Technical Memo Solid Waste Management System Analysis 3-1-24.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

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.

Plante & Moran, PLLC

Campbell County, VA

Technical Memorandum:

Solid Waste Management System Assessment

March 1, 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

Solid Waste Management System Assessment

March 1, 2024

Project Team:

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

Regina Cagle Irr, P.E., Mark Gutberlet, P.E. (EA) Adam Ben-Moche (Plante Moran)

GERSHMAN, BRICKNER & BRATTON, INC.

8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 500 • Vienna, VA 22182

703.573.5800 • www.gbbinc.com

© 2024 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.

i

Table of Contents 1 Background

1.1 Campbell County Solid Waste Needs

1.2 Memo Goal

2 Solid Waste Generation, Collection, and Disposal

2.1 Solid Waste Generated and Disposed

2.2 MSW Collection

2.3 MSW Disposal

3 MSW Tonnage Projections

4 Solid Waste Management Facility Scenarios

4.1 Net Present Value (NPV)

4.2 Breakeven Tip Fee

4.3 Transfer Station

4.3.1 Disposal

4.4 Landfill Expansion

4.5 New Landfill Development

4.6 Break Even Tip Fee: Regional Tonnage Variations

5 Additional Investments and Considerations

5.1 Knowledge Gaps

5.2 Curbside Recycling

5.3 Improved Drop-Off Sites

5.4 Food Waste

5.5 Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

6 Scenario Evaluation

6.1 Evaluation Framework

6.2 Discussion

7 Appendices

Appendix A – Additional Project Background

A.1 - Consultant Team Members A.2 - Data Sources A.3 - Campbell County, Virginia A.4 - Region 2000 & Region 2000 Services Authority

Appendix B– Definitions

Appendix C – Campbell County Solid Waste Management System Details

C.1 - Residential Waste & Recycling C.2 - Commercial Waste & Recycling

Appendix D– Regional Disposal Facilities

Appendix E– Rural Waste Transfer Green Box Sites

Appendix F– Region 2000 Landfill

Appendix G– Waste Projections ii

Appendix H– Transfer Station Development Considerations

H.1 - Transfer Station Development Considerations H.2 - Data Assumptions H.3 - Cost Model Assumptions and Methodology

Appendix I– Landfill Expansion and New Landfill Considerations

I.1 - Regional Landfill Expansion I.2 - New Landfill Development I.3 - Landfill Development Costs I.4 - Regulatory Review I.5 - Permitting Pathways I.6 - USDA Web Soil Survey – Livestock Road Landfill I.7 - National Wetlands Inventory - Livestock Road Landfill

List of Tables Table 1 - FY2022-23: Waste Generated, Recycled, Disposed (Tons) Table 2 - Tonnage Projections - 30 Years Table 3 – Solid Waste Projections Sum Total (FY 2029-30 to FY 2058-29) Table 4 - Summary of Facility Scenarios and Associated Options Table 5 - Total Project Cost (Net Present Value) Table 6 - Breakeven Tip Fee Table 7 - Tip Fee Discount Impact on Transfer Station NPV Table 8 - Regional Disposal Sites Table 9 - Landfill Expansion Summary Table 10 - New Landfill Summary Table 11 - County Waste Generation Table 12 - Common Commercial Haulers in Campbell County by Disposal Amount Table 13 - Transfer Sites Information Table 14 - Campbell County and Regional Waste Projection (Tons), 1994-2059 Table 15 - Potential Landfill Destinations Table 16 - County Only: Total breakdown of fixed initial capital costs w/ contingency Table 17 - County Only: Rolling Stock Capital Costs Table 18 - County Only: Labor estimates and associated costs Table 19 - County Only: Overall costs of the capital, labor, and operations of the transfer facility Table 20 - County Only: Costs for hauling and disposal of the waste (Average location and tip fees) Table 21 - County Only: Overall cost of operating the transfer station for in-County MSW Table 22 - Regional Option: Total breakdown of the capital costs Table 23 - Regional Option: Capital Rolling Stock Table 24 - Regional Option: Labor estimates and associated costs Table 25 - Regional Option: Overall costs of the capital, labor, and operations Table 26 - Cost for hauling and disposal Table 27 - Overall cost of operating the transfer station Table 28 - Cost per Ton for Regional Option Transfer Station with Variable Out-of-County Waste Table 29 - Landfill Disposal Capacity Summary iii

Table 30 - Disposal Facility Development Costs Table 31 - Landfill Siting Regulatory Summary Table 32 - VDEQ SWMF Permit Process Summary

List of Figures Figure 1 – Regional Landfill Locations Figure 2 - Campbell County Population Density (2020) Figure 3 - Locations of the Rural Transfer Sites in Campbell County With 5-mile Radii Figure 4 - FY 2022 Tonnage Received at Transfer Sites Figure 5 – Transfer Site Images Figure 6 - The Donation Shack at the Concord Transfer Site Figure 7 - Site Conditions at Livestock Road Convenience Center on Aug 16, 2023 Figure 8 - USDA Web Soil Survey - Livestock Road Landfill Figure 9 - National Wetlands Inventory - Livestock Road Landfill

1 Background

1.1 Campbell County Solid Waste Needs

Campbell County is in the Piedmont region of the Commonwealth of Virginia and borders the Blue Ridge Mountains. Primarily rural, it has large areas of suburban development around the City of Lynchburg, a population center in this region of the state. Campbell County is obligated to ensure the sanitary and guaranteed disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) produced by its residents and businesses.1 With its current disposal infrastructure, the County has an estimated 6 years of disposal capacity remaining at the Regional Landfill on Livestock Road (Regional Landfill) in Campbell County, with 2029 as the estimated year of closure. Given the complexity of planning new MSW disposal infrastructure, 6 years of remaining capacity is a relatively short timeframe. The Regional Landfill is currently owned and operated by Region 2000 Services Authority (“Region 2000”).

