RPT - 05 0125 - CPRSWMA - Final Plan for Submittal - LKC

RPT - 05 0125 - CPRSWMA - Final Plan for Submittal - LKC

Document Date: May 1, 2024 Document: RPT - 05 0125 - CPRSWMA - Final Plan for Submittal - LKC.pdf

OCR Scan (approximately)

This OCR scan may contain automatically generated text as generated using Apache Tika and Tesseract. It may not be correct. No effort has been made to correct any of these scans (so far). These OCR scans are also used in the site's Search feature. Please review the Search Policy for details about the site features. The OCR scan is provided here for reference purposes. It provides searchable text when the underlying document might not. But the scan process may not always work perfectly.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY … ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION…1

1.1 Legislation…1 1.2 Authority (9 VAC 20-130-20) …1 1.3 Purpose (9 VAC 20-130-40) …1 1.4 Planning Area…2 1.5 Planning Period …2 1.6 Critical Definitions (9 VAC 20-130-10) …2

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION …6 2.1 Status of solid waste management nationally …6

2.1.1 Waste generation …6 2.1.2 What is in the waste? …7 2.1.3 Disposal…7 2.1.4 Recycling …8 2.1.5 Waste reduction and reuse …8

2.2 Highlights from original solid waste plan (1991) …9 2.2.1 Waste generation projections …9 2.2.2 System components …11 2.2.3 Goals of Original Plan …12 2.2.4 Long Term Vision for Integrated Waste Management System …13 2.2.5 Short-term (interim) vision for Integrated Waste Management System …14 2.2.6 Twenty-year milestones …14

3.0 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA …17 3.1 Buchanan County, Virginia …17

3.1.1 Location …17 3.1.2 Population …17 3.1.3 Geographic conditions …20 3.1.4 Climate …20 3.1.5 Transportation …20 3.1.6 Infrastructure …21 3.1.7 Economic Growth …21 3.1.8 Land Use …25 3.1.9 Community Facilities/Activities: …27

3.2 Dickenson County …27 3.2.1 Location …27 3.2.2 Population …28 3.2.3 Geographic conditions …31 3.2.4 Climate …32 3.2.5 Transportation …32 3.2.6 Infrastructure / Utilities & Services …33 3.2.7 Economic Growth …33 3.2.8 Land Use …38 3.2.9 Community Facilities/Activities …39

3.3 Russell County …39 3.3.1 Location …39 3.3.2 Population …40 3.3.3 Geographic conditions …43 3.3.4 Climate …44

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY … 1.0 INTRODUCTION.

DROS

L 1.6

2.0 | BACKGROUND INFORMATION

21 2.11 2.1.2 2.13 214 2.15

2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.24 2.2.5 2.2.6

eA. 1 3.1.3 1 1. BE a 1 1.

Seu abe bE

32 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.23 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.2.8 3.2.9

3.1

3.3.3 3.3.4

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA.

Legislatior Authority (9 VAC 20-130-20) Purpose (9 VAC 20-130-40) Planning Area… Planning Perio Critical Definitions (9 VAC 20-130-10) 2

Status of solid waste management nationally 6 Waste generation 6 What is in the waste’ 7

Disposal Recycling

Waste reduction and reuse Highlights from original solid waste plan (1991) Waste generation projection System components… Goals of Original Plat Long Term Vision for Integrated Waste Management System Short-term (interim) vision for Integrated Waste Management System… Twenty-year milestones

Buchanan County, Virgi Location Population Geographic condition: Climate ‘Transportation Infrastructur Economic Growth … Land Use Community Facilities/ Activities: Dickenson County. Location… Population Geographic condition: Climate. ‘Transportation Infrastructure / Utilities & Services Economic Growth. Land Use… Community Facilities/Act Russell County

Location Population Geographic conditions … Climate…

3.3.5 Transportation …44 3.3.5 Infrastructure / Utilities & Services …45 3.3.6 Economic Growth …46 3.3.7 Land Use …49 3.3.8 Community Facilities/Activities: …51

3.4 Population Summary …52 4.0 WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION …53

4.1 Existing Conditions (2003) …53 4.2 Historical Waste Generation (1998 – 2003) …55

4.2.1 Total Tonnage Recorded at Transfer Stations …55 4.2.2 Pounds per person per day …57

4.3 Projected Waste Generation Rates Relative to Disposal Needs …59 4.3.1 Population Growth Rate …59 4.3.2 Commercial and industrial growth …60 4.3.3 Annual change in MSW (residential/commercial) tonnages …60 4.3.4 Annual change in total tonnage with population considered …61 4.3.5 Projected tonnages …61

4.4 Waste Composition …65 5.0 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM …67

5.1 Collection …67 5.1.1 Overview …67 5.1.2 Russell County Collection sites …70

5.2 Transfer Operations …71 5.2.1 Summary of transfer station information …71 5.2.2 Contractual Relationships …72 5.2.3 Tipping Charges and Fees at transfer station …72 5.2.4 Materials permitted for acceptance at transfer stations …74 5.2.5 Materials not accepted at the transfer stations …75

5.3 Disposal…76 5.3.1 Landfill …76 5.3.2 Previously operated landfills…76 5.3.2.A Previously operated landfills continued………………………………………….77 5.3.3 Household hazardous waste collection …77 5.3.4 Central Archive …77

5.4 Recycling …78 5.4.1 Description of programs …78 5.4.2 Recycling rates …79 5.4.3 Composition of materials recycled …81 5.4.4 Volunteer Programs …81 5.4.5 Recycling Markets …82 5.4.6 Projected recycling rates …82

5.5 Public Education …82 5.6 Public/Private Partnership …82

6.0 BUDGET …83 7.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT HEIRARACHY …83

7.1 Source reduction …84 7.2 Reuse …84 7.3 Recycling …85

3.3.5 Transportation 3.3.5 Infrastructure / Utilities & Services AS 3.3.6 Economic Growth. 3.3.7 Land Use. 3.3.8 Community Facilities/Activitie

34 Population Summaty…- 52 4.0 WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION 53

4.1 Existing Conditions (2003)

42 Historical Waste Generation (1998 — 2003) …

4.2.1 Total Tonnage Recorded at Transfer Stations … 4.2.2 Pounds per person per day . 43 Projected Waste Generation Rates Relative to Disposal Needs 43.1 Population Growth Rate. 43.2. Commercial and industrial growth 4.3.3 Annual change in MSW (residential/commercial) tonnages … Annual change in total tonnage with population considered. 4.3.5 Projected tonnages 44 Waste Composition… 5.0 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 3. Collection. 5.1.1 Overview. 5.1.2 Russell County Collection sites… 5.2 ‘Transfer Operations … 5.2.1 Summary of transfer station informatior 5.2.2. Contractual Relationships 5.2.3. Tipping Charges and Fees at transfer station, 5.2.4 Materials permitted for acceptance at transfer stations, 5.2.5 Materials not accepted at the transfer stations. 53 Disposal… 5.3.1 Landfill 5.3.2 Previously operated landfills. 53.2.4 Previously operated landfills continued 5.3.3 Household hazardous waste collection 3.4 Central Archive 54 Recycling … 5.4.1 Description of programs 5.4.2 Recycling rates, 5.4.3 Composition of materials recycled 5.4.4 Volunteer Program: 5.4.5 Recycling Markets… 5.4.6 Projected recycling rates 5.5 Public Education… 5.6 Public/Private Partnership. 6.0 BUDGET. 7.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT HEIRARACHY … TA Source reduction 12 Reuse 73 Recycling

iii

7.4 Resource recovery and incineration …86 7.5 Landfilling…86

8.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAM …86 8.1 Collections …87 8.2 Transfer …88 8.3 Disposal…89 8.4 Recycling …90 8.5 Litter Prevention and Control …92

9.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE …94 10.0 FUNDING AND FINANCING …95 11.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION …97 12.0 RECORD KEEPING …98

14 15 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

Resource recovery and incineration. Landfilling.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAM. Collections Transfer Disposal, Recycling Litter Prevention and Control

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

FUNDING AND FINANCING

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

RECORD KEEPIN

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Key Elements of Existing Solid Waste Program … ES3 Table 2 USA Waste Generation – Pounds per Person per Day …6 Table 3 USA Waste Composition by Material Type …7 Table 5 USA Recycling and Composting Rates …8 Table 6 USA Source Reduction …9 Table 7 Tonnage Projections From Original SWMP …10 Table 8 1991 Solid Waste System Components …11 Table 9 Summary of Goals and Action Items …12 Table 10 Proposed Action Long Term Vision …13 Table 11 Proposed Action Short Term Vision …14 Table 12 Twenty-Year Milestones …14 Table 13 Population - Buchanan County 1990-2014 …17 Table 14 Population Projections 1980-2030 …18 Table 15 Population by Age…18 Table 16 Selected Racial Data Estimates by Population and Percentage …19 Table 17 Household Income and Benefits …19 Table 18 Unemployment Rates-Buchanan County 200-2014 …22 Table 19 Commuting Patterns…23 Table 20 Major Employers in Buchanan County…23 Table 21 County Versus State Data …23 Table 22 Employment by Industry – Buchanan County …24 Table 23 Taxable Sales 2000-2014 …25 Table 24 Population – Dickenson County 1990-2014 …29 Table 25 Population Projections 1990-2040 …29 Table 26 Population by Age…30 Table 27 Selected Racial Data by Population and Precentage …30 Table 28 Household Income and Benefits …31 Table 29 Dickenson County Unemployment Rates 2000-2014…34 Table 30 Commuting Patterns…34 Table 31 Major Employers – Dickenson County…35 Table 32 County Versus State Data …35 Table 33 Employment by Industry – Dickenson County …36 Table 34 Taxable Sales 2000-2014 …37 Table 35 Population – Russell County 1990-2014 …40 Table 36 Population Projections 1990-2040 …41 Table 37 Selected Racial Data Estimates by Population and Precentage …41 Table 38 Population by Gender & Age 2000-2010, 2014 …42 Table 39 Household Income and Benefits …43 Table 40 Umployment Rates –Russell County 2000-2014 …46 Table 41 Cummuting Patterns…47 Table 42 Major Employers – Russell County …47 Table 43 County Versus State Data …48 Table 44 Taxable Sales 2000-2014 …48 Table 45 Employment by Industry – Russell County …49 Table 46 Population Summary 1990-2014 …52

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Table 46

LIST OF TABLES

Key Elements of Existing Solid Waste Program… USA Waste Generation — Pounds per Person per Day… USA Waste Composition by Material Type… USA Recycling and Composting Rates … USA Source Reduction

Tonnage Projections From Original SWMP. 1991 Solid Waste System Components Summary of Goals and Action Items… Proposed Action Long Term Vision Proposed Action Short Term Visio1 Twenty-Year Milestones Population - Buchanan County 1990-2014 Population Projections 1980-2030. Population by Age… Selected Racial Data Estimates by Population and Percentage Household Income and Benefits . Unemployment Rates-Buchanan County 200-2014 22 Commuting Patterns… Major Employers in Buchanan County. County Versus State Data… Employment by Industry ~ Buchanan County. Taxable Sales 2000-2014. Population — Dickenson County 1990-2014 29 Population Projections 1990-204 Population by Age. Selected Racial Data by Population and Precentage Houschold Income and Benefits… Dickenson County Unemployment Rates 2000-2014. ‘Commuting Patterns,

Major Employers — Dickenson County. County Versus State Data Employment by Industry — Dickenson County. Taxable Sales 2000-2014. Population — Russell County Population Projections 1990-2040 Selected Racial Data Estimates by Population and Precentage… Population by Gender & Age 2000-2010, 2014 Household Income and Benefit Umployment Rates Russell County 2000-2014. Cummuting Pattern: Major Employers — Russell County AT County Versus State Data Taxable Sales 2000-2014. Employment by Industry — Russell County… Population Summary 1990-2014 …

Table 47 DEQ Form 50-25 Summary 2015 …54 Table 48 Tansfer Station Reporting Data – Buchanan County 2010-2015 …55 Table 49 Transfer Station Reporting Data – Dickenson County 2010-2015l …56 Table 50 Tansfer Station Reporting Data – Rusesll County 2010-2015…56 Table 51 Transfer Station Reporting Data – Regional …57 Table 52 Evaluation of Waste Tonnage as Pounds Per Person Per Day Buchanan
County …57 Table 53 Evaluation of Waste Tonnage as Pounds Per Person Per Day Dickenson County …58 Table 54 Evaluation of Waste Tonnage as Pounds Per Person Per Day Russell County …58 Table 55 Evaluation of Waste Tonnage as Pounds Per Person Per Day Regional …59 Table 56 Household and Commerical Waste Received at Transfer Stations …60 Table 57 Estimated Waste Tonnage 2004-2024 – Buchanan County …62 Table 58 Estimated Waste Tonnage 2004-2024 – Dickenson County …63 Table 59 Estimated Waste Tonnage 2004-2024 – Russell County …64 Table 60 Estimated Waste Tonnage 2004-2024 – Regional …65 Table 61 Regional Waste Composition by Material Type …66 Table 62 Regional Waste Composition by Product Type …66 Table 63 Summary of Information of Collections …67 Table 64 Russell County Collection Sites Tonnage…70 Table 65 Summary of Information on Transfer Stations …71 Table 66 Contractual Relationships …72 Table 67 Summary of Authoruty’s Tipping Charges…73 Table 68 Summary of Tipping Fees at Transfer Stations …73 Table 69 Sumary of Authority Agreements …74 Table 70 AEP Industrial Landfill …77 Table 71 Summary of Recycling Programs in the Region…79 Table 72 Locality Recyling Rate …80 Table 73 Recycling Datea by % Material …81 Table 74A Summary of Operation Budgets and Revenues …83 Table 75 Summary of Refuse Facilities in Region …85 Table 76 Collection System Goals and Action Items …87 Table 77 Tansfer State System Goals and Action Items …88 Table 78 Disposal System Goals and Action Items …89 Table 79 Recycling System Goals and Action Items …91 Table 80 Litter Prevention and Contraol Goals and Action Items …92 Table 81 Projected Micsellaneous Expenditures by Authority 2004-2024 …95 Table 82 Projected Expenditures for Authority Transfer and Disposal 2000-2024 .96

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Vicinity Map …8 Figure 2 Location Map …9 Figure 3 Buchanan County - Permit 218 Location Map …18 Figure 4 Dickenson County - Permit 261 Location Map …25 Figure 5 Russell County - Permit 515 Location Map …26

Table 47 Table 48 Table 49 Table 50 Table 51 Table 52

Table 53 Table 54

Table 55 Table 56 Table 57 Table 58 Table 59 Table 60 Table 61 Table 62 Table 63 Table 64 Table 65 Table 66 Table 67 Table 68 Table 69 Table 70 Table 71 Table 72 Table 73 Table 744 Table 75 Table 76 Table 77 Table 78 Table 79 Table 80 Table 81 Table 82

Figure 1 ure 2 ure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5

DEQ Form 50-25 Summary 2015 ss Tansfer Station Reporting Data — Buchanan County 2010-2015 55 Transfer Station Reporting Data — Dickenson County 2010-20151 Tansfer Station Reporting Data ~ Rusesll County 2010-2015. Transfer Station Reporting Data — Regional Evaluation of Waste Tonnage as Pounds Per Person Per Day Buchanan County. Evaluation of Waste Tonnage as Pounds Per Person Per Day Dickenson County … . Evaluation of Waste Tonnage as Pounds Per Person Per Day Russell. ‘County. Evaluation of Waste Tonnage as Pounds Per Person Per Day Regional Household and Commerical Waste Received at Transfer Stations Estimated Waste Tonnage 2004-2024 ~ Buchanan County Estimated Waste Tonnage 2004-2024 — Dickenson County… Estimated Waste Tonnage 2004-2024 — Russell County… Estimated Waste Tonnage 2004-2024 — Regional. Regional Waste Composition by Material Type. Regional Waste Composition by Product Type… Summary of Information of Collections Russell County Collection Sites Tonnage. Summary of Information on Transfer Stations Contractual Relationships. Summary of Authoruty’s Tipping Charges… Summary of Tipping Fees at Transfer Station: Sumary of Authority Agreements. AEP Industrial Landfill… Summary of Recycling Programs in the Region. Locality Recyling Rate… Recycling Datea by % Material… . Summary of Operation Budgets and Revenues Summary of Refuse Facilities in Region Collection System Goals and Action Items … ‘Tansfer State System Goals and Action Items. Disposal System Goals and Action Items Recycling System Goals and Action Items… Litter Prevention and Contraol Goals and Action Item: Projected Micsellaneous Expenditures by Authority 2004-2024 Projected Expenditures for Authority Transfer and Disposal 2000-2024 .96

LIST OF FIGURES

Vicinity Map Location Map… Buchanan County - Permit 218 Location Map Dickenson County - Permit 261 Location Map Russell County - Permit 515 Location Map …

vii

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Regional Documentation Appendix 2 DEQ Forms 50-25
Appendix 3 Summary of Previously Permitted Landfills and Location Maps
Appendix 4 DEQ Recycling Reporting Form
Appendix 5 Recycling Markets
Appendix 6 Sampling of Public Education Materials
Appendix 7 Questionnaire and Responses Appendix 8 Authority Meetings: Agendas and Minutes
Appendix 9 Resolutions

Appendix 1 ‘Appendix 2 Appendix 3 ‘Appendix 4 ‘Appendix § Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Appendix 8 Appendix 9

APPENDICES:

Regional Documentation

DEQ Forms 50-25

Summary of Previously Permitted Landfills and Location Maps DEQ Recycling Reporting Form

Recycling Markets

Sampling of Public Education Materials

Questionnaire and Responses

Authority Meetings: Agendas and Minutes

Resolutions

vii

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following solid waste management plan prepared for the Cumberland Plateau Regional Waste Management Authority (Authority) is submitted in accordance with 9 VAC 20-130-40 et seq. The region under the umbrella of the Authority is composed of Buchanan County and the incorporated town of Grundy, Dickenson County and the incorporated towns of Clinchco, Clintwood and Haysi, and Russell County and the incorporated towns of Cleveland, Honaker, and Lebanon. The region was formed in 1991 under the original solid waste management plan prepared by the Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission in conjunction with Thompson and Litton for the Counties of Buchanan, Dickenson, and Russell. The plan was dated July 1, 1991. The documentation forming the region is included in Appendix 1.

Since 1991, the region has moved from landfill operations within each County to transfer operations with disposal outside of the region. In addition, since 1991, a regional authority has been established. This Authority has the oversight of the plan and control of the transfer operations. The Authority is responsible for the following activities:

• Financing of the transfer stations. The Authority took out $3,000,000 in bonds in 1993 to cover the estimated cost of the construction of the three stations. These bonds were refinanced in 2001 leaving the Authority with a $2,356,400 debt. Final payment on this initial bond was completed on December 1, 2008. In 2009, the Authority reviewed the conditions of all three facilities and decided to secure a bond for $1.3 million for rehabilitating the facilities. In 2010 all work was completed for extending the life of the facilities for fifteen additional years. Final payment on the 2009 Bond was completed in November 2015.

• Oversight of and provision of funding to the Counties for the operations of the transfer stations. The localities can chose to provide manpower or to privatize the manpower for day to day operations. Only Russell County has privatized their operations.

• Collecting revenues from the Counties for use of the transfer stations. • Permit compliance.
• Negotiating and holding the contract on hauling from the transfer stations to the landfill.

Currently Advanced Disposal/Eco Safe Landfill holds the contract for hauling. CEI is sub-contracted by Advanced Disposal for hauling services.

• Negotiating and holding the contract on disposal. The Authority currently holds the contract with Advanced Disposal/Eco Safe Lanfill for disposal at the Blountville, TN landfill located in Sullivan County Tennessee.

• Negotiating and holding the contract for periodic household hazardous waste collection programs.

• The Authority has been actively involved in the promotion of recycling efforts in the region. In 1995, the Authority encouraged the establishment of County operated recycling drops off centers. Buchanan, Dickenson and Russell County embraced the program which still operates today.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

«Financing of the transfer stations. The Authority took out $3,000,000 in bonds in 1993 to cover the estimated cost of the construction of the three stations. These bonds were refinanced in 2001 leaving the Authority with a $2,356,400 debt. Final payment on this initial bond was completed on December 1, 2008. In 2009, the Authority reviewed the conditions of all three facilities and decided to secure a bond for $1.3 million for rehabilitating the facilities. In 2010 all work was completed for extending the life of the facilities for fifteen additional years. Final payment on the 2009 Bond was completed in November 2015.

© Oversight of and provision of funding to the Counties for the operations of the transfer stations. The localities can chose to provide manpower or to privatize the manpower for day to day operations. Only Russell County has privatized their operations.

Permit compliance,

© Negotiating and holding the contract on hauling from the transfer stations to the landfill. Currently Advanced Disposal/Eco Safe Landfill holds the contract for hauling. CEI is sub-contracted by Advanced Disposal for hauling services.

Negotiating and holding the contract on disposal. The Authority currently holds the contract with Advanced Disposal/Eco Safe Lanfill for disposal at the Blountville, TN landfill located in Sullivan County Tennessee.
Negotiating and holding the contract for periodic household hazardous waste collection programs.
The Authority has been actively involved in the promotion of recycling efforts in the region. In 1995, the Authority encouraged the establishment of County operated recycling drops off centers. Buchanan, Dickenson and Russell County embraced the program which still operates today.

ES-1

ES-2

The counties and some towns are responsible for some or all of the following activities: • Collection services
• Recycling activities
• Litter control activities including clean-up of open dumps and enforcement of litter laws • Public education • Post closure activities at all closed landfills as required by DEQ.
• Both Buchanan and Dickenson Counties completed their PCC termination at the Hoot

Owl Landfill Permit #218 and the Dickenson County Landfill Permit #261. Russell County has completed a partial PPC termination on Russell County Landfills Permits #258 and #515. Russell County is currently seeking out alternatives to treat their Leachate rather than pump and haul.

No treatment of any waste as defined in Section 1.6 occurs within the region.

In addition to the daily record keeping, the Region documents its solid waste activities in several ways:

• Annual reports to the Cumberland Plateau Regional Waste Management Authority prepared by the Executive Director of the Authority

• Annual reports to the Board of Supervisors of the member Counties based on information provided by the Authority

• Periodic updates to the Authority and Boards by the Executive Director • Annual submittal by March 31 of each year of the Waste Information and Assessment

Report (Form 50-25) to DEQ • Annual submittal by April 30 of each year of the Recycling Rate Report (Form 50-30) to

DEQ • Annual submittal usually by December of each year of the update to the financial

assurance forms to DEQ

All these reports, updates and DEQ submittals as well as all background and permitting information relative to the transfer stations are kept in the central archive (files) of the Cumberland Plateau Regional Waste Management Authority located at 224 Clydesway Road, Lebanon, Virginia, 24266. Information on the landfills is kept at the Counties. The Director of DEQ or other DEQ representatives receive copies of appropriate information relative to the Region’s solid waste management program through the following sources:

• Direct submittal to DEQ of Forms 50-25 and 50-30 on an annual basis • Permit applications • Permit amendment applications • Updates to the solid waste management plan • General correspondence which may be required from time to time

The counties and some towns are responsible for some or all of the following activities:

Collection services Recycling activities

Litter control activities including clean-up of open dumps and enforcement of litter laws Public education

Post closure activities at all closed landfills as required by DEQ.

Both Buchanan and Dickenson Counties completed their PCC termination at the Hoot Owl Landfill Permit #218 and the Dickenson County Landfill Permit #261. Russell County has completed a partial PPC termination on Russell County Landfills Permits #258 and #515. Russell County is currently seeking out alternatives to treat their Leachate rather than pump and haul.

No treatment of any waste as defined in Section 1.6 occurs within the region.

In addition to the daily record keeping, the Region documents its solid waste activities in several

ways:

Annual reports to the Cumberland Plateau Regional Waste Management Authority prepared by the Executive Director of the Authority

‘Annual reports to the Board of Supervisors of the member Counties based on information provided by the Authority

Periodic updates to the Authority and Boards by the Executive Director

Annual submittal by March 31 of each year of the Waste Information and Assessment Report (Form 50-25) to DEQ

Annual submittal by April 30 of each year of the Recycling Rate Report (Form 50-30) to DEQ

Annual submittal usually by December of each year of the update to the financial assurance forms to DEQ

Direct submittal to DEQ of Forms 50-25 and 50-30 on an annual basis Permit applications

Permit amendment applications

Updates to the solid waste management plan

General correspondence which may be required from time to time

ES-2

ES-3

The following table summarizes important key elements of the Region’s existing program:

TABLE 1 KEY ELEMENTS

EXISTING SOLID WASTE PROGRAM

ELEMENT DESCRIPTION Collection • Buchanan County – Residential and commercial door-to-door

collection. o Town of Grundy – Residential and commercial door-to-door

collection. • Dickenson County – Residential and commercial door-to-door

collection. o Town of Clintwood – Residential and commercial door-to-

door collection. • Russell County – 14 green box sites

o Town of Cleveland - Residential and commercial door-to-door collection.

o Town of Honaker - Residential and commercial door-to-door collection.

o Town of Lebanon – Residential and commercial door-to-door collection.

Transfer • Buchanan County Transfer Station o PBR # 106 o Opened March 1996 o 5,000 square feet o Scales – (2) B Tek 10’x70’ o Cost $73,412.50
o Managed by the Authority and staff by the County o Tonnage transferred 2015 – 16,426 tons

• Dickenson County Transfer Station o PBR #049 o Opened December 1993 o 5,000 square feet o Scales – (2) B Tek 10’x70’ o Cost - $73,412.50 o Managed by the Authority and staffed by the County o Tonnage transferred 2015 – 10,049 tons

• Russell County Transfer Station o PBR #001 o Opened April 1994 o 7,500 square feet o Scales – (1) B Tek and (1) Meter Toledo 10’x70’ o Cost - $73,412.50 o Managed by the Authority and staffed by a private contractor o Tonnage transferred 2015 – 16,986 tons

The following table summarizes important key elements of the Region’s existing program:

TABLE 1 KEY ELEMENTS

EXISTING SOLID WASTE PROGRAM

ELEMENT

DESCRIPTION

Collection

Buchanan County — Residential and commercial door-to-door collection.

Town of Grundy ~ Residential and commercial door-to-door collection,

Dickenson County — Residential and commercial door-to-door collection.

Town of Clintwood — Residential and commercial door-to- door collection.

Russell County — 14 green box sites

Town of Cleveland - Residential and commercial door-to-door collection. Town of Honaker - Residential and commercial door-to-door collection, Town of Lebanon — Residential and commercial door-to-door collection.

Transfer

Buchanan County Transfer Station

oo0000

PBR # 106 Opened March 1996

5,000 square feet

Scales — (2) B Tek 10°x70°

Cost $73,412.50

Managed by the Authority and staff by the County Tonnage transferred 2015 — 16,426 tons

Dickenson County Transfer Station

00000

PBR #049

Opened December 1993

5,000 square feet

Scales — (2) B Tek 10°x70”

Cost - $73,412.50

Managed by the Authority and staffed by the County Tonnage transferred 2015 — 10,049 tons

Russell County Transfer Station

e00000

PBR #001 Opened April 1994

7,500 square feet

Scales — (1) B Tek and (1) Meter Toledo 10°x70°

Cost - $73,412.50

Managed by the Authority and staffed by a private contractor Tonnage transferred 2015 — 16,986 tons

ES-3

ES-4

ELEMENT DESCRIPTION • Hauling contract with Advanced Disposal and subcontracted with CEI

Trucking, Inc. The contract expires on October 26, 2018. • Permits are held by Authority who owns the buildings and equipment

and holds ownership of the properties in Buchanan and Dickenson. The Authority has a 25 year lease on the property at Russell County.

• As of December 1, 2015, the Authority does not have any outstanding debt. Bond debt was paid off on December 1, 2015.

• As permit holder, the Authority is responsible for permit compliance. • As owner of the buildings, the Authority is responsible for all

maintenance/repairs and equipment replacement. Disposal • Contract with Advanced Disposal/Eco Safe, Inc. It expires on

October 26, 2018. • Location: Sullivan County Tennessee approximately 10 miles south of

Bristol • TDEC Permit #SNL 820-000-0282 Ext., Class 1 • Total acreage of site – 655 acres • Total acreage available for permitting – 255 acres • Life remaining – 78 years at 675 tons per day (2094).

Recycling • DEQ Recycling Form for region – Recycling rate 2014 = 30%
• Buchanan County – Currently Buchanan County offers a drop off site

located in the town of Grundy for paper, plastic and cardboard. White goods collected and recycled. Tires collected. Individual recycling rate in 2014 of 25.2%.

o Town of Grundy – No formal program but county operates drop off site in town limits. Shreds leaves, brush, and Christmas trees for mulch.

• Dickenson County – Currently Dickenson County offers drop off location in Clintwood and Haysi. Have one scrap metal dealer in County who recycles white goods, aluminum, scrap metal, and abandoned autos. Tires are collected. Individual recycling rate in 2014 of 33.4%.

o Town of Clintwood – no formal program but county operates drop off site in town limits.

• Russell County – 7-8 drop off sites; plastic, newspaper, cardboard, aluminum and oil are collected. White goods and scrap metal recycled at transfer station. Tires sent off site for recycling.
Individual recycling rate in 2014 of 31.9%.

o Town of Lebanon – No formal program. • Since original submittal of this plan on 06/25/04, the Authority has

hired a full time recycling coordinator to work to improve the programs in the Region.

Treatment • The region does not treat any waste per the definition in Section 1.6.

ELEMENT

DESCRIPTION

Hauling contract with Advanced Disposal and subcontracted with CEL Trucking, Inc. The contract expires on October 26, 2018

Permits are held by Authority who owns the buildings and equipment and holds ownership of the properties in Buchanan and Dickenson. The Authority has a 25 year lease on the property at Russell County. As of December 1, 2015, the Authority does not have any outstanding debt. Bond debt was paid off on December 1, 2015.

As permit holder, the Authority is responsible for permit compliance. As owner of the buildings, the Authority is responsible for all maintenance/repairs and equipment replacement.

Disposal

Contract with Advanced Disposal/Eco Safe, Inc. It expires on October 26, 2018.

Location: Sullivan County Tennessee approximately 10 miles south of Bristol

TDEC Permit #SNL 820-000-0282 Ext., Class 1 Total acreage of site — 655 acres

Total acreage available for permitting ~ 255 acres Life remaining ~ 78 years at 675 tons per day (2094).

Recycling

DEQ Recycling Form for region — Recycling rate 2014 = 30% Buchanan County ~ Currently Buchanan County offers a drop off site located in the town of Grundy for paper, plastic and cardboard. White goods collected and recycled. Tires collected. Individual recycling rate in 2014 of 25.2%. © Town of Grundy ~ No formal program but county operates drop off site in town limits. Shreds leaves, brush, and Christmas trees for mulch. Dickenson County — Currently Dickenson County offers drop off location in Clintwood and Haysi. Have one scrap metal dealer in County who recycles white goods, aluminum, scrap metal, and abandoned autos. Tires are collected. Individual recycling rate in 2014 of 33.4%. © Town of Clintwood — no formal program but county operates drop off site in town limits. Russell County — 7-8 drop off sites; plastic, newspaper, cardboard, aluminum and oil are collected. White goods and scrap metal recycled at transfer station. Tires sent off site for recycling. Individual recycling rate in 2014 of 31.9%. © Town of Lebanon — No formal program. Since original submittal of this plan on 06/25/04, the Authority has hired a full time recycling coordinator to work to improve the programs in the Region.

Treatment

The region does not treat any waste per the definition in Section 1.6.

ES-4

ES-5

During preparation of the plan, the following goals and objectives were developed for the program. See Section 8.0 for a more detailed description of the activities.

Collection - Goals and Objectives:

• Towns and Counties will continue to handle their own collection. • Authority to evaluate the possibility of developing a private contract for collection in the

region.
• Town of Lebanon may consider servicing citizens in immediately adjacent areas of

Russell County with door-to-door service if practical.

Transfer • Current hauling contract expires on October 26, 2018. Authority has been instructed to

continue in its oversight role and will begin competitive bid process in early 2018. • Repair work was completed in 2010, e.g. floor repairs, door repairs, lighting, new scales,

new scale house, etc. Authority preformed oversight during the repairs. Following completion of the repairs, the Authority agreed to create a line item in its budget for long term maintenance and repairs.

Disposal - Goals and Objectives:

♦ Current disposal contract expires on October 26, 2018. Authority has been instructed to continue in its oversight role and will begin competitive bid process in early 2018.

♦ The Advanced Disposal/Eco Safe waste disposal facility in Sullivan County, Tennessee has a life expectancy estimated to the year 2094. Thus, prior to the end of the planning period, the Authority will need to consider alternative disposal locations unless this facility is expanded.

Recycling - Goals and Objectives:

♦ Authority has hired a regional recycling coordinator to work with the Counties, Towns and the commercial sector. Coordinator is responsible for pursuing markets, assisting with the establishment of collection programs, developing educational programs, and expanding the overall interest in recycling in the region.

♦ Authority to consider assisting directly with the recycling programs but coordinator will need to research markets and develop a specific plan for the Authority to act on.

♦ Authority has established a periodic electronic waste collection program. ♦ Authority has established a periodic household hazardous waste collection program.
♦ The Authority will continue to encourage its localities to increase programs offered and

public participation in annual environmental events.
♦ The Authority will continue to encourage the localities to increase the percentage of

residents that are educated about proper disposal and recycling practices within the region.

♦ Secure additional competitive state grants to fund additional environmental education programs.

♦ Continue to expand and increase programs in the schools and community.

During preparation of the plan, the following goals and objectives were developed for the program, See Section 8.0 for a more detailed description of the activities

Collection - Goals and Objectives: © Towns and Counties will continue to handle their own collection.

Authority to evaluate the possibility of developing a private contract for collection in the region. © Town of Lebanon may consider servicing citizens in immediately adjacent areas of Russell County with door-to-door service if practical.

Transfer

Repair work was completed in 2010, e.g. floor repairs, door repairs, lighting, new scales, new scale house, etc. Authority preformed oversight during the repairs. Following completion of the repairs, the Authority agreed to create a line item in its budget for long term maintenance and repairs.

Disposal - Goals and Objectives: Current disposal contract expires on October 26, 2018. Authority has been instructed to continue in its oversight role and will begin competitive bid process in early 2018. ¢ The Advanced Disposal/Eco Safe waste disposal facility in Sullivan County, Tennessee has a life expectancy estimated to the year 2094. Thus, prior to the end of the planning period, the Authority will need to consider alternative disposal locations unless this facility is expanded.

Recycling - Goals and Objectives:

¢ Authority has hired a regional recycling coordinator to work with the Counties, Towns and the commercial sector. Coordinator is responsible for pursuing markets, assisting with the establishment of collection programs, developing educational programs, and expanding the overall interest in recycling in the region.

Authority to consider assisting directly with the recycling programs but coordinator will

need to research markets and develop a specific plan for the Authority to act on.

Authority has established a periodic electronic waste collection program.

Authority has established a periodic houschold hazardous waste collection program.

The Authority will continue to encourage its localities to increase programs offered and

public participation in annual environmental events.

The Authority will continue to encourage the localities to increase the percentage of residents that are educated about proper disposal and recycling practices within the region.

Secure additional competitive state grants to fund additional environmental education programs.

Continue to expand and increase programs in the schools and community.

ES-5

ES-6

Litter Prevention and Control ♦ The regional coordinator has been tasked with involvement in regional coordination of

litter prevention and enforcement. ♦ The Authority through the coordinator will seek out alternative funding sources for litter

prevention and clean up. ♦ The Authority through the coordinator will encourage the organization of grassroots

environmental groups to assist in litter prevention and litter control activities. An example is the already established Keep Southwest Virginia Beautiful.

♦ The Counties will continue to map illegal dump sites and will coordinate clean up as funding is available.

♦ The Counties will continue to support existing Adopt a Highway and Adopt a Stream campaigns.

♦ The Counties will continue to provide periodic cleanup days throughout the year to encourage the collection of bulk items.

♦ The Counties will continue to provide and improve enforcement activities relative to illegal dumping and littering.

Treatment

♦ The Region does not have any plans to incorporate treatment into their solid waste program.

Litter Prevention and Control

The regional coordinator has been tasked with involvement in regional coordination of

litter prevention and enforcement.

The Authority through the coordinator will seek out alternative funding sources for litter prevention and clean up.

The Authority through the coordinator will encourage the organization of grassroots environmental groups to assist in litter prevention and litter control activities. An example is the already established Keep Southwest Virginia Beautiful.

¢ The Counties will continue to map illegal dump sites and will coordinate clean up as funding is available,

The Counties will continue to support existing Adopt a Highway and Adopt a Stream campaigns.

The Counties will continue to provide periodic cleanup days throughout the year to

encourage the collection of bulk items.

The Counties will continue to provide and improve enforcement activities relative to illegal dumping and littering.

Treatment

The Region does not have any plans to incorporate treatment into their solid waste program.

ES-6

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Legislation

The following solid waste management plan has been prepared in accordance with the Virginia Waste Management Board’s, Regulations for Solid Waste Management Planning, Amendment 1, 9 VAC 20-130-40 et seq., effective date August 1, 2001.

1.2 Authority (9 VAC 20-130-40)

The regulations were promulgated pursuant to Chapter 14 (Sec.10.1-1400 et seq. and specifically Sections 10.1-1402, 10.1-1411 and 10.1-1413 of Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia which authorized the Virginia Waste Management Board to promulgate and enforce such regulations as may be necessary to carry out its duties and power, and the intent of the Virginia Waste Management Act and the federal acts.

1.3 Purpose (9 VAC 20-130-40)

The purpose of the regulations as generally stated in 9 VAC 20-130-40 and elsewhere in the regulations is to:

Establish minimum solid waste management standards and planning requirements for protection of public health, public safety, the environment, and natural resources throughout the Commonwealth;
Require the development of a comprehensive and integrated solid waste management plan that addresses all components of the solid waste hierarchy established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as embraced by the Commonwealth as follows:

♦ Source Reduction (most desirable activity) ♦ Reuse ♦ Recycling ♦ Resource Recovery (waste-to-energy) ♦ Incineration ♦ Landfilling (least desirable activity)

Promote local and regional planning that provides for environmentally sound and compatible solid waste management with the most effective and efficient use of available resources;
Establish procedures and rules for designation of regional boundaries for solid waste management plans;
Establish state, local government, or regional responsibility for meeting and maintaining the minimum recycling rates of 25%;
Establish the requirement to withhold permits for failure to comply with the regulations;
Provide a method to request reasonable variance or exemptions from the regulations;
Provide for reporting and assessment of solid waste management in the Commonwealth.

