Transfer Station?

 

 

Geospatial and Regulatory Analysis: Solid Waste Transfer Station Siting in Pocahontas County

Executive Summary

Pocahontas County is currently navigating a critical transition in its solid waste management strategy, shifting from an active landfill model to a transfer-based disposal system. This shift is necessitated by the projected terminal capacity of the current landfill cells in Dunmore, expected to be reached between late 2026 and early 2027.

The primary site under consideration is the existing facility in Dunmore (Map 14, Parcel 16). While economically advantageous due to existing infrastructure, the site faces significant regulatory hurdles. The most prominent challenge is the mandatory 2,000-foot setback from sensitive institutional receptors, specifically Pocahontas County High School (PCHS). Preliminary geospatial modeling indicates a "compliance gap," as the proposed transfer station likely falls within 1,000 to 1,500 feet of the school campus.

The Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority (SWA) has approved "Option #4," a public-private partnership with JacMal, LLC and the Greenbrier Development Authority, to mitigate costs. However, the project's viability hinges on obtaining a discretionary variance from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Without this variance, the county faces the prospect of developing a "greenfield" site at an estimated cost of $10 million—more than double the projected 15-year cost of the Dunmore site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Structural Context and Economic Imperatives

Transition from Landfill to Transfer Station

The Pocahontas County landfill in Dunmore has served as the central hub for the county’s "Green Box" collection system since 1986. Engineering estimates from the firm Podesta indicate the facility is nearing the end of its useful lifespan.

Operational Element	Location / Metric
Primary Landfill Address	374 Landfill Road, Dunmore, WV 24934
Estimated Closure Date	December 2026 – October 2027
Authorized Landfill Class	Class B and Class D
Management Entity	Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority (SWA)
Post-Closure Financial Liability	$75,000 per year for 30 years

Economic Strategy: "Option #4"

The SWA determined that constructing a local transfer station is more sustainable than hauling waste directly to regional landfills. They have adopted "Option #4," which involves:

• Property Transfer: Selling a two-acre portion of the 40-acre Dunmore parcel to the Greenbrier Development Authority.
• Infrastructure Development: JacMal, LLC will construct the transfer station on this sub-parcel.
• Lease-Back Model: The SWA will lease the facility back for approximately $16,759 per month.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Framework and Setback Requirements

The siting of waste facilities is governed by West Virginia Code of State Rules (CSR) Title 33, Series 1 (Solid Waste Management Rule) and Series 3 (Yard Waste Composting Rule).

Mandatory Setbacks and Buffers

To obtain a DEP permit, a facility must adhere to strict distance requirements from various receptors:

Receptor Category	Mandatory Setback Distance	Legal Basis
Schools (K-12 and Higher Ed)	2,000 feet	33CSR3
Health Care Facilities	2,000 feet	33CSR3
Churches / Places of Worship	2,000 feet	33CSR3
Occupied Dwellings	500 feet (Siting Plan) / 200 feet (Rule)	33CSR3 / 33CSR1
Perennial Streams / Wetlands	300 feet	33CSR1
Adjacent Property Boundary	100 feet	33CSR1 / 33CSR3
Federal/State Highway (RT 28)	50 feet	33CSR3

The "Nuisance" Variance

Under 33CSR3 Section 3.2.a.5, the Secretary of the DEP has the authority to reduce the 2,000-foot school setback if the applicant demonstrates that the operation will not create a nuisance. For a transfer station, this typically requires:

• An entirely enclosed building design.
• Advanced air filtration systems for odor control.
• Vector control to prevent bird and rodent infestations.
• Noise attenuation measures.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Site Analysis: Map 14, Parcel 16 (Dunmore)

The proposed site is a 40-acre parcel owned by the SWA. While historically used for landfilling, the specific geography creates modern compliance challenges.

Geospatial Conflict with PCHS

Pocahontas County High School is located at 271 Warrior Way, Dunmore. The proximity of the school's main buildings and portable classrooms to the proposed SWA shop building site is the primary point of contention.

• Estimated Distance: Preliminary modeling suggests the school and the proposed transfer station site are within 1,000 to 1,500 feet of each other, well below the 2,000-foot mandate.
• Traffic and Noise: Implementing "Flow Control" would funnel all county waste through the Route 28 corridor, significantly increasing heavy-duty truck traffic past the high school entrance during school hours.

Environmental and Geological Constraints

• Topography: 33CSR1 and 33CSR3 prohibit facilities on land with a slope exceeding 6%. Much of the 40-acre Dunmore parcel contains steeper terrain that is ineligible for new construction.
• Hydrology: The site sits in the headwaters of the Greenbrier River watershed. It must maintain 300 feet from perennial streams and 5 feet of separation from the seasonal high water table.
• Soil/Bedrock: Regulations require at least 20 inches of soil over bedrock. The area is characterized by karst topography, which complicates environmental safety due to underground water movement and potential sinkholes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparative Economics of Siting

The SWA's preference for the Dunmore site is fundamentally driven by the "stacked liability" of maintaining the existing leachate treatment system and the prohibitive cost of greenfield development.

