2001 State Solid Waste Management PlanMRF Material Recovery Facility MSW Municipal Solid Waste NOV Notice of Violation OAC Ohio Administrative Code ... List of Acronyms iii Executive

Division of solid and Infectious Waste Management

STATE SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT PLAN 2001

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management

STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENTPLAN 2001

P.O. Box 1049Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049

Tele: (614) 644-2621Web Address: www.epa.state.oh.us

Bob Taft, GovernorMaureen O’Connor, Lt. Governor

Christopher Jones, Director of Ohio EPADan Harris, Chief of DSIWM

printed on recycled paper

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency4

Director’s CommentsNovember 15, 2001

Since the passage of House Bill 592 by Ohio’s General Assembly in 1988, Ohio’s state government, solid wastemanagement districts, communities, and citizens have worked together to improve the management of solidwaste throughout the state. As a result, Ohio’s solid waste regulations are more protective of human health andthe environment; the state is recycling, composting, and otherwise diverting more waste from landfill disposalthan ever before; and programs are in place throughout Ohio to educate our children and our citizens about theimportance of reducing, reusing, recycling, and properly disposing of the solid waste they generate.

Despite these successes, however, the generation of solid waste in Ohio has continued to increase; recyclingrates have not improved as rapidly as we had hoped; improper disposal continues to be a problem in someareas of the state; and landfilling remains the ultimate destination for most of the waste that Ohio produces. Wecan do more.

With the adoption of this revised State Solid Waste Management Plan, we are challenging ourselves and allparties involved to find a way to do more. While there continue to be many challenges associated with ourefforts to improve the management of solid waste in Ohio, Ohio’s solid waste management districts, localgovernments, and citizens have demonstrated their resourcefulness in achieving the progress that has beenmade so far. Building from these successes, learning from our mistakes, and working together, we can do more.

The goals contained in this State Plan provide challenging but realistic objectives that will continue to increaserecycling, reduce waste generation, and ultimately reduce our reliance on landfills for the disposal of waste, asenvisioned by House Bill 592 more than 10 years ago.

With our combined efforts, Ohio can continue to be a leader in solid waste management and waste reductionefforts.

Christopher Jones, DirectorOhio EPA

State Solid Waste Management Plan 2001 5

Forward

On September 24, 2001, the State Solid Waste Management Advisory Council (SWAC) considered and dulyapproved the State Solid Waste Management Plan (State Plan). On November 15, 2001, the Director of OhioEPA adopted the State Plan. Before the State Plan was approved and adopted, a comment period and publichearings were held in five cities around the State. Ohio law requires the Director of the Ohio EnvironmentalProtection Agency and SWAC to triennially review the State Plan and to prepare a revised State Plan if conditionswarrant such a revision. This State Plan constitutes the second revision to the initial State Plan that was adoptedin June of 1989. Any questions or comments concerning the State Plan should be directed to the Division ofSolid and Infectious Waste Management, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, P. O. Box 1049, Columbus,Ohio 43216-1049. The Division of Solid and Infectious Waste can also be reached by telephone at (614) 644-2621 and through the Internet by visiting the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s web site at:www.epa.state.oh.us.

i i


Acknowledgments

The development of the State Solid Waste Management Plan is the result of many hours of work by manydifferent people. On behalf of the Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management (DSIWM), I would like tothank all of the people who contributed to the effort. Special appreciation is extended to the members of theState Solid Waste Management Advisory Council (SWAC), whose names are listed in Appendix F, and to formerSWAC members Art Haddad, Jane Goodman, and Eddie Paul. I would also like to thank the individuals whoprovided valuable input during the public comment period.

In addition, there are numerous representatives from Ohio’s solid waste management districts who providedvaluable input and suggestions during the development of this document. I also appreciate the valuable contri-butions made by representatives from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). In particular, I wouldlike to thank Mike Canfield, Paul Baldridge, Tom Davis, and Donna Stusek, all of whom provided input on behalfof ODNR.

Finally, there are many employees of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s Division of Solid and Infec-tious Waste Management (DSIWM) who devoted countless hours to this effort. Very special thanks are given toErnie Stall, principal author and researcher of this document, for his many, many hours of work on this project.Appreciation is also extended to Andrew Booker, for providing leadership and direction. Thanks are also givento Kevin Shoemaker, for providing valuable research and insight, and Britt Bowe, for coordinating the SWACmeetings and general support.

Thanks are also given to Bob Large, Brian Enck, and Dana Thompson (Division of Air Pollution Control) forproviding important information and editing. Thanks are also extended to former DSIWM employees JamieZawila, Jan Voelker, Ildi Pallos, and Bill Lutz for their contributions. Our appreciation is also given to SusanWilleke, Susan Aman, and Cathryn Grote, from Ohio EPA’s Public Interest Center, as well as Yvonne Foster-Smith,for designing the final plan.

Dan HarrisChief, Division of Solid and Infectious Waste ManagementOhio EPA

ii


List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Document

1989 State Plan First State Solid Waste Management Plan that was adopted in 1989

1995 State Plan First revision of the State Solid Waste Management Plan that was adopted in 1995

ADR Annual District Report

DAS Department of Administrative Services

DHWM Division of Hazardous Waste Management, a division of Ohio EPA

DRLP Division of Recycling and Litter Prevention, a division of ODNR

DSIWM Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management, a division of Ohio EPA

DSW Division of Surface Water, a division of Ohio EPA

FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization waste material which is air pollution control waste that isproduced at coal-burning power plants.

Format Used when referring to the District Solid Waste Management Plan Format which is thedocument published by Ohio EPA for SWMDs to use when preparing solid waste management plans. The Format contains the instructions for preparing a solid waste managementplan. The most recent version of the Format published by Ohio EPA is Version 3.0.

H.B. House Bill

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

HHW Household Hazardous Waste

IAWG Interagency Workgroup on Market Development

ISW Industrial Solid Waste

JCARR Joint Commission on Agency Rule Review

MRF Material Recovery Facility

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

NOV Notice of Violation

OAC Ohio Administrative Code

ODA Ohio Department of Agriculture

ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources

ODOD Ohio Department of Development

ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation

Ohio EPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

OMEx Ohio Materials Exchange

ORC Ohio Revised Code

OPP Office of Pollution Prevention, an office of Ohio EPA

PETE Polyethylene Terephthalate

PTE Passenger Tire Equivalent

iii


List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Document - continued

PTI Permit-to-Install

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

S.B. Senate Bill

SFY State Fiscal Year

State Plan Referring to the State Solid Waste Management Plan in general

SWAC Solid Waste Management Advisory Council

SWANA Solid Waste Association of North America

SWMD Solid Waste Management District

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WRRR Waste Reduction and Recycling Rate

iv


Table of Contents

Forward i

Acknowledgements ii

List of Acronyms iii

Executive Summary ix

Chapter I Introduction 1-10

Chapter II Implementing the 1995 State Solid Waste Management Plan 11-28

Chapter III Goals for Solid Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Reuse 29-38

and Minimization

Chapter IV Restrictions on the Types of Waste Disposed in Landfills 39-48

and Burned in Incinerators

Chapter V Revised General Criteria for the Location of Solid Waste Facilities 49-62

Chapter VI Ash Management 63-68

Chapter VII A Statewide Strategy for Managing Scrap Tires 69-80

Chapter VIII A Program for Managing Household Hazardous Waste 81-94

Chapter IX Recycling Market Development 95-102

Appendix A WRRRs by SWMD for Calendar Years 1995 and 1999 103-105

Appendix B Summary of the Requirements in Senate Bill 165 106-107

Appendix C The Scrap Tire Regulatory Program 108-111

Appendix D Scrap Tire Management Program - Projects for Which 112-114Funds Have Been Disbursed and Encumbered ThroughGrants and Loans Administered by ODOD

Appendix E Market Development Initiatives 115-116

Appendix F State Solid Waste Management Advisory Council Members 117

v

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency10vi

List of Figures

Figure I-1 Municipal and Industrial Solid Wastes in theUniverse of RCRA Subtitle D Wastes 2

Figure I-2 Modern Standards for Solid Waste Disposal 4

Figure I-3 Out-of-State Waste Imports in 1999 by Place of Origin 6

Figure I-4 Generation and Management of MSW for 1990-1999 6

Figure I-5 Map of Ohio’s Solid Waste Management Districts 9

Figure II-1 Range of Access Percentages Achieved in the Reference Year 12

Figure II-2 Range of SWMD Residential/Commercial SectorWRRRs for 1995 and 1999 16

Figure II-3 Range of SWMD Industrial Sector WRRRs for 1995 and 1999 17

Figure IX-1 Prices for Selected Recyclable Materials: 96Portage County SWMD, 1995-2000

Figure IX-2 Value of Curbside Collected Recyclable Materials: 96Puget Sound Area, Washington, 1995-2000

State Solid Waste Management Plan 2001 11vii

List of Tables

Table II-1 Statewide Reduction/Recycling for Ohio-Generated 14Waste for Calendar Years 1995 Through 1999

Table II-2 SWMD Strategies Used to Meet 1995 State Plan Goals 27

Table III-1 List of Materials in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream 30Highly Amenable to Recovery from the Residential Sector

Table III-2 List of Materials in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream Highly Amenable to 31Recovery from the Commercial/Institutional Sector

Table III-3 Relationship Between Goals #1 and #2 and Solid 33Waste Management Plan Approval

Table IV-1 Waste Disposal Restrictions in U.S. EPA’s Region V 44

Table V-1 Landfill Siting Criteria Recommendations 56-57

Table V-2 Transfer Station Siting Criteria Recommendations 57

Table V-3 Incinerator Siting Criteria Recommendations 58

Tale V-4 Composting Facility Siting Criteria Recommendations 58-59

Table V-5 Scrap Tire Siting Criteria 59-60

Table VII-1 Summary of State-funded Scrap Tire Abatement Projects in Ohio 77

Table VII-2 The 20 Largest Scrap Tire Accumulations in Ohioby number of tires) as of January 2001 78

Table VII-3 Scrap Tire Cleanup/Abatement Projects Conducted by 80Local Governments/Private Entities

Table VIII-1 Temporary HHW Collection Events Held in Ohio in 1999 88-89

Table VIII-2 Statistics for Temporary HHW Collection Events 90Held from 1988 to 1999

Table VIII-3 Permanent HHW Collection Facilities 91


Executive Summary 1

In 1988, Ohio’s General Assemblypassed House Bill 592, a landmarkpiece of legislation that dramaticallychanged Ohio’s solid waste manage-ment program. This legislation setinto motion a comprehensive plan-ning process to ensure that adequateand environmentally sound solidwaste management capacity exists inOhio and to increase efforts to reduceour generation of solid wastes. Thestatutory provisions established byHouse Bill 592 require the Directorof the Ohio Environmental Protec-tion Agency (Ohio EPA) workingwith the Solid Waste ManagementAdvisory Council (SWAC) to pre-pare and adopt a state solid wastemanagement plan (State Plan).These provisions further requireOhio EPA and SWAC to evaluateOhio’s progress towards achievingthe goals in the State Plan every threeyears. If the findings of this trien-nial review indicate that modifica-tions to the goals in the State Planare necessary, then Ohio EPA andSWAC are directed to prepare andadopt a revised State Plan.

Ohio’s solid waste statute requiresthe State Plan to:

✦ Reduce reliance on the use oflandfills for management ofsolid wastes

✦ Establish objectives for solidwaste reduction, recycling,reuse, and minimization and aschedule for implementing thoseobjectives

✦ Establish restrictions on thetypes of solid wastes disposedof by landfilling for whichalternative management meth-ods are available (such as yardwastes)

✦ Establish general criteria for thelocation of solid waste facilities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

✦ Examine alternative methods fordisposal of fly ash and bottomash resulting from the burningof mixed municipal solid waste

✦ Establish a statewide strategy formanaging scrap tires

✦ Establish a strategy for legisla-tive and administrative actionsthat can be taken to promotemarkets for products containingrecycled materials

✦ Establish a program for theproper separation and disposalof hazardous waste generated byhouseholds.

The State Plan contains chaptersdevoted to each of the bullet pointslisted above.

House Bill 592 also required all 88counties in Ohio to form solid wastemanagement districts either individu-ally or in conjunction with one ormore other counties. Consequently,today there are 52 solid waste man-agement districts in Ohio. EachSWMD is required to prepare a solidwaste management plan that demon-strates compliance with the goalsestablished in the State Plan, ratifythe solid waste management plan,and submit that solid waste manage-ment plan to Ohio EPA for reviewand approval. SWMDs are requiredto revise their solid waste manage-ment plans on a regular schedule thatis established in the statute.

In addition to establishing recyclinggoals for Ohio’s SWMDs, the StatePlan also establishes recycling andwaste reduction strategies to beimplemented at the state governmentlevel. These strategies are focusedon efforts that Ohio’s state agenciescan take to further recycling andwaste reduction efforts in the state.

The 1989 State Solid Waste Manage-ment Plan, Ohio’s first State Plan,

was adopted on June 16, 1989.The first revision to the 1989 StateSolid Waste Management Plan wasadopted in October of 1995. The1995 State Solid Waste ManagementPlan contained seven goals. Thesegoals were as follows:

✦ Ensure the availability of reduc-tion, recycling, and minimiza-tion alternatives for municipalsolid waste (also known as the“Access Goal”)

✦ Reduce and/or recycle at least25 percent of the residential/commercial solid waste and50 percent of the industrialsolid waste generated by eachSWMD, and 50 percent of allsolid waste generated statewideby the year 2000

✦ Provide informational andtechnical assistance on sourcereduction

✦ Provide informational andtechnical assistance on recy-cling, reuse, and compostingopportunities

✦ Strategies for scrap tires andhousehold hazardous waste

✦ Annual reporting of plan imple-mentation

✦ Market development strategy

This update to the State Plan makesseveral adjustments and clarificationsto the goals from the 1995 StateSolid Waste Management Plan. Asa result, this, the 2001 State SolidWaste Management Plan, does notrepresent a marked departure fromthe goals established in the 1995State Plan. However, the 2001 StateSolid Waste Management Plan doesmake two notable changes to thegoals:

✦ it increases the industrial wastereduction and recycling goal

ix

from 50 percent to 66 percent;and

✦ it adds a goal that directsSWMDs to evaluate the feasibil-ity of incorporating economicincentives into their sourcereduction and recycling pro-grams.

In addition, the 2001 State SolidWaste Management Plan establisheda statewide reduction and recyclinggoal of 50 percent by 2005.

Each chapter of the 2001 State SolidWaste Management Plan is summa-rized below.

Chapter 1Introduction

In 1988, Ohio faced a combinationof solid waste management prob-lems, including declining landfillcapacity, ever-increasing generationof wastes to be disposed, environ-mental problems at many existingsolid waste disposal facilities, and aninflux of out-of-state waste. Citizen,government, and private sectorconcern over these pressing problemsforged a legislative coalition tocreate a comprehensive solid wastemanagement program for Ohio. Thislegislative coalition resulted in thepassage of H.B. 592 which, as wasexplained on page ix, dramaticallyrevised Ohio’s solid waste regulatoryprogram and set in motion a com-prehensive planning process toensure that adequate and environ-mentally sound management capac-ity exists and to increase efforts toreduce our generation of solidwastes.

Prior to H. B. 592, Ohio’s regulationsgoverning solid waste landfillfacilities had not been revised since1976. H.B. 592 required OhioEPA to draft new, more stringentregulations governing the permitting,siting, design, construction, opera-tion, monitoring, and financial assur-ance of landfill facilities. Theseregulations became effective in 1990.In addition, in 1994, new federalregulations governing municipalsolid waste (MSW) landfill facilitiestook effect. Thus, in 1994, Ohioadopted new rules that incorporated

the necessary regulatory changesto maintain consistency with thefederal rules.

This chapter also contains informa-tion regarding the generation ofsolid waste in Ohio, available capac-ity for the disposal of solid waste atlandfill facilities in Ohio, importsand exports of solid waste, methodsthat Ohio used to manage its solidwaste, the solid waste managementplanning process, and the require-ments for SWMDs.

Chapter 2Implementing the 1995 StateSolid Waste Management Plan

Since adoption of the 1995 StateSolid Waste Management Plan, twothirds of the SWMDs that haveobtained solid waste managementplans approved in accordance withthat State Plan have done so bypursuing Goal #1 (the “AccessGoal”).

SWMDs have done the following inorder to demonstrate compliancewith Goal #1 of the 1995 State Plan:

✦ at least 96 new drop-off recy-cling locations have been or willbe implemented by SWMDs

✦ six new, nonsubscription curb-side recycling services havebeen or will be implemented

✦ seven subscription curbsiderecycling programs have beenor will be upgraded to nonsubscription programs

In total, these new recycling servicesand existing service upgrades willprovide an estimated 694,000additional people with access torecycling opportunities.

By 1999, the State achieved anoverall waste reduction and recyclingrate of 38.9 percent. The wastereduction and recycling ratesachieved by the individual SWMDswere quite varied. For the residen-tial/commercial sector, the wastereduction and recycling rates rangedfrom a low of 1.9 percent to a highof 36.1 percent. For the industrialsector, the waste reduction andrecycling rates achieved by the

SWMDs ranged from a low of 0.1percent to a high of 98.6 percent.In all, eight SWMDs achieved aresidential/commercial waste reduc-tion and recycling of 25 percent orgreater and 38 SWMDs achievedan industrial waste reduction andrecycling of 50 percent or greater.

Ohio’s 52 SWMDs implemented awide variety of strategies, programs,and activities to achieve the goalsof the 1995 State Plan. These strat-egies, programs, and activities aredescribed in Chapter 2 of the 2001State Plan.

Chapter 3Goals for Solid Waste Reduction,Recycling, Reuse, and Minimization

This chapter of the 2001 StatePlan establishes eight goals thatsolid waste management districts(SWMDs) will be required to achievein their solid waste managementplans. These eight goals are asfollows:

Goal #1Access to Alternative WasteManagement Opportunities - TheSWMD shall provide access torecycling and waste minimizationopportunities for municipal solidwaste to its residents and businesses.At a minimum, the SWMD mustprovide access to recycling opportu-nities to 90 percent of its residentialpopulation.

Goal #2Waste Reduction and RecyclingRates - The SWMD shall reduce and/or recycle at least 25 percent of thesolid waste generated by the residen-tial/commercial sector and at least 66percent of the solid waste generatedby the industrial sector

Goal #3Source Reduction - Provide infor-mational and technical assistance onsource reduction

Goal #4Technical and Informational Assis-tance - Provide informational andtechnical assistance on recycling,reuse, and composting opportunities

State Solid Waste Management Plan - 2001x

Goal #5Restricted Wastes and HouseholdHazardous Wastes - Strategies formanaging scrap tires, yard waste,lead-acid batteries, and householdhazardous waste

Goal #6Economic Incentive Analysis -Evaluate the feasibility of incorpo-rating economic incentives intosource reduction and recycling pro-grams

Goal #7Market Development Strategy -This is an optional strategy

Goal #8Reporting - Annual Reporting ofPlan Implementation

This chapter also establishes astatewide recycling and reductiongoal of 50 percent by 2005 as wellas ten strategies to be implementedat the state government level.

Chapter 4Restrictions on the Types of SolidWaste Disposed in Landfills andBurned in Incinerators

Restrictions on how certain wastematerials can be managed arebelieved to be a means of preservingscarce landfill capacity and avoidpotential environmental problemsby routing certain high volume ordifficult to manage wastes to moreappropriate management options.The result is that there are currentlyrestrictions on how yard waste, scraptires, and lead-acid batteries can bemanaged in Ohio. The yard wasterestriction under which Ohiocurrently operates bans only source-separated yard waste from beingdisposed in solid waste landfillfacilities and burned in incineratorfacilities. The scrap tire restrictionbans all whole and shredded scraptires from being disposed in landfillfacilities (except for landfills specifi-cally designed to accept only scraptires). The lead-acid battery restric-tion applies only to incineratorfacilities. Current data indicates thatfew lead-acid batteries end up inlandfills and, therefore, a ban on the

disposal of lead-acid batteries is notneeded.

Based on Ohio’s past experienceswith banning materials fromdisposal, this State Plan does notcontain recommendations foradditional material restrictions.Instead, this State Plan focuses onalternative strategies for wastestreams that may be managed moreproperly by some method otherthan disposal. Such a focus placesa strong emphasis on educatingresidents regarding alternativemanagement options for specificwaste streams (such as majorappliances, electronic equipment,and used oil).

Chapter 5Revised General Criteria for theLocation of Solid Waste Facilities

Ensuring that solid waste facilitiesare sited appropriately was a majorfocus of not only House Hill 592,but also the 1989 State Plan. Thus,the 1989 State Plan contained nu-merous recommendations for legis-lative changes to incorporate sitingcriteria into the process of permit-ting solid waste facilities. With theexception of criteria for siting scraptire management facilities, thecriteria recommended in the 1989State Plan were in place by the timethe 1995 State Plan was adopted.With the establishment of the sitingcriteria for the scrap tire program in1996, Ohio now has a comprehen-sive set of siting criteria that areprotective of human health and theenvironment. As a result, this StatePlan does not contain recommenda-tions for changes to the existing orfor additional siting criteria. ThisState Plan does, however, providesupport for changes being proposedto the current siting rules.

Communities that host solid wastefacilities incur impacts that areassociated with those facilities.Ohio’s siting criteria do not directlyconsider those impacts during thepermitting process. In order torecognize the affects that solid wastefacilities have on the local and

regional levels, this chapter containsa discussion of the tools that areavailable to local communities foraddressing these affects.

Chapter 6Management of Ash Resulting fromthe Burning of Mixed MunicipalSolid Waste

At the time House Bill 592 waspassed, the combustion of solid wastewas not only a viable waste manage-ment option, but it was also expectedto provide a means of reducing thevolume of waste disposed in Ohio’slandfill facilities. As a result, HouseBill 592 established provisions in thesolid waste statute to require theState Plan to consider alternatives todisposal for managing ash producedfrom the incineration of municipalsolid waste. Since that time, all ofOhio’s large, mixed municipal solidwaste incinerator and waste-to-en-ergy facilities have ceased operating.The management of solid waste viaincineration and waste-to-energyranged from seven percent ofOhio’s total waste stream in 1990 tojust 0.2 percent in 1997. In 2001,there was only one incinerationfacility in Ohio that was licensed toburn solid waste. That facility burnsprimarily infectious waste with avery small quantity of solid waste.As a result, there is currently onlya very small quantity of ash fromincinerator facilities that needs to bemanaged.

Given the absence of large, publicly-owned municipal solid waste incin-erators in Ohio, the management ofmunicipal solid waste combustionash is not a pressing issue for Ohioat this time. Furthermore, OhioEPA does not expect incineration tobecome a significant solid wastemanagement option in the futuredue to the expense of upgradingexisting incinerator facilities tomeet current air emission standards.Consequently, this State Plan doesnot contain additional recommenda-tions for developing alternativemethods of disposing of municipalsolid waste incineration ash.

xiExecutive Summery

State Solid Waste Management Plan - 20014

Chapter 7A Statewide Strategyfor Managing Scrap Tires

Scrap tires pose a substantialmanagement challenge due bothto the large number of scrap tiresgenerated each year and the proper-ties built into a tire to ensure its safetyand durability. Until 1996, mostscrap tires were landfilled, stock-piled, or illegally dumped. The over-all objective in the managementstrategy for scrap tires is to reducethe number of tires in uncontrolledstockpiles and illegal dumps.

Ohio’s scrap tire program is fundedvia a per-tire fee that is collectedon the wholesale sale of new tires.Until 2001, that fee was set at $0.50per tire. In 2001, the fee wasincreased, by Ohio’s General Assem-bly, to $1.00 per tire.

Ohio’s current regulations governingscrap tire management and disposalwere adopted in 1996. With theadoption of these rules, virtuallyanyone involved in managing scraptires became subject to Ohio’s scraptire regulatory program. As wasmentioned earlier, it is illegal todispose of scrap tires in solid wastelandfill facilities. Such a disposalrestriction makes it paramount thatalternative management options bedeveloped to prevent additional ille-gal disposal from occurring. Thus,Ohio’s solid waste statute containsprovisions that earmark some of therevenue collected by the per-tire feeto research and development andgrant programs. Those programs areintended to stimulate markets forrecycled scrap tires.

A good portion of the revenuegenerated by the per-tire fee isdesignated for abatement activitiesassociated with the illegal dumpingof scrap tires. To date, Ohio has com-pletely cleaned up five illegal scraptire dumps consisting of 7,720,373passenger tire equivalents. In addi-tion, Ohio has made significantprogress towards remediating thestate’s biggest scrap tire dump -Kirby Tire Recycling, Inc. which wasoriginally estimated to contain 16 to

20 million scrap tires. Ohio’sSWMDs have also provided re-sources to clean up numerous scraptire dumps.

Chapter 8A Program for ManagingHousehold Hazardous Waste

Household hazardous waste meansany material discarded from thehome that may, because of its chemi-cal nature, pose a threat to humanhealth or the environment whenhandled improperly. Althoughhousehold hazardous waste canhave many of the same properties asindustrial hazardous waste, becauseof the low percentage of waste streamgenerated from each household, it isspecifically excluded from regulationas a hazardous waste by both thefederal and Ohio’s hazardous wasteprograms.

SWMDs are required, in their solidwaste management plans, to providea strategy geared towards householdhazardous waste. The specific strat-egy chosen is completely left to thediscretion of the SWMD. Thus, aswould be expected, there is a widerange of strategies being imple-mented by Ohio’s SWMDs. SomeSWMDs focus their attention onpreparing and distributing literatureregarding alternatives to hazardousmaterials and proper ways of man-aging household hazardous waste.Other SWMDs provide technicalassistance to home owners viatelephone hotlines. Still otherSWMDs host collection events towhich residents can take householdhazardous waste to be managedproperly. In 1999, 37 SWMDseither hosted or participated in sometype of a collection event. Of these,29 were temporary collection eventsand four were permanent collectionopportunities.

One issue related to householdhazardous waste that is receivinggreater attention is the managementof electronic equipment, such ascomputer components, televisions,and VCRs. Many electronic com-ponents do contain hazardous mate-rials. As technological innovation

continues to make more and moreelectronic equipment obsolete,finding ways to manage that equip-ment becomes a necessity, not onlydue to the hazardous nature of theequipment but also due to the sheervolume. As a result, this State Plandirects SWMDs to provide a strat-egy to address managing electronicequipment. As with the general goalfor household hazardous waste, thespecific strategy selected by theSWMD will be left to the discretionof that SWMD.

Chapter 9Recycling Market Development

The need to enhance markets forrecyclable materials and for pro-ducts made with recycled-contentmaterials has long been acknowl-edged as a critical component inthe continued success of recyclingprograms in Ohio. While the pricesthat are being offered for recyclablematerials certainly help to drive theamount of recycling that occurs, thevalue of potentially recyclablematerials is dependent upon thedemand for end products that aremade from those materials. Thus,considerable effort has been put forthby a wide variety of entities topublicize the “Buy Recycled”message. This effort is focused oneducating consumers, businesses,and governmental agencies to notonly recycle their waste, but also topurchase products made fromrecycled materials.

This chapter of the State Plancontains proposals to facilitatethe creation of markets for recycla-ble materials by supporting thecontinued development and im-plementation of the Ohio Market De-velopment Plan. The Ohio MarketDevelopment Plan is created by theInteragency Recycling Market De-velopment Workgroup. The plan co-ordinates state assistance for recycledmaterials and identifies broad strat-egies to promote recycling marketsstatewide. This chapter also containsfive other recommendations for sup-porting the development of marketsfor recyclable materials.

xii

Introduction 1

Current Status

Since the adoption of House Bill 592(H.B. 592) in 1988, the state of Ohiohas made a great deal of progress inthe arena of solid waste management.Over the past thirteen years, Ohiohas: adopted and implemented com-prehensive regulations governing themanagement of solid waste; devel-oped a network of solid waste man-agement districts (SWMDs) thathave incorporated the provision ofsound environmental solid wastedisposal, reduction, and recyclingoptions to residents and businessesinto the functioning of county andlocal governments; increasedpublically available, remaining land-fill capacity by over 300 percent; suc-cessfully integrated practices to di-vert recyclable solid wastes and otherdifficult to manage wastes from land-fill facilities, and; caused recyclingin the state to increase from 25.6 per-cent of total generation in 1990 to38.9 percent in 1999. This, Ohio’sthird state solid waste managementplan (State Plan), describes theprogress that Ohio has made towardsachieving its solid waste manage-ment goals and the mechanisms thathave been used to achieve thatprogress. Additionally, this State Planprovides information on the chal-lenges that Ohio still faces as wellas recommendations for continuedimprovement.

Historical Perspective

In 1988, Ohio faced a combinationof solid waste management prob-lems, including declining landfill ca-pacity, ever-increasing generation ofwastes to be disposed, environmen-tal problems at many existing solidwaste disposal facilities, and an in-flux of out-of-state waste. Citizen,government, and private sector con-

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

cern over these pressing problemsforged a legislative coalition to cre-ate a comprehensive solid wastemanagement program for Ohio. Theresulting legislation, H.B. 592, dra-matically revised Ohio’s solid wasteregulatory program and set in mo-tion a comprehensive planning pro-cess to ensure that adequate and en-vironmentally sound managementcapacity exists and to increase effortsto reduce our generation of solidwastes.

H.B. 592 required the Director of theOhio Environmental ProtectionAgency (Ohio EPA), with the adviceof the Solid Waste Management Ad-visory Council (SWAC), to preparea State Plan to meet specific man-dates established in the statute. A keymandate of the State Plan is to re-duce Ohio’s reliance on the use oflandfills for the management of solidwastes. The first State Plan, the 1989State Solid Waste Management Plan(1989 State Plan), was adopted June16, 1989 and established solidwaste reduction and recycling objec-tives for Ohio and for newly createdsolid waste management districts(SWMDs). These SWMDs, also theresult of H.B. 592, were comprisedof county governments acting indi-vidually or in partnership to addresslocal and regional solid waste man-agement needs.

The objectives set in the 1989 StatePlan included reducing or recycling25 percent of the generation of solidwastes by the year 1994, an annualper capita increase in the amount ofwaste recycled, and an annual percapita decrease in the amount ofwaste disposed.

The solid waste planning provisionsof the Ohio Revised Code (ORC), asestablished by H.B. 592, requireOhio EPA and SWAC to conduct athorough review of the progress

1CHAPTER

made towards achieving the goals es-tablished in the State Plan every threeyears. This review is designed toexamine all of the goals and strate-gies established in the State Plan inthe context of current solid wastemanagement practices in Ohio. Ifthe findings of the triennial reviewindicate that the State Plan goals andstrategies have not been effective orresponsive to the solid waste man-agement needs of Ohio, or otherwiseneed adjustment, then Ohio EPA andSWAC are required to prepare andadopt a revised State Plan.

In late 1994, SWAC determined thatthe 1989 State Plan should be re-vised. Therefore, new goals andstrategies were developed for the firstrevision of the State Plan. The re-sult was the 1995 State Solid WasteManagement Plan (1995 State Plan)which was adopted in October 1995.Like the 1989 State Plan, the 1995State Plan contained a goal that wasfocused on obtaining a recyclingpercentage. Thus, the 1995 StatePlan established a goal for Ohio toreduce or recycle at least 50 percentof the solid wastes generated withinthe State by 2000. The 50 percentgoal translated into two objectives forSWMDs: reduce or recycle 25 per-cent of the residential/ commercialwaste generated within the SWMDand 50 percent of the industrial wastegenerated within the SWMD by theyear 2000.

With the adoption of the 1995 StatePlan, SWMDs, for the first time, hadthe option of meeting one of twogoals with respect to reducing or re-cycling the waste generated in theirjurisdictions. Instead of requiringSWMDs to demonstrate that theycould meet the percentage goals es-tablished in the 1995 State Plan,SWMDs now had the option of pro-viding a certain level of recycling op-

portunities to their residents andcommercial businesses. In total, the1995 State Plan had seven goals. Inaddition to the two goals already dis-cussed, there were also goals to:

✦ provide technical assistance andinformation on source reduction;

✦ provide technical assistance andinformation on recycling, reuse,an composting opportunities;

✦ provide strategies for managingscrap tries and household hazard-ous waste;

✦ submit annual reports of planimplementation to Ohio EPA:and;

✦ provide market developmentstrategies.

The market development goal was anoptional goal, meaning that SWMDswere not required to pursue this goalin their individual solid waste man-agement plans.

In 1998, Ohio EPA and SWAC con-ducted a review of the 1995 StatePlan and determined that a revisionwas not necessary at that time as in-sufficient time had passed to ad-equately evaluate the progress madein implementing the 1995 State Plan.

In mid 2000, Ohio EPA began theprocess of revising the 1995 StatePlan, thus creating the second revi-sion of the original State Plan. Thedecision was made based on com-ments that representatives of severalSWMDs have brought to Ohio EPA’sattention as well as changes that haveoccurred in the solid waste industrysince adoption of the 1995 StatePlan. Unlike the 1995 State Plan,this second revision does not repre-sent a major departure from the re-cycling goals established in the pre-vious version. Instead, this StatePlan makes several adjustments andclarifications to the existing goals.These modifications are intended toprovide more flexibility to theSWMDs and further refine the goalswhile maintaining the intent of H.B.592.

The issues that warranted the revi-sion of the 1995 State Plan are dis-cussed in Chapter II. Specific ob-

jectives for the State as a whole andfor local SWMDs are described ingreater detail in Chapter III. The re-mainder of this chapter provides ad-ditional background information andgives an overview of the changes thathave occurred since 1995 in the man-agement of solid waste and in theregulatory program for solid wastemanagement facilities.

Regulatory Definitionof Solid Waste

The federal definition of solid wasteencompasses more waste streamsthan Ohio’s definition. At the fed-eral level, solid and other types ofnonhazardous waste are regulatedunder Subtitle D of the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). As a result, these wastesare often referred to as Subtitle Dwastes. Examples of Subtitle Dwastes are identified in Figure I-1.Construction and demolition wastes,liquid oil and gas wastes, and min-ing wastes are not defined as solidwastes in Ohio. Municipal sludge israrely managed as solid waste inOhio. Thus, although these otherwastes may occasionally be disposedof in landfills, the state and localplanning processes in Ohio focus onmanaging municipal (MSW) and in-dustrial solid waste(ISW).

MSW is comprisedlargely of the prod-ucts, packaging,food, and yard trim-mings discarded byresidential, com-mercial, institu-tional, and indus-trial generators.ISW is comprisedof the non-liquidand nonhazardouswastes generatedas a result of an in-dustrial or manu-facturing process.To.p r o v i d e. f o rthe disposal oft h e s e1d i f f e r e n tw a s t e.s t r e a m s ,there are two gen-

eral types of solid waste landfills inOhio. MSW landfill facilities can re-ceive both MSW and ISW, whileISW landfills can only receive ISW.

Upgrading RegulatoryRequirements for Landfills

Like many states at that time, Ohio,in 1968, moved to restrict open burn-ing and open dumping, therebybringing local landfills under the ju-risdictions of health departments andthe State. Because many dumps wereimproperly closed and existing land-fills lacked proper environmentalhealth and safety controls, revisedregulations were enacted in 1976.

In 1980, Ohio EPA began document-ing public health, safety and environ-mental problems resulting fromlandfilling practices. Some of theproblems documented included:

✦ Ground water contamination dueto lack of proper clay soils or syn-thetic liners at operating or im-properly closed landfills;

✦ Explosions due to migration ofmethane gas;

✦ Poor operating history by somelandfill operators and lack of con-sistent regulation and enforce-ment statewide;

2 State Solid Waste Management Plan 2001 - Chapter 1

FIGURE I-1 Municipal and IndustrialSolid Wastes in the Universe of RCRASubtitle D Wastes

Municipal Solid Wastes*

Industrial Nonhazardous Solid Wastes*

Municipal Sludge

Construction and Demolition Wastes

Agricultural Waste

Oil and Gas Waste

Mining Waste

* Waste streams that are the primaryfocus of the State and local planning process.

Source: US EPA. “Characterization ofMunicipal Solid Waste

✦ Lack of planning for new solidwaste facilities to offset decreas-ing disposal capacity; and

✦ Increasing public opposition tositing additional disposal facili-ties (both new facilities and ex-pansions at existing facilities).

This information provided part of theimpetus for passage of H.B. 592,which in turn required Ohio EPA todraft new, more stringent regulationsfor landfills. These regulations be-came effective in 1990. In addition,the current regulatory program forsolid waste also includes transfer sta-tions, incinerators, and compostingfacilities.

H.B. 592 and the more stringentregulations required owners and op-erators of landfills to upgrade theirfacilities to meet the new regulations.In addition, in 1994, new federalregulations governing MSW landfillstook effect. These new regulationswere created under Subtitle D ofRCRA. Thus, in 1994, Ohio adoptednew rules that incorporated the nec-essary regulatory changes to main-tain consistency with the federalrules. Some of the basic design re-quirements for new landfills are il-lustrated in Figure I-2. In additionto the design requirements, Ohio hasenacted restrictions on the locationof facilities to protect groundwatersources, human health, and the en-vironment. The criteria for the lo-cation of solid waste facilities are dis-cussed in Chapter V.

Generation of Solid Waste in Ohio

Based on the amount of waste re-ported as recycled and disposed inOhio and exported to other states,Ohio EPA estimates that a little morethan 33.1 million tons of solid wastewere generated in Ohio in 1999.This amount of waste translated to16.19 pounds per person per day(ppppd) for every person in the stateof Ohio. MSW generation in 1999was slightly greater than 13 milliontons, or 39 percent of total solidwaste generation. The per capitageneration of MSW in Ohio wasapproximately 6.34 ppppd in 1999.ISW generation was a little greaterthan 20.1 million tons (61 percent oftotal solid waste generation). TheISW per capita generation rate forOhio in 1999 was approximately 9.85ppppd.

In 1995, when the last State Plan wasadopted, Ohioans generated a totalof a little more than 26.6 million tonsof solid waste, which amounted toapproximately 13.23 ppppd. Of this,approximately 43 percent (more than12.4 million tons) was composed ofMSW and 57 percent (slightly morethan 15.2 million tons) was com-posed of IWS. Thus, Ohioans pro-duced approximately 5.68 ppppd ofMSW and 7.56 ppppd of ISW in1995.

From 1995 to 1999, Ohio saw in-creases in the amount of solid wastegenerated, not only from the residen-tial/commercial sector, but also from

the industrial sector. The increasein the generation rate in the residen-tial/commercial sector was partiallydue to the inclusion of yard wastediverted from landfill facilities in thecalculation of the generation rate.Prior to 1995, yard waste that wasdiverted from landfill facilities (e.g.composted, land applied, etc.) wasnot included in the waste generationfigure. The increase in the tons ofISW generated is largely attributableto the production of air pollution con-trol waste in the form of flue gas des-ulfurization (FGD) waste at thecoal-burning power plants aroundOhio. This waste is the result of im-proved air pollution control measuresat these facilities. As is explained inthe following two paragraphs, a por-tion of the increase is also due to achange in the way that industrial re-cycling is factored into the genera-tion calculation.

The amount and types of waste gen-erated among counties or SWMDsvaries significantly. This variabilityis the result of many factors includ-ing population density, the numberof businesses and institutions, andthe types of commercial and indus-trial facilities present. The greatestvariability is with respect to ISW.The tonnage of waste generated bythe industrial sector is highlydependent on the size and natureof the industrial and manufacturingentities located in an area. An ex-ample is the presence or absence ofa coal-burning power plant in a

3Introduction

FIGURE I-2 Modern Standards for solid Waste Disposal

State Solid Waste Management Plan 2001 - Chapter 14

SWMD. In the early 1990s, the com-panies operating these facilities wererequired to install pollution controldevices to eliminate particulates andgases from being emitted to the at-mosphere. The result was the pro-duction of a new waste material,FGD waste. Unlike the other wastematerials generated by coal-burningpower plants (i.e. bottom and flyashes), FGD is solid waste, and morespecifically industrial waste. Bottomand fly ashes that are determined tobe “non-toxic,” as that term is de-fined in policy, are excluded from be-ing solid waste by virtue of the regu-latory definition of solid waste.FGD, however, does not enjoy thisexclusion. As a result, the tonnageof FGD produced annually is in-cluded in the total amount of solidwaste generated both statewide andby individual SWMDs.

For the SWMDs hosting coal-burning power plants, the productionand disposal of FGD had a signifi-cant, negative effect on their abilityto demonstrate compliance with thewaste reduction and recycling goalfor the industrial sector. In theGallia, Jackson, Meigs, Vinton JointCounty SWMD, the Gavin ResidualWaste Landfill facility began opera-tions in 1995. In that first year, morethan 2 million tons of FGD were dis-posed in the company’s captive land-fill facility. [NOTE: a captive land-fill facility is owned by the genera-tor which is typically an industrial/manufacturing entity. Only thosewastes generated by the owner aredisposed at a captive landfill facil-ity.] This increased the amount ofindustrial waste disposed by theSWMD by over one thousand per-cent in a single year. This causedthe SWMD’s waste reduction andrecycling rate (WRRR) for the indus-trial sector to plummet from nearlyhalf (47.44 percent) in 1994 to vir-tually nothing (0.96 percent) in 1995.

Variation in the types and amount ofsolid waste from different generatorsrequires flexibility on the part ofSWMDs. MSW is typically less vari-able than ISW from one area to the

next with respect to its composition.The quantity of MSW generatedtypically varies depending on thepopulation of an area. Solid wastegeneration may also vary in quantityand composition from one year to thenext in response to an expanding orcontracting economy. It may alsochange gradually in response to de-mographic changes in an area orchanges in the types of products orpackaging used. Because of the va-riety of factors that can affect theamount and type of solid wastes thatare generated, plans for the manage-ment of solid waste must be dynamicand flexible in order to accommo-date the variability between localSWMDs and the changes that maytake place over time.

From 1995, the generation of solidwaste continued to grow in Ohio inabsolute terms (five percent per year)and on a per capita basis (two per-cent per year). If factors like popu-lation increase and the recent unprec-edented economic growth continue,the trend towards increased solidwaste generation will be expected tocontinue.

Solid Waste Disposal Capacity

Beginning in 1982, Ohio EPA re-quested that landfill owners andoperators complete an annual sum-mary of operations. These annualreports, which today are a regulatoryrequirement, are used to track land-fill use and remaining disposalcapacity statewide. From the infor-mation provided in the annualreports, the Agency determined thatgross landfill capacity was decreas-ing dramatically as was overall re-maining landfill life. By 1990,Ohio had approximately 76 publiclyavailable landfills, less than half asmany as in 1971. The remaining ca-pacity at these facilities was esti-mated to be approximately 176million cubic yards of gross airspace(volume available for waste disposal)or enough disposal capacity to lastfor about six and one half years byOhio EPA estimation methods.

By 1994, at the time the 1995 StatePlan was being written, the capacitysituation statewide had changeddramatically. Although the numberof publicly available landfills haddeclined to approximately 57, theremaining capacity as measured ingross airspace had increased toapproximately 240 million cubicyards. This brought the estimate forremaining years of available disposalcapacity to slightly more than 11years. This trend of a declining num-ber of landfill facilities providinggreater disposal capacity and a move-ment away from smaller, local facili-ties to larger, regional facilities is onethat would continue throughout therest of the 1990s.

The 1995 State Plan predicted thatfactors affecting local availabilityand assurance of disposal capacitycould shift local government’s focusfrom a strategy centered on provid-ing sufficient disposal capacity forlocally - generated wastes to one cen-tered on transporting wastes to moredistant yet available landfill facili-ties. This prediction was based onthe increasing costs incurred insiting, designing, and constructinglandfill facilities as a result of tech-nological upgrades to siting anddesign requirements in Ohio’s solidwaste law and regulations. Thesecosts and stricter requirements havecaused Ohio to experience a declinein the number of landfill facilitieswhile at the same time an increasein overall disposal volume.

In 1995, there were 53 publicly avail-able landfill facilities that acceptedsolid waste during the year. By 1999,11 of the 53 landfill facilities hadceased accepting waste. Of those 11facilities, four were publicly owned(i.e. owned by a governmentalentity) and seven were owned byprivate, commercial operations.Three new landfill facilities beganaccepting waste between 1995 and1999. Thus, in 1999, the number ofpublicly available landfill facilitiesthat accepted waste during the year

Introduction 5

had decreased to 45.1 One of the 45landfill facilities operating in 1999ceased accepting waste during theyear, leaving 44 operating facilitiesat the end of 1999. Of those 44facilities, 14 were publicly-owned.By the end of 1999, 20 SWMDs (rep-resenting 42 counties) were withoutpublicly available landfill facilitiesin their jurisdictions.

In terms of disposal capacity, as ofDecember 31, 1999, there were453,879,748 cubic yards of permit-ted, available disposal capacity atOhio’s 44 publicly available MSWlandfills. The operators of thesefacilities reported having used20,832,426 cubic yards of airspaceto dispose of the 11,058,942 tons ofsolid waste accepted during 1999(1.9 cubic yards used for each tondisposed). Assuming that Ohio con-tinues to dispose of solid waste at1999 rates and the ratio of cubicyards to tons disposed remains thesame in the future, there were 21.79years of available, permitted disposalcapacity at the end of 1999. Of thepermitted disposal capacity, therewere 56,062,218 cubic yards of con-structed airspace at Ohio’s publiclyavailable landfill facilities at the endof 1999. At 1999 waste disposalrates, Ohio had 2.7 years of con-structed airspace at the end of 1999.

Compared to available capacity in1995, Ohio had 166 percent moreavailable landfill capacity in 1999at publicly available facilities thanin 1995. At the end of 1995, therewere 273,244,066 cubic yards of air-space available at Ohio’s publiclyavailable landfill facilities for theplacement of solid waste. The op-erators of these landfill facilities re-ported having used 20,672,214 cu-bic yards of airspace to dispose ofthe 12,925,730 tons of solid wasteaccepted during 1995 (1.6 cubicyards used for each ton disposed). At1995 solid waste disposal rates, there

were 13.2 years of available, permit-ted landfill capacity at the end of1995. [Note: Ohio EPA did not trackconstructed capacity in 1995, so dataregarding the number of years ofconstructed capacity is not availablefor 1995.]

Imports and Exports of Solid Waste

One factor affecting available capac-ity for the disposal of Ohio-generatedwaste is the amount of out-of-statewaste Ohio receives. Waste gener-ated from out-of-state sources andtransported into Ohio threatens toreduce remaining disposal capacityand has continually frustrated stateand local efforts to manage solidwaste responsibly. Out-of-statewaste disposed in Ohio landfills in-creased from 33,000 tons in 1986to a high of 3.7 million tons in1989.2 For seven years, beginningin 1990 and ending in 1996, Ohioexperienced steady declines inreceipts of out-of-state waste.This trend was reversed in 1997when out-of-state waste receipts in-creased over 1996 levels. In everyyear since, Ohio has experiencedsmall increases in the amount ofout-of-state waste accepted fordisposal at landfill facilities locatedin the State.

The volume of interstate wasteimported into the State places anadditional burden on Ohio’s abilityto meet its own disposal needsand makes it more challengingfor SWMDs to meet the planningrequirements of H.B. 592. Further-more, imports of waste from otherstates remain a serious problemfor implementation of solid wastemanagement plans in Ohio for anumber of reasons, including:

✦ Citizens oppose landfills that areperceived as servicing primarilyout-of-state waste. This opposi-tion is hampering the siting of

facilities that are needed to pro-vide disposal capacity for Ohio’sown waste.

✦ Citizens are reluctant to reduceor recycle waste when theybelieve their efforts will onlyserve to provide additional spacefor trash from another state.

Ohio has traditionally received smallamounts of solid waste from contigu-ous counties of its neighboring states(western Pennsylvania, West Vir-ginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and Michi-gan) and has shipped some waste toneighboring landfills in border coun-ties of those states as well. Theselocal transfers have historically com-prised approximately one-half ofout-of-state imports and are gener-ally not controversial. However,most of the remaining out-of-statewaste disposed in Ohio is from NewYork, New Jersey, and eastern Penn-sylvania. In addition, a number ofother states and Canada sent wasteto Ohio. Figure I-3 graphically pre-sents the tonnage of waste importedfrom sending states.

In 1995, the amount of out-of-statewaste received at landfill facilitiesin Ohio totaled approximately 1.3million tons, and approximately 55percent originated from states con-tiguous to Ohio (Indiana, Kentucky,Michigan, Pennsylvania, and WestVirginia). In 1999, this tonnageincreased to approximately 1.5 mil-lion tons of which approximately49 percent originated from statescontiguous to Ohio. In 1995, Penn-sylvania was the lead exporter ofwaste to Ohio. By 1997, New Yorkhad become the lead exporter ofsolid waste to Ohio landfill facilities.In March 2001, the Freshkills Land-fill Facility, New York City’s onlylandfill facility and the largestlandfill facility in the Country,ceased accepting waste. As a result,it is possible that Ohio will see some

1In addition to the 45 publicly-available solid waste landfill facilities that accepted waste in 1999, one other publicly availablelandfill facility accepted solid waste in 1999. The Envirosafe Hazardous Waste and Industrial Waste Landfill is not licensed orpermitted as a solid waste landfill facility; but it is permitted as a hazardous waste landfill facility, and ISW is disposed at thefacility. The faciltiy is publicly-available.

2Ohio EPA is unable to determine how much of the increase in out-of-state waste receipts is due to an actual increase in tonnageimported into Ohio and how much is attributable to improved reporting on the part of disposal facility owners and operators.


increase in the amount of waste thatit receives from New York. It is alsopossible that solid waste generatedin other states that has historicallybeen disposed in facilities outside ofOhio will be displaced by waste com-ing from New York and be disposedin Ohio, further increasing the ton-nage of out-of-state waste.

In 1999, Ohio exported approxi-mately 1,039,876 tons of solid wasteto the states with whom the Stateshares borders. The state receivingthe greatest volume of Ohio- gener-ated solid waste was Michigan with400,047 tons. In 1995, Ohio ex-ported approximately 707,734 tonsto bordering states.

Notable Changes SinceAdoption of the 1995State Plan

Management ofSolid Waste

Two notable changes insolid waste managementpractices have occurredsince the adoption of the1995 State Plan. First,the two remaining, large,publicly-owned, solidwaste incinerators ceasedoperation in 1997. Theclosure of those facilitiesleft Ohio without any op-erating incinerators ac-cepting mixed MSW3.The second change,

which was mentioned earlier in thischapter, is increased ISW productionat coal combustion power plants asa result of stricter emission controlrequirements.

The amounts of MSW managed byrecycling, incineration, transfer, andlandfilling for 1990 through 1999 areshown in Figure I-44 .

Figure I- 4 G enerat ion and M anagem ent of M SW for 1990- 1999

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Year

To

ns

of

MS

W

M SW Disposed

M SW Inci neration

M SW Reduct ion &Recycl ing

M SW Transf er

Total M SW Generation

3Mixed MSW is MSW that is not segregated into specific components, such as yard waste, combustibles, etc.

Figure I- 3

Out-of-State W aste Import s in 1999 by Place of Origin

380,785

1 49,81 01 31 ,234

87,669 82,274 75,688 71 ,78856,1 1 9

3,922 2,845 1 ,284 6,1 81

476,046

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

New Y

ork

Penns

ylvan

ia

New Jer

sey

Indi

ana

Mich

igan

Wes

t Virg

in

Mas

sach

uset

ts

Kentu

cky

Conne

cticu

t

Mar

yland

Virginia

Virgin Is

l

a

All Oth

er

Tons

Sta

te

Introduction 7

The Development of Ohio’sRegulatory Review Process

By 1995, Ohio had a very compre-hensive set of regulations governingall aspects of solid waste manage-ment. With the exception of thescrap tire rules, there haven’t beenmajor changes to Ohio’s solid wasteregulations since 1994, when Ohioadopted revised regulations that com-plied with Subtitle D of RCRA. In1996, Ohio’s General Assemblypassed House Bill 473 (H.B. 473),which required all agencies of thestate of Ohio to institute processesto review their regulations onceevery five years. Codified as ORCSection 119.032, H.B. 473 directedstate agencies to determine whichrules need to be amended, rescinded,or continued without change. In ad-dition, ORC Section 119.032, as cre-ated by H.B. 473, specifies that thefollowing criteria are to be consid-ered during the review of each rule:

✦ Does the rule meet the purpose,scope and intent of the law thatauthorized the rule?

✦ Can changes be made to the ruleto allow more flexibility at thelocal level?

✦ Can changes be made to the rulethat would eliminate unnecessarypaperwork?

✦ Does the rule duplicate, overlap,or conflict with other rules?

During the rule review process, OhioEPA must consider the continuedneed for the rule, any complaints orcomments received regarding therule, and any relevant factors thathave changed in the subject matteraffected by the rule. The Ohio Gen-eral Assembly’s Joint Committee onAgency Rule Review (JCARR) over-sees the rule review process to as-sure that the procedures stipulated inORC Section 119.032 are followed.

Ohio EPA conducted a review ofRule 3745-27-90 (Standards forSolid Waste Management Districts)of the Ohio Administrative Code

(OAC) in 2000. OAC Rule 3745-27-90 is the rule that codifies and ex-pands upon the requirements of theState Plan. The revised rule becameeffective on May 10, 2001 and in-corporated requirements to codify apolicy and made minor changes tothe existing language to correctgrammatical errors and incorporatenew standards imposed by the Leg-islative Services Commission.

In addition, Ohio EPA is in the pro-cess of reviewing the rules govern-ing the siting of solid waste facili-ties, the management of scrap tires,the rules governing the design andoperation of solid waste landfills, andthe rules governing compostingoperations.

Existing Infrastructure forAlternative Management of SolidWastes

Throughout the State, new activitiesand facilities to reduce, recycle andcompost solid wastes have been ini-tiated since the adoption of the 1995State Plan. As expected, a shift inthe focus of SWMDs from gather-ing recycling data to providing re-cycling opportunities has occurredas many SWMDs have opted to pro-vide access to recycling opportuni-ties instead of achieve a numeric re-cycling and reduction goal. As a re-sult, there are many more opportu-nities to participate in recycling pro-grams being offered to residentsaround the State. This is exempli-fied by a significant increase in thenumber of drop-off recycling loca-tions being offered by SWMDs. Ex-actly what effect this will have onOhio’s waste reduction and recyclingrate cannot be determined yet asmany of the drop-off locations havenot been in existence long enoughto appreciably affect the tonnage ofrecyclables being collected. [SeeChapter II for more detailed descrip-tions of the activities implementedby the State and SWMDs.]

Activities to manage specific wasteshave also increased. For example,Ohio now has more than 521 regis-tered sites for the composting of yardwastes and other organic wastes.New regulations governing the man-agement of scrap tires have resultedin registered and permitted facilitiesto manage scrap tires. [See ChapterVII.] In addition, the number ofSWMDs providing collection oppor-tunities for household hazardouswastes is at an all-time high. [SeeChapter VIII.]

We have learned a great deal in sixyears, and the learning process willcontinue as the planning processshifts fully into the implementationstage and as we strive to continue toreduce, reuse, recycle and minimizeour wastes. Ohioans can be veryproud of the comprehensive pro-grams in the State, and of the effortsunderway that will benefit ourselvesand future generations.

Fees and Flow Control

When H.B. 592 was passed in 1988,it was expected that a small numberof large solid waste managementdistricts would carry out the plan-ning efforts required by the law.Initially, however, 48 SWMDs wereformed, 32 single-county and 16multi-county solid waste districts.As planning proceeded, severalSWMDs districts underwent recon-figurations, so that there are now 52SWMDs statewide.

It was also expected that eachSWMD would include at least onesolid waste landfill, and disposal feesfrom that facility would cover thecosts of the planning effort. How-ever, as landfill regulations were up-graded and older facilities reachedcapacity and closed, a number ofSWMDs were left with no activedisposal facilities from which toreceive disposal fee revenues (20SWMDs at the end of 1999). Thewaste disposal industry expressed

4Ohio EPA does not have data for the tonnage of MSW reduction and recycling for 1991. Thus, the tonnage provided for 1991in Figure 1-4 was interpolated using the tonnages for 1990 and 1992.


concern that differences amongSWMD fees were affecting theability of facilities to compete fairlywith one another. Municipal andindustrial generators have been con-cerned with the overall cost of solidwaste disposal. In response to theseand other concerns, the disposal feestructure set out in H.B. 592 has nowbeen legislatively revised a numberof times, most recently in 1993 whendisposal fees were capped within aspecific range, and a generation feemechanism was established to fundSWMDs with no active disposalfacility.

H.B. 592 also included mandatorycontrol over the flow of solid waste:each SWMD was required to desig-nate a list of disposal and recyclingfacilities in its plan, and no one wasallowed to deliver district waste to afacility that was not designated. H.B.592 also gave SWMDs the authorityto pass rules restricting the receiptof solid waste from outside of thedistrict. Flow control has been thesubject of controversy in many partsof the country as well as Ohio.Facility designations may directwaste to one facility while disposaland transportation costs, the localfee structure, and liability concernsmay cause the generator to want tosend waste to a different facility.Generators and transporters of solidwaste have expressed concernsabout limitations on their disposalchoices. As a result, Ohio’s statutewas revised in 1993 to make flowcontrol permissive for solid wastedistricts rather than mandatory andto incorporate more provisions forpublic notice and involvement beforeflow control is initiated.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision in1994 overturned a local flow controlordinance in New York on constitu-tional grounds, bringing into ques-tion the legality of flow control

laws in general and other laws thatcould restrict the importation ofout-of-state waste. As a result, Ohio,along with other states, has advo-cated for many years for the U.S.Congress to address both the flowcontrol and interstate waste issues.

More recent court decisions havesuggested that certain types of lim-ited flow control may be able to passthe constitutional question. How-ever, it is clear that due to the legalissues involved, the broad, unre-stricted ability of SWMDs to bothcontrol where solid waste is disposedand restrict the receipt of solid wastefrom outside the district, as originallycontemplated in H.B. 592, has beensignificantly diminished, if not elimi-nated, at least until the issue isaddressed by Federal legislation.

Summary of the Requirements ofthe Solid Waste ManagementPlanning Process

The purpose of the State Plan andlocal SWMD Plans is to ensure thatadequate management capacity atenvironmentally sound facilities isavailable and that effective and prac-tical solutions to reduce our genera-tion and disposal of solid wastes areimplemented. The State Plan is tobe prepared by the Ohio EPA, withthe advice of SWAC.

As stipulated by ORC Section3734.50, the State Plan must addresseight specific mandates:

✦ Reduce reliance on the use oflandfills for management of solidwastes;

✦ Establish objectives for solidwaste reduction, recycling, reuse,and minimization;

✦ Establish restrictions on the typesof solid waste disposed of by

landfilling for which alternativemanagement methods are avail-able;

✦ Establish revised general criteriafor the location of solid wastefacilities;

✦ Examine alternative methodsfor the disposal of fly ash andbottom ash resulting from theburning of mixed municipalwastes;

✦ Establish a statewide strategy formanaging waste tires;

✦ Develop specific recommenda-tions for legislative and adminis-trative action to promote marketsfor products containing recycledmaterials and to promote the useby state government of productscontaining recycled materials;and

✦ Establish a program for theproper separation and disposalof hazardous waste generated byhouseholds.

The objectives for reducing, recy-cling, and minimizing solid wastesestablished in the State Plan becomemandatory elements of solid wastemanagement plans for SWMDs.

H.B. 592 required Boards of CountyCommissioners of each county inOhio to become part of a SWMD,either independently or in conjunc-tion with one or more other coun-ties. A total of 52 such SWMDs,encompassing all 88 Ohio counties,currently exist. Of these, 37 aresingle-county SWMDs and 15 arejoint-county SWMDs.5 Ohio’sSWMDs do not necessarily corre-spond to local “wastesheds,” or dis-posal routes and markets. The State’smajor cities are all located withinsingle-county SWMDs (See FigureI-5).

5Counties actually had the option of forming either a SWMD or a regional solid waste management authority (Authority). OhioEPA generally uses SWMD when referring to both SWMDs and Authorities. Of the 52 SWMDs in Ohio, five are actuallyAuthorities. The major difference between a SWMD and an Authority is the composition of the governing body. A SWMD isgoverned by a Board of Directors which consists of the county commissioners from all of the counties comprising the SWMD.An authority is governed by a Board of Trustees which consists of the following from each county: president of the board ofcounty commissioners, the chief executive officer of the largest municipality, a township trustee, a health commissioner, and apublic representative.

Introduction 9

6In the case of an Authority, it is the Board of Trustees that prepares, adopts, and submits the solid waste management plan.

Figure I-5 Ohio’s Solid Waste Management Districts

Each SWMD is required to form apolicy committee which in turn mustprepare, adopt, and submit a solidwaste management plan to OhioEPA.6 The solid waste managementplan must provide for the safe andsanitary management of solid wastesgenerated within the SWMD for aminimum of 10 years. The SWMD’ssolid waste management plan must

also show how the SWMD will meetthe requirements of the State Plan.Solid waste management plans areprepared in accordance with the For-mat and the requirements containedin OAC Rule 3745-27-90.

