Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-18I()l RI:~FI(.~()R(()XIIRI.\( I R~)O\I 1. Call to Order. 2. Executive Session: Legal Matters. 3, Certify Executive Session. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. 5. Adjourn to September 18, 1996, 7:00 p.m., for joint meeting with Charlottes- ville City Council, the Rivanna Solid Ware Authority Board of Directors and the Solid Waste Task Force. ! SEPTE~,4BEr I 7, I ' EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I ~lOVE That THE BOArd go INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) Of THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDEr SUBSECTION (7) tO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF rEGArdING SPECIfiC LEGAL MATFErS CONCErNINg REVERSION. RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE REVERSION OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TO TOWN STATUS WHEREAS, citizens of the City of Charlottesville are actively circulating a petition to initiate the legal proceedings to cause the reversion of the City of Charlottesville to town status: and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council can unilaterally initiate the legal proceedings to cause the reversion of the City of Charlottesville to town status: and WHEREAS. the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors believes it is timely for its position to be clearly and publicly stated; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has determined that it would be in the best interests of the County of Albemarle to avoid protracted and expensive litigation and the court imposed terms and conditions of a litigated reversion: and- WHEREAS, if reversion is initiated by citizen petition or by City Council, the Board of Supervisors would prefer, if possible, to achieve a negotiated reversion of the City to town status: and WHEREAS. analyses by the County and City indicate that a reversion of the City to town status is not feasible unless there is a consolidation of the City and County schools systems: and WHEREAS. the County and City agree that a ioint study of the issues relating to a consolidation of schools under reversion should be conducted by the County and City school boards as the first step in determining whether a negotiated reversion is feasible; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has determined that a consolidation of County and City schools, unless such consolidation is a result of the City's reverting to town status, does not provide a long term and lasting solution to the City's projected financial problems. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has determined it will not ( I ) negotiate any amendment to the Annexation and Revenue Sharing Agreement which would provide either additional revenue to the City or expand the City's boundaries. (2) renegotiate the funding formulas of existing joint service agreements to subsidize services provided to the City, or (3) consent to a consolidation of County and City schools unless such consolidation is a result of the City reverting to town status. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that if after the joint study of school consolidation is completed. ( 1 ) the dtizens or the City Council of Charlottesville initiate the legal proceedings ro cause the reversion of the City of Charlottesville to town status and (2) it is determined by the County that a consolidated school system resulting from the reversion is beneficial and in the best interests of the commumity, then the Board is committed to pursuing a negotiated reversion of the City of Charlottesville to town status to provide for a long term solution for the provision of governmental services to the commumty in lieu of court imposed conditions of a litigated reversion. If the citizens or the City Coundl of Charlottesville initiate the legal proceedings to cause the reversion of the City of Charlottesville to Town status prior to timely completion of the joint study, the County will oppose those proceedings to tile extent necessary to protect the interests of its citizens from any court-imposed conditions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors supports the initiation of a joint study by the Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville school boards to determine the feasibility and benefits of the abolition of the City school system under reversion and the resulting effects on the County school system which would be required to provide education to the children of both the County and the new town. The Board agrees that the County will equally share tile costs of such study with the City of Charlottesville. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that after the joint school study is completed and if a negotiated reversion is pursued, the Board of Supervisors supports the joint and systematic study of the services provided by the County and City to provide information and analysis to aid the County and City in reaching a negotiated reversion agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors will continue to work with the Charlottesville City Council regarding these matters and will issue joint status reports with the Council as these matters progress. 2 L Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true. correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of to on ., 1996. Clerk. Board of Cotmty Supendsors RESOLUTI.5 3 RESOLUTION WItEREAS, Albemarle County was inundated on September 5 and September 6, 1996, by approximately seven inches of rain along with heavy winds from Hurricane Fran; and WHEREAS. these severe weather conditions played havoc on the County causing widespread flooding, coupled with a loss of electric power to thousands of citizens; and WHEREAS, we, the members of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors know that the community could not long survive without the efforts of so many dedicated people helping during emergency times. NOW, THEREFORE, on behalf of all the citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia. we do hereby express wholehearted thanks and appreciation to those persons who worked during this trying time, often above and beyond the call of normal duty; particu- larly to the members of our volunteer fire and rescue squads, to the personnel of Virginia Power Company, the Albemarle/Charlottesville/University of Virgima Emergency Operations Center, the Albemarle County Police Department, the County Parks and Recreation Department, and the Virginia Department of Transportation. AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be spread in the minutes of the Board in order that the official records of the County will show the generosity of these people. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS 1. Call to Order. 2. [oint Meeting with Charlottesville City Council, the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Board of Directors and the Solid Waste Task Force: a. Work Session: Solid Waste Task Force Report. 3. Adiourn. **PLEASE NOTE THAT THE MEETING IS BEING HELD AT THE SENIOR CENTER BUILDING Nelson 9-19-199G 11 ~7Ab3 F~O~4 TJPDC ~791~97 Thomas Je~erson Pla~g Dis'~ice Uommtsslon P.O. Box 1606 (804)~-PD10 (~10) . F~ (8~1 9~.1597 ~: ~1i~" ,, COMM~¢rs: Number of pages in fax (including cover sheet): FROM: ~ Nancy IC O'Bdm, Exoouliv,~ Dh'eetor .Any pro. blcms reg/wding rece/pt of this Pax, please call (804) 979-PD10 (7310). Th~-~k you.@ FROM TJPDC 9791S97 P. 2 The Al,b. emarle Cottony Board of S?erviso~, the Charlo~esville City Council, and the Rivav. ua Solid Waste Authority Board olD,reCtors will hold a joint work sessi?n on Wedneea~ay, September 18. 1996 fi'~m ?:00 PM to ~:00 I~M for the purpose ofreeerqing the report from the Soti4 Waste Task Force. The meffdng wilt take place at the Senior Center. The Task Force will make a presentation md respond to questions from the Slapervisors, Councilors, and Directors regarding the izfformation contained in the report. In addition, the three governing bodies will set a time for a joint public boating to receive comments from the public. Since a public hearing will be s~t to provide £or public e4xnment, *.he work session will not be an opportunity for public comment. 'Fao Solid Waste Task Force Repor~ is available on the Thomas Jefferson Plafining District's Home Page http:l/avenue.gen~va.us/GOVfrJPDC/swfftoc.html. Comments can be made through the Home Page. These comments will be forwarded to ~e policy makers by,he TJPDC. In addition, copies of tho report and Volume II, Supporting Docummts are Ideated in the Main, Crozet, and Northside Libraries~ and the offices of the Albemarle County Executive, the City Manager, the Rivanna Solid Waste Anthonu, Copies of Volume I o£the report are available at thc Thomas Joffemon Planning District office, CITI%EN'S SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE REPORT TO THE RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUGUST 12, 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMBERS ............................................................. Page 1 MISSION STATEMENT .................................................. Page 2 VISION STATEMENT .................................................... Page 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ Page 3 Ground Rules ...................................................... Page 4 Questions for Evaluating Alternatives ..... ' ................................. Page 4 CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... Page 5 WHAT WE KNOW AND DON'T KNOW ABO LIT THE IVY LANDFILL .................................................. Page 7 We know: ........................................... : ................ Page 7 We don't know: ....................................................... Page 8 RAMIFICATIONS OF CLOSING THE IVY LANDFILL ....................... Page 10 COMPOSITION OF THE WASTE STREAM ................................. Page 11 LANDFILLED MSW AND DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES ..................... Page 13 COMBINED LANDFILLED MSW AND RECYCLED MATERIALS .......... Page 14 Waste Stream Control ................................................. Page 15 FINANCING SOLID WASTE ............................................. Page 16 GROUND AND SURFACE WATER ........................................ Page 18 Introduction ......................................................... Page 18 Groundwater Monitoring ............................................... Page 18 Groundwater Flow ................................................... Page 19 Stream Monitoring .................................................... Page 19 MAP: GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTIONS AND DIVIDES .............. Page 20 MAP: MONITORING WELLS WITH METALS > GWPS .................... Page 21 MAP: MONITORING WELLS WITH ORGANICS > GWPS ................. Page 22 SOURCE REDUCTION .................................................. Page 23 What Is Source Reduction? ............................................. Page 23 Why Use Source Reduction? ............................................ Page 23 Problems with Source Reduction ......................................... Page 23 Source Reduction and Reuse As Practiced in the RSWA Service Area . .......... Page 24 Source Reduction Programs in Other Localities ............................. Page 24 RECYCLING ........................................................... Page 26 Description ........................................................... Page 26 What we are doing .................................................... Page 26 ~olid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Success ............................................................. Page 27 Goal ............................................................... Page 27 COIVlPOSTING ......................................................... Page 28 Composting: A Brief Introduction ........................................ Page 28 What's Involved ...................................................... Page 28 Pros and Cons of Composting Systems ................................... Page 29 Local Composting Programs ............................................ Page 30 COMBUSTION ......................................................... Page 31 I-Iisforic Ups and Downs ............................................... Page 31 Advantages of Combustion ............................................. Page 31 Combustion Concerns ................................................. Page 31 Considerations Used by the Task Force in Evaluating Solid Waste Alternatives .... Page 32 LANDFILLING ......................................................... Page 33 Why Landfills Are Used ............................................... Page 33 Potential Problems ................................................... Page 33 Responses to Problems ................................................ Page 34 What Do You Do With an Old Landfill? ................................... Page 34 TRANSFERRING WASTE ................................................ Page 36 Background ......................................................... Page 36 Issues to consider ..................................................... Page 36 MINORITY CONCERNS ................................................. Page 37 Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY CITIZEN'S SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE MEMBERS Ralph Allen David Booth Cheryl Gomez Clarence MeCl.