Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 010605 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board 8 2005 January 6 , 2005 +R Approved March 3, 2005 Attendance : Linda Bowerman, B J Tipton, Al Vickers, Joe Clayton, Randy Kabrick, Remus Smith, and Jan Sassaman Staff : Gayle Wilson, Blair Pollock, Wanda McCain, and Rebecca Holdway 1 . Adoption of Minutes from December 9 Vickers moves to accept . Smith 2nd . Passes unanimously . 2 . Landfill Waste Characterization Study Pollock states that the cornerstone to recycling efforts is based on what' s in the garbage . We have done three fairly detailed waste characterizations since 1990 . The reason we are looking at doing another characterizations is that we ' ve done one every five years and that we are looking at a very serious investment of going to the next level of waste reduction and P recycling . We want to know whether the kinds of things we' ve seen over the last five years are still there . The key issues are time and money . The time piece is that if we are going to start our solid waste planning and use the new waste characterization to form what we look at, it needs to be done before the UNC students leave . The money issue is that these are not cheap to undertake . In 1999-2000 we did a two -season sort which cost $30, 000 . We anticipated that it would cost half that plus the cost of inflation but the same company wants to charge $26, 000 . We are doing some informal quotation about prices from other firms . We are asking your advice if you think it is a good idea to do another waste characterization or use what we have . Sassaman asks if of the previous studies have there been any significant differences ? Pollock replies yes, between 1999 and 2000 when the cardboard ban came into effect . In the commercial sector cardboard went from 20 % by weigh to 4 % . Wilson states that one thing that is a factor in the cost of the sort is what is the sort . We have a list of 45 materials to sort . Another issue is what are we likely to find out to change the direction we are going in . Pollock states that locally a couple of things could change . The food waste program has made a dent in the amount of the captureable part of the commercial food waste . It ' s been highly effective . The other place that might have a change is the amount of glass that remains out there . It ' s a little bit of a conundrum - - as we collect more tons it looks like we ' re more successful, but as people switch away from glass bottles, the tons of potential recyclables disappear . The tons of glass go away . Kabrick states that spending money to understand the problem is money well spent . 1 Minutes Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 6, 2005 Approved March 3, 2005 Clayton asks that because we' ve been through three is there no way that it could be done in-house ? I believe that staff has the capability but I' m not sure of the time , . _ Wilson states that time and workload is fairly significant : Staff could do it but there are more important things to attend to right now . The biggest problem of doing a waste sort other than the smell is getting the people to work . They may not come back the second day . The people who work with this know the incentives to get them . to come back . Bowerman asks if the national data includes the local studies ? Pollock states that it' s not clear how the national data is collected . We make ours public . Wilson states that based on a number of different measures, this area is significantly different than the rest of the state . Smith states that it would be money well spent . - Kabrick states that new information is good and cheap . Hiring a consultant to do the work makes sense especially in light of the fact that the Town of Chapel Hill is unhappy withothe current solid waste management plan . The more data the better . r Vickers moves to support and endorse the solid waste department implementing a study and the details handled by staff . Kabrick 2nd Clayton asks if we should suggest that they hire the same company regardless of the cost for the continuity factor and that the $26, 000 is not an impediment . a Sassaman states that it could be implied in what was said . I don' t want to constrain staff by telling them whom to use . Motion passes unanimously . 3 . Draft Land Clearing Debris Facility Report Wilson states that the . report is in draft form and has not been delivered too the Commissioners . It originated as a result of some farm owners wanting to be allowed to use their property for land- clearing debris with minimal restrictions . The County planning department developed a proposal that went to the Planning Board, which allowed for farmers to use up to a 2 acre area to bury these materials . The Planning Board discouraged proceeding with 2 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 6, 2005 Approved March 3, 2005 that . The next suggestion was to have this service by the County leasing land from the farmers . I was asked to conduct an analysis that looked at performing land clearing debris recycling on leased property . We have previously recommended that the County have a land- clearing and inert debris facility . It is feasible to do . We could make a little money . I . wasri t asked to make a recommendation, but there are some concerns about leasing property . Kabrick states that it' s unclear; I read it on the heels of the- Dec 9 minutes where eight pages are devoted to burning [land-clearing debris ] . Dave we got a commissioner really interested in land- clearing .debris ? Wilson states that the Commissioners got involved because agricultural property owners approached them and were looking forma way to make or save money . Kabrick asks typically where does land- clearing debris 'go ? Wilson states that a lot of it is hauled to adjacent counties where there are fewer regulations , some is burned, less than in the past, and some grind it and leave it on - site . Kabrick asks if there is a position for the SWAB to take . For