Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update

Transcription

1 FINAL REPORT Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update Mercer County Solid Waste Management District MAY 2008

2 Mercer County Solid Waste Management District Table of Contents Table of Contents List of Tables Section 1. Introduction 1.1 Plan Approval Date, Counties in District, and Planning Period Length Reasons for Plan Submittal Process to Determine Material Change in Circumstances Criteria Used to Determine if a Material Change in Circumstances Has Occurred District Formation and Certification Statement Policy Committee Members Board of Directors District Address and Phone Number Technical Advisory Committee and Other Subcommittees Public Meetings Section 2. Executive Summary 2.1 Status of Implementation Description of Sections 3 through 9 of the Plan Update Section 3 Inventories Section 4 Reference Year Population, Waste Generation, and Waste Reduction Section 5 Planning Period Projections and Strategies Ohio Recycling Residential Curbside Recycling Promote/Assist in the Implementation of Recycling Programs in Other Public Offices Commercial/Institutional Recycling Program Household Hazardous Waste Management Used Oil Recycling Lead Acid Batteries Scrap Tire Management Yard Waste Management Education/Awareness Health Department Funding Section 6 Methods of Management B /01/08

3 Table of Contents Section 7 Measurement of Progress toward Waste Reduction Goals Section 8 Cost and Financing of Plan Implementation District Disposal Fee Section 9 District Rules Section 3. Inventories 3.1 Reference Year Existing Solid Waste Landfills Existing Incinerators and Resource Recovery Facilities Existing Transfer Facilities Existing Recycling and Household Hazardous Waste Collection Activities Residential/Commercial Recycling Industrial Recycling Household Hazardous Waste Collection Existing Composting/Yard Waste Management Facilities Existing Open Dumps and Waste Tire Dumps Ash, Foundry Sand and Slag Disposal Sites Map of Facilities and Sites Existing Collection Systems Haulers Section 4. Reference Year Population, Waste Generation, and Waste Reduction 4.1 Reference Year Population, Residential/Commercial Waste Generation Population Generation Residential/Commercial Industrial Exempt Waste Total Waste Generation Reference Year Waste Reduction Residential/Commercial Waste Reduction Industrial Waste Reduction Total Waste Generation: Historical Trends of Disposal Plus Waste Reductions Generation Rates/Quantities Reconciliation of Waste Generation Waste Composition Residential/Commercial Sectors Industrial Waste Sector Section 5. Planning Period Projections and Strategies 5.1 Planning Period Population Projections Waste Generation Projections ii 05/01/08 B1685

4 Table of Contents Residential/Commercial Industrial Sector Waste Generation Total Waste Generation Projections for Waste Stream Composition Waste Reduction Strategies Existing Residential/Commercial Programs and Activities Programs and Activities Existing Residential/Commercial Programs and Activities Compliance with State Planning Goals Existing Industrial Programs and Activities New Solid Waste Management Strategies and Programs Waste Reduction Projections Residential/Commercial Industrial Section 6. Methods of Management 6.1 Calculation of Capacity Needs Demonstration of Access to Capacity Disposal Capacity Transfer Facility Capacity Tire Management Capacity Recycling Facilities Capacity Composting Facilities Capacity Schedule for Facilities and Programs: New, Expansion, Closures, Continuations Identification of Facilities Authorization Statement to Designate Waiver Process for Undesignated Facilities Siting Strategy for Facilities Contingencies for Capacity Assurance and District Program Implementation District Disposal Capacity District Program Implementation Section 7. Measurement of Progress Toward Waste Reduction Goals 7.1 District will Comply with Goal(s) Defined Calculating Goal No. 2, the Waste Reduction Rate (WRR) Section 8. Cost and Financing of Plan Implementation 8.1 Introduction Funding Mechanisms and Amount of Money Generated District Disposal Fees (ORC Section (B)) Generation Fee (ORC Section ) Summary of District Revenues District Loans Funds Allocated from ORC (B), ORC and ORC B /01/08 iii

5 Table of Contents 8.6 Contingent Funding or Financing Summary of Costs and Revenues Section 9. District Rules [ORC Section (C)] 9.1 Existing Rules Proposed Rules List of Tables Table 2-1 General Informatin Table 2-2 District Coordinator/Office Table 2-3 Plan Data Summary Table 2-4 Disposal Facilities to be Used by the District Table 3-1 Landfills used by the District Table 3-7 Facilities Used by the District That are Outside of Ohio: Additional Data Table 3-3 Solid Waste Transfer Facilities Used by the District Table 3-4 Residential Curbside Recycling Activities Used by the District Table 3-5 Drop-off, Buybacks, Hauler Collection, Other Recycling Activities and HHW Collection Used by the District Table 3-6 Composting/Yard Waste Management Activities Used by the District Table 3-8 Existing Open Dumps and Waste Tire Dumps Table 3-10 Solid Waste Haulers Operating in the District Table 4-1 Reference Year Population and Residential/Commercial Generation Table 4-3 Industrial Waste Generation Table 4-5 Reference Year Total Waste Generation for the District Table 4-6 Reference Year Residential/Commercial Waste Reduction in the District Table 4-7 Reference Year Industrial Waste Reduction in the District Table 4-8 Total Waste Generation Based Upon Disposal Plus Waste Reduction Table 4-9 Reference Year Total Waste Generation for the District Table 4-10 Estimated Residential/Commercial Landfilled Waste Stream Composition for the District in Table 5-1 District Population Projections Table 5-2 District Residential/Commercial Waste Generation Table 5-3 Projected Industrial Waste Generation (TPY) Table 5-4 Total Waste Generation for the District during the Planning Period (TPY) Table 5-5 Residential/Commercial Waste Reduction Strategies iv 05/01/08 B1685

6 Table of Contents Table 5-6 Industrial Reduction Strategies Table 6-1 Waste Management Methods Used and Processing Capacity Needed for Each Year of the Planning Period Table 6-2 Summary of Residential/Commercial Waste Management Methods Table 6-3 Summary for Industrial Waste Management Methods Table 6-4 Potential District Disposal Capacity Table 6-5 Implementation Schedule for Facilities, Strategies, Programs and Activities Table 6-6 Facilities Identified Table 7-1 Annual Rate of Waste Reduction: Residential/Commercial Waste Table 7-2 Annual Rate of Waste Reduction: Industrial Waste Table 7-3 Annual Rate of Waste Reduction: Total District Solid Waste Table 8-1 Projected Revenues from District Disposal Fees Table 8-3 Revenue Projections Table 8-5 Revenues and Allocations Table 8-6 Allocations of ORC Revenue for the Following Purposes Table 8-7 Contingent Funding Sources Table 8-8 Total Expenditures and Revenues Appendices Appendix A Resolution of District Formation Appendix B Copies of Public Notices for Public Hearings(s) and Public Comment Appendix C Copies of Resolutions and Certification Statements Documenting Ratification Appendix D Identification of Consultants Retained for Plan Preparation Appendix E District Map Appendix F Industrial/Commercial Survey Forms Appendix G Documentation of Provision of Services and Capacity Appendix H Policy Committee Meeting Minutes B /01/08 v

7 Table of Contents This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to R. W. Beck, Inc. (R. W. Beck) constitute the opinions of R. W. Beck. To the extent that statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, R. W. Beck has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. R. W. Beck makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report. Copyright 2008, R. W. Beck, Inc. All rights reserved. vi 05/01/08 B1685

8 Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Plan Approval Date, Counties in District, and Planning Period Length The Mercer County Solid Waste Management District (District) is a single county district. The District s current integrated solid waste management plan was approved on March 5, 2005 and the plan contained an effective planning period from 2005 to The update of its integrated solid waste management plan (Plan Update) will be implemented in 2009, and is a 10-year planning period. Plan Approval Deadline: September 9, 2009 Planning Period Length: Ten years, Reasons for Plan Submittal Mandatory three-year plan update. 1.3 Process to Determine Material Change in Circumstances Section (D) of the Ohio Revised Code requires that the Mercer County Solid Waste Management District (District) update its Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan Update) if a material change in circumstances has occurred in the District. The state plan format requires that the plan must include a description of the process the District will use to determine when a material change in circumstances has occurred, and as a result, requires a plan amendment. The key elements of the District s Plan Update are: Assuring that a minimum of 10 years of disposal capacity is available to meet the annual disposal needs of Mercer County solid waste generators; Reducing reliance on landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling and composting; Maintaining rulemaking authority; and Obtaining adequate funding to implement the Plan Update. B /01/08

9 Section 1 The District defines the phrase material change in circumstances as a change (or changes) in conditions that prevents one or more of the key elements of the Plan Update from being achieved. The Mercer County Board of Commissioners, acting as the Board of Directors (the Board) of the District shall make the determination that a material change in circumstances has occurred in the District that requires a plan amendment. Within 30 days of making the determination that a material change in circumstances has occurred, the District will notify Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 1.4 Criteria Used to Determine if a Material Change in Circumstances Has Occurred Using the OEPA and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Solid Waste Facility Reports, the District will annually summarize the remaining capacity at the landfills that serve the District. This assessment will then be provided to the Board for review and evaluation. The Board will determine if these landfills, in aggregate, will be able to provide sufficient disposal capacity for District-generated waste. If in aggregate, the landfills that serve the District are unable to provide the District with at least 10 years of disposal capacity or access to disposal capacity and no other disposal alternatives are available through the existing Plan s authority and options, the Board may consider this a Material Change in Circumstances and amend the Plan Update. The Board will make this decision within 60 days of receiving this information. Implementation of the District s Plan Update requires that the District receive adequate annual funding to implement the programs. For various programs, having access to qualified service providers to operate them is essential. The District will annually evaluate if financial or operational conditions exist that prevent the District from implementing all of the District programs. District staff will prepare a recommendation report that prioritizes which programs the District will provide based upon the following criteria: The program s impact on waste stream reduction; Long-term impacts of the program on implementing the plan; The program s association with the enforcement of solid waste management laws and regulations; The program s impact on Mercer County s human health and environment; and The availability of non-district entities to provide the program. This report will be provided to the Board for their review and recommendations regarding modification or elimination of District programs within 60 days of its preparation. The Board will forward this report to OEPA within 30 days. If the Board determines that financial or operational conditions will prevent the District 1-2 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

10 INTRODUCTION from implementing the plan for longer than 120 days, the District will notify OEPA that a material change in circumstances may have occurred. Based on feedback from OEPA, the Board may consider this as a Material Change in Circumstances and begin to amend the Plan within 60 days of receiving the report. If a change in state law or regulations, or a judicial decision, affects the District s rulemaking authority (and this change prevents the District from achieving the key elements of the Plan so that the approved Plan cannot be implemented), the Board will determine if this is a Material Change in Circumstances within 120 days and will notify OEPA within 30 days. 1.5 District Formation and Certification Statement This is not required since the District is not a new district or a reconfiguration of an existing district. 1.6 Policy Committee Members Jerry Laffin Mike Niekamp Jack Staugler Sylvan Jutte Jeff Hazel Chris Miller Randy Diller 1.7 Board of Directors Representing County Commission Representing Citizens-at-Large Representing Industry Representing Townships Representing Largest Municipality Representing Health Department Representing the Public-at-Large 1. County Commissioner, Jerry Laffin 2. County Commissioner, Bob Nuding 3. County Commissioner, John E. Bruns 1.8 District Address and Phone Number Mercer County Solid Waste Management District 220 W. Livingston Street Room A230 Celina, OH Phone: Fax: B /01/08 R. W. Beck 1-3

11 Section 1 Solid Waste Coordinator: Kent Hinton kent.hinton@mercercountyohio.org 1.9 Technical Advisory Committee and Other Subcommittees The District did not establish a technical advisory committee or any other subcommittees to assist with the Plan Update Public Meetings To prepare the Plan Update, the District conducted two joint meetings of the District Policy Committee to review existing programs and provide input on future District programs. 1-4 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

12 Section 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Status of Implementation The District was formed by the Mercer County Commissioners, following the enactment of Ohio House Bill 592 (HB 592). Since its inception, the District has implemented cost-effective programs that have resulted in the reduction of approximately 33 percent of the residential/commercial waste stream and approximately 88 percent of the industrial waste stream as of the reference year Description of Sections 3 through 9 of the Plan Update Although the landfilled waste stream in Mercer County has already been significantly reduced since 1988, the District is committed to increasing the effectiveness of programs and activities, both in terms of performance and cost, and addressing any new solid waste needs. Therefore, the District undertakes the plan update as an opportunity to review and evaluate the District s existing solid waste management programs for performance, cost and responsiveness to the solid waste management needs of Mercer County, and plans to implement the new programs and modifications to existing programs. The following is a brief discussion of the components of Mercer County s update of its solid waste management plan. This plan will be implemented in 2009 and is a 10- year solid waste management plan Section 3 Inventories The District has determined that 2005 is the reference year for the Plan Update. Data collection on residential, commercial and industrial disposal and recovery efforts began in 2006, using 2005 as the most recent completed year with available data. During 2005, the majority of District-originated waste was disposed at the Celina Landfill in Mercer County. Other landfills that served the District include: Cherokee Run Landfill; WM Mahoning Landfill; Sunny Farms Landfill; Jay County Landfill; and B /01/08

13 Section 2 Other Indiana landfills 1. During 2005, three transfer stations received a total of 11,932 tons of Mercer County waste. In addition, the District was served by: Five waste haulers who collected solid waste; Three waste haulers who collected residential curbside recyclables on a pay-perbag basis throughout Mercer County; and Three composting/yard waste management facilities Section 4 Reference Year Population, Waste Generation, and Waste Reduction The District s 2005 reference year population of 41,414 was determined by using the 2000 Census data projected by the Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research 2. In accordance with Ohio law, the adjustment to the District s population for 2005 reflects the addition of the population segment of the Village of Burkettsville (Village), which straddles the County line. Since the majority of the population of the Village is located in Mercer County, the 74 Burkettsville residents living in Darke County were added to the District s base population of 41,340. This resulted in the adjusted total population of the District of 41,414. Section 4 estimates waste generation for the reference year, which is as follows: Residential/Commercial 30,060 tons Industrial 54,803 tons Exempt 13,591 tons Section 4 also estimates waste reduction quantities for the reference year, which are as follows: Residential/Commercial: 9,977 tons Industrial: 37,064 tons Exempt: 0 tons Section 5 Planning Period Projections and Strategies Section 5 describes the planning period ( ) and establishes projections for population, waste generation, and compositions. During the plan implementation years, generation is projected to increase. 1 OEPA records did not identify the name and location of the other Indiana landfills. 2 Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research Population Projections by Age and Sex: R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During 2005, the District provided a variety of programs and services to residents and businesses to assist with reducing the waste stream. Following is a description of these programs and, if applicable, strategies for improvement Ohio Recycling Ohio Recycling is a recycling processor that is located in Chickasaw. The District contracts with Ohio Recycling to provide processing marketing services for recyclables generated within the District. Ohio Recycling accepts recyclables from residents, businesses and waste haulers who provide curbside recycling in the District. Waste haulers deliver the recyclables in a 2-bag system, one for fibers and one for commingled containers. During 2005, Ohio Recycling accepted the following materials: Aluminum; Appliances; Cardboard; Glass; Mixed Paper; PET Containers; HDPE Containers; Metals, Including White Goods; and Used Computers. Ohio Recycling purchases some metals, such as aluminum and copper, from residents and 50 percent of their net proceeds from paper products are provided to the St. Peter Neurological Center. Some of the facility s proceeds from aluminum cans benefit Ronald McDonald House. To increase public access to Ohio Recycling, the District applied for and received a grant from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) for the purchase of two, twenty-three foot long recycling trailers. By January 2008, the District will place one drop-off trailer at the Parkway High School in Rockford, Ohio. Rockford is located in the far north end of the County. The materials that will be collected at this drop off include: Corrugated Cardboard; Office Paper; Glass; Plastic s #1 and #2; Steel Cans; Newsprint; and Aluminum Cans. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 2-3

