Document Cumberlandcounty_doc_3f46bac0a9

AMENDED AND RESTATED PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY and CUMBERLAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Originally prepared by: Resource International, LTD. 9560 Kings Charter Drive Ashland, VA 23005 ---PAGE BREAK--- TOC-1 Table of Contents Chapter 1 1 A. 1 B. 2 C. 2 D. Pan Development 3 E. Plan Development & 3 F. DEQ Review 4 G. Intent to Amend 4 Chapter 2 SERVICE AREA 5 A. Existing Developmental 5 B. Future Development 7 Chapter 3 GENERAL GOALS AND 9 A. 9 B. 9 C. 9 Chapter 4 EISTING SOLID WASTE MANGEMENT 10 A. Prince Edward 10 B. Cumberland 13 C. Solid Waste Management Planning (SWMP) Unit Recycling 15 D. Collection and 15 E. Central 17 F. Recycling 17 Chapter 5 WASTE GENERATION AND 19 A. Waste 19 B. Waste 19 C. Waste 21 Chapter 6 Solid Waste 22 A. Prince Edward 22 B. Cumberland 22 Chapter 7 PREFERRED WASTE MANAGEMENT 23 A. 23 B. Prince Edward 25 C. Cumberland 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- TOC-2 Chapter 8 IMPLEMENTATION 28 REFERENCES 29 A. 29 B. Personal 30 Appendices Appendix A Excerpts from PPDC Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Appendix B Resolutions of Plan Approval Appendix C Public Hearing Appendix D Future Capital Outlays for Cell Construction and Closures Appendix E Demographics References Appendix F Recycling Reports Appendix G Comprehensive List of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities in the Planning Region Appendix H Documentation of Proposed New Disposal Facility Inclusion Appendix I DEQ Approval Letter of Original Solid Waste Management Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION A. Background This Solid Waste Management Plan represents a revision of the original Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, dated July 1, 1991 and subsequent update of that regional plan on July 1, 1997. The original plan and the subsequent update were prepared by the Piedmont Planning District Commission (PPDC). This plan is a "sub-regional" plan involving two of the six counties that were sponsors of the previous planning efforts: Prince Edward County and Cumberland County. This sub-regional approach was the culmination of several meetings of the Piedmont Planning District Commission and a Solid Waste Management Planning Forum. All of these meetings were open to the public for comments and input. A detailed account of each of these meetings is presented in Appendix A. An overview of each of these meetings is provided below: At the April3, 2003 full commission meeting, two representatives of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) made a presentation regarding the requirements of the Regulations for Solid Waste Management Planning, Amendment 1. During the discussion that ensued, several people questioned whether they could provide an update to the old plan. The DEQ response was that the localities can review their old plan, bring it up to date, and submit it to the DEQ. Several commissioners expressed concern that the update of the solid waste plan represented an unfunded mandate. The discussion concluded with the consensus of the Commissioners being to take the regional approach for the preparation of the Solid Waste Management Plan. On April1 17, 2003, the PPDC held an open forum pertaining to Solid Waste Management Planning for the region. As a result of the discussions held regarding the three approaches identified by PPDC staff: 1) Individual plans for each jurisdiction 2) Mini-Regional Plans 3) Regional Plan It was determined that the majority of the localities were leaning towards Options 1 and 2. PPDC, therefore, concluded that there was no consensus for the development of a regional solid waste plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 At the May 1, 2003 full commission meeting, the Solid Waste Management Plan status was a major agenda item with a status report from the Executive Director that provided the results of the April 17, 2003 solid waste planning forum and a recommendation that PPDC suspend further consideration of the development of a regional plan, but be prepared to provide technical assistance to interested localities regarding demographic statistical data. The matter was tabled by the PPDC for further discussion at a subsequent meeting. At the June 5, 2003 full commission meeting, an update of the Solid Waste Management Plan status was again provided by the Executive Director of the PPDC. Only one other locality had sent a letter to PPDC regarding its preference regarding the three options (approaches) to the development of a solid waste management plan. It was reported that this did not change the weighted preference of options chosen and, therefore, it was determined that there remained no consensus for a regional Solid Waste Management Plan. As a consequence of these meetings and the stated preferences of a majority of the localities within the PPDC, Prince Edward County and Cumberland County decided to develop a sub-regional plan that would be used to guide the management of the solid wastes generated within their respective jurisdictions for the duration of the 20- year planning period. B. Purpose The Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan) for Prince Edward and Cumberland Counties has been prepared to meet the requirements and provisions of the Regulations for Solid Waste Management Planning (9 VAC 20-130-10 et seq., Amendment This sub-regional plan is the outgrowth of the PPDC meetings highlighted above. The Plan will: • describe the existing solid waste management infrastructure of the two counties; • define future solid waste management needs; and • describe the preferred waste management systems. C. Scope The Plan includes discussions on the following elements of the solid waste management spectrum for the municipal solid waste (MSW) generated within the two counties: • generation; • collections; ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 • recycling; and • disposal The plan considers the elements of the Solid Waste Management Hierarchy as they relate, in a practical manner, to the relevant demographic characteristics of the service area. The hierarchy ranks methods of solid waste management from most preferred to least preferred as follows: • Source Reduction • Reuse • Recycling • Resource Recovery (Waste - to- Energy) • Incineration • Landfilling The Plan does not address infectious medical wastes and other items not normally considered as MSW such as: • radioactive wastes; • sewage sludges and biosolids; • industrial wastes; and • hazardous wastes (as defined by the Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations) D. Plan Development Responsibilities The Plan has been developed by Prince Edward County in collaboration with Cumberland County. Prince Edward County has retained the services of Resource International, Ltd., to assist it in developing the sub-regional plan and providing technical input. E. Plan Development and Adoption The Plan was developed in the second quarter of calendar year (CY) 2004. It was formally adopted early during the third quarter of CY 2004. Copies of the resolutions of Plan approval from each of the two jurisdictions are included as Appendix B. A public hearing on the Plan was held on June 28, 2004, at the Prince Edward County Courthouse. The results of the public hearing are included in Appendix C. A public hearing on the Plan was conducted on July 13, 2004 at the Cumberland County Courthouse. The results of the public hearing are included in Appendix C. The Plan was submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) on July 1, 2004, with the resolutions and public ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 hearing results submitted in follow-up correspondence to the VDEQ. F. DEQ Review Process Correspondence from the DEQ dated November 12,2004 was received on or about November 22,2004 to which was attached DEQ's "Waste Management Plan Completeness Review" checklist. In response to the completeness review comments, the Prince Edward County and Cumberland County Solid Waste Management Plan was revised and re-submitted to the DEQ on February 10, 2005. In a letter dated June 28, 2006, the DEQ submitted its Technical Review Comments regarding the Prince Edward County and Cumberland County Solid Waste Management Plan. Responses to the Technical Review Comments were developed by Resource International and submitted to DEQ on August 31, 2006. On December 7, 2006, DEQ requested that the Plan include all solid waste facilities currently within Prince Edward and Cumberland Counties as they appear in DEQ's database. This listing of active, inactive, and closed facilities is incorporated as Appendix G. Appendix I is a copy of the DEQ approval letter of the "original" Solid Waste Management Plan. G. Intent to Amend Plan The Plan is currently being amended to reflect preliminary information about a planned municipal waste landfill facility to be located in Cumberland County. Information regarding existing facilities is already incorporated into this Plan. Addition of the planned facility to the Plan will require a major amendment to the current Plan and requires public participation. Documentation from the public participation/hearings, responses to citizen comments and the final outcome of the anticipated board resolution process will be included in Appendix H. Additional or updated information about the planned facility that becomes available will be incorporated into the Plan prior to the VADEQ's final review and acceptance of the Amended Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 TABLE 1 UNEMPLOYMENT RATES/ANNUAL AVERAGES JURISDICTION 1991 1995 2001 2002 Cumberland County 7.4% 2.6% 2.4% 2.9% Prince Edward County 10.5% 5.3% 3.9% 4.9% Virginia 5.8% 4.5% 3.6% 4.1% CHAPTER 2 -SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION The service area encompassed within the Plan is shown graphically in Figure 1. A. Existing Development Trends The information within this Section (2.A) and the following section (2.B) has been primarily derived from the PPDC 2003 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. The planning district within which Prince Edward and Cumberland County are a part of is described as "one of the most economically challenged regions in the State of Virginia". Both Prince Edward County and Cumberland County are largely rural with few large industries and manufacturing facilities. Approximately 71% of the Prince Edward County work force finds employment within the County. This compares with 29% for Cumberland County. Unemployment rates for the two counties from the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) indicates a slight increase in unemployment for both counties between 2001 and 2002. Cumberland County's unemployment rate increased from about 2.4% to 2.9% during this period and Prince Edward County's increased from about 3.9% to 4.9%. Overall, in the State of Virginia, the rates increased from about 3.6% to 4.1%. Table 1 is an update of Table 3 that appeared in the July 1, 1997 Solid Waste Plan prepared by the PPDC. Median household income has increased as illustrated in Table 2, but continues to trail significantly the median for the State as shown in Table 2. TABLE2 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME - 1970-2000 JURISDICTION 1970 1980 1990 2000 Cumberland County $4,606 $11,398 $22,115 $32,000 ± Prince Edward County $2,482 $12,295 $21,395 $31,000 ± Virginia $7,176 $17,475 $33,328 $47,000 ± ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 This scarcity of higher paying salaries continues to impact in a negative manner, a locality's or region's primary source of income- its tax base. This in turn, often inhibits growth in the locality or region because investments in needed infrastructures do not happen or are slow to occur. This situation is aggravated where unemployment rates are elevated. As can be seen from the previous Table, the unemployment rate for Prince Edward County remains above the state-wide average. Environmentally-sound Solid Waste Management within the two counties remains a significant public function that demands a continuing allocation of resources. Along with highways, railroads, water, wastewater, schools and healthcare providers, well run and funded waste management facilities are an attraction to industrial, commercial, and residential development. B. Future Development Trends It can be seen from review of Tables 1 and 2, that unemployment within Cumberland County and Prince Edward County has been relatively steady since 1995. Whether this trend continues depends upon a number of factors, some of which are beyond the control or influence of Prince Edward and Cumberland Counties (Federal environmental regulations and tax codes; outsourcing; fossil fuel supplies, etc.). However, population projections (provided by the Virginia Employment Commission) that span the period of this Plan and then some, show a continued modest increase in the population of both Prince Edward and Cumberland Counties over the next several decades (as can be seen from Table TABLE3 POPULATION HISTORY AND PROJECTIONS 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Cumberland County 7,825 9,017 10,100 11,000 11,800 Prince Edward County 17,320 19,720 22,500 24,900 27,200 Total for Planning Area 25,145 28,737 32,600 35,900 39,000 The percent increase in the total population for the 20 year period 2000 to 2020 is projected to be 24.9%. That fraction of the infrastructure dealing with solid waste management and disposal must be in place to accommodate the needs associated ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 with this forecast of the population within the planning area. In a subsequent chapter we will see that, indeed, it does. Although there has been a service decline noted in the railroad section of the transportation infrastructure serving the planning area, the highway infrastructure with east-west Route 60 (Cumberland County), east-west Route 460 (Prince Edward County) and the north-south Route 15 corridors remain strong with good development potential associated with their current design. With the reasonable possibility that Route 60 will be improved to a four-lane corridor through Cumberland County; Route 15 would likewise be improved to a four-lane corridor; and Route 460/360 be incorporated in a limited access interstate style system connecting the east coast to the mid-west (the TransAmerica Corridor) significant industrial, commercial, and residential development could occur during the latter half of the planning period. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 CHAPTER 3- GENERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES A. Goals These remain the same as those espoused in the 1997 Solid Waste Management Plan Update for Solid Waste District 14 prepared by the Piedmont Planning District Commission. • Solid Waste Management and disposal to be carried out in accordance with pertinent Federal, State, and Local plans, regulations and land use policies such that protection of the natural environment and the health and wellbeing of the public is achieved. This is to be accomplished in such a manner that the natural assets of Prince Edward and Cumberland Counties (its soil, water and air) are utilized wisely for the common good of the public. • Develop, operate, and maintain solid waste management facilities and programs in an efficient and timely fashion to meet the solid waste management needs of the jurisdictions covered by this plan. B. Objectives • Establish and maintain an on-going planning, Plan amendment, and Plan implementation process to meet the future solid waste management needs of Prince Edward and Cumberland Counties. • Provide adequate flexibility in the Plan to provide for unforeseen needs, events, or situations; utilization of new facilities that may come on-line; and incorporation of new technologies. • Establish an integrated waste management strategy focusing on the recycling and landfilling elements of the solid waste management hierarchy. • Continue to strive to meet or exceed state mandated recycling rate of 15% for rural localities. C. Milestones Milestones for the development of disposal cells at the Prince Edward County Landfill and milestones for phased closures are presented in Appendix D. