Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2004 Update

This report, which replaces CRS Report RL31651(pdf) , 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 older local landfills and the consolidation of the waste management industry. Slightly more than 39 million tons of municipal solid waste crossed state lines for disposal in 2003, an increase of 11% over 2001. Waste imports have grown significantly since CRS began tracking them in the early 1990s, and now represent 24.2% of the municipal solid waste disposed at landfills and waste combustion facilities. In the last 10 years, reported imports have increased 170%. Pennsylvania remains, by far, the largest waste importer. The state received more than 9.1 million tons of MSW and 1.4 million tons of other non-hazardous waste from out of state in 2003. Most of this waste came from New York and New Jersey. Pennsylvania's waste imports represented 23% of the national total. Virginia, the second-largest importer, received 5.5 million tons in 2003, 40% less than the amount received by Pennsylvania. Michigan, the third-largest importer, received 4.5 million tons of MSW from out of state. Imports to both Virginia and Michigan increased substantially in the last year -- up about 1 million tons in each case. Nearly two-thirds of Michigan's total imports (about 2.8 million tons) came from the Canadian province of Ontario. These imports grew as the Toronto area closed its last remaining landfill. Other states showing major increases were Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Texas. In all, 28 states had increased imports in the current report, and 10 states reported imports that exceeded 1 million tons. While waste imports increased overall, several states (including Pennsylvania, Indiana, Iowa, and New York) reported sharp declines in imports in the current survey. Pennsylvania's imports fell for the second year in a row: about 1.5 million fewer tons of imports were received at Pennsylvania landfills in 2003 than in 2001. Factors causing this decline included the imposition of an additional $5.00 per ton state fee on waste disposal and the absence of rail service at Pennsylvania landfills. New York remains the largest exporter of waste, with New Jersey in second place. These two states account for 37% of all municipal solid waste crossing state lines for disposal. Six other states (Missouri, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington), the District of Columbia, and the Canadian province of Ontario also exported more than 1 million tons each.

Order Code RL32570 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2004 Update September 9, 2004 (name redacted) Specialist in Environmental Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2004 Update Summary This report, which replaces CRS Report RL31651, 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 older local landfills and the consolidation of the waste management industry. Slightly more than 39 million tons of municipal solid waste crossed state lines for disposal in 2003, an increase of 11% over 2001. Waste imports have grown significantly since CRS began tracking them in the early 1990s, and now represent 24.2% of the municipal solid waste disposed at landfills and waste combustion facilities. In the last 10 years, reported imports have increased 170%. Pennsylvania remains, by far, the largest waste importer. The state received more than 9.1 million tons of MSW and 1.4 million tons of other non-hazardous waste from out of state in 2003. Most of this waste came from New York and New Jersey. Pennsylvania’s waste imports represented 23% of the national total. Virginia, the second-largest importer, received 5.5 million tons in 2003, 40% less than the amount received by Pennsylvania. Michigan, the third-largest importer, received 4.5 million tons of MSW from out of state. Imports to both Virginia and Michigan increased substantially in the last year — up about 1 million tons in each case. Nearly two-thirds of Michigan’s total imports (about 2.8 million tons) came from the Canadian province of Ontario. These imports grew as the Toronto area closed its last remaining landfill. Other states showing major increases were Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Texas. In all, 28 states had increased imports in the current report, and 10 states reported imports that exceeded 1 million tons. While waste imports increased overall, several states (including Pennsylvania, Indiana, Iowa, and New York) reported sharp declines in imports in the current survey. Pennsylvania’s imports fell for the second year in a row: about 1.5 million fewer tons of imports were received at Pennsylvania landfills in 2003 than in 2001. Factors causing this decline included the imposition of an additional $5.00 per ton state fee on waste disposal and the absence of rail service at Pennsylvania landfills. New York remains the largest exporter of waste, with New Jersey in second place. These two states account for 37% of all municipal solid waste crossing state lines for disposal. Six other states (Missouri, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington), the District of Columbia, and the Canadian province of Ontario also exported more than 1 million tons each. Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Total Shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Waste Import Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Major Exporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Net Imports and Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 List of Figures Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year, in Tons . . . . . 3 Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year, in Tons . . . . . 3 List of Tables Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 3. Net Imports/Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year . . 6 Table 4. Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, and Amount and Sources of Imported MSW, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2004 Update Introduction1 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.2 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.3 The report presents information gathered through telephone contacts with solid waste officials in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Canadian province of Ontario. The data obtained from these contacts are summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3, and Figures 1 and 2. Table 4 presents additional information, including the names and telephone numbers of state contacts, and in some cases weblinks to detailed reports on solid waste management in the specific state. 1 (name redacted), Environmental Policy Analyst in the Resources, Science, and Industry Division of CRS, provided research assistance for this report. 