|
|
|
Solid Waste and Recycling
GLOSSARY
Municipal solid waste (MSW)
A statutory category
of waste pertaining to the refuse of everyday living as opposed
to that generated by industrial, agricultural, and other processes;
otherwise known as trash or garbage. Commonly includes such commercial,
residential, and industrial administrative and packaging waste as
paper, office equipment, product packaging, furniture, newspapers,
appliances, food scraps, clothing, and bottles.
Resource recovery Collecting,
sorting, processing, and manufacturing into new products recyclable
materials that otherwise would be considered waste.
Solid waste Garbage,
rubbish, ashes, incinerator residue, street cleaning residue, municipal
and industrial sludge, solid commercial and industrial waste, and
animal waste other than organic waste generated in livestock and
poultry production.
BACKGROUND
[APRIL 1, 2002] Over the last few decades, the generation,
recycling, and disposal of everyday garbage and trash—characterized
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as municipal solid
waste (MSW)—has changed dramatically.
Waste Generation
Currently, U.S. residents, businesses, and institutions
produce about 230 million tons of MSW annually—approximately
4.6 pounds per person per day. Over the last 40 years the amount
of waste generated annually has increased 161 percent and the amount
generated per capita is up 70 percent (see Exhibit
1).
Because there are inadequate state data, the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) uses national per capita
estimates by the EPA to estimate the amount of MSW generated in
Michigan: nearly 46 million tons annually. Waste generation would
be even higher if not for such waste-prevention practices as composting,
leaving grass clippings on the lawn, and reducing packaging.
Waste Disposal
Exhibit 2
shows that the amount of MSW disposed of nationally has doubled
over the past 40 years, rising from about 83 million tons annually
to 166 million. Fifteen percent is burned at combustion facilities,
57 percent is disposed of in landfills, and 28 percent is recycled.
Were it not for waste-prevention measures such as
those mentioned above and other resource-recovery efforts, the problem
would be much worse. In 1980, the year recycling began to “take
off, ” the amount of MSW that had to be disposed of nationally
was 90 percent; today, at 72 percent, the figure is better.
Michigan MSW disposal-rate information has only recently
been collected. In 1996 Public Act 359 amended the state Solid Waste
Management Act and now requires landfills to report to the state
the amount of waste received from all sources and geographic locations.
Exhibit 3 shows that in 2001, 20 tons of
MSW were disposed of in Michigan landfills; this is almost 43 percent
more than in 1996, when data collection began.
State laws passed in the last decade have helped to
reduce the amount of waste going into Michigan landfills, and, in
some cases, the waste is put to good use. Examples of waste management
include
- barring yard waste from landfills and establishing
composting sites—in some, humus is made from the waste for
use as a soil conditioner;
- barring discarded tires from landfills and requiring
that they be sent to and disposed of only in locations specifically
set up for that purpose—in some, tires are prepared for recycling
into other products; and
- barring from landfills products containing toxins
and hazardous materials and requiring that they be disposed of
in locations specifically established for that purpose—often
a deposit is required on such products (e.g., refrigerators and
wet-cell batteries) at purchase and refunded when they are returned
for proper disposal.
Waste Management and Planning
The MDEQ's Waste Management Division administers the
state's solid-waste program under part 115 of the state Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Act. The division
- reviews the construction permits and operating
licenses for municipal and industrial nonhazardous solid-waste
disposal facilities;
- inspects those facilities to ensure that they comply
with operating requirements;
- manages the disposal-area financial-assurance program,
which ensures that facility owners/operators have the funds necessary
to meet the costs of (1) closure when capacity is reached, (2)
post-closure maintenance and monitoring, and (3) corrective action
if needed; and
- administers grants and loans related to waste-management
planning and waste alternatives.
