MI. WASHINGTON VALLEY
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT
Final Report
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Prepared by:
Gordian Associates Incorporated
Washington, D.C.
Under EPA Contract #68-01-6001
October 24, 1980
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
Public Law 94—580 — October 21, 1976
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION PANELS
SEC. 2003. The Administrator shall provide teams of personnel, in-
cluding Federal, State, and local employees or contractors (hereinafter
referred to as “Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels”) to provide
Federal, State and local governments upon request with technical assist-
ance on solid waste management, resource recovery, and resource conser-
vation. Such teams shall include technical, marketing, financial, and
institutional specialists, and the services of such teams shall be pro-
vided without charge to States or local governments.
This report has been reviewed by the Region I EPA
Technical Assistance Project Officer, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does men-
tion of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
EPA Region I Project Manager: Conrad Desrosiers
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by William Ranney and Cynthia Chegwidden
of Cordian Associates in conjunction with Kenneth Woodruff of Resource
Recovery Services, Inc. and Robert Brickner and David Cohen. The authors
wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance provided by Conrad Desrosiers,
the EPA Region I Project Manager; Tim Drew of the New Hampshire Office
of State Planning; Jeana Whittredge and Ron Mills of Gordian Associates;
and the wany other people who contributed time and information to this
project.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction .
Chapter 1: Population Estimates Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.
Chapter 2: Waste Quantity Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.
Chapter 3: Collection/Transfer Station System Alternatives 22.
Chapter 4: Review of Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives . . 29.
Chapter 5: Electric Generation 54.
Chapter 6: Approaches to Implementation 61
Chapter 7: Procurement and Financing Options 84.
Chapter 8: 115.
Appendix A: Pertinent Sections of New Hampshire Intergovernmental A.l
Agreements Act
Appendix B: Representative Refuse Transfer Equipment and Site . . 3.1
Configurations and Derivation of Costs for Various
Waste Collection Systems for the Mt. Washington
Valley Area
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
Introduction
The Mt. Washington Valley area, like many parts of the country,
faces problems concerning its future solid waste disposal alternatives.
The region foresees the imminent closing of open burning dumps and near
capacity landfills. The Mt. Washington Valley Regional Solid Waste
Conmzittee , representing six towns, sought Panels Technical Assistance
to help evaluate solid waste management and disposal alternatives.
Cordian Associates worked closely with EPA and local
representatives to develop a scope of work which would address the many
complex issues involved. The resulting scope included the following
tasks:
1. Review of the work done to that point and revision of it as
necessary along with the investigation of the potential for
selling refuse—generated electricity to the local electric
utility.
2. Discussion of various rural resource recovery programs as part
of an ongoing Gordian work assignment, including information
on markets, system economics, and institutional
considerations.
3. Survey of the region and the presentation of a preliminary
layout of different transfer station systems. This included
reviewing and improving on local population and waste
generation data and presenting cost estimates.
4. Discussion of the different organizational, financial and
procurement strategies as they relate to small scale resource
recovery. This review was to focus on options available to
the Mt. Washington area.
5. An economic analysis of a resource recovery system designed
to handle the area’s waste streem and to generate electricity
for sale to the local utility.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
ii
During the course of the study it became necessary to modify the
scope of work slightly to accomodate changing conditions. At the
mid—term meeting the Town of Ossipee expressed interest in becoming
involved in the proposed project. Because the transfer station
analysis had already been completed 1 it was not possible to include
Ossipee in that phase of the study. However 1 the town was included in
the modular incinerator facility planning (Chapter 4) and figures for
Ossipee appear in the population and waste generation sections
(Chapters 1 and 2).
A great deal of uncertainty exists over the price which the
incinerator facility would receive for electricity sold to an electric
utility. A Public Utility Commission (Puc) order in June set the rate
at 7.74/kWh. However 1 the instability of the current energy situation
and disagreements between the electric utilities and the PUC prevent
Gordian from confidently estimating energy revenues for the entire life
of the project. Because revenues have a major impact on the economics
of any resource recovery project 1 system costs and revenues are
presented only through 1995.
Several tasks have been added to the original works cope to deal
with specific problem areas and provide greater background and
understanding of the issues involved. The system costs are presented
not only as costs (or surpluses) per ton 1 but also as costs per capita
and as they impact on the local tax rates. A discussion of the
state—of—the—art in electricity generation from modular incinerators is
also included.
The remainder of the report remains as described in the original
workecope except that Task 2 the discussion of rural resource
recovery alternatives 1 has been produced and sent separately and is not
included in the body of this report.
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
1
CHAPTER 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES REVIEW
Annual Population Estimates
Pinpointing the population base of the Mount Washington Valley
area (}IWV) is difficult because of large seasonal fluctuations
throughout the area and because of the apparent lack of professional
agreement on the actual population of the area’s largest town, Conway.
Conway’s present and future population estimates are particularly im—
portant because the town constitutes over half of the total populations
for the seven towns in this study area. Gordian reviewed various
population projections for Conway and the other six NWV towns presented
in this analysis from a vast assortment of studies conducted for
unrelated planning activities. The following sources are reviewed for
population estimates:
• Anderson—Nichols & Co., Inc. (AN) — Conway 201 Facilities Plan
(1980)
• Environmental Engineers) Inc. (EEl) — Solid Waste Disposal Al-
ternatives for the Mount Washington Valley New Hampshire
(1979)
• North County Council (NCC) — Mount Washington Valley Seasonal
Population Study (1979)
• Dubois and King, Inc. (D&K) — Conway Fire Precinct Water Study
(1977)
• New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning (OCP) — 1978
Population Estimates of New Hampshire Cities and Towns and re-
vised estimates for 1970 and 1975
• Lakes Region Planning Commission (LRPC) — Population (1977)
• White Mountain Survey and Engineering (WMSE) — Town of Ossipee,
Solid Waste Disposal Study (1977)
In evaluating the merits of variouB population projections,
Cordian used those estimates generated for the town of Conway as a ref-
erence point. Estimates for the Town of Ossipee were generated separ-
ately, and a discussion of them is presented following this section.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
2
There are two major areas of discrepancy in the estimates previously
generated for Conway and these center around the estimated population
growth from 1978 to 1980 (present case data) and from 1980 to 2000
(future case data).
The previous solid waste management study by EEl assumes a contin-
uation of Conway’s rapid population increase which occurred from 1975
to 1978. EEl elected to maintain this 9.8% annual increase in residen-
tial and seasonal population for their 1979 and 1980 projections. The
present case data which becomes a basis for future escalating to future
case figures, is much higher and carries a continually higher projec-
tion into the future years. After this relocation/building spirit, EEl
has estimated a more moderate Conway growth rate of 1.36 percent per
year from 1980 to 2000, Table 1—1.
The Anderson—Nichols report, which has recently become available,
estimates that the rapid population growth in the 1970’s levelled off
in 1978 and that Conway will grow at a much slower rate from 1979 to
1999, approximately 0.84 percent per year.
The Dubois and King study of 1977 does not reflect the major popu-
lation increases from 1975 to 1978 in Conway that were occurring during
the writing of their report and cited in more recent studies like the
Anderson—Nichols, EEl and OCP data. However, Dubois and King did esti-
mate a growth rate of 1.91 percent per year from 1980 to 2000 in Con-
way.
The New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning and the North
Country Council have not estimated future population growth for Conway.
In 1975, OCP did prepare population estimates of Conway for the years
1975, 1980, 1990 and 2000 but these estimates are not considered rea-
sonable because methods for population estimation were revised in
August of 1978. The data from these two reports are only illustrative
references for one year.
Gordian’s decision to use the EEl population estimates in this
study are based on several factors: In our opinion, although EEl’s
population estimates for Conway are significantly higher than other
estimates, their use of building permit data to estimate growth trends
in Conway and the other towns from 1978 to 1980 most accurately re-
flects population increases during this period and concurs with the
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
3
TABLE 1—1
RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ESTIMATES AND EXPECTED GROWTH RATES
CONWAY, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Growth Rates (%)
1977 1978 1980 1990 2000 1978—1980 1980—2000
Dubois & King — — 6300 7800 9200 — 1.91
Anderson—Nichols — 6968 7086 7640 8376 .84 .84
EEl — 6968 8400 10000 11000 9.80 1.36
OCP — 6968 - — — — —
NCC 6506 — — — — — —
1 Conway Fire Precinct Study (1977)
2 Conway 201 Facility Plan (1979—1980) — For comparative purposes, population
estimates for 1978, 1980, 1990, and 2000 were determined using Anderson—
Nichols residential population estimates for 1979 and 1999 of 7027 and 8310,
respectively, and applying their anticipated growth rate of .84 percent per
year for the 20 year period.
3 Solid Wate Disposal Alternatives for the Mount Washington Valley New
Hampshire (1979).
4 1978 population estimates of New Hampshire Cities and Towns (1979).
5 Mount Washington Valley — Seasonal Population Study (1979).
6 Later reports used data from the OCP report in their projections.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
4
Office of Comprehensive Planning’s estimated population trends from
1975 to 1978. Second, based on what appears to be underestimation of
population in the past, Gordian believes that EEl’s estimated growth
rates of 1.36 percent per year for Conway from 1980 to 2000 and 1.32—
1.44 percent per year for the other towns are also reasonable. As it
turns out, the EEl’s projected growth rate from 1980—2000 is approxi-
mately the average of the estimates in the DK report and the 1980 A—N
estimates.
Seasonal Population Patterns
Significant seasonal fluctuations in Mount Washington Valley’s
population present a problem in estimating its monthly population
patterns. Gordian reviewed the monthly population distribution data
for each town in the North Country Council’s, “Seasonal Population
Study” and found it to be an excellent representation of seasonal
population estimates based on survey data. Gordian reviewed monthly
population data prepared by EEl in its 1979 feasibility study. Their
figures were based on and closely parallel the seasonal population
distribution data presented in the North Country Council study. We
also reviewed 1979 and 1999 monthly population estimates for the town
of Conway as prepared by Anderson—Nichols.
Each of the above sources determined the peak population months to
June through September and the least populated months to be April and
November. For consistency purposes, Gordian used the seasonal popula-
tion distribution found in the EEl data as a basis for determining
seasonal population fluctuations in the Mount Washington Valley for the
project years of 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005.
The monthly population estimates for the five year intervals from
1980 to 2005 were determined using a percentage of the peak month for
town. As shown in Table 1—2, August is the peak population month for
town except in Albany, where July is the peak population mouth. An
example of the methodology is presented below:
Gordian Associates In ;orporated
-------
TABLE 1-2
MONTHLY POPULATION ESTIMATES
FOR MOUNT WASHINGTON VALLEY AREA
1978 *
Jan. Fill. lt.rdh April June !!i.7. Si ! s...
Albany 407 406 491 479 931 1,826 2,40J 2,382 1.511 1,231 381 399
5,326 5,296 4,823 3,926 4,694 5,291 6,344 6,345 5,3)9 5,081 4,118 5.237
Conway 11,741 11,110 10,424 9,999 11,094 13,86S 16,450 16,451 13.784 12,272 9,909 11,482
Eaton 4)3 429 392 314 407 682 1,033 1.035 654 508 373 411
Harts Locdt iou 99 97 86 58 78 195 359 4)8 373 19S Si 92
J&IckBOl% 2,156 2,236 1,800 1,450 1,723 2,933 4.152 4,167 3,201 2,418 1,405 1,923
Total 20.168 20,114 18,016 16,286 18,927 24.792 30,141 30,194 24,862 21,718 16.263 19,544
*Environn ental Engineers, Inc., based on North Country Council seasonal
population study.
-------
6
Question: Determine Sartletts’ population in January 1990?
Step 1: Bartletta’ population in January 1978 is estimated at
5,326 (from Table 1—2)
Step 2: Bartletts’ peak monthly population in 1978 — 6,345
(August)
Step 3: Bartletts’ peak population in August 1990 — 8,140
Step 4: The January 1990 population is therefore:
5,326
6,345 x 8,140 — 6,833
Ossipee Population Estimates
Ossipee, like the other towns in the Mount Washington Valley, ex-
periences large fluctuations in its seasonal population. Population
peaks are reached during the suer months, in particular July and
August, as a result of the numerous visitors who are attracted to the
town’s. lakes and recreational activities.
In determining population estimates for Ossipee, Gordian reviewed
population projections from the following sources:
• Lakes Region Planning Coiission (LRPC) — Population (1977)
• New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning (OCP) — 1978
Population Estimates of New Hampshire Cities and Towns and
revised estimates for 1970 and 1975 (1980)
• White Mountain Survey and Engineering (WMSE) — Town of Ossipee,
Solid Waste Disposal Study (1977)
Population estimates from each of these sources are summarized
below:
• Lakes Region Disposal Commission
1985 1995 2000
Year Round 2,100 2,300 2,350
Seasonal 4,500 4 900 5,000
Peak 6,600 7,200 7,350
• New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning
1970 1975 1978
Residential
Population 1,647 1,841 2,533
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
7
• White Mountain Survey and Engineering
1978
Base 2,500
Intermediate 5,500
Peak 7,000
Gordian decided to use the 1978 population estimates generated by
MWSE as a starting point for estimating Ossipee’s population from 1980
through 2005. That decision was based on the fact that WMSE’s 1978
base population estimate closely parallels OCP’s 1978 residential esti-
mate, far surpassing LRDC’s 1985—2000 “year—round” population projec-
tions for Ossipee. In addition, WMSE’s population estimates have been
used in a variety of analyses of disposal/recovery options for Ossipee
and it was felt that these projections should be used in this study for
consistency purposes.
To estimate Ossipee’s population from 1980 through 2005, Gordian
assumed annual population growth rates and applied these rates to WMSE
base, intermediate, and peak population projections for Ossipee in 1978.
After consulting with Jim Rollins, Assistant Director of the Lakes
Region Planning Coimniasion and Richard E. Phillips, P.E. for White
Mountain Survey and Engineering, it was determined that Ossipee’s popu-
lation was expected to increase at a steady rate from 1980 to 1995 but
at a significantly slower rate than the 37 percent population increase
between 1975 and 1978. By 1995, it is expected that population in-
creases will level off and eventually decline due to more stringent
building restriction and the lack of available new land for construc-
tion. Given these predictions, Gordian, LRPC, and WMSE felt that LRPCs
projection of an .87 percent population increase per year from 1978 to
1994 and a .41 percent population increase per year from 1995—2005,
reflected the expected population growth from 1980—2005.
The seasonality of Ossipee’s population was difficult to determine
because of a lack of significant data on population fluctuations during
the year. Given this lack of information, Gordian assumed that: the
peak population projections would be used for the months of July and
August; intermediate projections would be used for June and September;
and base projections would be used for the months of October through
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
8
May. These assumptions were reviewed with Richard Phillips of WMSE and
found to be compatible with his 1978 population projections for Osaipee.
The peak, intermediate, and base population projections were then multi-
plied by the population growth rates (.87 for 1978—1994; .41 for 1995—
2005) to estimate the monthly population for Ossipee, as shown in Tables
1—3 through 1—8.
£11 of the following population estimates presented in Tables 1—3
through 1—8 assume that the monthly population distributions in each
town will remain constant over the life of the project.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE 1-3
MONTHLY POPULATION ESTIMATES
FOR MOUNT WASHINGTON VALLEY AREA
1980
Jan. Feb. March April June &. .! . 2E ! . .
Albany 473 472 570 557 1,082 2,112 2,794 2,770 1,757 1.437 443 463
BartLett 5,850 5,818 3,298 4,312 3,156 5,812 6,968 6,970 5,864 3,589 4.546 5,753
Conway 14,160 14,115 12,565 12,053 13,313 16,713 19,828 19,830 16,615 14,793 11,944 13,840
Eaton 502 497 454 434 472 791 1,197 1,200 758 589 433 476
MerLe Location 118 116 102 69 93 233 429 500 446 233 68 110
Jackson 3,187 2,586 2,082 1.677 1,993 3,393 4,802 4,820 3,702 2,797 1,625 2,224
a. Oa.ipee 2.343 2,543 2,543 2,543 2,543 5,597 7,123 7,123 5,597 2,543 2,543 2,543
Total 26,833 26,147 23,614 21,645 24,712 34,651 43,141 43,213 36,496 27.983 21,602 25,409
TABLE 1-4
1985
Jan. Feb March AprU !! June J . Sept . Oct. Nov.. Dec.
a. Albany 525 524 634 619 1,201 2,357 3,102 3,075 1,951 1,597 492 515
Bartlett 6,404 6,369 5,800 4,721 5,645 6,363 7,628 7,630 6,420 6,118 4,976 6,298
Conway 13,758 15,710 13,984 13,414 14,883 18,600 22,068 22,070 18,492 16,464 13,294 15,404
Eaton 560 555 507 484 526 883 1,337 1,340 846 658 483 532
MerLe Location 139 136 121 81 109 272 302 585 522 273 80 129
Jackson 3,538 2,870 2,311 1,861 2,212 3,166 5,312 5,350 4,110 3 105 1,804 2,469
Oesipee 2,656 2,656 2,656 2,656 2,656 5,845 1,440 7,440 5,845 2,656 2,656 2,656
Total 29,580 28,820 26,013 23,836 27,232 38,086 47,389 47,490 38,186 30,871 23,785 28,003
‘I, Based on Environmental Engineers, Inc. population estimates in Solid Waste
Disposal Alternatives for The Mount Washington Valley, and White Mountain
Survey and Engineering estimates for the town of Ossipee.
-------
TABLE 1-5
MONTHLY POPULATION ESTIMATES
FOR MOUNT WASHINGTON VALLEY AREA
1990
Jan. Feb. March April June z k Sept . Oct. Nov. Dec.
Albany 562 561 618 662 1,286 2,522 3,319 3,290 2,086 1,708 326 551
Bartlett 6,833 6,794 6,187 5,037 6,022 6,788 8,138 8,140 6,849 6,527 5,308 6,718
Convey 16,831 16,797 14,954 14,344 15,913 19,890 23,398 23,600 19,774 17,605 14,215 16,472
Baton 596 591 539 515 561 939 1,422 1,425 900 699 51.4 566
Harta Location 149 146 130 87 118 293 541 630 562 293 86 138
Jackeon 3,797 3,080 2,480 1,998 2,373 4,040 5,719 5,740 4,409 3,331 1,935 2,649
O.eipee 2,774 2.774 2,774 2.774 2,774 6,104 7,771 7,771 6,104 2,774 2,774 2.774
Total 31,562 30,743 27,732 25,417 29,049 40,576 50,508 50,596 40,684 3 2.937 25,358 29,868
TABLE 1—6
1995
Jan. Feb. March April June July A . Sept . Oct. Nov. Dec .
Albany 392 591 714 697 1,354 2,656 3,495 3,465 2,197 1,799 554 580
Bartlett 7,252 7,211 6,568 5,346 6,392 7,203 8,638 8,640 7,270 6,928 3,621 7,131
Conway 17,694 17,639 15,702 15,061 16,111 20,885 24,778 24,780 20,763 18,485 14,926 17,295
Baton 623 618 553 538 585 981 1,487 1,490 942 731 536 592
Barte Location 159 155 138 93 125 312 515 670 598 313 91 148
Jackion 3,985 3,233 2,603 2,097 2,491 4,240 6,003 6,025 4,628 3,496 2,031 2,780
Oaa ipee 2,897 2,897 2.897 2,897 2,897 6,375 8,111 8,117 6,375 2,897 2,897 2,897
Total 33,202 32,344 29,175 26,729 30,555 42,654 53,083 53,187 42.773 34,649 26,656 31,423
-------
TABLE 1—7
MONTHLY POPUlATION ESTIMATES
FOR MOUNT WASHINGTON VALLEY AREA
2000
Jan. Feb. March ApriL June &. !R1’ c • ! ! . !! , .
Albany 622 620 750 732 1,423 2,790 3,672 3,640 2,309 1,890 382 610
Bartlett 7,639 7,596 6,917 5,631 6,732 7,588 9,098 9,100 7,657 7,297 5,933 7,510
Convay 18,537 18,479 16,923 15,779 17,507 21,879 25,958 25,960 21,751 19,366 15,637 18,119
Eaton 653 647 591 564 613 1,027 1,557 1,560 986 765 562 619
Harts Location 168 165 146 99 133 331 609 710 633 331 96 156
Jackeon 4,173 3,386 2,725 2,195 2,609 4,441 6,287 6,310 4,847 3,662 2,127 2,912
Ossipee 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 6,508 8,286 8,286 6,508 2,957 2,957 2,957
Total 34,749 33,850 31,009 27,937 31,974 44,564 55,467 55,566 44,691 36,268 27,896 32,883
CD
U)
TABLE 1-8
8 2005
0
Jan. Feb. March April June July . . . ! ! . .
Albany 651 650 786 767 1,491 2,925 3,848 3,815 2,420 1,981 610 639
Bartlett 8,000 1,955 7,244 5,897 7.050 7,947 9,528 9,530 8,019 7,642 6,215 7,866
Coiway 19,380 19,319 17,197 16,496 18,302 22,873 27,138 27,140 22,740 20,245 16,437 18,942
Eaton 690 684 625 596 649 1,087 1,647 1,650 1,042 810 595 655
Harts Location 179 175 155 105 141 352 648 155 674 352 103 166
Jackeon 4,362 3,539 2,849 2,295 2,727 4,641 6,571 6,595 5,066 3,827 2.223 3,044
Ossipee 3,018 3,018 3,018 3,018 3,018 6,644 8,459 8,459 6,644 3,018 3,018 3,018
Total 36,280 35,350 31,974 29,174 33,378 46,469 57,839 57,944 46,605 37,875 29,201 ‘34,330
1
-------
12
CHAPTER 2
WASTE QUANTITY ESTIMATES’
Derivations of Waste Generation Rate Estimates
Given that accurate records on the mount of waste generated in the
Mount Washington Valley are not available 1 Cordian first reviewed those
waste generation estimates (lbs/person/day) provided in the EEl feasi-
bility study on disposal alternatives. This study assumed a 4.0 lb./
person/day generation rate for each town (based on national averages).
After careful review, Gordian determined that waste generation estimates
for the Mount Washington Valley area needed to be tailored to the resi-
dential, commercial, and industrial activity in each town as well as to
the seasonal fluctuations of waste from summer to winter, in order to
properly evaluate the sizing and economics of each solid waste management
option. Therefore, Gordian used previous waste generation estimates
provided by the North Country Council and two studies 2 of rural and
resort areas in Maine to calculate these rates. North Country Council
data on residential, commercial, and industrial activity in each town were
also factored into the estimates. Data from these sources, along with EEl
estimates, are presented on the following two pages.
1 The assumptions for the Town of Ossipee are outlined following those
for the other communities in the study area.
2 “Feasibility Investigation of Solid Waste Management Alternatives:
Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission,” by SCS Engineers,
June 1979, and “Hancock County Solid Waste Management Plan,” by the
Hancock Planning Commission. December 1978.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
• North Country Council estimated waste generation rates: 3
Albany 3.0 lb./capita/day
Bartlett 3.5 lb.Icapita/day
Conway 4.0 I.b.fcapita/day
Eaton 2.5 lb./capita/day
Harts Location 2.5 lb./capita/day
Jackson 3.5 lb./capita/day
• Androscroggin Valley, Maine estimated residential generation
rates:
Winter 2.25 lb./capita/day
Su ier 2.48 lb./capita/day
• Hancock County, Maine estimated residential generation rates:
Towns of less than 1,000 1.40 lb./capita/day
Towns greater than 1,000 2.00 lb./capita/day
• EEl estimated generation rates (total vaste stream):
Conway 4.5 lb./capita/day
Albany, Bartlett, Eaton,
Harts Location 1 Jackson 3.0—4.0 lb./capita/day
4.0 lb./capita/day(average)
3 Prepared by Timothy W. Drew, North Country Council, Inc. for Mount
Washington Valley Subregional Meeting, April 17, 1979 and also used in
unpublished data by North Country Council entitled, “Mt. Washington
Valley Solid Waste Generation”, August 10, 1979.
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
• North Country Council estimated the number of residential 4 ,
commercial, and industrial establishments for each town in 1978:
Commercial Industrial
Condominium Ski Restaurants Establish— Establish—
Units(#) Clubs(#) ( #) ments (#) ments (# )
Albany — — 3 9 —
Bartlett 225 12 26 48 1
Conway 278 13 66 240 7
Eaton — — — 1 —
Harts Location — 1 1 1 —
Jackson 11 3 16 24 —
Using this composite data, generation rates have been estimated as
follows: Gordian assumed a base per capita generation rate for each town
of 2.5 ].bs./day for the summer months (June—September) and 2.0 lbs./day
for the other eight months. Using the North Country Council waste
generation estimates as a guide, Gordian estimated an additional amount of
per capita generation to the individual towns based on North Country
Council’s data assessment of residential, commercial, and industrial
activity. The seasonal per capita waste generation rates are presented in
Table 2—1.
Gordian’s decision to estimate per capita waste generation rates for
each town was based on the need to understand individual waste flows as
they relate to the total quantity of waste generated. In applying these
per capita waste generation rates, Gordians estimate of the total amount
of solid waste generated in the Mount Washington Valley differs only
slightly (on a daily basis) from the EEl estimates which were previously
4 For purposes of estimating waste generation rates, residential estab—
lishmenta refer to specific seasonal residential uses that add to the
waste stream, (e.g. condominiums, suer homes, ski clubs).
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE 2—1
Estimated Per Capita Waste Generation Rates
for Mount Washington Valley
Su er (June — September)
Town
Albany
Bartlett
Conway
Eat on
Harts •tocati.on
Jackson
Average Monthly
Population( 1980 )
2,358
6,403
18,247
986
402
4)179
Base Waste
Generation
Rate (lba./
capita/day
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Residential
Commercial &
Industrial
lbs/cap./day*
.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
Total Per
Capita Waste
Generation
lbs/cap. / day
3.0
4.0
4.5
2.5
2.5
4.0
Winter (October — May)
Town
Albany
Bartlett
Conway
Eaton
Harts Location
Jackson
Average Monthly
Population( 1980 )
690
5,290
13,355
482
113
2)271
Base Waste
Generation
Rate (Ibs./
capita/day
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Residential
Commercial &
Industrial
lbs/cap. / day*
1.0
1.5
1.0
Total Per
Capita Waste
Generation
lbs/cap./day
2.0
3.0
3.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
* Residential rate refers to specific seasonal components (e.g. condo-
miniums summer homes, ski clubs, etc.) of waste generation.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
16
reported based on a 4.0 lb./capita/day generation rate for each town in
the study area. However, our waste quantity estimates for each town as
well as season will, differ significantly from EEl’s data depending upon
how much the generation rates differ from the 4.0 lb./day generation rate
assumed in the preliminary feasibility study. We feel that our approach
to generation rate analysis attempts to take into account some of those
specific localized factors that will, affect waste generation in each town.
Additionally, it will later be seen that the distribution of systems costs
and the prorating of capital and operating expenses on a town—by—town
basis are more fairly distributed using this approach.
Ossipee Waste Quantity Estimates
Given that accurate records on Ossipee’s waste generation were not
available, Gordian determined monthly waste quantities by multiplying the
monthly population estimates found in Tables 1—3 through 1—8 by a per
capita waste generation rate (Lbs./person/day). Gordian did not attempt
to distinguish between Summer (June—September) and Winter (October—May)
waste generation rates. Rather, Gordian chose a waste generation rate of
3.5 lbs.fperson/day that was used in the WMSE Solid Waste Disposal Study
and based on national averages of per capita waste generation from
residential and commercial sources. An example of the methodology used
to estimate the waste quantities is presented below.
Example: Determine the amount of waste generated in Oss ipee in August
1985.
Step 1: Ossipee’s population in August 1985 is 7,440.
Step 2: August has 31 days.