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Legislation

1.2 Authority (9 VAC 20-130-40)

1.3 Purpose (9 VAC 20-130-40)

The purpose of the regulations as generally stated in 9 VAC 20-130-40 and elsewhere in the regulations is to:

Establish minimum solid waste management standards and planning requirements for protection of public health, public safety, the environment, and natural resources throughout the Commonwealth;
Require the development of a comprehensive and integrated solid waste management plan that addresses all components of the solid waste hierarchy established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as embraced by the Commonwealth as follows:

Source Reduction (most desirable activity)

Reuse

Recycling

Resource Recovery (waste-to-energy)

Incineration

¢ Landfilling (least desirable activity)

Promote local and regional planning that provides for environmentally sound and compatible solid waste management with the most effective and efficient use of available resources;

4, Establish procedures and rules for designation of regional boundaries for solid waste management plans;

Establish state, local government, or regional responsibility for meeting and maintaining

the minimum recycling rates of 25%;

Establish the requirement to withhold permits for failure to comply with the regulations;

Provide a method to request reasonable variance or exemptions from the regulations;

Provide for reporting and assessment of solid waste management in the Commonwealth.

eeeee

wea

1.4 Planning Area

The region under the umbrella of the Authority included in this solid waste management plan is composed of Buchanan County and the incorporated town of Grundy, Dickenson County and the incorporated towns of Clinchco, Clintwood and Haysi, and Russell County and the incorporated towns of Cleveland, Honaker and Lebanon. See Figure 1 for a vicinity map indicating the location of the region within Virginia and Figure 2 for Region Map. The region was originally formed in 1991.

1.5 Planning Period

The planning period for this solid waste management plan is 20 years from 2016 – 2036.

1.6 Critical Definitions (9 VAC 20-130-40)

It is important that the reader of this solid waste management plan have a clear understanding of the terms used throughout the report. The following selected definitions are taken directly from the regulations:

Construction, demolition and debris waste (CDD) – Construction and demolition waste means solid waste which is produced or generated during construction, remodeling, repair or destruction of pavements, houses, commercial buildings, or other structures. Construction wastes include, but are not limited to lumber, wire, sheetrock, broken brick, shingles, glass, pipes, concrete, paving materials, and metal and plastics if the metal or plastics are a part of the materials of construction or empty containers for such materials. Paints, coatings, solvents, asbestos, any liquid, compressed gases or semi-liquids and garbage are not construction wastes. Debris waste means wastes resulting from land clearing operations.

Household hazardous waste (HHW) – means any waste material derived from households (including single and multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunk houses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds and day-use recreation areas which, except for the fact that it is derived from a household, would otherwise be classified as a hazardous waste in accordance with 9 VAC 20-60.

Integrated Waste Management Plan – means a governmental plan that considers all elements of waste management during generation, collection, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal, and litter control and selects the appropriate methods of providing necessary control and services for effective and efficient management of all wastes. An “integrated waste management plan” must provide for source reduction, reuse, and recycling within the jurisdiction and the proper funding and management of waste management programs.

Principle recyclable materials – means paper, metal (except automobile bodies), plastic, glass, yard waste, wood, and textiles. It does not include large diameter tree stumps.

Recycling – means the process of separating a given waste material from the waste stream and processing it so that it may be used again as a raw material for a product, which may or may not be similar to the original product. Recycling does not include processes that only involve size reduction.

1.4 Planning Area

The region under the umbrella of the Authority included in this solid waste management plan is composed of Buchanan County and the incorporated town of Grundy, Dickenson County and the incorporated towns of Clinchco, Clintwood and Haysi, and Russell County and the incorporated towns of Cleveland, Honaker and Lebanon. See Figure | for a vicinity map indicating the location of the region within Virginia and Figure 2 for Region Map. The region was originally formed in 1991

15 Planning Period The planning period for this solid waste management plan is 20 years from 2016 ~ 2036. 1.6 Critical Definitions (9 VAC 20-130-40)

Construction, demolition and debris waste (CDD) — Construction and demolition waste means solid waste which is produced or generated during construction, remodeling, repair or destruction of pavements, houses, commercial buildings, or other structures. Construction wastes include, but are not limited to lumber, wire, sheetrock, broken brick, shingles, glass, pipes, concrete, paving materials, and metal and plastics if the metal or plastics are a part of the materials of construction or empty containers for such materials. Paints, coatings, solvents, asbestos, any liquid, compressed gases or semi-liquids and garbage are not construction wastes. Debris waste means wastes resulting from land clearing operations.

Household hazardous waste (HHW) — means any waste material derived from households (including single and multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunk houses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds and day-use recreation areas which, except for the fact that it is derived from a household, would otherwise be classified as a hazardous waste in accordance with 9 VAC 20-60.

Integrated Waste Management Plan ~ means a governmental plan that considers all elements of waste management during generation, collection, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal, and litter control and selects the appropriate methods of providing necessary control and services for effective and efficient management of all wastes. An “integrated waste management plan” must provide for source reduction, reuse, and recycling within the jurisdiction and the proper funding and management of waste management programs.

Principle recyclable materials ~ means paper, metal (except automobile bodies), plastic, glass, yard waste, wood, and textiles. It does not include large diameter tree stumps.

Recycling ~ means the process of separating a given waste material from the waste stream and processing it so that it may be used again as a raw material for a product, which may or may not be similar to the original product. Recycling does not include processes that only involve size reduction.

Reuse – means the process of separating a given solid waste material from the waste stream and using it, without processing or changing its form, other than size reduction, for the same or another end use.

Source reduction – means any action that reduces or eliminates the generation of waste at the source, usually within a process. Source reduction measures include process modifications, feedstock substitutions, improvements in feedstock purity, improvements in housekeeping and management practices, increases in the efficiency of machinery, and recycling within a process.

Supplemental recyclable material – means waste tires, used oil, used oil filters, used antifreeze, automobile bodies, construction waste, demolition waste, debris waste, batteries, ash, sludge, or large diameter tree stumps, or material as may be authorized by the director.

Treatment – means any method, technique, or process, including but not limited to incineration, designed to change the physical, chemical or biological character or composition of any waste to render it more stable, safer for transport, or more amenable to use, reuse, reclamation or recovery. Per email from D. Gwinner, DEQ, treatment includes tire shredding but not mulching.

Used or reused material - means a material which is either:

Employed as an ingredient (including use as an intermediate) in a process to make a product, excepting those materials possessing distinct components that are recovered as separate end products; or
Employed in a particular function or application as an effective substitute for a commercial product or natural resource.

Reuse ~ means the process of separating a given solid waste material from the waste stream and using it, without processing or changing its form, other than size reduction, for the same or another end use.

Source reduction ~ means any action that reduces or eliminates the generation of waste at the source, usually within a process. Source reduction measures include process modifications, feedstock substitutions, improvements in feedstock purity, improvements in housekeeping and management practices, increases in the efficiency of machinery, and recycling within a process.

Supplemental recyclable material ~ means waste tires, used oil, used oil filters, used antifreeze, automobile bodies, construction waste, demolition waste, debris waste, batteries, ash, sludge, or large diameter tree stumps, or material as may be authorized by the director.

‘Treatment — means any method, technique, or process, including but not limited to incineration, designed to change the physical, chemical or biological character or composition of any waste to render it more stable, safer for transport, or more amenable to use, reuse, reclamation or recovery. Per email from D. Gwinner, DEQ, treatment includes tire shredding but not mulching.

Used or reused material - means a material which is either:

Employed as an ingredient (including use as an intermediate) in a process to make a product, excepting those materials possessing distinct components that are recovered as separate end products; or
Employed in a particular function or application as an effective substitute for a commercial product or natural resource.

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

To provide background to the discussions contained in this solid waste management plan, a discussion of the status of solid waste management nationally and an overview of the key points of the Region’s original Solid Waste Management Plan dated July 1, 1991 are being provided in this Section.

2.1 Status of solid waste management nationally

The following information is taken from “Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures Executive Summary,” produced by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EPA530-S-03-011, dated October 2003. This report provides data on the national municipal solid waste stream for 1960 through 2001.

It should be noted that as used by the EPA, the term municipal solid waste (MSW) consists of “everyday” items such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, and batteries. It does not include materials that may also be landfilled but are not generally considered MSW, such as construction and demolition debris, sludge, and non-hazardous industrial wastes. Virginia’s definition is similar defining MSW as waste that is normally composed of residential (household), commercial (businesses other than manufacturing or construction) and institutional solid waste. However, record keeping of localities may not segregate the waste materials in a similar way. Thus, when comparing the information in this section with the data in the solid waste plan, care must be given to the term MSW.

2.1.1 Waste generation

According to the EPA report, the United States generated approximately 88.1 million tons of MSW in 1960 and approximately 254.1 million tons in 2013. This represents a 260% increase in the solid waste generated over the 53-year period. At the same time the United States population increased from 180.0 million persons in 1960 to 316.12 million persons in 2013 or a 158% increase over the 41-year planning period. Clearly, the increase in tonnage is not just a factor of population but is also impacted by other factors including the commercial sector. The following table summarizes the waste generation for 1960 – 2013 on a pounds per person per day basis:

TABLE 2 USA WASTE GENERATION (MSW)

1960 – 2015 POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY

AS REPORTED BY EPA JUNE 2015

YEAR POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY

1960 2.7 1970 3.2 1980 3.7 1990 4.5

2.0 | BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 Status of solid waste management nationally

The following information is taken from “Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures Executive Summary,” produced by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EPAS30-S-03-011, dated October 2003. This report provides data on the national municipal solid waste stream for 1960 through 2001

2.1.1 Waste generation

TABLE 2 USA WASTE GENERATION (MSW) 1960 — 2015 POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY AS REPORTED BY EPA JUNE 2015

POUNDS PER YOR PERSON PER DAY 1960 2.7 1970 3.2 1980 3.7 1990 45

YEAR POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY

1995 4.5 1999 4.6 2000 4.7 2005 4.6 2010 4.44 2013 4.4 2014 4.4

The report noted that residential waste is estimated to be 55% - 65% of the total MSW generated, and that commercial waste (including institutional wastes, some industrial sites where packaging is generated and businesses) constitutes between 35% and 45% of the total MSW generated.

2.1.2 What is in the waste?

In evaluating waste generation, the report examined the composition of the waste materials as discarded before recycling and the amount of the material recovered through recycling programs.
The following table summarizes the findings from this report:

TABLE 3 USA WASTE COMPOSITION

BY MATERIAL TYPE AS SUMMARIZED IN EPA REPORT

2014 DATA

MATERIAL % OF TOTAL WASTE STREAM

RECOVERY AS A PERCENT OF GENERATION

Paper 26.6 49.7 Glass 4.4 3.3 Metals 9.0 8.8 Plastics 12.9 3.5 Rubber, leather, & textiles 9.5 0 Wood 6.2 2.9 Yard trimmings 13.3 23.6 Food scraps 14.9 2.2 Other 3.2 6.0

Based on this information a significant portion of the yard waste, paper and metal wastes are being recovered while there remains limited recovery of plastics, wood, and food scraps.

2.1.3 Disposal

The report tracks the ultimate handling of the wastes generated and indicates that 12.8% of the waste generated is combusted, 34% of the waste is recovered and that 53% of the waste is landfilled. In the 2014 report, it noted that the number of landfills has decreased from nearly

1995, 45 1999 46 2000 47 2005 46 2010 4.44 2013 44 2014 44

2.1.2 What is in the waste?

In evaluating waste generation, the report examined the composition of the waste materials as discarded before recycling and the amount of the material recovered through recycling programs. The following table summarizes the findings from this report:

TABLE 3 USA WASTE COMPOSITION BY MATERIAL TYPE AS SUMMARIZED IN EPA REPORT 2014 DATA. Paper 26.6 49.7 Glass 44 3.3 Metals 9.0 8.8 Plastics: 12.9 3.5 Rubber, leather, & textiles 9.5 0 Wood 6.2 2.9 Yard trimmings 13.3 23.6 Food scraps 14.9 2.2 Other 3.2. 6.0

Based on this information a significant portion of the yard waste, paper and metal wastes are being recovered while there remains limited recovery of plastics, wood, and food scraps.

2.1.3 Disposal

8,000 in 1988 to 1,858 in 2001 while the average landfill size increased. It further states that, “At the national level, capacity does not appear to be a problem, although regional dislocation sometimes occur.”

2.1.4 Recycling

According to the report, the United States recycled approximately 5.6 million tons of materials in 1960 and approximately 89 million tons in 2014. This represents a 900% increase in recycling over the period. In addition, composting of yard trimmings, food scraps, and other MSW organic material has increased from negligible reported quantities in 1960 to 21.1 million tons in 2014. This does not include back yard composting projects. Thus, in 1960, the recycling rate as calculated as recyclables over total MSW was 6.4%, and in 2014 is 34% without composting or 29.7% with composting. The following table summarizes the recycling and composting rates for 1960 – 2014 on a pounds per person per day (PPPD) basis:

TABLE 5 USA RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING RATES

1960 – 2014 AS REPORTED BY EPA

YEAR RECYCLING (PPPD)

COMPOSTING (PPPD)

TOTAL (PPPD)

1960 .2 Neg. .2 1970 .2 Neg. .2 1980 .4 Neg. .4 1990 .6 .1 .7 2000 1.0 .3 1.3 2005 1.1 .4 1.5 2010 1.1 .4 1.5 2012 1.1 .4 1.5 2013 1.1 .4 1.5 2014 1.1 .4 1.5

2.1.5 Waste reduction and reuse

The following information is taken from the EPA document, “Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2014 Fact Sheet,” and republished November 2016 as cited above. When EPA established its waste management hierarchy in 1989, it emphasized the importance of reducing the amount of waste created, reusing whenever possible, and then recycling what is left. When municipal solid waste is reduced and reused, this is called “source reduction”, meaning that the material never enters the waste stream. Instead it is managed at the source of generation. Source reduction includes the design, manufacture, purchase or use of materials, such as products and packaging, to reduce their amount or toxicity before they enter the MSW waste stream.
Examples of source reduction activities are:

• Designing products or packaging to reduce the quantity or the toxicity of the materials used, or to make them easier to reuse.

2.14 Recycling

‘According to the report, the United States recycled approximately 5.6 million tons of materials in 1960 and approximately 89 million tons in 2014. This represents a 900% increase in recycling over the period. In addition, composting of yard trimmings, food scraps, and other MSW organic material has increased from negligible reported quantities in 1960 to 21.1 million tons in 2014. This does not include back yard composting projects. Thus, in 1960, the recycling rate as calculated as recyclables over total MSW was 6.4%, and in 2014 is 34% without composting or 29.7% with composting. The following table summarizes the recycling and composting rates for 1960 — 2014 on a pounds per person per day (PPPD) basis:

TABLE 5 USA RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING RATES 1960 — 2014 AS REPORTED BY EPA A RECYCLING COMPOSTING TOTAL (PPPD) (PPD) (PPD) 1960 2 Neg. 2 1970 2 Neg. 2 1980 4 Neg. 4 1990 6 A 7 2000 1.0 3 13 2005 im 4 15 2010 1 4 15 2012 Ld 4A 15 2013 Ld A 15 2014 Ll 4 15

2.1.5 Waste reduction and reuse

used, or to make them easier to reuse.

• Reusing existing products or packaging; for example, refillable bottles, reusable pallets, and reconditioned barrels and drums.

• Lengthening the lives of products so less material is thrown away over time. • Using packaging that reduces the amount of damage or spoilage of a product. • Managing non-product organic wastes through onsite composting or other alternative

disposal techniques.

According to the EPA, the United States prevented more than 55 million tons of MSW from entering the waste stream using 1990 as the baseline year. The EPA believes that reducing the amount of yard trimmings is particularly important in reducing the MSW in landfills across the United States. The following table taken from the EPA indicates the source reduction by major material categories:

TABLE 6 USA SOURCE REDUCTION BY MAJOR CATEGORY

2014 AS REPORTED BY EPA

MATERIAL TONNAGE (million tons) % OF TOTAL REDUCTION

Durable goods
(e.g. appliances, furniture)

5.4 9.8%

Nondurable goods
(e.g. newspapers, clothing)

9.3 16.8%

Containers and packaging
(e.g. bottles, boxes)

15.5 28.1%

Other MSW
(e.g. yard trimmings, food scraps)

25.0 45.3%

Total Source Reduction
(1990 baseline year)

55.1 100.0%

Source reduction avoided an increase in the waste stream from 1999 to 2000 of nearly 25 percent. According to EPA, between 2 and 5% of the waste stream is potentially reusable and reflecting the interest in reuse is the establishment of over 6,000 reuse centers throughout the country ranging from specialized programs for building materials, to salvage facilities at landfills, to local/national programs such as Goodwill and Salvation Army.

2.2 Highlights from original solid waste plan (1991)

The original solid waste management plan for the Cumberland Plateau Region was prepared by the Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission in conjunction with Thomson and Litton and was dated July 1, 1991. The following sections provide highlights from the original plan.

2.2.1 Waste generation projections

The following table summarizes the estimated waste tonnages in 1991, the projections during the original planning period and provides the actual 2003 tonnage data. In 1991, scales did not exist

Reusing existing products or packaging; for example, refillable bottles, reusable pallets, and reconditioned barrels and drums.

Managing non-product organic wastes through onsite composting or other alternative disposal techniques.

‘According to the EPA, the United States prevented more than 55 million tons of MSW from entering the waste stream using 1990 as the baseline year. The EPA believes that reducing the amount of yard trimmings is particularly important in reducing the MSW in landfills across the United States. The following table taken from the EPA indicates the source reduction by major material categories:

TABLE 6 USA SOURCE REDUCTION BY MAJOR CATEGORY 2014 AS REPORTED BY EPA % OF TOTAL

MATERIAL TONNAGE (million tons) REDUCTION Durable goods 54 9.8% (c.g. appliances, furniture) Nondurable goods 93 16.8% (c.g. newspapers, clothing) Containers and packaging 15.5 28.1% (c.g. bottles, boxes) ‘Other MSW 25.0 3% (c.g. yard trimmings, food scraps) Total Source Reduction 35.1 100.0% (1990 baseline year)

2.2. Highlights from original solid waste plan (1991) The original solid waste management plan for the Cumberland Plateau Region was prepared by the Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission in conjunction with Thomson and Litton and was dated July 1, 1991. The following sections provide highlights from the original plan.

2.2.1 Waste generation projections

The following table summarizes the estimated waste tonnages in 1991, the projections during the original planning period and provides the actual 2003 tonnage data. In 1991, scales did not exist

at the landfills so tonnages were estimated from temporary weighing programs. When the transfer stations were constructed, scales were installed and the 2003 data represents actual reported values. The original plan stressed that without accurate scale information the projections could vary considerably.

TABLE 7 TONNAGE PROJECTIONS FROM ORIGINAL SWMP

COUNTY 1991 TONNAGE

ESTIMATED FOR PLAN

(Tons per year)

PROJECTED MINIMUM
TONNAGE

(Tons per year)

PROJECTED MAXIMUM TONNAGE

(Tons per year)

TONNAGE DATA 2003

SCALE RECORDS

Buchanan 31,200 28,600 47,190 20,472 Dickenson 15,600 15,730 28,600 10,607 Russell 35,880 14,300 28,600 22,945 TOTAL 82,680 58,630 104,390 54,024 Projected minimum and maximum tonnage taken from Page 18 of the original Solid Waste Management Plan. Values in the Plan were reported as tons per day based on a 5.5 day, week.

The tonnage as recorded for 2016 is significantly lower than that estimated in the original plan.
While the Counties may have realized a slight decrease in tonnage due to the declining population, the reduction most likely indicates an over estimation of the tonnage during preparation of the original study.

TABLE 7 TONNAGE PROJECTIONS FROM ORIGINAL SWMP

Buchanan 31,200 28,600 47,190 20,472

Dickenson 15,600 15,730 28,600 10,607 Russell 35,880 14,300 28,600 22,945 TOTAL 82,680 58,630 104,390 54,024

Projected minimum and maximum tonnage taken from Page I8 of the original Solid Waste Management Plan, Values in the Plan ‘were reported as tons per day based on a 5.5 day, week.

The tonnage as recorded for 2016 is significantly lower than that estimated in the original plan. While the Counties may have realized a slight decrease in tonnage due to the declining population, the reduction most likely indicates an over estimation of the tonnage during preparation of the original study.

2.2.2 System components

The solid waste management system consisted of the following components in 1991:

TABLE 8 1991 SOLID WASTE SYSTEM COMPONENTS

COMPONENT DESCRIPTION

Buchanan County Collection: The County provided door-to-door service to approximately 7,200 residences and 700 business pick-up points excluding the Town of Grundy. The Town had its own sanitation service and offered door-to-door collection to its residences.

Disposal: The County landfill, Permit 218, was placed into operation in 1974 and had an estimated closure date of June 1992. The landfill consisted of approximately 28 acres, which would require closure under the 1988 regulations. Tires were collected and shredded prior to placement in the landfill. No scales existed at the landfill. No tipping fees were charged.
The landfill was operated on a 6-day work week.

Recycling: White goods only.
Estimated cost of system:

• $122.70 per ton for collection and disposal • $63.57/year per person

Dickenson County Collection: The County contracted the collection of solid waste to M.T.D., Inc., a locally owned and operated private company. The contract included collection of waste at County-owned, 6-yard green boxes and waste hauling to the County owned and operated landfill. In 1991, approximately 44 green box sites existed. Commercial businesses had to contract directly with the private contractor for collection. The contractor also collected white goods, scrap metal, tires and debris. The Town of Clintwood owned and operated its own sanitation department servicing businesses and residences within the town limits. Town residences were paying $4.25 per month for service. The Town did not pay a tipping fee at the landfill. Haysi and Clinchco were served by the County green boxes.

Disposal: Disposal of all waste collected was at the Dickenson County landfill Permit 261, permit date November 14, 1978. The landfill is located on a previously developed surface mine bench. The property on which the landfill was situated was leased in 1991 from Clinchfield Coal Company by the Board of Supervisors. As of 1991, the landfill consisted of two asbestos waste disposal sites, a sanitary fill area, a debris disposal area and a tire disposal area.

2.2.2. System components

The solid waste management system consisted of the following components in 1991

TABLE 8

1991 SOLID WASTE SYSTEM COMPONENTS

COMPONENT

DESCRIPTION

Buchanan County

Collection: The County provided door-to-door service to approximately 7,200 residences and 700 business pick-up points excluding the Town of Grundy. The Town had its own sanitation service and offered door-to-door collection to its residences.

Recycling: White goods only.

Estimated cost of system: ‘* $122.70 per ton for collection and disposal © $63.57/year per person

Dickenson County

Collection: The County contracted the collection of solid waste to M.T.D., Inc., a locally owned and operated private company. The contract included collection of waste at County-owned, 6-yard green boxes and waste hauling to the County owned and operated landfill. In 1991, approximately 44 green box sites existed. Commercial businesses had to contract directly with the private contractor for collection. The contractor also collected white goods, scrap metal, tires and debris. The Town of Clintwood owned and operated its own sanitation department servicing businesses and residences within the town limits. Town residences were paying $4.25 per month for service. The Town did not pay a tipping fee at the landfill, Haysi and Clinchco were served by the County green boxes.

COMPONENT DESCRIPTION Approximately 11.2 acres had been used for fill activities and of that approximately 8.3 acres would require closure under the new solid waste regulations. The landfill had an estimated life expectancy to early 1994. No tipping fees were charged at the landfill. The landfill was operated on a 5-day work week.

Debris and yard waste: These materials were burned on site at the landfill.

Recycling: Only scrap metal and white goods were recycled. Estimated cost of system:

• $69.91 per ton for collection and disposal • $56.32 per person per year

Russell County Collections: The County had an annual lease with Harold Beasley Disposal Service to provide service to 15 drop-off centers. The Towns of Cleveland, Honaker and Lebanon operated their own sanitation services and provided door-to- door collection to residents and businesses.

Disposal: Disposal of waste collected in the County was at the County landfill, Permit 515. The landfill had been in operation since July 20, 1988 and in 1991 approximately 12 acres were active. The landfill is equipped with a single synthetic liner system, leachate collection system, leachate storage facilities and groundwater monitoring system. The landfill was expected to be full by July 1992. A potential 2- acre expansion area existed with an estimated life of 10 – 15 years. The County was considering the expansion option seriously. No tipping fees were charged at the landfill. The landfill was operated on a 6-day work week.

Recycling: Scrap metal, tires and white goods Estimated cost of system:

• $61.16 per ton for collection and disposal • $17.98 per person per year

Costs for collection and disposal include the Town and Counties collection costs.

2.2.3 Goals of Original Plan

Under the original plan, the following goals were identified:

TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS

ORIGINAL GOAL ACTION ITEM

To address solid waste management from a regional standpoint, thereby enhancing project economics and the environment and public health.

ARC Planning Grant late 1991 funded planning services of Thompson & Litton, Inc. Regional solution means reduced tipping fees, minimizing impact on citizens and business.

To view solid waste as a resource, not simply “trash” Private sector to investigate markets for

COMPONENT [

DESCRIPTION

Approximately 11.2 acres had been used for fill activities and of that approximately 8.3 acres would require closure under the new solid waste regulations. The landfill had an estimated life expectancy to early 1994. No tipping fees were charged at the landfill, The landfill was operated on a 5-day work week,

Debris and yard waste: These materials were burned on site at the landfill.

Recycling: Only scrap metal and white goods were recycled,

Estimated cost of system: ‘© $69.91 per ton for collection and disposal © $56.32 per person per year

Russell County

Collections: The County had an annual lease with Harold Beasley Disposal Service to provide service to 15 drop-off centers. The Towns of Cleveland, Honaker and Lebanon operated their own sanitation services and provided door-to- door collection to residents and businesses.

Disposal: Disposal of waste collected in the County was at the County landfill, Permit 515. The landfill had been in operation since July 20, 1988 and in 1991 approximately 12 acres were active. The landfill is equipped with a single synthetic liner system, leachate collection system, leachate storage facilities and groundwater monitoring system. The landfill was expected to be full by July 1992. A potential 2- acre expansion area existed with an estimated life of 10 — 15 years, The County was considering the expansion option seriously. No tipping fees were charged at the landfill. The landfill was operated on a 6-day work week.

Reeyeling: Scrap metal, tires and white goods

Estimated cost of system: © $61.16 per ton for collection and disposal ‘$17.98 per person per year

Costs Tr collection and disposal include the 2.2.3. Goals of Original Plan

Under the original plan, the followi

“Town and Counties collection costs.

ng goals were identified:

TABLE 9

SUMMARY OF GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS.

ORIGINAL GOAL [ ACTION ITEM

To address solid waste management from a regional ARC Planning Grant late 1991 funded

standpoint, thereby enhancing proj the environment and public health.

ject economics and

To view solid waste as a resource,

not simply “trash” _ | Private sector to investigate markets for

planning services of Thompson & Litton, Inc. Regional solution means reduced tipping fees, minimizing impact on citizens and business.

ORIGINAL GOAL ACTION ITEM which should be buried and forgotten recyclables
To minimize reliance on landfilling as a sole or principal means of solid waste management.

Recycling to become part of management plan

To provide an opportunity for the creation of jobs in the planning area upon implementation of the solid waste management system.

Contracts require that local qualified personnel be hired as truck drivers, fuel and parts for trucks be purchased in the CPPDC.

To meet the recycling mandates as set forth by the DWM in the most feasible and practical manner.

In addendum 7/2/93, CPRWMA to initiate RFP to solicit services of private waste management firms for recycling

To address the short term and long term needs of the planning area with respect to solid waste management.

To provide an update to DWM with respect to ongoing and future work necessary to implement a regional solid waste system

Completed as part of the addendum to the Waste Management Plan dated August 2, 1993.

To file a petition to the DWM for the establishment of a regional boundary between the counties of Buchanan, Dickenson, and Russell.

Spring of 1992, SCC issued a charter to the Authority, thereby deeming it to have been lawfully and properly created.

To develop the most cost-effective and environmentally sound solid waste management system for the planning area.

All counties have signed User Agreements with the CPRWMA

2.2.4 Long Term Vision for Integrated Waste Management System

The three Counties under the original plan envisioned a regional system overseen by a solid waste authority. The long-term vision included the following activities:

TABLE 10 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES LONG TERM VISION

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

Collection Each county and town in the planning area would collect solid waste and deliver the materials to a transfer station for haulage to the regional facility. Russell and Dickenson Counties were to evaluate their collection systems relative to “flow control.”

Transfer Stations The Authority would operate three solid waste transfer stations (one in each county) for the delivery of solid waste to the regional facility.
These transfer stations would be centrally located to best facilitate delivery of waste to the regional facility.

Central Processing Facility

Solid waste would be delivered to a central processing facility for recycling purposes. It was envisioned that the system would separate such materials as ferrous metals, glass, non-ferrous materials, and plastics. Such a system was considered feasible only from a regional perspective.

Further Waste Reduction

Two further waste reduction techniques were being evaluated while the original 1991 plan was being prepared. The first was composting and the second was waste to energy. The evaluation had not been

ORIGINAL GOAL. | ACTION ITEM

which should be buried and forgotten recyclables To minimize reliance on landfilling as a sole or Recycling to become part of management principal means of solid waste management. plan

To provide an opportunity for the creation of jobs in | Contracts require that local qualified

the planning area upon implementation of the solid | personnel be hired as truck drivers, fuel and waste management system. parts for trucks be purchased in the CPPDC. To meet the recycling mandates as set forth by the In addendum 7/2/93, CPRWMA to initiate DWM in the most feasible and practical manner. REP to solicit services of private waste

management firms for recycling

To address the short term and long term needs of the planning area with respect to solid waste management.

To provide an update to DWM with respect to ongoing | Completed as part of the addendum to the

and future work necessary to implement a regional | Waste Management Plan dated August 2, solid waste system 1993.

To file a petition to the DWM for the establishment of | Spring of 1992, SCC issued a charter to the a regional boundary between the counties of Authority, thereby deeming it to have been Buchanan, Dickenson, and Russell. lawfully and properly created.

To develop the most cost-effective and All counties have signed User Agreements environmentally sound solid waste management with the CPRWMA

system for the planning area.

2.2.4 Long Term Vision for Integrated Waste Management System

The three Counties under the original plan envisioned a regional system overseen by a solid waste authority. The long-term vision included the following activities:

TABLE 10 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES LONG TERM VISION ACTIVITY [ DESCRIPTION, Collection Each county and town in the planning area would collect solid waste

and deliver the materials to a transfer station for haulage to the regional facility. Russell and Dickenson Counties were to evaluate their collection systems relative to “flow control.”

Transfer Stations The Authority would operate three solid waste transfer stations (one in each county) for the delivery of solid waste to the regional facility. These transfer stations would be centrally located to best facilitate delivery of waste to the regional facility.

Central Processing Solid waste would be delivered to a central processing facility for Facility recycling purposes. It was envisioned that the system would separate such materials as ferrous metals, glass, non-ferrous materials, and plastics. Such a system was considered feasible only from a regional

perspective. Further Waste Two further waste reduction techniques were being evaluated while Reduction the original 1991 plan was being prepared. The first was composting

and the second was waste to energy. The evaluation had not been

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION completed.

Landfilling Residual materials from the central processing facility, which could not be composted or combusted, and possible ash from the waste-to- energy facility would be landfilled in a modern, state-of-the-art landfill. It was estimated that if all the facilities were constructed as outlined above, the landfill would only need to handle approximately 10% of the waste materials delivered to the landfill.

2.2.5 Short-term (interim) vision for Integrated Waste Management System

The three Counties under the original plan envisioned a regional system overseen by a solid waste authority. The short-term (interim) vision included the following activities:

TABLE 11 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES SHORT TERM VISION

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

Collection The existing collection system currently in place in each of the counties would remain in place.

Landfilling Landfills would continue in each of the counties until completion of the regional system. Vertical or lateral expansions may have been needed for Buchanan and Dickenson Counties or interim disposal alternatives within the region explored.

2.2.6 Twenty-year milestones

The following twenty-year milestones were set in the original plan:

TABLE 12 TWENTY-YEAR MILESTONES

ITEM TIMETABLE CURRENT STATUS

Transfer Stations (Developmental) Finalize Waste Management, Inc agreement

August/September 1993 In 2013, agreement was made with Advanced Disposal, LLC.

Rehabilitation – Dickenson Co. Opened December 1993 Completed 2010 Rehabilitation – Russell Co. Opened April 1994 Completed 2010 Rehabilitation – Buchanan Co. Opened March 1996 Completed 2010 Commence Operations (Full Scale)

April 1994 See above.

Transfer Stations (operational) Procure Equipment Ongoing/As needed Three new loaders were

leased in Jan 2016 Hire Staff September 1993-March 1994 Authority provides funding

to Counties for operation

ACTIVITY | DESCRIPTION

completed.

2.2.5. Short-term (interim) vision for Integrated Waste Management System

The three Counties under the original plan envisioned a regional system overseen by a solid waste authority. The short-term (interim) vision included the following activities:

TABLE 11 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES SHORT TERM VISION ACTIVITY [ DESCRIPTION Collection The existing collection system currently in place in each of the counties would remain in place. Landfilling Landfills would continue in each of the counties until completion of

the regional system. Vertical or lateral expansions may have been needed for Buchanan and Dickenson Counties or interim disposal alternatives within the region explored.

2.2.6 Twenty-year milestones

The following twenty-year milestones were set in the original plan:

TABLE 12 TWENTY-YEAR MILESTONES, 1TEM [ TIMETABLE [__ CURRENT STATUS

Transfer Stations (Developmental)

Finalize Waste Management, Ine | August/September 1993 Tn 2013, agreement was

agreement made with Advanced Disposal, LLC.

Rehabilitation Dickenson Co. _ | Opened December 1993 Completed 2010

Rehabilitation — Russell Co. Opened April 1994 Completed 2010

Rehabilitation — Buchanan Co. Opened March 1996 Completed 2010

‘Commence Operations (Full ‘April 1994 See above.

Scale)

Transfer Stations (operational)

Procure Equipment ‘Ongoing/As needed Three new loaders were leased in Jan 2016

Hire Staff ‘September 1993-March 1994 | Authority provides funding to Counties for operation

ITEM TIMETABLE CURRENT STATUS Develop Operational Procedures September – November 1993 Done Negotiate Service Agreements for utilities

September – December 1993 Done

Recycling Program
Evaluate existing system performance

September – November 1993 Using money received from an ARC grant, the Authority contracted with TH&P Environmental Engineering to complete a report on recycling in the region. The report was dated 1996 and made recommendations for drop off collection.

Evaluate Alternatives November 1993-February 1994

See above.

Develop RFP February – April 1994 No activity Evaluate proposals April – June 1994 No activity Consider Privatization June – August 1994 No activity Implementation August 1994- January 1995 The Authority started to

implement the recommendations of the recycling study by purchasing collection boxes.
However, only Russell County availed themselves of the program and still continues to run it today.
The other Counties did not have funding available to proceed with recycling.

Hire a Regional Coordinator Spring 2004 The Authority hired a regional litter and recycling coordinator to assist the member counties with development and implementation of recycling programs.

Future Landfilling Alternatives Evaluate potential CPRWMA landfill in Planning Area

Spring 2012 The Authority and its member counties did a study in 2012 that determined that the cost saving of a transfer station system veruses a landfill would not be needed.

Decision on CPRWMA landfill Spring 2012 Completed 2012

ITEM TIMETABLE CURRENT STATUS Develop Operational Procedures _| September — November 1993 | Done Negotiate Service Agreements for | September — December 1993 | Done

utilities

Recycling Program

Evaluate existing system performance

September — November 1993

Using money received from an ARC grant, the Authority contracted with TH&P Environmental Engineering to complete a report on recycling in the region. The report was dated 1996 and made recommendations for drop off collection.

Evaluate Alternatives November 1993-February | See above. 1994 Develop RFP February — April 1994 No activit Evaluate proposals April — June 1994 No activit Consider Privatization June — August 1994 No activity Implementation August 1994- January 1995 | The Authority started to

implement the recommendations of the recycling study by purchasing collection boxes. However, only Russell County availed themselves ‘of the program and still continues to run it today. The other Counties did not have funding available to proceed with recycling.

Hire a Regional Coordinator

Spring 2004

‘The Authority hired a regional litter and recycling coordinator to assist the member counties with development and implementation of recycling programs.

Future Landfilling Alternati

Evaluate potential CPRWMA_ landfill in Planning Area

Spring 2012

The Authority and its member counties did a study in 2012 that determined that the cost saving of a transfer station system veruses a landfill would not be needed.

Decision on CPRWMA landfill

Spring 2012

Completed 2012

ITEM TIMETABLE CURRENT STATUS

Solid Waste Management Plan Amendments Amend plan per DEQ regulations September 1998

September 2003 September 2008 September 2013 March 2016

Plan being updated in 2016 per Amendment 1 of the regulations.

Future recycling program (Re-evaluation of item #3)
Evaluate recycling program July 2017 No activity Develop additional alternatives Aug-September 2017 No activity Develop RFP September 2017 No activity Evaluation of proposals September–November 2017 No activity Award contract for recycling January 2018 No activity
Repeat Step #4 5 year increments up to 2021 No activity
Repeat Step #6 5 year increments up to 2026 No activity

As the current plan will indicate, consideration of a regional central processing facility and/or a landfill have been dropped from further consideration and limited recycling activities have been implemented in the region due to the expense.

ITEM TIMETABLE CURRENT STATUS

Solid Waste Management Plan Amendments

‘Amend plan per DEQ regulations | September 1998 Plan being updated in 2016 September 2003 per Amendment I of the September 2008 regulations. September 2013 March 2016

Future recycling program (Re-evaluation of item #3)

Evaluate recycling program July 2017 No activit Develop additional alternatives | Aug-September 2017 No activit Develop RFP September 2017 No activity Evaluation of proposals ‘September-November 2017_| No activit ‘Award contract for recyclin; January 2018 No activity 7. Repeat Step #4 3 year increments up to 2021 | No activity 8. Repeat Step #6 5 year increments up to 2026 | No activit

3.0 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

3.1 Buchanan County, Virginia

3.1.1 Location

Buchanan County, Virginia is located in the southwestern portion Virginia along the border of Kentucky, which lies to the west. The county shares a border with West Virginia to the northeast. This 508 square mile community is bounded by Dickenson County to the southwest, Russell to the south and Tazewell to the east.

Roanoke is approximately 200 miles east and Richmond, the state capital, is 389 miles east.

3.1.2 Population

Grundy, the county seat, functions as the trade center for Buchanan County and for portions of neighboring counties in Kentucky and West Virginia. According to the 2014 Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimates, the town had a total population of 1,063. Vansant, a few miles to the south of Grundy, is the other population center with a total population of 433.

Grundy Vansant

Census Year Population % Annual Change Population

% Annual Change Population

% Annual Change

Census 1990 31,333 1991 31,400 0.21% 1992 31,200 -0.64% 1993 30,700 -1.60% 1994 30,300 -1.30% 1995 29,700 -1.98% 1996 28,900 -2.69% 1997 28,400 -1.73% 1998 27,900 -1.76% 1999 27,500 -1.43%

Census 2000 26,978 -1.90% 1,105 989 2001 26,319 -2.44% 2002 25,945 -1.42% 2003 25,407 -2.07% 2004 24,950 -1.80% 2005 24,452 -2.00% 2006 23,992 -1.88% 2007 23,526 -1.94% 2008 23,090 -1.85% 2009 22,860 -0.99% 1,041 805

Census 2010 24,028 5.10% 1,021 -1.92% 470 -41.61% 2011 23,888 -0.58% 1,247 11.13% 573 21.91% 2012 23,837 -0.21% 1,081 -13.31% 411 -28.27% 2013 23,555 -1.18% 1,254 16.00% 293 -28.71% 2014 23,106 -1.90% 1,063 -15.23% 433 47.78%

Source: US Census Bureau & US Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimates

Es tim

at e

Es tim

at e

1990-2014 Town of Grundy & Vansant CDP, Virginia

Population Table 13 Population - Buchanan County, Virginia

Es tim

at e

3.0 | DEMOGRAPHIC DATA.

