Loading...
06/23/2004 - Minutes • • RICHARD GRAHAM , ^ a +t `s ��� `'® 1 ® De VII �� �� '� �� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR MEMORANDUM R \,E 'W Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste 10 2 5 2O0 Management Council 6030 West 1300 South ` RE CORDER Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 C In accordance with paragraph nine of the Landfill Interlocal Cooperative Agreement the Minutes of the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council's Meeting held on August 24, 2004 have been approved. Approved by: Richard Graham Salt Lake City cc: Romney M. Stewart, Director of Solid Waste Salt Lake City Recorder 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 14B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE:?O1-535-7775 FAX: B01-535-7789 WWW.SLCGOV.COM RECYCLED PAPER • • ,0KE V*. SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE l �1 MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 6030 West California Ave(1400 South) I Salt Lake City,Utah 84104 ttAl (801)974-6920 3 FAX(801)974-6936 sib www.slvswmf.net D W PS FACILI� Council Members Romney M.Stewart Ross C."Rocky"Anderson,Chair Executive Director Mayor,Salt Lake City Nancy Workman August 19, 2004Apri1 Mayor,Salt Lake County Patti Pavey,M.S. Director Salt Lake Valley Health Department Mr. Rick Graham, Director Dennis Nordfelt Mayor,West Valley City Salt Lake City Public Services 451 South State, Room 532 Dr.Ryan Dupont School of Engineering Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Utah State University RE: Consideration and Approval of Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council's Minutes —June 23, 2004 Dear Mr. Graham: I request Salt Lake City's approval of the minutes of the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council at their meeting held June 23, 2004. This is in accordance with paragraph nine of the Landfill Interlocal Cooperative Agreement. Minutes of the meeting are enclosed. I would appreciate notification in writing of this action taken regarding these minutes. Respectfully, RECEIVED C AUG 2 2004 Romney M. Stewart, Executive Director CITY RE Solid Waste Management Facility �'O ' Enc Slcrat4.june 23 • • Minutes of the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council held Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 2:45 P.M. in the Conference Room at the Transfer Station, 502 West 3300 South, South Salt Lake. Those in Attendance: F. David Stanley Salt Lake County Kent Miner Salt Lake Valley Health Department Russell Willardson West Valley City/COG Dr. R. Ryan Dupont Utah State University Excused: Rick Graham Salt Lake City � Others in Attendance: RomneyM. Stewart Solid Waste Mana e AUG �� Daniel L. Bauer Solid Waste Management/ "004 Bud L. Stanford Solid Waste Management R�c Stuart F. Palmer Solid Waste Management ® Jill Fletcher Recycling Information Office �/I Jeff Thorpe District Attorney's Office Kirk Treece ECDC Richard McMullin ECDC Gordon Raymond' ECDC Ted Sonnenburg E.T. Technologies Pam Derbidge Secretary 1. Approval of April 30, 2004 Council Minutes Kent Miner made a motion to approve the April 30, 2004 Council Minutes; Russell Willardson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. ECDC Response to May 26, 2004 Letter Regarding Alternative Transportation from the Transfer Station Romney M. Stewart distributed copies of the letter from ECDC dated June 21, 2004 responding to the Council's letter from Council Chair Rick Graham. Romney did have a few comments on their explanation of the delay in receiving rail cars. There is a reference in the letter from Rick Graham to alternative means of transportation; Jeff Thorpe commented that there could be a debate on what constitutes a rail shut down. Under paragraph 2.8 of the contract, the contractor is to provide sufficient containers for daily transportation of waste from the Transfer Station. He felt that having sufficient containers was what was lacking. David Stanley asked about paragraph 2.3 regarding diverting inbound trucks to the landfill. The whole nature of diverting trucks to the landfill has changed with the increase in the cost of fuel and the impact the cost has had on the budget not only of Salt Lake County but of Salt Lake City as well. Regarding paragraph 3, the Council is aware of the concerns with Union Pacific Railroad management here and across the country. Kirk Treece reported ECDC has a logistics coordinator that works with the Union Pacific starting at 6:30 A.M. She tracks the cars 1 • • used at the transfer stations shipping waste to ECDC. She deals closely with the train master at Roper Yard and the Union Pacific customer service department in St. Louis that will move to Omaha. If there is a problem with cars not moving that should move, the logistics coordinator can help track down the problem areas to locate the cars and get the cars moving in the system. Union Pacific prefers problems be referred to the customer service department; however, customer service does not always solve the problem. Some times it is necessary to go to the Operations Department to solve the problem. Ray Perry is the new superintendent in Utah; he started work in March 2004. He is over the train system from Pocatello, Idaho to Las Vegas, Nevada. ECDC met with him twice to explain what the issues were at the Transfer Station and the importance of having cars at the Transfer Station every day and shipping of waste to ECDC. Mr. Perry has worked for the railroad for 29 years and orchestrated the remote control switching of rail cars. Things have improved considerably since the discussion of the problems regarding rail cars being shipped. The key is keeping the rail cars loaded with waste moving. The trains hauling trash are a high priority now. The Roper Yard is an older yard and more trains are moving through the yard than ever before. It