Category Archives: Solid Waste

RSWA to conduct engineering study on new paper-sort facility

Planning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions takes many forms. Albemarle County’s Climate Action Plan has a whole chapter on “sustainable materials management” which has multiple strategies to divert items from landfills. Strategy 5.1.3 is to “identify if there is a need to local additional paper/cardboard balers in Albemarle County.” That item is under review by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and McKalips gave a briefing at the

The RSWA operates a facility on Meade Avenue that sorts paper material brought to the Ivy Materials Utilization Center and the McIntire Recycling Center. 

“People put their recyclable materials in there and we take those back to the paper sort facility and we by and large bale all of those products,” McKalips said. “That allows us to save a lot of shipping costs in getting them to our vendors.”

Read more

RSWA seeks tonnage increase

The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has been experiencing higher volumes of tonnage received at the Ivy Materials Utilization Center. Material is sorted before sent out to other landfills. As a result, the RSWA is asking the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to increase the amount it can transfer each day to 450 tons, up from 300 tons. 

“We believe that by increasing our facility limit to 450 tons per day will not result in a great deal more traffic, but rather allow us to accept the few, large load, customers that are bringing us material from infrequent large projects (like the field turf replacement project or a UVA building demolition project that we’ve seen in the past couple of years,” reads the executive director’s report for the September meeting. 

Read more

Group seeks information from beverage producers on glass recycling

An ad hoc group of environmental professionals working on a way to reduce the amount of glass that winds up in landfills resumed the conversation earlier this month. The work is an outcome of Albemarle County’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee and Better World Betty. They have been asking area wineries and breweries to tell them how much glass they discard in an online survey that is open through February 1

“There’s just a lot of glass to be had and we’re excited about the survey results that we’ve received,” said Teri Kent, the founder of Better World Betty. 

The group wants wineries, breweries, and other beverage producers to fill out a survey on glass recycling needs. (survey)

The idea is to collect the information with an eye towards hiring a hauler who could collect glass from beverage providers and aggregate the material at a processing facility run by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. For this to work, the glass must be separated in the waste stream to avoid contamination. 

A co-founder of Valley Road Vineyards in Afton said he supported the idea.

“I am instinctively drawn to anything that will do something than what we’re doing with glass now which is just putting it in the landfill,” said Stan Joynes. “But I do have this question at the outset which is what is the end of this material?”

Philip McKalips is the solid waste manager at the RSWA. He said for many years, the agency collected glass and was able to find places for it to go but has recently formalized an arrangement.

“More recently we wanted to have more of a structured program, something that we could rely on functionally, and we set up an arrangement with Strategic Materials where they actually a hire a trucking company, they come on a regular process, out to our closed landfill, where we stockpile our recycled glass that comes in from our collection centers,” McKalips said.  

From there, the  glass goes to a facility in Wilson, North Carolina, where the materials are sorted. 

“And then they either use it internally or sell it to other users,” McKalips said. 

The goal of the current initiative is to collect enough glass so it can be used as material to make new containers. Localities in Northern Virginia have created a program where purple bins are used to collect glass, returning to a time when materials were separated by those who purchased the product. Scott DeFife is with the Glass Packaging Institute. 

“All of the glass that’s going into the bins in the Northern Virginia communities of Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax is now making its way down to Wilson and getting turned around into glass container plants,” DeFife said. 

DeFife said much of what ends up in mixed recycling bins winds up in a landfill. 

“Getting enough clean, you know, a critical mass of good quality glass can get that glass back into the supply chain,” DeFife said. He added that there is a market for a glass manufacturer somewhere in Virginia which would reduce travel time.

“But the economics of processing are very chicken and egg,” DeFife said. “Nobody is going to build a $10 million to $15 million glass processing plant if there’s no glass to go to it.” 

So work continues to organize the waste stream. The group wants as many beverage producers as possible to fill out the survey. Jesse Warren is with UVA Sustainability. 

“What we’re thinking is some kind of weekly hauling route where a provider will provide something like a 64×96 gallon cart that you all will then fill up with glass,” Warren said. 

Albemarle to further discuss fill dirt and debris changes in January

Albemarle officials are moving ahead with a review of whether its county code sufficiently regulates the burial of materials such as construction debris, fill dirt, and demolition waste in the rural area.

“The fill and waste provisions have not been reviewed since 1998,” said Bill Fritz, the chief of special projects in Albemarle’s Community Development Department.

Since then, Albemarle, Charlottesville and the University of Virginia have experienced at least two waves of building activity, meaning many brownfield and greenfield have had to be cleared. Both dirt removed through grading and buildings removed through demolition leave a waste product that has to go somewhere.

It has been common practice for waste material and fill dirt to be hauled into Albemarle’s rural area, prompting questions and concerns from residents about truck traffic and potential pollution.

In January, the new Albemarle Board of Supervisors will hold a work session on how to proceed with the review, which will eventually include roundtables with stakeholders. The goal is to have the ordinance updated sometime in 2020.


On November 6, 2019, Supervisors adopted a resolution directing staff to take a look at §18-4.3.1 and §18-5.1.28 of the code because “the use of rural fill and waste areas may be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.”

Another reason is “the placement of fill and waste may cause increased traffic on rural roads that may be inadequate to accommodate increased traffic.”

In one incident last November, 69 loads of used astroturf were trucked from the Park at Darden to property off of Fox Mountain Road. This past May and June, an unknown number of loads of waste were hauled onto another property in Free Union to dump concrete, asphalt, and other debris from the demolished University Hall.

Both incidents triggered complaints from nearby landowners concerned about what was happening and both were investigated by Albemarle zoning inspectors.

