HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1999.05.13 - 25801MAY 13, 1999
MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION # 99112
BY: PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE - CHARLES E. PALMER, CHAIRPERSON
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE DISPOSAL CAPACITY ACT 451 NON-HAZARDOUS
SOLID WASTES SPRING, 1999
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 26, 1999" (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, 2004 (which date is 66
months beyond June 30, 1999) 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, 2001 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
Planning and Building Committee Vote:
Motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote with Amos absent.
Millions of Gateyards Oakland County Disposal Capacity Availability - Spring, 1999
Act 451 Non-Hazardous Solid Wastes with 1998 Volume Reduction Rates Held Constant
DISPOSAL
OPPORTUNITIES
Apparent Year of Depletion 2004
Year of Depletion using all
remaining In-county capacity 2005
DISPOSAL NEEDS
1999 CERTIFICATION
TARGET DATE
DECEMBER 31, 2004
1 1 1
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year Ending on December 31,
Oaldand County Soid Waste Flaming 99GYDREG.WK4 RJS, PE 04/19/99
1990
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN UPDATE
As Amended
On June 9, 1994
Oakland County, Michigan
Demonstration of
Available Disposal Capacity
April 26, 1999
L. Brooks Patterson, County Executive
Generally Act 451 ...
Part 111 Part 115 -n -n
Haz. Waste
Disposal
Solid Waste Generation, Collection, Handling, Processing and Disposal
It's a Complex and Continuous Process . . .
Ash
Monofill
Careful
Purchasing
Decisions
Waste
Minimization
Source & Reuse
Separation
Collection
Transfer or
Direct Haul
Processing
Facilities
Consumer
Or
Solid Waste Generator
Returnables Yard
Wastes Special
Wastes
Special
Processing
Facilities
Mixed-Waste
MRF
Mixed
Wastes
—1--
Household
Hazardous
Wastes
Hazardous
Wastes
HHW
Processing
Facility
Transfer or
Direct Haul
Volume
Reduction
Disposal
Facilities
Incineration
or 1NTE
Methane
Recovery
Leachate
Treatment
Minimize
Impacts
Markets
Conserve
Resources
Recovered
Materials
Markets Use of Non-
Renewable
Resources
Source
Reduction
•
I Other I
Uses
Manufacture of
New Products
Consumer
Or
Solid Waste Generator
Careful
Purchasing
Decisions
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?
Oakland County, Michigan RJS, P.E. - April 26, 1999 Solid Waste Planning
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 (once the mechanism was in operation) which met all of
the mechanism's predefined criteria, its approval would be nearly automatic.
If more than 66 months of disposal capacity availability is demonstrated,
proposals need not be received during 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 imports from
out-of-state and out-of-country waste sources. It recognizes such imports as
they were reported for 1995-96, 1996-97 and for 1997-98. Additionally, it is
assumed 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, 2004 or more than 66 months from June 30, 1999. 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 2000.
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)
Reports of Wastes Generated in Oakland County
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
2.2 Projected Disposal Needs
3.2 Disposal Facilities in Southeastern Michigan
3.3 Southeast Michigan's Landfills - April, 1999
3.4 Regional Operating Capacity
3.5 Oakland County's Disposal Capacity Opportunities
5.2 Oakland County - Disposal Capacity Availability - Spring, 1999
WI.2 What If...? Disposal Capacity Availability Details - Spring, 1999
Addison Twp.
0
(0'Q Troy
Orchard Lake Village
Groveland Two.
Leonard
Oakland Twp.
SPrIngfleld Two. Clarkston
0
0
Rochester Hills 0
Rochester
2
en
2
Lake
Angelus
White Lake Twp.
Pontiac
Auburn
Hills
West Bloomfield Twp.
Whiled Lake
Farthington Hills
Lyon Twp.
Southfield
ICI Novi Twp.
WASHTENAW CO.
Northylke
WAYNE CO.
LAPEER COUNTY GENESEE COUNTY
Oakland County's Municipalities
30 Cities
21 Townships
10 Villages
61 Total
Solid Waste Pk:inning RJS, RE. - April 26, 1999
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 3224%
1860 " 38,261 6,991 2226%
1870 a 40.867 2606 6.81%
1880 a 41,537 670 1.64%
1890 II 41,245 (292) 4170%
1900 a 44,792 3,547 8.60%
1910 a 49,576 4,784 10.68%
1920 „ 90,050 40,474 81.64%
1930 " 211,251 121,201 134.59%
1940 II 254,068 42,817 20.27%
1950 VI 396,001 141,933 55.86%
1960 a 690,603 294,602 74.39%
1970 .. 907,871 217,268 31.46%
1980 a 1,011,793 103,922 11.45%
1990 ,, 1,083,592 71,799 710%
2000 Projected 1,192164 108,572 10.02%
2010 a 1,272I92 80,028 671%
2020 ,, 1,359,846 87,654 6.890/6
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
Oakland County Solid Waste Planning
rcifloc.wk4
04/19/99
15:34
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 10_2920 1995 to 202Q
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 Category Waste Type
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Single family residential Type II
Multi-family residential Type II
Commercial Type II
Industrial Type II
MSW Total Type II
Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) Type III
Industrial Special Waste (ISW) Type III
Act 451 Total 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.
