HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 2000.06.15 - 26089,
June 15. 2000
MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION # 00161
BY: PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE - CHARLES E. PALMER, CHAIRPERSON
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE DISPOSAL CAPACITYACT 451 NON-HAZARDOUS
SOLID WASTES SPRING, 2000
To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS Oakland County's 1994 Amendments to the 1990 Solid Waste
Management Plan Update require that annually, on or before June 30, the Board
demonstrate and certify available remaining disposal capacity for all Act 451 non-
hazardous solid wastes generated within the County; and
WHEREAS a finding that sufficient capacity is available (more than 66 months
beyond June 30) equates to a moratorium during the following year on the use of the
interim siting mechanism contained in the 1994 Amendments for the siting of additional
landfill capacity in the County; and
WHEREAS Act 451 as amended, concludes that failure to adopt a required annual
certification is equivalent to a finding that less than a sufficient amount of capacity is
available and the interim siting mechanism will then be operative on the first day of the
following January; and
WHEREAS a review has been conducted of the current and projected Act 451 non-
hazardous waste stream generated within the county, the current volume reduction efforts
being achieved by the County's residents and businesses, current inter-county flow
arrangements and of available remaining disposal capacity both within the County and
within nearby counties; and
WHEREAS the analysis contained in the County Executive's report titled
"Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity - May 26, 2000" (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, 2005 (which date is 66 months
beyond June 30, 2000) 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, 2002 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 Vote:
Motion carried unanimously on a roll call
vote with Schmid, Sever and Gregory absent.
8
6
4 DISPOSAL NEEDS Millions of Gateyards 2
Oakland County Disposal Capacity Availability - Spring, 2000
Act 451 Non-Hazardous Solid Wastes with 1998 Volume Reduction Rates Held Constant
DISPOSAL
OPPORTUNITIES
Apparent Year of Depletion 2006
Year of Depletion using all
remaining in-county capacity 2006
2000 CERTIFICATION
TARGET DATE
DECEMBER 31, 2005
0 I—I-
1994
i 1 I I i I I 1 1 I
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year Ending on December 31,
OOGYDEMO.WK4 RJS. PE 0512912000 Oaldand County Solid Waste Management Planning
1990
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN UPDATE
As Amended
On June 9, 1994
Oakland County, Michigan
Demonstration of
Available Disposal Capacity
May 26, 2000
L. Brooks Patterson, County Executive
Collection
Transfer or
Direct Haul
Processing
Facilities
Transfer or
Direct Haul
Volume
Reduction
Disposal
Facilities
I Source
Separated I I Returnables
Recyclables
Yard
Wastes
eli 1
Haz Waste
Disposal
1
Mixed
Wastes
Household
Hazardous
Wastes
Hazardous
Wastes
Special
Wastes
• •
Nst Special mked-Waste Processing MRF Processing Prce
. 11111)111111.
1111 libil Incineration
t 6'
1111
OW °r WTE re1411 Ir Or
Special
Wastes
Landfill
Compost
Sites MRF Facilities MRF Fad!' Mixed-Waste
MRF
Sanitary
Landfill Monofill
Ash I
Markets Conserve
Resources
Recovered
Materials
Markets
- Utility Grid -
Gas, Steam &
Electricity Use of Non-
Renewable
Resources
Other
Uses
Source
Reduction Manufacture of
New Products
Consumer
Of
Solid Waste Generator
Careful
Purchasing
Decisions
Solid Waste Generation, Collection, Handling, Processing and Disposal
It's a Complex and Continuous Process. . .
Waste
Minimization
Source & Reuse
Separation
Careful
Purchasing
Decisions
Consumer
Of
Solid Waste Generator Generally Act 451 ...
Part 115 Potful
Methane Recovery
Leachate
Treatment
I
Minimize
Impacts
Problem:
Disposal facilities use valuable land
and cause health and environmental
concerns because of gaseous,
particulate and liquid emissions.
Basic Approach:
Reduce the rate at which waste is
generated and maximize the
recovery of materials and energy
to minimize The need for locating
additional disposal facilities and
to minimize their impact.
Issue:
What roles should Oakland County
and its 61 cities, villages and
townships play?
Solid Waste Management Planning RJS, P.E. - May 26, 2000 Oakland County, Michigan
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.
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, 2005 or more than 66 months from June 30, 2000. 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 2001.
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
Pace Exhibit
List of Exhibits
List of Exhibits
1.2
2.2
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
5.2
5.3
WI.2
It's a Complex and Continuous Process...
Oakland County's Municipalities
SEMCOG's 2020 Regional Development Forecast
Projected Disposal Needs
Disposal Facilities in Southeastern Michigan
Southeast Michigan's Landfills - May, 2000
Regional Operating Capacity
Oakland County's Disposal Capacity Opportunities
Oakland County - Disposal Capacity Availability - Spring, 2000
Oakland Co. - Disposal Capacity Availability Details - Spring, 2000
Type II Landfills - Theoretical Service Areas
Exhibit 33 from the 1999 Plan Update
LAPEER COUNTY
WASHTENAW CO.
Oakland County's Municipalities
30 Cities
21 Townships
10 Villages
61 Total Solid Waste Management Planning RJS, P.E. - May 26, 20(X)
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 and
those contained within the 1999 Solid Waste Management Plan Update 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
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920 11
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000 Projected
2010
2020
23,646
31,270 7,624 32.24%
38,261 6,991 22.36%
40,867 2,606 6.81%
41,537 670 1.64%
41,245 (292) -0.70%
44,792 3,547 8.60%
49,576 4,784 10.68%
90,050 40,474 81.64%
211,251 121,201 134.59%
254,068 42,817 20.27%
396,001 141,933 55.86%
690,603 294,602 74.39%
907,871 217,268 31.46%
1,011,793 103,922 11.45%
1,083,592 71,799 7.10%
1,192,164 108,572 10.02%
1,272,192 80,028 6.71%
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
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 several recent reports of solid waste landfilled in Michigan which are
of interest. These reports covered Fiscal Years 97, 98 and 99 (those periods
from October 1, through the following September 30). The first report in this
series (FY96) covered the period during which the report legislation was
adopted and the data 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 three year period was
4,417,364 gateyards per year (see Appendix). The average waste stream
projection using the current models for the same period of time was 4,405,308
gateyards per year, a value within 0.3% 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
