HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-09-2005-2ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 9, 2005
Action Agendla
Item No. of
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Matters
DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Solid Waste PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
11/07f05 Solid Waste Director Memo Rod Visser, 245-2308
09/22/05 Olver, Inc, Analysis Gayle Wilson, 968-2885
PURPOSE: To review and discuss matters related to out-of-county solid waste disposal
options, alternatives to the existing Highway 57 solid waste convenience center (SWCC), and
the ongoing process to update the County's ten-year solid waste management plan.
BACKGROUND: Staff are working on a number of solid waste policy matters and would
benefit from the Board of Commissioners' feedback on many of these. At the November 2
meeting, the Board discussed the County s Solid Waste Facilities Master Plan and
considerations related to landclearing and inert debris recycling operations, At this November 9
work session, staff recommend that the Board discuss and provide feedback related to three
additional topics as outlined below:
Alamance County Proposal to Accept Orange County Solid Waste for Disposal
Staff will provide a brief review of two attached documents that outline analysis by staff and the
County's consulting engineers of considerations related to out-of-county disposal of mixed solid
waste (MSW ), Staff asked Olver, Inc (who operate under an annual contract approved by the
BOCC for supplemental engineering services) to provide an additional perspective to the staff's
review of an August 2005 inquiry by Alamance County representatives about Orange County's
interest in the near term about shipping some or all of its MSW waste stream to Alamance for
disposal,
The staff and consulting engineers' conclusions are that there could be some longer term
benefits in a future relationship with Alamance County, particularly if Alamance is open to an
arrangement under which Orange County might gain some degree of ownership/equity interest
in the Alamance County landfill. Staff recommend that talks with Alamance officials to this end
be pursued. Without such an equity interest for Orange County, shipping waste to Alamance in
the near term has serious practical constraints and is not financially advantageous to the
County. Even so, there may be other reasons beyond the purely economic that warrant holding
continued conversations with Alamance representatives regarding potential collaboration on
solid waste management matters.
Alternatives to Highway 57 Solid Waste Convenience Center: The County received notice
in August 2005 from the new owner of property on which the Highway 57 SWCC is located that
the County's lease would not be renewed upon its expiration on April 1, 2006. Since that time
staff have been working to examine alternatives to that site that would allow the County to
continue providing service to residents who made nearly 72,000 trips to that site last year, At
this time, the staff's focus is on developing plans to provide SWCC services at the Orange
County Public Works site, located about 1 mile to the southwest of the Highway 57 site. Such
an operation could prove to be either an interim or a permanent solution, Staff have also been
examining other potential sites and service delivery considerations, and will review with the
Board the work that has taken place on this issue during the past several months.
Solid Waste Management Plan Update Process: The next three year update of the County's
10 year solid waste management plan is due to the State of North Carolina in June 2006,
County staff have been working with the Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) and elected
officials from each Orange County local government to examine the County's current goals and
solid waste plan, and to develop proposed recommendations for consideration by the various
governing boards related to the goals and the best array of programs and services for achieving
those goals.
The most recent three year plan update revealed different outlooks among the local
governments about priorities and approaches for increasing the County's waste diversion rate
from 45% to the long• established goal of 61 %. For example, the Town of Chapel Hill
emphasized its interests in pursuing a "pay per throw" option for solid waste disposal in the
Town and in offering residents broader opportunities to recycle certain elements of the waste
stream, such as mixed paper. It is generally understood that if there are to be broader and
larger diversions of potentially recyclable materials from the County and Town waste streams,
that the overall solid waste management plan will have to be modified to include development of
additional processing capability beyond that currently available to Orange County.
Staff will provide a review of SWAB work group discussions to this paint, and timelines for
governing board review, feedback, and approval of the updated solid waste management plan
by next June,
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with discussion of these topics.
