HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-05-2011 - 8aGRANGE CGUNTY
BOARD GF CGMMISSIQNERS
ACTIUN AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 5, 2011
Action Agenda
Item No. ~ Q
SUBJECT: Landfill Ca acit ~ tions
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTAGHMENT~S~: INFORMATION CONTACT:
Memo to County Manager- March 2,
2011 Gayle vl~ilson, 968-2885
Willie Best, 245-2308
PURPOSE: To receive a staff recommendation from among three options for extending landfill
capacity, and to provide guidance to staff on a final decision.
BACKGROUND: Beginning in 1972 with the initial opening of the County landfill and extending
to the present, the expected life of the landfill has evolved. In 1989 the expected life of the
landfill was projected to be through 1997.
There are numerous variables involved with the continually changing capacity expectations and
projections. Disposal volumes have varied over the past 40 years. Changes in regulations,
changes in operational best management practices, equipment and techniques, effectiveness
of recycling and waste reduction programs, public environmental knowledge and awareness,
state and local bans, increasing tipping fees, evolving regional disposal options, etc. have all
contributed to extending the life of the facility. There is also difficulty with predicting the landfill
biodegradation process at work that varies due to the types of waste, moisture content, age of
waste, compaction, etc. However, moving forward there are fewer opportunities, to significantly
extend the life of the facility as the above variables will have a diminishing impact.
Upon the hiring a new engineering consultant ~HDR Engineering, Inc.} last summer, County
staff asked that the landfill facility be given one last thorough evaluation to prepare for facility
closure and to determine if any final possibilities for obtaining further capacity might be
identified, without expansion of the facility footprint. HDR's evaluation is summarized in the
attached memorandum to the County Manager. This memorandum proposed three potential
courses of action with regard to landfill capacity and remaining life. In the attached March 2
memorandum, County Solid Waste staff has recommended option two, which would extend
landfill life to about January 2017.
Along with the Board's consideration of providing direction to staff with regard to its preference
for landfill capacity options for moving forward and whether the Board concurs with the staff
recommendation, the Board may want to consider the County Manager's concept of instituting a
tipping fee surcharge with the intent of generating, over the remaining life of the facility, funds
for landfill neighborhood improvements. Currently the FY 201111 ~ projection of municipal solid
waste tonnage is 48,000 tons. This means that each dollar on the tipping fee would generate
about $48,000 annually. Staff would weCcome any guidance on the concept of a tipping fee
surcharge, subjectto any legal constraints regarding the use of enterprise fund monies.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of extending landfill capacity could be considerable
for Qrange County and the Interlocal Agreement partners has well as other users}. Qption 1
would generate about $6,32,500 gross additional revenue knot including operational expenses}
and delay expenditures for closure over current projections and permit authority by about ~.5
years. Qption 2 would generate about $8,896,500 gross additional revenue and delay
expenditures for closure for about 3.5 years. Qption 3 would generate about $11,767,500 gross
additional revenue and delay expenditures for closure for about 4.5 years.
The extension of time would provide additional opportunity fior building the closurelpost-closure
reserve fund. Additionally, extension of landfill life would delay incurring the additional
expenses by all Interlocal Agreement partners related to the hauling of waste to the City of
Durham Transfer Station. This additional time could also give local governments more time to
investigate more permanent andlor less costly long term alternatives to utilization of the Durham
Transfer Station.
RECOMMENDATI4N~S~: The Manager recommends that the Board provide guidance to staff
with regard to the staff recommendation of Option 2 or other related landfill capacity issues.
Memorandum
To: Frank Clifton, County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
Subject: MSW Landfill Expansion Capacity options
Date: March 2, 2011
I have been evaluating the HDR Engineering memorandum of February 3, 2011
attached}that presents three options for obtaining additional capacity for the county
landfill. This memorandum has previously been shared with you and indicates that the
county may want to extend final capacity using one of these options. All three options
will considerably extend current capacity estimates of March-June 2013.
None of the options would result in a lateral expansion of the facility and the existing
landfill footprint would remain the same. Options 2 and 3 would require a public process
led by the State and assisted by the Solid Waste Department because the current
permitted capacity would be increased by more than 10%.
I have attached a table summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of each option and
I am recommending option #2. option #2 would extend capacity until about January
2017.
The basis for my recommendation is as follows:
• option 3 would provide the greatest capacity, but would be extremely difficult to
construct.
• while I don't relish the required brief public process due to the strong feelings of
a small number of residents in a nearby neighborhood, I believe extending
capacity would be in the best interest of the residents of the county as a whole, be
a considerable benefit for users who depend on landfill, would delay expenditures
for closure and post-closure, would delay the more expensive delivery of waste to
the City of Durham Transfer Station, would allow for the continued reserving of
funds for closure and post-closure, and provide additional time for local elected
officials to explore other longer-term waste management alternatives.
• It would appear that we have an obligation to reasonably optimize the use of the
public infrastructure.
If you concur I will direct HDR Engineering to develop the permit modification
accordingly. In the event you do not concur, we will proceed with Option # 1.
1.