Oakland County (WO Northville)
Baseline Volume Reduction Achievement Levels - 1998 Volume Reduction Efforts Held Constant
Projected Disposal Needs
rdl loc.wk4
05/24/2000
09AS
1,147,464
744,394
119,215
1,155,735
756,548
118,5139
2,162.97
1,889.93
299.81
4,352.71
437.97
427.74
5,218.41
2,178.56
1,931.53
291.83
4,401.92
442.69
418.36
5,280.98
1.172,276 1,180.548 1,188,817
780,855 793,009 805,163
117.336 116,710 116,084
1,278,433
882,668
121,490
1,287,813
883,035
120,579
1,164.005
768,702
117.963
1,212,893
835.155
118,731
1,204,868
825,158
117.849
1,196,842
815,160
116,966
1,228,944
855.150
120,496
1.261.031
876,872
122,019
1,236,966
860,580
120,877
1,220,919
845,153
119,614
1,244,988
866,011
121,258
1.253,009
871,441
121,638
1.269,053
882,302
122,400
2,209.74 2,225.33 2240.02
2,014.72 2,066.32 2,067.61
276.66 267.61 259.94
4,500.35 4,549.56 4,598.71
452.15 456.88 461.61
393.61 382.23 370.86
5,346.11 5,388.67 6,431.24
2.194.15
1,973.12
283.86
4,451.13
447.42
404.99
'5,333.54
2,331.68
2,269.18
245.64
4.84-1-3.41:1
2,346.80
2.28795
242.21
1,17aTM
2,381.92
2,306.12
238.78
TOM
2,377.04
2,324.60
235.35
4,936.99
2,392.16
2,343.07
231.92
4.967.16
2,409.85
2,346.92
228.57
.101-534
2,427.53
2,350.77
225.22
5,003.52
488.70 491.81
345.66 340.66
5,710.91 -3,730.30
9.19 9.17 9.16 9.15 9.13 9.09 9.05
485.88
350.45
5.68252
498.04
330.88
67706767
502.55
321.32
'5,82(39
494.92
335.77
5,767.66'
600.29
326.10
3,811.73
2,256.05 2,271.18
2,128.47 2,159.03
257.77 255.59
4,642.28 4,685.79
465.78 469.95 474.12 478.30 482.47
387.76 364.65 361.55 358.45 355.34
5,47512- 5,52040- 5,564.98' -5,506.0 5954.14
9.15 9.16 9.18 9.19 9.20
2.288.30
2,189.59
253.42
4,729.30
2,316.56
2,250.70
249.07
4,818.33
2,301.43
2,220.14
251.24
4,772.81
369.07 371.68 374.28
40.29 41.13 41.96
169.05 17024 171.43
261.91 267.32 272.73
41.38 40.19 38.99
67.82 68.53 69.24
59.04 57.34 55.63
0.00 0.00 0.00
1,008.57 1,016.42 1,024.26
7.08
24.16
0.00
5.19
4.17
413
7.02
23.89
0.00
6.14
4.30
318.81
38.63
166.66
251.10
43.78
66.40
62.45
97.75 MOO
6.08
23.08
25.90
4.98
4.68
366.47
39.46
167.85
256.51
42.58
67.11
60.75
48.88
6.90
23.35
12.95
5.03
4.56
6.96
23.62
0.00
5.09
4.43
URN
376.81
42.57
172.59
276.70
38.66
69.87
55.16
0.00
1,032.36
7.13
24.40
0.00
6.24
4.14
379.33
43.18
173.74
280.67
38.34
70.49
64.70
0.00
7.18
24.64
0.00
5.29
4.10
381.86
43.79
174.90
284.65
38.01
71.12
64.23
0.00 rum
724
24.88
0.00
5.33
4.07
384.39
44.40
176.06
288.62
37.69
71.74
5177
0.00
71907
7.29
25.12 0.00
5.38
4.03
386.92
46.01
177.22
292.59
37.36
72.37
5130
0.00 TAIT77
7.34
25.36 0.00
5.43
4.00
389.44
45.38
178.37
294.99
36.85
72.84
52.57
0.00
1,070.44
7.39
25.51
0.00
5.48
3.94
391.97
45.75
179.53
297.39
36.33
73.30
51.83
0.00 METT
7.44
25.66
0.00
5.50
3.89
394.49
46.12
180.69
299.80
35.82
73.77
51.10
0.00
T.FIT71
7.49
25.81
0.00
5.53
3.83
397.02
48.49
181.84
302.20
35.30
74.24
60.37
0.00 1761774
7.54
25.97
0.00
5.57
3.78
399.54
46.86
183.00
304.60
34.79
74.71
49.63
0.00
rUITTS
7.59
26.12
0.00
5.60
3.72
402.50
46.94
184.35
305.10
34.29
75.04
48.91
0.00 rvi713
7.64
28.19
0.00
5.63
3.67
405.45
47.02
185.71
305.60
33.78
75.38
48.20
0.00
1,101.13
7.69
26.25
0.00
6.65
361
271.80
28.35
165.47
245.69
44.97
65,69
64.16
97.75
5.10
22.81 25.90
4.93
4.81
an 11-10 95- 43
i 298 oa 42ia0
3,514.35
25.90
381.27
358.59
3,526.59
25.90
377.20
368.39
7.40 7.47 7.48 7.48 7.49 7.50 7.52 7.53 7.54 7.53 7.51 7.50 7.49 7.48 7.44 7.41
3,897,802 3,995,888 4,040,457 4,085,025 4.124,273 4,163.531 4,202,801 4,242,082 4.281,373
4,727 o o o o o o o 0
281,300 284.272 287,246 290,218 292,841 295,464 298,087 300,710 303,334
145,497 141,410 137,323 133,237 132,122 131,007 129,892 128,777 127,862
4,329.326 4.421371 4,465,025 4606.479 4,640,235 4,500002 4.630,760 4,871589 4.712,389
4,308,124 4,334,874 4,361,623 4,388,371 4,415,119 4,4.30,373 4,445,621 o 0 0 o o o o
305,291 307,249 309,207 311,165 313,123 314,542 315.960
125,904 124,146 122,388 120,630 118,873 117,156 115,439
4,739,319 4,786269 4,793218 4,820,167 4,847,114 4,882971 4,877921
3,559.54
12.95
385.34
348.79
3,689.91 3,730.62
0.00 0.00
393.49 397.56
_329.20 _319.40
3,766.48 3,802.34
0.00 0.00
401.15 404.75
316.73 314.06
3,909.93
0.00
415.53
306.04 (.831.4n
3,934.36
0.00
418.21
301.82
85iF39
3.64921
0.00
389.41
339.00 BO 4447_58 4.45438
3,838.21
0.00
408.34
311.38
3,874.07
0.00
411.93
308.71
557-03--4-3113
4,032.07
0.00
428.94
284.97
3,983.22
0.00
423.57
2M.40
3,958.79
0.00
420.89
297.61
4,059.91
0.00
432.82
273.74
4,007.64
0.00
42625
289.18
4,045.99
0.00
430.88
280.85
1.7613-.13--4-77373--473.5737F-
2,154,082
152.646
125.904
2.432,617
2,167,437 2.180,611
153,625 154,604 124 146 122,388 Z1454,205-7337;50 3
2,020,228 2.042.512 2.062,136 2,081,766 2101,400 2.121,041 2,140,687 o o o o o o o
143.622 145,109 146,420 147,732 149,044 150,355 151,687
137.323 133,237 132,122 13 1 007 129,892 128,777 127,662
2,301,174 Z-320,666- 2,340,675 2,350,934 2;380,336 2,406,173 2,420,016
721.43 720.14
1,399.81 1,398.94
1.94 1.94
719.59 719.05 718.52 717.99 717.47
1,398.56 1,398.19 1,397.82 1,397.48 1,397.09
1.94 1.94 1.95 1.95 1.95
726.19
1,403.67
1.93
722.74
1,400.69
194
718.92 716.37
1,396.73 1,398.37
715.83 715.30 714.77
1,396.02 1,395.66 1,395.32
1.95 1.96 1.95 1.95 1.95
2,222,810
0
157,980
115,439
2,466,230
71390
1,394.79
195
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Pooulation & Employment Stan
Population
Total Employment
Manufacturing Employment
Waite Stream Generated 001
Municipal Sold Waste (MSW)
Residential
Corn/natal
Industrial
Total MSW
Const & Demo. Debris (COO)
Ind. Special Wastes (ISW)
Total Waste Stream wo VR
/ capita / day
Reduction end Recycling (tod1 Residential Yard Wastes
CM& Yard Wastes
Residential Recycling
Commercial MSW Recycling
Industrial MSW RecycIng
COD Recycling
ISW Recycling
MSW Incinerated Gross Total Reductions
Process Residues (174d)
Composting
Recycling
Indnerator Mn
COO
ISW
Sub-total, Process Residues
9.10 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14
Wastes Requiring Landfiti Disposal nod)
Municipal Sold Waste (MSW)
MSW Mn
Cora & Demo. Debris (COD)
Ind. Special Wastes (ISW) Total Stream
/ capita / day
imeg_gaigyargs
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
MSW Ash
Const & Demo. Debris (COD)
Ind. Special Wastes (ISW)
Total Stream
7.49 7.41
3,861,613 3,848,210
9.455 9,455
275.354 278,327
153,671 149,684
4,300,093 4285,576
Armal Banigards
Municipal Sold Waste (MSW)
MSW Ash
Const & Demo. Debris (CAD)
Ind. Special Wastes (ISW)
Total Steam
AlLerigareldralatilittga
Menlo Bankyard Density
Average Gateyards per Bankyarcl
1,930,807 1,924,105 1,948,901 1,997944
9,455 9,455 4,727 0
137,677 139.163 140,650 142,136
163,671 149,584 145,497 141,410
MWT,22216770§1,77r27MV
729.66 729.07
1,405.98 1,405.96
1.93 1.93
2,194,186 2.207,559 2,215,187
155,583 156,562 157,271
120,630 118.873 117.156
M.3§§t§§5
714.33
1,395.05
1.95
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.
