The Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority has to decide to expand its current landfill or to build a transfer station to transport its solid waste to another county. Timing is critical. Propose a solution to this problem. Compare/contrast all alternatives.
Comprehensive Strategic Assessment: Solid Waste Management Alternatives for Pocahontas County
Executive Summary
The Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority (PCSWA) currently faces the most significant operational and fiscal crisis in its history. The county’s primary disposal asset, the sanitary landfill located in Dunmore, West Virginia, is rapidly approaching its maximum permitted capacity. Based on current fill rates and airspace analysis, the facility is projected to reach end-of-life status between late 2025 and September 2026. This impending "waste cliff" forces the Authority to make an immediate, binary choice: undertake a capital-intensive vertical expansion of the existing facility or pivot fundamentally toward a logistics-based model via the construction of a transfer station.
This research report provides an exhaustive evaluation of these alternatives, analyzing the technical feasibility, regulatory compliance, financial solvency, and long-term geopolitical implications of each path. The investigation synthesizes data from board minutes, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) filings, financial audits, and public hearing records to construct a definitive roadmap for the Authority.
The analysis confirms that the Landfill Expansion Alternative is functionally obsolete. The rejection of the deed for the necessary adjacent property ("Fertig Farm") in October 2024, driven by administrative errors regarding perimeter fencing costs and liability clauses, has severed the critical path for expansion. Furthermore, the escalating costs of regulatory closure—rising from $1.15 million in 2006 to over $3.2 million in 2025—render the expansion economically unsustainable without tipping fees that would far exceed regional market rates.
Consequently, the Transfer Station Alternative is the only viable solution to maintain sanitary disposal services for the county. However, the implementation of this model presents a secondary conflict: Public Ownership versus Private Privatization. While Allegheny Disposal, LLC has proposed a private "lease-to-own" model, this report finds that such an arrangement would strip the SWA of the revenue control necessary to fund its legacy landfill obligations.
Recommendation: The PCSWA must immediately expedite the construction of a publicly owned transfer station at the Dunmore site. This facility should be funded through a mix of County Commission subsidies and low-interest loans from the Solid Waste Management Board (SWMB). Critically, due to the misalignment between the landfill’s closure date and the transfer station’s construction timeline, the Authority must concurrently file for an Emergency Solid Waste Transfer Permit with the WV DEP to bridge the anticipated operational gap.
Section 1: Institutional and Operational Context
To understand the gravity of the current decision, one must first analyze the unique operational landscape of Pocahontas County. Unlike urban wastesheds where collection is uniform and disposal is commoditized, Pocahontas County operates a hybrid system deeply rooted in rural Appalachian geography and specific legislative mandates.
1.1 The Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority (PCSWA) Mandate
Established under West Virginia Code §22C-4, the PCSWA is charged with establishing and maintaining a comprehensive solid waste management program. The Authority operates as a quasi-public entity, overseen by a board of appointed volunteers but regulated strictly by the Public Service Commission (PSC) regarding rates and the WV DEP regarding environmental compliance.
The Authority’s primary asset is the Pocahontas County Landfill (Permit SWF-2001/WV0109436), located on Landfill Road in Dunmore. This facility is a Class B landfill, permitted to accept up to 1,400 tons per month, though actual tonnage averaged 673 tons in 2023. This under-utilization (approx. 48% of capacity) creates a "revenue-per-ton" efficiency problem, as fixed costs for monitoring, staffing, and leachate treatment must be spread across a relatively small volume of waste.
1.2 The "Green Box" Collection System
A distinctive feature of the county’s infrastructure is the "Green Box" system. In many jurisdictions, residents act as individual customers for haulers. In Pocahontas County, the SWA manages a network of five public drop-off sites where residents can dispose of household waste. This system serves approximately 4,200 households and camps, functioning as a critical public utility for the rural population where curbside pickup is logistically impossible or cost-prohibitive.
The financial health of the SWA is inextricably linked to this system. Residents pay an annual "Green Box Fee" (recently raised to $135/year) to support these operations. If the SWA were to cede control of disposal to a private entity, the nexus between the Green Box revenue (collection) and the tipping fee revenue (disposal) would break, potentially leaving the SWA with the cost of maintaining the Green Boxes but without the revenue from the landfill tipping fees that subsidize the system.
