Discussion on Colquitt County Solid Waste. June 16, PDF Free Download

Discussion on Colquitt County Solid Waste June 16, 2016

Landowner Discussion Purpose of today s meeting: - Focus is on Environmental - Informative: We want to keep landowners in the loop and clear up any misinformation - Two way conversation: We d like to get some feedback - Keep things cordial: We understand this is a sensitive issue - Continue to meet in the future: keep the lines of communication open

Our Purpose Two key components: 1) Determine additional revenue sources for the county: Diversify our revenues away from property tax Identify possible additional sources of revenue and pursue them 2) Develop a long term solution for Colquitt County s municipal solid waste

108.02 Acres (Additional) 292.7 Acres (Original) 400 Acres Total

Solid Waste Options Municipal Solid Waste / C & D Options: - 1) Permitting a new landfill on county-owned property Currently on-going (long term solution) - 2) Devise a waste to energy program that would convert solid waste into usable energy Currently on-going (long term solution) - 3) Collective bargaining with City of Moultrie for rates on surrounding area landfills and share privatized transfer costs Currently on-going (short term solution)

Current Status of Landfill Actions Taken Thus Far for Landfill: - June 10 & 17, 2015: Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 12-8-26, the County ran advertisements in the Moultrie Observer to advertise for a public meeting on June 25, 2015 to discuss waste management needs of the local government or region and to describe the process of siting facilities to the public. - June 25, 2015: During a Called Meeting on this date, the Board unanimously voted to proceed with a site suitability study to be conducted by TTL.

Current Status of Landfill Actions Taken Thus Far for Landfill: - June 1, 2016: Site Suitability Study received. - Purpose of Site Suitability Study: A Site Suitability study is a government mandated process to evaluate a proposed landfill through scientific siting criteria. The process also requires for public and government participation/input into the siting of a landfill.

Recent EPD Inspection On May 10 th, EPD received an anonymous call from an individual claiming that leachate from the landfill was seeping into the Ochlockonee River. On May 12 th, EPD conducted an inspection of the landfill and determined that the claim was unsubstantiated.

Old Landfill vs. New Landfill: Old Landfill Opened in early 1970 s Less stringent design standards Environmental Concern Portions of the landfill disposal cells extended very near or down to groundwater No liner system in place to prevent migration of contaminants to groundwater No leachate collection system to prevent leachate from migrating to groundwater and causing contamination No landfill gas collection system to prevent methane migration Daily cover likely not applied, which contributed to leachate generation and odor problems. Groundwater monitoring and methane monitoring not required until (or not performed until) after 1991 Post Closure Care and Financial Assurance Monitoring Required (Closed in 1994)

Old Landfill vs. New Landfill: New Landfill Stringent siting and design standards. Environmental Concern Landfill will be constructed with a minimum 5 foot separation between the bottom of the waste unit and groundwater. The bottom and side slopes of the landfill will be lined with either a clay or geo-synthetic liner system or combination or both to prevent leakage into the underlying groundwater. Only one cell is open at a time to receive waste. Regulation requires that garbage is compacted and covered at the end of each day to minimized odor, pests, and wind disturbance. Leachate recovery system incorporated into the landfill design: A network of drains constructed in the bottom of the landfill collects the leachate that flows through the decomposing waste. The leachate is recovered and treated, recirculated, or disposed at an off-site treatment facility.

Old Landfill vs. New Landfill: Environmental Concern New Landfill, cont. Landfill gas collection system will be designed and installed to reduce Landfill Gas emissions and migration. More stringent restrictions on what can be disposed in a MSW landfill. More stringent reporting requirements. Groundwater and methane monitoring network will be installed before first waste is accepted. Groundwater will be monitored prior to placement of waste. Post Closure Care and Financial Assurance Monitoring Required for a minimum of 30 years

Discussion of Site Acceptability Study For Proposed Municipal Solid Waste Facility June 16, 2016 James R. Smith, P.G. Keith H. Reaves, P.E.