Among its other provisions, part 115 requires every
Michigan county to develop and implement a solid-waste management
plan. The plan must include input, through a local planning committee,
from interested local organizations. A plan's purpose is to
- protect public health;
- assure adequate disposal capacity for all waste
generated within county borders for 5- and 10-year periods of
time;
- establish goals for waste prevention and recycling;
- control waste imported from or exported to other
counties;
- define the roles of county and local governments
in implementing and enforcing the plan; and
- assure that the county begins to investigate a
new disposal site when a current site has less than five and a
half years of capacity remaining.
Part 115 requires that the plans be updated every
five years. The last round of updates occurred in 1997 and the next
round was scheduled for 2002, but the MDEQ director has notified
county boards of commissioners that the 2002 round will be delayed
because of (1) state budget cuts, (2) pending revisions to the plan
format and guidebook, and (3) the fact that many plans have been
approved only recently.
Imported Waste
Among the states, Michigan is the third largest importer
of MSW. Imported waste is not held to the same standards as in-state
waste, and virtually all out-of-state MSW must be accepted because
the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that solid waste is an article
of commerce subject to protection of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce
Clause (Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 1978).
In 2001 Michigan imported four million tons from Canada,
Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—up 111 percent in the last five years (see
Exhibit 3). Imported waste currently comprises 20 percent of
all waste disposed of in Michigan, up from 12 percent in 1999. During
the past two years, MSW imports from Canada have risen 156 percent
and now constitute half of all imported waste received at Michigan
landfills, the majority of it coming to Berrien, Monroe, Washtenaw,
and Wayne counties.
Recycling
Nationally, recycling has increased from 10 percent
of the MSW generated in 1980 to the current rate of 28 percent.
In 1999 resource-recovery efforts prevented 64 million tons of materials
from ending up in landfills and incinerators.
Michigan is one of eight states not collecting data
about the amount of MSW recycled and/or composted annually. The
Michigan Recycling Coalition (MRC) estimates that in 1999 Michigan
recycled 2.5 million tons of MSW—about 16 percent of the state's
discarded glass, metal, organic matter, paper, plastic, and other
products. This is considerably lower than the average (26 percent)
of all Great Lakes states. Recycling in Michigan includes curbside
collection in 345 locales and drop-off collection in 413 others.
DISCUSSION
Bottle Bill
Legislation has been introduced to expand Michigan's
so-called bottle bill (passed in 1976) to “new age”
drinks, effective January 1, 2003. House Bill 4096 would require
deposits on single-serving containers of bottled water, juice, and
iced tea; SB 223 would extend the deposit requirement only to single-serving
juice containers. Proponents cite the well-known recycling and environmental
benefits that have resulted from the current law, which covers containers
for beer, soft drinks, carbonated and mineral water, wine coolers,
and canned cocktails.
Opponents claim that expanded coverage will impose
a huge burden on retailers, who would have to take the additional
returns. Storeowners say that the presence of dirty containers in
a store where food is sold poses health risks, which expanding the
practice would exacerbate, especially in view of recent changes
in the state health code. They also point to the costs (including
personnel) of collecting, processing, and storing the empties.
At this writing, a compromise seems possible whereby
stores would receive incentives to buy bottle-return machines that
are operated by customers, which would reduce retailers' health
risks and personnel costs.
Waste Imports
As mentioned, Michigan is the nation's third largest
trash importer. MDEQ officials estimate that Michigan's current
major landfills will not fill up for another 15 years, but if garbage
imports keep increasing at their current rate—up 47 percent
in FY 1999–2000—the state could run out of room in a
decade, accelerating the need for new sites.
At the federal level, the proposed Solid Waste International
Transportation Act would authorize states to prohibit or limit the
receipt and disposal of MSW generated outside the country. A similar
bill, the Solid Waste Interstate Transport Act, also under consideration,
would ban garbage generated outside a state unless a local government
has agreed to accept it or the state specifically permits it. In
Michigan, numerous bills are pending to address imported trash.