1.3 The Role of Private Haulers
While the SWA manages the Green Boxes, door-to-door collection is handled primarily by private certificated haulers, most notably Allegheny Disposal, LLC, owned by Jacob Meck. Allegheny Disposal collects commercial waste (e.g., from Snowshoe Mountain Resort) and residential curbside waste. The relationship between the regulator (SWA) and the regulated operational entity (Allegheny Disposal) has become the central axis of conflict in the county’s waste strategy.
Allegheny Disposal is not merely a customer of the landfill; it is a competitor for control of the waste stream. As the landfill nears closure, Allegheny Disposal has maneuvered to become the owner of the replacement infrastructure (the transfer station), a move that would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the county’s waste management ecosystem.
Section 2: The Landfill Expansion Alternative (The "Status Quo" Trap)
The first alternative considered by the Authority was the expansion of the existing landfill. Historically, this is the default path for solid waste authorities: as one cell fills, another is excavated. However, for Pocahontas County, this path has been blocked by a convergence of administrative failures, real estate constraints, and skyrocketing environmental liabilities.
2.1 The Failure of the Fertig Farm Acquisition
For a landfill to expand, it requires land—not just for the waste itself, but for the state-mandated buffer zones, leachate management systems, and operational setbacks. The PCSWA identified the adjacent "Fertig Farm" as the necessary acquisition to facilitate a vertical and lateral expansion.
Negotiations appeared to proceed toward a sale, with the Pocahontas County Commission agreeing to fund the purchase. However, in October 2024, the deal collapsed in a public and procedurally fatal manner. The collapse was not due to environmental unsuitability, but rather a clerical and administrative error regarding the perimeter fence.
During the initial approval meetings, the Commission was given a verbal estimate of the fencing required to secure the site. When the deed was drafted and the official plat examined, the actual linear footage of the required fence was significantly higher than the estimate. This discrepancy raised the total project cost by approximately $3,000 beyond what the Commission had authorized. While $3,000 represents a trivial fraction of a multi-million dollar infrastructure project, in the context of strict municipal finance laws and political friction between the SWA and the Commission, it became the wedge that destroyed the deal.
The SWA rejected the deed. This rejection was more than a delay; it was a strategic termination of the expansion option. Without the land, there is no buffer. Without the buffer, the WV DEP cannot issue a permit modification for expansion under Title 33, Series 1. The "expansion" alternative effectively died in that October meeting.
2.2 The "Closure Turf" Financial Cliff
Even if the land were acquired, the financial argument for expansion has crumbled under the weight of "Legacy Costs." Every ton of waste placed in a landfill creates a long-term liability for closure (capping) and post-closure care (monitoring for 30 years).
Data presented to the County Commission reveals a catastrophic escalation in these costs:
2006 Closure Estimate: $1.15 million.
2025 Closure Estimate: $3.2 million.
This leaves the SWA with an immediate deficit of approximately $800,000. If the SWA were to expand the landfill, they would be doubling down on a business model that is already insolvent. They would need to generate enough surplus revenue from tipping fees not only to operate the new cells but to fill the $800,000 hole from the old cells.
The SWA’s only hope to balance this equation is a technological Hail Mary: the approval of "Closure Turf." This synthetic capping system, which uses artificial turf instead of soil and vegetation, could potentially reduce the closure cost back down to the $2.4 million range. However, this approval is contingent on WV DEP technical review, which is notoriously rigorous regarding the UV stability and longevity of synthetic caps in mountainous terrain.
2.3 Regulatory Obsolescence
The regulatory environment for small, rural landfills has become hostile. Under current regulations, expanding the landfill would trigger a "Major Permit Modification." This would require the SWA to bring the entire facility up to modern Subtitle D standards, potentially forcing the retrofitting of liners in pre-1996 areas. The cost of such retrofitting would far exceed the cost of exporting waste.
Insight: The "Expand Landfill" option is a sunk cost trap. It requires land the SWA failed to buy, capital the SWA doesn't have, and regulatory approvals that are unlikely to be granted. The decision to halt engineering on the transfer station at the landfill was a momentary lapse in judgment that the Board has since corrected.
Section 3: The Transfer Station Alternative (The Operational Reality)
With expansion ruled out, the only legal method for the PCSWA to fulfill its statutory mandate is to construct a transfer station. A transfer station acts as a cross-docking facility where waste is consolidated from small local trucks into large long-haul transport trailers for shipment to a regional mega-landfill.
