HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-16-2008-1ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 16, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Transfer Station Site Search Process
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Olver Site Search Process/Criteria
Preliminary Proposal Gayle Wilson, 968-2885
PURPOSE: To begin discussions between the County's Transfer Station site search technical
consultant, Olver, Inc., and the Board regarding details and issues related to the transfer station
site search process, public involvement, timeline, and search criteria.
BACKGROUND: At the March 27, 2007 BOCC meeting, the Board selected the existing landfill
property on Eubanks Road as the location on which Orange County would develop a new solid
waste transfer station. At the November 15, 2007 BOCC meeting, the Board decided to initiate
a new process for identifying and evaluating alternate locations for an Orange County Waste
Transfer Station.
Also at that November 15 meeting, the BOCC authorized the Manager to arrange a process by
which the BOCC could evaluate and select between two existing contracted professional
consulting firms to assist the Board in its new siting process. The BOCC conducted interviews
of the two firms currently under contract at the December 7, 2007 Work Session. The firms
interviewed were Draper Aden Associates of Blacksburg, VA. and Olver, Inc. of Charlotte, NC.
At the December 11 meeting, Olver, Inc. was selected to assist the BOCC in developing and
executing a formal transfer station siting process over the next several months.
The BOCC has indicated that they will serve as both the search committee, acting as a
`committee of the whole', and the decision making body so as to assure the search process is
managed at the highest levels of oversight and accountability, as well as expediting the search
process to the extent practicable. Current projections indicate that the transfer station will need
to be sited, designed, permitted and constructed by about April 2011.
The agenda for the meeting will include:
• Proposed Siting Process/Approach
• Review Exclusionary, Technical and Community Specific Criteria and Weighting
Factors
2
Proposed Implementation Schedule
FINANCIAL IMPACT: County management will negotiate a scope of work and budget following
initial discussions between Olver, Inc. and the BOCC. Funds for the transfer station siting
project will be provided from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board begin the transfer station
siting process by conducting discussions with Olver, Inc. regarding establishment of a public
process, timeline and search criteria.
0
Lr
r
m
v_
W
Cp N O
C O N=
O ca .2 C? O
= •U •lV
n
(D () CL d
E
?
?c H U
>
E
om
c•c ai
G?
0
02$?
U `
4_N
(R Q V C ? a) U
U co U IL
a? U N cn U-
rn
?-rnc ?Z, c:
dNN
~ NC.C
2)
. W ?dm
E
a)
Wa N
Cp? Et
?
? ?06
U U
0
A
V ? ? Q
ca
a) CA
?m L ??
U) cpc` L L, 0)
?mc`
' aci °?
0
? cap •E a??
a) m•E Bo
U)
?
d
XU
.. IIa
W L
LL
0.
W ? 1
CL
1 1 1
?- m ca
Nod CCVCN =(6
C C•C >_ o ()= dC
i:XU pwa)0U pE E P a_ U)
W a U
?co
A N
00
cn
a)
U
O
L
d
a)
C
C
O
N
U)
L
42
O
C
t6
L
0
m t
= I
W
10 IF 10 10 JZ5 Jul jl,? 10 10 10 Jul I
Y
c o
r. rnv??Mm(D?nr•
v
t
O>0 V?'m?N? V?'MMNN V
d >
v
N h oD N h• (O ?t a0
w N ct M co
C
C1 O
U
rI
rI
N
tM0
V
M
tG L2 10
d'
V
d y?
•?
.N
wc u ln h• N (D O) r ? M M O)
U
v
°: ar
Loto V V to
D7OU V t?0 I
U
ft1 ? U) ai
U) L Y
w A( V ??-tO ?aO fA rtN?
9
O1V ?NM? V'MM V?•???
U) Y
C
N Mtn d• (D ti co N r M
U a •-
0
v
N
L-j
u?
d'
00
N
tD
V
(D
N
V'
ti
M
O
(nmMLO0m
IR
m
c
Y
(a C
O
C
N
0 =O
c d
? U
7 =
N
vi
a N
ID
m
?
`
3
-
m
rn
E
ID
cc o
o 9
p
0 =
d O
E L N
.2 °
cl
42
c (a
8
FU c
as
ai
•
?`
O ?
... c ID
E O E
8 Oc p G
O
.
+
U
° C
CL O
? N
_
c
r . E cr El
N .i- X
O N U ._ 3 .
v)
p p O
N
c 'O
N
o O
q 0
N 2
m
v
(a
_ V!
N
•N a
i
U
U
`
U
C N
aNj
c
i
Q
LU U Q ? (! , -<t m (? N
-o 0
a?
E U
O a)
N fl
c
U ?
v v
:1 a)
O 46
3 ?
-? m
r
m v
U1 _fn
U
Q. c •U
m
N o.
axi m U
U7 C ,?_'
N E
v -Z E
Z D m 0
?m
U CO
c
o
v ?
O a3
c
H
0
N ?
CD
ti i f
a
O0 - ° ° N W
O
c07
N
?
