Chapel Hill May End Partnership With Orange Co. Solid Waste After Landfill Closes

Adding a little diversity in the way we view solid waste is very likely a positive change. Turning discussions away from dependence on the "out-of-sight, "out-of-mind" transfer station solution could lead toward more responsible solid waste solutions. We will have to be vigilant as the pie-in-the-sky technocrats who are pushing "waste-to-energy" incineration strategies will continue to push hard. Hopefully, Chapel Hill will work toward greater waste reduction, more composting & recycling, and positive uses for the waste stream.   

Sending every truck to Durham to be emptied rather than going to a locally-centered transfer station is going to increase the town's carbon footprint by putting fuel-inefficient trucks on the road more frequently. On top of that, we are in the middle of writing a comprehensive plan which has waste management as one of the topics. Why is the manager making this decision now?

The only responsible way for us to deal with our non-recyclable, non-reducible [sp?] solid waste is through some sort of regional facility - for example regional composting facility, regional waste-to-energy technology or other emerging technology at a regional scale.  I say these things would need to be regional because we evidently are utterly unable to locate such facilities within Orange County. Also, the size of our waste stream is on the small side for most such technologies/facilities and our goal is to decrease our waste stream which would definitely make it too small for any of the various technologies that I have heard of.However, I think both the technology and the political will for such regional solutions are still years away.  Therefore, the best short-term step (which would be compatible with a future regional technology/facility) would be to create an Orange County Transfer Station.  In the short term this facility would allow for the cost-effective disposal of our solid waste at an out-of-county landfill, which although it is undesirable (b/c it is, at best, amoral to dump our waste on distant, faceless communities). But longer term this would accomodate switching to a regional facility (or facilities).  And it is no more responsible to go to the Durham transfer station (b/c they are simply dumping it on a distant community as well).The reasons we need an Orange County Transfer Station are:1) Transportation cost to the Durham Transfer Station are high - over a million dollars in tax payer money per year;2) carbon footprint (as Terri discusses above); and3) because there will never be another time in the future when it will be easier to site a transfer station in Orange County.On that last point,let me be really clear: Based on all my experience in local government, I know that once we "temporarily" start shipping to Durham, we will never stop.  The opportunity to create an OC Trasfer Station is now.  Later it will be too easy to simply continue paying through the nose to drive to Durham, rather than bite the bullet and make the hard decision to site a Trasfer Station here.The OC Landfill is running out of space at a rate that could allow us to continue to operate the Landfill until 2016 if we wanted to, though RENA and Justice United have been pressing the County Commissioners to close it in mid-2013.  If we chose to keep the Landfill operating until 2015, we would have time between now and then to create an OC Transfer Station, which would keep the largest number of future options available.I don't expect that any of the above is going to be politically popular, but given our present situation it is not just the most responsible option available, but actually, in my opinion, the only responsible option at all.  If you agree with me that Orange County must have a Transfer Station, then I urge you to write your County Commissioners and tell them so:bpelissier@co.orange.nc.us syuhasz@co.orange.nc.us phemminger@bellsouth.net Vfoushee@co.orange.nc.us bjacobs@co.orange.nc.us gordonam@mindspring.com emckee@co.orange.nc.us 

Based only on the easy access to the Durham transfer station, I wonder if there aren't any sites close to 15-501 and I-40. If that is the area being considered for the rail line, wouldn't siting the transfer station close to there be a viable option? It wouldn't be very convenient for Carrboro is one of the only drawbacks I see (the other is timing).

One quick highlight - Mark is absolutely right that, if we start using a Durham transfer station, it will be next to impossible to stop doing thatLook at how the entire solid waste issues has been continually avoided and swept under the rug by the BOCC over the last twenty years. One addition to the proposal would be a fair and detailed mitigation plan for the Rogers Rd. community.