Step 3: The amount of waste generated in August 1985 is equal
to:
(August 1985 population) x (31 days) x
(3.5 lbs./person/day) (2,000 lbs./ton)
( 7,440) (31) (3.5 )
2,000 404 tons
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
17
A auary table of each towns’ estimated waste generation rates is
presented in Table 2—2. Using these rates, and the yearly population
projections presented in Tables 1—3 through 1—8, the projected monthly
waste generation rates for each town in the study area are shown in Tables
2—3 through 2—8.
Gordian Associates Incorpc.rated
-------
TABLE 2-2
ESTIMATED WASTE GENERATION RATES
Summer Winter
(June—September) (October—May)
Large Towns
4.5
lb./person/day
3.5
lb./person/day
Conway
Medium Towns
4.0
lb./person/day
3.0
lb./person/day
Bartlett
Jackson
4.0
lb./person/day
3.0
lb./person/day
Ossipee
3.5
lb./person/day
3.5
lb./person/day
Small Towns
3.0
lb./person/day
2.0
lb./person/day
Albany
Eaton
2.5
lb./person/day
2.0
lb./person/day
Harts Location
2.5
].b./person/day
2.0
lb./person/day
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE 2-3
PROJECTED MONTHLY SOLID WASTE GENERATION
FOR MOUNT WASHINGTON VALLEY AREA 1
1980
( Tong Per Month )
Jan. Feb. Watch April Jon. . . Oct. Nov. Dec. TotAls
Albany 15 14 17 16 34 95 129 128 79 45 13 14 59
Nortle tt 272 253 238 194 239 348 432 432 351 260 204 268 3,491
Conway 768 716 660 633 725 1,128 1,383 1,383 1,122 802 623 750 10,697
laton 16 15 14 13 15 30 46 47 28 18 13 15 270
8artaLocatlon 4 4 3 2 3 9 17 20 17 7 2 4 92
Jackson 148 113 94 76 93 203 298 299 222 130 73 103 1,852
Os.tpee 137 125 137 134 137 293 386 386 293 137 134 137 2.436
Total 1,36 1,240 1,163 1,068 1,246 2,106 2,691 2,695 2.112 1,399 1,066 1,291 19 437
TABLE 2—4
1985
(Tong Per Month)
Annual
Jan. Feb. March Apr11 June Sept . Oct. Nov. Totals
Albany 16 15 19 19 37 106 144 143 88 50 15 15 667
Bartlett 298 277 261 213 263 382 473 473 385 284 224 293 3,826
Conway 854 797 734 704 807 1,256 1,539 1.540 1,248 893 698 836 11,906
Baton 17 16 15 15 16 33 52 52 32 21. 15 17 301
MartaLocation 4 4 4 2 3 10 20 23 20 9 2 4 105
Jackóon 165 125 104 84 103 226 329 332 247 145 82 114 2.056
Oseipee 144 130 144 139 144 307 404 404 307 144 139 144 2,550
Total 1,498 1,364 1,281 1,176 1,272 2,320 2,961 2,967 2,327 1,546 1,175 1,423 21,411
I Based primarily on Environmental Engineers, Inc. population estimates in Solid
Waste Disposal Alternativea for the Mount Washington Valley.
-------
TABLE 2—7
PROJECTED MONTHLY SOLID WASTE GENERATION
FOR MOUNT WASHINGTON VALLEY AREA
2000
( Tons Per Month )
March
23
311
889
18
Jan.
19
355
1,005
20
S
194
160
1,758
Feb.
18
330
938
19
S
147
145
1,602
4 3
122 99
160 135
1,527 1,377
a
4pril
Jun.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
-
Total.
Amany
22
44 126 171
169
104
59
18
19
792
Bartlett
253
313 455 564
564
459
339
267
349
4,559
Conway
828
950 1,476 1,810
1,8U
1,468
1,050
821
983
14 029
Eaton
17
19 39 60
61
37
24
17
20
351
EarLe Location
4 12 24
28
24
10
3
S
1Z7
Jackaoa
121 267 390
391
291
170
95
135
2,422
O.aipee
160 341 450
450
341
160
155
160
2,837
Total
1,611 2,716 3,469
3,474
2,724
1,812
1,376
1,671
25,117
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
TABLE 2-8
2005
(Tons Per Month)
Jun.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
A.w .u l
Total.
Albany
Bartlett
20
372
19
346
24
326
23
265
46 131 179
328 477 590
177
591
109
481
61
355
18
280
20
366
82’
4,777
Conway
1,051
980
903
866
992 1,543 1,893
1,893
1,535
1,098
863
1,027
14,644
Eaton
21
20
19
18
20 41 64
64
39
25
18
20
369
Marta lacation
6
5
5
3
4 13 25
29
25
11
3
5
134
Jackeon
203
154
128
103
127 278 407
409
304
178
100
142
2,533
O..tpee
164
148
164
158
164 349 459
459
349
164
158
164
2,900
Total
1,837
1,672
1.569
1,436
1.681 2,832 3,617
3,622
2,842
1,892
1,440
1,744
26,184
t.’,
0
-------
TABLE 2-5
PROJECTED MONTHLY SOLID WASTE GENERATION
FOR MOUNT WASHINGTON VALLEY AREA
1990
( Tons Per Month)
Lanas i
Jan. Feb. Narth April j June j Sk Sept . Oct. Nov. Dec. totals
Albany 17 16 20 20 40 114 154 153 94 53 16 17 114
Bartlett 317 295 278 226 280 407 505 505 411 304 239 312 4,079
Cmt’sy 914 853 785 753 863 1,342 1,646 1,646 1,335 955 746 894 12,712
Baton 19 17 16 16 17 35 55 55 34 22 15 18 319
harteLocet lon 5 4 4 3 4 11 21 24 21 9 3 4 113
9 Jack son 176 140 211 90 110 242 355 356 264 155 87 123 2 .209
Oselpee 150 135 150 —_146 150 320 422 422 320 150 146 150 2 .661
Total 1,598 1,460 1,364 1,254 1,464 2,471 3.158 3,161 2,479 1,648 1,252 1,518 22,827
TABLE 2-6
1995
( Tons Per Month )
8
Aana’i
Jan. Feb. March April June Jul y Sept . b. cs Tota1
ft Albany 18 11 21 21 42 119 163 161 99 56 17 18 752
Bartlett 337 314 296 241 297 432 536 536 436 322 253 332 4.332
Comeay 959 895 824 790 907 1,409 1,728 1,728 1,401 1,003 784 938 13,366
Beta 19 18 17 16 18 37 58 58 35 23 16 18 333
ISrtetocation 5 5 4 3 4 12 22 26 22 10 3 5 12 1
Jackaon 185 141 117 94 116 254 372 374 218 162 91 129 2,313
oasipea 157 — 142 157 - 152 157 335 440 440 335 157 152 157 2,781
Total 1 .780 1 .532 1,436 1,317 1,541 2,598 3.319 3,323 2,606 1,733 1,316 1.597 23,998
-------
22
CHAPTER 3
COLLECTION/TRANSFER STATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES’
Overview
Gordian’s April 1 1980 field visit to Mt. Washington Valley
indicated that a portion of the study area’s citizens are currently
being served by a solid waste collection system consisting of a
combination of two private haulers and individuals hauling waste to the
local disposal areas. The towns have door—to—door collections provided
by the North Conway Incinerator Service or the White Mountain
Incinerator Service. In addition to these year—round services
approximately 40 percent more refuse is collected during the
recreational seasons of winter ski activities and s er resort
programs. Currently, collected waste is disposed of at three town dump
sites in the region.
It has been proposed that a combination of direct haul and
regional transfer/disposal systems be investigated. In accord with
this approach, Gordian examined collection systems based on
currently acceptable methods for receiving and transporting small
(rural) waste streams. This analysis specifically included the
development of costs for door—to—door collection routes, and
additionally examined the storage of collected wastes at appropriate
transfer stations and the transportation of the wastes from those
points to a central disposal site located in the Conway area. The
approximate locations of the proposed transfer stations and the
regional disposal site are shown in Figure 3—1. Illustrations of
alternative transport vehicles and sites and a detailed discussion of
cost derivation are presented in Appendix B.
1 The town of Ossipee is not included in this discussion because
data analysis was completed before the town joined the Solid Waste
Commission. It should also be noted that a discussion of Conway is
excluded because it has been assumed that waste hauling costs for
Conway will remain the same.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
23
FIGURE 3-1
Map of Mount Washington Valley Area Showing
Approximate Locations Of Proposed Transfer
Stations and Regional Disposal Site
. Regional Landfill Site
1. Albany Transfer Station
2. Bartlett Transfer Station
3. Eaton Transfer Station
4. Jackson Transfer Station
I
I
I
I
\ I
Li
I
1
I
.1
S
I
I
I
,
I
•.lJ
.c . .c • • .. t.
-------
24
The collection/haul approach best suited for the Mt. Washington
Valley Area waste stream would be based on some conbination of the
following collection and haul transport vehicle systems:
• System 1 — Direct pickup of municipal waste by the existing
franchised haulers in the region.
• System 2 — Small boxes (8 cu. yd.) serviced by 36 cu. yd.
front—end loader packer trucks. Waste may be dumped into
these boxes either through top or side doors.
• System 3 — A combination of 40 cu. yd. rectangular roll—off
type boxes and 42 cu. yd. compaction roll—off containers with
hopper—fed compactor units which increase capacity approxi-
mately four fold. Both types of containers are serviced by a
tilt—frame transport vehicle.
Lt should be noted that there are many variations of these systems
available. The approaches selected by Gordian are representative and
provide reasonable estimates of both cost and level of performance.
Gordian’s approach to evaluating the collection and haul system
was based upon developing a practical system that is compatible with
known local conditions and the waste quantity and distribution
estimates developed earlier. The details of the calculations and
assumptions required to develop each system are fully presented in
Appendix B; a discussion of the general procedure follows.
In reviewing the available alternatives to direct haul by the
local private haulers 1 the first step was to determine the number of
container loads for each system needed at each transfer site in order
to accoodate the seasonal peaks in daily waste generation. Next 1 the
mileages from each transfer site to the regional facility were
computed. Using this information 1 the time required to service the
respective systems could be developed 1 enabling the computation of
estimated collection route size capital costs and operating costs.
This general procedure was followed for the different seasons and then
combined to derive annual totals.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
25
Based on the initial results of these calculations, several
alternative collection/haul systems were found to be compatible with
the projected solid waste generation conditions. A suary of these
systems’ costs ia presented in Table 3—1. A more detailed explanation
of the design and cost considerations for each system is presented in
Appendix B.
Discussion of Alternatives
Cost is only one of many elements which should be considered in
selecting a solid waste management system. With this in mind, the
following discussion addresses some of the more salient points for
comparing the systems:
System 1 : This approach accommodates the waste concentrations of
the towns by employing private contractor pickups within the
coimnunities. The advantage of this approach is taht no capial
would be required for the collection system.
System 2 : This option was evaluated to determine of there were
any cost savings from employing small (8 cu. yd.) container
transfer stations at the more rural sites. These large capacity
hauling vehicles allow for route flexibility and small area
transfer depots.
A 36 cu. yd. capacity transport vehicle was selected for
evaluation because its mobility and load capacity make it suitable
for the rural conditions of the area. One significant advantage
of this system is its low site—preparation costs and minimum labor
costs, since the system requires only one driver per vehicle.
The flexibility afforded by the mobility of the boxes is also a
plus where the fluctuation of waste generation is a factor. The
transfer station itself would require relatively little site
preparation—simply grading and gravelling an area large enough
for the trucks to maneuver in and enclosing the site with fencing
should be sufficient. For this report, Gordian has assumed that
ramps to facilitate the dumping of waste would not be considered,
thus keeping costs to a minimum. Note, however, that more
elaborate transfer stations are possible based on this same
container/vehicle approach.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE COLLECTION SYSTEM COSTS
(1980)
SYSTEM 3
SYSTEM 1
PRIVATE COLLECTION
SYSTEM 2
8 C.T. P.LL. CONTAINERS 2
40 C.T. 0.R.O.
CONTAINERS
AND 42 C.Y.
COMPACTION ROLL Off
CONTAINERS 2
SOLID WASTE GENERATION
in 1980 (Tons)
Coat/Ten Syatem Coat
Coat/Ton
System Coat
Coat/Ton
System Cost
1 Includes collection of all municipally generated waite.
2 Does not Include the incremental costs of Individuals that transport their trash to containers on a weekly basis. Assuming
an average distance of two miles from a living unit to an 8 C.Y. container, average tranaportation costs of $.20/.ile, and
a total of 2,371 living unite, weekly costs for individual transport of waste to containers would be calculated as follows;
2 (2 miLes) ($.20) 2371 $1,896.80/week. On an annual baste, the total additional coat of individual hauling to containers
would be: (52 weeks) (1,896.80) — $98,634/year. Adding this cost to the annual cost of the 8 C.t. F.E.L. containers
aystem would increase the annual Cost of this system to $181,970 or $28.87/ton. Adding the incremental costs of individuals
hauling trash to a roll off container system would increase the annual cost of this system to $188,542 or $29.91 per ton.
The Incremental costs of individual hauling of trash to a boz or container needs further consideration in order to properly
evaluate the real” costs of each collection/haul system.
4)
0
I
Albany
599
$34.23
$ 20,502
$13.22
$7,919
$14.26
9 8,540
iart lett
3,491
$34.23
$119,484
$13.22
$46,150
$14.26
$49,780
Eaton
270
$34.23
$ 9,241
$13.22
$ 3,569
$14.26
$ 3,850
Harts Location
92
$34.23
$ 3,148
$13.22
$ 1,217
$14.26
$ 1,310
Jackson
1,852
$34.23
$ 63,386
$13.22
$24,482
$14.26
$26,410
TOTAL
6,304
$34.23 $215,761
$13.22 $83,336
$14.26 $89,890
0
-------
27
The major disadvantages include the system’s inability to accept
bulky or oversized wastes, relative inconvenience for the indi-
vidual user, and high site maintenance and cleanup costs. Also,
where large quantities of waste are generated, the high number
of boxes required at one site may be viewed as impractical.
System 3 : The analysis of this system showed that the roll—off
containers at the medium sized towns are more economical than
compaction boxes. However, the annual costs are not as low as
those costs for System 2 and the capital costs are the highest of
any option. This is due primarily to the costs of purchasing
two different kinds of collection equipment.
The 40 cu. yd. roll—off boxes would have springloaded lids to aid
in lifting off the covers before disposing of the waste. More
initial site preparation is required for this approach since a
ramp needs to be constructed so that waste can be dumped from a
surface more level with the top of the container. The containers
themselves should rest upon a concrete pad, and both the ramped
dump area and the truck maneuvering area should be graded and
gravelled. Pram several roughly equivalent site configurations,
Cordian selected the “Z” site as representative for costing pur-
poses. Also, a variety of containers with differing capacities
are available, but again, the 40 cu. yd. size has been selected
due to its general compatibility with the area’s rural
transportation conditions. The advantages of this approach lie
in its ability to accept all types of waste, the relative ease of
usage afforded by the ramp, and the practicality of the number
of boxes required for sites with high waste concentrations. The
disadvantages pertain to the high site preparation costs and
corresondingly high capital requirements. Operational costs
remain comparatively low since, again, one driver per vehicle can
effectively operate the system.
The 42 c i i. yd. compaction roll—off container alternative usually
operates with two boxes serviced by one centrally—located compac-
tor. The site has an approach ramp to facilitate access to the
feeding hopper and the compactor unit evaluated in this report
requires an operator to activate the compaction mechanism. The
presence of an operator and an electrically—powered piece of
machinery necessitate a simple prefabricated metal building for
shelter. This system was included in the analysis because of its
appropriateness for sites receiving large daily quantities of
waste which the largest towns experience in the summer months.
Therefore, the advantage of such a compactor site lies in its re-
duction of both the number of boxes needed and the number of
round trips to the central disposal facility. Those savings tend
to be offset by the increased costs of the building and
electrical hook—up, and, especially, by the labor costs for
compactor operators.
Gorchan Associates Incorpnrated
-------
28
Note that for Systems 2 and 3 additional transfer sites are
designed for the container approaches (either roll—off or 8 cu.
and are included as part of the over—all system. Also 1 where small
transfer sites are present 1 each site will have an appropriately—sized
container designated specifically for oversized items and brush wastes.
It may be desirable to enact ordinances specifying the acceptable size
of brush bundles and establishing limited hours of collection and to
include chipping prior to disposal of such special wastes in order to
simplify collection and disposal.
No attempt is made in this report to identify or recoend a pre-
ferred collection system alternative. The relative merits of the
respective container/vehicle approaches have been discussed and the
estimated capital and operating costs of the most viable system
options have been presented. Each individual town’s share of the cost
of such a system will be discussed in a later section. The informa-
tion developed here is) as stated at the outset, intended as input data
to the preliminary decision-making process.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
29
CHAPTER 4
REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
As indicated in the report prepared in November 1979 by EE l, three
basic solid waste disposal options exist for Mount Washington Valley:
1. Incineration
2. Incineration with energy recovery
3. Sanitary Landfill
The technical and economic feasibility of both incineration and incin-
eration with energy recovery will be reviewed in this chapter of the
report.
The EE l report indicates that incineration in Mount Washington
Vallej will require the use of modular units. This is indeed the case
due to the low volume of refuse generated and the tremendous variabili-
ty on a seasonal basis. The large, mass burning waterwall type incin-
erators are not cost effective in this particular application when com-
pared with the smaller, modular package (factory assembled) units.
In order to select the size units required for such a modular
facility) the amount of waste to be disposed of must be examined.
Since the projected waste generation rates in the Mount Washington Val-
ley vary widely on a monthly basis (as discussed in Chapters 1 and 2)
it is necessary to review the daily waste quantities on a different
basis in an attempt to develop a more uniform quantity for processing.
Table 4—1 presents the composite waste generation data for the
entire study area. Upon reviewing the annual average daily waste
generation rate on a 5 day per week basis) it was found that 8 months
of the year fall below that average while 4 are above average. This is
true for all the projected years 1980 through 2005 since similar growth
rates and monthly variations were assumed over the project life. For
example, for 1980) on a 5 day per week basis) the daily average waste
generation rate is 15 tons per day. June through September are above
this average) while October through May are below this average. In
order to reduce the daily average waste quantities available for
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE 4-1
PROJECTED MONTHLY WASTE QUANTITIES
AVAILABLE FOR PROCESSING (tons)
MONTH
( ) ANNUAL
YEAR Jan. Feb . Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec . TOTAL
1980 1,360 1,240 1,163 1,068 1,246 2,106 2,691 2,695 2,112 1,399 1,066 1,291 19,437
1985 1,498 1,364 1,281 1,176 1,373 2,320 2,961 2,967 2,327 1,546 1,175 1,423 21,411
1990 1,598 1,460 1,364 1,254 1,464 2,471 3,158 3,161 2,479 1,648 1,252 1,518 22,827
U)
1995 1,780 1,532 1,436 1,317 1,541 2,598 3,319 3,323 2,606 1,733 1,316 1,597 23,998
2000 1,758 1,602 1,527 1,377 1,611 2,716 3,469 3,474 2,724 1,812 1,376 1,671 25,117
a 2005 1,937 1,672 1,569 1,436 1,681 3,832 3,617 3,622 2,842 1,892 1,440 1,744 26,184
0
-------
31
processing during June through September, it was decided to examine
those months on a 6 and 7 day per week basis. The two maximi.un genera-
tion months, July and August, were considered on a 7 day per week
basis 1 while June and September were considered on a 6 day per week
basis. Table 4—2 summarizes the daily average waste quantities
available for processing on a monthly basis when considering October
through May on a 5 day per week basis, June and September on a 6 day
per week basis and July and August on a 7 day per week basis.
Using 1980 as a base year, the minimum waste to be processed on a
daily basis is 51 tons while the maximum is 87 tons. As can be noted
from Table 4—2, these minimum and maximum rates will increase annually.
In the year 2005, they are estimated to be 68 and 117 tons per day
respectively.
In order to allow for system operating flexibility and to minimize
maintenance on an overtime basis, it was decided to examine the use of
multiple units. With 3 modular units handling this capacity, it proved
less costly than the use of 4 smaller units, but slightly more expen-
sive than 2 larger units. However, the flexibility and redundancy af-
forded appear to offset this cost. The total installed capacity of the
system, in order to handle the projected waste generation during the
next 10 years (as shown in Table 4—2) must be approximately 105 tons
per day. Hence, if three units are to be utilized they must each be
capable of handling approximately 35 tons per day. This capacity falls
within the capabilities of modular units such as the Consumat Model
1600 or the Basic Model 1500.
With units of thts capacity, only 2 of the 3 units will be re-
quired to operate during 8 months of the year, while all 3 will be
required during the remaining 4 months of the year. During 8 months of
the year (October through May), one back up unit will be available at
- a-1l times. This allows maintenance to be done during normal working
hours. During the remaining 4 months (June through September), in the
event that 1 unit goes down for any reason, only 1/3 capacity is lost
while if 2 units were installed, 1/2 of the capacity would be lost.
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE 4—2
PROJECTED DAILY WASTE QUANTITIES
AVAILABLE FOR PROCESSING (tons)
MONTH
YEAR
J
F
H
A
H
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
1980
65
59
55
51
59
81
87
87
81
67
51
61
çj
1985
71
65
61
56
65
89
96
96
90
74
56
68
0
-
1990
1995
76
80
70
73
65
68
60
63
70
73
95
100
102
107
102
107
95
100
78
83
60
63
72
76
g
2000
84
76
73
66
77
104
112
112
105
86
66
80
2005
NOTE:
87
80
75
68
80
109
117
117
109
90
69
83
January thru May — 5 days/week (21 days per month)
June and September — 6 days/week (26 days per month)
July and August — 7 days/week (31 days per month)
October through December — 5 days/week (21 days per month)
-------
33
During the months of June and September 1 in the event of temporary out—
tage of one unit, waste processing can be completed by operating 7 days
rather than 6 days per week. However, during the months of July and
August, the prolonged outtage of one unit would necessitate the land—
filling of a portion of the waste.
Beginning in 1995 the waste stream is expected to exceed the
design capacity for the proposed system during the peak s er months.
Several optons are available to handle this additional waste. Because
the system capacity is exceeded for only two months a year. the extra
refuse can be sent directly to the landfill. The advantage of this
option is that it would not require any capital investment. However,
it would decrease the life of the existing landfill. Alternatively, a
fourth, incinerator and boiler can be purchased and installed. Not only
would this insure the adequacy of the system capacity to handle the
projected tonnage, but it would also provide spare capacity during the
rest of the year. As mentioned earlier, the facility is assumed to
operate 24 hours/day, seven days/week during the su er , so that
without the additional unit any extended downtime would necessitate
that the refuse be landfilled. The financing of a fourth incinerator
unit and boiler should probably be delayed until the unit is needed.
Conditions in 1995 may dictate that some other course of action is
necessary. Also, the proven operating experience of the facility may
reduce the risk to potential bondholders which could result in a lover
interest rate, assuming that GO bonds are not used. The money could be
raised with the original bond issue and invested in interest bearing
securities but it would be ineligible for tax free status to the bond-
holder. The resulting higher interest rate could not reasonably be
expected to be offset by the interest bearing investments.
If the additional incinerator option is chosen, the facility
building ahould be designed so that enough space is reserved to accomo—
datë tliè extra unff. Tiiis space could be used for storage until it is
needed. System redundancy is a major selling point of the modular
incinerator concept and is important to the reliability of any high
technology solid waste disposal facility.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
34
When operating a modular incineration system, the removal of
oversized bulky waste (OBW) prior to processing the refuse is required.
If not accomplished at the source, this can be done on the tipping
floor by the frontend loader feeding the units. OBW can be pushed
aside for removal to a scrap processor for metal recovery or for dis-
posal in sanitary landfill.
Residue produced from the incineration of waste must be disposed
of in a sanitary landfill. The organic content of the residue is gen-
erally low (estimated to be less than 10 percent by weight) however,
heavy metals are also present and together these cons titutents make the
residue subject to leaching, hence sanitary landfill disposal is re-
quired. Due to the moisture content of the residue, the total weight
of residue will be of the order of 40 percent of the total waste input,
but only 5 percent by volume.
Air emissions must be considered when evaluating the installation
of any type of incineration facility. Experience with modular incin-
erators shows that they have a difficult time meeting the Federal
regulations for particulates which specify 0.08 grains per standard
cubic foot. Although this requirement is for larger incineration
facilities than being evaluated herein (individual units with over 50
tpd capacity or a total plant capacity of 250 tpd), it is deemed
appropriate to consider a facility which will definitely meet the
regulations and actually produce lower emissions. Considering the
recreational nature of the area and the fact that environmental regu-
lations will surely become more stringent during the next 20 years, it
is appropriate to plan accordingly. Hence this evaluation includes the
use of air pollution control equipment beyond the afterburner which is
an inherent part of modular incinerators.
When considering the location of an incineration facility in the
Mount Washington Valley, as no market for steem is available, the
logical location is the Redstone Landfill Site located in Conway. The
landfill site is close to the region’s major population center and
hence the major waste generation center. The existing building may be
used with appropriate modifications and additions. The present land-
fill may also be suitable for disposal of incinerator residue depending
on state permitting procedures. Also, on—site disposal of OBW may be
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
35
accomplished, and backup disposal in the event of extended equipment
outtage during the suer months may be provided.
On the basis of installing 3 modular incinerators to dispose of
the refuse on a 24 hours per day basis) the capital and operating cost
estimates of the incineration system has been developed for 1980 (the
base year). This analysis does not include the cost of waste collec-
tion or delivery to the facility. Table 4—3 is the Capital Coat Esti-
mate 1 while Table 4—4 is the Operating Cost Estimate for incineration
without energy recovery. Note that for the year 1980, the total coat
of waste disposal by incineration is estimated to be $40.36 per ton.
Taking into account operating cost increases due to inflation, the per
ton cost of incineration has been projected for the years 1985 and
1990. These analyses are indicated in Table 4—5. Note that the cost
of disposal continually increases.
Incineration with Energy Recovery
The incineration of solid waste can generate energy in the form of
steam or electricity. The choice depends upon the available markets to
purchase each type of energy and the technical feasibility of the
recovery technologies. Steam generation is the more popular option.
The majority of modular incinerator facilities now operating or in
planning produce steam and sell it to nearby industrial companies.
Gordian Associates questioned the potential steam markets in the Mt.
Washington Valley area; the responses were either negative, or the
types of steam required were not compatible with the steam produced in
the modular incinerator facility. The sale of steam was therefore
eleiminated as a viable option. Electricity generated by small power
producers can always be sold to electric utility companies. Under the
provisions of the Limited Electrical Energy Producers Act (LEEPA) and
the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA). utilities are
obligated. to=-buy---energy—from- small power - producefa at rates determined
by the Public Utility Commission. Chapter 5 examines the provisions of
these laws in detail.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
36
TABLE 4—3
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
INC INERAT ION WITHOUT ENERGY RECOVERY
(Base Year — 1980)
Installed capacity
Number of Unite
Processing Capacity per unit
Initial Estimated Waste Generation Rate
a. Incinerators 1
b. Air Pollution Control Equipment 2
c. Building Modifications 3
d. Scale 4
e. Front End Loader
f. Dump Truck(s)
g. Indirect Costs 5
100 tons per 24 hours day
3 Modular Incinerators
33—36 tons per 24 hour day
19,437 tons (1980)
$ 1,100,000
280,000
360,000
50,000
40,000
40,000
281 .000
h. •Subtotal
i. Contingency 6
$ 2,151,000
323 000
Total (Base Year — 1980)
$ 2,474,000
Escalation to Bid 1/82 @ 12%
297 .000
Total (Start—up Year 1/84)
$ 2,771,000
Notes
1 Incinerators include the cost of a cooling system to assure that
the off—gases are of low enough temperature to be fed into an air
pollution control system.
2 Air pollution control system is one granular bed electrostatic
type unit. Inlet gas temperature is to be 600—700°F.
3 Building modifications to existing building are estimated at
12,000 square feet @ $30 per square foot.
