Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-03 SWAB MeetingNEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 MEETING PAGE 1 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Solid Waste Advisory Board met on Wednesday, September 3, 2008, at 4:34 p.m. in the Lucie F. Harrell Conference Room 601 at the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: Chairman Claud "Buck" O'Shields, Jr.; Martin J. Michaelson; Robert W. Mitchell; John Richard Newton; David Sims; Deputy County Attorney Kemp P. Burpeau and Deputy Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Kymberleigh G. Crowell. Others present: County Manager Bruce T. Shell; Assistant County Manager David F. Weaver; Environmental Management Director John Hubbard; Greg Peverall, Waste Management; Maggie Stone, Environmental Alliance in association with Waste Management; Charles Dorman, C Todds Recyclmg; and Randy Gainey, Waste Industries. CALL TO ORDER, WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Chairman O'Shields called the meeting to order, welcomed everyone to the meeting of the New Hanover County Solid Waste Advisory Board and asked everyone to introduce themselves. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman O'Shields asked the members to review the draft meeting minutes August 27, 2008 for any needed corrections and/or changes. Hearing no comments, Chairman O'Shields called for a motion to approve the meeting minutes of August 27, 2008. Motion: Mr. Michaelson MOVED, SECONDED by Mr. Sims, to approve the meeting minutes as presented. The MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. WASTEC TOUR UPDATE Chairman O'Shields gave a brief review of how the tours of WASTEC proceeded on September 3`d with Messrs. Michaelson, Mitchell, Newton and hunself. Mr. Sims requested that his tour appointment for Friday, September Sa' be postponed until Monday, September 8~` due to the potential arrival of Tropical Storm Hanna. Referencing discussion from the tour, Mr. Mitchell requested Environmental Management Director Hubbard to name the other top maintenance issues beyond the boiler tubes. Director Hubbard reported that in addition to the boiler tubes, the next two priority issues would be refurbishing the tipping floor and cooling towers. He stated they have been able keep up with most of the other items but boiler tube maintenance was the most expensive. REVIEW OF FLOW CONTROL, FRANCHISE ARRANGEMENTS, NEW HANOVER COUNTY ORDINANCE CHAPTER 44, NORTH CAROLINA SENATE BILL 1492 AND LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND LANDFILL STANDARDS Flow Control and Franchise ArranEements: Deputy Attorney Burpeau provided the following overview of flow control in New Hanover County: • The challenges of drafting and enacting flow control ordinance to ensure appropriate quantity of fuel for WASTEC site; • The suit filed by Waste Management of the Carolinas in connection with the enactment of the flow control ordinance in New Hanover County; • The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on local governments' right to flow control; and • Since 2003 the County uses franchise arrangements with the haulers m heu of enforcing the flow control ordinance and the ordinance has not been repealed. In response to questions, Deputy Attorney Burpeau stated that the County is pleased with how the franchise arrangements are working and does not see a need to use flow control regulations at this time; the County achieves the same objective through the franchise arrangements. He then provided an overview of the process for the franchises arrangements explaining that the County has the authority to designate franchise areas/districts through the ordinance but has chosen not to do so. The County has a list of approved haulers and allows citizens to choose a NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 MEETING PAGE 2 hauler service. Staff noted that different haulers can serve the same areas and that a more formal franchise process, similar to the City of Wilmington's operation, was proposed four to five years ago, but did not receive approval and the result is the current process. In response to additional questions, Deputy Attorney Burpeau stated that there is not a periodic review process of the franchise applications in place. He further stated that as people have discretion not to use a hauler, the County has probably not regulated the process to the extent as if the County had an ambulance service. Prior to issuing the franchise a review takes place that confirms all the requued information is in place. Commercial haulers and residential haulers are required to complete the same franchise application. Explanation was also given on franchise revocation. In response to questions about the municipalities' processes, in regard to the franchise arrangements and operating their own collection system, Deputy Attorney Burpeau stated that all municipalities utilize WASTEC, participate in the arrangement, and by consent have agreed to do it. Director Hubbard stated the exception is Carolma Beach as they do not have their own equipment. Deputy Attorney Burpeau further explained that the County has an ordinance that can be used to compel municipalities to utilize the facility but has not needed to enforce it. In response to questions regarding if the County has an issue with the concept of brokers brokering solid waste (i.e. businesses with national contracts), Deputy Attorney Burpeau stated no, that it has not been an issue to date and as the County now has ordinances m place, the County would take the stance that any new arrangement would have to comply with them. Assistant Manager Weaver noted that information on how the municipalities and other counties in the area handle their waste was included in the information packet distributed by Director Hubbard. In response to Board questions regarding the handling of authorized out-of--county waste and who is permitted to do so, Director Hubbard responded that WASTEC is permitted to bring in out-of--county waste and it is considered special waste; has a higher cost and gave further explanation. Director Hubbard explained there is periodic screening and discussion was held on what occurs if it is deemed that a hauler is bringing in illegal waste and confirmed that WASTEC could direct a hauler to dispose trash at another designated facility even if in another county. Chapter 44 of the New Hanover County Code of Ordinances: In response to Board questions on how the County defines someone in the solid waste industry, Deputy County Burpeau provided clarification and stated that he would provide the members with a full copy of