Appendix D Disposal Data

Appendix D Disposal Data

Appendix D.Disposal Data

1. Reference Year Waste Disposed

The District disposed the majority of its solid waste (almost 53 percent) at Apex Sanitary Landfill in nearby Jefferson County during the reference year. The Kimble Sanitary Landfill in Tuscarawas County and the American Landfill in Stark County also disposed substantial portions of the District’s waste in 2014, estimated at 18 and 12 percent of the total, respectively. (See Table D-1a below.)

Table D-1a.Reference Year Waste Disposed – Publicly-Available Landfills(Direct Haul)

Source(s) of Information: Ohio EPA 2014 Facility Data Report; Ohio EPA Annual District Report, 2014.

The District does not have any operating captive landfills. (See Table D-1b.)

Table D-1bReference Year Waste Disposed – Captive Landfills

Source(s) of Information: Ohio EPA

The District does have one operating transfer facility which is located in Carroll County. The J&J Refuse & Recycling Facility received nearly 26,000 tons of waste from the District in 2014. Much smaller quantities of District-waste were sent to three other transfer facilities located outside Carroll, Columbiana, and Harrison Counties, but within Ohio. (See Table D-2.)

Table D-2:Reference Year Waste Transferred

Source(s) of Information:Ohio EPA 2014 Facility Data Report; Ohio EPA Annual District Report, 2014.

A very small amount of solid waste (less than one ton) was generated within CCH and sent to Stericycle, Inc. for incineration in 2014.

The total tons of solid waste disposed from the District during 2014 are shown in Table D-3 below. This table and the disposal totals does not include excluded waste since this component of landfilled waste was less than 10 percent of the total waste disposed.[1]

Table D-3:Reference Year Total Waste Disposed

Source(s) of Information: Ohio EPA 2014 Facility Data Report; Ohio EPA Annual District Report, 2014.

As shown in Table D-3, two-thirds of the waste disposed in 2014 was characterized as originating from the residential/commercial sector.[2] Figure D-1 shows the relationship between residential/commercial vs. industrial disposal in a chart.

Figure D-1. Residential/Commercial vs. Industrial Disposal: 2014

Finally, 95 percent of waste disposed during 2014 was directly-hauled to landfills rather than first being sent to a transfer station, then processed and shipped to a receiving landfill.

1. Historical Waste Analysis

The District experienced a very substantial increase in disposal during the last five years, and for this reason, determined analyzing its disposal trend over a longer time period was advisable. Table D-4 provides the disposal tonnages from 2006 through 2014 for both residential/commercial and industrial waste.

Table D-5: Historical Disposal Data: 2006 – 2014

Source(s) of Information:Ohio EPA 2014 Facility Data Reports; Ohio EPA Annual District Reports.

When the data from Table D-5 (plus year 2015 data) is displayed graphically, it shows that industrial disposal experienced a very large increase from 2011 to 2012, while residential/commercial disposal increased by a very large amount beginning in 2013. (See Figure D-2.) The District has concluded that theseunprecedented increaseshave been the result of activities related to Utica and Marcellus Shale drilling projects and related activities. (A temporary increase in population from people working on wells within the District have also likely contributed to the increase in disposal.)

Figure D-2. Historical Disposal: 2006 – 2015

Waste generated from drilling and pipeline construction activities is not anticipated to be a consistent waste stream and is expected to fluctuate, perhaps radically, based upon prices for oil and gas. The future of these activities in the District is unknown, but professionals in the field speculate that drilling peaked at the end of 2014[3], which seems consistent with the trend observed in Figure D-2 (even though a trend cannot be established using data from two or three years.) While not the highest producing counties in Ohio for Utica and Marcellus Shale oil and gas projects, Carroll and Harrison Counties continue to have a substantial number of operating wells. If gas from these drilling activities can be transported via a pipeline which is being constructed in the area during 2016, production of oil and gas, as well as, drilling wastes could increase dramatically from 2015 levels.

One finding from this analysis is that a reliable method to project waste disposal related to drilling activities is not available. Another finding is the high likelihood that wastes from drilling activities are being mischaracterized at the landfill as residential/commercial wastes. Ohio EPA has instructed landfill operators to record drilling wastes as industrial wastes. However, the steep increase in tonnages shown in Figure D-2 is strong evidence that much of the drilling wastes from the District are characterized as originating from the residential/commercialsector.[4] In order to use these findings and develop a framework for making reliable disposal projections for the planning period, the District has:

• estimated the drilling wastes being reported for each sector (residential/commercial and industrial);
• subtracted these estimated amounts from the total disposed for each sector;
• calculated average disposal amounts for both sectors without drilling wastes;
• compared the calculated disposal amount for drilling wastes to the amount totaled from the District’s designated landfill reporting forms; and
• made necessary adjustments in the estimated totals for residential/commercial and industrial wastes for 2011 through 2015.