Cost Component	Dunmore Site (Option #4)	Compliant Greenfield Site
Land Acquisition	$0 (Already Owned)	$500,000 – $1,500,000
Leachate Treatment	Existing (Upgrade only)	$2,000,000+ (New Plant)
Site Preparation	$2,750,000 (JacMal)	$5,000,000+
Permitting & Engineering	$150,000	$500,000+
Total Est. 15-Year Cost	$4,120,000	$10,000,000+

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Alternative "Compliant Islands"

To avoid the PCHS setback conflict, the SWA would need to identify "islands" of suitability that meet all criteria: 2,000 feet from schools, 500 feet from dwellings, and <6% slope.

1. East Fork Industrial Park (Frank, WV): This area has historical industrial use and is distant from schools. However, it requires strict adherence to a 300-foot buffer from the East Fork of the Greenbrier River and requires confirmation of dwelling setbacks.
2. Seneca Trail / Route 219 Corridor: Large agricultural parcels south of Marlinton are distant from schools but are plagued by karst features. Siting here would require extensive geological surveys to ensure runoff does not drain into sinkholes.
3. Northern Route 28 Corridor (Green Bank to Durbin): While isolated from schools, the lack of infrastructure makes this a "greenfield" site, triggering the $10 million cost projection.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: Critical Challenges for the SWA

The future of Pocahontas County’s waste management infrastructure rests on the resolution of the "spatial tension" between the Dunmore site and Pocahontas County High School.

The SWA is currently pursuing a path of least financial resistance by utilizing the Dunmore property, but this path is fraught with regulatory risk. If the DEP Secretary denies a variance for the 2,000-foot school setback, or if noise and traffic nuisances are deemed insurmountable, the SWA will be forced to choose between a significant increase in resident tipping fees to fund a $10 million greenfield site or an alternative hauling model that may not be economically viable in the long term. The final decision will hinges on the SWA's ability to prove the transfer station can operate as a "zero-nuisance" facility.

Why West Virginia Might Put a County Trash Hub 1,000 Feet from a High School

 

The $6 Million Gamble: Why West Virginia Might Put a County Trash Hub 1,000 Feet from a High School

Introduction: The Looming Deadline at Dunmore

Pocahontas County is rapidly approaching a logistical cliff. By late 2026 or early 2027, the existing landfill cells at Dunmore are projected to hit their terminal capacity, leaving the region without a primary disposal site. This isn't a new realization—the transition began in earnest in March 2025, when the Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority (SWA) finally took ownership of the land following a long legal and administrative process.

The solution favored by the SWA is a shift to a "transfer station" model, where county-wide waste is consolidated before being trucked to regional landfills. However, this plan has ignited a intense spatial tension. The proposed site sits directly adjacent to Pocahontas County High School (PCHS). As an investigator looking at the intersection of local infrastructure and environmental policy, the question isn't just about where the trash goes, but how a $4 million private lease deal could potentially override state safety buffers designed to protect students.

Takeaway 1: The 2,000-Foot Legal "No-Go" Zone

The primary regulatory hurdle for the Dunmore site lies in the rigid standards of West Virginia Legislative Rules 33CSR3 and 33CSR1. These regulations establish mandatory setbacks—essential "no-go" zones—between industrial waste facilities and institutional receptors like schools, churches, and hospitals. For any K-12 school, the law mandates a 2,000-foot buffer to protect against noise, dust, and odors.

While the law grants the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) the authority to waive this distance, the technical bar is exceptionally high. To prove a "zero-nuisance" operation, the SWA must implement a suite of mitigation measures: fully enclosed buildings, sophisticated air filtration systems, noise attenuation, and strict vector control to prevent birds and rodents from congregating near the student body.

"The regulatory language in 33CSR3 Section 3.2.a.5 provides a mechanism for the Secretary of the DEP to reduce this 2,000-foot setback if the applicant can demonstrate that 'a nuisance will not be created due to the operation of the facility'." — W. Va. Code of State Rules, 33-3-3

Takeaway 2: The "Compliance Gap" at PCHS

Despite the clear 2,000-foot legal standard, geospatial modeling of the Dunmore property (Map 14, Parcel 16) reveals a glaring "compliance gap." While the SWA property is large, the specific location of the existing shop building—the proposed heart of the transfer station—is estimated to be a mere 1,000 to 1,500 feet from PCHS structures and portable classrooms.

This proximity would turn the "Warriors" of PCHS into a "host neighbor" for the county’s consolidated waste hub. If the DEP grants a variance here, they are essentially halving a buffer zone that was codified specifically to keep industrial nuisances away from educational environments.

