HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1997.05.22 - 25124MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION # 97118 DATE: May 22, 1997
BY: PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE - CHARLES E. PALMER,
CHAIRPERSON
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE DISPOSAL CAPACITY
ACT 451 NON-HAZARDOUS SOLID WASTES
SPRING, 1997
To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS, Oakland County's 1994 Amendments to the 1990 Solid Waste
Management Plan Update require that annually, on or before June 30, the Board
demonstrate and certify available remaining disposal capacity for all Act 451 non-
hazardous solid wastes generated within the County; and
WHEREAS, a finding that sufficient capacity is available (more than 66 months
beyond June 30) equates to a moratorium during the following year on the use of the
interim siting mechanism contained in the 1994 Amendments for the siting of additional
landfill capacity in the County; and
WHEREAS, Act 451 as amended, concludes that failure to adopt a required annual
certification is equivalent to a finding that less than a sufficient amount of capacity is
available and the interim siting mechanism will then be operative on the first day of the
following January; and
WHEREAS, a review has been conducted of the current and projected Act 451 non-
hazardous waste stream generated within the county, the current volume reduction efforts
being achieved by the County's residents and businesses, current inter-county flow
arrangements and of available remaining disposal capacity both within the County and
within nearby counties; and
WHEREAS, the analysis contained in the County Executive's report titled
"Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity - May 5, 1997" (which is on file with the
County Clerk) shows clearly that disposal capacity is available for the County's Act 451
non-hazardous waste stream into the year 2006 as is summarized on the Exhibit attached.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Oakland County Board of
Commissioners hereby certifies that sufficient disposal capacity exists so that the interim
siting mechanism for the siting of additional landfill capacity within the County as contained
.411r,...411°1°1111111111:A.4.4i
ING COMMITTEE NNING AND B
within the 1994 Amendments to the 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan Update will not
become operational until January 1, 1999 or later, such date to be identified in a future
certification.
Chairperson, on behalf of the Planning and Building Committee, I move the
adoption of the foregoing resolution.
"spectfully
RogerqmdWith,15"
ManageV '1DIMVVaste Planning
OAKLAND, L. BROOKS PATTERSON, OAKLAND COUNTY EXECUTIVE
COUNTY MICHIGAN
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Roger J. Smith, RE., Manager
May 5, 1997
Charles E. Palmer, Chairperson
Planning and Building Committee
Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Pontiac, Michigan
Re: Certification of Available Disposal Capacity
Act 451 Non-Hazardous Solid Wastes
Spring, 1997
Dear Mr. Palmer:
Attached please find a suggested resolution and accompanying exhibit along with a report prepared
by the County Executive's offices which is titled "Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity -
May 5, 1997."
The resolution and exhibit have been prepared for approval by the Board as required by the County's
1994 Amendments to the Oakland County 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan Update and as
required by Act 451 of 1994. The resolution certifies that access to sufficient disposal capacity exists
for all Act 451 non-hazardous solid wastes generated within the County to a point well beyond
January 1, 2003 or more than 66 months from June 30, 1997. The certification must be adopted by
the Board annually prior to June 30. Failure of the County to adopt such a certification would result
in activation of the interim siting mechanism for the siting of additional landfill capacity as contained
in the 1994 Plan Amendments on the following January 1st.
As occurred with the 1995 and 1996 demonstrations, we anticipate that the Board will adopt only the
resolution and accompanying exhibit with the detailed report being placed on file with the County
Clerk. The report has been specifically designed to provide appropriate material for Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality staff review and will be transmitted to that agency along with
the adopted resolution and exhibit.
We will be pleased to present the material to the Planning and Building Committee at your
convenience.
Attach:
cc: L. Brooks Patterson
K. Rogers
D. Ross
PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING • ONE PUBLIC WORKS DR • WATERFORD MI 48328-1907 • (810) 858-1352 • FAX (810) 858-1066
MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION # DATE:
BY: PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE - CHARLES E. PALMER,
CHAIRPERSON
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE DISPOSAL CAPACITY
ACT 451 NON-HAZARDOUS SOLID WASTES
SPRING, 1997
To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS, Oakland County's 1994 Amendments to the 1990 Solid Waste
Management Plan Update require that annually, on or before June 30, the Board
demonstrate and certify available remaining disposal capacity for all Act 451 non-
hazardous solid wastes generated within the County; and
WHEREAS, a finding that sufficient capacity is available (more than 66 months
beyond June 30) equates to a moratorium during the following year on the use of the
interim siting mechanism contained in the 1994 Amendments for the siting of additional
landfill capacity in the County; and
WHEREAS, Act 451 as amended, concludes that failure to adopt a required annual
certification is equivalent to a finding that less than a sufficient amount of capacity is
available and the interim siting mechanism will then be operative on the first day of the
following January; and
WHEREAS, a review has been conducted of the current and projected Act 451 non-
hazardous waste stream generated within the county, the current volume reduction efforts
being achieved by the County's residents and businesses, current inter-county flow
arrangements and of available remaining disposal capacity both within the County and
within nearby counties; and
WHEREAS, the analysis contained in the County Executive's report titled
"Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity - May 5, 1997" (which is on file with the
County Clerk) shows clearly that disposal capacity is available for the County's Act 451
non-hazardous waste stream into the year 2006 as is summarized on the Exhibit attached.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Oakland County Board of
Commissioners hereby certifies that sufficient disposal capacity exists so that the interim
siting mechanism for the siting of additional landfill capacity within the County as contained
within the 1994 Amendments to the 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan Update will not
become operational until January 1, 1999 or later, such date to be identified in a future
certification.
Chairperson, on behalf of the Planning and Building Committee, I move the
adoption of the foregoing resolution.
PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE
DISPOSAL
OPPORTUNITIES Apparent Year of Depletion 2003
DISPOSAL NEEDS
4 Millions of Gateyards Oakland County Disposal Capacity Availability - Spring, 1997
Act 451 Non-Hazardous Solid Wastes with 1997 Volume Reduction Rates Held Constant
Year of Depletion using all
remaining In-county capacity 2006
1.n
1997 CERTIFICATION
TARGET DATE
JANUARY 1, 2003
t I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1
1nnn
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year Ending on December 31,
°Mend County Sold Waste Planning 97GYDREG WK4 RJS, PE 04/29/97
1990
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN UPDATE
As Amended
On June 9, 1994
Oakland County, Michigan
Demonstration of
Available Disposal Capacity
May 5, 1997
L. Brooks Patterson, County Executive
Notes:
This document was presented for explanation and comment to the
Oakland County Board of Commissiattg Planning:otOOtilbing , ._.
Committee at its meeting of Mr497. Thé*companying
resolution and exhibit were approil'ti L• — and both were
forwarded to the fulJB o::,-4:f04-:. The "(;-,:-ifictO:ripfAvailable Disposal
Capacity" Resolutidri wit, its ,'- ltrgi(eWbitcwas adopted by
the Oakland ColladolAgCorrri,ioners by a - roll call
Yi901
The final Rekibtiorta"rd its accompanying exhibit are reprinted
1:"Osite.
Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Miscellaneous Resolution #
, 1997
CERTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE DISPOSAL CAPACITY
ACT 451 NON-HAZARDOUS SOLID WASTES'
SPRING, 19977
WHEREAS, Oakland County's 1994 AmendmentLthe.:1990 Solid Waste ManageMent Plan
Update require that annually, on or before June 30, the BiWeriion" state and certify available remaining
disposal capacity for all Act 451 non-hazardous solid wasteslatiakd within the County; and
WHEREAS, a finding that sufficient capacity is available (ricreithah,s66 months beyond June 30)
equates to a moratorium during the following year on . the_use of the ititerirti:liting mechanism contained in
the 1994 Amendments for the siting of additional landfill capacity in the Cciiirity;.'and
WHEREAS, Act 451 as amended, cop`Cludes thatfaililireAD adopt a required annual certification is
equivalent to a finding that less than a sufficient amount eca'p'acitos-?available and the interim siting
mechanism will then be operative on thefirrst day of the followAlapiary; and
WHEREAS, a review has beenfconducted of the current and projected Act 451 non-hazardous
waste stream generated within the Callity, the ,Current volume reduction efforts being achieved by the
County's residents and businesses, current intt-county flow arrangements and of available remaining
disposal capacity both withinhe 'County and*:ithinpearby counties; and
-7;
V,HEREAS, the;klättsig_''containedrrilitaiCounty Executive's report titled "Demonstration of
Available:1%0'60f Capacity Ma 1997" (which is on file with the County Clerk) shows clearly that
disposal dapacitwisavailable1orAlp *cgrity's Act 451 non-hazardous waste stream into the year 2006 as is Iv! summarizemorutbeItYbibit attaC"' -
THEFf,
here/ certifies that s
additional landfill capat
,Aste Management PIZ td be identified in a futurece
IT RESOLVED THAT the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
osal capacity exists so that the interim siting mechanism for the siting of
in the County as contained within the 1994 Amendments to the 1990 Solid
Nate will not become operational until January 1, 1999 or later, such date to
rtification.
Planning and Building Committee: , 1997, Ayes, Nays
Board of Commissioners: , 1997, Ayes, Nays
Oakland County Disposal Capacity Availability - Spring, 1997
Act 451 Non-Hazardous Solid Wastes with 1997 Volume Reduction Rates Held Constant
DISPOSAL
OPPORTUNITIES Apparent Year of Depletion 2003
Year of Depletion using all
remaining in-county capacity 2006 Millions of Gateyards DISPOSAL NEEDS
1997 CERTIFICATION
TARGET DATE
JANUARY 1, 2003
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year Ending on December 31,
97GYDREG.WK4 RJS, PE 04/29/97 Oakland County Solid Waste Planning
1990
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN UPDATE
As Amended
On June 9, 1994
Oakland County, Michigan
Demonstration of
Available Disposal Capacity
May 5, 1997
L. Brooks Patterson, County Executive
Mixed
Wastes Pelumables Special
Wastes
1114141b it.mr Incineration
or WTE
Special
Wastes
Landfill
Sanitary 1 I Ash
Landfill I I Monofill H. Waste
Disposal
Markets
Conserve
Resources
Recovered
Materials
Markets
- Utility Grid -
Gas, Steam &
Electricity Use of Non-
Renewable
Resources
Other
Uses I Manufacture of
New Products
Source
Reduction
Consumer
or
Solid Waste Generator
Careful
Purchasing
Decisions
Solid Waste Generation, Collection, Handing, Processing and Disposal
It's a Complex and Continuous Process . . .
Careful
Purchasing
Decisions
Waste
Minimization
Source & Reuse
Separation
Consumer
or
Solid Waste Generator Generally Act 461 ...
