
61 2,819,106 I
Low-Technology MRFs
'# ,
9
55
65
10
Throogh|>irt
191,161
1,076,580
1,540,288
' 76,864
-%
7%
3-7% '
53%
3%
137 2,884,893
The difference in use of flow controls by high-technology and low-technology MRFs
reflects the greater capital costs of the former ($4.8 million on average) compared to the latter
-------
APPENDIX ffl-C
Page III-C-13
($1.9 million on average). Exhibit III-C.7 shows available capital cost data for both
high-technology and low-technology MRFs, distinguished by use of flow controls, contracts,
neither, or for which such data was not reported. As shown, those facilities making use of flow
controls have higher capital costs on average than facilities not supported by flow controls; this is
true for both high- and low-technology MRFs.
EXHIBIT III-C.7
Capital Costs and Use of Flow Controls by
Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in 1992
Flow Control
Cftotxaet , ;
Neither
S/A
Total
High-Technology MRFs
*
13
26
9
0
48
Average Capital Costs
$6,788,462
, : _ 4&5$®
2,474,444
'* "
4,797,292
Low-Technology MRFs
| - #-
8
46
36
4/
86
Average Capital Cost
53,256,250
1,255,602
2,035,889
- Tj&a&Ba -
1,920,810
Note: Only 134 of the 198 MRFs reported capital costs; of these 134, all but
4 provided data on use of waste guarantees (e.g., flow controls). Only 21 of
the 26 MRFs supported by flow controls reported capital cost information.
Exhibit IH-C.8 presents data on the ownership of the 198 MRFs and their use of waste
guarantees. The percentage use of flow controls by privately owned and operated MRFs is much
less - in terms of facilities (8.8 percent) and throughput (14.6 percent) — than for MRFs that are
publicly owned (25 percent and 42.5 percent, respectively). Use of flow controls among the
publicly-owned/privately-operated category, which has the highest ratio of high-technology to low-
technology MRFs, falls in between the privately and publicly owned categories of MRFs.
Exhibit III-C.9 focuses on the Northeast region where 86 of the 198 MRFs (i.e., 43
percent) are located, having a total throughput of 2,739,154 tons (48 percent of national MRF
throughput). As shown, 20 MRFs in the Northeast are supported by flow controls, which
constitute 77 percent of the 26 MRFs nationwide that are reported using flow controls. The
-------
Page III-C-14
APPENDIX III-C
EXHIBIT III-C.8
Materials Recovery Facilities Ownership and Use of Flow Control
•
Facility Type
High-Tech
Low-Tech
Total
Bow Control
Contract
Neither
N/A
Total
••Privafely -OwAedxan3
" " ' Operated
. #x ss
FacBsaesA
*3#\
,'iW:
136
A«.
(&#?$;
53
VW"
10
136
Throwg&put
(teas)
\ 2-28433$ "
3,950,955
-l:$i$j$&<
, V; <14$#>
1,531,210
lys&sk'*
97,068
3,950,955
Pabltcly waes^f rivately
Operated
#
Sweatees
i?'
„ 17
34
7
^ ' /
' (2!Ot^K
20
«;
i
34
Throughput
ii
4D^6*&
1,386,660
SL%«6
(23 J4)
881,802
IS4,W ,
0
1,386,660
Publicly Owned! and j
^ ;'" Operated. j
#• :
Facilities :
- 6
""2?
28
7 ,
, <2S*)
9
I?
• 0
28
TfcwHigfapat
,,<|OKS)
te%478
197,88$
366,366
x JJCMS?
(42L$^>
78,158
132,591
0
366,366
EXHIBIT IH-C.9
Use of Flow Controls by Materials Recovery Facilities in the Northeast
(n = 86 of 198)
Flow Control
Contract
Neither
N/A
Total
High-Technology
y»#- s<;,
feiicilUles,^
13
v&r*v
8
?>""T
41
^TbxxtHglt^it
(teas) -
764,680
; ;, 735JS?
321,451
; '4'24222.
