[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                                                                                   Appendix 33





                                 NORTHERN NECK
                           R
                                  '614AL
                              EGI            SOLID WASTE
                               MANAGEMENTPLAN












                                           .444,1o


                                              04,0.








                                            A H V












                                    NORTHERN NECK
                        PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION


       HD                                 JUNE 1991
       4484
       .v8
       N67
       1991



















                                 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS






              This plan was funded, in part, by the Virginia Council on the
         Environment's Coastal Resources Management Program through grant
         # NA90AA-H-CZ796 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
         Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as
         amended.

              The staff of the Northern Neck Planning District Commission
         would like to express gratitude to all the organizations and people
         who have been helpful in gathering information for this plan.
         Although it is impossible to acknowledge each person who provided
         data f or this plan,   we would like to specifically acknowledge
         staf f in the Northern Neck County of f ices and the Northern Neck
         Recycling Task Force.

              The Northern Neck Recycling Task Force has been a constant
         source of support.    Their untiring assistance and dedication in
         gathering data (specifically that "trashy" survey) and spurring us
         to completion has been a tremendous support.

              We would also like to extend our appreciation to the staff in
         each of the county offices for supplying us with information and
         assistance in compiling various elements of information.










                                  Table of Contents








         Executive Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    vii

         Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    ix

         Introduction   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      1

         Characteristics of the Northern Neck    . . . . . . . . . . . .     4

         Legal Background For Waste Management   Planning   . . . . . . .  17

         Waste Management Objectives   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   32

         Waste Management Hierarchy    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   34

         Waste Stream Characteristics    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   38

         Existing Waste Disposal Systems   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   53

         Future Waste Disposal   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   70

         Special Waste  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    92

         Education  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    102

         Bibliography   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    121









                                        List of Tables




          Table  2.1     Population. of the Northern Neck 1980-2030        . . .   13
          Table  2.2     Total Taxable Sales by County       . . . . . . . . .     15
          Table  2.3     Taxable Sales in the Northern Neck by
                             Classification                                        15
                         Northern Neck Labor
          Table  2.4                            Force D;t; :    . . .    . . . .   16
          Table  6.1     Lancaster County Waste Stream Projections         . . .   41
          Table  6.2     Lancaster County Mile Stones for Reaching
                             Recycling Mandates     . . . . . . . . . . . . .      41
          Table  6.3     Lancaster County Estimates of Current
                             Recycling   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       41
          Table  6.4     Northumberland County Waste Stream Projections            42
          Table  6.5     Northumberland County Mile Stones for Reaching
                             Recycling Mandates     . . . . . . . . . . . . .      42
          Table  6.6     Northumberland County     Estimates of Current
                             Recycling   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       42
          Table  6.7     Richmond County Waste Stream Projections        . . . .   43
          Table  6.8     Richmond County Mile Stones for Reaching
                             Recycling   Mandates   . . . . . . . . . . . . .      43
          Table  6.9     Estimates of    Current Recycling   . . . . . . . . .     43
          Table  6.10    Westmoreland    County Waste Stream Projections           44
          Table  6.11    Westmoreland    County Mile Stones for Reaching
                             Recycling   Mandates   . . . . . . . . . . . . .      44
          Table  6.12    Westmoreland    County Estimates of Current
                             Recycling   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       44
          Table  6.13    Northern Neck Waste Stream Projections        . . . . .   45
          Table  6.14    Northern Neck Mile Stones for Reaching
                           Recycling Mandates     . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      45
          Table  6.15    Northern Neck Estimates of Current Recycling        .  .  45
          Table  7.1     Northumberland County "Greenbox" Sites        . . . . .   57
          Table  7.2     Richmond County "Greenbox" Sites       . . . . . . . .    59
          Table  7.3     Lancaster County "Greenbox" Sites        . . . . . . .    61
          Table  7.4     Westmoreland County "Greenbox" Sites       . . . . . .    61
          Table  9.1     Lancaster County Projections of
                           Certain "Special Wastes" in Waste Stream        . . .   99
          Table  9.2     Northumberland County Projections of Certain
                             "Special Wastes" in Waste Stream       . . . . . .    99
          Table  9.3     Richmond County Projections of Certain "Special
                             Wastes" in Waste Stream     . . . . . . . . . . .     100
          Table  9.4     Westmoreland County Projections of Certain
                             "Special Wastes" in Waste Stream       . . . . . .    100









                                     List of Figures



          Figure 6.1 Comparison of Available Recyclables to State
                          Mandates   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      46

          Figure 6.2 Projected Recyclables in Northern Neck Waste
                          Stream (Volume)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      47

          Figure 6.3 Projected Recyclables in Northern Neck Waste
                          Stream (Weight)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      48

          Figure 6.4 Projected Paper in Northern      Neck Waste Stream
                          (Volume)   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      49

          Figure 6.5 Projected Paper in Northern      Neck Waste Stream
                          (Weight)   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      50

          Figure 8.1 Short Term Planning Process      . . . . . . . . . . .     73

          Figure 8.2 Disposal System Options      . . . . . . . . . . . . .     75









                                       List of Maps


          Map 7.1 Northumberland county Solid Waste Facilities        . . . .   58

          Map 7.2 Richmond County Solid Waste Facilities       . . . . . . .    60

          Map 7.3 Lancaster County Solid Waste Facilities      . . . . . . .    62

          Map 7.4 Westmoreland County Solid Waste Facilities        . . . . .   63











                                             iv










                                   Executive Summary

               Legislation passed  by the Virginia General Assembly requires
          that all counties, cities, and towns prepare and implement a solid
          waste management plan in order to achieve a twenty-f ive percent
          (25%) reduction in waste by 1995. In response to this mandate, the
          Counties of Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond and Westmoreland
          and the Towns of the Northern Neck have requested that the Northern
          Neck Planning District Commission develop a Waste. Management Plan.

               The Counties of the Northern Neck have a population of 45,000
          and are very rural in nature.     Because of the Counties' sparse
          population, it is not feasible to provide curbside pick-up for the
          residents. Greenbox sites are provided in all counties for
          residents to drop-off their waste.      A tri-county landfill was
          developed for the counties of Lancaster, Northumberland and
          Richmond; and Westmoreland County developed their own landfill.
          The Towns, on the other hand, have a more densely populated area.
          The Towns provide curbside pickup or private haulers pick-up waste
          and haul the materials directly to the Counties' landfills.

               In preparing a long range plan for this region several
          problems were encountered.     First of all, there is no concrete
          information concerning the amount or type of waste generated.
          Waste is 'not weighed, recorded or sorted by type. Secondly, there
          is the problem of economics.       Even though there are numerous
          benefits associated with the reduction of waste, recycling programs
          will cost the localities. And last but not least, there is the
          question of politics. Upcoming elections and possible change of
          elected officials may create a change in policies. Therefore, a
          plan was designed taking into account all of these constraints.

               According to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
          figures, the Northern Neck, as a region, has a population of 44,173
          and generates approximately 83,784 cubic yards of waste a year.
          @rojections indicate that population in the year 2000 will be
          increasing to 47,480 and waste will increase to 16,509 cubic yards.

               In March, the Northern Neck Recycling Task Force, a citizens
          group in Lancaster and Northumberland Counties, performed an
          evaluation of the amount of waste going into the Tri-County
          landfill.    The results of this survey and estimates from a
          consultant engineer indicate that EPA's figures on the regions
          waste are usable as an estimate.

               Strategies developed in this plan take into account the long
          and short term needs of the region. The localities would be ill-
          advised if they developed a long term plan involving large capital
          investments when they are faced with the aforementioned
          constraints. In light of these constraints a plan was developed
          using short term planning strategies as well as long term

                                            v








         recommendations. The existing waste management system           will
         continue and be evaluated after six months. Based on the results
         of the evaluations this system will continue or modifications will
         be made. In order to develop a long range strategy the best waste
         management    options   were    evaluated   and    presented    with
         recommendations. other sections in the plan include special waste
         needs and an educational component.

              Managing and reducing waste  is an ongoing process. Reducing
         the amount of waste that is buried in landfills is a new concept
         that must be implemented at the local level. It is important to
         note that waste reduction is a not a plan to be set in stone, but
         a process that evolves over time and needs to be addressed during
         the planning stages.    The amount of waste that is produced and
         reduced needs to be evaluated annually to determine if the most
         cost effective and efficient strategies are being used. This plan
         was developed with those concepts and will allow counties and towns
         to modify a system based on its effectiveness.


































                                          vi











                                     Definitions

          Bale - A process by which materials are compressed into bound
          bundles to reduce volume.

          Bi-metal cans - Cans containing some amount of ferrous material.
          Also known as "steel" cans.

          Cell - In the construction of a sanitary landfill, "cell" refers to
          an individual pit which is excavated, filled with refuse, and
          covered. Each cell is an independent system, with its own permits,
          lining and closure plan.

          Closure - The process by which a landfill cell which has been
          filled with refuse is covered and sealed.

          Contamination of recycling materials - The mixing of a "purel#
          recyclable material with any other material that will complicate
          the processing of the recyclable material into a new product. For
          example: organic material in recyclable aluminum, green glass in
          clear glass, etc.

          Curbside pickup - The service of collecting waste directly from the
          producer, whether it be individual households or commercial
          establishments.

          Dewatered sludge - Sludge which has been dried to reduce the water
          content.

          Dumpsters - Large refuse collection containers which are designed
          to be dumped directly into trucks.

          "Greenbox" - A refuse container which is situated at an unmanned
          refuse collection site.

          HDPE - High density polyethylene.      A plastic resin used for
          packaging. For example, milk containers.

          Incineration - The volume reduction of solid waste by combustion.

          Landfill   A sanitary landfill.

          Landfill seepage - Rainwater or groundwater which, having
          percolated through the refuse in a landfill, carries contaminants
          out of the landfill.

          "Lemnall treatment system - A process by which liquid waste
          (normally after primary treatment) is treated by vegetation growing
          in a shallow pond.

          PET    Polyethylene Terephthalate.     A plastic resin used for

                                         vii









          flexible, clear packaging. For example, 2-liter soft drink
          containers.

          Principal Recyclable Materials - Newspaper, ferrous scrap metal,
          non-ferrous scrap metal, used motor oil, corrugated cardboard and
          kraft paper, container glass, aluminum, high grade office paper,
          tin cans, cloth, automobile bodies, plastic and clean wood, brush,
          leaves, grass and other arboreal materials. "Principal Recyclable
          Materials" do not include large diameter tree stumps.

          Recycling - The process of separating a given waste material from
          the waste stream and processing it so that it is used again as a
          raw material for a product, which may or may not be similar to the
          original product.

          Regional landfill - A sanitary landfill developed to take refuse
          from more the one municipality.

          Resource Recovery - The process of collection, separation,
          recycling and recovery of energy from solid wastes, including the
          disposal of non-recoverable residues.

          Reuse - The use of a product more than once in its same form for
          the same purpose.

          Rolloff container - A refuse collection container constructed so as
          to allow for transport of the container on specially designed
          truck.

          Septage - The semi-solid residue left by sewage in a septic tank.

          Sludge - The semi-solid residue left after the treatment of sewage
          in a sewage treatment plant.

          Source Reduction - Any action that reduces or eliminates the
          generation of waste at the source, usually within a process.

          Stumps - Large diameter tree stumps and roots, usually the result
          of land clearing activities.

          Tipping fee - A fee, usually dollars per ton, for the unloading or
          dumping   of waste at a landfill, transfer station or recycling
          center. .

          "Traditional" recyclables - Materials which have most commonly been
          targeted in recycling programs. Specifically, glass bottles, bi-
          metal and aluminum cans, recyclable plastic containers, paper and
          cardboard.

          Transfer station - A permanent facility where waste materials are
          taken from smaller collection vehicles and placed in larger
          vehicles for transport.

                                         viii








         Waste stream     The total flow of solid waste      from homes,
         businesses, institutions and manufacturing plants.

         White goods - Large household appliances.

         Yard waste - Leaves, grass clippings, prunings, and other natural
         organic matter from yards and gardens.











































                                        ix




I
I
I
I
I
I
I                               Section I
I
I                             Introduction
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1                                   1
1









              The Virginia Area Development Act of 1968 established the
         existing system of regional planning district commissions in the
         State. There are twenty-one such planning districts in Virginia,
         and each district contains local jurisdictions united by many
         common physical, cultural, and economic ties.

              The Northern Neck Planning District commission was established
         in 1969 pursuant to the Virginia Area Development Act and is
         charged with the responsibility for regional planning and
         coordination of governmental programs within its territory. This
         territory includes the counties of Lancaster, Northumberland,
         Richmond, and Westmoreland as well as the towns of colonial Beach,
         Irvington, Kilmarnock, Montross, Warsaw, and Whitestone.           The
         commission has been designated by the Department of Waste
         Management of the State of Virginia to prepare a regional solid
         waste management plan for these jurisdictions.       Thus, with the
         support of local government officials, the commission has sought to
         initiate a solid waste management process.

              Modern solid waste management has become an extremely complex
         problem for municipalities throughout the United States.         Local
         government officials have the responsibility of seeing that wastes
         which are generated within their jurisdictions are collected,
         handled, and disposed of properly.       Officials must also blend
         federal and state regulations and guidelines governing these
         functions, with citizens, businesses, and industries which require
         or demand certain levels of service.      In addition, there are a
         number of complex technological and operational options to consider
         in the safe and efficient management of solid wastes.          Further
         complicating the situation is the fact that the amount of solid
         waste produced continues to grow in response to increases in
         population, personal consumption, and the amount of over-packaged
         and disposable items produced by manufacturers throughout the
         world.    These and many other factors are contributing to the
         complexity of modern local solid waste management.

              The Northern Neck Planning District Commission and its member
         localities have been faced with a number of potentially severe
         waste management problems, some of which relate specifically to the
         rural characteristics of the region. These include: the storage
         and disposal of hazardous chemicals (from both agricultural and
         small quantity generators) ; the imminent closure of the tri-county
         landfill and alternative site selection; the automobile tire
         disposal problem; waste collection in a sparsely settled rural
         area; and the collection and marketing of recyclables.






                                           2








              The impacts of waste on groundwater, soils, the Chesapeake
         Bay, agricultural land, wildlife, wetlands, and the overall beauty
         of the Northern Neck have become an increasing problem over the
         past few years as have the costs associated with disposal and
         collection. Local officials and citizens of our area have realized
         that waste management is a problem that must be dealt with at a
         local and regional level.

              The Planning District Commission understands that waste
         management is an ongoing process that evolves over time and must be
         reviewed on a regular basis. There is a need to analyze the impact
         of our solid waste management system and examine the newest
         strategies to determine if those strategies would be useful in our
         system. This plan is an update of the 1989 Northern Neck Planning
         District Commission Regional Waste Management Plan and will examine
         all available alternatives for waste management in the Northern
         Neck and make recommendations for collection and disposal systems
         that should be used.




 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                            . . Section 11
 I
 I               . Characteristics of the Northern Neck
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 1                                     4
 1










         Study Area Description

              The Northern Neck of Virginia is the name given to a narrow
         peninsula in the northeastern part of the state, bounded by the
          otomac River to the northeast, King George County to the
         northwest, the Rappahannock River to the south, and the Chesapeake
         P

         Bay to the east (see Map xx).

              The Northern Neck includes the four counties of Lancaster,
         Northumberland, Richmond, and Westmoreland, as well as the towns of
         Colonial Beach, Irvington, Kilmarnock, Montross, Warsaw, and
         Whitestone.   The total land area of the peninsula is 738 square
         miles with an approximate length of 60 miles and an average width
         of 15 miles.



         Physical Environment

              The land and environment of the Northern Neck cannot be
         considered apart from the surrounding waters of the Chesapeake Bay.
         The Northern Neck Region has a 1,210 mile shoreline with the
         Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.      The soil, topography and
         geology of the Northern Neck are the result of sea level changes
         and the sedimentation and marine processes of the Chesapeake Bay
         and its watershed. The abundant and valuable natural resources in
         the region are inextricably linked to these same influences.


         Climate

              The Northern Neck enjoys a temperate, semi-maritime climate
         with mild winters and warm, humid summers. The frost free growing
         season ranges from 193 days in Westmoreland County to 212 days in
         Lancaster County. Precipitation is evenly distributed throughout
         the year with the maximum in July (average 4.31 inches) and the
         minimum in February (average 2.71 inches).        The annual mean
         precipitation, as determined at the Eastern Virginia Research
         Station in warsaw, is 42.61 inches. On an average year, 23 inches
         of this precipitation falls during the growing season, April to
         September, and 17.3 inches during the winter as snow. Temperatures
         average about 37 degrees in January and 77 degrees in July.









                                          5









         Topography and Physiography

              Although the Northern Neck lies entirely within   the Southern
         Coastal Plain, the relief of the region varies between flat coastal
         lands and hillier areas more typical of the Piedmont. Three
         physiographic subregions are found in the peninsula which represent
         this variation in land and topography: the fluvial river terrace,
         the coastal plain upland,.and the low marine terrace.

              The fluvial river terrace, which ranges from sea level to 10
         feet above sea level, includes tidal marsh areas along the major
         rivers and creeks and some adjacent lands. The low marine terrace
         which ranges from 10 to 50 feet above sea level, typically lies
         between the fluvial river terrace and the upland. These two
         subregions make up a band of level terraces along most of the
         Rappahannock River, the Chesapeake Bay and the lower portion of the
         Potomac river. This band is absent along portions of the Richmond
         County's Rappahannock River Shoreline and Westmoreland County's
         Potomac River Shoreline where the coastal plain upland meets the
         water, forming steep cliffs that rise up to 140 feet above the
         rivers' edge.

              The coastal plain upland ranges from about 90 to 170 feet
         above sea level and includes the inland plateaus as well as the
         cliffs along the two major rivers.     In the inland areas, these
         lands are a nearly level to gently undulating plain, with a well
         established, deeply cut drainage system. The drainways and their
         steep sidewalls cover about 50 percent of the coastal plain upland
         and are the dominant feature in many parts of the region.


         Natural Resources

              The coastal environment of the Northern Neck is largely
         responsible for the regions bounty of renewable, natural resources.
         The fertile soils, formed from marine and fluvial sediments,
         provide a strong base for agriculture and forestry. The waters of
         the Bay and its tributaries provide a healthy environment for fin
         fish and shell fishing. Together, the production and harvest of
         these renewable resources serves as the mainstay of the Northern
         Neck economy.











         Soils

              Soil characteristics play a major role in determining the
         suitability of waste management systems and landfill facilities.
         The soils found throughout the Northern Neck vary widely in their
         structure, permeability, depth to water table and other features.
         Much of the land is suitable for field crops and pine forests.
         Many of the soil types which cover portions of the area are-
         unsuitable for residential and commercial development due to a high
         water table and poor permeability.

              Soil surveys cite a number of soil features which are
         considered in rating soil type suitability for trench landfills.
         These include: permeability, depth to bedrock, or to a cemented
         pan, water table, slope, flooding periodicity, texture, stones and
         boulders, highly organic layers, soil reaction, and content of
         salts and sodium.     According to the standards used by the Soil
         Conservation Service, Kempsville soils are most suitable, of those
         found in the Northern Neck, for trench sanitary landfills.


         Prime Farmland and Forestland

              Prime farmland is defined by the U.S. Department of
         Agriculture as land that is best suited to the production of crops
         for food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed.      The requirements for
         designating prime farmland include: sufficient growing season;
         adequate moisture from precipitation or irrigation; and sufficient
         soil quality with respect to soil acidity, alkalinity, drainage,
         erodibility, slope and other factors.

              Land can also be catalogued based on its potential to produce
         timber.   Timber productivity and quality is related to the soil
         characteristics, available moisture, drainage and topography of a
         site. Sites are classified according to the volume of wood they
         are capable of producing in a year.

              The prime lands and soils of the Northern Neck represent a
         finite resource. Where these lands are lost to urbanization and
         other higher intensity land uses, they are removed from production
         for the foreseeable future. Left in their natural state, however,
         these lands are capable of yielding their sustainable agricultural
         and forest resources indefinitely.

              Many acres of prime farmland and forested land are converted
         each year to more intensive land     uses.   The conversion of prime
         farmland operations in response to   changes in the demand and supply
         of agricultural products degrades the resource base of renewable,
         sustainable industries.




                                            7









               The lands most suitable to sanitary landfill construction and
          operation,   (Kempsville   soils),    are   also   considered prime
          agricultural land. Due to the severe environmental impacts which
          may result from improper landfill siting, the acreage of prime
          farmland that is lost when a landfill is sited on suitable soils is
          generally considered a relatively small environmental and economic
          impact.