Part 115 4--re Part 111
Yard
Wastes
Compost
Sites
Collection
Systems
Transfer Of
Direct Haul
Processing
Facilities MRF
Special
Processing
Facilities
Mixed-Waste
MlF
I Household I
Hazardous
Wastes
HHW
Processing
Facility
I Hazardous
Wastes
Transfer or
Direct Haul
Volume
Reduction
Disposal
Facilities
Methane
Recovery
Leachate
Treatment
Minimize
Impacts
Problem:
Disposal facilities use valuable land
and cause health and environmental
concerns because of gaseous,
particulate and liquid emissions.
Basic Approach:
Reduce the rate at which waste is
generated and maximize the
recovery of materials and energy
to minimize the need tor
additional disposal facilities
to minimize their impact.
Issue:
What roles should Oakland County
and its 61 cities, villages and
townships play?
Solid Waite Planning RJS, P.E. - May 6.1996 Oceriand Canty. trachIGal
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Oakland County's 1994 Amendments to its 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan
Update and Act 451 of 1994 each require that the County annually demonstrate,
on or before June 30, available remaining disposal capacity for the County's
Act 451 non-hazardous waste stream. Should the demonstration show less than 66
months of available capacity measured from June 30, the interim siting
mechanism contained in the 1994 Amendments for the siting of new disposal
capacity would go into operation on the following January 1. Should a siting
proposal be received which met all predefined criteria, its approval would be
nearly automatic. If more than 66 months is demonstrated, all proposals for
additional disposal capacity can be rejected through the following year.
The County's Act 451 waste stream has been analyzed to determine both its
magnitude and the volume reduction levels currently being achieved by the
generators of each category of wastes. The resultant disposal needs have been
projected into the future to account for estimated employment and population
growth. Similar projections of the waste stream for contiguous counties were
made. All projections were then measured against currently approved disposal
capacity so that its continued availability over time could be calculated.
Act 451 provides that wastes generated in one Michigan county may not be
disposed of in another county unless such arrangements are recognized in the
Solid Waste Management Plans of both counties. The 1994 Oakland County Plan
Amendments provided for a schedule of intercounty flows to meet these
requirements and to reflect current free market realities. However, a Wayne
County Circuit Court ruling on Wayne County's Solid Waste Management Plan
impacted upon the amount of such flows the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality would allow Oakland County to use in its annual
demonstration of available capacity. At the same time, a related consent
judgement had the effect of allowing the flows to continue between the two
counties without restriction as to annual limits. Although not reflecting the
real world situation, this document assumes zero intercounty flows between the
two counties so as to reflect an extremely conservative viewpoint as to
disposal capacity availability. Wayne County is in the process of amending
its plan and the amendment is to contain corrections to this problem.
This analysis does not address the loss of disposal capacity caused by the
unplanned and unwanted imports from out-of-state and out-of-country waste
sources. It does however recognize such imports as they were reported for
1995-96 and assumes that they will continue at that same constant level into
the future. Pending national legislation on this issue may allow some modicum
of future control and thus extend the time that current landfill capacity will
suffice for Michigan's disposal needs.
Based upon the findings contained in this report, Oakland County has access to
sufficient disposal capacity (at in-county facilities and through permissive
inter-county flow arrangements with other nearby counties) to sometime during
the year 2006. Therefore, Requests for a Determination of Consistency for
landfill facilities through Oakland County's Interim Siting Mechanism (as
adopted by the Board of Commissioners on June 9, 1994) will not be received
prior to the end of 1998. With resolution of the current inter-county flow
problem, such Requests need not be received for some time to come.
Subsequent annual or interim period demonstrations may alter these findings.
Executive Summary - Page i
Contents
Table of Contents
Chapter Title
Notes
Board of Commissioners Resolution
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
List of Exhibits
1 Employment and Population - Estimates and Projections
2 Waste Stream and Disposal Need Estimates
3 Disposal Facility Inventory and Inter-County Flows
4 Inter-state and Inter-country Waste Flows
5 Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity
Appendix
Selected portions of the 1994 Plan Update Amendments -
Certification of Available Disposal Capacity
Selected Portions of Act 451 (P.A. of 1994 as Amended)
What If...?
List of References
Chapter
and
Paae Exhibit
List of Exhibits
List of Exhibits
It's a Complex and Continuous Process...
1.0 Calculating Oakland County's Solid Waste Disposal Requirements
1.2 SEMCOG's 2020 Regional Development Forecast •
2.4 Projected Disposal Needs, Baseline VR - 1990 to 2005
2.5 Projected Disposal Needs, Aggressive VR - 1990 to 2005
2.6 Details of 1997 Volume Reduction Achievement Levels
3.2 Lower Michigan's Disposal Facilities
3.4 Disposal Facilities in Southeastern Michigan
3.5 Southeast Michigan's Landfills - March, 1997
3.6 Upper Michigan's Disposal Facilities
3.7 Regional Operating Capacity
3.8 Oakland County's Disposal Capacity Opportunities
5.2 Oakland County - Disposal Capacity Availability - Spring, 1997
WI.2 What If? Oakland County's Act 451 Disposal Capacity Availability
3
a)
ta
C co 2 133
CO
To
2
Note:
The SOCIA incinerator
closed in mid-1988.
NET
ESTIMATED
LANDFILL
NEEDS
2000 2005
0 1_11111111111i
1985 1990 1995
Year Ending on December 31,
Waste generation
calculations based
on SEMCOG's 2/96
Recommended RDF
Calculating Oakland County's Solid Waste Disposal Requirements
( With 1997 Volume Reduction (VR) Efforts Held Constant )
• 1 - Needs without VR
•2 - Less COD & ISW VR
* 3 - Less MSW VR
• 4 - Less Impact of YVV Ban
e 5 - Less WTE & Incin.
6 - Plus Ash = Net Needs
97RDFREG.WK4 RJS, PE 04/29/97 11:13 Oakland County Solid Waste Planning
Chapter 1 - Employment and Population - Estimates and Projection
Chapter 1
Employment and Population - Estimates and Projections
Oakland County's waste stream estimating technique is principally based on
data relating to population, to employment by employment type by place of
work, and to waste generation rates on a per capita or per employee basis.
Oakland County's 1990 Plan Update and the database contained in the 1994 Plan
Update Amendments were based on population and employment estimates and
projections previously prepared by the Southeastern Michigan Council of
Governments (Regional Development Forecast, Ver 84 and Ver 89 respectively).
The waste stream estimates and projections contained in this document were
based on SEMCOG's Recommended 2020 Regional Development Forecast dated
February 8, 1996 as approved by the Executive Committee and General Assembly
in March, 1996. The population and employment information contained therein
is displayed on the exhibits following.
Oakland County's Population History
Year Source Population Change % Change
1840 Census 23,646
1850 ,, 31,270 7,624 32.24%
1860 .. 38,261 6,991 22.26%
1870 ,, 40,867 2,606 6.81%
1880 „ 41,537 670 1.64%
1890 ,, 41,245 (292) 4170%
1900 n 44,792 3,547 8.60%
1910 i. 49,576 4,784 1068%
1920 " 90,050 40,474 81 .64%
1930 ,. 211,251 121,201 13459%
1940 n 254,068 42,817 20.27%
1950 " 396,001 141,933 55.86%
II 1960 690,603 294,602 74.39%
1970 " 907,871 . 217,268 31.46%
., 1980 1,011,793 103,922 1145%
1990 ,, 1,083,592 71,799 7.10%
2000 Projected t 192,164 108,572 10.02%
2010 „ 1,272,192 80,028 671%
2020 ,, 1,359g46 87,654 6.89%
Future projections are based upon SEMCOG's Recommended
2020 Regional Development Forecast dated 2-8-96.
Chapter 1 - Page 1
SEMCOG's 2020 Regional Development Forecast
Recommended Forecast - February 8, 1996
OaMend County Sold Waste Mannino
96RDFRE0IWK4
030557
13:37
Population
Change, % Change
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1995 to 2020 1995 to 2020
SEMCOG 4,590,465 4,735,738 4,804,389 4,877,433 4,962,603 5,067,093 5,162,405 426,667 9.01%
Livingston 115,645 135,558 154,061 170,853 187,725 204,875 219,674 84,116 62.05% Macomb 717,400 754,494 775,875 802,349 832,477 860,899 884,222 129,728 17.19% Monroe 133,600 141,449 146,701 150,732 154,867 160,160 164,788 23,339 16.50% Oakland 1,083,592 1,150,872 1,192,164 1,232,182 1,272,192 1,318,997 1,359,846 208,974 18.16%
St. Clair 145,607 158,921 167,478 175,050 182,766 191,525 199,160 40,239 25.32%
Washtenaw 282,934 300,489 313,130 325,599 340,274 357,443 373,362 72,873 24.25%
Wayne 2,111,687 2,093,955 2,054,980 2,020,668 1,992,302 1,973,194 1,961,353 (132,602) -6.33%
Wayne (pt) 1,083,708 1,101,664 1,102,957 1104716 1,107,957 1,114,546 1,124,059 22,395 2.03%
Detroit 1,027,979 992,291 952,023 915,952 884,345 858,648 837,294 (154,997) -15.62%
Total Employment by Place of Work
Change, % Change
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1995 to 2020 1995 to 2020
SEMCOG 2,350,238 2,477,024 2,615,187 2,724,994 2,776,724 2,775,235 2,773,688 296,664 11.98%
Livingston 39,296 46,700 55,139 63,355 69,376 70,887 71,925 25,225 54.01%
Macomb 333,723 361,350 386,158 403,706 410,574 409,647 407,633 46,283 12.81%
Monroe 50,364 55,541 60,702 64,574 66,501 66,807 67,155 11,614 20.91%
Oakland 681,037 745,309 806,126 856,189 883,393 885,258 887,826 142,517 19.12%
St. Clair 55,730 60,556 64,654 69,393 72,462 73,476 74,398 13,842 22.86%
Washtenaw 213,895 228,331 242,770 252,759 258,184 258,962 260,270 31,939 13.99%
Wayne 976,193 979,237 999,638 1,015,018 1,016,234 1,010,198 1,004,481 25,244 2.58%
Wayne (pt) 563,703 595,521 630,759 657,675 668,028 668,453 667,129 71,608 12.02%
Detroit 412,490 383,716 368,879 357,343 348,206 341,745 337,352 (46,364) -12.08%
Manufacturing Employment by Place of Work
Change, % Change
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1995 to 2020 1995 to 2020
SEMCOG 486,644 482,591 468,709 467,057 461,633 439,602 415,321 (67,270) -13.94%
Livingston 8,186 8,670 9,099 9,742 10,183 9,752 9,232 562 6.48%
Macomb 102,751 105,066 102,550 99,809 97,383 92,102 86,266 (18,800) -17.89%
Monroe 9,430 10,685 10,866 11,016 10,919 10,397 9,799 (886) -8.29%
Oakland 116,987 119,339 116,201 120,613 122,512 117,948 113,296 (6,043) -5.06%
St. Clair 10,565 11,044 11,270 11,502 11,449 10,864 10,226 (818) -7.41%
Washtenaw 37,363 33,737 31,697 32,232 32,177 30,727 28,982 (4,755) -14.09%
Wayne 201,362 194,050 187,026 182,143 177,010 167,812 157,520 (36,530) -18.83%
Wayne (pt) 137,991 138,349 136,431 133,910 130,630 123,791 116,119 (22,230) -16.07%
Detroit 63,371 55,701 50,595 48,233 46,380 44,021 41,401 (14,300) -25.67%
Notes: Employment measures number of jobs, both full-time and part-time - not the number of employed persons
or the number of FTEs (Full Time Equivalents).
