HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-27-2007-9aREVISED 3/26/07 (abstract only)
Changes In Italics
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 27, 2007
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT• Orange County Transfer Station
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
Solid Waste Management
ATTACHMENT(S):
Report to County Manager
w/attachments
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Blackmon, 245-2300
Gayle Wilson, 968-2885
PURPOSE: To provide information to the Board of County Commissioners relative to selecting
a location for a transfer station within Orange County and to elicit a decision regarding a site or
guidance in establishing a site selection process.
BACKGROUND: At the March 13, 2007 Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the Board
requested various information relating to the discussion of a location for a transfer station within
Orange County. According to staff notes, the requested information was:
• Traffic
o more information regarding traffic in the Eubanks Road area
o additional information regarding the size and frequency of the transfer trucks
o traffic impact requirements
• Contingency
o in the event that the new transfer station is not ready when landfill full
o what have other communities done
• Population Center
o where is the center of waste generation now and in the future using the
distribution of residential, UNC and commercial development throughout the
County as the surrogate for waste generation
• Municipal Property
o is municipally owned property available for consideration
o Carrboro's future Public Works Operations Center
REVISED 3/26/07 (abstract only)
Changes In Italics
• Reconsider Timeline
o review existing transfer station development timeline to bring up to date and
sharpen/extend to the extent possible
Siting Criteria .
o what criteria did staff use for preliminary review of properties referred for
consideration
o what criteria did the SWAB use for that Board's consideration of its
recommendation
o provide listing of prospective criteria for a local search, such as available
infrastructure including water and sewer, appropriate zoning, etc.
o what is average time for acounty-wide transfer station site search
• Destination of Transferred Waste
o should the County proceed, simultaneously with a transfer station site search, with
selecting a landfill outside the County to receive the County's solid waste
The attached report addresses these issues.
Options available to the Baard include:
7. Approve construction of the proposed transfer station at the Solid Waste Facility on
Eubanks Road.
2. Direct staff to conduct a formal site selection process to be completed within one year
with the following guidelines in determining the locations to be evaluated according to
established criteria. The sites to be considered must:
a, have access to electric, water and sewer utilities
b, be in close proximity to the County's center of waste generation
c. have the proper zoning to allow for use as a transfer station
d. be large enough to enable the collection and processing of recycling and
household hazardous waste
e. be configured in a manner to mitigate visual, noise, odor and vermin impacts on
the surrounding properties
3. Hire an outside consultant to conduct a formal site selection process to be completed
within one year with the guidelines listed in Option #2.
It should be noted that based on the solid waste interlocal agreement, the County is the
responsible party and is required to address this issue.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the Board receiving the
attached information. Depending on the final site selected, there could be property acquisition
costs, costs for preliminary engineering assessments of one or more candidate sites, and costs
to design, permit and construct the transfer station.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the information
provided and provide staff with any additional questions, comments or direction that will lead to
a final transfer station site decision.
3
Memorandum
To: Laura Blackmon, Orange County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director
Subject: Orange County Transfer Station
Date: March 20, 2007
At the March 13, 2007-Board of County Commissioners' meeting the Board requested
various information relating to deciding of a location for a transfer .station within Orange
County. Staff has provided the information below in response to BOCC questions.
Traffic
Transfer trucks like the ones anticipated to the used in Orange County have about 52-55
foot long trailers and 25-30 foot long tractors; standard lengths. They are about 8 feet
wide and 13.5 feet in height. The empty weight is about 31,000-32,000 pounds. Average
weight loaded is about 44,860 pounds (22 tons). Scales, built-in to the floor of the
transfer station are planned to avoid over weight loads.
Regarding the number of trips, staff is using 20051andfill tonnage data rather than more
current and lower tonnage data estimates for calculating transfer trips so as to present
more conservative representations. Tonnage is seasonal and also varies by day of week.
The estimated number of transfer round trips on the heaviest day and season would be 15.