15 Section 2 Also by January 2008, the District will site a second drop-off trailer in the Village of Burkettsville (the Village), which is in the far southern part of the County. This dropoff site will accept the same recyclables as the Parkway site, and the Village will be responsible for transporting the recyclables to Ohio Recycling Residential Curbside Recycling The District is served by two private waste haulers who provide residential curbside recycling services. These haulers include: Maharg; and Klenke. Residents must purchase recycling bags to participate in curbside recycling. Residents set out recyclables in two separate bags that they purchase from retailers. One bag is for fibers and can include: Newspapers; Catalogs; Magazines; Junk Mail; Office Paper; Food Boxes (wax inserts need to be removed); Paper Egg Cartons; and Cardboard (all paper products need to be free of contaminants). The other bag is for commingled containers and can include: Aluminum Cans, Foil and Pie Pans; Tin Cans (rinsed); PET and HDPE Containers (rinsed and without caps); and Glass Bottles and Jars Beyond providing curbside recycling services, these haulers also offer unit based pricing (PAYT). Residents who participate in the PAYT System must purchase specially marked bags at various retail outlets. To measure the participation in curbside recycling and PAYT, the District will complete the following tasks. First, the District will survey the waste haulers and request them to identify what percent of their customers participate in curbside recycling and PAYT. For areas of the District where participation is low, the District will conduct community meetings to explain the program and to identify barriers to participation. The District will target these communities with increased education, such as point of purchase displays at stores that sell the recycling and PAYT bags, articles on the benefits of these programs and classroom presentations. The District will conduct these initiatives during R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently all townships, except Franklin and Marion, use a subscription approach to their solid waste and recycling collection services. This enables each resident to choose whichever solid waste provider they wish. This approach usually results in multiple haulers operating in the same area, but not on routes of contiguous homes. Generally, this means different haulers are going down the same street for different customers, resulting in more truck traffic and higher collection costs than if the routes were organized. It also generally results in the collection of fewer recyclables. To encourage townships to contract for solid waste services, the District will conduct a workshop on the potential benefits of contracting for solid waste services for the villages and townships of Mercer County. This workshop will be conducted in If any of the communities express an interest in pursuing this, the District will provide technical and procurement assistance to help with the organization of their solid waste and recycling collection functions. This assistance will include: Meeting with decision makers, such as elected officials and administrators to educate them on the benefits of contract collection; Working with local waste haulers to identify their concerns about organized collection; Conducting public meetings about organized collection; Providing procurement guidance; and Assisting with instituting the new program. If any District townships convert to an organized collection system, the District will work with local media to publicize the results. In addition, the District will contact elected officials in the communities with subscription programs to encourage them to begin the process of converting to non-subscription service Promote/Assist in the Implementation of Recycling Programs in Other Public Offices This program is designed to use County government as a role model for recycling in other office settings that generate large quantities of office paper, such as banks and schools. Each week, approximately 1,200 pounds of paper products are transported to Ohio Recycling. On an annual basis, this is equivalent to approximately 31 tons of materials. The District will work with the Maintenance Department to determine the impacts of this program on disposal quantities and hauling charges. The District will then work with the Celina-Mercer County Chamber of Commerce to promote the benefits of recycling to other Mercer County businesses. This task will begin in Commercial/Institutional Recycling Program This program is designed to assist commercial establishments with implementation of voluntary recycling programs. To promote this program, the District disseminates articles to the newspaper about the economic benefits of recycling. The District does not actively contact businesses, but if someone calls, the District does assist them with B /01/08 R. W. Beck 2-5

17 Section 2 their needs. At this time, the District does not track the number of businesses that participate in the program. However, the District will begin compiling this information in In addition, the District will request participants to complete a brief survey about the benefits of the District s recycling program assistance. To assess how waste haulers promote recycling to their commercial customers, the District will query waste haulers on promotional strategies as part of the annual report survey process 3. The District will explore working with the Celina-Mercer Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) to survey members about their motivators and barriers to participating in a commercial recycling program. If a survey of all members is not possible, the District will request to attend a Chamber event and make a presentation on the District and the recycling technical assistance that is available, and ask attendees what would motivate them to request this assistance. The District will complete the research element for expanding its commercial recycling program by 2010, and will develop specific strategies by 2011 if research results indicate that the District can play a measurable role in increasing commercial recycling. Finally, the District will include advice for small businesses on how to start a recycling program on its web site by Household Hazardous Waste Management Each fall, the District conducts a household hazardous waste (HHW) collection event. In 2005, a reported 17 tons of HHW were collected and recycled through this event Used Oil Recycling If individuals contact the District about used oil recycling and do not want to wait until the HHW event, the District directs them to Giere Truck & Trailer in Coldwater, Ohio who accepts used motor oil year round Lead Acid Batteries The District annually compiles information on and advertises establishments within the District that accept used, lead acid batteries Scrap Tire Management The District directs individuals to local retailers that accept used tires. The District also funds the Mercer County Health Department (Health Department) to annually conduct 12 landfill inspections and frequent site visits to assure the landfill is operating in accordance with all Ohio laws and regulations, including the tire ban. At this time, illegally disposed tires are not a significant problem in the District, and the District does not plan to conduct this event during the planning period. However, the District will work with the Health Department to monitor this situation, and apply for a grant if necessary. 3 The District is required to annually prepare and submit to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to comply with Ohio Administrative Code (F). 2-6 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Yard Waste Management The District does not own any yard waste composting facilities, but is well served by Vogel Poultry, Brookside Wood Products and the City of Celina. In addition, all village, City of Celina and Franklin Township residents have the option of purchasing a yard waste bag and having this material collected at the curb for composting. Due to the rural nature of the most of Mercer County, the District facilitates back yard composting and grasscycling by distributing information on these yard waste management methods at the County Fair Education/Awareness The District periodically purchases newspaper advertisements that explain the benefits of recycling and stress litter prevention. The District also has an educational specialist who is shared with Auglaize County. In 2005, the education specialist conducted a total of 111 presentations, including: 1 adult group; 42 secondary schools; 58 elementary schools; and 10 other groups, such as scouts, preschools and libraries. The District mails flyers to civic and service organizations to inform them of the availability of our educational specialist to make presentations to their group. Because the District does not have the same level of funding as other Ohio solid waste management districts, the District s educational specialist will network with other educational specialists to strategize about outreach techniques and obtain sample promotional materials. In addition to existing education outreach messages, the District Education specialist will focus on a particular solid waste management message each year and work with the local media to cover that issue. Finally, the District will develop a website that will identify the education specialist and the presentations that are available for civic organizations, as well as schools Health Department Funding The District has a contract with the Health Department for landfill monitoring, illegal dumping enforcement, and well inspections around the landfill. In 2005, the Health Department conducted 12 landfill inspections and nine inspections at composting facilities. The Health Department also conducted 12 inspections at a large quantity infectious waste generator and/or transporter facility. Finally, the Health Department conducted several inspections at a construction and demolition debris facility and 10 inspections of the Maharg Transfer Station. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 2-7

19 Section Section 6 Methods of Management The District anticipates that landfills will serve as the primary disposal method for the solid waste that will be annually generated by Mercer County residential/commercial and industrial sources until The maximum amount of annual disposal capacity required for Mercer County generators will be 39,999 tons in Consequently, as part of the process to update its solid waste management plan, the District evaluated the ability of existing landfills to manage the District s waste throughout the 10-year planning period. Based on OEPA and IDEM, the District has adequate disposal capacity to manage the District s solid waste through Section 7 Measurement of Progress toward Waste Reduction Goals During 2005, the District reduced approximately 33 percent of the residential/commercial waste stream and approximately 88 percent of the industrial waste stream. Although the District already exceeds Ohio s waste reduction goals, the District is committed to increasing the amount of waste that is reduced. The District will annually monitor its progress in achieving and exceeding Ohio s waste reduction goals Section 8 Cost and Financing of Plan Implementation District Disposal Fee The District s disposal fees are currently: $2.00 per ton for in-district waste $4.00 per ton for out-of-district waste $2.00 per ton for out-of-state waste If Celina Landfill does not receive an expansion PTI from OEPA, it will close in When the Celina Landfill closes, the District will not be able to depend on revenue from landfill disposal fees. Therefore as a contingency, the District will assign a percentage of the total service charges to each local government, based on the individual share of the total County households. By mutual consent of the local governments and the Board of Directors, Apportionment may be used as an alternate collection method in lieu of billing each property individually. The following chart serves solely as an example using 2000 household information. These numbers can and will change with updated censuses. 2-8 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

20 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Political Jurisdiction Households Apportionment ($/Year) Black Creek Township 253 $3,520 Coldwater Village 1,800 $25,041 Butler Township (balance) 794 $11,046 Center Township 435 $6,052 Rockford Village 452 $6,288 Dublin Township (balance) 453 $6,302 Montezuma Village 77 $1,071 Franklin Township (balance) 848 $11,797 Gibson Township (balance) 400 $5,565 Burkettsville Village 102 $1,419 St. Henry Village 912 $12,687 Granville Township (balance) 576 $8,013 Hopewill Township 428 $5,954 City of Celina 4,138 $57,566 Jefferson Township (balance) 1,176 $16,360 Liberty Township 368 $5,119 Chickasaw Village 146 $2,031 Marion Township (balance) 1,046 $14,552 Fort Recovery Village 511 $7,109 Mendon Village 461 $6,413 Union Township (balance) 280 $3,895 Washington Township 805 $11, Section 9 District Rules The District does not anticipate adopting any new rules. However, all existing and future rulemaking authorities are granted to the Board in this plan. However, it is the Board s expressed intent that future rulemaking be minimized in favor of cooperative and partnership-oriented approaches. The Board reserves the specific authority to adopt, publish and enforce all of the rulemaking powers authorized by Ohio Revised Code , Divisions (G)(1), (G)(2), (G)(3) and (G)(4) with regards to any of the following: (G)(1) Prohibiting or limiting the receipt of solid wastes generated outside of the district... at facilities covered by the plan (G)(2) Governing the maintenance, protection, and use of solid waste collection or other solid waste facilities located within its B /01/08 R. W. Beck 2-9

21 Section 2 district. The rules adopted under division (G)(2) of this section shall not establish design standards and shall be consistent with the solid waste provisions of Chapter 3734 of the Revised Code and the rules adopted under those provisions. The rules adopted under division (G)(2) of this section may prohibit any person, municipal corporation, township, or other political subdivision from constructing, enlarging, or modifying any solid waste facility until general plans and specifications for the proposed improvement have been submitted to and approved by the Board of County Commissioners... as complying with solid waste management plan or amended plan of the District. The construction of such a facility (G)(3) Governing the development and implementation of a program for the inspection of solid wastes generated outside the boundaries of this state that are disposed of at facilities included in the district s solid waste management plan or amended plan. A board of county commissioners (G)(4) Exempting the owner or operator of any existing or proposed solid waste facility provided for in the plan or amended plan from compliance with any amendment to a township zoning resolution... or a county rural zoning resolution... that rezoned or redistricted a parcel or parcels upon which the facility is to be constructed and that became effective within two years prior to the filing of an application for a permit... This Plan Update empowers the Board to make any lawful use of rulemaking authorities that exist, or come to exist during implementation. Since there are no specific plans to make rules or to amend rules during implementation, it is not possible to either include the text of any future rules or to explain the relationship of these proposed rules to the amended plan implementation. Table 2-1 General Information INSTRUCTIONS: SPELL OUT THE COUNTIES IN THE DISTRICT NAME IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER (E.G. GEAUGA-TRUMBULL). District name: Mercer County Solid Waste Management District District ID#: Reference year: 2005 Planning period: Reason for Plan Submittal: Mandatory three-year update Plan Status (underline one): D RD DR Approved (date) / / OI(date) / / DA Abbreviations: D=draft, RD=ratified draft, DR=draft revised, OI=ordered to be implemented, DA=draft amended 2-10 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table 2-2 District Coordinator/Office INSTRUCTIONS: IF THE DISTRICT HAS NO COORDINATOR, LIST THE NAME OF THE PERSON OR OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION. Name: Kent Hinton Address: 220 W. Livingston Street Room A230 City: Celina State: Ohio Zip: Phone: Fax: Table 2-3 Plan Data Summary Population 41,414 41,807 42,546 43,271 Total Generation (tpy) 98,454 95,594 97, ,080 Industrial Generation (tpy) 54,803 54,257 53,583 53,049 Res/Com Generation (tpy) 30,060 31,577 33,775 43,271 Exempt Generation (tpy) 13,591 9,760 9,760 9,760 Total Waste Reduction (tpy) 47,041 46,901 46,626 46,442 Industrial Waste Reduction (tpy) 37,064 36,695 36,239 35,878 Res/Com Reduction (tpy) 9,977 10,206 10,388 10,565 LF-in-Dist 25,234 23,550 24,817 0 LF-out-of-Dist 13,666 12,754 13,440 39,999 Total LF: 38,900 36,305 38,257 39,999 WRR 47.78% 49.06% 48.01% 43.78% Abbreviations: tpy = tons per year Res/Com=residential and commercial waste, WRR = waste reduction rate B /01/08 R. W. Beck 2-11

23 Section 2 Table 2-4 Disposal Facilities to Be Used by the District Name County District Tons Received in 2005 Years left as of 2005 Celina Sanitary Landfill Mercer County, OH 26, Cherokee Run Landfill Logan Logan County, OH 19 6 County Ohio WM Mahoning Landfill Mahoning County, OH Evergreen Recycling and Wood County, OH 1 19 Disposal Sunny Farms Seneca County, OH Jay County Landfill Jay County, IN 11, County Environmental Landfill (aka Wyandot County Environmental Sanitary Landfill) Wyandot County, OH R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

24 Section 3 INVENTORIES The purpose of the inventory section is to identify the existing waste reduction and recycling services operating in the District. Measurements of the quantity of waste source reduced, recycled, composted, incinerated and disposed are identified within this section for the purposes of establishing the basis for the plan projections. 3.1 Reference Year The District has determined that 2005 is the reference year for the Plan Update. Data collection on residential, commercial and industrial disposal and recovery efforts took place in 2006, thus 2005 was the most recent year for which complete data was available. 3.2 Existing Solid Waste Landfills The existing landfills used by the District for solid waste generated within the District are outlined in Table 3-1. Based on the OEPA Solid Waste Flows records 1, Mercer County disposed a total of 38,940 tons of waste during This amount is comprised of: 25,234 tons of residential/commercial waste; 115 tons of industrial waste; and 13,591 tons of exempt waste 2. 1 Spreadsheet received via , dated 2/07/07 from Michelle Kenton, OEPA, showing waste flows from Mercer County to Ohio landfills and transfer stations. 2 Exempt waste is defined as material excluded from the definition of solid waste in ORC (E) including slag, uncontaminated earth, non-toxic fly ash, spent toxic foundry sand, and material from mining and debris from construction and demolition operations. B /01/08

25 Section 3 Table 3-1 Landfills Used by the District Facility Name Location Type of Landfill County ST Waste Received from the SWMD (TPY) Residential/ Commercial Industrial Exempt Total In-District Facilities Celina Sanitary Landfill PA, PO Mercer OH 12, ,575 26,423 Out-of-District Facilities Cherokee Run Landfill PA, PO Logan OH WM Mahoning LF PA, PO Mahoning OH Evergreen Recycling and Disposal PA, PO Wood OH Sunny Farms Landfill PA, PO Seneca OH Out-of-State Facilities Jay County Landfill PA, PO Jay IN 11, ,323 Other Indiana Landfills PA, PO IN Total 25, ,591 38,940 PA = publicly available PO = privately owned Source of tonnage data: Annual District Report from data 12/01/06 from Michelle Kenton, Ohio EPA, showing waste flows from Mercer County 3-2 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

26 INVENTORIES The District believes the industrial disposal quantity of 115 tons to be understated and the residential/commercial disposal quantities to be overstated because respondents to the industrial survey indicated that they disposed 3,940 tons of solid waste. Therefore, the District used sources other than OEPA disposal records for allocating the percent of residential/commercial and industrial waste that was disposed by Mercer County generators during First the District quantified the amount of solid waste that was disposed by industrial survey respondents, 3,940 tons; Next, the District calculated the percentage of waste disposed by survey respondents, 3,940 tons, compared to the quantity of waste generated by survey respondents, 41,005 tons. The disposal quantity was determined to be 9.61 percent of the solid waste generated by survey respondents; The District then applied the 9.61 percent to the extrapolated quantity of industrial waste that was generated by non-survey respondents, 13,799 tons. Applying 9.61 percent to the extrapolated generation quantity yielded an extrapolated disposal quantity of 1,326 tons; and The District then combined the reported and extrapolated disposal quantities, 3,940 and 1,326 tons respectively, which equals 5,266. To calculate the residential/commercial disposal quantity, the District deducted the adjusted industrial disposal quantity, 5,266 tons, from the reported residential/commercial quantity (25,234 tons) and industrial disposal quantity (115 tons), which yields an adjusted residential/commercial disposal quantity of 20,083 tons. Table 3-7 shows the amount of District waste that was disposed out-of-state. Table 3-7 Facilities Used by the District That are Outside of Ohio: Additional Data Facility Name/Type of Facility Facility Mailing Address Facility Owner Facility Operator/Manager Name and Address Daily Waste Receipt Limit, if Known (TPD) Number of Days Facility is Open During Year, if Known Jay County Landfill/landfill Brad Eisenhart 5825 W 400 S Portland, IN Waste Mgt. of Indiana, LLC 5825 W 400 S Portland, IN Leon Leach 5825 W 400 S Portland, IN Unknown 259 B /01/08 R. W. Beck 3-3