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 CHAPTER 4- EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Figure 2 shows the existing active solid waste management sites within or near the Plan area. The only landfill within the Plan area is the Prince Edward County Landfill. There is one existing private regional landfill within Amelia County which is adjacent to both Prince Edward County and Cumberland County to the east. A. Prince Edward County Collection of municipal solid wastes generated within the County is left up to the individual homeowner or business. The generator may elect to contract with a private hauler to remove wastes from the premises, or may elect transporting the wastes to one of seven public convenience centers that are located throughout the County. From these facilities the County transports the wastes to the County Landfill for disposal. Recycling containers are located at each of the public convenience centers. Materials collected for recycling include, plastics, newsprint, and cardboard. Small truck and passenger car tires and white goods are collected at these l. Recycled materials are processed locally by a private firm. Except within the Town of Farmville, it is up to the generators to take their recyclables to these facilities. The Town of Farmville provides curbside pick-up of plastics, newsprint,. A private firm in the area picks up cardboard from some businesses within the County. For calendar year (CY) 2003, Prince Edward County realized a recycling rate of 13.24%. For CY 2005 it was 20.4%. This represents an increase of 54.1% over the CY 2003 recycling rate. There currently are no solid waste treatment programs within Prince Edward County as that term is defined in the There are currently no plans to implement any such programs in the future. If there are advances in solid waste management technology that would result in plans to implement given treatment processes, the Solid Waste Management Plan will be revised to reflect the change or changes. Prince Edward County currently utilizes inmate work crews, overseen by VDOC and scheduled by VDOT, to keep primary and some secondary highways clear of litter. In addition, individuals who receive community service sentences are assigned to other secondary roads within the County to pick-up litter. These individuals usually have to pick up a certain amount of trash, (measured in filled bags) to successfully complete their sentences. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 In the future, Prince Edward County plans to augment these two programs with an "Assign-a-Highway" program. In this program, judges will assign a stretch or segment of a highway to individuals who are on probation or parole. The individuals would be responsible for periodically picking up litter along the assigned highway during the time the court oversees them. Prince Edward County operates its own Subtitle D Landfill. It constructed its fifth lined cell, Cell E in the Summer of 2017. The capital costs associated with the continued operation of the landfill as related to new disposal cell construction and partial closures are shown in Appendix D. The Prince Edward County Sanitary Landfill is located off of State Route 648 in Prince Edward. The nearby counties of Buckingham and Cumberland also have used the facility. The landfill site encompasses approximately 99± acres. In 2018 the County began operating the landfill with its own employees after the private firm contracted to operate the landfill expressed its desire to cease operations. Only municipal solid waste acceptable for disposal at sanitary landfills are disposed of at the facility. No medical, infectious, or hazardous waste are accepted at this facility. Animal carcasses, such as cats, dogs, and farm animals, are accepted. Brush and certain yard wastes are burned at the landfill to reduce the volume of solid waste placed in disposal cells. The County reuses waste materials such as cinder blocks, asphalt and brick for access roads and ramps at the landfill. Special programs that the County, periodically engages in includes property clean-ups with trustees from the Piedmont Regional Jail; public education on recycling within the County through pamphlets available from the County Administrator's Office; and the clean-up of illegal tire dump sites. Prince Edward County presently has a landfill capital fund that takes in approximately $300,000 annually. In the past, General Fund revenues have been used to supplement the landfill capital fund as needed. General Fund revenues also have been used to fund other County solid waste management and recycling programs. General fund revenues will continue to be used to supplement future capital expenditures not fully covered by the landfill capital fund during the planning period. Prince Edward County maintains a fund balance of between 8-10 million so there should be sufficient monies available for all future solid waste management projects undertaken during the planning period. ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 B. Cumberland County Cumberland County closed its three landfills in the mid-nineteen nineties and constructed public convenience centers at each of the three sites. The Hamilton Landfill was closed in August 1994; the Madison Landfill in July 1995; and the Randolph Landfill in June 1997. Wastes are transported from these facilities to a recycling facility pursuant to the County’s contract with Container Rentals LLC. The convenience centers are manned and open Monday through Sunday. It is up to the waste generator to get the waste from his/her premises to the public convenience centers. The approximate location of each of these facilities is shown on Figure 2. Recycling containers are located at each of the public convenience centers. Materials collected for recycling include glass containers (all colors), aluminum cans, plastics and cardboard, newsprint, mixed papers, tires (at Madison) and white goods. Yard waste and brush also are collected at the Madison Facility. Recycled materials are collected and processed locally by private firms. For CY 2003 Cumberland County realized a recycling rate of 33.7%, for CY 2004 it was 33.5%, and for CY 2005 it was 27.6%. Cumberland County's current litter control efforts include participation in: the Community Diversion Incentive programs operated in direct coordination with the general district court; the Adopt-a-Spot and Adopt-a-Highway programs sponsored by VDOT; periodic community and/or organization sponsored roadside litter pickups and campaigns; and, periodic river cleanups in partnership with the Friends of the Appomattox. Cumberland County periodically promotes public participation in abandoned vehicle recovery efforts and special household hazardous waste collection events. The success of these programs is due in part to public education efforts by the county to increase participation in the event or events. Cumberland County encourages, and will continue to encourage, participation in community anti-litter and cleanup campaigns through educational and guest program presentations to schools, individuals, and civic or social organizations. In the future, Cumberland County will continue its efforts in litter control by actively participating in and/or promoting the above programs. Special programs in which the County periodically engages include participation in an abandoned vehicle recovery program and special household hazardous waste collection events. ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Cumberland County does not have an operating landfill. However, funding of its current solid waste management programs, such as its convenience centers, have been from General Fund revenues. Continued funding of these programs for the duration of the planning period will either be from the general fund or through host fees if a privately owned and operated municipal solid waste landfill is sited within the County. Green Ridge Recycling and Disposal Facility, LLC (Green Ridge), a private waste disposal company, is proposing to site and permit a new Solid Waste Management Facility in Cumberland County, Virginia. The proposed facility is considered to be in general conformance with this Solid Waste Management Plan as well as the County's Comprehensive Plan and future development plans. The actual siting and permitting of this proposed facility is subject to permit approvals by the DEQ in accordance with the Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations The proposed landfill will be located approximately eight miles east of Cumberland County Courthouse on US Route 60. Figure 3 shows the approximate location of the proposed landfill. Access to the proposed facility will be from Route 60. The specific location of the proposed access road will be subject to VDOT approval. The proposed Green Ridge landfill will be a sanitary landfill accepting Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) primarily serving Cumberland County and the rest of Virginia, including the Richmond Metropolitan Area. Under the terms of the Host Agreement with Cumberland County, MSW can also be accepted from a 500-mile radius of the landfill. Waste Generation for Cumberland County is not projected to increase significantly in the near future, and the estimates provided in Table 4 are considered valid. The landfill's regular operating hours will be twenty-four hours per day on weekdays, opening at 6:00 a.m. on Monday morning and closing at 11:59 p.m. on Friday evening, and 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The proposed landfill would operate under a DEQ permit to be obtained within the next 2 to 3 years. No changes to current solid waste disposal practices would occur until such time as permits for the new facility are obtained from DEQ. Actual facility details will be determined during the DEQ permitting process. The disposal area is expected to contain approximately 550 acres. The planned gross capacity of the facility has been calculated based on conceptual information at approximately 69 million cubic yards. The net airspace will be determined during the design of these systems and development of the operational parameters for the facility during the DEQ Part A and Part B application process. The allowable waste stream acceptance rate will be limited by the Host Agreement, which also provides for free solid waste disposal and recycling to residents of Cumberland County. The maximum amount of waste that can be accepted on any given day will be 5000 tons. Because the average annual waste receipt and effective in-place waste densities will vary, the practical life ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 of the facility will range from 35 to 50 years. The longer life assumes a higher in- place waste density and a lower average annual waste receipt. Due to the conceptual nature of the proposed facility, additional amendments to the Plan, if necessary, will be implemented at the appropriate time in accordance with 9 VAC20-130-10 et seq., Amendment 1. Any such amendments are anticipated to be Minor Amendments. C. Solid Waste Management Planning (SWMP) Unit Recycling Rate The recycling rate for the region is approximately 22.4%. The population density for the region based upon 2000 Census data (28,737) and a total 649 square miles is approximately 44.28 people per square mile. As of July 1, 2006, the mandatory recycling rate for a Solid Waste Management Planning Unit (SWMPU) with a population density of less than 100 people per square mile is 15%. The Prince Edward County I Cumberland County SWMPU meets this requirement. The Counties will continue to look for improvements in recycling activities and practices during the planning period. If the recycling rate for the SWMPU drops below the current goal of 15%, then the Solid Waste Management Plan will be amended to incorporate a recycling action plan. The recycling action plan will cover the required milestones to meet the 15% recycling rate goal. D. Collection/Transfer The existing system of solid waste collection and transportation throughout the SWMPU is to be continued through the planning period. The existing system is functioning well and no significant changes are proposed. The counties will continue to evaluate the collection and handling of solid wastes and look for improvements that can be made to the system during the planning period. It is not intended at this point to supplant the public convenience facilities that faithfully serve the needs of the residents within the SWMPU with larger and more expensive transfer stations given the nearness of the disposal sites. In the event that a change in the current collection and transportation system is warranted, the Solid Waste Management Plan will be amended to reflect the change. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 E. Central Archive The United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality maintain data on sites and facilities that have been permitted as disposal sites under the Solid Waste Management facility regulations, and of sites and facilities that have been permitted as treatment, storage, and disposal sites under the Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. The office of the County Planner of Prince Edward County in Farmville, Virginia will be the local Central Archive to receive and record information on permitted and closed disposal sites. Such information will be available for public scrutiny. To make current information available for public review, the Prince Edward County Planner will request periodically during the planning period that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality provide copies of its latest database of permitted and closed sites. Similarly, the Prince Edward County Planner will periodically request the latest lists of Superfund sites and sites with potentially hazardous issues from the EPA. Sites with potential waste disposal issues are frequently identified by private entities during the Environmental Site Assessment process. To the extent that the results of these site assessments are provided to the Prince Edward County Planning Office, the inventory of active and closed disposal sites will be updated and forwarded to the director of the DEQ. Similarly, new disposal sites will be documented and recorded with a copy of that information sent to the director of the DEQ. The office of the County Planner for Prince Edward County in Farmville, Virginia will also serve as the local Central Archive to receive and record information on the amount of solid waste produced within the SWMPU. The waste records from the Prince Edward County landfill are maintained in this office as well the County's records relative to recycling. Information on waste generation records and recycling records from Cumberland County will be submitted to this office. This information will, in turn, be submitted to the director of the DEQ. F. Recycling Markets Recyclables from the SWMPU are taken to three different privately owned and operated facilities. White goods and other metals are taken to J & J Recycling in Farmville, VA. J & J is a scrap metal and salvage yard that collects, processes and transports metals to different end users in the mid-Atlantic area. Tires are taken to Emmanuel Tire's Appomattox location and then are transported to Emmanuel's main processing plant in Baltimore, MD. ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 Household recyclables (cardboard, newspaper, plastic containers, and clean glass containers) are taken to STEPS, Inc., a recyclable material brokerage and processing facility in Farmville, VA. After processing and or sorting, STEPS transports the materials by truck to Chesapeake Fibers in Richmond, VA. ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 CHAPTER 5- WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION A. Waste Generation The projected rate of filling and site life of the Prince Edward County Landfill is based on the current rate of volume utilization and a 2018 topographic survey. The rate of filling was calculated based on an in-place density of the waste of 1250 lbs./cu. yd (estimated from a density evaluation performed after Cell A had been in operation for approximately at least one year). At present, the facility receives approximately 82 tons of solid waste per day. This amount was escalated by 1 percent per year in accordance with area population projections. Cells A through F of the Prince Edward County Landfill have a combined disposal airspace volume (waste and daily/intermediate cover materials) of approximately 1,805,954 cubic yards. Based on the above escalation rate, the proposed cells will have a projected site life of approximately 20 years. Table 4 provides an estimate of the amount of solid wastes generated within Prince Edward County and Cumberland County coincident with the population projection for the Area. Published data from the United States Environmental Protection Agency was used for per capita generation. This number is 4.51 pounds per capita per day. As a comparison, tonnages received at the landfill and escalated as described above, are also provided. The quantities differ by about ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 TABLE 4 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS 2000 2010 2020 2030 Cumberland County Population 9,017 10,100 11,000 11,800 Prince Edward County Population 19,720 22,500 24,900 27,200 Total Population for Planning Area 28,737 32,600 35,900 39,000 MSW Generation Based Upon 4.51 Lbs./capita/day 23,700 26,800 29,500 32,100 MSW Generation Based Upon Weight Records 25,600 28,300 31,200 34,500 B. Waste Composition No published waste composition studies for either Prince Edward County or Cumberland County are available. Annual locality recycling rate reports only provide information or quantities of materials pulled from the waste stream prior to landfilling. Table 5 presents typical material percentages as published by the EPA and other sources. TABLE 5 TYPICAL COMPOSITION* OF MUN1ClPAL SOLID WASTE Material Current U.S. Average 1993 Westchester Co., NY 1953 Chandler, AZ Paper and Paperboard 37.4% 39% 42.7% Glass 5.5 8 7.5 Metals 7.8 9 9.8 Plastics 10.7 7 0.4 Rubber & Leather 2.7 2 1.0 Textiles 4.0 2 1.9 Wood 5.5 3 2.3 Food Scraps 11.2 10 21.8 Yard Trimmings 12.0 18 1.3 Miscellaneous 3.2 2 11.3 100% 100% 100% *By Weight ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 In reviewing the above information, it is important to note, in particular, the increasing role of plastics, not only over the last half century, but also over the last 10 years. This has a direct impact on recycling rate estimates that are based solely on weight. In actuality, we may be recycling more food and beverage containers, but because product packaging continues to shift to plastics away from heavy glass and metal containers, it appears that we are seeing little or no increase or, in some cases; even a decrease in our recycling programs. C. Waste Character Based upon the most recent data from Form DEQ 50-25 (Solid Waste Information and Assessment Program Reporting Table), the following represents a current percentage breakdown of the waste stream in the defined categories. Construction/Demolition Debris (CDD) Land Clearing Debris (LCD) Industrial Waste (IND) Tires 7.4% 1.5% 0.3% 0.1% Since the SWMPU is primarily rural in character, and is expected to generally remain that way based upon population projections, it is not expected that these percentages will vary significantly in the future. Table 4A presents a forecast of these waste categories. TABLE4A WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS BASED UPON CATEGORY Year 2000 2010 2020 2030 Category MSW (tons) 25,600 28,300 31,200 34,500 CDD (tons) 1,895 2,095 2,310 2,555 LCD (tons) 385 425 470 520 IND (tons) 80 85 95 105 Tires (tons) 26 28 31 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 CHAPTER 6- SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT A. Prince Edward County Prince Edward County owns and operates its own Subtitle D Sanitary Landfill with an estimated capacity that spans the 20-year Plan period. This considers the continuation of accepting waste from both Cumberland County and Buckingham County during this time frame. The strategic location of the public convenience centers and accompanying recycling centers will serve the citizens of the County well during the planning period. The closure of the County's landfill scheduled to occur just beyond the tail-end of the planning period will require the County to consider alternative disposal options starting midway through the planning period. B. Cumberland County Cumberland County currently has no active disposal facility located within its borders. It transports waste that are collected at the public convenience centers to a recycling facility pursuant to the County’s contract with Container Rentals LLC The planned Green Ridge facility, if permitted, will provide disposal capacity for the foreseeable future at no charge to County residents by the terms of the Host Agreement, a copy of which is available for review in the County's offices and on the County’s website. The strategic location of the three public convenience centers in the north, central and southern parts of the County should continue to serve the citizens well for the remainder of the planning period. The closure of the Prince Edward County Landfill just beyond the end of the planning period and the continuing availability of other regional landfills are critical issues for the County to periodically review and evaluate. Based on initial projections of capacity and waste receipts, the proposed facility would have an expected life of 35 to 50 years. ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 CHAPTER 7 - PREFERRED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A. General It is important to recognize that the most appropriate waste management system for a given municipality or region is dependent on the demographics, geology, and resources of that municipality or region. Thus the extent to which the different elements of the Solid Waste Management Hierarchy are incorporated in the plan will often vary considerably from municipality to municipality or region to region. The Solid Waste Management Hierarchy (originally developed and promoted by the USEPA) is usually depicted as a pyramid with the most preferred element at the top and the lease preferred at the bottom: Source Reduction Reuse, Reuse, Reuse Recycling, Recycling, Recycling Resource Recovery, Resource Recovery Incineration, Incineration, Incineration, Incineration Landfilling, Landfilling, Landfilling, Landfilling, Landfilling, Ironically, the least preferred element (landfilling) is the foundational element for the remaining elements and is the one element common to all integrated waste management strategies. Although, source reduction, reuse and recycling in certain locations can have a significant impact on reducing the amount of solid waste material and filled, it is not practical to consider that these three elements, in the foreseeable future, would dramatically reduce the amount of waste that will have to be landfilled. Source Reduction: This element of the solid waste management hierarchy, along with reuse, is for all intents and purposes, out of the direct control of the municipal jurisdiction within the service area of this plan. It could involve such disparate entities as manufacturers designing, ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 manufacturing, and packaging products to minimize waste, and consumers purchasing products and services with an eye towards reducing the generation of waste materials. Because the goal of source reduction is not to produce waste, it is difficult to gauge the effectiveness of educational programs (indirect measures) that may be instituted by a locality. Source reduction practices are not tracked within the service area of this plan. Reuse: Very similar to source reduction, this element could involve one time or multiple reuse of containers or packaging materials such as plastic or paper grocery bags and food containers (such as plastic margarine tubs); and donating clothes (in good condition) to charitable organizations for redistribution to others. Reuse practices also are not tracked within the service area. Expansion of reuse practices would rely heavily upon educational programs, but as with source reduction, it would be difficult to measure the effectiveness of dollars spent on such educational programs. Thus it is that the top two preferences are difficult to implement and problematic to measure. However, the counties will continue to look for economical ways to promote source reduction and reuse during the planning period. Existing recycling information available to the public will be augmented with educational and informational programs on reduction and reuse as public funding will allow. Recycling: Recycling provides businesses, individuals, and families the opportunity to return valuable resources (both renewable and non-renewable) back to the manufacturing/industrial sector to produce new products. In the process, it reduces the amount of virgin materials needed and the production process likely will use less energy using recycled feedstocks of metals, glass, plastics, and paper. Localities in the service area of the plan can have an impact on recycling activities through programs and facilities provided or made available to businesses and residences within their respective ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 jurisdictions. Drop-off areas and public convenience facilities have been designed or upgraded to include recycling boxes or containers. Future considerations would include limited curbside recycling programs in more density populated areas within the service area covered by this plan. The mandated recycling rate for the region (SWMPU) is being met. If the rate drops below the currently mandated 15% for rural areas, the Solid Waste Management Plan will be amended to include implementation timelines incorporated therein. Resource\Recovery/Incineration Resource recovery, also referred to as Waste-to- Energy (WTE), is not a cost effective element of the hierarchy for implementation in a service area of the size associated with this plan. Most existing WTE facilities are in the 1000 TPD or greater through-put capacity. At a per capita generation rate of 4.51 lbs./day this would reflect a service area population of about 440,000. Such facilities also are difficult to site and permit because of stricter air emissions requirements, difficulties with jurisdictional political agreements, and intense public opposition. Incineration is the same as WTE except that energy (usually in the Incineration is the same as WTE except that energy (usually in the form of steam or electricity) is not recovered from the burning process. Landfilling: Landfilling, in the simplest terminology, is the engineered burial of solid wastes. Modem landfill facilities incorporate composite liner systems of soils and flexible membranes to serve as barriers to preclude the contamination of groundwater beneath the facility. Porous media and piping in a "leachate collection zone" above the liner system allows for the contaminated liquids to flow to a collection point where it is removed and treated on site or hauled or pumped to a treatment plant. Gas generated from the decomposition of wastes is vented and/or recovered. Groundwater and landfill gas monitoring points represent fail safe mechanisms alerting an owner to potential problems. Landfilling of municipal solid waste generation within ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 the region covered by this plan will remain the most viable and economic method for the management of the waste stream. Landfilling will be integrated with viable recycling programs and, therefore, recycling and landfilling will form the cornerstone of the integrated waste management strategy for the region covered by this plan. Waste reduction and reuse will be promoted as funding permits. B. Prince Edward County Reduction/Reuse As public funding allows, existing education and public information proposed for increasing participation in recycling will be augmented to include education/ informational programs on waste reduction and reuse. Recycling: The preferred recycling program will continue to be the operation of the drop-off centers at the public convenience centers and the curbside collection within the Town of Farmville. Institution of curbside collection in more densely populated parts of the County could be a program to consider to increase participation rates and recyclable collections. Education and public information efforts will continue to be a component of the recycling program. The private sector will be relied upon to process and market recovered materials. Based upon public hearing comments, Prince Edward County will research the economics of adding waste oil and antifreeze recycling capabilities at one or more of the public convenience centers. Disposal: The method of disposal for Prince Edward County will be the continued use of its Subtitle D Landfill. About 10 years into the planning period (2014), the County needs to assess whether it can expand its existing facility; transport wastes out of County to an existing or future facility; or implement a ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 new or emergent technology to handle its disposal needs. C. Cumberland County Reduction/Reuse: As public funding allows, existing education and public information proposed for increasing participation in recycling will be augmented to include education/ informational programs on waste reduction and reuse. Recycling: The preferred recycling program for Cumberland County is to continue the operation of its drop-off centers located at each of its three public convenience centers. Education and public information programs will continue to be relied upon to increase participation rates and the collection of recyclables. The private sector will continue to provide for the processing and market of recovered materials. Disposal: Cumberland County will continue to rely upon the services of Container Rentals LLC for the recycling and disposal of its solid waste. The County will periodically evaluate, during the planning period, the development of a new County landfill; the use of any new landfill within the planning area or nearby as its primary means of disposal; or the development of new or emergent technology to manage its solid waste disposal needs. For both Counties, existing public and private sector partnerships in the collection, and transport of municipal wastes, in the collection, transport and processing of recyclables and in the operation of disposal facilities will be maintained. ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 CHAPTER 8 -IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES There are no significant implementation issues as the two counties are currently managing their solid wastes. Recycling is not mandatory within each county, but if either County would decide to implement curbside collection in more densely populated areas, the mechanisms would have to be developed to define the area, insure participation, and cover the costs. Provisions of disposal services would be accomplished through agreements or contracts with providers. If new public or private disposal facilities are identified, be they landfill or a new/emergent technology, local, state, and/or federal permits will need to be filed with their requisite public participation programs involving public meetings, public hearings, and comment periods. In essence the Solid Waste Management Plan for Prince Edward County and Cumberland County is self-implementing upon formal approval of the plan by each County and approval of the plan by the Department of Environmental Quality. The existing system of solid waste management throughout the planning area is functioning well and no significant changes are proposed in the near future. Cumberland County is the site of a proposed municipal waste landfill being developed by Green Ridge Recycling and Disposal Facility, LLC. If this site applies for and receives the necessary local government and state government approvals and/or permits, it will be the primary disposal facility for Cumberland County. The Counties will continue to look for improvements to the management system during the planning period. In the event that a change is necessary, the Solid Waste Management Plan will be amended to reflect that change. ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 REFERENCES A. Publications 1. Piedmont Planning District Commission; 1997 Solid Waste Management Plan Update; July 1, 1997. 2. Resource International, Ltd.; Prince Edward County Sanitary Landfill. Permit No. 584, Permit Amendment Application No.3; April, 2003. 3. Piedmont Planning District Commission; 2003 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). 4. Virginia Employment Commission; "Statistical Labor Market Information"; Count Question Resolution Program; May 2, 2003. 5. American City Business Journals; "Where's the Best Place to Live in America"; May, 2004. 6. Central Virginia Waste Management Authority; Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan; February, 2004. 7. American Public Works Association; Municipal Refuse Disposal; 1966. 8. Herbert Jr. Lund; The McGraw-Hill Recycling Handbook; 1993. 9. Loudoun County Solid Waste Management Planning District; Public Review Draft Solid Waste Management Plan; March, 2003. 10. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Recycling and Litter Prevention - Mandatory Recycling Rates for Localities; 3 pages; July 2006. 11. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The Virginia Annual Recycling Rate Report- CY 2004 Summary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 B. Personal Interviews 1. Judy Ownby; County Administrator, County of Cumberland, Virginia. 2. Jack E. Houghton; Executive Director, Piedmont Planning District Commission; Farmville, Virginia. 3. Jonathan Pickett; County Planner, County of Prince Edward, Virginia. 4. Sherry Swinson; Assistant County Administrator, County of Cumberland, Virginia. 5. Ray McGowan, BFI Waste Systems of Virginia, LLC 6. Steve Batiste, Brown and Caldwell ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDICES ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A EXCERPTS FROM PPDC COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2003 COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS) PIEDMONT PLANNING DISTRICT v Prepared By: Piedmont Planning District Commission 1021/2 High Street P.O. Box P Farmvme, Virginia 23901 (434)392-6104 FAX (434)392-5933 e-mail: wvnv. com web: org ---PAGE BREAK--- S^SS^^COnt^ au?elocalities !s to.fhe mterest m developing a Regional Ail-Hazard 2fw^^comwssim supp]yinS the $I4.000mateh~The to"telp^cTbuudle^°isIISSaOaO; application will be submittedby^Pie^nrpi^g^^Jo^S^o^56'^ As ^y^3c^^^£^SU ^ ^^eiFS.D?