N
O
' ) U)
in m Y
0, m
LO
r
C:) co
O)
00
(D
V
r
(D
N
U ?
, ONI-1 coo' O°l'?INI?1c, o co
?I?I°I?I?INI?IMI°Irlr
a
L E
OfvM C" N ti co T V° 'N
_ co
d
id
v
y? M Q1 N h M M O) N O oD V
U?
a
w 0)
0)0
01
w
N
N
00
0
t
0
r
U)
N
N ? Y
r ? O CD V ° r O 01 t17
U
a
s
07V o°0(00oq CS, Q N N N M to m
? td Y
roco ?vWrMIT wr°fD
U ?
c
,C V 0 0 0 0 0? ? O V7 0 u7
p? ? r
d lL
G
Y
(II c
O
'O
t6
m ?
?
U
rr :3
N
N
m
a
m N
c
a)
0 0 o
O 2 .O
a)
_ 0
CL
N
C
Ep
r
Cl
c
.
O
0
.,N.
a)
O
C
0
E
cx
0
c
0
U
7
°
O
tft
w
c
i=
.?0.
- g
15 N
'
m UUU C C CL N 0
U
c 0 ca
E ?
a?
.•-•
axi
?
N
U m
- c
N
O
+'' O
- O
N N
N a
`E
O O
N D
co O O
O
t
0
O ? N
N
•N
U tII
Y
,?' N
U
C y
O
C
W O (n Cg F2 z c, )
:
?D V/
U
c
(1) 0
m
O?
c
m
F-
?D
O
O
O
W
1-
O
V
Cl)
0
V
O
'O O
a a?
C
Cl) d
U
v -a
0 a?
O
3 ?
-? m
a
c
ma
U m
W
YN'
•C
N O
.0., fU C
65 O -tg L)
U
O. C U
Em o.
axi m ?
N C y
LL c
=
N E
a :S E
0 C: Z D m U
W
J
D
0
W
T
V
N
0
Z
m F,
fd z
X=2
W Q
H
N
W
U.
N
Z
9
...... ........ .... ...... ...... ...... ......
e ......
4 ..... ....... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ...... .......
e
+
a
W
a
? iLL
z
o ° ° ° a W
m
8
;m
a °°
°
° 8 E
d e o ti ti 0
?
r
o
e
9 i
3 i3
A
LS ? '.
a E
a i9
io
S
uAA
.b .E
°e
is
g
;s
t=
?.?
_w
5 E
g
v
iLL
la °
LL;
:Y
?
:E
V
r
?
y u
?
?
:?
N
o
U
m
g?
N?
~$
1:! It2 IV
es
ao
0
O
EXHIBIT 4
TYPICAL EXCLUSIONARY SITING CRITERIA1
Siting a waste transfer station in areas with preclusive siting criteria is often prohibited by federal, state,
or local laws or regulations, or requires facilities to incorporate special engineering design and
construction techniques. Even when siting in excluded zones is allowed, the added engineering designs
or strong public opposition can significantly increase construction costs. In general, it is best to avoid
siting in these areas. Exclusionary criteria might include areas such as:
• Wetlands and floodplains.
• Endangered and protected flora and fauna habitats.
¦ Protected sites of historical, archeological, or cultural significance.
¦ Parks and preserves.
¦ Land use/zoning and other restricted areas?
¦ Durham Urban Growth Area.2
¦ Sites must be greater than 15 acres?
¦ Site condemnation.?
¦ Site must be located within County jurisdiction?
Some examples of federal laws defining these areas include the Endangered Species Act; the Migratory
Bird Conservation Act; the Coastal Zone Management Act; the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; and the National Historic Preservation Act.
i Waste Transfer Station: A Manual for Decision-Making, EPA.
z Criteria Modified for Orange County, North Carolina.
1
EXHIBIT 5
TECHNICAL SITING CRITERIA'S
The second category of criteria to develop includes technical parameters that help define the best potential
facility sites. These criteria provide guidance on specific engineering, operation, and transportation
conditions that should be considered to ensure that potential sites are feasible from technical,
environmental, and economic perspectives. These criteria address the following issues:
¦ Central location to collection routes - To maximize waste collection efficiency, transfer
stations should be located centrally to waste collection routes. As a rule of thumb in urban and
suburban areas, transfer stations should be no more than 10 miles away from the end of all
collection routes. Beyond that distance, collection routes might need to be altered to enable
refuse to be collected and deposited at the transfer station within one operating shift.
¦ Access to major transportation routes - The transfer station should have direct and
convenient access to truck routes, major arterials, and highways (or rail or barge access, if
appropriate). For large metropolitan areas, direct access to rail lines or barges will significantly
reduce the number of large transfer trailers leaving the station and traveling area roads. It is
preferable to avoid routing traffic through residential areas because traffic generated by transfer
stations contributes to congestion; increased risk to pedestrians; increased air emissions, noise,
and wear on roads; and might contribute to litter problems.