The Board's decisions in the future to develop additional needed solid waste management
facilities would be funded through future appropriations in the Solid Waste/Landfill enterprise
fund,
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the solid waste
topics mentioned above and provide appropriate direction to the Manager and staff.
MEMORANDUM
To: John L,inlc, County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
Subject: Orange County Solid Waste to Alamance County
Date: November 7, 2005
On August 12, 2005, BOCC Chair Moses Carey, Manager Jolm L,ii~i<, and Solid Waste Director
Gayle Wilson met in Graham with representatives of Alamance County. The meeting was a result
of an inquiry by Alamance County regarding the possibility of Orange County solid waste being
delivered to the Alamance County Landfill. The meeting was essentially exploratory, with no
proposals being offered or solicited.
The basis of the discussion, from Alamance County's perspective, is a continuing reduction of
incoming toimage to the Alamance County landfill due to private waste haulers increasingly
transporting waste to out-of-county disposal facilities, resulting in a significant decline in tipping
fee revenue. From Orange County's perspective, the local landfill will reach capacity in five years,
at which time waste must be transfen-ed to an out-of=county landfill. An Alamance County landfill
option may present an opportunity to minimize hauling distances and the accompanying
transportation costs.. The Alamance County prospect could also provide Orange County with the
option of advancing the transfer of waste prior to the Ioca1 latidf II reaching capacity, thus
prolonging the life of the Orange County landfill.
This memorandum will examine some of the financial and operational aspects of delivering Orange
County waste to the Almnance County Landfill. This analysis is not intended to explore every facet
of the issue in detail, but only to examine the various issues to the degree that the BOCC can
determine whether there is sufficient interest to further pursue the matter, have additional dialogue
with Alamance County, or to discuss proposal options.
Preserving landfill space at our existing facility by transferring waste to anout-of=county landfill
raises regulatory issues.. Orange County camiot.just cease using the landfill indefinitely. If the
facility is not used for a period exceeding 30 days, one foot of immediate cover must be placed.
Additional restrictions also exist that would disallow airy mothballing of the facility. This means
that some reduced level of landfilling would have to continue. For this reason, the following
analysis does not contemplate any scenario in which all Orange County waste would be shipped to
Alamance in the near-term.
Staff has not yet conducted an enviromnental compliance audit of the Alamance County landfill, as
it is somewhat time consuming. Following this report and deliberation by the BOCC, staff is
prepared to obtain all necessary enviromnental information available regarding the Alamance
County facility if the BOCC wishes to further explore utilizing the Alamance Cotmty landfill. Staff
strongly reconunends this as reasonable and necessary due diligence.
One issue paramount to discussion concerning transferring waste from Orange County to any
distant facility is that of a Transfer Station. A transfer station is a structure used Co unload incoming
waste from smaller collection vehicles and reload the waste into atractor-trailer truck for long
distance hauling. Staff advises that whether Orazige County waste is hauled to Alaznance County or
to some more distant facility, a transfer station will be required.
A transfer station is required for the following reasons:
• More efficient method of transporting waste longer distances
• Provides an opportunity for Orange County staff to enforce local ordinances/policies
• Allows better measurement of waste quantities
• Significantly reduces traffic at the disposal facility
• Captures tipping fee revenue
The BOCC has not yet been asked to endorse a site for a transfer station. Staff has previously
proposed a location at current landfill property on Eubanks Road as a possible site. Once staff
concludes a site suitability analysis of that location, the information will be shared with the Solid
Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) and formal tr°arisfer station siting reconnnendations by the SWAB
and departmental staff will be presented to the BOCC by early 2006.
Transfer Station construction costs can range from about $350,000-$500,000 for a temporary
facility, to about $2.5 million for a permanent facility sized for Orange County's waste stream..
Design, engineering, and construction administration expenses typically average an additional
approximately 15 percent.