Oakland County's Projected Waste Stream and Disposal Needs: Oakland County's
projected waste stream, current volume reduction achievement levels, and
future disposal needs are shown in the exhibit on Page 2.2. The validity of
these projections may best be measured by a comparison of the projections
against reported data. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has
issued two recent reports of solid waste landfilled in Michigan which are of
interest. These reports covered those periods from October 1, 1996 through
September 30, 1997 (FY97) and from October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998
(FY98). The first report in this series (FY96) covered the period during
which the report legislation was adopted and simply contained too many reports
of unknown waste origins to be of value. The average amount of waste
generated within Oakland County as reported by all landfill operators during
the two year period was 4,459,331 gateyards per year (see Appendix). The
average waste stream projection using the current models for the same period
of time was 4,384,123 gateyards per year, a value within 1.7% of the reported
value. Given the methods used to estimate the number of gateyards of waste
received at Michigan landfills, this close match is acceptable. On this
basis, a great deal of confidence may be placed on the projected values. It
must be noted that the waste stream used in Oakland County's solid waste
management plan efforts does not include the stream from the City of
Northville which is included within the Wayne County planning effort.
Chapter 2 - Page 1
rOtjct *lot
04/21/99
1433
Baseline Volume Reduction Achievement Levels - 1999 Volume ReductIon Efforts Held Constant
Projected Disposal Needs Oakland County (wq Ngrthyille)
1997
1,164.005
768,702
117.963
1998
1,172,276
780,855
117,336
1999
1,180646
793,609
116,710
2000
1,188,817
805,163
116.084
2801
1,196,842
815,160
116,966
2002
1,204,868
825,158
117.849
2003
1,212693
835,155
118,731
2004
1,220,919
845,153
119,614
2005
1,228.944
855,150
120.496
2006
1,236 966
860,580
120.877
2007
1.244,988
866.011
121.258
2008
1,253,009
871.441
121,638
2009
1.261.031
876,872
122,019
2010
1,269,053
882,302
122.400
2,301.43
2,220.14
251.24
4,772.81
2,286.30
2,189.59
253.42
4,729.30
2.271.18
2,159.03
255.59
4,685.79
2,256.05
2,128.47
257.77
4,64228
19.55%
3,734.93
0.00
3,734.93
19.53%
3,770.49
0.00
3,770.49
19.51%
3,841 64
0 00
3.841.64
19.52%
3.806 06
0.00
3,806.06
19.50%
3.877,23
000
3,877.23
19.50%
3,92569
000
3,92509
19.50%
3,901.48
0,00
3,901.46
2,194.15
1,973.12
283.86
4,451.13
2.240.92
2,097.91
259.94
4,598.77
2,209.74
2,014,72
275.89
4,500.35
2,225.33
2,056.32
267.91
4,549.56
9.096
17.37%
3,596.43
(97.75)
3,498.68
9.104 9.113
19.61%
3,578.26
(48.88)
3,529.39
18.60%
3,582.94
(97.75)
3,485.19
7.737
461.61
370.86
5,431.24
9.137
7.758
465.78
367.76
5,475.82
9.150
7.778
469.95
364.65
5,520.40
9.163
7.798
474.12
361.55
5.564.98
9.176
7.818
478.30
35845
5,609.56
9.189
7.838
482.47
355.34
5,654.14
9 202
7.836
485.58
350 4
5,682.52
9.188
7 834
488.70
34566
5,710.91
9.174
7.832
491,81
340.66
5,739.30
9 161
ISW % reductions
ISW +NUR
Total Waste Stream w VR
Apparent VR Achievement Level
7 .02
23.89
5,14
4.30'
0.00
40.34
4.298.08 4280.11 4,306.73 4,37762 4,412.60
1764% 1164% 18.80% 18.12% 18.11%
1626% 17.28% 18.12% 18.12% 18.11%
Process Residues
Composting
Recycling
COD
'SW
Incinerator Ash
Sub-total, Process Residues
7.08
24.16
5.19
4.17
0.00
40.60
7.13 7.18 7.24 7.29 7.34 7.39 7 44 7.49 7.54 769
24.40 24.64 24.88 25,12 25,36 25.51 2666 25 81 25.97 26 12
5.24 5.29 5.33 5.38 5.43 5.46 5,50 5.53 5.57 5.60
4.14 4.10 4.07 4.03 4,00 3,94 3.89 383 378 3.72
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 aoo 000 000 o.00 0.00
40:90 _ 41.21 41.52 41.82 42.13 42.31 42.49 42.67 42 85 43 03
Total Disposal Needs
Actual VR Achievement Level
(not including incineration)
4,447.58 4,48414 4,521.11 4,557.90 4,59469 4,631.49 4.65435 4.67729 4,70019 4,72308 4.74598
18.11% 18.11% 18.10% 18.10% 18.09% 18.09% 18.09% 18.10% 18.11% 18.11% 18.12%
18.11% 18.11% 18.10% 18.10% 18.09% 18.09% 1809% 18 10% 18.11% 18.11% 1812%
6.90
2335
5.03
466
12.95
52.79
608
23.08
4.98
4 68
25.90
64.72
5,10
22.81
4.93
4.81
25.90
63.55
696
2362
5 09
443
0.00
40.09
Population 4 EmployMent Stela
Population
Total Employment
Manufactunng Employment
Waste Stream wo NIP (tpd)
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Residential
Commercial
Industnal
Total MSW
/ capita / day (MSW only)
Const. 8 Demo. Debris (COD)
Ind Special Wastes (ISW)
Total Waste Stream wo VR
