5-Year Tactical Plan for a Transfer Station 8-6-2024.pdf

Prepared for:

Frank J. Rogers County Administrator

(434) 332-9525 fjrogers@co.campbell.va.us

County Administrator Office Rustburg, VA 24588

Prepared by:

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.

8300 Boone Boulevard

Suite 500 Vienna, VA 22182

Campbell County, VA

5-Year Tactical Plan:

Transfer Station & Increased Recycling Capabilities

August 6, 2024

Innovative, Sustainable Solutions for Solid Waste Management

Q U A L I T Y · V A L U E · E T H I C S · R E S U L T S

5-Year Tactical Plan:

Transfer Station and Increased Recycling Capabilities

GBB Project Team:

Bradley Kelley, Christopher Lund, P.E., Eugenia Manwelyan, Ashlea Smith Sabeti

GERSHMAN, BRICKNER & BRATTON, INC.

8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 500 • Vienna, VA 22182

703.573.5800 • www.gbbinc.com

© 2024 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.

https://gbbinc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/crico_gbbinc_com/Documents/Microsoft%20Teams%20Chat%20Files/www.gbbinc.com

And Increased Recycling Capabilities i

Campbell County, VA 5-Year Tactical Plan: Transfer Station & Increased Recycling Capabilities

Table of Contents 1 Background 2 Transfer Station Timeline 3 Phase One: Siting and Budgeting

3.1 Site Study

3.1.1 Site Selection Factors

3.1.2 Sketch

3.2 Development and Construction Budget

3.3 Operation and Maintenance Budget

3.3.1 Operations Costs (Annual)

3.3.2 Hauling and Disposal Costs

3.4 Public Outreach

3.5 Solid Waste Management Plan

3.6 Deliverable: Site Selection and Acquisition

4 Phase Two: Planning and Design

4.1 Facility Plan

4.1.1 Maintenance Plan

4.1.2 Risk Management Assessment

4.1.3 Staffing

4.2 Facility Design

4.3 Zoning and Regulatory Approvals

4.4 Deliverable: Funding and Budget Approvals

5 Phase Three: Permitting and Approvals

5.1 Permit Applications

5.2 Deliverable: Complete Permitting Process

6 Phase Four: Engineering Design

6.1 Procurement

6.2 Contractor Selection

6.3 Deliverable: Detailed Engineering Design

7 Phase Five: Construction and Commissioning

7.1 Construction

7.2 Commissioning and Operational Testing

7.3 Secure Final Material Destination Agreements

7.4 Hauling

7.5 Deliverable: Complete Construction

8 Phase Six: Operational Transition

8.1 Staff Hiring, Training & Operational Readiness

8.2 Deliverable: Transition Operations

9 Increased Recycling Capabilities

9.1 Volume and Composition

9.1.1 Residential Volume and Composition

9.1.2 Commercial Volume and Composition

9.2 Equipment and Infrastructure

9.2.1 Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

9.2.2 Food and Organic Waste Composting

ii

Campbell County, VA

9.2.3 Glass Processing

9.2.4 Mixed-Waste Processing

9.3 Residential Collection Programs

9.3.1 Enhanced Drop-Off Single Stream Recycling

9.3.2 Curbside Recycling

9.3.3 Curbside Recycling with Commercial Recycling

9.4 Commercial Recycling

9.5 Total Recycling Volume

9.6 Total Recycling Recovery

9.6.1 Enhanced Drop-Off Single Stream Recovery

9.6.2 Curbside Recycling

9.6.3 Curbside Recycling with Commercial Recycling

9.7 Fiscal Implication

9.7.1 MRF Operational Costs (Annual)

9.7.2 MRF Operational Revenue (Annual)

9.7.3 Costs and Diversion Savings for Combined MRF, Organics, and Glass

9.8 Additional Considerations

9.8.1 Funding Sources

9.8.2 Programs and Policies

10 Next Steps

10.1 Transfer Station

10.2 Increased Recycling Capabilities and Associated Costs

11 Appendices Appendix A – O&M Assumptions for Transfer Station Appendix B – Residential Curbside Collection

List of Tables Table 1 – Building Sizes for the Generic Transfer Station Table 2 - Total breakdown of Fixed Initial Capital Costs w/ Contingency Table 3 - Transfer Station Development and Construction Budget (FY 2025-29) Table 4 – Estimated Rolling Stock Capital Costs Table 5 - Labor Estimates and Associated Costs Table 6 – Operations and Maintenance Costs (without Labor) Table 7 – Hauling and Disposal Cost Estimates Table 8 – Summary of Capital, O&M w/ Labor, and Hauling and Disposal Costs for Transfer Station Table 9 - Total breakdown of Fixed Initial Capital Costs Table 10 – Estimated Rolling Stock Capital Costs Table 11 - Labor Estimates and Associated Costs1 Table 12 – Operations and Maintenance Costs (without Labor) Table 13 – Summary of Capital and O&M Costs for Transfer Station Table 14 – Estimated Commodity Revenue and Disposal Savings with Recycling Table 15 – Cost Difference Between Capital & Operation Costs, Commodity Revenue & Disposal Savings 48 Table 16 – Annual Costs of MRF with Composting and Glass Recovery Table 17 – Estimated Revenue and Disposal Savings with MRF, Compost and Glass Table 18 – Summary of Capital, O&M w/ Labor, and Hauling and Disposal Costs for Transfer Station iii