The planning process involves exten-sive research, expense, and discus-sion among various levels of gov-

ernment. A SWMD’s solid wastemanagement plan is prepared by thepolicy committee and, for an Author-ity, by the board of trustees. Thepolicy committee is composed ofrepresentatives of counties, munici-palities, townships, health districts,industrial and solid waste generators,and the public (see footnote 5 for anexplanation of the composition of a

W ILLIA M S

D E FIA N C E

PA U LD IN G

FU LTO N

M E R C E RA U G LA IZE

W YA N D O T

H A N C O C K

W O O D

LU C A S

C LIN TO N

H A M ILTO N

LIC K I N G

FA IR FIE LD

H O C K IN G

ATH E N S

C O S H O C TO N

V IN TO N

S E N E C A

S A N D U S K Y

H U R O N

O TTA W A

M E IG S

JA C K S O N

H A R R IS O N

H O LM E STU S C A R AW A S

W AY N E S TA R K

C A R R O LL

C O LU M B IA N A

M A H O N IN G

C U YA H O G A

S U M M IT

C R AW FO R D

E R IE

P U TN A M

P IC K AW AY

H E N R Y

P E R R Y

R IC H LA N D

JE FFE R S O N

M O N TG O M E R Y

G A LLIAA D A M S

FR A N K LIN

M E D IN A

VA N W E R T

B E LM O N T

S C IO TO

D E LAW A R E

K N O X

M O R R O W

S H E LB Y

C LA R K

C H A M PA IG N

M A D IS O N

FAY E TTE

U N IO N

H A R D IN

H IG H LA N D

R O S S

TR U M B U LL

A S H LA N D

G U E R N S E Y

M U S K IN G U M

N O B LE M O N R O E

M O R G A N

W A S H IN G TO N

LA W R E N C E

G E A U G A

A LLE N

M A R IO N

A dam s-C lerm ont S W M D

LO G A N

D A R K EM IA M I

P R E B LE

P IK E

B R O W N

W A R R E NB U TLE R

G R E E N E

LO R A IN

LA K E A S H TA B U LA

P O R TA G E

Singl e C ounty D istricts

Joi nt C ounty D istricts

C LE R M O N T


board of trustees). The solid wastemanagement plan must be ratified bythe board of county commissionersin each county within the SWMDor Authority, the largest city in eachcounty in the SWMD or Authority,and legislative jurisdictions repre-senting 60 percent of the SWMD’sor Authority’s population. Ratifica-tion must occur prior to submittingthe plan to Ohio EPA for final re-view. Solid waste management planswith a ten-year planning period arerequired to be amended every threeyears, and solid waste managementplans with a fifteen-year planningperiod (or longer) must be amendedevery five years.

Requirements for Solid WasteManagemet District Plans

In order to demonstrate access toadequate solid waste managementcapacity for 10 years and achieve

compliance with the mandates in theState Plan, ORC Section 3734.53specifies that solid waste manage-ment plans contain:

✦ Projections of waste generationin the SWMD, broken down byresidential/commercial and in-dustrial composition of the waste;

✦ an inventory of existing disposal,resource recovery and recyclingfacilities, as well as open dumps,tire dumps, and captive industrialdisposal facilities;

✦ an inventory of existing collec-tion systems, routes, and transferfacilities;

✦ projections of population changesfor the planning period;

✦ identification of future solidwaste facilities needed, theircosts, and a siting strategy;

✦ a plan implementation schedule,including identification of facili-ties that will receive waste fromthe SWMD;

✦ strategies to meet the goals andobjectives established in the StatePlan for reducing, recycling andminimizing solid wastes;

✦ strategies to manage householdhazardous waste generated in theSWMD;

✦ methods of financing facilitiesand programs; and

✦ an allocation of local disposalfees to the uses authorized by theORC.

Implementing the 1995 State Solid Waste Management Plan 11

ORC Section 3734.50 requires theDirector of Ohio EPA to “...estab-lish objectives for solid waste reduc-tion, recycling, reuse, and minimi-zation and a schedule for achievingthose objectives...” To meet theserequirements, the Director of OhioEPA and SWAC adopted the firstState Plan in 1989. In 1995, SWACand Ohio EPA adopted the first re-vision to the initial State Plan, the1995 State Plan, which establishedseven objectives designed to furtherthe waste reduction and recyclinggoals for Ohio. These objectives, re-ferred to as goals, were intended notonly to continue to reduce Ohio’sreliance upon landfills as a solidwaste management option, whichwas the primary focus of the 1989State Plan, but also to increase avail-able recycling opportunities and par-ticipation in those opportunities.The seven goals, as set forth in the1995 State Plan were as follows:

Goal #1Program standards for SWMDs:ensure the availability of reduction,recycling, and minimization alterna-tives for municipal solid waste

Goal #2Reduce and /or Recycle at least 50percent of the total generation ofsolid waste statewide by the year2000

Goal #3Provide informational and technicalassistance on source reduction

Goal #4Provide informational and technicalassistance on recycling, reuse, andcomposting opportunities

IMPLEMENTING THE 1995STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Goal #5Strategies for scrap tires and house-hold hazardous waste

Goal #6Annual reporting of plan implemen-tation

Goal #7Market development strategy (op-tional)

The seven goals listed above were es-tablished not only for Ohio as awhole, but also for each individualSWMD. Each SWMD that was tobegin preparing an amended solidwaste management plan on or afterAugust 1, 1996 was required to doso in accordance with the criteria dis-cussed in Chapter I and include strat-egies, programs, and activities de-signed to meet the goals listedabove.1

In order to provide SWMDs withsome flexibility in terms of demon-strating compliance with waste re-duction and recycling goals, the 1995State Plan allowed SWMDs to dem-onstrate compliance with either Goal#1 or Goal #2. Although SWMDswere encouraged to attempt toachieve both goals, they were re-quired to demonstrate compliancewith only one or the other. With theexception of Goal #7, which was avoluntary goal, the remaining goalswere mandatory. As a result,SWMDs were required to demon-strate compliance with a minimumof five of the seven goals.

The waste reduction percentage es-tablished in Goal #2 was a statewidegoal. Goal #2 was, however, com-

2CHAPTER

prised of two objectives for indi-vidual SWMDs:

Objective #125 percent MSW objective forSWMDs: reduce, reuse, recycling,or minimize 25 percent of the gen-eration of municipal solid waste bythe year 2000.

Objective #250 percent industrial objective forSWMDs: reduce, or recycle 50 per-cent of the generation of industrialsolid waste by the year 2000.

In addition to the seven goals listedpreviously, the 1995 State Plan con-tained eight state strategies intendedto be implemented by state of Ohioagencies. These strategies weregeared towards efforts that stateagencies could make to foster recy-cling efforts and opportunities inOhio.

The remainder of this chapter re-views Ohio’s efforts and experiencestowards meeting the seven goals andeight state strategies established inthe 1995 State Plan. This narrativeincludes a discussion regarding thestatus of recycling and waste reduc-tion in Ohio and the problems facedby SWMDs as they attempted tocomply with these goals.

Progress MadeTowards Achieving Goal #1

One of the intents of the 1995 StatePlan was to offer SWMDs an optionof meeting a goal focused on the pro-

1Fewer than half of the 52 SWMDs have obtained approved, amended solid waste management plans in accordance with theprovisions of the 1995 State Plan. As of April of 2001, 21 SWMDs had solid waste management plans that were prepared andapproved in accordance with the requirements of the 1995 State Plan. The remaining 31 SWMDs were operating under solidwaste management plans prepared and approved under the 1989 State Plan.


vision of management strategies forresidential/commercial solid wastethat are alternatives to landfilling(e.g. recycling drop-offs, curbside re-cycling, etc.) instead of achieving anumerical recycling goal. It was an-ticipated that Goal #1 would resultin: (1) an emphasis on programimplementation and providing accessto recycling opportunities; and (2) in-directly reducing the resources de-voted to data collection, as SWMDschoosing to meet Goal #1 may beless likely to conduct surveys andother data collection activities whenpreparing a solid waste managementplan update.

While the 1995 State Plan provideda goal focused on providing accessto recycling opportunities, it didnot provide a methodology for evalu-ating compliance with Goal #1.Thus, the 1995 State Plan obligatedOhio EPA to develop access and par-ticipation standards for SWMDs.Ohio EPA with the advice and par-ticipation of the Ohio Department ofNatural Resources (ODNR), Divi-sion of Recycling and Litter Preven-tion (DRLP), SWMDs, and other in-terested parties developed these stan-dards. The standards were submit-ted to SWAC and were approved atthe January 10, 1996 meeting.SWMDs were required to meet thesestandards in their solid waste man-agement plans in order to demon-strate compliance with Goal #1. Thestandards were incorporated intoOAC Rule 3745-27-90 and the For-mat. (Note: For a more in-depth dis-cussion of the access and participa-tion standards, please see Chapter IIIof this document.)

To determine the effect that Goal #1has had on the number and types ofrecycling opportunities being offeredby SWMDs and to determine therelative burden Goal #1 has placedon SWMDs, Ohio EPA reviewed allof the solid waste management plansthat have been approved in accor-dance with the requirements of the1995 State Plan. As of April 2001,

twenty-one SWMDs had obtainedapproved, amended solid waste man-agement plans under the authority ofthe 1995 State Plan. Of these, four-teen SWMDs, representing twentycounties, had obtained approvedsolid waste management plans bydemonstrating compliance with Goal#1 of the 1995 State Plan. (Note:SWMDs were required, via the For-mat, to complete the demonstrationfor compliance with Goal #1 for each

county in the SWMD’s jurisdiction.Thus, a SWMD comprised of fourcounties had to conduct the demon-stration for each of the four countiesseparately. SWMDs representingcounties that were providing accessto recycling opportunities for lessthan 90 percent of the counties’ popu-lation were then required to imple-ment new programs and activities toincrease the access percentage to atleast 90 percent in those counties.For this reason, the proceeding dis-cussion is focused on counties ratherthan SWMDs).

Figure II-1 illustrates, for the twentycounties that comprise the SWMDsdemonstrating access, how thosecounties fared in terms of the resi-dential population that had access torecycling opportunities in the refer-ence year of their solid waste man-agement plans.2

As can be seen from Figure II-1,there were six counties that met Goal#1 in the reference year. Providedthat the recycling opportunities avail-able in the reference year were stilloffered in 2000, the SWMDs repre-senting those counties ordinarilywould not have needed to add anyrecycling opportunities for the resi-dents and businesses of those coun-ties in order to meet Goal #1. How-ever, one of those SWMDs, a single

county SWMD, experienced a de-cline in the percentage of the popu-lation that had access to recycling op-portunities between the referenceyear and year 2000. As a result, re-cycling opportunities had to be addedto that county in order to demonstratecompliance with Goal #1. Anotherof the SWMDs, again a single countySWMD, opted to add additional re-cycling opportunities even thoughthose opportunities were not neces-sary for the SWMD to demonstratecompliance with Goal #1.

Of the remaining 14 counties:

✦ six had recycling opportunitiesavailable to between 75 percentand 89 percent of the residents inthose counties in the referenceyear

✦ five were providing access to re-cycling opportunities to between

2In their solid waste management plans, SWMDs establish a reference year and gather data related to the generation, disposal,and reduction of solid waste for that calendar year. This data serves as the baseline data from which all subsequent projectionsin the solid waste management plan are derived. The reference year typically is the year prior to the year in which the SWMDbegins preparing its amended solid waste management plan.

Figure II-1

Range of Access Percent ages Achi eved in the Reference Year

3 S WMDs

6 S WMDs

5 S WMDs

3 S WMDs

0% - 49%

50% - 74%

75% - 8 9%

90% - 1 00%

0% - 49%50% - 74%75% - 89%90% - 100%


50 and 74 percent of the residentsin those counties in the referenceyear

✦ three were providing access to re-cycling opportunities to less than49 percent of the residentialpopulation in the reference year.

As can be deduced fromthe previous analysis:

✦ In general, the majority of coun-ties either already met Goal #1in the reference year or had toimplement programs for a rela-tively small number of people toachieve Goal #1.

✦ 60 percent of the counties (twelvecounties) had to provide recyclingopportunities to an additional 15percent or less of their residen-tial population in order to achieveGoal #1.

✦ Only 15 percent of the counties(three counties) had to providerecycling opportunities to morethan 41 percent of their residen-tial population to achieve Goal#1.

The bullet points above suggest thatGoal #1 is challenging but not overlyburdensome to most of Ohio’sSWMDs.

Of the counties for which recyclingopportunities have been added in or-der to achieve Goal #1, sixteen com-mitted to adding new or expandeddrop-off recycling opportunities andfive committed to providing new orexpanded curbside recycling pro-grams. In total, at least 96 additionaldrop-off recycling locations havebeen or will be implemented bySWMDs for purposes of demonstrat-ing compliance with Goal #1. Interms of curbside recycling services,six new, non-subscription curbsiderecycling services have been or willbe implemented by SWMDs for pur-poses of demonstrating compliancewith Goal #1.

In addition, seven subscriptioncurbside services offered in threecounties have been or will be up-graded to non-subscription service,and one county will expand its ex-

isting non-subscription service. Intotal, these new recycling servicesand existing service upgrades willprovide an estimated 694,000 addi-tional people with access to recyclingopportunities. More than likely,many of these people would not havebeen provided these new recycling

services in the absence of Goal #1.This information suggests that the1995 State Plan has been successfulin moving SWMDs away from anemphasis on a numerical recyclinggoal and toward ensuring that recy-cling opportunities are available totheir residents.

SWMD Profiles: Meeting Goal #1

When comparing the SWMDs that obtained approved solid wastemanagement plans by demonstrating compliance with Goal #1 ofthe 1995 State Plan, Ohio EPA found that there was a great deal ofdisparity in the number of programs that SWMDs had to implementin order to provide access to recycling opportunities to 90 percent oftheir residential populations. Some SWMDs didn’t have to imple-ment any new recycling programs to demonstrate compliance withGoal #1, while other SWMDs had to propose significant additionsto their available recycling opportunities to meet the requirementsof Goal #1. Although not technically at either extreme, the experi-ences of the Erie County SWMD and the Lucas County SWMDillustrate the relative magnitude of difficulty associated with dem-onstrating compliance with Goal #1.

The Erie County SWMD was offering access to recycling opportu-nities to 76.5 percent of its residential population in the referenceyear chosen for their solid waste management plan update. Therecycling opport unities offered in the reference year consisted ofone non-subscription curbside program, four subscription curbsideprograms, two full-service drop-offs in urban areas and seven full-service drop-offs in rural areas. In order to demonstrate compliancewith Goal #1, the Erie County SWMD needed to provide access torecycling opportunities to an additional 25,308 people. To do this,the SWMD implemented two new full-service, rural drop-offs andupgraded one of the existing subscription curbside programs to anon-subscription curbside service. The upgraded curbside serviceprovided an additional 22,628 people with access to curbside ser-vice. In total, these changes allowed the Erie County SWMD toprovide access to recycling opportunities to 100 percent of its resi-dential population.

The Lucas County SWMD was offering access to recycling oppor-tunities to 41 percent of its residential population in the referenceyear chosen for the solid waste management plan update. The recy-cling opportunities being offered consisted of nine non-subscriptioncurbside recycling programs, 12 subscription curbside recycling pro-grams, ten full-service, urban drop-offs, and six full-service, ruraldrop-offs. In order to demonstrate compliance with Goal #1, theLucas County SWMD needed to provide recycling opportunities toan additional 266,600 people. To accomplish this, the Lucas CountySWMD will implement five new full-service, urban drop-offs, twonew full-service, rural drop-offs, and the City of Toledo will expandthe existing non-subscription curbside service to provide another236,600 people with curbside service. In total, these changes willallow the Lucas County SWMD to provide access to recycling op-portunities to 98 percent of its residential population.


Problems Encountered With Goal #1

Although the majority of SWMDsthat pursued Goal #1 did not reportsignificant difficulties associatedwith achieving the goal, a fewSWMDs have indicated that, in orderto make the necessary demonstrationin their solid waste managementplans to achieve approval from OhioEPA under Goal #1, potentially re-dundant or unnecessary recyclingopportunities will need to be provided.In particular, these SWMDs assertthat adding new recycling drop-offslocations, which is frequently theeasiest method of increasing availablerecycling opportunities, will notappreciably increase the tonnage ofmaterial collected and will be anunnecessary drain on their resources.These SWMDs have also suggestedthat the credit they receive for drop-off locations sometimes understatesthe true number of people servicedby these opportunities. As a result,these SWMDs suggest that Goal #1creates an incentive to establish un-necessary drop-off locations in an ef-fort to obtain solid waste managementplan approval from Ohio EPA.

The affected SWMDs have requestedthat they be allowed to utilize popu-lation credits other than the defaultcredits stipulated in the Format. TheFormat currently provides a recom-mended, alternative methodology forcalculating the number of individu-als that have access to a particulardrop-off location. It is difficult to

obtain greater than the default popu-lation credit for a drop-off locationusing the methodology in the Format.SWMDs have, therefore, requestedthat they be allowed to use alterna-tive evaluations to make the deter-mination. Ohio EPA and SWAC rec-ognize the need to provide more flex-ibility in calculating access to recy-cling opportunities. Thus, as is ex-plained in Chapter III, this revisedState Plan will provide for the use ofalternative methodologies.

Another deficiency brought to OhioEPA’s and SWAC’s attention bySWMDs relates to the criteria usedto evaluate recycling opportunitiesprovided to achieve Goal #1. In par-ticular, SWMDs have suggested thatcertain criteria used to demonstratecompliance with Goal #1 are unnec-essarily inflexible. An example is thecriterion from the 1995 State Planthat required all recycling opportu-nities being used to demonstratecompliance with Goal #1 to collectthe same four materials. TheseSWMDs assert that these criteria re-strict the number of available oppor-tunities that can be used to demon-strate compliance with Goal #1.Ohio EPA and SWAC recognize theneed to modify some of these crite-ria. These revisions are reflected inChapter III.

Lastly, Ohio EPA has encounteredsome problems with the existingdefinitions for several of the typesof opportunities that SWMDs use to

demonstrate compliance with Goal#1 in their solid waste managementplans. In particular, the definitionsfor non-subscription and subscriptioncurbside services and clean and dirtymaterials recovery facilities have ledto complications in implementing the1995 State Plan as initially intended.Ohio EPA will provide additionalclarification to reduce these misun-derstandings in the Format when thatdocument is revised.

Progress Made TowardsAchieving Goal #2

Statewide

Table II-1 presents data regardingwaste reduction and recycling inOhio for 1995 through 1999. AsTable II-1 shows, Ohio’s total WRRRincreased fairly significantly from31.7 percent in 1995 to 38.9 percentin 1999. Thus, Ohio’s overall WRRRis higher today than when the revisedState Plan was adopted in 1995.However Ohio actually achieved itshighest WRRR in 1996, whenSWMDs reported having recycled41.8 percent of the solid waste thatwas generated during that year. Alarge portion of the increase in thepercentage of solid waste reduced/recycled over the last five years isattributable to greater tonnages ofmaterials reported from the industrialsector. However, the State experi-enced an increase in the amount of

Table II-1 Statewide Reduction/Recycling for Ohio-Generated Waste for Calendar Years 1995 Through 1999

Tons Reduced/Recycled Percentage of Tons Reduced/Recycled

Year Residential/ Industrial Total Residential/ Industrial Total Commercial Commercial

1995 1,942,000 6,523,000 8,465,000 17.0 42.8 31.71996 2,553,000 11,284,000 13,837,000 20.5 54.7 41.8

1997 2,589,000 10,287,000 12,876,000 20.6 52.1 39.91998 2,373,000 10,856,000 13,229,000 18.6 51.3 39.0

1999 2,461,194 10,439,358 12,900,552 18.9 51.8 38.9


materials reported from the residen-tial/commercial sector as well.

For the residential/commercial sec-tor, SWMDs reported that approxi-mately 2,461,194 tons of waste werereduced or recycled in 1999. Thistonnage allowed Ohio to achieve astatewide WRRR of 18.9 percent forthe residential/commercial sector in1999. This represents an increaseover the 17.0 percent that wasachieved in 1995. For the industrialsector, SWMDs reported that ap-proximately 10,439,358 tons of in-dustrial waste were reduced and re-cycled in 1999, giving a statewideWRRR for the industrial sector of51.8 percent. Again, this representsan increase over the WRRR calcu-lated for the industrial sector for 1995of 42.8 percent.

The increases in the WRRRsachieved for both sectors are due, inlarge part, to changes in State policyregarding the materials that can becredited towards the WRRR. Thesechanges were implemented with theadoption of the 1995 State Plan thateliminated the use of the “pre-1985industrial recycling policy” in calcu-lating the WRRR and allowed yardwaste to be credited towards overallrecycling tonnages.3 The 1995 StatePlan directed Ohio EPA to revise theFormat and to include, in the revi-sion, a list of materials which can-not be credited towards the industrialwaste reduction and recycling goal.Ohio EPA, with the advice and par-ticipation of ODNR, SWMDs, andother interested parties, developed anupdated version of the Format in thespring of 1996. This new version ofthe Format, Version 3.0, incorporatedthe goals of the 1995 State Plan. Toreplace the pre-1985 industrial recy-cling policy, the Format, Version 3.0,prohibited the tonnages associatedwith the following waste streamsfrom being included in the calcula-tion of the WRRR:

✦ train boxcars;

✦ metals from demolition activities;and

✦ ferrous metals resulting from sal-vage operations conducted by li-censed motor vehicle salvage deal-ers.

1996 was the first year that theWRRR was calculated based on the1995 State Plan. As a result, the re-duction and recycling amounts for1996 include yard waste as well asindustrial waste that was recycledthrough programs initiated priorto 1985. Neither of these categoriesof materials were included in theWRRR calculations for prior years.To illustrate the effect that includingthese materials in the calculationhad on the resulting WRRR, in 1996,SWMDs reported having recycled495,000 of yard waste. This tonnageaccounts for 81% of the increase inthe tonnage of material reported forthe residential/commercial sectorfrom 1995 to 1996. Regardless of thechanges in how the WRRR is calcu-lated, Ohio did experience an overallnet increase in the amount of materialreduced/recycled even without theinclusion of yard waste tonnages.

Although Ohio EPA does not havedata for calendar year 2000 (this datawill not be available until late 2001,at the earliest), it is safe to assume that,based on the trend towards a flat state-wide WRRR that has occurred overthe last couple of years, Ohio will notachieve the goal of reducing/recycling50 percent of the waste generated bythe year 2000. Nonetheless, Ohio hasmade great strides towards increasingthe amount of waste that is recycled/reduced instead of disposed. In 1900,the statewide WRRR was 25.6 per-cent. By 1999, the WRRR had in-creased to 38.9 percent. This increaseoccurred during a period of unprec-edented economic activity which re-sulted in Ohio’s waste generation rateskyrocketing from 8.77 pounds per

person per day in 1990 to 16.19 pounds per person per day in 1999.

Many of the recycling opportunitiesthat have been implemented in thelast couple of years have not been inplace long enough to have a signifi-cant affect on the overall tonnageof waste recycled. Ohio EPA fullyexpects that the presence of these re-cycling opportunities will have a posi-tive effect on Ohio’s WRRR and thatthis effect will be documented in fu-ture reporting cycles. The waste in-dustry in Ohio has also experienced agreat deal of fluctuation in the pastseveral years which has affected theavailability of existing recyclingprograms. Given all of these factors,Ohio appears to continue to makeprogress in the recycling arena. Aswas mentioned earlier, one of the in-tents behind Goal #1 of the 1995State Plan was to shift the focus ofSWMDs’ energy from surveyingand reporting to actual implementa-tion of recycling and waste reductionprograms. It is quite possible thatOhio’s WRRR is reflecting this shiftas fewer SWMDs perform compre-hensive surveying efforts. Thus, it ispossible that the flat WRRR that Ohiois reporting is due more to incompletedata than to a real reduction in thetonnage of recyclables being collected.

When comparing the WRRR from oneyear to the next, there are severalthings to keep in mind regarding thecomposition and accuracy of the datathat goes into the calculations. Tobegin with, incremental changes fromone year to the next may stem morefrom errors or omissions in the dataand less from a real change in the levelof recycling. There is a high marginof error associated with the WRRRdue to the nature of the data collec-tion process. Thus, incrementalchanges in the WRRR from one yearto the next more than likely fall withinacceptable margins of error for thecalculations. The data used to calcu-late the WRRR is obtained through

3As was mentioned in Chapter I, The 1989 State Plan did not allow industrial waste recycled due to progams that were initiatedprior to 1985 to be included int eh calculation of the industrial sector WRRR. This prohibition was referred to as the “pre-1985industrial recycling policy.” In addition to “pre-1985” recyclables, the 1989 State Plan did not allow yard waste to be includedin the calculation of the WRRR for the residential/commercial sector.


surveys of entities that actuallyhandled the recycled materials. As aresult, the omission or inclusion ofone entity’s responses can have asignificant effect on the ultimatecalculation.

The extent to which the person admin-istering the survey is able to obtainresponses from initial non-respon-dents, the level of experience of theperson completing the survey, the ac-curacy of the information provided bythose surveyed, and the use of actualweights versus estimated weights orconversion from volume to weightcan all affect the outcome. Anotherlarge source of variability involves thepotential for the double counting ofmaterials. Inconsistent application ofadjustments to the numbers from oneyear to the next also adds inaccuracyto the data.

In addition to the inaccuracies inher-ent in the gathering of data, thereare events around the State that havecontributed to changes in the WRRR.As an example, Ohio’s major solidwaste incineration and waste to energyfacilities began closing in the mid1990s. By mid-1997, all of the mixedsolid waste incinerators and waste to

energy facilities had ceased acceptingwaste, and 1998 was the first year thatno volume reductions due to incinera-tion were available. Ohio’s method-ology for calculating waste reductionallows SWMDs to credit volumereductions due to incineration of solidwaste. Therefore, it is highly likelythat the decrease in the WRRR expe-rienced from 1997 to 1998 is due, inpart, to the absence of volume reduc-tion due to incineration. Furthermore,it is likely that had levels of incinera-tion commensurate to those in theearly 1990s been occurring in the midand late 1990s, the WRRRs for thoseyears would be higher than reported.Coincidentally, the major decreasesattributable to the closure of Ohio’sincinerators occurred during the timewhen yard waste was included in thecalculation of the WRRRs. Thus, atleast for 1996, the inclusion of yardwaste offset the declining tonnage ofwaste reduction due to incineration.

As a result of the factors identifiedabove, Ohio EPA focuses on trendsthat occur over several years whenevaluating changes in statewiderecycling rates rather than changes thatoccur from one year to the next.

Progress Made by SWMDs

Goal #2, Objective #1: 25 percentMSW objective for SWMDs: Reduce,recycle, or minimize 25 percent of thegeneration of municipal solid wastesby the year 2000.

While Ohio’s overall WRRR for theresidential/commercial sector was18.9 percent in 1999, the ratesachieved by Ohio’s 52 SWMDs wereextremely varied. As can be deter-mined from Table A-1 in Appendix A,the WRRRs achieved by the individualSWMDs in 1999 ranged from a lowof 1.9 percent to a high of 36.1 per-cent.4 As can be seen from FigureII-2 for 1999:

✦ eight SWMDs reported residen-tial/commercial WRRRs of 25percent or greater;

✦ fourteen SWMDs reportedresidential/commercial WRRRsof between 20 percent and 24.9percent;

✦ six SWMDs reported residential/commercial WRRRs of between15 percent and 19.9 percent;

✦ twelve SWMDs reported re-sidential/commercial WRRRs ofbetween 10 and 14.4 percent;

✦ eight SWMDs reported residen-tial/commercial WRRRs of be-tween five percent and 9.9 percent;and

✦ four SWMDs reported residential/commercial WRRRs of 4.9 percentor less.

For 1995, the WRRRs achievedby the individual SWMDs rangedfrom a low of 0.6 percent to a highof 45.5 percent (see Table A-1 inAppendix A for a complete listingof the WRRRs for the residential/commercial sector). As can be seenfrom Figure II-2 for 1995:

✦ six SWMDs reported residential/commercial WRRRs of 25 per-cent or greater;

4One SWMD reported a WRRR of 46.0 percent. It is highly likely that the tonnage reported for this SWMD and used in thecalculation is erroneous.

F igure II-2

R ange of S W M D R esiden ti al /C om m ercial S ector W R R R s for 1995 and 1999

9

12

14

4

7

6

4

8

12

6

12

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

4.9% or less 5% to 9.9% 10% to 14. 9% 15% to 19. 9% 20% to 24. 9% 25% andgreater

W aste R educt ion and R ecycl ing R ate

1995

1999

Nu

mb

er o

f S

WM

Ds


✦ seven SWMDs reported residen-tial/commercial WRRRs of bet-ween 20 percent and 24.9 percent;

✦ four SWMDs reported residential/commercial WRRRs of between15 percent and 19.9 percent;

✦ fourteen SWMDs reported resi-dential/commercial WRRRs of be-tween 10 percent and 14.9 percent;

✦ twelve SWMDS reported re-sidential/commercial WRRRs ofbetween five and 9.9 percent; and

✦ nine SWMDs reported residential/commercial WRRRs of 4.9 percentor less.

From 1995 to 1999, two additionalSWMDs reported having surpassedthe 25 percent waste reduction andrecycling goal for the residential/commercial sector. Of the sixSWMDs that had achieved the resi-dential/commercial WRRR goal in1995, one experienced a decline inthe WRRR by 1999, although theWRRR for that SWMD remainedabove 25 percent.

In all, 34 SWMDs experienced in-creases in their residential/commer-cial sector WRRRs between 1995and 1999, while one SWMD main-tained the same WRRR for the resi-dential/commercial sec-tor and 17 SWMDs ex-perienced decreases inthe WRRR for the resi-dential/commercial sec-tor during that sametime period. It is inter-esting to note that, whilethe WRRR for the resi-dential/commercial sec-tor did not increase ap-preciably for the State,the median WRRR andthe average WRRR bothincreased from 1995 to1999. In 1995, the me-dian WRRR for theresidential/commercialsector was 12.8 percentand the average WRRRwas 14.2 percent. In1999, the medianWRRR for the residen-tial/commercial sector

was 16.2 percent and the averageWRRR was 17.3 percent.

It is not surprising that the WRRRsfor the individual SWMDs shouldhave increased from 1995 to 1999given that yard waste was includedin the figures for 1999 but not for1995.

Goal #2, Objective #2: 50 percentindustrial goal for SWMDs - Reduceor recycle 50 percent of the genera-tion of industrial solid wastes by theyear 2000.

SWMDs in Ohio reported that a to-tal of 10,439,358 tons of industrialwaste was reduced/recycled in 1999.This represents 51.8 percent of in-dustrial waste generation statewide.The industrial WRRRs for eachSWMD are presented in AppendixA, Table A-2. As shown in FigureII-3 for 1999, of Ohio’s 52 SWMDs:

✦ 44 SWMDs reported industrialWRRRs of 50 percent or greater;

✦ two SWMDs reported industrialWRRRs between 35 percent and49.9 percent; and

✦ six SWMDs reported industrialWRRRs of 34.9 percent or less.

In 1995, the overall Statewide in-dustrial WRRR was 42.8 percent.Individually, as is presented inFigure II-3 for 1995, of Ohio’s52 SWMDs:

✦ 38 SWMDs reported industrialWRRRs of 50 percent or greaterin 1995;

✦ six SWMDs reported industrialWRRRs between 35 percent and49.9 percent; and

✦ eight SWMDs reported industrialWRRRs of 34.9 percent or less.

See Table A-2 in Appendix A for therates for each SWMD.

From 1995 to 1999, six additionalSWMDs reported having surpassedthe 50 percent waste reduction andrecycling goal for the industrial sec-tor. 38 SWMDs experienced in-creased industrial WRRRs between1995 and 1999 while 14 SWMDsexperienced decreased industrialWRRRs in that time frame. In 1999,the highest WRRR reported by aSWMD was 98.6 percent whereasthe lowest rate reported was 0.1 per-cent. In 1995, the highest industrialWRRR reported by a SWMD was95.0 percent while the lowest wasreported rate was 0.0 percent.

F igure II-3R ange of S W M D Industri al S ector W R R R s for 1995 and 1999

8

6

38

6

2

44

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

34.9% and less 35% to 49. 9% 50% and g reater

W aste R educt ion and R ecycl ing R ates

1995

1999

Num

ber o

f S

WM

Ds


Problems Encounteredwith Goal #2

As can be seen from the data pre-sented previously, while it is likelyOhio will not achieve the 50 percentoverall WRRR in 2000, progress hasbeen made towards achieving thegoal. However, several problematicissues related to the goal have beenidentified.

Probably the most problematicaspect of Goal #2 is the lack ofreporting requirements for entitiesinvolved in the recycling process.SWMDs are legally required to sub-mit, to Ohio EPA, annual reports thatsummarize the recycling activitiesand tonnages of materials recycledduring the previous year. In order toobtain this information, the SWMDsmust survey the businesses and or-ganizations who collect, process,and use recyclable materials. Suchreporting by most of these entities isdone strictly on a voluntary basis,and SWMDs have no legal recoursein the event that an entity does notsubmit data. As a result, there is littlequestion that a certain amount ofrecycling activity is not captured inthe tonnages reported by SWMDs.For this reason, most SWMDs would

like to see an expansion of, or insome cases, the creation of report-ing requirements for these entities.

Another controversial aspect ofGoal #2 concerns the types of mate-rials that can be credited towardsachieving the WRRR. Wheneverquestions arise regarding a material’seligibility for inclusion, Ohio EPAgenerally bases its position on theregulatory definition of solid waste,the disposal history for the material,and U.S. EPA’s standardized recy-cling measurement methodology.There have been limited exceptionsto these criteria, specifically relatedto the definition of solid waste.There have been several circum-stances where a material does not fitOhio’s regulatory definition of solidwaste yet tonnage associated withthe material has been counted to-wards the WRRR. Examples includeliquid household hazardous wastesand used oil. In addition, in mostcases, if a material historicallyhas never been disposed in landfillfacilities, then Ohio EPA’s positionis that the material should not becredited. The WRRR is intendedto measure diversion from landfillfacilities. Thus, Ohio EPA has ex-cluded materials such as municipal

sewage sludge, manure, and scrapmetals from auto salvage dealersfrom consideration as none of thesematerials historically have beendisposed in landfill facilities.

Another facet related to Goal #2 thatis problematic concerns creditingreductions in tonnage due to sourcereduction. In the past, Ohio EPA hasallowed SWMDs to count tonnagereductions attributable to source re-duction activities to the WRRR onlyfor the year in which the reductionoccurred and only if the SWMD candocument the tonnages. Ohio EPAgenerally maintains that it is not ap-propriate for a SWMD to take spe-cific credit for that reduction in sub-sequent years. If the programs thatresulted in source reduction causecontinued reductions, then SWMDscan take credit for those reductions,only in the year in which the reduc-tion was achieved and only if theSWMD can document the reduction.

Even more problematic than deter-mining how long to allow tonnagereductions attributable to sourcereduction programs is how to appro-priately include those tonnages inthe WRRR. Because source reduc-tion results in a decrease in wastegeneration, and the WRRR measures

SWMD Profile: Meeting Goal #2

The Geauga-Trumbull Joint County Solid Waste Management District (District) received approval of its five-year solid waste management plan update (Plan) from Ohio EPA on December 20, 2000. In the Plan, theDistrict elected to demonstrate compliance with Goal #2 of the 1995 State Plan. The Plan indicated that theDistrict would achieve WRRRs of 25.40 percent and 51.11 percent for the residential/commercial and indus-trial sectors, respectively, in 2000.

The District relies on four major sources of recyclables to achieve the residential/commercial WRRR. Byfar, the majority of the tonnage is reported from privately owned, drop-off recycling facilities. In 2000, thePlan projected that 37,451 tons of material would be recycled through private recycling facilities. The Planprojected that 20,737 tons of yard waste would be diverted from landfill facilities in 2000 as a result ofregistered compost facilities. The District has an extensive program of drop-off recycling locations that areoperated by the District. In total, the District operates 47 full-time, fixed-site recycling bins throughout thetwo counties. Residents can recycle newsprint, #1 and #2 plastics, steel and aluminum cans, and glass at anyof the sites. In addition, magazines are collected at eight of the sites. For 2000, the District’s Plan projectedthat 3,642 tons of recyclables would be collected via the drop-off program. There are also several communi-ties served by waste haulers that offer subscription curbside recycling services to the residents. For 2000, thePlan projected that 595 tons of recyclables would be collected via curbside services.

To encourage participation in available programs, the District has an extensive education and awarenessprogram.


the percentage of waste generatedthat was diverted from landfills,tonnages attributable to sourcereduction technically should not beincluded in the calculation of theWRRR. SWMDs indirectly receive“credit” for source reduction activi-ties in the form of reduced waste gen-eration figures. Even without anychanges in the other components ofcalculation, a reduction in wastegeneration will usually result in anincrease in the WRRR. In an effortto reward SWMDs for successfulwaste reduction programs, Ohio EPAallows SWMDs to take credit fordocumented source reduction as adiscrete amount, much like theywould take credit for recycling onlyfor the year that the reductionoccurred. While this method doesprovide an incentive for SWMDs todocument waste reduction activities,it also results in an inflated wastegeneration figure and is inconsistentwith U.S. EPA’s standard methodol-ogy. For these reasons, Ohio EPAmay want to reevaluate this issue inthe future.

As a third issue, Ohio EPA hasreceived many inquiries concerningthe relationship between the state-wide goal and the two objectives forSWMDs. In particular, many havecommented that it doesn’t appearthat the statewide goal would be meteven if both objectives were reachedat a statewide level.

When the statewide goal and SWMDobjectives were originally developed,they were designed with somewhatdifferent purposes in mind. Thestatewide goal was adopted to set anoverall target for the State’s progresstowards increasing waste reductionand recycling and reducing the reli-ance on landfills for solid wastemanagement. Most states report astatewide recycling rate, and the U.S.EPA has worked with various statesto develop a uniform methodologyfor this purpose. Ohio’s statewidenumerical goal not only allows us togauge the State’s progress, but tosome degree allows the State tobenchmark our success against otherstates. The statewide goal estab-lished in the 1995 State Plan was anextension of the goal contained in the

first State Plan, which was to reduce,reuse, and recycle 25% of the over-all waste stream by 1994.

The two SWMD objectives, however,were designed recognizing that theindustrial and residential/commer-cial waste streams have very differ-ent characteristics, both in terms ofthe composition of the waste streamand in terms of typical managementpractices. Since industrial genera-tors frequently produce largeamounts of homogeneous waste, thepotential to reduce and/or recyclethe industrial stream is frequentlyhigher. Providing SWMDs withseparate targets tailored towards thetwo separate waste streams was aneffort to recognize the inherentdifferences in these waste streamswhile providing SWMDs with targetsthat are challenging but realistic.In addition, the SWMD objectiveswere designed knowing that theywould become mandatory criteriafor approval of SWMD solid wastemanagement plans, while the state-wide goal has no impact on planapproval.

While there are differences betweenthe statewide goal and SWMDobjectives, there is also a close rela-tionship between the two. Althoughthe numeric relationship is notexact, the objectives were designedto support the statewide goal. Sinceindustrial waste comprises a largerpercentage of the total solid wastestream and is generally recycled athigher rates than residential/commer-cial waste, and a large number ofSWMDs achieve industrial sectorWRRRs greater that 50 percent, itwas thought that the industrialWRRR would pull the statewideWRRR upward towards the 50percent goal.

Another factor that must be takeninto account when evaluating theState’s progress towards achievingGoal #2 is the production and dis-posal of FGD by Ohio’s coal-burn-ing power plants. As was discussedin Chapter I, the presence of a coal-burning power plant in a SWMD hasa significant effect on the SWMD’sability to achieve the industrial sec-tor component of Goal #2. Further-

more, the tonnage of FGD producedstatewide has had a negative effecton Ohio’s ability to meet the state-wide recycling goal. [For a morein-depth discussion of the affectthat FGD has had on both SWMDs’and Ohio’s WRRRs, please see thenarrative that begins on page 3 ofChapter I.] Unless the regulatorydefinition of solid waste is amendedto exclude FGD, FGD will continueto be a portion of the industrial solidwaste stream and, therefore, be in-cluded in calculations of SWMD andState WRRRs.

There have been some developmentsin the area of recycling FGD that mayprovide some relief to this situation.Ohio EPA is aware of at least oneproject to recycle FGD into gypsumwallboard that is being discussed inU.S. EPA’s Region V. If this projectdoes, in fact, come to fruition, theremay be a market for FGD materialthat is generated in Ohio.

Progress Made TowardsAchieving Goal #3 and Goal #4

SWMDs are required to incorporatestrategies into their solid waste man-agement plans to address the provi-sion of information and technicalassistance regarding source reduc-tion. SWMDs are also required toprovide information and technicalassistance on recycling, reuse, andcomposting opportunities. Althoughthese requirements are addressedin two separate goals, many of theprograms initiated by SWMDs dealwith both goals simultaneously.Therefore, the implementation ofthese goals are discussed together.

Because Goals 3 & 4 do not havenumeric standards associated withthem, evaluating Ohio’s level ofsuccess in achieving those goals isdifficult. Virtually every SWMDeither funds or directly provides edu-cation, information, and technicalassistance to its residents and busi-nesses in one way or another. Fromthat perspective, Ohio’s SWMDshave been very successful in meet-ing these goals. However, because awide variety of entities provide the


education services (such as SWMDs,county recycling and litter preven-tion offices, county extension offices,etc.) and most of these entitiesprovide a variety of programs, it isdifficult to quantify these educationactivities. For that reason, it is nearlyimpossible to present a truly com-prehensive portrayal of the programsbeing implemented to meet Goals 3& 4. However, it is clear that thetypes of programs and activitiesoffered by the 52 SWMDs are quitevaried. Some SWMDs place a greatdeal of emphasis on educatingschool-age children about the impor-tance of reducing the amount ofwaste disposed in landfill facilities.To that end, they provide excellentmaterials for teachers to use in theclassroom. Other SWMDs focuson providing information tohomeowners to encourage them touse available recycling opportunitiesand to change their purchasing be-haviors. Still others, due to the baseof commercial and industrial estab-lishments within their jurisdictions,have very strong programs geared to-wards those sectors.

Table II-2, which is located at theend of this Chapter, presents a break-down of the strategies, programs, andactivities SWMDs have implementedto achieve compliance with the sevengoals of the 1995 State Plan. In-cluded in this table is a generalbreakdown of the types programsSWMDs have implemented for Goal#3 and Goal #4.

Progress Made TowardsAchieving Goal #5

Household Hazardous Waste

Forty-five of Ohio’s 52 SWMDsreported having conducted some typeof program targeted to householdhazardous waste management in1999. In general, the programs thatwere offered consisted of telephoneassistance, presentations, fact sheetsand other printed educational mate-rials, directories, HHW drop-offlocations, and temporary and perma-nent HHW collection events. It isimportant to note that SWMDs arenot required to provide their residents

with alternatives to disposal formanaging household hazardouswaste. Even so, at least 29 SWMDsprovided their residents with sometype of household hazardous wastecollection option. For a moredetailed discussion of Ohio’s house-hold hazardous waste managementprograms, see Chapter VIII of thisdocument.

Scrap Tires

As can be seen from Table II-2which begins on page II-29 of thischapter, 17 SWMDs provided theirresidents with education regardingthe proper management of scraptires, 33 SWMDs provided theirresidents with collection opportuni-ties for scrap tires and 6 SWMDsfunded cleanups of scrap tire dumps.As with household hazardous waste,SWMDs are not required to provideresidents with collection opportuni-ties. However, all types of collec-tion events are very popular withresidents. As a result, many SWMDsoffer these events on an annualbasis. For more information regard-

Educating Educators

Since its inception, the Hamilton County Solid Waste Management District has been providing educators withtraining and materials for incorporating solid waste management into school curricula. As a result, the Districthas a well-established program for educating educators. The District was able to increase the number ofparticipants in workshops by offering a stipend to those educators that attended the sessions. The Districtbegan offering the stipend in the 1995-1996 school year. The District’s educator workshop program from 1990to 1998 is summarized below:

✦ From 1990 to 1993, the Districtutilized the Super Saver Inves-tigators curriculum developedby ODNR and provided train-ing to 60 educators through fiveworkshops.

✦ In the 1994-1995 school year,the District offered two “AllAbout Trash” workshops foreducators in grades K-6. In to-tal, 22 educators attended thesessions.

✦ In the 1995-1996 school year,the District developed the Ex-plore the Environment cur-riculum for educators in grades

six through eight. 114 educatorswere trained through a series offive workshops which were heldin 1996, and the District offered astipend to attendees.

✦ In the 1996-1997 school year, theDistrict focused on educators ingrades 3-5 by offering workshopsfor the “Everything You Wanted ToLearn About Trash” curriculum.The District held two workshopswhich were attended by 53 educa-tors who were again offered astipend.

✦ In the 1996-1997 school year, theDistrict also offered Workshops

utilizing “Investigating SolidWaste Issues”, a secondary, in-terdisciplinary curriculum de-veloped by ODNR. Two work-shops on the curriculum wereattended by 30 high schoolteachers, and attendees wereoffered a stipend.

✦ In the 1997-1998 school year,the District presented the“Nature’s For Me” curriculumdeveloped by the Steel Recy-cling Institute to 40 pre-schooleducators and 34 K-2 educatorsin two workshops. Again, thestipend was offered as an in-centive.


ing Ohio’s scrap tire program, seeChapter VII of this document.

Progress TowardsAchieving Goal #6

Ohio EPA annually distributes toall SWMDs a form, called theAnnual District Report (ADR) form,for SWMDs to report their activitiesrelated to implementing theirapproved solid waste managementplans. The information submitted viathe ADR form is used to measure notonly each SWMD’s progress towardsmeeting the goals established in the

State Plan, but also Ohio’s overallprogress towards meeting thosegoals. The primary objectives of theADR include to:

✦ provide the amount of solidwaste reduced and recycled;

✦ list household hazardous wastemanagement programs;

✦ estimate the amount of solidwaste disposed in facilitieslocated out-of-state; and

✦ provide an update on theSWMD’s efforts to implement itsapproved solid waste manage-ment plan

SWMDs are required to completethe ADR form and submit the com-pleted form to Ohio EPA by June 1st

of each year. In 2000 (for informa-tion regarding calendar year 1999),Ohio EPA had received completedADR forms from only 13 of Ohio’s52 SWMDs by June 1st. That equatesto a compliance rate of 25 percent.To address noncompliance, OhioEPA has begun issuing notice ofviolation letters (NOVs) to SWMDswhose completed ADR forms havenot been received on time.

Progress TowardsAchieving Goal #7

Unlike the other six goals of the 1995State Plan, Goal #7, the market de-velopment goal, was an optionalgoal. As such, SWMDs had thechoice of whether or not to imple-ment programs and activities tofurther the development of marketsfor recyclables in Ohio. Althoughthe completed ADR forms forcalendar year 1999 reflect that onlya few (less than ten) SWMDs per-formed activities specifically relatedto Goal #7, Ohio EPA believes thatmore SWMDs are contributing tothe development of markets forrecyclable materials than are report-ing those contributions. In general,many SWMDs compile and makeavailable a list of vendors that offerproducts made with recycled mate-rials. In addition, many SWMDsinclude the “Buy Recycled” messagein their educational efforts. ManySWMDs also purchase products con-taining recycled material and assistlocal government purchasing agentswith locating and purchasingrecycled-content products. At leastone SWMD awards grants to localentities for purchasing productsmade with recycled materials. [SeeChapter IX for more details regard-ing the programs SWMDs haveimplemented for Goal #7.]

The Status of Recommended StateStrategies in the 1995 State Plan

The 1995 State Plan establishedeight state-wide strategies for wastereduction and recycling and included

The Model Community Program

Model Community is a nationally recognized, not-for-profit programsponsored by Central States Education Center in Champaign, Illinoiswhich promotes waste reduction through community involvement.Through Model Community, delegates from businesses and organiza-tions representing all aspects of community operation are trained toreduce waste by 1) waste prevention, 2) eliminating toxins, 3) recy-cling, and 4) purchasing recycled products. Once trained, these repre-sentatives establish waste reduction programs at their respective orga-nizations. After the waste reduction program is established, the organi-zation can apply for a “Certificate of Merit” establishing the organiza-tion as a “Model of Waste Reduction”. Once participants obtain certi-fication, they are contacted annually to discuss continued progress andparticipation. The Model Community program stresses that wastereduction and pollution prevention are ongoing processes and that par-ticipants must continually make improvements to their waste reductionprograms.

The Darke County SWMD obtained a grant from the Ohio Environ-mental Education Fund in July 1993 to implement the Model Commu-nity program for the county. In September of that same year, 32 ModelCommunity Board Members were trained to promote the program andrecruit additional participants. In 1994, 50 representatives from retail,wholesale, and service businesses, manufacturers, institutions, govern-ment agencies, and farms were trained in five sessions. In 1995,another 28 participants, representing primarily small businesses, weretrained. These initial training sessions were conducted by the CentralStates Education Center at the Edison State Community College inGreenville, Ohio. While not all of the participants have obtained certi-fication for their involvement, all have implemented some form of wastereduction program, and, the Darke County SWMD surveys all partici-pants annually to remain current regarding each participants program.The Darke County SWMD continues to provide Model Communitytraining to interested organizations on an as-requested basis. The DarkeCounty SWMD is very pleased with the success of this program andpraises the participants for the strides they have made towards wastereduction.


recommendations for state agenciesdesigned to increase recycling andreduce reliance on landfilling. Somestate strategies from the 1995 StatePlan have been fully implemented,while others are on-going or beingconsidered for future implementa-tion. Each strategy is discussedbriefly below, including the status ofefforts towards implementation. Therecommended strategy from the 1995State Plan is underlined.

1995 State Plan Strategy #1

Ohio EPA will continue to develop adata and information base on thecurrent levels of waste reduction andrecycling to serve as a reference tofuture planning programs.

To address the strategy, Ohio EPA,in 1995, began compiling wastereduction and recycling data andpublishing it annually in a reporttitled “Summary of Solid WasteManagement in Ohio: RecyclingReduction, Incineration, and Dis-posal”. This report was made avail-able in calendar years 1995 (for1990-1994 data), 1996 (for 1990-1995 data) and 1997 (for 1990-1996data). Although Ohio EPA has notmade revised versions of this reportavailable in calendar years 1998 and1999, the data presented in thereport has been compiled and hasbeen made available to interestedparties.


ODNR and Ohio EPA will continueto provide technical assistance toSWMDs and local governments toplan and implement waste reductionand recycling programs and pollu-tion prevention. Assistance may begiven through trained technical staff,manuals and guidebooks, resourcecenters, workshops and seminars,bibliographies, and directories.

ODNR’s DRLP has conducted 4program assistance workshops, twoin 1996 and two in 1997. The work-shops were designed to help localprogram managers with everythingfrom writing and designing promo-

tional materials to implementingpay-as-you-throw programs.

The DRLP participated in two na-tional “buy recycled” awarenesscampaigns. Television and radiospots as well as video and print ma-terials were provided by the NationalRecycling Coalition and the Environ-mental Defense Fund and distributedthrough DRLP’s program managers.

In State Fiscal Year (SFY) 1996, theDRLP coordinated the workshop,Recycling in Local Communities:Current Options and Initiatives, andheld it at three Ohio locations. Theworkshop audience was comprised oflocal county commissioners, citycouncil members, township trustees,service directors, SWMD coordina-tors and local program managers.

In SFY 1997, the DRLP, Ohio EPAand the Buckeye Chapter of the SolidWaste Association of North America(SWANA) planned and conductedthree Rural Community Solid WasteManagement Workshops to addressissues of concern to SWMDs, legis-lators, county commissioners andtownship officials.

In SFY 1997, the DRLP partneredwith Ohio EPA, SWANA, U.S. EPAand several Ohio SWMDs to con-duct a workshop titled Getting Morefor Less: Cost-Cutting Strategiesfor Collecting Solid Waste andRecyclables. This workshop featuredreal-life experiences of solid wasteand recycling managers who success-fully changed their municipal solidwaste management and recyclablescollection systems, improved ser-vice, and cut costs.

In March 1998, the Ohio BuckeyeChapter of SWANA, ODNR, andOhio EPA coordinated efforts onceagain to provide a series of seminarsregarding variable rate garbagecollection. The seminars were par-tially funded by a grant from U.S.EPA with the remaining fundingcoming from SWANA, ODNR, andOhio EPA. The seminar series con-sisted of four workshops held inthe spring of 1999 in different loca-tions around Ohio. The Workshopsfeatured Lisa Skumatz of Skumatz

Economic Research Associateswhich is based in Seattle, Washing-ton. Ms. Skumatz is considered tothe be the leading authority on vari-able rate collection systems in theUnited States. The purpose of theseminars was to promote the imple-mentation of pay-as-you-throwgarbage collection systems in Ohio.

Until it was replaced with their webpage on the Internet, the DRLP main-tained an electronic bulletin board(ORICS) which provided a variety ofrecycling and market developmentinformation in full text search anddownloading capabilities.

The DRLP established a websitewhich provides recycling, wastereduction, recycling market develop-ment and litter prevention informa-tion. This information can be down-loaded and includes fact sheets,recycling program lists and thelatest in recycling and litter preven-tion news.

Ohio EPA established a website in1995 to provide information on eachprogram area at the Agency. TheDivision of Solid and InfectiousWaste Management performed amajor reorganization of its websitein 2000. The website now has twowebpages devoted to solid wasteplanning. Thus, the website has apage that is devoted to the State Plan.In addition, DSIWM’s website hasa webpage titled “Solid WasteManagement District Clearing-house” which is devoted to provid-ing information to solid waste man-agement district personnel. TheClearinghouse provides on-line ver-sions of reports, fact sheets, guidancedocuments, report forms, meetingagendas and minutes, and otherinformation commonly used in solidwaste planning.

A buy-recycled campaign, Get inthe Loop, was conducted as a pilotprogram with several of the localrecycling programs. The campaigntargeted shoppers at retail stores suchas Krogers, Walmart and Heinens inan awareness campaign. Promo-tional materials were provided suchas posters, and button badges. Manyof the local programs enhanced the


campaign with local business contri-butions of door prizes and promo-tions.

A partnership between Ohio EPA,ODNR, the Department of Develop-ment, and the Association of OhioRecyclers has resulted in the creationof the Ohio Materials Exchange(OMEx) which was implemented inearly 1998. In 2000, the amount ofwaste which was exchanged throughOMEx almost doubled over the 1999figures, resulting in 80,546 tons ofwaste being exchanged. OMExsaved businesses approximately$3,221,840 in disposal costs. OMExfielded 1,540 telephone calls. Interms of the composition of wastematerials exchanged via OMEx, thefollowing represent the most com-monly exchanged materials:

Ohio EPA’s Office of Pollution Pre-vention (OPP) has also been involvedin a number of technical assistanceactivities to assist local governmentand SWMDs complete waste reduc-tion/recycling and pollution preven-tion activities. These activities in-clude:

✦ Southwest Ohio Local GovernmentPollution Prevention Collabora-tive: This project helps local gov-ernments save money and improvethe environment through pollutionprevention. A series of meetingsand training opportunities are be-ing offered to representatives oflocal government in southwesternOhio in areas such as purchasing,vehicle maintenance, utility engi-neering, air pollution inspectionand community landscaping. In-formation sharing on initiativesand successes among local govern-ments will also be a key compo-

nent of the project. Ohio EPAhopes to make this project perma-nent in southwest Ohio and thenexpand to the rest of the State.

✦ General Technical Assistance:OPP is one of the leading techni-cal assistance programs in thecountry for a state without man-datory pollution prevention legis-lation. OPP provided technicalassistance to over 6,000 compa-nies, organizations and/or indi-viduals. This includes over 130site visits to help Ohio companiesimplement pollution preventionprograms and providing over70,000 pollution prevention docu-ments free-of-charge to help Ohiobusinesses help themselves to pre-vent waste. In addition, OPP com-pleted 150 presentations and train-

ing events to educate Ohio busi-nesses and organizations aboutpollution prevention. OPP’sInternet site has also been ac-knowledged by U.S. EPA and oth-ers as one of the best sites in thenation to obtain practical pollutionprevention information.

In January 1999, Ohio EPA and rep-resentatives from Ohio’s SWMDsformed a workgroup to facilitate en-hanced communication betweenDSIWM and SWMDs. Thisworkgroup is intended to provide aforum for Ohio EPA and SWMDs todiscuss issues of mutual interest.Ohio EPA hosts this workgroup aboutonce every three months. AllSWMDs are invited to and encour-aged to attend these workgroup meet-ings. Notices and agendas for up-coming meetings are made availablevia DSIWM’s web page.


Ohio EPA will finalize and adoptsolid waste composting standards formetals, pH, and soluble salts.

Ohio EPA proposed revisions to thecomposting rules in December of1998. These proposed revisions in-cluded certain composting standards.Due to numerous comments thatOhio EPA received, these rules werewithdrawn for further consideration.Ohio EPA anticipates re-proposingthese rules as an interested party draftin the fall of 2001. The compostingrules will establish quality standardsfor compost with concentration lim-its for metals, organic constituents,foreign matter and pathogens. Inaddition, the rules will require thatfinished compost be tested for pa-rameters that do not have concentra-tion limits such as pH, salinity, ma-turity, nitrogen, carbon, phosphorusand potassium. The draft also in-cludes the previously proposed po-sition of expanding the number offeedstocks, bulking agents and ad-ditives that may be accepted atcomposting facilities without obtain-ing previous approval.

Standards for MSW compost will notbe included in the proposed rules dueto difficulties in identifying standardsthat would be adequately protectiveof human health and the environ-ment.


Through the recycle Ohio Grant pro-gram, ODNR will continue to pro-vide funds to assist municipalitiesand counties with implementation ofa variety of recycling and litter pre-vention activities.

ODNR, through the DRLP, has pro-vided the following grants to localgovernments for the implementationof recycling and litter preventionactivities:

Construction and Demolition Material 50,024,000 pounds

Alkalis 5,200,000 pounds

Rubber 3,748,870 pounds

Miscellaneous 3,655,682 pounds

Refractory Material 1,200,000 pounds



Ohio EPA’s Office of Pollution Pre-vention, through the Ohio PreventionFirst initiative, will provide techni-cal assistance to industrial and com-mercial generators desiring to designand implement means of reducingtheir generation of wastes.

Ohio Prevention First began on Sep-tember 1, 1993 when then-GovernorGeorge V. Voinovich challenged the“Top 100” companies on Ohio’sToxic Release Inventory (TRI) (i.e.the top 100 emitters) to commit tocomprehensive pollution preventionplanning. Eighty-six of those 100companies agreed to participate. In1998, there were 167 facilities par-ticipating in the program. As of2001, there were 166 facilities par-ticipating in Ohio Prevention First.Participants work with Ohio EPA todevelop a comprehensive pollutionprevention plan.

Implementation of Ohio PreventionFirst was included as one of the 121recommendations contained in theState of Ohio Pollution PreventionStrategy (Strategy). The Strategyprovides specific recommendationsfor actions that consumers, state gov-ernment, business, and industry cantake to increase the amount of pol-lution prevented in Ohio. The goalof the Ohio Prevention First initia-tive is to reduce pollution in Ohioby 50 percent by the year 2000 basedon 1988 pollution release data.

Ohio Prevention First is now theleading voluntary pollution preven-tion initiative in the U.S. As of 1998,participants had reduced hazardouswaste production by 714,829 tons;solid waste generation by 5,980,271tons; and materials reported for the

Toxic Release Inventory by 372,743tons. Participants estimate that, by1998, they had saved $192,291,881through pollution prevention pro-grams.

The implementation phase of OhioPrevention First was completed inthe year 2000. Even so, it will takeuntil 2003 for data from the partici-pants to be analyzed and made avail-able. Thus, even though implemen-tation of the program is finished, OPPwill continue to collect and evaluatedata.


Ohio EPA will continue to investi-gate the methods of measuring andpromoting source reduction of solidwastes.

Although documentation and publi-cations addressing this issue continueto be gathered, Ohio EPA has madevery limited progress towards imple-menting this strategy due to otherhigher priority work responsibilities.


Ohio EPA will explore alternativesfor measuring waste reduction andrecycling, and will investigate meth-ods that will reduce the burden ofreporting for industries, recyclersand haulers, and lower the costs ofdata collection for SWMDs. Thisstrategy will include a re-examina-tion of the information needed inorder to monitor waste reduction andrecycling rate progress in Ohio andinvestigating more consistent andaccurate survey instruments.

