HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1998.05.07 - 25460MAY 7, 1998
MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION # 98111
BY: PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE - CHARLES E. PALMER,
CHAIRPERSON
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE DISPOSAL CAPACITY
ACT 451 NON-HAZARDOUS SOLID WASTES
SPRING, 1998
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 - April 20, 1998" (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 beyond December 31, 2003 (which date is 66 months
beyond June 30, 1998) 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
Planning and Building Committee Vote:
Motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote.
og)
date...401% _A/ s t
AND BU •ING COMMITTE
within the 1994 Amendments to the 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan Update will not
become operational until January 1, 2000 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.
8
............. DISPOSAL ,
OPPORTUNITIES
Apparent Year of Depletion 2003
Year of Depletion using all
remaining in-county capacity 2004
6
DISPOSAL NEEDS
4 Millions of Gateyards 2
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year Ending on December 31,
2006 2008 2010
Oakland Coun Dis • os . I Ca • aci Availabili - Serin • 1998
Act 451 Non-Hazardous Solid Wastes with 1997 Volume Reduction Rates Held Constant
0
1998 CERTIFICATION
TARGET DATE
DECEMBER 31, 2003
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I
Oakland County Solid Waste Planning 98GYDREG NM RJS, PE 04/20/98
Resolution #98111 May 7, 1998
Moved by Palmer supported by Johnson the resolution be adopted.
AYES: McCulloch, McPherson, Millard, Moffitt, Obrecht, Palmer, Powers,
Schmid, Taub, Wolf, Amos, Coleman, Devine, Dingeldey, Douglas, Garfield, Gregory,
Huntoon, Jacobs, Jensen, Johnson, Kingzett. (22)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
I HEREBY lleq't114'17 XHE FOREGOING RESOLUTIO
L. Y7/71C Brooks a(f nCvnty Executive 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 7, 1998 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 7th day of May 1998.
D. Allen, County Clerk
1990
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN UPDATE
As Amended
On June 9, 1994
Oakland County, Michigan
Demonstration of
Available Disposal Capacity
April 20, 1998
L. Brooks Patterson, County Executive
Careful
Purchasing
Decisions
Waste
Minimization
Source & Reuss
Separation
Consumer
Or
Solid Waste Generator Generally Act 451 ...
Part 115 4-7-n Part 111
Mixed
Wastes
Special
Wastes
Markets
Recovered
Materials
Markets
- Utility Grid -
Gas, Steam &
Electricity Use of Non-
Renewable
Resources
Other
Uses
Source
Reduction Manufacture of
New Products
Consumer
or
Solid Waste Generator
Careful
Purchasing
Decisions
Oaldand County, Michigan Solid Waste Planning RJS, P.E - May 6, 1996
Solid Waste Generation, Collection, Handing, Processing and Disposal
It's a Complex and Continuous Process . . .
Yard
Wastes
Special
Processing
Facilities
Collection
Systems
Transfer Of
Direct Haul
Processing
Facilities
Source
Separated
I Recyclables
MRF
Returnables
Maed-Waste
MRF
Household
Hazardous
Wastes
HHW
Processing
Facility
Hazardous I
Wastes
Transfer or
Direct Haul
Volume
Reduction
Disposal
Facilities
Incineration
or VVTE
Special
Wastes
Landfill
Sanitary
Landfill
Methane
Recovery
Ash
Monofill
Leachate
Treatment
H. Waste
Disposal
Minimize
Impacts
Conserve
Resources
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 for locating
additional disposal facilities and
to minimize their impact.
Issue:
What roles should Oakland County
and its 61 cities, villages and
townships play?
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. The projections were then measured against the disposal capacity of
landfills currently available to Oakland County waste generators and the
continuing availability of this capacity over time was 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. It is anticipated that Wayne County will
amend its plan during the ongoing Update process to correct this problem.
This analysis addresses the loss of disposal capacity caused by the unplanned
and unwanted imports from out-of-state and out-of-country waste sources. It
recognizes such imports as they were reported for 1995-96 and 1996-97 and
assumes that they will continue at that same constant level into the future.
Should national legislation on this issue be adopted to allow some modicum of
future local control, this could extend the time that current landfill
capacity would 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 beyond
December 31, 2003 or more than 66 months from June 30, 1998. 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) need not be received prior to the end of 1999.
Executive Summary - Page i
Contents
Table of Contents
Chapter Title
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
Page Exhibit
List of Exhibits
List of Exhibits
It's a Complex and Continuous Process...
Oakland County's Municipalities
1.2 SEMCOG's 2020 Regional Development Forecast
2.5 SOCRRA Basics
2.6 Volume Reduction Programs - RRRASOC Municipalities
2.7 Volume Reduction Percentages - 1988
2.8 Projected Disposal Needs, Baseline VR - 1995 to 2010
3.2 Lower Michigan's Disposal Facilities
3.4 Disposal Facilities in Southeastern Michigan
3.5 Southeast Michigan's Landfills - April, 1998
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, 1998
WI.2 Worst Case Analysis - Disposal Capacity Availability
WI.3 Disposal Capacity Availability Details - 4.347 Million Gateyards
WI.4 Disposal Capacity Availability Details - 4.761 Million Gateyards
--------------\ \ \\...__ Vkitertord Tvp.
*WOO
Keep°It abor
Troy Commerce Twp.
Lyon Avp.
Irwlopondoncw Pop.
Row 1Wp.
Springfield Twp.
Hlohland Twp. White Lake Avp. UVINGSTON COUNTY kg°'d
Allford1Wp.
a Ni Twp.
WASHTENAW CO.
1.Horibik
GENESEE COUNTY
Holy Twp.
Gra/eland Twp.
Oakland County's Municipalities
30 Cities
21 Townships
10 Villages
61 Total
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 II 31,270 ' 7,624 32.24%
1860 ,, 38,261 6,991 2236%
1870 „ 40,867 2,606 6.81%
1880 ,, 41,537 670 1.6494
1890 II 41,245 (292) -070%
1900 " 44,792 3,547 8.60%
1910 11 49,576 4,784 1058%
1920 ,, 90,050 40,474 81.64%
1930 ., 211,251 121,201 13459%
1940 ,, 254,068 42,817 2027%
1950 ., 396,001 141,933 5556% .
1960 II 690,603 294,602 7438%
1970 ,, 907,871 217,268 31.46%
1980 ,, 1,011,793 103,922 11.45%
1990 ,, 1,083,592 71,799 7.10%
2000 Projected 1,192164 108,572 10.02%
2010 II 1,272I92 80,028 671%
2020 II 1,359,846 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
Oaidand County Sold Wag* Planning
Sardtog.olut
04/20tal
0853
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 1,104,716 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%
VVashtenaw 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 kill-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 (CDD)
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.
Waste Generation Rte: The waste generation rates contained in this report
have been modified from those contained in previous Demonstration of Available
Capacity reports as outlined in the following material.
The FY97 landfill report ("Report of Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan,
October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997", dated February 27, 1998 as released by
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality on March 18, 1998) was
anticipated to provide the first full accounting of wastes placed in Michigan
landfills in terms of amount, type and the source of the wastes. The FY96
report (the first in the series) did not accurately reveal the source of
wastes since the underlying legislation requiring the reports was adopted
midway through the reporting period and the source of much of the stream was
simply unknown. The FY97 report showed substantially'more gateyards of wastes
from Oakland County than had been previously projected. As a result, both the
FY97 landfill data and the waste stream projection models were carefully
examined to determine if adjustments to the models are warranted.
