Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-17-2000-10by ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 17, 2000 Action Age; da Item No. ~~ SUBJECT: Solid Waste Facilities - Sitin O tions DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 10/3/00 SW Director Memo w/Attachments A - H (under separate cover) INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director 968-2885 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE; To respond to information requests and questions raised at the Board's August 30, 2000 solid waste work session. BACKGROUND: At the August 30 work session, the Board asked staff to develop a report discussing the compatibility of various existing and potential future solid waste facilities and to examine siting options both on Eubanks Road and conceptually at other undefined Orange County locations. The accompanying memo from Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson describes the interrelationships between various kinds of solid waste facilities that the County operates now, or may operate in the future. The memo includes drawings which reflect conceptual layouts and required acreage of potential future solid waste facilities that are non- site specific. Other drawings demonstrate generally how existing and additional solid waste facilities could possibly be accommodated at the current Eubanks Road site, and with the possible addition of some additional acreage adjacent to the existing Eubanks Road site. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of solid waste facilities could be significant, depending on Board decisions. Costs associated with the design, construction, and operation of any solid waste facilities would be borne in the Solid Waste/Landfill Operations Enterprise . Fund. The report itself will have no direct financial impact. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board provide guidance to staff regarding Orange County solid waste facility locations, including the possible acquisition of additional property, and to make final determinations on C8~D recycling and disposal facilities, Solid Waste Department administrative offices, and a transfer station and/ar other facilities, as soon as possible. Once decisions are made regarding siting options, staff will prepare a detailed facility master plan and a comprehensive cost analysis and operations plan. Memorandum To: John Link, County Manager From: .Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director Subject: ' Solid Waste Facilities -Siting Options Date: October 3, 2000 The Soard of County'Commissioners, at their August 30 Solid Waste Work Session, asked staff to develop a report discussing the compatibility of various existing and future solid waste facilities as well as examine various siting options. This memorandum is in response to that request. The Neville and Greene tracts are assumed not to be considered available for future solid waste related use. General Siting Considerations There are several issues that are considered for any new or existing facility that staff takes into account as it evaluates potential locations and whether facilities should/could be co-located. 1~or the most part these issues tend, to varying degrees, to favor co-location. Normally these issues result in either lower costs, higher operational efficiency, 'and/or less regulatory complexity when co-location is compared to separately locating facilities. The issues below are primarily operational or financial in nature and generally are relevant to most comparisons of separate vs. co-location: • Scales -Most solid waste business is conducted based on the weight of materials, whether recyclables or solid waste and whether incoming or outgoing. The State requires scales at most facilities and State solid, waste reporting is done on the basis of weight. Finally, good solid waste business/management practice necessitates weighing materials. While new scales are not usually cost prohibitive, they do add to the cost of separate facilities and must be staffed. • Eauinment Maintenance/Sharing- Fuel, equipment maintenance garage and mechanics are present at our existing location on Eubanks Road. Duplication of fueling and maintenance services can be very expensive. Alternatively, having existing mechanics travel to the distant site makes repairs cost more and they are less timely. Since all operational (non-administrative) facilities utilize equipment, staff takes nn~aintenance into account when evaluating new facilities. Additionally, some equipment is shared between operations. Separating operations may require additional equipment. • Supervision -Proper supervision is necessary for all solid waste facilities. Co-located facilities tend to offer a more manageable span of control and often allow management to consolidate supervisory responsibilities. Operations that are separately located may add cost or a higher level of'supervisory difficulty. • Public Understanding - As facilities are geographically separated, more opportunity exists for the public/users to become confused about where specific services are located. • Cente o Materials Generation/Sales -Transportation costs are reduced when materials are transported shorter distances. Trucks travel less miles, lessening wear on roads; burning less fuel, and reducing safety risk. • ennvironmental Monitoring - Ca-locating facilities allows us to take advantage of existing environmental monitoring infrastructure. • Operational Integration _ It is operationally necessary/beneficial for certain operations to be located adjacent to other operations because they manage the same materials or draw the same specific clientele. • Siting Difficulties -The difficulty of fmding acceptable separate sites usually make it less problematical and costly to simply use existing facilities or co-located facilities. • taffin -Staff often share responsibilities for multiple operations. Some functions do not require a full position. Potential Future Solid Waste Facilities Several solid waste facilities/operations may be considered by the Board of County Commissioners over the next several years. Given the difficulty siting new facilities, public sensitivity, the escalating cost of land, the limited land currently owned by the solid waste fund, and the operational interrelatedness of some of the solid waste operations, it is imperative that the location of facilities/operations aze carefully planned. Existing and possible future facilities/operations that should be considered are: C&D landfill* C&D recycling facilities (for regulated materials i.e. clean wood waste, metals, drywall, etc.) transfer station white goods management* scrap fire management* yard waste/mulching operation* materials recovery facility (or other recyclables processing operation) post-closure landfill maintenance/monitoring (must take place at Eubanks Road location) county convenience center* equipment maintenance facility* landclearing and inert debris recycling household hazardous waste* administration building* composting operations Note: Add of these facilities require buffers of varying sizes. * existing facility/operation What Oran a Coun Solid Waste Facilities Should Be Co-Located? It is the opinion of staff that the following facilities must be co-located: Constructi n & Demolition Land x11 and C&D Rec clip Facilities/ erations see drawin D These two related functions should be co-located because: • they service the same clientele • materials will be shifted/diverted