2 Legislation on interstate shipment of waste has been introduced in every Congress since the 100th. 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 (H.R. 4779 and S. 2345), but lack of agreement on common language prevented enactment. For a discussion of the issues addressed in these bills, see CRS Report RS20106, Interstate Waste Transport: Legislative Issues. 3 This report replaces CRS Report RL31651, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2002 Update. Earlier reports, now out of print but available directly from the author, were CRS Report RL31051, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2001 Update; CRS Report RL30409, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2000 Update; CRS Report 98-689, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1998 Update; CRS Report 97-349, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1997 Update; CRS Report 96-712, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1996 Update; CRS Report 95-570, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1995 Update; and CRS Report 93-743, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste. CRS-2 Not all states require reporting of waste imports, and very few track exports, so the available data are incomplete, and in some cases represent estimates rather than actual measurements. In a number of cases, faced with conflicting reports from exporters and importers or no quantitative data at all, we provided our best estimate, based on discussions with state officials or other sources. Sixteen of the states provided data for a period other than calendar year 2003 — either their latest fiscal year or a different calendar year. This adds another layer of imprecision: we combined data for whatever was the latest reporting period, even though in these 16 cases, this meant combining data from different time periods. The exceptions from the 2003 reporting period are noted in the appropriate tables, but the reader should perhaps keep in mind that many of the totals reported here are our best estimate rather than precise figures. Total Shipments The data show that total interstate waste shipments continue to rise:4 imports in the current survey totaled 39.0 million tons, 17% of the 229.2 million tons of municipal solid waste generated in the United States.5 Of municipal waste disposed (as opposed to recycled or composted), the percentage is even higher. EPA estimates that 68.0 million tons of municipal solid waste were recycled or composted in 2001, leaving 161.2 million tons to be disposed in landfills or incinerators. Of this amount, 24.2% crossed state lines for disposal.6 Between CRS’s year 2002 report (reporting largely 2001 data) and the current survey (reporting generally 2003 data), imports increased 4.0 million tons, or 11%. Since 1993, reported imports have risen 170%, from 14.45 million tons in 1993 to 39.0 million tons in the current survey. 4 We rely on imports rather than exports as our measure of total shipments, because we believe that waste management facilities and states have a greater interest in accurately measuring imports than they do exports. Often the amounts received and their source are subject to formal legal reporting requirements and/or fees, with penalties for failure to report. Exports are not generally subject to such requirements. 5 Because many of the larger importing states now differentiate MSW from other nonhazardous waste imports, we compared total MSW imports to EPA’s national estimate of MSW generation (229.2 million tons in the latest available year, 2001). For EPA data on waste generation, see “Municipal Solid Waste: Basic Facts” at [http://www.epa.gov/ epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/facts.htm]. State-reported waste generation, summarized in BioCycle magazine’s annual survey, is substantially higher (369.4 million tons in 2002) but may include other nonhazardous waste, provided it was disposed at MSW facilities. For state-reported data, see Scott M. Kaufman, Nora Goldstein, Karsten Millrath, and Nickolas J. Themelis, “The State of Garbage in America,” BioCycle, January 2004, p. 33. Removing Canadian waste from the total imports would also reduce the percentage of waste crossing state lines for disposal, from 17% to 16%. 6 Much of the waste destined for recycling may also have crossed state lines, but waste destined for recycling does not carry the same stigma as that sent for disposal, and recycling facilities do not generally require permits by state agencies. Thus, amounts shipped across state lines for recycling cannot generally be tracked by the solid waste agencies. CRS-3 Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year, in Tons Source: Map Resources. Adapted by CRS. (K. Yancey 8/31/04) Amounts in Tons 1,000,000 or greater 500,000 to 999,999 100,000 to 499,999 0 to 99,999 Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year, in Tons Source: Map Resources. Adapted by CRS. (K. Yancey 8/31/04) CRS-4 Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year (in tons) State Pennsylvania Virginia Michigan Ohio Illinois New Jersey Georgia Oregon South Carolina Wisconsin Indiana Kansas Kentucky Mississippi Tennessee New Mexico Nevada Alabama New Hampshire Arizona a 9,155,638 5,489,170 c,d 4,503,218 2,541,074 d 1,880,865 b e 1,671,065 1,445,254 1,424,801 1,227,240 1,210,008 e f 917,678 697,874 598,549 579,752 577,940 e e 537,000 422,456 415,425 401,852 379,900 c e g Oklahoma New York West Virginia Iowa Texas 333,616 311,417 276,439 f 276,302 251,100 Maine Missouri Maryland Massachusetts North Carolina 220,000 206,873 202,768 179,852 133,145 Washington North Dakota Nebraska Vermont Connecticut California Montana Idaho Arkansas Rhode Island South Dakota Utah Total a Quantity Imported f e 112,097 101,196 f 93,563 61,463 51,521 e 44,000 e 31,437 18,668 15,361 5,575 e 658 500 39,004,310 c In addition, Pennsylvania received 1,407,834 tons 10/1/2002 - 9/30/2003. d Converted from cubic yards using 3.3 cu. yds. = 1 ton. of industrial waste, C&D, ash, asbestos, and sludge. b e f Virginia also imported 1.1 million tons of other 2002 data. 7/1/2002 - 6/30/2003. g 4/1/2003 - 3/31/2004. waste, mostly C&D, sludge, and incinerator ash. Source: CRS, based on data provided by state program officials. See text and Table 4 for qualifications/details. CRS-5 Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year (in tons) State 8,247,610 5,803,184 2,922,473 2,334,511 2,097,407 Maryland Massachusetts District of Columbia Ohio Washington 1,941,370 1,239,364 1,176,010 1,102,341 1,001,717 North Carolina Indiana California Florida Minnesota a b 971,286 945,241 798,056 676,517 a 611,044 Connecticut Georgia Pennsylvania Texas Tennessee 634,155 600,000 558,975 511,000 431,740 Kansas West Virginia Kentucky Iowa Louisiana 371,371 