/ capita / day (total Act 451)
Total MOW wittl.V1i.ltpd)
MSW % reductions
MSW w VR
Less Incineration
Net MSW
COD % reductions
CDD w VR
1995 1996
1.147,464 1,155,735
744,394 756,548
119.215 118,589
2,162.97 2,17856
1,889.93 1,931.53
299.81 291.83
4,352.71 4,401.92
7.587 7.618 7.648 7.678 7.708
437.97 442.69 447.42 452.15 456.88
427.74 _416.36_404.99 39361 382.23
5,218.41 5,260.98 5,303.54 5,346.11 5,388.67
9 121 9 129
19.57% 19.56%
3,659.01 3,699.38
0.00 0.00
3,659.01 3,699.38
2,361.92 2.37704 2,392.16
2,306.12 2,324.60 2,343.07
238,78 235.35 231.92
4,906.82 4,936.99 4.967.16
7.830 7.828
494 92 498.04
335.77 33088
5,767 68 5.79607
9.148 9 134
19.50% 19 50%
3,94991 3,974 14
000 000
3,949.91 3.974.14
2,316.56 2,33168 2,346.80
2,250.70 2269.18 2,287.65
249.07 245.64 242.21
4,816.33 4,846.49 4,876,66
19.59%
3,618.64
0.00
3,618.64
1960%
3,998 36
a 00
3,998.36
15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 1600% 15.00% 15,00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00%
372.27 376.29 380.31 384.33 388.35 392.37 395.91 399.46 403.00 406.55 410.10 412.74 415.39 418,04 420,69 423.33
15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00%
363.58_ 353.91 344.24 334.57 324.90
4,234.53 4,215.39 4.253.94 4,337.53 4,372.26
18.85% 19.87% 19.79% 18.87% 18.86%
15.00% 15.00%
315.23 312.59
4,406.98 4,443.44
18.86% 18.85%
15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 1500% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00%
309.95 307.32 30468 302.04 297.88 293.72 289,56 285.11 281A
4,479.90 4,516.38 4,552.87 4,589.37 4,61208 4,634.80 4.657.52 4,680.23 4,702.94
18.85% 18.84% 18.84% 18.83% 18.84% 18.84% 18,85% 18.85% 1886%
97 Demo - Annual Bankyards
MSW
Ash
Sub-total, Type II
CDD
ISW
Sub-total, Type III
Grand Total
97 - Annual Gateyards
MSW
Ash
Sub-total. Type II
COD
ISW
Sub-total. Type It
Grand Total
1,930607 1,924,105 1,948,901 1,997,945 2,020,229 2.042,513 2,062,137 2,081.766 2,101,401 2.121,041 2.140.687 2.154,062 2,167.437 2180,812 2,194.186 2,207,560
9,455 9.455 4,727 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a o
1,940,262 1,933,560 1,953,629 1.997,945 2,020,229 2,042,513 2,062,137 2,081,766 2,101,401 2,121.041 2,140,687 2.154,062 2167,437 2,180.812 2.194.186 2.207,560
137.677 139,163 140.650 142,136 143,622 145,109 146,420 147,732 149.044 150,355 151.667 152,646 153,625 154,604 155,583 156,562
153,671 149,584 145,497 141,410 137.323 133,237 132,122 131,007 129,892 128.777 127.662 125,904 124,146 122,388 120.630 118,873
z91,348 _zea,747 286,147 283,54s 289,946 ?78,145 2R042 276,719 278035 279,132 279,329_____ 278,550 . 277,771 276,902 276/13 275,434
-2,23-1,g-64-2-222,307 -2239:776 2.281,491-2.3131;17,320.18-2:310,879 2,350,505 2,3806274-00,173 2,420,016 2.432,612 .2-,445,208 2.457,604 2470.399-27482:994
3,861,613 3,848,210 3,897.803 1995,889 4,040.457
9.455 9,455 4,727 0 0
3,871,068 3,857,665 3,902.530 3,995,889 4,040,457
275.354 278.327 281,300 284,272 287,245
153,671 149,584 145.497 141,410 137,323
429,025 427,911 426,797 425,683 424,56e
-4300,093 4,285,576 29,327- 21572-4-.4-65.026-
4,085,026 4,124,273
0 0
4,085,026 4,124,273
290,218 292,841
133,237 132,122
23,454 424,962
a-4,608-,-48o 4,546 -3-6
4,163,532 4,202,802 4,242,082 4,281,374 4,308,125 4,334.874 4,361.624 4.388,372 4,415,119
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4,163,532 4,202,802 4,242,082 4,281,374 4,308.125 4,334.874 4,361,624 4,388,372 4,415,119
295.464 298.087 300,710 303.334 305.291 307,249 309,207 311.165 313.123
131,007 129,892 128,777 127.662 125,904 124.146 122.388 120.630 118.873
476,471 427,976 429,487 _460,695_431,196 433,196 461,896 431,798 411996
4690.003 4,630,781 4,671-310-4.71-r364 4,739.320 4181270 4,793,219 -4,820.r68 4.841115"
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 disposal facilities (landfills and incinerators and/or waste-to-
energy facilities) that are available to Oakland County waste generators can
be prepared. 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. Summary material is shown in the exhibits
following the "Disposal Facilities in Southeastern Michigan" map on Page 3.2
and related detailed location and ownership information on page 3.3.
The exhibit on Page 3.4 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, 1998. 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 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 3.5.
As in the three previous 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 1999 Demonstration. Third, exports to Wayne County do in fact occur
daily under provisions of the consent judgement.