There are four fimdamental options to consider:
1. Negotiating for the transfer of waste to Alamance County as soon as possible/prior to Orange
County Landfill reaching capacity;
2. Negotiating for the transfer of waste to Alaznance County in 2010, when the Orange County
landfill reaches capacity;
3. In about 2-.3 years, consistent with a typical timeline for identifying a future disposal
destination, prepare a bid for out-of-county disposal service and weigh the Alamance County
disposal option against other available options; and
4. Negotiation for an equity arrangement (some arrangement that would result in some equity
interest, joint ownership or other pennanent/tangible benefit that would accrue to Orange
County) with Alamazrce County that could provide long-term advantages/security for Orange
County.
Option 1: Negotiating for the transfer of waste to Alamance County as soon as possible/prior
to Orange County Landfill reaching capacity
This option's primary benefits are to prolong the life of the existing Orange County Landfill to use
as a bargaining chip in future waste transfer negotiations, to delay the expenses of landfill closure,
and to provide assistance to a sister county (ifthere are mutual benefits in doing so). While there is
value in preserving landfill space, this value is a future benefit that seems to result in negative
f nancial consequences for the solid waste enterprise fiord over the near and mid-terra. The fund
bas insufficient reserves to cover the short-terns additional expenses, in anticipation of being
reimbursed by future landfill tipping fees generated when Che saved space is ultimately filled.
5
This option does not include a temporary transfer station, as would typically be the case because tl~e
Chapel Hill (if located on existing landfill property) permitting process, even if expedited, does not
offer an opportunity for' a substantially expedited permitting process. Additionally, there would be
a substantial additional problem of siting the temporary facility, if it were not on existing landfill
property. Therefore, we have assumed simply proceeding now to develop the permanent transfer
station as quickly as possible. This assumption will delay implementation of the innnediate
transferring of waste and will reduce the saved capacity by several months, but will avoid the
additional cost of a temporary transfer station.
$46 X 56,800 tons = $2,612,800 (tip fee revenue generated at Orange County Landfill or tlu-ough
Orange County transfer station)
A. Expense to Transfer MSW to Alamance County while maintaining Orange County MSW landfill
permit (assuming 50 000 tons of the 56 800 tons available transferred/year Orange County's
transfer station tip fee and landfill fee would be identical and $36 Alamance Tip Feel:
$.36 X 50,000 tons = $1,800,000 (to be paid to Alamance Co. for tipping fees)
$2,612,800 - $1,800,000 = $812,800 (vs. $2,612,800 projected FY-05/06 MSW fee revenue) This
represents an annual loss to the fund of$1,80Q000.
flr addition, this does not count the cost of hauling the 50,000 tons to the Alamance Corurty Landfill,
estimated by Olver, file. at $490/ton = $245,000, or transfer station operation cost of $7.50/ton =
$375,000. This represents an additional expense to the fund of $620,000 amorally.
B. Expense to Transfer MSW to Alamance County while maintaining Orange County MSW landfill
permit (assuming 25 000 tons of the 56 800 tons available transferred/year, Orange County's
transfer station tip fee and landfill fee would be identical, and $36 Alamance Tip Fee):
$36 X 25,000 tons = $900,000 (to be paid to Alamance Co. for tipping fees)
$2,612,800 - $900,000 = $1,712,800 (vs. $2,612,800 projected FY-05/06 MSW fee revenue) This
would represent an amrual loss to the fiord of $900,000,
In addition, this does not count the cost of hauling of the 25,000 tons, estimated by Olver, hrc. at
$4.90/ton = $122,500, or transfer station operation cost of $7.50/ton = $187,500. This represents an
additional expense to the fiord of $.310,000 amorally.
Note: Staff is assuming that County staff mrd eyuipment r~~ould perform Irauling operations.. Staff is
also assuming direct open°ation ofYhe transfer° station with existing persorureh Stc ff has not yet
conducted detailed capitalization and operational cost estimating cnrd is relying on~gzn~es provided
by Oh~er', Inc., based on their experience.