27 Section Existing Incinerators and Resource Recovery Facilities The District used no incinerators or resource recovery facilities in Therefore, Table 3-2 is not included in this Plan Update. 3.4 Existing Transfer Facilities The District used three transfer stations in 2005 which, according to OEPA waste flow reports, reported receiving a total of 11,932 tons of Mercer County waste. This data is shown in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 Solid Waste Transfer Facilities Used by the District Waste Received from the SWMD (TPY) Sources of Waste Recyclables Processed (TPY) Type Location Residential/ Commercial Industrial Exempt Other Recovered From Waste (TPY) Total (TPY) PA,PO Mercer OH 10, ,828 PA Darke OH PA Allen OH , ,932 U/A = Unavailable N/A = Not Applicable PA = Publicly Available PO = Privately Owned Source of tonnage data: Annual District Report from data 12/01/06 from Michelle Kenton, Ohio EPA, showing waste flows from Mercer County to Ohio landfills and transfer stations. 3.5 Existing Recycling and Household Hazardous Waste Collection Activities As shown in Table 3-4, three waste haulers collected residential curbside recyclables on a pay-per-bag basis throughout Mercer County in Recyclables that were collected curbside include: Corrugated Cardboard; Mixed Papers, including old newspapers and magazines; PET Bottles; HDPE Bottles; 3-4 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

28 INVENTORIES Glass Bottles; Steel and Bi-metal Cans; and Aluminum Cans. In addition to the above curbside collection of recyclables, the District maintained a contract with Ohio Recycling, Inc., to provide a drop-off site and processing services for a wide variety of recyclables. The private sector also provided drop-off services for specific items such as scrap metals and waste oil. Finally, the District provided special collection events for household hazardous waste, appliances, and scrap tires. More information on these District programs is provided in Table 3-5 and Section 5. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 3-5

29 Section 3 Table 3-4 Residential Curbside Recycling Activities Used by the District Curbside Recycling Name Mailing Phone Number Types of Curbside* # of Households Served Frequency of Collection Population Service Area Types of Materials Accepted** Recyclables Processed from the SWMD (TPY) Maharg, Inc. PO BOX 501 Celina, OH Klenke s Trash Service 4871 Wabash Road Coldwater, OH S, NS U/A Weekly 15,688 Mercer City of Celina; Villages of Chickasaw, Ft. Recovery, Rockford, St. Henry, Village of Montezuma S U/A Weekly 24,439 Mercer Villages of Burkettsville and Coldwater OCC, MxP, ALC, GlC, GlBG, HDPE, PETE, SC OCC, MxP, ALC, GlC, GlBG, HDPE, PETE, SC Types of Curbside abbreviations include: S = Subscription, NS = Non-Subscription Types of Materials Accepted abbreviations include: OCC = Old Corrugated Cardboard, MxP = Mixed Paper, ALC = Aluminum Cans, GlC = Glass, Clear; GlBG = Glass, Brown & Green; HDPE = High Density Polyethylene, PETE = Polyethylene terepthalate, SC = Steel Cans U/A U/A 3-6 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

30 INVENTORIES Table 3-5 Drop-off, Buybacks, Hauler Collection, Other Recycling Activities and HHW Collection Used by the District Facility/Activity Name Mailing Address Phone Number Type of Facility Materials Accepted County Service Area Townships /Cities Population Served Hours Available to Public Recyclables Processed from the District (TPY) % of Materials from Sector Processing Capacity Daily (TPD) Annual (TPY) Material Recovery Facility Ohio Recycling, Inc SR 274 PO Box 111 Chickasaw, OH MRF, DO, BB, PA, PO OCC, MxP, ALC & scrap, SC, AOF, AONF, WG, GlC, GlBG, HDPE, PETE, WP, LAB, C/E Mercer All 41,414 Business hours, Monday Saturday 2, % Residential & Commercial U/A U/A Other Recycling Giere Truck & Trailer, Inc N. 2nd Street Coldwater, OH PA, DO, PO Waste Oil Mercer All 41,414 Business hours 1 100% Residential & Commercial U/A U/A Mercer County SWM District Collection Events 220 W. Livingston St., Rm A230 Celina, OH PA, DO WG Mercer All 41,414 One-time Event % Residential N/A N/A 3 The 215 tons of appliances collected by Mercer County during the HHW event were not included in OmniSource tonnages. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 3-7

31 Section 3 Table 3-5 Drop-off, Buybacks, Hauler Collection, Other Recycling Activities and HHW Collection Used by the District Facility/Activity Name Mailing Address Phone Number Type of Facility Materials Accepted County Service Area Townships /Cities Population Served Hours Available to Public Recyclables Processed from the District (TPY) % of Materials from Sector Processing Capacity Daily (TPD) Annual (TPY) Mercer County SWM District Collection Events 220 W. Livingston St., Rm A230 Celina, OH Wal-Mart 1950 Havemann Rod Celina, OH PA, DO Scrap tires Mercer All 41,414 One-time Event PUO Household Hazardous Waste Collections Mercer County SWM District Collection Events 220 W. Livingston St., Rm A230 Celina, OH Hauler Collections Rumpke Transportation 1932 Monument Avenue Dayton, OH PA, DO OCC and Plastic Film Typical HHW materials % Residential N/A N/A N/A N/A % Commercial Mercer All 41,414 One-time Event % Residential HC OCC Mercer U/A U/A N/A % Commercial N/A N/A N/A U/A N/A N/A N/A U/A 4 The 150 tons of scrap tires were collected on a tire clean up day, May 7, % of the tires were recycled at Continental Turf (Continental, OH) and Entech (White Pigeon, MI). 5 HHW event collected 19.5 tons total; 2.6 disposed and 16.9 recycled. 3-8 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

32 INVENTORIES Table 3-5 Drop-off, Buybacks, Hauler Collection, Other Recycling Activities and HHW Collection Used by the District Facility/Activity Name Mailing Address Phone Number Type of Facility Materials Accepted County Service Area Townships /Cities Population Served Hours Available to Public Recyclables Processed from the District (TPY) % of Materials from Sector Processing Capacity Daily (TPD) Annual (TPY) Maharg, Inc. PO Box 501 Celina, OH HC OCC Mercer U/A U/A N/A OCC: 100% Commercial l TOTAL RECYCLED 3,958 *Type of Facility abbreviations are as follows: PA = publicly available, PO = Privately Operated, MRF = materials recovery facility, DO = drop-off, BB = Buy Back, HC = hauler collection, PUO = private use only, S = subscription curbside, PAYT = pay-as-you-throw, NS = non subscription curbside ** Material Types are abbreviated as follows: ALC = aluminum cans, ALS = Aluminum scrap, CP=Copper, AONF=All Other Non-ferrous Metals, SC=Bi-metal/tin food cans/steel (cans, drums, scrap), WG=White goods, AOF=All Other Ferrous, GlC = glass clear, GlBG = glass brown & Mercer, HDPE = high-density polyethylene, MxP = mixed paper, OCC = old corrugated cardboard, PETE = polyethylene terepthalate, SC = steel cans/scrap, LAB = Lead Acid batteries, C/E = Computers/electronics U/A = Unavailable, N/A = Not Applicable, YW=yard waste U/A U/A 6 This material was not processed at Ohio Recycling and was not double counted. 7 OCC: 940 tons collected from commercial sources, but not recycled at Ohio Recycling and not double counted.. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 3-9

33 Section Residential/Commercial Recycling Excluding HHW 8, the total amount of District-generated residential/commercial materials recycled in 2005 was 3,941 tons. It is not certain how much of that tonnage was collected through residential curbside collection programs. All of the programs are private, pay-per-bag systems, and the haulers did not report quantities. However, the haulers did report that they took such residential curbside recyclables to Ohio Recycling for processing. Ohio Recycling reported that their records do not distinguish between loads from curbside collections versus materials dropped off. The owner reported that the proportion from curbside collections was in the range of percent of the 2,334 total tons of Mercer County recyclables handled by Ohio Recycling in Based on this estimate, between 933 and 1,663 tons were from curbside collections. In addition to the 2,334 tons of residential curbside and drop-off materials processed at Ohio Recycling, 1,607 tons of residential/commercial recyclables were not processed through Ohio Recycling. These materials were generated from a variety of residential and commercial sources. This tonnage also includes material recovered through the District s special collection events in These recyclables are included in Table 3-5. This information was determined based on the surveys of and follow up calls to the haulers and processors serving Mercer County Industrial Recycling The total amount recycled in 2005 was 37,064 tons. Additional information about this effort is presented in Section 4 of this Plan Update Household Hazardous Waste Collection As described in Table 3-5, above, Mercer County recycled 17 tons of HHW in Existing Composting/Yard Waste Management Facilities As indicated in Table 3-6, three composting/yard waste management facilities served the District in Combined, these facilities recycled 6,019 tons of yard waste in This is addressed in Section R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

34 INVENTORIES Table 3-6 Composting/Yard Waste Management Activities Used by the District Facility Name or Activity (e.g., XYZ Composting, Land Application, etc.) Facility Type* County Location Address, City ST Zip Phone Waste Received from the SWMD Type Amount (TPY) Processing Capacity Daily (TPD) Annual (TPY) Non- Compostables Landfilled (TPY) Compost Produced (TPY) Vogel Poultry Brookside Wood Products City of Celina PUO Class 3 PUO Class 4 PUO Class 4 Mercer 831 State Rt. 4a Ft. Recovery,OH Mercer 2192 US Rt. 127 Maria Stein, OH Mercer 500 Summit St. Celina, OH Leaves 20 N/A 7,300 N/A 20 Wood Waste 2, ,333 N/A 2,667 Yard Waste 3,332 N/A 3, ,332 Total Yard Waste Recycled: 6,019 *Facility Type abbreviations include PUO= private use only, PA= publicly available, DO=Drop Off U/A = Unavailable N/A = Not Applicable NOTE: The yard waste composting data included in Table 3-6 does not include the debris from the January 5, 2005 ice storm. It created an abnormally large amount of yard waste materials which is not expected to reoccur annually during this Plan Update s planning horizon. On that date, a severe ice storm struck the Mercer County area. It created approximately 8,113 tons of yard waste from downed trees, limbs, and branches. All of this material was recycled by grinding it to produce mulch. The Villages of Coldwater, Ft. Recovery, St. Henry, and Rockford all used contractors to grind the debris on-site (or nearby) and used the mulch on public rights of way and parks, and offered it to their residents. The City of Celina took its materials to Brookside, a local registered composting facility. A follow up call to Brookside confirmed that the ice storm tonnage was not included in their response to the District's survey of 2005 activities; only their regular processing amounts. The following is a summary of recycled yard waste debris from the ice storm (in tons): Coldwater 400, Ft. Recovery - 1,733, St. Henry - 3,313, Rockford - 667, Celina - 2,000, TOTAL = 8,113. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 3-11

35 Section 3 Table 3-6 also notes that the extraordinary amounts of yard waste produced by the severe ice storm of January 5, 2005 were not included in the reported tonnages for this Plan Update. Two of the District s waste haulers reported that they offer a curbside collection service for yard waste. 3.7 Existing Open Dumps and Waste Tire Dumps In 2005, there was one open dump site where sporadic open dumping occurs, and there were no waste tire dump sites in the District. Table 3-8 provides more information about this and previous sites. Table 3-8 Existing Open Dumps and Waste Tire Dumps Dumpsite # for map Site Location (Address or Description) Latitude (Deg, Min, Sec) Longitude (Deg, Min, Sec) Land Owner (Street Address, City/State/Zip, Phone) Types of Materials Disposed Est. No. of Tires (If tire dump) Approximate Size of Site in Acres Time Period Dump Site Existed from (year) to (year) 2005 Status Active, Abandoned, Cleaned Up, No Longer Exists 1 Old Railroad Right-of-Way N/R N/R Ron Piper 512 Cron Street Celina, OH Unknown N/A 8?- Present Sporadic Activity Incidents involving illegal dumping by unknown parties on private or public ground is investigated and enforced through the Mercer County Sheriff. Incidents where open dumping is allowed to occur on private or public land with the owner s permission are investigated and enforced through the Health Department under various Board of Health Regulations. If the owner refuses to abate an open dumping area that is deemed detrimental to the public health, the Health Department can have the nuisance abated by a third party that is paid through a special fund set aside for such purposes. Costs of the abatement are then assessed to the owner s property taxes and returned to the fund once payment has been collected by the Mercer County Auditor s Office. 3.8 Ash, Foundry Sand and Slag Disposal Sites The District is not aware of any disposal sites specifically dedicated to the disposal of ash, foundry sand or slag within the boundaries of the District. Therefore, Table 3-9 was not completed R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

36 3.9 Map of Facilities and Sites INVENTORIES A map that shows the location of the recycling and composting facilities located in the District is provided in Appendix E Existing Collection Systems Haulers Five waste haulers provided refuse collection services in Mercer County. Two of the waste haulers also provided curbside collection of both recyclables and yard waste. A third waste hauler reported also collecting recyclables, but not yard waste. With the exception of Marion and Franklin Townships, all communities within the District contract for residential solid waste collection service. In Marion and Franklin Townships, individual property owners can do business with whichever hauler they choose. There are a variety of payment structures in place, including as PAYT approaches. The PAYT approaches permit waste generators to pay according to the quantities that they produce the more they set out for collection, the more they pay, and vice versa. Most of the PAYT systems require the resident to purchase designated bags for either solid waste or for recyclables, and the cost of the recyclables bags are generally lower than the solid waste bags. Because of this private approach, records are not available that would provide more quantifiable information. Table 3-10 provides additional details about the District s haulers. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 3-13

37 Section 3 Table 3-10 Solid Waste Haulers Operating in the District Name of Hauling Company Mailing Address: Street, City ST Zip Phone Description of Collection Routes (include townships, cities, villages in the district where waste is collected.) Type of Materials Collected Tons Collected from the District Maharg, Inc. PO Box 501 Celina, OH Klenke s Trash Service Allied Waste Services of Celina 4871 Wabash Road Coldwater, OH Depweg Celina, OH P&R Disposal P.O Box 678 Celina, OH Rumpke Transportation 1932 E. Monument Ave. Dayton, OH N/A = Not Available SW = Solid waste REC = Recyclables OCC = Old Corrugated Cardboard YW = Yard Waste B = Bulky Items City of Celina, Villages of Chickasaw, Ft. Recovery, Montezuma, Rockford, St. Henry SW, B 10,740 OCC commercial 938 YW, REC N/A City of Celina; Villages of Burkettsville, SW, B 3,500 Chickasaw, Coldwater, Ft. Recovery, St. OCC commercial 37 Henry; Townships of Butler, Gibson, Recovery, Washington YW, REC N/A City of Celina; Villages of Coldwater, Ft. SW 4,012 Recovery, Montezuma, St. Henry; REC commercial 27 Townships of Butler, Franklin, Marion OCC commercial 208 Chickasaw, others SW, REC, B N/A N/A OCC-commercial SW 14 N/A 3-14 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

38 Section 4 REFERENCE YEAR POPULATION, WASTE GENERATION, AND WASTE REDUCTION 4.1 Reference Year Population and Residential/Commercial Waste Generation Population The planning period for the District s updated plan is 10 years (from 2009 through 2019), with the reference year being Table 4-1 presents the District s population and residential/commercial generation rate for the District for County Name Table 4-1 Reference Year Population and Residential/Commercial Generation Before Adjustment Population Adjustment After Adjustment Generation Rate (lbs./person/day) Total District Res/Com Generation (TPY) Mercer 41,340 41, ,060 Add 74, Burkettsville 74 The District s 2005 reference year population of 41,414 was determined by using the 2000 Census data projected by the Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research 1. In accordance with Ohio law, the adjustment to the District s population for 2005 reflects the addition of the population segment of Burkettsville, which straddles the County line. Since the majority of the population of the Village is located in Mercer County, the 74 Village residents living in Darke County were added to the District s base population of 41,340. This resulted in the adjusted total population of the District of 41, Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research Population Projections by Age and Sex: B /01/08