Construction jobs and military are not included in RDF employment. Previous RDFs included construction
jobs. However, the large majority of construction jobs are mobile, moving from job-site to job-site. Perhaps
only 10% hold stationary positions at the offices or shops of construction companies. Having no specific
way to differentiate between the two for future transportation planning purposes, a decision was made by
SEMCOG at the policy level to not include either in the 2020 RDF projections.
Manufacturing employment measures the number of jobs within the SIC Code manufacturing categories.
It is not a measurement of the number of "factory workers" nor does it relate to land use. In many instances,
all such employment may be pure office type work in the headquarters of "manufacturing" companies. In
others, it may represent employment within research facilities or in a factory environment only.
1 . 2
Chapter 2 - Waste Stream and Disposal Need Estimates
Chapter 2
Waste Stream and Disposal Need Estimates
The Act 451 non-hazardous waste stream is comprised of several major
components as shown below.
Waste Cateaory
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Single family residential
Multi-family residential
Commercial
Industrial
MSW Total
Construction and Demolition Debris (COD)
Industrial Special Waste (ISW)
Act 451 Total
Waste Type
Type II
Type II
Type II
Type II
Type II
Type III
Type III
All
The industrial component of MSW (generally comprised of industrial
housekeeping wastes such as packaging, pallets, cafeteria and washroom wastes,
and office wastes) is exclusive of industrial process wastes (such as foundry
sands, coal or wood ash, wastewater treatment sludges, and sediments from wood
processing or paper manufacturing which are described as ISW). This
distinction is important because industrial MSW is classified as a Type II
waste which must be disposed of in Type II landfills. However, Type III
wastes, generally less intrusive in nature than Type II wastes and therefore
capable of being disposed of in the lower standard Type III landfills, can
also be disposed of in Michigan's Type II landfills.
The waste generation rates contained in the May, 1996 Demonstration of
Available Capacity report (and discussed in considerable detail in that
document) continue to be used to estimate and project the waste stream into
the future without modification.
Volume Reduction Achievement Levels: Previous Demonstrations of Available
Capacity were based on a 15% volume reduction (VR) achievement level across
all solid waste categories for 1995 plus adjustments for Michigan's yard waste
ban which became fully operational on March 28, 1995. The 15% assumption for
1995 continues to be utilized across all waste stream categories in this
baseline analysis except for the residential categories.
In this latter instance, the excellent database maintained by the Southeastern
Oakland County Resource Recovery Authority (SOCRRA) has provided a clear
examination of residential VR successes. SOCRRA is a solid waste authority
owned by 14 of the County's 61 municipalities and the residential waste stream
from these municipalities represents 28% of the County's total. Analysis of
the 1995-96 data shows that once yard wastes are subtracted from total wastes
handled, recovered recyclable materials represent in excess of 12% of the
remainder. Two external factors had to be taken into account during this
analysis which resulted in a distortion of SOCRRA's baseline data. First was
the newspaper strike during this period which suppressed the amount of
materials normally recovered and second was the extensive scavaging of
newspaper during that period when prices were high for the recovered material.
Chapter 2 - Page 1
Apparent Actual
VR Level VR Level
21.24% 20.17%
2.30% 1.69%
15.00% 13.88%
15.00% 13.88%
22.13% 20.55%
Chapter 2 - Waste Stream and Disposal Need Estimates
Both of these dramatically reduced the amount of material delivered to
SOCRRA's facilities although material was recovered through scavaging.
SOCRRA's data further shows that yard wastes have sharply declined in annual
volume because of successful lawn mulching and home composting programs and
because of the outright municipal bans on the collection of grass clippings in
some instances.
County wide, yard wastes are projected at 18.52% of the residential waste
stream prior to source reduction and composting efforts. This varies from 25%
in dense urban single family areas, 5% in rural single family areas, 2% for
urban multi-family projects to 0% in rural multiple family areas. Within the
commercial MSW waste category, yard wastes were projected at 2% of the waste
stream.
Once the entire waste stream without volume reduction efforts has been
projected, yard wastes at their original generation levels are subtracted and
then recycling reductions are then made to determine disposal needs. This
approach produced the following volume reduction achievement levels for 1997.
In concert with Act 451, this VR level is maintained constant into the future
for the purposes of demonstrating capacity availability.
Volume Reduction Achievement Levels
Waste Cateaory
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Incineration of MSW
Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD)
Industrial Special Waste (ISW)
Act 451 Total
The difference between "Apparent" and "Actual" VR levels represents the
addition of process residues back into the disposal category. Process
residues include non-recoverable material from the material recovery
facilities (MRFs), non-compostable material from compost operations, and ash
from incineration and waste-to-energy facilities.
Shown from a different perspective, the 1997 waste stream would appear as
below.
Oakland County's 1997 Disposal Needs
All Act 451 Wastes
less Yard Wastes
less Recyclables
less Waste-to-Energy
plus process residues
Total disposables
Tons / Day
5,093.30
(409.00)
(620.49)
(97.75)
80.51
4,046.56
VR Level
(8.03%)
(12.18%)
(1.92%)
1.58%
(20.55%)
A More Aaaressive Viewpoint: Although a great deal is known about the
residential waste stream in terms of VR achievements, little is known about
the commercial and industrial MSW categories or the CDD and ISW waste stream
categories. This generally occurs since governmental programs do not focus on
these waste streams and such information is generally considered proprietary
in nature by those who do service these sectors. The 1994 Keep America
Beautiful report titled "The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste
Chapter 2 - Page 2
Chapter 2 - Waste Stream and Disposal Need Estimates
Management to the Year 2000" as prepared by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
indicated that the non-residential portion of the MSW waste stream can be
attributed with recycling rates (not considering yard wastes) of slightly more
than 30% on a national basis.
The volume reduction efforts previously described were based upon a 15%
achievement level for all waste categories except residential. Most will
agree that such an assumption is conservatively safe, but a more aggressive
assumption may be appropriate for examining consequences. For that purpose, a
second waste stream projection was prepared assigning a 30% recovery level to
both the commercial and industrial MSW streams. This second viewpoint, allows
"What If...?" questions to be analyzed - see Appendix.
This approach resulted in the changes shown below.
Volume Reduction Achievement Levels - Aaaressive
Apparent
VR Level
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Incineration of MSW
Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD)
Industrial Special Waste (ISW)
Act 451 Total 28.79%
Waste Cateaory
29.20%
2.30%
15.00%
15.00%
Actual
VR Level
27.74%
1.69%
13.88%
13.88%
26.88%
Oakland County's 1997 Disposal Needs - Aaaressive VR Levels
All Act 451 Wastes
less Yard Wastes
less Recyclables
less Waste-to-Energy
plus process residues
Total disposables
Tons / Day
5,093.30
(409.00)
(959.77)
(97.75)
97.47
3,724.25
VR Level
(8.03%)
(18.84%)
(1.92%)
1.91%
(26.88%)
Application of the volume reductions achievement levels previously described
produces the disposal needs shown in the exhibits following. Exhibit 2.4
displays details of the baseline waste stream from 1990 through 2005. Exhibit
2.5 displays similar material should the "Aggressive" volume reduction
scenario described above come to fruition. Exhibit 2.6 shows details of the
1997 volume reduction assumptions by individual waste stream category and the
final exhibit (presented at the beginning of Chapter 1) provides a graphic of
Oakland County's disposal requirements since 1985. This last exhibit
illustrates the volume reductions previously achieved by the Southeast Oakland
County Incinerator Authority (SOCIA) facility until its closure in mid 1988.
This facility had a design capacity of 600 tons of municipal solid waste per
day, displayed in this exhibit at 85% operating capacity or 510 tons per day.
Chapter 2 - Page 3
20.33%
3,353.87
(97.75)
3,256.12
5.65%
3,758.03
(97.75)
3,660.28
0.00%
3,864.27
(97.75)
3,766.52
2.82%
3,812.94
(97.75)
3,715.19
8.47%
3,700.16
(97.75)
3,602.41
13.47%
3,549.52
(97.75)
3,451.77
21.07%
3,643.96
(97.75)
3,54621
21.12%
3,540.17
(97.75)
3,442.42
21.18%
3,432 00
(97.75)
3,334.25
21.14%
3,505.61
(97.75)
3,407.86
21.21%
3,392.94
(97.75)
3,295.19
21.24%
3,353.88
(97.75)
3,256.13
21.09%
3,609.35
(97.75)
3,511.60
21.11%
3,574.75
(97.75)
3,477.00
21.16%
3,471.06
(97.75)
3,373.31
18.25%
3,402.36
(97.75)
3,304.61
1833
24.48
4.99
4.43
25.90
78.13
2062.
25.05
5.10
4.27
2590
80.94
20.45
24.76
5 04
4.35
25.90
80.51
20.96
25.61
5.20
4.10
25.90
81.79
2079.