          Fish and Shellfish

               The catching of seafood and manufacture of processed seafood
          and marine products plays a vital role in the economy of the
          Northern Neck. Several species of saltwater fish are found in the
          estuaries of the Northern Neck, including rock fish, spot, yellow
          and white perch, herring, shad and eels; also some sea trout,
          flounder, sunfish and bluefish occur.

               Freshwater species are found in ponds and the freshwater
          portions of the creeks and rivers. In the freshwater ponds, there
          are populations of large mouth bass and bluegills, as well as chain
          pickerel, carp, crappie, sunfish and catfish.

               Shellfish, such as oysters, that are harvested in the waters
          of the Bay and its tributaries are a potentially bountiful
          resource. Over recent years, however, oysters have demonstrated an
          acute sensitivity to the environmental stresses caused by water
          pollution. Being sessile throughout their adult life, oysters are
          unable to avoid contaminated waters; and being filter feeders
          oysters concentrate bacteria, viruses, heavy metals, pesticides and
          other pollutants that are found in the surrounding water.          The
          mismanagement of solid waste could pose a threat to the oyster
          harvest and fishing industries of the Northern Neck.



















                                            8













         Wetlands

              Along the shoreline and within the creeks and estuaries of the
         Northern Neck,    wetlands and marshlands provide          important
         transitional zones between land and water.        Wetlands can be
         classified into two groups: tidal and non-tidal.        Both types
         perform a wide variety of environmental functions. These functions
         include: the buffering and stabilization of the shoreline from the
         process of coastal erosion; the storage of surface water for
         groundwater recharge; the buffering and absorption of flood waters;
         the production and transport of detrital food material; the
         filtering and cleansing of runoff and other waters which pass
         through the wetlands; and the provision' of wildlife and waterfowl
         habitat.

              A wide range of mans' activities can adversely affect the
         health and natural beauty of wetlands.     Wetlands are extremely
         vulnerable to activities such as dredging, filling, w@ter
         pollution, and other hydrologic changes. This is due primarily to
         the fact that wetland are not suitable to normal use and habitation
         by man and are easily disruptable through modifications to their
         physical characteristics and surroundings.

              Landfills adversely affect wetlands in much the same way that
         they impact groundwater and surface water resources. These impacts
         may be direct, such as dredging or filling or indirect such as
         sedimentation, the leaching of toxins, or the modification of
         natural drainage causing scouring and desiccation. The cumulative
         effects of wetlands loss create numerous sever impacts upon water
         quality, living marine resources, and the fishing industry of the
         Northern Neck.












         Groundwater

              The vast quantity of water that underlies the land of
         tidewater Virginia is the Northern Neck's only developed source for
         domestic water.   The seemingly endless supply of high quality
         groundwater, whether extracted by relatively shallow private wells
         or deeper commercial wells, supply all of the water used in homes
         and businesses.    There is evidence of a strong link between
         groundwater quality and the quality of nearby creeks and rivers.
         For these reasons the quality of groundwater is of utmost concern,
         for all who live in the Northern Neck.

              Most of the water used in the Northern Neck comes from three
         aquifers: the water-table aquifer, the principal artesian aquifer,
         and the upper artesian aquifer.     In general, the aquifers are
         tilted relative to the surface, dipping downward from west to east.
         The water-table aquifer is unpressurized, close to the ground
         surface, and generally accessed by shallow "dug" wells.          The
         principal artesian aquifer is much deeper, ranging from 300 to 550
         feet below the surface. The upper artesian aquifer lies between
         the principal artesian aquifer and the water table aquifer, ranging
         in depth from 200 to 375 feet.

              Impacts on groundwater are one of the biggest concerns of the
         siting and operation of a landfill in the Northern Neck.
         Groundwater pollution can occur from various types of contaminants
         found in landfills. Contaminants stored at the ground surface can
         move through the ground and pollute the water table and the deeper
         aquifers depending on local geologic conditions.

              In the Northern Neck, the pollution potential to groundwater
         from these and other sources is high because of the geology of the
         unconsolidated sand, clay, marl and shale/shell strata that allow
         for high mobility of waterborne contaminants.      The water-table
         aquifer is especially vulnerable to contamination from improper
         methods of solid waste storage and disposal. The artesian aquifers
         are vulnerable at their recharge areas, most of which are found to
         the west of the area. The high degree of sensitivity of the regions
         groundwater resource and the importance of this resource to its
         citizens, indicate that vigilance be maintained to insure its
         continued quality and integrity.

              The degradation of water quality creates subsequent declines
         in populations of fish, shellfish, and aquatic vegetation. such
         declines, and their potential occurrence are extreme hazards for
         the environment and economy of the Northern Neck.       As aquatic
         vegetation declines, the effects of pollution, and sedimentation
         accelerate and the waterbody loses its ability to recover.




                                          10












        Game and Wildlife

              The mixed pattern of adjoining fields, forests and streams
        throughout the Northern Neck provides a favorable habitat for
        upland game.   White-tailed deer, quail, and mourning doves are
        prevalent throughout the region.       Red and gray foxes, gray
        squirrels, cottontail rabbits, raccoons and opossums are also
        found, as well as the introduced Iranian pheasant. In the marshes
        and streams are numerous muskrats, moderate numbers of beaver and-
        mink and occasional otters.

              On the estuaries and on the bordering rivers there are
        moderate wintering populations of waterfowl including Canadian
        geese, canvas backs and others. There are also many kinds of shore
        and wading birds such as killdeers, snipe rails, bitterns, herons,
        sandpipers, and egrets.    The Northern Neck has several types of
        birds nationally classed as endangered or rare species including
        the bald eagle, ospreys, and cattle egret.

              In the siting of sanitary landfills, locations     are sought
        which lead to fewer impacts on populated areas These areas are
        often undeveloped, natural settings which provide habitat for
        wildlife and may be negatively impacted by improper landfill siting
        and pollution.

              These impacts are to some degree unavoidable given the need to
        separate landfill facilities from populations.       However where
        unique endangered or highly productive habitats are identifiable
        the concerns for game and wildlife conservation should play a
        strong role in the decision making process for waste management.


        Air Quality

              The  Virginia   Air   Pollution   Control    Board   has    the
        responsibility to monitor air quality in the Commonwealth and to
        ensure that the quality of air meets the standards defined in the
        Virginia Air Pollution Control Law and Regulations.         The Air
        Pollution Control Board had until recently maintained a regional
        office and monitoring station in nearby Tappahannock. This office
        was closed in March of 1987 because of consistently high air
        quality readings observed.

              The impacts of sanitary landfills on air quality include
        airborne pollutants and odors.     These impacts can be taken into
        consideration with respect to prevailing winds and population
        centers in the siting of landfill facilities.

              Landfills odors and pollutants can be minimized through timely
        and effective coverage practices and adequate perimeter vegetation.










         Land Use Patterns and Practices

              Industrial, commercial, and residential land use patterns are
         important factors in determining methods for the collection and
         disposal of solid waste.

              An overview of land use patterns in the Northern Neck reveals
         that development in the region has been largely random and
         scattered. Farming and forestry land practices which exemplify the
         rural nature of the region, are the two major land uses in the
         Northern Neck in terms of gross acreage while urban and industrial
         acreages are a minor fraction of the total land area. Most dense
         residential development has -been confined to the towns until
         @ecently. With the rapid influx of retirees and seasonal residents
         in the past two decades, increasingly dense development is
         occurring along the hundreds of -miles of waterfront property in the
         region. Speculative pressures have increased the acreage of farm
         and forest land that is being converted to residential waterfront
         development and recreational use.

































                                          12










         Population

              The projected population growth of a region is one of the
         principal determining factors in any analysis of future solid waste
         generation. By reviewing population growth trends it is possible
         to estimate current and future solid waste production rates in the
         region.

              From 1960 to 1970, the population of the Northern Neck
         declined by 1.2 percent.     This trend was dramatically reversed
         during the 1970's with a population growth rate of 12.7 percent.
         The growth rate in the 80's for the region was a more moderate 7.9
         percent.

              The population of the Northern Neck is atypical in a number of
         @espects.   Factors which influence demographic characteristics
         include the rural nature of the region; sparse transportation links
         with adjacent peninsulas; the lack of employment opportunities
         within the district; and a unique set of environmental conditions
         which both attract outsiders and limit future development.        The
         Northern Neck is clearly faced with an aging population caused by
         the out-migration of youth in search of employment and an in-
         migration of retirees attracted by the numerous scenic and
         waterfront areas. It is projected that the total population of the
         Northern Neck will increase by almost 33 percent by the year 2030.



                                      Table 2.1
                           Population of the Northern Neck
                                       1980-2030
         ILocality           1980 1 1990 -1 2000 1 2010 1      2020 1  2030

          Lancaster         10,129 10,896   11,941   12,999  14,700   15,800
          Northumberland     9,828 10,524   11,025   11,526  12,000   12,500
          Richmond           6,952. 7,273     8,029    8,784 10,100   1OF900
          Westmoreland      14,0411 15,480  16,485   17,490  18,400   19,400
          Northern Neck     40,950 1 44,173... 47,480.50,799.55,200   58,600

         Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Virginia Employment Agency, and Northern Neck Planning District Commission.










                                          13












         Economy

              The Northern Neck has historically been a self -supporting
         society based on the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries.
         Commercial fishing, although declining in recent years, still
         generates small industries throughout the district, principally
         seafood processing plants. A significant number of residents have
         made their living by fishing for menhaden, crabs, oysters, and
         other seafood.   Closely related to the plentiful seafood is the
         recreational activities that attract large numbers of weekend,
         vacation, and seasonal residents to the Northern Neck while
         waterfront development and historic landmarks have attracted
         tourists and retirees . Less apparent, yet steadily increasing,
         are the support activities including finance, real estate,
         government and trade which have also increased over the last
         decade.

              Agriculture has been a major source of employment in the area
         but with increasing mechanization and the demise of the small
         farms, fewer people are employed in this sector of the economy.
         Soybeans, corn, and small grain are the major crops while hogs and
         cattle are the most common livestock raised and sold in the
         Northern Neck.

              Those residents not employed in the traditional basic
         industries or supporting activities commute to places of employment
         in surrounding counties, the cities of Richmond, Fredericksburg,
         Washington D.C. and Newport News.

              The major retail trade centers within the district include the
         towns of colonial Beach, Kilmarnock, Montross and Warsaw all of
         which provide a variety of retail services. Much trade is carried
         on outside of the district in the metropolitan areas.

              The information presented in tables 2.2 through 2.4 gives a
         brief overview of past trends and potential growth for the economy
         of the Northern Neck.    As shown in Table 2.2 the total taxable
         sales in the region have increased by 51 percent from 1981 to 1990.

              While total taxable sales data provides an overall picture of
         the local economy, taxable sales data segregated by business
         classification allows for analysis of specific industry and its
         relative importance to the local economy.       Table 2.3 presents
         taxable sales data by business classification as well as the
         relative importance, by percent, of each industry category and the
         percent change by industry category and the percent change by
         industry for the period between 1981 and 1990.         The largest
         increase was in the machinery and equipment classification at 770
         percent followed by apparel at 234 percent and lumber and supplies
         at 128 percent.

                                          14








              Table xx presents the per capita income trends in the northern
        neck from 1981 to 1986. The per capita income for residents has
        shown a healthy increase of 42.8 percent for the period, slightly
        exceeding the increase for the state.

                                      Table 2.2
                            Total Taxable Sales by County
              ILocality    -7       1981     F- 1990       -F Change
              Lancaster          $45,607,663    $60,184,145       32%
              Northumberland     $17,538,425    $31,133,681       78%
              Richmond           $26,348,792    $42,115,803       60%
              Westmoreland       $28,855,809    $45,355,373       57%
              Northern Neck      $118,556,198  $198,614,919       68%
              Source: Virginia Department of Taxation.



                                       Table 2.3
                Taxable Sales in the Northern Neck by Classification
             lClassification          1981 -T         1990 ---1    Change
              Apparel                $1,759,861     $5,877,389     234%
              Automotive            $11,396,955    $16,533,388     45%
              Food                  $48,501,774    $70,875,560     46%
              Furniture & Home       $3,078,434     $4,544,247     47%
              Furnishings
              General                $7,831,720    $12,729,223     63%
              Merchandise

              Lumber &               $9,542,399    $21,797,278     128%
              Supplies
              Fuel                   $1,544,054     $1,209,181     -22%
              Machinery &               $473,331    $4,116,152     770%
              Equipment
              Hotels & Motels        $7,035,139    $10,941,048     56%
              Miscellaneous          $7,326,088    $14,134,367     93%
              Other                 $20,066,443    $35,857,086     79%
              Source: Virginia Department of Taxation.




                                            15









                Labor force statistics for the period from 1981, to 1990 are
          represented in Table 2.4. The Northern Neck's unemployment rate
          has experienced-a steady decline during this period going from 13.3
          percent in 1981 to 7.9 percent in 1990. The overall size of the
          labor force has fluctuated around a median of 18,499 workers while
          the number of employed workers has increased steadily with an
          overall increase of 7.1 percent. In addition, the difference in
          unemployment rates between the State and the Northern Neck has
          decreased from just over 7 percentage points in 1981 to 3.7 in
          1990.






                                           Table 2.4
                                        Northern Neck
                                       Labor Force Data




                 Year   Labor Force     Employed     Unemployed Un   emp. Rate
                1981        18,680        16,186        2,493              13.3%

                1982        18,759        16,163        2,596              13.8%
                1983        18,526        16,234        2,292              12.4%

                1984        18,879        16,595        2,283              12.1%

                1985        18,019        15,872        2,147              11.9%

                1986        18,024        16,055        1,969              10.9%

                1987        18,401        16,758        1,644               8.9%

                1988        18,733        17,341        1,391               7.4%

                1989        18,895        17,432        1,463               7.7%
               11,990       19,230        17,655        1,575               8.2%

                Source: Virginia Employment Commission.


















                                               16




I
I
I
I
I
I
I                           Section III
I
I                     Legal Background For
I                  Waste Management Planning
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1                               17
1












         The Federal Role

              Local governments have traditionally had primary
         responsibility for solid waste collection, processing, and
         disposal, however, over the past 25 years, the Federal and State
         governments have become increasingly involved in solid waste
         management. In 1965, the first significant Federal effort in the
         solid waste management area was initiated with the passage of the
         Solid Waste Disposal Act. Under this act, the Federal
         government, through the Bureau of Solid Waste Management, assumed
         the responsibility for research, training, demonstration of new
         technology, technical assistance, and grants for state and
         interstate solid waste management planning programs.

              The next significant move on the part of the Federal
         government was the passage of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970.
         The legislation widened the focus of the 1965 act to include the
         recovery of materials and energy from solid wastes and provide
         funds for demonstration projects in resource recovery. Under the
         provisions of this act, primary responsibility for solid waste
         management planning was transferred from the Department of
         Health, Education and Welfare to the Environmental Protection
         Agency. In addition, the act provided for several important
         studies in the area of solid waste management and resource
         recovery, and allowed the EPA to issue guidelines on waste
         management and resource recovery.

              In 1976, Congress passed the Resource conservation and
         Recovery Act (RCRA) which greatly expanded the role of the
         Federal government in the management of solid waste. This act
         represents an effort by the national government to redirect the
         emphasis of solid waste management from disposal to conservation
         and the recycling of materials. It statutorily established the
         Office of Solid Waste within the EPA to guide the implementations
         of the law and establish a federal-state-local government
         partnership (similar to what had been done under the Air and
         Water Pollution Acts) to share implementation responsibilities.
         The act is intended to "provide technical and financial
         assistance for the recovery of energy and other resource
         discarded materials and to regulate the management of hazardous
         waste." Congressional findings with respect to solid waste,
         environment, health, materials, and energy indicate:

         RCRA. Sec. 1002
         (a) Solid Waste
              fl) that the continuing technological progress and
              improvement in methods of -manufacturing, packaging, and
              marketing of consumer products has resulted in an ever
              mounting increase, and change in the characteristics, of the
              mass material discarded by the purchaser of such products;


                                         18








              (2) that the economic and population growth of our Nation,
              and the improvements in the standard of living enjoyed by
              our population, have required increased industrial
              production to meet our needs, and have made necessary the
              demolition of old buildings, the construction of new
              buildings, and the provision of highways and other avenues
              of transportation, which, together with related industrial,
              commercial, and agricultural operations, have resulted in a
              rising tide of discarded scrap and waste materials;

              (3) that the continuing concentration of our population in
              expanding metropolitan and other urban areas has presented
              these communities with serious financial, management,
              intergovernmental, and technical problems in the disposal of
              solid wastes resulting from the commercial, industrial,
              domestic, and other activities carried on in such areas; and

              (4) that while the collection and disposal of solid waste
              should continue to be primarily the function of state,
              regional, and local agencies, the problems of waste disposal
              as set forth above have become a matter national in scope
              and in concern and necessitate Federal action through
              financial and technical assistance and leadership in the
              ievelopment, demonstration, and application of new and
              improved methods and processes to reduce the amount of waste
              and unsalvageable materials and to provide for proper and
              economic solid waste disposal practices.

         (b) Environment and Health
              (1) although land is too valuable a national resource to be
              needlessly polluted by discarded materials, most solid waste
              is disposed of on open land in open dumps and sanitary
              landfills;

              (2) disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste in or on the
              land without careful planning and management can present a
              danger to human health and the environment;

              (3) as a result of the Clean Air Act, the Water Pollution
              Control Act, and other Federal and State laws respecting
              public health and environment, greater amounts of solid
              waste (in the form of sludge and other pollution treatment
              residues) have been created. Similarly, inadequate and
              environmentally unsound practices for the disposal of solid
              wastes have created greater amounts of air and water
              pollution and other problems for the environment and for
              health;

              (4) open dumping is particularly harmful to health,
              contaminates drinking water and underground and surface
              water supplies, and pollutes the air and the land;


                                        19








              (5) hazardous waste presents, in addition to the problems
              associated with non-hazardous waste, special dangers to
              health and requires a greater degree of regulation than does
              non-hazardous solid waste; and

              (6) alternatives to existing methods of land disposal must
              be developed since many of the cities in the United States
              will be running out of suitable solid waste disposal sites
              unless immediate action is taken.

         (c) Materials
              (1) millions of tons of recoverable materials which could be
              used are needlessly discarded each year;

              (2) methods are available to separate usable materials from
              solid waste; and

              (3) the recovery and conservation of such naterialsIcan
              reduce the dependance of the United States on foreign
              resources and reduce the deficit in its balance of payments.

         (d) Energy
              (1) solid waste represents a potential source of solid fuel,
              oil, or gas that can be converted into energy;

              (2) the need exists to develop alternative energy sources
              for public and private consumption in order to reduce our
              dependance on such sources as petroleum products, natural
              gas, nuclear and hydroelectric generation; and

              (3) technology exists to produce usable energy from solid
              waste.


              The basic provisions of the RCRA pertaining to solid waste
         collection and disposal include the following:

              RCRA Sec. 1003
              (1) providing technical and financial assistance to State
              and local governments and interstate agencies for the
              development of solid waste management plans (including
              resource recovery and resource conservation systems) which
              will promote improved solid waste management techniques
              (including more effective organizational arrangements), new
              and improved methods of collection, separation, and disposal
              of nonrecoverable residues;

              (2) providing training grants in occupations involving
              design, operation and maintenance of solid waste disposal
              systems;



                                         20









             (3) prohibiting future open dumping on the land and
             requiring the conversion of existing open dumps to
             facilities which do not pose a danger to the environment or
             to health;

             (4) regulating the treatment, storage, transportation, and
             disposal of hazardous wastes which have adverse effects on
             health and the environment;

             (5) providing for the promulgation of guidelines for solid
             waste collection, transport, separation, recovery, and
             disposal practices and systems;

             (6) promoting a national research and development program
             for improved solid waste management and resource
             conservation techniques, more effective organizational
             arrangements and new and improved methods of collection,
             separation, and recovery, and recycling of solid wastes and
             environmentally safe disposal of nonrecoverable residues;

             (7) promoting the demonstration, construction, and
             application of solid waste management, resource recovery,
             and resource conservation systems which preserve and enhance
             the quality of air, water, and land resources; and

             (8) establishing a cooperative effort among the Federal,
             State, and local governments and private enterprise in order
             to recover valuable materials and energy from solid waste.