4 Scale includes basic unit with manual record keeping by a scale
operator. No electronic billing or record keeping syst is
included.
5 Indirect costs are estimated to be 15 percent of the total
system costs. These include engineering, legal and financial
services fees.
6 Contingency is estimated as 15 percent of the total facility cost
estimate. It is believed that this contingency contains sufficient
allowance to make this estimate current through calendar 1980.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
37
Personnel
TABLE 4 -4
ANNUAL AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATE
INCINERATION WITHOUT ENERGY RECOVERY
(Base Year — 1980)
Job Description
Superintendent
Foreman
Equi xnent Operator
Maintenance Personnel
Vehicle Operator
Scale Operator
Office Assistant
Salary ’
1 $ 21,000
3 18,000
3 15,200
2 15,750
1 15,200
1 14,600
9,000
Personnel Subtotal
Fringe Benefits @ 30%
Overtime Allowance 2
Total
$ 21,000
54,000
45,600
31,500
15,200
14,600
9,000
$190,900
57,300
32.100
Personnel Total
Maintenance 3
Utilities 4
Auxiliary & Equipment Fuel 5
Miscellaneous Costs 6
Residue Disposal 7
Total Operating Costs 8
Amortization 9
Total Annual Cost (Base Year — 1980)
Disposal Cost $784,400 $40.36 per ton 1980
19,437 tons
$ 280,300
45,400
38,400
53,200
14,000
62,200
$ 493,800
290,600
$ 784,400
Notes
1 Salaries are based on Bridgeport, CT Resource Recovery Facility
rates adjusted to reflect the difference between wages in
Bridgeport, CT and the Manchester, NH—Lewiston, ME Region as
reported by the Robert Snow Means, Company.
2 Overtime Allowances have been determined on the basis of operating
a total of 20 Saturdays during June through September and a total of
10 Sundays during July- and kugust Satffrday rates are based on 1
1/2 times base and Sundays 2 times base. Personnel affected by
overtime include foremen, equipment operators, inaintenace personnel,
vehicle operator and scale operator.
3 Maintenance has been determined on the basis of $2.35 per ton,
since there is no energy recovery and hence less equipment.
Gord an Associates Incorporated
-------
38
TABLE 4..4 (continued)
4 Utilities have been estimated based on 30 kwh per ton @ 61 per
kwh. In addition, an allowance of $3,400 for water and sewer has
been included.
5 Auxiliary & Equipment Fuel has been estimated on the basis of
300,000 BTU per ton of refuse. On this basis 36,500 gallons of No.
2 Fuel oil is required @ $1 per gallon. In addition, front end
loader and equipment fuel is estimated to be $11,500 per year.
6 l4iscellaneoue costs include office expenses such as telephone,
copier, postage, etc. as well as insurance on equipment, etc.
7 Residue Disposal has been determined based on 60 percent weight
reduction of the input refuse at $8 per ton of residue.
8 General : The operating costs indicated for the base year
calculations will be escalated 7 percent per year to determine
future years’ operating costs. Additionally, capacity related
operating cost items such as power, maintenace, etc. will also be
increased to reflect increased tonnage impacts on annual operating
costs.
9 Amortization is based on a 20 year life, 100 percent debt at 10
percent. Hence, a factor of 0.11746 has been utilized.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
39
TAJLE 4.,.5
PROJECTED ANNUAL COSTS
1980 — 1990
INC INERATION WITHOUT ENERGY RECOVERY
1980
Total Operating Costs $ 493,800
Amortization 290,600
Total Annual Cost $ 784,400
Disposal Cost — $784,400 = $40.36 ton
19,437 tons
1985
Total Operating Costs $ 718,500
Amortization 325,5001
Total Annual Cost $1,044,000
Disposal Cost — $1,044,000 $48.76 per ton
21,411 tons
1990
Total Operating Costs $1,034,600
Amortization 325,5001
Total Annual Cost $1,360,100
Disposal Cost — $1,360,100 = $59.58 per ton
22,827 tons
Note
1 Amortization cost reflects potential bid date escalation to 1/82.
Gordian Associates Incc rporated
-------
Some questions remain as to the technical feasibility of elec-
trical generation. No facility has been constructed to date for the
generation of electricity through the use of superheated steam from
municipal solid waste burning modular incinerators. However, several
manufacturers have designed modular incineration systems for super—
heated steam production and at least one municipality is planning a 200
TPD MSW to electricity plant via modular incinerators. Technology for
the production of steam from MSW and the generation of electric power
from superheated steam have been technically and economically demon-
strated independently of each other. These two processes have not been
integrated and constructed on a small scale using modular incinerators.
Since steam is typically a readily salable form of energy for indus-
trial .and coercial use, modular incinerators have usually been
conveniently located near steam users, thus obviating the need to
create electricity for energy transmission to distant users. This)
however) is not the ease in the Mt. Washington Valley and in several
other locations throughout the country now considering such modular
incineration projects.
The 100 TPD modular incineration facility (with steam output of
600°F and 600 psig prior to the steam turbine) as proposed, will be
compared to several successful and pending solid waste—to—energy
projects. It is to be hoped that the reader will realize that,
although a municipal solid waste to electricity project via modular
incineration is not presently operating, the techniques for the
facility under study are proven and the individual components are
properly functioning throughout the U.S. Additionally, there are
several similar projects pending in the U.S. and equipment suppliers
have been developing designs and have expressed interest in providing
the incineratorsu2, turbine generators and necessary related
equipment for the proposed Mt. Washington Facility as well as other
similar projects.
1 Private communication with Bill Wiley, Chief Engineer, Consumat
Systems, Inc., Richmond, Virginia.
2 Private communication with Reynaldo C. Familar, Basic Environ-
mental Engineering, Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
The Nashville) Tennessee MSW incinerator LB generating super—
heated steam at 400 psig, 600°F from MSW. This is a 400 TPD mass
burning incineration facility and not a modular incinerator. Most
manufacturers utilize experience at Nashville in their design consider-
ations. Although problems with superheater life at Nashville have been
experienced 1 improvements made at the facility are believed to have
substantially improved their life. Nashville is considered to be
successful installation 3 . It is generally agreed throughout the
waste—to—energy industry in the U.S. that for the most efficient energy
recovery operation without excessive maintenance, the operation should
not exceed 600 psig, 750°F superheated steam 45 . The proposed Mt.
Washington Valley facility has been conservatively proposed for 600
psig, p00°F superheated steam.
The Tillotson Rubber Company, Dixville Notch, NH, in conjunction
with the Wilderness Ski Area, is burning wood to cogenerate electri-
city and steam with a 1 megawatt extraction turbine generator. This is
not exactly the same type of generator to be used at the Mt. Wash-
ington Valley facility, but its capacity (1MW) is in the range of
expected electricity output (1.25MW). It is operating successfully to
generate steam and electricity when required 6 .
A manufacturing plant in New Jersey is presently considering a
proposal to incinerate plant wastes for cogeneration in a 10 million
BTU/hour modular incinerator system. The low pressure steam (150 psig)
Kirkpatrick, M.W., “Update on Nashville Thermal,” Proceedings of
the 1980 National Waste Processing Conference , ASML, New York, New
York, pp. 453—462.
‘ Rochford, R.S. and Witkowski, S.J., “Considerations in the Design
of a Shredder Municipal Refuse Burning and Heat Recovery System,”
Proceedings of the 1978 National Waste Processing Conference , ASZIE,
New York, New York, 1978, pp. 45—56.
Stabenow , C., “Design Criteria to Achieve Industrial Power Plant
Reliability in Solid Waste Processing Plants with Energy Recovery,”
Proceedings of the 1978 National Waste Conference , ASMZ, New York,
New York, 1978, pp. 427—441.
6 Personal communication, Roger Michalouski, Thermo—Electron Corp.,
Waltham, Ma October 7, 1980.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
42
will be used for plant demands and to power a Coppus steam turbine for
electricity production. The proposed incinerators will have a combined
capacity of approximately one—third that of Mt. Washington Valley and
will produce low pressure rather than superheated steam. A complete
waste—to—energy (electricity) system will be supplied if the proposal
is accepted 7 .
A municipality 1 Berkeley, CA, has proposed a 200 TPD MSW cogen—
eration facility, designed to produce 600 psig, 550°F superheated steam
for industrial use and for electric power generation. The facility, as
proposed, will utilize four modular incinerators to produce superheated
steam which will drive an extraction condensing turbine to produce
electrical power, while allowing for 150 psig steam to be extracted for
sale to a nearby industry. However, because the industry has a steam
demand only 5 days per week, and the MSW facility will operate 7 days
per week at times, all the steam produced will be converted into elec-
tric power for sale to the local utility, Pacific Gas and Electric.
As at Mt. Washington Valley, steam production at Berkeley is ex-
pected to vary somewhat due to waste quantities and heat value of the
waste. As a result it is important to be assured that the turbine can
handle variable loads. Review of the situation with several turbine
manufacturers indicates that load reduction of up to 50 percent of
design capacity will not have a substantial effect on the turbine
operation. However, the governors and control system must be speci-
fied appropriately at the time of purchase. It is likely that the load
will range between 50 to 100 percent of capacity at the proposed Mt.
Washington Valley Facility.
Two modular incinerator manufacturers have stated that they would
be willing to bid on and provide all equipment necessary to incinerate
the 100 TPD of municipal solid waste in modular incinerators and pro-
duce 600 psig, 600°F auperheated steam for the proposed Mt. Washington
7 Personal Communication, Ray Butler, Brule Incinerators, Blue
Island, Illinois, October 7, 1980.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
43
Valley Project 89 . The superheated steam can be used to power a
turbine generator for the production of electricity without any design
obstacles; economics of the system will be the deciding factor 1 °.
A firm experienced in electricity generation from waste and waste heat
is willing to engineer and provide all equipment necessary to generate
electricity according to PSNH requirements from 600 psig, 600°F steam
provided by the modular incinerators 11 .
The technology for production of electricity from municipal solid
waste on a larger scale is proven and 1 due to expanding interest in
smaller systems) will probably evolve into a complete package utiliz-
ing modular incinerators. Several equipment manufacturers have in-
dicated a willingness to bid on and provide the components required for
electricity generation for Mt. Washington Valley as well as the City of
Berkeley. They foresee minimal technical problems in interfacing their
equipment to satisfy small scale waste—to—electricity requirements.
Incineration with energy recovery in the form of electrical power
generation can also be accomplished with the 3 modular incinerators
with two energy recovery modules. The existing landfill site and
existing building could be utilized for this installation with some
additions and modifications. The addition of waste heat boilers
including superheaters and economizers will result in the production of
steam which can be used to power a turbine generator. Under orders
issued by the New Hampshire Public Utility Coi ission the resulting
electrical power would be purchased by Public Service of New
Hampshire.
8 Personal communication, Reynaldo C. Familar, ibid.
9 Personal communication, Mr. Simon, Brule Incinerators, Blue
Island, Illinois, October 1, 1980.
10 Personal communication, Lawrence Doucet, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.,
White Plains, New York, October 7, 1980.
11 Personal communication, Roger Xicahlowski, ibid.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
44
These modules would be designed to produce superheated steam at
600°F, 600 p81g. Several manufacturers, including Consumat Systems,
Inc. and Basic Environmental Engineers are willing to market such
systems. An economizer would be installed, hence overall energy
recovery efficiency of the incinerators and boilers could be on the
order of 65 percent.
Steam generation could range from a minimum of 9,000 pounds per
hour to a maximum of about 20)000 pounds per hour during the life of
the facility and depending upon the season of the year. A turbine
generator designed with a capacity of approximately 1250 kWwould be
required. Discussions were held with several manufacturers who claim
that a single unit could be used to handle this load with the variation
in steam loads. However, the overall turbine, gear and generator eff 1—
ciency would vary from 50 to 70 percent depending on the steam load.
Since no market is available for the waste by product steam, a
condenser would be included in the system. In order to sell the
electrical power to Public Service of New Hampshire a transformer will
have to be installed. Discussions with the utility indicate that
existing power lines are available to the site which could be utilized,
hence no major new transmission lines would be required. For reference
it is interesting to note that the peak electrical demand in the Mt.
Washington Valley area which would be served by the 1.25MW modular
system as outlined is 50 MW. This peak occurs in the winter and is
approximately double that of the summer.
Gc,rthan Associates Incorporated
-------
45
Based on the operational schedule as indicated previously) a
detailed capital cost analysis for this option is included in Table 4—6
while an annual and operating cost analysis for the 1980 base year is
included in Table 4—7.
Taking into account operating increases due
to inflation and increased waste tonnage, the per ton cost for incin-
eration with electrical power generation has been projected for the
years 1985 through 1995 in Table 4—8.
A great deal of uncertainty surrounds the rate which this facility
might receive from the electric utility for its electricity.
The current rate of 7.74/kwh was set in June) 1980 by the N.H. Public
Utility Commission (PUC). This rate more than doubles the incremental
cost estimated by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire in April)
1980. The discrepancy in estimated costs may result in a decrease in
the rate received by small power producers. The addition of the Sea—
brook nuclear power plant to New Hampshire’s generating capacity is
expected further to decrease the incremental cost, putting more
pressure on the PUC to lower the rate. A reduction in the rate below
7.7$/kwh would obviously have an adverse effect on the economics of the
proposed facility. However, depending upon how far along the project
is when the rate is changed (if it is changed at all)) the facility may
be “grandfathered” and still receive the 7.74/kwh. This issue is
important and the Mt. Washington Valley Solid Waste Committee should
keep abreast of what the PUC plans to do.
Neither the PUC nor the Public Service Company spokesman indicated
that the rate would exceed the current rate of 7.74/kwh during the next
10 years. As a result this study is based on the assumption that the
facility will be eligible for the 7.7$/kwh rate and that this rate will
apply through 1990. The rate is increased slightly to 84/kwh for the
1995 projection.
These electricity revenues generate a net surplus during the early
years of the project. As the costs escalate while the revenues remain
constant, the surplus becomes a cost, which increases to over $75/ton
by 1995.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
46
TABLE 4-6
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
INCINERATION WITH ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION
(Base Year — 1980)
Installed capacity
Number of Units
Processing Capacity per unit
Initial Estimated Waste Generation Rate
a. Incinerators’ $
b. Turbine Generator and Electrical Switchgear 2
c. Air Pollution Control Equipment 3
d. Building Modifications 4
e. Scale
f. Front End Loader
g. Dump Truck(s)
h. Indirect Costs 5 —
2,300,000
800,000
280,000
360,000
50,000
40,000
40,000
580 .000
i. Subtotal
j. Contingency 6
$ 4,450,000
668 .000
Total (Base Year — 1980)
$ 5,118,000
Escalation to Bid 1/82 @ 12%
614.000
Notes
Total (Start—up Year 1184)
$ 5,732,000
1 Incinerators include the cost of 2 energy recovery units designed
to produce superheated steam for electricity production. In
addition, the cost includes boiler feedwater preparation equipment.
2 Cost includes one turbine generator (1,500 kv) package complete
with condenser and necessary switchgear. Also, the cost of the
substation required by Public Service of New Hampshire is included.
3 Air pollution control system is one granular bed electrostatic
type unit (same as indicated in estimate for incineration without
energy recovery).
4 Building modifications are based on the addition of 12,000 square
feet @ $30 per square foot.
5 Indirect costs are estimated at 15 percent of the total system
cost. These include engineering, legal and financial service fees.
6 Contingency is estimated to be 15 percent of the total facility
cost. This allowance should keep the estimate current through
calendar 1980.
100 tons per 24 hours day
3 Modular Incinerators
33—36 tons per 24 hour day
19,437 tons (1980)
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
47
Personnel
TABLE 4—7
ANNUAL AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATE
INC INERATION WITH ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION
(Base Year — 1980)
Superintendent
Foreman/Boiler Operator
Equipuent Operator
Maintenance Personnel
Maintenance Helper
Vehicle Operator
Scale Operator
Office Assistant
$ 21,000
20,000
15.200
15,750
10,250
15,200
14,600
___ 91000
Personnel Subtotal
Fringe Benefits @ 30%
Overtime Allowance
$ 21,000
60,000
45,600
47,250
10,250
15,200
14,600
9,000
$222,700
66,800
39 .000
Personnel Total’
Maintenance 2
Utilities 3
Auxiliary & Equipment Fuel
Miscellaneous Costs
Residue Disposal
Total Operating Costs 4
Amortization 5
Total Annual Cost (Base Year — 1980)
Less Electricity Revenue 6
Net Annual Cost (Base Year — 1980)
Net Disposal Costa $ 629,100
19,437 tons
Notes
$ 328,500
116,600
48,100
53,200
18,000
62,200
$ 626,600
601. 200
$1,227,800
- 598,700
$ 629,100
1 Personnel requirement is similar as for incinerator without energy
recovery, except additional maintenance personnel (electrician and
helper) have been added along with upgrading of the foreman’s
position to include boiler/electrical operations responsibilities.
2 Maintenance has been determined based on $6 per ton, since
superheated steam will be produced.
Job Description
Salary
Total
No.
1
3
3
3
I
1
1
1
14
= $ 32.37 per ton (1980)
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
48
tABLE 47(cont.)
Notes (cont. )
3 Utilities have been estimated based on 35 kWh per ton @ 6$ per
kwh. In addition, an allowance of $7,300 has been made for water
and sewer and boiler feedwater chemicals.
4 Amortization is based on a 20 year life, 100% debt at 10%. Hence
a factor of 0.11746 has been utilized.
General . The operating costs indicated for the base year,
calculations will be escalated at 7 percent per year to determine
future years operating costs. Additionally, capacity related
operating coat items such as power, maintenance, etc. will also be
increased to reflect increased tonnage impacts on annual operating
cQsts.
6 Electricity revenue is based on selling all electrical power
produced at 7.7c per kwh. This is the rate set on June 18, 1980 by
the N.H. Public Utility Commission for the sale of electricity from
email power producers to electric utility companies.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
49
TABLE 4-8
PROJECTED ANNUAL COSTS
1980 — 1990
INCINERATION WITh ENERGY RECOVERY
(ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION)
1980
Total Operating Costs
Amortization
Total Annual Cost
Less Electricity Revenue
Net Annual Cost
Net Disposal Cost $ 629,100
19,437 tons
1985
Total Operating Costs
Amortization
Total Annual Cost
Less Electricity Revenue
Net Annual Cost
Net Disposal Cost $929,400
21,411 tons
1990
Total Operating Costs
Amortization
Total Annual Cost
Less Electricity Revenue
Net Annual Cost
Net Disposal Cost $1,292,600
22,827 tons
$ 626,600
601,200
$1,227,800
598,700
$ 629,100
= 32.37 per ton
$ 915,600
673,300
$1,588,900
659,500
$ 929,400
= $43.44 per ton
$1, 322,400
673,300
$1,995,700
703,100
$1,292,600
= 56.63 per ton
Gordian A3soclates Incorporated
-------
TABLE 4—8 (cant.)
PROJECTED ANNUAL COSTS
Notes
Operating Costs have been escalated 7 percent per year to determine
1985 and 1990 operating costs. In addition, the operating costs
have been increased to reflect the increased tonnage impact on
costs.
Electricity revenue has been determined based on 7.7c per kwh for
1980, 1985 and 1990. See text for explanation of these rates.
If costs continue to escalate at the rate of 7 percent per year to the
year 1995 and the price paid for electric power increases to Bc/kwh
in 1995, the Net Disposal Cost per ton would be:
Total Operating Costs $1,898,300
Amortization 673,300
Total Annual Cost $2,571,600
Less Electricity Revenue 767,900
Net Annual Cost $1,803,700
Net Disposal Cost s$ 93,7O0 75.16 per ton
23,998 tons
Gordian Assocates Incorporated
-------
51
At some point, conceivably well before 1995, the rate’ that this
facility would receive for electricity will begin to escalate at a rate
more in line with the cost escalation. At that time the net cost will
level off and possibly decline. The fact that energy costs have
increased faster than the general inflation rate in recent years would
indicate that the revenues from the proposed facilities will eventu-
ally outstrip the costs, producing a net surplus. However, the un-
certainty of energy prices makes it difficult to estimate what the
revenues might be in the future. This study includes estimates only up
through 1995.
Table 4—9 and 4—10 present the net costs for both proposed sys-
tems (with and without energy recovery) on a per capita basis and on
the basis of the impact these system costs will have on local tax
rates. Table 4—9 is based on the per capita generation rates in Table
2—2. The net disposal cost for each year is multiplied by the tons per
year generated by the inhabitants of each town. Table 4—10 is based on
data from the state t a 1979 Equalization Survey. The percentage of the
net annual cost or surplus attributable to each community is dependent
upon the percent of the total waste generated by each town. The cost
to each town is then divided by one—onethousandth of the town’s 1979
net local assessed valuation to determine the impact on the local tax
rate per $1000 assessed valuation.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
52
TABLE 4—9
PROJECTED AVERAGE ANNUAL DISPOSAL COST (SURPLUS) 1
DOLLARS PER CAPITA
WITHOUT ENERGY RECOVERY
1 Does Not include the transportation costs to the facility.
TOWN 1980 1990
Albany
Bartlett
Conway
Eaton
Harts Location
Jackson
Ossipee
$17.19
$24.55
$28.24
$15.96
$15.96
$24.55
$25.78
$20.76
$29.66
$34.11
$19.28
$19.28
$29.66
$31.15
$25.37
$36.24
$41.68
$23.56
$23.56
$36.24
$38.06
WITH ENERGY RECOVERY
TOWN 1980 1985 19 90
Albany
$ 13.77
$18.49
$24.11
Bartlett
$ 19.71
$26.44
$34.39
Conway
$ 22.62
$30.34
$39.58
Eaton
$ 12.18
$17.19
$22.43
harts Location
$ 12.82
$17.19
$22.43
Jackson
$ 19.71
$26.44
$34.39
Ossipee
$ 20.68
$27.74
$36.18
Gordan Associates Incorporated
-------
53
TABLE 4-10
IMPACT OF ANNUAL DISPOSAL COST (SURPLUS)
ON LOCAL TAX RATES IN 19801 2
(Change in tax rate per $1000 assessed valuation)
TOWN WITHOUT ENERGY RECOVERY WITH ENERGY RECOVERY
Albany + $7.00 + $5.61
Bartlett + $2.8]. + $2.26
Conway + $2.41 + $1.94
Eaton + $2.00 + $1.62
Harts Location + $2.50 + $1.99
Jackson + $4.69 + $3.77
Ossipee + $6.29 + $5.07
1 Distribution of annual costs among towns is based on percentage
of total waste generated by each conmiunity. Costs do not include
transportation.
2 Based on “1979 Equalization Survey, “Department of Revenue
Administration, Appraisal Division, State of New Hampshire
assessed valuations.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
54
CHAPTER 5
ELECTRIC GENERATION
If a community acted as the host town for the facility, or a group
of towns formed a district or a cooperative and in either case owned all
the equipment including the turbine generator, it would appear likely
that the Project would be viewed as delivering power to a public utility
and therefore deemed to be a public utility subject to jurisdiction and
regulation by the PUC, in the absence of exemption under PURPA.
DISCUSSION:
Incentives Under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act
1. Overview
The Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (“PURPA”)*
directed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to develop a set of
rules that would encourage cogeneration and small power production.
The rules fundamentally (i) provide that rates for sales of power by
facilities which meet PURPA’s qualification standards to electric util-
ities and rates for purchases of power from such utilities are at a
level that will encourage such production, and (ii) exempt such facili-
ties from utility—type regulation under the Federal Power Act Public
Utility Holding Company Act and specified aspects of State utility reg—
ulat ion.
Final rules implementing Sections 201 and 210 (Orders No. 69 and
70) were issued by FERC earlier this year.* The rules compel purchases
of power by an electric utility from a qualified facility at a rate
equal (with some adjustment) to what it otherwise would have cost the
utility to generate or purchase equivalent power, i.e., the utility’s
“avoided cost”. Such a rate probably is higher than that which the
Project previously could have secured through negotiation with the
* PURPA Section 201 provides for the definition of qualified congener—
ators and small power production facilities. PURPA Section 210 sets
forth the ratemaking and regulatory treatment which will be afforded.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
utility in the absence of the new rules or another state P.U.C. regu-
lation. In addition, a qualifying facility is affirmatively exempted
from State utility rate, financial and organizational regulation (un-
less the State regulatory authority applies for a waiver), which could
become relevant if the project is the first within the State of New
Hampshire PUC jurisdiction.
2. Definition and Qualification of Facilities
Depending upon Project configuration, the facility might be deter-
mined to be a qualifying small power production facility. A qualifying
small power production facility must meet three basic requirements: (1)
the maximum power production capacity may not exceed 80 megawatts; (ii)
75 % of total energy input must be derived from a qualifying fuel, and
(iiO the equity interest by one or more electric utilities may not
exceed 50%. The preamble to FERC Order No. 70 defining a “qualifying
facility” indicates that a municipal solid waste facility that produces
electricity is a facility whose primary energy input is “biomass”,
which is a qualifying fuel under the rules.*** Thus, in this respect,
the resource recovery facility in this Project would appeal likely to
meet the criteria of a “qualifying small power production facility”,
and therefore, be eligible for the benefits.
* FERC Order 59, 45 Fed. Reg . 12214 (February 25, 1980); FERC Order
70, 45 17959 (March 20, 1980).
** This term would appear to include ininicipally—owned as well as in-
vestor—owned electric utilities.
fl 45 fl4 e . 17960. Under the rules “biomass” means any organic
material not derived from fossil fuels. A fuel (for example, MSW),
that is at least 50% biomass by volume is deemed to be biomass for
the purposes of the rule. “Waste”, the use of which is also to be
encouraged, means by-product material other than biomass and in-
cludes petroleum—derived plastics. Thus, even if 50 % of the MSW
were not “biomass”, undoubtedly at least 75% of the total energy
input of the plant would be from °biomass” and “waste” taken to-
gether, and therefore it would appear to meet the fuel use test
for purposes of qualification.
Gordian Associates Incorpc rated
-------
Qualification of a small power production facility under the
Federal rules may be obtained by furnishing a notice to the FERC
setting forth the Project owner’s name and address and the Project’s
location. Of course, the effectiveness of use of a notice as a device
for conferring the ratemaking and exemption benefits of PURPA depends
upon the facility actually conforming with the qualification criteria
outlined above 1 so that any challenge to its status will be dismissed.
The Rules require that within ninety days of receipt of a certifi-
cation application, the FERC issue an order either granting or denying
the application, extending the time for issuing an order, or setting
down the matter for hearing. If no such order is issued within ninety
days, the application shall be deemed to have been granted. Any person
may file a petition for reconsideration of Commission action with re-
spect to the certification of a facility.
3. Extent of Exemption from Regulation
Section 210(e) of PURPA authorizes the FERC to prescribe rules ex-
empting qualifying small- power production facilities in whole or part
from certain provisions of the Federal Power Act, the Public Utility
Holding Company Act, and State laws and regulations respecting the
rates, financial or organizational regulation of electric utilities.
The FERC is to prescribe exemptions if it determines that such exemp-
tions are necessary to encourage cogeneration or small power produc-
tion.
The regulations issued by the flRC to implement PURPA Section 210,
with a few exceptions, parallel the broadest exemptions authorized by
the statute. Even so, a qualifying facility will not necessarily be
exempt from all possible Federal and State regulations.
(a) State Regulation
;ection 210 of PURPA and the FERC regulations promulgated there—
under do not purport to displace all State utility regulation of facil-
ities. Rather the preemption of State law or regulation is limited to
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
57
those State laws or regulations relating to electric utility “rates”
and the “financial and organizational regulation” of electric
utilities. Thus, those aspects of State utility regulation that do not
relate to rates or financial or organization matters — — and almost cer-
tainly all non—utility—type regulation (such as environmental stan-
dards) — — are, at least arguably, unaffected by the preemptive provis-
ions of PURPA and the FERC rules. It should be noted that Section 210
does not expressly prohibit a State from characterizing a small power
production facility as a “public utility” under State law.