The ADR is the vehicle by whichOhio EPA requires SWMDs to reportrecycling data that allows the Agencyto monitor WRRRs. As a result ofOhio EPA’s re-examination of the in-formation needed to monitorWRRRs and in an attempt to reducethe burden of reporting recyclingdata, the ADR has been reduced insize. This has been accomplished byeliminating many questions and cat-egories for reporting data. For eachquestion and category of data OhioEPA asked the following questions:Is this information required by regu-lation or statute? Does Ohio EPAneed this information? Does OhioEPA use this information or publishit, and if so, for what purpose? Ifthe information was not required byregulation or statute or was not nec-essary to monitor WRRRs, then thequestion or category of data collec-tion was eliminated. To further re-duce SWMD’s reporting burden,Ohio EPA and ODNR have consoli-dated much of their survey efforts toeliminate redundant reporting re-quirements.

Ohio EPA is currently in the processof implementing a new informationmanagement system. This system,called SIIMAN, will help reduce theSWMDs’ burden of reporting to OhioEPA by providing a system that willautomatically retrieve data from onepart of a report to use in another,make calculations, and allow forelectronic submittal of annual re-ports.

During 1997, seven SWMDs assistedOhio EPA in using and evaluating theU.S. EPA’s standardized recyclingmeasuring methodology to investi-gate more consistent and accuratesurvey instruments. This methodol-ogy does not appear to produce sur-vey results that are more consistentor accurate than the method that iscurrently recommended in the For-mat. (See the discussion associatedwith the next strategy for further in-formation regarding this project.)

Number Number Number Total DollarsAwarded Awarded Awarded Awarded

Grant Year to Counties to SWMDs to Cities

1996 54 21 12 $6,498,8721997 54 26 16 $6,458,1301998 54 27 16 $6,719,9041999 55 28 16 $6,694,8622000 55 27 16 $6,782,1242001 55 28 16 $6,784,632

These grants are an important funding source for virtually all of Ohio’s SWMDs.



Strategy #8: Ohio EPA will workwith U.S. EPA and other states topromote greater standardization inthe way that recycling and waste re-duction efforts are measured and re-ported.

In 1997, Ohio, along with four otherstates, participated in a pilot projectconducted by U. S. EPA. The pur-pose of this project was to test U. S.EPA’s Recycling MeasurementModel. U. S. EPA developed thismodel in an effort to create a sys-tematic and standardized tool thatcould be used for measuringWRRRs. Provided that the pilotproject proved the model to be ef-fective, U.S. EPA ultimately wouldlike to persuade all states to volun-tarily adopt the methodology.

Participants in the pilot project wereasked to use the model to collect re-cycling data and to provide input intothe strengths and weaknesses of themodel. States that had existing datacollection systems were asked tocompare the results obtained usingthe model with those obtainedthrough other systems.

In Ohio, the pilot project was imple-mented as a joint effort among OhioEPA, ODNR, and a limited numberof SWMDs. Instead of implement-ing the model statewide, Ohio solic-ited eight SWMDs to participate inthe project. Using a limited numberof SWMDs allowed Ohio EPA andODNR to oversee data collection ef-forts more effectively and providemore detailed assistance.

Each participant was required to sub-mit quarterly progress reports as wellas a final report detailing its experi-ences in testing the methodology.Ohio’s final report was submitted toU. S. EPA in spring of 1998. Ulti-mately, Ohio EPA determined that U.S. EPA’s methodology doesn’t differall that much from Ohio’s existingdata collection system. The majordifferences between the two centeredon what materials and activitiescould and couldn’t be counted as re-cycling. Generally, U. S. EPA’smethodology is more restrictive. U.

S. EPA has published the methodol-ogy for the model titled MeasuringRecycling—A Guide for State andLocal Governments. In June of 1998,U. S. EPA hosted a nationwide tele-conference to promote the recyclingmeasurement model. Ohio EPA par-ticipated in this teleconference.

Ohio EPA continues to be interestedin moving towards a common sys-tem of calculating recycling ratesamong the states and will continueto evaluate U.S. EPA’s methodologyin the future.

Challenges Associated withPreparing Local Solid WasteManagement Plans

As a part of demonstrating that it hasmet the goals and objectives of theState Plan, each SWMD must pre-pare a solid waste management plancovering a planning period of at leastten years. Much of the effort re-quired for developing SWMD solidwaste management plans is associ-ated with obtaining data in order tocomplete the required inventory offacilities, estimate waste generation,document disposal, recycling, andwaste reduction amounts, and esti-mate projections of waste generation,disposal, waste reduction, and recy-cling. A SWMD needs all of thisinformation in order to determine ap-propriate strategies for meeting theState Plan objectives.

Several factors severely complicatethe efforts of local SWMDs to makethe necessary measurements for re-cycling and reduction levels, and tomonitor progress toward the goals ofthe 1995 State Plan. To begin with,the state of Ohio does not regulaterecycling, and there are no reportingrequirements for many private sec-tor recycling entities. As a result,many recyclers and recycling brokersdo not respond to attempts bySWMDs to obtain recycling informa-tion. Often this lack of response isattributable to concerns regardingconfidentiality and a fear of compro-mising competitiveness in the mar-ket place.

SWMDs also frequently survey in-dustrial generators of solid waste inpreparing their solid waste manage-ment plans, in an effort to project theamounts of waste being generated,recycled or potentially able to be re-cycled. Unfortunately, the responseby industrial generators to the vol-untary surveys has been quite low insome SWMDs, with fewer than halfof a SWMD’s industries responding.This makes the task of projection dif-ficult, particularly in some largeSWMDs. SWMDs have been en-couraged to base their projections onthe number of employees in indus-tries in different SIC (standard indus-trial classification) categories and onemployment projections made by theOhio Department of Development(ODOD). Because of these uncer-tainties, appropriate caution shouldbe used in analyzing the amount ofrecycling projected in individualSWMDs and for the State as a whole.

Yet another source of error occurswith data obtained from scrap yardsand processors. It is Ohio EPA’s be-lief that owners and operators ofsome scrap and salvage yards, whensurveyed by a SWMD, provide a to-tal tonnage of material processed bythe facility rather than the portion at-tributable to the surveying SWMD.The SWMD is left with the choiceof either eliminating that tonnagefrom consideration or using the ton-nage provided. It is also possible thatowners and operators of scrap yardsand salvage dealerships include thetonnage of train boxcars, automobilebodies, and/or scrap metal from con-struction/demolition operations intheir totals. As was discussed ear-lier in this chapter, these were notconsidered when calculating theWRRR in accordance with the 1995State Plan.

Another common source of errororiginates with processors of recy-clable materials. Some processors,when surveyed, provide the total ton-nage of material processed by thefacility as opposed to the portion thatoriginated from the surveying entity.Others may incorrectly report mate-rial as originating from the residen-


tial/commercial sector when, in fact,it was generated by the industrialsector. Still other processors mayreport some materials as originatingfrom both the residential/commercialand industrial sectors (i.e. doublecount material). Most SWMDs at-tempt to eliminate the double count-ing or miscounting of material be-fore submitting the ADR form toOhio EPA. In addition, Ohio EPAmakes adjustments to the data thatis submitted and then confirms thoseadjustments with the SWMDs.

Another measurement problem hasinvolved the estimation of waste gen-eration for the residential/commer-cial sector. Many SWMDs havefound that the national averages forwaste generation in the residential/commercial sector are not especiallyaccurate. The averages are too highfor rural areas and typically too lowfor dense urbanized areas such asCuyahoga County.

Implementing Local SolidWaste Management Plans

SWMDs have used a variety of strat-egies in an attempt to meet the ob-jectives in the 1995 State Plan.Some have constructed facilities suchas material recovery facilities(MRFs) while others have compre-hensive systems of curbside recy-cling programs and drop-off services.Some SWMDs directly provide re-cycling opportunities and services totheir residents while others rely en-tirely upon the private sector to pro-vide the services needed. A limitednumber of SWMDs have used grantprograms as incentives to promotegreater participation in recycling andestablish more infrastructure. TableII-2 presents a summary of the typesof programs implemented bySWMDs to meet the waste reductionand recycling objectives of the 1995State Plan. [Although this table rep-resents information reported to Ohio

EPA by the SWMDs in ADRs andquarterly fee reports, it is likely thatthese figures understate the actualnumber of SWMD programs takingplace in particular categories (suchas education)].

Policy and RuleDevelopment Efforts

The 1995 State Plan required allSWMDs, in their solid waste man-agement plans, to demonstrate com-pliance with either Goal #1 or Goal#2 by 2000. Failure to do so wouldresult in disapproval of the SWMD’ssolid waste management plan byOhio EPA. However, the 1995 StatePlan did envision a situation in whicha SWMD could obtain an approvedsolid waste management plan thatdid not show compliance with eitherGoal #1 or Goal #2. Thus, the 1995State Plan stated that “In order toavoid solid waste management plandisapproval...the district’s planwould need to demonstrate clearlythe impediments to meeting Goals #1and #2 and develop aggressive rem-edies within the plan to address thedeficiencies.” Due to an oversight,this language was not incorporatedinto the August 1, 1996 version ofOAC Rule 3745-27-90 which definesthe requirements SWMDs’ solidwaste management plans must meetin accordance with Ohio law.

Ohio EPA received requests fromseveral SWMDs that were in the pro-cess of preparing solid waste man-agement plan updates to extend thedate for meeting Goal #1 or Goal #2beyond the year 2000. Due to thestaggered solid waste managementplan submittal schedule, someSWMDs had a longer time framewithin which to obtain an approvedsolid waste management plan andimplement programs to meet thegoals in the 1995 State Plan thanother SWMDs. The SWMDs thatsubmitted solid waste management

plan updates later in the cycle, insome cases, had insufficient time toimplement the necessary programs.Additionally, some SWMDs werescheduled to receive approval of theirsolid waste management plan up-dates after 2000. In order to allow aSWMD that could not demonstratecompliance with Goals #1 and #2 toutilize the language in the 1995 StatePlan, Ohio EPA, on June 22, 1999,adopted a policy that defined the cri-teria and procedures to be used bythose SWMDs for their solid wastemanagement plan updates. Thispolicy, DSIWM-27-90-0635, was in-tended to be an interim solution tothe problem until formal languagecould be incorporated into OAC Rule3745-27-90.

On December 1, 2000, Ohio EPAfiled a draft version of OAC Rule3745-27-90 with the Joint AgencyCommission on Rule Review(JCARR) that contained languageformally codifying policy DSIWM-27-90-0635. Normally, OAC Rule3745-27-90 is not updated until a re-vised State Plan has been adopted.However, the five-year rule reviewrequirements established by HouseBill 473 in ORC Section 119.032 re-quired that OAC Rule 3745-27-90 bereviewed prior to the adoption of thenext State Plan. In the absence of anew State Plan, major revisions toOAC Rule 3745-27-90, beyond thoserequired to incorporate PolicyDSIWM-27-90-0635, were not nec-essary and a full-scale review of therule was not conducted. Ohio EPAheld a public hearing for the rule onJanuary 8, 2001. No testimony waspresented. Furthermore, no com-ments were offered at the hearingheld by JCARR on March 5, 2001,and Ohio EPA filed a final versionof OAC Rule 3745-27-90 withJCARR on April 19, 2001. The rulebecame effective on May 10, 2001.Following adoption of this StatePlan, OAC Rule 3745-27-90 willonce again be updated.


TTTTTable II-2: able II-2: able II-2: able II-2: able II-2: SWMD Strategies Used to Meet 1995 State Plan Goals a

Strategy/Program # of Programs b Strategy/Program # of Programs b

Residential Recycling Opportunities Yard Waste Management

Non-subscription curbside 233c Education 31collection

Subscription curbside collection 99d Collection (either curbside or drop-off) 13

Drop-off collection 639e Facilities 7

Financial assistance/ grants 15

Material Recovery Facility/ 17 Scrap TiresRecycling Centerf

Education Education 17

general education 40 Collection 33

newsletter 19 Cleanups 6

oral presentations 23

seminars/ workshops 17 Household Hazardous Waste

model community g 2 Education 38

county fair displays 13 Collection 29

contests 9 Hotline 8

brochures/ pamphlets 24

in-school programs 25 Lead-Acid Batteries

advertising/ promotion 22 advertise available outlets 16

resource library 12 collection 16

Commercial/Industrial Other Collections

waste audits 17 phone books 10

awards 7 household batteries 8

commercial/ government 8 white goods 22office recycling programs

waste exchanges 10 used motor oil 8

Christmas trees 7

Other programs electronics 4

health department funding 40

law enforcement funding 6 Market Development

open dump cleanups 7 list of vendors 4

purchase recycled 4content products

education 5

grants 1

a The primary objective of this table is to show the variety of strategies and programs used by SWMDs. The information has been taken directly from annual reports from SWMDs submitted for calendar year 1999.b Except as indicated in footnotes c, d, and e below, the “number of programs” indicates the number of SWMDs using that type of strategy or program. In reality, the numbers shown are most certainly too low, however, they represent the information reported to Ohio EPA.

c The number of non-subscription curbside recycling programs reflects the number of communities, not SWMDs, that provide this service.

d The number of subscription curbside recycling programs reflects the number of communities, not SWMDs, that provide this service.e The number of drop-off recycling programs reflects the number of locations, not SWMDs, where this service is provided.

f In this instance, “Material Recovery Facility” includes facilities that recover recyclables from mixed waste, facilities processing only recyclables, and drop-off sites which also process recyclables.

g “Model Community” is a program developed by a non-profit organization in Illinois, focusing on source reduction and recycling in businesses, offices, grocery stores, agriculture, etc.


Goals For Solid Waste Reduction, Recycling, Reuse and Minimization 29

ORC Section 3734.50(A) requiresthe State Plan to “Reduce relianceon the use of landfills for manage-ment of solid waste.”

ORC Section 3734.50(B) requiresthe State Plan to “Establish objec-tives for solid waste reduction, recy-cling, reuse, and minimization and aschedule for implementing thoseobjectives.”

ORC Section 3734.50 requires theDirector of Ohio EPA to “...adoptrules...establishing the objectives andrestrictions of the State Plan ...asmandatory elements of the solidwaste management plans of countyand joint solid waste managementdistricts...”

In fulfillment of the directives above,this chapter establishes eight goalsthat SWMDs are required to achievein their solid waste managementplans. The goals are intended to pro-vide direction to SWMDs for devel-oping programs and activities to fur-ther recycling and waste minimiza-tion in the State. In addition, thesegoals provide minimum standardsthat SWMDs must meet for the pro-vision of alternative waste manage-ment options to their residents andbusinesses. This chapter also out-lines a statewide waste reduction andrecycling goal as well as ten strate-gies to be implemented at the Statelevel. These strategies are focusedon ways that Ohio’s various stateagencies can promote recycling andwaste minimization as well as waysthey can assist Ohio’s SWMDs intheir efforts at the local level.

The goals established in this chapterare based on those established in thefirst revision to the State Plan thatwas adopted in 1995 (the 1995 StatePlan). After a great deal of discus-sion with officials from Ohio’sSWMDs and other interested parties,

GOALS FOR SOLID WASTE REDUCTION,RECYCLING, REUSE AND MINIMIZATION

Ohio EPA and SWAC have revisedthe goals from the 1995 State Planto address the problems that wereidentified in Chapter II and to ensurethat Ohio continues making progresstowards reducing the State’s relianceon disposing of solid waste in land-fill facilities. With a few exceptions,Ohio EPA and SWAC did not makemajor changes to the goals estab-lished by the 1995 State Plan. Thisrevision does contain a new goal toemphasize the importance of provid-ing economic incentives to encour-age greater participation in availablerecycling and reduction programs. Inaddition, this revision places greateremphasis on promoting participationin available recycling opportunities;increases the numerical goal associ-ated with the industrial sector com-ponent of Goal #2; and emphasizesthe need to provide education andinformation regarding recycling elec-tronic equipment. For the most part,however, this revision refines theexisting goals and provides someadditional flexibility to SWMDs fordemonstrating compliance with thegoals in their solid waste manage-ment plans.

As was the case with the goals in the1995 State Plan, each of the eightgoals discussed in this chapter areimportant to furthering recycling andwaste minimization in Ohio. How-ever, Ohio EPA considers Goals #1and #2 to be the primary goals and,as a result, will place more impor-tance on those goals when evaluat-ing a SWMD’s solid waste manage-ment plan for compliance with theState Plan. Ohio EPA fully expectsthat SWMDs will have to devotemore effort and resources to meet-ing the requirements of Goal #1 or#2 than will be needed for the othergoals. This focus does not diminishthe importance of the remaining sixgoals, however.

3CHAPTER

A SWMD is required to demonstratecompliance with either Goal #1 orGoal #2 in order to obtain an ap-proved solid waste managementplan. The option of pursuing eitherGoal #1 or Goal #2 is provided inorder to address several of the previ-ously identified differences amongSWMDs. This affords SWMDs withtwo methods of demonstrating com-pliance with the State’s waste reduc-tion and recycling goals. Ohio EPAand SWAC generally agree that theexisting goals from the 1995 StatePlan are more or less appropriate andthat Ohio should continue to provideSWMDs with the flexibility of meet-ing either a goal based on the provi-sion of recycling opportunities (Goal#1) or a numerical goal (Goal #2).With the overall objective of reduc-ing the State’s reliance on landfilldispoal, SWMDs continue to havethe option of demonstrating compli-ance with Goal #1 or Goal #2. Fol-lowing the presentation of Goal #1and Goal #2, the relationship be-tween these goals is discussed ingreater detail.

GOAL #1 : ACCESS TO ALTERNATIVEWASTE MANAGEMENTOPPORTUNITIES

The SWMD shall provide access torecycling and waste minimizationopportunities for municipal solidwaste to its residents and businesses

In order to achieve Goal #1, SWMDsmust:

✦ Ensure that at least 90 percent ofthe residential sector populationin each county of the SWMD hasaccess to recycling or other alter-native management opportunitiesfor the management of solidwastes.

✦ Evaluate the WRRR for the resi-dential/commercial sector.SWMDs that have a residential/commercial WRRR of less than25 percent must establish a tar-get WRRR for the residential/commercial sector to be achievedby the third year after approvalof the SWMD’s solid waste man-agement plan. The target WRRRmust be higher than the WRRRin the reference year.1

✦ Ensure that commercial and in-stitutional solid waste generatorshave access to recycling or otheralternative management opportu-nities for the management of solidwaste.

✦ Evaluate the WRRR for the in-dustrial sector. SWMDs that havean industrial WRRR of less than66 percent must establish a tar-get WRRR for the industrial sec-tor to be achieved by the thirdyear after plan approval. The tar-get WRRR must be higher thanthe WRRR in the reference year.

To demonstrate compliance withGoal #1, the SWMD provides, in itssolid waste management plan, a re-duction/recycling needs assessment.Specifically, the needs assessmentevaluates existing programs and ac-tivities to: (a) determine whether anysector of generators (residential,commercial/institutional, or indus-trial) does not have access to alter-native management options; (b) iden-tify any area or political jurisdictionwithin the SWMD where a sector ofgenerators does not have access toalternative options; and (c) determinewhether available alternative man-agement options are being under-uti-lized.

To obtain an Ohio EPA approvedplan, a SWMD must demonstratethat at least 90 percent of the resi-dential population in each countycomprising the SWMD will haveaccess to waste reduction and recy-cling programs by the third year fol-lowing approval of the SWMD’ssolid waste management plan.2

These programs can be existing or

new programs, but all programs be-ing used to demonstrate 90 percentaccess must be in place within threeyears of obtaining an approved solidwaste management plan. All pro-grams and activities being used todemonstrate compliance with theresidential sector component of Goal#1 must collect a minimum of fiveof the materials identified in TableIII-1 as highly amenable to recoveryfrom solid waste generated by theresidential sector.

The SWMD must also demonstratethat generators in the commercial/institutional sector have access torecycling or other alternative man-agement methods for at least five ofthe materials identified in Table III-2 as highly amendable to recoveryfrom solid waste generated by thecommercial/institutional sector.

In addition, the SWMD must encour-age participation in the available re-cycling and waste minimization op-portunities. This can be accom-plished through education and aware-


1When a SWMD prepares its solid waste management plan, the SWMD selects a “reference year” which is the calendar yearfor all data collection needed for plan preparation. The data from the reference year serves as the baseline data upon which allsubsequent projections are based.

2The methodology for demonstrating compliance with Goal #1 will be contained in OAC Rule 3745-2790 and the Format.

3Source: Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 1998,Franklin Associates, for U.S. EPA, April 2000.

Table III-1 List of Materials in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream HighlyAmenable to Recovery from the Residential Sector3

Product, Packaging, Percent of Total MSW Product, Packaging, Percent of Total or Material in MSW Generation or Material in MSW MSW Generation

Corrugated Cardboard 13.51 Lead-acid Batteries 0.88

Mixed Paper 12.23 Major Appliances 1.66

Newspaper 6.18 Yard Waste 12.59

Glass Containers 4.99 Steel Containers 1.22

Scrap Tires 2.05 Aluminum Containers 0.72

Used Motor Oil Not Available Plastic Containers 1.75

Textiles 3.90 Household Hazardous Not AvailableWaste

ness programs and by implementingincentive programs (see the discus-sion associated with Goal #6 formore detail regarding incentive pro-grams).

It is expected that the programs andactivities identified by a SWMD willconsist of a combination of publicsector and private sector efforts.SWMDs need not directly provideservices in order to comply with thisobjective.

The Demonstration

In its solid waste management plan,a SWMD must analyze the recyclingand waste minimization infrastruc-ture that exists in its jurisdiction inthe reference year. Using the resultsof this analysis and the methodologyand standards provided in the For-mat and OAC Rule 3745-27-90, theSWMD then determines whether ornot it needs to implement new pro-grams and activities to demonstratecompliance with Goal #1. Much ofthe information needed to completethis demonstration is compiled aspart of preparing the solid wastemanagement plan. Thus, in the solidwaste management plan, SWMDsare required to provide an inventoryof the sources, composition, andquantities of solid wastes generatedwithin the SWMD. This inventoryis to include a list of all of the wastemanagement and recycling facilities

that provide service to the SWMDas well as all waste collection sys-tems and entities collecting waste inthe SWMD. The information gath-ered in compiling these inventoriesshould enable a SWMD to showwhich materials are targeted for al-ternative management, the type ofcollection and management methodsavailable, and the extent to whichgenerators have access to alternativemanagement opportunities.

This revision of the State Plan modi-fies the focus of Goal #1 to place agreater emphasis on participation inavailable recycling and minimizationopportunities. As established in theFormat which was revised followingadoption of the 1995 State Plan,SWMDs that are unable to demon-strate that at least 90 percent of theresidential population has access torecycling opportunities in the refer-ence year are directed to focus firston establishing the necessary infra-structure to achieve 90 percent ac-cess. Once that infrastructure is inplace, SWMDs are then directed tofocus on ensuring that residents par-ticipate in available recycling oppor-tunities. With the adoption of thisState Plan revision, SWMDs that areable to demonstrate that at least 90percent of the residential populationhas access to recycling opportunitiesin the reference year will be requiredto perform an assessment of partici-pation in those opportunities in their

solid waste management plans. Foropportunities that are being under-utilized, the SWMD will then be re-quired to develop strategies to in-crease participation. Such strategiescould consist of increased educa-tional efforts, provision of incentives,restructuring the location and arrayof available opportunities, etc.

In their solid waste managementplans, SWMDs that opt to demon-strate compliance with Goal #1 cal-culate the percentage of the popula-tion that has access to recycling op-portunities using default values thatrepresent the number of people whocan reasonably be expected to use agiven opportunity. These defaultvalues are contained in OAC Rule3745-27-90 and the Format and areprovided for curbside recycling pro-grams, drop-off recycling locations,and material recovery facilities.With the adoption of this State Plan,Ohio EPA will, through the revisionof OAC Rule 3745-27-90 and theFormat, develop additional method-ologies that SWMDs can utilize tocalculate the percentage of the resi-dential population that has access torecycling opportunities. These ad-ditional methodologies will include:

✦ Visual tally/survey of users(must address multiple visitsduring survey period)

✦ Use of tonnages to gauge usage

31

Table III-2 List of Materials in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream Highly Amenable toRecovery from the Commercial/Institutional Sector4

Product, Packaging, Percent of Total MSW Product, Packaging, Percent of Totalor Material in MSW Generation or Material in MSW MSW Generation

Corrugated Cardboard 13.51 Plastic Containers 1.75

Office Paper 3.20 Wood Pallets and 5.4Packaging

Newspaper 6.18 Food Waste 10.05

Glass Containers 4.99 Lead-acid Batteries 0.88

Steel Containers 1.22 Major Appliances 1.66

Aluminum Containers 0.72 Yard Waste 12.59

4Source: Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 1998,Franklin Associates, for U.S. EPA, April 2000.

Goals For Solid waste Reduction, Recycling, Reuse and Minimization


✦ Explore the use of a radiusaround a drop-off whereby thepopulation within the radiuswould be considered as havingaccess to the drop-off

✦ Credit for a recycling opportu-nity located outside the SWMDor out of the defined service area

✦ Other possible methodologiesacceptable to Ohio EPA (the de-termination of acceptability willbe made on a case-by-case ba-sis)

GOAL #2: WASTE REDUCTIONAND RECYCLING RATES

The SWMD shall reduce and/or re-cycle at least 25 percent of the solidwaste generated in the residential/commercial sector and at least 66percent of the solid waste generatedin the industrial sector.

SWAC recognizes that great varia-tion exists among SWMDs in termsof ability to achieve the mandatedWRRRs. Some SWMDs alreadyexceed the 25 percent goal for theresidential/commercial sector, whilemany others currently fall well be-low this level. Furthermore, it ismore likely that SWMDs will reachthe 66 percent goal for the industrialsector than they will the 25 percentgoal for the residential/commercialsector. However, SWAC and OhioEPA believe that each SWMD shouldmake every effort to continue in-creasing the amounts of solid wastereduced and recycled and decreasingthe amounts landfilled.

Residential/CommercialSector Component

In order to comply with the residen-tial/commercial component of Goal#2, a SWMD must demonstrate that,by relying on existing programs andactivities and/or implementing newprograms and activities, it will re-duce and/or recycle at least 25 per-cent of the total amount of solidwaste generated by the residential/commercial sector, including yardwastes, within three years of obtain-

ing an approved solid waste manage-ment plan. Furthermore, the SWMDmust demonstrate that it will main-tain a WRRR of at least 25 percentfor the residential/commercial sec-tor for the remainder of the planningperiod. The materials that a SWMDcan credit towards achieving the resi-dential/commercial WRRR are thesame as those allowed by the 1995State Plan.

Industrial Sector Component

To comply with the industrial sectorcomponent of Goal #2, SWMDsmust demonstrate that existing and/or new programs will reduce and/orrecycle at least 66 percent of the gen-eration of industrial solid wasteswithin three years after obtaining anapproved solid waste managementplan. This State Plan revision in-creases the industrial sector percent-age goal to 66 percent in order to1)acknowledge that the previous tar-get of 50 percent had been reachedand that continued progress is appro-priate, and 2) eliminate the uncertainrelationship between the statewidegoal and the two SWMD compo-nents. [As was discussed in Chapter2, even if the two SWMD objectivesestablished in the 1995 State Planwere met, Ohio would not necessar-ily have achieved the statewide goalsince 25 percent and 50 percent,when combined and averaged, do notresult in 50 percent.] The method-ology for calculating the WRRR forthe industrial sector will be the sameas in the 1995 State Plan.

SWMDs will have the ability to dem-onstrate that the composition of theindustrial waste stream will preventthe SWMD from being able toachieve a 66 percent waste reductionand recycling rate for that sector.Such a demonstration will have toprove that the waste material is in-herently “unrecyclable” therebymaking it impossible for the SWMDto demonstrate compliance with theindustrial sector component of Goal#2. To do so, the SWMD will needto identify the industrial waste(s) thatis problematic and explain why thewaste isn’t and/or cannot be recycled.As part of the demonstration, the

SWMD will have to prove that atleast 66 percent of the remaining in-dustrial waste generated in theSWMD is being recycled.

Relationship between Goals #1 and #2

As was mentioned earlier, Ohio EPAand SWAC emphasize that SWMDsshould strive to achieve both Goal #1and Goal #2. Complying with therequirements of Goal #1 should helpthe SWMD achieve the residential/commercial and industrial compo-nents of Goal #2 which in turn willenable Ohio to achieve the state goalof reducing and recycling 50 percentof the solid waste generated by 2005(see the discussion associated withthe State’s waste reduction and re-cycling goal which is presented laterin this chapter). Table III-3 presentsall of the possible scenarios of com-pliance with Goals #1 and #2 that aSWMD can demonstrate in its solidwaste management plan. All but onescenario would result in the SWMD’ssolid waste management plan beingapproved for attributes related toGoals #1 and #2.

Some SWMDs will undoubtedly facea serious challenge in meeting theresidential/commercial and/or indus-trial components of Goal #2. Con-versely, some SWMDs may find itdifficult to fulfill all the requirementsassociated with Goal #1. However,a SWMD must, in its solid wastemanagement plan, demonstrate com-pliance with one goal or the other inorder to obtain approval. If bothGoals #1 and #2 are met (Scenarios1 and 3), the SWMD will obviouslyreceive an approved plan, providingall other aspects of the plan are ac-ceptable.

Most districts will probably fall intoScenario 2, 4 or 5. Some SWMDswill experience difficulties demon-strating that they will achieve a 25percent WRRR for the residential/commercial sector and, therefore,demonstrate compliance with Goal#1. If a SWMD determines that itwill not be able to meet the 25 per-cent WRRR for the residential/com-mercial component of Goal #2, even


after demonstrating compliance withGoal #1, the SWMD must set a “tar-get” WRRR to be achieved withinthree years of obtaining approval ofits solid waste management plan(Scenarios 2 and 4). The target es-tablished by the district must begreater than the WRRR in the refer-ence year. The SWMD must alsodemonstrate that it will maintain theresidential/commercial WRRR at or

greater than the target WRRR for theremainder of the planning period.

Other SWMDs may have difficultymeeting a 66 percent WRRR for theindustrial sector as mandated by Goal#2 due to the nature of their indus-trial sector, financial resources, orboth and, therefore, demonstratecompliance with Goal #1 (Scenarios2 and 4). There isn’t a standard for

the provision of recycling opportu-nities to the industrial sector. In or-der to receive approval of its solidwaste management plan, the SWMDmust demonstrate that it cannot meetthe industrial objective and must seta “target” WRRR percentage for theindustrial sector to be achievedwithin three years of obtaining solidwaste management plan approval.

Table III-3: Relationship Between Goals #1 and #2 and Solid Waste ManagementPlan Approval

Scenario Goal #1 met in Goal #1 met within Goal #2 met Solid Wastereference year? 3 years of plan 3 years of Management

approval? plan approval Plan approval?*

1 Yes; SWMD performs Yes; SWMD Yes; SWMD at or Yesanalysis of participation continues to meet above both 25%and provision of incentives for residential/

commercial sectorand 66% forindustrial sector

2 Yes; SWMD performs Yes; SWMD continues No; SWMD sets Yesanalysis of participation to meet reasonable targetsand provision of incentives for both the

residential/commercial andindustrial sectors.

3 No Yes Yes; SWMD at or Yesabove both 25%for residential/commercial sectorand 66% forindustrial sector

4 No Yes No; SWMD sets Yesreasonable targetsfor both theresidential/commercial andindustrial sectors.

5 No No Yes; SWMD at or Yesabove both 25%for residential/commercial sectorand 66% forindustrial sector

6 No No No; SWMD at or Yes, provided thatabove 25% for the SWMD canresidential/ prove the industrialcommercial sector waste is inherentlybut below 66% for industrial sectorindustrial sector “unrecyclable” and

demonstrate that 66percent of all otherindustrial waste isbeing reduced/recycled

7 No No No No

* Discussion of plan approval in this column assumes that all other requirements for the plan have been satisfied.


This is required even though theSWMD has successfully demon-strated compliance with Goal #1 forthe residential and commercial sec-tors. The target must be greater thanthe current reported WRRR ratebased upon the latest reference year.Furthermore, the SWMD must dem-onstrate that it will maintain the in-dustrial sector WRRR at or greaterthan the target WRRR for the remain-der of the planning period. The dem-onstration for the industrial sectorWRRR should document the com-position of the waste stream gener-ated by industries and explain thedifficulty in reducing and/or recy-cling these materials in greater quan-tity. SWMDs must also ensure thatthere will be programs and activitiesin place to meet the target. If suchprograms and activities do not existor are not already planned, then theSWMD must include new strategiesin the solid waste management plan.

Scenario 5 assumes that a SWMDdetermines it will not be able to meetGoal #1 (either in the reference yearor within three years of obtainingsolid waste management plan ap-proval) even after exercising all rea-sonable efforts to do so, but theSWMD can meet both the 25 per-cent residential/commercial sectorcomponent and the 66 percent indus-trial sector component as stipulatedby Goal #2. It is also possible that aSWMD will fall within this scenarioby choice (i.e. the SWMD choosesnot to demonstrate compliance withGoal #1).

Scenario 6 describes a SWMDwhich, in its solid waste managementplan, is unable to demonstrate com-pliance with Goal #1 and is unableto demonstrate compliance with theindustrial sector component of Goal#2, but is able to demonstrate com-pliance with the residential/commer-cial component of Goal #2. It is pos-sible for a SWMD meeting theseconditions to receive approval for itssolid waste management plan, pro-vided that the SWMD can providethe demonstration concerning inher-ently unrecyclable materials de-scribed on page 32 and demonstratethat at least 66 percent of the remain-

ing industrial solid waste is beingreduced/recycled. However, OhioEPA expects that solid waste man-agement plans that meet the condi-tions described by scenario 6 will bethe exception and, therefore, expectsto approve very few solid waste man-agement plans that can’t demonstratestrict compliance with either Goal #1or Goal #2.

In the unlikely event that a SWMDcan demonstrate being able toachieve an overall WRRR of 50 per-cent or greater and a WRRR for theresidential/commercial sector of atleast 25 percent but cannot demon-strate a WRRR of 66 percent for theindustrial sector, Ohio EPA will con-sider approving the SWMD’s solidwaste management plan.

GOAL #3: SOURCE REDUCTION

Provide Informational and TechnicalAssistance on Source Reduction

SWMDs are required to have a pro-gram for providing informational andtechnical assistance regarding sourcereduction to solid waste generators,or particular categories of solid wastegenerators. SWMDs have the solediscretion to determine the types ofassistance to be provided. However,information and technical assistanceregarding source reduction must beprovided to both the residential/com-mercial sector and the industrial sec-tor.

Source reduction, which is the mostpreferred management method in thesolid waste management hierarchy,can be an effective practice to reducewaste generation. Source reductionmeans less waste needs to be man-aged, lower costs for waste manage-ment, and decreased liability con-cerns for generators of waste.

Source reduction activities can betailored for all sectors of generators.Examples of source reduction activi-ties targeting the residential sectorinclude providing local communitieswith assistance for implementingvolume-based billing for waste col-lection and information regardingreducing the waste through purchas-

ing practices. Commercial and in-dustrial generators may greatly ben-efit from pollution prevention efforts,waste audits, or waste exchangescoordinated by a SWMD.

GOAL # 4: TECHNICAL ANDINFORMATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Provide Informational and TechnicalAssistance on Recycling, Reuse, andComposting Opportunities

SWMDs must describe, in their solidwaste management plans, the infor-mational or technical assistanceavailable to residential, commercial,and industrial generators within theSWMD regarding other alternativemanagement options such as recy-cling or yard waste composting. Thisassistance can be provided by theSWMD or by other entities withinthe SWMD. Regardless of the pro-vider, however, such efforts shouldbe documented in the solid wastemanagement plan. Informationalassistance can include: public aware-ness efforts such as brochures or fly-ers concerning the types of recy-clable materials accepted at andhours of operation for donation drop-off locations; newsletters distributedto the general public and businesscommunity; presentations to variouscommunity groups; seminars andworkshops; displays at communityfunctions, such as county fairs; ad-vertising and public service an-nouncements; promotion of back-yard composting and “Don’t Bag It”campaigns; compilation and distri-bution of lists of local businesses thataccept recyclable materials; and de-velopment of school curricula pro-grams. Technical assistance activi-ties may include: waste audits forlocal businesses; assistance to localcommunities for establishing recy-cling or yard waste composting pro-grams; waste exchanges; or market-ing collected materials. The publicawareness and technical assistanceactivities planned by the SWMDshould be comprehensive with re-gard to the types of materials, man-agement opportunities, and genera-tors serviced by the available oppor-tunities in the SWMD.


GOAL #5: RESTRICTED WASTES ANDHOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES

Strategies for Managing Scrap Tires,Yard Waste, Lead-acid Batteries, andHousehold Hazardous Wastes

SWMDs are required to providestrategies geared towards solid wastematerials that are restricted from dis-posal in solid waste facilities. Thereare three materials for which restric-tions exist. These materials are scraptires, yard waste, and lead-acid bat-teries. In addition, SWMDs are re-quired to provide residents with astrategy which addresses householdhazardous waste. Although house-hold hazardous waste is not a re-stricted waste stream, it has been in-cluded with the restricted wastesunder Goal #5 for simplicity.

Scrap Tire Management Strategy

Local SWMDs are required to in-clude a strategy to address scrap tires.The specific activities to be imple-mented are at the discretion of thelocal SWMDs. Programs imple-mented by SWMDs range from theprovision of information regardingthe proper disposal of scrap tires andavailable recycling and disposal out-lets to sponsoring collection eventsor funding the abatement of aban-doned scrap tire piles. [See ChapterVII for more detail regarding scraptire management in Ohio and an ac-count of the types of programs imple-mented by SWMDs to date.]

Yard Waste Management Strategy

Local SWMDs are required to in-clude a strategy to address yardwaste. The specific activities to beimplemented are at the discretion ofthe local SWMD. Programs imple-mented by SWMDs range from pro-viding information regarding back-yard composting and “Don’t Bag It”campaigns to contracting forcurbside collection of yard waste andoperating composting facilities. [SeeChapter IV for more information re-garding this requirement.]

Lead-acid Battery Strategy

Local SWMDs are required to in-clude a strategy to address lead-acidbatteries. The specific activities tobe implemented are at the discretionof the local SWMD. SWMDs com-monly provide residents with infor-mation regarding outlets for recy-cling lead-acid batteries. SeveralSWMDs also provide collection op-portunities for lead-acid batteries.[See Chapter IV for more informa-tion regarding this requirement.]

Household HazardousWaste (HHW) Program

Local SWMDs are required to in-clude a strategy to address the properseparation and management ofhousehold hazardous wastes. Thespecific activities to be implementedare at the discretion of the localSWMD. Most SWMDs provide in-formation to their residents concern-ing proper management of HHW aswell as less-toxic/less hazardousmaterials that can be used. A largenumber of SWMDs host collectionevents for their residents. (See Chap-ter VIII for more information regard-ing household hazardous waste gen-eration and management in Ohio aswell as a discussion of the types ofprograms and activities implementedby SWMDs to meet this portion ofGoal #5.)

In addition to providing a strategy forhousehold hazardous waste in gen-eral, SWMDs will, with the adoptionof this revision, be required to pro-vide a strategy geared towards themanagement of electronic equip-ment. As is explained in ChapterVIII, the number of electronic com-ponents being disposed by the resi-dential sector is rapidly growing.Many of these components have po-tentially harmful constituents. Fur-thermore, many electronic compo-nents are highly recyclable. There-fore, Ohio EPA and SWAC feel thatit is important for SWMDs to at leastacknowledge this issue in their solidwaste management plans and to beprepared to provide information to

their residents. As with the restrictedwaste streams and general householdhazardous waste, the specific strat-egy selected by the SWMD is solelyat the discretion of the SWMD.

GOAL #6: ECONOMICINCENTIVE ANALYSIS

Evaluate the Feasibility of Incorpo-rating Economic Incentives intoSource Reduction and RecyclingPrograms

Despite the availability of opportu-nities to participate in recycling andreduction programs and educationregarding those opportunities, recy-cling behavior is heavily influencedby economic incentives and disin-centives. For this reason, Ohio EPAand SWAC believe that it is of ut-most importance that SWMDs con-tinue to explore methods of increas-ing participation through economicincentives or the removal of eco-nomic disincentives. Therefore, withthe adoption of this revised StatePlan, SWMDs will be required toperform, in their solid waste manage-ment plans, an evaluation of the fea-sibility of incorporating economicincentives into their programs andactivities. While this evaluation willnot obligate a SWMD to implementan incentive-based program, it is ex-pected that the information garneredthrough the evaluation will be use-ful to the SWMD as it develops fu-ture programs.

The requirements imposed by Goal#6 are not new. In accordance withthe 1995 State Plan, SWMDs thatchoose to demonstrate compliancewith Goal #1 in their solid wastemanagement plan updates are al-ready required to evaluate the feasi-bility of implementing financial in-centives to promote greater partici-pation in recycling programs. Po-tential financial incentives includevolume-based collection rates (i.e.Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) pro-grams), incentive-based grant pro-grams, and reducing the costs forresidents to recycle. As mostSWMDs that have obtained approved


Providing Economic Incentives to Encourage Participation in Recycling Programs

Economic incentives are often one of the best methods for changing behavior. The behavior to change is thetrend in the United States towards generating more waste each year and disposing of that waste in landfillfacilities. U.S. EPA estimates in the Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1998Update indicate that the amount of MSW generated will continue to rise through the year 2005.

While there are numerous types of economic incentives that can be utilized, there are two basic types that willbe discussed here: Volume-based rates (VBR) and Incentive-based grants. Several SWMDs and communi-ties in Ohio have implemented effective financial incentive programs which have affected the WRRRs forthose SWMDs.

Volume-based rates

Programs utilizing VBRs, also referred to as pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) programs, are widely acknowledgedas a potential mechanism to reduce the amount of waste generated by charging generators on a per unit basis.A resident or business is charged a certain amount of money for each bag (or can) of waste set out forcollection. Someone setting out six bags of waste will pay twice as much as his/her neighbor who puts onlythree bags at the curb.

Numerous variations of VBRs are in use in the United States. Some systems may charge the same rate for amaximum number of bags or cans. The resident would then be charged extra for any additional bags or cansset out. While most systems are based on volume, or the number of bags and cans, cities have also imple-mented weight-based rate structures in which the quantity of waste is weighed at the curb for each resident.

Although VBR programs have been used on a limited basis in Ohio, the number of communities implement-ing VBRs continues to grow, and several communities in Ohio have experienced great success through theirVBR programs.

The Allen, Champaign, Hardin, Madison, Shelby, Union Joint County SWMD: The Village of Forrest inHardin County, Ohio implemented a PAYT program in 1998. The program was implemented in an attempt toprevent an increase in the per-household rate for trash collection. Prior to implementation, the Village pro-vided unlimited trash collection for each residence for a $10 charge per month which was assessed via thewater bills. Services were provided to approximately 690 households and seven multi-family units that, intotal, disposed of 700 tons of waste per year. Recycling was performed via a recycling center which wasestablished in 1993. In total, 33 tons of recyclables were collected per year giving a recycling rate of fivepercent.

Following implementation, households are still assessed $10 through the water bills, but now are allowed todispose of only two bags of garbage per week. Additional bags must be tagged with a $1 sticker. Recyclingis still performed by residents transporting materials to the recycling center. However, the Village providedeach household with two 18 gallon containers for collecting and transporting materials to the center. Afterthe first year of implementation, the amount of waste disposed decreased by 45 percent and voluntary recy-cling increased by 350 percent or 115.5 tons. The Village has not experienced an increase in illegal dumpingof waste. In fact, residents have actually picked up litter to full up their two-bag-a-week allotment.

Incentive-based Grants

Incentive-based grants are one form of economic incentive program utilized by SWMDs to encourage greaterparticipation in available recycling programs. Many SWMDs award money to communities to support recy-cling programs. Under an incentive-based grant program, however, the amount of money awarded is based onthe amount of recycling the community performs. The amount of money awarded can be based on whateverstandard the SWMD deems appropriate (such as tonnage or percentage).

The Hamilton County SWMD: An example of an incentive-based grant program is the Residential Recy-cling Initiative Program that was implemented by the Hamilton County SWMD (District). This program is anincentive-based program that provides funding to municipalities and townships based on the weight of resi-dential recyclable materials collected from the community and reported to the SWMD. Communities areeligible to participate if they operate, contract, or franchise a curbside, drop-off, or buyback recycling opera-tion for their residents. Funds are distributed in three ways: rebates, community assistance funds, andresidential reduction assistance grants.

(continued)


solid waste management plans underthe authority of the 1995 State Planhave done so by demonstrating com-pliance with Goal #1, many SWMDshave already performed this evalua-tion. Inclusion of this requirementas a goal simply extends the obliga-tion to perform the analysis to allSWMDs regardless of whether theydemonstrate compliance with Goal#1 or Goal #2.

GOAL #7

Market DevelopmentStrategy (optional)

SWMDs are encouraged to conductmarket development activities to pro-mote the use of recycled products andto develop local markets for recov-ered materials. However, providinga market development strategy is nota mandatory element of a SWMDplan. Examples of strategies gearedtowards this goal include: compila-tion and distribution of lists of ven-dors that sell products made fromrecycled materials; development ofpolicies that favor recycled-contentproducts for government purchasingprograms; grant programs for thepurchase of recycled-content items;and funding research and develop-ment projects. For more discussionconcerning potential market devel-opment activities conducted by theState and by SWMDs, please seeChapter IX.

GOAL #8: REPORTING

Annual Reporting ofPlan Implementation

SWMDs are to annually evaluate theimplementation of the programs andactivities listed in the implementa-tion schedule of the plan and theprogress made toward the reductionobjectives. SWMDs must submit toOhio EPA a report based upon theprevious calendar year that includes:

a. a detailed report on the status ofthe ongoing, new and proposedfacilities, programs, and activitieslisted in the implementationschedule of the approved solidwaste management plan;

b. an inventory of the alternativemanagement methods availablein the district and the types andquantities of municipal solidwaste, yard waste, and industrialwaste managed through alternatemethods such as recycling, reuse,or minimization for the year;

c. an identification of source reduc-tion activities that occurred dur-ing the year;

d. quantities of waste generated inthe district that were disposed ofat out-of-state landfills;

e. copies of revisions or additionsto District Rules adopted underORC 343.02;

f. an inventory of municipalitiesand townships that levy a hostcommunity fee under ORC343.01 (G); and

g. an evaluation of the effectivenessof the HHW program and a re-port on the results of the district’sprogram for household hazardouswastes, including the types andquantities of household hazard-ous wastes collected and recycledor disposed of at hazardous wastefacilities.

State Recycling and Reduction Goal

The 1995 State Plan established astatewide waste reduction and recy-cling goal of 50 percent by 2000.This revision to the State Plan retainsthat goal, but extends the time framewithin which the goal will be met.Thus, this State Plan establishes thestatewide goal as:

State Goal:

Reduce and/or recycle at least 50percent of the solid waste gen-erated in Ohio by the year2005.

The key components necessary toachieve this goal are the programsthat SWMDs implement in order tomeet Goal #1 and Goal #2. The Statewill contribute to achieving a 50 per-

Rebates: Eligible communities receive a rebate in an amount equal to the number of tons of residential solidwaste recycled multiplied by an incentive amount which is determined annually based on the District’savailable budget.

Community Assistance Funds: These funds are targeted to communities that have low recycling participa-tion rates (10 percent recycling rate or lower). Communities that receive rebates are not eligible to receivecommunity assistance funds in the same year and vice versa. Approved applicants receive approximately$5,000 per application, and a community can continue to apply for grants until the amount it receives isequal to the amount it would have received through a rebate.

Residential Reduction Assistance Grant: This program provides one-time funding for special recyclinginitiatives for communities and non-profit organizations. Eligible communities can receive residential re-duction assistance grants even if they receive rebates or money through the community assistance fund.


cent WRRR by implementing thestrategies described below.

State Strategies:

Strategy #1:Continue to provide grants to lo-cal governments to help pay thestart-up costs for recycling pro-grams.

Through the Recycle Ohio! grantprogram, ODNR-DRLP will con-tinue to provide funds to assist mu-nicipalities and counties with imple-mentation of a variety of recyclingand litter prevention activities. OhioEPA and ODNR, DRLP will con-tinue to explore closer links betweenODNR grants and the SWMD plan-ning process.

Strategy #2:Explore an Ohio-specific wastecharacterization and generationstudy.

Several SWMDs have indicated thatthe national data generated byFranklin and Associates for U.S. EPAin the publication titled “Character-ization of Municipal Solid Waste inthe United States” is not appropriategiven the demographics and compo-sition of the population at the locallevel. Therefore, Ohio EPA, in con-junction with other appropriate par-ties, will pursue the development ofwaste characterization and genera-tion data that is based upon Ohiodata.

Strategy #3:Explore means of obtaining im-proved reporting on the part ofprocessors, haulers, and industrialgenerators.

Ohio’s SWMDs are legally requiredto report to Ohio EPA annually onthe progress they have made towardsimplementing their approved solidwaste management plans. This re-quires that SWMDs survey thoseentities that actually generate, col-lect, process, and use recyclablematerials. Such reporting on the partof those entities is purely voluntaryand, as a result, can be difficult toobtain. Ohio EPA will explore waysof facilitating the collection of data

to improve not only the quality ofdata that is received but also the easeof obtaining it. Completing thisstrategy will likely require that OhioEPA explore establishing voluntarypartnerships with various types ofentities involved in recycling, ex-plore simplified data collection pro-cesses, and explore developing man-datory reporting requirements.

Strategy #4:Study existing recycling and dis-posal programs and the associ-ated costs.

Implementing this strategy will be anattempt to document which optionsare the most cost-effective for com-munities and SWMDs as well as therelative economic burden such pro-grams place on affected entities.Completion of the strategy may in-volve the development and employ-ment of a full-cost accounting meth-odology.

Strategy #5:Study alternative access creditsfor recycling opportunities andexpected participation rates.

As was explained in Chapter II,SWMDs have requested that they bepermitted to use methodologies otherthan those provided in the currentversion of the Format. Ohio EPA willresearch potential alternative meth-odologies and provide potential op-tions in the Format when it is revised.

Strategy #6:Publish the Facility Data Reportand the Planning Summary Re-port every other year and makedata available annually.

Ohio EPA recognizes that the infor-mation presented in these documentsis helpful to SWMDs during prepa-ration of solid waste managementplan updates. Thus, Ohio EPA be-lieves it is necessary to continuemaking the reports available. How-ever, preparation of the full reportsis extremely time consuming. There-fore, Ohio EPA will publish both re-ports every other year, but will makethe data available annually via theAgency’s web page.

Strategy #7:Establish a WRRR goal forstate agencies.

There currently isn’t a specific tar-get for state agency participation inrecycling programs. Ohio EPA andODNR will work together to estab-lish a waste reduction and recyclinggoal for state agencies.

Strategy #8:Develop and implement a plan toincrease state agency procure-ment of recycled-content products.

There is currently some preferencegiven to the purchase of productscontaining recycled-content materi-als at the State government level and,in SFY 2000, state of Ohio agenciespurchased approximately $2.18 mil-lion worth of recycled-content prod-ucts. However, Ohio EPA andODNR believe that the overall quan-tity of products containing recycled-content constituents that are pur-chased by the state of Ohio remainsfar less than optimal. Ohio EPA andODNR-DRLP, working with DAS,will develop a plan to improve thissituation. SWAC strongly supportsincreased efforts on the part of thestate of Ohio to purchased recycled-content products for use at State’sagencies.

Strategy #9:Establish a Procedure wherebyOhio EPA will notify ODNRwhen a SWMD is not in compli-ance with its solid waste manage-ment plan.

As part of this notification, Ohio EPAwill recommend that ODNR directthe SWMD to use financial assis-tance provided by ODNR on imple-menting the recycling programsidentified in that SWMD’s solidwaste management plan.

Strategy #10:Study the potential impact of increased energy costs on waste,recycling, and reduction andevaluate new or emerging tech-nologies for waste reduction andrecycling with a focus on thosethat provide energy recovery.

Restrictions on the Types of Solid Waste Disposed in Landfills and Burned in Incinerators 39

ORC Section 3734.50(C) requiresthe State Plan to “establish restric-tions on the types of solid waste dis-posed of by landfilling for which al-ternative management methods areavailable, such as yard waste, and aschedule for implementing those re-strictions...”

The statute goes on to specify thatthese restrictions “need not be ofuniform application throughout thestate or as to categories of solid wastegenerators. Rather, in establishingthose...restrictions, the Director shalltake into consideration the feasibil-ity of waste reduction, recycling, re-use, and minimization measures andlandfilling restrictions in urban, sub-urban, and rural areas and shall alsotake into consideration the extent towhich those measures have beenimplemented by specific categoriesof solid waste generators and politi-cal subdivisions prior to the effec-tive date of this section.”

Introduction

When specific wastes are restrictedfrom landfills, incinerators, and re-source recovery (waste-to-energy) fa-cilities, the results can include in-creased landfill life, reduced poten-tial for surface and ground water con-tamination, decreased ash toxicity,improved air quality, and increasedrecycling. However, disposal restric-tions implemented without carefulexamination of proper managementcan create added problems, such asillegal roadside dumping of materi-als banned from solid waste disposalfacilities.

The 1989 State Plan establishedstrategies for restricting certain wastematerials from being disposed atsolid waste landfill and incineratorfacilities. The types of restrictions

RESTRICTIONS ON THE TRESTRICTIONS ON THE TRESTRICTIONS ON THE TRESTRICTIONS ON THE TRESTRICTIONS ON THE TYPES OF SOLIDYPES OF SOLIDYPES OF SOLIDYPES OF SOLIDYPES OF SOLIDWWWWWASTE DISPOSED IN LASTE DISPOSED IN LASTE DISPOSED IN LASTE DISPOSED IN LASTE DISPOSED IN LANDFILLANDFILLANDFILLANDFILLANDFILLS ANDS ANDS ANDS ANDS ANDBURNED IN INCINERABURNED IN INCINERABURNED IN INCINERABURNED IN INCINERABURNED IN INCINERATORSTORSTORSTORSTORS

(yard waste, tires, and lead-acid bat-teries) contained in the 1989 StatePlan were rather unique for OhioEPA. Other Ohio EPA restrictionsagainst the types of wastes (i.e. haz-ardous waste, PCBs, infectiouswaste, radioactive wastes, and friableasbestos) that can be accepted at asolid waste facility are based uponan increased threat to public healthor safety or environmental impact.There is no increased threat createdby disposing of yard wastes intoday’s highly regulated, highlymonitored, engineered landfills. Incontrast to the purpose of thelead-acid battery restriction, the pri-mary purpose of the yard waste re-striction was to save landfill volumeby driving yard waste towards moreenvironmentally sound managementalternatives. Since this is a differenttype of objective (non-environmentalbased restriction), it requires an ap-proach which considers the potentialramifications before creation of arule.

The 1995 State Plan continued theefforts to implement material restric-tions that were championed by the1989 State Plan. However, ratherthan focusing on strict prohibitionson the acceptance of selected mate-rials at solid waste facilities, the 1995State Plan focused on creating strat-egies to divert those materials to al-ternative management methods. Theonly exception to this was scrap tires.Thus, while the 1995 State Plan con-tinued to support a full-scale ban onthe disposal of whole and shreddedscrap tires, it fostered the creation ofdetection programs on the part ofowners and operators of solid wastemanagement facilities to preventyard waste and lead acid batteriesfrom being accepted at landfill andincinerator facilities. The 1995 StatePlan also promoted the need for edu-

4CHAPTER

cation strategies on the part of solidwaste management districts to in-form residents of available manage-ment options for those wastes.

The remainder of this chapter dis-cusses the history of and the currentstatus of the restrictions on the dis-posal of yard waste, scrap tires, andlead-acid batteries including updatesregarding recommendations from the1995 State Plan. This chapter alsocontains a discussion regardingOhio’s experiences related to imple-menting disposal restrictions as wellas a description of Ohio’s yard wasterestriction. Finally, this chapter es-tablishes guidelines for addressingpotential waste restrictions in futureState Plan revisions.

The 1989 State PlanRecommendations

To achieve the goal of reduced reli-ance on landfills, the 1989 State Planrecommended that certain wastesshould be restricted from disposal inlandfills and instead be managed byalternative methods. To assist in thiseffort, the 1989 State Plan estab-lished the following criteria for con-sideration in developing disposal re-strictions for Ohio:

✦ the volume of a specific wasteversus the total volume of wastedisposed at landfills;

✦ the toxicity of the waste and itspotential to cause surface andground water contamination andair pollution;

✦ costs and benefits of options;

✦ effect upon recycling activities;and

✦ alternative management options.

Because costly and highly complexalternatives to disposal and incinera-tion can be difficult to implement,alternative management optionswere examined to determine theirtechnical and economic feasibility.A specific waste exhibiting toxicityor the potential to cause contamina-tion received careful considerationfor restriction. If alternative man-agement options existed, thosewastes with a high potential for con-tamination were recommended forrestriction.

After a preliminary assessment of thecomponents in the overall wastestream, yard waste, used oil, wastetires, lead-acid batteries, householdhazardous wastes, paper, and card-board were evaluated as possible can-didates for material restrictions in the1989 State Plan. Ultimately, the1989 State Plan recommended de-veloping restrictions on landfill andincinerator disposal of yard wastes,whole and shredded tires, andlead-acid (automotive) batteries.

The 1989 State Plan envisioned thatthe restrictions would be comprehen-sive and would take effect in accor-dance with the schedule establishedin the plan. However, these expec-tations were found to be impossibleto fulfill as implementation pro-ceeded. The chief obstacle tofull-scale material restrictions is thefocus of Ohio’s solid waste regula-tions on owners and operators oflandfill facilities as opposed to gen-erators and haulers of solid wastes(see the discussion in the text boxon page 42 of this chapter for a morein-depth explanation of this issue).As a result, at least with yard waste,Ohio EPA has the authority to regu-late only owners and operators ofdisposal facilities. Owners and op-erators of landfill facilities have littlecontrol over whether or not a homeowner places a restricted waste alongwith all other waste in the trash canor in a dedicated container for sepa-rate collection. Thus, prohibiting thedisposal of restricted materials whenit is the generator, not the owner oroperator of the disposal facility, who

decides how to manage the materialis not effective.

The Yard Waste Restriction

The 1989 State Plan concluded thatyard waste should be restricted fromlandfill and incinerator disposal forthe following reasons (Note thatthese reasons continue to be valid,so they are discussed in the presenttense):

✦ To preserve landfill capacity inOhio. Based upon nationwideaverages, yard waste comprisedapproximately 16 percent of thetotal amount of solid waste gen-erated in 1989 (13% in 1998).

✦ Alternative management optionsare available for yard waste.Composting, agricultural land ap-plication, and mulching are allpreferential options compared tolandfilling or combustion of yardwaste;

✦ The cost of alternative manage-ment options are reasonable com-pared to landfilling; and

✦ The moisture content of solidwaste is lower and more consis-tent when yard waste is omitted,resulting in greater combustionefficiency and greater controlover temperatures for incineratorsand resource recovery facilities.Consistent combustion tempera-tures improve the likelihood thattoxic constituents are destroyed.

The 1989 State Plan envisioned thatOhio EPA regulations would be ineffect to implement the yard wasterestriction by December 1, 1993.While the ban was in effect for in-cinerators by that date, regulationsimplementing the yard waste ban atlandfills were not promulgated untilSeptember 13, 1994 and didn’t be-come effective until February 1,1995. The restriction that was imple-mented did not represent a compre-hensive ban on the disposal and in-cineration of yard waste as originallyintended by the 1989 State Plan. The

yard waste restriction under whichOhio currently operates bans onlysource-separated yard waste materi-als from being disposed in solidwaste landfill facilities and burnedin incinerator facilities. Owners andoperators of landfill facilities andincinerators are allowed to accept fordisposal yard waste that is mixedwith municipal solid waste. (Theissues constraining implementationof a full-scale ban are discussed inmore detail in the text box on page42 of this chapter. The specifics ofthe yard waste regulation and the re-striction programs required of dis-posal facility owners and operatorsare discussed in a text box beginningon page 46 of this chapter.)

In order to encourage the separationof yard waste from the solid wastestream, the rules which became ef-fective on February 1, 1995 man-dated that disposal facility operatorstake actions to discourage the receiptof yard waste. To this end, ownersand operators of landfills and incin-erators are required to implementprocedures to identify and refuse re-ceipt of source-separated yard wastesin dedicated vehicles and to promotealternative management of restrictedwastes through the distribution ofeducational information.

The Scrap Tire Restriction

The 1989 State Plan envisioned thatwhole scrap tires would be bannedfrom disposal in solid waste disposalfacilities by January 1, 1993 and thatshredded scrap tires would be bannedby January 1, 1995. (This restric-tion was not intended to apply toshredded tires disposed at monofillsor at monocells within sanitary land-fills or utilized in beneficial uses ap-proved in accordance with OAC Rule3745-27-78.) Although these bansdid not take effect until after adop-tion of the 1995 State Plan, the OhioGeneral Assembly adopted SenateBill 165 (S.B. 165), which becameeffective on October 29, 1993. Thenew law created by S.B. 165 gaveOhio EPA the authority necessary to


begin the process of implementingthese bans. Unlike Ohio’s yard wasterestriction program, the scrap tireregulatory program affords OhioEPA the authority to regulate all en-tities involved in the scrap tire wastestream. Thus, as is discussed laterin this chapter, the ban on the dis-posal of scrap tires is comprehensive.