Takeaway 3: The "Flow Control" Monopoly

The transition to the Dunmore site is built upon a legal mandate known as "Flow Control." To ensure the project is financially viable for the private developer, JacMal, LLC, the SWA intends to mandate that all waste haulers in the county—from Marlinton to Green Bank—funnel their loads through this single facility.

This policy effectively grants a localized monopoly to the JacMal-operated site, but it carries a heavy cost for the school zone. The Route 28 corridor, already the primary artery for the school, would become a high-traffic industrial funnel.

"This would result in a significant increase in heavy-duty truck traffic (packer trucks and transfer trailers) passing directly by the high school entrance during school hours, potentially creating a safety and noise nuisance..." — PCHS Siting Plan, Compliance Analysis Section

Takeaway 4: The $6 Million Financial Dilemma

The SWA’s commitment to the Dunmore site is a calculated financial gamble. The chosen "Option #4" involves a complex public-private partnership: the SWA sold a two-acre portion of public land to the Greenbrier Development Authority, which then partnered with JacMal, LLC to build the facility. The SWA will then lease it back at a cost of $16,759 per month. Over 15 years, this model costs approximately $4.12 million.

By contrast, moving the operation to a fully compliant "greenfield" site—one that actually respects the 2,000-foot school buffer—would cost an estimated $10 million. This $6 million delta is the primary driver of the current plan. The SWA is prioritizing the existing leachate infrastructure at Dunmore to avoid the massive capital expenditure of a new site, placing a higher value on fiscal relief than on environmental distance.

Takeaway 5: The Hidden Risk of "Stacked Liability"

Beyond the immediate traffic and noise concerns, the Dunmore site presents a long-term geological threat. Even after the landfill cells close, the SWA faces a 30-year post-closure care period costing $75,000 annually. By adding a new transfer station on top of a legacy landfill, the county creates a "stacked liability."

The property is situated in the headwaters of the Greenbrier River, a region characterized by karst topography. This "Swiss cheese" geology is riddled with sinkholes and unpredictable underground channels. Under 33CSR3 Section 3.2.a.9, facilities are restricted in areas where runoff drains into sinkholes. If the combined leachate system—handling both old landfill runoff and new transfer station waste—fails, the karst network could fast-track contaminants directly into the groundwater serving the high school and the broader Dunmore area.

Conclusion: Geography vs. Necessity

The future of waste management in Pocahontas County now hinges on the DEP’s willingness to grant a legal variance. The SWA is banking on an enclosed design to satisfy the "zero-nuisance" requirement, while the geospatial reality shows an industrial operation encroaching deep into a school’s protective buffer.

As the late 2026 deadline looms, the county must weigh the immediate $6 million in savings against the permanent industrialization of an educational corridor and the geological risks of the Greenbrier headwaters. It leaves us with a fundamental policy question: should the convenience of existing infrastructure ever be enough to move the goalposts on the safety of our schools?

 

The 776-Foot Conflict: What You Need to Know About Green Bank’s New Trash Plan

1. Introduction: The 2026 Deadline and the Hidden Complexity of Local Waste

Pocahontas County is racing against a ticking clock. By 2026, the local landfill is projected to close permanently, largely because the county’s modest waste stream—averaging just 8,000 tons per year—cannot generate the revenue required to build the multi-million dollar, modern composite liner cells mandated by environmental law. To bridge this gap, the Solid Waste Authority (SWA) has proposed a regional "transfer and transport" model. However, what sounds like a routine logistical upgrade has morphed into a high-stakes regulatory and economic standoff. A proposed site in Green Bank has ignited a firestorm of questions regarding setbacks, public health, and whether the financial price tag truly aligns with the community's needs.

2. The 1,224-Foot Gap:

At the core of the Green Bank controversy is a failure of distance. Using the West Virginia E-911 addressing system, where one unit equals 5.28 feet, the distance between the proposed facility at 4645 Potomac Highlands Trail and the neighboring complex at 4498 Potomac Highlands Trail is mathematically clear:

• |4645 - 4498| = 147 units
• 147 \text{ units} \times 5.28 \text{ feet/unit} = 776.16 \text{ feet}

While this 776-foot buffer satisfies the standard 200-foot residential setback, it falls drastically short of the 2,000-foot "institutional" setback required for healthcare facilities. This isn't just a minor clinic; address 4498 serves as the primary medical and health service hub for northern Pocahontas County, housing Community Care of Green Bank, a full-service pharmacy, and Green Bank Dental. To achieve full regulatory compliance without a waiver, the facility would need to be moved nearly a quarter-mile further north to the 4877 block of Potomac Highlands Trail. Because the project is currently sited in this 1,224-foot "non-compliance gap," it requires a discretionary waiver from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP).

"The Secretary [of the WVDEP] has the authority to reduce this distance only if the applicant provides a successful demonstration that a nuisance will not be created."

3. The $4 Million Lease-Back:

The financial architecture of this plan raises significant questions for an investigative eye. Lacking the $2.75 million in capital to build independently, the SWA entered a partnership with JacMal, LLC. As part of this complex land swap, the SWA is selling approximately two acres near the existing landfill shop to the Greenbrier Development Authority to kickstart the deal.