^ent^-chIs eoiFP^^^^ 247 ---PAGE BREAK--- PPDC 2003 Comprehensjve Economic DeveIoDment Stratepv ?-ecomrais"on held a Fonun at the comTssion Offices OD April 7, 2003 pertaming to the Solid Waste Management Flaming^ The Commission contacted all of the local contact persons.^'dudii Admimstrators, Toma Managers and Town Clerks, and invited them to in a 1 discussioa on fhe topic. Included in the packet of mformaticm submitted-to-aI]Ae lo^I con'fact' per sons was a fomi witfa&ee options for meeting the July 1, 2004. These options wereas'foUows. each seven COUDtiesJmd elevmtown develop independent localplans-for ^iT~own'junsdicti"on:"2) andlte mcolporated Towns dev.elop a ""a-^gionalplan; 3) regional planwhicl may'iDdudemore'&aa^ ^?J,urif.s?_nf Eua,d up to ^ sevencounties and eleven towas within the Pie&ionTplanmagDis^t"' option-3_louldbemplemeatedby ]ocal govemment personnel, other agency ~p~GrToimei(e^DCm\ or.byic,onlTa.cLseIVICes. (consultant)-As aresult of&e forum and tfae discussions held on option, &e staff' wasa.blei°_detemine that the maJ"ority oftheIocaUties were leaamg towards Options l-'and'2y2m&Jo^aU^s representmg 64% of &e region's population favoring one of these pkas. Therefore, ^w^canse^ a Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. ?_May_2003;the COImmssion .ass_isted &e TOWD ofFaimviIIe m forfimdmg to estabUsh a new Center m FarmviUe. This year the Congress' appropriated $56 miUion-doUars-' ! for states alldlocal UDits ofgoveramentto establish Emergency OpeTatioDS~Center~ms action was in response to 9/1 L An Emergency OperatioDS Center is more than a dispatch cenfer/itis'a commaDd" ce nter for emergencies tiiat can be utilized by multiple agencies includmg FEMA, the Fire: Police Department, Media, etc. The Comimssion continues^to provide admmisfrative persomiel and assistance to fhe Piedmont Reric Disability Services Board Under State legishtion. it is mandated that localities^reate^r maintain ei&er a local or regionaj Disability Services Board. The localities of the PiedraoatPIanmne > witfa die assistance of the Piedmont Planning District Commission, created a Re~nonafD isab1lit The Piedmont PJamiing District Comimssion, at die request of the localTtiesand theTfate. provldesstatesupport totlle with £fae state staffsupport "Commis^nTtaff are for executing directives, policies and assignments in tfae goals and objectives. Duties of die Commission stafffor'the mcIudedevelopuiEaeeDdaTB rcD^ mmutes'mamtaulingrecords Pertauine to ae financials, prepare tfae biennale Disabffi7s^vices'Nee5su Assessment for the District, admuusterjfae RehabilitatioD Semce Incentive Fund (RSIF) grant appUcation process, responsibk for the admmisfrarion, rool"toT &e State for RS'IF grants and faTthe Board. In February 2003, the 2003 Needs Assessmentwas completed7-Itwasae'concl^ion7f^ ^there was a ]ack of coordination ofdistnbuting in&rmation on semc^&atare'avaH"abIe7o recommended that the current director of services be updated. In^u!!e2002;Dr' chariesj3rownell'_profess01' of Art & History at VCU gave a presentation on the i Cour&ouses National Historic Landmark Theme Study. In 2002, the Commission 1 assisting the Virgima D epartaent of Historic Resources in completing a study of Jeffer7oman"Cou^Touses to PSrenoTaatioDS/or National Historic Landmarks. These Courthouses are eitfaer designed by Thorns' 1 or provided direct supervision or training. All of the Courthouses that were studied-are ; listed-on. &ev?gui^Lm^rkNationaIRegister:However'&e£oafof^^ recognition to these Courfiouses so that door will be opened to funding to help pr'eserve&einhistoncall'y^' ffae future. According to Dr. Browiiell work wil] continue tfarough Ae s'umraeMo document 'tbre^ Courthouses two Courthouses within the District: Charlotte and Lunenburg/Also included wll be GO.OCMand'however it ls °ytside theDistI-ict The Charlotte Coimty-s Courth^se7s-tfte'onlyCourthouse in ia that is documented to have been designed by Thomas Jeffe'ison himself. 11. Provide Technical Assistance to Local Jurisdictions in the Implemenfation of Vs 248 ---PAGE BREAK--- PPDC 2003 Comprehenm'p Rconon, iF npv.l.p^.^ sfrafee OTHER BURTW.KS :HAPTER YH-Fvhi^ , ^^Te^f^rZ^theToS^^ot^ rcsolufioa ofaPP-^°beg, ven to Mr. WUtaIcer ENFORMATIQN ITPA/K -WATER!!!. Ms. Katie Re Department of^^^ci^^M^^te^^5Z^p^^ls ^s!l]stedwi& nv^. "Fe^CuoIifozmTays b^n 5S£dT£k^ refrigerators out of the rivers and ofFof7hTb"eSTU t U2C wuole :'rate' W2uch UCIUdes gettms old &es aDd OM ".m^.=mse.umtcd. mdusfryaDdhyAopo^r^eTSeTSC -^TO.TCT±L&^^^ W;aB77;a'"Th^aS^aUZTun^^^^^^ coadeDsation,precipitatio;ufraBsp^tfo^C^toTt^^f^ 3% offi-esh^er. A Iargepartv'o7thue3^fr^asteT^lS . wl?SofAbemgsalt water? whic11 k^s"onJy fo^d^n^Ke:- ^°mesS ^ett£^e&ef^S^eJld e nw_ua:.b.-- There'are79 j5UO^kro^ecSyriZ^?l^be y^;Virgini:.;^paSoaffaZ^S^^^^ SomTofAe^eTof^S:^^^^^^^^^ sources of water poIlutioH^c7udep^mTsuo^c^c^Sld e?;p?ysicau trash^ or biological. ^e and include factonesTsewaTeZ^nT^S^ slurcesLpomt sources are ea?y° Identify e^^and-ar^r farm fields, septic~s7sfemsSl atoouspL^^sSc les: nmoffpo]lutioa from urbas 350 ---PAGE BREAK--- PPDC20D3 Comprehensive Economic Develoomenf Strafepv CHAPTER Xn-Eriiibit 2 One of tlie biggest pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay region is Nutrient Enriclunent, primarily phosphorus and nitrogen Over-enriched wafer leads to excessive algae growth that blocks light to aquatic plants which leads to loss of grass beds^wluch is food for and habitat for other creatures. Also, when algae die, tfaeir decoiipositioa depletes Qis dissolved oxygen m the water. Some oftfae sources of nutrient include, fertilizers, human waste, ammaT waste and atmospheric deposition of nitrogen. Water can be protected by modtfying our behavior through education and regulation. Mr. Daniel Gwinner. Epvironmental Senior Enemeer. Department ofEnviroiimentaI Quality rDEO) Mr. Gwiimer stated he had come to discuss the Regulations for Solid Waste Management Planning, Amendment I, was passed in August of 2000. These regulations are available on tfae DEQ website at: w^w.deq state. va.us/wast&/wasteregl30±itoil This new regulation replaces fhe regulations previously adopted in 1990. ID. 1998 Executive Order #25 stipulated that all regulations be reviewed every three years to see if Aey ?e^d_t, b^.mg abk to provide faDdi"g for Ae preparation of Solid Waste Managemenl: Plans. DEQ will be going out to different regions of the State to explain tfae process and answer any questions tfiat may arise. Mi. 'Ely 351 ---PAGE BREAK--- PPDC 2003 Comprehensive Economic Developmenf Stratepv CR4PTER Xn-Erhibit ^te S s,olid wasteManagemeIlt Planmng is a vital taslc that localities need to do to identify what they will be doing with their waste in the fufure. These regulations ako help guide localities to plan to dispose of Aeir waste in better ways instead of putting it into the ground, -^°^toa^a^d t?at so^s Iocalities ars mder Ae misunderstandmg that if&ey do not operate a landfill they do not have to submit a plan. This is not true. All localities, regardless of how ffaey dispose ofaefr-wa-ste7haveto' submit a new plan by JuJyl,. 2004. ' ~ ' Discussion was held on this issue. Several Comimssioners were concerned about tfae uaAmded mandates that are being handed down by the State tfaus, putting (he burden offimding on localities. ^LHO^Oa.st^ted s.everal scenarios ofllow tlus PIan c°uld be completed. Each locality could prepare it's own ?Ifla-a^submi.t ^ODtfaeirown butae dis-economies of seven Counties and eleven (11) T'owns~domg"&is"TOuld be enormous. A Regional Plan could be prepared by someone, possibly the Commission or a Consultaat If the (^nS^ls ^ed^ t^is> we would sitdowD wiA DEQ to draw up a scope of work and work out a budget ?_iD?_^mati011 wol^d tfa.en bepresented to the localities of flie region to see who would lite to opt to liave &e Commission prepare Ac plan. It is also a possibility tfiat the Commission could procure a^onsutontto~do'&ew Regional Plan for those participating localities. Mr. adced what would happen if the localities did not submit by ffae July 1, 2004 deadline, could they recei^ anextension? Mr. Ely stated, attfais point, Ae State wouldaotlike to be discussing exteasions, tIiiswouTd'come" cess. Mi. Ely reminded &e localities that this process is supposed to help &e conmunitie to the communities. MI: Jerome stated tfaattl]ls requirement is based on State Law that is created by the Legislature. Mr. Jerome stated S^lf. Ae_locaIitiesfeel.. this.is anonerousre(ITurcment, then the localities should contact Aeir representatives to see If&^ycaDget. some mitigatioD' wheffaer if be time or requirements. Mr. Jerome stated he~did noTfeeT&atwe should jast "roll over" without gomg to tfae source first Mr. Houghtoa asked tfae Commissioners how they would like to proceed on this matter. It was consensus of those present ffaat the regional approach would be the course to take. COMMISSION ACHOM FTEMS Action Items - Requests Mr;,.HOUghtonstated due to the meetinggolng^te, all the requests wiU be handled in block .Mr. Houghtoa stated 1 want to note how many requests the staff are handling; considering the staff is down to five~(5}!p~sovle~Ms. i all oftfae requests listed? Mr. Houghton stated tfaat the omnussion does not charge for all project requests. Mr. Houghton stated he would indicate'Sh p7o7e~cte&e" for and which ones we did not. The requests are tfae following: Request^from the Town ofKenbridge for Assistance in Applying for VDOT EnhaDcemeat Funds - No Charge for Preparing Application Request from Lujienburg County for Assistance m Applying for VDOT Enhaiicement Fimds No Charge for Preparing Application 352 ---PAGE BREAK--- PPDC 2003 Comprehensive Economic Development Strate?v CHAPTER XIT-Erhibit 2 by the Counties will cover ±e Towns within those jurisdictions. Mr. Houghton stated that the majority of localities in die Distoict have responded afBnnatively. The Commission has received from the State Mitigation OfQcer an invitation to submit a letter of intent for tfae grant funds. There will be $200,000 available Statewide. The Commission has submitted a request for $42, 000, with the Commission supplying the $14,000 match. The total project budget is 556, 000. The project schedule will require one year to complete this project -PPDC Letter of Support for Road Seements in the State's Six-Y_earPlan Mr. Houghton reported tfaat at last month's meeting the Commission voted to send a letter to VDOT Commissioner Shucet to include two road segments (improvements to Route 307 & fcnu-Ianing ofHwy. 15 from Farmville to Kingsvilk) m fhe Six-Year Plzumiag Process. This letter was seat os March'I 7'h. The Commission received a response from VDOT on March 25 . This response was included in fhe Commission packet for review. -VDOT Enhancement Program Workshous Ms. Moms reported that VDOT will be accepting applications for Ae Program on July 1, 2003. There is approximately $15 million dollars available for this year's competitioD. VDOT will be holding several workshops across the State, with two workshops in dus area. One will be held on April 22nd at tfae VDOT Richmond VDOT Office at LOO p.m. The other workshop wUI be held on April 29til at the VDOT Shop m FarmviUe at 10:00 a.m. VDOT staff will be reviewing &e new scormg and selection process for the program. The Conmussioa is cuirently under contract to assist several localities with specific projects under tius program. Ms. Morris stated any locality wislting to apply for Enhancement Funds for either afl existing project or a new project, should provide a brief written request for assistance to the Commission. Anyone with questions concerning this program may contact tfae office. Ms. Moms stated Mayor Momssette notified tfaeConmission that BurkeviIIe will be subimtting a written request for assistance m applying for additional Enhancement Funds. Mr. Houghton stated that delivered a request for assistance by Mr. Luke at tonight's meeting. Ms. Moms stated Comraissioa staff will be attending the FarmviIIe workshop. May 1. 2003 - Full Commission Meetine INFORMATION ITEMS -SCOPE/Meals on Wheels. Mr. Hoke Currie. Coordmator Mr. Currie recognized Mr. Jim Ray, Chainnan of the Meals on Wheels and also the Food Services Director ofSouthside Community Hospital. Mr. Cun-ie stated that tfae Piedmont Planning District Commission has more clout then any other orgamzafion he had spoken to recently. Mr. Cum'e stated that SCOPE has delivered meals to over 211 people in the past 2 'A years. In 2002 alone, SCOPE delivered 17, 185 meals. Mr. Currie gave examples of the clients that they serve, all of which have recently passed away. One client wasr a male who wa.s 88 and had been served meals for the past year and a half. Anofher was a female who was 71 and had been served meals for about 2 'A months. Clients pay for the meals according to their income. One of the mentioned clients paid S3 per meal the other did not pay anything. Mr. Currie stated SCOPE currently serves mainly Prince Edward, with a limited number of clients in Cumberland, Buckingham and Lunenburg counties. Mr. Cun-ie stated they basically serve an area within 20 miles of FannviUe. Mr. Cun-ie stated this program will not save anyone's life, but it will allow people to live better and longer and to stay in their homes longer than they would otherwise. Mr. Currie stated Ac SCOPE/MeaIs on Wheels program enjoys great support from the community. Mr. Currie directed attention to a newsletter that he passed out that listed the supporters tfaat ranged from individuals, businesses, clubs & organizations, churches, corporations, FEMA and Prince Edward County. Mr. Cun-ie stated that SCOPE 354 ---PAGE BREAK--- PPDC 2003 Comprehensive Economic Development Straterv CHAPTER XH-Exhibit 2 also serves meals to clients who come to the Dialysis Center in Farmville, but may be from a neighboring County. Mr. Cume stated if any of the other localities are interested in starting a Meals on WIieek program in their locality, he stated he is sure they will have die same level of support from tfaeir community. Mr. Currie stated £he plaiming for fheir program took 2 Vs years to develop before they served tfaeir first meal. Mr. Currie also passed out statisricaj infomiation on their program. Mr. Cume stated this program also assists clients in other ways. Sometimes, -when drivers deliver the meals, tfaey may find the client in need of medical assistance and can call for assistance. Clients also enjoy the company. Mr. Currie stated there are four components needed for a Meals on Wheels program 1) Food Services/Preparation, 2) Volunteers, 3) Funding and 4) Admimstration. Mr. Carrie stated he would be happy to go and speak to any group &at is interested in starting a Meals on "Wlieels program. Mr. Currie stated that the SCOPE program is already serving hot meals to its distance capacity. To expand tfais program would require tfaat new satellite programs begin in o&er commimities. Mr. Currie asked for general support for tfae SCOPE/Meals on Wlieels program and to also pass fhe word to other communities tfaat may be interested in begimuBg a sirmlar program. Mr. Cume did state however, that SCOPE is always interested in finding DCW funding sources and would be interested iftfae Commission was aware of any funding opportunities. Commissioners discussed different ideas on how to begin new programs in other commuruties. Mr. Green moved and Mr. Scarborough seconded for the Commission stafFto contact other localities to see if there is interest in-Meals on Wheels in their locality. Motion carried. COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS -Request for Assistapce in for VDQT Enhancement Funds - Bucldneham County. Town of Drakes Branch. Town ofBurkeville. Town of Victoria, md Town ofBlacksfone Ms. Moms stated that tfae Commission had received request from the following localities for assistance in applying for VDOT EiAancement funds: Buckingham - New Project for Courtfaouse Enhancement Project Drakes Branch - Existing Project for Downtown Enhancement BurkeviUe - Existiag Project for Train Station Relocation and Renovation Victoria - Existing Project for Railroad History Park Blackstone - New Project for a Transportation Museum Ms. Morris stated that with these five new requests, this brings the total of Enhancement Projects that the Commission staff are working on to eleven (11). Ms. Morris stated that tfae Commission has received a lot of phone calls ami requests for assistance on this program. Ms. Morris noted that with limited staff, the more projects that the staff take on, the less time tliere is'to spend on each of these projects. Mr. James Moore moved and Ms. Swinson seconded to approve tfae listed requests for assistance. Motion carried. Request from the Town ofBlackstone for Assistance in and Environrnental Review on the Cox Road Self-Heb Proiect Ms Morris stated the Commissicm received a request from the Town ofBIackstone for Assistance in Performing an Environmental Review on. the Cox Road SeIf-Help Project. Ms. Swinson moved and Mr. seconded to give tfae Executive Director autliorization to assist the Town ofBlackstone. Motion carried. 