The typically broad State law definition of “public utility” us-
ually creates a strong inference that by generating and selling elec-
tricity to an electric utility, the Project would itself be a “public
utility”, subject to PUC jurisdiction, except to the extent that Ci)
the Project is actually a “municipal utility” or (ii) the exercise of
PUC jurisdiction is limited by PURPA. Because the Project could be
deemed to be a “public utility” under New Hampshire law if it sells
electric power to Public Service Company of New Hampshire, it is neces-
sary to consider what utility regulation, if any, is not preempted by
the FERC regulations discussed above.
The stated intention of the FERC throughout the development of its
rules has been to provide maximum encouragement for small power produc-
tion and cogeneration facilities. Therefore, it seems unlikely that
the FERC would limit the scope of an exemption as it. applies to a
small power production facility without a strong showing that such ac-
tion is needed to encourage such production, to advance some other
strong public policy goal associated with PUC jurisdiction, or other-
wise required by constitutional limitations on preemption. Neverthe-
less, it must be recognized that the potential is built into the rule
for a case—by—case circumscription of FERC’s preemption of state regu-
lation.
The new Federal regulations do not exempt a qualifying facility
from Federal or State regulation that is not utility—type regulation.
Thus, for example, regulatory requirements of the U.S. Environmental
Gordian Assocates Incorporated
-------
58
Protection Agency (and New Hampshire) environmental agencies are unaf-
fected by the PURPA preemption provisions.
4. Ambiguities with Respect to Incentives
Several key issues remain regarding the implementation of the FERC
rules: (i) the determination of the price which utilities must pay to
qualifying facilities for power; (ii) the treatment of contractual ar-
rangements between parties; and (iii) the types of interconnection ar-
rangements that may be compelled.
(a) !sE Sin
The fundamental concept of the flRC rules is that utilities will
pay a qualified facility the avoided incremental cost (both capacity,
if applicable, and energy) of the amount saved by purchasing from a
qualifying facility, taking into account a series of factors set forth
in the Rules. FERC has stated this concept in terms of “avoided
costs”:
“Avoided costs are the excess of the total capacity and
energy cost of the system developed in accordance with
the utility’s optimal capacity expansion plan, excluding
the qualifying facility, over the total capacity and
energy cost of the system (before payment to the qualify-
ing facility) developed in accordance with the utility’s
optimal capacity expansion plan j ! u4jn the qualifying
facility.” 45 Fed. 12216 (February 25, 1980).
Note, however, that there is no table setting forth what the
applicable rate shall be: it must be developed judgmentally from data
developed under the Rules. The rules prescribed successive data calls
from utilities (pursuant to Section 133 of PURPA) on November 1, 1980,
May 31, 1982 and thereafter not less often than every two years. The
data will relate to the estimated avoided cost of the energy component
(generajlLy_stat.ed.in btocks of not more than--l00 Mw); 10 year capacity
plans; and estimated capacity costs.
Gorthan Associates Incorporated
-------
59
This data potentially may also be utilized by State commissions in
rate determinations. The data is likely to be in flux as a result of
changes in utility system plans. It is. subject to mandatory utility
justification and State review. It is likely to be subject to contin-
ual evaluation through the ratemaking process and in some cases, the
applicable data will be subject to debate and change. Moreover, the
avoidable cost determination is subject to qualification by the several
factors specified in the Rules notably time of availability; dispatcha—
bility; reliability; usefulness during emergencies, etc. Obviously,
the uncertainty regarding the definition of “avoided cost” inherent in
the Rules creates uncertainty for contracting for power sales. Many
issues of fact and interpretation remain open, notably whether capacity
savings can be said to result from a project and whether the quality of
power is entitled to any premium at all. The issues will be presented
in the contractual as well as the ratemaking setting.
(b) Contracts
The Rules specifically recognize that long—term contracts may well
be essential to the financing of projects. Contract rates based upon
avoided coat estimates are deemed to be legally enforceable and not in
violation of the rules. So long as the total payment over the duration
of a contract does not exceed the estimated avoided costs, nothing in
the rules would prohibit a State regulatory authority or non—regulated
electric utility from approving an arrangement where payments are
skewed toward the earlier part of the agreement. While rules permit a
contractual agreement which imposes on utilities an obligation (per the
rules) to purchase all electric energy and capacity made available from
directly or indirectly interconnected qualifying facilities, it also
specifies the rate can only include energy or capacity which the utili-
ty can use to meet its total system load.
Future attitudes of parties toward contracting remain to be clari-
fied. It brings apparent long—run cash flow certainty, at a price pos-
sibly of some upwards rate flexibility. On the other hand, there may
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
60
be a reluctance on utilities’ part to lock into contractual place esti-
mates which may prove to be incorrect, or which may compel them to ex-
plore the relationship between their new small power contracts and
other agreements into which they have entered previously.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
61
CHAPTER 6
APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Part 1. Organizational Alternatives
Developing a viable organizational and administrative framework
for resource recovery projects can be equally important as establishing
teehbical and economic feasibility. The following discussion presents
an analysis of four organizational alternatives that are currently
being employed in resource recovery projects in New England. While
these four alternatives are not the only possible approaches, they do
illustrate organizational strategies that are representative of a broad
range of situations and, more importantly, they have been proven to be
capable of implementation. In the discussion of each alternative, a
specific example from New England is used to illustrate its main
features. This section closes with a summary of the key
characteristics of each approach.
For a region to establish a successful solid waste/energy recovery
operation, there must be a stable, continuous flow of solid waste to
the energy recovery facility. A steady stream of solid waste allows
for the production of a reliable energy source; thereby permitting an
economic gain to the facility.
Most towns or small cities in New England do not generate suffi-
cient quantities of solid waste to guarantee the smooth operation of a
solid waste resource recovery facility without some sort of contractual
arrangement with neighboring communities. The contractual arrangements
usually allow the neighboring towns and communities to use the facility
and/or to participate in the functioning of the facility in return for
the promise of the disposal of that community’s or town’s solid waste
at the facility.
A city, town or Community wishing to establish a solid waste/re-
source recovery facility must look to the legislation of their state to
determine whether interlocal agreements of this type are legally per-
mitted. If interlocal agreements are permitted, there are a number of
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
62
organizational options available to the municipalities to form a solid
waste region.
The four organization options studied in this task are:
• The Single Town Approach: Auburn, Maine
In Auburn, Maine, the City itself took the lead in establishing
a solid waste/resource recovery facility. The City took the
responsibility to contract with neighboring communities for
their waste.
• The Cooperative Approach: The Lamprey Regional Solid Waste
Cooperative
In New Hampshire, twelve municipalities formed a cooperative.
The Cooperative is a corporation formed for the purpose of ren-
dering solid waste services to the twelve municipalities. The
Cooperative owns and is responsible for the operation of the
solid waste/resource recovery facility. Neither the coopera-
tive, nor the shareholders or member municipalities derive any
economic gain from the operation of the cooperative.
• The Special Solid Waste District Approach: Rutland, Vermont
In Rutland County, Vermont, nineteen local towns and Rutland
City formed a Union Municipal District to handle the region—
wide solid waste disposal problem. Setting up a Union Munici-
pal District involves the creation of a new and separate gov-
ernmental entity. The District is responsible for the Region’s
solid waste activities and issues and nothing more. Its ex-
plicit purpose as a governmental entity is to handle solid
waste affairs.
• The Non—Profit Corporation Approach: Waterville—Winslov, Maine
up a not—for—profit quasi municipal corporation which is joint-
ly owned by the City of Waterville and the Town of Winslow.
The Corporation is operated in accordance with the Waterville—
Winslow Interlocal Solid Waste Agreement and the Waterville—
Winslow Joint Solid Waste Disposal Facility Corporation By—Laws.
The following discussion examines the form and content of the
agreement utilized by the City of Auburn for the use of their solid
waste energy recovery facility by these municipalities.
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
63
A. THE SINGLE TOWN APPROACH: AUBURN, MAINE
1. Introduction
The City of Auburn, Maine is a community of approximately 24,000
people, situated in Andro—Scoggin County in South Central Maine. Faced
with a landfill reaching its capacity, Auburn decided to take an inno-
vative approach in addressing their ever—pressing solid waste disposal
problem. It was determined by the city officials that a semi—regional
approach was the moat appropriate task to take. In 1974 a Regional
Solid Waste Committee was established to study the possibilities of a
regional approach. The Committee was composed of representatives of
Auburn and 5 contiguous towns, along with a representative of Pioneer
Plastics, and Pineland Hospital were potential purchasers for the steam
prod iced by a solid waste energy recovery facility.
Auburn decided to take the lead in the development and building of
a solid waste energy recovery facility. Auburn has the responsibility
to develop the facility and to arrange for agreements between the vari-
ous actors of the project.
There are three types of agreements that a community taking the
lead in a regional project of this type must consider. The first is
contractual agreements with local industries, facilities or utilities
to purchase the steam produced at the energy recovery facility. The
second is a contract with the design build system vendor to build the
facility. The third type of agreement, the type that is the focus of
this section, is a series of agreements between each town and the City
of Auburn (the owner and proposed eventual operator of the facility) to
assure that for the use of the services of the facility, the surround-
ing communities supply the facility with their solid waste and sewage
sludge.’
1 Communities have entered into agreements with the City of Auburn for
the use of Auburns solid waste energy recovery facility.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
64
2. Disposal of Solid Waste
The agreement stipulates that for the maintenance of the solid
waste facility by the City of Auburn, and for the acceptance of solid
waste by the facility, each municipality agrees to dispose of all of
its solid waste at the Auburn facility is not permitted to allow any
other public or private means to be used for the disposal of that muni-
cipality’s solid waste. The municipality must also agree to deliver
specified amounts of solid waste during the term of the agreement.
3. Administration of the Facility
The Auburn facility is to be governed and administered solely by
the Auburn city council and the City Manager in accordance with the
terms of the municipal agreements and all rules and procedures enacted
by th City of Auburn. Auburn is permitted to develop all rules and
procedures for the use of the facility as long as those rules and pro-
cedures do not conflict with the terms of the inter].ocal agreements
made. The rules and procedures will govern the days and hours when the
facility is to be open to receive wastes. The delivery schedule for
the waste of the municipality; the procedures for billing and collec-
tion of disposal fees; and all other appropriate rules and procedures
pertaining to the management and control of the Auburn facility.
During the calendar year of the agreement, representatives of the
municipality and representatives of Auburn will meet to determine the
feasibility of extending the agreement beyond its expiration date. The
parties will have the option to renew the agreement or the parties will
be given the right to determine that a new system is more feasible
and then, the municipality will be given the right to participate in
the new system upon terms and conditions agreed upon by both parties.
4. Fiscal Affairs
The Auburn City Council and the City Manager make all decisions
and determinations as to operating budgets, wages and salaries, equip-
ment and supply purchases and any and all other expenses or charges by
the Auburn Facility.
Gordian Associates L-icorporated
-------
Auburn has the right to assign the responsibility and authority
for the operaton of the facility, and all other rights and responsibil-
ities under the agreement to a private person, corporation or organiza-
tion of its choice.
The municipality will pay the City of Auburn a disposal. fee for
the disposal of its solid waste in accordance with an agreed upon pay—
ment option. (See Schedule A).
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
66
SCHEDULE A
PAYMENT OPTION
20-YEAR AGREEMENT
Option A $6.50/ton with 5% escalator each year.
Option 3 $8.50/ton guaranteed cost for each year
for 20 years.
Option C let year cost of $8.00/ton. In each
succeeding year, pay Auburn’s audited
per ton cast for the year just com-
pleted. Minimum charge would be $3.00
per ton, maximum charge $15.00 per ton.
10—YEAR AGREEMENT
Option D $8.50/ton with 5% escalator each year.
Option E $11.00/ton guaranteed cost for each year
for 10 years.
5—YEAR AGREEMENT
Option P $10.50/ton with 5% escalator each year.
Option C $12.00/ton each year for the 5 years.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
67
B. COOPERATIVE APPROACH: LAMPREY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE COOPERATIVE
I. Introduction
A cooperative is a corporation organized for the purpose of ren-
dering economic services, without gain to itself, to shareholders or to
members who own and control it. In 1978, twelve municipalities in New
Hampshire joined together to form the Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Co-
operative (the Cooperative).’ The function of the Cooperative is to
administer and operate a solid waste disposal and energy recovery
facility 2 in the Lamprey River region in New Hampshire. Each
municipality participating in the Cooperative has the duty to collect
and transport to the facility the solid waste generated within its ter-
ritory. Subsequent to the formation of the Cooperative, the Coopera-
tive contracted with the University of New Hampshire for the operation
and i aintenance of the solid waste and energy recovery facility.
The agreement to form the Cooperative was thought to be to the
mutual advantage of the member municipalities because a regional answer
to the solid waste problem would permit a more efficient and environ-
mentally acceptable alternative to local landfills and because an ener-
gy recovery facility would allow for local production and control of a
valuable energy resource. The participating municipalities, acting on
a solo basis could not have generated sufficient amounts of solid waste
to allow for the efficient operation of the facility.
The major purposes of the agreement between the municipalities
are:
• To provide for the efficient and economic disposal of solid
waste generated within the territories of the participating
municipalities;
• To provide for the recovery and sale of energy; and
• To provide for the recovery and sale of by—products from the
disposal of solid waste.
1 The twelve communities are: Barrington, Durham, Epping, Green-
land, Lee, Madbury, Nevfields, Newington, Nevmarket, Northwod,
Rollingaford, and Stratham.
2 The municipalities are authorized to enter into an agreement of
this type pursuant to the New Hampshire Intergovernmental Agree-
ments Act, RSA 53—A. (See Appendix A.)
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
68
The agreement is to remain in force for a term of fifteen years.
No municipality viii be permitted to withdraw from the Cooperative for
any reason. A withdrawal will constitute a breach of the agreement.
2. Administration of the Cooperative
A Joint Board has the power, duties and responsibilities of the
Cooperative. Each participating municipality is represented by one
director, with one vote.
At its annual meeting, the Joint Board elects officers for the
term of one year. An operational committee, consisting of three
members, has the responsibility of making recommendations to the Joint
Board with regard to the ordinary operation and maintenance of the
solid waste disposal and energy recovery facility.
3. Powers of Cooperative
The Cooperative has the power to enter into contracts to plan,
construct, equip and operate a solid waste disposal and energy recovery
facility for the benefit of the member municipalities.
Among other things, the Cooperative may assess member municipali-
ties for any expenses incurred for the purposes for which the Coopera-
tive was formed.
4. Fiscal Affairs
a. Capital Cost
The capital cost for the solid waste disposal and energy recovery
facility, including equipment, construction, engineering and start—up
expenses, was estimated at $2,420,000 which included a ten percent
over—run allowance.
These capital costs were apportioned among the towns according to
the pro—rata share of solid waste generated. 3
3 The solid waste generated by the municipalities involved has been
estimated by the firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., in a final
report entitled “Feasibility Study of Regional Solid Waste Incin-
eration Plant for Durham, New Hampshire, Lamprey River Region.”
December 27, 1977.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
69
If the solid waste generated by any municipality in the first full
year of operation exceeded or was less than the amount estimated by
Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. or the Joint Board for the year 1977, the
pro—rats share of the capital contribution of any municipality made
during the first year of operation of the facility was not to be reap-
portioned.
b. Cost of Operation
In the first year, the cost of operation was determined by estima-
ting the solid waste generated by the municipalities and dividing these
estimates by the total estimate of solid waste generated by all of the
municipalities. The percentages calculated were the pro—rata contribu-
tions of the municipalities toward the net operating cost of the facil—
itiy for the first year of operation.
Subsequent to the first year of operation, the net operating cost
of the solid waste disposal and energy recovery facility is to be com-
puted in the following manner.
The amount of solid waste actually processed for each municipality
will be determined by the Joint Board utilizing records maintained at
the facility for the preceding year. The figures determined will be
divided by the total amount of solid waste generated by all the munici-
palities. The percent of solid waste generated by each municipality
will be multiplied by an estimate of the net cost of operation for the
next year as determined by the Joint Board. The resulting figures will
be the mandatory annual operational fee for each municipality.
Costs incurred by individual municipalities for transporting solid
waste to the solid waste disposal and energy recovery facility will not
be considered in determining the net operating cost. 4
4 “Net operating cost” means all costs and the expenses of the Cooper-
ative relating to the operation and maintenance of the solid waste
disposal and energy recovery facility, including without limitation,
all costs of accepting, processing, storing and disposing of waste,
labor, utilities and all costs associated with spare parts, equip-
ment, insurance, maintenance of equipment and facilities, running
services, general outside accounting service, consulting services
and legal services, and all costs and expenses relating to the pay-
ment of any bond or indebtedness, including principal, interest and
bonding charges, whether incurred by one municipality, or two or
more municipalities for the benefit of the Cooperative, minus any
revenues received by the Cooperative in exchange for the sale of
energy or from the sale of by—products recovered from the processing
of the waste.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
It is important to note that the success of the Cooperative is
based on the assumption that each municipality will process a minimum
percentage of the total solid waste processed at the facility each
year.
If after two full years of membership in the Cooperative, the
facility fails to receive a guaranteed minimum percentage 5 of solid
waste from a municipality, the Joint Board nevertheless will assess the
municipality its mandatory pro—rata operational fee based upon this
guaranteed percentage. 6
Each member of the Cooperative has to guarantee that during the
term of the agreement, the municipality will be permitted to deliver in
order to be processed a specified percentage of the total solid waste
processed at the facility in any one year. The percentage is at least
equal to the average of the percentage of waste of the municipality
processed by the facility during the first and second years of member-
ship in the Cooperative.
The Cooperative has the power, by a two—thirds majority vote of
the Joint Board, to decide to adjust the relative pro—rata shares of
the members with regard to initial capitalization, net operating fees
and guaranteed percentages.
c. Preparation of Annual Budget
Each year the Joint Board determines the amount necessary to be
raised to maintain and operate the Cooperative. 7 A budget is to be
5 The minimum percentage is determined by averaging the solid waste
processed by the facility for the municipality for the first and
second years of operation.
6 The importance of the commitment of waste to the facility from the
municipalities is premised on the theory that if the Cooperative
does not receive the guaranteed percentage from each municipality
during the term of the contract, a loss in revenue=-wi-ll—result
from not being able to sell the energy and energy by—products
produced. This will correspondingly increase the cost of opera-
ting the facility.
7 The amount computed includes the maintenance and operation of the
Cooperative in addition to amounts required for payment of debt
and interest incurred by the Cooperative that will be due in the
next calendar year.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
71
prepared by the Joint Board, and a preliminary apportionment is to be
made among the member municipalities in accordance with the terms of
the agreement. A public hearing on the budget is to be held before the
31st of December of the year on the budget. After the hearing the
Joint Board will adopt a budget and determine the final apportionment
among the member municipalities.
d. Distribution of Assets
If, at the time of termination of the agreement, assets are re-
maining, the assets are to be divided among the municipalities accord-
ing to their proportionate payments or contributions to the capital
construction and improvement of the Cooperative during the full term of
the agreement.
5. Admission of New Members
Municipalities may be admitted to the Cooperative by a majority
vote of the legislative body of the municipality seeking admission.
Terms and conditions for admission are established by a majority vote
of the Joint Board of the Cooperative.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
72
C. SPECIAL SOLID WASTE DISTRICT APPROACH: RUTLAND, VERMONT
1. Introduction
The formation of a Union Municipal District is permitted under
Vermont law. 24 V.S.A., Chapter 121 states that municipalities may
vote to contract with each other to create a Union Municipal District
in order to more efficiently and economically provide local government-
al services):
In April 1979, twenty towns in Rutland County 1 Vermont formed the
Rutland County Joint Municipal Survey Committee. (Two towns subse-
quently joined the Committee, and three ultimately voted against the
agreement.) The purpose of the Committee was to study, determine and
make recommendations concerning the feasibility of forming a Union
Municipal District for solid waste management. An agreement, 2 which
now serves as-the charter of this new and different governmental entity
was formulated and presented on March 4, 1980 to the voters of twenty—
two municipalities in Rutland County.
Ultimately, nineteen towns in Rutland County 3 voted to approve the
agreement, establishing the Rutland County Solid Waste District (the
1 In the past, each municipality in Vermont has had the responsibility
for the management and regulation of the collection and storage of
solid waste within its jurisdiction, and the responsibility to pro-
vide for the operation and maintenance of facilities for the dispos-
al of refuse.
2 There were only two caveats attached to the adoption of the agree-
ment leading to the establishment of the District. One was that
the voters of the City of Rutland approved the agreement; the second
was that the population of the municipalities which approved the
agreement, including the voters of the City of Rutland 1 constituted
fifty percent or more of the population of all the municipalities
voting on the agreement, based upon the 1970 U.S. Census. The
purpose of both of these conditions was to have a guarantee of
sufficient amounts of waste; thereby allowing for a cost efficient
resource recovery facility.
3 The participating towns are: Benson, Castleton, Chittenden,
Clarendon, Danby, Fair Haven, Mendon, Middletown Springs, Mount
Holly, Pittsford, Poultney, Proctor, Rutland City, Sherburne,
Tinmouth, Wallingford, Wells, West Haven and West Rutland.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
73
District )•4 The District, which is a Union Municipal District, is a
new and separate government in and of itself. 5 The District will
fulf ill the solid waste responsibilities of the municipalities on a
collective basis 1 and integrate its function with existing forms of
municipal government.
The purpose of establishing a solid waste district of this type is
to allow small towns to implement a cost—effective, long—term solution
to solid waste disposal. The District will have the responsibilities
of providing solid waste disposal services for its member municipali-
ties and the residents of the municipalities through the collection,
removal, transportation, disposal, recovery, and recycling of solid
waste generated within the District. In the Rutland County experience,
additionally, the plans include a resource recovery facility and a sup—
porUve regional landfill.
2. Administration of the District
The legislative power and authority of the District is vested in a
governing body known as the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Super-
visors is composed of three representatives from the City of Rutland
and one representative from each of the other member municipalities.
The Board of Supervisors are appointed by the town selectmen. In
Rutland City the mayor appoints one representative, and the alderman
the second. The third is appointed by the ma3or with the alderman’s
approval.
Annually, the Board of Supervisors will hold an organizational meet-
ing and elect from among its ineinbershipa chairman and a vice—chairman
may be reelected to successive terms without limit. Regular meetings
will be scheduled for the Board of Supervisors, and provisions have
been made for the calling of special meetings.
4 On March 4, 1980, each town in Rutland County had an Australian
Ballot allowing the citizens of each town within the county to voice
their approval or disapproval of the agreement to establish the
Union Municipal District, now known as the Rutland County Solid
Waste District. Nineteen of the twenty—two towns voting decided in
favor of the Rutland County Solid Waste District.
5 This type of government is similar in form to that of the Union
School District. It is limited in function by only being able to
control solid waste issues.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
74
Officers, including a paid treasurer and clerk, are to be
appointed by the supervisors. If it is determined that it is
necessary, the supervisors may establish an executive committee.
In District meetings, each supervisor is permitted to cast one
vote per 100 registered voters in his town. The three representatives
from the City of Rutland will divide their vote total evenly. The
weighted vote scheme was designed to insure that voters in member towns
have equal representation in District matters.
3. Powers of the Solid Waste District
The District has the power to operate, cause to be operated and/or
to contract for the operation of all, facilities for the collection,
transportation, resource recovery, recycling and disposal of solid
wastes and to determine and make proper charges for these services.
The District is permitted to enter into contracts for any term or
duration. This includes contracts with architects, engineers, finan-
cial and legal consultants and other expert services. It also includes
the power to contract for solid waste disposal services on the basis of
guaranteed amounts of solid waste with payments based on these guaran-
teed amounts.
The District is empowered to make recommendations for modes of ac-
tions to member municipalities and to other public agencies which per-
form functions within the region in which the member municipalities are
located.
The District may exercise the power of eminent domain; it may
borrow money and isaue evidence of indebtedness; it may establish a
budget and assess member municipalities for the expense of the
District; it may appropriate and expend moneys it may establish sinking
funds for the retirement of bonded or other indebtedness, and it may
establish capital reserve funds.
The District may exercise all powers incident to a public
corporation.
The District has the power to require the member municipalities to
use only the facilities and services provided by the District. In
furtherance of the desire to provide these services for all of the
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
75
member municipalities, the District is empowered to enact and enforce
all necessary regulations for the orderly conduct of the government and
for carrying out the purposes of the District.
The District has the goal of promoting cooperative arrangements
and coordinated action among its member municipalities.
4. Fiscal Affairs
The District fiscal year is the calendar year. Before January 1
of each year, the supervisors are to devise and circulate a budget to
all member towns and the City of Rutland. A budget hearing is to be
held and the budget is to be adopted before January 15. In addition,
be fore January 15 the Board of Supervisors is to appropriate the sums
which it deems necessary to operate and carry Out the District’s func-
tions for the fiscal year, assess a tax upon each member municipality
for its proportionate share of the sums so appropriated, and adopt a
schedule designating when the taxes are due and payable by the member
municipalities.
For the initial budget, taxes are to be apportioned according to
the population of member towns and the City of Rutland. After the
first year the member municipalities would be taxed proportionately,
according to the relative tonnage or volume of solid waste loads gener-
ated. The Board of Supervisors is permitted to change assessments
retroactively at the end of the first year of operation, if initial
tonnage figures are shown to be unreasonable in line with the assess-
ments.
The Board of Supervisors may borrow money through the issuance of
notes of the District for the purpose of paying current expenses of the
District. These notes must mature within the fiscal year in which they
were issued.
The District may assume long—term debts, front bond issues or sign
contracts, but the voters must approve of the planned project. A ma-
jority of the voters is needed to approve a bond issue.
Sinking funds that establish bank reserves for future purchases
also have to be approved by a majority of the voters.
Gorthan Associates Incorporated
-------
75
The Board of Supervisors, with the approval of a majority of the
voters, may establish and provide for a capital reserve fund to pay for
public improvements in furtherance of the purpose for which the Dis-
trict was created.
The Board of Supervisors may charge tipping fees for the purpose
of generating revenue from sources other than assessments to member
municipalities.
Each member municipality is responsible for establishing local
collection sites and for arranging for transportation of the solid
waste to a District—run facility.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
77
D. THE NON—PROFIT CORPORATION APPROACH - WATERVILLE—WINSLOW, MAINE
1. Introduction
The municipalities of Waterville and Winslow in Maine have set up
a non—profit corporation called the Waterville—Winslow Joint Solid
Waste Disposal Facility Corporation (the Corporation) to provide solid
waste disposal facilities for domestic and commercial solid waste gen-
erated within their respective territoriea.
The Corporation is a quasi—municipal corporation, jointly owned by
the City of Waterville and the Town of Winslow. The Corporation is
supported by public funds from the municipal parties and by revenues
produced and/or received for other users of the facilities by contract
with the Corporation.
-The regulation of the internal affairs of the Corporation is to be
in accordance with the Waterville—Wiuslow interlocal Solid Waste Agree-
ment and the Waterville—Winslow Joint Solid Waste Disposal Facility
Corporation By—Laws •1
The purpose of the Interlocal Agreement, and the Corporation is to
provide for the disposal of solid wastes generated within the territor-
ies of the parties, or within the territories of other individuals,
corporations, or municipalities which may in the future became parties
to the agreement. The purpose is also to organize, operate and main-
tain a joint energy recovery facility.
2. Administration of the Corporation
The Corporation is to have a Joint Board. The Joint Board is to
be comprised of two members of each of the parties’ respective city and
town councils, each of the parties’ city administrator and town mana-
ger, and one citizen—at—large for each 10,000 in population for each of
the respective parties. 2 The city of town council members and the
city adminsitrator and town administrator will hold terms of the Joint
1 The parties are able to form a corporation and an interlocal
agreement in accordance with the Maine Interlocal Cooperation Act,
pursuant to Title 30, Chapter 203, M.R.S.A.