                                        21









              In addition to the above listed legislation, the re are
        numerous other federal laws and regulations that directly or
        indirectly impact the management of solid wastes. These Include:

              -Clean Air Act of 1963 (P.L. 91-604)

              -National Environmental Protection Act of 1970

              -Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970


              -Clean Water Act of 1972

              -Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972

              -Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-500)

              -Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

              -National Energy Act

              -Comprehensive Environmental Response, compensation, and
               Liability Act of 1980

              -Hazardous and Solid Wastes Amendments of 1984

              -OMB Circular A-95

              -Safe Drinking Water Act

              -Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization act of 1986

              -Toxic Substances Control Act (P.L. 94-469)



















                                        22












         The Stat e Role

              Until the late 1970's, the State of Virginia's role in solid
         waste management was limited to the promulgation of rules and
         regulations relating to the proper disposal of solid wastes.
         These rules and regulations were designed to control disease and
         vector populations. The authority to regulate and prescribe the
         methods of disposal of solid waste was initially vested with the
         State Board of Health under Section 32-9.1 of the Code of
         Virginia.

              The Authority of the State board of Health to regulate the
         disposal of solid waste was transferred to the newly created
         Virginia Department of Waste Management with the passage of the
         Virginia Waste Management Act in 1986.  As the Act states, "the
         ?epartment of Waste Management shall be deemed the successor in
         interest to the Department of Health to the extent that this act
         transfers powers and duties" (c. 492, cl. 4). The Act further
         provides "that regulations promulgated by the Department of
         Health concerning solid, hazardous and radioactive wastes shall
         remain in force and effect until any such regulation is amended,
         modified or repealed by the Department of Waste Management" (c.
         492, cl. 5).

              Each county and city in Virginia is responsible for the
         proper disposal of its solid waste. To assist the local
         communities in providing satisfactory solid waste disposal
         facilities, the Department of Solid Waste will furnish technical
         assistance and will inspect and evaluate each facility. It is
         also the responsibility of the Department to enforce provisions
         of the regulations and to issue a permit for each conforming
         site. In addition to regulating solid waste disposal sites, the
         state's responsibilities include:

              -formation of statewide health and environment policies;

              -adoption of minimum standards pertaining to storage and
              collection of solid wastes;

              -provision for financial solid waste management programs;

              -provision of a continuous source of information and
              technical assistance to local government and industry;

              -provision of training for operational and administrative
              personnel at the local level; and

              -provision of information for the general public.

              The passage of the RCRA on October 21, 1976 provided for
         additional state responsibilities and considerations for state

                                         23








        plan  guidelines. The guidelines consider:

              RCRA Sec. 4002.
              (1) the varying regional, geologic, hydrologic, climatic,
              and other circumstances under which different solid waste
              practices are required in order to insure the reasonable
              protection of the quality of the ground and surface waters
              from lechate contamination, the reasonable protection of the
              quality of the surface waters from surface runoff
              contamination, and the reasonable protection of ambient air
              quality;

              (2) characteristics and conditions of collection, storage,
              processing, and disposal methods, techniques and practices,
              and location of facilities where techniques, and practices
              are conducted, taking into account the nature of the
              material to be disposed;

              (3) methods for closing or upgrading open dumps for purposes
              of eliminating potential health hazards;

              (4) population density, distribution, and hydrologic growth;

              (5) geographic, geologic, climatic, and hydrologic
              characteristics;

              (6) the type and location of transportation;

              (7) the profile of industries;

              (8) the constituents and generation rates of waste;

              (9) the political, economic, organizational, financial, and
              management problems affecting comprehensive solid waste
              management;

              (10) types of resource recovery facilities and resource
              conservation systems which are appropriate;

              (11) available new and additional markets for recovered
              material.

              Each state plan must comply with the following minimum
        requirements for approval of the plan.

              Sec. 4003.
              (1) in accordance with section 4006(b) the plan shall
              identify the following: the responsibilities of State,
              local, and regional authorities in the implementation of
              the state plan; the distribution of Federal funds to the
              authorities responsible for development and implementation
              of the state plan; and means for coordinating regional

                                        24








             planning and implementation under the state plan;

             (2) the plan shall, in accordance with section 4005(c),
             prohibit the establishment of new open dumps within the
             State, and contain requirements that all solid waste
             (including solid waste originating in other states, but not
             including hazardous waste) shall be utilized for resource
             recovery or disposed of in sanitary landfills (within the
             meaning of section 4004(a)) or otherwise disposed of in an
             environmentally sound manner;

             (3) the plan shall provide for the closing or upgrading of
             all existing open dumps within the state pursuant to the
             requirements of section 4005;

             (4) the plan shall provide for the establishment of such
             state regulatory powers as may be necessary to implement the
             plan;

             (5) the plan shall provide that no local government within
             the state shall be prohibited under state or local law from
             entering into a long-term contracts for the supply of solid
             waste resource recovery facilities; and

             (6) the plan shall provide for such resource conservation or
             recovery and for the disposal of solid waste in sanitary
             landfills or any combination of practices so as may be
             necessary to use or dispose of such waste in a manner that
             is environmentally sound.

             In 1979, primarily in response to the RCRA, Virginia
        recognized its approach to solid waste management and began to
        assume a more active role in the planning and control of solid
        waste. As a result, the first State Solid Waste Management Plan
        became effective in October of 1979. The plan contains the basic
        administrative framework for solid waste management in the state,
        introduces many new concepts, recommends new state legislation
        and provides for continued local and regional planning in solid
        waste management.

             As with Federal law, there are number of other State
        regulations that directly or indirectly impact solid waste
        management in Virginia. The State Water Control Board regulates
        disposal under the State Water Control Law (code of Virginia,
        sec. 62:10-42). The State Air Pollution Control Board under the
        Air Pollution Control Law (Title 10, Chapter 1.2 of the Code of
        Virginia) is charged with the regulation of air pollution
        emissions according to the regulations poulmagated under the
        Clean Air Act.





                                        25









         The Regional Role

              There are a number of local and regional needs in the field
         of solid waste management that should be considered in any
         discussion of the subject. First among these is the entry of the
         Federal government through the RCRA into an area that heretofore
         had been the responsibility of local and state governments.
         Under this act, the Environmental Protection Agency, has been
         issuing regulations concerning the classification and disposal of
         hazardous wastes, landfill operation and design and other
         subjects. As with many federal regulations, application of
         national standards on the local level often increase costs.

              In the past, the amount of material entering the solid waste
         stream has steadily increased and the trend is expected to
         continue. This requires that local governments continue to
         dispose of an increasing volume of solid waste in the future,
         thus escalating the cost and complexity of solid waste
         management.

              In order to more efficiently manage solid waste disposal by
         local governments, it is advantageous for localities to encourage
         cooperation on the regional level in both the development and
         implementation of solid waste management plans. For this reason,
         the state has mandated that local governments may develop local
         or regional solid waste management plans.

              under the Virginia Waste Management Act of 1986, "the
         Governor may designate regional boundaries for solid waste
         management." It is further stated that "the governing bodies of
         the counties, cities, and towns within any region so designated
         shall be responsible for the development of a comprehensive
         regional solid waste management plan in cooperation with any
         planning district commission or commissions in such region. Each
         regional solid waste management plan shall include all aspects of
         solid waste management. The governing body of each county, city
         ?r town shall be responsible for ensuring within its
         jurisdictional boundaries, the implementation of those portions
         of the regional solid waste management plan applicable to such
         county, city or town" (Code of Virginia, Sec. 10-274).

              The planning district commissions were designated to develop
         regional solid waste management plans along state guidelines and
         the focus of the regional plans is to be resource recovery.
         State accepted regional plans will be part of the overall state
         solid waste management plan. The contents of a regional solid
         waste management plan are to be based on the state strategy for
         solid waste management. That strategy includes:

              -the establishment of goals and objectives for the
              prevention of adverse effects on the environment resulting
              from solid waste disposal and collection;

                                        26









             -the identification of waste characteristics by type and
             volume;

             -the identification of disposal options;

             -the identification of resource recovery and conservation
             options and other options for conservation, treatment, or
             processing of solid wastes;
             -the review and analysis of existing responsibilities for
             solid waste management and existing regulatory problems;

             -the analysis of alternative options and recommendations;

             -the development of a waste management hierarchy to include
             the components of,planning, source reduction, reuse,
             recycling, resource recovery, incineration, and landfilling.

             In addition to the development of a regional solid waste
        management plan, provisions exist in the Code of Virginia so that
        one jurisdiction under contract may operate a regional
        disposal/recovery facility involving other local jurisdictions.
        Also under Section 15.1-1420, two or more jurisdictions might
        elect to form a service district for reducing collection and
        disposal costs.



























                                        27












        The Local Role

             Each county and city is responsible for disposal of solid
        wastes within its jurisdiction. Each must first provide adequate
        disposal for its residential solid wastes before providing
        facilities for disposal of other solid wastes. Towns are not
        required by law to provide such facilities, however, they may do
        so if they desire. If towns choose to forego this service,
        counties must provide disposal services to the towns.

             counties and cities may accept solid wastes from commercial,
        industrial, institutional, or agricultural sources within their
        jurisdictions for disposal in the same system used for
        residential wastes, or they may require such solid waste sources
        to operate separate disposal facilities. In the latter event,
        such disposal operations shall conform to the requirements of the
        state, and each person shall be required to hold a valid permit,
        the same as a county or city.

             cities, counties, and towns must also pass waste disposal
        ordinances that delineate what may or may not be disposed of at
        their sanitary landfill sites. These various requirements prove
        that local solid waste administrators are responsible for more
        than just seeing that waste is hauled to the landfill. The local
        jurisdiction must also develop specific plans for the management
        of solid waste generated within its boundaries. They must enact
        new or review old local ordinances governing storage and
        collection of solid waste, provide for financing of solid waste
        management programs, and operate all solid waste management
        facilities in compliance with state regulations. In addition,
        they must give serious consideration to the alternative and
        innovative options available for the management of solid waste.

             In accordance with the Virginia Department of Waste
        Management's "Regulations For The Development Of Solid Waste
        Management Plans (VR 672-50-01, 1990) the four counties of the
        Northern Neck requested that the Planning District Commission
        develop a regional solid waste management plan. These
        regulations are promulgated pursuant to Chapter 14 (Sec. 10.1-
        1400 et seq.) and Sec. 10.1-1411 of the Code of Virginia (1950),
        as amended, which authorizes the Virginia Waste Management Board
        to promulgate and enforce such regulations as may be necessary to
        carry out its duties and powers and the intent of the Virginia
        Waste Management Act and the federal acts.








                                        28








              Section 2.2 of these regulations states that the Virginia
         Waste Management Board requires "each region pursuant to Part V
         of these regulations, as well as each city, county and town not
         part of such a region, to develop comprehensive and integrated
         solid. waste management plans that, at a minimum, consider all
         components of the following hierarchy:

              1. Source Reduction,

              2. Reuse,

              3. Recycling,

              4. Resource Recovery,

              5. Incineration,

              6. Landfilling,

              7. Plan Implementation.

              Part III of VR 672-50-01 covers the objectives and
         performance required of these plans.

         Sec. 3.1 Schedule For Plan Development

              "Every city, county and town in the Commonwealth shall
         develop a solid waste management plan or amend and existing solid
         waste management plan and submit them for approval in accordance
         with these regulations. Existing plans may be amended by
         addendum of items such as consideration of the waste management
         hierarchy, the recycling program, implementation activities and
         other requirements of these regulations that are not a part of
         the existing plan. A local jurisdiction participating in an
         authorized regional solid waste management plan is not required
         to develop a separate plan."

              A. A complete solid waste management plan in compliance with
              these regulations shall be provided to the Department of
              Waste Management no later than July 1, 1991.

              B. The Department of Waste Management shall approve or
              disapprove each plan submitted in accordance with Sec.
              3.1.A. no later than July 1, 1992. If the Department of
              Waste Management disapproves the plan, it shall cite the
              reasons for the disapproval and state what is required for
              the approval.

              C. Each submitter whose solid waste management plan is
              disapproved under sec. 3.1.B. shall submit a corrected solid
              waste management plan to the Department of Waste Management
              no later than 90 days following notification of disapproval.

                                         29









             D. Plans approved without alteration shall become effective
             upon notification. If the Department of Waste Management
             cannot approve the corrected solid waste management plan
             because it finds the plans not to be in accordance with
             these regulations, it will issue a notice of disapproval and
             state what is required for approval. The Department will
             give priority consideration for review of corrected plans
             where the local or regional body has a pending permit
             application for a solid waste management facility.

             E. on July 1, 1997 and each succeeding five year period
             thereafter, each city, county, town or region shall submit a
             report to the Director updating the plan.


        Sec. 3.2 Give the following Mandatory Plan Objectives.

             A. The solid waste management plan shall include:

             1. An integrated waste management strategy;

             2. objectives for solid waste management within the
             jurisdiction;

             3. Definition of incremental stages of progress toward the
             objectives and schedule for their accomplishment;

             4. Descriptions of the funding and resources necessary,
             including consideration of fees dedicated to future facility
             development;

             5. Strategy for provision of necessary funds and resources;

             6. Strategy for public education and information on
             recycling; and

             7. Consideration of public and private sector partnerships
             and private sector participation in execution of the plan.
             Existing private sector recycling operations should be
             incorporated in the plan and the expansion of such
             operations should be encouraged.

             B. The plan shall describe how each of the following minimum
             goals were or shall be achieved:

             1. By December 31, 1991, a recycling rate of ten percent of
             total household wastes and principal recyclable materials
             that are wastes from non-household sources generated
             annually in each city, county, town or region.
             2. By December 31, 1993, a recyclin7 rate of fifteen percent
             of total household wastes and principal recyclable materials

                                        30









             that are wastes from non-household sources generated
             annually in each city, county, town or region.

             3. By December 31, 1995, a recycling rate of twenty-five
             percent of total household wastes and principal recyclable
             materials that are wastes from non-household sources
             generated annually in each city, county, town or region.

             C. Calculation methodology shall be included in the plan.

             D. A report on progress in attaining the recycling goals
             established in Sec. 3.2.B. shall be submitted to the
             Department of Waste Management within 120 days of the date
             prescribed in that section. The Department will prepare a
             statewide summary progress report based on the data
             submitted.

             E. By July 1, 1993, all known solid waste disposal sites,
             closed and active, within the area of the solid waste
             management plan shall be documented and recorded at a
             centralized archive authorized to receive and record
             information. Thereafter, all new sites shall be recorded at
             the same central data source.

             F. By July 1, 1993, a method shall be developed to monitor
             the amount of solid waste of each type produced within the
             area of the solid waste management plan and to record the
             annual production by solid waste types at a centralized
             archive. Waste types include, but are not limited to, broad
             classes such as residential, commercial and industrial, and
             the major categories of principal and supplemental
             recyclable materials.

        Sec. 3.3. covers the subject of public participation and states
        the following:

             A. Prior to submission of a solid waste management plan to
             the Department of Waste Management, the submitter shall
             publish a notice and hold a public hearing on the plan in
             accordance with the procedures of the local government or
             regional planning agency.

             B. Plan developers should provide for extensive
             participation by the public through the use of citizen
             advisory committees and public meetings during the
             development of the plan.







                                        31




I
I
I
I
I
I
I                          Section IV
I
I                 Waste Management Objectives
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

                               32
1
I











                           WASTE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

             In developing  objectives for waste management, several
         issues are fundamental driving forces in the planning process for
         the Northern Neck waste management process. These issues are: a)
         compliance with regulations, b) economics, c) environmental
         protection, d) citizen needs and participation, and e) politics.

             The following five objectives have been developed as key
         issues to consider in the development of a waste management
         strategy.



         1.  To consider the regions' environmental needs in developing
             waste management and recycling strategies so that the entire
             region is protected and enhanced by our activities.

         2.  To meet the State recycling mandates.

         3.  To develop a waste management plan that considers all
             components of the following hierarchy:

                   1. Source Reduction
                   2. Reuse
                   -3. Recycling
                   4. Resource Recovery
                   5. Incineration
                   6. Landfilling
                   7. Plan Implementation


         3.  To implement a waste management plan that addresses the
             needs of the citizens and the environment with the least
             amount of additional administration and expenditures.

         4.  To develop a waste management plan that allows the localities
             the option to change/modify strategies over time based on
             politics, economics, technology, and common sense.

         5.  To promote recycling as a business in order to encourage
             business development and employment opportunities.










                                        33




 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                         Section V
 I
 I                Waste Management Hierarchy
 I
 I                                    -
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 1                             34
 1









                             Waste Management Hierarchy


              In developing a integrated solid waste management plan, a
         combination of techniques and programs should be developed. Waste
         is composed of a number of different elements, and each element
         can be disposed of separately. Consequently, a variety of
         techniques can be developed, each to address specific elements of
         a localities waste management problems. Although this plan will
         choose a selected mix of alternatives that is based on their
         ?ffectiveness in meeting the regional goals, the hierarchy of
         integrated waste management techniques will be discussed in the
         following section because of its usefulness as a tool for goal
         setting and planning.

              Source Reduction and Reuse is at the top of the waste
         management hierarchy. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
         documentation on solid waste defines source reduction as "the
         design manufacture and use of products so as to reduce the
         quality and toxicity of waste produced when the products reach
         the end of their useful lives".' Reuse is the use of a product
         more than once in its same form for the same purpose. Programs
                                                               2
         promoting source reduction are becoming more common.      These
         programs impact the waste stream by decreasing the amount and
         toxicity of material that is discarded through manufacture,
         design and packaging of products with minimum toxic content,
         minimum volume of material and/or longer useful life. Source
         reduction includes product reuse, reduced material volume,
         reduced toxicity, increased product lifetime and decreased
         consumption.

              Presently, source reduction is not a widely utilized concept
                                        3
         as a tool for waste reduction. Widespread implementation of
         this concept must be initiated at the national level, however a
         number of actions can be encouraged at the local level, such as
         increased consumer education. Education programs should address
         the need and importance of source reduction.

              Since the major thrust of a source reduction program must be
         initiated at the national level, this component of the hierarchy
         will be addressed only in an educational framework. Information
         discussing the Northern Neck's approach to this component can be
         found in the "education" component of this plan.

              Recycling (including composting) is the second component of
         the waste management hierarchy. Recycling, one of the most widely
         used tools of the waste management hierarchy, is defined as the
         separation, collection and processing (or remanufacturing) of
         post consumer materials.    According to the EPA, in 1989, only 10
                                                       4
         percent of products discarded were recycled.    Recycling can
         reduce the amount of landfill space necessary for waste materials


                                          35








       and save resources and money for communities. In most
       communities recycling programs are relatively new, and mistakes
       are bound to be made. The most successful programs across the
       nation began as small pilot programs. By beginning on a small
       scale, decision makers can gain expertise gradually and minimize
       costly problems.

            The Northern Neck plans to adapt this small scale approach
       to their waste management. By evaluating the programs that are
       in place decision makers will be able to compare and evaluate
       which programs are the most successful and least costly. (see
       section on Future Waste Systems).

            incineration is the next component on the waste management
       hierarchy. Incineration can reduce some amounts of waste and
       provide a valuable resource for energy production. However this
       technology poses some risks to humans and the environment. In
       addition, this technology is costly to develop. Communities with
       small populations will not find this a viable solution for waste
       management unless for some reason they find that they produce or
       acquire a large volume of waste. Consequently, the option will
       not be utilized in the Northern Neck at this time.

            Landfilling is a method of managing and storing non-
       recyclable materials. Landfills are the most widely used waste
       management method in the nation. Although most communities
       landfill their waste, landfills create a number of problems.
       Environmental concerns arise because of the lack of space and the
       adverse effects resulting from the materials that are being
       placed back in the earth. Economics are a central concern
       because of increased regulations governing the development and
       closure of landfills.

            Presently the Northern Neck is landfilling at sites in two
       counties. This landfilling process is expected to continue for a
       few years. (For more information on landfilling in the Northern
       Neck see the section on Present Waste Systems).














                                       36











                                       Notes

        1.   United States Environmental Protection Agency. Decision-
             Makers Guide to Solid Waste Management. 1989. pp. 51-57.

        2.   Ibid.

        3.   Ibid.

        4.   Ibid. p. 59.









































                                        37




 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                           Section VI
 I
                    Waste Stream Characteristics
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 1                               38
 I










                            Waste Stream Characteristics

              The single greatest limitation to solid waste management
         planning in the Northern Neck is the lack of data concerning the
         characteristics of the waste stream. At no point during the
         process of waste transport and disposal is its weight or volume
         measured. The private haulers who transport the refuse generally
         charge based upon a regular pick-up schedule, rather than on the
         amount of waste, and disposal in the landfills has been free.
         There has been no need to measure or record the amount of waste
         passing through the system.

