HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 Solid Waste Management PlanSOLID `BASTE
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
1990
WASHINGTON
COUNTY,
MARYLAND
• !. 1`. P 1'.d ICI •
ADOPTED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
December 11, 1990
Board of County CcaTmissioners
Richard E. Roulette, President
Ronald L. Bowers, Vice President
Linda C. Irvin -Craig
John S. Shank
Gregory I. Snook
Washington County Planning Commission
Donald E. Zcmbro, Chairman
Bertrand L. Iseminger, Vice -Chairman
Richard E. Roulette, Ex -Officio
Carol Johnson
Bernard Moser
Donald Spickler
Steven West
Gary W. Rohrer, Chief
Division of Planning and Codes Administration
Planning Staff
James P. Brittain, Planning Director
Stephen T. C-ocdrich, Senior Planner
Lisa Kelly Pietro, Project Planner
Debra A. Brr, Planning Draftsman
Janet L. Walkley, Administrative Secretary
Decenber, 1990
Verna Brown, Administrative Secretary - Fire and Rescue Ccamiunications
Robert Davenport, Director of Solid Waste - Washington County Landfill
Department
Kristin DeVault, Administrative Secretary - Board of Zoning Appeals
Roderick MacRae, Assistant Director - Washington County Health Department
Jeffrey Ringer, Chief - Halfway Volunteer Fire Department
William Stachoviak, Parks Planner - Washington County Planning Canission
James Young, Director of Finance - Washington County Accounting Office
Steven Zies, Weighmaster Inspector - Washington County Landfill Department
Y4 :_ � _ tai►iY�t►ik+
introduction
Chapter I
iii
Goals, objectives, and Policies 1
Government Structure 6
State and Local Controls 7
Chapter II
County Population 9
Federal and Local Facilities Map 11
County Zoning Requirements 12
County Plan 12
chapter III
Basis for Data 16
Waste Inflow and Outflow 18
Waste Collection Systeans 18
Waste Acceptance Facilities 20
Table of Contents
Chapter IV
Landfill Assessment 23
Proposed Landfill and Rubblefill 26
Source Separation, Resource Recovery 50
Asbestos 57
Spillage 58
Siting Regulations 58
Chapter V
County's plan of action 59
Four County Study 66
Methods of financing 71
Projected closure date 72
Chapter VI
Recommendations 73
Landfill Cost Data 79
Reference Sources 81
New laws governing solid waste disposal, promulgated in the
interest of public health and welfare, have created a challenge of
tremendous magnitude for ccnmunities across the United States. Potentially
hazardous effects on ground water and surface water have made conventional
landfilling methods no longer acceptable. Synthetic 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 solid waste disposal have
placed a large 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 recamendations for still improving the County's waste
management system.
iii
Estimates place the new cost of landfilling using a synthetic liner
between $300,000 and $500,000 an acre. Improved and alternative ways of
disposing of the ccaimunity's trash must be explored. A rubble disposal area
currently being planned can be used for disposing of tree stumps, concrete,
rocks, and building demolition debris. Valuable cell area and earth cover
can be saved, thus increasing the area available for municipal solid waste
and extending the landfill's life. Private contractors can possibly
establish, 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 recycling of tires
and 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. Also under
contract is the 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 m ndates
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.
iv
While the co pletion date for the Resh Road site is unknown, current
estimates place it within 7 years. The County government recently purchased
a 427 acre tract for a future sanitary landfill. The site is currently
under investigation and design by a private consultant, Century Engineering,
Inc. The County has purchased a 100 acre tract and is in the process of
exercising an option on a contiguous 30 acre property for the purpose of
establishing a future rubble landfill. The County is currently in the
process of exercising options on tw properties for the purpose of
establishing a future rubble landfill. In addition, the Board of County
Ccmissioners is looking into the feasibility of a regional waste management
program 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.
I!4
Tn ASHINGrION 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.
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.
-1-
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
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.
-2-
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.
515
Objectives
Washington County has identified objectives in five areas in order to
reach its goals: Planning, Solid Waste Generation, Solid Waste Collection,
Solid Waste Disposal, and Solid Waste Reduction through recycling. The
objectives in each are as follows:
A. Planning
nq
1. Provide for biennial review and revision of the adopted Solid
Waste Managnt 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 for all County
landfills.
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
-4-
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.
3. Provide opportunities for the collection of recyclables.
D. Solid Waste Disposal
1. Eliminate any roadside dumps.
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 commmity.
E. Solid Waste Reduction
1. Implerent Recycling Plan's goals and objectives as adopted by
the County Ccmenissioners on July 31, 1990. The Plan's primary goal is to
reduce the waste stream by 20.5% by 1994, 5.5% above that mandated by State
law. In addition, the County will pursue a publicly stated goal of a 50%
reduction in the waste stream by 1994. Upon analysis of the technologies
and methods to accomplish this goal, the Solid Waste Plan, Recycling Plan
and Capital Improvement Plan will be updated to reflect the implementing
procedures.
STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT
RELATING TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
--1
COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
PLANNING
I
PLANNING I CHIEF,
DIVISION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION & CODES ADMINISTRATION
PLANNING
DIRECTOR
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
SOLID WASTE
DIRECTOR
RECYCLING
PROGRAM
RESH COORDINATOR
ROAD
LANDFILL
IIIII
GREENSBURG
TRANSFER
STATION
I I HANCOCK KAETZELL
TRANSFER
SOLID WASTE I LANDFILL I STATION
PLANNER
DARGAN
TRANSFER
STATION
-6-
Structure of Government as it relates to Solid Waste Management
Washington County Government is a ccmissioner style of government with
a board of five County Ccartnissioners who appoint department directors. The
chart on page 6 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 vere 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
systems, solid waste disposal systans 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.
-7-
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 Solid
Waste Director, the Planning Department, and other agencies of County
government as deemed appropriate.
-8-
Chapter 2
Population
The 1980 census for Washington County listed the population as 113,086,
an 8.9 percent increase fran the 1970 Census. The Department of State
Planning, in its April, 1990 forecast, has projected a 6.6 percent increase
in the County population between 1980 and 1990, and a 2.07 percent increase
between 1990 and 1995. A graph indicating this trend is shown on page 10.