1,902,069
Low-Technology
A-:-
Facilities
s
1
*J J? '-' ''
21
J)'
45
Tltfougfapttt
(tons)
163,661
, :^34^si
338,433
o'' '
837,085
Total
's* ,
FacUiges
20
m ' -
29
i
f
86
TJiro«ghj)ut
C*o»iS)
928,341
- 1430,7^7
659,884
30222
f
2,739,154
throughput of 928,341 tons under flow control in the Northeast equals 86 percent of the total
MRF throughput nationwide that is supported by flow controls (i.e., 928,341 is 86 percent of
1,081,587).
-------
APPENDIX III-C
Page III-C-15
Exhibit III-C.IO shows comparable data for the 24 MRFs planned to be operational after
1992. The bulk of the additional capacity is expected to come from high-technology MRFs, with
significant support from flow controls. One quarter of the facilities did not report throughput
data.
EXHIBIT III-C.10
Use of Flow Controls by 24 Materials Recovery Facilities
Planned to be Operational After 19921
r
Flow Control
CoBtrsct
Neither
"N/A s; ;• -;,
Total
High-Technology
#
Facilities
6
4
1
6
17
Throughput
Items) -
255,000
4&24,o0o
180,000
SZ^GSS*
1,418,0506
Low-Technology
#
Facilities:
1
2
1
3
7
ThroBghpui
(tons)
38,500
SQ$Mf* *
50,000
Q
138,5007
Total
#
Facilities
7
~ '4
2
•9 ,
24
Throughput
{teas) '
293,500
Sl^OOO3
230,000
52i;€5d5';
1,556,5508
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Planned start-up dates: 1993 (18 facilities), 1994 (5 facilities), and 1995 (1 facility).
Only one facility reporting throughput.
Only 5 facilities reporting throughput.
Only 4 facilities reporting throughput.
Only 4 facilities reporting throughput.
Fifteen (15) facilities reporting throughput.
Only 3 facilities reporting throughput.
Eighteen (18) facilities reporting throughput.
-------
-------
APPENDIX III-D
Technical Analysis: WTE Segment
This appendix summarizes data used in the analysis of the waste-to-energy market
segment, Section D of Chapter III. The primary sources of information were the surveys of WTE
facilities prepared by Government Advisory Associates, Inc., entitled Resource Recovery Yearbook:
Directory & Guide. The latest edition (1993-94) includes detailed data on all WTE facilities in the
United States, whether they are operating, planned, or shutdown either temporarily or
permanently for 1992. The type of data collected for each facility includes: technical
specifications, fuel/energy recovery, recycling and materials recovery, institutional arrangements,
operating history, capital costs, operation and maintenance costs (O&M), and tipping fees. The
GAA Yearbook also includes narrative providing summary information on the WTE facilities.
Although some of this narrative was useful in preparing the WTE analysis, it did not always
reflect all of the detailed data required for this analysis. For example, the GAA Yearbook divides
WTE facilities into regions and market subsegments based on number of facilities and not by
throughput. Moreover, it is not clear whether the GAA Yearbook uses weighted averages to
determine average facility capital and O&M costs and tipping fees. To overcome these
limitations, EPA used the detailed data on each facility (presented as appendices to GAA surveys)
to sort facilities based on several parameters and to develop weighted averages for costs and
tipping fees. The following exhibits present the results of this data analysis.
Exhibit III-D. 1 lists the number of WTE facilities by State and notes whether they are
existing, advanced planned/under construction, or conceptually planned. In sum, 145 facilities
were in existence in 1992 (including 10 that were not operating or were temporarily shut down),
26 were advanced planned (including five that were under construction), and 27 were
conceptually planned.
Exhibit III-D.2 lists, for each State, the amount of 1992 throughput attributed to each of
the three market subsegments, mass burn, modular, and RDF, comprising the 135 operating WTE
facilities in 1992. The States are organized into four regions for comparison with the other
market segments. Exhibit III-D.3 lists for the 135 operating WTE facilities, for each State, the
amount of 1992 throughput that is guaranteed by flow control, contractual arrangements, or not
guaranteed at all. Exhibit III-D.4 presents data on use of flow control, contracts, or neither by
WTE ownership for the 135 operating WTE facilities. Finally, Exhibit IH-D.5 presents summary
-------
Page IH-D-2
APPENDIX III-D
EXHIBIT IH-D.1
Location of Existing Facilities by State in 1992
State
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO :
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
EL
IN
IA
KB
KY
LA
ME
MB
MA
Mt
MN
MS
MO
E1
2
3
2
5
7
I 2
14
1
1
1
1
2
4
3
8
3
14
i .
jfff&g-."