              In the development of this plan, estimates of present and
         future waste stream characteristics were gathered from a variety
         of sources. Basically, they are of two types: national and
         statewide estimates, and local estimates. The national and
         statewide estimates have the advantage of being fairly precise,
         having been based upon detailed waste stream and market studies.
         However, it is uncertain how well these studies of general trends
         translate to the rural communities of the Northern Neck. The
         @ocal estimates are specific to the area, but tend to be
         imprecise.

              In order to gain a more informed understanding of the types
         of refuse entering the landfills of the Northern Neck, The
         Northern Neck Recycling Task Force, a local citizens group, was
         recruited to survey the waste stream at the Tri-County landfill.
         During one week in mid-February, 1991, volunteers monitored the
         landfill, estimating the volume and composition of the waste
         entering the pit. Results from this survey were used to verify
         existing waste stream estimates. (Another survey is planned for
         mid-July, 1991.)

              Additionally, engineering estimates of the rate at which the
         two landfills of the Northern Neck are being filled were compared
         to estimates of national waste stream characteristics.',',' In the
         case of the Tri-County landfill the two estimates were remarkably
         close. This would indicate that the waste stream of the Northern
         Neck is similar to that of the Nation as a whole. Though the
         estimates for the Westmoreland County landfill were not nearly so
         close, the discrepancy is probably attributable to other factors.
         (See discussion of Westmoreland Counties current waste system in
         Section VII.)

              At the state level, the "Recyclable Materials Market
              0
         Study , produced f or the Department of Waste Management by MIDAS
         Inc., was considered as a possible source for estimates of
         available recyclables in the waste stream. The study was
         limited, though, in that it did not address the waste stream as a
         whole, and only made estimates of certain marketable recyclables.



                                          39








             For the purposes of this plan the estimate of total primary
        waste stream for each county is based upon the Environmental
        Protection Agency publication "Characteristics of Municipal Solid
        Waste in the Untied States: 1990 Update".5 As mentioned above,
        these estimates were found to be consistent with much of the data
        collected at the local level. In addition, the EPA study was by
        far the most comprehensive, providing twenty year projections for
        all components of the primary waste stream. This allows for a
        much greater consistency when comparing the relative importance
        of different materials in the waste stream.

             Throughout this section "recyclable materials" refers only
        to those "traditional" recycling materials found in the
        conventional residential and commercial waste stream. Such
        materials as used oil, scrap metal, tires and arboreal materials
        are addressed in Section VIII:Special Waste.

             It should be noted that volume estimates assume that
        materials are compacted in landfills. The conversion factors
                                                           6
        from weight to volume are taken from the EPA study.


                                    Recycling

             As with the waste stream characteristics, accurate data does
        not exist'for the amount that is presently being recycled.- What
        is available must be gathered from many different sources.

             Two of the largest recycling operations in the area, a
        community group and a private business, have both been in
        operation for less then a year. Though both keep fairly detailed
        records, the rate that they have received materials in the first
        few months may not be representative of their long term
        capabilities.

             Additional data was derived from two surveys of businesses,
        one of the four county region conducted by the Planning District
        Commission, the other of Westmoreland County alone, conducted by
                              7,1
        the County government.    only a small percentage of the survey
        forms were returned, and most of those contained only rough
        estimates of amounts. Few of the businesses which do recycle
        keep accurate records.

             The estimates of recycling should therefore only be
        considered a general indication as to the magnitude of present
        recycling trends.







                                        40




                                                                  Lancaster county

                                                Table 6.1: Waste Stream Projections
                                                                    (Cu. Yds./Year)

                                                         1990                1995                2000               2005               2010

                    Recyclables

                     Glass Bottles                         307                 308                 284                274               264

                     Steel Cans                            380                 392                 367                348               329

                     Aluminum Cans                         412                 669                 785                817               848

                     HDPE Plastic                          108                 123                 126                141               156

                     PET Plastic                           103                 149                 176                204               234

                     Office Paper                          800               1,078               1,316              1,577             1,843

                     Newspaper                           1,236               1,650               1,829              2,030             2,235

                     Cardboard-                          2,163               3,238               3,712              4,301             4,904

                    Total
                    Recyclables                          5,509               7,607               8,595              9,692            10,813

                    Total Waste
                    8 ream                              20,776              22,420             24,565              26,985            29,451
                    Twenty Five
                    Percent of TWS                       5,194          1    5,605         1     6,141         1    611!1_L           7,363
                    Source: "Characteristics of Munic-tpal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update",U.S. E.P.A.,  1990
                           Northern Neck Planning District Conunission


                           Table 6.2: Mile Stones for Reaching Recycling Mandates


                              Year                     Waste Stream                         Recycling                       Recycling
                                                      Cu. Yds. /Year Mandate (%)                                              Mandate
                                                                                                                         Cu. Yd./Year

                              1991                           21,105                              10                             2,111

                              1993                           21,762                              15                             3,264
                              1995                           22,420                              25 %                           5,605-1,
                       Source: Northern Neck Planning District Commission


                                          Table 6.3: Estimates of Current Recycling
                                              Paper                     Cu. Yd./Year                     328
                                              Cardboard                                                  864

                                              Aluminum Cans                                              306

                                              Steel Cans                                                 43

                                              G
                                                 a
                                                l   ss Bottles                                           35

                                           .Total                                                    1,576
                                              Source: Northern Neck Planning District Conunission



                                                                                  41




                                                            Northumberland County

                                              Table 6.4: Waste Stream Projections
                                                                  (Cu. Yds./Year)

                                                        1990               1995                2000              2005               2010

                   Recyclables

                     Glass Bottles                       297                 291                262                 248              234

                     Steel Cans                          367                 371                338                 315              292

                     Aluminum Cans                       398                 631                725                 738              752

                     HDPE Plastic                        104                 117                116                 127              138

                     PET Plastic                         100                 140                162                 185              207

                     Office Paper                        773               1,017               1,215             1,425             1,635

                     Newspaper                          1,194              1,556               1,688             1,835             1,982

                     Cardboard                          2,089              3,054               3,426             3,888             41348

                   Total
                   Recyclables                          5,322              7,177               7,932             8,761             9,588

                   Total Waste
                   Stream                             20,067              21,150             22,700              24,394           26,114
                   Twenty Five
                   Percent of TWS 1                     5,017         1    5,288         1     5,675        1    6fO99             6,529
                   source: -Characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update",U.S. E.P.A.,  1990
                          Northern Neck Planning District Commission


                          Table 6.5: Mile Stones for Reaching Re                                      cycling Mandates


                             Year                    Waste Stream                        Recycling                       Recycling
                                                    Cu. Yds./Year                   Mandate                                Mandate
                                                                                                                      Cu. Yd./Year

                             1991                           20,284                             10                             2,028

                             1993                           20,717                             15                             3,108

                             1995                           21,150                             25                             5,288
                      Source: Northern Neck Planning District Commission

                                        Table 6.6: Estimates of Current                                 Recycling
                                                                      Cu. Yd./Year

                                            Paper                                                     320

                                            Cardboard                                                 311

                                            Aluminum Cans                                             305

                                                    1 Cans                                            43

                                                    s Bottles                                         35

                                            Tot   al                                               1,014
                                            Stee

                                            Glas



                                            Source: Northern Neck Planning District Commission




                                                                                42




                                                                 Richmond county

                                              Table 6.7: Waste Stream Projections
                                                                  (Cu. Yds./Year)

                                                       1990                 1995                 2000             2005              2010

                  Recyclables

                    Glass Bottles                       205                  206                 191               185                178

                    Steel Cans                          254                  263                 246               235                222

                    Aluminum Cans                       275                  448                 528               550                573

                    HDPE Plastic                         72                  83                  84                95                 105

                    PET Plastic                          69                  100                 118               138                158

                    Office Paper                        534,                 722                 885            1,063              1,246

                    Newspaper                           825               1,105               1,229             1,368              1,510

                    Cardboard                         1,444               2,169               2,495             2,899              3,313

                  Total
                  Recyclables                         3,678               5,096               5,776             6,533              7,305

                  Total Waste
                  Stream                             13,868              15,019              16,509            18,187             19,901
                  Twenty Five
                  Percent of TWS                      3,467               3,755               4,127             4,547              4,975
                 Source: "Characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update",U.S. E.P.A.,  1990
                         Northern Neck Planning District Commission

                         Table 6.8: Mile Stones for Reaching Recycling Mandates


                            Year                    Waste Stream                        Recycling                       Recycling
                                                    Cu. Yds./Year                 Mandate                                 Mandate
                                                                                                                     Cu. Yd./Year
                            1991                           14,098                             10                             1,410
                            1993                           14,559                             15                             2,184
                            1995                           15,019                             25                             3,755
                                                                                                                                                A
                      Source: Northern Neck Planning District Commission


                                        Table 6.9: Estimates of Current Recycling
                                                                     Cu. Yd./Year

                                            Paper                                                    43

                                            Cardboard                                               622

                                            Aluminum Cans                                            13

                                            Steel Cans                                                 5

                                         JGlass Bottles                                                5

                                            Total                                                   688

                                            Source: Northern Neck Planning District Commission




                                                                                43




                                                         Westmoreland County

                                         Table 6.10: Waste Stream Projections
                                                             (Cu. Yds./Year)

                                                    1990               1995             2000              2005            2010

                  Recyclables

                   Glass Bottles                    436                431               391              373              354

                   Steel Cans                       540                550               506              475              443

                   Aluminum Cans                    585                936              1,084           1,112            1,141
                   HDPE Plastic                     154                173               173              191              210

                   PET Plastic                      147                208               243              279              314

                   Office Paper                     1,137            1,508              1,816           2,147            2,480

                   Newspaper                        1,756            2,309              2,524           2,765            3,007
                   Cardboard                        3,073            4,531              5,1_23          5,858            6,598
                 Total                              7,828                               11,860          13,200          14,547
                  Recyclables                                       10,646

                 Total Waste
                -Stream                           29,517            31,373            33,896            36,752          39,626
               I
                   wenty Five
                 Percen of TWS                      7,379       1    7,843              8,474       1   9,188        1 9,907
                Tou-MV-4-C Uaractcristics of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update",U.S. E.F.A.,  199U
                        Northern Neck Planning District Commission


                       Table 6.11: Mile Stones for Reaching Recycling Mandates


                           Year                  Waste Stream                      Recycling                    Recycling
                                                Cu. Yds./Year                 Mandate                             Mandate
                                                                                                             Cu. Yd./Year

                           1991                        29,888                           10                          21989

                           1993                        30,631                           15                           4r595

                           1995                        31,373                           25                           7,843
                    Source: Northern Neck Planning District Commission

                                     Table 6.12: Estimates of Current Recycling
                                                                Cu. Yd./Year

                                         Paper                                                460

                                         Cardboard                                            380

                                         Aluminum Cans                                        292

                                         Steel Cans                                           144

                                         Glass Bottles                                        136

                                         Total                                              1412

                                                  Source: Westmoreland County Staff




                                                                           44





                                                                      Northern Neck

                                              Table 6.13: Waste Stream Projections
                                                                     (Cu. Yds./Year)

                                                           1990                1995               2000               2005               2010

                    Recyclables
                      Glass Bottles                      1,251               1,242                1,156             1,093              1,043

                      Steel Cans                         1,540               1,573                1,489             1 396              1,310
                      Aluminum Cans                      1,511               2,450                3,028             3:204              3,300
                      HDPE Plastic                         430                 485                 501                543                598

                      PET Plastic                          391                 556                 667                783                891

                      Office Paper                       3,081               4,081                5,034             6,001              6,995

                      Newspaper                          4,771               6,257                7,140             7,852              8,589

                      Cardboard                          8,117               12,027               14,384           16,484              18,703

                    Total
                    Recyclables                          21,092              28,671               33,399           37,356              41,429

                    Total Waste
                    Stream                               83,784              88,879             96,121            104,594            113,373
                    Twen y Five
                    Percent of TWS 1                     20,946         1    22,220         1     24,030           26,149              28,343
                    Source: "Characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update",U.S. E.P.A., 1990
                            Northern Neck Planning District Commission


                          Table 6.14: Mile Stones for Reaching Recycling Mandates


                               Year                      Waste Stream                      Recycling                        Recycling
                                                      Cu. Yds./Year                   Mandate                                 Mandate
                                                                                                                         Cu. Yd./Year
                               1991                          84,783                               10                            8,478
                               1993                          86,841                               15                           13,026
                               1995                          88,879                               25-                          22,220
                        Source: Northern Neck Planning District Commission

                                          Table 6.15: Estimates                       of Current Recycling
                                                                        Cu. Yd./Year

                                              Paper                                                     717
                                              Cardboard                                               1,873
                                              Aluminum Cans                                             634

                                              Steel Cans                                                  91

                                              Glass Bottles                                               76

                                              Total                                                   3,391
                                              Source: Northern Neck Planning District Comn-dssion




                                                                                   45







                     Figure 6. 1: Comparison of Available
                        Recyclables to State Mandates

              50,000.00--


              40,000.00--
         F-4
         cd
         Q)
         >-4  302000.00--
                                                       ....................... .......... .

                        .. ..........
              202000.00"'-"'


              10 2 0 0 0. 0 0


                      1990       1995       2000        2005       2010
            ...... State Mandate              Avail. Recyc. Mat.
            - 75 % of Avail. Rec.             50 % of Avail. Rec.







                Figure 6.2-, Projected Recyclables
                    in Northern Neck Waste Stream

           4)000.00.-



      ;-.4 37000.001
      a5


      91   2)000.00-.



           17000.00-


                0.0   1990     1995     2000     2005     2010
          M Gl. Bottles     M Steel Cans       M Al.   Cans
          0 HDPE            M PET







                     Figure 6.3: Projected Recyclables
                     in Northern Neck Waste Stream

             42000,000-00--



             3;000;000.00--
       Cd


             2;000;000.00--


       0
             1;000;000.00--


                      0.0    1990    1995    2000    2005     2010
               GI. Bottles        Steel Cans          Al. Cans
               HDPE               PET







                         Figure 6.4: Projected Paper
                      in Northern Neck Waste Stream

             202000.00.-
             18)000.00.-
             16)000.00--
        Cd   147000.00-
        Q
             121000.001
             10)000.00--
       ro
              8)000.00.-
              62000.00.-
              4;000.00--
                                        01,
              2)000.00
                   0.00                 .......
                          1990      1995     2000     2005     2010
                 M Cardboard             ME   Newspaper
                     Off. Paper               All Other Rec.







                       Figure 6.5.- Projected Paper
                     in Northern Neck Waste Stream

             16)0001000.00.-
             141000,000.00--

             1210007000.00--
       Cd
       Q)    10)0001000.00--

              810001000.00.-
              6)0002000.00.-
              410002000.00--

              22000;000.00.
                       0.00. 1990   .1995 2000       2005    2010
                    Cardboard              Newspaper
                    Office Paper           All Other Rec.







                                    Discussion

             A comparison of the projected quantity of "traditional"
         recyclables in the waste stream to the state recycling mandate is
         shown in figure 6.1. The line labelled "State Mandate" represents
         @wenty five percent of the projected waste stream. The figure
         indicates that unless the localities of the Northern Neck are
         able to divert a high percentage of these materials from the
         waste stream (75%), they will need to pursue other materials to
         reach the mandated-goal. It should also be noted that this
         comparison is based on the EPA's projection that recyclable
         materials will account for an increasing percentage of the total
         waste stream. If this does not prove to be true the mandated
         goals will be even more difficult to reach. Local programs must
         include those materials discussed in "Section VIII: Special
         Wastes" along with the more tradition materials in order to reach
         their goals.

             Among the materials considered in this section the paper
         products account for the majority of recyclables (76% in 1990,
         83% in 2010 by volume). of this, over half is cardboard. It is
         interesting that this holds true whether the waste stream is
         evaluated by volume or weight. In the formulation of a recycling
         plan, paper products, generally, and cardboard, specifically,
         deserve special attention.

































                                        51










                                      Notes

        1.   Culpeper Engineering. "Tri-County Landfill Volume Report".
             Unpublished Study. 1991. p. 3.

        2.   Culpeper Engineering. "Westmoreland County Landfill
             Inspection". Unpublished Study. 1991. p. 2.

        3.   United States Environmental Protection Agency.
             Characteristics of Municipal-Solid Waste in the United
             States: 1990 Update. 1990. p. 88.

        4.   Virginia Department of Waste Management. Recyclable
             Materials Marketing Progra    1990. pp. 5-10.

        5.   U.S. E.P.A. 1990. p. 88.

        6.   Ibid. p. 88.

        7.   Westmoreland County Staff. (Business Recycling Survey].
             Unpublished Raw Data. 1991.

        8.   Northern Neck Planning District commission. [Business
             Recycling Survey). Unpublished Raw Data. 1991.



























                                        52




I
I
I
I
I
I
I                            Section VII
I
                  Existing Waste Disposal Systems
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1                                53
1








                         Existing Waste Disposal Systems



                                    Landfills



                                Tri-County Landfill

         Description:

              The Tri-County landfill is located on seventy-five (75)
         acres at Lara in Northumberland County (Map 1). It is operated
         by Callao Grader Service for the Counties of Lancaster,
         Northumberland and Richmond. The landfill was originally
         permitted in 1973, and the operator is presently filling the last
         cell. The landfill is scheduled to be closed by January 1, 1994,
         due to the changes in state regulations. At the current rate of
         consumption the final cell should last until closure.' (Closure
         plans are included in Appendix 1)

              The landfill will not accept tires (unless they are split),
         stumps or yard waste. No tipping fee is charged for disposal at
         the landfill. Private citizens and commercial haulers drive onto
         the landfill site and dump directly into the pit. A single
         employee is responsible both for the maintenance of the site, and
         supervision of the materials being placed in the pit.2

         Concerns:

              @ith only one employee on the site, a complete inspection of
         incoming waste is impossible. A recent survey of the waste
         stream by a citizens group found that banned materials such as
                                                              3
         tires and stumps were being dumped into the landfill.  As the
         types of materials not accepted at the landfill continue to
         become more numerous, this may become a large problem.



                           Westmoreland County Landfill

              The Westmoreland County Landfill is located on ninety-six
         (96) acres near Montross (map 4). The County is presently
         filling the third cell on the site. This cell was placed in
         service on May 14, 1990.4 The cell will be closed by January 1,
         1993 in order to comply with state regulations. According to
         engineering estimates the third cell should have enough capacity
         to receive the anticipated waste from Westmoreland County. The
         County plans to develop a new cell on the existing parcel, 5in
         compliance with new state regulations, by January 1, 1993.



                                        54








             The County does not charge any tipping fee, but will not
         accept tires or stumps. The site is supervised by an employee of
         the Callao Grader Service.6



         Concerns:


             over the past few years Westmoreland County has seen a
         significant increase in the waste stream entering the landfill.
         According to a landfill inspection by Culpeper Engineering,
         during the six month period from May to November 1990 the amount
         of waste entering the landfill was thirty-five percent (35%)
         higher than for a similar period of time a year earlier.'
         Additionally, the inspection indicated a per capita waste stream
         fortyF ercent (40%) greater than that predicted by the U.S.
         E.P.A. (see section VII). This is in contrast to the Tri-County
         landfill at Lara which has an estimated per capita waste stream
         nearly identical to that predicted in the E.P.A. study.

             one explanation for this dramatic increase in waste stream,
         is that as counties to the north and west of Westmoreland have
         charged increasing amounts for garbage disposal, Westmoreland
         County continues to provide free disposal at 11greenbox" sites and
         at the landfill. Traveling southeast from the more urbanized
         counties surrounding Fredricksburg and Washington D.C.,
         Westmoreland is the first county to provide free garbage
         disposal. It is possible that the Westmoreland County Landfill
         (and collection boxes) are being used by citizens of other
         counties.































                                        55










                                    collection



                                     Counties



         Lancaster County

              Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) maintains six unmanned
         11greenbox" sites for the County of Lancaster. These include two
         at schools, one at the correctional facility, and three for
         general public use (map 3). BFI provides the containers and
         services them three times per week, hauling the refuse to the
         Tri-County Landfill at Lara.9


         Northumberland County

              Northumberland County has twenty-one unmanned 11greenbox"
         collection sites situated throughout the County (map 1). These
         include four at schools and seventeen for general public use.
         BFI provides containers and services them three times a week.
         All refuse is taken to the Tri-County landfill at Lara.10


         Richmond County

              Richmond County also contracts with BFI for the rental and
         maintenance of refuse containers. The County has seventeen
         "greenbox" sites including three at schools and fourteen
         throughout the county for general public use (map 2). BFI
         transports all refuse to the Tri-County landfill."


