Loading...
1997-03-10 adjMarch 10, 1997 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) 0002 4 A joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, Charlottesville City Council, and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, was held on March 10, 1997, at 5:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The Board meeting was adjourned from March 5, 1997. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Executive, Robert, W. Tucker, Jr., and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis. , CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Maurice Cox, Ms. Virginia Daugherty; Ms. Meredith Richards, Ms. Kay Slaughter and Mr. David Toscano. ABSENT: None. CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Manager, Gary O'Connell, Director of Public Works, Judith Mueller. RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY PRESENT: Executive Director, Arthur Petrini, Director of Solid Waste, Steve Chidsey, Joint City/County Appointee, Preston Coiner, and County Engineering Department, Jack Kelsey. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m., by Ms. Mueller. She said Mr. Petrini would introduce the consultants. Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing to receive comments on a report entitled "Strategic Review and Directional Analysis - Municipal Solid Waste Options" prepared by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton (GBB), an examination of the current solid waste disposal system in place and potential options for the future. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 26, March 3 and March 5, 1997.) Mr. Petrini introduced Mr. Frank Bernheisel of Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB), who showed a slide presentation and summarized the Modified Strategic Review and Directional Analysis prepared for the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority on the Ivy Landfill. He said seven different options were examined, and they are in three groups. The first group has only one option which is to continue landfilling Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) at the Ivy Landfill following federal regulations (Sub-title D) after using space allowed under Virginia House Bill 1205, so that current operations are maintained. He stated that all of these options have all the ancillary activities built into them. The second set of options is to have the Authority own a transfer station, and stop landfilling MSW by the end of 1998. He went on to say the transfer of MSW would then start utilizing a central location, and local support revenue would be added as recommended by the Task Force to remove dependency on solid waste tip fee income to support certain activities. Option Number Three is to stop landfilling MSW at the end of 2001 and start the transfer of MSW, utilizing a central transfer station location. The fourth option involves stopping landfilling MSW at the end of 2001 and starting the transfer of MSW to an Authority owned transfer station located at Ivy. The last grouping involves a private industry owned transfer station, and the fifth option is to stop landfilling MSW at the end of 2001 and start the transfer of MSW using a private transfer station. He commented that the sixth option is to stop landfilling MSW at the end of 1998 and start the transfer of MSW using a private transfer station. The seventh option is to stop landfilling MSW at the end of 1998 and start the transfer of MSW using a private transfer station and mini-transfer for the western part of the County at the Ivy Landfill. He gave the advantages and disadvantages of the different options, and he noted that the Environmental Contingency Fund for each option is the smallest for Option One and the highest for Option Five. Ms. Kathi Mestayer, of Malcolm Pirnie, presented a conceptual plan for future potential use of the site. She said for the purposes of looking at the impact of the different options mentioned by Mr. Bernheisel, they are being put into two groups. One of the groups represents the fast track option which calls for closing the Ivy Landfill in 1998, and the other one calls for continuing the Landfill until 2002 or beyond that point. She said representatives of her firm considered such things as recreational uses and habitat development. She noted that the Ivy Landfill site has approximately 300 acres, and only part of it has ever been used as landfill area. She pointed out an area that is being saved as a potential capacity for landfilling, although it has not yet been used. She then used slides to show the effect on the conceptual use plan of the fast track option versus the continuing to fill option. Mr. Tatum, representing Land Planning and Design, presented a conceptual plan for the site, including passive/wooded space, play areas, soccer fields and an amphitheater. He stated that some of the suggestions from the meetings that were held have been used, but not everything. He pointed out a new entrance for the public to the site, which will be separated from any of the waste areas, no matter how long it takes to finish the landfilling operation. There are parking areas and a continuing road system to the play areas, etc. He remarked that he will be waiting for the Board's and Council's reaction to this plan, as well as recommendations for other activities and facilities. March 10, 1997 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) 000225 Ms. Slaughter referred to the screening shown on one of Mr. Tatum's slides, and she asked what it will actually screen. Mr. Tatum responded that the area containing asbestos will be screened. Ms. Slaughter next asked about projections for parking for such things as the soccer fields and the amphitheater. Mr. Tatum answered that according to the range of activities and the number of fields currently being planned, the parking layout is adequate, although it is not as extensive as the SOCA organization would recommend. Ms. Mueller asked if there were further questions from Councilors and Board members before the public hearing is opened. Ms. Slaughter stated that she would like to hear more from staff, particularly about Options Six and Seven. There should be further discussion about