364,719 328,993 271,925 248,625 Virginia Michigan Wisconsin South Carolina Vermont 240,633 223,310 213,989 184,797 126,159 a Delaware Rhode Island Arkansas Mississippi Oklahoma 121,585 117,301 114,192 113,013 99,000 Alabama New Hampshire Maine Idaho Alaska 94,664 65,000 a 49,868 44,307 24,868 Oregon Nebraska North Dakota Nevada Utah Wyoming Total a Quantity Exported New York New Jersey Ontario, Canada Missouri Illinois a 18,668 10,537 a 10,000 3,300 1,500 1,487 38,067,812 b b 2002 data. July 2002 - June 2003. Source: CRS, based on data provided by state program officials. In many cases, the amount is based on data compiled by receiving states. See text and Table 4 entries for additional information and qualifications. CRS-6 Table 3. Net Imports/Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year (in tons) State Imports Exports Net Imports/Exports Pennsylvania Virginia Michigan Ohio Oregon 9,155,638 5,489,170 4,503,218 2,541,074 1,424,801 558,975 240,633 223,310 1,102,341 18,668 8,596,663 5,248,537 4,279,908 1,438,733 1,406,133 South Carolina Wisconsin Georgia New Mexico Mississippi 1,227,240 1,210,008 1,445,254 537,000 579,752 184,797 213,989 600,000 113,013 1,042,443 996,019 845,254 537,000 466,739 Nevada Arizona New Hampshire Kansas Alabama 422,456 379,900 401,852 697,874 415,425 3,300 7,000 65,000 371,371 94,664 419,156 372,000 336,852 326,503 320,761 Kentucky Oklahoma Tennessee Maine North Dakota 598,549 333,616 577,940 220,000 101,196 328,993 99,000 431,740 49,868 10,000 269,556 234,616 146,200 170,132 91,196 Nebraska Iowa Idaho Utah Alaska 93,563 276,302 18,668 500 — 10,537 271,925 18,000 1,500 24,868 83,026 4,377 668 -1,000 -24,868 Indiana Vermont West Virginia Arkansas Louisiana 917,678 61,463 276,439 15,361 — 945,241 126,159 364,719 114,192 107,075 -27,563 -64,696 -88,280 -98,831 -107,075 5,575 — 1,880,865 251,100 51,521 117,301 121,585 2,097,407 511,000 634,155 -111,726 -121,585 -216,542 -259,900 -582,634 — — 44,000 133,145 112,097 611,044 676,517 798,056 971,286 1,001,717 -611,044 -676,517 -754,056 -838,141 -889,620 179,852 — 202,768 206,873 1,671,065 311,417 1,239,364 1,176,010 1,941,370 2,334,511 5,803,184 8,247,610 -1,059,512 -1,176,010 -1,738,602 -2,127,638 -4,132,119 -7,936,193 Rhode Island Delaware Illinois Texas Connecticut Minnesota Florida California North Carolina Washington Massachusetts District of Columbia Maryland Missouri New Jersey New York Source: CRS, based on telephone interviews. Data subject to qualifications: see text and Tables 1, 2, and 4. CRS-7 Waste Import Highlights Twenty-eight states had increased imports of municipal waste since 2001, with the largest increases occurring in Virginia and Michigan. The increases in these two states, 1.4 million tons in Virginia and 0.9 million tons in Michigan over the two-year period, total 57% of the entire increase nationally. The preponderance of these two states in the 2003 waste statistics demonstrates another element of the emerging picture of interstate waste shipment: 49% of total municipal waste imports are disposed in just three states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Michigan. As shown in Table 1, Pennsylvania continues to be the largest waste importer. Disposal facilities in the state received 9.1 million tons of MSW and 1.4 million tons of other nonhazardous waste from out of state in 2003. The amounts represented nearly half of all solid waste disposed in the state and 23.5% of the national total for interstate shipments. Pennsylvania has abundant landfill capacity, relatively low tipping fees, and is near two major states that have a shortage of disposal capacity: New York and New Jersey. Despite the state’s continued predominance on the list of waste importers, Pennsylvania’s imports declined in both 2002 and 2003 — a cumulative decrease of more than 1.5 million tons of MSW imports. This happened simultaneously with continued growth of interstate waste shipment in and through the Middle Atlantic states. Several factors appear to have been at work. First, in the last two years, Pennsylvania imposed a new state fee of $5.00 per ton on waste disposal. Added to pre-existing fees, the state now collects $7.25 on each ton of waste disposed in the state. This may have provided sufficient economic incentive for some haulers to dispose elsewhere. Second, the state appears to be receiving less waste from New York City, whose Mayor has adopted a goal of shipping all of New York City’s waste by rail, rather than truck. Pennsylvania has no landfills served by rail, so some of this waste has been diverted to large landfills in Virginia that do have rail service. After Pennsylvania, Virginia is the largest waste importer, with imports totaling 5.5 million tons of MSW and 1.1 million tons of other nonhazardous waste. Waste imports to Virginia have increased sharply since 2001, as noted above. The state has attempted to restrict imports, but has not been as successful as Pennsylvania, in part because it has chosen a variety of measures that have run afoul of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. These have included a ban on barge shipping of wastes on Virginia rivers, truck regulations that applied only to commercial solid waste transporters, and daily limits on the amount of waste that Virginia landfills could accept.7 7 See “Federal Appeals Court Strikes Majority of Virginia Restrictions on Trash Imports,” Daily Environment Report, June 7, 2001, p. A-2. The case decided was Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316 (4th Cir 2001).. CRS-8 Michigan, the third-largest waste importer for the past several years, saw out-ofstate waste grow by 1.03 million tons in 2003, following a slight decline in 2002. Substantial amounts of waste come to Michigan from Illinois, Indiana, and other neighboring states; but the biggest source, accounting for 62% of Michigan’s out-ofstate waste, is Ontario, Canada. Ontario is, of course, also Michigan’s neighbor, but the fact that it lies in a foreign country and that it has large expanses of open land where landfills might be sited seems to have added additional notoriety to its waste shipments. Ontario’s shipments to Michigan have grown as the Toronto area awarded new contracts for waste disposal and closed its last two landfills. At the beginning of 1999, the Toronto area was generating about 2.8 million tons of waste annually, of which about 700,000 tons were shipped to Michigan. By early 2003, however, there was virtually no local disposal capacity in the Toronto area, and almost all of the waste was being shipped to Michigan, where large disposal sites offered very low cost disposal. In other highlights: 8 ! Ten states reported imports exceeding 1 million tons per year in the latest year, an increase of two from our last survey two years ago. New Jersey, Georgia, and