Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 040209 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 Attendance : Jan Sassaman, Linda Bowerman, Al Vickers, Remus Smith, Michelle Grunwald, Doug Guild, Steve Yuhasz and BJ Tipton Staff: Gayle Wilson, Blair Pollock, Paul Spire, Hary Howard, Nicole Ard, and Wanda McCain Guests : Bob Sallach and Ernie Parker - Olver Inc . 1 . Opening & Welcome Sassaman states that for the public if you wish to speak please sign up . We have some business to deal with other than the alternative waste technologies and transfer station hauling . I would like to wrap those items up by 8030 ith what they need to deal with . to give SWAB time to deal w 2 . Adoption of Minutes from March 5 SWAB meeting Smith moves to accept. Grunwald 2nd . Passes unanimously 3 . Board Member Comments None 4 . Alternative Waste Management Technologies Ernie Parker states that we were asked to evaluate the long term waste management alternatives that were available . As a reminder, there was a report done by GBB in August 2008 which looked at many of these issues and we began by using the GBB report as a baseline . The general findings of the GBB report concluded that WtE technologies were the only technologies available for consideration here . The other technologies were judged too risky, unproven, uncertain, unreliable, or having potential for environmental non- compliance . Looking at the waste volume for Orange County, around 200 tons / day, if a WtE facility was constructed to handle that volume the GBB report estimated that the cost would be a little over $100 / ton, which was not competitive with the landfill tipping fee, private vendors or likely the new transfer station . After we looked at the baseline we made a number of contacts with owners and operators that have real -world experience with WtE . Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority currently operates three WtE facilities and is the group that is to build a new WtE plant in 10 - 15 years . The Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority consists of six counties in Maryland as well as the city of Baltimore . They have operated WtE facilities for about 25 years . ided to build a new WtE facility . When they began the process They have recently dec they looked, as we are, for all the various alternatives out there and came to the conclusion for their facility that Mass Burn was the only proven economically feasible technology . They are building two facilities . One is a replacement facility and the other is a new site . The site procurement for the replacement facility began in 2006 . I 1 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 didn' t have any dates but was told it took considerably longer for the new site to get the site procurement. Once the site had been procured the vendor selected, the financing arranged and the design complete which is where they are now, they are estimating two years for permitting the facility and three years for construction. The facility is being constructed for two counties . One has 500 - 600 / tons of MSW per day the second has about 900 tons . They did a cost analysis for 500 ton capacity, 900 and 1 , 500 combined . What they found was it' s not economically viable at 500 tons, 900 tons was marginally viable and they had a good operation at 1500 tons / day . The cost of that facility will be about $500 million . Covanta Energy and Waste Management/ Wheelabrator are two contractors who are heavily involved both in this country and across the world in the construction and operation of WtE facilities . Covanta Energy stated that the minimum size for a facility was about 1 , 000 tons / day . They are convinced as well that Mass Burn is the only way to go in WtE . They estimated that it takes about four years for the permitting and construction after a site and vendor are selected and financing, procurement and design are complete . They do not build facilities for others . They agree to come in with the entity to develop and build the facility for the owner . We have talked with them extensively and hope to have a representative here to speak to the SWAB next month to see what their ideas are for Orange County . Waste Management/ Wheelabrator representatives came here and spoke in February addressing some of our issues and what their perspective was . They are the vendor for the construction of the new facility in Maryland . When they were here they thought it would take about four years to permit and construct that facility . The official word is it takes about five years . They agreed and stated that Mass Burn is the only viable alternative that is currently available . Based on what they heard at the meeting, whether or not Orange County builds WtE, they think the transfer station is inevitable . Integrated Waste Services Association is a trade association of both operators and owners of WtE facilities that represents 69 of the 87 operating facilities in the country so they have a good broad sense of perspective and experience . They noted that there have not been any new facilities constructed in the last 10 - 15 years . There have been some expansions of existing plants and replacement facilities of existing plants . They estimated two years to permit and three years to construct. Energy Answers is a company that builds and operates WtE facilities . Their difference is they have a process