The postcensus count submitted for local review indicated a population
of 120,886. The population figure to be finalized December 31, 1990 is at
this point only 386 above the State's April estimated population.
Municipal and Federal Facilities Ma.
The map on page 11 shows municipalities and Federal facilties within the
County.
-9-
WASHINGTON COUNTY
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
35,000
130,000
125,000
120,000
115,000
110,000
105,000
p 100,000
95,000
per. 90,000
0
a' 85,000
80,000
75,000
70,000
A
JY
65,000
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
HISTORIC ; PROJECTED
SOURCE : MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING, APRIL 1990
-10-
1.
Q I.
2
O
O
®t0
z
8
2
W
®
/A l
H
rc
O �
M I
Y
4 Q a
Q
o a
Q
i
W
N
W
s ti= t J
H
vi
®
Q
1_
J I�yJ z _
J
a
to
tit
~
=�
U
Q }
J tt.I Q
J
T
AQ
LL
J
IL
¢
Q LL
Q �tnz
U
Q
v
Z
la1
Z
Z)
v
w
w a U
o
o ao z a
4
2
tL
Q
Qq.
O
t0
U
d
Z
Q
to
V
a
S
=
(n
O
-11-
County Zoning is
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 400 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."
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.
CaT rehensive Plan
The Washington County Cairnissioners initially adopted the County's
Ccrehensive Plan in October 1971. Extensive revisions to the Plan were
zegun in 1975. The County Ccinissioners formally adopted the revised Plan
in April 1981. There have been no revisions since then.
-12-
The Plan outlines three policies that are intended to deal with solid
waste planning issues in Washington County. They include:
1.) Public Awareness Canpaign--Issues concerning source separation,
material recovery, and energy generation must be effectively brought to
public attention. Efforts such as caiiminity 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.
-13-
Chapter Three
Solid Waste Projections
The State regulations ask for a table showing existing and projected
annual solid waste generation of numerous categories for at least a ten-year
period.
The table on page 17 show the projections of Washington County's waste
stream for the years 1990, 1995 and 2000. 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
recycling plant. White goods are contracted out annually during the
spring. Whole tires that are brought into the landfill are stockpiled for
collection by the recycling firm Associated Tires, Inc. of Inwood, West
Virginia. Associated Tires entered into an agreement with the County for a
one year period ending April 30, 1991. The contract has the ability to be
extended for two additional years. Sliced tires are still buried at the
landfill.
-15-
Refuse not accepted includes dead animals, hazardous wastes, explosives,
septic tank sludge, motor vehicles, or any waste in liquid forfn except for
waste motor oil and antifreeze for recycling. These prohibitions, in
addition to asbestos, apply to the Hancock landfill. Asbestos is accepted
at the Resh Road landfill in accordance with State regulation procedures
that have been provided to all haulers.
Basis for Data
Waste disposal at the Washington County Landfill has begun to be
measured only recently on a systematic basis. A full-time weighing program
began on July 1, 1989. All projections listed in Table 1 are derived fran
weighings that occurred from July 1989 through June 1990.
All refuse caning into the landfill is categorized into the seven
classifications by origin shown in Table 1. Each classification had twelve
(12) weighings (July 1989 through June 1990). These figures were added
together in order to get a total FY'90 tonnage for each classification, i.e.
residential, commercial. This information is listed in the FY'90 Total
Tonnage column in Table 1 on page 17. The other columns shown list waste
stream projections for 1995 and 2000. The percentage differences between
the projected County population figures were multiplied by the 1990 tonnage
figures in order to get the projected future waste streams.
All population projections were prepared by the Maryland Office of
Planning, revisions April 1990.
-16-
v
43
0
N
0
M
A
F2
N
dt
N
N
-H
--L
Ql
CO
r -L
C-
N
Ln
W
C+
d•
4.)
t)
(N
'-4
v
S']
4)
U)
V
i.) O
rG
r1 1
4) Ln
U cc
U
•n
O
5-4
(V RS m
O
E-i O W
H
$-i
v
4)
U)
O
E-'
C) CO
U)
C3'
N
Ol
v-4
N
01 N
Ol
0
N
ri
t)
Ln
r^1 N
N
r -L
'.O
,1
Ln
N
C') CO
N
d'
N
d'
l0
' in
d'
U)
O
N
tr)
E-
'-0
W
CY)
Ln
W
0
N
c
'.O'
to
0 0
'.0
m
N
Ln
N
v -I
to
m
d'
n
(N
N
t0
c'
u)
d'
t0
d'
Ln
d'
('4
r-i
U)
tp
O
001
4
-H0'
U)
4)
s -L
S-1
N
X
Ln
O)
M
d'
L''')
G
h
(N
C')
N
4)
—
O
O
v
43
v
00
-H
O
rI
54
4
4-1
w
r,)
v
)4)
O
44
rtl
N -L
'v.
5
4)
4
S -I
u
E~
4)
a
4)
A
°u
Ha)
rn
E
•ra
+1
4)
U)
H
Ic
H
U
r`
H
t)z
—17—
Waste Inflow and Outflow
No solid waste from out of County is allowed to be disposed at County
landfill facilities. This is kept incheck by the issuance of permit
stickers by landfill personnel to County residential and commercial
haulers. There are no significant amounts being hauled out of the County.
Approximately 8% of the waste which includes tires, white goods, glass,
newspaper, and batteries are stockpiled and collected by various businesses
for recycling.
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 green box
facility.
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 19 and are under
contract as of this writing. Citizens living in unincorporated areas of
Washington County can either contract with a private hauler or take their
refuse to the landfill or a green box facility.
-18-
Solid Waste Haulers for County Municipalities
Municipality Collector
Boonsboro General Sanitation Service, Inc.
Clear Spring BFI, Inc.
Funkstown General Sanitation Service, Inc.
Hagerstown BFI, Inc.
Hancock Municipal
Keedysville General Sanitation Service, Inc.
Sharpsburg General Sanitation Service, Inc.
Smithsburg General Sanitation Service, Inc.
Williamsport BFI, Inc.