the ordinance. North Carolina Senate Bill 1492: Deputy Attorney Burpeau presented the following overview of North Carolma Senate Bill 1492: • The Bill has made it difficult to site landfills, particularly east of I-95; • Operations have to meet environmental conditions; • Operations have to be open to special scrutiny for floodplain and storm surge areas; • Operations have to be in full compliance with a number of water quality and other standards and raised permitting fees; • Senate Bill 1492 looks more to fiscal responsibility of a landfill developer and operator to make sure they are able to be responsible for environmental remedies that may need to be imposed, and • Imposed fee per ton for waste disposal. Essentially, due to the Bill, a lined landfill that is compliant becomes a very valuable resource. Staff noted that existing landfills could still expand if permitted on or before June 1, 2006 and this was a very important exemption and is the case for the County facility. Staff clarified that this Bill was state-wide legislation but the main concerns were the environmental restrictions as they limit where a landfill could be sited and as such, increase the location costs. In response to Board questions regarding the $2.00 disposal tax in Senate Bill 1492, Director Hubbard explained if waste is landfilled anywhere in North Carolma there is a $2 per ton disposal tax; the tax is charged if it NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 MEETING PAGE 3 is transported from a transfer station out of state. If a transfer station sends it to an in-state landfill there is no $2 per ton surcharge on that transfer station, rather the tax goes to the landfill, but if the waste is hauled out of state there is a tax. The County has to pay the $2.00 tax for whatever waste is landfilled in County's facility. The money goes to the State of North Carolina for use in waste management programs. Director Hubbard stated the initial intent was for the State to use the monies to investigate and if needed, clean up orphan dumps (pre-1983 disposal areas) even though they were not presenting problems. New Hanover County had the second highest number of orphan dumps with 23 while Mecklenburg County had 4. The process has not started as payments have not been collected by the State and are due on a quarterly basis with first payments due in October 2008. Assistant Manager Weaver stated that the tip fee was raised by $2 per ton to accommodate the fee this year. 37.5% of all collected monies will be distributed back to municipalities and counties based on whether there is a solid waste program and what the population is for that county/municipality. The pool looks like it may be approximately $22 million and 37.5% of that will be disbursed if requirements are met. Discussion was held regarding the Bill's fees for permit applications. Duector Hubbard explained the fees did not increase; there were none pnor to the ratification of Senate Bill 1492. He noted the County submitted a permit for the vertical expansion of the landfill, a year before the ratification of the Bill and because it was not completed, the facility had to pay a $50,000 fee. The landfill is grandfathered under the Bill as far as the restrictions on where the landfill can be located based on environmental impact. Deputy Attorney Burpeau said the County will still have to meet the current environmental design standards; size restrictions are also grandfathered. In connection with the maximum height of 250 feet, the facility's footprint would not allow for an increased elevation of 250 feet. In response to Board questions that the new fees would provide a revenue stream and any discussions that may have been held on potential uses/applications of the funds, Director Hubbard explained that no specific discussions have been held. However, the funds must be retained and used at solid waste facilities and not by county governments. It is expected the funds will not be received in the first year due to various legal issues with the State, such as planned landfills and ones in the permitting process being cancelled due to the Bill. Deputy Attorney Burpeau stated that his understanding is that the State will use the fee fund to make payments/settlement arrangements with places that may have had some vested rights and they are in the process of working out those arrangements. He further stated this will take a large sum of money from the fund and may continue for several years. Director Hubbard stated that the State is very closed mouthed about the issue; which restricts counties from being able to plan and budget the funds in anyway. Director Hubbard responded to Board questions regarding if the County has a plan in place acceptable to the State so that the 37.5% return of fees paid into the system can be expected in the future. There is a 10 year plan in place, which was updated 2 years ago, and is due for updating next year. The fees have not been addressed in the 10 year plan because they didn't exist at the time of the last update. The State requues a solid waste plan to be in place and Assistant Manager Weaver stated he thought the requirement had a 10 year planning horizon; New Hanover County's plan has been accepted by the State. In response to questions about the landfill being double or singled lined, Director Hubbard stated that with the exception of one cell, everything was double lined due to the water table. One cell was single lined using the standard thickness of clay. Although the double-liner requirement has been eliminated for new municipal solid waste landfills, Director Hubbard says it depends on the construction and his group has found with the water table a double liner is better. Discussion was held regarding the information packet Director Hubbard provided to the Board; particularly about the responsibilities of local governments. It was noted that the article in the packet written by Ed Hilton is a good historical document in showing what the County went through in trying to manage its own solid waste and the events that led to the current WASTEC and landfill facilities. WASTEC OPERATING COST DISCUSSION Assistant Manager Weaver reviewed the financial information provided by Finance Director Avril Pinder. In response to Board questions regarding Director Pinder's memo, Assistant Manager Weaver confirmed that Environmental Management is able to avoid buying the pose-shell or dirt by using the WASTEC ash as a daily cover and made the following points about the financial information: NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 MEETING PAGE 4 • A spreadsheet reflecting New Hanover County