The ensuing 15-year lease-back agreement includes:

• A monthly payment of $16,759.
• A final residual payout of $1,103,495.24.
• A total expenditure exceeding $4 million.

For a county producing only 8,000 tons of waste annually, this $4 million commitment is a massive fiscal burden. To guarantee this revenue, the SWA must enforce "Flow Control," a policy mandating that all county waste pass through this specific site. Beyond debt service, Flow Control is designed to prevent "leakage"—where commercial operators surreptitiously dump waste into residential "Green Boxes" to avoid paying tipping fees.

4. The Hidden Risk:

The environmental risks are buried in the geology of the Potomac Highlands. The site sits on karst topography—limestone bedrock defined by sinkholes and underground conduits that allow contaminants to bypass natural soil filtration. Under state rule 33CSR1, waste facilities are strictly prohibited where runoff drains into a sinkhole. This makes a comprehensive site survey mandatory to ensure no undetected sinkholes lurk behind the 4645 marker.

Furthermore, the proximity to the medical hub triggers a critical 1,500-foot threshold for water supply well monitoring. Because the clinic and the Green Bank Senior Citizens Center likely rely on local groundwater, any leachate spill—the toxic "trash juice" created when rain hits waste—could reach the local aquifer with devastating speed. In a karst environment, the margin for error is non-existent.

5. The "Green Box" Debate:

The economic survival of the transfer station relies on residential fees, specifically the $120 annual "Green Box" charge. However, the SWA's proposal to tighten enforcement has sent shockwaves through the agricultural community. Many local farmers own multiple deeded lots that are strictly open fields or woodlots producing zero waste. Tying fees to deeded property rather than waste generation could result in farmers paying thousands of dollars for land that contributes nothing to the waste stream, highlighting a painful tension between funding essential infrastructure and the survival of small agricultural businesses.

6. More Than Just a Dump:

To secure a waiver for the 2,000-foot buffer, this facility cannot be a simple pole barn or an open-air concrete pad. The WVDEP requires rigorous, high-cost engineering to prevent it from becoming a "nuisance" to its neighbors.

Specific requirements include:

• Total Enclosure: All loading, storage, and compaction must occur inside a specialized building to contain odors and pests.
• Odor and Vibration Scrubbing: Because the adjacent clinic operates a "hub and spoke" telehealth model and provides addiction medicine, any noise or vibration from heavy compaction equipment could be fundamentally disruptive to behavioral health sessions and remote clinical services.
• Watershed Protection: To protect the Potomac Highlands watershed, all waste areas must be roofed to prevent stormwater from creating leachate.
• Security: A high-grade security fence, estimated at $36,000, is required to separate the facility from the senior center.

7. Conclusion: The Path to 2026

As the 2026 deadline approaches, Pocahontas County stands at a crossroads. The current plan for the Green Bank transfer station offers a logistical solution but carries a $4 million price tag and a significant regulatory burden. The SWA must now decide: do they relocate the facility to the compliant 4877 block, or do they invest in the high-level engineering required to prove a waste hub can exist safely just 776 feet from a medical center? Ultimately, the community must ask itself: how do we balance the urgent necessity of waste management with the protection of our most vulnerable populations—the seniors and medical patients at the heart of Green Bank?

Aroma Therapy

 

Technical and Regulatory
Assessment of the Meck-Slavens Solid Waste Processing Site: Land Use, Setbacks, and Electromagnetic Constraints in Green Bank, West Virginia

The historical and contemporary land use patterns in Pocahontas County, West Virginia, present a unique confluence of early Appalachian settlement history, critical modern scientific infrastructure, and the evolving requirements of rural solid waste management. At the center of this intersection is the property historically associated with the Slavens family, now under the stewardship of the Meck family through entities such as JacMal, LLC and Allegheny Disposal, LLC. This site, located in the vicinity of Green Bank and Dunmore, is the subject of a sophisticated public-private partnership intended to transition the county from traditional landfilling to a centralized waste processing and transfer model.1 To understand the regulatory and technical constraints on this site, one must analyze the specific geographic location, the rigorous environmental setbacks dictated by West Virginia Legislative Rule 33CSR1, and the unconventional "electromagnetic setbacks" imposed by the National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ).2

Historical Context and Property Identification

The property identified as the "Slavens" tract carries a nomenclature rooted in the late 18th and 19th-century settlement of the Allegheny Mountains. The Slavens family name is deeply embedded in the genealogical records of what was formerly known as Greater Bath, encompassing parts of modern-day Pocahontas County.4 Historical records indicate that the Slavens were among the foundational families of the region, residing alongside the Warwicks, Poages, and Arbogasts.4 Over the centuries, these large mountain tracts transitioned through various uses, from subsistence farming and timbering to modern residential and industrial development. The Meck family, particularly Jacob and Malinda Meck, represents the modern industrial evolution of this lineage. Starting as a small construction firm in 1995, the Mecks expanded their footprint through Jacob S. Meck Construction, LLC and eventually entered the waste management sector by acquiring County Disposal Service in 2006, which subsequently became Allegheny Disposal, LLC.6