355 ---PAGE BREAK--- PPDC2003 Comprehensive Economic Development Strafepv CHAPTER XII-Exhibif 2 -Memorandum ofAereement Between the Town ofBlackstone and PPDC for Technical Assistance Ms. Moms reported that in anticipation of the Commission's approval for the request to assist the Town of Blackstone, the Commission has already prepared a Memorandum of Agreement between the Commissiori and tfae Town ofBlackstone. Ms. Swinsoa moved and Ms. Pugh seconded to give autfaorization to the Executive Director to execute fhe agreement between tfae Commission and die Town ofBIackstone. Motion carried. -Request from Prince Edward County for Assistance for the Rice Fire Department in Applvine for FEMA Fire Grant Monies Ms. Morris reported that enclosed in tfae CDmmission packet is a request from Prince Edward County for AssistaDce for tfae Rice Fire Department m applying for FEMA Fire Grant monies. Ms. Moms stated due to time coastraints, the Commission has already assisted Rice with tiiis application. Mr. James Moore moved and Mr. Reid seconded to approve Ihe request from Prince Edward. Motion earned. -Solid Waste Manaeement Plan Status Report Ms. Moms stated tfaat enclosed in tfae packet is a Solid Waste Management Plamung Status Report fi-om the Executive Director. Ms. Mon-is stated that tfus report is basically a sunmuiy of&e process the Comniissioa staff have undertaken smce the last Conmiission meeting. Ms. Morris stated all local contact Pe^sons, indudmg County Admmisfrators, TOWQ Managers and Town Clerks, ^ were invited to attend a April 17 Forum ffaat was held at the Commission ofiSces to participafe m a fomm discussion on Solid Waste Management Plannmg. Those in attendance were representatives from Amelia, Charlotte, and Prince Edward counties, as well as a representative 6om the Town of Charlotte Court House. Included . pf?^1 ofulfomIatioD sent to each local contact person was a form with three options for meeting tfae July 1, 2004 plaa requirements. The first option is for each of the seven coimties and eleven towns to develop independent local plans for their owii jurisdiction. This could be accomplished by the local government personnel and/or by contract services (consultant). The second option is for a County and it's mcoiporated Towns to develop a mtm-regional plan. Each jurisdiction participating would be addressed individually. This option could be mplemented by local government personnel aad/or contract services (consultant). The third option would be a regional plan that may mclude more than two county jurisdictions and up to all seven comties and eleven towns within tfae Piedmont Plamung District This option could be implemented by local government personnel, other agency personnel (eg. PPDC or other), or by contract services (consultaiit). la 1991, sue counties and eight incorporated towns participated in tfae development of one regional plan directed and implemented by the Piedmont Planning District Ms. Morris stated that the memo report states that, as oftfiis date, the Commission has heard back from 77% of the locaUties in the region. At this time, a consensus appears to be shaping up m favor of Options 1 and 2, collectively represeating four counties and five towns (64. 4% of the region). One county and one town are in fzvoT of OPti<:>11 3>the regional plan. Two counties and five towns have not expressed tiieir individual wishes and are not otherwise covered by as other option. Nottoway County and its mcoiporafed 356 ---PAGE BREAK--- PPDC2003 Comprehensive Economic Development Strateev CHAPTER Xn-Erh towns^id Qot^participate m the 1991 Regional Plan. Nottoway Coimty has indicated tfaey will again be submitting a Plan for the County and it's incoiporated Towns in 2004. _^_^LiD£orI3^tioIl. ftatIh.e COIImussloa has received, it appears Aat while a regicma] plan maybe submitted, it will not be oftiie magmtude of the one prepared and submitted by tfae ConmissioD m 1991. The Commission could still consider some form of a regional solid waste plan if a sfrongercoiuiensiu' emerges in the commg weeks, but the smaller number of participating jurisdictions will mem &at-each participatmg jurisdictionwill have to bear a larger individual share of (he total project cost The h?SCIlecked OD ^e <:ost f?1' PrcPaImgPIaDS a°d fliose costs vaiy fTemendously dependmg on the localities circumstances If a locality owns and operates tfaeir own landfill, they may need to hire an engineer, which is morecosdy as opposed to localities that do not own their own landfULMs. Moms" stated that the Virgima Department of PIanmng and Budget did an Impact Study'andAmIys'isonthecost and projected tfae cost to be $ 10,000 to £20, 000 perplan." ?^^?_s^tldtimt. represTafatives. from. ?ayes' Mattem & Mattem, Inc. were present and may Lave some furfher mfonnation to share on tfae subject JohaPayne, Hayes, Mattem & Mattem, Inc. stated die Solid Waste Maiuigemeiit Plan submitted m ls?l^sisul^t°. theclm'enf waste assessment reports &at localities have to submit to DEQ. 'I^eHan submitted m 1991 did aot have to include the annual recycling reportthat is submitted toDEQby&e localities. The amual recycling report will be required to be mcludedm the 2004. Plan. Tbs cost for. Dims ran vaiy. a lot . Mr. Pa^e stated, he called other ccmsultants. to see what tfae current cost are~for~plaas. ^ L!ta^d me. consultajlt stated theyaredomg a regional plan in for three ^cost $70, 000. However, the localities u tfiat region also participate in landfill minmg as'weU as" rarnung a landfiinmd Mr. Payne stated ffaat locaUties wiU get a betterprice^ moreb^aUties gcLtogethCT:-?A;p_Testated tfaat dus reglon wiu probably be T the lower endofAe'rosf'raagefor" lan. It will depend however, on how weU orgamzed a locality is in keeping 1 waste management Mi. Payne also stated that pubhc partidpaficmis a requirement tlurtindudes'a iatiz .-ad?my committee- Mr- payne steted die Plan that is due in 2004 is a goodopp'ortunityfoT L?LEU"I?zewIlat dle.y. are c:lOTeDtIy domgand PIau for^ future. TtocouJdmciude'hirmg a ronsultant_toprepare a rcport .that. WOUId iDCIude options for expandmg fheir^uiTentoperatioDroi^ 'close I receive bids fi-om private firms to haul the trash to otfaer laad&Us. There are ; 1 be analyzed m such a report. Mr. Payne stated that on the side of&e issue,'m" ; area recycling is market driven and therefore the localities are at &e mercy of&e market" H owe vTr. if a.Iocaktyumterested m devel°Pmg a recycling facility, ffais could also be anaiyzed. MT.-Payne-stated~&at would probably not be feasible for this area. Mr:JamesMoore aste(i what Rc)moke is omently doing? Mr. Payne stated ffaat fhe City ofRoanoke, ^oiutyand&e Town ofVmton share a regional landfiU. ' However, the CjtyofS'alemhas'&eir 1. Each locality is responsible for their own recycling. Mr. asked if a waste to energy facility were located m &e region wouldn't this serve as an ii ingredient to the resolve Mr. Payne stated that tfae big'consideration with a waste to f . would be, is there enough demand for the energy. r?^paya"tated_&at DEQ does. Dot expect Iocalities to fOTesee eveiything for the next twenty years. ver, they do expect localities to start with what they are doing now and utilizingYo year popuia tic projections and tfae cuireiit waste toDDage, project what Aey plan to do in the future. °Wbetherft'bei y, expand or close the current facility or have the waste hauled elsewhere. Mr'smy?stated he felt that D°ne ofthe Iocalities would have the p'ersonnel to do a plan on their own. . . also stated he felt hiring a consultant would be cost prohibitive. Mr. felt that localities would need to go together to do a regional plan. 357 ---PAGE BREAK--- PPDC 2003 Comprehensive Economic Develosmenf Sfratepv CHAPTER yn-F.rhihit 2 M^MOm".tatedJncIud_edmMr: HOTl^ton's_nTis a recommendation that states there is io.ufScient ^^^o±^e!Lp^la ^dsoMwa^M^^^^^ SS £^io^s^eDd^ir. coMideratioaofa^ P^Slc^aisistocetomtercsted-1^ eveaf that requests wiU be negotiated on a case by case basis. ' ^sso n-aske_djllatconstitutes. aregional plan? Ms-Moms stated she had a phone call into Mr. G^^:awwT^tqw^o^but ^^SJ^lbecws^±lo^^^:c^&^w^^^^ combmation offfaese would coiistitute a regional plan.' ^SSOe?. asked Ms- Moms ifshe COUId fiDd out ifaoa-CODti^uous coimfes/towDS could do a regional Mr: S.my£steted-t?t_tilepos!ti011 LImenburg " taking " that first the July 2004 deadline is ridiculous, and S,?la?Ja?;le ;mAmdedmandated- Mr- s^^d&eBoard~is^&;Tl^oI aJ;ZU S'E ;St" a]?iLropymgau ?e.county SUP^°"^^im:tato^and l^a^ ^ t^ c^nSect &e s^t^c^l^as^ttek htion^ ".5it&eiTt£addre".. ?e_le£lslators &st to>et &e ^^7°"chang;d7ogivT^m^es&npeu^T Mr. James Moore moved and Mr. Reid seconded to table the matter uatil next month. Motion earned. -Comprehensive Economic DevelopmeBt .Sfrateev CCEDS') Draft Goals. Ob]'ecti\ £^ct"Iitie~s to comemtoc'o^^e with ?^sludSMM;fme^eqmem_eate^es:A;;e °PtioDS ^^dlTde^Ic^m^^^^^^ SOT^PlaIupiu stowIlsaad 3) aregioaa] plan-A "g^^discu. sIoD'fomm"wasSo"nApSlT7^aTS^ £yand. fomla.conseDSUS on howAe Iocalities wanted to Proc^dwi&this subj^Is FreTlt^fZs" ^mlo local g°^"T.^rep^senfatives7th;sfaffjwas aM7todseu;eT^aat Ieaning towards OPtions l'.and 2' ^^-Iit^srepres~e'ntmg&4t. 4^Ae11 rJ:SP^^{avorms one rftheseP^. neRegioHaJ-PlanOptfo^y^d72 o7£eolou^es ^IS.PO??a^pport,:^:HO_ughtoD ,wasi&° Ss Sport. and tabledthe ^eruntH&e7in;meetm& penTu:gofa^eT^^^u^lss1011 statedsmce tfaat ti^ ^ Comimssion^r;c7v6 eroJy ODle'S^all]^er ^^Z^{rDr^a^ no consensus for a Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. " 'r -Comprehensive Economic Developmenf Stra.tezv rCEDS), Draft Sfrateric A ProCTam e.Dcl^d-mthe commission Packet is a copy of the DRAFT 2003 Strategic Action Sanaad2003:_2004workprogram section- Ms- H^kmaa stated are the same as last year. ^5^TvrT^mdM^James, Moore, sec.onded to r5uest aat the Pr°P°sed Strategic Action Plan and 2003:2004w^kprogrambe included in the flnal 2003 CoinprehensTveE^noim^De^lopme^! as presented. Motion carried. M^Hickman has received a11 ofthe SUPP°rt letters and resolutions for the 2003 CEDS. e,xcept fromone kca]ify:It is.expected that ^ fteirs'teTooT ^s.^ckm^tate^the_Conm. ission-s present EDAPIannmgAss^^ 30, 2003. Each year during the month of June, the Coimu£sro n-rece7ve7anm^tation"tosub^it"a^ 363 Pla ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B RESOLUTIONS OF PLAN APPROVAL ---PAGE BREAK--- July 14, 2004 The followmg is an exceipt offhe minutes of&e regular meeting oftfae Pimce Edward County Board of Supemsors held Juty 13, 2004. In Re: Adoption of Prince Edward - CumTieriapd Solid Waste Manap-emp.nt Plan County Planner, Jonathan L. Pickitt, reported tfaatthe Commonwealth ofVirgima requires each locality, either individually or as part of a region, to adopt a solid waste management plan every five years. In past years. Prince Edward County was party to the Piedmont PIamung District Solid Waste Management Plan. However, due to increased technical requu-ements, the PiedmoDt Planning District did not feel it coTiId adequately develop a plan for tfae entire region. Therefore, Prmce Edward County coupled with Cumberland County in a joiat plan. It was furtfaer explained that a required pubb'c hearing was held on June 28, 2004 with t&ree residents m attendance. The residents coramenfed &ey would like to see a marine ccDter m tfae Parcplin area, and be able to dispose of used motor oil and used aati-freeze at at least two oft&e convenience centers. Mi-. Pickett indicated comments from the public hearmg had been included m tfae final plan. During discussion, Mr. Ward stated the Pamplm site had become an "eyesore" and asked if trash pichips could be increased. County stafifwas very aware oftfae problem, and Chaiiman Fore indicated he was actively trying to find land in order to relocate the site away from Route 460 where it is utilized by residents from Appomattox and Charlotte counties, as weU as Prince Edward. Mrs. GiIfiUan suggested additional cans be instaUed. She was advised that six cans were on site but because of the size and configuration of the lot, the three fi-ont cans were often overflowing while relatively little was put m die back cans. Board members also commented on the condition offhe driveway and asked if it could be improved using County persoimel and equipmeDt Mr. Pickeff mdicated he would look mto it Mr. Moore moved adoption of the Solid Waste Management Plan. The motion carried by fhe following vote: ---PAGE BREAK--- Aye: Paftie Cooper-Jones William G. Fore, Jr. Sally W. GiIfiUan Robert M. Jones Charles W. McKay James C. Moore Howard F. Sinpson LacyB. Ward Nay: None CERTIFIED TRUE COPY Y)f./^J ^ Mildred B. Hampton County Administrator ---PAGE BREAK--- A^aregula^meetmg oftfae Cumberland County Board of Supervisors held the I3U 1 day °fJUIy 2004'a Public hearmg was held to consider &e draft of the ' Solid Waste Management Plan for Prmce Edward and Cumberiand'Counties. On a motion by Mr. White and earned, the Board approved" the-soiidw^tew managementplan to meet the requ"-ements and provisionsofthe Regulations for SoUd Waste Masagement Planning (9 VAC20-~l30~10eti Amendment VOTE: Mr. Osl - aye Mr. Petty-aye Mr. Heaton - aye Mr. White - aye Mr. Womack - aye A Copy-Tester ^ Judy County Administrator ^ ;1 ^o""tyAttoraey.. ^ ; r iiHiaiiF Bl] 01 IT D n.d inonl i Ijii - , I)l--ul>l; \J-<1 Di in*, i n nA \ n i t l^n 4 I ' n i I» 'I - i I'I ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC HEARING ON PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY / CUMBERLAND COIOTY "DRAFT" SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 7:00 PM July 13, 2004 Supervisors' Board Room County Court House Buildmg Cumberland, Virginia 23040 Record of Comments or Questions Only one oral comment was received by the County during the public hearing. This was from the person first listed on tfae attached "Sign Up Sheet'. The o&ertwo'iiTdividuaIs" withdrew their request to speak. No written comments were received. Comment Cumberland County's Plan should not allow a new "commercial" solid waste landfill to be constructed within the County ---PAGE BREAK--- Please Print NAME Solid Waste Management Plan BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING SIGN UP SHEET (3 minute limit) Date: 07-13-2004 ADDRESS PHONE DISTRICT ^JU4^JSSL ^JMM]£_M^_ L/ Pfi^ f^pn. ^/A-y 'SA ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D FUTURE CAPITAL OUTLAYS FOR CELL CONSTRUCTION AND CLOSURES ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECTFD niSPQSALCELL CONSTRIir*Ti- Project Description June 3.4a(5)$1 ^miiii^n FY2005 Phase 1 Closure (Cells A & B) July 5.4a/®Sl,lIm;llini FY2006 Phase 2 Closure (CeUC) Phase 3 Closure (Cell D) Phase 4 Closure (Cell E) Phase 5 Closure (Cell F and Final) July 6. 1a(a>Sl..1millinr> F/2021 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX E DEMOGRAPHICS REFERENCES ---PAGE BREAK--- Commanweafth of Virginia Web Policy I Governor of Virginia [ Site Translations VaEnzploy. Corn Virgsnict EmpIeyxiieiitf^Qmsassien Home > Services > Labor Market Information > LMI Staff Feedback Order Form Report Unemployment Fraud You can anonymously report Ul Fraud to the VEC by calling 1-[PHONE REDACTED] This page is for obtaining Statistical Labor Market Information only. If you have an Employment or Employer related question , do not use LMI j contacts. If you use these LMI contacts, your question will not be answered. . Employers: If you have any issue not covered by the information on our Employer Services Page, or . J(?b Seekers: If you have any general employment questions, recently become unemployed, Need job search assistance, have a question about Unemployment Insurance benefits or a fax issue not answered on our Job Seeker Page... Send your message to your nearest Field Office Labor Market Information: Please use the LMI Feedback form to contact us, unless you have a specific person you know to contact I LMI Contact Marilyn Baker Jackie Hudson Susan Mclver Larry Robinson Came Sterling David Tysinger Laura Adkins Jeremy Deyo Area of Expertise General Labor Market Information Customized Employer Files and General Labor Market Information Speaker's Bureau and General Labor Market Information Census and GIS General Labor Market Information Customized Employer Files and General Labor Market Information Census and General Labor Market Information ALICE, VELMA and LMI Websrte Database Administration IhwiiiSliwl [iSf5Sf§^^'fw^vyf&fSS!s£i vi»a1 HIS, ]M » r ^ f F .K LMI Survey Please take a moment to fake our Survey What's New Local Employment Dynamics - A detailed view of job creation, separation, turnover, and wages... Get More... Copyright © 2004. All rights reserved. The Virginia Employment Commission's An Equal ppportunity Employer/Program. Auxiliary Aids and Services are Available Upon Request To Individuals With Disabilities. Click Here to view our access policy, privacy statement and disclaimer. hftp://www. vec. state. va.us/vecportal/lbm-ilcf/staff. cfin 5/26/2004 ---PAGE BREAK--- Prince Edward Age in years <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85 + Total 1990 Total Population 967 993 1,012 2,302 2,653 1,022 1,041 1,083 905 712 693 705 742 745 593 546 304 302 17,320 Subparts may not add to total due to Founding 2000 Total Population 983 1, 108 1,205 2,601 2.724 933 1,063 1, 196 1,246 1,241 ,022 849 754 691 661 585 399 459 19,720 2010 Total Projections 1, 144 1,443 1,401 2,759 2,855 1, 187 1,454 1,550 1,379 1.401 1, 123 941 834 748 706 611 470 494 22,500 2020 Total Projections 1,304 1,720 1,600 2,926 2,937 1,381 1,830 1,939 1,545 1,523 1,216 1,008 899 778 690 683 436 485 24, 900 2030 Total Projections 1.484 1,957 1,803 3, 122 2,968 1,561 2,231 2,396 1,715 1,638 1,286 1,066 923 780 693 676 467 434 27,200 Virginia Employment Commission - 05/03 ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumberland Age in years <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85 + Total 1990 Total Population 550 534 585 595 485 549 588 514 539 487 445 380 361 397 283 246 167 120 7, 825 2000 Total Population 564 654 664 549 460 516 610 723 672 627 652 527 460 414 365 258 161 141 9, 017 Subparts may not add to total due to Founding 2010 Total Projections 581 605 688 664 569 498 569 688 736 771 676 641 688 510 415 316 238 244 10,100 2020 Total Projections 638 662 686 650 626 638 626 626 698 734 758 782 698 614 602 415 263 288 11, 000 2030 Total Projections 725 725 725 690 630 618 702 773 749 666 714 749 749 737 607 538 369 333 11,800 Virginia Employment Commission. 