As the Regional Landfill is reaching capacity, the County is considering the construction of a transfer station to meet its long-term solid waste management needs. This Technical Memorandum (Memo) explores the cost implications and critical considerations of the construction and operation of a new transfer station, compared to other possible solid waste management solutions, which are landfill expansion at the current site (there is available land if the County were to purchase from Region 2000 and permit an expansion) and the construction of a new landfill elsewhere within the County (for which no site has been identified as part of this evaluation).

Currently, the County is a member of Region 2000, which currently owns and operates the Regional Landfill.

This Memo presents options for the County to consider in which it does and does not maintain membership in Region 2000 to meet its future solid waste management needs.

This Memo was prepared by Gershman, Brickner, & Bratton (GBB) with the assistance of EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Inc., PBC (EA) and Plante Moran (together comprising the Project Team). Please see Appendix A – Additional Project Background for additional background Information, including information about the Consulting Project Team, Campbell County, and Region 2000. See Appendix B– Definitions for definitions of terminology used through this Memo.

1.2 Memo Goal

This Memo, and an accompanying presentation, is the culmination of Phase One of the County’s solid waste evaluation process, during which time the County evaluates the high-level cost implications of solid waste disposal scenarios. Phase One of the project took place between June 2023 through March 2024. The goal of Phase One is to provide the Campbell County Board of Supervisors (BOS) with the information they need in order to move forward with a solid waste management strategy. Once the BOS chooses a path forward, Phase Two of this process will be the development of a 5-Year Tactical Plan, which will include a detailed implementation strategy, timeline, estimated costs, anticipated cost reductions or revenues that could be gained with implementation, and anticipated change(s) in recycling and disposal tonnages.

1 It is the policy of the Virginia Waste Management Board to require all designated regions, as well as each city, county and town not part of such a region, to develop comprehensive and integrated 20-year solid waste management plans (SWMPs) that, at a minimum, consider and address all components of the following hierarchy: source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery (waste-to-energy), incineration and landfilling. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, “Local, State and Regional Solid Waste Planning”, Source;

https://www.deq.virginia.gov/our-programs/land-waste/solid-hazardous-waste/solid-waste/local-state-and-regional-solid-waste-planning

2 Solid Waste Generation, Collection, and Disposal Campbell County residents and businesses generated just over 70,000 tons of solid waste materials in fiscal year 2022-23. The cost analysis in this memo is based on projected tons of residential and commercial MSW disposed. Therefore, scenarios were developed based on MSW landfilled, which applies the current recycling rates to waste generated and removes recycled materials from the waste stream.

The MSW that originated in Campbell County and is disposed at the Regional Landfill is split almost evenly, in terms of tonnage, between commercial and residential solid waste generators, with just over 26,300 tons of residential MSW and just over 25,000 tons of commercial MSW disposed at the landfill in FY2022-

23. Note that these figures represent solid waste after recyclables are removed from the waste stream.

This Memo does not address agricultural waste, industrial waste, hazardous waste, and other waste types that are not currently managed by the Regional Landfill. See Appendix C – Campbell County Solid Waste Management System Details for additional information about the County solid waste management system.

2.1 Solid Waste Generated and Disposed

Of the 70,000 tons solid waste generated, over 51,000 tons were disposed of at the Regional Landfill, while nearly 19,000 tons of material were recycled. See Table 1 for solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal details,.

Table 1 - FY2022-23: Waste Generated, Recycled, Disposed (Tons)

Campbell County Population: 55,718

MSW Disposed

Residential 26,322 tons

Commercial 25,044 tons

Total 51,366 tons

Recycling

Residential 535 tons 2% Recycling

Rate Commercial 18,138 tons 42%

Total 18,673 tons 27%

Total Generation 70,039 tons

2.2 MSW Collection

There are two categories of solid waste collection (or “hauling”) within Campbell County:

1. Self-hauling (Residential): residents take their household waste to one of the nine (9) in-County waste transfer sites, also referred to as Green Box sites:

Eight (8) of which are rural One (1) is the larger convenience center on Livestock Road

Two (2) of these sites also accept recyclables. Residents of the County drop off household waste free-of-charge at the Green Box sites. It is unknown how many households participate in utilizing these transfer sites, but the tonnages from these sites are referred to as Residential in this memo as nearly all of the solid waste collected at the Green Box sites is residential and self-hauled.

2. Commercial Hauling: permitted commercial haulers collect trash and recyclable materials from residential and commercial customers that subscribe to their services and haul the waste to the Regional Landfill, a different disposal facility, or resource recovery facility.

In addition to these two categories, the towns of Altavista and Brookneal haul their MSW to the regional facility and the County pays the tip fee for that tonnage.