Locating the specific "Slavens property" within the modern tax map system requires an analysis of the West Virginia Integrated Assessment System (IAS) and the Statewide Addressing and Mapping System (SAMS).7 The property in question is situated in the Green Bank District (District 04) of Pocahontas County. While tax maps serve as a visual inventory for assessment purposes, they do not constitute a legal survey; however, they provide the necessary parcel identifiers to correlate ownership with physical location.8 The site for the proposed solid waste transfer station is specifically described as being adjacent to the existing Pocahontas County Landfill shop building.1 The physical address for the landfill operations is 374 Landfill Road, Dunmore, WV 24934, which places the facility in the heart of the Green Bank geographic district.9

The project involves the sale of approximately two acres of land to the Greenbrier Development Authority for the construction of a transfer station, which will then be leased back to the Solid Waste Authority (SWA).1 This two-acre portion is a subset of the larger holdings managed by the Mecks and JacMal, LLC. To establish a precise location for regulatory compliance, the West Virginia GIS Technical Center utilizes a specific parcel numbering format: District#(00) Map#(0000) Parcel#(0000) Suffix(0000).7 For the Green Bank district, typical map numbers such as TM 39 and TM 40 are associated with these large agricultural and industrial tracts.10

Regulatory Classification of Solid Waste Processing Facilities

Under West Virginia law, specifically the Solid Waste Management Act found in Chapter 22, Article 15 of the West Virginia Code, the facility proposed for the Meck-Slavens site is classified based on its tonnage and the nature of the waste handled.11 The facility is intended to function as a "Transfer Station," which is defined as a solid waste facility at which waste is collected and then prepared for transportation to another location for disposal or processing.1 The legislative intent behind these classifications is to ensure that "uncontrolled, inadequately controlled and improper collection, transportation, processing and disposal of solid waste" is treated as a public nuisance and a threat to the environment.11

The distinction between different classes of facilities is paramount for determining the applicable setbacks. A "Class A" facility handles between 10,000 and 30,000 tons of waste per month.13 Given that Pocahontas County only generates approximately 8,000 tons of waste annually, the proposed facility falls well below the Class A threshold and is more likely categorized as a commercial solid waste facility of a smaller scale.1 Furthermore, the rules differentiate between "Commercial" facilities, which accept waste from outside sources, and "Noncommercial" facilities, which handle only waste generated by the owner.13 The Meck-SWA partnership clearly defines this as a commercial endeavor, as it will serve the entire county population and municipal haulers.1

Legislative Findings and Environmental Oversight

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) and its Division of Water and Waste Management (DWWM) are tasked with enforcing the 33CSR1 rule, which provides the comprehensive framework for siting, design, and operation.12

The legislature has explicitly found that solid waste disposal has inherent long-term environmental, health, and infrastructure impacts.13 This is particularly relevant in Pocahontas County, described as the "birthplace of rivers," where the headwaters of the Greenbrier, Gauley, and Elk rivers originate.10 The environmental sensitivity of this mountain bowl means that any solid waste processor must be scrutinized for its potential to impact surface water and groundwater quality.2

Regulatory Feature	Legislative Citation	Primary Intent
Permitting Requirements	W. Va. Code R. § 33-1-3	Ensure no reasonable probability of significant adverse impact on wetlands or groundwater.2
Siting Prohibitions	33CSR1 Section 3.1	Prevent construction in areas with high risk of habitat destruction or geological instability.2
Solid Waste Assessment Fees	W. Va. Code § 22-15-11	Impose a fee (currently $1.75 per ton) to support environmental and management programs.18
Sewage Sludge Management	W. Va. Code § 22-15-20	Regulate the land application and composting of sludge to prevent soil pollutant saturation.19

Calculation of Environmental and Structural Setbacks

The core of the request involves the calculation of setbacks for the solid waste processor at the Meck-Slavens property. Under 33CSR1, setbacks are defined as the minimum horizontal distance required between the active portion of the facility (the operational area) and various landmarks or boundaries. These setbacks are designed to provide a buffer against noise, odor, dust, and potential environmental contamination.13

Horizontal Setbacks and Distance Requirements

The following setbacks are mandatory for a solid waste facility under West Virginia's administrative code. These distances must be maintained from the outer perimeter of the processing or storage area to the nearest point of the protected feature.17