On our lightest day, which is Saturday, we estimate only 3 trips.
The Eubanks Road area has recently seen traffic control mechanisms be installed recently
such as the traffic light at the Millhouse Road intersection and the planned roundabout
recommended for Elementary School #10 on Eubanks Road. It is our opinion that the
general community interest in increasing traffic in the area is primarily a result of
cumulative development in the northern Chapel Hill and Carrboro transition areas that
have little direct association with landfill or transfer station operations as our traffic has
remained constant to slightly decreasing over the past five years.
The Town of Chapel Hill can require a full traffic impact analysis for any major
subdivision, special use permit or site plan review. The requirement may be waived by
the Town Manager based on meeting 5 conditions, of which we believe can be met by a
proposed transfer station developed on existing landfill property.
Orange County typically does not require a full traffic impact analysis unless the
proposed project generates 800 trips per day or other factors such as safety, road capacity,
etc. exist. The transfer station is expected to generate only a maximum of 30 (15 round
trips) trips daily, five days per week. We believe the County Manager/BOCC/Planning
Director may have some flexibility in requiring an analysis for projects that do not reach
800 trips daily. .
Given the negligible additional traffic estimated to be caused by a transfer station at the
Eubanks Road landfill, we believe that no detailed traffic impact study would be
required. The overall traffic situation on Eubanks Road could be studied by DOT or
others at any time. We are aware of no formal analysis currently underway. However, if
the transfer station were to be located elsewhere in Orange County, conditions may make
the need for a traffic impact study more compelling given the projected quantity of traffic
generated by the facility in a new area.
Contingency
A memorandum from our transfer station design and permitting consultant Olver Inc. is
provided as Attachment A. Olver is suggesting consideration of a combination of
utilizing existing infrastructure as the waste transferpad, relocating the current operations
from that pad, carefully utilizing remaining landfill capacity and prioritizing waste from
local governments.
Population/Waste Generation Center
In consultation with the County Planning Department we have estimated the current
centers of population and commerce using available data. Attachment B provides that
estimate for current and for projected 20 years future, with the existing landfill indicated
for reference.
Municipal Property
Staff has spoken to Carrboro Public Works staff regarding a 23 acre property located on
Old Highway 86, (Attachment C) just south of the Eubanks Road intersection. Carrboro
staff has indicated that no conceptual site plan has been prepared for their Public Works
Operations Center and presently it is not known how or whether a transfer station maybe
able to be developed on this property. Carrboro has indicated that planning for the
Operations Center may begin in 2011, but the timeframe is currently uncertain.
Generally, the property appears to have reasonably gently topography and is partially
cleared. There is a large pond on the front of the property limiting development. A
previous consultant has provided the Opinion that approximately 13 acres of usable
acreage exists. The property is surrounded by a good number of residential areas and this
section of Old Highway'86 may have some safety related issues regarding trucks entering
and leaving the site. It is not possible to speculate any further concerning the potential
for this property to host both the Carrboro Public Works Center and a transfer station
without further conceptual planning by the Town of Carrboro.
2
5
Staff has not identified any other Carrboro or Chapel Hill owned property suitable for
hosting a transfer station, with the possible exception of the Greene Tract, with is not
being evaluated or considered.
Reconsider Timeline
The timeline has been reexamined in order to evaluate it for opportunities for extending it
to allow more time for additional landfill siting process. We have determined that
depending upon the specific site locations, characteristics and number of candidate sites,
should additional sites be considered, there will be some variability of the timeline. For
instance, the Eubanks Road landfill site has already been subject to the site feasibility
analysis. Other sites have not. A site requiring an additional level of due diligence could
significantly extend the timeline. ~ The length of a new siting process itself, including
making a final decision, will directly affect the timeline and be additive to the attached
revised timeline. Weather or contractor issues will affect the construction schedule.
Unreasonable or unanticipated delays in receiving local zoning and special use, or state
construction and operating permits will impact the timeline.
