Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2004 Update

CRS Report for Congress
Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste:
2004 Update
September 9, 2004
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste:
2004 Update
This report, which replaces CRS Report RL31651, provides updated
information on interstate shipment of municipal solid waste (MSW). Since the late
1980s, Congress has considered, but not enacted, numerous bills that would allow
states to impose restrictions on interstate waste shipments, a step the Constitution
prohibits in the absence of congressional authorization. Over this period, there has
been a continuing interest in knowing how much waste is being shipped across state
lines for disposal, and what states might be affected by proposed legislation. This
report provides data useful in addressing these questions.
Total interstate waste shipments continue to rise due to the closure of older local
landfills and the consolidation of the waste management industry. Slightly more than
39 million tons of municipal solid waste crossed state lines for disposal in 2003, an
increase of 11% over 2001. Waste imports have grown significantly since CRS began
tracking them in the early 1990s, and now represent 24.2% of the municipal solid
waste disposed at landfills and waste combustion facilities. In the last 10 years,
reported imports have increased 170%.
Pennsylvania remains, by far, the largest waste importer. The state received
more than 9.1 million tons of MSW and 1.4 million tons of other non-hazardous
waste from out of state in 2003. Most of this waste came from New York and New
Jersey. Pennsylvania’s waste imports represented 23% of the national total.
Virginia, the second-largest importer, received 5.5 million tons in 2003, 40% less
than the amount received by Pennsylvania. Michigan, the third-largest importer,
received 4.5 million tons of MSW from out of state.
Imports to both Virginia and Michigan increased substantially in the last year
— up about 1 million tons in each case. Nearly two-thirds of Michigan’s total
imports (about 2.8 million tons) came from the Canadian province of Ontario. These
imports grew as the Toronto area closed its last remaining landfill. Other states
showing major increases were Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Georgia, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Texas. In all, 28 states had increased imports in the
current report, and 10 states reported imports that exceeded 1 million tons.
While waste imports increased overall, several states (including Pennsylvania,
Indiana, Iowa, and New York) reported sharp declines in imports in the current
survey. Pennsylvania’s imports fell for the second year in a row: about 1.5 million
fewer tons of imports were received at Pennsylvania landfills in 2003 than in 2001.
Factors causing this decline included the imposition of an additional $5.00 per ton
state fee on waste disposal and the absence of rail service at Pennsylvania landfills.
New York remains the largest exporter of waste, with New Jersey in second
place. These two states account for 37% of all municipal solid waste crossing state
lines for disposal. Six other states (Missouri, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Ohio, and Washington), the District of Columbia, and the Canadian province of
Ontario also exported more than 1 million tons each.

In troduction ..................................................1
Total Shipments...............................................2
Waste Import Highlights........................................7
Major Exporters...............................................9
Net Imports and Exports.......................................10
Additional Information........................................11
List of Figures
Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year, in Tons.....3
Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year, in Tons.....3
List of Tables
Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year............4
Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year............5
Table 3. Net Imports/Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year..6
Table 4. Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, and Amount and
Sources of Imported MSW, by State..............................12

Interstate Shipment of
Municipal Solid Waste: 2004 Update
I ntr oducti on1
This report provides updated information on interstate shipment of municipal
solid waste. Concerned about increased waste imports, some states have attempted
to regulate this commerce; federal courts, however, have declared these state
restrictions unconstitutional. If states are to have such authority, congressional action
is required.
Since the late 1980s, Congress has considered, but not enacted, numerous bills
that would grant such authority.2 Over this period, there has been a continuing
interest in knowing how much waste is being shipped across state lines for disposal,
and what states might be affected by proposed legislation. This report provides data
useful in addressing these questions. It updates information provided in earlier CRS
reports. 3
The report presents information gathered through telephone contacts with solid
waste officials in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Canadian province
of Ontario. The data obtained from these contacts are summarized in Tables 1, 2, and
3, and Figures 1 and 2. Table 4 presents additional information, including the
names and telephone numbers of state contacts, and in some cases weblinks to
detailed reports on solid waste management in the specific state.

1 Linda Luther, Environmental Policy Analyst in the Resources, Science, and Industry
Division of CRS, provided research assistance for this report.
2 Legislation on interstate shipment of waste has been introduced in every Congress since
the 100th. In the 104th Congress, the Senate passed S. 534. The bill would have granted
states authority to restrict new shipments of municipal solid waste from out of state, ifrd
requested by an affected local government. In the 103 Congress, both the House and
Senate passed interstate waste legislation (H.R. 4779 and S. 2345), but lack of agreement
on common language prevented enactment. For a discussion of the issues addressed in these
bills, see CRS Report RS20106, Interstate Waste Transport: Legislative Issues.
3 This report replaces CRS Report RL31651, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste:
2002 Update. Earlier reports, now out of print but available directly from the author, were
CRS Report RL31051, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2001 Update; CRS
Report RL30409, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2000 Update; CRS Report

98-689, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1998 Update; CRS Report 97-349,

Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1997 Update; CRS Report 96-712, Interstate
Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1996 Update; CRS Report 95-570, Interstate Shipment
of Municipal Solid Waste: 1995 Update; and CRS Report 93-743, Interstate Shipment of
Municipal Solid Waste.

Not all states require reporting of waste imports, and very few track exports, so
the available data are incomplete, and in some cases represent estimates rather than
actual measurements. In a number of cases, faced with conflicting reports from
exporters and importers or no quantitative data at all, we provided our best estimate,
based on discussions with state officials or other sources.
Sixteen of the states provided data for a period other than calendar year 2003 —
either their latest fiscal year or a different calendar year. This adds another layer of
imprecision: we combined data for whatever was the latest reporting period, even
though in these 16 cases, this meant combining data from different time periods. The
exceptions from the 2003 reporting period are noted in the appropriate tables, but the
reader should perhaps keep in mind that many of the totals reported here are our best
estimate rather than precise figures.
Total Shipments
The data show that total interstate waste shipments continue to rise:4 imports
in the current survey totaled 39.0 million tons, 17% of the 229.2 million tons of
municipal solid waste generated in the United States.5 Of municipal waste disposed
(as opposed to recycled or composted), the percentage is even higher. EPA estimates
that 68.0 million tons of municipal solid waste were recycled or composted in 2001,
leaving 161.2 million tons to be disposed in landfills or incinerators. Of this amount,

24.2% crossed state lines for disposal.6

Between CRS’s year 2002 report (reporting largely 2001 data) and the current
survey (reporting generally 2003 data), imports increased 4.0 million tons, or 11%.
Since 1993, reported imports have risen 170%, from 14.45 million tons in 1993 to

39.0 million tons in the current survey.

