HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-18-1999 - Attachment 9.A+" 414.n+ 9
8oct. V' b� . "Is" �
MMORANDUM
To: Landfill Owners Group
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
Subject: Additional C&D Disposal Options
Date: December 10, 1998
For the past two years the Owners Group has been considering
options for continuing the management of construction and
demolition materials. Among those options-has been the need for
replacement disposal capacity once our existing C&D landfill
reaches capacity in late 1999 or early 2000. Two public hearings
and numerous board and Owners Group discussions have been held over
this two year period to discuss C&D management options.
Three disposal site options for C&D have evolved from earlier
investigations and have been the focus of considerable discussion
by the Landfill Owners Group:
*.Old HWY. 86 (Drawing #1) - 133 acres, located along the.east
side of Old Highway 86, north and west of Duke University
property
* Greene Tract (Drawing #2, inclusion of transfer stationIMF:.on
Neville on drawing is from previous report"and should be ignored
for purposes of this report) - 60 acres of the publicly owned
169 acre tract, located adjacent to'the Neville Tract at the
southeast corner of the South Eubanks Road landfill
* Blackwood Property
of the existing C&D
land and two other
(Drawing #3) - a 60 -acre northern expansion
facility onto part of the adjacent Blackwood
properties
We have not included a detailed discussion -of these three.options
because of previous in- depth- discussions (Attachment 2) and our
belief that the owners Group has a relatively thorough
understanding of the issues surrounding these sites. We are
prepared to provide further information as necessary regarding
these three sites.
Due to .the lack of agreement among the Owners Group members and
their rebpective boards regarding the above three sites, we have
continued to look throughout the county for other suitable sites.
We have found -- five additional siting options for your
consideration:
At the request of the Orange County Manager we have evaluated other
properties adjacent to the existing landfill and as a result we
have developed one potential site option. This option (Drawing 4)
would utilize the western portion of the LOG owned Johnson
property, the three properties directly adjacent to the Johnson
property owned or optioned by Ms. Ding (about 14 acres), and a 200
foot easement (for a required buffer) located on property owned by
Duke University (about 12 acres).
This site would have an estimated life of about 12 -13 years; a
period we would still consider temporary or interim, but would
provide substantial time in which to locate a more permanent
location. This site would assume that both Ms. Ding and Duke Univ.
would be willing to negotiate for the sale of the needed property.
Rey Points
- existing ground water monitoring system would provide
extensive additional monitoring capability*
- only one residence within proximity to site (about 600 /feet
across Eubanks Road)
- moderate cost for the total acreage necessary for
purchase, including minimal - development cost
- integrates well with our other solid waste management
activities on Eubanks Road
- relies on willingness of Ms. Ding and Duke Univ. to sell
property, or on willingness of governing bodies to utilize
eminent domain (eminent domain will be necessary.on single.
property optioned by Ms. Ding due to difficulty of locating
multiple heirs)
limited capacity of 12 -13 years
- would eliminate option of relocating yard waste management
area to this location in the event that a MRF is sited on
the existing yard waste area of the North Eubanks Road
facility; no other areas exist (except the Neville and
Greene tracts) for this activity
- does not provide space for expanded C&D recycling
operations
Note: The locations of new candidate sites CD -8, CD -12, CD -18, and
CD -21 are identified on Drawing 5. Our information on these
sites result from a visual characterization of the
properties; subsurface investigations have not been done to
determine the technical qualities of the sites. A21 four of
the sites would would appear to provide a minimum of 40 years
of capacity and significant buffer areas.
This site consists of two unconnected parcels, (Drawing 6) each
containing areas potentially suitable for disposal: Access would
be Route 57 to Guess Road (Drawing 7). The 178 -acre property is
currently on the market for $554,000 ($3,112 /acre).
Key Points
- about 15 miles-from the current landfill
- most direct haul route from southern Orange County would be
through Hillsborough
This site (Drawing 8) consists of 169 acres located in the
northwest corner of the County, with its northern boundary being
the Caswell County line. Access would be off Highway 86 (Drawing
9). The property is currently on the market for $439,400
($2,600/acre).