The "Disposal Facilities in Southeastern Michigan" map on Page 3.2 and related
locational and ownership information on Page 3.3 provide a basic overview of
all disposal facilities within the nearby 22 county area. 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, 1999. 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. Opportunities are defined by the maximum level of permissible
intercounty flows from Oakland County into the subject host county facilities.
This information is displayed in the exhibit on Page 3.5.
In previous Demonstration of Available Capacity reports, the level of future
permissive exports from Oakland County to Wayne County has been displayed at
zero. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality had previously advised
that since the January, 1995 MDEQ 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. This position
was take by MDEQ even though flows from Oakland County into Wayne County were
declared permissible within a related consent judgement filed in the same
Court and in spite of agreement between the counties that intercounty flows of
wastes at a maximum level of 2,000,000 gateyards per year were acceptable.
Oakland County has previously taken the position that although it could be
successfully argued that MDEQ's position on this matter was incorrect and that
exports to Wayne County in the annual maximum amount of 2 million gateyards
were in fact permissible, no issue would be made on this matter. This
position was taken simply because a sufficient amount of export opportunities
existed to other nearby counties to meet annual demonstration requirements.
The Year 2000 demonstration however presents a different set of circumstances.
Without including the impact of exports to Wayne County, proof of disposal
capacity availability through the next 66 months becomes somewhat unrealistic
as it must depend upon permissible exports to more distant disposal
opportunities located within Michigan and at out-of-state disposal points.
Thus, an export opportunity of 2,000,000 gateyards per year to Wayne County is
displayed as a realistic continuation of the current free-market world.
Additionally, as more county plan updates are approved, increased disposal
opportunities for Oakland County wastes continue to become available.
Chapter 3 - Page 1
Solid Waste Database
Oakland County, Michigan 0 5 10 Wes 25
May, 2000 Vlay, GLAJLJ Wh - - -0 frff OW
Br A
I ndffil 111 woII
11
• E 10„... D „10,k NB
• ii-izbu.sdn3 I nil=
&la L
Ai III 111,4 !LC ° ' 111111
ireff mil iril _ mi._ .. NI • sie mom Ilj i a mum eassmi rion s o
mil 1 rk 0 EMI Imo at izeso., . poeal li
scazi • 1111%,
Ns 1111111111EW
II
Mal °°4 SI ME , 49 111111111111111
Dae art 111 11111ENEEMEZ i 0
• II 1721111156arm. .7.0
1111= NM IT "`
• II MI
CEMII 11 11162191=11111,
MEE m 12E21111MM mfrir
Ern wa,n6 ttimi ...Ali GM( Road ii
ME I
EMS ) Stbley Quarry
ME
11161„ go outh
IIII 1101111111.1"Mir
Southeastern Michigan
23 IMMEM1111/ smu UV' : .wTYPasetell-uton-ciflEnellerey& (mine r Manta -
I Ju #1i . ,, * Hazardous Waste Landfills (Type I)
Stblay Quarry
Disposal Facilities
J...., in
Disposal Facilities
in
Southeastern Michigan
• Special Purpose Landfills (Type Ill)
o 'Type II Landfills
* Waste-to-Energy & Incinerator Plants
Special Purpose Landfills (Type Ill)
* Hazardous Waste Landfills (Type I)
R,16, PE. May 26,2000
3 . 2
Owner Township
Co.
# County
Basic Ash Mono Type III Type I
Section Type Cells? Cells? Cells? Landfill Name
Solid Waste Database Southeast Michigan's Landfills - M y. 2000
Oakland County, Michigan
newmap3.wk4
RJS, P.E.
05/28/2000
Southeastern Michigan
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
73 Saginaw
Saginaw
Saginaw
74 St. Clair
St. Clair
76 Sanilac
78 Shiawassee
81 Washtenaw
82 Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Counties - 22 Counties
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 Twp.
Midland Twp.
Erie Twp. - 9S, 8E
Monroe Twp.
City of Monroe
Erie Twp.
Ash Twp.
Berlin Twp.
Pontiac Twp.
Orion Twp.
Pontiac Twp.
Taymouth Twp.
Taymouth Twp.
Buena Vista 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.
Gibraltar
Monquagon Twp.
IOW
2
1
1
29
23
23
22
3
13
24
1
21
6
23
12
35
6
16
6
14
8
34
9
27
2
15
15
5
32
12
32
27
13
17
36
11
35
1
33
27
34
36
36
35
7
Ill
Ill
Ill
II Yes Yes
Ill
II - Banked for Future Use
Ill
Ill
Ill
ill
Ill
Ill
II
It - Banked for Future Use
Ill
II Yes
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Whitefeather Landfill
D. E. Kern Plant
J. C. Weadock Coal Ash Disposal
Granger #2 Landfill
Brent Run Landfill
Citizens Disposal
Cove Landfill
Granger #1 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
Standard - Rockwood Landfill
Collier Road Landfill
Eagle Valley REIF
Oakland Heights
Peoples Garbage Disposal, Inc.
Taymouth Landfill
GM Central Foundry - Grey Iron Plant
Smith Creek
Range Road Property
Tr-City RDF
Venice Park Landfill
Arbor Hills West Landfill
Only Wayne Disposal Site #2
Carleton Farms
Riverview Land Preserve
Sauk Trail Hills
Woodland Meadows RDF *
Taylor Landfill Site
City of Livonia LF Site
Edward C. Levy
Yes Ford Allen Park Clay Mine Landfill
Huron Quarry SLF
McClouth Steel Products Corp.
Sibley Quarry
USA Waste Services, Inc.
Consumers Power Co.
Consumers Power Co.
Granger Land Development Co.
Republic Services Inc. - (+ 32.887)
Allied Waste industries, Inc.
Mitech Services
Granger Land Development Co.
Daggett Sand & Gravel, Inc.
USA Waste Services, Inc.
Liberty Environmentalist
USA Waste SEIIViCOS, Inc.