by which they actually process the MSW into pelletized form and burn that in the boilers opposed to raw MSW which is Refuse Derived Fuel . They do some sorting and take out some recyclables then put it through a pelletizing processing . Their belief is that they get better efficiency with the 2 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 burn when they do this . They get less residual and they get more electricity . To do that they have an extra step in the process which is to pelletize the waste . They felt 500 tons / day would be the limit as far as being economically viable . With the volume in Orange County they expect that we would need to form a regional agreement with others and the transfer station would still likely be required under that scenario . They have not built a 500 ton facility but estimated the cost would be $200 million with annual operation costs of $ 6 - $8 million . Once the site was selected and other things worked through they saw about a four year process to permit and construct. As a note going through this there was no one willing to speak to the time frame that was required for the entire process simply because the siting, financing, and other aspects are variable and fairly lengthy . Each one that we asked this question of would say once you have the vendor, site and all these things lined up then we could talk about how long it would take to permit and build . Other contacts were made . Plasma Arc is one of the technologies that shows a lot of promise as well as a couple of others but it is one of those that is just not there yet. They have been trying, but do not have a facility in this country . They have a specialized facility in Japan and one in Canada . They have been recently trying to construct a couple of facilities in Florida to make this work . One has totally fallen through and one has been reduced from 3 , 000 ton/ day capacity to 200 . That is an indication that it is still not ready for the marketplace i is countr n thy . Duke Energy offered encouragement but no real technical or financial support. They would like to see some things happen but are not in a position to help . UNC says that WtE is one of the things on their menu [of what] they are considering but see that as a long term [option] , which long term is 15 years plus before that would be in affect. IST Energy has an interesting package system which is not applicable to us but it shows that there is development of new technologies in the market place . It is a technology that has recently come out. It is a package plant that is located on site . They mentioned things such as an industrial site or an arena football stadium - a site that produces a small amount but consistent amount of waste . The package plants can handle about 2 tons a day and convert the waste to electricity there on site . The cost is about $800, 000 - $ 900, 000 for the 2 tons . Louis Zeller from the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Fund came and spoke here advocating enhanced recycling as opposed to WtE . 3 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 We found a consensus with the GBB report that Mass Burn, including RDF , is the only proven and economically [viable] technology that is out there today . Consistently we found in the report and our review that other technologies represent potential but are not proven or economically feasible or reliable . The minimum viable MSW volume for operation of any kind of plant we got feedback from was 500 tons / day with consensus that 1 , 000 tons / day were better to make it operate efficiently . This would necessitate some regional partnering for Orange County . The regional partnering agreement will likely necessitate a transfer station if WtE is selected as the long-term solution. The forming of a regional agreement, the siting, permitting and building a WtE plan would probably, if very actively pursued, take at least 10 years, but a realistic time frame would be 15 - 20 years . SWAB Comments Vickers states that there isn' t enough waste for Orange County to go on it own . If it o did go into a consortium it would be [one of] the smaller players which is a reality . Tipton states that at the County Commissioners meeting where the landfill gas agreement was approved the Unity was asked if it would be interested in ivers exploring WtE and responded yes . There have been no substantive discussions at this time and definitely no commitments . In advance of any substantive discussions county staff and the University plan to work together in the future . While I think it is great that the County and the University are interested in working together to explore new cutting edge options of waste management and energy recovery that is the University ' s interest -- energy recovery and carbon credits; the topic is so uncertain and so far in the future that the very remote possibility should not enter into the decisions that need to be made right now about the transfer station. The University is not party to the transfer station decision . Yuhasz asks the $ 6 - $S million annual operation costs for a 500 ton/ day facility that would be after whatever you recover from selling electricity . Parker states that that was the understanding . That was the net cost. Yuhasz states that the suggestion that we do more recycling, how much additional recycling do we have to do in order to get the remaining level