Following a thorough reconsideration of the transfer station project timeline, Olver Inc.
has provided Attachment D. The format. has been changed by eliminating references to
specific dates/years and instead utilizing a number of months approach. Another change
is to remove the siting process portion entirely given the uncertainties and variables
,related to a potential siting process and because the BOCC can to a large extent dictate
that process and timeline. It has also been changed by subdividing the tasks so that the
individual task subcomponents may be better understood. The timeline as presented
indicates a 38 month process, excluding whatever time is invested in a transfer station
siting process versus 44 months in the original timeline (excluding the site search and
acquisition portion). The difference is in the reduction of construction by 3 months and
the facility design is also reduced by 3 months.
While procurement of the destination landfill can be conducted concurrent with the site
search, we recommend that present priorities and resources should be focused initially on
identification of a site. Additionally, proposed new landfill regulations and policies being
considered by DENR and the Legislature could significantly impact the cost of disposal
and until there is sorxie final resolution or possible adoption of new rules we believe
proposals from out of state landfills will likely be found to be much less expensive than
in-state landfills, who are unable to provide reliable competitive bids due to the
uncertainty of future costs within North Carolina.
Staff is currently preparing for the annual survey of the MSW disposal unit. This
information will allow staff to calculate, based on air space used in a given period of time
and incoming waste tonnages, the amount of remaining capacity. The results of the
survey will likely change the target date for when the landfill will reach capacity and the
transfer facility opens. It is possible, and we hope that the survey will indicate, that we
have more time than our current projections indicate. The survey results will be reported
3
to the BOCC upon receipt from our engineering consultant, which is anticipated to be
within the first 10 days of April.
Siting Criteria
Attachment E is a memorandum from the SWAB that summarizes that Advisory Board's
evaluation of the Eubanks Road site and discusses the criteria the Board utilized in its
evaluation. The memo also lists various typical criteria as listed in EPA guidance
manuals/documents. The report has not been formally adopted by the SWAB given the
timing of this agenda item.
The average time needed to conduct a site search process differs greatly. Olver Inc. in
their.original timeline allowed one year for site selection and acquisition. Depending on
the actual process, number of meetings, whether there is a'site search steering committee
and its membership, level of ongoing citizen involvement, complexity of the
discretionary criteria, number of available sites that arise throughout the county to be
evaluated, time taken to make a final recommendation, time taken by the BOCC for a
decision, negotiations on property acquisition, the time to identify and acquire a property
can vary considerably. Based on past experience the time necessary to identify and
acquire a site could be significant.
Staff will refer readers to attachment E for a listing of possible site search screening and
selection criteria rather than duplicate the listing provided by the SWAB.
Staff has provided responses to questions from the BOCC. Further questions or analysis
maybe necessary and staff is prepared to continue providing information as necessary in
order to assist the Board in making transfer station related decisions.
4
t ~, :.~.
'~'e~: Gayle Wilson.
front: Bob Sallach ~j /}~~~
CO: Ed Shuffler
®a4e: 3/19/2007
9~e: Disposal Contingency Plan
A~~~2/r,~.~, ~
The following contingency options were developed for MSW disposal in the event that
development of the proposed Orange Countyy Transfer Station is delayed. A short term
contingency plan was developed fora 2-4 month delay scenario and a second extended
term contingency plan was developed fora 4-12 month delay scenario.
1. Short-Term Contingency Plan
A. Option 1-South Eubanks MSWLF
Under this option the South Eubanks MSWLF would continue to be operated.
The estimated'rernaining capacity would be allocated to public sector users. .
Private Sector use would be restricted as required to retain adequate disposal
capacity for public sector use allocations during the delay period.
For this option to be viable, the South Eubanks MSWLF must have disposal
capacity (available air space) remaining at the projected time of closure.
Confirmation of disposal capacity will be needed to validate this option. It
should. also be noted. that restriction of private sector access may have a long-
term effect on the total waste disposal quantities received by the County in the
future.