05/03 ---PAGE BREAK--- -QU^UTroF^RAT6s^^ . oun,,,, ^ , 004, 1, 976 988 ll^s 2, 018 2, 028 2,07; 2, 108 I2ji5 1.2,134 2, 135 2, 149" 2, 216 L2,235 .2,316 331~ 2. 34T 2. 365 2,366 l_2,413 I_2,416 127425 L2.460 L2,478 2,533' 2, 560 2, 565 L2.583 2, 696 2, 600 2,605 2,607 2, 646 2,733 7, 751 U54 '-,772 2,784 [Cralg. VA- IMecklenburg, VA I Halifax. VA~ i Richmond (1C), VA Teensville, VA ICumberland, VA~ ICarroll, VA Nottoway, VA- Jizewell, VA- ILunenburg7VA' Grayson, VA Russell, V/T N°rfolk (1C), VA Wiss, VA~ .uchanan, VA 38.50% 37.10% _36.78% .35. 99% 35.76%' 35.45%' _34.01% 32.90% 3Z. 68%~ _32.07% 32. 04% X59%~ _2Q. 46V7 28.85% 2Q.27% .25. 80%" j5AB% 24.71%~ 24. 68% :23?J8%- 23. 09% _22^0%~ 21. 69%" _21. 11%~ 19. 36%~ 18.5077 18.34% J7.77%~ _17.36%' _1T.23%~ 1T07%~ 17. 01% _15.76%~ 14.17%' 12. 93% 4141^ ^Z32%~ _11.75% 37%~ .0 ! i w w u sl s I ^ ^1^1 i 5,091 32, 380 180, 150 _23,853~ ^J45~ 57, 930^ 928 94, 91 T J5,127 6,871 19, 720 6,630 _I6,718- 8, 809" _L3,093~ J.829" 13, 874 37,355" 197,790 33,08f 19, 520 4^S J 1,560 _23, 177~ 32, 472" 9,017^ ,29,245 JW 15,725" _44, 598 13J46" 17,917 18,419" 30, 308 234, 403 _15,G23- 40,123' 26, 978 837 I 66% 74% I 53% 62% L69% I 55% L69% L6B% 159% [Q5% LJT'i 65% 167% L48% L64%] L52%] [63%1 I 63% I Lwd L67%1 I 64%1 Lzo%l L67%1 61 %1 .67%) G9%I 69% I 59% I 67^ 43% I 57%T 65%] 76% I 53%1 4% Q% 2% 4% 12% ^ 3% n y/7 4% 3% ~s 3% 24%- 77% 56% 48%~ 34%~ 65% _22% 62% 65%~ 45%~ 71 % _24%- _41%^ _46%~ 77%~ J30%" 43% 78% 58% _80%^ _45% -38%' 40% _62%' 48% .29% j5% 62%~ J>8%- w 0) 19% _36% 18% -14% 'J I 6% I 32% 50% 11% 6% ~4%T 3% 60% 67% 45% '62%" 72% _60%" 24% L-23% 14%' .30%' -17% -15% 17%' _20% _25%T 4o%~ J% _ 22% 9% -16% 13% J2%~ 11%~ 18%~ 10%- 24% -\yh -21%' 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 8% 1% 0% 0% r, 0% 4^ 5% I 30%] I 27% I L32%I L28%1 I29%1 129%) Isl- L30%I [29%1 L29%1 I_22%1 L27%1 [25%] L34%I L24%1 Ri%I [27%I I26%I L32%I L28%1 127% I L30%I I 39%1 I 28%) [27%1 \29%\ [28% I [28%] [ 30%1 L27%1 128%1 30% I 31%) 311 30% I 32%[ 110% 17% J4% 34% 1% 23% 25% 7% G°/7 27% Lm [27% [16% J3% [31%' [27% 9% L267, [22% 12%, [27%1 21% I _26%1 Wl [ 12% Ll1% 9% 113%- [TT%~ 15%1 _11%1 112%I [18%1 10%1 111% I L17%I L10%I J2%I 112%1 !.10%I 13° I12%I 9% [10? 15%1 [12%) 15° 110% I L13%1 I13%1 22%J1G% 7% 6% 5% 6% L13% _4°/T 5% 4°/7 7% 8% 4% 3% 6% ~s 6% 4% 9% 122% 131% [27% [20% I19% L21% L27% L24% 126%' L31%I I22%1 \ 27%} L23%1 I.27%I [22%1 I 23%1 123%} 1.36% I I22%1 126%] 1^3%] I 21 %I I19%1 L23%] I22%1 20% I [19%I 24%1 _25%f Z3%] 19% I i4%) $31,380 $31,816 $42, 745 $30,719 $31,301 $31,585 $29, 929 131,121 $33,995 J32. 002 JE33.359 ?28, 929 $31,816^ $30, 597 'SZT.BSQ $28,676 $89,600 $73,800 _$94,200 $88,000 $74,300 $69,500 $84, 000 $80,100 j75,2W JLB5, 70(T JW,7007 p82,OOCT J91, 800~ $85, 500" J75.100' P82, 800~ _$78,300~ $69,300" .$87,400 _$62, 600- $88,500' J.79,500' ,$63, 500 $e5, 900~ 9,600' $76, 600' $64,100 J>70,500~ ?72,300~ J>55,700~ $62,500 _$62,200 J>66,30(T (55.20CT .$88,300 ITUDO' $53^00" $42,800 p6 2, 900- _$2,574 $2,184 Ji1,965 12,608 J?2,220 n/w . t- $2^15' ^2,808 08T $2,70^ 32:339' -i^984; -1^1 _?2,406- $2,408- J;2,095 nA5G _$2.342~ 12, 040" ^2,Tl9" ^057 $2,775 Jp2, 383' $2,054' 927 '11 lilflt. .fi l!ltlil ^1^1^ $2,352 I $11 $32 $12 M $27 R $15 $10^ $36 116' 1W. $14" $12" 48% 41% 36% 14% 41% 32% 38% 13% $16 $15 ~$14~ ¥13 w $13 L39% [ 37% L37% L32% 34% [26% !39% 37% sr/o 11% 31% 22%\ _32%I 34%I 5% 5% QV« 8% 52% 6% 61% 80% 77% 85% $1T $13^ $12 P15" [34% 141% L37% j7% 24% :31% 29% 37% 41% 36% 35% i% 6% 6% A0% 7% ,10% 74% 65% 66% 69% _B2% 79% 77% 82% 76% 46% 2G% Page 85 of 182 9% 5% _5%3 4% 8% 5% 6V/» 74% 74% :77% 77% 82% 80% l4% 7i% 68% 11% _19% 12% 4% 6% B% 3% 3% 3% 9% 69% 60% 70% 70% 64% 75% 68% 78% 63% 77% 78% 81% 6% 5% 46% 78% 62% 64% 64% 62% J3% 10% 16% 13% 13% 9% _29% J2% 11% J% 5% 3% 3% 5% 4% m, 3% 64% .68% 63% 64% 75% 83% 66% 63% 63% 78% 63% 53% 60% 10% J0% 12% 9% 11% 3% ^ 4% .11% 9% 8% _T1% B°/7 20% 9% 8% m w 3% 8% 3% 4% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX F RECYCLING REPORTS ---PAGE BREAK--- wuni ur CUMBERLAND 80449Z9224 12/20 '06 16:37 N0. 103 04/07 VtsusssaL QEs/ssisBfraF EaWffioyiMEOTA&QVAUCT Contact Ihformafioa Raporfing Jttrisdiction: Person Compfeffiag This Form: r"^r'22SSK^ ^7 CommoQweaIffi of Virginia Locaffiy RecycfibgTRate Report For Calendar Year 2005 c/ Address: Strcet/p.O. Box Phone rg2^4^^;7 Email Address^ Gty Fax Sta.-te. cfeo^^ ^ ^^^^Tfe ?J[ocaI^vemmentsideIltified^ your^gional^olid management pjaa and whose data is'mcluded mfh^7^ort):" waste ££^RpZ?S^^I?L?touIaProvided below and ^ -?ea^cmp^, 2.c?catoe. ^^rt^e^r fe& is^ mgj ns&le for oteumg t6e m&raaatioa, I beEeveftaf the 'accurate, and complete. -Ibssa records wUJ. be made- ifrequesfed. Title Date Rstom completed foim by April 30, 2005 to: DEQ, P.O. Box 10009, W.dhm.oad, VA 23240. .---.-ffEQ.Fimn 5Q-30 CRevfsed) I of $ I/2/2006-- ---PAGE BREAK--- COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND [PHONE REDACTED] T2/ZO -06 16:37 N0. 103 05/07 Locality Recycling Rate Report For CaJendar Year 2005 KEera^AMOEWF^W^. a -:~^T"37J Plastic, . Glass Commiagled Yard Waste'(composted or mulched) Waste wood Cdupped or mufched) (See Note I, Page. 3) TestHes TOTAL PRM r. ^ S^L ys-T^y S%^SS^ te"ft~ T'^c'R Title: J^ ire. c. ^r A',i oL. ^ Address: ^ JSo^ 11^> ^e.r/^1 /i30V£> Sfreet/P. O. Box City State Zip Phone fgW) ^ZL-JZ?/ Fax#: C^^J-4/f^r-2^^y Email Address: -S ~fo eJ? .Ce-tT ^ Member Governments (The local governments identified in your regional solid waste management plan): CaIcuiated. RecycImg;Rate'i-' ing',fbe£oro^ below and. the infomiatioii . identified on Page 2 calculate your recycling rafe for the period. [p + s I / IP + s +]MI x 100 = Recycling Rate 1 f. ~ ~ ^ Ui3J__+ 1 + 33'S'^ 1X100 [Total PRM CP) +.Total SRM /-[T;otal.PRM +.Total SRM + Total MSW X 100 33, 7 % Recycling Rate . . . I certify fhat I have personally exammed and am familiar with. the information submitted m this form and any attached documents, and that, based on my mquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the mfoimation, I believe that the submitted-mformation is true, accurate, and complete. These records wiU be made available for auditing purposes, if requested. C^J^ 4 . L, . ^ Title - Date Authorized Signature Return-completed, form by AprO-30,-2004 torVirginia DEQ, Attn; ReGycling- Rates, - P.O .-Box- 10009, Richmond, VA 23240. DEQ Form 50-30 (Revised) lof6 12/10/2003 ---PAGE BREAK--- Locality Recycling Rate Report For Calendar Year 2003 Part I: Principal Recyclable Material (PRM:): Report only PRM generated within the reporting jurisdiction(s), NOT imported PRM. Pap er Metal Plastic . _ Glass Commingled Yard Waste (composted or mulched) Waste wood (cMpped or muJched) (see Other, Page 3) Textiles TOTAL PRM AMOUNT (TONS) 6.9 703,^ Ifc3LJ^ Part Df: Supplemental Recyclable Material (SRM): Report only SRM generated within the reporting jurisdictions), NOT imported SRM. SRM ryPE RECYCLED AMOUNT/Tons Waste Tires Used Oil Used Oil Filters Used Aban.d.oned automobiles removed Batteries Sludge (composted) Electronics Tree Stumps 6" Diameter) Other (from Page 3) SUBTOTALS . Construction Waste Demolition Waste Debris Waste Ash (see Other, Page 3) Other (fi-omPageS) SUBTOTALS TOTAL SRM -2-8.1 5'7 3«o3 37,7 (RECyCLED SRM) REUSED* AMOUNT/Tons* 2^ (REUSED SRM) Part HI: Total Mmiicipal SoUd Waste (MSW) Disposed**: Report only MSW generated within the reporting jurisdictions), NOT imported waste. TOTAL AMOUNT DISPOSED fTONS) -33^0 Hous&hold Commercial Itistitutional Other*** TOTAL MSW DISPOSED *Material separated from the waste stream and used, '-without processing or changing its form, for the . s-ame-or-another-end-us^.- . **Disposed for the purpose of this report means delivery to a permitted sanitary landfill or waste incinerator for disposal. ***May add total amounts of SRM generated. if known. DEQ Porm 50-30 (Revised) 2 of 6 12/10/2003 ---PAGE BREAK--- " 1,^-1 I.iT- c R. 1^-t. S3 . 0.1 f-l. Month January february march april may June July august September October november debember totaf grand totals madison 125. 61 79.78 143. 73 145.12 138.57 147.38 169. 99 128.57 140.3 124.2 121. 14 157.87 1622. 26 subtract steps scouts hamilfon . 63.02 47.62 88.11 . 87.26 84.44 83.52 . 74.69 93.67 . 84.94 87.89 76. 75 97.81 969.72 3385. 83 3385.83 randolph 59. 61 34.46 75.58 75.86 62.47 70.92 70.76 79 67.96 79.45. 62. 17 55.61 793. 85 steps Marions 117 tons Flippens 39 tons green front 40balesx1100#/month=264tons Cumberland Resteraunt ==39 tons marys=39-tons stop in 39 tons dollar store 234 tons building supply 19.5 tons rennies 39 tons vitos 39 tons napa 39 tons steps 15. 19 cardboard=922. 69 tons 1.09 0.8 1.62 1.43 0. 72 3. 01 1.84 1. 78 1.22 1.68 15.19 15. 19 15.19 recyiing m recycling h recycling r ©manual 3.58 3.89 6.47 3.88 0 2.67 16.25 13.65 23.41 9. 14 7.27 7.34 6.85 6.98 4.44 5.68 2.65 3.91 5.79 16.47 11.02 10.12 6.25 2.31 1.93 4.08 4.28 4.79 6.43 8.41 6.26 4.85 6.05 15.12 3.61 2.34 4.29 7.4 5.52 12.23 6.34 103.11 67.44 84.5 28.9 255.05 239. 86 0.28 Garage oil gallon antifreeze gallons Napa 2200 400 Cumberland auto 1500 200 marion bros 1800 120 martin & dabney 602 0 county line auto regional report crushed cars tranfer stations scouts total 6102 720 multiplier 7.4 8.42 tons 22.57 3. 03 mefal/tons batteries 0.22 2100 300.97 167.15 239. 86 0.28 708.48 2100 1 35.9 708.48 37.7 28.9 28.9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Recycling tofaJs metals cardboard/paper an {(freeze oil batteries tires Total recycling 1723 1723+3386= 708.48 922.69 3.03 22.57 37.7 28.9 1723.37 tons 1723 5109 =33. 7% ---PAGE BREAK--- 'UM 1 UT: rriihiuE tuiTiAnu L-U. Auiuij.n&iHAiiunj ^i>»>3ae;oDUi3; JAIM-<;=>-US l-'AUfc -dl'd ffiQ >AKTMEhn-OF VltCiNU. DEPAKTMEhirQF EhiVIRONMENTAl. QUAUTY Commonwealth of Virginia Locality Recycling Rate Report For Calendar Year 2003 Contact Information Reporting Jurisdiction: prince Ed"ard couuty Person Complering This Form: Planning Direccor Jonathan L. Pl eke ec Address: Phone P. O. Box 382 VA 23901 Box ( 434 ) 392 - SS37 City State Zip Fax ( ^ ) 392 - 6683 jpick&[EMAIL REDACTED]-e<}ward.va. us Email Address: Member-Governments (Tb6 local governments identified m your regional solid waste management plan); Prince Edward Coimtv ! ; I . ReCyeIu^iRato I certify that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this form and any attached documents, and thai, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining th6 information, I believe that the submitted informatiou is true, accurate, aod complete. TAese records will be made availa-ble for auditing p^irpose?, if requested. 4/5/200^_ Date availa-ble for auditine pyrpos ^ , /^/fifft/^ rized Signature f Title County Return completed form by April 30, 2004 to: VirguulDEQ, Ann: Recycling Rates, P.O. Box 10009, Richmond, VA 23240. DEQ Form 50-30 (Revisfcd) 1of6 12/10/2003 ---PAGE BREAK--- .CM I bY: "rtJ.iML'c: cuwAni./ i^u. ftuiinj-ivo i nfti j. un, '»>yti3y^DDBi3j PAGE 3/3 reality cycling Rate Report For Year 2003 Part I: Principal Recyclable Material (PRM): Report only PRM generated within the reporting Jurisdictl&E^)lNOTinlportedpRM' ' RECYCLED AMOUNTITONS) PRM TYPE 1"~"^I60J3T Paper 2T Metal --32. 43 ^r C&mmingled ^ ^ _ ^ - ---169. 00 Yard Waste (composted or muicoea; _ _ Waste wood (chipped or mulched) (see Other, Page 3) . . - T°tttoTOTALPRM - P»rt U: Supplemental Recyclabte Material (SRM): Report only SRM generated within tfae reportiiig i^rt-NOT imp<>rtcd SRM -rIR» AMOmT/T»s Waste Tires Used Oil -i^O- Used Oil Filters . UsedAntifi-ecze -m Abandoned automobiles removed 3attenes Ihidge (composted) electronics Tree Stamps 6" Diameter) Other (6orD. Pa.ge3) / SUBTOTALS lnQ« 71 y ~355732- 169. 00 (R£CVCT. EJ>SBM) REUSED* AMOUNT/TOBS* 1098 21 (PEUSED 5RM) Construction Waste Demolition Waste Debris Waste Ash (see Other, Page 3) Other (fiomPage3) SUBTOTALS TOTAL SRM Part IH: Total Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Disposed**: Report only MSW generated within the on(s), NOT imponed »as.. Ho^chold ^ Commercial -l;L15Io 74- Other*** TOTAL MSW DISPOSED 1082. 92 21. 231. 38 IM* - -Material separated from (he waste stream and used, wthout proce^ing or changing Usform,^ .me or another end we.. _ _ . » ^Disposed for the p^ffpose of this report means delivery to a permittsd sanitary or waste incinerator for disposal, ***May add total amounts of SRU generated, ifknowi. DEQ Form 58-30 (Revised) 2 of 6 12/10/2003 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- VtRGINtA. DEPARTMEKT OF EMVPiONM:ENTAL QUALmC Commonwealth of Virginia Locality Recycliag Rate Report For Calendar Year 2002 Contact Information Reporting Jurisdiction: Cumberland Coimty_ Person Completing This Form: Sherry Swinson Title; Assistant County Administrator^ Address; PO Box 110, Cumberland, VA 23040 Sfreef/P.O. Box City -PInme-#r-" - -^80t_Jr492=91 EmaU Address: com State Zip -G_804^492=922-4: Member Governments (The local governments identified in your regional solid waste management plan): Piedmont PIaiming District 14 - Amelia, Buckingham, Charlotte, Cumberland, Prince Edward, Lunenburg and the respective towns witliin CAlcuIated Recycling Rate: Using the formula provided below and tfie mfoimation identified on Page 2 calculate your recycling rate for the reportmg period. [P + S] / [P + S + M] X 100 = Recycling Rate 3 <7-36 9^T^^ j^7_n_] / 32- + ^f3--ll +J^^^@_]X100 [Total PRM CP) + Total SRM / FTotaJ PRM + Total SRM + Total MSW X 100 , 2^1 % Recycling Rate I certify that I have personally exammed and am familiar wi-tfa. the infonnation submitted in this form and any attached documents, and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the infonnation, I believe that the submitted mformation is true, accurate, and complete. These records will be made available for auditing puiposes, if requested. cl 4- o'5 Authorized Signature Title Date Return completed form byAprifSO, 2003 to: Virginia DEQ, Attn: Recycling Rates, P.O. Box 10009, Richmond, VA 23240. DEQ Form 50-30 (Revised) 1 of 6 01/10/2003 ---PAGE BREAK--- Locality Recycling Rate Report For Calendar Year 2002 Part I: Principal Recydable Material (PRM): Report only PRM generated wifhin fiie reportmg jurisdictions), NOT imported PRM. PRM TYTE RECyCLED AMOUNT fTONS) Paper \ c\^r Metal Plastic Glass Commingled Yard Waste (composted or mulched) Waste wood (chipped or mulched) Textiles TOTAL PRM 3-S 3- Part H: Supplemental Recyclable Material (SRM): Report only SRM generated wiffaia the reportmg jurisdictions), NOT imported SRM. SRM TyTE RECYCLED AMOUNT/Tons Waste Tires Used Oil Used Oil Filters Used Antifi-eeze Abandoned automobiles removed Batteries Sludge (composted) Electronics Tree Stumps 6" Diameter) Other (from Page 3) SUBTOTALS Construction Waste Demolition Waste Debris Waste Ash Other (from Page 3) SUBTOTALS 5-5 3^ -z^e. .'to o^ cicr .LplT-^ (RECTCLED SRM) REUSED* AMOUNT/Tons* TOTAL SRM (REUSED SRM) Part m: Total Municipal SoUd Waste CMSW) Disposed**: Report only MSW generated within the reporting jurisdiction(s), NOT imported waste. MSW TYPE TOTAL, AMOUNT DISPOSED FTONS) Household Commercial Institutional Other*** TOTAL MSW DISPOSED ^ c/ *Material separated from the waste stream and used, without processing or changing its form, for the same or another end use. ^Disposed for the purpose of this report means delivery to a permitted sanitary landfi ll or waste incinerator for disposal. ***May add total amounts of SRM generated, ifhiown. DEQ Form 50-30 (Revised) 2 of 6 01/10/2003 ---PAGE BREAK--- Locality Recycling Rate Report Instructions OPTIONAL: Use this page to report and summarize information for the "Other" categories on Page 2 of this form. SRMs, "other" material: Material J^V^A-I-S ^ . t/Os-t-A Tons Recycled ev3 Total SRMs Recycled -Z-@4 . (to "Other" entry. Page 2) SRMs, "other" material: Material Tons Reused Total SRMs Reused (to "Other" entry. Page 2) DEQ Form 50-30 (Revised) 3 of 6 01/10/2003 ---PAGE BREAK--- Locality Recycling Rate Report Instructions OPTIONAL: Use this page to identify those programs, activities, procedures or op erafiofls which you feel reflect fhejocality's commitment to waste mimmizafion, waste reduction, and/or materials reuse which by definition on the recycling rate reporting form may not be included in the recvcUrii rate calculation. SOpS- C^u-^T^ \r^X-e^ 'T't-r'e ^Av^ r^ei iL -S5"i-z-^o^s 5 Lf-e3:l£inifl, r'AU£ VIKCaWA. DEPAFTMENTOF QUAUTr Contact Information Reporting Jurisdiction: Commonwealth of Virginia Locality Recycling Rate Report For Calendar Year 2001 EDWAED COUNTY Person Completing This Form: JONATHAN L. PICKETT Title: PLANNING DIRECTOR Address: P 0 BOX 382 FAEMVILLE VA 23901 Sfreet/P. O. Box City Phoned < 434 1392-8837 Faxff: ^Dickect@co. Drince-&dvard. va. us State Zip C 434 y 392-6683 Email Address: Member Governments fThe local govenun6nts idfisntificd in your regional solid waste manag&ment plan): Amelia, Bucklneham. Ciunberland. Charloccfi. Lunen.burg and Prince Edward 0 / 1^;D I c&rtify that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this form and any attached documents, and that, based on my inquuy of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the informarion, I beH&ve chat the submitted information is true, accurate. and complete. These records will be made available for auditing purposes, if requested. ^ PvJUM^ Planning Dlraccor Authorized Signature Title 4/29/02 Dare Return completed form by April 30, 2002 to: Virginia DEQ, Attn: Recycling Rates, P.O. Box 10009, RichmoDd, VA 23240. DEQ Form 50-30 (Revised) I of 4 01/30/02 ---PAGE BREAK--- Locality Recycling Rate Report For Calendar Year 2001 Jurisdiction Recycling Rate Information Part I: Principal Recydable MateHal (PRM); Report only PRM generated within the reporting jurisdictions), NOT imported PRM. PRM TYPE Paper Metal Plastic Glass Yard Waste CComposted or Mulched) Wood Textiles TOTAL PRM RECYCLED AMOUNT fTONS) 408. 