39 Section Generation Residential/Commercial The District used the following equation to estimate the quantity and per capita generation rate of residential/commercial waste in Residential/Commercial Waste Disposed + Residential/Commercial Waste Recycled and Composted = Residential/Commercial Waste Generated. As discussed in Section 3, the 2005 landfill records do not accurately reflect the distribution between residential/commercial and industrial generation categories of the quantities of Mercer County waste disposed during The methodology to quantify the amount of residential/commercial waste that was disposed in 2005, 20,008 tons, is provided in Section 3. As presented in Table 4-6 of this section, a total of 9,977 tons of residential/commercial recyclables, yard waste and HHW were recycled or composted during Thus, combining the 20,008 tons of residential/commercial waste disposed with the 9,977 tons of residential/commercial waste recycled/composted yields a 2005 residential/commercial generation quantity of 30,060 tons. As illustrated in Table 4-1, the residential/commercial generation rate for 2005 was 3.98 lbs/capita/day. To determine that rate, the following equation was used. Generation Rate = [(residential/commercial waste generation/population) x 2,000]/365 Generation Rate =30,060/41,414 x 2000/365 Generation Rate = 3.98 lbs./capita/day Industrial To estimate the quantity of industrial waste that was generated during 2005, the results of the District s 2005 industrial survey were used to determine the per employee generation rate for SIC Codes 20 and Once this had been determined, the per employee generation rate was applied (or where appropriate, the OEPA rates from the State Format 3.0, Appendix JJ) to the 2005 employment for SIC codes 20, to estimate the 2005 generation quantities. The District chose to use Appendix JJ for SIC codes 30, 32, 34, 35, 38 and 39 because the generation rates from respondents were significantly higher or lower than the state average, or the District did not receive a survey. A copy of the District s industrial survey data is provided in Appendix F. As illustrated in Table 4-3, the industrial generation quantity for 2005 was 54,803 tons. To determine the industrial generation rate on a lbs./per capita/day basis, the following equation was used. Generation Rate = [(industrial waste generation/population) x 2,000]/365 Generation Rate = 54,803/41,414 x 2000/365 Generation Rate = 7.25 lbs./capita/day 4-2 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

40 Reference Year Population, Waste Generation, And Waste Reduction Table 4-3 Industrial Waste Generation SIC # of Industries Survey Respondents # of Employees Tons of Waste Generated Generation Rate (Tons/Employee) # of Industries Non-Survey Respondents # of Employees Tons of Waste Generated Total Waste Generated Based on Survey (Respond. and Non- Respond.) , ,863 3, , ,393 5, , , , , , , , ,031 22, , ,075 11, TOTAL 35 2,824 41, ,930 13,799 54,803 Some numbers may not add due to rounding Exempt Waste This category of waste includes all waste disposed in publicly-available solid waste landfills, that is not characterized as solid waste, such as construction and demolition debris and non-toxic foundry sand. The 2005 landfill reports show that 13,591 tons of exempt waste was disposed in publicly-available landfills in 2005, with a generation rate of 1.80 lbs./capita/day. Table 4-4 was not completed, since the landfill records did not disclose the different types of waste disposed within that category. The exempt generation rate was calculated using the following formula: Generation Rate = [(waste generation/population) x 2,000]/365 Generation Rate = 13,591/41,414 x 2000/365 Generation Rate = 1.80 lbs./capita/day Total Waste Generation Table 4-5 combines information from the above sections to determine the District s total waste generation in The District used the following sources to calculate total waste generation for Table 4-5. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 4-3

41 Section 4 Waste Stream Disposal Recycling Residential/Commercial Industrial Survey and OEPA Records Surveys Industrial Industrial Survey and OEPA Industrial Survey Records Exempt OPEA Records Not applicable According to Table 4-5, in the 2005 reference year, the District generated 98,454 tons of waste, with a total generation rate of lbs./capita/day. Table 4-5 Reference Year Total Waste Generation for the District Types of Waste Generation Rate (lbs./person/day) Tons/Year Residential/Commercial ,060 Industrial ,803 Exempt ,591 Total Waste Generation , Reference Year Waste Reduction Residential/Commercial Waste Reduction Residential/commercial waste reduction was determined through surveys from individual haulers, compost facilities, and recyclers. All recycling tonnages have been checked for double counting by using information requested in the survey, as well as phone calls to ensure that recyclables were not sold or delivered to other recyclers that collect from the District. After eliminating double counting, the total amount recycled by the residential/commercial sector was 9,977 tons. The quantity of each material recycled or composted is presented in Table 4-6. Details on the strengths and weaknesses of current waste residential/commercial waste reduction initiatives, as well as strategies to address weaknesses are presented in Section R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

42 Reference Year Population, Waste Generation, And Waste Reduction Table 4-6 Reference Year Residential/Commercial Waste Reduction in the District Type of Waste Source Reduced TPY Type of Waste Recycled TPY Incineration, Composting, Resource Recovery Total waste received Residual Landfilled Net waste processed Appliances 79 Lead-Acid Batteries 104 Dry Cell Batteries 0 Glass 287 HHW 17 Ferrous Metals 151 Aluminum 153 Corrugated Cardboard 2,093 All Other Paper 814 All Plastics 108 Scrap Tires 150 Used Oil 1 Yard Waste 6,019 TOTAL 9, Industrial Waste Reduction The amount of industrial solid waste reduced through recycling in 2005 was 37,064 tons. A breakdown by material type recycled can be found in Table 4-7. Details on the strengths and weaknesses of current waste industrial waste reduction initiatives, as well as their strengths and weaknesses are presented in Section 5. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 4-5

43 Section 4 Table 4-7 Reference Year Industrial Waste Reduction in the District Incineration, Composting, Resource Recovery Type of Waste Source Reduced TPY Type of Waste Recycled TPY Total Waste Received Residual Landfilled Net Waste Processed Lead-Acid Batteries 47 Dry Cell Batteries 1 Glass 1 Ferrous Metals (1)(2) 22,671 Non-Ferrous Metals (2) 3,910 Non-Exempt Foundry Sand 2,098 Cardboard 1,159 All Other Paper (3) 3,073 Plastics 1,851 Scrap Tires 10 Textiles 17 Wood 365 Yard Waste 1 Photo Film 2 Furniture 9 Concrete (non-cd&d) (4) 1,350 Stone/Sand (non- C&DD) (4) 500 Totals 37,064 1 Pax Machine Works reported recycling 14,600 tons of steel scrap in The company was called to verify the reported amount. The Plant Engineering Mgr. reported the following: "Our steel recycling efforts are a direct result of our manufacturing process. We are a very high volume metal stamping producer. This is not a one time occurrence, we recycle quantities on this order every year." 2 Crown Equipment Corporation reported 7,948 tons of ferrous and non-ferrous metals recycled for Crown is a major manufacturer of fork lifts and material handling equipment, with world wide distribution. Metals are primary components for and by-products of their manufacturing process. 3 Reynolds & Reynolds reported 2,925 tons of other paper recycled in Reynolds & Reynolds is an information management/business forms printer specializing in support for the automobile dealership business. 4 St. Henry Tile Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of concrete drain tiles, slotted concrete floors for hog and cattle enclosures, and ready-mix concrete. They reported recycling 500 tons of stone & sand, and 1,350 tons of concrete. A follow up call to the company confirmed that this tonnage is not C&D debris. All of the reported materials were internally generated by-products of their manufacturing process. The stone and sand came from improper/mistaken mixtures of materials and the concrete came from leftover loads at the end of the day. 4-6 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

44 Reference Year Population, Waste Generation, And Waste Reduction 4.3 Total Waste Generation: Historical Trends of Disposal plus Waste Reductions Generation Rates/Quantities Table 4-8 shows the District s generation quantities using OEPA landfill records plus District recycling survey data. The District will not use the 2005 generation quantities shown in Table 4-8 for the following reasons: The District has concerns that the landfill records do not correctly allocate residential/commercial, industrial and exempt disposal quantities; Because Omni Source could not demonstrate the percent of recyclables that originated from construction and demolition debris versus residential/commercial sources, the District did not include their 2005 recycling quantities; and The amount of yard waste composted in 2005, 14,132 tons, included over 8,000 tons of debris from serious ice storms. Because that was an anomaly for that year, the District does not want to use that as the basis for typical generation. Table 4-8 Total Waste Generation based Upon Disposal Plus Waste Reduction Management Method Year Source Reduction & Recycling , ,476 Yard Waste Composting YW Land Application Incineration MSW Composting Landfill Disposal Total Waste Included in Reduction & Recycling Quantity ,652 73,485 Included in Reduction & Recycling Quantity ,151 80, , ,403 50, ,022 6, ,865 85,906 B /01/08 R. W. Beck 4-7

45 Section Reconciliation of Waste Generation Table 4-9 shows the 2005 adjusted total waste generation for residential/commercial, industrial and exempt waste using the District s alternate methodology. Table 4-9 Reference Year Total Waste Generation for the District Types of Waste Generation Rate (lbs./capita/day) Tons/Year Residential/Commercial ,060 Industrial ,803 Exempt ,591 Total Waste Generation , Waste Composition Residential/Commercial Sectors Waste composition for the residential/commercial sectors was estimated by using data from the landfill composition study conducted by the ODNR, Litter and Recycling Division. The percentages from this study were applied to the 2005 Mercer County residential/commercial disposal quantity, which was 20,083 tons. The quantities of each residential/commercial waste stream that was disposed in 2005 are shown in Table R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

46 Reference Year Population, Waste Generation, And Waste Reduction Table 4-10 Estimated Residential/Commercial Landfilled Waste Stream Composition for the District in 2005 Material Category Percent of Waste Stream Tons Disposed by Mercer County Corrugated Paper 8.75% 1,757 Office Paper 8.47% 1,701 Mixed Paper 8.30% 1,667 Newsprint 8.88% 1,783 Magazines 3.66% 735 Paperboard 3.29% 661 LDPE# % 456 PET #1 2.40% 482 HDPE #2 5.76% 1,311 PVC #3 0.49% 98 PP #5 0.61% 123 PS #6 1.63% 327 Other Plastics 2.41% 484 Aluminum Beverage Cans 1.34% 269 Aluminum Foil/Food Trays 0.45% 90 Other Aluminum 0.25% 50 Tin Food Cans 1.56% 313 Other Tin Cans 0.28% 56 Yard Waste 10.50% 2,155 Textiles 6.66% 1,338 Diapers 3.28% 659 Food 13.03% 2,617 Glass 4.77% 958 Empty Aerosol Cans 0.28% 56 Medical Waste 0.45% 90 Fines and Super Fines 0.23% % 20,083 NOTE: Due to rounding, the individual items do not sum to exactly the shown total amount Industrial Waste Sector Only a limited number of industries were able to provide information on the composition of their disposed waste stream. Therefore, Table 4-11 was not able to be completed. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 4-9

47 Section 5 PLANNING PERIOD PROJECTIONS AND STRATEGIES 5.1 Planning Period The planning period for the District is 2009 through 2018, with 2005 being the baseline year. 5.2 Population Projections Table 5-1 presents population projections for the District for the 2005 reference year and annually through To determine each year s population, the District used the projected Mercer County population issued by the Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research 1. The projected population is divided into five-year increments beginning in Intervening years were determined by calculating the average annual change between the five year increments. Table 5-1 District Population Projections Year County Populations Adjustments to Population Addition of the Village Population from Total District Population Mercer County Darke County , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,271 1 For planning purposes, it was assumed the ratio of Burkettsville population to Mercer County population will remain constant. 1 Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research Population Projections by Age and Sex: B /01/08

48 Section 5 According to Ohio law, the entire population of municipalities located in more than one solid waste district must be added to the district that contains the largest portion of the jurisdiction s population. The population of the Village was added to the District s population because the majority of its population resides inside Mercer County. 5.3 Waste Generation Projections Residential/Commercial Table 5-2 presents residential/commercial waste generation estimates for the 10-year planning period (from 2009 to 2018), with 2005 being the reference year. Table 5-2 District Residential/Commercial Waste Generation Year District Population Per Capita Generation Rate (Lbs/Capita/Day) Total Residential/Commercial Generation (TPY) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,241 The District calculated the 2005 residential/commercial waste generation quantity by adding residential/commercial disposal quantities to residential/commercial recycling and composting tonnage. The District calculated the 2005 residential/commercial pounds per person per day generation rate by dividing the generation quantity by 365 and multiplying by To project the annual residential/commercial generation rates throughout the planning period, the District used the annual percent increase of 1 percent from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Report Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. Each year, during the development of the District s annual report, actual residential/commercial waste generation rates will be monitored and compared to projections. As shown in Table 5-2, the total quantity of residential/commercial waste is projected to increase during the 10-year planning period, due to the population increase that is projected. 5-2 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B12/6/07

49 PLANNING PERIOD PROJECTIONS AND STRATEGIES Industrial Sector Waste Generation Table 5-3 presents industrial waste generation estimates for the 10-year planning period with 2005 being the reference year. The District projects the industrial generation rate to remain constant, but the amount of industrial waste to be annually generated is projected to decrease during the years due to a projected decrease in manufacturing employment. The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) 2 projects a 2.5 percent decrease in manufacturing employment for this region during the period This calculates to an annual average decrease of 0.25 percent 3. Currently, ODJFS does not have employment projections beyond For planning purposes, the District applied the 0.25 percent annual decrease through Source: Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Bureau of Market Information, Office of Workforce Development website document Job Outlook to 2012, West Central Ohio - Economic Development Region 3 (which includes Mercer County). 3 Sample calculation: 2.5 percent divided by 10 years equals 0.25 percent per year. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 5-3

50 Section 5 Table 5-3 Projected Industrial Waste Generation 4 Year (Tons per Year) SIC Category ,412 3,378 3,370 3,361 3,353 3,345 3,336 3,328 3,320 3,311 3, ,925 5,866 5,851 5,836 5,822 5,807 5,793 5,778 5,764 5,749 5, ,451 1,437 1,433 1,430 1,426 1,423 1,419 1,416 1,412 1,408 1, ,914 1,895 1,890 1,885 1,881 1,876 1,871 1,867 1,862 1,857 1, ,299 6,236 6,220 6,205 6,189 6,174 6,158 6,143 6,127 6,112 6, ,426 22,203 22,147 22,092 22,037 21,982 21,927 21,872 21,817 21,763 21, ,307 11,194 11,166 11,138 11,110 11,083 11,055 11,027 11,000 10,972 10, Totals (TPY) 54,803 54,257 54,122 53,987 53,852 53,717 53,583 53,449 53,315 53,182 53,049 The District will monitor both the industrial generation rate and manufacturing employment throughout the 10-year planning period Total Waste Generation Table 5-4 presents total waste generation estimates for the 10-year planning period ( ), with 2005 being the reference year. Because exempt waste generated in the District fluctuates significantly, the District averaged the quantity of the waste stream that was annually generated between 2001 and 2005, which is 9,760 tons. For projection purposes the District will use the 9,760 TPY average. However, the District will annually monitor the 4 Annual industrial waste generation quantities (by SIC codes) were calculated by applying the 2005 generation rate to each SIC Code s projected annual manufacturing employment for the period Figures may not add due to rounding. 5-4 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B12/6/07

51 PLANNING PERIOD PROJECTIONS AND STRATEGIES amount of exempt waste that is generated to use that higher than average quantities do not impact long-term disposal capacity. Table 5-4 Total Waste Generation for the District during the Planning Period (TPY) Year Residential/ Commercial Industrial Exempt Total Waste Generation Generation Rate (lbs./person/day) ,060 54,803 13,591 98, ,577 54,257 9,760 95, ,968 54,122 9,760 95, ,411 53,987 9,760 96, ,860 53,852 9,760 96, ,314 53,717 9,760 96, ,775 53,583 9,760 97, ,241 53,449 9,760 97, ,736 53,315 9,760 97, ,237 53,182 9,760 98, ,745 53,049 9,760 98, Projections for Waste Stream Composition The District does not anticipate any measurable changes in the waste stream composition during the 10-year planning period. 5.5 Waste Reduction Strategies Existing Residential/Commercial Programs and Activities The District has successfully facilitated and monitored the reduction of the residential/commercial and industrial waste streams. A description of each program or activity that the District conducted during 2005 is described below, as well as the strengths and weaknesses associated with each and strategies to address weaknesses Programs and Activities (P-1) - Ohio Recycling Ohio Recycling is a recycling processor that is located in Chickasaw. The District contracts with Ohio Recycling to provide processing marketing services for recyclables generated within the District. Ohio Recycling accepts recyclables from residents, businesses and waste haulers who provide curbside recycling in the District. Waste haulers deliver the recyclables B /01/08 R. W. Beck 5-5