As noted earlier, the savings available to offset the additional expenses include preserved landfill
space and a delay in closure expenditures. The value of the saved landfill space is unavailable from
a budgetary perspective, so there will be no offsetting expenditure reduction. Savings in airspace
are not available as revenue to balance the budget; therefore additional revenue will be required to
balance expenses.
Closure costs are estimated at approximately $2,500,000. It has been suggested that these fwtds
will be made available at the time the funds are needed. While delaying closure for 2+ years will
delay this expenditure, the delay also does not represent any savings that can directly offset
increased expenditures related to transferring waste.
OCher' savings are not likely in this option due to having to maintain two operations (transfer station
and landfill) simultaneously.
Therefore the total amoral cost to the solid waste fund of transferring MSW to Alamance County,
depending on the two above tomiage scenarios is estimated at between $1,210,000 and $2,420,000
annually.
Option 2: Negotiating for the transfer of waste to Alamance County in 2010, when the Orange
County landfill reaches capacity
The primary benefit of'this option is that it does not require sinntltaneous operation of a landf II and
a transfer station, and does not require an inunediate expenditure of funds for transfer station
development. The primary disadvantage of this option is that it doesn't take into consideration that
other, less costly out-of-county disposal options maybe available though a competitive bidding
process. This option also does not provide for preserving landfill capacity.
From a financial perspective, transferring waste at any time will be more expensive than utilization
of a County owned and operated facility, as contemplated in our 10-year financial plan. Costs of
this option will be in the same order of magnitude as the first option. Even in 2010, a significant
redistribution of tipping fee revenue will take place along with new costs of development for a
transfer station, hauling, and disposal costs at the distant landfill. Closure costs will be incurred
regardless of the timing.
Option 3: In about 2 years, consistent with a typical timeline for identifying a future disposal
destination, prepare a bid for out-of-county disposal service and weigh the Alamance County
disposal option against other available options
This option is similar to the previous options, except that it assumes allowing Alamance County to
compete with all/every other possible out-of=county disposal prospect through a competitive
bidding process and does not assume preserving landfill capacity. This option, as with the other
ri~ansfer station options, results in significant additional expenditures to Orange County related to
transferring waste vs. in-county landf Ming.
Option 4: Negotiation for an equity arrangement with Alamance County that could provide
long-term advantages/security for Orange County
In the event that the apparent financial disadvantages of Alamance County's $.36 tipping fee
coupled with issues surrowiding expediting development of a transfer station result in a decision not
to pursue a waste transfer customer arrangement with Alamance County in the near term, the issue
of an equity arrangement long term may present a unique opportunity that should be explored.
Even if a short-term waste transfer arrangement is pw•sued, an equity arrangement should
still be considered. While this may still result in some significaut increases in expenses for
waste disposal short term, acquiring equity during this period may have significant long-term
4
7
benefits. Staff strongly recommends further explm•ing this concept, including working with
the County Attorney to identify equity options beneficial to both parties.
General Transportation Issues
The actual waste tr°ansfer process has tlu•ee components -transfer station operation, hauling, and
disposal. The transfer station operation costs are virtually the same regardless of where the waste is
going. The costs of the other two components are variable depending on hauling distance and
tipping fees at the distant disposal facility.
The cost of transporting waste from an Orange County transfer station to an out-of-county landfill
will be incurred whether the distant landfill is in Alamance County or a more distant disposal
facility, While the cost per mile will be similar for hauling regardless of the destination, obviously
total transportation costs will be greater relative to the distance traveled. The disposal cost will also
vary depending on the tipping fee rate at the distant landfill.
Of course there are other transportation-related issues. One is the wear and tear of roads whereby
flee assumption is that the longer the haul, the more impact on roads, Additionally, there is the
vehicle emissions issue.. The longer the haul, the more emissions will be discharged. While these
are also real costs, these costs do not directly impact the Solid Waste budget unless a preference is
made to deliver to a closer disposal facility that may have a higher tipping fee, resulting in a greater
overall budgetary cost.