•* .•>••
v ~-Y
s^s •
;o ^-,-
i
•• ? "*
s \%" «•
i
,,s/vN-5» -S'
Vs-* O ^5 V
3
s "X-,
•i J * s
Si ; ^ -,
;• ^% \
V
"'"• \ \
1'^'.-
2
v. -1
/ \ ">-
\' ^ ""'
^s^ '
-^ >s C" '
^"^y!^^>Vt «
1
v ;*, -
- X. :
V*^, ,
^^•, ^ •. /
1
,/ 1 -
f ~*.
<•""; \-- "• -'
i
^ s> s;r;
\ i't ;:
, *'4'X
1
f*S ' f'
1
- Stoat
2
3
-
' %',
6
— >t
8
- 3 - -
15
-3-s s
1
, *~ s
;•''••
5
.-3'"
2
^ - — ;'
i
- ^
4
5 ,
10
- '7o
15
•3, ,
1
-S*afc> '
MT
K32
NV
HH
NJ
KM'
N?
NC
ND
<5H ''
OK
OH v
PA
Ki '
SG
si) v,.
TN
TX
ur
yr
VA
WA
wv
•wi -
WY
El
1
-
'- *,/
5
••"
16
,»-2
3
2
1 ",
6
x«?
2
•, 5*
,. •>
4
5 r
i
i, »
8
5
- €
ATSflfK?
1
3
5 ' •: ff '' •"
, 5 ^ "#•
3
1
, i
4
2
,. ^-^ f Sfj.
'
'
1
i '"
*
OP
' , ,\
'
'
4
2
t
t
1
••
'
'
3
T
-------
APPENDIX IU-D
Page III-D-3
EXHIBIT UI-D.2
1992 Throughput of 135 Operating Facilities by Market Subsegment, State, and Region
Jtegloa
•
Northeast
f
South
•State
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Ifegfon $0jal _
&egidn Jteteeafr of
National Total
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Regfoa. Ifctai
i&gio&l*ifeK*afrar '" ;
National Total ' ;„ ,
Mass Bora
1,229,501
229,220
717,773
1,870,260 .
251,850
1,536,534
2,710,583
2,157,798
/1$793»51$>
S2.%
193,925
3,603,713
175,200
71,193
224,012
374,221
1,519,306
, ^ *$Mg& -
m«%
Medalajp
165,092
120,269
190,239
39,420
14,200
195,980
12,000
-*„ , "T3T,3^ *
4&4%
89,422
37,520
51,254
35,910
102,546
71,971
15,752
42,152
46,395
4S>2,5£2
32,4%
«3>F
613,508
230,000
445,000
872,338
911,000
'• ^Mff*^
-" ," a&iV*
1,795,000
3,900
476,705
2^75^05
2&m
-Tdtol
2,008,101
230,000
674,220
838,042
2,932,837
291,270
1,550,734
3,817,563
2,169,798
HO%«&
4^7%,!
283,347
37,520
5,449,967
175,200
35,910
173,739
295,983
393,873
42,152
2,051,506
S#«MU?7
28.7%
-------
Fage iil-jj-4
EXHIBIT III-D.2 (continued)
1992 Throughput of 135 Operating Facilities by Market Subsegment, State, and
Region
Region
Midwest
West
>*£&;:^*v
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region Iffsrsxsfit flf^l \ \ 1 '
Alaska
California
Hawaii
Montana
Oklahoma
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Region TPoter •• "-^ £
K~»»«»»*.*m**m»*-»*»m.>*w««-m+»>M.-H'*^ ^ **
Natfoaal fetsil, ^ / '*
GRANBWTAX? ""-" . "'',-*
s f •,
355,000
675,048
257,325
423,619 :
93,074 '
; 1^M«, x
7,174
898,514 i
'
349,442
189,107
115,048 ;
340,567
^ jowrt y&\?. f
Utt^,tHt,tf4ln lll.r4»»<«.M.W
•* _. ' S
• "VW*. ,
M^far ^
159,936
61,905
, , 223,841 '
.. •»*
168
19,500
15,865
35,000
— JJSlJ,
x^^:
RftF
63,300
750,000
1,050,500
853,649 .