52 Section 5 in a 2-bag system, one for fibers and one for commingled containers. During 2005, Ohio Recycling accepted the following materials: Aluminum; Appliances; Cardboard; Glass; Mixed Paper; PET Containers; HDPE Containers; Metals, Including White Goods; and Used Computers. Ohio Recycling purchases some metals, such as aluminum, from residents. Some of the facility s proceeds from aluminum cans benefit Ronald McDonald House and 50 percent of their net proceeds from paper products are provided to the St. Peter Neurological Center.. The facility is open six days a week, Monday through Saturday. Operating hours are 8:30 am to 5:00 pm on Monday through Friday, and 8:00 am to 1:00 pm on Saturday. In addition, the facility provides a drop-off service for source-separated recyclables that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Ohio Recycling provides educational tours, annually distributes over 30,000 recycling information handouts to Mercer County residents that explain what materials are accepted and places advertisements in the Daily Standard and Mercer County Chronicle. Strengths Provides comprehensive recycling services for the District, as well as funding for some non-profit organizations. Also, the facility does not charge private waste haulers a tipping fee, which encourages them to provide residential curbside recycling services and residents receive revenue from the facility s buy back center for certain recyclables. Weaknesses- Ohio Recycling is located in Chickasaw, which is in the southeastern part of the District and therefore is not convenient for all residents. Strategies to Address Weaknesses To address this weakness, the District applied for and received a grant from the ODNR for the purchase of two, twenty-three foot long recycling trailers. By January 2008, the District will place one drop-off trailer at the Parkway High School in Rockford, Ohio. Rockford is located in the far north end of the District. The materials that will be collected at this drop off include: Corrugated Cardboard; Office Paper; Glass; Plastic Bottles (#1 and #2); Steel Cans; 5-6 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B12/6/07

53 PLANNING PERIOD PROJECTIONS AND STRATEGIES Newsprint; and Aluminum Cans. The Parkway Future Farmers of America (FFA) will manage the drop-off and transport the materials to Ohio Recycling. The drop-off will be open to the public from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The site will be monitored by the FFA instructor and students during this time. The site will be locked at all other times. The Parkway site will be promoted by the FFA and the school. Also by January 2008, the District will site a second drop-off trailer in the Village of Burkettsville, which is in the far southern part of the County. The drop-off will be located behind the firehouse in downtown Burkettsville. The drop-off site will be open to the public twice a week, and will be staffed by a Village official. This drop-off site will accept the same recyclables as the Parkway site, and the Village will be responsible for transporting the recyclables to Ohio Recycling. The Village site will be promoted by the villages The District is projecting that that these two drop-off sites will recover 285 tons of recyclables per year. This is based on the Parkway site being pulled twice-a-week and the Village site being pulled once-a-week. Based on data from other communities using the containers that the District will use, each pull will contain 3,500 to 4,000 pounds of recyclables when full. (P-2) Residential Curbside Recycling The District is served by two private waste haulers who provide residential curbside recycling services in the following District communities City of Celina Village of Ft. Henry Village of Rockford Village of Chickasaw Village of Burkettsville Two haulers include: Maharg; and Klenke. Residents must purchase recycling bags to participate in curbside recycling. out recyclables in two separate bags. One bag is for fibers and can include: Newspapers; Catalogs; Magazines; Junk Mail; Office Paper; Food Boxes (Wax inserts need to be removed); Paper Egg Cartons; and Residents set B /01/08 R. W. Beck 5-7

54 Section 5 Cardboard (All paper products need to be free of contaminants). The other bag is for commingled containers and can include: Aluminum Cans, Foil and Pie Pans; Tin Cans (Rinsed); PET and HDPE Containers (Rinsed and without caps); and Glass Bottles and Jars Beyond providing curbside recycling services, these haulers also offer unit based pricing PAYT. Residents who participate in the PAYT System must purchase specially marked bags at various retail outlets. To encourage residents to recycle, the PAYT refuse bags are more expensive than the recycling bags. Strengths- The majority of the District s population has the opportunity to participate in a curbside recycling program and is also provided with an economic incentive to participate with the PAYT System. Finally, the curbside recycling program offers collection services for materials that are not always accepted, such as aluminum foil and pie pans. Weaknesses Currently, the District does not know how many residents are participating in either the curbside recycling or PAYT program. Therefore, it is not possible to assess whether participation is consistent with other Ohio curbside recycling and PAYT programs. Also, residents in the townships 5 do not have the opportunity to subscribe for curbside recycling. Strategies to Address Weaknesses To measure the participation in curbside recycling and PAYT, the District will complete the following tasks. First, the District will survey the waste haulers and request them to identify what percent of their customers participate in curbside recycling and PAYT. For areas of the District where participation is low, the District will conduct community meetings to explain the program and to identify barriers to participation. The District will target these communities with increased education, such as point of purchase displays at stores that sell the recycling and PAYT bags, prepare articles on the benefits of these programs and classroom presentations. The District will conduct these initiatives during Currently all townships, except Franklin and Marion, use a subscription approach for their solid waste and recycling collection services. This enables each resident to choose whichever solid waste provider they wish. This approach usually results in multiple haulers operating in the same area, but not on routes of contiguous homes. Generally, this means different haulers are going down the same street for different customers, resulting in more truck traffic and higher collection costs than if the routes were organized. Also, waste haulers are not providing residential curbside recycling services because they do not have enough customers in a community to warrant sending a separate vehicle to collect these materials. To encourage townships to contract for solid waste services, the District will conduct a workshop on the potential benefits of contracting for solid waste services for the townships of Mercer County. This, workshop will be conducted in If any of the townships express an interest in pursuing this, the District will provide technical and procurement assistance to 5 Franklin and Marion Townships contract for curbside recycling services. 5-8 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B12/6/07

55 PLANNING PERIOD PROJECTIONS AND STRATEGIES help organize their solid waste and recycling collection functions. include: This assistance will Meeting with decision makers, such as elected officials and administrators to educate them on the benefits of contract collection; Working with local waste haulers to identify their concerns about organized collection; Conducting public meetings about organized collection; Providing procurement guidance; and Assisting with instituting the new program. If any District townships convert to an organized collection system, the District will work with local media to publicize the results. In addition, the District will contact elected official in the communities with subscription programs to encourage them to begin the process of converting to non-subscription service. (P-3) Promote/Assist in the Implementation of Recycling Programs in Other Public Offices This program is designed to use County government as a role model for recycling in other office settings that generate large quantities of office paper, such as banks and schools. Approximately 1,200 pounds of paper products are transported weekly to Ohio Recycling. On an annual basis, this is equivalent to approximately 31 tons of materials. Currently, the Mercer County Maintenance Department manages this program, and collects the material each week. Most of County departments have a shredder for paper and the cleaning staff empties the shredded paper into a large recycling bag. The District provides recycling containers for PET bottles and aluminum cans, which are also emptied by the cleaning staff. The Maintenance Department then transports the recyclables to Ohio Recycling when they get a truck full. The truck was purchased with grant money provided by the District. Strengths This program has been a cost-effective mechanism to institute office paper recycling within County offices. Weaknesses The impact on the waste stream from County offices, both in terms of disposal quantities and waste hauling charges, has not been assessed. Thus, its benefits can not be shared with other large generators of office paper. Strategies to Address Weaknesses - The District will work with the Maintenance Department to determine the impacts of this program on disposal quantities and hauling charges. The District will then work with the Celina-Mercer County Chamber of Commerce to promote the benefits of recycling to other Mercer County businesses. This task will begin in (P-4) Commercial/Institutional User Fees The intent of this program was for the District to coordinate/organize businesses/institutions to pay user fees (approximately) equal to the costs of providing recycling services. The District would organize willing customers and purchase recycling services. The District did not institute this program because businesses indicate they desired to develop their own contractual relationships with recycling service providers., The District does not plan to institute this program during the planning years of 2009 through B /01/08 R. W. Beck 5-9

56 Section 5 (P-5) Commercial/Institutional Recycling Program This program is designed to assist commercial establishments with implementation of voluntary recycling programs. To promote this program, the District disseminates articles to the newspaper about the economic benefits of recycling. The District does not actively contact businesses, but if someone calls, the District does assist them with their needs. At this time, the District does not track the number of businesses that participate in the program. However, the District will begin compiling this information in In addition, the District will request participants to complete a brief survey about what worked and did not work due to the District s assistance with establishing a recycling program. Strengths The District benefits from having large commercial establishments, such as Wal- Mart, that are committed to recycling and divert a significant portion of its waste stream from landfill disposal. Through these commercial efforts, the District exceeds the State s goal for residential/commercial recycling. Weaknesses Beyond several large commercial establishments, smaller establishment may not have the staff to coordinate recycling programs on their own and/or may be deterred by the cost of a separate recycling collection and recycling container(s). Strategies to Address Weaknesses - To assess how waste haulers promote recycling to their commercial customers, the District will query waste haulers on promotional strategies as part of the annual report survey process 6. The District will explore working with the Mercer- Celina Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) to survey members about their motivators and barriers to participate a commercial recycling program. If a survey of all members is not possible, the District will request to attend a Chamber event and make a presentation on the District and the recycling technical assistance that is available, and ask attendees what would motivate them to request this assistance. The District will complete the research element for expanding its commercial recycling program by 2010, and will develop specific strategies by 2011 if research results indicate that the District can play a measurable role in increasing commercial recycling. Finally, the District will include advice for small businesses on how to start a recycling program on the web site by 2009 (P-6) Household Hazardous Waste Management Each fall, the District conducts a household hazardous waste (HHW) collection event. In 2005, a reported 17 tons of HHW were collected and recycled through this program. In the last Plan Update, the District proposed to develop an HHW waste exchange and an informational networking hub where residents could exchange information about HHW alternatives. The District did not institute the HHW waste exchange due to safety and liability concerns, and does not plan to implement the exchange during the 2009 to 2019 planning period. Strengths The HHW collection event is well received by District residents and successfully keeps HHW out of the landfilled waste stream. Weaknesses No weaknesses identified. 6 The District is required to annually prepare and submit to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to comply with Ohio Administrative Code (F) R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B12/6/07

57 PLANNING PERIOD PROJECTIONS AND STRATEGIES (P-7) Used Oil Recycling If individuals contact the District about used oil recycling and do not want to wait until the HHW event, the District directs them to Giere Truck & Trailer in Coldwater, Ohio that accepts used motor oil year round. Giere Truck & Trailer recycled one ton of used oil in Strengths Giere Truck & Trailer allows residents to recycle used oil throughout the year. Weaknesses No weaknesses identified. (P-8) Lead Acid Batteries The District annually compiles and advertises establishments within the District that accept used, lead acid batteries. In 2005, over 306,500 pounds of lead acid batteries were recovered at Ohio Recycling. The District does not know how many lead acid batteries were recovered at the other establishments. Strengths By promoting permanent outlets for lead acid batteries, the District facilitates the landfill disposal ban on these materials. Weaknesses No weaknesses identified. (P-9) Scrap Tire Management In 2005, the District used grant funding from the ODNR to conduct a tire clean up event. Various service organizations collected tires that were improperly discarded throughout the County. The event collected approximately 150 tons of tires. At this time, illegally disposed tires are not a significant problem in the District, and the District does not plan to conduct this event on the planning period. However, the District will work with the Health Department monitor this situation, and apply for a grant if necessary. The District directs individuals to local retailers that accept used tires. The District also funds the Health Department to annually conduct 12 landfill inspection and frequent site visits to assure the landfill is operating in accordance with all Ohio laws and regulations, including the tire ban. Strengths The Health District has not detected tires being disposed at the Celina Landfill and illegal dumping or stockpiling of tires is not an issue in Mercer County. Weaknesses No weaknesses identified. (P-10) Yard Waste Management The District does not own any yard waste composting facilities, but is well served by Vogel Poultry, Brookside Wood Products and the City of Celina. In addition, all villages, the City of Celina and Franklin Township have the option of purchasing a yard waste bag and having this material collected at the curb for composting. The District facilitates backyard composting and grasscycling by distributing information on these yard waste management methods at the County Fair. In the previous solid waste management plan update, the District planned to make an annual cash prize donation to local organizations that sponsored a contest for the best compost project by a youth group. Local organizations did not express interest in this program, and the District did not institute it. The District will not institute this program in the planning period. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 5-11

58 Section 5 Strengths Yard waste composting significantly contributes to landfill diversion in the District. Weaknesses No weaknesses identified. (P-11) Education/Awareness At least once a year, the District periodically purchases newspaper advertisements that explain the benefits of recycling and stress litter prevention. The District also has an educational specialist who is shared with Auglaize County. In 2005, the education specialist conducted a total of 111 presentations, including: 1 adult group; 42 secondary schools; 58 elementary schools; and 10 other groups, such as scouts, preschools and libraries. The District mails flyers to civic and service organizations to inform them of the availability of our educational specialist to make presentations to their group. Strengths Direct contact with residents and students is one of the most effective mechanisms for encouraging participation in recycling and explaining why proper solid waste management is important. The District was not able to afford its own education specialist, and worked cooperatively with another political subdivision to find a way to directly contact as many potential recyclers as possible. Weaknesses The District does not have the funds to create the larger, more comprehensive outreach program and interactive activities as some of the larger more well-funded districts are able to create. Strategies to Address Weaknesses Beginning in 2009, the District s educational specialist will network with other educational specialists to strategize about outreach techniques and obtain sample promotional materials. In addition to existing education outreach messages, District Education specialist will focus on a particular solid waste management message each year and work with the local media to cover that issue. Finally, the District will develop a website that will identify the education specialist and the presentation that are available for civic organizations, as well as schools. (P-12) Health Department Funding The District has a contract with the Health Department for landfill monitoring, illegal dumping enforcement, and well inspections around the landfill. In 2005 the Health Department conducted twelve landfill inspections and 9 inspections at composting facilities. The Health Department also conducted 12 inspections at a large quantity infectious waste generator and/or transporter facility. Finally, the Health Department conducted several inspections at a construction and demolition debris facility and 10 inspections of the Maharg Transfer Station. Strengths Because Mercer County has a local health department that is certified by the OEPA response time to respond to concerns at the Celina Landfill is expedited R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B12/6/07

59 PLANNING PERIOD PROJECTIONS AND STRATEGIES Weaknesses No weaknesses identified. (P-13) Plan Monitoring The District annually monitors the impact of the solid waste management plan on landfill diversion by surveying recyclers, composters and solid waste haulers. The District uses data from OEPA to monitor the landfill disposal capacity that is available to the District. Strengths Annual monitoring allows the District to modify programs that are not successfully contributing to landfill diversion and assure that District residents and businesses have adequate landfill disposal capacity. Weaknesses Typically most recyclers and composters in the District cooperatively respond to the District s surveys but there is no mandate that requires them to respond. Strategies to Address Weaknesses Since mandatory responding would require state legislation, the District does not have any strategies to address this weakness. (P-14) Market Development When the District makes presentations to elementary students, they are shown paper bags and/or food boxes that are made from recycled paper. The District also provides them with pencils and rulers that are made from recycled content materials. At adult, high school and some middle school presentations, the District shows and passes around several items made from recycled materials - cans, fleece hats, carpet samples, wood products, etc. Finally, the District has posters at the fair promoting buying recycled. The District talks with people at the fair about the bench and the benefits of that recycled material. Strengths When the District is educating children and adults on recycling, they are also educating on Closing the Loop through the purchase of recycled content products. Weaknesses The recipients of the Close the loop message are limited to individuals that the District has direct contact with during presentations and public events. Strategies to Address Weaknesses - The District will work with Ohio Recycling to develop signage for each of their drop-off bins that identifies the products that are created from the recycled materials. For example, the bins that accept PET will talk about carpet and clothing that is made from PET bottles. The District will also develop informational material on the importance of closing the loop by purchasing recycled-content products. The information will be provided to Ohio Recycling for distribution. In addition, the District will distribute these materials at District events, such as HHW collection days. Finally, the District will work with the Wal-Mart in Celina to see if they will highlight recycled-content products on days such as Earth Day. The District will begin this in Existing Residential/Commercial Programs and Activities Compliance with State Planning Goals The State Solid Waste Management Plan requires solid waste management districts to develop plans to include strategies to achieve the following goals: B /01/08 R. W. Beck 5-13