3.1 Siting: The Battle for Location (Green Bank vs. Dunmore)
The physical location of the transfer station determines the logistics of the entire county. Two sites were proposed, representing the two competing visions for the county's waste future.
3.1.1 The Green Bank Proposal (Private Control)
Allegheny Disposal, LLC proposed building a transfer station in Green Bank, in the northern part of the county.
Proponent: Jacob Meck (Owner, Allegheny Disposal).
Status: Rejected. In December 2024, the SWA voted to deny the Certificate of Site Approval for this facility.
Strategic Implication: This rejection was a defense of public sovereignty. If the transfer station were in Green Bank, owned by the primary hauler, the SWA would lose all leverage. Allegheny could set the "gate rate" (the fee to drop off trash), effectively dictating the county’s waste budget. Furthermore, Green Bank is less centrally located for the southern commercial zones (Marlinton/Hillsboro) than Dunmore.
3.1.2 The Dunmore Proposal (Public Control)
The SWA’s approved plan is to site the transfer station at the existing landfill in Dunmore.
Infrastructure: The site already possesses the necessary weigh scales, access roads, and utility connections.
3.2 Logistics: The "Walking Floor" Solution
The efficiency of a transfer station is defined by its throughput. Standard dump trucks are inefficient for the long-haul transport required here (45-65 miles one way). The SWA has correctly identified "Walking Floor" (Live Floor) trailers as the necessary technology.
Technology: These trailers utilize a hydraulic floor system of moving slats to "walk" the load out of the rear of the trailer. This eliminates the need for the trailer to raise up (tipping) to unload.
3.3 Destination Analysis: The Tucker vs. Greenbrier Calculation
Once the waste is loaded, it must go somewhere. The SWA has two viable regional partners. This choice is a complex calculus of tipping fees, distance, and terrain.
Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Destination Landfills
| Metric | Tucker County Landfill (Davis, WV) | Greenbrier County Landfill (Lewisburg, WV) |
| Owner | Public (Tucker Co. SWA) | Public (Greenbrier Co. SWA) |
| Base Tipping Fee (2025) | ~$53.30 per ton | ~$61.00 per ton |
| State Assessment Fees | +$8.25/ton (approx) | +$8.25/ton (approx) |
| Distance from Dunmore | ~65 miles (via WV-28/32) | ~45 miles (via WV-92/US-219) |
| Route Characteristics | High mountain passes; severe winter impact. | Moderate terrain; better arterial maintenance. |
| Est. Haul Cost | Higher (longer duration/fuel) | Lower (shorter duration) |
Analysis: The Tucker County Landfill offers a lower tipping fee ($53.30 vs $61.00), a savings of $7.70 per ton. On an average 22-ton load, this saves ~$169 in disposal costs. However, the round trip to Davis is 40 miles longer than to Lewisburg. Industry average hauling costs for walking floor trailers range from $2.00 to $3.50 per mile.
Extra Haul Cost to Tucker: 40 miles * $3.00/mile = $120.00.
Net Benefit of Tucker: $169 (Tip Savings) - $120 (Haul Cost) = $49 savings per load.
While Tucker is theoretically cheaper, the margin is razor-thin. If diesel prices spike, or if winter weather forces chains-on driving over the Allegheny Front, the savings evaporate. Therefore, the SWA should not exclusive-source a destination. The optimal strategy is to contract with Tucker County as the primary summer/base-load facility and maintain an active contract with Greenbrier County for winter operations and emergency overflow.
Section 4: Governance Models (Public vs. Private)
The technical decision to build a transfer station is settled. The political decision of who owns it remains the flashpoint.
4.1 The Public Model (SWA Owned & Operated)
This is the current trajectory following the December 2024 motions.
Concept: The SWA borrows money, builds the facility, owns the assets, and employs the staff.
Financials:
Capital Expenditure (CapEx): ~$1.325 Million (Building + Trucks).
Strategic Value: Rate stability. As a public entity, the SWA operates at cost. It does not need to extract a profit margin. It retains full control over the "Green Box" fees and Tipping fees, allowing it to cross-subsidize the legacy landfill closure costs.
4.2 The Private Model (Allegheny Disposal Partnership)
This was the proposal pushed by Jacob Meck.
Concept: Allegheny builds the station. The SWA pays a monthly lease fee to use it, eventually owning it after 10 years.
Proposal Terms: $25,000 per month lease.