         Westmogeland county

              Westmoreland County maintains six refuse collection sites
         throughout the County. Five are unmanned "greenbox" sites, owned
         and maintained by the County (map 4). The site at Monroe Hall is
         a manned drop off site, with hours of operation from 7:00 AM to
         7:00 PM seven days per week. Westmoreland County contracts with
         a local trucking firm to have refuse hauled from each of these
         sites to the Westmoreland County landfill. 12









                                         56












                                                                           TABLE 7.1
                                                               NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY
                                                                    "GREENBOX" SITES





                                               Site             Number of               Area owned by the
                                            Number             Containers County (acres)

                                                  1                        2                               NA

                                                  2                        9                               7

                                                  3                        2                               NA

                                                  4                        2                               NA

                                                  5                        1                               NA

                                                  6                        6                               NA

                                                  7                        8                               NA

                                                  8                        2                               NA

                                                  9                        1                               NA

                                                  10                       7                               NA

                                                  11                       4                               NA

                                                  12                       9                               NA

                                                  13                       1                               NA

                                                  14                       4                               NA

                                                  15                       5                               NA

                                                  16                       2                               NA

                                                  17                       10                              NA

                                                  is                       4                               4

                                                  19                       8                               NA

                                                  20                       2                               10

                                                  21                       6                               NA


                                        Source: Northumberland County Staff.








                                                                                   57















                                                                                                                                     POTOMAC RIVER




                                                                                  @A


                                                                      2

                                                                44






                                                                                               an



                                                                                                            400
                                       MAP                                                                                                                                  13


             NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY


                 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES

                                         1991

                                                                                                                                                                   2w











                               -Gwmaox* srm          L&%DFRL SrM


















                                                                         TABLE 7.2
                                                                   RICHMOND COUNTY
                                                                  "GREENBOX" SITES



                                          Site               Number of                 Area leased by the
                                        Number              containers                 County (acres)

                                             1                        3                                  .25

                                             2                        3                                  .25

                                             3                        5                                  .25

                                             4                        4                                  .25

                                             5                        3                                  .25

                                             6                        9                                  .25

                                             7                        4                                  .25

                                             8                        2                                  .25


                                             9                        2                                  .25

                                             10                       2                                  .25

                                             11                       4                                  .25


                                             12                       2                                  .25

                                             13                       2                                  .25

                                             14                       9                                  .25


                                      Source: Richmond County Staff.




















                                                                                 59







                                                                                                         MAP 2


                                                                                            RICHMOND COUNTY


                                                                                       SOLID WASTE FACILITIES


                                                                                                           1991












                                                      4







                                                                                                                             13

                                                                                                      0            12




                         GREMBOX, w7t        LANOML SITIE                                                       ox/


















                                     TABLE 7.3
                                 LANCASTER COUNTY
                                 "GREENBOX" SITES


                      site     Number of   Area owned by the
                     Number   Containers County (acres)

                        1          10


                        2          10


                        3          40


                   Source: Lancaster County Staff.











                                     TABLE 7.4
                               WESTMORELAND COUNTY
                                 "GREENBOX" SITES



                      Site     Number of  Area owned by the
                     Number   Containers County (acres)

                        1          5               2.0

                        2          4               0.5

                        3          2          Landfill Site

                        4                          1.0

                        5                          2.0

                        6                          4.0

                        7                          0.5


                    Source: Westmoreland County Staff.






                                        61








                                                                                                                                          MAP 3


                                                                                                                       LANCASTER COUNTY


                                                                                                                  SOLID WASTE FACILITIES



                                                                                                                                            1991








                                                                                                                                                                  200





                                                                                                                              LANCAS"m















                                                                 14,
                                                                      Oct
                                                                          '1144







                                                                                                       MAP 4


                                                                               WESTMORELAND COUNTY


                                                                                 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES


                                                                                                       1991




                                                  7-
                                                                                     POTOMAC RIVER
                                     tos










                                                                                                       sw--




















                                    RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER



                                                                                                  u I    wo@
                                                                                                          m@        o -,.I-
                                                                                   mmmm<)@ vko@
                                                                                       A       'GotEENWXI WE           LAkMRLL SM











                                       Towns


         Warsaw

              The Town of Warsaw provides twice-weekly curbside pickup for
         its residential and commercial citizens. Their are no additional
         charges for the service. The Town owns two twenty-seven (27)
         cubic yard trucks, only one of which is actively used. The
         refuse is hauled to the Tri-County Landfill."


         Montross

              The Town of Montross contracts with Doggett Disposal
         Systems, Inc. to provide curbside pickup twice per week. Refuse
         is picked up from both residences and businesses. A charge for
         the service is added to the Town water bill. Refuse is hauled to
         the Westmoreland County Landfill. 14


         Colonial Beach

              Commercial waste is picked up twice per week by the Town for
         a cost of twenty-five dollars or more per month. Residential
         refuse is picked up weekly. The Town includes a fee for this
         service in residential water and sewer bills. In addition to   the
         regular collection, the Town offers a separate residential pick-
         up for "special trash" such as small brush and boxes. The Town
         owns two dump trucks and a barrel truck and employs four people
         in refuse collection."s



         Kilmarnock

              The Town of Kilmarnock offers curbside pick-up to its
         residences, with an option of one, two or three weekly pick-ups.
         Waste is also collected from commercial establishments.
         Residences and businesses are billed based upon the number of
         pick-ups per week. The Town owns one truck and employs two
         people for refuse collection.


         Irvi ngton.and Whitestone

              The Towns of Irvington and Whitestone do not provide any
         solid waste pick-up to citizens. Many businesses and residences
         are serviced by private haulers.






                                         64










                                 Private Haulers

             Several private refuse haulers operate in the four counties
        of the Northern Neck. They service over one thousand, one
        hundred and fifty (1,150) residential and three hundred and
        thirty (330) commercial clients.17 They haul refuse to the
        appropriate landfill (Westmoreland County's refuse is taken to
        the Westmoreland County Landfill, refuse from the other three
        Counties is taken to the Tri-County Landfill). They are not
        charged a tipping fee at either landfill.







































                                        65









                                    RecyCling

              Until recently, recycling on the Northern Neck has been
         limited to a small amount of specific materials recycled by some
         of the larger commercial and industrial companies. This included
         such items as copper, recycled by the power companies, and
         cardboard, recycled by the larger retail stores. In addition to
         this, Reynolds Aluminum has been collecting aluminum from area
         residents in Kilmarnock. In the past, there have also been a few
         small businesses which have accepted specific materials (glass
         for instance).

              In the last year, however, new efforts by businesses,
         citizens groups and local government have greatly increased the
         volume of materials being recycled. These efforts have, in a
         short time, managed to recycle an estimated four percent (0) of
         the waste stream (see Section VI). Though this is short of the
         mandated ten percent (10%) goal the rate at which these efforts
         are collecting recyclables is continuing to grow.



                                Private Businesses

              The largest private recycling firm on the Northern Neck is
         J. R. Dinsmore Enterprises of Warsaw, Va. Dinsmore Enterprises
         has been involved in general salvage for more than twelve years.
         In March of 1991 under the name of "Northern Neck Recyclables"
         they began accepting a wide variety of recyclable materials.
         These include: glass, aluminum, bi-metal cans, plastic (PET and
         HDPE), paper, motor oil, appliances, and scrap iron.

              In addition to the facility located in Warsaw, Dinsmore
         Enterprises has been accepting recyclables at "Recycling Days" in
         various locations in Westmoreland and Richmond Counties.
         Materials are transported to different purchasing industries
         throughout eastern Virginia."

              Another important private recycling firm in.the Northern
         Neck is Reynolds Aluminum. Reynolds collects aluminum in
         Kilmarnock, and draws a significant amount from both Lancaster
         and Northumberland Counties.




                            Nonprofit Community Groups

              The Northern Neck Recycling Task Force (NNRTF) was formed in
         the Fall of 1990 with the objective of encouraging recycling in
         the Northern Neck. In January of 1991 the NNRTF began collecting
         newspaper at sites in Lancaster and Northumberland Counties. In


                                         66








        the last six months the NNRTF has collected newspaper   glass, and
        bi-metal cans.

              The NNRTF has conducted several public education programs,
        including a public mailing and an Earth Day celebration. In
        February of 1991 the NNRTF assisted the Northern Neck Planning
        District Commission by conducting a week-long survey of refuse
        entering the Tri-County landfill at Lara. Another survey is
        planned for July of 1991.19

              Richmond County has had several citizen's groups active in
        recycling. The Richmond County Anti-Litter Council, a county-
        wide committee with a paid coordinator, has provided recycling
        education and has publicized recycling opportunities for the past
        five years. The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Auxiliary has
        provided regular bi-monthly "Recycling Days" for the past four
        years in Warsaw. This effort has recently been discontinued, as
        the Town of Warsaw has begun providing monthly."Recycling Days"
        at the Town Office. 20

              In Westmoreland County, Westmoreland War On Waste (WWOW) has
        been active for several years with educational programs. WWOW
        also began monthly "Recycling 21 Days" which have become a county
        government sponsored program.




                                 Local Governments


        Lancaster County

              The County of Lancaster and its three towns (Kilmarnock,
        White Stone and Irvington) have had no official recycling
        program. The County has been supportive of the Northern Neck
        Recycling Task Force, who, along with Reynolds Aluminum, has been
        responsible for most of the recycling in the County.


        Northumberland County

              Northumberland County presently has no official recycling
        program. The County has been supportive of the Northern Neck
        Recycling Task Force, which operates a collection center in
        Burgess. Many citizens of Northumberland County also take their
        recyclables to the J. R. Dinsmore Enterprises facility in Warsaw.


        Richmond County

              Richmond County does not have an official recycling program.
        Richmond County citizens have taken advantage of J. R. Dinsmore


                                        67








         Enterprises which is located in Warsaw, the county se at.


         Westmoreland County

             In 1989, Westmoreland County War on Waste began a program of
         monthly "Recycling Days". In April of 1990 the program was taken
         over by the County and is now held at the County office building
         in Montross. On the second Friday of each month, citizens are
         encouraged to bring recyclables to Montross, where they are
         collected and hauled off by a private firm (J. R. Dinsmore
         Enterprises). The program has been very successful. The County
         has recently begun another monthly "Recycling Day" at Carmel
                                                          22
         Church, located at the southern end of the County.



         Warsaw

             Warsaw has recently begun a cooperative effort with J. R.
         Dinsmore Enterprises to hold monthly "Recycling Days". The first
         was held in May of 1991.

         Colonial Beach

              The Town of Colonial Beach also began monthly "Recycling
         Days" in May. The recyclables are taken by J. R. Dinsmore
         Enterprises.

























                                        68










                                           Notes


         1.    Northumberland County Staff.

         2.    Ibid.

         3.    Northern Neck Recycling Task Force, Landfill Survey
               Committee. "Solid Waste Survey". Unpublished study. February
               1991.

         4.    Culpeper Engineering. "Tri-County Landfill Volume Report".
               Unpublished study. 1991.

         5.    Westmoreland County Staff.

         6.    Ibid.

         7.    Culpeper Engineering. 1991

         8.    United States Environmental Protection Agency.
               Characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
               States: 1990 Update. 1990.

         9.    Lancaster County Staff.

         10.   Northumberland County Staff.

         11.   Richmond County Staff.

         12.   Westmoreland County Staff.

         13.   Town of Warsaw Staff.


         14.   Town of Montross Staff.


         15.   Town of Colonial Beach Staff.

         16.   Town of Kilmarnock Staff.

         17.   Interviews with refuse disposal companies.

         18.   Dinsmore, J. R. - J. R. Dinsmore Enterprises.

         19.   Northern Neck Recycling Task Force. Correspondence. June
               1991.

         20.   Richmond County Staff.

         21.   Westmoreland County Staff. Correspondence. June 1991.

         22.   Westmoreland County Staff.


                                            69




  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I                          Section VIII
  I
  I                Future Waste Disposal Systems
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  1                               70
  1








                          Future Waste Disposal Systems



                                      Funding

              Presently, the Counties of the Northern Neck fund their
         waste management programs out of general funds. Anticipating the
         costs involved with new landfill cells and with implementing
         other new State regulations, the Counties have set aside reserve
         funds over the past few years. These will help to defray some of
         the capital costs associated with new programs. Additionally,
         several of the Counties have raised taxes, or anticipate a rise.
         in taxes, to pay for these new waste management programs.

              Some Counties are also considering charging tipping fees at
         the landfill or transfer station to offset waste management
         costs. As most of these new costs will be incurred because of
         State regulations and mandates, the localities of the Northern
         Neck also look to the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide
         funding.





                                Future system Plan

              There are many obstacles to establishing a detailed twenty
         (20) year plan that the localities of Northern Neck will be able
         to adopt. With the establishment of new State regulations and
         the beginning of new recycling programs in the last year, it will
         be several months before enough is known about existing
         conditions to decide upon the most effective and economical
         course of action for the future.

              For this reason, the discussion of the future waste disposal
         systems has been divided into two sections: the short term plan
         (the next twelve months) and the long term plan (through the turn
         of the century). Figure 8.1 outlines the decision making process
         for the next year (July 1991 through June 1992). During that
         period the localities of the Northern Neck will evaluate the
         newly established recycling programs and secure plans for the
         long term waste management system.


                                  Short Term Plan

              For the first six months the solid waste and recycling
         programs will continue as they are now (see section VII). Solid
         waste will be collected through a "greenbox" system by the
         Counties, and through curbside pick-up by the Towns and private

                                        71






                     Fiure 8. 1: Short Term Planning Process







              Unrecyclable                                 Recyclable.
                Material                                    Material
                                  r --------------------------------------
               GreenBoxes                           Indep       Monthly
              To Landfill                           Local       Recycling    'r1l
                                                  Businesses      Days
                                    ---------------------------------------
                                   I/JL/92
         Yes                               Begin
                    Is                                            What
                                       Semi-Manthly <IEIV
                                                                               >25Y.
                Landfill                 Recycling              Rate   is
              Still Usable                                       ecycled
                                            D ys


                                     ------------------------------
                                  17/1/92
                                                                       >


                                                                implement
                                                               New Waste
                  Go To,                                         System
              lHew System         ------------------------------- -------
                                  :Yearly

                                                                  What
                                           Continue --i>25v      Rate Is     I.<2Sv
                                             System             Recycled


                                  -------------------------------      ------
                                                                  W11a t
                                                                  W"at

                                                                Rate   is
                                                                 ecyc  led



                                                              ...... .....


                                                                       >






                                                             <   Rate
                                                                       is

                                                                       led




                                                               .....   ......








         haulers. Lancaster, Northumberland, and Richmond Cou nties will
         continue to use the last cell of the Tri-County Landfill at Lara,
         and Westmoreland County will continue to use the third cell at
         the Westmoreland County Landfill.

              Recyclables will be collected by the existing citizens
         groups in Northumberland and Lancaster Counties. Richmond and
         Westmoreland Counties will continue to depend on private
         .recycling companies and "Recycling Days".

              At the end of the first six month period (December, 1991) an
         evaluation will be made as to whether the existing system is
         performing satisfactorily. The system will be studied to
         determine answers to the following questions:


                    1. Are there problems with the existing system of
                       collection that make changes necessary?

                    2. Are the recycling targets being met?

                    3. Will the existing system be able to meet the
                       eventual twenty-five (25%) percent mandate?
                   .4. How will the landfill cells scheduled for closure
                       be replaced?



              In January of 1992 decisions will be made by each of the
         localities of the Northern Neck as to the design of long term
         waste disposal and recycling systems and the plan will be
         updated. Figure 8.1 outlines the possible components of these
         long term systems.




                            Potential System Components

              The following discussion of potential waste systems for the
         localities of the Northern Neck has been divided into four
         separate subsystems. The options for the collection of non-
         recyclable materials, the collection of recyclable materials, the
         disposal of nonrecyclable materials, and the transport of
         recyclable materials to market have each been considered
         separately so as to maximize planning flexibility. It is
         understood that certain options in one subsystem will influence
         the feasibility of options in other subsystems, and this will be
         addressed in the discussion. For the purpose of this section,
         however, the assumption has been made that any combination of
         subsystem options is technically feasible and will not be ruled

                                         73



                                                              M mow M M                                  M M                      M                M
                                                                              Figure 8.2
                                                                       Disposal System Options


                           Non-Recyclable                                                                        Recyclables

      C
      0
      L     Citizens               Few              Few                         Containers             Containers               Few                 Citizens
      L      .and               Unmanned           Manned                         With                   With                 Unmanned              Haul to
      E Private Haulers       Green Boxes,       Green Boxes                     Unmanned               Manned                Recycling             Central
      C        I                                                                Green Boxes            Green Boxes             Centers              Location
      T
      I
      0
      N











                       Land               Transfer
      D                                   Station
      I
      S
      P
      0
      S
      A
      L



                                                                                               Citizens         [T@vate              Counties
                                                                                                Groups           Busines             Truck to
                                                                                                                                      Market








         out. This will insure that all possible system configurations
         have been considered before commitment is made to a specific set
         of options.

              This flexibility is especially important, because it is
         unlikely that the same set of options will be the best choice for
         all the localities of the Northern Neck. The following section
         provides a wide range of options that will allow each locality to
         choose a long term system suited to its unique situation.





                     1. Collection of Non-Recyclable Material



         Option 1A:     Direct Transport by Citizens, Towns and Private
                        Haulers to the Landfill or Transfer Station


         Physical Description:

              The county government would no longer provide any kind of
         11greenbox" or drop-off sites. All refuse would be taken to the
         landfill site or transfer station for transport out of the
         region. Towns and private haulers would continue to haul
         directly to the landfill/transfer station.


         Cost Analysis:

              This option would add no additional cost to that required
         for the construction of a landfill or transfer station, other
         than an expanded parking area.


         Advantages:

              The most obvious advantage to this option is the cost
         savings for the county government. Additionally, the county
         would be avoiding many of the problems associated with unmanned
         "greenbox" sites.


         Disadvantages:

              The greatest disadvantage would be a significant
         inconvenience to residents. Depending on the location of the
         landfill/transfer station, residents might have to travel as far
         as thirty (30) miles to dispose of their refuse. Some of the

                                         75









         inconvenience could be avoided by the more affluent sector of the
         population, by contracting with private haulers. It is still
         likely, though, that this option will result in illegal dumping
         by residents unable, or unwilling to transport their refuse to
         the landfill/transfer station.



         Option 1B:      Collection of Refuse at centrally Located Unmanned
                         "Greenbox" sites



         Physical Description:

               The County would maintain several (2-5) unmanned collection
         sites situated at central points throughout the county. Refuse
         would be hauled by contractor to the landfill or transfer
         station.


         Cost Analysis:'

           Capital Costs (per site)

               Land Acquisition (1 acre @ 1,000/acre)                $ 1,000
               Site Preparation                                      $ 8,200
               10 Dumpsters (@ $600/Dumpster)                        $ 6,000
                                                    Total            $15,200

           Annual operating Costs (per site)

               Transportation                                        $30,000


         Advantages:

               The advantage to this option is that it provides a
         compromise between cost to the County government and convenience
         for the county citizens. Refuse containers could be located at
         central "cross-road" areas through which most citizens often
         pass.


         Disadvantages:

               Unmanned refuse sites present several problems. If the
         county chooses to adopt a mandatory recycling program, there
         would be no way to inspect incoming refuse to insure compliance.
         In addition unmanned sites are notorious for problems with litter
         and vandalism.



                                           76












         Option 1C:     Several Manned Drop-off Centers


         Physical Description:

              The County would establish several (2-5) refuse collection
         sites. The sites would have regular hours of operation, and
         would be staffed by county employees. Employees would insure
         only those materials accepted into the county landfill/transfer.
         station would be placed into the refuse containers. The employee
         would also insure that only residents of the County use the site.

              The site would consist of a fenced area with a gate which
         would be locked when the site was closed, refuse boxes, shelter
         and rest room facilities for the County Employee. The area would
         be paved or graveled.


         Cost Analysis:2

           Capital Costs (per site)
              Land Acquisition (1 acre @ 1,000/acre)               $ 1,000
              Site Preparation                                     $ 8,200
              Small Building for Staff Shelter                     $   500
              Utility Installation                                 $   500
              10 Dumpsters (@ $600/Dumpster)                       $ 6,000
              Fencing                                              $ 5,000
                                                        Total      $21,200

           Annual Operating Costs (per site)
              Personnel (2 employees, 30 hrs/week, $5.00/Hr.)      $15,600
              Transportation                                       $30,000
              Telephone & Electricity                              $ 1,100
              Portable Toilet Rental                               $   600
              Insurance                                            $   250
                                                        Total      $47,550


         Advantages:

              Manned refuse centers provide relatively convenient refuse
         disposal for citizens, while allowing county governments to
         control the types of materials that enter the waste stream. The
         presence of County staff will also help to keep sites clean and
         attractive, and to minimize vandalism.