Protected Feature	Minimum Required Setback (Feet)	Technical/Legal Basis
Adjacent Property Boundary	100	Prevents immediate nuisance and allows for monitoring wells.17
Occupied Dwellings (Residential)	500	Mitigates noise and air quality impacts on neighbors.17
Public Water Intake	500	Protects communal drinking water sources from potential runoff.17
Private Water Wells	300	Protects individual groundwater sources in existence at time of application.17
Perennial Streams / Ponds	100	Prevents sedimentation and leachate entry into flowing waters.17
Federal or State Highways	50	Maintains a safety corridor for public transit and sightlines.17
City or Local Streets	25	Provides clearance for local municipal traffic and utilities.17
Schools, Hospitals, Churches	2,000	Strict buffer for "sensitive institutions" (can be reduced with waiver).17
Turbojet Airport Runway	10,000	Prevents bird hazards and potential aviation interference.17
Piston-type Airport Runway	5,000	Prevents bird hazards and potential aviation interference.17
Holocene Fault Zones	200	Ensures structural integrity against tectonic shifts.17

Site-Specific Setback Implications for the Meck Property

In the case of the JacMal/Meck property, the 100-foot property line setback has already emerged as a point of contention in public records. During Solid Waste Authority meetings in early 2024, it was noted that historical surveys and plats might not have correctly accounted for the 100-foot buffer between the landfill's disposal cells and the property boundaries.21 This led to the commissioning of new surveys to ensure that the proposed transfer station site remains in strict compliance. If the new facility is constructed within the existing footprint, it must maintain the 100-foot distance from any neighbor's boundary, unless a written waiver is obtained from the adjacent owner.20

The 500-foot residential setback is another critical factor. The Meck family manages extensive land, but the presence of nearby dwellings—some potentially historical or linked to the original Slavens holdings—could restrict the placement of heavy machinery.17 A waiver system exists under West Virginia law where a homeowner can formally agree to a reduced setback, but this usually involves a recorded legal document and often financial compensation.17

Geological and Hydrological Constraints

Pocahontas County is characterized by Karst topography, a landscape formed from the dissolution of soluble rocks such as limestone.10 This results in sinkholes, caves, and underground streams, which create high-velocity pathways for contaminants to enter the groundwater.17 33CSR1 specifically prohibits the siting of new solid waste units in karst terrains unless the applicant can demonstrate that the engineering design—including double liners and advanced leachate collection—can prevent groundwater contamination.17

For the Meck-Slavens property, the seasonal high groundwater table must be at least two feet below the surface. If the water table is found to be closer to the surface, the processing and handling areas must be "hard-surfaced" (typically concrete or asphalt) and diked to prevent any leachate escape.20 Furthermore, the site topography cannot exceed a 6 percent grade for certain operations like composting, which may be integrated into the future transfer station model to reduce the volume of waste trucked out of the county.17

Electromagnetic Constraints: The National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ)

A unique and arguably more restrictive "setback" for the Meck property at Green Bank is the requirement for radio silence. The property is located within the National Radio Quiet Zone, a 13,000-square-mile area established to protect the sensitive radio astronomy research conducted at the Green Bank Observatory.3 Because the site is within the 10-mile radius of the observatory (governed by the West Virginia Radio Astronomy Zoning Act or WVRAZ), any industrial activity must comply with electromagnetic emission limits.3

The Technical Setback of RFI Management

Unlike a physical distance in feet, the NRQZ requirements act as a "performance setback." Any electrical equipment used in the solid waste processor—such as hydraulic pumps, electric motors, digital scales, and telemetry systems—must not produce radio frequency interference (RFI) that exceeds the observatory's strict power density thresholds.27

The power density threshold $P_d$ at the observatory's reference point is calculated based on frequency. For a facility like a solid waste processor, which might use industrial controllers operating in the 470 MHz to 1000 MHz range, the threshold is extremely low: $1 \times 10^{-17} \text{ W/m}^2$.27 This requirement often forces industrial facilities in Green Bank to adopt "silent" technologies.

Interference Source	Mitigation Strategy	NRQZ Compliance
Spark-Ignition Engines	Prohibited in Zone 1; restricted in Zone 2.3	Use only diesel-powered vehicles and machinery.1
Industrial Motors / VFDs	Electromagnetic shielding and RFI filters.27	Must coordinate technical specs with the NRQZ Administrator.23
Site Security / WiFi	Wireless transmissions are strictly limited.25	Hard-wire all cameras and sensors; limit WiFi to 2.4 GHz if permitted.25
Microwave Ovens / Appliances	Prohibited in certain zones or require shielding.3	Avoid use in facility breakrooms near the observatory.3

Impact on Site Operations

The Meck family's existing operations at Allegheny Disposal already account for these restrictions, but the transition to a high-volume transfer station will introduce new equipment. The West Virginia State Code Chapter 37A makes it illegal to operate any electrical equipment that causes harmful interference with the reception of radio waves at the observatory.28 This means that the "setback" for any unshielded electronic device is effectively the entire 10-mile radius of the WVRAZ, unless the device can be proven to be electromagnetically silent.3

