Shenandoah County
Office of Community Development
600 North Main Street, Suite 107
Woodstock, VA 22664
www.shenandoahcountyva.us/planningzoning
Phone
540.459.6190
Fax
540.459.6193
Shenandoah County
Water Resource Advisory Committee
Board Conference Room
Shenandoah County Government Center
Woodstock, Virginia
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
5:00 – 7:00 PM
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Members Present: Gary Lantz, Chair, Joan Comanor, Vito Gentile, Rodney McClain, Mary Gessner, and
John Eckman
Members Absent: Marsha Shruntz, Seth Coffman, and Mike Ashley
Others Present: Jill Jefferson, County Planner, Staff, and Patrick Felling, Solid Waste Director
Meeting called to order: 5:00 PM
1. Approval of November 9, 2016 WRAC Meeting Minutes
A motion to accept the minutes as presented was seconded; motion passed unanimously.
2. Landfill Update
Patrick Felling provided the Committee a detailed overview of the landfill including the monitoring
program for groundwater and landfill gas, remediation efforts, new cell activities, and planned
next steps with a powerpoint presentation of aerial photographs and maps of wells. In addition,
Mr. Felling provided a summary of recycling efforts. The committee discussed the landfill activities
and recycling. These discussions are summarized at the end of these minutes. WRAC also made
suggestions as an advisory committee to submit suggested recommendations for the Board to
consider. The recommendations are summarized below to include in a letter to the Board for their
future consideration in landfill planning and recycling efforts. The letter will be drafted for the
WRAC committee to review in the near future.
See end of these minutes for a detailed summary of the landfill and recycling presentation and
discussions. A brief summary is included herein. Recommendations discussed both during
Patrick’s presentation and after, by WRAC, included suggestions for protecting water quality with
ancillary benefits of increasing the landfill capacity and life. Suggestions such as landfill feasibility
planning, costs to landfill current waste stream loads compared to costs to landfill waste stream
under various scenarios such as no construction debris or with waste stream reduction per capita
through increased recycling and or food waste efforts. WRAC proposed a preliminary landfill plan
to evaluate cost efficiencies associated with various scenarios of landfill waste to be suggested
for the Board in a letter.
3. U.S. Geological Survey Fish – Water Quality Presentation Summary
December 14, 2016 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) held a talk for local governments in the
Shenandoah County Board room. Over 45 participants attended from Round Hill to Augusta
1
County to learn results of a 3-year fish study on the Shenandoah River. Staff and many WRAC
members attended. The USGS studied small mouth bass and fathead minnows and found demasculinization of these fishes from compounds that are endocrine disrupters present in the river.
These compounds are in low concentrations of parts per trillion levels and do not exceed health
standards (it was noted many compounds do not have accepted levels). These materials
detected in the fish tissue and in the Shenandoah River are common constituents found in body
washes, personal care products, allergy medicines, etc. The USGS also noted that near seven
bends Spring Hollow there was a large input of water that drained an agricultural area where
veterinary products were detected in the river. The USGS mentioned technologies at treatment
plants designed to remove ammonia also beneficially remove many of these endocrine
disrupters. Technologies such as membrane bioreactors and trickling filters are effective and less
costly than reverse osmosis in removing such compounds from the water. The USGS has funding
to conduct additional studies on the Shenandoah River and asked if local governments would be
interested in future studies. Jill mentioned she requested a teleconference call with USGS and
any interested localities to learn more about what studies were available so she could present
that to Bradley Polk and WRAC. If anyone is interested in the powerpoint from USGS, contact Jill.
4. Stormwater and Bay TMDL 2017 Discussion
Jill attended a one-day stormwater training in Winchester. The Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) may decide not to be the local authority for stormwater in the future.
If so, the localities will be required to manage their own stormwater program. WRAC mentioned
there was a detailed analysis on the cost and staff time needed to man such a program
conducted in 2013-2015 under Brandon Davis (note: see October 2015 WRAC minutes).
Currently, the County requested the DEQ be the stormwater local authority with intent to
eventually have the County take over the stormwater program to gain benefits of revenue it
generates and support fast tracking building permits. WRAC asked about the upcoming General
Assembly plans around stormwater and Jill said she would check the VACO website.