is difficult to keep the rail cars moving through the yard. Sometimes a crew sits with a train all day without moving and it is not cost affective to do so. UP receives numerous business calls every day concerning the delivery of cars to various sites; it is difficult for UP to keep up with the demand for rail cars without sufficient staff to man the trains. The Sunrise Corridor from California to southern Texas has a huge demand for rail service. Bud Stanford commented that the service has been better recently at the Salt Lake Valley Transfer Station during June with cars arriving daily. Richard McMullin commented that ECDC would like to develop a backup plan for disposal of waste from the Transfer Station when rail cars are not available; ECDC management would like to have a definition when the back up plan is to kick in and how to prevent the lack of rail cars being delivered to the Transfer Station experienced in April and May from reoccurring. ECDC would also like to continue actively locating available rail cars for delivery to the Transfer Station for filling and shipment to ECDC's landfill. ECDC is exploring the use of other types of equipment at other transfer stations in the area to free up rail cars for use at the Salt Lake Valley Transfer Station. If there is a long term need for walking floor trailers available for use at the Transfer Station, the details for a staging area for the trucks or contracting with a company to provide the service will need to be arranged. ECDC is willing to discuss the transportation issue with Solid Waste Management and Council to finalize an agreement. ECDC is actively looking for walking floor trailers in and outside of the Allied system. Right now is not the best time to be purchasing equipment to supply the service. ECDC would like to make long-term arrangements to solve the problem. ECDC would like guidance from the Landfill Council on when the walking floor trailers would need to be available for use for hauling waste either to ECDC's landfill or the Salt Lake Valley Landfill. Romney noted that under the permit from the Salt Lake Valley Health Department, waste is not to be left on the tipping floor at the Transfer Station overnight. Kirk Treece stated that rail cars may be available for use at the Transfer Station but are not delivered in a timely manner. 2 • • David Stanley commented that Solid Waste Management is contracting with ECDC to assist in preserving the life of the Salt Lake Valley Landfill by shipping waste to the ECDC landfill rather than receiving waste either in Solid Waste Management trailers or those provided by ECDC. In looking at trucking alternatives, the best alternative would be to ship the material by truck to ECDC or another location. Richard McMullin agreed that the fuel component is part of the issue at hand as well as diverting material from the Salt Lake Valley Landfill. Details for alternative shipment sites need to be determined. Material has been hauled by truck from the Weber County Transfer Station to the North Point Landfill recently due to the lack of rail cars at the Weber County Transfer Station. Romney commented that the additional fuel expense incurred by Solid Waste Management to ship material from the Transfer Station to the Landfill recently due to the lack of rail cars totaled $12,000. Richard McMullin stated that ECDC does want to meet their contractual obligation regarding the disposal of waste; however, all the factors need to be addressed to solve the problem. David Stanley reiterated the crux of the problems lays with the logistics staff being aware that the rail cars are not being delivered to the Transfer Station and the solid waste continues to mount at the Transfer Station requiring hauling to another location for disposal to comply with the operating permit. It will be up to ECDC's logistics staff to coordinate the shipment of waste from the Transfer Station. Russ Willardson commented that contractually, the walking floor trailers should be available now but right now there are none available. It is still up to the Solid Waste Management staff to haul the material from the Transfer Station to the Landfill. Richard McMullin stated ECDC is attempting to locate the walking floor trailers within the Allied system or through other sources. Other trailers could be used, but the walking floor trailer is the best type of truck to provide the service needed. Bud Stanford noted that only one day in June has waste had to be hauled from the Transfer Station to the landfill. David Stanley commented that the Sanitation trucks are for highway use rather than for travel on the roads at the landfill. Travel on landfill roads substantially shortens the life of the Sanitation fleet. He was adamant that he was not willing to continue to send Sanitation trucks to the landfill to dispose of material on a long-term basis. ECDC needs to provide a solution to the problem right away; Richard McMullin agreed. The trucks need to be available on site for disposal of the waste if rail cars are not available. There is some limited space available to locate the trucks and trailers at the Transfer Station to use when needed. David Stanley expressed appreciation to ECDC on their willingness to work on a solution to the problem and suggested that the logistics staff at ECDC communicate with Bud Stanford on providing railcars for transport of waste to ECDC. Romney M. Stewart commented that a letter arrived from ECDC on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 regarding a price increase. The item was not available for placement on the agenda for discussion. He distributed the letter to members of the Council and suggested that the fee increase be discussed at the August 19, 2004 Council meeting. 