South Carolina joined the “millionaires” in 2003, while Indiana went the other way, dropping below the million mark for the first time since 1995. ! In addition to the 10 states importing more than a million tons, another 22 states had imports exceeding 100,000 tons. ! For the fifth year in a row, New Jersey is on the list of major importers, with 1.67 million tons of MSW imports in 2002 (2003 data were not yet available). The state is still a major exporter of waste, as well: receiving states estimate New Jersey’s exports at 5.8 million tons in 2003. But the absence of flow control (local government requirements that waste within their jurisdiction be disposed at local facilities, which were overturned by the courts in the mid-1990s) has led waste-to-energy facilities in New Jersey to import waste to replace the local waste that is now being disposed elsewhere. As a result, large amounts of waste are entering New Jersey from New York. ! Other states reporting major increases in imports were Ohio, Georgia, and South Carolina. Ohio has had a 1.5 million ton increase in MSW imports between 1998 and 2003, and appears poised to import even more, according to press reports and conversations with industry observers.8 The state has prepared draft permits that would expand landfill capacity by 176 million tons, See, for example, “Three Ohio Landfills Want More Garbage Trucked In,” Cincinnati Enquirer, August 16, 2004, at [http://www.enquirer.com]. CRS-9 according to one analyst.9 Georgia experienced a seven-fold increase, to 1.4 million tons over the same period; and South Carolina more than doubled imports (to 1.2 million tons) in the last two years. ! Oklahoma made its second appearance on our list of importers: the state reports that in September 2001, it began receiving 1,500 tons per day (about 500,000 tons per year) of waste from Wichita, Kansas. Some of this waste has since been diverted to a landfill in Topeka, Kansas, but Oklahoma’s Red Carpet Landfill still imported nearly 334,000 tons of waste from Kansas in 2003, according to Kansas officials. ! Texas moved from 33rd to 25th on our list, with an import increase of 217,000 tons since 2001. Louisiana appeared to be the major source of the increased imports, sending more than 140,000 tons to a landfill in Newton, Texas, very near the Louisiana border. ! New York saw a big drop in waste imports following rapid growth in 2000 and 2001. The state had imported 839,700 tons of waste in 2001, an increase from 539,000 tons in our previous survey. But in this year’s survey, imports declined sharply, totaling only 311,417 tons in 2003. ! Although there are no comprehensive data, imports to transfer stations10 are a political issue in some locations. Transfer stations are generally located in urban areas and are subject to less stringent regulation than disposal facilities. Heavy truck traffic and odors have aroused concerns in some neighboring communities. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia have reported significant amounts of out-of-state waste imported to transfer stations, then exported to other states for disposal. New York City’s plan to export most of its waste to transfer stations in New Jersey raised substantial controversy, before being rescinded. While waste imports increased overall, 14 states reported declines in waste imports. In several cases, the declines were small, but seven of the states (Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, and Iowa) had declines exceeding 100,000 tons. Major Exporters As shown in Table 2, eight states (New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington) and the District of Columbia each exported more than 1 million tons of waste to facilities in other states in the latest 9 10 Telephone conversation, September 2, 2004. Transfer stations receive waste from collection trucks, compact it, bale it, and load it on larger trucks for disposal elsewhere. CRS-10 reporting period, and nine other states exported more than half a million tons. The Canadian province of Ontario also exported a substantial amount of municipal waste (nearly 3 million tons), most of it to Michigan. New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois, and Maryland, the five largest exporting states, accounted for 54% of waste exports nationally. New York’s exports rose to 8,247,610 tons in 2003, according to nine receiving states, an increase of 754,000 tons over 2001. The increase reflects the March 2001 closure of New York City’s Fresh Kills Landfill — the city’s last disposal facility. New Jersey’s estimated exports, 5.8 million tons, have also grown dramatically. In New Jersey’s case, the cause of increased exports is the overturning of the state’s flow control law, which, until 1997, directed much of the state’s waste to high-cost local facilities for disposal. The state law was overturned and the state exhausted its appeals in October 1997. Exports have since grown by about 3.5 million tons per year. Illinois’ exports, at 2.1 million tons, declined by nearly 1 million tons in 2003, after several years of rapid growth. Despite the decline, the state’s exports in 2003 were still more than double the amount reported for 1994.11 Most of the exports originate in Cook County (Chicago and its suburbs), which has a relative shortage of disposal capacity. Illinois as a whole reported a more than doubling of landfill capacity between 1995 and 2003, but Chicago is located near the border of both Indiana and Wisconsin; so increases in capacity elsewhere in Illinois may not affect disposal decisions in the metropolitan area. In all, 11 states, the District of Columbia, and Ontario, Canada increased waste exports by more than 100,000 tons each in the period, while 5 states had major decreases. In addition to New York, New Jersey, and Ontario (discussed above), Missouri, Kansas, Georgia, and Massachusetts showed the largest increases. Among states showing decreased exports, only Illinois showed a large drop. Net Imports and Exports Table 3 combines import and export data to rank the states by net amounts imported or exported. The table shows that 23 states were net importers, 22 plus the District of Columbia were net exporters. Thirty-five of the 50 states had net imports or exports exceeding 100,000 tons in the reporting period; 20 exceeded 500,000 tons. Perhaps most interesting, given the tendency to identify states as either exporters or importers, 23 states both exported and imported in excess of 100,000 tons of municipal solid waste (up from 17 in our 2002 report). Several factors are at work here. In the larger states, there are sometimes differences in available disposal capacity in different regions within the state. Areas without capacity may be closer to landfills (or may at least find cheaper disposal 11 