Key Points
- about 20 miles from the current landfill
- most direct haul route from southern Orange County would be
through Hillsborough
This site (Drawing 10) consists of 118 acres located in the western
part of the County, about a mile northeast of the Town of Mebane.
Access (Drawing 11) would be off Exit 157 of Interstate -40/85,
following Buckhorn Road to N. Frazier Road to Lebanon Road to Mill
Creed Road. The property is currently on the market for'$350,000
($2,975 /acre). This site appears to be the most technically
suitable of -the four remote sites discussed in this report.
Key Points
- most direct haul route is on the Interstate Highway to Exit
157, then three turns into site'
- about 15 miles from the current landfill
This site (Drawing 12) consists of 67 acres located in the
northeast part of the County, north of Little River Church Road.
Access (Drawing 13) would be directly off of Little River Church
Road. The property is currently on the market for #320,340
($4,750 /acre) .
Key Points
- most direct haul route from southern Orange County is
through Hillsborough
about 20 miles from the current landfill
The 5" potential C&D sites above are presented as additional
possibilities for your consideration. In general, when compared
with the other in- county options, these sites offer larger acreage
and lower costs per acre balanced by significant increases in
travel time /expense for most of the generators in Orange County of
C&D wastes. Howeever, these sites offer significantly reduced
travel time /expense over the existing out -of- county options. We
have been recently informed that the previously discussed Holly
Springs C&D landfill will reach capacity next year. We would be
pleased to provide you additional information on any of these
options.
Additionally, as requested at the October LOG meeting, we are
including information on current C&D landfill users (Attachment 1)..
Enclosures
�1 Il 1
t
� 1 1
/
I
DRAWING NO.1
� j I
N
11 ALL tOPERTY 'bOUNDARIES ARE
�APPROXIt�IATE. - w s E
i
/ 1
I
�1
\I
i/
I I \
I r \
� l 1
SrAl F PROJECT NO.
1 " =500' 229.46
1
1
op
r I I I 1 ( I
a
1 / I
k •J I 1
I
� � 1
OLDvHIGHWAY 86
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
98
LLJ
.000011� CL
r .,�
ci
LO
Eta.. . .,:• �.
-=F of
' ..: ' _ �y•,� t
= i rtr W •Y�.�Li�Y�� I 1
t
�o C ti \
wx
c0
OR
` 11 \
r
NO
�A .Lt.o s1.+�rS, ,�e•c� .�'•.lsir `+ 4" sYr i� � eu�•; '4s�GL V s•. e fY rt�r6�l�'-�' •
1�.� °'1r is F - �t 1�rF��"- y.y.��`fi•3 '•�:�"�� ;''. � � f r
v?:{t�-�.Sk ✓. �1•Y e 7 4-.•4 raa� �.b.. J L 1i� �a•�.c•k+ •t. : : •r �. �
[ J:• y f.,t�.".0 . �f '. � [ 24!>"i"J•� J•:�i'.,'i". F- � �•4'�.1'•. ,.7. - �..t .•
.�c.•. .�-- e i 9 ��C �, •ti r�..rS`{�^✓•�k{•S�. � +�,-"�.t j• --yam ' r'F~
Lot :+1.3. '' may':•��?: •-�'�[�y ' Pa�eZ�
.'�._:�u.nr? +'•�=ti -:�?,.._r<� •YY
W �y � gC;` t'._� � �r!•�:{ r✓
•,ti• � � "::�•?•' 't•► '�! :e.�-.. {�..�<£.�•.Yc.�°:"'a_t:'�•:.�.::`.c.c•q••r.,:F r-! .asp ^r n- c .5-
�' =•r •-���.?�.;�:� •,u.sJ.• r y4�.. e....u.•�i:r�'e:r.•;:�:i - . t� fit-"'""
p-Gv�s `�v �' �T a�f;•�ti•F.._�t.:��`^"�-`-"�:�i•S�a.S!�'`7!��?��v^r�E<< { `•.`••y.•;:!per:..,b!- -
A �' ti r+�•� .+�t'1'. c t �s!!. .` R.is 1'S�! �.G S �lok "•ai
to reo •+!.�,� ..::.. �P(�,,� v -t.�'.c `_ �`.° m�a., orr, `�.``'C,�"s�'`:ec.�_,.: a i i '�'"��� -
'` •'i.R4::�:....= .♦ J �.! 1•(' i.. '.T t ...�. . .�:i`j�i tel: Lj�•.:�:-G -
�'� � � �'fo.�.�� •ta:tiw s r. �
•n:x��r r'"'�•`}:!. ...� .c•�-�-rN �:' t? 'i- Y rr��:r'Sf�.z.cc .:y`vt-`' .`
-:::F'.�..t?'.•rc•F-�i ti'•�•Lr`;�i4 C*n ,..s •a � -.::ti;.;r::+s P w � } j�' L
a1L•:y.�:�c�gin.��w'F._-•.?.,;'�• z'�y'�r�..•.'_ .sue .: ,:.-y w
:1 +ir:!r_.L :�:'=:�.!.•. �i�`.�lam-_..1��h i.��4^• +.