First, the landfill data. It is generally accepted that the data contains
limitations that must be recognized up front.
The volumes reported are in gateyards which are derived from a variety
of different reporting methods. These are a mixture of waste tonnages
converted to gateyards according to a prescribed schedule (3 gateyards
per ton for municipal solid wastes or 1 gateyard per ton for incinerator
ash), estimated number of gateyards when tonnages are not available, and
Chapter 2 - Page 1
Chapter 2 - Waste Stream and Disposal Need Estimates
for special waste stream elements, tonnages converted to gateyards at
the landfill operator's preferred rate of conversation or pure gateyard
estimates. Additionally, discussions with landfill operators have shown
that even when waste stream weights were available, some reported
gateyards based upon their experience rather than using the conversion
schedules.
As an example, some landfill operators have reported that when fees for
wastes being disposed of at landfills are levied on the basis of
gateyards, haulers tend to deliver heavy gateyards - sometimes exceeding
875 pounds per gateyard. One of the major regional facilities reports
that an average weight of 800 pounds would not be unreasonable. When
fees are based on weight, locally based haulers tend to bring gateyards
that are rather light, averaging 500 pounds per gateyard and frequently
less. The results vary by location within the region.
The source of the wastes in some instances is estimated (as opposed to a
precise summary of delivery vehicle operator responses) and thus some
must be questioned.
It is questionable if accounting of waste by type is accurate. The
report sought to identify Type II, Type III, Type III Mixed and Type III
Segregated wastes. However, 33 of the 83 counties were reported as
having generated no Type III wastes of any kind. This brings further
clouds over the validity of the gateyard data.
Finally, care must be taken in the use of the data since no information
is available on the waste stream that may have been exported from
Michigan counties to disposal points located elsewhere.
Even given these several issues, the landfill data is a welcomed addition to
the planning tool basket. However, 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, some that do have scales do
not weigh the entire entering waste stream, and gateyard reporting is the only
current tally method available to all. As previously noted, those landfills
that do weight all incoming materials were advised to report the receipts
using standard conversion factors although this is not uniformly done.
Finally, in terms of landfill usage, gateyards is not a precise measuring tool
of bankyard or airspace usage. The most important factor becomes the degree
of densification of the wastes in the completed landfill.
Oakland County's projection models are based upon the weight of wastes
generated and the weight of the densified material in completed landfills.
Since the major landfill operations in southeastern Michigan are high-rise
large facilities, fairly heavy bankyard weights are used in the analysis.
Gateyards are the interim volume form of wastes as delivered to the landfills.
Gateyards unfortunately are also the form in which inter-county flow
restrictions are contained within the most county plan documents.
The Oakland County solid waste projection model was also carefully examined.
The Southeastern Oakland County Resource Recovery Authority (SOCRRA) waste
stream data was enhanced by the release of new reports from SOCRRA that have
shown not only the amount of wastes, yard wastes and recyclables handled but
also the amount of grass clippings not collected as a result of the
Chapter 2 - Page 2
Chapter 2 - Waste Stream and Disposal Need Estimates
Authority's aggressive programs. A careful review of this data (see Page 2.5)
in conjunction with the number of dwelling units and residents served by the
SOCRRA municipal programs resulted in adoption of a new countywide per capita
residential waste generation rate of 3.77 pounds per person per day. This
rate previously was held as 3.42 pounds per capita per day in the 1994 plan
amendments, as 2.9 pounds per capita per day in the 1990 plan update documents
and at approximately 2.7 pounds per capita per day in the original Solid Waste
Management Plan documents. Details of the generation rate on the basis of
urban and rural single family residents and of urban and rural multi-family
residents is shown below and in the exhibit on Page 2.7.
Residential Waste Generation Rates (lbs/capita/day)
Dwellina Unit Tviloe Total % YW wo YW After YW
Single Family Urban 4.1420 -22.55% 3.2080
Rural 3.3768 -5.00% 3.2080
Multi-family Urban 2.9461 -2.00% 2.8872 90% of SF
Rural 2.8872 -0.00% 2.8872 90% of SF
Countywide All 3.77 -16.70% (rounded)
Volume Reduction Achievement Levels: Previous Demonstrations of Available
Capacity were based on a 15% volume reduction (VR) achievement level across
all solid waste categories plus adjustments for Michigan's yard waste ban
which became fully operational on March 28, 1995. The 15% assumption
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 County's two
solid waste authorities, the Resource Recovery and Recycling Authority of
Southwestern Oakland County (RRRASOC) and the Southeastern Oakland County
Resource Recovery Authority (SOCRRA), have provided a clear examination of
residential VR successes. Volume reduction successes through recycling of 12%
of the total wastes generated (once yard wastes are discounted from the
stream) are currently being achieved by the aggressive authority
municipalities (1997). This may be seen in the SOCRRA and RRRASOC data
exhibits which follow. From a countywide perspective, it is assumed that
single family residents residing in municipalities without full service
curbside programs probably achieve only one-half the success rates observed
within the full service authority municipalities and finally assumed that
multi-family residents achieve only one-quarter of the original success rates
because of their limited access to volume reduction services. The exhibit on
Page 2.7 provides the details of the revised waste generation rate and the
structured recycling analysis approach.
This conservative approach to volume reduction rates produces the following
results for the 1998 waste stream.
Total 1998 Waste Stream
Less Yard Wastes
Less Recyclables
Plus Process Residues
Wastes destined for disposal
Tons/Day Percent
5,370.01 100.00%
-409.09 -7.62
-603.11 -11.23
41.18 0.77
4,398.99 81.92%
Chapter 2 - Page 3
Chapter 2 - Waste Stream and Disposal Need Estimates
Viewed from another perspective, total reductions are comprised of the
following.
Waste Stream Category VP Percentage
Residential 23.67%
Commercial 14.30%
Industrial 14.25%
MSW sub-total 18.89%
CDD 13.87%
ISW 13.87%
Act 451 Totals 18.08%
Volume Reduction Facilities: One additional factor has to be taken into
account when examining disposal need projections for Oakland County solid
wastes. The General Motors Truck and Coach waste-to-energy plant in the City
of Pontiac was closed in 1997. Wastes which were handled at this location
must now be landfilled. This results in increased need for landfill capacity.
Revised Waste Stream Prolectinns. Considering all the factors previously
discussed, waste stream disposal needs are projected as shown in the final
exhibit in this Chapter, see Page 2.8.
Although the total waste stream from Oakland County as projected by the model
increases over that previously projected, it does not meet the gateyard levels
reported in the FY97 landfill report. Comparing results on landfill
availability obtained by the revised model and by values matching those shown
in the report shows that the minimal differences resulting are within
acceptable limits. See the "What If...?" Appendix.