Chapter 3 - Page 1
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan
April, 1999
Disposal Facilities
in
Southeastern Michigan
& Type II Landfills
* Waste-to-Energy & Incinerator Plants
O Special Purpose Landfills (Type III)
* Hazardous Waste Landfills (Type I)
P.J5, P.E. April 26,1999
3.2
Co.
# County Township
Basic Ash Mono Type III Type!
Section Type Cells? Cells? Cells? Landfill Name Owner
Solid Waste Database Soutbeast_Michigan's Landfills - April, 1999
Oakland County, Michigan
newmap3.wk4
RJS, P.E.
04/16/98
SoutheaStern_Michlgan
9 Bay
Bay
Bay
19 Clinton
25 Genesee
Genesee
32 Huron
33 Ingham
Ingham
38 Jackson
Jackson
44 Lapeer
46 Lenawee
50 Macomb
56 Midland
Midland
58 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
Counties - .2neuntle_e_lotal
Pinconning Twp.
Hampton Twp.
Hampton Twp.
Watertown Twp.
Montrose Twp.
Mundy Twp.
Sheridan Twp.
Lansing Twp.
Lansing Twp.
Blackman Twp.
Liberty Twp.
Burnside Twp.
Palmyra Twp.
Lenox Twp.
Midland Two.
Midland Twp.
Erie Twp. - 9S, BE
Monroe Twp.
City of Monroe
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.
Gibralter
Monquagon Twp.
2 II
1 Ill
1 Ill
29 II
23 II
23 II
22 II
3 11
13 Ill
24 II Yes Yes
1 III
21 II
6 II
23 II
12 II
35 III
6 II
16 III
6 III
14 Ill
8 III
34 III
9 11
27 11
2 II
24 11
15 II
1 II
15 11
5 Ill
16 II - Closed, Not Shown
32 11
12 Ill
32 II
27 II
13 II
17
36 11 Yes
11 II
35 11
1 II
33 II
27 III
34 III
36 III
36 III
35 III
7 III
Whitefeather Landfill
D. E. Kern Plant
J. C. Weadock Coal Ash Disposal
Watertown Township Landfill
Brent Run
Citizens Disposal
Cove Landfill
Wood Street Landfill
Daggett Sand & Gravel
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
Jefferson Smurfit Corp. Industrial LF
J. R. Whiting Plant
Matlin Road Landfill
Rockwood Landfill
Collier Road Landfill
Eagle Valley RDF
Oakland Heights
SOCRRA Landfill
People's Garbage Disposal, Inc
Saginaw Valley
Taymouth Landfill
GM Central Foundry - Grey Iron Plant
Fort Gratiot
Smiths Creek Landfill
Range Road Landfill
Tr-City ROF
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 Landfill Site
Edward C. Levy
Yes Ford Allen Park Clay Mine Landfill
Huron Quarry
McClouth Steel Products Corp.
Sibley Quarry
47 le_ndfills_in 18 counties. 28 Type 115 in 18 counties
Republic Services Inc.
Consumers Power Co.
Consumers Power Co.
Granger Waste Management
Republic Services Inc.
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
Mitech Services
Granger Waste Management
Daggett Sand & Gravel, Inc.
Waste Management
Liberty Environmentalist
Waste Management
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
Waste Management
City of Midland
Dow Chemical Co.
Browning-Ferris Industries
Detroit Edison Co.
Jefferson Smurfit Corp.
Consumers Power Co.
Regulated Resource Recovery, Inc.
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
City of Pontiac
Waste Management
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
SOCRRA
Waste Management
Waste Management
Republic Services Inc.
General Motors
—_Cksed_Spring 1995 —
St. Clair Solid Waste Agency
Detroit Edison Co.
Waste Management
Waste Management
Browning-Ferris Industries
Environmental Quality
Republic Services Inc.
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.
McClouth Steel Products Corp.
Detroit Edison Company
Solid Waste Database How Much Annual Operating CapaCltyViU Be Available in the Region'? 99GYDREG WK4
Oakland County, Michigan (millions of Gateyards) RJS, PE
04127/99 Average glyds/bankyard 1.94 12:50
Facility
Oakland Eagle Co/her Pinetree Citizens Brent Riverview Woodland Souk Trail Carleton
Year Heights Valley Road SOCRRA Arbor Hies Acres Disposal Run Highlands Meadow. Hill. Fume Todyf
SpeCial Notes.
Bankyards remaining at 1/1199
Average Ann Gateyards, 95,28
Future Singular Gateyards IV,
New Fs:1W
Vas
Year 2005
t 000
5.771 4.062 0.953 0.050 26.576 21.771 13.682 41.239 14.363 24.670 17.628 90.648 0.000
1.526 1,620 0.387 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.591 2.417 3.374 0.000
2.250
1992 0.712 0.716 0,156 0.003 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 0.003 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 0.003 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 0.003 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 0002 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 1.703 1.434 0.382 0.001 4.342 2.239 1.067 0.799 0,694 3.359 3.145 3.146 0.000
1999 1.528 1.620 0.387 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.591 2.417 3,374 0.000
2000 1.528 1.620 0.387 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.591 2.417 3.374 0.000
2001 1.528 1.620 0.387 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1,120 3.591 2.417 3.374 0.000
2002 1.528 1.620 0.387 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.591 2.417 3.374 0.000
2003 1.528 1.402 0.302 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1,120 3.591 2.417 3.374 0.000
2004 1.528 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.591 2.417 3.374 a000
2005 1.528 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.591 2.417 3.374 1.500
2006 0.496 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.591 2.417 3.374 1.500
2007 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.591 2.417 3.374 1.500
2008 0,002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.591 2.417 3.374 1.500
2009 0002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1,120 3.591 2.417 3.374 1.500
2010 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.591 2.417 3.374 1.500
2011 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.591 2.417 3.374 1.500
2012 0.002 3.478 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 1.173 2.417 3.374 1.500
2013 0.002 2.869 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 0.364 3.374 1.500
2014 0.002 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.374 1.500
2015 0.002 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.374 1.500
2016 0.002 1.543 0.893 0,828 1.120 3.374 1.500
2017 0.002 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.374 1.500
2018 0.002 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.374 1.500
2019 0.002 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.374 0.340
2020 0.002 1.543 0.893 0.828 1.120 3.374
Facility
Ailed Pioneer Tri City Sibley Huron Ford Levy McLouth City of Standard
Year Adrian Rock &mix Quarry Quarry _ Allen Park Taylor Steel Livonia RocInvood
Smart/but.