Insight: The Private Model is a predatory financial arrangement. It would have locked the taxpayer into a high-cost lease while simultaneously handing monopoly power to the county’s only major hauler. The vertical integration of Collection (Allegheny trucks) and Disposal (Allegheny transfer station) would have left the SWA powerless to control rates.
Section 5: Financial Modeling and Rate Architecture
The transition from landfilling to transfer is inflationary. Moving waste 60 miles is inherently more expensive than burying it 100 yards away. The SWA must restructure its revenue to survive.
5.1 The Revenue Portfolio
The SWA relies on a three-legged stool of funding :
Green Box Fees: Mandatory assessment on households.
Tipping Fees: Commercial gate rates.
Grants/Subsidies: SWMB grants and County Commission allocations.
5.1.1 The Green Box Fee Adjustment
To prepare for this transition, the SWA has already voted to increase the Green Box fee from $120 to $135 annually, effective July 1.
Impact: With ~4,200 paying accounts, a $15 increase generates only ~$63,000 in new revenue.
Sufficiency: This is insufficient. The projected operating deficit for the transfer station model suggests fees may need to approach $150-$160/year to be sustainable without Commission subsidies.
5.1.2 The Tipping Fee Rate Case (PSC Rule 42A)
The SWA has applied to the Public Service Commission (PSC) to raise the tipping fee from $72.75 to $95.00 per ton.
Justification: The $95 fee is calculated to cover:
$53.30 (Tucker Tip Fee)
~$20.00 (Haul Cost Allocation)
~$21.70 (Transfer Station Overhead & Admin)
Regulatory Hurdle: Under WV Code §24-2-1, the PSC must approve this rate. The "Rule 42A" process involves an audit. The SWA must demonstrate that its costs are "reasonable and necessary." The rejection of the expensive Allegheny lease strengthens the SWA’s case here, as they can show they chose the lowest-cost option (Public Build).
5.2 The "Closure Deficit" Anchor
The financial analysis is distorted by the old landfill. The SWA has a "Construction Escrow" and a "Closure Escrow."
The Problem: The SWA may have to raid the Construction Escrow (meant for the transfer station) to pay for the Closure of the landfill if the "Closure Turf" permit is denied.
Conclusion: The SWA is technically insolvent regarding its closure liability unless the "Closure Turf" is approved or the Commission provides the subsidy. The transfer station can pay for itself (via the $95 tip fee), but it cannot generate enough profit to pay off the $3.2M closure bill of the old site.
Section 6: Regulatory Compliance and Permitting Roadmap
The SWA is operating against a ticking clock. The landfill closes in 2025/2026. A transfer station takes 12+ months to permit. We are in the "Danger Zone."
6.1 The WV DEP Permitting Process
To open the Dunmore Transfer Station, the SWA must navigate a labyrinth of state code:
Siting Plan Amendment (WV Code §22C-4-24): The SWA must update its Comprehensive Plan to re-designate the landfill zone as a transfer zone. This requires public notice and a hearing.
Status: The SWA voted to keep the existing plan for a transfer station at the landfill , streamlining this step.
6.2 The "Gap" and Emergency Permitting
The math does not work. If the landfill fills in late 2025, and the permit takes a year, the SWA will not have a building ready in time.
The Solution: WV Code §24-2-1i (Emergency Certificate of Need) & Emergency DEP Permits.
Mechanism: The SWA must apply for an Emergency Solid Waste Transfer Permit.
Operational Concept: Instead of a building, the DEP may authorize a temporary "tipping pad"—a concrete slab where waste is dumped, immediately loaded into trailers by an excavator, and hauled away. No overnight storage.
Requirement: The SWA must prove that an "emergency exists" that threatens public health. The imminent closure of the only legal disposal site in the county qualifies.
6.3 Recycling and Diversion Compliance
The Green Bank Sustainability Working Group has intervened in hearings, demanding higher recycling rates.
Regulatory Leverage: WV Code encourages recycling. The SWA’s failure to provide recycling for tires, white goods, and electronics at Green Box sites is a vulnerability in their permit application.
Economic Incentive: Increasing the recycling rate from 3.6% to the national average of 25% would reduce the tonnage hauled to Tucker County by nearly 2,000 tons/year.
Savings: 2,000 tons * $95/ton = $190,000/year savings.
Strategic Move: The SWA should integrate the Sustainability Group’s demands into the transfer station design (e.g., dedicated recycling bays) not just for PR, but to lower the OpEx of the new facility.