SOCRRA Basics Expressed in Tonnage soc_sfld.wk4
04/15/98
RJS PE Look What Local Effort Can Do! - (Tons of Grass)
Month 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97
July 1,757 2,195 3,033 2,245 1,694 1,381 1,327
August 3,547 2,120 2,545 1,873 1,304 1,864 862
Sept 2,997 1,988 2,698 2,287 1,109 858 862
October 3,429 1,397 1,273 1,098 537 589 526
April 1,540 941 442 162 183 4 58
May 7,057 4,385 3,917 2,129 2,468 2,297 1,680
June 4.240 3.164 3.498 2.029 2.334 2,328 1.893
Totals 24,567 16,190 17,406 11,823 9,629 9,321 7,208
Difference from 90-91 8,377 7,161 12,744 14,938 15,246 17,359
SOCRRA's Waste Stream Data As Adjusted for Grass Clipping Reductions
Total Total % Recycling
Period Mixed & Bulky %. Yard Wastes .%. Recyclables Ye Tonnage SCR wo_n8/
90 - 91 163,392 73.50% 45,774 20.59% 13,121 5.90% 222,288 26.5% 7.43%
91 - 92 158,897 72.13% 46,702 21.20% 14,700 6.67% 220,299 27.9% 8.47%'
92 - 93 160,506 68.59% 54,521 23.30% 18,990 8.11% 234,017 31.4% 10.58%
93 - 94 160,133 70.65% 46,356 20.45% 20,152 8.89% 226,641 29.3% 11.18%
94 - 95 159,220 69.93% 47,043 20.66% 21,406 9.40% 227,669 30.1% 11.85%
95 - 96 155,180 70.41% 47,266 21.45% 17,941 8.14% 220,386 29.6% 10.36%
96 - 97 155,088 69.50% 48,654 21.80% 19,409 8.70% 223,151 30.5% 11.12%
Note: The adjusted yard waste data was expanded to include the grass clipping reductions shown above to reflect proper VR percentages.
CR
10.05%
10.36%
12.17% 17.40%
12.53% 17.36%
wo Walled Lake & wo Drop-off
also wo Yard Wastes
Volume Reduction Programs - RRRASOC Municipalities
(All values expressed in tons)
1995
Farmington
Farrnington Hills
Lyon Township
Novi
South Lyon
Southfield
Walled Lake
Wixom
Ignore Ignore Ignore
drop-off drop-off & drop-off
YW Dro .-off Curbside YW R • - o., °. • ycle _ % YW
157.99 543.55 941.05 3,924.18 5,566.77
131.79 3,691.12 6,188.15 25,761.09 35,772.15
122.30 262.00 245.31 2,285.01 2,914.62 9.38% 10.29% 8.79%
56.03 1,948.49 5,509.20 22,541.13 30,054.85 6.50% 7.96% 18.36%
0.00 271.67 300.00 2,282.52 2,854.19 9.52% 10.64% 10 S.1%
Total 468.11 6,716.83 13,183.71 56,793.93 77,162.58 8.76% 10.58% 17.19%
0.61% 8.70% 17.09% 73.60% 100.00%
wo Drop-off 6,716.83 13,183.71 56,793.93 76,694.47
8.76% 17.19% 74.05% 100.00%
wo Yard Wastes 6,716.83 56,793.93 63,510.76
10.58% 89.42% 100.00%
ignore Ignore Ignore
drop-off drop-off & drop-off
YW
1996 Drop-off Curbside YW Refuse Total % recycle % recycle oh yw
Farmington 90.88 574.34 929.50 3,709.83 5,304.55 11.02% 13.41% 17.83%
Farmington Hills 126.92 3,784.22 6,112.20 24,394.89 34,418.23 11.04% 13.43% 17.82%
Lyon Township
Novi
South Lyon 151.50 305.65 233.05 2,486.98 3,177.18 10.10% 10.94% 7.70%
Southfield 218.23 2,017.68 5,787.30 24,226.57 32,249.78 6.30% 7.69% 18.07%
Walled Lake
Wixom 0.00 302.78 342.35 2,390.56 3,035.69 9.97% 11.24% 11.28%
Total 587.53 6,984.67 13,404.40 57,208.83 78,185.43 9.00% 10.88% 17.27%
0.75% 8.93% 17.14% 73.17% 100.00%
wo Drop-off 6,984.67 13,404.40 57,208.83 77,597.90
9.00% 17.27% 73.72% 100.00%
wo Yard Wastes 6,984.67 57,208.83 64,193.50
10.88% 89.12% 100.00%
Also wo Walled Lake
Ignore Ignore Ignore
drop-off drop-off & drop-off
YW
1997 Drop-off Curbside YW Refuse Total % recycle % recycle % YW
Farmington 7.17 673.90 829.12 4,124.20 5,634.39 11.98% 14.05% 14.73%
Farmington Hills 0.00 4,667.00 5,801.69 28,441.46 38,910.15 11.99% 14.10% 14.91%
Lyon Township 130.01 130.01
Novi 554.42 554.42
South Lyon 130.01 291.83 210.27 2,576.62 3,208.73 9.48% 10.17% 6.83%
Southfield 312.82 2,297.75 4,079.87 23,085.50 29,775.94 7.80% 9.05% 13.85%
Walled Lake 2,473.56 2,473.56
Wixom 0.00 433.30 377.16 2,873.86 3,684.32 11.76% 13.10% 10.24%
Total 1,134.43 8,363.78 11,298.11 63,575.20 84,371.52 10.36% 12.04% 13.99%
1.34% 9.91% 13.39% 75.35% 100.00%
8,363.78 11,298.11 61,101.64 80,763.53
10.36% 13.99% 75.65% 100.00%
soc sfld.wk4
8,363.78 61,101.64 69,465.42 04/15/98
12.04% 87.96% 100.00% RJS PE
2.6
04/14/N
15:14
441/Jec.N4
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan Volume Reduction Percentages - 19118
0.00
0.00
10.23
26.24
5.06
4.67 4.67
5.08
0.00
0.00
7.27
24.29
5.08
4.67 4.67
5.08
Other & Process Residues
GM WTE
Ash
Yard Wastes 2.50%
Recycling 5.00%
CDD Recycling 7.50%
ISW Recycling 7.50%
Gross for Disposal
IMMO
SF Resid mF Rink( lot.Resid. Comm. lad.M
t/ QM laW &Lilt Ian R81111 WINO Rural
1,539.67 305.40 329.28 35.26 2,209.61 2,001.96 291.17 4,502.74 451.85 415.41 5,370.01
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4.1429 5.8708 2.0461 2,8572 5.7696
(347.20) (15.27) (6.59) 0.00 (369.05) (40.04) 0.00 (409.09) 0.00 0.00 (409.09)
.22.55% -6.00% -2.00% 0.00% -16.70% -2.00% 0.00% -9.09% 0.00% 0.00% -7.62%
1,192.48 290.13 322.70 35.26 1,840.56 1,961.93 291.17 4,093.65 451.85 415.41 4,960.92
77.45% 95.00% 98.00% 100.00% 13.3011 96.00% 100.00% 90.91% 100.00% 100.00% 9238%
5.2966 4.2586 2.8872 2.8872 8.1401
Raring (Net YW) fa 12.00% (143.10) (34.82) (38.72) (4.23) (220.87) (220.87) (220.87) vw elyi Recycling • ' 18.00% (260.26) (43.68) (303.93) (303.93) NV and NINON • 18.00% (67.78) (67.76) vw awl Recycling • 16.00% (62.31) (62.31) YW Grass Clip Factor 32.00% -9.29% •11.40% .1136% -12.00% -10.00% -13.00% -15.00% -1146% -15.00% -15.00% .12.20%
County's Waste Stream
Yard Wastes
Net after YW
Net for Disposal
1,049.38 255.31 29397 31.03 1,619.69 1,701.67 247.50 3,568.86 384.07 353.10 4,308.03
68.16% 63.60% 56.24% 88.00% 7340% 85.00% 115.00% 7926% 86.00% 85.00% 110.19%
1.525 2.122 2.641 2.641 2.7628 Other & Process Residues
Wit & Incineration 0.00 0.00 Ash 25.60% 0.00 0.00
Yard Wastes 2.60% 5.90 0.26 0.11 0.00 6.27 1.00 0.00 7.27 Recycling 6.00% 7.15 1.74 1.94 0.21 11.04 13.01 2.18 26.24 COD Recycling 7.80%
ISW Recycling 7.60%
Gross for Disposal
1,062.44 257.31 286.02 31.24 1,637.01 1,715.68 249.68 3,602.37 389.16 357.78 4,352.25