-19-
Waste Acceptance Facilities
Resh Road Landfill
Site Area 148 Acres
Owner Board of County CcaTraissioners
for Washington County
Maryland Grid Coordinates 574 East 674 North
409.5 Square miles
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
* 116,795
Dead animals, hazardous wastes,
explosives, motor vehicles,
liquids
Six inches after each day's
operation. 12 inches as
intermediate cover.
7:00 to 3:30 Monday through
Saturday
14
4 dozers, 3 Scrapers, I
Rubber tire loader, 3 Steel
wheel compactors, Road grader,
Farm tractor, forklift, backhoe,
roller
New permit was approved in
March, 1990. The remaining
acreage is in the review
process.
** 1,300,000
** 7
* Figures based on projections from the Maryland Office of Planning,
Planning Data Services, April 1990
** Based on projections from the Washington County Director of Solid
Waste, June 1990
-20-
Hancock Landfill
Site Area 25 Acres
Owner Board of County Commissioners
f or Washington County
Maryland Grid Coordinates: 474 East 685 North
Area Served 52.5 Square miles
population Served 3705 *
Refuse not accepted Dead animals, hazardous wastes,
explosives, motor vehicles,
asbestos and liquids
Depth of Cover 6 inches after each day's
operation
Hours of Operation 7:00 to 3:30 Monday through
Saturday
Employees 2
Equip nt on Site 1 Steel wheel carpactor, Rubber
tire loader, 1 dozer, 1 scraper
Permit Status New permit was approved by the
State on April, 8, 1988
Anticipated Years of Service 12.5 years **
A study on the Hancock Landfill was completed by Century Engineering,
Inc. of Towson, Maryland in June 1990. The purpose of the study was
to determine the best and most efficient use of the Hancock Landfill.
Refer to page 25 for details.
* Figures based on projections from the Maryland Office of Planning,
Planning Data Services, April 1990.
** Based on projections fran the Washington County Director of Solid Waste,
June 1990
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.
-21-
O
L()
O
0
P
( D
t9
to
0
CD
L._1
g
w
O
0
0
El
z0
0
®z
®Q
a
S
CD
Y
Q
a
a
z
t
®m
/B
K
d
Q
O
O
a
N
J
® 3
b
r
HU
�
Q
Cl)
LU
xx Y
0H0H
U
Z
�J mJ
O
n
?
U_ L-
m
L)
W
t
_
V
LJIL W
LL a
ra a
z
y
Q
?
3
Q
z 0
a z
2
Ld
Xo
W
W
N j
li
J a C7 p
W
U' m
a
"
3
U
a Y m
C7
z zO
Qz
OU N
}
Q
W
= z w w
Cad
oc
w o
w
a Y
U
Q`y�P
/
Q
o O a
s
0
tOA
0�
QO
}
lD
0
U
z
Z
a
N
w
Fes-
a
Y
Uf
Q
0
U
z
Mi
=
2
U)
O
0
Q
'
-22-
The following information provides an assessment of Washington County's
plans to modify and add to landfill facilities in the next ten years.
The Resh Road Landfill is situated between Route 63 (Greencastle Pike)
and Resh Road, approximately 3 miles west of Hagerstown. The 148 acre
landfill site is divided into eight (8) cells. Cells two (2) and three (3)
have been filled to their capacity, while cells one (1) and five (5) are
currently receiving refuse. Cell four (4) is currently under construction
and will be utilized upon completion of one and five. This cell will have a
leachate collection system whereby a computer will have the capability of
monitoring the movement of all liquids within the cell four (4) area. The
County's Director of Solid Waste has stated that cell four will have an
estimated life span of 2.5 years.
Cells six (6), seven (7) and eight (8) will be located in the northern
section of the landfill which is situated on the opposite side of Resh
Road. The northern section encompasses approximately 73 acres, however,
only 38 acres of that site is fillable. The site is currently under design
and will include two sediment and erosion ponds.
-23-
As mentioned in Chapter Three, waste disposal entering the Resh Road
Landfill has been measured only recently on a systematic basis. A full-time
weighing program began on July 1, 1989. Incoming refuse is visually
inspected by landfill personnel and is then weighed. It is categorized into
seven classifications and then inputted into the computer. These include:
Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Farm, Institutional, Government and Not
Specified. As a result of the weighing program, new computerized platform
truck scales were installed in January 1990. Mechanical scales purchased in
1983 have also been converted to computerization. This conversion enables
landfill officals to analyze the County's waste stream and establish
accounting procedures for user fees. Landfill user fees were developed for
residential and commercial haulers and have been in effect since July 1,
1989. A current fee listing is included in the Finance Method section in
Chapter Five.
The Hancock Landfill is situated in the northeast corner of the Town of
Hancock in western Washington County. The landfill is located at the end of
Hess Road and approximately 800 feet west of Tonolowray Creek. The landfill
was opened in 1969 and was operated by the Town of Hancock. In 1975, the
County assumed operation of the landfill while the Town of Hancock retained
ownership.
-24-
The Hancock Landfill consists of an active 10 acre cell and a proposed 5
acre cell located between the active cell and the Tonolaaay Creek. The
landfill normally recieves approximately 17 tons of residential and
commercial solid waste each day, but often receives a much greater volume
from commercial sources. These periodic loadings increase the average waste
stream to approximately 21 tons a day. The active cell has 60,310 cubic
yards of waste disposal area remaining until design capacity is reached. At
21 tons a day, the cell should reach design capacity in 4.7 years.
A study on the Hancock Landfill was completed by Century Engineering,
Inc. of Towson, Maryland in June 1990. The purpose of the study was to
determine the best and most efficient use of the Hancock Landfill. The
study focused on the immediate and long-range costs of three possible
scenarios. These include: Scenario Number 1: Opening a new cell at the
closing of the existing cell. Scenario Number 2: Opening a transfer station
at the closure of the existing cell. Scenario Number 3: Closing the
landfill operation before design capacity is reached and building a transfer
station.
After a review of the research and compiled data, Century Engineering
ceded Scenario Number 2 to be the most cost efficent of the three
scenarios. The engineering firm stated in their report that the Number 2
option would take advantage of the relatively low cost of waste disposal at
the existing cell and relatively low construction and operating costs of a
transfer station.
-25-
The Hancock Landfill study has been presented to the Board of Washington
County Cainissioners for their consideration.
riir 11!