2 According to the population of the two towns, Waterville will have
four Joint Board members and Winslow will have three.
Gordian Associates Incorpor3ted
-------
78
Board that are co—terminous with their municipal offices. The
citizens—at— large will be appointed for alternating staggered three
year and two year terms.
Upon the effective date of the agreement, the Joint Board will
hold an organizational meeting to elect officers. The officers will
include a chairman, vice chairman, and other officers including a sec-
retary and a treasurer. Officers of the Joint Board are to serve for a
period of one year.
Joint Board meetings are to be called in accordance with the by-
laws of the Waterville—Winslow Joint Solid Waste Disposal Facility
Corporation. A quorum for any meeting will consist of two—thirds of
the parties’ representatives. A valid vote requires two—thirds of the
voters present. 3
- The Joint Board has the power that are normally granted to the
directors of non—capital stock corporations. 4
Some of the powers vested in the Joint Board include rights to
purchase, convey, lease, etc. real and personal property. Additional-
ly, the Joint Board may contract in the name of the Corporation.
The Joint Board may adopt and alter rules and regulations and
terms and conditions for the management of solid waste and for the ad-
ministration, operation and maintenance of the Corporation and its
facilities.
The Joint Board is permited to receive and disburse, on behalf of
the participating municipal parties, funds fox - any purpose contemplated
by this agreement.
Planning, constructing, operating and maintaining a solid waste
management program is the responsibility of the Joint Board.
The Joint Board also serves as a forum to identify, discuss, study
and bring into focus the municipal parties’ solid waste problems and
needs. In doing so, the Joint Board is to foster, develop and review
policies, plans and priorities for the Corporation.
3 If only minimum quorum is present, a unanimous vote is necessary to
pass a motion.
4 These powers are set forth in detail in Title 13, Chapter 81,
N.S.R.A.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
4. Fiscal Affairs
The costs of acquisitions, improvements and operations are to be
paid for by fees collected from municipal, coumiercial, and/or private
users of the facility, in addition to grants, donations and appropria-
tions and the sate of steam and any salvageable materials from the
solid waste disposal facility.
The initial capital costs will, be shared by the City of Waterville
and the town of Winslow by appropriating half the initial capital cost
in proportion to the populations of the towns, and half in proportion
to their respective municipal valuation.
Subsequent capital funds will be provided by each municipal party
in a manner as the municipality may determine if the Joint Board
describes the project for which the iapital expenditure is required, 5
the estimated cost, the tern over which the cost is to be funded, and
the proportionate share of the estimated cost to be contributed by each
participating municipal party.
The proportionate share of the capital expenditures to be contri-
buted by each municipal party is to be determined by the Joint Board on
the basis of the percentage of solid waste process from the participa-
ting municipal party on the average during the preceding years. 6
Each municipal party is to be responsible for the retirement of
its own debt. On an annual basis, however, there is to be a propor-
tionate adjustment of capital debt to one of the municipal parties
based on the percentage of the previous year’s actual usage by each
municipal party.
Each municipal party is to be responsible for the retirement of
its own debt. On an annual basis, however, there is to be a propor-
tionate adjustment of capital debt to one of the municipal parties
based on the percentage of the previous year’s actual usage by each
municipal party.
5 The municipality may choose to provide the funds from available
revenue funds, by taxation, by borrowing or otherwise.
6 Not to exceed four prior years.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
The Corporation is permitted to borrow by executing notes only on
a short—term temporary basis and for cash—flow purposes only. The
notes must become payable within one year.
Allocation of afl. coats of operation of the solid waste management
program to the participating municipal parties is to be accomplished on
the basis of the percentage of solid waste generated by- the parties. A
uniform unit cost per ton of solid waste will be charged to each of the
participating municipal parties. The fee will be established each year
by the Joint Board.
If, at the end of the fiscal year there are excess revenues 1 over
and above what is needed to operate the facility, these revenues will
be disbursed to each municipal party in accordance with the actual
waste disposed at the facility in the preceding year for each party.
It is the responsibility of the Joint Board to prepare a budget,
establish user fees, and determine recommended shares of costs. These
figures are to be transmitted to the parties at least ninety days prior
to the start of the fiscal year. The budget is to include: antici-
pated revenues; an estimate of expenditures; actual receipts and actual
expenditures after the first year of operation; and the estimated Cost
per ton of solid waste to be charged for the next fiscal year.
The fiscal year is to run from July 1 to June 30. The parties are
to make twelve payments to the Corporation each year.
5. Other Provisions
The parties to the agreement are permitted to take land by eminent
domain. The property would then be leased to the Corporation.
A participating municipal party may withdraw from the agreement at
the end of any fiscal year of the Corporation provided that it has
given the Joint Board at least one year’s written notice.
The Corporation is a third—party beneficiary to the agreement, and
therefore is entitled to seek enforcement of the agreement.
The agreement is to remain in effect for a long as no party with-
draws from the agreement or is in substantial breach, or the Corpora-
tion has not been dissolved, or 40 years have passed from the effective
date.
Go-d an Associates Incorporated
-------
81
6. Adoption of the Agreement
The agreement inuet be approved by the legislative bodies or the
respective city or town councils of the parties in accordance with
their municipal charters. En addition 1 the Maine Attorney General and
Department of Environmental Protection must approve the agreement.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
82
Part 2. Applicability to New Hampshire
1. Interlocal Agreements
The New Hampshire Intergovernmental Agreements Act permits
municipalities in New Hampshire to enter into certain types of
interlocal agreements. (Portions of the N.H. Interlocal Agreements Act
is reproduced in Appendix A.)
It appears that municipalities in New Hampshire are permitted to
enter into any of the organizational options discussed earlier in this
section. For further verification concerning a municipality or a group
of municipalities implementing a particular agreement alternative it
is suggested that the municipality look to the various town councils
f or any further guidance and information.
2. Key Characteristics of Each Organizational Alternative
A. The Single Town Approach: Auburn, Maine
o The host community has complete control over the
project.
o Leadership and decision—making is limited to one
municipality.
o Minimal interjurisdiction coordination is required to
organize the solid waste project.
o The town bears full organizational responsibility and a
majority of the risk.
o System finalization may be delayed until later stages of
the project (waste stream committments may not finalize
until these stages).
o Surrounding municipalities only participating on a
contractual basis may have wanted a larger role in the
project.
B. The Cooperative Approach: The Lamprey River Region, New
Hampshire
o The risk of financing and operating the cooperative is
evenly shared by all participating municipalities.
o All participating municipalities have an equal voice in the
decision making process.
o It is difficult to coordinate and organize communities into
coming forth with a multijurisdictional agreement.
o There is a greater potential for significant problems
caused by an individual municipality withdrawai.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
83
C. The Solid Waste District: Rutland, Vermont
o A unique official governmental body is established with
powers to fulfill its mandate.
o All participating communities have a voice in the decision
making process, with Rutland City having a larger voice.
o The District was established early on in the planning stage,
resolving any organization confusion, and providing a clear
administrative framework for the subsequent project.
o A full voter referendum is necessary to raise capital.
o The District is not directly responsible to elected
officials.
D. The Non—Profit Corporation Approach: Waterville — Winslow, Maine
o Owners of the corporation have complete adminstrative control
over the project.
o Administrative decision—making is made by elected officials and
does not require direct voter approval.
o However, voter approval is required for raising capital.
o Cumbersome arrangement for more than 2 or 3 communities.
o All of the risks are borne by the corporate participants.
o Capital funds have to be raised by the municipalities, indepen-
dent of the corporation.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
84
CHAPTER SEVEN
PROCUREMENT & FINANCING OPTIONS
Alternative Procurement Approaches*
Resource recovery procurement is a process by which decisions made
in the selection phase regarding system type are systematically trans-
lated into an operational facility. This process involves contractor
selection 1 contract negotiation 1 facility construction 1 and operational
testing. Because the process tends to be both legally and administra-
tively complex 1 a carefully considered procurement strategy is essential
for successful implementation.
There are three basic strategies 1 or procurement options, that can
be followed, as shown in Figure 7—1. The first is the traditional
architect—engineer approach (A&E); the second is the turnkey approach;
and the third is a full service approach. There are, however, potential
modifications to each approach. The choice of one strategy over the
other depends largely upon the issues of ultimate facility ownership,
the allocation of risks among the city and private contractors, legal
restrictions, and the availability of financing.
A&E Approach
The A&E approach is the strategy cities have traditionally used to
procure sewer systems, roads, schools, and other public works. It nor-
mally involves two separate procurements —— one for engineering services
and another for facility construction. Initially, an A&E firm is se-
lected on the basis of its past experience and present capabilities in
the general type of resource recovery system desired by the city. The
firm draws up the final engineering designs and helps the city to pre-
pare an invitation for bids (IFB). The city then reviews the bids sub-
mitted by contractors and awards a contract for the construction of the
facility on the basis of lowest cost. In the A&E approach, the consult-
ing engineers often provide continuing services to the city in the form
of construction supervision and monitoring of final plant shakedown.
* This discussion was derived mainly from “Procurement Strategies,
Choices, and Contractual Methods Explored” by P. Aarne Vesilind and
Dennis Warner, Solid Waste Management , April 1978.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
85
FIGURE 7-1
RE SOURCE RECOVERY PROCUREMENT RESPONS I B IL ITIES
UNDER THREE DIFFERENT ACQUISITiON STRATECIES
ME Turnkey Pull service
Procurement Steps Option Option Option
1. Review City City City
Qualifications _____ _______ _____ _______
1 41
2. Design ME
Facility Firm
3. Review Bids City
4. Construct Facility Contractor
5. Supervise A&E Faci1 ty
Construction Firm Contractor
System
6. Equipment Vendors Contractor
and Materials
7. Start Up Plant Operator ______
Operator Operator
8. Operation and
Maintenance P
9. Facility City City Operator or
Ownership City
Source: Ibid,A. Vesiliud D. Warner
-------
86
Turnkey Approach
An alternative procurement option is the turnkey approach 1 in which
the city contracts with a single contractor for a complete package of
facility design, construction 1 equipment supply, and start—up. The con-
tractor is required to satisfy various acceptance criteria in turning
over to the city a fully operating facility. Turnkey contracts usually
are awarded on the basis of a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the
city. An RIP states in general terms the type of system wanted by the
city and allows interested contractors the opportunity to propose com-
prehensive, and possibly unique, solutions for which they have special
capabilities.
Full—Service Approach
The third option is the full service approach involving total im-
plementation, operation, and possible ownership by a private firm. As
in the case of the turnkey option, the city issues an RFP , but the
contract is for a resource recovery service instead of a plant. The
selected contractor is responsible for project financing, design, con-
struction, equipment supply, start—up, and subsequent operation of the
facility. The full—service contractor may own the facility and be
solely responsible to the bondholders for repayment of the financing
loan. The owner in this case would seek to backup his responsibility to
the bondholders with long term contracts for assured waste supply and
tipping fees from municipalities and for sale of by—products, energy and
materials. In this case the owner would receive all tax benefits.
If the municipality or solid waste authority owns the facility, the
operator may lease the plant and repay the bondholders via the plant
owner in equal payments for the term of the lease. Under this arrange-
ment the plant operator may be entitled to all profits or may be
required to share revenues in excess of a predetermined return on in—
vestment with the plant owner. Under such a financing mechanism the
lessee (plant operator) is, for tax purposes, considered owner of the
plant, alithough title still resides with the municipality or authority.
As such, the lessee (operator) of the plant is entitled to the full
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
87
investment tax credit of between 20 to 30% and the accelerated tax de-
preciation.
Alternatively 1 the contractor or operator may act solely as the
plant operator without leasing under contract to the owner (municipal-
ity).
Successful cases of all three types of contracting strategy can be
found. One of the first to use the A&E approach was Ames, IA, which
since 1975 has had a fully operational 200 TPD system producing refuse
derived fuel, baled paper, and metals. On the other hand, Bridgeport,
CT, adopted the modified turnkey approach and expects next year to have
an 1,800 TPD plant producing refuse derived fuel, metals, and glass.
The full service approach is well illustrated in Saugus, MA, where a
1,200 TPD plant producing steem and magnetic materials has been serving
ten communities since 1975.
Within the context of the three procurement options, there are two
basic methods for reaching contractual agreements between the city and
the suppliers of services, facilities, and equipment. The first method
can be termed competitive procurement, because it utilizes formal ad-
vertising and the selection of the lowest responsive bid according to
well—defined specifications. Since it is the traditional method used in
the A&E approach, competitive procurement is a widely used procedure in
public works implementation and is well understood by city personnel.
The competitive procurement method begins with an examination of
the qualifications of A&E consulting firms by the city. The selected
firm normally is chosen on the basis of its relevant resource recovery
experience, the type of recovery system desired by the city, and the
results of negotiations between the city and the firm. This portion of
the competitive procurement method is not price competitive, although
the remainder of the process is. The consultant then carries out final
system designs and helps to prepare an IFB containing detailed specifi-
cations of the type of system desired. The resulting bids from poten-
tial contractors are price competitive, since they are evaluated on the
basis of both technical merits and cost.
The second method for arriving at contracts is termed negotiated
procurement, and it applies primarily to the turnkey and full service
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
88
procurement approaches. Negotiated procurement has not been widely used
in the acquisition of public works and it occasionally runs into re-
strictions from state laws requiring competitive bidding on the basis of
price. Although competitive procurement is well suited to systems which
can be clearly specified in advance, a growing number of state and local
governments are coming to realize that negotiated procurement is far
more effective in the acquisition of systems whose technology 1 markets
and operations contain many uncertainties at the time of contract nego—
tiat ions,
The heart of the negotiated procurement method is the request for
proposals (RIP), 1 which generally solicits bids on the basis of specifi-
cations more broadly drawn than those in an IFB. In general 1 an RIP for
a turnkey approach will, contain more technical detail than one for a
full service option. Nevertheless, the use of an RIP shifts much of the
design responsibility to the contractor and 1 hopefully 1 provides the
city with a wide range of proposed technical solutions. Following
proposal evaluation 1 a winning contractor (or set of finalists) is
selected and the city then enters into contract negotiations with this
firm. My necessary deviations from the RIP must be considered at this
point. Furthermore, the contract should contain sufficient flexibility
to allow the contractor to adjust to unanticipated technical and finan-
cial changes in the systems. Without this flexibility 1 the increased
risks borne by the contractor will be reflected in higher contract costs
to the city.
Implementing Agency’s Philosophical Posture
The implementing agency’s philosophical posture is very important
to consider in determining which procurement approach that will be
undertaken. Remembering that the primary purpose for undertaking a re-
source recovery project is to provide for the sound disposal of solid
waste without creating a public health hazard or an environmental pollu-
tion problem, municipal officials are faced with deciding between tradi-
tional and nontraditional approaches.
Resource recovery companies exist which are willing to provide
equipment and/or services to address municipal needs under any conceiv—
Gorthan Associates Incorporated
-------
89
able project structure that can be effectively applied. Various pro-
jects have been implemented under very different- structures reflecting
the posture of the local officials as veil as the availability of alter-
natives that are believed to exist.
)lunicipal officials will, need to decide what degree of control they
wish to have in maintaining the public health aspects of solid waste
disposal, either directly or through contracts for service. Similar
decisions will need to be made regarding which capital financing vehicle
can be used. The availability of financing approaches and mechanisms
does affect the procurement decision. Similarily , decisions must be
made with regard to the degree of support it will commit over the life
of the project for the operations —— either through commitment of cer-
tain minimum quantities of solid waste or through a guaranteed payment
for receiving the service of disposal through recovery.
As discussed earlier, even if publicly owned, the facility can be
privately operated as well as designed and constructed by the same
entity. As public agencies usually have less flexibility to hire/fire
staff resources, consideration to this posture may become a necessity
for the operation of resource recovery equipment.
Small System Procurement Experience
A growing number of small resource recovery systems are being
planned and implemented. The experiences of the projects that have
moved forward into construction and operation phases are reviewed
briefly here to provide perspective. Presented in Table 7—1 is a list-
ing of twelve localities that are either operating or constructing small
modular units. The procurement methods followed by these localities are
summarized in the following.
As can be seen, the A&E approach has most often been used in the
procurement of small systems. However, two recent procurements—Auburn,
Maine and Pittsfield, Massachusettsand North Little Rock’s recent
award of the operating contract to Consumat Systems Inc. indicate a new
trend in municipal procurement of small systems as well.
A review of the decision making process in these locations is pre-
sented here for background purposes.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
90
TABLE 7—1
MODULAR COMBUSTION PROJECTS
Iii. to flowinG localltI•* sri •lth•r op•ratlng or constructing small modular combustion units to pro.
due. slam from mass combustion of municipal solid wait.:
IEPO RTLD
11P01780 W ZTT CIPITAI 00m
(!PDi 1 8lUJ0050 13 80IT SCT
3.2 ‘v itiu fua db 00L isb eriki,
v”d S II (P nor aid scemsor P bluc w i
wlti.cto sqned. onostrectan Aabuvm City Nail
login Aug 3919. Maitup ptsnt 45 Spring St
bUss 3930 Auburn MainsOiflO
M. ! _ - ‘ 15 U /A kapsarily ibut dons I, isatatlotion Tern Little May
to be usd ii meul sad’ C p $H
S*hsuiNa.M 72315
*0 111 edon...a dorpe.ng Matson C lal*
dotani lea Mg i
Lonrosinenlal Se, Corp
P.O hi 765
O dle has 38555
300 2 Undo, eanatruction. Al m.n Bo b
rtup bedulsd . 5 early 1910 Colonial R et
D rsbvrg Tens 33024
sornat 300 logan sPit 3910 Nunuwsantba ,ya Maria’. P.1
Township Lngrnev
72U NorTh
Csnucc Rd
Csnuis.Mch 41437
_. I A . I aat.i 24 Op...l.id sacs 1175 ick Condle
d P’d. ta Bosoetori Piper Mdl .
Ins
Cisueton .UH 03582
10 .1* Under ...th.ctn : to to a sjontmn Mn 0. Lsrnbert
loisly 1930 C ityM.na gr
505 Lhliagton Pb7..
m l
Lewisbuig leon 37091
1.15 Opemtmmat 1976.3971. l ili Butsa
podeipiag ineditmatmea City Prondent
ewirded eanbast to Cssisrnat U.S Recycle Corp
Syotems Isc..for modifications ead P.O Boa 7561
Srgt inn operation. csbsduk to SiWe R icA AlL 7222?
sips . a M k 1130
10 1.1 Bogin epemt.ona a len. 1910 1.1 PIesttL Mayo,
City Nail
Al 72370
V ii Rii ,iei hix4ssmon - 240 Coeal .u a to Us ssmj’utsd a MnpI’ I Bomis. Ii
— r q ) lepi . 1110 Prondent
VssanRscs.eiy c
P0 Boa 300
Butler Center
Butler. Ii 07105
LI Operatmeol a 1971 Vdham P s. Jr.
leyM
P .O Isa 859
bum. V i. 24353
1 * 4 Op her .s.SepL* I7 5
(Pmo.nflp being peed on - --.rv haitatinit pt
on ly) 410 Noetli Irsadwoy
Idoam lape Alt
72151
Source: NCRR Bullnttin, Vclu e 10, Nwober 1, )iarch 1980
-------
91
North Little Rock
In 1971, North Little Rock purchased two small incinerators (12.5
tons per day per unit) without energy recovery capability to handle
their growing volume of solid waste. However ,”the units were never in-
stalled because of political problems relating to siting. In 1974, U.S.
Recycle Corporation, a franchised dealer of Coneumat Systems, Inc. pro-
posed that the City operate a modular incineration system with energy
recovery and that it sell the-steam produced from the system to a poten-
tial market—Koppera Company. After favorably receiving a U.S. Recycle
study which included a discussion of potential project economics, along
with positive discussions with Koppers regarding the apparent feasibil-
ity of a Consuinat System meeting steam requirements, the City decided in
1975 t o pursue the energy recovery system. From 1976 to mid—1977 con-
tracts were negotiated and the facility was constructed. In September
19771 the City began operating its own modular incineration system that
was contractor—designed and constructed. The turnkey approach was not
operating to the City’s satisfaction 1 however 1 and in March of 1980, the
City turned over the operations of the facility to Consumat(Figure 7—2].
The City had determined that it would own and operate the facility
from its start. However, Consumat assumed responsibility for the daily
operation of the facility when it was determined that City personnel
were not properly carrying out required tasks. Under the new arrange-
ment 1 the City receives all revenue from steam sales and pays Consumat a
flat fee for facility operation. Conaumat assumes all risk for the
quantity of materials required for daily operations. The operating
contract is limited to one year due to state law, but it appears that
Consumat’s direction of operations will continue at least until the
steam contract with Koppers terminates.
In selecting the contractor, the City was required by state law to
carry out competitive bid processes except in “exceptional situations
where such procedure is deemed not feasible or practicable”. The RFP
was very detailed in that it included proposer qualifications criteria
in the bid package for the design, construction, and equipping of the
facility. Proposers had to have had at least two years of demonstrated
Gcrdian Associates Incorporated
-------
92
FIGURE 7—2
NORTh LITTLE ROCK CONTRACTS
Construction
Funds
Steam Purchaser
Turnkey
Construction
-------
93
experience providing similar systems for proces8ing municipal refuse and
with at least two projects involving municipal solid waste processing
and in providing steam to a user which required a uniform and uninter-
rupted supply of steam. The RPP was released in November 1975 and con-
tract negotiations were culminated in April 1976. U.S. Recycle/Consu—
mat 1 the selected contractor, proposed a fixed price for the equipment,
supervision of installation, training of City employees during the first
year of operation and equipment testing at the end of year to determine
performance quantities. Project costs were financed from a special
revenue bond issue and from available city funds.
The city retained a local engineering firm to prepare plans and
specifications for plant building construction and equipment installa-
tion.. U.S. Recycle also provided assistance in the preparation of
specifications and offered to meet with each prospective bidder to de-
scribe the Consumat equipment installation requirements in order to aid
in the bidder’s cost estimates and guarantee proper installation. Bids
were opened in early June 1976 and a contract was awarded to the lowest
bidder two weeks later.
In June 1976, the City and Koppers signed contracts for the pur-
chase of steam, including a provision for the project to utilize Kop—
per’s wood wastes, and for a site lease. The steam purchase agreement
provides that Koppers will purchase steam requirements of Kopper’s
Forest Products plant. The price of steam was pegged to the lowest cost
fuel available to the Forest Products plant. Koppers must approve the
City’s plans and specifications for the modular incineration units. The
steam purchase contract did not include a guarantee by Koppers to pur-
chase a specific amount of steam, only that it purchase the amount re-
quired for current operations. The wood waste agreement is for one year
with an annual renewal option. It was felt that woodwaste would serve
as an auxiliary fuel source for weekend operations, if operations were
expanded, but nothing has happened to date. Koppers will provide wood
waste to the City at no cost. The site lease contract covers a 20—year
period, where the City is obligated to pay a rental of $1 per year and
all property tax assessments and improvement charges.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
94
Pittsfield 1 Massachusetts
The Pittsfield plant will be designed 1 constructed and operated by
Vicon Recovery Associates 1 a subsidiary of Vicon Construction Co. The
steam will be sold to a nearby paper company, Crane & Co. Project
shake—down is expected to begin in November 1980 and Last for four to
six months.
The financing for the project was provided through tax—exempt pol—
lution control revenue bonds sponsored by a local industrial development
authority.* The bonds are guaranteed directly by Vicon Construction and
indirectly by Pittsfield’s guarantee to deliver waste or pay tipping
fees. The initial tipping fee is set at $11.59 per ton. flowever, pro-
jections indicate profits to the operation which are to be shared 50/50
between Vicon and Pittsfield, thus reducing Pittsfield’s upfront tipping
fee.
The RFP was prepared by the City engineering and investment con-
sultants. It stated that the City was willing to enter into a put—or—
pay contract for delivery of solid waste, to provide a site for the
facility as well as a residue and emergency landfill site 1 and to aid
the contractor in obtaining tax—exempt financing. The RFP also identi-
fied Crane & Co. as the steam customer. The RPP was advertised in March
1978 and two months later Vicon Recovery Associates was selected.
The steam purchase contract becomes effective in December 1981, or
at an earlier date agreed upon by the company and Crane. The project
has been set up for a 15 year period. The company must construct the
facility and assume all costs relating to steam producing facilities as
well as lines and equipment for steam delivery. The company is required
to sell and deliver, and Crane to accept and purchase, at least 700,000
lb. of steam per day at a rate of at least 20,000 lb. per hour for 240
Crane work—days. Steam prices will be based on Crane’s cost for No. 6
fuel oil discounted by a negotiated rate.
* Robert H. Aldrich, “Small Resource Recovery Project Gets Disposal
Revenue Bond Financing”, in Solid Waste Management , January 1980.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
95
Pittsfield has shifted the project’s technical and performance risk
to a private company which guarantees the design and its ability to pro-
cess waste and generate steam. In return, Pittsfield accepted the re—
eponaibility to assure waste stream supply quantity and quality and to
pay tipping fees if waste is not available for some reason.
Auburn 1 Maine
A planning process was initiated in 1974 to identify alternatives
to a disposal problem. In 19751 an energy recovery scenario was
identified. Efforts began to crystalize in 1977 when the City prepared
an implementation report which highlighted the problem and pro- vided
direction. Between 1977 and 1979, the City went through a decision—
making process that led to a City—owned, contractor—designed,
constiucted and operated (over an initial 3 year basis) project.
The contract arrangements are depicted in Figure 7—3. The City
decided early on to own the facility and eventually to operate it as
veil. However, current operating experience in other municipally—owned
and operated systems convinced Auburn officials to modify their approach
They decided to give responsibility of design, construction and
operation to one contractor. The initial operating phase was set at
three years and allows for two five—year extensions.
The City guarantees waste quantity and quality and in the event of
waste—shortfall, an operating fee to the operation. Provisions for pro-
cessing additional waste and sludge are provided. The City maintains
control over additional waste through contractual arrangements with
other municipalities and with the sewer authority for sludge supply.
In selecting the contractor, the City solicited a very detailed
Request for Proposals describing the project and the contractual terms
it was interested in offering. The RIP was released in December 1977, a
contractor was selected in July 1978, and contract negotiations with the
contractor and steam customer were concluded in October 1979.
The project is backed substantially by the steam sales contract,
and the revenue generation will be substantial. More importantly, the
steam purchaser—a major U.S. corporation——guarantees to “take or pay”
for steam. In the event that the steam user closes its facility in
Gordian Associates Incorpc rated
-------
96
FIG3RE 7—3
AC
C xis t
Operate
-------
97
Auburn, the agreement also provides for continued payments equivalent to
the principal and interest on the City’s long—term debt for the project.
The project technology and performance risks are completely shifted
to the contractor as long as it remains the operator of the facility.
Performance incentive and penalty provisions are included in the opera-
ting specifications. The City has the right to take over the facility
in the case of non—performance by the contractor over an extended period
of time.
The Auburn project is an example of strong desire to both own and
operate a resource recovery facility being tempered by recent experience
elsewhere and by recognition of the fact that the project has to be run
as a business and thus, the need to overcome City constraints in
personnel and maintenance. It is also worth noting that the influence
and participation of the energy user throughout the planning and
contractor selection process was important to the project’s success and
significantly influenced project structure.
Alternative Procurement Strategies
Overview of Strategies
Once a system is chosen and an organization set up to manage it,
several alternative procurement strategies are available. They are dis-
played in Figure 7—4. The first priorities of any strategy are to
secure contracts for waste supply and the energy market and to select
the financing and procurement approaches to be taken (Step 1).
The A&E approach would then dictate the advertisement for and
selection of an A&E firm to design the proposed facility (Step 2). This
step would include the development of specifications for the facility
to be used by the construction contractor.
