Agenda - 03-27-2007-9a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Memo to Gayle Wilson March 19, 2007 Page 2 • That despite the proximity of the Eubanks Road facilities, many nearby citizens have benefited from extension of OWASA water lines through the community paid for by Solid Waste Enterprise funds (these costs are normally borne by the homeowner, either directly or indirectly through a developer) and where appropriate, low- interest loans to actually connect dwellings to the OWASA mains. Siting Criteria The SWAB Members are certainly not unaware of facility siting criteria. The present SWAB collectively has more than 100 years of professional experience evaluating and siting hazardous and nonhazard waste facilities, chemical facilities, energy production and transport facilities, and other such facilities with potential adverse effects on human health and the environment. Our goal, and the charge we were given by the BOCC, was to evaluate and address the suitability of the Eubanks Road location for a WTS. To that end, we evaluated the suitability of the Eubanks Road site as a location of a WTS against a number of criteria, mostly technical, but also against "community based" criteria. Some of these criteria were outlined in the SWAB recommendation to you last March. The US EPA Office of Solid Waste has published adecision-making manual for Waste Transfer Stations that addresses primarily design and operation, but does devote several pages to siting criteria (LJ.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. i~aste TransferStation.r• A Manual for Decision 1Vlaking, EPA530-R-02-002, June 2002, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response). For the most part, the SWAB considered all of the criteria and issues outlined in this document. It should be noted that this is a draft guidance document, not a set of regulations. Indeed, WTSs axe typically regulated at the state level, and North Carolina regulations do not include siting requirements. for Waste Transfer Stations, per se. A review of the US EPA recommendations dealing with WTS siting referenced above, and our approach, is appropriate. The document provides guidance on determining the need for a transfer station. The SWAB operated under an a priori assumption that, given the size and nature of our communities, and the fact that other options such as an in-county landfill were not on the table, there was a need for a WTS. The document suggests, at pages 11 and 12, public committee participation and informing the public. The SWAB is a broad-based public committee, appointed by the various signatotties to the inter-local agreement that governs waste management in Orange County. As such, it represents most of the involved stakeholders, including residents close to the Eubanks Road facility. All of the SWAB members participated fully and were heard during our deliberations. The issue of the WTS has been discussed at length for more than a year in public meetings and in the press. 14 The document addresses three types of siting criteria, exclusionary, technical, and community, and their application, on pages 14 though 18. The following are presented in the order in which they are presented in the US EPA guidance document.