4 We rely on imports rather than exports as our measure of total shipments, because we
believe that waste management facilities and states have a greater interest in accurately
measuring imports than they do exports. Often the amounts received and their source are
subject to formal legal reporting requirements and/or fees, with penalties for failure to
report. Exports are not generally subject to such requirements.
5 Because many of the larger importing states now differentiate MSW from other non-
hazardous waste imports, we compared total MSW imports to EPA’s national estimate of
MSW generation (229.2 million tons in the latest available year, 2001). For EPA data on
waste generation, see “Municipal Solid Waste: Basic Facts” at [
epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/facts.htm]. State-reported waste generation, summarized in
BioCycle magazine’s annual survey, is substantially higher (369.4 million tons in 2002) but
may include other nonhazardous waste, provided it was disposed at MSW facilities. For
state-reported data, see Scott M. Kaufman, Nora Goldstein, Karsten Millrath, and Nickolas
J. Themelis, “The State of Garbage in America,” BioCycle, January 2004, p. 33. Removing
Canadian waste from the total imports would also reduce the percentage of waste crossing
state lines for disposal, from 17% to 16%.
6 Much of the waste destined for recycling may also have crossed state lines, but waste
destined for recycling does not carry the same stigma as that sent for disposal, and recycling
facilities do not generally require permits by state agencies. Thus, amounts shipped across
state lines for recycling cannot generally be tracked by the solid waste agencies.

Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste,
2003 or Latest Year, in Tons
Source: Map Resources. Adapted by CRS. (K. Yancey 8/31/04)
Amounts in Tons
1,000,000 or greater
500,000 to 999,999
100,000 to 499,999
0 to 99,999
Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste,

2003 or Latest Year, in Tons

Source: Map Resources. Adapted by CRS. (K. Yancey 8/31/04)

Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year
(in tons)
StateQuantity Imported
Pennsylvaniaa 9,155,638
Virginiab 5,489,170c,d
Michigan 4,503,218
Oh io 2,541,074d
Illinois 1,880,865
New Jerseye 1,671,065
Georgia 1,445,254e
Oregon 1,424,801f
South Carolina 1,227,240
Wisconsin 1,210,008
Indiana 917,678e
Kansas 697,874e
Kentucky 598,549
Mississippi 579,752
Tennessee 577,940
New Mexico 537,000
Alabama 415,425e
New Hampshire401,852g
Arizona 379,900
Oklahoma 333,616
New York311,417
West Virginia276,439f
Iowa 276,302
Texas 251,100
Maine 220,000
Missouri 206,873
Maryland 202,768
Massachusetts 179,852f
North Carolina 133,145
Washingtone 112,097e
North Dakota 101,196f
Nebraska 93,563
Vermont 61,463
Connecticut 51,521e
California 44,000
Montan a 31,437
Idaho 18,668
Arkansas 15,361
Rhode Island5,575e
South Dakota 658
Utah 500
a In addition, Pennsylvania received 1,407,834 tons c 10/1/2002 - 9/30/2003.
of industrial waste, C&D, ash, asbestos, and sludge. d Converted from cubic yards using 3.3 cu. yds. = 1 ton.bef
Virginia also imported 1.1 million tons of other 2002 data. 7/1/2002 - 6/30/2003.g
waste, mostly C&D, sludge, and incinerator ash. 4/1/2003 - 3/31/2004.
Source: CRS, based on data provided by state program officials. See text and Table 4 for qualifications/details.

Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year
(in tons)
StateQuantity Exported
New York 8,247,610
New Jersey 5,803,184
Ontario, Canada2,922,473
Missouri 2,334,511
Illinois 2 ,097,407
Maryland 1,941,370
Massachusetts 1,239,364
District of Columbia1,176,010
Oh io 1,102,341a
Washington 1,001,717
North Carolinab 971,286
Indiana 945,241
California 798,056
Minnesota 611,044
Connecticut 634,155
Georgia 600,000
P ennsylvania 558,975
Texas 511,000
Tennessee 431,740
Kansas 371,371
West Virginia364,719
Kentucky 328,993
Iowa 271,925
Louisian a 248,625
Virginia 240,633
Mich igan 223,310
Wisconsin 213,989
South Carolina 184,797a
Vermont 126,159
Delaware 121,585
Rhode Island117,301
Arkansas 114,192
Mississippi 113,013
Oklahoma 99,000
Alab ama 94,664
New Hampshire65,000a
Maine 49,868
Id ah o 44,307
Alaska 24,868
Oregona 18,668b
Nebraska 10,537a
North Dakota 10,000
Nevada 3,300
Utah 1,500
Wyoming 1,487
2002 data. July 2002 - June 2003.
Source: CRS, based on data provided by state program officials. In many cases, the amount is based on data
compiled by receiving states. See text and Table 4 entries for additional information and qualifications.

Table 3. Net Imports/Exports of Municipal Solid Waste,
2003 or Latest Year
(in tons)
StateImportsExportsNet Imports/Exports
P ennsylvania 9 ,155,638 558,975 8,596,663
Virginia 5,489,170 240,633 5,248,537
Mich igan 4,503,218 223,310 4,279,908
Oh io 2,541,074 1,102,341 1,438,733
Oregon 1,424,801 18,668 1,406,133
South Carolina1,227,240184,7971,042,443
Wisconsin 1,210,008 213,989 996,019
Georgia 1 ,445,254 600,000 845,254
New Mexico537,000-537,000
Mississippi 579,752 113,013 466,739
Nevada 422,456 3,300 419,156
Arizona 379,900 7,000 372,000
New Hampshire401,85265,000336,852
Kansas 697,874 371,371 326,503
Alab ama 415,425 94,664 320,761
Kentucky 598,549 328,993 269,556
Oklahoma 333,616 99,000 234,616
Tennessee 577,940431,740146,200
Maine 220,000 49,868 170,132
North Dakota101,19610,00091,196
Nebraska 93,563 10,537 83,026
Io wa 276,302 271,925 4,377
Id ah o 18,668 18,000 668
Utah 500 1,500 -1 ,000
Alaska 24,868-24,868
Indian a 917,678 945,241 -27,563
Vermont 61,463 126,159 -64,696
West Virginia276,439364,719-88,280
Arkansas 15,361 114,192 -98,831
Louisiana 107,075-107,075
Rhode Island5,575117,301-111,726
Delaware 121,585-121,585
Illinois 1 ,880,865 2,097,407 -216,542
Texas 251,100 511,000 -259,900
Connecticut 51,521 634,155 -582,634
Minnesota 611,044-611,044
Florida 676,517-676,517
California 44,000 798,056 -754,056
North Carolina133,145971,286-838,141
Wash ington 112,097 1,001,717 -889,620
Massachusetts 179,852 1,239,364 -1 ,059,512
District of Columbia 1,176,010-1,176,010
Maryland 202,768 1,941,370 -1 ,738,602
Missouri 206,873 2,334,511 -2 ,127,638
New Jersey1,671,0655,803,184-4,132,119
New York311,4178,247,610 -7,936,193
Source: CRS, based on telephone interviews. Data subject to qualifications: see text and Tables 1, 2, and 4.

