SUMMARY

This report provides 1993 data on interstate shipment of municipal solid waste for 39 States, the Canadian province of Ontario, and the District of Columbia. Included are data for all major importers and exporters of such waste.

Of the major recipients, Indiana and West Virginia showed substantial decreases in imports in 1993, while Pennsylvania and Illinois experienced increases.

Shipments from the two largest exporters, New York and New Jersey, remained relatively stable; Illinois and Ontario, ranked third and fourth in 1992, both appear to have exported substantially less in 1993.

Total shipments across State lines totaled 13 million tons in 1993 if exports are totaled, or 14.5 million tons if import data are totaled. Both figures represent an apparent decrease from the previous year.

CONTENTS

Introduction
Trends in Waste Imports
Waste Exports
Types of Facilities Receiving Waste Imports

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste in 1993
Table 2. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste in 1993
Table 3. Net Exporters of Municipal Solid Waste in 1993
Table 4. Net Importers of Municipal Solid Waste in 1993
Table 5. The Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, the Number of Landfills, and the Amount of Imported MSW, by State

Introduction

This report provides 1993 data on imports and exports of municipal solid waste (MSW) for selected States. The States include all major importers and exporters identified in previous surveys undertaken by CRS. Earlier versions of this report have been sent in memorandum form to several congressional requesters; this report supersedes those earlier versions and contains some minor revisions.

The report provides four summary tables which show exports of MSW ranked by State (table 1), imports of MSW ranked by State (table 2), and net exports and imports by State (tables 3 and 4). Detailed State information, including in many cases the origins and destinations of waste shipments and the name and contact information for State officials who provided data, is displayed in table 5.

As noted in previous CRS reports on this subject, the quality of data available varies greatly from one State to the next, since many States do not have reporting requirements for waste exporters or waste management facilities. As a result, what is presented here should be considered a best estimate. In addition, we have not contacted all 50 States, although we believe we have reached all of the major importers and exporters.

One result of the incomplete reporting is that data on exports and imports do not match. This is apparent when one compares exports from one State to another as reported by both the receiving and sending States. For example, New Jersey reported total MSW exports of 1,578,000 tons; but Pennsylvania alone reported imports of 1,837,000 tons from New Jersey, and Ohio reported substantial New Jersey shipments as well. Similar anomalies are found in Ohio and Illinois reports concerning exports from Indiana, although the numbers are smaller.

When one totals our export estimates, the result is a national total of 12,962,000 tons. Total import estimates were 14,451,000 tons. Both are lower than comparable CRS data for 1992. In the case of exports, the total is about 10 percent less; measuring imports, the total is 1.3 percent less.

Unable to reconcile the data, we have generally reported export data as reported by the exporting States, and import data as reported by the importing States. In some cases, where export data were unavailable, we estimated or provided partial data available from recipient States. Where there appeared to be major discrepancies between export and import data, we attempted to identify them.

Trends in Waste Imports

Of the major waste importers, several showed stable or declining levels of imports in 1993. Indiana and West Virginia were the most notable in this regard: Indiana's imports declined 55 percent compared to the previous year, and West Virginia's declined 38 percent. Ohio's imports declined slightly in 1993, and represented a decline of more than 50 percent from the peak year of 1989. Virginia, which had reported major increases in 1992, also apparently stabilized imports in 1993.

There were some States showing increases, however. Pennsylvania, already the Nation's largest importer in 1992, showed a further increase of about 600,000 tons in 1993. It now accounts for more than one-fourth of total waste imports nationally. Preliminary data for 1994 indicate a further increase of nearly 500,000 tons. Illinois has not yet compiled 1993 data, but several landfills in the State have expanded their business in the last two years. As a result, the State expects imports to show an increase, while exports from the State have decreased. Connecticut, which was not on our list for lack of data prior to last year, reported importing 750,000 to 800,000 tons of waste in 1993. New Hampshire also reported an increase: it imported more than 500,000 tons in 1993, about a 30 percent increase from the previous year estimate.