3.1 Buchanan County, Virginia 3.1.1 Location

Roanoke is approximately 200 miles east and Richmond, the state capital, is 389 miles east. 3.1.2. Population

‘Source: US Census Bureau & US Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimates

The entire coal-producing region of southwest Virginia has seen significant population decline since the mid-1980’s due to dramatic job loss in the coal industry. The weak economy forced workers to move to find jobs elsewhere. Another factor in the decline is the loss of young adults leaving the area for education or employment. Isolation, poor transportation routes and limited commercial variety make it difficult to attract new residents and new industry.

Population projections from the Virginia Employment Commission show population decreases for Buchanan County through 2020 of about -3.00% a year. For the next twenty years (2030- 2040) the county is projected to gain population at rates of approximately 0.14%.

In the county, the population is spread out with 19.5% under the age of 19, 5.5% from 20 to 24, 24.5% from 25 to 44, 31.0% from 45 to 64, and 19.4% who are 65 years of age or older. The median age is 45.3 years.

Year US Census Bureau VEC Projections 1990 31,333 2000 26,978 1990-2000 -13.90% 2010 24,098 2000-2010 -10.67% 2020 23,383 2010-2020 -2.96% 2030 23,263 2020-2030 -0.51% 2040 23,296 2030-2040 0.14%

Source: Virginia Employment Commission

% Annual Change By Decade

Table 14 Population Projections - Buchanan County, Virginia

1990-2040

Table 15 Population by Age - Buchanan County

Both sexes Male Female Both

sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female

Total population 26,978 13,681 13,297 24,098 12,310 11,788 23,106 11,770 11,336 Under 5 years 1,288 654 634 1,114 591 523 1,020 520 500

5 to 9 years 1,582 838 744 1,176 589 587 1,108 583 525 10 to 14 years 1,671 818 853 1,349 692 657 1,190 612 578 15 to 19 years 1,925 1,016 909 1,416 789 627 1,186 611 575 20 to 24 years 1,588 882 706 1,316 706 610 1,282 714 568 25 to 29 years 1,737 899 838 1,440 784 656 1,424 801 623 30 to 34 years 1,929 1,034 895 1,418 802 616 1,346 740 606 35 to 39 years 2,300 1,206 1,094 1,519 802 717 1,351 756 595 40 to 44 years 2,440 1,319 1,121 1,739 895 844 1,541 806 735 45 to 49 years 2,219 1,150 1,069 1,982 1,024 958 1,692 876 816 50 to 54 years 2,086 1,026 1,060 2,086 1,102 984 1,854 917 937 55 to 59 years 1,647 825 822 1,936 971 965 1,950 1,010 940 60 to 64 years 1,474 737 737 1,739 816 923 1,675 813 862 65 to 69 years 1,043 523 520 1,352 669 683 1,548 714 834 70 to 74 years 820 333 487 1,107 502 605 1,200 582 618 75 to 79 years 576 211 365 686 318 368 886 370 516 80 to 84 years 361 115 246 415 153 262 485 212 273 85 and over 292 95 197 308 105 203 368 133 235

Age

Buchanan County 2000 2010 2014 Estimates

The entire coal-producing region of southwest Virginia has seen significant population decline since the mid-1980"s due to dramatic job loss in the coal industry. The weak economy forced workers to move to find jobs elsewhere, Another factor in the decline is the loss of young adults leaving the area for education or employment. Isolation, poor transportation routes and limited commercial variety make it difficult to attract new residents and new industry,

Table 14 Population Projections - Buchanan County, Vir 1990-2040 Year [USCensus Bureau| VEC Projections | _% Annual Change By Decade 1990 31,333 2000 26,978 1990-2000 -13.90% 2010 24,098 2000-2010 -10.67% 2020 23,383 2010-2020 -2.96%| 2030 23,263 2020-2030 -0.51%| 2040 23,296 2030-2040 0.14%6| Source: Virginia Employment Commission Table 15 Population by Age - Buchanan County Buchanan County ge 2000 2010 201 Estimates

“otalpopulation | 26078 | 136s | Taza7 | 24008 | T25v0 | 11788] 23,106 | T1770 | T1a36

underSyears | 1268 | ase | ox | x14 | sor | 523 | 1020 | 520 | 500

Stosyears | 15s2 | as | ras | 1176 | 580 | ser | soe | ses | 525

totorayears | 1671 | ee | 053 | 1049 | oo2 | sr | 1100 | or | sve

sstorvyears | 1925 | 1016 | 909 | 1416 | zoo | oar | stee | on | 575

zoto2tyears | 1588 | 882 | 705 | iste | 706 | 10 | 1282 | 74 | soe

2st02%years | 1737 | ao | exe | saa | zee | o56 | s42¢ | oor | 23

soto adyears | 1929 | 1038 | 095 | rats | oz | sie | 13% | 740 | cos

3sto39years | 2300 | 4.206 | 1094 | 1510 | 02 | riz | 1351 | 756 | 595

4otoddyears | 2400 | isia | 1421 | 1739 | 605 | ose | ise | 006 | 735

astoasyears | 2219 | 1.150 | 1069 | 1982 | 1020 | 058 | 692 | a7e | f16

sotostyears | 2086 | 1025 | 1060 | 2006 | 102 | 964 | ras | 9x7 | a7

sstossyears | 117 | 25 | 22 | 1936 | 971 | o65 | 1950 | 1010 | s40

cotostyears | 1474 | 737 | 7a | i730 | ie | 923 | 1675 | 813 | 62

sstossyears | 012 | 529 | 520 | 1ase | oso | oss | 1540 | 714 | 34

roto rayears | 820 | 333 | ae7 | ator | soz | 605 | 1200 | 582 | cre

wsto7eyears | 576 | 21 | 365 | 686 | sis | 68 | 05 | 370 | 516

soroesyears | 361 | 115 | 246 | ats | 53 | 262 | aas | 212 | are

ssandover_| 202 | 05 | 197 | sos | 105 | 20s | ses | 193 | 255

According to the US Census American Community Survey of 2014, there were 23,106 people, 9,406 households, and 6,618 families residing in the county, which calculates to a population density of 48 persons/mi². There are 11,508 housing units at an average density of 24 units/mi².

The racial makeup of the county is 96.1% White, 2.3% Black or African American, and 1.6% from other races. There were 9,406 households, with the average household consisting of 2.41 persons and the average family size being 2.89 persons.

The median income for a household in the county is $29,678, and the median income for a family is $39,722. Males have a median earnings of $40,587 versus $18,883 for females. The per capita income for the county is $18,357 with 24.0% of the population and 20.6% of families
living below the poverty line.

Table 16

Jurisdiction Population White Percent Black or African

American Percent Other Percent

Buchanan County 23,106 22,204 96.1% 531 2.3% 370 1.6%

Selected Racial Data Estimates By Population and Percentage

Table 17

HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND BENEFITS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2014 INFLATION-

ADJUSTED DOLLARS)

Income Buchanan County % of Households Group Households

Less than $10,000 1,139 12.10% $10,000 to $14,999 957 10.20% $15,000 to $24,999 1,897 20.20% $25,000 to $34,999 1,190 12.70% $35,000 to $49,999 1,165 12.40% $50,000 to $74,999 1,328 14.10% $75,000 to $99,999 916 9.70% $100,000 to $149,999 630 6.70% $150,000 to $199,999 112 1.20% $200,000 or more 72 0.80% Total 9,406 100.00%

Median Household Income Dollars 29,678
Per Capita Income Dollars 18,357
Poverty all families 20.60%

Poverty all people 24.00%

According to the US Census American Community Survey of 2014, there were 23,106 people, 9,406 households, and 6,618 families residing in the county, which calculates to a population density of 48 persons/mi?. There are 11,508 housing units at an average density of 24 units/mi?.

The racial makeup of the county is 96.1% White, 2.3% Black or African American, and 1.6% from other races. There were 9,406 houscholds, with the average houschold consisting of 2.41 persons and the average family size being 2.89 persons.

Table 16

Selected Racial Data Estimates By Population and Percentage

Black or

Buchanan County | 23,106 | 22,204 | 96.1% 531 2.3% 370 1.6%

Table 17

HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND BENEFITS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2014 INFLATION- ‘ADJUSTED DOLLARS)

Income Buchanan County % of Group Households Households Less than $10,000 1.139 12.10% $10,000 to $14,999 957 10.20% '$15,000 to $24,999 1.897 20.20% $25,000 to $34,999 1.190 12.70% '$35,000 to $49,999, 1.165 12.40% '$50,000 to $74,999 1328 14.10% '$75,000 to $99,999 16 9.70% $100,000 to $149,999, 630 6.70% $150,000 to $199,999 112 1.20% $200,000 oF more i 0.80% Total 9.406 100.00% Median Household Income Dollars. 29,678 Per Capita income Dollars 18,357 Poverty all families 20.60% Poverty all people 24.00%

Source: Unites States Bureau American Community Survey Estimates

3.1.3 Geographic conditions

The surface of the entire county is rugged and mountainous. Flat lands are rare and valley slopes are steep so that the entire area is covered with ridges, valleys and streams. Some of the ridges in the southern section of the county are sufficiently wide for roads and a few houses.

The maximum relief of the county is 2,890 feet, the lowest point being on Levisa Fork at the Kentucky boundary, where the elevation is 845 feet, and the highest on Big A Mountain, where the elevation is 3,735 feet. Sandy Ridge, the divide that forms the county boundary on the southeast, is the natural barrier that separates the county from other parts of Virginia. Another main divide that forms the boundary between Buchanan County and McDowell County, West Virginia is called State Line Ridge.

All the drainage of the county is tributary to Big Sandy River through its three main branches Russell Fork, Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork. Although most streams and creeks contain some water all year round, none has a very large flow. The topography of Buchanan County limits development somewhat to the low laying areas along streams and rivers.

Buchanan County lies in the Cumberland Plateau Physiographic Province where formations are mostly sandstone and shale with mineable coal deposits. The Province, for the most part, contains weather-resistant sandstone, which accounts for the steep V-shaped mountains.

3.1.4 Climate

Buchanan County lies in the warm temperate region. Latitude, mountainous topography, and prevailing winds exert considerable influence upon the climate.

The area receives an average annual rainfall of 40.95 inches and an average snowfall of 23 inches. The average maximum temperature is 72 degrees, and the average minimum temperature is 36 degrees for the Cumberland Plateau region. Buchanan County’s average July temperature is 76 degrees and for January the average temperature is 36 degrees.

Thunderstorms and cloudbursts, normally occurring in the summer months, produce heavy rainfall over sections of the county and runoff is significant. Prevailing winds are westerly at an average velocity of 8 miles an hour but can reach high speeds during storms.

3.1.5 Transportation

A. Highways

There is no Interstate running through the County but U.S. Route 460 runs through its center from Richlands (Tazewell County) to the state line in common with Pike County, Kentucky.
Route 460 is a major collector road providing direct access to Grundy, Keen Mountain, Vansant, and other communities. Route 83 runs east through the center of the county from Haysi

Source: Unites States Bureau American Community Survey Estimates

3.1.3 Geographic conditions

The maximum relief of the county is 2,890 feet, the lowest point being on Levisa Fork at the Kentucky boundary, where the elevation is 845 feet, and the highest on Big A Mountain, where the elevation is 3.735 feet. Sandy Ridge, the divide that forms the county boundary on the southeast, is the natural barrier that separates the county from other parts of Virginia, Another main divide that forms the boundary between Buchanan County and McDowell County, West Virginia is called State Line Ridge.

3.1.4 Climate

Buchanan County lies in the warm temperate region, Latitude, mountainous topography, and prevailing winds exert considerable influence upon the climate.

‘The area receives an average annual rainfall of 40.95 inches and an average snowfall of 23 inches. The average maximum temperature is 72 degrees, and the average minimum temperature is 36 degrees for the Cumberland Plateau region, Buchanan County’s average July temperature is 76 degrees and for January the average temperature is 36 degrees.

3.1.5 Transportation

A. Highways

There is no Interstate running through the County but U.S. Route 460 runs through its center from Richlands (Tazewell County) to the state line in common with Pike County, Kentucky.

Route 460 is a major collector road providing direct access to Grundy, Keen Mountain, Vansant, and other communities. Route 83 runs east through the center of the county from Haysi

(Dickenson County) to McDowell County, West Virginia. Route 460 and Route 83 converge at Grundy.

Virginia Primary Route 80 provides access to the southwest and northwest corners of the county.
It enters Buchanan County from Honaker in Russell County, enters Davenport, and exits Buchanan County to Haysi in Dickenson County.

B. Air

The nearest airport is the Mercer County Airport, located 42.3 miles to the north in West Virginia and is served by U.S. Airways. Raleigh County Memorial Airport is 57.2 miles away and is also served by U.S. Airways. The Tri-Cities Regional Airport lies 62.4 miles to the southeast in the Bristol/Johnson City, Tennessee area. It is served by five of the major airlines or their regional partners.
General aviation services can be found at Grundy Municipal Airport or at the Tazewell County Airport.

C. Rail

Norfolk Southern provides freight rail service to Buchanan County.

D. Water

The nearest ports are located in Richmond (389 miles) and Norfolk (480 miles).

3.1.6 Infrastructure

A. Electricity

American Electric Power provides power to the County.

B. Natural Gas

Virginia Natural Gas provides natural gas to the County.

C. Water

Buchanan County Public Service Authority oversees the water supply in the County.

D. Sewage

Buchanan County Public Service Authority oversees the sewage treatment in the County.

3.1.7 Economic Growth

Buchanan County’s unemployment rate hit a high in 1994 at 18.3%. Since that high, the rate has been falling each year. In early 2004, the unemployment rate was between five and six percent.
Between 2002 and 2004, the number of individuals in the labor force and the number of

(Dickenson County) to McDowell County, West Virginia. Route 460 and Route 83 converge at Grundy.

Virginia Primary Route 80 provides access to the southwest and northwest comers of the county. It enters Buchanan County from Honaker in Russell County, enters Davenport, and exits Buchanan County to Haysi in Dickenson County.

B. Air

General aviation services can be found at Grundy Municipal Airport or at the Tazewell County Airport.

Cc. Rail

Norfolk Souther provides freight rail service to Buchanan County.

D. Water

The nearest ports are located in Richmond (389 miles) and Norfolk (480 miles).

3.1.6 Infrastructure

A. Electricity

American Electric Power provides power to the County.

B. Natural Gas

Virginia Natural Gas provides natural gas to the County.

Cc. Water

Buchanan County Public Service Authority oversees the water supply in the County.

D. — Sewage

Buchanan County Public Service Authority oversees the sewage treatment in the County. 3.1.7 Economic Growth

Buchanan County’s unemployment rate hit a high in 1994 at 18.3%, Since that high, the rate has

been falling each year. In early 2004, the unemployment rate was between five and six percent. Between 2002 and 2004, the number of individuals in the labor force and the number of

unemployed declined by approximately the same amount. This could indicate that “discouraged workers” have stopped looking for work and have permanently left the work force. The high rates of individuals below the poverty level and on Medicaid also indicate that many are no longer looking for work.

Table 18

Buchanan County Unemployment Rates 2000 - 2014

Year Labor Force Employed Unemployed Annual Unemployment Rate

2000 8,738 8,223 515 5.90%

2001 8,881 8,344 837 6.00%

2002 8,983 8,344 639 7.10%

2003 8,838 8,220 618 7.00%

2004 8,317 7,834 483 5.80%

2005 8,401 7,947 454 5.40%

2006 8,419 7,997 422 5.00%

2007 8,657 8,235 422 4.90%

2008 8,950 8,502 448 5.00%

2009 9,236 8,448 788 8.50%

2010 8,326 7,497 829 10.00%

2011 8,474 7,755 719 8.50%

2012 8,598 7,819 779 9.10%

2013 8,174 7,286 888 10.90%

2014 7,874 7,058 816 10.40%

Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Buchanan County sees fewer of its workers leaving the county to work elsewhere than does its neighbor, Dickenson County. According to the 2014 Census estimates, the worker retention rate was 50.6%, with 4,168 individuals, (out of a workforce of 8,235) traveling to surrounding counties to work. The median travel time to work was 33.4 minutes in the year 2014.

Table 18

Buchanan County Unemployment Rates 2000 - 2014

Year lLabor Force|__ Employed Unemployed Annual Unemployment Rate 2000) 8,738, 8,223) 515 5.90%| 2001] 8,881 8,344) 837| 6.00% 2002! 8,983) 8,344) 639| 7.10%| 2003} 8,838 8,221 618) 7.00% 2004) 8,317 7,834 483} 5.80%| 2005} 8,401 7,947 454) 5.40%| 2006 == 8,419 7,997 422) 5.00% 2007, 8,657 8,235) 422) 4.90%] 2008) 8,950, 8,502 448) 5.00%) 2005) 9,236 8,448 788 8.50% 2010 8,326) 7,497, 829| 10.00% 2011] 8,474 7,755) 719| 8.50%| 2012| 8,598 7,819) 779| 9.10% 2013} 8,174 7,286 888) 10.90% 2014) 7,874 7,058, 816| 10.40%|

Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Table 19 Commuting Patterns

People who live and work in the area   3,060

In-Commuters 4,767 Out-Commuters 4,168 Net In-Commuters (In-Commuters minus Out-Commuters) 599 Source: U.S. Census Bureau,On The Map Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2012

Company Product Employees Buchanan County School Board Educational Services 500 to 999 employees Consol Buchanan Mining Co. LLC Mining (except Oil and Gas) 250 to 499 employees Keen Mountain Correctional Institute Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities 250 to 499 employees Dominion Coal Corporation Mining (except Oil and Gas) 250 to 499 employees Sykes Enterprises Administrative and Support Services 250 to 499 employees Buchanan General Hospital Hospitals 100 to 249 employees Rapoca Energy Company Mining (except Oil and Gas) 100 to 249 employees County of Buchanan Executive, Legislative, &Other General Government 100 to 249 employees Food City Food and Beverage Stores 100 to 249 employees Wal Mart General Merchandise Stores 100 to 249 employees

Table 20 Major Employers - Buchanan County

The poverty rate in Buchanan County is 24% versus 11.5% in Virginia. The per capita income for the county is only 18,357 versus 33,958 for Virginia. The proportion of county residents over the age of 25 without a high school diploma is much higher than in Virginia.

Economic Indicators Buchanan Virginia Population with Public Health Coverage 51.70% 24.20% Poverty Rate 24.00% 11.50% Per Capita Income 18,357 33,958 Population Aged 16+ in Labor Force 40.80% 66.70% Population Aged 25+ w/o High School Diploma 31.80% 12.50% Source: Unites States Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimate

Table 21 County Versus State Data

Buchanan County

Mining jobs are still a significant sector of the employment in Buchanan County. Education services jobs make up the largest segment of jobs with health care and social services right behind mining and education services. Taxable sales for Buchanan County have been steadily

Table 19 Commuting Patterns

People who live and work in the area 3,060 In-Commuters 4,767 Out-Commuters 4,168 Net In-Commuters (In-Commuters minus Qut-Commuters) 599

Source: U.S. Census Bureau On The Map Application and LEHD Oriin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2012

Table 20 Major Employers - Buchanan County

[Company Product [Employees

Buchanan County School Board {Educational Services [500 to 999 employees ‘Consol Buchanan Mining Co. LLC |Mining (except Oil and Gas) 250 to 499 employees Keen Mountain Correctional Institute Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities 250 to 499 employees Dominion Goal Corporation [Mining (except Oil and Gas) }250 to 499 employees Sykes Enterprises, [Administrative and Support Services 250 to 499 employees Buchanan General Hospital Hospitals 100 to 249 employees Rapoca Energy Company [Mining (except Oil and Gas) 100 to 249 employees ‘County of Buchanan Executive, Legislative, &Other General Government} 100 to 249 employees. Food City Food and Beverage Stores 100 to 249 employees (Wal Mart |General Merchandise Stores 100 to 249 employees

Table 21 County Versus State Data Buchanan County

Economic Indicators Buchanan | _ Virginia

Population with Public Health Coverage 51.70%) 24.20%! Poverty Rate 24.00% 11.50% Per Capita Income 18,357 33,958 Population Aged 16+ in Labor Force 40.80%) 66.70% Population Aged 25+ w/o High School Diploma] _ 31.80% 12.50% Source: Unites States Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimat:

increasing since 2000 when sales totaled $115,923,478. By 2014, sales were up to $147,726,232.

The whole Cumberland Plateau Region is focused on the development of tourism as one way to strength the economy and create jobs. Industrial development is very limited in Buchanan County due to its isolation and the lack of large plots of fairly flat land. Information technology and health care are two areas that could see growth in the county

Category Percentage Mining 21.66% Education Services 11.96% Health Care and Social Assistance 10.74% Retail Trade 9.83% Public Administration 9.45% Construction 6.13% Admin, Support, Waste Mtg. Remediation 5.80% Transportation and Warehousing 4.24% Accomodation and Food Services 4.20% Professional Scientific & Technical Svc 3.42% Manufacturing 2.67% Finance and Insurance 2.27% Wholesale Trade 2.20% Other Services 2.14% Manangement of Companies and Interprizes 1.32% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 0.34% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 0.24% Utilities Confidential Information Confidential Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Confidential Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Table 22 Employment By Industry

Buchanan County

increasing since 2000 when sales totaled $115,923,478. By 2014, sales were up to $147,726,232.

Table 22 Employment By Industry Buchanan County

Table 23

Taxable Sales 2000-2014

Year Buchanan 2000 $115,923,478 2001 $114,597,950 2002 $114,720,922 2003 $112,152,118 2004 $116,924,712 2005 $107,211,477 2006 $123,290,187 2007 $127,687,900 2008 $139,948,887 2009 $127,560,716 2010 $125,345,514 2011 $142,304,553 2012 $156,984,874 2013 $148,802,737 2014 $147,726,232

Source: Virginia Department of Taxation

3.1.8 Land Use

A. Residential:

In the coalfields of Virginia, 70% of the land is above a 20 percent slope and 90% is above a 12 percent slope. Much of the county is unsuitable for residential development. Most of the population density in Buchanan County is centered in the northwest-central area where both Grundy and Vansant are located. Of the 11,508 housing units in the county, 18% are vacant.
The vacancy rate is 31% for housing in Grundy.

Since the population of the county is expected to continue to decline, there are no future growth areas for subdivision development. Provision of public services would need to be considered a priority before concentrated growth could be expected in new areas of the county.

B. Commercial:

Independent shopping establishments offering a variety of retail goods and services are located throughout the county. The county has one shopping center with 12 retail outlets. Grundy is the county seat and the commercial area as well with approximately 30 retail establishments. This

Table 23 Taxable Sales

2000-2014

Year Buchanan

2000 $15,923,478 2001 $14,597,950 2002 $114,720,922 2003 $112,152,118 2004 $116,924,712 2005 $07,211,477 2006 $123,290,187 2007 $127,687,900 2008 $139,948,887 2009 $127,560,716 2010 $125,345,514 2011 $142,304,553 2012 $156,984,874 2013 $148,802,737 2014 $147,726,232

Source: Virginia Department of Taxation

3.1.8 Land Use A Residential:

B. Commercial:

Independent shopping establishments offering a variety of retail goods and services are located

throughout the county. The county has one shopping center with 12 retail outlets. Grundy is the county seat and the commercial area as well with approximately 30 retail establishments. This

town was flooded out three times in the 20th century and the town center is being relocated from the banks of the Levisa Fork River to a site on higher ground.

Future commercial development in the county will depend on an increase in the population, an increase in jobs or an increase in tourism.

In 2004, the Virginia Coalfield Economic Development Authority approved a $3 million loan to the Buchanan County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) for the construction of the University of Appalachia School of Pharmacy in Grundy. The University of Appalachia is projected to have an economic impact of approximately $20 million per year and to create 138 new jobs in Buchanan County. The Appalachian School of Law is also located in Grundy.

C. Industrial:

There are a limited number of developed industrial parks in Buchanan County. This is partly due to the lack of large parcels of suitable land for development and the lack of good transportation routes. The decision was made to develop an informational park and service sector jobs as a way to diversify the economy of Buchanan County.

In 2003, the Virginia Coalfield Economic Development Authority granted $1,040,000 to the Buchanan County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) to equip the Virginia Employment Commission’s (VEC’s) new customer contact center at the Buchanan Information Park. The board also approved up to a $2,090,000 loan to the Buchanan County IDA for construction of a 30,000 sq. ft. addition to the Buchanan Information Park facility.

SITE SPECIFICATIONS - INDUSTRIAL SITES –BUCHANAN COUNTY

SITE NAME LOCATION MILES TO NEAREST

INTERSTATE

MILES TO NEAREST 4- LANE HWY

SQUARE FOOTAGE

TOTAL ACREAGE

Buchanan Informational Park State Route 83 I-77 - 70 mi Rt. 460 - 8 mi 38,013 4.75 acres

There is a unique opportunity for significant economic development in the coalfield counties with the plan to build the Coalfields Expressway along the region’s ridge tops. Preliminary construction plans indicate that as many as 500 acres of new developable land will be created by the Expressway. With 500 acres of new developable land, the three counties could realize as many as 4,000 to 6,000 new jobs from the successful marketing of these new sites. With a standard accepted multiplier of 1.7 for indirect jobs, a total of 6,800 to 10,200 new jobs are foreseeable for the coal counties of Southwest Virginia.

When construction begins, it is estimated that 1,400 construction jobs will boost the local regional economy over the expected 10-year lifespan of the road’s construction. Local income will also be generated by the purchase of supplies, materials, and equipment from local businesses. In the long-term, tourism will increase as destinations that are now remote become accessible. For example, currently the Breaks receives over 400,000 visitors a year, but the TVA estimates that when the Coalfields Expressway is in place, attendance could increase to 1 million visitors per year.

town was flooded out three times in the 20th century and the town center is being relocated from the banks of the Levisa Fork River to a site on higher ground.

Future commercial development in the county will depend on an increase in the population, an increase in jobs or an increase in tourism.

Cc Industri:

In 2003, the Virginia Coalfield Economic Development Authority granted $1,040,000 to the Buchanan County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) to equip the Virginia Employment Commission’s (VEC’s) new customer contact center at the Buchanan Information Park, The board also approved up to a $2,090,000 loan to the Buchanan County IDA for construction of a 30,000 sq. ft. addition to the Buchanan Information Park facility.

SITE SPECIFICATIONS - INDUSTRIAL SITES -BUCHANAN COUNTY.

TOTAL FOOTAGE | ACREAGE

Buchanan

State Route 83 | 1-77-70 mi | Rt. 460-8 mi 38,013 4.75 acres Informational Park

The hope is that local colleges and institutions will see their profiles and enrollment figures rise as more and more people consider higher education a viable alternative. Additionally, technology and industrial parks will finally be able to recruit to their full potential and existing businesses will be able to fan out and offer their goods and services to more and more customers.

D. Agricultural:

The amount of land used for farming is decreasing in Buchanan County. Land in farms decreased 27% from 8,627 acres in1992 to 6,303 acres in 1997, while the average size of farms increased from 85 acres (1992) to 90 acres (1997). The number of full time farms decreased 58% during the same period from 36 farms in 1992 to 15 farms in 1997.

Crops such as burley tobacco and hay account for nearly 60% of the market value of agricultural products sold. Beef cattle and livestock sales make up the remaining 40% of the market.

E. Open Space/Recreation:

Nearly all of Buchanan County is covered in trees. Over 90 percent of the county is covered by hardwood forest growth and about 1% is evergreen forest.

3.1.9 Community Facilities/Activities:

Buchanan County General Hospital, located in Grundy, is a 134-bed hospital that serves the county.

Public schools in the county include 2 elementary, 4 combined, and 4 high schools. Several schools are located in Grundy including Mountain Mission School, a private K-12 school. The town is also home to the Appalachian School of Law and the planned University of Appalachia School of Pharmacy.

The Jefferson National Forest and the Breaks Interstate Park in neighboring Dickenson County offer extensive outdoor recreation activities.

Sources:

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 and 2014 Census, 1990 Census, Economic Census, Census of Agriculture Virginia Economic Development Partners Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission Virginia Employment Commission

3.2 Dickenson County

3.2.1 Location

Dickenson County, Virginia is located in Southwestern Virginia on the border of Kentucky.
Dickenson lies in the coal-bearing hills of the Appalachian Plateau. Though rich in natural resources with abundant coal, natural gas, timber and mineral assets, the economy of the region is transitioning from natural resources to technology.

D. Agricultural:

The amount of land used for farming is decreasing in Buchanan County. Land in farms decreased 27% from 8,627 acres in1992 to 6,303 acres in 1997, while the average size of farms. increased from 85 acres (1992) to 90 acres (1997). The number of full time farms decreased 58% during the same period from 36 farms in 1992 to 15 farms in 1997.

Crops such as burley tobacco and hay account for nearly 60% of the market value of agricultural products sold. Beef cattle and livestock sales make up the remaining 40% of the market.

E. Open Space/Reereation:

Nearly all of Buchanan County is covered in trees. Over 90 percent of the county is covered by hardwood forest growth and about 1% is evergreen forest.

3.1.9 Community Facilities/Activities:

Buchanan County General Hospital, located in Grundy, is a 134-bed hospital that serves the county.

Public schools in the county include 2 elementary, 4 combined, and 4 high schools. Several schools are located in Grundy including Mountain Mission School, a private K-12 school, The town is also home to the Appalachian School of Law and the planned University of Appalachia School of Pharmacy.

The Jefferson National Forest and the Breaks Interstate Park in neighboring Dickenson County offer extensive outdoor recreation activities.

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 and 2014 Census, 1990 Census, Economic Census, Census of Agriculture Virginia Economic Development Partners Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission Virginia Employment Commission

3.2 Dickenson County

3.2.1 Location

Dickenson County, Virginia is located in Southwestern Virginia on the border of Kentucky. Dickenson lies in the coal-bearing hills of the Appalachian Plateau. Though rich in natural resources with abundant coal, natural gas, timber and mineral assets, the economy of the region is transitioning from natural resources to technology.

Dickenson is bounded by Wise County to the southwest, Buchanan County to the northeast and Russell County to the southeast. Roanoke is approximately 184 miles east and Richmond, the state capital, is 255 miles east.

3.2.2 Population

Dickenson County, like the other counties in the Cumberland Plateau Planning District, has seen alternating periods of population growth and decline related to a series of coal-related “booms and busts”. But since the 1990’s, the region has seen a steady decline in population. Dickenson County declined -3.00% from 2000-2010 and continues to decline although the rate has slowed.

The Virginia Employment Commission projects that Dickenson County will continue to see population decreases through 2040 but at rates considerably less than the 3.0% the county saw over the past decade (2000-2010). Between 2020 and 2030 the decline is projected to level off so that the population remains rather constant at 15,375.

The population centers of the county are the towns of Clinchco (pop. 365), Clintwood (1,448), and Haysi (408). During the last decade (2000-2010), the population of Clintwood lost -8.7% remained constant while Haysi gained 167.7% of its small population. Haysi’s population increase was due mainly to the town being annexed.

3.2.2 Population

Clintwood Clinchco Haysi

Census Year Population % Annual Change Population % Annual Change Population

% Annual Change Population

% Annual Change

Census 1990 17,620 1991 17,600 -0.11% 1992 17,700 0.57% 1993 17,600 -0.56% 1994 17,500 -0.57% 1995 17,400 -57.00% 1996 17,000 -2.30% 1997 16,900 -0.59% 1998 16,700 -1.18% 1999 16,600 -0.60%

Census 2000 16,395 -1.23% 1,549 424 186 2001 16,240 -0.94% 2002 16,134 -0.65% 2003 16,080 -0.33% 2004 16,079 0.00% 2005 16,175 0.59% 2006 16,024 -0.93% 2007 16,033 0.56% 2008 16,176 0.89% 2009 16,087 -0.55%

Census 2010 15,903 -1.14% 1,414 337 498 2011 15,765 -0.86% 1,594 12.72% 666 97.60% 380 -23.69% 2012 15,668 -0.61% 1,620 1.63% 567 -14.86% 458 20.52% 2013 15,449 -1.40% 1,565 -3.39% 472 -16.75% 418 -8.70% 2014 15,308 -0.91% 1,448 -7.47% 365 -22.66% 408 -2.39%

Source: US Census Bureau & US Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimates

Es tim

at e

Es tim

at e

1990-2014 Population

Town of Clintwood, Clinchco & Haysi, Virginia

Table 24 Population - Dickenson County, Virginia

Es tim

at e

Year US Census Bureau VEC Projections 1990 17,620 2000 16,395 1990-2000 -6.95% 2010 15,903 2000-2010 -3.00% 2020 15,600 2010-2020 -1.90% 2030 15,375 2020-2030 -1.44% 2040 15,193 2030-2040 -1.18%

Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Table 25 Population Projections - Dickenson County, Virginia

1990-2040 % Annual Change By Decade

According to the 2014 Census Bureau Estimates, there were 15,308 people, 6,200 households, and 4,289 families residing in Dickenson County. This calculates to a population density 49.4/mi². There are 7,548 housing units in the county and 17.9% are vacant.

In the county, the population is spread out with 22.38% under the age of 19, 5.65% from 20 to 24, 12.83% from 25 to 44, 14.73% from 45 to 64, and 8.477% who are 65 years of age or older. The median age is 43.5 years.

Table 24

Population - Dickenson County, Vigna Popuation 1990-2014 Town of Clintwood, lnc & Hays, Vina Ginwood Cinch a WAnnval Annual anneal cenus | vear_| ropuation |ssamualchange! | opuiauon| change [Popuation| change |Popuiaon| charge ensue | 1960 17620 1991 17,600 011% 82 17,700 osm 1383 17,600 “056% g | ise 17500 “057% E | is65 17400 “57.00% G | ts 17000 230% 1397 16.300, “059% 188 16,700 “118% 1399 16,600 060% ensue} 2000 16395, “123% 154s] a 186 2001 16240 “0.94% 2002 1638 “0.65% 2003 16,080 “033% g | 200 16079, 00% E | dons 16175, 059% E | 2006 160% 0.93% 2007 16033 ose% 2008 16376, os9% 2009 16087 055% Gene] 2000 15,903, “110% sae| 7] 430 2 | 15,765, “0.86% ssa] 32.72%] 666, 97.60%] 300) 23.0% g | nn 15,568 “061% 1s20| 163%] se7| -aaacn] —asa|_ 202% & | aon sus “140% 1s65| son] a72| -a6.75x] —ais|_-8.70%| “ 2014 15,308 0.91% 1448) -7.47%| 365] -22.66%| 408] -2.39%| Source: US Census Bureau 8 US Census Bureau Arran Communi Suey Estimate Table 25 Population Projections - Dickenson County, Virginia 1990-2040 Year [USCensus Bureau] VEC Projections | % Annual Change By Decade 1990 17,620 2000 16,395 1990-2000 ~6.95%| 2010 15,903 2000-2010 -3.00% 2020 15,600 2010-2020 -1.90% 2030 15,375 2020-2030 “1.44% 2040 15,193, 2030-2040 -1.18%

Source: Virginia Employment Commission

According to the 2014 Census Bureau Estimates, there were 15,308 people, 6,200 households, and 4,289 families residing in Dickenson County. This calculates to a population density 49.4/mi?, There are 7,548 housing units in the county and 17.9% are vacant.

The racial makeup of the county is 99.% White, 0.4% Black or African American, and 0.6% from other races. There were 9,406 households, with the average household consisting of 2.41 persons and the average family size being 2.89 persons.

Both sexes Male Female Both

sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female

Total population 16,395 8,017 8,378 15,903 7,950 7,953 15,308 7,771 7,537 Under 5 years 875 442 433 875 446 429 794 411 383

5 to 9 years 945 473 472 914 468 446 879 456 423 10 to 14 years 1,079 555 524 970 484 486 901 463 438 15 to 19 years 1,215 643 572 959 486 473 852 424 428 20 to 24 years 971 507 464 754 399 355 866 452 414 25 to 29 years 944 454 490 921 481 440 822 452 370 30 to 34 years 1,017 487 530 954 509 445 940 501 439 35 to 39 years 1,223 592 631 1,001 498 503 936 492 444 40 to 44 years 1,349 657 692 1,003 520 483 1,006 520 486 45 to 49 years 1,350 698 652 1,241 621 620 971 517 454 50 to 54 years 1,239 634 605 1,294 659 635 1,146 573 573 55 to 59 years 959 485 474 1,217 614 603 1,210 626 584 60 to 64 years 856 393 463 1,137 562 575 1,097 540 557 65 to 69 years 714 338 376 893 471 422 1,030 502 528 70 to 74 years 638 291 347 673 316 357 760 394 366 75 to 79 years 460 190 270 464 199 265 516 228 288 80 to 84 years 316 106 210 351 125 226 311 126 185 85 and over 245 72 173 282 92 190 271 94 177

Source: United States Census Bureau American Community Survey

Table 26 Population by Age - Buchanan County

2010 2014 Estimates Dickenson County

Age 2000

Jurisdiction Population White Percent Black or African

American Percent Asian Percent

Hispanic Latino

Percent

Dickenson County 15,308 15,078 98.5% 122 0.8% 15 0.1% 107 0.7%

Source : U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey

Selected Racial Data By Population and Percentage Table 27

The median income for a household in the county is $33,106, and the median income for a family is $42,308. Males have a median earnings of $43,806 versus $29,495 for females. The per capita income for the county is $17,954 with 20.2% of the population and 15.5% of families
living below the poverty line.

Table 26 Population by Age ~ Buchanan Count Dekenson County hoo 00 2010 2014 Estimates Be] mato [roma] 22% | tate [Femata| 22 | mate [roma

Total population] 16.395 | 8017 | 8.378 | 15,903] 7.950 | 7.988 | 15.308] 7.771 | Tear

Under years | 875 | 442 | 433 | 875 | 446 | 429 | 794 | 411 | 83

Stodyears | 945 | 473 | 472 | 914 | 468 | 446 | 879 | 456 | 429 10t014years | 1,079 | 555 | 524 | 970 | 48a | 436 | 901 | 463 | 438 15t0 t9years | 1.215 | 643 | 572 | 959 | aes | 473 | a52 | 424 | 428 20to24 years | 971 | 507 | aca | 754 | 399 | a55 | sco | as2 | ata 28to29years | aaa | asa | 490 | 921 | 4a1 | 40 | 22 | 452 | a70 30to34years | 1.017 | 487 | 530 | 964 | s09 | 44s | 40 | 501 | 439 38to39years | 1,223] sez | 631 | 1.001| 40a | 503 | 036 | 492 | aaa 40044 years | 1349 | 657 | 692 | 1003 520 | 483 | 1,006 | 520 | 486 45to49yoars | 1,350] 698 | 652 | 1.241| 621 | 620 | 071 | siz | asa 50054 years | 1239] 634 | 605 | 1204] 659 | 63s | 1.146 | 573 | 573 sstosoyears | 959 | sas | 47a | 1.217| 614 | cos | 1.210| 626 | sea 60to64years | asé | 393 | 46a | 1.137 | s62 | 575 | 1.097 | 540 | 587 estocsyears | 714 | saa | ave | 993 | 471 | 422 | 1030 | 502 | 528 70to74years | 638 | 291 | 347 | 673 | si6 | 357 | 760 | 394 | 366 75to79years | 460 | 190 | 270 | 464 | 199 | 265 | ste | 228 | 208 sotosdyears | 316 | 105 | 210 | as1 | 125 | 226 | 311 | 126 | 105

asandover | 245 | 72 | 19 | 202 | 92 | 190 | 271 | 94 | a7 ‘Source: United States Census Bureau American Community Suey Table 27

Selected Racial Data By Population and Percentage

Black or Hispanic Jurisdiction | Population] white | Percent| African | Percent] Asian | Percent] “1” | percent ‘American Dickenson County | 15308 | 15,078 | 985% | 122 | o@w | 15 | o1% | 107 | 0.7%

Source : U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey

‘The median income for a household in the county is $33,106, and the median income for a family is $42,308. Males have a median earnings of $43,806 versus $29,495 for females. The per capita income for the county is $17,954 with 20.2% of the population and 15.5% of families living below the poverty line.