Waste Import Highlights
Twenty-eight states had increased imports of municipal waste since 2001, with
the largest increases occurring in Virginia and Michigan. The increases in these two
states, 1.4 million tons in Virginia and 0.9 million tons in Michigan over the two-year
period, total 57% of the entire increase nationally.
The preponderance of these two states in the 2003 waste statistics demonstrates
another element of the emerging picture of interstate waste shipment: 49% of total
municipal waste imports are disposed in just three states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
As shown in Table 1, Pennsylvania continues to be the largest waste importer.
Disposal facilities in the state received 9.1 million tons of MSW and 1.4 million tons
of other nonhazardous waste from out of state in 2003. The amounts represented
nearly half of all solid waste disposed in the state and 23.5% of the national total for
interstate shipments. Pennsylvania has abundant landfill capacity, relatively low
tipping fees, and is near two major states that have a shortage of disposal capacity:
New York and New Jersey.
Despite the state’s continued predominance on the list of waste importers,
Pennsylvania’s imports declined in both 2002 and 2003 — a cumulative decrease of
more than 1.5 million tons of MSW imports. This happened simultaneously with
continued growth of interstate waste shipment in and through the Middle Atlantic
Several factors appear to have been at work. First, in the last two years,
Pennsylvania imposed a new state fee of $5.00 per ton on waste disposal. Added to
pre-existing fees, the state now collects $7.25 on each ton of waste disposed in the
state. This may have provided sufficient economic incentive for some haulers to
dispose elsewhere. Second, the state appears to be receiving less waste from New
York City, whose Mayor has adopted a goal of shipping all of New York City’s
waste by rail, rather than truck. Pennsylvania has no landfills served by rail, so some
of this waste has been diverted to large landfills in Virginia that do have rail service.
After Pennsylvania, Virginia is the largest waste importer, with imports totaling
5.5 million tons of MSW and 1.1 million tons of other nonhazardous waste. Waste
imports to Virginia have increased sharply since 2001, as noted above. The state has
attempted to restrict imports, but has not been as successful as Pennsylvania, in part
because it has chosen a variety of measures that have run afoul of the Constitution’s
interstate commerce clause. These have included a ban on barge shipping of wastes
on Virginia rivers, truck regulations that applied only to commercial solid waste
transporters, and daily limits on the amount of waste that Virginia landfills could7

7 See “Federal Appeals Court Strikes Majority of Virginia Restrictions on Trash Imports,”
Daily Environment Report, June 7, 2001, p. A-2. The case decided was Waste Managementth
Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316 (4 Cir 2001)..

Michigan, the third-largest waste importer for the past several years, saw out-of-
state waste grow by 1.03 million tons in 2003, following a slight decline in 2002.
Substantial amounts of waste come to Michigan from Illinois, Indiana, and other
neighboring states; but the biggest source, accounting for 62% of Michigan’s out-of-
state waste, is Ontario, Canada. Ontario is, of course, also Michigan’s neighbor, but
the fact that it lies in a foreign country and that it has large expanses of open land
where landfills might be sited seems to have added additional notoriety to its waste
shipments. Ontario’s shipments to Michigan have grown as the Toronto area
awarded new contracts for waste disposal and closed its last two landfills. At the
beginning of 1999, the Toronto area was generating about 2.8 million tons of waste
annually, of which about 700,000 tons were shipped to Michigan. By early 2003,
however, there was virtually no local disposal capacity in the Toronto area, and
almost all of the waste was being shipped to Michigan, where large disposal sites
offered very low cost disposal.
In other highlights:
!Ten states reported imports exceeding 1 million tons per year in the
latest year, an increase of two from our last survey two years ago.
New Jersey, Georgia, and South Carolina joined the “millionaires”
in 2003, while Indiana went the other way, dropping below the
million mark for the first time since 1995.
!In addition to the 10 states importing more than a million tons,
another 22 states had imports exceeding 100,000 tons.
!For the fifth year in a row, New Jersey is on the list of major
importers, with 1.67 million tons of MSW imports in 2002 (2003
data were not yet available). The state is still a major exporter of
waste, as well: receiving states estimate New Jersey’s exports at 5.8
million tons in 2003. But the absence of flow control (local
government requirements that waste within their jurisdiction be
disposed at local facilities, which were overturned by the courts in
the mid-1990s) has led waste-to-energy facilities in New Jersey to
import waste to replace the local waste that is now being disposed
elsewhere. As a result, large amounts of waste are entering New
Jersey from New York.
!Other states reporting major increases in imports were Ohio,
Georgia, and South Carolina. Ohio has had a 1.5 million ton
increase in MSW imports between 1998 and 2003, and appears
poised to import even more, according to press reports and
conversations with industry observers.8 The state has prepared draft
permits that would expand landfill capacity by 176 million tons,