The Washington County Commissioners recently purchased a 427 acre tract
for a future sanitary landfill site. It is planned to begin operation once
the life span of the Resh Road site expires. The proposed site is bordered
to the west by Independence Road and the east by the Conococheague Creek,
approximately four miles west of Hagerstown. It is estimated that
approximately 150 acres will be fillable while the remaining acreage will
consist of buffer zones, interior roads, and open areas resulting fran
environmental restrictions. The projected life span is estimated at 20±
years at approximately 150,000 tons per year. A successful recycling
program could ultimately double the life span projection.
A three-phase process is required prior to the opening of a public
landfill. The Independence Road site is currently under review in Phase I -
Site Inspection. As of this writing, the Phase II Report - Site Geology and
Phase III Report - Engineering Plans and Specifications have not been
completed.
An appeal was made to the County's Board of Zoning Appeals by the County
ConTdssioners for a special exception to establish a sanitary landfill in
the agricultural zone on the new landfill site. This appeal was granted on
April 6, 1990.
_26-
Rlaiwitici Rubble Landfill Fad
The Washington County Comissioners have purchased a 100 acre tract and
are exercising an option to purchase a contiguous 30 acre property for a
proposed rubble landfill site. The Angello Zello property (30 acres) and
the Frank Maietta tract (100 acres) are located west of Kenps Mill Road and
Maryland Route 63, approximately 1 mile north of Williamsport, Maryland.
The site is bordered almost entirely by the Conococheague Creek. It is
located 4 1/2 miles south of the Resh Road Landfill site. The proposed
Reclamation Landfill Facility would serve approximately 24 ccatnercial
vehicles daily and numerous hateowners. The property will be landscaped and
fenced and would include a computerized weighing facility which would be
elevated in order for the Scale Operator to observe vehicles and their loads
after the renaval of their covers. The Equipment Operator would also
monitor material at the working area. It is proposed that as each area of
the landfill is ccupleted, it would be put to public passive and active
recreational uses. Intermediate screening and fencing would be placed to
isolate fill activities from the recreational areas. Table 3 on page 29
lists those materials that Washington County officials feel would be
appropriate for disposal at the rubble landfill. The unacceptable materials
list exceeds State regulations and was proposed by the Solid Waste Director
and adopted by the Washington County Co missioners. This list may be
amended to further restrict any materials that in the opinion of Washington
County, may not be suitable and should be recycled or disposed in another
type of facility.
-27-
The County's Director of Solid Waste projects that the rubble landfill
will be open in July 1991 and that it will have a life span of approximately
20 years.
The Washington County Commissioners filed an appeal with the
County's Board of Zoning Appeals for a special exception to establish a
rubble landfill in an Agricultural zoning district. The Commissioners have
also requested a variance from the 400 foot setback requirements. This
appeal was granted on August 23, 1990. The variance request was approved
except for that portion of the site nearest Kemp Mill Road.
-28-
TABLE NO. 3
COUNTY REGULATIONS RUBBLE LANDFILL
Earthern material such as clays, sands, gravels, and silts
Top soil
Tree stumps
Root mats
Brush and limbs
Logs
Vegetation
Rock
Structural steel
Concrete
Bricks
Lumber
Plaster and plasterboard
Insulation material as part of demolition debris
Cement
Shingles and roofing material
Floor, wall and ceiling tiles
Asphalt
Pipes and wire
Glass (unrecyclable)
Carpet
Wallpaper
Felt
Spacing or building materials
Bricks (refractor type)
Industrial waste or by-products
Any waste materials not physically part of the structure
Ccm ercial, do estic or industrial waste or by-product
Paint containers
Caulk containers
Glaze containers
Tar or tar containers
Caulking compounds
Glazing carlpounds
Paint thinner or other solvents or their containers
Creosote or other preservatives or their containers
Tile
Paneling
Carpet cement or other adhesives
Paper and cardboard packaging
Tires
Asbestos waste
Household appliances and white goods
-29-
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 environnent 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 County is narrow in the middle, swat 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.
-30-
Specific site evaluations are as follows:
Washington County is situated in. the Appalachian Highlands and is
con -prised 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
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
enzbanicnents. 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.
-31-
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 canbination of, water, wind, and gravity.
Within Washington County are five areas having similar soil development
characteristics. They are: (Refer to the map on page 35)
South Mountain -Elk Ridge Province -- These soils are derived fresh
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
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 fran 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.
-32-
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.
Ride and Valley Province --This region contains over 60,000 acres,
covering the western section of the County. The topography is rolling,
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.
-33-
A listing 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.
Geolocric Conditions
Washington County's 467 -square mile area encai asses 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 reminder 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, dolcndte 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.
-34-
-35-
0
c o
®
��` u
0
O
® z
8
z
0
►-
z
3
e�y
•o
y
Q
a:
W
Y
CD
Q
¢
a
1
Z
® y
/a
0
a
m
0
a
y
4
J
® -J
O 1.4
_
Q
J a CI)
z
W
W
w
U
W m
4
u
U
VF) Q Z O
c7
2 3 X
O
(n d F
W
a m
Qo
z
o
U
a
z
II
N
Y
O
(D
z
Q
V
_
0
x
U)
}
-36-
SQ
z
0
0
0
J
� �
e
1.fjj
�
W
m
yj 1
w
<
V �
W
�
W
w
J Ti
< W
Wf D
•
S
C
1
WLS at
p5 K4
'
Ir
t
<
t<
W•
W
c
o
<
«
z
z
s
R
Y y
Q�P
a
qQJ
S
«
a:
c�
y
W
' �
C
tl
L
}
++
O Y •
zP
n
Nz
m
<
s
}
8<
Fe
eil
S W
i - •
Li
i
$ A
R
L S
O
0
¢
G
c
O
0 6 •
00
I
<
m
U O W
r
L37..
IC
b
te..;•uk'p? F. C
2*G.Si%:
®
Ll
O
Q
p
l-
4
a ¢
N
0
Q
Q
LLI
to
Z
x Ld
z
F�
a
= <
h
N
x0
0
ham--
r. F-
3
4
3
C7
z
z
3
o
z
a
J
C9
u�.^arc
O)
Lw
Q
Aj:� LK
vL,Y in
Z
'�
(n
M
Z
T
1.
