Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 Solid Waste Management PlanWASHINGTON COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners July 2 0, 1988 Board of County Commissioners Ronald L. Bowers, President Richard E. Roulette, Vice -President R. Lee Downey Linda C. Irvin Martin L. Snook Washington County Planning Commission Jack B. Byers, Chairman Donald E. Zombro, Vice -Chairman Richard E. Roulette, Ex -Officio Judith A. Acord Bertrand L. Iseminger Ray M. Johns Sidney Salitsky Planning Staff Jack S. Hawbaker, Executive Director Stephen T. Goodrich, Senior Planner Lisa A. Kelly, Project Planner John Gudmundson, Planning Draftsman Janet L. King, Administrative Secretary TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Chapter I iii Goals, Objectives, and Policies 1 Government Structure 4 State and Local Controls 4 Chapter II County Population 7 County Zoning Requirements 7 Federal and Local Facilities Map 9 County Plan 10 Chapter III Basis for Data 13 Waste Inflow and Outflow 13 Waste Collection Systems 13 Waste Acceptance Facilities 16 Table of Contents Chapter IV Landfill Assessment 19 Site Selection Criteria 21 Source Separation, Resource Recovery 33 Asbestos 39 Spillage 39 Siting Regulations 39 Chapter V County's plan of action 40 Methods of financing 44 Projected closure date 44 Chapter VI Recommendations 45 Landfill Cost Data 4 8 Weighing Data 49 Reference Sources 5 0 ii INTRODUCTION New laws governing trash disposal, promulgated in the interest of public health and welfare, have created a challenge of tremendous magnitude for communities across the United States. Potentially hazardous effects on ground water and surface water have made conventional landfilling methods no longer acceptable. Plastic liners along with leachate collection and treatment systems are becoming the norm. Just as the open dump was replaced with the sanitary landfill, so is the conventional landfill being replaced by other systems designed to protect the environment. The imposition of new methods for trash disposal have placed an onerous task on local governments. The solid waste stream must now be managed consistent with the new laws while remaining cost-effective. This biennial update of the Solid Waste Management Plan, in addition to satisfying the factual data requirements of the State, explains the steps taken thus far by Washington County toward more effective solid waste management and offers recommendations for still improving the County's waste management system. Preliminary estimates place the new cost of landfilling using a plastic liner between $300,000 and $500,000 an acre. Improved and alternative ways of disposing of the community's trash must be explored. A rubble disposal area within the confines of the Resh Road site can be used for disposing of tree stumps, concrete, rocks, and building demolition debris. Valuable earth cover can be saved, and the area needed for putrescible trash will be provided an extended life. Private contractors can possibly establish, iii through the State permitting process, their own rubble fills thereby taking some of the burden off the Resh Road site. Washington County has already taken steps to improve its waste management system. In addition to contracting for the slicing of tires, plus placing rolloff boxes for residential vehicles in a safe location outside the active cell areas, the County has recently contracted for the design of a liner and leachate collection system at Resh Road. Included in this contract will be an analysis of the Hancock site for the purpose of comparing the economy of continued landfilling with converting the site to a transfer station. The new recycling law recently passed by the State legislature mandates that counties with populations of less than 150,000 prepare a recycling plan by July 1, 1990 with full implementation by 1994. This will become an added incentive for reducing the amount of waste filled each day at the Resh Road site. While the completion date for the Resh Road site is unknown, current estimates place it within ten years. The County government is presently exploring new sites in the Martinsburg shale formation area to assure continuity when the present site is closed. In addition, the Board of County Commissioners is looking into the feasibility of mass incineration as an inter -County venture with the elected officials from Frederick, Carroll, and Howard Counties. Further study of these new and alternative methods to conventional landfilling will provide a challenge to local governments in the days ahead. iv WASHINGTON COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Chapter 1 General This is the biennial update of the Solid Waste Management Plan for Washington County prepared in accordance with The Code of Maryland Regulations 10.17.08 and the Health -Environmental Article, Title 9, Subtitle 5 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Purpose The purpose of a Solid Waste Management Plan for Washington County is to: (1.) Establish County solid waste management policies; (2.) Develop comprehensive goals relative to solid waste management through anticipation of future needs and problems within the County; and (3.) Develop effective current and long range solid waste management plans and the attendant administrative procedures. Goals The goals, objectives, and policies of the Washington County Solid Waste Management Plan are part of the overall goals as set forth in the adopted 1981 Comprehensive Plan. These are: conservation of our natural environment, a quality living environment for all, and a sound, balanced and diversified economy. The specific goals of the Solid Waste Management Plan fit within the 1 larger framework of these overall goals. Through the Solid Waste Management Plan, the governing body of Washington County proposes to: 1.) Protect the health, safety, and welfare of the total population of Washington County by identifying the proper County agencies to implement, administer, and regulate the solid waste collection and disposal needs of the county. 2.) Plan for and encourage growth in Washington County in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Water and Sewerage Plan, and in a way which will permit effective solid waste management as one of the public health, safety and welfare services. 3.) Prepare and adopt the requisite ordinances and regulations to implement county wide solid waste management. 4.) Continue to involve private enterprise in countywide solid waste management. 5.) Identify and categorize all sources and types of solid waste generated within Washington County. 6.) Provide a workable solid waste management plan to be updated and amended periodically. 7.) Plan future solid waste facilities to meet the developing needs of Washington County. 