The Lead-acid Battery Restriction

The increased number of usedlead-acid (automotive) batteries inthe solid waste stream in the latterhalf of the 1980s was due to the lowprice of primary lead and the in-creased cost of environmental regu-lations for secondary lead smelters.These batteries can pose a threat toground water when placed in improp-erly designed landfills. In addition,lead-acid batteries increase the leadcontent of municipal incinerator andresource recovery facility ash. (Statepolicy for the disposal of ash frommunicipal solid waste incineratorsand resource recovery facilities isdescribed in Chapter VI.)

The 1989 State Plan envisioned thatlead-acid batteries would be bannedfrom being disposed in solid wastelandfill facilities and burned in solidwaste incinerators by January 1,1993. Rules banning lead-acid bat-teries from incinerators actually be-came effective on May 31, 1991. Inanticipation of the pending restric-tion, owners and operators of severalexisting resource recovery facilitiesvoluntarily initiated programs to di-vert lead-acid batteries from thewaste stream prior to the actual ef-fective date of the restriction. Al-though prohibiting owners and op-erators of transfer stations from ac-cepting lead-acid batteries was not afocus of the 1989 State Plan, rulesbanning lead-acid batteries fromtransfer stations became effective onOctober 31, 1993. For reasons thatare discussed later in this chapter, aban on the acceptance of lead-acidbatteries at landfill facilities wasnever implemented.

One alternative to disposing batter-ies in the trash is returning them toretail businesses when purchasing anew battery. Many retail batteryoutlets accept spent batteries andsome offer a discount on the purchaseof a new battery. In addition, somerecycling centers accept batteries.Local solid waste district plans arerelying on education efforts and thisexisting infrastructure for manage-ment of this waste stream.

The Used Oil Restriction

The 1989 State Plan contained a rec-ommendation for a ban on the dis-posal and burning of used oil. The1989 State Plan anticipated that leg-islation would be adopted requiringall retail merchants selling motor oilto accept used oil from individualswho change oil in their own vehicles,and that the used oil ban would beimposed six months after the adop-tion of such legislation. Such legis-lation was never promulgated, and,hence, the used oil ban was neverimplemented.

The 1995 State PlanRecommendations

Ohio’s experience with implement-ing ORC Section 3734.50(C) illus-trates that the enactment of compre-hensive restrictions on the disposalof specific waste streams is an ardu-ous task at best. As a result, ratherthan focus on developing restrictionsfor these waste streams, the 1995State Plan focused Ohio’s attentionon developing alternative manage-ment strategies for waste streams forwhich disposal is not the most logi-cal management option. However,the 1995 State Plan did obligate thestate of Ohio to several commitmentsintended to further the implementa-tion of the disposal restrictions es-tablished by the 1989 State Plan,specifically the restriction on scraptires. The narrative that follows pro-vides updates regarding the status ofthese obligations.

The Yard Waste Restriction

At the time the 1995 State Plan waswritten, requirements for landfillowners and operators to develop re-striction programs for yard wastewere already in place. The 1995State Plan did not contain any rec-ommendations regarding the yardwaste restriction.

In 1995, there were no compostingfacilities in Ohio which were ap-proved to compost general trash (in-cluding trash mixed with yardwaste). Therefore, Ohio EPA pro-mulgated exemptions to the yardwaste restriction to allow the land-fill or other facilities to accept mixedyard waste if no composting facilitycapable of composting general trashis available in the same county as thelandfill. On March 27, 1997, theOhio EPA issued a permit-to-installto Medina County for the MedinaClass I Compost Facility. This fa-cility became the first, and only,composting facility with the legalauthority to compost mixed munici-pal solid waste. However, the facil-ity composts only trommel finesfrom a material recovery facility alsooperated by Medina County. Thus,even though there is a compostingfacility capable of composting gen-eral trash in Medina County, that fa-cility does not represent a viable out-let for composting trash mixed withyard waste, due to the facility’s op-erating practices.

The Scrap Tire Restriction

At the time the 1995 State Plan wasadopted, Ohio EPA was in the pro-cess of drafting new regulations toimplement the scrap tire regulatoryprogram created by S.B. 165. Thesenew regulations, as stipulated in thelaw enacted with S.B. 165, were re-quired to include restrictions on thedisposal for whole scrap tires at mu-nicipal solid waste landfills. With theadoption of S.B. 165, Ohio law nowrequired the registration of scrap tiretransporters. This requirement gave



Ohio’s Experiences Related to Implementing Material Restrictions

Implementation Issues

In order for bans to be enforceable, the restriction or prohibition must be contained in rules pertaining to each type oflicensed solid waste facility (landfills, transfer stations, incinerators, and composting facilities). Disposal restrictionsmust appear in the rules governing operations of that type of facility. Where the regulations prohibit the receipt of aspecific waste (whole or shredded tires, yard waste, lead-acid batteries), a violation of the applicable rule may be citedby Ohio EPA or health departments, and appropriate enforcement action taken against the facility operator according toOhio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 3734, and Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-27.

All of the disposal restrictions contained in the 1989 State Plan have been incorporated into the Ohio’s solid wasteregulations governing incinerators (OAC 3745-27-52), transfer stations (OAC 3745-27-23), and composting facilities(OAC 3745-27-45). In addition, language implementing the yard waste ban has been incorporated into the landfill rules.There are no existing rules prohibiting receipt of lead-acid batteries by landfills.

As language was developed for implementing the restrictions, especially yard waste, Ohio’s regulatory control of eachcomponent of the waste management process became an important issue. Ohio EPA has no authority under state law toregulate either the generators or the transporters of solid wastes, including yard wastes. In determining the appropriateregulatory structure for these restrictions, Ohio EPA also evaluated the potential environmental risk associated withlandfill and/or incinerator disposal of each material. Both of these issues were primary considerations in developing theyard waste restrictions and were also considered when restrictions were established for scrap tires and lead-acid batter-ies. For these reasons, a number of delays were experienced in implementing the disposal restrictions according to thetimelines outlined in the 1989 State Plan.

No Regulatory Control of Generator or Transporter

Ohio EPA’s statutory authority basically extends to regulation of solid waste facilities (composting facilities, landfills,transfer facilities, and incinerators) and enforcement against open dumping or open burning. This authority does notextend to haulers or solid waste generators. A significant difficulty in developing a compliance program for disposal ofyard waste is that Ohio EPA cannot cite a violation and enforce against the generator for sending yard waste to thelandfill, or the hauler for collecting and taking yard waste to the landfill. Actually, the solid waste law inherently placesan obligation upon the generators and haulers to take solid wastes to a licensed solid waste disposal facility if theychoose not to recycle or otherwise use alternative management.

Strictly prohibiting the landfill from accepting yard waste which generators and haulers can legally bring to the facilitywill be difficult since the landfill may not have effective management control over the hauler or the hauler’s customers.Solid waste containing yard waste coming from states without yard waste restrictions further compounds the landfillowner’s ability to control generators and haulers. Therefore, Ohio’s only means to implement the yard waste restrictionis to regulate the end of the process, the landfill owner/operators.

Since Ohio law does not provide the State with the authority to regulate generators or transporters, Ohio EPA cannotrequire source-separation of solid waste, including yard waste, for delivery to a particular type of solid waste facility orrecycling facility. In fact, there is no explicit state law mandating source-separation. This is a critical issue since yardwaste composting facilities may only accept source-separated yard wastes. Consequently, Ohio EPA’s establishment ofyard waste restrictions at the landfill, incinerator, or transfer facility cannot directly ensure or mandate that the generatoror transporter will keep yard waste from becoming mixed with general trash before arriving at the landfill, incinerator,or transfer facility.

It is important to note that individual cities, villages, and political subdivisions, as well as local Districts, may haveauthority to require generators to source-separate yard waste or to regulate transporters. In keeping with the intent ofthe State Plan, many cities and villages do require generators to source-separate yard waste. They also require transport-ers/haulers to keep the source-separated yard waste out of the general trash. Ohio EPA’s rules are intended to ensurethat haulers of source-separated yard waste are identified by the operator at the landfill, incinerator, or transfer facility,are provided information regarding the location of nearby yard waste composting facilities and are not allowed tolandfill, incinerate or transfer that source-separated yard waste. Effort must be made to coordinate implementation ofdisposal restrictions with local regulatory authorities, and to ensure that adequate alternative management capacityexists statewide to recycle or otherwise manage the restricted materials.


Ohio EPA the authority necessary toimplement a full-scale ban on thedisposal of scrap tires in solid wastelandfills and incinerators. The scraptire rules went into effect on March1, 1996 thereby implementing theban on the disposal of whole scraptires. The ban on the disposal ofshredded scrap tires at landfills andincinerators went into effect a yearlater, on March 1, 1997. (For moreinformation regarding the scrap tiremanagement program in Ohio, seeChapter VII of this document.)

The Lead-Acid Battery Restriction

The 1995 State Plan anticipated thatOhio EPA would promulgate regu-lations in 1996 requiring lead-acidbattery detection and education pro-grams to be in place at all landfills.In 1995, when Ohio EPA and SWACbegan addressing this obligation,studies indicated that the majority ofused lead-acid batteries generatedwithin the State were already beingrecycled through the existing retailinfrastructure. As a result, SWACadvised Ohio EPA to delay the de-velopment of these regulations andto monitor the recycling and disposalmarkets for lead-acid batteries.SWAC further advised that if OhioEPA observes a shift from recyclingto disposal, then development ofmandatory detection and educationprograms would be warranted at thattime. Since no such shift has beenobserved to date, a regulatory pro-gram has not been implemented.Even without a mandate to do so,however, many owners and operatorsof landfill facilities in Ohio volun-tarily initiated separation programsto remove lead-acid batteries fromincoming wastes.

Although Ohio does not have a banon the disposal of lead-acid batter-ies in solid waste landfill facilities,42 states do have bans on the dis-posal and incineration of lead-acidbatteries (Whitford, 2001). If cir-

cumstances change in the future anda shift from recycling of lead-acidbatteries to disposal occurs, thenSWAC and Ohio EPA will need torevisit the issue of banning lead-acidbatteries. It is unlikely that such ashift will occur, however, in the nearfuture as mined lead costs more thanrecycled lead. In fact, recent datasuggests that 96.5% of discarded leadacid batteries are recycled nation-wide and that manufacturers oflead-acid batteries are pushing foreven higher recovery rates (Whitford,2001).

Management Capacity forRestricted Waste Streams

The 1995 State Plan mentioned that“effort must be made to coordinateimplementation of disposal restric-tions with local regulatory authori-ties, and to ensure that adequatealternative management capacityexists statewide to recycle or other-wise manage the restricted materi-als”.

Available Capacity forManaging Yard Waste

On January 1, 1995 there were 180Class IV composting facilities and 53Class III composting facilities regis-tered with Ohio EPA. As of Febru-ary 21, 2001, there were 521 ClassIV and 50 Class III composting fa-cilities registered with Ohio EPA.This amounts to a net increase ofapproximately 341 Class IV and a netdecrease of three (3) Class IIIcomposting facilities registered since1995. (It is difficult to determine adefinite number of new facilities assome facilities closed during thisthree year period and somere-registered for a different class[mostly from Class III to Class IV].Overall, however, there was a sub-stantial net increase in the numberof composting facilities registeredwith Ohio EPA since the implemen-

tation of the 1995 State Plan). Whilethere appears to be a substantial in-crease in the level of interest regard-ing composting, annual reporting isnot required for all classes of com-post facilities. Therefore, it is diffi-cult to determine how many compostfacilities are actually in operation.

In addition to the available compostfacilities mentioned above, there aremany programs geared towards pro-viding alternative options for man-aging yard waste and educating resi-dents regarding those options. Morethan half of Ohio counties, and nearlyall SWMDs, have initiated educa-tional campaigns to teach residentsto leave grass clippings on the lawnwhen they mow. Many of these edu-cational campaigns use the slogan“Don’t Bag It.” Many communitiesalready provided opportunities forresidents to turn in Christmas treesfor mulching. In addition, severalsolid waste management districtssponsor annual collection events tocollect Christmas trees from theirresidents. Many communities inOhio apply yard waste directly to theland. Generally, land application ismore common in rural areas withclose access to agricultural property.

Other management alternatives foryard wastes include neighborhoodand backyard composting. Smallscale composting in back yards isgenerally more feasible in suburbanareas than inner cities due to landavailability.

To further encourage the develop-ment of yard waste management pro-grams, solid waste management dis-tricts that can document the amountsof yard waste that are diverted fromlandfills may credit those amountsto the SWMD’s WRRR. Prior toadoption of the 1995 State Plan, yardwaste which has been diverted fromdisposal facilities was not includedin calculations of Ohio’s waste re-duction and recycling rate.


landfill facilities and incinerators. Aswas mentioned earlier, the primarypurpose behind these restrictions isto force the materials to be managedthrough alternative means and cre-ate incentives to recycle the materi-als. The most frequently restrictedmaterials are lead-acid batteries,tires, and yard wastes. Several otherstates have bans on the disposal orincineration of major appliancesand used oil. Table IV-1 presents themost common material restrictionsand indicates which states within U.S. EPA’s Region V have implementedthose restrictions.

Unlike the other Region V states,Wisconsin has a comprehensive banon a wide variety of recyclable ma-terials. This ban extends to both solidwaste landfill and incineration facili-ties. The list of banned materials isas follows:

✦ Lead-acid batteries

✦ Major appliances (except for mi-crowaves if the capacitor has beenremoved)

✦ Waste oil (except can burn wasteoil for energy recovery)

✦ Yard waste

✦ Aluminum containers

Available Capacity forManaging Scrap Tires

The text below describes the avail-able facilities for managing scraptires. Although it is not possible todetermine the total capacity availablefor managing scrap tires, the num-ber of facilities available in Ohio issignificant. For a more in-depth dis-cussion regarding each type of scraptire facility, please see Chapter VII.

Scrap Tire Monofilland Monocell Facilities

There are two scrap tire monofill fa-cilities and one scrap tire monocellfacility currently operating in Ohio.The monofill facilities are both lo-cated in Stark County. These facili-ties are the American Tire Monofilland the C & E Coal Monofill. Thescrap tire monocell is located at thePike Sanitation Landfill in PikeCounty. In total, these three facili-ties provide 2,655,371 cubic yards ofpermitted airspace for the disposalof scrap tires. In terms of remainingavailable capacity for disposal ofscrap tires, Ohio EPA estimated thatthere were 377,644 cubic yards ofairspace remaining at the twomonofills as of January 1, 2000.Ohio EPA was unable to calculate re-maining airspace at the monocell.

Scrap Tire Collection,Storage, and Recovery Facilities

As of March 8, 2001, there were 16scrap tire collection facilities, ninemobile scrap tire recovery facilities,16 Class 2 recovery facilities, twoClass 1 storage facilities, and twoClass 2 storage facilities in Ohio.

Available Capacity forManaging Lead-Acid Batteries

As was mentioned earlier in thischapter, data regarding managementof lead-acid batteries indicates thatthe majority of used lead-acid bat-teries generated within the State arerecycled through the existing infra-structure (i.e. automotive repair andmaintenance operations, automotivesupply retail establishments, scrapyards, etc.). In addition, several solidwaste management districts conductcollection events to which residentscan take used lead-acid batteries.

Other Restrictions

Material Restrictionsin U. S. EPA’s Region V

A number of states have imposedrestrictions on the types of materialsthat can be disposed in solid waste

Table IV-1: Waste Disposal Restrictions in U.S. EPA’s Region V

State Yard Waste Whole Scrap Lead-Acid Major Used Oil OtherScrap Tire batteries Appliances/Tires Shreds White Goods

Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Indiana Yes Yes Not specified Yes No No No

Kentucky No Yes No No No No No

Michigan Source- No No Yes No No NoSeparated only

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ohio Source- Yes Yes Incinerators only No No NoSeparated only

Wisconsin Yes Yes Not Specified Yes Yes Yes Yes


✦ Corrugated paper or other con-tainer board

✦ Foam polystyrene packaging

✦ Glass containers

✦ Magazine or other materialprinted on similar paper

✦ Newspaper or other materialprinted on newsprint

✦ Office paper

✦ Plastic containers

✦ Steel containers

✦ Waste tires (ban is on landfillingonly)

✦ Containers for carbonated or maltbeverages that are primarily madeof a combination of steel and alu-minum

The bans on the materials listedabove only apply to material from acommunity that does not have an ef-fective recycling program in place.The qualifications for an effectiverecycling program are contained inSection 287.11 of the WisconsinAdministrative Code.

In addition to the restrictions pre-sented in Table IV-1, Minnesota hasrestrictions on how telephone direc-tories can be managed. Thus, no oneis allowed to place a telephone di-rectory in a solid waste disposal fa-cility, or in a resource recovery fa-cility (compost facility, incinerator,or waste-to-energy facility). Further-more, publishers and distributors oftelephone directories are required toprovide for the collection and deliv-ery to an available recycler.

Minnesota also restricts source sepa-rated recyclable materials from dis-posal facilities and from manage-ment in a resource recovery facility.Minnesota’s statute further prohibitssolid waste collectors and transport-ers from delivering source-separatedrecyclable materials to a disposal orresource recovery facility, unless thedirector determines that no other per-son is willing to accept the recyclablematerials.

Although not a state in U.S. EPA’sRegion V, Massachusetts, like Wis-consin, has implemented bans on thedisposal and incineration of a wide

variety of recyclable materials. Mas-sachusetts’ ban also extends to thetransfer of these materials. The listof banned materials is as follows:

✦ Lead-acid batteries

✦ Leaves

✦ Whole tires (may be burned inincinerators and shreds may belandfilled)

✦ White goods

✦ Other yard waste

✦ Aluminum containers

✦ Metal containers

✦ Glass containers

✦ Single polymer plastics

✦ Recyclable paper

✦ Cathode Ray Tubes

Massachusetts’ ban is carried outthrough detection and monitoringprograms implemented by the own-ers and operators of disposal, incin-eration, and transfer facilities com-bined with an inspection and enforce-

The Massachusetts Waste Disposal Restriction Program

In Massachusetts, solid waste handling and disposal facilities are required to obtain an approved wasteban compliance plan and implement that plan. The approved waste ban compliance plan for a facility isthen used by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to evaluate complianceand conduct needed enforcement. The waste ban compliance plan is to describe the procedures to beused at the facility to ensure that restricted materials are not disposed at the facility. At a minimum, theplans are required to provide for the following:

✦ On-going waste stream monitoring of all loads to monitor the presence of restricted materials; and

✦ Comprehensive waste load inspections of certain loads; and

✦ Written communication that will be sent to responsible parties when they deliver unacceptable amountsof restricted materials (as defined by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection).

The operators of the facilities are required to keep records of all loads containing unacceptable quantitiesof restricted materials. Inspectors from the DEP review the records periodically. If the inspectors deter-mine that the facility is receiving large numbers of unacceptable loads, then the DEP may require theowner or operator of the facility to take some action (such as amend the waste ban compliance plan) oreven pursue enforcement of the material restrictions.

The DEP attributes the significant increases in the recycling rate Massachusetts experienced in the early1990s largely to the implementation of the material restrictions.


Major Components of the Yard Waste Restriction - the Regulation

In accordance with Rule 3745-27-01 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC), yard waste is defined asleaves, grass clippings, tree trimmings, garden wastes, brush, tree trunks, holiday trees, and/or prunings.The greatest quantity of leaves is collected in the fall, with smaller collections occurring in the spring.Grass clippings and garden wastes are generated in the summer. Tree trimmings are most prevalent in thewaste stream during the spring.

Ohio EPA promulgated rules governing yard waste, animal waste, and mixed municipal solid wastecomposting facilities June 1, 1992. In response to complaints from local officials that the new regulationsfor leaf and grass composting were unnecessary and burdensome, on November 9, 1992, Ohio EPA Direc-tor Donald Schregardus announced a moratorium on the enforcement of rules at composting facilities thatexclusively compost yard waste. He noted that the rules were not intended to discourage composting or toclose down existing yard waste composting operations.

On October 31, 1993, in response to comments from local officials, revisions to the composting rulesbecame effective. These revisions required owners and operators of facilities composting exclusively yardwaste to register with Ohio EPA and notify Ohio EPA if the facility ownership is transferred or the facilityis closed. Yard waste composting facilities are not required to employ certified operators or meet the sitingcriteria required for facilities that compost other types of waste, such as animal waste.

Except for tree trunks and stumps, the regulations now prohibit landfills, incinerators and transfer facilitiesfrom accepting source-separated yard waste. Landfills, transfer facilities, and incinerators are allowed toaccept and dispose of source-separated yard waste under the following circumstances:

✦ For a six month period following the effective date of the yard waste restriction rules, owners andoperators of landfills, incinerators, and transfer facilities were allowed to accept source-separated yardwaste if their facility was located in a county where no operating or publicly available yard wastecomposting facility existed. Once a composting facility became available in the county, the owner oroperator of the landfill, incinerator, or transfer facility was prohibited from accepting source-separatedyard waste. After August 1, 1995, the owner or operator of a landfill, incinerator, or transfer facilitywas prohibited from accepting source-separated yard waste regardless of whether an operating orpublicly available composting facility existed in the county.

✦ Upon obtaining the written acknowledgement of the solid waste management district of the need forthe temporary disposal of yard waste, the owner or operator of a landfill, incinerator, or transfer facil-ity may temporarily accept source-separated yard waste resulting from storm damage or some othernatural catastrophe. The solid waste management district is the appropriate entity to make the determi-nation that locally available yard waste management capacity is not sufficient to handle yard wasteresulting from storm damage or some other natural catastrophe.

ment program implemented by theMassachusetts Department of Envi-ronmental Protection (see the textbox on this page for a more in-depthdiscussion of Massachusetts’ pro-gram).

Massachusetts’ Ban onCathode Ray Tubes

In that past couple of years, the dis-posal of electronic and computerequipment has begun to receive agreat deal of attention. (See Chap-ter VIII for a more in-depth discus-sion of this issue.) The Common-wealth of Massachusetts was the first,and to date the only, state to enact a

restriction on the disposal of any typeof electronic equipment. On April1, 2000, a ban on the disposal, in-cineration, or transfer for disposal ofcathode ray tubes (CRTs) becameeffective in Massachusetts. TheCommonwealth has developed amulti-step plan to provide residentsand businesses with access to alter-native management options forCRTs. The steps in this plan are:

(continued)


✦ Upon obtaining the appropriate document, owners and operators of landfills, incinerators, or trans-fer facilities may accept a vehicle load of source-separated yard waste if that vehicle load has beenrefused by a yard waste composting facility.

Also, once yard waste is mixed with general trash, it becomes impractical and costly to sort through trashto remove bags or individual pieces of grass or leaves. At the time the yard waste restriction was beingdeveloped, there weren’t any composting facilities in Ohio that composted general trash (including trashmixed with yard waste). Therefore, Ohio EPA promulgated exemptions to the yard waste restriction toallow the landfill or other facility to accept mixed yard waste if no composting facility capable ofcomposting general trash was available in the same county as the landfill.

Judging whether a landfill, incinerator, or transfer facility is complying with the restriction also presentsproblems. Once waste is placed in the landfill, or on the floor of an incineration or transfer facility, it isdifficult to determine whether a particular bag of yard waste originally had been source-separated andtransported in a vehicle dedicated to transporting yard waste (the situation which the proposed rules seekto restrict) or whether that bag came to the facility mixed with general trash in a garbage truck (themixed yard waste situation). Since it may not be practical to have facility operators inspect each garbagetruck for yard waste (or have Ohio EPA or health department staff spend a great deal of time trying todecide whether grass or leaves in the landfill or tipping floor is or is not a violation), Ohio EPA addressedthis situation by allowing landfills the option of establishing a Yard Waste Restriction Program.

In establishing the Ya rd W aste Restriction Program option, Ohio EPA sought to place an emphasis onencouraging alternative yard waste management options and deterring landfilling or incineration of soursoursoursoursour ce-ce-ce-ce-ce-separatedseparatedseparatedseparatedseparated yard waste. Ohio EPA believes this approach is appropriate given that the design, operation,and environmental monitoring provides more than adequate environmental protection should incidentalloads of yard waste be landfilled. The Yard W aste Restriction Program requires the operator to imple-ment procedures to identify and refuse receipt of soursoursoursoursour ce-separatedce-separatedce-separatedce-separatedce-separated yard waste in dedicated vehicles andto promote alternative management of yard waste through distribution of information. By having a Ya rdW aste Restriction Program, the landfill, incinerator, or transfer facility is not violating the yard wasterestri ction for mixedmixedmixedmixedmixed yard waste or the incidental disposal of soursoursoursoursour ce-separatedce-separatedce-separatedce-separatedce-separated yard waste. However, theoperator is required to review the program and implement improvements. Failure by the operator toimplement the program, review the program, and incorporate any program improvements determined bythe owner to be needed, would all be violations.

Another implementation issue pertains to the applicability of the bans to resource recovery facilities(RRFs), which burn mixed municipal solid waste for energy recovery. These facilities are currentlyexempted from Ohio solid waste regulations, and are subject only to air and water pollution regulations.These facilities cannot be cited for a violation of solid waste rules by Ohio EPA or local health depart-ments. However, SWAC af firmed, on October 29, 1992, that the disposal restrictions in the State Plan areintended to apply at these facilities.

✦ Promote market research and de-velopment grants

✦ Establish a statewide contract forelectronics recycling

✦ Provide a municipal grant pro-gram, including seven permanentregional facilities receiving usedelectronics from municipalities orresidents

✦ Add CRTs to the list of appliancesbanned from disposal

The Future of MaterialRestrictions in Ohio

Ohio will continue to monitor otherstates’ policies and local recyclingmarkets in order to consider whether

additional disposal restrictionsshould be considered in Ohio. Giventhe focus of current solid waste regu-lations on landfill facilities as op-posed to generators and transportersof solid waste, Ohio EPA does notanticipate implementing any newdisposal restrictions. In the future,if Ohio EPA’s regulatory jurisdictionis expanded to encompass generators


and transporters of restricted wastesor greater enforcement capability isafforded to Ohio EPA for pursuingviolations of the yard waste ban, thennew disposal restrictions could bedeveloped. Any additional restric-tions would be evaluated in terms ofthe criteria outlined at the beginningof this chapter: the volume and tox-icity of the specific waste material,the costs and benefits of options, theeffect of a disposal restriction uponrecycling activities, and the availabil-ity of alternative management infra-structure, including mechanisms forcost-effective collection of the ma-terial where necessary.

Due to the implementation problemsassociated with disposal restrictions,this revision of the State Plan (andpossibly future revisions) will focusmore on alternative strategies forwaste streams which may be man-aged more properly by some methodother than disposal. Chapter III dis-cusses management strategies forwaste streams such as used oil, whitegoods, and household batteries whichare recommended for implementa-tion by SWMDs. While this ap-proach does not create a regulatoryprohibition for disposal of certainwastes, it is more workable in theshort run, and requires a strong em-

phasis on education of residents forlong term changes in managing ourwastes.

References:

Whitford, Marty (March 5, 2001),Battery Makers Look to Get the LeadOut, Waste News.

Revised General Criteria For the Location of Solid Waste Facilities 49

ORC Section 3734.50(D) requiresthat the State Plan “establish revisedgeneral criteria for the location ofsolid waste facilities....”

Background Information

To determine the best possible loca-tion for a solid waste facility, a po-tential site must be evaluated forhydrogeologic conditions, technicaland engineering features, and site-specific characteristics. During thereview of a PTI application for a solidwaste facility, siting criteria are care-fully evaluated to protect the envi-ronment, public health and safety.This evaluation includes the protec-tion of surface water, ground water,and drinking water supplies. Land-fills sited in improper locations andlacking current technology have, insome cases, caused environmentalharm to ground and surface waters.The cleanup of these sites is costly;some have cost millions of dollars.

Ground Water Protection

Ground water fills the spaces be-tween particles of soil and rock un-derground. Most is found in aqui-fers - layers of porous rock that maybe located near the surface or hun-dreds of feet underground. Aquiferwater resources are tapped by wellsdrilled into the aquifer.

Today, nearly half of the nation’sdrinking water comes from groundwater. Ohio is blessed with an abun-dance of groundwater. Ground wa-ter supplies almost 40 percent of theState’s population with water fordrinking and other household uses.Approximately one billion gallons ofground water are required every dayin Ohio for industrial, agricultural,

REVISED GENERAL CRITERIA FOR THELOCATION OF SOLID WASTE FACILITIES

and residential uses. Three majorcities - Canton, Dayton, and Spring-field - depend almost exclusively onground water for public water sup-plies. Other major cities such as Cin-cinnati and Columbus also draw ex-tensively on ground water. Becauseof these critical uses of ground wa-ter, all siting decisions should assurethat it is protected from contamina-tion and depletion.

Surface Water Protection

In addition to tremendous groundwater reserves, Ohio has 61,500miles of streams and rivers, a 451-mile border on the Ohio River, 5,130lakes and reservoirs, and more than230 miles of Lake Erie shoreline.Most Ohioans depend on surfacewater for drinking, industrial, com-mercial, agricultural, and householduses. Improper siting and operationof solid waste facilities may resultin impacts on surface waters.

The 1989 State Plan

At the time H.B. 592 was adopted,the existing solid waste regulations,adopted in 1976, contained only ba-sic criteria governing the siting ofsolid waste facilities. Because thesecriteria were not extensive, solidwaste disposal facilities were beingoperated in areas with less than idealconditions. The consequences ofoperating solid waste facilities inimproper locations can include en-vironmental harm to surface andground waters as well as to drinkingwater supplies. In an effort to ad-dress the need for more comprehen-sive siting criteria, H.B. 592 not onlyrequired the State Plan to includemore stringent siting criteria but it

5CHAPTER

also required the Director of OhioEPA to adopt rules containing therevised general location criteria forsolid waste facilities.

Siting Criteria for SolidWaste Landfill Facilities

On March 1, 1990, Ohio EPA’s re-vised regulations for solid wastelandfills became effective. Theseregulations, known as the “BestAvailable Technology” (BAT) regu-lations, included new siting criteriaspecifying acceptable and unaccept-able locations for landfills. Ohio’ssiting criteria incorporated not onlyrecommendations from the 1989State Plan but also provisions fromproposed federal regulations for mu-nicipal solid waste landfills thatwere, at the time, in draft form.Ohio’s BAT regulations required thatany new landfill permitted afterMarch 1, 1990 meet all the sitingcriteria.

Under state law, owners and opera-tors of older landfills were also re-quired to upgrade those facilities tomeet the new BAT standards, includ-ing the siting criteria, or close thefacilities in an environmentallysound manner. These owners andoperators were required to obtainwhat are referred to as “call-in” per-mits based on a schedule establishedin both state law and the regulations.ORC Section 3734.05 requires own-ers and operators of facilities sitedor permitted before 1968 to submitapplications for permits first. Thesefacilities are often referred to as “pre-1968” facilities. Ohio EPA has com-pleted action on these facilities.Thus, even though the requirementstill exists, permits for all of the “pre-1968” facilities have been reviewed

pursuant to the BAT rules, includingthe siting critiera. OAC Rule 3745-27-97 requires owners and operatorsof facilities permitted between 1968and 1980 to submit “call-in”permitapplications for review by Ohio EPAbetween April 1992 and March 1996based on a schedule established inthe rule. With a couple of excep-tions, permits for these facilities havebeen reviewed by Ohio EPA as well.Facilities that were permitted after1980 but prior to 1990 are not re-quired to submit “call-in” permits.However, owners and operators of allpermitted facilities are required tosubmit permits on the tenth anniver-sary of the date the permit for thefacility was issued. As a result, fa-cilities permitted between 1980 and1990 are effectively “called-in” forreview on a case-by-case basis. Forall reviews, including call-in permitapplications, permit applications fornew facilities, and permit applica-tions for ten year anniversary up-dates, Ohio EPA applies the sitingcriteria. Owners and operators ofolder facilities that cannot meet thestandards are required to close thosefacilities within one year of OhioEPA’s final denial of the permit ap-plication.

U.S. EPA’s regulations for sanitarylandfills became effective October 9,1991. These regulations were pro-mulgated in accordance with SubtitleD of RCRA and established, amongother requirements, minimum sitingand operational standards for alllandfills receiving municipal solidwaste. The federal regulations, inturn, required states to develop andimplement permit programs to en-sure that municipal solid waste land-fills will comply with the new fed-eral requirements. Once a state’sprogram was approved by U.S. EPA,then the state received primacy forthe municipal solid waste landfillprogram. In the interim, however,municipal solid waste landfill facili-ties in states, like Ohio, that alreadyhad regulations in place were re-quired to comply with both the fed-eral and the state regulations. As wasmentioned, the federal regulationsestablished minimal criteria to ad-

dress the siting of landfills. Ohio’s1990 BAT regulations contained ex-tensive siting criteria that were notonly more comprehensive than thosein the federal rules but also were ap-plied to new and existing municipalsolid waste landfills in Ohio wellbefore the federal regulations appliedto Ohio facilities. Therefore, the sit-ing criteria in the federal regulationswere nothing new to owners and op-erators of municipal solid waste land-fill facilities in Ohio.

The federal rules provided deadlinesby which municipal solid waste land-fills were required to comply with therequirements. These deadlines werebased on the tonnage of waste ac-cepted by the landfill facility. Own-ers and operators of the largest fa-cilities, those that accepted greaterthan 100 tons per day of waste, wererequired to comply by October, 1993.Owners and operators of the remain-ing facilities were required to com-ply by either April 9, 1994 or Octo-ber 9, 1995, depending on the sizeof the facility.

On June 1, 1994, Ohio adopted regu-lations that comply with the federalSubtitle D regulations for municipalsolid waste landfill facilities. Ohioreceived a final determination of ad-equacy for its municipal solid wastepermit program on June 13, 1994from U.S. EPA.

Siting Criteria for Other Solid Waste Facilities

In addition to siting criteria for land-fill facilities, Ohio also promulgatedsiting criteria for transfer stations,incinerators, and composting facili-ties, none of which are addressed bythe federal rules. The siting criteriafor transfer stations and incineratorswent into effect with the adoption ofstate regulations on May 31, 1991.State siting criteria for compostingfacilities became effective June 1,1992.

Tables V-1 through V- 4, located atthe end of this chapter, show, for eachof four types of facilities - landfills,transfer stations, incinerators, and

composting facilities - side-by-sidecomparisons of the following: sit-ing criteria recommended for Ohioin the 1989 State Plan; siting crite-ria contained in the existing stateregulations; and siting criteria man-dated by the 1991 federal require-ments. The citation numbers givenfor Ohio rules in these tables wereupdated to reflect the currently ef-fective rules, which took effect in1994 and have been updated in ac-cordance with the five year reviewschedule established in Section119.032 of the Ohio Revised Code(formerly House Bill 473).

Since the 1995State Plan was adopted

The 1995 State Plan indicated thatsiting criteria for scrap tire facilitieswould be developed and incorporatedinto new rules during 1995 to imple-ment recent legislation. Regulationsgoverning scrap tire facilities becameeffective on March 1, 1996. Con-tained in the rules are siting restric-tions for scrap tire monofill facili-ties, Class I and Class II scrap tirestorage or recovery facilities, andscrap tire collection facilities. TableIV-5 displays how the siting criteriafrom the scrap tire regulations applyto each of the different types of scraptire facilities. Because the FederalRCRA Subtitle D Regulations didnot mandate and the 1989 State Plandid not contain recommendations forsiting criteria for scrap tire facilities,the format of this table is differentthan that for Tables IV-1 through IV-4.

At the time the 1995 State Plan wasadopted, Ohio EPA’s Division of Sur-face Water (DSW) was in the pro-cess of developing rules to redefinesome terms such as ‘state resourcewaters’. The intent behind this ef-fort was to strengthen Ohio EPA’sability to protect Ohio’s water re-sources from degradation. The rulesreferenced by the 1995 State Plan arethe antidegradation provisions con-tained in OAC Rule 3745-1-05 (the


“Antidegradation Rule”) which be-came effective in 1996. It was an-ticipated that these new rules anddefinitions had the potential to affectthe siting criteria for solid wastelandfill facilities. Although theAntidegradation Rule redefined“state resource waters,” the changein the definition has not had an im-pact on the siting criteria for solidwaste landfill facilities.

Proposed Changes to the ExistingSiting Criteria Rules

Because Ohio’s siting criteria are al-ready fairly comprehensive and,therefore, protective of human healthand the environment, no changes tothe current siting criteria have beenmade since the publication of the1995 State Plan. However, in orderto comply with the requirements ofORC Section 119.032, which re-quires all state agencies to review allof their rules every five years,DSIWM appointed a team of inter-agency personnel to review the sit-ing criteria for municipal, industrial,and residual solid waste landfill fa-cilities and for scrap tire monofills.A function of this team is to evalu-ate the current siting criteria to de-termine whether changes (either de-letions or additions) need to be made.The siting criteria for other types ofsolid waste facilities (compostingfacilities, transfer stations, and incin-erators) will be reviewed along withthe other rules governing those typesof facilities. Thus, the compositionof Ohio’s siting criteria could changein the next couple of years depend-ing upon the outcome of these reviewprocesses.

The Workgroup assigned to reviewthe siting criteria for solid wastelandfill facilities and scrap tiremonofills is proposing the followingchanges to the existing criteria:

✦ 1,000 foot set back from Na-tional Parks, Recreation Ar-eas, and State Parks - OACRule 3745-27-07(H)(1) cur-rently prohibits solid waste land-fill facilities from being located

in a national park or recreationarea, a candidate area for poten-tial inclusion in the national parksystem, a state park or estab-lished state park purchase area,or any property that lies withinthe boundaries of a national parkor recreation area but that hasnot been acquired or is not ad-ministered by the Secretary ofthe United States Department ofthe Interior. In contrast, OACRule 3745-27-07(H)(4)(a) pro-hibits solid waste landfill facili-ties from being located withinone thousand feet of naturalareas which are designated bythe Ohio Department of NaturalResources. The Workgroup rec-ommends that the 1000 foot set-back be included in both rulesto make them consistent withone another. Thus, theWorkgroup has recommendedadding the 1000 foot setback toOAC Rule 3745-27-07(H)(1)with the stipulation that anowner or operator could locatea landfill within the setback ifthey reach an agreement to thateffect with the owner or autho-rized representative of the area.SWAC supports the addition ofthe 1000 foot setback to OACRule 3745-27-07(H)(1) to makeit consistent with OAC Rule3745-27-07(H)(4)(a).

✦ Removing “unless deemedacceptable by the director”language from the sitingcriteria - Currently, several ofthe siting criteria contain thephrase “unless deemed accept-able by the director.” Thisphrase essentially allows anowner or operator to locate asolid waste landfill facility in anarea that deviates from thosecriteria as long as the directorhas deemed the deviation to beacceptable. Ohio EPA is in theprocess of developing a variancerule - similar to the existing vari-ance rule (OAC Rule 3745-30-15) in the residual waste regula-tions - for the municipal solidwaste landfill, industrial solid

waste landfill, and scrap tire pro-grams. Such a variance rulewould authorize the director toissue variances to rule require-ments and would serve the samepurpose as the current “unlessdeemed acceptable” language.Adoption of this variance rule isspecified and authorized byORC 3734.092(A). Thus, forpurposes of the review of thesiting criteria rules, theworkgroup has recommendedremoving the “unless deemedacceptable to the director” lan-guage. SWAC supports theremoval of this language and thecreation of the variance rule toprovide Ohio EPA with a con-sistent mechanism for grantingdeviations from the siting crite-ria.

✦ Vertical expansion overunlined areas - the current rulesallow owners and operators ofsolid waste landfill facilities toapply for and receive permits toinstall to expand existing facili-ties vertically over unlined ar-eas of landfill facilities providedthe expansion areas meet all ofthe siting criteria. The existingrules do not provide any directconsideration to the potentialimpact the unlined landfill mayhave on ground water quality, apotential that may be com-pounded when additional wasteis placed above the unlined area.The workgroup has recom-mended that owners and opera-tors be required to design andconstruct a separatory liner overemplaced waste before placingadditional waste over unlinedareas of the landfill facility. Pro-posed language will qualify thatthe incorporation of theseparatory liner is required onlyfor permit-to install (PTI) appli-cations that are submitted toOhio EPA after the effective dateof the rule.



✦ Other Miscellaneous Amend-ments - Other recommendationsthat the workgroup has madeinclude:

✦ Adding definitions for“well head protection ar-eas” and “ground watersource water protection ar-eas” to the five year time oftravel criterion in OAC Rule3745-27-07(H)(3)(a);

✦ Extending the set back froman up-gradient water supplywell from 500 feet to 1,000feet if gas migration is aconcern;

✦ Clarifying Ohio EPA’s in-terpretation of state naturepreserves and surface wa-ters;

✦ Clarifying Ohio EPA’s ap-plication of the “five yeartime of travel” criterion toonly underground path-ways.

Ohio EPA filed proposed rules con-taining the changes described abovewith JCARR on August 31, 2000. Apublic hearing regarding the pro-posed rules was held on September6, 2000. At that hearing, interestedparties expressed their desire to re-view the siting criteria rules in con-junction with the solid waste land-fill facility and scrap tire monofilldesign and construction, ground wa-ter monitoring, closure/post-closure,operations, PTI, and variance rulesall of which are in the process ofbeing reviewed in accordance withORC Section 119.032. These inter-ested parties indicated that theycould not realistically evaluate theimpact of the proposed siting ruleswithout knowing the proposedchanges to the other rule packages.Ohio EPA, via written correspon-dence dated September 14, 2000,conveyed the Agency’s intent torefile the siting criteria rules in midto late June, 2001.

Public Involvement in theSiting of Solid Waste Facilities

Siting decisions affect citizens, com-munities, local business and indus-try. Ohio EPA provides two kinds ofpublic forums when a PTI applica-tion is received for a proposed solidwaste facility. These forums provideopportunities for residents to becomeinvolved in the siting of solid wastefacilities. The first opportunity is aninformational meeting, which is heldsoon after the Agency receives a per-mit application for a solid waste fa-cility. The second, a formal publicmeeting, is held after the PTI hasbeen reviewed by the Agency. Mem-bers of the general public and otherinterested parties are encouraged toattend these meetings and provideinput into the siting of solid wastefacilities.

Siting Solid Waste Facilities bySolid Waste Management Districts

Each SWMD’s solid waste manage-ment plan is required to include asiting strategy for new solid wastemanagement facilities identified inthe plan as needed to provide solidwaste management capacity. Al-though some SWMDs include a sit-ing strategy that is intended to applyto all facilities being proposed withintheir boundaries, the siting strategyrequired to be included in theSWMD’s plan is intended to assistthe SWMD in siting facilities neces-sary to provide needed capacity.Most SWMDs have developed aweighting system to rank differentalternatives and have either a tech-nical advisory council or a specialsiting committee evaluate potentialsites and make recommendations tothe SWMD’s Board of Directors.Virtually all SWMD siting strategiesbegin with Ohio’s required siting cri-

teria and add additional concernssuch as the type of access road, theavailability of public utilities, and soon. A good SWMD siting strategywill also outline each step of the de-cision making process and specifyhow much time is required or al-lowed for each stage.

To encourage citizen involvementearly in the siting process, Ohio EPArecommends that the local SWMDpolicy committee establish viablepublic input through a technical ad-visory council. H.B. 592 specifiedthat a technical advisory councilmust include a representative fromthe solid waste hauling or disposalindustry and may include at least oneperson representing each of the fol-lowing:

✦ health commissioners having ju-risdiction within the SWMD

✦ political subdivisions within theSWMD

✦ environmental advocacy organi-zations

✦ industrial generators of solidwaste

✦ other constituencies deemed ap-propriate by the SWMD’s policycommittee

SWAC strongly encourages SWMDsto appoint technical advisory coun-cils and strongly encourages that thetechnical advisory councils havebroadly-based and diverse represen-tation. Many SWMDs have estab-lished technical advisory councils tohelp them prepare a 10-year or 15-year solid waste management plan.

The SWMD should provide a de-tailed explanation of the strategy forsiting new and expanded facilities inits solid waste management plan. Forfacilities to be sited by the SWMD,Ohio EPA recommends establish-


ment of a siting committee to con-duct at least portions of the sitingstudy. The siting strategy should:

✦ identify individuals or groups re-sponsible for each step of the pro-cess;

✦ provide the estimated time re-quired for each step; and

✦ be well-defined so the processcan be easily followed.

SWMDs should regard the sitingstrategy as an environmental assess-ment of potential facility sites withthe objective of minimizing nega-tive impacts. Ohio EPA recommendsthat local SWMDs incorporate thefollowing elements into their sitingstrategies.

Preliminary Site Survey

1. Obtain a current copy of Ohio’ssolid waste regulations (OACRules 3745-27, 3745-29, and3745-37) and other availableguidance on siting criteria fromthe appropriate Ohio EPA DistrictOffice. SWMDs should be awarethat the Ohio EPA Director canexempt proposed facilities fromselected Ohio solid waste sitingcriteria if he determines thatgranting the exemption will notresult in negative environmentaland/or public health impacts.

2. Obtain county or regional infor-mation for the general locationwhere the facility is to be located.Information regarding politicaljurisdictions, rivers and streams,possible location of wetlands, soilassociations, drainage patterns(watershed boundaries), flood-plains, public water systems, en-dangered and threatened species,active and abandoned mines,aquifer boundaries, seismic im-pact zones, airport locations, gla-cial drift thickness, and other landuse data may be obtained fromthe Geographic Information Sys-

tem (GIS) coordinator for OhioEPA, the Ohio Department ofNatural Resources, Local Plan-ning Commissions, the U.S. Geo-logical Survey, and Local Soiland Water Conservation Districts.

3. Other considerations in the searchfor potential sites should include:

✦ visual inspection of the desig-nated area

✦ zoning restrictions

✦ location of population centers

✦ hauling distances and econom-ics

✦ transportation routes and emer-gency services

✦ local land acquisition

✦ location of historical or ar-chaeological sites

✦ conservancy districts

✦ parks, state and national for-ests, nature preserves, wildlifeareas, scenic rivers

4. Compile data obtained in itemstwo and three for the general sitelocation. The easiest way to vi-sualize the information is torecord it on a general map of thearea being studied. Specific sec-tions of the map that will not meetOhio’s siting criteria should beeliminated during initial exami-nation.

5. Once potential sites have beenlocated, the SWMD may contactthe appropriate Ohio EPA DistrictOffice. Ohio EPA will conduct apreliminary site investigation, iftime permits. The preliminarysite investigation focuses on su-perficial features of the site andregional geology. Site specificgeologic considerations cannot beaddressed until a hydrogeologicsite investigation is performedand the results evaluated.

6. If the SWMD intends to constructa facility, the policy committeeshould schedule a pre-applicationmeeting with the appropriateOhio EPA district office geologistand solid waste engineer to dis-cuss best available technology re-quirements and specific PTI ap-plication requirements. TheSWMD should decide whether toproceed with engineering detailplans and specifications basedupon meetings and discussionswith Ohio EPA technical staff.

Ranking Scheme

In order to facilitate evaluation andselection of a facility site, theSWMD should consider developinga ranking scheme. The rankingscheme should allow SWMDs tocompare potential sites quickly andas objectively as possible.

Resolving Site ImpassesThrough Mediation

Siting a solid waste facility usuallyinvolves controversy. Increased pub-lic involvement and technical advi-sory council recommendations earlyin the siting process help to identifypotential sites and reduce contro-versy. Nevertheless, siting conflictsare still likely to occur. The districtsiting strategy should include amethod to deal with impasses asso-ciated with facility siting.

Mediation is a technique widely usedby government, industry, labor, andmanagement to resolve impasses.This approach is generally formaland brings together a limited num-ber of representatives of opposingpositions to work with a mediator (ora team of mediators) toward resolu-tion of conflicts. The mediator isneutral and serves to:

✦ act as a “go-between” for the op-posing parties, fostering commu-nication and cooperation;


✦ clarify issues and promote betterunderstanding of opposing posi-tions; and

✦ offer constructive suggestionsand possible solutions.

The Ohio Commission on DisputeResolution and Conflict Manage-ment (Commission) can provide as-sistance in locating trained media-tors and developing mediation strat-egies. The Commission is locatedat 77 South High Street, Columbus,Ohio 43266-0214, and may bereached by phone at (614) 752-9595.

Local and Regional Affects ofSolid Waste Landfill Facilities

SWAC has long recognized that com-munities that host solid waste land-fill facilities incur impacts that areassociated with those facilities. In-frastructure needs such as road main-tenance, adding adequate emergencypersonnel and equipment, erectingnoise barriers, etc. may require thehost community to expend resources.Currently, Ohio’s solid waste law andregulations do not afford Ohio EPAwith specific authority to considerthese types of local impacts duringthe review and consideration of ap-plications for permits to install forsolid waste landfill facilities. How-ever, there are several tools availableto county, city, and municipal gov-ernments and SWMDs that allowthose entities to address these localimpacts. These tools are discussedbelow.

Zoning

Zoning is a means that local govern-ments can use to control how landwithin a specified area is developedand the ways that each propertywithin that area may be used. Zon-ing is a legal limitation on how prop-erties can and can’t be used and iscreated by a legislature, a munici-pal authority, or a township throughlaws, regulations, and ordinances. Assuch, zoning is an authority usedstrictly by county, city, municipal, ortownship governments. Zoning pro-visions typically specify the areas inwhich residential, industrial, recre-ational or commercial activities maytake place. The four most commonlyused categories for zoning ordi-nances are commercial, residential,industrial, and agricultural. Each ofthese broad categories typically con-tains sub-categories that further de-fine how a particular zoned area canbe used or what amenities can beadded to properties within that zone.Thus, an area zoned as residentialmay be further divided into areas thatare zoned for single-family housingand those that are zoned for multiple-family housing. Areas zoned for in-dustrial activity may be further di-vided into areas zoned for “light” and“heavy” industry. Zoning is intendedto be a tool for land-use planningpurposes and is intended to organizesimilarly used properties in proxim-ity with one another.

Zoning classifications are not perma-nent nor are they necessarily uniformfrom one community to the next, oreven within one community. Fur-thermore, changes in zoning, or re-zoning, can affect the overall land-use plan over time. Additionally,most local governments have rulesthat allow for variance requests fordeviations from established zoningrestrictions to be considered andacted upon.

Host Community Fees

ORC Section 3734.57(C) authorizesmunicipal corporations (municipali-ties) and townships that have a solidwaste disposal facility located withintheir boundaries to levy a fee of upto 25 cents per ton on the disposal ofsolid waste at the solid waste disposalfacility. Although not legally namedas such, this fee is commonly re-ferred to as a host community fee.The host community fee can be col-lected on all solid waste disposed atthe facility, regardless of where thewaste was generated. Revenues fromthe host community fee are intendedto be used to offset the costs incurredby the municipal corporation ortownship due to the presence of thedisposal facility. Such costs can in-clude those associated with repair-ing or maintaining roads and otherpublic facilities, providing emer-gency and other public services, andcompensation for reductions in realproperty values due to the locationand operation of the disposal facil-ity.


The host community fee is levied bya municipal corporation or townshipby enacting an ordinance or adopt-ing a resolution establishing theamount of the fee. Once levied inaccordance with the requirements ofthe statute, the owners or operatorsof all solid waste disposal facilitieslocated within the jurisdiction of themunicipal corporation or townshipare required to collect the fee andremit all revenues to the entity levy-ing the fee.

In 1999, there were at least 41 com-munities in Ohio that collected hostcommunity fees. In that year, thesefees resulted in approximately$3,200,000 of revenue to the affectedcommunities. In addition, severalcommunities collected revenue viacontractual agreements with theowners/operators of the landfill fa-cilities in those communities. In to-tal, communities collected at least$1,500,000 in contractual fees in1999.

SWMD Rule PromulgationAuthority

ORC Section 343.01(G) authorizesthe board of county commissionersof a county SWMD or board of di-rectors of a joint county SWMD toadopt, publish, and enforce rules con-cerning several aspects of solid wastemanagement. However, in order toadopt rules, the SWMD’s solid wastemanagement plan must authorize theadoption of rules. The Format di-rects SWMDs to list, in their solidwaste management plans, all of theareas in ORC Section 3734.53(C) forwhich the SWMD wants to retain theauthority to adopt rules. [The same

authorization is contained in ORCSection 343.01(G).] ORC Sections343.01(G) and 3734.53(C) giveSWMDs the ability to adopt rulesthat:

1. Prohibit or limit the receipt ofsolid waste generated outside theSWMD;

2. Govern the maintenance, protec-tion, and use of solid waste col-lection, transfer, disposal, recy-cling, or resource recovery facili-ties;

3. Govern a program to inspect out-of-state waste; and

4. Exempt an owner or operator ofa solid waste facility from com-pliance with an amendment tolocal zoning requirements thatbecame effective within twoyears prior to the filing of permitapplication by the facility.

Regarding the SWMD’s ability toadopt rules “govern[ing] the main-tenance, protection, and use of solidwaste collection, transfer, disposal,recycling, or resource recovery facili-ties,” the SWMD is precluded fromestablishing design standards forsolid waste facilities. Furthermore,any rules adopted concerning solidwaste facilities must be consistentwith the solid waste provisions ofORC Chapter 3734 and the rulesadopted under that chapter. SWMDsare authorized to adopt rules prohib-iting “any person, municipal corpo-ration, township, or other politicalsubdivision from constructing, en-larging, or modifying a solid waste

facility until general plans and speci-fications for the proposed improve-ment have been submitted to andapproved by the board of countycommissioners or board of directorsas complying with the solid wastemanagement plan for the SWMD.”

It should be noted that, whileSWMDs’ authority to adopt rules isprovided for in statute, the exerciseof this authority has been challengedin court. As a result, some SWMDsare hesitant to pursue local rules.

Negotiated Agreements

During the process of siting a solidwaste facility, the facility owner oroperator and the host communitymay enter into an agreement to ad-dress the concerns of residents of thecommunity thereby facilitating thesiting of the facility. These agree-ments typically involve the provisionof concessions on the part of the fa-cility owner or operator in exchangefor the host community’s cooperationin siting the facility. These conces-sions can involve the owner or op-erator providing monetary compen-sation or indirect compensation, suchas infrastructure improvements, tothe community. In the past, conces-sions have included the provision ofservices, such as curbside recyclingservices, at no cost to the commu-nity, or access to disposal capacityat reduced cost. Another form ofagreement involves service restric-tions. In this scenario, the owner oroperator of the facility limits its cus-tomer base to those located within acertain distance of the facility.


Table V-1: Landfill Siting Criteria Recommendations

Recommendation from the Ohio Administrative Code1 Federal RCRA1989 State Plan Subtitle D Regulations

Not located in the regulatory 3745-27-07(A)(3) - facility not Not in 100 year floodplainfloodplain located in floodway, and unless demonstration made

3745-27-20(C)(2) - limits of solid 40 CFR 258.11waste placement not located in100 year floodplain

Not located within 3745-27-07(H)(1)(a) to (d) Do not addressexisting/proposed state or - Limits of solid waste placementnational park or recreational not located within:area

a. national park or recreation area,

b. candidate area for potential inclusion in the National Park System,

c. state park or state park purchase area, or

d. any property within boundaries of national park or recreation area not acquired by U.S. Department of Interior

Not located in a geologically 3745-27-20(C)(5) - PTI requires Not in unstable area unlessunstable area identification of unstable areas and demonstration is made

demonstration that design 40 CFR 285.15will resist earth movement

Not located in areas 3745-27-07(H)(3)(a) - Same as Solid Do not addresssurrounding wellhead of public Waste Management Plansupply well if contamination may recommendationreach wellhead within 5 years

Not located above federally 3745-27-07(H)(2)(c) - Same as Do not addressdeclared sole source aquifer Solid Waste Management Plan

recommendation

Not located over unconsolidated 3745-27-07(H)(2)(d) Do not addressaquifer yielding 100 gal/min to - Same as Solid Waste Managementwell within 1000' of limits of Plan recommendationsolid waste placement

Not located within 200' of fault 3745-27-20(C)(3) - Same as Solid Same as Ohio EPA unlessWaste Management Plan demonstration made forrecommendation alternative setback

Not located in area of potential 3745-27-07(H)(3)(b) - Same as Solid Mines not specificallysubsidence due to underground Waste Management Plan addressed, but consideredmine recommendation under unstable area

Not located within 1000' of ODNR 3745-27-07(H)(4)(a)(i) to (v) - Do not addresspreserves, wildlife areas, or scenic Same as Solid Waste Managementrivers, Ohio Historical Society Plan recommendationnature preserves, USDOI nationalwildlife refuges or scenic rivers,US Forest Service special interestareas or research natural areas, andOhio EPA designated resource waters

Not located within 1000' of 3745-27-07(H)(3)(c) - Same Do not addresswater well or developed spring as Solid Waste Managementunless under specified circumstances Plan recommendation

Not located within 300' of 3745-27-07(H)(4)(b) - Do not addressproperty line Same as Solid Waste Management

Plan recommendation

1For ease in reading this table, all rule references are based on the municipal solid waste landfill rules (OAC Rule 3745-27-07). Many of thesesame criteria can be found in the industrial solid waste landfill facility rules (OAC Rule 3745-29-07) and the residual solid waste landfill facility

rules (OAC Rule 3745-30-06).


Table V-1: Landfill Siting Criteria Recommendations

Recommendation from the Ohio Administrative Code Federal RCRA1989 State Plan Subtitle D Regulations

Not located within 1000' of 3745-27-07(H)(4)(c) - Same as Solid Do not addressresidence Waste Management Plan

recommendation

Not located within 200' of 3745-27-07(H)(4)(d) - Same as Solid Do not addressstream, lake, or natural wetland Waste Management Plan

recommendation

PTI application must demonstrate 3745-27-20(C)(1) - PTI’s identify Notification of airport andthat the municipal solid waste airports within 10,000'/5,000' then Federal Aviationlandfill will not pose a bird hazard notification letter to airport Administration ofto aircraft (municipal solid waste municipallandfill within 10,000'/5,000') of solid waste landfillairports within 5 miles

Bird hazard demonstrationif within 10,000' or 5,000'

Required 15' isolation distance 3745-27-07(H)(2)(e) - Same as Do not addressfrom uppermost aquifer for Solid Waste Managementmunicipal solid waste landfills Plan recommendation

Required 5' isolation distance 3745-30-06(B)(15)(a) to (c) - Same Do not addressfrom uppermost aquifer for some as Solid Waste Management Planclasses of coal combustion solid recommendation in the residualwaste landfills waste rules

Was existing rule 3745-27-07(H)(2)(a) - Not in sand or Do not addressgravel pit

Was existing rule 3745-27-07(H)(2)(b) - Not in Do not addresslimestone/sandstone quarry

Table V-2: Transfer Station Siting Criteria Recommendations

Recommendation from the Ohio Administrative Code Federal RCRA Subtitle D1989 State Plan Regulations

Not located in regulatory floodplain 3745-27-22 (C) - Facility not located in Do not addressa floodway and identify floodplainboundary 3745-27-21(B)(2)(d)

3745-27-22(D) - Not located within 200' Do not addressof surface waters of the State

3745-27-22(I)(1) to (4) - Not located Do not addresswithin park/candidate area, purchasearea, etc.

3745-27-22(J)(1) to (5) - Not located Do not addresswithin 500' of nature preserves, wildlifearea, scenic river, etc.

3745-27-22(K) - Not located within Do not address

250' of domicile


Table V-3: Incinerator Siting Criteria Recommendations

Recommendation from Ohio Administrative Code Federal RCRA Subtitle Dthe 1989 State Plan Regulations

Not located in a regulatory 3745-27-51(C) - Facility not located Do not addressfloodplain in floodway and

3745-27-50(B)(2)(d) - identify floodplainboundary

3745-27-51(D) - Not located within 200' Do not addressof waters of the State

3745-27-51(I) - Not located within Do not addresspark/candidate area, purchase area, etc.

3745-27-51(J) - Not located within 250' Do not addressof nature preserves, wildlife, refuge,scenic river, etc.