Campbell County, VA

Table 19 – Estimated Total Costs with Recycling Table 20 – Estimated Net Total Costs with Glass and Organics Recovery with Option 2 MRF

List of Figures Figure 1 – Level Loading with Loader and Grapple Excavator Figure 2 – (Above) Submerged Loading at WIWMD and Fauquier County (pass through, approximately 10’ drop for both) Figure 3 – In-Floor Loading at LCSWMA Transfer Station (pass-through) Figure 4 – In-floor Push Feed, Kent County, MI (back-in) Figure 5 –Transfer Station Site Plan Figure 6 – LCSWMA Solid Waste Facility Site Figure 7 - Small Sorting Platform (GBB)

1 Background In April 2024, the GBB Project Team Delivered a Technical Memorandum and presentation as Phase One of the Campbell County (County) solid waste management system assessment. Following the presentation, the County Board of Supervisors determined to proceed with the writing of a 5-Year Tactical Plan to construct and operate a transfer station within the County.

The purpose of this document is to provide a roadmap toward the implementation of a new Transfer Station to begin operating in 2029. This plan aims to support the following Project Goals:

• Develop a fully operational waste transfer station by 2029

• Ensure a seamless transition from landfill to transfer station

• Compliance with all regulatory and environmental standards

This document is based on the following Scenario and Option from the Phase One memo:

• Transfer Station: County Waste County-Owned: If the County were to build a transfer station, it would own it and use it solely for the disposal of County-generated waste.

This plan assumes that the Transfer Station facility will be County-owned and County-operated. It also includes information about adding material recovery facility (MRF) capabilities to the transfer station to increase recycling and help the County divert waste from the landfill-bound waste stream.

2 Transfer Station Timeline Below is a general timeline toward the completion of a County-owned and operated Transfer Station. Each Phase is described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report.

Phase One: Siting and Budgeting October 2024 – March 2025

• Site Study

• Development and Construction Budget

• O&M Budget

• Public Outreach

• Deliverable: Site Selection and Acquisition

Phase Two: Planning and Design April – September 2025

• Facility Plan

• Facility Design

• Deliverable: Funding and Budget Approvals

Phase Three: Permitting and Approvals October 2025 – September 2026

• Permit Applications

• Zoning and Regulatory Approvals

• Deliverable: Complete Permitting Process

Phase Four: Procurement and Engineering Design April 2026 – September 2027

• Procurement

• Contractor Selection

• Deliverable: Detailed Engineering Designs

Phase Five: Construction and Commissioning October 2027 - December 2028

• Begin Construction

• Commissioning and Operational Testing

• Secure Final Material Destination Agreements

• Hauler Contracts / Service Agreements

• Deliverable: Complete Construction

Phase Six: Operational Transition January 2029 - September 2029

• Staff Hiring, Training & Operational Readiness

• Deliverable: Transition Operations

3 Phase One: Siting and Budgeting Time frame: October 2024 – March 2025

3.1 Site Study

To select a site for the transfer station, the County will need to complete a Site Study. The study should identify potential viable locations based on the following specifications and include an evaluation framework to help determine location trade-offs. Final site identification and procurement are not required for certain portions of other phases but do need to be completed prior to the final detailed budget (purchase and upgrade price estimates) and prior to beginning the permitting process.

3.1.1 Site Selection Factors

The size of the site can vary depending on what additional infrastructure would be co-located with the transfer station, but there are guidelines that can help identify potential parcels for transfer station siting.

For the initial costing analysis for the transfer station model, a site of 20 acres was used. This is a reasonable size for a transfer station and other facilities, but convenience to transportation and utilities may be deemed more important than acreage. It is important to bear in mind that transfer stations in large cities move 1,000 tons per day (TPD) at sites that are less than 2 acres large. However, this is not recommended if larger sites are available.

All foreseeable transfer station needs can be served in a footprint of approximately 5 acres, and this would include the following (see sketch):

− Scalehouse with queue space − Transfer Station building footprint − Parking for staff and for trucks/trailers − Maneuvering room for waste trucks and tractor trailers at bay entrances, loading entrance(s), and egress − Areas for stormwater and leachate collection and management − Administrative building − Maintenance space (may be included as part of the Transfer Station building)

Other possible uses at this site would increase the necessary acreage to accommodate the necessary infrastructure. This would be especially important to consider for such co-located activities as recycling processing. Possible additional usages and the approximate acreage needed could include the following:

− Citizen Convenience/Recycling Center (approximately 2.5 acres) − Vehicle/Bus/Rolling Stock Maintenance Building (2+ acres with maneuvering room) − Recycling Processing (4-5 acres) − Composting (minimum of 5 acres)

With the above potential future uses, the county should aim for a site of 20 usable acres, with additional vegetative buffers, to ensure room for future development.