2 Objectives Washington County has identified objectives in four areas in order to reach its goals: Planning, Solid Waste Generation, Solid Waste Collection, and Solid Waste Disposal. The objectives in each are as follows: A. Planning 1. Provide for biennial review and revision of the adopted Solid Waste Management Plan. 2. Increase the public's awareness of the needs and opportunities for better solid waste management. 3. Establish and plan for the post landfill use of the Resh Road landfill facility. B. Solid Waste Generation 1. Initiate and maintain a record keeping program in which information on volumes and classifications of wastes are compiled. 2. Improve the method of determining waste generation by geographic area. 3. Monitor special waste generation by category and geographical area. C. Solid Waste Collection 1. Assure an effective, continuing program for providing solid waste collection services in all areas of the County. 2. Monitor municipal and private costs of collection. D. Solid Waste Disposal 1. Eliminate any roadside dumps. 3 2. Prevent new roadside dumps from being established. 3. Initiate and maintain a record -keeping program at all waste disposal sites. 4. Provide solid waste acceptance facilities in areas of the County as necessary to serve the community. Structure of Government as it relates to Solid Waste Washington County Government is a commissioner style of government with a board of five County Commissioners who appoint department directors. The chart on page 5 illustrates the organizational framework relative to planning and implementing solid waste management within the County. Federal, State, and Local Controls The legal controls for solid waste were established by an act of Congress which resulted in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). RCRA requires that responsibilities for solid waste management be clearly delineated and calls upon the EPA to monitor state management of landfills. The State of Maryland has agencies that are involved in a wide range of activities relating to solid waste. The Department of Environment is the State's principal regulatory agency with respect to solid waste management. DOE is the State's lead agency for implementation of RCRA. Title 9, Subtitle 5, of the Annotated Code of Maryland requires that each County shall adopt and submit to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene a county plan that deals with water supply systems, sewerage 2 STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT RELATING TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING LANDFILL COMMISSION I I I DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESH ROAD IN LANDFILL I I GREENSBURG TRANSFER STATIOI KAETZELL TRANSFER STATION HANCOCK DARGAN TRANSFER SOLID WASTE I LANDFILL STATION PLANNER 5 WASHINGTON COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS 125,000 120,000 115,000 IC, 000 105,000 0 100,000 Q 95,000 J d 90,000 0 C' 85,000 80,000 75,000 70,000 122,800 1-O f 65,000 I 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 i 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 HISTORIC PROJECTED SOURCE: MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING, SEPT. 1987 systems, solid waste disposal systems and solid waste acceptance facilities and a systematic program for the collection and disposal of litter, refuse or other solid waste. In addition, the county plan shall be amended from time to time as deemed necessary by the county governing body or by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The preparation and update of the Washington County Solid Waste Management Plan is done by the Washington County Planning Department. The Plan is implemented through the Board of County Commissioners, the Landfill Director, the Planning L partment, and other agencies of County government as deemed appropriate. Chapter 2 Population The 1980 census for Washington County listed the population as 113,086, an 8.9 percent increase from the 1970 Census. The Department of State Planning, in its September, 1987 forecast, has projected a 3.9 percent increase in the County population between 1980 and 1990, and a 4.5 percent increase between 1990 and 1995. A graph indicating this trend is shown on page 8. Municipal and Federal Facilities Map The map on page 9 shows municipalities and Federal facilties within the County. County Zoning Requirements The Washington County Zoning Ordinance states that refuse or garbage disposal areas are a special exception use in the Agricultural zoning district. This use requires a public hearing and authorization by the County's Board of Zoning Appeals. If allowed, the disposal area would be required to have a 1000 foot buffer between its activity and "any lot in an 'R' district or any lot occupied by a dwelling, school, church, or institution for human care not located on the same lot as the said use or buildings, or any lot which is part of a duly recorded subdivision." 7 / b ID j \ @ ■° ■ 0 ei O / / > I { $ - ` » § / k g a ± - o < / L z a § e) § Uia_ Q r < \ CD 4-> 2 E a @ \ E< L 2 \ < k § m z « § E +O<<< &mow® 2 w Lw_ 7 Q 2 .... < % 3 I The Industrial General zoning classification allows for the process of garbage reduction as a special exception use. The allowance of this activity would require a public hearing and authorization by the Board of Appeals. Comprehensive Plan The Washington County Commissioners initially adopted the County's Comprehensive Plan in October 1971. Extensive revisions to the Plan were begun in 1975. The County Commissioners formally adopted this revised Plan in April 1981. There have been no revisions since then. The Plan outlines three policies that are intended to deal with solid waste planning issues in Washington County. They include: 1.) Public Awareness Campaign --Issues concerning source separation, material recovery, and energy generation must be effectively brought to public attention. Efforts such as community cleanups, can drives, and paper drives should be pursued. More discussion on this subject follows in Chapter 4. 2.) Landfill Acquisition and Planned Re -use --Uses should be considered for all closed landfill sites with a future re -use designated. 3.) Solid Waste Management Plan --The review and update of the Solid Waste Management Plan shall be accomplished in accordance with current laws and regulations of the State. 