Depending on the requirement of the Maine Department of Environ-
mental Protections, an environmental assessment of the proposed project
may be necessary at this stage (Step 3). The financing and any required
preconstruction permits should be secured in Step 3 (Preconstruction
Planning). The sale of G.O. bonds may require voter approval prep-
aration for a referendum should be started well in advance.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
98
FIGURE 7-4: ALTERI4ATIVE PROCUREMENT STRATEGIES
STEP 1. Procureruent Planning SECURE WASTE
and Contracts SUPPLY CONTRACTS
SECURE MAR1CET
CONTRACT
SELECT FLNANCING
APPROACH
SELECT PRUCURENENT
APPROACH
ME TIJRNKEY/FLILL—SERVICE
STEP 2. Contractor
Selection
ACQUIRE DESIGN PREPARE AND ISSUE
(Advertiec fot nd
Select ME Coutractor)
EVALUATE PROPOSALS
AND SELEC1 CONTRACTOR
NEGO T IL AND
FINALIZE CONTRACT
WITH SELECTED VENDOR
STEP 3. Preconstruction PERFORM ENVZROIOENTAL PWOSM ENVIRO!S NTAL
ASSESSMENT r Required) ASSESS T(aa Required)
SECURE F 1 MARCING SECURE FINANCING
SECURE PRECtISTRUCTION
PERMITS
_____ i i,
CONSTRUCTION
MANACRMENT
STEP 4 • Construction Issu; in
Contractor I
Selection LECT Coi TRuCTioN
cON T RtC T OR
1
(CONSTRUCTION) (CONSTRUCTION)
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
99
Once the financing is secured, an invitation to bid (IYB) is issued
for a contractor to construct the facility (Step 4). (IFB’s for hard-
ware vendors may also be issued.) Following selection of the construc-
tion contractor, construction can proceed.
Although the services being procured under the turnkey and full—
service approaches are different,, the procurement strategies used are
essentially the same. As with the A&E approach the authority or muni-
cipality must secure contracts for waste supply and the energy market as
well as select the financing approach (Step 1). Following this in Step
2 an RFP for the turnkey or full—service contractor/system vendor is
prepared and issued. The proposals submitted are evaluated and a
contractor selected. A contract with the vendor must be negotiated and
finalized. It is important that this agreement clearly define the roles
and responsibilities of the contractor and the municipalities.
Generally, the contractor will prepare a preliminary design to
facilitate the process of obtaining and financing preconstruction
permits in Step 3. This source vii ]. be provided out of the contractor’s
fee and this will be included as a capital cost. As with the A&E
approach, some kind of environmental assessment of the project may be
required.
Gordian strongly recommends that the municipalities employ a third—
party engineering firm in Step 4 to supervise the contractor’s planning,
design and construction of the facility to ensure that the contractor
meets the terms of the contract.
Procurement Schedule
An approximate schedule for procurement under the alternative stra-
tegies is shown in Figure 7—5. Gordian estimates that all alternative
procurement strategies can result in ground—breaking within twelve
months. This could be achieved over a shorter period for the turnkey!
full service approach depending on the time that elapses between issuing
the RFP and finalizing of the contract with the system vendorS. The ME
approach will probably require the full twelve months since the design
and preparation of specifications for the IFB by the A&E firm will be
time consuming. In contrast, full—service turnkey contractor will have
this design information on hand.
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
Step
Turnkey!
Full—Service
1
2
3
4
Step 1
2
3
4
Figure 7-5
1
Approximate Schedule for Alternative
Procurement Strategiea
— — — —
I
0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
I- I
1
I I
I
I
I
I
1
-——1
— — — — J
I -I
0
0
-------
101
However, it should be emphasized that unforeseen difficulties, such
as the inability to finalize contracts, could delay project implementa-
tion considerably.
Procurement Costa
Estimates for the cost to complete the alternative procurement
strategies, including the cost of both consulting and in kind services,
are shown in Table 7—2. Cordian estimates that the full—service/turnkey
approach would cost $120,000 compared to $90,000 for the A&E approach.
Although the estimated cost for the A&E approach is less than for the
turnkey/full—service approaches, the overall coat may be greater due to
a higher engineering fee resulting from the greater role an A&E firm
takes in overseeing construction.
PINANC INC ALTERNATiVES *
Basically, local governments draw capital for purchasing facilities
and equipment from two sources: current revenues and borrowings.**
Current revenue, or capital budget financing, is based upon the “pay as
you go” philosophy; that is, all purchases are fully paid for as they
are made. This practice is cou on in the solid waste area. It is used
mainly to purchase collection vehicles and solid waste disposal sites.
Its principle advantage over other forms of financing is its simplicity.
It requires few institutional, informational, analytical, or legal
arrangements. However, it is dependent upon the colwnunity’s ability to
* This discussion is taken from: “Financing,” Resource Recovery Plant
Implementation: Guides for Maintenance Officials 1 U.S. EPA,
SW—167.4 , 1975.
A third alternative is to contract with private enterprise for the
service, thereby shifting the capital—raising burden to the private
firm. With the exception of pollution control revenue bonds, this
option will not be discussed, but it warrants consideration as a
potentially feasible and attractive alternative.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE 7-2
COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVE PROCUREMENT STRATEGIES
102
Lisp 4
Construct ion
Contractor
islection
St . 1
Procuruonn i
Planninj sad
Contracts
Task.
a. Secure vast. oapply contracts
b. Secure sachet contract
C. Islict fisanciaf
d. Semi procuru.sac approach
lisp Total
Cost
Est lasts
(5 a 000)
Step 2
Contractor
Select ion
St• 3
laconstructcos
Planning
A £ £ PROCUll k ( TUSh Kit AIID FUIFSZR’V iCE PSOCUP.”ThT
Tasks
Cost
Ist iast.
$ n 1000
Tasks
Cost
Estluat.
(5 a 1000)
a. Advertis, for M i fir.
b. ivsluats qualifications and
onlegi S it.
lisp Tot.l
Th
a. Prepare and is.u. UP
b. ivaluat. proposals and select
contractor
c. lsotiat. and finslias con-
tract with selsct.d .u.dor
Step total
1
a. Purist. .svir.nsental
asuss nt (an required)
b. Securs fisaneing
a. Secure prscosatvuctton
p s r alts
Step Total
a. Perfoc. .nvirs ntal aaasss—
ansi (us rsquired)
I. Secure financing
h .p Total
1
a. locus IFS.
b. Select construction contractor
(and hardware wonders)
Step Total
TOTalS
. .T
90
a. Construction sianganaut
Step Total
15
120
-------
103
raise surplus capital, and therefore may not be feasible to finance “big
ticket,” capital—intensive purchases. Borrowing is the local
government’s second alternative for financing purchases of equipment and
facilities. Borrowing options may be divided into three categories.
o Short term options — (I to 5 years) to purchase assets that
cost less than $500,000.
o Medium term options — (5 to 10 years) to finance capital
purchases between $500,000 and $1,000,000.
o Long term options — (10 to 30 years) to finance capital
purchases over $500,000.
Unless a local government generates large revenue surpluses, short
and medium term financing alternatives have a limited place in funding
capital—intensive purchases such as resource recovery systems. The
repayment of the principal of the loan is often too heavy a drain on the
local government’s cash flow. Examples of short and medium term
borrowing instruments are bank loans and most leasing agreements.* Bank
loans are often used to finance front—endplanning and some of the
construction costs of expensive facilities. Leasing, though not
typically classified as a borrowing instrument, functions in the same
manner, especially if the local government has the right to purchase the
asset at fair market value after the stipulated number of lease
payments. Neither of the two examples is usually an attractive
alternative to long term asset financing.
Long term municpal financial alternatives can be categorized into
two broad types: general obligation financing and revenue bond
(project) financing. Within each category, specific financing
mechanisms exist.
* Leasing can sometimes act as a long term “borrowing” source. Lease
terms for equipment usually run less than 5 years, whereas leases
for real estate generally run for longer periods. Lease rates range
betweem 10 and 18 percent, although it is possible at times to
negotiate lower interest rates.
Gordian Assocates Incorporated
-------
104
GENERAL OBLIGATION FINANCING
The basic instument for municipal general obligation financing is a
general obligation bond. With general obligation financing, the capital
market evaluates the credit—worthiness of a local govert ent (or
corporation) and does not specifically evaluate the technical and
marketing risk of a particular project. This is different from project
financing. GO bonds usually have lover interest rates compared to
alternative tax—exempt instuments.
General Obligation Bonds . General obligation bonds are long term,
tax—exempt obligations secured by the full faith and credit of a
po1iti cal jurisdiction which has the ability to levy taxes. In most
cases, the full, faith and credit clause pledges the general revenue of
that jurisdiction.
A typical CO bond is offered competitively for sale to bidders. A
competitive bid solicitation invites investment banking houses and
banks (underwriters) to make sealed bids for the right to purchase and
resell the bonds. Usually, underwriting syndicates are formed by groups
of firms to purchase the entire issue. The bidder offering the lowest
net interest cost to the jurisdiction wins the right to place the bonds
with its customer.
Interest rates on GO bonds vary according to the credit rating of
the jurisdiction issuing the bonds, as well as the availability of money
in the capital market. Credit ratings are made for a fee by Standard &
Poor’s Corporation and Moody’s Investors Services, Inc. Currently,
interest rates vary between 6 and 8 percent. Current rates are
published every Friday in the “Daily Bond Buyer.”
Characteristics of general obligation bonds include:
o Voter approval required . Typically, voter approval is
necessary.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
105
o Low interest rates . GO bonds carry the lowest coupon (interest)
rate of any financial instrument and, also, have a low effective
interest rate* compared to other long term debt instruments.
The interest rate is low because investor risk is minimal
resulting from guarantees by the city’s tax—collecting
capacity.
• o Minimum offering size . The effective minimum offering size for
GO bonds is approximately $500,000. General obligation bonds
can be use to finance any project approved by the voters.
Therefore, if a project costs less than $500,000 and a local
government would like to finance it through CO bonds, several
projects will be grouped for a single offering.
Chicago, Illinois, and Ames, Iowa are examples of cities which have
issued general obligation bonds to fund their resource recovery
systems.
PROJECT FINANCE
With project financing, the bond principal and the interest
repayment are guaranteed by expected project revenues (dump fees and
recovered product sales). The expected revenues must offset all future
operating and capital recovery costs.
Typical mechanisms that may be grouped under project financing are
municipal revenue bonde, industrial revenue or development bonds, and
pollution control revenue bonds.**
* The “effective interest rate” may be defined as the interest rate on
the actual capital received. This calculation may be determined by
dividing the yearly interest payments by the net proceeds a city
receives from a particular financing option. Examples of the net
amount of money a local government may expect to receive are
presented-- later- --- - - - - -
£ The major distinctions between industrial revenue bonds (IRBa) and
pollution control revenue bonds (PCRBs) are that IRBs, under most
circumstances, can only be used to raise a maximum of $5 million in
capital. This money must be targeted for industrial development.
With PCREs,. capital limitations do not apply, but the bonds must
finance pollution control equipment. Recent IRS rulings indicate
that i-n most cases, resource recovery facilities are eligible for
this exemption.
Gordian Associates [ ncorp rated
-------
106
The specific characteristics of municipal revenue bonds and pollution
control revenue bonds will be summarized below.
Municipal Revenue Bonds . Municipal revenue bonds are long term,
tax—exempt obligations issued directly by municipalities 1 authorities 1
or quasi—public agencies. Project revenues are pledged to guarantee
repayment of the debt. Municipalities have used revenue bonds to
finance such services as bridges 1 sewers and housing projects. A
typical revenue bond is negotiated rather than competitively
underwritten. A negotiated offering differs from a competitive one in
that the city negotiates with one underwriter to determine what profit
the underwriter will make.*
Negotiated interest rates are generally higher than competitive
interest rates. However, some of thes extra costs are offset by the
free advice the investment banker provides during its examination of the
project and its preparation of the revenue bond circular and official
statement.
A revenue bond circular and official statement summarize for
prospective purchasers of the bond the necessary information about the
project. The documents may take many months to prepare and contain a
great deal of information about the project’s technical and economic
feasibility. Usually, the local government will hire a “third party”
consultant to confirm the investment banker’s estimates of costs and
revenues.
Characteristics of municipal revenue bonds include:
o Voter approval is not required . Usually, referendums are
not necessary to approve issuance of a revenue bond.
Decisions may be made directly by municipal officials. This
may reduce the incremental delays and costs which result from
a citizen vote.
* Bidders may not respond to competitive offerings for technically
complex or risky projects because the expected returns from the
underwriting may not sufficiently offset the initial bidding costs.
Gordian Associates incorporated
-------
107
o Municipal debt limitations usually do not apply .
Since projects are not backed by the taxing power of a city,
revenue bonds often are not constrained by a city’s current
debt ceiling 1 which is a function of its tax base.
o Financial responsibility is encouraged . Prospective bond
purchasers act as a check on the financial soundness of the
project being financed.
o Revenue bond issuance requires detailed information . Revenue
bond issuance requires detailed documentation including a
suary of the project’s technology, products) and economic
viability. This summary (called an official statement) is
necessary because prospective buyers must have sufficient
information to assess the adequacy of the projected revenue
stream. This complexity makes the cost of issuing revenue
bonds relatively high compared to GO bonds.
o The minimum size offering is $1 million . Revenue bonds are
generally not suitable for financing projects that cost less
than $1 million due to their high fixed “front—end”
administrative and transaction costs. (These costs will be
discussed later in the section.)
o Interest rates are higher than those of general
obligation bonds . Interest rates on revenue bonds are
approximately 30 to 45 basis points* higher than on similarly
rated general obligation bonds. Revenue bonds pay higher
interest rates because the investor assumes a higher risk when
he invests in them. In some cases, revenue bonds, through
contractual obligations have been designed to have the risk
attributes of CO bonds. Then interest rates are comparable
* A basis point equals l/l00of-aper et t Therefore , if revenue
bonds interest rates at 7.10 percent and CO rates are 6.75 percent,
there is a 35 basis point differential. The spreads are derived from
data published by the “Daily Bond Buyer,” New York, New York.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
108
to those of GO bonds.*
o They may onl be used to finance one project . A revenue
bond may only be used for single project financing. In
general, the mechanism is issued only when a major project,
requiring Long term capital 1 is to be managed by an jude—
pendent authority or a distinct city agency, and only when
the service provided will generate enough revenue to operate
and maintain the facility, as well as to pay the interest and
principal on the debt.
Nashville, Tennessee used municpal bonds to fund the Nashville
Thermal Transfer Corporation, a non—profit corporation. The corporation
raised $16 million to fund construction of its resource recovery system
which sells to downtown buildings steam for heating and chilled water
for air conditioning. Nashville was able to sell its revenue bond to
investors because of very strong marketing contracts it secured from the
State. The marketing contracts are for purchase of the project’s
products and are non—cancellable. Essentially, they make the project as
safe an investment as many general obligation bonds.
Pollution Control Revenue Bonds (PCRBs) . Pollution control
revenue bonds are long term, tax—exempt obligations issued by a public
instrumentality on behalf of a private enterprise. The
instrumentality acts as a vehicle through which a corporation may obtain
low—cost financing.
* An example was the funding of the Harrisburg, PA incinerator project.
The city government created a “paper” solid waste authority whose
only function was to hold legal title to the incinerator and to be
directly responsible for the bonds. The City, then signed a non—
cancellable contract with the authority, with stipulated payments in
the exact amount of the bond payment schedule. Because of that
arrangement, investment advisors and the capital markets viewed the
incinerator bonds as general obligation bonds. The bonds were rated
as such and carried the same negotiated interest rate as Harrisburg’s
municipal GO bonds.
The use of PCRB5 is defined extensively in Section 103 of the IRS’
Rules and Regulations .
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
109
PCRBs are secured by the assets of the corporation and by the
projected revenues of the project. The credit rating of the corporation
determines the cost to that corporation of an industrial revenue bond.
Interest rates on industrial and pollution control revenue bonds are
over 50 basis points higher than those on GO bonds. Correspondingly 1
they are nearly 200 basis points below the current corporate debt
rate.* To make the bonds marketable 1 PCRBe often require a corporate
guarantee of the debt service payments. If this pledge is made by a
corporation with sufficient financial assets to guarantee the bonds 1
PCRBs may also be viewed as general obligation—type financings albeit
general obligations of private corporations.
The same characteristics that apply to municipal revenue bonds also
apply to PCRBs with the following exceptions:
o The local government technical y _ owna the facility .
With a PCRB the local government technically owns both the
facility and the equipment 1 which it then leases to the private
firm. The lease payments are tailored to meet the scheduled
payments of principal and interest on the bonds. If the
payments between the corporation and the local government are
structured as an “installment sale 1 ” or as a “financing
lease 1 1 ’ the corporation may claim ownership for tax purposes.
This gives the corporation tax benefits in the form of
accelerated depreciation or investment tax credits. The
savings from tax ownership should be passed on to the local
government in the form of lower service fees.
o Th!y require long term contracts . A major stumbling block to
using industrial revenue bonds for financing solid waste
facilities is whether or not a community may sign a long term
contract with a minimum supply of solid waste. While for
* The First Boston Corporation. Tax—Exempt Pollution Control
ncin.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
110
security 1 these issues require long term agreements, many
States do not permit communities to enter into lengthy service
contracts. This problem was recently solved by New York State
which now allows its cities (with the exception of New York
City) to make major long term contractual commitments.
OTHER LONG TERM FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
There are two other long term financial instruments that may be
used in the future in the municipal sector to finance medium to long
term use of capital investment. They are leasing and leverage leasing.
Traditional leasing is being used frequently by local
governments to finance medium term use of capital equipment. A lease
arrangement involves a third party (lessor), who purchases an asset with
his own money, and the local government (lessee), who rents use of the
asset. Within this arrangement, it is possible to institute a sub—lease
from the local government to the private operator for operation of the
resource recovery system. Usually, the length of leases does not extend
beyond 5 years, although recently some leases have been made for 20
years.
Leasing characteristics are:
o Demand on municipal capital outlays is reduced . It allows the
local government to use an asset without forcing the city to
raise the capital ‘ 1 do payment” necessary to purchase the
asset. The city pays for use the equipment in yearly payments.
o Lease financing can be instituted rather quickly . There are
few institutional roadblocks that may delay the financing.
o Lease rates are high . Currently, rates are ranging from
between 10 and 18 percent of the capital coat of the
equipment. This contrasts with lower effective interest rates
on tax—exempt bonds.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
111
o After the termination of the lease 1 the local government
will neither own nor control the facility .
This disadvantage can be reduced if in the leasing contract 1
the local government stipulates options to either renew the
lease or purchaes the asset at fair market value at the end
of the contract.
Leverage Leasing . Leverage leasing is technically not a financial
instr ent; rather, it is a financial package that combines several
finucial mechanisms. Leverage leasing is a complex mechanism to
initiate that requires lengthy, convoluted rulings. It involves two
major participants, a financial intermediary (lessor), and a local
government (lessee). It differs fro traditional leasing in that both
the lessor and the local government provide capital funds to purchase
the asset. Usually 1 the lessor puts up 20 to 30 percent of the cost of
the asset, and the local government finances the remaining portion
through a typical borrowing method.
The leverage leasing concept is base upon the benefits (lower long
term capital and interest costs) that accrue to a city if a financial
intermediary, corporation or individual, is interposed between a long
term source of capital and the local government. The financial
intermediary purchases the tax advantage of ownership, which cannot be
utilized by a local government, by charging the local government a very
low interes rate on its share of the cost of the asset.* The low
interest rate is possible because depreciation and investment tax credit
act to shelter the financial intermediary’s other income, which allows
it ot receive an adequate after—tax retrun on its initial investment in
the asset.
Leverage leasing characteristics are:
o It is new and legally complex . There have been few examples
involving leverage leases of municipal funds. Therefore, at
least initially, lengthy IRS rulings will be required, taking
possibly 6 to 9 months.
* Lover than CO bond interest rate.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
112
o At the end of the lease, the facility is owned by the
lessor and not by the local government . This disadvantage
will probably be minimal since 1 after 20 years (the term of the
lease), the technology will most likely be obsolete. The
local government can further minimize this disadvantage by
stipulating options (as in all lease contracts) to purchase
the facility at fair market value at the end of the lease
or to renew the lease.
o Demand on municipal capital funds is reduced . A substantial
portion of a project’s required capital is supplied by a
third party.
o Interest charges are reduced . Tax advantages available to a
third party lessor permit him to supply capital at a very
low cash return, while still maintaining his adequate, all.—
important, after—tax return. Table 7—3 shows how leverage
leasing lowers the initial cost for a simplified $1 million,
20—year - financing.
COMPARATIVE COSTS
Comparing the costs of different financial mechanisms is implicit
in making financial decisions. When comparing costs, it will not
suffice to review interest rates as they seldom represent the true cost
a local government must pay on the borrowed capital. Rather, the local
government should compare the “effective interest cost” and the
“effective debt service rate” on the funds it finances.
The “effective debt service rate” may be defined as the yearly cost
of the interest payments plus the yearly repayment of capital (capital
recovery payment) divided by the amount of capital the local government
actually received from the project. In making this calculation, it is
important to note that, if a local government float $10 million in bonds
will not receive $10 million.* Depending on the financial mechanism,
the local government can expect to receive 90 to 95 percent of the funds
it financed.
* The commission and legal fees a local government must pay are
summarized in Table 1.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
113
TABLE 7—3
$10 MILLION FINANCING
Serial General
Obligation Bonds
Municipal
Revenue
Bond*
Revenue
Leverage Leasing
$714 by Revenue Bonds
$314 by Lessor
Front—End Costs
Rating Agency Fees
Commission to Underwriter
Counsel to Underwriter
Counsel to City
Bond Counsel
Accountants Fees
Initial Trustee Fees
Third Party Engineer
and Accountant
Debt Service Reserve
Election Cost
Printing and Engraving
Total
$ 3,000
150,000
5,000
10,000
18,000
8,000
6,000
30,000
230,000
$ 5,000
250,000
7,000
10,000
35,000
8,000
6,000
60,000
817,000
40,000
1,238,000
$ 5,000
170,000
7,000
11,000
30,000
8,000
6,000
60,000
572,000
35,000
904,000
Net Proceeds to City#
$9,770,000
8,762,000
9,096,000
Yearly Cost to City
GO Bond — 5.752
Revenue Bonds — 6.25%
Leverage Leasing — 4.88%**
Effective Debt Service Rate ##
$ 848,000
$ 883,000
8.72 10%
$ 788,000
8.6%
* IRB costs not detailed, since all costs are passed on to the involved
corporation.
÷ Election costs are unknown.
fi This is the dollar amount the city would have to pay to retire and pay
the interest on the debt. It was assumed that a city made steady pay-
ments for the life of the financing to retire the debt. The payments
were made semi—annually for twenty years. The assumed interest rate for
each debt instrument was arbitrary. The actual rate will vary according
to the credit—worthiness of a project (or city) and the current capital
market conditions.
** The 4.88% rate is the weighted average cost of capital.
H The Effective Debt Service Rate is the yearly percentage cost to the
city. It was calculated by dividing the yearly cost (interest plus debt
retirement) by the net proceeds a city received.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
114
Table 7—3 compares the coat of using GO bonds, revenue bonds, and
revenue bonds with leveraged leases to float a $10 million issue. The
net proceeds a city is to receive will be reduced by the front—end coats
that are outlined in Table 7—3. These proceeds are the actual dollar
amounts available to purchase a facility. The costs that are outlined
are based on general assumptions and are only approximations. It has
been assumed that the debt would be for 20 years at the stated interest
rates and that it would be retired in steady yearly payI enta for the
term of the financing.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
115
CHAPTER EIGHT
SUMMARY
The goal of this report was to evaluate several solid waste
management alternatives for the Mt. Washington Valley area and to
present a clear picture of the costs and impacts of each system. The
emphasis has been focused on three areas:
o transfer system options — preliminary siting and costs;
o modular incineration with electricity production — technical
and economical evaluation; and
o management, procurement, and financing alternatives — how
they would apply and where they have been implemented.
Based upon the analysis presented in this report several
observations can be made regarding these issues. These findings will
support informed decisions by the people in the Mt. Washington Valley
region.
1. Several transfer station systems are practical for
transporting the refuse from all the towns (except Ossipee
which was not included in the analysis) to a central disposal
site. A system using 8 cubic yard containers is the least
costly although large roll—off containers are also relatively
economical.
2. Modular incineration with electricity production is
technically feasible and economically attractive. The passage
of such laws as PURPA and LEEPA have assured a dependable
market for electricity in electric utilities. Uncertainty as
to the future prices for electricity makes reliable
projections ofthe system’s economics difficult, but with the
current trend toward promoting electricity generation from
small producers, it is likely that revenues to a modular
incinerator plant will keep it operating economically.
3. Nimierous options are available for the ownership, management,
procurement, and financing of a regional solid waste disposal
facility. What is important is to select a management
structure so that system design can be finalized around it.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
The data developed in this study will provide local decision—
makers with the important information for selecting the future solid
waste managment system. This represents another significant step
towards achieving a well—designed system that will serve the needs of
the citizens of the Mt. Washington Valley region.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
A. 1
APPENDIX A. PERTINENT SECTIONS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENTS ACT
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
A. 2
53—A:l Government Units Covered . Any country, town, city, village
district or other municipal corporation now or hereafter established
under the laws of the state of New Hampshire shall be authorized to en-
ter into bilateral or multilateral agreements with any other such gov—
erninental unitS or units for the performance of any of the functions
herein below set forth.
53—A:2 Form of Agreement . Any agreement made under the authority of
this chapter shall be in writing in a form to be approved by the office
of the attorney general and the attorney or attorneys representing the
governmental units involved. In cases involving counties and cities,
the county attorney and the city solicitor shall act for their respec-
tive untis. In cases involving towns or other governmental units with
no regular attorney, the unit involved is authorized to employ counsel
to represent it in connection with the negotiation for and drafting of
the necessary documents.
53—A:3 Functions Covered . The governmental units hereinafter des-
cribed may enter into agreements for ther performance of any and all of
the following functions:
I. The extenguishment of fires, the lighting or sprinkling of
streets;
II. In planting and care for shade and ornamental trees;
III. The supply of water for domestic and fire purposes;
IV. The construction 1 maintenance of highways, sidewalks and main
drains or common sewers.
V. The construction, maintenance and care of parks or commons;
VI. The maintenance of activities for recreational promotion;
VII. The erection, maintenance and operation of buildings and
other structures Lot- recreational purposes;
VIII. The construction or purchase and maintenance of a municipal
lighting plant;
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
A.3
IX. The appointing the employing of watchmen and police officers;
X. The establishment of housing authorities and the issuance of
bonds in the erection of housing as authorized under R.S.A.
203 and 204; and
XI. The erection, maintenance and operation of any sewage dispos-
al plant or other device necessary or convenient for
compliance with any water pollution statute or revaluation
lawfully issued.
XII. The construction, maintenance and operation of refuse collec-
tion and disposal.
XIII. The maintenance and operation of ambulances.
XIV. The construction, maintenance and operation of jails and
other correctional facilities and programs.
53—A:4 Funds . The respective counties, towns, cities and other gov-
ernmental units involved in any agreements as set forth in seciton 1 of
this chapter are hereby authorized ot appropriate the funds necessary
to carry Out their contractual obligations thus incurred. In cases in-
volving the expenditure of capital funds they are authorized to borrow
such funds under the terms of the municipal finance act, R.S.A. 33, as
amended, and to issue bonds in accordance with the provisions of such
act or to set up a capital reserve fund for such purposes under the
provsions of R.S.A. chapters 34 or 35.
Regional Refuse Disposal Districts
53.B:l Refuse Disposal Planning Committee . Two or more cities or
towns, by vote of the council in a city and by vote of a town meeting
in a town, may create a special unpaid committee to be known as a
regional refuse disposal planning Committee, consisting of three per-
sons appointed by the moderator in a town and by the mayor in a city.
53—B:2 Definitions . The term “refuse disposal facility” as used in
this chapter means an incinerator, sanitary landfill, transfer sta-
tion, composting plant, other sanitary means of refuse disposal ap—
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
A.4
proved by the division of public health services, or any combination of
two or more such facilities.
