MAGNETIC ISLAND WASTE TRANSFER STATION (MITS) Community Briefing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

magnetic island waste
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

MAGNETIC ISLAND WASTE TRANSFER STATION (MITS) Community Briefing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

MAGNETIC ISLAND WASTE TRANSFER STATION (MITS) Community Briefing July 2011 Agenda Welcome and background Waste management process 2005 2011 What is a Waste Transfer Station? Current technical review Three sites


slide-1
SLIDE 1

MAGNETIC ISLAND WASTE TRANSFER STATION (MITS)

Community Briefing – July 2011

slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • Welcome and background
  • Waste management process 2005 – 2011
  • What is a Waste Transfer Station?
  • Current technical review
  • Three sites – opportunities and challenges
  • Discussion of options
  • Further feedback and next steps

Agenda

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Background

  • Picnic Bay Landfill reaching end of operational life, Council

working on a resolution since 2005

  • High-level options considered:

– New landfill site elsewhere on Magnetic Island – All waste be carried off Magnetic Island – Development of Waste Transfer Station

  • Final option favoured by community and adopted by Council

in 2006

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Development process

  • 2005 – Magnetic Island Solid Waste Management Plan
  • 2006 – Magnetic Island Waste Transport Assessment
  • 2009 – Update of Magnetic Island Waste Transport

Assessment

  • 2010 – MITS design specification
  • 2011 – Site review
slide-5
SLIDE 5

What is a modern Waste Transfer Station?

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Current consideration

Three likely sites:

  • Land east of the Magnetic Island Water Recycling

facility at Cockle Bay

  • Part of the existing Picnic Bay Landfill
  • Site of the soon to be decommissioned

Nelly Bay Sewerage Treatment Plant

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Cockle Bay – locality

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Picnic Bay Landfill – locality

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Nelly Bay – locality

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Current assessment process

  • Non-price and price criteria considered
  • Input from a range of external expertise
  • Assessment process conducted twice, by different teams,

both of which reached the same outcome

  • Assessments subjected to “sensitivity analysis” to confirm

they would not be affected by changes in criteria weighting

  • Non-price and price criteria were considered separately and

given equal weight

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Criteria

Neighbour Impact (40%)

  • number of adjacent neighbours affected at each site
  • perational noise impacts of facility
  • visual and possible odour issues
  • affects of increased local heavy vehicle traffic
  • potential impacts on property values

Environmental (40%)

  • assess a range of environmental impacts including flora and

fauna in the local surrounding areas

  • environmental significance of proposed sites
  • possible effects on surrounding activities
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Convenience (10%)

  • Convenience of facility for public users
  • level of disruption from heavy vehicle movements
  • potential for increased illegal dumping due to the need for

users to travel to each of the optional sites Continuity of Landfill Operation (10%)

  • level of disruption to existing Picnic Bay Landfill
  • possible interruption to the availability of the existing Landfill

and Greenwaste facility

  • transition from the current to future operation
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Non-price site assessment

  • Cockle Bay – minimal impact on neighbours,

significant environmental impact, not very convenient, good continuity of current operation (3.0)

  • Picnic Bay – impact on several neighbours, minimal

environmental impact, reasonably convenient, poor continuity of current operation (3.3)

  • Nelly Bay – major impact on neighbours, minimal

environmental impact, very convenient, good continuity

  • f current operation (2.4)
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Relative price assessment

  • Relative costs based on similar facilities at each site

taking into account likely differing ground conditions, fill and access requirements

  • Option Score = (1 - (cost of option - cost of lowest
  • ption)/cost of option)) x 5

* Relative costs as at March 2011

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Benefits and challenges

Site Benefits Challenges Nelly Bay

  • Existing Council facility
  • Shortest transits/central
  • Allows landfill to continue
  • Many existing neighbours
  • Greenwaste processing

brings environment and visual issues Picnic Bay

  • Existing waste facility
  • Largest site – screening
  • Fastest to bring on line
  • Some near neighbours
  • Requires better visual

amenity

  • Issue with maintaining

landfill Cockle Bay

  • Beside MIWR facility
  • Low social impact
  • Lack of neighbours

reduces visual amenity/odour issues

  • Allows landfill to continue
  • Longest travel distances/

increased traffic

  • Will require (possibly beyond

landfill life) MCU process

  • High environmental impacts
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Discussion

  • Now we need to get input from the community
  • No decisions made yet
  • Council as a whole has no preference

for site or configuration

  • Community input will be balanced

alongside all other considerations

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Feedback options

  • Resident Comment Forms (freepost)
  • Web-based Resident Comment system
  • Magnetic Times / Magnetic Community News – information

and web link

  • Consultation period: 30 July – 30 August