69.00% 114.26% 86.86% 68.60% 74.09% 85.70% 85.75% 90.00% 86.13% 116.13% 81.05%
2.185 IAN 2.6611 2.668 2.7929
11LI51 Wien=
1. Ifttriat 11 rernsinder of County Residential performed only half as well as Full Service Proarams on recycling?
Full Service (+1-) Programs 1,333.98 93.35 69.47 1.39 1,496.18
88.64% 30.57% 21.10% 3.94% 67.00%
Lon Recycling (aller VW) 12.00% (123.98) (10.64) (8.17) (0.17) (142.96)
-4.05% .3.48% .2.48% -0.47% -6.47%
Other Residential Wastes 205.69 212.05 259.81 33.87 711.42
0.6 13.36% 69.43% 7090% 96.06% 32.20%
Les, Recr-Ing NAN YW) 6.00% (9.56) (12.09) (15.28) (2.03) (38.95)
-0.62% -3.96% -4.64% -5.76% .1.76%
Total Recycling (133.54) (22.73) (23.45) (2.20) (181.91)
4.67% .7.44% -712% -6.24% 823%
Net for Disposal after YW 1,058.94 267.40 299.25 33.06 1,858.85 1,701.67 247.50 3,607.81 384.07 353.10 4,344.99
66.78% 87.56% 90.88% 93.76% 75.07% 05.00% 115.00% 79.26% 85.00% 66.00% 80.01%
Other & Process Residues
GM WTE 0.00 0.00 Ash 26.50% 0.00 0.00
Yard Wastes 2.50% 6.27 0.34 0.15 0.00 6.77 1.00 0.00 7.27 Recycling 5.00% 6.68 1.14 1.17 0.11 9.10 13.01 2.18 24.29
COD Recycling 7.50%
ISW Recycling 7.50%
Gross for Disposal
1,071.89 268.88 300.58 33.17 1,674.51 1,715.68 249.68 3,639.38 389.18 357.78 4,366.31
69.62% 68.04% 91.211% 94.08% 75.70% 85.70% 05.75% 110.63% 06.13% 06.13% 81.66%
11.221i YILOimta
2, What If multiples performed only half as well as in What 61? 0.6
Full Service (+/-) Programs 1,333.98 93.35 69.47 1.39 1,498.18
0614% 30.57% 21.10% 3.94% 67.50%
Lon RocyclIng (Mar NV) • 12.00% (123.98) (10.64) (4.08) (0.08) (138.79)
4.05% -3.48% -124% -0.24% .629%
Other Residential Wastes 205.89 212.05 259.81 33.87 711.42
0.6 13.36% 69.43% 7090% 96.06% 32.20%
18114 Recycling (Nor VV., •
Total Recycling
Net for Disposal after YW
6.00% (9.56)
-0.62%
(12.09) (7.64) (1.02) (30.30)
-3.96% -2.32% -2.98% -1.37%
(133.54) (22.73) (11.72) (1.10) (169.09)
-6.67% -7.44% .3.56% -3.12% -7.65%
1,058.94 267.40 310.97 34.16 1,671.47 1,701.67 247.50 3,620.63 384.07 353.10 4,357.81
68.70% 87.56% 94.44% NM 75.65% 85.00% 85.00% 80.41% 85.00% 06.00% 81.15%
6.27 0.34 0.15 0.00 6.77
8.68 1.14 0.59 0.05 8.45
1,071.89 268.68 311.71 34.21 1,686.69 1,715.68 249.68 3,652.06 389.16 357.78 4.398.99
69.62% 88.04% 94.61% 97.04% 76.33% 85.70% 85.75% 81.11% 66.13% 86.13% 81.92%
MAIM Manua
2.7
Total MSW with VR Gad)
MSW % reductions
MW w VR
Less Incineration
Net MSW
COD 14 reductions
CDD w VR
ISW % reductions
ISW w
Total Waste Stream w VR
Baseline Volume Reduction Achievement Levels saareg.ista
Prokicled Disposal Needs - 1990 Generation Rates 61867 Volum* Reduction Efforts Held Constant agsusa
13:19
Oakland County
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Population 6 Fmoloyment Slats,
Population 1,150872 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 1,240,184 1,248,186 1,256,188 1,264,190 1,272,192
Total Employment 745,309 757,472 769,636 781,799 793,963 806,126 816.139 826,151 836,164 846.176 856,189 861.630 867,071 872,511 877,952 883,393
Manufacturing Employment 119,339 118,711 118,084 117,456 116,829 116,201 117,083 117,966 118,848 119,731 120,613 120,993 121,373 121,752 122,132 122,512
Waste Stream wo Vli (tod)
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Residential 2,169.39 2,184.96 2,200.53 2,216.09 2,231.66 2,247.23 2,262.32 2,277.40 2,292.49 2,307.58 2,322.66 2,337.75 2,35283 2.367.91 2,383.00 2,398.08
Commercial 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 2,233.69 2,248.57 2,263.44 2,278.32 2,293.20
Industrial 308.34 302.72 297.09 291.47 285.84 280.22 282.35 284.47 286.60 288.73 290.86 291.77 292.69 293.61 294.52 295.44
Total MSW 4,363.17 4,412.18 4,462.39 4,511.99 4,561.60 4,611.21 4,655.43 4,699.66 4,743.88 4,788.11 4,832.33 4,863.21 4,894.09 4,924.96 4,955.84 4,986.72
X/ capita / day (MSW only) 7.582 7.614 7.645 7.676 7.706 7.736 7.758 7.780 7.801 7.823 7.644 7.843 7.842 7.841 7.840 7.840
Const. & Demo. Debris (CDD) 438.97 443.69 448.42 453.15 457.88 462.60 466.77 470.95 475.12 479.29 483.46 486.57 489.68 492.79 495.91 499.02
Ind. Special Wastes (ISW) 439.91 431.89 423.86 415.84 407.81 399.79 402.83 405.86 40990 411.93 414.97 416.28 417.58 418.89 420.20 421.50
Total Waste Stream wo VR 5,242.05 5,28936 5,334.67 5,380.98 5,427.29 5,473.60 5,525.03 5,576.46 5,627.89 5,679.33 5,730.76 5,766.05 5,801.35 5,836.65 5,871.94 5,907.24
9 / capita / day (total Act 451) 9.110 9.125 9.139 9.154 9.168 9.183 9.207 9.231 9.255 9.279 9.302 9.299 9.296 9.293 9 290 9 287
17.38% 18.61% 19.61% 19.59% 19.58% 19.56% 19.55% 19.53% 19.52% 19.51% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 3,604.97 3,591.71 3,587.23 3,627.94 3,668.65 3,709.36 3,745.52 3,781.69 3.817.87 3.854.06 3,890.26 3.915 10 3,939.93 3,964.77 3.989 61 4.014 44
(97.75) (97.75) (48.88) 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,507.22 3,493.96 3,538.36 3,627.94 3,668.65 3,709.36 3,745.52 3,781.69 3,817.87 3,854.06 3,890.26 3,915.10 3,939.93 3,964.77 3,989.61 4,014.44
15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.013% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 373.12 377.14 381.16 385.18 389.20 393.21 396.76 400.30 403.85 407.39 410.94 413.58 416.23 418.87 421.52 424.17
15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00%
373.93 367.11 360.28 353.46 346.64 339.82 342.40 344.98 347.56 350.14 352.72 353.83 354.95 356.06 357.17 358.28
4,254.27 4,238.20 4,279.80 4,366.58 4,404.49 4,442.40 4,484.68 4,526.97 4,569.28 4,611.60 4,653.93 4,682.52 4,711.11 4,739.70 4,76929 4,79668
