Municipal Recycling

FEDERAL COURT TRASHES VIRGINIA TRASH RESTRICTIONS

A Federal Court has ruled that the state of Virginia has no authority to restrict out-of-state garbage imports. The court has ruled in favor of plaintiffs who challenged Virginia’s 1999 laws restricting municipal solid waste (MSW) shipments from outside the state. The U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, ruled that the statutes violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from enacting laws that place an unfair burden on interstate commerce.

In 1999, the Virginia legislature enacted three laws dealing with solid waste handling. The statutes cap the amount of waste any landfill may accept, impose new permit requirements for solid waste landfills and restrict the use of barges for shipping. Solid waste barge shipments were also banned on three Virginia waterways.

Elected officials who backed the measures said they were a legitimate exercise of state powers to protect public health and conserve state resources.

But five companies challenged the laws, including Waste Management Holdings Inc. and barge companies engaged in solid waste shipping.

The district court found that protectionism and seeking favorable public opinion may have played a larger role than environmental issues, and that interstate trading still loomed as the larger issue.

“Under the law, it doesn’t matter whether Virginia’s MSW standards (either before or after the disputed statutes were enacted) better protect the environment, public safety or landfill resources than standards in other states,” Judge James Spencer wrote. “What matters is that Virginia appears to have buttressed these protections by adopting measures which unduly hinder the importation of MSW.”

State officials in Virginia are indicating that they will appeal the ruling to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

AEROSOL CAN RECYCLING RATES UP

About 130 million Americans can include empty aerosol cans in their residential recycling bins, quite a change from 1990, when no municipal programs accepted the empty cans. Research by Factory Mutual Research Corp. (FMRC) has found that there is no significant risk in aerosol cans being included in residential programs, although there are recycling guidelines.

FMRC completed a second engineering analysis of aerosol can recycling and commissioned the study so more could be learned about Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs) and their ability to accept aerosol cans.

Recycling aluminum aerosol containers is one of the major issues remaining that the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA) is currently addressing. Aluminum aerosols are recyclable just as their steel counterparts are.

ELECTRONICS RECYCLING AMONG SOUTH CAROLINA GOALS

Establishing an electronics recycling program and increasing the use of rubberized asphalt pavements on South Carolina’s highways were among major projects initiated by the South Carolina Recycling Market Development Advisory Council (RMDAC) last year. The initiatives will continue throughout 2000.

RMDAC also promotes markets for mixed paper, wood pallets and scrap carpet. The 14-member group of industry, government, education and community leaders assists the development of markets for recovered materials and products with recycled content. “We had a very successful year in 1999,” says Gerald Fishbeck of United Resource Recovery in Spartanburg. “We stayed on track as with our mission and laid the groundwork for an ambitious program in 2000.”

In 1999, the RMDAC focused on five areas, including electronics recycling and using rubber-asphalt pavement on state roadways.

OREGON REPORTS DECLINING PLASTICS RECYCLING RATE

Oregon’s recycling rate for rigid plastic containers was 28.4% in 1998, and will remain above 25% for the year 2000, state officials predict, continuing to exceed the target recycling rate set by Oregon law. However, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) officials say the rate is declining and may not meet the 25% statewide target rate in the future, possibly as early as 2002.

The findings are part of a recently released six-page DEQ report.

Rigid plastic containers include plastic bottles, jars, cups, tubs, pails or other containers that, among other criteria, are designed to hold a product for sale. According to a law that was part of the 1991 Oregon Recycling Act, these containers must contain at least 25% recycled content, or must be made of plastic that is recycled in Oregon at a rate of at least 25%, or they must be reusable. Containers for beverages and for such non-food items as detergent, automotive fluids and shampoo are included.

If the recycling rate falls below 25%, manufacturers of such containers, as well as companies that put products into these containers, may have to make changes in their operations in order to come into compliance. Such changes could include using more recycled plastic to make containers, or making sure containers are recycled at a rate above 25%.

Peter Spendelow, natural resource specialist with DEQ’s Solid Waste Program in Portland, says the rigid plastic container recycling rate climbed from 27.1% in 1993 to a peak of 30.1% in 1995, but has declined since then.