While a relatively flat and even site is generally preferred, the topography of a site can either be challenging or helpful in the design and operations of a transfer station. There are various types of transfer station loading options for getting waste from a tip floor into a transfer trailer for transport, and can be implemented by taking advantage of topographical features:

1. Level loading – This requires a large enough loader to clear the top of a transfer trailer sitting at an equal level. The loader bucket requires a special front-pin tipping mechanism to dump at a height above the edge of the trailer (usually just under 13’). There can be a protective wall between the two vehicles, but the wheel loader needs to get fairly close to the truck to properly tip the material. This method tends to be the most difficult to achieve properly full and weighted loads and is generally considered more likely to damage the trailer during loading. There tends to be more spillage with this method as well. Many sites with level or near-level loading tend to utilize grapple material handlers instead of wheel loaders to load the trailers. This method tends to be cleaner and can better pack the trailers full, but it requires an additional piece of rolling stock equipment and an additional operator per shift.

2. Submerged loading—In this instance, the tractor and trailer are at a lower elevation level than the tip floor and loader, so the loader bucket does not have to lift as high from the tip floor to discharge material into the trailer. This frequently can be a faster and more accurate process than level loading.

The topography can help dictate how much of an elevation change can be achieved between the tipping floor and the trailer loading lane(s).

3. In-floor loading—These transfer stations have loading lanes a full floor below the top floor, with the trailers being loaded through large openings in the floor at the same level as the tip floor. This has the advantage of not requiring a scoop-and-load process with a wheel loader but requires the largest elevation change between the two floors.

The following are some pictures of examples of the above types of trailer loading:

Figure 1 – Level Loading with Loader and Grapple Excavator

WIWMD’s interior and pass-through exit and entrance (North Layton, Utah)

Fauquier County, Virginia’s Transfer Station Interior and Pass-through

Figure 2 – (Above) Submerged Loading at WIWMD and Fauquier County (pass through, approximately 10’ drop for both)

Figure 3 – In-Floor Loading at LCSWMA Transfer Station (pass-through)

Figure 4 – In-floor Push Feed, Kent County, MI (back-in)

It is recommended that the transfer trailer loading area be a pass-through, if at all possible, as this eliminates the need for the truck and trailer to maneuver and back into the loading area. This is better for safety and usually for speed of swapping trailers. However, back-in loading still works, depending on the site needs. There could even be a dual type of loading, a pass-through for the MSW and a back-in for the Recycling.

In general, the lower the loading height, the easier and faster it is to load MSW or other materials into a trailer. Unfortunately, there are trade-offs in the acreage required and the cost of the pass-throughs. Also, there can be additional costs in the site preparation needs depending on the type of transfer station and the topography of the site.

It is recommended that once the sites have been narrowed down to work with a transfer station designer to create a preliminary design with the topography to help minimize the pre-construction site work needed and to establish a layout that takes the above considerations into account for both functionality and costs.

This may help to decide the best site for the transfer station if other factors are equal.

Siting the facility can be difficult as there are balances to consider, especially with proximity to the population centers in the area. Generally, a transfer station should be located so that most trucks coming to the site take no more than an hour of travel and unloading time to come from and return to a route. The facility needs to be located near the population centers to make this happen. However, many homes and businesses would prefer not to be neighbors with a transfer station (for various reasons). Identifying sites that can fulfill the timing needs of the trucks and still be in an acceptable location to the residents can be difficult and should be part of the siting study.

Similar to the proximity to population centers, the transfer station should also be located near regional transit routes to help facilitate both incoming trucks from local routes and for the transfer trailers driving to the regional landfills. It is ideal for one truck and trailer to be able to make two transfer trips per day, which means the round-trip time needs to be less than 4 hours (including tipping at the landfill which typically can take 30 minutes or more).

Regardless of the transfer station location, the facility needs sewer, water, and electricity access. The sewer may constitute tapping into an area line or an on-site septic and leach line. It will likely also be necessary to have a separate system for leachate from the transfer station. Water might be able to be supplied by a well depending on the area or will need to tap into a regional supply. Electric will need to tap into the local grid.

The further away the proposed transfer station is from these utilities, the higher the connectivity costs. The capacity of these utilities will need to be checked against the likely load of the operations at the transfer station and any other potential operations at the site to ensure adequate capacity.

It is assumed that all potential sites in the County will need to be rezoned as there are very few industrial sites currently. Rezoning should not occur until the parcel is purchased or leased long-term. However, the siting study should look for potential issues for rezoning at any location under consideration.

Before finalizing a site, a decision will need to be made as to what facilities and capabilities would likely be needed at this site (even if they are not being built yet). This would be needed to narrow down locations and ensure enough room and capacity in the utilities to support these facilities.

Once the size and utilities requirements are set, a cost can be estimated on a per acre basis. The other alternative would be to identify several candidates in the siting study and estimate the land cost from these sites (either from tax evaluations, representative sites nearby, or listed sales price if currently available).

Not advertising potential locations before negotiating the purchase is recommended as this can adversely impact the asking price.

Once several sites have been identified, the County would need to work with the current owner(s) to see if a purchase or a long-term lease would be possible. Having several options can increase the leverage of the County, although that is not always possible.

3.1.2 Sketch

The following shows a potential layout for several facilities in an 8-acre site. This shows the larger transfer station1 at 32,000 ft2 with 3 load-out bays, a maintenance shop, scales, and a citizen drop area. This sketch does not show a space for drainage ponds or other potentially necessary site needs but should help indicate the area needed for the different functionalities. Additional functions such as vehicle storage or recycling processing would require additional acreage.