Construction Demolition Debris (CDD) versus MSW. She commented that even though all of the information is in the material, it would be helpful to get a common base of information. Mr. Chidsey stated that Option Six and Option Seven involve continued use of the Ivy Landfill for construction materials, vegetative waste and as a public convenience center. Ms. Richards inquired about the sociology of the private landfill location, which would be a site contracted by the Solid Waste Authority. She wondered about the population characteristics and the history of the community's involvement in the Zion Crossroads area. Mr. Petrini said the specifics of the sociology question are not known at this time. He went on to explain that the operation at Zion Crossroads is not a landfill. He said waste is transferred into containers there and shipped to other landfills. Ms. Richards mentioned that her question refers to landfills and not transfer stations. Mr. Petrini answered that this question would have to be researched. Ms. Slaughter asked about the usual length of time of contracts with other companies. Mr. Petrini answered that they can be negotiated. However, the ones with which he is familiar are between five and twenty years. Ms. Slaughter said there is such a large difference in the cost between the mini-transfer stations and the larger ones, and she wondered if the volume is the cost driver. Mr. Petrini explained that a lot of the cost involves the capacity in the larger transfer stations. Ms. Richards asked if the permit process is different for the smaller transfer stations as opposed to the larger ones. Mr. Petrini answered that although there are some differences, both transfer stations have approximately the same permitting process. Mr. Marshall asked if the Authority will be able to stay in business and effectively compete with the private sector. Mr. Petrini replied that the Authority Board members feel the Authority can compete quite well with the right negotiated contract. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the slides showed that continuing on with the landfill operation involves the lowest Environmental Contingency Fund. She said perhaps this is regarded as being competitive, but it doesn't leave the Authority in a very good position. Mr. Petrini answered that this is true in the beginning, but after the third or fourth year, the Contingency Fund improves. Ms. Slaughter referred to House Bill 1205 which allowed the additional landfilling to a 750 foot height. She wondered how this fits with the Ivy Landfill's capacity. Mr. Petrini replied that it would not have an impact. Ms. Thomas asked if there would be time for further questions after the public hearing. Ms. Mueller answered affirmatively. There is a substantial list of people who wish to speak, and the plan is to allow each of them to make their presentations, although there will not be direct answers to any of the questions. She explained that the questions would be written down by the consultants and staff, and at the end of the public presentations, as many of these will be answered as possible. She said, though, Ms. Thomas could ask questions at this time, if she so desires. Ms. Thomas replied that most people came to the public hearing in order to speak, and she would not take up more time at this point. Ms. Mueller stated that people who want to speak would be called up one at a time. The next person should come forward and sit in the front row when she announces his or her name. She noted that an individual will be allowed three minutes to speak, and representatives of groups will be given five minutes. She said a timer would be used. She told the group that the Authority will not be taking a vote tonight. The earliest time a vote will be taken is Monday, March 24, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. in the Authority conference room. At 5:39 p.m., Ms. Mueller opened the public hearing. Mr. Randy Layman, representing the Jefferson Area Waste Haulers Association, stated that he is a taxpayer and business owner in the County. He works through the Waste Haulers Association and handles 65 to 70 percent of the business for all the homes in the County excluding the ones with which BFI is involved. His haulers are continually asked by their customers who do not live in the Ivy Landfill area about the reasons for the Landfill closure, and these reasons should be addressed. He feels this report today is incomplete when it refers to a central location, but it does not list a definite place. If the transfer station location was mentioned tonight, he does not believe this meeting room, nor the building nor the lot would hold the people coming to this public hearing. Most everybody feels as though there is already a location for a transfer station, and if it is moved to somewhere else, those people will be just as March 10, 1997 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) 000226 upset as the people in Ivy. The free enterprise system currently is alive and well, and there is a 1or of competition in the waste haulers business which gives the homeowners a choice and a service at a reasonable rate. The BFI transfer station is actually in Fluvanna County, and if it was the only source available, BFI would be the only haulers around. Once this happens, companies such as his would not survive, and it would not be good for the homeowners. The customers give the haulers all types of information, but a lot of them do not come to the meetings until costs increase, etc. He feels sorry for the people who live at Ivy, but nine out of ten people who live there arrived after the fact. A lot of people who · live there are good friends of his, and he wouldn't want to live there either. The Jefferson Area Waste Haulers Association would like to at least see a major transfer station in Ivy to keep the system working in a competitive fashion. Ms. Katie Hobbs, representing the League of Women Voters, urged the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council to direct the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority to pursue the course of action in revised Options Six or Seven, outlined by consultants, Gershman, Brickner and Bratton. (See