The number of households that pay for waste hauling services is unknown, but their residential waste is captured and classified in this Memo as Commercial, because it is hauled by commercial haulers and is charged the commercial rate at the landfill.

2.3 MSW Disposal

Currently, nearly all the MSW generated in the County, and in the Region 2000 member jurisdictions, is disposed of at the Regional Landfill. The Regional Landfill is currently owned and operated by Region 2000.

Without a landfill expansion and with current waste generation and diversion rates, the landfill is projected to reach full capacity by end of calendar year 2029.

See Appendix F– Region 2000 Landfill for additional information about the Regional Landfill.

3 MSW Tonnage Projections MSW tonnage projections were developed to determine the County’s solid waste management needs through the 30-year planning period, fiscal year 2029-30 to fiscal year 2058-59. Table 2 shows the projected annual tons of MSW that will require disposal, both County-only and all the MSW of Region 2000 members, inclusive of Campbell County.

Table 2 - Tonnage Projections - 30 Years

County-Only MSW for Disposal Regional MSW for Disposal

Fiscal Year

Population Residential Commercial Total Total

29-30 55,756 26,341 25,061 51,402 203,947

38-39 57,043 26,949 25,639 52,588 208,582

48-49 59,155 27,946 26,589 54,535 213,855

58-59 61,465 29,037 27,627 56,664 219,262

Based on these projections, Table 3 summarizes the sum total of in-County waste projected to be sent for disposal, as well as the sum total of all solid waste projected to be sent for disposal that originated in the jurisdictions that currently comprise Region 2000, over the course of the 30-year planning period.

Therefore, the numbers below show the estimated total amount of MSW that will require disposal over the 30-year period. The Campbell County row, as shown in Table 3, shows the total tons of MSW originating in the County. The Region 2000 row shows the total tons of MSW originating in the region.

Table 3 – Solid Waste Projections Sum Total (FY 2029-30 to FY 2058-29)

Originating Source of MSW for Disposal Sum Total (Tons)

Campbell County 1,612,000

Region 2000 6,346,000

See Appendix G– Waste Projections for a detailed annual tonnage projection table as well as the methodology and assumptions for arriving at these figures.

4 Solid Waste Management Facility Scenarios In considering how the County will manage its solid waste from fiscal year 2029-30 through 2059, the Project Team evaluated three Facility Scenarios:

1. Transfer Station: the construction of a new transfer station as a location to aggregate MSW and then haul it to a regional solid waste and/or recycling facility outside of the County.

2. Landfill Expansion: horizontal expansion of the existing Regional Landfill.

3. New Landfill: development of a new landfill in the County.

Each Scenario includes the consideration of the following operating and waste intake Options:

County Waste County-Owned

This option describes the cost and additional factors if the County were to build a facility on its own, and process solely its own MSW. The County would thus discontinue participating in Region 2000 to meet its future solid waste management needs, and address only its own waste needs. Under this option, the Scenarios (i.e., facilities) are sized for the disposal of County-generated waste projected to require disposal over the 30-year planning period: 1,612,000 tons.

County Waste Regionally-Owned

This option most closely resembles the current status quo. It describes the cost and additional factors if the County were to maintain membership with Region 2000 and Region 2000 was to build a facility to process regional MSW. As Campbell County waste accounts for approximately 25% of the total regional waste landfilled currently, this option is calculated as one-quarter of the total Regional cost to manage regional waste. (This option assumes the facility and waste management costs to be split among the Region 2000 members solely based on their share of waste landfilled. While this 25% approach creates a standard and simplified basis of comparison, the implementation of this option would necessitate more complex cost-sharing calculations.) The County would thus continue participating in Region 2000 to meet its future solid waste management needs. Under this option, the Scenarios (i.e. facilities) are sized for the disposal of regionally-generated waste projected to require disposal over the 30-year planning period: 6,346,000 tons.

Regional Waste County-Owned

This option gives the County the opportunity to be a regional solid waste disposal provider, while also meeting its MSW disposal needs. The County would thus discontinue participating in Region 2000 to meet its future solid waste management needs, but process in- and out-of-County waste. This option helps demonstrate the outcomes of aggregating waste, leading to improved efficiencies, cost savings, and economies of scale. This option assumes that the County would take on the full project cost and could set tip fees for in- and out-of-County waste, and keep all income generated from its disposal. This option does not require the County to continue participating in Region 2000 to meet its future solid waste management needs. Under this option, the Scenarios (i.e. facilities) are sized for the disposal of regionally-generated waste projected to require disposal over the 30-year planning period: 6,346,000 tons.

Note: While these options explore the possibility of the County discontinuing membership within the Region 2000 framework to meet its own future solid waste management needs, the County will have to remain a member of the Regional Authority for the 30-year landfill post-closure period in all cases.

The following table summarizes the Facility Scenarios and associated Options:

Table 4 - Summary of Facility Scenarios and Associated Options

Facility Scenarios

MSW Requiring Disposal (Tons over 30-year Period)

Facility Capacity Facility Ownership

Regional County Regional County

County Waste County-Owned

1,612,000 🗸 🗸

County Waste Regionally- Owned

6,346,000

Regional Waste County-Owned

6,346,000 🗸 🗸

The Scenrio cost includes capital costs, as well as operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. To account for inflation over the project planning period, an inflation rate of 4.15% is utilized2, considering the historical trends of the consumer price index (CPI). For a detailed list and accounting of all expense inputs considered in the calculations, see Appendix H– Transfer Station Development Considerations and Appendix I– Landfill Expansion and New Landfill Considerations.