8 See, for example, “Three Ohio Landfills Want More Garbage Trucked In,” Cincinnati
Enquirer, August 16, 2004, at [].

according to one analyst.9 Georgia experienced a seven-fold
increase, to 1.4 million tons over the same period; and South
Carolina more than doubled imports (to 1.2 million tons) in the last
two years.
!Oklahoma made its second appearance on our list of importers: the
state reports that in September 2001, it began receiving 1,500 tons
per day (about 500,000 tons per year) of waste from Wichita,
Kansas. Some of this waste has since been diverted to a landfill in
Topeka, Kansas, but Oklahoma’s Red Carpet Landfill still imported
nearly 334,000 tons of waste from Kansas in 2003, according to
Kansas officials.
!Texas moved from 33rd to 25th on our list, with an import increase of
217,000 tons since 2001. Louisiana appeared to be the major source
of the increased imports, sending more than 140,000 tons to a
landfill in Newton, Texas, very near the Louisiana border.
!New York saw a big drop in waste imports following rapid growth
in 2000 and 2001. The state had imported 839,700 tons of waste in
2001, an increase from 539,000 tons in our previous survey. But in
this year’s survey, imports declined sharply, totaling only 311,417
tons in 2003.
!Although there are no comprehensive data, imports to transfer
stations10 are a political issue in some locations. Transfer stations
are generally located in urban areas and are subject to less stringent
regulation than disposal facilities. Heavy truck traffic and odors
have aroused concerns in some neighboring communities.
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia have
reported significant amounts of out-of-state waste imported to
transfer stations, then exported to other states for disposal. New
York City’s plan to export most of its waste to transfer stations in
New Jersey raised substantial controversy, before being rescinded.
While waste imports increased overall, 14 states reported declines in waste
imports. In several cases, the declines were small, but seven of the states
(Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, and Iowa) had
declines exceeding 100,000 tons.
Major Exporters
As shown in Table 2, eight states (New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington) and the District of Columbia each
exported more than 1 million tons of waste to facilities in other states in the latest

9 Telephone conversation, September 2, 2004.
10 Transfer stations receive waste from collection trucks, compact it, bale it, and load it on
larger trucks for disposal elsewhere.

reporting period, and nine other states exported more than half a million tons. The
Canadian province of Ontario also exported a substantial amount of municipal waste
(nearly 3 million tons), most of it to Michigan.
New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois, and Maryland, the five largest
exporting states, accounted for 54% of waste exports nationally.
New York’s exports rose to 8,247,610 tons in 2003, according to nine receiving
states, an increase of 754,000 tons over 2001. The increase reflects the March 2001
closure of New York City’s Fresh Kills Landfill — the city’s last disposal facility.
New Jersey’s estimated exports, 5.8 million tons, have also grown dramatically.
In New Jersey’s case, the cause of increased exports is the overturning of the state’s
flow control law, which, until 1997, directed much of the state’s waste to high-cost
local facilities for disposal. The state law was overturned and the state exhausted its
appeals in October 1997. Exports have since grown by about 3.5 million tons per
Illinois’ exports, at 2.1 million tons, declined by nearly 1 million tons in 2003,
after several years of rapid growth. Despite the decline, the state’s exports in 2003
were still more than double the amount reported for 1994.11 Most of the exports
originate in Cook County (Chicago and its suburbs), which has a relative shortage of
disposal capacity. Illinois as a whole reported a more than doubling of landfill
capacity between 1995 and 2003, but Chicago is located near the border of both
Indiana and Wisconsin; so increases in capacity elsewhere in Illinois may not affect
disposal decisions in the metropolitan area.
In all, 11 states, the District of Columbia, and Ontario, Canada increased waste
exports by more than 100,000 tons each in the period, while 5 states had major
decreases. In addition to New York, New Jersey, and Ontario (discussed above),
Missouri, Kansas, Georgia, and Massachusetts showed the largest increases. Among
states showing decreased exports, only Illinois showed a large drop.
Net Imports and Exports
Table 3 combines import and export data to rank the states by net amounts
imported or exported. The table shows that 23 states were net importers, 22 plus the
District of Columbia were net exporters. Thirty-five of the 50 states had net imports
or exports exceeding 100,000 tons in the reporting period; 20 exceeded 500,000 tons.
Perhaps most interesting, given the tendency to identify states as either exporters or
importers, 23 states both exported and imported in excess of 100,000 tons of
municipal solid waste (up from 17 in our 2002 report).
Several factors are at work here. In the larger states, there are sometimes
differences in available disposal capacity in different regions within the state. Areas
without capacity may be closer to landfills (or may at least find cheaper disposal

11 Illinois, like most states, does not report waste exports. This export estimate was derived
from data provided by neighboring states.

options) in other states. A good example is Illinois: the Chicago area, which is close
to two other states, exports significant amounts of waste out of state. Downstate,
however, Illinois has substantial available landfill capacity, and imported 1.5 million
tons from St. Louis and other locations in Missouri.
As noted earlier, the movement of waste also represents the regionalization and
consolidation of the waste industry. In 2003, the three largest firms (Waste
Management, Allied Waste, and Republic Services) accounted for 67% of total
revenues of the industry’s 100 largest firms.12 These large firms offer integrated
waste services, from collection to transfer station to disposal site, in many locations.
Often, they ship waste to their own disposal facility across a border, rather than
dispose of it at an in-state facility owned by a rival. As small landfills continue to
close — the number of U.S. landfills declined 54% between 1993 and 2002, from
4,482 to 2,07113 — this trend toward regionalization and consolidation is likely to
continue. The amount of waste being shipped across state lines for disposal may rise
in this process.
Additional Information
The remainder of this report consists of a table summarizing waste import and
export data, by state. All 50 states and the District of Columbia are listed in
alphabetical order, with data for the amount of waste exported, destination of exports,
amount of waste imported, source of imports, and a state agency contact for
additional information.

12 “Waste Age 100,” Waste Age, June 2004, pp. 30-42.
13 “The State of Garbage in America,” BioCycle, April 1994, p. 51, and January 2004, p.