from one C&D facility to the other • single point of C&D education/information opportunity • could be considered a single cost center In addition to the C&D landfill and facilities to manage the regulated C&D recyclables, this single location, space permitting, could also be the site of a used building materials collection and resale point and a landclearing and inert debris recycling operation as well. Conceptual drawing D indicates how such a facility might look and the amount of space that might be necessary. Buffers are those required by state rules for C&D landfills. While we would recommend that other facilities be co-located, we were asked to comment specifically on what facilities have to go together. While substantial beneEts are achieved by co-locating facilities, most could be separately located and operated, notwithstanding issues discussed under General Siting Considerations. Drawings A (transfer station)13 (materials recovery facility), and C (administrative building) indicate conceptually how they maybe developed and include estimated space needs. It should be noted that when these concepts aze applied to actual sites, the variables of topographic features, surrounding property uses, access, etc. must be taken into account. Staff does not presume that any of these specific facilities will be developed or continued and the list of possible facilities is not necessarily inclusive of all possible activities that could be pursued in the future. Additionally, we have assumed buffer sizes fox each facility of a minimum of 100' (excepting the administration building) as we believe it to be the most restrictive buffer currently required by Orange County. This buffer is required for Flex Developments. Of course, where state mandated buffers exist, such as for a C&D landfill, we use those. Two operations listed under General Siting Considerations require comment. The existing HHW facility is assumed to remain in its current location. Post-closure maintenance and monitoring must take place at the Eubanks Raad facility. Existin Landfill Pro er CQRd1t10II5excepting the Neville and Greene tracts) Existing landfill property consists of the original landfill tract and Johnson tract. Drawing E illustrates existing conditions on these two properties. Drawing I illustrates solid waste property and surrounding neighborhoods. How Could Facilities Be Located On Existing Landfill Property (excepting the Neville and Greene tracts) Drawing F illustrates how Orange Countymight maximize solid waste operations without the utilization of adjacent property. Most operations are clustered into the eastern portion of the properties due to landfilled areas being essentially unusable for facilities, the need to avoid streams and steep topography, and the need for safe and efficient internal txatl=ic flow. This option does not accommodate C&D disposal or recycling, landclearing debris management, or potential future composting operations. If a MRF is to be developed in the future, it could supplant the recycling pad and administrative offices located on the Johnson tract of drawing )?. An alternate location for administrative offices must then be found. New entrance and scale facilities would require the relocation of the convenience center to landfill property south of Eubanks Road. This option also includes the relocation of yard waste management operations, to the southeastern portion of the property and also includes space for a possible new inert debris management area. How Could Facilitie Be Located On Existin and Ad'acent Pro er (excepting Neville and Greene tracts) The inclusion of four adjacent vacant lots (totaling about 16.5 acres) in our facility plan analysis has a very favorable impact on site master planning (see drawing G). The three lots north of Eubanks Road and west of the Johnson tract provide Orange County the option of including a new C&D disposal facility (when coupled with Duke University's willingness to provide a buffer easement). This adjacent property option also allows the County to include C&.D recycling operations. The existing recycling processing area (non- C&D) is supplanted and it (ox a future MRF) could be relocated to the. southeastern portion of the property where we have tentatively identified inert debris and yard waste operations. However, inert debris and yard waste operations would then have no identifiable location . Administrative offices are shifted to the fourth lot located south of Eubanks Road, west of existing property. Drawing H was prepared by Resource Recycling Systems (RRSI), Orange County's Materials Recovery Facility consultant, in February 2000 and illustrates another master planning concept option. Staff believes this option to be problematic because the contemplated design would require awkward, and perhaps unsafe, traffic patterns within the site. Conclusions There are two primary decisions to be made regarding Orange County solid waste facilities: Where facilities are to be located and what facilities are being located? The BOCC will be required make decisions on which solid waste management facilities/operations it wishes to endorse. For the most constructive and functional master plan to be developed, the more decisions that are made the better. However, the BOCC may not be prepared to make same decisions and wishes to consider them further. The issue of the Materials Recovery Facility and long term waste reduction strategies appear to fall into this category. There are decisions pending, however, which staff considers critical. They should not be delayed. The issue of C&D disposal, the solid waste administrative building and, if passage of the C&D management ordinance is assumed, C&D recycling facilities will require relatively immediate decision-making as to whether and/or where it should be located.. It also appears certain that a transfer station will be required and a formal confirmation on it's location would greatly improve the comprehensiveness and usefulness of a master plan. Staff requests that critical final decisions be made as soon as possible on whether to proceed with specific facilities, including: C&D landfill, C&D recycling activities, administration building, and transfer station. Additionally, if any of the critical facilities are to be located at anon-Eubanks Road area location or on property not currently owned by Orange County, further delay will likely result as property is identified and acquired. Staff requests guidance on facilities so that it may prepare a detailed solid waste facility master plan for pxesentation to the BOCC. If the C&D ordinance is adopted, finalizing a recycling facility location will be an important prerequisite for designing and costing the facilities, which will have to be developed rather quickly to con espond with the implementation of the ordinance. Once the BOCC makes its initial siting decisions, staff will prepare a timeline to illustrate implementation strategy/sequencing. Attachments: Drawing A -Conceptual waste transfer facility Drawing B -Conceptual materials recovery facility Drawing C -Conceptual solid waste administration building Drawing D -Conceptual C&D landfill and recycling facility Drawing E -Existing facility schematic Drawing F - Existing landfill property facility schematic Drawing G -Landfill property and adjacent property facility schematic Drawing H - RRSI materials recovery facility and transfer station site plan Drawing I - Solid waste property and surrounding neighborhoods