10 Chapter Three Solid Waste Projections The State regulations ask for a table showing the existing and projected annual solid waste generation of numerous categories for at least a ten-year period. The chart on page 12 illustrates that projection to the year 2004. (While the Resh Road site will undoubtedly be completed earlier than 2004, that date is used throughout this Plan for consistency and for lack of a more definitive date.) All white goods (large appliances such as refrigerators, stoves, washing machines, etc.) are unloaded at a special area in the Resh Road landfill and are eventually trucked to a local recycling plant, Conservit, Inc. Tires brought into the landfill are sliced around the circumference by S & S Tire Salvage and then are buried along with other refuse. Refuse not accepted includes dead animals, hazardous wastes, explosives, septic tank sludge, motor vehicles, or any waste in liquid form. These prohibitions, in addition to asbestos, apply to the Hancock landfill. Asbestos is accepted at the Resh Road landfill in accordance with procedures that have been provided to all haulers. II >- 0 Q U } z 0 W z W o (7 O nt lif N � o ~ w U W 0 CL 0 z 4 G9 _z H N X W 0 O O O O 0 0 0 °o_ °o_ o COIr M N O 23d3A 83d SNOT z 0 I- C.) z a a o W a r z 0) W v Z z O Q1 U W a a rc w x J o ¢ W >- -J O z U o Q Q I.. S W 4 F- U) U Q 0 z J a z 0 a U, W 12 Basis for Data All projections are derived from weighings made at the landfill in 1980- 81 over three successive periods. Those weighings and the data determined from them are described in detail in the Solid Waste Management Study of 1982. The 1982 Solid Waste Management Study estimated that the present Resh Road site would last until 2004 based on the then -known and projected population for the County. It was in 1982 that both the Department of State Planning and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene estimated a population loss for the County which in turn pulled down population projections for subsequent years. In September, 1987, the Department of State Planning again made populations projections. These projections became the basis for projecting solid waste generation by category to 2004. It is now estimated by the Department of State Planning that Washington County has only slightly more than its 1980 population. Waste Inflow and Outflow There are no significant amounts of waste either entering the County from other areas or being hauled from the County. Virtually all the waste entering the County landfills originates in the County. Collection of Solid Waste There are three ways that solid waste is collected in Washington County: by Municipal collection (using municipal employees); through private collection by contracted haulers; and by the individual home or business owners hauling their refuse to the landfill or to a transfer station. 13 With the exception of Hancock, all the municipalities contract with private haulers to collect town refuse. The Town of Hancock uses its own municipal employees and equipment for trash pickup. The names of the haulers for the nine municipalities are listed on page 15. Citizens living in unincorporated areas of Washington County can either contract with a private hauler or take their refuse to the landfill or a transfer station. 14 Solid Waste Haulers Municipality Collector Boonsboro Giffin Refuse Clear Spring Community Refuse Funkstown Giffin Refuse Hagerstown Sanitary Disposal, Inc. Hancock Municipal Keedysville Giffin Refuse Sharpsburg Canfield's Refuse Smithsburg Walter Benchoff Williamsport Canfield's Refuse 15 Waste Acceptance Facilities Resh Road Landfill Site Area Owner Maryland Grid Coordinates Area Served Population Served Refuse not accepted Depth of Cover Hours of Operation Employees Equipment on Site Permit Status Estimated Remaining Storage Capacity Anticipated years of Service life 148 Acres Board of County Commissioners for Washington County 574 East 674 North 409.5 Square miles 111,620 Dead animals, hazardous wastes, explosives, motor vehicles, liquids Six inches after each days operation. 12 inches as intermediate cover. 7:00 to 3:30 Monday through Saturday 12 4 dozers, 3 Scrapers, 1 Rubber tire loader, 2 Steel wheel compactors, Road grader, Farm tractor In process of repermitting 1,872,000 tons 11-15 16 Hancock Landfill Site Area Owner Maryland Grid Coordinates: Area Served Population Served Refuse not accepted Depth of Cover Hours of Operation Employees Equipment on Site Permit Status Anticipated Years of Service 25 Acres Board of County Commissioners for Washington County 474 East 685 North 52.5 Square miles Dead animals, hazardous wastes, explosives, motor vehicles, asbestos 6 inches after each day's operation 7:00 to 3:30 Monday through Saturday 2 1 Steel wheel compactor, Rubber tire loader, 1 dozer, Small track loader New permit was approved by the State on April, 8, 1988 10* * From an analysis performed by Associated Engineering Services, Inc. in 1987. As explained elsewhere in this Plan, a consultant study is underway to determine the feasibility of keeping the Hancock site open versus using it as a transfer station. 17 } 0 0 j 0 ? § 6 9 O e7 �° ■ § 7 / a 0 ®� § e§ I 7 \ ® k ®` 0 z O z 7 0 m § n UI ® < E . u 2 ■ 9 Co 0 & c $ E b E g g © » J z e z= o § m( L 4 u o = d « o m ° S k - z QZ z0 O4 = oo w - $ $ m U) z ) 7 us 0 L k $ b S �� 0 � R k Q 9 r Z Rg co n z e a 3 k : 0 2 Chapter Four Expansion/Modifications Assessment The State regulations ask for an assessment of the need to modify or add to the landfill facilities during the next ten years. It is not enough that the County plan for only the next 10 years. Washington County government is acutely aware of the need to search for a new landfill site now so as to have adequate facilites when the Resh Road site is closed around the end of this century. A separate analysis is currently underway which will result in recommendations to the County Commissioners for a new site. It is anticipated that negotiations can begin within the next several months between County government and willing sellers of suitable land. The area of land to be obtained is expected to carry Washington County well into the future. In the meantime, the County needs to find out how long the present Resh Road site will last. In 1982, the estimated year for closeout was 2004. That estimate was based on an earlier study known as the Oliver -Comp study, a product of that engineering firm, plus updated information consisting of three separate weighing programs conducted in 1981 and 1982. The problem is that three weighings do not make for a representative sample. Then, in 1987, sample weighings were again made, this time with an average of 538 tons per day inflow versus 400 tons a day in 1981-82. The small sampling in 1987, as well as the larger sampling in 1980-81, is also less than representative of the incoming waste stream. The only way to determine the 19 inflow of the solid waste stream is to have an ongoing weighing program or to have cross sections determined through the surveying process by which available volume can then be estimated. In the absence of either of these two methods of determination, the County stands in danger of being caught short, even assuming that another site is purchased in the meantime. Acquisition of a new site in itself is not enough. Substantial site preparation is required in relocating from one landfill site to another, and capital improvements must be budgeted, contracted for, and in place well in advance of the new site being activated. The Winslow 80 -ton scale at the Resh Road site was refurbished in 1982 and was installed at the new 148 -acre site with an electronic recording instrument. Regular weighings should be conducted on a scheduled basis and the results used to estimate projected close-out. Even if the close-out date is estimated through the survey method, the weighings should still be performed regularly in order to determine the types of materials entering the waste stream as a percentage of the total. Some day tipping fees may have to be adopted. If that happens, the County will need to know the types of trash entering the landfill and its sources so a fee structure can be equitably set. Modifications to the existing sites at Resh Road and Hancock will be a function of the newly adopted State regulations for landfills particularly as they relate to liners and leachate collections and disposal. More discussion follows in Chapter 5. 