Income Dickenson County Group Households

Less than $10,000 746 12.03% $10,000 to $14,999 679 10.95% $15,000 to $24,999 974 15.70% $25,000 to $34,999 873 14.08% $35,000 to $49,999 928 14.96% $50,000 to $74,999 1,032 16.64% $75,000 to $99,999 526 8.48% $100,000 to $149,999 387 6.24% $150,000 to $199,999 29 0.46% $200,000 or more 26 0.41% Total 6,200 100.00%

Median Household Income Dollars 33,106 Per Capita Income Dollars 17,954 Poverty all families 15.50% Poverty all people 20.20% Source: Unites States Bureau American Community Survey Estimates

HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND BENEFITS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2014 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)

% of Households

Table 28

3.2.3 Geographic conditions

Encompassing a land area of 335 square miles, the County lies in the Appalachian Plateau with Pine (Cumberland) Mountain running along its Kentucky border. The southern slopes of the mountain are long and comparatively gentle, but the northern slopes area very steep and descend a vertical distance of nearly 2,000 feet. Elevations in general vary from 1,200 feet above sea level to 3,137 feet on the northwest border. The mountainous surface of the County is characterized by many small streams separated by sharply rising ridges, steep slopes, and narrow valleys. The principal streams are the Russell Fork, Pound, Cranesnest, and McClure Rivers.

All the rivers gather and flow out of the County through a remarkable chasm ripped through the northern end of Pine Mountain known as “The Breaks.” In 1954, through a joint action of the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky, the Breaks Interstate Park was created.

The topography of Dickenson County limits development somewhat to the low laying areas along streams and rivers. Although some plateaus are suitable for development, access to these sites is a limiting factor.

Table 28 HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND BENEFITS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2014 INFLATION-ADJUSTED

DOLLARS) Income Dickenson County % of Group Households Households

Less than $10,000 746 12.03% $10,000 to $14,999 679 10.95% $15,000 to $24,999 974 15.70% $25,000 to $34,999 873 14.08% |$35,000 to $49,999 928 14.96% | |$50,000 to $74,999 1,032 16.64% | $75,000 to $99,999 526 8.48% | |$100,000 to $149,999 387 6.24% | $150,000 to $199,999 29 0.46% {$200,000 or more 26 0.41% Total 6,200 100.00% Median Household income Dollars 33,106,

Per Capita Income Dollars 17,954

Poverty all families 15.50%

Poverty all people 20.20%

‘Source: Unites States Bureau American Community Survey Estimates

3.2.3. Geographic conditions

The topography of Dickenson County limits development somewhat to the low laying areas

along streams and rivers. Although some plateaus are suitable for development, access to these sites is a limiting factor.

Dickenson County lies in the Cumberland Plateau Physiographic Province where formations are mostly sandstone and shale with mineable coal deposits. The Province, for the most part, contains weather-resistant sandstone, which accounts for the steep V-shaped mountains.

3.2.4 Climate

Dickenson County lies in the warm temperate region. Latitude, mountainous topography, and prevailing winds exert considerable influence upon the climate.

The area receives approximately 47 inches of precipitation annually with snowfall averaging about 18 inches a year. The average maximum temperature is 72 degrees, and the average minimum temperature is 36 degrees.

3.2.5 Transportation

A. Highways

There is no Interstate highway running through the County but there are four Virginia Primary Routes serving the area. VA 63/83 runs north/south bisecting the county and serves the towns or Nora, McClure, Clinchco, Haysi and Clintwood. VA 80 enters from the east and continues along this boundary in a north/south direction serving the communities of Birchleaf and Haysi and all the way up to the Breaks Interstate Park. VA 83 enters the county from the west and bisects the county as it runs east to west. It intersects with U.S. Route 460 in Vansant in Buchanan County.
VA 72 runs north/south joining VA 83 at George’s Fork. All four VA routes intersect with U.S. Routes providing access to eastern Tennessee, eastern Kentucky, West Virginia and eastern Virginia.

B. Air

The nearest airport is the Tri-Cities Regional Airport located 45.6 miles to the southeast in the Bristol/Johnson City, Tennessee area. It is served by five of the major airlines or their regional partners. Mercer County Airport is located 59.7 miles to the north in West Virginia and is served by U.S. Airways.

General aviation services can be found at Grundy Municipal Airport in Buchanan County.

C. Rail

Freight rail service is available in the county from CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern.

D. Water

The nearest ports are located in Richmond (370 miles) and Norfolk (439 miles).

3.2.4 Climate

Dickenson County lies in the warm temperate region. Latitude, mountainous topography, and prevailing winds exert considerable influence upon the climate.

3.2.5. Transportation A. Highways

There is no Interstate highway running through the County but there are four Virginia Primary Routes serving the area, VA 63/83 runs north/south bisecting the county and serves the towns or Nora, McClure, Clinchco, Haysi and Clintwood. VA 80 enters from the east and continues along this boundary in a north/south direction serving the communities of Birchleaf and Haysi and all the way up to the Breaks Interstate Park. VA 83 enters the county from the west and bisects the county as it runs east to west. It intersects with U.S. Route 460 in Vansant in Buchanan County. VA 72 runs north/south joining VA 83 at George’s Fork. All four VA routes intersect with U.S. Routes providing access to eastern Tennessee, eastern Kentucky, West Virginia and eastern Virginia.

BO Air The nearest airport is the Tri-Cities Regional Airport located 45.6 miles to the southeast in the Bristol/Johnson City, Tennessee area. It is served by five of the major airlines or their regional partners. Mercer County Airport is located 59.7 miles to the north in West Virginia and is served by U.S. Airways.

General aviation services can be found at Grundy Municipal Airport in Buchanan County.

Cc Rail

Freight rail service is available in the county from CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern,

D. Water

The nearest ports are located in Richmond (370 miles) and Norfolk (439 miles). 32

3.2.6 Infrastructure / Utilities & Services

A. Electricity

American Electric Power provides power to Dickenson County.

B. Natural Gas

Equitable Resources Exploration provides gas to the County.

C. Water

Water is handled by the following entities:

• Dickenson County Public Service Authority
• Town of Clintwood

D. Sewage

Sewage is handled by the following entities:

• Dickenson County Public Service Authority
• Town of Clintwood

3.2.7 Economic Growth

Throughout the 20th century, the economy of Dickenson County and the entire Cumberland Plateau Planning District has been primarily dependent on coal. With almost 35 percent of the local economy and 40 percent of wages dependent on the coal industry, the economy has been tied to the trends in the price and demand for coal. Job losses have been staggering and the manufacturing and wholesale/retail trade have not been able to absorb these losses.
Unemployment rates in the coal region of Virginia generally run the highest of anywhere in the state. The weak economy has been the main cause of the population decline.

Industrial development outside the area of mining has been slow. Access to markets has been a major hindrance to development. The last twenty years have seen a dramatic change in the mining industry. Coal mining in the region is still strong, however, the increased mechanization of the industry has resulted in fewer job opportunities for residents. Dickenson County has led the Commonwealth with its high unemployment rate for the last few years.

3.2.6 Infrastructure / Utilities & Services

A. Elec

ity

‘American Electric Power provides power to Dickenson County. B. Natural Gas

Equitable Resources Exploration provides gas to the County. Cc. Water

Water is handled by the following entities:

Dickenson County Public Service Authority © Town of Clintwood

D. — Sewage Sewage is handled by the following entities:

Dickenson County Public Service Authority © Town of Clintwood

3.2.7 Economie Growth

Throughout the 20" century, the economy of Dickenson County and the entire Cumberland Plateau Planning District has been primarily dependent on coal, With almost 35 percent of the local economy and 40 percent of wages dependent on the coal industry, the economy has been tied to the trends in the price and demand for coal. Job losses have been staggering and the manufacturing and wholesale/retail trade have not been able to absorb these losses. Unemployment rates in the coal region of Virginia generally run the highest of anywhere in the state. The weak economy has been the main cause of the population decline.

Year Labor Force Employed Unemployed Annual

Unemployment Rate 2000 5,365 5,052 313 5.80% 2001 5,491 5,104 387 7.00% 2002 5,650 5,206 444 7.90% 2003 5,796 5,304 492 4.10% 2004 5,558 5,206 352 6.30% 2005 5,720 5,350 370 6.50% 2006 5,660 5,369 291 5.10% 2007 5,787 5,484 303 5.20% 2008 6,074 5,727 347 5.70% 2009 6,442 5,884 558 8.70% 2010 5,513 4,934 579 10.50% 2011 5,454 4,923 531 9.70% 2012 5,214 4,669 545 10.50% 2013 5,342 4,761 581 10.90% 2014 5,239 4,720 519 9.90%

Source: Virginia Employment Office

Table 29 Dickenson County Unemployment Rates 2000 - 2014

About half of the workforce is traveling out of the county to work each day and commuting an average of 35.8 minutes. Unemployment rates are still running very high in 2014. Mining employment paid well and workers have not been able to replace their lost jobs with comparable salaries. Even new industries are having a hard time as Travelocity announced plans (2004) to close its 3-year old operation in Dickenson County.

People who live and work in the area 1,676 In-Commuters 2,206 Out-Commuters 5,789 Net In-Commuters (In-Commuters minus Out-Commuters) -3,583 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2

Dickenson Commuting Patterns Table 30

Table 29 Dickenson County Unemployment Rates 2000 - 2014

Annual Year _| Labor Force | Employed | Unemployed | Unemployment Rate 2000 5,365, 5,052 313 5,80%| 2001 5,491 5,104 387 7.00% 2002 5,650| 5,206 444 7.90%| 2003 5,796 5,304 492 4.10% 2004 5,558 5,206 352 6.30%| 2005 5,720 5,350 370 6.50% 2006 5,660 5,369 291 5.10% 2007 5,787 5,484 303 5.20% 2008 6,074 5,727 347 5.70% 2009 6,442 5,884 558 8.70% 2010 5,513, 4,934 579 10.50% 2011 5,454 4,923 531 9.70% 2012 5,214 4,669 545) 10.50% 2013 5,342 4,761 581 10.90% 2014 5,239 4,720 519 9.90%

Source: Virginia Employment Office

Table 30 Dickenson Commuting Patterns People who live and work in the area 1,676 In-Commuters 2,206 Out-Commuters 5,789 Net In-Commuters (In-Commuters minus Out-Commuters) -3,583

Source: US. Census BureauOnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 7

Company Product Employees Paramont Coal Company Virginia Mining (except Oil and Gas) 500 to 999 employees Dickenson County School Board Educational Services 500 to 999 employees Serco Inc. Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 100 to 249 employees County of Dickenson Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support 100 to 249 employees Food City Food and Beverage Stores 100 to 249 employees Range Resources - Pine Mountain, Inc. Oil and Gas Extraction 100 to 249 employees Sw Virginia Regional Jail Auth Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities 100 to 249 employees Heritage Hall Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 50 to 99 employees Dickerson Russell Coal Company Mining (except Oil and Gas) 50 to 99 employees Dickenson County Community Ambulatory Health Care Services 20 to 49 employees Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Table 31 Major Employers - Dickenson County

The population of Dickenson County is less prosperous than the population of Virginia. The poverty rate is more than two and a half times higher than the average for the state. The per capita income of residents of Dickenson County is only 53% of the per capita income of Virginians. The proportion of county residents over the age of 25 without a high school diploma is significantly higher than in Virginia.

Economic Indicators Dickenson Virginia Population with Public Health Coverage 46.80% 24.20% Poverty Rate 16.60% 8.00% Per Capita Income 18,215 33,493 Population Aged 16+ in Labor Force 43.50% 66.70% Population Aged 25+ w/o High School Diploma 27.60% 12.50% Source: Unites States Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimate

Table 32 County Versus State Data

Dickenson County

Mining jobs are still a significant sector of the employment in Dickenson County. Mining jobs make up the largest segment of jobs with Education Services and Health Care and Social Services close behind. Taxable Sales for Dickenson County have been increasing most years over the past decade.

Table 31

Major Employers - Dickenson County

[Serco Inc. County of Dickenson

Food city

Range Resources - Pine Mountain, Inc. [Sw Virginia Regional Jail Auth Heritage Hall

Dickerson Russell Coal Company Dickenson County Community

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support| 100 to 249 employees

Food and Beverage Stores [Oil and Gas Extraction

\Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities, Nursing and Residential Care Facies

Mining (except Oil and Gas) [Ambulatory Health Care Services

[Company Product [Employees Paramont Coal Company Virginia [Mining (except Oil and Gas) 1500 to 999 employees Dickenson County School Board Educational Services 1500 to 999 employees

100 to 249 employees,

100 to 249 employees 100 to 249 employees 100 to 249 employees 50 to 99 employees 50 to 99 employees 20 to 49 employees

|Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Table 32

County Versus State Data

Dickenson County

Economic Indicators Dickenson | Virginia Population with Public Health Coverage 46.80% 24.20%] Poverty Rate 16.60% 8.00%| Per Capita Income 18,215) 33,493 Population Aged 16+ in Labor Force 43.50% 66.70% Population Aged 25+ w/o High School Diploma 27.60%) 12.50%

Source: Unites States Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimat:

over the past decade

Category Percentage Mining 25.15% Education Services 14.02% Health Care and Social Assistance 12.99% Retail Trade 11.08% Public Administration 7.77% Construction 6.33% Professional Scientific & Technical Svc 5.97% Accomodation and Food Services 5.19% Transportation and Warehousing 4.30% Other Services 1.77% Finance and Insurance 1.74% Manufacturing 0.91% Admin, Support, Waste Mtg. Remediation 0.69% Utilities 0.44% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 0.38% Wholesale Trade 0.38% Manangement of Companies and Interprizes 0.22% Information Confidential Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Confidential Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Confidential Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Table 33 Employment By Industry

Dickenson County

Table 33 Employment By Industry Dickenson County

Category Percentage Mining 25.15% Education Services 14.02% Health Care and Social Assistance 12.99% Retail Trade 11.08% Public Administration 1.11% Construction 6.33% Professional Scientific & Technical Sve 5.97% Accomodation and Food Services 5.19% Transportation and Warehousing 4.30% Other Services 1.77% Finance and Insurance 1.74%| Manufacturing 0.91% Admin, Support, Waste Mtg. Remediation 0.69% Utilities 0.44% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 0.38% Wholesale Trade 0.38% Manangement of Companies and Interprizes 0.22% Information Confidential

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Confidential

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Confidential

Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Year Dickenson 2000 $48,398,260 2001 $47,977,617 2002 $49,531,310 2003 $50,249,767 2004 $52,914,791 2005 $50,357,215 2006 $57,182,687 2007 $60,083,344 2008 $63,232,095 2009 $64,054,957 2010 $65,984,411 2011 $68,042,398 2012 $66,417,728 2013 $65,552,723 2014 $69,962,263

Source: Virginia Department of Taxation

Taxable Sales 2000-1014

Table 34

What is the outlook for transforming the economy of the counties in “coal country”? One strategy to attract new jobs has been the construction of shell buildings by the Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC). Eight buildings have been constructed since 1987 and four have been sold, providing about 450 jobs to regional residents. Only one of these buildings, the Happy Valley Industrial Park is located in Dickenson County. It is a 40,000 sq ft. shell building and is being marketed through the PDC.

The more recent economic development strategy is to provide the region with an advanced communications infrastructure that can offer a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining industry. It also serves to educate and train or retrain the workforce, as the county attempts to transition to a technology based economy.

The Dickenson County Wireless Integrated Network “DCWIN” will provide wireless service to enhance local government services to citizens and enhance small business’ ability to compete in world markets, while additionally improving high-speed data transmission and high-speed Internet services to its citizenry. It is expected that DCWIN will serve as a catalyst to improve infrastructure within Dickenson County and the utilization of DCWIN will enhance economic development throughout the entire coalfield region. Dickenson County looks to the future and joining the technology corridor within the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The development of regional tourism is still an area of focus for improving the economy. The Breaks Recreation Area is recognized as having potential for further development. In addition, Health care provision could bring with it good paying jobs.

Table 34 Taxable Sales

2000-1014 Year Dickenson

2000 $48,398,260 2001 $47,977,617 2002 $49,531,310 2003 $50,249,767 2004 $52,914,791 2005 $50,357,215 2006 $57,182,687 2007 $60,083,344 2008 $63,232,095 2009 $64,054,957 2010 $65,984,411 2011 $68,042,398 2012 $66,417,728 2013 $65,552,723 2014 $69,962,263

Source: Virginia Department of Taxation

What is the outlook for transforming the economy of the counties in “coal country”? One strategy to attract new jobs has been the construction of shell buildings by the Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC). Eight buildings have been constructed since 1987 and four have been sold, providing about 450 jobs to regional residents. Only one of these buildings, the Happy Valley Industrial Park is located in Dickenson County. It is a 40,000 sq fi. shell building and is being marketed through the PDC.

The Dickenson County Wireless Integrated Network “DCWIN” will provide wireless service to enhance local government services to citizens and enhance small business” ability to compete in world markets, while additionally improving high-speed data transmission and high-speed Internet services to its citizenry. It is expected that DCWIN will serve as a catalyst to improve infrastructure within Dickenson County and the utilization of DCWIN will enhance economic development throughout the entire coalfield region. Dickenson County looks to the future and joining the technology corridor within the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Dickenson County will have a section of the proposed Coalfield Expressway, currently under discussion. This route will be a wider, more direct route through the mountainous counties in Southwest Virginia into West Virginia, connecting with U.S. Route 460 and I-77.

3.2.8 Land Use

A. Residential

Due to the population decline and housing vacancy rate (about 12%), new housing starts are not expected to be significant in the near future. The county reported approximately 20-25 building permit requests a year from 1998-2002. Future growth in the form of subdivisions is not currently being planned. Sewer/water projects will be dependent on Community Development Block Grant or Appalachian Regional Commission funding.

B. Commercial

Most of the commercial activity is concentrated in and around Clintwood and Haysi. Clintwood has developed several sites, including their historical theater and the Ralph Stanley Museum, as a way to promote itself as a tourist destination. Festivals help bring tourist in during the summer and fall.

C. Industrial

Industrial Park development has been promoted by the Planning District Commission as one way to diversify the regional economy. In Dickenson County progress has been slow with most developed sites remaining vacant. Transportation routes and isolation are two big obstacles to future industrial growth. The planned expressway may change these conditions but the construction schedule remains unclear.

DICKENSON COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARKS

SITE SPECIFICATIONS - INDUSTRIAL PARKS – DICKENSON COUNTY

Site Name Location Miles to Nearest

Interstate Miles to Nearest 4-lane Highway

Square Footage

Total Acreage

Dickenson Shell Building State Route 707 I-81 - 60 mi Rt.23 - 8 mi 40,000 11.95 acres Haysi Manufacturing facility Route 80 West I-77 - 75 mi Rt.460 - 20 mi 31,250 13.48 acres Furniture World Building T-1001 I-81 - 60 mi Rt.23 - 10 mi 13,500 0.2 acres Source: Virginia Economic Development Partners

D. Agricultural

Farmers in Dickenson County primarily raise beef cattle, and grow hay and burley tobacco. In 1997, the Census of Agriculture reported a total of just over 100 full time farms in the county.
Most land in the county is unsuitable for growing crops.

E. Open Space/Recreation

3.2.8 Land Use A Residential

B. Commercial

Most of the commercial activity is concentrated in and around Clintwood and Haysi. Clintwood has developed several sites, including their historical theater and the Ralph Stanley Muscum, as a way to promote itself as a tourist destination. Festivals help bring tourist in during the summer and fall,

C. Industrial

DICKENSON COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARKS

SITE SPECIFICATIONS - INDUSTRIAL PARKS — DICKENSON COUNTY

Souree: Virginia Eeonomie Development Partners D. Agricultural

Farmers in Dickenson County primarily raise beef cattle, and grow hay and burley tobacco. In 1997, the Census of Agriculture reported a total of just over 100 full time farms in the county.

Most land in the county is unsuitable for growing crops.

E. Open Space/Recreation

About 93% of the county is forested, mainly covered with deciduous trees with a small amount of evergreen forest cover mixed in.

Breaks Interstate Park is located on the Virginia-Kentucky border with most of the 4,500 acres falling within Dickenson County. The park has numerous recreational facilities including a lodge, dining hall, amphitheater, camping and hiking.

The John W. Flannagan Dam and Reservoir is located five miles from Haysi on the Pound River, a tributary of the Russell Fork River. The 7,507-acre facility is operated by the U.S. Corp of Engineers and includes a 1,143-acre lake. Future activities are to include white-water rafting and kayaking.

3.2.9 Community Facilities/Activities

Dickenson County maintains 2 elementary schools, 3 combined schools and 3 high schools.
Vocational training can be found at all the high schools plus the Dickenson County Career Center.

The Dickenson County Medical Center, located in Clintwood, is a 50-bed acute care center.

County cultural activities include the Ralph Stanley Music Festival in Clintwood, held in May.
A new Ralph Stanley museum will also be located in Clintwood.

Sources:

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, 1990 Census, Economic Census, Census of Agriculture Virginia Economic Development Partners Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission Virginia Employment Commission

3.3 Russell County

3.3.1 Location

Russell County, Virginia is located in the southwestern portion Virginia and is one of four counties in the Cumberland Plateau Planning District. The county shares a border with Dickenson County to the northwest and Buchanan County to the north. Tazewell County lies to the northeast, Washington County to the south and Scott County to the southwest.

Western Russell County rests on a high, open, relatively level plateau amid a circle of mountains.
The high mountain pastures of Clinch River Valley are legendary. Clinch Mountain forms the southern border of the county and the northern section stretches into the coal-bearing hills of the Cumberland Plateau.

Russell County is 35 miles north of Bristol, 150 miles west of Roanoke and 290 miles west of Richmond. This 475 square mile community lies midway between the isolated coal producing counties of Virginia and the dynamic Tri-Cities metropolitan area of Bristol-Kingsport-Johnson City.

About 93% of the county is forested, mainly covered with deciduous trees with a small amount of evergreen forest cover mixed in

3.2.9 Community Facilities/Activities

Dickenson County maintains 2 elementary schools, 3 combined schools and 3 high schools. Vocational training can be found at all the high schools plus the Dickenson County Career Center.

The Dickenson County Medical Center, located in Clintwood, is a 50-bed acute care center.

County cultural activities include the Ralph Stanley Music Festival in Clintwood, held in May. ‘Anew Ralph Stanley museum will also be located in Clintwood.

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, 1990 Census, Economic Census, Census of Agriculture Virginia Economic Development Partners Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission Virginia Employment Commission

3.3 Russell County 3.3.1 Location

Western Russell County rests on a high, open, relatively level plateau amid a circle of mountains. The high mountain pastures of Clinch River Valley are legendary. Clinch Mountain forms the southern border of the county and the northern section stretches into the coal-bearing hills of the Cumberland Plateau.

3.3.2 Population

There are several small towns in Russell County including Cleveland (pop. 296), Honaker (pop. 1626), and Lebanon (pop. 3,399), which serves as the seat of local government. The county lost population during the 1980’s but was the only county in the planning district to gain population during the 1990’s. Its location next to Washington County and its proximity to I-81 and the Tri- Cities area makes it the least isolated of the planning district’s member counties.

Russell County seems to have dodged the significant population decreases observed in the rest of the coal-producing region of southwest Virginia. The local economy is not as dependent on coal as in Dickenson and Buchanan Counties and residents have more jobs opportunities available within commuting distance in the Tri-Cities area.

Cleveland Honaker Lebanon

Census Year Population % Annual Change Population

% Annual Change Population

% Annual Change

Census 1990 28,667 1991 28,800 0.46% 1992 28,900 0.35% 1993 29,300 1.38% 1994 29,400 0.34% 1995 29,300 -0.34% 1996 29,300 0.00% 1997 29,300 0.00% 1998 29,200 -0.34% 1999 29,200 0.00%

Census 2000 30,308 3.80% 148 945 3273 2001 29,060 -4.11% 2002 28,825 -0.80% 2003 28,857 0.11% 2004 28,648 -0.72% 2005 28,596 -0.18% 2006 28,725 0.45% 2007 29,029 1.05% 2008 29,006 -0.07% 2009 29,250 0.84%

Census 2010 28,897 -1.20% 202 1449 3424 2011 29,657 2.63% 307 51.98% 1873 29.26% 3442 0.52% 2012 28,426 -4.10% 392 27.68% 1693 -9.61% 3430 -0.34% 2013 28,274 -0.53% 341 -13.01% 1609 -4.96% 3422 -0.23% 2014 28,023 -0.88% 296 -13.19% 1626 1.05% 3399 -0.67%

Source: US Census Bureau & US Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimates

Es tim

at e

Es tim

at e

1990-2014

Population Town of Cleveland, Honaker & Lebanon, Virginia

Table 35 Population - Russell County, Virginia

Es tim

at e

3.3.2 Population

There are several small towns in Russell County including Cleveland (pop. 296), Honaker (pop. 1626), and Lebanon (pop. 3,399), which serves as the seat of local government. The county lost population during the 1980°s but was the only county in the planning district to gain population during the 1990’s. Its location next to Washington County and its proximity to I-81 and the Tri- Cities area makes it the least isolated of the planning district’s member counties.

Table 35 Population Population - Russell Count, Virginia Town of Cleveland, Honaker & Lebanon, Virginia, 1990-2014 Cleveland Honaker Lebanon % Annual %Annval % Annval %Annwal Census _| Year _| Population | change Population| Change | Population | Change | Population| Change Census| 1990 | 28,667 191 | 28800 | 0.46% 1992 | 28900 | 0.35% 1993 | 29300 | 138% 2 1994] 29.400 | 0.34% £ 1995 29,300 0.34% & 1996 | 29,300 0.00% 1997 | 23,300 | 0.00% 1998 | 29,200 | -0.34% 1999 | 29,200 | 0.00% Census] 2000 | 30308 | 3.80% 4s 4s] 3273 2001 | 29,060 | -4.11% 2002 | 28825 | -0.80% 2003 | 28857 | 0.11% g 2008 | 28,68 | -0.72% £ 2005 | 28,596 | -0.18% Fa 2006 | 28,725 | 0.45% 2007 | 29023 | 1.05% 2008 | 29008 | -0.07% 2009 | 29,250 | 0.84% Census | 2010 | 28997 | -1.20% 202) 149 3424 2 zou | 29657 | 2.63% 307] si9e%| 1873] 29.26%] 34aa] 0.52% 2 | 212 | 2426 | -4.10% 302 2769%| 1603] -9.61%| 3430] -0.34% FA 2013 | 28,274 | 0.53% aii] -13.01%| 1608] 4.96%] 3422| -0.23% “ zor | 28023 | 0.80% 296] -13.19%4] 1626] 1.05%] 3309] -0.67%4

‘Source: US Census Bureau & US Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimates

Population projections from the Virginia Employment Commission show that Russell County will continue to see population growth through 2020 of about 0.53% a year. For the twenty years thereafter (2030-2040), the county is projected to see continued growth but at rates of approximately 0.81% annually.

Year US Census Bureau VEC Projections 1990 28,667 2000 30,308 1990-2000 5.72% 2010 28,897 2000-2010 -4.65% 2020 29,051 2010-2020 0.53% 2030 29,296 2020-2030 0.84% 2040 29,534 2030-2040 0.81%

Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Table 36 Population Projections - Russell County, Virginia

1990-2040 % Annual Change By Decade

According to the United States Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimates of 2014, there were 28,897 people, 11,037 households, and 7,386 families residing in the county. That calculates to a population density of 63.9/mi². There are 13,439 housing units with a vacancy rate of 10.2%.

The racial makeup of the county is 98.5% White, 1.4% Black or African American, and 0.1% from other races. The average household consists of 2.54 persons and the average family size is 3.16 persons.

In the county, the population spread is not far from the Virginia average. The 2014 United States Census Bureau Estimates shows that 5.2% of the population is under 5 years old, 10.69 % is under the age of 19, and 8.37% of the population is 65 years of age or older. The median age is 43.6 years.

Jurisdiction Population White Percent Black or African

American Percent Other Percent

Russell County 28,023 27,615 98.5% 384 1.4% 24 0.1% Source : U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey

Table 37 Selected Racial Data Estimates By Population and Percentage

Table 36 Population Projections - Russell County, Virginia 1990-2040

Year [US Census Bureau] VEC Projections | _% Annual Change By Decade 1990 28,667

2000 30,308 1990-2000 5.72% 2010 28,897 2000-2010 ~4.65% 2020 29,051 2010-2020 0.53% 2030 29,296 2020-2030 0.84% 2040 29,534 2030-2040 0.81%

Source: Virginia Employment Commission

According to the United States Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimates of 2014, there were 28,897 people, 11,037 households, and 7,386 families residing in the county. That calculates to a population density of 63.9/mi. There are 13,439 housing units with a vacancy rate of 10.2%.

The racial makeup of the county is 98.5% White, 1.4% Black or African American, and 0.1% from other races. The average household consists of 2.54 persons and the average family size is 3.16 persons.

In the county, the population spread is not far from the Virginia average. The 2014 United States Census Bureau Estimates shows that 5.2% of the population is under 5 years old, 10.69 % i under the age of 19, and 8.37% of the population is 65 years of age or older. The median age is 43.6 years.

Table 37 Selected Racial Data Estimates By Population and Percentage

Black or

Russell County | 28,023 | 27,615 | 98.5% 384 1.4% 24 0.1%

Source : U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey

Both sexes Male Female Both

sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female

Total population 30,308 15,319 14,989 28,897 14,155 14,742 28,023 13,679 14,344 Under 5 years 1,584 779 805 1,549 779 770 1,462 729 733

5 to 9 years 1,746 864 882 1,588 799 789 1,518 765 753 10 to 14 years 1,837 907 930 1,678 827 851 1,556 759 797 15 to 19 years 1,942 1,021 921 1,754 908 846 1,490 743 747 20 to 24 years 1,837 1,027 810 1,529 788 741 1,613 854 759 25 to 29 years 2,271 1,281 990 1,561 821 740 1,536 761 775 30 to 34 years 2,138 1,155 983 1,681 864 817 1,577 818 759 35 to 39 years 2,486 1,341 1,145 1,923 938 985 1,627 819 808 40 to 44 years 2,443 1,252 1,191 1,945 964 981 1,852 913 939 45 to 49 years 2,467 1,263 1,204 2,206 1,078 1,128 1,916 936 980 50 to 54 years 2,172 1,143 1,029 2,493 1,225 1,268 2,180 1,069 1,111 55 to 59 years 1,912 897 1,015 2,246 1,098 1,148 2,302 1,114 1,188 60 to 64 years 1,428 697 731 2,004 1,002 1,002 2,120 1,051 1,069 65 to 69 years 1,196 512 684 1,574 737 837 1,809 891 918 70 to 74 years 1,105 522 583 1,198 536 662 1,326 596 730 75 to 79 years 824 364 460 920 383 537 967 412 555 80 to 84 years 469 169 300 562 233 329 644 251 393 85 and over 451 125 326 486 175 311 528 198 330

Source: United States Census Bureau American Community Survey

Table 38

2000 2010

Population By Gender & Age 2000 - 2010 Census and 2014 Estimates (as of July 1, 2014)

2014 Estimates Russell County

Age

Table 38

Population By Gender & Age 2000 - 2010 Census and 2014 Estimates (as of July 1, 2014)

Total population| 30,308 | 15,319 | 14,989| 26,897 | 14,186 | 14,742 | 28,028 | 13.679 | 14,344 Under 5 years 1,584 779 805 1,549, 779 770 1,462 729 733 Stodyears [ 1,746 | a4 | sez | 1588 | 799 | 789 | 1518 | 765 | 753 10to 14years [ 1,837 | 907 | 930 | 1678 | 827 | 851 | 1.556 | 759 | 797 15 to 19 years 1,942 1,021 921 1,754 908 846 1,490, 743 747 20 to 24 years 1,837 1,027 810 1,529 788 741 1,613, 854 759 25to 29 years [ 2.271 | 1,281 | 990 | 1.561 | 821 | 740 | 1,536 | 761 | 775 30to 34years [ 2,138 | 1,155] 983 | 1681 | a6 | 817 | 1577 | 18 | 759 35 to 39 years 2,486 1,341 | 1,145 1,923 938 985 1,627 819 808 40 to 44 years 2,443 1,252 | 1,191 1,945, 964 981 1,852 913 939 4510 49 years [ 2.467 | 1,263 | 1,204 | 2.206 | 1,078 | 1,128 | 1916 | 936 | 980 50 to 54 years [ 2,172 | 1,143 | 1,029 | 2.493 | 1,225 | 1,268 | 2,180 | 1,069 | 1,111 55 to 59 years 1,912 897 1,015 2,246 1,098 | 1,148 2,302 1,114 1,188 60 to 64years [ 1.428 | 697 | 731 | 2,004 | 1,002 | 1,002 | 2,120 | 1,051 | 1,069 650 69 years [ 1,196 | 512 | 684 | 1.574 | 737 | 837 | 1,09 | 801 | o18 70to74 years [ 1,105 | 522 | 583 | 1,198 | 536 | 662 | 1,326 | 596 | 730 75to79 years | g24 | 364 | 460 | 920 | 383 | 537 | 967 | 412 | 555 B0to84years | 469 | 169 | 300 | sez | 233 | 329 | 644 | 251 | 393 85 and over 451 125 326 486 175 311 528 198 330

Source: United States Census Bureau American Community Survey

The median income for a household in the county is $31,491, and the median income for a family is $26,834. The per capita income for the county is $14,863 with 16.3% of the population living below the poverty line. These figures are slightly higher than the averages in the rest of the planning district.

Income Russell County Group Households

Less than $10,000 1,173 10.60% $10,000 to $14,999 1,192 10.80% $15,000 to $24,999 1,678 15.20% $25,000 to $34,999 1,508 13.70% $35,000 to $49,999 1,377 12.50% $50,000 to $74,999 1,914 17.30% $75,000 to $99,999 1,137 10.30% $100,000 to $149,999 769 7.00% $150,000 to $199,999 223 2.00% $200,000 or more 66 0.60% Total 11,037 100.00%

Median Household Income Dollars 34,768 Per Capita Income Dollars 20,117 Poverty all families 15.00% Poverty all people 18.70% Source: Unites States Bureau American Community Survey Estimates

HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND BENEFITS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2014 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)

% of Households

Table 39

3.3.3 Geographic conditions

The entire Russell coalfield is characterized by steep, mountainous topography. It lies in the southeastern edge of the physiographic province known as the Allegheny Plateau.

The highest point of the county is Big A Mountain (3,735 feet) on Sandy Ridge, which forms the divide between the Clinch River drainage on the southeast and the Big Sandy drainage on the northwest. The lowest point in the area is on the Clinch River at Boody (1,481 feet).

Russell County has fewer topographic constraints than Dickenson or Buchanan Counties but areas around Clinch, Garden and Big A Mountain have limited economic development potential.

The entire Russell coalfield drains into the Clinch River. The principal tributaries are Mill Creek, Swords Creek, Lewis Creek, Hart and Musick Forks of Dumps Creek and Lick Creek in

Table 39 HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND BENEFITS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2014 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Income Russell County ‘% of Group Households Households

|Less than $10,000 4,173 10.60% |$10,000 to $14,999 1,192 10.80% |$15,000 to $24,999 1,678 15.20% |$25,000 to $34,999 1,508 13.70% $35,000 to $49,009 4377 12.50% |$50,000 to $74,999 1,914 17.30% 1$75,000 to $99,999 1,137 10.30% |$100,000 to $149,999 769 7.00% | |$150,000 to $199,999 223 2.00% | |$200,000 or more 66 0.60% [Total 11,037 100.00%| |Median Household Income Dollars 34,768

|Per Capita Income Dollars 20,117

[Poverty all families 15.00%

|Poverty all people 18.70%

‘Source: Unites States Bureau American Community Suney Estimates

3.3.3 Geographic conditions

The entire Russell coalfield is characterized by steep, mountainous topography. It lies in the southeastern edge of the physiographic province known as the Allegheny Plateau,

Russell County has fewer topographic constraints than Dickenson or Buchanan Counties but areas around Clinch, Garden and Big A Mountain have limited economic development potential.

The entire Russell coalfield drains into the Clinch River. The principal tributaries are Mill Creek, Swords Creek, Lewis Creek, Hart and Musick Forks of Dumps Creek and Lick Creek in

the western part of the county. There are numerous springs in the coalfield, many of which are located on the outcrops of fields and fed by water percolating along the joints of the coal.

All the drainage of the county is tributary to Big Sandy River through its three main branches: Russell Fork, Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork. Although most streams and creeks contain some water all year round, none has a very large flow. The topography of Buchanan County limits development somewhat to the low laying areas along streams and rivers.

Russell County straddles two distinct physiographic regions. The Valley and Ridge Province extends from east to west through the southern portion. This province is underlain by sedimentary rock strata that has been folded, tilted, and deformed. The chief rock types are limestone, shales, dolomites, and sandstone.

Cumberland Plateau Physiographic Province covers the northern portions of the county that lie north of the Cumberland escarpment. The region is underlain by sandstones, conglomerate sandstones, and shales, with numerous coal beds at varying elevations. The soil of the plateau is very thin so that much of the precipitation in this region penetrates into the ground to shallow depths. The dense vegetation prevents heavy eroding in high precipitation events.

3.3.4 Climate

Russell County lies in the warm temperate region. Latitude, mountainous topography, and prevailing winds exert considerable influence upon the climate.

The area receives an average annual rainfall of 43.1 inches and an average snowfall of 21 inches. The average maximum temperature is 72 degrees, and the average minimum temperature is 36 degrees for the Cumberland Plateau region. Russell County’s average July temperature is 74 degrees and for January the average temperature is 35 degrees.

3.3.5 Transportation

A. Highways

Russell County is served by two U.S. Routes: U.S. Alternate Route 58 runs along the western and southern corners of the county from the common boundary line of Wise and Russell Counties to its junction with U.S. Route 19, which enters Russell from Washington County. U. S. Route 19 runs east/west along the southern portion of the county to the Tazewell/Russell County line.

Virginia Primary Routes 63, 65, and 71 serve the western portion of the county. Primary Routes 67 and 80 serve the eastern portion of Russell County.

B. Air

the western part of the county. There are numerous springs in the coalfield, many of which are located on the outcrops of fields and fed by water percolating along the joints of the coal

Alll the drainage of the county is tributary to Big Sandy River through its three main branches: Russell Fork, Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork. Although most streams and creeks contain some water all year round, none has a very large flow. The topography of Buchanan County limits development somewhat to the low laying areas along streams and rivers.