Illinois, like most states, does not report waste exports. This export estimate was derived from data provided by neighboring states. CRS-11 options) in other states. A good example is Illinois: the Chicago area, which is close to two other states, exports significant amounts of waste out of state. Downstate, however, Illinois has substantial available landfill capacity, and imported 1.5 million tons from St. Louis and other locations in Missouri. As noted earlier, the movement of waste also represents the regionalization and consolidation of the waste industry. In 2003, the three largest firms (Waste Management, Allied Waste, and Republic Services) accounted for 67% of total revenues of the industry’s 100 largest firms.12 These large firms offer integrated waste services, from collection to transfer station to disposal site, in many locations. Often, they ship waste to their own disposal facility across a border, rather than dispose of it at an in-state facility owned by a rival. As small landfills continue to close — the number of U.S. landfills declined 54% between 1993 and 2002, from 4,482 to 2,07113 — this trend toward regionalization and consolidation is likely to continue. The amount of waste being shipped across state lines for disposal may rise in this process. Additional Information The remainder of this report consists of a table summarizing waste import and export data, by state. All 50 states and the District of Columbia are listed in alphabetical order, with data for the amount of waste exported, destination of exports, amount of waste imported, source of imports, and a state agency contact for additional information. 12 “Waste Age 100,” Waste Age, June 2004, pp. 30-42. 13 “The State of Garbage in America,” BioCycle, April 1994, p. 51, and January 2004, p. 39. CRS-12 Table 4. Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, and Amount and Sources of Imported MSW, by State State Amount of MSW Exported Destination of Exported Waste Amount of MSW Imported Sources of Imported Waste Additional Information Mississippi reports receiving 94,664 tons of MSW from Alabama in 2003. Besides Mississippi, very small amounts to Florida. 415,425 tons in FY03 (10/02 - 9/03), a decrease of 260,000 tons from FY02, but an increase compared to FY01. Mostly from Georgia. Some from the Florida panhandle. Larry Bryant, AL Dept. of Environmental Management [redacted] 24,868 tons in 2003, according to Alaska. Washington. No imports. N.A. Jennifer Roberts, AK Dept. of Environmental Conservation [redacted] Arizona estimates that between 1,000 and 10,000 tons may flow to New Mexico; 1,200 tons to Nevada; and 500 tons to Utah. 379,900 tons in the period 4/03 - 3/04. Nearly all (375,600 tons) from California. Small amounts from Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. David Janke, AZ Dept. of Environmental Quality [redacted] Arizona Arizona does not export significant amounts of MSW. There are small flows from border areas to New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. Based on state estimates, CRS estimates total exports at 7,000 tons. 84,698 tons to Missouri, 21,546 tons to Mississippi, 7,948 tons to Tennessee. < 25,000 tons to Texas. State does not track imports, but believes that imports are relatively small and confined to border areas. Missouri reported 15,361 tons shipped to Arkansas in 2003. Doug Szenher, AR Dept. of Pollution Control and Ecology [redacted] Arkansas Three receiving states reported receiving 114,192 tons from Arkansas in 2003. In addition, Texas receives some Arkansas waste. Arkansas itself reported only 36,050 tons of exports. Alabama Alaska CRS-13 State Amount of MSW Exported Destination of Exported Waste Amount of MSW Imported State does not keep track of where waste comes from. Additional Information Receiving states report 798,056 tons of MSW shipped from California. Although exports are substantial, they represent less than 2% of the amount disposed instate. Nevada 422,456 tons Arizona 375,600 tons (4/03-3/04). Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico. State does not track imports. Small amounts may be imported from Kansas and Nebraska. Kansas, Nebraska. Colorado State does not track exports. Very small amounts may be exported to neighboring states. Glenn Mallory, CO Dept. of Public Health and Environment [redacted] Pennsylvania-283,157 tons (45%) Ohio-234,311 tons (37%) Massachusetts-60,599 tons (10%) Michigan-31,102 tons (5%) New York-24,986 tons (4%). Connecticut reports 51,521 tons of MSW imports in 2003. Mass. NY NJ Judy Belaval, CT Dept. of Environmental Protection [redacted] Connecticut Five states report receiving 634,155 tons from Connecticut in 2003. Connecticut reports exports of 286,086 tons. It believes that the difference in reported amounts represents MSW directhauled out of the state without passing through transfer stations and C&D waste mixed in with MSW. California 44,000 tons in 2002. Sources of Imported Waste Sherry Sala-Moore, CA Integrated Waste Management Board [redacted] www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ lgcentral/drs/Reports/ Statewide/SWTotals. asp 41,869 tons 9,597 tons 55 tons CRS-14 State Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Amount of MSW Exported Destination of Exported Waste Amount of MSW Imported The state does not track MSW exports. However, receiving states, which have reported data for 2003, reported receiving 121,585 tons from Delaware in 2003. Virginia-65,627 tons (54%) Pennsylvania-55,277 tons (45%) New York-681 tons (1%) The state does not track MSW imports but claims it is likely a negligible amount. All MSW landfills in the state are owned by the state and are prohibited from accepting out-of-state waste. N.A. Nancy Markur, DE Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, [redacted] Receiving states, which have reported data for 2003, reported receiving 1,176,010 tons in 2003, the bulk of which went to Virginia. Virginia-1,175,881 tons (99.99%) There are no disposal facilities in the District of Columbia, but DC has imported substantial amounts of waste from Maryland to transfer stations located in the District. This waste is then exported for disposal. Maryland. D.C. Dept. of Public Works, Solid Waste Division [redacted] The state does not track exports. Georgia reports receiving 676,517 tons of MSW from Florida in 2003. Exports are increasing, but still represent only 2% of Florida’s waste generation. Georgia. Small amounts to Alabama. The state does not track imports. There is little incentive to import, since disposal is less expensive in Georgia. Alabama reports that it ships very small amounts to a facility in the Florida panhandle. Peter Goren, FL Dept. of Environmental Protection [redacted] CRS estimates 600,000 tons of exports based on information available from three receiving states. Alabama and South Carolina account for about 95% of the total. The rest goes to Tennessee. Exports to South Carolina have increased substantially. 