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
USA Waste Services - (+ 14.133)
City of Midland
Dow Chemical Co.
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
Detroit Edison Co.
Jefferson Smurfit Corp.
Consumers Power Co.
Regulated Resource Recovery, Inc.
Standard Disposal Services, Inc.
City of Pontiac
Waste Management
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
USA Waste Services, Inc.
Tay-Ban Corp.
General Motors
St. Clair Solid Waste Agency
Detroit Edison Co.
Waste Management
Waste Management
Superior Waste Services
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
43 landfills in13 counties - 1 Typal
24 Typal
ilTypeill
Solid Waste Database How Much Annual ODerating_CapacitrWill Be Available in the Region? 00gydemo.w1c4
Oakland County, Michigan (Millions of Gateyards) RJS, PE
05/28/2000
Average gtyds/bankyard 1.94 10:31
Facility
Oaldand Eagle CoWer Antares Calms Brant Riverview Woodland Sauk Trail Carleton
Yew Heights Vagey Road SOCRRA Arbor Has Acres Disposal Run Highlands Meadows His Fauns
SomeUWE
• - Snaky:ads as of 1/112000
Bank/Inds remaining at 111190
Average Mt °Mayan* 9549
5.085 3.400 0.953 0:000 26.578 21.771 13.582 41.529 14.383 24.491 17.828 90:848
1.582 1.871 0.369 0.003 3.828 1.854 0.994 0.888 1.148 3.937 2.886 2.793
1992 0.712 0.716 0.156 0.003 2.956 0.832 0.715 0.500 1.032 2.574 1.000 1.872
1993 0.712 0.716 0.156 0.003 2.9E6 0.832 0.715 0.500 1.032 2.574 1.600 1.872
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
1995 0.954 1.583 0330 0.003 2.955 0.832 0.715 0.500 1.500 2.496 2.000 3.524
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
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
1998 1.703 1.434 0.382 0.001 4.342 2.239 1.067 0.799 0.694 3.359 3.146 3.148
1999 1.743 1.826 0.277 0.005 4.072 2.785 0.896 0.266 1.225 4.975 3.533 1.049
2000 1.582 1.671 0.359 3.626 1.854 0.894 0.888 1.146 3.937 2.696 2.793
2001 1.582 1.671 0.359 3.628 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 1937 2.896 2.793
2002 1.582 1.671 0.359 3.626 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 3.937 2.696 2.793
2003 1.582 1.582 0.359 3.626 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.148 3.937 2.696 2.793
2004 1.582 0.135 3.626 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 3.937 2.696 2.793
2005 1.582 3.626 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 3.937 2.696 2.793
2006 0.372 3.626 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 3.937 2.696 2.793
2007 3.628 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.148 3.937 2.696 2.793
2008 3.626 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 3.937 2.696 2.793
2009 3.626 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 3.937 2.696 2.793
2010 3.626 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 3.167 2.696 2.793
2011 3.626 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 1.010 2.793
2012 3.626 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 2793
2013 0.343 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 2.793
2014 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 2.793
2015 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 2.793
2016 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 2.793
2017 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 2.793
2018 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 2.793
2019 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 2.793
2020 1.854 0.894 0.688 1.146 2.793
Facility
Aged Pioneer TriCky Siblay Huron Ford Levy Macula CSyof Standard
Year Taylor Minn Rock Sargac any Clowly Alen Park Taylor Steal Livonia Rockwood
SPIMMSOlga: New Faulty?
No
Year 2005
11.000
Bankyards renwning at 1/1/99 0.000 1.348 2.240 10.780 15.338 1.108 1.417 1.568 4.855 0:888 21.683
Average Ann. °stapled% 95-08 0.000 0.303 0.083 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.178 0.350 0.000 0.007 0.317
1992 0.000 0.749 0.085 0.125 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020 0.215
1993 0.000 0.749 0.085 0.125 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020 0.215
1994 0.000 0.749 0.085 0.125 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020 0.215
1995 0.000 0.749 0.085 0.125 0.400 0.025 0.200 0.400 0.150 0.020 0.215
1996 0.000 0.271 0.085 0.136 0.244 0.025 0.121 0.358 0.000 0.008 0.034
1997 0.000 0.310 0.090 0.271 0.243 0.040 0.148 0.341 0.000 0.009 0.232
1998 0.000 0.314 0.079 0.168 0.233 0.026 0.212 0.382 0.000 0.001 0.472
1999 0.000 0.319 0.000 0.234 0.234 0.000 0.225 0.321 0.000 0.010 0.532
2000 0.000 0.303 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.350 0.000 0.007 0.317
2001 0.000 0.303 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.350 0.000 0.007 0.317
2002 0.000 0.303 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.350 0.000 0.007 0.317
2003 0.000 0.303 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.350 0.000 0.007 0.317
2004 0.000 0.303 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.350 0.000 0.007 0.317
2005 0.000 0.303 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.350 0.000 0.007 0.317
2006 0.000 0.303 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.350 0.000 0.007 0.317
2007 0.000 0.169 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.252 0.000 0.007 0.317
2008 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.000 0.007 0.317
2009 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.000 0.007 0.317
2010 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.000 0.007 0.317
2011 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.000 0.007 0.317
2012 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.000 0.007 0.317
2013 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.176 0.000 0.007 0.317
2014 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.056 0.000 0.007 0.317
2015 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.000 0.007 0.317
2016 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.000 0.007 0.317
2017 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.000 0.007 0.317
2018 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.000 0.007 0.317
2019 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.000 0.007 0.317
2020 0.000 0.063 0.200 0.239 0.023 0.030 0.007 0.317
3 . 4
E
1 .8
113
ta
v)
▪
c)
c
B 0 in c.)
g
'2 -se• o no u30
(33 a
8
4 Li,
I di
8.,1" WIL"Fiz're&Vgli."41R"PigIrlAHHASS222§§ 3g4C e4 m v, v- v- v- tra. ,7 01 4I 41 40 41 41 §
5. 2 3 zki CO OD r: a r- C- OD C: CZ P.: 47 Ul nr nr ni Ti 04 e4 C4 CD CD ci 6 CD 6 6
Ili Z4
•
3
3 I
1,
:E
(73
2
0NNN A M A A !I A 1 M A ▪ cd r- r- as as ai ai co ad aS OD nr nr nr nr C4 C4 cS cs cs 6 cS ci 6
Ni 4 4 v. ni nr no. ni nr nr ni no' nr ni nr nr 'tt
R CS :2 2R SR SR SR gR gR SR S8 S3 S8 R S8 S3 g w, 01 el el el el el ml ul ul ul
NC1NO00O000
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ csiesic•icsicirsicsicsioicnicsicsitnioicsic•i6666666666
885388888888E88888888SHHM
• e4 C4 C4 C4 C4 Ci C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 CM CI el Ci (1 CI 000 000 00 0 00 CD CD 0 000 0 CD C7 CJ CD CD CD CD C7 CD CD CD
M U M R§:U §IMUM H LIM
,?,§J?,§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ o csocicicicicicici ci ci ociciocicici
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§e 8 006666666666666666666
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ 606666666666666666666
EMEEEEHREEEHHEREEn ocia 66 00600000000000 oocicio
',.; cur', .7, cii; cif', ic,', :7, c.,',. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §§ § § § § §
c. a a ta.e!