20 Site Constraints Physical characteristics as well as existing and planned uses of land affect the potential siting of future solid waste facilities. Solid waste facilities need to be planned so as to minimize adverse impact on the environment and populace of Washington County. It is important, therefore, to assess the constraints imposed by the environment and land use patterns of Washington County. Washington County is in the narrowest part of the western arm of the State, where it is only a very few miles across Maryland from Pennsylvania to West Virginia. The country is narrow in the middle, somewhat enlarged to the west, and greatly enlarged to the east. It is bounded on the west by Allegeny County, on the east by Frederick County, on the north by Pennsylvania along the Mason-Dixon line, and on the south by the Potomac River. To the south, across the Potomac, Washington County faces parts of both Virginia and West Virginia. The land area is 467 square miles, or 298,880 acres. It's the eighth largest county in the State and ranks eighth in the proportion of land occupied by farms. Specific site evaluations are as follows: Topography Washington County is situated in the Appalachian Highlands and is comprised of two physiographic regions, the Blue Ridge Province and the Ridge and Valley Province, which includes the Great Valley. As these titles imply, the topography of Washington County is quite varied. The topography or relief consists of ridge lines, valleys and surface water, characterized by steep slopes, rolling foothills, wide limestone valleys, and meandering stream courses with relatively wide floodplains. The physical character of Washington County is represented by the mountainous terrain of the Blue 21 Ridge and Allegany Mountains and the moderately level base of the Great Valley. Elevations within the valleys range from 300 to 600 feet above sea level, with extremes within the County ranging 2,145 feet at Quirauk Mountain to 260 feet at Sandy Hook. Within Washington County the percent of severe slope is greatest in the mountainous areas in the eastern and western sections and stream and valley embankments. Severe slope, greater than 15 percent, totals nearly 30 percent of the County's land mass. The Hagerstown Valley, which consists of nearly half of the land area of the County, is predominately level and moderately sloping land. Soils The soils in Washington County have been formed from two general kinds of parent material. The most extensive soil is residuum formed from existing bedrock. The second type of parent material consists of sand, silt, clay, and rock fragments that were transported by the essential process of, or combination of, water, wind, and gravity. Within Washington County are five areas having similar soil development characteristics. They are: South Mountain -Elk Ridge Province -- These soils are derived from quartzites and slates with some being developed from metabasalt and phyllites. The area includes some colluvial and alluvial soils derived from materials of the same sources. Most of the bedrock develops soils with mediocre native fertility. These soils are shallow to bedrock, and/or have 22 rock outcroppings. Approximately 6 percent of all the land has a gradiant greater than 25 percent. Soils in this area are stony, and erosion is a moderate problem through the 50,000 acre province. Pleasant Valley Province -- This province is located between the South Mountain and Elk Ridge Province and contains relatively fertile soils derived primarily from metabasalt. The valley contains 4,000 acres, of which only about 100 acres have severe slope limitations. While erosion is a moderate problem, 85 acres are severly eroded. Great Valley Limestone Province -- This area includes 160,000 acres, and covers a major portion of the County. These soils are very fertile, although some are shallow to bedrock. Development is impeded by frequent outcrops of parallel bedrock exposures and some severe slope limitations. Severe erosion has occurred on only 1 percent of the area, although in general the erosion problem is moderate. Great Valley -Martinsburg Shale Province — This belt of shallow, highly erodible soils lies near the western edge of the Great Valley. The soils in this area are only moderately fertile. Approximately 15 percent of the area has severe slope limitations. Erosion presents a chronic problem, and has deteriorated much of the soil in this province that encompasses 21,000 acres. The Martinsburg Shale formation provides the most acceptable type of soil for landfilling in Washington County. See the map on the next page. Ridge and Valley Province --This region contains over 60,000 acres, covering the western section of the County. The topography is rolling, 23 24 a- z O V 0 J >- z 0 V # .II w - . • § r § & . 0 ® �° 4c o, �S ■ ■« ! !k x � p # e �§§ � . ■■K R © |R } § SEA © $e- C �. , . k o - 25 � \ � ! ® . / / Lu < \ \ 7 z < ! , _ j o / ® j \ 2 f = e « � 2 ° 0 0 � II e � 3 } / o 26 having severe slope limitations. Severe erosion prevails on 1,700 acres, limiting its agricultural capability. Shallow and stony soils limit the use of some areas. About one-third of the land is not suited for development. Agriculture has not developed extensively. The soils are derived from sandstones and shales and have a low native fertility. Nearly 60 percent of the region is wooded. Erosion is a serious problem, especially on the soils of shale origin. An in-depth study of suitable landfill soils is included in the Preliminary Site Evaluations for Additional Washington County Landfill Acquisitions, conducted by the County Planning Commission in January, 1986. Geologic Conditions Washington County's 467 -square mile area encompasses several physiographic provinces. The eastern section is a portion of the Blue Ridge Province, which includes the highlands referred to as the South Mountains. This area is underlain by highly metamorphosed Pre -Cambrian granite gneiss and metabasalt, phyllite, and quartzite. The Ridge and Valley Province comprises the remainder of the County and includes the Great Valley. The broad lowland, referred to locally as the Hagerstown Valley, is the largest section of the County. This valley is principally underlain by limestone, dolomite and shale. To the west are a series of uplifts which are characteristic of the Ridge and Valley Province. This region is characterized by long ridges which transect the County in a northeasterly direction. It is underlain with resistant sandstone, limestone, and shale. 