60 Section 5 Goal #1: Ensure the availability of reduction and recycling opportunities/programs for residential/commercial waste. Goal #2: Reduce and/or recycle at least 50 percent of the industrial waste generated and reduce and/or recycle at least 25 percent of the residential/commercial waste generated by the year Goal #3: Provide informational and technical assistance on source reduction. Goal #4: Provide informational and technical assistance on recycling, reuse, and composting opportunities. Goal #5: Develop strategies to manage scrap tires and household hazardous wastes (HHW). Goal # 6: Annual reporting of Plan progress. Goal #7: Prepare a market development strategy. The following assesses the District s existing residential/commercial residential recycling programs in achieving these goals. Program or Activity Code Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 (P-1) (P-2) (P-3) (P-4) (P-5) (P-6) (P-7) (P-8) (P-9) (P-10) (P-11) (P-12) (P-13) (P-14) Existing Industrial Programs and Activities (P-15) Education During the Mercer County Fair, the District shares a tent with the County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) and passes out informational material that has been provided by the ODNR. Also, the District usually passes out some sort of promotional item that is made 5-14 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B12/6/07

61 PLANNING PERIOD PROJECTIONS AND STRATEGIES from recycled products with their name imprinted on them. In the previous solid waste management plan, the District proposed to conduct workshops, mailings and material exchanges to increase industrial recycling. As manufacturing industries within the District have constantly reduced over 65 percent of the waste they generate, the District has not implemented these programs. The District will not implement these programs in plan years 2009 through 2018 unless industrial landfill diversion rates decrease to below 60 percent. To monitor the industrial recycling rate, the District will survey manufacturing industries that indicated they were recycling in If they have ceased or reduced their recycling activities, the District will work with them to re-establish or enhance their program. In addition, the District will include case studies in the survey packet that spotlight various Mercer County manufacturing industries and their recycling programs, as well as guidance for establishing recycling program in an industrial setting. Finally, each time the District surveys manufacturing industries as part of its solid waste management plan update, information on recycling and the District will be included with the survey documents. Strengths - Manufacturing industries within the District have continually substantially exceeded Ohio diversion goal for manufacturing industries. Weaknesses - No weaknesses identified. Program or Activity Code Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 (P-15) New Solid Waste Management Strategies and Programs District programs are effective and many will be continued for the 2009 through 2018 planning period. However, the District strives to continually improve. As discussed in Sections and 5.5.3, the District evaluated each program and identified strategies to address weaknesses. 5.6 Waste Reduction Projections Residential/Commercial With the exception of the establishment of the two drop-off sites, all projected changes in the residential/commercial waste reduction quantities are due to population changes, not changes in the reduction rate per capita. While some of the District s current programs will be modified, the changes are not significant enough to support increasing the per capita recycling rate. Therefore, to project the increase in residential/commercial reduction quantities by material, the District determined the 2005 reduction rate for each material and applied that rate to the annual population estimates for 2009 through The 2005 residential/commercial reduction rate for each material are shown below: B /01/08 R. W. Beck 5-15

62 Section Per Capita Recycling Rate Material (TPY) Yard Waste HHW Tires Appliances Lead-Acid Batteries Glass Ferrous Metals Aluminum Corrugated Cardboard All Other Paper Mixed/Other Plastic Used Oil The same process was used for projecting the future quantity of materials that will be recovered through the establishment of the recycling drop-off sites. During the first year of operation, these sites are estimated to recover tons per capita. This per capita recovery rate was then applied to the annual population for the years 2009 through Industrial As previously discussed, manufacturing employment and consequently the amount of solid waste that manufacturing industries generate are projected to decrease between 2009 and The District is projecting the industrial recycling rate to remain constant. Consequently, the quantity of materials that industries will recycle will decrease. The decrease in recycling quantities corresponds with the decrease in industrial manufacturing employment, which is 0.25 percent annually. Similar to the residential/commercial reduction projections, the District calculated the 2005 reduction rate for each material and applied that to annual employment for the planning period. The per employee recycling rate for each material recycled by Mercer County manufacturing industries is shown below R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B12/6/07

63 PLANNING PERIOD PROJECTIONS AND STRATEGIES Material 2005 Per Employment Rate (TPY) Lead-Acid Batteries Dry Cell Batteries Glass Ferrous Metal Non-Ferrous Metal Non-Exempt Foundry Sand Corrugated Cardboard All Other Paper All Plastics Scrap Tires Textiles Wood Yard Waste Photo Film Furniture Concrete Stone/Sand B /01/08 R. W. Beck 5-17

64 Section 5 Table 5-5 Residential/Commercial Waste Reduction Strategies Strategy Type of Material Reduced Tons Reduced and/or Recycled Continue to Promote the Composting Facilities and Education Yard Waste 6,019 6,076 6,090 6,113 Continue HHW Collection Events HHW The District will not continue this program Tires Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Appliances Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Lead-Acid Batteries Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Glass Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Ferrous Metals Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Aluminum Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Corrugated Cardboard 2,093 2,113 2,118 2,126 Continue to Support Ohio Recycling, Conduct Education/Outreach Activities and Promote the Implementation of County Office Paper Recycling All Other Paper Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Mixed/Other Plastic Continue to Promote the Composting Facilities and Education Used Oil Establish New Drop-Off Sites Corrugated Cardboard, Newspaper, Office Paper, Plastics #1 & #2, Steel Cans, Aluminum Cans Grand Total 9,977 10,206 10,231 10, R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

65 PLANNING PERIOD PROJECTIONS AND STRATEGIES Strategy Table 5-5 Residential/Commercial Waste Reduction Strategies Type of Material Reduced Tons Reduced and/or Recycled Continue to Promote the Composting Facilities and Education Yard Waste 6,137 6,160 6,183 6,206 Continue HHW Collection Events HHW The District will not continue this program Tires Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Appliances Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Lead-Acid Batteries Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Glass Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Ferrous Metals Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Aluminum Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Corrugated Cardboard 2,134 2,142 2,150 2,158 Continue to Support Ohio Recycling, Conduct Education/Outreach Activities and Promote the Implementation of County Office Paper Recycling All Other Paper Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Mixed/Other Plastic Continue to Promote the Composting Facilities and Education Used Oil Establish New Drop-Off Sites Corrugated Cardboard, Newspaper, Office Paper, Plastics #1 & #2, Steel Cans, Aluminum Cans Grand Total 10,309 10,348 10,388 10,427 B /01/08 R. W. Beck 5-19

66 Section 5 Table 5-5 Residential/Commercial Waste Reduction Strategies Type of Material Reduced Tons Reduced Strategy and/or Recycled Continue to Promote the Composting Facilities and Education Yard Waste 6,234 6,261 6,288 Continue HHW Collection Events HHW The District will not continue this program Tires Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Appliances Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Lead-Acid Batteries Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Glass Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Ferrous Metals Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Aluminum Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Corrugated Cardboard 2,168 2,177 2,187 Continue to Support Ohio Recycling, Conduct Education/Outreach Activities and Promote the Implementation of County Office Paper Recycling All Other Paper Continue to Support Ohio Recycling and Conduct Education/Outreach Activities Mixed/Other Plastic Continue to Promote the Composting Facilities and Education Used Oil Establish New Drop-Off Sites Corrugated Cardboard, Newspaper, Office Paper, Plastics #1 & #2, Steel Cans, Aluminum Cans Grand Total 10,473 10,519 10, R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

67 PLANNING PERIOD PROJECTIONS AND STRATEGIES Table 5-6 Industrial Reduction Strategies Type of Material Tons of Waste Reduction Strategy Reduced and/or Recycled Source Reduction: No New Strategies Recycling Strategies: No New Strategies Lead-Acid Batteries Dry Cell Batteries Glass Ferrous Metal 22,671 22,445 22,389 22,333 22,277 22,221 22,166 22,110 22,055 22,000 21,945 Non-Ferrous Metal 3,911 3,872 3,862 3,852 3,843 3,833 3,824 3,814 3,804 3,795 3,785 Non-Exempt Foundry Sand 2,098 2,077 2,072 2,066 2,061 2,056 2,051 2,046 2,041 2,036 2,030 Corrugated Cardboard 1,159 1,148 1,145 1,142 1,139 1,136 1,133 1,131 1,128 1,125 1,122 All Other Paper 3,073 3,043 3,035 3,027 3,020 3,012 3,005 2,997 2,990 2,982 2,975 All Plastics 1,851 1,833 1,828 1,824 1,819 1,815 1,810 1,806 1,801 1,797 1,792 Scrap Tires Textiles Wood Yard Waste Photo Film Furniture Concrete 1,350 1,337 1,333 1,330 1,327 1,323 1,320 1,317 1,313 1,310 1,307 Stone/Sand Grand Total 37,064 36,695 36,603 36,512 36,420 36,329 36,239 36,148 36,058 35,967 35,878 B /01/08 R. W. Beck 5-21

68 Section 6 METHODS OF MANAGEMENT The District plans to use transfer, recycling, composting, and landfill disposal facilities to manage both the residential/commercial and industrial waste streams through Therefore, this Section evaluates the capacity of these solid waste management system components. This Section also addresses the District strategy for the siting of or expansion of existing new solid waste facilities within the District. 6.1 Calculation of Capacity Needs To calculate capacity needs, the District estimated the annual quantity of residential/commercial and industrial waste that would be generated and required to be managed at a transfer, recycling and/or landfill disposal facilities. The results of these estimates are shown in Tables 6-1, 6-2 and 6-3. B /01/08

69 Section 6 Year Tons of SW Generated Table 6-1 Waste Management Methods Used and Processing Capacity Needed for Each Year of the Planning Period Tons Source Reduced Net Tons to be Managed by SWMD Recycling Management Method Used and Processing Capacity Required in TPY Transfer [1] Yard Waste Composting YW Land Application Incineration MSW Composting Landfilling [2] , ,454 41,021 11,932 6, , , ,594 40,824 11,585 6, , , ,850 40,743 11,616 6, , , ,158 40,667 11,654 6, , , ,472 40,592 11,692 6, , , ,791 40,517 11,731 6, , , ,118 40,442 11,770 6, , , ,450 40,367 11,810 6, , , ,811 40,295 11,854 6, , , ,179 40,224 11,899 6, , , ,554 40,152 11,944 6, ,999 [1] For planning purposes the percent of the waste stream that is generated and delivered to a transfer station is projected to remain constant. [2] Due to the methodology used to calculate the 2005 industrial disposal quantity, landfill disposal is not equivalent to generation minus source reduced minus yard waste composting minus yard waste land application minus incineration minus MSW composting. For planning purposes, industrial disposal was calculated using the assumption the 12.11% of the waste that was generated in 2005 was landfill disposed and 12.11% of future industrial disposal quantities will be landfill disposed. 6-2 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

70 Methods of Management Year Table 6-2 Summary of Residential/Commercial Waste Management Methods Tons Generated Management Method in TPY Source Reduction & Recycling Incineration Composting Landfilling [1] Ash Disposal ,060 3, ,019 20, ,577 4, ,076 21, ,968 4, ,090 21, ,411 4, ,114 22, ,860 4, ,137 22, ,314 4, ,160 22, ,775 4, ,184 23, ,241 4, ,207 23, ,736 4, ,234 24, ,237 4, ,262 24, ,745 4, ,289 25,181 0 [1] Landfill disposal is calculated by deducting source reduction & recycling, incineration and composting from generation B /01/08 R. W. Beck 6-3

71 Section 6 Year Tons Generated Table 6-3 Summary for Industrial Waste Management Methods Management Method in TPY Source Reduction & Recycling Incineration Composting Landfilling [1] Ash Disposal ,803 37, , ,257 36, , ,122 36, , ,987 36, , ,852 36, , ,717 36, , ,583 36, , ,449 36, , ,315 36, , ,182 35, , ,049 35, ,059 0 [1] Due to the methodology used to calculate the 2005 industrial disposal quantity, industrial landfill disposal is not equivalent to generation minus source reduced minus yard waste composting minus yard waste land application minus incineration minus MSW composting. For planning purposes, industrial disposal was calculated using the assumption the 12.11% of the waste that was generated in 2005 was landfill disposed and 12.11% of future industrial disposal quantities will be landfill disposed. 6.2 Demonstration of Access to Capacity Disposal Capacity The District anticipates that landfills will serve as the primary disposal method for the solid waste that will be annually generated by Mercer County residential/commercial and industrial sources until The maximum amount of annual disposal capacity required for Mercer County will be approximately 36,220 tons (Table 6-1). However, for determining whether the District has access to adequate disposal capacity, the District used a quantity of 39,000 tons in 2009 and inflated it by 1 percent annually throughout the 10-year planning period. The District opted for this approach as information recently provided by OEPA indicates that District disposal quantities have averaged at 39,000 tons per year between 2002 and As part of the process to update its solid waste management plan, the District evaluated the ability of existing landfills to manage the District s waste throughout the 10-year planning period. During 2005, the Celina Landfill received the majority of District waste, approximately 68 percent. In 2006, the OEPA issued this facility a permit-to-install (PTI) for a vertical expansion, which will provide 10 years of disposal capacity based on the average annual waste receipts of 95,000. This facility also has an application into OEPA for a horizontal expansion. If this facility does not receive a horizontal expansion, it will reach 6-4 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

72 Methods of Management capacity by For planning purposes the District assumed that when this landfill reaches capacity, the facility operator and local waste hauler (Allied Waste) will mostly likely transport waste to their County Environmental Landfill in Wyandot County. County Environmental Landfill reported over 40 years of remaining capacity in Allied Waste also owns the Cherokee Run Landfill and this landfill received District waste in The Cherokee Run Landfill is estimated to reach capacity in Once again, when this landfill closes, the District anticipates Allied Waste delivering Mercer County-generated waste to the County Environmental Landfill. Waste Management Inc. owns three landfills that served the District in 2005 the Jay County Landfill in Indiana, the Waste Management Landfill in Mahoning County and the Evergreen Recycling and Disposal Landfill in Wood County. In 2005, approximately 30 percent of solid waste originating from the District was disposed in the Jay County Landfill, which has capacity until The Waste Management Landfill in Mahoning County will reach capacity by For planning purposes, the District shifted this waste to the Jay County Landfill, which has more than adequate capacity to manage this waste. The Evergreen Landfill has permitted disposal capacity throughout the District s planning period. Consequently, the percent of District waste that would be disposed at this facility (less than 1 percent annually) was projected to remain constant. The Sunny Farm Landfill received less than 1 percent of the District s waste in 2005, and will reach capacity in As far as the District is aware, the owner of this landfill does not own any other landfills in Ohio or Indiana. Thus, for planning purposes, the District anticipates that Mercer County waste disposed at this landfill will be disposed in the County Environmental Landfill after The District did not have capacity information on the other Indiana landfills that received 963 tons of Mercer County waste in Consequently, for this capacity analysis, this waste of the District s disposed waste stream was included in the Jay County Landfill tonnage and the Jay County still has adequate capacity to mange Mercer County waste. As shown in Table 6-4, the District has adequate disposal capacity to manage the District s solid waste through B /01/08 R. W. Beck 6-5

73 Section 6 Table 6-4 Potential District Disposal Capacity Remaining Capacity Tons of Waste Managed Facilities Used By the District Name and Location (County and State) Celina Sanitary Landfill Cherokee Run Landfill Logan County Ohio WM Mahoning Landfill Evergreen Recycling and Disposal AMDWRL Year s Data Source Gross Cubic Yards (1) 1,520, ,000 3,000 6 (2) 3,994,752 2,998,000 2, (2) 4,254,075 2,756,641 7, (2) 9,721,387 6,726,227 Tons For Waste Placement ,423 26,463 26,728 26,995 27,265 27,557 27,833 28,119 28, Sunny Farms 3, (2) 10,506,109 56,754, Jay County Landfill Other Indiana Landfills N/A 20 (3) 12,096,814 9,072,611 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11,323 12,305 12,428 12,552 12,677 12,804 13,148 13,280 13,412 13,546 13, R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

74 Methods of Management Table 6-4 Potential District Disposal Capacity Remaining Capacity Tons of Waste Managed Facilities Used By the District Name and Location (County and State) County Environmental Landfill (aka Wyandot County Environmental Sanitary Landfill) AMDWRL Year s Data Source Gross Cubic Yards 3, (2) 22,736,199 14,096,443 Tons For Waste Placement ,684 28,971 B /01/08 R. W. Beck 6-7