S. Option 2 -Temporary Transfer Facility
This option entails the construction of a temporary transfer facility to divert
waste. on ashort-term basis to private sector or public sector disposal
facilities. Under this option it is praposed that the existing rrretals drop-off
facility be converted to a lift: and load type transfer facility. This conversion
would require construction of temporary push-walls, expansion of the exisring.
slab-on-grade area to accommodate waste storage, installation of chain link
containment fencing, and modification of the lower level load out area to
accommodate transfer trailer access. It is estimated that the capacity of these
modifications would be limited to approximately 100-120 tans per day
Page-1
without extending the hours of operation. Because of a limited floor storage
area, inbound collection vehicle queuing times can be expected to increase
significantly with respect to current disposal operations.
The County may want to consider maintaining the simultaneous operation of
the South Eubanks Landfill for the diversion of peak tonnages and/or vehicle
trips and. thus limit the capacity of the proposed temporary transfer facility to
approximately 100 tons /day. This option is predicated on the availability of
disposal capacity at the South Eubanks facility.
It is estimated that construction of the temporary transfer facility would be in
the range of $150;000 - $250,000. If the transfer station and landfill are
operated simultaneously, additional staffing may be required to accommodate
the two operations. Collection and handling of contaminated rain water from
tl~e uncovered waste storage area will pose. a signif cant operational challenge.
This could be mitigated if the temporary transfer facility were constructed on
the landfill.
2. Extended-Term Contingency Plan
A. tDption 1-South Eubanks MSWLF
Under this option the South Eubanks MSWLF would continue to be operated.
As in the case of Option 1 of the Short-Term Contingency Plan the estimated
remaining capacity would be allocated to public sector users. Private Sector
use would be restricted as required to retain adequate disposal capacity far
public sector use during the delay period.
As previously noted under the Short-Term Contingency Plan, the South
Eubanks MSWL}? must. have disposal capacity (available air space) remaining
at the projected time of closure for this option to be viable. Confirmation of
disposal capacity will be needed to validate this option. It should be
reiterated that restriction of private sector access may have along-term effect
on the total waste disposal quantities received by the County in the future.
B. Option 2 -Temporary Transfer Facility & South Eubanks MSWLF
This option entails the construction of a temporary transfer facility to divert
waste on an extended-term basis to private sector or public sector disposal
facilities. In conjunction with this transfer of waste the South. Eubanks
MSWLF would continue to be operated to handle transfer station oveY•flow
(tonnages > 100 TPD) and high citizen traffic volume.
Under this option it is proposed that the existing metals drop-off facility be
converted to a lift and load type transfer facility. This conversion would be
more extensive than that required under the Short-Term Contingency Plan and
includes construction of push-walls (portable T-wall), expansion of the
Page-2
I
existing slab-on-grade area to accolzunodate waste storage, installation of
chain link containment fencing, and modification of lower level load out area
to accommodate transfer trailer access. Amore permanent standard of
construction is required for the longer operating period. In addition it has
been assumed that a canopy would have to be constructed over the waste
storage area to minimize the potential of rain water contamination and runoff
control.
It is estimated that the capacity of these modifications would be limited to
approximately 100-120 tons per day without extended hours of operation.
Inbound collection vehicle queuing times can be reduced with the diversion of
aportion of the waste stream to the South Eubanks MSWLF. Reduction in
inbound queuing times and citizen convenience are the primary benefits of
continuing to operate the South Eubanks Landfill in conjunction with
temporary transfer facility. This option is also predicated on the availability
of disposal capacity at the South Eubanks MSWLF.
It is estimated that construction of the temporary transfer facility would be in
the range of $250,000 - $400,000. If the transfer station and landfiit are
operated simultaneously, additional staffing may be required to accommodate
the two operations.