¦ Site size requirements - The area required for specific transfer stations varies significantly,
depending on the volume of waste to be transferred, rates at which waste will be delivered, the
functions to be carried out at the site, and the types of customers the facility is intended to serve.
Locating a site of sufficient size is critical to operating efficiencies and minimizing impacts on
the surrounding community. Engineering input can establish preliminary size criteria based on a
conceptual design.
¦ Sufficient space for on-site roadways, queuing, and parking - Transfer stations typically have
on-site roadways to move vehicles around various parts of the transfer site. Waste collection trucks
can be up to 40 feet long. Transfer trailers that move waste to a disposal facility are typically 50 to
70 feet long. These vehicles need wide roadways with gradual slopes and curves to maneuver,
efficiently and safely. Also, the site will need space for parking transfer, vehicles and to allow
incoming and outgoing traffic to form lines without backing up onto public roads.
¦ Truck and traffic compatibility - Transfer stations often receive surges of traffic when
collection vehicles have finished their routes. Transfer station traffic varies locally but tends to
peak twice a day. The first peak is often near the middle of the day or shift, and the second at the
end of the day or shift. Therefore, the best sites for transfer stations are located away from areas
that have midday traffic peaks and/or school bus and pedestrian traffic.
1 Waste Transfer Station: A Manual for Decision-Making, EPA.
``
`?a'
OLVER
P W
1
0
¦ Ability for expansion - When selecting a site, consider the potential for subsequent increase in
the daily tonnage of waste that the facility will be required to manage, or added processing
capabilities for recycling and diversion. It is frequently less expensive to expand an existing
transfer station than to develop a new site due to the ability to use existing operations staff, utility
connection, traffic control systems, office space, and buildings.
¦ Space for recycling,'composting, and public education - A transfer station could be sited in
areas also conducive to recycling or composting activities. Many transfer stations are designed to
enable residents and businesses to drop off recyclables and yard waste in addition to trash. Some
transfer stations incorporate education centers or interpretive trails focusing on waste prevention.
These types of facilities offer increased utility to the community.
¦ Buffer space - To mitigate impact on the surrounding community, a transfer station should be
located in an area that provides separation from sensitive adjoining land uses as residences.
Buffers can be natural or constructed and can take many forms, including open spaces, fences,
sound walls, trees, berms, and landscaping.
¦ Gently sloping topography - Transfer stations often are multilevel buildings that need to have
vehicle access at several levels. Completely flat sites need ramps or bridges constructed to allow
vehicle access to upper levels (or areas excavated to allow access to lower levels). Sites with
moderately sloping terrain can use topography to their advantage, allowing access to the upper
levels from the higher parts of the natural terrain and access to lower levels from the lower parts.
Sites with steep slopes might require extra costs associated with earthmoving and retaining walls.
¦ Access to utilities - Transfer stations generally require electricity to operate equipment, such as
balers and compactors; lighting; water for facility cleaning, restrooms, and drinking; and sanitary
sewer systems for wastewater disposal. Some smaller transfer stations use wells for water supply,
and some, especially in more rural settings, use septic systems or truck their wastewater for off-
site treatment.
¦ Zoning designations and requirements - Zoning ordinances frequently classify transfer
stations as industrial uses, which limits their siting to areas zoned for industry usually in
conjunction with a special use permit. Exclusive use of predetermined land use criteria, however,
might result in locating transfer stations in areas already overburdened with industries or
clustering of these types of facilities in areas adjacent to poor and minority communities. If local
zoning ordinances are so restrictive that they disallow facility siting outside pre-established
industrial zones, substantial engineering and architectural design must be incorporated into the
facility to minimize impacts on the surrounding community.
¦ Carbon footprint - Carbon emissions output of waste hauling and transfer operations
referenced to the centroid of waste generation.Z
2 Criteria Modified for Orange County, North Carolina.
OVER
rxarc?nreq
2
io
EXHIBIT 6
COMMUNITY-SPECIFIC CRITERIA1
The third category of criteria to consider is impacts that the facility will have on the surrounding
community. These criteria are typically less technical in nature and incorporate local, social, and cultural
factors. Examples of these criteria include:
¦ Environmental Justice considerations (e.g., clustering, cumulative impacts, etc.).
¦ Impact on air quality.
¦ Impact on the local infrastructure.
¦ Adjacent land uses, including other environmental stressors that might already exist.
¦ Proximity to schools, churches, recreation sites, and residences.
¦ Prevailing winds.
¦ Number of residences impacted.
¦ Presence of natural buffers.
¦ Impacts on existing businesses.
¦ Buffer zones and screening measures.
¦ Traffic compatibility.
¦ Impact on non-protected historic or cultural features?
¦ Impact on neighborhood character.
To maintain objectivity in the facility siting process, the community-specific criteria should be prioritized
before potential sites are known. After potential sites are identified, the committee will apply these
criteria to evaluate each potential site's suitability as a waste transfer station.
I Waste Transfer Station: A Manual for Decision-Making, EPA.
a Criteria Modified for Orange County, North Carolina.
1