75 Section Transfer Facility Capacity The District is currently served by three transfer stations; the Waste Management Transfer Station in Lima Ohio, the Rumpke Transfer Station in Greenville, Ohio and the Maharg Transfer Station in Celina Ohio. The vast majority of the approximate 12,000 tons of District waste that was delivered to a transfer station in 2005 was delivered to the Maharg Facility. Based on conversation with this facility s operators, they are able to process approximately 200 to 250 tons of MSW per day. Assuming an average of 280 operating days per year, this facility has the capacity to process between 56,000 and 70,000 tons of MSW per year, which exceeds District requirements. The Waste Management and Rumpke Transfer stations were not able to provide the District with information regarding its daily processing capacity Tire Management Capacity The District s population will increase to 43,271 in Based on average per capita generation rate of one tire per capita per year, it is estimated that approximately 43,271 tires will need to be annually managed by Tire retailers accept used tires when new tires are purchased. The majority of used tires that are accepted at tire retailers are managed by Liberty Tires. This vendor has two facilities in Ohio, and each has enough processing capacity to manage 200 tons or 20,000 1 tires per day Recycling Facilities Capacity As demonstrated in Section 3, the District has sufficient access to facilities to process Mercer County-generated recyclables throughout the 10-year planning period Composting Facilities Capacity As demonstrated in Section 3, the District has sufficient access to facilities to process Mercer County-generated yard waste throughout the 10-year planning period. 6.3 Schedule for Facilities and Programs: New, Expansion, Closures, Continuations The District does not specifically plan to own and/or operate any solid waste management facilities during the 10-year planning period. Moreover, the inventories of wastes generated and of available capacity at solid waste facilities indicate that the District does not need additional solid waste management capacity during the planning period. Due to this, a timeline for the development, expansion and/or closure of solid waste facilities is not included. Table 6-5 does show the schedule for implementing District programs and strategies. 1 Based on each tire weighing 20 pounds. 6-8 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

76 Methods of Management Table 6-5 Implementation Schedule for Facilities, Strategies, Programs and Activities Name of Facility, Strategy, Program or Activity Location (SWMD, County, City/Township) Description of Program/Facility Ohio Recycling Chickasaw The District contracts with Ohio Recycling to provide processing marketing services for recyclables generated within the District. Ohio Recycling accepts recyclables from residents, businesses and waste haulers who provide curbside recycling in the District Drop-Off Recycling Containers Rockford and Burkettsville, OH By January 2008, the District will place one drop-off trailer at the Parkway High School in Rockford, Ohio. Rockford is located in the far north end of the County. The materials that will be collected at this drop off include: Corrugated Cardboard; Office Paper; Glass; Plastic s #1 and #2; Steel Cans; Newsprint; and Aluminum Cans. Approx. Date When the Following Will Take Place: Operations Begin Operations Cease On-Going Residential Curbside Recycling Mercer County The District is served by three private waste haulers who provide residential curbside recycling services. These haulers include: On-Going 2018 Allied; Maharg; and Klenke. Residents must purchase recycling bags to participate in curbside recycling B /01/08 R. W. Beck 6-9

77 Section 6 Table 6-5 Implementation Schedule for Facilities, Strategies, Programs and Activities Name of Facility, Strategy, Program or Activity Location (SWMD, County, City/Township) Description of Program/Facility Approx. Date When the Following Will Take Place: Operations Begin Operations Cease Increase Participation in Curbside Recycling Encourage Communities to Contract for Solid Waste Services Promote/Assist in the Implementation of Recycling Programs in Other Public Offices Mercer County Mercer County Mercer County The District will survey the waste haulers and request them to identify what percent of their customers participate in curbside recycling and PAYT. For areas of the District where participation is low, the District will conduct community meetings to explain the program and to identify barriers to participation. The District will target these communities with increased education, such as point of purchase displays at stores that sell the recycling and PAYT bags, articles on the benefits of these program and classroom presentations. To encourage communities to contract for solid waste services, the District will conduct a workshop on the potential benefits of contracting for solid waste services for the villages and townships of Mercer County. This workshop will be conducted in If any of the communities express an interest in pursuing this, the District will provide technical and procurement assistance to help organize their solid waste and recycling collection functions. This program is designed to use County government as a role model for recycling in other office settings that generate large quantities of office paper, such as banks and schools On-Going R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

78 Methods of Management Table 6-5 Implementation Schedule for Facilities, Strategies, Programs and Activities Name of Facility, Strategy, Program or Activity Promote Results of County Office Building Recycling Efforts Commercial/Institutional Recycling Program Evaluate Commercial/Institutional Recycling Program Location (SWMD, County, City/Township) Mercer County Mercer County Mercer County Description of Program/Facility The District will work with the Maintenance Department to determine the impacts of this program on disposal quantities and hauling charges. The District will then work with the Celina-Mercer County Chamber of Commerce to promote the benefits of recycling to other Mercer County businesses. The District will continue to provide technical assistance to businesses and institutions. The District does not track the number of businesses that participate in the program. However, the District will begin compiling this information. In addition, the District will request participants to complete a brief survey about what worked and did not work due to the District s assistance with establishing a recycling program. Approx. Date When the Following Will Take Place: Operations Begin Operations Cease On-Going Household Hazardous Waste Collection (HHW) Program Mercer County Each fall, the District will conduct an HHW collection event. Used Oil Recycling Mercer County Direct individuals to Giere Truck & Trailer Lead Acid Batteries Mercer County The District will annually compile and advertise establishments that accept used, lead acid batteries. On-going 2018 On-going 2018 On-going 2018 B /01/08 R. W. Beck 6-11

79 Section 6 Name of Facility, Strategy, Program or Activity Table 6-5 Implementation Schedule for Facilities, Strategies, Programs and Activities Location (SWMD, County, City/Township) Description of Program/Facility Scrap Tires Mercer County The District will direct individuals to local retailers that accept used tires. The District will fund the Mercer County Health Department to annually conduct 12 landfill inspections and frequent site visits to assure the landfill is operating in accordance with all Ohio laws and regulations, including the tire ban. Yard Waste Management Mercer County The District will facilitate back yard composting and grasscycling by distributing information on these yard waste management methods at the County Fair. Approx. Date When the Following Will Take Place: Operations Begin Operations Cease On-going 2018 On-going 2018 Vogel Poultry Ft. Recovery Composts leaves. On-going 2018 Brookside Wood Products Maria Stein Mulches wood waste. On-going 2018 City of Celina Celina Composts yard waste. On-going 2018 Education/Awareness Mercer County Purchase newspaper advertisements, develop promotional materials and make presentations. Education/Awareness Mercer County Education Specialist will work with other education specialists to strategize about outreach techniques and obtain sample materials. Health Department Funding Mercer County The District will continue to fund the Health Department to inspect solid waste management facilities. Plan Monitoring Mercer County The District will continue to prepare annual reports to monitor the plan Market Development Mercer County The District will continue to incorporate buy recycled and market development information in the recycling presentations. On-going On-going 2018 On-going 2018 On-going R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

80 Methods of Management Table 6-5 Implementation Schedule for Facilities, Strategies, Programs and Activities Name of Facility, Strategy, Program or Activity Location (SWMD, County, City/Township) Description of Program/Facility Market Development Mercer County The District will work with Ohio Recycling to develop signage for each of their drop-off bins that identifies the products that are created from the recycled materials. The District will also develop informational material on the importance of closing the loop by purchasing recycled-content products. The District will work with Wal-Mart in Celina to see if they will highlight recycled-content products on days such as Earth Day. Industrial Recycling Mercer County As part of the annual report, the District will survey manufacturing industries that indicated they were recycling in If they have ceased or reduced their recycling activities, the District will work with them to re-establish or enhance their program. Approx. Date When the Following Will Take Place: Operations Begin Operations Cease B /01/08 R. W. Beck 6-13

81 Section Identification of Facilities Table 6-6 identifies the solid waste disposal facilities that the District intends to use throughout the planning period. However, the District presently does not intend to require solid waste that is generated by Mercer County businesses, institutions, political subdivisions, individuals and/or any solid waste hauler be disposed of at specified facilities. Table 6-6 Facilities Identified Celina Sanitary Landfill Facility Name Cherokee Run Landfill Logan County Ohio WM Mahoning Landfill Evergreen Recycling and Disposal Sunny Farms Jay County Landfill County Environmental Landfill (aka Wyandot County Environmental Sanitary Landfill) Location (SWMD, State) Mercer County, OH Logan County, OH Mahoning County, OH Wood County, OH Seneca County, OH Jay County, IN Wyandot County, OH 6.5 Authorization Statement to Designate The Board, acting as Director of the District, is hereby authorized to designate solid waste management facilities in accordance with Section of the Ohio Revised Code. At this time, the Board has not designated solid waste management facilities. The Board does not waive its authority to designate solid waste management facilities in accordance with Section of the Ohio Revised Code at a future date during the 10-year planning period. 6.6 Waiver Process for Undesignated Facilities Due to the Board not exercising its authority to designate facilities, a waiver process for undesignated facilities will not be developed at this time. If the Board does exercise its authority to designate solid waste facilities, the Board will concurrently develop, if determined appropriate, a waiver process that complies with Section (I)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code. 6.7 Siting Strategy for Facilities As stated in Section 6.3, the District does not specifically plan to own and/or operate any solid waste management facilities during the 10-year planning period. Moreover, the inventories of wastes generated and of available capacity at solid waste facilities indicate that the District 6-14 R. W. Beck Draft 12/6/07 B1685

82 METHODS OF MANAGEMENT does not need additional solid waste management capacity during the planning period. Consequently, the District does not intend to adopt a siting strategy beyond that which is in accordance with Ohio Administrative Code , , , or other provisions relating to the siting of solid waste facilities. 6.8 Contingencies for Capacity Assurance and District Program Implementation District Disposal Capacity Using the OEPA and IDEM Solid Waste Facility Reports, the District will annually summarize the remaining capacity at the landfills and transfer stations used by the District during the preceding year. This assessment will then be provided to the Board for review and evaluation. The Board will determine if these landfills and transfer stations, in aggregate, will be able to provide sufficient disposal capacity and access to disposal capacity for Districtgenerated waste. If in aggregate, the landfills and transfer stations are unable to provide the District with sufficient disposal capacity or access to disposal capacity and no other disposal alternatives are available through the existing Plan s authority and options, the Board may consider this a Material Change in Circumstances and amend the Plan Update District Program Implementation Implementation of the District s Plan Update requires that the District receive adequate annual funding to implement the programs, and for some programs, having access to qualified service providers. If financial or operational conditions exist that prevent the District from implementing District programs, District staff will prepare a recommendation report which prioritizes which programs the District will provide based upon the following criteria: The program s impact on reducing the waste stream; Long-term impacts of the program; The program s association with the enforcement of solid waste management laws and regulations; The program s impact on Mercer County s human health and environment; and The availability of non-district entities to provide the program. This report will be provided to the Board for their review and recommendations regarding modification or elimination of District programs. If, based upon this report, it is determined that elimination or modification of District programs has a substantial impact on the implementation of the District s Plan Update, the Board may consider this as a Material Change in Circumstances and amend the Plan. B1685 Draft 12/6/07 R. W. Beck 6-15

83 Section 7 MEASUREMENT OF PROGRESS TOWARD WASTE REDUCTION GOALS 7.1 District will Comply with Goal(s) Defined As demonstrated in Tables 7-1 and 7-2, the District reduced approximately 33 percent of the residential/commercial waste stream and approximately 88 percent of the industrial waste stream in the reference year (2005). Although the District already exceeds Ohio s waste reduction goals, the District is committed to increasing the amount of waste that is reduced. 7.2 Calculating Goal No. 2, the Waste Reduction Rate (WRR) As required by OEPA, the District is using the waste generation estimates from Table 5-4 to calculate the waste reduction rates. The formula (Equation 1) the District used to calculate the tons of waste reduction (TWR) is as follows: TWR i = R i +(C i -NC i ) + (I i -A i )+RA i where: TWR i = the Tons of Waste Reduction for year i R i = tons of waste source reduced and Recycled in year i C i = tons of waste Composted in year i NC i = tons of Non-Compostables delivered for composting, separated for landfilling in year i I i = tons of waste Incinerated in year i A i = tons of incinerator Ash plus bypass waste in year i RA i = tons of Recycled incinerator Ash in year i The District used the following formula to estimate generation based upon disposal and waste reduction amounts: B /01/08

84 Section 7 EGDWR i = TWR i +DL i, where: EGDWR i = Estimated Generation based upon Disposal plus Waste Reduction in year i DL i = tons of waste Disposed in sanitary Landfills in year i The District calculated the waste reduction rate by dividing the sum from the first equation by the sum of the second equation: WRR i = TWR i x 100 EDGWR i where: WRR i = the Waste Reduction Rate in year i as a percent The amount of waste reduction per capita per day is calculated as follows: PCWR i = TWR i x 2000lbs P i x 365 days where: PCWR i = the Per Capita Waste Reduction rate in pounds per person per day in year i P i = the Population of the District in year i Each of these categories is further explained in the sections below. 1. Tons of Source Reduction and Recycling R The tons of waste source reduced and recycled as shown in Section 5 for the reference year and projected amounts were used for R in Equation 1. For purposes of calculating this amount for industrial waste, R does not include train boxcars, ferrous metals from motor vehicle salvage operations conducted by licensed motor vehicle salvage dealers, or metals from demolition activities. However, waste tires, lead-acid batteries, used motor oil collected for recycling from do-it-yourselfers, and household hazardous wastes that are recycled are counted towards the waste reduction goal. 2. Tons of Waste Composted C The tons of waste composted are found in Section 3 and Section 5 of this Plan Update. The waste received at all composting facilities used by the District is summed to determine this value. 3. Tons of Non-Compostable Waste NC NC means the tons of non-compostable waste recovered from activities such as debagging and screening. 7-2 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

85 MEASUREMENT OF PROGRESS TOWARD WASTE REDUCTION GOALS 4. Tons of Waste Incinerated I The tons of solid waste received at all incinerators used by the District both publicly-available and captive incinerators are summed to determine I. The District obtained the value of I from Tables 6-1, 6-2 or Tons of Incinerator Ash Produced A The tons of incinerator ash produced from facilities burning solid waste is summed to estimate A. Any bypass waste received at incinerators has been added to the value for ash produced. Ash produced from facilities such as coal-burning power plants has not been included in this estimate. 6. Tons of Incinerator Ash Recycled RA The tons of incinerator ash recycled from District waste has been summed to determine RA, only if this amount has not already been included in R. 7. Tons Waste Disposed in Landfills DL The tons of District waste disposed in solid waste landfills used by the District is summed to estimate DL. This has been adjusted with the amount of exempt waste. The total amount of District waste disposed in landfills excludes any exempt waste such as construction and demolition materials received from the District. All solid waste disposed in licensed solid waste facilities, including waste received at captive landfills, has been incorporated into the value of DL. The District used the values of DL as shown in Tables 6-1, 6-2 and 6-3. Using the equations and guidance above, the District calculated the WRR and PCWR for the reference year and each year of the planning period, and entered the appropriate information into Tables 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3 for the residential/commercial waste, industrial waste, and total waste respectively. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 7-3

86 Section 7 Table 7-1 Annual Rate of Waste Reduction: Residential/Commercial Waste Year R C NC I A RA DL TWR P WRR PCWR ,958 6, ,083 9,977 41, % ,130 6, ,371 10,206 41, % ,141 6, ,737 10,231 41, % ,157 6, ,141 10,270 42, % ,172 6, ,551 10,309 42, % ,188 6, ,966 10,348 42, % ,204 6, ,387 10,388 42, % ,220 6, ,814 10,427 42, % ,238 6, ,263 10,473 42, % ,257 6, ,719 10,519 43, % ,276 6, ,181 10,565 43, % ,294 6, ,649 10,611 43, % R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

87 MEASUREMENT OF PROGRESS TOWARD WASTE REDUCTION GOALS Table 7-2 Annual Rate of Waste Reduction: Industrial Waste Year R C NC I A RA DL TWR P WRR PCWR , ,226 37,064 41, % , ,174 36,695 41, % , ,161 36,603 41, % , ,148 36,512 42, % , ,135 36,420 42, % , ,122 36,329 42, % , ,110 36,239 42, % , ,097 36,148 42, % , ,084 36,058 42, % , ,071 35,967 43, % , ,059 35,878 43, % , ,046 35,788 43, % 4.51 B /01/08 R. W. Beck 7-5

88 Section 7 Table 7-3 Annual Rate of Waste Reduction: Total District Solid Waste Year R C NC I A RA DL 1 TWR P WRR PCWR ,021 6, ,309 47,041 41, % ,824 6, ,545 46,901 41, % ,743 6, ,898 46,834 41, % ,667 6, ,289 46,782 42, % ,592 6, ,686 46,730 42, % ,517 6, ,088 46,678 42, % ,442 6, ,497 46,626 42, % ,367 6, ,911 46,575 42, % ,295 6, ,347 46,530 42, % ,224 6, ,790 46,486 43, % ,152 6, ,239 46,442 43, % ,081 6, ,695 46,398 43, % Excludes Exempt Waste 7-6 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