25.33
5.15
4.19
25.90
81.36
21.27
26.13
5 30
417
25.90
82.77
21.12
25.87
5.25
4.14
25.90
82.28
21.43
26 39
5.35
4.20
25.90
83.26
21.58
2665
5.39
4.23
25.90
83.75
21/3
26.91
5.44
4.26
25.90
84.24
Daman, Volume Reduction Achievement Levels
Oakland County prolected Disoosal Needs - 1990 Generation Rates & 1997 Volume Reduction Efforts Held Constant 97RDFFtE0 V.K4 9663131 1003
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Population 8 Employment Stets
Population 1,083,592 1,097,048 1,110,504 1,123,960 1,137,416 1,150,872 1,159,130 1,167,389 1,175,647 1,183,906 1,192,164 1,200,168 1,208,171 1,216,175 1,224,178 1,232,182
Tetra Bnployment 681,037 693,891 706,746 719,600 732,455 745,309 757,472 769,636 781,799 793,963 806,126 816,139 826,151 836,164 846,176 856,169
Manufacturing Employment 116,987 117,457 117,928 118,398 118,669 119,339 118,711 118,084 117,456 116,829 116.201 117,083 117,966 118,848 119,731 120,613
WasicartemullUtoll
Munidpal Sold Waste (MSW)
Residential 1,852.94 1,875.95 1,898.96 1,921.97 1,944.98 1,967.99 1,982.11 1,996.23 2,010.36 2,024.48 2,038.60 2,052.29 2,065.97 2,079.66 2,093.35 2,10703
Commode, 1,688.91 1,728.22 1,767.52 1,806.83 1,846.13 1,885.44 1,925.10 1,964.77 2,004.43 2,044.09 2,083.76 2,110.77 2,137.78 2.164.79 2,191.60 2,218.81
industrial 322.42 319.60 316.79 313.97 311.16 308.34 302.72 297.09 291.47 285.84 280.22 282.35 284.47 286.60 28873 290.86
Total MSW 3,864.27 3,923.77 3,983.27 4,042.71 4,102.27 4,161.77 4,209.93 4,258.09 4,306.25 4,354.42 4,402.58 4,445.40 4,488.23 4,531.05 4,573.87 4,616.70
Si / capita / day (MSW only) 7.132 7.153 7.174 7.194 7.213 7.232 7.264 7.295 7.326 7.356 7.386 7.408 7.430 7.451 7.473 7.494
COOSt. & Demo. Debris (CDO) 408.51 414.60 420.69 426.78 432.88 438.97 443.69 448.42 453.15 457.88 462.60 466.77 47005 475.12 479.29 483.46
Ind. Special Wastes (ISW) 419.75 416.08 412.42 408.76 405.09 401.43 394.10 386.78 379.46 372.14 364.81 367.58 370.35 373.12 375.89 378.66
Total Waste Slream wo VR 4,692.53 4,754.46 4,816.38 4,878.31 4,940.24 5,002.16 5,047.73 5,093.30 5,138.86 5,184.43 5,229.99 5,279.76 5,329.53 5.379.29 5,429.06 5,478.82
# / capita / day (total Act 451) 8.661 8.668 8.674 8.681 8.687 8.693 8.710 8.726 8.742 8.758 8.774 8.798 8.822 8.846 8.870 8893
Total MSW with VR (tod)
MSW % reductions
MSW w VR
Less Incineration
Net MSW
COO % reductions
COD w VR
0.00% 3.00% 6.00% 9.00% 12.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 408.51 401,43 394.36 387.28 380.20 373.12 377.14 381.16 385.18 389.20 393.21 396.76 400.30 403.85 407.39 410.94
ISW % reductions 0.00% 3.00% 6.00% 9.00% 12.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00%
ISW w VR 419.75 404.04 388.33 372.63 356.92 341.21 334.99 328.76 322.54 316.32 310.09 312.45 314.80 317.16 319.51 321.86
Total Waste Stream w VR 4,594.78 4,520.67 4,442.97 4,362.32 4,188.89 4,018.95 3,968.25 3,966.05 4,002.91 4,039.76 4,076.61 4,117.06 4,157.53 4,198.01 4,238.50 4,279.01
Apparent VR Achievement Level 2.08% 4.92% 7.75% 10.58% 15.21% 19.66% 21.39% 22.13% 22.11% 22.08% 22.05% 22.02% 21.99% 21.96% 21.93% 2100%
Process Residues
Composting 0.00 0.98 1.99 3.03 8.56 13.78
Recycling 0.00 4.84 9.68 14.51 19.35 24.19
COD 0.00 0.99 1.98 2.96 3.95 4.94
ISW 0.00 0.90 1.81 2.71 361 4.52
Incinerator Ash 25.90 25.90 25.90 25.90 25.90 25.90
Sub-total, Process Residues 25.90 33.61 41.35 49.12 61.38 73.33
Total Disposal Needs 4,620.68 4,554.28 4,484.32 4,411.44 4,250.27 4,092.27 4,046.38 4,046.56 4,083.84 4,121.12 4,158 40 4,199.34 4,24030 4.281.27 4.322.25 4,363.25
Actual VR Achievement Level
(not including incineration)
1.53% 4.21% 6.89% 9.57% 13.97% 18.19% 19.94% 20.55% 20.53% 20.51% 20.49% 20.46% 20.44% 20.41% 20.39% 20.36%
-0.00% 2.70% 5.40% 8.10% 12.51% 16.75% 18.41% 19.14% 19.13% 19.12% 19.12% 19.10% 19.09% 19.08% 19.06% 19.05%
97 Demo - Amual Bankvards
MSW 2,062,170 2,037,253 2,010,391 1,981,927 1,905,128 1,930,064 1,806,160 1,807,484 1,829,118 1,850,752 1,872,386 1,891,529 1,910,679 1,929,838 1,949,004 1.968,178 Ash 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9455
Sub-total, Type II 2,071,624 2,046,708 2,019,846 1,991,362 1,914,582 1,839,519 1,815,615 1,816,939 1,836,573 1,860,207 1,881,841 1,900,983 1,920,134 1,939,293 1,958,459 1,977,633
COD 149,107 146,884 144,661 142,438 140,215 137,992 139,478 140,964 142,450 143,936 145,423 146,734 148,045 149,356 150,667 151,978
ISW 175,095 168,920 162,745 156,569 150,394 144,218 141,587 138,957 136,326 133,695 131,064 132,060 133,055 134,050 135,045 136,041 Sit-total. Type III 324,202 315,804 307,405 299,007 290 608 282,210 281,065 279,921 278=776 277131 276,487 278,793 281,100 283,406 285,712 288.019 Grand Total 2,395,827 2,362,511 2,327,251 2,296,388 2,205,191 2,121,29 2,0967680 2,096,860 2,1177349 2,137,838 2,158327 2,179.777 2,201234 2,222.699 2,244,171 2,265,652
97 Demo - Annual Gatevardt
MSW 4,124,339 4,074,506 4,020,782 3,963,853 3,810,255 3,660,129 3,612,320 3,614,969 3,658,236 3,701,504 3,744,771 3,783,057 3,821,359 3.859,676 3,898,008 3,936,357 Ash 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455
Sit-total, Type II 4,133,794 4,083,961 4,030,237 3,973,308 3,819,710 3,669,583 3621 .775 3,624,424 3,667,691 3,710,959 3,754.226 3,792,512 3,830,814 3869,131 3,907,463 3,945,811 COO 298,213 293,767 289,321 284,875 280,429 275,983 278,956 281,928 284,900 287,873 290,845 293,467 296,089 298.712 301,334 303,956 ISW 175,095 168.920 162,745 156,569 150,394 144,218 141,587 138,957 136,326 133,695 131,064 132,060 133,055 134,050 135,045 136,041 Sit-total, Type III 473,309 462,687 452,066 441,445 430,823 420,202 420_143 420,885 421,226 421,568 421,909 425,527 429,144 432,762 436,379 439,997 Grand Total 4,607,103 4,546,648 4,482,303 4,414,753 4,250533 4,069,785 4,042-318 4,045308 4188,917 4,132,526 4,176,136 4,218,039 4,259.958 4.30192 4,343,842 4,385,606
Ackiressive Voltam ReducUon Achievement Levels
Protected Disposal Needs • 1990 Generation Rates & 1997 Volume Reduction Efforts Held Constant 97ROFREG 1M(4 05n96197 10:04 Oakland County
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Population & Employment Slats
Population 1,083,592 1,097,048 1,110,504 1,123,960 1,137,416 1,150,872 1,159,130 1,167,389 1,175,647 1,183,906 1,192,164 1,200,168 1,208,171 1,216175 1,224,178 1,232,182
Total Employment 681,037 693.891 706,746 719,600 732,455 745,309 757,472 769,636 781,799 793,963 806,126 818,139 826,151 836,164 846,176 856,189
Manufacturing Employment 116,987 117,457 117,928 118,398 118,869 119,339 118,711 118,084 117,456 116,829 116,201 117.083 117,966 118,848 119,731 120,613
Waste Stream as VR (tDcl)
Munidpal Sold Waste (MSW)
Residential 1,852.94 1,875.95 1,898.96 1,921.97 1,944.98 1,967.99 1,982.11 1,996.23 2,010.36 2024.48 2,038.60 2,052.29 2,065.97 2,079.66 2,093.35 2,107.03
Commercial 1,68891 1,728.22 1,767.52 1,806.83 1,846.13 1,885.44 1,925.10 1,964.77 2,004.43 2,044.09 2,083.76 2,110.77 2,137.78 2,164.79 2,191.80 2,218.81
Industrial 322.42 319.60 316.79 313.97 311.16 308.34 302.72 297.09 291.47 285.84 280.22 282.35 284.47 286.60 288.73 290.86
Total MSW 3,864.27 3,923.77 3,983.27 4,042.77 4,102.27 4,161.77 4,209.93 4,258.09 4,306.25 4,354.42 4,402.58 4,445.40 4,488.23 4,531.05 4,573.87 4,616.70
a / capita / day (MSW only) 7.132 7.153 7.174 7.194 7.213 7.232 7.264 7.295 7.326 7.356 7.386 7.408 7.430 7.451 7.473 7.494
Coast. & Demo. Debris (COD) 408.51 414.60 420.69 426.78 432.88 438.97 443.69 448.42 453.15 457.88 462.60 46977 470.95 475.12 479.29 483.46
Ind. Special Wastes (ISW) 419.75 416.08 412.42 408.76 405.09 401.43 394.10 386.78 379.46 372.14 364.81 367.58 370.35 373.12 375.89 378.66
Total Waste Stream wo VR 4,69253 4,754.46 4,816.38 4,878.31 4,940.24 5,00216 5,047.73 5,093.30 5,138.86 5,184.43 5,229.99 5,279.76 5,329.53 5,379.29 5,429.06 5,478.82
ft /capita / day (total Act 451) 8661 8.668 8.674 8.681 8.687 8.693 8.710 8.726 8.742 8.758 8.774 8.798 8 822 8.846 8.870 8.893
Total MSW With VR (tDcg
MSW % reductions 0.00% 3.55% 7.11% 10.65% 16.38% 21.89% 26.13% 29.20% 29.21% 29.21% 29.21% 29.22% 29.22% 29.22% 29.22% 29.22% MSW w VR 3,864.27 3,784.64 3,699.94 3,612.16 3,430.13 3,250.56 3,109.68 3,014.60 3,048.55 3,082.51 3,116.46 3,146.67 3,176.89 3,207.10 3,237.30 3,267.51 Less Incineration (97.75) (9775) (97.75) (97.75) (97.75) (97.75) (97.75) (97.75) (97.75) (97.75) (97.75) (97.75) (97.75) (97.75) (97.75) (97.75)
Net MSW 3,766.52 3986.89 3,602.19 3,514.41 3,332.38 3,152.81 3,011.93 2,916.85 2,950.80 2,984.76 3,018.71 3,048.92 3,079 14 3,109.35 3,139.55 3,169.76
COD % reductions 0.00% 3.00% 6.00% 9.00% 12.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00%
COD w VR 408.51 401.43 394.36 387.28 380.20 373.12 377.14 381.16 385.18 389.20 393.21 396.76 400 30 403.85 407.39 410.94
ISW % reductions 0.00% 3.00% 6.00% 9.00% 12.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% ISW w VR 419.75 104.04 388.33 372.83 356.92 341.21 334.99 328.76 322.54 316.32 310.09 312.45 '314.80 317.16 319.51 321.86