Table 4. Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, and Amount and Sources of Imported MSW, by State
Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
Mississippi reportsBesides Mississippi, very415,425 tons in FY03Mostly from Georgia. Larry Bryant,
receiving 94,664 tons ofsmall amounts to Florida.(10/02 - 9/03), a decreaseSome from the FloridaAL Dept. of
AlabamaMSW from Alabama inof 260,000 tons frompanhandle.Environmental
2003.FY02, but an increaseManagement
compared to FY01.(334) 271-7771
24,868 tons in 2003,Washington.No imports.N.A.Jennifer Roberts,
according to Alaska.AK Dept. of
Al a s k a E nvi r o nme nt a l
Co nse r va t i o n
iki/CRS-RL32570(907) 269-7553
g/wArizona does not exportArizona estimates that379,900 tons in the periodNearly all (375,600 tons)David Janke,
s.orsignificant amounts ofbetween 1,000 and 10,0004/03 - 3/04.from California. SmallAZ Dept. of
leakMSW. There are smalltons may flow to Newamounts from Nevada,Environmental Quality
://wikiArizonaflows from border areasto New Mexico, Nevada,Mexico; 1,200 tons toNevada; and 500 tons toNew Mexico, and Utah.(602) 771-4173
httpand Utah. Based on stateUtah.
estimates, CRS estimates
total exports at 7,000
to ns.
Three receiving states84,698 tons to Missouri,State does not trackMissouri reported 15,361Doug Szenher,
reported receiving21,546 tons to imports, but believes thattons shipped to ArkansasAR Dept. of Pollution
114,192 tons from Mississippi, imports are relativelyin 2003.Control and Ecology
Arkansas in 2003. In7,948 tons to Tennessee.small and confined to(501) 682-0915

Arkansasaddition, Texas receives< 25,000 tons to Texas.border areas.
some Arkansas waste.
Arkansas itself reported
only 36,050 tons of

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
Receiving states reportNevada 422,456 tons44,000 tons in 2002. State does not keep trackSherry Sala-Moore,
798,056 tons of MSWArizona 375,600 tonsof where waste comesCA Integrated Waste
shipped from California. (4/03-3/04). from.Management Board
Although exports are(916) 341-6204
Californiasubstantial, they
represent less than 2%
the amount disposed in-lgcentral/drs/Reports/
state. Statewide/SW T o tals.
State does not trackKansas, Nebraska, NewState does not trackKansas, Nebraska.Glenn Mallory,
exports. Very smallMexico.imports. Small amountsCO Dept. of Public Health
iki/CRS-RL32570Coloradoamounts may beexported to neighboringmay be imported fromKansas and Nebraska.and Environment (303) 692-3445
leakFive states reportPennsylvania-283,157 tons Connecticut reportsMass. 41,869 tonsJudy Belaval,
receiving 634,155 tons (45%)51,521 tons of MSWNY 9,597 tons CT Dept. of
://wikifrom Connecticut inOhio-234,311 tons (37%)imports in 2003.NJ 55 tonsEnvironmental Protection
http2003. ConnecticutMassachusetts-60,599 tons (860) 424-3237

reports exports of (10%)
286,086 tons. It believesMichigan-31,102 tons (5%)
Connecticutthat the difference inreported amountsNew York-24,986 tons (4%).
represents MSW direct-
hauled out of the state
without passing through
transfer stations and
C&D waste mixed in
with MSW.

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
The state does not trackVirginia-65,627 tons (54%)The state does not trackN.A.Nancy Markur,
MSW exports. However,Pennsylvania-55,277 tonsMSW imports but claimsDE Dept. of Natural
receiving states, which(45%)it is likely a negligibleResources and
Delawarehave reported data for2003, reported receivingNew York-681 tons (1%)amount. All MSWlandfills in the state areEnvironmental Control,(302) 739-3689
121,585 tons fromowned by the state and are
Delaware in 2003.prohibited from accepting
out-of-state waste.
Receiving states, whichVirginia-1,175,881 tonsThere are no disposalMaryland.D.C. Dept. of Public
have reported data for(99.99%)facilities in the District ofWorks, Solid Waste
2003, reported receivingColumbia, but DC hasDivision
iki/CRS-RL32570District of Columbia1,176,010 tons in 2003,the bulk of which went toIn 2002, some amount wassent to Maryland, butimported substantialamounts of waste from(202) 727-5907
g/wVirginia. Maryland does not trackMaryland to transfer
s.ortotals by state of origin.stations located in the
leakDistrict. This waste is
then exported for disposal.
httpThe state does not trackGeorgia. Small amounts toThe state does not trackAlabama reports that itPeter Goren,
exports. Georgia reportsAlabama.imports. There is littleships very small amountsFL Dept. of
receiving 676,517 tons ofincentive to import, sinceto a facility in the FloridaEnvironmental Protection
MSW from Florida indisposal is less expensivepanhandle.(850) 245-8714
Florida2003. Exports arein Georgia.
increasing, but still
represent only 2% of
Floridas waste
ge ne r a t i o n.
CRS estimates 600,000Alabama and South1,445,254 tons in 2003. 47% of the waste comesScott Henson,
tons of exports based onCarolina account for aboutWaste imports havefrom Florida, 29% fromGA Dept. of Natural
Georgiainformation availablefrom three receiving95% of the total. The restgoes to Tennessee. Exportsincreased by 451,000 tonssince FY2002.New Jersey, 7% fromSouth Carolina, 6% fromResources(404) 362-4533

states. to South Carolina haveRhode Island.
increased substantially.

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
No exports of MSW.N.A.No imports of MSW.N.A.Gary Siu,
HawaiiHI Dept. of Health
(808) 586-4244
Idaho does not trackMontana, Washington.Idaho does not trackOregon and a very smallDean Ehlert,
exports. Washingtonimports. Oregon reportedamount from Nevada.ID Dept. of
reports an estimatedexports to Idaho of 18,668Environmental Quality
Idaho18,000 tons of MSWtons of MSW in 2002.(208) 373-0416
from Idaho in 2002.
Montana reports 26,307
tons in 2003.
Six neighboring statesWisconsin 777,983 tons;The state reportsMissouri (78%); IowaEllen Robinson,
iki/CRS-RL32570report receivingIndiana 668,161 tons1,880,865 tons of imports(15%); Wisconsin (3%);IL Environmental
g/w2,097,407 tons of MSW (2002);in 2003. (Data convertedIndiana (3%); smallProtection Agency
s.orIllinoisfrom Illinois. Michigan 559,454 tons;from cubic yards to tonsamounts from 7 other(217) 782-9288
leakMissouri 79,147 tons;by CRS.)states.
Kentucky 8,754 tons;
://wikiIowa 3,908 tons.
httpSix receiving statesMichigan 540,384 tons,917,678 tons of MSW inIllinois (73%);Michelle Weddle,
reported a total ofKentucky 199,439 tons 2003, a decrease ofOhio (13%);IN Dept of Environmental
945,241 tons of MSW( 2002)),402,000 tons from theMichigan (7%);Management
Indianafrom Indiana.Ohio 157,512 tons,previous year. The stateKentucky (6%).(317) 233-4624
Illinois 42,210 tons,also received 217,200 tons
Penn. 5,005 tons,of other solid waste
Virginia 691 tons.out of state in 2003./qtrlyrpts/fars/far02.pdf