Section 7: Strategic Recommendations and Implementation Roadmap
The Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority cannot afford further vacillation. The expansion option is dead. The private partnership is predatory. The public transfer station is the only life raft.
7.1 Immediate Action Items (0-90 Days)
Finalize the Siting Plan Update: Formally submit the amended Siting Plan to the SWMB designating the Dunmore Landfill site as the Transfer Station location.
Execute the $500,000 Loan: Lock in the 1% interest rate with the SWMB immediately. Construction costs are rising; delay is expensive.
File Emergency Permit Applications: Do not wait for the landfill to close. File for the Emergency Transfer Permit now, citing the projected closure date.
"Closure Turf" Advocacy: The SWA Board must meet with the WV DEP Secretary to lobby for the approval of the closure turf system. This is the single biggest financial variable in the entire project.
7.2 Operational Strategy
Dual-Destination Hauling: Negotiate contracts with both Tucker County (Primary) and Greenbrier County (Secondary). Do not sign "put-or-pay" contracts that lock the SWA into one destination.
Staffing: Transition current landfill equipment operators to transfer station duties. The skills (loader operation) are transferable, minimizing retraining costs.
7.3 Financial Strategy
Enforce the $95 Tipping Fee: Pursue the PSC Rule 42A case aggressively.
Recycling Diversion: Implement strict bans on cardboard and metals in the MSW stream at the commercial level (Snowshoe). Force commercial haulers to separate these streams to reduce the SWA's hauling burden.
Conclusion
The transition from a landfill-based system to a transfer-based system is a painful maturation for any rural solid waste authority. It signals the end of "cheap" disposal. However, by retaining public ownership of the transfer station, the PCSWA protects the county from the dictates of private monopolies and retains the sovereignty necessary to manage its own environmental future. The path is difficult, but clear: Build the station, secure the emergency permit, and close the landfill.
Appendix A: Financial Comparison of Models
Appendix B: Regulatory Timeline
| Milestone | Status | Estimated Completion |
| Siting Plan Amendment | Motions Passed | Immediate |
| PSC Certificate of Need | Pending Application | + 3 Months |
| DEP Construction Permit | Engineering Paused | + 12 Months |
| Emergency Permit | NOT STARTED - URGENT | + 2 Months |
| Landfill Closure | Capacity ~12 Months | Late 2025 |
Current Escrow Balance: ~$2.4 million.
Zoning: The site is already designated for solid waste activities in the County Siting Plan, simplifying the amendment process compared to a "greenfield" site like Green Bank.
Design: The proposal calls for a 70-foot by 65-foot enclosed building. This size allows for a "tip floor" where waste can be inspected for prohibited items (tires, car batteries) before being loaded into trailers.
Safety: Tipping trailers are prone to rolling over on uneven landfill surfaces, especially in windy conditions. Walking floor trailers remain stable.
Capacity: These units can haul approximately 130 cubic yards or 25 tons per load.
Procurement Status: The SWA voted to purchase three of these trailers at $109,383 each. This redundancy (three trailers for one tractor) allows for a "drop-and-hook" operation, maximizing the driver’s road time.
Funding: $500,000 loan @ 1% interest from SWMB + County Commission subsidy.
Financial Analysis:
$25,000 * 12 months = $300,000 per year.
Over 10 years = $3.0 Million total cost.
Comparison: The Private Model ($3.0M) costs nearly double the Public Model ($1.325M CapEx + Interest).
Risk: The "Questionable" Executive Session. Reports indicate that SWA members attempted to meet privately with the Mecks, excluding the County Commission President. This lack of transparency suggests that the Private Model was being advanced through lobbying rather than merit. The subsequent rejection of this model by the full board was a necessary correction to protect the county’s fiscal interests.
The Funding Gap: The SWA asked the County Commission for $300,000/year to bridge this gap. The Commission, facing a $1.5M shortfall on its 911 center, has demurred.
Certificate of Need (CON): Issued by the PSC. The SWA must prove the facility is needed.
Solid Waste Facility Permit (Class A/B/C): The technical permit from WV DEP.
Timeline: Completeness review (30 days) + Technical review (6 months) + Public comment (3 months) = ~1 Year Minimum.
Order Equipment: Place the order for the three walking floor trailers and the road tractor immediately. Supply chain delays could push delivery to September 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment