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

▶

Nov 10, 2023 273 likes •452 views

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

MAGNETIC ISLAND WASTE TRANSFER STATION (MITS)

Community Briefing – July 2011

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

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

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

What is a modern Waste Transfer Station?

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

Cockle Bay – locality

SLIDE 8

Picnic Bay Landfill – locality

SLIDE 9

Nelly Bay – locality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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