3745-27-51(K) - Not located within Do not address250' of domicile

Table V-4: Composting Facility Siting Criteria Recommendations


Not located in a regulatory Solid waste placement areas not located Do not addressfloodplain in floodway 3745-27-41(B)(2)(a)(i)and

3745-27-43(C)(1)(a); and identify thelimits of the regulatory floodway3745-27-41(B)(1)(g) and3745-27-42(A)(2)(c)(iii)

Not located within 100 feet of surfacewaters of the State 3745-27-41(B)(2)(b)and 3745-27-43(C)(1)(b) and identifystreams, wetlands, lakes, springs, andother surface waters 3745-27-41(B)(1)(c)and 3745-27-42(A)(2)(b)(iv)

Except for facilities which compost onlywastes generated within state or nationalparks, not located within a park orcandidate area, purchase area, etc.3745-27-41(B)(2)(ii), 3745-27-41 (C)(3)and 3745-27-43 (C)(2)

Not located within 200 feet of a watersupply well, or developed spring3745-27-41(B)(2)(c) and3745-27-43 (C)(1)(c)

For a Class I composting facility, must belocated at least 500 feet from a domicile3745-27-43(C)(1)(d) 3745-27-41(B)(2)(d)- For Class II composting facilities, mustbe located at least 250 feet from a domicile

3745-27-41(B)(2)(d) - For a Class IIIcomposting facility, must be located atleast 250 feet from a domicile, unlessthe domicile is controlled by the facilityregistrant, or the facility was in operationon July 1, 1991


Table V-4: Composting Facility Siting Criteria Recommendations


3745-27-41(B)(2)(e)(i) to (v) - For a Class II and Class III composting facility,waste placement areas must be at least 500feet from nature preserves, wildlife refuges,scenic rivers, special interest areas,research areas within the Wayne NationalForest, State resource waters, coldwaterhabitats, or warmwater habitats.

3745-27-43(C)(1)(e) - For a Class Icomposting facility, waste placementareas must be at least 1,000 feet fromnature preserves, wildlife refuges, scenicrivers, special interest areas, researchareas within the Wayne National Forest,State resource waters, coldwater habitats,or warmwater habitats.

Table V-5: Scrap Tire Siting Criteria

Criteria Scrap Tire Monofill Class I Scrap Tire Scrap TireFacility Storage Facility or Collection, Class II

Class I Recovery Storage, or Class II RecoveryFacility Facility

At least 100' from any Not Applicable2 3745-27-64(A)(9)(a) 3745-27-62(A)(8)(a)buildings or structures notowned or leased by the owneror operator of the facility.This includes all portablecontainers in which tiresare stored, at a collectionfacility

Not located within areas 3745-27-71(H)(1) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(c) 3745-27-62(A)(8)(a)specified below, unless facilityexclusively stores scrap tiresgenerated within the areasspecified below:a national park or national 3745-27-71(H)(1)(a) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(c)(i) 3745-27-62(A)(8)(b)(i)

recreation areab state park or established 3745-27-71(H)(1)(c) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(c)(ii) 3745-27-62(A)(8)(b)(ii)

state park purchase areac candidate for potential 3745-27-71(H)(1)(b) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(c)(iii) 3745-27-62(A)(8)(b)(iii)

inclusion in the nationalpark system

d any property within 3745-27-71(H)(1)(d) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(c)(iv) 3745-27-62(A)(8)(b)(iv)boundaries of nationalpark or national recreationarea not acquired by theU. S. Department of Interior

Not located in a regulatory Not Applicable 3745-27-64(A)(9)(b) 3745-27-62(A)(9)(a)floodplain

2The two hundred feet property line setback and five hundred feet domicile setback make this unnecessary.


Table V-5: Scrap Tire Siting Criteria

Criteria Scrap Tire Monofill Class I Scrap Tire Scrap TireFacility Storage Facility or Collection, Class II

Class I Recovery Storage, or Class II RecoveryFacility Facility

At least 1000' from the 3745-27-71(H)(2)(a) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(d)3745-27-62(A)(9)(b)boundaries of the followingnatural areas:

a areas designated by ODNR 3745-27-71(H)(2)(a)(i) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(d)(i) 3745-27-62(A)(9)(b)(i) as state nature preserve, state wildlife area, or state scenic river.b areas designated, owned, 3745-27-71(H)(2)(a)(ii) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(d)(ii) 3745-27-62(A)(9)(b)(ii) and managed by the Ohio Historical Society as a nature preservec areas designated by the 3745-27-71(H)(2)(a)(iii) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(d)(iii) 3745-27-62(A)(9)(b)(iii) United States Department of the Interior as either a national wildlife refuge or a national scenic riverd areas designated by the 3745-27-71(H)(2)(a)(iv) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(d)(iv) 3745-27-62(A)(9)(b)(iv) United States Forest Service as either a special interest areas or a research natural area in the Wayne National Foreste stream segments 3745-27-71(H)(2)(a)(v) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(d)(v) 3745-27-62(A)(9)(b)(v) designated by Ohio EPA as either a state resource water, a coldwater habitat, or an exceptional warmwater habitat

Two hundred feet from the 3745-27-71(H)(2)(b) Not applicable Not Applicableproperty lineOne hundred feet from the Not Applicable 3745-27-64(A)(9)(g) 3745-27-62(A)(9)(e)property line

Two hundred feet from Not Applicable 3745-27-64(A)(9)(e)(i) 3745-27-62(A)(9)(d)domicile owner or leasedby the owner or operator

Five hundred feet from 3745-27-71(H)(2)(c) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(e)(ii) 3745-27-62(A)(9)(d)domicile

Two hundred feet from 3745-27-71(H)(2)(d) 3745-27-64(A)(9)(f) 3745-27-62(A)(9)(c)surface waters


REFERENCES:

Clark, Peter B. and Wendy M.Emrich. (1980), New Tools for Re-solving Environmental Disputes.Council on Environmental Quality,Washington, D.C.

California Waste ManagementBoard. (1985) A ComprehensivePlan for Management of Nonhazard-ous Waste in California. Sacra-mento, CA.

Connor, Desmond M. (December1988), “Breaking Through the‘Nimby’ Syndrome.” Civil Engineer-ing. pp.69-71.

Hendrickson, Mark L. and StephenA. Romano. (May 1982) “CitizenInvolvement in Waste Facility Sit-ing.” Public Works. pp. 76-79.

New York State Department of En-vironmental Conservation. (Decem-ber 1987) New York State Solid WasteManagement Plan 1987-1988 Up-date: Executive Summary. Divisionof Solid Waste. Albany.

Ohio Administrative Code. “SolidWaste Disposal Licenses and Regu-lations,” Section 3745-27.

Ohio Environmental ProtectionAgency, “Ground Water,” March1988.

Ohio Environmental ProtectionAgency. (1988) “Ohio Water Qual-ity Inventory,” 1988 305(b) Report,Volume 1.

Ohio Revised Code. “Solid WasteDisposal Licenses,” Chapter 3745-37.

Reindl, John. (June 1981 )“LandfillSite Selection.” Waste Age. pp. 178-196.

Repa, Edward W. (October 1988).“The New Rules EPA has Proposed

for Landfills,” Waste Age. pp. 49-58.

National Solid Waste ManagementAssociation, (1988). Resource Re-covery: An Essential Tool for Effec-tive Waste Management. Washing-ton.

Solid Wastes Management ( July,1981). “Public Awareness Programsfor Waste Facility Siting,” pp.50-53.

State of Washington, Department ofEcology. (May 1986) State SolidWaste Planning Guidelines: Solidand Hazardous Waste Program.Environmental Health Administra-tion, Division of Solid Waste Con-trol.

U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, General Accounting Officer.(February 1988) Groundwater Qual-ity: State Activities to Guard AgainstContaminants. Washington.

U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. Office of Policy Planningand Evaluation. (August 1988). En-vironmental Progress and Chal-lenges: EPA’s Update. Washington.

U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. Office of Solid Waste. (Au-gust 22, 1988). Proposed Revisionsto Criteria for Municipal Solid Dis-posal Landfills: A Summary. Wash-ington.

“What Is Zoning?,” <http://real-es-tate-law.freeadvice.com/zoning/zoning_legalese.htm>.

Zier, Robert E. (March 1988) “PutSiting First. Period.”, Waste Age, , pp.57-64.

“Zoning Laws,” <http://www.mycounsel.com/content/realestate/zoning/>.


Management of Ash Resulting From the Burning of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste 63

ORC Section 3734.50 (E) requiresthat the State Plan “examine alter-native methods of disposal for fly ashand bottom ash resulting from theburning of mixed municipal solidwastes...”

ORC Section 3734.50(E) further re-quires that “Within one year afteradoption of the plan, the Directorshall adopt rules...establishing stan-dards for the disposal of fly ash andbottom ash resulting from the burn-ing of mixed municipal solid waste.”

Introduction

As solid waste management options,incineration and waste-to-energyhave historically never been majorcomponents of Ohio’s overall dis-posal program. To illustrate, themanagement of solid waste via in-cineration and waste-to-energyranged from seven percent of Ohio’stotal waste stream in 1990 to 0.2 per-cent in 1997. Although incinerationand waste-to-energy have never beenmajor methods of waste managementon a statewide basis, they were inte-gral components of waste disposal inthe cities of Columbus and Akron aswell as in Montgomery County inyears past. However, in 1994, withthe closure of the waste-to-energyfacility in Columbus, Ohio’s publiclyavailable solid waste incinerators andwaste-to-energy facilities began clos-ing, one-by-one, until the last oper-ating facility ceased operations in1997. The result is that, as of thedate this State Plan was adopted,there are no operating incinerators orwaste-to-energy facilities acceptingmixed municipal waste for combus-tion.

At the time H.B. 592 was passed, thecombustion of solid waste was notonly viable as a waste management

MANAGEMENT OF ASH RESULTING FROM THEBURNING OF MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

alternative but was also expected toprovide a means of reducing the vol-ume of solid waste disposed in Ohio’sthen rapidly diminishing landfill air-space. To reduce the burden onOhio’s landfill facilities even further,the statute, as can be seen from thereference to the left, requires theState Plan to consider alternatives todisposal as methods for managingash produced from the incinerationof mixed municipal solid waste. In1997, Ohio EPA initiated a program,known as the Integrated AlternativeWaste Management Program(IAWMP), for the review and con-sideration of requests to managewaste materials outside of traditionaldisposal facilities. Although IAWMPis not specific to the alternative man-agement of incineration ash, it ispossible that alternative uses of ashcould be approved through the pro-gram, if the management of incin-erator ash becomes an issue in thefuture.

Because the incineration of mixedmunicipal solid waste is not a viableoption at this time nor is it expectedto become a viable option in the fore-seeable future, the SWAC and OhioEPA, do not believe that expendingresources on the development of analternative management programspecific to solid waste incinerationash is warranted at this time. If in-cineration is utilized at some pointin the future for the management ofsolid waste, then SWAC and OhioEPA recommend that an alternativemanagement program be developed.

Mixed Municipal CombustionAsh Overview

Whenever solid waste material isburned, part of the original materialis noncombustible and the result is

6CHAPTER

ash. Under ideal operating condi-tions, approximately 10 percent ofthe volume and 32 percent of theweight of municipal waste is left af-ter it is burned. The ash residue fromsolid waste contains glass, cans,clays that are used in paper, stabiliz-ers from plastics, pigments in inks,and minerals in organic wastes. Theexact composition of the ash varieswidely depending on what is burned,the type of combustion process in-volved, and other factors.

Municipal waste incinerators pro-duce two types of ash residue:

✦ Bottom ash is the residue that col-lects beneath the combustionchamber. It constitutes approxi-mately 90 percent by weight ofall ash.

✦ Fly ash is the powdery residuethat is trapped in the plant’s emis-sion control devices. It representsabout 10 percent by weight of thetotal amount of ash that is gener-ated.

The physical appearance of ashranges from fine-grained to verycoarse particles. Although thechemical content of ash varies ac-cording to the waste sources, thecomposition of the ash residue con-tains many of the same constituentspresent in the original waste. Forexample, ash residue typically con-tains relatively harmless materials,such as iron and silicon, as well aspotentially toxic materials, such aslead and cadmium.

The following information is gener-ally accepted about ash:

✦ Levels of dioxin in ash are linkedto combustion practices.

✦ Fly ash typically contains heavymetals, predominantly lead andcadmium.


✦ Bottom ash is alkaline, while flyash is acidic.

Typically, fly ash contains higherconcentrations of toxic metals andmay produce toxic leachate whendisposed in landfills. The bottom ashcontains lower concentrations ofheavy metal constituents. When flyash and bottom ash are mixed intowhat is called “combined ash,” themetal concentrations in the mixtureare usually diluted when comparedto the levels in the segregated fly ash.

History of the Mixed MunicipalSolid Waste Incinerator AshRegulatory Program

At the time the 1989 State Plan wasbeing developed, there wasn’t a fed-eral law that delineated whether ashfrom mixed-MSW combustion facili-ties (incinerators and waste-to-en-ergy/resource recovery facilities) wassubject to regulation as a solid wasteor subject to regulation as a hazard-ous waste. In 1988, shortly after theadoption of H.B. 592, Ohio EPAstrengtened its control over the dis-posal of this ash in Ohio by develop-ing a policy that required toxicitytesting prior to disposal and placedseveral restrictions on facilities thataccepted ash for disposal. Thispolicy, titled “Interim Policy on theDisposal of Municipal IncineratorAsh” (Interim Policy), went into ef-fect on October 8, 1988 and was in-corporated into the 1989 State Plan.

In accordance with Ohio EPA’s In-terim Policy, before accepting mu-nicipal incinerator ash, owners andoperators of disposal facilities wererequired to verify that the ash did notqualify as a hazardous waste whenanalyzed for the Toxicity Character-istic (TC). The ash was to be peri-odically sampled and the sample re-sults statistically analyzed. If theresults of the statistical analyses ofthe ash samples exceeded the limitsfor TC, the material could be ren-dered nonhazardous on-site where itwas generated, as necessary to meetthe TC limits or taken to a hazard-ous waste treatment or disposal fa-cility. Under the Interim Policy, ifthe ash safely met the testing crite-

ria as nonhazardous, it could be dis-posed at a solid waste disposal facil-ity that has a ground water monitor-ing system in place, but the ash wasrequired to be kept physically iso-lated from other solid wastes.

Ohio’s Interim Policy applied onlyto ash generated from municipal in-cinerator facilities where the incom-ing waste stream consisted solely ofhousehold waste and nonhazardouscommercial and industrial waste.Following the development of Ohio’sInterim Policy in 1988, additionalguidance regarding the testing anddisposal of ash from the incinerationof solid waste came from U.S. EPAand the Courts. This guidance is dis-cussed below. While much of Ohio’sInterim Policy remained unaffectedby that guidance, some changes andclarifications were needed in orderto maintain consistency with federalpolicy. These changes and clarifica-tions were primarily related to thesampling and analysis proceduresthat were prescribed by Ohio’s In-terim Policy.

In 1991, Ohio EPA promulgated newrules governing the permitting, op-eration, closure, and financial assur-ance of solid waste incinerator facili-ties (OAC Rules 3745-27-50 through-53). These rules became effectiveon May 31, 1991 and exist relativelyunchanged today. The incineratorrules, as they are usually referred to,require applicants for a permit to in-stall for a solid waste incinerator toprepare and submit ash managementplans that, at a minimum, address theash disposal requirements estab-lished in the Interim Policy and con-tained in the 1989 State Plan. Addi-tional provisions of OAC Section3745-27-50(C) require discussion ofash removal, handling and storagepractices at solid waste incinerationfacilities.

Since the adoption of Ohio’s firstsolid waste regulations in1976, re-source recovery facilities (includingwaste-to-energy facilities) had beenexempted in OAC Rule 3745-27-03(N) from Ohio’s solid waste regu-lations. This exemption status didnot change with the adoption of theregulations governing solid waste

incinerators. Thus, facilities such asthose that were operated by the cit-ies of Akron and Columbus wereexempted from the solid waste incin-erator regulations. Because resourcerecovery facilities were not regulatedas solid waste facilities, there wereno requirements for operators of re-source recovery facilities to haveapproved ash management plans.The result was that it was not clear,in Ohio, whether or not ash from re-source recovery facilities that burnedsolid waste was subject to the re-quirements in Ohio’s Interim Policy.

On September 18, 1992, U.S. EPAAdministrator William K. Reilly an-nounced that municipal waste com-bustion ash would be exempted fromregulation at the federal level underSection 3001 (i) of RCRA. This de-cision was effectively overturned onMay 2, 1994, when the U.S. SupremeCourt issued an opinion interpretingSection 3001(i). (City of Chicago v.EDF, No. 92-1639) The Court heldthat Section 3001(i) does not exemptash generated at resource recoveryfacilities (i.e., waste-to-energy facili-ties) burning household wastes andnonhazardous commercial wastesfrom the hazardous waste require-ments of RCRA Subtitle C. As ofthe effective date of the Court’s de-cision (June 1, 1994), operators ofsuch facilities must determinethrough sampling whether the ashgenerated is characterized as a haz-ardous waste. Ash that is determined,through sampling, to be characteris-tically hazardous must be managedin compliance with all applicablehazardous waste regulations. Thedecision further clarified that if theash is not a hazardous waste accord-ing to the test results, it may con-tinue to be disposed at a licensedsolid waste landfill that meets U.S.EPA standards under Subtitle D ofRCRA.

On May 20, 1994, U.S. EPA issueda draft guidance document titledSampling and Analysis of MunicipalRefuse Incinerator Ash. Throughwritten correspondence dated May27, 1994, Ohio EPA notified opera-tors of Ohio’s four municipal wastecombustors that, because of the U.S.


Supreme Court’s ruling, Ohio’s In-terim Policy had been replaced byU.S. EPA’s Draft Sampling andAnalysis of Municipal Refuse In-cineration Ash. That correspondenceconveyed the need to follow the sam-pling and analysis procedures in thefederal draft guidance rather than inOhio’s Interim Policy and that Ohio’sInterim Policy would be revised aspart of the first revision to the StatePlan. The ultimate effect of theseactions was to eliminate the previ-ous uncertainty over the regulatorystatus of ash from solid waste re-source recovery facilities and tomake ash from solid waste resourcerecovery facilities subject to the sametesting requirements as ash frommunicipal incinerators.

This draft sampling protocol pre-scribed by U.S. EPA’s sampling andanalysis document is quite similar inprinciple to the requirements ofOhio’s Interim Policy, with slightlydifferent sampling frequencies. Forthe initial waste characterization, thecombustion facility operator musttake two eight-hour compositesamples each day for one week’soperation, for a total of fourteen1000-gram samples. (An eight-hourcomposite sample means to take onegrab sample from the designatedsampling area each hour for eighthours, and combine them; Anothereight-hour composite sample must betaken during another shift.) Thesample analysis method to be usedis U.S. EPA SW-846 TCLP (toxicitycharacteristic leaching procedure)method 1311, applying the Student’st-test from U.S. EPA SW-846 for sta-tistical data evaluation. The TCLPtest covers 40 different species oforganics and metals. It is recom-mended that subsequent testing beconducted at least quarterly to deter-mine the ash variability over time.Using the sample data from eachsampling period, the operator mustdetermine if the ash exhibits toxiccharacteristics. If the statisticalanalysis fails the limits for TC theash is to be disposed as hazardouswaste, unless rendered nonhazardousprior to the point of disposal.

Because of questions about whetherfly ash and bottom ash from thesefacilities could be combined prior tosampling, U.S. EPA published in theFederal Register effective February3, 1995, a Determination of Point atwhich RCRA Subtitle C Jurisdictionbegins for Municipal Waste Combus-tion Ash at Waste-to-Energy Facili-ties. This point was determined tobe the point at which the ash exitsthe combustion building followingthe combustion and air pollution con-trol processes. While within thecombustion building, ash handling isexempt from regulation under Sub-title C. Fly and bottom ash may becombined prior to sampling for haz-ardous waste characteristics, as longas the combining of the ash typestakes place within the combustionbuilding prior to either ash havingbeen collected or deposited outsidethe building.

All four solid waste incinerator andresource recovery facilities operatingin Ohio utilized U.S. EPA’s samplingprotocol from May, 1994, until op-erations ceased. During this time,no exceedences of the TCLP limitswere reported for any of the facili-ties following U.S. EPA’s samplingprotocol.

The 1995 State Plan mentioned thatOhio’s Interim Policy would be re-vised to remove the inconsistenciesbetween the Interim Policy and U.S.EPA’s policy and that these revisionswould be incorporated into rule dur-ing the 1995-96 time frame. Whilethe Interim Policy itself has not beenrevised, Ohio EPA, in 1996, in con-junction with the promulgation ofnew rules governing scrap tire facili-ties, removed the exemption for re-source recovery facilities from OACRule 3745-27-03(N). This changebrought oversight of resource recov-ery facilities that burn mixed munici-pal solid waste under the rules gov-erning the permitting, operation, fi-nancial assurance, and closure ofsolid waste incinerators and madeOhio’s program consistent with fed-eral policy.

In 1997, DSIWM conducted a reviewof the rules governing the permitting,operation, and closure of MSW in-cineration facilities in accordancewith H.B. 473, and, in1998, the ruleswere readopted without any changes.

Background Information

At the time the 1995 State Plan wasadopted, Ohio had two operating,publically-available incinerators thatwere accepting mixed municipalsolid waste. These facilities were theMontgomery County North Incinera-tor (600 tons per day) and the Mont-gomery County South Incinerator(800 tons per day). The Montgom-ery County South Incinerator closedin December of 1996, and the Mont-gomery County North Incineratorclosed in May of 1997. Thus, byMay of 1997, all of the previouslyoperating, large, publicly-ownedmunicipal solid waste incinerator andwaste-to-energy facilities in Ohiohad ceased operations. While thereis currently one active incinerator,BFI Warren Medical Waste locatedin Trumbull County, that is licensedto accept mixed municipal solidwaste, that facility primary burns in-fectious waste. The small amountsof solid waste burned at the facilitygenerally consist of hospital recordsand other office waste.

In 1995, approximately 2% (369,479tons) of the 18,805,828 tons of solidwaste disposed in solid waste dis-posal facilities in Ohio were deliv-ered to solid waste incinerators.From the 369,479 tons of solid wastedelivered to incinerators, approxi-mately, 192,744 tons of ash weredelivered to solid waste disposal fa-cilities. In 1996, the number of tonsof solid waste delivered to solidwaste incinerators decreased to 1.1%(238,897 tons) of all waste disposedin solid waste disposal facilities. In1997, these figure decreased furtherto 0.2% (42,937 tons) of all solidwaste disposed in solid waste dis-posal facilities. In 1996 and 1997,134,793 tons of ash and 28,082 tonsof ash, respectively, were disposedin solid waste disposal facilities.


While there aren’t any operatingsolid waste incinerators or waste-to-energy facilities that burn mixedmunicipal solid waste, there are anumber of small incinerators oper-ated by schools and similar institu-tions that burn solid waste generatedon the premises. Because the ton-nage of ash produced by these indi-vidual incinerators is not monitored,it is not known how much ash is be-ing disposed in Ohio’s landfills.However, it is safe to assume that theoverall tonnage is relatively insignifi-cant. It is also possible that Ohioimports municipal solid waste incin-erator ash from other states that stillutilize incineration as a waste man-agement alternative. As with ashproduced by institutionally-operatedincinerators, there aren’t any avail-able estimates regarding how much,if any, out-of-state ash is being dis-posed in Ohio’s solid waste landfillfacilities.

Closure of Ohio’s SolidWaste Incinerators andWaste-to-energy Facilities

As was mentioned above, by May of1997 all of the existing, large, pub-licly-owned municipal solid wasteincinerators in Ohio had ceased op-erations. There are many factors thatcaused these closures to occur. Twoof these factors are the inability oflocal communities to utilize flowcontrol due to its unconstitutionalityand the new air standards. Whileboth of these factors are discussedindividually in the text that follows,the closure of Ohio’s solid waste in-cinerators was the result of these fac-tors combined.

Flow Control

At the time H.B. 592 was adoptedinto law in 1988, the legislation in-tended that all SWMDs would havethe ability to designate which dis-posal facilities were to receive solidwaste generated within that SWMD.In this manner, not only would theSWMD be able to easily trace theflow of its solid waste, but theSWMD would also be able to ensure

that a sufficient quantity of solidwaste was delivered to publicly fi-nanced disposal facilities to keepthose facilities financially solvent.These practices, coined “flow con-trol” were subsequently deemed un-constitutional by a U.S. SupremeCourt decision which overturned alocal flow control ordinance in NewYork (C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Townof Clarkstown, New York, No. 92-1402, May 16, 1994.). It is highlylikely that this decision adverselyaffected the ability of owners andoperators of MSW incineration andresource recovery facilities to com-pete economically with owners andoperators of landfills and other solidwaste management alternatives. Thedecision may also have affected theability of owners and operators ofthese facilities to attract sufficientvolumes of waste to ensure repay-ment of facility financing.

New Air Standards

There are both state and federal regu-lations that apply to municipal wastecombustion. U.S. EPA regulates airemissions from combustion facilitiesthrough its “New Source Perfor-mance Standards” (NSPS) and “Pre-vention of Significant Deterioration”(PSD) permit process. Whenever anew facility is proposed, plant op-erators must prepare a detailed cal-culation of air emissions to deter-mine whether compliance will beachieved with federal and state rules.U.S. EPA also requires such facili-ties to install best available controltechnology (BACT) on large facili-ties.

Ohio regulates particulate incinera-tor stack emissions through the Par-ticulate Matter Standards that arecontained in OAC Chapter 3745-17.These regulations address all newand existing facilities by: settingstandards that regulate particulateemissions for stationary sources;controlling fugitive dust emissionsfrom various sources; and settingspecific restrictions on particulateemissions and odors from incinera-tors. In addition, all new facilitiesmust install Best Available Technol-

ogy to reduce all pollutants in accor-dance with Ohio EPA Permit-to-In-stall rules.

When materials are burned, gasesand other by-products are formed andmust be controlled to mitigate airpollution. Modern resource recov-ery plants are designed to solve thisproblem by achieving extremely hightemperatures (1800 to 2200 degreesFahrenheit) to minimize the forma-tion of complex chemical com-pounds such as dioxin, and by usingpollution control devices. BACTrequirements, such as scrubbers,electrostatic precipitators, and fab-ric filters, can reduce emissions byup to 99 percent.

An efficient pollution control systemgenerally transfers metal oxides fromthe flue gas to the fly ash or scrub-ber sludge. This is why fly ash tendsto contain metals.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of1990 require U.S. EPA to promulgateadditional requirements for the con-trol of emissions from existing andnew municipal waste combustors.The standards for units of greaterthan 35 metric tons per day capacitywere promulgated in final form onDecember 19, 1995, but were thesubject of series of challenges andcourt-ordered amendments that re-sulted in a redefinition of size cat-egories and separate standards for“small” units of 35 to 250 tons perday capacity and “large” units above250 tons per day capacity. Standardsfor large units became effective in1997 and standards for small unitswere proposed in 1999. The state ofOhio has the option of writing theirown rules for existing units, whichmay equal or exceed the stringencyof the federal guidelines, but has cho-sen not to do so, because of the clo-sure of all potentially affected units.These closures appear to result frompoor economics of operation in theabsence of flow control, and the ne-cessity of upgrading control equip-ment to meet new emission limits.The U.S. EPA also intends to issuestandards for municipal waste com-bustors smaller than 35 metric tonsper day. This category falls under the“Other Small Waste Incinerator” or


“OSWI” classification and is notscheduled for issuance of final rulesbefore November 15, 2005.

Implementation of the 1990 federalClean Air Act Amendments has re-sulted in tighter controls over mer-cury and dioxin emissions fromMSW incinerators and resource re-covery facilities, requiring extensiveupgrades at many facilities. U.S.EPA has also conducted a multi-yearDioxin Reassessment to evaluate di-oxin tolerance levels. Based on theresults of this report and in responseto citizen concerns, U.S. EPA mayplace additional requirements onthese facilities in an effort to reducedioxin emissions.

Uses for Mixed Municipal SolidWaste Combustion Ash

SWAC encourages methods to reusenonhazardous ash that are demon-strated by scientifically valid re-search to be beneficial and environ-mentally sound. If the incineratorash is not hazardous based on theTCLP test, it can be disposed in asolid waste facility meeting RCRASubtitle D standards, or possibly re-used. Many reuse technologies re-main experimental and will requireadditional testing to determine theirenvironmental suitability.

Ash usually must undergo some formof treatment before it can be reused.Solidification and chemical stabili-zation are the most widely usedforms of treatment. The processesinclude mixing ash with lime or port-land cement to form less solublemetals. A number of companies cur-rently offer stabilization technologiesfor municipal combustion ash. Oncestabilized, the ash can be used forconstruction materials or road foun-dation, provided it meets construc-tion specifications.

Interim Alternative WasteManagement Program

IAWMP was issued as a managementdirective on July 1, 1997 from thechiefs of DSIWM and DSW to all

staff in those divisions. The ultimatepurpose of IAWMP is to expedite theapproval of alternate uses of wastematerials. The purpose of the direc-tive was to clarify which division,DSIWM or DSW, is to review a par-ticular type of alternative waste man-agement proposal, under what au-thority to review that proposal, andwhat type of response/approval/au-thorization is appropriate for the pro-posal under consideration. ThroughIAWMP, Ohio EPA utilizes currentstatutory and regulatory authoritiesand, as result, the directive was notintended to alter, in any significantway, past practices of DSW and thepolicies it utilizes under its existing“beneficial use” program. Ohio EPAdoes, however, employ existing regu-latory authorities in OAC Chapter3734-27 which, prior to IAWMP, hadnever before been utilized. Requeststo manage solid waste incinerator ashin ways other than disposal in land-fill facilities could be considered and,if acceptable, approved usingIAWMP. Should MSW ash man-agement become an important issuein the future, then, it is possible thatalternative uses of ash could be ap-proved through this program.

Controlling the Content of the AshResidue from Mixed MunicipalSolid Waste Combustion Facilities

The content of the ash residue frommixed municipal solid waste com-bustion depends on a number of fac-tors, including the types of materi-als burned, the air emissions require-ments, the efficiency of the combus-tion process, and the competency ofthe operator. Eliminating certainmaterials from the combustion pro-cess is one means of affecting thequality of the resulting ash. This ismost easily accomplished throughsource separation and waste diver-sion programs. Ensuring that solidwaste incinerators are operated bycompetent and knowledgeable staffcan be accomplished through an op-erator training and certification pro-gram.

Role of Source Separation

Many materials destined for combus-tion at resource recovery facilities orfor incineration can be separatedfrom other wastes at the point of gen-eration. Materials containing heavymetals and other potentially harm-ful components should not be burned.Eliminating such materials from thecombustion process can have a posi-tive effect on the quality of the re-sulting ash requiring disposal. Toaccomplish this, SWAC recommendsthat state and local solid waste man-agement programs encourage citi-zens and businesses to adopt aggres-sive pollution prevention programsto reduce the generation of not onlywastes containing potentially harm-ful substances, but also all wastes.SWAC further recommends thatwastes that cannot be eliminatedthrough pollution prevention strate-gies be recycled whenever possibleand wherever recycling programs arefeasible.

Role of Diverting Wastes from MixedMunicipal Combustion Facilities

Certain wastes, such as lead-acidbatteries, contribute hazardous con-stituents (especially toxic organicsand heavy metals) to emissions andash. Chapters IV and VIII providestrategies for handling these materi-als. Owners and operators of solidwaste incinerators must implementmeasures to divert wastes with haz-ardous constituents from the wastestream. SWAC recommends divert-ing these materials and recyclingthem whenever feasible.

OAC Section 3745-27-52(T) speci-fies that solid waste incinerator fa-cilities shall not accept the follow-ing:

1. Hazardous wastes;

2. Asbestos or asbestos-containingwaste material that is subject tothe provisions of NESHAP, 40CFR Part 61, Subpart M;

3. Infectious wastes...that have notbeen treated to render them non-infectious, unless the facility isan infectious waste treatment fa-


cility operated in accordance withstate infectious waste rules, orunless the facility holds a solidwaste disposal license with a no-tation that the facility treats in-fectious wastes;

4. Explosive materials;

5. Lead-Acid (automotive) batter-ies;

6. Yard waste after December 1,1993, except logs and brush;

7. Whole waste tires after January1, 1993, unless the facility is oth-erwise authorized to incineratewhole waste tires; and

8. Shredded waste tires after Janu-ary 1, 1995, unless the facility isotherwise authorized to inciner-ate shredded waste tires.

In addition, SWAC recommends thatall SWMDs that utilize or will uti-lize incineration or waste-to-energyfacilities in the future, to the great-est extent practical, recycle certainmaterials. These materials includeglass and other materials not usableas fuels, materials which may havegreater value if recycled, or materi-als which may interfere with efficientincinerator operation if not removed.

Separation and recycling may be metthrough community-based programssuch as curbside, drop-off or otherprograms, or by a program initiatedat a transfer station, or at the incin-erator or waste-to-energy facility it-self.

Because Ohio EPA does not haveauthority to regulate generators ortransporters of solid waste, some ofthese materials such as yard wasteand lead acid batteries cannot be ef-fectively banned if mixed with othersolid wastes. The 1995 State Planindicated that in SFY 1996, the in-cinerator rules would be revised andthat the language banning solid wasteincinerator facilities from acceptingyard waste and lead-acid batterieswould be clarified to apply to source-separated materials. Modifications

were made to the yard-waste portionof these restrictions, clarifying thatthe restriction applies only to source-separated yard waste. These modi-fications became effective January 1,1995. The lead-acid battery restric-tion remains in place, unmodifiedfrom its original version. Thus, thelead-acid battery restriction is notlimited to source-separated batteries,but applies to mixed loads as well.

The reason the lead-acid battery re-striction was not altered is that stud-ies indicated that the majority of usedlead-acid batteries in the State werealready being recycled and few werebeing delivered to disposal facilities.In the event that Ohio EPA observesa shift from recycling to disposal,then development of a clarified re-striction may be warranted at thattime.

Role of Operator Certification

Operator training and certificationprograms can assist in ensuring safeand effective operation of incinera-tors and pollution control equipment,as well as help operators determinewhich wastes should be burned.Ohio EPA is required by law to de-velop an operator certification andtraining program that addresses alloperators of solid waste facilities, allinfectious waste treatment facilities,and all health department personnelwho are responsible for enforcing thesolid and infectious waste laws andrules (see ORC Section 3734.02(L)for details.). In 1992, Ohio EPA pro-posed rules necessary to create thisprogram. Opposition to these ruleswas significant, primarily fromhealth departments who lacked ad-equate funding to complete the pro-posed training and certification re-quirements. To date, these rules havenot been finalized.

The 1995 State Plan projected thatthe operator certification and train-ing program would be implementedduring the 1996-97 biennium, whichbegan July 1, 1995. This did not

happen. A report published in 1998which documents a review that wasconducted of the 1995 State Plan in-dicated that an Ohio EPA/Ohio En-vironmental Health AssociationWorkgroup was working on devel-oping a recommendation for this is-sue. In addition, the report indicatedthat legislation to address health de-partment funding had been intro-duced into the Ohio General Assem-bly. The report further stated thatpending the outcome of this issue,work on the certification programwas scheduled to continue during the1998-99 biennium. Since publica-tion of the 1998 report, the legisla-tion regarding health departmentfunding was tabled and meetings ofthe Ohio EPA/Environmental HealthAssociation Workgroup have ended.At this point in time, Ohio EPA be-lieves it is unlikely that the rules nec-essary to create the training and cer-tification program can be promul-gated until the health departmentfunding issue is resolved.

The Future of AshManagement in Ohio

Given the absence of large, publicly-owned municipal solid waste incin-erators in Ohio, the management ofmunicipal solid waste combustionash is not a pressing issue for Ohioat this point in time. Furthermore,Ohio EPA does not anticipate thatincineration will become a signifi-cant solid waste management optionin Ohio in the foreseeable future dueto the issues surrounding flow con-trol and the expense of upgrading ex-isting incineration facilities to meetcurrent emission standards. Conse-quently, an updated analysis of al-ternative methods of disposal ofMSW incineration ash is not war-ranted at this time.

A Statewide Strategy for Managing Scrap Tires 69

Section 3734.50(F) of the Ohio Re-vised Code requires the State Planto “establish a statewide strategy formanaging scrap tires, which shallinclude identification of locationswithin the state that qualify as scraptire facilities and accumulations. Indeveloping the strategy, the director[of Ohio EPA] shall examine the fea-sibility of recycling or recoveringmaterials or energy from scrap tiresand landfilling scrap tires in aban-doned coal strip mines as well asother methods for managing scraptires.”

Why are Scrap Tires aSpecial Problem?

Scrap tires pose a substantial man-agement challenge due both to thelarge number of tires taken off theroad annually and to the propertiesbuilt into a tire to ensure its safetyand durability in use. Each year ap-proximately 12 million passenger tireequivalents (PTEs1 ) enter the wastestream in Ohio. The same designfactors that make tires today wearlonger than tires a generation agoalso make the tires more difficult toretread or recycle. Until 1996, thevast majority of scrap tires werelandfilled (using up valuable MSWlandfill space), stockpiled, or ille-gally dumped, thereby creating po-tentially serious health and environ-mental threats. The overall objec-tive in the management strategy forscrap tires is to reduce the numberof tires in uncontrolled stockpiles orillegal dumps. These sites are ofteninfested with mosquitoes, with thepotential for spreading dangerous

A STATEWIDE STRATEGY FORMANAGING SCRAP TIRES

mosquito-borne diseases. Large tiredumps can also lead to fires with ma-jor releases of air pollution and haz-ardous organic chemicals into sur-face and ground water.

Public Health Threats andEnvironmental Hazards of TireDumps and Stockpiles

Mosquitoes

Mosquitoes, as well as other vectors,find scrap tires an ideal breedinghabitat as the stagnant water in scraptires provides an ideal breeding habi-tat. Biting mosquitoes near tire pilescan become a serious nuisance. Ac-cording to the Vector-Borne DiseaseUnit of the Ohio Department ofHealth, abandoned or improperlystored tires constitute optimal habi-tat for a least four types of diseasecarrying mosquitoes in Ohio: Aedestriseratus (La Crosse encephalitis,dog heartworm); Culex pipens(St. Louis encephalitis); Aedesalbopictus (Dengue, La Crosse en-cephalitis); and Aedes aegypti (Den-gue, Yellow Fever). Between 1960and 1991, there were 744 incidencesof La Crosse encephalitis and 445incidences of St. Louis encephalitisreported in Ohio.

A new disease spread by mosquitoesmay become a threat in Ohio. Thisdisease, the West Nile Virus, is ex-pected to reach Ohio in 2001. Aninteragency task force has been con-vened to develop a statewide re-sponse to the West Nile Virus. Rep-resentatives from the Ohio Depart-

7CHAPTER

ment of Agriculture (ODA), OhioEPA, Ohio Department of Health(ODH), ODNR, Ohio State Univer-sity, the United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA), and localhealth departments serve on this taskforce. The task force is further bro-ken down into subcommittees thatare focused on developing recom-mendations for specific facets of theoverall issue.

Commerce in scrap tires as used tiresand retreadable casings is believedto be a vehicle for the intra-state,inter-state and even internationalspread of mosquito eggs and larvaeand may result in the further spreadof disease unless environmental con-trols for vectors are implemented.

Fire

Stockpiled tires represent vast col-lections of highly combustible ma-terials. Once ignited, tire fires canbe extremely hard to extinguish.This is due in large part to the geo-metric design of a tire which encap-sulates a rich oxygen supply, thusprolonging the fire.

As the tires burn, large quantities ofoil are released, and the heavy smokeand noxious emissions pose a seri-ous hazard to humans and the envi-ronment. Once extinguished, un-burned oil that is not recoveredthreatens ground water, surface wa-ter, and soil.

Tire fires require a tremendousamount of water to limit the spreadof the fire and eventually bring thefire under control. Often fire equip-

1A PTE is an average passenger car tire which weighs 20 pounds. Rather than using the number of actual tires as the measure,Ohio EPA uses PTE as the measurement standard. The reason is that tires from different types of vehicles vary widely in sizeand weight. A tire from a tractor or semi-trailer weighs significantly more than a tire from an automobile and costs far moreto process or dispose. Thus, the number of tires in an open dump is not as informative as the weight of tires for purposes ofestimating abatement costs.

ment has to be used continuously forsuch a long period of time at a singletire fire that years of life expectancyfor the equipment is consumed in asingle day. As a result, a fire depart-ment may have to replace a pumpertruck years before it was planned inthe budget. These unexpected costscan be crippling to a local fire de-partment. Also, a tire fire can rap-idly exceed the capabilities of asingle fire department. In Ohio’scase, one tire fire required the assis-tance from 21 additional fire depart-ments. In the two largest scrap tirefires in Ohio, U.S. EPA was calledin with their emergency responsecontractors to bury tire fires that weretoo large to be controlled with wateror foam.

The runoff from a tire fire can de-stroy aquatic life in streams near thesite. Pyrolotic oil is highly oxygendeficient and can strip all of the oxy-gen from any water it comes intocontact with. The pyrolytic oil andother chemicals in the fire fightingrunoff need to be contained asquickly as possible to limit impactsto surface and ground water.

There have been several significanttire pile fires in Ohio in the past sev-eral years. The largest tire fire in thestate occurred at a site in WyandotCounty and involved five to sevenmillion tires. This fire cost over twomillion dollars in immediate fire re-sponse costs during the first fewweeks and over $3.5 million in wa-ter treatment costs during the follow-ing two years. Expenses of over $0.5million per year for water treatmentwill continue until the fire residualscan be removed to a proper disposalsite. Removal of the fire residuals isestimated to cost $2.5 million to $7.5million, depending on the amount ofcontaminated soil that must be re-moved.

Operational ProblemsCaused by Scrap Tires inMunicipal Solid Waste Landfills

Besides taking up valuable airspace,scrap tires pose an operational prob-lem for sanitary landfills due to theirdesign. The donut shape of the tire

enables methane gas to collect inside.This may cause the tire to migrate tothe surface and disturb the cap sys-tem of the sanitary landfill facility,allowing more precipitation and sur-face water runoff to penetrate into thelandfill and contribute to the genera-tion of leachate. Whole scrap tiresalso do not compact well because oftheir shape.

Estimate of Number ofScrap Tires Dumped in Ohio

From 1987 to the early 1990s, OhioEPA used 100 million scrap tires asthe estimate of the number of tiresthat had been dumped or were stock-piled in Ohio. In the mid 1990s, us-ing new guidelines to estimate thenumber of scrap tires in open dumpsand other stockpiles, Ohio EPA andthe local health departments pro-duced estimates that are believed tobe accurate to within plus or minus25 percent. Thus, the revised esti-mate of the number of scrap tiresdumped and stockpiled in Ohio is 31million PTEs. With an accuracy ofplus or minus 25 percent, this num-ber could be as low as 23 millionPTEs or as high as 38 million PTEs.Several adjustments to this numbermay be necessary. As previouslyunidentified scrap tire piles are lo-cated, the number will need to beadjusted upwards. Over 95 percentof the owners of existing stockpilesfailed to obtain a license to operatethe facility during the first 5 years ofthe scrap tire regulatory program andwill be the subject of enforcementcases as resources become available.Some voluntary, private cleanup ofsmaller sites continue as do clean-ups funded by local governments.The most likely scenario, however,is that the State of Ohio will have tocleanup approximately 30 to 40 mil-lion scrap tires with one-half of thistotal at a single site in WyandotCounty.

Scrap Tire Managementand the 1989 State Plan

At the time the 1989 State Plan wasadopted, Ohio’s solid waste law did

not contain specific provisions toaddress the management of scraptires. While illegal dumping of scraptires could be addressed through thegeneral prohibition on the opendumping of solid waste, controllingthe illegal management of scrap tireswas a daunting task. This shortcom-ing in Ohio’s law combined with thegeneral belief that there were bettermanagement options for scrap tiresthan landfilling prompted Ohio’s leg-islature to include the proper man-agement of scrap tires as a goal ofH.B. 592. As a result, H.B. 592 re-quired the State Plan to establish astatewide strategy for the manage-ment of scrap tires.

The 1989 State Plan contained sixprimary strategies for managingscrap tires in Ohio. These strategieswere as follows:

✦ Require disposal of waste tires inmonocell/monofill facilities

✦ Regulate waste tire storage sites

✦ Investigate disposal of waste tiresin abandoned coal strip mines

✦ Develop waste tire markets

✦ Abate and cleanup waste tirestockpiles and open dumps

✦ Investigate energy recovery fromwaste tires

Furthermore, the 1989 State Planrecommended that whole waste tiresbe banned from disposal in solidwaste landfill facilities beginning onJanuary 1, 1993 and that shreddedwaste tires be banned from co-dis-posal with municipal solid waste inlandfill facilities beginning on Janu-ary 1, 1995. The bans on whole andshredded scrap tires were not imple-mented in accordance with thisschedule because, at the time, Ohio’sexisting regulatory authority did notextend to transporters of scrap tires,and limited alternative capacity ex-isted for managing scrap tires.

S.B. 165, which became effectiveOctober 29, 1993, gave Ohio EPA theauthority necessary to implement thestrategies contained in the 1989 StatePlan and to create the comprehen-sive scrap tire regulatory program


under which the State currently op-erates. This regulatory program, asdirected by law, contains provisionsgoverning scrap tire collection, stor-age, transportation, recovery, benefi-cial use, and disposal facilities,which include monofills andmonocells. This new regulatory pro-gram was the first step in ensuringthat scrap tire management facilitiesare located, maintained, operated,and closed in a manner that does notcreate a nuisance, a threat to publichealth and safety, or a fire hazard.The law also established a fifty-centper tire fee on the wholesale sale ofnew tires. Revenues from this feeare used to enforce the scrap tire lawsand regulations, to fund research intoalternative uses for scrap tires, tofund market development projects,and to provide financial resources toremediate abandoned tire dump sites.(For a more in-depth explanation ofthe provisions of S.B. 165, see Ap-pendix B.)

S.B. 165 required the Director ofOhio EPA to adopt rules governingthe management of scrap tires pur-suant to the new law. At the time, itwas forecasted that these rules wouldtake effect in 1995. As is discussedin the next section of this chapter,the rules didn’t actually take effectuntil March, 1996.

Scrap Tire Managementand the 1995 State Plan

At the time the 1995 State Plan wasadopted, the scrap tire rules had notyet been promulgated. However, inanticipation of the adoption of thescrap tire rules, the 1995 State Plancontained a detailed discussion of therequirements being developedthrough on-going rulemaking effortsand projected that the final ruleswould be adopted sometime in 1995.While the rules were not actuallyadopted until March, 1996, the 1995State Plan contained, with a few ex-ceptions, a fairly accurate discussionof the requirements that are con-tained in the final rule.

Ohio’s scrap tire rules, primarily en-compassed by OAC Rules 3745-27-54 through 79, became effective on

March 1, 1996. With the implemen-tation of these regulations, Ohio wasenabled to meet many of the objec-tives for scrap tire management thatwere originally established in the1989 State Plan.

Ohio’s scrap tire regulatory programapplies to the transportation, collec-tion, storage, processing, beneficialuse, and disposal of scrap tires. Theregulations, with a few limited ex-emptions, mandate that only regis-tered scrap tire transporters can de-liver scrap tires to specific types ofdestinations. A shipping paper sys-tem was established, and everyoneinvolved in the shipment of scraptires is required to retain copies ofthe shipping papers for three years.Each transporter and licensed facil-ity is required to submit annual re-ports to Ohio EPA. These reports areintended to provide a comprehensivepicture of scrap tire movement withinOhio. The system is designed to re-duce illegal dumping by allowing forthe identification of those responsiblefor scrap tires that never reach aproper recycling or disposal destina-tion.

The scrap tire rules apply to anyoneinvolved in managing scrap tires in-cluding generators, transporters,owners and operators of scrap tirecollection, storage, recovery, and dis-posal (monofills and monocells) fa-cilities, and individuals performingprojects to beneficially use scraptires. Each of these different“classes” of regulated entities is dis-cussed in more detail in AppendixC.

One of the provisions of the new lawallows owners and operators of ex-isting stockpiles of scrap tires to re-move (“draw-down”) those stock-piles over a period of time not to ex-ceed five years, until the scrap tirestorage or recovery facility is fullyin compliance with the new rules.For each year of the draw-down pe-riod, 20 percent of the stockpile mustbe removed or restacked in compli-ance with the new rules, andrestacked areas may not exceed themaximum size allowed for new fa-cilities. Failure of a facility owneror operator to remove the tires ac-

cording to the terms of an approveddraw-down plan for the facility willresult in the loss of the annual oper-ating license and the ability to dobusiness receiving scrap tires. How-ever, only a handfull of owners ofsmall stockpiles took advantage ofthis provision. Rarely do the own-ers of the property where tires arestockpiled have the resources to re-move the tires to a recycling or dis-posal facility either immediately orover a five-year period.

Recycling, Reuse, and EnergyRecovery of Scrap Tires

Bans on the disposal of waste mate-rials cannot be expected to be effec-tive without available alternativemanagement options. As was men-tioned earlier, S.B. 165 provided anumber of incentives to encouragenot only the recycling of scrap tiresbut also the development of the in-frastructure needed to provide recy-cling options. State agencies, suchas the Ohio Department of Transpor-tation (ODOT) and ODNR have be-gun using scrap tires in state-fundedprojects. ODOT has begun usingcrumb rubber in road constructionand maintenance projects. ODNRendorsed a project using shreddedscrap tires to reclaim abandonedmine lands. Manufacturers are in-corporating crumb rubber from scraptires into a wide variety of productssuch as sealants for roads and roofs,anti-fatigue matting, truck bed lin-ers, and pour-in-place playgroundmats. In addition, several of Ohio’sSWMDs have implemented pro-grams and funded projects to furtherthe development of markets for scraptires.

Scrap Tires inTransportation Applications

ODOT makes direct purchases ofground rubber for use as a crack sealenhancer. In 1999, 27.3 tons ofground rubber were purchased forODOT use, significantly more thanwas used on construction contracts.ODOT continues its study of rubber-ized asphalt roads constructed in



Ohio during the late 1980s. Recycledrubber is also currently used as theballast or collar for a multitude ofconstruction barrels and cones.

Scrap Tire Reuse/Beneficial Use

As defined in S.B. 165, the “benefi-cial use” of a scrap tire results in acommodity for sale or exchange, oruse in any other manner authorizedby the Director of Ohio EPA. Thesubstitution of scrap tires for anothermaterial must have a comparableengineering value at least equal tothe material the scrap tires are replac-ing and must not be solely for pur-poses of disposal. Anyone wantingto beneficially use scrap tires mustcomply with certain statutory andregulatory requirements. However,using pieces of scrap tires or crumbrubber to manufacture or assemblecommercial products is not regulatedunder Ohio’s scrap tire program.

Listed below are the types of benefi-cial uses involving scrap tires thathave been approved by Ohio EPA:

✦ Use of tire chips in leachate col-lection systems and as construc-tion material in landfill facilities

✦ Use of tire chips in the protectivelayers over liner systems in land-fill facilities

✦ Use of modified whole tires asweights to hold down tarps usedas alternative daily cover at land-fill facilities

✦ Use of tire chips as backfillaround buildings

✦ Use in misc. construction projects

✦ whole tires used as crashbarriers at racetracks

✦ whole tires used as rifle rangebackstop

✦ earth moving tires filled withdirt used as a fence

✦ whole tires used for houseconstruction

✦ Use of tire shreds as a based under public roads, roads within

solid waste landfill facilities, andunder parking lots

✦ Use of whole tires with onesidewall removed as a zero earthpressure wall

Scrap Tire Energy Recovery

The 1995 State Plan sought to en-courage the use of scrap tires for en-ergy recovery. Therefore, certaintypes of facilities were proposed tobe excluded from being defined as“scrap tire recovery facilities.” Solidwaste incinerators and energy recov-ery facilities that accept primarilymixed municipal solid waste werealready proposed to be excludedfrom the definition of “scrap tire re-covery facility” and, therefore, wouldnot be subject to the registration orpermit requirements. The 1995 StatePlan recommended expanding theexclusions in the definition of “solidwaste recovery facility” thereby in-creasing the potential for energy re-covery by allowing cement kilns,coal-fired electric utility boilers, andcoal-fired industrial boilers to usescrap tires as a fuel supplement (i.e.tire-derived fuel (TDF)). This exclu-sion was added for the final rule.Although excluded facilities are notrequired to register as recovery fa-cilities, the rules covering the gen-eral storage of scrap tires still apply.Currently, only one industrial boileroccasionally uses tire-derived fuel tosupplement its fuel mix. No electricutilities or cement kilns in Ohio arecurrently using or have used scraptires as a fuel supplement. Most fa-cilities would incur considerable costto retrofit and upgrade equipment inorder to burn tire-derived fuel. Thisis a disincentive to the use of scraptires as a fuel supplement.

Even though using scrap tires as fuelis not widespread in Ohio, otherstates are seeing an increased inter-est for using scrap tires for energyrecovery. Currently, at least onescrap tire processor in Ohio is pro-cessing scrap tires to be used as TDFfor energy production in West Vir-ginia and Kentucky. According to arepresentative from one of Ohio’slargest scrap tire processors, there are

three main factors that affect an en-ergy providers ability to utilize scraptires as a fuel source. These factorsare as follows:

1. The state’s regulatory structure(i.e. emission control require-ments)

2. The type of furnace and feed sys-tem that the energy provider uti-lizes

3. The proximity of the energy pro-vider to the scrap tire processor.The cost to transport the TDFfrom the processor to the user canbe the determining factor in theeconomic viability of using scraptires for energy recovery.

Of the scrap tires accepted by oneprocessor in Ohio as a result of cur-rent generation, approximately 85percent are being processed for useas TDF and 15 percent are processedfor use in civil engineering applica-tions (such as backfill around build-ings and drainage material in land-fill facilities). If scrap tires fromabatement projects are included inthe mix, approximately 70 percentof the tires processed are used in civilengineering applications and 30 per-cent are processed for use as TDF.

As a result of the increasing costsassociated with energy usage, inter-est in using scrap tires as an energysource may continue to grow.

Disposal WithinAbandoned Coal Strip Mines

The 1989 State Plan called for anevaluation of the feasibility oflandfilling scrap tires in abandonedcoal strip mines. Ohio’s coal re-sources are located in 34 countiesand extend over nearly 12,000 squaremiles. Prior to 1948, when the StripCoal Mining Act became effective,large land areas were stripped of coaland then abandoned. Some of themost serious consequences posed byabandoned coal strip mines includeacid mine drainage, landslides,floods, and contamination from sedi-ment which can have severe effectson rivers, drainage pathways, andbottomlands.


Utilizing abandoned strip mine ar-eas for scrap tire monofills may provebeneficial in two ways. First, previ-ously abandoned coal strip mineswould be reclaimed. Second, vaststockpiles of discarded tires wouldbe “stored” and possibly mined laterif the demand for tire material everexceeds the current generation rateof scrap tires. Scrap tire disposalsites in former strip mine areas wouldbe subject to Ohio EPA permit re-quirements and regulations for scraptire monofills, in addition to regularinspections by the local health de-partment and an annual operating li-cense.

The 1995 State Plan indicated that apilot project was being developed todemonstrate the feasibility ofmonofilling scrap tires in a formercoal strip mine in Stark County. Thisproject, known as the Pilot WasteTire Project, occurred as a coopera-tive effort between Ohio EPA andODNR, Division of Mines and Rec-lamation (now known as the Divisionof Mineral Resource Management).On March 20, 1995, Ohio EPA is-sued Director’s Final Findings andOrders approving this project to C& E Coal, Inc. (C & E) as the lesseeof the property and operator of themonofill facility. The project wasoriginally approved for a three yearperiod to begin on the first day tireswere accepted at the site and to ex-pire on the third anniversary of thatdate. C & E began accepting tires atthe project site on March 19, 1997and by September, 1999 had dis-posed of or beneficially used8,650,000 PTEs. As of September,1999, C & E had used 113,224 cu-bic yards of approved air space forthe disposal of scrap tires, leavingapproximately 172,408 cubic yardsof air space available for scrap tireplacement.

The original approval for the projectwas to expire on March 19, 2000 atwhich time C & E was expected tohave reclaimed the project site.However, because C & E beneficiallyused more scrap tires than originallyanticipated and, therefore, did not fillthe available air space as quickly asanticipated, the site was not com-pletely reclaimed. As a result, C &

E applied for an extension to theproject deadline, and Ohio EPA ap-proved the extension request on Janu-ary 11, 2000. This extension givesC & E an additional three years, toexpire on January 11, 2003, withinwhich to complete the project.

On February 2, 2001, C & E Coal,Inc. received a permit to install ascrap tire monofill on the same prop-erty as the previously approved Pi-lot Waste Tire Project. This facility,called the C & E Scrap Tire Monofill,consists of 15.7 acres of scrap tireplacement with a total capacity of992,785 cubic yards. The permitauthorizes C & E to accept up to 425tons of processed scrap tires per day.The anticipated life of the facility atthe maximum acceptance rate is 3.9years.

Research and Development

S.B. 165 earmarked $150,000 peryear of the money collected throughthe scrap tire fee to be used for re-search and development into reusingcrumb rubber from scrap tires in awider variety of products. This re-search and development was con-ducted by the Institute of PolymerScience at the University of Akron(Institute). During the period of 1994to 1999, the Institute conducted twomulti-year research projects regard-ing the reuse of rubber from scraptires. Through one project, the “Ul-trasonic Devulcanization Technologyfor Scrap Tire Recycling” the Insti-tute researched the use of ultrasonicvibrations in the presence of pressureand heat to cause devulcanization toproduce crumb rubber. The otherstudy, “Ground Scrap Tire Rubber asa Compounding Additive,” was anattempt to promote the bonding ofvulcanized crumb rubber to othervulcanized crumb rubber or virginrubber.

The Institute prepared annualprogress reports describing the re-search that was carried out during theyear and submitted those progressreports to Ohio EPA. The Institutealso disseminated findings to the rub-ber recycling industry. Ultimately,the Institute published a series of

papers summarizing the research anddetailing their findings. In 1999, aswas originally intended by S.B. 165,the funding previously earmarked forthe Institute ended.

Financial Assistance ForScrap Tire Recycling

S.B. 165 stipulated that $1.0 millionper year of the revenues raised by thescrap tire fee was to be used to fundscrap tire market developmentprojects. Under the terms of H.B.165, this financial assistance wasadministered via the Ohio Depart-ment of Development (ODOD).

During state fiscal years 1994through March 2000, ODOD re-ceived approximately $8.7 millionfrom the scrap tire fee. ODOD’s dis-pensation of loans and grants beganin late 1995. By March 2000, ODODhad dispensed approximately $7.0million in loans and grants and en-cumbered another $1.3 million insoon-to-be awarded grants and loans.These grants and loans went toprojects that ranged from runningtracks at high schools, civil engineer-ing projects, new business develop-ment, and basic research intodevulcanization or tire rubber. A list-ing of all of the grants and loans thathave been awarded to date is avail-able in Appendix D.

Changes to the ScrapTire Program Since 1996

The Scrap Tire Fee

The fifty-cents-per-tire fee on thewholesale sale of tires was originallyscheduled to sunset in 2001. How-ever, the General Assembly extendedthe effective life of the fee throughJune 2006 via the budget bill passedin 1999 for fiscal years 2000 and2001. With the passage of H.B. 95(the budget bill for state fiscal years2002 and 2003) which became effec-tive on July 1, 2001, Ohio’s GeneralAssembly approved an increase inthe amount of the per-tire fee from$0.50 per tire to $1.00 per tire. Thisincrease is intended to expedite statefunded tire abatement and cleanup


projects and was primarily focusedon scrap tire removal activities at theKirby Tire Recycling, Inc. dump site(See the text box on page VII-18 ofthis chapter for a discussion of abate-ment activities at the Kirby Tire Re-cycling, Inc. dump).

Transfer of Authority for Administer-ing Grants and Loans from ODODto ODNR, DRLP

Ohio’s General Assembly, throughH.B. 95 (the budget bill for state fis-cal years 2002 and 2003) shifted theresponsibility for administering theportion of the scrap tire managementfund allocated to grants and loansfrom ODOD to the ODNR, Divisionof Recycling and Litter Prevention.This shift became effective on July1, 2001. Neither the transfer of au-thority nor H.B. 95 affected theamount of money available for grantsand loans on a yearly basis.

Publication of Standard Practice forUse of Scrap Tires in Civil Engineer-ing Applications, American Societyfor Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6270-98

The publication of this ASTM stan-dard established some of the first in-dustry wide definitions of tire chipsfor civil engineering applications.The standard also establishes guide-lines for the civil engineering usesof tire shreds which allow for an ex-pansion in Ohio’s approved-by-rulebeneficial uses of tire derived chip.The design guidelines to minimizeinternal heating of tire shred fills firstrecommended by an Ad Hoc CivilEngineering Committee of the ScrapTire Management Council in 1997are now published as design stan-dards in ASTM D 6270-98. The in-ternal heating of tire shred fills re-mains a concern for Ohio’s scrap tiremonofill and monocell operators.This concern is being addressed byvoluntary daily visual monitoring offills for evidence of heating, by in-suring that weekly cover is properlyapplied to the entire working faceincluding the sides of the current liftof tire shreds, and by restricting theheight of the lift to less than onemeter. Revisions to the scrap tire

monofill and monocell operatingrules are being proposed to incorpo-rate information from this ASTMStandard.