53—B:3 Refuse Disposal Planning Board . Regional refuse ‘disposal plan-
ning committees from two or more cities or towns may join together to
form a regional refuse disposal planning board. The board shall study
the advisability of establishing a regional refuse disposal district,
ways for the organization, operation, and control of such a district;
and the methods of selecting, constructing, maintaining, and operating
a refuse disposal facility to serve the needs of the district. It
shall estimate construction and operating costs and it shall study
methods of financing such a district. Each city or town represented on
the board may appropriate a sum not in excess of three thousand dollars
for the expenses of the board.
53—B:4 Refuse Disposal District Agreement . The regional refuse dis-
posal planning board shall draw up a proposed agreement. The agreement
shall contain provisions setting forth the sharing of construction and
operating costs; the number, method of selection, and terms of office
of the members of the regional refuse disposal district committee; the
general area in which the refuse disposal facility shall be construed;
the terms by which another city or town may be admitted to the dis-
trict; the method by which the agreement may be amended; the procedure
for the preparation and adoption of the annual budget; and any other
matters, not incompatible with law, which the coiittees judge advis-
able. All plans for refuse disposal facilities shall be subject to the
approval of the division of public health services.
53—3:5 Findings and Recommendations . The regional refuse disposal
planning board shall report its findings and recommendations to the
board of selectmen and the mayor, as the case may be, of each city or
town comprising the board. If the board recommends that a regional
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
A.5
refuse disposal district be established, a copy of the proposed agree-
ment shall accompany the report to each such city or town.
53—B:6 Vote on Establishing District . The selectmen of each of the
several towns, upon receipt of a recommendation that a regional refuse
disposal district be established, shall cause the question of accepting
such plan to be presented for determination by vote with printed bal-
lots at the next annual town meeting or at a special town meeting
called for that purpose. The mayors of the several cities, upon the
receipt of a recommendation that a regional refuse disposal district be
established, shall submit the question of accepting such a plan to the
city council within sixty days after receiving the recommendation. In
the case of either a town or city; the question to be voted on shall
be; “Shall the city (town) accept the provisions of sections 1 to 10
inclusive of chapter 53—B of the revised statutes annotated providing
for the establishment of a regional refuse disposal district, together
with the towns of...and the cities of..., and the construction, main-
tenance, and operation of a regional refuse facility by said district
in accordance with the provisions of a proposed agreement filed with
the selectmen or the mayor?” If a majority of the members of each city
council voting on the question and a majority of the voters in each
town voting on the question shall vote in the affirmative, the proposed
regional refuse disposal district shall be established forthwith in ac-
cordance with the terms of the proposed agreement.
53—B:7 Corporate Body; Powers and Duties . A regional refuse disposal
district, established under section 6 of the chapter, shall be a body
politic and corporate with the following powers and duties.
I. To adopt a name and a corporate seal. The engraved or
printed facsimile of the seal appearing on a bond or note of
the district shall have the same legal effect as if it were
impressed thereon.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
A.6
II. To sue and be sued, but only to the same extent and upon the
same conditions that a city or town may be sued.
III. To purchase, or take by eminent domain land within the cities
and towns which have accepted the provisions of sections 1 to
10 inclusive of this chapter, for the purpose of the dis-
trict, and to plan, construct, and equip a refuse disposal
facility for the benefit of those cities and towns, and to
make any necessary contracts in relation thereto.
IV. To incur debt for the purpose of acquiring land and for plan-
ning, construction, and equipping a refuse disposal facility
for a term not exceeding thirty days. Written notice of the
amount of the debt and of the general purposes for which it
was authorized shall be given to the city council of each
city and to the board of selectmen of each town comprising
the district not later than seven days after the date on
which the debt was authorized by the district committee. No
debt may be incurred until the expiration of thirty days from
the date the debt was authorized by the district co=ittee.
If, prior to the expiration of the thirty—day period, the
city council of any member city expresses disapproval of the
amount authorized by the district committee, or any member
town expresses such disapproval by vote of a majority of the
voters present and voting on the matter at a town meeting
called for the purpose of expressing such disapproval, the
debt shall not be incurred. If there is a disapproval of the
proposal, the regional refuse disposal planning committee
shall prepare another proposal, which may be the same as any
prior proposal, and an authorization to incur debt therefor.
V. To issue bonds and notes in the name and upon the full faith
and credit of the district. The bonds or notes shall be
signed by the chairman and the treasurer of the district corn—
mittee, except that the chairman by a writing bearing his
written signature and filed in the office of the treasurer,
which writing shall be open to public inspection, may author-
ize the treasurer to cause to be engraved or printed on the
bonds a facsimile of the chairman’s signature, and auch
Gorc3iari Associates Incorporated
-------
A.7
facsimile signature so engraved or printed shall have the
same validity and effect as the chairman’s written signature.
Each issue of bonds or notes shall be a separate loan.
VI. To receive and disburse funds for any district purpose.
VII. To incur temporary debt in anticipation of revenue to be re-
ceived from member cities and towns.
VIII. To assess member cities and towns for any expenses of the
district.
IX. To receive any grants or gifts for the purposes of the
regional district.
X. To engage legal counsel.
XI. To submit an annual report to each of the member cities and
towns, containing a detailed financial statement, and a
statement showing the method by which the annual charges as-
sessed against each city and town were computed.
XII. To employ an executive director and such other employees
necessary to operate the district.
XIII. To adopt an annual operating budget, not later than December
thirty-first of the previous year.
XIV. To enter into contracts for refuse disposal with persons,
nonmember cities and towns as well as other bodies politic,
and the United States of America.
53—B:8 Regional District Cotmnittee . The powers, duties, and liabili-
ties of a regional refuse disposal district shall be vested in and
exercised by a regional refuse disposal district co nittee organized in
accordance with the agreement. The committee shall choose a chairman
by ballot from its membership. It shall appoint a secretary and a
treasurer, who may be the same person, but who need not be members of
the committee. The treasurer shall receive and take charge of all
money belonging to the district and shall pay any bill of the district
which has been approved by the committee. The treasurer may, by vote
of the committee, be compensated for his services.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
A.8
53—B:9 Apportionment of Expenses . Annually, the regional refuse dis-
posal district committee shall determine the amounts necessary to be
raised to maintain and operate the district during the next calendar
year and the amounts required for payment of debt and interest incurred
by the district that will be due in the next year. The committee shall
prepare a budget and make a preliminary apportionment of the amount so
determined among the several members cities and towns in accordance
with the terms of the agreement. Prior to December 31 of each year the
district committee shall hold at least one public hearing at some con-
venient place in the district on the amounts required in the budget and
the preliminary apportionment of the amounts listed in the budget. At
Least seven days notice of the meeting shall be given by publication of
the budget and apportionment in a newspaper of general circulation
within the district, and by posting a copy of the budget and
apportionment in a public place in each city and town in the district.
After the hearing the committee shall adopt a budget and make a final
determination of the apportionment amoung the member cities and towns.
After the committee has adopted the budget and determined the appor-
tionment of the expenses, the regional refuse disposal district trea-
surer shall certify to the selectmen of the towns and the councils of
the cities in the district the amount of money assessed each member
town and city. The selectmen of each member town and the council of
each member city shall seasonably assess the taxes to be raised to pay
the apportionments. The city or town treasurer shall pay to the dis-
trict the amount so apportioned at the times specified in the agree-
ment.
53—B:lO Audit of Accounts . Each year the director of the municipal
accounting division of the state tax coimnission shall cause an audit to
be made of the accounts of the regional refuse disposal district com-
mittee, and for this purpose he, and his authorized agents, shall have
access to all necessary papers, books, and records. Upon the comple-
tion of each audit, a report thereon shall be sent to the mayor and to
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
A.9
the chairman of the board of selectmen, respectively, of each city and
towns which are members of the district, in proportion to each’s con-
tribution to the cost of the district, the committee shall reimburse
the municipal accounting division for the total cost of the audit. The
money so paid shall be credited to the appropriation of the division,
and the committee shall charge each town and city its share of the
costs.
53—B:1l ( Sales, Leases. Licenses. ) The agreement made under section 3
of this chapter of any amendment to such an agreement, may contain pro-
visions authorizing any member city or town to sell, lease, or license
to the regional refuse disposal district any refuse disposal facility
and any land appurtenant thereto or used in connection therewith or any
othet’ property useful for the purpose of the district. Any such city
or town may authorize euch sale, lease, or license accordingly. In
case of a sale, the towns other than the selling city or town shall be
accessed for such payment shall be set forth in the agreement or amend-
ment; but in no case shall payments be made which shall extend over a
period in excess of thirty years. In the case of a lease or license,
the rental or license fee and terms of payment and assessment shall be
set forth in the agreement or amendment. The lease or license may be
for a term not in excess of thirty years, and may contain provisions
for the extension of the lease or license for an additional term not in
excess of thirty years at the option of the regional refuse disposal
district coittee.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
B.1
APPENDIX B: REPRESENTATIVE REFUSE TRANSFER EQUIPMENT
AND SITE CONFIGURATIONS
AND
DERIVATION OF COSTS FOR VARIOUS WASTE COLLECTION
SYSTEMS FOR TEE MT. WASHINGTON VALLEY AREA
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
B.2
REPRESENTATIVE REFUSE TRANSFER EQUIPMENT
AND SITE CONFIGURATIONS
Figures 8-1, B—2 and B—3 illustrate the 8 cu. yd. front end loading
container, the 40 cu. yd. and 42 cu. yd. open—roll—off containers and
appropriate transfer vehicles. Configurations of typical transfer sites
are presented in Figure 3—4. These sites and systems have been discussed
in Chapter 2, “collection/Transfer Station System Alternatives.”
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
B. 3
FIGURE B—i Conceptual Drawing Of 8 Cu. Yd. Front
End Loading Containers With 36 Cu. Yd.
Truck At Transfer Site
co :a ir.e
III .l
.
.
S
‘4.
Gorthan Associate! h o pora ed
-------
FIGURE B—2
Couc.ptual Drawing Of 40 Cu. Yd. Container
Transfer Sits And Tilt—Frame Vehicle
50,000 lb. Tilt-Fr . .. Vehicle with 40 Cu. yd. Op. ’l ll—Off
Container with SpTi g —U$iItSd Lid
0
Typical 40 cu. yd. Open—Roll-Off
Container Transfer Site
-------
B.5
FIGURE B-3 Conceptual Drewiug Of 42 Cu. Yd. Open-R ll-Off
Container System With Conpactor Az Cotipaction
Tranefer Site
Conpaction Transfer Site with conDactor, 42 cu. yd. Open —Roll—Off
ContaineT, and 50,000 pound Tilt-Fraae Vehicle.
-------
B..6
FIGURE B—4
Typical Transfer Sites
I
S
I
I
S
S
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
L-SHAPE t ES1CN
2-S}LAPE DES1G1
I
I
I
I
S
I
STRA1GHT.UXE DESiGN
GoTdian Associates 1ncorporaIe
-------
B.7
DERIVATION OF COSTS FOR VARIOUS WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEIIS
MT. WASEINCTON VALLEY AREA
A variety of equipment options were evaluated to arrive at the
final system configurations and costs for waste collection
alternatives. Each system’s cost and effectiveness in relation to the
physical limitations of the rural region were used as the evaluative
criteria.
The initial figures presented here are based on the population
statistics (Table 1—2) and waste quantities (Table 2—1) developed
earlier. The equipment options considered are:
o 16 to 18 cu. yd. rear loader pickup by existing hauler and
equipment;
o 8 cu. yd. containers, to be emptied into and hauled by a 36
cu. yd. front—end loader packer truck (new system); and
o 40 cu. yd. open—roll—off containers and/or 42 Cu. yd. compac-
tion containers with a compactor unit, containers to be
hauled by a 50,000 tilt—frame vehicle (new system).
A compaction coefficient of 200 lb.Icu. yd. was used for loose
refuse in the 8 cu. yd. and 40 cu. yd. containers. A compaction
coefficient of 800 lb./cu. yd. was used for the 42 cu. yd. compaction
containers. A compaction coefficient of 500 lb./cu. yd. was employed
for the 36 cu. yd. packer truck.
The maximum daily amount of waste generated in the region occurs
during a typical day in July or August. The minimum daily amount of
waste generated occurs during a typical day in April or November. For
each town in the region there are two distinct periods of the year: the
four summer months and the eight remaining months. Each season’s
months were averaged to develop waste generation figures for determin-
ing the limits necessary for the waste collection system. These ad-
justed tonnages are presented in Table 8—1.
In order to develop the basic collection system designs, the
initial data was calculated using 3 separate regional systems: conven-
tional rear loader pickup at individual homesites; 8 cu. yd. containers
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
B.8
TABLE B-i
AVERAGE WASTE GENERATION
Town Summer (June—Sept.) Other (Oct.—May)
lbs/day lbs/week lbs/day lbs/week
Albany 8,280 49,680 1,620 9,700
Bartlett 30,040 180,240 18,540 111,240
Eaton 2,900 17,400 1,140 6,860
Harts Location 1,220 7,320 260 1,560
Jackson 19,660 117,960 7,980 47,880
tons/day tons/week tons/day tons/week
Albany 4.14 24.84 .81 4.85
Bartlett 15.02 90.12 9.27 55.62
Eaton 1.45 8.7 .57 3.43
Harts Location .61 3.66 .13 .78
Jackson 9.83 58.98 3.99 23.94
1 The number of days worked per year are 314 (6 days a week).
2 The amount of waste generated per day was determined utilizing
the data contained in Table 2—1.
Gordiaii Associates Incorporated
-------
B.9
placed at strategically located sites around the region; and a combin-
ation of 40 cu. yd. open roll—off containers and 42 cu. yd. compaction
roll—off units. The discussion that follows describes the data gener-
ation for these preliminary system designs.
System 1. — Direct Private Collection
Gordian examined the costs of an extensive direct collection of
all municipally generated waste in each town by the existing private
haulers in the region. This system would include not only the pick—up
of year—round residential units but also the collection of waste from
seasonal homes 1 mobile homes 1 condominimums, ski clubs, campgrounds,
commercial establishments, and industrial establishments. Gordian
derived its cost estimates for this approach using those collection
rates .charged by the two licensed haulers in the region and by
estimating the average number of living units in each town. By
multiplying the collection rates of the private haulers by the average
number of living units in each town, Gordian was able to obtain an
estimate of the total cost of an extensive private collection system
for each town and for the Mount Washington Valley area as a whole.
In its field visit to Mount Washington Valley 1 Gordian contacted
the two private haulers that are currently providing door—to—door
service to a portion of the residents in each town—The North Country
Incinerator Service and the White Mountain Incinerator Service. The
rates presently being charged by these hauler8 are summarized in Table
B—2. The household rates charged by the White Mountain Incinerator
Service ($1.75/household/week) were used to develop costs for the
direct private collection system. Assuming one weekly collection per
household/living unit, the total annual cost charged per household/
living unit is $91.00 ($1.75 x 52 weeks).
Once the annual collection cost per household/living unit was
derived, Gordian estimated the average number of living units in each
tov , in order to determine the annual cost per town for direct private
collection of waste. To determine the average number of living units
in each town, Gordian had to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE -2
COLLECTION RATES OF PRIVATE HAULERS
IN MOUNT WASHINGTON VALLEY AREA (1980)
3 C.T. Co tath.r
4C.1.
u U
CosII
CoUsctton
._ Is
(Co.IjCosIa$uU) (C.ut/CosiIstnsr) (Co.tlC . .uL .sr)
I ts1 Dip P..
(Co.UCsatsissr) (C..tICost.Ls.r) (roUlCoutda.r)
Norib Cor.esy
Intto.r.tor
kivics
$1.50
$4.00 1v..k $4.00 $0.00
$S.00l á $7.00 SilOS
N ou .ea ls
IacI .ra&or
krv lc.
$4.OOlvuk $5.00 S,.SO
$7.OOlvssk ILSO $15.00
1 for csll.cUos of thr.s c.scmIo.r. or less.
-------
B. 11
average number of persons per living unit in the Mount Washington
Valley area. We used the “Mount Washington Valley Seasonal Population
Study” prepared by the North Country Council 1 to estimate the average
number of persons per living unit (Table 8—3). By dividing the average
seasonal population in 1978 for the region by the total living units in
the region, we obtained an average of 4.5 persons per living unit for
the region. This figure (4.5 persons per living unit) was then divided
into the average seasonal population in each town (Table 8—4), to
determine the average number of living units for each town from 1980
through 2005 (Table B—5).
Annual Cost—System 1
Gordian calculated the annual cost of an extensive private
colleãtion program in each town. Table 8—6 presents these annual
costs. The total cost of private collection for 2,371 living units was
estimated to be $215,761 in 1980. The collection cost per ton in 1980
for the Mount Washington Valley area excluding Conway was estimated at
$34.22 per ton ($215,761 6,304 tons).
System 2 — 8 cu. yd. Container System
Tables B—7 and B—8 present the number of 8 cu. yd. front—end
loader container loads generated in Albany, Bartlett 1 Eaton, and
Jackson during average suner (June—September) and winter (October—May)
waste generation periods. Given the small amount of waste generated in
Harts Location, Gordian assumed that the Harts Location will use the
Bartlett transfer station. At the outset of our analysis, it was
assumed that there will be daily pick—up in the su er and weekly
pickup in the winter at each transfer station. However, in an attempt
to optimize su ner and winter collection/hauling systems, Gordian
combined daily, every other day, and weekly collection frequencies, as
will be seen later in this discussion. As with all collection systems,
health and safety factors preclude a pickup schedule that collects
waste less than once a week.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE B-3
M . WASHINGTON VALLEY SEASONAL POPULATION STUDY
1978 Number of Number of Number of
Seasonal Population Residential Mobile Seasonal Homes Total
(Average) Units Homes Unvinterized Winterized Living Units
C)
0
Albany 1107 143 34 98 10 285
Bartlett 4917 955 59 37 24 1075
Conway 11972 1925 308 183 218 2634
U)
o Eaton 527 77 2 33 42 154
Harts Location 169 11 2 4 13 30
U) Jackson 2507 193 5 81 294 573
z
a
O Mt. Washington Valley 21199 3304 410 436 601 4751
‘U
0
‘1
1978 Average Population . Living Units Average Number of Persons Living Per Living Unit
21199 475]. — 4.5 Persona Per Living Unit
1 Source: Mount Washington Valley Seasonal Population Study, North Country Council, Inc., May, 1979.
-------
F
r
4
TABLE B-4
AVERAGE SEASONAL POPULATION 1
Based on averaging of monthly population estimates in Tables 1—3 through Table 1—8.
I-
1980
-
1985
r
1990
1995
2000
2005
ALBANY
1,245
1,382
1,479
1,557
1,636
1,715
BARTLEIT
5,661
6,197
6,611
7,016 —
7,391
7,741
CONWAY
14,985
16,679 —
17,835
18,726
19,657
20,518
EATON
650
726
172
806
845
894
HARTS LOCATION
210
246
264
281
298
317
JACKSON
2,907
3,226
3,463
3,634
3,806
3,978
TOTAL
25,658
28,456
30,424
32,020
33,633
35,163
-------
3.14
TABLE 3—5
AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS PER YEAR FOR EACH TOWN 1
1 Lased on average monthly populations in Table 3—4 and dividing these
averages by 4.5 persons per household figure.
Town
1980
1985
1990 1995 2000
2005
Albany
277
307
329
346
364
381
Bartlett
1258
1377
1469
1559
1642
1720
Conway
3330
3706
3963
4161
4368
4560
Eaton
144
161
172
179
188
199
Harts Location
46
55
59
62
66
70
.Tackaon
646
717
770
807
846
884
TOTAL
5701
6323
6762
7114
7474
7814
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
B. 15
TABLE B—6
ANNUAL COST OF AN EXTENSIVE PRIVATE COLLECTION PROGRAM ’
(1980)
Average Number
of Households
Annual Colle 9 ion
Cost (1980)
Albany
277
$ 25,207
Bartlett
1,258
114,478
Eaton
144
13,104
Harts Location
46
4 .186
Jackson
646
58,786
Total Cost 2,371 $215,761
1 Gordian calculated the yearly cost per household for a once per week
collection by private haulers as follows: $1.75/week/collections x
52 weeks $91.00 per year per household.
2 The average cost per year for weekly private collection for each
town was calculated as follows: (cost per weekly household collec-
tion) x (average number of households) the average cost per year.
For example, Albany’s annual cost was calculated as follows:
($91.00 per year) x (277 average households) = $25,207 per year.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
Town
-------
B. 16
TABLE 3—7
NUMBER OF 8 C.Y. F.E.L. CONTAINERS NECESSARY FOR HANDLING
AVERAGE SU fl4ER (JUNE-SEPTEMBER) WASTE GENERATION’
Transfer Site
Average Lbs/
Day of Waste
Generated
Container 2
Loads/Day
Average Lbe/
Week of Waste
Generated
Container 2
Loads/Week
Albany
Bartlett/Harts
Location 4
Eaton
Jackson
8,280
31,260
2,900
19,660
5.91
22.3
2.07
14.04
49,680
187,560
17,400
117,960
35.49
133.97
12.43
84.26
We assumed 8 C.Y. containers will have a fill level of 7 cubic yards at a
density of 200 lbs/cubic yard.
2 Assuming daily pick—up (i.e., once per day per container)
Assuming weekly pick—up (i.e., once per week per container)
The town of Harts Location will use the transfer containers located in
Bartlett. Therefore, the waste and container load data have been consoli-
dated for this analysis.
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
B.17
TABLE B-8
NUMBER OF 8 C.Y. F.E.L. CONTAINERS NECESSARY FOR HANDLING
AVERAGE OCTOBER-MAY WASTE GENERATION 1
Transfer Site
Average Lbs/
Day of Waste
Generated
Container
Loads/Day
Average Lbs/
Week of Waste
Generated
Container
Loads/Week
Albany
Hart lett/Harts
Location
Eaton
Jackson
1,620
18,800
1,140
7,980
1.16
13.43
.81
5.7
9,700
112,800
6,860
47,880
6.93
80.57
4.9
34.2
We assumed 8 C.Y. containers will have a fill level of 7 cubic yards at a
density of 200 lbs/cubic yard.
2 Assuming daily pick—up (i.e., once per day per container)
3 Assuming weekly pick—up (i.e., once per week per container)
The town of Harts Location will use the transfer containers at Bartlett.
Therefore, the waste and container load data have been consolidated for this
analysis.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
B. 18
The pounds of waste generated by each town for the summer and
winter, divided by the compaction coefficient and divided again by the
capacity of the container, determined the number of container loads
generated by each town, sLmilar to the O—R—O option. The fill level
utilized for the 8 cu.yd. containers was 7 cu. yd.
The 8 cy. yd. containers will be picked up at each transfer
station by a 36 cu. yd. packer truck with a capacity of 18,000 pounds.
Unlike the open—roll—off tilt—frame vehicle, the front—end loading
vehicle need not return to the landfill after collecting the waste at
each transfer station. The front—end loader will travel to as many
transfer stations as necessary to fill the vehicle to capacity, then
return to the Conway disposal site. Therefore, a routing system was
selected to allow cost data to be developed. The most efficient
colledtion system divided the Mount Washington Valley into 2 parts with
Bartlett and Jackson comprising one routing scheme and Albany and Eaton
comprising the other.
During the s er months, 4 trips to the landfill will have to be
made by a 36 Cu. yd. packer truck each day. During the winter only 10
trips have to be made per week.
Summer Routing
Table B—9 depicts each route, determines the total miles traveled,
and the total time required to travel from the landfill to the transfer
site, pick up the container loads, fill the truck to capacity and
return to the landfill. The time required for pickup of each container
at the transfer site was estimated to be 2 minutes.
Referring to Table B—9, the first pickup point in the suer
(June—September) is Jackson. The packer truck travels 14 miles in 28
minutes to get there. There are 13 container loads at the transfer
site totaling 18,000 pounds. The containers are emptied into the truck
in 26 minutes. Since the truck is filled to capacity, it returns to
the landfill 14 miles and 28 minutes away to dump its load, which is
Gorthan Associates Incorporated
-------
B. 19
TABLE B-9
SUMMER (3UNE—SEPT.) 8 C.Y. F.E.L. ROUTING
(DAILY PICK-UP)
ti Pfrst -
! oi t tipPoint
IfH1 j-i _
14 1es 1
a _ . ,k _ 2
2 I fLU
14
a
3 1 fi21 1 t1.u
16 .ilss
32 ‘ —
bA I fil1 Aib
8 i1nt
16 — - - - -
1o 1es
uIg Poãt
O . dti11)
I f ill
4 1nt
a
1 W1
6 1
L fiU
6 1e.
32 - - -
P Day
L fiU
7
1$ — - -
481.5 a tea/diy
8.025 hags/day
48.18 t n n/
124.5 , I i*.m day
2.00 I u r day
12.45
.O nites d y
10.1 hou.ws per day
60.63 t t
106.5 iaites par ip
1.78 par ip
1
1
ta1
l i
(lbs.) ‘
1btaI
Miles
Ti
(itüiatee)
18,000
26
97
6ae Pi - ‘ flth funt Pith I-
p( lbs.) Up Point Up (lbs.)
18,
26 — ‘—“ — 3
1,660
4 ar
14,
26
T Ua r C t
!at tiz Pkff e. 6
32 ufiites
145.5
18,000 40 121 181.5
14, 32 103 154.5
8,260
12 - - —
1O.ile a
5DMO 100 321
305330 1.926
2,900
6
TOTAL IA:
L fU1 11,100 26 00
7 ailes
Per 62.100 126 406
Par 3fl.600 2434
71
41 °i,i Abil —
S Riles
16 I .. 26 16
JI 3 PI S I • aru,u&aL ______
IStDII
7 j_
1.4 — ‘- -- -
17,403
26 - -
I FI -1P P %W
49A8 ) 48 213
17,400 14 69
17.400 14 69
372.600 a z
5.33 b n
103.5 %ia teS par thp
1.73
1.73 per
33.2 larni per
TOTAL SV3TR 21: ______ _______________
diat. ges , 9 __ r.J nt d ck—i p 4 ’ —e d df..’— a •
2 rayret is dR it e1 bs s s e1b nt 30 Si (ft — --- -—) .
3 is m 2 — — * —‘- - - s .
es 9 of zof as nt 18,000 1bsJ1 .
r f p ftcl.i es 15 — 4 ’ir. . it I fLU sia w thschir e “—‘ .
6 pl*m 1.3 • d t —’— ’ • partially’ — 4 st • xvkurg, .
7 .y day p i ck-vp.
S
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
B.20
calculated to take 15 minutes. At this point one can calculate the
total time spent and total miles traveled for Route 1. For the
purposes of cost and manpower estimations 1 the total time necessary per
route was multiplied by 1.5 to allow for pickup of partially—loaded
containers that need servicing and for extra containers. The total
time and miles required for each route were used to calculate the costs
of the front—end loader 8 cubic yard waste collection system for the
ser months.
The second pickup route also starts in Jackson. Again, the truck
travels the 14 miles to the site in 28 minutes. However, this time
only 2 container loads totaling 1,660 pounds are picked up. The
containers are emptied into the truck in 4 minutes. Since the truck
has an additional capacity of 16,340 pounds available, it continues on
to Bartlett , which is approximately 10 miles and 20 minutes away from
Jackson. At Bartlett, the truck collects 16,340 pounds or 11 container
loads of the 31,260 pounds (or 23 container loads) at the site, filling
the truck to capacity. The process takes 22 minutes. The truck then
returns to the landfill which is 16 miles and 32 minutes away to dump
its load, which is again calculated to take 15 minutes. The third
pickup route starts in Bartlett, collects the remaining 14,920 pounds
(12 container loads), and travels 16 miles and 32 minutes before
dumping its load. The waste loads at Albany and Eaton now remain to be
picked up.