Public-Private Partnership and Economic Structure

The development of the processor on the Slavens/Meck property is not a purely private venture; it is a collaborative effort with the Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority.1 This partnership was necessitated by the financial reality that the county produces insufficient waste to justify the $2 million-per-acre cost of building a new municipal landfill.1 Instead, the SWA and the Mecks have negotiated a deal where the private sector provides the land and construction expertise, while the public sector operates the facility.1

Financial Terms of the JacMal Lease (Option #4)

The agreement between the SWA and JacMal, LLC (the Meck's land-holding company) is structured as a lease-purchase arrangement.1 This allows the county to avoid the massive upfront capital expenditure of approximately $1.6 million for a new station and $300,000 for a maintenance shop.21

Agreement Variable	Term / Value	Source
Monthly Lease Payment	$16,759	1
Lease Duration	15 Years	1
Final Balloon Payout	$1,103,495.24	1
Total Contract Value	~$4.12 Million	1
Land Area Involved	~2 Acres	1
Maintenance Clause	Mecks to maintain station and crane infrastructure	1

This economic structure places the Meck family in a secondary liability position for compliance. Under West Virginia Code § 22-15-11, if an operator (the SWA) fails to discharge its obligations, the owner of the facility (JacMal/Meck) is jointly and severally responsible for environmental remediation and fee collection.18

Operational Logistics and Waste Stream Management

The role of the solid waste processor at Green Bank will be to act as a funnel for the "Green Box" system and commercial haulers. The Green Box system is a network of collection sites distributed throughout the county to serve remote residents who do not have curbside pickup.1 These boxes are currently prone to abuse by out-of-county users or commercial entities, leading to the SWA's desire for stricter "Flow Control" regulations.1

Flow Control and Mandatory Disposal

The SWA has proposed an update to county regulations that would require all solid waste generated in the county—including construction and demolition (C&D) waste—to be processed only through the county transfer station.1 This ensures a guaranteed tonnage for the facility, which is necessary to fund the monthly $16,759 lease payment to the Mecks.1 However, there is ongoing debate about whether C&D waste should be excluded from flow control to allow developers to seek cheaper disposal at licensed sites outside the county, provided they do not bury it on-site in violation of groundwater laws.31

The "Free Day" and Tipping Fees

Historically, the Pocahontas County Landfill offered a "free day" on the last Tuesday of every month for county residents.30 As part of the transition to the new processor at the Meck property, the SWA is considering eliminating this "free day" effective July 1, 2026, to manage costs.31 Instead, residents who pay the annual Green Box Fee (currently $120.00) will continue to have disposal rights, but the tipping fees for commercial furniture, mattresses, and appliances will likely be integrated into a weight-based system at the new transfer station scales.30

Long-Term Environmental Stewardship and Landfill Closure

The siting of the processor on the Slavens/Meck property is also a strategic decision linked to the closure of the existing Pocahontas County Landfill. When a landfill closes, it enters a "post-closure" period that typically lasts for 30 years.1 During this time, the SWA is responsible for maintaining the cap, monitoring groundwater, and managing leachate, with an estimated annual cost of at least $75,000.1

By placing the new transfer station on adjacent land, the SWA and the Mecks can utilize the same access roads, scales, and leachate treatment infrastructure, creating a synergy that reduces the total environmental footprint.1 However, this concentration of activity requires meticulous attention to the "operational area" setbacks defined in 33CSR1. Theoperational area cannot overlap with the partially closed landfill area without written approval from the Secretary of the DEP, as this could compromise the integrity of the landfill's final cover.17

Conclusion

The Slavens property, now managed by the Meck family at Green Bank, is a site of critical importance for the future of Pocahontas County's infrastructure. The location, adjacent to the existing landfill operations at 374 Landfill Road, is constrained by a complex mesh of environmental, geological, and electromagnetic regulations. Calculating the setbacks for the proposed solid waste processor requires a dual approach: adhering to the physical buffers of 33CSR1—including the 100-foot property line, 500-foot residential, and 100-foot stream setbacks—and complying with the technical radio-frequency limits of the NRQZ.

The successful implementation of the JacMal lease agreement and the transition to the new transfer station will depend on precise surveying and engineering that respects these boundaries. By leveraging the private sector's construction capabilities and the public sector's regulatory mandate, the Meck-SWA partnership aims to provide a sustainable solution for waste disposal while protecting the "birthplace of rivers" and the scientific integrity of the Green Bank Observatory. The rigorous application of these setbacks is not merely a legal hurdle but a necessary safeguard for the unique environmental and scientific heritage of the West Virginia highlands.