Figure 5 –Transfer Station Site Plan

11 The smaller 20,000 ft2 transfer station would look similar but smaller by removing one of the load-out bays. This would not significantly alter the overall layout in this particular case.

Table 1 – Building Sizes for the Generic Transfer Station

Label Site Dimensions Area

A Transfer Station 160x200 32,000 ft2

B Admin/Break Room 50x70 3,500 ft2

C Vehicle Maintenance Shop 130x65 8,450 ft2

D Scalehouse 40x16 640 ft2

E Citizen MSW Drop/ Recycling Drop N/A

Total Lot Size 550x640 8 Acres

As another example, the figure below shows the layout at the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (LCSWMA) facility in Lancaster, PA. The total site size is approximately 14 acres and has a large administrative building, a commercial and residential tip area, two maintenance shops, a parking area for slow-fueling natural gas vehicles, and a fast-fill natural gas station. Note that there is some room remaining for additional expansion.

Figure 6 – LCSWMA Solid Waste Facility Site

3.2 Development and Construction Budget

The budget for the transfer station should be considered a living document that can be updated as more detailed and precise costs become available. As discussed in the siting section, the type of transfer station and the loading options are somewhat dependent on the topography of the site, and this can also significantly affect the cost of site preparation and the cost of the transfer station structure and tipping area. For instance, a level floor loading pass-through setup has advantages for the operations and loading floor. Still, the height differential and cement bridge work will generally be more expensive than other loading setups. It is difficult to anticipate these costs until a site is confirmed and a preliminary design is established.

The detailed Development and Construction Budget captures the costs and funding sources of this project's development and construction stage. It does not include operation and maintenance costs but rather up-front project costs. This budget can also include a discussion about cost management strategies and financial controls. It must be updated regularly as real prices can replace estimates as inputs.

The budget described in the Phase One Memo is for a generic transfer station, sized for approximately 75,000 tons per year of waste and set up with submerged loading bays of medium depth. To calculate the size of tip floor needed, the EPA has a guideline for sizing tip floors.2 Based on the expected tons per day.

Equation 1 – EPA Calculation for Sizing Tip Floor for MSW

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 (𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡2) = 4,000 𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡2 + 20𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡² 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇� ∗ (𝑇𝑇𝐹𝐹𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹 𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴𝐷𝐷 )

For this transfer station, the annual tonnage of 75,000 TPY is an average of 273 tons per day (TPD). To anticipate seasonal surges and growth, the sizing calculation utilized an estimated incoming tonnage of 300 TPD. The EPA calculation then indicates a necessary tip floor size of 10,000 ft². There are other needs within the transfer station, such as for the loading tunnels for storage and other operational needs. For the County transfer station, an additional 5,000 ft² of tip floor is assumed to be needed for receiving recyclables, loading areas, and maintenance space, and an additional 5,000 ft² of space is assumed for administrative and storage purposes for a total transfer station building size of 20,000 ft². Again, this may change as the development progresses, but this gives a starting point for the budget.

Facility Assumptions – Capital Costs

• The facility is sized to process 75,000 tons per year (TPY) with a single shift, based on Campbell County’s waste generation per year plus 50% capacity to accommodate additional disposal needs, such as natural disasters or regional contingency needs.

• Building square footage is estimated to be 20,000 ft on a 20-acre site.

• The building cost is only for a clear-span metal building with doors, and there are some added costs for the administration area breakroom and bathrooms.

• Site preparation costs include utilities, roads, and cement infrastructure for the building, including tip floor and push walls. This can vary significantly depending on the site.

• Equipment costs include a scale and scalehouse, software, and fire protection equipment.

• Permitting and facility design costs are discussed before the building costs.

• The total breakdown of the up-front capital costs (including a 20% contingency for all capital excluding the land) is shown below in Table 2.

Table 2 - Total breakdown of Fixed Initial Capital Costs w/ Contingency

Cost Item Dollar Cost1

Building ($130/sq. foot) $3,120,000 Site Prep Costs Estimate $2,400,000

Land Cost ($50,000/acre) $1,000,000 Equipment Cost and Installation $900,000

Total $7,420,000

(1) Building, Site Prep, and Equipment Cost all have a 20% contingency adder (Building cost at $130/ft² * 20,000 ft² = $2.6 million. Contingency is an added $520,000 (20% of $2.6 million) for the total of $3.12 million).

The County will also need to purchase or acquire rolling stock to operate the transfer station. Since rolling stock equipment needs to be replaced over the life of the operation, it is better to show those costs in the operations portion of the budget. These numbers only indicate the up-front or static costs of building the transfer station.

The following table presents a Development and Construction budget template, including estimated costs.

These costs may significantly vary depending on scope, contractor, and inflation. All cost estimates are given in USD at the current-day value. Please note that all Professional Services estimates are based on the assumption that the County will hire an outside consultant to perform the given task. The Professional Services cost estimates are not based on actual quotes or hourly rates, but are rather broad estimates based on industry expertise. The figures can vary significantly based on the specific attributes of a site and other factors.