~monds Aaron Mills Richard Morton Laurie Royse Vivian Thomson Nancy K. O'Brien, Facilitator Steve Chidsey, Rivanna Solid Waste Authorit3' Rochelle Garwood, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission William Wanner, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission qote: Mr. Layman, an original appointee to the Task Force, is not listed above as he was unable to participate fully ia developing the report and wits unavailable for the final consensus meetings. MISSION STATEMENT the following Mission Statement was developed by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Board to ~mvide direction to the Task Force. .'he Citizen's Solid Waste Task Force shall: Understand the current stares of the Ivy Landfill and the remediations planned and in process; develop a level of confidence that the existing conditions at the Ivy Landfill will be made safe for the whole community; Examine alternatives to disposal, including reduction, reuse and recycling; Evaluate the feasibility of alternative methods of disposal using full benefit/cost accounting methods which address the financial, economic, environmental and social implications of each alternative; and Propose the best disposal solution or combination of solutions that benefits the whole community. The Task Force shall complete its mission and report to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority's Board of Directors within nine (9) months. VISION STATEMENT To give some form to the Task Force deliberations, the group developed a vision statement for solid waste management in the community. Solid Waste management in the Charlottesville and Albemarle community will · · · · · · · · · · distribute burdens equitably have no negative impact on future generations be visionaxy, lead the way use pilot projects to aid in decision-making constantly strive to increase waste minimization be fiscally sound, but also willing to pay for quality programs use alternatives to land fill'rog to the extent possible be acceptable to the whole community, including the neighbors be flexible to allow use of future options not fully known at this time be fully understood by the community INTRODUCTION In fall of 1995, the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, the City of Charlottesville, and the County of Albemarle apPointed a Solid Waste Task Fome to study solid waste management in the area and develop a set of recommendations for the future. A Mission Statement, developed by the Authority Board, gave guidance to the Task Force. The creation of the TaskForce responded to concerns voicedby the Ivy Steering Committee, composed0f residents in the area surrounding the landfill. The group had voiced concerns about the effect on water quality, air quality, and general quality of life issues for people living in the vicinity of the landfill as Well as their concern for the general population. Ten memhers were appointed(list in front of report): three each fi'om the Authority, the City, and the County, plus a chairperson to facilitate the discussion. The Task Force agreed to use a consensus process and developed a set of guidelines, found on the following page, under which to operate. Deliberations were based on the hest available information such as the most recent well testing reports from RSWA, air monitoring, costs, etc. Key documents are found in Volume II: Supporting Documents. Additional or more complete reports are expected to become available throughout the next year which may affect some of the recommendations contained in this report. Therefore, there should be continual review by Authority, the two localities~ and the Authority's Advisory Committee. Readings were gathered by staff and members of the Task Force. The Task Force invited several individuals with expertis~ in the field to speak to them and answer q~testions regarding their particular area of expertise. Speakers included Taylor Beard (combustion), Lanny Hickman (finance) and Frank Bernheisel (financing and waste audit), Fritz Franke, Chase Anderson, and Bob McKinley (recycling), Roder Rnsso and Mike Owen (full stream composting), and Neal Seidman (recycling and general topics). In addition the Task Force went on two field trips. The first field trip included an orientation session at David Booth's home where the TaskForce viewed a video composed by Mr. Booth, a visit to Mrs. Gertrude Weber's home to view the landfill from her home and review preliminary drawings prepared for the citizens which sketched out future uses and also portrayed what existing projections would look like. The field trip culminated at,the landfill where the Task Force viewed the site. The second field trip entailed a visit to the soon~to-be on line transfer station in Fluvanna County, the transfer station in Goochland County and the Chambers- USA Waste Mega-Landfill in Amelia County. The Task Force also requested a waste audit be conducted by the Authority. This was completed and the report made to the Task Force. All meetings of the Task Force were open to the public and public comment was an agenda item on all agendas, both at the beginning and end of most of the meetings. Initially, the Task Force met every three weeks, the last three months the Task Force met almost every week. To aid ih decision making, the Task Force developed a set of questions for each alternative considered which evolved into a matrix. The matrices are found in Appendix A at the end of the'report. The Task Force appreciates the support of the RSWA stuff, particularly Steve Chidsey, who attended every meeting, helped with information gathering, and arranged for speakers and field trips. The Task Force also appreciates the diligence of Rochelle Garwood who wrote much of what is Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) P~e3 contained in this report based on the deliberations of the Task Force and the development of the matrices. The report is organized in two volumes: Volume I: Task Force Report; Volume II: Supporting Documents. The report is available on the TJPDC Web Page, at local government offices, the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and the area libraries. Volume 12I is available in the libraries and public offices. Gro.n,l R. · Approach Topic with Open Ears and Mind - Hear it All Clearly · Deal with Pros and Cons of Each Issue, Including Values · Consensus is Preferred - Diffexcnt Opinions Respected, Noted and Included · Be Polite, Open and Honest Do Not Personalize Opinions/Discnssions · Listen Closely Do Not Become Emotional About Issues · Think Realistically · Strive for Objectivity No Task Force Member Should Dominate Discussion Questions for Evaluating Alternatives The Task Force agreed to ask the same questions of each alternative reduction or disposal method studied. The object of this exercise was to make the alternatives as similar as possible for analysis. The findings are in the matrices at the end of the report. What is the lifetime of the solution? What are the impacts on health and environment? What is the time frame for implementation? How are the burdens distn'buted? What are the long/short term social implications? How does the option fit with statutory and regulatory environment? What are the imPlications for 3 How does it interface with surrounding solid waste systems? How does it impact present problem at Ivy Landf'dl? What are the short/long term f'mancial/economic implications? How does it impact local, neighbors and regional community? What are the implications for collection? Does the public have confidence in process/results? Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 4 CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS The Task Force reached consensus on all recommendations below. Two members had additional items on which consensus was not reached. Where there is a difference of opinion, the Task Force members in the minority have written a minority report which is found at the end of this report. As mentioned in the list of Task Force members, one member did not participate in the deliberations and consensus building activities and is not included in the full consensus. I. Current directions in solid waste management are encouraging, but additional changes need to be made in how solid waste is managed in this community. 2. The unlined cell should be capped and closed as soon as possible. If Charlottesville/Albemarle municipal solid waste is landfilled, it must go into a lined cell; new municipal solid waste cells used must be Sub-Title D lined. (Transition implications are outlined in Landfill Chapter). 4. The adjacent community should be guaranteed safe drinking water as defined in the Drinking Water Act. Air, noise and dust should be controlled to meet applicable standards. 5. All monitoring, remediation must be done properly, under public scrutiny, with assurances of the quality of the work. O O 6. The volume of waste to dispose of will be reduced between 50 ~ to 70 % per capita fzom what is presently disposed per capita in five years by: a. expanding the education program; b. placing emphasis, over the long term, on source reduction and reuse; c. implementing intensive, mandatory recycling of residential and commercial municipal solid waste, supported W/th adequate enforcement and public funds in two years; d. insti~ting wet stream composting; e. continuing and expanding the construction demolition debris separation, the leaf pile and leaf recycling, mulch production, tire recycling, and the business waste sort facility; f. testing pilot programs using alternative technologies. A financing system should be put in place that will remove the dependency on trash volume (tip fee income) for financing education, recycling, and environmental conlxol costs, and which will distribute the costs throughout the whole community. 8. A master plan for final uses of the Ivy Landfill site should be developed now to insure the site is managed in a way that will allow the planned-for uses. 9. A one-time air quality monitoring study should be conducted. Solid Waste Task ForceReport (8/12/96) Page 5 10. The administrative structure should be changed to reflect the mandate of a higher level of focus on the three R's (Rednetio~ Reuse, Recycling) and the need to include more citizens, particularly the IW Landfill neighbors in information sharing and decision making by implementing the following substantial changes in the voting membership of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Board: a. Expanding the Board by three members to include three people elected by the Ivy Neighborhoods b. Changing the status of the Chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee to voting member. 11. Conduct an independent program audit now and every year of the operations and projections under which solid waste is managed. 12. It is unacceptable: a. To landfill the volume currently being landfilled, b. Not to collect methane and 9ther organic gases, c. To use unlined cells, d. To manage compost in the open, e. To bury hazardous waste at the landfill. 13. Implement Draper Aden recommendations regarding more frequent surface water testing, including occasional viral and bacterial testing. 14. Conduct waste audits semi-annually for two years to develop a solid base of information for taking actions and evaluating progress in waste reduction. 15. The EPA National Priority List study makes it inappropriate to make a statement regarding the future of the Ivy Landfill at this time. There is also a large body of vital information being developed which should be available during the next nine months and which will affect any recommendation regarding the Ivy Landfill's future. This information includes the conclusions from the Risk Assessment. Study and the Fate and Transport Study being conducted by Joyce Engineering, and the final Compliance Plan being negotiated between RSWA and DEQ. Members of the Task Force are willing to consider reconvening when the study is complete. Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 6 WHAT WE KNOW AND DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE IVY LANDFILL Our study of solid waste management in general and specifically in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area has provided the Task Fome and the public following the discussion with a great deal ofirfformation. Listed below are the facts learned and the information which is not available. Some of the missing information will be forthcoming over the next year and the Task Force urges all interested citizens to follow the release of thisinformation and continue to be informed of.all the facts. Those items in the realm of our knowledge are addressed in the body of the report. We know: The Ivy Landfill has problems. Neighborhoo& · The stress of living next to the landfill is on-going, real, and difficult for non-neighbors to appreciate. · Some nearby residents invested in homes expecting the landfill to close within 10-15 years. · Statements by elected and appointed officials have led to an expectation of closure which some residents have interpreted as promises, others have not. (See Volume II: Report on Promises) · There is a lack of trust in both directions between Ivy citizens and RSWA. Environmental: · We are burying mom recyclables than we are recycling. · Knowledge about the approximately 120,000 gallons of chemical wastes which were legally dumped (according to DEQ) into the landfill in the 1960's and 70's is based on interviews with former employees and estimates made from those interviews. This was a legal activity under federal law until 1980. To the best of the Authority's understanding, the substances were placed inthe paint pit area. It is possible that hazardous wastes were placed elsewhere, but there are no written records of this. · EPA issued a list.of hazardous chemicals effective in 1980, some of which are purported to have been placed in the Ivy Landfill. · On-going monitoring of groundwater at test well sites (32) throughout the landfill is taking place on a regularly scheduled basis. · Monitoring and remediation will go on whether the landfill remains open or is dosed. · The most recent groundwater samples fzom the monitoring wells shows contaminants in 24 of the 32 wells underneath the landfill. · Not all of the contaminants are found in all wells. · Groundwater is believed to flow according m surface topography at rates between 5-650 feet per year, depending on the depth of the water and slope gradient. · Some nearby drinking water wells have been tested recently and no contamination was found. · Water tests show a snapshot in time; trends must be observed to come to any conclusions. Solid Waste Task Fome Report (8/12/96) Page 7 · There is no contamination of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and the Draper Aden report finds little likelihood that there will be. · The Draper Aden report recommends expanded surface water monitoring. · There have been seeps on the property for which remedial action is being taken. · Leachate flow is diverted from the collection system to a hold'rog pond for transport to the Rivarma Waste Water Treamaent plant. Some unlined areas do not have a leachate collection system. · Capping cells decreases leachate flow; particularly if very low permeability capping material issued as is planned by RSWA. · The Ivy Landfill is twenty-five (25) miles upstream from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, the primary urban water source. General Management: · The community needs to pay the costs of monitoring, post closure care, remediation, and cleanup whether or not the landfill is in active use. These costs are estimated at $6 million over the next five years. This mount currently comes from the tip fee. The funds would have to come from another source if the tip fee decreases or does not cover costs. In addition, $600;000 per year is needed for recycling and other post, closure activities. · If a new cell were to be developed at the Ivy Landfill, it would be required to meet the Same standards that all new landfills meet, public or private. · The old cells being used now are unlined cells as allowed under HB 1205. · A piggyback liner systems includes a cap, a leachate collection system, and liner. Use of these could extend the life of the landfill and mainta'm income flow. · The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority is in sound financial condition. Revenues are collected in advance of capital outlays that appear in the operating budget which indicate a negative cash flow, but this is a planned expense and the cash flow gap is closed by the earmarked, previously collected revenues. Plans underway/in progress: · RSWA is proceeding with storm water management ponds to control erosion. · A geosynthetic clay liner has been is now being installed in the area associated with the Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) area which recently had a seep. · The waste-to-compost permit is under review by the Department of Environmental Quality. · An RFP for a final use site plan has been issued and members of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and staff have chosen a consultant. · A remedial action plan, developed by RSWA and their engineering consultants, was signed with DEQ in mid-July, 1996 and is contained in Volume II. · Volatile organic chemical (VOC) filters are in place in parts of the landfill and a methane/VOC collection system is in the planning stages. We don't know: Studies underway: · The findings of the Risk Assessment Study which will evaluate human and environmental risk. Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) -' --P~ge 8 · The findings of the EPA site evaluation or.the IW Landfill as a Superftmd Site. · The Fate and Transport Study findings. · The contents of the Corrective ActionPlan which will present remediation options and costs. Studies which could be done: · The air quality in and around the landfill area, - The effect on wild biota, particularly plants and animals, · Thelevels of methane and volatile organic chemicals being emitted, · Whether the gas collection system effectively and comprehensively captures the methane and VOCs, · The exact costs and the sources of funds for expanded recycling programs and the required environmental programs, · What the neighbors expect fi.om remediation, · The usefulness of piggy back liners to buy time to consider studies underway, · The historic picture of the adjacent streams, · Whether the proposed receiving sites are more appropriately sited, · The effect of installing new, lined cells on the landfill, or of piggybacking on currently used cells, · When the costs oflandfilling will exceed the costs of other options such as transfer, · The effect ofBFI's removal ofpart of the waste stream on the landfill or private haulers and the composition of the waste stream. Community Attitudes: · If we can actually meet the higher recycling goal set by the Task Force, · The willingness to pay for the quality of program envisioned by the Task Force Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 9 RAMIFICATIONS OF CLOSING THE IVY LANDFILL The neighbors would be pleased. This would meet their stated goal as shared with the Task Force at the first meeting. (See Vol. 2) The costs of recycling education, remediation, monitoring, clean-up and any other post- closure activities would no longer be financed through a tip fee, but would need to be funded through some other source. It is estimated that over the next five years an additional $6 million dollars would be needed in addition to the $600,000 per year for education, recycling, hazardous waste collection, etc. All municipal solid waste that is landfilled would be placed in a Sub-title D Cell: Any existing debt service on the landfill beyond RSWA reserves would require financing from local government. Local municipal solid waste would no longer be placed in the headwaters of the South Fork Rivarma Reservoir. Some people feel any leverage with the private sector regarding costs would be lost. Operational costs will decrease; supporting activities costs (recycling, education) may rise. Since the City government pays the tip fee, the City could realize some savings if the transfer option resulted in a decreased tip fee. Those "savings" could be used to partially off-set the environmental, educational, and recycling costs to the locality. Albemarle Count)' government does not pay the tip fee; private haulers do. Therefore any savings should the tip fee decrease, would not be realized by the government. Thus, any local government support of post-closure environmental activities, education, and recycling would require locating another source of funds. It would still be necessary to have a place for some waste management activities such as recycling, wet su~eam composting, tires, and construction/demolition debris. This could present an opportunity to establish convenient centers for all these activities throughout the area. Waste would be out-of-sight, out-of-mind. It is not known whether this would affect interest in recycling and composting. The possibility of contamination from an old landfill will remain, but additional waste will not accumulate. Remediation could be undertaken without the complication of on-going landfilling. The Ivy Landfill site could be put into recreational or other uses, even mcome-producing uses, at an earlier date. Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 10 COMPOSITION OF THE WASTE STREAM Before decisions can be made about solid waste management, it is essential to know the composition of the waste stream and the mount of the waste stream over which there is control. Waste composition. To answer the first question, the Task Force asked RSWA to conduct a waste audit. This was done by GBB, solid waste management consultants, during the week of March 4, 1996. From March 4, 1996 to March 8, 1996, random track loads coming to the Ivy Landfill from City, County, and University sources, were sampled for thirty one items. A full report is available from the Charlottesville or Albemarle government offices, the TJPDC or RSWA offices and.is containedin Volume II: Supporting Documents. From this sort, plus the known recycling tonnages, we were able to estimate the composition of the waste stream coming from households and businesses in the area. It needs to be noted that this stream contained little yard waste due to the time of year and that, since May, 1996, approximately one third of the waste stream is no longer being taken to the Ivy Landfill. $4.2 million dollars is spent by the community to landfill items which could be recycled or composted. In spite of existing recycling efforts, an estimated 38,855 tons of waste for which there is a recycling program in?ace are being buried at the Ivy Landfill. This represents 57% of the total recyclables available for existing programs. It is costing the community $1,476,490 per year to landfill these recyclables. There are an additional 42,952 tons available for wet stream composting for which the community is spending $1,632,176 to bury. Because BFI carries University of Virginia, plus some City and County solid waste it is difficult to estimate the effect of their removal of one third of the waste stream on the recycling programs and any future wet stream composting. However, the community is still paying BFI to landfill these potential recyclables and compostables. Two tables follow: an analysis of the compatibility of material found with reduction or removal techniques and the waste sort compared to the known recyclables. Flow Control The second question was answered by reviewing percentages of hauler participation (public/private) in light of the absence of flow control or mandating trash generated be taken to the Ivy Landfill or other facility. The community can only realistically base a waste management program on a dedicated waste stream due to the size of financial capital involved. A recent U. S. SUpreme Court case (Carbone) ruled that localities do not have statutory control of the waste generated within their borders. Waste belongs m the hauler. In this community, approximately one third of the waste is hauled by BFI, a major waste management company. The City hauls approximately one third as do the small haulers in the County. The chart on page 12 illustrates control of the waste Solid Waste Task.Force Report (8/12/96) Page 11 stream. At the outset of the study, all the waste was hauled to the Ivy Landfill. With the opening ora transfer station in Fluv~ana in May, most of BFI waste is taken to Fluvanna, destined for one ofBFI's mega-landfills, most likely in Henrico County. Private industry is "internalizing" their waste stream, accomplishing in the private sector what localities can't---flow control. Solid Wasite Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page .12 LANDFILLED MSW AND DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES (Source: RSWA Waste Characterization Summary t~epoft.,-March, 1996) 10 [ PIa~c PVC IPFRCENTAGE 6O 59 1.9 RECYCLABLE/ RECOVERABLE COM~OSTABLE BURNABLE X x X X 0.3 8.7 0. I 0.4 2.8 3g.1 57.2 Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 13 COMBINED LANDFILLED MSW AND RECYCLED MATERIALS (Source: RSWA Recycling Report, 1994; Waste Characterization Report, March 1996) . Tons/Year Landfilllng in Total % of Total Removed from % Pounds per Tons/Year Tons/Year Waste Stream Currently Tons/Year Cost for Per~on per Mater/al Generatedi Generated (actual)2 Remove'd~ i Landfilled4 Landfilling~ Day~ Paper& 58,752 41.7% 13,264 23% [ 45,488 $1,728,544' 2.22 Poperboarfl Glass i 10,641 7.6% 3,560 33% [ 7,051 $269,078 0.35 Metals 14,633 10.4% 10,314 70% 4,319 $164,122 0.21 Plastics 12,582 g.P'/~ 569 5% 12~013 $456,494 0.59 Wood 2,983 2.1% 575 19% 2,408 [ . $91,504 0.1l Food 21,616 15.3% 21,616 $821,408 1.06 Yard 894 0.6% 200 Est. 22% 694 $26,372 0.03 Trimmings Other 18,774 [ 13.3% 102 <1% 18,672 $709,536 0.91 MSW I40,875 100% 2g,Sg4 20% 112,291 $4,267,05g 5.48 TOTALS: M'aterial [ Consumer Product Equivalents Landfilled per Person per Day Paper & Paperboard 1 220-page report or 4 avera_-oe copies of Iht Daily Progress Glass ] I 16-oz.j~ Metnls ] 6 so:J3 Plastics 13 I-g:I mi!k ju_es or 2-L soda bolfies Wood Food 4 quaner-po~d hamk~ers 2From RSWA s: afl .'spo,n for 1994. ~Ton~..'e~ la~qli~ = % of wasle ~-c ~.= (~om sort) + 100 x tonnage of solid wesle receJve/t ~t Ixy Lvmdfill for disposal L~ i 995. :Cost for land.q. Ilkg = lons~de~r dispo.~i x S38,~on tipping lee. ~B ased on a population of t 12.209 for Chwlones~51Ie + Albemarle. Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 14 The Waste Stream Control in the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Service Area Sources i Recycling Recyclabl¢ Haulers First Stop Waste R-SWA Fiml Oppor- - Users Collected Stream Recycling Resting tuulties Wast~ Place Waste 'Center! ? '.. Hauler · · · -Landfill inum Albemarle Private Self Tiresl ",' Hauler: · · Business Non- Card- .S~ap i' Other Private recyclable board ' Landfill Sector: Recyclable Oil"..' .,' ..' ~i .. Any-where v- News- Albemarle .B~u back ..i. : paper merit: Coiners' Plastic University Grasscycle of Virginia Food ',.' Produ~ers -- controlled by RSWA = not controlled by RSWA = partially controlled by RSWA Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 15 FINANCING SOLID WASTE Traditionally; and in this community, the solid wast0 program is financed through "tip fees" or charges made at the landfill for tipping the waste into the landfill. This fee is consistent with a philosophy of"user fees" where the user pays for the cost of the service. In addition to the tip fee, RSWA realizes income from some of the recyclables, which is also placed in the general operating fund. The $38 tip fee for the Ivy Landfill covers not only the costs of land filling, but also the costs of monitoring, site improvements, gas and leachate collection, projected costs for closing the cell (capping, landscaping), remediat'ton of problems in the future, recycl'mg education, and those recycling costs not recovered from sale of the recyclables. The actual cost of disposal at Ivy Landfill currently is about $20/ton. A loss of the remaining $18/ton would necessitate finding $2-3 million dollars per yearlo cover the costs of current RSWA recycling efforts and post closure activities. This method of financing solid waste management was thought to be a tool for changing people's behavior. The thinking was if you have to pay for disposal, but not recycling, you are more likely to save your money by recycling. These "savings" are not realized by all users of the system. For instance, businesses charged by the dumpster load may not see a saving in recycling unless recycling is offered by their hauler or another hauler at reduced or no cost. City households are charged at either of two volumes for disposal, nothing for recycling. They realize the savings, but any additional costs of recycling are hidden in the tax rate. County households are not charged by volume. They are offered the oppommity to recycle, but realize no savings in doing so. All households and businesses may recycle at the Mclntire Road center. The blue bag processing System available to Albemarle residents, is funded through the County tax rate. What this method of financing does is make the availability of funds for monitoring and clean- up, and the operation of an education program, recycling, dependent on the volume of solid waste brought to the landfill. There is no incentive for RSWA to decrease the volume at the landfill because those funds are the only funds available for closure, monitoring, and clean-up at the present time. In fact, decreasing the volume of waste could be seen as contrary to sound financial management practices to meet the long-term responsibilities for solid waste management in this community, if the tip fee is to be the sole source of funds to meet long-term responsibilities. The Task Force came to the conclusion that the costs of solid waste management should be paid for from a combination of tip fees, revenues from sale ofrecyclables, and some other source. This will insure a reliable base of support for education, waste reduction, recycling, composting, monitoring, remediation, and reclamation so these activities can be carded out at the level of excellence the community agrees to, while the actual dayto day costs of land fill'rog are covered by the tip fee. The Task Fome developed a goal for financing waste management from which a suggested program evolved. GOALS for financing solid waste management in the Charlottesville/Albemarle Community: · costs are made visible, · costs of disposal are separated from the costs ofremediation, monitoring, post closure care, and recycling, · RSWA is less dependent on the volume of trash landfilled and the tip fee to pay for furore costs for monitoring, remediation, and other post-closure activities, Solid Waste Task Fome Report (8/12/96) Page 16 charges are flexible to meet changing competitive markets, past financial responsibilities are separated from future responsibilities. S01id-Waste Task Fo~ Report~(8/I2/96) Page 17 GROUND AND SURFACE WATER Introduction Two creeks surround the Ivy Landfill; groundwater lies underneath. Among the items to consider when considering the future of the Ivy landfill are the absence or presence of contaminant substances in the water and silt and the rate and direction of flow. Another vital piece of information is the rate and direction of the flow. To the extent information is know, these are discussed below. A Rate and Extent Study and a Risk Assessment Study are in process, expecting completion in Spring, 1997, which will yield a greater amount of information for consideration. Groundwater Monitoring Rainwater flows down through an uncapped landfill site and picks up substances from the decaying materials as it goes. This liquid, called leaehate, is either collected (as in a lined cell with a collection system) or leaves the area landfilled into the ground below and, ultimately, some reaches the groundwater. Leachate may also leave the site through a "seep", or a breakdown in the landfill surface. Seeps are discussed in the Ivy Landfill chapter of this report. Groundwater is monitored for a list of 268 substances once a year, for a shorter list of 62 plus any substances found on the long list once a year at a different time~ The 268 substances are those which are expected to be found at landfills. Forty (40) of these substances have been found from time to time in the Ivy Landfill wells. The Ivy Landfill has been tested since 1988, originally at ten well sites, two of which were background wells and now at a total of thirty two (32) wells, still with two background wells. Twice a year sampling in done in wells around the perimeter of the landfill, beginning in 1990- 91. Findings change from sampl'mg to sampling for many reasons, including the amount of rain. The trend information over five years is currently being assembled in the Risk Assessment study. Standards used in evaluating the quality of the groundwater have been developed by EPA in the Safe Water Drinking Act for many substances at Maximum Concentration Levels (MCLs). Where there are no MCLs, background data is used to develop Groundwater Protection Standards (GWPS). Groundwater Protection Standards are being developed by RSWA for contaminants founds at the landfill. Where EPA has set a Safe Drinking Water Act standard, that serves as the GWPS, unless background (natural) levels are higher, where there is no MCL, Alternative Concentration Limits (ACLs) are used or natural background levels serve as the GWPS. where background levels exceed MCLs, the background level is used. There is a high, natural level of lead the groundwater which could be from degradation of rock or the naturally occurring uranium in the region. Lead levels in nearby wells are not as high as found in test wells. At the most recent testing event, a total of seventeen contaminants were found above the proposed GWPS, the most frequent being Dichioromethene (14) and Benzene (11). Twenty four (24) wells had between one (1) and ten (10) contaminants above the proposed GWPS. Two maps on following pages indicate the well sites with contaminants. For additional data, the Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 18 reader is directed to Joyce Engineering reports to the RSWA found in Volume II. Groundwater Flow A Fate and Transport Study is currently underway to ascertain the rate and direction of the flow. It is estimated that the flow is five (5) feet per year based on preliminary modeling. (Surface water is usually estimated in feet per second.) Joyce Engineering, the RSWA consultant, has prepared the map of the general groundwater flow and direction-shown below. Stream Monitoring Adjacent streams were monitored by Draper Aden Associates in their study of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. In the summary of the report it reads "Specifically, we fi_nd no evidence that contaminants have been transported to the Reservoir via groundwater. The landfill appears to have impacted groundwater beneath the landfill and surface water in streams immediately bordering the facility; however, the observed contamination does not appear to extend beyond the confluence of the unnamed stream that forms the western boundary of the site and Board Axe Creek. The organic constituents observed in the steam immediately adjacent to the landfill appear to volatilize and/or become diluted to levels that cannot be measured a short distance downstream from its confluence with Board Axe Creek )to the north of the facility) and do not appear to be transported to the South Fork RivaunaReservoir. Similarly, any inorganic constituents observed in the stream appear to become adsorbed onto sediment particles and or become diluted to levels that cannot be measure a short distance form the landfill." The stream, as it flows under the fence between the landfill andMr. Booth's property does have unusual growth in the stream bed. No reports attribute a cause to this occurrence. Solid Waste Task Force Repo~ (8{12/96) Page 19 MAP: GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTIONS AND DIVIDES JOYCE ENGINEERING, INC. ~,~ GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTIONS AND DIVIDES ~'~~RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 20 MAP: MONITORING WELLS WITH METALS > GWPS NORTHEAST S~JDY JOYCE ENGINEERING, INC. SOUTHWEST ~ S11JDY A~EA ' ' ';.' .' ':" --' CEN~AL \ EAST DISPOSAL D,~A~NAGE STUDY AREA STUDY AREA SITE MAP RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page21 MAP: MONITORENG WELLS WITH ORGANICS > GWPS NORTHEAST STUDY ,JOYCE ENGtNEER~G, SI'UD¥ , DISPOSAL DRAJNAC~ SllJDY AREA STUOY AREA SITE MAP ~ RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 22 SOURCE REDUCTION What Is Source Reduction? Source reduction is regarded by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency as the most important tool available for controlling the quantity of disposed solid waste, but remains troublesome to categorize. Source reduction encompasses a wide range of actions as reflected in the defmition of source reduction adopted by the National Recycling Coalition: "any action that avoids the creation of waste by reducing waste at the source, including redesigning of products or packaging so that less material is used; making voluntary or imposed behavioral changes in the use of materials; or increasing durability or re-nsability of materials2' Source reduction may also include a reduction in the toxicity of aproduct. In the final analysis, the Task Force grouped source reduction with recycling. Why Use SourceReduction? Source reduction has an advantage in that it is the only preventive practice available. It saves resources because materials (both toxic and non-toxic) and the energy needed to produce them are never used. It can offer economic Opportunities and savings to the institutions and industries that practice it. For example, PPG Industries, Inc., &Wichita Falls, Texas, began by having the wooden packaging used to ship float glass rebuilt instead of disposing of it; this resulted in savings of the disposal costs of 360 tons of wood per year, decreased packaging costs, and provided 2.5 more jobs. Source reduction can also be more reliable than recycling as a method of waste reduction -- for instance, the use of flexible packaging vs. steel cans for coffee results in a decrease in solid waste of 85%, an mount seldom achieved by recycling programs. Problems with Source Reduction Implementation of a successful source reduction program is not trouble-fi'ce. Many states only mandate a recycling rate, not'an overall waste reduction rate. Because source reduction can reduce the amount of waste available to recycle (as in the coffee packaging example where there is less steel for recycling), this can place source reduction at odds with'recycling. Source reduction is also challenging to measure. Ideally; a complete cradle-to-grave analysis, that considers the materials and energy used in manufacturing, shipping, displaying, consumer use, and disposal of an item, should be performed for each product. This would help to avoid undesirable tradeoffs between waste reduction strategies such as source reduction, reusability, recyclability, and use of recycled materials. However, there is no standardized procedure for performing a life cycle analysis, and results may vary from one community to another. At a business or community level, a waste audit may be performed in which the type of waste and amount per person is determined, which may then be monitored. However, determination of whether waste reduction is due to source reduction or other measures, or even to other factors such as the economy orthe season, can be perplexing. This is one reason source reduction is difficult to control at the locality level. Further, local governments have little influence on manufacturers' decisions, and statutory bans meant to control packaging types or the chemicals used ina product may nm afoul of interstate, regional, or local commerce laws. Sohd Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page23 Source Reduction and Reuse As Practiced in the RSWA Service