Conclusions
From our examination of'the issues surrounding Alamance County's inquiry regarding whether
Orange County would be interested in transfering waste to the Alamance County landfill, I have
made the following observations:
• Significant additional costs will be incurred whenever Orange County begins to transfer waste.
This fact was identified in the department's 10-year Financial Plan.
• hr order to transfer waste to any out-oF-county disposal facility, development of a transfer
station in Orange County will be required.
• A combination ofhauling azid disposal costs will likelybe utilized to determine the overall
financial impact of waste transfer options, given that decisions of this nature are typically based
on lowest cost.
• Development of a Temporary transfer station would add substantial additional costs to any
decision to begin transferring waste at the earliest opportunity.
• Development of a transfer station in Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction would offer limited
opporttmity to "fast track" permitting and construction of such a facility.
• It is unlikely that an out-of county disposal facility closer than the Alamance Cotmty Landfill
will be identified.
• It is likely that mm~erous out-of=county waste disposal options are available that offer lower
disposal tipping fees than Alamance County's $.36/ton fee.
Recommendations
1. That Orange County express interest in examining equity interest options that may be mutually
beneficial to both Orange and Alamance, and request a meeting soon with Alamance County
representatives to specifically discuss this matter.
2, That Orange County identify the location for a permanent transfer station and begin
development as soon as possible. Because of the additional costs and the time and uncertainty
associated with the development review process, a temporary transfer station should not receive
fiuther consideration.
3. That Orazige County should not begin transferring waste until the permanent transfer station is
completed.
4. That when the transfer station is nearing completion, Orange County obtain hauling and
disposal cost quotes tlu-ough a competitive bidding process, inviting Alamance County to bid
along with other disposal facilities that are interested in receiving Orange County waste.
5. That if Alamance Cowtty indicates a lack of interest in any Orange Cow7ty equity arrangement
in their landfill, Orange County notify Alatnairce County that Orange County is not interested in
or prepared to deliver waste to Alamance County at this time or during the next several years
(due to Orange County's lack of existing waste transfer capability and an existing Alamance
Cotuity tipping fee that is too high to make slopping waste to Alamance economically feasible
for the Orange County landfill enterprise operation),.
Attaclunent - Olver Inc.. Analysis
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN OUT-OF-COUNTY DISPOSAL OPTION FOR
ORANGE COUNTY MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
(9/05)
Introduction
Municipal solid waste (MSW) that is generated in Orange County and not recycled is currently disposed at the
County's Eubanks Road Landfill, which is expected to reach capacity in the summer of 2010. Once the County
Landfill is closed, the County plans to dispose of its non-recycled MSW at a landfill located outside of Orange
County.
The purpose of this Ceclmical memorandum is to provide an overview of the planning timeframe and implementation
options that are available to the County to implement the out-of-County MSW disposal option.
Steps to Implementation
The implementation of an out-of--County MSW disposal option will involve the completion of the Following tasks:
• Itnplementation of a County-Owned Transfer Station
• Procurement of Out-of-County Disposal Services
• Procurement ofI-Iauling Services
A prelinvnary schedule is presented in Figure 1 that illustrates the time requirements that are likely to be associated
with each of these tasks, which are discussed below.
Transfer Station Implementation
The first step in the implementation of Che out-of--County disposal option involves the construction of a County-
owned transfer station.