27 Aquifers The Washington County area consists of four distinct water distribution provinces. They are as follows: 1. South Mountain --- Springs in this water province are numerous and generally small. The chemical quality of groundwater from this province is good and is suitable for most uses. 2. The Hagerstown water province -- This includes the area between South Mountain on the east and Fairview Mountain on the west. The hydrology of this province is complex due to series of folds and faults that have occured in the limestone bedrock. The groundwater travels from one limestone formation to another through the channelized systems. The limestone and dolomite that underlie the Hagerstown Valley water province not only furnish large groundwater supplies at present, but they have the potential for increased utilization in the future. 3. The Western water province -- This includes the Fairview and Powell Mountains, extending westward to the base of the eastern Slope of Sideling Hill. This portion of the County consists of shales, sandstones and thin beds of limestone completely folded and cut by the Potomac River Valley. The movement of groundwater through the shales is controlled by fractured systems and the deformed bedrock; thus, transmissibility and storage capacity is inadequate for large groundwater productions. Springs are a common source of water within the province, especially small springs and seeps in shale areas. 4. Hancock -Indian Springs -- This province consists of shale, sandstone, and shaly limestone bedrock with a generally thin soil cover. A good percentge of this area contains aquifers with a high yield. Surface Water Washington County is situated entirely within the drainage basin of the Potomac River. The aggregated area drained by the river is 14,670 square miles of which Washington County represents 3 percent. In its course, the Potomac intersects both the Ridge and Valley and the Blue Ridge physiographic regions and is the terminus of nine drainage basins in the County, most having their origin in Pennsylvania. The primary tributaries are as follows: 1. Antietam Creek Basin -- This watershed drains approximately 40 percent of the County or 187 square miles. Approximately two thirds of the Antietam's basin is in Washington County, draining the Hagerstown Valley and the South Mountain -Elk Ridge regions. 2. Conococheague Creek Basin -- A geologically young meandering stream that drains 65 square miles in Washington County. The basin forms the western part of the Hagerstown Valley. 3. Licking Creek Basin -- This drains the Bear Pond Mountain and Pigskin Ridge area, a drainage basin of 27 square miles. 4. Tonoloway Creek Basin -- This is almost entirely in Pennsylvania. 5. The Little Tonoloway Creek -- Begins in Pennslyvania and 29 empties into the Potomac east of Hancock. 6. Sideling Hill Creek Basin --- This forms the western natural boundary of Washington County. 7. Other smaller watersheds include the Little Conococheague Creek, St. James Run, Marsh Run, and the Israel Creek. Flood Plains Flood Plain soils make up approximately 5.4 percent, or 16,170 acres, of the total County acreage. On -site sewage disposal is prohibited in these soils. The following soils are identified as alluvial in Washington County as a result of periodic inundation and deposition. Soil Acreage Soil Acreage Ashton 78 Largent 157 Atkins 1164 Lindside 2435 Chewacla 674 Melvin 146 Congaree 86 Philo 1684 Dunning and Melvin 1896 Pope 2704 Huntington 1439 Warner's 1646 Wahadkee 183 Water Quality The State regs ask for an assessment of constraints imposed on the landfill by water quality. As far as is known, there are no water data 30 that would indicate quality problems in the vicinity of the Resh Road site or the Hancock site. The Conococheague Creek is immediately west of the Resh Road site, and possibly records are available with the State Health Department on previous water quality sampling in the area. No problems have been made known by the Health Department to County government relative to the presence of the landfills at either Resh Road or at Hancock. Incompatible Land Uses The land use most obviously incompatible with solid waste acceptance facilities is residential. development. Residential land accounts for only 4 percent of the total land area in Washington County, but it is concentrated mostly around the Hagerstown metropolitan area. Low density residential development has occurred throughout the entire County. Another land use which should be considered when determining future solid waste acceptance facilities is agriculture. Agriculture has been and continues to be one of Washington County's most important industries. When determining a site for future solid waste accpetance facilities, care must be taken to consider the impacts on the neighboring farmland. The current investigation for a future landfill site takes into account residential development as well as agricultural lands in the study. At present, residential development is of low intensity in the Martinsburg shale formation area of the County. Planned Land Use and Growth Patterns The current Washington County Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the County Commissioners in February 1981, the first update of the Comprehensive Plan since its initial adoption in 1971. The Comprehensive Plan is a policy 31 guide that provides for both government and private decisions to be made for future growth and development over the next twenty years. It is a County- wide plan that directly applies to all of the unincorporated areas of Washington County and indirectly to the areas within Hagerstown and the other eight municipalities. Although it focuses on the County`s physical development, it also addresses public policies for government spending and for the provision of services that will affect the social and economic climate. Growth is expected to take place wherever adequate public facilities are available. The adoption of the Urban Growth Area boundary in 1983 provided a strong policy on the part of both the County Commissioners and the governing bodies of Hagerstown, Funkstown, and Williamsport. By encouraging future growth of all types --residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional --to occur within that envelope, the County can be assured of providing for economic expansion in the most cost-effective manner. On the other hand, significant