Total Waste Stream w VR 4,594.78 4,492.313 4,384.88 4,274.32 4,069.50 3,867.14 3,724.05 3,626.77 3,658.52 3,690.27 3,722.01 3,758.13 3,794.24 3,830.35 3,866.46 3,902.56
Apparent VR AcNevement Level 2.08% 5.51% 8.96% 12.38% 17.63% 22.69% 26.22% 28.79% 28.81% 28.62% 28.83% 28.82% 2881% 213.79% 28.78% 28.77%
Process Residues
Composting 0.00 0.98 1.99 3.03 8.56 13,78 18.33 20.45 20.62 20.79 20.96 21.12 21.27 21.43 21.58 21.73
RecycIng 0.00 6.36 12.71 19.07 25.43 31.78 36.69 41.72 42.26 42.80 43.34 43.82 44.30 44.78 45.25 45.73
COD 0.00 0.99 1.98 2.96 3.95 4.94 4.99 5.04 5.10 5.15 5.20 5.25 5.30 5.35 5.39 5.44
ISW 0.00 0.90 1.81 2.71 3.61 4.52 4.43 4.35 4.27 4.19 4.10 4.14 4.17 4.20 4.23 4.26
Incinerator Ash 2590 25.90 25.90 25.90 25.90 25.90 25.90 25.90 25.90 2590 25.90 25.90 25.90 25.90 25.90 25.90
Sub-total, Process Residues 2590 35.13 44.39 53.68 67.45 80.92 90.34 97.47 98.16 98.84 . 99.52 100.23 100.94 10195 102.36 103.06
Total Disposal Needs 4,620.68 4,527.49 4,42927 4,328.00 4,136.96 3,948.06 3,814.39 3,724.25 3,756.68 3,789.10 3,821.53 3,85836 3,895.18 3,932.00 3,968.81 4,005.63
Actual VR Achievement Level 1.53% 4.77% 8.04% 11.28% 16.26% 21.07% 24.43% 26.88% 26.90% 26.91% 26.93% 26.92% 26.91% 26.90% 2990% 26.89%
(not inducing incineration) -0.00% 3.26% 6.55% 9.81% 14.81% 19.64% 23.01% 25.47% 25.50% 25.53% 25.56% 25.56% 25.57% 25.57% 25.57% 25.58%
97_Demo - Annoal.*6alcA,
MSW 2,062,170 2,022,587 1,980,250 1,936,242 1,843,088 1,751,107 1,679,149 1.631,017 1.649,995 1,668,973 1,687,951 1,704,840 1,721,726 1,738,611 1,755,495 1,772.377
Ash 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455
Sub-total, Type II 2,071,624 2,032,042 1,989,705 1,945,697 1,852,543 1,760,562 1,688,603 1,640,472 1,659,450 1,678,428 1,697,406 1.714,294 1,731,181 1,748,066 1,764,950 1,781,832
COD 149,107 146,884 144,661 142,438 140,215 137,992 139,478 140,964 142,450 143,936 145,423 146,734 148,045 149,356 150,667 151,978
ISW 175,095 168,920 162,745 156,569 150,394 144,218 141,587 138,957 136,326 133,695 131,064 132,060 133.055 134,050 135,045 136,041
Sub-total, Type III 324,202 315904 307,405 299007 290,608 282,210 281,065 279,921 278,776 277,631 276,487 278,793 2111,100 283,406 285,712 288,019
Grand Total 2,396,827 2,347,946 2,297,110 2,24704 2.143,151 2,042.772 1,969969 1,920,392 1.938,226 1,956,059 1,973,893 1 .993,088 2,012,281 2,031,472 2,050.662 2,069,851
97 Demo - Annual Gateyards
MSW 4,121,339 4,045,174 3,960,500 3,872,484 3,686.176 3,502,214 3,358,297 3,262,034 3,299,990 3.337,946 3,375,902 3,409,679 3,443,453 3.477,223 3,510,990 3,544,754
Ash 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455 9,455
Sub-total, Type II 4,133,794 4,054.629 3,969,955 3,881,939 3,695,631 3,511,669 3,367,752 3,271,489 3,309,445 3,347,401 3,385,357 3,419,134 3,452,907 3,086,678 3,520,445 3,554,209
COD 298,213 293,767 289,321 284,875 280,429 275,983 278,956 281,928 284,900 287,873 290,845 293,467 296,089 298,712 301,334 303,956
ISW 175,095 168,920 162,745 156,569 150,394 144,218 141,587 138,957 136,326 133,695 131,064 132,060 133,055 134,056 135,045 136,041
SW-total, Type III 473 309 462 687 452 066 441 445 430 823 420 202 420 543 420 885 421 226 421 568 421.909 425 527 429.114 432 762 436 379 439 997
Grand Total 4,, ,103 4, , • 4, 2,i . , , i. • „ . • • . . •
(J1
1997 Baseline VR
Total Waste
Stream, tpd
t.) Oakland County. Michigan
Details of 1997 Volume Reduction Achievement Levels
Apparent Volume Reduction Remaining Process Actual
Recycling Yard Wastes Incineration Total Stream, tpd Residues, tpd VR
Residential MSW 1,996.23 9.78% 18.52% 28.30% 1,431.30 28.25 26.89%
Commercial MSW 1,964.77 13.00% 2.00% 15.00% 1,670.05 14.74 14.25%
Industrial MSW 297.09 15.00% 32.90% 47.90% 154.78 28.13 38.43%
MSW sub-total 4,258.09 11.63% 9.61% 2.30% 23.53% 3,256.14 71.11 21.86%
COD 448.42 15.00% 15.00% 381.16 5.04 13.88%
ISW 386.78 15.00% 15.00% 328.77 4.35 13.88%
Act 451 Wastes 5,093.30 12.18% 8.03% 1.92% 22.13% 3,966.05 80.51 20.55%
Total Waste Apparent Volume Reduction Process Actual
1997 Aggressive VR Stream, tpd Recycling Yard Wastes Incineration Total Stream, tpd Residues, tpd VR
Residential MSW 1,996.23 9.78% 18.52% 28.30% 1,431.30 28.25 26.89%
Commercial MSW 1,964.77 28.00% 2.00% 30.00% 1,375.34 29.47 28.50%
Industrial MSW 297.09 30.00% 32.90% 62.90% 110.21 30.36 52.68%
MSW sub-total 4,258.09 19.60% 9.61% 2.30% 31.50% 2,916.85 88.07 29.43%
CDD 448.42 15.00% 15.00% 381.16 5.04 13.88%
ISW 386.78 15.00% 15.00% 328.76 4.35 13.88%
Act 451 Wastes 5,093.30 18.84% 8.03% 1.92% 28.79% 3,626.78 97.47 26.88%
Solid Waste Planning
15:21
04/25/97
Chapter 3 - Disposal Facility Inventory and Inter-County Flows
Chapter 3
Disposal Facility Inventory and Inter-County Flows
Based upon the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality disposal facility
database and upon discussions with MDEQ staff and facility owners, a revised
inventory of Michigan's disposal facilities (landfills and incinerators and/or
waste-to-energy facilities) has been prepared. This is shown in the exhibits
following.
This information, when coupled with knowledge of remaining permissible
disposal capacity, local annual disposal requirements, permissible inter-
county flows, and probable inter-county flows, allows long term facility
availability to be calculated. As applicable to Oakland County, summary
material is shown in the exhibits following the map displays.
The exhibit on Page 3.7 shows each of the landfills within the immediate
Oakland County area, the estimated remaining capacity (shown in bankyards) as
of a date certain and the gateyard operating levels reported to the MDEQ for
the pe'riod from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996. These factors,
when coupled with waste stream projections, allow the estimated remaining
lifetime of each facility to be calculated. Such calculations are based on
the assumption that each landfill operator achieves a certain density of
wastes in the final facility and that the 95-96 reported operating level is
maintained on into the future. Once the projected lifetime of each landfill
is known, it is then possible to estimate how long Oakland County's export
opportunities to a given facility will remain available. It must be noted
that opportunities here are defined by the maximum amount of permissible
intercounty flows from Oakland County into the subject host county facilities.
This information is displayed in the exhibit on Page 3.8.
As in the 1996 Demonstration of Available Capacity report, the level of
permissive exports to Wayne County' has been maintained at theoretical zero.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has previously advised that
since the January, 1995 mandated Wayne County Plan Update Amendment was
disallowed by a ruling of the Wayne County Circuit Court, none could be
counted upon by Oakland County in its annual demonstrations even though such
exports are permissible because of a related consent judgement filed in the
same Court.
Although Oakland County believes that it can be successfully argued that
MDEQ's position on this matter is incorrect and that exports to Wayne County
in the annual maximum amount of 2 million gateyards are in fact permissible,
Oakland County chooses not to make an issue on this at the present time.
Three factors lead to this position. First, Wayne County is in the process of
amending its plan. Second, even without counting upon these exports, Oakland
County can be shown to have available disposal capacity considerably beyond
that required for the 1997 Demonstration. Third, exports to Wayne County do
in fact occur daily under provisions of the consent judgement.
'The level of permissive exports to Wayne County as shown in Oakland
County capacity demonstrations increased from 1 million gateyards per year in
the 1994 Plan Update Amendment to 2 million gateyards per year in the 1995
Demonstration documents. This increase was in concert with a formal request
from Wayne County to MDNR and the published MDNR mandated amendments to the
Wayne County Plan Update.
1
Chapter 3 - Page 1
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan
Lower Michigan's
Disposal Facilities
O Type II Landfille
* Waste-to-Energy & Incinerator Plante
• Special PUrpose Landfills (Type Ill)
* Hazardous Waste Landfills (Type 1)
JS. PE March 1.1907
March, 1997
Proposal Region
Boundry. HO-4057
25 50 0 100
Appradmoto Scab In IAN
WON 11111111111
%them 3=1111
1111111111111111MMIC
71311ai:0111 I s Mild.1111111111111111 MARIWAIr =In
11111111111111=11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII BM MIME 1111M2111
Atm IMES
_ iTii iiii PRIM a REM
Mlchloareo Indnoratons and Warta-to-Enemy Focitao (NOW Warta. OnIy)
GOMA (City of MOON
Koot County
GrCIZDA (Grooms Pbkrtao - Clinton)
CWCOA (Caws! Wayne)
Jackoon County
GIA Truck & Coach (fbrstac)
5Ix 51too Total
Wore Co.
rat Ca
Macomb Ca
Wrbao Ca
Jackson Ca
Oakland Co.