Waste Exports

Of the major exporters, New York and New Jersey shipped about the same amount out of State in 1993 as in 1992, but Illinois and Ontario (Canada) -- the third and fourth largest exporters in 1992 -- both showed substantial declines. Illinois' exports declined more than 600,000 tons. Ontario's exports, reported at 1,430,000 tons in 1992, were less than half that amount in 1993. Part of the Ontario decline represents a clarification of what types of waste were included in the 1992 figure: it included substantial amounts of construction and demolition debris, which is not technically MSW. But there was also a substantial real decline in exports, primarily the result of a decrease in tipping fees at disposal sites in the metropolitan Toronto area. CRS estimates Ontario's 1993 exports to the United States at 250,000 tons of MSW, down nearly 500,000 tons from 1992. A further decline may be evident in 1994.

Another exporter likely to show a decrease in 1994 is New Jersey, the Nation's second largest exporter of MSW. The State believes its exports decreased about 500,000 tons from 1993 levels in 1994, because of new in-State capacity. Official figures confirming this, or otherwise, were not yet available at the time we contacted the State. New York, on the other hand, thinks exports may have increased in 1994; like New Jersey, it did not have a final estimate at the time we contacted them (late March 1995).

Types of Facilities Receiving Waste Imports

While most of the out-of-State waste appears to travel to privately owned landfills, in some States a surprising amount goes to publicly owned facilities which probably have the authority to restrict out-of-State waste under current law, should they desire to do so. In Indiana, for example, 68 percent of the out-of-State waste went to public landfills. In Pennsylvania, 6 of the 34 facilities importing out-of-State waste were publicly owned. In Connecticut, about one-third of the waste imported went to waste-to-energy facilities that are publicly owned or have mixed public-private ownership.

These facilities may have authority to restrict out-of-State waste under what is called the "market participant exemption to the dormant commerce clause." Under this doctrine, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1976, when State and local governments participate in a market rather than regulate the market, the dormant commerce clause does not apply. Thus, government-owned facilities may discriminate against out-of-State commerce in most cases.

The remainder of this report consists of five tables, summarizing waste export and import data. Additional background information concerning this issue and data for States that do not appear in this report can be found in an earlier CRS report, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste, CRS Report 93-743 ENR, August 31, 1993.

a. New Jersey is one of the few States to distinguish MSW from other waste shipped to MSW disposal facilities. The State reports exports of 1,578,230 tons of MSW in 1993, but it also exported 932,024 tons of other waste to out-of-State MSW landfills.

b. CRS estimate based on partial information.

c. A landfill does not exist within the District, but the District owns land in Lorton, Virginia, on which both a landfill and a waste-to-energy facility operate. The District of Columbia Department of Public Works does not consider waste sent to these facilities to be out-of-State waste shipments since the disposal facilities are on land owned by the District.

d. CRS estimate based on partial information. Ontario also exports substantial quantities of construction and demolition waste, not estimated here.

e. First processed as refuse-derived fuel.

f. As reported by Indiana. Two receiving States, Illinois and Ohio, report receiving more than three times as much waste from Indiana as Indiana reports in exports.

g. 1992 data.

Source: CRS, based on telephone interviews with and data provided by State program officials. States not listed in this table were not able to provide data, but generally concluded that only small amounts of MSW, if any, left their States for disposal.

a. In addition, Pennsylvania received 1,060,000 tons of other waste (sewage sludge, medical waste, ash, construction/demolition waste, or asbestos) from out-of State for disposal at MSW landfills in 1993.

b. CRS estimate.

c. 1991 data.

d. 1994, estimated by CRS, based on State data for first three quarters of the year.

e. July 1992 - June 1993.

f. As reported by North Carolina, July 1992 - June 1993. "Imports" are defined as waste originally from out-of-State, including waste from other States and from other countries.

Source: CRS, based on telephone interviews with and data provided by State program officials. States not listed were generally unable to provide data. Most of these concluded that they did not receive major quantities of municipal solid waste from out-of-State. An exception to this generalization is Michigan. Because Michigan believes it is a major importer, it is listed in the table, even though we were unable to estimate the amount of waste it received.

Source: CRS, based on data reported in Tables 1 and 2.

Source: CRS, based on data reported in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 5. The Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, the Number of Landfills, and the Amount of Imported MSW, by State

N.A. = not available

WTE = waste-to-energy facility