00000000666666666666666666666
11 1 • "6 Je 2
FIFM§2 8 8 °°°°°°°
vg.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ .1.= 2
CD 60 CD CD 6 6 6 6 6 dada 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ci 6 6 ci 6 6 ci 6 6
5 li 4
• q .5-
qqq IL g 11
CD CD CI CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C) CS 6 6 6 6 cS cS 6 6 6 6 ci 6 6 6 6 cS ti -5 i
41 41 Ill 4) 41 47 41 47 WI Ul 41 47 4) Ul Ul 41 WI 41 Ul 141 W) 41 41 47 DM ID 41 41 4) 13 C C
N El g El El El El El El El 21 El El El El El El El El El El El ll El El El El El El a:3 a
a0000cieeeeeeoci0000cicioociacioodo %2E c.121 1
0 S F. zm p.
C401CI C1 VI r-C4C4
.P-3V-
CD COCD
C4'-.1ZAI2g2CTDC.13(.13 lc3 2Cr;§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C4 C4 01 C4 CI V7 es es el as es es v- CD 6 CD CD 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
C4 01 Ir us qs r, 92 0) cp g g 9R CD ,- C4 0) It 41 CO 7% as CD g
888882888 as CD C7 C7 CD 0 CD CD CD CD C7 C7 C4 04 C4 C4 C4 C4 04 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4
3 . 5
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. In the FY98 report, 5,735,187 gateyards or 12.3% were reported
from out-of-state sources. In the FY99 report, 6,349,695 gateyards or 12.2%
were reported from out-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 (or approximately 207,000 gateyards)
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 forthe 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
Chapter 4 - Page 1
Chapter 4 - Inter-State and Inter-Country Flows
still hotly debated across the nation.
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 four
year period from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1999. 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 exhibits on pages 5.2 and 5.3, Oakland County
waste generators appear to have access to more than a sufficient amount of
landfill capacity until late 2006. Achievement of Oakland County's revised
volume reduction goals would extend the available capacity until beyond 2010.
As may be seen, disposal opportunities exceed estimated needs by about 59%
through the year 2003. During 2004, Oakland County landfills will start to
reach capacity and be closed. Thus, without additional landfill capacity
within Oakland County, exports of Oakland County wastes will dramatically
increase from current levels to 100% by the Year 2007.
For additional analysis of future disposal capacity availability and the
impact that increased exports will ultimately have, see the "What If...?"
appendix.
Findings:
Oakland County has access to more than 66 months of disposal capacity beyond
June 30, 2000. Therefore, Oakland County's Interim Siting Mechanism for
landfill facilities need not be made operative through the year 2001 as
provided for in Act 451 as amended.
Chapter 5 - Page 1
Snoods as a% of available In-casity capadty
8001M192115115:16.18XEL.—
Oakland County (wo Northville)
10112199 15:44
25%
1999 Total Gtyds = 4.465.025
_
Oakland County
Disposal Capacity
_ Availability
:. Spring, 2000
-g
1 TO 0 4 - 0 0) C .2 -gt Total Needs
a 411. Type II Needs wo CDD & ISW
oz r. c : :1 a -* Total In-County Capacity
.7. il a Available In-County Capacity
—
-0- Total Available to Oakland Co.
c ..s
ck.„,.......„.
i i i I I I t I I i I I
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year Ending on December 31,
Principal Variables
Demonstrated Volume Reduction Achievement Levels Region's Landfil Density Factor
2000 MSW VR 2000 COD VR 2000 ISW VR (Gateyards per Bankyard)
19.56% 15.00% 15.00% 1.940
YitariCaLF-X9099
Disposal Opportunities
58.57%
Disposal Opportunities Selected
Wayne Co. Arbor Hills + Genesee Co.
2.000 0.250 0.025
Date at Which
Insufficient Caisicity Occurs
After Exhausting All Remaining
Available In-County Capacity
12/29/2008
Apparent Shortage Year
20013
RJS. PE
11:20
05/282000
00gydemo.wk4
Millions of Gateyards 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year Ending on December 31,
2006 2010
rix
2008
Oakland County
Disposal Capacity
Availability
Details
Spring, 2000
• Total Needs
4- Type ll Needs
* Net In-County
Wayne
-0- Washtenaw Primary
Washtenew Secondary
• Macomb
* Genesee
Other Opportunities
.0 Future VR
* Gross In-County
Principal Variables
Demonstrated Vokime Reduction Adievernent Levels Region's Landfill Density Factor
2000 MSW VR 2000 CDD VR 2000 ISW VR (Gateyards per Bankyard)
19.56% 15.00% 15.00% 1.940
Export Opportunities in Millions of Geteyards
Wayne 2.000 Genesee 0.025
Washtenaw 1 1.500 Monroe 0.063
Washtenaw 2 0.250 Sanilac 0.000
Macomb 0.500 Others 0.101
25% I knports as a% of available In-county capacity I
&ThlIg9a1Villf910f1M---
Oakland Canty (so Nortiville)
10/12199 15:44
Year 2000 Total Export Opportunities 4.440
Chart Basis 4,465,025 99 gateyards
RJS, PE
11:11
05/2812000
00gyderno.wk4
5.4
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, Pace 6. As provided for by the 1994
amendments, the lanauage contained in the bold italics was to be automatically
. adiusted to match language adapted by the Michiaan Leaislature 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 fa/1 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 MOHR, 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 wereqDroperly 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 MUSQ 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.
Note: This summary material was prepared by
Oakland Coady Solid Waste Planning after
modfying data contained In the MOSQ FY99
report dated February 9,2000. I 95Pd - 4zode):1 19 20
g • Told
Wastes
Handed
110 1,161210
12.000
403.946
104,331
18
23,471
112,033
2,920,268
1,332,111
113.177
507 111.971
310.437
54221 1419.140 360
1.263 64.241 2.374
2 1 1
33.020
4.071
150,976
97.479
731402 2,925
27,602
912.006
417.262
4 612,797
111.666
1 22
Michloan Disposed Posts
1Genesee
2 Ingham
3Jackson
4 Lapeer
5 Lenewee
6 Uyingston
7 Macomb
8 Monroe
9 Oakland
10 Saginaw
11 Sadisc
12SNewassee
13 SI Clair
14 Tuscokt
15 Washtenew
18 Wayte
17 Other Counties
Totals
% of Michigan Wastes
• 01.4.660 other jurtsdlOons inrolosd. 8129% at .31 wales handed in
6061416 14 FY99 wets di:pos.41o/ In
62.74% of al wades pnaralled
81111 1416149en P188 wen disposal 60 81
46,113.066 those 16 courdos.
4249463
426,251
2.542.097
Report of Solid Waste Lanailied in Michigan
October 1,1998 through September SO. 1991 Gateyards of Act 451 Type II and Type III Solid Wastes
By Source of Generation and By Disposal Points
Pc4nt of Waste Genemilon Moires of Wastes)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
S
1 1 i 1 1
S
1 1. 1
1
1 M
2 I 1 a I
A
1 1
i
M it II
i
1
1
003,372 14 92149
6.000
365.520
1,754 3.060
70,936 404
54.205
30,037
50 3410
106 133 117
20 1.101,991 3.966
1 5 2
1.560.703 1.199232 376.243 125.903
4.1% 2.6% CO% 0.3%
110,406 112,573 911.5211 19,005 6,680 31,291 9
6.000 1
6,000 4,000 1
0
5.344 12 11,354 3 70461 1 316.640
0
53.053 69.130 2.795.140
1,506 500,799 925,449 1 422.839 40 2.653249
14.880 120 1 31.705 3.861.632
66,613 464289 3 299 2,612,007
7,762 30,147 1 63.086 234.200
524 1.421 64,010 9 7.1330 1,517.619
. 112.006
0
1106.612 197 1 1.171.664 67286 4.071.451
tattoos I isms 6 4,966 4 473.717 6,626 11,671.663
14755.443 3466266 9 22.027 20.127.356
30 7 4
055.151 4233421 2.142.743 167426 170,006 939.662 110.042 1.014.933 11.414186 16.371,546 4.006204 2.342,791 18,237 62.132.606
52,132,906
cos 1.9% 45% 4.7% OA% OA% 2.1% 0.4% 2.2% 252% 35.0%
1.190,977
30,399 36,330
506220
0,734
51.043 311.391
326 2,336 246.411
7.739
247.136 112.343 4,012.976
0.5% 0.4%
2,502626
111180 16 counties worded 14.2% of JAI:Norf. :MEM wad. shoo.