18 ,875. 95 18. 17 _25. 60 1, 327. 90 Part II: Supplemental Recydable Material (SRM): Report only SRM gesnerated within the reporting jurisdiction(s), NOT imported SRM. SRM TSYE RECYCLED AMOUNT/Tons REUSED* AMOllNT/Tons Waste Tires _88. 83 Us&d QiJ Used Oil Filters Used Antifreczc Automobile Bodies ' Construction Waste DemoUtion Waste D&bris Waste Batteries Ash SIudgs Tree Stumps 6" Diameter) Other A^A. &O SUBTOTALS 523. 23 TOTAL SRM OiECYCLEDSRM) 519. 66 (EEUSEDSRM) *MaIerial separated from the waste streain and. used, without processing or changing its form. for the same or another end use. Part ffl: Total Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Disposed**: Report onJy MS W generated within the repoitingjurisdiction(s), NOT imported waste. Kous&hold Commercial Insututional Ochfir-^* TOTAL MSW DISPOSED ^Disposed for the purpose of this report rneans delivery to a permitted sanitary landfill or waste .cinsrator for disposal. ***M.ay add total amounts ofSRM genercaed. if known. TOTAL AMOUNT WSPOSED (TONS) fl 700 fit 8. 902.U l»224. 59 1. 89 18»348. 45 DEQ Fona5()-3<» (ReTised) 2 of 4 Q3J3Q/02 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- hrf 1 . n.J. i-^^tr-tl^U i^U . ^L-iUi^IV^ I iin i j. wit . . ^dOLjUL.I I-IAIM tLS-us j; i nui; t-'ALii: INTERIM Z >a LOCALITY RECYCLING RATE REPORT 02/15/2001 CAdditionaI copies of this form may be dowiiJoaded af htfp:/Aw^dcq. state.va.us/form^) I Reporting Entity: Coimcv of Prince Edward 'Person Completing This form; Jonachan L. Plckett I Title: Plannine Director [Address: P. 0. Sox 382 P^rnivllle Street / P.O. Box City Phone Number; ( 804 ) 392-8837 23901 State Zip I Fax Number: ( 804 ) 392-6683 Email Address: jpick6Cl:@co. va. us Wcbsite Address: . Co-op Locality; I MemberGovernme"ts'' the e^mnieDts ideotified la your regional solid waste management ^ Frlace Edward, Amelia, Buckinghara, Charlotce, Cumberland and Lunenburg WASTE TVPE I. principal Recvdabre Mafcrial Paper Metal Plastic Glass Yard waste (composed or Wood Textiles Total PRM Manapement Action Recycled (Amount in tons) hh\. AP7. 15 18. 34 ^ 609. 79 ' p. I ---PAGE BREAK--- i-irvv- a^-ua o; i i nui rA Lit d INTERIM LOCALITY RECYCLING RATE REPORT Mapaffcraent Action Recycled Reused* IL^SuppIemca(aI Recycle Majma^SRM} (ADio'imtl^Tons) (AmS^H^ l.'res_.. / _ 77. 40 Used Oil Auto Bodies Construction Waste Demotition Waste Debris Waste Barteries Ash SIudge Subtotals + Grand Tofa] SRM _77. 40 _622^16 622. 36 699. 76 fS) ^ . -material must be reused in its present form or be size - reduced + Disposed^ IH. Total MSW Generated + Reused Household Commercial Other** Total 8181. 33 7761. 7^ 1244. 85 2047718" 19234. 62 fC) ****Mayadd total amounts of SRM generated, if known. &W^Jr r.V. Recycfing Rat£ = ^g ^ ^ ^ c pz 6.8 % .^ctrtil7^a^^veplr sona"y CIamined andfl"' 'vith the information submitted in this Authorized Signature Planning Direccor Title April 20, 2001 Date ^ should b. returned ,o Vi^inta DEQ. Altn: Bill N.rri,, p.o. B» 10009, R.chn.ond, VA 23240-UOW. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX G COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES IN PLANNING REGION ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDDC G COMPREHENSWE LIST OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES IN PLANNING REGION Site County Facilities Name Permit No. Permit I Solid Waste Unit Status I Name Status Solid Waste Unit Type Pnnce Edward County Famrwille Town of Landfill SWP I 195 Permitted South Landfill Area Inactive I Sanitar/ ' Landfill [SW] Famnville Town of Landfill >WP I 195 Permitted North Landfill Area Inactive Sanitary Landfill [SW] Farmville Town of Landfill SWP I 195 I Permitted Main Landfill Area Inactive Sanitary Landfill [5W] Farmville Town of Landfill SWP I 337 I Revoked Farmville Town of - Landfill Closed Closed Sanitary Landfill [SW] Prince Edward County Sanitar/ Landfill 5WP I 420 Revoked I Prince Edward County of-Sanitary Landfill Closed Closed Sanitary Landfill [SW] Prince Edward County Sanitary Landfill SWP I 584 Permitted Pr. Edward Co SLF Unit #1 (prev permit under #420) Closed dosed Sanitary Landfill [SW] Prince Edward County Sanitary Landfill SWP I 584 Permitted Pr. Edward Co SLF Active Sanitary Landfill [SW] Prince Edward County Sanitary Landfill SWP I 584 Permitted Pre-88 Closed Area Closed Closed Sanitary Landfill [SW] Cumberland County Hamilton (Cartensville) Sanitary Landfill SWP I 339 Permitted Cartersville Sanitary Landfill Post- Closure Closed Sanitary Landfill [SW] Randolph District SLF Cumberland County SWP I 341 Permitted Western Waste Area Post- Closure dosed Sanitary Landfill [SW] Randolph District SLF Cumberland County SWP I 341 Permitted Randolph District Sanitary Landfill Post- Closure Closed Sanitary Landfill [SW] Randolph District SLF Cumberland County Madison Dist SWP 341 Permitted Eastern Waste Area Post- Closure Closed Sanitary Landfill [SW] ;WP Sanitar/ Landfill 342 I Permitted Madison District Sanitary Landfill Post- Closure Closed Sanitary Landfill [SW] *From the DEQ Solid Waste Data Base ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX H DOCUMENTATION OF PROPOSED NEW DISPOSAL FACILITY INCLUSION ---PAGE BREAK--- CUMBERLAND COUNTY ---PAGE BREAK--- THE FARMVILLE HERALD PO BOX 307 FARMVILLE VA 23901 0307 [PHONE REDACTED] THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROMPT PAYMENT PLEASE INCLUDE ID# WITH PAYMENT ID# 69 CUMBERLAND CO ADMINISTRATOR PO BOX 110 CUMBERLAND VA 23040 Balance Forward 12/01/2006 LOCAL DISPLAY ADVERTISING 12/01/2006 LOCAL DISPLAY ADVERTISING 12/06/2006 LOCAL DISPLAY ADVERTISING 12/15/2006 LOCAL DISPLAY 9. 500 INCH 10. 500 INCH 4. 000 INCH 9. 000 TNfH 627. 00 90. 25 flOS 99. 75 P<2> 38. 00 80S 85. 50fiOS (WT, ££IAY ADVERTISING 10. 000 [NCH IT/15/20 06 12/20/2006 12/21/2006 12/22/2006 12/28/2006 12/29/2006 LOCAL DISPLAY ADVERTISING LOCAL DISPLAY ADVERTISING PAYMENT CHECK 049575 LOCAL DISPLAY ADVERTISING QUOTED PRICE BILLED IN ERROR, BELONGED TO LOCAL DISPLAY ADVERTISING Balance Due lU. bUU -imf 4. 000 INCH 10. 500 INCH HEALTH DEFT 4. 000 INCH 95. 00 J&05^) 99. 75 BOS 38. 00 ACS 475 00- 99. 75 8^ 152. 00- 38. 00 1&OS 684, 00 ^-AOO-7 DEFT APPROVAL. CO. ADMIN APPROVAL ^uc^U^OO^' DATE PAID _i^r9-2- BUDGET CODE HO in- 3 LOO Current 684. 00 30 0. 00 60 0. 00 90 0 00 90+ 0. 00 ---PAGE BREAK--- would have -nclude Iran and that the U.S. must enter into dialogue with the country. Asked if it was time for Presi- dent Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to change course, he''responded: "I thmk we have to redefine the course, but I don't think that the alter- native is between miUtaiy vic- toiy, as defined previously, or total withdrawal. ive Quimby Group r Real Estate Partner For Life. id Quimby for additional information 6036XC). ?c [PHONE REDACTED] X tad front the $150^ ioran View on Pincy Grove Road. icw home the way you like on 1+ )day to pick out your: kwailablel Mlable no money down! ; - Call today get approved! BK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PRINCE-EDWARD AND CUMBERLAND COUNTIES BY THE COUNTV OF CUMBERLAND, VIRGINIA The Cumberland County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hear- which~may~be continued or adjourned, as required^under c3ile law,'on'January 372007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Circuit Courtroom of the Cumberland County Courthouse in connection with the of'the'Board ol Supervisors to consider acceptance and adoptii of amendments to the County's ^ current .SolidWa^e^age^ Pla^forP'rinceEdward and Cumberland Counties. The Solid Waste fes an ana?. JoiwSn^^-U^te ,im?(Seiin Sti3TThe amenliments retie^^^labtlity 'of'a proposedI laridfiUto be sited in the eastern part of Cuml "The public is invited to appear and wu 5ubjmitwnnen-romments prior to'the hearing, on the proposed ame?>dments'to"lhe"Solid Waste Management Plan, which^re avail_. able for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m.^ and 4:30^p. m.^m the'Courity 'Administrator's Office. Any persons with disabilities are urged^o'wntact'the County Administrator's Office prior^to t^publj^ hearmg'to'arrange for any necessary a<»om(md_ations;,. F^ad^ tionalTnfo'rmationT please contact the County Administrator's 804/492-3625. 1 Judy Ownby, County Administrator By'Order of'the Cumberland County Board of Supervisors day to pick out your: ivailablel falable no money down! - Call today get approved! NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOF^ PRINCE'EDWARDAND CUMBERLAND COUNJIES BY THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, VIRGINIA The Cumberland County Board of S"pervisorew!lhoua.pu^"CS ing" S°ma7be~continuedor adjoumed,_as^eqiured^nde^p^ ,'on"lanu.uy 372007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Circuit Courtroom^ ^theu'ttoai;d"o( Supen/iso'rs to consider acceptance and_adoptto^ uai ^ la^eun^toTe'Co^cu^t^^^^^^ t^^M^s^ss ^uus'ubymit writt^~cQmmerrts~prio^to ^Zn^'t^Solid^to^anag^^ e hours'°<_830,a-m,a"14;^m,S t'hTco'un'ty'A'dministrator-s0 ce. ^ Any;PerM^wit^disab£M.,^ ^;e7toI 'c»n"taIctIt^'Ctounty-AdminisUator^^^^^^ Sg^^arra"ng9^o7any/. necessaryacoommodat^ STnformatro n3 please contact the County Administrator's Office at 804/492-3625. County Administrator By'Order of'the'Cumberland County Board of Supervisors^ v Residential, Commercial, Lan^,_Farms^ New C^rIstructionVand Property Management '"FEATURED LISTINGS OF THE WEEK" ^ ---PAGE BREAK--- Excerpt from the January 3, 2007 Meeting of the Cumberland County Board of Supervisors b) Amendments to Solid Waste Management Plan The Chairman opened the public hearing. There were three citizens signed up to speak in regards to the Solid Waste Management Plan, most to address the issue of a proposed landfill. The Chairman closed the public hearing. The Chairman read a written statement from a citizen and then addressed questions presented by citizens during the public hearing. Mr. Osl informed citizens that the County is required by the State to have a Solid Waste Management Plan in place. Mr. Osl also pointed out that the Department of Environmental Quality requires a revision of the current plan before a landfill could be permitted. On a motion by Mr. Womack and carried, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Cumberland County, Virginia (the "County") has been presented wifh amendments to the County's current Solid Waste Management Plan with Prince Edward County; WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Management Plan provides an integrated management system and long-range planning for waste and recycling both in Prince Edward and Cumberland Counties; WHEREAS, the amendments reflect the availability of a proposed landfill to be sited m the eastern part of Cumberland County; WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed and considered the amendments; acceptance and adoption of amendments to the County's and Cumberland Counties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTy, VIRGINIA: 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Solid Waste Management Plan for Prince Edward and Cumberland Counties, reflecting amendments which include the availability of a proposed landfill to be sited in the eastern part of Cumberland County and as presented at this meeting of the Board, is hereby by accepted and adopted. 3. Each of the County Administrator and tfae Chairman of the Board (each, an "Authorized Representative") and such ofher ofBcers of the County as are requested are hereby authorized and directed to execute, deliver and file all ---PAGE BREAK--- certificates and documents and to take all such further action as they may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the acceptance and approval of the Solid Waste Management Plan. 4. Each Authorized Rqsresentative is hereby authorized and directed to execute such documents, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution, as may be approved by an Authorized Representative, his or her execution to constitute conclusive evidence of approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes. 5. Any authorization herein to execute a document shall include authorization to deliver it to other parties and to record such document where appropriate. 6. All other acts of an Authorized Representative and other officers of the County that are in conformity with tfae purposes and intent of this Resolution are hereby approved and ratified. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS that this Resolution is hereby effective immediately. Vote: Mr. Osl - aye Mr. Petty-aye Mr. Oertel - aye Mr. White - aye Mr. Womack - aye ---PAGE BREAK--- WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Cumberland County, Virginia (the "County") has been presented with amendments to die County's current Solid Waste Management Plan with. Prince Edward County; WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Management Plan provides an integrated management system and long-range plannmg for waste and recycling both m Prince Edward and Cumberland Counties; WHEREAS, the amendments reflect the availability of a proposed landfill to be sited m the eastern part of Cumberland County, WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed and considered tfae amendments; acceptance and adoption of amendments to the County's and Cumberland Counties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE FT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTy, VmGINIA: 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated hereia by reference. 2. The Solid Waste Management Plan for Prince Edward and Cumberland Counties, reflecting amendments which include the availability of a proposed landfill to be sited in the eastern part of Cumberland County and as presented at this meeting of the Board, is hereby by accepted and adopted. 3. Each of the County Admmistrator and the Chairman oftfae Board (each, an "Authorized Representative") and such other officers of the County as are requested are hereby authorized and directed to execute, deliver and file all certificates and documents and to take all such further action as they may consider necessary or desirable m connection with the acceptance and approval of the Solid Waste Management Plan. 4. Each Authorized Representative is hereby authorized and directed to execute such documents, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution, as may be approved by an Authorized Representative, his or her execution to constitute conclusive evidence of approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes. 5. Any authorization herein to execute a document shall include authorization to deliver it to other parties and to record such document where appropriate. 