Apparent VR Achievement Level 18.84% 19.86% 19.77% 18.85% 18.85% 18.84% 18.83% 18.82% 18.81% 18.80% 18.79% 18.79% 18.79% 18.79% 18.80% 18.80%
Process Residues
Composting 5.12 6.09 6.92 6.97 7.03 7.09 7.14 7.19 7.25 7.30 7.35 7.40 7.45 7.49 7.54 7.59 Recycling 22.87 23.14 23.42 23.69 23.97 24.24 24.49 24.74 24.99 25.24 25.49 25.65 25.81 25.97 26.13 26.29 COD 4.94 4.99 5.04 5.10 5.15 5.20 5.25 530 5.35 5.39 5.44 5.47 5.51 5.54 5.58 561 ISW 4.95 4.86 4.77 4.68 4.59 4.50 4.53 457 4.60 4.63 4.67 4.68 4.70 4.71 4.73 4 74 Incinerator Ash 25.90 25.90 12.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 aoo 0.00 0.00 oao 0.00 0.00 0.0.0 0.00 Sub-total, Process Residues 63.77 64.99 53.10 40.44 40.74 41.03 41.42 41.80 42.18 42.56 42.94 43.20 43.46 43.72 43.98 44.24
Total Disposal Needs 4,318.04 4,303.19 4,332.90 4.40702 4,445.23 4,483.43 4,526.10 4,568.77 4,611.46 4,654.16 4,896.87 4,725.72 4.75457 4,783.42 4,812.27 4,841,12
Actual VR Achievement Level 17.63% 18.63% 18.78% 18 10% 18.09% 18.09% 18.08% 18.07% 18.06% 18.05% 18.04% 18.04% 18.04% 18.05% 18 05% 18.05%
(not Including incineration) 16.26% 17.27% 18.11% 18.10% 18.09% 18.09% 18.08% 18.07% 18.06% 18.05% 18.04% 18.04% 18.04% 18.05% 18.05% 18.05%
97Dtm .0._AM11191Elafiliatth
MSW 1,935,521 1,928,947 1,953,858 2,003,088 2,025,558 2,048,029 2,067,991 2,087,959 2,107,932 2,127,912 2,147,898 2.161,610 2,175,322 2,189,034 2,202,745 2,216,457 Ash 9,455 9,455 4,727 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 0
Sub-total, Type II 1,944,976 1,938,401 1,958,585 2,003,088 2,025,558 2,048,029 2,067,991 2,087,959 2,107,932 2,127,912 2,147,898 2,161,610 2,175,322 2,189,034 2,202,745 2,216,457 COD 137,992 139,478 140,964 142,450 143,936 145,423 146,734 148,045 149,356 150,667 151,978 152,956 153,935 154,913 155,891 156,869
18W 158,045 155,162 152,279 149,396 146,513 143,630 144,721 145,811 146,902 147,993 149,084 149,553 150,022 150,492 150,961 151,431
Sub-total, Type III 296,037 294,640 293,243 291,846 290.449 289,053 291,454 293,856 296,258 298,660 301,062 302,509 303,957 305,405 306,852 308,300
Grand Total 2,241,013 2,233,041 2,251,829 2,294,934 ,316,008 2,337,08 .359,445 2,381,815 2,404,190 2.426,572 2.448,959 2,464,119 2,479,279 2,494,438 2,509.598 2,524,157
97 Demo - Annual Gateyards
MSW 3,871,043 3,857,893 3,907.716 4,006,175 4,051,117 4,096,058 4,135,982 4,175,917 4,215,865 4,255,824 4,295,795 4,323,219 4,350,643 4,378,067 4,405,490 4,432,914
0 o o 0 0 0 Ash 9,455 9,455 4,727 0 o o o o o o
Sub-total, Type II 3,880,498 3,867,348 3,912,443 4,006,175 4,051,117 4,096,058 4,135,982 4,175,917 4,215,865 4,255,824 4,295,795 4,323,219 4,350,643 4,378,067 4,405,490 4,432,914 COD 275,983 278,956 281,928 264,900 287,873 290,845 293,467 296,089 298,712 301,334 303,956 305,913 307,869 309,826 311.782 313,739 15W 158,045 155,162 152,279 149,396 146,513 143.630 144,721 145,811 146,902 147,993 149.084 149,553 150.022 150,492 150.961 151.431 Sub-total, Type III 434,029 434,118 434,207 431_296 434,386 434,475 4311,188 441901 445214 449,327 453,040 455„466 457,892 460,318 462,744 - - 4 6 .1, 6- - Grand Total 4,314,526 4,301,466 4,346,951 4,440-A72 4,485503 4,530,533 4,574,170 4,617,918 4.68'1,279 4,705,151 4,749.835 4,778,685 4,808,535 4,838085 4,868.234 4,1198983
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
those periods from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996 and from October
1, 1996 through September 30, 1997. These factors together 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 and 96-97
average 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 and 1997 Demonstration of Available Capacity reports, 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 beyond that required
for the 1998 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.
Chapter 3 - Page 1
l
(A)
Lower Michigan's
Disposal Facilities
April, 1998
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan Ammo
01711;a2.1111
AlITI
411 1111
11.111111111111•11111 M111111111•111
mental
Con
0 Elk Run
Mon
immir Now
Emir m
dl burg
rak
NIL
Lest34
O Type II Landfills
* Waste-to-Energy & Incinerator Plants
• Special Purpose Landfills (Type III)
lask * Hazardous Waste Landfills (Type I)
.J8. PE April 20.1998
-11111111rp. A Lafarge cpv,
Li
For Monroe and Wayne Typo I & III facility name%
see SE Michigan map.
0 25 50 75 100
Co
rn°1 ° o
(..A)
Mall1014
111111=311
10111111111111111111t
111111111110111111111111111111111V
111111111111111111111111111111 11,11,6 1111110 °Avitnr low • "P
11111111111111111 it iraa,=romrmr
Apprcodrnote Scale in Mlles
Notes: Report maps are based on Polttical Townships and/or Counties. atlas and Villages not shown.
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan 0 5 10 Miles
April. 1998
Sibley Quarry
Disposal Facilities
In
Southeastern Michigan
O Type II Landfills
* Waste-to-Energy & Incinerator Plants
• Special Purpose Landfills (Type Ill)
* Hazanious Waste Landfills (Type 0
RJ5, l'E April 20,1998
3 . 4
Owner Township
Type II
Bankyard
Availability Comment
Basic Ash Mono Type III Type I
Section Type Cells? Cells? Cells? Landfill Name
Co.
# County
5.320
6.500
42.947 Modified
15.250
0.500 Estimated
4.000
1.000
1.500
2.417
24.158 Modified
6.000 Estimated
3.000
1.628
8.142
8.200
0.060
5.680
1.320
2.200
0.750 Adjusted
6.900
11.130
4.500
35.000
94.244 Modified
17.400
16.600
23.419
11.000 New
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan
Michigan's Landfills - April. 199?