Panord.o. 1910o 16 comtlas.
disposed of
In-counly
3114% 0.6%! 05.1031 5.0s! 30.114 0.0%1 62.5%! 55.1%! 674111 912%1 67.6%! 06.514 97.0%1 0.0%1 46.0%! 90.651
11/12117;1111
77111
Two II Guars!
Typo IMod
Typo Ingsgolod
Totes
EMI ELff ECM
31.670.777 39271292 41,056,734
2444.041 2450362 2,644264
261234 21277 214.156
1206,351 2.126.654 2.113,075
42282443 43.677,107 44662.063 62,132206
Ea= BM 5 122.12 213 OM 2 EON %
lachlgon 3E003,710 71.0% 37,083,008 67.0% 44234230 57.3% 46283274 87.1%
0144441814 5249.767 13.5% 54111452 122% 5,736,197 123% 6.349295 12.2%
Unassigned MINS 15.6% 101,746 0.2% 152,536 04% 99,207 0.2%
Totals 42.262,443 100.0% 43177,107 100.5% 46162,653 100.0% 52.132.906 100.0%
Caution: The Michigan data does not condln information on exports of Midigan generated wastes to other states ar countries.
FY111.1MC4
03.05/2000
1617
R.18. PE
484
2,742
67,265
ao
28,027
1,454
4,072
299 40
0 0 99,237
Report of Solid Waste Lanctfilled In Michigan
October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999
FY00.WK4
0011/2000
15:52
Rabb, RE.
The Sources of Wastes Landfilled In Michigan
OakyanitglActlejaptirMetel % Disposed
In Source
Type III Mixed Segregated Total County
9,863
50,540 18.06%
150,080 358,906
648,828 770,953 84.16%
2,788 77,245
70 7,676 GabY11028,CLegAILSOlklikatffe
26,383 100.00%
41 126,551 98.04% Other Sources Type II Type III Mixed Segregated Total
23,175 227,174 657,834 37.04%
1,997 32,884 Canada 2,338,660 4,131 2,342,791
17 819,497 87.63%
461,300 Connecticut 63 70 133
75,614 Illinois 558,117 50 558,167
75,000 Indiana 1,827,413 1,827,413
189,951 348,552 91.46% New Jersey 300 8 308
98,843 New York 180 180
146,081 92.21% Ohio 987,068 13,699 1,000,757
200 90,996 98.46% Pennsylvania 120 120
43,622 128,411 69.35% VVisconsin 619,824 2 e19,826
43 69,118 99.94%
100,375 220,267 100.00%
185,629 355,583 52.18% Out-of-State 6,331,735 17,958 2 0 6,349,695
58,798 313,361
2,117 96,880 Source unassigned
125,280 1,888,702 30.83% or unknown 96,495 2,742 99,237
50,230
48,522
67,032 274,517 24.42% Grand Totals 45,113,065 4,049,453 428,291 2,542,097 52,132,906
3,954 95,641
4,000 16,478
107,678
140 103,028 70.21%
415,361 1,189,932 0.50%
18,285 124,039 61.13%
67,347
25,680
2,772 148,236
270,466 375,663 98.10%
20,950 28,052 1,289,201 3.80%
847 98,725
41,129 2,464,809 17.30%
6,559 Point of Disposal of Unknown Source INastee
17,515
10,248 126,900
10,367 72,461 84.17%
23,478 247,135 78.07% Facility Type II Type III Mixed Segregated Total
4,953 182,343
22,401 Arbor Hills West 65,087 2,178
43,095 Brent Run 80
57,504 4,012,976 62.46% C& C Sanitary 26,027
965 97,099 74,880 240,769 99.20% Carleton Farms 970
156,152 299,808 100.00% Riverview 4,072
316 11,339 64,580 Taymouth 299
338 98,554 Vienna Junction 40
145,422 307,196 99.42%
93,361 513,429 99.92%
31,126
100,416 492,118 859,151 85.12%
9,198 202,523 60.00%
38,904 96.74%
76,446 1,103,988 28.24%
86,900
9,415 4,333,429 67.39% NataastIOS.innotirami412ECLELNLommt
92,628
20 58,355 Thls report Is based only upon the detaUed facility reports as
40,608 57,384 100.00% to origin and waste type as contained within the appendk to
22 58,042 the February 9,2000 MDEQ document Numerous differences
24,829 occur between this database and the summary reports
99,287 contained within the MDEO document
42 4,678 230,813 1,651,160 99.58%
8,031 64.49% For example, the C & C Sanitary facility in Calhoun County
63,118 reported a total of 1,118,475 gateyards of wastes but the MDEQ
177,067 0 586,415 2,142,743 90.19% reports are short 174,593 gateyards from Ingham County for a
167,426 67.60% total of 943,882 gateyards. For example, Glen's Sanitary Landfill
73,014 in Leelanau County reported a total of 306,094 gateyards, or 965
29,152 176,506 85.54% gateyards more than included In the MDEQ summary reports.
63,173 279,014 939,862 97.04% Numerous other differences OCCUr in the reported types of
353,909 96.93% wastes wrthin the various summary reports.