124,500
2»«41,945>
•; ^'
9,000
600,000
205,000
_;±^._
/ / / / /f
, <*»* i
355,000
675,048
63,300
1,007,325
1,634,055
946,723
186,405
JSSSLi«
16,342
898,514
600,000
19,500
365,307
189,107
115,048
580,567
H^SSH^H,
3^W
Column totals may not add up exactly due to rounding errors.
-------
APPENDIX ffl-D
Page II1-D-5
EXHIBIT III-D.3
1992 Throughput of 135 Operating Facilities by Type of Waste Guarantee
Region
Northeast
South
State
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
iteginn Total
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Region ffcfciif
Ib&i
Throughput ••
2,008,101
230,000
674,220
838,042
2,932,837
291,270
1,550,734
3,817,563
2,169,798
14,512,5565
283,347
37,520
5,449,967
175,200
35,910
173,739
295,983
393,873
42,152
2,042,406
V4£#M#?
f
Guaranteed
toy FIw
- Control' '
1,187,400
230,000
64,240
0
0
39,420
1,359,610
1,871,083
2,157,798
6,999,551
193,925
0
4,121,073
175,200
0
173,739
0
378,121
0
1,899,439
,, $944407
Percent
of
% Total
59.1
100.0
9.5
0.0
0.0
13.5
87.7
49.0
99.4
47,6
68.4
0.0
75.6
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
96.0
0.0
93.0
n.f
Guaranteed
s fey
Contract
820,700
0
609,980
717,773
2,932,837
251,850
176,925
1,658,280
12,000
7,186,345
0
0
166,022
0
35,910
0
295,983
0
0
0
' 407,«i$
Perceut
of
Total
40.9
0.0
90.5
85.6
100.0
86.5
11.4
' 43.4
0.6
'- 4&S -
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
&*
No
Guarantee
0
0
0
120,269
0
0
14,200
288,200
0
422^669 '
89,422
37,520
1,162,872
0
0
0
0
15,752
42,152
142,968
$,&%&$
Percent
Of
Total
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.4
0.0
0.0
0.9
7.5
0.0
3-.V
31.6
100.0
21.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
100.0
7.0
H5-7
-------
Page m-D-6
APPENDIX III-D
EXHIBIT III-D3 (continued)
1992 Throughput of 135 Operating Facilities by Type of Waste Guarantee
RegSon
Midwest
West
OKA?
State
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Regio* Total
Alaska
California
Hawaii
Montana
Oklahoma
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Region Total
«> TOTAL*
mSU;*
355,000
675,048
63,300
1,007,325
1,634,055
946,723
186,405
16,342
898,514
600,000
19,500
365,307
189,107
115,048
580,567
,<. 5i,7J54j38S - /
'- > ', V
Guarantee £
0
675,048
0
257,325
883,619
308,074
154,897
s ff *
168
406,097
600,000
0
349,442
189,107
115,048
340,567
;«WM» ,
>;W88>
Petcefct
, fatal
0.0
100.0
0.0
25.5
54.1
32.5
83.3
'#*
1.0
'45.2
i
100.0
0.0
195.7
100.0
100.0
58.7
?1-
5SL3 ^
, «tam :
0
0
20,800
750,000
668,625
0
0
M*MU '
0
492,417
0
0
0
0
0
35,000
me*
M«W
of
Total
0.0
0.0
32.9
74.5
40.9
0.0
0.0
M
0.0
54.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
lft»
'au
Gaarantee
355,000
0
42,500
0
81,812
638,649
31,508
**M»
16,174
0
0
19,500
15,865
0
0
205,000
*MK
43W«
Perceni ;
Total
100.0
0.0
67.1
0.0
5.0
67.5
16.7
' 23.fi
99.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
35.3
^
wr
Column totals may not add up exactly due to rounding errors.