(Type II capacity expressed in millions of bankyards available on or since 1-1-94, see Special Note #3)
191.1thItatitertIPIEChIclan
9 Bay
Bay
Bay
19 Clinton
25 Genesee
Genesee
32 Huron
33 Ingham
Ingham
Ingham
38 Jackson
Jackson
44 Lapeer
46 Lenawee
50 Macomb
56 Midland
Midland
58 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 Wastiteriaw
82 Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
CDSintitl_r_27,CQUIlEtS
Pinconning Twp.
Hampton Twp.
Hampton Twp.
Watertown Twp.
Montrose Twp.
Mundy Twp.
Sheridan Twp.
Lansing Twp.
Lansing Twp.
Lansing Twp.
Blackman Twp.
Liberty Twp.
Bumside Twp.
Palmyra Twp.
Lenox Twp.
Midland Twp.
Midland Twp.
Erie Twp. - 9S, 8E
Monroe Twp.
Erie Twp.
Ash Twp.
Berlin Twp.
Pontiac Twp.
Orion Twp.
Pontiac Twp.
Rochester Hills
Taymouth Twp.
James Twp.
Taymouth Twp.
Buena Vista Twp.
Fort Gratiot Twp.
Kimball Twp.
China Twp.
Bridgehampton Twp.
Venice Twp
Salem Twp.
Van Buren Twp.
Sumpter Twp.
Riverview
Canton Twp.
Van Buren Twp.
Taylor
Livonia
Taylor
Allen Park
Huron Twp.
Monquagon Twp.
Tsttal
2 II
1 III
1 Ill
29 II
23 II
23 II
22 II
3 II
13 III
3 Ill
24 II Yes Yes
1 III
21 II
6 II
23 II
12 II
35 III
6 II
16 III
14 Ill
8 III
34 III
9 II
27 II
2 II
24 II
15 II
1 II
15 II
5 III
16 ll - Closed, Not Shown
32 II
12 Ill
32 II
27 II
13 II
17
36 Il Yes
11 II
35 II
1 II
33 II
27 III
34 Ill
36 III
36 III
7 III
VVhitefeather Landfill
D. E. Karn 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. Whiling Plant
Matlin Road Landfill
Wayne Disposal - Rockwood Landfill
Collier Road Landfill
Eagle Valley RDF
Oakland Heights
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 Farrns
Riverview Land Preserve
Sauk Trail Hills
Woodland Meadows RDF*
Taylor Landfill Site
City of Livonia LF Site
Edward C. Levy
Yes Ford Allen Park Clay Mine Landfill
Huron Quarry SLF
Sibley Quarry
USA Waste Services, Inc.
Consumers Power Co.
Consumers Power Co.
Granger Land Development Co.
USA Waste Services - (+ 32.887)
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
Mitech Services
Granger Land Development Co.
Daggett Sand & Gravel, Inc.
Board of Water & Light
USA Waste Services, Inc.
Liberty Environmentalist
USA Waste Services, Inc.
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
USA Waste Services - (+ 14.133)
City of Midland
Dow Chemical Co.
Browning-Ferris Industries
Detroit Edison Co.
Consumers Power Co.
Regulated Resource Recovery, Inc.
Standard Disposal Services, Inc.
City of Pontiac
Waste Management
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
SOCRRA
USA Waste Services, Inc.
USA Waste Services, Inc.
Tay-Ban Corp.
General Motors
--- Closed. Spring 1995 --
St. Clair Solid Waste Agency
Detroit Edison Co.
Waste Management
Waste Management
Browning-Ferris Industries
Environmental Quality
USA Waste Services - (+ 66.144)
City of Riverview
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
Waste Management
Designated site only.
City of Livonia
Edward C. Levy Co.
Ford Motor Company
Central Wayne Co. Sanitary Auth.
Detroit Edison Company
4E landfills in 16 counties - 26 Type Ils in 16 counties
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 MVVIA report dated 3-25-94, from the MDEQ permit database Report #4 dated
10-18-95 and from follow-on discussions with MDEQ staff and various facility operators.
Available Type II Capacity 360.765
newmap2.w1c4
Oakland County Solid Waste Planning
RJS, P.E.
04/16/98
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan
!'" c
Upper Michigan's Disposal Facilities
April, 1998
O Type II Landfills
* Waste-to-Energy & Incinerator Plants
• Special Purpose Landfills (Type III)
* Hazardous Waste 14:mar1ne (Type I)
Aperroornece 0cate in Miles
00 75 100
&IS. FE 4120/90
Great, Lakes
Pulp & Fibre
Mich Environs id
• At
.mr‘
\ AMMINn
14.4411111111111101.6. _Awidllummummik tirmianumminamalk
if mum 1112-11.
Aft 1112111111115trir- ..mw f *am • ma &.
4rd11111151101MIIIIIIIMMEMIN EMI 1 4111111111111011M1=
111111111111011111... MI 11.1111111111161.11111
AliIre°
' FCCi
w7;:i;
wrd ,
111111.111
In met nal EAcanaba r -
tesgsra of Wisconsin ,„ , 1115
tone
FlepAeh Landfill
Solid Waste Database Mow Much Annual Oparating Canaakv Will Se Available in the !Union?
Oakland County, Michigan
Average glyds/bankyard 1.94
(Millions of Gatsysrds)
98(3YDREGMK4
RJS, PE
04/21/98
12:25
Feta.
Oa'Ord Eagle Collar Pewees Citizen, Brent RivenOw INcerland Sauk Trail CarMan
Year HeIglea VIIlirf Road SOCRRA Alt. Nib Acres Dianna' rem NIeltenda_% Mb m,rms T kr
Nth Named NM Flamed
ERIMMLEGEOL. Addidonal? AddIllaral? Nov Facity7
Vas Yee Yes
Year 2000
11.000 lankysscle rernalning d 1/1/99 5.892 4.485 0.592 0.003 28.814 22.925 13.882 41.209 14.720 28.521 12.828 90.848 0.000
*mull Averags Getrfards, 069 1.441 1.712 0.389 0.050 3.045 1.198 0.808 0.843 1.333 3.707 2.053 3.488 0.000
1992 0.712 0.716 0.156 0.000 2.955 0.832 0.715 0.500 1.032 2.574 1.000 1.872 0.000
1993 0.712 0.716 0.156 0.000 2.955 0.832 0.715 0.500 1.032 2.574 1.600 1.872 0.000
1994 0.970 2.087 0.156 0.000 2.955 0.832 0.715 0.500 1.032 2.574 1.600 1.872 0.000
1995 0.954 1.583 0.330 0.000 2.955 0.832 0.715 0.500 1.500 2.496 2.000 3.524 0.000
1996 1.219 1.748 0.385 0.002 3.013 0.883 0.582 0.908 1.565 3.891 1.878 3.658 0.000
1997 1.663 1.677 0.393 0.004 3.078 1.509 1.029 0.778 1.102 3.523 2.227 3.317 0.000
1998 1.441 1.712 0.389 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 2.053 3.488 0.000
1999 1.441 1.712 0.389 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 2.053 3,488 0.000
2000 1.441 1.712 0.370 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 2.053 3.488 1.500
2001 1.441 1.712 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 2.053 3.488 1.500
2002 1.441 1.712 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 2.053 3.488 1.500
2003 1.441 0.138 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 2.053 3.488 1.500
2004 1.441 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 2.053 3.488 1.500
2005 0.953 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 2.053 3.488 1.500
2006 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 2.053 3.488 1.500
2007 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 2.053 3.488 1.500
2008 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 2.053 3.488 1.500
2009 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 1.917 3.488 1.500
2010 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.707 3.488 1.500
2011 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.257 3.488 1.500
2012 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.488 1.500
2013 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.488 1.500
2014 - 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.488
2015 0.003 3.045 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.488
2016 0.003 1.082 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.488
2017 0.003 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.488
2018 0.003 1.196 0.806 0.843 1.333 3.488
2019 0.003 1.196 0.806 0.843 0.559 3.488
2020 0.003 1.196 0.806 0.843 3.488
Facility
Loam. Plower Tti City Skley Won Ford Levy McLouth City of Wayne Dap.
