The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 01-20-1998 - 10a~; ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 20, 1998 Action Agenda Item No. fQ_ q SUBJECT: Solid Waste Disposal and Landfill Community Benefits Issues DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Public Works PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) 11~cr~=x BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/N) Nom- ATTACHMENT(S): See Table of Attachments, p. 2 INFORMATION CONTACT: John Link, ext 2300 Wilbert McAdoo, ext 2625 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 PURPOSE: To discuss solid waste matters related to disposal issues, and proposed water line extensions for neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Eubanks Road Landfill. BACKGROUND: The attached report on several solid waste management matters facing the County and its municipal partners is organized in two sections. Section I, including Attachments I- III, deals with issues related to construction and demolition (C&D) waste disposal, mixed solid waste (MSW) disposal options (in-county vs. out-of-county), and development of a materials recovery facility (MRF). Section 2, which includes Attachments IV-VII, discusses issues related to water quality, cost of water line extensions, funding options, and possible "interrogatories" from the Board of County Commissioners to the municipal governing boards. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Boazd receive and discuss the information, and consider direction to the Manager and staff regarding communication to the municipal governing boazds regazding these solid waste matters. ;H TABLE OF ATTACHMENTS ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS January 20,1998 SECTION ATTACH PAGE # TOPIC/HEADING MENT # 1 Manager 4 Solid Waste Disposal Issues Memo I 5-7 1/12198 County Manager Memo -Management of Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste [-A 8-11 7/11/97 Gayle Wilson Memo - Followup Items on Construction and Demolition Reduction Planning I-B 12-34 12/12/96 Gayle Wilson Memo - Followup Report on Options for Reducing Construction and Demolition Waste I-C 35-36 1115/97 Joyce Brown Memo - C&D Waste (Article from "Governing") I-D 37-40 1/22/97 Gayle Wilson Memo -Information for Public Forum on Construction and Demolition Waste Management I-E 41-48 1/22/97 Gayle Wilson Memo -Regulating Construction and Demolition Waste Through Solid Waste Planning Ordinances I-F 49-51 1/22/97 Gayle Wilson Memo -Selection of Construction and Demolition Waste Management Options I-G 52-55 6/23/97 Cal Horton Memo -Funding of Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction Programs with an Increase in Construction and Demolition Waste Landfill Tipping Fee I-H 56-60 Excerpt from Solid Waste Plan -pages 3-9 thru 3-13 I-I 61-62 11/11/97 Gayle Wilson Memo -Response to County Board Questions - C&D Disposal II 63-64 1/12/98 County Manager Memo -Mixed Waste Disposal Options [I-A 65.72 July 1995 Roy F. Weston Report -Evaluation of Disposal Options II-B 73-77 11/13!97 Gayle Wilson Memo -Response to Question on Development of Transfer Station and Materials Recovery Facility III 78-79 1/12/98 County Manager Memo -Development of Materials Recovery Facility 2 Manager 80-81 Landfill Community Benefits Issues Memo IV 82-84 1/12/98 Ron Holdway Memo -Wells in the Landfill Area IV-A 85-89 Water Sample Tables ~t CV-B 90-94 Water Quality and Waste Management Article IV-C 95-98 Chemical Analysis of Farm Water Supplies Article Map N/A Landfill Area -Location of VOC Samples i V 99-101 1/i2/98 Paul Thames Memo - Landfil! Impacts on Well Water Quality, Sampling and Analyses of Landfill Vicinity Well Water and Costs of Providing Municipal Water Service as a Community Benefit V-A 102-109 Tables 1-8 -Water Service Costs for Neighborhoods in Vicinity of the Orange County Regional Landfill VI-A 110-117 10/16/97 Geof Gledhill Letter -Report of the LOG/Landfil[ Neighbors Working Group -Recommendation for Improvements Around the Orange Regional Landfill VI-B 118-I27 10/13/97 Cal Horton/Ralph Karpinos Letter -Report of the LOG/Landfill Neighbors Working Group -Staff Comments VI-C 128-130 10/8/97 Mike Brough Letter -Benefits to Neighbors of Existing Landfill VII 131 County Staff Paper -Conclusions/Questions SECTIOIYN 1 y MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Boazd of Commissioners FROM: John Link, County Manager DATE: January 15, 1998 RE: Solid Waste Disposal Issues With the recent developments regazding Site OC-17 as the preferred candidate site for anew landfill in Orange County, it has become increasingly important that the member governments of the Landfill Owners Group make a number of decisions in the near future concerning future solid waste disposal methods. Disposal capacity for construction and demolition (C & D) material is diminishing rapidly. Planning and regulatory review and permitting of any future landfill requires many yeazs of work. Accordingly, staff and I have collaborated to produce brief summaries of the most important disposal related decisions facing each governing board. It would be helpful for the LOG to discuss these issues at a future meeting and to provide as much feedback as possible to County, municipal, and LOG staff so that each local government can decide on what collective or individual steps each needs to take to address the need for future solid waste disposal capabilities. Attachments I, II, and III (with referenced materials previously distributed to governing boards and/or the LOG) summarize the decisions needed on C & D disposal, mixed solid waste disposal (in-county vs. out-of-county), and development of a materials recovery facility (MRF). Please let me know how the staff and I can support you as you work with the LOG and other jurisdictions on these issues in the coming weeks. -~ / i~ IQef~,~j'~ ~_ ~--~ DATE: 1 /12!98 MEMO TQ: County Landfilt Owners Group Representatives FROM: Johrt Cink, County Manager RE `~~ Maria ement: of. Construction and Demolition (C~Dj Waste_ Background Of the estimated 90,000 tons of waste delivered each year to the Orange Regional Landfill, 33,000 tons is estimated to consist of construction and demolition (C8~D) waste materials. At current fill rates, and without any new diversion options, it is estimated that capacity at the current C&D disposal area will be exhausted within eighteen months. Several memos and reports have previously examined current management practices and proposed future management options for C8~D wastes. Complete copies have been attached and are summarized below. DATE: :, ITEM S U Ba ECT` .:: 07/11 /96 Gayle Wilson Memo Follow-up Items on Construction and Demolition to LOG Waste Reduction Planning 12/12/96 Gayie Wilson Memo Follow-up Report on Options for Reducing to L Construction and Demolition Waste 01/15/97 Joyce Brown Memo Article from °Goveming" journal to LOG 01/22/97 Gayle Wilson Memo Information for Public Forum on Construction and to LOG Demolition Waste Maria ement 01/22/97 Gayle Wilson Memo Regulating Construction and Demolition Waste to LOG Through Solid Waste Planning Ordinances 01 /22/97 Gayle Wilson Memo Selection of Construction and Demolition Waste to LOG Management Options 06/23/97 W. Calvin Horton Funding of Construction and Demolition Waste Memo to Mayor and Reduction Programs with an Increase in Council Construction and Demolition Waste Landfill Tipping Fee 07/16/97 Solid Waste Plan Chapter 3, p. 3-9 -3-13 11 /11 /97 Gayie Wilson Memo Response to County Board Questions - C&D to John Link Disposal Memo: C8~D Waste Management 1 1 /12/98 Current Practices and Activities _,~ Current diversion practices include a manual separation program for reusable and recyclable C8~D materials at the landfill. This program has been in operation since December 1997 and has diverted 12 tons of materials during its first month. Estimated annual diversion is 400 tons. In addition, draft ordinances which would require separation of reusable and/or recyclable C&D materials are currently being developed by Chapel Hill for consideration by all local governments. It is also proposed that landfill bans may be implemented for certain materials, and higher tipping fees implemented for incoming loads which contain mixed waste materials. Although important waste diversion activities, these programs will have only a minimal impact on postponing the need for additional disposal capacity. Future Mana ement Options Five main options for future management of CS~D waste materials were previously developed, and are summarized in the table below. (t must be noted that even with current~and future diversion activities for C&O waste materials, new landfill capacify will be r~squired for materials which cannot be diverted hvm disposal. OPTION "NEW COSTS IMPLIEAT[OhIS~ FOR LOG Discontinue Management no may have impacts associated with of C&D Materials. new development (i.e., illegal dumping, etc.) • unlikely to meet waste reduction targets Expansion of Existing yes unlikely to meet waste reduction C8~D Disposal Area (est. $0.60/ton) targets without processing facility Construction of Transfer yes • unlikely to meet waste reduction Station for Shipment of (est. $9.90 - targets without processing facility C&D Materials $15.50/ton) Development of a yes • would still require new disposal Manual Processing.. (est. $17.70) capacity for residual materials Facility for Recovery of ~ may not achieve waste reduction Reusable/Recyclable targets C8~D Materials estimated 15% total diversion Development of a Semi- yes • would still require new disposal Automated Processing (est. $20.50) capacity for residual materials Facility for Recovery of • should enable attainment of waste Reusable/Recyclable reduction targets C&D Materials estimated 25% diversion Memo: C8~D Waste Management 2 1/12/98 Recommendations If it is determined that a processing facility will be developed to divert reusable and recyclable materials from incoming loads, a decision will be required regarding the type of facility (i.e., manual vs. semi-automated). The type of facility that is developed will have an impact on the quantity of waste materials which are diverted, and therefore the quantity of remaining waste which will require disposal. Decisions are also required regarding suitable locations for any new C8~D processing, transfer andlor landfill disposal facilities for C8~D waste materials, as well as the financing and ownership of the selected facilities. Facih '`:.: PotentiaG Locations C8~D Processing Facility • Greene Tract • manual Unfilled area of existing landfill site • semi-automated Purchase of additional property Disposal • Greene Tract • C&D Transfer Station Unfilled area of existing landfill site • C8~D Landfill Purchase of additional property Note: a C&D transfer station would likely be developed in conjunction with a transfer facility for mixed solid waste. In order to ensure adequate time for the planning, development and construction of the necessary facilities to manage CS~D waste materials beyond the life of the existing C&D landfill, member governments must make immediate decisions regarding the preferred future diversion and disposal option(s) for C&D waste materials. Even with the current diversion activities for CAD waste materials, new diversion and disposal options will be required when the existing C&D disposal site reaches capacity in approximately eighteen months. Eighteen months, or more, will be required .for. the planning, development, and construction of C&D waste management facilities. Memo: C8D Waste Management 3 1~~y98 Agenda ~2 ~ Memorandum • --L To: Landfill Owners Group 2 '~ From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director .,.~ Date : ~July~13,';;~•199 -_.:~~ Subject: Follow up items on Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction Planning At their June 20th meeting, the Landfill Owners Group requested that the staff prepare several items for further consideration. This memorandum contains responses to those requests including: _ a. Preparation of a resolution establishing a benchmark for. construction and demolition waste reduction b. Recoamendation to Member Governments to Consider Adopting and Strengthening Solid Waste Planning Ordinances c. Preparation of a Request for Expression of Interest by- • Private Developers in development of a construction and demolition waste recycling facility for Orange County The Owners Group also requested that the staff prepare a broader discussion of alternatives tq maintaining a construction and demolition waste disposal facility. That memorandum will be presented at the scheduled August 15 meeting as there was not sufficient time to thoroughly prepare the item for the July 11 meeting. Further the Owners Group requested that the staff proceed, with appropriate technical assistance, to prepare an economic model for various options in handling construction and demolition waste using a processing facility. Work on the model will be conducted as part of the detailed plan preparation on construction and demolition waste to be presented at the Owners Group October meeting. Tha model will enable us to develop options for differential fees for separated materials as well as determine how a centralized processing facility might work. -~ 2 Agenda ,# 2 a Preparation of a resolution establishing a benchmark for construction and demolition ~raste reduction The attached resolution proposes a benchmark year of 1994-95 for measuring per capita progress towards a waste reduction goal of 25$ of the construction and demolition waste stream excluding inert materials. If inert materials such rock, brick and concrete, are also diverted from landfilling, we would propose that the Owners Group consider a waste reduction goal of 50$ per capita of construction and demolition wastes. Background At their June 20 meeting, the Owners Group determined they would like to establish a benchmark year from which to measure progress on reducing construction and demolition wastes and a percentage reduction goal. This benchmark and goal would complement the benchmark and goal set for mixed solid waste. Construction and. demolition waste has been proposed to be addressed separately since= very gew measures for reducing waste in this sector have been applied to this waste stream to date in Orange County. Discussio We propose a benchmark year of 1994-95 from which to measure progress towards a construction waste reduction goal on a per capita basis.. We recommend 1994-95 since •there is no state planning office population projection for 1995-96 at this time. We believe that 1994-95 is an appropriate benchmark year for construction and demolition waste since very limited recycling and waste reduction measures have been applied to the construction and demolition waste stream prior to date. We believe there is a correlation bet~reen population growth and construction waste so it is appropriate to establish measurement on a per capita basis. Using 1994-95 and the formula below, construction and demolition waste was 617 pounds per capita. Construction and demolition waste in 1994-95: 32,287 tons Dopulation in fiscal year 1994-95: 104,668 Construction and demolition waste per capita: 617 lbs. GOAL: Landfill 25~t Iess than the bass year: 463 lbs./capita/year We propose a waste reduction goal of 25$ of construction and demolition waste excluding inert material. We believe, based on previously conducted waste characterization studies, that about 17$ of the Orange County construction and demolition waste stream is readily recyclable and another five percent may be reusable or salvageable. This 17$ percent represents one-half of the .clean wood, pallets, roofing shingles, drywall scrap a•nd metals estimated ~- 3 ;J to be landfilled. The other half we believe may be too ` contaminated to be readily retrievable. The five percent reusables is based on studies from reuse facilities elsewhere in the country. TY~ose two figures total 22$, we therefore believe 25$ is an aggressive yet realistic goal. The previous waste characterizations showed that 43$ of construction and demolition waste is "inert" including rock, brick, soil, concrete and asphalt. We plan further waste characterization work during the next several months to verify waste composition. We will also review in-house use of purchased rock and cover dirt at the landfill to determine if recycled inert construction material could be substituted. If the inert material is deemed usable on-site or otherwise marketable, then we would recommend that the Owners Group consider revising the goal to 50$ reduction in what is landfilled. Recommendation We recommend that the Owners Group adopt the attached resolution endorsing a benchmark year of 1994-95 and waste reduction goal of~ 25$ of construction and demolition waste per capita, excluding inert materials. ~~ A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BENCHMARK FOR MEASURING PROGRESS TOWARDS A TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE REDUCTION •. GOAL WHEREAS, the Landfill Owners Group has not previously addressed waste reduction in the construction and demolition waste sector, and WHEREAS, construction and demolition materials are a growing percentage of Orange County's waste stream, and WHEREAS, there is a need to establish a benchmark date and reduction goal for measuring progress towards a construction and demolition waste reduction goal, and WHEREAS, construction and demolition waste reduction is a function of overall growth in Orange County, and WHEREAS, based on construction anddemolition waste stream composition, we believe that up to 25$ of the construction and demolition waste stream, without inert materials, may be readily recyclable or reusable, and WIiEREAS, at the current rate of construction and demolition waste generation, available area to landfill construction and demolition waste in the unlined portion of the current landfill site is projected to be full by 1999. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Landfill Owners Group adopts a fiscal year 1994-95 as the base year for measuring progress towards a 25$ per capita waste reduction goal in construction and demolition materials landfilled by the year 1999. This is the filth day of July, 1996. AGEv~A T; .-_ Memorandum To: Landfill Owners Group From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director Date: ~-L-aember =1996 Subject: Follow-up Report on Options for Reducing Construction and Demolition Waste 1 ~~ This report provides detailed information on options for managing construction and demolition waste now being buried "at the Orange Regional Lnfdfll. An implementation plan for the construction and demolition management option was requested by the Owners Group at their August 15 meeting. We recognize that consideration of options for managing and reducing construction and demolition wastes and acquiring land for a management facility is a major undertaking. We recommend that the Owners Group eve the options full consideration over the next two months in order to enable inclusion of a construction and demolition waste management plan as part of the 1997-98 budget recommendations. Srrmmars- We now have approximately two-and-ont-half years of capacity remaining in the construction and demolition waste landfill. By authorizing funds for acquiring land, planning a construction and demolition waste recycling and muse facility, implementing county-wide construction waste management requirements .and providing lower tipping fens for source separated materials, we believe the Landfill Owners Group could effectively manage and significantly reduce the construction and demolition waste stream in an integrated fashion. Alternatives to managing this waste stream for waste reduction include a "no-build" option, building a construction and demolition landfill only with no processing facility or building a transfer station to move construction and demolition waste out of Orange County to another permitted facility. This memorandum describes five options for mana.,~ing construction and demolition wastes and includes the pros and cons for each option. The options include the following: 1. Allow the existing construction and demolition waste landfill to fill up and Then eliminate landfilling of construction and demolition wastes at the Orange ~ Regional Landfill. Construction contractors would then be responsible for managin; their wastes without a publicly owned disposal facility in Orange County. 2. Acquire fifteen acres of land and build a construction and demolition waste landfill to last unti12005. ., 2 3. Acquire approximately five acres of land and build a transfer station to move construction and demolition wastes to another permitted landfill or ocher facility outside Orange County. 4. Acquire approximately twenty-five acres of land, build a simple, primarily manual, sorting facility to remove limited amounts of recyclable or reusable construction wastes and landfill the rcmainder. 5. Acquire approximately twenty-five acres of land, build a more sophisticated combined manual and semi-automated sorting facility to remove recyclables and reusable construction materials and landfill the remainder. We believe a combination of regulation, economic incentives and some type of processing facility at the landfill could result in a significant reduction of construction and demolition waste, without abandoning our responsibility to provide environmentally sound, affordable disposal capacity for our County. If the Owners Group's goal of a minimum 25% construction and demolidon waste reduction is adopted by the member governments, then the Owners Group should consider .a processing facility to reduce the amount landfilled. Other options including the "no-build" option,. alandfill-only option, or a transfer statioato remove construction and demolition wastes would not provide significant opportunities for waste-reduction as part of t any overall construction waste management program. Limited pre-sorting of clean wood wastes and selecud metal products could be integrated into those operations without a construction and demolition waste processing facility, although ~ some additional staff may be needed. Specific recommendations on construction and demolition waste items previously discussed at the May 17 and June 20 Landfill Owners Group meetings are listed below (Copies of memoranda from the May and June meetings are available on request.) Regulation of waste generated at the construction site through adoption of solid waste planning measures by all Iocai governments in Oranges County with enforcement of such measures by a solid waste plan administrator/site-inspector to be shared among the four governments, Incentive fees at the landfill to encourage delivery of source-separated material to the landfill, including management of those materials at the landfill. To correspond to existing markets we recommend adoption of incentive fees for all unpainted, untreated wood~and all types of metal except those not collected for recycling such as fuel tanks and wound wire cables. As our capabilities to handle more materials increase and, if markets for additional materials become available, we would recommend consideration of incentive fees for additional items as well, Authorization to develop. a detailed engineering-level cost estimate of a processing ~~ 3 facility for recycling and reuse of both separated and mixed construction waste at the landfill. Funds for this facility would be included in the 1997-98 budget proposal. We would compaze the information from this estimate with the information gained from a request for proposals we recommend be issued in the spring of 1997 to determine a level of interest from the private sector. Regardless of whether a construction and demolition waste reduction project is publicly or privately operated, revenues now received from construction waste tipping fees would need to be used to finance the facility and thus may not be available for funding other programs. Before proceeding with any facility we would compare our costs with those from a private vendor. • ' Acquisition of a minimum of 25 acres of additional land adjoining the existing north side of the landfill to manage construction and demolition wastes, stockpile materials for marketing or processing, and landfill what .cannot be reused or recycled. We expect-the north side of Eubanks Road construction and demolition waste disposal area will be full in early 1999. We _ cannot develop a construction _ and demolition waste management facility on the existing site without additional ` P~PertY In .addition to those measures previously considered, this memorandum contains additional detail on the "no-build", landfill only and transfer station options for construction and demolition wastes. The key recommendation is to proceed with development of a detailed integrated management plan for construction and demolition waste over the next four months and include it as part of the fiscal 1997-98 budget request Due to the complexity and cost of this recommendation, we would expect that discussions would continue at the January Owners Group meeting. Alternative financing methods will also be presented at that meeting. Background Construction and Demolition Revenues and Costs During fiscal year 1995-96, 31,200 tons of construction and demolition waste were delivered to the Orange Re;ional Landfill. This represents about 3596 of the total waste buried excluding coal ash from LTNC's powetplant. Generally, this component of the waste stream has grown at the same rate as all other wastes. ~ However there was an overall decline in waste brought to the landfill during fiscal year 1995-96 Fees received in FY 1995-96 for disposal of construction and demolition waste debris totaled approximately $1,003,001 oc 2996 of total tip fee revenues. For fiscal year 1995-96, we had projected construction and demolition tonnage of 33,500 tons estimated to generate 51,038,500 in revenue. However we received 7% less, since construction activity declined somewhat and there may have been some waste reduction in response to the increased tipping fees, higher prices of building materials, and solid waste planning requirements in the Town of Chapel Hill. ., ., 4 There are three permitted, privately-owned, land clearing and inert debris landfills with unknown capacity and environmental controls in northern Chatham County. These landfills are permitted to accept stumps, dirt, brick, rock and concrete only. There is also a composting facility within the market area. All these facilities have tipping fees lower than Orange Regional Landfill for land clearing and inert debris. The decline in overall total construction and demolition waste tonnage delivered to Orange Regional Landfill compared to 199495 tray be partly attributable to these less expensive alternatives as well as to improved waste reduction practices. Our estimated cost of landfilIing construction aad demolition wastes is around $16 per ton, less than the price at the gate of $31 per ton.[$33 per ton after December 1, 1996]. The surplus revenues are used to finance other operations including recycling, reserve funds and required engineering work. If these surplus funds were used t o finance construction and demolition waste reduction activities, then other funds would have to be found to finance the recycling, etc. now financed by the surplus. If a variety of reduced tipping fees are used to create incentives for source-separation of waste construction materials that arz now recyclable, there will be a net loss of revenue to the landfill . We estimate that any strategy other than burial would have net direct costs to the landfill greaser than $16 per ton. T1x lost revenue could be recovered by instituting higher fees on the remaining mixed solid waste and construction wastes, by reducing. programs operated by the landfill from current tip fee revenues or by developing alternative sources of revenue. Land requirements for construction and demolition wastes We expect the northern portion of the landfill where construction and demolition wastes. are now buried to be full by the spring of 1999 at current use rates. After that area is full, it is possible that construction wastes could be buried in the lined south portion of the landfill heretofore used for mixed solid waste only. At cumeat use rates, the lined portion of the landfill is projected to be full in about 2005-2006. Adding construction and demolition waste to the lined area would reduce its life expectancy by at least two years at current rates of use. Therefore, it is with some urgency that we request the Owners Group to consider alternatives to use of the sanitary landfill, given the time necessary to purchase, permit, engineer and construct a new construction and demolition waste landfill. In order to ensnro enough capacity for use of the lined portion of the landfill for only mixed waste until 2005-2006, additional land would be required for both processing and burial of non- processable construction and demolition wastes. We estimate we would need at lcast twenty-five additional acres including: fifteen acres to continue to landfill constnretion wastes in as unlined area from 1999 through 2005 -06, ~~ five acres for stockpiling clean fill removed from excavation for landfill construction, and ~~r d .+ five acres to process and stockpile those materials that could be removed for recycling or reuse. ~ ' Alternatively, five acres could be acquired for a transfer station to send construction and demolition wastes out of the county or fifteen acres could be acquired for a construction and demolition waste landfill only. Regazdless of whether we acquired five, fifteen or twenty five acres, we would need to obtain appropriate permits for the transfer station or landfill and processing facility. A rezoning of the parcel selected for these operations might also be necessary. It was previously thought that property for construction and demolition waste management and landfilling would be acquired as part of the new landfill siting process. However, we believe it is unlikely that this process could conclude in time to meet the need for construction waste management What's in the construction and demolition waste stream During October of 1996 we conducted a one week visual characterization of construction and demolition waste delivered to the landfill. Based on that study as well as previous characterizations conducted in 1990 and 1995, we estimate that approximately 3596 of the current construction waste stream can be readily reused, rrrcycied or diverted for use as cover material at the landfill (see agenda #6a). A summary of the recyclable portion is shown as Table 1. Table 1 Summary of Estimated Diversion Potential from asemi-automated facilih- Wood and pallets (9096 of clean wood wastes): Ferrous and non ferrous metals (8596 of metals): Source-separated drywall: 509b of drywall coming in Subtotal of materials potentially recyclable in current and known markets Potentially recyclable in niche markets or reusable 1 wastes 4,500 tons 1,500 tons 1.350 tons 7,350 (239b of construction and demolition wastes) of C&D 350 tons Dirt (i 196 of waste) and small debris (5% of the block, brick, concrete taken out of mixed construction waste during processing and used at the landfill for required weekly cover material of construction and demolition wastes): 3,900 tons Total potential for diversion from waste stream (35%): 11,600 cons Based on recent construction waste product mazket analysis and the most recent waste characterization data presented above, we continue to believe that the Owners Group goal of reducing construction and demolition wastes by 25% is an achievable goal. The diversion rate r. O shown in Table 1 excludes the diversion of large inert debris for reuse or processing for sale as a gravel substitute. Use of large, inert material could increase diversion substantially since we estimate it is over 30% of the waste stream. However our abiliry to successfully process and compesitively market this product is limited by the abundance of inexpensive gravel produced neazby. Another, simpler but less effective approach to diversion could involve requiring source separation of only those materials easily handled manually or caused to be separated in response to differential fees. We believe that clean wood wastes and some metals could be diverted for reuse, recycling or composting through these methods. The potential for diversion is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Summary of Estimated Diversion Rates for Clean Wood Waste and Metal Using Manual Separation at the source or the landfill • Materials Total Tons in Waste . 