of trash down a level that was even on the order of the remaining ash from a WtE plant. Sallach states that with a WtE plant you are probably looking at depending on the type - RDF or Mass Burn, somewhere in the range of 15 % by volume . You would have to have significant reduction in comparison to what is currently done . The rates that you have currently achieved are extremely high when you start comparing other 4 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 communities . The costs to do additional recycling to further reduce that volume are o all going to come with a price and be a little more difficult. Grunwald asks has anything been found that could come close to fitting the time frame that we are looking at for closing the landfill aside from the transfer station. Parker replies no . Sassaman concurs with what Al Vickers has stated . In all that we have seen, there seems to be no shortAo -medium term potential solution for WtE . In addition to that, it is fairly apparent it would be so difficult to site anything in south-central Orange County that no matter what. We will probably need a waste transfer station . When we first started this I had high hopes for WtE as a possible solution for our immediate problem and I still do for the long-term waste disposal options for several reasons . One it behooves us to be responsible for our own garbage . We have to handle it in an environmentally and sociologically reasonable fashion and one of those is to do some form of WtE process either as a stand -alone Orange County system or as a regional system in which we are a major partner . I ' m not sure that anything that we have seen yet is the real answer . Parker states that I do see some things out there that may develop into some good alternatives . They are not even close at this point. Over the next few years there are reasons from greenhouse gases to the Obama administration policy on coal burning, general economics, there are a lot of reasons in my review that make me think there will be some incentive for the marketplace to come up with some new ideas . Pollock asks in siting WtE plants are they almost always near a large steam or hot water load in addition to generating electricity . To be successful do they need co- generation? Parker states that most of the times they are not. That is an added benefit if there is someone who can use the steam . In Maryland, for the replacement facility, the Army is using the steam and that changes the economics to a more beneficial scenario but most facilities do not have the benefit of that. Pollock asks where there are multiple partners in a regional type of arrangement, is the facility nearest to the largest partner ( s) as opposed to the minority partner (s) . Parker states that I never really looked at that but that is the case in Maryland between the two counties . The small county is transporting their waste to the area of the larger counties . 5 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 Pollock asks regarding air quality -- typically the profiles that I' ve seen shown of high- performing plant show high levels of oxides of nitrogen because they burn at a really high temperature and destroy most other pollutants, I don' t know if you looked into areas like we are in, an ozone non-attainment areas, and areri t oxides of nitrogen precursors to that, if that has been an limiting factor in siting processes . Parker states that I have not heard of that. Most of the two year permitting process for these plants is air permitting . That has to be looked at very closely . I would believe that a lot of that work would be done up front for a particular site to go through the years of procurement. I have had comments from a number of sources that WtE plants are held to a much higher standard than coal burning power plants and they believe they are held to a very high standard and are proud of that. If it comes to non- attainment areas and exactly how that fits I can' t say . Public Comments Carolyn Cole states that I discovered that the state of Massachusetts was going through a similar process . There is a report that they issued in December 2008 that might benefit the Board . I emailed it to Jan and Gayle . It is a fairly large report but I ' d like to make a few comments on it. In the Assessment of Materials Management Options for the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan Review" the key piece is their number one finding from a life -cycle environmental emissions energy perspective [that] source reduction recycling and composting are the most advantageous management options for all materials in waste stream that is (sic) recyclable and compostable . It speaks to enhanced recycling . From a life-cycle, net energy perspective, waste diversion through recycling provides the most benefit, saving an id waste . When you look at the other options estimated 2, 250 kilowatts per ton of sol WtE, incineration, gasification and pyrolysis those have the energy potential for 585 to 660 kilowatts per ton compared to recycling which has 2, 250 . They also state after you maximize diversion through source reduction, recycling and composting they suggested to the state of MA that they monitor developments regarding alternative waste technologies that produce energy because they are not ready for prim They They specifically targeted gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion. 1 know that Orange County has led the State in its efforts for recycling and has achieved a lot. Having listened to everything that has been said and seeing how difficult it is to develop a WtE alternative that seems to fit our political situation, our time, and our physical considerations, I would urge the Board to continue its thrust toward recycling, to continue to explore that to expand the existing commercial food waste recycling to include other large vendors, to study the feasibility of household separation of organic waste, and use that and combine that with any other logical recycling composting possibilities . 