•
•
• I I
452,004 CY Remaining
70 Months ~
January 2016
Revise slopes from 4:1 to 3:1
Less than 10% capacity
increase
Additional 191,591 CY or
126,450 tans
. A I 1 1 ~~ ~ I I f I 1 ~+
Advanta es
• No public involvement process
• Extended site life
• Additional tipping fees x$50 x 126,450 extra tons
$6,322,500) compared to existing permitted capacity
• Easily constructed and maintained side slopes
• Does not exceed existing permitted height
• Consistent with existing slope constructian
No additional cell construction
takes
D1Sa Vall___
• Does not maximize potential airspace
• Extended site life may have negative impact on
public perception
2. 530,000 CY Remaining Advantages,
82 Months • Extended site life
January 2017 • Additional tipping fees x$50 x 177,930 extra tons =
$8,896,500} compared to existing permitted capacity
• Revise slopes from 4:1 to 3;1 Easily constructed and maintained side slopes to
• Maximum landf 11 height achieve maximum airspace
• Additiona1269,591 CY or • Consistent with existing slope construction
177,930 tans • No additianal cell construction
Disadyanta~e_s_
• Public involvement process
• Construction permit application renewal ~5-yr permit}
• Slightly increases overall landf ll height
• Extended site life may have negative impact on
public perception
3. 617,000 CY Remaining Advanta es
96 Months • Extended site life
March 2018 Additional tipping fees x$50 x 235,350 extra tons =
$11,767,503} compared to existing permitted
• Revise slopes from 4:1 to 3:1 capacity
• Maximum landf 11 height • Maximum airspace
• includes slope wedge Na additional cell construction
• Additiona1356,591 CY or Di~advan~a es
235,350 tons • Public involvement process
• Construction permit application renewal ~5-yr permit}
• Slightly increases overall landfill height
• Considerable Jiff culty in constructing wedge
airspace recovery over existing constructed side
slopes
• Extended site life may have negative impact on
public perception
JANE C(4 ]MPANY
1 LT'.RarZy SdL~~Z~~SSM ~~ 1 ~~
ro: Gayle Wilson ~4range County}
I"r~m: poug DeCesare HDR} Project: Prange County MSW Landfill
~~~ Ed Shuffler HDR}
Date: October 28, 201 D Job N°~ 352D7-142839-018
Revised February 3, 2D11
RE: MSUV Landfill Expansion Capacity
Under Wark Crder No. 2 HDR has prepared different options regarding the proposed final grades of the
landfill. It is intended to prepare a permit modification that revises the current permitted side slopes of 4:1 to
3:1. The steeper side slopes provide better drainage, enhances positive drainage after settlement, and
provides additional capacity. If the revised permitted capacity of the landfill increases by 1 D°/° or mare, North
Carolina General Statutes considers the permit modification to be a substantial amendment. A substantial
amendment requires public involvement during the review and approval process with NCDENR.
The public involvement process would generally follow 15NCAC 13B .16D3~c} of the Solid Vvaste
Management Rules. Upon approval of a substantial amendment, NCDENR would prepare a draft permit and
a fact sheet for the applicant and anyone who may request a copy. When the draft permit is ready, NCDENR
would give public notice that a draft permit has been prepared at which time a 45-day public comment period
is opened andlar a public hearing is scheduled. The public notice may be in the form of publication in a daily
or weekly Inca! newspaper of general circulation or by pasting the notice in the post office and public places of
the municipalities nearest the site. All comments received would be considered by NGDENR in making the
final decision. At the time of final permit decision, NCDENR would provide a response to all comments
received.
Currently the bottom third of the landf fl has been constructed at slopes steeper than 4:1 to account for future
settlement. HDR has projected the remaining final grades at a 3:1 beginning at existing side slopes that
closely represent 3:1 slopes. By projecting 3:1 slopes and remaining below the 1 D°/° threshold, the landfill
would have a remaining capacity of about 452, D00 CY as of 3119110 date of latest survey}. At 51,120
tanslyear and a waste density of 1,320 Iblcy, the remaining site life would be 7D months and reach capacity in
January 2D16. Additional capacity could be realized beyond the 452,ODD CY if the 1 D°/° threshold were
exceeded.
In the event the County elects to maximize the landfill, HDR projected the final grades at a 3:1 slope from the
existing slopes to a higher elevation that results in a remaining capacity of about 530,ODD GY. In this case the
remaining site life would be 82 months and reach capacity in January 2017, Maximizing the landfill capacity
based on these grades is achievable and can be easily constructed. If the County was interested in
reworking all the slopes and begin the 3:1 slopes at the toe of the landfill fat the base liner anchor trench}, the
maximum capacity of the landfill would be greater than 53D,DDD CY. In addition to projecting the 3:1 slopes
from the existing slopes, HDR projected grades from the toe of the landfill which creates an additional wedge
of airspace between the existing slopes and the projected slopes. V1rth the additional wedge, the maximum
remaining capacity of the landfill is about 617,DDD CY. This yields a remaining site life of about 96 months
which reaches capacity in March 2018.
Per our meeting October 27, 201 D, it was concluded to proceed with the permit modification such that the
1 D% threshold will not be exceeded. Unless otherwise directed by the County, HDR proceeded with the
preparation of a permit modification to steepen the side slopes and remain under the 10% capacity increase
threshold.
HQR Et~gineerirtg, Inc, 3733 tiatinnai Drive Phone (919 785-1118 Page 1 of 1
C:~pwwnrkingltpa~d0235~511~a11-a2-04 DTD-Wilson Capacity Mem°.DOC Suite 2~7 Fax (919} 785-1187
' Raleigh, fVC X7612 vrww.hdrinc,cnm