1,445,254 tons in 2003. Waste imports have increased by 451,000 tons since FY2002. 47% of the waste comes from Florida, 29% from New Jersey, 7% from South Carolina, 6% from Rhode Island. Scott Henson, GA Dept. of Natural Resources [redacted] In 2002, some amount was sent to Maryland, but Maryland does not track totals by state of origin. Sources of Imported Waste Additional Information CRS-15 State Amount of MSW Exported Destination of Exported Waste Amount of MSW Imported Sources of Imported Waste Additional Information No exports of MSW. N.A. No imports of MSW. N.A. Gary Siu, HI Dept. of Health [redacted] Idaho does not track exports. Washington reports an estimated 18,000 tons of MSW from Idaho in 2002. Montana reports 26,307 tons in 2003. Montana, Washington. Idaho does not track imports. Oregon reported exports to Idaho of 18,668 tons of MSW in 2002. Oregon and a very small amount from Nevada. Dean Ehlert, ID Dept. of Environmental Quality [redacted] Illinois Six neighboring states report receiving 2,097,407 tons of MSW from Illinois. Wisconsin Indiana (2002); Michigan Missouri Kentucky Iowa The state reports 1,880,865 tons of imports in 2003. (Data converted from cubic yards to tons by CRS.) Missouri (78%); Iowa (15%); Wisconsin (3%); Indiana (3%); small amounts from 7 other states. Ellen Robinson, IL Environmental Protection Agency [redacted] Indiana Six receiving states reported a total of 945,241 tons of MSW from Indiana. Michigan Kentucky ( 2002)), Ohio Illinois Penn. Virginia 917,678 tons of MSW in 2003, a decrease of 402,000 tons from the previous year. The state also received 217,200 tons of other solid waste from out of state in 2003. Illinois (73%); Ohio (13%); Michigan (7%); Kentucky (6%). Michelle Weddle, IN Dept of Environmental Management [redacted] Hawaii Idaho 777,983 tons; 668,161 tons 559,454 tons; 79,147 tons; 8,754 tons; 3,908 tons. 540,384 tons, 199,439 tons 157,512 tons, 42,210 tons, 5,005 tons, 691 tons. www.in.gov/idem/land/sw /qtrlyrpts/fars/far02.pdf CRS-16 State Iowa Kansas Kentucky Amount of MSW Exported Destination of Exported Waste Amount of MSW Imported Sources of Imported Waste Additional Information CRS estimates 350,000 tons based on reports from Iowa and receiving states. Three receiving states report 271,925 tons in 2003; the additional amount in our estimate represents an estimated amount of waste shipped to Nebraska. Iowa reported 248,834 tons in FY2003 (7/02 - 6/03). Illinois, 266,158 tons; Missouri 5,267 tons; Wisconsin 500 tons. FY 03 exports to Nebraska totaled 93,563 tons, acc. to Iowa. The state reported a total of 276,302 tons in FY2003. 89% from Minnesota. The rest from Missouri, Nebraska, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Mark Warren, IA Dept of Natural Resources [redacted] Waste exports declined in 2003 to 371,371 tons from 500,000 tons in 2002. Both years were substantially above pre2002 exports, however. 90% to Oklahoma. 10% to Missouri. 697,874 tons of MSW in 2002, plus 277,632 tons of other waste, primarily C&D. The state believes imports are underreported, in part because waste imported by transfer stations is not counted. 638,983 tons (92%) from Missouri; the remainder from Oklahoma. Kent Foerster, KS Dept. of Health and Environment [redacted] 328,993 tons in 2003. Tenn. Indiana Ohio Illinois Virginia 598,549 tons in 2002. Indiana (33%), Ohio (32%), and West Virginia (21%) were the main sources in 2002. Tennessee (6%) and Virginia (5%) contributed lesser amounts. Allan Bryant, KY Dept. for Environmental Protection [redacted] 221,025 tons, 59,557 tons, 46,307 tons, 1,618 tons, 486 tons. CRS-17 State Louisiana Maine Maryland Amount of MSW Exported Destination of Exported Waste Amount of MSW Imported Sources of Imported Waste Additional Information Texas reports that it received 141,550 tons from Louisiana in 2003. Mississippi received 107,075 tons. Texas, Mississippi. Louisiana does not track waste imports. Little waste is believed to be imported. N.A. Dennis Duszynski, LA Dept. of Environmental Quality [redacted] The state does not maintain export data. In 2002, neighboring states and Canada reported receiving a total of 49,868 tons. New Hampshire received 38,643 tons. Most of the rest went to Canada. Data provided by North East Waste Management Officials Association (NEWMOA). CRS estimates 2003 imports at 220,000 tons, based on reports from Massachusetts and NEWMOA. Massachusetts reported 178,886 tons of MSW shipped to Maine in 2003. The rest comes from New Hampshire. George MacDonald, ME Dept of Environmental Protection [redacted] Receiving states reported receiving1,941,370 tons from Maryland in 2003. Virginia-1,808,446 tons (93%) Pennsylvania-130,516 tons (6%) Ohio-1,332 tons (<1%) West Virginia-1,052 tons (<1%) New York-25 tons (<1%) The state reports receiving 202,768 tons from out-ofstate. The state has also generally imported substantial quantities of C&D waste. Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, D.C., New Jersey, and New York. Frank Diller, MD Dept of the Environment [redacted] CRS-18 State Amount of MSW Exported Minnesota Amount of MSW Imported Sources of Imported Waste Additional Information In 2003, Massachusetts reported exporting a total of 1,239,364 tons. SC-450,221 tons (36%) New Hampshire-258,919 tons (21%) New York-193,297 tons (16%) Maine-178,886 tons (14%) Ohio-99,061 tons (8%) Connecticut-39,023 tons (3%) Virginia-9,343 tons (<1%) Rhode Island-5,575 tons (<1%) Pennsylvania-5,039 tons (<1%) In 2003, Massachusetts reported importing a total of 179,852 tons. New York-67,634 tons (38%) Connecticut-60,599 tons (34%) Rhode Island-24,114 tons (13%) New Hampshire-22,471 tons (12%) Vermont-2,745 tons (2%) Maine-2,289 tons (1%) Brian Holdridge, MA Dept. of Environmental Protection [redacted] The state does not track exports, but two neighboring states reported 223,310 tons from Michigan in 2003. Ohio 71%, Indiana 29%. In FY2003 (10/02 - 9/03), imports of MSW were 4,503,218 tons, an increase of 1.0 million tons in the past year. (Data converted from cubic yards to tons by CRS.) Ontario, Canada (62%), Illinois (12%), Indiana (12%), Ohio (8%), Wisconsin (4%). Six other states (principally Connecticut, Maine, and New York) account for the remaining 2%. Christina Miller, MI Dept. of Environmental Quality [redacted] According to the state, a negligible amount has been imported. N.A. Jim Chiles, MN Pollution Control Agency [redacted] Massachusetts Michigan Destination of Exported Waste In 2002, the state exported 611,044 tons. Iowa 286,802 tons Wisconsin 265,880 tons No. Dakota 57,360 tons So. Dakota 658 tons www.deq.state.mi.us/ documents/deq-whm-stwlandfillreport.pdf CRS-19 State Mississippi Amount of MSW Exported Tennessee reports receiving 113,013 tons of Mississippi waste in 2003. Destination of Exported Waste Tennessee. Amount of MSW Imported 579,752 tons in 2003. Sources of Imported Waste Additional Information 356,477 tons (62%) from Tennessee; 107,075 tons (18%) from Louisiana; 94,650 tons (16%) from Alabama; 21,550 tons (4%) from Arkansas. Pradip Bhowal, MS Dept. of Environmental Quality [redacted] www.deq.state.ms.us/MD EQ.nsf/pdf/SW_ AnnualReport2003 2,334,511 tons in 2003. Illinois 1,648,008 tons (71%); Kansas 658,979 tons (28%); the remaining 1% went to Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky and Tennessee. 