statement from the League of Women Voters to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Board, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council dated March 10, 1997.) Mr. Bob Watson, representing the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, stated that at the present time his Association has no official position on the closure nor the continued operation of the Ivy Landfill. His Board is looking at all the various options and the impacts on their industry, as well as the impact on the environment. He would like to register a few thoughts, though, that may help in the Council and Board members' final decision making process. Disposal of CDD is an important factor in building costs because on-site burials, as well as any burning on site, are precluded by law. Transportation to a landfill is a very important avenue in the disposal of CDD. In addition, CDD does not have the same environmental impact as other materials that are placed in the Ivy Landfill. He stated that also tipping fees from CDD are an important source of revenue for the Ivy Landfill and could pay for a good part of the mandatory environmental costs. If there were ever total closure of the Landfill, it would add considerably to construction costs if CDD was hauled to an out-of-County site, and it would lead to roadside dumping. All the options mentioned accept CDD at the Ivy Landfill, but it should be noted that although tipping fees are an important source of revenue for the Ivy Landfill, other problems are involved. Over the last ten years, increases in tipping fees have added approximately $700 to the cost of an average new home in Albemarle County. Any large increase in hauling or tipping fees will have an impact on affordable housing in the County, so all of these transportation factors are very important when the final decision is made. His Association members think it is a good start and a total solution to carefully look at either Option Six or Option Seven. Mr. Montague Dixon, owner of the M. U. Dixon Trash Hauling Company, remarked that he has approximately 2,000 customers throughout the County. His biggest concern is that a decision has not been made on the location of the transfer stations. It is important for the haulers to know this ahead of time, so they can plan for the future. Mr. Olivier said a lot of the waste that is supposed to end up at a transfer station or at the Ivy Landfill is on the road or countryside, and the County of Albemarle is being desecrated with refuse. He lives on the road leading to the Landfill, and he traverses it every day. The people who live in that area and pick up the trash are losing a battle, and 1-64 is becoming a losing battle, as well as the Route 250 bypass. This beautiful state is beginning to look like a garbage dump, and somebody is putting the trash there. Mr. Dixon's truck drivers are very conscientious about the trash that goes into and comes off their trucks. However, there are many contractors who, under the guise of putting covers over their trucks, put a tarp over them and pieces of lumber, asbestos and plastics fall on the roadside. Even the trucks that exit the Landfill are sometimes not completely empty and when the trucks are open, the wind gets into them and trash is dispersed all over the roadside. He said, though, there may be a way to reduce this and pay for it also. He suggested that if a truck pulls up to the Landfill to be weighed and the proper cover is not on it, it should be fined. If people are constantly remiss in using the proper covers, then they should be fined some more. At the same time, as they exit the Landfill, someone should be looking inside the truck to make sure all the refuse that is brought into the Landfill has been dumped. All these things will help make Albemarle County and the state beautiful. He mentioned that in Europe there are many more thousands of people, but travelers there are amazed at the beauty of the countryside. He recalled a time when he was in Hungary a few years ago, and he watched a child on a bus with its mother finish up an ice cream cone. The child had a napkin in his hand, and his mother told him to hold onto it. Something needs to be done here because the land value is going to go down if the place looks like a dump. He then mentioned his dismay about turning the Landfill into a recreational area. He has heard some things about gases being emitted from landfills, and there is also asbestos lying around. He does not want his grandchildren playing soccer in such a place. He remarked that if it is a dump, it should be closed, and it should be left dormant for a long time. He urged the Council and Board members to put some effort in the progress that needs to be made as far as getting the highways and streets in order, and he suggested that perhaps education and school programs might help. Mr. Frank McCauley, a trash and recycling hauler, mentioned that his customers complain to him about the Ivy Landfill being closed. He agreed with Mr. Layman about the problems associated with closing the Landfill, and he emphasized that he does not want to be put out of business by BFI. Mr. David Noble, a resident of Peacock Hill, said he would discuss certain items, and he wondered to what extent they were taken into consideration in the design of the optiOns presented at this March 10, 1997 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) 00022? meeting. He referred to an article printed in the Daily Progress where Art Petrini accepted 120,000 gallons of hazardous materials, such as paints, inks and solvents and a fairly large array of chlorinated hydrocarbons. He noted that 120,000 gallons is a volume measurement, and a gallon of water weighs over eight pounds. The 120,000 gallons becomes close to 1,000,000 pounds of hazardous materials, and they were dumped at the Ivy Landfill. He mentioned that the hydrogeology of the area is complex, and the inventory of materials dumped may be incomplete. The information about the 120,000 gallons was garnered from a 1988 EPA report and possibly only two industries were surveyed in Albemarle County. He does not know how extensive the EPA survey was, but he would like some assurance that there was some