-------
APPENDIX III-D
Page m-D-7
EXHIBIT III-D.4
Waste-to-Energy Ownership and Use of Flow Controls
Privately
Owned and
Operated
Mvate%
•Operated/ ,
Jhabffely
Owned-
Publicly
Owned and
Operated
TcftaJ
Flow Control
I # '
23
23-
15
$1
Total
trterosgbprt:
{average}
8,843,776
(384,512)
&,92&,S£4
{301,288}
2,356,588
(157,106)
18,12^8 Cj
' $$7,233} i
Contract
"# ,
27
6
7
'40
;. v •.-.-. %
Total
Tbr0BgJ*|i«t:
{Averag*}
7,083,744
(262,361)
%1£2,<®
(&3,737)
439,385
(62,769)
- -%645,55t i
A CW,1») i
Neither
#
8
5;
21
34
Total
T&KHjghpat
^average)
430,364
(53,796)
. 1,1Q8%114"
{2m '
1,888,884
(89,947)
353193*52i
QW&k
Total
#
58
' 34-
f
-. """"^
43
135
Total
TJMraagbpwt
^average)
16,357,884
(282,032)
%" 10,65^161
" -|2«?5±f52}
4,684,857
(108,950)
3Xs094^i 1
(asc^a^) i
EXHIBIT HI-D.5
Throughput Projections for 1995 and 2000
'.."'- Stkas
Throughput of Existing, Operational Facilities in
1992 (n= 135)
Throughput of Existing Facilities Temporarily
Shutdown in 1992 (n=10)14
Throughput of Facilities Currently Under
Construction (n=5)
Throughput of Facilities Currently Advanced
Planned (n=21)
PROJECTED TgROUGHTOT
1^5
31,094,901
627,542
1,308,310
(n=4)
618,466
(n=3)
33,649,219 ,,
296fr
31,094,901
627,542
1,603,310
(n=5)
6,526,441
(n=21)
39^,194
14 Six facilities were expected to start up by 1995, while the start up dates for the other four were
listed as "unknown." This exhibit assumes that all ten facilities will start up by 1995.
-------
Page III-D-8
APPENDIX III-D
data used to develop projections of WTE throughput for the years 1995 and 2000. For these
exhibits, row and column totals may not always add up precisely, due to rounding.
Exhibit IH-D.6 presents data on capital costs of WTEs operational in 1992. Mass burn
and RDF facilities entail very high capital costs, $87'million and $80.9 million on average,
respectively; median capital costs are somewhat lower, particularly for RDFs, which include
smaller facilities that only produce RDF as well as larger facilities that both produce and combust
RDF. Modular facilities entail capital costs an order of magnitude smaller, on average.
EXHIBIT HI-D.6
Capital Costs of Waste-to-Energy Facilities Operational in 1992
Facility
Mass Burn
8DP >.-*
"" 1 '*'*
Modular
65
•.'*&
,/, Dis.
38
'<$<>*&
20,569,004
1,522,497
Average '
$87.0
$8.3
Median .
(millions)
$70.0
$51^
$5.7
Exhibit m-D.7 and IH-D.8 present comparable data for two subsets of WTEs: (1) those
supported by flow controls and (2) those supported 'by neither flow controls nor contracts,
respectively. The 61 WTEs supported by flow controls have higher mean and median capital
costs, regardless of facility type. The 34 WTEs supported by neither flow controls nor contracts
have lower mean and median capital costs, with the \ exception of RDF mean capital costs. As
noted above, there are two very different configurations of RDF facilities that can skew the
statistics, given the small number of RDFs involved '(i.e., 8). These exhibits confirm an association
between magnitude of WTE capital costs and use of flow controls.
-------
APPENDIX III-D
Page III-P-9
EXHIBIT IH-D.7
Capital Costs of Waste-to-Energy Facilities Operational in 1992 and
Supported by Flow Controls
Facility
Type
Mass Burn
RDF
Modular
--).