Area The Riwnna Solid Waste Authority is taking an active role in promoting source reduction and reuse. The Electronic .Information Materials Exchange is currentiy operating. This is an electronic bulletin board which allows area residents to learn about reusable material that others wish to discard. A reuse center is located at the Ivy Landfill. Named the Encore Store, construction and home remodeling materials such as doors, windows, bathtubs, sinks, etc. are be available; those which are not used locally will be shipped to a salvage yard in Richmond. RSWA hopes to establish a small reuse center at the McIntire Road recycling center as well. RSWA encourages source reduction and reuse at local businesses and institutious by conducting waste audits to determine the most effective ways to reduce waste. As a further aid, in 1994, RSWA created the Business Resource Recovery. Alliance. BRRA is a public/private partnership of area businesses, schools, and government entities with the goal of helping the members establish and enhance reduction, reuse, and recycling programs. Educational materials and opportunities for information exchange are offered, as well as recognition of the waste reduction achievements of local businesses and institutions at an annual awards ceremony. The BRRA has as one of its goals the decrease of materials going to the Cell at the Ivy Landfill by 5% by April 1997. Paper, through such tactics as the use of two-sided copying, reuse of single-sided paper, and use of electronic mail, is the most common target of source reduction/reuse programs locally, but is not the only one. For example, Acme Design Technology collects its paint spray, filters it and reuses it as primer. The University of Virginia Hospital sends unused and reusable material to hospitals in Russia, with hopes to expand to Bosnia, The Salvation Army and other thrift shops are a major conduit of reuse for the entire area. The Salvation Army alone processes 120 tons of textiles per year. What it is unable to sell at its store is baled and shipped to be recycled elsewhere. Reuse of bulky items such as sofas also occurs as a result of Charlottesville's policy of picking up large items separately. Local citizens are able to call the Department of Public Works and learn the location and time of the next large item pick-up. They can then take the items for their own use or for resale. Source Reduction Programs in Other Localities Consumer education is one of the most widely used source reduction techniques applied by communities. In Berkeley, California, and Boulder, Colorado, "preeycling" programs teach consumers to buy products with the least amount of disposable packag'mg and to reuse and repair articles they already own. Local merchants are also encouraged to use reusable tableware and to offer discounts to customers who bring their own containers. The programs are promoted through fliers and newspaper ads. In Boulder, a survey was taken of 2,000 shoppers to determine the impact of the program. Of the respondents, 84% were familiar with the prog~m, 54% could identify the concepts involved in source reduction, and 74% said that the campaign had helped them reduce waste. Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) ~ Page 24 Consumer education works for younger audiences as ~ell. The Central States Education Center (CSEC) in Champaign, Illinois, has established a Model Schools program: In one school where children were asked to minimize the packaging in their lunch boxes, lunchroom garbage decreased by one-third, from 60 to 40 pounds per day. Another educatiun method used is that of supermarket labeling. CSEC has also established a "model'~ supermarket in which labels identify products which are nontoxic and minimally or recyclably packaged. Environmental labels in Europe have been shown to increase thesale of marked products as much as 40%. A different tactic used by communities to reduce the amount of waste disposed is to operate or support recycling/reuse/resale centers. Sonoma County, California, has two depots at the landfill and transfer station, which are operated by a non-profit agency. Items are dropped off and may be purchased by repair shops, flea market vendors, contractors, and residents. In 1990, 1,483 tons were salvaged, accounting for 8% of the residential recycling rate and 1% of the residential waste stream. In Berkeley, California, a materials salvage business operates two drop-off sites; 90% of the business' intake is dropped off, with the other 10% being recovered from the transfer station. In 1990,5,390 tons were recovered, of which 1,123 tons were household goods. It was estimated that 50% of reusable items were recovered. One of the more common legislative means of enforcing source reduction is banning yard waste at the landfill, in fome in 14 states in 1995. Most legislative tools, including packaging bans and required source reduction plans, are employed at the state or large city level. Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 25 RECYCLING Description Recycling is best described as a circular process. From raw material to product to purchase to recycling to market to become raw material for a new product. The cycle depends on the links remaining closed. The absence of one link eliminates recycling. Recycling has become more important in communities as the financial and environmental costs of land filling or combustion escalate and the siting of new facilities becomes more difficult in developing areas. What we are doing Collection of recyclable materials is done at the curbside in the City, using blue bags in the County, and individually at the Mcintire Road Center or at the landfill for individuals taking their household trash directly to the landfill. Materials collected for recycling include glass (clear, brown, green), newspaper, slick paper, alnminum, and metal cans are collected curbside and at Mclntire; cardboard, corrugated cardboard boxes, plastics, miscellaneous paper are collected at Mclntire Center and the landfill. High grade office paper and corrugated boxes a~e collected at the Buy Back Center on Carlton Avenue. The municipal solid waste recycling rate for households is approximately 8%. According to the 1994 RSWA recycling report, there were 200 pounds per person recycled in Charlottesville. In Albemarle, 90 pounds per person were recycled. This is based on the tonnages from the Charlottesville curbside collection, the Albemarle blue bag system, and allocating the Mclntire collection 40(C)/60(A) to reflect the split of Vehicles using the McIntire Center. While these are estimates, one could conclude that ease of recycling has a positive effect on participation. The overall recycling rate is a respectable 24%. The rate is due to the sludge program at the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, automobiles, and industry recycling efforts. One in particular that results in a high rate is the company that chips wood pallets for use as poultry bedding. Industry and the RWSA more than double the household recycling rate. In the City collection is the responsibility of the Depamnent of Public Works and the recyelables are picked up and sorted at the curb. They are then processed at Coiner's for sale to markets using the item for new products. There is no charge to the City resident for the service. City businesses using public works collection are charged for each dnmpster load. Many City businesses use private haulers, as do many apartment complexes. Many aparlment complexes have recycling igloos next to the dumpster for the convenience of the resident, but there is no direct financial savings for the apartment dweller unless they, like single family homes, pay per can. Some of the smaller complexes use a can collection, leaving it up to the resident. Private haulers in the County arc required to offer recycling services. County residents may usc blue bags in which they co-mingle recyclables for pickup by their hauler. The hauler takes the recyclables either to the collection at the landfill prior to weighing the track or to Coiner's. In addition those County residents who go to the landfill .may recycle their trash prior to weighing their vehicles and paying the tip fee. Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page26 The University of Virginia has an aggressive recycling~mgram which is being implemented depmhnent by deparlment~ All departments have h6i t~n brought on board yet and the education is continuing. The University has discovered significant savings through this program as their hauler charges by the ton. The recyclables are ~:eated Separately. The University also has aprogram to reuse chemicals in laboratories bom department to department. Student clubs have formed in the past to improve the environment and focused on recycling as a goal and a source of income from alnminnm sales. In addition m household opportunities, RSWA has established a buy back center where they will buy corrugated cardboard,' and top grade office paper for recycling. Businesses using this service are not charged, they receive payment for goods depending on the market revenues. This is a new program this year and it appears to be quite successful to date. Businesses are educated and encouraged to participate through the Business Round table. Success Where intensive education, cost savings, and ease of recycling combine, the rate is higher than where these are absent. Businesses support each other with ways to recycle and RSWA makes it easy for them to do so. In the bargain, they realize sahngs in their disposal costs. Households subject to a volume based fee, even as generalized asper can, participate at a higher rate. The waste audit yielded valuable information about the community's recycling efforts. In addition to giving credence tc the value'of incentives, it gave us an estimate of.what is being land filled in the community. Approximately $1.475 million is spent burying waste that could be recycled in this community. It appears there is work to be done. Goal The Task Force believes this community can be a leader in recycling and challenges the community to increase the overall recycling rate to 50 to 70% per person by the year 2005. There is a question whether this goal can be reached without moving to a mandatory system. Page 27 Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) COMPOSTING Composting: A Brief Introduction Composting is a biological process in which organic matter is transformed by microorganisms into a humus which, given an appropriate feedstock and effective composting process, makes an excellent soil amendmem. Important factors in successful compost production include carbon:nitrogen ratio, moisture content, temperature, and oxygen; the latter is important not only to the speed of the process~ but to odor control, as degradation in the absence of oxygen can produce such aptly-named compounds as cadaverine and putrescine. Depending on where composting occurs, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies it as either source reduction or recycling, and has established a hierarchy of preferred methods [Decision Makers' Guide]. Grasscycling (leaving grass clippings on the lawn) and backyard composting are, respectively, the first and second methods of choice as ranked by the EPA. Both are classified as source reduction, beeanse waste does not leave the premises of the waste generator. In order of preference by the EPA, the other types of compost'mg are ya2d- trnnmings programs, source-separated organics composting (wet-stream composting), and municipal solid waste composting (full-stream composting), all of wh/ch are classified as recycling. For these types, wastes are composted in a central location. What's Involved Of the types of composting, grasscycling and backyard composting require the least investment by the locality. Education, sometimes coupled with legislation (i,e. a ban on yard waste disposal at the landfill, or volume-based disposal fees), is the primary tool; incentives such as free or subsidized compost bins may also be used. Systems used to process yard trimmings and other source-separated organics vary in size, price and complexity. The simplest and usually the least expensive is windrow composting. Compostable materials are piled in rows and turned periodically by machine. Problems associated with windrow composfmg include leachate production and odor generation. These may be addressed by moving the operation indoors, but since windrow composting is an area- intensive method, indoor operations may increase the expense considerably. In aerated static pile composting, piles are not turned but instead have air blown or sucked tl~r. ough them. This requires less room than windrow composting, but there can be problems with insufficient temperature on the outside of the pile, as well as odor and leachate problems if performed outdoors. Agitated bed systems are somewhat more expensive in terms of equipment, but require less land. They use bins which are open at the top and generally housed in a building to control odor and the effects of weather. Material flows from one bin to another, is turned periodically, and may have air forced through it. A final common, but moderately expensive, wet-stream composting method uses roll-off Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page28 containers to completely enclose the process, along with controlled air delivery and