Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-15-2007-7bORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 15, 2007 Action Agenda Item No. ~_~ SUBJECT: Process to Determine Alternate Sites for a Solid Waste Transfer Station DEPARTMENT: County Manager, Solid Waste Management ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Siting Criteria Summary 2. Revised Site Search Timeline 3. Estimated Remaining Landfill Capacity 4. March 27, 2007 BOCC Adopted Resolution on the Waste Transfer Station Siting PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Blackmon, County Manager, 245- . 2300 Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director, 968-2885 PURPOSE: To provide background information and a proposed strategy to assist the BOCC in a process for identifying and evaluating alternate sites for locating a County solid waste transfer station. BACKGROUND: On March 27, 2007, the BOCC adopted a "Resolution on the Waste Transfer Station Siting" that directed staff to begin planning a solid waste transfer station for the Eubanks Road site and the creation of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force to continue discussion of a community development program.for neighborhood enhancement. Since that time, Solid Waste staff has worked with its engineering consultants to prepare plans and documents for a Zoning Atlas Amendment Application before the Town of Chapel Hill during spring 2008. The BOCC created and approved the Historic Rogers Road Community Enhancement Plan Development and Monitoring Task Force on April 24, 2007. The purpose of the Task Force is to meet with residents of the Historic Rogers Road community as needed to determine issues they deem important for improving the quality of life in their community in order to address the concerns related to long term presence of the solid waste facilities located in their community. The Task Force has made considerable progress toward identifying key neighborhood enhancement issues in their 7 meetings to date. The work of the Task Force is continuing. At its meeting on November 5, 2007, the BOCC directed the County Manager to schedule for November 15 an item for discussion of a process for reviewing criteria and outlining next steps in placement of the transfer station. Within the discussion on November 5 was the concern that the work of the Task Force not be "pre-empted" as they were charged with "bringing forward recommendations to mitigate impacts". Attachments 1, 2, and 3 are background materials relative to the siting criteria under previous use, extracted from EPA guidance materials, a revised siting project timeline, and a copy of the June 12, 2007 memo estimating remaining landfill capacity for BOCC consideration. Issues the BOCC may wish to address as it resumes discussion of Eubanks Road and reopening a search for alternate transfer station sites include, but are not limited to, the following: • Implications for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force in progress • Implications for Eubank Road in a formal decision by the BOCC to reopen a site search; i.e., would the BOCC temporarily suspend or permanently exclude Eubank Roads from further consideration? Should County staff continue the course of the March 27 directive of obtaining a permit for a transfer station at Eubanks Road? • .What criteria or factors might the BOCC wish to adopt, taking into account those previously employed by the Solid Waste Advisory Board, contained in EPA transfer station guidance manuals, or generated by the BOCC? ® How might the BOCC seek to include and involve the community or general citizenry in a reopened site search given the complexity and likelihood of revived controversy? Would the BOCC choose to serve as its own "search committee of the whole"? • In order to expedite the business at hand, will the BOCC schedule special meetings or work sessions to conduct the business of the search process? • To what degree should ancillary services, if any, be considered for co-location along the transfer station? • Concern and consideration for the critical timelines involved in project implementation and expectant costs in a reopened site search. The BOCC is reminded that current predictions are that the landfill will reach capacity sometime in April-May 2011. County Management and Solid Waste, in follow up to the BOCC discussion that began on November 5, are prepared to utilize one of two qualified and capable professional consulting firms currently under contract with Orange County for a variety of solid waste environmental monitoring, regulatory compliance and engineering services. Neither of these two firms have been involved in the local search for a transfer station site, although Olver, Inc. has been performing design and permitting work relative to the previous Eubanks Road transfer station site. Either firm could perform the site search work in an objective and unbiased manner and could be available to begin working with the BOCC immediately. Alternatively, staff is also prepared to retain the services of an outside professional consulting firm that would also bring the requisite technical skills and expert objectivity to assist and support the BOCC. Staff is prepared to immediately initiate a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to obtain these services should the BOCC wish to pursue this option. It is estimated that the RFP process could take approximately 3 months. Staff recommends that the consultant chosen by the BOCC would work directly with the BOCC in redefining site criteria and be responsible for conducting an extensive land-based search and analysis for suitable sites for presentation to the BOCC. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with the BOCC discussion of a reopened site search. Staff proposes to return in January, should the BOCC desire, with an estimated cost for outside professional/technical services. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the background materials, issues and implications, and consider the following actions or some modification thereof: 1. Agree to begin a new process for identifying and evaluating alternate locations for an Orange County Transfer Station; 2. Review the siting criteria as attached and provide any comment or feedback as may be desired; and 3. Authorize staff to either utilize one of the existing contracted professional consulting firms OR pursue a new consulting firm to establish and implement with the BOCC a new process for identifying and evaluating alternate locations. Siting Criteria for Transfer Station November 15, 2007 This information originated in part from an EPA Office of Solid Waste 2002 publication "Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision Making. Exclusionary criteria were obtained from Orange County Planning and the State Division of Waste Management. Exclusionary Siting Criteria These criteria are "fatal flaw" type criteria that would prohibit siting by law, regulation, or that requires extraordinary design and construction techniques. • County Regulations 0 • North Carolina Regulations 0 Technical Siting Criteria Technical siting criteria affect technical, environmental and economic operations and can be considered "operational" in nature. These criteria provide guidance on specific engineering, operation, and transportation conditions that should be considered. • Central location to individual collection routes (proximity to the center of waste generation) • Access to major transportation routes (proximity to I-40/85) • Site size (size of site varies from a minimum of 5-6 ideally situated acres for transfer station only to a larger site if other ancillary facilities to be included, such as convenience center, scrap tire/white goods/metal recycling, mulch/com post sales, storm debris management, queuing space, recyclables processing, collection vehicle parking, etc. and future expandability) • Traffic Impacts (increased impact on surrounding community, safety, road conditions, bridge weight limits, etc.) • Ability to integrate with other solid waste- operations • Buffer space (maximizing space between operations and surrounding uses/neighborhoods) • Topography (gently sloping preferred with minimal rock, surface water features and substantial groundwater depth) • Proximity of public water and sewer (for facility wash down) • Zoning (ability to obtain local pernutting) Community-specific Siting Criteria These criteria are community specific in nature and vary according to community priorities, values and interests. These may include: • Environmental justice considerations • Impacts on air quality • Impacts on local infrastructure • Compatibility with adjacent land uses • Prevailing winds • Proximity to sensitive receptors, such as schools, churches, recreation sites and residences • Number of residences impacted • Presence of natural buffers • Impacts on existing businesses • Expansion capability • Development and operational costs • Buffer zones and screening measures • Traffic compatibility • Impact on historic or cultural features • Impact on neighborhood character According to current generally accepted formal solid waste facility siting practice, to maintain objectivity in the siting process the siting criteria are agreed upon before potential sites are known. While the consultant is applying the criteria to screen the county for satisfactory/suitable sites (according to these previously agreed upon screening criteria) the siting committee (the Board of Commissioners in this instance) prioritizes (assigns values) to each of the criteria to assist in ranking the candidate sites that are identified in the initial screening. Again, to maintain the objectivity in the process the criteria are prioritized (weighted) before the potential sites are known. Based on the ra~ciking/scoring the BOCC may wish to apply a more rigorous analysis of the top 2-4 sites. It is likely that every site identified will have shortcomings. 2 m ~ - - - --- ~ ~ _ ~ ~ j _ I ` i ~ ~ , ~ ~ i ~ I I ~ , ~ i i ~ ~ i . ; I I ! i ! ~i i. ~ ; , ~ ~ ~~. m L I ~ ~ _ i ~ i ~ . ` ~ I ; ' ~ I. ~ . ~ i. ~ .. . I ~ .. . . I I I ,. i j i ..... i I ~, ~ .. ~ .. I ~ ~ ~ . . i t~' 1 I .. _ + I } ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ t !. I i4- ~ !. . I 1 ~. M M I I ~ i L I I I I ( 1 I - ~ .. ' , o I... I ± ~ ~ I ' i I i I i ~ I I i i a a ~ N O ` I .