�!
C
•
l
1j
North Eubanks Western Expansion
Drawing 4
1
VA
Propery Line
1 1 1
� � L
I
I
200' Bufer
ell
l..
1
1
t�
t
ti
r
r
1
1
Q)/
i
f�
Ile
r�
1
VA
Propery Line
1 1 1
� � L
I
I
200' Bufer
ell
l..
1
1
t�
t
ti
r
r
1
1
Q)/
E J)
l,!
r
0
0
cl
a 'z
�i
d
CIQ
C71
ru
i
• 1 i. 1 'b �• !f t.
CoMly ME
• � ': --', i l '" fir. I'•. `s:. i• • �; .;
1
x
,���.11 ��'s�%''J•''JI'� ' t�1���5 .j - /'/N:•�L ,S 't�l �, I�' '1�„s =�T:,,,//,.�i����.`�,�,� %I �. •; •�`
���G�� `/.•'(6�`C, .�It � J �� � 1 rl �..\�.` •__/ J(���a//\\ �� 'i=�:.' �,".' � ,rte
wr
If
�.-7• was :• •��� i•y, .\ '. I � i• 1'
f 11•/ff i•�v f` �:j'��tf� j �'�;'+t Z' r J '•.V I. _ ., ` �k ,�'��< 't..• ?_ `'
.t� �= j �� � '�►. ( i�'-f` i.��� �i-+`�' I��.;j , l.i—r ``i1% r%,.-^ ��j'��".7�1 ./ :fa•A\�
'-'" ,T 3K •i I jj 'I t`•�_-.. �: %' /_ a s�•y+�i`"' �. I. +r a ��� 1 A u/ i ��'r�r �•- sue.
go
(•.../ �. � J 7 �/� .� ^.• `J` I _.r'•• �1:it: M1•� tJ � r�/ ,' I,i •` i'•� fp.��
C '' •/
,
WW
r , ` r 1/
• /'�'--'i '\ ) `\\ V•. `,..�! / l�, �1`i'.� �r 'fit oo, �
� � '.�' � �� .r� � Sou I /111 l,r"�! .rv.r. !.1...,� 1.'�•,� -� .
/ w� %. `/� ��r` • 'r. v/`
�n�' ���`%:.r/''.�1!`i^��, �-jt��� � ,J fl/•%fl% %��f•,��,�1���_.��(�ff ,"/� ;�,� irJ� ) /lr� ,.