Bankyarde remaining .1 111199
Average Mn. Gatoyards, 95-98
1.346 2.240 10.780 13.336 1.108 1.417 1.558 4.855 0.888 21.863
0.298 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.360 0.000 0.006 0.500
1992 0.749 0.085 0.125 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0,150 0.020 0.215
1993 0.749 0.085 0.125 0.400 0.025 0,200 0.400 0.150 0.020 0.215
1994 0.749 0,085 0.125 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020 0.215
1995 0.749 0.085 0.125 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020 0.215
1996 0.271 0.085 0.136 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.356 0.000 0.008 0.034
1997 0.310 0,090 0.271 0.243 0.040 0.148 0.341 0.000 0.009 0.232
1998 0.314 0,079 0.158 0.233 0.026 0.212 0.382 0.000 0.001 0.472
1999 0.298 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.360 0.000 0.006 0.500
2000 0.298 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.360 0.000 0.006 0.500
2001 0.298 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.360 0.000 0.006 0.500
2002 0.298 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.360 0.000 0.006 0.500
2003 0.298 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.360 0.000 0.006 0.500
2004 0.298 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.360 0.000 0.006 0.500
2005 0.298 0.085 1.092 0.240 0,030 0.160 0.360 0.000 0.006 0.500
2006 0.298 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.360 0.000 0.006 0.500
2007 0.225 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.144 0.000 0.006 0.500
2008 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.000 0.006 0.500
2009 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.000 0.006 0.500
2010 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0000 0,006 0.500
2011 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.000 0.006 0.500
2012 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.000 0.006 0.500
2013 0.085 1.092 0.240 0030 0.160 0.000 0.006 0.500
2014 0.085 1092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.000 0.006 0.500
2015 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.160 0.000 0.006 0.500
2016 0.085 1.092 0.240 0,030 0.026 0.000 0.006 0.500
2017 0.085 1.092 0.240 0.030 0.000 0.006 0.500
2018 0.085 0.165 0.240 0.030 0.000 0.006 0.500
2019 0,085 0.240 0.030 0.000 0.006 0.500
2020 0.085 0.240 0.030 0.000 0.006 0.500
3.4
Note: No new facilities or expansions beyond those plan designations which
existed at the time of this report preparation are assumed in this analysis.
99GYDREG.WK4
04/27/99
12.50
RJS, PE
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan
Less Total Imports
Oakland celndra.Avaabie_Disposal Capacity.Oup_eduoLtiesiall values In_nnillions of annuaLgafeyards) Future Imports
Assumed to Use
Oakland Export Maximum 25%
Year In-County Livingston Lapeer Monroe Sanilac St Joseph Lenawee Macomb Genesee Washtenaw Washtenaw Wayne Opportunities Available of Oakland's Total
Capacity Primary Secondary Available Capacity
1992 2.731 0.000 0.028 0.250 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.563 7.294 6.748
1993 2.139 0.000 0.028 0.250 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.563 6.702 6.275
1994 3.216 0.000 0.028 0.250 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.563 7.779 7.136
1995 2.870 0.000 0.028 0.250 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.563 7.433 6.860
1996 3.354 0.000 0.028 0.090 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.404 7.757 7.218
1997 3.737 0.000 0.028 0.046 0.103 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.463 8.200 7.576
1998 3.521 0.000 0.028 0.094 0.105 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.512 8.033 6.821
1999 3.537 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.099 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 2.000 4.513 8.050 7.166
2000 3.537 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.513 6.050 5.166
2001 3.537 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.513 6.050 5.166
2002 3.537 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.513 6.050 5.166
2003 3.234 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.513 5.747 4.939
2004 1.531 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.513 4.043 3.661
2005 1.531 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.513 4.043 3.661
2006 0.499 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.513 3.011 2.887
2007 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.075 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.488 2.490 2.490
2008 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.413 2.415 2.415
2009 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.413 2.415 2.415
2010 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.413 2.415 2.415
2011 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.413 2.415 2.415
i....n 2012 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.413 2.415 2.415
2013 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 1.500 0.250 0.000 2.413 2.415 2.415
2014 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.663 0.665 0.665
2015 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.663 0.665 0.665
2016 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.663 0.665 0.665
2017 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.663 0.665 0.665
2018 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.663 0.665 0.665
2019 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.663 0.665 0.665
2020 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.663 0.665 0.665
3.6
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. The first annual report after adoption
of the legislation was of questionable value as to the origin of wastes since
a substantial portion of the total wastes were not assigned as to source.