The astroturf was later removed because that material was not permitted to be stored on that site, above-ground or below-ground. However, much of the material at the Free Union site was buried in the ground after the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality concluded the material was inert. Questions remain, however, about whether enough inspection has been conducted.

Also common is a practice in which dirt removed from construction sites can be transferred from one site to the other. In most of those cases, neighbors currently do not have to be told what is happening.

This review gives Albemarle residents and stakeholders the chance to demand that the rules be tightened up to give protections to neighboring properties.

Studying fill and waste areas

Supervisors initiated the study of this issue at their November 6, 2019 meeting and agreed to a public process for the review.  Fritz said the existing provisions may not be sufficient to address health, safety and welfare.

“The existing regulations are largely technical in nature and they deal with things such as ponding of water, reclamation of the area with covering fill, fencing, dust control,” Fritz said.

“No regulations exist that address the volume or hours of truck traffic.”

As with many activities in the rural area, if the dumping is connected to agricultural use, it is exempt with some exceptions due to the passage of the Right to Farm Act.

“If the fill and waste activity is related to bona fide agriculture, it is exempt,” Fritz said. “However, no mechanism exists to determine what type of activity is supportive of bona fide agriculture.”

Fill and waste areas are governed by Sec. 5-1-28 including provision a.3:

“Each fill or waste area shall only be for the disposal of soil or inert materials. The disposal of any other materials in a fill or waste area is prohibited.”

There are no definitions of “dirt” or “clean fill” in the ordinance, nor the word “inert” which can be defined as chemically inactive.

“We do not have a definition of clean fill but what we have used is dirt,” Fritz said. “Not rock or  rubble, but usable soil.”

Supervisor Liz Palmer asked if “fill dirt” could include concrete and asphalt if they are deemed to be inert.

“These are the types of things that as we’re looking at the zoning text amendment that should be clarified,” Fritz said. “There simply is no clear definition in our ordinance. I’ve looked at some other ordinances now that very clearly define the definition between clean fill and inert material. Some localities treat those two things differently.”

In recent history, Albemarle notified the owners of Hidden Fox Farm inspected the property after hearing about many trucks traveling to the property. University Hall was demolished on May 25, and by the end of June, some of the debris had been trucked to the site.

Records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that county officials determined the practice was not lawful after an inspection on June 26.

“The dumping of non-inert materials (metals, plastics, fabric, and other materials) was discovered at that time,” wrote zoning administrator Bart Svoboda in an email to DEQ officials.  “Following that additional inspection, Staff has concluded that a violation of county ordinances exists.”

Some of the material was removed from the site, but questions remain that should be addressed during this review.


The county’s ability to regulate fill and waste areas is more complete if the material to be transported originates within Albemarle. If it comes from outside, then county officials may not know it’s happening.

“If there’s a project in Albemarle County that is generating waste material, either soil or they are demolishing a building, as part of the review of that particular project, we look at where that material is going to be exported to, even if that area that is receiving the exported material is under 10,000 square feet, because the sending [area is above] 10,000 square feet,” Fritz said. “However, if the material is being generated outside of Albemarle County, either from the city or the University or some other jurisdiction, that doesn’t happen. We only look at it if the disturbance is over 10,000 square feet at the receiving property. And then if it is, the normal erosion and sediment control regulations come into play.”

Section 5.1.28(b) requires a permit if a property owner knows in advance that the area of the fill and waste area will exceed 10,000 square feet. That triggers a provision of Chapter 13 of the county code, the solid waste and recycling chapter, that governs the transport of refuse. Section 13-302 governs the “accumulation, storage and removal of refuse on private property” and would apply to any fill or waste area in excess of 10,000 square feet, even on agricultural land.

Palmer asked Fritz if that meant the county had to rely on property owners to notify staff in advance of receiving that amount of material.

Fritz said yes, though pointed out county usually doesn’t know until there has been a complaint.

The 10,000 square-foot threshold could be reduced to as little as 2,500 square feet, according to Fritz.

The locality has the power to regulate point-to-point transfers within Albemarle’s borders, but from anything outside.

“If the permit has to be issued by the county [to] the demolishing party, they have to include that in their permit information,” said County Attorney Greg Kamptner. “They tell us where they’re taking it, but if it is UVA or the city, we don’t have that information until it reaches the threshold where our regulations kick in. We don’t have that communication between the city or the other permitting authority right now.”

Supervisor Ann Mallek asked if it were possible to get that authority.

“That’s the most important missing chunk right now,” Mallek said. “We are behind the eightball always, and it’s unfair to staff and neighbors to not have any capability. But if we need the authority to get that information, it’s a different question.”

Fritz said the county has been working with UVA to get better notification. In September, the facilities management office sent a full accounting of the astroturf that had been stored on Fox Mountain Road, but it was not required by law.

.Mallek said that there needed to be a legal requirement to make sure that practice continues into the future. That would likely take legislation in the General Assembly.

Another wrinkle is that if the property owner claims the receiving of fill dirt is for an agricultural use, the county’s water protection ordinance does not apply.

“The WPO ordinance does not allow enforcement action on bonafide agricultural activities,” said county engineer Frank Pohl. “That’s state law.”

Pohl is referring to the Right to Farm provision in state code which severely limits local regulation on agricultural activities.

For instance, the county issued a notice of violation in October 2018 to the owner of property of Seven Hills Lane near Crozet, the receiving site for fill dirt from another place that had recently been excavated. The landowner’s attorney appealed, citing that what might or might not be happening on the property is an “agricultural service operation” allowed under 10.8.1 of the zoning code.

Next steps

Supervisors will hold a work session on the issue in January to further clarify the specific questions that will be asked in the review.