Home Services Site Investigation Remedial System Design and Implementation Due Diligence services Geotechnical Engineering Services Environmental Compliance Litigation Support and Expert Testimony Water Supply Services Environmental and Human Risk Characterization Newletter Recruitment About Us Office Locations Links

GeoInsighter Summer 2004 Newsletter

Where Does (Will) It All Go?

Return to the Newsletter Index

Have you given much thought recently to where all that “stuff” that collects in plastic bags in your home and office goes? Regulatory officials in most states are monitoring this issue rather closely these days, and well they should because disposal capacity is rapidly diminishing. Analyses of data recently reported in New Hampshire and Massachusetts are likely representative of conditions in other New England and Northeast states, given the similarity in the region of most regulatory programs governing solid waste management and prevailing public attitudes.

Based upon 2001 data (reported in December 2003), Massachusetts is a net exporter of solid waste, currently sending 1 to 1.5 million tons out of state due to lack of capacity. The Commonwealth’s “Beyond 2000 Solid Waste Master Plan” establishes a goal of no-net import or export of solid waste to be achieved by 2006 and relies upon significant anticipated increases in source reduction and recycling rates to accomplish this goal. Construction of additional incineration capacity is not included in the plan because of its expectation that recycling and source reduction will ultimately result in excess incineration capacity. Examination of recycling rate data from 1997 through 2001 indicated, however, that the numbers of towns in the various rate categories were staying relatively constant or declining over the period, suggesting a decline in the overall rate of recycling. Consistent with this assessment, source reduction and recycling rates for the several solid waste subcategories were typically flat or declined slightly between 2000 and 2001 and were well short of the 2010 goals.

Acknowledging that recycling and source reduction will not be sufficient to reach the no net import/export goal, Massachusetts is, therefore, planning to permit additional landfill capacity in the state although it explicitly recognizes that the development of such capacity is subject to the willingness of the private sector and municipalities to propose construction of new landfills. These projects are not a trivial undertaking under current solid waste regulatory requirements, and there is little interest in most municipalities in siting new facilities within their boundaries. (In 2000 and 2001, Massachusetts permitted approximately 100,000 tons of additional landfill capacity, less than 10 percent of the current amount of waste exported.)

In contrast to Massachusetts, New Hampshire is a net importer of solid waste. The State currently estimates that it has adequate disposal capacity in currently permitted landfills and incinerators to accommodate in-state generation through 2012. When currently planned capacity increases are permitted (several of which are being vigorously contested by local citizens groups), the State still runs out of capacity in 2013. Closer inspection of the estimates of capacity, however, identified a number of potential issues that could result in exceeding the in state disposal capacity considerably sooner than 2012 or 2013.

New Hampshire’s estimates, similar to those in Massachusetts, assumed that the rate of recycling and source reduction will increase steadily from the current (2002) rate of approximately 24 percent to between 35 and 40 percent, although in recent years this rate was relatively constant in the mid 20 percent range. Given the current fiscal strains that have been experienced in New Hampshire municipalities and at the state level, it is unlikely that necessary investments will be made in collection and separation facilities and equipment in time to achieve the significantly higher projected source reduction and recycling rates. It should be noted that the capacity calculations are quite sensitive to the recycling rate; if the State wide rate were to drop 2 percent from its current level, a capacity shortfall could develop by as early as 2008.

Another important limitation in the New Hampshire capacity estimates is that, as required by State law, they are based solely upon estimates of in state waste generation and do not consider the effect of solid waste imports. Several of the larger solid waste facilities in the State are commercially owned and operated facilities with substantial economic incentives to import waste. It should also be noted that six of the eight states in the region (New England plus New York and New Jersey) were net exporters of municipal solid waste in 2001; only Vermont and New Hampshire were net importers, illustrating this economic pressure. The 2003 New Hampshire Solid Waste Plan indicated that approximately 20 percent more waste was disposed in the State than was generated in state. If this factor is applied to waste disposal estimates, available disposal capacity in the State could be exhausted within the next several years.

So what does all this mean to our readers? In our view, over the next several years you should anticipate increasing pressure to increase source reduction and recycling, possibly, in the case of business and industry, through new regulations. (Time to look into that paperless office thing!) It can also be expected that solid waste disposal costs will increase as tipping fees rise due to decreasing disposal capacity. For businesses involved in waste management, the shortage of disposal capacity offers an opportunity to develop new facilities. Municipalities may be able to obtain some very tangible fiscal benefits in these difficult economic times by partnering with waste management companies to site and develop new disposal facilities. What do you think? Drop us a line and let us know.

John A. Gilbert, P.E.
jagilbert@geoinc.com
 

Return to the Newsletter Index