              These sites may also be convenient sites for collection of
         recyclable materials (see recycling options below).



                                          77









         Disadvantages:

              The greatest disadvantage to this option is the cost. The
         addition of extra employees and infrastructure will increase the
         cost of refuse collection.








                            2. Collection of Recyclable Materials



         ORtion 2A.:     Containers at Unmanned "Greenbox" Sites


         Physical Description:

              Recyclable materials could be collected at areas already
         designed to collect waste i.e. "The Green Box Sites."
         Approximately two acres of land would be needed for this type of
         collection site.    The non-recyclable area would be designated
         with signs and materials would be collected in the "Green boxes".
         In an area adjacent to the "Green Boxes", and distinctly marked
         with signs designating it the "RECYCLING AREA", roll off
         containers would be set up. Signs would be posted defining the
         type of materials to be stored in individual containers.
         Citizens would be responsible for separating their own waste and
         transporting it to the site and making sure that the recyclable
         materials are placed in the proper containers.

              Collectable Materials:


                         Newspapers
                         Cardboard
                         Aluminum
                         Glass
         CoStS:3         Plastic

           Capital Costs (per site)
             Land (approximately 2 acres @ $1000/acre)            $ 2,000
             3 uncovered rolloff containers                       $17,000
             1 replacement uncovered rolloff container            $ 6,000
             2 covered rolloff containers                         $12,000
             Signs                                                $    400
                                                        Total     $37,400


                                          78









           Annual Operating Costs (per site)
             Transportation                                       $10,000


         Advantages:

              There are a number of advantages to this system. First of
         all, there could be a few of these sites located in various areas
         in the county. Since recycling sites would be easily accessible
         to the citizens, residents may be more inclined to recycle.
         Secondly, since the site would be unmanned, the localities would
         save the cost of salary ($15,000 annually) and facilities (small
         structure and portable toilet ($1,000) required to man a site.


         Disadvantages:

              Although some localities have been successful with unmanned
         sites, a large number of localities report that unmanned
         recycling sites do not work. Recyclables are likely to be placed
         in the wrong container. When recycling materials become
         contaminated buyers will either decrease the return price on
         recyclables or refuse to accept the materials at all.




         Option 2B:      Recycling Containers at Manned "Green Box" Sites


         Physical Description:

              Containers for recyclable materials would be placed at
         already existing "Green Box" Sites. Approximately 2 acres of
         land would be needed for this type of collection site.     The non-
         recyclable materials would be collected in the "Green boxes". The
         non-recyclable material area would be designated with signs. The
         recycling containers would be in an area adjacent to the "Green
         Boxes", and distinctly marked with signs designating it the
         "RECYCLING AREA". Signs defining the type of materials to be
         stored in individual containers would be posted. Citizens would
         be responsible for separating their own waste, transporting it to
         the site and making sure that the recyclable materials are placed
         in the proper containers. An attendant would be on duty during
         working hours to inspect and insure that the waste was being
         placed in accordance with posted   rule. There would be a small
         housing structure and facilities   for the attendant. Also an
         information bulletin board would   be set up to post information
         about recycling such as disposal   areas for specified waste
         products that are not handled at   this site.

              The entire facility will be   enclosed within a chain link

                                          79








         fence and will provide ample space for automobiles to   drive up to
         the containers.

               Collectable Materials:


                         Newspapers
                         Cardboard
                         Aluminum
                         Glass
                         Plastic


         CoStS:4

           Capital Costs (per site)
               Land (approximately 2 acres @ $1000/acre)           $ 2,000
               Attendants housing structure                        $   500
               Utility installation                                $   500
               3 uncovered rolloff containers                      $17,000
               1 replacement uncovered rolloff container           $ 6,000
               2 covered rolloff containers                        $12,000
               signs                                               $   400
                                                        Total      $38,400

           Annual Operating Costs (per site)

               Personnel (two part-time attendants)                $15,600
               Telephone and electricity                           $     40
               Portable toilet rental                              $   300
               Insurance                                           $   250
               Transportation costs                                $10,000
                                                        Total      $26,190

         Advantages:

               There are a number of advantages to this system.    First of
         all, there could be one or two sites located in the county.
         Consequently, recycling sites would be accessible to the
         citizens. Secondly, the site would be manned and therefore
         contamination of recycling materials could be curtailed. The
         attendant would also be responsible for keeping the area neat,
         and answering recycling questions.


         Disadvantages:

               The main disadvantage to this site is the cost associated
         with manning a site. Additionally, the county will be
         responsible for any administrative work associated with hiring
         and managing this
         personnel.


                                          80










          Option 2C:     Strategically Placed Unmanned Recycling Areas

               Containers for recyclable materials could be placed at
          various sites in a county. The most likely candidates to be
          considered as an unmanned recycling drop off area would be
          shopping centers, schools etc. About one-half of an acre would be
          needed for this type of collection site.    The "recycling" signs
          would be posted to identify the area. Also the recycling
          containers would have signs defining the type of materials to be
          stored in individual containers. Citizens would be responsible
          for separating their own recycling materials and transporting it
          to the site and making sure that the recyclable materials are
          placed in the proper containers.

               Collectable Materials:


                         Newspapers
                         Cardboard
                         Aluminum
                         Glass
                         Plastic


          Cos s:5

            Capital Costs (per site)
               Land (see advantages*)
               3 uncovered rolloff containers                      $17,000
               1 replacement uncovered rolloff container           $ 6,000
               2 covered rollof containers                         $12,000
               Signs                                               $    300
                                                        Total      $35,300
           Annual operating Costs (per site)
               Transportation costs                                $10,000


          Advantages:

               There are a number of advantages to this system. First of
          all, a few of these sites could be located in various areas in
          the county. Since recycling facilities would be easily
          accessible to the citizens, residents may be more inclined to
          recycle. It is also possible that costs of this site could be
          limited to operating costs. Merchants at shopping facilities may
          view the recycling boxes as a vehicle to attract more businesses
          and allow recycling containers to be placed there free of charge.





                                          81








         Disadvantages:

              Although some localities have been successful with unmanned
         sites, a large number of localities report that unmanned
         recycling sites do not work. Recyclables are likely to be placed
         in the wrong container. But more importantly, when recycling
         materials become contaminated buyers will either decrease the
         return price on recyclables or refuse to accept the materials at
         all. Also if citizens do not place disposal materials in
         containers, the relationship between the county and merchants
         could suffer.


         Option 2D:      Citizens and Private Haulers
                         Transport Waste to Central Location

         Description

              one scenario under this option would be for private haulers
         and citizens to transport their recyclables to a central location
         such as a landfill or a transfer station. Approximately 1/2 acre
         of land would be used at the landfill or transfer station for the
         collection of recyclables.    The materials would be collected in
         a designated area indicated by signs. The recycling containers
         would be in an area separate from the non-recyclable waste. Signs
         designating "Recycling Area" and "Non-Recycling area" would be
         Posted. Signs defining the type of materials to be stored in
         individual containers would be posted. Citizens would be
         responsible for separating their own waste, transporting it to
         the site and making sure that the recyclable materials are placed
         in the proper containers. Personnel attending the landfill or
         transfer station could inspect and insure that the waste was
         being placed in accordance with posted rules.

              The second scenario would be for citizens and private
         haulers to drop off their recyclable materials at various
         privately owned recycling businesses in the county.



              Collectable Materials:


                         Newspapers
                         Cardboard
                         Aluminum
                         Glass
                         Plastic
                         White goods
                         Woody materials - trees, limbs, etc.




                                          82








          Costs (Scenario One) :6

           Capital Costs (per site)
               Land (approximately 2 acres @ $1000/acre)           $ 2,000
               Housing structure for attendant                     $   500
               Utility installation                                $   500
               3 uncovered rolloff containers                      $17,000
               1 replacement uncovered rolloff  container          $ 6,000
               2 covered rolloff containers                        $12,000
               Signs                                               $   400
                                                        Total      $38,400

            Annual Operating Costs (per site)
               Personnel (two part-time attendants)                $15,600
               Telephone and electricity                           $    40
               Portable toilet rental                              $   300
               Insurance                                           $   250
               Transportation costs                                $10,000
                                                        Total      $26,190

          Advantages:

               There are a number of advantages to the first scenario.
          First of all, the transfer station or landfill will already be
          manned with personnel to manage the area. Secondly, since the
          site would be manned contamination of recycling materials could
          be curtailed. The personnel would also be responsible for
          keeping the area neat, and answering questions regarding
          recycling.

               The second scenario suggests citizens and private haulers
          take their recyclables to privately owned recycling businesses.
          This option encourages the development or expansion of businesses
          in an area that is economically disadvantaged. Private
          individuals can utilize new regulations as an opportunity to
          begin or expand a business in recycling or hauling.


          Disadvantages:

               Under the first scenario citizens haul recyclables to a
          central location such as the landfill or transfer station. The
          main disadvantage to this plan is that there would be one
          location for citizens to take their recyclables and other waste.
          This may promote more illegal dumping and litter in the region.

               Under the second scenario citizens would be responsible for
          taking recyclables to private recycling businesses. The main
          disadvantage is citizens may not recycle because they may find
          transporting the recyclables not worth the effort.



                                           83








                       3. Disposal of Non-Recyclable materials

              The landfill cells presently in use at both the Westmoreland
         County Landfill and the Tri-County Landfill must be closed by
         January of 1994. Refuse landfilled after that time must be
         disposed of in landfills that -meet the new State regulations.
         Westmoreland County has already decided to develop a new cell at
         the existing landfill site in accordance with the regulations.
         The other three Counties have the option of developing a new
         landfill or transporting their refuse to a landfill in another
         locality.



         option 3A:      Construction of a New Landfill


         Physical Description:

              The County of Northumberland recently purchased a two
         hundred and forty (240 acre) site for the purpose of developing a
         new landfill. The landfill would be operated by the three
         counties that presently operate the Tri-County landfill. The
         landfill would be operated in much the same way as the existing
         landfill, with the possible addition of a recyclable materials
         collection center.


         Cost Analysis:7

           Capital Costs
              Site Preparation and
              Construction of First Cell                             $1,441,849
              Subsequent Cells                                       $1,843,496

           Annual Operating Costs                                    $ 470,849


           Equivalent "Tipping Feel'

                         1992                                        $43.88/Ton
                         1995                                        $46.94/Ton
                         2000                                        $63.67/Ton
                         2005                                        $77.47/Ton
                         2010                                        $96.24/Ton



         Advantages:

              An advantage to disposing of the refuse in a local landfill


                                           84








          is the reduction in transportation costs associated with
          transporting of wastes to another region. The dounties would
          also have control over the landfill. Depending on a landfill
          operated by another locality or private business would leave the
          three counties vulnerable to unexpected increases in tipping
          fees, or even having no place to dispose of refuse. As long as
          the local landfill operates within state regulations the three
          Counties would always have a means of disposing of their refuse.


          Disadvantage:

               The greatest disadvantage, along with the considerable cost
          of developing a landfill, is the responsibility of long term
          maintenance. New state regulations require monitoring of
          landfill seepage long after the landfill has been closed.
          Additionally, any toxic or hazardous wastes that find their way
          into the landfill
          would be the Counties responsibility to clean up.



          Option 3B:      Transporting of Materials outside the Region From
                          a Central Transfer Station


          Physical Description:

               A central location would be chosen for a central transfer
          station. The station would receive refuse from County and Town
          collection vehicles, private haulers and citizens. The refuse
          would be loaded into large capacity trucks and hauled out of the
          area to one of the large regional landfills being developed in
          eastern Virginia. Due to the relatively small amount of waste
          and the proximity of regional landfills, no compaction would
          probably be required.


          Cost Analysis:8


            Capital Costs                                     $925,000

            Annual Costs                                      $180,000

            Cost per Ton (1992)                               $55/Ton







                                           85









         Advantages:

             The primary advantage to the Counties of this option is that
         once refuse has been accepted by a regional landfill the counties
         no longer have any responsibility for it. Changes in State
         regulations, closure and long term monitoring all become the
         responsibility of the landfill operator. For rural counties with
         small staffs, this is a significant advantage.


         Disadvantages:

              If the counties become dependent on a regional landfill,
         they will have no control over tipping fees or the operation of
         the landfill. If a violation of State regulations or
         mismanagement causes the landfill to close, the Counties may be
         left with no place to take their refuse.



































                                        86









                4. Transportation of Recyclable Materials to Market

               Once recyclable materials have been collected they must be
          transported to a recycling dealer or industrial user. This can
          be done by non-profit citizen's groups, private businesses, or by
          the County governments themselves.



          Option 4A:    Non-profit Citizens Groups


          Physical Description:

               Citizens' groups would either collect recyclable materials
          on their own or obtain them from the county's collection system.
          They would be responsible for transporting the materials to
          market, and in exchange would keep whatever profit they could get
          from the sale of the recyclables.


          Cost Analysis:

               There would be no cost to the local governments.


          Advantages:

               Local governments would be relieved of the responsibility of
          evaluating markets and negotiating prices. Most of the material
          handling would be performed by volunteer labor, reducing costs to
          tax-payers.

          Disadvantage:

               Citizens' groups would be unlikely to be able to handle the
          volume of material necessary to reach the mandated targets.
          Citizens' groups would also be dependent on receiving a
          profitable return on transportation expenses. If prices for
          materials dropped or transportation costs rose, volunteer groups
          would be unable to continue this operation.




          Option 4B:     Private Businesses


          Physical Description:

               Several scenarios would involve private businesses
          transporting and marketing recyclable materials. Private

                                         87








          of sludge on the Northern Neck is small relative to the total
          waste stream, it is likely to grow. The counties of the Northern
          Neck periodically accept the land application of waste from
          outside the region. All four counties have abundant agricultural
          land, most of which is well removed from urbanized areas, making
          it ideal for this purpose.

          Existing situation:     Septic Tank Sludge

               The population of the Northern Neck depends primarily on on-
          site disposal systems for the treatment of liquid waste.
          According to the Virginia Water Project seventy-two percent (72%)
                                                                    5
          of the households on the Northern Neck have septic tanks.     There
          are probably well over thirteen thousand (13,000) septic tanks on
          the Northern Neck. The septage from these tanks is handled by
          private businesses which dispose of it in private lagoons and,  to
          a small extent, in municipal sewage treatment plants.

               If septic tanks are pumped out every three to five years,  as
          is recommended, these tanks would be producing on the order of
          2.5 million gallons annually. The existing system of disposal
          would never be able to handle this volume, but since most
          homeowners do not pump their tanks regularly, it has not needed
          to.

               This situation will probably change due to the regulations
          of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Under these regulations
          the Counties of Tidewater Virginia must require that citizens
          pump their septic tanks every five years. The first group of
          homeowners will be required to have their tanks pumped by 1993.
          Though private industry is attempting to expand its capacity, the
          increased septage disposal requirements may be beyond the
          capabilities of the present system.

          Plan:

               The localities of the Northern Neck, possibly through the
          Northern Neck Planning District Commission, will work with State
          agencies to investigate innovative solutions to the septage
          disposal problems. These may include modifications to existing
          sewage treatment plants and the composting of septage combined
          with other organic material.






                                          94









                                  Agricultural Wastes

         Existing situation:

               The agricultural economy of the Northern Neck primarily
         revolves around the production of row crops. A significant waste
         problem in row crop operations is the safe disposal of
         agricultural chemicals. A survey conducted by the Virginia Farm
         Bureau in 1989 showed that many farm operators in the Northern
         Neck were storing banned or otherwise unusable pesticides because
         they had no safe means of disposal.

               In June of 1990, Northumberland County was one of three
         counties to participate in a pilot project to dispose of these
         hazardous chemicals. The project, known as "Farmers Clean Days"
         was a cooperative effort of the Virginia Department of
         Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, the Virginia Polytechnic
         Institute Cooperative Extension Service, the Virginia Department
         of Waste Management, the Division of Consolidated Laboratory @
         Services, and local government. It was designed to be the first
         phase of a statewide program to collect and dispose of waste
         pesticides.

               During the single collection day, ten Northumberland farmers
         brought in 1,479 pounds of unwanted chemicals.' It is probable
         that farm operators in the other three counties of the Northern
         Neck have similar amounts of unwanted pesticides, but lack any
         means of disposing of them.




         Plan:

               Local governments do not have the expertise to dispose of
         dangerous agricultural pesticides. The Counties will call for
         State funding and implementation of phase two of the "Farmers
         @lean Day" program. This would provide to farmers state-wide,
         including those in Lancaster, Richmond and Westmoreland Counties,
         the opportunity to dispose of unwanted chemicals.


                                        Waste Oil

         Existing Situation:

               There are currently at   least thirteen (13) service stations
         and garages on the Northern    Neck that will accept used    oil.7
         They are fairly evenly dispersed throughout the region, making
         disposal of household motor oil relatively convenient. In
         addition, facilities for disposal of used oil have been provided
         at the municipal "recycling days" in Richmond and Westmoreland


                                            95








         Counties. The oil is picked up from service stations and garages
         on a regular or semi-regular basis by several different oil
         recycling companies.

         Plan:

               Though recycling of used oil is relatively convenient in the
         Northern Neck there is some indication that oil is still disposed
         of improperly by homeowners. The local governments will work
         with service stations to publicize the location of oil recycling
         centers, and the importance of the proper disposal of used oil.
         Existing Situation:       Construction Waste

               Residential construction is a very important sector of the
         economy of the Northern Neck. The construction of waterfront
         vacation and retirement homes has brought a significant number of
         jobs to this rural region. There are nearly two hundred (200)
         companies based on the Northern Neck involved in the clearing of
         land and the building of homes. These companies produce a large
         quantity of solid waste. A recent survey conducted by the
         Northern Neck Planning District estimated that these companies
         produce ad much as 20,000 cubic yards of waste annually, not
         including stumps and yard waste. This consists, primarily of
         materials associated with residential development: wood, masonry
         and roofing.8

               Some of the waste produced is reused by the builders, but
         most ends up in one of the Northern Neck's two landfills.


         Plan:

               Local governments will encourage builders to reuse as much
         materials as possible. They may also investigate the development
         of a program to assist in the salvaging of usable building
         material.



                                         Stumps

         Existing Situation:

               The majority of development on the Northern Neck is taking
         place on wooded waterfront lots resulting in a large volume of
         stumps and woody debris. At the present time neither landfill
         takes this type of material; land-clearing companies must find
         another avenue of disposal. A large amount of stumps end up in


                                            96








          illegal "stump dumps", often filling environmentally     sensitive
          areas and clogging creeks and ravines.
          Plan: Local governments will explore the purchase, either by the
          governments or by local businesses, of a chipper large enough to
          handle this type of waste. The product could be made available
          to residents as mulch.



                                       Yard Waste


          Existing Situation:

               At the present time neither of the Northern Neck's two
          landfills accept yard waste. This has forced private landowners
          to find other ways of disposing of this waste. In a recent
          survey, the Westmoreland County Cooperative Extension found that
          nearly thirty thousand (30,000) pounds of organic material is
          composted annually in Westmoreland County.9 Though this is a
          very encouraging study, it does not mean that all of the
          herbaceous and woody waste materials are being disposed of
          properly.
          Plan: An effort will be made to inform the public about the proper
          way to compost yard wastes. Localities will also stress the
          importance of properly disposing of these materials. This will
          be accomplished either through existing cooperative extension
          programs or through the recycling education associated with this
          plan.
          Existing Situation:             Tires
               Based on a rule of thumb supplied by the Department of Waste
          Management the average community disposes of one tire per capita
          per year.10 That translates to over 44,000 tires per year in the
          Northern Neck. At this time there is a very limited market for
          tires to be recycled. Individuals and businesses in the Northern
          Neck are finding it increasingly difficult to dispose of used
          tires. Many tires are being stock piled and dumped illegally.






                                            97










         Plan:

              The localities of the Northern Neck will support full
         funding of the Department Waste Management's tire management
         program. Unless some processing center for used tires is
         established within a reasonable transporting distance to the
         Northern Neck, government collection of tires is not advisable.


                                       .Batteries

         Existing situation:

              Though the Westmoreland County landfill accepts automotive
         batteries, the Tri-County landfill does not. Most are turned in
         to the dealer from which a new battery is purchased. Dealers are
         required by state law to provide for the recycling of old
         batteries equal to the number of new batteries sold.