Works cited

1. Public statement in response to questions concerning the SWA ..., accessed April 12, 2026, https://pocahontastimes.com/public-statement-in-response-to-questions-concerning-the-swa/

2. W. Va. Code R. § 33-1-3 - Solid Waste Facility Permitting Requirements | State Regulations, accessed April 12, 2026, https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/west-virginia/W-Va-C-S-R-SS-33-1-3

3. United States National Radio Quiet Zone - Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Quiet_Zone

4. Knapp's Creek it's called today. But its first white man's name, given to it some 235 years ago, was Ewing's Creek, in honor of the pioneer who first settled on it, our James. - Ewing Family Association, accessed April 12, 2026, https://www.ewingfamilyassociation.org/books/JamesEwingOfPocahontas/jasbook_Vol1/jasbook1.htm

5. Slaven(s) News Items., accessed April 12, 2026, https://www.slavens.net/news/

6. About JacMal, accessed April 12, 2026, https://www.jacmalselfstorage.com/about-us/

7. WV Property Viewer - MapWV.gov, accessed April 12, 2026, https://www.mapwv.gov/parcel/

8. Maps and GIS Data - Pocahontas County Assessor's Office, accessed April 12, 2026, https://pocahontascountyassessor.com/maps/

9. Green Bank Sustainable Living Guiode - Green Bank Observatory, accessed April 12, 2026, https://greenbankobservatory.org/about/green-bank-sustainability/

10. GREEN BANK FOREST – 154 ACRES - Foxfire Realty, accessed April 12, 2026, https://foxfirenation.com/listings/green-bank-forest-154-acres/

11. West Virginia Code | §22-15-1, accessed April 12, 2026, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/22-15-1/

12. TITLE 33 LEGISLATIVE RULE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WASTE MANAGEMENT SERIES 1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT RULE §33-1-1. - WV Department of Environmental Protection, accessed April 12, 2026, https://dep.wv.gov/pio/Documents/Rules%202011/DWWM/Solid%20Waste/Waste%20Mgt.%2033-1.%20Solid%20Waste%20Management%20Rule.pdf

13. West Virginia Code | §22-15, accessed April 12, 2026, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/email/22-15/

14. article 15. solid waste management act. - West Virginia Legislature, accessed April 12, 2026, https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2409%20intr.htm&yr=2023&sesstype=RS&i=2409

15. Solid Waste Facilities Permitting - WV Department of Environmental Protection, accessed April 12, 2026, https://dep.wv.gov/wwe/permit/solidwaste/Pages/default.aspx

16. West Virginia Code Chapter 22. Environmental Resources § 22-15-1 | FindLaw, accessed April 12, 2026, https://codes.findlaw.com/wv/chapter-22-environmental-resources/wv-code-sect-22-15-1/

17. Untitled - West Virginia Secretary of State — Online Data Services, accessed April 12, 2026, https://apps.sos.wv.gov/adlaw/csr/readfile.aspx?DocId=21974&Format=PDF

18. West Virginia Code Chapter 22. Environmental Resources § 22-15-11, accessed April 12, 2026, https://codes.findlaw.com/wv/chapter-22-environmental-resources/wv-code-sect-22-15-11/

19. 22-15-20. Sewage sludge management. - West Virginia Code, accessed April 12, 2026, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/22-15-20/

20. West Virginia Code of State Rules, Series 33-03, Section 33-3-3 - Yard Waste Composting and Permitting Requirements, accessed April 12, 2026, https://regulations.justia.com/states/west-virginia/agency-33/title-33/series-33-03/section-33-3-3/

21. Boundaries for Possible Landfill Purchase Appear Close to Resolution, accessed April 12, 2026, https://www.alleghenymountainradio.org/boundaries-for-possible-landfill-purchase-appear-close-to-resolution/

22. FILED - West Virginia Secretary of State — Online Data Services, accessed April 12, 2026, https://apps.sos.wv.gov/adlaw/csr/readfile.aspx?DocId=21977&Format=PDF

23. National Radio Quiet Zone - Green Bank Observatory, accessed April 12, 2026, https://greenbankobservatory.org/about/national-radio-quiet-zone/

24. Visit - Green Bank Observatory, accessed April 12, 2026, https://greenbankobservatory.org/visit/

25. WiFi in the “Quiet Zone” FAQs - Green Bank Observatory, accessed April 12, 2026, https://greenbankobservatory.org/news/wifi-in-the-quiet-zone-faqs/

26. The Green Bank Observatory Interference Protection Group: Policies for RFI Management, accessed April 12, 2026, https://greenbankobservatory.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/GBIPG-Policy-Final_AJRSigned.pdf

27. National Radio Quiet Zone — NRAO Science Site, accessed April 12, 2026, https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/gbt/interference-protection/nrqz

28. Interference Protection - Green Bank Observatory, accessed April 12, 2026, https://greenbankobservatory.org/about/interference-protection/

29. The National Radio Quiet Zone - NRAO, accessed April 12, 2026, https://science.nrao.edu/science/meetings/2014/3rd-china-us-workshop/presentation.pdfs/Woody%20NRQZ.pdf

30. Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority, accessed April 12, 2026, https://pocahontascountyswa.yolasite.com/

31. SWA facing hard decisions - Pocahontas Times, accessed April 12, 2026, https://pocahontastimes.com/swa-facing-hard-decisions/