25 Stream diversion Clean Wood ~ 5000 1250 waste - ~ etal ~ 1750 43~, Total Diversion 6750 1688 Potential Percent of CBcD S.1 diverted Discussion We provide some detail on five options for managing construction and demolition wastes. All of them, even the "no-build" option could provide a potential for some level of diversion using differential fees and construction waste planning requirements. We believe that, without a semi automated processing facility of some kind, the diversion levels would be minimal (azouad 5%) and limited amounts of only clean wood wastes and some types of metals could be captured. If a processing facility were constructed, it is possible that significant construction and demolition waste tonnage could be diverted from Iandfilling for reuse and recycling. Any option that included diversion would require some staff ng to be successful. • The Owners Group has adopted a goal of 2590 waste reduction for the construction waste stream. This goal has not yet been formally adopted by the member ;ovemments. Formal adoption of the reduction goal for construction and demolition wastes, would facilitate implementation of policies to attain the goat. I .,. A range of options outlined and discussed in this section include everything from no-build through a complete processing facility. A series of prevention measures could be applied under a variety of the processing or disposal scenarios. - We assume collectioa of construction and demolition r~ ~ wastes would remain primarily a private sector activity. In the short run, development of integrated waste reduction strategies for this sector could be simpler operationally, financially, technically and politically than in the mixed solid waste sector since only prevention and processing are involved, not collection. Current Construction Waste Prevention Practices To date, two types of waste prevention measures have been used locally to reduce construction and demolition waste. The measures may have been partly responsible for the decline in construction and demolition waste during 1995-96. 1. ~ Differential Landfill Fees An incentive tipping fee of $10 per ton for separated yard waste is also applied to unpainted, untreated solid sawn lumber, except shipping pallets. This compares to a $31 per ton fee for mixed solid waste or construction waste. ($33 after December 1) The landfill does not, however, prohibit the landfilling of construction wood as we do yard waste, thus, no~~double tip fee penalty is assessed for disposal of lumber. Observation of the yard waste pile over the past two years has shown little solid sawn lumber separated for delivery to this area Most is landfilled One conclusion is that contractors are responding primarily to the stick of higher penalty fees levied on yard waste rather than the carrot of lower fees for source separated materials. - We arc trying to extend application of the incentive fee to engineered wood products such as plywood and particle board, in addition to solid sawn lumber, to increase builders' incentives to separate wood wastes from general construction wastes. We have completed a test of mulching engineered wood products mixed with solid sawn lumber and yard waste to determine if it is environmentally safe to add these materials to our mulch product. The first and second trials in the pilots have been technically successful in that no toxic or hazardous substances were detected in the end product or in the stormwater runoff from the mulching site. Based on these results, we plan to request that the State Waste Management Division allow us to consider adding engineered wood. to the mulching operation. If we receive authorization, then we could apply a lower tipping fee for plywood, particle board and other engineered wood products, because they too would be diverted to mulch rather than simply landfilled. Although wq-do make income from sale of mulch, we now have a significant surplus of mulched wood due to the hurricane so market tests of an end product containing these varied wood products will be difficult to conduct this year. If the supply and demand for mulched wood equalize next year, we will face the challenge of marketing a product containing construction wood wastes. Alternative .markets including fuel wood and feedstock for particle board or similar building materials will be investigated .. If we gain approval of our mulch product that contains engineered wood wastes such as plywood and particle board, we believe we can gain broader acceptance of the wood separation program by ,~ i 8 contractors, especially with the pending tip fee increase. Presently separation activity is limited by available land on which to conduct wood separation operations, limited savings to the contractor for separating materials for multiple hauls, and limited information among builders about the fee. In addition, there has been some uneven administration of the fee az the landfill due to uncertainty about acceptance of certain engineered wood waste products and periodic inclusion of small amounts of non-wood wastes in loads that are supposed to be wood only. If a differential fee were applied and enforced as part of a solid waste plan, the volume of wood wastes could increase to the point that more landfill site supervision would be required to ensure removal of any painted or treated wood. NOTE: Our incentive program for diversion of roofing shingles was successful in diverting 134 tons of torn-off roofing shingles from the waste stream by offering a fee of $20 per ton instead of $31 but the anticipated market did not materialize. The shingles are now being stockpiled offsite by the grinding contractor. Discussions with the State Waste Management Office and the Department of Transportation have led us to believe that near-term efforts to include shingles in paving produce will be limited to post-industrial scrap from shingle factories. Testing and further evaluation is required by asphalt manufacturing facilities before considering use of roofing scrap. Scrap from re- roofing has too variable an asphalt content, may still contain some asbestos, and has too many nails- and other contaminants to wan~ant serious market consideration az this time. 2. Solid Waste Planning The Town of Chapel Hill has adopted a solid waste management plan requirement as part of its development ordinance. This ordinance stipulates that applicants for a special use permit or zoning compliance permit, in the Town of Chapel Hill and its planning jurisdictions and only for projecu larger than single family or duplex dwellings, must complete a solid waste management plan. The plan requires developers to address management of various wastes generated during construction, opportunities to use materials with recycled content and how the new development will accommodate recycling once it is operational. There is limited ability to enforce the ordinance once the permit is granted. Enforcement could be more effective as part of the building inspection process. With the exception of solid-sawn wood scrap, there are no markets available in Orange County unless we build a facility for the separated construction waste materials. Consequently little waste reduction has been observed. on construction sites despite the Town of Chapel Hill's plan requirement. However local builders, developers and architects report that, due to the plan requirements, they have increased their understanding of the potential benefits of these measures and of the availability of construction materials with recycled content. Over the past four months, landfill staff has worked with other local government staff and there is consensus that further consideration should be given to development of a solid waste plan ordinance for all jurisdictions. Plan enforcement could be by a solid waste enforcement officer who could oversee solid waste management plans throughout the county, should each jurisdiction adopt .• a solid waste planning ordinance. None of the other members has adopted a similaz ordinance at this time. A solid waste play enforcement officer position could be financed by a special solid waste permit charge on the construction aad reaovations. A surchazge of $0.04 to $0.05 per $100 of project value could raise. the $50,000 annuaily we estimate is required to support the position. This estimated surchazge level is based on the $130 million value of construction for which building permits were issued last year in Orange County. This solid waste management surchazge would add $60 to $75 to the cost of a S 150,000 horse. Other financing alternatives for the solid waste permitting officer are also available and will be presented in January. This position would operate in all jurisdictions and work closely with the building inspection dep~rtrrtents. We recognize the need to involve the construction and design community in development of solid waste planning regulations and have already met with some builder and designers in August, 1996 to solicit input on this program. We believe that the cost of complying with additional regulations could be balanced by a reduction in waste management costs at construction sites. Regional Construction and Demolition Planning Efforts For the past ttute years, Triangle J Council of Governments has provided a forum for consideration of regional efforts az construction and demolition waste reduction. The Solid Waste Planner for the Council of Governments has produced several useful pieces of work for construction and demolition waste management in the Triangle. A detailed list is included as Attachment 1. Attempts to develop regional facilities to manage construction and demolition wastes have not been as successful as the education and demonstration projects described above. Construction and demolition wastes are generally of low value and ~~ ~ relatively low landfill tipping fees in our region, creation of facilities that can charge enough to make alternatives to landfilling worthwhile is an economically difficult endeavor. Areas of the country with ~lazge amounts of construction and demolition waste recycling, other thaw concrete and asphalt crushing, typically have tipping fees for mixed solid waste or mixed construction wastes over S50 per ton. However it is possible to operate on lower tipping fees. In North Carolina, Phoenix Recycling operates a facility on contract with the Coastal Regional Solid Waste Authority with a $34 per ton tipping fee. A private operator of a mixed construction and demolition waste facility in Des Moines Iowa has a tipping fee of S30 per con. There are also at least two local construction material salvage and resale operations exist in this area as well, one in Durham and one in Raleigh. Results of Request for Expression of Interest In September, 1996, the Orange Regional Landfill Owners Group issued a request for expression of interest in processing of construction and demolition wastes received at the Orange Regional Landfill. About seventy Requests for Expression of Interest were distributed nationally. We received seven replies from individuals or companies. ~ A synopsis of those replies is contained as attachment 1 to this memorandum] - . ~~ ~p We believe, based on the 10% the rate of response to those requests issued, that a formal request for proposals could elicit feasible private sector proposals and should be considered prior to initiating final system design on the recommended option, if approved. A successful proposal could be a fruitful alternative to building, owning and operating a construction and demolition waste recycling facility. However, given the timing of the upcoming 9'7-98 budget process, it is not possible to follow an RFP process prior to finalizing our recommended budget. Therefore, if the Owners Group wishes to proceed with any plans for building a construction waste management fa+ciliry to be implemented prior to the filling of the existing construction and demolition waste landfill, we believe we need to proceed to allocate funds during this budget cycle. We propose that the Owners Group decide on an option. If that option is one that involves building a construction and demolition waste separation facility, thea we would budget for that option. We would then request proposals. for private vendors to design and build such a facility before. we conducted any detailed engineering. work on our own facility. In either case, the tipping fees now collected for construction and demolition waste landfilling would have to be dedicated for management of this waste stream whether in the form of a capital investment or foregone revenue ceded to the private operator. Private v. Public Ownershm and Ooeratioa There are some pros and cons to ceding management of the construction and demolition waste stream to a private. entity in exchange for reduction of the waste stream. Pros • Reduction of need for capital expenditure and responsibilities for developing and marketing products. - • Successful proposers will have previous experience in this area. Cons: • Loss of tipping fee revenues • Loss of control of a significant part of the waste stream with responsibility remaining for landfilling of residues. • Several of the respondents to the Request for Expression of Interest noted a need to bring in additional material to make the project more economically feasible. If we accept all residues at the Orange Regional Landfill, then the life of the facility will not be increased as greatly despite reduction in. the Orange County waste stream. If a proposer promises SO°b waste reduction but doubles the input, then we are no better off. • ~. ~ ~~ Z1 We have limited experience with private operators working at the landfill site. Our przvious experience with private white goods site operator had limited success and we took over operations. There is potential conflict between the operational needs and priorities of the landf 11 on the site and the needs and priorities of the construction and demolition waste management firm. Based on evidence from other successful construction and demolition waste recycling facilities, it is reasonable to assume that any successful outside vendor would require a tipping fee of az least $30 per ton to enable this project to operate sucxessfully. That would eliminate 90°k of the projected income from construction and demolition wastes or a projected $990,000. Those revenues would have to be replaced with other sources of revenue to continue to fund recycling and other programs and provide other landfill reserve funds.. Preliminary Cost Estimates of Five Options for Construction and Demolition Management Ogtion 1. "No-Build Under this option, we would simply close the construction and demolition waste landfill when it is full. In about two-and-one-half ~. At that time, all construction and demolition wastes would be taken to other facilities by the generators or their haulers. Based on transportation costs to move materials to the nearest existing permitted site, which is in Wake Counry, we estimate the addidonai annual cost to manage construction wastes az a net increase of $1.5 million per •year. That cost would be borne by the generators and, we assume, added to the cost of construction. [We note that this private facility in Wake County has only a two-year expected life if no additional land is acquired.] It is possible that, even without a landfill or processing facility, we could use differential fees and solid waste plan requirements to provide incentives to source-separate clean wood wastes and some metals and to deliver them to our current composting and white goods areas. Additional solid waste planning staff and landfill staff would be required to make this diversion facility work properly. Table 2 on page 6 above shows possible diversion potential for clean wood and metals. Estimated costs: $0 for landfill, $50,000 potential for solid waste plan administrator/site inspector. $1.5 million net increase to construction sector in additionai hauling costs. Pros and Cons of No Build Pros of No-Build: • No public investment required. _ • Acquisition of land unnecessary • Reduced operational requirements for landfill 12 • Higher costs of managing construction waste may make source separation more attractive to take advantage of assumed lower fees for wood or metal. ' Cons of No-build: • Does not meet any waste reduction goals • Increased costs for construction in Orange County . • Increased likelihood of illegal disposal, burning and dumping without a permitted facility closer to the point of generation. • Reduced revenues to landfill to support operations since it costs less to bury construction and demolition waste than we charge to accept it ($33 tip fee v. $16 to manage) • Reduced revenue would also impact the post closure revenues needed ' or long term monitoring. Revenue from this waste would no longer be available. • Ongoing uncertainty regarding availability of next out-of-county facility 2. LandfillOnIy~pdon The basis for this analysis is our assumption that we need fifteen acres for a new landfill site that will last until the current mixed solid waste landfill is closed. This option would continue_ current practice. We assume no additional costs for continuing current operations. The capital costs of land could be about $112,500 at $7,500 per acre: We assume no new roads would be required because the site would adjoin the existing site. We assume three more monitoring wells at a cost of $2,000 each for a total of $6,000. =Annual testing cosu of $1,750 per well. ~ ' Existing equipment and personnel would be used for inspection and management. ff the incentive fees to divert wood and metal were adopted, we would assume the same diversion potential as in the "no-build" scenario and the same needs for additional personnel. Estimated Cost: $123,750 including first year testing. Plan administrator/site inspector $50,000. Pros and Cons of Landfill Only Pros of Landfill Only • Least expensive option for managing any material, including construction and demolition waste • Staff has experience in handling construction and demolition waste in this manner Cons of Landfill Only • Cannot meet waste reduction goals ~. • Requires acquisition of additional land with limited flexibilityregarding location. A portion of the Blackwood Tract would probably be needed. 13 ~~ 3, Transfer Station Option to Shin Waste Out of Coun Although we are not awaze of any transfer stations built solely to handle construction and demolition wastes, it is possible to construct such a facility. We believe the cosu would be similaz to those of a conventional transfer station. We have used cost estimates for the transfer station from the WESTON study on out-of-county disposal options from July 1995 escalated for three yeazs at 39o per year. Those costs include equipment, building and utilities. No additional personnel would be required since personnel now operating the construction and demolition waste landfill would be employed. A range of costs is shown from using the privately owned landfill in Wake County at $22 per ton tipping fee at a 35 mile distance to using the next nearest known facility, 70 miles away aE $25 per ton tipping fee: More detail is shown in attachment 3. Cost estimate: $897,500 for construction. Plus $50,000 for solid waste plan administrator Tipping fee: $32.11 to $44.18 per ton including transportation, final disposal and transfer station costs amortized over 10 years. Pros and Cons of Transfer Station Pros of Transfer Stations "~ • Smaller land requirement than the landfill or landfill plus processing scenario • Relatively simple operation, low potential for odors without putrescible wastes Cons of Transfer Station • Significant new capital costs to acquire land, construct and permit • Assume all tipping fee revenues would have to cover costs of operation, leaving no other revenues available for financing other measures. • Waste reduction goals cannot be met under this scenario Option 4 Manually-Oriented Waste Recv~clina Facility This facility includes a covered tipping floor onto which construction and demolition wastes are dumped. Recyclable wood and metals are separated primarily by hand-picking. Some mechanical equipment is used to spread loads and remove large or bulky items. This approach differs from the semi-automated facility described next in option S. This facility does not have the trammel screen and conveyor belt with picking stations that are included in the more automated facility. There is one less picker in this facility. and the building is smaller. The facility would consist of a 100' x 200' building under a roof with a grapple crane, .five pickers and a foreman. The pickers would manually remove recyclable or reusable materials from the construction and demolition wastes. Materials to be removed would be 5096 of clean wood and 5090 of clean metals delivered to facility. Detailed costs are shown in attachment 4. Estimated Cost: $1,080,000 _ Annualized cost and cost per ton diverted: $464,000/5,100 tons = $90.98 ~~ 1G 550,000 for solid waste plan administrator/sit inspector Pros and Cons of Manual Construction Waste Sorting Facility Pros of Manual Facility: • Simple to build and operate • Less capital cost than asemi-automated facility • Ability to provide more potential market areas for source separated materials, especially dry wall Cons of Manual Facility • Higher cost per ton than other options _ Potentially dangerous working conditions for those manually removing materials from a tipping floor • Lower recovery rate than semi-automated facility, not likely to meet waste reduction goal • No experience with this type of facility • Relatively high capital cost This facility could also be coupled with a transfer station instead of a landfill for the residuals. 5. Semi-Automated Waste Recycling Facility: A semi-automated recovery facility has the potential to recover more materials than a manual facility. According to our estimates, such a facility is the only option that could divert a minimum 25% of construction wastes. Such a facility could be publicly owned or privately owned. Public ownership would require significant capital investment on the front end. Private ownership would entail foregoing the tipping fees and any other revenues associated with operating such a facility. There is also some risk of the operator importing out-of-county materials to improve the through put of the facility. As an alternative to a privately-owned facility, the Owners Group could consider construction of an in-house facility, as described below. See drawings in attachment 6a and 6b. Consideration of this facility would provide the opportunity to examine budget impacts from the costs of building such a facility. We have included some estimates of costs for owning and operating our own construction and demolition waste facility. It is possible that some of the initial costs could be reduced through tease or lease purchase of the equipment. We believe these are conservative cost estimates. We have prepared a preliminary design and cost estimate for a possible facility (atta :hment 5). We have estimated potential capital-costs of such a facility at $1.55 million including stationary equipment and rolling stock. We base this estimate on information gained from reviewing some existing facilities, acquiring quotations to construct a facility and our own experience owning and operating equipment similar to that required for such a facility. The costs of the manual facility in option four are based on these estimates below with option 4 showing a smaller building 100x 200 instead of 100 x 300), no conveyor belt or trommel screen and• one less staff member for manual. picking. Equipment maintenance costs are significantly greater in asemi-automated facility than a . / :1 J 1 ~ manual facility. Estimated Cost: Capital costs: $1,742,500 , Annualised cost and cost per ton diverted: $615,400/11,600 tons = $53.05 per ton. Plus $50,000 for solid waste plan administratorlsite inspector Pros and Cons of Semi-Automated Construction Waste Sorting Facility Pros of Semi-Automated: • Highest potential for waste diversion of any strategy • Workers are protected more than in a manually oriented facility • Ability to provide more potential market areas for source separated materials, especially drywall • Flexibility to sort more materials as more markets become available Cons of Semi Automated ! Potentially highest capital cost of all options • Dangerous working conditions for those manually removing materials .from a conveyor. belt at a picking station • No experience with this type of facility - Table 3 Sumrnar3- of Capital Costs of Options No Build $0 Landfill Only 118,500 Transfer Station 897,500 Manual separation facility --_ 1,080,000 Semi automated separation facility 1,742,500 Financing The following discussion applies to options 3 the transfer station, 4 the manual facility or 5 the semi-automated facility. There are significant costs associated with building a facility ourselves. Below are several options for financing. We will provide more information and analysis at the January meeting. 1. If available, utilize part of existing cash reserves for some of the costs of the projecu and consider leasing equipment where possible to spread the cost over several years.. Existin; land reserve funds could be used to purchase land needed for any option selected. 2. Raise the tipping fee $16 (for semi-automated facipity in option S) to cover all cosu in the first year, assuming no other cost increases. [We recognize ,that this is not a feasible option, 1 16 particularly given the loss of revenue from the coal ash. It is shown only co state the impact on the tipping fee if we continued to finance all programs in this way.] 3. Finance the recycling programs by a method other than tipping fees and use the funds now dedicated to recycling to finance a construction waste recycling facility. Alternative sources of funds would have to be provided for recycling programs and a report on those alternatives will be presented to the Owners Group az a future meeting. 4. Debt financing is a possible option. 5. Some combination of the above. A recommendation will be presented as part of the budget process. _ Suinaiary of Discussion The Owners Group could adopt any of a range of options for managing construction and demolition wastes from a "no build" option through a $1.5 million dollar semi-automated waste managemenC facility. Selection of a facility will depend on goals for construction waste reduction, availability of capital and land to carry out any project. All the options except "no-build" require az least five acres of land. We believe that the most efficient facility would be built by acquiring land adjoining the existing landfill. We suggest that the Owners Group reconsider the options presented and decide which they would like to pursue further. ff the Owners Group continues to prefer an option that will meet or exceed the 259'o waste reduction goal they established in July, then we present the recommendation shown below. Recommendations If the Owners Group were to adopt a strategy to maximize waste reduction, our first recommendation would be that the member governments formally adopt the 25°1o waste reduction goal adopted by the Owners Group in July 1996. Following that we recommend implementation of the four-part strategy recommended below. The strategy could be complex and could. be undertaken in a series of steps. We have outlined steps for each of the four strategies: regulation, economic incentives; land acquisition and facility construction. We have included a timetable. 1. Regulation of construction and demolition waste: Continue to work with elected officials and staff of each local government to gain a commitment to implementation of a solid waste management plan requirement for each permitted construction project over $50,000 in value. We propose that the Owners Group members request that each government consider adopting a resolution to show a commitment to developing this planning process. . 1 ~~ ~~ .. We recommend the following be part of that resolution: That the solid waste plan requirement contain measures for managing construction and .demolition wastes, consideration of collection of waste and recyclables, ensuring compliance with all solid waste regulations, consideration of use of materials with recycled content and provision of storage space in new facilities for recycled materials generated from operations. Broaden planning requirement from those now existing in the Town of Chapel Hill to include single-family residential units since they represent the majority of new construction. Broaden planning requirements to include renovations and remodeling that require only a building permit but not necessarily any zoning changes. Limit planning requirement to projects over SS0,000 to allow small renovations that will not generate much waste to be excluded Key to the success of a regulatory program would be a solid wastemanagement plan enforcement position to work with all four governments to administer their solid waste plans since current. building inspection, planning and solid waste staff are working az capacity. This position would provide technical assistance as well as plan review. and enforcement. "_ 2. Economic Incentives for Delivery of Source-Separated Materials to the Orange Regional Landfill We have differential fees now for clean wood waste and could add other differential fees or change the wood waste fee to provide additional incentives. As part of our budget presentation for fiscal year 1997-98, we will recommend differential fees for source-separated recyclables, primarily clean wood wastes and metals. We plan to recommend that the Owners Group recommend to the member governments that they authorize the Chapel Hill Town Manager to establish landfill fees for these source-separated materials as markets are available and landfill staffing is adequate to ensure that the quality of materials delivered to the landfill is suitable for market. Incentive fees for materials other than clean wood and metal would be considered as markets and handling capabilities at the landfill become available. 3. Development of a Construction and Demolition Waste Processing Facility There are two potential approaches to such a facility. One is to design, build, own and operate a facility az the landfill. We recommend that the Owners Group authorize hiring a solid waste consulting engineering firm to review our design concepts and develop additional conceptual designs and budget quality cost estimates thaz would enable us to determine land and financial requirements for such a facility. This should be done in the next sixty days for budget estimating. The alternative approach would be to issue a formal Request for Proposals. We recommend that the Owners Group consider issuance of such a Request for Proposals in the spring of 1997,. subject to certain limitations. Materials accepted at the facility would be limited to materials generated in Orange County and residues would to be landfilled at the Orange Regional Landfill. alternative n ~~ 18 disposal arrangements for residues could be considered. Tipping fees could be controlled by the Orange Regional Landfill but negotiated with the owner/operator of the construction and demolition waste management facility. Orange Regional Landfill would retain an inspector at the site to ensure thaz no hazardous or otherwise improper materials would enter the landfill. The Request for Proposals would be issued and evaluated prior to commitment to any detailed design of our own faciliry. We would stipulate thaz the terms of the Proposals be valid during the period of our detailed analysis. 4. Acquisition of land for a construction and demolition waste management facility. Authorize staff to proceed to identify land adjoining the present construction and demolition waste landfill suitable for construction of such a facility and a construction waste landfill and to proceed with preliminary steps to acquiring such land. Acquisition could make use of the existing land reserve funds to finance any necessary purchases. Identifying the specific amount of land needed for both the processing facility and the eonstrucdon waste landfill would be interactive with the engineering evaluation of facility needs. Attachments: 4 1. Publications and Projects by Triangie J COG on construction waste reduction p.20 2. Synopsis of Responses to Request for Facpression of Interest in Construction Waste Recycling Facility az Orange Regional Landfill p.2I 3. Details of manually-oriented constnution wasu reduction facility p.24 4. Details of semi-automated construction waste reduction facility p.25 `~ 19 Proposed Timetable for Implementation of Recommended Strategy: January through June 1997. Work with relevant staff in each individual government and the building community to develop an effective solid waste plan process and financing mechanisms for hiring the solid waste plan manager. (Hiring would probably occur after July I) Authorize Town Manager (or Solid Waste Agency Manager) to implement incentive tipping fee and administrative policy for metals, other than white goods, received az landfill .Implement fee as soon as staff is able to carry out duties. NOTE: There is a potential $14,000 revenue loss associated with reduction of the tipping fee to $0 and assuming ~ no net revenue and a 25% diversion rate of metals. If the State Waste Management Division approves addition of engineered wood wastes, publicize and promote existing incentive fee for source-separated construction wood waste diversion. Explore cosu and financing options for land acquisition and other capital costs. Proceed with engineering evaluation of proposed construction and demolition waste management facility for inclusion in 1997-98 budget. Proceed to identify and acquire land for construction and demolition waste management facility. Fiscal year 1997-98 Pass solid waste plan ordinances in each jurisdiction, hire solid waste plan manager, refine process. January 1998, implement solid wasu plan requirement county-wide If land is acquired, begin detailed engineering and permitting process for a Construction waste management facility and landfill. Alternatively, issue request for proposals for a private operator to build, own and operate such a facility az the newly acquired land We note, regardless of public or private ownership, fees will be needed to finance and operate the facility which would presumably come from the cu:zent construction waste tipping fees. Fisca11998-99 July 1, open construction waste management facility and new construction waste Landfill for operation ~~ 20 Attachment 1 Publications and Projects by Triangle J Council of Governments on Construction and Demolition Wastes 1. Resource Guide to disposal and t+ecycling facilities for construction and demolition waste in the Triangle, 2. A project to determine if separation of wood wastes at residential construction could be cost- effective, 3. _ Waste Spec. a guide for building designers to incorporate waste reduction practices into their building specifications. 4. Two related videotapes in a partnership with the Cooperative Extension service. One is "Don't Trash It" oriented at job site recycling and the second describes techniques to dismantle old buildings and use the materials in new ones. 5. Most recently, the National Association of Home Builders Research Center, working with the Council of Governments, has selected the Triangle Region for their pilot project to .evaluate specific methods to reduce construction waste from residential remodeling projects. Reuse of materials removed during remodeling will be a key feature of the project. Four local contractors will participate in the project, three of whom are based in Orange County. The project will begin in January , 1997. ' 21 Attachment 2 Synopsis of Submittals in Response to Request for Expression of Interest in Construction and Demolition Waste Processing at the Orange RegionaP Landfill. [NOTE: amounts stated as potentially diverted and/or recycled by proposers were not verified by staff 1. B&B Top Soil Mine, Durham, NC. Focus primarily on organic, compostable material. Desires to license their technology to Orange Regional Landfill and not operate the system. 2. Browning Ferris Industries, Raleigh, NC. General proposal that suggested additional material [from outside Orange County] would make the project more financially feasible. Suggested "partnership" in their letter. State they are "recycling 75- 80% of the C&D received in [one particular facility]". 3. Carolina Composting (Kevin Topek), Chapel Hill, NC. Focus primarily on organic, compostable materials including yard waste, landclearing debris and clean wood wastes. Aiso addresses other materials. Soil used in composts. Rock crushed for landscaping or decorative use. Shows potential for 4596 recovery rate. Requires 4096 of current tipping fee, states that facility can be operated for $10 per ton.. S uggcsts five year contract period. 4. Global Plasma Systems, Raleigh. NC. Describes a 230 ton per day facility to create heatlelectricity from a mixed waste stream. No specific focus on construction and demolition wastes. State they will build a 'Turn Key PPV (Plasma Pyrolysis V'itirfication) plant...for treatment and disposal of selected mixture of hydrocarbon waste including rubber, plastic, paper, synthetics, and possibly waste oil and slugs." Outlines investment of 525 million dollars for plant. Shows 1.4 year payback from sale of electricity and slag.'Tip fee $55 per ton. Does not address inert materials management. Slag at 209'oby weight of input. 5. McGrath Associates, San Luis Obispo, CA .Describes a no-capital, education and regulation- oriented approach that focuses on waste reduction through design changes, builder education and materials. exchanges from waste separated on site. States 39% diversion potential through these measures. Landfill based measure include: drywall to agricultural soil amendment , salvage, resale facility, retnanufacture of clean wood waste and inert material separation and reuse. Suggests construction of finger jointed lumber from short dimension lumber. 6. Phoenix Recycling Corporation, Wilson, NC. Specific proposal that addresses processing all of construction and demolition waste stream. Suggesu additional material [From outside Orange County] would make project more viable. Estimated cost of 5800,000 to 51.2 million for facility construction. Request ten year project site lease and payment per ton of material received. Currently operating a facility in Havelock, NC with a reported 85~o diversion rate and is constructing one in Charlotte, NC. 7. RecoverMat Technologies Washington, DC. Build, own and operate a facility on the landfill site to process "select loads" at a cost "competitive with landfill disposal" to make and utilize an alternative daily cover material. Term of fifteen years proposed. Lists almost all construction and demolition materials for use in their alternative daily cover. ~~ 2 = Attachment 3 Cost Estimate fora Manual Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Facility I. Total Capital Cost Buildings and Stationary Equipment $477,500 Rolling Stock 415.000 Subtotal 5892,500 II. Annual Labor Costs for crew of nine including $225,000 five pickers, two operators, mechanic and foreman Town of Chapel Hill labor rates IIL Utility and maintenance cosu at 10% of rolling stock, other equipment maintenance costs and wood grinding $70,000 ' N. Land costs to be paid from land reserve funds $187,500 estimated at $7,500 per acre. V. Equipment and land costs annuialized over eight years $135,000 VL Annual operating costs (II. + IIL + V + $34;000) $4b4,000 (includes loss from hauling dry wall to markets of $25 per ton) worst case scenario assumes no net revenue from sale of metal or wood scrap VIL Cost per ton based on SOgfv recovery of wood, metal and drywall and recovery of 1% of waste as salvageable or for niche recycling markets. Total of 5,100 tons per year or 15% of waste stream. $90.98 pr ton Attachment 4 Cost Estimate for aSemi-automated Construction and Demolition Waste • ~ Recycling Facility L Total Capital Cost Buildings and Stationary Equipment $1,140,000 Rolling Stock 415.000 Subtotal $1,555,000 II. Annual Labor Costs for crew of ten including $246,000 six pickers, two operators, mechanic and foreman Town of Chapel Hill labor rates. III. Utility and maintenance costs at 1096 of rolling stock, other equipment maintenance costs and wood grinding N. Land costs to be paid from land reserve funds estimated at $7,500 per acre. V. Equipment and land costs annualized over eight years VL Annual operating costs (IL + III. + V + $34,000) (includes loss from hauling dry wall to markets of $25 per ton) worst case-scenario assumes no net revenue from sale of metal or wood scrap VII.. Annual cost per ton diverted, based on~diversion of 11,600 loos $117,625 $187,500 $217,800 $615,425 $53.05 2j ~~ . °' Me.*no to . LOG -~ 3~ From: Joyc_ sro•an Subject: C&D waste Date: January 15, 1997 1 Attached is an article from Governing magazine regarding C&D waste. It is particularly pertinent to our public hearing and discussions on how to deal •+~ith C&D waste. I would like to suggest that after the public hearing on Wednesday, the LOG direct the staff to contact all of tre firms a_d crgzr±i =ati ons mentioned =^ *_he a=t.^_? o and get more information, including costs, on their work in dealing. with C&D waste and. report to the LOG on the informat_c- ~at'~ar_d. The Biggest Recycling Job of All t s one thing to recycle L-0taxe bottles artd cans and a few rrarrts of ofnce paper. It s quite another to fi;ure out what m do with the big steel beams. old dry..zil, heating vents: old pipes, strap htmber and concrtte rubble coming out of construction sites when old buildi:tgs are torn aoµa or new homes or offices ore built. Dealing with construction and demolition debris may be the ultimate commercial recyc?irtg challenge. Data on how much gets recycled is sketc~•, but go••crnmeats ha.•e rood : ~_.tsons for keeping that land of buU.y and heavy ~•aste from littering ~acartt lots and filling up landfill space. The construction industry has grown more intezesied in recycling Cb:D ~•aste, espedall}• in regons where high L,.zdSll ~=piling fees make the cost of durarding it more P~l• In response to that need, Browning Ferris Industries. Sanifill Inc. and other Large waste handlirtg ii.-as have bees buying consnttctioa and demaii- lion processing iaclities equipped with crushers, shakers, screens and mag- nets to separate useful materias from debris. Construction materials that Cal be reused or reprocessed iadude ~yood. rsrdboai+d, metal. arvaaIl, lumber scraps and rubbly tiVaad nn be burned by power plants, but it also can be used For compost laadsapirg mulch or for mal~iitg paper or particleboard. G.psurn dn•~alI can be carve:`.ed to a soil additive and also can be returned to manufacturers fac repevicessiag; In the male of a 1991 Southern California earthquake, the Los ~rtgeles Integrated Solid ~~~aste Management Once geared up a Ia ,e-scale ear that recycled 10,000 tons a day of debris from destro.•ed sites. 1t'hen t.~e Portla.~d Trail Blazers demolished a car wash and e:c!'tibition hall and built a ne,~• arena, construction ~~•s receded 92 percent of the ~••aste ntateras From the project. sadrtg nearl~• S300,000 in IandfiU costs. Pa~artd•s commer- cial recycling ordinance, ~t•hicz went into effect this ~•ear, nrn~• requires m:tior construction projects to rec~r'.e ~~•ood, metal, rubble and ctrdboard. ~ _. ~ b 60 GOVERNING Su;ust I?96 Reryclins demolition dsbsis hom the eoastsnctioo site saved the builders of Portland's new sports eompltz almost 5200.000. --~ ` ye:no rar_d~ ~ge_^_ca =2z ~~ Ta: Landzill Owners Group From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director Subject : I::fo~ation for Public Forum on Demolition Waste `~anagement Date : J.an, uazy~~22.~9~;'1~ Construction ar_d ~t their Dece*acer_12 meeting, the Owners Group reo_uested a public forum to solicit input on future construction and demolition (C&D) waste mar_age_mer~ options for Orange County. The i^Lormaticn ccntai r_ec in this me.morand~,:.-~ was dis tr.i:outed in response to twat =ecuest. The information contained in the Discussion section of tis_ memorandum is essentially the same as tr_at which was contained in the various mailings and articles listed below. Some of the financial a:~alysis has changed slightly due• to re:o information available to staff after the first ar_alysis- was completed a.^.d distributed. '.'he changes are noted wish asteris:ts . 6Ve believe that the macaitude of the changes was small enough that it shoc:ld not have signi =icant unpact on the usef~~lness of the information originally se_~t out. For additional information on the CyD options see agenda item ~2c. ~ - ~ac!cc-our_d ~s part o= tae process of developing a construction and ce.~nolition waste ma_*:age~ ent clan, the Owners Group as soug'r_t input =rom t e public. To obtain that ir_put a.^_d public_ze the for•~:n, staf= has done the =o?Zowig: • ?ress ___eases or_ the for.:.m • ~IEW5~2pe: a.~icl°S for WatC.^___^_C~ OL2?' ~.~1a==eZinE iII C~lape_ cr111 :.erald a^c T~;aste trTatch i.^. Chanel 'riill ~;ews • P~.:blicat_on of article i_^_ Du=ha*n-Or~nc= 'riome 8u_?GErs ~ssaciatioa Ne=~sletter • Display advertisements is all local r_e:•;spapers - Chaoe_ :~i11 "r_n_ ald, C?'~Del iFill ~ Ne*as and Die=.os o f Cra_*~ge • `~ai_/fax to all builders a_~±d arc'r_i tec_= listed ___ the Chapel :_? 1 a:.c F'_l? sborouga Yellow Panes , T_ irngle J Co:_structioa• Stiaste Tas;c Force a.*~d local c apte_s o. abitat fa.r'u.*na::ity • :~ail_^.g to all property owners within ~~00 feet of Orar_ce R°: _onal LdnC=i11 . 2 D~sc_ss~or. --.,~ The Ora.^.ge Reaior_al Lar_ci11 (LCG) is holcing a pubic for•~:.m on r constrscti vn a_nd de*noliti on (C&D) waste ma*~age_me_^.t i.^. Ora_Tce County on January 22 at 7:OO~m. C&D wastes i_^_clude those waste materials resulting from construction of residential a_nd commercial st=.:ctures, remodeling wastes, and wastes created by the de_*nolition of structu_es in Orange County. The reason for this foru.*t is that the existing C&D waste disposal area, now located at the Eubanks Road landfill, will be full in about 2 1/2 years . Pla.^_s must be made to ma*~age the material in the future . This forum presents an opportunity to comment on five future C&D management options and other possible =egulations to reduce CAD before it gets to the Ia*~dfill. Regulations could include require_*ne_*:ts for separatir_g recyclable construction wastes at the job site, lower tipping fees for sepa_ated materials a.*~d higher fees for mixed .materials. Four of the =ive options would requir. the acquisition of :ar_d adjacent to the present landfill, in aa;ounts ra_rging from five to twenty-five acres, and may therefore generate opposition. Lanc. costs are included in estimated costs provided below. T~^.e five optio:.s include: 1. Vo longer ma*±aae C&,0 wasr_ss. Once the Current disDCSal azea is full, to lccal governments would relinquish respor~ibility to mar_age these materials. CAD waste would the_*~ reed to be delivered to whatever permitted facility in the recion may be open to- receiving Orar_ge Counter wastes. 3ased or_ transportation costs to move materials to the near=st e:cistir_g pE="[tltt2d sire, which is _n ~rlake County a_*~d has a tao-year expected remaini_r~g life, the LOG estimates a net_ncreased addi ti cr_al a:_ ual cost to t::e const_.:ction community of about $1.5 millio This optior_ assu,-nes o recycling o= ruse of materi a:s . ?.dditional manag`me_nt ccst per ton would be about $s~.4~. ? . ~a_^_d c•~-= =T t C&D disaesa_ area . To contlnuE ' exi s t_nc disposal practices at the =u.a_nKS -oad facility _t would be ..^_ecessa_ry to acquire apgrox~^ately 1= additior_al ac__s of ?a_^.d aC.]aCO7'lt tO the eXZSt_nC C~c~ area. =aSed On ZC1own :scent larG try^_sact_on values lA t:^_e a=e_ a.*1G additional e_^_V_ronI11E_Tl~~l -:onitori_:g capability, the cost would be approximately 5120, 000 for about 6 years of capacity after ::_e currant si_a is full. __cc_tional ma:aceme_nt cost per ton wc::ld be a'^out $0.0'1. . Cnna`r"CC Z -a'_?sL°" state :.lthouc h tra__sfer stations ce_molition :vaster, it is pc This oction ',vould require accuir ~. Capital costs p-_ !_O gi±i ~ -ts`tor_3 i 5 OL't-7=-COLT^_tV. rarely h~ die onl=y constructior_ ar_d ~ssi~le to construct suc h a facility. apzroxi.'na_ely 5- additior_al acres be or this optics would 'ce a~ou= $900, 000. .~n.*lual tra__^_sporr_ation costs could rarce __crt "' $175,000* to $350,000* dEDE^diP_g on distance to the facility and $726,000 to $825,000 in tipping fees there. Some r_sk would exist cue to possible future ur_availability of reasonably • pro:cimate disposal capacity. Additional management cost per ton would ra_*:ge from $9.90 to $15.15* (Originally $10.50 to 516.20) . [j . C'nne~+-+irt a nlantla~ TV-Oriont2d C&~ waste r°_C~C~ ? _^_Q ~aC~ 1' tV, Cniiril Ari wit'' some additional di S~OSal area for the ?'_OP_- recvclable -esiduals. This facility would provide for ha.:d- picking of materials from a covered tipping floor. Materials to be re_^~oved would be about 50~ of clean wood, about 50~ of clean metals and the 50$ of dry wall we estimate is delivered to the facil'_ty~already source separated. The LOG estimat_s a -15~ overall potential diversion rate from alI construction waste. T`e estimated capital and land cost is $1,080,000. ?.bout 25 additional acres would need to be acquired for this option; ten acres for processing and 15 acres for a residual disposal (~,vh'_ch would provide about 7 years of additional capacity). additional maaage.*ne_nt cost per ton would be about $17.70*(was r~4.60). g , ~nr~r-~••-r a semi-automated C&D waste recvclinc and recOV2~^I ?~~ ~ ; rv cat:~T ed w~ th acdi ti oral di soosal• area for the nor_- ~-ecvclable ~=siduals (staff recommendation). This facility has the potentia'_ to recover more materials than a manual facility. The LOG est'-:iates that such a facility is the only option that could divert a minimum 25~ of C&D materials and satisfy slat=_ a_~d :CG :last= reduction goals. Esti.''ated potential costs are about $1.55 .:.illion. ~~out 25 additional acres would need to :.e acquired `or this option; ten acres for processing and 15 acres for res'_dual disposal (which would provide about 8 years of additior_a_ capacity). Additional manage_*nent cost per ton ~,JOUId be abou_ $20.50* (was $18.70) . Cu==ently t e a_:dfill =end's cost of -anagir_g C&D i s about $lo' per tor_; ~owev~=, the C&D disposal tipping fee is $33 per to . ^he acded cast ;.er ton is relati.e to the c'===ent S16 . per ccr_ .:;a =ace^e ~ cos . for ooti ons 2-~ . ^_' ___ actual elect of a .y ~rvCrc.'1 On t =E L1Dp? ng Lee wOUld 'var! depending uDOn hGW t E rCCr~3 iS i~:p:e_°:lented and what Ot her progra-ns are fundEd thraug~l tl~~~rC Le~S: (1nr±nn 3 Option 1 Optioa Z Optioa 3 Optioa 4 Optioa 5 ~;ecc_~nt~or_ Added cost/_or_ No -e*.~ landfill or facility Of a_ry ki*_d $5.45 La,df__1 only, no waste red~.:cticn. $ 0 • 6Q Tra_*:s . er s tation to s::ip wastes out : $ 9 • ° 0 tc $15.15 .~a,^_ual waste rsducti on facility (15~ recucti or_) . $17 . i 0 Semi-automated waste reduction =acility s20.s0 4 - The map below shows where additional acreage for C&D activities could be located in relation to the current landfill: 1 z Arr~ o/ I °L R~iIwad iddio~oml ~; - ~ Tnela ~~~ I o =lY Vii., ...i~w.. i~- '~~Wxl.w''~~ I ~ ~ ~« - yi i ~I.ri .3. M I - "'n*J.:;.v: Tom?! ~iY::w.:~.r+- ~Existin~ NorthSide ` = -- . `'~= Landfill, ~.' ,. _:--. -._:. . (Drawing nottoscaIe) °. I -------EubanicsRd----------------- Conclusion collawing the public forum, the Owners G=oup could use the pudic inDUt, in acdition to infor_nation provic_d by staff at pr_vious :~e=zings, to =_ alize recommendations or_ how cor_structi or_ and de.:soli tior_ waste will be cna_*~aged in the 'L1tLLe in Orange County. nC2-~=Cc =Gj - TO : r.a.^_di i 11 Owr1e= 5 Group =Tom: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director ~~ I ,_ L. .~- ~- _ y~ Subject: Regulating Cor_struction and De.*noiition Waste Throue_h solid Waste Planning 0=dinances Date: January 22, 1997 The attac::ed resolutions would request the boards of Orar_ge County, Carrboro and F.illsborough to adopt, and Chapel sill to strengthe_*~, similar solid waste plan ordinances that regulate the following: _. • reducir_g wastes ar_d requiring separat_on of recyclable construction a_nd demolition wastes • considering and encouraging use of bu_lding materials with recycled content • requiring specific types and a_~nowzts of recycling storage space be set aside to accommodate collection of recyclables from the operating building - • governi :g all constn:ction ar_d de_*noli=ion projects with a value over $50,000 regardless of type • ensuri,g that demolition projects are apt approved u_^_til a solid waste clan has been ar~erovec't • ircorporatir_g solid waste plan i ^.spec_ions into routine buildi ~g inspection practice a_*:d ir_su_ing that complia.^_ce with solid waste plan stip_ ulatior_s be a r~-.urement of Corti Hued buidi-c ias:,ections :.dd:tiOP_ally, t~e resolution reC":e5t5 t ~t t_^_e gOVernment~S CoC~Erat .O SEC'..Ire fLL*idir_g for a_Td hir= a SOliG waste Dla_^_ :1~5?ECCOr :+II'=052 SaOrt sC.all be COO=Ci:lat=_ '.Jiti2 EX_s`iP_Q plar'~ :~C ^d inspections staffs. '1.5 *'~e~lora=C'~ d1sCL'SSc=s the re50i~.2t~0i~3' reCCi;~'Z:EAdati OP_s, crcvides an analysis of the eff.ctive-ess o' t?~e Town o Chapel -ill's e:{ist~zg solid waste- pla and c:=cusses how ar_ acci do^al ositor_ of ? a_rd=ill i __*_spector could ~ ~c=ease t__^_E proposed so•i_d :•;asta pla: __^c crccra.^~'s ef=activeness. BaC SC='OL'*_d their DECE_ai1~Er 12, ? 996, mEeti::g, t~E Owr_ers Group E::dor5cd t_^_e COACEDt Of Sc^.Ciing a rE501'1tiOIi t0 ~3Ch Ii.e_*LLDEr COVET ~T.E*:t recommendi^g adcptior_ of a cou-ty-wide so? i d waste p1aP~.iag rt il' M~ m y ' ' ' ~ • m i ,~ o m i t i~' cn r: f'' U• n o ~ n n ' - r m cn In b' l a o 'o r_ t+ ly o w rt O /U ;] 7 A: m N A , ~ n ~ ;7 O 1 • m ;1 m ri A• ~ o m o i ~ 1• ,1 f O ~] (U o rl a I m v 1 n I• O 1 f ' ;.y rr rr G o n, It to m M rt m -t m d a n ~ ID : a 1 4 1- 1D It I h 11 $ O N O ~ r1 ;] (1, I-n 1-• l i I t O '. m li ' i-''U I t ~• G1 I ' rh N 1~• N• H 1'h m m O r 'U 1-• • ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ m I'n pr' ~ Dr a O N ril H I't [) ri O rr a I--' C iJ r r O '- ~ , , f 1 •. N F' I f f1 ~ lu O ,~ ~ 1-' m rr i-1 rr n N 1 . 1 H• it rn G p. O n n 'U rf f r [1 rr fi H• iT O W r ~ ~ I-h b W l m 7 m r t h N N O m R O n p fl .'7' If~ () i-' m IC1 1-n rt ,J 10 !~ rt Ii Eu I •. N M N h•• ({u1~ Ii m a A r - l A n 1-' I'• $ I•• O m ID ' q N• H• O 1"i m V' N m rt 1-h $ n m m n A Y ~ ~ n '[i -~i n 1-'• 1-•• n - , r ti 1D E. . 0- C It rr i 1 U' ~ li 1 t, 1p n ~ n n p. U ;7 (U i1 (p IL 7 1 1-' a :~ W !~ N ft cA fl -.. • ~ p ' 1 j ~ rr N O m m rt Iy, iy O rt N C O p O (D O 1 A t7 ~ rr b i~ m ID m IA h• a IU O 1~• p N1. rl IU a . tD a 1-'• ~ () a t7 ~• I••• M H rt rr 1'1 r ~ . , rr p. m 1~ U 1~ i-n 1- 1u n I ' ' d rr 1 • A i~ 0 1-•• ry i W C: O f'! N• n ' ~ , N ~ I . m ~' n rt ID N I -' • m N O l u p ,-. rr a f- N 'C I-+'O b' I-• o a In la•' j]• • 1~• n n It M I~ m :y '• ! A A , rt p rl ;~ ~ ty m ~ tb O to ~~ n n O O 1 • la- I-• O p, F. ~ rt ~ ,A 1~' ~ a m , N U t-• N f1 A. o p. n n, It O r 1 i l In IU I''• (1. (U 1-' m (. ID i~, i I N• ] (l. fr O '[I i 1' O r 1 It 11 (n ~: ' A r~ ~j ru ~ b' (D • 1-'. • N (1 1 '. b' ~ l m O 1•'• f 1 1~ In m hl n ~ U- EU '(~ -' 1 I~ ~ nn -~ ~ ' M f- ly- m ID G H• Q ~ 'U -1 h O ~ ;] p m a a Q a 'U rr, -i O C G ;~' /7 I < n ,1 1-• w . ' t 1 . a N ~ t1• N ;r I-• m n M v A 'C n m 7 n hl o tv t b' a a a ~ Ip W m ro N. p, M ' ro a A ,~ rt ~• m rr m ~ 1-'• r o m~ ~• 1-'• m rU r•(o r r • ~ , u~ 1~ o o a ro iy ,1. n r~ a p m ID N 'C1 m » O ~• ' w r ~ o 'c1 p. h•• G m. ~ s n i~ In a d h•• o o m o o -' b m 'd p, r i- r -C m ~• p. r- 1 ` O C ft A: a ~1 ul li m ~~ a N• tl i7 'd IU ~D ft n r7 0 1 t r IA a ~ A 1 y ~ rt n a O 1~• ~ h•• p 1-••M O p 1~ rt m ,h rt a K t'f n li rr H N ~ O m n i7' O ' ~' ~• d t ~ d x b• 1-• H• O t1 i] m N• ;] N ;J I-• rt N ;~ rT rr : • r s ~ 1 i iv . N O £ rr rg 1'11 p ~U 'U It rr O R O ;3' x: O 1 O ~~ ] N r ~ ~ ~l i~ h-• a A, o m IA M 1-• H• rr t1• rt rt a m m G 1-.. N. iy ly A ~ ; H• ,]' rn O + m a h~ I-' R h-' 1 ~Nu - IA m a b' ` ;J ;J ~ , , 1 m r ID N ,.1 m C~' O It ID 17 It 11 'd !u 1••• a • M It O Q. r- p m 1'• t) 1-••'(y H,IA i~ d O ii to O N A. rt A (D O i~'Cl m n. rt R m A 1• a 1~• m ID a ,7 h•• h-• rr rr ~ n m rt m O O N la• •<" n n It 1~• rl- .7 iy m H• 1-' O .] rr rr I~• UI m n N m n rn'~ rn p. N• rr p' rr ;t' rt a ~ I ~ I ' 1-''d E a Iq ~ A '{ O a rr 1-•• C: 'd ' H in 'd :7 O m a 'O 1~• N rt 1-11 C n ~ j `. O m 'U £ , m m to 0 m ID rt p n. n f I- • o it '~ O 'd i]• rt rr N n a (U t7 ;J N ' A ri In ; r h h ~I 1--' u rt rr rr ID a N a H- ro rt rt ~ 1~• m pr w it a rr hr M A• i ~ ~ $ Pt rt rt m p' 1-i- n i~ i~ m to m O O m f1 C - rn 1-( I ~• m Cl m 1~• ID d rr O ri a O a m I f is It ~ :~ iu 11~ 1 :: p O W N 'G 'd a N ~ O a rr H 7 O rh m m ~ to rt ' a N N -' i ~ i ~ ~ ~ m h' iy u. 'd m I'• 1'• 1•• N rr ID a N rr 1-+ ' p fD rt p m r••'d £ t1 a' b' n W N• p rr O~ N 'd A R U ' rr rt p ir i rr ti - G p p+~ , r -• O .m m I-t p O G ID m U r iy O ~1 N I t rr lU 11 r•. In ; ~' W rr i1 n I'( N ri .y 1--' ID IU ' ; {]. rr m A+ iC rr 1-' m rt m m m H•'~ It H• (D ~ ~ Cf (~. 1~• b• A• I D rt O (~ 'd N a O R £ `f~1 N Cl• rr 'r7 Iv 1 rt rt Iq r-r ' 'CrtO;yi1 -~aA•Iirrn(Dmli • • a IU O a ,] 'd A m O ~ G O i~ IC 1.11 Q. ft N f? (L rr,`~' N tt N• a , ~ ~ G m ,_r' (p 1~• m m 1-• n ~~ , . m a .. I •, ;, 1 -• It lu N I-• A. 1'• 1-' r1 '(~ ;] N {-~ 1 •• 111 ' $ N rl rr d O m Q 1~- O £ 1-•• a H ;J• 1 O b 1~• h-• 1 C rt N i~ ~ O , ~ d ' A• ~ ~ ~ J. 'd p. N I-' ;y R R n u m tl m N o rt o rr 1-• c r; l 11 n '! .. 1p T ~ • a ;~ lU ':1 1.• m ;~ ~ m rr 1 7 It m O m ,~ h•• ' R rn N (II n . r rn rr 1 t cl iy , r ul 1 •- tt r: It I~•al ,1'cl 1••-w,,. Ip ul lu a ;i m rt a ~ J. Ir~ rl In 1 n h. (~. 1 1 l nl a n'm '~ 1 n 1-• o w O p. ~ r O li N N 11. fl. m1-•nrm~~/~nlNltmi-•u ;llnrl a o (~~ r1 m m 17 ry m 't7 1-''(7 I~• d u n 11 2:tn:111i'Ui-• O r O ~ ~ It ~; rDNNaa1-.,~ ' ' i-';r~ ~ '4 a ~ E o n~ I••ly ~•~morn;yn, m 'd I'• I-' rr m fU ID O p, b' I'i m •. 1 ' ' 1••' r ~ N a ;~ n rr m I't 1n rr N q ' d ?c hr O I~ n 1-• (D r ~ 1~•• n O i-' O m N rai- i N ~ r~i rr ~ ~~ o iy O ~ N C cn I-'• O 1 t rh m (D t , ru,yli,~l U rr1nN1'IW li W ~; rt q, t rr ~' 1n ,. ' a n1~•ID,~O -' £1 N- H ~mrr It~rNb'~np. A. a ~ 1-• a N it rt 017 1n N N ' p ab grom N 1~• N rr 1D Ij b• p nnmp, Iq~ Sp p• a O ~ a W -'• mOm ID r mmrrG /om N m w n r-• rh °rt C L~ t1 ~ ] m b N•u. I'•'U rt o d p' it n ID ,~r It 0 o m o N I~-'d n ID O a h•• ~• {1'd m m ~ N i~ N rr N m n ~ I-'- $ rh N m Ip ,~] A• pl It ~ O ~' p ~ A• 1••'d N L1• r a O N O F 1-•- m 'd a p• p O h G o N m rnr~ m m a n ;~ n o 1-• ' p.Nlq rr N{U wp ro CIA m In n a n r''N' m'U N-tn Gtn i"1 rt c , O m ra It I"1 UI rr In ID ;~ ~ n• m1~1•(aompm ~ w a 'd n p a 'd rt ID i] rt O 'U N• N p' o A a (t $ O ~ n ii N iy rt i--• , 'd ~ a iy 1~•d] ;1 £ 'Cl rn O R G a y a ' 11 rn o r•rr ri O ~ p r• r a iI' ' InUroAma b" N a A 1-' rt £ N N H• oNrlcAn p,N ~ rt Ip G ~ , 1 h N i1 G O N 1-' O 1-1- 1-h Ij ft fr (~. rr r It 1~• 1~• rt a N it O ~ O H'~ 1-• a N• rn (D 111 1~ p rt G • '~ rt UI'[y ft N• - 1 O N ~ a M O ~ R `a m m IA 'C~ h'• ~ (1 b' (~. 1-• p l-• pp N 1'h O 1-' m 11 Ii fi i.1 11 it ~. 11 I... It ;j N D n O h' rt 01 a • d (u O H N ~ ~ 1-• ti ~ N ~ a n m h'•IQ art H. ~ r SD ~ IU a I / 1 .:1 IU ~ N s1 ~ 1'- ul r1 rl iy R i~ ~ a m 1-r A.'U r ~. N rr ~ - n O ' ~ ' ft n 'd O r U ~ rU O n ' C ~ ! • 1 i (~ A m ,.1 ,~ O ID ' o ~ Ip /D r rr A, O ,J n n G 1-1• O U iJ n m M H. 1~• a m , d ~ t I H C A• rr o It ~ O n G -t N• , t ,t nl iy ; •• E ;, it rr rr i Imo- m (II I'- ,~ o ,d ,A ~ h. p. N o ~ o m n u: r A• W p rt ~' ~ s w~ I-'• a ~ m l-• o a N l . ~ ro ~ S~ r 1 i t o N 1-' u~ pl • ; r I u • m ,.1 o a H m ~' ' A. r'• m A n 1 • n- r n rn I-• r-• (D 1 -• 1 ul ~' m N n m to r'• O A• ,~ • . 1'• n. (. u~ i r r 1-+ UI a ~ n iJ m n N o m IA q. lu -L .~ ~: ~ E ~~ large ar„ounts of corrucated car board to recycling crop oL= . sites. • No requirement to submit a solid waste plan to handle .demolition waste. Development plans are often submitted SubSeeue_Zt to de.*nolition of a_*~ existing building on the site of a project requiring a special use permit. Thus the demolition is r_ot subject to any waste reduction regulations. • Limited ability to have an imaact anv projects undertaken on the cam us of the IIniversity of North Carolina. In February 1996, Chapel Hill solid waste staff met with WC construction planning staff to discuss ways to make the solid waste planning ordinance more effective on campus. UNC construction planning staff agreed to administer t'_:e solid waste plar~iing ordinance for aTI campus projects. Our field observations of WC's demolition ar_d remodeling projects have not revealed a_*iy on-site recycling efforts. Our limited follow-up with GNC const=action planning sta~f has not s~.own any major implementation of construction waste reduction through their' application of solid waste pla_^~ ing ordinance. Follow-up with other Local jurisdictions in Oraage County Nor_e of the other three jurisdic.~ions has a solid waste plan Ordinance in effect, although sta== from all thre° have e:cpressed some interest in this. The July 11, 1990', memorandum to the Owners Group "=ollow-uD Items on Construction and Demolition ~~caste Reduction Planning', contai__^_ed SDECif1C recommendations for a more effective ordina.*ice. This memorandum contains further specifics about what could be included in such an ordinance. $ta== =rvm Chapel Frill $o lid 'Haste Deea_ moment met with various sta== me_*nbers with Carrboro, a_-±d Orange County pla_*ining a_*id buildi_^_a i_^_scectior_s staff in ?.uc-.:st to =urther discuss those _ssues. Discussion z'uading a Solid Waste Plan Inspector Position and a Laadfill Materials Inspectioa Position ___ :. he Dece.Ticer 12 me*nora.*idun to the Ow=_e=s Group, "?ollow-~,:n ~.=_o_ t ct Cptior_s for Reduci_^_g Co-struct_on and Demolition ~cas ~_" , t e Staf 51CCested t .t t e OWT°_r5 GrOL'D CO.^.S:C~r a =ecor,,-~encation to the member coverninents that a solid waste nla_^_ _-specccr bE added to the Solid .'caste staff if all gover,_nents adcpcE_ solid waste pla_*is . This : ositicn would be necessa_~-1 to pry:_c°_ adE^.:ate plait rEVieTid a_rG _ns~ect_Or.; Current- SO1_d waste stc-- 15 WGrkig at full CdpaC_tV. ~ _ inOr:lation 'nlaS prOV1CEd about fi~anGing this D0S2.tiOn u5i C ~a per:^.lt =e° tiE^. to the dollar value of t E project. The s::cgested 'ee :Jas $0.042 per 6?00 of pe=-fitted valuE. This would 4 acd So'3 to the cost of a $10,000 housa. Based on the dollar' value of $130 million in 1°95-9o contt=uction permits, this fee " level would raise $55,000, the estiaated first year cost for to solid waste plan inspector position, a vehicle, and necessary e~:ipme^_t. Second year costs would be about $35,000 because they would not include a vehicle or significant equipment. Note hoc~rever that if imple.*nented mid-fiscal year (e.g. January 1), first fiscal year costs would be about $37,500 due to only fu:-~ding a half year of salary. ~nir_ile not necessarily required to imple.~nent solid waste manage.*nent planning ordinances, we believe a recycling materials inspector would greatly e.*lhance the overall program, and should be considered in a later budget year. It is likely that the requirements of any solid waste marage.*~ent plan would only require separation of clean wood waste and metals; however, current staff Nould be ur_able to provide oversight to these add=tior_al materials. .f these separat:d materials are delivered to the landfill, a landfill materials i-Spector would be able to ir_sure that the materials were properly segregated when they reached the processing area. Unfortur_ately, requiring sorting of; material at t^e job site is no guararte=_ that it will be ^market_ ready' when it reaches the landfill. The materials inspector ~,vould be able to provide increased martetability for the _ .;taterials by separating higher value delivered materials. •- T?^.e landfill saterials inspector positicn would require a full tine salary anc a vehicle. First year costs could be approximately $44,500, with second year costs.about $29,500. .f implemented .mid-year the first fiscal year costs would be abou~ 530,000. Th15 position could be fur_ded in a similar ma_T.ne_ to ~e inspector, through tipping fees or a mix of fiscal resources. _= both positions were fu.*~ded solely t~-~ough tippl__^_g fens, a 51.12 first yea= increase ($0.74 mid-fiscal year & $0.72 Zr_d _~_ar) to t..e t_ppir_g fee would be requi=ed. If only t'~e Iar_d=i 11 ___spector position were so fur_ded, t!:e ..ippir_g fee would i :crease by 50.50 first _.-ear ($0.34 i*" mid-yea= a:_d 50.33 2nd yea=) . 1_-di,c met :ode available i nclude but a=: not limited t~ 'tiDDi .c =s.s, c=nerai =?Jcation by local ce•~er=~.e-ts, solid waste assessments a.^_c, possibly for one year c :ly, grant fu::ds a-; a_lable• =rom the North Caroli__^_a Di~rision of Pollutior_ _.Vc :Give and _.L1VirollAte_^_tal n5s_sta:?C? ($ee e?ge_^_da ].t~~ -rte) . Coordination of Work 8equirmd With Existing Staff =ssues pertain_-g to organization. a_rd ccordination of wvr''t and d.l=_cation of responsibilities for t^e inspector will =n.~air t~ ~= wor'.ced ou_. rde suggest the position(s) should be par= of t e e:S_Sti ng SOlid ,Taste N~*~agE:^.Ent Depart.:~E t under wratnver cC'v:r =*~ie:lt Or Orga_^_iZat_Or_al StrL:CtL'=E t»at Department lllt~tatEly C~Erat°s. _ r~je beliEVe t?a~ mOSt Of these COO=Ci~atiCn 155ues Can be I'I'c»*ldlc d a~ t_^_E Staff lE'rE~ ].: the Ordl~S~CeS arc Si_*tt1~ ar ir_ nat::_E. 'c-*d -- all the plarn protocols for reculations. ur_ders tanding 5 T ~ :__^_g and inspection departments agree to similar inspection and enforce.*nent of solid waste plan If the ordina_zces differed significantly, and joint enforcement would be difficult. we suggest that a reciprocal agree.*nent for the use of the plan inspector in various jurisdictions be established. Reciprocal agree.*nents already authorize building inspection staff from Chapel Hill to work in Carrboro and vice versa. Inspections in all jurisdictions would ~.ave to be coordinated to incorporate the solid waste inspection at crucial points during construction. Thus inspections departments could infora the solid waste plan inspector of the progress on various projects. Additional Work for Existing Staff we believe that implementation of a solid. waste planning ordinar_ce would create some furtr_er workload in the planning and inspection' depart~-nents of each jurisdicti oa. That work would be primarily a need to coordinate development review to ensure that the developer has a solid waste plan in place prior to permit approval and that the project designer(s) are aware of all three aspects of a plan - construction waste management, use of materials with recycled content, and provision of storage space. for recyclables for the finished projecc. The plan inspector would, to the e_~ctent possible, minimize increases in workload of the various pla_*ining and inspection departments. Existing solid :paste staff is prepared to minimize additional wort{ by assisting each jurisdiction in writing the solid waste pla_T ordina_*:ce, conducting builder education and other•~aise cooperating with the current pla_*uiing and inspection staff to i *_npiEine.^_t tai s progr~ia. ?_t least or_e mew*-iner of each plar~ing deartment and each bui ld'_ .g i~pection department would need to be =o roughly familiar wit: t~E p~CDOScG SOIi d Waste pla_~^___^_C regula_iOiIS and prOCeSS25. CO^C~'1s? OP_ Red::c:.ion of construction a_~d demolition waste will save valua:~le la_rd_'_~l space and help meet adopted was_? reduction goals. .t soLld also ultiaately help bu'_lders recce costs by Enforc'_rc ~raste reduction, wise use of materials and grope= separatior_ far rn~ JClinC. ' Nit :out any t_rp a of proc=_ssing facility, the implementation o= a solid waste pla: ^ing fu_rctior_ will Effec_:ively impact or_ly c_Ea_^: WOOd Waste a.^_d ~:~eta1S . T.=e52 rcDre5E31t a.*1 ODDOr~L.*].1tV tO diVEr~ a cracti cal :aaximum of or_ly 10~s of consz_sctioa and. dEmolitio.^_ wast_ if SOBS of each matErial tvoe were diverted from source separation. ~~7it no facilities o= ar_y k_ .d available at the landfill, builders would be forced to seek teir own outlets 'o. ~~' separated materials. -Only with implementation of some twe o= , semi-automated processing facility could the Owners Group acz_ave its stated goal of reducing construction and demolition waste by at least 25$. Recommendations 1. That the Owners Group adopt and forward to the member governments the attached resolutions recommending that the Towns of Carrboro, and Killsborough and Orange County adopt a solid waste plan ordinance to regulate construction and ._ demolition wastes and jointly hire a solid waste plan inspector. ~~ 2. That the Owr_ers Group consider the position of landfill ~. materials inspector as an ele.^~ent that would support the solid waste plan o=dinance, perhaps in a later budget year. 3 . That the Owners Group recomme_^_d that the. Town of Chapel Bill consider revising its existing solid waste plan to incorporate measures broadening the scope and increasing the specificity to make waste reduction more effective. This is incorporated into the resolution addressed to the Town of Chapel hill. 4. That the Owners Group urge the gover~ents to make the -- ordinances effective January?, 1998 and use the six month period f=om January 1 through Jure 30, 1998 to conduct education of contractors, develop implementation practices a::d begin fully enforcing the ordinance by July 1, 1998. ~~ Orange Regional Landfill Owners Group Resolution requesting that the Iowa of Carrboro, Tows of Hillsborough and Orange County adopt a solid waste planning ordinance regulating construction and demolition waste. rN'F:_RE.~S construction and de_-molition waste represent approximately or_e-third of materials landfilled annually at the Orange Regional L•a:~dfill, and w~=RE.~S the Owr_ers Group has adopted a coal of reducing construction and demolition wastes by at least 25$, and w~•~REAS efforts undertaken to date have not resulted in a siani~icant reduction in construction and demolition wastes, ir_creased use of building :materials with recycled content or provision of storage space or recycling, and ~rJ'r._RE.3S the existing construction ar_d de_~molition waste landfill will be full ir. less than two-ar_d-one-'r_alf years, and 5vr.=.~.S nothing in existing Local ordin~ces encourages or requires reduction of construction and ce.~nolition wastes, use of materials with recycled content or storage space for recyclables, NOW TF~REFOF,r ~H IT RESOLV"rrD that the Orange Regional Landf i.ll Owr_ers Group recommends that the governing boards adopt a solic :~rasle nla.*~ ordi :once which incluces regulations for reducing and separatir_g recyclable construction and demolition wastes, cor_siderir_g use of materials with recycled content and requires specific types and amounts of recycling storage space be set aside. ndd:~io~ally the ordina.ce shall: a) govern all car_st=action and de_*molitic: projects with a value of over 550,000 regardless of tyve, b) a^_su.e t at de.~noli lion projects are =ct approved ur_til a soli c ;•~aste pla_: has been approves, c) __^_co=porate solid waste pla_~ =_^_spect_:,ns ir_to rout=ne •building irspect_ca p=accice ar_d that complia_rce with stipulatior_s e a =_o:ic waste _ la_*! be a rzquir~~::r_t oT cor_tinued building _. sections, ~ and c) be as close i = wording, scope ar_d i:~-_nt to the ordina.*:ces acopted nY the other member goverr*aeT_s as possible. __ ~T r u R^L'~ R/SOLtT'D that the La_^_cil_ Owr_ers Group recomneres t at the To*,~_ a. Carrboro, 'r_'illsborouga, Orange County shall cocp erase with other me.~:ioer gove=^-:ments of the Owners G_oup to iG°__^_tify a .'.:.*iGg Source and t0 hi *'e a Solid Waste plate inspector to ensure solid wast_ plans ar= properly filed ar_d ca__ied out. T== e:cistir_g inspection. ard~planni*±9 stn-==s s:^_all coordi :ate :•;ort with the solid waste pla=_ inspector. ^h~s the 2~.d say of January, l°°?. ° ;.1 X Orange Regional Landfill Owners Group Resolution to the Town of (~.. Chapel Hill requesting revisions to the current solid waste " planning ordinance. ~r1F:?Rr..aS const action and demolition waste represent approx'_mate1v one-third of materials landfilled annually at the Orange Regiona? Landfill , and WF:~REaS the Owr_ers Group has adopted a. goal of reducing construction and de_*nolition wastes by at least 25~, and Wr:,REaS efforts undertaken to date under the existing Solid Waste Plan Development Ordinance Text Amendment have not resulted ir_ a significant reduction in construction and demolition wastes, and ~N-r~RE.~S the existing construction and demolition waste lard*"ilI will be full in less than t*,uo-and-one-half years, and NOtiJ TIr~.-ORr 3S IT RESOLVED that the Orange Regional La.*!dfill Owners Group recomme_*:ds that the Town o= Chapel Hill stre_^.gthen. its existing solid waste plan ordinance ~shich includes regulations for reducing and separating recyclable const=action and demolition •,vastes, considering use of materials with recycled content and rewires a plan for recycli-g. additionally that such a revised ordinance shall: a} govern all construction and de.~nolition projects with a value of over $0,000 regardless of type, b) ensure that demolition projects are of approved until a solid waste pla_*~ has been approved, c) incorporate solid waste Alan inspections into routine building inspection practice ar_d that compliance with stipulations of a solid caste pla.*~ ce a regal=E:-:ent of continued inspecticns d) be as c_ose in •~rording, scope and inc=_nt to the ordina_*±ces adopter by t e oth er mE:-nber gove_rnme_r.s as possible. _= _^ . u°'=:~~ ?=SOLVE that the =aadfil. Owr_ers Groan recoa«*neres c at t e TowTt of Chapel :ill a) .e~:ESt more coorcinatior_ with projects u.dertaken on t c :..::pus o: the Gniversity of Mort Carol_na at Chapel Fzili, b) cooperate w_th of her me:-nber gover:unE:.s c*" the Owners Group to reTti=_r a fur_cing source a_rd hi_e a so_d waste plan inspEctor co ensure solid waste pla_*:s are properly fi?ed and carri_d cut. ':'`ce e:cist_nc i Tspec*_ion and pla_*~irg stn°fs shall coordinate wort ~~rith the solid waste plan inspector. Tris tie 22nd ray of January, 1997. - ? c e.^.ca T ~ c Iemo random ~- ~ To: Land=ill Owners Group crom: Gayle rrtilson, Solid Waste Director Subject: Selection of Construction and Demolition Waste ~.ar_agement Options Date: January 22, 1997 ~~ This memorandum presents programs for consideration as part of the 1997-98 budget. There are five options for managing construction ar_d demolition waste once the existing site is full in~Iess than two and one half years. Those options, including some of the financial implications of each, were presented in the public forum portion of the Jar_uary 22 agenaa (agenda ite_*n 2a). The financial implications are briefly =eiterated in this memo ra_ndum . Hackaround P.ccording to staff analysis, to 1997-98 landfill budget will. require a signi=icant increase in~the tipping.fee for mixed .waste and construction waste simply to make up for the shortfall due to losing the coal ash revenues. If alterative types of financi__^_g are adopted (please see Agenda T4), theme tipping fee increases could be limited or the tip fee reduced. various future .::anage.*aent alter^.atives include closing t:~e construction ~ard demolition waste landf'__1, building a transfer station to shin out construction and demolition wastes, building a la_*ldfill only, building amanually-onerted sorting facility or building asemi-automated sorting facili_y. Any of these would increase tie cost of managing cor_struction ar_d de_*nolition wastes. The ":.o build" alternative would result ?r_ costs to cor_st:^.:ct_or_ cor_=ractors and developers, not directly to the Owners Group. Noss of Lose tipping fee revenues would bo*aever glace sicificant burcen en landfill finances, especially absent _ources of rave _~~e other tha_z tipping fees . Orcer a.-~v const_~ction ar_d de_**.olition waste ma.*~agement scenario, t e :our goverr_Tents could ir_c' ode solid :vaste planning rec.:irere :ts in t air permitting process i n a_~ ef=ort to recc:c= cor_struc~ior_ wastes (please see agenda =~~) . All waste gelerat=_d is OranC2 County will count as Dart of t __ measure*_nent of DrOCr~55 tO:vdrCS re~L2Ction goals, lnclllding thOSe wastes t at iuaV ce S.Z1.pped Out 0= COL'.*lty either directly by COntraCtorS Or t:.rough a tra.-~sfer facility. ~~7e believe some combination of =e~~lations, ecor_omi c incentives and mat_ri a1s manage_*nent wi 11 be necessary to meet tae Owners Group's was _! reduction goal. Discussion con bL'dCcting pT~r?oses, the O~NTers Group could cor_sider a business as usual sce__^_ari o construction a^_d de.*~olition tipping fees c .arced. under which all costs to ma=ace wastes would be su~sumed ur_cer the The following options for management of the construction and demolition wasce are for your consideration: St~*f+*^ary Cost Table for Alternatives to Manage Construction and Demolition Wa stes .. .. • - • • •• ur. •.. ~ ~~• • • 1 1 • 1. ~~No Build' $0 ~ $0 $1.5 million $45.45 extra transn_ort cost (ir_curred by C haulers 2. Landfill only 5120 , 000 SO I No re*N costs 50.60 3. Transfer $196,500 to $10.50 t0 Station 5142 ,000- 5862,500 ( 5384,600 S16.20• S . Manual Reduction 5291 ,000 $1,258,000 $350,000 ( $17.70 Rac- l; _v a . S emi - automated Reduction $325 ,000 $1,973,000 $401,000 $20.50 Facility VOTiS : * Currently the landfill fund's cost of -:a*~aging C&D is about $16 per ton; ;:cwever, the C&D disposal tipo:ag fee is currently $33 per ter,. The _ncreased cost per ton is relative to •the curre_^_t 51~ get to mar_ageme~t cost (for Optior_s 2-5} . The actual e`ect o. ary _=ccra:~. on to tipping f=_e would -:are cegending ugor_ 'cow t _~ pr Og: ~ I.S . i_-noleme_nCed and wPat O C ~r prOCra.'il5 are .L^_d? nC t ~ OL'CLI tipplZ:C fees . . Oc _i or_ 2 Accti:_re 1~d for a constrL'ctic : and dernoliti or_ waste ~ a_:d~ill. $120, 000 including :aoni tvri *aells . O~.io- AcQt:_re land and build a cor_s=ruc_ion :vaste tra_rsfer station: 5900,000. This would entail seeding construction and GE?:Ol? ti On WZSCe Out Of Orange County t~ a*~other per:,-itted .`aci lily. _ J~ 9otio^ 4. ccu_re la_-~d and build a manu__ly-oriented construc~ior_ ai':d G'eri0! 1 _? OI: :va5t= reL152 a*:G reCVCli r~ faCil i tV an`i 1 ~df i 1 1 , :?.45 m_Z1_On =aC1!_C/ CaDl~a? COStS. ==~jeCtgd faC?1?tV lif°_ Of ~, .. 3 seven years. This option could divert about 50~ of clean wood and metal and possibly 50~ of source-separated dry wall. Q~tion 5: acquire land and build a semi-automated construction and demolition waste reduction and recycling facility and landfill. 51.75 million facility capital costs. This option could divert 90$ of clean wood, 85~ of clean metal and 50~ of dry wall. We note that previous cost analyses showed a capital cost of $1.55 million; however, further analysis and outside review resulted in our listing higher costs. Projected facility life of eight years. Recommendation we recommend that the Owners Group consider information from the public forum and then select an option or the staff to consider in preparing a budget for fiscal year 1997-98. ~IE1~tOR.aNDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: lVtayor and Council W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager Funding of Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction Programs with An Increase in Construction and Demolition tiVaste Landfill Tipping Fee ---e--~? ~ , This memorandum proposes that the Council, with the concurrence of Orange County and the Town of Carrboro, increase the proposed tipping fee for construction and demolition wastes at the Orange Regional Landfill from its current level of X33 per ton to S35 per ton. The additional revenues would support programs to enforce regulation of the solid waste plan ordinance and to salvage .reusable and recyclable construction and demolition waste at the landfill. The attached resolution would authorize the Manager to begin to implement these programs. BaCKGROUND On June 9, the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted a goal of reducing the total amount of solid waste landfilled: • by 45% per person in Orange County by 2001 (compared to 1991-92) and • by 61 % by ?006 compared to 1991-92, (sea attachment 1). The programs described in this memorandum for reducing construction and demolition waste would assist in meeting those overall goals. As part of the overall waste reduction goals, reduction of construction and demolition waste could be achieved through a combination of regulating construction waste, salvaging usable materials from the landfill and using landfill fees to create economic incentives to separate materials. The Owners Group endorsed this approach at their May 28 meeting. (see attachment). They also endorsed funding these programs through a construction and demolition waste reduction fee attacaed to the building permits issued throughout the County. The recommended programs would : AGEWA T3k ~ _ G.- • salvage reusable or recyclable materials from the construction and demolition materials section of the landfill and - - ~~~ ..J • enforce requirements for separation of recyclable construction materials on-site at most construction sites. These programs are recommended by the Manager for implementation in 1997-98 (Memorandum to Council of fay 16, 1997). It is the opinion of the Town Attorney that this proposed method of funding this progamm is not lawful. We, therefore, have revised our recommendation so that the source of funding would be from an increase in landfill tipping fees an construction and demolition wastes. This fee was recommended by the Landfill Owners Group to remain at 833 per ton in 1997-98. We project that the construction and demolition waste area of the landfill will be full in one-and- one-half years. Using the lined, southern portion of the Eubanks landfill for construction waste as well as the mixed solid waste now buried there could reduce its capacity as much as two years. The landfill would then be. full by 2003 rather than the currently projected 2005, creating an impetus to provide immediate waste reduction in this sector. DISCUSSION We project overall $rst year combined program costs at 582,000. The proposed construction and demolition waste reduction programs could be funded from a combination of a 52.00 increase in the tipping fee on the projected 32,000 tons of .construction and demolition wastes, 58,000 from undesignated reserves and a 510,000 Grant from the North Carolina Office of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance. The grant has been awazded specifically to buy storage containers for salvageables recovered at the landfill. Landfill Salva a Program Using landfill tipping fees for the salvage program would enable implementation of that prouram in October 1997. Coordinated implementation of the construction and demolition waste-related solid waste plan ordinances in all Orange County jurisdictions would require significant cooperation among the jurisdictions. We project that ordinances in all jurisdictions would not be in place until early 1998 and that the reduction program would not take effect until February 1998. This timetable would enable several months for education of the construction community about the requirements of the ordinance before field enforcement besins. We would propose that enforcement begin in July, 1998. Solid Waste Develoament Ordinance and Enforcement Program In August 1996 we held discussions with the various planning and inspections department personnel and conducted a work, session with builders on solid waste planning and landfill regulations. There was consensus-.that enforcement of solid waste regulations on construction and demolition wastes w•ouId best be handled for all jurisdictions, as recycling collections are now; by the staff of the Solid Waste Management Department of the Town of Chapel Hill (or the successor agency upon reorganization of the solid waste management function.) 3 ~~ The salvage program could operate somewhat independently of the solid waste plan ordinance since salvage would take place at the landfill. The solid waste plans could be enforced only after they were adopted by each government. The two programs would operate more effectively together since the solid waste plans would probably require, at a minimum, separation of recyclable construction wastes; the salvage operator at the landfill would then inspect the recyclable loads for compliance with the separation requirements when those loads were delivered to the landfill. Without implementation of some measures designed to reduce the construction and demolition waste stream, the governments of Orange County may. not otherwise meet their adopted solid waste reduction goals. We would take the following steps if funding were provided: • Hire staff, purchase supplies and equipment, and initiate the landfill salvage program beginning in October 1997. The solid waste plan compliance inspection program could begin in February 1998. • tiVork with other Town staff to develop changes to the existing development ordinance that would extend solid waste planning requirements to all construction projects with a value of over SS0,000. The current ordinance covers only those projects requiring a special use permit or a zoning compliance permit. These conditions exclude individual residential• units, demolition projects and renovations within the existing perimeter of a building, all of which generate significant amounts of waste and represent over 80% of permit value in Chapel Hill. • Recommend that the Manager and staff work with the staff of other local governments as requested to p*epare similar ordinances requiring solid waste plan development. The proposed tip fee increase for consttvetion and demolition waste reduction is calculated to cover the full costs of the two programs. In the second year, no new vehicles or other equipment would be required, but a full year of salaries for both positions would keep the cost level similar to the fast year. RECOi,1~IA'I~YDr~TIO ~ S We recommend that: 1. Council adopt the S35 per ton tipping fee for construction and demolition waste as part of the 1997-98 fee schedule. This fee is included in the recommended fee policies in agenda item =3e, and the revenue is included in the recommended budget. Concurrence by the County and Carrboro is necessary for any landfill tipping fees to become effective. 2. The Council adopt the following resolution that would authorize the vfanager to develop changes to the existing development ordinance that would extend the solid waste plan requirement to all construction projects valued at over SS0,000, and authorize the ~fanaQer -l and staff to wort: with other jurisdictions in Orange County to develop solid waste plan ordinances that are similar to that adopted by the Town of Chapel Hill to enable ease of enforcement and consistency for builders and regulators. . A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING 'THE MANAGER TO START THE PROCESS TO Ai~ND CHAPEL HII.L'S SOLID WASTE PLAN REQUIItE1ViENTS AND TO WORK WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS TO ESTABLISH SLl~1II.AR REGULATIONS (97-6-23/R 1~ WHEREAS, the construction and demolition disposal area of the Orange Regional Landfill will be full within one and one-half years, and WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Bill has adopted ambitious waste reduction goals, 4T NO~V BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Tanager is authorized to develop changes to the e.Yisting development ordinance that would extend the solid waste plan requirement to all construction projects valued at over SS0,000, and to work with other jurisdictions in Orange County to develop solid waste plan ordinances that are similar to that adopted by the Town of Chapel Hill to enable ease. of enforcement and consistency for builders snd regulators. This is the 23'a day of June, 1997. SZo II. Construction and demolition waste The waste plan framework for construction and demolition waste A. - Construction waste makes up approximately one- third of the material we landfill. As much as 709''0 of this type of waste is recyclable as wood products, scrap metal, construction rock and dirt products. ~~tost of our recycling efforts have concentrated on the other two-thirds of our waste but there is caormous potential in the construction waste sector. B. Goal for Constriction and demolition waste I. To help meet the 2001 goal of 459'o waste reduction, construction and demolition wastes would need to be reduced from 7001bs. (0.35 tons) per capita to 5801bs. (0.29 tons). See table 2-1. 2. .For the 2006, goal of 619'0, construction and demolition waste would need to be reduced to 3001bs (0.15 tons) per capita from the 700 pounds landfilled in 1991-92. Table 2- 3. Generally throughout the planning process, construction and demolition wastes have been considered separately from mixed solid waste for three reasons: • Most of the county residents do not generate this type of waste, • The material is buried in a separate, unlined portion of the landfill, • The types of measures that would affect reduction in this sector are significantly different from measures used to manage mixed solid waste. Without a reduction in this sector,'it is unlikely that the overall County-wide goals of 45% reduction by 2001 and 6190 by 2006 could be achieved. 3-9 ~~ C. Timetable for meeting the goals. We believe that 2001 goal could be achieved with amanually-based construction materials salvage operation at the landfill and an enforceable solid waste plan requirement for new construction or major renovations in all jurisdictions. For the Landfill 1997-98 budget, both the salvage and the solid waste plan enforcement program are to be funded by increasing the tipping fees on constntction and demolition wastes by $2.00 per ton. Governments have passed those programs and the attendant fees. To achieve the 58% goal proposed for 2006, some type of sorting facility would probably be required to separate and process recyclable materials from mixed construction wastes. that would be delivered to the landfill. The Owners Group has made no commitment at this time to build such a facility: D. Description of Programs to meet the goals 1. Landfill Salvage Program. Diversion estimated 800 tons per year. Annual cost $30,000 (budgeted first year cost including vehicle and supplies: 539,500. Tons diverted 600) A previous waste sort showed about 19b or 330 tons of the materials delivered to the ~ _ construction waste area of the landfill are potentially reusable. In addition, this same waste sort showed that 6,000 tons of wood and metal are delivered to the C&D landfill each yeaz. Under this landfill diversion program, we project that 500 tons annually of this 6,000 tons of recyclable wood and metal are easily captured at the landfill face. This program entails locating a recycling materials handler at the working face, hand picking reusable materials and storing them in on-site containers until such time as they can be sold or donated. In addition, this staff member would either direct those haulers carrying a majority of metal or clean wood in their loads to separate dumping areas or pick them himself. The metals would be sold with other existing scrap. The unpainted, untreated wood. could be processed along with the yard waste for.mulch or otherwise used or sold as dimension lumber or engineered wood products. 2. Construction Waste Reductioa Program. Projected full .year cost $37,000. Estimated diversion 600 tons per year. (Budgeted Srst year cost including vehicle, supplies, computer. 532,500. Diversion 200 tons) a. The construction waste reduction program would ux a solid waste plan compliance officer to enforce solid waste plans for all new construction, renovations or demolition valued at over $50,000 in all jurisdictions in Orange County. The jurisdictions are evaluating adoption of such plans this year. A key component of any solid waste plan would require separation of recyclable materials on the construction site. Currently, only clean wood and metal are recyclable. As_mazkets arise for other 3-10 G+ materials and favorable differential tipping fees can be established, the required separations could affect those materials. - b. Currently, of all the jurisdictions, only the Town of Chapel Hill has such an ordinance and it is used only for projects requiring a special use permit or zoning compliance permit. That covers only 20% of all construction value in the Town. An expanded ordinance that encompassed all construction over $50,000 in all jurisdictions would be a more effective tool. Such an ordinance will be proposed in all jurisdictions this fiscal year. 3. Processing facility for mixed construction and demolition wastes. Estimated annual cost (including amortized capital costs) $732,000. Estimated tonnage diverted: 20,200 (see table 3-3). In order to meet the broader goal of 58% reduction in C&D wastes, the Counry would need a construction and demolition waste recycling facility that could handle not only some source- sepazated clean wood and metal but also the rock, dirt and other inert materials. Those materials, combined with wood and metal are 70% of the C&D waste stream delivered to the Orange Regional Landfill. This does not include separated roofing shingles, construction related plastics or other materials for which markets may develop. Table 3-3 below prrsents an estimate of the amount of material recyclable or salvageable from Orange County's construction and demolition waste stream based on table 1-2, This estimate does not include 30% of the wasu thaz is estimated to be larger inert debris (concrete, block, brick, asphalt, file and ceramics). It does not include the 4% of the waste estimated to be drywall mixed with construction wastes. If those two materials are included, the total percent recyclable would rise to 70% of the waste stream. Those two materials could be included if markets for dirt and inert debris improved 3-11 D. Table 3-3 .Summary of Estimated Diversion Potential from asemi-automated facility Wood and pallets (9090 of clean wood wastes): 4,500 tons Ferrous and non ferrous metals (8590 of metals): 1,500 tons Sotuce-separated drywall: 5096 of drywall coming in: 1,350 tons Subtotal of tttauerials potentially recyclable in current 7,350 tons (?.39'0 of construction and known trtarkets and demolition wastes) Potentially ttcyciable in niche markets or reusable 190 of C&D wastes: 350 toes Dirt (119b of waste) and small debris (596 of the block brick concrete taken out of 3,900 tons Waxed construction waste doting proceuuittg and used at the landfill for required weekly cover material of constrt~tion and demolition wastes): Subtotal potential for diversion from waste stream (3596): 11,600 tans Add drywall to "dirt" fiaction if broken down through screening: 1,350 tons Add 7095 of inert debris diverted for crushing to retue as road building material, 7,800 tons landfill cover or drainage material: Total reusable material in Orange County's construction waste stream in tons or 6096 20;750 tcnr of the total construction and demolition waste; ~~"'=-''~''`'"''''" Table 3-3 A semi-automated c&d waste processing facility is estimated to cost about $2.Smillion. Such a facility could be built at the Orange Regional Landfill. It has been considered but at this-~ time, the Owners Group has decided to proceed with only the salvage and planning programs. E. Options for C&D management In January 199'7, the Solid Waste Department staff prepared options for management of C&D waste, those are shown below in Table 3-4. The Owners Group expressed some interest in the processing facility but was interested primarily in private ownership and operation of such a facility, if it were to be considered at all in the future. No commitment has been made at this time since priority has been assigned to the mixed solid waste stream. 3-12 Table 3-4 Summary Cost Table for Alternatives to M anage Construction an d Demolition Wastes ,~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ 1. "No Build" SO SO S1S million 515.45 extra transport cost incurred b haulers 2. Landfill Only S120,000 SO No new costs 50.6J 3 . Transfer 5196,500 to 510.50 t0 Station S 142.000 5862.500 S384,600 S 16.20 4. Manual Reduction 5291,000 S1,Z58.000 5350.000 517.70 Facili S. Semi- automated Reduction 5325.000 51.973,000 NOTE: S40I.000 520.50 Facility cost estimate revised upward to S2.S tnllion following development of this table NOTES: ' Currently the tandfiIl fund's cost of managing CBt;D is about 516 per ton; however, the C&D disposal tipping fee is currently S33 per ton. The incasated cost per ton is relative to the current S16 per ton management cost (for Options 2-S). The actual effect of nay program on the ripping fee would vary depending upon how the program is implemented and what other programs are funding through tipping fees. Option 2. Acquire land for a construction and demolidon waste landfill. S 120,000 including monitoring wells. Option 3• Acquire land and build a construction waste transfer station: 3900,000. This would entail sending construction and demolition waste out of Orange County to another permitted facility. ' Option 4• Acquire land and build amanually-oriented construction and demolidon waste reuse and recycling facility and landfill. S1.45 million facility capital cosu. Projected facility life of seven years. This option could divert about 5056 of clean wood and metal and possibly 5096 of source-separated dry wail. Option S. Acquitz land and build asemi-automated construction and demolition waste reduction and recycling facility and landfill. S1.7S million facility capital cosu. This option could divert 9096 of clean woad. 8556 of clean metal and 5056 of dry wall. We note that previous cost analyses showed a capital cost of S1SS million; however, further analysis and outside review resulted in our listing higher costs. Projected facility life of eight• years. NOTE ON OPTION S. Costs and diversion percentage differ brow the narrative under B.3.c) of the plan document which shows a 52S million cost of construction and 7096 diversion potential, 3-13 MEMOR~~DUM T~ ~.,% To: John Link, Orange County Manager From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director Subject: Response to County Board Questions - C&D Disposal Dates: November 11, 1997 Explain the current status of construction and demolition disposal capacity and, discussion to date of future C&D disposal options. What sites are being considered for expansion? Since a C&D landfill need not be lined, where could C&D be buried - near the current landfill , and/or elsewhere in the County? Could a C&D sit e and solid waste convenience center be co-located? Should there be a new southern C&D"site and a new northern C&D site? There is presently about 2 years of capacity remaining at the Eubanks Road landfill C&D disposal area. No provisions have been made.for C&D management beyond this period. C&D waste reduction is' necessary in order to meet the adopted 61'~ waste reduction goal.. Future DisQOSal OnOnt,~ ions On January 22, 1997, the Landfill Owners Group discussed five options for managing C&D wastes (Attachment). These options range from doing nothing (no build) to building a semi-automated C&D recycling facility. A public forum was held on the options on January 22,~with 12 citizens speaking. The Owners Group took no action on the options or the staff reconanendation of pursuing a C&D recycling facility. No process for siting a C«D was established, except for the reference in t~:e January 2Z, "options r=port". In that report. we discussed the notion of acquiring a.bcut IS acres of• property adjacent to the existing C«D disposal area and continuing•disposal operations throughout the life of the ~sisting landfill (2005). This option was the lowest cost cction (about $120,000 at 57,500/acre plus at least two.new groundwater monitoring wells) and could be quickly permitted and constructed (less than or_e year). Existing reserve funds (Reserve far Ac~sisition and Corst~:cticn - June 30, 1997 balance ,is $837,550) cou'_d be utilized to fund this option. Other Possible Sites C&D disposal facilities are considerably easier to site, permit, ar_d operate than sanitary disposal facilities. due primarily to the nature of the castes managed. A C&D only disposal facility could _. 2 be pe: Witted iz numerous locations throuchout the county, rcluding ~~`~ the Greene Tract and other lard adjacent to the existing landfill. a ~~1~th a Convene°nCe Cantu A C&D disposal facility and a county convenience center could be located together, although there is no apparent advantage to doing so. Generall;r, we feel that the public would perceive a C&D facility iZ their neighborhood as more negative than a convenience center. Northern a_nd Southern C&D Sites Zt is certainly possible to establish two C&D sites, one each in the northern and southern part of the county. From our perspective, the quantities of waste materials is not adequate to support two such facilities and the double expenses that would be entailed. The obvious advantage is that of convenience. The majority of C&D waste is generated in the southern portion of the county, which •~ould seem to make a centrally located site must practical. If, in the future other parts of the county begin. producing more of this waste, a second facility could be located at ~. that time. _ , ---- ~. DATE: 1/12/98 MEMO TO: County Landfill Owners Group Representatives FROM: John Link, County Manager RE: Mixed Waste Disposal Options Background Of the estimated 90,000 tons of waste delivered each year to the Orange Regional Landfill for disposal, 57,000 tons is estimated to consist of mixed waste (non-C&D). Current projections indicate that the Orange Regional Landfill will reach capacity in the year 2005. Given the recent developments related to the preferred candidate landfill site (OC-17), four main options to be considered for future disposal needs have been identified and are summarized below. Weston developed an "Evaluation of Disposal Options" report for the LOG in 1995 for mixed waste disposal. A memorandum from Gayle Wilson to John Link ("Response to Question on Development of Transfer Station and Materials Recovery Facility", November 13, 1997) presents additional details regarding the transfer station management option (copy attached) . OPTION IMPLICATIONS Out-of-County Disposal 1. Development of avoids need for new landfill siting process Transfer Station for provides an immediate solution to post-closure Shipment of Waste to disposal needs Out-of-County potential site is available (Greene Tract) Location (contracted estimated construction cost of $1.8 million plus or government owned $300,000 for equipment (annual cost of $115,000 and operated) over 20 years) • estimated annual operating cost of $350,000 • estimated hauling costs of $17.50 per ton to out- of-county landfill • estimated tip fees of $24.05 to $30.00 per ton at out-of-county landfill • may limit future disposal options • less control over long-term costs Memo: Mixed Waste Disposal Options 1 1/12/98 ~~. OPTION IMPLICATIONS '' In-County Disposal 2. Examine Feasibility of these sites were not previously identified as the Other Candidate Sites preferred candidate site for various reasons from Current Landfill would require additional research, analysis and Siting Process public input process 3. Examine Feasibility of would require elimination of current turbo jet Greene Tract Site for aircraft landings at the Horace Williams Airport Landfill Disposal zoning limitations • site size limitations would not provide disposal fora 50 year period as originally planned 4. Begin New Landfill • previous site search process took seven years -- Siting Process new siting process would have to be completed in timely fashion to ensure availability of disposal capacity beyond life of existing site (the previous landfill siting experience suggests that there may not be adequate time to identify and develop a new landfill site before closure of the existing site) • as all of Orange County was considered in the previous siting process, it is unlikely that any potential sites will be discovered that were not previously considered (unless criteria are changed) Note: A transfer station for mixed waste may be developed in conjunction with a transfer station for C&D waste materials. Recommendations If the landfill option is selected, several years would be required to locate, acquire, permit and construct a new sanitary landfill (see attached "Orange Regional Landfill Permitting and Construction Schedule" from Joyce Engineering). Regardless of which of the above disposal options is selected, additional decisions regarding the preferred option for ownership and operation (i.e., public, private, or combination) of facilities (i.e., transfer station, landfill site) will also be required. In order to ensure that an acceptable disposal option can be identified and implemented prior to the closure of the existing landfill site, it is critical that the local governing bodies make a decision regarding the preferred disposal option in a timely fashion. Memo: Mixed Waste Disposal Options 2 1/12/98 .~.. .....m..,.. • EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL OPTIONS Prepared for: Orange Regional Landfill Owners' Group Prepared by: Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1880-FI Beaver Ridge Circle Norcross, Georgia 30071 (404) 263-5400 REVISID JULY 1995 -~ r." wESrorr woztx otznEx rro. io~so-ooi.ooi-coos ..r. EXECUTIVE SITMMARY This Working Paper is the second step in evaluating disposal options available to the Orange County Regional Landfill Owners' Group (LOG). It describes the methodology for completing the evaluation, a description of disposal options evaluated, a discussion of the each option based on the evaluation criteria, and scoring results of each option. The first step in the process was a document describing potential evaluation criteria and options for consideration. The LOG, with input from the Citizen's Solid Waste Advisory Committee (CSWAC), agreed on weighted criteria and options to be used in the evaluation defined as: Evaluation Criteria Environmental Protection Consistency with Goals Economic Fusibility SociaUPolitical Impact Comprehensiveness Integration Practicality Options Evaluated 20 points 20 points 15 points 15 points 10 points 10 points 1 t TOTAL = 100 points The following options are considered during the period beginning in 2003 and with a disposal rate escalated from current disposal quantities. A new in-county public facility; and, Six out-of-county private facilities (Facilities A through F) which include a transfer station. Summary of Evaluation Evaluation results for each criterion are summarized below. Sections 2' through 10 provide detailed discussion of the evaluation of the criteria for each option. Protection of Environment and Public Health The ability of the option to protect the environment and public health was measured based data collected on environmental permitting; design, monitoring and compliance; public input; and worker health and safety. Facilities that have current operating permits, in-place monitoring systems, a minimum number of violations or complaints (as recorded by state officials), existing public input forums, and comprehensive worker health and safety programs were assumed to NOR/K\ WP\ 70790\EDO_t •S.WP +~ _ 1 ~/~ ~,.. ~...m..ta., ~~ provide the best protection of the environment and public health. Since a new in-county landfill has not yet been permitted, designed, or is operating, it was assumed that the existing Eubanks Road Landfill represents the environmental standards to be employed at a new in-county site. It should be noted that this information was gathered through review of state files and discussions with facility representatives and therefore should be reviewed as subjective. Consistency with Goals The following table summarizes information about each option's consistency with established goals and objectives. It should be noted that these assessments are based on current information and are subject to negotiations. Table F.S-1 Consistency with Goals, By Option x _ - ~ ~ } L~L~ Y[ R$i~.{O .}9' ~'i t'~ 4 } } YRiHM • Yl iV ~ y ~ \~y~~`~.~ ~ V YfGi p~~~,3.• :~u2 v :~ ::?~ ?:~k:. W ~°~_~~y`T" ~ :.i£ :>`h 7\ ~~'f~/~s-. ^C 7 r......~~r• xpa..~!'ih_ni r a~wi~i7. Q ! '"s: fx' ~4~i W~ f - ....rK:?;:.~`?: ~:: ~:'.. `i:.~:..;1itin(:.:; .':'''::i ~~i•}?}~.. 4 S,vR: ~4?? "k i~.i...:: ry$[~ In-County 50 years at 350 LOG controls LOG controls Yes -based on current Landfill TPD policy and practices Facility A 30 to 40 yeah Caa arrange for Requires set No task force; provide at 1,600 TPD recycling; bans tonnage for data; does not divert materials delivery organics; limited handling altenutives Facility B 20 years at On-site recycling; Tonnage No task force; provides 1,000 to 1,500 screens banned negotiable data; diverts organic TPD materials wute; handling alternatives Facility C 38 to 40 years Plans separate Tonnage Citizens' advisory board; at 600 to 2,100 recycling; screens negotiable provides data; diveru TPD banned materials organic waste; handling alternatives Faciliry D 15 yeah at Small MRF on No set tonnage Citizens' advisory board; 2,000 TPD site; screens required provides data; does not banned materials divert organic waste; no handling alternatives Faciliry E 20 years at 900 Will arrange for Tonnage Task force; provides data; TPD nearby recycling; negotiable does not divert organic screens banned .waste;- handling materials alternatives Faciliry F 30 to 40 years MRF on site; will Will require set Will divert some organic screen materials tonnage waste NOIi/K\ WP\ t 0790\ EDO-t -S.WP "~ -2 08!93 rw ~~ll~ Economic Feasibility .~ Planning level cost estimates for each option's capital and operations were evaluated assuming both municipal solid waste and. construction and demolition debris would be disposed in a lined facility. In-county..landfill costs (and site life) are based on estimates prepared by Joyce Engineering. Out-of-county disposal tipping fees are based on surveys of facility operators. Table ES-2 summarizes the costs during the initial 20 years (while incurring capital debt service) and over the remainder of the life/term of the facility. Two possible scenarios will affect these costs: 1) disposal of construction and demolition debris in a separate unlined facility; and 2) significant reduction in the disposal stream due to waste prevention and reduction. Subsequent sections include preliminary analysis and additional cost information regarding these two scenarios. It is important to note that these costs should be used for comparative purposes only. In-county landfill development costs will be effected by actual facility design. Out-of--county fees are subject to negotiation and depend on contractual terms such as limitation of liability, delivery guarantees, and term. Social and Political Impact Demographics vary significantly over the range of options. The highest ranking is given for the site located in an area with the lowest minority population .and highest income. Public acceptability of the options is difficult to predict. Generally, if ~Iimited concerns regarding a facility have been expressed, public acceptability is assumed to be good. Also, increased responsibility and control is considered favorable. Because the out-of-county options would require contractual agreements and liability and risk are uncertain, these options are considered less advantageous than the in-county option regarding legal requirements. However, it should be noted that this is based on the uncertainties associated with the liabilities; the in-county option may result in greater long-term liability to the LOG and member governments. NOR/K\~ to790\ E00_+•S.YVP ES-3 06/93 '1'aldc CS-2 Annual Capital and Operating Costs, fly Option (b1SW and C&U Debris) A~t;tlr-ly !(1 CQupt y ~ Facluly ~1, r-trtlt(~r ~ y ' . ati M} ~~ic~l~~~- > ~ ~)r8~i~tlty ~- $ #~ ` ~n~itt l~~ .rte ~ tFttwri~lty ~ (c} Corutruclion Disposal Facility (a) 1,096,400 -- -- -- ~- -- 371,600 Debt Service Transfer Station (b) •- 50,500 SO,S00 SO,S00 50,500 50,500 SO,S00 Facility Disposal Facility 2,234,600 -- -- -- -- -- 215,100 Operating Costs Transfer Station -- 187,000 187,000 187,000 187.000 187,000 187,000 Closure/Post Closure/Future Ccll 881,100 -- -- -- -- -- -- Dcvclopment Facility Equipuieul Debt Service (included 53,800 53,800 53,800 53,800 53,800 53,800 above) Tra~ufer 11au1 Costs (a) -- 835,000 835,000 930,000 1,120,000 1,400,000 0 (d) Facility Disposal Costs -- 3,W3,000 3,276,000 2,730,000 3,243,200 4,368,000 2,808,000 TOTAL (Including Debt Service) 4,212, l00 4,129,300 4,402,300 3,951,300 4,b54,500 6,059,300 3,686,000 TOTAL (Excluding Debi Service) 3,115,700 4,025,000 4,298,U00 3,847,000 4,SS0,200 5,955,000 3,210,100 (e) (a) Assumes disposal of 3S0 TPD tons at per ton fee identified For option. (b) Facility size based on tonnage required for Transfer. (c) Includes in-county C&D disposal facility and cost proposal terms as discussed in Section 9. Facility also includos a mixed waste processing facility that may result in additional diversion. (d) Transfer haul costs arc included in the facility disposal costs. (e) Facility F has indicated in a proposal to a North Carolina public agency that the fixed capital costs would not be applied to the tipping fee after the 21st year of facility operation (which would result in a S17 per ton reduction in the fee at that time). NOR/K\WP\ 10780\EDO-1 ~S.WP ~'4 06/8S ~~ Building a new in-county landfill diverts the greatest amount of land within Orange County. Because a construction and demolition debris landfill must be maintained by the LOG when using Facility F, this loss of land resources in Orange County results in a lower ranking for Facility F. Comprehensivenesg,. Table ES-3 summarizes information collected regarding the comprehensiveness of each option. Generally, because the in-county facility is publicly controlled, more comprehensive programs are assumed to be applied. However, it should be noted that similar programs could be implemented at the transfer station included in the out-of-county options. Table ES-3 Comprehenuiveness, By Option -' •~ i }f~ ~ y'~~ ¢ f ` r ~~~'~~~ f~Y Y n~' r ~Y il~t~t ~ i Landfe8 , < > .-:S\.. R ?}s. ot ~ f a ~ rai~W~ ",~ v~'L•'y~'x^C?'SJZ ~l ~ :~~,~ ~ ,. ; 'Qi,}?,i;i:4:;:; J ~~lates~ai gar~~ > ;;:yiy ~~;~:;:6i. 4.}•-:`. ~yOi ~ ~C ,,M~dw~faF Banned- '.•}•n':.iYii:•~'~~C:~Y.'•:Qayi~~~ii... F' :1i LiY 'ne .! . :•.avY:v:;{~o ~ L:?' t .. : :av l¢ SK ti ^k~F • a o .. y .•2~' . ~ . . ,~ .. }~~ ~?!?.....:: .: ""r k` > • • ` ' ~: ~ .. ,: .. in .~.,'i~x::~ :::. ~:':SW~.:77ocGd.~fi%L~i? .aAfa . s:.. u ..: -. . a.:<.. . .x.. ;:: In-County Yes None Yes Yes Laadfill Facility A CBcD-Yes; Notte Yes limited Yard Waste-No Facility B Yes None Yes Yes Facility C Yes None Yes Yes Facility D No None Yes No Facility E C&D-Yes; None Yes Yes Yard Waste-No Facility F C&D-No; None (est.) Yes Yes Yard Wasie- Yes Integration Because a new collection and reduction system has not yet been established, the level of integration is measured based on the current system and its goals. Therefore, given the similarity of the in-county landfill option with the existing system, this option is considered to provide the greatest ease to integrate. The out-of-county options are subsequently ranked based on alternative material programs that are consistent with the current system's goals. Upon • selection of a revised collection and reduction system, this criterion should be re-evaluated for `, each option. NOR(K:\YY%10T90\E00-t-iYVP ~-5 06/95 i • ... a~wm~aers FracticaL'ty (' The primary components of practicality that differentiate the options are the level and complexity of decision-making requirements and the amount of time already invested in this decision-making process. Siting a new landfill for the in-county option requires an extensive and complex decision-making process when compartd to selecting an existing out-of-county facility. However, significant time has been invested in the in-county option. Summary of ScorinE Recommendations for Using Scores Although the scores reveal some comparative information about disposal options, they must be considered together with the detailed narrative about each option contained in this document. The scores alone do not tell the entire story. In addition to a thorough review of the narrative describing each option, WFSTON has two specific recommendations regarding consideration of the scores. _ 1. Focus on the score of an oprion for a particular criterion, rather than on the total score for an oprion. The option with the highest total score is not necessarily the "best" option. The "best" option will depend on future policy decisions and priorities set by the LOG. For example, if the LOG decides that protection of the environment and public health remains the most important criterion, Option D ranks higher than any other out-of--county option. On the other hand, if economic feasibility is most important, two of the other out-of-county options and the in-county option score higher. 2. The elements in the rest of the solid waste management system may change the scores. For example, if waste reduction, collection, and processing measures are successful in reducing the amount of waste to be disposed by 40 percent per capita by 2001, the relative scores of the disposal options change. The following table summarizes the scoring results of the evaluation of the seven options. NOq/K\N!P\ 10790\EDO-t-3. WP +~-6 00/93 _ Table ES-4 Summary of Scores of Disposal Options ~ ~~)t!f'IOiL ~, ~ ~~>}~ , ~~ttlOt t~~ ~.~JWIs ~ (x ~'~EIOQ Qp~ ~ EiOIL ~q~ ~ ;yyy{ . ~ ~~ yr~ Protection of I7 10 10 IS 16 15 11 Environment and Public Health Consistency with 20 10 15 16 10 14 13 Goals and ObjectiveR •Ecoaomic Feasibility 11 10 9 11 7 4 11 Social and Political 10 9 9 8 10 6 6 Impact Comprehensiveness 10 6 9 9 3 7 4 Integration 10 7 8 7 6 7 3 Practicality 7 6 6 6 6 6 4 Composite Score 85 58 66 72 SS 59 ~ 52 ~~ Special Lssues Several important issues regarding this evaluation include: • Land banking may be desirable when considering the use of a private out-of- county facility. This decision is dependent on the availability of alternatives to the selected option as well as other factors. • Out-of-county facilities generally do not have the same incentives to reduce as the in-county landfill option; however, these incentives could be applied at the transfer station facility. • Given the complexity of legal issues regarding liability, it is difficult to compare the liability associated with the options. NOR/K1~1 t o~90\ EDO_t •S.WP ~ _'~ ~/~ J To: John Link, Counry Manager -~~ From: Gayle Wilson. Solid Waste Management Department Subject: Response to Question on development of transfer station and materials recovery facility Date: November 13, 1997 What is the feasibility of developing a transfer station and a materials recovery facility (ZtiiFt17 including possible costs and sites. Introduction Both a transfer station and a materials recovery facility (MRl7 could be developed at a variety of sites in Orange Counry using any combination of public and private ownership and operation. State and federal siting regulations are far less onerous for these types of facilities than for landfills. Environmental monitoring needs are limited compared to landfills which must monitor for groundwater contamination and methane generation as well as develop long term post-closure plans. The Greene Tract is a possible site for either a transfer station or a materials recovery facility provided that local zoning regulations allow either one or both. Other sites adjoining the existing landfill or throughout the County are also feasible. Sites chosen for transfer stations and MRFs should be near good transportation networks and close_ to the centers of waste generation to achieve efficiency in transportation. Both transfer stations and materials recovery facilities have been built in all types of settings including adjoining residential areas. Either type of facility could be built on 12 to IS acres including ample buffer areas. It is possible to site both facilities on a single parcel that might have to be greater than 12 to 15 acres but not double the siu needed for the individual facilities. Land quality and utility requirements would be similar to that needed for other industrial facilities. Transfer S Cations ~ transfer station is an enclosed facility that consolidates waste from a variety of smaller trucks for reloading into single larger transfer trailers capable of transporting as much as twenty tons of waste to a distant disposal facility. Typically hauls of greater than 20 miles one-way to landfills or other disposal facilities make transfer stations economical. All the private, licensed facilities investigated by WESTON as part of the out-of-county alternatives report issued to the Owners Group in July 1995 were further than twenty miles from Orange County. The private landfill to which Durham plans to ship its waste is over 100 miles away. . Transfer stations are capable of handling both mixed solid waste and construction and demolition wastes, both of which are now received at the Orange Regional Landfill. Ie is somewhat more costly to design a facility capable of handling the construction and 7 demolition waste since that material may be heavier, more abrasive and generate more _ dust thus requiring more durable floors and walls and dust control than a facility for only mixed solid waste. ' Estimatins the cost of a Transfer Station 1=aciliry cost varies with size, number of bays, types of equipment, design and amenities. From discussions with engineering firms who have designed transfer stations recently in North Cazolina and nationally, we believe that a facility of 8,000 to 10,000 square feet with a minimum of two bays would be capable of handling the waste stream of 66,500 tons per year projected to be generated in Orange County by 2006, around the year the current landfill is projected to close. Facility costs could be in the range of 5200 per square foot including~all site development cosu and utilities, but exclusive of land costs. Land costs could be paid out of a fund already established for that purpose. Averaging the projected size at 9,000 square feet and estimating the cost at 5200 per square foot, the capital cost of the facility would be around S 1.80 million. Equipment, according to WE.STON's report could cost another 5300,000. Total capital cost for a transfer station would then be about 52.1 million. The transfer station could be expected to last twenty years with a 1090 annual maintenance cost to replace equipment and floors. Annualized capital cost would then be 51-15,000 over twenty years excluding debt ~~~ service. ~ ~. Operations costs are estimated at 5350,000 to include eight full-time people, utilities, benefits, repairs, leachate collection, and administration to operate approximately the same 54 hours per week that the landfill is now operated. Operating cosu do not include the post~losure monitoring costs estimated by Joyce Engineering at S50,000 annually. By federal law, landfills must be monitored for thirty years after closure. The above-stated costs do not include cost of hauling and tipping at the remote disposal site that would accept waste from the transfer station. Those cosu .range from the 524.05 ger ton thaz the Ciry of Durham recently negotiated with Carolina Container Corporation for hauling and tipping fees to the S27.~0 per ton tipping fee only offered to the Orange Regional Landfill at the Browning Ferris Industries landfill in Sampson County plus hauling costs of S I7.S0 per ton estimated by WESTON in their July 1995 report on out- of-county disposal facilities. Hauling and tipping fen contracu should be negotiated long- term to achieve the lowest prices. The cost model shown in table 1 below assumes that a twenty year contract at fixes prices (adjusted for inflation only) could be negotiated. We note that the proposed new landfill for Orange County is designed as a fifty yeaz facility. All transfer station capital and operating costs, tipping fee, hauling costs and ancillary landfill operations costs could be paid for with tipping fees as the landfill operation is now. If Orange County meets the adopted goal of 619o waste reduction per capita by ,: ~.., L%P 2006, we project that 66,500 tons of mixed solid waste plus construction and demolition - waste will be delivered to the Orange Regional waste disposal facility for transfer to a final disposal site. An average per ton tipping fee would range from $31.80 to 552.75 (See table 1) to cover costs of disposing of this waste and paying post-closure costs. Table 1 Cost of Operating a Transfer Station at Orange Regional Landfill estimated November 199?. Category Cost Annual Cost (in 1997 dollars) Ca ital Cost 52,100,000 5115,500 (20 ears) Annual Operating Costs, $350,000 $350,000 (8 staff) Transfer Station onl Post-closure casts (Joyce S 1,500,000 (30 years) $50,000 En 'eerie ,June 1995) Hauling costs plus tipping $24.05 - 54S per ton $1,599,000 - 52,992,500 fees at remote landfill, based on 66,500 tons per year total waste - Total cost (ti in fee)* $31.80 - 552.75 PER TON 52,114,500 - $3,508,000 ' NOTE: Tip fees do not include t~s to finance programs ocher than transfer station operation and :. post~losure monitoring.. Materials Recovery Facility In adopting an integrated solid waste plan with a goal of 61 °rb waste reduction per capita by 2006, the member govcrnmeats of the Landfill Owners Group included the development of a materials recovery facility to process recyclables from residents and businesses into market-ready commodities.' Such a facility would be capable of handling up to 100 tons per day (25,500 tons per year) of source-separated and commingled recyclable paper, containers and other materials expected to be collected by publicly operated programs. The MRF could be built and operated with a combination of public and private resources. No facility now exists or is planned in the Triangle Region that could process the wide variety of commingled and source-separated materials envisioned in this collection program. We believe such a facility to be necessary to expand recycling efforu sufficiently to reach the 6190 diversion goal. A materials recovery facility would need an arcs of 12 to 15 acres including adequate indoor and outdoor storage, buffers, parking, and access areas. If built in combination with a transfer station for non-recyclable wastes, the facility would need more than 12 acres but less than double the amount for the two facilities built individually. As with a transfer station, a MRF is best Iocated in a area close to the point of materials generation and near good transportation to achieve highest efficiency of moving lazgc amounts of mostly low-value materials. The Greene tract, other areas adjoining the current landfill , 4 or other sites throughout the County would be suitable locations if local zoning is ~ adequate. f Costs of materials recovery facilities vary greatly according to size, degree of automation, design, amenities. Generally the trend in materials recovery facility design is towazds larger facilities with flexibility in design to handle a wider variety of materials and adapt quickly to changing market conditions. There are significant economies of scale .achievable with Iazger facilities. Estimated Cost of Materials Recovery Facility A literature review of existing MRF operations and survey of MRF tipping fees conducted by the Solid Waste Department staff last year came up with an average net tipping fee of approximately 530 per ton to cover operating costs and debt service for a faciIiry lazge enough to process the projected 100 tons per day expected to be recycled by publicly operated programs in Orange County by 2006. .,The range of tipping fees in the survey varied from 512 per ton to 390 per ton. The privately operated materials recovery facility in Mecklenberg Couary charges 336 per ton to process commingled recyclables. Factors affecting the wide variation depended upon the nature of ownership and operation, degree of automation, expected amounts of residue from processing and market conditions for recyclables. . The planning level cost analysis for considering construction of a materials recovery facility uses 330 per ton net processing cost Therefore the cost to process the 25,600 tons of recyclables expected to be collected by programs operated by Orange Community Recycling in the tazget year of 2006 is 5768,000 (See spread sheet on current v. proposed recycling costs attached elswhere in this report). This processing cost is part of the overall cost of operating the recycling and waste reduction system.. If recyclables collected by others are also processed at the MRF, total cost could rise but those new cosu would be covered by the tipping fee collected froth the haulers of the other materials plus the revenues generated from sale of the collected materials. Cost per ton could fall with the increased economies of scale. The projected processing cost of S30 per ton is Iess than the projected cost of a tipping fee at a transfer station or'laadfill, so it is possible that this differential could create an additional incentive to recycle. ORANGE REGIONAL LANDFILL PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE TIME IN MO TASK: 0 fi 12 NTHS FROM NOTICE TO PRO 1fi 2~ CEE 10 D 18 42 4E 54 60 Silp I I dro color Ic Ro od Inhaslrucluro Studios - - Leachale Mana ernonl Slud - Welland Doflncalion' Conceptual Dosign Rovisbns Wetland Allernalivos Analysla Welland Permillinfl _ _ _ - _ _ . . - - Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Slalomenl jEiS) - _ Rovlow of Envlromnonlal Im act Slalomenl Land Usa Devolo monl A rovats Silo SIudJL(Ponni! Application) _ _ _ . _ UEI IIJR Raviow and Responso _ 1'mmil to Consuucl (APPlicallonl Conslruclion Docs. i Bidding Conslruclion' suuwrT~t. or HOTfiS: APPLICATgN ' Actual schodule wIU bo dependonl on soason. 1. Actual Conslruclion lirna is proieclsd to be 0 l0 8 months; addillonal Ilrno la Included to allow for aoasonal dolaya. 2. Dosa not Include potential delays for acqulsUlon, Ullyalbn, or acfminlsUatlvo appeals. 1. Tlmo Irarnos Irrcludo Ilro RFP process for ilorns royulring procurement. r_ ws ~ ' V snei ar ~ s . esr+ rtewsr:o nuc:usT t~flT ~~r ~ ~b f~ncG-w~ut ~ ~~- -7 l DATE: ._....,....1/12!98 MEMO-TO: County Landfill Owrners Group Representatives FROM: John Link,. County Manager - RE: Development°of Materials Recovery Facility Background A materials recovery-facility (MRF) is a key component of the integrated waste management system for Orange County, and will be necessary if diversion targets/goals are to be met (i.e., 45% by 2001 and 61 % by 2006). The need for a MRF was identified in an earlier report from Weston (Final Report, Integrated Solid Waste Management Study, May 1996) and the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan previously adopted by all participating governments. The diversion achieved through the establishment and operation of a MRF will contribute to extending the useful life. of the existing landfill site by approximately one year, based on the implementation schedule presented below. The MRF is required to expand the recycling efforts that will be necessary to achieve the 45% and 61 % diversion goals. , A survey was recently delivered to several neighboring jurisdictions, Orange Regional Landfill users, and other prospective MRF users to determine the level of interest in participating in the development of a MRF and/or delivery of recyclable materials to a MRF established in Orange County. This information will assist in determining the appropriate capacity of the MRF. The estimated capacity required for processing materials generated within Orange County only, including the local municipalities is 100 tons per day. The estimated cost of the MRF has been identified as $30 per ton, including amortized capital costs. A projected schedule for development and construction of the MRF is presented below. Early development, and implementation of the MRF will allow waste diversion rates to be achieved sooner and the useful life of the existing landfill site extended. Greater diversion through the MRF will also reduce future disposal requirements, whether at a new in-county landfill, or to be shipped to an out-of-county landfill via a transfer station. Memo: Development of MRF 1 1/12/98 Potential locations for siting a new MRF include: • Greene Tract • unfilled area of existing landfill site • other unidentified sites Impiementation {fem Date To Be Completed. MRF siting decision by local goveming bodies April 1998 Selection of consultant to assist with facility development June 1998 Finalize contract with consultant July 1998 . Preparation and release of RFP for MRF October 1998 Deadline for RFPs January 1999 Review and evaluation of RFPs March 1999 Selection of preferred RFP for negotiations April 1999 Si n contract July 1999 Completion of facility desi n January 2000 Begin construction March 2000 Complete construction June 2001 Shakedown of facility and equipment July 2001 Begin full operation August 2001 Recommendations In order for the implementation as described above to be accomplished, the following decisions are required: • location of MRF • ownership and operation (i.e., public, private, or public-private partnership) • approval to proceed with selection of consultant and issuance of RFPs for the design and development of MRF The local goveming bodies should make immediate decisions concerning each of the above items. Memo: Development of MRF 2 ~~1y98 SECTION 2 4~s0 . MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Boazd of Commissioners FROM: John Link, County Manager DATE: January 15, 1998 RE: Landfill Community Benefits Issues During the most recent Assembly of Governments meeting on October 22, 1997, the four local governing boards reached consensus on providing nine of fourteen "community benefits" recommended by a working group of LOG members and Eubanks Road Landfill neighbors. Of the two proposed benefits with the largest financial impact, there was also general agreements that one of these, sewer line extensions, should not be pursued. The Boazd of Commissioners indicated that it felt that additional factual information was needed in several areas before well-informed decisions could be made about the other costly proposed benefit, the extension of water lines into the neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Eubanks Road Landfill. Some of that additional information has since been developed and reviewed by the Boazd, including an assessment by a hydrogeology firm regarding the likely migration pattern of leachate, should it leak from the current landfill, and an analysis by the County Engineer of strategies for ascertaining potential leachate impacts on groundwater. Accompanying this memo are two additional sets of documents which provide further information about the Board's questions related to proposed water line extensions. The first (Attachment IV) is analysis by Environmental Health Director Ron Holdway and his staff which indicates that testing of wells in the vicinity of the landfill does not reflect substantial differences in results from drinking water tests in other parts of the County. The second (Attachment V) is a report from Paul Thames on options and estimated costs of additional water testing, and the estimated costs of water line extensions to the various neighborhoods in the landfill vicinity. At this point, there does not appeaz to be evidence that supports a hypothesis that landfill leachate has, or is likely to, adversely impact well water in the vicinity of the landfill. The County and Town Attorneys have concluded (see attached memos VI-A, VI-B, and VI-C, previously distributed, for amplifying information) that it is permissible for local governments to provide water line extensions as a matter of public policy. However, those improvements can be funded by landfill revenue only to the extent that the need for those improvements can reasonably be related to the operation of the landfill. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude at this point that any water line extensions that the local governments may elect to pursue will have to be accomplished with general fund revenue. Based on the County Engineer's estimates of $2,889,000 as the cost of water line extensions to all neighborhoods, and assuming a division of costs based on the landfill ownership interests (other divisions of costs may also be considered) of 43% (Orange County); 43% (Chapel Hill); and 14% (Carrboro), the estimated tax impact for each jurisdiction would be: Orange County $1,242,270 equivalent of 2 cents on ad valorem tax rate Chapel Hill $1,242,270 equivalent of 4.5 cents on ad valorem tax rate Carrboro $404,460 equivalent of 6.3 cents on ad valorem tax rate ~i Of course, other questions also must be answered related to which neighborhoods would be scheduled for water line extensions, and the extent to which (if any), individual property owners would be expected to bear the costs ~f water line construction, plumbing connections, acreage fees, and related costs. The Board may wish to discuss this information at the January 20 meeting and consider sending a letter to the other governing boards. This letter could convey the County's assessment of the information available regarding water line extensions, and ask each of the municipal governing boards to respond with their assessment, and proposed course(s) of action. Attachment VII lays out several of the conclusions and questions the Board may wish to transmit to the other governing boards. ~~~ r Dr. Rosemary L. Summers, Dr.P.H., MPH, Interim Director ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O. Box 8181 -306-C Revero Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 FAX # 919-644-3006 Hillsborough 919.732-8181 x2360 Chapel Hilt 919-968-4501 x2360 REPORT DATE: January 12, 1998 TO: Margaret Brown, Chair, Orange County BOCC FROM: Ron Holdway ~~ COPIES: John Link Rosemary Summers Paul Thames RE: Wells in the Landfill Area Betty Borland Jim Brown, RS Perry Bums, RS Alan Clapp, RS, LSS Greg Grimes, RS David Hecht, RS Mebane 910-227-2031 x2360 Ron Hedrick, RS Ron Hokiway, RS Jan Jackson, RS Tom Konsler, RS Barbara Patterson Wendy Thigpen, RS Durham 91988-7333 x2360 In the ongoing discussions about problems with private wells in the proximity of the current landfill, several issues have surfaced and I will attempt to clarify some of them in this report. This report is generally limited to the Environmental Health staff s direct involvement with the issues or to our scope of programmatic expertise, however several consultants have been contacted for input. BACKGROUND Since 1994, at least 24 different wells on Mill House Road, Eubanks Road, Rogers Road and other lesser roads in the area have been sampled for the presence of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs). Some were sampled as part of the ongoing surveillance of the water wells along the perimeter of the current landfill property and some asked for the service after the LOG offered anyone within 2500 feet of the landfill a courtesy sample in early 1997. Because of the potential public health implications ,all VOC samples have been offered at no charge to the residents and the costs are subsidized out of the County's coffers, specifically the Environmental Health budget. Only one of those sampled wells, the Kirschner well on Mill House Road, has shown any VOC related to the contaminants identified in the landfill monitor wells and the level of the VOC in this well is also the only one considered to pose a health risk over time. It was only last summer that the VOC level in this well increased to the point that it was judged to pose such a risk. The Kirschners, based on the recommendation of a State toxicologist, have since installed a treatment system which effectively lowers the VOC level to the point where it is no longer detectable and therefore not dangerous for normal usage. ivlargaret grown xeport, i-1l-ytf _ . Page 2 _ r` 3 The VOCs identified in other water well samples from the landfill perimeter and beyond are not inexplicable or unexpected in routine sampling. Generally, they are residual chemicals from the well drilling process, glues or their breakdown chemicals used in plumbing, or chlorination by-products. None of these VOCs were found to exceed EPA primary drinking water standards and are deemed safe for normal usage. More recently, concerns were expressed by some of the Rogers Road area citizens about the problems with the potential health effects of their well water.. The concerns I have heard both directly and indirectly centered mainly around bacteriological contamination and the nuisance and health effects of excessive iron in the groundwater. Specifically, the declared effects include staining of fixtures and clothing, sickness, and staining of teeth. Lead poisoning was asserted on at least one occasion, too, but there is no evidence that drinking groundwater has ever been the cause of or even implicated in an elevated blood lead level in Orange County. We have sampled some of those residents' wells for both bacteriological and inorganic chemical quality and, in addition, many of the wells in the Fox Meadow subdivision have been tested over the years. I have included spreadsheets showing the most recent results of all those samples we have on file. The Health Department has offered these analyses for many years as a service to the citizenry for a minimal charge. I have also compiled an assortment of sample results from across Orange County for your consideration. These results are compiled because of the controversy of whether iron in the well is coming from the landfill or is inherent to the groundwater. You already have at least one hydrogeological study delineating groundwater movement in the landfill area. I have attempted to map the location of wells which were sampled in the proximity of the landfill. IRON AND BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER Iron is present at some level in much of the groundwater in Orange County. It is a secondary contaminant by EPA standards, which means in most cases, its effects are aesthetic and not harmful to humans. At higher levels, iron can cause severe staining of plumbing fixtures and clothes as they are washed and can also cause water to be extremely bitter tasting. However, in my research of iron levels in groundwater through State consultants, the reference materials we have in the office, and the Internet, I have not found any source that documents adverse health effects at the highest levels found in the samples from the landfill area. Generally, the highest levels found in the landfill area are in the I.5-2.0 parts per million (PPM) range.. These levels do cause significant staining and taste problems, but are considered to pose minimal or no increased risk for health effects.. I also found no evidence or documentation that iron in groundwater is a cause of teeth staining. The only environmental condition attributable to groundwater I found that causes such staining is excessive fluoride, but. this is a rarity in Orange County. Bacteriological contamination in drinking water can be the cause of disease transmission in humans. Groundwater from individual wells, in particular, is a culprit because of many factors. First, well construction in geologic formations found in Orange County can be complicated because of the highly fractured nature of some of the consolidated rock Compounding this fact is the actual depth to consolidated bedrock varies greatly across the County and, sometimes, even in a localized area Wells just a few feet away from each other will marry times have completely different depths and characteristics. Finally, drinking water from individual wells is rarely disinfected before consumption as it is in community water supplies. ~viargaret tsro wn xeport, i - i ~-y~ page 3 ~~?'.~ The actual origin of bacteriological contamination in individual wells is difficult to identify in most ` situations. Poor well construction or contamination localized to the immediate area of the well are the -~ causes we see in the majority of evaluations we conduct. I don't know of any bacteriological contamination problem in a well in Orange County attributable to a source more than a thousand feet away from the well head. COMPARISON SAMPLES In order to compare the landfill area samples with other samples in the County, three inorganic chemical samples results (the first one in the month, the last one, and the one nearest the middle) from each month in 1997 were chosen. Fortunately, all but one of these included a bacteriological sample also. I don't know the statistical validity of this sampling, but it does give some comparison and relativity in the matter. If you refer to the attached chart of key factors in the comparison of all the sample results, you will see that results from the landfill azea are not significantly different from the other County samples. It is interesting to note that the average iron levels in all the areas exceed the EPA Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level of .3 PPM. SUMMARY While there is no doubt or lack of evidence that VOCs, bacteriological contamination and other inorganic contaminants in groundwater can pose immediate health risks and increased health risks over time, there is, with the exception of the Kirschner well, no indication that residents in the proximity of the landfill are exposed to any more environmental risk from the groundwater than other residents in the Orange County. This conclusion is strictly based on the results of our staffs sampling, consultations with State representatives and staff research efforts, though we will certainly welcome and entertain any other information or sampling results in the matter. Furthermore, we have always and will continue to work with any County resident on problems they may have with their individual well, whether it be a risk or nuisance. Please let me know if you have questions or comments about this report. BACTERIOLOGICAL AND INORGANIC CHEMICAL WATER SAMPLE COMPARISON v ~~ TOTAL : TOTAL 1 HIGHEST MEAN MEDIAN NUMBER NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER IRON IRON IRON OF OF SHOWING AREA OF COUNTY OF LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL SAMPLES POSITIVE BACTER. SAMPLES FOUND FOUND FOUND FOR SAMPLES CONTAM. FOR IRON BACTER. ROGERS ROAD & 22 1.98 PPM .52 PPM .225 PPM 60 11 18.33% FOX MEADOW REST OF COUNTY 36 3.38 PPM .39 PPM .125 PPM 35 12 34.29% TOTAL FOR ALL 58 3.38 PPM .44 PPM .135 PPM 95 23 24.21 °~ SAMPLES PPM -Parts er million The iron levels found below detectable limits were assumed to be 0 PPM for this re ort. LANDFILL AREA VOC SAMPLES OWNER/OCCUPANT ADDRESS VOC COUMPOUNDS FOUND DATES FOUND STANDARDS? UPS Eubanks Rd Kirschner 6806 Mill Ho Rd tert-But I Methyl Ether, Tetra h drofuran 5-31-94,9-16-94,4-10-95 No Blackwood use 6823 Mili House Rd Trichloroeth lens, Tetrachloroeth lene All sam le dates Yes, on 9-24-97 G. Nunn 1621 Eubanks Rd NVF N VF L. Nunn 6917 Mill Hous Rd Kubik e 7106 Mill House Rd NVF NVF Schenle 6714 Mill Hous Rd Franklin e 6710 Mill House Rd Chloroform, trihalomethane, X lene 12-13-95,4-2-96 No NVF McFarlin 6704 Mill House Rd NVF CH Self Store a 1707 Eubanks Rd Friedman Manor HIII Rd NVF N VF Bamard/Richmond Manor Hill Rd Vemer Old NC 86 Chloroform .12/20/94 No NVF Cam bell tert-Butyl Methyl Ether 9/16/94 Came Eubanks Rd No Linn Mill House Rd Tetrahydrofuran 4/10/95 No NVF Presley-Marshall 6009 Mead R C ow un t NVF La on 6816 Mill Ho s Rd u e NVF Baldwin 1709 Purefo D r. NVF Morrow/Clark 7719 Ro ers Rd NVF Freeman 7710 Ro ers Rd g NVF West Purefo Rd NVF Pe ers Purefo Rd NVF Purefo Purefo Rd Chloroform 4/8/97 No •N VF - No Volatile O anics Found N `: . /y -• LANDFILL AREA ~ ~ BACTERIOLOGICAL AND INORGANIC CHEMICAL SAMPLE RESULTS OWNER/APPLICANT ADDRESS TMB BACT IRON PPM Nola Mae West 1702 Purefo Dr 7.18..23 Ne Thelbert Harris 1712 Purefo Dr 7.18..23 Neg Bertha Ro ers 1706 Purefo Dr 7.18..25 Neg Kathleen Schenle 6714 Mill House Rd 7.19..24E Ne 1.98 Jessie La on 6616 Mill House Rd 7.19..25 Pos 1.98 Johnn McFarlin 6704 Mill House 7.19..25E Pos John Mandeville 660 Manor Hill Ct 7.19..25H Pos 0.06 Leonard Friedman #1 Manor Hill 7.19..25) Ne 0.59 S ence Dickinson 6407 Mill House Rd 7.19..26A Ne 0.54 Linda Barnard 1108 Manor Drive 7.19..27 Ne Am Glass Leak 7715 Leak Ln 7.23.C.30 Ne 0.73 Tree Moore 8000 Old 86 7.23.C.31 B Ne Geor a Kircher 6002 Meadow Run 7.23.C.33 Ne Gordon Nixon Lot 4, Meadow Run 7.23.C.35 Ne John Peterson 6008 Meadow Run 7.23.C.36 Ne BDL David Nelson 6010 Meadow Run 7.23.C.37 Ne Timoth Macri Lot 7, Meadow Run 7.23.C.38 Ne Eliz. Presley-Marshall 6009 Meadow Run 7.23.C.40 Ne BDL Leola Booth Rusch Rd 7.23.D.18 Ne La Caldwell 1717 Rusch Rd 7.23.D.21. Ne M rtle Du uis 1509 Tall ho trail 7.23C..12 Ne To s Woods 1714 Ruch Rd 7.23D.19 Pos Karen Reid 8006 Sandber Ln 7.24..4 Ne Arlin Scott 8012 Sandber Ln 7.24..4E Ne 1.75 PPM -Parts er million BDL -Below detectable li mits :1 FOX MEADOW ~ BACTERIOLOGICAL AND INORGANIC CHEMICAL SAMPLE RESl1~Ts OWNER/APPLICANT ADDRESS TMB BACT IRON PPM George Plo hoft 8212 Huntsman Ct 7.23C..2 Pos Ann Taft 8220 Huntsman Ct 7.23C..4 Ne Debra Levin 8222 Huntsman Ct 7.23C..5 Ne Robert Holzknecht 8223 Huntsman Ct 7.23C..6 Ne 1.47 Ma Jane Youn Suzanne Allen 8221 Huntsman Ct 8217 Huntsmmn Ct 7.23C..7 7.23C..8 Neg Ne 0.32 Doroth Wri ht 8211 Huntsman Ct 7.23C..9 Ne Ka Hen eveld 1515 Tall ho Tr 7.23C..11 Ne Michael Green 1522 Tall ho Tr 7.23C..14 Pos Laura Crow Tall ho Tr Lot 15, sect 7.23C..15 Neg K le Kalkowski 8102 Lair Ct 7.23C..17 Pos 0.33 Te Domin uez 8101 Lair Ct. 7.23C..19 Ne James Bateson 8105 Lair Ct 7.23C..20 Ne Sarah Mansfield 1414 Tall ho Tr 7.23C..21 Ne BDL Michelle Alzola 1408 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..1 Ne 0.11 Erwin Gutzwiller 1310 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..3 Ne Jame Mazzola 1212 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..5 Ne Be Reinheimer 1208 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..6 Ne 0.13 Karen Dold 1203 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..7 Ne ~~ ~~+~ ~d ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ i an no i r 7.23D..9 Ne Don We el 1311 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..11 Ne BDL Mark Little 1315 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..12 Ne Shannon Julian 1204 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..16 Ne Geor a Clark 1102 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..21 Ne Sand Bisdee 1016 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..22 Pos 1.01 Laura Mann 1014 Bu le Ct 7.23D..26 Ne 0.11 Kenneth Meardon 1008 Bu le Ct 7.23D..27 Pos Philli Goldstein 1010 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..30 Ne Timoth Grood 918 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..33 Ne BDL Nathan Berolzheimer 910 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..34 Ne Jan Stoddard 903 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..36 Ne 0.34 Ben'amin Barker 8107 Kit Ln 7.23D..37 Pos Fa a Carson 8112 Kit Ln 7.23D..38 Pos BDL Pe Genova 8100 Kit Ln 7.23D..39 Ne Michael Cam bell 8106 Kit Ln 7.23D..39A Ne BDL Michael Chitwood 1003 Tall ho Tr 7.23D..41 Ne PPM -Parts er million BDL -Below detectable li mits r REST OF COUNTY BACTERIOLOGICAL AND INORGANIC CHEMICAL SAMPLE RESULTS OWNER/APPLICANT ADDRESS TMB BACT IRON PPM ~1 Donna Miller 5104 Gra Rd 1.2..4J Pos 0.17 Jackie Heron 9415 NC57 1.5..3 Neg 2 Fa Kirb 2617 Carr Store Rd 2.32..43A Pos 0.66 Peter Fast 4402 Arrowhead Tr 2.38C..9 Ne 0.38 L nne Ta for Ben Wilson Rd 3.47..16 Pos 0.16 Blanche S kes 2923 Chestnut Rid a Rd 3.56..4 Pos 0.51 Charles Troutman 1601 Doe Run Rd 3.6..21 Ne 0.08 William Me er 1108 Te Rd 5.10..14D Pos 0.51 Tec_+ .Martin 7205 Schle Rd 5.10..43 Ne 0.1 Katherine Johnson 107 Martin Ct 5.11A..26 Pos 0.14 Michael L don 1415 Meadow Wind Ln 5.13..32 Ne BDL Donald Tille 5811 Cole Mill Rd 5.17..256 Ne 0.58 Rex Gentle 3518 Bluestone Ct 5.27..45 Ne 0.07 Ted Williams 3711 Linden Rd 5.27..7A Ne 0.14 Courtne Cline 3010 Hawk Rid a Rd 6.22C..11A Ne BDL Elizabeth Towns 4111 Shadow Wood Ln 6.3..28 Ne BDL Rebecca Torres 100 Eas St 6.44..4 Ne 1.43 Dennis Ha erman 4333 Carria a Rd 7.1..258 Ne 0.05 Marc Fritz 105 Winsome Ln 7.108..40) Ne 0.19 Deborah Pedersen 514 Gibbon Dr 7.1108..21 Ne BDL Robert Flewellin 9311 Laurel S rin s Rd 7.110C..21 Ne BDL Ste hen Treimel 1215 Timoth Ln 7.112..12 Pos BDL James Garzanelli 9417 Bethel Hicko Gr Rd 7.112..32C Ne BDL Daniel Textoris 1609 Jones Fe Rd 7.116H..6 0.52 Delano Bliem 108 Mel Oaks Dr 7.118D..5 Pos 0.32 Marshall Bowden 612 Cedar Run Ln 7.120..20P Ne BDL Christie Boros Mountain Creek Rd 7.13..2 Ne 1.28 Philli Cook 1220 Mountain Creek Rd 7.14..138 Ne 3.38 Lavonne Allen 105 Mimosa Dr 7.16D. B.5 Pos 0.17 Vir inia Guilfoile 106 Stone Creek Ct 7.16F..7 Ne BDL Janet Lamb 2138 Doar Rd 7.19..7G Pos 0.11 Ann Driscoll 2139 Doar Rd 7.19..7M Ne 0.08 Piedmont Electric Union Grove Ch Rd 7.22..4H Pos 0.06 Earl Miles 4900 Cornwallis Rd 7.5..13 Ne BDL Christina Cheatham 4801 Ta Root Ln 7.6..84 ~ Ne 0.1 James Kirk atrick 5206 NC 86 7.8..11 Pos 0.99 PPM -Parts er million BDL -Below detectable li mits Iron and Manganese in Household water HE-394 http://www2.ncsu.edu/b...blicat/wgwm/he394.htm1 .- ~ .. ~ v- ~~ N Iron and Manganese in Household water Prepared by: Glenda M. Herman, Extension Housing Specialist e Published by: North Carolina Cooperative Extension service Publication Number: HE-394. Last Electronic Revision: March 1996 (JWM) Iron and manganese are minerals found in drinking water supplies. These minerals wil they may cause reddish-brown or black stains on clothes or household fixtures. Under public water supplies set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), iron and man considered secondary contaminants. Secondary standards apply to substances in water offensive taste, odor, color, corrosion, foaming, or staining but have no direct aff standard Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for iron is 0.3 milligrams per 1 ppm) and 0.05 mg/L for manganese. Private water supplies are not subject to federal standards can be used as guidelines to evaluate the quality of water from wells or s The four forms of iron and manganese commonly found in drinking water are ferrous, f iron bacteria. Normally, water appears clear when first drawn from the cold water fa it may contain ferric iron or organic iron. soth color the water. Ferric iron precip organic iron does not settle out. In well water, insoluble iron oxide is converted t ferrous (dissolved) iron. Ferrous iron is colorless, but when in contact with air, i creating reddish- brown, solid particles that then settle out as ferric oxide. Manga but forma a brownish-black precipitate and stains. Manganese~is less commonly found than iron, rarely found alone in a water source, and generally found with dissolved Health considerations -The presence of iron and manganese in water is not considered health problem. In fac -concentrations are essential to human health. However, high concentrations of iron m 1 of 5 12/30/97 12:13:09 unpleasant metallic taste while still being safe to drink. When iron combines with tea, coffee, and ~ ~ alcoholic beverages, it produces an unappetizing inky, black appearance and a harsh, offensive taste. Vegetables cooked in iron-contaminated water turn dark and look unappetizing. ,:_ Iron bacteria (a harmless bacteria), occur in soil, groundwater, and some surface waters. Iron bacteria are considred harmless to health, how- ever, they may give water an off taste or color, cause splotchy yellow stains on laundry, and clog water systems. Iron bacteria usually appear as stringy, slimy, mucous-like substances sus- pended in fresh water and may be colored brown, red, or white. They thrive on iron in the sink or metal parts of the water system and are most easily seen on the inside surface of the toilet tank. Testing A water analysis should be done to determine the source of the iron and manganese. Iron and manganese may be present in the water supply or be caused by corroding pipes (iron or steel). Iron from pipe corrosion indicates low pH that may need to be corrected. A water treatment equipment company or testing laboratory can test water for dissolved or oxidized iron or manganese. Call the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service center in your county or the public health office for names of laboratories that perform tests for colloidal or organic-complexed iron and manganese. Ask the testing laboratory how to collect a water sample for an iron and manganese test. Generally, you should take the sample from the faucet closest to the pump. Allow the water to run for 5-10 minutes before sampling to obtain fresh water that has not been exposed to air. Do not sample water that has gone through a water heater or a water treatment unit such as a softener. If the water is clear when first drawn, but red or black particles appear after the water settles, dissolved iron and manganese are present. If the water has a red tint but no particles settle out after a time, colloidal iron is the cause. Reddish brown or black brown slimy masses inside the toilet tank indicate iron or manganese bacteria. Laboratory tests are recommended in all cases to determine iron and manganese concentrations. Treatment Iron and manganese treatment should be based on a chemical analysis of the water show- ing the type and concentration present. There are five treatment methods for the removal of iron and manganese from home water systems. WATER SOFTENER (CATION EXCHANGE) A water softener can remove small amounts of ferrous iron and manganese. Iron and manganese in untreated water are flushed from the softener medium (ion exchange) by backwashing (forcing sodium-rich water back through the unit). This process adds sodium to the resin medium, and iron and manganese are carried away in waste water. The amount of iron and manganese a softener can remove depends on the water properties, the types of regeneration and backwash controls, and the ion exchange resin or zeolite used. You must maintain a clean resin bed by frequent and thorough backwashing and regeneration. Manufacturer literature should be carefully studied and system set-up and operation instructions followed. Caution: Water softeners treat hard water by adding sodium to the water, a health concern for people on sodium-restricted diets. For this reason, you may want to connect a softener only to the hot water line leaving cold, unsoftened water for cooking and drinking. In iron and manganese removal, the softener must treat both hot and cold water . - since sinks, laundry, and dishwashing equipment are affected. A separate tap can be installed to provide unsoftened water for cooking and drinking. ~~ AERATION Dissolved iron and manganese aze easily oxidized to a solid form by mixing with air. A pressure aerator mixes air with the water, the air is vented, and then the solid particles are filtered from the water.. This method adds no chemicals to the water and is most effective in-warm climates. The filter must be backwashed frequently to properly maintain the system. To protect the water from contamination by bacteria in the air, the system should be totally enclosed and only biologically safe water should be used. The appropriate pumping capacity must be maintained for adequate air intake. O7GDIZING (CATALYST) F]LTER When the total combined iron and manganese concentration is less than 15 mg/l, an oxidizing filter (natural managanese greensand, manufactured silica gel zeolite coated with manganese dioxide, plastic resin beads, or pumicite), is recommended. Some filters aze coated with a manganese oxide and aze regenerated by using a potassium permanganate solution. An oxidizing filter supplies oxygen to convert ferrous iron into a solid form which can be filtered out of the water. Frequent backwashing and stirring of a manganese greensand bed helps prevent aniron-fouled bed. After several weeks of use, the greensand filter should be backwashed with potassium permanganate to remove solid particles and regenerate (recoat) the greensand to allow absorbation of more dissolved minerals. Synthetic filters, such as zeolite, requires less backwash water and softens the water as it removes the iron and manganese. CHLORINATION AND FILTRATION When the iron and manganese content of the water is extremely high (above 10 ppm), a combination of chemical treatment and filtration is necessary. Small chemical pumps aze used to add chlorine bleach, potassium permanganate, or hydrogen peroxide into the water. After a retention time of at least 20 minutes to-allow for oxidation of ferrous iron into the insoluble ferric form, the solid particles are filtered out. When chlorine is used, the treated water can have an unpleasant taste if a particle filter of calcite, sand, anthrocite, or aluminum silicate is used. Use an activated cazbon filter to remove both excess chlorine and solid iron and manganese particles. Backwash frequently. Some units have an automatic backwash cycle. OTI~R TREATMENTS Complexation is a simple and low cost method for removing iron and manganese up to 3 mg/L. A phosphate compound is added to the water to complex (tie up) the dissolved iron or manganese. However, adding phosphates to water supplies is not allowed by law in North Carolina. ff organic-complexed or colloidal iron/ manganese is present in the untreated water, a longer contact time and higher levels of chemical are necessary for the oxidation reaction to take place. Aluminum sulfate (alum) eases filtration by causing larger iron/manganese particles to form. A multistage treatment operation may be necessary if your water has high levels of iron and manganese and they are in both the dissolved and solid forms. For example, the water could first be aerated, than chlorinated to oxidize residual iron and kill iron bacteria, and then filtered through a mechanical device to remove particles. This can be followed by activated carbon filtration to remove excess chlorine and a water-softener for hardness control as well as removal of any residual dissolved iron and manganese. Summary of Treatment Options for Iron and Manganese Symptom Cause Treatment Water clear when drawn, Dissolved iron or Water softener (less than 5 mg/L of reddish-brown or black particles manganese. iron) appear as water stands; reddish- Aeration (less than 25 mg/L of iron). brown or black stains on fixtures Oxidation/Filtration (less than 15 or laundry. mg/L of iron plus manganese). Chlorination-Filtration (greater than 10 mg/L of iron). Water contains reddish-brown Iron particles from Raise pH with neutralizing filter that particles when drawn; particles corrosion of pipes also filters particles. settle out as water stands. and equipment. Water contains reddish-brown Oxidized iron, Particle filter cif quantity of oxidized or black particles when drawn; manganese, or both material is lvgh, use lazger filter than particles settle out as water due to exposure of in line, e.g. sand fifilter). stands. water to air prior to tap. Reddish-brown or black slime Iron bacteria. Kill bacteria masses by shock treat- appears in toilet tank or from Manganese bacteria. ment with chlorine or potassium faucet. permanganate, then filter; may re- quire continuous feed of chlorine or potassium permanganate, then filter. Reddish or black color that Colloidal iron, Chemical oxidation with chlorine or remains after 24 hours. manganese, or both. potassium permanganate. Organic-complexed iron, manganese, or both. Summary Iron and manganese are common household water contaminants with no known direct health effects at levels found in water. Their presence may cause staining and offensive tastes and odors. Treatment of these secondary contaminants de pends on the form in which they occur, and the levels of concentration. Iron and manganese removal, bacteria cocrtrol, water softening and treatment for any other contamination may be separate problems, yet they must be considered together. Accurate testing is important prior to selection of a treatment system. The table on page 3 may help you identify and determine treatment(s) for iron and manganese in household water supplies. i3 ~~ References :~ Kolega, Jd~t~.r Conditioning and Treatment ofRaai~ l~aii.~a Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service. 1989. Machmeier, Rb~r~.DrinkinA~aity of Minrkesota Agricultu 1971. Plowman, Fend MansBheet 5. University of New Hamps Extension Service. 1989. Wagnet, Linda and ~inw~iaa~l~anganese in Hob~6e~Cor Cooperative Extension. 1989. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Con ress of May 8 and J pro ram opp~~ortunities,are offered to all, eopp~e re ardless of race, disa~ili~y. lY~orth Carolina State Universi~y,lVorth~arolina A&T Agriculture, and local governments cooperating. HE-394 Back up o eturn WM Ho ~~s Page Chemical Analysis of Farm Water supplies http://www.agric.gov.a...dex/700/16d04.htm1#top rrGG~•r ~ yam, +4GRi0UlTUPE, FAGO ANO RIRAI O~VELO~MI MT [Alberta Agriculture. Food and Rural Development Home Page] Chemical Analysis of Farm Water Supplies Adapted Aram A=de:716 (D04) Pnbllshed April 1991 ~C 9S .; A routine chemical analysis tests the water for 15 chemical parameters. It will reveal the hardness and iron concentration as well as the presence of other chemicals such as chlorides,. sulphates, titrates and nitrites. Chemicals, other than those listed below, can be tested but arrangements should be made with the lab before the sample is submitted. These special requests' must be clearly specified on the request form. Your farm water supply should be analyzed whenever a new water source is constructed, or when a change in water quality is noticed. Your local health unit can provide you with the necessary water sample containers. Water samples specifically for human consumption must be submitted to the health unit. The water sample you take should be representative. Choose an outlet as close to the source as possible. For most domestic samples, allow the water to run through the faucet for about five minutes and then fill the sample container. Once you have obtained a good water sample, take it to your local health unit for forwazding to the appropriate laboratory. After the laboratory analysis is completed, the health inspector or technologist will receive a copy of the analysis and will be able to help you interpret the results. Water Quality Criteria It is not essential for private supplies to meet these guidelines. People have different reactions and tolerances to different minerals. If any chemical in your water exceeds drinking water limits consult you family doctor or local health unit. All levels listed below (except pITj aze listed in parts per million (ppm). 'Many labs report results in milligrams/Litre (mg/L), which is equivalent to ppm. Sodium Sodium is not considered a toxic metal, and 5,000 to 10,000 milligrams per day are consumed by normal adults without adverse effects. The average intake of sodium from water is only a small fraction of that consumed in a nonmal diet. Persons suffering from certain medical conditions such as hypertension may require a sodium restricted diet, in which case the intake of sodium from drinking water could become significant. Sodium levels as low as 20 ppm are sometimes a concern to them. A maximum level of 300 ppm sodium has traditionally been used as a guideline but the "Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality" list no maximum acceptable concentration. 1 of 4 12/31/97 08:52:29 a+..pplles nLLp:iiwww.agr.ic.gov.a...dex/100/16a04.htm1#top ~o Sodium is a significant factor in assessing water for irrigation and plant watering. High sodium levels affect soil structure and a plant's ability to take up water. Potassium 's Potassium is usually only found in quantities of a few ppm in water. There is no recommended limit for potassium but levels over 2,000 ppm may be harmful to human nervous systems. Alberta water supplies rarely contain more than 20 ppm. Calcium Calcium is one cause of "hardness" in water. Calcium is not a hazard to health but is undesirable because it may be detrimental for domestic usas such as washing, bathing and laundering. It also tends to cause encrustations in kettles, coffee makers and water heaters. 200 ppm is often considered an acceptable limit. Magnesium Magnesium is another constituent causing "hardness" in water. A suggested limit of 150 ppm is used because of taste considerations. Iron Iron levels as low as 0.2 to 0.3 ppm will usually cause the staining of laundry and plumbing fixtures. The presence of iron bacteria in water supplies will often cause these symptoms at even lower levels. Iron gives .water a metallic taste that may be objectionable to some persons at one to two ppm. Most water contains less that five ppm iron but occasionally levels over 30 ppm are found. Iron and iron bacteria are not considered a health concern. Sulphate (SOa) Sulphate concentrations over 500 ppm can be laxative to some humans and livestock. Sulphate levels over 500 ppm may be a concern for livestock on marginal intakes of certain trace minerals. Very high levels of sulphates have been associated with some brain disorders in cattle and pigs. Chloride Due to taste considerations the suggested maximum level for chloride is 250 ppm. Most water in Alberta contains less than 20 ppm chloride, although chloride in the 2,000 ppm range can be found. NOz Nitrogen (Nitrite) Due to its toxicity, the maximum acceptable concentration of nitrite in drinking water is one ppm. Ntrite is usually an indicator of very direct contamination by sewage or manure because nitrites are unstable and quickly become nitrates. The concentration in livestock water should not exceed 10 ppm. of 4 ~ 12/31/97 08:52:33 Chemical Analysis of Farm Water Supplies http://www.agric.gov.a...dex/700/16d04.htm1#top `7 •- NO3 Nitrogen (Nitrate) Nitrates are also an indicator of contamination by human or livestock wastes, excessive fertilization or s seepage from dump sites. The maximum acceptable concentration in drinking water is 10 ppm. The figure is based on the potential for the nitrate poisoning of infants. Adults can tolerate higher levels but high nitrate levels may cause irritation of the stomach and bladder. The suggested maximum for livestock use is 1,000 ppm. Fluoride Fluorides occur naturally in most well waters and are desirable since they help prevent dental cavities. Between one and 1.5 ppm is desirable. As fluoride levels increase above this amount there is an increase in the tendency to cause tooth mottling. Fluoride levels less than four ppm are not considered a problem for livestock. TDS Inorganic (Total Dissolved Solids) This is a measure of the inorganic minerals dissolved in the water. As a general rule less than 1,000 ppm TDS is considered satisfactory. Levels higher than this aze not necessarily a problem; it depends on the specific minerals present. The suitability for livestock deteriorates as TDS exceeds the 2,000 to 3,000 ppm range. Conductivity Conductivity is measured in micro siemens per centimetre. It can be used to estimate the total dissolved solids in the water. Multiplying the conductivity by 0.65 will give a good approximation of the total dissolved solids. Conductivity tests are often used to assess water suitability for irrigation. pH pH is a measure of how acidic or basic the water is. The pH scale goes from zero (acidic) to 14 (basic) with seven being neutral. The generally accepted range for pH is 6.5 to 8.5 with an upper limit of 9.5. Hardness The hazder the water is the greater its ability to neutralize soap suds. Hardness is caused primarily by calcium and magnesium, but is expressed as ppm equivalent of calcium carbonate. Hard water causes soap curd which makes bathroom fixtures difficult to keep clean and causes greying of laundry. Hazd water will also tend to form scale in hot water tanks, kettles, piping systems, etc. 3 of 4 12/31/97 08:52:34 °"Oy `"'YYyyC~ nc~p:/iwlwW.agrl,c.CJOV.a...QEX/ /UU/1bQU4.(1tII11$tOp T e of Water Amount of Hardness ppm grains per gallon Soft 0- 50 0-3 Moderatel Soft 50 - 100 3-6 Moderatel Hard 100 - 200 6-12 Hard 200 - 400 12- 23 Ve Hard 400 - 600 23 - 35 Extremel Hard Over 600 Over 35 Alkalinity ~~ -_ Alkalinity is not a specific substance but rather a combined effect of several substances. It is a measure of the resistance of a water to a change in pH. The alkalinity of most Alberta waters is in the range of 100 - 500 ppm, which is considered acceptable. Water with higher levels is often used. Alkalinity is a factor in corrosion or scale deposition and may affect some livestock when over 1,000 ppm. Water Treatment Water treatment equipment can often improve water quality significantly. Each type of water treatment equipment has its limitations and thus should be selected carefully. For more information on water treatment please refer to the Agdex 71 6 D series of fact sheets. Helpful Conversions 1 ppm (part per million) = 1 mg/L (milligam per litre) 1 gpg (gain per gallon) = 17.1 ppm (parts per million) References Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (1987) Health and Welfare Canada v [ Top Of Document ] [ Alberta Agriculture. Food and Rural Development Home Page J Tbis information is maintained by: Darcv ~tz¢erald Copyright O 1996. Her M.Jah tLe Qocep m the Right orAl6erta. AD rl=hb ssaervcd. Let Psvhed/Revlewed Jano.ry 14,19% of 4 ~ 12/31/97 09:52:35 ' ~_ !1 MEMORANDUM TO: County Commissioners John Link, County Manager FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer DATE: January 12, 1998 SUBJECT: Landfill impacts on well water quality, sampling and analyses of landfill vicinity well water and costs of providing municipal water service as a community benefit As per the request of the County Manager, I have reviewed and evaluated a number of reports and other sources of information related to the above referenced subject(s). This information includes: 1) the October 1997 Hazen & Sawyer report on the cost of extending water and sewer utilities into the landfill vicinity; 2) the November 1997 Buxton Environmental ground water risk assessment report on landfill leachate; and 3) various memoranda and other materials provided by the Environmental Health Section of the Orange County Health Department related to well water quality testing in the landfill vicinity and throughout the County at large. In general, the Buxton landfill leachate report indicates that leachate will move towazd and eventually surface in three natural drainage channels that cross the landfill and border it on the north and south. The channels combine into one creek just east of the landfill and that creek drains away from the landfill to the east. The probability that leachate from the landfill could or would: a) cross under one or more drainage divides to move away from the landfill and toward other areas up-gradient from the drainage divides: or b) move vertically or sharply downwazd (as opposed to horizontally or laterally) into the deeper drinking water aquifers is extremely slight. Furthermore, ongoing drinking well water quality testing in the landfill vicinity by County Environmental Health staff has indicated that, except in one situation, tested wells in the area have shown any evidence of contamination by landfill leachate . Tests show that these wells have not been affected by water quality problems at any greater rate or degree than those in other azeas of the County. One landfill azea well, that which serves the Kirchner home on Millhouse Road, does show evidence of VOC (volatile organic compounds -chemicals such as solvents that are common constituents of landfill leachate) contamination at health risk levels. However, the Kirchner home is both up-gradient and more than 1000 feet north of the landfill. It is in an azea that, according to contemporary hydro-geological theory and experience, should not be affected by the movement of leachate from the landfill. There aze a number of other potential sources or causes for the VOC contamination of the Kirchner well. For instance, the Kirchner well may have been contaminated by the leaching of oil and solvents that were commonly sprayed on unpaved roads to control dust in yeazs past prior to the regulatory prohibition of the practice. In the event that local government or LOG policy makers wish to obtain additional information regarding the water quality in the landfill vicinity's drinking water wells, a more systematic and comprehensive well water sampling and analysis program can be undertaken. All or some statistically S ,~ ~ d valid sampling (subject to the permission and cooperation of the owners) of the water supply wells in the neighborhoods adjacent to or near the landfill, can be subjected to an initial screening for VOC contamination. The azeas or neighborhoods screened may also be limited to those which lie in the direction of leachate plume movement indicated in the Buxton landfill leachate report. Regazdless of the sampling program, the initial screening process can be undertaken by the County's Environmental Health staff (with the concurrence of the Orange County Boazd of Health) or by some private sector consultant with water sampling expertise and laboratory water quality analysis capabilities. Those wells which show no VOC contamination, even if the presence of iron or naturally occurring metals aze detected, can be reasonably assumed to be currently unaffected by any constituent of landfill reachate. In the event that one or more of the wells tested show evidence of VOC contamination, the presence of one or more VOC compounds may indicate contamination by landfill leachate. As there aze other sources of VOC contamination, including very localized contamination of well water through surface water infiltration and inflow into improperly constructed wells, all- wells showing VOC contamination would be cazefully re-examined. Older wells or those for which no accurate well construction information exists could also be examined by means of inserting a video camera into the well. New water samples from contaminated wells would be acquired and tested both to confirm the VOC results of the initial screening test and to look for the presence of tracer materials or elements such as boron and detergents or other indicators. Presence of these tracer materials or indicators, which are not naturally occurring in this azea but aze commonly associated with highly mobile components of landfill leachate, would be a strong indication of contamination by landfill leachate. If landfill leachate contamination were confirmed in one or more wells, other wells located in a pattern radiating outwazd from the landfill and the contaminated well(s) would be tested to try to define the size and direction of the leachate plume. The information could then be used to help determine: 1) if and where an extension of a municipal water distribution network would be justified to overcome landfill related water quality problems: and 2) if associated costs could be chazged as landfill operation related expenses. The cost of the testing program, if undertaken by County Environmental Health staff with lab work for the initial screening provided by the state environmental health lab, is estimated to be approximately $30,000. The cost of a similaz testing program undertaken by private consultants and labs is estimated to be approximately $70,000. There aze a number of caveats that aze applicable to the strategy outlined above. The primary assumption that provides for the savings in the County Environmental Health controlled testing program is that there aze very few, if any, existing wells that aze contaminated with landfill leachate. Each of the initial screening tests conducted by the state lab will cost in the $100 to $150 range. Follow-up testing by a private lab capable of detecting boron or other indicators will cost as much as $400 to $500 per sample. Video inspection of wells also costs approximately $500 per well. If more than ten percent of the wells screened (assuming 140 wells initially screened) require additional testing or inspection, the final costs would rise very quickly. It is assumed that a private firm would chazge $500 each for sampling and testing each well and that there would be no initial screening process as the boron and other indicators would be tested for in the initial analyses. There aze three other potential caveats that have been cited by Ron Holdway, Director of the County's Environmental Health Section. The first is that there is a conceivable liability involved in an invasive inspection (video) of wells where there is a potential for actual or perceived damage to the well or its piping, wiring or pump. The second is that participation in the testing and inspection process by the Environmental Health Section could result in some sort of enforcement action related to observed septic tank system malfunctions at any housing or -- ~ O non-residential unit or to poor well water quality in rental units. The third caveat is that while the County Environmental Health staff can conduct the initial screening process at a very reasonable cost, process will proceed at a fairly slow pace. This is because the state lab is unable to analyze more than approximately twenty water samples per week. In the event that the sampling program indicates the need to extend municipal water service to the azea or that policy makers determine to extend service as a health insurance policy of sorts, the Hazen & Sawyer report contains the information by which extension costs can be estimated. The attached tables (Tables 1 through 8) show those total and breakdown costs - construction as well as plumbing and capital facilities fees -for each neighborhood surrounding the landfill. All of the water lines proposed in the Hazen & Sawyer report and shown on the report's maps were not included in these tables. For example, none of the water lines proposed solely to provide service to currently undeveloped land - or the landfill itself - have been included in the attached tables. Although desirable from a utility operational perspective, the proposed 42001ineaz feet of 16" diameter water main connecting the distribution systems serving the northern (Eubanks and Millhouse Road neighborhoods) with the systems serving the southern (Rogers Road, Fox Lair and Meadow Run neighborhoods) service azeas has likewise not been included. Accordingly, the construction-only cost total for those water lines which would serve all neighborhoods in the study area is approximately $500,000 less than that shown in the Hazen & Sawyer Report. The numbers of residences and building units which serve as the basis for the capital facilities fee cost total estimates have been derived from existing County Land Records data. In some cases, this data may be outdated, and more residences and building units may exist than are estimated. All costs aze estimated based on assumptions about existing utility construction conditions, average lot sizes and distances between building units and individual water service meters. I hope that I have provided information and analysis that you will find useful. If I may provide additional information or clarification, please advise. Table 1 ~.~ /~~ Water Service Community Benefit Costs for the Neighborhoods in Vicinity of the Orange County Regional Landfill Neighborhood Existing Units Served Total Construction Cost Total Cost of Plumbing and OWASA Fees Total Combined Costs .Historical Rogers Road 70 •~ $516,500 . ; $280,000 . . .: ... -$796,500 _ _ -. Fox Lair/Talley Ho Trail 90 $389,000 $315,000 $704,000 Meadow Run 9 $73,000 - ; ' $31,500 ~ ~- '$104,500 Eubanks Road 11 $451,000 $55,000 $506,000 Millhouse Road 17 $329,000 $85,000 $414,000 Manor Ridge 6 $97,000 $30,000 $127,000 Heartwood 24 $153,000 $84,000 $237,000 Totals 227 $2,008,500 $880,500 $2,889,000 Table 2 -- 1 b~ Water Service Community Benefit Cost for the Historical Rogers Road ' Neighborhood Rogers Rd., Rusch Rd., Purefoy Rd., Priscilla Ln., Sandburg Ln. Line segment location Lwe segment cost Line segment # designation azen & Sa er Re rt Rogers Road from Talley Ho to just south of $226,000 1 Meadow Run Purefoy Road $35,000 6 Purefoy Road $43,000 7 Sandburg Lane $39,000 8 Cross-county north and west from Purfoy Road, $124,000 9 south on Priscilla Lane to Rodgers Road Rusch Road $36,000 10 Cross-country east from Rogers Road near north $5,000 51 end Cross-country north-east from Rogers Road near $8500 not shown in Hazen & north end (to serve B.G. Carney home on Sawyer report -proposed Eubanks Road. service to Carney home from Eubanks Road line Total Construction Cost for Rogers Road $516,500 neighborhood Plumbing costs and OWASA fees for 70 $280,000 existing units Q, $4000 per unit Total of All Costs for the Rogers Road $796,500 neighborhood Tahlp ~ -- Water Service Community Benefit for the Fox Lair/Talley Ho Trail Neighborhood Talley Ho Tr., Huntsman Ct., Lair Ct., Bungle Ct., Kit Ln., Reynard Rd., Brace Ln., N. Hound Ct. and S. Hound Ct. Line Segment Location Line segment cost Line segment # designation (Hazen & Sawyer Report Talley Ho Trail $18,000 12 Talley Ho Trail $17,000 14 Talley Ho Trail $21,000 16 Talley Ho Trail $101,000 ~ 19 Talley Ho Trail $33,000 20 Talley Ho Trail $27,000 21 Huntsman Court $24,000 13 cross-county southwest of Talley Ho Trail $8,000 15 Lair Court $6,000 17 cross-county northeast of Talley Ho Trail $6,000 18 Bungle Court $10,000 28 Kit~Lane $8,000 22 Reynazd Road $28„000 23 Reynazd Road $33,000 25 Brace Lane $12,000 24 North Hound Court $28,000 26 South Hound Court $9,000 27 Total Constriction Cost for Foz LairrTally Ho Trail Neighborhood $389,000 Plumbing costa and OWASA fees for 90 ezisting units Q $3500 per unit $315,000 , Total of All Costs for the Foz Lair/Tally Ho Trail Nei hborhood $704,000 I~ `~ Table 4 '- ~~ Water Service Community Benefit for the Meadow Run Neighborhood Meadow Run Court Line Segment Location Line segment cost Line segment # designation (Hazen & Sawyer Report Rogers Road (segment at the north end) $20,000 300' portion of segment 2 Meadow Run Court $53,000 11 Total Construction Cost for Meadow Run $73,000 Neighborhood Plumbing costs and OWASA fees for 9 $31,500 existing units (a3 $3500 per unit . Total of All Costs for. the Meadow Run $104,500 Neighborhood Table 5 -- i E=;~, Water Service Community Benefit for the Eubanks Road Neighborhood (east of landfill) Eubanks Road Line Segment Location Line segment cost Line segment # designation (Hazen & Sawyer Report Eubanks Road (from Hillhouse Road to near $254,000 5 NC 86) Eubanks Road (from Hillhouse Road to the $60,000 550' portion of segment 4 east side of the landfill) Cross-county, south of Eubanks Road $53,000 29 Cross-county, south of Eubanks Road $38,000 30 Cross-county, south of Eubanks Road $46,000 31 Total Construction Cost for Eubanks Road $451,000 Neighborhood Plumbing costs and OWASA fees for 11 $55,000 existing units ~ $5000 per unit Total of AU Costs for the Eubanks Road $506,000 Neighborhood Table 6 -- Water Service Community Benefit for the Millhouse Road Neighborhood (to Blackwood Mountain Road) Millhouse Road Line Segment Location Line segment cost Line segment # designation (Hazen & Sawyer Report Millhouse Road (from Eubanks Road to $87,000 32 Clyde Road) Millhouse Road (from Clyde Road to Manor $92,000 35 Drive) Millhouse Road (from Manor Drive to $62,000 36 Blackwood Mountain Road) Cross-county, east of Millhouse Road $71,000 33 Clyde Road $17,000 34 Total Construction Cost for Millhouse , $329,000 Road Neighborhood Plumbing costs and OWASA fees for 17 $85,000 existing units @ 55000 per unit..- Total of All Costs for the Millhouse Road $414,000 Neighborhood Table 7 -- ;' b Water Service Community Benefit for the Manor Ridge Neighborhood Manor Drive and Manor Court Line Segment Location Line segment cost Line segment # designation (Hazen & Sawyer Report Manor Drive $31,000 39 Manor Drive $26,000 41 Manor Court $40,000 40 Total Construction Cost for Manor Ridge Neighborhood 597,000 Plumbing costs and OWASA fees for 6 existing units @ 55000 per unit 530,000 Total of All Costs fer the Manor Ridge Neighborhood 5127,000 Table 8 -- j O~ Water Service Community Benefit for the Heartwood Neighborhood Blackwood Mountain Road and Heartwood Drive Line Segment Location Line segment cost Line segment # designation (Hazen & Sawyer Report Blackwood Mountain Road $28,000 42 Blackwood Mountain Road $28,000 44 Blackwood Mountain Road $49,000 48 Heartwood Drive $36,000 46 Cross-county north of Blackwood Mountain Road $5,000 45 Cross-county south of Blackwood Mountain Road $7,000 47 Total Construction Cost for Heartwood Neighborhood $153,000 Plumbing costs and OWASA fees for 24 existing units ~ 53500 per unit 584,000 Total of All Costs for the Heartwood Neighborhood $237,000 U,w oF~cEs COLEMAN, GLEDHILL~ & HARGRAVE A PROFESSIONAL CO[lP'ORA7'tON l29 E 7RYON SZRffC P.,O. DRAaIfR 1329 Ali, NOQ2N GROLAtA 27276 919.732.2196 FAX 919.732.7997 October 16, 1997 Bill Crowther, Chair bsarga:tt Brown Moses Carey, Jr. Alice Gordon Stephen Hallaiotis Orange County Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 '" Hillsboroagh, North Carolina 27278 ~ttocl~~l' S~-~4 iro-. FROM 77$ DESx OF tiEOFfREY E GiFDL~J.. RE: Report o~[ t6e LaadBll Owners Group/LandSU Neighbors Working Groap . Reeommeadadons for Improvements around the Orange Regional LandSll Dear Board Members: At your October 6 meeting you requested that I Ioo1< at the legal issues surrounding the recommendations for improvements in the community of neighbors of the Orange Regional Landfill which arc aoatauted in the Septr~rnber 18, 1997 Report of the Landfill Owners Groupr/Landfill Neighbors Wo~dng Group Aa important starting point of my review and analysis of these ttcommendations is the second paragraph of the Report itself: TL states: "In no way should these recommendations be interpreted as compensation for siting of a future landfill in the Eubanks Road arcs - tit they are solely meant W address compensation of neighbors for having lived near the current landfill." (Emphasis added.) Any public improvements treat are made in rBe arts surrounding the Orange Regional Landfill must be legally justified on some basis other than compensation for siting the Orange Regional Landfill. The ability of the local governments of Orange County, Chapel Ffill and Carrboro to pay for the rocommendei! and atZy other public improvements must rest on some basis other than compensation. Most of the recommendations do not have significant legal implications. Those that don't may call for additional financial and people resources and in some instances some 2tgulatory tightening. But generally they can be performed within the contract of the operation of the landfill enterprise. Only those that have significant legal unplications will be addressed further in this letter. z Orange County Board of Commissioners Page 2 October 16, 199"t I think the easiest way to understand the 1ega1 issues surrounding the recommended benefits is to "follow the money." What I mean by that is that the landfill enterprise can spend landfill enterprise money on those benefits which are related to and incident to the landfill operation. 'Dose that are not must be legally justified using some other public purpose. For that reason, it is immaterial whether implementation of the recommendations affects people who have lived with the Iartdfill for some period of time or have just become landfill neighbors oc will do so in the futrme. The extension of public water anti sewer w the community identified in the Report is the first recommendation that has significant legal implications. Using the "follow the money" approach, my thoughts on the wader and sewer recommendations follow. Extending a sever line oo the landfill for landfill operations, including kachate collection, is a legitimate expense of the landfill enmrprise and presents no legal problem. The same is lure, I think, of a water line extension to serve the landfill itself. Extending wader lines to those is the community who now receive their water Iron wells may be justified and as a landfill expense on the theory that the watac from the wells is contaminated or could become so. It seems to me that the community of homeowners or lot owners who could ttceive public water at the landfill enterprise expense world have to be determined based oa a reasonable set of criteria. This sec of criteria should, of necxssity, include some factaal basis, including inferences from fits known,. that the risk of well contarainaoion is more than imagined. In my opinion no other extension of public water or sewer can be done or paid for by the laadfiIl enterprise. This is so for more than one reason. However, it is enough to say that North Carolina General Stadrte ~ 153A-292, which provides for the imposition of fees for the use of a County collection and disposal facility, in subsection (b) limits the use of the fee imposed for the use of a disposal facility. 'The fee for use may not exceed the cost of operating the facr~ity».." Sincx the landfiIl enterpase cannot pay for the extension of public water and sewer beyond what is discussed above, public water and sewer extdrsions serving other pnrpoges must be justified undrr some other public purpose theory and paid for using some other source of funds. There are planning issues a:tsocias~ with the extension of public water and sewer recommended i>z the Report of the Landfill Owners GroupJLaadfill Neighbors Wodong Group. Gene Bell's WATER AND SEWER EXZENtSION INTO THE RURAL BUFFER memorandum addresses. most if not alI of those planning issues. I brow that those planning issues have not been resolved However, for purposes of discussing the legality of extending public water and sewer to the- Orange Regional Landfill communiry identified in the Report, I will assume that there will be an acceptable resolution of the planning issues. ' . Orange County, Chapel Ii'ti l and Carrboro all have the power to spend general fund revenue to provide public water and sewer w the citizens in their jurisdictions (municipal boundaries for the towns; outside of municipal boundaries for the Connry). Further, it is } 11~ Orange County Board of Commissioners Page 3 October 16, 199T reasonable to assume annexation by the towns of their respective transition areas. The towns can provide public wader and sewer in their transition areas. Furthermore, and in my opinion significantly, the entire identified community can be served with public water and sewer acing the general fond revenue of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro in a joint undertaking. This would allow a "blurring" of jurisdictional lines by reasonable assumptions concerning financial contribution to the enterprise. I think there could be quite a bit of latiwde in these assumptions gives that the enterprise is question would be one of constructing public water and sewer utilities and not their operation thereafter. 'The operation of these utilities would presumably fall to OWASA once they were constructed. Fees for coru~ectioa to the water sad sewer utilities can be justified, if they are all to be paid, on the same basis as the lime extensions themselves However, if only those fees associated with homes owned by persons with low and moderate income are to be paid, then landfill enterprise fends would not be available. Low and moderate income homeowners' fees can be paid by the local governments under the community development programs and~acdvities power of the County, Catzboro and t~rapel Hill found is N.C. Gen Stat ~~ 153A-376 and 160A~56, copies of which are enclosed. The legal analysis for public transportation in the Orange Regional Landfill community is the same as the general fund public water and sewer extension analysis above. The practical issues are different but the legal issues ate the same. Relocating fnttn+e annexation boundaries by trfereadum is, in my opinion, problematic. I have previously written to the Board advising against holding non binding or "straw" ballot referenda not expressly authorized by the North Carolina General Assembly. The annexation boundary and the joint planning aaasition area boundary should be determined through the joint P1~~8 F~ ~Y ~ P~ One of ~ the recommendations is the Repoa of the Landfill Oa+nets Group/Landfill Neighbors Woddng Group calls for using at least 50 acres of the Greene tract for recreation facilities. 'The Gt~eeae tract is paGSently an asset of the Orange Regional Landfill enterprise. I have not done an exhaustive research project on this question However, transferring the Greene tract out of ti>e eaoerpdse and essentially declaring it to be surplus property for landfill purposes raises a legal gaesdoa because the property was purchased with landfill tiFP~B ~• which by law cannot exceed thd' cost of operating the landfill. The question further becomes one of whether tht Greene tract is or ever can become truly surplus given the potential liabrliry associated with owning and operating a landfill foreveamore and the cost of its continued operation_ Put another way, can the Greene tract be disposed of by the landfill enterprise while ripping fees are charged for operations expenses, including the potential for future payment of environmental mitigation expenses rise to past, present artd fntune landfill practices, that could otherwise be avoided because of the availability of the Greene tract asset? I have not rtached ~« li3 Orange County Board of Commissioners Page 4 October 16, 199'! " a conclusion oa this question because it is my view that inclusion or not of the Graeae tract, in whole or in part, as as asset of the landfill enterprise to be used or disposed of by the owner and operator of the landfill enterprise is fast a practical and political decision, the details of which are necessary for the legal inquiry. v«y anly yours, COLEMAN, GLEDffiLL di HARGRAVE, P.C. GEG/]sg Fad~os~ua xc Jdm 1~L Ljolc, Jr. lsg 10 ' bdu[cam4.ltt J~~ §153A-36T 1996 CUMULATIVE SUPPLE~tiiENT §153A-376 eSectirs dsb a~this act are not abated ~ wonid bs applicable but for this act re- a$ecbd bythis net, and the statutes that main appliable to these proeecutfoaa.' 153A-36?. Removing notice from condemned building. If a person removes a notice that bas been a~zed to a building by a local1nspector and that states the dangerous character of the building, he is ty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1969, c. 1066, s. I; 19?3, G 822, s. ~ 1993, c. 539, s. 1068; 1994, Ez Sees., c. 24, s.14(c).) Editoe?a Hots. - S.wen Laws 1993, e. 538. a. 1088, which amended this eea tioo, is s, 1369. as amended by Scanlon Lava 1994, Eras Seseieet. a Z4. s. 24(03. piveidee: "This set bacoaoer e~eetiw Oa toter L 1994, sad applisr b manses ooeurzsag on or after thst date. PrweOtr bons fos odeasea committed before the e~ieFtvs date of this act ase not abated ace affieted by tbis`ad, and the statutes that would be applicable brit fot this act ra- maia. applicabb to thoea preeecutiens.' ~ 1S3A-371. Failure to comply with order. Tg the owner of a beu~din~ fills to comply with an order iaaued paursuaat to G.S.1S3A-389 from which ao appeal has been taken, or fails to mmply with as order of the board of commissioners following as appeal, he is guilty of a CLas I misdemeanor. (1969, c.1066, s. l; 1973, c. 822, s. 1; 1983, c. 539, a. 1069; 1994. Es. Sees., G 24, s.14(c).) Editoe"s Nets. - Seseioet Laws 1995.. c 538, s. 1089. which amended able sea tines, b s. 1358. as amended b7 Seasioeti Lws 1994. I~~tra Seeedoo, a Z4. s.14t0). Preeidee'13is net baoomes eib~ies Oa robes iy 1994. and applies to o~iases oceuriiap an or agar that dab. Pt+oseea- ti~. Eor oHeaees eommitbd be6ore the effietive date otthis act ats not abased ar affictd bT this act, and the statafes that would be sppii0abie but 5or this set ~ main applicable to thoes ptaae0utio®a.' Part 5. Community Development. 0 ~ 153A~3?6. Community development programs and activities. (a) Any soaat~ >: authorized to engage in, to accept federal and State greats and loans for, a~ to appropriate and ezpend funds for community development Programs and activities. Ia undertaking eammu~tjr develop eat programs and activities, in addition to other autharitg gr`sated try taw, a county maq engage in the activities (1) of assistance and financing of rehabilitation of privets bindings prinripallg for the benefit of low and moderate income persons, or for the restoration or preser~ vatioa of older neighborhoods or properties, including di rest repair, the making of grants or Loans, the auboidization of interest payments on loam, and the guaranty of Ioaas; (2) Programs concerned with employment, ernnomic develop- raeat, crams prevention, child case, health, drug abuse, education, and welfare needs of persons of low and moder- ate income (b) Any board of county commissioners may ezercise directly those powers granted by law to county redevelopment co*v~~ons 124 6 i 1~ § 153A-376 CoU'NTIES § 133A-376 and those powers granted by law to county housing authorities. Any board of county commissioners desiring to do so may delegate to redevelopment commission or to any housing authority the respon- sibility of undertaking or carrying out any specified community development activities. Any board of county commissioners and any municipal governing body may by agreement undertake or carry out for each other any specified community development activities. Aay board of county commissioners may contract with any person, association, or corporation is undertaking any specified rnmmunity development activities. Any county or city board of health, county board of social services, or county or city board of education, may by agreement undertake ar carry out for say board of county commis- sioners any specified community development activities. (c) Any board of county commissioners undertaking community development p or activities may create one or more advisory committees to advise it and to make recommendations concerning such programs or activities. (d) Aay board of county commissioners proposing to undertake any Iola ~naranty or similar program for rehabilitation of private buildings is authorized to submit to its voters the question whether stub program shall be undertaken, such referendum to be conducted ~ursuaaL to the Qeneral sad Iocsl laws applicable to special elections m stub conat~ (e) No state or local fazes shaII be appropriated or ezpended by a county pursuant . to this section for any Purpose not ezpressly authorized by G.S. I53A 149, unless the same is first submitted to a vote of the people as therein provided. (fl All program income fitim F,coaomu Development Grants fiom the Small Cities Community Development Bloch Great Program ma be retained by recipient'economically distressed counties', eS defined is G.S. 143 ?A for the purposes of creating local eco- nomic development revolving 1oaa fends. Stub program income derived through the use by cotmties of Small Cities Community Development Block Great money mcludea but is not limited to: (~ ppaayment of pr~incespa1 sad interest on loans made by the county using Community Development Block Great F~iads; (ii) proceeds from the lease or disposition of real properly acquired with Community Development Block Groat Finds; and (nil any late fees associated with loan or lease paymenb is (i) and (ii) above. The local economic development revolving loan fund set up by the co~mty shall fend only those activities elig~le ender Title I of the federal Housing and Community DevelopmentAd of 1974, as amended (P.L. 93-383), sad shall meet at least one of the three national objectives of the seiinngg and Community Development Act. Aay ezpiration of G.S. 14~.3B~37A or G.S. 105-129.3 shaII not affect this subsection as to desigiistions of economically distressed counties made prior to its iratioa Any cotmtyi:iay receive and dispense funds fiom the Commu- aity Development Block Grant Section 108 Loan Guarantee pro- • gram, 3nbparl lit, 24 CFR 570.700 et seq, either through app 'ca- tion to thsNorth Carolina Department of Commerce or directly from the federal government, is a,xordance with State sad federal laws these funds. Any county that receives these funds directly ~ederal government may pledge current and future CDBG funds for use as loan guarantees in acxordaace with State and federal laws governing these funds. A county may implement the 125 )1 (o ' §I53A-377 1996 CUMUUTIVE SUPPLEMENT §153A-405 receipt, dispensing, and pledgl' of CDBG funds under this subsec- tion by borrowing CDBG funds and leading all or a portion of those funds to a third party is accordance with applicable laws governing the CDBG program. Any county that has pledged current or future CDBG fends for use as loan guarantees prior to the enactment of Chia subsection is authorized to have taken such action. A pledge of future CDBG funds under thin subsection is not a debt or liability of the State or any political subdivision of the Stata or a fledge of the faith and credit of the State or asy political subdivision of the State. The pleltin,g of future CDBG funds under this subsection does not y, Indirectly, or contingently obligate the State or any litical subdivision of the State to levy or 9pledge any fazes. (19?5, e. 435, s. 2; c. 689, s. 2; 1987 (Reg Sena., 888 , c. 992, s. 1; 1995, c. 310, s. 2;1995 (Reg Sess.,1996), 575, s. 2;1996, tad F.z Sess., c. 13, s. 3.8.) Editos"s Kota - Seadon Laws 1996. ~ 310, s. ?. e8'ietiw Jn~ L 1996, en- aetad a aabsaetion (e). M a sobasetion (e) alrsadlr esistad, that aubsael3an wan ra- deai6oatad as subsection W at the dirs~ lion oI the Reiser o[ 8tatntes. Seedon Laws 1998, Seooad E:tra Saa- aion, ~ 13. s. 1, pro+ides that min ad abaft be )mown as the William S. LM Quality Jobs and Bvdaess Fspaadon Act Session Laws 1998: Second Fsa:3oF sioa, ~ 13. s. 10.1, pra~idec "Phis net dea aot aNiet the ri8hti ar Babt7it3es d the State. a taspa~ ae another parson arisieK wader a statute amsaded ar re- peald by this ad be6ose ib ameodmeat or repeal: nor does it aitict the risht to ear ratt:a~d oe credit of a taz that wvnld omerwise haw bean awilable Hadar me amended oe repealed statute before its aau~ndmeat ae repeaL' F~!'liet of Amimdmoats. - Ths 1996 ameadmsnt. eQiesiw Jnl~ 1, 1996. added a sabasetion (ef. reded~aatad as subseedon(v. Sasian Lava 1996. Seeaed Fatra Ses- don. ~ 13, a. 3.a. eQeeeii~e Aniust 1, 1986. is sabseetion W, :obstitnted "eoo- nomid>, disttaaad ~, a. dewed is G.S. I43B-{3TA' 6or "as~si~ dis- tressed eeoatiaa', as ded~astad aadsr G.3.106-130.40(c)' is the S2st smtenee, and in the last smteace anbstitntad 'G.S. 1~3B-43TA air Gam. 106-129.3' toe 'G.S. 106-130.40(er sad snbstitated •eoo~omially' 6or'aewnlf. Ssnien Lsws 1986 (ReF Sea.. 1998). e. 573, a. 2. eeiesre October 1, 1998, added the last sentence of the 5rst pest etaph at sobeeetlea (~- 153A,377. Acquisition and disposition of prop- erty for redevelopment. CA3S NdTE9 Cited is viileaa~Matasials Co. • Iseddl Coant7s 101 N.C. App. ?79, 407 "S.L.2d 28.4 (19911. ART1cLE 20. T Consolidation and Governmental Study Commissions. § 153A-405. Referendum; tion. General Assembly ac- (a) If authorized to do so by the concurrent resolutions that established it, a commission maq call a referendum on its proposed plan of governmental consolidation. l'f authorized or directed 1a the 126 § I60A-456 CTTiES aN~ TowNS $160A-456 ~~ Part 8. Miscellaneous Powers. ~ 160A-456. Community development programs and activities. (a) Aay city is authorized to engage in, to accxpt federal sad State grants and loans for, and to appropriate and ezpend funds for community development programs and activities. Ia undertaking community development programs and activities, is addition to other authority granted by law, a sty map engage in the following activities: (1) Programs ~ aasistaaoe and financing of rehabilitation of private buildings principally for the benefit of low and • moderate income persons, or for the restoration or preser- vation of older neighborhoods or properties, including di- rect repai>~ the making of grants or loans, the subsidization of interest payments on loans, and the guaranty of loans; (2) Programs concerned with em loymeat, economic develop- ment, crime prweation, child care, health, drug abuse, . education, sad welfare needs of persona of low and moder- ate income. (b) Any city oonac~l mmaayy ezeiciae directly those powers granted by law to mnmicipsl redeveiopmeat commissions and those powers granted by law to manicipal housing authorities, and may do so v-hethar or not a t commission or housing authority is is essteacs is such city. Any city council desiring to do ao may delegate to nay redevalopmeat commission or to say housing au • thorny the responsil>fiity of uadertaldng or carrying out, nay speci- fied community development activities. Any city council and any board of county may by agreement undertake or carry out for each other nay specified community development activities u msy contract with any person, associa- tion; nay specified community devel- opmeat activities. Any otinaty or c-ty board of health, county board of social services, or oonaty or city board of education, may by agreement vndertalre or carry out for any city council any specified community dev~slopmeat activities. . (c) Any city ~ uade=talong community development pro- grams or activities may create one or more advisory committees to advise it sad to make recommendations concerning such Programs or activities. (d) Any city ooaacfi ppre~poBing to undertake asy loea guaranty or simi]ar program ion tt!habi7itatioa of prrvate buildings is authorized to submit to its voters the qquuestion whether such program shall be uadartaken, snch refarenduia to be conducted pursuant to the . general sad Zocal lives applicable to special elections is such city. (dl) citT ma receive sad dispense funds fiom the Comma- -• aity ~k~a t lock Grant Section 108 Lola Guarantee ppro- gram, Snbppaa~~tt ?rl CFR 570.700 et ,either throu~gh ap plica- • Lion to theNozthtina Department of ~ aimerce or directs fiom the federal t, is acxordance with State end federal lava g~ ~~ds Aay city that receives these funds directl fi~ the~fedrtal gvverameat may pledge current and future CDB~ 'Piinds •for use as Inns guarantees ~n accordance with State sad federal laws g these funds. A city may implement the receipt, dispeasiaand pledging of CDBG funds under this subaec- 35 l`~ ~~--`` ICI -~ ~ o ~ -~- s~ Q 0 1 y ~ ~] yg ~~ ~~a~~ 9~~a tla~a ~ ~ ~~ ~j ~~~p~ ~~~ i~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ a~~~ .~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~i ~~~~ `~~~ r~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~9 b~°~ ~~~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ d 9 ~°E~ ~ 3 z& n z -~ ii 1 • F.XIENSION OF WATER AND SEWER MAINS 1 ~ r We believe this 'oa is tl~ most sigiificaat of the fourtaa rxammeadatiotZS because of its pvliry, ~ sad fiaaatial impticasions. POLICY 'Ibe Joint Platmiag Agroemeat polices that establish a Rural Butt; sad that discxnaage octeasion of public wiper sad sewer facsZiti,es irsflo the Rural Bctffer There sre provisions that suggest that extmsian of stxh 5cfiities may be to address issues of public lxalsh wad safrty. We beiiev~e that these policirs are :a im~portaat psrt of the long range Plans for Chapel FBI1, Gabaco, and Oriage Ca:atp: Pat of the area that aronld be saved with public waLet sad sews, if the.roeoaons of the Wodaag Cmxtp ace.eam~ed, would be is the Iuaal Buffet: Please sx attach~ot Z, _a mug shoa>i~ the aces uader camideratioo. We.beiieve that if a d~ion v made to no- amead~ these fsalitie; it should bs aooompaniod• by den Sadiagi and regattl>ag ptablie health` sad ~Y, ~ that the general poli+des of the Joint Plammiag Ag~eat and Ioint Planaiarg 'Area. Lsod . Use PLti are not viohted ~ -~ LEGAL . a. Payment out of landfill ftmds. 1). Waver service. Nonh~ Carolia:' Isa,: zr established by both. Geae:at Statutes wad APpe~ Court dadsioat, limits LTOditII tipping fees. m those roesvnably~ necessary oo provide the services. North Caroiias Corot dexisioos~ iadicaoe that- a: ". msT ~ fns . re:soatablr asso~ia~od with opaatioas, depteciatioai a~ actual oc aatiaipaoed apie~l costs of a P~~ er~rPriae. A l~'RSioa ~7~ sate: that s C~mty landfill flee ". mom. nut exceed the coat of opeadiag the 1"ac~iry." ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ .~ A teasombk art mi~rt be deYdopcd sad tvideoce prrxaoed m support a proposal. that landfill eadecprise ftmds be used to ptvvide water service to replace weII wader o~ prvpaties near z laadSII. bayed as .rag a~ .err pooeatisl gtvtmdwater pollution. mow, Paying for such'serviee far some atza aavr the current landfill migbot be eoo:idaed a~ cost of operating the laodfiD_ As tha ptvposed area is ~acpaaded, the actcai of i basis justifying the awe of laad511 ftmds floc this purpose fiYe,iy grows. ~ sod ns~oce subject w legal challeag~ At~some point a lice would nod to be drawn, bead oa saaae rcaaortable set of criteria. 2 j Stv~er service'- It would be attt+emely difficult, in the opinion of the Toara Attorney, to const;oct a defeavble legal argtmneat to jtuiifjr caamdia8 sewer Iia~es do serve this area wad paying .for that senrice oat of laadfiIl !lends. However; scwrt line adeadod~ for the ptapose of callectiag landfill leachate for ~t is the samtary~ sewer sYstaa might be' available for use by others. ~ ~ ~ . ~fi~ ~l~~~~. ~1~~~~ ~~~~ ~ffi~E~ $~~ ~~~~. ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~.~aY ~ ~~~~~ ~~~t~ ~~~a~ ~1~`1 ~;~~~ ERW~& ~~{~~. ~~~~r ri~~P ~~:a~ "~~~ ~j~ a~~~~~~ s~~ ~ ~~ ~:E ~.a ,~~a 6~~ ~~i~~,~ ~ ~ ~~~~ }~e E~~~r~ ~~~ ~~ ! g Q ~. i 2ek ~i5, ~~~ ~o~ ~ea~Ba k~ ~~ 8 ~;~~ ~~~ ~°~g~~ ~~~ ~~ a~~ a~~' ii~~~~ ~a~ ~~: 4 13 GENERAL / c~-/ We wish to maid th,e following geaesal eommcats ~gstdiug ~ ~mmea~on; • ~ ssa~ ~ ~ low di:atioa from the aistin~ landfill site is to the aortha~ aassiag I-40 about 1 Q00' west of the I-40/Hwy. 86 int~ectioa we believe a~ ltaia8e ~ fiaoet the hdfiIl pmba~ mould move is tb~t direction Wbz7e ~l'y. it is poss'b1e that a c+omomiamt plume caubd mcn is another d~oq thus foimiag a technical and opaatioal basil on which to justify aa~ ~avieG . • Scxh a cecbmal a ope~oml justifies does not exist re~ag provision of sewer s+etvice oo. the ao~mtmmity. Landfill activmes wo~1d not a$ect aontmtmay septic sysamu, -• • - A mtm~btt of the banes pcvpOSed m be saviczd bane beta butt aod/ar occupied since I9TZ, whoa the lsod511 was The Pam tba; extemion sf ante and sewtr xrrias wi11. bawe. oa the oei8hborbood'mdtide: pc+opety tmt+es of the impc~ovcd properties - manned de~ebpmeat is the oaaomvoity . - ~ cysts m the wer of the lateral scrv~ce ~oaaaec~g rrti bo®e and OW~SA's ,co®ectiot: fixs ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - monthly water and sew bu'ib m those who choose to maloe 2- ASSISTANCE 'fQ irO~K II~iC011dE RESIDbNTS . . This raamareadati,o~a pecspats an oQpact~ty'far those lour-income im the are~ia which water cad sewn saviors ace ao be aQeaded b:rective iA papia~ the costs of.iastvIiag iadi,-idn~l service Iiaiea and payins earn aod~ sswe correction 5aex . . ~ . Thee are s.~mba~ of ~~of ~y that might be s~rat7able m~ pe+ovidr. to low income households daidaQ m c~neet to water and'sewer savioe sbonid the Tons Canacil cboox. to provide such aQistaooe: Tbeu ioelude Coazmmiry B1adc G:mt lt~ds and genet ~ ; but de oot iadudq far reasons ia~caoed above; laod5ll ~ fees. Stanxuaed as part of a paoQaoa ea pivvids, stash amsssoc~. these pspmer~fs avoid be with Natth Carolina lavr. Using Chapel ~II trx revrone soat+ces fcr such asvsr~ce would be mate amble where the era tiD be saved is anezdpaoed m ~ bee~ome pat of the Tvwa.. Subject ~ the litaititiams . iaiposod by Fcde:al regn>ativa. ~ Coat~mity Drr!relopaxat food's svaslabk m tfie Town could be used oubidc tba Tovn's j~nctvo~n. ~ ~ . ~ ^a Abe $ dR ~ ~, .~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~g~ ~~a g~~` ~g~~a~~ ~ a ~a~ 15 - Wc believe ~ also would be wodrabk to enforce the nlevaai'Sta~ law scc ,~.'. . tarps wlzea they would be re~uizzd try Sraac law. ( above at 3), nquziag 5. IIYCREASL~G LITI~R PICKUP FREQUENCY The fregta9cy of litres collearon 1~ alrady hem ia,araurd cn the level ~ is this effxtive July 1997. 17se aaaaal oust of providing this lcvcl of sevice is .~F~dY SS,S00. . 6. POLICY GOVERI~QNG CONSIRLICI70N A? LANDFII.I. ~e laadffi w~71 be~tmdet: oonsanxtien on itseaciy caatimious bass far most of its r+emiiaiag Iife. Tfx natut+e of the apaatiaon is t~ the Sc~ity is ea~tvaed dsy~~sy ~1 ~~ ~~ is He~- we ooanmatc an sped$c issues wised bj- the wow cavup. s) ~ We believe i geoaat e~ucti~on maaagemeet poGry can. be dta~ed ~as . eavireo~e,d bt the ~tadcia~ Cn+oug. incha~ag says m of ditainate adMe:se ~ on landfft! ~igTsboea. ~) .. ~ ~t bdi~e it a~on~d'be ~'b3e to mac~sin a list of add:+es;e,withia the ideati$ed area far uses in_~viag natxe of s~ficaot. as evmd, oftaajorggects. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . Rega~d'mg poaf~g of signs, aye believ~a such rigor would be posted almost oaamtiaiuassly far the rcmaiaiag life of the laodSII. W6at'eet: this i, detitsbk is de~tabl~ .. a) $1 • A sper~e Peliry govt bla~g can be pc+ep~ed: Hawev+e~ at do _~ antscipame ar¢ b>l~n~ as the adstiag laodiitl ants the bhstia~ xbedt~Cd far the ne~a month taloes place.. . ~ _ ~ . ~ ~4~i&~~IID~ Under' ai~diaary. ~ there v+ould ba m eoe~tttetia~n activity taiaa~ place belvKm the Zzoaa of.11:00 PM and 6~0 AM. Seido~ do any sctivitia take plxe a~ dark. In the ev+eat of as ame3ga~cy, .~e would acpoditae t5a aoti5catyoa pr+ooed~ur nfaeocad is RaomraeadatioII it14 We, woaM glax a oooditian v41~ of aoasitvctian . allvaed by ooo~sctoa with the ooa~rucdo~n ao~act Htn acaa7 bowery that these msr be cir<vaastaoees wbenaight woeic might be nxessap. We wronidre+quirs that coesorgctian activities adha+c tD the ~gliabba pmvis~iom of the Oraooge Cova~- wise ocdiaaaae_ . 16 7. ILLEGAL, DL,~ING we b~eiieve tiye assisraace of ueaghbors would be vcty hcipful is aay effort to redact illegal du~riag. A:dditioml or am~eaded legislatioa ®be sought if needed to discourage illegsi dtuapazg or zfl msice easiest We believe addict "Na Litta~ag" signs caa be iasmiied is the ndgiiboch~oods nest the lastdfilL 8. LANDFII,L FFNCII+IG We ~ that the octet of fencing the Ta~ could Dotal 5150,000 Soc a 6 fat high cl~aia-lia~c fmoG Saciz a fcaoe w~ouLd ideat~- the pc+ope:ty line and deoa - . If fife feZ:a were to xtlne ttia ptttpo~e of preventiag astimals ~ eOmoissg On the suoG, the smcing would Ime m be aorboeai along tea base and Dose ~ovld be highg eotaliag about SZ00,000. Es~ud coatr ace for smciag aeoly sad do. not' iadude tl~e cost of cleari~ as neassary~ for 9. SIGI~TAGE ~ ~ . Ia cespoQSe m t5is ~ ae cataeoed the Noeh Carolissa Departmem of Traaspa~ioa (NCDO~. Division ?awe Eagiaea Vaxe Baristm'~ sespoase foIIe~ws: NCDOT doe not pco~vida Sae ~ ios~tlstdon~ of "C~deaa. Playing" sigas aa~aamuy, flea "ChiTdrm Plsy'iag" signs are mt NCDOZ appiaMed they maY not be plead on NCDOT tigl~of- way. Mr. Haim also statti that ha has mgt seat "ChOdcea Playing ~ signs used au pcimscy a seoondaty toads, and las only fan the signs asaf an subd'rvitia~a streets. . ShoaId the I aod5lt Oansas Croup moestber goveaz~raa.detada. to iastill the Y~dcea P[cryia~" . sigaQ tlaty mn~t be iststalled off the rig~af-w7ryr on Pn'~ P~'p~!- ~ ~ ~ ~.~ . . and iastatsed sot aQpeaodatardg SIEQ, apptoptiaooe boc~tiosa an be idmti5ed aad pcopetty .o~ ~~ . NCDOT provides. "ScSooL Haa Stop" sigm when atrlaia ctitais are mR' NCDOT w$I ooasider lnstaaumg "Selrovi Bus Sbp" sr~as m mas where there u Less thee S50 fat to 600 fee of sight distance from s wool but slog: ~Citiaa as mate a tequat aad NCDOT. ssa$ will Dome on sits a~ eve wbelber the spat meets t3aeQ ait+eai Soe aitezia (Affi ~ "78-I~1 Scitoot Has Stop Ahead Sash (S~1}. -, - _ 10... BUS SERVICE .~ ~~ Shared Ride Service We bdievc thu awing a Shzt+ed Ride Feeder Zone fa~r.•Meekdsr service w the Rogea Road eta would not signifiaatip detract fivm the presead Skated Ride sesvic~ 1! ' ~~ ' EXiStitlg drivers earl vehlclq could be used to cover this arcs Ctureat Shared Ride pacroas may ' `~ expericace short service delays. New Shared Ride stops could be itLSta,lled is two Iocadons aloag Rogers R.oad_ Traasfe pouts to fixed roust services could be establish,cd at the Eubaaks Road Park sad Ride Iot, Broolcstone Aparmacau. on Aaport Road, or tha UNC lest as Estes Drive. . Eveaiag sad Suadsy Shared Ride Betels could also be cxtmded with miaima! effxs on aostiag services. Cast pa trig £or Shared Ride scrvias world be about BIZ. We have ao way of ~cstirIIatiaB service demand. Farce world be the same as is the rest of the scree area. F~ Rider Setvict If w+e were also w iachade EZ Rider service; flee impact on adsting service ~$~ ~ more sigaifiaet dc~ia~ era. de:aaad. Cta:zat stsotaccs casld sot absorb nevr demacd for EZ Rids sacviee~rithotu s notieeabie deseaa~oa is service tn acstiag suers. Cost par trig for EZ-}lids satvices are . abom 520. we I~tva ~ ao wsy , of es~imaang service deaand. Ssandacd bns 1~ woo]d apphr. ~ . . Mo~fyia~ the Nact~t - Svath Express :otme to save this area wins fired tame transit sesviw is poaaotblt $owrv~et this vrould aesse m ~auy large loop oa the and of . the tame that wasld aaaloe some trips kss caavenie~t for ~t patrons: Far exampdq sa®eoae nav~eiiag fivm dot+-noowa a~ Bs~t Sus Place would stazt a deto~ about 1R nsBe fiam thoi . d~estiaatiosi which ronid add 6 mBes and about 1S mim~a to the won oFtbeir.tt3p. . . ... Amore $astbic aeta®oa of service to Rogea Road might be dome with flee "P' route, ~wbich ctaraotl7 tcmia~mes oa Estes Drier n,eu Sa~weil School Road. Last ~ the ttaesit so$ stydud the impact of actmdass the "P" rate to this area via Seiwell School Road. ~ Scbooi lioad. Aomestad Resd and Ra~crs R,oad.. This modifiacdon would add serves rotmd trip mBes~ m, ebe ~ cuamt. raitse sad it wadd also serve the ~ School ~aacf - . Scawell Sci~ool. To the e~dsting level of service on .the P Conte with this extmsioa world require an addtdaoai 12 bolas of service each aiedtday at ~ aaetual ~ of agpro~dmatdr S I35,000. This aost.wotdd be reduced. br half if oalp perk hots service were operated. ~ _ . Cosa of Service dada the cost sharing provisions of aar Memoraa~um of Unda~adiag with Caaboto aod~ the Uatvasii<y of Natth Grolia~ this wasid be s near service sad tlx:cfoca the first y~ oP~B cost w+onld ba home by the sponsoring ~pat'aoa{s}, Chapel Dill end Cacboro. Subsoqueat Mead cost wadd be allocated amos>g all partners according to out ~Ve notq aba; thitQrang+e Coaaty eonld be invited m shave is these costs is view of the fact tha much of the stet scald be is ~ Orange Cocat7• . ~. Operational Issues. Dtaiag the June 1997 rcviev-, sta$ also condtlded:• 1 t3 • Based on the deaairy of development (dwelling units per acre), fixed rouse transit savior in 1a this zrea would li3cciy opcrsie below thG systrm's productivity standard. Rogers Road hat s posted speed limit of 45 mph. Wr~out improvemrats to tht rued shoulders, it may be difficult to provide safe savicx stops with a bus along this road. Bus pull~ffs ~ s lewd tes.~ia mould cost betgv~m SS,000 and SIS,000 Each. • If savicx is m operate is both directions aloe; Rogers Road, a salable Iocsaioa m foal a bas around would recd m be looaaed, possible oa Eubanks Road at the Laadf:Il or ParirlRide Let Service bg Others Thz Oange Couary* Offue on Aging provides the feilawin; won szrvices m the Rogm Road era oa a routine basix • Fixed route strict for eli~ibte xatiror citi~ms oa a dairy basis • Medial trips on a bemaod tespaa+ivt basis .. ~ . • Trips for dialysis paoieats dmx dames per ~adc The Offue of ~ bn bem poaridiDg as services is Or~moge Camty (- oaa:ide the Chapef &ll Tramit terries aces) hoc many gars. ~s~ia the )sA fe+i- yeari, this a8~7 ~ ~ Ezed ionoe service tb the general public' frnm~ the riottbem part of the county. to Chapd Hilt. 'This is another optiaa ~ftsr pzovidiag tr>smit xsviR ta; tibe.Itogas~ Red arrs.~ 1 I. PI.ANNII~i(~ BOUNDARY CHANGES ~ 8 y (at f~a~e aimeatnoa bogy) is sborom m the Joist P'i:~ Area I.aad Use Plan (Atrachmmt 9), sad is m in the Agretmeat.. ~ ~ . ~ P~ p~ ~ t6e:boimdaq a{oe~Jd be ~ ~e the line am tt~e Laad•Use Plan This weld be accompiisbed a Jaiat Public HeaQag (with the tlsroe clecaed bodies) and a appcovaliacfividiatlty by each arttlie tla+oe elected boaaas. Ws bdiev~e that ooaa c;octioq,~ pc~e4 dista"butioa, and of bai1ots, would be probtezastie ' Iafamad; arostbd~ not p:a~de rdiable resuttr, and a tocmal bmdii~ tzfamdtaat procps with tbs staodaed coatroh a; normally conducted by. the Bond of Elatioat wouM be a~aasiv~ cambe:s;saes~and mq not bealegal aptiod We imRead folla~ the typical pe+oesss foe ~ pubBe opisaaa about en issues conduct a public hesriag ~ar fantm, wdi pubfisizcd, ~ritt~ oppar:uaity for iadivsh~ to cones cad otpt+m their opiaiaas bc5ore one dewed bonds, wi~woujd tber}take all inoo ansidaatioa befiore ~ a daisuoa. ~- 12 EUBANKS ROAD LANDFILL • POST CLOSURE USE 19 ti Fxisriag _ ~t we bciicve the process proposal for considering the use of the landfill ai;,c j~ / closure is a+'~icabla The dis~os>rioa of the Caeeac Tract is addressed within the propoxd Iataiacal A is befotr tt~e gvvemittg bonds far cottsid,er~oa l3. EXLS'TII~1G I.pirtDFII.I. II~ANSION Tbce ate m P~ m a~aad the Mmnicipai Solid waste (MSw~ or C,oastivaioa and DcmolitioQ (~kD) disposed areas at the Ecbac:ks Road faaIiq-. The LsadfiIl owae:s~Crt+oup did not sPP~ s ProQasat ooavdaed last yea m ezpeDd the Coasaoc.~tian and Damalitiaa dis~ssl arcs. The CdtD area is scbod~ed m teach aeQacity m I99>~ Tbe~ Laad5li O+~as' Groap bss far several ~s maiat:iaed a polity of p~ac~ssiag properties adjaoeat m tba e~d~oia` ~]attdBli that ate affeped for sale (lneadiY soquisidia~ Tl~e primary abj~ire of soga~ soch~ptopa~ia to increase the buffo aces arosmd the 5dlitlr, we support a ccn od'tbois po>i~j .. . 14 NIIti~ORHOOD NOTgZCATION we bdiewe the pe~opossl of the wadcia; CuouQ. is vMOrluble. CONCLUSION We >savt pevviaed~ this i~aomsrioa for yottt aomidezatiot;. Please kt us know if yon ~4~. additiocai iafoetnadod AITAC'ffi4U+1rfS I. Report of the Laodl~ 0~-oa=' Ndghboa wati~g Caoup, Sept. 18, .1997 Z ~ Map. Uti3ties Erman 'oa bs the L.mdfiit Neigizbocs wadcaQ C'rtoup 3. t.e:oe~ fiara owasA E~oocaciMe Da+eeaoG I®e 24, 1997, regatdi>sg p~dimimor~- cost esm~a of water stover «oeas~oos - . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . 4. ~ Loth Range Plamziag Coae+diaaoot; Juir 2I, I997, about ~ Cotnmtmii~r Dtvelop~c tb~t ti stead wader and scwet scrvicxs. S. C>sspd I~i1t FY 199? Mediaot Famly Inoame ~ . 6. Fit.JD btvcha+4 Augast 19i't ):come Imptovemcat Laaas and CJrsttis 7. Lesac fi+oart O~at:4e Couory Att~aer, Ocs: 1.1997, abaa matecaLs bZoaiag nff ar kaiong from S. Pagc an school basstrop signs. .. 4. Map, g~ Neigbborboed . ~'1TT~1mt~ ~L.L'"~ j ~- ~ ~- MEMORANDUM TO; Csrrboro 1vlayor and Board of A]dermen FROM: Michael 8. Brough ~~ DATE: October 8,1947 gF: Benefits to Neighbors of Existing Landfill The Aoud hu requested that ! addrsss the sepal issues surrounding the recomrneradatioas of the ].,andfalt Owraets Grouprl.andf:tl Neighbors Wortcing Group w provide certain benefiu to the nag]abors of the existing landfill. Of the eleven recoantttetadations in the report that i rtviewed, significant legal issues art presestted only br the fim two: extending wear and Sewer aaaaiais to the area and paying for all or a poruoa of the costs (primarily. OWASA foes) associated with atukiag connections to these utility lines. White ehert is no doubt thst utiiiry lines can be extended to the era in question u pnblie expense. the priaxapat question is whether and to whatt acteat t~everaua gerteratod by landt'li foes cart be used to pty for such extet:sioas. The main obstscte is N.C.G.S. 153A-292, which states; "'The board of covriry oomanissioaaexsmesy impose a fee for the rise of a disposst facility provided by the ooatnty. The fee for tae nay not exceed the t,~trr of opsra~ing rhs jaciliry sad tt3ay be imposod Doty on those who asst tlta facility." (Emphasis sdded~. T]aerefore, in order to be able to use taadflt funds derived from "tipping fees" io par for utility axtatsions or ooraraeaions~. it would be necessary to demonatrste sleet such extensions or connectiotu arc naessary m the operstioat of the lardfll. While the matter is isardty tree from doubt. ! bctieve a g~ :r~;aureat caa; be m:dt tint the cast of extcndittg water iint3 to neithbocittg Qr~opatics rant be }usti~ed as aA operadvna! cost of the Iandtili under what may be chasact~tciud as the "insurance theory " The azgttrtterzt is that. if narby propatlrs acre on welts, the existence of the itutdfiit crates the posst~ility of eontxtninzdort of those wells, which rtught wbjact slat taradfi]t do nuisance snits thu could potentially result in sigaiftcartt darnaga or other injunctive relief that would iaterfera with or perhaps tutu prevent tIx tandfiii's opctatioa Payutg for the extension of water lines to atllow aeighboria~ag properties to caru+ect to the public water system: is taratarssount to providing insuuranct ageless such poteatiai sepal diffictt]tiet Evdt assuming the basin theory is sound, two po:~ntia] probtents slaoaald be oaruider+ed. The first is whether there is any factual basis for the concern over the pollution of wells, The second is whether them is any relationship bctweert ttte arras that have beta selected to roaive bencflu and the concern over west pollution, t have rto infomZation about either matter The payment of sewer line extensions out of landfill funds is more problematic. Appueatty the extension of a sewer line to stet landfall can bt justified as an operating cost becaaase reputations require that the ligcaid that troches tanm the lan~ll be removed from the site y and treated in the sewage treatment rystem. Extension of a sewer line would serve this peupox. However, providing sewer line extensions to servt otter properties in the area cannot be justiftod on the same basis. 't~enfore, revenues other than those generated by tipping fees would have tv be used to finance such extenuions. One possibEc sAUroe of such revenues retigtet lx the sale of the Grease tract. I stee corrtforta5le tlut Carrboco and Chapel Hill could transicr their intctrst in this tact to the County as P~ of the transfer of all landfill related assets. The County could then doclaae the trot to be sur{~lus, sell it, and rase the proceeds for aa7 purpose. By prior agreement. the Catarty aught be bound to use stuh proceeds to finartu the Dose of sewn tine extensions. (l Wend to emphasize that I am disausiat vnly what is ltAaQy possible. l erco~e that there is a great diversity of opinion as to tht fate of the Cn+eate tract. Itt action, County Auorreey C>eafFi+ey Gledhill and Taw~t Artomey Ralph Ka<pitios have gt~eacer ceservatiosts than 1 do about the legality of Laing the proceeds stone the sale of land purchased with landfill funds for purposes other thaA the landfill,) As a general atarter, Orange Coutety, Cieapd Hill. and Carrboro nit have the aesthority to spend general fund revenues to extend water and sewer lines. However. Carrbot+o's aesilioriry to spend town funds to exteted tines to are uea that wiU not (by prior agrertnert) be annexed by Cartboro is not so clar. Only the west side of Rogax Road is (praxsdY) withiu Carrboco's aaaexation area Ncverthetess. s3noe some of the area proposed to tx served is within Carrbora's anrxxation area, ttte town ootsld probably participate with Orange County aed Chapel Hill in : joint tuide:taicing to pnavide sews so the arts. With rrspeci w the proposal to pay the foes incurred by low and modetase iit~sc persons ro Kook up to tlet utitiry litxs, additionst issues m ptesesstcd. Psyneent out of landfill roveenes of the fees incurred br o!1 who attttele w the wares lines that are extendRd could probably be justified ort the sareee basis as the attwion of those lines. taut i f ptymettt is to be limited to tow and moderau ieaame person, Chess tbt jtsstifigaioie far n+a>,ies such payments would have to be found is N.C.G.S. 1b0~A-4S6; which sutttociz~es acpatdittues ort progrsrns eoMarted with tltee health and welfare needs of persons of tow and modaratc ineoriee: Since this justifiads'on is tinreIateti to the operative of the fattdf I1. laAdfili tttr+ds could not be used. Nattier eauid landfil! funds be used for the psymwt of sawn hook-vp fns for the reasons discussed above. in stuttmary. funding of the water and sower benef[t proposals Due of geseaat fund avenues can ptbbahly be lolly jweifie4 Ust; of latsdfilt rcvemscs to fund the actdssion of water titres to neighbors wl>ose properties are xrved by wctls gad whose wells might ix contaminated by the tattdf lI can most !s'kely bt defended, as cart the payment of Pets to attach alt those so affected to such watts lines. tax of tipping fees from a cotusty owned landfill a pay far the cost of extrndin; sewn lines to properties other than the landfill. or to pay for sewn hook-trp fees, or to pay for walesstook-qp fees Daly for parsons of Iow and moderate irtc.ottee most probably cannot be rally defended. Apart from the source of revenues issues, same attentive must ix paid to tlee basis upon wteich the dividing tine has been dawn around the bencfitrd arcs. I am ceruia that Chia reodved cas+efu! cvrtsidtratiori, btu neither t tar the outer attorneys were aware of the factors that wrrt ~~ I 2 i 3a.~ used in detesminiRg which propertits went to be benefited and which were not. I1x degree of Stteatian chat must be paid to this issue varies, depending on which source of funds Tz used to pay for wattr tine extensions and hook-ups. !f general funds are used. thin the issue of where to draw the tine yresents a potitical rather than a togs! issue. However. if landfiIi funds are used, then the justificatioss far using such funds (descr>txd above} presumes that there is some relationship betwoea tht properties that are bcnefiud and the concern about welt contamination. r v / ! ~Q c ~++~vr Ln"'~' T• I J CONCLUSIONS/QUESTIONS 1. Testing data from drinking water wells throughout Orange County tends to indicate that water quality in wells in the vicinity of the Eubanks Road Landfill is comparable to that in wells elsewhere in the County. Do the other governing boards interpret the data in the same way? 2. Does any governing board have an interest in conducting additional testing of wells in the vicinity of the landfill (assuming owner permission)? If so, who should conduct the testing and how should the testing be funded? 3. Based on water testing and technical reports received to date, there does not seem to be a causative relationship between landfill operations and water quality concerns that led to the proposal to extend water lines. How do the other jurisdictions view this assessment? 4. The individual opinions of the County and Town Attorneys seem to indicate that landfill funds can be used for community benefits only to the extent that the need for those benefits is related to landfill operations. Based on conclusions 1 and 3, it would appear that funds other than landfill tipping fees must be used if the governing boards elect to pursue water line extensions. Do the other jurisdictions concur in this assessment? 5. The County Engineer's analysis estimates water line extension and connection costs on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. If all neighborhoods are included, the total cost for construction, plumbing connections, acreage fees, and the like is estimated at $2,889,000. What do the other governing boards think about which neighborhoods should be included? Which costs should be covered with public funds, and which costs (if any) should be borne by private property owners? 6. If conclusions 1, 3, and 4 are reached, all neighborhoods are included, and all costs are seen as properly borne using public funds, the estimated one time equivalent tax rate impacts are for Orange County - 2 cents; for Chapel Hill - 4.5 cents; and for Carrboro - 6.3 cents (assuming the costs are divided based on current landfill ownership interests). Do the other jurisdictions reach the same estimates? Are there other methods that should be considered for assessing the shares of the public costs of water line extensions? v