{
  "id": "RL32570",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32570",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100140,
      "date": "2004-09-09",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:09:16.546664",
      "title": "Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2004 Update",
      "summary": "This report, which replaces  CRS Report RL31651(pdf) , provides updated information on interstate\nshipment of municipal solid waste (MSW). Since the late 1980s, Congress has considered, but not\nenacted, numerous bills that would allow states to impose restrictions on interstate waste shipments,\na step the Constitution prohibits in the absence of congressional authorization. Over this period,\nthere has been a continuing interest in knowing how much waste is being shipped across state lines\nfor disposal, and what states might be affected by proposed legislation. This report provides data\nuseful in addressing these questions.\n  Total interstate waste shipments continue to rise due to the closure of older local landfills and\nthe consolidation of the waste management industry. Slightly more than 39 million tons of\nmunicipal solid waste crossed state lines for disposal in 2003, an increase of 11% over 2001. Waste\nimports have grown significantly since CRS began tracking them in the early 1990s, and now\nrepresent 24.2% of the municipal solid waste disposed at landfills and waste combustion facilities.\nIn the last 10 years, reported imports have increased 170%.\n  Pennsylvania remains, by far, the largest waste importer. The state received more than 9.1\nmillion tons of MSW and 1.4 million tons of other non-hazardous waste from out of state in 2003. \nMost of this waste came from New York and New Jersey. Pennsylvania's waste imports represented\n23% of the national total. Virginia, the second-largest importer, received 5.5 million tons in 2003,\n40% less than the amount received by Pennsylvania. Michigan, the third-largest importer, received\n4.5 million tons of MSW from out of state. \n  Imports to both Virginia and Michigan increased substantially in the last year -- up about 1\nmillion tons in each case. Nearly two-thirds of Michigan's total imports (about 2.8 million tons)\ncame from the Canadian province of Ontario. These imports grew as the Toronto area closed its last\nremaining landfill. Other states showing major increases were Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Georgia,\nSouth Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Texas. In all, 28 states had increased imports in the\ncurrent report, and 10 states reported imports that exceeded 1 million tons. \n  While waste imports increased overall, several states (including Pennsylvania, Indiana, Iowa,\nand New York) reported sharp declines in imports in the current survey. Pennsylvania's imports fell\nfor the second year in a row: about 1.5 million fewer tons of imports were received at Pennsylvania\nlandfills in 2003 than in 2001. Factors causing this decline included the imposition of an additional\n$5.00 per ton state fee on waste disposal and the absence of rail service at Pennsylvania landfills.\n  New York remains the largest  exporter  of waste, with New Jersey in second place. \n These two\nstates account for 37% of all municipal solid waste crossing state lines for disposal. Six other states\n(Missouri, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington), the District of Columbia, and\nthe Canadian province of Ontario also exported more than 1 million tons each.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32570",
          "sha1": "60c768f482cdd45e663889581ecf2766b756bbc4",
          "filename": "files/20040909_RL32570_60c768f482cdd45e663889581ecf2766b756bbc4.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20040909_RL32570_60c768f482cdd45e663889581ecf2766b756bbc4.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Environmental Policy"
  ]
}