For the purpose of this analysis, revenues were not included in any of the calculations above. Revenue potential is considered in Section 6. Scenario Evaluation.

4.1 Net Present Value (NPV)

Table 5 shows the total project cost as the total net present value (NPV) in 2030 dollars. It includes capital as well as the operations and maintenance (O&M) costs over the 30-year project period (2030-2059). NPV provides a method of evaluating and comparing the three capital projects outlined in this memo when cash payments will be spread out over time. The NPV shows the total investment needed using the dollar value at year one of the project (2030), with the assumptions that the value of the dollar will decline with inflation over time.

Table 5 - Total Project Cost (Net Present Value)3

Transfer Station

Landfill Expansion

New Landfill

County Waste County-Owned $113,651,000 $190,075,000 $220,449,000

County Waste Regionally-Owned $83,843,500 $88,818,000 $101,488,000

Regional Waste County-Owned $335,369,000 $355,272,500 $405,952,500

2 For the new landfill and landfill expansion scenarios, a 6% inflation was applied to capital costs and 4.15% for O&M costs 3 US Dollars at 2030 estimated value, rounded to the nearest $500.

4.2 Breakeven Tip Fee

Table 6 shows the breakeven tip fee for each Facility Scenario and associated Options. The breakeven tip fee represents the cost per ton of waste to receive, process and dispose of that ton. To calculate the tip fee, the tons processed are divided by the project cost for the given year. The dollar amounts are given in the estimated dollar value of the given year, after the inflation rate has been applied.

Table 6 - Breakeven Tip Fee

FY 29-30 FY 38-39 FY 48-49 FY 58-59

Scenario Option Cost Tons

Break Even Tip

Fee Cost Tons

Break Even

Tip Fee Cost Tons

Break Even

Tip Fee Cost Tons

Break Even

Tip Fee

Transfer Station

County Waste County-Owned $5,987,324 51,402 $116 $7,698,623 52,588 $146 $10,288,551 54,535 $189 $13,901,527 56,664 $245

County Waste Regionally-Owned $4,429,545 51,402 $86 $5,711,410 52,588 $109 $7,560,378 54,535 $139 $10,059,970 56,664 $178

Regional Waste County-Owned $17,718,180 203,947 $87 $22,845,641 208,582 $110 $30,241,511 213,855 $141 $40,239,880 219,262 $184

Landfill Expansion

County Waste County-Owned $7,693,910 51,402 $150 $11,685,993 52,588 $222 $19,442,131 54,535 $357 $33,276,376 56,664 $587

County Waste Regionally-Owned $4,134,399 51,402 $80 $5,647,805 52,588 $107 $8,580,590 54,535 $157 $13,832,761 56,664 $244

Regional Waste County-Owned $16,537,596 203,947 $81 $22,591,221 208,582 $108 $34,322,360 213,855 $160 $55,331,042 219,262 $252

New Landfill

County Waste County-Owned $9,900,548 51,402 $193 $13,892,631 52,588 $264 $21,628,769 54,535 $397 $35,483,014 56,664 $626

County Waste Regionally-Owned $5,054,861 51,402 $98 $6,568,267 52,588 $125 $9,501,052 54,535 $174 $14,753,222 56,664 $260

Regional Waste County-Owned $20,219,443 203,947 $99 $26,273,068 208,582 $126 $38,004,207 213,855 $178 $59,012,889 219,262 $269

Each Scenario is described in more detail below.

4.3 Transfer Station

While facility ownership, size, and services offered vary significantly among transfer stations, they all serve the same basic purpose: consolidating waste from multiple collection vehicles into larger, high-volume transfer vehicles for economical shipment to distant disposal sites. In its simplest form, a transfer station is a facility with a designated receiving area (tip floor) where waste collection vehicles discharge their loads.

The waste is often compacted, then loaded into larger vehicles (usually transfer trailers, but intermodal containers, railcars, and barges are also used) for long-haul shipment to a final disposal site—typically a regional landfill, waste-to-energy plant, a materials recovery facility (MRF), recycling processor, or a composting facility. No long-term storage of waste occurs at a transfer station; waste is quickly consolidated and loaded into a larger vehicle and moved off-site, usually in a matter of hours.4

Due to the distance between Campbell County and viable waste disposal sites outside the County, this analysis assumes that it would not be economical to haul waste directly from the nine Green Box collection sites to an out-of-County landfill disposal location. Furthermore, this analysis assumes that commercial collection services would be significantly burdened by the additional time and hauling expense required to direct haul to a regional landfill. Therefore, in the absence of a local landfill, a transfer station would need to be constructed in order to meet County MSW disposal needs. In order to determine the cost of constructing and operating a transfer station, this Memo considers the following project elements:

Facility Size Construction Cost

O&M Costs Transportation Cost

Disposal Cost

See Appendix H– Transfer Station Development Considerations for details about each of these elements.