growth in the rural sector of the County is not encouraged because of 1) the long-term cost to the taxpayer for additional infrastructure, 2) the resultant loss of farmland, and 3) the less tangible but nevertheless important fact that the scenic value of the County's countryside would be diminished. Growth for the present is expected to take place east of Hagerstown in the Robinwood/Junior College area. Additional growth of all types may also be expected in the Halfway area and north of Williamsport. The construction of a new waste water treatment plant south of I-70 and east of Md. Rt. 63 will help guide growth in accordance with County policy. Eventually, that growth will move northward in the corridor between 1-81 and Md. Rt. 63 as 32 far as the Pennsylvania line. Areas of Critical Concern Under the authority of the State Land Use Act of 1974, a program known as Areas of Critical State Concern (ACSC) was initiated. The purpose of the program was to designate certain "critical" geographical sites or structures that are of such County and State significance that the authority of this State law would save them from indiscriminate or inappropriate development. Under State law, each County and all State agencies were given the task of designating critical areas for submission to the Department of State Planning for approval. After considering this matter on two separate occasions in 1977 and in 1979, the Washington County Commissioners and the County Planning Commission took the position that critical areas are best addressed at the local level and should therefore be implemented pursuant to the guidelines of the Special Planning Areas as defined in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, no recommendations for critical areas were submitted by Washington County to the Department of State Planning. Source Separation, Resource Recovery, and Consumer Education Programs These three elements of trash processing are listed as separate items in the State regs for the Solid Waste Plan biennial update, but because of the nature of resource recovery, they will be discussed together since they're interdependent. Recycling falls under this general heading. House Bill 714, approved by the legislature in the closing session of 1988, mandates that counties prepare and implement a recycling program. Communities with populations of less than 150,000 will prepare a recycling plan by July 1, 1990 with full 33- implementation of the plan by January 1, 1994. The issuance of building permits by the County will be tied in with adherence to these schedules although waiver provisions are in the recently enacted legislation. Each county will be required to recycle 15 percent of its waste stream although waivers to this requirement may be granted by the Secretary for the Department of the Environment, but in no case will the allowable fraction of the total waste stream be less than 5 percent. The newly created office of recycling at the State level will, by the end of 1988, submit recommendations to the State legislature for financing the recycling systems at both State and local levels. Provisions are in the law for counties to request funds for administering the program. A review of the success, or the lack of it, in other communities in this country may provide some perspective for local efforts. Success among communities in the United States over the past several years in the field of resource recovery --burning garbage, extracting recyclable items, generating steam and electricity --has ranged from notable to disastrous. Marion County, Oregon has made significant progress in burning its trash with little resultant air pollution and at the same time has initiated a program of source separation for bottles, cans, plastics --the kind of materials that, when they're burned, pollute the environment. (The air is polluted as the materials are incinerated; the ground becomes contaminated when the bottom ash is landfilled). Lassen County, California, on the other hand, has had miserable results. Largely because of alleged mismanagement of its plans for energy recovery program through mass incineration, Lassen Community College has had to file for bankruptcy. The college had planned to collect trash from surrounding communities, incinerate it, produce steam and electricity, and sell both products. Garbage that everyone assumed would be available in large amounts for burning wasn't there. The community 34 had to eventually arrange for trash to be hauled from Reno, Nevada, ninety miles away. The costs mounted. Once the plant was started, the fly ash was found to be hazardous with high concentrations of lead, cadmium, copper, mercury and other metals. Finally, the college did not have a signed fixed - price contract with customers for the electricity. Six months after the plant started, it closed. Reported evidence shows that all its problems were a result of poor planning. Other communities are experiencing a lack of success in handling their trash problems. Islip, N.Y. has sent its garbage on a 6,000 mile trip across the oceans before finally burning it in a New York incinerator. The City of Philadelphia has had a similar experience. Philadelphia has plans to eventually recycle 50 percent of all its trash. Its officials, however, are concerned with the lack of a relcycling market. Paper mills, it was noted, do not open just because paper is collected. The point of relating these experiences from other communities is to highlight the need for sound planning on Washington County°s part as it proceeds with its waste handling programs. As it was demonstrated in the 1982 Solid Waste Management Study, Washington County is fortunate in having relatively large areas of land suitable for trash disposal. Until recently, when the new State laws went into effect requiring geomembranes and leachate collection, burying solid waste has been far more economical than shredding or burning. If the County were to shred, 21 fewer acres of land would be used over a fifteen year period (the estimated life of a shredder), but because of the added shredder capital and operating expense, the cost for each of the 21 saved acres would 35 be over $933,000. The least expensive way proved to be continued landfilling. That advantage, however, is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Current cost for landfilling with plastic liners and leachate collection systems are in the neighborhood of $300,000-$500,000 an acre. Incineration is being touted as the state-of-the-art method of handling trash nowadays. This process is technically sound if all precautions are followed and in many cases, depending on the community, is cost-effective. Some communities have no choice between incinerating and landfilling because of a scarcity of land. Assuming that a community eventually resolves its problems in favor of mass incineration, a well -conceived program for