Cumberland Plateau Physiographic Province covers the northern portions of the county that lie north of the Cumberland escarpment, The region is underlain by sandstones, conglomerate sandstones, and shales, with numerous coal beds at varying elevations. The soil of the plateau is very thin so that much of the precipitation in this region penetrates into the ground to shallow depths. The dense vegetation prevents heavy eroding in high precipitation events.

3.3.4 Climate

Russell County lies in the warm temperate region. Latitude, mountainous topography, and prevailing winds exert considerable influence upon the climate.

3.3.5. Transportation A. Highways

Russell County is served by two U.S. Routes: U.S. Alternate Route 58 runs along the western and southern comers of the county from the common boundary line of Wise and Russell Counties to its junction with U.S. Route 19, which enters Russell from Washington County. U. S. Route 19 runs east/west along the southern portion of the county to the Tazewell/Russell County line.

Virginia Primary Routes 63, 65, and 71 serve the western portion of the county. Primary Routes 67 and 80 serve the eastern portion of Russell County.

Air

The Tri-Cities Regional Airport lies 45 miles to the southeast in the Bristol/Johnson City, Tennessee area. It is served by five of the major airline or their regional partners. Mercer County Airport lies about 54 miles north and west in West Virginia.

General aviation services can be found at Grundy Municipal Airport or at the Tazewell County Airport.

C. Rail

Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation provide freight rail service to Russell County.

D. Water

The nearest ports are located in Richmond (290 miles) and Norfolk (360 miles).

3.3.5 Infrastructure / Utilities & Services

A. Electricity

American Electric Power and Old Dominion Power Company provide power to the County.

B. Natural Gas

Virginia Natural Gas provides gas to the County.

C. Water Water is provided by the following entities:

• Russell County Water and Sewer Authority

• Three Creek Apparel Waterworks

Town of Honaker Town of Lebanon Town of St. Paul

D. Sewage

Sewage is handled by the following entities:

• Town of Honaker • Town of Lebanon • Town of St. Paul

General aviation services can be found at Grundy Municipal Airport or at the Tazewell County Airport.

C. Rail Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation provide freight rail service to Russell County. D. Water

The nearest ports are located in Richmond (290 miles) and Norfolk (360 miles).

3.3.5. Infrastructure / Utilities & Services

A. Electricity

American Electric Power and Old Dominion Power Company provide power to the County, B. Natural Gas

Virginia Natural Gas provides gas to the County.

C. Water Water is provided by the following entities:

3.3.6 Economic Growth

Russell County’s unemployment rate hit a high in 2009 at 10.52% due to the recession of 2008. The recession was a major worldwide economic downturn that began in 2008 and continued into 2010 and beyond. Since that high, the rate has remained around 8% for the past four or five years.

Year Labor Force Employed Unemployed Annual

Unemployment Rate 2000 11,865 11,248 617 5.20% 2001 11,903 11,139 764 6.40% 2002 12,140 11,369 771 6.40% 2003 12,281 11,519 762 6.20% 2004 11,521 10,840 681 5.90% 2005 11,955 11,265 690 5.80% 2006 11,812 11,099 713 6.00% 2007 11,772 11,165 607 5.20% 2008 11,877 11,194 683 5.80% 2009 12,397 11,095 1,302 10.50% 2010 12,081 10,844 1,237 10.20% 2011 11,949 10,816 1,133 9.50% 2012 11,799 10,780 1,019 8.60% 2013 11,631 10,644 987 8.50% 2014 11,307 10,406 901 8.00%

Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Table 40 Russell County Unemployment Rates 2000 - 2014

3.3.6 Economic Growth

Table 40 Russell County Unemployment Rates 2000 - 2014

Annual Year_| Labor Force | Employed | Unemployed | Unemployment Rate 2000] 11,865] 11,248 617 5.20% 2001 11,903] 11,139 764 6.40% 2002 12,140] 11,369 ™m™ 6.40% 2003 12,281] 11,519 762 6.20% 2004] 11,521] 10,840 681 5.90% 2005 11,955] 11,265 690 5.80% 2006] 11,812] 11,099 713 6.00% 2007 11,772} 11,165 607 5.20% 2008} 11,877] 11,194 683 5.80% 2009 12,397] 11,095 1,302 10.50% 2010] 12,081] 10,844 1,237 10.20% 2011 11,949] 10,816 1,133 9.50% 2012 11,799] 10,780 1,019 8.60% 2013 11,631] 10,644 987 8.50% 2014] 11,307] 10,406 901 8.00%

Source: Virginia Employment Commission

According to the 2014 Census, the worker retention rate was 60%, with 58.5% of the work force traveling out of the county to work. The median travel time to work was 31.2 minutes in the year 2014. Those traveling out the county are mostly commuting southeast to Abingdon, Bristol and beyond. Russell County also sees a significant in-migration of workers with about 36.6% of its workforce residing in surrounding counties.

People who live and work in the area 2,533 In-Commuters 4,144 Out-Commuters 6,619 Net In-Commuters (In-Commuters minus Out-Commuters) -2,475 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2

Russell Commuting Patterns Table 41

Company Product Employees Russell County School Board Educational Services 500 to 999 employees Cingular Wireless Employe Telecommunications 250 to 499 employees Steel Fab Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 250 to 499 employees Wal Mart General Merchandise Stores 100 to 249 employees CGI Federal Inc Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 100 to 249 employees Mountain States Health Al Hospitals 100 to 249 employees County of Russell Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support 100 to 249 employees Lebanon Apparel Corporation Apparel Manufacturing 100 to 249 employees Northrop Grumman Corporation Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing 100 to 249 employees American Management Systems Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 100 to 249 employees Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Table 42 Major Employers - Russell County

While the poverty rate in Russell County is significantly higher than the Virginia rate, the county appears to be in better economic health than the other counties in the Cumberland Plateau district. Proportionately fewer residents of Russell County are in the work force and a much smaller percentage has graduated from high school than Virginians in general.

According to the 2014 Census, the worker retention rate was 60%, with 58.5% of the work force traveling out of the county to work. The median travel time to work was 31.2 minutes in the year 2014, Those traveling out the county are mostly commuting southeast to Abingdon, Bristol and beyond. Russell County also sees a significant in-migration of workers with about 36.6% of its workforce residing in surrounding counties.

Table 41 Russell Commuting Patterns

In-Commuters Out-Commuters

People who live and work in the area

Net In-Commuters (In-Commuters minus Out-Commuters)

2,533 4,144 6,619

-2,475

Source: US. Census Bureau,OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2

Table 42 Major Employers - Russell County

[Company Product Employees Russell County School Board Educational Services '500 to 999 employees Cingular Wireless Employe Telecommunications 250 to 499 employees [Steel Fab Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 250 to 499 employees Wal Mart [General Merchandise Stores 100 to 249 employees: CGI Federal Inc Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 100 to 249 employees: Mountain States Health Al Hospitals 100 to 249 employees: County of Russell Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support] 100 to 249 employees: Lebanon Apparel Corporation [Apparel Manufacturing 100 to 249 employees: Northrop Grumman Corporation ‘Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing 100 to 249 employees: |American Management Systems Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 100 to 249 employees.

‘Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Economic Indicators Russell Virginia Population with Public Health Coverage 40.20% 24.20% Poverty Rate 15.50% 8.00% Per Capita Income 19,735 33,493 Population Aged 16+ in Labor Force 49.20% 66.70% Population Aged 25+ w/o High School Diploma 25.30% 12.50%

Table 43 County Versus State Data

Russell County

Mining/Agricultural jobs are not as significant a sector of employment in Russell County (4.13%) as in Dickenson and Buchanan Counties. Health care & Social Services jobs make up the largest segment of jobs. The economy of Russell County seems to be more diversified than its neighboring counties with the manufacturing sector significantly higher. Wholesale and retail trade also employs a significant portion of the county’s residents.

Taxable sales for the county went up dramatically between 2001 and 2002 with a 20% increase.
Between 2001 and 2002, sales continued to increase as they jumped another 5.5%.

Table 44 Taxable Sales

2000-2014 Year Russell 2000 $107,862,419 2001 $101,878,423 2002 $122,525,574 2003 $129,188,820 2004 $138,753,368 2005 $132,085,662 2006 $149,040,720 2007 $156,657,814 2008 $161,030,985 2009 $157,889,960 2010 $158,276,136 2011 $159,840,501 2012 $160,139,687 2013 $153,199,811 2014 $159,893,054

Source: Virginia Department of Taxation

Table 43 County Versus State Data Russell County

Economic Indicators Russell Virginia

Population with Public Health Coverage 40.20% 24.20% Poverty Rate 15.50%| 8.00% Per Capita Income 19,735} 33,493 Population Aged 16+ in Labor Force 49.20% 66.70% Population Aged 25+ w/o High School Diploma 25.30%| 12.50%

trade also employs a significant portion of the county’s residents.

Taxable sales for the county went up dramatically between 2001 and 2002 with a 20% increase.

Between 2001 and 2002, sales continued to increase as they jumped another 5.5%.

Table 44 Taxable Sales 2000-2014

Year Russell 2000 $107,862,419 2001 $101,878 423 2002 $122,525,574 2003 $129,188,820 2004 $38,753,368 2005 $132,085,662 2006 $149,040,720 2007 $156,657,814 2008 $161,030,985 2009 $157,889,960 2010 $158,276,136 2011 $159,840,501 2012 $160,139,687 2013 $53,199,811 2014 $159,893,054

Source: Virginia Department of Taxation

Category Percentage Health Care and Social Assistance 15.68% Retail Trade 12.14% Professional Scientific & Technical Svc 9.67% Construction 8.30% Accomodation and Food Services 7.24% Public Administration 6.60% Manufacturing 6.16% Admin, Support, Waste Mtg. Remediation 5.21% Mining 4.13% Transportation and Warehousing 3.83% Finance and Insurance 3.43% Other Services 2.28% Information 0.81% Wholesale Trade 0.72% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 0.44% Manangement of Companies and Interprizes 0.32% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 0.30% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.21% Education Services Confidential Utilities Confidential Source: Virginia Employment Commission

Table 45 Employment By Industry

Russell County

3.3.7 Land Use

A. Residential

Russell County has more buildable land than the counties to its west and north. The areas around the Clinch River and on the high plateaus have fairly flat lands. New construction of single- family homes is occurring in the town of Lebanon. The Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission reports that Russell County, especially around Lebanon, is expected to grow because new jobs are being created in the area’s industrial parks. Housing vacancy rates in Lebanon and Castlewood in the year 2000 were only 8.3% while that of Cleveland was 28.3%.
It is anticipated that new subdivisions will be built in Lebanon and public services may need to be extended to new areas to provide public sewer and water. Building permits for the county have averaged about 70 per year over the last five years (1998-2002).

Table 45 Employment By Industry Russell County

Category Percentage

Health Care and Social Assistance 15.68% Retail Trade 12.14% Professional Scientific & Technical Svc 9.67%| Construction 8.30% Accomodation and Food Services 7.24% Public Administration 6.60% Manufacturing 6.16% Admin, Support, Waste Mtg. Remediation 5.21% Mining 4.13%] Transportation and Warehousing 3.83% Finance and Insurance 3.43% JOther Services 2.28% Information 0.81%| Wholesale Trade 0.72% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 0.44%| Manangement of Companies and Interprizes 0.32%| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 0.30%| Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.21%| Education Services Confidential

Utilities Confidential

Source: Virginia Employment Commission

3.3.7 Land Use A. Residential

Russell County has more buildable land than the counties to its west and north. The areas around the Clinch River and on the high plateaus have fairly flat lands. New construction of single- family homes is occurring in the town of Lebanon. The Cumberland Plateau Planning District. Commission reports that Russell County, especially around Lebanon, is expected to grow because new jobs are being created in the area’s industrial parks. Housing vacancy rates in Lebanon and Castlewood in the year 2000 were only 8.3% while that of Cleveland was 28.3%. It is anticipated that new subdivisions will be built in Lebanon and public services may need to be extended to new areas to provide public sewer and water. Building permits for the county have averaged about 70 per year over the last five years (1998-2002).

B. Commercial

Numerous shopping opportunities are available in Russell County, including four shopping centers and 345 retail and service-related businesses. The town of Lebanon serves as the commercial center for the county with over 150 retail establishments located in its downtown area. Additional shopping centers and malls in the Bristol metropolitan area are easily accessible for county residents.

Future commercial development in the county may occur in the Lebanon area in response to future population growth or tourism.

C. Industrial

The Cumberland Plateau PDC has constructed eight shell buildings throughout the region since 1987. Five have been sold, including two in the Russell County Industrial Park located in Lebanon. Teleflex Corporation, Inc. and Lear Corporation are both currently operating in these shell buildings. Grundy, Honaker and Clintwood are sites of three other PDC constructed shell buildings that are currently being marketed. Other sites with space available are listed in the following table:

RUSSELL COUNTY INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS

SITE SPECIFICATIONS - INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS – RUSSELL COUNTY

Site Name Location
Miles to nearest

Interstate
Miles to nearest 4-lane Highway

Square Footage

Total Acreage

Russell County Authority Building Route 1, Box 570 I-81 - 36 mi U.S. Rt. 58 - 6 mi 29,302 0 acres

Custom Vents Building 1 U.S. Route 19 North I-81 - 15 mi U.S. Rt.19 - N/A 18,752 2.74 acres

Custom Vents Building 2 U.S. Route 19 North I-81 - 15 mi U.S. Rt.19 - N/A 9,056 2.74 acres

Three Creek Apparel Building Rt. 683, Nicklesville I-81 - 28 mi U.S. Rt. 19

Bypass - 0.5 mi 23,700 5.0 acres

Leonard Properties Building 890 E. Main St. I-81 - 20 mi U.S. Rt. 58 - 7 mi 172,000 12.6 acres

Honaker Shell Building Railroad Ave, Honaker I-81 - 35 mi U.S. Rt.19 - 5 mi 12,000 1.7 acres

Source: Virginia Economic Development Partners

The proposed new Coalfields Expressway will run to the north of the county but may benefit the county by allowing residents to travel north and west more conveniently. This may open up job opportunities for county residents and make markets in the north and central parts of the United States more accessible to Russell County industry. When the expressway construction begins, it is estimated that 1,400 construction jobs will boost the local regional economy over the expected 10-year lifespan of the road’s construction. Local income will also be generated by the purchase of supplies, materials, and equipment from local businesses.

B. Commercial

Future commercial development in the county may occur in the Lebanon area in response to future population growth or tourism.

C. Industrial

The Cumberland Plateau PDC has constructed eight shell buildings throughout the region since 1987. Five have been sold, including two in the Russell County Industrial Park located in Lebanon, Teleflex Corporation, Inc. and Lear Corporation are both currently operating in these shell buildings. Grundy, Honaker and Clintwood are sites of three other PDC constructed shell buildings that are currently being marketed. Other sites with space available are listed in the following table:

RUSSELL COUNTY INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS

SITE SPECIFICATIONS - INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS — RUSSELL COUNTY

Souree: Virginia Economie Development Pariners

D. Agricultural

Russell County’s rolling landscape and high elevations make this area prime pasture, hay and burley tobacco country. It is also a good corn-growing area. Ample rains, productive soils and cool nights help grasses to thrive here. Because of this, Russell County farmers primarily raise beef cattle that graze off pastureland during the growing season and eat hay and corn at other times.

Many of those same farmers also raise burley tobacco. Russell County produced more than 3.12 million pounds of burley tobacco, according to the 1997 census. Russell is also home to smattering of other agricultural enterprises, including nursery stock operations, apple orchards as well as sheep, dairy, chicken and hog farms.

The amount of land used for farming declined slightly between 1992 and 1997 in Russell County decreasing 5%. Over the same period the average size of farms increased slightly from 146 acres (1992) to 149 acres (1997). The number of full time farms decreased 11% from 495 farms in 1992 to 442 farms in 1997. At that time, crops accounted for nearly 31% of the market value of agricultural products sold. Beef cattle and livestock sales made up the remaining 69% of the market.

E. Open Space/Recreation

Although most (approximately 70%) of Russell County is covered in trees, about 30% is cleared land or natural meadows. The non-forested land can be found along Routes 58 and 19 and around the population centers of Lebanon, Castlewood and Honaker. Over 90 percent of the county is covered by hardwood forest growth and about 1% is evergreen forest.

3.3.8 Community Facilities/Activities:

Russell County Medical Center, a 78-bed facility, offers comprehensive services.

Clinch Mountain Wildlife Area, located in the eastern part of the county, offers outdoor recreation activities. Canoe launch sites have been built on the Clinch River. The Jefferson National Forest and the Breaks Interstate Park in neighboring Dickenson County also offer extensive outdoor activities.

Public schools in the county include 9 elementary and 3 high schools. Vocational training is offered at the high schools as well as the Russell County Career and Vocational Center.

Sources:

D. Agricultural

Russell County’s rolling landscape and high elevations make this area prime pasture, hay and burley tobacco country. It is also a good com-growing area. Ample rains, productive soils and cool nights help grasses to thrive here. Because of this, Russell County farmers primarily raise beef cattle that graze off pastureland during the growing season and eat hay and corn at other times.

‘The amount of land used for farming declined slightly between 1992 and 1997 in Russell County decreasing 5%. Over the same period the average size of farms increased slightly from 146 acres (1992) to 149 acres (1997). ‘The number of full time farms decreased 11% from 495 farms in 1992 to 442 farms in 1997. At that time, crops accounted for nearly 31% of the market value of agricultural products sold. Beef cattle and livestock sales made up the remaining 69% of the market.

E. Open Space/Recreation

3.3.8 Community Facilities/Activities: Russell County Medical Center, a 78-bed facility, offers comprehensive services.

Public schools in the county include 9 elementary and 3 high schools. Vocational training is offered at the high schools as well as the Russell County Career and Vocational Center.

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, 1990 Census, Economic Census, Census of Agriculture Virginia Economic Development Partners ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission Virginia Employment Commission

3.4 Population Summary

The following table summarizes the population by year for the three Counties.

Table 46

Population Summary 1990-2040

Buchanan Dickenson Russell

Census Year Population % Annual Change Population

% Annual Change Population

% Annual Change

Census 1990 31,333 17,620 28,667

Es tim

at e

1991 31,400 0.21% 17,600 -0.11% 28,800 0.46% 1992 31,200 -0.64% 17,700 0.57% 28,900 0.35% 1993 30,700 -1.60% 17,600 -0.56% 29,300 1.38% 1994 30,300 -1.30% 17,500 -0.57% 29,400 0.34% 1995 29,700 -1.98% 17,400 -57.00% 29,300 -0.34% 1996 28,900 -2.69% 17,000 -2.30% 29,300 0.00% 1997 28,400 -1.73% 16,900 -0.59% 29,300 0.00% 1998 27,900 -1.76% 16,700 -1.18% 29,200 -0.34% 1999 27,500 -1.43% 16,600 -0.60% 29,200 0.00%

Census 2000 26,978 -1.90% 16,395 -1.23% 30,308 3.80%

Es tim

at e

2001 26,319 -2.44% 16,240 -0.94% 29,060 -4.11% 2002 25,945 -1.42% 16,134 -0.65% 28,825 -0.80% 2003 25,407 -2.07% 16,080 -0.33% 28,857 0.11% 2004 24,950 -1.80% 16,079 0.00% 28,648 -0.72% 2005 24,452 -2.00% 16,175 0.59% 28,596 -0.18% 2006 23,992 -1.88% 16,024 -0.93% 28,725 0.45% 2007 23,526 -1.94% 16,033 0.56% 29,029 1.05% 2008 23,090 -1.85% 16,176 0.89% 29,006 -0.07% 2009 22,860 -0.99% 16,087 -0.55% 29,250 0.84%

Census 2010 24,028 5.10% 15,903 -1.14% 28,897 -1.20%

Es tim

at e 2011 24,006 -0.09% 15,762 -0.88% 29,014 -0.40%

2012 23,990 -0.07% 15,747 -0.09% 28,890 -0.42% 2013 23,867 -0.50% 15,660 -0.55% 28,311 -2.00% 2014 23,754 -0.47% 15,741 -0.51% 28,636 1.14%

Es tim

at e 2015 22,983 -3.24% 15,339 -2.55% 28,008 -2.19%

2016 22,473 -2.21% 14,996 -2.23% 27,697 -1.11% 2020 23,383 4.00% 15,600 4.23% 29,051 4.88% 2030 23,263 -50.00% 15,375 -1.44% 29,296 0.84%

2040 23,296 0.14% 15,193 -1.18% 29,534 0.81% Source: US Census Bureau & US Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimates

3.4 Population Summary

The following table summarizes the population by year for the three Counties.

Table 46 Population Summary 1990-2040 Buchanan Dickenson Russell % Annual % Annual % Annual Census | Year | Population | Change | Population | Change | Population | Change Census | 1990| 31,333 17,620 28,667 1991) 31,400 0.21% 17,600 -0.11% 28,800 0.46% 1992) 31,200 0.64% 17,700 0.57% 28,900 0.35% 1993 | 30,700 -1.60% 17,600 -0.56% 29,300 1.38% & | 1994) 30,300 -1.30% 17,500 -0.57% 29,400 0.34% £ | 1995| 29,700 -1.98% 17,400 -57.00% 29,300 0.34% & | 1996 | 28,900 2.69% 17,000 -2.30% 29,300 0.00% 1997 | 28,400 “1.73% 16,900 -0.59% 29,300 0.00% 1998 | 27,900 “1.76% 16,700 -1.18% 29,200 0.34% 1999) 27,500 “1.43% 16,600 -0.60% 29,200 0.00% Census | 2000] 26,978 -1.90% 16,395 “1.23% 30,308 3.80% 2001} 26,319 2.44% 16,240 -0.94% 29,060 4.11% 2002 | 25,945 -1.42% 16,134 -0.65% 28,825 -0.80% 2003 | 25,407 -2.07% 16,080 -0.33% 28,857 0.11% & | 2004) 24,950 -1.80% 16,079 0.00% 28,648 0.72% — | 2005| 24,452 -2.00% 16,175 0.59% 28,596 -0.18% 2 | 2006| 23,992 -1.88% 16,024 -0.93% 28,725 0.45% 2007 | 23,526 -1.94% 16,033, 0.56% 29,029 1.05% 2008 | 23,090 -1.85% 16,176 0.89% 29,006 -0.07% 2009 | 22,860 -0.99% 16,087 -0.55% 29,250 0.84% Census | 2011} 24,006 -0.09% 15,762 -0.88% 29,014 -0.40% | 2012) 23,990 -0.07% 15,747 -0.09% 28,890 0.42% % | 2013| 23,867 -0.50% 15,660 -0.55% 28,311 2.00% “| 2014 | 23,754 0.47% 15,741 -0.51% 28,636 1.14% » | 2015| 22,983 “3.24% 15,339 -2.55% 28,008 2.19% B | 2016) 22,473 2.21% 14,996 -2.23% 27,697 -1.11% % | 2020| 23,383 4.00% 15,600 4.23% 29,051 4.88% “| 2030] 23,263 | -50.00% | 15,375 -1.44% 29,296 0.84% 2040 | 23,296 0.14% 15,193, -1.18% 29,534 0.81%

Source: US Census Bureau & US Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimates

4.0 WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION

Waste tonnages are tracked at the individual transfer stations in the Counties. Annually the Authority completes the reporting to the DEQ for the facilities.

4.1 Existing Conditions (2015)

The Region at the three transfer stations tracks their waste in accordance with the categories outlined on DEQ Form 50-25 which includes the following:

Municipal Solid Waste Construction/Demolition/Debris Industrial Waste Regulated Medical Waste Vegetative/Yard Waste Incinerator Ash Sludge Tires White Goods Friable Asbestos Petroleum Contaminated Soil

In addition, the Region also expands their tracking at the transfer stations and includes the following categories:

Household Waste Commercial Waste Industrial Waste Construction Debris Mine Waste Yard Waste Flood Debris Roofing Materials Shingles Sawdust Wood Chips Pallets Sludge Other

The more specific data is then combined into the categories identified in the DEQ 50-25 form.

The Counties also track the following materials under their recycling programs. These materials are listed under 9 VAC 20-130-150.3 as special wastes.

Waste Tires Used Oil Used Oil Filters

4.0 | WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION

Waste tonnages are tracked at the individual transfer stations in the Counties. Annually the Authority completes the reporting to the DEQ for the facilities.

4.1 Existing Conditions (2015)

The Region at the three transfer stations tracks their waste in accordance with the categories outlined on DEQ Form 50-25 which includes the following:

Municipal Solid Waste Construction/Demolition/Debris Industrial Waste

Regulated Medical Waste Vegetative/Yard Waste Incinerator Ash

Sludge

Tires

White Goods

Friable Asbestos

Petroleum Contaminated Soil

In addition, the Region also expands their tracking at the transfer stations and includes the following categories:

Household Waste Commercial Waste Industrial Waste Construction Debris Mine Waste

Yard Waste

Flood Debris Roofing Materials Shingles

Sawdust

Wood Chips Pallets

Sludge

Other

The more specific data is then combined into the categories identified in the DEQ 50-25 form.

The Counties also track the following materials under their recycling programs. These materials are listed under 9 VAC 20-130-150.3 as special wastes.

Waste Tires Used Oil Used Oil Filters

Used Antifreeze Abandoned Automobiles Removed Batteries

The Region does not receive any agricultural waste nor does it accept stumps or large land clearing debris at the transfer stations. Septage is not accepted at the transfer stations and is not tracked by the Region under the solid waste programs. Hence data is not available. Spill residues, if meeting the allowable limits of the regulations, would be recorded as “Other” on Form 50-25.

The following section discusses existing conditions in terms of Form 50-25 data.

Appendix 2 contains the DEQ Forms 50-25 for the three transfer stations for 2015. Based on this information, the Region received 43,461 tons of waste materials at the transfer stations in the following categories (all values represent tons):

TABLE 47 DEQ FORM 50-25 SUMMARY

2015

Waste Type BUCHANAN COUNTY

DICKENSON COUNTY

RUSSELL COUNTY

TOTAL % OF TOTAL WASTE

Municipal Solid Waste 12,742.38 7,330.37 13,891.17 33,963.54 78.2% Construction/Demolition/Debris 327.63 243 683.71 1,231.51 2.83% Industrial/Commercial Waste 2,867.02 2,335.26 1,969.92 7,172.20 16.5% Vegetative/Yard Waste 27.09 .65 170.05 197.79 .45% Sludge* 0 0 0 0 0% Tires 137.51 120.40 111.60 369.51 .85% White Goods .77 0 43.26 44.03 .44% Other Waste 323.69 19.96 116.44 323.69 .74% TOTAL 16,426.09 10,049.64 16,986.15 43,461.88 100.0% % of Total Regional Waste 37.8% 23.1% 39.1% 100.0%

The table also indicates that Russell County receives the largest percentage of the regions waste (39.1%) and Dickenson County the smallest percentage (23.1%).

The aforementioned table evaluates the tonnage delivered as percent of the waste stream for each County as well as the total. Buchanan receives the most industrial/commercial waste, followed by Dickenson County, and Russell County the most municipal solid waste and Construction debris.

Used Antifreeze Abandoned Automobiles Removed Batteries

The following section discusses existing conditions in terms of Form 50-25 data. ‘Appendix 2 contains the DEQ Forms 50-25 for the three transfer stations for 2015. Based on this

information, the Region received 43,461 tons of waste materials at the transfer stations in the following categories (all values represent tons):

TABLE 47 DEQ FORM 50-25 SUMMARY 2015 Waste Type BUCHANAN | DICKENSON | RUSSELL TOTAL | %OF COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY TOTAL WASTE

IMunicipal Solid Waste 12,742.38, 7,330.37 13,891.17 | 33,963.54 | _78.2% |Construction/Demolition/Debris | __327.63 243 683.71 1,231.51 2.83% lindustrial/Commercial Waste 2,867.02 2,335.26 1,969.92 7,472.20 16.5%

fegetative/Yard Waste 27.09 65 170.05 497.79 45% ISludge* 0 0 0 0 0% [Tires 137.51 120.40 411.60 369.51 85%

ihite Goods cu 0 43.26 44.03 44% JOther Waste 323.69 19.96 116.44 323.69 74% [TOTAL 16,426.09 10,049.64 16,986.15 | 43,461.88 | 100.0% [% of Total Regional Waste 37.8% 23.1% 39.1% 100.0%

The table also indicates that Russell County receives the largest percentage of the regions waste (39.1%) and Dickenson County the smallest percentage (23.1%).

4.3 Historical Waste Generation (2010– 2015)

4.2.1 Total Tonnage Recorded at Transfer Stations

Tables 48 through 50 summarize the data collected at the transfer stations from 2010 through 2015 for Buchanan and Dickenson Counties and for 2010 – 2015 for Russell County. The categories are not identical to those indicated on the DEQ 50-25 forms but are expanded and represent the data as collected across the scales at the transfer stations. These tables also indicate the percent annual change in various categories of waste and indicate a positive increase in household and commercial tonnage especially over the past several years even though the population has been declining. They also indicate that Buchanan County receives a significant percentage (50.79%) of mine waste, and Dickenson County’s waste is primarily household as collected by the County with limited amounts of other waste types.

TABLE 48 TRANSFER STATION REPORTING DATA

BUCHANAN COUNTY 2010 – 2015

Waste Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 AVERAGE % of TOTAL Household Waste 13,374.07 13,565.02 13,551.90 13,006.11 12,781.03 12,742.38 13,170.08 .64% Commercial Waste 2,125.43 3,459.87 4,408.16 2,119.38 2,136.72 1,050.25 255 .12%

Construction Debris 459.12 436.20 870.97 535.01 351.84 304.80 493 .02%

Mine Waste 3,223.74 4,860.40 4,666.17 4,902.08 3,070.47 1,816.77 3,756.60 .18%

White Goods 0 .22 .84 1.53 .87 .77 .70 .003%

Tires 467.99 400.58 479.35 225.74 241.12 137.51 325.38 .01%

Yard Waste 268.66 460.79 718.16 0 8.21 27.09 247.15 .011% Flood Debris 0 25.87 45.81 55.25 238.47 60.9 0.003%

Shingles 0 60.33 18.75 46.48 69.74 22.83 36.35 0.002%

Recyclable 0.0% Animal Carcass 41.05 3.28 2.54 2.08 13.51 9.74 12.03 .006%

Trash Clean-up 86.91 155.01 117.98 81.68 101.90 75.48 103.16 .005% TOTAL 20,046.97 23,401.70 24,860.69 20,965.90 18,830.66 16,426.09 20,755.33 100.0% % change total waste stream 16.74% 6.23% -15.67% -10.18% -12.77%
% change
Household only 1.42% -0.09% -4.02% -1.72% -0.30%
% change
Commercial only 62.77% 27.43% -51.92% 0.80% -50.84%
% change mine waste only 50.79% -3.99% 5.05% -37.37% -40.84%

4.3 Historical Waste Generation (2010-2015)

4.2.1 Total Tonnage Recorded at Transfer Stations

Tables 48 through 50 summarize the data collected at the transfer stations from 2010 through 2015 for Buchanan and Dickenson Counties and for 2010 — 2015 for Russell County. The categories are not identical to those indicated on the DEQ 50-25 forms but are expanded and represent the data as collected across the scales at the transfer stations. These tables also indicate the percent annual change in various categories of waste and indicate a positive increase in household and commercial tonnage especially over the past several years even though the population has been declining. They also indicate that Buchanan County receives a significant percentage (50.79%) of mine waste, and Dickenson County’s waste is primarily household as collected by the County with limited amounts of other waste types.

TABLE 48 ‘TRANSFER STATION REPORTING DATA BUCHANAN COUNTY 2010-2015 Waste Type zo10 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | AVERAGE |% of TOTAL JHousehold Waste __|13,374.07/13,565.02|13,551.90|13,006.11|12,781.03]12,742.38) _ 13,170.08| 649 Commercial Waste | 2,125.43] 3,459.87| 4,408.16) 2,119.38) 2,136.72) 1,050.25| 255] 12 IConstruction Debris 459.12| 436.20| 870.97, 535.01| 351.84] 304.80] 493] 029% IMine Waste 3,223.74] 4,860.40| 4,666.17| 4,902.08) 3,070.47) 1,816.77| 3,756.60] 18 hite Goods Q 22 Bal 1.53) 87 77 70 0085 [Tires 467.99] 400.58| _479.35| 225.74] 241.12) 137.51] 325.39] 019 ard Waste 268.66| 460.79| 718.16) o|8.21| 27.09] 247.15) 011% Flood Debris d 25.87| 45.81] 55.25) 238.47] 60.9 0.003 Ishingles o| 60.33, 18.75| 46.48, 69.74| 22.89] 36.35] 9.002" IRecyctable 0.0% lanimal Carcass 41.05, 3.28] 2.54] 2.08] 1351| 9.74| 12.03] 006% [Trash Clean-up 86.91| 155.01] _117.98| _81.68| 101.90) __75.48| 103.16] 005% TOTAL [20,046.97/23,401.70|24,860.69)20,965.90/18,830.66)16,426.09| 20,755.33] 100.0%

ft change total waste

[stream 16.74%| 6.23%) -15.67%|-10.18%)-12.77%| }% change [Household onl 1.42%) -0.09%| _-4.02%) _-1.72%| __-0.30%| [% change

[Commercial only

62.77%|

27.43%) -51.92%| 0.80%|-50.84%|

[2 change mine waste lonly

50.79%

-3.99%)__5.05%|-37.37%|-40.84%|

TABLE 49 TRANSFER STATION REPORTING DATA

DICKENSON COUNTY 2010 – 2015

Waste Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 AVERAGE % OF

TOTAL Household Waste 8,209.33 8,189.02 7,782.99 7,476.60 7,224.21 7,330.37 7,702.03 .64% Commercial Waste 2,250.77 434.25 303.64 389.51 939.37 944.11 876.94 .06% Construction Debris 276.27 272.84 236.72 218.26 288.53 160.16 242.13 .02% Mine Waste 1,039.90 3,106.17 4,258.32 5,421.48 3,475.86 1,391.15 3,115.48 .25% Tires 161.11 164.44 192.14 158.46 125.60 120.40 153.69 .02% Yard Waste 0.13 .32 2.68 .73 .08 .65 .76 .00062% Flood Debris 0 0 0 0 0 3.49 .58 .00047% Carcass 18.09 18.10 17.66 14.81 15.30 12.90 16.14 .0013% Roofing Material 85.06 119.09 125.37 37.23 61.44 82.84 85.17 .0069% Sludge 0 0% Dump Cleanups 11.74 4.27 2.86 .38 3.57 3.80 .00031%

TOTAL 12,040.66 12,315.97 12,923.79 13,719.94 12,130.77 10,049.64 12,196.79 100.0% % change total waste stream 2.28% 4.92% 6.16% -11.58% -17.15%
% change Household only -0.24% -4.95% -3.94% -3.37% 1.46%
% change mine waste only 198.94% 37.08% 27.31% -35.89% -59.97%

TABLE 50 TRANSFER STATION REPORTING DATA

RUSSELL COUNTY 2010-2015

Waste Type

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 AVERAGE % OF

TOTAL Household Waste 17,047.34 16,871.33 16,238.92 15,548.79 14,701.12 13,891.17 15,716.44 .81% Commercial Waste 2,961.37 2,128.60 2,193.45 1,522.67 1,671.81 1,862.35 2,056.70 .11% Construction Debris 1,403.16 944.98 1,398.35 730.49 617.15 683.71 962.97 .05% Mine Waste 143.03 305.17 462.00 374.31 .96 0.00 214.24 .01% White Goods and Metal

53.92 37.79 26.18 18.97 8.00 43.26 31.35 .0015%

Tires 52.96 52.57 96.20 149.94 134.81 111.60 99.68 .005% Industrial Waste 146.52 105.90 118.12 112.06 85.48 107.57 112.60 .006 Recycle 0% Yard Waste 44.48 535.41 778.65 476.75 149.66 170.05 359.16 .001% Illegal Dump Cleanup 30.41 24.76 33.70 123.72 65.03 95.61 62.20 .0031%

Roofing Material 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Carcass 26.94 30.39 20.60 24.05 23.49 20.83 24.38 .0012% TOTAL 21,910.13 21,036.90 21,366.17 19,081.75 17,457.51 16,986.15 19,639.26 100.0% % change total waste stream

-3.98% 1.56% -10.69% -8.51% -2.69%

% change Household

commercial only

-5.04 -2.98% -7.38% -4.08% -3.78%

TABLE 49

TRANSFER STATION REPORTING DATA

DICKENSON COUNTY

2010 — 2015, % OF Waste Type 2010 2013 | 2014 | 2015 |AVERAGE| TOTAL Household Waste_| 8,209.33 7,476.60 7,224.21] 7,330.37|7,702.03| 64% Commercial Waste | 2,250.77 389.51] 939.37, 944.11] 876.94 06% IConstruction Debris | 276.27] 218.26 288.53, 160.16| 242.13| 02% [Mine Waste 7,039.90) 5,421.48 3,475.86) 1,391.15] 3,115.48|.25% [Tires 161.11 158.46| 125.60 120.40, 153.69| 02% ard Waste 0.13 73 08 6 76|.00062% [Flood Debris q 0) oO -3.49) -58| .00047% ICarcass 78.09) 1481] 1530, 12.90 76.14) .0013% IRoofing Material 85.06 37.23) 61.44, 82.84] 85.17, 069% ISludge q 0% [Dump Cleanups 2.86 38 357| 3.80| 000319 [TOTAL 12,040.66] 12,315.97 13,719.94] 12,130.77, 10,049.64] 12,196.79] 100.0% f% change total faste stream 6.16%) _-11.58% -17.15%| Jo change lHousehold on) 3.94%) -3.37%) 1.46% J change mine saste only 27.31%|-35.89%| _-59.97%| TABLE 50 TRANSFER STATION REPORTING DATA ELL COUNTY 2010-2015 % OF Waste Type 2010 2013 | 2014 | 2015 _|AVERAGE| TOTAL [Household Waste | 17,047.34] 16,238.92| 15,548.79|_14,701.12| 13,891.17] 15,716.44] 81% [Commercial Waste | 2,961.37] 2,193.45 1,522.67) 1,671.81] 1,862.35] 2,056.70, 11% |Construction Debris | 1,403.16] 1,398.35 730.49|__617.15| 683.71] 962.97| _.05%| [Mine Waste 143.03} 462.00, 374.31 96| 0.00] 214.24) 01% Ihite Goods and 53.97 Metal 26.18, 18.97, 8.00] 43.26] 31.35) .0015% [Tires 52.96] 96.20 149.94, 134.81/111.60| 99.68) _.005%| industrial Waste 146.52] 118.12| 112.06) _85.48|__107.57| 112.60|.00¢| IRecycle 024 ard Waste 44.48 778.65| 476.75 149.66| _170.05| 369.16) .001%| lilegal Dump Cleanup 30.41 33.70, 123.72) 65.03|_95.61| 62.20] .0031% |Roofing Material q 0 a 0) 0) a 0% [Carcass 26.94] 20.60, 24.05, 23.49 —-20.83—-24.38| .0012%| [TOTAL 21,910.13] [24,366.17] 19,081.75) 17,457.51] 16,986.15] 19,639.26) 100.0%| [% change total waste stream 1.56% -10.69%| __-8.51%|-2.69%| Jv change Household [+ commercial only -2.98%| _-7.38%| __-4.08%| __-3.78%|

The following table summarizes the regional totals for 2010 – 2015 and indicates the percent annual change:

TABLE 51 TRANSFER STATION REPORTING DATA

REGIONAL SUMMARY

YEAR BUCHANAN COUNTY

DICKENSON COUNTY

RUSSELL COUNTY

TOTAL REGIONAL TONNAGE

% ANNUAL CHANGE

2010 20,046.97 12,040.66 21,910.13 53,997.76
2011 23,401.70 12,315.97 21,036.90 56,754.57 5.10% 2012 24,860.69 12,923.79 21,366.17 59,150.65 4.22% 2013 20,965.90 13,719.94 19,081.75 53,767.59 -9.1% 2014 18,830.66 12,130.77 17,457.51 48,418.94 -9.94% 2015 16,426.09 10,049.64 16,986.15 43,461.88 -10.23%

4.2.2 Pounds per person per day

The population data from Section 3.1 can be coupled with the tonnage data reported above to consider the waste stream as average pounds per person per day. The following tables summarize the data for the total tonnage received at the transfer stations and regionally:

TABLE 52

EVALUATION OF WASTE TONNAGE AS POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY

BUCHANAN COUNTY

YEAR POPULATION TOTAL

TONNAGE RECEIVED

POUNDS PER

PERSON PER DAY

2010 24,028 20,046.97 4.6 2011 23,888 23,401.70 5.4 2012 23,837 24,860.69 5.7 2013 23,555 20,965.90 4.9 2014 23,106 18,830.66 4.5 2015 16,426.09

Average 20,755.33

The following table summarizes the regional totals for 2010 — 2015 and indicates the percent annual change:

TABLE 51

TRANSFER STATION REPORTING DATA.