extensive research in terms of qualities and nature of materials that were dumped. He said people who are in the business of cleaning up hazardous materials that have been turned loose in the environment will verify that the continual normal operations at a contaminated site compounds the cleanup problems and costs. Ms. Gertrude Weber congratulated the officials on the progress that has been made, because two years ago the people in Ivy were told there would be landfilling forever at the Ivy Landfill. The past two years have been very difficult, but there has been a group of people who have done a lot of research and worked very hard to prove that the Ivy Landfill is a major danger to the community at large and not just to the people who live in Ivy. She has a full panoramic view of the Ivy Landfill from her front door, and she lives in a historic house that is included in the National Register. She has kept her land open and has worked for this County, and she has done everything possible. However, she has been handed back an impossible life by everybody present here tonight, and it is a very difficult thing with which to live. Yet, she does not feel too unhappy at the moment because she believes that finally the message is getting across to the City and County officials that municipal landfllling is absolutely an anachronism and can no longer go on. She noted that the postal service is breaking down and there is privatization of mails such as UPS and FED EX, and she thinks the time has come to have privatization of the waste stream. She has worked very hard personally talking to people, and she has even been to New York to try to find out about waste management in America. The truth is that even though there may be some advantages for local jurisdictions to do their own landfilling, neither the money nor the area is available. She pointed out that landfilling is being done upstream in Ivy, and she asked the officials if they would put their septic system higher than where they live. This is what the officials have done, and they have ruined one of the most beautiful parts of the County. She thinks the damage already done is enormous, and it can never be fixed, but at least a commitment could be made to not maximize the fill. She said up until recently, officials have indicated that maximizing has to be done, which would maximize the worst possible situation all the way around. She said people's lives have been totally changed, and the impact on people has been enormous. She inquired as to how the officials can take into consideration the matter of putting the Landfill in the headwaters of the water supply in a gorgeous community where there is a wide range of people such as retirees and people associated with academics. She thinks a good start has been made, because officials are now asking how the situation can be changed. They are bringing the decision making into the reality of the situation which is to privatize the landfilling operation. So far everything she has heard tonight suggests that officials are beginning to think about it, but she still sees landfilling forever. She noted that a closure date still has not been presented to the citizens, and ways are still being found to fill up the Landfill with CDD materials. She pointed out that CDD has certain problems that are not simple. She said even though this is a good beginning, she hopes the officials will keep watching the RSWA very carefully as far as what it continues to do in keeping this landfilling situation going. She then urged the County and City officials to take into consideration the loss of property values, as well as the effect on people's lives and homes they have built in the area versus a few haulers who are worried about their businesses. There is no comparison, and the tradeoff is ridiculous. Ms. Barbara Strain, President of the SOCA Board of Directors, noted that she has spoken before the officials at other times on this issue, so she will not go over a lot of facts and details. The SOCA Board members are very grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in this process over the last year, and they hope to see soccer fields in the Ivy Landfill location as soon as reasonably possible. The SOCA Board also urges the officials to consider those closure options that would allow for compatible uses with any ongoing operations at the site. Mr. William Clark stated that he was previously a resident of New York before moving to Virginia, and he believes there has to be a reduction in the landfilling operation. He recalled that in New York ten or fifteen years ago there was a barge of garbage traveling nearly around the world to be disposed of because the ocean wasn't big enough to hold it in the eastern seaboard area. He said Charlottesville is expecting 20,000 more people in the next ten years, and the current garbage cannot be disposed of, so what is going to happen in ten years. He lives within 800 feet of the Landfill, and the thought of 750 feet of garbage at his front door does not appeal to him in any way, and he finds it extremely reprehensible. Although the Rivanna Landfill Corporation did a great deal aesthetically for the Landfill, the dangerous elements that were put in the Landfill before are still there, probably within 800 feet of his home, and he doesn't like it. Maybe the officials can get the Landfill to handle all of this trash, but he doubts it. He mentioned that New York City could not do it, and it had the whole ocean at its disposal. He disapproves of the idea of going higher with the trash, and he thinks the matter has to be handled in some other way. Mr. Ed Strange supported Option Six without the continuation of CDD materials. His feeling is that as long as these materials are continuing to be buried at Ivy, problems are being added. There are some inappropriate holes that need to be filled, but the building of a mountain of garbage must stop. If they are filled with truly inert materials, the RSWA will be able to leave a useful site. He asked that the holes be filled, but the building in the Landfill be stopped. Instead of it being the Ivy Landfill, it is the Ivy Land ful__]. March 10, 1997 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) 