recycling is necessary for mass incineration to effectively work. A community can have recycling without mass incineration, but it cannot effectively have mass incineration without recycling. Bottles, cans, batteries, and plastics --particularly PVC --heavily contribute to air contamination and then later to the earth as fly ash and bottom ash are buried. Marion County, Oregon, with a population of 210,000, estimates that it removes 95 percent of the soft drink and beer cans from the waste stream. It has every incentive to do that. The recently completed $47 million trash burning facility has made the citizens acutely aware of the need to remove potential contaminates from the waste stream. Public awareness programs administered by local government have helped. Japan has seen success with both mass incineration and recycling. City officials go door to door periodically explaining the need to separate waste in the home, and recycling is part of the elementary school curriculum. In a paper exchange program, citizens turn in their newspapers and receive a 36 weekly allotment of tissue paper and toilet paper. While such incentives appear extreme to Americans, each community in this country is eventually going to have to consider all possible approaches in resolving its trash problems. The Japanese trash ethic has enabled that country to assure a high degree of reduction of contaminates in the waste stream, but some still end up being burned. In order for an incineration system to be effective, scrubbers --devices for removing contaminants from the flue --must be part of the operating system. Such controls appear elementary, but reports show that frequently they are not used in this country because the incinerators are run by private operators who strive for cost reduction. Scrubbers add to the operating costs and reduce profit. The result is air and earth contaminated with toxins. Both fly ash and bottom ash are products of mass incineration, and unless metals are removed in advance they are transported into the air in a gaseous state. The process of scrubbing can remove the contaminates effectively from the flue, but burned batteries, PVC, and lead from discarded materials will become concentrated in the bottom ash which, along with the fly ash, become landfilled. Monofill.s, or landfills designated for one purpose, have come into use. Using a geomembrane over a compacted clay liner, communities have been able to greatly reduce the diffusion of toxins into the earth. But problems remain: according to Hershkowitz in his article "Burning Trash: How It Could Work", the EPA "does not regulate the disposal of incinerator ash because it is still trying to figure out how to test its toxicity." The economics of trash burning vary from community to community. About 70 resource -recovery plants are already in operation or are starting up in KYA this country, 20 are under construction, and 100 more are planned. A small plant that burns 50 tons a day may cost around $1.2 million while a 4,500 tons a day facility such as the one under way in Broward County, Florida costs $570 million. To private operators of incinerators, every dollar counts: efficient particulate -removing systems and scrubbers can add $5 to $10 a ton to the already immodest tipping fee necessary to run the operation. Marion County, Oregon has seen a significant increase in its trash disposal costs since 1981. Back then, the per ton cost was $8; today, it's $26. The average cost per ton for trash disposal in Philadelphia is now $75. These statistics and experiences of other communities and other nations are presented in the spirit of a better awareness on our part in Washington County. Compared to other areas, Washington County has been fortunate. The 1982 Solid Waste Management Plan estimated that the cost per ton for 1987 would be $7.01, whereas it was actually $5.90. But the days of disposing of the County's trash for $5 a ton or thereabouts is rapidly coming to a close. Whether the County continues landfilling using plastic liners and leachate collection systems or moves in the direction of mass incineration in cooperation with other communities, the cost per ton is going to rise appreciably. The imposition of new State laws governing solid waste disposal should become an incentive for devising better ways of doing things. At present, there are no consumer education programs for source separation in Washington County aside from the Oil Recovery Program. As of this writing, new State legislation has just been passed concerning recycling. That, along with local enthusiasm, can provide an opportunity W for assisting in long-term cost reductions for waste management. Asbestos Disposal Asbestos is accepted at the Resh Road landfill in accordance with specific handling procedures that have been provided to all haulers. Emergency Spillage This problem is covered by separate laws and regulations outside the solid waste management subject with those regs being administered by the appropriate emergency -responsive agencies. Siting Regulations The County Zoning Ordinance provides for landfills under the Agricultural district. 39 Chapter Five Plan of Action The County is currently investigating new potential landfill sites in the area of the Martinsburg Shale formation, that geologic belt straddling the Conococheague Creek between the Pennsylvania line and the Potomac River. A study for a new site is being completed by the Planning Department, and it's anticipated that the Board of County Commissioners will begin the selection process shortly. The Resh Road 148 -acre site that was opened in 1982 was originally forecast to last until 2004, but the present status of that site tells us that it will be filled long before that date. The accompanying chart shows the rate of fill for the present Resh Road site based on two assumptions: 1) that the rate of fill will be that estimated in 1982 at 400 tons a day, and that 2) it will be at the average rate determined in April and again in September of 1987 with a daily average of 538 tons a day. There needs to be a third assumption, one based on a field survey. However, until that survey is made, the completion date is unknown. What we do know, which we didn't in 1982, is that only about 51 percent, or 76 acres, of that 148 acre area can actually be used for landfilling. The rest is taken up by roads or is unusable because of slope. That information alone indicates that the site will be closed out long before 2004, possibly in the early 1990s. 40 It O 0 Cu O O Cu 0 Cu C1 O) a) 0) ti O) ID 0) to O) a) C) N 0) i O 0) 0) m a7 a) I` 0) Cu a) zz I') Cu — 0 OO J � J LL 20 41 0) O m w m O O 0 0 CI) O v O O 0 N a w 42 The table of weighing data compiled in 1987 shows that 23 percent of the total waste stream is rubble --dirt, stones, and concrete. Both dollars and effort are being wasted by landfilling this material. There could be no better plan