Here's TOCH's latest staff memo on this topic.  Notice Public Works Director Lance Norris estimates (based on actual use of that station) that hauling to the Durham Transfer Station will cost Chapel Hill an extra $500,000 to $600,000 per year.  Carrboro will have to pay over $200,000 extra per year on top of that.  About $750,000 in extra costs for Chapel Hill and Carrboro taxpayers every year!  MEMORANDUM TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town ManagerFROM: Lance Norris, Public Works DirectorSUBJECT: Status Report on Future Solid Waste Collection and Disposal OptionsDATE: January 23, 2012 PURPOSE The purpose of this memo is to provide Council with an update on the Town’s solid waste collection and disposal options for the future. In light of recent developments, namely the possible closure of the Orange County Landfill by the spring of 2013, the Town is exploring alternative sustainable and viable options for solid waste collection and disposal. This memo summarizes the Town’s efforts, to date, to begin exploring options for solid waste collection anddisposal, which are as follows: 1. An Independent Comprehensive Review of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options. 2. A Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Pilot Program to Durham. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Interlocal Agreement obligates the County to provide the Town with two year’s notice to terminate the Agreement. To date, the Town has not received official notice. The Orange County Commissioners have expressed their intent to close the landfill as early as the spring of 2013, which, in the absence of an alternative provided by the County (for example, a transfer station), would effectively constitute a termination of the Agreement as to solid waste. In light of this development, the Town has begun proactively exploring alternative options for solid waste disposal, as well as ways of increasing efficiency with solid waste collection. Wendy Simmons, the Town’s new Solid Waste Services Superintendent, will play a central role in overseeing these projects going forward. Wendy has a Masters Degree in Environmental Management from Duke University. She has many years of work experience in the field of solid waste management, including tenure with NCDENR and most recently with the City of Asheville, where she was the Solid Waste Manager. The Town will continue to explore additional innovative and realistic opportunities for solid waste management that align with our organizational values and commitments to sustainability, economic vitality and cost-effectiveness. Comprehensive Review of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options Consultant Project The Public Works Department put out a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide the Town with a Comprehensive Review of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options on November 16, 2011. The primary goals of this project are to: 1. Conduct a complete review of the Town of Chapel Hill’s current solid waste collection and disposal practices, including residential waste, commercial waste, white goods, yard waste, and brush. 2. Present a comprehensive set of options for the Town’s future management of solid waste collection and disposal. These options should include opportunities for enhancing and/or streamlining the Town’s current solid waste disposal and collection activities, as well as those the Town does not currently manage, such as recycling and energy conversion (including waste-to-energy). 3. Identify opportunities for public-private partnership (i.e. waste to energy), including specific partners, for the implementation of an enhanced solid waste management system. The Town received proposals from seven firms by the December 5th deadline, and will interview in late January two consulting firms who meet the criteria established in the RFQ and have the required diversity of experience and expertise in solid waste management. The staff anticipates making a selection of the firm by mid-February and receiving sufficient information that will allow for decisions as it relates to the impact on the budget for FY 2013. Solid Waste Pilot Program to Durham In an effort to begin actively exploring alternatives for solid waste disposal options, the Town conducted a two-week pilot program transporting residential and commercial solid waste to the Durham Transfer Station. The Town staff is in the process of evaluating the results of the pilot program. Our preliminary review of the results are consistent with our earlier fiscal impact estimates, based on the current method of providing the in-house services. Key findings of the pilot program are as follows: · The average travel distance to and from the transfer station is approximately 18 miles one-way, adding about an hour of off-route travel time per trip. During peak hours the wait time at the transfer station may be slightly greater than those experienced during the pilot. · The vehicles participating in the pilot program experienced no maintenance issues on the way to or from the Durham Transfer Station. We believe that the programmed allowance for additional maintenance associated with the mileage is still reasonable at this time. Total additional costs moving forward will depend on decisions made relative to collection and disposal options. If we begin hauling solid waste to Durham, estimated additional annual costs resulting from the increase in hauling distance would be between $500,000 and $600,000. An additional consideration is the increased safety risk to our employees and the liability to the Town of placing fully loaded solid waste vehicles and drivers on an interstate highway. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council receive this report.

If the county closes the landfill, are they also planning to close the recycling services or will those stay in county?

We also should be putting our money where our mouths are and seriously exploring industries in our Economic Development Districts that utilize segments of the waste stream. This could range from a plant that makes asphalt from old shingles to a manufacturing facility that makes items out of recycled plastic to a biofuels operaion that utilizes some select ingredients. These would be regional in scope, provide jobs & revenue, and facilitate smarter waste policies in the region. 

Based on offline discussions with Ray Gronberg, it appears that he has better information than I do about who runs the Durham Transfer Station.  Ray verified his information with the Durham City Manager and I did not.  The person who provided me the information about the facility being run by a private contractor was evidently wrong.Nevertheless, the main point of the comments above is that if we use the Durham Transfer Station we are at the mercy of those who set policy for the Durham Transfer Station and it is possible that their priorities may not be the same as ours.  That concerns me.On another matter, I personally apologize to Ray for my "typical" comment above.  Part of one of my comments above was overly defensive.  It has been my experience that many local media outlets are eager to write stories in which one local government is insulting another local government.  I have had bad experiences with some reporters twisting my words to create such stories.  However, Ray Gronberg is not just a reporter; he is a journalist.  He is the type of experienced and informed professional that Journalism needs more of.  Sorry for letting my bad experiences with others in the industry sour our discussion of the issues, Ray.

