Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste:
1998 Update

James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division

Updated August 6, 1998

98-689 ENR

CONTENTS

Summary
Introduction
Total Shipments
States Reporting Increased Imports
States Reporting Decreased Imports
Major Exporters
Net Imports and Exports
Additional Information

List of Figures

Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 1997, in tons
Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 1997, in tons

List of Tables

Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 1997 (in tons)
Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 1997 (in tons)
Table 3. Net Imports/Exports of Municipal Solid Waste,1997 or latest year (in tons)
Table 4. Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, and Amount and Sources of Imported MSW, by State

Summary

This report, which replaces CRS Report 97-349, provides updated information on interstate shipment of municipal solid waste (MSW). Since the late 1980s, Congress has considered, but not enacted, numerous bills that would allow states to impose restrictions on interstate waste shipments, a step the Constitution prohibits in the absence of congressional authorization. Over this period, there has been a continuing interest in knowing how much waste is being shipped across state lines for disposal, and what states might be affected by proposed legislation. This report provides data useful in addressing these questions.

Total interstate waste shipments continue to rise, due to the closure of small local landfills and the increasing consolidation of the waste management industry. Between the current survey (generally reporting 1997 data) and our 1997 survey (reporting largely 1995 data), reported interstate waste imports have increased by 6.0 million tons, about 32%. Reported exports, which because of data limitations do not match imports, increased by 24%.

Twenty states report increased imports since 1995, the largest being Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Pennsylvania continues to be the largest waste importer. The state received 6.3 million tons of municipal solid waste and 2.4 million tons of other non-hazardous waste from out of state in 1997, more than one-fourth the national total for interstate shipments. Virginia and Indiana imported 2.8 million and 2.1 mi1lion tons of MSW respectively. In both cases, the amount increased by more than one million tons in the 2-year period. In all, nine states reported imports exceeding one million tons in 1997, an increase from five states in 1995.

While waste imports increased overall, 13 states did report declines in waste imports. In 4 cases (Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia), the decline exceeded 100,000 tons. Ohio and West Virginia have shown consistent declines in imports over a sustained period.

New York remains the largest exporter of waste, with Illinois moving into second place. New Jersey, Maryland, and Missouri all export more than one million tons. Exports from New York are expected to grow rapidly because of the planned closure of New York City's Fresh Kills Landfill in 2001.

Introduction

This report provides updated information on interstate shipment of municipal solid waste. Concerned about increased waste imports, some states have attempted to regulate this commerce; federal Courts, however, have declared these state restrictions unconstitutional. If states are to have such authority, congressional action is required.

Since the late 1980s, Congress has considered, but not enacted, numerous bills that would grant such authority.1 Over this period, there has been a continuing interest in knowing how much waste is being shipped across state lines for disposal, and what states might be affected by proposed legislation. This report provides data useful in addressing these questions. It updates information provided in earlier CRS reports.2

Not all states require reporting of waste imports, and very few track exports, so the avallable data are incomplete and in some cases represent estimates rather than actual measurements. From what is known, waste shipments appear to be concentrated among 25-30 states in the Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, and Pacific Coast regions (Figures 1 and 2). This report presents information gathered through telephone contacts with solid waste officials in these states. Calls were placed to 42 states, the District of Columbia, and the Canadian province of Ontario. Data were also taken in a limited number of cases from a survey that appeared in the April 1998 edition of BioCycle magazine.

Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 1997, in tons

Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 1997, in tons

Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 1997(in tons)

^a In addition, Pennsylvania received 2,355,283 tons of other waste (mostly industrial waste, construction/demolition waste, ash, and sludge) from out of state at MSW lankfills in 1997.
^b 1997 estimate, based on data for the 4th quarter.
^c Indiana also imported 579,461 tons of non-nunicipal sold waste, primarily construction and demolition waste and industrial waste.
^d Data for October 1996-september 1997l, converted from cubic yards using 3.3 cu.yds. = 1 ton.
^e May include some construction/demolition or industrial waste.
^f Preliminary.
^g 1996 data.
^h 7/1/96-6/30/97.
ⁱ In addition ot the amount reported here, two Connecticut transfer stations receive waste from New York that is re-exported to other states for disposal.
^j CRS estimate.
^k 8/1/96-7/31/97.
^l 1996. Includes some industrial waste, sludge, medical waste, contaminated soil, and asbestos received at MSW landfills.
^m Utah landfills imported very little MSW, but imported 342,000 tons of industrial waste.

Source: CRS, based on telephone interviews with and data proveded by state programm officials. Estimates for Alabama and Montana from Biocycle magazine.

ENDNOTES

1 In the 104th Congress, the Senate passed S. 534. The bill would have granted states authority to restrict new shipments of municipal solid waste from out of state, if requested by an affected local government. In the 103rd Congress, both the House and Senate passed interstate Waste legislation, but lack of agreement on common language prevented enactment. For information on legislation in the 105th Congress, see CRS Issue Brief 97006, Solid Waste Issues in the 105th Congress.

2 This report replaces Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste; 1997 Update, CRS Report 97-349. Earlier reports were Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste; 1996 Update, CRS Report 96-712, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste; 1995 Update, CRS Report 95-570, and Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste, CRS Report 93-743.