As a part of any temporary transfer option is has been assumed that the County would
procure disposal capacity at a public or private Subtitle D landfill through an RFP
process.
Similar types of temporary transfer operations have been observed. at the SPSA Regional
Landfill, Portsmouth, VA and Madison County, VA. These temporary operations
represent varying degrees of complexity ranging Pram a retaining wall constructed of 40
yard roll-off containers filled with earth to a partially enclosed facility constructed using
crib-bin wall construction.
Page-3
~ ~'~ c Yt men -f' L>
Center of Solid Waste Generation l~
Q 2005 Mean Center (weighted by pop and emp) i ! TAZ
t-„~* 2025 Mean Center (weighted by pop and emp) ~ Landfill
o. ,
•'"' `°• N
Q,,~ 1 inch equals 4 miles
o z a
_,. Miles
m <°..~"•
Orange County Planning and Inspectlons,Department
GIS Map Prepared by Br1an Carson March 19, 2007
2005 County Estimated Population = 126,642 2025 County Projected Population = 171,738
2005 County Estimated Employment = 48,824 2025 County Projected Employment = 102,891
The population and employment data was provided to us by the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC-MPO). The status of the projection numbers is draft.
r . ~ y t r a r < pti ~ Y t .~t g '4 _ `'• ~' E"t~ "h, . T`
~ r '~ ~ e ~
~ ~ 1_ .~~, ~ Iw ~ d ~ '' r~~. ~~ ~~y~~l-te',S 4 t~t r~ dr ,~~ ~_. ~y"' ~ 4 ~ i~ r .~k~ ~ ~ ~ ~
°''yt;f k ~~ ~ ,,t Y,a ~.4 CS~ 4T,~ '?~is~ ~]ti~,'.r{ a 1`~ i~r7 t~~~"`t;~ r ~~:~ ~, ~ .~~:.
t '~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~rf?t^S''Y} 4a' a'a ~ ~~s s ~. +kK t<"~ l .. A~y ;~ 7 - t .~~':~ ,¢.,
~ ~ x a << r ~ ~ A'. ~ - ~ < fvb~~
~ ~' a ,~~c, ati~ f ;.~~ ~ `. 'r ~1, s. ,~t~~ r i S~ ~ ,~. r.t ~.' ~A .yy~f[ a ~ '~~~ ,a ~'l~h~~~r~'s.i "s,~, J' a ~-, 9$~ ~~~~
''' ~, Y ~ ,~.~ ~~~ y[.fir ~ t~ e~~~~r, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~-'hr ~}Jlt ~~. ~`~ -. ~" pYi-Y ~~v. ~~"x,.r ~~r ~~ .
`s,~:~ x„~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~?. r:i ~ ~f ~ W t ~ r ;C fig, Sks.. .-;: ~ ~o~ y -- Ike %?TM ~~.
~ ~ .,r 1 S. - ~ f E~ ~K4~.~~~tsC.f }.;>>3~~ }.{ :°_ ~ a. '' `+ .,tie -'s~er 1 t -3 ~ ;. -.
'-~ a ~ ~ ~'. ~:~ h dl ~ r _ t ~~." ~ ~fi~~S, ~'? `~f• fat",''; o~ ryi .
;~ ~ ,:e b ': .,c N ~ ~ r--'"-i•~ ,~r~ ~'~'6 rr~f ."~ i •. .Y 1 '~ :~;r ~r 'r ~ Pa-
ti
~ ~ '~ ~ 1 C' c~ N n ~ ~7 B 1 r
~ - p ~ ~ t k
~ ~ h ~ ,~ ~~
~. i',. ~ "' Y' ~ ,., 4 ~ ,I ~a~~ K,, ~~ 1 J ~ 4 l't a r, ~+ ,~ d~ -. ~ `'ti x
~ 't'h ~ ''~l3' ' ~ -.:' ~ t ` ~ a r ~ ~ ~ ~
~ '. v >: 1'", y~ad. ~!l r~ ~`i ~ ~ Y"t r•. ~'.'1, i - fi.,~ ~` ~ ~~V !' `"~ l ~£~ ~ pp
, ~ ~`, -'Y+. .