Environmental Management's operations for FY07 (audited) and mainly reflect processing costs as audited; • Costs of processing waste by the facility, the numbers for WASTEC, landfill, recycling and administration operations; with the administration costs disbursed across the three areas because administration; • Reflects revenues, tons of material managed for each facility, and the net full cost less depreciation on a cost per ton basis; • The numbers can change significantly from year to year depending on such items as landfill or cell construction or exposure for the landfill, which would increase capital costs for any given year; • The numbers do not include cost avoidance given by using WASTEC ash as opposed to using landfill for daily cover or the pose-shell; and • Some other costs are intangible and these costs are things that come from the volume reduction of trash that are given by WASTEC in that the volume reduction of trash reduces the amount of land needed for landfill and thus, reduce potential future environmental liability simply because of landfilling less trash with WASTEC than would be done without WASTEC. At the request of the Board, Assistant Manager Weaver will provide a comparison on the cost estimates of using the ash versus the posi-shell and/or the dirt for covering the landfill at the September 10~' meeting. In response to questions, Assistant Manager Weaver stated the numbers reflect contributions from the General Fund from 1985 forward. He pointed out that there have not been any contributions from the General Fund since FY02 due to more confidence in flow control and franchise ordinance. Discussion was held on the consistency of facility's air pollution compliance. Director Hubbard noted that if awaste-to-energy facility is in air pollution compliance for five years, it is allowed to test alternate units in a year rather all units every year. The WASTEC facility was able to do stack testing this past year on two units instead of three. In response to questions on the ability to be classified greener in order to obtain a better electric rate from the power company, Director Hubbard responded that the only way for this to occur would be for the State to consider it a renewable energy. He believes that twenty-three states do consider waste-to-energy a renewable energy as does the EPA, but not North Carolina and responded further his understanding was that there is legislation on the books but it's a matter of getting it passed. Discussion was held on the facility's production of energy and the current contract for the sale of the energy. As it is tune for the contract to be renewed, Director Hubbard will be holding discussions in the coming week with the company regarding contract renewal. In response to questions regarding the type of maintenance program that has been put together and how far out it projects in trying to scheduled major, not minor, repairs such as re-tubing, Director Hubbard explained how the maintenance program works and that it this depends on what type of maintenance is being considered. After additional questions about maintenance program presentations to the Board of Commissioners, Director Hubbard responded that to his knowledge it has only been done once in 1991 and was approved. He noted that due to the approval to move forward, in 1992 the facility was able to reach waste burning goal of about 130,000 - 135,000 tons a year; described the boiler work done m 1991, stating the entire upgrade cost in the upper $20,000 range with pollution controls being upgraded as needed to meet requirements. Chairman O'Shields stated that this is an important component in this type of operation as it helps a county to look realistically at how the maintenance will help to attain higher efficiency and to decide on future major maintenance and upkeep to attain higher efficiency. At Chairman O'Shields request, Director Hubbard will provide a projected five year maintenance plan for WASTEC at the September 10, 2008 meeting. Staff confirmed that the construction of the boiler was done by bond referendum and is about at the end of the payoff cycle. Chairman O'Shields suggested continuing discussion of the landfill process at the next meeting; no tour is needed. He would like to look at the life expectancy of the landfill and discuss proposals for the landfill site. He also requested information on a maintenance schedule for the landfill. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE MEETINGS Members agreed to meet each week at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Michaelson asked that the meeting for October 8~' be cancelled due to Yom Kippur Discussion was held on room availability for the September 24~' meeting; it was NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 MEETING PAGE 5 decided that Deputy Clerk Crowell would reserve an available room. Discussion was held regarding the November 26~' meeting and the group will decide closer to that time when to hold the meeting. Mr. Sims felt that it should be assumed the December 10`~ meetmg would be the last meeting. Deputy Clerk Crowell will brmg the fmal schedule back before the Advisory Board for approval at the September 10`~ meeting. The WASTEC tour for Mr. Sims will be rescheduled for Monday, September 8~', Tropical Storm Hanna permitting. INFORMATION REQUEST BY MEMBERS Mr. Michaelson confirmed with Chairman O' Shields that he wanted the members to review all information on WASTEC pnor to the September 10~' meeting. Chairman O'Shields asked the group to plan to look at the information on the landfill as well as all programs currently under Waste Management. Staff confirmed with the Board that they would like to see a projected five year maintenance plan for WASTEC, a presentation about the rest of the programs at Environmental Management m regard to solid waste, a copy provided of Chapter 44 of the New Hanover County Code of Ordinances, and detail on "Other Operatmg Expenses". Mr. Mitchell asked if possible, for requested information to be made available to members prior to the meetings to allow time for review. A copy of the current Progress Energy contract was disbursed to the members in connection with conversations from tour sessions earlier in the day. Chairman O'Shields noted Charles Dorman's letter concerning his interests in solid waste programs in New Hanover County, particularly recycling; stated that letter is to be kept for future reference when recycling comes up m future meetings. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman O'Shields adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kymberleigh G. rowell Deputy Clerk to the Board