1.Residential/Commercial Waste

The District determined that one of the first steps towards estimating the amount of residential/commercial wastes with and without drilling wastes should involve comparing the waste generation rate to other solid waste districts. Based upon total population, size in square miles, and population density, the following SWMDs are similar to the Carroll-Columbiana-Harrison SWMD:

• Belmont-Jefferson
• Lawrence-Scioto
• Ottawa-Sandusky-Seneca

The Belmont-Jefferson SWMD is also located in the same region of Ohio, and has experienced significant Utica and Marcellus Shale drilling activity. The generation of wastes from drilling activity began in 2011 for counties in eastern Ohio, so the data was examined for years 2006 through 2010. Figure D-3 shows that the disposal rate steadily decreased in Ottawa-Sandusky-Seneca during this time period, while the disposal rate fluctuated somewhat in Belmont-Jefferson and Lawrence-Scioto. The disposal rate in Carroll-Columbiana-Harrison increased slightly from 2006 through 2010, and averaged 3.02 pounds/person/day (PPD), which is the lowest average disposal rate among the four SWMDs.

Figure D-3. Comparison of R/C Disposal Rates: 2006 – 2014

Although the R/C disposal rate increased slightly from 2006 through 2010, the District believes that using the 2010 disposal rate of 3.18 PPD to establish the non-drilling waste totals for residential/commercial sector for years 2011 through 2015is appropriate for the following reasons:

• National estimates of generation and disposal rates have been decreasing steadily since the year 2000. Based on U.S. EPA data, the annual rate of change in the national R/C generation rate since the year 2000 is -0.57%, while the corresponding rate of change for disposal since the year 1990 is -1.38%. The nationwide tonnage of R/C disposed since 2000 has decreased slightly.
• The SWMDs included in Figure D-3 which have not generated drilling-related wastes (Lawrence-Scioto and Ottawa-Sandusky-Seneca) have experienced decreasing disposal rates from 2006 through 2014.

Table D-6 shows the estimated disposal tonnages for non-drilling and drilling-related wastes from 2010 through 2015 by applying the disposal rate of 3.18 PPD.

Table D-6. Drilling vs. Non-Drilling Wastes Characterized as R/C: 2010 – 2015

The actual disposal of residential/commercial waste from the District is somewhat lower than the amounts projected for 2010 through 2014 in the currently-approved plan. The table below shows that the actual tons disposed are initially 4.8 percent lower than plan projections, and then the difference becomes slightly more over the next four years. It appears that the primary factor contributing to this discrepancy is a higher tonnage included in the current plan for year 2008 for waste received at the Apex Sanitary Landfill. (The current plan shows 15,617 tons of R/C waste from the District in 2008 while Ohio EPA data for 2008 lists 5,876 tons.)

Table D-7.2010-2014 Actual vs. Current Plan Projections for Residential/Commercial Disposal

2.Industrial Waste

The reported industrial disposal tonnages have also increased substantially since 2010 as shown above in Figure D-2. Industrial waste recorded by landfills receiving District waste was approximately 11,300 tons in 2010 and almost 245,000 tons in 2013. Based upon essentially a steady decline in industrial disposal from 2006 through 2010 (with year 2009 likely being an outlier due to the effects of the economic recession), and due to a continued historical decline in industrial employment[5], the District believes that the increase in industrial disposal can be attributed to drilling-related wastes.

Table D-8 shown below includes an annual percent change projected for industrial employment from 2012 through 2022[6] of -0.9 percent. In order to determine the non-drilling related waste tonnages in the table, the baseline amount of 11,337 tons for year 2010 was decreased by -0.9 percent for each succeeding year. These results were then subtracted from the total industrial wastes reported by landfills to estimate the drilling-related wastes.

Table D-8. Drilling vs. Non-Drilling Related Industrial Wastes: 2010 – 2014

The disposal estimates included in Table D-8 were compared with the projections in the currently-approved plan as illustrated in Table D-9 below. As shown in the table, there is a wide discrepancy between the “actual” vs. projected tonnages for industrial disposal. When the currently-approved plan was approved, the District believed that industrial disposal was being under-reported at landfills receiving District waste, in part due to instances of mischaracterization. In addition, the District concluded that industrial disposal for the reference year (2008), as determined by industrial survey results for respondents and estimates for non-respondents, was more accurate than using disposal tonnages reported to Ohio EPA by landfills. The approach used for the reference year in the currently-approved plan led to the projections for years 2010 through 2014, which are much higher than the “Actual (and Calculated)” tonnages.

Table D-9. 2010-2014 Actual vs. Current Plan Projections for Industrial Disposal

3.Total Disposal and Summary Reconciliation

Table D-10 summarizes the data presented above in Tables D-6 and D-8. As shown in the table, the amount of calculated drilling-related wastes disposed from the District has fluctuated widely during the past four years.