a separate mixer. This system allows the best process control, and leachate and odor are prevented. More roll-off containers can be added as needed. There is one primary corporation currently manufacturing composting systems for.full-stream solid waste. Bedmin~ter Bioconversion Corp.'s system requires co-composting with sewage sludge or another concentrated nitrogen source; because of the expense of the system, use of another stream such as sludge which would otherwise have been disposed of elsewhere by the locality is critical economically as well as technically. Generally, only the largest items are removed from the municipal solid waste before composting. Composting is performed indoors, begwning in a rotating aerobic digester and finishing on an aerated floor. Pros and Cons of Composting Systems Source-reduction-type composting programs are inexpensive and can be effective. For example, a survey performed by Takoma Park, Maryland, revealed that 11% of its residents practice backyard composting, and West Linn, Oregon, estimates that 15-20% of its yard debris is composted in residents' backyards; both communities actively promote backyard composting. [In-Depth Studies of Recycling and Composting Programs] Nevertheless, backyard composting in particular requires effort and yard space which residents may be unable or unwilling to give up. Furthermore, it does not capture any of the compostable commercial waste stream. A composting program which recovers a sizable percentage of the municipal waste stream is more capital-intensive and will likely involve a central composting facility-. As seen above, central composting programs can be broken into three types: yard trimmings only, wet stream and full stream. Yard trimmings programs are the simplest to implement, particularly for leaves, which can be picked up unbagged at curbside with vacuum trucks and composted in windrows. An effective year-round yard waste composting program with curbside pick-up may achieve a recycling rate of 30% of the municipal waste stream [In-Depth Studies]; however, there are other compostables which will not be captured, such as food waste and non- recyclable paper, which may make up substantial portions of the waste stream. To recover the greatest variety of compostables, a wet-stream or full-stream composting program is necessary. With wet stream composting, it is necessary that wastes be separated at the source; as a result, education is an important component of a wet-stream composting program. Residents may be given special cans or asked to deliver their compostable materials to a drop-off center. Source-separated composting will probably not capture all of the compostable waste stream, since it is dependent on active participation by the waste generators; of course, participation will increase with convenience. A full-stream system, on the other hand, will compost everything in ~e waste stream that can be composted, since no source separation is involved. Unfortunately, mixed in with the compost may be bits of glass, plastic, and heavy metals such as lead. This means that compost produced by a full-stream method may be difficult or impossible to sell. In contrast, yard- waste and wet-stream composting generally produce a high-quality product. Furthermore, full- stream systems are capital-intensive and require a guaranteed waste stream, whereas other methods are modular and can often be started for a comparatively modest outlay of capital, Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 29 then expanded when desired. Finally, the economics of a full-stream system may actually discourage recycling. Local Composting Programs The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority encourages residents in the area to grasscycle. Seminars on backyard composting have also been offered, with free compost bins to the first 50 participants. In Charlottesville, leaves are picked up curbside using vacuum trucks or load packers. Part of the collected leaves are delivered to farmers, who are loaned a windrow turner, for composting. The rest of the leaves are partially composted by the City and given away to residents. Charlottesville also picks up Christmas trees to be mulched; in Albemarle County, trees are dropped off at several collection points. RSWA chips brash and gives it away as mulch; disposable pallets are also chipped and used as a bulking agent for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority!s sewage sludge compost. RSWA is in the permitting process for a pilot food waste and soiled paper composting cemer. Several restaurants and grocery stores in RSWA's service area have already expressed interest in the project. Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 30 COMBUSTION Historic Ups and Downs The modern age of municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration was ushered in in 1874, when "the destructor" was invented in Nottingham, England; eleven years later, the first garbage incinerator in the United States was built, and by 1914, about 300 plants were operating in the U.S. and Canadafi The popularity of incineration as a method of waste reduction still held in 1965, when there were 299 major incinerators operating in this country.: As knowledge about the hazardous nature of incinerator emissions increased and new regulations were put into place, however, many incinerators closed; more than 200 of those operating in 1965 were closed by 1979.3 The development of emission control technology and the advent of waste-to- energy (WTE) plants has led to an upswing in the use of combustion for solid waste in recent years. In 1992, there were 145 WTE plants and 34 incinerators (plants not producing energy) operating, with another 40 planned or under construction;4 in 1993, combustion accounted for disposal of nearly 16% of MSWfi Advantages of Combustion The survival of combustion as a method of MSW management for over 100 years isdue in large part to its ability to reduce the quantity of solid waste; volume may be reduced up to 90 percem, withweight reduced about 60%. Some experimentation has even been done onthe use of the resulting ash for building and road materials and artificial reefs,6 thus opening the possibility of complete landfill avoidance. Modern plants convert waste to energy in the form of electricity, steam, or both, which provides some income to their operators. Flexibility of design is another advantage. A waste-to-energy plant may be one of several types depending on the needs of the locality. The basic types are: mass-burn units, which can handle as much as 3,000 tons per day (tpd) of solid waste and are generally the least expensive per ton capacity to build; modular units, which can handle as little as 15 tpd and be expanded if necessary; and refuse-derived fuel, in which the waste is processed to burn more efficiently, often including the removal of recyclables. For the latter, the fuel may be processed in one area and burned elsewhere. Combustion Concerns Air emissions from MSW combustion can include particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, acid gases, dioxins and other hazardous orgamcs, and heavy metals, including mercury, lead, and cadmium. Emissions control technology has advanced greatly in recent years, to the point that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that more than 95- 99% of particulate and organic pollutants can be removed from air emissions;7 However, it should be noted that this goal can only be achieved with the proper operation of the unit at a constant burning temperature and the use of scrubbers followed by a fabric filter (baghouse) or an electrostatic precipitator. Temperature of the smoke is also critical; production of dioxins outside of the stack can occur if the smoke is not cooled. In fact, the use of electrostatic precipitators encourages the formation of dioxin because the precipitators are kept at the perfect temperature. Mercury may also escape the stack if temperatures are high, as it Sblid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page31 condenses at a much lower temperature than other heavy metals. Activated charcoal may be used to capture 50-70% of mercury emissions,8 but is not required. No emissions control technology is required by federal law for units processing less than 250 tpd. Removing toxic organics and metals from the emitted air does not eliminate the need to dispose of them, They are captured as part of the fly ash from the stack, which is as a reSUlt generally the more toxic of the two types of ash produced by combustion. Fly ash is often mixed together with bottom ash (the noncombustible remnants of the MSW) for disposal, which usually consists of landfilling. The use of fly ash is considered undesirable for construction projects because of the heavy, metals often contained in it. Even the use of bottom ash for such projects has been questioned, since it may also conta'm hazardous materials, and little is known about the leachability of those materials from ash over time. Furthermore, secreting ash in, for example, a building only lasts as long as the building itself. Aside from environmental concerns, another problem with the construction of a WTE plant is the need to "put or pay." Although a community has a variety of choices in design, once it has selected and built a plant it is usually committed to send a certain amount of waste to it per month for both economic and technological reasons. This can act to discourage alternative methods of waste management such as recycling, even though recycling might be beneficial to the operation of the plant (recyclables such as aluminum consume rather than release energy when burnt). Considerations Used by the Task Force in Evaluating Solid Waste Alternatives The U. S. EPA's Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management, Volume 1I, lists three critical questions which, if even one is answered negatively, indicate little chance of a successful outcome of an attempt to build a WTE plant. The questions are: · When source reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and waste-stream growth patterns are taken into account, is the remaining waste stream sufficient to support an energy recovery facility operating at or near capacity over the life of the project? · Is there a buyer for the energy produced by the energy recovery facility? · Is there strong political support for a WTE facility? The task force did not believe that it could give positive answers to the frrst and third qnestions. As for the second question, although Virginia Power is required by federal law to buy any electricity thai would be produced, since it does not need energy, the price would probably not be very high, Since conditions seem to be highly unfavorable for construction of a WTE plant, the task force did not go on to discuss the questions that it considered for other waste management methods. Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page32 LANDFILLING Why Landfills Are Used Since antiquity, humankind has used burial as a method of waste diSposal. In recent times, however, burgeoning population, the advent of disposable goods, and a proliferation of potentially toxic chemicals in everything from batteries to zippers, have raised concern over the available space for and environmental safety of landfills to a new high. On the other hand, advances in control and monitoring technology have made the modem landfill safer than the old- fashioned garbage dump. Despite environmental concerns and rising costs, tandfilling remains by far the ~nost popular solid ~aste disposal option, with 62% by weight of municipal solid waste going to landfills in 1993.t Why do landfills continue to be popular? For one thing, although tipping fees have been increasing 7% per year on average2, landfilling is still economically attractive, particularly if the costs of the landfill are unbundied from other solid-waste-related expenses such as consumer education, recycling, and hazardous waste diSposal. Tipping fees remain particularly competitive at mega-landfills, which benefit from economies Of scale. Landfilling is not dependent on a guaranteed waste stream in order for the technology to work. Even in areas where alternative methods of waste removal such as recycling, composting, and combustion are used, some landfilling is generally a necessity because non-recyclable, -compostable, -combustible residue remains after processing. The Virginia General Assembly enacted I-IB 1205 after the federal regulations were promulgated to allow continued vertical use of unlined cells in use at the time. This was done to alleviate the cost burden on small localities, some of whom faced financial disaster if required to implement the new regulations. As with many actions in life, unforeseen complications arose here when RSWA continued to use the unlined cells and proposed a vertical expansion as allowed under the act. Use of the landfilling option does require set-aside funds for cleanup, closure and remediation for about thirty years after closure and monitoring during use. Potential Problems Nevertheless, the environmental consequences ora landfill may be serious. Possible effects include: Ground Water Pollution. Landfill leachate can contain a wide variety of toxic metals and organic compounds: lead, mercmy, benzene, and vinyl chloride (a human carcinogen) are just a few common landfill contaminants. Manyolder