The transfer station will enable both municipal and private haulers to avoid making the long-distance haul to the out-
of-County disposal site, Instead, haulers can discharge MSW loads at the hansfer station, where the waste is
transferred to large (20 ton capacity) hansfer hailers for hauling to the remote disposal site, One-way haul distances
of 20 miles generally are sufficient to guarantee the economic viability of a transfer station. By implementing a
transfer station, ffie County will be able to enforce local ordinances and policies, maintain control of tipping fees,
and reduce buck traffic to the remote disposal facility. In addition, a transfer station provides an essential service for
solid waste collection vehicles, which are typically not designed (i.e geared) for dre long-hauling of\vastes
Olver Incorporated strongly recommends that the transfer station be owned and conholled by the County. This
approach will ensure that the County wilt be able to choose the out-of-County disposal site as well as the waste
hauling service provider. Altemafively, if the County elects to use aprivately-owned transfer station, the choice of
waste hauler and remote disposal site will be under the control of the private hansfer station owner
The implementation of aCounty-owned hansfer station will involve the following steps:
• Siting
• Design azrd Permitting
• Procurement of Construction Services
• Transfer Station Consruction
Orange County Page t of 6 09/22/05
a I
O
N
M
I
v O
v1
t0
N '
I
O
N
ro
a '
m
~ o
~ °
N
Y I
C
_
O
V
v
011
L T`
q
L
O N
V- C
~
~ p
w +~ E 's.
~ a•^
SOY
l7 ~ u
~ ~ w
a 0 0
^a N
0
C II I
V
o
N I
7
C
~ N
p O m °
~ a
p O
y O p~_ C
U
O
Y
(C C
O N C
U N O ^
U d m
C ~ ~ ° m
` O
N o o
y p v a m
~ U Z N O Z ti J N
d
E 2
o ~
~ m ° E u
N w ~ m a >~
~ c m
c c u) m° c p~ c ~
N ~ o a'S c
'
O O 0 U N O = O O U
O O
u N
~J ° ~ N
N > N N C C
J u U
O
O°~
~
c VI
C
~ ry
m o~ o .
o C
E w a m
m
E
Q m c
0 0 o 0 0 4.
E '
` ° '
'° E ° `° '° `°
c=~o c'cc
~ -
a
=oc`om -
~~'oE pin ~ nwOOf.„ac
w m E u
°_ N °> E o°
n .
c
' ° c> E o 0
c o m n v° o
E a ~ m w~ >, m
rv E E m
v w c: 2
rnwm Q+~w .
°
u
EOV JE
Eu°d~~`
K 2
c ~wa°i °'¢a~N
v y~ c
w d u o ` a>~ ~
ti m> o d w a>~ c
d w m> o o w E m N°
.
E E d a o
`
~N'v~oaU ~rrowU ~m~owU ~ N
o¢¢I-~n~U
o
` o
` n =
1- a a w ~
~o
~,
0
N
N
O
O
N
al
a
.~+
'o
v
oil
n
O
Siting
County staff have previously recommended that the future County ransfer station be located at the
Eubatilcs Road Landfill Site. In this regard, dte staff have recommended tbaC a site feasibility
evaluation be conducted for Ibis site to determine if it is suitable from an operational and
permitting perspective.
If the existing Eubanks Road location is not found to be feasible, the County would have to initiate
a site identification, evaluation, and selection process which is likely to encounter significant
public resistance to potential sites and requite a substantial amount of time to complete. As
indicated in Figure 1, a total of 15 months have been allocated for the completion of this task, with
the actual required time dependent on the level ofpublic resistance to the selected site(s),
Design and Permitting
Once the site for the fransfet station has been selected and acquired, the design and permitting
tasks can be initiated. As shown in Figure I, eighteen months have been allocated for the
completion of this task, with the actual required Yime dependent on the amount of time required by
the State to review and approve the pemtit application.
Procurement of Construction Services
Qnce the transfer station is designed, ffie County will need to procure consruction services
duough the conduct of the following tads:
• Development of Bid Specifications
• Issuance of "Request For Bids"
• Evaluation of Bids
• Bid Award
• Issuance of Notice To Proceed
A total of 9 months (270 days) has been allocated for this step.
Construction
Constmction of the transfer station should take no longer than one year however, eighteen
months have been allocated for this task to accommodate construction delays due to inclement
weather and unforeseen developments.