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
CRS estimates 350,000Illinois, 266,158 tons;The state reported a total89% from Minnesota.Mark Warren,
tons based on reportsMissouri 5,267 tons;of 276,302 tons inThe rest from Missouri,IA Dept of Natural
from Iowa and receivingWisconsin 500 tons. FY2003.Nebraska, Illinois, andResources
states. Three receivingFY 03 exports to NebraskaWisconsin.(515) 281-4968
states report 271,925totaled 93,563 tons, acc. to
tons in 2003; theIowa.
Iowaadditional amount in our
estimate represents an
estimated amount of
waste shipped to
Nebraska. Iowa reported
248,834 tons in FY2003
iki/CRS-RL32570(7/02 - 6/03).
g/wWaste exports declined90% to Oklahoma. 697,874 tons of MSW in638,983 tons (92%) fromKent Foerster,
s.orin 2003 to 371,371 tons10% to Missouri.2002, plus 277,632 tons ofMissouri; the remainderKS Dept. of Health and
leakfrom 500,000 tons inother waste, primarilyfrom Oklahoma.Environment
2002. Both years wereC&D. The state believes(785) 296-1540
://wikiKansassubstantially above pre-imports are under-
http2002 exports, however. reported, in part because
waste imported by transfer
stations is not counted.
328,993 tons in 2003.Tenn. 221,025 tons, 598,549 tons in 2002.Indiana (33%), OhioAllan Bryant,
Indiana 59,557 tons,(32%), and West VirginiaKY Dept. for
Ohio 46,307 tons,(21%) were the mainEnvironmental Protection
KentuckyIllinois 1,618 tons,sources in 2002. (502) 564-6716

Virginia 486 tons.Tennessee (6%) and
Virginia (5%) contributed
lesser amounts.

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
Texas reports that itTexas, Mississippi.Louisiana does not trackN.A.Dennis Duszynski,
received 141,550 tonswaste imports. LittleLA Dept. of
Louisianafrom Louisiana in 2003.waste is believed to beEnvironmental Quality
Mississippi receivedimported.(225) 219-3236
107,075 tons.
The state does notNew Hampshire receivedCRS estimates 2003Massachusetts reportedGeorge MacDonald,
maintain export data. In38,643 tons. Most of theimports at 220,000 tons,178,886 tons of MSWME Dept of
2002, neighboring statesrest went to Canada. Databased on reports fromshipped to Maine in 2003.Environmental Protection
Maineand Canada reportedprovided by North EastMassachusetts andThe rest comes from New(207) 287-5759
receiving a total ofWaste ManagementNEWMOA.Hampshire.
49,868 tons.Officials Association
iki/CRS-RL32570 (NEWMOA) .
g/wReceiving states reportedVirginia-1,808,446 tonsThe state reports receivingDelaware, Pennsylvania,Frank Diller,
s.orreceiving1,941,370 tons(93%)202,768 tons from out-of-Virginia, West Virginia,MD Dept of the
leakfrom Maryland in 2003.Pennsylvania-130,516 tonsstate. The state has alsoD.C., New Jersey, andEnvironment
(6%)generally importedNew York.(410) 537-4143

://wikiMarylandOhio-1,332 tons (<1%)substantial quantities of
httpWest Virginia-1,052 tonsC&D waste.
New York-25 tons (<1%)

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
In 2003, MassachusettsSC-450,221 tons (36%) In 2003, MassachusettsNew York-67,634 tonsBrian Holdridge,
reported exporting a totalNew Hampshire-258,919reported importing a total(38%)MA Dept. of
of 1,239,364 tons.tons (21%)of 179,852 tons.Connecticut-60,599 tonsEnvironmental Protection
New York-193,297 tons(34%)(617) 292-5578
(16%)Rhode Island-24,114 tons
Maine-178,886 tons (14%)(13%)
MassachusettsOhio-99,061 tons (8%)Connecticut-39,023 tonsNew Hampshire-22,471tons (12%)
(3%)Vermont-2,745 tons (2%)
Virginia-9,343 tons (<1%)Maine-2,289 tons (1%)
Rhode Island-5,575 tons
iki/CRS-RL32570Pennsylvania-5,039 tons(<1%)
s.orThe state does not trackOhio 71%,In FY2003 (10/02 - 9/03),Ontario, Canada (62%),Christina Miller,
leakexports, but twoIndiana 29%.imports of MSW wereIllinois (12%), IndianaMI Dept. of
neighboring states4,503,218 tons, an(12%), Ohio (8%),Environmental Quality
://wikiMichiganreported 223,310 tonsincrease of 1.0 millionWisconsin (4%). Six(517) 373-4741
httpfrom Michigan in 2003.tons in the past year. other states (principally
(Data converted fromConnecticut, Maine,
cubic yards to tons byand New York) accountdocuments/deq-whm-stw-
CRS.)for the remaining 2%.landfillreport.pdf
In 2002, the stateIowa 286,802 tonsAccording to the state, aN.A.Jim Chiles,
Minnesotaexported 611,044 tons.Wisconsin 265,880 tonsNo. Dakota 57,360 tonsnegligible amount hasbeen imported.MN Pollution ControlAgency
So. Dakota 658 tons(651) 296-7273

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
Tennessee reportsTennessee.579,752 tons in 2003.356,477 tons (62%) fromPradip Bhowal,
receiving 113,013 tons ofTennessee; 107,075 tonsMS Dept. of
Mississippi waste in(18%) from Louisiana; Environmental Quality
Mississippi2003.94,650 tons (16%) fromAlabama; 21,550 tons(601) 961-5082
(4%) from
Annua l R e p o r t 2003
2,334,511 tons in 2003.Illinois 1,648,008 tons206,873 tons in 2003.Arkansas (41%);Debbie Sessler,
(71%); Kansas 658,979Illinois (38%);MO Dept. of Natural
Missouritons (28%); the remainingKansas (18%);Resources
iki/CRS-RL325701% went to Arkansas, Iowa,Kentucky and Tennessee.Iowa (3%).(573) 751-5401
s.orMontana does not trackN.A.31,437 tons in 2003 — Idaho (84%), NorthPat Crowley,
leakexports, and is notalmost identical to theDakota (11%), WyomingMT Dept. of
Montanabelieved to export anyamount in 2002.(5%).Environmental Quality
://wikisignificant amount of(406) 444-5294
The state does not collectIowa.The state does not collectIowa.Keith Powell,
records on MSW exports,records on MSW imports. NE Dept. of
Nebraskabut Iowa reportsreceiving 10,537 tonsIowa reports sendingNebraska 93,563 tons ofEnvironmental Quality(402) 471-4210
from Nebraska inMSW in FY2003.
Arizona estimates that itArizona, Idaho.422,456 tons in 2003.Almost all fromDave Simpson,
received 3,300 tons ofCalifornia. A smallNV Division of
MSW from Nevada. Inamount is imported fromEnvironmental Protection
Nevadaaddition, aninsignifi-neighboring communities(775) 687-9469

cant” amount is exportedin Utah and Arizona.
to Idaho from border
co mmunities.