Year Loom Rock Santo Quarry Quarry Alen Park Yoke Sled Lioria Rockwood Special Totals
% ham Won & Lie
EMISMUM9111 Castile North CDO ISW
931t to Jackson Co.
66116 Flat
5oatyard. remaking at 1/1/99 1.348 2.240 2.500 13.338 1.108 1.417 1.558 4.855 0.888 21.883
Arrant Awns. Ginsyards, 969 0.290 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.349 0.000 0.009 0.232
1992 0.749 0.085 0.125 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020 0.215 0.140 16.717
1993 0.749 0.085 0.125 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020 0.215 0.137 16.722
1994 0.749 0.085 0.125 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020 0.215 0,133 17.795
1995 0.749 0.085 0.125 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020 0.215 0.130 19.888
1996 0.271 0.085 0.136 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.356 0.000 0.008 0.034 0.131 21.143
1997 0.310 0.090 0.271 0.243 0.040 0.148 0.341 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.133 22.120
1998 0.290 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.349 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.134 21.733
1999 0.290 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.349 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.135 21.734
2000 0.290 0.1387 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.349 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.137 23.216
2001 0.290 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.349 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.139 22.848
2002 0.290 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.349 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.140 22.849
2003 0.290 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.349 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.142 21.277
2004 0.290 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.349 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.144 21.141
2005 0.290 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.349 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.146 20.655
2006 0.290 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.234 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.148 19.589
2007 0.000 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.150 19.067 2008 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.152 19.069
2009 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.154 18.935
2010 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.156 17.020
2011 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.158 16.572
2012 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.160 13.317
2013 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.162 13.319
2014 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.164 11.821
2015 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.166 11.823
2016 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.168 9.861
2017 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.135 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.170 8.782
2018 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.058 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.172 8.707
2019 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.174 7.877
2020 0.087 0.204 0.244 0.033 0.000 0.009 0.232 0.176 7.320
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.
98GYDREG.W1(4
04/18/98
10:58
RJS, PE
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan
Oakland County's AvailablellisiDosaLCaoacity Opportunities (all values in millions of annualliatelardl) Less Total Imports at
17%
Oakland Export Maximum of Oaldand Available
Year In-County Livingston Lapeer Monroe SanNac Lenawee Macomb Genesee VVashtenaw Washtenaw VVayne 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 6.827
1993 2.136 0.000 0.028 0.250 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.563 6.699 6.336
1994 3.213 0.000 0.028 0.250 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.563 7.776 7.230
1995 2.867 0.000 0.028 0.250 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.563 7.430 6.943
1996 3.352 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.404 7.756 7.186
1997 3.734 0.000 0.030 0.046 0.103 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.465 8.198 7.564
1998 3.543 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.097 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.457 8.000 7.398
1999 3.543 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.097 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.457 6.000 5.398
2000 3.524 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.097 0,510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.457 5.981 5.382
2001 3.154 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.097 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.457 5.611 5.075
2002 3.154 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.097 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.457 5.611 5.075
2003 1.580 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.097 0,510 0.025 1.500 . 0.250 0.000 2.457 4.037 3.768
2004 1.441 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.097 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.457 3.898 3.653
2005 0.953 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.097 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.457 3.411 3.249
2006 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.097 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.457 2.457 2.457
2007 0.000 0.003 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.361 2.361 2.361
to 2008 0.000 0.003 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.361 2.361 2.361
2009 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.361 2.361 2.361 CO 2010 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.361 2.361 2.361
2011 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.361 2.361 2.361
2012 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.361 2.361 2.361
2013 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.361 2.361 2.361
2014 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.361 2.361 2.361
2015 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.361 2.361 2.361
2016 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.361 2.361 2.361
2017 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.611 0.611 0.611
2018 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.611 0.611 0.611
2019 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.611 0.611 0.611
2020 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.611 0.611 0.611
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 FY96 (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. In the FY97 report, 5,581,452
gateyards or 12.8% were reported from out-of-state sources and 101,746
gateyards or 0.2% were reported from unknown sources.
Unfortunately, no current accounting of exports of Michigan's wastes is
required. However, indications to MDEQ staff from other states are that
exports remain in the 69,000 ton per year range. It is not projected that any
of Oakland County's solid waste stream is currently exported from Michigan.
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
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.
Chapter 4 - Page 1
Chapter 4 - Inter-State and Inter-Country Flows
Although legislation at the national level has been proposed to grandfather
older flow control arrangements thus guaranteeing prior financing
arrangements, future programs based on flow control would be allowed only
under a strenuous set of conditions. Additionally, national legislation has
been 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, total flows into each landfill (including
inter-state and inter-country flows of wastes) have been projected to remain
constant at the levels reported by each landfill operator during that two year
period from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1997. Pending national
legislation may provide the opportunity to control the inter-state and inter-
country 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 in the exhibit on Page 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 available disposal
capacity starts to fall below the current need level, 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 2004. As may be seen,
disposal opportunities exceed estimated needs by approximately 19% 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 new
Wayne County Solid Waste Plan Update, 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 63% in
the Year 2000. For an additional analysis of disposal capacity availability,
see the "What If...?" appendix.
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, 1998. Therefore, Oakland County's Interim Siting Mechanism for
landfill facilities need not be made operative through 1999 as provided for in
Act 451 as amended.
Chapter 5 - Page 1
Oakland County
Disposal Capacity
Availability
Spring, 1998
• Total Needs
..c> Type II Needs wo COD & ISW
Available In-County Capacity
e Total Available to Oakland Co. Millions of Gateyards 2006 2008 2010
Principal Variables
Demonstrated Volume Reduction Achievement Levels Region's Landfill Density Factor
98 MSW VR • 98 CDD VR_ 98 ISW VR (Gateyards per Bankyard)
19.61% 15.00% 15.00% 1940.
Year 2000 Excess
Disposal Oppigignitgas
18.79%
Year During Which
Insufficient Capacity Occurs
AlleLExhattating All Remaining
Available In-County Capacity
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year Ending on December 31,
17%
1997 Total Gtyds = 4.347
Imports as a % of available in-county capacity [
Annualgaleyankiram—,
Oaldand County
04/01/98 09:09
Alternate Disposal Opportunities
Wayne Co. BFI's A.1-1. Genesee Co.
0.000 0.250 0.025
2004
Apparent Shortage Year
2003
RJS, PE
11:28
0420/98
98GYDREGIAK4
Appendix
APPENDIX
List of Contents:
Selected portions of the 1994 Plan Update Amendments -
Certification of Available Disposal Capacity
Selected Portions of Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994 as Amended
What If...?