lr ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ti=p ~.~' a ~~~~ ; ~+~.~.~'°i ~~ `il ,, ,+ _~°~ ~ ~" ~`;~~ ~ '~'~~ ~,: 3 ~,~ ~
Y -', ~;. 4' 1t . 1 `k~ ~ ~~~? ~'A h. # sir 4 f .M~ ~ •.~ ~ ~~ { _ ~ ~ b-
~~ l ~l ~! ~ ~~y ~,{K ~`Li~' ~i'4 ~+du ~~'~', sy~~ ~"fit nr~~'~i i~~~~ ~ r~' 'qC' +~ ~2, I~~a• ~~' ~ ~ ~C
,,~.ir•
..55,,
'w, ~ 'ru r ~~ _
al ~ ' f M' " Y r E, ,A 7 ~3 >
v t +, s %~~?}'t ir.a~ ~~' {2 ,~„F ~~S'' ..yt,~~1c ~ 3 ~ ,'~ ~~~,yy~ ,i.'tj,. ~,~~ . 4 .,~a ~c ~`
~+ '~ r't ~ ?tom':.{[ ~t "~ ~Y ~? ~arcrr fr!Y t` x-.;~ ~f~ti'~'C, s~-.. ~- ;`~ a ~ r N
tz ~ 5. .~ ~I77 a 2~~-~.w 3 t'~ O ~ ~• Q~ ~'! .a5 ry j` [ ~i ~~~h- - ~ ~+v ez.
~ ". o- _~ r~ ~ ,~-., X pip'°~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .~'~~,ti'*t5~ ~~1,,~~' ti ~ ~ ~n ~,~~'~Yti ~~~ "~p~~' Y}+~~~~~a!W r. q~ - s;•, '^ ~.... ~i3 FR n~~~,-~.
'ti~ ~ ~_v 1. ~~ k.;w `. ~~ ~, 'R ~ i ~V ~, 'rit ,~'. ,~~,~ ~ 39~.r f~"'i~ '*~'3 .u- ~ ~"W"..'C ~' ~ '9~ -t
~ ~ }~ r
°+..~ a ~ ~ ,rte ~, +a _ yv c, ~~ K s ~-iAVt 3 ~~~. ~ s. _~ 3t~ i
?. .~ _ ~rcv ~,------'---'-c,~~~ ~",.~?:"~r~ ~ ~,,..:..= t ~.-'!~_~~.t~ ~Y.,s' ~ 'T'RH' t ~a I ~ „ ~. .~•
U t
t ~ yy ~~_._~q~~ ~ .. ~ -tip-.. G~,- ~5...~ ~` ._ /- '
~~ ~- f '' , r 1 fr Tf -~ `. 1 'it 4. .* ~ )i `~ I~mA~F'r"t~1 \ '~A~~ ~~~
is f~ :. ,:1 .-t '_. ~y A1• ~l Y. E ~ ~ S' 1 ~y~ k qty ~~~
x ~ .:y~~ ~~, ~ a °~~ ~ '9 ~~ t ,, -4• "fir' ~t ~.~'.~.^ ~'o ~a n a ~ ~ ~: v
«, r`' ~~Y...,Be L+~ 4 1 ..' -' ~ ;-.f ~ f.: ~~>~# ` ~ ~~ ~^ Y?y~ ~g nYn~ :"°A ~4. ~. "k {rte ~'
~~3~ e .'LPG t~ rte. ~M ~.. •~~ ti aj fit? .F~ r ~,~ y.. ~ ~ ti ^h ~ y xr~~~ti~~ ~'S- 'P ~r.~' ~~ ~~
_~~~ ri .- ~. w .x ~ .} 7~ ~f 9 t s ~ a ~ ~.: ti ,~[ 7~,'l ~'Y -g •r ~t ! ~,~
`t fi } ~ r F 7 ,y ~ ~ 'l~~l G ..~, r , ~ ,~ F 8 r„ -p~ ~ Ee ~ .~y~,~ ,7 rn,,. y~ ,~ ~ 1 3"~~ L, ;f
.'~ ,, y ti ~ H a,,,
w
-;
"~~, ~ :, k ~~ ti c 3 v ~ ~ t2= ~~ ~ ~
~. ~ • ~ It + 1 ~' _ .t ~ ~
~ro -i -. ~,f "" ~' `` ~' ~K 4.1q: ~'J t..° I ~~ib :ht. iY.~~:~ -,..