(n
-38-
Gad Water Provinces The Washington County area consists of
four distinct water distribution provinces. They are as follows: (See map
on page 41)
1. South Mountain - Elk Ridge -- Springs in this water province
are numerous and generally small. The chemical quality of groundwater fran
this province is good and is suitable for most uses.
2. The Hagerstown Valley 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 occurred in the limestone bedrock. The groundwater travels fran 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. 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.
-39-
4. Sideling Hill 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 ant 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.
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
Potanac 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: (See map on page 44)
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.
-40-
CM
Ui
C)
z
0,
C
DC
3
C
V
C
CO
C
Z
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
eT)ties 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.
-42-
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
-43-
j
Jr
Jr
/ a(
a _ {
�f , � rr.
v rr
C r�
rJ
J�
Y
`
v fl
O
`
7
Q
W
b
ZZ
Q
C Q b b
H r
O b
yr;=
•(g
r
~O2!
D
x •
a • s
o
a
•
O
F
c
E i t e
• u
3
a e`
o s u
c
w `
3
E•
= � e •
c o
i °
F
� • e
Jr5
h \
-44-
Maryland possesses slightly more than 420,000 acres of wetlands covering
about 7 percent of the state. Eighty-four percent (84%) of the state's
wetlands occur in the Coastal Plain region, with approximately 13 percent in
the Piedmont region, and only 1 percent in the Appalachian Highlands region.
Wetlands are located throughout Washington County. These areas are
identified on National Wetlands Inventory Maps prepared by the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. A set of these maps is located in the County Planning
Office.
Water Quality
The State regulations ask for an assessment of constraints imposed on
the landfill by water quality. As far as is known, there is no data that
would indicate water quality problems in the vicinity of the Resh Road and
Hancock sites that result from these landfills. The State Health Department
has not notified the County of any stream sampling performed near current
facilities indicating an adverse effect on water quality. Approximately one
half to two miles northeast of the Resh Road Landfill are the coummities of
Martins Crossroads and Cearfoss. In the Sunnier of 1988, public water lines
were installed in these areas in order to address potential health problems
as a result of widespread groundwater contamination. Testing indicated that
this health problem was due to failing septic systems and was not a result
of the nearby landfill.
-45-
In the Fall of 1989, the County Commissioners requested that the local
Health Department conduct a study on groundwater in Washington County.
The purpose of this research is to attempt to assess the current quality of
groundwater, determine trends, and make carparisions with local water
studies conducted in the past. The study has not been carrpleted as of this
writing. 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 Hancock.
In title Land Uses
The land use most obviously in.campatible with solid waste acceptance
facilities is residential developrmlent. 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 acceptance facilities, care must be taken to consider the
impacts on the neighboring farmland.
-46--
An 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 Cciwnissioners in February 1981, the first update of the Comprehensive
Plan since its initial adoption in 1971. The Ccrnprehensive Plan is a policy
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.
-47-
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 Ccarmissioners and the
governing bodies of Hagerstown, Fbinkstown, and Williamsport. By encouraging
future growth of all types --residential, ccmrrercial, 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. Refer to Growth Area Boundary map on page
38.
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 I -S1 and Md. Rt. 63 as
far as the Pennsylvania line.
-48-
Areas of Critical Concern
Under the authority of the State Land Use Act of 1974, a program }clown
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 Camiissioners and the
County Planning Cairnission 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 recndations for critical areas were
suh-pitted by Washington County to the Department of State Planning.
-49-
Source Separation, Resource Recovery, and Consumer Education Programs
These three elements of recycling are listed as separate items in the
State regulations for the Solid Waste Plan biennial update. Because of the
nature of resource recovery, they will be discussed together since they are
interdependant.
In 1988, the Maryland General Assembly enacted legislation that requires
all Counties in Maryland to prepare and implement a recycling program.
Counties with populations of less than 150,000 will prepare a recycling
plan by July 1, 1990 with full implementation of the Plan by
January 1, 1994. Each County will be required to recycle 15% of its waste
stream although waivers to this requirement may be granted by the Secretary
of the Departzr�nt of the Environment, but in no case will the allowable
fraction of the total waste stream be less than 5%.
in developing their recycling plans, all Counties are required by State
legislation to address:
1.) Methods to reduce the solid waste stream.
2.) The feasibility of source separation of the solid waste stream
generated within the County.
3.) The recyclable materials to be separated.
-50-
4.) The strategy for the collection, processing, marketing and
disposition of recyclable materials.
5.) Methods of financing the recycling efforts proposed by the
County.
5.) The feasibility of a system for the separate collection and
mulching of leaves.
7.) The feasibility of a system for the collection and recycling
of white goods.
8.) Separate collection of other recyclable materials.
9.) Other recycling methods that will attain or exceed the solid
waste stream reduction goals determined by the County.
The law has established a mandatory goal of recycling at least 15% of
Washington County's waste stream by 1994.
-51-
Goals and objectives for the County's Recycling Plan were prepared and
adopted by the County Recycling Cca-ittee in the Fall of 1989. Members of
this Committee included the County Planning Director, Chief of Planning and
Codes Administration, Director of Solid Waste, Recycling Coordinator and
Ccmrm=ty Coordinator. The goals and objectives were reviewed by the
Recycling Advisory Committee made up of private citizens and appointed by
the County Cc miSSioners.
They include:
I. Provide for public involvement and input in recycling issues
so as to achieve public acceptance of at least a 15% reduction
in the waste stream by 1994.
II. Encourage a primary role for private enterprise in all
collecting, recycling, and marketing efforts.
III. Establish a recycling planning, coordinating, and educating
role for the County and municipal governments.
IV. Integrate recycling with the County's comprehensive solid
waste management strategy.
-52-
The benefits of a recycling program include 1.) environmental, 2.)
reduce useage of nonrenewable resources, 3.) savings in landfill
construction and lining costs, 4.) diversion of reusable resources for use
by business and industry, and 5.) extended landfill life. While recycling
is a logical, common sense approach for waste management, it requires effort
and commitment at the individual, community and government level in order to
be successful.
Washington County's Recycling Plan presents and describes how the County
intends to meet and exceed the recycling goal established by State law.