instance we ' re opposed to mulching and hauling out of county ? Is there an Orange County arborist who worries about tree cover and : greenhouse gasses ? This [choice about burning] has broad implications about sustainability and how we develop Orange County . Trying to address land- clearing debris recycling is putting the cart before the horse in terms of it [the underlying policy] is more about how land is developed [for example,] " Does there have to be a certain amount of land in conservation and a certain amount of tree cover ? " Tipton states that it appears that most land= clearing and inert debris landfills are jprivately - owned . Are, there any owned by a municipality in the state ? Wilson. replies, yes there are - some . There are also some C &D landfills that take land. clearing and inert debris because their rates are low and they can easily get materials . Tipton - masks if the LCID landfills are regulated by the State Wilson replies that if they are over two acres they are . Under two acres they are minimally regulated . But you won ' t operate a viable enterprise in under two acres . But these are the most prevalent violators . It used to be just the hollow down the backo road . Two acres and less are under permit by rule . From our perspective these materials are easily recycled and we think we should discourage landfilling whether 3 _ Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 6 , 2005 Approved March 3, 2005 in this county or any other county . Given the cost of building around here, it is reasonable to take care of the need for a local viable place to get rid of this material and we think we can do it locally and for reasonable rates compared to what the disposal would be in other counties . What [else] this would do, whether it ' s on leased property or county- owned property, would also give a place for emergency debris management capability -that we don' t have now . If we had a " Fran " or even another ice storm, we would be up against the wall . I have no space to receive or manage that stuff . We have 14 acres we can ' t use due to the nature of the special fuse permit . I can only excavate dirt and store dirt . And this kind of operation would probably be done further out in the county . Kabrick states that I would support having a land-clearing debris facility but only if the Commissioners constructed regulations that required land-clearing debris be . handled in a certain manner . Sassaman asks how that would dovetail with the Towns ? What about if the Towns thumb their noses at it? Kabrick proposes that the response be that the County recycling facilities; be designated to handle all the land clearing debris . Sassaman points out that those types of regulations are in place for C &D but the Town of Chapel Hill has not signed on, so we have those types of regulations , but there is a disconnect . r Wilson states that a flow control issue would arise if all land clearing debris were directed to go to a specific facility . I dot t think it would withstand the judicial test . You could say it has to be recycled and not landfilled . Kabrick asks if that could be restricted to just within the County ? Vickers points out that most of it goes out of County and that there is no place to take it. in Orange County Wilson reiterates that the notion here is to provide a location within the County at a reasonable price and encourage them to bring it here rather than landfill or burn it . Pollock states that you can' t make people go to a county owned facility because of failing the Constitutional test on restraint of trade . You can ' t tell them they have to take it to some place within a certain boundary, but do as we do now with construction waste, you can take your mixed loads of C &D wherever you want, but it has to be recycled . 4 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 6, 2005 Approved March 3 , 2005 Kabrick states that the point is if the SWAB has made the position that we don' t want . to ship the garbage elsewhere, so why should we ship our recyclable construction debris somewhere else ? Tipton points out that the courts have determined that garbage is commerce and it cannot be regulated . I can ' t make you haul it to my landfill . Under the interlocal agreement [which UNC has not signed on to yet] I could tell the hauler I am contracting with you to take my waste here, I can do that, but not just if it ' s within the J borders of the County . Kabrick raises the issue of transferring long-term liability if the waste goes to a private landfill, is the liability going with it? Tipton points out that the generator does retain some liability . Kabrick raises the concern that the future liability will come back to your balance sheet . Once the SWAB makes that decision to ship stuff out, it does come back to haunt us . Wilson points out the SWAB will not make that decision, someone else will . Your own record makes it clear you oppose shipping it out . Vickers points out there is some precedent with the .City of Tacoma [Washington] where the landfill ,.owner, operator or contractor took responsibility for the landfill site turning into a super fund site and not going after the generator . They ' re- the only city in the US that ' s done that . Wilson states that the first step would be to provide an environmentally responsible local economically affordable location to attract and encourage it so you don ' t have to use the heavy hand of the law . Sassaman states that there is-- a need for a storm debris site and this would be a way to pay Ifor it . Combine it with a land- clearing site . It is the same product, some of which is generated by humans and the rest by the weather . Wilson states that one way to handle this is to be aware of what' s being discussed . Wait until we have the next meeting with the farmers, Commissioners and manager and then I' ll brief you . After that you can take a position . Smith states that looking at the summary, I would recommend* the report to the Commissioners . 