6 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 there have been Regarding the comments on air permitting within the last 2-3 months , there on with air major changes that the courts have ordered the EPA to follow throufig n for burn quality from burn sources . One of them has to do with nou shut down, and facilities for bypass events which are also known as start p , malfunction events . What this means is that a lot of the facilities that are the burn all facilities did not have to count in their compliance events when they would let gat made p their ollutants into the air directly with they passed through filter or not. T court all these facilities appear to be in compliance, because by law they were . Th That has ruled on a number of these facilities now that the EPA cannot exempt them . is a violation of the Clean Air Act. This will impact any discussion of any burn facility that we would have . The other thing that has happened is there is going to be major changes in the EPA ruling on carbon dioxide and the cap and trade system . If we do get to a WtE will be ex loration these are new pieces that have to be factored in because air qual ty p judged at a much higher standard . Bonnie Hauser asks has any one spoken to Chatham County about disposal . Are you aware that Chatham County officials are looking for disposal options, new landfill night Durham is running out of capacity so they are looking for site ? I heard the other n disposal options as well . I see this as our two neighboring partners need disposal and it is so difficult to open up a dialog and see if that makes sense . I don' t know why Wilson states that speaking recently with Chatham County (his counterpart) and reading the feasibility study report that was Lust completed in the last couple of ko weeks, it is getting ready to be presented to the Chatham County Board next lone with The report tells them they have no real future as far as Chatham County less waste , and the alternative technologies . They are somewhat similar to us, a little they consultant is recommending they consider a landfill and advisingorothem iftheursue Randolph a landfill that among the best potential partners would be Ash counter art there . I County and Orange County . I am maintaining contact with mY next week to see will be attending the Chatham County Commissioners meeting what' s said . I have also met with the City of Durham Solid Waste Director and they have serious financial problems like everyone else . They are in the process of considering privatizing their commercial collections and de -privatizing their in collections . p g They are also considering remodeling or upgrading their existing transfer station are in close communications with surrounding counties . Hauser states that what I' ve not heard is anything like leadership . Our neighbors are taken obviously looking for disposal options and I ' ve not heard anything where we ' ve 7 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 initiative and say should we at least team up and look at WtE but I hear it is certain it is going to take 10. 20 years to happen. To look at cost of WtE without looking at the economics is short sighted . WtE is a revenue generating option or can become cost-neutral if you factor in the resale of the energy the tipping fees and now the incentives that are going to come in from the government. NC several years ago cut use of its landfills off to out-of-state users, SC is about to do the same . We are one of the fastest growing states in the country . Land is not going to be there for us for the long term to dispose of our trash and we have to find a better way . We can stick our heads in the sand and say that that is 20 years away but our future says ' no ' . Richard Taylor asks Olver do you have figures for the combined MSW from Orange County, Durham County and Wake County and possibly Raleigh that could be used for a future WtE plant. Parker replies I don' t have those . Wilson replies I don' t have those numbers but there is sufficient quantity of waste for a WtE facility . Taylor states that it seems that with Orange County, Hillsborough, UNC, possibly Durham County and maybe Raleigh there is ample waste in the region for the partnership that has been talked about tonight. I want to speak to the use of rail haul for waste, not just now but for down the road . If we can' t do a WtE plant now, it may come in the future so in siting a transfer station that should be a consideration . The county and the City of Roanoke, VA with partnership with Norfolk Southern just came out last year [that they] found a new way to take out the trash . It is called Roanoke Valley Resource Authority . They have built a transfer station in Roanoke and a five mile rail spur into the county . They haul