landfills are unlined, and even newer liners can leak There is no way to estimate the size or potential clean-up cost ora leak before it happens, making ground water pollution economically as well as environmentally risky. Air Pollution. Theprocess ofdecompositionofthewasteinterredin alandfilt, aswell as the waste itself, can release air pollutants in the form'of methane and Volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Methane is a greenhouse gas, and landfills, with 40% of emissions, are the largest anthropogenic source of methane in the United States? Some VOCs released by Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 33 landfills are known or suspected carcinogens. Noise Pollution, Odor Pollution, Blowing Trash, and Visual Pollution. Although these effects may not be a problem for the entire community, they can be a problem for residents near a landfill. The closer one lives to a landfill, the more apparent these problems become. Responses to Problems Subtitle D of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), along with other federal and state regulations, requires that landfill operators practice pollution prevention, monitoring, and if necessary, remediation measures. RCRA requires operating landfills to have liners, leachate collection systems, ground water monitoring, gas management systems, and hazardous waste exclusion policies. A new ruling by the EPA will require methane capture at the largest landfills, which can often use or sell it profitably as fuel.4 Under RCRA, funds must be available to cover any necessary ground water cleanup costs, as well as closure and post- closure costs. A cap made of an impermeable material must be installed over a landfill cell at closure, to decrease leachate flow as a result of rainwater infiltration. Monitoring, leachate collection, and the maintenance of the cap are required for thirty years after celt closure. The regulations placed on landfills have been a substantial contributor to both the rising cost of landfilling and the sharp decrease in the number of landfills in the U.S. in recent years (from 7,575 in 1988 to 2,893 in 1995).5 They do not solve every potential problem; for example, Subtitle D landfills can still be nuisances to their neighbors, and pollution which occurs more than 30 years after closure may not be detected or cleaned up. Nonetheless, regulation has brought about a substantial increase in landfill environmental safety. What Do You Do With an Old Landfill? Options for reuse of a landfill include everyth'mg fi'om digging it up (mining) and using it aga'm to planting trees on it and turning it into a park. Communities which mine their landfills may combust, compost, or recycle the waste, although recycling of cans and bottles tends to be impractical because they are heavily soiled.6 They may choose to start over, lin'rog unlined cells and reusing liners where possible, or, like Hague, New York, they may prefer to close the landfill forever. Although the up-front costs of Hague's excavation are greater than those associated with capping the landfill and monitoring it for 30 years, as Hague's Supervisor Dan Belden says, "When you cap, you keep your liability...when you remove a landfill, you're done forever.''7 On the other .hand, landfill mining for some localities has up-front economic benefits. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, recovers soil and ferrous metals and sends the remaining materials to its waste-to-energy plant. Solid Waste Authority officials there esfmaate that adding together the value of the energy, ferrous metals, soil, and landfill space, re'taus the cost of the operation, the project is yielding a profit of about $30,000 per week.8 Landfills may also confmue to be used for~solid waste management while either no longer functioning as landfills, or functioning at a vastly reduced scale. Communities with sizes ranging from Goochland County, Virginia, to Sun Valley, California, are using their old landfills as sites for transfer and recycling centers. Goochland County's is a simple one, with recycling bins, a brush pile and roll-off containers to accommodate householders and small haulers, with the rest of the landfill planned to become a park. On the other end of the scale is Sun Valley's Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page34 Bradley Landfill, with sorting, yard material and wood processing, construction & demolition debris, and landfill facilities of five acres each, and platis for composting, railhaul, tire pmceasing, and soil remediation facilities.9 Finally, landfills have been reused for a variety of recreational purposes. As mentioned, Goochland County plans to mm its into a park, with.soccer and softball fields. A landfill used by Hampton, Virginia, has become a municipal golf course, with walking and jogging trailst~° At Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey, landscapers are attempting to create a six-acre natural habitat; resting above, a cap made from 440,000 recycled soda bottles, 15,000 cubic yards of topsoil harbor young trees and grassy meadows.'l Other possible uses for closed landfills include greenhouses (for which the methane emitted may even provide a heat source), ski or sledding hills, and parking lots. All rouse options need to consider the possibility of surface settling and the need for continued monitoring, leachate collection, and gas control. Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 35 TRANSFERRING WASTE Background Should the choice be made to close the municipal solid waste component of the Ivy Landfill, the waste will need to be transported to either a mega-landfill or a combustion facility. Currently, in a desire for additional volume, private landfills are seeking customers at favorable rates ranging around $20.00 per ton atthe gate. The cost of transporting waste is approximately $1.25 per mile. There are three private landfills within 90 miles of Charlottesville. The Fluvauna BFI Transfer Station is approximately 15 miles (30 miles round-trip). Given the total cost, it would be imperative to reduce the amount of waste being transported to the greatest extent possible. The Task Force has agreed to recommend a waste minimization program consisting of source reduction and reuse, increased recycling, and wet stream composting. The major component of the waste stream remaining is various plastics and that which is not captured in the nunimization effort. Issues to consider At the outset, the Task Force was asked by a local Supervisor, to consider not only the local environmental effects, but also the global effects. So the question becomes is disposing of waste using a given method have different effects in another locality than it does here? A second issue to consider is whether or not it is wise management to abandon the ability to dispose of solid waste locally. If this option is abandoned, does this put the locality at the mercy of management and cost decisions made outside of their control? A third issue is one of exposure. If we join our waste with other localities, or states for that matter, would we share in the liability for their waste as well as our local waste? While liability waivers are part of contracts, there is some body of evidence that one never waives a right of someone to sue. A fourth issue is another sort of exposure. If the private company fails, what is the responsibility and/or liability of the users? What is currently covered by insurance and what would be covered? What sort of protection does this coverage actually provide? The issue of equity comes into play as well. Often areas accepting solid waste in mega-landfills are poor, often also have high percentages of minority populations. What are the demographics of any receiving area? The issue of funding post closure activities at the Ivy Landfill remains in the event of transfer. What sources of funds would be available for these activities? On the positive side, the waste would be removed fi.om the headwaters of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. While the landfill is twenty-five miles fi.om the reservoir and Draper Aden does not indicate a threat, the protection of the reservoir has had long-term public support through land use controls and zordng.. Another positive outcome would be that the Ivy residents would be relieved to see the landfill closed. This is one of the "non-negotiable" items on the list initially shared with the Task Force by the Ivy Steering Committee. Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 36 MINORITY CONCERNS David Booth 53t Tattershall Farm Lane Charlottesville, VA<. 22903 MS. Nancy O'Brien Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 300 E. Main St: Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Solid Waste Task Force-- Consensus Recommendations--Minority Concerns Dear Nancy: in response to the Consensus Recommendations I would tike ~o offer the following clarification: As sart of the Consensus Recommendation item 3, we agreeo [nat all statements made were to be generic as to location of mndfill activity with no direct nference that the Ivy landfill site was being recommended as the preferred site foranewSub-TitleDiinedceil, l would ask thaT you ptease ciarify this point in statement 3, with ~he following suggested wording; -. ..,, ., ........ A .... t, ..... ,~c¢,~ or Dy whom opera[aa, ,RSvYA OF private y ownec commercial i~ndfili). This can be added as a footnote in the tex~ if youiike. Durinq the June 30, "' . ,ggem:e,,,,~,the Task Force washes tent with supporting one point that i would have preferred to be included in item12. The item that I was strongly concerned about and continue to.consider .;o be unacceptable is the policy of placing lined or unlined cells, for the disposal of waste of any sort, on top of ~pring~ that are located in the Ivy landfill site and are zherefore in the headwaters of our major drinking water supply, the Rivanna Reservoir. The extent of this concern is presently limited to the one known remaining unpolluted spring which is located in the area presently being used as a soil borrow pit on the weatern boundary. My concern stems from my experience with the spring that originates from below Cell number 2 that has been documented to be impacted by the Draper Aden report of December 1995, Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 37 Further evidence to support this concern is as follows: I, it isa ~nown fact that the liner systems will not last forever and will therefore place a burden on future generation to remediate the failed system, Actual repairs are virtual ly impossible at the bottom of a filled cell and if remediation fails, the spring will then transport the leachate to the Rivanna Reservoir via the creeks that almost completely surround the ivy landfill. This violates one of the Task Force's main items of the Vision Statement to "have no negative impact on future generations". 2, The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has indicated that the present borrow site is proposed to be used for Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) n the future. Under the present regulations no liners or leachate collection systems are required for Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD). The present Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) disposal area of the ivy landfill is impacted by the highest concentrations of Hazardous Material in the entire site including ~enzene at 620 times the allowable limit, Chloroform at 386 times the allowable limit and gichloromethane et 3870 times the NaxJmum Contamination Limit for health and human safety as by the EPA. feel that it is not only unwise but further it is lacking m common sense to take an unnecessary chance with our water SUDDly by allowing the placement of any material, whether it is f4unicipal Solid Waste (t¢,SW) or Construction and Demolition De~ris (CDD) on top of s~rmgs in the headway, ers of the city of Charlottesville's and Albemarle count/s ma~n item (f.) be added to the !tst of unacceptable ~ems as follows: Suggested wording; It' tS u,,a~cept~,e ,o. f. TO LANDFILL i~tSW OR INERT I~,ATERIAL ON TOP OF SP.,qlNGS IN THE IVY LANDFILL. David Booth Task Force Nember Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Page 38 Pamela Murphy, Cln'isline Mueller, and Mamatha Gowda, The Garbage Primer (New York: Lyons and Burford, 1993), pp. 21, 25, & 66. 2 R. L Alvarez, "Study of Conversion 0f Solid Waste to Energy in North America," cited by a learning unit adapted from J.T. Beard, W.S. Laniex, and S.Y. Lee, Munic~oal Waste Combaster Operator Training Program, Course Manual, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA/453-B- 93-020, April 1993, 3 R. J. Alvarez, "status of Incineration and Generation 0f Energy from Processing of MSW," cited by Beard et 4 Murphy et aL, p. 74. 5 U. S. Environmental Protection Agancy~ Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update: Executive Summary, Office of Solid Waste, EPA]530-S-94-042, November 1994, p. 7. 6 Murphy et al., p. 82. 7 Ibid., p. 78. s Ibid. 9U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management, Volume II, Office of Solid Waste, EPA/530-R-95-023, August 1995, p. 8-9. ~U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterizan~on of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update: Executive Summary, Office of Solid Waste, EPA/530-S-94-042, November 1994, p. 7. 