Table 3 - Transfer Station Development and Construction Budget (FY 2025-29)

Phase Task Estimated Cost (Present Day USD) Fiscal Year Notes

Phase One

Site Study 45,000 2025 Professional Services

Public Outreach 30,000 2025 Professional Services

Budgeting 150,000 2025-29 Professional Services

Solid Waste Management Plan

200,000 2025 Professional Services

Site Acquisition 1,000,000 2025 See Phase One Memo for land cost assumptions

Phase Two Facility Plan 50,000 2026 Professional Services

Facility Design 100,000 2026 Professional Services

Phase Three Permitting 600,000 2027-29 Professional Services and Fees

Phase Four Procurement Services 100,000 2027-28 Professional Services

Engineering Designs 150,000 2028 Professional Services

Phase Five Construction 6,420,000 2028-29 See Development and

Construction Budget

Project Management 200,000 2028-29 Professional Services

Phase Six (See O&M Budget)

TOTAL: 9,045,000

3.3 Operation and Maintenance Budget

3.3.1 Operations Costs (Annual)

Operational costs are the annual costs associated with the operations of the transfer station. This includes the cost of labor, rolling stock costs, and maintenance of the facility. These tend to be relatively steady annual costs and can be refined as actual labor needs and rolling stock prices are quoted. Hauling and disposal costs can be more volatile and are discussed separately. Assumptions for the operating costs are as follows:

• Operating 276 days/year at 10-hour days, Monday through Friday for 10 hours/day, with a half-day on Saturday and 13 holidays. The Project Team estimated the cross-over shifts with the number of employees, including 20% for overtime labor costs. (Please note that this assumption was made for the purposes of calculating costs, with actual operations expected to be 312 days/year, Monday- Saturday.)

• A third party would handle hauling and disposal, which are a separate cost.

• Five (5) walking-floor trailers are included in the capital cost as spare trailers that the County would own for emergency overflow situations.

• Building capital costs are amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the facility at 6.0% interest.

• Rolling stock equipment is amortized over the assumed 6-year lifespan of the equipment3 at a 4.5% lending rate.

• The cost model includes a 10% contingency on operations and maintenance (O&M).

• Office expenses represent administrative costs associated with the operation of the transfer station but not other county operations.

• Facility security is assumed to be already maintained by Authority Personnel.

• Insurance is based on 1.0% of Building and Equipment and Labor Annual Costs. It should be noted that an increase in the number of fires at facilities due to lithium-ion batteries may increase this assumption in the near future.

• Sales Tax is assumed to be 4.0% on supplies.

• Labor applies the total annual cost of an employee, including benefits and employer-paid taxes.

Salaried employees did not receive an overtime adjustment.

• Labor estimates include 20% overtime for hourly labor (Saturdays) and a 28.7% markup for associated benefit costs for all labor.

Table 4 – Estimated Rolling Stock Capital Costs

Capital Stock Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Annual Cost Front End Loader $330,000 1 $330,000 $62,861 Front End Loader (Small) $250,000 1 $250,000 $47,622 Skid Steer $45,000 1 $45,000 $8,572 Yard Dog Tractor $100,000 1 $100,000 $19,049 Roll-off boxes (lot of 5) $25,000 4 $100,000 $95,244 Spare (Emergency Volume) Walking Floor Trailers (53’) $100,000 5 $500,000 $19,049

Total $1,325,000 $252,397

3 The rolling stock may last longer than the indicated lifespan but frequently will require major overhauls and/or repairs at this juncture making the annual cost similar to the estimated annual cost.

Table 5 - Labor Estimates and Associated Costs

Personnel Number of Personnel Total Annual Cost Facility Operations Manager 1 $131,783 Office Manager 1 $90,167 Admin Assistant 1 $76,295 Scale Attendants 2 $120,061 Shift Supervisors1 2 $207,808 Wheel Loader Operators 3 $249,808 Maintenance Mechanic 1 $85,835 General Laborer 2 $95,576

Annual Total Labor Cost $1,055,655

(1) It is assumed that the shift Supervisors have a split schedule and, during overlap provide relief for loader operators as well as other potential site operations needs

The other operation costs consist of line items such as the above-mentioned administrative costs, building maintenance, water, sewer, fuel, insurance, etc. The total annual operating costs (without labor) are shown below in Table 6. This assumes a county-owned and operated facility. Private entities may also require additional overhead and profit costs.

Table 6 – Operations and Maintenance Costs (without Labor)

Facility Cost Annual Cost

Equipment Parts and Maintenance $18,750

Supplies $3,000

Utilities (gas, water, sewer) $4,663

Mobile Equipment Fuel $84,822

Mobile Equipment Maintenance (Routine) $66,250

Environmental Testing/Monitoring $12,000

Plant Rental / Leasing $10,557

Safety Supplies $10,557

Subtotal Facility Costs $210,598

Other O&M Costs Annual Cost

Office expense $3,000

Building Maintenance and Repairs $52,000

Security Expense $0

Insurance $43,037

State Sales Tax $3,451

Equipment Replacement Fund $0

Subtotal Other O&M Costs $102,549

Total O&M Costs (w/o Contingency) $313,147

Contingency (10%) $31,315

Total Annual O&M Costs $344,461

As the budget is refined, all these costs will need to be calculated and estimated based on actual rates and requirements for the County. The summary of these costs is shown in Table 8 below, along with the hauling costs discussed in the next section.