"�1 I� ;a'• J,•s� ^`�. l..��1111�(/, �"\\ '�'� 'll� � j'%l�('�: 'il1.1 i I��1/'r
-It ZN
mom. ``r / /^`\ 1,\\` ��•�\\�\``�' Iw = "\l 11=J/ 1J'��J�;,1 1 %�1 .f.J=;
j� ��' f` ! `:U �_.��j yll "„':,� 1.° LL: !•i ��. .rl -=�C/" ' ,_\�� ;r
ip
_ 1
0 �w I ' I - .,• "`' Vic::,' t
{ , CALDW
_ 27�►7_ 2
I R 's •`
MU
RAID �
Tnr Iwrvn LITTLE R GEORGE RED HILL
a�
HOOK
RK
t
3 CREST 7 OVA i-
_
MILLV1 C &D #8
I -
1557
. f Y
va
_ FORle
THOMAS
BACON JR
SCH .•
223 - I . .. - .. . L� .. _ - - •:� •I - - �:;,:::.
FARMS I
LRTLE RIVER FARMS a'�+
.:7
• - - f - ..: l .?:. - LE.. r0L
ww
ti
• i- �~ ~' DEER
PORE -
GREEN
'a. WOG_vrLLr: �a .\S': _5 ..
, a •! r� 7 �,�. r,.l� •�_. % 1g{q,,I°i ��-•M ���'
1. ''ii.•i:� `..p:(l.,J�� \�tS'7 �.•�� t� ��•• ����� : 'A•'/ J�\ �1\"'•` Y'�• t�t '
TA
���..�-'� ('��i/' j I�.`\.� �1 ' C �\ ` �'Y�rr' J 1 -`�`\�l'.'\�\r ,.'�i/�\i,ew •` �` rt�\ , ''':��.'
�:�'�'^ � -i � r!�S'''--ems•u•'',�.. •+l .� F\\. i r'. :.r`�.� �, U� l >�` �..l;� ;� 1, �;_,\ \•• w'.`•�i,''
C&D#12 ,--•�'
��\•..� t 1. � •1 � � /�\I� (`,-�) .� �1� "a :Y ^ `�R/��—�/' (�/ � e�'
4 �,s �'� `J�V� , i�mil
G, 1
\ \ Tip � •' ° +a _ L/.e:. -•..• �•� / � e� � )�\` �'
�-/ ./� ` _ 'rte y."k� V st• .,t = \. �1' ��� (l
.> ' V c�• :1• � -mss. � �1 .. 1�\� '•�
Zlz
`•`�%�����`�/^lw L j� � �'�'; •/ . ,:�I � � y�J ;;����-'�•� ���• .��� tom,' ,
_ �' / „/� �• a -••� vim. / � \., (\/ ,
✓'.syZ+�r te `?•/�1!�1� ��� �-• 'rS \ 1 I ��\ M /O' Iry Sri*
Ji
�t j T' \ �• AyTi . is v v f
AM 77'�-
�'�, > �J �'1�,1 �\ L' �..���s� as J • C•�- ��• - ;:���. � �_. �� �=i {,
•w r � i `: L� ^�I /j,,� � \� ��f7. � as 1' .'./ i�{ �'. f
_s.��•/•/C��L.�`i' �mil\�,S "�T \ Tr s /'_ � \• /�9�--�^
t ,
xa"
PROSPECT
C &D #12 • h��� D 'a
v i
I
•� • . '. � .. � 'man+. � ,� �' ��
ep
PLN
_•220 �:• o: n -,ao
_ ..
CEDAR GROVE
ENE
'WIN I
' :- ♦'
I HARMONY RUN 9e..•
ACRES
I GOVERNOR I ..
I( ( GROVE
ARROWHEAD
8 RES;1C RIDGEr
218
DEPAFRTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
i? 15' 6—R"o-E , - ic—o r6Q r61 . ,
oll
`°�' '` ,,'•, �\`�� '.I r / ��• ,/d�r�` � •fir �,•,_ �����7 .�"" •' '4'.. �� i-•
� ) !
ro
I K5
M N d
-�``, \ `;;=�� V'� ,\`•\, is ;,. ,°:t;n '�'\\'"•,\\ //'T:^ -\` ?�^•,� (t�a .:�;�- ,
I`....✓`\ X
con e--
N ���7�f`, �l \�UIiC�T�,\�.� '` i! \ �� 1_ r =�
' ,. ` t •: ' 1d' \_/+VAN . / �� f�-
397 /�•1 ' v `— g / tti�rr�r w R r j !