-~ - ' f I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ I 4 . I. E N N N ~ i I 1 j. ! ; ~ ; ~ ~ i ~ W- L.. N .. N + I ' v,. , ` . ~ ~ ~ , I i. I I I_ i. I i ~ ~ j ~ I .. ~ ~ i I ~. ~.. ~ N . .. ~ . .. _ i I ~ I i ~ f I I C V N .. ( I. , '~ ' ~ .. j I. . .. ' i I i I. i i ~ ; ~ I i I I y I w ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~. ~ I ~ I I i. I I i i i i I i a ~~ r ~ I I L I i a u. a ~ o .. ~ ~ I .-~. ~ ~ (. .. I ... L ~ _ ~ ' I ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ , I . ' ~ w a N. of ;. I_ I ~ I I ~ (. .. ~ l i f ~ I ' I i ~ ~~ ~ ~ D ! ~ I ' ili ( j ~ ' ~ I 1 i i ~- ~ I , . i j (. ~ i I I I i ~. 1 ,. i m ~ ... , , I i i I, i i I i I I .~ I ~. ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ I~ I 1 ~ ~ I i I I i i I ! I i _ ~ I. I ; I. I~ I 1 N I I: l i i~ I ', ~ I i ~ ~ I. I I I I i i I I ~ i. I i i. ` I ~ ~ y '~ N 7 .I. , . , , , ._. . J .j . ..~.~ _..~.._._._.S_._.~' C p N N L N c W . d c] O N C U to c w ~ C w w W ~ ~ ~ c ,; w C p m to i9 ~ ~ m O W N 'p C Q N C O w O w O. O C C O ftl b N € pl 2 V D. C ~ d vi ~ `° .v o ro `~ w v ~ u N c v 2 0 °- ~ °1 N t- p ~ V7 'c° p N ~ d `m aci v ~ ~. m o ~ m m .d da~pp o m °' ~ ~ ~ ~ Y4 N rJ O .. ~ w O C N ~ C w w U p~ ~. O V p N U Y U 'L C ~ E N c ~ U w ~ Z c ~ y N n ~ o " :~ ;~ ~ W ~ m ~y v ~ w ~ m a ~~ s Z w o 'wGi a } c ~ $ a' g c' Lo w ~ ~ c c m v w '~ p ~ p m o c ~ ~ ~ m v w v w i,. eX <`n w w ~ o m a ii. ~ ~ m ~ 'm c.> N ~ u. ~ ~ o i-' ~- w`a ~'rn m r N H k ~ .~ ~ rN¢~_ b U (L - N 0. Q m 1 t0 N F! V' N ~ ~"" ~ Q1 IN fQ'') N IN ~N N IN N N N O t~L v w ci ~ ~ G` ~ r N F! 'C th tp h 07 ~ IN 1i ao Y~• - t.~' Memorandum To: Laura Blackmon, County Manager From: Gayle ~VaTilson, Solid Waste Director Subject: Estimated Remaining Landfill Capacity Date: June 12, 2007 The aerial survey of the Orange County Landfill performed on Apri15, 2007 indicates that approximately 4.7 years remain. If the incoming tonnage remains relatively constant, which it has for the past 3-4 years, it would appear that the landfill would reach capacity sometime in April-May 2011, or just under one year beyond our previous estimate. The reasons for this extended capacity include: • Continued attention to'improving compaction of wastes • Close enforcement of state and local waste bans ' • Subsidence of previously placed waste due to the highly putrescible nature of local wastes • .Rebuilding of the outer landfill slopes (due to subsidence) to reclaim previously . filled airspace At the. June 1 1, 2007 Chapel Hill Town Council meeting Orange County's request for expedited review of the transfer station permitting process was not granted, which will extend the permitting process through most of the additional time and significantly 'reduce yr eliminate any opportunity to preserve landfill capacity following opening of the new transfer station. Staff remains confident that the transfer station will be, ready for use prior to reaching landfill capacity, absent any extraordinary delays in bidding and construction. Had the Town granted expedited review it would have been possible that eight to ten months of landfill capacity would have remained following the transfer. station's opening. Our consultant is proceeding deliberately with design and permitting. of the new transfer station. Staff is available to answer questions or provide additional information as necessary. ADOPTED March 27, 2007 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS `=' RESOLUTION ON THE WASTE TRANSFER STATION SITING Whereas, the Eubanks Road site is close to the population/waste generation center of Orange County thus minimizing cost, pollution and green house gas emissions, and Whereas, the Eubanks Road site has excellent access to points outside Orange County because of the nearness to I-40 and other major highways, and Whereas, -this site is near a railroad, thereby offering flexibility in transportation alternatives, and Whereas, the Eubanks Road site is in an area appropriately zoned for the proposed use and will add minimal traffic to an existing road, and Whereas, the time for obtaining approvals, designing, and constructing a transfer station is tight since the landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2010, and Whereas, the Solid Waste Advisory Board has strongly recommended that the Eubanks Road site be the location for the waste transfer station (and an explanation of the Solid Waste Advisory Board's rationale for its recommendation can be found in the attached March 19, 2007 Memorandum on Waste Transfer Station Siting). Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners finds that the solid waste transfer station on Eubanks Road should be sited on Eubanks Rd, that it should be designed with care, that it must be aesthetically pleasing, and that the fagade should be made of brick, stone or other attractive material, and Be It Further Resolved, that the buffer between the roadway and the facility should exceed the minimum buffer required and be as wide as is practically possible, and Be It Further Resolved, that the Board will enter into discussion with the historic Rogers Road neighborhood to determine a community development program that enhances the neighborhood, including but not limited to the following items identified by the neighborhood at the January 18, 2007 meeting; a. Seek reduction of speed limit along Rogers and Eubanks Roads b. Pave driveway surface in and out of new facility c. Ban public and private waste hauling vehicles from using Rogers Road as they travel to/from the transfer station ADOPTED March 27, 2007 d. Seek the installation of a sidewalk alon Ro ers Road g g e. Install the sewer line to the leachate pond in a timely manner f. Work with our transit partners to secure a bus route that serves the Rogers Road neighborhood Be It Further Resolved, that the Board agrees to pursue the following additional actions that were identified in the January 18, 2007 meeting with the historic Rogers Road neighborhood: a. Place large numbers on the side of solid waste vehicles so they can be easily spotted and reported if caught speeding b. Amend contracts with haulers to ensure that tarps cover all loads traveling to and from the transfer station c. Any spilled liquids at the transfer station site will be filtered and diverted to the sewer system d. Modify waste hauling agreements to include a requirement to maintain all factory installed collection vehicle body plugs and seals in an operable condition to avoid leaking. Be It Further Resolved, that the Board agrees to continue to discuss a community development program with the historic Rogers Road neighborhood in order to solicit further ideas and feedback, and Be It Further Resolved, to develop a plan with law enforcement to enforce speed limits and requirements for covered loads." Be It Further Resolved, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners directs staff to begin planning a solid waste transfer station for the Eubanks Road site. 16 MEMORANDUM TO: ,Gayle Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Director FROM: Jan Sassaman, Chair, Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board SUBJECT: Waste Transfer Station Siting DATE March 19, 2007 CC: Members, Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board At the March 13, 2007 Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) meeting, there was some confusion and lack of detail and context regarding the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board's (SWAB) resolution of March 2007 recommending that the proposed Waste Transfer Station (WTS) "be developed on existing landfill property north of Eubanks Road." With that in mind, I would like to provide some additional information regarding the context and detail associated with our deliberations and recommendation. Context The context in which we performed that evaluation included the following. • That we must proceed with development of a WTS as expeditiously as possible in as much as the current landfill will be full by 2010 and that some residual capacity would be desired for contingencies. This continues to be the SWAB's understanding. • That the Eubanks Road landfill site will remain an active waste handling and disposal facility for many years to come -for disposal of construction and demolition (C and D) material, for staging of recycling operations, as a county-wide convenience waste drop off center, for disposal of household hazardous waste, as the site of the waste operations center, and potentially as the locus for a landfill gas collection facility. However, the current MSW landfill cell will be capped, significantly reducing generation of odors and attraction for vermin and pests. • That the proposed WTS will be operated in accordance with state and federal guidelines, that odors, vermin, and other noxious elements will be controlled or eliminated, that MSW will be removed to the receiving landfill at the end of each day's operations, and that the building will be constructed and operated in a manner to reduce to the maximum extent feasible any adverse impacts on surrounding areas. • That the net impacts, if the WTS were sited at the Eubanks Facility, would be less than for present operations, since the MSW landfill would no longer be operational. Thus, impacts of the added approximately 10 to 15 (average about 12) large long- haul truck round-trips from Route 86 to the WTS would be offset by reduced or even eliminated landfill odor, vermin, noise, etc. Furthermore, we are talking about a relatively small facility, enclosed within a structure, screened from casual public view, located as part of an ongoing solid waste operation. Memo to Gayle Wilson March 19, 2007 Page 2 • That despite the proximity of the Eubanks Road facilities, many nearby citizens have benefited from extension of OWASA water lines through the community paid for by Solid Waste Enterprise funds (these costs are normally borne by the homeowner, either directly or indirectly through a developer) and where appropriate, low- intexest loans to actually connect dwellings to the OWASA mains. Siting Criteria The SWAB Members are certainly not unaware of facility siting criteria. The present SWAB collectively has more than 100 years of professional experience evaluating and siting