Those items that are addressed in the Plan include: Waste Quantities and
Characteristics, Materials Selection and Collection, Marketing of Recyclable
Materials, Implementation Schedule, Public Information Programs and
Financial Planning. The Plan is to be .implemented in phases to allow the
recycling program to be monitored and adjusted as experience is gained and
as markets change over time. The Recycling Plan, to recycle 20.5% of the
waste stream; 5.5% above that mandated by State law, was adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners on July 31, 1990. The adopted Recycling Plan,
forwarded to the Department of the Environment on August 1, 1990, is
included as part of the 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan.
-53-
•1,• -.111 **1 • •1
The County government has recently created and filled the position of
Recycling Program Coordinator. The general responsibility of this new
position is to oversee the developlt, implementation and coordination of
County -wide recycling programs under the direction of the Director of Solid
Waste, County Administrator and the Board of County Cc&rn►issioners.
Additional responsibilities include:
1.) Initiate a program to educate and enhance public awareness
for the necessity of recycling.
2.) Market recyclable products and programs to recycling
contractors and the public.
3.) Assist towns, as requested, with developing and promoting
recycling and yard waste ccaiposting programs as part of an
integrated County wide program.
4.) Plan, coordinate and monitor curbside recycling programs
as they are implemented throughout the County.
-54-
The County is reviewing various recycling and resource recovery options
in addition to those previously mentioned. They include:
1.) Washington County is currently promoting recycling of paper
products at all County office facilities and encouraging
private industry to do likewise. Newspapers collected are
furnished to Suburban Insulation for the manufacture of hone
insultation and other products. In addition, the County
Commissioners have developed an Environmental Honor Roll to
recognize those businesses and organizations which are
recycling conscious.
2.) The Washington County government has taken positive steps to
provide recycling collection sites at all County solid waste
facilities and has agreed to fund services for County
municipalities that want to participate. Eleven collection
recycling sites are located throughout the County.
-55-
3.) Washington County officials are working closely with Howard,
Carroll and Frederick Counties in a comprehensive Solid Waste
Study which addresses almost every issue (Four County Study).
The Recycling Coordinator of Frederick County, has a pilot
program using newspaper for bedding material with a local farmer.
The coordinator is keeping County officials informed of the
success of this pilot program. Incineration of waste by way of
a co -generation steam and electric facility at the Hagerstown
prison ccanplex is another one of the tasks that is being reviewed
through the Four County Study.
4.) The County has contracted with Associated Tire of Inwood, West
Virginia to recycle all tires. They will process all tires
into a shredded material to be burned by various industries
and to manufacture crumb rubber for other uses.
5.) A Recycling Advisory Committee was for d to assist in the
development of the County's Recycling Plan. The Camiittee is
comprised of approximately 30 members from the carnnuiity. The
County Commissioners asked at the time of the recycling
presentation that this group main as a Solid Waste Advisory
Committee and be available in the future.
-56-
6.) In 1984, County officials did extensive research into pyrolysis
and anaerobic digestion systems and discovered that a number of
facilities employing these technologies have been built in
the United States. It was discovered, however, that 100% of
these plants have either been temporarily or permanently shut
down. It was the County's conclusion that this alternative
was not viable at this time.
7.) Pursue a publicly stated goal of a 50% reduction in the waste
stream by 1994. The County will continue to analyze present
and future technologies and methods to accomplish this goal.
The Solid Waste Plan, Recycling Plan and Capital Improvement
Plan will be updated to reflect the implementing procedures.
Asbestos Disposal
Asbestos is accepted at the Resh Road landfill in accordance with
specific handling procedures that have been provided to all haulers.
-57-
Emergency Spillage
This problem is covered by separate laws and regulations outside the
solid waste manag3t subject and are administered by the appropriate
emergency -responsive agencies. These regulations are outlined in Federal
Law -Sara Title Three, OSHA CFR 1910.120. Maryland Department of the
Environment Hazardous and Solid Waste Management, Washington County
Hazardous Material Plan, Washington County Disaster Plan, and the Washington
County Emergency Operations Plan.
Siting Regulations
As mentioned in Chapter Two, the Washington County Zoning Ordinance
states that a sanitary landfill is 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 400 foot buffer between its
activity and any lot in an "R" district or lot occupied by a dwelling,
school, church, or institution for human care.
-58-
Chapter Five
Plan of Action
As mentioned in Chapter Four, the Washington County Co missioners
recently purchased a 427 acre tract for a future sanitary landfill site
along Independence Road, 4 miles west of Hagerstown. Its projected life
span is estimated at 20+ years at approximately 150,000 tons per year. In
addition to this transaction, the Commissioners are currently in the process
of exercising options to purchase two contiguous properties totaling 130
acres for a proposed rubble landfill site near Williamsport, Maryland. The
Director of Solid Waste is projecting that the rubble landfill will be open
in July of 1991 and that it will have a lifespan of approximately 20 years.
-59-
The 148 acre Resh Road site that was opened in 1982 was originally
forecasted to last until 2004, but the present status of that site tells us
that it will be filled prior to that date. The chart on page 61 shows the
rate of fill for the present Resh Road site based on two assumptions: 1)
the rate of fill being 400 tons per day and remaining capacity as estimated
in 1982, and 2) the actual average rate estimated at 572 tons a day in June
1990. The resulting figures indicates that the landfill will be at capacity
in 1997. Also illustrated is the estimated fill rate that would result from
a 20% annual recycling rate and a 21% reduction of refuse that will be
diverted to the new rubble landfill. An additional five (5) years of
service for the Resh Road site would result.
As mentioned in the 1988 update, approximately 51% or 76 acres of the
148 acre Resh Road area can actually be used for landfilling. The remaining
land is comprised of roads or is unusable due to steep slope. This
information alone indicates that the site will be at capacity prior to 2004.
The table of weighing data for June 1990 shows that 21% of the total
waste stream is co rised of rubble, dirt, yard debris and wood. Once the
Rubble landfill is opened, however, these items will be diverted to that
site and will substantially reduce the Resh Road waste stream.
-60-
J D
_J 0
O
LL
W
z o
Q -J
0
O
o i-
0
o w
(r a
cr
W _J
r Li..