Q� r
A I rX, /
iq
, •!t�/1v�, 4 .+:iJlQBH: �;• ; '� +��sa:saasl��i �•` i ^ .
2 u. •/1� ,-�\ .1 ;• \' r 1310 ��
�698 ` t ' • `\ .
. '�.`• i� . �� _. �� .• t ! Ica, �•eL= r f �'�
�,wl% '.,.�, '67•+ :x. \ •� ., \ ( . � '• e r`f 11
jr
sit- 00
� � _•�,�'',% ; `�,���;:•-- _ � \\fir �`,`---- .+ �-���'�, �'� ;-
«mac, �, '�(��•� �''�'�� � •; •� ' �~`��� c, -� _
. I ._ � ... ._ •.. •. � I .. I �: �.:. mot` - k- it""' .
49 -•.... Jus
0 n I °'.gym".,
2T i . _ ;� 220. o
HARI,OM _
ACRES t _
• I_
_
... . . ._. ._ � •+a.r• �.a _..t... ..�. .,•, ..[ _ .'� .Y% t. Z••Yt .' � _...7.zT•^{!Z'S� - Yom•• —� .e•- r.- y+a- wy't`�a t_... 1.
• -- 7* I max`' Mr� ..1 . r- v«:. � .. � — +� : rN.
., i- 1 -t a.n� .yg:.7... .. — 's+'. � ;,l ti � kD� Itt= ..•t;r t •ay:' y'� Jf ar4'..' `` «'
1 MFAWAY
FM
C&D# 18
M ,
A '
. BUCK RUN>
IFQREST FAR
ACRES we i.toN !
INN
• I i i � t i��Y f� I
1
CENTEE I
%� 219
9 F Re
1 1 1 t ii
\4 I Y
1 + I J
_ A
%0 E�F_L
' ' ° ���.?aa. ' ,-, � •,.tee I1=�'''y. � � � - ` � '+ �_ �
�' i� �i. � •„ifs�a�dJBi r '•
ids
'•sa,-
' x677 - ..• ira�a�L •� I• r' l ±y _.
�'• \ �- / ��/� - 10.rstsss�a.J1�, � � j / ./'\!'1 •F�sssssasa°,s,_ ; .`
^-� 627 .� ` � •-••i ---• _ '� • �•--.
�� �-\(- � ` \� - � r'. ��� � � Iv ---'' ,�r Rte• '����,. `\�„�r�••�'
jl�� 67 .VY�flaYt Gm" �i� _ �.-. ��: , `'♦�'
srCh
• ��� � ��Di •�:;� � ! _�.. � ,sat � �� = :'�� �•.._� ': ..
,`-��atl�-: ;� '(•• .j ;.'�..:' : r. iii �••` ` ^ ;J7 / Y � i \•�� �. .w. _f\.A+. :,.
•'� \ �j�{-� `- :./i• i �r .�• .a� �li��Tl� .�-�' t`'v .rte
tie � ! ` -•�� '- _ � ���. -• � � � •� �/ •�' •- i'
�•� '•J; �•'�: `•!I _ _--i 63 _ / 6_1•3 O
Vs
• •' - j .- _ �' � .� - yr`l— _ -
x`667
..Er (SEC.
vs o� _. i
222 :
•� �s 1 I
_ 1
.� .�. _
_ I ad - _-
= , . �. -.. '" • iavHl _ �+luool - �e Ilea �e+l U7'fLE R •� . GI�]RG -e T M _ ..,
CPAW
Y
1 � I
- -
D f r
SC" 223 '
® I ev
0
�I✓7 0 1 D
�N4L� - AO O• i
,4#4-C, 4 W 944 ?L
To: Gavle Wilson
From: Edward Pollan
Date: June 29, 1998
Re: C&D Tickets from May, 1998; and
Construction and Demolition Waste Survey
C &D Tickets from May.1998
A preliminary review of the C&D deliveries for the month of May, 1998 show that there had been 2,089
C&D deliveries to the IandfiIl during the calendar month, the majority of those coming fi+om smaller
loads.
