FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 20, 1997
Contact: Michael Tebo (202) 328-5019 [email protected]
RESTRICTIONS ON INTERSTATE WASTE TRADING MAY INCREASE WASTE SHIPMENTS TO MORE STATES, RAISE DISPOSAL COSTS
WASHINGTON, DC -- As the United States Congress considers legislation that would restrict the trading of municipal solid waste (MSW) among states, researchers at Resources for the Future (RFF) have found that, under certain circumstances, limits placed on the volume of MSW shipped by one state to another state may actually increase the number of interstate waste shipments as well as increase disposal costs for some regions of the country.
They find that some states in the United States Northeast and Midwest are most vulnerable to waste trading limits, and that states will export smaller volumes to more destinations in order to meet size limits. If this increase in shipments is accompanied by greater roadway wear-and-tear, traffic congestion and other costs, they project that the potential costs to a region may be even greater.
In their study, "Spatially and Intertemporally Efficient Waste Management: The Costs of Interstate Flow Control" RFF's Molly Macauley and Eduardo Ley, along with the University of Michigan's Stephen Salant, analyzed four types of MSW policies: surcharges on imported waste; restrictions on the volume of waste exports; a combination of surcharges and volume restrictions; and an outright prohibition on interstate shipments of MSW. Using an original computer model of the interstate waste market, they sought to determine how restrictions on waste shipments will add to disposal costs, and whether the costs will fall on municipal and privately-owned landfills, waste generators (which include households and commercial establishments), or both.
The study focused on two regions of the United States -- the Northeast and Midwest. These regions account for about 80 percent of interstate waste trade by volume and involve most of the large MSW shipments that are subject to pending legislation that would restrict waste trading. It also focused on landfilled waste, the disposal method used most often for interstate waste.
"Although it's politically-expedient for states and communities to say 'not in my backyard' in debate over where to dispose of municipal solid waste in urban areas, the reality is that solid waste has to be disposed of somewhere" says RFF's Macauley. "In our study, we tried to discern which option is more efficient in getting get the job done, and clearly there's no perfect fix for solid waste problems."
In 1994, U.S. households generated more than 300 million tons of MSW -- a little more than one ton of waste per person that year. Historically, MSW has been disposed of at the nearest landfill or incinerator. For a variety of reasons, however, the amount of MSW being shipped out of state has been increasing since the mid-1980s, with almost all states routinely importing and exporting some waste. This "interstate waste market" handles an estimated 14 million tons of MSW annually, more than five percent of the total generated, with associated transportation costs totalling nearly $500 million.
This growing trend in interstate MSW shipments has sparked controversy. It has been opposed by citizen's groups, environmental organizations, state legislators and others who express concerns about their state or community becoming a "dumping ground," about the impact of landfills on local property values, and about the limited capacity of local landfills to accomodate outside trash. This opposition has led many states to ban or impose restrictions on imported waste, actions that have been overturned in lower courts and in the Supreme Court. More recently, however, the U.S. Senate passed an amendment (S.534) to the Solid Waste Disposal Act in 1995 that would give states the authority to limit or prohibit the disposal of out-of-state MSW in landfills or incinerators subject to their jurisdiction. Similar proposals are expected to be considered by the House of Representatives.
In their study, Macauley, Ley and Salant find that households in waste-exporting states in the Northeast may possibly face larger waste management costs while landfill owners in waste-importing states in the Midwest may potentially lose revenue. Further, they find that a state's outright prohibition of out-of-state waste would reduce a region's welfare the most, with states that are either large exporters or large importers hit the hardest.
Among the four policies analyzed, they find that the least economically-harmful option is a one-dollar-per-ton surcharge on imported waste. They also find that volume-based restrictions would significantly reduce revenue flowing to producers of waste disposal services in regions which are large importers of waste, such as parts of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and increase disposal costs the most for households in states such as New York.
"Our study suggests that there are a variety of approaches that might be taken to effectively manage interstate waste flows," says Macauley. "The advantage of our computer model is that it can indicate which approaches may be better than others."
# # #
The study "Spatially and Intertemporally Efficient Waste Management: The Costs of Interstate Flow Control" is available electronically at RFF's internet site (http://www.rff.org) or in hard-copy by calling (202) 328-5000. Reference discussion paper 96-23.
# # #
RSS