hazardous and nonhazard waste facilities, chemical facilities, energy production and transport facilities, and other such facilities with potential adverse effects on human health and the environment. Our goal, and the charge we were given by the BOCC, was to evaluate and address the suitability of the Eubanks Road location fox a WTS. To that end, we evaluated the suitability of the Eubanks Road site as a location of a WTS against a number of criteria, mostly technical, but also against "community based" criteria. Some of these criteria were outlined in the SWAB recommendation to you last March. The US EPA Office of Solid Waste has published adecision-making manual for Waste Transfer Stations that addresses primarily design and operation, but does devote several pages to siting criteria (LT.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. i~aste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision Making, EPA530-R-02-002, June 2002, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response). For the most part, the SWAB considered all of the criteria and issues outlined in this document. It should be rioted that this is a draft guidance document, not a set of regulations. Indeed, WTSs are typically regulated at the state level, and North Carolina regulations do not include siting requirements for Waste Transfer Stations, per se. A review of the US EPA recommendations dealing with WTS siting referenced above, and our approach, is appropriate. The document provides guidance on determining the need for a transfer station. The SWAB operated under an a priori assumption that, given the size and nature of our communities, and the fact that other options such as an in-county landfill were not on the table, there was a need for a WTS. The document suggests, at pages 11 and 12, public cornrnittee participation and informing the public. The SWAB is a broad-based public committee, appointed by the various signatories to the inter-local agreement that governs waste management in Orange County. As such, it represents most of the involved stakeholders, including residents close to the Eubanks Road facility. All of the SWAB members participated fully and were heard during our deliberations. The issue of the WTS has been discussed at length for more than a year in public meetings and in the press. i~ The document addresses three types of siting criteria, exclusionary, technical, and community, and their application, on pages 14 though 18. The following are presented in the order in which they axe presented in the US EPA guidance document. Memo to Gayle Wilson March 19, 2007 Page 3 Exclusionary Criteria axe those criteria that would prohibit siting by laws or regulation, or that would require special engineering or construction techniques. The SWAB remains unaware of any exclusionary siting criteria applicable to the existing Eubanks Road Site. Technical Siting Criteria are those parameters that affect technical, environmental, and economic operations of the WTS facility. They can be viewed as "operational consideration," and include the following: Central location to collection xoutes. The SWAB was particularly concerned with the importance of keeping to a minimum the distances traveled by collection vehicles to reduce driving times, gas consumption, air emissions, and truck wear and tear. The Eubanks Road site is presently the locus of delivery of solid waste from all over the county, and county and municipal collection routes are presently optimized to deliver waste there. • Access to major transportation routes. The Eubanks Road location is close to I-40 for access to long-haul trucks, and to major delivery routes for collection vehicles, minimizing the distance these larger vehicles would need to be on secondary roads in the county. • Site size requirements. The SWAB reviewed and concurred with a siting study by Olver Associates indicating that there was sufficient area for the WTS at the Eubanks Road facility. • Sufficient space for onsite roadways, queuing, and parking. The siting study by Olver Associates indicated that there was sufficient area for associated infrastructure for the WTS at the Eubanks Road facility. • Truck and traffic compatibility. The SWAB was concerned that there would be the additional large truck traffic on Eubanks Road, but concluded that an estimated increase of approximately 10 to 15 (average about 12) large-truck round trips per day as a result of siting the WTS at the Eubanks Road facility would not constitute a significant increase in overall vehicular traffic along Eubanks Road. In addition, the SWAB understands that development of the WTS on Eubanks Road would also include additional shoulder and turn space for the large trucks entering the facility. • Ability for expansion. The SWAB understands that the WTS as planned would be constructed larger than necessary at this time in order to accommodate future needs, and our recommendation was based on that understanding. ~a • Space for recycling, composting, and public education. These activities are presently carried out on the site and would not be adversely affected by the Memo to Gayle Wilson ~ 3 March 19, 