000 $ He recalled that last week visible pollution once again left the Ivy dump near the unnamed stream along Broad Axe Road on its way to the Rivanna Reservoir. He then mentioned that he would leave with the officials relevant data relating to one of the issues the Task Force did not deal with, specifically promises made to the citizens of Ivy. There has been much discussion on this subject, but very little consensus, and it has turned into a gray area. In light of this, he will mention factual data which he will leave with the officials for their review. He referred to a 1984 League of Women Voters bulletin that summarizes the entire Landfill issue. He then quoted from Darlene Samsell, Chair of the Natural Resource Committee, regarding the City's use of the Ivy site. "Ivy residents were promised that this would be a temporary arrangement." He also has copied for the Council's and the Board's review several newspaper articles from that era which support her statement. However, in a letter addressed to the Task Force dated May 1, 1996, Ms. Kathryn Hobbs, President of the League of Women Voters, states, "We have examined the public record and have found no evidence that official government commitments were made regarding closing the Ivy Landfill. It is little wonder that this has become a confusing issue, but in my mind this is really a question of fairness, honor and credibility. I ask that you review this data and do the fair and honorable thing. Honor the commitments of your predecessors so that your promises and commitments will appear credible to the public today." Ms. Mueller announced that if people have additional information, they should give it to the members of the Board and Council in writing. Mr. Bryan Jablonski, representing the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, stated that the Sierra Club would like to raise three issues, as plans are being made for the Ivy Landfill. First, there is a need to reduce the waste stream. The decision can be made to close the Landfill or keep it open, but waste has to go somewhere. Somewhere in Virginia there will be an increasing pile of this area's trash, and some day the people in Virginia will have to reckon with not only a large pile of trash, but also the scarcity of resources which are buried in the hill of garbage. It is possible to reduce the waste stream as much as 50 or 75 percent in the next 25 years, but this will not be done without the political will to make it happen. The State of New Jersey takes care of 45 percent of its waste currently. He asked if the people of today will face this issue or will it be left for their children and grandchildren to face. He hopes it will start now. He then talked about how to achieve major steps of waste stream reduction. It cannot be done without an effort at educating the public, and it is not just for school children, but it is for families and institutions alike. The leadership in City and County governments will be a key factor in getting all of this started. Programs such as home and commercial composting, which has a potential of reducing the waste stream by as much as 30 percent, need to be developed creating direct costs for what is thrown away. He mentioned that programs such as the City's Trash Sticker Program would encourage waste stream reduction, because it will not happen by itself. Target goals need to be created, and they will need to be implemented, monitored and reviewed. In discussing the second issue, Mr. Jablonski noted that RSWA has done many good and positive things at the Ivy Landfill. He mentioned the strong recycling program, as well as many programs for diverting the waste away from burial. However, RSWA is also committed to staying in business, so it is driven by economic motives. The plan options that are being considered are based on economic circumstances, and the environmental issues have largely been ignored. This type of planning, based on political and economic motives, has led RSWA to use an unlined cell for the current MSW burial. He noted that it is legal and certainly much cheaper than a properly lined cell, but it is an environmentally poor practice as it leads to ground water contamination. He said landfllling on unlined cells should end as soon as possible. As the build up takes place on the unlined cell, it creates more pressure on materials buried there and pushes out even more contamination. Issue number three relates to the burial of garbage. He said no mater where the garbage is buried, it will be trucked somewhere, and transporting trash uses natural resources. There is a market factor in considering these resources such as fuel costs and the cost of tires, etc. It must be remembered that fuel and tires are non-renewable resources, and the siting of a landfill or transfer station must take into account the use of these non- renewable resources beyond their current monetary costs. It makes no sense for a hauler to haul trash eighty miles from Crozet to a transfer station in Fluvanna County, or beyond, if one can be located closer with only one large truck haul involved. Mr. Jim Kaufman, a resident of Ivy, stated that people in public education face the difficult task of trying to teach students that just because something is legal or a person can get away with it, it is a good idea. He said one might notice that members of the current administration of this nation are being questioned in large measure, not because they have been proven so far to do something illegal, but because they are operating on the margins of the law to see what they can get away with. This is not a good situation. He added that for 30 years the Ivy Landfill has operated on the very margin of the law, and there may be a question as to whether or not sometimes it was not in compliance with the law, but it was certainly doing things that are not a good idea. He noted that House Bill 1205 allows landfilling legally many more years over unlined cells. This is not a good idea, and he urged the officials to stop it now, and not to do it even though it is legal. Ms. Susan Bochek, an Ivy Resident, remarked that this is a very complex issue, and she would like to speak to the ethical concerns although