Lessons Learned fromthe Kirby Scrap Tire Fire

Enforcement of the scrap tire stor-age standards is vital to prevent fu-ture environmental disasters such asoccurred at the Kirby site in WyandotCounty in August 1999. Piles ofwhole tires with a basal area largerthan 2,500 square feet and taller than14 feet exceed the ability of normalfire fighting techniques to bring thefire under control and eventually ex-tinguish the fire. The piles involvedin the Kirby fire ranged in size from36,000 square feet to 135,000 squarefeet with heights over 40 feet. Thecombined efforts of 22 fire depart-ments aided by favorable weatherconditions were able to contain thefire until USEPA’s emergency re-sponse contractors could smother thefire with layers of sand, soil, and clay.Runoff from the initial fire fightingeffort and the pyrolytic oil generatedby the tire fire caused a fish kill alongseveral miles of Sycamore Creekbefore effective containment mea-sures could be implemented. Theunknown existence of field drainagetiles under the fire site contributedto the fish kill by providing hiddenpathways to Sycamore Creek.

Revised National Fire ProtectionAssociation (NFPA) 231D, Standardfor Storage of Rubber Tires, 1998Edition

This revision of the 1989 Edition ofNFPA 231D provided additional in-formation of tire storage based on anadditional ten years of experiencefighting scrap tire fires. This addi-tional information was used to im-prove the scrap tire rules in a draftrule package that was filed withJCARR in 2001. New standards forthe storage of tire derived fuel andtire derived chips (tire shreds withall dimensions less than four inches)were developed based on the revisedNFPA 231D and will enable scrap

tire recovery facilities to createstockpiles of tire derived fuel and tirederived chips to meet future marketdemands with reasonable protectionof the public health and safety andthe environment. Storage piles ofsmall shreds (under four inches in alldimensions) burn very differentlyfrom piles of whole tires or largershreds due to the lack of large airspaces within the pile. Fires in theseshred piles can be controlled withconventional fire fighting equipmentand fire fighting techniques. Usingwindrows to store these small shredsis viewed as an acceptable risk byOhio EPA as long as the height isrestricted to 14 feet, the width to 50feet, and the length to a maximumof 250 feet. At these maximum di-mensions a fire lane width of 137 feetis recommended by NFPA 231D. Forwhole tires and shreds larger thanfour inches in any dimension, thestorage limits remain at 2,500 squarefeet of basal area and 14 feet inheight.

Regulatory Barriers toScrap Tire Market Development

The regulatory barriers to scrap tiremarket development must be con-tinually reviewed with an eye to re-moving any barriers where the re-moval of the barrier does not unrea-sonably increase the risk to the envi-ronment or risk to public health andsafety. Proposed revisions to thecurrent scrap tire rules were formallyfiled in February 2001 and containedprovisions that were designed to re-move some market development bar-riers. Objections to the proposedrules are currently being resolvedwith the goal to refile the rules withthe Joint Committee on Agency RuleReview before March 2002.

For example, storage restriction onscrap tire products in the currentscrap tire rules may restrict a scraptire recovery facility’s ability to meetmarket demands. Processing scraptires into a final product such as tirederived fuel, tire derived chips, andcrumb rubber is a very expensive andtime consuming process. Other in-dustries have the ability to stockpileproducts in order to meet market de-


mands, but the scrap tire rules, asadopted in 1996, failed to provide forthis type of storage for the scrap tireindustry. The emphasis that the 1996scrap tires rules place on limited stor-age of whole tires needs to continuedue to the significant problems as-sociated with fires in whole tire stor-age piles and the mosquito breedingproblems with whole tires. The fail-ure to allow adequate, limited stock-piling of tire chips, however, hasbeen identified by some as a barrierto market development. Revisionsto the scrap tire rules that were pro-posed in February 2001 contained anincrease in the storage of tire chipsat recovery facilities. Work is stillbeing done on these rules, and theexact storage requirements are beingresolved through discussions withinterested parties.

Some have also suggested that re-stricted disposal options in Ohio mayaggravate the problems for scrap tirerecovery facilities trying to establisha demonstrated processing capacityto potential customers. Currently,many scrap tire recovery facilitiesoperate in an inefficient start-stopmode of business. They process atmaximum capacity when they haveorders and then have to shut downbetween orders when they reach theirstorage limits. The option of dispos-ing of their excess capacity is expen-sive because of the limited disposaloptions in Ohio. With the currentban on the disposal of tire shreds inlandfills there are only only threedisposal sites in the state of Ohio.Two of those disposal sites are inNortheast Ohio, Stark County, andthe other is in Southeast Ohio, PikeCounty. Scrap tire recovery facili-ties are faced with the expense ofhauling tire shreds to these three fa-cilities and then have to pay disposalcosts that are much higher than thenormal cost for solid waste disposal.

When the creation of monofills andmonocells for the disposal of scraptires was proposed in the 1989 StatePlan, the creation of only three scraptire monofills or monocells in theState was not envisioned. It is inter-esting to note that none of Ohio’sneighboring states have imposed a

ban of tire shreds from their land-fills. These states ban whole tire dis-posal but allow quartered tires to bedisposed of in municipal solid wastelandfills.

Ohio EPA, with the advice of SWAC,will continue to explore the variousissues associated with the currentscrap tire rules and will work to iden-tify the barriers that are created bythe regulations. Where appropriate,revisions to these rules will be pro-posed to minimize or eliminate theseregulatory barriers. Some of theserevisions may be included in the rulesthat Ohio EPA plans to refile byMarch, 2002. Other revisions mayhave to be pursued after that date orin conjunction with future State Planupdates.

Current Review of theScrap Tire Rules

In order to comply with the require-ments of ORC Section 119.032 (for-merly H.B. 473), which requires allstate agencies to review all of theirrules every five years, DSIWM ap-pointed a team of interagency per-sonnel to review the scrap tire rules.A function of this team is to evalu-ate the current rules to determinewhether changes (either deletions oradditions) need to be made. Thus,the requirements contained in Ohio’sexisting scrap tire rules could changedepending upon the outcome of thisreview process. Because thetimeframe for this review processextends beyond the expected adop-tion date for this State Plan, the pro-posed changes that are discussed inthe proceeding narrative may or maynot appear in the final rule once thatrule is adopted.

The Workgroup assigned to reviewthe scrap tire rules is proposing asubstantial number of changes to theexisting rules. The following is a listof the “major” changes being pro-posed by the Workgroup:

1. A new definition of tire derivedchip (TDC) was adoptedconstistent with ASTM stan-dards for civil engineering usesof scrap tire shreds.

2. Approved beneficial uses for theTDC were added to the scrap tirerules.

3. The cost of maintaining finan-cial assurance for scrap tiretransporters was reduced by de-leting the requirement to makeannual inflation adjustments tothe transporter’s $20,000.00 fi-nancial assurance instrument.

4. The annual inflation adjustmentfor financial assurance for scraptire facilities was deleted sinceinflation is not a noticeable fac-tor in scrap tire markets. How-ever, if the state-funded scraptire cleanup costs increase sig-nificantly, a rule change will beinitiated to adjust the financialassurance formulas for scrap tirefacilities to an appropriate level.

5. Rules on the operation of por-table equipment for load con-solidating were added to thescrap tire transporter operationrule.

6. Rules on the operation of por-table equipment for productionof useable materials were addedto the scrap tire recovery facil-ity operation rule.

7. The scrap tire shipping papersystem was simplified by delet-ing the transporter’s log and al-lowing for the use of forms cre-ated by the businesses as longas those forms include all infor-mation required by rule 3745-27-57 of the AdministrativeCode.

8. Mosquito control procedureswere revised and clarified.

9. “Modification” was defined asit applies to scrap tire facilities.

10. Criteria for review and approvalof scrap tire facility registrationand permit applications were re-formatted and consolidated intomore easily understood catego-ries. This resulted in the rescis-sion of an existing rule.

11. Scrap tire storage guidelineswere updated to reflect the 1998edition of the National Fire Pro-


tection Association (NFPA)231D, Storage of Rubber Tires.

12. Rules were revised to reflectexperience gained in dealingwith the pollution resulting fromscrap tire fires and to tailor therequirements concerning groundwater monitoring to deal with ascrap tire fire site.

These rule revisions were formallyproposed on February 7, 2001. Dueto numerous comments that werereceived during the public commentperiod, an “intent to refile letter” wasissued on March 16, 2001, which sig-nifies the Agency’s intent to makefurther revisions to the proposedrules prior to formally filing them inthe future. At this point, Ohio EPAis working to resolve the issues iden-tified in the comments, and intendsto refile the rules by March, 2002.

Compliance Monitoringand Enforcement

Ohio EPA responsibilities

Through the portion of the scrap tirefee that is designated for compliance,monitoring, and enforcement activi-ties, Ohio EPA currently supportseight and one-half (8-1/2) full-time-equivalent staff positions locatedthroughout Ohio. The responsibili-ties of these staff positions includeadministering the scrap tire program,including monitoring regulated en-tities’ compliance with the applicablescrap tire laws and rules. When vio-lations of the scrap tire law are iden-tified, formal enforcement actionsmay be pursued. Since 1995, numer-ous formal enforcement actions havebeen initiated by Ohio EPA for vio-lations of scrap tire management re-quirements, resulting in a significantnumber of fines for these violations.

Local Health DepartmentResponsibilities

Local health departments are alsoresponsible for enforcing provisionsof the scrap tire rules. In addition,health departments can also pursue

enforcement actions for local nui-sance violations. Furthermore, thelocal health departments assist OhioEPA in the enforcement and identi-fication and prioritization of scraptire dumpsites for locally and state-funded abatement actions.

S.B. 165 provided a funding mecha-nism to approved local health depart-ments for compliance monitoringand enforcement activities related tothe scrap tire management regulatoryprogram. The annual license fee forall scrap tire facilities is paid to thelocal approved health departmentand the health department retains thefees in a special fund. The Board ofHealth is allowed to retain the entireamount of any fee that is less than$15,000 and the first $15,000 of anyfee over $15,000. The remainder, ifany, of each license fee collected bythe board is transmitted to Ohio EPAfor deposit in the State Scrap TireManagement Fund, to be reallocatedfor regulatory, research, recycling, orabatement activities. Local healthdepartments and SWMDs are en-couraged to work together in theoversight of scrap tire facilities anddumpsites.

Scrap Tire Open Dump Abatementand Removal Actions

As stipulated in S.B. 165 and dis-cussed in the 1995 State Plan, OhioEPA is now using funds from thescrap tire fund to pay qualifying con-tractors to abate the biggest scrap tiredumps in the state. The contractorsare removing and either processingand beneficially (re)using the scraptires or properly disposing of thetires. Based on the priorities set bylaw, Ohio EPA must first remediatesites that pose the most significantrisks to human health and the envi-ronment. There are many other scraptire dumps where there are signifi-cant risks to human health and theenvironment, but the total amount ofstate funding available is not ex-pected to be adequate to abate all ofthese sites in a timely manner. Insome cases, local SWMDs andHealth Departments have been ableto provide funding for abatement

projects. Ohio EPA, SWMDs, andHealth Departments continue to per-form abatement of Ohio’s scrap tiredumps.

The law requires Ohio EPA to makediligent efforts to have the respon-sible party clean up the scrap tiredump before spending money fromthe scrap tire fund on abatement ac-tivities. Under the procedure estab-lished in the law, Ohio EPA must firstidentify the responsible party andissue orders for that party to removethe tires. The party responsible forthe tire accumulation has 120 daysto undertake cleanup efforts. If noaction is taken, Ohio EPA may usestate funding to remove the tires.Ohio EPA then must pursue legalaction to recover the cost of thecleanup. If the responsible party failsto pay the full cost of the cleanup,then a lien may be placed against theproperty.

As of June 1, 2000, the state of Ohiohad provided funding to abate six tiredumps. Of those, five of the abate-ment projects were completed andone is ongoing. The status of theseprojects as well as the cost and num-ber of tires removed are summarizedin Table VII-1.

In the fall of 2000, one additionalabatement project was initiated. ThePhoenix Recycling Industry site inFairfield County was cleaned-upthrough a joint effort among OhioEPA, the Coshocton, Fairfield, Lick-ing, Perry multi-county SWMD, andthe Fairfield County Health Depart-ment. The majority of the fundingwas provided by the Coshocton,Fairfield, Licking, Perry multi-county SWMD. The site became anemergency situation in 2000 follow-ing a death attributable to encepha-litis transmitted by a mosquito.Proper mosquito control was not be-ing maintained by the owner of thenearby Phoenix Recycling Industryscrap tire site, and mosquito trappingby the ODH and the Fairfield HealthDepartment confirmed an increasingpopulation of the type of mosquitoesknown to carry encephalitis. Fund-ing from Ohio EPA to aid in the re-moval of whole tires from the Phoe-nix site was provided from money


normally used to administer the solidwaste program.

By far, the Kirby Tire site, uponcompletion, will consume more re-sources than any other abatementproject in the State of Ohio. Thissite originally contained an estimated20 million scrap tires, making it, byfar, the largest scrap tire accumula-tion in Ohio and one of the largest in

the nation. The expense of the KirbyTire abatement has been com-pounded by the fire that occurred inAugust, 1999. The result is that theexisting funds that have been ear-marked for tire abatement projectsare no longer adequate to pay for theKirby Tire site and allow Ohio EPAto remediate other sites around thestate simultaneously. If approved,

Table VII-1: Summary of State-funded Scrap Tire Abatement Projects in Ohio

CountyCountyCountyCountyCounty TTTTTire Siteire Siteire Siteire Siteire Site Number of TNumber of TNumber of TNumber of TNumber of Tires Rires Rires Rires Rires Removed (In PTEs)*emoved (In PTEs)*emoved (In PTEs)*emoved (In PTEs)*emoved (In PTEs)* CostCostCostCostCost StatusStatusStatusStatusStatus

Summit Regenesis 4,031,106 PTEs of which 50% were whole $3,231,582 Completedscrap tires and 50% were shreds

Clark Seelig 860,000 PTEs, 100% of which were whole $1,008,251 Completedscrap tires

Coshocton Warsing 2,173,200 PTEs, of which 33% were whole $2,421,022 Completedscrap tires and 67% were baled tires

Mahoning COGCO 530,476 PTEs of which 90% were whole $657,540 Completedscrap tires and 10% were shreds

Lawrence Willis 125,591 PTEs, 100% of which were $321,500 Completedwhole scrap tires

Wyandot Kirby Tire To date, 2,804,362 PTEs have been removed, $2,435,845** OngoingRecycling, Inc. of which 93 percent were whole scrap tires.

Another 5 to 7 million burned in a fire onAugust 21, 1999 leaving residuals whichwill need to be removed. As of May 2001,it is estimated that 15,000,000 tires remainat the site.

Totals 6 sites 10,525,085 PTEs $10,075,741 5 completed

* PTE stands for passenger tire equivalent and is an average passenger car tire which weighs twenty pounds.

** This amount was spent on removal of tires during the abatement process. This amount does not include expenses incurred as a result of the fire onAugust 21, 1999, which exceeded $3,500,000 as of May 2001.

the increase in the scrap tire fee willallow Ohio EPA to expedite theKirby abatement project and to ad-dress additional sites in Ohio at thesame time. For a more in-depth dis-cussion of remediation efforts at theKirby Tire site, please see the textbox on page 79.


Table VII-2: The 20 Largest Scrap Tire Accumulations in Ohio (by number of tires) as ofJanuary 20011

CountyCountyCountyCountyCounty LLLLLocationocationocationocationocation Number of TNumber of TNumber of TNumber of TNumber of Tiresiresiresiresires StatusStatusStatusStatusStatus22222

Wyandot County S.R. 231 15 Million Tires A, E

Portage County S.R. 225 Atwater Twp 1.2 Million Tires E

Portage County Alliance Rd 1.2 Million Tires E

Morrow County County Rd 25 750,000 Tires E

Summit County Akron-Cleveland Rd 750,000 Tires C

Hancock County N. Corey St and Fair St 703,000 Tires A, E

Cuyahoga County 3970 W. 25th St 500,000 Tires

Morrow County U.S. 42 And C.R. 105 250,000 Tires E

Harrison County 77371 237,643 Tires CFreeport/Tippecanoe Rd

Perry County S.R. 669 2,048.8 Tons ofShreds/208,480 Ptes

Muskingham County 3465 Baughman 200,000 TiresRun Rd

Auglaize County Geyer Rd 150,000 Tires E

Belmont County 56619 Ferry Landing Rd 116,640 Tires C

Lorain County 618 ½ Oberlin-Elyria Rd 110,000 Tires E

Adams County 136 Lick Run Rd 100,000 Tires

Clinton County 8539 U.S. 68 North 100,000 Tires

Mahoning County S. Hine St and Wilson Ave 100,000 Tires

Montgomery County 5490 W. Third St 100,000 Tires E

Muskingum County Ridge Road <100,000 Tires E

Muskingum County 7215 Shannon Valley Road 75,000 Tires

1This list is not a priority listing for state-financed abatement action. It is solely a listing of the largest accumulations reportedto Ohio EPA by local health departments and solid waste management districts. This list includes both abandoned sites andcurrently operating scrap tire storage or recovery facilities. None of these sites are licensed facilities. Only a few made a tokeneffort at registration as a facility and are now the subject of enforcement actions.

2 Codes: A = Applied for registration or permit E = Enforcement action taken C = Consent agreement signed

Ohio EPA maintains a list of all ofthe known scrap tire accumulationsaround the state. This list is continu-ously updated as new accumulationsare discovered and as existing accu-mulations are abated. Table VII-2below presents information regard-ing the 20 largest known accumula-tions of scrap tires in Ohio.

Local Solid Waste ManagementDistrict Responsibilities

Goal #5 of the 1995 State Plan re-quired SWMDs to include, in theirsolid waste management plans, astrategy to address scrap tires. As the1995 State Plan did not prescribestandards to this goal, the specificactivity(ies), program(s), orstrategy(ies) that each SWMD elects

to implement in order to meet thisgoal is left to the discretion of thatSWMD. To assist with the develop-ment of the scrap tire strategy(ies),the SWMD’s plan contains an evalu-ation of the generation, recycling,and ultimate disposition of scrap tireswithin the SWMD’s jurisdiction.Based on the results of that evalua-tion and the need for management


The Kirby Tire Recycling, Inc. Abatement Project

Kirby’s Tire Recycling, Inc. (Kirby Tire) is located in Sycamore, Ohio (Wyandot County). The Kirby Tire siteconsists of 110 acres and is estimated to contain 16 million to 20 million scrap tires. The site has been operatedsince the 1950s. The Kirby Tire site is the largest accumulation of scrap tires in Ohio and is one of the largesttire dumps in the nation. The Kirby Tire site is considered to be an un-permitted and un-licensed solid wastedisposal facility and, as such, is an open dump. Ohio EPA and the Wyandot County Health Department haveworked unsuccessfully with the owners of Kirby Tire for many years to bring the site into compliance. Afternumerous notices of violation letters and several sets of enforcement orders were issued to the owners of KirbyTire, in September 22, 1998, Ohio EPA issued a scrap tire abatement order which required Kirby Tire toremove all of the scrap tires from the site by January 20, 1999. Kirby Tire failed to comply with that order, and,Ohio EPA hired a contractor to remove tires from the site.

From July 1, 1999 to May 30, 2000, the contractor hired by Ohio EPA to perform abatement of the Kirby siteremoved 1,825,084 PTEs from the site and, in doing so, created a 200 foot wide fire break. This activity wasperformed using $2,435,845 from the Scrap Tire Fund. On August 21, 1999, a section of the Kirby Tire sitecaught fire. In total, five to seven million tires were involved in the fire. U.S. EPA, Region V spent $2.2 millionon emergency response activities directly related to that fire. Pyrolitic oil produced from the burning of tiresseeped into the soil and into the surface water, requiring Ohio EPA to contract for testing and remediation of thecontaminated surface water. Ohio EPA had budgeted $3,500,000 from the Solid Waste Fund for fire-relatedactivities such as water/oil treatment, erosion control, security measures, and road restoration (Note, this is notmoney from the scrap tire fund, but, rather, money diverted from Ohio EPA’s solid waste program).

Removal of tires from the Kirby Tire site ceased in September 2000 due to the unavailability of money from thescrap tire fund. Removal is expected to resume in September 2001 following the solicitation of contracts forabatement services. Once the new abatement contract is awarded, Ohio EPA expects to spend one milliondollars on the removal of scrap tires from the Kirby Site in state fiscal year (SFY) 2001. In addition, however,Ohio EPA continues to incur expenses related to the fire. Ohio EPA expects these expenses to cost another one-half million dollars during SFY 2001 and for every year after until funds are made available to remove theburied fire residuals. The source of the funds to pay for fire-related expenses is unknown at this point. If moneyis taken from the scrap tire fund to pay for treating contaminated water, then scrap tire removal at the site willbe slowed, and funds would not be available for cleanups at other sites around the state. The Solid Waste Fundcannot support these expenditures for an extended period of time. It is expected that passage of the $0.50increase in the scrap tire fee by the General Assembly in the budget bill for SFY 2002-2003 will providerevenues needed for fire-related expenses at the Kirby Tire site, for payback of the funds borrowed from thesolid waste program, to greatly increase the rate of tire removal from the Kirby Tire site, and to initiate clean-ups at other high priority tire abatement sites.

options, the SWMD then developsthe strategies that are appropriate forthe SWMD’s situation. MostSWMDs have strategies for educat-ing and providing information tobusinesses and residents regardingthe scrap tire regulations and localoutlets for scrap tires. To this end,many SWMDs develop and/or dis-tribute information in the form ofpamphlets, brochures, and lists.

In addition to inventorying availableoutlets for scrap tires, the SWMD’splan is also required to inventory ex-isting scrap tire dumpsites. This in-ventory helps Ohio EPA develop itsstatewide list of abandoned scrap tiresites. The inventories from the indi-vidual SWMDs are, therefore, cru-

cial for the statewide identificationand prioritization of abandoned sitesfor state-funded abatement actions.

Where funds are available to supportlocal cleanup operations for aban-doned scrap tire sites, the SWMD’splan may, but is not required to, al-locate district resources to thosecleanup efforts. Local SWMDs mayalso fund efforts by local law en-forcement agencies and local healthdepartments to enforce open dump-ing laws pertaining to scrap tires.

There are a number of SWMDs thatalso host scrap tire collection eventsfor their residents. Typically, thesecollection events are temporary, one-day events to which residents can

bring scrap tires either free-of-chargeor for a minimal fee. The SWMDthen arranges for the reuse, recycling,or disposal of the tires. In 1999, 30SWMDs representing 55 countiesheld temporary scrap tire collectionevents. Several SWMDs allow resi-dents to bring scrap tires to solidwaste facilities that are operated bythe SWMDs. Often times, these fa-cilities are material processing facili-ties for source separated recyclables.Several SWMDs, however, collectscrap tires at county-owned solidwaste landfill facilities. As a result,these SWMDs offer scrap tire col-lection to their residents on a con-tinuous, rather than temporary, ba-sis.


TABLE VII-3: Scrap Tire Cleanup/Abatement Projects Conducted by LocalGovernments/Private Entities

Year County Funding Source Number ofPerformed Tires

1996 Auglaize Private Funding 30,0001996 Hamilton Funded by the Hamilton County SWMD 600,0001996 Mahoning Funded by the Mahoning County SWMD 50,0001996 Montgomery Funded by a private source 47,0001996 Trumbull Funded by Geauga/Trumbull SWMD 500,0001996 Trumbull Funded by Geauga/Trumbull SWMD 50,0001996 Tuscarawas Funded by the Guernsey, Monroe,Morgan, 225,000

Muskingum, Noble, Washington Joint County SWMD1996 Stark Funded by the Stark, Tuscarawas, 300,000

Wayne Joint County SWMD1997 Greene Private funding 15,0001997 Guernsey Funded through a combination of health 100,000

department and SEP2 Funds1997 Mahoning Funded by the Mahoning County SWMD 6,2001997 Medina Funded by the Medina County SWMD and 40,000

the health department1997 Wayne Funded by the Stark, Tuscarawas, 250,000

Wayne Joint County SWMD1997 Muskingum Funded by Muskingum County 28,9981998 Auglaize Private funding 20,0001998 Lorain Funded by Lorain County 100,0001998 Lucas Funding source unknown 875,0001998 Mahoning Funded by the Mahoning County SWMD 2,0001998 Summit Funded by the Summit/Akron SWMD 1,1431998 Wayne Funded by SWMD 200,0001999 Mahoning Funded by the Mahoning County SWMD 68,000

through a contract with the health department1999 Mahoning Funded by the Mahoning County SWMD 113,0001999 Morrow Five properties cleaned up with Morrow County 10,000

funding to be repaid through a tax lien on properties.1999 Muskingum Funded by Muskingum County 134,0001999 Ottawa Private funding and Ottawa, Sandusky, Seneca 420,000

Joint County SWMD beneficial use project funding1999 Clark 50/50 funding by Clark SWMD 40,000

and property owner (3 sites)1999 Summit Funded by the Summit/Akron Authority 50,0002000 Franklin Private funding 35,0002000 Morrow Funded by Morrow County to be 5,000

repaid through tax lien on property2000 Wood Funded by private funding and the 400,000

Wood County SWMD2000 Vinton Private funding 38,0002001 Morrow Funded by Morrow County to be 73,383

repaid through tax lien on property2001 Summit Funded by the Summit/Akron Authority 30,000-

40,0002001 Fairfield Coshocton, Fairfield, Licking, Perry Joint 600,000

County SWMD, Fairfield HD, and Ohio EPA

2A Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) is completed with funding resulting from an Ohio EPA enforcement actioninvolving a monetary fine/penalty against an entity

A Program for Managing Household Hazardous Waste 81

ORC Section 3734.50(H) requiresthat “the director of environmentalprotection, with the advice of thesolid waste management advisorycouncil...shall prepare a state solidwaste management plan to...establisha program for the proper separationand disposal of hazardous waste gen-erated by households.”

Background

Hazardous wastes are often thoughtto be chemicals used and discardedsolely by large industries. However,many common household productscan also be hazardous. Householdproducts can contain the samechemicals found in industrial wastes,and those products require properuse, storage, and disposal to protecthuman health and the environment.Because these household productsare hazardous wastes, they are re-ferred to as household hazardouswaste (HHW)

Household hazardous waste (HHW)means any material discarded fromthe home that may, because of itschemical nature, pose a threat to hu-man health or the environment whenhandled improperly. Most HHW ishazardous because it exhibits one ormore of the following properties:

✦ flammable: can be easily set onfire or ignited

✦ toxic/poisonous: capable of caus-ing injury or death through inges-tion, inhalation, or absorption

✦ corrosive/caustic: can burn anddestroy living tissues whenbrought in contact

✦ explosive/reactive: can detonateor explode through exposure toheat, sudden shock, or pressure

A PROGRAM FOR MANAGINGA PROGRAM FOR MANAGINGA PROGRAM FOR MANAGINGA PROGRAM FOR MANAGINGA PROGRAM FOR MANAGINGHOUSEHOLD HAHOUSEHOLD HAHOUSEHOLD HAHOUSEHOLD HAHOUSEHOLD HAZZZZZARDOUS WARDOUS WARDOUS WARDOUS WARDOUS WASTEASTEASTEASTEASTE

✦ radioactive: can damage or de-stroy cells and chromosomal ma-terial.

Categories of common householdproducts that may contain, or becomprised of, hazardous constituentsinclude household cleaners, automo-tive products, home maintenance andimprovement products, lawn andgarden products, and other miscel-laneous products such as batteries,photoprocessing chemicals and per-sonal care products. According toRathje, et al. (1988) in a report pre-pared for the U.S. EPA, HHW com-prises barely one percent by weightof the solid waste disposal stream.

Although HHW can have many ofthe same properties as industrial haz-ardous waste, because of the lowpercentage of the waste stream gen-erated from each source (i.e., house-hold), it is specifically excluded fromregulation as a hazardous waste byboth the federal hazardous waste pro-gram in the Code of Federal Regula-tions [40 CFR § 261.4(b)(1)] andOhio’s hazardous waste program inOAC Rule 3745-51-04. By default,therefore, HHW that qualifies assolid waste (i.e. does not contain freeliquids) is regulated as solid wastein Ohio. The result is that hazard-ous wastes generated by householdscan be disposed along with all othersolid wastes as general MSW. It isimportant to understand that thesame material, if generated by a busi-ness, more than likely would be regu-lated as hazardous waste and man-agement of the material would berestricted to hazardous waste treat-ment and disposal facilities. Theadditive effects of HHW can be justas harmful to the environment as theeffects of a single discharge from anindustrial generator. Thus, it is im-portant that households find alterna-tives to disposing of HHW whenever

8CHAPTER

possible. That is why HHW is tar-geted by the State Plan.

Common methods for disposing ofHHW are to include it with the trash,dump it down the drain or toilet, pourit down a storm sewer, or dump it inthe backyard. These types of dis-posal practices can pose health risksto sanitation workers, hazards toequipment and threats to the integ-rity of the environment. Studiesdocument instances where refusecollectors were burned, experiencedeye injuries, or became nauseatedfrom handling HHW. Some MSWis still being disposed in older, un-lined landfill facilities where HHWcan contribute to the toxicity ofleachate generated and, therefore,threaten groundwater supplies. Haz-ardous chemicals entering a munici-pal wastewater system can harm thesystem or personnel. The dischargefrom the treatment plant into surfacewaters may contain harmful levels ofchemicals. Dumping of HHW ontothe ground or into a storm sewer canresult in direct contamination of thesoil, ground water, and surface wa-ter.

Recommendationsfrom the 1995 State Plan

The 1995 State Plan emphasized theimportance of education by recom-mending four areas where Ohio EPAneeded to develop guidance to assistlocal governments in establishingprograms for HHW. The first ofthese recommendations was to de-velop a bibliography of school cur-ricula materials for kindergartenthrough grade 12. Ohio EPA main-tains a file of curricula material de-veloped by other states. In addition,staff at Ohio EPA provided techni-cal assistance to ODNR, DRLP re-garding their supplemental curricu-

lum project titled Investigating SolidWaste Issues. This document ad-dresses HHW issues and providessuggested activities related to HHW.

As a second recommendation, the1995 State Plan directed Ohio EPAto develop general information bro-chures and flyers for public aware-ness campaigns. Since then, OhioEPA has either developed or updatedthe following fact sheets for use bySWMDs and the general public:

✦ A Guide to Safe Management ofHousehold Hazardous Waste

✦ Household Photographic Chemi-cal Wastes

✦ Pesticides

✦ Storage and Disposal of Paint

✦ Automotive Maintenance Prod-ucts

✦ Gasoline and Fuel Oils

✦ Used Oil

✦ Lead-Acid Battery

✦ Household Batteries

In addition, the following fact sheetsand publications are made availableand have been mailed to Ohio’sSWMDs:

✦ US EPA’s Household HazardousWaste Management: A Manualfor One-Day Community Collec-tion Programs

✦ US EPA’s Reducing Lead Haz-ards When Remodeling YourHome

✦ US EPA’s Protect Your FamilyFrom Lead in Your Home

✦ Water Environment Federation’sHousehold Hazardous Waste:What You Should and Shouldn’tDo

The 1995 State Plan indicated thatOhio EPA would provide guidancevia a HHW hotline manual. Thismanual was originally made avail-able prior to the adoption of the 1995State Plan. The manual, titled theHousehold Hazardous Waste Tele-phone Advice Guidance Manual wasupdated in February, 1997. The or-

ganization of the manual remainedthe same, but the text was updated,and errors found in the previous ver-sion were corrected. The manualalso includes lists of recyclers and/or disposal companies that accepthazardous waste in the appropriatesections. Most of these lists aremaintained by the Division of Haz-ardous Waste Management(DHWM) and OPP, with input fromDSIWM. These lists, shown below,have all been updated (or created)since the last edition of the manual,and were included in the 1997 ver-sion:

✦ DHWM and OPP’s Vendor Infor-mation: Paint Recyclers andFirms Accepting Paint-RelatedWastes

✦ DHWM’s Fluorescent Lamp Re-cyclers and Ballast RecyclingServices

✦ OPP’s Mercury Recyclers

✦ DHWM’s Gas Cylinder Recy-cling Services

✦ DHWM’s Battery Recyclers/Bro-kers and Disposal Facilities

✦ DSIWM’s HHW Program Con-tractors

Ohio EPA is in the process of fulfill-ing the fourth recommendation. Thatrecommendation was for the cre-ation of a guidance document forsetting up exchange and collectionprograms.

Prior to adoption of the 1995 StatePlan, SWMDs were not allowed tocredit HHW that was reduced or re-cycled towards their WRRRs. Be-cause many HHW materials, such aspaint, paint-related products, andused oil, are liquids and therefore notsolid waste, as that term is definedby Ohio law, the recycling of thesematerials previously was not consid-ered in the calculation of the wastereduction rate. However, diversionof these materials from the solidwaste stream is one method ofachieving the goals established byH.B. 592 of protecting the environ-ment and reducing our reliance onlandfilling. Furthermore, collectingand managing HHW properly is a

very costly endeavor. For these rea-sons, the 1995 State Plan allowedHHW that was recycled to be in-cluded in the calculation of the wastereduction rate. In 1999, SWMDsreported having collected approxi-mately 3,378 tons of HHW. Of this,approximately sixty percent was re-cycled and, therefore, included in thewaste reduction rate.

Progress Since Adoptionof the 1995 State Plan

Since publication of the 1995 StatePlan, Ohio has seen some interest-ing trends in the management ofHHW. In particular, SWMDs andlocal communities are becomingmore flexible in terms of the typesof collection programs being offeredto residents. In their infancy, manySWMDs offered solely one-day col-lection events by hiring hazardouswaste firms to operate the events andrecycle or dispose of the collectedmaterial. Even though one-day col-lection events remain a popularmeans of collecting HHW, severalSWMDs are providing more compre-hensive and integrated programs. Bybeing creative and working with lo-cal entities and the existing infra-structure, SWMDs are reducing thecost of collecting HHW while simul-taneously providing safer alternativesto disposal for managing HHW.

Several SWMDs are utilizing localrecycling facilities and transfer sta-tions that accept HHW on-site. Oth-ers are working with local servicedepartments, such as township ga-rages, to provide collection centers.Perhaps the ultimate collection op-tion in terms of convenience,curbside collection of HHW, is cur-rently being utilized by one SWMD.In the past, county and local govern-ments have been conservative whenit comes to considering curbside col-lection of HHW due to liability is-sues. Furthermore, the hazardouswaste collection industry historicallyhas targeted commercial businessesand industrial generators as custom-ers, and it was not until recently thatthe residential sector has been pur-sued as a viable market. These rea-

▲


sons, combined with the relativelyprohibitive cost of the service to theaverage resident, have preventedcurbside collection from being apopular management option. OneSWMD has found, however, that bysharing the cost with residents whouse the service, curbside collectionof HHW can be a viable option in acomprehensive management pro-gram.

Of course, the best management al-ternative is to not generate HHW.Therefore, educating residents re-garding safer alternatives to hazard-ous products continues to be an in-valuable tool. Most of Ohio’sSWMDs do provide education andinformation regarding HHW to theresidents in one form or another.

Collecting HHW at Residences

In April 1999, the Delaware, Knox, Marion, Morrow SWMD implemented a very innovative program for thecollection of HHW. The program, called the Pay as You Throw Home Pickup Program, provides residents ofthe SWMD with a convenient opportunity for the collection of HHW. Rather than transporting their HHW toa centralized collection center, residents can have HHW picked up at their homes. The home pickup programis more convenient than the temporary collection events not only because the service provider comes to theresident, but also because the service is provided year-round. The service is provided via a contract withCurbside Inc., a division of the Safety-Kleen Company. Unlike the SWMD’s temporary collection events,residents must pay a direct fee to participate in the program. Because the SWMD shares the cost of theservice with the resident, however, the service is more affordable than if the resident were to arrange forpickup with Curbside, Inc. directly.

To have HHW picked up from their homes, residents of the SWMD call a toll-free hotline and provide thefollowing information: address and age of the caller and the type and amount of material to be collected.The SWMD then provides the caller with an estimate of the cost, and a collection is scheduled. The pickupdate is based on the next available collection day. The SWMD explains the program and safety procedures tothe caller. Prior to the scheduled collection date, an HHW kit is sent, via UPS, to the resident’s home. Thekit can hold up to 75 pounds hazardous materials.

On the scheduled date, Curbside, Inc. collects the eligible HHW from the resident’s home. Eligible materialsinclude lubricants (including used oil), paint, batteries, cleaners, flammables (such as gasoline), poisons,hobby supplies, garden products, automotive products, fluorescent light bulbs, thermostats, thermometerscontaining mercury, aerosol cans, personal products (such as nail polish remover), and photography chemi-cals. Residents are not permitted to manage medical waste, radioactive waste, explosives, ammunition, andcommercial chemicals in containers over five gallons through this program. Curbside, Inc. then transportsthe HHW to the appropriate facility for recycling and disposal. Participants in the Pay as You Throw HomePickup Program are asked to complete a satisfaction survey card and then mail the completed card to theSWMD.

There have been 27 residential participants in the program since it was begun in 1999. The cost to theresident depends upon the materials being collected. If the material is a recyclable material such as paint,then the cost is $65 per residence. If the material is strictly HHW, then the cost is $125 per residence. Thecost is the same regardless of the amount of HHW the resident needs to have collected.


General Strategiesfor Addressing HHW

The following section discusses sev-eral strategies that are available toSWMDs for developing programs toaddress HHW. The narrative associ-ated with each type of strategy alsocontains information regarding thestatus of implementing that strategystatewide.

Education

Education regarding the dangers ofimproper use and disposal of prod-ucts containing hazardous materialsaround the home is an essential as-pect of HHW management. For ex-ample, the release of toxic fumesfrom such household products aspaint removers, drain openers, and

oven cleaners can cause indoor airpollution. Greater public awarenessenables the consumer to make in-formed selections of products basedon the relative toxicity of the prod-uct, the amount of product needed,and the product’s ability to get thetask done. Obviously, educationalresources are critical to the successof HHW programs. Target audiencesare school children (kindergartenthrough grade 12), adults, commu-nity leaders, and local governmentofficials.

A variety of educational materialshave been developed for the publicthat briefly describe the problemsassociated with hazardous materials,suggest proper disposal methods, andidentify alternate nonhazardousproducts. These educational mate-


rials are available from a variety ofsources, including U.S. EPA, OhioEPA, and Ohio’s SWMDs. In addi-tion, recycling and the complete useof existing stocks of household prod-ucts is often encouraged. Almostevery SWMD in Ohio has includededucation regarding the proper man-agement of HHW as a part of its gen-eral solid waste management educa-tion and awareness efforts.

Ohio’s SWMDs provide a variety ofprograms geared towards educatingand informing residents about thesafe management of HHW. Theseeducational programs include thefollowing:

✦ Development and distribution ofgeneral information brochuresand pamphlets

✦ Creation of videos

✦ Distribution of lists of local busi-nesses that will accept HHWfrom residents, such as local au-tomobile service centers that ac-cept car fluids, local outlets forhousehold batteries, and groupsthat take paint

✦ Promotion of local HHW collec-tion events

✦ Incorporation of HHW informa-tion into school curricula

✦ Operation of dedicated HHWtelephone hotlines

✦ Workshops

✦ Public service announcementsand press releases

✦ Presentations to civic groups

Information “Hotline” for HHW

An information hotline is an effec-tive way to provide the public withtimely, accurate information. In ad-dition to SWMD offices, CountyCooperative Extension offices are analternate choice for handling this tasksince Extension offices are alreadydesigned to answer questions on avariety of subjects. Other local agen-cies such as local health departments,county engineers, nonprofit groups,and litter prevention offices could

also be candidates to operate thehotline. The agency or office se-lected should be highly visible andreadily accessible to the public. ASWMD may also consider dedicat-ing a phone line to answer questionsregarding an upcoming HHW collec-tion event. If the SWMD also has aweb site, then the hotline can directthe caller to that site for more infor-mation regarding managing HHW ingeneral or upcoming collectionevents.

Ohio EPA developed a manual toanswer questions about HHW anddistributed the manual to theSWMDs in May 1994. This manual,called the Household HazardousWaste Telephone Advice GuidanceManual, presents a detailed, step-by-step procedure designed to assist thecaller and the person answering thephone in determining the degree ofhazard posed by particular materials,suggesting proper disposal methods,and identifying nonhazardous substi-tutes. Each section identifies pos-sible outlets for the specific materialaddressed in that section. Themanual can be customized. Thus,local communities should compile alist of local outlets, such as used oilcollection points, paint exchanges,and other exchanges, and insert thoselists into the manual for easy refer-ence. The manual also addresses is-sues of liability for the person staff-ing the phone and the sponsoringagency. The Minnesota PollutionControl Agency’s publication of thesame name is the basis for themanual. Ohio EPA expects to up-date the information in the manualon an as needed basis.

35 SWMDs reported having pro-vided telephone assistance for HHWissues to their residents during 1999.It is not known how many of theseSWMDs provided assistance via adedicated HHW hotline. The num-ber of calls fielded by SWMDs var-ied considerably with a range of fromone to two calls per month to 750calls per month. There were nineSWMDs that reported having re-ceived more than 100 calls regard-ing HHW per month.

Exchange and Collection Programs

HHW is collected for the purposesof reusing, recycling, or diverting thehazardous material from solid wastelandfills, incinerators, or other im-proper disposal. Collection of HHWcan be accomplished by a variety ofoptions ranging from single day,multi-material events to permanentsites that collect one or a limitednumber of materials.

A limited number of products usedin the home may be recycled or re-used by another party. Exchangeprograms help the reuse of easily re-cycled materials such as paints.Some products used in the home thatcannot be recycled or reused must besent to treatment and disposal facili-ties. Local collection programs aretherefore needed to manage thesekinds of materials safely. Whenproperly organized and operated,these programs generally transport alarge quantity of materials to a li-censed hazardous waste facility.

Sponsoring agencies of collectionprograms must carefully consider theissues of liability and cost. Poten-tial sources of liability include:

✦ personal injuries suffered at thecollection site;

✦ spills of HHW when transportedfrom the collection site to a dis-posal site; and

✦ future remediation at the disposalsite which received the HHW.

Hiring an experienced hazardouswaste contractor to handle the waste,package it, and transport it to a li-censed disposal site minimizes risksfrom the first two potential liabili-ties. In addition, contracts with haz-ardous waste companies can be writ-ten so that the company assumesmost of the risk from these programs.According to the U.S. EPA, poten-tial risk from future remediation atthe hazardous waste disposal sitethrough the Comprehensive Environ-mental Response Compensation andLiability Act (CERCLA) is minimaldue to the small portion of the totalamount of wastes that HHW wouldcomprise at a facility.


Elements of SWMD Strategies for Managing HHW

SWMDs are required to include, in their solid waste management plans, at least one strategy that addressesthe proper management of HHW. Local conditions can vary substantially regarding the types, quantities,risks, and management opportunities for such wastes. Therefore, in order to select the proper strategy(ies),the SWMD should assess the HHW waste stream and the existing management infrastructure. Additionally,The SWMD should evaluate the effectiveness of any existing strategies in updates to its solid waste manage-ment plan. An assessment and evaluation should include the following steps:

✦ Identification of the types of HHW in the local waste stream;

✦ Assessment of the risks posed by disposal of HHW

✦ Identification of the HHWs that the District will target for management activities;

✦ Identification of the existing management opportunities and the planned new activities to managespecific HHW;

✦ An inventory of the existing management opportunities in the District for used oil, fuels, appliancesand batteries; and

✦ Measurement of the effectiveness of the programs selected.

The first element of a program focused on HHW should be an evaluation of the materials in the residentialwaste stream that have the potential for causing harm to human health and the environment. The SWMD’ssolid waste management plan should include an assessment of the hazardous constituents of the residentialwaste stream. There are several sources of information that may be used for such an assessment:

✦ National data;

✦ Tracking log of phone calls received from citizens regarding various types of HHW materials;

✦ Survey of haulers and solid waste facilities regarding any accidents occurring as a result of collectingHHW with the household garbage;

✦ Information from wastewater treatment plants and city maintenance departments;

✦ Complaints to local health departments or Ohio EPA district offices regarding the improper disposal ofHHW;

✦ Reports from hospitals and poison control centers regarding accidents resulting from the improper use ordisposal of HHW;

✦ Information from local retail merchants associations regarding what products are being sold in the com-munity; and

✦ Waste sort of residential waste collected.

The second element of a HHW program should be to analyze the data collected in step one and evaluatewhich materials need to be targeted for separation and disposal. The following sources of information couldbe used in making this determination:

✦ Characterization of the SWMD’s HHW waste stream (from above sources of information);

✦ Inventory of the facilities that can potentially be adversely affected by the handling of HHW (e.g.,incinerator, resource recovery facility, transfer station, Materials Recovery Facility, sanitary sewer sys-tem, wastewater treatment plant); and,

✦ Inventory of natural resources that can potentially be adversely affected by the improper disposal ofHHW (e.g., lakes, streams, ground water resources, parks, tourist attractions).

The information regarding the facilities and natural resources can then be used in combination with thewaste stream characterization to select specific materials the SWMD will target when selecting the strate-gies for HHW management. For example, if a District has a resource recovery facility and has found thatbutton batteries are being disposed in the garbage, then button batteries could be targeted for a collectionprogram to reduce mercury emissions at the facility.

As a third element, the program should include an assessment of the existing and needed infrastructure forthe proper management of HHW. This includes an inventory of existing facilities and businesses that handle


various types of materials. Based on this assessment, the SWMD should then incorporate needed strategiesin its solid waste management plan. These strategies should be geared towards the materials targeted in thesecond step of the program. The SWMD can select from the following set of strategies for the propermanagement of HHW:

✦ Educational programs - Programs for both children in kindergarten though grade 12 and adults shouldbe given a high priority at the local level. Various existing civic groups might be target audiences forpresentations, and the SWMD could identify locations for placement of HHW brochures, used oil bro-chures, and other materials. For planning purposes, the SWMD should consider estimating the numberof people to be reached and the delivery method used.

✦ Telephone hotline - The SWMD should consider selecting an agency or office to handle HHW tele-phone calls via a hotline. Methods of publicizing the hotline need to be explored. The informationgained from the telephone hotline can be used to evaluate the success of the HHW program. Forexample, the SWMD may find that in a given month, 40 calls are received regarding the proper methodfor disposing of used oil. This may be an indication that further education and outreach is necessary toinform the public regarding disposal locations.

✦ Exchange and collection programs - While collection programs and exchange projects are importantoptions for districts, the priority of such programs should be based upon the magnitude of the problemas well as available funding. To assist in documenting the implementation of HHW programs, theSWMD should compile data on all collection and exchange programs, and make a written report avail-able to the public and the Ohio EPA. The report should include:

✦ Costs of the program;✦ Participation rates and eligibility;✦ Type and quantity of materials brought to the collection site;✦ How liability issues were handled; and✦ A brief description of the planning process used for the event.

✦ Single-material programs - These programs are similar to exchange or collection programs, except thata specific material is targeted. Based upon the results of the waste stream analysis and infrastructureinventory described above, the SWMD should evaluate whether single-material programs are requiredfor any type of hazardous material generated by households.

For example, the SWMD may negotiate an arrangement with local businesses and a button batteryrecycler to collect and recycle batteries. Or, based upon telephone calls received at the hotline, theSWMD may decide to initiate a paint collection and exchange program to be held in spring and autumn.

The SWMD can select any one or a combination of the above strategies, (or alternate strategies) thatinclude the elements of the program outlined above. The SWMD should tailor its HHW program to theneeds of its residents. In doing so, however, the specific program(s) or activity(ies) selected should bebased on a demonstration of the types and quantities of HHW in the residential waste stream, the materialstargeted for separation and proper disposal, and the availability of a system to ensure that collected materi-als will properly handled and managed (i.e. recycled or disposed as appropriate).

As the final element of a HHW program, the SWMD should provide a means of measuring the effective-ness of the strategy(ies) selected. Thus, the SWMD should outline, in its solid waste management plan,which parameters will be measured and evaluated. These parameters may include the sources of informa-tion used in making the initial assessment of the waste stream. Finally, the SWMD should maintain recordsof all aspects of HHW management for inclusion in updates to the solid waste management plan and ADRs.Education projects should record numbers of attendees at meetings and the issues discussed. Staff mem-bers handling telephone hotlines should track the number of calls received and types of questions asked.SWMDs hosting collection events should record data regarding the amounts and types of materials col-lected, costs associated with offering the events, and the number of participants in collection events. Fur-thermore, the SWMD should make some effort to determine the factors contributing to a successful collec-tion event. All of this information is vital for the SWMD to document efforts made to reduce HHWgeneration and disposal.


The SWMD must balance the possi-bility of incurring liability as a re-sult of conducting a collection pro-gram with the liabilities it could as-sume while maintaining “status quo”or continuing to dispose of HHW insolid waste landfills. Municipalitiesthat send waste to these facilities arepotentially liable for cleanup costs.HHW collection programs may re-duce the risk that a solid waste land-fill will need to be remediated in thefuture.

In reducing liability by hiring a haz-ardous waste contractor rather thanconducting its own program, how-ever, a sponsoring agency will beincreasing the costs associated withthe collection programs. Averagefigures for collection events can beabout $100 per participant. Costsand liability can be minimized bylimiting the types of materials ac-cepted at the collection event (par-ticularly large volume, easily re-cycled materials such as paint). Inaddition, costs can be reduced bywriting requests for proposals em-phasizing the recycling of materialsfavored over disposal. For example,latex paint can be recycled at a muchreduced cost over bulking and dis-posing of it in a hazardous waste fa-cility.

SWMDs may also consider establish-ing permanent collection sites. Thebenefits of permanent sites includethe following:

✦ The collection of materials canbe staggered over time to facili-tate packing for disposal;

✦ A wider variety of materials canbe collected;

✦ Materials can be stored until bulkquantities are accumulated formore cost-effective recycling ordisposal; and

✦ The site can serve as a locationfor exchange programs.

The same concerns regarding liabil-ity and costs arise for a permanentsite as for a single-day collectionevent. For example, only trainedstaff should handle materials broughtto the site, and unattended drop-off

of materials should be strongly dis-couraged.

According to information submittedby SWMDs via ADRs and other cor-respondence, 37 SWMDs eitherhosted or participated in some typeof collection event in 1999. Theseranged from permanent, full-servicecollection locations to limited mate-rial, temporary collection events. Ofthe 37 SWMDs having collectionevents, 29 hosted or participated intemporary collection events, foursponsored permanent collection fa-cilities, three hosted limited material,temporary collection events, and fivehosted, in conjunction with ODA,pesticide collection events. [Pleasenote that several SWMDs hosted orparticipated in multiple collectionevents.]. Activities performed bySWMDs during 1999 that are relatedto each of these types of collectionopportunities are described in thenarrative that follows.

Temporary, GeneralHHW Collection Events

By far, the most popular type ofHHW collection event held in Ohioin 1999 was the temporary, generalHHW collection event. In total, 29SWMDs, representing 51 counties,either hosted or participated in tem-porary, multi-material collectionevents (There were three SWMDsthat hosted limited material, tempo-rary collection events. Those eventsare summarized later in this section].Table VIII-1 provides data for thesecollection events. [Note: the data inthe columns labeled “cost perpound”, “cost per car”, and “poundsper car” is explained later in this nar-rative.] Most temporary collectionevents are held for a duration of oneor two days, many times on a week-end. Some SWMDs hold severaltemporary collection events whileothers hold only one. The numberof collection events held usually de-pends on the size of the SWMD aswell as available funding.

Many multiple county SWMDs holda collection event in each of thecounties that comprise the SWMD.However, there are several singlecounty SWMDs that also hold mul-

tiple collection events for their resi-dents.

While most hazardous wastes that aregenerated by households are ac-cepted at these events, manySWMDs do place restrictions on thetypes of waste that can be brought tothe events. The most common re-strictions are on ammunition, explo-sives, and radioactive materials.Ohio law prevents SWMDs from ac-cepting hazardous waste from busi-nesses and institutions regardless ofthe amount of material that businessgenerates. Thus, many SWMDs’publications point out that only haz-ardous waste generated by house-holds will be accepted at collectionevents. Many SWMDs also adver-tise that infectious waste, scrap tires,appliances, and general solid wastewill not be accepted at collectionevents.

Interest in HHW collection eventshas increased substantially in Ohiosince the first known HHW collectedevent was held in 1988. There hasbeen an increase in the number ofcollection programs sponsored bySWMDs every year, except for 1997and 1998, since then. In fact, thenumber of collection programs heldin 1999 was more than double thatfor 1995. While some SWMDs dis-continued collection events and oth-ers are holding collection events lessoften, the State saw a net increase inthe number of SWMDs hosting andparticipating in collection events.This is a testament to how popularHHW collection events are with resi-dents. Holding such events may beone of the most visible ways aSWMD makes itself available to itsresidents.

To evaluate participation in and costsof HHW collection events, there arethree general statistics that are con-sidered. These are the cost per carserved by a collection event, thepounds of HHW collected per car,and cost per pound of HHW col-lected during an event. Table VIII-3presents these statistics, along withthe number of SWMDs that spon-sored collection events, for 1988through 1999.


As can be seen from Table VIII-3,the average cost per pound for gen-eral HHW collection dropped from$0.80 in 1995 to $0.55 in 1999. Until1998, the average reported costs hadbeen dropping. From 1998 to 1999,the average cost per pound droppedagain, although the average reportedcost paid in both years was higherthan the all-time-low which occurredin 1997. As well, the highest costper pound paid for HHW collectionevent in 1999 ($0.93) was less thanin 1995 ($1.08). While overall costsseem to be lower in 1999 than in1995, there is still quite a disparitybetween the highest cost per poundpaid by a solid waste managementdistrict and the lowest cost per poundpaid - a difference of $0.66.

There are many factors which arebelieved to have contributed to theoverall decrease in the cost per poundpaid for HHW collection events overtime. More competition from haz-ardous waste contractors has resultedin lower overall bids being proferredby those contractors. Combined withthe more sophisticated bids beinggenerated by SWMDs, such compe-tition has resulted in reduced costsassociated with holding HHW col-lection events. SWMDs are moreexperienced in terms of what aspectsof a collection event need to behandled by a contractor and whichcan be dealt with by the SWMD it-self. All else being equal, the fewerservices that the contractor must pro-vide, the less expensive the bid willbe. Many SWMDs are recyclingmore of the material that is collected.The disposal of the collected mate-rial is often the most expensive por-tion of a collection event. Thus, theless material the SWMD must dis-pose of, the cheaper the total cost ofthe collection event is likely to be.

In terms of the cost per car servedby a temporary, multi-material col-lection event, the average cost per carpaid by a SWMD was less in 1999than it was at the time the 1995 StatePlan was adopted. Thus, in 1999,SWMDs paid, on average, $62.00 percar to hold a collection event. Therange of costs per car paid bySWMDs in 1999 was $16.00 to Ta

ble

VIII-

1:Te

mp

ora

ry H

HW

Collect

ion

Eve

nts

Held

in

Oh

io i

n 1

999

SWM

DH

ost

Nu

mb

er

Nu

mb

er

Cost

Tota

l Pou

nd

sTo

tal

Ton

sC

ost

per

Pou

nd

s p

er

Cost

per

Co

un

tyo

f Ev

en

tso

f C

ars

Co

llect

ed

Co

llect

ed

Ca

rC

ar

Po

un

d

AC

Not

Ind

icat

ed1

20

$

1,0

20.0

0N

ot I

ndic

ated

Unk

now

n

$ 5

1.00

Unk

now

nU

nkno

wn

ACH

MSU

one

in e

ach

6

3,21

0$1

29,0

45.0

0

327

,927

.00

163.

96

$

40.2

010

2.16

$0.3

9

Ash

land

Ash

land

1

3

84$

37,

910.

07

9

4,83

0.00

47

.42

$ 98

.72

246.

95$0

.40

Aug

laiz

eA

ugla

ize

1

2

00$

8

,870

.00

9

,501

.00

4.75

$ 44

.35

47

.50

$0.9

3

Brow

nBr

own

1

2

41$

21,

335.

00

4

5,91

7.00

2

2.96

$ 88

.53

190.

53$0

.46

Butle

rBu

tler

1

6

87$

40,

734.

66

9

7,81

8.00

48

.91

$ 59

.29

142.

38$0

.42

CC

HN

ot I

ndic

ated

1

7

7N

ot R

epor

ted

6

,108

.00

3.05

Unk

now

n

79.3

2U

nkno

wn

Clin

ton

Clin

ton

1

8

50$

36,

446.

76

6

5,79

0.00

32

.90

$ 42

.88

77

.40

$0.5

5

CFL

Pon

e in

eac

h4

1,

709

$ 7

8,76

2.51

1

37,7

46.0

0

68.8

7

$

46.0

9

80.6

0$0

.57

Cuy

ahog

aC

uyah

oga

215

,608

$401

,831

.62

1,49

5,82

9.00

747.

91

$

25.7

5

95.8

4$0

.27

DKM

Mon

e in

eac

h4

2,

697

$140

,716

.49

2

68,2

03.0

013

4.10

$ 52

.18

99

.44

$0.5

2

FHPR

Pick

away

1

2

50$

10,

094.

35

3

5,41

8.00

17

.71

$ 40

.38

141.

67$0

.29

A Program for M

anaging Household H

azardous Waste

89

Franklin Franklin 8 3,441 $213,151.00 284,000.00 142.00 $ 61.94 82.53 $0.75

GT one in each 4 2,696 $254,544.09 677,599.00 338.80 $ 94.42 251.33 $0.38

Greene Greene 1 1,482 $ 65,597.60 166,834.00 83.42 $ 44.26 112.57 $0.39

GMMMNW Guernsey 1 141 $ 10,123.65 17,932.00 8.97 $ 71.80 127.18 $0.56

Monroe 1 58 $ 6,990.38 7,951.00 3.98 $120.52 137.09 $0.88

Morgan 1 136 $ 9,681.83 17,460.00 8.73 $ 71.19 128.38 $0.55

Muskingum 1 548 $ 24,424.02 54,232.00 27.12 $ 44.57 98.96 $0.45

Noble 1 64 $ 5,889.99 6,872.00 3.44 $ 92.03 107.38 $0.86

Washington 1 620 $ 32,860.00 76,192.00 38.10 $ 53.00 122.89 $0.43

Hancock Hancock 1 484 $ 25,166.17 50,625.00 25.31 $ 52.00 104.60 $0.50

Lake Lake 2 3,733 $124,595.80 318,840.00 159.42 $33.38 85.41 $0.39

Logan Logan 1 Not Reported $ 42,396.00 123,509.00 61.75 Unknown Unknown $0.34

Lorain Lorain 1 2,178 $ 95,841.00 200,786.00 100.39 $ 44.00 92.19 $0.48

Mahoning Mahoning 1 2,000 $132,347.71 185,905.00 92.95 $ 66.17 92.95 $0.71

Miami1 ACHMSU 2 85 $ 5,500.00 Unknown Unknown $ 64.71 Unknown Unknown

Montgomery Montgomery 2 352 $ 21,314.00 23,174.00 11.59 $ 60.55 65.84 $0.92

OSS one in each 3 1,500 $138,073.54 189,224.00 94.61 $ 92.05 126.15 $0.73

Portage Portage 7 3,500 $ 55,000.00 120,000.00 60.00 $15.71 34.29 $0.46

Preble Preble 1 181 $ 16,148.50 21,771.00 10.89 $ 89.22 120.28 $0.74

Richland Richland 1 566 $ 50,230.00 86,077.50 43.04 $ 88.75 152.08 $0.58

Warren Warren 3 1328 $ 64,266.46 130,645.00 65.32 $ 48.39 98.38 $0.49

Wyandot Wyandot 1 184 $ 15,414.00 25,196.00 12.60 $ 83.77 136.93 $0.61

Totals $ 2,315,302.20 5,369,996.50 2,685.00 $ 1,981.80 3,581.22 $17.03

Averages $ 61.932 115.523 $0.554

1 The residents of the Miami County SWMD participated in two of the North Central SWMD’s collection events - those for Champaign and Shelby Counties. While the number of cars from and cost to theMiami County SWMD are tracked separate from the same figures for the North Central SWMD, the total tons collected from the Miami County SWMD are not.

2 Because the Gurnsey, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Washington (GMMMNW) Joint County SWMD provided separate data for each collection eventand two SWMDs did not provide the data necessary to calculate this statistic, 32 programs were used to determine the average cost per car ($1,981.80/32 = $61.93 per car).

3 Because the Gurnsey, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Washington (GMMMNW) Joint County SWMD provided separate data for each collection event andthree SWMDs did not provide the data necessary to calculate this statistic, 31 programs were used to determine the average pounds per car (3,581.22lbs/31 = 115.52 lbs per car).