REGIONAL SUMMARY

2010 20,046.97 12,040.66 21,910.13 53,997.76 2011 23,401.70 12,315.97 21,036.90 56,754.57 5.10% 2012 24,860.69 12,923.79 21,366.17 59,150.65 4.22% 2013 20,965.90 13,719.94 19,081.75 53,767.59 -9.1% 2014 18,830.66 12,130.77 17,457.51 48,418.94 9.94% 2015 16,426.09 10,049.64 16,986.15 43,461.88 -10.23%

4.2.2. Pounds per person per day

TABLE 52 EVALUATION OF WASTE TONNAGE AS POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY.

BUCHANAN COUNTY 2010 24,028 20,046.97, 46 2011 23,888 23,401.70 5.4 2012 23,837 24,860.69 5.7 2013 23,555 20,965.90 49 2014 23,106 18,830.66 45 2015 16,426.09 Average 20,755.33

TABLE 53 EVALUATION OF WASTE TONNAGE AS POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY

DICKENSON COUNTY

YEAR POPULATION TOTAL

TONNAGE RECEIVED

POUNDS PER

PERSON PER DAY

2010 15,903 12,040.66 4.1 2011 15,765 12,315.97 4.3 2012 15,668 12,923.79 4.5 2013 15,449 13,719.94 4.9 2014 15,308 12,130.77 4.3 2015 10,049.64

Average

TABLE 54 EVALUATION OF WASTE TONNAGE AS POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY

RUSSELL COUNTY

YEAR POPULATION TOTAL

TONNAGE RECEIVED

POUNDS PER

PERSON PER DAY

2010 28,897 21,910.13 4.2 2011 29,657 21,036.90 3.9 2012 28,426 21,366.17 5.5 2013 28,274 19,081.75 3.7 2014 28,023 17,457.51 3.4 2015 16,986.15

Average

TABLE 53 EVALUATION OF WASTE TONNAGE AS POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY. DICKENSON COUNTY

2010 15,903 12,040.66 41 2011 15,765 12,315.97 43 2012 15,668 12,923.79 45 2013 15,449 13,719.94 49 2014 15,308 12,130.77 43 2015 10,049.64 ‘Average TABLE 54 EVALUATION OF WASTE TONNAGE AS POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY RUSSELL COUNTY 2010 28,897 21,910.13 42 2011 29,657 21,036.90 3.9. 2012 28,426 21,366.17 55 2013 28,274 19,081.75 37 2014 28,023 17,457.51 34 2015 16,986.15 ‘Average

TABLE 55 EVALUATION OF WASTE TONNAGE AS POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY

REGIONAL TOTAL

YEAR POPULATION TOTAL

TONNAGE RECEIVED

POUNDS PER

PERSON PER DAY

% ANNUAL CHANGE

2010 68,828 53,997.76 4.3
2011 69,310 56,754.57 4.5 5.1% 2012 67,931 59,150.65 4.6 4.2% 2013 67,278 53,767.59 4.4 -9.1% 2014 66437 48,418.94 4.0 -9.9% 2015 43,461.88 -10.2%

Average

To put these values in perspective, the national average for MSW generation as reported by the EPA for the year 2001 was 4.4 pounds per person per day, which is up from 2.7 pounds per person per day in 1960. MSW as defined by the EPA does not include CDD waste, sludge or industrial wastes which is included in the values listed above. Thus the Counties and the region are all averaged at or below the national value indicating a limited amount of commercial or industrial waste relative to the municipal solid waste component.

4.3 Projected Waste Generation Rates Relative to Disposal Needs

It is important to consider the various ways in which the waste generation within the region may change to anticipate future needs relative to collection, disposal and recycling. As described in Section 3.0, the region is not expected to grow and is in fact projected to have a decrease in population ranging from –0.04% in the later years of the planning period to a maximum decrease of –0.4% during the earlier years of the planning period.

There is no one methodology for evaluating future waste generation rates as the rates can be impacted by many different factors including population changes, recycling participation and markets, the commercial or industrial sector, natural disasters etc. For rural areas, changes in the waste will track closely with the population trends. For urban or developing areas, changes in the waste are more difficult to predict. Certainly the population factor is one aspect, however the commercial waste must also be considered. The following section will consider various factors that could impact waste generation in region and will propose a final growth factor to be used in the study.

4.3.1 Population Growth Rate

As Section 2.1 discussed, the region has been losing population and population is projected to decrease at a rate of 0.4% per year from 2003 – 2010, at a rate of 0.2% from 2011 - 2020, and

TABLE 55 EVALUATION OF WASTE TONNAGE AS POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY REGIONAL TOTAL

ra YEAR | POPULATION TONNAGE. RECEIVED PERSON: PER DAY 2010 68,828 53,997.76 43 2011 69,310 56,754.57 4.5 5.1% 2012 67,931 59,150.65 4.6 4.2% 2013 67,278 53,767.59 44 % 2014 66437 48,418.94 4.0 9% 2015 43,461.88 -10.2% Average

4.3 Projected Waste Generation Rates Relative to Disposal Needs

It is important to consider the various ways in which the waste generation within the region may change to anticipate future needs relative to collection, disposal and recycling. As described in Section 3.0, the region is not expected to grow and is in fact projected to have a decrease in population ranging from 0.04% in the later years of the planning period to a maximum decrease of -0.4% during the earlier years of the planning period.

There is no one methodology for evaluating future waste generation rates as the rates can be impacted by many different factors including population changes, recycling participation and markets, the commercial or industrial sector, natural disasters etc. For rural areas, changes in the waste will track closely with the population trends, For urban or developing areas, changes in the waste are more difficult to predict. Certainly the population factor is one aspect, however the commercial waste must also be considered. The following section will consider various factors that could impact waste generation in region and will propose a final growth factor to be used in the study.

4.3.1 Population Growth Rate

As Section 2.1 discussed, the region has been losing population and population is projected to decrease at a rate of 0.4% per year from 2003 — 2010, at a rate of 0.2% from 2011 - 2020, and

finally at a rate of 0.04% from 2021 – 2024. The estimated population for the region for 2004 is 71,619 and the estimated population for 2024 is 68,780. Because of the decline in population, the residential waste tonnage would be expected to decrease proportionately. To be conservative in this report, the residential waste tonnage will be estimated based on the national average rate of change as discussed under Section 4.3.3 below.

4.3.2 Commercial and industrial growth

The region is not anticipating significant growth in the commercial sector, over the planning period although efforts are being made to encourage economic development. Review of tables 56 through 58 indicates that the commercial tonnage is relatively flat over the period from 2010 to 2015. Commercial waste makes up a small component of the Buchanan and Dickenson County collections and, as would be expected, makes up a larger percentage of the Russell County waste stream. Quantifying growth in this sector is difficult as it can be unpredictable.
For this report no distinction between the residential and commercial waste will be made, and so the national average rate of change will be used as discussed below.

4.3.3 Annual change in MSW (residential/commercial) tonnages

The following table summarizes the data taken from the transfer station records for household and commercial waste delivered to the three transfer stations and provides a total for the region. The percent annual change was then calculated with this data.

TABLE 56

HOUSEHOLD AND COMMERCIAL WASTE RECEIVED AT THE TRANSFER STATIONS

Waste Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Buchanan County
Household Waste 399 311 832 777 687 371 Commercial Waste 292 212 193 283 287 149 Govt. Household Waste 12,938 11,577 12,914 13,902 14,364 15,308 Govt. Commercial Waste 609 533 522 568 555 518

SUBTOTAL 14,238 12,633 14,461 15,530 15,893 16,346 % Annual Change -11.3% 14.5% 7.4% 2.3% 2.9%

Dickenson County
Household Waste 280 363 394 617 729 550 Commercial Waste 49 47 24 56 29 23 Govt. Household Waste 7,381 7,134 7,461 7,669 7,929 8,289 Govt. Commercial Waste 0 2 0 1 0 0

SUBTOTAL 7,710 7,546 7,879 8,343 8,687 8,862 % Annual Change -2.1% 4.4% 5.9% 4.1% 2.0%

Russell County
Household Waste 14,579 21,394 17,272 17,588 18,504 Commercial Waste 2,928 0 3,018 3,077 3,475

SUBTOTAL 17,507 21,394 20,290 20,665 21,979

finally at a rate of 0.04% from 2021 ~ 2024. The estimated population for the region for 2004 is 71,619 and the estimated population for 2024 is 68,780. Because of the decline in population, the residential waste tonnage would be expected to decrease proportionately. To be conservative in this report, the residential waste tonnage will be estimated based on the national average rate of change as discussed under Section 4.3.3 below.

4.3.2 Commercial and industrial growth

The region is not anticipating significant growth in the commercial sector, over the planning period although efforts are being made to encourage economic development. Review of tables 56 through 58 indicates that the commercial tonnage is relatively flat over the period from 2010 to 2015. Commercial waste makes up a small component of the Buchanan and Dickenson County collections and, as would be expected, makes up a larger percentage of the Russell County waste stream. Quantifying growth in this sector is difficult as it can be unpredictable. For this report no distinction between the residential and commercial waste will be made, and so the national average rate of change will be used as discussed below.

4.3.3 Annual change in MSW (residential/commercial) tonnages

TABLE 56 HOUSEHOLD AND COMMERCIAL WASTE RECEIVED AT THE TRANSFER STATIONS.

Waste Type 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 [Buchanan County |Household Waste 399) 311 832| 77| 687| a7 Commercial Waste 292) 212 193} 283) 287, 149 |Govt. Household Waste 12,938, 11,577] 12,914| 13,902) 14,364| 15,30 |Govt. Commercial Waste 609) 533| 522| 568) 555| 51 SUBTOTAL 14,238 | 12,633 | 14,461 | 15,530 | 15,893 | 16,346 % Annual Change| 11.3% | 14.5% | 7.4% | 2.3% | 2.9% [Dickenson County |Household Waste 280) 363| 394| 617 729) 551 [Commercial Waste 49) 47 24) 56 29) 2 |Govt. Household Waste 7.381] 7,134] 7,461)—_7,669] 7,929 8,289} |Govt. Commercial Waste 0 2 | 1 Q SUBTOTAL] 7,710 | 7,546 | 7,879 | 8,343 | 8,687 | 8,862 % Annual Change| 2.1% | 44% | 5.9% | 4.1% | 2.0% [Russell County |Household Waste 14,579 21,394] 17,272| 17,588} 18,504) [Commercial Waste 2,928, o| 3,018) _3,077|__3.47’ SUBTOTAL| 17,507| 21,394) 20,290 20,665, 21,979

Waste Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 % Annual Change 22.2% -5.2% 1.8% 6.4%

Region
Buchanan County 12,633 14,461 15,530 15,893 16,346 Dickenson County 7,546 7,879 8,343 8,687 8,862 Russell County 17,507 21,394 20,290 20,665 21,979

SUBTOTAL 37,686 43,734 44,163 45,245 47,187 % Annual Change 16.0% 1.0% 2.5% 4.3%

Of interest is that the total residential and commercial tonnage for the region has been growing over the last three years. From 2010 to 2015 there was a 1.0% increase, from 2001 to 2002, a 2.5% increase and from 2002 to 2003 a 4.3% increase. All three Counties experienced a steady increase in tonnage during this three year period. However, it is not expected that this trend would continue given the projections for the declining population and the difficult economic environment of the region. Thus the national average will be used for this report as described in the paragraph below.

Nationally from 1990 to 2001 the MSW waste stream grew at a rate of 1.0% per year. MSW includes residential, commercial and institutional waste. For this region, a 1.0% growth in the MSW sector will be assumed with no growth assumed for the other waste categories.

4.3.4 Annual change in total tonnage with population considered

Another way to consider the annual change in solid waste is to couple the population with the total tonnage delivered to the transfer stations as determined in the calculation for pounds per person per day. Table 52 in Section 4.2.2 contains this information and indicates regionally a change from 2010 to 2012 of a 5.3% increase and from 2013 to 2015, a 2.5% decrease.

The total tonnage includes all waste delivered to the transfer stations regardless of its handling.
Total tonnage includes construction waste, industrial waste, white goods and other waste materials. The following table evaluates the regional population and regional tonnage for the commercial and residential sectors:

4.3.5 Projected tonnages

As stated at the beginning of this section, there is no single methodology to use to predict the future changes in the region’s waste stream. The region is facing a decline in population and is currently experiencing economically challenging times in most areas. Thus, as discussed above, the national average of 1.0% per year was used for projecting the residential and commercial tonnages while all other tonnages were assumed to remain constant.

Tables 57 through 60 provide the tonnage projections for the individual Counties and the region by year.

Waste Type 2oio_| 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 % Annual Change| 22.2% | -5.2% | 1.8% | 6.4% [Region [Buchanan County 12,633 | 14,461 | 15,530 | 15,893 | 16,346 [Dickenson County 7.546 | 7,879 | 8343 | 8.687 | 8,862 JRussell Count 17,507 | 21,394 | 20,290 | 20,665 | 21,979 ‘SUBTOTAL| 37,686 | 43,734 | 44,163 | 45,245 | 47,187 % Annual Change| 16.0% | 1.0% | 2.5% | 4.3%

4.3.4 Annual change in total tonnage with population considered

Another way to consider the annual change in solid waste is to couple the population with the total tonnage delivered to the transfer stations as determined in the calculation for pounds per person per day, Table 52 in Section 4.2.2 contains this information and indicates regionally a change from 2010 to 2012 of a 5.3% increase and from 2013 to 2015, a 2.5% decrease.

‘The total tonnage includes all waste delivered to the transfer stations regardless of its handling. Total tonnage includes construction waste, industrial waste, white goods and other waste materials. The following table evaluates the regional population and regional tonnage for the ‘commercial and residential sectors:

4.3.5 Projected tonnages

Tables 57 through 60 provide the tonnage projections for the individual Counties and the region by year.

TABLE 57 ESTIMATED WASTE TONNAGE 2010-2040

BUCHANAN COUNTY

Estimated rate of change 2010-2040 1.0% Estimated rate of change for other waste materials 0%/year Population growth factor variable/year YEAR COMMERCIAL

AND RESIDENTIAL

TONNAGE

OTHER TONNAGE

RECEIVED AT TRANSFER STATION

TOTAL TONNAGE

ESTIMATED TO BE

DELIVERED TO

TRANSFER STATION

TONS PER DAY

POPULATION POUNDS PER PERSON PER

DAY

2010 17,525 4,126 21,651 83 24,028 4.5 2011 17,700 4,126 21,826 84 23,888 5.0 2012 17,877 4,126 22,003 85 23,837 5.1 2013 18,056 4,126 22,182 85 23,555 5.2 2014 18,237 4,126 22,363 86 23,106 5.3 2015 18,419 4,126 22,545 87 23,800 5.2 2016 18,603 4,126 22,729 87 23,680 5.3 2017 18,789 4,126 22,915 88 23,560 5.3 2018 18,977 4,126 23,103 89 23,440 5.4 2019 19,167 4,126 23,293 90 23,320 5.5 2020 19,359 4,126 23,485 90 23,200 5.5 2021 19,552 4,126 23,678 91 23,090 5.6 2022 19,748 4,126 23,874 92 22,980 5.7 2023 19,945 4,126 24,071 93 22,870 5.8 2024 20,145 4,126 24,271 93 22,760 5.8 2030 20,073 4,126 24,199 93 23,263 5.7 2040 20,107 4,126 24,233 93 23,296 5.7

TABLE 57 ESTIMATED WASTE TONNAGE 2010-2040 BUCHANAN COUNTY

Estimated rate of change 2010-2040 1.0% Estimated rate of change for other waste materials O%lyear ulation growth factor variable/year

2011 17,700| 4,126| 21,826 8a] 23,884 5.

2012 17,877 4,126) 22,003) 85 23,837| 5.4 2013) 18,056| 4,126) 22,182) 85 23,555| 5.4 2014| 18,237| 4,126) 22,363) 86 23,106| 5.

2015] 18,419| 4,126) 22,545) 87| 23,801 5.4 2016| 18,603| 4,126| 22,729) 87| 23,68 5.

2017 18,789) 4,126) 22,915) ES 23,564 5.4 2018| 18,977| 4,126| 23,103) 89 23,44 5.4) 2019) 19,167| 4,126) 23,293) Et 23,321 5.4 2020) 19,359| 4,126) 23,485, 90) 23,201 5.4 2021, 19,552) 4,126) 23,678, 9] 23,094 5.4 2022) 19,748) 4,126) 23,874) 92 22,98 5.7] 2023| 19,945] 4,126) 24,0711 93| 22,871 5.

20,145| 4,126) 24,274 93] 22.764 5.4
20,073| 4,126) 24,199) 993] 23,26: 5.7)
20.107| 4.126) 24,233) 993] 23,29 5.7]

TABLE 58 ESTIMATED WASTE TONNAGE 2010-2040

DICKENSON COUNTY

Estimated rate of change 2010-2040 1.0% Estimated rate of change for other waste materials 0%/year Population growth factor variable/year YEAR COMMERCIAL

AND RESIDENTIAL

TONNAGE

OTHER TONNAGE

RECEIVED AT TRANSFER STATION

TOTAL TONNAGE

ESTIMATED TO BE

DELIVERED TO

TRANSFER STATION

TONS PER DAY

POPULATION POUNDS PER PERSON PER

DAY

2010 9,501 1,744 11,245 43 15,903 3.9 2011 9,596 1,744 11,340 44 15,675 4.0 2012 9,692 1,744 11,436 44 15,668 4.0 2013 9,789 1,744 11,533 44 15,449 4.1 2014 9,887 1,744 11,631 45 15,308 4.2 2015 9,986 1,744 11,730 45 15,100 4.3 2016 10,086 1,744 11,830 45 15,020 4.3 2017 10,187 1,744 11,931 46 14,940 4.4 2018 10,289 1,744 12,033 46 14,860 4.4 2019 10,391 1,744 12,135 47 14,780 4.5 2020 10,495 1,744 12,239 47 14,700 4.6 2021 10,600 1,744 12,344 47 14,700 4.6 2022 10,706 1,744 12,450 48 14,700 4.6 2023 10,813 1,744 12,557 48 14,700 4.7 2024 10,921 1,744 12,665 49 14,700 4.7 2030 11,158 1,744 12,902 50 15,375 4.6 2040 11,010 1,744 12,754 49 15,193 4.6

TABLE 58 ESTIMATED WASTE TONNAGE 2010-2040 DICKENSON COUNTY

Estimated rate of change 2010-2040 1.0% Estimated rate of change for other waste materials O%lyear Population growth factor variablelyear

43] 44) 2012 9,692 1,744) 11,436 44) 15,668 4.0] 2013| 9.789) 4,744 11,533 44) 15,449) 44 2014| 9,887) 4,744 11,631 45| 15,308 42| 2015] 9,986 1,744) 411,730, 45) 15,100) 4.3) 2016 10,086 4,744 11,830 45| 15,020 4.3| 2017 10,187 4,744 11,931) 46) 14,940 4.4) 2018) 10,289) 4,744 12,033 46) 14,860 44) 2019) 10,391) 1,744) 12,135) 47| 14,780 43] 2020) 10,495) 4,744) 12,239) 47| 14,700) 46] 2021 10,600 1,744) 12,344! 47| 14,700 46 2022] 10,706 4,744 12,450 48 14,700 46) 2023| 10,813 4,744 12,557 48 14,700 47| 2024| 10,921 4,744 12,665, 49 14,709 47| 2030] 14,158 4,744 12,902 50) 15,375] 4.6) 2040] 14,010 4.744 12,754 49) 15,193] 4.6)

TABLE 59 ESTIMATED WASTE TONNAGE 2010-2040

RUSSELL COUNTY

Estimated rate of change 2010-2040 1.0% Estimated rate of change for other waste materials 0%/year Population growth factor variable/year YEAR COMMERCIAL

AND RESIDENTIAL

TONNAGE

OTHER TONNAGE

RECEIVED AT TRANSFER STATION

TOTAL TONNAGE

ESTIMATED TO BE

DELIVERED TO

TRANSFER STATION

TONS PER DAY

POPULATION POUNDS PER PERSON PER

DAY

2010 23,564 2,233 25,797 99 28,897 4.9 2011 23,800 2,233 26,033 100 29,657 4.8 2012 24,038 2,233 26,271 101 28,426 5.1 2013 24,278 2,233 26,511 102 28,274 5.1 2014 24,521 2,233 26,754 103 28,023 5.3 2015 24,766 2,233 26,999 104 30,600 4.8 2016 25,014 2,233 27,247 105 30,680 4.9 2017 25,264 2,233 27,497 106 30,760 4.9 2018 25,517 2,233 27,750 107 30,840 4.9 2019 25,772 2,233 28,005 108 30,920 5.0 2020 26,030 2,233 28,263 109 31,000 5.0 2021 26,290 2,233 28,523 110 31,080 5.0 2022 26,553 2,233 28,786 111 31,160 5.1 2023 26,819 2,233 29,052 112 31,240 5.1 2024 27,087 2,233 29,320 113 31,320 5.1 2030 24,716 2,233 26,949 104 29,296 5.0 2040 24,717 2,233 26,950 104 29,534 5.0

TABLE 59 ESTIMATED WASTE TONNAGE 2010-2040 RUSSELL COUNTY

Estimated rate of change 2010-2040 1.0% Estimated rate of change for other waste materials O%lyear Population growth factor variablelyear

2012 24,038 2,233) 26,271 401 28,426 5.4 2013| 24,278 2,233) 26,511 102| 28,274 5.4 2014| 24,521 2,233) 26,754 103| 28,023 5.3) 2015] 24,766 2,233) 26,999) 104) 30,600 4.3] 2016 25,014 2,233 27,247, 105) 30,680 49) 2017 25,264 2,233) 27,497, 106| 30,760) 4.9) 2018) 25,517 2,233 27,750, 107| 30,840 49) 2019) 25,772 2,233) 28,005) 108| 30,920 5.0) 2020) 26,030 2,233 28,263 109) 31,000 5.0] 2021 26,290 2,233) 28,523 110) 31,080 5.0) 2022] 26,553, 2,233) 28,786 411 31,160, 5.4 2023| 26,819) 2,233) 29,052 112] 31,240 5.4 2024| 27,087, 2,233) 29,320 113] 31,320 5.4 2030] 24,716 2,233) 26,949) 104| 29,296 5.0) 2040] 24.717, 2,233) 26,950 104] 29.534 5.0)

TABLE 60 ESTIMATED WASTE TONNAGE 2004-2024

REGION

Estimated rate of change 2004-2024 1.0% Estimated rate of change for other waste materials 0%/year Population growth factor variable/year YEAR COMMERCIAL

AND RESIDENTIAL

TONNAGE

OTHER TONNAGE

RECEIVED AT TRANSFER STATIONS

TOTAL TONNAGE

ESTIMATED TO BE

DELIVERED TO

TRANSFER STATIONS

TONS PER DAY

POPULATION POUNDS PER PERSON PER

DAY

2003 47,187 8,103 55,290 213 70,334 4.3 2004 47,659 8,103 55,762 214 69,677 4.4 2005 48,135 8,103 56,238 216 69,223 4.5 2006 48,617 8,103 56,720 218 68,741 4.5 2007 49,103 8,103 57,206 220 68,588 4.6 2008 49,594 8,103 57,697 222 68,272 4.6 2009 50,090 8,103 58,193 224 68,197 4.7 2010 50,591 8,103 58,694 226 68,282 4.7 2011 51,097 8,103 59,200 228 69,220 4.7 2012 51,608 8,103 59,711 230 67,931 44.8 2013 52,124 8,103 60,227 232 67,278 4.9 2014 52,645 8,103 60,748 234 66,437 5.0 2015 53,171 8,103 61,274 236 69,500 4.8 2016 53,703 8,103 61,806 238 69,380 4.9 2017 54,240 8,103 62,343 240 69,260 4.9 2018 54,783 8,103 62,886 242 69,140 5.0 2019 55,330 8,103 63,433 244 69,020 5.0 2020 55,884 8,103 63,987 246 68,900 5.1 2021 56,443 8,103 64,546 248 68,870 5.1 2022 57,007 8,103 65,110 250 68,840 5.2 2023 57,577 8,103 65,680 253 68,810 5.2 2024 58,153 8,103 66,256 255 68,780 5.3

4.4 Waste Composition

The region does not receive significant quantities of unusual or special wastes or industrial wastes. Therefore its composition would be assumed to be similar to the national estimates discussed in Section 2.1.2. The following tables summarize the expected waste compositions by material type and by product type utilizing the percentages developed by EPA from the 2001 data for the region only:

TABLE 60 ESTIMATED WASTE TONNAGE 2004-2024 REGION

Estimated rate of change 2004-2024 1.0% Estimated rate of change for other waste materials O%lyear Population growth factor variablelyear

2011 51,097, 8,103) 59.200, 228 69.220 47| 2012 51,608 8,103 59,711 230, 67,931 44.3 2013| 52,124) 8,103) 60.227, 232 67.278 4.9) 2014) 52,645) 8,103 60,748 234) 66,437 5.0] 2015) 53,174 8,103 61,274 236 69,500 4.8] 2016 53,703, 8,103 61,806 238, 69,380 4 2017| 54,240 8,103 62,343, 240, 69,260 4g] 2018) 54,783, 8,103 62,886 242) 69,140 5.0) 2019) 55,330 8,103 63,433 244) 69,020 5.0) 2020) 55,884 8,103) 63,987, 246 68,900 5.4 2021 56,443 8,103 64,546 248 68,870 5.4 2022] 57,007, 8,103) 65,110) 250) 68,840 5.2) 2023) 57,577 8,103 65,680 253, 68,810 5.2) 2024| 58,153) 8,103) 66,256 255 68.780) 5.3)

4.4 Waste Composition

TABLE 61 REGIONAL WASTE COMPOSITION

BY MATERIAL TYPE AS SUMMARIZED IN EPA REPORT - 2014 DATA

MATERIAL % OF TOTAL WASTE STREAM (MSW)

PROJECTED TONNAGE
HOUSEHOLD AND

COMMERCIAL WASTE ONLY 2015*

Paper 35.7 16,846 Glass 5.5 2,595 Metals 7.9 3,728 Plastics 11.1 5,238 Rubber, leather, & textiles 7.1 3,350 Wood 5.7 2,690 Yard trimmings 12.2 5,757 Food scraps 11.4 5,379 Other 3.4 1,604 TOTAL 100.0 47,187 *Tonnage from Table 45 for region of 47,187.

TABLE 62 REGIONAL WASTE COMPOSITION

BY PRODUCT TYPE

MATERIAL % OF TOTAL WASTE STREAM (MSW)

PROJECTED TONNAGE HOUSEHOLD AND

COMMERCIAL WASTE ONLY 2015*

Durable goods 16.4 7,739 Nondurable goods 26.4 12,457 Containers and packaging 32.0 15,100 Food scraps 11.4 5,379 Yard trimmings 12.2 5,757 Other wastes 1.6 755 TOTAL 100.0 47,187 *Tonnage from Table 45.

TABLE 61 REGIONAL WASTE COMPOSITION BY MATERIAL TYPE

AS SUMMARIZED IN EPA REPORT - 2014 DATA

Paper 35.7 16,846 Glass 35 2,595 Metals 79 3,728 Plastics im 5,238 Rubber, leather, & textiles 71 3,350 Wood 5.7 2,690 Yard trimmings 12.2 5,757 Food scraps 4 5,379 Other 34 1,604 TOTAL 100.0 47,187 Tonnage from Table 45 for region of 47,187. TABLE 62 REGIONAL WASTE COMPOSITION BY PRODUCT TYPE

Durable goods 7,239 ‘Nondurable goods 12,457 Containers and packaging 15,100 Food seraps 5,379 ‘Yard trimmings 122 5,757 Other wastes 16 755 TOTAL 100.0 47,187

*Tonnage from Table 45,

5.0 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The following section describes the major components of the region’s current solid waste management system in existence in 2003.

5.1 Collection

5.1.1 Overview

The following table summarizes the information relative to collection as provided by the various localities:

TABLE 63 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ON COLLECTIONS

LOCALITY DESCRIPTION

Buchanan County Equipment: 13 trucks Personnel: 23 collection workers; 1 full time litter control coordinator, 1 full time litter control coordinator,
Collection: Door to door from 9,485 residential and 1,383 business curbside customers. Residential: one time per week Commercial: one time per week, fixed or by request; 4cy or 6cy containers. Other collections: • Large items collected monthly by request • White good collection is performed by a local recycling

business; refrigerant removal by private contractor; materials hauled away by private contractor twice per year

• Tires are accepted at the transfer station. The CPRWMA provides services via WV Tire.

Fees: • Households - $3.00 per month split equally between electric

and telephone bill each electric meter and each telephone line. • Commercial - $6.00 per cubic yard (based on size of box) • Tires - $70.00 per ton; sent off site for recycling
• Fees do not meet the operations expenses. Operations

supplemented from County’s general fund. Annual budget (FY 2015): $2,329,309.

Grundy Equipment: 2 trucks, 1 brush shredder Personnel: 3 employees Collection: Door to door from 216 residential and commercial customers. Residential: 1 time per week Commercial: 1-5 times per week Other collections:

• Bulky item pickup monthly by request of residential or

5.0. EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The following section describes the major components of the region’s current solid waste management system in existence in 2003

5.1 Collection

5.1.1 Overview

The following table summarizes the information relative to collection as provided by the various localities:

TABLE 63 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ON COLLECTIONS LOCALITY [ DESCRIPTION Buchanan County Equipment: 13 trucks

Personnel: 23 collection workers; | full time litter control

coordinator, | full time litter control coordinator,

Collection: Door to door from 9,485 residential and 1,383

business curbside customers.

Residential: one time per week

Commercial: one time per week, fixed or by request; 4ey or 6cy

containers.

Other collections:

‘© Large items collected monthly by request

‘© White good collection is performed by a local recycling business; refrigerant removal by private contractor; materials hauled away by private contractor twice per year

‘* Tires are accepted at the transfer station. The CPRWMA provides services via WV Tire.

Fees:

‘* Households - $3.00 per month split equally between electric and telephone bill each electric meter and each telephone line.

Tires - $70.00 per ton; sent off site for recycling

‘© Fees do not meet the operations expenses. Operations supplemented from County’s general fund.

Annual budget (FY 2015): $2,329,309.

Grundy Equipment: 2 trucks, 1 brush shredder Personnel: 3 employees Collection: Door to door from 216 residential and commercial custome Residential: | time per week Commercial: 1-5 times per week Other collections: Bulky item pickup monthly by request of residential or

LOCALITY DESCRIPTION commercial customers.

• Leaves, brush, and Christmas trees collected by request.
Town shreds and sells for mulch

Fees:
• Residential - $8.00 per month charged on utility bill • Commercial – based on number of collections. Current

billing range from $48 - $240 per month. • Fees covers cost of operations. No additional funding is

needed to supplement the system.
Annual budget (FY 2015): $251,200

Dickenson County Equipment: 7 rear load packer trucks Personnel: 15 employees; 2 litter control officers Collection: Door to door from 6,352 residential and 891 commercial customers; 3 green box sites with one 6cy box per site on roads where packer trucks cannot service homes. Residential: 1 time per week Commercial: 1-2 times per week Other collections: • No leaf, brush or general bulky item pickup. • Temporary collection sites are established for Christmas tree

collection. Trees are hauled to the lake for the Army Corp of Engineers to use as fish attractors.

• Tires - $70.00 per ton; sent off site for recycling
Fees: • Residential - $60 per ton at transfer station and Free crub side

collection. • Commercial - $60 per ton at transfer station. • Operations subsidized from general fund. Annual budget (FY 2015): $1,333,555

Clintwood Equipment: 2 trucks – 1 regular sized rear loader, 1 smaller truck. Personnel: 4 employees Collection: Door to door. Residential: 1 time per week Commercial: Collection frequency variable depending on agreement with town.

Other collections:

• Bulky items, leaves, and brush are picked up on request.
Pickup usually on Friday. No additional charge.

• Tires are transported by the Town to the transfer station. Fees: Residental is $7 per month and Commercial is $10. 4 cy, 6 cy, 8 cy range is from $32.00-$300 per month. Annual budget (FY 2015): $76,460

Haysi No solid waste collection operations Clinchco No solid waste collection operations

LOCALITY

DESCRIPTION

commercial customers.

Fees:

‘© Residential - $8.00 per month charged on utility bill

¢ Commercial — based on number of collections. Current billing range from $48 - $240 per month.

‘© Fees covers cost of operations. No additional funding is needed to supplement the system.

Annual budget (FY 2015): $251,200

Dickenson County

Equipment: 7 rear load packer trucks Personnel: 15 employees; 2 litter control officers

Collection: Door to door from 6,352 residential and 891 commercial customers; 3 green box sites with one 6cy box per site on roads where packer trucks cannot service homes. Residential: 1 time per week

Commercial: 1-2 times per week

Other collections:

‘* No leaf, brush or general bulky item pickup.

‘© Temporary collection sites are established for Christmas tree collection. Trees are hauled to the lake for the Army Corp of Engincers to use as fish attractors.

‘Tires - $70.00 per ton; sent off site for recycling

Fees:

Annual budget (FY 2015): $1,333,555,

‘Clintwood.

Equipment: 2 trucks — I regular sized rear loader, | smaller truck.

Personnel: 4 employees

Collection: Door to door.

Residential: 1 time per week

Commercial: Collection frequency variable depending on agreement with town.

Other collections: ‘* Bulky items, leaves, and brush are picked up on request. Pickup usually on Friday. No additional charge. Tires are transported by the Town to the transfer station. Fees: Residental is $7 per month and Commercial is $10. 4 cy, 6 cy, 8 cy range is from $32.00-$300 per month. Annual budget (FY 2015): $76,460

Haysi

No solid waste collection operations

Clincheo

No solid waste collection operations

LOCALITY DESCRIPTION Russell County Equipment: System is county managed and staffed with hauling

privatized.
Personnel: 6 personnel to staff the sites Collection: 10 convienent sites around County serviced by County staff. Most of the sites have 1-3 boxes or compactors and use 40 – 50 cy open top roll-off boxes. The County owns the sites. Collections is contracted out 10 sites and the County provides staff. The sites are staffed 40 hours per week.
Residential: 10 Convienent Centers Drop off. Commercial: Town of Lebanon and Private Company’s. Other collections:

• Brush or leaf collection is a drop off at Transfer Station. • White goods can be taken to the transfer station. Once

collected, the material is managed by the County. • Tires - $83.50 per ton; sent off site for recycling
Fees: $60.00 per ton for commercial and construction.
Annual budget (FY 2015): $900,000.

Lebanon Equipment: 2 rear load packer trucks and 2 roll-off trucks Personnel: 4 employees plus public works director. 1 driver for the roll-off truck; 3 person crew for the packer truck. Collection: Door to door from 1,794 residential and commercial customers. Private collection is not allowed within City limits. Residential: 1 time per week Commercial: 1 time per week (minimum), can request greater frequency for collection; Town provides containers. Other collections: • Bulky item collection: By request each Friday • Leaves and grass: By request as needed. Fees:
• Residential - $7.20 per month on utility bill • Commercial –

o Curbside - $14.20 per week. o 6 cy box - $25 per load o 8 cy box - $25 per load o 40 cy box - $100 per load o Compactor - $150.00 per load

Annual budget (FY 2015): $285,499. Cleveland Equipment: 1 rear loader packer truck

Personnel: 3 Collection: Door-to-door Residential: Weekly Commercial: Weekly
Other collections: • Bulky item collection: Once per year in May. Leaves and grass: None. Fees:

LOCALITY DESCRIPTION Russell County Equipment: System is county managed and staffed with hauling privatized. Personnel: 6 personnel to staff the sites

Collection: 10 convienent sites around County serviced by County staff. Most of the sites have 1-3 boxes or compactors and use 40 — 50 cy open top roll-off boxes. The County owns the sites. Collections is contracted out 10 sites and the County provides staff. The sites are staffed 40 hours per week. Residential: 10 Convienent Centers Drop off. Commercial: Town of Lebanon and Private Company’s. Other collections:

Brush or leaf collection is a drop off at Transfer Station.
White goods can be taken to the transfer station. Once collected, the material is managed by the County.
Tires - $83.50 per ton; sent off site for recycling Fees: $60.00 per ton for commercial and construction. Annual budget (FY 2015): $900,000.