Note: the 2017 GA session begins later this month. No Stormwater info was listed under
natural resources yet; however, in the Oct. legislative priorities VACO indicated the
following under unfunded mandates:
“VACo opposes unfunded mandates and shifting of fiscal responsibility from the state to
localities for existing programs by the Commonwealth. When funding for a mandated
program is altered, the mandate should be suspended until full funding is restored. When
legislation with a cost to localities is passed by the General Assembly, the cost should be
borne by the Commonwealth, and the legislation should contain a sunset clause
providing that the mandate is not binding on localities until funding by the Commonwealth
is provided.” For more info see:
http://www.vaco.org/LegislativePublications/LegislativeProgram/2017PreliminaryLegislativeProgram.pdf
Under the Bay TMDL program, Jill mentioned there is a report due to DEQ that each city and
county must prepare, reporting on activities the county and their towns have made toward
meeting the Bay TMDL goals. Jill suggested she and Rodney meet with towns to learn what data
is available to report on and who might be partners (Soil & Water Conservation Districts,
Extension, etc.) for future reporting, when that is initiated later this year, after receiving guidance
from DEQ. WRAC agreed with the suggestion for County staff to meet with the towns to discuss
future next steps for the Bay TMDL program and what data might be available, since the County
will have to report in 2017 on town activities that help meet the Bay TMDL goals. Jill and Rodney
will follow up with ideas on metrics collected such as number of pump and hauls, sanitary district
hook ups, and alternative on-site sewage disposals. Jill will coordinate with her department lead
2
and determine next steps. Jill mentioned that both stormwater and Bay TMDL programs will be
topics of the next WRAC meeting, per committee priorities.
5. Other
 Mary Gessner requested update on past efforts by Joyce Fadeley’s rewriting zoning regulations
for stormwater and low impact design (LID) compatibility. Jill reported that Joyce indicated
Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) along with Potomac Conservancy and others
created a checklist as a tool to review local ordinances to determine where and if the ordinances
are sufficient to protect water quality, including stormwater. Changes to our ordinances were
discussed but then DEQ (versus DCR) became the head agency on stormwater and focus was
not on ordinance revisions. Additionally, when Pat was County Planner and subsequent other
staff changes, ordinance revisions were not passed along as a priority and remained on
hold. Joyce has put some LID verbiage in the zoning ordinance as it pertains to cluster
developments but they are suggestions only, not requirements. She is available and willing to
include best management practices in the future and will coordinate with Bradley and Jill to
update ordinances as needed. Jill mentioned that if stormwater does get come back to the
County, there will need for ordinance revisions and she will review drafted revisions prepared in
2013-2015, as Joyce recommended those versions might be best places to start.

Jill met with Alison Sloop of the Lord Fairfax Soil & Water Conservation District to learn more
about the Virginia Conservation Assistance Program (VCAP) urban cost share program. Jill will
work with Alison for potential projects to consider as future VCAP funding becomes available.
Alison mentioned projects eligible could include County Government Center parking lot
impermeable pavers and or a rain garden to reduce parking lot runoff, also tree plantings and
other landscaping at the County Park. If applied and awarded, VACP would pay 75% of project
costs with County matching funds from project capital costs such as sidewalk repair/installation,
etc.
6. Next Meeting: March 8th topic is Stormwater and Bay TMDL
Meeting adjourned 7:02 PM.
Continued from #2 on the agenda (above)
Landfill Discussion:
A cost of $2 million has been mentioned to place a cap on the old landfill cells numbered 8 and 9.
A significant portion of that cost would be based on the thick impermeable plastic liner
(geomembrane) that would be installed under a new topsoil cap. Old cells # 8 and 9 have
produced leachate with contaminants that are being monitored to ensure no migration is off site.
Old cells 8 and 9 were used from the late 1980’s into the early 2000’s.
A new 5.5-acre cell (“Phase 3”) was recently added to the landfill as an extension of the modern
Phases 1 and 2 cells. Phase 3 is expected to last approximately 8-10 years based on the current
waste stream load. During construction, there was a 24-inch clay layer placed, with trenches cut
for water to flow to a low spot. The geomembrane is placed over the clay with a 12-inch layer of
gravel on top (to protect the liner). WRAC raised a concern about construction demolition and
debris puncturing the geomembrane and Patrick indicated to ensure the initial layer of waste does
not damage the geomembrane, they are placing a layer about three feet high of household
bagged trash, without construction debris or other “rough” waste. This layer of household trash is
slightly compacted and will provide further protection for the liner. The construction debris is
currently being diverted to the Phase 2 cell.
3
Patrick displayed a map of newly installed gas extraction wells, viewed at the last WRAC
meeting, which includes 11 new wells: six located in old cells 8 and 9 and five wells located in
Phases 1 and 2. These wells pull gas from the cells and pipe it to a flare to burn off methane. In
response to a question about when we could be positioned to make money off the methane,
Patrick indicated we are probably a year away from getting enough gas to sell back to the grid.
He said there would first need to be equipment installed to clean the gas before selling it.
A well west of the landfill detected contamination onsite. The VA Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) directed the landfill to remediate high methane levels detected near I-81. Landfill
remediation efforts used an underground air curtain that effectively reduced methane along the
landfill property line. As part of an investigation of the source of some of the methane, it was
determined to have two sources: Cells 8 and 9 as one source, and a cache of mulch buried near
Phase 1 as the other contributing source. These test results put to rest any concern about
methane coming from the newer cells (Phases 1 and 2).