4 Because the Gurnsey, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Washington (GMMMNW) Joint County SWMD provided separate data for each collection event and threeSWMDs did not provide the data necessary to calculate this statistic, 31 programs were used to determine the average cost per pound ($17.03/31 = $0.55 per pound).


$121.00. In 1995 SWMDs paid, onaverage, $68.00 per car with a rangeof $36.00 to $202.00.

Oddly, the average pounds of HHWper car brought to a collection eventwas higher in 1999 than in 1995.This is odd because it is generallyaccepted that the pounds of HHWbrought per car in subsequent yearswill decrease over time as stockpilesof HHW are eliminated and residentsbring only what was generated dur-ing the preceding year. In 1999,SWMDs reported having received,on average, 116 pounds of HHW percar. The range of pounds per caraccepted in 1999 was 34 pounds to251 pounds. In 1995, SWMDS re-ported having accepted, on average,84 pounds of HHW per car with arange of 56 pounds to 129 poundsper car.

Of all of the materials collected in1999, more tons of paint and relatedpaint products were collected thanany other material type. Paint andrelated paint products have consis-tently comprised the greatest tonnage

Table VIII-2: Statistics for Temporary HHW Collection Events Held From 1988 to 1999

Cost per car Cost per pound Pounds per car

Year Total Number Average Range Average Range Average Rangeof SWMDs 1

OfferingPrograms

1988 1 $75.00 N/A

1989 1 64 N/A

1990 2 56 N/A

1991 3 116 100-140

1992 8 $128.00 $70-$186 $0.84 $0.82-$0.84 128 86-136

1993 9 $81.00 $48-$157 $0.99 $0.70-$1.23 73 69-216

1994 13 $67.00 $40-$113 $0.96 $0.65-$1.27 63 55-123

1995 14 $68.00 $36-$202 $0.80 $0.39-$1.08 84 56-129

1996 24 $67.00 $22-$187 $0.62 $0.20-$1.40 103 55-328

1997 22 $85.00 $24-$205 $0.50 $0.19-$1.20 183 23-503

1998 22 $62.00 $20-$195 $0.59 $0.18-$2.92 125 20-368

1999 29 $62.00 $16-$121 $0.55 $0.27-$0.93 116 34-251

1 The total number of District programs includes only those temporary programs where either general HHW was ac-cepted or multiple materials were accepted. Collection events that were focused on only one or two specific materials(e.g. used oil, batteries, etc.) were not included.

of material collected during collec-tion events. In 1999, approximately2,044,477 pounds of paint productswere reported as having been col-lected. Data organized by materialcollected was not available for 1995.For 1996, however, the tonnage ofpaint products collected was reportedas 2,309,851 pounds. As a point ofreference, the category of flam-mables, pesticides, and chlorinatedproducts comprised the next highesttonnage, by material category, col-lected in 1999. In total, 462,523pounds of flammables, pesticides,etc. were collected in 1999. Thus,in 1999, the amount of paint col-lected was 4.4 times greater than theamount of material in the next high-est category. In 1996, the first yearmaterial by material information isavailable, 1,099,392 pounds of flam-mables, pesticides, etc. were col-lected.

In terms of how the collected mate-rials were managed in 1999, approxi-mately sixty percent was recycled,reused, or burned for energy recov-

ery, 24 percent was landfilled or in-cinerated, and 16 percent was man-aged in unknown ways. In 1996, ap-proximately seventy percent of thewaste collected was reused, recycled,or burned for energy recovery, 25percent was landfilled or incinerated,and the remaining five percent wasmanaged in unknown ways.

Permanent HHWCollection Facilities

In 1999, four SWMDs operated per-manent HHW collection locations,three more than were available in1996. These programs are summa-rized in Table VIII-3. Two of thepermanent collection locations werefor the collection of limited materi-als while the remaining two were forthe collection of general HHW.Three of the SWMDs that had per-manent collection locations alsohosted temporary collection events.

The evaluation statistics (cost perpound, pounds per car, and cost percar) were not calculated for the per-


manent collection programs becausethe SWMDs offering those programseither do not track the data neededto calculate the statistics, or the datais reported in conjunction with thedata for temporary collection events.

Material-Specific Collectionand Exchange Programs

A variant of the full-service collec-tion program is a program that col-lects only certain types of materials.A community may want to targetonly certain materials in the wastestream for removal. As a result, thecommunity implements some sort of

a collection event geared towardsthose materials.

Limited-material collection pro-grams can be conducted as tempo-rary collection events, permanentcollection locations, or as drop-offlocations.

Temporary and Permanent LimitedMaterial Collection Events

As was mentioned earlier in thischapter, three SWMDs hosted lim-ited material, temporary collectionevents and two SWMDs operatedlimited material, permanent collec-tion locations. The following mate-

rials were targeted by these collec-tion opportunities:

✦ Household batteries

✦ Lead-Acid batteries

✦ Paint and related paint products

✦ Fluorescent light bulbs

✦ Pesticides

✦ Used Oil, antifreeze, and other au-tomobile fluids

In addition, five SWMDs held, inconjunction with ODA, pesiticidecollection events.

Table VIII-3: Permanent HHW Collection Facilities

SWMD Host County Number of Cost Total Tons Cost Per Pounds Per Cost PerCar Collected Car Car Pound

Crawford1 Crawford Unknown $9,134.17 7.72 Unknown Unknown $0.61

Montgomery2 Montgomery Unknown $137,349 236.02 Unknown Unknown $0.29

Portage Portage See Table VII-2 See Table VII-2 See Table VII-2 See Table VII-2 See Table VII-2 See Table VII-2

Summit3 Summit 8,665 $547,455.23 704.09 $63.18 165.51 $0.39

A Permanent Site for Collecting HHW

In April 1996, the Summit/Akron Solid Waste Management Authority (Authority) opened its HHW Recy-cling Center (Center) to provide residents of the Authority with a means of managing their HHW. TheAuthority opted to provide this Center after hosting a temporary collection event. The event was over-whelmed by the number of participants some of whom had to wait in line for hours. Other participants wereturned away. Based upon their experiences with the temporary collection event, the Authority decided tooffer a more long-term solution for managing HHW.

The Center is open to residents two days a week from the beginning of April until the end of September.Summit County residents are welcome to bring unwanted HHW to the Center during the posted hours ofoperation. The materials that are accepted at the facility include paints, oils, gasoline, automotive fluids,pesticides, herbicides, household and car batteries, fluorescent light tubes, propane tanks, aerosols, mercury,and asbestos. The Authority also accepts scrap tires for a $1.00 per tire fee. Prohibited materials includewaste from businesses, MSW, medical waste, any waste from out-of-county sources, recyclables, explosives,radioactive waste, ammunition, major appliances, and scrap metal.

In 1999, the Center took approximately 1,408,175 pounds (704 tons) of HHW from a total of 8,665 cars. Ofthe HHW collected, 45 percent, or approximately 636,000 pounds were recycled.

1The SWMD limits materials collected to household batteries, paints, fluorescent light bulbs, pesticides, used oil, andantifreeze.

2 The SWMD limits materials collected to paint, paint-related materials, automotive fluids, and types of household andautomobile batteries

3The SWMD operates the facility from April through September.


HHW Drop-off Locations

Thirteen SWMDs hosted drop-off lo-cations for HHW in 1999. SWMDsgenerally accept limited materials atthese locations. For drop-off pro-grams, SWMDs often target materi-als that are less expensive or easierto manage individually rather thanas part of a general collection pro-gram. Furthermore, drop-off pro-grams are often conducted bySWMD staff rather than by a con-tracted hazardous waste contractor.A meaningful assessment of the to-tal amount of materials collectedthrough and the total cost for drop-off programs is not possible given theway reporting is performed.

The type of material selected for col-lection at any of the limited-mate-rial collection opportunities dependsupon several factors, including:

✦ what materials contain the mosthazardous constituents?

✦ what materials have hazardouseffects on haulers or sanitarysewer systems?

✦ what materials are brought to col-lection events in large quantities?

✦ what materials generate manyquestions to the hotline regardingdisposal methods?

✦ what materials have no existinginfrastructure for safe disposal?

The most common materials targetedfor limited-material collection op-portunities are used oil, paint andpaint products, pesticides, and house-hold batteries.

Recycling and Reuseof Electronic Equipment

In recent years, the variety, availabil-ity, and low costs of electronic equip-ment have resulted in making therecycling, reuse, and disposal of ob-solete and defunct electronics hottopics. Televisions, radios, personalcomputers, video cassette recorders(VCRs), digital video display (DVD)units, compact disc players, etc areall items that are becoming morecommonplace in homes. Given therapid pace of technological change

and the increasing affordability ofelectronics, items that used to beconsidered “durable” are now be-coming more and more disposable.As a result, more electronic equip-ment is finding its way into the wastestream. Of particular concern arepersonal computers as that is theelectronics classification experienc-ing the greatest rate of turnover. Toillustrate the extent of the problemthat unwanted electronics may pose,consider the following statistics re-garding the consumption and dis-carding of personal computer equip-ment:

✦ In 1996, it was estimated thatthere were over 300 million cath-ode ray tubes (CRTs) in itemssuch as televisions and computermonitors in use in North Americaalone. That same year, approxi-mately 42 million CRTs weresold in the United States and 79million computers were retired.

✦ It was predicted that about 325million personal computerswould become obsolete between1985 and 2005 in the UnitedStates.

✦ Growth in sales of personal com-puters has increased by morethan 23 percent per year since1985.

✦ In 1998, 44 percent of all house-holds had personal computers.

✦ The lifespan of personal com-puter central processing unit isdecreasing. By the year 2005,the lifespan is expected to beonly two years.

✦ The lifespan of a personal com-puter manufactured in 1999 is 3.1years, and the lifespan of a CRTis between four and seven years.

✦ 20.6 million personal computersbecame obsolete in 1998 alone.

✦ By 2007, the cumulative total ofobsolete personal computers isexpected to increase to almost500 million units.

Consumer electronics (televisionsets, radios, and VCRs) accounted for27 percent of all lead discards inMSW in 1986. The sources of the

lead were soldered circuit boards andleaded glass in televisions. Interest-ingly, the statistics from 1986 did notaccount for the lead in CRTs as thedisposal of CRTs had not yet begunto be problematic. Thus, the poten-tial for lead to enter the waste streamis increased dramatically when CRTsare taken into account. CRTs fromtelevisions and computer monitorsare now one of the most commoncomponents of electronics in themunicipal solid waste stream. Us-ing the U.S. EPA Toxicity Charac-teristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP),the lead leachability from CRTs wasstudied. The average concentrationof lead in CRT samples was deter-mined to be 18.5mg/L which far ex-ceeds the regulatory limit of 5.0mg/L. As was mentioned in Chapter IV,one state, Massachusetts, has bannedthe disposal of CRTs in landfill fa-cilities located within that state.

According to the National RecyclingCoalition, approximately 11 percentof computer equipment is recycledand three percent is reused nation-ally. Due to the poor economics ofrefurbishing older equipment and thelack of strong markets for the resaleof used and/or refurbished electron-ics, most of electronic equipment thatis collected is processed for materialrecycling. In this manner, the equip-ment is dismantled and the compo-nents that have value are sold andthose that don’t are discarded.

Based on a mix of electronic equip-ment, the most common materialsrecovered are as follows:

Steel 40%

Plastic 40%

Aluminum 7-10%

Copper 5%

Gold, silver, misc. Balance

Infrastructure forRecycling Electronic Equipment

One of the biggest obstacles to wide-spread collection of electronics forrecycling is the lack of available in-frastructure to facilitate the process.There just are not enough outlets for


the collected materials, and thoseoutlets that are available are gener-ally too far away to make it economi-cally viable to ship collected unitsto them. However, there have beenseveral developments on both thenational level and in individual statesregarding the reuse and recycling ofcomputer equipment.

National Electronics Recycling andReuse Infrastructure

On the national level, IBM Corp. hasinstituted a program for recyclingobsolete electronic equipment. InNovember, 2000, IBM launched aprogram, known as the IBM PC Re-cycling Service, which gives indi-vidual consumers and small-businessowners a means of getting rid of un-wanted computer hardware.Through this service, IBM acceptsall types of computer equipmentfrom any manufacturer’s personalcomputers for a fee of $29.99. Theprogram uses the United Parcel Ser-vice to ship the equipment to a recy-cling company in Pennsylvania. Theequipment is then either refurbishedand donated to Gifts in Kind Inter-national or dismantled and recycled.

Ohio Electronics Recyclingand Reuse Infrastructure

In Ohio, both the federal and statecorrectional departments have estab-lished computer refurbishing and de-manufacturing programs. The pro-gram established by the Ohio Depart-ment of Rehabilitation and Correc-tion is called Computers for Educa-tion Program of Ohio. This program,administered by the Ohio Penal In-dustry, was created to transfer usedbut usable computers from corpora-tions and other donors to schools thatneed those computers. Companiesand other organizations ship usedcomputer equipment to one of theOhio prisons where the equipment isevaluated to determine if it is usable.Equipment that is usable is then re-furbished by the inmates in the In-dustrial Training Program and placedin schools. Equipment that is notusable is dismantled, and, the com-ponents are recycled or sold as scrap.

Another option for managing usedcomputer equipment is administeredthrough the federal prison system atthe correctional facility located inElkton, Ohio. The Elkton facility isone of three federal correctional in-stitutions under the Federal Bureauof Prisons that offers computer de-manufacturing services. The serviceis offered as a product of UNICOR,the trade name for Federal PrisonIndustries, Inc. Businesses and gov-ernment agencies can send any typeof obsolete computer equipment tothe three institutions where usableequipment is sold and scrap mate-rial is recycled.

There are also a number of individualbusinesses that refurbish obsolete andnon-working but usable computersthroughout Ohio. Unfortunately, atthis point in time, due to Ohio’s haz-ardous waste regulations, these com-panies are not permitted to acceptcomputer equipment for the sole pur-pose of recycling it.

SWMD Collection Events

In 2000, three SWMDs sponsoredcollection events for electronicequipment. The Erie County SWMDheld its first collection event for elec-tronics in June of 2000. Residentswere able to bring old computers,telephones, audio equipment, andother unwanted electronics to theevent. In total, 679 electronic de-vices were collected. Some of thecollected material was recycled lo-cally, and the remainder was shippedto the federal prison in Elkton, Ohio.The event was funded by theSandusky/Erie County CommunityFoundation.

The Carroll-Columbiana-HarrisonJoint County SWMD held its firstelectronics collection events in 2000as well. Electronic components werecollected at three events (one in eachcounty). Residents were able tobring televisions, VCRs, computers,printers, radios, facsimile machines,and telephones to the event. Col-lected materials were transported tothe federal correctional facility lo-cated in Elkton, Ohio. In total, 60cubic yards, approximately 6 tons,

of electronic equipment was col-lected.

The Cuyahoga County SWMD spon-sored a collection event, called theOld Computer Round-up, in 2000 forthe collection of residential computerequipment. The four-hour collectionevent was held in August. Residentswere able to take old computerequipment to one of 24 locationsthroughout the county. In total,1,661 CPUs, 1,398 monitors, 1,146keyboards, 624 printers, 835 mice,and 373 pieces of misc. peripheralequipment were collected. TheCuyahoga County SWMD hasplanned two more Computer Round-ups in 2001.

Other States’ Electronics Recyclingand Reuse Infrastructure

In Minnesota, Sony Electronics, Inc.,in conjunction with Waste Manage-ment, Inc. and the Minnesota Officeof Environmental Awareness, imple-mented a program which allows resi-dents and commercial business own-ers to take Sony electronics to vari-ous collection locations around Min-nesota at no cost. Sony then paysWaste Management, Inc. to recyclethe donated components at WMI’seight electronic scrap recycling fa-cilities which are located throughoutthe United States.

The Rhode Island Resource Recov-ery Corp. is in the process of estab-lishing a permanent collection sitefor computer equipment at an exist-ing material recovery facility. Onceimplemented, this program will bethe first permanent statewide com-puter recycling program.

Recommendations

Governmental Responsibilities

Proper disposal of HHW is widelyrecognized as an important compo-nent of the overall management ofsolid waste for state and local gov-ernments. Management of HHW ismost effective if it takes place at thelocal level, under the direction ofSWMDs. At the state level, OhioEPA may be most effective by de-


veloping resource materials andguidance documents, and maintain-ing contacts with the appropriatestate agencies, businesses, and otherparties interested in providing theseresources.

State Responsibilities

In the past, Ohio EPA has focusedits efforts related to HHW manage-ment on developing and distributingfact sheets, brochures, and othersources of information for use bySWMDs and the general public.Ohio EPA believes that this approachis the most appropriate at the statelevel and will continue to developinformational materials as warranted.At this time, DSIWM has plans todevelop fact sheets for the followingmaterials:

✦ Electronics

✦ Fluorescent light bulbs

✦ Smoke detectors

✦ Mercury/thermostat

Local Responsibilities

With implementation of this StatePlan, SWMDs will now be requiredto provide at least two strategiesgeared towards HHW management.As presented in the 1995 State Plan,Ohio EPA and SWAC believe that thespecific programs and activitiesimplemented by SWMDs for pur-poses of addressing general HHWmanagement should continue to beleft to the discretion of each SWMD.Thus, while the requirement thatSWMDs provide a strategy in theirsolid waste management plans toaddress HHW will remain, thisamended State Plan retains the flex-ibility afforded in the 1995 StatePlan. As was discussed in chapter3, however, SWMDs will also be re-quired to provide a strategy gearedspecifically to the generation andmanagement of electronics equip-ment. As with the general HHW

strategy, the specific strategy chosenby a SWMD to address electronicsequipment is left to the discretion ofthat SWMD.

References:

California Department of Toxic Sub-stances Control (date unknown), TheNo Waste Anthology: A Teacher’sGuide to Environmental Activities K-12, and Tools for the EnvironmentalTeacher: An Annotated Bibliogra-phy of Education Materials AboutHousehold Hazardous Waste andRelated Topics, Sacramento, CA

IBM PC Recycling Service for$29.99 (includes shipping) Designedfor Consumers and Small Businesses,(November 21, 2000), <http://www.idm.com/idm.environment/products/pcrservice.phtml>

Jung, L.B. (May, 1999), The Conun-drum of Computer Recycling, Re-source Recycling

National Paint and Coatings Associa-tion (1993), Post-Consumer PaintManagement Manual, Washington,DC

National Recycling Coalition,(date unknown), Electronics Recy-cling Initiative: http://www.nrc-recycle.org/Programs/electronics/recycling.htm

National Safety Council (May,1999), Electronic Product Recoveryand Recycling Baseline Report: Re-cycling of Selected Electronic Prod-ucts in the U.S.

Ohio EPA (1994), Household Haz-ardous Waste Telephone AdviceGuidance Manual, Division of Solidand Infectious Waste Management,Columbus, OH

Pope-Reid Associates, Inc. (1988)Final Report: Characterization ofHousehold Hazardous Wastes andOther Special Wastes Contained inRamsey and Washington Counties’Combined Municipal Waste Stream,St. Paul, MN

Porter, J.D. (April 1998), Comput-ers and Electronics Recycling: Chal-lenges and Opportunities, ResourceRecycling

Prial, Dunstan (November 22, 2000),IBM Offers Recycling for Old Com-puters Program Keeps UnwantedPCs Out of Landfills, Attics, <http:// w w w . c a n t o n r e p . c o m /repsearch_detail.php?ID+45112>

Rathje, W. L., et. al (1988) Charac-terization of Household HazardousWaste from Marin County, Califor-nia, and New Orleans, Louisiana,U.S. EPA, Environmental Monitor-ing Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas,NV

Townsend, T. (December, 1999),Characterization of Lead Leachabil-ity from Cathode Ray Tubes Usingthe Toxicity Characteristic LeachingProcedure, University of Florida, De-partment of Environmental Engi-neering Sciences

Truini, Joe (December 11, 2000), R.I.to Recycle Computers, Waste News.

Truini, Joe (October 23, 2000), Sony,WMI Spark Recycling Program,Waste News.

UNICOR Products: Computer De-manufacturing, (May 9, 2000),<http://www.unicor.gove/services/demanufact.html>.

U.S. EPA (January, 1989), Charac-terization of Products ContainingLead and Cadmium in MSW in theU.S., 1970 to 2000, Office of SolidWaste

U.S. EPA (1990), Management ofHousehold and Small-Quantity-Gen-erator Hazardous Waste in the UnitedStates, Risk Reduction EngineeringLaboratory, Cincinnati, OH

U.S. EPA (1990) Suspended, Can-celled and Restricted Pesticides, Of-fice of Pesticides and Toxic Sub-stances, Washington DC

Recycling Market Development 95

ORC Section 3734.50(G) requiresthe State Plan to “establish a strat-egy that contains specific recommen-dations for legislative and adminis-trative action to promote markets forproducts containing recycled mate-rials generally and for promoting theuse by state governments of productscontaining recycled materials.”

Background

The existence of strong recyclingmarkets is widely acknowledged asone critical component of the con-tinued success of all types of recy-cling programs in Ohio. Strong mar-kets, meaning strong market demandfor recyclable materials, translatesinto higher prices paid for those ma-terials. This increases the economicincentive for the collection of thematerials, stimulates investment byprivate waste companies in improvedprocessing and collection systems,and may lead to a more aggressiveexpansion by private companies oftheir customer base. Strong marketsalso make the creation and expan-sion of recycling services more at-tractive for the public sector, as thenet costs associated with these pro-grams decrease due to the increasedreturn on the collected materials.These same dynamics make recy-cling more attractive for commercialand industrial generators of waste.Ultimately, stronger markets result inincreased demand, improved eco-nomic return, and lower costs asso-ciated with recycling activities,thereby making recycling a more at-tractive choice when compared to thealternative management option – dis-posal of the materials in landfills.

Unfortunately, there has been greatvolatility in the markets for recy-clable materials over the last tenyears. At the time the 1995 State

RECYCLING MARKERECYCLING MARKERECYCLING MARKERECYCLING MARKERECYCLING MARKET DEVELT DEVELT DEVELT DEVELT DEVELOPMENTOPMENTOPMENTOPMENTOPMENT

Plan was adopted, prices for manyrecycled materials were at all-timehighs. Shortly after adoption of the1995 State Plan, prices for many ofthese materials dropped dramatically.Since then, prices for some of thesematerials have rebounded. This pricevolatility has not been unique toOhio, but is a national phenomenon.Figure IX-1 illustrates the price vola-tility of certain materials processedat the Portage County SWMD, oneof several SWMDs that operate arecycling processing center. FigureIX-2 illustrates the value of recy-clable materials collected throughcurbside programs in the PugetSound Area of Washington, ex-pressed as the weighted average ofthe entire bundle of commoditiescollected. As can be seen by bothgraphs, prices have varied signifi-cantly over time, in some instancesdecreasing to a fifth of the previousvalue within one year.

What causes the volatility in thesemarkets? There are a number of fac-tors, including the contraction orexpansion of the U.S. economy,changes in overall demand for manu-factured goods, economic conditionsin foreign economies (such as therecession in Asia in the late nineties),industry-specific conditions (i.e.changes in the glass, steel, or alumi-num industries), and price or supplychanges in the virgin materials thatcompete with recycled feedstocks.

While many of the factors that in-fluence price volatility occur at anational or international level, state-wide or local factors can also have asignificant impact on the value ofrecyclable materials that are col-lected (or potentially collected).Particularly for low-value commodi-ties, the existence of end-users inOhio, the level of demand these end-users have for the materials, and the

9CHAPTER

proximity of the end users to the pro-cessors of recyclable materials areimportant factors affecting the eco-nomic viability of recycling pro-grams.

In addition to these demand-orientedfactors, issues associated with thesupply of these materials are also sig-nificant. While the existence of re-cycled material end-users in Ohio hasthe potential to increase the value ofthe materials collected, these poten-tial end-users need consistent sup-plies of high-quality materials. If thesupply of these materials in Ohio isinconsistent or low-quality, thechances of attracting new users of thematerials or expanding production bythe existing users diminishes.

Ultimately, the value of potentiallyrecyclable materials is heavily de-pendent on the demand for the endproduct that is made from the re-cycled material. For this reason, sig-nificant effort has been put forth byeducators in the recycling field topublicize the “Buy Recycled” mes-sage. This effort is focused on edu-cating consumers to “close the loop”by not only recycling the waste thatthey produce, but also buying prod-ucts made from recycled material.Effort has also gone into educatingbusinesses and government agencieson the importance of buying prod-ucts made out of recycled materialsas a way to support market develop-ment.

To address the various issues associ-ated with recycling markets, the 1989State Plan identified four broad ob-jectives and numerous strategies tomeet the objectives. In addition, the1995 State Plan identified fifteenrecommendations for state agenciesto pursue. The 1995 State Plan alsoidentified recommended steps forSWMDs to pursue to develop mar-ket development strategies and iden-

Figure IX-1. Pri ces for Selected R ecycl abl e M ateri alsPort age County SW M D, 1995 - 2000

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Year

Price

pe

r T

on N o. 8 N ew s

O C C

M agazines

O ffice Paper

Steel U BC

tified a number of possible programsthat SWMDs could pursue.

The remainder of this chapter will:a) provide an update on the status ofthe fifteen recommendations for stateagencies identified in the 1995 State

Plan; b) provide an update on thetypes of market development pro-grams that SWMDs have pursuedsince the adoption of the 1995 StatePlan, and; c) identify recommendedstrategies to be pursued with the

adoption of this State Plan. (Note:for an update on the status of thenumerous projects and strategies thathave been initiated to achieve thefour objectives contained in the 1989State Plan, please refer to AppendixE.)

Figure IX-2. Value of C urbsi de C ollected Recycl abl e M ateri alsPuget Sound A rea, W ashington 1995 - 2000

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Year

Price

pe

r T

on

W eightedAverageM arketPri ce


Source: Sound Resource Management Group, Seattle, WA

Pric

e pe

r To

nP

rice

per

Ton

1995 State PlanRecommendations for the State

The 1995 State Plan included fifteenrecommendations for various stateagencies. The recommendations areshown below in italics, followed bya discussion of the status of each one.

✦ All state government depart-ments/offices should be encour-aged to participate in an Advisorycapacity to the InteragencyWorkgroup for Market Develop-ment (IAWG)...

All state agencies are encouraged,through the State Recycling Co-ordinators infrastructure and anewsletter, to promote recyclingand to buy recycled-content prod-ucts. While no additional agen-cies are providing direct input tothe IAWG, ODNR does facilitatecommunication between IAWGand other state agencies throughthe State Recycling Coordinatorsworkgroup.

✦ The IAWG and the associated taskforces should continue to explorestrategies for expanding the de-mand and supply of recyclablematerials...

In the process of creating the bi-ennial Recycling Market Devel-opment Plan, the IAWG contin-ues to explore activities to in-crease recycling market develop-ment and include them in the nextplan. The Material Specific TaskForces were originally active dur-ing the Spring and Summer of1995 to develop recommenda-tions and strategies for improv-ing the markets for their specificmaterial.

In the fall of 1999, IAWG devel-oped three material-specificworkgroups to once again exam-ine issues and develop strategiesfor improving recycling marketswithin Ohio. Based upon the rec-ommendations of Ohio solidwaste districts, the three materi-als chosen for focus were plas-tics, tire/rubber, and glass. Thetask forces consisted of volunteer

representatives from private in-dustries and solid waste districtsand were facilitated by IAWGmembers. The focus groups metthroughout 6 months to developstrategies and make recommen-dations, all of which are includedin the most recent IAWG OhioRecycling Market DevelopmentBiennial Plan, 2000.

✦ The IAWG and the associatedtask forces should explore thefeasibility of adopting a voluntaryplastic recycled-content agree-ment similar in nature to the Vol-untary Newspaper Agreement.

There has been no progress onthis recommendation. Industryhas not expressed strong interestin a plastic recycled-content vol-untary agreement, and as a result,the IAWG and ODNR have fo-cused resources on other higherpriority projects.

✦ The program to electronicallytrade recycled glass, PETE, andHDPE plastics on the ChicagoBoard of Trade (CBOT) should bemonitored and promoted....

CBOT program informationbrochures were provided toOhio’s community recyclingrepresentatives and recyclingprocessors. Also, in conjunctionwith the National RecyclingCoalition and the CBOT initia-tive, a special session on theCBOT program was integratedinto the state’s 1995 recyclingconference held in Sharonville,Ohio.

On December 31, 1999, theChicago Board of Trade’sRecyclables Exchange ceasedoperations. The exchange beganin 1995 as a result of a partner-ship between the CBOT, theU.S. EPA, and the NationalRecycling Coalition. While therewere a number of “watchers” onthe CBOT Exchange, there werevery few users. Much had to dowith the tremendous increase ininternet-based trading sites thathad been developed and some ofCBOT’s traffic moved to those

venues. In addition, fundingfrom the U.S. EPA had ended andapparently there was not enoughtraffic to warrant continuing itwithout grant funding.

✦ The Department of Administra-tive Services (DAS) should con-tinue to integrate the Buy-Re-cycled option within the localgovernment cooperative purchas-ing events...

DAS Local Government Coop-erative Purchasing “town meet-ings” were discontinued andhave been replaced with “How toDo Business with the State”meetings. Although the purchaseof recycled-content products is nolonger a component of theseevents, ODNR continues to workwith DAS to add new recycled-content products to state con-tracts.

With assistance from ODNR,DAS, State Purchasing, now has18 state term contracts that in-clude a variety of recycled-con-tent products. Those contracts arenow easily identifiable for theusers as they have the ODNR“Recycle, Ohio!” logo placed onthe cover sheets.

✦ DAS should review and evaluatethe new “recycled product pro-curement” guidelines issued fromthe U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency...

DAS continues to receive the newU.S. EPA procurement guide-lines, and adds new recycled-con-tent products to state contractswhen feasible.

✦ The Ohio Department of NaturalResources and the IAWG shouldstrive to implement all feasiblerecommendations made by thematerial-specific task forces setup by the workgroup.

Progress has been made on satis-fying 18 of the 25 recommenda-tions made by the IAWG in theRecommendations and Strategiesdocument that was published asa follow-up to the initial Recy-cling Market Development Plan.



In the fall of 1999, IAWG nar-rowed the scope of the Recom-mendations and Strategies tothree specific materials. Thesematerials were identified as“problem” materials by Ohio’ssolid waste districts. Three taskforces were formed and new strat-egies and recommendations werecreated. Those are listed in themost recent IAWG Ohio Recy-cling Market Development Bien-nial Plan, 2000.

✦ DAS and the State Architectshould research the feasibilityand use of recycled-content prod-ucts in the construction and/orrenovation of state-owned andleased buildings.

In 1997, as a result of the DesignDecisions seminar (describedbelow) for sustainable buildingdesign, the State Architectand ODNR-DRLP linked theirhomepages in an effort to in-crease access to recycled-contentproduct information.

✦ ODNR and DAS should workwith organizations such as theBuilding Industry Association,U.S. Department of Agriculture,the National HomebuildersAssociation...to plan and conducta statewide seminar on the use ofrecycled-content materials in thebuilding trades industry.

In 1997, ODNR-DRLP, the StateArchitect’s office and the SolidWaste Authority of Central Ohioplanned and conducted “DesignDecisions”. This was a seminarprimarily for architects and en-gineers to help them understandthe environmental impacts oftheir design decisions and to pro-vide increased awareness aboutrecycled-content products beingutilized in the construction indus-try.

Over the last 5 years, ODNR –DRLP has been participatingin the Multi-Client Project,a national project dedicatedto developing standards forrecycled-plastic lumber (RPL).Efforts to develop standardsthrough the American Society of

Testing and Materials (ASTM)focused on the structural andmechanical properties of RPLin outdoor residential deckingand marine applications. ASTMStandards provide completeproduct credibility to architectsand engineers involved inprojects that potentially may uti-lize RPL. To date, seven (7)ASTM standards have been ap-proved. A number of pilotprojects have been conductedacross the country, one at Kelly’sIsland, Ohio, in order to monitorthe use, the environmental ef-fects, and to showcase the use ofRPL.

✦ Private sector constructionprojects receiving state fundsshould consider the use ofrecycled-content building mate-rials.

There has been no progress todate on this recommendation.

✦ The Ohio Department of Devel-opment should continue to incor-porate a Buy Recycled compo-nent into its annual “Buy Ohio”conference.

The “Buy Ohio” conference wasreplaced with the “Ohio BusinessExpo.” However, both of theseevents have now been discontin-ued.

✦ ODNR should evaluate the feasi-bility of expanding the OhioRecycling Information Communi-cation System (ORICS) to includemore information on whatrecycled-content products arebeing purchased, by whom, andwho is selling them.

ORICS was replaced withODNR-DRLP’s new web page,located at:

www.dnr.state.oh.us/recycling/

As a result, DRLP’s “Directoryof Ohio Vendors of RecycledProducts” is now available via theInternet. Also, for individualswithout Internet access, recycled-content product information wasavailable via DRLP’s FaxBackSystem.

The FaxBack System ended in1999 with the maturity of theODNR – DRLP website andtremendous growth of theinternet. Access to informationabout recycled-content productsis now readily available throughprivate manufacturers’ sites aswell as government sites.

As a replacement, the OhioMaterial Exchange (OMEx) wascreated. It is a statewide reuseand recycling service promotingthe use of one company’s un-wanted material as another’s rawmaterial. It is an informationclearinghouse for available by-products, virgin products andother forms of unwanted indus-trial materials. Funding has tra-ditionally been provided by theOhio EPA, ODNR, and ODOD,with additional assistance fromthe Association of Ohio Recyclers(AOR). AOR has contracted withWaste Alternatives, Inc. OMExserves its clients through a bi-monthly newsletter, website anddedicated phone line/fax retrievalsystem. Its third year’s accom-plishments (May 2000 – 2001)include 80,546 tons of wasteexchanged; $3.2 million inavoided businesses’ disposalcosts; and over 1,500 callsfielded. The amount of materi-als exchanged was doubled fromthe previous year.

✦ ODNR should increase recycled-product procurement use/infor-mation to organizations...byoffering to submit articles fortheir monthly newsletters and toparticipate in seminars and con-ferences.

DRLP’s “Directory of OhioVendor’s of Recycled Products”was updated in 1996 and distrib-uted to all of DRLP’s local recy-cling programs and all the localSWMDs. As mentioned above,it was also placed on the DRLPwebsite and FaxBack system.From 1996-1998, over $800,000was awarded by DRLP to localgovernments for increasing theirpurchase of products containing


at least 5 percent post-consumermaterial.

✦ ODNR should establish a tollfree recycled-content product“hotline” to improve awarenessand access to information regard-ing procurement of recycled-con-tent products.

In place of a toll free recycled-content product hotline, ODNR-DRLP established a web page andtoll free FaxBack system that con-tain recycled-content product in-formation.

ODNR - DRLP efforts continueto be focused on providing infor-mation via its website.

✦ ODNR should continue its effortsin establishing and expanding theOhio Buy Recycled Business Al-liance (OBRBA) in an effort to in-crease private business purchaseof recycled-content products.

Since its inception in 1995, theAlliance’s membership grewfrom the 12 original foundingmembers to almost 150 members.The overall goal of this organi-zation is to document and in-crease businesses’ purchase anduse of recycled-content products.In the late 1990s, the Allianceconcentrated on expanding itsmembership and determining apermanent funding mechanism tosustain the organization and itsservices. However, a permanentfunding source was never estab-lished. At this point, OBRBA isno longer an active project atODNR – DRLP. It was the de-sire of ODNR – DRLP that theorganization become self-sustain-ing. That has not happened, andas a result OBRBA is inactive atthis time.

Projects Implemented BY SWMDs toPromote Markets for Recyclables

Although SWMDs are not requiredto provide market develop programsas part of their solid waste manage-ment plans1 , many SWMDs continueto implement programs to helpdevelop markets for recyclable ma-terials. The 1995 State Plan recom-mended that SWMDs include mar-ket development activities for localcommunities, and suggested one ormore of the strategies below shownin italics. Under each of these strat-egies are examples of programsimplemented by SWMDs.

✦ Pilot projects demonstrating theuse of a recycled-content prod-ucts:

The Mahoning County SWMDhas purchased recycled-contentproducts such as plastic lumber,drainage pipe, and pavementcrack sealant, and uses these ma-terials in construction projects(e.g. a building at the county fair-grounds) to demonstrate their ef-fectiveness. Other SWMDs, suchas the Summit County SWMD,have received grant money fromODOD’s tire market developmentgrant program to install athletictracks made from scrap tire de-rived crumb rubber at areaschools. The Cuyahoga CountySWMD has also funded installa-tion of playground surfaces madeof recycled tires to demonstratethe viability of the product.

✦ Providing limited financial incen-tives for local governments to userecycled-content products:

Several SWMDs, including theAshtabula, Clinton, Coshocton-Fairfield-Licking-Perry, Darke,Lorain and Ottawa-Sandusky-Seneca SWMDs offer grants tolocal communities which can beused to purchase recycled-content

products. Other SWMDs, suchas the Clark County SWMD, pur-chase items directly to be used atarea parks and other facilities.Many other SWMDs, such as theAuglaize County SWMD, pro-vide technical assistance to localgovernments on the purchasingof recycled content products,but may not provide direct finan-cial assistance. Finally, someSWMDs, such as the ButlerCounty SWMD, have worked toestablish preferential procure-ment policies within the Countygovernment for recycled contentmaterials.

✦ Coordinating waste exchanges:

Several SWMDs have initiated orparticipate in waste exchanges,including the Ashland, Adams-Clermont, Clinton, Cuyahoga,Franklin, Hamilton, Lake, Lucas,Mahoning, Mercer, Montgomery,Ottawa-Sandusky-Seneca, andWarren SWMDs. Some of theseexchanges are facilitated throughdistribution of a newsletter, whilemany are internet-based services.In addition, many other SWMDs,such as the Ashtabula, Clark,Huron, Putnam, and Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne SWMDs,promote the use of the state-wideOMEx waste exchange service.

✦ Coordinating cooperative buyingand marketing programs for lo-cal entities:

The Cuyahoga County SWMDhas implemented a cooperativemarketing program to assist lo-cal communities in selling theirnewspapers and residential mixedpaper. In addition, the Athens-Hocking, Gallia-Jackson-Meigs-Vinton, and Guernsey-Monroe-Morgan-Muskingum-Noble-Washington (Southeastern Re-gional) SWMDs have partici-pated in a cooperative marketing

1Goal #7 of the 1995 and current State Plans encourages SWMDs to develop market development strategies to promote the useof recycled products and to develop local markets for recovered materials. Unlike most other Goals, however, this Goal isvoluntary for SWMDs. In other words, they have the option of including these strategies as part of their SWMD plans, but arenot required to include strategies if they choose not to.


project focusing on recycledglass. Several other SWMDsprovide technical assistance tolocal communities or specificwaste generators regarding avail-able markets for recyclable ma-terials.

✦ Seeking out businesses in the dis-trict that could improve marketsfor hard to market materials andassist them in applying for ODNRmarket development grants:

Numerous SWMDs have re-ceived ODNR market develop-ment grants which have focusedon hard to market materials. Thefollowing are examples of someof the SWMDs that have hadprojects funded through ODNRgrants:

✦ The Cuyahoga CountySWMD with Cleveland Re-claim Industries, Inc. (TurtlePlastics), to manufacture fireand rescue products madefrom colored HDPE.

✦ The Guernsey-Monroe-Mor-gan-Musk ingum-Noble-Washington (SoutheasternRegional) SWMD withMondo Polymer to increasethe use of recycled plasticfeedstock in the production ofa highway guardrail block.

✦ The Lucas County SWMDwith Plastic Technologies,Inc., to develop a process toturn curbside generated post-consumer PET into a resinthat meets FDA guidlines fordirect food contact.

✦ T h e6A l l e n - C h a m p a i g nHardin-Madison-Shelby-Un ion6(Nor th -Cen t ra l )SWMD with Theco, Inc. topurchase equipment and im-prove their facility to allow itto process mixed colored glassto be used by the fiberglassinsulation industry.

✦ The Stark-Tuscarawas-WayneSWMD and Rittman Paper-board to purchase equipmentto increase their use of post-consumer “mixed paper” intheir raw material feedstockfrom 15% to 50%.

✦ Providing technical assistance tolocal governments and local busi-nesses wishing to use recycled-content materials:

The Solid Waste Authority ofCentral Ohio (SWAC), theSWMD for Franklin County, con-tinues to provide technical assis-tance to businesses. SWACOworked closely with the Colum-bus Chamber of Commerce topromote waste reduction by con-ducting seminars for businessesand conducting general publicitycampaigns to promote waste re-duction and encourage buying re-cycled-content products. TheCuyahoga and Mahoning CountySWMDs also have specific pro-grams designed to promote or fa-cilitate the purchase of recycledcontent materials by area busi-nesses. Many other SWMDs alsopromote a “Buy Recycled” mes-sage to their area governmentsand businesses.

✦ Providing education to the pub-lic, local governments, and busi-nesses through seminars, presen-tations to local organizations andassociations, news releases, anda SWMD newsletter on optionsavailable for market develop-ment:

The Darke County SWMD con-tinues to implement the “ModelCommunity Program” whicheducates local businesses and or-ganizations on ways to reducewaste, recycle more materials,and increase purchase of re-cycled-content products. TheLake County SWMD sponsors aBusiness Waste Reduction Com-mittee comprised of members of

industrial and commercial estab-lishments and the materials re-covery private sector. This com-mittee meets throughout the yearand strives to develop new busi-ness recycling opportunities andpromote waste reduction and re-cycling in the business, govern-ment, and not-for-profit commu-nities.

✦ Other Strategies Implemented bySWMDs but not specifically iden-tified in the 1995 State Plan:

✦ The Coshocton-Fairfield-Licking-Perry SWMD pro-vides grants to local industriesto expand capacity to processor use recycled content mate-rials.

✦ The Butler County SWMDhas developed a recycled con-tent procurement policy forthe County

✦ The Cuyahoga CountySWMD has assisted a localnot-for-profit agency in thedevelopment of a program torebuild mattresses and appli-ances for sale to low-incomefamilies.

Strategies to be Implementedwith this State Plan Update

The following list identifies the rec-ommended strategies to be imple-mented with the adoption of thisState Plan. To address the issuesidentified earlier in this chapter, thefollowing strategies are generallydesigned to help: identify and expandend uses for materials that histori-cally have few available uses or mar-kets (i.e. scrap tires); address supply,quality, or transportation issues formaterials that historically have lowend value (i.e. mixed glass); supportthe establishment or expansion ofbusinesses that use all types of re-cycled content feedstocks; andstimulate the purchase of recycledcontent materials.


1. Support the continued develop-ment and implementation of theOhio Market Development Plan.

The Ohio Market DevelopmentPlan is created by the Inter-agency Recycling Market De-velopment Workgroup(IAWG),which consists of a partnershipamong the ODNR, ODOD,ODOT, DAS, and Ohio EPA.IAWG was created by Ohio’sGeneral Assembly in 1994 topromote recycling market devel-opment by providing and coor-dinating state assistance for theproduction and use of recycledmaterials in Ohio. The IAWGis responsible for publishing theOhio Recycling Market Devel-opment Plan every two years.The most recent plan was pub-lished in 2000. The plan notonly coordinates state assistancefor recycled materials, but alsoidentifies broad strategies to pro-mote recycling markets state-wide. The Plan represents themost logical forum for stateagencies to develop and imple-ment strategies for the promo-tion of recycling markets.

2. Develop and implement a planto increase state agency procure-ment of recycled-content prod-ucts.

This strategy is identified as partof the State Strategies identifiedin Chapter III.

3. Examine whether the currentscrap tire rules impede the de-velopment of scrap tire marketsin Ohio. In addition, identify thebarriers, regulatory or otherwise,to expanded use of tire derivedfuel in Ohio. Develop andimplement a plan to revise therules and/or reduce those barri-ers.

As mentioned earlier in thisdocument, while the use of scrap

tires is not widespread in Ohio,a number of nearby states are ex-panding their use of scrap tiresas a fuel source (i.e. tire-derivedfuel). In fact, a significant num-ber of Ohio tires are being trans-ported out-of-state for use asTDF. Since this appears to be aviable alternative for the use ofa large number of scrap tires,Ohio should explore the barri-ers for this use and work to re-duce those barriers. In addition,there may be some componentsof the scrap tire rules that im-pede the development of othermarkets in Ohio. These issuesshould be explored and resolved.

4. Monitor the current efforts to re-cycle the FGD produced byOhio’s coal burning powerplants. If current plans to re-cycle FGD do not materialize,identify the barriers to utilize thematerial and develop and imple-ment a strategy to reduce thosebarriers.

As mentioned earlier in thisdocument, the production ofFGD in Ohio has had a signifi-cant impact on both the Stateand individual SWMD recyclingrates. It appears that currentplans will result in the recyclingof significant amounts of thismaterial into gypsum board. Ifthis project doesn’t materialize,Ohio EPA should explore thebarriers towards future recyclingof this material and implementa strategy to reduce these barri-ers.

5. Research the factors influencingthe supply, demand, and marketprice of glass and plastics inOhio, and develop a strategy toimprove the markets for thesematerials (these are two of thethree materials identified in the2000 Ohio Recycling Market

Development Plan as most inneed of assistance).

During the development of thecurrent market developmentplan, several SWMDs identifiedglass and plastics as two of themost problematic materials tocollect and market. At the sametime, some end-users of glassand plastic in Ohio have indi-cated that they have greater de-mand for these materials than iscurrently being supplied fromOhio processors. Several factorswere identified that appear tocontribute to this situation.However, a greater understand-ing of these market dynamics isneeded in order to develop moreeffective strategies.

6. Monitor and support the devel-opment of markets and infra-structure for the collection andrecycling of electronic materi-als from residential sources.

As explained in Chapter VIII,the number of electronic com-ponents being disposed by theresidential sector is rapidlygrowing, and many of thesecomponents have potentiallyharmful constituents. Further-more, many electronic compo-nents are highly recyclable.While the awareness of this is-sue has expanded significantly,the infrastructure and processingcapacity in Ohio for handlingthese materials has not yet de-veloped to handle the potentialsupply. A number of SWMDshave already started to sponsorcollection events for electronicmaterials. Continued develop-ment of the processing capacitystatewide is very important ifmore of these materials are go-ing to be diverted from landfilldisposal in the future.


Appendix A 103

APPENDIX AWRRRs by SWMD for Calendar Years 1995 and 1999

Table A-1 WRRRs for the Residential/Commercial Sector, bySWMD, for calendar years 1995 and 1999

SWMD Residential Residential SWMD Residential ResidentialCommercial Commercial Commercial CommercialSector WRRR Sector WRRR Sector WRRR Sector WRRRin 1995 in 1999 in 1995 in 1999(%) (%) (%) (%)

Adams-Clermont 14.4 8.7 Hancock 21.8 23.6

Allen-Champaign- 4.0 7.6 Henry 33.6 27.7Hardin-Madison-Shelby-Union

Ashland 14.0 4.2 Holmes 7.8 6.6

Ashtabula 3.9 20.4 Huron 12.9 32.6

Athens-Hocking 13.8 13.6 Lake 18.3 30.3

Auglaize 12.8 19.6 Lawrence-Scioto 34.6 46.0

Belmont-Jefferson 0.69 20.8 Logan 15.8 16.6

Brown 9.1 6.2 Lorain 3.3 10.2

Butler 18.5 13.1 Lucas 10.3 10.1

Carroll- 3.5 5.5 Mahoning 13.4 10.0Columbiana-Harrison

Clark 21.2 27.0 Medina 22.0 24.9

Clinton 14.2 13.9 Mercer 4.4 13.2

Coshocton- 14.9 21.4 Miami 20.3 28.7Fairfield-Licking-Perry

Crawford 18.8 1.9 Montgomery 45.5 10.2*

Cuyahoga 25.0 22.8 Ottawa- 8.3 10.4Sandusky-Seneca

Darke 14.5 24.9 Pike 4.8 4.8

Defiance-Fulton- 22.7 20.6 Portage 7.5 15.7Paulding-Williams

Delaware-Knox- 13.0 15.5 Preble 10.0 7.2Marion-Morrow

Erie 6.7 11.1 Putnam 36.4 9.7

Fayette-Highland- 11.7 19.9 Richland 26.4 24.1Pickaway-Ross

Franklin 8.1 21.9 Stark- 8.2 14.0Tuscarawas-Wayne

Gallia-Jackson- 9.6 29.2 Summit 6.3 17.1Meigs-Vinton

Geauga-Trumbull 9.9 21.1 Van Wert 23.2 36.1

Greene 12.2 23.3 Warren 4.0 11.5

Guernsey- 5.0 8.2 Wood 9.8 22.8Monroe-Morgan-Muskingum-Noble-Washington

Hamilton 23.6 24.7 Wyandot 3.4 4.5

*Closure of the incinerator facilities in this SWMD had a significant impact on the WRRR.

Table A-2 WRRRs for the Industrial Sector, by SWMD, forcalendar years 1995 and 1999

SWMD Industrial Industrial SWMD Industrial IndustrialSector Sector Sector SectorWRRR WRRR WRRR WRRRin 1995 in 1999 in 1995 in 1999(%) (%) (%) (%)

Adams-Clermont 1.9* 1.4* Hancock 82.7 78.2

Allen-Champaign- 75.2 79.6 Henry 68.9 83.7Hardin-Madison-Shelby-Union

Ashland 81.4 92.0 Holmes 88.7 89.0

Ashtabula 9.2 13.5 Huron 80.4 83.6

Athens-Hocking 0.0 87.4 Lake 71.2 80.8

Auglaize 80.2 98.6 Lawrence- 42.0 0.1Scioto

Belmont-Jefferson 93.9 97.9 Logan 94.9 88.4

Brown 18.4 4.3 Lorain 88.2 97.1

Butler 38.4 40.2 Lucas 53.9 69.3

Carroll- 78.4 83.0 Mahoning 79.3 86.8Columbiana-Harrison

Clark 95.0 97.6 Medina 91.1 90.8

Clinton 74.9 78.1 Mercer 82.0 85.8

Coshocton- 33.4** 51.2** Miami 63.2 78.8Fairfield-Licking-Perry

Crawford 88.6 84.2 Montgomery 48.4 36.4

Cuyahoga 47.9 64.4 Ottawa- 27.8 27.0Sandusky-Seneca

Darke 88.9 61.1 Pike 73.6 92.6

Defiance-Fulton- 72.4 69.1 Portage 14.9 91.0Paulding-Williams

Delaware-Knox- 78.6 89.0 Preble 76.4 88.9Marion-Morrow

Erie 88.8 87.6 Putnam 82.1 98.2

Fayette-Highland- 91.5 96.5 Richland 68.5 97.8Pickaway-Ross

Franklin 79.8 54.3 Stark- 56.5 69.3Tuscarawas-Wayne

Gallia-Jackson- 1.0*** 2.2*** Summit 80.0 83.8Meigs-Vinton

Geauga-Trumbull 83.6 73.1 Van Wert 61.7 82.0

continued

State Solid Waste Management Plan 2001104

SWMD Industrial Industrial SWMD Industrial IndustrialSector Sector Sector SectorWRRR WRRR WRRR WRRRin 1995 in 1999 in 1995 in 1999(%) (%) (%) (%)

Greene 53.4 69.6 Warren 52.0 84.8

Guernsey-Monroe- 85.1 89.3 Wood 77.0 91.3Morgan-Muskingum-Noble-Washington

Hamilton 47.8 54.6 Wyandot 45.3 58.0

*Excluding FGD disposed in the Zimmer Landfill Facility in Clermont County from the calculation of the indus-trial WRRR results in a WRRR of 83.1 percent in 1995 and 83.0 percent in 1999.

**Excluding FGD disposed in the Conesville Residual Waste Landfill Facility in Coshocton County from thecalculation of the industrial WRRR results in a WRRR of 61.2 percent in 1995 and 80.1 percent in 1999.

***Excluding FGD disposed in the Gavin Residual Waste Landfill Facility in Gallia County from the calculationof the industrial WRRR results in a WRRR of 54.8 percent in 1995 and 86.1 percent in 1999.

Appendix A 105


With the passage of S.B. 165, Ohiowas able to establish a comprehen-sive program which provides theState with the ability to manage scraptires appropriately. The first facet ofthis new program is the regulatoryframework established in the OhioRevised Code. Not only did S.B. 165provide Ohio EPA with the author-ity to develop and adopt rules gov-erning all facets of scrap tire man-agement, but it also provided a fund-ing source - a $0.50 per-tire fee onthe first (wholesale) sale of new tires- to support the implementation ofthose rules.

The scrap tire law was designed toaddress not only new and currentlyoperating, viable entities involved inmanaging scrap tires, but also exist-ing, non-compliant and illegal opera-tions.

In addition to creating a comprehen-sive regulatory framework, S.B. 165also provided a number of incentivesto encourage the recycling of scraptires rather than disposing of them.Thus, S.B. 165 mandates that a por-tion of the money generated by thenew tire fee be allocated to researchand development. S.B. 165 also ear-marked money to be used for grantsand loans to be awarded by ODODto recyclers making scrap tire-de-rived products.

The RequirementsEstablished by S.B. 165

Scrap Tire Management Fund

ORC Section 3734.901, enacted bythe passage of S.B. 165, establisheda 50-cents-per-tire fee on the first saleof new tires. This fee generates ap-proximately $3.5 million per yearwhich is deposited into Ohio’s ScrapTire Management Fund. Money de-posited into the Scrap Tire Manage-ment Fund was initially earmarkedfor the following four uses:

✦ Research and Development - Asadopted, S.B. 165 allocated upto $150,000 per year, for fiveyears, to the Institute of Poly-mer Science at the University ofAkron (Institute) for researchand evaluation of alternativemethods of recycling scrap tires.This money was to be distrib-uted to the Institute as an annualgrant from the Scrap Tire Man-agement Fund beginning in statefiscal year 1994 and ending instate fiscal year 1999.

✦ Cleanup Efforts - Ohio EPA usesthe majority of the money fromthe Scrap Tire ManagementFund to clean up scrap tiredumps in Ohio. Ohio EPA isrequired by law, through thescrap tire abatement program, toplace the highest priority on siteswith a million tires or more andthose that pose the most seriousthreats to public health and theenvironment. The abatementprogram provides a much-needed supplement to ongoingefforts by Ohio EPA, local healthdepartments, SWMDs and locallaw enforcement officials toforce scrap tire facility operatorsand those responsible for illegalstockpiling and disposal of tiresto clean up the problem sites thatthey created. These funds areintended to be reimbursed toOhio EPA from costs recoveredfrom the responsible parties.Recovered funds can then bechanneled into additionalcleanup projects.

Cleanup and abatement of themany tire dump sites in Ohio re-quires coordination of local gov-ernments and law enforcementagencies, local health depart-ments, SWMDs, Ohio EPA, andprivate sector contractors. S.B.165 established approximately$10 million in funding over afive-year period to cover re-

moval actions and administra-tive expenses associated withthose actions. This funding wasintended to enable the state toaddress the largest scrap tirepiles and/or those which consti-tute the most serious threats topublic health and the environ-ment. Before any state fundingcan be used for a removal andcleanup operation, vigorous en-forcement efforts must be madeto make the responsible partyclean up the site. The law alsospecifies that state funding shallnot be used for removal actionsagainst any premises where notmore than 100 scrap tires arepresent. One hundred andtwenty days after the Director ofOhio EPA has ordered the re-moval of scrap tires from a site,the Director may award a con-tract for removal of the tireswhile legal action to recover thecost of abatement continues. Ifthe person(s) responsible for theaccumulation fails to pay the fullcost of abatement, a lien may beplaced against the property.

While the Scrap Tire Manage-ment Fund provides a necessaryresource for cleaning up thelarger, illegal scrap tire sites, lo-cal resources are still needed toclean up many of the smallerabandoned scrap tire piles in thestate. As a result, the law allowssolid waste management dis-tricts to spend money collectedvia statutory fees (i.e. tiered dis-posal fees and generation fees)on scrap tire removal actions.

S.B. 165 directs Ohio EPA incontracting for scrap tire pilecleanup and removal operationsto tire preference to the compa-nies which will reuse the scraptires in beneficial use projects,recycling, or energy recoveryover companies proposing todispose of the scrap tires. The

APPENDIX BSummary of the Requirements in Senate Bill 165

Appendix A 107

law also sets the following pri-orities for sites to be addressedthrough the State Scrap TireManagement Fund:

✦ Accumulations that consti-tute a fire hazard or threatto public health;

✦ Accumulations that con-tain more than one millionscrap tires;

✦ Accumulations located indensely populated areas;

✦ Accumulations that are de-termined by the local ap-proved health departmentto constitute a public nui-sance; and

✦ Accumulations located ona premises operating as ascrap tire facility without avalid license.

Ohio EPA also evaluates and pri-oritizes illegal scrap tire sites forconsideration for state fundingfor removal based on whetherthe site is located in proximityto state scenic rivers and natu-ral areas, to public water sup-plies, and other surface watersare also of concern due to thepossibility of off-site migrationof air and water pollutants in theevent of a tire fire at the site.

With roughly 30 to 40 milliontires already abandoned acrossthe state, it is clear that state-financed cleanup programs mustcontinue to be augmented by anumber of other funding and en-forcement mechanisms. Localofficials attempting to addressthe many smaller accumulationsof abandoned scrap tires canexpect assistance from OhioEPA and the State AttorneyGeneral’s Office in enforcementefforts aimed at pursuing re-sponsible parties. LocalSWMDs may also be able toprovide funding for cleanup oftire dump sites that are unlikelyto be addressed in the near fu-ture through the state Scrap TireManagement Fund. Environ-mental penalty monies and

credit projects carried out bythose fined for other environ-mental violations are also a po-tential source of cleanup activi-ties. Perhaps most importantly,the new shipping paper require-ments and regulatory programshould serve as a significant de-terrent to further dumping. Op-erators of existing tire storageand recovery facilities will alsobe under new state requirementsto draw down the size of theirstorage piles.

✦ Compliance Monitoring and En-forcement - Ohio EPA’s DSIWMreceives up to $750,000 per yearfrom the Scrap Tire Manage-ment Fund to support compli-ance monitoring and enforce-ment of the scrap tire law andregulations and to allow OhioEPA to oversee state contractsfor cleanup of scrap tires.

✦ Financial Assistance - A portionof the Scrap Tire ManagementFund is used to provide grants,low-interest loans, and other fi-nancial assistance to scrap tirerecyclers. Under the terms ofS.B. 165, this financial assis-tance was administered throughODOD. One million dollars peryear from 1994 to 2000 was ear-marked from the scrap tire man-agement fund for this purpose.Funds designated for this pur-pose are placed into ODOD’sFacility Establishment Fundwhere loans and grants are is-sued in amounts ranging from$25,000 to $150,000. Loans areprovided on a first-come, first-served basis to companies thatcan demonstrate they will cre-ate new scrap tire-derived prod-ucts. ODOD can also providefunds for qualifying beneficialuse projects where whole or pro-cessed scrap tires are proposedto be substituted for other moreexpensive materials (on projectswhich have been pre-approvedby Ohio EPA). Funding is des-ignated as “take-out” financingwhereby a business must com-plete its project utilizing financ-ing from a conventional lenderas its equity. Upon completion

of the project, funds from theFacility Establishment Fund arethen disbursed. Preferential in-terest rates and terms are avail-able for qualifying companieslocating or expanding in “dis-tressed” areas. ODNR will as-sume responsibility for this pro-gram from ODOD in state fis-cal year 2002 and will developnew guidelines regarding howODNR will administer thesefunds.

Appendix B


Scrap Tire Generators

Under Ohio’s scrap tire law and theregulations adopted in accordancewith that law, most scrap tire gen-erators (which include tire dealers,auto repair shops, tire retreadingshops, trucking terminals, and indi-viduals) are exempt from registra-tion, PTI, and license requirementsas long as they manage their scraptires such that they remain within thespecific exemption limits set forth inthe law.

All generators are responsible for en-suring that they are using a registeredscrap tire transporter to remove anddeliver scrap tires. Generators mustretain records for three years docu-menting their scrap tire shipments.The generators also must properlystore any scrap tires in order to avoidcreating a nuisance, a threat to pub-lic health and safety, or a fire haz-ard.

Scrap Tire Transporters

Ohio’s regulatory program requiresanyone who transports more than tenscrap tires that originate or terminatein the state of Ohio and who doesnot qualify for an exemption to reg-ister annually with Ohio EPA. At thetime the 1995 State Plan wasadopted, Ohio law also required eachscrap tire transporter to obtain finan-cial assurance in an amount that isat least $50,000. In February, 1996,Substitute H. B. 545 was enactedthereby reducing the amount of fi-nancial assurance required to$20,000 per registered transporter.The reduction was intended to allowmore transporters to qualify for reg-istration while maintaining an ac-ceptable level of financial assuranceon all tire transporters.

Scrap tire transporters may deliverscrap tires only to a licensed scraptire facility, an approved beneficial

user, another registered transporter,a solid waste incinerator or energyrecovery facility, or an out-of-statefacility operating in compliance withthe laws of that state. Scrap tiretransporters must use shipping papersfor all scrap tires and submit annualreports summarizing their scrap tireactivities.