3.3.2 Hauling and Disposal Costs

Hauling and disposal costs make up the largest O&M expense at a transfer station, usually amounting to approximately 65% of the total annual costs. It is assumed that this will be performed under contract by a third party, although the County could also perform it. A cost of $4 per mile (roundtrip) for the hauling of the waste was assumed for the annual budget. The average distance to each location was assumed to be 133 miles (roundtrip) for a total haul cost per trip (max of two trips per day) of $532.00. The actual mileage will be dependent on the final transfer station location.

The costs for disposal may also change closer to the time of construction as well and will have to be negotiated with the disposal facilities to finalize the budget. The average tip fee (assuming a 20% discount from published) of two regional landfill locations calculates to approximately $48 per ton. It is assumed that each trailer can haul 22 tons of material per load, which requires proper loading of each trailer to achieve these weights. The annual costs of hauling and disposal are shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7 – Hauling and Disposal Cost Estimates

Description Annual Cost

Hauling Costs $1,468,320

Disposal Costs $2,470,997

Total - Hauling and Disposal Costs $3,939,317

Depending on how the third party negotiates its costs, hauling costs can be calculated on a per-mile basis or per day. If the County is doing the hauling, the costs can be calculated similarly, with the capital cost of the truck, trailer, driver, fuel, maintenance, and insurance wrapped up into the daily operations costs or the miles traveled per day.

Negotiating the disposal costs at the regional landfills, including details such as daily tonnage limits and actual contracted disposal costs with guaranteed tonnages, can significantly affect the overall annual cost.

The County will need to negotiate the final fee with the final waste disposal sites.

The cost per ton will then be based on the total amount of tonnage received. This can vary depending on assumptions based on location and competition for commercial loads. As the tonnage increases, the cost per ton of the O&M and capital costs for the transfer station decrease, but the hauling and disposal cost per ton remains the same.

The total costs for the transfer station are summarized in Table 8 below, showing the total annual cost of operating the transfer station and hauling and disposing of the waste being $6,130,885 per year. Of these costs, approximately 36% is the capital and O&M costs, while the hauling and disposal is 64% of the cost, highlighting the need to find the best value for disposing of the transfer station tonnage. With an incoming estimated tonnage of 51,402 TPY, the total cost equates to a cost of $119.27 per received ton.

Table 8 – Summary of Capital, O&M w/ Labor, and Hauling and Disposal Costs for Transfer Station

Costs Est. Annual Cost Building and Grounds Improvement Capital Costs 1 $539,055 Rolling Stock Capital Costs $252,397

Total O&M (w/o labor) with Contingency, Overhead, & Profit $344,461 Labor Costs $1,055,655 Hauling and Disposal Costs $3,939,317

Total Annual Costs $6,130,885

(1) Annual Cost is the $7.42 million amortized over 30 years at 6.0% interest. This is not the full cost as indicated in Table

3, but the costs only directly associated with the Transfer Station capital costs for a year-one annual operational cost estimate.

3.4 Public Outreach

The County may need to create a public and/or stakeholder engagement strategy based on the level of project buy-in necessary to move forward with the construction of a new transfer station. The strategy may include an online survey, phone survey, public meetings, and stakeholder interviews and can target specific groups (e.g., large waste generators, businesses, haulers, residents). The scope and timeline for outreach implementation will depend on the goals of the outreach strategy as determined by the Board of Supervisors and the level of public engagement and buy-in necessary to move this project forward.

3.5 Solid Waste Management Plan

Supposing the County were to discontinue its participation in Region2000 to meet its future solid waste management needs, it will need to draft its own Solid Waste Management Plan, submit it to the Commonwealth of Virginia every 20 years, and update it every five years. This is a significant effort that will likely require 16-20 months of staff work and will likely require an outside consultant as current staff will not have the capacity for this work. Virginia regulation 9VAC20-130-120 includes the following planning requirements:

A. Basic planning elements:

1. Objectives for solid waste management within the planning unit.

2. A discussion as to how the plan will be implemented and tracked, consisting of an integrated waste management strategy to support and promote the hierarchy set forth at 9VAC20-130-30;

and giving preference to alternatives in the following order of priority: source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, incineration, and landfilling.

3. Definition of incremental stages of progress toward the objectives and schedule for their implementation, including for compliance with 9VAC20-81-450, specific solid waste management facility names, facility capacities, and life, based on 20-year need.

4. Strategy for the provision of necessary funds and resources.

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

6. Strategy for public education and information on source reduction, reuse, and recycling.

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

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title9/agency20/chapter130/section30/ https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title9/agency20/chapter81/section450/

B. A minimum recycling rate as specified in § 10.1-1411 of the Code of Virginia for total municipal solid waste generated annually in each solid waste planning unit shall be met and maintained.

1. The plan shall describe how the minimum recycling rate shall be met or exceeded. The director may approve the solid waste management plans of units that do not currently meet the minimum recycling rate only if all other requirements of this chapter have been met and the solid waste planning unit demonstrates its commitment to implementing a strong and detailed action plan for recycling to meet the required rate.