WRAC inquired how methane as a gas in the air is a groundwater issue. Patrick explained
methane underground can be saturated with other chemical compounds which can be picked up
by the groundwater that the methane dissolves into. Therefore, there are monitoring wells to
detect any offsite migration and potential needs for collection and treatment. A series of offsite
sampling was conducted on private residences west of I-81, the flea market, and in the median
strip of the interstate. At this time, no offsite contamination of drinking water was found traceable
to the landfill. There was indication of onsite contamination from old cells 8 and 9. DEQ discussed
the need for an extraction well to prevent the contamination plume from reaching the private
offsite areas. There is no contamination detected in the adjacent stream or off site. The leachate
is now being collected from a monitoring well near old cells 8 and 9, with a cone of depression
that will extract the contamination out of the area. The chemical analysis indicates parameters in
old cells 8 and 9 being broken down and leaching out. This leachate is now being pumped out
(extracted), monitored, and piped to the onsite leachate lagoon via a 24-hour pump, where it will
then be treated with the other leachate at a treatment plant. Rodney suggested Patrick consider
volatilization of the leachate lagoon to further break down compounds as a pretreatment.
Patrick explained preliminary plans to cap the cells 8 and 9, thereby preventing rain water from
infiltrating and further creating compounds to be leached out. By capping the cells 8 and 9, no
new stormwater can infiltrate the cells and become leachate. Any legacy pollutants in the cells will
slowly leach out and can be monitored and extracted and treated as needed. To reduce the $2
million cost of a plastic cap, Patrick discussed the feasibility of piggybacking to build a new cell in
the space between new Phases 2 & 3 and cells 8 & 9. If that space were built in this area to gain
additional landfill life, one side of cells 8 and 9 would be capped as a bottom liner for the new fill.
Piggybacking on that potential project could likely defray costs to cap the old cells. Patrick
indicated he is in the process of considering options. The WRAC suggested a feasibility analysis
to economically determine costs associated with various alternatives to extend the landfill life and
reduce leachate from the old cells. Ways to increase the life of the current Phase 3 cell were
further discussed including alternative placement of construction debris or wood materials (which
likewise reduces the potential for puncturing the geomembrane), recycling, and composting or
reducing food waste from the public waste stream. Jill is on a multi-state food waste reduction
group and said food waste constitutes 40% of typical waste in landfills. She offered to help work
with Patrick on ideas and grants to implement some waste reduction programs to decrease the
waste stream loads and extend landfill life.
4
Also discussed was the quantity of soil onsite that is needed. Patrick agreed soil is important and
mentioned there are some preliminary plans in collaboration with Bobby Clark of VA Cooperative
Extension, to compost wood chips and other organic material. Patrick said that crushed glass is
mixed with the clay to help it be more permeable or “gravel-like” for use on site. The landfill uses
a tarp held in place with soil for alternative daily cover, instead of soil. Every ten feet of landfill
material, they add a dirt layer. The potential of using woody debris and biosolids, mixed with
grass clippings, could help with the organic material needs and lower costs of importing soil in the
future.
WRAC inquired the cost per cubic foot of waste at this time and Patrick said he would need to
estimate that. Jill mentioned there was a rate calculated when she wrote the 2012 Northern
Shenandoah Valley Solid Waste Plan while at NSVRC. She will provide Patrick with that data as
he was unaware of it.
Recycling Discussion:
Patrick discussed efforts to promote recycling and distribute recycling bins he obtained through a
grant. Patrick mentioned the recycling committee that Jill is also on. Recycled glass is used on
the working face of the fill. There is no market for other types of glass recycling at this time. Gary
mentioned the true cost of glass should be considered. Patrick said that the market is falling out
for plastics and only numbers 1 and 2 are able to be sold. Patrick reported that the County earned
$400,000 in recycling revenue over the past few years. Patrick plans to use ideas from the
recycling committee such allowing the Boy Scouts and schools to receive a cut from the recycling
revenue if they collect the recycling. Other recycling committee ideas that Patrick will implement
include working more closely with schools holding a recycling essay contest with winners
receiving recycling bins and press. WRAC requested potentially considering amnesty tire days or
hazardous household materials amnesty days. Patrick described programs such as no charges
for tires brought to the landfill from river cleanup efforts and that paints, etc. can be dropped off at
the landfill.
The inconvenience of not having St Luke’s site was raised. Patrick discussed efforts are
underway for a replacement site as well as for another convenience site that has a lease due to
expire next year. Jill mentioned that while at NSVRC she periodically called third party buyers for
regional rates on scrap metal and other recycling as part of the regional solid waste planning
committee. She mentioned she often found best rates for Frederick and Shenandoah Counties
were when contacting CSPDC covering Rockingham, Rockbridge, and Augusta Counties since
many third party buyers were interested in regional pickups along the I-81 corridor. Often times,
recycling rates were a bit more attractive (higher $/lb) when looking at partnering with other
localities to aggregate or coordinate recycling pick-ups.
5