However, 5,689,767 gateyards of out-of-state waste imports were identified
during FY96. This represented about 13% of the total waste stream handled.
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. In the FY98 report, 5,735,187 gateyards or 12.3% were reported from
oJt-of-state 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,
could 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
iLter-state and inter-country flows of wastes) have been projected to remain
constant at the levels reported by each landfill opera= during that three
year period from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1998. 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 2004. 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 2005. As may be seen,
disposal opportunities exceed estimated needs by approximately 15% 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 59% 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.
FindincF:
Oakland County has access to more than 66 months tf disposal capacity beyond
June 30, 1999. Therefore, Oakland County's Interim Siting Mechanism for
landfill facilities need not be made operative through the year 2000 as
provided for in Act 451 as amended.
Chapter 5 - Page 1
8
2 Millions of Gateyards 4
•
- •
‘,
• - -- • — • ----• • •
-
9-
1 _l_
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year Ending on December 31,
1994
A
2006 2010 2008
(Galeyards per Bankyard)
ye_er_2000 Excess
Dispes_alDepncLunities
13.47%
1999 Total Gtyds = 4,465,026
Alternate Disposal Opportunities
Wayne Co. BFI's A H. Genesee Co.
0.000 0.250 0.025
PrincipalYariables
Demonstrated Volume Reduction Achievement Levels' Region's Landfill Density Factor
2000 MSW VR I 2000 CDD VR I 2000 ISW VR
19.56% I 15.00% I 15.00% I 1.940
L Imports as a t' of available in county capacity —> 25%
AnnualgateyardSirOM--
Oakland County Iwo Northville)
04/21/99 1429
rear During Which
Insufficient Capacity_Dcws
At )ter_Eshausting All Rernaiiiing
Available In-County_CAPacitY
2005 RJS, PE
1444
Apparent_Shortageer 04/21/99
2004 99GYDREG.WK4
Oakland County
Disposal Capacity
Availability
Spring, 1999
• Total Needs
Type Il Needs wo COD & ISW
A Total In-County Capacity
Available In-County Capacity
• Total Available to Oakland Co.
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
Reports of Wastes Generated in Oakland County
What If...?
List of References
Certification of Available Disposal Capacity
The material below was excerpted from the 1994 Amendments to the 1990 Solid
Waste Management Plan Update - Chapter 5, Page 6. As provided for by the 1994
amendments, the language contained in the bold italics was to be automatically
adjusted to match language adopted by the Michigan Legislature or by
subsequent rule making and or administrative interpretation. See the
following appendix material for current law.
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, landfall 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 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
Oi
Michigan
Disposal
Points Shiawassee to %
12 2 3: 67 Other Counties 19 20
ftl
04/21/99
RJS, PE
Total
Wastes
Handled
18 9 Other States 69,268 115,313 93,754 190 84,755 30,761 100,841 5 477.072 202 1,865,390
3,760 2 9,760
6,000 6,700 4 364,193
3,960 79,191
11,392 1,913 17 45 1 69,413 1 314.492
0
89,540 22,384 2,238,519
29,356 282,716 987,189 1 32,569 2,095,104
25,056 25 378,162 384 1 87 1 333 3,520,518
.028,6911
9,903 13,134
96,760 5
30,531 1 461
899 1,259,922
105,844 10,142 158,092
8,326 49,595 60,564 378 1,395 240 191 34,884 12 181.980 1,109,328
790.491 11,352 1 801,843
77,318 338,737 266,201 L377,4441 1,749,445 87 1 1,492.742 42.344 4342,378
470 1,399 328,970 175,185 924,267 384 155 545,112L8.755,945 234 1 40.773 6 373.843 2,839 11,207,017
11,678,8901 447,705
4,324 67,1231 605,9531
779.615
_ 85,874
2,308,172
310
7,526 80
9,728 5,000
231,712
• Number of other jurisdictions involved.
Percentage
disposed of 1- 47.9751 0.5%1_ 99.4%1 50.7%
in-county
0%L.52.6% 785%j 55.5% orommuzia 32.7%1 89.8%1 0.0%1 39.3%1 78.4%
63.08% of all wastes handled in
Michigan in FY98 were disposed of in
these 16 counties.
Report of Solid Waste Landfilled In Michigan
October 1,1997 through September 30,1998 Gateyards of Act 451 Type II and Type III Solid Wastes
Ely Source of Generation and By Disposal Points
C .0 73
ti 43 E 8 2 to a, 8 . t - a . m 2 m af -..1 5 2 0 _1 :Zi
Point of Waste GenerationASOurce_of_WasteSl
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1 Genesee r 859,756 20 33,458
2 Ingham 6.0001
3 Jackson 750r 338,0171_
4 Lapeer _75,231
5 Lenawee
6 Livingston
7 Macomb
8 Monroe
9 Oakland 28,684
10 Saginaw 110,535
11 Sanilac 10,804
12 Shiawassee 766.018 5 20 126
13 St. Clair
14 Tuscola
15 Washtenaw
16 Wayne 57,074 40 307 20
17 Other Counties 1,116,284 1,799 3,186 15,091 35,949 4,836 36,046 13,780,669 2,088,823 5 103,683 17,188,368
• 4 1 1 2 1 2 2 32 7 4
Totals 1,793,383 1,123,099 338,143 148.323 246,232 163,697 3,191,725 792,530 4,157,818 1,187,515 141,983 185,114 880.564 91,478 960,090 11,168,476 14,066,160 3,186,372 2,5481315 182,536 46,552.053
% of Michigan Wastes
4.4% 2.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 7.9% 2.0% 10.2% 2.9% 0.3% as% 2.2% 0.2% 2.4% 27.5% 34.6%
These 19 counties generated 65.4% of Michigan's identified waste stream.