206,873 tons in 2003. Arkansas (41%); Illinois (38%); Kansas (18%); Iowa (3%). Debbie Sessler, MO Dept. of Natural Resources [redacted] N.A. Montana Montana does not track exports, and is not believed to export any significant amount of MSW. 31,437 tons in 2003 — almost identical to the amount in 2002. Idaho (84%), North Dakota (11%), Wyoming (5%). Pat Crowley, MT Dept. of Environmental Quality [redacted] Iowa. The state does not collect records on MSW imports. Iowa reports sending Nebraska 93,563 tons of MSW in FY2003. Iowa. Nebraska The state does not collect records on MSW exports, but Iowa reports receiving 10,537 tons from Nebraska in FY2003. Keith Powell, NE Dept. of Environmental Quality [redacted] Arizona, Idaho. 422,456 tons in 2003. Nevada Arizona estimates that it received 3,300 tons of MSW from Nevada. In addition, an “insignificant” amount is exported to Idaho from border communities. Almost all from California. A small amount is imported from neighboring communities in Utah and Arizona. Dave Simpson, NV Division of Environmental Protection [redacted] Missouri CRS-20 Amount of MSW Exported Destination of Exported Waste New Hampshire CRS estimates exports of 65,000 tons in 2003, based on reports from receiving states and NEWMOA. About two-thirds to Maine; most of the remainder to Massachusetts. In 2002, New Hampshire imported 401,852 tons of MSW, primarily from Massachusetts. About three-quarters from Massachusetts. The rest was from Vermont and Maine. Pierce Rigrod, NH Dept. of Environmental Services [redacted] PA 4,800,094 tons; OH 431,086 tons; GA 413,456 tons; VA 84,218 tons; NY 72,409 tons; WV 1,921 tons. 1,671,065 tons in 2002. 97% from New York. New Jersey 5,803,184 tons in 2003, according to six importing states. New Jersey reported 3.7 million tons of exports in 2002 (latest available data). Ray Worob, NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection [redacted] The state says there are no exports, except for materials destined for recycling. Texas and Arizona report receiving small amounts of waste from New Mexico. Texas and Arizona. 537,000 tons of MSW were imported in 2003, according to official data, but state officials believe the reported amount could be as much as 25% below actual imports because of underreporting by landfills that serve border cities and Indian nations. Imports are believed to be increasing in 2004. 511,000 tons from Texas. The rest is from Colorado, Arizona, Indian nations, and maquiladora waste from Mexico. John O’Connell, NM Environment Dept. [redacted] State New Mexico Amount of MSW Imported Sources of Imported Waste Additional Information CRS-21 State Amount of MSW Exported Destination of Exported Waste Amount of MSW Imported Sources of Imported Waste Additional Information Nine importing states report a total of 8,247,610 tons from New York in 2003. New York facilities reported exports of 4,960,830 tons in 2003. PA 3,760,783 tons; VA 1,765,271 tons; NJ 1,652,861 tons (2002); OH 887,297 tons; MA 67,634 tons; WV 57,687 tons; GA 28,274 tons; MI 18,206 tons; CT 9,597 tons. New York estimates 311,417 tons were imported in 2003. The state also imported 172,000 tons of C&D waste in 2003. Ontario, Canada (43%); New Jersey (23%); Pennsylvania (16%); Massachusetts (9%); Connecticut (8%). Gerard Wagner, NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation [redacted] Virginia (50%), South Carolina (44%), Tennessee (5%), Georgia (1%). 133,145 tons in FY2003 (July 2002-June 2003). Does not include 77,217 tons of waste imported from a South Carolina transfer station, which originally received the waste from North Carolina. South Carolina (64%); Virginia (36%). Paul Crissman, NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources [redacted] x254 North Carolina 971,286 tons in FY2003 (July 2002-June 2003), an increase of 89,039 tons from the previous year. In addition, the state exported 77,217 tons to a South Carolina transfer station, which, after baling, were sent back to North Carolina for disposal. North Dakota estimates exports at 10,000 tons in 2002. Montana received slightly less than 4,000 tons. The rest is not accounted for. 101,196 tons in 2002. North Dakota Minnesota would be the largest source. Steve Tillotson, ND Dept. of Health [redacted] 1,102,341 tons in 2003. Michigan (38%); Kentucky (29%); West Virginia (17%); Indiana (13%); Pennsylvania (4%). Ohio imported 2,541,074 tons in 2003, an increase of 553,000 tons since 2001. Ohio imports waste from 27 states. The largest sources were New York (35%), Pennsylvania (18%), New Jersey (17%), Connecticut (9%). Michelle Kenton, OH Environmental Protection Agency [redacted] New York Ohio [http://wastenot.enr.state.n c.us/swhome/SW0203_AR.doc] CRS-22 State Amount of MSW Exported Destination of Exported Waste Amount of MSW Imported Sources of Imported Waste Additional Information Kansas, Texas. State does not track imports. Kansas reports that 333,616 tons of waste were shipped from the Wichita area to Oklahoma in 2003. Mostly from Kansas. Oklahoma Kansas received 58,891 tons of waste from Oklahoma in 2002. Texas received at least 40,000 tons in 2003 (CRS estimate, based on Texas data). John Roberts, OK Dept. of Environmental Quality [redacted] Primarily Michigan. Some to New York. None. N.A. Bruce Pope, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy [redacted] Ontario, Canada Ontario shipped nearly 3 million tons of MSW to the United States in 2003 (2,922,473 tons), according to receiving states. Michigan received 2,789,650 tons of this waste in FY2003 (10/02-9/03). (Data converted from cubic yards to tons by CRS.) New York received 132,823 tons. Oregon exported 18,668 tons of MSW in 2002. Mainly to Idaho. Oregon imported 1,424,801 tons of MSW in 2002. Imports accounted for 34% of all the waste disposed in Oregon that year. Almost all from Washington. Peter Spendelow, OR Dept. of Environmental Quality [redacted] Oregon CRS-23 State Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Amount of MSW Exported Destination of Exported Waste Amount of MSW Imported Sources of Imported Waste The state does not track exports. According to neighboring states, Pennsylvania exported 558,975 tons of MSW in 2003. 