~,~- o
,~
; ~
a„
.~
U
V)
~ .:
............. .
~~
~
-
G ~,~
.
w
C
E ~~
E d~=
;; a
c
o =
:::.
~
~
' ~
~ ~'
C
lG
V
~
~a
.;
.. ... ... .... .. .._..... .. ... .. ~S .: .. .. _..
0
U
d
rn
c
~a
E
.~ ~
0 ~~
~ ',
'
~,
'~
5
3 ~~ _ '~
,-
m ~ e ~~ ~ _ €a.~ ~ ¢ V €.~
~ g
~
€
~ ~
~ ~ c
' a n a
E
i' z
g
a e ~ g ~
S
[, a
9
84 ~
~
'
E
~
rc
e
~ _ ~ °
p
;~ .~
g a .
d
$~,
E
f ~ o
~
.
8 .s
~!~ k :
~
a ~
e ~ ~ ~:
a a
~
~
m
'
° y '
~ a
-
~
~
r e
e
`~ g
m
~
~ ~
`
` ?
~
~ 4
~`
E g z
.~
u
g
:d
o :m o
q
~
r~ ~
.~
- '
] c4 ~.h
.~5 ~
:
~
3
8
p m
y t@
}uR~
~ r~ : ~ fai ~ ~ ~ n $ ~ ' ~ e~ '. m . ti c P m N '~
7' `e ~ ~ Wi° ~
~ :n u fl 2
:
p-' ~.~
e
~' 'a' n
~
S 6°
S ~ :
g
a
~ : ~ ~
E ,
.
.
.
.
S
l
g
&
w
~ a pp y
65. e
h m e 8 ~ $e 2.e-~ g's~ 'e'~
a '~ D
tg iJ L. a F- 'a m 5 'm ~ .tee W -u'~ E ~- :] a
6
4~ C tY li u Y a`. m a h :a a a` ':D h 5 a u7 ~ O
e E
~
F C
~+
V
C
a ~ N :,b ~ .m
N S .~ - ~ m V Nn
- . VQ
~
' F
~ N p I3 N PI` r ~ lS' r rR r n ~ R ~ B S v V' Y e 9i aS
~a
13
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 Coininissioners (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
eluninated, 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 elitniizated landfill odor, vermin, noise, etc. Furthermore, we axe tallying 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- interest
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 for 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 (LJ.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. i~aste TransferStation.r•
A Manual for Decision 1Vlaking, 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 noted that this is a draft guidance document, not a
set of regulations. Indeed, WTSs axe 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 committee participation and informing
the public. The SWAB is a broad-based public committee, appointed by the various
signatotties 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.
14
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 are presented in the US EPA guidance document.
Memo to Gayle Wilson
March 19, 2007
Page 3
Exclusionary Criteria are 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 routes. The SWAB was particularly concerned
with the importance of keeping to a min;mum 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 fxom allover 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, min;m;~ing 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.
is
• 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 l
March 19, 2007 .
Page 4
WTS. Indeed, the Solid Waste Operations Center recently approved by the
coininissioners 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:
• Envixonmental justice considerations
• Impacts on air quality
• Impact on local infrastructure
e 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 histofic 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 ( 7
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.