of action on the County's part than to get a separate site at the Resh Road facility. A rubble fill, once established, is required to be covered with earth only once every three days as opposed to daily. In addition to the construction rubble, the landfill is continually receiving Conservit and Newell fluff, the leftover material from shredded cars after all the recyclable products are recovered. Current estimates by the Landfill Director place this contribution to the waste stream as high as 20 percent of the total amount received at Resh Road. By any standard, this percentage of contribution to the waste stream by a single firm is too high. Like the rubble, the fluff is being covered every day with six inches of earth. The importance of establishing a close-out date, either through the survey method or through continued weighings with the Winslow scale, cannot be overstressed. Even if elevations are computed through the survey method to determine remaining capacity of the Resh Road site, there should still be continuous weighings in order to know the types of wastes entering the landfill and their quantities in relation to the total waste stream. New State regulations for lining the landfill and collecting the leachate are presently being evaluated to determine how they are to be implemented. A contract has just be let for the design of a liner and leachate collection system for the Resh Road site. Included with this consultant effort will be the monitoring of leachate quantity and the 43 preparation of a report to the State as required by the new regs. The consultant will also evaluate the Hancock site to determine if the County should continue using it to close-out or to close it now and use that site as a transfer station. The Board of County Commissioners, as of this writing, is engaged in discussions with elected officials from Frederick, Carroll, and Howard Counties to explore the feasibility of mass incineration. With these discussions only in the preliminary stage, it is too early to predict the outcome. Finance Methods Costs for the new system, as far as can be determined at present, will be borne by the Capital Improvements budget. All current financing for the land, both operating and capital, is from County funds. Closeout Earlier discussions focused on the possible close-out dates for both the Resh Road site and the Hancock site. There are no current plans for use of the two sites once they are capped and closed. Obviously, any use would be consistent with the County°s Comprehensive Plan. 44 Chapter Six RECOMMENDATIONS The 1982 Solid Waste Management Study contained seven recommendations. They were: 1. Continue landfilling as the most economical method of solid waste disposal. 2. Begin a search for a new site immediately. 3. Begin a continuous weighing program so both quantitative and qualitative date are available. 4. Establish a separate rubble site in the Resh Road area. 5. Undertake a study of the Hancock site to determine if it should remain open or be closed and used as a transfer station. 6. Provide a separate area at the Resh Road site for the general public to dispose of its trash. 7. Begin slicing all tires brought into the landfill. 45 Items 1, 6, and 7 have been implemented. Item 2 was begun and is nearing completion. Item 5 is underway, and items 3 and 4 are yet to be implemented. Progress has been made, but there is room for more. In light of the added costs for landfilling brought about by new laws and regulations, it is incumbent on the County government to do all it can to become more efficient in its waste disposal efforts. The following are new recommendations for improving the cost-effectiveness of solid waste management. CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine through a survey a more accurate completion estimate for the Resh Road site than is currently available. 2. Begin a continuous weighing program. Without it, we have only sporadic records of the types and amounts of solid waste entering the landfill. The daily average for the 13 -day period in 1987 was 538 tons. In another weighing in 1988, on four separate days, the daily average was 782 tons. Is this large variation to be expected or is it a rare fluctuation? Without continuous weighings, we cannot know. A permanent record of daily trash components is needed to determine tipping fees and to determine the most efficient way to implement and administer the recycling program. A system needs to be set up for collecting the data and storing it in a computer for retrieval and analysis. 3. Begin working with the State on setting aside a rubble disposal site at Resh Road, 4. Explore the possibility of Conservit or major demolition contractors setting up and running their own rubble sites. 47 LANDFILL COST ANALYSIS 1985 Projected Capital $171,362 Operating $582,540 Total $753,812 Actual $305,179 $617,890 $923,069 Cost per ton $5.91 $6.45 1986 Capital $188,499 $469,758 Operating $640,695 $614,858 Total $829,194 $1,084,616 Cost per ton $6.44 $8.41 1987 Change +22% +31% Capital $207,348 $137,533 Operating $704,764 $630,079 Total $912,112 $767,612 -16% Cost per ton $7.01 $5.90 O ,N Co V V O tl O N r t0 Co tO U) O C) N W O N H H d' In M N N O1 tor a' O t0 Cr) cT to O C N U 1 0) C +) U) Co N m .i NO t0 Co O N O r-i r O n -4 .-4 H O U) Co IM, to Cl -1 NN N N r -t m M 0 t0 Co O H ri ri H O to N m to .d -.4 C) M m .-I C) v m et V' N %D t0 t0 Co m N C) m Co N N tO V' eC -4 .-1 .-i H Co N M r11 44 1 0 N t� t0 N r m M t0 d' m W 'i tO In '3' to l0 in N W Ln Co M .-I to .-1 Cl W C Ln 11 CD CD U) H H N 0 U) O N H ri N Cl 0) N tO tO '-4 .-1 C) H O to 9 m M U) O M Cl -1 r1 .- .i N Co 9 N yr M .i M r1 Ln 4')) C') te) Cl C) m N r-1 r co H .i N M ('3 t)' Co Cl tO U) .i N t0 O O r 'a O1 N -2 r to two n u) L 40 N N V' Co M st' M d' r-i Cl '0 f M O N M Ln t0 d' r t- -4 N t0 H s-1 r -f CO c Oro roW Cop W t� Q Cl O 40 V' U) t0 N U) r N W H M i 40 Co '-1 N as e)' t0 N H in Co O N '3' V' '3' M V' N 1 O N O N .1 In d' d' '0' O -f O r-1 N H 'i O O C) In N '-1 r Ln t0 O Cl! N 9 N M Cl H Lo O) N ri Co O d' N N W UU)) N Lt) N -I-1 N N W+ m CD Co L) t0 It N 00 Co '0' r-1 i co N H W ') CoCO C'') r N U) 'I to C W m m Co CO N r- CD N-.4 '-i O M N O r t0 H '1 'i Co O -4 U) d' H t 0 O N Co 'l' M O 40 H 10 ON W to O O 40 --1 -.F ra 0 '-4 Ir r) N O LLi 40 W m r -t '3' t0 U) t0 in to Cl -J' '-4 er v O N U) C') N CO M t0 U) O tO W Cl CD m M .I U) H 4 H '! W co '-) I 1 W 4J-1 H ,- ,-4H Cl O '-i t0 W Co M O in N H N O '-1 N N O N Ln Cl N t0 N U) SOURCES 1. Hershkowitz, Allen "Burning Trash: How It Could Work" TECHNOLOGY REVIEW July 1987 2. Cadwallader, Mark "Underlining Security for Incinerator Ash" WORLD WASTES December, 1987 3. Marshall, Eliot L. "America's Big Mess: After You Take Out The Trash, Where Will They Put It?" GOVERNING December, 1987 4. Reilly, Thomas C. and Morse, Linda "Waste -To -Energy: Anatomy Of a Failure" WORLD WASTES January, 1987 50