she will be echoing some of the sentiments that have already been stated, particularly by Ed Strange. She emphasized the fact that the Ivy Landfill was opened 30 years ago on a sixth month temporary emergency permit. She cannot believe this problem still exists, especially when the site itself is considered. If anyone was to put together materials to teach an environmental sciences class, and they wanted to find the characteristics for the worst possible site for a landfill, something similar to the Ivy Landfill might be considered. She added that 30 years ago perhaps the people who looked at this site with streams bubbling up everywhere, as well as being the headwaters 000229 March 10, 1997 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) for a water supply for a city, might not have known better. She stated, though, that this cannot be said now. She attended another meeting on this subject 18 months ago, and a man spoke who is an environmental lawyer for the Marine Corps. He referred to a saying in his business which is: "There are two kinds of lined cells, those that leak and those that are about to." The residents really want an enforceable commitment to closure. She then mentioned Ed Strange's reference to the statement by the League of Women Voters. She has seen in two different places published in 1982 and 1984 where Mitch VanYahres stated for the record that he felt there was a definite commitment made to close the Ivy Landfill. It is supposed to be closed, and it should not be just partially closed. She said officials are double talking, and the residents do not deserve it. She added that partial closure means the Landfill will be kept open. She remarked that CDD has a whole range of other problems, not the least of which is the weight. This weight is going to press down on the lined and unlined cells that are already there and filled with 30 years of garbage. She feels compassion for the people who have to make this decision, and nobody would wish to have to deal with recycling or redirecting the public waste stream for a community. However, the problem is here, and she urged the public officials to do the right thing and close the Ivy Landfill at the earliest possible date. Mr. Forsman thanked the public officials for allowing citizens the opportunity to speak, and he applauded their efforts on this matter. The Ivy Landfill was ill conceived and has an ill-fated future, both economically and environmentally, and it is causing damage that is growing every day. It is a cancer and a time bomb in beautiful Albemarle County, and the experts can only speculate as to the extent and the cost of the long term environmental damage that has already occurred. He said areas such as the paint pit, which is an unlined toxic laden cell, poses many serious problems, and he wondered if the long term and irreversible effects of environmental contamination is truly understood. He questioned the economics of the facility and feels that today with so many new alternatives, this Landfill may not be the best long term investment. He noted that yesterday's business practices cannot be relied on for tomorrow's solutions. He asked who will step forward to provide the vision and leadership to right such a long time and poorly planned wrong. He wondered who will be pro active and lead the Charlottesville area into the future. A message needs to be sent that Albemarle County is not a dumping ground. He stated that keeping the Landfill open is really an excuse and not a solution. An opportunity is here at hand, and he urged the officials to work harder to find the right solutions to close the Ivy Landfill now and for good. He asked for decisive action on this issue. Mr. David Boothe spoke on behalf of the Ivy Steering Committee. The Committee represents hundreds of area residents. He has asked on numerous occasions that the Ivy Landfill be closed, and tonight the public officials appear poised to make a significant step in that direction. This community must commit to a waste management system that follows the United States' Environmental Protection Agency Hierarchy of Solid Waste Management including reduce, reuse, recycle and then dispose of the unavoidable residue in a landfill that is environmentally safe, conducted, constructed and maintained to EPA "sub-title D" standards as well as being appropriately located. As a result of tonight's meeting, the Ivy residents would like to see the volume of material going to any landfill reduced to a minimum, with the remaining solid waste going to a safe already existing and commercially operated landfill. The Committee would like the Ivy Landfill closed to further burial of material, and the hazardous waste threat removed. He urged that the Ivy Landfill be converted to recreational and educational uses. The Committee believes that Option VI presented by GBB is an important step in the right direction because it handles MSW in the most economical and environmentally safe way. He added, though, that there is still a major concern as far as burying CDD in the Ivy Landfill. The Committee is opposed to the landfilling of CDD except for those truly inert materials that will fill holes and establish final use contours for the site to become a recreational facility. He then mentioned the Committee's concern about the intention to build up the trash to an elevation of 750 feet. Anything over 700 feet in elevation is out of character with the surrounding topography and violates the 1993 Comprehensive Plan which says that a sanitary landfill should be located on a site that is visually buffered through vegetation, from residential and commercial land uses and from any roadways in the vicinity of the facility. He remarked that the Committee is concerned about the absence of a final use plan and the apparent intention to keep the permit to bury MSW at the Ivy site. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has not been given a final use plan as requested and, furthermore, given its history and nature of the area, the Ivy site can never be made an acceptable repository for MSW. The Committee insists upon the officials' attention to this matter and looks forward to their prompt action to solving the problem that has plagued the Ivy community for nearly 30 years. Ivy has truly paid its dues. Mr. Dan Burke stated that he is a member of the Ivy Steering Committee and probably the most vocal opponent of continued CDD dumping at the Ivy site. He wondered why, if CDD is truly inert material, why it is being put in a lined cell. In his opinion, it is being put in a lined cell because it is toxic material. He commented that if it was truly inert, there would not be the need to line the cell, and there would be nothing to worry about escaping from CDD material. He then asked the officials to adopt Option VI or Option VII and get the CDD off the Ivy Landfill. Mr. Brian Broadus, President of the Peacock Hill Community Association, remarked that his role tonight is to represent the Peacock Hill Service Company. The Service Company sells one commodity which is water, and the community has exactly one source of water and that is the Service Company. There are community wells, and the water is tested quite frequently, and he is convinced there is no contamination at this time in the wells. However, he admonished the public officials as to the extent of the continuing operation because it represents a continuing threat to the residents of Peacock Hill. If the wells are contaminated, and the community is without water, there will be no commodity to sell. If this happens, March 10, 1997 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) 000 30 he will expect the company to be purchased at its pre-contamination value, and he will expect the Peacock Hill community of 150 families to have a source of clean, potable water. He does not care how much it will cost for this to be done, nor does he know where the water will come from, other than the reservoir. It would have to get to the Peacock Hill community by pipeline, because trucking water to this community won't be reliable. He asked"the officials to take this matter into account, if they continue with pressured cells that will be threatened with rupture. It will have a direct fiscal consequence sometime down the road. Mr. Jeff Corwin, a Peacock Hill resident, remarked that he agrees with much of what has been said before, and he appreciates the fact that the public officials inherited this problem. However, this problem occurred because of what was not known in the past. Toxins are in unlined cells in the Ivy Landfill, and the Ivy Landfill is sited within five wells located in the Peacock Hill subdivision. He is a member of the Sierra Club, as well as a professor and biologist at the University of Virginia. He would not have bought his home in Peacock Hill, if he had known what he knows now about the Landfill site. One of the things influencing him tremendously when he bought his home has to do with his family history and something that happened to his grandparents. He explained that eminent domain was declared, and his grandfather's land was taken over by a county in New York to build a highway. One of the things that concerned him was whether or not to buy as a single homeowner in Albemarle County or to throw his lot in with others. He selected the planned unit development because it was a County approved development. The officials have inherited this situation, as well as the Ivy Landfill, but he pointed out that public officials have responsibilities to the Peacock Hill residents. It is a big subdivision, and there are over 100 people who have invested their lives and life's savings in Peacock Hill and those homes. Their children are growing up there. He said their water supply is there, and the officials have a responsibility to do something about the matter. Ms. Mueller asked if there was anyone else in the audience who did not sign the sheet, but who would like to speak. No one else came forward, so at 6:50 p.m., the public hearing was closed. Ms. Mueller asked if any elected officials had any questions. No one responded. Ms. Mueller then asked if Mr. Chidsey would describe what goes into CDD materials. Mr. Chidsey responded that CDD involves demolition, remodeling and construction materials, including such things as bricks, cement, drywall and wood wastes. However, it does not include household trash. Ms. Mueller inquired as to which of the items are being recycled. Mr. Chidsey replied that doors and windows and wood waste, etc., are recycled. Ms. Slaughter asked which items are toxic and why are lined cells needed. Ms. Thomas clarified Mr. Chidsey's reply by indicating that anything organic is not inert. Mr. Tucker asked what would be the process for finding another site if CDD is stopped at the Ivy Landfill. He understands the process is different from that of the MSW permitting process. Mr. Chidsey replied that the permitting process is lengthy for CDD. However, it is less than the length of time it takes for other materials. Ms. Mueller inquired if any of the consultants or RSWA staff would like to address any of the questions or comments from members of the audience. Ms. Thomas mentioned that a lot of people in the vicinity of the Landfill had vacation and other plans already made, and they were not able to come this evening, and she promised she would share this information with everyone. The first date was carefully chosen for this meeting to allow a majority of the people to attend. However, the snow came, and this was the only date when all of the public officials could get together. This date turned out not to be a particularly good time for many of the neighbors because of the spring break. A Council member asked how frequently the Peacock Hill wells are tested. Mr. Broadus replied that he is not sure, but he believes they are tested on a monthly basis for bacterial contamination and quarterly for chemicals. There is no reason to believe contamination is imminent, but his point was that if the wells are contaminated and the chemicals are traced to the Landfill, there could be a problem. Mr. Tucker explained that the Health Department also checks wells on public systems, such as at Peacock Hill, monthly for bacterial problems. Otherwise, the check is done on a quarterly basis. RSWA staff and the consultants then made remarks and answered questions. They emphasized that there has been no indication