2,50 tone par day
600
600
500
200
115
4.166 tpri Caraipo Capacity
Note* Report mope are tweed on Polftical Townships and/or Countiee. Cities and Villagers not ahown
Clieplar oho* all landfill, which have remaining and rwarionably wag* Plan draignetad capacity
Ale of March 1.1997 Some may not be currently operational 4060 Val Operating Capockw
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan
March, 1997
25
AMIliggOlf Fik
1111 col nelf111 11111
I
111111
g4 k
Ego Er% Road
Peopl e 00111Y-15an 41111111.11
MOWN
Om . n°111111111.111111111M I I 11
SEE 1111, r 1---
-#0144STIF 1111
enlce Park 0
C Pleposal 1
• afrIAS70
IICE
• 0 row En
(7. Hills • nia cow
1111151111111P4 to 4 4
07P--- A - 5IbleY QuarTY Eng rzcsa Migheralie 111Enall, C - MoClouth Steel
LavY King Rd-
WA" MAIM' IIMEMINe
Disposal Facilities
1111 '
Laiellaw reon .ter •
Southeastern Michigan
0 6 10 Mks
o Type ll Landfills
* Waste-to-Energy &Incinerator Plants
• Special Purpose Landfills (Type III)
* Hazardous Waste Landfills (Type I)
RJS. PE March 1.1997
3 . 4
Type II
Bankyard
Availability Comment Owner Township
Co.
# County
Basic Ash Mono Type III Type I
Section Type Cells? Cells? Cells? Landfill Name
Whitefeather Landfill
ID. E. Kam Plant
J. C. Weadock Coal Ash Disposal
Granger #2 Landfill
Brent Run Landfill
Citizens Disposal
Cove Landfill
Granger #1 Landfill
Daggett Sand & Gravel
North Lansing Landfill
McGill Road Landfill
Liberty Environmentalist
Pioneer Rock Landfill
Adrian Landfill
Pine Tree Acres
City of Midland Landfill
Salzburg Road Sanitary Landfill
Vienna Junction
Monroe Power Plant Ash Basin
J. R. Whiting Plant
Jefferson Smurfit Corp. Industrial LF
Matlin Road Landfill
North Star Steel Company
Wayne Disposal - Rockwood Landfill
Collier Road Landfill
Eagle Valley RDF
Wayne Disposal - Oakland
SOCRRA Landfill
People's Garbage Disposal, Inc.
Miller Road Landfill
Taymouth Landfill
GM Central Foundry - Grey Iron Plant
Fort Gratiot
Smith Creek
Range Road Property
Tr-City RDF
Venice Park Landfill
Arbor Hills West Landfill
Only Wayne Disposal Site #2
Carleton Farms
Riverview Land Preserve
Sauk Trail Hills
Woodland Meadows RDF *
Taylor Landfill Site
City of Livonia LF Site
Edward C. Levy - King Road site
Edward C. Levy
Yes Ford Allen Park Clay Mine Landfill
Huron Quarry SLF
McClouth Steel Products Corp.
Sibley Quarry
5.2 landfills in la counties - 5 Type Its in 11 counties
Ill
II
It
II
Ill
Ill
II Yes Yes
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
II
II
It
Ill
II - Closed, Not Shown
Ill
II Yes
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Whitefeather Development Co. 5.320
Consumers Power Co.
Consumers Power Co.
Granger Land Development Co.
City Management - (+ 32.887)
USA Waste Services, Inc.
Mitech Services
Granger Land Development Co.
Daggett Sand & Gravel, Inc.
Board of Water & Light
Philip Environmental 1.000
Liberty Environmentalist
City Management Corp.
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
City Management - (+ 14.133)
City of Midland
Dow Chemical Co.
Browning-Ferris Industries 3.000
Detroit Edison Co.
Consumers Power Co.
Jefferson Smurfit Corp.
Regulated Resource Recovery, Inc.
North Star Steel Company
Wayne Disposal
City of Pontiac 1.628
Waste Management 8.142
Wayne Disposal 8.200
SOCRRA 0.060
City Management Corp. 5.680
City Management Corp. 1.320
Tay-Ban Corp. 2.200
General Motors =_closed, S r_pirsigz_1995,
St. Clair Solid Waste Agency
Detroit Edison Co.
Waste Management
Waste Management
Browning-Ferris Industries
Wayne Disposal
City Management - (+ 66.144)
City of Riverview
Wayne Disposal
Waste Management
Designated site only
City of Livonia
Edward C. Levy Co.
Edward C. Levy Co.
Ford Motor Company
Central Wayne Co Sanitary Auth.
McClouth Steel Products Corp.
Detroit Edison Company
Available Type II Capacity 360 765
6.500
42.947 Modified
15.250
0.500 Estimated
4.000
1.500
2.417
24.158 Modified
6.000
0.750 Adjusted
6.900
11 130
4.500
35.000
0.000
94.244 Modified
17.400
16.600
23.419
11.000
a Bankyard availability is capacity which was designated prior to 1-1-94 and that designated
since Adjustments were made for capacity lost because of premature closures. Data was
obtained from a MWIA report dated 3-25-94, from the MDEO permit database Report #4 dated
10-18-95 and from follow-on discussions with MDEQ staff and various facility operators
Map_3_97.wk4
Oakland County Solid Waste Planning
RJS, P.E
04/18/97
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan
Michigan's Landfills - March. 1997
(Type II capacity expressed in millions of bankyards available on or since 1-1-94, see Special Note #3)
Southeastern Michigan
9 Bay
Bay
Bay
19 Clinton
25 Genesee
Genesee
32 Huron
33 Ingham
Ingham
Ingham
38 Jackson
Jackson
44 Lapeer
46 Lenawee
50 Macomb
66 Midland
Midland
58 Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
63 Oakland
Oakland
Oakland
Oakland
73 Saginaw
Saginaw
Saginaw
Saginaw
74 St. Clair
St Clair
St. Clair
76 Sanilac
78 Shiawassee
81 Washtenaw
82 Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Counties - 22 Counties Total.
Pinconning Twp. 2
Hampton Twp. 1
Hampton Twp. 1
Watertown Twp. 29
Montrose Twp. 23
Mundy Twp. 23
Sheridan Twp. 22
Lansing Twp. 3
Lansing Twp. 13
Lansing Twp. 3
Blackman Twp. 24
Liberty Twp. 1
Burnside Twp. 21
Palmyra Twp. 6
Lenox Twp. 23
Midland Twp. 12
Midland Twp. 35
Erie Twp. - 9S, 8E 6
Monroe Twp. 16
Erie Twp. 14
City of Monroe 6
Ash Twp. 8
City of Monroe 6
Berlin Twp. 34
Pontiac Twp. 9
Orion Twp. 27
Pontiac Twp. 2
Rochester Hills 24
Taymouth Twp. 15
James Twp. 1
Taymouth Twp. 15
Buena Vista Twp. 5
Fort Gratiot Twp. 16
Kimball Twp. 32
China Twp. 12
Bridgehampton Twp. 32
Venice Twp. 27
Salem Twp. 13
Van Buren Twp. 17
Sumpter Twp. 36
Riverview 11
Canton Twp. 35
Van Buren Twp. 1
Taylor 33
Livonia 27
Trenton 18
Taylor 34
Allen Park 36
Huron Twp. 36
Gilbrattar 35
Monquagon Twp. 7
14)
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan
O Type II Landfills
* Waste-to-Energy & Incinerator Plants
• Special Purpose Landfills (Type III)
* Hazardous Waste Landfills (Type I)
40
,„„,
f John writ
50 15 100
Nog alla 40" ihtt
rE 3/1/97
2s
Apprc.mate Sae Oleo
°mot LAkee
rip & FISts
Mich Environs S31
Mich Envimm rimm
Upper Michigan's Disposal Facilities
March, 1997
No...n mitrik‘
, Irmarih;
n1111nI MEOW 11) WM1111111111 hi.
'4411ININI1111116.
f
11171:201111111111Millimallmw i MARE Mr=
Alums m
,rammesomeirm- J I
MI UMW is1111111111M11111 INIMIE=1111111111111
1.000
1.600
1.600
2.000
1.878
1.878
1.878
1.878
1.878
1.878
1,878
1.878
1.878
1.878
1.878
1.878
1.878
1.878
1.878
0.431
1.872
1.872
1.872
3.524
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
0.140
0.137
0.133
0.130
0.131
0.133
0.134
0.135
0.137
0.139
0.140
0.142
0.144
0.146
0.148
0.150
0.152
0.154
0.156
0.158
0.160
0.162
0.164
0.166
0.168
0.170
0.172
0.174
0.176
16.092
16.097
17.170
19.263
20.471
20.473
20.474
20.475
21.977
21.979
21.870
20.234
20.236
20.238
17.603
15.234
14.507
14.509
14.511
13.065
12.637
12.639
11.244
10.688
7.922
6.184
6.186
6.188
6.182
Solid Waste Databaso How Much Annual Operating Capacity Will Be Available In the Region? 97GYOREaws4 Oakland County, Michigan (Millions of Gateyards) RJS, PE
04/29/97 Average gtyds/bankyard 1.94 1058
Facility
Wayne Eagle Collar Oakland Ikkigston Pioneer Finlike. Rbeiview Woodland Sault Trail Carleton
Year Disposal Valley Road New Sit. kbor His County Rock Acres Highlands Meadows Hills Farms
With Planned With Planned
EPILIMILMMIL New Site New Site? Additional'? Additional?
No No Yes Yes
7.177 6.250
1.219 1.748
Bankyarda remaining at 1/1/94
Barnard, remaining at 1/1/96
Annual Average Glateyards, 95-96
0.000 35.000 0.000 2.417 24.158 17.400 23.419 16.600 94.244
3.653
0.385 0.000 3.013 0.000 0.085 0.883 1.565 3.891 1.878 3.658
1992 0.712 0.716 0.156 0.000 2.955 0.000 0.085 0.832 1.032 2.574
1993 0.712 0.716 0.156 0.000 2.955 0.000 0.085 0.832 1.032 2.574 1994 0.970 2.087 0.156 0.000 2.955 0.000 0.085 0.832 1.032 2.574
1995 0.954 1.583 0.330 0.000 2.955 0.000 0.085 0.832 1.500 2.496 1996 1.219 1.748 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565 3.891
1997 1.219 1.748 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565 3.891
1998 1.219 1.748 0.385 3.013 0 085 0.883 1.565 3.891
1999 1.219 1.748 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565 3.891
2000 1.219 1.748 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565 3.891
2001 1.219 1.748 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565 3.891
2002 1.219 1.638 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565 3.891
2003 1.219 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565 3.891 2004 1.219 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565 3.891
2005 1.219 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565 3.891
2006 1.219 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565 1.448
2007 0.515 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565
2008 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565
2009 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565
2010 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565
2011 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565
2012 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565
2013 0.385 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565
2014 0.149 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.565
2015 3.013 0.085 0.883 1.496
2016 1.739 0.085 0.883
2017 0.085 0.883
2018 0.085 0.883
2019 0.085 0.883
2020 0.085 0.883
Facility
Laidlaw SRIley Huron Ford Levy steLoutk City of Citizens Laidlaw Wayne Disp.
Year Taylor Quarry Quarry Alen Park Taylor Steel Livonia Disposal Lenawee Redmond Special Totals
% from Wash & Liu
SIMMaLtiott.L. New Faclitr Counties North COD & SW
Yea 60% to Jackson Co.