TRANSFER STATION CLOSED LANDFILL Study Area = ±120 Acres

Landfill Siting Process Criteria for the Siting of a New Landfill is Governed by Georgia Department of Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Rule 391.3-4-.05 TTL Followed Georgia EPD and Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 - Criteria for Performing Site Acceptability Studies for Solid Waste Landfills Website Address - http://epd.georgia.gov/sites/epd.georgia.gov/files/related_files/site_page/swcirclr14.pdf

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 1. Conform to Zoning Ordinances 2. Proximity to Airport 3. Proximity to 100-Year Flood Plain 4. Proximity to Streams and Wetlands 5. Proximity to Faults Areas 6. Proximity to Seismic Impact Zones 7. Proximity to Unstable Areas 8. Proximity to County Boundaries and National Historic Sites 9. Proximity to Most Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas 10. Proximity to Public and Domestic Drinking Water Supply Wells 11. Proximity to Surface Water Intakes 12. Perform Hydrogeological Assessment 13. Provide Site Recommendations for Design and Environmental Monitoring Information is Compiled and Submitted to the GA EPD in a Site Acceptability Report

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 1. Does Study Area Conform To Zoning Ordinances Yes 2. Proximity To Airport --- Landfill Cannot Be Located Within: 10,000 Feet Of An Runway End Used By Turbojet Aircraft, or 5,000 Feet Of An Runway End Used By Piston-Type Aircraft o Findings - Study Area Is Approximately 11,000 Feet From Nearest Airport

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 3. Proximity To 100-Year Flood Plain Landfill Cannot Restrict the Flow Of The 100-Year Flood o Findings - As Shown on the FEMA Flood Plain Map, The 100-year Floodplain is Present Along the Southern Boundary of the Study Area. o The Final Engineering Design Should Ensure that the Landfill is Not Within 100- Year Floodplain

FEMA Flooplain Map Flood Zone

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 4. Proximity to Streams A Minimum 25-foot Buffer Zone is Required Between a Landfill and Waters of the State (i.e. Streams or Rivers) o Finding - Study Area is not Within a 25-foot Buffer Zone o Study Area is About 50 Feet from Big Creek and 1,200 Feet West of the Ochlocknee River 5. Proximity Wetlands Landfill Cannot Be Located in Wetlands -- Unless A Mitigation Permit Is Granted By The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) o o Finding - 1.19 Acres of Wetlands Were Identified Within Study Area. A USACOE Wetlands Mitigation Permit Will Be Required for This Area. Wetlands are Present Along the Southern Boundary But Outside of Study Area. This Area Should Not Be Disturbed

National Wetlands Inventory Map

1,200 Ft. to Ochlocknee River Big Creek Site Specific Wetlands Inventory Map

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 6. Proximity to Faults and Seismic Impact Zones New Landfills Cannot Be Located Within 200 Feet Of A Fault With Displacement in the Last 12,000 Years Findings: Based on U.S Geological Survey Data: o o Study Area Is Not Located Within 200 Feet of This Type Fault, and Colquitt County is Within One of the Lower Seismic Hazard Areas in Georgia (4 to 6% of Standard Gravity)

STUDY AREA http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/#qfaults U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazard Map

2014 U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Map

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 7. Proximity to Unstable Areas Includes Poor Foundation Conditions, Areas Susceptible to Mass Movements (i.e. Landslides), and/or Karst Terrain (i.e. Sinkholes) o o Finding -- No Unstable Areas Were Observed Within the Study Area, and No Evidence of Karst Terrain Documented Within the Study Area or Surrounding Vicinity A Surface Depression was Observed Off-Site -- East of Shade Murphy Road. This Depression was Present in Historical Aerial Photographs Back to at Least 1940

2014 U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Map

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 8. Proximity to County Boundaries and National Historic Sites A Landfill Cannot Be Sited Within: ½-Mile of the County Boundary 5,708 Yards of a National Historic Site o Finding - Study Area is 2.5-Miles From the County Boundary o No Historical Sites Were Identified Within 5,708 Yards (GT Hill Planners Preservation Professional)

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 9. Proximity to Most Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (i.e. Recharge Area for the Major Drinking Water Aquifer) Floridan Aquifer Is the Major Aquifer in Colquitt County Landfill Cannot Be Sited Within 2 Miles of a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area ----- Unless A Liner and Leachate System is Incorporated Into the Design o As Show on the Following Maps, the Study Area Is Not Located Within An Area Designated as a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area

Study Area Groundwater Recharge Areas Map

Recharge Area for unconfined Aquifer Recharge Area for confined Aquifer Georgia Geological Survey Groundwater Recharge Areas Map

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 10. Proximity to Wellhead Protection Zones Landfills Are Not Allowed Within The Inner or Outer Wellhead Protection Zones of Wells or Springs Used As Public Water Supply (Serving Municipalities, Counties, or Authorities) o Finding - Study Area Is Not Located Within An Inner or Outer Well-Head Protection Zone

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 11. Evaluated the Proximity to Public and Domestic Drinking Water Supply Wells Identified Public Drinking Water Supply Wells Within 2-Mile Radius of the Study Area Identified Domestic Drinking Water Supply Wells Within 1/2-Mile Radius of the Study Area o Downgradient Wells Represent Potential Receptors To Be Discussed More