Procurement of Disposal Services
The procurement of remote disposal services will involve the development and issuance of a "Request for
Proposals (RFP)", the development of proposals by landfill service providers in response [o the RPP, the
evaluation of proposals, the selection of a preferred contractor, and the negotiation of a disposal services
agreement-
The time frame required fo[ each of these tasks is estimated to be as follows:
• RFP Development and Issuance - 6 months
• Development of Proposals - 6 months
• Evaluation of Proposals - 6 months
• Contractor Selection and Confr'act Negotiation - 9 months
Orange County Page 3 of 6 09/22/05
is
While these time requirements may appear conservative, they are based on Olver's recent experience in
Wake County, which issued an RFP for remote disposal services in June 2004 and is still in the contract
negotiation phase of this procurement 14 months later.
As Figure I indicates, the County would not have to initiate the procurement process for remote disposal
services until early 2008,
Procurement of Hauling Services
As with disposal services, the procurement of long-distance waste hauling services will involve the
development and issuance of a "Request Por Proposals (RFP)", the development of proposals by waste
haulers in response to the RFP, the evaluation of proposals, the selection of a preferred contractor, and the
negotiation of a waste hauling agreement.
The procurement of waste hauling services should be more straightforward than disposal services
procurement, requiring a maximum of I S months to complete as follows:
• RFP Development and Issuance - 3 months
• Development of Proposals -.3 months
• Evaluation ofProposals -.3 months
• Contractor Selection and Connact Negotiation- 6 months
Therefore, this process would not have to be initiated until early 2009- Should the County decide to
provide dtis service, the timeframe for procurement of equipment would be shortened. In this regard,
County staff have indicated that the County would be willing fo provide hauling services for haul distances
similar to those involved in hauling to Alamance County (i e, about 17 miles one-way); for longer
distances, the County would contract for hauling services
Preliminary Analysis of Alamance County Option
The County bas the option of utilizing disposal services from Alamance County prior to the closure of the
Eubanks Road Landfill in 2010.
The pursuit of this option would involve bout benefits and drawbacks to the County, which are listed in
Table I.
TABLE 1
Utilization of Alamance County Landfill Before
Closure of Eubanks Landfill in 2010 -Pros and Cons
Pros '.Cons
Would enable the County to "bank" a maximum of Would Require The Simultaneous Operation of
2,5 years of landfill disposal capacity at the Transfer Station and Landfill
Eubanks Road landfill
Could lead to a public partnership for MSW Would likely eliminate surplus tip fee revenues
disposal that would enable the County to retain currently used for 3-R Program funding
control over long term MSW disposal pricing and Would require the County to incur additional costs
capacity availability. for the permitting, construction and operation of
a temporary transfer station.
Would delay the incurring of closure costs at the Questionable value of banked disposal capacity
County Landfill with respect to the County
Difficulty of implementing afast-track
construction project in Orange County.
Orange County Page 4 of 6 09/22/05
13
The major benefit to the County would be the ability to extend the life of the County's Eubatils Landfill.
This benefit would provide the County with an alternative disposal site under the County's direct control
should the County not be able to secure cost-competitive disposal prices for remote disposal services in the
future.
To implement this option, the Cotmry would have to "fast track" Che implementation of a temporary
transfer station at the Eubanks Road L,andS(1 as well as procure hauling services fiom the Eubmtks Transfer
Station to the Alamance County Landfill In addition, Alamance County would have to secure a permit
modification to dispose of Orange County's waste and both Orange and Alamance County would have to
modify their three-year solid waste management plans to include this alternative Finally, it should be
noted drat, under this option, Orange County could not just shelve disposal operations at the Eubanks Road
Landfill but would have to dispose of at least a minimal amount of waste each month at fhe landfill in order
to avoid die regulatory requirentettt fo initiate closure activities within 30 days of the receipt of the lasC load
of waste.