about 35 miles trash there . It is not a huge facility but it is a partnership that works up there . Montgomery County, MD, Cape Cod, MA, Brooklyn, NY just got a new transfer station that hauls down here . New Jersey hauls to PA . There are a large number of operations done by rail . We have the NC Railroad operated by Norfolk Southern going through Orange County . We have the State University railroad from Carrboro to Hillsborough . Both were very prominent resources back in 1880s for industrial use in NC . They are still viable for keeping trucks off the road . Tipton states that to put the question out without wanting an answer in the discussion of the WtE plant and how much volume would be needed to make it a viable option, 8 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 are the citizens of Orange County willing to import waste from other counties, cities and municipalities ? Sassaman states that the next item is to see if there is any additional SWAB communication to the BOCC . Do you want to make a recommendation at all about WtE ? We could make a blanket recommendation if you desire that deals with both WtE and the transfer station . Vickers states that we made a recommendation to the Board on the WtE that that is a long term option that needs to be looked at, pursued and some partnership with some other communities . Sassaman replies yes that is possible . What I ' d like to do is put those together as one grand recommendation on the WtE issue and the waste transfer station issue since we were asked to look at a dual track process . Vickers states that it would be preferred to keep those separate . I would like to reinforce the recommendation that has been made in part several times in the past in pieces that the county pursue for long term waste management an option that derives energy from the waste that we generate and to accomplish this it is recognized it is going to have to develop cooperative arrangements with other political entities to get sufficient quantity to make it economically viable . Sassaman states that that is what we recommended to them in September 2008 . We could reaffirm what we sent them then. Yuhasz states that that recommendation would be helpful if there were a time frame attached to so that the Commissioners would have an idea what kind of time frame we are looking at. Grunwald adds that a comment was made that 20 years down the road would be sticking our heads in the sand, but in retrospect I ' ve lived here for 20 years in Orange County and when I first moved here there was discussions of the danger of the landfill closing and needing to do something . I suggest separating the two issues . We admit whether we like it or not we have no choice but to make a decision to move forward on whatever will get rid of our waste in the next couple of years, being the transfer station, but keep second to that dialog open and in a time frame moving forward on the idea of WtE in the near future . Politically considering the number of entities involved in a cooperative effort, 15 -20 years is close to the near future . Vickers states that the basic issue in any cooperative agreement is who is going to be the host. This type of facility is going to generate controversy . We can put the five years on permit and build, the uncertainty is the siting and the agreement. The 9 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 agreement is probably less uncertain than getting down to the hard facts of siting a facility . It will become a political tug of war . As far as giving a time frame the issue is how aggressive [are we willing to be] and the political will to go forward with that effort. Sassaman states that in playing around with a draft recommendation to work as a straw man . What I thought would be a good place to put it is at the end of the two discussions because it ties in both the WtE and the waste transfer station and then makes separate recommendations with an implied time line . Guild states that with continuing to pursue getting information from the plasma arc technology folks in the Pacific northwest which is a facility that I visited, I brought some slag that comes out of that furnace process that is essentially glass . There is no doubt to make something like this economically feasible you would have to have communities coming together in agreement to make this work . The problem with this stuff is, because it is like glass, it can be sharp . I believe this [sample] waste was F109, a hazardous waste . I' ve been in contact with them and expect to get some numbers at some point which I will share with Gayle so that we can at least look at it and make it part of the discussion . 