84% (467,042 tons) to Ohio; the rest to New York, Virginia, and West Virginia. 9,155,638 tons in 2003, a decline of 1.5 million tons since 2001. The state is still, by far, the largest importer of MSW, representing 23.5% of the national total of imports. In addition to MSW, Pennsylvania received 1.4 million tons of other solid waste from out of state in 2003. New Jersey (at 4.8 million tons) and New York (at 3.76 million) accounted for nearly 94% of Pennsylvania’s MSW imports in 2003. Other sources included Connecticut (0.28 million) and Maryland (0.13 million). Sally Lohman, PA Dept. of Environmental Protection [redacted] Receiving states reported 117,301 tons of MSW from Rhode Island in 2003. 79% to Georgia; 21% to Massachusetts. Tiny amounts to Pennsylvania and Connecticut. Massachusetts reports sending MSW to RI. Officially, however, RI does not accept MSW from out-of-state. In 2002, all MSW imported to RI was reported as sent back out-of-state for disposal. Massachusetts — 5,575 tons in 2003. Robert Schmidt, RI Dept. of Environmental Management [redacted] x7260 Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia report 184,797 tons of waste from South Carolina in 2003. Georgia NC Virginia South Carolina imported 1,227,240 tons of MSW in FY2003 (7/02-6/03). Massachusetts (38%) and North Carolina (36%) were the main sources. Georgia (17%) and Delaware (9%) accounted for most of the remainder. Pete Stevens, SC Dept. of Health and Environmental Control [redacted] 98,791 tons, 84,932 tons, 1,074 tons. Additional Information [http://www.dep.state.pa.u s/dep/deputate/airwaste/w m/drfc/reports/ctyfac.htm] CRS-24 State South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Amount of MSW Exported Destination of Exported Waste Amount of MSW Imported Sources of Imported Waste Additional Information The state does not track exports of MSW; according to the state, there are insufficient amounts to warrant tracking. N.A. The state does not track imports of MSW; according to the state, there are insufficient amounts to warrant tracking. Minnesota shipped 658 tons of MSW to South Dakota in 2002. Minnesota Jim Wente, SD Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources [redacted] Four neighboring states report receiving 431,740 tons of waste from Tennessee, an increase of more than 40% since 2001. Mostly to Mississippi (83%). The rest went to Kentucky (8%), Virginia (7%), and Georgia (2%). 577,940 tons in 2003. 221,025 tons (38%) from Kentucky; 134,237 tons (23%) from Virginia; 113,013 tons (20%) from Mississippi; 53,484 tons (9%) from North Carolina; 28,289 tons (5%) from Georgia; the rest from Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Alabama. A. Wayne Brashear, TN Dept. of Environment and Conservation [redacted] New Mexico reports 511,000 tons of waste from Texas in 2003. Texas reported a similar amount, relying on 2002 data. New Mexico 251,100 tons in 2003. Louisiana 141,550 tons Mexico 48,117 tons Oklahoma at least 40,000 tons. The rest from Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, and New Mexico. Edward Block, TX Commission on Environmental Quality [redacted] As in previous years, about 1,000 tons of waste went from Wendover, Utah, to Wendover, Nevada. Also, Arizona reports about 500 tons of waste from Utah. Nevada, Arizona. 0 tons in 2003, except for a “trickle” from Arizona. Arizona Jeff Emmons, UT Dept. of Environmental Quality (801)538-6748 CRS-25 State Amount of MSW Exported Sources of Imported Waste Additional Information Mostly to New York and New Hampshire. A small amount to Massachusetts. Facilities in Vermont do not accept out-of-state waste. However, New York reports sending MSW to Vermont. New York The state does not track MSW exports. Seven states report 240,633 tons of exports from Virginia. Tennessee 134,237 tons; No. Car. 48,213 tons; Kentucky 31,845 tons; Georgia 15,623 tons; West Va. 5,321 tons; So. Car. 2,807 tons; Penn. 2,587 tons. Virginia remains the second-largest waste importer. The state imported 5,489,170 tons of MSW in 2003 and 1.1 million tons of other waste (mostly C&D waste, sludge, and incinerator ash). Imports increased by nearly 1 million tons compared with 2002. 95% from 3 states and DC: 1,808,446 tons from Maryland; 1,765,271 from New York; 1,175,881 from DC; 470,074 tons from North Carolina. Less than 5% from 16 other states. Kathy Frahm, VA Dept. of Environmental Quality [redacted] 1,001,717 tons of MSW in 2002, plus 423,531 tons of other waste. Washington has huge amounts of landfill capacity, but because of contractual arrangements, the state exports substantial amounts of waste. Oregon. 112,097 tons of MSW in 2002, plus 53,838 tons of other waste. 50% from British Columbia; 19% from Oregon; 16% from Idaho; 15% from Alaska. Ellen Caywood, WA Dept. of Ecology [redacted] No tracking system. Six receiving states reported 364,719 tons of waste from West Virginia. Kentucky (35%), Ohio (31%), Pennsylvania (20%), Virginia (13%). Small amounts to Tennessee and New York. Virginia West Virginia Amount of MSW Imported In 2002, 126,159 tons were exported. Vermont Washington Destination of Exported Waste 61,463 tons Julie Hackbarth, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation [redacted] www.deq.state.va.us/ waste/pdf/swreport03. pdf www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/03 07019.pdf 276,439 tons in 2003. Ohio 195,203 tons, NY 57,687 tons, Penn. 13,275 tons, Virginia 5,321 tons. The rest from 9 other states. Jan Borowski, WV Solid Waste Management Board [redacted] CRS-26 State Amount of MSW Exported Destination of Exported Waste Amount of MSW Imported Sources of Imported Waste Michigan (77%), Illinois (23%). 1,210,008 tons in 2003. Illinois Minn. Wisconsin The state does not collect export data, but two receiving states report 213,989 tons of Wisconsin exports in 2003. Montana. The state does not collect import data. A few tons a day may enter the state. N.A. Wyoming The state does not collect export data. Montana reported 1,487 tons from Wyoming. N.A. = not available Source: CRS, based on telephone interviews with and data provided by state program officials. 777,983 tons, 431,526 tons. Additional Information Kurt Byfield, WI Dept. of Natural Resources (608)266-8805 Bob Doctor, WY Dept. of Environmental Quality [redacted] EveryCRSReport.com The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on issues that may come before Congress. EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to the public. Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com. CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in connection with CRS' institutional role. EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim copyright on any CRS report we have republished.