Ysar 2000 96 VR Flat
11.000
Bankyards remaining at 1/1/94 0.000 14.000 1.167 1.762 2.330 5.010 0.918 15.250 2.417 22.250
9416kanis reiwaining at 1t1/96
Annual Average Oateyards, 95-96 0.000 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.356 0.150 0.008 0.582 0.271 0.034
0.715
0.715
0.715
0.715
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
1992 0.000 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020
1993 0.000 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020
1994 0.000 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020
1995 0.000 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020
1996 0.000 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.356 0.150 0.008
1997 0.000 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.356 0.150 0.008
1998 0.000 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.356 0.150 0.008
1999 0.000 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.356 0.150 0.008
2000 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.366 0.150 0.008
2001 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.356 0.150 0.008
2002 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.356 0.150 0.008
2003 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.356 0.150 0.008
2004 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.356 0.150 0.008
2005 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.356 0.150 0.008
2006 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.163 0.150 0.008
2007 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2008 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2009 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2010 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2011 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2912 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2013 1.500 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2014 0.340 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2015 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2016 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2017 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2018 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2019 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.150 0.008
2020 0.244 0.025 0.113 0.150 0.008
0,749 0.215
0.749 0.215
0.749 0.215
0.749 0.215
0.271 0.257
0.271 0.257
0.271 0.257
0.271 0.257
0.271 0.257
0.271 0.257
0.271 0.257
0.271 0.257
0.271 0.257
0.271 0.257
0.271 0.257
0.214 0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
3.7
Note: No new facilities or expansions beyond those plan designations which
existed at the time of this report preparation are assumed in this analysis.
97GYDREG.WK4
04/29/97
11:09
RJS, PE
Solid Waste Database
co Oakland County, Michigan
Oakland County's Available Disposal Capacity Opportunities fall values in millions of annual gateyards) Less Total Imports at
20%
Oakland Export Maximum of Oakland Available
Year In-County Livingston Lapeer Lenawee Macomb Genesee Washtenaw Washtenaw Wayne Opportunities Available Capacity
Capacity Primary Secondary
1992 2.728 0.000 0.028 0.250 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.563 7.291 6.745
1993 2.136 0.000 0.028 0.250 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.563 6.699 6.272
1994 3.213 0.000 0.028 0.250 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.563 7.776 7.133
1995 2.867 0.000 0.028 0.250 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.563 7.430 6.857
1996 3.352 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.404 7.756 7.085
1997 3.352 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.403 7.756 7.085
1998 3.352 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.403 5.756 5.085
1999 3.352 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.403 5.756 5.085
2000 3.352 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.403 5.756 5.085
2001 3.352 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.403 5.756 5.085
2002 3.242 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.403 5.646 4.997
2003 1.604 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.403 4.008 3.687
2004 1.604 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.403 4.008 3.687
2005 1.604 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.403 4.008 3.687
2006 1.604 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.403 4.008 3.687
2007 0.900 0.000 0.028 0.071 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.384 3.285 3.105
2008 0.385 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.313 2.699 2.621
2009 0.385 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.313 2.699 2.621
2010 0.385 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.313 2.699 2.621
2011 0.385 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.313 2.699 2.621
2012 0.385 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.313 2.699 2.621
2013 0.385 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.313 2.699 2.621
2014 0.149 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.313 2.462 2.432
2015 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.313 2.313 2.313
2016 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.313 2.313 2.313
2017 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.563 0.563 0.563
2018 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.563 0.563 0.563
2019 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.563 0.563 0.563
2020 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.563 0.563 0.563
Chapter 4 - Inter-State and Inter-Country Flows
Chapter 4
Inter-state and Inter-country Waste Flows
In the June 1, 1992 Fort Gratiot decision, the US Supreme Court determined
that Michigan counties could not bar the import of out-of-state wastes by
simple provisions contained in their planning documents. If there is a
willing landfill operator, such wastes can flow unhindered. Since that time,
a considerable amount of out-of-state wastes beyond that planned for in the 83
county solid waste management plans has been disposed of in Michigan. This is
a problem of major concern to all.
A report released by the Michigan Waste Industries Association in March of
1994 indicated that in 1993, approximately 962,000 tons of out-of-state wastes
were imported into Michigan, 68,740 tons were exported, leaving a net import
of 893,260 tons. This would have resulted in approximately 3.6 million net
gateyards of waste imports for 1993 - assuming such wastes were transferred at
densities of 500 pounds per cubic gateyard or four gateyards per ton.
In 1996, Michigan legislation was adopted which required mandatory and uniform
reporting by disposal facility operators as to the amount, type and source of
wastes received at their facilities. In the first annual report since
adoption of the legislation, 5,689,767 gateyards of out-of-state waste imports
were identified during FY 1996 (October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996).
This represented about 13% of the total waste stream handled. However, a
substantial additional portion of the total wastes handled were not assigned
as to source (6,588,364 gateyards or about 16%) since the legislation was
adopted midway through the first reporting year. Because of the location of
the facilities not assigning a source to the wastes handled, it is quite
probable that a large percentage of the unassigned wastes are also imports.
The information resulting from the 1996 reporting requirements are welcomed
additional planning tools. However, the current material contains some flaws
and much analysis and interpretation is necessary. This occurs primarily
because the reporting is in gateyards, not measured weights. Gateyards are
difficult to measure (how full was that truck?) and the degree that wastes may
be compacted into the delivering vehicle varies substantially based upon many
factors. Many landfills in the state simply do not operate with scale
facilities, and gateyard reporting is the only current tally method available
to all. Those landfills that do weight all incoming materials were advised to
report the receipts using standard conversion factors. However, in terms of
landfill usage, gateyards is not a precise measuring tool of bankyard or
airspace usage. The most important factor becomes densification of the wastes
after they have been placed in the landfill. Additionally, no current
accounting of exports of Michigan's wastes is required. However, early
indications to MDEQ staff from other states are that exports remain in the
69,000 ton per year range. Much additional data and analysis is required.
The inter-state movements of waste are generally driven by economics. If it
is cheaper to pay the cost of transportation as well as the cost of disposal
of the wastes at a landfill elsewhere than it is to dispose of the wastes
locally - and as long as there are willing landfill operators, wastes will be
imported and exported.
This continues to point in new directions if such imports are to be controlled
in a reasonable manner and if Michigan's counties are required to plan for the
future disposal of their own wastes. First, would be governmental ownership
Chapter 4 - Page 1
Chapter 4 - Inter-State and Inter-Country Flows
of future landfills. Without a willing owner/operator, imports could not
come. In the alternative, any new private sector landfill sited or expanded,
should be allowed only in the presence of a "host community agreement" where
the owner willingly agrees to limit or simply not accept such wastes.
In the Carbone decision of May 15, 1994, the US Supreme Court perhaps even
made the governmental ownership option a mute point. In this decision, the
Supreme Court essentially barred governmental agencies from entering into flow
control agreements for the future waste stream which would form the basis of
financing such proposals. Subsequent lower level appellate court decisions
have provided some basis for flow control arrangements, but these matters are
still hotly debated across the nation.
Although legislation at the national level is currently proposed to
grandfather older flow control arrangements thus guaranteeing present
financing arrangements, future programs based on flow control would be allowed
only under a strenuous set of conditions. Additionally, national legislation
is proposed to allow some level of inter-state and inter-country flow
restrictions - supposedly at that level which existed as of a certain point in
time. However, adoption of such legislation remains speculative at best.
In the June 16, 1995 C.L.A.R.E. decision, Michigan's Court of Appeals upheld
the legality of Michigan's Act 451 inter-county flow restrictions. In that
case, the Court acknowledged that with the Fort Gratiot and Carbone decisions,
nothing prevents a landfill operator "...from seeking out-of-state markets nor
deprives out-of-state businesses from having access to this state's local
markets. In fact, rather than burdening interstate commerce, the statute (Act
451) appears to now afford out-of-state businesses preferential access to
local markets."
All of this leaves some solid waste planning agencies in a quandary. They are
currently required to site or arrange for access rights to landfill capacity
for disposal of their own wastes for at least ten years. Failure to do so
requires that a mechanism exist for the siting of additional capacity to be
used when the reserves fall below some minimum level. When this occurs,
additional capacity is required and essentially is forced.
Existing capacity is being depleted by unplanned or unwanted out-of-state
wastes, bringing the next landfill siting closer in time. Even should a
county's legal reserves become depleted, landfills in neighboring counties may
be aggressively marketing more than a sufficient amount of capacity to solve
the first county's problem, to out-of-state waste generators. Unless they own
or otherwise control the landfill facilities so that usage by others can be
tightly controlled, how does one determine how much capacity to provide?
For the purposes of this report, inter-state and inter-country flows of wastes
have been projected to remain constant at the levels reported by each landfill
operator during that period from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996.
Pending national legislation may provide the opportunity to control these
flows in the future, but at present that appears highly unlikely.
Chapter 4 - Page 2
Chapter 5 - Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity
Chapter 5
Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity
Oakland County's projected future waste stream was measured against available
in-county landfill capacity and against export opportunities to other willing
host counties. As shown on exhibit 5.2, Oakland County waste generators
appear to have access to more than a sufficient amount of landfill capacity
until some time during the Year 2003. When and should that event occur, it is
assumed that all available in-county disposal capacity would then be applied
to extend the theoretical depletion date as far as possible into the future.
Calculations show that it would be extended well into the Year 2006. As may
be seen, disposal opportunities exceed estimated needs by approximately 22%
for the Year 2000.
In fact, disposal opportunities exceed needs by a substantially larger margin
because of court permitted exports to Wayne County. With approval of the
pending Wayne County Solid Waste Plan amendments, wherein such flows are to be
quantified, these flows may be officially recognized in the annual
demonstration documents and the excess disposal opportunities increase
dramatically to nearly 70% in the Year 2000. Additionally, access to more
than a sufficient amount of landfill capacity exists to well beyond the Year
2010 even should an improvement not be achieved in the currently observed
volume reduction efforts.
This Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity process will be revisited
each year so that changes to the findings contained herein may be noted and
appropriate actions taken to provide access to additional disposal capacity,
well before a crisis might arise.
Findings:
Oakland County has access to more than 66 months of disposal capacity beyond
June 30, 1997 into at least the Year 2006. Therefore, Oakland County's
Interim Siting Mechanism for landfill facilities need not be made operative
through 1998 as provided for in Act 451 as amended.
(-ii
8
e :.•
i... Oakland County
Disposal Capacity
6 — Availability
Spring, 1997
IL: S. .7. :: :I
16
ge
it (.9 ... 4 — o -IF Total Needs
et C 2 2 :1 c o 4- Type II Needs wo CDD & ISW
E- .... A, Available In-County Capacity
4a Total Available to Oakland Co.
a
2 — .