It is typical for landfills to offer a discounted tip rate for contracted tonnages with entities that can provide large and steady MSW tonnages over time. The common discount for consistent tonnage is 40% of the published tip fee. For the purposes of comparing the Transfer Station Scenario with the other Facility Scenarios, the model applies a more conservative 20% tip fee discount to the average tip fee between two potential final landfill disposal locations (see Table 8 - Regional Disposal Sites). Table 7 shows the impact of the tip fee expense and associated discount on the Net Present Value of the Transfer Station.

Table 7 - Tip Fee Discount Impact on Transfer Station NPV

Facility Scenario Tip Fee Discount Net Present Value

County Waste- County-Owned

None $122,415,000

20% $113,651,000

40% $104,900,000

County Waste Regionally-Owned

None $92,500,000

20% $83,842,000

40% $75,187,500

Regional Waste County-Owned

None $369,997,000

20% $335,369,000

40% $300,750,000

4 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making, Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5306W), EPA530-R-02-002, June 2002.

Depending on the tip fee discount and the total tons processed at the facility, the final disposal cost (based on tip fee at final disposal destination and the cost to transport the waste to the disposal location) makes up approximate 60-85% of the total project cost. The disposal cost, as a percent of the total project cost, is the lowest in the County Waste County-Owned scenario, because the facility is disposing fewer tons of MSW. In the Regional Waste-County Owned Scenario, the disposal cost makes up a greater percentage of the total project cost, because even though the facility is larger and more expensive to build and operate, the additional tons make up a far greater expense than the additional construction and O&M costs.

In summary (with conservative reduction of tip fees):

County Waste County-Owned: If the County were to build a transfer station, own it, and use it solely for County-generated waste, the NPV project cost would be approximately $113.65 million.

County Waste Regionally-Owned: If the County were to construct a Transfer Station in collaboration with Region2000 members, sized to process regional waste, and pay for 25% of the project cost, the NPV project cost would be $83.84 million.

Regional Waste County-Owned: If the County were to build and own a transfer station that accepted waste from throughout the region, the NPV project cost would be an estimated $335.36 million.

4.3.1 Disposal

In the Transfer Station Scenario, final disposal is a critical consideration, both in terms of cost and landfill space availability. While the following regional facilities have been identified and are considered potentially viable options as a final waste destination, more research is needed in order to ensure whether or not these facilities are willing and able to accept the County- or Region-generated waste.

The facilities below are within a 65-mile radius around the Regional Landfill. This distance enables two daily round trips by a tractor-trailer, each capable of hauling approximately 22 tons of waste. This Memo identified two potentially viable disposal locations in Pittsylvania County and Amelia County, outlined in Table 8. See – Regional Disposal Facilities for more detailed information about regional disposal options.

Table 8 - Regional Disposal Sites

Facility Miles from Livestock

Road

Ownership

Operation

Published Tipping

Fee

Waste Types Accepted

Current Daily

Disposal

Permitted Daily Waste

Intake

Current remaining Capacity5

Pittsylvania County Landfill (Dry Fork, VA)

Publicly owned

$41.00 /ton

MSW

tons

1,000 tons 75 years

Maplewood (Amelia) Landfill (Jetersville, VA)

Privately owned, and operated by WM

$79.18 /ton

MSW, CDD,

non-hazardous waste.

tons

7,000 tons 125 years

5 Sources: VA DEQ SWIA Forms (2022) and the 2022 Annual Solid Waste Report available at https://www.deq.virginia.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15488/637919249151430000.

If the County were to agree send its MSW to one or both of these facilities, it would be likely to receive a discount on the published fee. It is common that a 40% discount is applied to the published tip fee in such circumstances.

There are other options for disposal in the region in case either of these two locations are not available for disposal, but they add significant distance to the hauling. The issue becomes the drivetime for these locations. If the drivetime becomes greater than 2 hours one-way, then there is no way for a driver to carry two loads per day as the drive time alone is greater than 8 hours (and there would have to be time for the scalehouses and tipping the loads). This would require one truck per load per day, which would necessitate additional trucks and drivers and would thus significantly increase the cost of hauling.

The most viable option would be the privately owned Republic Brunswick Landfill that is 101 miles away (one-way) from the Livestock Road location. This is right on the edge of the two-hour limit for the trucks so two trips in a day may not be viable. The listed tip fee (in 2019) was $50, so the added hauling cost may make it similar to Amelia in terms of overall hauling and disposal costs, but the timing and number of trucks needed may make this a difficult option.

The next locations are less viable, with the Shoosmith Landfill near Petersburg being 109 miles away with an $80 tip fee (2019) and Republic Upper Piedmont Landfill in Rougemont, NC at 82 miles away ($49.00 per ton in 2019. However, issues may arise when crossing state lines with the waste.

Figure 1 – Regional Landfill Locations

The landfill in Lunenburg County (67 miles one-way) is privately owned and operated, but it seems to be under an agreement with the County and it is unknown if outside waste would be allowed, and the life expectancy is unknown. Another location is the Southside Regional landfill, which is owned and operated by a public authority and takes waste from Mecklenburg, Charlotte and Halifax Counties. It is unlikely that this location would take waste from Campbell without some sort of binding agreement.

4.4 Landfill Expansion

Expansion of existing landfills is often a relatively economical means of providing additional disposal capacity. Expansion of the existing Regional Landfill to accept County-only or Region 2000 waste is based on the utilization of adjacent parcels to the current landfill that are owned by Region 2000 and would require acquisition. As the actual tonnage of waste placed at the landfill site may vary based on in-place waste densities, landfill life will vary.