2007 Page 4 WTS. Indeed, the Solid Waste Operations Center recently approved by the commissioners will include a meeting space available for the public, as well as facilities for public education to support the Solid Waste Department's award winning education program. • Buffer space. The SWAB has on several occasions over the past six years reviewed elements of the site master plan and noted that present operations require buffer space. In addition, we have discussed ongoing efforts by the Solid Waste Department to acquire additional land for buffer space whenever possible. With that in mind, there is sufficient space available for buffers. • Gently sloping topography. The siting study indicated that the Eubanks Road site topography was suitable for WTS operational considerations. Furthermore, the presence of capped landfill mounds north and south of the WTS will provide buffering and visual shielding in many directions. • Access to utilities. Utilities are available on the site for current operations. Zoning designations and requirements. The site is currently used for land fill operations, and will continue to be so for many years. Community-specific Siting Criteria are those associated with potential impacts that the facility might have on surrounding communities. Examples of community-specific criteria that the guidance document identified are: • Environmental justice considerations • Impacts on air quality • Impact on local infrastructure • Adjacent land uses • Proximity to sensitive receptors, such as schools, churches, recreations sites, and residences. • Prevailing winds • Number of residences impacted • Presence of natural buffers • Impacts on existing businesses • Expansion capability • Buffer zones and screening measures • Traffic compatibility • Impact on historic or cultural features • Impact on neighborhood character. In addition to these community-specific criteria identified by the guidance document, the SWAB was concerned with the community-wide need for a timely solution to our looming waste disposal needs and that all of the citizens of Orange County need to be prepared for Memo to Gayle Wilson March 19, 2007 Page S MSW landfill closure in 2010. While the SWAB discussed many of these community-based issues noted above, since the site was already being used for solid waste operations, and will be so used for many years to come whether or not the WTS is sited there, the SWAB focused on two issues -the potential impact of the WTS as an additional burden on the Historic Rogers Road Community balanced against the imminent need for the WTS and the operational benefits to all of the County's citizens associated with its siting at Eubanks Road. As part of our discussion, we noted the benefits that have been directly granted to the Rogers Road community to mitigate the proximity of the landfill, and that should the WTS be sited at the Eubanks Road site, additional mitigation measures might be appropriate. Conclusion Some of these criteria are mutually exclusive, for instance location close to the point of MSW generation is usually associated with location close to population, traffic, schools, etc. In addition, and no matter where a facility is sited, there will be strong opposition. The SWAB felt compelled to make a recommendation to the BOCC that was in the best interest of all of the citizens of Orange County. Given that the Eubanks Road site was a very clearly optimal site from an operational and an economic standpoint and was available and owned by the county, and given that the SWAB (and staff) are very familiar with the Eubanks Road site, we recommended to the BOCC that the WTS be sited on Eubanks Road. We did not consider that acounty-wide site search and ranking exercise would yield any better site that would significantly better operationally, more readily available, and more publicly acceptable than the Eubanks Road site. Locationally, from an operational standpoint, the optimal site would be very close to I-40 in the general vicinity of the Eubanks Road Solid Waste facility, and thus would raise the same community-based issues as the Eubanks Road site, and possibly not have the same level of operational benefits. Finally, it is important to return to the US EPA Guidance for help here, and note that at page 18, the guidance document makes the observation that "... despite the best efforts, every site has some shortcomings that will need to be addressed" and that "[s]iting any type of solid waste management facility has often been met with strong community opposition." The guidance then goes on to discuss that "host community agreements" for both private and publicly operated facilities might serve to mitigate community concerns. Such agreements range from operational controls on the facility (e.g. traffic route restrictions, operating hour restriction, or video monitoring of operations) to direct help to the local community such as road or utility improvements, provision of an education center, or financial support for other community-based initiatives. The potential for some form of mitigation for the Historic Rogers Road community was indeed part of the SWAB's discussion. 14