Lebanon

Equipment: 2 rear load packer trucks and 2 roll-off trucks Personnel: 4 employees plus public works director. 1 driver for the roll-off truck; 3 person crew for the packer truck. Collection: Door to door from 1,794 residential and commercial customers. Private collection is not allowed within City limits. Residential: 1 time per week Commercial: | time per week (minimum), can request greater frequency for collection; Town provides containers. Other collections:

Bulky item collection: By request each Friday © Leaves and grass: By request as needed. Fees: ‘© Residential - $7.20 per month on utility bill © Commercial —

o 40 cy box - $100 per load

‘Cleveland

Equipment: 1 rear loader packer truck Personnel: 3

Collection: Door-to-door

Residential: Weekly

Commercial: Weekly

Other collections:

Fees:

LOCALITY DESCRIPTION • Residential: – $12/month • Commercial: – $18/month
Annual budget (FY 2015): $16,940

Honaker Equipment: 1 rear loader packer truck Personnel: 3 Collection: Door-to-door Residential: 1/week Commercial: 1/week Other collections: • Bulky item collection: By request as needed • Leaves and grass: None Fees:
• Residential – $15.00/month • Commercial – $20-200 per/month Annual budget (FY 2015): $95,500

5.1.2 Russell County Collection sites

Russell County is the only one of the localities which uses drop off collection sites for handling garbage collection. There are 14 sites. The following table summarizes the tonnage collected from each site for the years 2010 – 2016:

TABLE 64 RUSSELL COUNTY COLLECTION SITES

TONNAGE 2000 – 2003

Site 2000 2001 2002 2003 AVERAGE AVERAGE AS %

OF TOTAL Lebanon 1,160 1,132 1,054 1,153 1,125 8.9% Belfast 1,158 1,322 1,632 1,220 1,333 10.5% Blackford 1,385 1,408 1,522 1,325 1,410 11.1% Swordscreek 840 1,139 990 843 953 7.5% Pjnecreek 884 1,081 1,058 921 986 7.8% Flatrock 627 781 807 712 732 5.8% Finney 288 350 304 277 305 2.4% Daw Road 161 199 211 233 201 1.6% Carbo 719 717 740 635 703 5.5% Hamlin 962 1,158 1,134 955 1,052 8.3% Radio Station (Castlewood) 1,395 1,560 1,536 1,410 1,475 11.6% 71 (604) Grassy Creek 406 394 335 293 357 2.8% Mocassin 305 312 299 264 295 2.3% 71 Site 1,585 1,764 1,887 1,803 1,760 13.9% TOTAL 11,875 13,317 13,509 12,044 12,686 100.0%

LOCALITY

DESCRIPTION

Honaker

Equipment: | rear loader packer truck Personnel: 3

Collection: Door-to-door

Residential: I/week

Commercial: 1/week

Other collections:

Bulky item collection: By request as needed
Leaves and grass: None

Fees:

5.1.2. Russell County Collection sites

Russell County is the only one of the localities which uses drop off collection sites for handling garbage collection, There are 14 sites. The following table summarizes the tonnage collected from each site for the years 2010 — 2016:

TABLE 64 RUSSELL COUNTY COLLECTION SITES

TONNAGE

2000 — 2003 Site 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 JAVERAGE]AVERAGE AS %

OF TOTAL.

lLebanon 1,160, 1,132|1,054| 1,153] 1,125) 8.9% [Belfast 1,158, 1,322| 1,632) 1,220] 1,333) 10.5% [Blackford 1,385, 1,408| 1,522) 1,329] 1,410) 11.1% ISwordscreek 840|__ 1,139) 990] 843] 953| 7.5% IPinecreek sql 1,081 1,058) 921 986| 7.8% IFlatrock 627| 781 807| 712] 732| 5.8% IFinne) 288| 350) 304] 277| 305] 2.4% Daw Road 161 199) 2n1 233) 201 1.6% [Carbo 719) 717| 740| 635] 703| 5.5% [Hamlin 962] 1,158) 1,134! 955] 1,052) 8.3% IRadio Station (Castlewood) 1,395] 1,560|__ 1,536) __—1,410) 1,475) 11.6% I71 (604) Grassy Creek 406] 394| 335] 293] 367| 2.8% IMocassin 305) 312] 299) 264| 295] 2.304 [71 Site 1,585, 1,764|__1,887|__1,803| 1,760) 13.9% [TOTAL 14,875 13,317|13,509| 12,044] __12,686| 100.0%)

Figure 2 illustrates the location of these sites.

5.2 Transfer Operations

5.2.1 Summary of transfer station information

The following table summarizes the information on the transfer operations. Most of the waste generated within the three County region is delivered to one of the transfer stations. Some waste may be taken directly to one of the private landfills, but this waste is not tracked. As noted below, the Authority owns the buildings, holds the permits, is in charge of operations and maintenance and holds the contracts with the hauling company and the disposal facility.

TABLE 65 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ON TRANSFER STATIONS

LOCATION DESCRIPTION

Buchanan County • PBR # 106 • Opened March 1996 • 5,000 square feet • Scales – BTek 10’x70’ • Orginial Cost $609,000 • Operated by the County • Tonnage transferred 2015 – 16,426 tons

Dickenson County • PBR #049 • Opened December 1993 • 5,000 square feet • Scales – BTek 10’x70’ • Orginal Cost - $640,689 • Operated by the County • Tonnage transferred 2015 – 10,049 tons

Russell County • PBR #001 • Opened April 1994 • 7,500 square feet • Scales – BTek 10’x70’ • Orginal Cost - $625,000 • Operated by a private contractor • Tonnage transferred 2015 – 16,986 tons

General Information • Hauling contract with Advanced Disposal, Inc. The contract expires on October 26, 2018.

• Permits are held by Authority who owns the buildings, equipment and property and holds long-term leases with VDOT in Dickenson and Russell Counties on the properties.

• As of January 1, 2016, the Authority has no outstanding bond debt.

• As permit holder, the Authority is responsible for permit compliance.

Figure 2 illustrates the location of these sites.

5.2 Transfer Operations

5.2.1 Summary of transfer station information

TABLE 65

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ON TRANSFER STATIONS

LOCATION [

DESCRIPTION

Buchanan County

PBR # 106 Opened March 1996

5,000 square feet

Scales — BTek 10°x70"

Orginial Cost $609,000

Operated by the County

‘Tonnage transferred 2015 — 16,426 tons

Dickenson County

PBR #049 Opened December 1993

5,000 square feet

Scales — BTek 10°x70"

Orginal Cost - $640,689

Operated by the County

Tonnage transferred 2015 ~ 10,049 tons

Russell County

PBR #001

Opened April 1994

7,500 square feet

Scales — BTek 10°x70°

Orginal Cost - $625,000

Operated by a private contractor Tonnage transferred 2015 ~ 16,986 tons

General Information

Hauling contract with Advanced Disposal, Inc. The contract expires on October 26, 2018.

Permits are held by Authority who owns the buildings, equipment and property and holds long-term leases with VDOT in Dickenson and Russell Counties on the properties. As of January 1, 2016, the Authority has no outstanding bond debt.

As permit holder, the Authority is responsible for permit compliance.

LOCATION DESCRIPTION • As owner of the buildings, the Authority is responsible for all

maintenance and repairs.

5.2.2 Contractual Relationships

The following table summarizes the contractual relationships between the Authority, Contractor and Counties:

TABLE 66 CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS

CONTRACT NAME PARTIES PURPOSE

Solid Waste Disposal Agreement

Advanced Disposal Inc. Establishes contract for disposal at Advanced Disposal Landfill and sets fees for disposal.
Current contract expires October 26, 2018.

Solid Waste Transportation Agreement

Authority and Advanced Disposal, Inc.

Establishes contract for transportation and sets fees for hauling. Current contract expires October 26, 2018.

User Agreement for Solid Waste Disposal

Authority and each county individually

Establishes contract for use of transfer stations, obligations of users, tipping fees, etc. No specific expiration date.
Members can leave Authority when all debt is paid off.

Manpower Service Agreement Authority and each county individually

Establishes contract for County operation of transfer stations for Authority. Contract renewed annually.

Administrative contract Cumberland Plateau PDC and Authority

Establishes an agreement for the PDC to administer the Authority’s program. Contract renewed annually.

5.2.3 Tipping Charges and Fees at transfer station

Each County holds a user agreement with the Authority and the Authority only has three customers, the three Counties. The Authority sets the tipping charges as follows (taken from the agreement with Russell County): “The tipping fee shall be calculated by determining the total of (a) the disposal fee charged by any landfill operator with whom the Authority may contract for the ultimate disposal of any Solid Waste delivered under the contract; (b) the transportation costs incurred in the transport of the waste from the transfer station to the landfill; © the

LOCATION | DESCRIPTION

5.2.2. Contractual Relationships

The following table summarizes the contractual relationships between the Authority, Contractor and Counties:

TABLE 66 CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS CONTRACT NAME PARTIES PURPOSE Solid Waste Disposal ‘Advanced Disposal Inc. | Establishes contract for disposal Agreement at Advanced Disposal Landfill

and sets fees for disposal. Current contract expires October

26, 2018. Solid Waste Transportation ‘Authority and Advanced | Establishes contract for Agreement Disposal, Inc. transportation and sets fees for

hauling. Current contract expires October 26, 2018,

User Agreement for Solid Waste | Authority and each county | Establishes contract for use of Disposal individually transfer stations, obligations of users, tipping fees, etc. No specific expiration date. Members can leave Authority when all debt is paid off.

Manpower Service Agreement _ | Authority and each county | Establishes contract for County

individually operation of transfer stations for Authority. Contract renewed annually. ‘Administrative contract ‘Cumberland Plateau PDC_| Establishes an agreement for the and Authority PDC to administer the

Authority’s program. Contract renewed annually.

5.2.3. Tipping Charges and Fees at transfer station

amount of principal premium, if any, and interest or any other amounts due, or to become due, with respect to any indebtedness of the Authority or required to avoid a default with respect to such indebtedness, and (d) all expenses of the Authority relating to the operation and maintenance of the disposal system, including any reserves. This amount is divided by the tonnage projected to be received to derive the cost per ton to be charge for use of the disposal system.”

The current tipping charges established by the Authority may be summarized as follows:

TABLE 67 SUMMARY OF AUTHORITY’S TIPPING CHARGES

LOCALITY FEE COMMENT

Buchanan County $34.06/ton + Monthly charge of $17,000 Dickenson County $34.05/ton + Monthly charge of $17,000 Russell County $31.96/ton + Monthly charge of $17,000 *Monthly charge covers operations and debt service.

Each County is invoiced on a monthly basis by the Authority for the tonnage delivered to the transfer station. Each County can then chose to charge transfer station users.

The following table summarizes the current tipping fees established by the Counties as of October 2013 at the three transfer stations:

TABLE 68 SUMMARY OF TIPPING FEES AT TRANSFER STATIONS

LOCALITY/WASTE TYPE FEE COMMENTS

BUCHANAN COUNTY
Household waste $30/ton Household billed $7.00 per

month on utility bill. Commercial waste $60/ton
Tires $70/ton
DICKENSON COUNTY
Household waste $60/ton
Commercial Waste $60/ton
Construction demolition debris $60/ton
Tires $60/ton
Sludge $40/ton
RUSSELL COUNTY
Household waste No charge
Commercial waste $60/ton
Industrial waste $60/ton
Shingles $60/ton
Tires $83.50/ton

‘amount of principal premium, if any, and interest or any other amounts due, or to become due, with respect to any indebtedness of the Authority or required to avoid a default with respect to such indebtedness, and (d) all expenses of the Authority relating to the operation and ‘maintenance of the disposal system, including any reserves. This amount is divided by the tonnage projected to be received to derive the cost per ton to be charge for use of the disposal system.”

‘The current tipping charges established by the Authority may be summarized as follows:

TABLE 67 SUMMARY OF AUTHORITY’S TIPPING CHARGES LOCALITY FEE COMMENT Buchanan County $34.06/ton + Monthly charge of $17,000 Dickenson Count; $34.05/ton. + Monthly charge of $17,000 Russell Count; $31.96/ton. + Monthly charge of $17,000

*Monthly charge covers operations and debt service.

Each County is invoiced on a monthly basis by the Authority for the tonnage delivered to the transfer station. Each County can then chose to charge transfer station users.

The following table summarizes the current tipping fees established by the Counties as of October 2013 at the three transfer stations:

TABLE 68 SUMMARY OF TIPPING FEES AT TRANSFER STATIONS LOCALITY/WASTE TYPE FEE COMMENTS BUCHANAN COUNTY Household waste $30/ton Household billed $7.00 per month on utility bill. ‘Commercial waste 360/ton Tires $70/ton, DICKENSON COUNTY Household waste 360/ton ‘Commercial Waste $60/ton Construction demolition debris $60/ton Tires 360/ton Sludge $40/ton RUSSELL COUNTY Household waste No charge Commercial waste $60/ton. Industrial waste $60/ton Shingles $60/ton Tires $83.50/ton

Contract fees as negotiated by the Authority with the hauling and disposal company may be summarized as follows. The contracts expire on October 26, 2018:

TABLE 69 SUMMARY OF AUTHORITY AGREEMENTS

CONTRACT NEGOTIATED FEE COMMENTS

TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT

Buchanan County $17.18/ton CPI for agreement shall not exceed 3% and will not be considered until 12/03.

Dickenson County $17.17/ton Same as above Russell County $15.08/ton Same as above DISPOSAL AGREEMENT
Disposal price $16.07/ton 3% CPI each year (not to

exceed $17.74 in 2018). State fee $ 0.10/ton
Total disposal price $16.07/ton

Under the disposal agreement, the current federal, state and local fees/taxes of $0.95/ton shall not exceed a total of $3.00/ton. Should fees/taxes exceed $3.00/ton, the Authority reserved the right to renegotiate the fee schedule.

5.2.4 Materials permitted for acceptance at transfer stations

waste. Incinerator and air pollution control residues should be incorporated into the working face and covered at such intervals as necessary to prevent them from becoming airborne.

c. Commercial waste d. Compost e. Construction waste f. Debris g. Demolition waste h. Discarded material i. Garbage j. Household waste k. Industrial waste meeting all criteria contained in DEQ Regulations l. Inert waste

Contract fees as negotiated by the Authority with the hauling and disposal company may be summarized as follows. The contracts expire on October 26, 2018:

TABLE 69 SUMMARY OF AUTHORITY AGREEMENTS CONTRACT NEGOTIATED FEE COMMENTS TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT Buchanan County $17.18/ton CPI for agreement shall

not exceed 3% and will not be considered until

12/03. Dickenson Count) $17.17/ton Same as above Russell County $15.08/ton Same as above DISPOSAL AGREEMENT Disposal price 316.07/ton 3% CPI each year (not to exceed $17.74 in 2018). State fee $.0.10/t0n Total disposal price $16.07/ton

5.2.4 Materials permitted for acceptance at transfer stations

In accordance with the Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations, the following materials may be accepted at the transfer stations subject to permit specific limitations: a. Agricultural waste b. Ashes and air pollution control residues that are not classified as hazardous waste. Incinerator and air pollution control residues should be incorporated into the working face and covered at such intervals as necessary to prevent them from becoming airbome. Commercial waste Compost Construction waste Debris Demolition waste Discarded material Garbage Houschold waste Industrial waste meeting all criteria contained in DEQ Regulations Inert waste

rRoo rE me es

m. Institutional waste except anatomical waste from health care facilities or infectious waste as specified in Waste Management Board’s Infectious Wastes Regulations.

n. Municipal solid waste o. Putrescible waste. Occasional animal carcasses may be disposed of within a

sanitary landfill. Large number of animal carcasses shall be placed in a separate area within the disposal unit and provided with a cover of compacted soil or other suitable material.

p. Refuse q. Residential waste r. Rubbish s. Scrap metal t. Sludge u. Trash v. White goods w. Non-regulated hazardous wastes by specific approval only x. Specific wastes as approved by the Director

5.2.5 Materials not accepted at the transfer stations

The following wastes are prohibited at the transfer stations:

Under the DEQ regulations (taken from 9VAC 20-80-250.C.16):

a. Free liquids

b. Regulated hazardous wastes

c. Solid wastes, residues, or soils containing more than 1.0 ppb (parts per

billion) of Dioxins

 d. Solid wastes, residues, or soils containing more than 50.0 ppm (parts per

million) of PCB’s

 e. Unstabilized sewage sludge or sludges that have not been dewatered 

 f. Pesticide containers that have not been triple rinsed and crushed 

  g. Drums that are not empty, properly cleaned, and opened 

 h. Waste oil that has not been adequately adsorbed in the course of a site

cleanup

i. Contaminated soil unless approved by the Director

m, Institutional waste except anatomical waste from health care facilities or infectious waste as specified in Waste Management Board’s Infectious Wastes Regulations.

n. Municipal solid waste

Putrescible waste. Occasional animal carcasses may be disposed of within a

sanitary landfill. Large number of animal carcasses shall be placed in a

separate area within the disposal unit and provided with a cover of

‘compacted soil or other suitable material

Refuse

Residential waste

Rubbish

Scrap metal

Sludge

Trash

White goods

Non-regulated hazardous wastes by specific approval only

Specific wastes as approved by the Director

xen rynes

5.2.5. Materials not accepted at the transfer stations The following wastes are prohibited at the transfer stations:

Under the DEQ regulations (taken from 9VAC 20-80-250.C.16):

a Free liquids b. Regulated hazardous wastes c. Solid wastes, residues, or soils containing more than 1.0 ppb (parts per

billion) of Dioxins

a Solid wastes, residues, or soils containing more than 50.0 ppm (parts per million) of PCB’s

e. _ Unstabilized sewage sludge or sludges that have not been dewatered

f Pesticide containers that have not been triple rinsed and crushed

g. Drums that are not empty, properly cleaned, and opened

h. Waste oil that has not been adequately adsorbed in the course of a site cleanup

i, Contaminated soil unless approved by the Director

5.3 Disposal

5.3.1 Landfill

Currently the Cumberland Plateau Regional Waste Management Authority is under contract with Advanced Disposal, Inc. for disposal at the Advanced Disposal Landfil located in Sullivan County Tennessee. The landfill is located approximately 5 miles south of Bristol. Distances from the transfer stations to the landfill range from 120 miles one way for Buchanan County, to 95 miles one way for Dickenson County, to 68 miles one way for Russell County.

The following list summarizes information on the landfill:

• Permitted by Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) • Permit number SNL 820-000-0282 Ext. Class 1 • Subtitle D liner and cap system • Total acreage – 655 acres • Disposal acreage – 255 acres (not all permitted at this time) • Remaining life expectancy – 78 years @ 675 tpd from 1/1/12. Estimated closure date

5.3.2 Previously operated landfills

Appendix 3 includes a table summarizing the status of previously operated landfills in the region and location maps for the most recently closed landfills. The information was provided by the Southwest Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Quality. All landfills owned and operated by the Counties have been closed.

One industrial landfill is open in the Russell County. It is operated by American Electric Power (AEP) and is the disposal site for coal combustion by-products produced by the Clinch River Power Plant. Information on this facility is summarized in the following table and was obtained from AEP:

5.3 Disposal

5.3.1 Landfill

Currently the Cumberland Plateau Regional Waste Management Authority is under contract with ‘Advanced Disposal, Inc. for disposal at the Advanced Disposal Landfil located in Sullivan County Tennessee. The landfill is located approximately 5 miles south of Bristol. Distances from the transfer stations to the landfill range from 120 miles one way for Buchanan County, to 95 miles one way for Dickenson County, to 68 miles one way for Russell County.

The following list summarizes information on the landfill:

Permitted by Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Permit number SNL 820-000-0282 Ext. Class 1

Subtitle D liner and cap system

Total acreage — 655 acres

Disposal acreage ~ 255 acres (not all permitted at this time)

Remaining life expectancy — 78 years @ 675 tpd from 1/1/12. Estimated closure date 2094,

5.3.2. Previously operated landfills

‘Appendix 3 includes a table summarizing the status of previously operated landfills in the region and location maps for the most recently closed landfills. The information was provided by the Southwest Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Quality. All landfills owned and operated by the Counties have been closed.

TABLE 70 AEP INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Permit Number 223 Date Permitted 1974 Materials placed in landfill Coal combustion by-products: flyash, bottom

ash; limited amounts of special waste by permit (contaminated soil, filter media from waste treatment plant, boiler refractory, etc.

Liner system Subbase of insitu soil, layer of select fill, flexible membrane liner (FML), covered with double sided geocomposite material, leachate collection zone, covered by aggregate drainage layer, buttresses in specified bench areas.

Cap system Flyash infiltration layer on top of waste, 40 mil FML, covered by layer of topsoil and vegetation.

Leachate collection and handling Two leachate collection ponds. Discharges are pumped back to the plant for disposal through the waste water treatment system.

Environmental monitoring programs Daily, monthly, quarterly and annual inspections; groundwater monitoring wells sampled semi-annually.

Information on remaining life, closure date or annual tonnage was not available.

5.3.2.A Previously operated landfills continued. Please see Possum Hollow Landfill attachment.

5.3.3 Household hazardous waste collection

Periodically the Authority assists Counties with the collection of household hazardous waste. In the future, the Counties have expressed interest in developing a comprehensive household hazardous waste program that would be run at specific times of the year. The Counties would like to pay for this program out of their general fund instead of raising tipping fees at the transfer stations to cover the expenses.

5.3.4 Central Archive

Records of all closed and active solid waste disposal sites within the region are maintained at the offices of the County Administrators within the Region. The Authority did not take over management of the landfills when it became the regional coordinator for disposal services for the Region. The Counties retain responsibility for all closure and post closure activities at the landfills and for documenting and addressing any open dumps. The Authority however maintains information on the transfer stations and recycling. The addresses for these archives are listed below:

TABLE 70 AEP INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL.

ITEM [ DESCRIPTION Permit Number 223 Date Permitted 1974 Materials placed in landfill Coal combustion by-products: flyash, bottom

ash; limited amounts of special waste by permit (contaminated soil, filter media from waste treatment plant, boiler refractory, etc.

Liner system ‘Subbase of insitu soil, layer of select fill, flexible membrane liner (FML), covered with double sided geocomposite material, leachate collection zone, covered by aggregate drainage layer, buttresses in specified bench areas.

Cap system Flyash infiltration layer on top of waste, 40 mil FML, covered by layer of topsoil and vegetation.

Leachate collection and handling Two leachate collection ponds. Discharges are

pumped back to the plant for disposal through the waste water treatment system.

Environmental monitoring programs Daily, monthly, quarterly and annual, inspections; groundwater monitoring wells sampled semi-annually.

Information on remaining life, closure date or annual tonnage was not available. 5.3.2.A Previously operated landfills continued. Please see Possum Hollow Landfill attachment. 5.3.3 Household hazardous waste collection

5.3.4 Central Archive

Records of all closed and active solid waste disposal sites within the region are maintained at the offices of the County Administrators within the Region, The Authority did not take over management of the landfills when it became the regional coordinator for disposal services for the Region. The Counties retain responsibility for all closure and post closure activities at the landfills and for documenting and addressing any open dumps. The Authority however maintains information on the transfer stations and recycling. The addresses for these archives are listed below:

Cumberland Plateau Regional Waste Management Authority 224 Clydesway Road Lebanon, Virginia 24266 276-889-1778

Buchanan County PO Box 950 Main Street, 4th Floor Grundy, VA 24614 276-935-6501

Dickenson County PO Box 1098 Mainstreet Courthouse Clintwood, VA 24228 276-926-1676

Russell County PO 1208 121 E. Main Street Lebanon, VA 24266 276-889-8000

The files kept in these locations constitute the central archive and operating record for all permitted landfills within the Counties. New landfills, closure and post closure care documentation is kept at the Counties. Transfer station and recycling information is kept at the Authority. All correspondence to and all correspondence from DEQ is kept in the files of the appropriate entity.

In addition, the Solid Waste Management Plan prepared by the Authority for the Region will serve as a central archive and summary of solid waste collection, disposal, recycling and treatment activities within the Region. The plan will be revised as appropriate as activities change and the revised plan will be submitted to DEQ for review and approval.

5.4 Recycling

Recycling programs in the region are implemented on an individual basis by locality. The data is reported regionally. A recycling Action Plan (RAP) has been submitted to VA DEQ and approved.

5.4.1 Description of programs

The following table summarizes the existing programs within each County.

Cumberland Plateau Regional Waste Management Authority 224 Clydesway Road

Lebanon, Virginia 24266

276-889-1778

Buchanan County PO Box 950

Main Street, 4" Floor Grundy, VA 24614 216-935-6501

Dickenson County PO Box 1098 Mainstreet Courthouse Clintwood, VA 24228 216-926-1676

Russell County PO 1208

121 E. Main Street Lebanon, VA 24266 276-889-8000

54 Recyeli

Recycling programs in the region are implemented on an individual basis by locality. The data is reported regionally. A recycling Action Plan (RAP) has been submitted to VA DEQ and approved.

5.4.1 Description of programs

The following table summarizes the existing programs within each County.

TABLE 71 SUMMARY OF RECYCLING PROGRAMS IN THE REGION

LOCALITY DESCRIPTION

Buchanan County • Limited recycling program in County. • White goods are collected at the transfer station and recycled • There is one private collection site at the Anchorage Shopping

Center. Information on this center was not available. • There is a private scrap yard in the County which accepts

batteries, aluminum, and scrap metal. The company pays for the materials they accept. Detailed information on this facility was not available.

• The Town of Grundy collects and mulches their brush. • Some tracking of commercial and industrial recycling.

Dickenson County • Limited recycling program in County. • Private contractor recycles aluminum, scrap metal, white

goods, and abandoned vehicles. • Some tracking of commercial and industrial recycling.

Russell County • 7-8 drop off sites are located throughout the County. • The drop off program is privatized. • The program accepts plastics, newspaper, cardboard, and

aluminum. • The materials are transported to a recycler in Kingsport, TN. • Sites are staffed and contamination is limited. • Used oil is collected at the transfer station and is pumped and

hauled away by Necessary Oil. • Scrap metal is collected at the transfer station. • Aggressively tracks commercial and industrial recycling.

Authority • Hired a recycling coordinator 08/01/04.

5.4.2 Recycling rates

The following table provides information on the recycling rates for the Counties for 2010 and 2015. Appendix 4 contains the DEQ reporting form for 2015 for the region.

TABLE 71

SUMMARY OF RECYCLING PROGRAMS IN THE REGION

LOCALITY [

DESCRIPTION

Buchanan County .

Limited recycling program in County. White goods are collected at the transfer station and recycled There is one private collection site at the Anchorage Shopping Center. Information on this center was not available.

There is a private scrap yard in the County which accepts batteries, aluminum, and scrap metal. The company pays for the materials they accept. Detailed information on this facility was not available.

The Town of Grundy collects and mulches their brush.

Some tracking of commercial and industrial recycling.

Dickenson County

Limited recycling program in County. Private contractor recycles aluminum, scrap metal, white goods, and abandoned vehicles.

Some tracking of commercial and industrial recycling.

Russell County

7-8 drop off sites are located throughout the County. The drop off program is privatized.

The program accepts plastics, newspaper, cardboard, and aluminum.

The materials are transported to a recycler in Kingsport, TN. Sites are staffed and contamination is limited.

Used oil is collected at the transfer station and is pumped and hauled away by Necessary Oil.

Scrap metal is collected at the transfer station.

Aggressively tracks commercial and industrial recycling.

Authority :

Hired a recycling coordinator 08/01/04.

5.4.2 Recycling rates

The following table provides information on the recycling rates for the Counties for 2010 and 2015. Appendix 4 contains the DEQ reporting form for 2015 for the region.

ro)

TABLE 72

MATERIAL BUCHANAN COUNTY DICKENSON COUNTY

RUSSELL
COUNTY

TOTAL

2010 2015 2010 2015 2010 2015 2010 2015

Total Principle RM
Paper 408.64 677 263.39 170 915.35 740 1,587.38 1,587 Metal 4,846.36 6,799 4,414.42 3,240 5,713.5 5,200 14,974.28 15,239 Plastic 42.99 16 9.24 10 58.73 26 110.96 52 Glass .015 .25 .26 .26 0 Commingled - 0 Yard Waste (composted

or mulched) - 0 Waste Wood (chipped

or mulched) .01 5 40 100 180.02 220.03 105 Textiles 92 23.69 40 0 115.69 40

SUBTOTAL 5,390.015 7,497 4,750.99 3,560 6,867.86 5,966 17,008.6 17,023
Total Supplemental RM -

Waste Tires 66.82 49 299.22 100 190.04 215 556.08 364 Used Oil 82.91 108 2,480.65 220 701.53 580 3265.09 908 Used Oil Filters 3,100 2 8.11 0 8.11 6 111.11 8 Used Antifreeze 10.55 1 2.21 10 24.51 2 37.27 13 Auto Bodies 925 230 250 20 881 20 2,056.73 270 Batteries 200 143 877 60 37.11 28 1,002.22 231 Sludge (composted) -
Other (E-Waste) 11.66 2 20 1 17.31 12 48.97 15 Ash

SUBTOTAL 4,396.94 535 3,937.19 311 1859.61 863 7,077.47 1,809
Total PRM and SRM 9,786.955 8,032 8,688.18 3,871 8,727.47 6,829 24,086.07 18,832
Recycling rate as reported to DEQ - Reported as region only 30.2%

TABLE 72

‘MATERIAL RUSSELL TOTAL BUCHANAN COUNTY |DICKENSON COUNTY COUNTY 2010 2015 2010 2015 2010 | 2015 | 2010 2015 frotal 408.64 Gil 263.39 170 915.35 | 740 | 1,587.38 1,587 4,846.36 | 6,799 | 4414.42 3.240 | 5.7135 | 5.200|14.974.28] 15.239 Plastic 42.99 16 9.24 10 58.73 26 | 110.96 52 Glass O15 25 26 26 0 Commingled : 0 Yard Waste (composted or mulched) : 0 Waste Wood (chipped or mulched) o1 5 40 100 180,02 220.03 105 Textiles 2 23.69 40 0 115.69 40 suBrorat| 5.390.015 | 7.497 | _ 4,750.99 3,560 | 6,867.86 | 5.966 | 17,008.6 17,023 [Total Supplemental RM. - Waste Tires 66.82 4 299.22 100 190.04 | 215 | 556.08 364 Used Oil 82.91 108 2,480.65 220 701.53 | 580 | 3265.09 908 Used Oil Filters 3.100 2 8.1 0 8.11 6 Li 8 Used Antifreeze 10.55 1 2.21 10 24.51 2 37.27 B ‘Auto Bodies 925 230 250 20 881 20 | 2,056.73 270 Batteries 200 143 877 60 37.11 28 | 1,002.22 21 Sludge (composted) = Other (E-Waste) 11.66 2 20 1 1731 2 48.97 15 Ash SUBTOTAL] 4,396.94 535 3,937.19 3u1| 1859.61 | 863__| 7,077.47 1,809 [Total PRM and SRM. 9,786.955_|8,032| _ 8,688.18 3.871_| 8,727.47 | 6,829 [24,086.07 18,832 [Recycling rate as reported to DEQ - Reported as region only 30.2%)

5.4.3 Composition of materials recycled

The following table summarizes the recycling tonnage for 2014 for the region by percent of total products.

TABLE 73 RECYCLING DATA BY % MATERIAL

(ADJUSTED BY DEQ)

MATERIAL TOTAL REGIONAL TONNAGE 2014 %

TOTAL

Total Principle RM
Paper 1,703.76 0.8%
Metal 15,720.92 76.0%
Plastic 61.97 .29%
Glass 0 0.00%
Commingled
Yard Waste (composted or

mulched) 173 .83%
Waste Wood (chipped or

mulched) 5 .024%
Textiles 100 .48%

Waste Tires 516.35 .0249%
Used Oil 1,428.57 .069%
Used Oil Filters 9.8 .047%
Used Antifreeze 13.57 .065%
Auto Bodies 264 .012%
Batteries 525.22 .025%
Sludge (composted)
Electronics 23.88 .115%

SUBTOTAL 20,672.19
Total 20,672.19

As review of this data indicates the percentages of the materials have shifted dramatically when fly ash and other industrial recycling is eliminated from consideration.

5.4.4 Volunteer Programs

5.4.3 Composition of materials recycled

The following table summarizes the recycling tonnage for 2014 for the region by percent of total products.

TABLE 73 RECYCLING DATA BY % MATERIAL (ADJUSTED BY DEQ) MATERIAL TOTAL REGIONAL TONNAGE. 2014 % TOTAL ‘Total Principle RM

Paper 1,703.76 0.894 Metal 15,720.92 76.0% Plastie 61.97 29%| Glass 0 0.00% Commingled Yard Waste (composted or

mulehed) 173, 83% Waste Wood (chipped or

mulched) 5 024% Textiles 100 48%| Waste Tires 516.35 | .0249%| Used Oi 1,428.57 069% Used Oil Filters 98 047% Used Antifreeze 13.57 065%| Auto Bodies 264 012% Batteries 525.22 025% Sludge (composted) Electronics 23.88 115%

SUBTOTAL] 20,672.19 Totall 20,672.19

As review of this data indicates the percentages of the materials have shifted dramatically when fly ash and other industrial recycling is eliminated from consideration.

5.4.4 Volunteer Programs

There is some voluntary recycling within the region. In particular, Keep Buchanan County Beautiful is active in educational and promotional programs for recycling and litter control. The litter control personnel in both Russell County and Dickenson County also assist with volunteer programs as interest is expressed by volunteer organizations.

5.4.5 Recycling Markets

Appendix 5 includes a list of recycling markets that would be available to the region. Only scrap metal is marketed directly by the Counties. All other recycling is privatized.

5.4.6 Projected recycling rates

The region’s overall rate of recycling for 2013 was 33.1% and for 2014 was 30.0% after review by DEQ. The following table projects the recycling rate over the planning period if nothing changes in the recycling program and the waste tonnages increase as discussed in Section 4.3. The table also indicates the amount of additional recyclable material which must be captured to meet the 25% mandate. The Authority hired a recycling coordinator as of August 1, 2004 to help improve the recycling rates and educational programs.

5.5 Public Education

Public education relative to recycling in the region is handled primarily through either volunteer organizations or the litter control departments of each County. The litter control departments try to visit public schools at least once a year and to have a presence at the County Fair. The Russell County Environmental Council works diligently to promote such programs as recycling, litter control, beautification and water quality. Dickenson County hosts a county-wide clean up program each spring. Adopt a Highway, Adopt a Stream and Adopt a School programs are active in the region. Appendix 6 contains information on public education in the region.

5.6 Public/Private Partnership

The region seeks to support all activities relative to reuse, reduction and recycling. Russell County’s recycling program is privatized with local company. The Authority holds private contracts with the waste haulers and the private landfill. Each County handles their own contracts for scrap metal recycling.

5.4.3. Recycling Markets

Appendix 5 includes a list of recycling markets that would be available to the region. Only scrap metal is marketed directly by the Counties. Alll other recycling is privatized.

5.4.6 Projected recycling rates

5.5 Public Education

Public education relative to recycling in the region is handled primarily through either volunteer organizations or the litter control departments of each County. The litter control departments try to visit public schools at least once a year and to have a presence at the County Fair. The Russell County Environmental Council works diligently to promote such programs as recycling, litter control, beautification and water quality. Dickenson County hosts a county-wide clean up program each spring. Adopt a Highway, Adopt a Stream and Adopt a School programs are active in the region, Appendix 6 contains information on public education in the region.

5.6 Public/Private Partnership The region seeks to support all activities relative to reuse, reduction and recycling, Russell County’s recycling program is privatized with local company. The Authority holds private

contracts with the waste haulers and the private landfill. Each County handles their own contracts for scrap metal recycling.

6.0 BUDGET

The following table summarizes the operating budgets and revenues for the localities of the region for FY 2015:

TABLE 74A SUMMARY OF OPERATION BUDGETS AND REVENUES

FY 2015

LOCALITY COLLECTIONS (Information provided by Counties)

RECYCLING TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL
(Estimated from

table below)

POST CLOSURE

CARE LANDFILLS (Estimated)

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES (Provided by

Counties)

DEFICIT FROM GENERAL

FUND

Buchanan County $ 2,329,309 $ - $898,621 $0 $ 2,329,309 $285,000 $ (2,329,309) Dickenson County $ 1,333,555 $ - $592,273 $0 $ 1,33,555 $35,000 $ (1,333,555) Russell County $ 900,000 $ 0 $933,002 $15,000 $ 900,000 $38,000 $ (900,000) TOTAL-County only $ 4,562,864 $ 0 $ 2,423,895 $ 15,000 $ 4,562,964 $ 358,000 $ (4,562,864)

As can be seen from this table, approximately 93% of the operating expenses of the region are addressed through the general funds of the local governments.

The following table evaluates the operating costs for FY 2015 as costs per ton delivered to the transfer station and as cost per person:

7.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT HEIRARACHY

Under 9 VAC 20-130-30, the following policy is set forth:

“It is the policy of the Virginia Waste Management Board to require each region designated pursuant to 9 VAC 20-130-180 through 9 VAC 20-130-220, as well as each city, county and town not part of such a region, to develop comprehensive and integrated solid waste management plans that, at a minimum, consider and address all components of the following hierarchy:

Source reduction
Reuse
Recycling
Resource recovery (waste to energy)
Incineration
Landfilling”

Section 9 VAC 20-130-150.6, also addresses this requirement by stating:

“The local government or regional solid waste management plan shall include data and analyses of the following type for each jurisdiction. Each item below shall be in a separate section and labeled as to content:

6.0 BUDGET

The following table summarizes the operating budgets and revenues for the localities of the region for FY 2015:

‘As can be seen from this table, approximately 93% of the operating expenses of the region are addressed through the general funds of the local governments.

The following table evaluates the operating costs for FY 2015 as costs per ton delivered to the transfer station and as cost per person:

7.0 | WASTE MANAGEMENT HEIRARACHY

Under 9 VAC 20-130-30, the following policy is set forth:

Reuse

Recycling

Resource recovery (waste to energy)

Incineration

Landfilling”

AwABKNN

Section 9 VAC 20-130-150.6, also addresses this requirement by stating: “The local government or regional solid waste management plan shall include data and

analyses of the following type for each jurisdiction. Each item below shall be in a separate section and labeled as to content

A description of programs for solid waste reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, incineration, storage, treatment, disposal and litter control.”

The following section provides the information as available as required by the regulations.

7.1 Source reduction

Source reduction refers to any change in the design, manufacture, purchase, or use of materials or products (including packaging) to reduce their amount or toxicity before they become municipal solid waste. Source reduction can help reduce waste disposal and handling costs, conserve resources, and reduce pollution. Section 2.1.5 previously discussed the trends in source reduction nationally noting that the reduction of yard waste in landfills is the most significant source reduction activity at the moment as localities and states ban yard waste from landfills.

While individuals can attempt to reduce their volume of waste, source reduction policies will be aimed primarily at businesses and industries. Many source reduction policies are not feasible at the local level but are best handled at the state or federal level. An example of this is the banning of yard waste from landfills, or requiring minimum packaging standards. Financial incentives and disincentives, broad regulations concerning source reduction and changes to manufacturing processes are difficult to implement on a local basis. As waste tipping fees increase at the region’s transfer stations and the outside facilities, the commercial sector will become more sensitive to the expenses involved in their disposal programs, and will begin to consider source reduction more closely.

The most effective source reduction activity that can occur at the local level is public education.

It should be noted that the counties within the region seek information annually from their commercial sector relative to recycling activities. This exercise in and of itself can serve as an educational tool as the businesses and industries compile the data and consider the expense of their disposal programs. It is also an opportunity for the businesses or industries to report any major changes in their waste disposal programs, including source reduction.

In summary, the region is currently engaged themselves or entities within the region are currently engaged in the following source reduction efforts:

• Yard waste mulching programs • White good recycling • Environmental education programs for citizens relative to the need for source reduction

The following activities are proposed under this plan as interest and funding are available:

• Expansion of yard waste mulching programs • Enhanced educational programs for the commercial and industrial sector

7.2 Reuse

Reuse is similar to source reduction as it prevents materials from entering the waste stream, but involves separating a given solid waste material from the waste stream and using it, without processing or changing its form, other than size reduction, for the same or another end use.

6 tion of programs for solid waste reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, incineration, storage, treatment, disposal and litter control.”

The following section provides the information as available as required by the regulations. TA Source reduction

Source reduction refers to any change in the design, manufacture, purchase, or use of materials or products (including packaging) to reduce their amount or toxicity before they become municipal solid waste. Source reduction can help reduce waste disposal and handling costs, conserve resources, and reduce pollution, Section 2.1.5 previously discussed the trends in source reduction nationally noting that the reduction of yard waste in landfills is the most significant source reduction activity at the moment as localities and states ban yard waste from landfills.