6. All other acts of an Authorized Representative and other officers of the County that are m conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution are hereby approved and ratified. BE FT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS that this Resolution is hereby effective immediately Dated: ^ Attested: -u-^fi^r ^lerk. Board of Supervisors jRICi»419369.DOC-l) ---PAGE BREAK--- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, VIRGINIA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN January 3, 2007 At a meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Cumberland County, Virginia, in the Circuit Courtroom of the Cumberland County Courthouse at Cumberland, Virginia commencing at 6:00 p.m., January 3, 2007, the following action was taken: Following a presentation of the recitals and the resolutions for adoption and on a motion by Supervisor Womack and carried, the Board of Supervisors adopted and approved the Resolution according to the votes stated below: William F. Osl, Jr., Chairman Clifton C. White Van H. Petty Elbert R. Womack Robert J. Oertel Vote: yes yes yes yes yes Absent: Dated: January 3, 2007_ Attested: & Clerk/Bbard of Supervisors {RIC#419369. DOC-I} ---PAGE BREAK--- CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Provided pursuant to requirements of 9 VAC 20-130-130, Public Participation, please note the following as Public Hearing Comments and the Submitter's Response as excerpted from the January 3, 2007, minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting at which the public hearing was held regarding amendments to the Cumberland County Solid Waste Management Plan and as supplemented from materials received from the public by Cumberland County. At the Second Public Hearing of the Meeting, on the Board Agenda, titled as, "Amendments to the Solid Waste Management Plan," the following occurred. The Chairman opened the public hearing. There were four citizens signed up to speak, of which three spoke, in regards to the proposed Amendment to the Solid Waste Management Plan, most to address the issue of a proposed landfill. Comments Received from the public are below: Ron Sears - Cumberland County resident, French's Store Road He asked why the residents on French's Store Road had not been included in the proposed private landfill process, since these residents would be directly impacted from the facility. Tim Kennell - Cumberland County resident, The Woods, Rt. 60 He asked why the County needed another landfill. He further inquired why was the SWMP being revised before the DEQ permit was approved. Kay Hooven - signed up to speak but was not present during public hearing. Nancy Faxon - Cumberland County resident, Old Buckingham Road She offered that she thinks that a landfill is not needed in the County and that the proposed landfill has bred contempt for the Board of Supervisors. Unrelated to the proposed private landfill, she asked that the Board allow more time to move the log cabin from its current site of the of the new Cumberland County High School/Middle School Complex. The Chainnan then closed the public hearing. The Chairman read a written statement from a citizen, as attached hereto as Attachment A, and then addressed questions presented by citizens during the public hearing. Mr. Osl informed citizens that the County is required by the Commonwealth of Virginia to have an approved Solid Waste Management Plan. Mr. Osl also pointed out that the Department of Environmental Quality requires a revision of the current plan before a landfill could be permitted. {RIC#420904. DOC-lj ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT A The following is an email correspondence from Carol Wright of Cartersville, Virginia, located in Cumberland County. {RIC#420904.DOC-1} ---PAGE BREAK--- Page t o Judy Ownby From: Sent: Wednesday, January 03. 2007 10:29 AM To: White, Clifton C. CSM NOVA; W. F. Osl, Jr; Judy Ownhy Subject: Cumbertand Solid Waste Nanagement Plan Dear Ms. Ownby and Distinguisbed Members of Cumberiand Board of Supervisors, I regret that \ am unabie to attend the pubiic hearing regarding Cumberiand's Solid Waste Management Plan. which (understand is sGheduled for the evening of January 3, 2006. please read the following statement at the meeting to enter my comments into the public record. At appears that the proposed solid waste management plan with Prince Edward Countyisarlefforttama(< acaseforCumberiancTs need for a mega landfiit. Amelia's Mapewood Landfiil has^more than years remaining capacity and lies less than seventy-flve miles from Cumberiand. The capacity meets the waste management needs of CumberEand in the foreseeable future and Is loeated a reasonable distance from Cumberiand. In consideration of these facts, t am opposed to the proposed solid waste management plan. Thank you. Carol Wright 1/3/2007 IP ---PAGE BREAK--- CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Corrected Amendment Response to Department of Environmental Quality letter dated May 7, 2007 Daniel S. Gwinner, Environmental Engineer Senior Office of Waste Technical Support, Waste Division Referencing paragraph 2 of the Department of Environmental Quality letter dated May 7, 2007, please accept the following corrected amendment submission of the record of the public hearing held by Cumberland County on January 3, 2007, and information further responsive to questions DEQ has received from citizens regarding public participation in the development of the SWMP. This supplements the materials previously submitted. Provided pursuant to the requirements of 9 VAC 20-130-130, Public Participation, please note the following as a record of the public hearing, comments received, and the submitter's response. Notice. Cumberland County duly noticed the public in two different newspapers of general circulation that a public hearing on amendments to the Solid Waste Management Plan for the Prince Edward and Cumberland County Region would be held on January 3, 2007. Public Hearing. At the January 3, 2007 meeting (the "Meeting") of the Board of Supervisors, a public hearing was held regarding proposed amendments to the region's Solid Waste Management Plan. The comments received at the meeting are identified below and are verbatim from the voice recording of the Meeting. The only written comment received (Carol Wright of Cumberland County submitted a written comment prior to the Public Hearing) is attached as Attachment A. The Chairman of the Cumberland County Board of Supervisors, William F. Osl, Jr., responded to the comments following the public hearing and the Submitter further responds to the public participation process as set forth below. Public Comment. At the second public hearing of the Meeting, listed on the Board Agenda as, "Amendments to the Solid Waste Management Plan," the following occurred: The Chairman opened the public hearing. There were four citizens signed up to speak, of which three spoke, in regards to the proposed Amendment to the Solid Waste Management Plan, most to address the issue of a proposed landfill. {R]C#423836J)OC-1} ---PAGE BREAK--- Comments received from the public are below: Ron Sears - Cumberland County resident, 825 French's Store Road "Good evening. My name is Ron Sears and I live at 825 French's Store Road. I've got three points. Why is the Board so Hell bent on changing people's lifestyle with this landfill? That's one thing I want to know. Number two - does this Board realize that French's Store Road is in Cumberland County and they are excluded from decision making on this landfill? Nobody from French's Store Road has been asked anything about this landfill. That'sit. Thank you." Tim Kennell - Cumberland County resident, 58 The Woods "Good evening. I am Tim Kennell, 58 The Woods. What need are we accomplishing in adopting a new waste disposal policy or amended when we are in the same waste disposal stream as Prince Edward and Amelia. It would seem the necessity for an amended would come only after a permitted landfill has passed DEQ and not before that time. What need do we have as a region to place yet another new landfill in the middle of a waste stream that seems to be working fine. In our region, both landfills in our region have an expected lifespan of a minimum of 20 years. Why does our region need another player in the stream? Thank you." Kay Hooven - not present Signed up to speak but was not present during public hearing. Nancy Faxon - Cumberland County resident, 355 Old Buckineham Road "I'm Nancy Faxon from 355 Old Buckingham Road, Cumberland. I have been going to some of the meeting. I'm kind of late in the game with this one. I have sort of sat back and thought that the landfill was something necessary but the more I learn about it the more that I just don't think it is the right move. It's done bred contempt against the Board. It's split the County and this is even before it's in the ground and it's not guaranteed that it will be safe. I'll be near it but like I said it hasn't bothered me before the more I researched into it and looked into it the more frightening it became and I don't believe the school complex has to be as big as planned. I spoke before. I don't want the school torn down and I really hope that you give the Runtans tune to get the log cabin out of there. It was built at a time when the County pulled together and the whole general feeling of the County just being so split and the all of the hurtful and contemptible things that are being said. You're supposed to be our leaders. It's sad to say that maybe some of the voters... I just hate to see it happen. I hate to see it happen over a trash pile. Thank you." The Chairman then closed the hearing for additional verbal comment. {MC#423836. DOC-1} ---PAGE BREAK--- Written Comment. Carol Wrisiht - Cumberland County resident. Cartersville. At the Meeting, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, William F. Osl, Jr., read aloud the written comment received from Carol Wright - Cumberland County resident, Cartersville, as attached hereto as Attachment A. Chairman's Response. The Chairman then provided a response to the public comments by addressing the Meeting from the podium. The Response is in the Meeting minutes and is verbatim as follows: "I would like to just let the citizens know that we are required by the state of Virginia to have a Solid Waste Management Plan. This is not an optional consideration on our part. As the last letter said, that they are opposed to the solid waste management plan - well I think they are opposed to, obviously, the same issues that other people have raised and that is the landfill component of the Solid Waste Management Plan. We are required to do that and to answer the timing question, we are required by Department of Environmental Quality to make the revisions to the Solid Waste Management Plan before the permitting process can continue. We can't wait until some later point in time to do it. Otherwise the permitting process cannot go forward so it needs to be done as a requirement from the state to do so." Public Participation Process. In addition to the above public hearing process on the proposed amendment to the Solid Waste Management Plan, the level of citizen involvement in the proposed siting of the private landfill has been unprecedented. Among other meetings held by the Submitter to discuss and offer public comment regarding the proposed private landfill facility, the County Planning Commission duly advertised and held public workshops and hearings on September 6, September 11, September I 8 and October 10, 2006. The County Board of Supervisors duly advertised and held a public hearing on October 17, 2006. At each of these meetings, hearings, and workshops, the public was invited to voice any comments or concerns regardmg matters surrounding the siting of a proposed private landfill facility in the County. County officials have attempted to address all matters raised at these meetings. Additionally, DEQ representatives were present at some of the referenced meetings and have assisted in answering questions raised by the public. The public hearing on January 3, 2007 provided opportunity to the citizens to comment specifically on the region's Solid Waste Management Plan and the proposed amendment to the previously approved plan. Public comment overwhelmingly concerned the siting of the proposed landfill, which has been addressed by Submitter on numerous occasions as set forth above. The comments were not addressed at any other aspects of the plan. Therefore, at the meeting, the Chairman generally discussed the process and requirements for amending the Solid Waste Management Plan and the need to do so prior to obtaining the permits for any new facility {RIC#423836.DOC-1} ---PAGE BREAK--- RESOURCE INTERNATIONAL, LTD. ENGINEERS . SCIENTISTS . SURVEYORS . PLANNERS June 29, 2007 ^Q Direct Dial (804) 550-9245 ehollos@resourceintl. com- http://www.resourceintl.com J?x P.N. 90094. 23 Daniel S. Gwinner Environmental Engineer Senior Waste Division Department of Environmental Quality 629 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 Re:Response to Department Request for Information on June 21, 2007 regarding Amendment 1 to the Solid Waste Management Plan for Prince Edward County and Cumberland County Region Dear Mr. Gwinner: On behalf of Prince Edward County and Cumberland County, Resource International is providing the following information pursuant to the conference call held on June 21, 2007 with you and Mr. Thirunagari of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") and Cumberland County representatives. The purpose of the conference call was for the County to respond to additional questions from DEQ relating to the public participation process on the referenced Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment. Cumberland County desires to provide the following additional information to DEQ regarding public access to the Draft Amended Plan as a result of the additional questions raised on our June 21, 2007 conference call. We ask that DEQ accept this information as clarification to the County's response to your May 7, 2007 letter which such response was transmitted with our letter dated May 24, 2007. In addition to the public notice information provided as described in the May 24 submission, please note that County representatives met with officials from DEQ on December 21, 2006 in order to finalize the proposed Plan Amendment. The final draft of the proposed Plan Amendment and supporting documentation were available to citizens for inspection in the County Administrator's office as of December 22, 2006. On information and belief and review of County records, the County Administrator received only one request to review the proposed Plan Amendment. The documentation related to the proposed Plan Amendment was provided via U. S. Mail to such citizen inquiry at least one week prior to the date of the public hearing held on January 3, 2007. RECYCLED PAPER 9560 Kings Charter Drive . P.O. Box 6160 . VA 23005-6160 (804)550-9200 . Fax (804) 550-9259 www. resourceintl.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Daniel S. Gwinner P.N. 90094.23 June 29, 2007 Page 2 Upon review of all public comments received at the public hearing on January 3, 2007, no comment was received from any citizen raising concern that the text of the proposed Plan Amendment was not timely received or available for review. It is our understanding, that upon receipt of the above information, all questions regarding the proposed Plan Amendment will have been satisfactorily addressed and we trust that DEQ has no further questions with regard to such Plan Amendment. Thank you again for your time last week by telephone. Both Prince Edward County and Cumberland County look forward to receiving approval of the Amended Solid Waste Management Plan. Sincerely, Projedt-Manager /af ec: Judy Ownby, Cumberland County Howard Estes, Woods Rogers Jonathan Pickett, Prince Edward County Matt Biesterveld, DEQ SCRO ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX I DEQ Approval Letter of Original Solid Waste Management Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- L. Preston Bryant, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources 2007 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGIN^,.... DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIT^^^ Street address. 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Vir'gima-23^PY Mailing address:-P. O. Box 1105, Richmond, Virginia 23218" Fax (804) 698-4500 TDD (804) 698-4021 www.deq. virgima.gov January 5, 2007 David K. Paylor Director (804) 698-4000 1 -[PHONE REDACTED] Ms. Judy Ownby, Administrator Cumberland County PO Box 110 Cumberland, VA 23040 Subject: Approval of the Solid Waste Management Plan for the Prince Edward County & Cumberland County Region Dear Ms. Ownby: lam pleased tomform you that the Solid Waste Management Plan for the Prince Edward