3. E.T. Technologies Contract Extension Request—Daniel L. Bauer Daniel L. Bauer distributed a summary of the soils regeneration agreement between Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, and E.T. Technologies, Inc. (Copy attached. These issues 3 III III have been discussed at length in previous meetings.) He noted that the contract with E.T. Technologies does expire December 31, 2004 with an option to renew for an additional two years. The contract requires E.T. Technologies to reduce the odor at their site and requires E.T. Technologies to acquire a new location and relocate their operation to the new site. Currently, E.T. Technologies has been successful in reducing odors. Their management has been actively looking for a new site without much success in acquiring a new site. E.T. Technologies would like to receive approval from the Council to remain at their currently location for another five years. The biggest problem with the site is the objectionable odor associated with their operation. The operation of the E.T. Technologies site is beneficial to the public since it is the only site approved for disposal of liquid waste in Salt Lake County. The continued operation of the soils regeneration site is also beneficial to the landfill. Because the odor will never fully be eliminated, the continued odor taints the public's perception of the entire Solid Waste Facility. The best way to eliminate that perception is for E.T. Technologies to relocate to a more remote location. Management has two recommendations for the Council to review. The Council should determine if it is willing to accept and live with the odor problem and let E.T. Technologies continue to operate at their current location until the area is needed for landfilling or have E.T. Technologies relocate their operation so it is not adjacent to publicly accessed facilities. Extending E.T. Technologies contract for two additions years would allow time for the completion of EMCON's Landfill Master Plan Update. Also, E.T. would continue to improve their odor control measures and be required to find a new site or close their operation by December 2006. David Stanley asked how many complaints are received concerning the odor. Daniel Bauer commented that there have not been many; most of the complaints currently are coming from Solid Waste Management employees. If E.T. Technologies has to move, perhaps Solid Waste Management could purchase a site for E.T. Technologies operation to relocate. E.T. Technologies should assume some responsibility to solve the problem; E.T. Technologies does not have to work on property that Solid Waste Management owns. They could lease or purchase their own site elsewhere. David Stanley asked what E. T. Technologies is using to reduce the odor other than the misting system at the site. Ted Sonnenburg responded that E.T. Technologies is working with South Valley Water Reclamation to add a deodorizing product to their material to keep the odor down when it comes to the site. The liquid retention area is area has a deodorizing product added to it to control the odor when the liquid is aerated. Some of the material is treated before it reaches the site; a topical product is placed on the soil to reduce the odor also. The misting system may be expanded to help control the odor. Relocating the site is a problem due to the limited entities available to purchase or lease property suited to the type of operation E.T. Technologies provides. Kennecott is still an approachable entity; however, the LDS Church does not have property they are interested 4 S S in negotiating on at this time. David Stanley commented that condemnation of property is probably not an option. Daniel L. Bauer stated that E.T. Technologies is unwilling to move to a closed section of the landfill due to the environmental issues associated with an area that does not have a Subtitle D liner installed below the solid waste. E.T. Technologies does need close to 60 acres to operate their project. Romney M. Stewart suggested that after the update of the EMCON master plan other options for relocating the soil regeneration site might be available. Extending the contract for an additional two years may be a good option. Russell Willardson commented that extending the contract for two years is an acceptable option since E.T. Technologies currently does have any place to go. Discussion of renewing the contract was discussed previously; the formal vote on renewing the contract is today as part of the formal Council meeting. Daniel L. Bauer suggested that as part of the renewing of the contract E.T. Technologies is to aggressively work on odor control measures including extending the misting system and continue to search for another location to move their operation. Rick Graham, David Stanley and Romney M. Stewart will be making a presentation to the mayors of Salt Lake City and County in the next 30 days; they hope to have options available on projects as a result of the presentation. He suggested a motion to approve a two-year extension of the contract. Discussion of the 70-acre parcel and E.T. Technologies operating the site in behalf of Salt Lake County were included in the decision to approve their contract. The 70-acre parcel has been tentatively reserved for disaster debris waste in the event of a major disaster; the Sports Fliers also have an interest in using the site for flying model airplanes. The current E.T. Technologies site will probably not be needed for another 8 or 11 years. Russell Willardson made a motion to renew E.T. Technologies contract for an additional two years provided they continue their efforts for aggressive odor control measures and evaluate the EMCON long term master plan recommendations as well as evaluate the 70 acre closed landfill site as a potential site to relocate the soil regeneration project. Dr. Ryan Dupont seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously. Kent Miner then made a motion to adjourn at 4:00 P.M. 5