13 Domestic Drinking Water Wells 1 Public Drinking Water Well Public Drinking Water Well DW Domestic Water Well Public and Domestic Drinking Water Well Radius Map

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 11. Proximity to Surface Water Intakes Landfill Cannot Be Sited Within 2-miles Upgradient of Any Surface Water Intake Used as a Public Drinking Water Source ----- (Unless Engineering Modifications to Landfill Design are Included) o Finding = Study Area Is Not Within 2-Miles of This Type Surface Water Intake

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 12. Performed a Hydrogeological Assessment To Evaluate: o o o o Depth to the Uppermost Aquifer Groundwater Flow Direction and Rate of Flow Geologic Setting Pollution Potential of Study Area Under Natural Conditions (i.e. No Liner or Leachate Systems or Other Engineering Controls)

Depth to Groundwater Ranged from 2 to 10 Feet During Seasonal Highs 1,200 feet To Ochlocknee River Piezometer and Boring Map 8 Piezometers 28 to 38 Feet Deep 1 Exploratory Boring to 150.5 Feet Deep

Public and Domestic Drinking Water Well Radius Map Distance to Nearest Downgradient Drinking Water Well (DW-9 & DW-12) = ±1,400 ft.

Geologic Map of Study Area

Unconfined Uppermost Aquifer Domestic Well Surficial Well Confined Major Limestone Aquifer Confining Unit Example of Depiction of Aquifer Systems

Gulf Trough Upper Confining Unit Thickness = 200 to <300 feet Leakage Potential/Exchange = Extremely Low to None U.S. Geological Survey ---- Overburden Thickness and Leakage Potential of the Upper Confining Unit to the Floridan Aquifer

Land Surface of Study Area = +217 to +254 ft. mean sea level Top of Floridan Aquifer = 0 to -100 ft. mean sea level Confining Unit Thickness = 200 to <300 ft. Structural Top of Floridan Aquifer

Unconfined Uppermost Aquifer 0 Feet Domestic Well 2 to 10 Feet Surficial Well 65 Feet 300 Feet Confined Major Aquifer Confining Unit Example of Depiction of Aquifer Systems

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 13. Pollution Potential of Study Area Under Natural Conditions (i.e. No Liner or Leachate Systems or Other Engineering Controls) Circular 14 Recommends - LeGrand Empirical Point-Count System to Evaluate Potential for Leachate to Migrate into Unconfined Aquifer o Pollution Potential For An Unlined Landfill = 9.5 Points o Pollution Potential For An Lined Landfill With Leachate Collection System = 13.5 Points

Landfill Siting Process Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 14 o o o Please Note the Following: LeGrand System Does Not Take into Account That the Floridan Aquifer is Confined Which Prohibits Potential Pollution from Migrating Downward to Drinking Water Aquifer. TTL Used a Conservative Distance (50 feet) to Nearest Downgradient Drinking Water Well (Police Firing Range Well) Actual Distance to Downgradient Drinking Water Well = ±1,400 feet = 9 point increase in scoring (13.5+ 9 = 22.5 points)

Siting Requirements/Recommendations to Protect Human Health and the Environment Buffers Minimum 200 Feet Buffer Area Between Property Line and Waste Boundary Minimum 500 Feet Buffer Area from Off-Site Occupied Dwelling/Water Well and Waste Disposal Boundary Additional Buffer Area (Approx. 150 Foot) Along Southern End Of Study Area to Be Protective of Big Creek and Wetlands Waste Unit Cannot Be Located Within Floodplain Mitigate 1.19 Acre Wetlands Within Study Area (USACOE) Establish a 5-foot Separation Between Land Surface and Seasonal High Groundwater Across the Study Area (Site Grading) Install Groundwater, Surface Water, and Methane Monitoring Network

Siting Requirements/Recommendations to Protect Human Health and the Environment Due to Pollution Potential Score Under Natural Conditions Installation of A Liner and Leachate Collection System is Required Conclusion Up to 92 Acres of Land is Suitable Using Engineering Controls/Designs (Assumes Firing Range is Relocated Off-Site)

Favorable Area Based on Siting Criteria Up to 92 Acres Considered Favorable

Next Step:

Next Actions Board of Commissioners hold vote to send Site Suitability Study to Georgia EPD. Vote will be held in a called meeting If Board votes to send Site Suitability study forward to EPD, they will ask for comments / additional clarification EPD will make final determination (Go / No Go) Board of Commissioners hold vote to proceed with design / construction of new permitted landfill Approximately two year process

Questions and Additional Discussion Thank you for your attendance.

Discussion on Colquitt County Solid Waste. June 16, 2016