List of References
Certification of Available Disposal Capacity
The material below was exceroted from the 1994 Amendments to
the 1990 Solid Waste Menamement Plan Update - Chaner 5,
Page 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 MONR, 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
rpc-prtifirAtinn 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
rprtifiratinns, 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 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. 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.
Act 451 - Page 1
What If...?
What If...?
It is appropriate to ask a series of "What If..." questions when examining the
future and making decisions concerning the availability of solid waste
disposal capacity.
How accurate are the waste stream projections that are being used in the
analysis? The FY97 landfill report data shows considerably more gateyards of
waste generated in Oakland County than the projection models show. The
revised models show 4,346,651 gateyards for 1997 and the report displayed
4,760,844 gateyards, a difference of 414,193 gateyards or 9.53% more than the
model values. A worst case approach would be to simply run the analysis a
second time using the report values. Adjusting the model values upwards so
that 1997 matches the gateyards contained in the FY 97 report results in the
same year of deficiency, 2004, albeit 55 days earlier in the year. This is
shown in the "worst case" exhibit on Page WI.2.
Even though using the FY97 gateyard data produces essentially the same final
time line results as the models, Oakland County believes that the current
projection models reflect an accurate future picture of disposal capacity
needs in terms of cubic yards of completed landfill volume (bankyards).
Landfill capacity needs are not defined by the number of gateyards of waste
delivered to facilities but by the total weight of the various classifications
of waste. Whether haulers bring the material tightly compacted within the
delivery containers or loosely compacted makes no difference in the amount of
landfill volume ultimately utilized. See additional discussion in Chapter 2.
Michigan law requires that demonstrations of available disposal capacity be
conducted by June 30 of each year and if less than 66 months of disposal
capacity is found to be available, applications for a finding of consistency
from the proposers for disposal area capacity will be received commencing of
the next January 1. June 30, 1998 plus 66 months yields an end or target date
of December 31, 2003.
What occurs when the disposal opportunities in Wayne County are factored into
play? As shown in the Disposal Capacity Availability Details exhibits on
Pages WI.3 and WI.4, whether the Oakland County waste stream projection model
is used or that model is forced to match the FY97 landfill report, sufficient
disposal capacity exists into year 2006, well beyond the 66 month target.
What if additional inter-county flows are authorized beyond those used in the
analysis or what if additional capacity were approved in Oakland County? Each
occurrence would simply increase Oakland County's opportunities for disposal
and improve upon the future picture.
Finally, what if Oakland County solid waste generators achieve a larger
percentage of volume reduction than is currently observed? As may be seen in
the "details" exhibits and given no additional inter-county flow
authorizations than those assumed in the basic analysis set, sufficient
capacity to beyond the year 2010 is perhaps possible.
The basic conclusions that can be drawn from such analysis is that within the
realm of reasonable scenarios, Oakland County has access to more than 66
months of disposal capacity beyond June 30, 1998. It is quite probable that
sufficient capacity will be available well beyond that point in time.
What If...? - Page 1
Oakland County
Disposal Capacity
Availability
Spring, 1998
• Total Needs
• Type II Needs wo CDD & ISW
* Available In-County Capacity
B Total Available to Oakland Co.
Worst Case Analysis
Need Curves Adjusted
to Match FY97
Landfill Report Millions of Gateyards 2006 2008 2010
Principal Variables
Demonstrated Volume Reduction Achievement Levels Region's Landfill Density Factor
98 MSWVR 98 COD VR 98 ISWVR (Gateyards per Bankyard)
19.61% 15.00% 15.00% 1.940
Year 2000 Excess
Disposal Opportunities
8.46%
Year During Which
Insufficient Capacity Occurs
After Exhausting AN Remaining
Available In-County Capacity
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year Ending on December 31,
17%
1997 Total Glyds = 4.761
[ Imports as a % of available in-county capacity I
Annual gateyards from
Oakland County
04/01198 09:09
Alternate Disposal Opportunities
Wayne Co. BFI's A.H. Genesee Co.
0.000 0.250 0.025
2004
Apparent Shortage Year
2003
RJS, PE
11:32
mass
98GYDREG.M4
10
8
6 Millions of Gateyards 4
2
2010 2006 2008
0.025
0.046
0.000
0.126
17%
'Chart Basis 4,346,661 97 gateyardsi
Export Opportunities in Millions of Gateyards
VVayne 2.000 Genesee
Washtenaw 1 1.500 Monroe
INashtenaw 2 0.250 SanNac
Macomb 0.510 Others
Year 2000 Total Export Opportunities 4.457 RA: PE
11:52
04/20/98
98GYDREGAAK4
Principal Variables
Demonstrated Volume Redudion Achievement Levels Region's Landfill Density Factor
96 MSWVR 96 COD VR 96 ISWVR (Gateyards per BanIcyard)
19.61% 15.00% 15.00% 1.940
-I Imports as a % of available in-county capacity
Annualgateyards from
Oakland County
04101198 09:09
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year Ending on December 31,
Oakland County
Disposal Capacity
Availability
Details
Spring, 1998
IF Total Needs
• Type II Needs
* Net In-County
e Wayne
• Washtenaw Primary
* VVashtenaw Secondary
• Macomb
if,. Genesee
Other Opportunities
Future VR
10
8
6 Millions of Gateyards 4
2
0
2006 2008 2010
2.000 Genesee
Monroe
Sanlac
Others
0.025
0.046
0.000
0.126
Wayne
Washtenaw 1 1.500
Washtenavr 2 0.250
Macomb 0.510
Principal Variables
Demonstrated Volume Reduction Achievement Levels Region's Landfill Density Factor
96 WISW VR 96 CDD VH 96 ISVV VII tGateyards per Bankyard)
19.61% 15.00% 15.00% 1.940
Imports as a % of available In-county capacity
Annual gatoyards from
Oakland County
04/01/98 09:09
Year 2000 Total Export Opportunities 4.457 RJS. PE
11:51
04/20/95
98GYDREG.IAK4
17%
'Chart Basis 4,760,844 97 gateyards I
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year Ending on December 31,
Oakland County
Disposal Capacity
Availability
Details
Spring, 1998
it Total Needs
.0. Type 11 Needs
* Net In-County
e Wayne
• Washtenaw Primary
Washtenaw Secondary
• Macomb
* Genesee
Jr_ Other Opportunities
0 Future VR
Export Opportunities in Millions of Gateyards
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. Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity - May, 1997 and Oakland County
Board of Commissioners Miscellaneous Resolution #97118 dated May 13, 1997.
5. Recommended 2020 Regional Development Forecast - Population, Households and
Employment by Minor Civil Division dated February 8, 1996. Southeast
Michigan Council of Governments.
6. "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.
7. "Solid Waste Management at the Crossroads" by Franklin Associates, Ltd.,
December, 1997.
8. "Report of Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan, October 1, 1996 - September
30, 1997" dated February 27, 1998 by the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality as released on March 18, 1998.
References - Page 1
Cr)
C:
X
C") r- LA)
COAKLAND; L. BROOKS PATTERSON, OAKLAND COUNTY EXECUTIVE
COUNTY MICHIGAN
May 20, 1998
I hereby withdraw my veto of MR # 98091 and acknowledge MR # 98091 will become effective
pursuant to 1973 PA 139, Section 11(2), that being MCL 45.561(2).
L. Brooks Palyerson
Oakland Cd.mty Executive
3
rn
(-;
EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING 34 EAST • 1200 N TELEGRAPH RD DEPT 409 • PONTIAC MI 48341-0409 • (248) 858-0484 • FAX (248) 452-9215