Since Mark raised this issue, I've been wondering exactly what "closing the landfill" means. So today I called and asked Gayle Wilson that question. Here's what I learned and what I will be sharing with the Nurturing Our Community group (comprehensive plan). The waste management services located along Eubanks Road consist of: 1) the municipal solid waste landfill (which is the issue under debate), 2) convenience center for dropping off household solid waste and recycling, 3) construction and demolition landfill, 4) recycling processing, 5) maintenance operations, 6) administration offices, 7) electronics recycling, 8) regular yard waste and storm debris collection, 9) composting, 10) equipment storage (trucks, etc.), 11) tires and metals collection, 12) household hazardous waste collection, 13) emergency storm debris management, and 14) methane recovery.The only function currently scheduled to close is the municipal solid waste landfill. All of these other functions will stay open, and together they constitute the vast majority of the county's total solid waste management operations. Closing the landfill will not reduce truck traffic or the number of people visiting the area, but will eliminate the portion of the operations that generates the majority of the revenue.  If the revenue goes away, it's possible that some of the services will go away. The biggest change that will come from closing the MSW landfill will be odor control. However, the introduction of landfill gas recovery operations should greatly mitigate against current odor problems. Closing the landfill will eliminate the odor problems completely. Even after the landfill closes, there will still be landfill gas, but they can't predict how much methane will be recovered. When closed, the landfill will be covered which will increase the heat but it will also reduce the moisture which will change the composition of the recovered gases. The quantity of methane extracted from the total complement of landfill gases is determined by the mixture of heat and moisture.There's a lot more but I think I've covered the major points.  

Driving our trash to Durham will cost between $700,000 and $800,000 per year (and burn an extra 65,000 gallons of diesel fuel).  We don't have that money to spend, and even if we did, would that really be the best way to spend $750,000? I can think of lots of more important community needs to spend that kind of money on, but I am asking for your help.  Come to this new website and tell our County Commissioners if you were going to increase public spending by $750,000 what would you spend it on?www.whatwouldyouspend750kon.org

I spoke with the Chatham Co solid waste director this morning because I knew that the Pittsboro mayor has a deep interest in waste to energy. I called to ask if they have any consultant reports but got much more information. A couple of years ago, Orange and Chatham Co were investigating the feasibility of co-developing a new landfill. However, that project fell apart when the Chatham Co commissioners said they would not take waste from out of county. As a result of that decision it was no longer economically feasible for Chatham to build a new landfill. So they are sending trucks to any one of 3 transfer stations (Siler City, Durham, and one other). All 3 transfer stations deliver waste to Sampson Co. The Sampson Co landfill is owned and operated by Waste Industries. Waste Industries also operates the transfer station in Durham. The cost of disposal is much lower (roughly half the cost) when using a transfer station that is vertically integrated with the disposal site/landfill.Chatham did investigate waste-to-energy, but determined that the business model is not yet matured enough to support the high cost of a building a facility. Based on the reports they received, the power companies will not commit to a long-term contract to buy the power at a rate upon which they can make the construction and operation of a facility cost effective. The highly touted St. Lucie FL plant is has been on hold for a couple of years for this reason.There is also the issue, as has been previously discussed, of the impact WTE plays on recycling. Since you generate more power by having more tonnage, the motivation to support/advocate waste reduction and recycling is at odds with making WTE cost effective. There are a couple of factors that make certain WTE facilities cost effective:--In areas such as the northeast US, the cost of sufficient land for building a landfill is so high that the WTE costs are roughly equivalent. That is not the case in our area (yet). --In the Scandanavian countries, waste management and power generation are government owned. So they sell themselves power to operate the plant at the lowest possible cost, and they have the long-term assurance of selling the power back to offset the costs.Not sure if anyone else is interested in all of these details, but I find them helpful in understanding and negotiating the politics surrounding this topic. Landfilling and waste-to-energy are solutions. We really need to understand the full extent of the problems we will face is selecting a solution before those solutions are put before us. 

....That tweet feed....I Love the Idea of CH taking responcibility of their own waste.  An OC transfer station I understand is preferablead D2 can defray D1's costs. I do not think that is in the interests of D2. Any reduction on the taxpayers of D2 to aid in carrying the load for CH Carb is a wonderful idea.Lets apply it to the Chapel Hill Choo Choo.cw  Weakness is provocative.
"One of the most noble things you can do is kill the enemy."-Maj. Douglas Zembiec