2. When a solid waste planning unit's annual recycling rate falls below the minimum rate, it shall constitute evidence of a significant deviation from the plan. The plan may be subject to revocation by the department under 9VAC20-130-110 E unless the solid waste planning unit submits a recycling action plan acceptable to the department per subsection I of this section.

C. The solid waste management plan shall include data and analyses of the following type for each jurisdiction. Each item listed in this subsection shall be in a separate section and labeled as to content:

1. Population information and projections for 20 years of population growth and development patterns.

2. Urban concentrations, geographic conditions, economic growth and development, markets for the reuse and recycling of materials, transportation conditions, and related factors.

3. Estimates of solid waste generation from residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, construction, demolition debris, and other types of sources, including the amounts reused, recycled, recovered as a resource, incinerated, and landfilled. Entities engaged in the collection, processing, and marketing of recyclable materials should provide data for incorporation into the recycling rate calculation when requested by the planning unit.

4. A listing of existing and planned solid waste collection, storage, treatment, transportation, disposal, and other management facilities, their projected capacities, expected life, and systems for their use.

5. All milestones in the implementation of the solid waste management plan over the 20-year projection and the parties responsible for each milestone.

6. A description of programs for solid waste reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, incineration, storage, treatment, disposal, and litter control.

7. A description of outreach programs for waste exchange, public education, and public participation.

8. The procedures for and results of evaluating solid waste collection, including transfer stations.

9. The assessment of all current and predicted needs for solid waste management for a period of 20 years and a description of the action to be taken to meet those needs.

D. All known solid waste disposal sites, closed, inactive, 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 and a copy shall be sent to the department. All new sites shall be recorded at the same central data source.

E. A methodology shall be utilized 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 and a copy shall be sent to the department.

F. The solid waste management plan shall include, when developed locally, a copy of the local governing body's resolution adopting the solid waste management plan.

G. When the solid waste management plan is developed regionally, the solid waste management plan shall include a copy of the resolution of the solid waste planning unit approving the plan adopted in accordance with the Regional Cooperation Act, the Virginia Water and Waste https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/10.1-1411/ https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title9/agency20/chapter130/section110/

Authorities Act, the provisions of the Code of Virginia governing joint exercise of powers by political subdivisions (§ 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia), or other authority as applicable. The plan shall specify the solid waste planning unit's legal authority to adopt the solid waste management plan.

H. The solid waste management plan shall clearly and explicitly demonstrate the manner in which the goals of the planning requirements in this chapter shall be accomplished and actions to take if these requirements are not met.

I. A planning unit that does not meet the requirements of these regulations shall submit an action plan, by mail or electronic mail, for approval by the department. Such action plans shall include:

1. A description of the deficiency that requires the development of the action plan.

2. A time schedule to resolve the deficiency associated with the planning unit's failure to meet the requirements of the approved solid waste management plan.

3. A reporting requirement to the department of a minimum of once every six months, including activities or updates documenting how the action plan requirements are being met.

4. Plans and all subsequent reports and submittals shall be reviewed by the department within 30 days of receipt by the department.

5. All the department's requests for further information or responses shall be provided within 30 days of receipt at the planning unit. The department may grant reasonable extensions to these deadlines on a case-by-case basis.

3.6 Deliverable: Site Selection and Acquisition

Phase One concludes with selecting and acquiring a site for the transfer station. (Note that if a site requires rezoning, this may impact the overall timeline.)

4 Phase Two: Planning and Design Time frame: April – September 2025

4.1 Facility Plan

Once the County has secured a site, it must create a detailed facility plan. The County may choose to engage an Architecture and Engineering (A&E) Firm at this stage in the process, or it can work with a Solid Waste Management Planning consultant to develop a more specific scope, and engage an A&E Firm once a basic facility plan is already in place. The plan should include the following components:

4.1.1 Maintenance Plan

• List of all equipment and associated maintenance needs

• Update maintenance costs

4.1.2 Risk Management Assessment

• Identification of potential risks and mitigation strategies.

• Contingency planning for delays, budget overruns, and technical issues.

• Options for waste outlets and cost requirements for prolonged diversion (if a final waste destination is no longer viable)

• Competitive analysis (if another transfer station opens nearby and draws tonnage away)

4.1.3 Staffing

• Create and describe new positions required for the transfer station operation.

• Update County organizational structure to include facility staff https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/15.2-1300/

4.2 Facility Design

Once the facility plan is complete, the County will need a detailed facility design. To do this, the County must finalize site functionality requirements and the associated approximate footprint of all site buildings and infrastructure. A design team will then be needed to provide both the preliminary and detailed designs.

The Facility Design should include the following components:

• Provide traffic flow needs, parking, and other outbuildings for either a specific or generic site.

• Design the transfer station requirements, including the square footage of the tip floor for MSW and recyclables, storage needs, and the number of bays/loading areas.

• Outline square footage and utility needs for all buildings.

• Design leachate and stormwater control systems.

• Address any special requirements based on location (offsets, traffic access, rail crossings).

• Ensure designs meet solid waste permitting requirements.

• Incorporate resilience considerations and future-proofing strategies.

• Specify materials and aesthetic requirements.

4.3 Zoning and Regulatory Approvals

The County must secure zoning approvals for the selected site, ensure designs meet all relevant regulatory standards, and obtain necessary approvals.