It
O
O
Cu
Cu
O
O
Cu
(/)C/) Cu O
Z Z
00
JLL
d'
O
M
O
Cu
O
O
O
O
0
Cu
0)
OD
0)
N-
0)
ID
0)
0)
0)
M
0)
Cu
0)
O
0
a)
OD
OD
OD
1-
a,
co
DD
0J
d'
OD
M
co
N
OD
-61-
In addition to construction rubble, the landfill is continually
receiving the leftover material from shredded cars after all the recyclable
products are recovered. This is disposed of by two local co mercial
recyclers, Conservit, Inc. and Newell Enterprise. The current average from
the July 1989 to June 1990 weighing documents place this contribution to the
waste stream at approximately 15% of the total amount received at Resh Road
within the past 12 month period. By any standard, this percentage of
contribution to the waste stream by a single firm is significant. Like the
rubble, the fluff is being covered every day with six inches of earth.
Three items that were discussed in Chapter Five of the Solid Waste
Update of 1988 have been brought to fruition. A full-time weighing program
began at the Resh Road Landfill on July 1, 1989. All incoming ccgrnercial
haulers are weighed on carputerized platform truck scales. Refuse is
visually inspected and categorized by landfill personnel. These
classifications are then entered into the computer. A listing of the seven
categories is shown in Table 1 of page 17. Vehicles not weighed are pick-up
trucks, cars and/or vans driven by hcaneowners that bring their own garbage
to the landfill.
-62-
The benefits of the weighing program are many fold. The ccsiterized
counts allow landfill personnel to record the tons of waste entering the
Resh Road facility daily, and the types of inbound materials being disposed
of. The weighing program also helps accurately project the close out date
of each cell and ultimately the close out of the entire Resh Road landfill.
At the Resh Road site proposed cell number four is currently under
construction and will be utilized upon the completion of currently active
cells one and five. Cell four will have a leachate collection system
whereby a computer will monitor the movement of all liquids within the cell
area. Pipes and sensors will be installed above and below cell four's
liner. The primary function of the sensors is to measure the volume of
fluid in the pipes and to indicate its direction of movement. This
information will be projected on the ccoputer screen, thus allowing
operating personnel to have the ability to monitor the rrovef[�ent of all
liquids within the cell four (4) area.
Century Engineering is currently in the process of conducting field
surveys of proposed cell number four, six, seven and eight at the Resh Road
landfill. This procedure will be of benefit in projecting the r maiming
lifespan of the landfill.
-63-
The Hancock Landfill Study estimates that the average waste stream at
the landfill is approximately 21 tons a day. The active 10 acre cell has
60,310 cubic yards of waste disposal area remaining until design capacity is
reached. At 21 tons a day, the cell should reach design capacity in 4.7
years. The proposed 5 acre cell would contain approximately 100,000 cubic
yards of waste capacity. At 21 tons a day, the proposed cell's capacity
would be reached in approximately 8 years. It is projected through this
study, therefore, that the total life of Hancock's landfill is 12.7 to 13
years. These figures could increase once the County's recycling efforts
becane effective.
As mentioned in Chapter Four, a study on Hancock's landfill was
canpleted in June 1990. The purpose of the study was to determine the best
and most efficient use of the landfill. The recon nendation of the
engineering firm conducting the study would be to open a transfer station
on -site upon the closure of the existing cell. The County Commissioners
have the matter under review as of this writing.
On May 1, 1990, the Board of County Carrnissioners adopted a Hancock Town
Growth Area Study. The purpose of this study was to establish a growth area
boundary around the municipality of Hancock that would include areas for
future growth. The Growth Area Ccmrnittee nE bers included Hancock Planning
Commission and Town Council members, the Mayor of Hancock and one member
from the County's Planning Commission and its staff.
-64-
Various item were addressed during the study including solid waste. The
Growth Area Study listed several recaiinendations. They are as follows:
1.) The Committee recommends that the Town be assisted in developing
promotion material to encourage recycling.
2.) The Growth Area Committee recommends that the Hancock and
Washington County officials recognize and be prepared to fund
additional means of solid waste disposal as growth and
development occur in the Town Growth Area.
3.) The Cczrtnittee recommends that a new solid waste disposal
facility, whatever form it my take, be located in a
convenient location for Hancock and western County residents.
It is feared that the time, expense and inconvenience of
traveling to a distant site will encourage other inappropriate
Trans of solid waste disposal,
-65-
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL STUDY FOR THE COUNTIES OF CARROLL, FREDERICK,
HOWARD AND WASHIN ION.
The counties of Carroll, Frederick, Howard and Washington, located in
the western portion of Maryland, have experienced rapid escalation of waste
quantities requiring disposal within their jurisdiction. The four counties
are contiguous to each other and enccipass the area north and west of the
Washington, D.C./Baltimore metropolitan areas. Figure 1 on Page 67 portrays
the location of the Four County Study within the State of Maryland.
Each of the four counties provides disposal facilities for waste
generated within the County. Marked increases in waste quantities requiring
disposal are depleting the counties' landfill capacities at rapid rates. As
a result, each of the four counties is in various stages of planning for
expansions of existing facilities or development of new disposal units.
The counties recognize that a desirable strategy to deal with the
challenge of solid waste management is to develop and implement processing
and disposal facilities, as well as crehensive recycling systems that
will minimize the use of landfill capacity. In addition, the significant
costs of various processing and technology options that could be considered
provide a greater feasibility and improved economics. As a result, in June
1989, the counties jointly entered into a contract with the Northeast
Maryland Waste Disposal Authority to conduct a feasibility study of
disposal/processing options that would examine opportunites for regional
cooperation.
The scope of the project includes developing objectives and summary
reports for each of seven major tasks. They include:
1.) Waste Stream Assessment and Existing Systems Review
Objective is to assess each County's waste stream. Included
in the review would be population projections, demographics,
landfill records, and ccamnercial activity.
2.) Energy and Materials Markets Survey
Objectives to locate and assess potential markets for
steam and/or hot or chilled water, electrical energy or
prepared fuel developed at a waste -to -energy facility or
waste processing facility. Also, to locate potential
markets for recyclables.
3.) Project Opportunities and Technology Consideration
objective is to identify solid waste processing and
disposal options that warrant detailed analysis for
the Four County area. This information is based on
data fran Task One and Two Reports.