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
CRS estimates exports ofAbout two-thirds to Maine;In 2002, New HampshireAbout three-quarters fromPierce Rigrod,
65,000 tons in 2003,most of the remainder toimported 401,852 tons ofMassachusetts. The restNH Dept. of
New Hampshirebased on reports fromMassachusetts.MSW, primarily fromwas from Vermont andEnvironmental Services
receiving states andMassachusetts.Maine.(603) 271-3713
5,803,184 tons in 2003,PA 4,800,094 tons;1,671,065 tons in 2002.97% from New York.Ray Worob,
according to sixOH 431,086 tons;NJ Dept. of
importing states. NewGA 413,456 tons;Environmental Protection
New JerseyJersey reported 3.7VA 84,218 tons;(609) 984-6903
million tons of exports inNY 72,409 tons;
2002 (latest availableWV 1,921 tons.
g/wThe state says there areTexas and Arizona.537,000 tons of MSW511,000 tons from Texas.John OConnell,
s.orno exports, except forwere imported in 2003,The rest is from Colorado,NM Environment Dept.
leakmaterials destined foraccording to official data,Arizona, Indian nations,(505) 827-2385

recycling. Texas andbut state officials believeand maquiladora waste
://wikiArizona report receivingthe reported amount couldfrom Mexico.
httpNew Mexicosmall amounts of wastebe as much as 25% below
from New Mexico.actual imports because of
underreporting by landfills
that serve border cities and
Indian nations. Imports
are believed to be
increasing in 2004.

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
Nine importing statesPA 3,760,783 tons;New York estimatesOntario, Canada (43%);Gerard Wagner,
report a total ofVA 1,765,271 tons;311,417 tons wereNew Jersey (23%);NY State Dept. of
8,247,610 tons from NewNJ 1,652,861 tons imported in 2003. ThePennsylvania (16%);Environmental
York in 2003. New(2002);state also importedMassachusetts (9%);Conservation
New YorkYork facilities reportedexports of 4,960,830 tonsOH 887,297 tons;MA 67,634 tons;172,000 tons of C&Dwaste in 2003.Connecticut (8%).(518) 402-8662
in 2003.WV 57,687 tons;
GA 28,274 tons;
MI 18,206 tons;
CT 9,597 tons.
971,286 tons in FY2003Virginia (50%),133,145 tons in FY2003South Carolina (64%);Paul Crissman,
iki/CRS-RL32570(July 2002-June 2003),an increase of 89,039South Carolina (44%),Tennessee (5%),(July 2002-June 2003). Does not include 77,217Virginia (36%).NC Dept. of Environmentand Natural Resources
g/wtons from the previousGeorgia (1%).tons of waste imported(919) 733-0692 x254
s.oryear. In addition, thefrom a South Carolina
leakNorth Carolinastate exported 77,217transfer station, which[http://wastenot.enr.state.n
tons to a South Carolinaoriginally received
://wikitransfer station, which,waste from North03_AR.doc]
httpafter baling, were sentCarolina.
back to North Carolina
for disposal.
North Dakota estimatesMontana received slightly101,196 tons in 2002.Minnesota would be theSteve Tillotson,
North Dakotaexports at 10,000 tons inless than 4,000 tons. Thelargest source.ND Dept. of Health is not accounted for.(701) 328-5166
1,102,341 tons in 2003.Michigan (38%);Ohio imported 2,541,074Ohio imports waste fromMichelle Kenton,
Kentucky (29%);tons in 2003, an increase27 states. The largestOH Environmental
OhioWest Virginia (17%);Indiana (13%);of 553,000 tons since2001.sources were New York(35%), PennsylvaniaProtection Agency(614) 728-5368

Pennsylvania (4%).(18%), New Jersey (17%),
Connecticut (9%).

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
Kansas received 58,891Kansas, Texas.State does not trackMostly from Kansas.John Roberts,
tons of waste fromimports. Kansas reportsOK Dept. of
Oklahoma in 2002. that 333,616 tons of wasteEnvironmental Quality
OklahomaTexas received at leastwere shipped from the(405) 702-5100
40,000 tons in 2003Wichita area to Oklahoma
(CRS estimate, based onin 2003.
Texas data).
Ontario shipped nearly 3Primarily Michigan. SomeNone.N.A.Bruce Pope,
million tons of MSW toto New York.Ontario Ministry of
the United States in 2003Environment and Energy
(2,922,473 tons),(416) 325-4420
iki/CRS-RL32570according to receivingstates. Michigan
g/wOntario, Canadareceived 2,789,650 tons
s.orof this waste in FY2003
leak(10/02-9/03). (Data
converted from cubic
://wikiyards to tons by CRS.)
httpNew York received
132,823 tons.
Oregon exported 18,668Mainly to Idaho.Oregon importedAlmost all fromPeter Spendelow,
tons of MSW in 2002.1,424,801 tons of MSW inWashington.OR Dept. of
Oregon2002. Imports accountedfor 34% of all the wasteEnvironmental Quality(503) 229-5521