Of 2,089 total C&D deliveries, 1,255 (60.1 %) were less than one -ton.
In terms of the munber of customers potentially impacted: 116 different landfill customers delivered C&D
waste to the landfill during the month and 80 (69.0%) has deliveries of 1-ton or less. -
The greatest number of small loads were received, not unexpectedly, from "Miscellaneous Cash
Customer" and "Orange County." .
Customer (Cast. fA
Total Loads
Less than 1 -ton
Nsc. Cash Customers (044)
908
662 (72.9%) .
Orange County (107) ... . ,.
325
286 (88.0 %)
Other landfill accounts that appear himly to deliver
smaller C&D loads include public agencies and
smaller non-profit organizations:
�..
Customer (Cost. #1
Total Loads
Less than 1 -ton
Town of Chapel Hill
62
59 (95.2 %)
Cariboro
21
12 (57.1%)
UNC and Hospital
42
19 (452%)
CH- Carrboro YMCA
4
4(1000/*)
PTA Thrift Shop
5
4(80.0%)
It would appear that the absence of a "local" C&D disposal facility would most heavily impact customers
with smaller loads of C&D waste to dispose o4 as the additional cost and distance to transport that waste
to a distant facility would be most burdensome and add to their costs. of operations.
Construction and Demolition Waste Survev
A sun er of all in- coming loads of C&D waste was conducted at the landfill between Friday and Tuesday
(June 26* to 30'h), consisting of the questions and possible responses outlined below. The responses to
each question have been tabulated to show the raw number of each type of response and the percentage of
particular responses to each question.
-page 2 -
uestion 1: What is the origin of this load?
In addition to these questions, the survey allowed the respondent to provide any additional information
a hich they cared to, or to clarify their response of "other" concerning what would they do if there were no
C8: D landfill within Orange County. In reviewing those free -form responses, they were grouped into the
categories shown below, with the number of responses and percentage of those providing comments
shown for each.
Other # of Response Pe»ntaee
Responses:- Burn it 23 22.33%
Dump it (illegal) 20 19.42
Bury/Dump it on properq 7 6.80
Rent dtmzpsters / have someone else haul it 12 11.65
Stop hauling / Go out of Business 12 11.65
increase prices / pass it along 7 6.80
Responses
# of Response
Penxntit
on :
remodeling existing home
82
37.27%
new home construction
23
10.45
General residentaii cleanup
77
35.00
Commercial contractor, small
16
7.27
Commercial contractor, large
8
3.64
Other
.14
6.36
Total
220
99.99
estion 2:
Estimated Number of Annual Trips to this Landfill?
(Responses were permitted in an open format, but
for convenience of tabulation, the responses have been grouped
into the following categories.)
RpOasa
# of Response
Percentage
ones:
1 to 2
41
18.64%
3 to 5
25
11.36
6 to 10
25
11.36 :..
11 to 20
25
11.36
21 to 50
42
19.09
51 to 100
25
11.36 :.. ..
101 +..
37
16.82......,
Totals
220
99.99
nestion 3:
What would hauler do if there were no C &D landfill in
Orange County and
the nearest permitted facility was 35 miles away?
Reams onse,
R of Response
Percentage
Responses:
drive to adjacent county
99
45.00% -
don't know
35
15.91
other
86
39.09
Totals
220
100.00%
In addition to these questions, the survey allowed the respondent to provide any additional information
a hich they cared to, or to clarify their response of "other" concerning what would they do if there were no
C8: D landfill within Orange County. In reviewing those free -form responses, they were grouped into the
categories shown below, with the number of responses and percentage of those providing comments
shown for each.
Other # of Response Pe»ntaee
Responses:- Burn it 23 22.33%
Dump it (illegal) 20 19.42
Bury/Dump it on properq 7 6.80
Rent dtmzpsters / have someone else haul it 12 11.65
Stop hauling / Go out of Business 12 11.65
increase prices / pass it along 7 6.80