4.4 Deliverable: Funding and Budget Approvals

After Phase Two, the County will need to obtain approvals for funding and the overall budget for the project before breaking ground.

5 Phase Three: Permitting and Approvals Time frame: October 2025 – September 2029

5.1 Permit Applications

The permitting process must begin with the correct site zoning in place.

Permitting will need to occur in conjunction with the Facility Design and Detailed Design phases, depending on the needs of the permits. Facilities need to be designed to an allowable completion necessary for the permitting based on the local requirements, which vary by location and are generally between 10% and 30% complete. The following permits will be necessary to obtain:

• Solid Waste Permit: This permit will be fundamental to accepting MSW at the site. The estimated tonnage daily limits and the Facility Design drawings should be sufficient to start this process.

• Utility and Groundwork permitting.

• Building permitting, including electrical, fire, and sewer.

• Final occupancy permitting.

5.2 Deliverable: Complete Permitting Process

At the end of Phase Three, the County must complete the permitting process.

6 Phase Four: Engineering Design Time frame: April 2026 – October 2026

6.1 Procurement

To obtain the Engineering Designs, the County will need to establish the scope of procurement needs and requirements. This will require the County to establish how the construction will be managed (i.e., who acts as general contractor: the County or a contractor; does the County act as general contractor for land upgrades but another entity oversees buildings and structures). This will depend on the overall project structure.

The County will then need to generate and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) with site needs and requirements, as well as selection criteria, and distribute it with enough time for qualified entities to respond properly (60 days). To procure the A&E firm, the County will need to allocate time to write the RFP (potentially with the assistance of an outside consultant), advertise, go through the bidding process, and go through the awarding process.

6.2 Contractor Selection

The County will then utilize the selection criteria from the previous task to narrow down and eventually select the contractor(s) for the transfer station and other requirements. The County can work with the chosen party to finalize the construction timeline.

6.3 Deliverable: Detailed Engineering Design

At the end of Phase Four, the County should have a final detailed engineering design in hand, including the final footprint and elevation drawings for all required buildings and necessary infrastructure for construction.

7 Phase Five: Construction and Commissioning Time frame: October 2026 - April 2028

7.1 Construction

Over the course of the Transfer Station construction period, the County will need to execute its oversight plan, with Monitoring and Quality Control Checks performed by an outside firm, an existing staff position, or a new position).

7.2 Commissioning and Operational Testing

Once construction is complete, the County must oversee system testing, safety checks, and quality assurance for all systems.

7.3 Secure Final Material Destination Agreements

The County must secure daily, monthly, or yearly allowable tonnages and tipping fees with regional landfill locations. It should establish minimum and maximum permissible tonnages with multiple regional locations and agree upon a tip fee for these locations.

7.4 Hauling

The County must establish and sign hauling contracts for anticipated tonnages to contracted destinations.

Timelines for these contracts will need to be negotiated. Contracts with haulers can be set for one year or multiple years with the possibility of extensions. Typically, a hauler contract cannot be extended beyond ten years.

Rather than contracting for hauling services, the County may purchase its hauling vehicles, hire drivers, and keep the hauling in-house. (Please note that this is not currently included in the budget but can be considered when the detailed budget is created.)

7.5 Deliverable: Complete Construction

Phase Five concludes at the end of the building period once facility construction is complete.

8 Phase Six: Operational Transition January 2029 - September 2029

8.1 Staff Hiring, Training & Operational Readiness

The County must write job descriptions, advertise the positions, and complete the hiring process. The County must then develop detailed training programs covering all operational aspects, including waste handling, safety procedures, equipment use, and emergency protocols. It will need to allocate staff time, finalize job descriptions, make salary determinations, and hire staff. It must also create and finalize the necessary training manuals and standard operating procedures.

To ensure operational readiness, the County should perform comprehensive testing of all systems, including waste sorting, handling, and transportation mechanisms, and verify the functionality of safety systems, such as fire suppression and emergency shutdown procedures. When testing the systems, the County must ensure all operations comply with local, state, and federal regulations.

8.2 Deliverable: Transition Operations

At the end of Phase Six, the County will be ready to transition operations from the landfill to the transfer station.

9 Increased Recycling Capabilities The following section discusses additional costs and infrastructural considerations if the County improves its recycling and resource recovery capabilities.

9.1 Volume and Composition

As the County has not performed a recent waste characterization, the following estimate of the volume of recyclable material in the waste stream is based on the following data sources:

1. Kent County Waste and Recycling Composition Study (2021)4

4 GBB Report

2. Pennsylvania Statewide Waste Composition Study (2022)5

3. Mecklenburg County, NC Single Stream Waste Composition Study (2019)6

9.1.1 Residential Volume and Composition

The following table shows the projected waste generation rate based on the current recycling programs and rates.

FY Residential

MSW

Residential Recycling

Residential Generation

FY 29-30 26,341 536 26,877

FY 39-40 27,006 549 27,555

FY 49-50 28,055 571 28,626

FY 58-59 29,037 591 29,628

The following table shows the estimated waste composition of Campbell County residential MSW for Fiscal Year 2029-30 and includes the total tons of recyclable material in the waste stream. The residential and commercial percentages of each material are the average of the composition from Kent County and the State of Pennsylvania studies.