5 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 6, 2005 Approved March 3, 2005 Wilson states that I am not looking for an approval and I did not make a recommendation in the report . Vickers states that green waste is a hole in our system . This is one area that is not being managed by the County, we need to do something because storms will happen and development will occur . This is an alternative way to take care of it and we have to come up with an alternative . Kabrick states that we should have an outlet for land clearing and inert debris . Concerned that there may be some special interest with farmers, every farmer may want this . I am not in favor of special favors for farmers . If we decide to do this, let ' s own the land, go out and acquire it at fair market value and not give preference to a specific farmer . Clayton states that there was mention about composting, but it was vague . But it would be good for the County to get involved in as long as we don ' t have to pick up residential food waste . Wilson states that he can ' t design all the specifics of the system before there is some overall approval of the concept . Bowerman states that I ' m in agreement with what has been said, but to also remember the burning issue as we ' re figuring out what to do but that doesn ' t mean we have to approve it . Vickers points out it ' s hard to get State permission for any burning facilities . Smith states that the farmer in northern Orange County is between a rock and hard place . Tobacco is gone . Land will be available at a reasonable price . We need a place to put storm debris . Large tracts of land will be available . Sassaman states that the only way that would work from a risk standpoint is to own the land . Leasing the land will only help the one person . Any kind of waste disposal should be professionally designed and operated . 4 . Draft Report to BOCC for February 8 Work Session Sassaman states that there are two reports for the Commissioners . Every year at this time we give the BOCC a document that outlines our plans of what we' ve done and where we are going . This is .a draft . Please let me know if you have any questions, changes or comments . This is due tomorrow . 6 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 6, 2005 Approved March 3, 2005 Pollock states that you could add a bullet about green waste and LCID options under long term issues . Vickers moves to submit the report as amended . Kabrick 2nd Passes unanimously . Sassaman states that at the December meeting we discussed putting together a report for the Commissioners . We concluded that Vickers would put together an outline of what should be included . Working with Gayle and Al we ' ve come up with this report . This is a rough draft . [Sassaman passes out report] . The purpose of this is to go to all elected officials and to have this ready for the February 8 work session with the Commissioners . Kabrick asks when should comments be given to you [Sassaman] ? Sassaman states that I want to finalize this by February 3 in time for our next meeting and deliver on February 4 . Once I have the material from Blair, I will send this out via email for further comments . 5 . Programs/Services Update Solid Waste Management Department 's Nezv Operations Center Wilson states that the recommendation for the architect is waiting on BOCC approval . The architect that was recommended is Dixon and Wiensten whom have proposed $126, 000 for design at about 5500 heated square feet of space and about 1 , 000 square feet of unheated storage area . The construction cost is a rough estimate of $ 900, 000 , We are going to recommend using recycled building materials and to use sustainable green building practices , and energy efficient design . Those things cost more up front but over time we will see the benefit . Unsolicited Landfill Gas Proposal and Consultant Review Wilson states that last June the department received a proposal from a professor from NC State who thought he had an economically viable project for our facility . He wants to pay $ 1 , 000 for the rights for the gas for 10 years with estimated revenue of $4, 000 / year . I had an engineering firm look at the proposal for general feedback . Their response was that it looked like a feasible project and recommended doing a request for proposals to see what' s out there . Sassaman asks if there are other, small scale ways to capture gas . Wilson says that ' s what this proposal is with cherry-picking small - scale turbines at various productive sites on the landfill . 7 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 6, 2005 Approved March 3, 2005 Clayton asks if the gas on the old landfill is not captured will it be burned instead of vented ? Wilson states that it hasn' t been thought about . It is not producing at a rate that we feel compelled to flare . We will flare the south side once it' s closed in five years because it' s wetter . Now that the BOCC is interested in this , we will pursue it . Other None 6 . Other Business Smith notes that last year the Town of Hillsborough generated 916 tons of brush and limbs that they brought to the landfill . He further notes that some States have refunds on cans and bottles . I' m not suggesting anything, but could something be done in Orange County ? In Hillsborough people are requesting more [composted] leaves [from city streets collections] . Pollock points out that Michigan, with its ten cent deposit has over a 95 % recovery rate of cans and bottles with a deposit and that North Carolina has had numerous attempts to have a bottle bill but it has not made it through the legislative process and that Senator Jeffords from Vermont brings it up every session . Sassaman notes when the bottle bill was passed in Maine there was a very active and aggressive group lobbying for it . Clayton notes that bottle bills do take away revenue from aluminum buy-back recycling centers . Vickers moves to adjourn . Clayton 2nd . Adjourn 9 : 00pm Next meeting % February 3 , 2005 Government Services 8