, -#
Facilities
44
n
6
f '•
%
Facilities
wtffaflow
Centrois '
67.7
34.4
15.8
-
Total
Throughput
flbns) %
14,365,752
3,426,933 1
337,623
1$428$& 1
%
Throughput
ofFaeitfcy
tre*
69.9
'" 's£i , *
22.2
Capital Cos^FfcCiffty
Average
(millions)
$90.6
«,,$8L9 -
$12.6
Median
{millions}
$78.0
'$54.5
$7.8
EXHIBIT III-D.8
Capital Costs of Waste-to-Energy Facilities Operational in 1992 and
Supported Neither by Flow Controls Nor Contracts
Facility
; ??*?••
,.'.%'..< _./
Mass Burn
RDF
Modular
# "'
tetfHiae$
6
8
20
- %
l*^Cilitl6S
withElew
Controls
9.2
25.0 j
52.6
/ ,T^tal
: Tiaroughpat
826,886
1,901?14^
591,327
%
TfemighfiBt
*Su&$''
1>ji0 *-
4.0
2L1
38.8
Capital Cost/FacJlily
""" Avenge
^(«»|fiffiB$)
$13.8
$92L7
$5.3
Median
Italians)
$7.7
$44.6
$3.0
Exhibit III-D.9 shows that the types of waste guarantees, if any, associated with WTEs
differ across the three different types of WTE facilities. Most mass burn facilities are supported
by flow controls; most RDF facilities rely on either flow controls or contracts; most modular
facilities are not supported by flow controls, instead they operate either with contracts or no form
of waste guarantee.
-------
Page ni-D-10
APPENDIX III-D
EXHIBIT BtI-D.9
Use of Waste Guarantees by Type of .
Waste-to-Energy Facility Operational in 1992
Facility
Type
Mass
Burn
EDF
Modular
Tola!
FadHites
44
Jl
6
/*'
\ ",, -,"v";
ovrOatfro'lf*
-^EfaFptugJi*
s ./ pjii "^
14,365,752
N;3j-26s9jix
337,623
^&a-
;--/;s
5 Vs" ' !
Total :
69.9
^.J
22.2
&ft.
#;" ;W3$t<
" , s.
Fad3it«5 i
15
,^'
12 .
40 '
j {3tiarant««
Conttacis
Uuctwpi-
jint
5,376,367
3*8M!38
593,547
4«tf^
i-
26.1
4^e
39.0
5W
' '.C'1
•"
'*'/,,
6
«^
20
34 '-
f
JNMOwr
Tt,^
826,886
1,98W
591,327
Vtt^a,
TotaJ
4.0
21.1
38.8
,,,,11f,,
-------
APPENDIX III-E
Technical Analysis: Landfill Segment
This appendix summarizes data used in preparing Section E of Chapter III. The estimated
amount of waste landfilled in 1992, 211 million tons, is derived by subtracting the amount of waste
managed in the other market segments from BioCycle's estimate of 292 million tons. For
example, the composting market segment managed 9 million tons, the recycling segment 40
million tons, and the WTE segment 32 million tons.15 Subtracting 81 million tons from 292
million leaves approximately 211 million tons as managed in landfills.
Exhibit III-E.l presents remaining landfill capacity in years for 21 States reporting this
information to BioCyde for 1990 and 1992. The average estimated remaining capacities (9.5 in
1990 and 15.9 in 1993) is the mean of the 21 State sample. For States that reported a range
estimate, EPA used the mid-point of that range. Exhibit HI-E.1 includes -a third column noting
the percentage change in recycling/composting rates over this same time period; States with major
increases in recycling/composting (e.g., Alabama, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, and South Dakota) generally showed marked increases in remaining landfill capacity,
while States with less remaining landfill capacity during this period (e.g., Delaware, Indiana, Ohio)
tended to have lower rates of increase in recycling/composting.
Exhibit IH-E.2 compares the capacity of large landfills in 14 States with the amount of
waste disposed in these States annually. Fourteen (14) States provided information on the total
tonnage disposed annually in landfills. We derived in-state large landfill (i.e., greater than 500
tons per day) capacity estimates from ranges of capacity reported in the Solid Waste Price Index
(November, 1992). For the purposes of this analysis, we used average values of the ranges. We
used 750 tons per day as an average value for the range of 500 to 1000 tons per day, and used
1250 tons per day as an average value for landfills with 1000 tons per day or greater capacity.