5 . Transfer Station hauling and disposal Cost Analysis Sallach states that I wanted to follow up on a couple of questions that had been raised, the economics of the transfer station, the need for the transfer station and how it fits into an overall long term plan from an economic stand point. In looking at an economic breakeven analysis it is based on the economic pro4ormas that we previously prepared for the transfer station as it relates to direct hauling waste to a private sector transfer / disposal location . Looking at the savings and transfer haul and disposal costs the breakeven point would occur as far as transfer station viability when your savings is equal to the capital cost of the transfer station . The significance of the breakeven point is if an alternate disposal solution can be developed within the time frame prior to reaching the breakeven point, then it would be cheaper to direct haul to a private sector transfer station . That is based on the numbers that were developed in the economic evaluation and the assumptions in that. The corollary to that is if an alternative cannot be developed and implemented within that time frame, it is going to be cheaper to build a county transfer station in that you would have recovered your costs . If you look at the alternate disposal solutions , one premise would be that it would eliminate the long-term need for a transfer station. We heard some of the issues associated with WtE implementation being the primary aspect of it and siting . If you were going to implement an alternate disposal solution and eliminate the transfer station with it you would have to site the facility within Orange County . If it is sited in any of the adjoining counties, you will still have some sort of mechanism to transfer 10 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 the waste . As it has been pointed out in previous discussion you are looking at a situation in [which] the 500 to 1000 tons / day range would be the threshold . There again you would have to have a regional partner involved and accept out-of-county waste if you are trying to eliminate the need for a transfer station. The operation must be within the breakeven window . Another aspect would be that the county would have to be willing to pay a higher disposal cost than what you would see for out-of- county landfill disposal . It is generally accepted with the capacity that exists as far as landfills are concerned that is going to be the cheapest alternative for a period of time particularly when you are looking at $100 ton . The implementation of a facility is going to take a longer period of time, which is in the 15 - 20 year range if it is aggressively pursued . One option that is of interest and has been discussed is how the University fits into this . Is there a possibility that they might provide an option? Looking at the current landscape you will be competing against private sector landfill disposal capacity . When you go through the economics where is that breakeven point? if you compare the private sector cost and those cost included the off route cost as well as the tip fee then you compare that against the transfer station. The breakeven point occurs in 10 - 12 years . When you look at the available options, those available options are apparently and seem to be beyond that period of time . If you back up to the WtE and you want to be more optimistic about that, the things you would want to consider is to eliminate the need for a transfer station you will have to site the facility in Orange County as discussed . One thing that hashh t been discussed is waste flow control to make sure you have the waste stream to support that facility . One other question [is] raised by Mr . Vickers of how would these alternative compare to Eubanks Rd . The difference in cost is off route cost of taking the waste to Hwy 54 . You see the same general trends as the other alternatives . Tipton states that you show 15 -20 years for the University and I need to make clear that the University doesn t have a time frame and in no way has a crystal ball of how long it may take . Public Comments Hauser states that for the record we don t believe that this report accurately reflects the costs . We do think that any methodologies and assumptions can be used to come up with the answer you want to come up with . This methodology was designed to favor 54 . The volumes that were used were not consistent with the county reports . The models that were used for estimating were based on current operations not an operation for long distance . The distances are not consistent between the Towns e . g . Chapel Hill and Carrboro are shown having the same distance to 54, actually Chapel 11 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 Hill is shown to be closer to the 54 site than Carrboro yet Carrboro is further away from the vendor sites . The truck speeds are modeled at 40mph which doesn' t make sense on the higher speed roads . Even Chapel Hill provided estimates that are higher than [that and] that weren t used . The trucks are designed for short hauling not long hauling e . g . the Chapel Hill trucks have three operators on the truck and certainly we wouldn' t send a truck with three operators to Waste Management an hour away . Taylor states that I haven t had a chance to read that report yet. I know that it has been said that rail haul is too expensive here but I disagree with that. I think it is a coming up alternative . I am gathering some figures to present to you from Norfolk Southern and NC rail road . We have a great resource here that was built for industrial use over a hundred years ago . With Orange County being the leader of recycling in the State we need to be the leader in waste disposal also . Sassaman states that we have talked about rail haul in the past. Where would you site a waste transfer station that would be amendable to rail haul? You would have to transfer the garbage to the rail . Taylor states that there are some sites next to Chapel Hill municipal operations on Millhouse Rd . There are some that Orange County Voice has found east of Hillsborough along Mt. Herman