89 Section 8 COST AND FINANCING OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 8.1 Introduction Section 8 addresses District revenues and expenditures. All financial projections begin in 2009 and are based on a calendar year. 8.2 Funding Mechanisms and Amount of Money Generated District Disposal Fees (ORC Section (B)) The District currently has the following district disposal fee structure that is instituted at the Celina Landfill: In-District - $2.00 per ton Out-Of-District - $4.00 per ton Out-of-State - $2.00 per ton The Celina Landfill only has permitted disposal capacity through Therefore, District revenues from disposal fees have been projected through 2016, but will retain the fee structure. The District did project that annual waste receipts would increase beyond 2005 levels. The District considers this appropriate as the Celina Landfill has received an expansion permit and will most likely return to waste levels that are reflective of when remaining, permitted capacity was not an imminent concern. For planning purposes, the District averaged the most recent five years of waste receipts and rounded to the nearest hundredth. B /01/08

90 Section 8 Table 8-1 Projected Revenues from District Disposal Fees Year In- District Fees Out-of- District Fees Out-of- State Fees In- District Tonnage Received at Celina Landfill Out-of- District Waste Received at Celina Landfill Out-of- State Waste Received at Celina Landfill Estimated District Disposal Fees the Celina Landfill 2005 $2.00 $4.00 $ ,152 47,221 3 $213, $2.00 $4.00 $ ,700 48,900 1,000 $229, $2.00 $4.00 $ ,700 48,900 1,000 $229, $2.00 $4.00 $ ,700 48,900 1,000 $229, $2.00 $4.00 $ ,700 48,900 1,000 $229, $2.00 $4.00 $ ,700 48,900 1,000 $229, $2.00 $4.00 $ ,700 48,900 1,000 $229, $2.00 $4.00 $ ,700 48,900 1,000 $229, $2.00 $4.00 $ ,700 48,900 1,000 $229, $2.00 $4.00 $ $2.00 $4.00 $ Generation Fee (ORC Section ) The District does not have a generation fee; therefore Table 8-2 was not completed. 8.3 Summary of District Revenues In Table 8-3, the funding mechanisms that the District plans to use and the total amount of annual revenue generated by each is provided. As shown in Table 8-3, the District anticipates revenues from the district disposal fee. However, Section 8.6 discusses contingency funding if the Celina Landfill ceases operation in R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

91 COST AND FINANCING OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Table 8-3 Revenue Projections Type of Revenue Mechanism and Amount Generated Year District Disposal Fees Generation Fee Host Community Fee ODNR Grant User Fees Other Total Revenue Generated 2005 $213,195 $0 $0 $48,016 $0 $ , $229,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229, $229,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229, $229,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229, $229,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229, $229,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229, $229,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229, $229,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229, $229,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229, $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229,000 2 $229, $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229,000 3 $229, District Loans The District does not anticipate financing any solid waste management operations. Therefore, Table 8-4 was not completed. 8.5 Funds Allocated from ORC (B), ORC and ORC The following provides a brief overview of line-item expenditures in Table Reimbursements 2 Contingency funding 3 Contingency funding B /01/08 R. W. Beck 8-3

92 Section 8 Table 8-5 Revenues and Allocations Line Item Plan Monitoring/Preparation Consultant Costs $10,325 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 $35,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $35,000 $40,000 $7,000 Plan Implementation Personnel $56,698 $61,372 $62,599 $63,851 $65,128 $66,431 $67,759 $69,115 $70,497 $71,907 $73,345 Office Overhead $15,192 $16,444 $16,773 $17,109 $17,451 $17,800 $18,156 $18,519 $18,889 $19,267 $19,653 Ohio Recycling Center $82,468 $92,819 $95,603 $98,471 $101,425 $104,468 $107,602 $110,830 $114,155 $117,580 $121,107 Tire Collection $21,105 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 HHW Collection $29,734 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 Recycling Market Development $5,832 $6,313 $6,439 $6,568 $6,699 $6,833 $6,970 $7,109 $7,251 $7,396 $7,544 Education/Awareness District Staff Professional Development $1,677 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 Contracted Agencies/Services $13,945 $23,957 $23,960 $13,964 $13,967 $13,970 $13,973 $13,976 $13,979 $13,982 $13,985 Materials $2,802 $3,032 $3,093 $3,155 $3,218 $3,282 $3,348 $3,415 $3,483 $3,553 $3, R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

93 COST AND FINANCING OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Table 8-5 Revenues and Allocations Line Item Health Department Enforcement Personnel $7,000 $7,577 $7,729 $7,883 $8,041 $8,202 $8,366 $8,533 $8,704 $8,878 $9,055 Well Testing $3,000 $3,247 $3,312 $3,378 $3,446 $3,515 $3,585 $3,657 $3,730 $3,805 $3,881 Financial Analysis Total Expenditures $249,778 $253,462 $253,209 $273,079 $283,075 $259,201 $264,459 $269,854 $304,389 $315,068 $287,894 Carryover $604,409 $609,545 $585,083 $560,874 $516,795 $462,720 $432,519 $397,060 $356,206 $280,817 $194,750 Total Revenue $261,241 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 Balance $615,872 $585,083 $560,874 $516,795 $462,720 $432,519 $397,060 $356,206 $280,817 $194,750 $135,855 B /01/08 R. W. Beck 8-5

94 Section 8 Consultant Costs for Updating the Solid Waste Management Plan and Annual Report The District has budgeted for consulting assistance for a plan update every three years and a district performance report every year. Plan Implementation The District used the following annual inflation factors to project plan implementation expenditures: Personnel - Personnel includes 50 percent of the solid waste director s and solid waste coordinator s salaries. Personnel costs also include PERS, Medicare, hospitalization insurance and worker s compensation (benefits). Approximately 30 percent of personnel costs are due to benefits. Personnel costs are projected to increase by 2 percent annually. Office Overhead - 2 percent Ohio Recycling Center - 3 percent 4 Tire Collection The District will not continue this program during the planning period. HHW Collection The cost of this program has been annually decreasing and the District s service provider works under a not-to-exceed contract. Thus, this budget is projected to remain constant throughout the planning period. Recycling Market Development In 2010, the District has allocated an additional $5,000 to this program to assist Mercer County with developing signage and promotional materials about Closing the Loop on recycling. Beyond 2010, expenditures associated with market development are projected to increase 2 percent per year. Education/Awareness - District Staff Professional Development The District has established an annual budget for professional development. Agencies Services In 2009 and 2010, the District will allocate $20,000 to increase participation in curbside recycling and encourage townships and villages to contract for solid waste services. Beyond these specific investments, the budget for this expenditure is projected to remain constant as the District has a not-to-exceed contact. Mercer County Health Department - Personnel The District projects a two percent annual increase in heath department personnel costs throughout the planning period. Well-water testing - The District projects a two percent annual increase in well water testing throughout the planning period. Table 8-6 indicates how District revenues will be allocated in accordance with ORC , ORC and ORC It should be noted that for each year, the previous year s cumulative balance is used as revenue. 4 This is based on the District s 2005 contract with Ohio Recycling. 8-6 R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

95 COST AND FINANCING OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Table 8-6 Allocations of ORC Revenue for the Following Purposes Year Revenue 1 2* Cumulative Balance Beginning Balance $606, $229,000 $5,000 $232,637 $7,577 $0 $3,247 $0 $0 $0 $0 $585, $229,000 $5,000 $237,168 $7,729 $0 $3,312 $0 $0 $0 $0 $560, $229,000 $30,000 $231,818 $7,883 $0 $3,378 $0 $0 $0 $0 $516, $229,000 $35,000 $236,588 $8,041 $0 $3,446 $0 $0 $0 $0 $462, $229,000 $6,000 $241,484 $8,202 $0 $3,515 $0 $0 $0 $0 $432, $229,000 $6,000 $246,508 $8,366 $0 $3,585 $0 $0 $0 $0 $397, $229,000 $6,000 $251,664 $8,533 $0 $3,657 $0 $0 $0 $0 $356, $229,000 $35,000 $256,955 $8,704 $0 $3,730 $0 $0 $0 $0 $280, $229,000 $40,000 $262,385 $8,878 $0 $3,805 $0 $0 $0 $0 $194, $229,000 $7,000 $267,958 $9,055 $0 $3,881 $0 $0 $0 $0 $135,855 "1" - preparation and monitoring of plan implementation; "2" - implementation of approved plan; "3" - financial assistance to boards of health for SW enforcement; "4" - financial assistance to counties within the district to defray the costs of maintaining roads and other public services related to the location or operation of solid waste facilities; "5" - contracts with boards of health for collecting and analyzing samples from water wells adjacent to solid waste facilities; "6" - out-of-state waste inspection program; "7" - financial assistance to local boards of health to enforce ORC or to local law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction within the district for anti-littering; "8" - financial assistance to boards of health for employees to participate in Ohio EPA's training and certification program for solid waste operators and facility inspectors; "9" - financial assistance to local municipalities and townships to defray the added cost of roads and services related to the operation of solid waste facilities. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 8-7

96 Section Contingent Funding or Financing The Celina Landfill currently has permitted disposal capacity through If this Landfill does not receive an expansion PTI from OEPA, it will close in When the Celina Landfill closes, the District will not be able depend on revenue from landfill disposal fees. Therefore as a contingency, the District will assign a percentage of the total service charges to each local government, based on the individual share of the total County households. By mutual consent of the local governments and the Board of Directors, Apportionment may be used as an alternate collection method in lieu of billing each property individually. The following chart serves solely as an example using 2000 household information. These numbers can and will change with updated censuses. Political Jurisdiction Households Apportionment ($/Year) Black Creek Township 253 $3,520 Coldwater Village 1,800 $25,041 Butler Township (balance) 794 $11,046 Center Township 435 $6,052 Rockford Village 452 $6,288 Dublin Township (balance) 453 $6,302 Montezuma Village 77 $1,071 Franklin Township (balance) 848 $11,797 Gibson Township (balance) 400 $5,565 Burkettsville Village 102 $1,419 St. Henry Village 912 $12,687 Granville Township (balance) 576 $8,013 Hopewill Township 428 $5,954 City of Celina 4,138 $57,566 Jefferson Township (balance) 1,176 $16,360 Liberty Township 368 $5,119 Chickasaw Village 146 $2,031 Marion Township (balance) 1,046 $14,552 Fort Recovery Village 511 $7,109 Mendon Village 461 $6,413 Union Township (balance) 280 $3,895 Washington Township 805 $11,199 The revenue from this contingent funding source is shown in Table R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

97 COST AND FINANCING OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Table 8-7 Contingent Funding Sources Amounts of Contingent Funding for Each Source Year A B C D Totals 2009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $229,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229, $229,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229, Summary of Costs and Revenues A summary of District costs and revenues is provided in Table 8-8. B /01/08 R. W. Beck 8-9

98 Section 8 Table 8-8 Revenue and Expenditure Summary Line Item Plan Monitoring/Preparation Consultant Costs $10,325 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 $35,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $35,000 $40,000 $7,000 Plan Implementation Personnel $56,698 $61,372 $62,599 $63,851 $65,128 $66,431 $67,759 $69,115 $70,497 $71,907 $73,345 Office Overhead $15,192 $16,444 $16,773 $17,109 $17,451 $17,800 $18,156 $18,519 $18,889 $19,267 $19,653 Ohio Recycling Center $82,468 $92,819 $95,603 $98,471 $101,425 $104,468 $107,602 $110,830 $114,155 $117,580 $121,107 Tire Collection $21,105 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 HHW Collection $29,734 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 Recycling Market Development $5,832 $6,313 $6,439 $6,568 $6,699 $6,833 $6,970 $7,109 $7,251 $7,396 $7,544 Education/Awareness District Staff Professional Development $1,677 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 Contracted Agencies/Services. $13,945 $23,957 $23,960 $13,964 $13,967 $13,970 $13,973 $13,976 $13,979 $13,982 $13,985 Materials $2,802 $3,032 $3,093 $3,155 $3,218 $3,282 $3,348 $3,415 $3,483 $3,553 $3, R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

99 COST AND FINANCING OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Table 8-8 Revenue and Expenditure Summary Line Item Health Department Enforcement Personnel $7,000 $7,577 $7,729 $7,883 $8,041 $8,202 $8,366 $8,533 $8,704 $8,878 $9,055 Well Testing $3,000 $3,247 $3,312 $3,378 $3,446 $3,515 $3,585 $3,657 $3,730 $3,805 $3,881 Financial Analysis Total Expenditures $249,778 $253,462 $253,209 $273,079 $283,075 $259,201 $264,459 $269,854 $304,389 $315,068 $287,894 Carryover $604,409 $609,545 $585,083 $560,874 $516,795 $462,720 $432,519 $397,060 $356,206 $280,817 $194,750 Total Revenue $261,241 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 Balance $615,872 $585,083 $560,874 $516,795 $462,720 $432,519 $397,060 $356,206 $280,817 $194,750 $135,855 B /01/08 R. W. Beck 8-11

100 Section 9 DISTRICT RULES [ORC SECTION (C)] 9.1 Existing Rules The District has not adopted any rules; having always been an enthusiastic advocate of free market dynamics. Furthermore, the District believes that it is the role of the OEPA to act as regulator of solid waste and, as such, the rule makers. Consequently, the Policy Committee of the District considers that any rules they might desire have already been promulgated by the State and it would be redundant bureaucracy for local rules to be imposed. The District s Board of Directors have historically viewed themselves as facilitators and sponsors of a strong local program and will continue to assist the State in enforcing existing and future state-level solid waste rules. 9.2 Proposed Rules There are no rules proposed at this time. However, the Policy Committee recognizes that the planning process is an educated guess of future behavior and that the eventual reality can, and probably will, differ from our expectations. Therefore, this Plan Update authorizes the Board of Directors to make rules as they best determine (in accordance with all applicable laws and enabling legislation). The Board reserves in this Plan Update the specific authority to adopt, publish and enforce all of the rule-making powers authorized by Ohio Revised Code , Divisions (G)(1), (G)(2), (G)(3) and (G)(4) with regards to any of the following: (G)(1) Prohibiting or limiting the receipt of solid wastes generated outside of the district... at facilities covered by the plan (G)(2) Governing the maintenance, protection, and use of solid waste collection or other solid waste facilities located within its district. The rules adopted under division (G)(2) of this section shall not establish design standards and shall be consistent with the solid waste provisions of Chapter 3734 of the Revised Code and the rules adopted under those provisions. The rules adopted under division (G)(2) of this section may prohibit any person, municipal corporation, township, or other political subdivision from constructing, enlarging, or modifying any solid waste facility until general plans and specifications for the proposed improvement have been submitted to and approved by the B /01/08

101 Section 9 Board of County Commissioners... as complying with solid waste management plan or amended plan of the District. The construction of such a facility (G)(3) Governing the development and implementation of a program for the inspection of solid wastes generated outside the boundaries of this state that are disposed of at facilities included in the district s solid waste management plan or amended plan. A board of county commissioners (G)(4) Exempting the owner or operator of any existing or proposed solid waste facility provided for in the plan or amended plan from compliance with any amendment to a township zoning resolution... or a county rural zoning resolution... that rezoned or redistricted a parcel or parcels upon which the facility is to be constructed and that became effective within two years prior to the filing of an application for a permit... This Plan Update empowers the Board to make any lawful use of rulemaking authorities that exist, or come to exist during implementation. Since there are no specific plans to make rules or to amend rules during implementation, it is not possible to either include the text of any future rules or to explain the relationship of these proposed rules to the amended plan implementation R. W. Beck 05/01/08 B1685

102 Appendix A RESOLUTION OF DISTRICT FORMATION

103

104 Appendix B COPIES OF PUBLIC NOTICES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS(S) AND PUBLIC COMMENT

105 Appendix C COPIES OF RESOLUTIONS AND CERTIFICATION STATEMENTS DOCUMENTING RATIFICATION

106 Appendix D IDENTIFICATION OF CONSULTANTS RETAINED FOR PLAN PREPARATION R. W. Beck, Inc Reed Hartman Suite 310 Cincinnati, Ohio

107 Appendix E DISTRICT MAP

108

109

110 Appendix F INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SURVEY FORMS

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180 Appendix G DOCUMENTATION OF PROVISION OF SERVICES AND CAPACITY

181 Appendix H POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

182

183