              In addition, at least one local recycling business accepts
         used batteries for recycling.


         Plan:

              Though the majority of automotive batteries will be recycled
         through battery dealers, provisions will be made by local
         governments for the recycling of old batteries not covered by
         state regulation. (That is old batteries that are not being
         replaced by newly purchased batteries.) Provision for recycling
         will be provided by the local governments themselves, or by
         private recycling businesses.


                                    Large Appliances

         Existing Situation:

              Both landfills presently accept large appliances and
         contract with scrap metal dealers to have them hauled away.


         Plan:

              The localities will continue to provide this service to
         citizens.









                                           98









                                                        Table 9-1: Lancaster C                       ounty

                            Projections of Certain "Special Wastes" in Waste                                                   Stream
                                                                         (Tons/Year)


                                                           1990                1995                  2000             2005               2010

                      Major
                      Appliances                            136                 141                  147               145               143

                      Furniture                             361                 387                  446               506               567

                      Automotive
                      Batteries                              80                  88                  98                109               120

                      Tires                                  91                  88                  94                 98               101

                      Total                                 668                 704                  785               858               931


                 Source:    "Characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update",U.S. E.P.A., 1990
                            Northern Neck Planning District Commission






                                                   Table 9.2: Northumberland County

                            Projections of Certain "Special Wastes" in Waste Stream
                                                                         (Tons/Year)


                                                           1990                1995                  2000              2005              2010

                      Major
                      Appliances                            131                  133                 136                131              126

                      Furniture                             345                  365                 412                457              503

                      Automotive
                      Batteries                              77                   83                 91                  98              106

                      Tires                                  88                   83                 86                  88                90

                      Total                         1       641         1        664        1        725        1       774       1      825

                  Source:   "Characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update",U.S. E.P.A., 1990
                            Northern Neck Planning Disttict Commission











                                                                                    99









         businesses could collect and market recyclables, completely
         removing local government from the process; local governments
         could contract with private businesses to remove recyclables from
         the government's collection system; or a private business could
         be contracted to transport recyclables along with other solid
         waste from a transfer site. It would be advisable in any
         scenario that local governments have some type of understanding
         with the business(es) that all recyclables will be taken, and not
         just those that offer maximum profit.


         Cost Analysis:

              As long as the transport and sale of recyclable material is
         profitable there will be no cost to local government. If the
         price paid for recyclable materials drops below the
         transportation cost, businesses would need some payment from
         local governments to maintain profitability.


         Advantages:

              As with citizens' groups, private businesses would take the
         responsibility of researching markets and administering
         transportation.


         Disadvantages:

             Even if agreements are made with businesses, at least one
         component of the recycling program would be dependent on the
         actions of a private business. If the business is unable to meet
         its obligations, the entire recycling program would be at risk.




         Option 4C:     County Governments


         Physical Description:

              As an alternative to private businesses or volunteer groups,
         the County could process and transport the recyclable materials
         itself. Recyclable materials would be collected at a central
         location, baled (if necessary), and shipped to a purchasing
         industry or recycling center. The central site could be
         developed at the landfill or transfer station. If the county has
         chosen to use a transfer station, many of the facilities needed
         for processing and loading recyclables will already be in place.



                                         88








               The County would hire staff to operate the central site, as
         well as staff to monitor the recycling market and negotiate
         contracts.


         Cost Analysis:

               The costs associated with this option are extremely
         variable. Much depends on the market value of recyclable
         materials, the distance to those markets, and transportation
         costs.



         Advantages:

               By marketing recyclable materials itself the County
         maximizes its control over the process. As a municipality (or
         group of municipalities) the county(ies) may be able to negotiate
         long term contracts with buyers that would not be available to
         other groups.


         Disadvantage:

               The greatest disadvantage to this option is the additional
         administrative burden on small county staffs. The county would
         be responsible for constant market research, and for significant
         capital investment in the construction of a central site.




                                    Long Term Plan


               Strategies developed in this plan have been created taking
         into  account long and short term needs of the region. The
         localities, faced with meeting mandates at a prescribed date,
         find themselves in a position of having little data available
         upon which to base their decision making process. Long term
         capital investments need to be made carefully. Therefore the
         next year will be used to develop waste reduction strategies,
         while maintaining the existing systems.over the period of the
         next twelve months the existing waste management system will be
         evaluated and decisions for the future will be made by local
         governments. The long term plan, as it takes shape, will combine
         @he effective components of the existing system with new
         initiatives to meet the region solid waste management goals.

              In addition to the physical components of the system outlined
         above, the localities of the Northern Neck may choose such
         regulatory options as mandatory recycling, tipping fees, and

                                           89








         restrictions on materials accepted at landfills.

              The future plan will also allow for flexibility. The system
         will be evaluated periodically and adjusted to meet the needs of
         changing waste stream characteristics, recycling markets and
         public participation.













































                                         90










                                           Notes

          1.   Cost estimates provided by the Northern Neck Recycling Task
               Force, and the Northern Neck Planning District Commission.

          2.   Ibid.


          3.   Ibid.

          4.   Ibid.


          5.   Ibid.


          6.   Ibid.

          7.   CH2M Hill. Economic Evaluation of Landfill Alternatives,
               Prepared for Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond and
               Westmoreland Counties,. 1990. pp. 5-10, 5-11.

          8.   CH2M Hill. Draft Report: Evaluation of Local Versus Distant
               Disposal, Prepared for Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond,
               and Westmoreland Counties. February 1990. p. 5-2.





























                                            91



 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                            Section IX
 I
 I                          Special Waste
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 1                               92
 1









                                      Special Waste


               Because of their unique nature, certain types of waste have
          been considered separately from the rest of the waste stream.
          Many of these require special handling or offer other challenges
          and opportunities for disposal not shared by general municipal
          waste.





                             Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge

          Existing Situation:

               The are currently four municipal sewage treatment plants on
          the Northern Neck that produce sludge.

               Reedville- The sewage treatment plant at Reedville presently
          produces an average of three thousand (3000) pounds of dewatered
          sludge per year. This is disposed of in the Tri-County Landfill
          at Lara. The plant is operating at fifteen percent (15%) of its
          design capacity.' If the service area were expanded to utilize
          some of the excess capacity the amount of sludge produced would
          also increase.

               Kilmarnock- The Kilmarnock Sewage Treatment Plant currently
          trucks sixteen thousand (16,000) gallons of sludge to local
          sewage lagoons for additional treatment. The    2 plant is presently
          running at seventy percent (70%) of capacity.

               Warsaw - The Town of Warsaw has recently negotiated with the
          Westmoreland County landfill to accept their first de-watered
          sludge. The Town is anticipating approximately one dump truck
                         3
          load per year.

               Colonial Beach - The Town of Colonial Beach currently takes
          its dewatered sludge to the Westmoreland County landfill. The
          Town sewage treatment plant has been plagued recently with
          problems related to groundwater infiltration into lines and
          compliance with State discharge regulations. In order to address
          these problems the Town is proposing the construction of a state
          of the art "Lemnall treatment system. If the system is
          constructed it will eliminate the need for sludge disposal for 15
          years. At that time the Lemna pond may require cleaning.4

          Plan:

               The localities of the Northern Neck plan to promote land
          application of sewage treatment plant sludge. Though the volume


                                            93









                                                          Table 9.3: Richmond County

                             Projections of Certain "Special Wastes" in Waste Stream
                                                                           (Tons/Year)


                                                              1990                1995                2000                 2005              2010

                       Major
                       Appliances                             91                  94                   99                  98                 97

                       Furniture                              241                 259                  300                 341                383

                       Automotive
                       Batteries                              54                  59                   66                  73                 81
                       Tires                                  61                  59-     -            63                  66                 69
                       Total                                  447                 471                  528                 578                630


                  Source:    "Characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update",U.S. E.P.A., 1990
                             Northern Neck Planning District Commission







                                                       Table 9.4: Westmoreland County

                             Projections of certain "Special Wastes" in Waste Stream
                                                                            (Tons/Year)


                                                              1990                1995                2000                 2005               2010

                       Major
                       Appliances                             193                 197                   203                198                 192
                       Furniture                              513                 542                   616                689                 763

                       Automotive
                       Batteries                              114                 123                   135                148                 161
                   [:,Tires                                   129         1       123          1        129                133                 136         1
                       Tota7l                                 949                 985                1,083                 1,168            1,252 J1

                  Source:    "Characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update*,U.S. E.P.A., 1990
                             Northern Neck Planning District Commission









                                                                                    100










                                      Notes

        1.   Reedville Sanitary District Staff.

        2.   Town of Kilmarnock Staff.


        3*   Town of Warsaw Staff.


        4.   Town of Colonial Beach Staff.

        5.   Virginia Water Project, Inc. Water for Tomorrow. 1988. pp.
             89-130.

        6.   Virginia Department of Agriculture. Farmers Clean Day in
             Virginia. 1991.

        7.   Telephone conversations with local businesses.

        8.   Northern Neck Planning District Commission. (Business
             Recycling Survey]. Unpublished raw data. 1991.

        9.   Westmoreland County Cooperative Extension. [Compost and
             Mulch Survey). Unpublished raw data. 1990.

        10.  Virginia Department of Waste Management Staff.


























                                        101




 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                                       Section X
 I
 I                                      Education
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 1                                           102
 1











                                EDUCATIONAL GOALS



        To increase the available information and public awareness of:

             a.  the importance of recycling and waste management;

             b.  types of recyclable and non-recyclable materials;

             c.  various methods to reduce waste: resource recovery,
                 source reduction, recycling, and landfilling;

             d.  the importance of each individual's participation in
                 reducing waste;

             e.  the environmental impacts of improper waste management;

             f.  how to participate in local recycling programs;

































                                       103












        WHY RECYCLING EDUCATION IS IMPORTANT


             Many citizens and businesses are willing to participate in a
        recycling program but also have many questions that need to be
        answered such as what can be recycled, can different types of
        materials be mixed, how should the materials be stored, etc.
        Educational programs will help answer these questions by
        providing information and guidelines to the public while also
        helping the public understand the importance of the problem, gain
        community support, and increase awareness.

             There is a need to demonstrate to the public that there is a
        solid waste management problem. By supplying information about
        the life of the landfill, the amount that waste would be reduced
        if there was a recycling program, an explanation of the costs
        involved, and the environmental impacts, the general public would
        be able to make educated decisions about waste management in
        their community, workplace, and home.

             Getting citizens to participate in a voluntary recycling
        program requires education (informing people of what needs to be
        done and the reasons behind these actions) and promotion (keeping
        the public aware of the program and how it is progressing). Many
        approaches can be taken to educate and inform the public about
        recycling and solid waste management issues:

                  -ads in local newspapers or the free "shoppers" that
                  are available

                  -public service announcements on local radio stations

                  -news releases for the local media

                  -notices and bulletins sent to community service groups

                  -short presentations or speaking engagements to local
                  civic groups

                  -free information at local governmental offices

                  -incorporation of waste management and recycling
                  activities in the schools

             All of the approaches listed above should be used to keep
        the public informed about solid waste management and recycling in
        their communities.

             Our goal is to help citizens of the Northern Neck to
        understand their role in decreasing the amount of solid waste
        through dissemination of information. An educated public will be

                                       104









        able to-make informed choices about how to help solve the waste
        management problems in their community.

        EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN OTHER AREAS


        Human Resources Division, VPI&SU_


             The Virginia Tech Cooperative Extension service is very
        involved with recycling efforts and educating the public about
        waste management statewide. The extension agency has developed
        many informative publications about recycling and solid waste
        management including an educational brochure for the New River
        Valley area. They have also developed a "packaged" training
        program for civic clubs and provided training sessions for local
        volunteer groups. They are working with the Virginia Department
        of Waste Management to promote recycling and solid waste
        management education. The extension service would like to have
        the local extension agency staffs provide assistance with
        recycling and solid waste management education in their given
        areas, if time permits'.

             The Virginia Cooperative Extension Office will launch an
        intensive training program for local officials in the Fall of
        1991. Solid waste technologies and decision making processes
        will be addressed during the two day workshops which will be held
        at four locations across the state. The session most convenient
        for Northern Neck officials will be in Richmond. An outline for
        the program should be available in July. Northern Neck officials
        who will be involved with solid waste management will be urged to
        attend.



        Curriculums and Lesson Guides

        Recycling Study Guide-Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

             This study guide from the Department of Natural Resources is
        an excellent resource for ideas about incorporating the topics of
        recycling and solid waste management into all disciplines. The
        guide is intended to help teachers and students understand what
        solid waste is, where it comes from, and what can be done about
        the problem of managing it. The study guide includes an overview
        of solid waste management and recycling, a glossary, class
        activities, and a list of other resources for educational use.
        The activities in the guide are designed for use in grades 4-12
        and should be useful at other grade levels with slight
        modification'.






                                       105









        "Here Today, Here Tomorrow" and "Here Today, Here Tomorrow-
        Revisited, A Teachers Guide to Solid Waste Management" from the
        Division of Sol'id Waste Management of the New Jersey Department
        of Environmental Protection is another excellent guide for
        educators interested in solid waste and recycling. The program
        has been widely distributed throughout New Jersey and could be
        used as a basis for class activities in the Northern Neck Region.
        The program was originally designed to draw attention to the
        problem of waste management. The overall goals of the guide are:

             1. to help students acquire an awareness that a problem
             exists in the management of solid waste;

             2. to help students realize they share a part of the solid
             waste problem;

             3. to help students acquire a basic understanding of the
             four prong approach to solid waste management;

             4. to provide students an opportunity to prioritize options
             in solving the solid waste problem; and

             5. to encourage students to identify and implement specific
             actions consistent with the four prong approach to solve the
             local solid waste problem.

             The activities in the guide are structured with singular
        objectives. They include suggested subject areas, skill
        identification, materials needed, a detailed procedure, and
        possibilities for including local waste management procedures.
        The guide includes a glossary page that can be copied for
        distribution to students, and a list of resources and
        ref erenceS3.



        Lunenburg County

             The County has had a litter program since 1983. The key to
        the recycling program was forming an educational committee
        consisting of teachers and school board members.

             The County has used Operation Wastewatch and The Three R's
        from the Virginia Department of Waste Management and found it to
        be very good for science and ecology clubs, 4H clubs, science and
        civics classes. Special events in school and throughout the
        community were used to spur interest in recycling. Trash art
        contests, clean room contests, a litter critter mascot, and 4H
        recycling contests. Local businesses provided sponsorship and
        prizes for the contests. Adopt a highway and adopt a spot
        programs were initiated throughout the county and maintained by
        students, civic organizations and local businesses. Promotional


                                        106








        material from governmental agencies and in-house material was
        used, the litter control office sets up display at the opening
        meeting for teachers in the fall to make sure they know what
        resources are available for use when teaching about recycling and
        waste management4.



        EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IN THE NORTHERN NECK



        VOLUNTEER GROUPS

             The Northern Neck Recycling Task Force has been active since
        the Fall of 1990. In March, the Task Force volunteers prepared a
        general education mailing to 1,000 households. The Task Force
        also organized the Earth Day celebration that focused on
        recycling and its impact on the environment. One of the goals of
        the Task Force is to "educate individual citizens, businesses and
        civic groups in their roles and responsibilities in recycling
        @echniques and waste management." objectives under this goal
        include:

             1. Conduct active, public awareness programs in newspaper,
             radio, churches and other organizational newsletters and
             bulletins.

             2. Enlist public participation in recycling programs
             including volunteer collection and membership.

             3. Encourage and support educational activities in all local
             schools.

             4. Serve as information resource on recycling and solid
             waste management through creation of a speakers bureau,
             conducting workshops and seminars.

             5. Develop citizen outreach program to raise awareness
             throughout the Northern Neck.

             6. Inform and encourage local businesses to establish
             recycling programs at the commercial level and to establish
             employee participation programs.

             The Westmoreland War on Waste (WWOW) is a non-profit
        organization made up of local citizens. Each year WWOW tries to
        alert the County citizens of new laws and regulations on litter
        and recycling, and the better way of life that recycling and
        litter clean up creates. In 1990-91, WWOW conducted programs to
        inform the public about recycling at area schools. Through their
        art work, essays, and logo contests, the youth learned to


                                       107








         appreciate their surroundings and to become aware of the
         difference they can make toward the recycling effort.

             WWOW also furthered their reach of citizens by working with
         local newspapers, area cable company, and area civic groups.
         Representitives of6WWOW presented articles, and.gave talks on the
         problems of litter.




         EXTENSION OFFICES

             When requested, the Northumberland County Cooperative
         Extension Service has done various one time projects with the
         local citizen groups such as the Womans Club and the Ruritan
         Club.

              The Service is working with the fourth and fifth grade 4H
         chapters in the Northumberland County schools. Recycling has
         been discussed. They are not currently working with the schools.

              The Service sponsored a cleanup day for local farmers in
         1990 (see section xx). The cleanup was funded by a grant from
         the State. Farmers were allowed to bring in old pesticides and
         containers that were considered to be hazardous waste and
         therefor not landfillable. The Extension Office would like to
         have a cleanup day for homeowners to dispose of leftover paints,
         sealants, cleaning fluids, and other waste that should not be
         landfilled. Funds would be needed before this could take place
         again.

              The current publicity taking place includes monthly media
         releases, flyers, newspaper, a weekly radio broadcast, and the
                                      7
         extension service newsletter.

              The Westmoreland County Cooperative,Extension Service office
         has been working with the Westmoreland War on Waste to promote
         and collect recyclables. Extension agents have been making
         speeches and presenting programs for the schools. Interest in
         recycling has increased over the years. About two years ago
         there was little public response to a recycling promotion and
         survey initiated by the Extension Service. Presently, the
         Extension Service assists with recycling days in the county and
         helps schools and clubs collect aluminum cans as class projects
         and fund raising efforts. The Extension Service Office also
         makes available to the public video tapes, brochures and other
         materials from the Department of Waste Management8.





                                          108









             The extension offices in Lancaster County and Richmond
        County are depending on Litter Control Agents and local volunteer
        groups to inform the public about recycling and solid waste
        management.




        SCHOOL PROGRAMS

             In order to determine what education has taken place in the
        region the schools were contacted and information gathered from
        superintendents, principals, and teachers. Most of the
        information was obtained through phone interviews and some from
        personal meetings. Many of the teachers are interested in having
        recycling and solid waste management material available for use
        as ideas for class activities and projects. Presently, recycling
        and waste management are being discussed at all grade levels in
        the Northern Neck.

             Lancaster County Schools have acquired a grant from the
        National Audobon Society to fund some environmental education and
        purchase materials for classroom activities.

             There is an active Ecology Club in the High School, they
        also offer an ecology class as an elective9.

             At Lancaster Primary School some of the teachers have
        attended environmental education training camps in Connecticut
        and Maine which were sponsored by the National Audobon Society.
        These camps helped the teachers design activities appropriate for
        their classes and provided ideas for special school events.

             Teachers demonstrated to the students the importance of
        plants in the ecological system. Trees supplied by the National
        Audobon Society were planted on the school grounds with the
        assistance of the County Forester. Some teachers have brought
        indoor plants for the classroom to "clean" the air and give the
        students an opportunity to care for, and gain an appreciation of,
        plantlife.

             Discussions about endangered species and what can be done to
        help save them have been popular with the students. The third
        grade has adopted a manta ray and a whale through the Audobon's
        Florida Chapter to give students the opportunity to learn about
        endangered species.

             Various classes had discussions about water ecology and the
        Chesapeake Bay and how these are affected by pollution. The
        school has had field trips to the Watermans Museum and to the
        Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Guest speakers such as the
        County Forester and the local Game Warden came to the school to


                                       109









        talk about wildlife, soils, and plantlife.

             There is a Litter Patrol formed by a group of teachers, who
        pick up litter on the school grounds once a month. The teachers
        have designed buttons to promote the Litter Patrol and increase
        the students awareness of the problem.

             Posters have been placed in the school promoting recycling.
        Teachers have also placed information about recycling and waste
        management on bulletin boards in classrooms to help promote
        awareness.


             Classes have been collecting aluminum and newspapers for
        recycling. This activity has been successful, but a lack of
        storage space has been a problem.

             Some classes have completed a unit about energy conservation
        where students learned about the generation of electricity,
        hydroelectric dams, and nuclear energy. Students were taught to
        conserve natural resources by conserving energy. This unit
        demonstrated how recycling can save energy and natural
                 10
        resources .