disposed in Oregon that

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
The state does not track84% (467,042 tons) to9,155,638 tons in 2003, aNew Jersey (at 4.8 millionSally Lohman,
exports. According toOhio; the rest to New York,decline of 1.5 million tonstons) and New York (atPA Dept. of
neighboring states,Virginia, and West Virginia.since 2001. The state is3.76 million) accountedEnvironmental Protection
Pennsylvania exportedstill, by far, the largestfor nearly 94% of(717) 787-7382
558,975 tons of MSW inimporter of MSW,Pennsylvanias MSW
Pennsylvania2003.representing 23.5% of thenational total of imports. imports in 2003. Othersources included[
In addition to MSW,Connecticut (0.28 million)m/drfc/reports/ctyfac.htm]
Pennsylvania received 1.4and Maryland (0.13
million tons of other solidmillion).
waste from out of state in
iki/CRS-RL32570Receiving states reported79% to Georgia; 21% toMassachusetts reportsMassachusetts 5,575Robert Schmidt,
g/w117,301 tons of MSWMassachusetts. Tinysending MSW to RI.tons in 2003.RI Dept. of Environmental
s.orfrom Rhode Island inamounts to PennsylvaniaOfficially, however, RIManagement
leakRhode Island2003.and Connecticut.does not accept MSW(401) 222-2797 x7260
from out-of-state. In 2002,
://wikiall MSW imported to RI
httpwas reported as sent back
out-of-state for disposal.
Georgia, North CarolinaGeorgia 98,791 tons,South Carolina importedMassachusetts (38%) andPete Stevens,
and Virginia reportNC 84,932 tons,1,227,240 tons of MSW inNorth Carolina (36%)SC Dept. of Health and
South Carolina184,797 tons of wastefrom South Carolina inVirginia 1,074 tons.FY2003 (7/02-6/03). were the main sources. Georgia (17%) andEnvironmental Control(803) 896-4149

2003.Delaware (9%) accounted
for most of the remainder.

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
The state does not trackN.A.The state does not trackMinnesotaJim Wente,
exports of MSW;imports of MSW;SD Dept. of Environment
according to the state,according to the state,and Natural Resources
South Dakotathere are insufficientamounts to warrantthere are insufficientamounts to warrant(605) 773-3153
tracking.tracking. Minnesota
shipped 658 tons of MSW
to South Dakota in 2002.
Four neighboring statesMostly to Mississippi577,940 tons in 2003.221,025 tons (38%) fromA. Wayne Brashear,
report receiving 431,740(83%). The rest went toKentucky; 134,237 tonsTN Dept. of Environment
tons of waste fromKentucky (8%),(23%) from Virginia; and Conservation
iki/CRS-RL32570Tennessee, an increase ofmore than 40% sinceVirginia (7%), andGeorgia (2%).113,013 tons (20%) fromMississippi; 53,484 tons(615) 532-8010
g/wTennessee2001.(9%) from North Carolina;
s.or28,289 tons (5%) from
leakGeorgia; the rest from
Missouri, Arkansas, West
://wikiVirginia, and Alabama.
New Mexico reportsNew Mexico251,100 tons in 2003.Louisiana 141,550 tonsEdward Block,
511,000 tons of wasteMexico 48,117 tons TX Commission on
from Texas in 2003. Oklahoma at least 40,000Environmental Quality
TexasTexas reported a similartons. The rest from(512) 239-6613
amount, relying on 2002Arkansas, Kansas,
data.Mississippi, and New
As in previous years,Nevada, Arizona.0 tons in 2003, except forArizonaJeff Emmons,
about 1,000 tons of wastea “trickle” from Arizona.UT Dept. of
went from Wendover,Environmental Quality
UtahUtah, to Wendover,(801)538-6748

Nevada. Also, Arizona
reports about 500 tons of
waste from Utah.

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
In 2002, 126,159 tonsMostly to New York andFacilities in Vermont doNew York 61,463 tonsJulie Hackbarth,
were exported.New Hampshire. A smallnot accept out-of-stateVT Dept. of
Vermontamount to Massachusetts.waste. However, NewEnvironmental
York reports sendingConservation
MSW to Vermont.(802) 241-3446
The state does not trackTennessee 134,237 tons;Virginia remains the95% from 3 states andKathy Frahm,
MSW exports. SevenNo. Car. 48,213 tons;second-largest wasteDC: 1,808,446 tons fromVA Dept. of
states report 240,633Kentucky 31,845 tons;importer. The stateMaryland; 1,765,271 fromEnvironmental Quality
tons of exports fromGeorgia 15,623 tons;imported 5,489,170 tonsNew York; 1,175,881(804) 698-4376
Virginia.West Va. 5,321 tons; of MSW in 2003 and 1.1from DC; 470,074 tons
VirginiaSo. Car. 2,807 tons; million tons of other wastefrom North Carolina.
iki/CRS-RL32570Penn. 2,587 tons.(mostly C&D waste,sludge, and incineratorLess than 5% from 16other states.waste/pdf/swreport03.pdf
g/wash). Imports increased
s.orby nearly 1 million tons
leakcompared with 2002.
://wiki1,001,717 tons of MSWOregon.112,097 tons of MSW in50% from BritishEllen Caywood,
httpin 2002, plus 423,5312002, plus 53,838 tons ofColumbia; 19% fromWA Dept. of Ecology
tons of other waste. other waste.Oregon; 16% from Idaho;(360) 407-6132
Washington has huge15% from Alaska.
Washingtonamounts of landfillcapacity, but because
contractual arrange-
ments, the state exports
substantial amounts of
wa s t e .
No tracking system. SixKentucky (35%), Ohio276,439 tons in 2003.Ohio 195,203 tons,Jan Borowski,
receiving states reported(31%), Pennsylvania (20%),NY 57,687 tons, WV Solid Waste
West Virginia364,719 tons of wastefrom West Virginia.Virginia (13%). Smallamounts to Tennessee andPenn. 13,275 tons,Virginia 5,321 tons.Management Board(304) 558-0844

New York.The rest from 9 other

Amount ofDestination ofAmount ofSources of
StateMSW ExportedExported WasteMSW ImportedImported WasteAdditional Information
The state does not collectMichigan (77%), Illinois1,210,008 tons in 2003.Illinois 777,983 tons,Kurt Byfield,
export data, but two(23%).Minn. 431,526 tons.WI Dept. of Natural
Wisconsinreceiving states report213,989 tons ofResources(608)266-8805
Wisconsin exports in
The state does not collectMontana.The state does not collectN.A.Bob Doctor,
Wyomingexport data. Montanareported 1,487 tons fromimport data. A few tons aday may enter the state.WY Dept. ofEnvironmental Quality
Wyoming.(307) 473-3468
iki/CRS-RL32570. = not available
g/w CRS, based on telephone interviews with and data provided by state program officials.