Scrap Tire Collection, Storage,Recovery and Disposal Facilities

Under the scrap tire law and regula-tions, scrap tire facilities are requiredto obtain a PTI or registration fromOhio EPA and an annual solid wastelicense from the approved localhealth department. Specific exemp-tions from registration or permittingis included in the law if certain fa-cilities such as tire dealers and tireretreaders meet specific require-ments. Annual reporting and ship-ping paper requirements for all li-censed facilities will enable the stateto track shipments of tires movinglegally to recycling activities or dis-posal facilities.

Scrap Tire Collection and Storage

Scrap tires may be managed aboveground if the proposed site is regis-tered or permitted and licensed,meets Ohio EPA regulations, and isin compliance with local zoning, fire,and health codes. The site will serveas a holding facility until the tirescan be recycled or properly disposed.The scrap tire regulations establishedthe following standards for storageand collection facilities.

Scrap Tire Storage Facility

✦ Stores only whole scrap tires;

✦ Scrap tire storage piles are to beno greater than 2,500 square feetin area;

✦ Registered scrap tire storage fa-cilities cannot exceed 10,000square feet in area (for example,four individual storage piles of2,500 square feet);

✦ Permitted scrap tire storage fa-cilities cannot exceed three acresin area and are only approved ifthe storage facility is owned bya registered or permitted scraptire recovery or monofill/monocell facility;

✦ Adequate fire lanes must be cre-ated and maintained in andaround each scrap tire pile lo-cated outdoors. These aisles areto be free of obstructions andcombustibles at all times;

✦ Open burning or flames on pre-mises where scrap tires arestored is prohibited within fiftyfeet of a scrap tire storage pile;

✦ Effective control measures formosquitoes and other vectorsmust be implemented. Suchcontrol may include the appli-cation of cover material (in nocase shall cover materials con-sist of soil), pesticide or larvi-cide, shredding the tires to a sizethat can be demonstrated to nothold water, or other methods ap-proved by the Director of OhioEPA. Where cover materials areutilized as such control mea-sures, scrap tires are to be cov-ered at all times except whentires are being added or removedfrom the pile.

Scrap Tire Collection Facility

✦ Receives only whole scrap tiresfrom the public.

✦ All scrap tires are to be storedin portable containers only.

✦ The maximum storage area isfive thousand cubic feet.

APPENDIX CThe Scrap Tire Regulatory Program

Appendix A 109

✦ Effective control measures formosquitoes and fire must beimplemented at the facility. Ef-fective controls may includecovering the tires, pesticide orlarvicide, and security for thefacility.

Scrap Tire Recovery

A scrap tire processing facility thatuses a controlled combustion, ther-mal, mechanical, chemical, or otherprocess to extract or produce usableproducts, materials, or energy fromthe scrap tires is a scrap tire recov-ery facility. A scrap tire shredder,either fixed or mobile, is also con-sidered to be a scrap tire recoveryfacility. Scrap tire baling equipmentis not considered to be a recovery fa-cility unless it is used to produce afinal product. These facilities areallowed to have on-site a temporarytire storage area that does not requirean additional registration or licenseas long as the temporary storage areais in compliance with the storage re-quirements for the area. Whether ornot a scrap tire recovery facility mustbe registered or permitted by OhioEPA is based on the facility’s DailyDesigned Input Capacity (DDIC).

The scrap tire rules address threeclasses of scrap tire recovery facili-ties - mobile facilities, Class I facili-ties, and Class II facilities.

Mobile Scrap Tire RecoveryFacilities (OAC Rule 3745-27-67)

✦ Include any tire cutting, baling,or shredding equipment that ismoved from site to site for thepurpose of processing scrap tiresat the site of before the scrap tiresare removed from the site.

✦ Must be registered with Ohio EPAand licensed annually with thelocal health department if the pri-mary business location is in thatcounty.

✦ Out-of-state primary business lo-cations are licensed by Ohio EPA.

✦ Are required to have financialassurance of at least $50,000

✦ Must comply with general han-dling and storage requirementscontained in OAC Rule 3745-27-67 and 3745-27-60 or 3745-27-65.

Class I Scrap TireRecovery Facilities

✦ A scrap tire recovery facility witha DDIC of 200 tons of scrap tiresper day or greater

✦ Must be permitted by Ohio EPAand licensed annually by the lo-cal health department

✦ Must comply with siting criteriaestablished in OAC Rule 3745-27-63

✦ Are required to have financial as-surance in an amount that is com-mensurate with the number oftires stored at the facility

✦ Must comply with operationalcriteria established in OAC Rule3745-27-65, including mosquitoand vector controls, storage areaand pile size limitations, fire laneavailability, fire contingencyplans, fire response and preven-tion requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting require-ments.

✦ Must perform final closure activi-ties in accordance with OAC Rule3745-27-66.

Class II Scrap TireRecovery Facility

✦ A scrap tire recovery facility witha DDIC of less than 200 tons ofscrap tires per day

✦ Must be registered with OhioEPA and licensed annually by thelocal health department

✦ Must meet siting criterial estab-lished in OAC Rule 3745-27-62

✦ Are required to have financialassurance in an amount that iscommensurate with the numberof tires stored at the facility

✦ Must comply with operationalcriteria established in OAC Rule

3745-27-65, including mosquitoand vector controls, storage areaand pile size limitations, fire laneavailability, fire contingencyplans, fire response and preven-tion requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting require-ments.

✦ Must perform final closure activi-ties in accordance with OAC Rule3745-27-66.

Scrap Tire Disposal

Scrap Tire Monocell/Monofill Facilities

Scrap tires that cannot otherwise bebeneficially reused should be segre-gated from the solid waste streamand disposed in monofill/monocellfacilities.

Monocell

A scrap tire monocell is an indi-vidual area or cell within a solidwaste landfill that accepts onlyshredded or processed tires. Amonocell can be either contiguousor non-contiguous to other cells,phases, or units of the solid wastelandfill facility, and can be estab-lished at either a municipal solidwaste landfill facility or an indus-trial solid waste landfill facility. Inorder to establish a monocell, theowner or operator of the solidwaste landfill facility must obtaina permit to install. If the monocellis contiguous to the solid wastelandfill facility, then the applica-tion for the permit to install is sub-mitted in accordance with eitherOAC Rule 3745-27-06 or OACRule 3745-29-06, whichever isapplicable. If noncontigous to thesolid waste landfill facility, thenthe permit to install application issubmitted in accordance with OACRule 3745-27-70.

In addition to having to obtain apermit to install, the owner/opera-tor of the scrap tire monocell mustalso comply with requirements forconstruction, operation, closure,post-closure, and financial assur-ance. For contiguous units, theseare the same, with minor excep-

Appendix C


tions for operational requirements,as the requirements contained inOAC Rules 3745-27-06 to 3745-27-20 (for monocells located atmunicipal solid waste landfill fa-cilities or OAC Rules 3745-29-06to 3745-29-20 (for monocells lo-cated at industrial solid waste land-fill facilities).

There is only one scrap tiremonocell facility currently oper-ating in Ohio. That facility is lo-cated at the Pike Sanitation Land-fill in Pike County

Monofills

A scrap tire monofill is a sanitarylandfill facility that accepts onlyshredded or processed scrap tires.Because processing tires typicallyresults in a reduction of up to 75percent in the volume of materialbeing disposed, monofill space isconserved. In addition, scrap tiresplaced in a monofill may be“mined” at a later date when thetechnologies for reuse and recy-cling are more economical andbecome more prevalent in the re-gion.

The requirements for scrap tiremonofills are contained primarilyin OAC Rules 3745-27-70 to 75and are as follows:

✦ Permit to Install - Theowner or operator of ascrap tire monofill mustobtain a permit to install inaccordance with OAC Rule3745-27-70

✦ Siting Criteria - A scrap tiremonofill must be locatedin compliance with sitingcriteria that are specified inOAC Rule 3745-27-71.

✦ Construction - A scrap tiremonofill must be con-structed in accordance withOAC Rule 3745-27-72

✦ Final Closure - Scrap TireMonofills must be closed inaccordance with OAC Rule3745-27-73

✦ Post-Closure Care - Theowner or operator of a scraptire monofill must performpost-closure care in accor-dance with OAC Rule 3745-27-74

✦ Operation - A scrap tiremonofill must be operatedin accordance with OACRule 3745-27-75.

✦ Can accept processed scraptires for disposal

✦ Can accept whole tires fordisposal but must processall tires, except large off-the-road tires, prior to dis-posal

In addition, owners and operators ofscrap tire monofills must obtain anannual operating license and providefinancial assurance. The financialassurance requirements for scrap tiremonofills, as for all landfill facili-ties, are contained in OAC Rules3745-27-15 through 3745-27-17.

There are two operating scrap tiremonofill facilities in Ohio. Thosefacilities, both of which are locatedin Stark County, are the AmericanTire Monofill and the C & E stripmine reclamation project.

Scrap Tire Beneficial Use

The person(s) wanting to beneficiallyuse scrap tires is required to notifyOhio EPA of their intent and providedetailed information in writing con-cerning the use of the scrap tires. Ifthe proposal(s) does not qualify as abeneficial use, then the applicantmay be required to obtain a licenseand a PTI or registration as a scraptire facility. Without some kind ofauthorizing document, the applicantmay be cited for open dumping.Some categories of beneficial usesare approved in the rules and do notrequire specific Ohio EPA authoriz-ing documents, provided the uses donot violate local fire or zoning re-quirements. The number of scraptires stockpiled for the beneficial usecannot be greater than the totalneeded for the beneficial use Fur-thermore, stockpiled scrap tires mustbe stored in accordance with the stor-age requirements for less than 30days unless a longer duration is ex-plicitly approved in Director’s Find-ings and Orders.

Using pieces of scrap tires or crumbrubber to manufacture or assemblecommercial products is a means ofrecycling scrap tires. However, sincethose products are considered to be

Appendix A 111

commodities for sale or exchange,the use of such products does notmeet the definition of beneficial usefor purposes of applying the scraptire rules and is not, therefore, re-stricted by the scrap tire rules. Ben-eficial use, as covered by the scraptire rules, does apply to any end useof whole, cut or shredded tires thatresults in the material being placedinto or on the ground or waters ofthe state. Such placement may con-stitute disposal.

The 1995 State Plan indicated thatbeneficial use would also apply toany end use of crumb rubber as a soilconditioner, compost filler, or otherapplications that place the crumbrubber directly into or on the groundor waters of the state. The regula-tions, as adopted, regulate neither thestorage of crumb rubber nor the useof crumb rubber as a soil conditioner.Ohio EPA maintained that, due to thehigh cost involved in processingscrap tires into a powder-like mate-rial, crumb rubber has enough “valueadded” to prevent a company fromwasting or illegally disposing of thematerial. Furthermore, according tostudies considered during the draft-ing of the scrap tire rules, leachatefrom crumb rubber products is notconsidered to be detrimental to pub-

lic health or the environment. Thus,the definition of “scrap tire” in therules was drafted in such a way as toexclude crumb rubber productswhich have been processed down toa size that is no longer visually iden-tifiable as scrap tires and which nolonger contains wire or fiber. Thedefinition of “scrap tire” was limitedin this way to provide regulatory re-lief, thereby encouraging the use ofcrumb rubber produced from scraptires.

The 1995 State Plan indicated thatthe use of crumb rubber as compostfiller would be regulated as a ben-eficial use. As adopted, however, thescrap tire rules allow shredded tiresto be used as a compost bulkingagent. That beneficial use of shred-ded tires is approved by rule; that issuch use requires only notification toOhio EPA prior to conducting theuse. The use of shredded tires as acompost bulking agent is restrictedto shredded bias ply tires or tireshreds with all metal removed. Ofcourse, before shredded tires can beused as a compost bulking agent,Ohio EPA must issue an approval foran alternate bulking agent to theowner/operator of the compostingfacility.

Persons purchasing or acceptingwhole, cut, or shredded tires from ascrap tire recovery facility or anyother source may have to providebeneficial use notification to OhioEPA if they plan to place the wholeor processed tires in or on the groundor waters of the state. The notifica-tion requirements will not apply tosuch common sense uses by indi-vidual homeowners as a single tireswing or flower planter at a singlefamily residence or to items manu-factured or assembled from pieces ofscrap tires for temporary use on theground such as mats, road culvertpipes, etc. Ohio EPA approval mustbe sought for any use of tires for ero-sion control, fill, drainage layers,submerged reefs, and so on. OhioEPA has already issued guidancegoverning the use of shredded orchipped tires in the construction ofsolid waste landfill leachate collec-tion systems and freeze-thaw protec-tion layers. The owner/operator of ascrap tire facility or solid waste fa-cility seeking to place whole, cut, orshredded scrap tires on or into theground or waters of the state in anymanner not covered by their facilityregistration or PTI and license mustalso file a beneficial use notification.

Appendix C


Disbursed or Encumbered: Fiscal Year Grant/Loan Amount

American Scrap Tire Recyclers, Inc. 00 $ 190,000.00

Ashland County Solid Waste District 98 175,000.00

Ashland County Solid Waste District II 00 481,000.00

Avon Local Board of Education 01 52,506.91

Brecksville-Broadview Heights City School Dist. 00 66,103.00

C&E Coal, Inc. 97 250,000.00

C & E Coal, Inc. 00 250,000.00

CFLP Solid Waste District / Licking County 00 85,676.00

Cloverleaf Local Schools 00 113,032.84

Columbiana Exempted Village Schools 02 52,631.00

Columbus Grove Local School District 00 79,250.00

Continental Exempted Village Schools 02 52,631.00

Crestview Local Schools 02 23,000.00

Crooksville Exempted Village Schools 02 53,631.00

Durable Corporation 02 73,000.00

E. Canton Community Sports Complex Committee 01 52,631.00

Elida Board of Education 00 159,315.00

Fairborn City Schools 02 52,631.00

FIFO Manufacturing, Inc. 97 40,000.00

Firelands Local School District 01 100,000.00

Franklin Monroe Local School District 00 64,450.00

Howland Local Schools 01 52,631.00

Jefferson Local Schools 00 180,000.00

Johnstown-Monroe Local Schools 00 147,503.00

Licking Valley Local School District 00 76,500.00

Lima City School District 00 194,500.00

Lorain City School 01 52,631.00

Louisville City Schools 01 49,637.50

Lucas County Solid Waste District 00 500,000.00

Lucas County Solid Waste District 02 52,631.00

APPENDIX DScrap Tire Management Program - Projects For Which Funds Have Been Disbursedand Encumbered Through Grants and Loans Administered by ODOD

Appendix A 113

Disbursed or Encumbered: Fiscal Year Grant/ Loan Amount

Mahoning County Solid Waste Management District 02 52,631.00

Marion Local School District 02 52,631.00

Muskingum County Commissioners 02 52,631.00

National Feedscrew & Machining/LOAN 97 250,000.00

Newark Catholic High School 00 126,949.00

New Bremen Local School District 00 102,868.00

Newton Falls Exempted Village Schools 01 52,631.00

North Central Local Schools 01 72,000.00

North Fork Local School District 01 94,740.00

Northridge Athletic Boosters 02 90,028.00

NFM/Welding Engineers 99 800,000.00

Otsego Community Sports Complex 00 52,631.00

Ottawa/Sandusky/Seneca Jt.Solid Waste Mngt. Dist. I 96 125,000.00

Ottawa/Sandusky/Seneca Jt.Solid Waste Mngt. Dist. II 01 73,394.23

Parkworks, Inc. 01 40,888.50

Parkworks, Inc. 02 67,111.50

Perry Local Schools 00 92,250.00

Pleasant Local Schools Board of Education 00 144,240.84

Ravenna City School District 00 250,000.00

Renewable Energy Products, Inc. 97 250,000.00

Ridgemont Local Schools 02 60,000.00

Ridgewood Local Board of Education 01 52,631.00

Ripley Union Lewis Huntington 02 130,000.00

Smithfield Township Board of Trustees 00 194,001.97

Summit Akron Solid Waste Management Auth. I 00 237,589.50

Summit Akron Solid Waste Management Auth. I 02 178,890.00

Summit/Akron Solid Waste Management Auth. II 01 52,631.00

Tiffin City Schools 01 52,631.00

Tri-Valley Local School District 00 67,736.40

United Local School District 02 52,631.00

Appendix D


Disbursed or Encumbered: Fiscal Year Grant/ Loan Amount

Vinton County Local Schools 02 100,000.00

Warren Local School District/City of Warren 01 215,900.00

Washington-Nile Local School District 01 52,631.00

Wayne County Rubber, Inc. 02 135,000.00

Western Reserve Local School District 00 115,250.00

TOTAL DISBURSED AND ENCUMBERED $8,311,670.69

APPENDIX D

Scrap Tire Management Program - Projects For Which Funds Have Been Disbursedand Encumbered Through Grants and Loans Administered by ODOD

Appendix A 115

In an attempt to address the“discontinuities between supply anddemand”, the 1989 State Plan listedfour major recommendations forrecyclables market development atthe State level. This appendix dis-cusses each of those objectives andpresents information regarding thevarious programs that have been un-dertaken by Ohio’s State govern-ment, and/or participated in by Stategovernment since the adoption ofthe 1995 State Plan. This informa-tion is taken from the “Review of the1995 State Solid Waste ManagementPlan”, issued by Ohio EPA on June10, 1998. The actual language foreach objective is shown in italics.

1989 State Plan - Objective A

The state should legislatively estab-lish a program within the Departmentof Development to develop marketsfor recycled goods. The programshould focus on industries using re-cycled goods. This program shouldinclude a legislatively developedlow-interest loan program for mar-ket development, and for researchand development of recycled goodsand markets.

Activities that have been imple-mented since the adoption of the1995 State Plan that have contrib-uted to the accomplishment of Ob-jective A are as follows:

✦ House Bill 345 — Recycling Mar-ket Development Plan: This leg-islation, effective in July 1994 re-quires the state to prepare a recy-cling market development planevery two years. The second StateRecycling Market DevelopmentPlan was published in December1996, and includes commitmentsfrom five state agencies (NaturalResources, Environmental Pro-

tection, Transportation, Adminis-trative Services, and Develop-ment) to implement projects de-signed to improve markets for re-cyclable material. The third bi-ennial plan is scheduled to becompleted by December 1998.

✦ ODNR Plastic Pallet/Lumber Re-search: The Ohio Department ofNatural Resources, in conjunctionwith and the U.S. Department ofEnergy, completed a plastic pal-let research and demonstrationproject. This project demon-strated that using a recycled plas-tic pallet for storing/handling 55gallon drums of hazardous mate-rials was feasible and cost effec-tive. Also, in 1997, Battelle Re-search Laboratories, Inc., withsupport from ODNR, was able toobtain approval for five Ameri-can Society for Testing and Ma-terials (ASTM) standards for re-cycled plastic lumber.

✦ Pollution Prevention Loan Pro-gram: This program was estab-lished in 1994 as a joint effort be-tween Ohio EPA and the OhioDepartment of Development.From 1994 through February1998, small and medium-sizedcompanies throughout Ohio havebeen awarded low interestloans totaling approximately$3,634,000 for construction and/or purchase of equipment to com-plete pollution prevention activi-ties. While Ohio EPA has re-viewed the technical aspects of62 projects since 1995, twenty ofthese projects have received fund-ing from the Department of De-velopment. From 1995 throughFebruary 1998, four projects havebeen funded which include solidwaste recycling as well as fourprojects with solid waste sourcereduction components.

1989 State Plan - Objective B

The buying of recycled content prod-ucts will be promoted in the State ofOhio.

The following activities, which havecontributed to the Accomplishmentof Objective B, have been imple-mented since the adoption of the1995 State Plan:

✦ ODNR Pilot ‘Recycled Product”Projects: There have been no newpilot projects since 1995.

✦ Ohio Newspaper AssociationVoluntary Recycled NewsprintProcurement agreement: In 1996,the Ohio Newspaper Associationreported that its members used312,168 metric tons of newsprintcontaining recycled fiber. Theaggregate recycled fiber contentwas 26 percent, down slightlyfrom the 30.3 percent in 1995.This total still exceeds the 23percent goal established for 1996in the Ohio Voluntary NewsprintAgreement.

✦ House Bill 25 state agency report:ODNR’s Division of Recyclingand Litter Prevention (DRLP)continues to actively promote theconcept of “buying recycled” tostate employees through publica-tions, displays, training and otherawareness materials. Reportsrequired under House Bill 25indicate that Ohio state agenciespurchased $7,674,729 in statefiscal year 1996 and $3,162,412in state fiscal year 1997 ofrecycled content products. Thedecrease from 1996 to 1997 is inlarge part due to two factors: 1)incomplete reporting, and 2) adecrease by the Ohio LotteryCommission in its purchase oflottery tickets.

APPENDIX EMarket Development Projects Initiated to address the four recycling marketdevelopment objectives identified in the 1989 State Solid Waste Management Plan

Appendix E


In 1997, Ohio GovernorVoinovich challenged stateagencies to increase their pur-chase of recycled-content prod-ucts by 15 percent in fiscal year1998. As a result, the Ohio De-partments of Natural Resources,Transportation, AdministrativeServices, Development and OhioEPA signed Memoranda of Un-derstanding committing to in-crease their Departments’ re-cycled content purchases by 15percent. The Governor directedall other departments to meet the15% increase as well.

✦ Ohio’s Recycled ProductVendor’s Guide: This guide wasupdated and distributed for thethird time in 1996. The guide wasalso made available through theODNR-DRLP web page at: http://www.dnr.ohio.gov/odnr/recy-cling

✦ Buy-Recycled Grants: ODNR-DRLP continued to provide fundsto Ohio local governments for thepurchase and testing of recycled-content products. From 1996-1998, over $ 800,000 wasawarded through the Recycle,Ohio! grant to increase localpurchase of recycled-contentproducts.

✦ Ohio Buy-Recycled BusinessAlliance: Since its inception in1995, the Alliance’s membershiphas grown from the 12 originalfounding members, to almost150. The overall goal of thisorganization is to document andincrease businesses’ purchase anduse of recycled-content products.Recently, the Alliance has beenconcentrating on expanding itsmembership and determining afunding mechanism to sustain theorganization and its services.

✦ University of Toledo Researchproject: The Ohio Departmentof Transportation sponsoredresearch with the University ofToledo, College of Engineering,

on the cost effectiveness of usingrecycled-content materials. Theresearch was to develop a proce-dure for performing life cycle costanalysis for recycled materialssuch as rubber, glass, paper andplastics.

1989 State Plan - Objective C

Efforts will be directed to promotethe expansion of existing industriesand attract industries to Ohio thatwill use recycled materials.

Activities that have been imple-mented since adoption of the 1995State Plan that have contributed tothe accomplishment of Objective Care as follows:

✦ Senate Bill 165 - Scrap Tire re-cycling market development: SeeChapter VI for a discussion of theon-going programs implementedas a result of Senate Bill 165.

✦ ODNR Recycling Market Devel-opment Grant Program: ODNR-DRLP awarded over $1.2 million,from 1996-1998, to 16 Ohio lo-cal businesses for the implemen-tation of projects to improve themarkets of post-consumerrecyclables in Ohio. For a sum-mary of those grants, see Appen-dix D.

✦ ODNR Demonstration projects:In an effort to target mixed colorglass and residential mixed paper,two recycled materials with lim-ited markets, ODNR-DRLPfunded two demonstration pro-grams - one with Strategic Mate-rials, Inc, in Cleveland, and onewith Central Fiber Corporation inDayton.

Also, ODNR-DRLP, in conjunc-tion with the Butler and HamiltonCounty SWMDs, City of ForestPark, Cincinnati Recycled Fibers,Browning Ferris Industries,Rumpke Recycling, and theAmerican Forest and Paper As-

sociation, planned and imple-mented a pilot “residential mixedpaper” collection program inButler County. The pilot ran for10 months and many valuablethings were learned from this pi-lot.

1989 State Plan - Objective D

The State of Ohio will activelypursue the development of regionalmarkets for products containingrecycled materials.

Since the adoption of the 1995 StatePlan, the following activities havebeen implemented, contributing tothe accomplishment of Objective C:

✦ Ohio Materials Exchange: Apartnership between Ohio EPA,Department of Natural Re-sources, Department of Develop-ment and the Association of OhioRecyclers has resulted in a state-wide materials exchange pro-gram, OMEx. OMEx providesOhio businesses with a mecha-nism for finding an alternativeto disposal for their company’swaste. Materials exchangesfacilitate turning one company’swaste into another company’sraw materials, thus avoidinglandfilling of such materials.OMEx began operations in early1998.

✦ Cooperative Marketing Initiative:In 1997, ODNR-DRLP facilitatedseveral meetings with many ofOhio’s public recycling facilitymanagers in an effort to increasethe cooperative marketing of vari-ous recyclable materials. As aresult of these meetings, sevenregional groups were identifiedthat ODNR-DRLP will be able towork with to improve markets forrecycled materials. Two of theregions have already initiatedactivities that should improvemarkets for residentially gener-ated recyclables in their region.

Appendix A 117

*Virginia Aveni(Statewide EnvironmentalAdvocacy Org.)Cuyahoga CountyPlanning Commission323 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 400Cleveland, OH 44113(216) 443-3700Fax: (216) [email protected]

*Erv Ball 2

(Health Departments)Cuyahoga County Board of Health1375 Euclid Avenue, Suite 524Cleveland, OH 44115(216) 443-5670Fax: (216) [email protected]

**Sally Beals(Municipalities)Mayor, City of Centerville7875 Stonehouse CourtCenterville, OH 45459(937) 433-6492Fax: (937) 433-6004

***Brad Biggs(ODOD Director’s Designee)Environmental Liaison77 S. High Street, 28th FloorP.O. Box 1001Columbus, OH 43216-1001(614) 644-8201Fax: (614) [email protected]

***Michael Canfield(ODNR Director’s Designee)ODNR Division of Recycling1889 Fountain SquareCourt Building F-2Columbus, OH 43224-1388(614) 265-6351Fax: (614) [email protected]***Senator James Carnes

Ohio SenateStatehouseColumbus, OH 43215(614) 466-8076Fax: (614) 995-1665

***To Be Determined(Previously: RepresentativeJoseph E. Haines)(House of Representatives)77 South High StreetColumbus, OH 43266-0603(614) 466-2038

***Dan Harris 1

(Ohio EPA Director’s Designee)Ohio EPADivision of Solid & Infectious WasteManagementP. O. Box 1049Columbus, OH 43216-1049(614) 728-5377Fax: (614) [email protected]

**Dell Heitcamp(Public)LWVCA3203 Observatory Ave.Cincinnati, OH 45208(513) 871-7213Fax: (513) [email protected]

**Steve Hill(Industrial Generators)GE Aircraft EnginesOne Neumann WayMail Drop T-165Cincinnati, OH 45215(513) 552-5007Fax: (513) [email protected]

**Sean Logan(Counties)Commissioner, Columbiana County105 South Market StreetLisbon, OH 44432(330) 424-9511 (x 620)Fax: (330) 424-9511

**Michael Long(Single County Districts)Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio6220 Young RoadGrove City, OH 43123(614) 871-5100Fax: (614) [email protected]

*W. Reed Madden(Counties)Greene County Commissioner-CCAO35 Greene StreetXenia, OH 45385(937) 562-5006Fax: (937) [email protected]

*Phillip F. Palumbo(Joint County Districts)Stark/Tuscarawas/Wayne SWMD9918 Wilkshire Blvd., NEBolivar, OH 44612(800) 678-9839Fax: (330) [email protected]

*John Rininger(Municipalities)OML2333 Springmill RoadKettering, OH 45440-2503(937) 434-1839Fax: (937) [email protected]

**Antoinette Starkey(Private Recycling Industry)Gateway Recycling Products, Inc.315 Brenton LaneMedina, Ohio 44256(330) 723-7053Fax: (330) [email protected]

*Joseph Sykes(Townships) Miami Township Trustee2325 Cliff RoadNorth Bend, OH 45052(513) 941-3393Fax: (513) 941-3393 or(513) [email protected]

*Kathy Trent 3

(Private SW Mgt. Industry)Waste Management5751 Center Hill AvenueCincinnati, OH 45232(513) 242-4301Fax: (513) [email protected]

**Richard Williams(Townships)New Russia Township Trustee45342 Butternut Ridge RoadOberlin, OH 44074(440) 774-1152Fax: (440) 774-5004

* SWAC Member - Appointed - Term Expires 6/23/2002

** SWAC Member - Appointed - Term Expires 6/23/2003

*** SWAC Member - Ex Officio

1 Chairperson 2 Vice-chairperson 3 Secretary

APPENDIX FSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS September, 2001

Appendix F

Responsiveness Summary for Comments Received on the Draft 2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan

dated June 19, 2001

This document summarizes the interested party comments received on the draft “2001 State Solid WasteManagement Plan” dated June 19, 2001 with the Agency’s response to those comments.

In an effort to help you review this document, the Agency has organized the information in a consistent formatand used different fonts to distinguish among comments and responses. The document is organized as follows:

• Comment #: This section provides a summary of interested party comments by similar orgeneral subject type. For some comments, only an excerpt of the comment is provided. Theseexcerpts are, however, direct quotes from the interested party comments.

• Response #: This section has language in italics and summarizes the Agency’s response tothe corresponding comment section.

Finally, it should be noted that a number of changes have been made in response to interested party comments.These changes consisted of minor punctuation and format corrections and are included in the final version ofthe “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan.” These minor changes are not summarized in this document.The comments that are summarized in this document were obtained during the public comment period that wasopen from July 23, 2001 to August 21, 2001 and five public hearings held on August 15, 16, 17, 20, and 21,2001. The Agency has reviewed all of these comments and provides the responses contained in this document.

Comment 1: Why does the Ohio EPA and county health departments not consider unusually foul andoffensive smell coming from landfills a hazard? The smell of garbage and sludge is morethan just a nuisance!

Response 1: Ohio’s solid waste statute and regulations do address odors emanating from landfillfacilities, though odors are considered to fall under the realm of a nuisance conditionrather than a threat to human health, safety, and the environment.

Rule 3745-27-19(E)(6) of the Ohio Administrative Code requires owners and operatorsof municipal solid waste landfill facilities to “...manage the facility in such a mannerthat...odors are strictly controlled so as not to cause a nuisance or a health hazard.”Landfill owners and operators are prohibited, by rule 3745-27-07(H)(4)(c) of the OhioAdministrative Code, from placing solid waste within 1000 feet of a domicile. Thisrequirement was established to address nuisance-type issues, such as odors. Inaddition, landfill owners and operators are required, by rule 3745-27-19(F) of the OhioAdministrative Code, to apply daily cover to all exposed solid waste by the end of theday to control, among other things, odors. Ohio EPA believes that these provisionsappropriately establish specific operational requirements to control odors emanatingfrom landfill facilities.

Page 2 of 14

As is described in the draft “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan,” municipalitiesand townships can utilize zoning as a means of specifying where landfill facilities canand can’t be built as well as their proximity to residential areas. Ohio EPA has alwaysand continues to maintain that zoning is the appropriate tool for addressing andcontrolling localized impacts of landfill facilities.

No changes have been made to the draft “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan”in response to this comment.

Comment 2: ...an EPA spokesperson was quoted as saying American Landfill in Waynesburg, OH isallowed to accept sludge, New Jersey Sludge nonetheless. Why here in Ohio?

Response 2: Landfill owners and operators are allowed to accept sludge wastes that meet thedefinition of solid waste. Rule 3745-27-01(B)(43) of the Ohio Administrative Codestates, in pertinent part, “Solid wastes means such unwanted residual, solid or semisolidmaterial as results from industrial, commercial, agricultural, and communityoperations...” That rule goes on to define “semisolid material” as material that “...doesnot contain liquids which can be readily released under normal climactic conditions, asdetermined by method 9095 (paint filter liquids test) in SW-846: ‘Test methods forEvaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods’.” At this point in time, Ohiocannot legally prohibit owners and operators of solid waste landfill facilities fromaccepting sludge material from out-of-state generators, or any other material for thatmatter, that qualifies as solid waste simply because the material is generated in anotherstate. Several federal court decisions have ruled that such a prohibition would violatethe commerce clause of the U. S. Constitution.

No changes have been made to the draft “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan”in response to this comment.

Comment 3: Current regulations allow a water aquifer to be no less than 15 feet from the bottom of adump! Conceivably, this regulation could be strengthened!

Response 3: The Agency’s position, based on experience and scientific review, is that fifteen feet ofseparation between the bottom of the liner and the top of the uppermost aquifer systemprovides sufficient distance to protect the uppermost aquifer system from contaminationdue to a potential leachate release through the liner. The distance is necessary to notonly provide a natural or constructed barrier to leachate migration but also to providenatural attenuation of any contaminates by providing a minimum amount of soil orlithified material to act as a media for chemical reactions to take place. Based upon oursurvey of surrounding states’ solid waste landfill regulations, Ohio’s 15 foot isolationdistance requirement provides the greatest amount of required separation. While eachstate’s program varies, the other states have standards that range from a 10 footminimum (Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin) to no specified minimum requireddistance (Illinois and Minnesota) with several states somewhere in between with 4-5 feetminimums (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, New York, and Iowa). Combined

Page 3 of 14

with Ohio’s other siting and landfill design requirements, the current 15 foot isolationdistance offers significant protection to ground water resources.

No changes have been made to the draft “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan”in response to the comment.

Comment 4: Is it fair for one district to be bombarded with landfills, due to the abundant strip miningdone there in the past!

Also: One Solid Waste Management district should not be responsible for disposing of thewhole state’s trash, or other state’s garbage for that matter. I suppose other states dumphere, because their regulations are stricter; meaning more expensive.

Also: Why can’t landfills be forced to stay within the geological landscape (elevation). I believecoal mines are held to these standards for reclamation purposes. I am specificallyreferring to a requested vertical expansion at Countywide Recycling and Disposal Facilitylocated in Stark County. If granted, this mountain of trash will be the tallest point in all ofStark County.

Response 4: Ohio EPA recognizes that proposals to establish landfills in areas are frequentlycontroversial and often unpopular. However, Ohio EPA must consider a proposal basedon its technical merits and its ability to meet the siting, design, construction, operation,closure, and post-closure requirements of Ohio’s solid waste regulations. Ohio EPAbases its decision to approve or deny a landfill permit to install application on whetheror not these criteria are met. Development of these criteria was required by the OhioGeneral Assembly to ensure the protection of human health and the environment. Therules which establish these criteria were developed after exhaustive research and studyand with substantial input from the Solid Waste Management Advisory Council,environmental groups, local governmental agencies, other state agencies, privatecitizens, and other interested parties.

As is discussed on pages V-9 to V-12 of the “2001 State Solid Waste ManagementPlan,” there are several tools that can be used by local governments to address wherelandfills are sited and to address localized impacts of solid waste facilities. Chief amongthese tools is zoning. While Ohio EPA may issue a permit-to-install based oncompliance with Ohio’s solid waste regulations and applicable statutes, the issuance ofa permit-to-install does not override local zoning or preclude the enforcement of localzoning. The Agency believes that it is most appropriate for local government todetermine whether appropriate and valid zoning exists and to be free to enforce localrestrictions.

At this point in time, Ohio cannot legally prohibit owners and operators of solid wastelandfill facilities from accepting for disposal materials that meet the definition of solidwaste from out-of-state generators simply because the material is generated in anotherstate. Such a prohibition would violate the commerce clause of the U. S. Constitution.

Page 4 of 14

When it was passed in 1988, House Bill 592 included provisions concerning controllingthe flow of waste (i.e. flow control). As such, these provisions required each solid wastemanagement district to designate a list of disposal and recycling facilities in its solidwaste management plan, and all waste and recyclable materials generated by the solidwaste management district would legally have to go to those facilities. Flow control hasbeen the subject of much controversy not only in Ohio but nationwide. In 1993, Ohio’ssolid waste statute was revised to make flow control permissive instead of mandatory.In 1994, a U. S. Supreme Court decision overturned a local flow control ordinance inNew York on constitutional grounds.

Ohio EPA supports the creation of federal legislation to restore flow control and allowstates to limit receipts of out-of-state waste. In fact, on August 1, 2001, Ohio EPA’sDirector, Christopher Jones, testified in front of the U.S. House of RepresentativesSubcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous Materials, expressing his supportfor recently introduced Federal legislation and encouraging the members of the Houseto move forward on this issue. Ohio’s Governor Bob Taft is also on record as supportingFederal legislation restoring to the states the ability to restrict out-of-state waste.However, until Federal legislation is enacted, Ohio’s ability to address this issue isextremely limited.

While the siting criteria in Ohio’s solid waste regulations do not address aestheticqualities of landfill facilities (such as size, harmony with surrounding landscape, andoverall appearance of the landfill), they do address technical considerations such as thestability of the landfill. Landfill facilities must be constructed in such a way that bothinterim and final slopes are stable. This requirement, to some extent, does limit the finalelevation of the landfill.

Additional information regarding flow control and the constitutional issues associatedwith the restriction of out-of-state waste have been added to Chapter 1 of the draft “2001State Solid Waste Management Plan” in response to these comments.

Comment 5: Is it logical to place a landfill over a regional aquifer?

Response 5: Regional aquifers exist under most areas of Ohio. Siting criteria have been developedto protect these aquifers. In particular, a minimum separation distance of fifteen feet isrequired between the bottom of the landfill liner and the top of the aquifer system. Thelandfill siting criteria do prohibit locations where the regional aquifer is a federally-designated sole source aquifer or the yield of an unconsolidated regional aquiferexceeds 100 gallons per minute.

Comment 6: Allow concerned citizens, the ability to get third party non-biased studies done by certifiedand accredited firms. Whether that be groundwater testing or geological studies. Thecurrent laws rely on the landfills to do honest and ethical testing! (Is this trustworthy?) Howabout some peace of mind!

Page 5 of 14

Response 6: While Ohio law does not specifically provide a mechanism for concerned citizens to getthird party non-biased studies done by certified and accredited firms, environmentalregulations do not preclude the opportunity. However, access to a site by a third partyto conduct field investigations is the landowner’s decision. It might be anticipated thatthe landowner would be concerned with the identification and selection of a non-biasedthird party and the type of certification or accreditation.

Ohio EPA does seek and welcome geologic and/or ground water information during thepublic input process. In fact, this type of information has been submitted to Ohio EPAon several occasions. Often this information is generated by consultants hired byconcerned citizens groups. These consultants will usually review the informationsubmitted with the application, other public documents, and technical sources.

Ohio EPA shares the concern that information is correct and representative of the siteconditions. In reviewing the information submitted by the facility, the Agency doesexercise a healthy dose of skepticism and often requires additional technicalexplanation and information. This is evidenced in a number of ways. The Agencyreviews submitted information using our collective experience and expertise sharedthrough Agency guidance, staff training and discussion of issues, peer review, andsupervisory oversight. The Agency’s review and the rules do go beyond simplyreviewing the reported results by dealing with the manner that the information iscollected, analyzed, and reported. Rules and permits will specify samplingmethodologies, analytical procedures, and quality assurance procedures. Whereavailable and appropriate, the Agency requires methodologies and proceduresrecommended and endorsed by national professional and standardized testingorganizations. Ohio EPA also does site visits and inspections to verify that proceduresare being appropriately performed. Ohio EPA can also take it’s own samples or “splitsamples” with the facility and have them independently analyzed to verify the facility’sresults. Finally, the Agency does seek to foster public participation and inquiry throughpublic notice of landfill permit applications, access to public documents, and publicmeetings are held on significant applications.

While most environmental programs do rely on information obtained and submitted bythe facility operator, significant sanctions for dishonest and unethical behavior existunder Ohio law. Failure to comply with requirements is a serious matter and significantviolations or falsification are subject to both civil and criminal enforcement action andmay result in the denial or revocation of permits and/or licenses.


Comment 7: The Ohio EPA should review and clarify all definitions placed within the glossary of the newFormat. Definitions pertaining to Goal #1 and Goal #2 (i.e., subscription, commercialwaste, industrial process waste, industrial solid waste, and exempt waste) should bereviewed via the Ohio EPA/OSWDO Workgroup.

Page 6 of 14

Response 7: Ohio EPA intends to review all definitions currently contained in the “District Solid WasteManagement Plan Format, version 3.0" and revise those definitions as appropriatewhen preparing the revised “District Solid Waste Management Plan Format” document.In doing so, Ohio EPA will work with Ohio’s solid waste management districts to refine thedefinitions, and Ohio EPA fully intends to utilize the Ohio EPA/solid waste managementdistrict workgroup as a forum for these discussions. No changes to the draft “2001 StateSolid Waste Management Plan” have been made in response to the comment.

Comment 8: The State has committed to improve the data collection process, through Strategy #3(“Explore means of obtaining improved reporting on the part of processors, haulers, andindustrial generators - III-17). The Ohio EPA should begin immediately this exploration.

Also: The Ohio EPA should consider managing processors, haulers, and industrial generatorsin the same fashion as the scrap tire program. According to page VII-5, “...under Ohio’sscrap tire regulatory program, each transporter and licensed facility is required to submitannual reports to OEPA. These reports are intended to provide a comprehensive pictureof scrap tire movement within Ohio.” This same enthusiasm should be utilized to collecta comprehensive picture of recyclables within the State, as mentioned on page II-14.Once again, the OEPA/OSWDO Workgroup would be a good vehicle to utilize for thedevelopment of a reporting program for entities handling and managing recyclables.

Also: Survey data submitted by industries is not complete, accurate or timely. In the last survey,33% of our industries reported on the survey of recycling activities, which is a good rateof response. This still leaves 67% of the industrial recycling activities unreported. OhioEPA allows waste generation numbers to be extrapolated from the survey responses, butthe recycling numbers cannot be extrapolated from the survey results. We do not believethat survey data results will increase significantly in the future without requirements forindustries to submit recycling data to the District. This would greatly enhance our chancesof meeting the recycling goal.

Response 8: Implementing such a change in Ohio’s solid waste regulatory program would require achange to Ohio’s solid waste statute. Industrial generators are currently regulated underOhio’s statutory authority only insofar as they cannot illegally dispose of solid waste. Inorder to establish mandatory reporting requirements, any change to the Ohio’s statutorysolid waste provisions would need to provide Ohio EPA with the authority to requireindustrial generators to submit annual reports. In the past, Ohio EPA has advocatedthat Ohio’s General Assembly address reporting of data by private sector entities insome fashion. Although the General Assembly did not act on Ohio EPA’s request, OhioEPA remains committed to trying to resolve this issue, as is indicated by Strategy #3 inChapter III of the “2001 Draft State Solid Waste Management Plan”. However, if historyis any indicator on this issue, it is highly doubtful that the General Assembly will grantthe authority to structure a mandatory reporting system for industrial generators of solidwaste.

The draft “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan” commits Ohio EPA to exploremeans of obtaining improved reporting on the part of processors, haulers, and industrialgenerators. While Ohio EPA will investigate the need for a legislatively-based solution,

Page 7 of 14

mandatory reporting requirements are only one potential means of facilitating thecollection of data from these entities. Ohio EPA will also explore voluntary partnershipsand simplified data collection processes as potential solutions.

No changes to the draft “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan” have been madein response to these comments.

Comment 9: State Strategy #2 (Explore an Ohio-specific waste characterization and generation study)should be pursued immediately. The national averages for waste generation in Ohio’sresidential/commercial sector are not accurate, either being too high or too low. Thisinaccuracy skews the estimation of waste generation within a District, as well as theState’s figures.

Response 9: Ohio EPA, in concert with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources has had severaldiscussions regarding this strategy over the last year and a half. While Ohio EPAbelieves obtaining Ohio-specific generation information should be a priority for theState, it is clear that such a study will require a significant outlay of time, money, andlabor. Regardless, Ohio EPA fully anticipates that discussions concerning this issuewill continue in the future. Ohio EPA strongly supports the pursuit of such a study, butit may take some time to secure adequate funding for this strategy.


Comment 10: Until the State of Ohio can provide the District some tool for better data collection, webelieve you should postpone any increase in the Industrial Recycling percentage.

Also: We realize that the 66% is a goal, but we are currently at 33% and believe it will be difficultto achieve even 50%. We provide free waste assessments to companies, work with theChambers of Commerce, and provide information to businesses but do not foresee thatthese efforts and others will make any large changes in our ability to achieve the goal.Goals are to be attainable, but this goal for our community may be unreachable. Incommunicating with other districts, we have been informed that some also struggle withthis goal.

Also: We would recommend keeping the 50 percent goal the same...

Response 10: Based upon information submitted to Ohio EPA by solid waste management districts,the State of Ohio achieved a waste reduction and recycling rate for the industrial sectorof 51.8 percent in 1999. On an individual solid waste management district basis, 44 ofOhio’s 52 solid waste management districts reported having achieved an industrialwaste reduction and recycling rate of 50 percent or more in 1999. Of those, 38 solidwaste management districts reported a waste reduction and recycling rate for theindustrial sector of 66 percent or better.

The draft “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan” gives solid waste managementdistricts that can’t demonstrate being able to recycle/reduce at least 66 percent of the

Page 8 of 14

industrial solid waste several options that, when fulfilled, can lead to approval of theirsolid waste management plans. To begin with, solid waste management districts willhave the ability to demonstrate that the composition of the industrial waste stream willprevent the solid waste management district from achieving the 66 percent industrialwaste reduction and recycling rate. Such a demonstration will have to prove that thewaste material that isn’t being recycled is inherently unrecyclable thereby making itimpossible for the solid waste management district to demonstrate compliance with theindustrial sector component of Goal #2. To receive approval of its solid wastemanagement plan, the solid waste management district will need to identify theindustrial waste that is problematic and explain why the waste cannot be recycled. Aspart of this demonstration, the solid waste management district will have to prove that atleast 66 percent of the remaining industrial waste generated in the solid wastemanagement district’s jurisdiction is being recycled.

The draft “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan” also contains a provision that willallow Ohio EPA to consider approving a solid waste management plan thatdemonstrates achieving an overall waste reduction and recycling rate of 50 percent anda residential/commercial waste reduction and recycling rate of at least 25 percent butthat cannot demonstrate an industrial waste reduction and recycling rate of 66 percent.

Finally, solid waste management districts that cannot demonstrate achieving theindustrial waste reduction and recycling rate have the option of demonstratingcompliance with Goal #1. As with the “1995 State Solid Waste Management Plan”, solidwaste management districts have the option of choosing to demonstrate compliancewith either Goal #1 or Goal #2. In fact, fully two-thirds of all of the solid wastemanagement districts that have obtained approved solid waste management plans havedone so by demonstrating compliance with Goal #1. Ohio EPA believes that the draft“2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan” provides more than enough flexibilityconcerning the demonstration for compliance with Goal #2. No changes have beenmade to the draft “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan” in response to thesecomments.

Comment 11: Consideration of Alternative Methodologies for Calculating Access to Recycling Drop OffOpportunities. The DKMM Solid Waste District welcomes the consideration of alternativemethods for calculating access to recycling opportunities other than a single politicalsubdivision. The fear DKMM has is the decision will be made in a vacuum with no publicinput. The DKMM Solid Waste District has offered to participate Ohio EPA supervised instudy at a September 7, 2000 Work Group meeting. We recommend SWAC hold thesediscussion in public. Allow for Districts comments to be taken into consideration beforesetting new population methodologies for recycling drop offs.

Response 11: Over the last year and half, Ohio EPA has made an unprecedented effort to solicit inputfrom Ohio’s solid waste management districts concerning the contents of the “2001 StateSolid Waste Management Plan.” To this end, Ohio EPA has held numerous meetingsof SWAC and the Ohio EPA/solid waste management district workgroup, has sent outcorrespondence, both electronic and hard copy, and has participated in telephoneconversations with solid waste management districts concerning the contents of the draft

Page 9 of 14

“2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan”. Ohio EPA fully intends to continue thisapproach and to utilize the expertise and knowledge of the solid waste managementdistricts in developing these alternative methodologies.

The Ohio Revised Code clearly specifies that the role of the Solid Waste ManagementAdvisory Council is to assist Ohio EPA with the development of the state solid wastemanagement plan. While Ohio EPA also utilizes SWAC to help establish broad policyand provide a general direction for solid waste planning in Ohio, the “District Solid WasteManagement Plan Format,” the document that will establish the alternativemethodologies for demonstrating compliance with Goal #1, is a very lengthy documentthat is technical in nature and requires a significant amount of experience or technicalknowledge to discuss in a productive manner. Thus, Ohio EPA does not intend to useSWAC for a point-by-point discussion of the details of the “District Solid WasteManagement Plan Format”. As development of the revised “District Solid WasteManagement Plan Format” progresses, there may be some overriding policy issues thatwill be discussed at meetings of the Solid Waste Management Advisory Council forgeneral guidance purposes. However, the document itself will not be developed duringmeetings of the Solid Waste Management Advisory Council.

Ohio EPA fully intends to develop the alternative methodologies for calculating accessto recycling drop off opportunities in concert with the solid waste management districts.While the appropriate venue for holding these discussions is the Ohio EPA/Solid WasteManagement District Workgroup, it is important to understand that the Workgroup wasnever intended to be a decision-making body. As a result, any discussions concerningthe alternative methodologies held during workgroup meetings will likely be focused onthe discussion of issues, the sharing of ideas, and the gathering of input from solid wastemanagement districts rather than on actually developing language for the “District SolidWaste Management Plan Format.”

No changes to the draft “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan” have been madein response to the comment.

Comment 12: Single County Service Areas Goal #1. The DKMM Solid Waste District once againrequests that you allow more than one county in a Goal #1 service area. When determiningaccess service areas size. The DKMM Solid Waste District believes this would allow usto better serve our communities. It would allow us to place recycling drop offs where theyare needed rather than in an inflexible matrix.

Presently the State Plan discourages multi-county solid waste districts from stayingtogether and encourages their break up. There is nothing to be gained by multi-county solidwaste districts if each county is a single service area. There must be efficiencies gainedfor staying together.

Response 12: The intent behind Goal #1 is to provide solid waste management districts that cannotdemonstrate compliance with Goal #2 with an alternative means of facilitating recyclingbased on providing a minimal level of recycling opportunities to residents andbusinesses. Ohio EPA’s position is that it is important that recycling opportunities be

Page 10 of 14

provided on a county by county basis to ensure that as many residents as possible haveadequate access to those opportunities. The comment has received discussion atmeeting of both the Solid Waste Advisory Council and the Ohio EPA/solid wastemanagement district workgroup. Ohio EPA finds that there is no general solid wastemanagement district consensus on the issue with some solid waste management districtsexpressing opposition to expanding the service area to encompass more than onecounty.

While Ohio EPA has concerns regarding the expansion of service areas to allow amultiple county management district to be one service area, Ohio EPA has committedto evaluating several alternative means of calculating access to drop-off recyclingopportunities. One of these methodologies will allow solid waste management districtsto gain access credit in one county for opportunities that are located in another countyclose to the border. To some degree, this “softens” the singe-county service areaconcept. Taken as a whole, Ohio EPA believes that these new methodologies providesignificant flexibility to solid waste management districts to address the concernsexpressed in this comment.


Comment 13: The DKMM Solid Waste District opposes the use of competitive recycling grants.

Also: ...to require districts to consider giving communities economic incentives to participate inavailable programs would not be fiscally responsible.

Also: ...additional work needs to be done by the EPA on the marketing end of increasingrecycling and not adding additional mandates that in the end will cost businesses andcounty government additional expense.

Response 13: The evaluation of the feasibility of implementing economic incentives is not new to solidwaste management districts that demonstrated compliance with Goal #1 of the 1995State Solid Waste Management Plan. These solid waste management districts wererequired to perform this evaluation in their solid waste management plans. By elevatingthe evaluation to a goal of the “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan”, all solidwaste management districts will now be required to provide an evaluation in their solidwaste management plans.

Goal #6 of the draft “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan” does not require solidwaste management districts to implement an economic incentive program nor does itrequire solid waste management districts to use competitive recycling grants. The goalsimply requires that solid waste management districts, in their solid waste managementplans, evaluate the feasibility of implementing an economic incentive program andthen state whether or not such a program has been or will be implemented. Fulfillmentof this goal will be accomplished by providing an evaluation in a solid wastemanagement plan. Solid waste management districts will not be required to implementany programs, activities, or strategies to demonstrate compliance with Goal #6.

Page 11 of 14


Comment 14: We would recommend...removing the industrial materials that have traditionally not beenlandfilled in municipal solid waste landfills from the industrial recycling goal calculation.

Response 14: As specified in the “District Solid Waste Management Format, Version 3.0,” Ohio EPAcurrently does not include the following materials in its calculation of the waste reductionand recycling rate:

C Scrap metal from demolition operationsC Train boxcarsC Ferrous metals resulting from salvage operations

These materials historically have not been managed by being disposed in landfillfacilities.

Furthermore, as was discussed in the response to comment 9, solid waste managementdistricts will have the opportunity to exclude materials that it can prove to be inherentlyunrecyclable from the calculation of the industrial waste reduction and recycling rate.Consequently, no change to the draft “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan” wasmade in response to this comment.

Comment 15: Streamline and reduce agency review time for permits offering recycling/waste reduction

Also: ... an 8th goal should be added to page 1 in chapter 2. This goal should state “The OhioEPA should implement a process to streamline the processing of permit applications forrecycling infa-structure to allow SWMD’s the ability to increase recycling expeditiously.

Response 15: Traditional recycling opportunities that are provided by solid waste management districts(such as curbside recycling services and drop-off recycling locations) and recyclingoperations that qualify as legitimate recycling facilities are not required to be permittedor licensed under Ohio’s solid waste program. Ohio EPA supported a statutory changethat allows over 600 composting facilities to hold a free and simple registration versusobtaining a solid waste permit-to-install. Only municipal solid waste composting facilities(i.e. Class 1 composting facilities) are required to be permitted and licensed.

Ohio EPA does have a very strong interest in exploring new technologies for reducingthe amount of solid waste landfilled. In fact, Strategy 10 in Chapter III of the draft “2001State Solid Waste Management Plan” is focused on this very idea. However, Ohio EPA’sfirst obligation, exercised through the implementation of the various statutory andregulatory requirements, is to protect human health and the environment. Therefore, tothe extent that the establishment or operation of facilities utilizing new technologies fallsunder the environmental laws that are administered by Ohio EPA, the Agency willconduct a thorough review of these new technologies prior to granting the appropriatepermit, license, etc. For technologies that are new to Ohio or that have not been testedelsewhere, this may involve requiring the submission of enough information, testing data,

Page 12 of 14

etc. to assure that the technology can be implemented in a manner that will be protectiveof human health and the environment. Unfortunately, this may result in a slowertimeframe for the approval of a facility utilizing a new technology when compared theapproval of traditional facilities.

Acknowledging these issues, Ohio EPA remains committed to considering alternativetechnologies for managing solid waste.


Comment 16: ...each district within the OEPA should have a designated recycling manager.

Response 16: This is certainly an interesting idea that may merit attention at some point in the future.However, given Ohio EPA’s current budget and allocations for staffing, it is doubtful thatsuch positions could be created at this point in time.


Comment 17: OEPA to foster a relationship with the Ohio Department of Development to actively attract

and recruit businesses that use recycled materials to develop new materials.

Also: The Ohio EPA has fostered a relationship with ODNR that has proven to be successful inincreasing recycling opportunities in Ohio. Now the Ohio EPA should seek to foster asimilar relationship with the State of Ohio Department of Development (ODOD) to attractnew businesses into our state that consume recyclable materials.

Also: An incentive package must be created to lure these businesses to Ohio as other statescompete for the same businesses.

Response 17: Ohio EPA works closely with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the OhioDepartment of Development through the InterAgency Workgroup on marketdevelopment (IAWG) on these issues. The focus of IAWG, as the name suggests, is toimprove the recycling markets in Ohio. As all three agencies are members of IAWG, therelationships requested by this comment have already been developed. Furthermore,the Ohio Department of Development and the Department of Natural Resources, likeOhio EPA, are members of SWAC, the body responsible for assisting Ohio EPA with thedevelopment of the state solid waste management plan. Ohio EPA fully intends tocontinue its working relationships with both the Ohio Department of Natural Resourcesand the Ohio Department of Development on furthering the creation of markets forrecyclable materials in Ohio.


Page 13 of 14

Comment 18: Reduced financial support for the Ohio EPA.

Also: In order to meet the draft State Solid Waste Management Plan goal of 50%, Ohioan’s willneed to reduce or recycled another 10,112,000 tons. At current rates, this will reduce thefee money to the Ohio EPA by $17,696.000 or about 18 million dollars. How will thefinancial future of the Ohio EPA be protected as we look to meet the State Goal of 50%recycling? Will the OEPA look to manage their programs with fewer employees? Willprograms be cut? Will fees be increased?

Also: The Ohio EPA and in particular, the Northeast District Office has already acted as a barrierto new technology transformation designed to add reduction/recycling to our State. Thereason for this barrier: fee money.

Also: The Royalton Road Sanitary Landfill requested a 180 day demonstration approval to useClass 1 compost. The demonstration waiver was granted on March 20th, 1998. The facilityoperators and the Cuyahoga County Board of Health found that the initial results were quitefavorable. As such, the Royalton Road Sanitary Landfill submitted a request for a second180 demonstration waiver. The approval was submitted on November 30th, 1999. Thistime, however, the Northeast District of the Ohio EPA approved the waiver, but with 2changes; one of which was that fees be levied on all compost used at the facility. Indiscussion, it was revealed that the Ohio EPA is concerned about lost revenue from feesas the Class 1 material is used for beneficial re-use as opposed to disposal.

Response 18: The Ohio legislature enacted the law establishing the Ohio EPA solid waste fundingmechanism and would need to determine whether any changes in the fundingmechanism would be appropriate. It is theoretically possible that Ohio would be able toincrease recycling effects to the point where the tonnage of solid waste being disposeddecreases and available revenues are no longer sufficient to support Ohio EPA’s existingsolid waste programs. Ohio EPA would need to adjust services to match the level offunding or look to the legislature to determine whether any changes in the fundingmechanism would be appropriate.

It is highly unlikely that Ohio will realize this goal in the near future. Recycling activity inOhio has increased over the last ten years, and Ohio is recycling more tonnage now thanwhen House Bill 592 was passed. However, because the overall amount of wastegenerated has increased, the tonnage of waste disposed has increased as well. WhileOhio EPA would like to see significant increases in recycling, there is no reason tobelieve that a reversal of trends in the rate of waste generation and disposal in Ohio willoccur in the short to mid-term at least. As a result, Ohio EPA anticipates that the currentfee of $0.75 per ton of solid waste will be adequate to fund the Agency’s solid wasteprogram for the next several years.

Regarding Ohio EPA’s collection of the State disposal fee, Ohio EPA has historicallyrequired that the $1.75 per ton of solid waste be collected on all solid waste that isdeposited within the limits of waste placement in a solid waste landfill facility. Thisincludes solid waste used as alternative daily cover. Ohio EPA has approved numerousprojects to alternatively manage solid waste through the Agency’s Interim Alternative

Page 14 of 14

Waste Management Program where DSIWM has recommended that the payment ofdisposal fees on the waste used through those projects be waived. For these projects, thewaste is being utilized or placed in an area outside of the limits of waste placement of alandfill facility.


Comment 19: We would request that an amendment, an appropriate amendment be prepared to includethe solid waste districts’ policy committees in the selection of siting, either as an equalbasis or at least as a substantial impact along with the Director’s determination for thesiting facilities.

Response 19: Local governments already have some control over where solid waste managementfacilities can be located via zoning restrictions. Thus, while local governments cannotoverride the siting criteria established in the solid waste statute and rules, they canaddress criteria that are of concern at the local level and, in effect, limit where a facilitycan be located to those areas determined to be the most appropriate.

Zoning can be supplemented by the tools and authorities that are given to solid wastemanagement districts. Chapter V of the “2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan”contains a discussion of these tools and authorities.


Comment 20: I think that it should be incorporated into the Ohio Administrative Code, that solid wasteauthorities establish siting criteria and are charged with enforcing those criteria as aprotection?

Response 20: Section 3734.53(A)(7) of the Ohio Revised Code requires a solid waste managementdistrict’s plan to contain an identification of additional solid waste management facilitiesand the amount of additional capacity needed to dispose of wastes projected to begenerated within the solid waste management district. Section 3734.53(A)(8) of the OhioRevised Code requires the plan to contain a strategy for identification of sites for theadditional solid waste management facilities and capacity that is needed to manage thewaste projected to be generated. If a solid waste management district, in its solid wastemanagement plan, concludes that no additional facilities and capacity are needed, thenthe District’s plan is not required to contain a siting strategy. Requiring solid wastemanagement districts to establish siting criteria would require a change to Ohio’s solidwaste statute.


Documents

2001 State Solid Waste Management PlanMRF Material Recovery Facility MSW Municipal Solid Waste NOV Notice of Violation OAC Ohio Administrative Code ... List of Acronyms iii Executive