             Chesapeake Academy, a private school in Lancaster County,
        has been encouraging recycling and teaching waste management
        issues for a number of years. These issues are taught as part of
        science and humanities classes at the school. The Headmaster
        feels that waste management should not be taught just as a unit
        but integrated throughout all classes and be promoted the entire
             11
        year .



             Northumberland County High School has not done any recycling
        at the school but waste management and recycling are being taught
        in the earth science and biology classes. The students have
        worked with local civic groups on recycling projects that have
        taken place in the paSt12.


             Callao Elementary School had a poster contest to promote the
        idea of recycling and increase the students and parents interest.
        The students have participated in cleanup projects and planted
        trees on Earth Day. There is a great deal of interest from the
        students. It has been difficult to do recycling projects at the
        school because of storage problems and the inconvenience of
                         13
        recycling centers








              At Fairfields Elementary School all of the students attended
         the Theater IV production of "Its a Wonderful World" which
         featured conservation and recycling. There were class
         discussions before and after the play about environmental issues.

              Teachers have had discussions with classes about earth day--
         what the students could do and why Earth Day is important.

              Weekly Reader issues featuring the environment in several
         classes served as a basis for class projects and activities. The
         articles "Too Much Trash". "Trash-Where Does It Come From? Where
         Does It Go?", and "Recycling" were used as a basis for lessons
         about solid waste management and recycling.

              Social Studies class had a recycling unit using the weekly
         readers, a large bulletin board featuring facts about waste
         management and an explanation of the Reuse/Reduce/Recycle
         procesS14.


              Richmond County Elementary School has had workshops for
         grades K-5 which explained the value of recycling, what it is,
         how to recycle materials, and problems associated with solid
         waste management.

              Films about environmental issues and recycling are available
         for the teachers to show in their classes. The topic of
         recycling is discussed in the classes but is not a part of the
         curriculum. special events at the school have been used to
         publicize recycling and waste management. All grade levels were
         involved in poster contests to promote recycling and increase
         awareness of solid waste management problems.


              The Richmond County Intermediate School has also taken part
         in many special events concerning recycling. All classes
         participated in a anti-litter and recycling slogan contest which
         was held this year.

              All of the science classes have been stressing the
         importance of recycling and the importance of solid waste
         management to the students.

              The 7th grade has been collecting aluminum drink cans at
         lunch in the cafeteria and turned it into a science project.

              The Richmond County High School science club has been
         collecting cans and utilizing the local recycling facility".








             Woodland Academy, a private school in Westmoreland County,
        has been collecting-and recycling newspapers for a couple of
        years. These materials have been collected by the student
        government and recycled. Storage and transportation of these
        materials has been a problem.

             Most of what is taught about recycling and solid waste
        management comes from textbooks in the science classes. The.
        students are interested in recycling and waste management issues.
        The instructors would like to have more environmental education
        geared toward local issues and the Chesapeake Bay area for use in
        the classes.

             The school is currently seeking funds through grants for
        materials and class projects".


             At the Cople District Elementary School, videos about solid
        waste management and recycling have been shown in the 4th and 5th
        grades. The 5th grade teaches a unit about recycling and waste
        management.

             The school has not been collecting recyclable material but
        collection will begin in the Fall of 1991 with the assistance of
                                17
        a County Extension Agent


             The Montross Elementary School PTA has worked with the
        schools to collect aluminum cans throughout the schools. Many
        classes have seen the environmental videos that are available
        from the County Extension office. The County Extension Agent has
        spoken to the students and the PTA about recycling and what can
        be done in their communities".


             The A.T. Johnson Middle School is collecting aluminum cans
        that students bring from home, but this was not heavily
        publicized at the time this plan was written. This will be
        promoted more in the Fall of 1991 with posters and flyers at
        school.

             The school had a Earthday celebration, along with class
        discussions and projects, to promote environmental issues.

             Recycling and solid waste management are being promoted in
        classes where the topic is applicable".


             At Washington and Lee High School waste management and
        recycling are being taught in all science classes, including
        biology, chemistry, physics, and marine science. Physics and


                                        112








        chemistry students have been able to earn some extra credit by
        participating in a home recycling program. This program has been
        very successful at collecting newspaper, glass and aluminum from
        approximately 30-40 households. The recycling activities have
        been taking place with cooperation from the Westmoreland War on
        Waste and the PTA in Westmoreland County.

             The Science Club has done highway cleanups and sponsored
        cleanups for areas in the county. The club has bought containers
        for the cafeteria and gym for use by the students in an attempt
        to solve the ongoing storage problem. The high school would like
        to consolidate their efforts with the middle and elementary
        schools in order to make the recycling process more convenient
        for all who are involved2o.



        LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS



             Towns of the Region need to expand their roles in the
        educational process. Efforts by the towns to publicize recycling
        in the Northern Neck have been hampered by limited budgets and
        small staffs.

             The Town of Kilmarnock has been very active in encouraging
        support for the recycling efforts of the.Northern Neck Recycling
        Task Force. The Town was active in obtaining ordinances for the
        NNRTF to collect recyclables, and encouraged property owners to
        allow the NNRTF to use the property. Kilmarnock has supported
        the annual Spring Clean to increase awareness of recycling in the
             21
        area .


             The Town of Warsaw has placed ads in the local paper, ads
        for recycling days on the local radio stations, and posted flyers
        at local businesses.

             The Town has had difficulty convincing the public that it is
        necessary to recycle and reduce wastes. The Town feels that if
        the public wasn't being paid for materials they would not be
        doing it22


        COUNTIES


             Lancaster County Litter Control office does not have an
        educational program at this time and is depending on the Northern
        Neck Recycling Task Force to publicize recycling. The County
        Litter Control Committee was inactive at the time this plan was
        written".





                                        113








             The Richmond County Litter Control office sponsored a county
        clean up week in April 1991 to increase awareness about solid
        waste management and recycling. The office has assisted with
        litter clean up projects with local civics groups and also
        sponsored poster contests in schools for a recycling and anti-
        litter slogan contest.

             To date, informational material has consisted of
        distributing pamphlets from Department of Waste Management and
        the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental groups
        anda series of four articles in the Northern Neck News concerning
        recycling.

             The litter control office aired ads on the local radio
        stations, WRAR and WNNT. The litter control office is attempting
        to establish a monthly recycling day for Richmond County24.































                                       114












        PROMOTING EDUCATION

             Education about waste management and recycling has been very
        limited in the Northern Neck. There is a need to expand this
        education in order to inform all citizens, businesses, and local
        government officials about these processes. The dissemination of
        information concerning recycling, source reduction, composting,
        landfilling, and material collection in the Northern Neck must
        increase if the solid waste management plan is expected to be
        successful.

             Recycling is a major element of any waste management plan.
        It reduces the use of natural resources and energy and conserves
        landfill space. Source reduction must be initiated by
        manufacturers to be effective. This process could be initiated
        at a local level if Northern Neck Consumers made a conscious
        effort to purchase goods without excess packaging. Although many
        people in the region already have composting operations for
        farms, landscaping and backyard gardens, education on this topic
        @eeds to reach everyone in the Northern Neck. Our citizens need
        information about materials that can and can't be landfilled in
        order to maintain safety and efficiency at these disposal sites.
        There is a need for dissemination of information concerning local
        collection processes. Citizens and businesses need to understand
        the collection procedure for their area. Information needs to be
        made available to everyone describing materials that will be
        collected, collection times, and the cost for this service.

             The main goal of educating the citizens of the region is to
        supply the background information to determine good and bad waste
        management procedures and to provide the "how to" for recycling.
        Many citizens and businesses throughout our community are willing
        to recycle but find it is either too inconvenient or they don't
        have enough knowledge about the types of recyclable materials.

             An extensive public awareness campaign could be used to
        stimulate and maintain participation in recycling. This campaign
        could include widely available informational materials, mass
        media support, educational support, educational workshops, a
        speakers bureau, and public events to spur recycling
        participation. Special events and contests will be used in the
        schools and throughout the county to raise the awareness level of
        the public.

             The Task Force has been recycling since the Fall of 1990 and
        has knowledge concerning problems that will be encountered when
        new programs are initiated. We will use Northern Neck Recycling
        Task Force's past experiences as a guide for what needs to be
        explained to the public and the most effective way to distribute
        information to citizens. Two projects the Task Force will be
        concentrating on will be the establishment of a speakers bureau

                                        115








        and the creation of a briefing team to conduct educational
        seminars workshops at churches, civic associations and clubs.

             Local civic groups will be encouraged to hold special even ts
        such as clean up days and contests for their localities. These
        events could be focused toward businesses and the general public
        to increase awareness of the waste management problems and make
        recycling more convenient.

             Educational literature will be available throughout the
        region. Pamphlets and other materials will be made available at
        the county offices, the PDC office, county extension offices,
        recycling centers and at the landfill for the public. Brochures
        explaining the localities polices, regulations, and attitudes
        toward landfilling a-nd recycling, along with guidelines for these
        processes, would be most important.

             Bulletin boards containing specific information about
        collection and disposal processes will be placed at recycling
        centers and the landfill. These will serve as a convenient and
        effective method for disseminating information to the public.

             Training of local civic organizations and volunteer groups
        should be accomplished through workshops held by state agencies
        and the extension offices. These organizations could play a
        major role'in disseminating information to the general public and
        helping to maintain interest in recycling. A central
        group/coordinator for local training will also be investigated.

             The region's local officials will be encouraged to attend
        the statewide workshops that will be offered by the Virginia
        Cooperative Extension Service in the Fall of 1991. These
        workshops would provide a background for county officials and
        help them make more informed decisions about waste management.

             A volunteers' speakers bureau will be organized utilizing
        the Northern Neck Recycling Task Force, Westmoreland War on
        Waste, county extension agents, county litter control agents and
        others to educate civic groups and businesses about recycling.
        This group would also speak to classes at the local schools about
        recycling and solid waste management.


        SCHOOL PROGRAMS

             The young people in our community play an important role in
        solving the solid waste management problems of today and
        tomorrow. Educators can help students understand their role in
        solving waste management problems. Teachers can help students
        become aware of the solid waste problems the world is facing,
        learn to respect the environment, and develop a positive attitude
        toward recycling.

                                       116








             The Planning District Commission realizes that a portion of
        the schoolday is already taken up by extracurricular activities
        and teachers need as much time as possible for teaching basic
        subjects. For this reason, we suggest that the schools use
        inter-disciplinary activities that can be incorporated into a
        wide range of classes and would not take time away from normal
        classroom work. Activities such as math problems using recycling
        data, stories about environmental issues, science experiments
        that deal with solid waste disposal and many other excises could
        be used.

             The Planning District Commission encourages the use of
        information and activities which are currently available from a
        variety of sources. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
        Virginia Department of Waste Management (VDWM) and many other
        agencies and organizations throughout the country have developed
        curriculums, study guides and reference materials about waste
        management and recycling. We would like to see recycling and
        solid waste management education incorporated into all subjects
        in order to increase students awareness of the problem. We would
        recommend the use of the EPA's "Recycle Today!" program
        consisting of publications focusing on the importance of
        recycling. "Lets Recycle" presents lessons and activities
        divided into units for grades K-12 about solid waste generation.
        Each unit presents a series of related lessons with vocabulary
        words, discussion questions, and projects. Teaching aids are
        also included along with a glossary and bibliography of
        additional sources of information.

             The Virginia Department of Waste Management curriculum
        covers such issues as the importance of recycling, the value of
        natural resources and the responsibility each person bears for
        minimizing the generation of solid waste. The curriculum also
        provides avenues to incorporate information about the local
        community into the activities.

             Operation Waste Watch has been available from the Department
        of Waste Management since the early eighties and provide teaching
        materials for environmental education. The New Three Rls:
        Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle, from the Department of Waste
        Management has lessons and projects for secondary school
        students. These lessons tend to focus on science and social
        studies but could be used to develop lessons in any course. The
        technologies of solid waste management, packaging, shopping,
        composting and a simulation of a local waste management problem
        are included.

             Skills that can be taught in the curriculums cited above
        include creative writing, vocabulary, debating, library skills,
        science and math skills, problem-solving, measurements, arts and
        crafts, social studies, community service, and environmental
        awareness.


                                        117








             Many educational materials have been developed by other
        states and localities in addition to what the Virginia Department
        of Waste Management has done. In order to minimize program
        development costs we suggest that teachers also consider using
        lesson plans and materials from other states, environmental
        agencies and conservation groups. These will give teachers even
        i@ore options to choose from. It will be easier for teachers to
        introduce recycling and waste management to their classes if
        lesson plans, resource materials, and ideas for practical
        projects are provided. From there, the teachers may wish to
        modify these lessons or create new ones of their own.

             We would like for the counties to encourage ecology clubs in
        the schools. These clubs could provide an effective method for
        disseminating information in the schools and provide a catalyst
        for greater student involvement in the future.

             The formation of an educational committee consisting of
        litter control agent, teachers, students, and local businessmen
        could bring together all of the recycling efforts now taking
        place at schools throughout each county. An educational
        committee was the key to the successful recycling program
        developed in Lunenburg County. This group could plan and sponsor
        activities for the schools, select class projects, and design
        curriculums that would work best in each individual school. A
        cooperative effort put forth by the educational committee would
        make an impact on the entire region and serve as an example for
        others to follow.



        LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

             Education and technical assistance by all levels of
        7overnment can help improve waste management in our area. There
        is a need for a system to disseminate information to the general
        public about waste management and recycling in the Northern Neck.
        The Planning District Commission office and extension agent
        offices, along with the county and town offices will become
        clearing houses for information-about solid waste management
        practices in our area. This goes back to the point that a waste
        Tanagement plan will be more successful if the citizens are well
        informed. Materials available at these offices should include
        pamphlets and brochures for the general public about local waste
        management, explanations of waste management and recycling
        procedures in that particular town or county, where to take
        recyclables, and what type of materials are recyclable. If the
        necessary information is not available at these offices, someone
        will be able to direct the person to an agency that does have it.











                                       Notes

         1. Cathy Parrot, Human Resources Department, Virginia
            Polytechnic Institute and State University. Personal
            interview.

         2. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Recycling Study
            Guide. pp. 1-2. 1989.

         3. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
            Solid Waste Management. Here Today, Here Tomorrow--Revisted.
            pp. 1-3

         4. Louetta Jones, Lunenburg County Extension Agent, Virginia
            Cooperative Extension Agent. Personal interview.

         5. Nothern Neck Recycling Task Force, Correspondence, June 1991.

         6. Westmoreland War on Waste, Correspondence, June 1991.

         7. Gail Walker, Northumberland County Extension Agent, Virginia
            Cooperative Extension Agent. Personal Interview.

         8. Sam Johnson, Westmoreland County Extension Agent, Virginia
            Cooperative Extension service. Personal Interview.

         9.  William B. Chapman, Superintendent of Schools, Lancaster
             County. Personal Interview.

         10. Linda Hovatter, Teacher, Lancaster Elementary School.
             Personal Interview.

         11. Henry Selby, Headmaster, Chesapeake Academy Inc. Personal
             Interview.

         120 Dale Witler, Principal, Northumberland County High School.
             Personal Interview.

         13. Joseph Gilreath, Principal, Callao Elementary School.
             Personal Interview.

         14. Faye Pitman, Principal, Fairfields Elementary School.
             Personal Interview.

         15. Fred Pitman, Superintendent of Schools, Richmond County.
             Personal Interview.

         16. Jan Redfern, Teacher, Woodland Academy. Personal
             Interview.

         17. Andrea Hall, Teacher, Copel District Elementary School.
             Personal interview.


                                         119









         18. Joy DeNoon, Teacher, Montross Elementary School.    Personal
             Interview.

         19. Steve Martin, Teacher, A.T. Johnson Middle School.
             Personal Interview.

         20. Wes James, Teacher, Washington and Lee High School.
             Personal Interview.

         21. Larry Faison,.Town Manager,-Kilmarnock, Virginia. Personal
             Interview.

         22. Joan Smith, Town Manager, Warsaw, Virginia. Personal
             Interview.

         23.,Glen Rowe, Lancaster County Litter Control Agent. Personal
             Interview.

         24. Barbara Taylor, Richmond County Litter Control Agent.
             Personal Interview.







































                                         120




 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                                   Bibliography
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 1                                         121
 1









                                        Bibliography


          Chapman,  W.B., Superintendent of Schools, Lancaster County,
          Personal  Interview.

          CH2M Hill. Draft Report: Evaluation of Local Versus Distant
          Disposal, Prepared for Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond, and
          Westmoreland Counties. February 1990.

          CH2M Hill. Economic Evaluation of Landfill Alternatives,
          Prepared for Lancaster, Worthumberland, Richmond, and
          Westmoreland Counties. 1990.

          County of Lancaster Staff, Personal Interview.

          County of Northumberland Staff, Personal Interview.

          County of Richmond Staff, Personal Interview.

          County of Westmoreland Staff, Personal Interview.

          Culpeper Engineering. Tri-County Landfill Volume Report
          (unpublished study). February 1991.

          Culpeper Engineering. Westmoreland County Landfill Inspection.
          Unpublished Study. 1991.

          DeNoon, J., Teacher, Montross Elementary School, Personal
          Interview.

          Dinsmore, J.R., Unpublished data, J.R. Enterprises.

          Faison, L., Town Manager, Kilmarnock, Personal Interview.

          Gilreath, J., Principal, Callao Elementary School, Personal
          Interview.

          Hall, A., Teacher, Copel District Elementary School, Personal
          Interview.

          Hovatter, L., Teacher, Lancaster Elementary School, Personal
          Interview.

          Interviews with refuse disposal companies.

          James, W., Teacher, Washington and Lee High School, Personal
          Interview.*

          Johnson, S., Westmoreland County Extension Agent, Virginia
          Cooperative Extension Service, Personal Interview.


                                             122








         Jones, L   Lunenburg County Extension Agent, Virginia cooperative
         Extension"Agent, Personal Interview.

         New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
         Solid Waste Management. Here Today, Here Tomorrow-Revisted.

         Northern Neck Planning District-Commission. (Business Recycling
         Survey]. Unpublished Raw Data. 1991.

         Northern Neck Recycling Task Force, Correspondence, June 1991.

         Northern Neck Recycling Task Force, Landfill Study Committee.
         "Solid Waste Survey". Unpublished Study. February 1991.

         Parrot, C., Human Resources Department, Virginia Polytechnic
         Institute and State University, Personal Interview.

         Pitman, F., Principal, Fairfields Elementary School, Personal
         Interview.

         Pitman, F., Superintendent of Schools, Richmond County, Personal
         Interview.

         Redfern, J., Teacher, Woodland Academy, Personal Interview.

         Reedville'Sanitary District Staff.

         Rowe, G., Lancaster County Litter Control Agent, Personal
         Interview.

         Selby, H., Headmaster, Chesapeake Academy Inc., Personal
         Interview

         Smith, J., Town Manager, Warsaw, Virginia, Personal Interview.

         Taylor, B., Richmond County Litter Control Agent, Personal
         Interview.

         Town of Colonial Beach Staff, Personal Interview.

         Town of Kilmarnock Staff, Personal Interview.

         Town of Montross Staff, Personal Interview.

         Town of Warsaw Staff, Personal Interview.

         United States Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization
         of-Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update.
         1990.






                                         123









         United States Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid
         Waste Task Force, Office of Solid Waste. The Solid-Waste
         Dilemma: An-Acienda-For Action. February 1989.

         Viriginia Department of Agriculture. Farmers Clean Day in
         Virginia. 1991.

         Virginia Department of Waste Management. Recyclable Materials
         Marketing Program. 1990.

         Virginia Department of Waste Management. Regulations for the
         Development of Solid Waste Management Plans. 1990.


         Virginia Department of Waste Management Staff, Personal
         Interview.

         Virginia Department of Waste Management. Waste Management, Its
         Not A Game And Its Not Tgivial. 1989.

         Virginia Water Project, Inc. Water for Tomorro    1988.

         Walker, G., Northumberland County Extension Agent, Virginia
         Cooperative Extension Agent, Personal Interview.

         Westmoreland County Cooperative Extension service. (Compost and
         Mulch Survey]. Unpublished Raw Data. 1990.

         Westmoreland County Staff. (Business Recycling Survey].
         Unpublished Raw Data. 1991.

         Westmoreland War on Waste. Correspondence, June 1991.

         Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Recycling Study
         Guide. 1989.

         Witler, D., Principal, Northumberland County High School Personal
         Interview.
















                                        124

































                                                                                DATE DUE





















                                                                 GAYLOFIDINo. 2333                      PRINJED IN U 5 A






                                                                          -            It I I I 1@ I         -    I
                                                                             111111111 IN             I
                                                                           -1 3 6668 14107 6689                   ')