Loudon County solid waste commission approves minor permit wording change, discusses leachate fixes, soil borrow study and fee reporting

The Loudon County Solid Waste Commission on Monday approved a minor wording change to a permit modification and discussed several operational and financial issues at the county landfill, including a proposed stainless-steel perforated extension to restore leachate flow, a failed sump pump in a leachate tank secondary containment, the need for a formal soil-borrow assessment to support a bond calculation and concerns about contractor fee reporting under the Republic contract.

The change approved by the commission adjusted permit language about allowable depressions so the measurement would be read as “up to a quarter, 1 and a quarter inch” to avoid ambiguity. A commission member moved to approve the resubmitted minor modification with the two- or three-word adjustment; another member seconded the motion and members voted to approve it by a slim majority, with no exact tally specified in the minutes.

Why it matters: The minor modification clears a procedural ambiguity in permit wording; the broader discussion touched on leachate-management repairs, environmental testing, the county’s financial assurance for landfill closure and whether Republic Services is complying with contract rate‑reporting requirements — items that affect environmental compliance, public health risk management and the county’s fiscal exposure.

Most of the meeting focused on technical fixes and long-term financial planning for the landfill.

On repairs, a staff member described a proposed slip‑lining approach to reestablish flow from Module A into the gravity line. “The perforated section is proposed to be 2 feet,” the staff member said, describing a plan to push a perforated stainless‑steel stem approximately two feet past the current pipe so leachate sitting at the liner base can pass through the perforations. That plan would use a centralized 3‑inch line grouted into the host 6‑inch pipe to ensure annular space sufficient for grout and structural support; the staff member said a 4‑inch design would not leave enough annular space to centralize and grout the pipe reliably.

The staff member said the project’s next steps are contingent on the minor modification approval and completion of cell construction elements that provide temporary holding capacity: “Now that we have the minor mod approved, we can subsequently construct it, and then we can send leachates there while we remove the existing temporary lines in the geologic buffer and slip line that Module A line.” The staff member estimated that final designs and certification could be available by the end of July, subject to weather and installation work.

Commissioners also received an update on a leachate storage tank incident. A staff member said, “On April 29, there was a sump pump inside the secondary containment [that] failed. There was too much liquid within the secondary containment causing the tank to have a partial uplift to floating.” Crews responded, removed and sampled soil around the containment and ran leachability testing; initial results matched background groundwater parameters, the staff member said.

Commission members discussed temporary leachate lines that had been placed in the geologic buffer. The staff member said the existing temporary lines from earlier tanks will be pulled and abandoned as part of the work and that TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) guidance requires removal rather than burying temporary lines.

On the borrow pit and bond: staff and commissioners pressed Republic and project engineers for a formal soil‑borrow assessment before financial assurance amounts are finalized. A staff member said the current planning estimate put “about a million cubic yards” of soil potentially available on the borrow parcel but acknowledged that was a conceptual estimate based on topography and that the commission needs bore logs and more specific soil classification data: “Assessment should include information generally found on a geotechnical investigation … We’ll need a bore log to identify how much soil is available along with the types of soil available,” the staff member said.

That soil estimate matters because TDEC’s financial assurance mechanism — the bond or surety that guarantees closure and post‑closure activities — includes the cost of soils needed to cap and close the landfill. The staff member explained that the expansion permit increased the footprint subject to closure requirements and that the agency’s engineer computed a large increase in the financial assurance amount tied to soils, methane controls, groundwater monitoring and erosion controls.

Commissioners asked for a clear schedule for boreholes and soil testing and for the grading plan to be tied to a soil‑borrow assessment so that the county can reduce the bond amount if on‑site soils are sufficient. Staff said accessibility and jurisdictional determinations (wetland/stream buffers and property‑boundary surveys) are gating factors for where boreholes can be located.

On contractor fees and reporting, a public commenter urged the commission to require Republic to comply with the contract’s Section 10.3, which the commenter read as requiring the contractor to assess per‑ton tipping fees to all users during the agreement term and to provide an annual list of fee changes for all customers. “So it's not just the stakeholders. It is everyone,” the commenter said, adding that other ancillary fees (for example, mattress or tarp fees) should be included in annual reporting. Commission staff responded that the second amendment to the contract had superseded the original Section 10.3 language and that staff would follow up and request the full annual fee report for all customer classes.

Discussion versus decisions: the commission took formal action only on the minor modification wording change (approved). Other items — the slip‑lining design, tank testing results, temporary‑line removals, the timing and scope of boreholes, and Republic fee reporting — generated staff direction and requests for follow‑up rather than binding new policies.

Commission members asked staff to return with written updates and schedules: a final design and CQA (construction quality assurance) report for the slip‑lining and leachate plan before certification, a bore‑log‑based soil assessment to support any adjustment to the financial assurance amount, and a copy of the Republic fee schedule and annual fee‑change listing for all customers.

The commission did not set exact deadlines for all follow‑ups during the meeting, but staff estimated final design certification for the leachate fixes could be available by the end of July, subject to weather and installation work.

Less critical details included discussion about temporary access limits near Matlock Bend Drive and other private properties that constrain where boring samples can be taken; commissioners emphasized the need to reconcile grading plans with on‑site soil data before finalizing bonding documents.

Speakers quoted in this article are meeting participants who spoke during the session and are identified in the commission record as unnamed commission members, staff and public commenters. Direct quotes are taken verbatim from the meeting transcript.