160,042
141,311
16,574 1,014,933 48.01%
234,272 11,494,685 80.80%
218,201 100.00%
Michigan Counties 38,684,835 4,028,753 428,289 2,542,097 45,683,974
Source County Type II
1 Alcona 9,883
2 Alger 50,540
3 Megan 202,826
4 Alpena 122,125
5 Antrim 74,457
6 Arenac 7,606
7 I3araga 26,383
8 Barry 126,510
9 Bay 407,485
10 Benzb 30,887
11 Berrien 819,480
12 Branch 451,300
13 Calhoun 75,614
14 Cass 75,000
16 Cherlevotc 158,601
16 Cheboygan 98,843
17 Chippewa 146,081
18 Clare 90,796
19 Clinton 84,789
20 Crawford 69,075
21 Delta 119,892
22 DicIdneon 170,054
23 Eaton 254,565
24 Emmet 94,763
25 Genesee 1,763,422
26 Gladwin 50,230
27 Gogebic 48,522
28 Grand Traverse 207,485
29 Gratiot 91,687
30 Hillsdale 12,478
31 Houghton 107,678
32 Huron 102,888
33 Ingham 774,571
34 Ionia 105,754
35 losco 67,347
36 Iron 25,680
37 Isabella 145,464
38 Jackson 105,197
39 Kalamazoo 1,240,199
40 Kalkaska 97,878
41 Kent 2,423,680
42 Keweenaw 6,559
43 Lake 17,515
44 Lapeer 116,652
45 Leelanau 62,094
46 Lenawee 223,657
47 Livingston 177,390 48 Luce 22,401
49 Mackinac 43,095
50 Macomb 3,955,472
51 Manistee 67,825
52 Marquette 143,656
53 Mason 52,925
54 Mecosta 98,218
55 Menominee 161,774
56 Midland 420,068
57 Missaukee 31,126
58 Monroe 266,617
59 Montcalm 193,325
60 Montmorency 38,904
61 Muskegon 1,027,542
62 Newaygo 86,900
63 Oakland 4,324,014
64 Oceans 92,628
65 Ogemaw 58,335
66 Ontonagon 16,776
67 Osceola 58,020 68 Oscoda 24,829
69 Otsego 99,287
70 Ottawa 1,415,627
71 Presque Isle 8,031
72 Roscommon 63,118
73 Saginaw 1,379,261
74 SanUac 167,426
75 Schoolcratt 73,014
76 Shlawassee 147,354
77 St. Clak 597,675
78 St Joseph 353,909
79 Tuscola 157,550
80 Van Buren 141,311
81 Washtenaw 998,359
82 Wayne 9,938,700 1,321,713
83 Wexford 218,201
2,492
96.495
Gateyards of Act 451 Solld Waste
61.2%
Report - Page 2
Report of Solid Waste Landfilled In Michigan
October 1, 1998 through September 30,1999
Gateyards of Actg.] Solid Wastes Received
895,696
530,005
10,238
419,903 73,049
276,750
1,826,470
36,563
224,561
2,329,695
180,832
193,543
119,892
305,129 965
128,919
272,751 231,111
537,546 278,775
854,791
120,278
217,274
146,837
213,084
497,017
143,656
469,870
• 1,743,342
549,282
2,461,692
390
98,123 90,397
2,786,140
144,640 54,276
1,224,927
1,537,604
26,581
63,173
189,928
14,078
532,068
258,759
234,208
1,446,871 70,748
1,556,673
325,085
1,143,497
0
240,207
39,600
73,681
245,562
4,974,733
12.000
320,729
71,344
177,010
83,031
648,828
215,478
1,386
2,117
3,533,476
569,819
4,970
604,862
0.0%
2.3%
0.1%
so
26,027
1,454
4,072 0.3%
299 0.1%
40 0.0%
45,113,085 4,049,453 428,291 2,542,097 52,132,908 6,349,695 12.2% 99,237 0.2% Totals
landfill
1 Adrian Landfill
2 Arbor Hills West
3 Autum Hills
4 Brent Run
5 C & C Sanitary
6 Carleton Farms
7 Cedar Ridge
8 Central Sanitary Landfill
9 Central Wayne - Huron Quarry
10 Champbn International
11 Minns Disposal
12 City Environmental - Waters
13 City of LIvonia
14 City of Midland Sanitary Landfill
15 Collier Road
16 Consolidated Papers, Inc.
17 Consumers Energy, D E Kam Plant
18 Consumers Energy, J C Weadock
19 Consumers Energy, J H Campbell
20 Consumers Energy, J R Whiting Plant
21 Cove Landfill of Bad Axe, Inc.
22 Crown Vantage
23 Deter
24 Daggett Sand 8, Gravel
25 Delta Solid Waste Authority
26 Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant
27 Detroit Edison Range Road
28 Detroit Edison Sibley Quarry
29 Eagle Valley
30 Edward Levy
31 Elk Run Sanitary Landfill
32 Escanaba Paper Company
33 FoMoCo
34 Forest Lawn Landfill
35 Georgia Pacific King Hwy
36 Glen's Sanitary Landfill
37 GM Grey Iron Plant
38 Granger - Watertown Tap.
39 Granger- Wood Street
40 Great Lakes Pulp & Fibre
41 Harland's
41.5 Holenam, Inc. Landfill
42 Holland Board of PW
44 K & W Landfill
45 Kalamazoo Valley Group
46 Ken's Pick Up Service
47 Kent County - South
48 Lafarge Type III
49 liberty Environmentalist
50 Marquette County
52 Matlin Road
53 Menominee Landfill (Michigan Environs)
64 Monbnorency / Oscoda
55 Muskegon Type II
56 Muskegon Type III
57 Northern Oaks
58 Oakland Heights Development
59 Orchard Hal Landfill
60 Ottawa County Farms
61 People's Garbage Disposal
62 Phillip McGill Road
63 Pine Tree Acres
64 Pioneer Rock
65 Pitsch Sanitary Landfill
66 Riverview Land Preserve
67 Saginaw Valley Landfill
68 Salzburg Road
69 Sauk TraN Hills
70 Smiths Creek Landfill
71 SOCRRA
71.5 Southdown, Inc.
72 Southeast Berrien
73 Sparta Foundry
74 Standard - Roclovood
75 Stone Container Corp.
76 Taymouth Landfill
77 Tri City
78 Venice Park
79 Vienna Junction
80 Waste Management of Hastings
81 Westside Recycling
81.5 Westside Recycling Type Ill
82 Wexford County
83 White Lake Landfill
84 Whitefeattter Landfill
85 Wisconsin Electric
86 Wood Island
87 Woodland Meadows
Host County
Lenawee
Washtenaw
Ottawa
GetleSee
Calhoun
Wayne
Charievok
Mordcalm
Wayne
Dickinson
Genesee
Crawford
Wayne
Midland
Oakland
Dickinson
Bay
Bay
Ottawa
Monroe
Huron
Kalamazoo
Chippewa
Ingham
Delta
Monroe
St. Clair
Wayne
Oakland
Wayne
Presque Isle
Delta
Wayne
Berrien
Kalamazoo
Leelanau
Saginaw
Clinton
Clinton
Menominee
Manistee
Monroe
Ottawa
Ontonagon
Kalamazoo
Grand Traverse
Kent
Alpena
Jackson
Marquette
Monroe
Menominee
Montmorency
Muskegon
Muskegon
Clare
Oakland
Berrien
Ottawa
Saginaw
Jackson
Macomb
Lapeer
Ionia
Wayne
Saginaw
Midland
Wayne
St. Clair
Oakland
Chstrlevobr
Berrien
Kent
Monroe
Ontonagon
Saginaw
Sanilac
Shlawassee
Monroe
Barry
St Joseph
St Joseph
Wexford
Muskegon
Bay
Marquette
Alger Wayne
Total
318,540
4,071,969
1,653,276
265,514
1,118,475
1,048,726
237,383
543,163
0
185,529 185,529
895,696
530,005
10,238
492,952
276,750
2 2
136,972 136,972
90,202 90,202
230,813 230,813
79,385 79,385
180,832
28,052 28,052
193,543
12,000
119,892
412,733 412,733
279,014 279,014
234,272 234,272
1,828,470
320,729
36,563
100,375 100,375
224,581
2,329,895
NR
306,094
128,919
503,862
818,320
145,422 145,422
97,099 86,219 330,155
71,344
4,678 4,678
213,084
177,010
83,031
497,017
648,828
215,478
143,656
1,386
854,791
122,395
217,274
78,446 76,448
469,870
1,743,342
549,282
2,461,692
390
188,520
2,786,140
NR
198,916
1,224,927
586,415 2,124,019
26,551
3,533,476
632,992
4,970
189,928
604,862
14,076
532,068
40,608 40,608
258,759
234,208
1,517,619
1,556,673
325,085
1,143,497
0
240,207
39,600
73,681
156,152 156,152
245,562
4,974,733
Wastes from Wastes horn
Out-of-State Sources Unknown Sources
Gateyards % °stayer& %
70,481 22.1%
1,171,851 28.8% 67,285 1.7%
8.90° 3.4%
107,040 10.2%
95,431 10.7%
2 100.0%
11819abltIlati
Canadian 2342,791
Other SMtes 4,008,904
Unknevat 9222Z
oub.total 8,448,932
55151.018 MAWS
Grand Total 52,132,906
160 0.1%
1,827,823 78.5%
7,856 3.7%
566,749 86.3%
39,825 2.3%
12,346 2.2%
69,630 2.6%
38,625 3.0%
128 0.5%
34,734 1.0%
465,521 77.0%
16,350 3.1%
53,085 22.7%
7,830 0.5%
1,331,938 88.6%
80,045 7.0%
45,219 18.4%
300,146 6.0%
Type II Type III Meted Segregated
318,540
3,783,389 288,570
1,653,276
95,211 170,303
1,118,475
754,343 294,383
237,383
543,163
RJSmtth, P.E.
04/11/2000
Report - Page 3
1 1111111 11111 1 1 11111111111111 I i Ity If i 1
1111111111411 11111111101111
tti
(CI
I I
1 i
I
t t t t I E
I p
t t 5. t t
si P It t t
05 4
ly g
1,2 ! g
I. 1
c
-2 2
LI
Ii ) 111 i Ili
I s . s t,
51 ) • t iv
i ct Ni-N RI t it I t j it
gitt It I t IN
g k g t 1 e t mii2 pm tii I tv I I la II 'SIVE RtI
0 0 a -i fi a
R 5. t s
c - -- a I t Mutt I 125-141 Et tut . a Si 1 i I115.11.ttItlIti 5 gm..tie.t.m..Pg
Ifilifl 1 ifillill f
' 1;11 I/ i
illifill[1111 fil1f1111111111
g,gi e t im tm I g2;m meg I i I El It
g .5 I al 1 tau a tt t I t tt
g t I t al I 1 IIIII Is t t tt
4 ults I tg 14 Avt tISI itt
t
iit.ual 5g114 [Us A.4 y g4 / V.0WilitEtttt t it itt i I 1 -4
1 1111111111111 11/11/01111 1 I i
4 11111111[1111 IffillifIlifIll I
P
5 .1 I t as i. 0 V u it gp I lit a ta E stt V Ett i t tt It
PI le I I
it 1 ilgi !E
I - , a 5 -i liiapits AV itI I El I gl V ij Iittitit ttt
1. 1 0
-t i 1019;gat i0KI4 i u Ej 11 t t t3trittltItt t At
pi. I a it g 1 tIt t tj sR
.. t 1 I• -- ItlEs i-IIIIII t 5E.NE11 NEttatt
31g11.t1511t1; gE13tRI.IttlItt
. 4 . 2 It I t iVissi-g=151 t v_vgaiutigtvggs tsttgttsitm -1tOttaittlAtt ft 15 t t ivisttgAtvAtt s atittAlgtiatit
I ! 5- :._ g 411 i V giigsafig i; gi i I lagitilitI1 t ii1t11tigiedi
11
Ph
0i/1 4 t Ili t 4 Ai 1
p.
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 if Oakland County was only able to establish that exports to Wayne County
were permissive at 1,000,000 gateyards per year rather than the 2,000,000
gateyards per year level contained within the earlier analysis - such a level
reflecting the average exports over the past three years as displayed within
MDEQ annual reports? The theoretical date at which insufficient capacity
occurs after exhausting all remaining Oakland County in-county capacity would
change to October 6, 2006. The June 30, 2000 findings would remain unchanged.
What if Oakland County were unable to establish that future exports of Oakland
County's wastes to Wayne County were a valid part of the annual demonstration
process? Should no future exports be allowable, the theoretical date at which
insufficient capacity occurs after exhausting all remaining Oakland County in-
county disposal capacity would be August 17, 2005. This date is four and one-
half months short of the 66 month target date. Oakland County would then
demonstrate additional permissive exports to other more remotely located
disposal facilities.
What if the June 30, 2000 demonstration process required that the Interim
Siting Mechanism be made operative? As long as the mechanism is operative,
should any proposal be made which matches or exceeds the minimum criteria
contained within the Interim Siting Mechanism, such a proposal would be
processed for approval.
What if the 1999 Solid Waste Management Plan Update is approved by the Board
of Commissioners, is approved by at least 41 of the County's 61 municipalities
and receives final approval by the MDEQ Director? The Interim Siting
Mechanism would then become inoperative since such a process is not contained
within the new Plan Update.
What if additional inter-county flows are authorized beyond those used in this
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. As long as the 1994 Plan Amendments
remain operative, the Board of Commissioners would simply be asked to adopt
revised demonstration documents displaying the appropriate information.
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, 2000. However, as the average
travel distance from the point of waste generation to the point of disposal
increases, Oakland County waste generators will see the cost of waste disposal
increase - first because of increased travel distance for each collection
vehicle involved and ultimately because transfer station operations will
become a required operating element. Without access to additional landfill
capacity, dramatic changes are first anticipated to occur in 2004 when
existing in-county landfill capacity starts to be closed. The exhibit on the
page following (taken from the 1999 Plan Update), shows those areas that will
be first impacted. Great care will have to be taken to insure that
appropriate new or expanded landfill, transfer station and/or processing
facilities become available in a timely fashion to handle future wastes.
What If...? - Page 1
Type 11 Landfills - Theoretical Service Areas
What areas in Oakland County will be remote from Type II landfills when the Collier Road,
Eagle Valley and Oakland Heights landfills close?
This exhibit displays the theoretical service areas of nearby existing landfills based upon a 20
mile radius service area. The areas that are remote will face economic pressures because of the
increased travel time to alternative disposal facilities and where transfer station operations may
be first required. Map details, facility names and symbol legends are shown on Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 33
WI .2
4 ,
1998 and Oakland
#98111 dated May 7,
1999 and Oakland
#99112 dated May 12,
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. Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity - Spring,
County Board of Commissioners Miscellaneous Resolution
1998.
6. Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity - Spring,
County Board of Commissioners Miscellaneous Resolution
1999.
7. Recommended 2020 Regional Development Forecast - Population, Households and
Employment by Minor Civil Division dated February 8, 1996. Southeast
Michigan Council of Governments.
8. "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.
9. "Solid Waste Management at the Crossroads" by Franklin Associates, Ltd.,
December, 1997.
10. "Report of Solid Waste Landfilled
30, 1997" dated February 27, 1998
Environmental Quality as released
11. "Report of Solid Waste Landfilled
30, 1998" dated February 4, 1999.
in Michigan, October 1, 1996 - September
by the Michigan Department of
on March 18, 1998.
in Michigan, October 1, 1997 - September
12. "Report of Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan, October 1, 1998 - September
30, 1999" dated February 9, 2000.
References - Page 1
• 1 •
Resolution #00161 June 15, 2000
Moved by Palmer supported by Dingeldey the resolution be adopted.
AYES: Suarez, Taub, Amos, Appel, Buckley, Causey-Mitchell, Colasanti,
Coleman, Dingeldey, Douglas, Galloway, Garfield, Gregory, Jensen, McPherson,
Melton, Millard, Moffitt, Obrecht, Palmer, Schmid, Sever. (22)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
E THE FOREGOING RE
(0/
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 June 15, 2000 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 ;,th dge of June, 2000.
G. William Caddell, County Clerk