Church Rd . , and in Efland . There are several sites that they have presented but I haven' t had a chance to look at them along the railroad parallel [to] Hwy 85 . There is the state university railroad in Carrboro there are sites along there that may be a political hot potato but could be used . If you look at the advantage rail haul now that could be tied into a eventual regional plan it seems disingenuous to site a transfer station out on 54 when maybe down the road in 10 years Duke Energy may be putting one in Durham . I' ve heard that Duke Energy is thinking about putting in a WtE plant in East Durham Norfolk Southern yard . That may not be public information yet but people have heard about it as a possibility . If Raleigh, Wake Forest and other people could come around [to] bring waste to there it could be a huge regional thing keeping all those trucks off the road . My main thing is keeping the trucks off the road . Stan states that the Daily Tarheel on line was talking about the interim transfer station, I' m concerned that now we have the Howell property, OWASA is not amendable and for whatever reason the Howell property doesn' t happen where are we with an interim transfer station here at Eubanks while things are being sorted out. Wilson states that there will be a part of a large comprehensive report going to the BOCC on April 21st that will have a sub-report in there listing the options as staff sees them for contingency transfer . The commissioners will receive that and perhaps make determinations that night. 12 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 Stan asks will that be posted . Wilson states that once it goes out in the packet to the Commissioners it is open to the public . Tipton states that as a citizen of Orange County I know that the SWAB doesn' t make decisions of where to site a transfer station. This is directed to those who do . What I am going to say is not going to be poplar . Some of the things that I' m hearing said in private I want to bring them out in public because I' ve heard them so many times . live in Orange County . I think putting the transfer station I' m a tax payer . I l anywhere other than where the current solid waste operations are is not financially it environmentally responsible . That said, I said that with all due responsible nor is respect to the neighbors of the Eubanks landfill, when I think about sustain ability I think about the three legged stool - environment, economics, social. The social leg I realize . is real . My question is if there is money to buy land out on Hwy 54 is there money to mitigate or address some of the issues for the communities that live near the landfill now such as hookups to water or assistantship for paying OWASA bills . I realized that we are boxed in or boxed out of Eubanks Rd as a possible facility . If the 54 site is selected for a transfer station I urge that the site be left open to what we need as a county in a waste campus . Do we need the operations out on Eubanks and the transfer station on 54? I don' t think so . I urge the decision makers not to make rash statements like there will never be a convenience center on 54 if that is the chosen location, there will never be recycling processing out there . I urge us to keep an open mind and address issues as they come . Vickers states that that we looked at the rail issue three years ago . The problem was we wouldn' t fill a rail car quick enough . We would end up storing waste wherever the transfer station was and there would be an odor problem . Rail is very efficient if you have large volumes . Staff Comments Wilson asks the consultants at the end of your presentation you mentioned the WtE facility would have to be in Orange County to obviate the need for a transfer station so how would the approximate 15 % residuals be handled without a local transfer operation. Sallach states that you would have to have a landfill for the residuals . The residuals would have to be transferred to a landfill from the WtE facility . Wilson clarifies that there would have some type of transfer operation unless you had a landfill . 13 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 Hauser states that we have given you reports from vendors on Eco Industrial Park . To see a perfect site for a WtE facility go to Greensboro waste transfer station which has five miles of industrial functions around it including recyclers for ash, concrete and other things . Organizations like Energy Answers are doing close to zero residual processing . It would be incorrect for this group to think that you would need a landfill to dump the ash because a well planned WtE facility could be managed [so that] the ash could be recycled right at the location where the burn is happening . Bowerman states that I know people keep bringing up Greensboro and it is beautiful . One thing they did was bought [out] anyone who didn t want to be around there and there are no homes there because they [the City of Greensboro] bought them . , If we are going to set up something as wonderful as that, is that something people want to consider also or are they just going to say ' Here is the section of town where we put all the crap we don t want and you guys live with it. ? ' Pollock states that this is for the consultants that speaks to something that Bonnie raised about comparative costs . To paraphrase, she raised the point regarding the net cost