The following elements were taken into consideration in developing the Landfill Expansion Scenario:

Siting Regulatory Review

Permitting Pathways Construction Costs

O&M Costs

See Appendix I– Landfill Expansion and New Landfill Considerations for an in-depth description of each of these elements.

Based on conceptual sizing and available waste placement for the disposal options noted, the NPV of capital and O&M costs over the 30-year project period, and costs per ton of waste placement, are summarized in Table 9.

Table 9 - Landfill Expansion Summary

County Waste County-Owned

County Waste Regionally-Owned

Regional Waste County-Owned

Project Cost (NPV) $190,075,000 $88,818,000 $355,272,500

Annual Cost (in 2030 $) $7,694,000 $4,134,000 $16,537,500

Landfill Airspace (cubic yards) 3,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000

Landfill Cell Footprint (acre) 23 98 98

Landfill Cap Footprint (acre) 23 98 98

Waste Intake (Tons) 1,612,000 6,346,000 6,346,000

Estimated Landfill Life (Years) 27-33 25-31 25-31

County Waste County-Owned: If the County were to expand the landfill, own it, and use it solely for County-generated waste, the NPV project cost would be approximately $190.1 million.

County Waste Regionally-Owned: If the County were to expand the landfill sized to process regional waste in collaboration with Region2000 members, and pay for 25% of the project cost, the NPV project cost for the County would be $88.8 million.

Regional Waste County-Owned: If the County were to expand the landfill, own it, and accept waste from throughout the region, the NPV project cost would be an estimated $355.3 million.

4.5 New Landfill Development

The option to develop a new landfill is presented as a basis of comparison, although it is considered a challenging option. Siting a new landfill will be difficult considering the necessary parcel size and siting parameters; permitting burden requiring a 3-to-7-year horizon upon determination of a suitable site; and site development costs and construction duration that are significantly higher for new landfill development.

At the time of this analysis, no parcels have been identified for County acquisition for new landfill development (beyond project scope for this effort). The following elements were taken into consideration in developing the Landfill Expansion Scenario:

Siting Regulatory Review

Permitting Pathways Construction Costs

O&M Costs

See Appendix I– Landfill Expansion and New Landfill Considerations for an in-depth description of each of these elements.

Table 10 - New Landfill Summary

County Waste:

County-Owned

County Waste:

Regionally-Owned

Regional Waste:

County-Owned

Expenses (NPV) $220,449,000 $101,488,142 $405,952,566

Annual Cost (in 2030 $) $16,537,596 $5,054,861 $20,219,443

Landfill Airspace (cubic yards) 3,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000

Landfill Cell Footprint (acre) 32 118 118

Landfill Cap Footprint (acre) 32 118 118

Waste Intake (Tons) 1,612,000 6,346,000 6,346,000

Estimated Landfill Life (Years) 26-32 24-30 24-30

County Waste: County-Owned: If the County were to construct a new landfill, own it, and use it solely for County-generated waste, the NPV project cost would be approximately $220.4 million.

County Waste: Regionally-Owned: If the County were to construct a new landfill in collaboration with Region2000 members, sized to process regional waste, and pay for 25% of the project cost, the NPV project cost for the County would be $101.5 million.

Regional Waste: County-Owned: If the County were to construct a new landfill, own it, and accept waste from throughout the region, the NPV project cost would be an estimated $405.9 million.

4.6 Break Even Tip Fee: Regional Tonnage Variations

The model for comparing the different Facility Scenarios and Associated Options includes a Regional Waste County-Owned option, which describes the situation in which the County would build and operate a facility that has the capacity to process all the MSW generated in the region. The model assumes the Facility would capture 100% of regional waste. However, as there are competing facilities in the region, the actual MSW capture rate would likely be less than 100%. It is important to note that the breakeven tip fee would change based on a change in the percent of out-of-county waste captured. This is important to consider considering the other solid waste management facilities that may be coming online to service the region.

5 Additional Investments and Considerations The following section explores additional considerations to improve the long-term resilience and affordability of the County’s solid waste management system. The focus areas are:

Increasing Landfill Diversion Through Improved Recycling Diverting Organic Waste from the Landfill Upgrading the Transfer Station Scenario with Material Recovery Capabilities

The context for these considerations is a low residential recycling rate of 2%, minimal public effort to keep organic waste out of the waste stream, and limited regional capacity for material recovery. It is typical that recoverable materials (food waste and recyclable waste) comprise two-thirds of the waste stream. This suggests a tremendous opportunity to divert significant tonnage from the landfill. As Table 11 indicates, while the tons of MSW that require disposal will be around 55,000 tons per year, the amount of waste generated is close to 75,000. Decreasing the amount of waste that requires disposal can help decrease disposal costs, increase the use-life of disposal infrastructure, and improve environmental outcomes.

Increasing recycling can also help the County diversify its disposal methods, which creates greater resilience.