Wegalmo F_Y20
Type It 37,576,777
Type III General 2,448.041
Type 111 Mixed 261,234
Type III segregated 1,996,351
63.10% of all wastes generated in
Etet ELM Michigan in FY98 were disposed Olin
39,078,292 41,558,724 these 16 counties.
2,450,882 2,666,054
21,277 214,198
2,126,658 2,113,079 I au d - spo doll Totals 42,282,403 43,677,107 46,552,053
Note: This summary material was prepared by
Oakland County Solid Waste Planning after aQsume ECM % ECU % alit 95i
modifying data contained in the MDEQ FY98 Michigan 30,003,760 71.0% 37,093.909 87.0% 40,634,330 87.3%
report dated February 4, 1999. Oat-of-State 5,689,767 13.5% 5,581,452 12.8% 5,735,187 12.3%
Unassigned 6,588,878 15.6% 101,746 02% 182,536 0.4%
Totals 42,282,403 100.0% 43,677,107 100.0% 46,552,053 100.0%
Caution: The Michigan data does not contain information on exports of Michigan generated wastes to other states or countries.
FY9ENEW 56K4
04121189
12 14
RJS. PE
Arbor Hills
Carleton Farms
City of Livonia
Collier Road
Eagle Valley
Edward Levy
FoMoCo
Huron Quarry
Pine Tree Acres
Riverview
Sauk Trail Hills
Sibley Quarry
SOCRRA
Wayne Disposal - Oakland
Woodland Meadows
Washtenaw
Wayne
Wayne
Oakland 393,267
Oakland
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Macomb
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Oakland
Oakland
Wayne
239,046 363,289 381,138
35,864 72,466 17,495
1,257,674 352,149
25,676 2,774 1.782
244,049 1,005,006
385,967 19,056 76,863
3,600
1,458,907 24,097 942
_ 552Q _ 5,420 404 761
31,220
7,719
10,210
998 2,035
3,808 782
15,166 97,495
388
1.543
sub-totals
Reported Gateyards, FY97
Into Oakland landfills
0 5,168,124 5,562,876 4,519,387
4,760,844 1,903,087 920,882 9,645,520 55,334 7,553,281 24,838,948 23,514,902
164,558 58,830 37,901 133,463
Four
County
Total
17,230,333
3,113,448 376,246
83.31% 10.07%
0 44,862 3,737,161
0.03% 5.40% 0.00% 1.20% 100%
942 201,663
Washtenaw
Wayne
Wayne
Oakland
Oakland
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Macomb
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Oakland
Oakland
Wayne
Genesee
Genesee
Barry
Lenawee
Jackson
Monroe
Jackson
Lapeer
Midland
Monroe
Sanilac
Shiawassee
Monroe
382,095
1,075,652
211,473 67,513 37,509 282,924 202 5,288,291 5,887,912
4,157,818 3,191,725 960,090 11,166,476 42,546 7,677,629 27,196,284
2,308,172 779,615 25 378,162 0 54,544 3,520,518
65.56% 22.14% 0.00% 10.74% 0.00% 1.55%
Four
County
Totals
19,476,109
16,638,459
18,353,221
FM Landfill Report - Gateyanialrom_Qakland. Macomb, Washtenaw and_Wayne Counties
Landfill County Oakland Macomb VVaShtenaw. Wayne Not Assign, Other Total
Totals
EY.96
fy98.wk4
04/21/99
12:21
RJS PE
sub-totals 4,596,286 1,844,257
1,250,721 55.334 788,796 3,078,324 3,012,526
2,847,979 343,686 3,317,490 3,657,973
9,371 0 9,371 8,146
0 393,267 385,398
33,538 33,538 1,676,899 1,747,850
341,458 0 341,458 355,766
114,671 3,126 148.029 121,053
40,194 0 40,194 25,000
13,070 246,771 1,508,896 883,023
1,031,593 70,254 1,101,847 1,564,646
1,698,138 47,447 2,227,471 1,878,208
243,009 0 243,009 244,422
3,600 1,000
168,125 11,324 1,663,395 1,219,005
1720,190 84 ,,215 3,522,822 _ _ 3,891 499
882,981 9,512,057 55,334 2,385,157 19,276,072 18,995,515
FY96 details are not
displayed because
a large percentage
of the totals were
unassigned or
unknown as to
point of origin.