Table D-10. Summary of Drilling vs. Non-Drilling Related Wastes: 2010 – 2015

As indicated above, the District receives forms each month from landfills which are designated to accept waste from the District. Based upon the name of the haulers on the form, the District has been able to track the amount of drilling-related wastes being disposed from the Carroll, Columbiana, and Harrison Counties. Table D-11 shows these totals for 2011 through 2016.

Table D-11. Drilling-Related Wastes Based Upon Landfills Designation Forms

Figure D-4 shows the calculated drilling-related wastes compared to the tons of drilling-related wastes totaled from the forms submitted by designated landfills receiving District wastes. The chart illustrates that the calculated amounts of drilling-related wastes closely track the actual amounts being reported by designated landfills based upon the hauler names. For example, the actual reported amount in 2015 was approximately 236,000 tons while the calculate amount was 229,500 tons.

Figure D-4. Drilling-Related Wastes Disposed:

Calculated vs. Designated Landfills Reporting

1. Disposal Projections

The District has developed three sets of projections due to the character of the wastes being generated:

• Projections for residential/commercial waste;
• Projections for industrial waste; and
• Projections for oil and gas drilling-related wastes.

These projections are combined at the end of this section to provide the total tons of disposal expected during the planning period.

A number of methodologies can be used to project disposal for the planning period. One of the most straight-forward and frequently-used methods for the R/C sector is multiplying the population by the estimated disposal rate in pounds per person per day (ppd). The District believes this is the most appropriate approach. Assuming a constant disposal rate of 3.18 PPD through 2022(based upon the 2010 disposal rate), the R/C disposal amount decreases steadily from 84,700 tons in 2018 (the first year of the planning period) to 83,000 tons by year 2022, or a decrease of approximately 1,700 tons. After year 2022, the disposal amount has been held constant to address the uncertainty associated with projections further into the future and to use a conservative approach.

Figure D-5. Projected Residential/Commercial Disposal

Industrial disposal projections have been developed by using the employment projections for 2012 through 2022 discussed above. Applying the annual percentage decrease of 0.9 percent in manufacturing employment for northeast Ohio results in a projected disposal of 10,500 tons in 2018 and 10,200 tons in 2022. (See Figure D-6.) Projected industrial disposal tonnage is held constant from 2022 through the end of the planning period for the reasons stated above for R/C disposal.[7]

Figure D-6. Projected Industrial Disposal

As discussed above, the amount of drilling-related generated within the District is very difficult to predict. There is a potential for a great deal of activity with the existing numbers of drilling pads, and the possibility of transporting the product via pipeline instead of using trucks and rail cars. However, the level of activity is dependent upon the prices of oil, gasoline, and natural gas which are also difficult to predict. In order to be conservative, the District is assuming that the tons of drilling-related wastes projected for 2016 (approximately 48,000 tons) will also be generated in 2017 through 2022. After year 2022, the drilling-related wastes have reduced to 37,000 tons through the remainder of the planning period. (See Figure D-7.)

Figure D-7. Projected Drilling-Related Disposal

The amount of District waste sent to transfer stations has increased from slightly more than 100 tons in 2006 to nearly 25,000 tons in 2014. (See Figure D.8.)The amount of tonnage processed by transfer stations appears to be leveling off the last three years. The District does not have access to any information which would suggest that the amounts processed at transfer stations will continue to increase. Therefore, the District has assumed that the percentage of total residential/commercial waste disposed[8] which is processed at transfer stations will remain constant throughout the planning period at the 2014 level, or 29 percent.

Figure D-8. District Waste Received at Transfer Stations: 2006 – 2014

Note: Tonnages in this figure do not include excluded wastes.

The total tons of waste disposal projected for the District for the planning period is shown in Table D-12.

Table D-12.Projections for Waste to be Disposed and Transferred

[1] Ohio EPA’s Format v4.0 instructs solid waste management districts to remove excluded waste from the total if it comprises less than 10 percent of the total waste disposed.

[2] The characterization of waste at landfills is discussed in some detail within the next section.

[3] “Ohio Utica Shale Well Status Graph Highlights Trends.” July 17, 2015.

[4]Landfills designated by the District to receive waste for disposal are required to complete a monthly form which includes the name of the hauler with the tons delivered for disposal and the type of waste. One landfill in particular consistently submits forms showing haulers who are clearly transporting drilling-related wastes (e.g., Chesapeake), however, the waste has been characterized as residential/commercial.

[5]The District believes that industrial employment projections are an acceptable metric for predicting disposal in this context and determining projections for disposal in the subsequent paragraphs.

[6]The source for this information is the Ohio Labor Market Information, JobsOhio Northeast Ohio Region.

[7]Consistent with the discussion above with regard to projections in the currently-approved plan, the District continues to believe that actual industrial disposal is likely much higher than the amounts reported by landfills due to under-reporting and mischaracterization.

[8]Transfer stations receiving District waste have reported accepting only R/C waste.