As shown in Figure 1, Olver estimates drat it would require approximately 27 mmtths to accomplish these
tasks, As a result, the earliest timefrante that the County could begin Co transfer MSW to Alamance County
would be in early 2008 Therefore, this option would enable die County to "bank" a maximum of Z.5 years
of disposal capacity at the Eubanks Road Landfill assuming adherence to the fast hack schedule. It should
be noted that some of this banked disposal capacity would have to be utilized during the hansfer service
disruptions Yltat would be caused by the construction of the permanent transfer statiou on the same site as
the temporary transfer station.
A preliminary economic analysis of fhe costs associated with the County's utilizatiat of the Alamance
County Landfill, as well as a regional private ]andfilh is provided in Table L IC should be noted that the
hauling and disposal costs presented in this table ate based on achral bid prices received by the City of
Greensboro in March 2005.
TABLE 2
Preliminary Economic Analysis of Remote Disposal Alternatives
Parameter
Orange County
Alamance County Upper Piedmont
Environmental
Republic Uwharrie
Landfill Landfill
' Landfill Landfill
Distance:
One-Way 0 17 50 119
Round Trip 0 34 100 238
Haul Prices 2.88 2.88 1.68
Transfer - - 7.50 7.50 $7.50
Haut - 4.90 14.41 20.03
Disposal $46.00 36.00 22.00 $19.00
TOTAL $46.00 48.40 43.91 46.53
Assumes ZO•ton payload. Haul and disposal prices based on bids received by the City of Greensboro in
March 2D05 and have been increased by 1 D% to reflect recent increases in fuel costs. Prices are in units of
"Dollars Per Round-Trip Mile."
As indicated in Table 2, if Orange County is charged the current disposal rate of $36 per ton by Alamance
County, it will cost the County Wrote to dispose of MSW at the Alamance County Landfill than at the
County's Eubanks Road Landfill.
In addition, it appears that the disposal of the County's MSW at a remote private landfill such as the
Republic Uwharrie Landfill may be more economical than the utilization of the Alamance County Landfill
t The Uwharrie Landfill owned and operated by Republic Services is used in this case for illustration purposes only.
Orange County Page 5 of 6 09/Z2/05
/~
due to the lower unit haul costs and the lower disposal prices that are likely to be associated with this
option.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on this preliminary analysis, it is Olver's conclusion that the utilization of disposal services at the
Alamance County L.andfitl before the closeout of the Eubanks Road Landfill in 2010 would provide the
County with only a modest benefit in the form of a maximum of 2.5 years of banked local disposal
capacity. In Olver's opinion, tlris benefit does not appear to warrant the additional expense and effort
required for the implementation of a temporary transfer station
An analysis of task scheduling requirements indicates that the County appears to have an adequate amount
of time to implement a permanent County Transfer Station that will enable the County to utilize out-of-
County MSW disposal services once Eubanks Road is closed.
In summary, the County has three choices
1) To immediately pursue the construction of a temporary transfer station in order to enable the
disposal of County waste at the Alamance County Landfill or another remote landfill;
2) To fast hack the implementation of a permanent transfer station to accomplish the same
objective; or
3) To stay with the original plan to construct a pernanent transfer station to enable dre County to
utilize remote disposal facilities upon Che anticipated closure of the Eubanks Road L-andfill in the
summer of 2010.
Based on this analysis, it is Olver's conclusion that Options I and 2 will not provide any financial benefit to
dre County and will likely cause the County to incur additional costs. It is therefore Olver's
recommendation that the County avoid the difficulties and dismptions associated with the implementation
of a temporary transfer station and pursue Option .3 -namely, to stay with the original plan to implement a
permanent transfer station that will enable the County to utilize remote disposal services when the Eubanks
Road Landfill reaches capacity in the summer of 2010.
Orange County Page 6 of 6 09/22/05