Brent Run
Citizens Disposal
Hastings Sanitary
Laidlaw - NW Area
Liberty Environmentalist
Matlin Road
Philip McGill Road
Pioneer Rock
Salzburg Road
Standard - Rockwood
Tri City
Venice Park
Vienna Junction
Genesee 35,440
Genesee 82,800
Barry 85
Lenawee
Jackson
Monroe
Jackson 647
Lapeer 116
Midland 21
Monroe 45,497 58,497
Sanilac 217
Shiawassee 68
Monroe
742,403
915,306
282,456
301,781
144,950
834
200,911
90,154
18,060
15,707
271,275
1,201,267
983,020
777,843
1,029,326
282,541
309,500
155,160
3,867
206,148
90,270
18,081
232,362
271,492
1,201,723
984,563
908,052
582,491
206,977
270,652
23,566
6,241
255,794
84,535
23,781
33,519
136,339
885,835
1,101.605
ELM-Rant Report, Gat _yards from Oakland nnacumu. wasnzena no %marine r...ounue
Landfill Count/ Oakland Macomb WaShtenaw Wayne NOLAsSign Other Total
Arbor Hills
Carleton Farms
City of Livonia
Collier Road
Eagle Valley
Edward Levy
FoMoCo
Huron Quarry
Pine Tree Acres
Riverview
Sauk Trail Hills
&clay Quarry
SOCRRA
Oakland Heights
Woodland Meadows
sub-totals
Brent Run
Citizens Disposal
Hastings Sanitary
Laidlaw - NW Area
Liberty Environmentalist
Matlin Road
Philip McGill Road
Pioneer Rock
Salzburg Road
Standard - Rockwood
Tri City
Venice Park
Vienna Junction
266,201 336,737 377,444
14,550 17,445 16,122
301,183
535 2,141 1,342
447,705 1,678,890
433,996 306,441 67,843
1,365
849,060 478,432 25
475,186 2,943 459 805
1,749,445 42,344 1,570,147 4,342,318
2,863,852 234,509 3,146,478
10,094 10,094
382,095
28,684 28,684 1,434,203
382,217 382,217
204,446 3,082 211,546
25,613 25.613
111,924 2.238,519
691,105 2,839 693,944
2,247,719 88.555 3,144,554
233,159 233,159
1,365
349,478 25,860 1,702,855 Revised Original report in error.
2,097,740 323,738 3,359,412 See detailed analysis.
3,946,345 3,124,212 922,581 10,883,552 42,344 2,389,338 21,308,372
18.52%
7,169 202 791,308 798,679
108,144 958,567 1,066,711
349,225 349,225
1,913 17 312,562 314,492
6,000 175,176 181,176
765 1,530 648 2,943
183,017 183,017
3,960 75,231 79,191
22,310 22,310
85,874 67,123 28,591 281,186 9,133 471,907
310 157,782 158,092
6,326 80 240 191 1,102,491 1,109,328
1,,50,841 1,150,841
sub-totals
Reported Gateyards, FY98
Into Oakland landfills
3 Year Averages - Total Gtyds.
2 Year Averages - Total Gtyds.
3 Year Averages - Into Oakland Lfs,
2 Year Averages - Into Oakland Lfs.
4,071,720 1,951,043 956,326
4,459,331 2,547,406 940,486
9,659,371 1,567,702 6,977,216 25,183,378
48,940 7,615,455 26,017,616 10.405,998
2,504,088 495,984 322 245,711 257,731 33,141 3,536,977
2,710,810 577,931 484 289,913 0 49,703 3,628,840
Reports - Page 2
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.
What occurs when the disposal opportunities in Wayne County are factored into
play? As shown in the Disposal Capacity Availability Details exhibit on Page
WI.2, sufficient disposal capacity would exist to nearly the end of 2007,
substantially beyond the target date of December 31, 2004. In this instance,
the apparent year of depletion and the theoretical year of depletion are the
same since no remaining capacity exists within the County.
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 achieved a larger
percentage of volume reduction than is currently observed? As may be seen in
the "details" exhibit and given no additional inter-county flow authorizations
than those assumed in the basic analysis set above, sufficient capacity to
some point beyond the year 2010 is 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, 1999.
What If...? - Page 1
• --- v What If the Wayne County
opportunities were factored
into play ?
8
6
et -et \
EJ
1----A----A Millions of Gateyards 4 H
itT ,frit •
2
Today
_L I 0
•
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year Ending on December 31,
2008 2010 2006
Oakland County
Disposal Capacity
Availability
Details
Spring, 1999
• Total Needs
Type II Needs
-I, Net In-County
Wayne
- Washtenaw Primary
Washtenaw Secondary
• Macomb
-* Genesee
-v- Other Opportunities
- Future VR
- Gross In-County
Principal Variables
Demonstrated Volume Reduction Achievement Levels I Region's Landfill Density Factor
2000 MSW VR 1 2000 COD VP 2000 ISW VR (Gateyards per Bankyard)
19.58% 15.00% 15.00% 1.940
Export Opportunities in Millions of Gatey_ads
Wayne 2.000 Genesee 0.025
Washtenaw 1 1.500 Monroe 0.100
Washtenaw 2 0.250 Sanilac 0 000
Macomb 0.510 Others 0.128
25% [ hnports as a % of available in-county capacity —>
AnnuaIgateyaalsirprti —
Oakland County Iwo Northville)
04121/99 1429
Year 2000 Total Export Opportunities 4.513
FCJiart Basis 4,465,026 99 gateyards
RJS. PE
13:21
04/27/99
99GYDREG.WK4
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 Manaaement 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.
9. "Report of Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan, October 1, 1997 - September
7, 199" dated February 4, 1999 as released over the Internet on February
11, 1999.
10. Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity - Spring, 1998 and Oakland
County Board of Commissioners Miscellaneous Resolution #98111 dated May 7,
1998.
References - Page 1
Resolution #99112 May 13, 1999
Moved by Palmer supported by Galloway the resolution be adopted.
AYES: Dingeldey, Douglas, Galloway, Garfield, Gregory, Jensen, Law,
McCulloch, McPherson, Melton, Millard, Moffitt, Obrecht, Palmer, Patterson,
Schmid, Suarez, Taub, Amos, Appel, Causey-Mitchell, Colasanti, Coleman,
Devine. (24)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, G. William Caddell, 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 13, 1999 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 10h ciX of May, ;.9 199.
G. William Caddell, County Clerk