of landfilling versus the net cost of a WtE facility and we are seeing numbers in the report ranging from the $102 ton in the study [August 2008 re GBB] to $120 - $130 ton cited by Peter Haviland of Wheelabrator . EDITOR 'S NOTE : Following this point, there is no ficrther audio recording of the meeting available, due to technical problems with the recording equipment . What follows is a reconstruction of key points made at the meeting using a set of basic notes, staff recollections and documents ficrnished at the meeting . Vickers asks what was taken out of the plan for the transfer station to reduce the cost [to about $5 million from the originally estimated $ 7 million to $10 million, including land costs? ] Sallach replies that the transfer station was reduced in size and from two bays to one bay . Land acquisition was reduced from the proposal to buy the whole 143 acre parcel offered to only 25 acres that were needed at an expected market value of $15, 000 per acre . Yuhasz asks how the proposed reduction would affect operations . Sallach replies that it could limit the transfer station to handling only MSW and not any other materials (transferring recyclables had been considered for this site, but not officially endorsed or made part of the charge) . The second bay would also have accommodated future growth in the size of the waste stream and enabled continuous operation of the transfer station if part of it had to be repaired, for example a floor replacement. 14 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 Grunwald asked if the reduced size would impact the quality of recyclables processed at the transfer station . [Assuming some processing was to be done there . ] Sassaman points out that no processing was to be done at the transfer station but possibly some agglomeration and transfer of pre -sorted recyclables . Wilson notes that a smaller floor would not enable recyclables to be readily extracted from the waste but that there were bans on most readily recyclable materials in the form of scrap metal, cardboard, and clean wood waste . He adds that there was no public charge to design the transfer station for handling recyclables and that the new smaller sized station would enable a more economical design on less land to be more cost- competitive with existing private transfer stations . Sassaman asks the Board if they would like to make a resolution on Olver' s presentation and offers three options 1 . Accept the report and thank Olver . 2 . Endorse the report' s conclusions and forward to the BOCC . 3 . Reject the report' s conclusions . Sassaman then offers a draft resolution that endorses Olver' s report conclusions, recommends that the BOCC pursue development of a transfer station and recommends that they continue to consider WtE as a long-term future option. The SWAB discusses the details of the resolution and provides alternative language in some areas . Vickers proposes adding a statement to the resolution opposing use of the NC 54 sites that have been selected . The SWAB decides, partly at the suggestion of Commissioner Yuhasz, to consider the Vickers proposal separately and not as a part of the Sassaman resolution. The SWAB directs staff to redraft the resolution as they have directed and passes the resolution pending those revisions . Further discussion ensues of Vickers' request that the SWAB consider a resolution that would reconsider siting of the transfer station somewhere other than NC 54 sites already selected . The SWAB directs staff to develop a resolution to be voted on electronically . (Resolution to be distributed at May 7 SWAB meeting . It was defeated 4-2 with one abstention. ) 6 . Follow-Up - Rogers Road Water Runoff Concern There is a follow-up discussion to the disputed runoff situation that was raised by Robert Campbell at the special SWAB meeting March 31 . Campbell contended that stormwater runoff from the active C &D landfill ran south out of the landfill property 15 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 2, 2009 Approved May 7, 2009 then west along the grassy swale on Eubanks then south towards the Rogers Road neighborhood . Paul Spire of staff contended that the runoff reaching the ditch was from the forested area of the property and adjoining Duke Forest property only, not the landfill face, and referred to the topographical maps of the area which Campbell contended were out of date . The SWAB then directed the two to jointly observe water flows following the next significant storm event to attempt to resolve the dispute . 7. Programs and Services Update : Of the three items listed in the update, only the budget was addressed . Wilson noted that the manager had directed all County Departments, irrespective of their sources of funds, to submit budgets that reflected a 10 % cut in operations, not personnel or capital. Due to constraints in the landfill portion of the Solid Waste Department Budget that require no cuts for next year' s operations, Wilson noted that all his proposed cuts were in the recycling division, resulting arithmetically in approximately a 20 % cut in that budget to make a 10 % cut in the departmental nitation Division budget were also developed . No budget. Ten percent cuts in the Sa specific recommendations had yet been made by the manager at that point. 8 . Other Business None Smith moves to adjourn . Vickers 2nd . Adjourn 8 : 45pm Next meeting : May 7, 2009 16