- In the Senate, SB 46 would hold out-of-state MSW
to the same standards as in-state waste—that is, certain
types of waste would be prohibited (e.g., wet-cell batteries,
tires, and anything containing harmful toxins). Senate Bill 222
would prohibit any imported waste.
- In the House, HBs 5598–99 would require the
MDEQ to inspect, at the border, every solid-waste unit transporting
trash from Canada to Michigan. HB 5573 would hold waste ash generated
out of state to the same standards as that generated in state.
HB 5602 would prohibit trash from being imported from Canada unless
it is in hermetically sealed containers to prevent it from entering
the environment during transport. HB 5561 would permit a county
to ban solid waste or ash from its disposal areas if it was generated
in a county that does not have a recycling rate comparable to
its own. HB 4317 would prohibit solid waste or ash from being
imported from states and countries that do not have a solid waste
or disposal regulatory system at least as stringent as Michigan's.
Environmentalists strongly support legislation to
restrict or ban the amount of waste being imported into Michigan.
Waste-disposal companies fear that such a move would pose economic
problems for their business and could harm many landfill-hosting
communities as well. For example, Berrien County's Bertrand Township,
population 2,300, earns about $50,000 a year from landfill fees,
half from trash trucked in from Indiana and Illinois; the money
goes mostly to road improvements.
Michigan may be attracting outside waste in part because
it has done a better job of planning. Chicago and South Bend suburbs
are among the out-of-state cities that find it less expensive to
haul waste to Michigan than to plan, construct, and monitor sites
in their own state.
The MDEQ opposes importation of waste from Canada
but believes that banning or even limiting it would violate the
U.S. Constitution or the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Scrap Tires
Michigan generates nine million scrap tires annually,
which end up in stockpiles across the state that pose such health
and safety hazards as breeding disease-carrying mosquitoes and rodents
and catching fire from arson, accident, or lightning. Recycling
methods developed to reduce the tire stockpiles include chipping
the tires for use in gardens, playgrounds, parks, and road resurfacing
material and also recycling them into new tires.
One recycling alternative—burning scrap tires
to create power—garners considerable controversy. Citizens
and environmentalists are concerned about the health implications
of emissions from tire-burning power plants, which may contain human
carcinogens and components of acid rain. Plant operators and the
MDEQ claim that the public is safe as long as air-emissions standards
are met. They say that no more pollutants result from burning tires
than from burning such common fuel sources as wood and coal. Michigan
has eight tire-burning power plants, and permits are being sought
for two more.
Deep-Injection Wells
Deep-injection wells are very controversial. These
wells are 4,000 to 5,000 feet deep and injected with liquid waste,
most commonly leachate (liquidized garbage mixed with rainwater).
There currently are 21 in Michigan; of the 15 that are active, five
are used for hazardous waste. Another well, proposed for Romulus,
recently was approved and is awaiting MDEQ licensure.
Opponents to deep-injection wells claim that they
pollute the groundwater and pose other environmental hazards as
well. Supporters say that the groundwater is safe because the waste
is deposited below the water table.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Michigan Environmental Council
119 Pere Marquette Street
Lansing, MI 48912
(517) 487-9539
(517) 487-9541 FAX
www.mecprotects.org
Michigan Recycle Coalition
1609 East Kalamazoo Street, Suite One
P.O. Box 10240
Lansing, MI 48901
(517) 371-7073
(517) 371-1509 FAX
www.michiganrecycles.org
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 308-8895
(703) 308-0513 FAX
www.epa.gov/osw
Waste Management Division
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Constitution Hall, Lower Level
525 West Allegan Street
P.O. Box 30241
Lansing MI 48909
(517) 373-2730
(517) 373-4797 FAX
www.michigan.gov/deq
CONTENT CURRENT AS OF APRIL 1,
2002
© 2002 Public
Sector Consultants, Inc.
Sponsored by the Michigan Nonprofit Association and the Council
of Michigan Foundations
www.michiganinbrief.org
 
|