Table 11 - County Waste Generation

MSW Requiring Disposal Recycling

Fiscal Year

Population Residential Commercial Total Residential Recycling

Commercial Recycling

Total Recycling

Total Waste

Generation

29-30 55,756 26,341 25,061 51,402 536 18,151 18,686 70,088

38-39 57,043 26,949 25,639 52,588 548 18,570 19,118 71,706

48-49 59,155 27,946 26,589 54,535 568 19,257 19,825 74,360

58-59 61,465 29,037 27,627 56,664 591 20,009 20,599 77,264

Depending on the Facility Scenario and associated Option the County decides upon to dispose of its waste, there are several activities it can take to reduce the amount of waste that must be landfilled and improve its solid waste management system resilience. One of the focus areas to strengthen the resilience and affordability of Campbell County’s solid waste management system is to increase landfill diversion through improved residential and commercial recycling. Typically, this can be achieved through various measures including addressing knowledge gaps, implementing a curbside recycling program, improving drop-off sites so that all residents have the same local access to recycling, and removing food waste from the waste stream. If the County were to construct a Transfer Station, it could consider co-locating or upgrading the facility to include Material Recovery Facility (MRF) capabilities.

5.1 Knowledge Gaps

Efforts to improve the solid waste management system must be accompanied by improved tracking and measuring to ensure the efficacy of new programs and infrastructure. Several information gaps exist at the County level, such as the contents of its residential and business waste streams and current data on the amount of C&D waste that must be managed and the amount of recycling material that businesses generate and divert from the landfill. To address this knowledge gap, the County can consider performing periodic waste characterization studies of its waste and recycling streams.

5.2 Curbside Recycling

A popular way to significantly increase access to recycling is to institute a residential curbside recycling program. The costs associated with implementing a curbside recycling program include the cost of recycling bins, transportation of materials using trucks, the trucks, and personnel or labor costs. Program benefits include reduced waste disposal, increased revenue from selling recyclable materials, and reduced environmental impacts of managing landfilled waste.

For example, Charles County, Maryland, a large, primarily rural county in southern Maryland with nearly 165,000 residents, has a distributed network of rural transfer sites (waste drop-off sites), similar to the Campbell County facilities. However, Charles County offers curbside recycling collection every other week for all single-family homes using 96-gallon totes and county trucks. While Maryland requires 35% waste diversion from its counties, the County has repeatedly exceeded that yearly minimum and, in 2020, achieved one of the highest recycling rates in the state at 42%.6

5.3 Improved Drop-Off Sites

Campbell County already has a network of rural transfer sites, all of which are monitored by attendants and are large enough to offer additional containers for recyclable or donatable materials. Several sites are sizeable and could also serve as locations for special food waste collections, seasonal materials (such as Christmas trees), secure paper shredding, or a distribution site for mulch or compost back to the community.

Shifting the focus of these rural transfer sites from disposal locations to community-oriented centers for sustainable materials management and education could help the County reduce its dependence on landfills. Fortunately, the County already has working relationships with recyclers that can collect materials and has a model donation shed at its Concord site.

The costs of expanding recycling to all rural transfer sites will involve the containers for collection, which may be owned or leased, and the cost of transportation of materials. There is revenue potential from the rebates received from recyclers for valuable materials they collect, such as some papers, plastics, and metals. Currently, recyclers only collect from two rural transfer sites. Contract negotiations and increased volume of materials may present per site cost savings.

6 Charles County MRA Tonnage Report website: https://www.charlescountymd.gov/services/environmental-resources/maryland-recycling-act-mra#:~:text=The%20Maryland%20Recycling%20Act%20(MRA,the%20year%202020%20was%2041.89%25.

5.4 Food Waste

Another focus area to improve the resilience and affordability of Campbell County’s solid waste management system is to divert organic waste from the landfill. This can be achieved through various measures, including encouraging backyard composting on the household level. However, to achieve food waste diversion at scale, the County would likely need to create a food waste diversion program, and could partner with a composting operation in order to do so.

The County is in a strong position to divert food waste from the landfill as there is a nearby facility that accepts and processes this waste. In neighboring Bedford County, the Royal Oak Farms Composting Facility accepts Categories I through IV organic wastes and has excess permitted capacity to manage additional materials. The County can explore a relationship with this operation. If the County were to open some of its rural transfer sites to accept organic waste, this facility could be a logical outlet for those materials.

5.5 Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

If the County decides to construct a facility to meet its solid waste management needs, it can gain efficiency by having a MRF adjacent to it. This would create a significant level of autonomy, particularly if paired with efforts to increase recycling. If the County built its own MRF and if it were to manage the marketing of its recyclable materials, it could potentially gain greater independence in a region with decreasing disposal capacity, limited material recovery capacity, and increasing disposal costs.

6 Scenario Evaluation This section contains a discussion about each Scenario and associated Options, and proposes an evaluation framework, which includes the following elements:

Project Cost Potential Revenues Political Implications System Resilience Environmental Considerations Implementation Timeline Viability

Project Cost The amount of funding required to build the necessary infrastructure to manage solid waste is a critical consideration. It is also critical to consider the value of the investment to stakeholders outside of hard costs.

Though measurable costs now may be similar for two similar options, the level of responsibility, along with the factors listed below, can significantly alter their value over their lifetimes. The cost estimates presented in this memo estimate the projected amount of funding necessary and directly associated with building and managing solid waste is a critical consideration. However, future indirect costs associated with the impacts of each scenario may not be known yet. It is therefore critical to consider how potential uncertainty highlighted below may result in additional costs that have not been incorporated into current cost estimates.