Landfill Operating Factors
1 0 = 2,500 Gtyds /Working Day
1 4 = 3500 Gtycis /Working Day
1 7= 4,250 Gtyds / Wotidng Day
2.0 = 5,000 Gtyds / Worldng Day
2.4 = 6,000 Gtyds / Worldng Day
A —A (2,500 x 286 = 715,000 Gtyds / Year)
(3,500 x 286 = 1,001,000 Gtyds / Year) I 1 _I I _L 1 I 0 I J 1 I I I L I I I
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year Ending on December 31,
Principal Variables
Demonstrated Wayne-Oaldand Eagle Valley Region's Landfill Density Factor
96 MSW VR Factor Factor (Gateyards per Bankyard)
21.24% 1.70 2.44 1940.
96 COD VR Imports as a % of available in-county capacity —, _ 20%
15.00% Annual oatevards from ,
9615W VR Oakland County
15.00% 04/15197 11:27
Year 2000 Excess
Disposal Opportunities
21.77%
Alternate Disposal Opportunities
Wayne Co. BFI's A.H. Genesee Co.
0.000 0.250 0.025
Year During Which
Insufficient Capacity Occurs
After Exhausting All Remaining
Available In-County Capacity
2006
Apparent Shortage Year
2003
RJS, PE
11:09
04/29/97
97GYDREG WK4
Appendix
APPENDIX
List of Contents:
Selected portions of the 1994 Plan Update Amendments -
Certification of Available Disposal Capacity
Selected Portions of Act 641 of the Public Acts of 1978 as Amended
What If...?
List of References
Certification of Available Disposal Capacity
The material below was excerpted from the 1994 Amendments to
the 1990 Solid Waste Manaaement Plan Update - Chapter 5,
Paae 6.
III. The BoC shall annually certify and demonstrate remaining available
disposal capacity.
A. Certification of available disposal capacity shall be made
annually, by June 30 of each year. If a sufficient amount
of disposal capacity is available such that during the
entire next calendar year the County's disposal capacity
will not fall below that minimum reserve required by Amended
Act 641 or MDNR, landfill Requests shall not be considered,
commencing with the certification date and continuing on
through December 31 of the year following.
If the amount of available disposal capacity is expected to
become insufficient such that during the next calendar year
the County's disposal capacity will fall below that minimum
reserve required by Amended Act 641 or MDNR, landfill
Requests will be received by staff during the next calendar
year beginning on the insufficient capacity date certified.
B. The certification process shall include either the
recertification of the data contained in Chapters 1, 2, 3
and 4 of this Plan Amendment or the preparation of updated
replacement data and information. It is understood that
such certifications do not constitute a plan amendment but
will allow each certification to rely on up to date data.
C. Certification may be made at any other time as is deemed
appropriate by the BoC. Such certifications shall supersede
all previous certifications, shall become effective 30 days
after adoption, and will remain in effect until the next
mid-term or annual certification. Such mid-term
certifications, upon the date they become effective, shall
not impact upon landfill Requests which have been previously
received by the County Executive and which were properly and
timely submitted as provided in III. A. above.
D. Should additional disposal capacity be found consistent with
the plan, the certified available disposal capacity values
shall be automatically adjusted to account for the newly
designated capacity on the date such capacity is found
consistent. No official action by the Board of
Commissioners is necessary for this adjustment to take
effect.
Certification - Page 1
Selected Portions of Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994 as Amended
Sec. 11538. (2) Each solid waste management plan shall identify specific sites for
solid waste disposal areas for a 5-year period after approval of a plan or plan update
(approval date being the date approved by the MDEQ Director). In calculating disposal
need requirements to measure compliance with this section, only those existing waste
stream volume reduction levels achieved through source reduction, reuse, composting,
recycling, or incineration, or any combination of these reduction devices, that can
currently be demonstrated or that can be reasonably expected to be achieved through
currently active implementation efforts for proposed volume reduction projects, may be
assumed by the planning entity. In addition, if the solid waste management plan does
not also identify specific sites for solid waste disposal areas for the remaining
portion of the entire planning period required by this act (10 years) after approval of
a plan or plan update, the solid waste management plan shall include an interim siting
mechanism and an annual certification process as described in subsection (3) and (4).
In calculating the capacity of identified disposal areas to determine if disposal needs
are met for the entire required planning period, full achievement of the solid waste
management plan's volume reduction goals may be assumed by the planning entity if the
plan identifies a detailed programmatic approach to achieving these goals. If a siting
mechanism is not included, and disposal capacity falls to less than 5 years of capacity,
a county shall amend its plan to resolve the shortfall.
(3) An interim siting mechanism shall include both a process and a set of
minimum siting criteria, both of which are not subject to interpretation or
discretionary acts by the planning entity, and which if met by an applicant submitting a
disposal area proposal, will guarantee a finding of consistency with the plan. The
interim siting mechanism shall be operative upon the call of the board of commissioners
or shall automatically be operative whenever the annual certification process shows that
available disposal capacity will provide for less than 66 months of disposal needs. In
the latter event, applications for a finding of consistency from the proposers for
disposal area capacity will be received by the planning agency commencing on January 1
following completion of the annual certification process. Once operative, an interim
siting mechanism will remain operative for at least 90 days or until more than 66 months
of disposal capacity is once again available, either by the approval of a request for
consistency or by the adoption of new certification process which concludes that more
than 66 months of disposal capacity is available.
(4) An annual certification process shall be concluded by June 30 of each year,
commencing on the first June 30 which is more than 12 months after the department's
approval of the plan or plan update. The certification process will examine the
remaining disposal area capacity available for solid wastes generated within the
planning area. In calculating disposal need requirements to measure compliance with
this section, only those existing waste stream volume reduction levels achieve through
source reduction, reuse, composting, recycling, or incineration, or any combination of
these reduction devices, that can currently be demonstrated or that can be reasonably
expected to be achieved through currently active implementation efforts for proposed
volume reduction projects, may be assumed. The annual certification of disposal
capacity shall be approved by the board of commissioners. Failure to approve an annual
certification by June 30 is equivalent to a finding that less than a sufficient amount
of capacity is available and the interim siting mechanism will then be operative on the
first day of the following January. As part of the department's responsibility to act
on construction permit applications, the department has final decision authority to
approve or disapprove capacity certifications and to determine consistency of a proposed
disposal area with the solid waste management plan.
(5) A board of commissioners may adopt a new certification of disposal capacity
at any time. A new certification of disposal capacity shall supersede all previous
certifications, and become effective 30 days after adoption by the board of
commissioners and remain in effect until subsequent certifications are adopted.
Note: Sections in bold italics added for clarity.
February 29, 1996
Act 451 - Page 1
What If...?
What If...?
The baseline projections in this report are based upon a series of
conservative assumptions which collectively result in an early projected date
for disposal capacity deficiency.
First, no future increase in the volume reduction levels from that identified
for 1997 is projected, even though a continuing general increase in volume
reduction efforts is noted by all. Further, the baseline projections have
included an assumption that the nationally observed volume reduction levels
are not occurring in Michigan, relying instead upon a 15% projection for all
waste stream components except the residential component.
Finally, an underlying assumption is made that all excess disposal capacity in
the region during any given year is used by unwanted others (most likely by
wastes generated in other states and Canada). If the annual excess disposal
capacity were not so utilized, that is such usage was limited to that waste
stream approved in the local Solid Waste Management Plan, capacity would be
available for planned wastes over a substantially longer period of time than
is indicated.
However, even though disposal capacity will most likely be available longer
than this report indicates, it is still appropriate to ask an additional
series of worst case, best case "What If..." questions.
For example, what if no exports were permissible and all wastes had to
be disposed of in Oakland County landfills?
What if some disposal facilities closed prematurely, such as Pontiac's
Collier Road landfill or GM's Truck & Coach waste-to-energy plant in
Pontiac?
What if all exports from Oakland County to other counties except
Washtenaw County were prohibited?
What if VR achievement levels within the commercial and industrial
portions of the municipal solid waste stream occurred at the national
average levels as reported by the Keep America Beautiful report dated
September, 1994? See Chapter 2 for stream estimates.
What if additional inter-county flows are authorized beyond those
indicated or what if additional capacity were approved in Oakland
County?
The basic conclusion that can be drawn from such analysis is that within the
realm of reasonable scenarios, Oakland County has access to substantially more
than 66 months of sufficient disposal capacity beyond June 30, 1997. It is
probable that sufficient capacity will be available to beyond the Year 2006,
and quite possibly to a point well beyond the Year 2010.
The exhibit following displays some of the principal scenarios outlined.
What If...? - Page 1
• Total Needs - Baseline
-4n- Total Needs w High VR
-A- Available In-County Capacity
ta With Exports to Washtenaw
-e- And to others except Wayne
411- With Wayne Exports
-04.- With Eagle Valley Expan. Millions of Gateyards 2006 2008 2010
12-2003 12-2007
If the calculations had been based upon
aggressive VR efforts, the baseline scenario
would have yielded the answers above.
> > >
What If ? Oakland County's Act 451 Disposal Capacity Availability
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year Ending on December 31,
"What ScenarimIlleasured Against Baseline Needs
Year of Year of
Apparent Actual
Shortage Shortage
Note:
The difference between the year of apparent
shortage and the year of actual shortage
represents the time it takes to use all remaining
in-County capacity to cover shortages.
Baseline Scenario >
Using available in-County landfill capacity only.
With exports to Washtenaw County added.
Also with exports to all other willing host counties except Wayne County.
With exports to Wayne County added.
Additionally with expansion of the Eagle Valley landfill.
1998 2003
9-2003 5-2006
11-2003 12-2006
2010+ 2010+
2010++ 2010++
References
References
1. Amendments to the 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan Update, Oakland County,
Michigan. Basic Solid Waste Database, Inter-County Flow Arrangements,
Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity, Interim Siting Mechanism,
Contingency Plan, and Designation of Additional Disposal Capacity. As
adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners, June 9, 1994.
2. Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity - May, 1995 and Oakland County
Board of Commissioners Miscellaneous Resolution #95140 dated May 11, 1995.
3. Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity - May, 1996 and Oakland County
Board of Commissioners Miscellaneous Resolution #96117 dated May 23, 1996.
4. Recommended 2020 Regional Development Forecast - Population, Households and
Employment by Minor Civil Division dated February 8, 1996. Southeast
Michigan Council of Governments.
5. "The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the Year
2000" as prepared for Keep America Beautiful, Inc. by Franklin Associates,
Ltd., September, 1994.
References - Page 1
Resolution #97118 May 22, 1997
Moved by Palmer supported by Huntoon the resolution be adopted.
AYES: Jensen, Johnson, Kaczmar, Kingzett, McCulloch, McPherson, Moffitt,
Obrecht, Palmer, Pernick, Powers, Schmid, Taub, Wolf, Amos, Coleman, Devine,
Dingeldey, Douglas, Garfield, Huntoon, Jacobs. (22)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
L.- Brooks Patterson, County Executive
THE FOREGOING RESOL7TIO
Ay/72
Date
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is a true and accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the
Oakland County Board of Commissioners on May 22, 1997 with the original record
thereof now remaining in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
County of Oakland at Pontiac, Michigan this 22nd day-of May 19'9.7. ,
D. Allen, County Clerk