Northern Neck regional solid waste management plan

[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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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;

(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;

(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.

(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;

(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.

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)

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

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

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.

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;

-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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

POTOMAC RIVER

400
MAP 13

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY

SOLID WASTE FACILITIES

1991

-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.

MAP 2

RICHMOND COUNTY

SOLID WASTE FACILITIES

1991

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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 ')