Potential revenues Alongside cost implications, the County can also consider potential revenues associated with the different Facility Scenarios and Options. In the case of the Regional Waste County-Owned Option, the project cost is the highest, but the potential to meet a regional need and collect revenues is also significant, such that the overall project cost, once revenues are taken into account, may be lower than the other Options.

Political Implications This element considers how the current political landscape impacts the Scenarios, and how the community and residents of the County may react to the proposed facilities.

System Resilience One of the greatest threats to solid waste management system resilience is the cost of disposal at the final disposition site, such as a landfill. Another resilience consideration is the availability of airspace at nearby final disposition facilities. Generally, a system in which the locality controls the final disposition site, for both waste and recyclables, is the most resilient. As it pertains to such sites, generally the ones with the greater capacity are also more resilient, because they are able to rely on outside revenues to help cover system expenses. A solid waste management solution that provides the most long-term and long-lasting solution is also considered more resilient, as is a system that provides more flexibility of material management, both in terms of volume and the materials processed.

Environmental Considerations An environmentally sustainable solid waste management system is one that minimizes transportation, has a high recycling and landfill diversion rate, and encourages waste prevention/reuse.

Implementation Timeline This consideration refers to the amount of time it takes to plan for, fund, and build out the new solid waste management solution for the County.

Viability This consideration refers to the level of risk and uncertainty associated with each Facility Scenario and Option. It considers ease of implementation, control over waste, and site availability.

6.1 Evaluation Framework

Please see Evaluations of Scenarios Matrix Draft (Excel file).

6.2 Discussion

There are a number of qualitative and/or speculative factors that the County may wish to consider in determining how to proceed with solid waste management after 2030. The following is a brief discussion highlighting these items:

There is currently no land that has been identified that could serve as a site for a new landfill in the County.

While this Scenario is presented in the memo, its primary purpose is as a point of comparison. If the County were to choose to build a new landfill, it would need to determine basic viability. On the other hand, a new transfer station could be built and is a viable option.

It is critical to note that landfill space is increasingly at a premium, and final disposal costs are on the rise, with the value of airspace likely to continue to increase over the next thirty years. As a result, tip fees will likely increase as well, as may competition to secure contracts with disposal sites in the region.

The construction of a transfer station sized to meet regional needs may not be viable as there are transfer stations in Bedford County, Nelson County, and Amherst County; Appomattox County has recently approved the land use for one; and Lynchburg has issued an RFP for the construction of a transfer station.

7 Appendices Appendix A – Additional Project Background A.1 - Consultant Team Members The firms representing the team of experts (Project Team) that developed this Memo include:

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) – Prime Contractor

For over 40 years, GBB has helped its clients solve complex solid waste management issues by providing innovative, responsible, sustainable, and economical strategies and solutions for the benefit of communities and the environment. Based on our expert analysis and drawing on our experience, skills, and entrepreneurial approach, we uncover innovative solutions to solid waste challenges. We regularly team with qualified subcontractors to deliver the services our clients need, such as expert engineering services, such as landfill planning (See “EA” below), and financial planning (see “Plante Moran” below).

EA Engineering, Science & Technology, Inc., PBC (EA)

EA is a 100% employee-owned public benefit corporation that provides environmental, compliance, natural resources, and infrastructure engineering and management solutions to a wide range of public and private sector clients. EA has earned an outstanding reputation for technical expertise, responsive service, and judicious use of client resources. With nearly 50 years of experience working with public agencies across the country, EA understands the concerns of public sector entities. EA was selected to help the GBB Team evaluate the landfill disposal options for Campbell County’s future solid waste management considerations.

Plante Moran, PLLC

Plante Moran is an accounting and management consulting firm that was selected to help the GBB Team analyze Campbell County’s solid waste management options from a financial perspective. Plante Moran practices in the areas of auditing, accounting (including forensic and full-cost accounting), tax and financial advisory, operational effectiveness, and advisory services. The scope of Plante Moran’s engagement includes high-level cost modeling and financial analysis for the solid waste management scenarios presented in this document. The firm’s scope was limited to documenting and presenting assumptions made by the prime contractor, other subcontractors, and County stakeholders. Plante Moran did not create any projections without instruction and approval from GBB. Plante Moran delivered a cost model that became a component for GBB to analyze expenses for each scenario.

A.2 - Data Sources To perform the analysis of the Campbell County solid waste system, the Project Team issued a Data and Information request to the Campbell County representatives upon kicking off the project. The results of the Data Request, along with the GBB Team’s understanding of Virginia’s solid waste and recycling management system, and information sourced from publicly available reports and documentation, informed the Project Team’s understanding of the local and regional solid waste management system.

A.3 - Campbell County, Virginia Campbell County is located in southcentral Virginia, within the Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area, and is situated in the Blue Ridge Mountains. It is a comparatively large county in the state with a land area of 504 square miles, a population of 55,141, and a relatively low population density of 110.7 people per square mile.7 The County experienced a steady population rise between 1930 and 2010, it remained stable between 2010 and 2020, and slightly decreased between 2020 and 2022 by 1%. Since 1784, Rustburg, a census-designated place with an estimated population of 1,600, has been the county seat; however, the highest population density is observed in the northwestern areas of the county surrounding the City of Lynchburg.8

The largest industrial sectors in the County include manufacturing (4,727 workers), retail trade (2,277 workers), and construction…