The most effective source reduction activity that can occur at the local level is public education.

In summary, the region is currently engaged themselves or entities within the region are currently engaged in the following source reduction efforts:

White good recycling
Environmental education programs for citizens relative to the need for source reduction

The following activities are proposed under this plan as interest and funding are available:

Enhanced educational programs for the commercial and industrial sector

7.2 Reuse

Examples of reuse include such activities as swap shops or thrift stores, clothing collection centers, pallet reuse, use of refillable bottles, reconditioning of drums or barrels

As with source reduction, private citizens can make an effort to reuse or encourage reuse of many items that would normally be discarded to the landfill. However, the focus of the program would be better aimed at the commercial sector including the region’s businesses and industries. The region does not currently focus its educational programs on the commercial sector and does not currently collect specific information on reuse by the commercial sector.

Currently there are multiple reuse centers available to the public in the region including the following:

TABLE 75 SUMMARY OF REFUSE FACILTIES IN REGION

LOCALITY NAME OF STORE MATERIALS ACCEPTED

Buchanan County Bins-Counts Community Center, Stratton, VA

Clothing, appliances, and housewares

Outreach Community Center Clinchco, VA

Clothing, appliances, and housewares

Thangs Clintwood, VA

Clothing, appliances, and housewares

Dickenson County The Attic Grundy, VA

Clothing, appliances, and housewares

Helping Hand Whitewood, VA

Clothing

Gift of Love Oakwood, VA

Clothing

Russell County Christian Center Lebanon and Honaker, VA

Clothing and appliances

The following activities are proposed under this plan relative to reuse, as interest and funding are available:

• Continue to educate public relative to the need for reuse • Expansion of education to commercial sector to address reuse • Collection of data on commercial reuse programs

7.3 Recycling

Recycling is the process of separating a given waste material from the waste stream and processing it so that it may be used again as a raw material for a product, which may or may not be similar to the original product. Section 5.4 outlined the recycling activities in the region.

The following activities are proposed under this plan as interest is expressed and as funding becomes available:

Examples of reuse include such activities as swap shops or thrift stores, clothing collection centers, pallet reuse, use of refillable bottles, reconditioning of drums or barrels

Currently there are multiple reuse centers available to the public in the region including the following:

TABLE 75 SUMMARY OF REFUSE FACILTIES IN REGION LOCALITY NAME OF STORE MATERIALS ACCEPTED Buchanan County Bins-Counts Community Center, | Clothing, appliances, and Stratton, VA. housewares Outreach Community Center Clothing, appliances, and Clinchco, VA housewares Thangs Clothing, appliances, and Clintwood, VA housewares Dickenson County The Attic Clothing, appliances, and Grundy, VA housewares Helping Hand Clothing Whitewood, VA. Gift of Love Clothing Oakwood, VA Russell County Christian Center Clothing and appliances Lebanon and Honaker, VA

The following activities are proposed under this plan relative to reuse, as interest and funding are available:

Continue to educate public relative to the need for reuse © Expansion of education to commercial sector to address reuse © Collection of data on commercial reuse programs

7.3. Recycling

The following activities are proposed under this plan as interest is expressed and as funding becomes available:

• Authority as of August 1, 2004 hired a regional recycling coordinator to work with the Counties, Towns and the commercial sector. Coordinator is responsible for pursuing markets, assisting with the establishment of collection programs, developing educational programs, and expanding the overall interest in recycling in the region.

• Authority to consider assisting directly with the recycling programs but coordinator will need to research markets and develop a specific plan for the Authority to act on.

• Authority to consider establishment of a periodic electronic waste collection program. • Authority to consider establishment of a periodic household hazardous waste collection

program.
• The Authority will continue to encourage its localities to increase programs offered and

public participation in annual environmental events.
• The Authority will continue to encourage the localities to increase the percentage of

residents that are educated about proper disposal and recycling practices within the region.

• Secure additional competitive state grants to fund additional environmental education programs.

7.4 Resource recovery and incineration

Resource recovery refers to a system that provides for collection, separation, recycling and recovery of energy from solid wastes, including disposal of non-recoverable waste residues.
Incineration means the controlled combustion of solid waste for disposal. According to the EPA burning MSW can generate energy while reducing the amount of waste by up to 90 percent in volume and 75% in weight. The two activities are similar and are therefore combined for this discussion.

At this time, the region does not generate enough waste to make resource recovery or incineration feasible.

7.5 Landfilling

Landfilling at an out of region facility is the primary disposal mechanism for the region. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 outlined the region’s transfer and disposal activities in detail.

8.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAM

The following section outlines the goals and objectives for the region’s solid waste management program. Some of the program activities will remain under the supervision of the local governments. Other program activities will remain or become regional as described below. The Authority oversees all regional activities.

Authority as of August 1, 2004 hired a regional recycling coordinator to work with the Counties, Towns and the commercial sector. Coordinator is responsible for pursuing markets, assisting with the establishment of collection programs, developing educational programs, and expanding the overall interest in recycling in the region.

Authority to consider establishment of a periodic electronic waste collection program.
Authority to consider establishment of a periodic household hazardous waste collection program.

7.4 Resource recovery and incineration

Resource recovery refers to a system that provides for collection, separation, recycling and recovery of energy from solid wastes, including disposal of non-recoverable waste residues. Incineration means the controlled combustion of solid waste for disposal. According to the EPA burning MSW can generate energy while reducing the amount of waste by up to 90 percent in volume and 75% in weight. The two activities are similar and are therefore combined for this discussion.

‘At this time, the region does not generate enough waste to make resource recovery or incineration feasible.

7.5 Landfilling

Landfilling at an out of region facility is the primary disposal mechanism for the region. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 outlined the region’s transfer and disposal activities in detail.

8.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAM

The following section outlines the goals and objectives for the region’s solid waste management program, Some of the program activities will remain under the supervision of the local governments. Other program activities will remain or become regional as described below. The ‘Authority oversees all regional activities.

8.1 Collections

Collection will remain in the hands of the local governments as indicated below.

TABLE 76

COLLECTION SYSTEM
GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS

ITEM NUMBER GOAL ACTION ITEM SCHEDULE

ESTIMATED COST

(2015 dollars) C-1 Continue to provide cost

effective collection systems for the citizens of the region

Buchanan County to continue with its door to door pick up program.
Towns to continue with their existing programs

No change proposed

Not applicable.

Dickenson County to continue with its door to door pick up program.
Towns to continue with their existing programs.

No change proposed

Not applicable

Russell County to continue with its drop off collection sites.
Towns to continue with their existing programs.

No change proposed

Not applicable`

C-2 Evaluate the potential for privatizing the collection system of the region

Authority to evaluate privatization through inquiries of the private haulers. May develop a request for proposals if preliminary discussions indicate a potential savings in the collection programs.

2016-2018 No specific budget proposed at this time.

C-3 Increase door to door service to citizens in more densely populated areas.

The Town of Lebanon may consider ways to provide service to Russell County residents who live outside Town limits in a reasonably densely populated area.

2016-2017 No specific budget proposed at this time.

8.1 Collections Collection will remain in the hands of the local governments as indicated below. TABLE 76

COLLECTION SYSTEM GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS.

Continue to provide cost | Buchanan County to | Nochange __| Not applicable.

effective collection continue with its door to | proposed systems for the citizens | door pick up program. of the region ‘Towns to continue with their existing programs Dickenson County to __ | No change continue with its door to | proposed door pick up program. Towns to continue with their existing programs. Russell County to No change | Not applicable” continue with its drop | proposed off collection sites. Towns to continue with their existing programs.

Not applicable

C2 Evaluate the potential | Authority to evaluate [2016-2018 _| No specific for privatizing the privatization through budget collection system of the | inquiries of the private proposed at region haulers. May develop a this time.

request for proposals if preliminary discussions indicate a potential

savings in the collection

programs.

C3 Increase door to door | The Town of Lebanon | 2016-2017 No specific service to citizens in may consider ways to budget more densely populated | provide service to proposed at areas. Russell County residents this time.

who live outside Town limits in a reasonably densely populated area.

8.2 Transfer

During the planning period, the Counties will continue to transfer their waste to a disposal facility outside of the region and the Authority will continue to oversee the hauling contracts, to provide funding for the transfer operations and to provide maintenance as needed. Towards the end of the planning period, the transfer stations will be 30 years old. Depending on the maintenance provided at the facilities, the buildings might be at the end of their useful life and require replacement or significant renovation. If replacement is required, the Authority in conjunction with the Counties may seek new, more central locations. As noted in previous sections, the waste stream is not anticipated to increase significantly over the planning period and hence the facilities should continue to be appropriately sized for the anticipated waste stream.

TABLE 77 TRANSFER STATION SYSTEM
GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS

ITEM NUMBER GOAL ACTION ITEM SCHEDULE

ESTIMATED COST

(2015 dollars) T-1 Continue to provide for

adequate hauling from the transfer stations at a cost competitive price.

The Authority will continue to oversee the hauling contracts and to provide funding for the operations of the transfer stations. The current contract with Advanced Disposal, Inc. expires in October 26, 2018 at which time the Authority will have either renegotiated the contract or selected a new contractor.

January 2018 No cost associated with this action.

T-2 Provide for the care and maintenance of the transfer facilities.

The Authority will continue to oversee the repair and maintenance of the facilities.
Maintenance items already identified include floor slab repair and door repair.

As soon as funding becomes available and the need becomes significant.

T-3 Provide accurate weigh scales at the facilities.

Depending on maintenance and care of scales, scales at the three facilities may need to be replaced or

Annually consider condition of scales. If deterioration

Cost to replace scales assuming that foundation is still intact

8.2 Transfer

During the planning period, the Counties will continue to transfer their waste to a disposal facility outside of the region and the Authority will continue to oversee the hauling contracts, to provide funding for the transfer operations and to provide maintenance as needed. ‘Towards the end of the planning period, the transfer stations will be 30 years old. Depending on the maintenance provided at the facilities, the buildings might be at the end of their useful life and require replacement or significant renovation. If replacement is required, the Authority in conjunction with the Counties may seek new, more central locations. As noted in previous sections, the waste stream is not anticipated to increase significantly over the planning period and hence the facilities should continue to be appropriately sized for the anticipated waste stream,

TABLE 77 TRANSFER STATION SYSTEM GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS

— ESTIMATED NUMBER GOAL ACTION ITEM SCHEDULE COST (2015 dollars) T-l Continue to provide for | The Authority will January 2018 | No cost adequate hauling from | continue to oversee the associated with the transfer stations at a_| hauling contracts and to this action. cost competitive price. | provide funding for the

operations of the transfer stations. The current contract with ‘Advanced Disposal, Inc. expires in October 26, 2018 at which time the Authority will have either renegotiated the contract or selected a new contractor.

T-2 Provide for the care and | The Authority will As soon as maintenance of the continue to oversee the | funding transfer facilities. repair and maintenance | becomes

of the facilities. available and Maintenance items the need already identified becomes,

include floor slab repair | significant. and door repair.

ITEM NUMBER GOAL ACTION ITEM SCHEDULE

ESTIMATED COST

(2015 dollars) significantly overhauled towards the end of the planning period.

is noted, replace or repair as necessary.

estimated at $40,000- 80,000 per scale.

T-4 Consider providing additional recycling activities at facilities.

The Authority may consider developing or expanding recycling programs at the transfer stations. Their efforts will be a function of the interest of the localities of the region.

No schedule established for this effort. Will depend on interest of localities.

No cost established for this effort at this time.

T-5 Improve efficiency Relocation of stations as stations wear out.
Authority may consider relocation of stations to more central area.

No schedule established for this effort.

No cost established for this effort at this time.

8.3 Disposal

Disposal will continue through 2018 at the Advanced Disposal Inc. landfill located in Sullivan County Tennessee. Prior to the end of 2018, the Authority will initiate contract renewal.
Throughout the planning period, the Authority will need to evaluate the remaining disposal capacity in which ever facility they are contracted with and to consider alternatives as necessary.

TABLE 78 DISPOSAL SYSTEM

GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS

ITEM NUMBER GOAL ACTION ITEM SCHEDULE

ESTIMATED COST

(2015 dollars) D-1 Provide consistent

disposal facilities for the Region.

The current contract held by the Authority with Advanced Disposal expires on October 26, 2018. Prior to expiration, the Authority will begin contract negotiations to assure continued and consistent disposal.

January 2018 There is no cost associated with renewal.

D-2 Assure that sufficient Annually the Authority Annually There is no

significantly overhauled | is noted, estimated at towards the end of the replace or $40,000- planning period. repair as 80,000 per necessary. _| scale.

T4 Consider providing The Authority may No schedule | No cost additional recycling consider developing or | established __| established for activities at facilities. expanding recycling for this this effort at

programs at the transfer | effort. Will | this time. stations. Their efforts depend on will be a function of the | interest of interest of the localities _| localities. of the region.

T-5 Improve efficiency Relocation of stations as | No schedule | No cost stations wear out. established established for Authority may consider _| for this this effort at relocation of stations to | effort. this time. more central area.

83 Disposal

Disposal will continue through 2018 at the Advanced Disposal Inc. landfill located in Sullivan County Tennessee. Prior to the end of 2018, the Authority will initiate contract renewal. Throughout the planning period, the Authority will need to evaluate the remaining disposal capacity in which ever facility they are contracted with and to consider alternatives as necessary.

TABLE 78 DISPOSAL SYSTEM GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS

D-I Provide consistent The current contract | January 2018 | There is no disposal facilities for the | held by the Authority cost associated Region. with Advanced Disposal with renewal. expires on October 26, 2018. Prior to expiration, the Authority will begin contract negotiations to assure continued and consistent disposal.

Assure that sufficient | Annually the Authority | Annually

There is no

ITEM NUMBER GOAL ACTION ITEM SCHEDULE

ESTIMATED COST

(2015 dollars) disposal capacity is available for the region at an economical cost.

will evaluate the remaining disposal capacity at the landfill currently in use and, should it be found that sufficient long term capacity does not exist, seek alternative disposal facilities.

cost associated with this action.

The Authority will assure the region that any contracts written with the disposal facility will allow termination for lack of capacity.

Evaluate during contract negotiations.

There is no cost associated with this action.

D-3 Assure that post closure is effectively handled at the previously operated landfills within the region.

Each locality will continue to handle the post closure care of their landfills. The Authority may in the future, consider regionalization of the environmental monitoring at the facilities if interest is expressed by the localities.

No specific schedule.

No cost associated with this action.

8.4 Recycling

As indicated above the recycling rate for the region, if the industrial recycling is excluded, fails to meet the mandated 25% as set by the DEQ. To improve the recycling opportunities and to encourage commercial and industrial recycling, the region considered the establishment of a recycling coordinator position within the Authority as indicated below. As of August 1, 2004, the Authority has hired a full time recycling coordinator. This individual is be tasked with evaluating markets, providing proposals to the local governments for the development or expansion of recycling programs, and for educating the public and commercial sector in the importance of recycling.

ITEM ESTIMATED NUMBER GOAL ACTIONITEM |SCHEDULE| COST (2015 dollars) disposal capacity is will evaluate the cost associated available for the region | remaining disposal with this at an economical cost. capacity at the landfill action. currently in use and, should it be found that sufficient long term capacity does not exist, seek alternative disposal facilities. The Authority will Evaluate There is no assure the region that | during cost associated any contracts written | contract with this with the disposal facility | negotiations. | action. will allow termination for lack of capacity. D3 Assure that post closure | Each locality will No specific | No cost is effectively handled at | continue to handle the | schedule. _| associated with the previously operated | post closure care of their this action. landfills within the landfills. The Authority region. may in the future, consider regionalization of the environmental monitoring at the facilities if interest is, expressed by the localities.

84 — Recycling

TABLE 79 RECYCLING SYSTEM

GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS

ITEM NUMBER GOAL ACTION ITEM SCHEDULE

ESTIMATED COSTS

(2015 dollars) R-1 Provide

professional oversight of the recycling program

The Authority is considering the establishment of a recycling coordinator position if funding is forth coming from the region. This individual will be tasked with the development of programs and public education.

Coordinator hired 08/01/04.

Funding for position comes directly from local governments.

R-2 Expand the existing recycling programs.

The recycling coordinator will evaluate the existing programs to seek ways to expand or improve the programs in a cost effective manner.

Dependent on the findings of the recycling coordinator.

As funding and interest indicate.

R-3 Develop program for electronic waste recycling.

The Authority will consider pursuing E- Waste recycling with or without the funding of a recycling coordinator position.
Will probably be established as a once per year program with citizens charged to deliver their E-waste.

Dependent on interest and funding and ability of Authority to advertise the program effectively.

No cost established for this program.
Dependent on funding by local governments.

R-4 Develop an annual collection program for household hazardous waste.

The Authority will consider the best way to annually provide for the collection of household hazardous waste as delivered by the citizens to the transfer stations.

Dependent on interest and funding.

No cost established for this program at this time.
Funding will probably be sought from the individual

TABLE 79

RECYCLING SYSTEM GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS. ITEM ESTIMATED NUMBER GOAL ACTIONITEM | SCHEDULE COSTS (2015 dollars)

RI Provide The Authority is Coordinator | Funding for professional considering the hired 08/01/04, | position comes oversight of the establishment of a directly from recycling program | recycling coordinator local

position if funding is governments. forth coming from the

region. This

individual will be

tasked with the

development of

programs and public

education.

programs to seek ways | coordinator. to expand or improve

the programs in a cost

effective manner.

or without the funding | ability of Dependent on ofa recycling Authority to | funding by coordinator position. | advertise the _| local Will probably be program governments. established as a once _ | effectively. per year program with citizens charged to deliver their E-waste.

R4 Develop an annual |The Authority will | Dependent on | No cost

collection program for household hazardous waste.

consider the best way to annually provide for the collection of household hazardous waste as delivered by the citizens to the transfer stations.

interest and funding.

established for this program at this time. Funding will probably be sought from the individual

ITEM NUMBER GOAL ACTION ITEM SCHEDULE

ESTIMATED COSTS

(2015 dollars) localities outside of tipping fees.

R-5 Seek ways to educate the public and commercial sector relative recycling, waste reduction and reuse.

One of the primary goals of the recycling coordinator is that of public education.

In progress by new coordinator.

No costs established for this program at this time.
Coordinator will seek grants for funding education.

8.5 Litter Prevention and Control

The region has a commitment to seek ways to improve the litter prevention and control programs in the region and to reduce the amount of litter and illegal dumps in the Counties.

TABLE 80 LITTER PREVENTION AND CONTROL

GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS

ITEM NUMBER GOAL ACTION ITEM SCHEDULE

ESTIMATED COSTS

(2015 dollars) L-1 Provide oversight

of regional litter prevention and control programs.

The Authority is considering the establishment of a recycling coordinator position if funding is forth coming from the region. In addition to the recycling programs, this individual will be tasked with the coordination of regional litter prevention and control programs.

As funding is available.

Funding for position to come directly from local governments or to be subsidized from litter control grants from state to local governments in region.

L-2 Assist local governments with education

Recycling/litter control coordinator will work directly with

As funding is available.

No specific project planned at this time.

localities outside of tipping fees. RS Seek ways to ‘One of the primary | In progress by _ | No costs educate the public | goals of the recycling | new established for and commercial | coordinator is that of | coordinator. _| this program at sector relative public education. this time. recycling, waste Coordinator reduction and will seek grants reuse. for funding education.

8.5 Litter Prevention and Control

The region has a commitment to seek ways to improve the litter prevention and control programs in the region and to reduce the amount of litter and illegal dumps in the Counties.

TABLE 80 LITTER PREVENTION AND CONTROL. GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS

position if funding is governments or forth coming from the to be subsidized region. In addition to aint erants the recycling

programs, this rom state te rel hs rein coordination of region:

regional litter

prevention and control

programs.

L2 Assist local Recyclingilitter ‘As funding is | No specific governments with | control coordinator__| available. project planned education will work directly with at this time.

ITEM NUMBER GOAL ACTION ITEM SCHEDULE

ESTIMATED COSTS

(2015 dollars) programs. governments to assist

with the development of educational programs.

L-3 Encourage the organization of grassroots environmental organizations who will assist with litter prevention and control.

Recycling/litter control coordinator will work with citizens to develop the organizations.

As funding is available.

No specific project planned at this time.

L-4 Seek out alternative funding sources for litter prevention and control.

Recycling/litter control coordinator will work with the Authority to seek funding.

As funding is available.

No specific project planned at this time.

L-5 Continue to support and expand the Adopt a Highway, Assign a Highway and Adopt a Stream programs active in the region

Recycling/litter control coordinator will work with the citizens to promote these programs and will assist in the organization of additional programs.

As funding is available.

No specific project planned at this time.

L-6 Minimize illegal dumping

The Counties will continue to provide bulk collection days to discourage illegal dumping.

As funding is available.

No specific project planned at this time.

L-7 Encourage cleanup of illegal dumps.

The Counties will continue to map illegal dumps and to seek additional funding for clean up as well as to improve enforcement actions.

As funding is available.

No specific project planned at this time.

ESTIMATED

ee GOAL ACTIONITEM | SCHEDULE COSTS (2015 dollars) programs. ‘governments to assist with the development of educational programs.

13 Encourage the Recycling/litter ‘As funding is _ | No specific organization of | control coordinator __| available. project planned grassroots will work with citizens at this time. environmental to develop the organizations who | organizations. will assist with litter prevention and control.

L4 Seek out alternative | Recycling/litter ‘As funding is _ | No specific funding sources for | control coordinator —_| available. project planned litter prevention will work with the at this time. and control. Authority to seek

funding

additional programs.

L6 Minimize illegal | The Counties will ‘As funding is _ | No specific

dumping continue to provide —_| available. project planned bulk collection days to at this time. discourage illegal dumping.

L7 Encourage cleanup | The Counties will ‘As funding is _ | No specific ofillegal dumps. | continue to map illegal | available. project planned

dumps and to seek at this time.

additional funding for clean up as well as to improve enforcement actions.

9.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The implementation schedule for the region’s integrated waste management program has been summarized under separate sections above.

9.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The implementation schedule for the region’s integrated waste management program has been summarized under separate sections above.

10.0 FUNDING AND FINANCING

The following tables summarize the estimated expenditures for the Authority over the planning period. It does not include collections or recycling which would fall to the individual local governments at this time. Funding for the Authority’s program will come from tipping fees and monthly charges billed to the Counties. Funding for the collections and recycling will come from user fees included with utility bills, commercial fees, and/or the general fund of the local government. Program development must be sensitive to the economic environment of the region which is difficult at this time. Local governments do not have the funds available to them to embark on many new programs. Should the tax base improve or the commercial/industrial sectors grow, then the local governments will have a greater ability to embrace new programs.

TABLE 81 PROJECTED MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES

BY AUTHORITY (Equipment, building repairs etc.)

2004 – 2024

Inflation rate 2.00% YEAR RUBBER

TIRE LOADER

(Buchanan County)

RUBBER TIRE

LOADER (Dickenson

County)

RUBBER TIRE

LOADER (Russell County)

FLOOR REPAIRS

(Stagger after 2008)

NEW SCALE HOUSES

SCALE REPLACEMENT

TOTAL

Replacement costs (2004)

$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $100,000 $20,000 $40,000

Replacement period

7 Years 7 years 7 years 15 years Upgrade one time in 2009

20 years

Current age of equipment

1 year Needs replacement

soon

2 years 1993, 1994 and 1996

1993, 1994, and 1996

2004 $0 2005 $153,000 $153,000 2006 $0 2007 $0 2008 $162,365 $108,243 $162,365 2009 $165,612 $110,408 $66,245 $165,612 2010 $0 2011 $114,869 $0 2012 $175,749 $175,749 2013 $47,804 $0 2014 $48,760 $0 2015 $186,506 $186,506 2016 $190,236 $50,730 $190,236 2017 $0 2018 $0

The following tables summarize the estimated expenditures for the Authority over the planning period. It does not include collections or recycling which would fall to the individual local governments at this time. Funding for the Authority’s program will come from tipping fees and monthly charges billed to the Counties. Funding for the collections and recycling will come from user fees included with utility bills, commercial fees, and/or the general fund of the local government, Program development must be sensitive to the economic environment of the region which is difficult at this time. Local governments do not have the funds available to them to embark on many new programs. Should the tax base improve or the commercial/industrial sectors grow, then the local governments will have a greater ability to embrace new programs.

TABLE 81 PROJECTED MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES. BY AUTHORITY (Equipment, building repairs ete.)

Replacement] $150,000 | $150,000 [$150,000 $100,000 $20,000 $40,000

costs (2004)

Replacement] 7 Years | 7 years | 7 years 15 years Upgrade one 20 years period time in 2009

Currentage | tyear | Needs | 2years | 1993, 1994 and | 1993, 1994, | 1993, 1994, and

Jof equipment replacement 1996 and 1996 1996

soon

2004 $0} 2005 $153,000) $153,000] 2006 $0| 2007 $0} 2008 $162,365, $108,243} $162,365] 2009 $165,612) $110,408] $66,245) $165,612} 2010 so 2011 $114,869) $0 2012 $175,749] $175,749] 2013 $47,804) $0} 2014 $48,760 sq 2015 $186,506, $186,506 2016 $190,236, $50,730| $190,236] 2017 $0} 2018 $0|

YEAR RUBBER TIRE

LOADER (Buchanan

County)

RUBBER TIRE

LOADER (Dickenson

County)

RUBBER TIRE

LOADER (Russell County)

FLOOR REPAIRS

(Stagger after 2008)

NEW SCALE HOUSES

SCALE REPLACEMENT

TOTAL

2019 $201,880 $201,880 2020 $0 2021 $0 2022 $214,237 $214,237 2023 $218,522 $145,681 $218,522 2024 $148,595 $0

TABLE 82 PROJECTED EXPENDITURES FOR AUTHORITY

TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL 2004 – 2024

YEAR TRANSFER

STATION OPERATIONS

DEBT SERVICE

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES

HAULING DISPOSAL TOTAL TONNAGE COST PER TON

Description 3 transfer stations at

$75,000 per year

From schedule

provided by Authority

See Table 71.
Includes new loaders,

floor repairs, new scales and scale

house

2003 Estimated

2004 $225,000 $434,089 $0 $509,000 $1,134,000 $2,302,089 55,762 $41.28 2005 $229,500 $431,011 $153,000 $519,180 $1,156,680 $2,489,371 56,238 $44.26 2006 $234,090 $436,331 $0 $529,564 $1,179,814 $2,379,798 56,720 $41.96 2007 $238,772 $429,629 $0 $540,155 $1,203,410 $2,411,966 57,206 $42.16 2008 $243,547 $426,617 $162,365 $550,958 $1,227,478 $2,610,965 57,697 $45.25 2009 $248,418 $165,612 $561,977 $1,252,028 $2,228,035 58,193 $38.29 2010 $253,387 $0 $573,217 $1,277,068 $2,103,671 58,694 $35.84 2011 $258,454 $0 $584,681 $1,302,610 $2,145,745 59,200 $36.25 2012 $263,623 $175,749 $596,375 $1,328,662 $2,364,409 59,711 $39.60 2013 $268,896 $0 $608,302 $1,355,235 $2,232,433 60,227 $37.07 2014 $274,274 $0 $620,468 $1,382,340 $2,277,082 60,748 $37.48 2015 $279,759 $186,506 $632,878 $1,409,986 $2,509,129 61,274 $40.95 2016 $285,354 $190,236 $645,535 $1,438,186 $2,559,312 61,806 $41.41 2017 $291,061 $0 $658,446 $1,466,950 $2,416,457 62,343 $38.76 2018 $296,883 $0 $671,615 $1,496,289 $2,464,786 62,886 $39.19 2019 $302,820 $201,880 $685,047 $1,526,215 $2,715,962 63,433 $42.82 2020 $308,877 $0 $698,748 $1,556,739 $2,564,364 63,987 $40.08 2021 $315,054 $0 $712,723 $1,587,874 $2,615,651 64,546 $40.52 2022 $321,355 $214,237 $726,977 $1,619,631 $2,882,201 65,110 $44.27 2023 $327,783 $218,522 $741,517 $1,652,024 $2,939,845 65,680 $44.76 2024 $334,338 $0 $756,347 $1,685,064 $2,775,750 66,256 $41.89

YEAR | RUBBER| RUBBER |RUBBER| FLOOR | NEWSCALE] SCALE TOTAL TIRE TIRE TIRE | REPAIRS HOUSES REPLACEMENT. LOADER | LOADER |LOADER) (Stagger after (Buchanan) (Dickenson | (Russell 2008) County) | County) | County) 2019 $201,880) | $201,889] 2020 so} 2021 I I So} 2022 $214,237| $214,237| 2023 $218,522] $145,684] $218,522) 2024 $148,595) soj TABLE 82 PROJECTED EXPENDITURES FOR AUTHORITY TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL 2004 — 2024 YEAR | TRANSFER | DEBT | MISCELLANEOUS HAULING | DISPOSAL | TOTAL |TONNAGE|COST PER] STATION | SERVICE | EXPENDITURES TON OPERATIONS. Description | 3 transfer From See Table 71 2003 2003 stations at | schedule Includes new loaders,| Estimated | Estimated $75,000 per [provided by) floor repairs, new year ‘Authority | scales and scale house 2004] $225,000] $434,089 $0] $509,000] $1,134,000] $2,302,089|55,762| $41.28] 2005, $229,500) $431,014) $153,000] $519,180| $1,156,680 $2,489,371 56,238 $44.26) 2006| $234,090, $436,331 $0|$529,564| $1,179,814] $2,379,798| _56,720|$41.96] 2007| $238,772| $429,629 $0|_ $540,155] $1,203,410|$2,411,966| 57,206| $42.16] 2008| $243,547, $426,617, $162,365| $550,958] $1,227,478 $2,610,965 57,697, $45.25) 2009 $248,418| $165,612) $561,977| $1,252,028) $2,228,035 58,193 $38.29] 2010) $253,387| $0|$573,217| $1,277,068] $2,103,671] 58,694] $35.84] 2011 $258,454| $0| $584,681] $1,302,610] $2,145,745| 59,200| $36.25} 2012] $263,623 $175,749] $596,375| $1,328,662 $2,364,409 59,711, $39.60) 2013| $268,896] $0| $608,302] $1,355,235] $2,232,433| _60,227|$37.07| 2014| $274,274) $0| $620,468] $1,382,340] $2,277,082| _60,748|$37.48] 2015| $279,759 $186,506] $632,878| $1,409,986 $2,509,129 61,274 $40.95] 2016 $285,354| $190,236] $645,535] $1,438,186 $2,559,312, 61,806 $41.41 2017 $291,061 Sol $658,446| $1,466,950) $2,416,457, 62,343, __ $38.76 2018 $296,883] $0| $671,615] $1,496,289] $2,464,786| 62,886|__—$39.19) 2019] $302,820 $201,880| $685,047] $1,526,215 $2,715,962, 63,433, __—$42.82) 2020] $308,877/ $0] $698,748] $1,556,739| $2,564,364] 63,987| $40.08] 2021 $315,054 So|$712,723| $1,587,874) $2,615,651] 64,546, $40.52] 2022] $321,355] $214,237| $726,977| $1,619,631) $2,882,201 65,110|__$44.27| 2023| $327,783, $218,522|$741,517| $1,652,024 $2,939,845 65,680__$44.76) 2024] $334,338] $0|$756,347| $1,685,064] $2,775,750|__66,256|$41.89]

11.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

In the preparation of this plan, the Authority held several meetings with its members and members of the various local governments included in the region. In addition, the Authority met with numerous local groups to gage the needs of the member counties.

The Authority passes a resolution adopting the plan on March 31, 2016. A copy of this resolution and other resolutions are included in Appendix 10.

11.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In the preparation of this plan, the Authority held several meetings with its members and members of the various local governments included in the region, In addition, the Authority met with numerous local groups to gage the needs of the member counties.

The Authority passes a resolution adopting the plan on March 31, 2016. A copy of this resolution and other resolutions are included in Appendix 10.

12.0 RECORD KEEPING

In addition to the daily record keeping, the Region documents its solid waste activities in several ways:

• Annual reports to the Cumberland Plateau Regional Waste Management Authority prepared by the Executive Director of the Authority

• Annual reports to the Board of Supervisors of the member Counties based on information provided by the Authority

• Periodic updates to the Authority and Boards by the Executive Director • Annual submittal by March 31 of each year of the Waste Information and Assessment

Report (Form 50-25) to DEQ • Annual submittal by April 30 of each year of the Recycling Rate Report (Form 50-30) to

DEQ • Annual submittal usually by December of each year of the update to the financial

assurance forms to DEQ

All these reports, updates and DEQ submittals as well as all background and permitting information are kept in the central archive (files) of the Cumberland Plateau Regional Waste Management Authority located at 950 Clydesway Road, Lebanon, Virginia, 24266. The Director of DEQ or other DEQ representatives receive copies of appropriate information relative to the Region’s solid waste management program through the following sources:

12.0

RECORD KEEPING

In addition to the daily record keeping, the Region documents its solid waste activities in several

ways:

Annual reports to the Cumberland Plateau Regional Waste Management Authority prepared by the Executive Director of the Authority

Annual reports to the Board of Supervisors of the member Counties based on information provided by the Authority

Periodic updates to the Authority and Boards by the Executive Director

Annual submittal by March 31 of each year of the Waste Information and Assessment Report (Form 50-25) to DEQ

Annual submittal by April 30 of each year of the Recycling Rate Report (Form 50-30) to DEQ

Annual submittal usually by December of each year of the update to the financial assurance forms to DEQ

Direct submittal to DEQ of Forms 50-25 and 50-30 on an annual basis Permit applications

Permit amendment applications

Updates to the solid waste management plan

General correspondence which may be required from time to time

Appendix 1 Regional Documentation

Appendix 1

Regional Documentation

Appendix 2

DEQ Forms 50-25

Appendix 2

DEQ Forms 50-25

Appendix 3

Summary of Previously Permitted Landfills and Location Maps

Appendix 3

Summary of Previously Permitted Landfills and Location Maps

Appendix 4

DEQ Recycling Reporting Form

Appendix 4

DEQ Recycling Reporting Form

Appendix 5

Recycling Markets

Appendix 5

Recycling Markets

Appendix 6

Sampling of Public Education Materials

Appendix 6

Sampling of Public Education Materials

Appendix 7

Questionnaire and Responses

Appendix 7

Questionnaire and Responses

Appendix 8

Authority Meetings: Agendas and Minutes

Appendix 8

Authority Meetings: Agendas and Minutes

Appendix 9

Resolutions

Appendix 9

Resolutions

Appendix 10

Resolutions

Appendix 10

Resolutions

Appendix 11

Copy of Advertisement for Recycling Coordinator

Appendix 11

Copy of Advertisement for Recycling Coordinator

LIST OF FIGURES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE 1
Litter Prevention and Control
Treatment


1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Legislation
1.2 Authority (9 VAC 20-130-40)
1.3 Purpose (9 VAC 20-130-40)
1.4 Planning Area
1.5 Planning Period
1.6 Critical Definitions (9 VAC 20-130-40)

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 Status of solid waste management nationally
2.1.1 Waste generation
TABLE 2

2.1.2 What is in the waste?
BY MATERIAL TYPE

2.1.3 Disposal
2.1.4 Recycling
TABLE 5

2.1.5 Waste reduction and reuse
TABLE 6


2.2 Highlights from original solid waste plan (1991)
2.2.1 Waste generation projections
TABLE 7

2.2.2 System components
TABLE 8

2.2.3 Goals of Original Plan
TABLE 9

2.2.4 Long Term Vision for Integrated Waste Management System
TABLE 10

2.2.5 Short-term (interim) vision for Integrated Waste Management System
TABLE 11

2.2.6 Twenty-year milestones
TABLE 12



YEAR
YEAR
3.0 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
3.1 Buchanan County, Virginia
3.1.1 Location
3.1.2 Population
3.1.3 Geographic conditions
3.1.4 Climate
3.1.5 Transportation
C. Rail

3.1.6 Infrastructure
3.1.7 Economic Growth
3.1.8 Land Use
3.1.9 Community Facilities/Activities:

3.2 Dickenson County
3.2.1 Location
3.2.2 Population
3.2.3 Geographic conditions
3.2.4 Climate
3.2.5 Transportation
C. Rail
D. Water

3.2.6 Infrastructure / Utilities & Services
A. Electricity
B. Natural Gas

3.2.7 Economic Growth
3.2.8 Land Use
Dickenson County Industrial Parks

3.2.9 Community Facilities/Activities

3.3 Russell County
3.3.1 Location
3.3.2 Population
3.3.3 Geographic conditions
3.3.4 Climate
3.3.5 Transportation
3.3.5 Infrastructure / Utilities & Services
3.3.6 Economic Growth
3.3.7 Land Use
3.3.8 Community Facilities/Activities:

3.4 Population Summary

SITE SPECIFICATIONS - INDUSTRIAL SITES –BUCHANAN COUNTY
LOCATION
4.0 WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION
4.1 Existing Conditions (2015)
TABLE 47

4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3 Historical Waste Generation (2010– 2015)
4.2.1 Total Tonnage Recorded at Transfer Stations
4.2.2 Pounds per person per day

4.3 Projected Waste Generation Rates Relative to Disposal Needs
4.3.1 Population Growth Rate
4.3.2 Commercial and industrial growth
4.3.3 Annual change in MSW (residential/commercial) tonnages
4.3.4 Annual change in total tonnage with population considered
4.3.5 Projected tonnages
TABLE 57
TABLE 58
TABLE 59
TABLE 60


4.4 Waste Composition
BY MATERIAL TYPE
TABLE 62


POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
5.0 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
5.1 Collection
5.1.1 Overview
TABLE 63

5.1.2 Russell County Collection sites
TABLE 64


5.2 Transfer Operations
5.2.1 Summary of transfer station information
5.2.2 Contractual Relationships
TABLE 66

5.2.3 Tipping Charges and Fees at transfer station
TABLE 67
TABLE 68
TABLE 69
SUMMARY OF AUTHORITY AGREEMENTS

5.2.4 Materials permitted for acceptance at transfer stations
5.2.5 Materials not accepted at the transfer stations

5.3 Disposal
5.3.1 Landfill
5.3.2 Previously operated landfills
5.3.3 Household hazardous waste collection
5.3.4 Central Archive

5.4 Recycling
5.4.1 Description of programs
5.4.2 Recycling rates
TABLE 72

5.4.3 Composition of materials recycled
TABLE 73
RECYCLING DATA BY % MATERIAL

5.4.4 Volunteer Programs
5.4.5 Recycling Markets
5.4.6 Projected recycling rates

5.5 Public Education
5.6 Public/Private Partnership

LOCALITY
LOCATION

PURPOSE
PARTIES
CONTRACT NAME
Buchanan County
BUCHANAN COUNTY
ACTION ITEM

6.0 BUDGET
7.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT HEIRARACHY
7.1 Source reduction
7.2 Reuse
7.3 Recycling
7.4 Resource recovery and incineration
7.5 Landfilling

8.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAM
8.1 Collections
8.2 Transfer
8.3 Disposal
8.4 Recycling
8.5 Litter Prevention and Control

9.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
10.0 FUNDING AND FINANCING
11.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
12.0 RECORD KEEPING

^ Back to top of page.