that the Landfill is contaminating the Rivanna River Reservoir. As far as Peacock Hill is concerned, a study has been conducted, and the conclusion is that the flow of water does not go from the Ivy Landfill to the Peacock Hill well sites. Mr. Cox asked why a recreational facility would be considered at a partially closed landfill site. He wondered if there are any related continued hazards to which people would be subject. Ms. Mestayer answered that when park facilities are designed near landfill areas, it is very important to separate public accesses from the portion of the landfill that is still being used. Ms. Thomas inquired how people can know for sure about what is going on with the trucks that are being emptied at the landfill. She also mentioned one of the present motivations to make sure haulers cooperate. She said when they are hauling CDD and a household garbage bag is included, it will cost the hauler more in tipping fees. She wondered if financial incentives will still be there with Option VII. March 10, 1997 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) ooo2a Ms. Daughtery asked if removal of the paint pit is being studied. Mr. Bernheisel answered that this is not being studied at this time. Ms. Daugherty then referred to the ongoing studies analyzing the downstream water. She asked if monitoring will continue. Mr. Bernheisel answered affirmatively. Mr. Cox asked if it would be correct to assume that a transfer station would not be located in a populated area or an area that could be developed in the future. He has no idea as to the size of a transfer station site. Mr. Bernheisel answered that transfer stations are totally enclosed buildings, and they are generally located in a more industrial setting of an urban area. Mr. Cox explained that his question stemmed from the inquiry of a member of the audience who wondered about the controversy of the neighbors when new transfer stations were sited. Ms. Daugherty mentioned that there has already been a controversy at Zion Crossroads. The transfer has been sited there, but there was a big controversy. Mr. Martin stated that it appears the idea is to have a transfer station at Ivy or Zion Crossroads. He does not believe one can be put anywhere else in Charlottesville or Albemarle County. Mr. Cox asked if the cost of an aggressive waste stream reduction strategy has been factored into any of these options. Mr. Bernheisel answered that it has been factored into all of the options. Ms. Thomas inquired if the money is being doubled on recycling and reduction programs. She asked how information in this proposal can be compared to what is presently being done, and she noted that present operations are not quite getting the job done. Mr. Bernheisel replied that the options carry an approximate ten percent reduction. Ms. Thomas asked about the educational and advertising process, etc., in order to get greater reduction of the waste that is buried. Mr. Bernheisel said the specifics are not being changed. Ms. Thomas commented that the Landfill is located in her magisterial district, and she is very aware of the pain it has caused. The odor, dust, flies and buzzards weren't mentioned today, but if anyone has had a flock of buzzards perch for a long time in their front yard, they would have an idea of what some people are putting up with in the Ivy area. She said often people ask why these residents chose to live there, and the answer is that the Landfill is growing every day, and it wasn't as big when the people moved there. It is growing because people are throwing away a lot more trash, and unless they are throwing away less, everybody is contributing to the problem. She added that one of the arguments is that somehow there needs to be a landfill in the midst of the community to make people responsible. However, the Ivy Landfill has not made people more responsible. If everyone felt so sorry for the Ivy neighbors that they never again threw away anything and buried it in their own backyards, it might be a compensating factor. She stated, though, that there has not been this type of effect, and people are still throwing away more and more. She noted that part of the reason is because every time something is bought at a store it comes with more packaging around it. It is not that people are evil, but it is what is happening in this society and having a local landfill has not made things better. She mentions this fact only because it is so often an argument for not taking trash somewhere else and that somehow a landfill is needed in an area in order to make people better. She emphasized that this has not worked, and she does not think there is any reason it will work in the future. She added that a combination of private enterprise and the legal situation that Congress has caused has created this present situation. The Landfill is still not closed, but she is glad that City, County and Authority officials are sitting together and listening to comments today because they have not had to face the reality of the problems the garbage is causing until today. It still needs to be recognized that a Landfill Advisory Committee is needed, and officials are always going to be in charge of environmental dangers. She noted that if Peacock Hill's water is affected 30 years from now, elected officials will be responsible, and they will not be able to get away from it. This is one good thing about keeping the Landfill open, because the 30 year clock doesn't start, until it is totally closed, and local officials will be responsible forever for any environmental dangers. She noted that nothing in this plan indicates more of a reduction in the amount of waste that is buried. She emphasized that, in fact, she is concerned that it makes it more difficult for trash haulers in the County to be responsible with the recyclables. She does not want people to think that whatever is being done with the trash, it is getting out of sight and out of mind. She thanked everyone who sat through this meeting, and she appreciated them being present. Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn. was adjourned at 7:21 p.m. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting Chairm~n Approved by B~ard ]