This exhibit illustrates that large private landfills provide enough capacity to meet between 23 and
62 percent of the 14 State sample's annual disposal needs. The total annual capacity for large
landfills (i.e., greater than 500 tons per day) in this 14 State sample is equal to 41 percent of the
total amount disposed.
15
The WTE segment includes one million tons managed by incinerators without energy recovery.
-------
Page ni-E-2
APPENDIX III-E
EXHIBIT Iil-E.l
Remaining State Landfill Capacity
Sfefcr^'V"^
'-^-; ^-^j -H,- :
Alabama
|| Delaware
I) Georgia
I Hawaii
| Indiana
| Iowa
| Kentucky
|| Maryland
| Minnesota
|| Missouri
|| New Mexico
|] New York
|J Ohio
| Oklahoma
|| Oregon
|| Pennsylvania
| Rhode Island
1 South Carolina
South Dakota
I Texas
1 Utah
Aver^JEstimated^ ^
| BemaiHittit exactly'
¥fe*rs of
Remaining
* <:^a0ity
<1990)^ *
4
20+
3-4
5
7
10
3
7
5-10
9
2-5
9
8-10
12-15
20+
5+
4
10
10-15
15
20
- *s"~
t«sr$
-------
APPENDIX ffl-E
Page II1-E-3
EXHIBIT III-E.2
Large Facility Capacity Compared to Total Waste Disposed in 1992
(million tons)
State
Arkansas
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Minnesota
New Jersey
New York
Nebraska
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Texas
Utah
Washington
'Total" - .-,.• '" '":''•- '%
Tons: Disposed in
Landfill Annually . ;
2.2
9.7
12.3
8.3
1.3
2.9
11.9
1.3
2.2
6.7
12.5
21.7
1.8
3.9
'-: ?•• ™;'. ;:-:;!98;7if
Annual Ton Capacity
of iLar^e Landfills "
.8
5.9
5.8
3.4
.8
1.8
3.0
.5
' .5
2.0
4.7
9.2
.5
1.3
£''^'-'?:^.^$®2:^
Sources: State reports, and Solid Waste Price Index, November 1992.
-------
Page m-E-4 APPENDIX III-E
Extrapolating this sample to the nation suggests that large landfills, both public and private,
account for 41 percent of all landfill capacity.
Correspondingly, Exhibit III-E.3 provides an overview of the largest private companies in
the landfill segment, including the number of landfills they own and operate, the median ton per
day capacity of these landfills, and total annual tons per year capacity of the firms. The total
annual capacity of these firms is equal to 64.7 million tons. This capacity represents
approximately 31 percent of our prior estimate of 211 million tons for the entire landfill market
segment. By subtracting the 31 percent from the 41 percent of the total landfill market segment
that large landfills represent (obtained in Exhibit III-E.2), we can estimate that the remaining 10
percent of the large landfill segment is comprised of large government landfills. (Note that 58
percent of the total landfill segment must be attributed to small landfills.)
-------
APPENDIX III-E
Page III-E-5
EXHIBIT III-E.3
Overview of Largest Companies in Landfill Market
Notes:
1. Thirteen sites opened or acquired in 1992.
2. Two MSW landfill projects under development.
3. One landfill under construction.
4. A fifth landfill for non-hazardous industrial wastes exists.
J&fe
Waste
Management
BrowRisa^Ffems
Laidlaw
M4*Ameifca»3
Chambers3
Western3
Attwoods
SRBKBP
Republic
Bastes*'- ^
USA Waste
Asaeifcatt
Norcal3
Total
3S;uji»bet af
JLandfills in 1992
1331
9$
26
21*
153
- ' 4,'"' ' '
1
U
8
"2
6
* $
16
• 34&
He<&w 1H>
Capacity
750
75$
750
750
750
750
750
• ' 3? $
750
750
750
* / ,375
350
HA
Total l^f C&aaei^r
OailliQtts}1*
25.9
^ 19£
5.1
-4.1
2.9
ft«
0.2
' 14, ' ,
• 1.6
&4
1.2
03
1.5
, - ^-76
a. Company also operates other non-MSW landfills (e.g., C&D, industrial, dry waste, and special waste landfills.)
16 Total TPY capacity equals the number of landfills multiplied by median capacity times 260
operating days per year.
-------
-------
-------
------- |