The five technologies under consideration are:
Recycling Facilities
Yard Waste Composting Facilities
Ccanbustion Facilities
Transfer Stations
Landfills
4.) Legal and Financial Review
Review legal considerations and financial mechanisms
available to the four counties in procuring, financing
and implementing various solid waste management projects.
5.) Environmental Requirements
Identify and discuss the environmental requirements which
might affect the siting and implementation of solid waste
management technologies.
6.) Economic and Institutional Analysis
The econanic and institutional factors involved in developing
possible projects as determined by the four counties.
7.) Recommended Implementation Plan
Recommend an implementation plan for any modification to the
waste processing and disposal systems in the four county region.
-70-
At the present time, the written Draft of Task 6 is being reviewed by
County officials. No formal action on the study has been taken as of
this writing.
Finance Methods
Costs for the new landfill systems, as far as can be determined at
present, will be imple;nented through [borne by] the Capital Improvements
budget. All current financing for the land, both operating and capital, is
from County funds and landfill user fees which became effective July 1,
1989.
Below is a listing of the user fees which are presently in use.
Hesirtial Berit Atmual Fee
Pick-up Truck (Non--Cczrmercial Haulers) $ 10.00
Autcbile/Multi-purpose vehicle 5.00
Total Fees Collected July 1989 -June 1990 $ 117,030
Applicable at Resh Road and Hancock landfills, Greensburg, Kaetzell
and Dargan Green Box facilities
Business/co +vial Haulers
General Refuse
Industrial Sludge
Asbestos
Inspection Fees
Total Fees Collected July 1989 -June 1990
Applicable at Resh Road and Hancock landfills
$ 25.00 per ton
60.00
1.50 per bag
7.50 per 35 gallon drum
5.00
$ 3,746,285.44
Source: Washington County Director of Solid Waste
-71-
Closeout
Earlier discussions focused on the possible close-out dates for both the
Resh Road and Hancock sites. Preliminary plans include using the Resh Road
facility for a recreational area and the Hancock landfill for a wildlife
sanctuary upon closure. Obviously, any use vould be consistent with the
County's Canprehensive Plan.
-72-
Chapter Six
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1982 Solid Waste Management Study contained seven recamtendations.
They were:
1. Continue landfilling as the most econcaiical 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.
-73-
5. Undertake a study of the Hancock site to determine if it should
resin 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.
Itans 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 have been implemented. Item 4 is in the
process now. The County's Solid Waste Director is projecting a July 1991
open date for the rubble landfill.
-74-
The 1988 Solid Waste Study contained four reccmmendations. They were:
1. Determine through a land 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 ighings,
we cannot know. A permanent record of daily trash cc onents 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.
-75-
Items 1, 2, and 3 have been implemented or are currently in the
completion process. Item #4 is currently being addressed. The County will
pursue the establishment of additional rubble landfill sites both public and
private County -wide.
Current Reccm ndations for the 1990
Solid Waste Management Plan
1. Promote and implement Washington County's Recycling Plan.
A. Attempt to surpass the Plan's 20.5% waste stream reduction which
exceeds the State's mandate by 5.5%, and pursue a goal of 50%
reduction in the waste stream that is currently landfilled by
examination of present and future technologies that are
environmentally sound.
B. Establish recycling centers at all County landfill facilities,
i.e. deposit areas for newspaper, glass, aluminum, plastic
. e • _. ks i:ii:P
C. Establish a yard waste composting plant at a designated area
for the disposal of leaves, grass clippings, and brush.
-76-
D. Pursue the establishment of a yearly household hazardous waste
amnesty day.
E. Establish a mechanical/manual material recovery facility for
the sorting of selected refuse, i.e. plastics, glass, bi-metal
F. Promote and expand the waste oil recovery program. Establish
additional designated sites for the disposal of used oil.
2. Encourage a primary role for private enterprise in all collecting,
recycling, and marketing efforts.
A. Investigate financial incentives to encourage creation of
local recyclable materials markets.
B. Where appropriate, encourage non-profit agencies to offer
recycling services.
C. Investigate methods to encourage local private enterprise
to begin recycling programs.
3. Continue to pursue a comprehensive waste management program for Carroll,
Frederick, Howard and Washington Counties. This would include
investigation into regional recycling and incineration feasibility.
4. Investigate methods for continuous monitoring of closed landfill
sites.
5. Pursue plans to develop closed out landfill facilities into areas
designated for public use. Examples include recreational areas, open
space and wildlife sanctuaries.
6. Continue the process of acquisition and preparation of new sanitary
and rubble landfill sites.
7. Establish a Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee to solicit and
encourage citizen input and technical assistance for oversight of
all solid waste management issues.
.1rII Fri •sue . ♦O .
County landfill disposal costs for the next three years have been
estimated below. Capital costs include the expenses associated with the
final line cell at the County landfill and depreciation of equipment
necessary to operate the landfill. Operating costs include the operating
budget, costs of administrative support frcm other County departments, and
interest costs for future land purchases.
r
1l Cost 1na1sis
90-91
91-92
92-93
93-94
Estimated
Operating Costs
$ 1,816,000
$ 2,377,100
$ 2,491,800
$ 2,613,300
Estimated
Capital Costs
2,698,700
3,659,200
3,455,700
3,501,700
Estimated
Total Costs
$ 4,514,700
$ 6,036,300
$ 5,947,500
$ 6,115,000
Estimated
'Ions/Year
163,400
164,100
164,800
165,500
Estimated
Cost/Ton
$ 28
$ 37
$ 36
$ 37
* Source: Washington County Director of Solid Waste
-79-
Sources
1. Century Engineering, Inc.
2. Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
Hancock Landfill Study, June 1990
Solid Waste Manag nt Study
Workscope for the Counties of
Carroll, Frederick, Howard and
Washington, January 1989
3. Maryland Department of Natural Introduction to Wetlands
Resources, Tidewater Administration Identification & Classification,
Coastal Resources Division April 1986
4. Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Solid Waste Disposal Options
Authority Study for the Counties of
Carroll, Frederick, Howard and
Washington. Task One Report:
Waste Stream Assessment and
Existing Systems Review
5. Washington County Planning Department Washington County Recycling Plan,
July 1990
-81-