2Edward W. Repa and Allen Blakey, 'Mun/cipal Solid Waste Disposal Trends," Waste ~tge, January 1996, p. 50. ~"EPA Announces Rule to Control Air Pollution from Landfills," Virginia 'S Environment, April 1996, p. ?. 4ibid. ~Repa and Blakey, p. 43. OHoward Nelson, "Mining Resources: Landfill Reclamation Stxatagies," BioCycle. October 1994, p. 42. ?ibid., p. 44. *Ibid., p. 40. 9LisaRabasca, "Bringing NewLife to Old Landfdls," Waste ~tge, January 1996, pp. 71 - 74. ~°Joel Rubin, "Hampton, Va., NASA Form Public/Private Solid Waste Program With the Right Stuff," Waste ,4ge, January 1996, p. 38. ~Bill Breen, "Getting Rid of Garbage: Landfills Are gl," Garbage, September/October 1990, p. 47. Solid Waste Task Force Report (8/12/96) Considerations Used by the Task Force in Evaluating Solid Waste Alternatives: Source Reduction What is What are the What is How am the What are the How docs the What are the the impacts on the time burdens long/short option fit with implications for 3 lifetime health, frame for distributed? term social statutory and R's (Even if an of the environment implemen- implications, regulatory economic solution? and ration? including environment? disincentive)? resources? siting? · Infmhe .Ideal , .Very long ,Dec. total -Negatives: .Record .No ready solution x~4th solution term cost reduce waste ke~ping>benefit .Most difficult eternal .Decrease use .Can have .Non- because of .Change vigilance I of raw short term product cost illegal recycling renu materials, use goals/ - true cost dumping to credit of toxics objectives Hidden documented · Decrease .May inc. reduction energy use cost to .ICC problem · Environment grocer), store by legal means - - aesthetic .Incalculable not applicable impact of cost avoided to individual landfill at landfill action · Difficult to incremental savings · Economic I windfall - How does it How does it What are the How does it What are the Does the public have interface impact shorfflong impact local, implications confidence in with present term financial, neighbors and for collection? process/results? surrounding problems at economic and regional solid waste Ivy contract community, incL systems? Landfill? implications? illegal dumping? · Difficulty in -Less S - · Create new .Beyond local .Base on waste .Education needed!!! men.raring less waste business audit .Put incentive in place handling opportunities -Waste audits - certificates, etc. cost .Look at where at business .Can't see benefit · Possible ! accounting is -Yard waste need tax $$ ] possible: opportunity for · inert business, co-op t materials government, used higher elsewhere education landfilled Report of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizen's Solid Waste Task Force August 12, 1996 Appetldix A Page 1 Considerations Used by the Task Force in Evaluating Solid Waste Alteinatives: Rec 'clin Whatlsthe What are Whatis Howarethe Whatarethe i ttow does the Whatarethe lifetime of the impacts thetime burdens long/short option fit ~tth implications the solution? on health, frame for distributed? term social statutory and for 3 R's environ- implemen- implications, rogulatory (Even if an ment and ration? including environmeut? economic resources? siting? disincentive)? · Assume we *Positives: - Two to *Public never *Merkets If state recoups will improve Good- five years sees mt/re cost must exist revenue, it is a : %of Minor - (Gradual .What ere -Education negative re%,cling negatives to inc) ~ burdens? Program · Forever deal with; .Convenience ' exceed state (solution is), Recycling /costAvho gets mandate? Commitment decreases it · State could ' · Change use of ·Who pays for increase regs habits, way natural >roblems -Lack of flow we live resources existing at control · Negatives: RSWA start? .Not age'.mst Increases: I law! energy, cost (transport) How does it How does it What are the How does it What are the ' Does the public have interface impact shoFdlong impact local, implications confidence in xith present termfinanclal, neighbors and for collection? process/results? surrounding problems at economic and regional solid waste Ivy contract community, incl. systems? Landfill? implications? illegal dumping? · Mismatch of .Extends life .As long as .Re%'cling could -Tracks need .Public education "sTstems" - cuts down incentives increase tip fee, to match waste remain resulting in take it ~'slem · Decreases (capacity issue) elsewhere revenue · Commitment : stream for lasts closure, .May have to I remediafion spend $ I · Tax dotlers may need to be used Repoa oftbe Riverma Solid Waste AuthoiSty Citizen's Solid Waste Task Force August 12, 1996 Appendix A Page 2 Considerations Used bY the Task Force in Evaluating Solid Waste Alternatives: Full-Stream Compostin What is What are the ! What is How are the What- are the 'l How does the What are the the impacts on I the time burdens long/short option fit ~th implications for lifetime health,' frame for distributed? term social statutory and R's ('Even ff an of the environment implemen- implications, regulatory economic solution? and ration? including environment? disincentive)? resources? siting? I · About 20 .Education -About 5 .Put or pay .Possible to .Counts as .May decrease years *Remediation years *% of flow toss all waste re~,cled (EPA) recycling at landfill controlled in; not *Lead - *Finances better · Lead levels *Economics sensible leachable w/thout recycling won't work ~5thout sludge .$50-55~un · Tax - sales? RE? How does it How does it What are the How does it What are the Does the public have interface impact shorfflong impact local, implications confidence in with present term financial, neighbors and for collection? process/results? surrounding I problemsat economieand I regional solidwaste [ Ivy Landfill? contract community, incl'. systeras? implications? illegal dumping? *Waste -Decreases S *Few proven .Import sludge or .Haulers may .Adjacent failures reduction not for clean up sites manure have to change disposal · Clean .Limited # of .Dewaler sludge how lhey .Competition residue (lined companies ] collect at 50 tons/day cell disposal) .Pre/post mostly wet separation stream -Need more wame! Report of the Rivanna Solid Wsste Authority Citizen's Solid Waste Task Force Appendix A August 12, 1996 Page 3 Considerations Used by the Task Force in Evaluating SoLid Waste Alternatives: Landfillin What is What are the, What is How are the What are the How does the What are the ' the ~npacts on ] the time burdens long/short option fit ~h implications for -~ lifetime health, frame for distributed? term social statutory and R's (Even [fan ofthe em'ironmant ] implemen- implications, regulatory economic ' solution? and tetion? including environment? dmncentn'e)? resources? siting? I · Depends .Produces ah-, -2-3 3~'s. -Scattered .Effect on .Most accepted oL/raited space on water, visual, new cell sites = more neighbors & .Two standards incentive for 3 R's size/rate audio etc. * 10 )xs. burden roads *Mega landfill of use pollution new site *Do you *Assessing decreases · 15-30 .Long term I compensate? impacts incentive for 3 R's ,'rs. implications ' ~Greater difficult .Make waste inert average untmoWn closer to pre-landfill · -~80 3TS. .Panlally locatio~lsite .inert a relative mega entombed - .No such term landfill oozes, etc. thing as zero .After all else is risk done components still Ihere - what. do you do with it? Remaining waste not inert How does it i How does it I What are the How does it impact What are the i Does the public interface impact short/long term local neighbors and implicati9n~ have confidence with present financ al, regionalcommunity, forcoIlection? in process/ surrounding problems at economic and including illegal results? solid waste ' Ivv contract dumping? ysIems? Landfill? implications? · If no income how .Liabilities there a .Minimal to · Time .Need ~o ' ' .No - especially useable could seek okher $ ;rill mon/tohng & long time/forever none- status as knowledge be exlended if discon- remediation be quo increases re: by reducing, tinued - paid for? .In combi- negative impacts I reusing, tax, es ·Decrease volume, nation could go recycling, .BFI decrease revenue, elsewhere - composfing indicated increase unit cost fees increase, Baling - ,,[ mini .transfer ' etc. · Operatm g costs remaining at ~rr~,?ht be ~ame for all sizes ax allable for Ivy??.? Competition - burning *More trash 10w price now - · Use as last not land- h/gh price later? resort filled less -Protection from pollution gouging · Backend costa unknoam · Budget depends on VOlUme Report of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizen's Solid Waste Task Force August 12, 1996 Appendix A Page 4 Component Number APPENDIX B: Calculations of Recyclables Component C ] N¢~ sFnnt C2 { Ce::~'-'atcd 5 9 6.642 C3 [! Office!:;:'~c: i3 I 2,102 C~ ~ t ....= .... < · · C5 O~cr Pap~ J 19.1 21.336 Average Composition as Estlmat~ 1995 Quality a Percent, J of Material (Tons) 6.0 6.?~8 C6 .' .,x-. ?:~per 2.6 2.919 C7 1318 C8 ?:::s:i¢ - :'D?E J :. i 1.277 C9 ClO Plastic - Poly~rene Plastic - PVC Plastic Film 0.8 0.0 Other Plasues 5.0 2.5 Cll C12 906 35 5,622 2,855 · 2:.: ' (.:' ~'e:. C:::~ ",- " I 2.13." C 18 { O~er Ferrous { 0.8 [ 886 C20 Other Aluminum 0.4 477 Other Non-Ferrous 0.0 19 Yard waste 0.6 694 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 Food Waste !c\.;'.es Compostable Organics 19.3 1.7 0.g 8.7 21,616 1.86fi 896 C27 Miscellaneous 9,710 Report of the R.ivanna Solid Wast~ Authority Citizen's Solid Waste Task Force Appendix B August 12, 1996 Page I Component Ax'gage Composition as Estimated 1995 Quaffs' Number Component a Percenh of Material (Tons) C28 [ Batteries 0. I 119 C29 [ Diapers 2.3 2,583 C30 - Household Hazardous Waste ~ 0.4 400 C31 Fines 2.8 3,098 TOTAL(Tons) ' ' 112,000 Highlighted total tonnage (Recyclables for which there is a program) Multiplied by tip fee Cost of landfill recyclables Total recyclables, 1994 RSWA rpt Minus, Asphalt, Cars, CDD Recycled Materials 38,855 x $38 $1,476,490 33,440 -5,575 28,865 Landfilled 38,855 Recycled +28.865 Total recyctabled 67,720 % recyclables to landfill 3 (8,8>5/67,720) 57% % Recyclables recycled (28,865/67,720) 43% NOTE: BFI MSW included; same cost to communi~, merely paying a different vender. Report of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizen's Solid Waste Task Force August 12, 1996 Appendix B Page 2 1967 1969 1972-73 1973 1973 1973 1973 1974 1974 1974 1074 1975 1987 1988 1989 1990 1990 1990 History of Ivy Landfill (abbreviated) Ivy Landfill site leased, 30 acres Originally thought to be a temporary site, while County looked for other suitable site. City begins search for new landfill site, Avon closing City submits request to locate landfill on Route 20 Dept. of Health Permit issued to Albemarle to operate a sanitary landfill at Ivy City request denied Second City site denied Landfill fire, investigated, provision made for change to sanitary landfill from dump. Specie! Fernit filed hy City on Massie site. Agreenenu for joint oDeration of the Ivy Landfill signed Concern beings no be voiced about protecting the reservoir UVA builds hazardous radical waste inclneranor 100 foot buffer approved by ccunuy engineer Diseusslcn of "Econcmlca! Feasibility Study of Alternative Solid Waste Disposal l~ethods", a staff study Charlottesville/Albemarle Solid Waste Task Force reports Continued concern about water quality in streams draining from the ivy site; prcb!ems by adjacent landowner Rivanna Solid ~aste Authority agreement signed Capital Projects listed: Ivy Landfill engineering for new cells, and closure; acquisition of new land for future cells; design/construct composting facility; provide recycling facility, providing for their resale; study transfer station locations; study wood shipping; acquire/develop inert materials landfill Regional solid ~aste Task Force/Study started under auspices of Thomas Jefferson Planning District. Reportofthe Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizen's Solid Waste Task Force August 12, I996 Appendix C Page 1 1990 1991 1991 1991 1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 !994 1994 1994 1995 1995 1995 1995 Ivy landfill sold to authority, tipping fees enacted Recycling state mandated; TJPDC begins reporting recycling activity Feasibility of a Materials Recovery Facility study initiated. RSWA acquires property adjacent to Ivy landfill; life of landfill estimated to be 10-15 years beyond 1994. More stringent landfill regulations go into effect statewide. Costs estimated for work at Ivy totals $18.1m. Greene reques=s discussion of contracting for disposal; discussions initiated Hazardous waste collection program initiated Advisory committee studying waste to energy Materials Recovery Facility report completed; mostly education and recycling activities suggested Albemarle Comprehensive plan includes ccmmunizy facilities plan Regional discussions ue~er cut Yard waste ccmpcssing feasibility study ccmp!eted. ?ire disposal program discussed. BFI explores pcssibili%y of major transfer suasion Flow ccntro! declared unconstitutional Discuss!cms akcut options to and with the landfill continue Cell 1 and 2 closure kegun; landfill receives satisfactory grade Random waste inspections begun Master site plan received, under review Some contamination found in well ~4 Discussion of vertical expansion of landfill leads to appointment of task force Repor~ of the Pdvanna Solid Waste Authority Citizen's Solid Waste Task Force August 12, 1996 Appendix C Page 2