At this point, Gordian reviewed the waste amounts that remained to
be collected on a daily basis — 8,280 pounds in Albany and 2,900 pounds
in Eaton. It was felt that collection of a total of only 1,180 pounds
on a daily basis in suer might not prove to be the moat cost
effective solution to Albany and Eaton’s waste collection. Therefore,
Gordian reviewed the costs associated with daily su er collection in
Albany and Eaton and compared these costs with costs attached to less
frequent collection at these transfer stations. The following options
were compared:
• Option 4a — Daily collection of all waste generated at the
Albany and Eaton transfer stations on one route
during the suer months (June — September).
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
B.21
• Option 4b — Every other day collection of waste in Albany and
once per week collection in Eaton during the
au er months (June — September).
Option 4a requires the truck to travel 8 miles in 16 minutes to
Albany and to collect 8 28O pounds (six 8 c.y. container loads) in 12
minutes. The truck then travels 10 miles in 20 minutes to Eaton and
collects 2,900 pounds (three 8 c.y. container loads) in 6 minutes. The
truck then travels 7 miles in 14 minutes to the regional landfill. The
total daily driving distance and handling time required to collect 9
containers totaling 11,180 pounds is 25 miles and 124.5 minutes’
(10.1 hours per day). Assuming a 6 day per week collection, the total
handling time will be 60.6 hours per week.
Option 4b requires the truck to travel approximately 8 miles to
Albany and collect 16,560 pounds (12 container loads) of refuse at a
frequency of three pick ups per week. After each of its every other
day collections, the truck would return to the landfill and dump its
load. The total time required for three collections per week in Albany
is estimated at 5.33 hours per week. Option 4b also requires a once
per week collection of refuse at the Eaton transfer station. The truck
will perform a weekly collection of 17,400 pounds (13 container loads)
and travel 7 miles back to the landfill to dump. The total time
required for this haul is approximately 1.73 hours per week.
These routing options combine to represent two distinct collection
systems. System 2A consists of routes 1,2,3 and 4a and is estimated to
require 60.63 hours per week. System 23 (routes 1,2,3 and 4B) requires
55.2 hours per week.
In determining the cost effectiveness of routes 4a versus 4b,
Gordian reviewed three variables which will affect the total cost of
the hauling system:
1 Includes 15 minutes per dump at landfill in the driving time and
1.5 times the driving time to determine the total handling time.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
B.22
• the number of containers required for each option
• the number of miles driven to complete each option
• the number of operating hours required for each option.
Table B—iD presents the container requirements for each system.
System 2a requires 47 containers at the site for daily collection
operations and an additonal 10 containers to be used as spares.
System 2B requires 63 containers to perform daily hauling of waste in
Bartlett and Jackson every other day hauling in Albany and once per
week hauling in Eaton. An additional 13 containers will be needed as
spares. In total 1 System 25 requires 76 containers in the s immer 1
while System 2A requires 57 containers 1 a difference of 19
containers.
The cost differentials associated with the number of containers 1
miles driven 1 and operating hours for Systems 2A and 2B are summarized
in Table B—il. System 25 requires more containers than System 2A
but the total miles driven and operating hours required to complete
System 2B are is 88 miles and 5.43 hours less on a weekly basis.
However 1 when Gordian calculated the actual costs and savings of
System 2B 1 it was found that the increased capital costs of purchasing
more containers for less frequent collections in Albany and Eaton was
not offset by the savings in operating and hauling costs ($102.OOIwk
cost differential). Therefore 1 Gordian used System 2A for determining
hauling costs in the suer months (June — September).
Winter Routing
Table B—12 presents the time and mileage associated with weekly
collection of containers at the four transfer sites from October to
May. A total of 313 miles and 25.8 hours would be required for weekly
pickup. However 1 when Gordian reviewed the container requirements and
number of trips required to each site on one day each week 1 it became
apparent that this system would not be cost effective. For example 1
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE 8-10
SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION
CONTAINER REQUiREMENTS —
SUMMER (JUNE—SEPTEMBER)
Spares/Redundancy
o Bartlett Jackson Albany Eaton Subtotal 202 Total
0
SYSTEM 2A 1 23 15 6 3 47 10 57
SYSTEM 282 23 15 12 3 13 4 • 63 13 76
U) 1 Data developed in Table B—7 (Routes 1, 2, 3, 4A).
2 Data developed in Table B-i (Routes 1, 2, 3, 4B1)
Z 3 On a daily collection basis from June through September, Albany will need 6 containers.
8 However, under System 28, collection frequency will be every other day in Albany. Therefore,
2 days x 6 containers/day = 12 containers.
4 Eaton ,i11 receive once a week collection under System 2B.
I .’
w
-------
B.24
TABLE B—il
SUMMER COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPITAL/OPERATING COST DIFFERENTIALS
ON A WEEKLY BASIS — 8 C.!. F.E.L. ROUTING
No. of Containers Miles Driven Operating Hours
SYSTEM 2A 57 750 60.63
SYSTEM 2B 76 662 55.20
OPTION DiFFERENTIAL
Costs: (A) 19 x $850/container x (.2638) 1 — 17 weeks/yr. — $250.61/wk.
Savings: (B) 88 miles/week x $043/mile — $37.84/week
(C) 5.43 hours/week x 60 minutes/hr. x $0.34/mm. $110.77
Savings Subtotal — $148.61
TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL
Cost: $102.O0/wk. ($1,734 per summer)
The cost of the 8 C.!. containers was amortized over five years @ ten percent
interest. Therefore, an annual multiplier of .2638 was used to determine the
cost of the containers per year.
GORDIAN ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
-------
TABLE B-12
OCTOBER-MAY C.Y. F.E.LI ROUTING
WEEKLY PICK-UP
FIRST IUUS E SEC00D IUIJS E ENDING TOTAL TOTAL th U3 P C I
st*atitm PICK-UP PICKED-UP PICK-lIP PICKED-UP POINT WEH T TOTAL 0101110 tim 3 cost’ ESTIIIATING
00011 ‘LPOINT POINT (lbs.) POINT (lb..) (Landflh i) (lb..) killS (Ninulve) PURPOSES 1
I siuIfIll Jackson 18,000 LandfIll 18,000 28 91 *63. 5
S .1 1 .. 14 mile.
28 .lmaceu 2 26 .iautes 2 5 mInute.
2 iin4Ij ll jackson 11,000 LandfIll 25 97
14 •il.. IA silas
28 .bat.. 26 mInutes 28 minutes
3 i andf1l1 Jackson 21.880 Bartlett 6,120 LandfIll - 18,000 40 12* ISIS
G ) I A mile. 10 .11.. *6 .11.1
a 28 slnutea I I minutes 20 mInutes 8 minutes 32 .inutes
4 Landfill lanIsit £1,000 LandfIll *8,000 12 *01
IA .ll.• IA miles
32 •tnuies 26 slwJt.s 32 mInutes
S landfill Bartlett *8,000 Landfill 18,000 32 105 * 3 1. 5
16 .11.. 16 .11..
32 minute. 26 mInute. 32 minute.
6 Landfill Bartlett 18,000 Landfill *8,000 32 103 *31.1
*6 sues 16 .Ii.i
32 •lnutss 26 simiiea 32 mInutes
8 7 LandfIll Bartlett *8,000 landfIll 15,000 32 lOS 1 3 1. 5
16 .1k. 16 mIle.
32 mInute. 26 misoIss 32 mInutes
9 . 8 landfill lanleit 18,000 Landfill 18.000 32 lOS 1 51. 1
*6 .Il.• 16 siLas
32 .inutea 26 minutes 32 .ini .t.•
• Landfill Bartlett *6,680 Landfill 16.680 32 *03 * 54.5
16 atlas 24 simiLe. $6 .Il.
32 mtnutea 32 minutes
*0 landfill Albsop 9 700 Islam 6,060 LandfIll 16,360 23 89 *33. 5
• .11.. 30 .11.. 7 .11..
16 sImile. *4 .Imiie. 20 minutia ID minutes IA minutes ,
23.8 hour.
I The distances repre..nt.d at thu pick—up points era Iii. distances between stops.
2 The time repr.aented I . the has It take. to travel betusan stops travel1n at 30 mph (in minutes).
3 PIck—up I.e Is computed c i 2 minute. per contaIner per stop.
1, Im.ad on S tees of iefuse or 18,000 lb.. Iload.
S Total tie, required for trip include. IS •Im.tea at Landfill sits to discharge refuse.
6 Calculated 1rIvin tins plus 1.5 tImes the estimated pick—up tIme (or partially loadsd containers that need servicing, downtime, etc.
-------
B.26
weekly pickup of refuse at Bartlett requires a minimum of 81 containers
(not including spares) and seven trips to its site one day each week.
Similarly, Jackson requires a minimum of 35 containers and 3 trips to
its site one day each week. Given the amount of refuse generated in
Bartlett (112,800 lbs/wk) and Jackson (47,800 lbs/wk) , Bartlett
requires daily collection and Jackson requires every other day
collection in order to minimize container requirements and other
capital equipnent and operating requirements (e.g. additional 36 c.y.
trucks and crew) associated with weekly pickup. Moreover, given the
small quantity of waste generated in Albany and Eaton during the winter
months, these two towns could be collected on a weekly basis using one
route. Therefore, Cordian developed an optimized routing system for
the winter months, designed to meet the particular hauling needs of
each town. The inputs used in the winter system optimization are
presented in Table B—13. Bartlett requires a daily collection of
18,800 pounds (14 container loads), Jackson requires every other day
collection of 15,960 pounds (12 container loads) and Albany/Eaton
require a weekly collection on one route of 16,560 pounds (12 container
loads). These inputs were used to develop the actual routing
requirements for the optimized hauling system for the winter months as
shown in Table B—14. The optimized system will require the truck to
travel 301 miles and 25.4 hours each week. Although these figures are
only slightly lower than the mileages and driving times associated with
weekly pickup for each town during the winter months, the total annual
cost of the optimized hauling system will be significantly less because
it only requires 46 containers (including spares) compared to 154
containers (including spares) for the weekly collection of containers.
Therefore, Gordian has chosen to use the optimized collection system to
estimate the annual cost of hauling refuse during the winter months.
An estimated hauling schedule for the optimized winter system is
presented in Table 3—15.
Annual Cost — System 2
The annual cost of the 8 c.y. front—end loading system is
presented in Table 3—16. The costs assumed daily collection of
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE B—13
INPUTS FOR SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION -
8 C.!. F.E.L. ROUTING
(OCTOBER—MAY)
t
I
Container Station(s)
Quantity Collected
(Pounds) 1
9 of
Loads
Container
Collected 2
Frequency of
collection
Bartlett/Harts Location 18,000
daily
14
Daily
Sac caon
15,960
every other
day
12
Every
other
day
Albany/Eaton
16,560
once/week
12
Once a week
1/2 Solid Waste quantities and number of container loads collected for each transfer station
from October through May were developed in Table B—i.
.1
-------
TABLE B-14
SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION — 8 C.?. F.E.L. ROUTING
OCTOBER-MAY
TOTAL TINE USED
FIRST RE PIJSE SECOND REPIJIE £ 110180 TOTAL l)R IVMG PUS COST
STAET INC PICk-l IP PiCKED-UP PICK-UP PICKED-UP POINT WElC h? TOTAL TINE ESTtlt Athhl
ROUTE POINT POINT (lbs.) POlK! (lb..) (LanditU) (lb..) NILES (Minutes) PURPOSES
Landfill Uartl.tt 10,800 Landfill (8.800 32 107 160.5
() (Coiway) 16 mIle. 16 .il.. 2.68 hruAiq
u mites 2 .i,.te. 3 32 .inutea
REQUIRES 6 PICk-UPS PER WERE SUITOTAL PER WERE — 112 ,880 (92 642 16.05 br./u*
Landfill .Iack.on 13,960 LandfIll 93 62.5 minfdq
14 •i1. 14 miLes 2.38 hrsldq
28 minutes 24 minutes 28 minutes
RE UlPES 3 PICK-lIPS PIE VEER SURTOTAI. PER WERE- 47 ,880 14 203 7.13 hr.Fiik
3! Landfill ALbany 9,700 Eaton 6,860 Landfill 16,560 23 89 133.5 minldq
I .ui. 10 .11.. 7 .11.. 2.23 hreldap
16 minutes 14 minute. 20 minutes 10 minutes 14 minute.
REQUIRES I VICE-UP PU WEEk SUBtOTAL PER WERE — 16,560 23 89 2.23 Ir.Fuk
TOTAL (Pu WEEK)i 117,140 30 1 (.016 (326.6 .in,w#
25.41 hrsIvE
I The distances represented at the pick-up points are the distances between slops.
2 The tin, represented I the time it take, to travel between atop, traveling at 30 mph (In minutes).
3 Pick-up time I. computed at 2 minutes per container per stop.
4 Based on 9 tons of refuse or 18,000 lbs hoed.
S Total time required for trip includes 15 minutes at landfill site to diecharge refuse.
6 Calculated driving time plus 1.5 times the estimated pick—up time far partially loaded contalnera that need servicing.
I Daily pick—up at IartIett Hart. Location.
8 Every other day pltk—up in .Jackaon.
9 Weekly pick—up In Albany/Eaton.
-------
TABLE B—15
ESTIMATED COLLECTION SCHEDULE
8 C.T. VEILS CONTAINERS
(OCTOBER -MAY) 1
TRANSFER STATION
I
I
[
N
Tu V Th F S
Bartlett/Harts Location X
X X
X X X
Jackson
,
X
X
X
Albany fEe ton
X
1 Based on Table B—14.
-------
3.30
TABLE 3-16
ANNUAL COST-SYSTEM 2
1980
Miles: June — September — 12,750 miles/year
October — May — 10,535 miles/year
23,285 miles/year
Time: June — September — 1,031 hours/year
October — May — 890 hours/year
1,921 hours/year
A. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Fuel Costs
Diesel Fuel @ $1.25/gallon; 5 miles/gallon $ 5,821.00
Oil and Lubricants
@ $0.03/mile $ 466.00
Tires
10 @ $250.00 $ 2,500.00
Maintenance and Repair
15% of total vehicle costs over life of $ 2,700.00
vehicle ($90,000 x .15) . 5 years
Insurance
3% of vehicle cost $ 2,7OO.0
Labor
• 1 shift in ser (1 driver @ 10.1 hrsf day)
1 shift iii winter (1 driver @ 4.3 hrs/day)
Driver @ $15,200/year — $7.30/hr.
plus fringe benefits — 2.20/hr .
$9.50/hr./40 hr. week
Overtime rate at 1½ x $7.30/hr — $10.95/hr.
Ser — 17 weeks (regular hours • 680, overtime — 351)
Winter — 35 weeks (regular hours — 890)
Gordiai Associates Incorporated
-------
B. 31
(TABLE B—16 CONTINUED)
Summer (680 x $9.50) + (351 x $10.95) — $10,303.45
Winter — (890 x $9.50) — 8,455.00
$18,759.00
Annual Container Replacement
@ 2 unite/year $ l,7oo.Oo
SUBTOTAL (A) $34,646.00
B. CAPITAL COSTS
1—36 c.y. packer truck @ $90 .000.0O
Container Costs
57 8 c.y. @ $850.00
10 8 c.y. @ $850.00
— $56,950.00
1 Pick—Up Truck @ $8,000.00
($90,000)+($56,950)+($8,000) — $154,950.00
Debt Service: $154,950.00
amortized over 5 years @ 10%
interest — annual multiplier .2638
($154,950) (.2638) — $40,876.00 $40,876.00
Site Preparation
$45,000.00 2 + $3,000.00 $48,000.00
Debt Service: $48,000.00
amortized over 10 years @ 2.0%
interest — annual multiplier — .1628
($48,000) x (.1628) — $ 7,815.00
(SUBTOTAL B) $48,691.00
TOTAL SYSTEM COST/YEAR $83,337.00
To be placed at Regional Landfill site in Conway. At the site, there
will be 10 additional 8 cubic yard front—end loader containers placed
to acco date those residents not served by direct haul. systems.
2 Wine remote sites @ $5,000.00 plus $3,000.00 at Regional Landfill.
Gordian Associates Incorpotated
-------
3.32
containers in each town during the summer months (System 2A) and a
combination of daily, every other day, and weekly collection of
containers during the winter months. By dividing the total cost of
System 2 ($83,337.00) by the number of tone hauled for 1980, (6,304
tons) the estimated coat per ton hauled was $13.22/ton.
In determining the annual coat for the 8 c.y. front—end loading
system, the number of vehicle miles traveled and the number of
operating hours had to be calculated on an annual basis. Gordian
multiplied the number of weeks in the summer season (17 weeks) and in
the winter season (35 weeks) by the weekly estimates for vehicle miles
and operating hours to obtain annual totals, as follows:
Miles: June — September 17 weeks x 750 mi/vk 12,750 miles/yr
October — May 35 weeks x 301 mi/vk 10,535 miles/yr
23,285 miles/yr
Time: June — September 17 weeks x 60.63 hrs/wk 1,031 hrs/yr
October — May 35 weeks x 25.41 hrs/wk 890 bra/yr
1,921 hrs/yr
Mileage costs were calculated using the annual mileage figures, a
fuel cost of $1.25 per gallon, and an assumption that the 36 c.y. truck
could travel 5 miles per gallon of gasoline consumed. The cost of oil
and lubricants was calculated at $0.03 per mile. It was estimated that
each 36 c.y. vehicle would require 10 tires at $250.00 per tire.
Maintenance and repair costs were calculated to be 15% of the total
cost of the vehicle over the life of the vehicle. Insurance costs were
calculated at 3% of the vehicle cost per year.
In determining labor costs for System 2, Gordian developed costs
for truck drivers. In addition, we reviewed the daily operating time
requirements for the system to determine the number of vehicles
required and to subsequently determine the manpower requirements.
Labor rates for truck drivers were calculated in the following
manner: The yearly salary for a driver based on a 40 hour week is
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
B.33
$15,200 plus 30% for fringe benefits, 1 totaling $19,760 multiplied by 52
weeks per year and 40 hours per week. The hourly rate is $9.50.
Overtime labor rates (i.e. more than 40 hours per week) were calculated
at 1 1/2 times the base hourly rate (i.e. without fringe benefits) as
follows: 1 1/2 x $7.30 per hour $10.95 per hour.
One driver will be required for both the summer and winter
seasons. During the summer, the driver will work 10.1 hours per day
($9.50 per hour for a 40 hour work week and $10.95 for each hour over
40 hours per week). During the winter, the driver will work an average
of 4.3 hour per day at $9.50 per hour. Total labor costs were based on
6 day work weeks.
Labor rates for summer were calculated as follows:
1 week 40 regular hours + 20.6 overtime hours
Summer — (17 weeks) (40 regular hours) + (17 weeks) (overtime hrs)
Summer — 680 regular hours + 351 overtime hours
Cost/Summer (680) ($9.50/hr) + (351) ($lO.95/hr) $10,303.45
Labor rates for winter were calculated as follows:
1 week 25.8 regular hours
Winter — (35 weeks) (25.41 hours/week) 890 regular hours
Cost/Winter (890) ($9.50/hr) $8,455.00
Total annual labor cost ($10,303.45) + ($8,455.00) $18,759.00
Container replacement costs were calculated at 2 units per year,
allowing for breakage, repairs, and replacement.
The debt service was determined using the costs for trucks and
containers amortized at 10% over 5 years. Site preparation costs were
amortized at 10% over 10 years.
Provisions were made to place ten 8 cu. yd. containers at the
regional landfill site to accommodate those residents not served by
direct haul systems.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
B.34
System 3A—40 cu. yd. Container System — Region Wide
Table B—li presents the number of 40 cubic yard open—roll—off
container loads generated by each town in the region during the two
periods of the year , assuming that the containers are emptied daily.
This table also depicts the number of container loads necessary if
weekly pick—up was assumed. The fill level used for the 40 c i i. yd.
containers was 36 cu. yd.
The pounds of waste generated by each town for the generation
periods were divided by the compaction coefficient and then divided
again by the capacity of the container to reveal the number of
container loads of wasti generated each day. Each container is hauled
away from the transfer site separately; therefore, the number of
container—loads generated per day is also the number of trips to each
site made by the 50,000 pound tilt—frame vehicle. Moreover, the
transfer site must have the space for an extra container so that the
vehicle which picks up a full container can replace it with an empty
one on the sne trip.
Among other things, Table 3—18 presents the distance from the
regional landfill site to each town. The average speed for collection
vehicles was assumed to be 30 miles per hour.
Sunm er
Table B—iS totals the time required for the 40 c i i. yd.
open—roll—off container pickup routine for suer waste generation,
assuming daily pickups. The time necessary to pick up a loaded
container was estimated to be 10 minutes, and to dump the container
load at the regional landfill, 15 minutes.
The totsl time for the trip to and from a transfer site was
determined by adding the round—trip highway travel time, the
established pickup time for loaded containers at the transfer site and
the dumping time at the landfill. This figure, multiplied by the
number of trips required per day, yielded the total time required for
Gordian Assocates Incorporated
-------
0
0
NUMBER OF
TABLE B—li
40 c.y. O-R—O CONTAINER LOADS NECESSARY FOR HANDLING AVERAGE
SUMMER AND WINTER WASTE GENERATION
ASSUMPTIONS :
a. 40 cubic yard and 42 cubic yard containers will have respective fill levels of: 36 cubic
yards, and 40 cubic yards.
b. A compaction coefficient of 200 lbs/cubic yard was used for the 40 cubic yard open—roll—off
containers. (8,000 lbs. capacity).
c. A compaction coefficient of 800 lbs/cubic yard was used for the 42 cubic yard compaction
containers. (33,600 lbs. capacity).
U’
TOWN
ASSUMING DAILY PICK-UP’
June — Sept. Oct. — May
ASSUMING WEEKLY PICK-UP 2
June - Sept. Oct. — May
Albany
1.15 .23
6.9 1.38
Bartlett/ILL. 3
434 2.61
26.05 15.66
Eaton
.40 .16
2.42 .95
Jackson
2.73 1.11
16.38 6.65
1
2
3
Once per day per container
Once per week per container
Bartlett and Harts Location use the same transfer station, therefore the figures have been consolidated.
-------
TABLE B-18
TIME REQUIRED FOR PICK-UP ROUTINE FOR 40 CUBIC YARD OPEN-ROLL-OFF CONTAiNERS
FOR PEAK SUMMER WASTE GENERATiON - DAILY PICKUP
Diatanee Ietve n
Transfer Transfer Site and
Sits Landfill (one-way)
Estimated Pick-Up Ti
for Loaded Containers
(minute.)
(2)
Total Time
per Trip
(minutes)
(1)+(2)+(3)
Used 10 minutes for open—roll—off container pick—up time (i.e., placing empty 0-H—a and picking up full unit.
2 Used 15 minutes for 04—0 dump time at the landfill.
The number of trip, required per day were determined utilicing population data and waste generation represented
in Tables i—i and 2—i. These figures represent averag eunuer waste generation and population.
Bartlett and Hart’s Location solid waste are disposed of in Bartlett. Conway will diepose of it solid
waste directly at the landfill site, therefore it is not repreaented on the table.
Round—Trip Highway
Tra,el Time 8 30mph
(minutes)
(1)
I
I
Dumping
Time at
Landfill 2
(3)
Trip. Total Time
Required Required
per day 3 Per Day
(minute,)
Albany
8
32
10
15
57
2
114
Bartlett ‘
16
64
10
15
89
S
445
Eaton
7
28
10
13
53
1
53
jackson
14
56
10
15
81
3
243
TOTAL
1 80
855 or
14.25 hours
per day
-------
B.36
the daily pickup routine for each town. The total time required for
a pickup routine for the entire region was converted to hours, for use
in estimating equipment and manpower requirements.
Winter
Table B—19 totals the time required for the 40 cu. yd.
open—roll—off container pickup routine for other season waste
generation assuming weekly pickup. The time necessary to pick up a
loaded container was 10 minutes, to unload a container, 15 minutes.
The number of trips required per day was multiplied by 7 to give the
number of trips required per week. A weekly figure was used for winter
waste pickup due to the fact that the amount of waste generated during
other seasons is significantly smaller than during the ser season,
making daily pickup impractical. As seen in Table B—19, the total time
required per trip was multiplied by the number of trips required per
week to yield the total time required per week.
System 33 — 42 cu. yd. Containers at Bartlett and Jackson —
40 c i i. yd. Containers at Albany and Eaton.
Summer
Utilizing the same basic premises, Table 3—21 was developed,
resulting in the total time required per day to collect waste from the
4 transfer stations with two of them, Bartlett and Jackson, utlilizing
an 800 lb./cu. yd. compactor and 42 cu. yd. compaction containers.
Because this option is the most practical it has been costed out
in this appendix. Bartlett and Jackson were chosen as sites for the
compaction units because they generate the greatest amounts of waste;
compaction units at the other transfer sites would be impractical.
The time required to pick up a loaded compaction container was
estimated to be 15 minutes. The time required to empty a full
compaction container at the landfill was estimated to be 15 minutes.
utilizing the 800 lb./cu. yd. compaction coefficient, the number
of 42 cubic yards container loads generated per day in Bartlett and
Jackson was determined. These figures were integrated with the 40 cu.
yd. open—roll—off container system figures to reveal the total time
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE B-19
TIML REQUIRED FOR PICK—UP ROUTINE FOR 40 CUBIC YARD OPEN—ROLL-OFF CONTAINERS
FOR NON-SUMMER WASTE GENERATION — WEEKLY PICK-UP
Vied 10 minutia for open—roll-off container pick—up time (i.e., placing empty 0—R-0 and picking up full unit.)
2 Used 15 minutes for 0.4—0 dump time at the Landfill.
The nurher of trip. required per day were determined utilising population data and waste generation represented
in Tables 1—2 and 2—1.
Loads per day were converted into loads per week to allow for the large discrepancies in waste generation during
the su er and winter manths.
These figure. indicate weekly pick—up.
‘4
Distance
Detween
Round-Trip
Estimated Pick-Up
Dumping
Tranater
Station
Transfer
Landfill
Site and
(one—way)
Highway Travel
tins 0 30mph
(minute.)
(1)
fl.e for Loaded
Container.
(minutes) I
(2)
Time at
Landfill 2
(3)
40 c.y
Loads Per
Day 3
I
a
40 c.y.
Loads Per
Week
Per Trip
(minutes)
(1)+(2)+(3)
Required
Per Week
(minute.)
Albany
8
32
10
15
.23
2
37
114
Bartlett
16
64
10
15
2.61
16
89
1424
Eaton
7
28
10
15
.16
1
53
53
Jackson
14
56
10
13
1.11
7
81
567
2158 minutee
TOTAL or
36 hour.
-------
TABLE B-20
NUMBER OF CONTAINER LOADS NECESSARY FOR HANDLI1 G AVERAGE SUMMER
AND WINTER WASTE GENERATION UNDER SYSTEM 3 COMBINATION OF
40 C. e and 42 c.y. CONTAINERS
CONTAINER
SIZE
TOWN
ASSUMING DAILY PICK—UP’
June - Sept. Oct. — May
ASSUMING WEEKLY PICK-UP 2
June - Sept. Oct. - May
42 c.y.
Bartlett/H.L. 3
.98 .66
5.86 3.53
42 c.y.
Jackson
.61 .25
3.67 1.50
40 c.y.
Albany
1.15 .23
6.9 1.38
40 c.y.
Eaton
.40 .16
2.42 .95
Once per day per container
2 Once per week per container
Bartlett and Harts Location use the same transfer station, therefore the figures have been consolidated.
ASSUMPTIONS :
a. 40 cubic yard and 42 cubic yard containers will have respective fill levels of: 36 cubic yards
and 40 cubic yards.
b. A compaction coefficient of 200 lbs/cubic yard was used for the 40 cubic yard open—roll—off
containers. (8,000 lbs. capacity)
c. A compaction coefficient of 800 lbs/cubic yard was used for the 42 cubic yard compaction
containers. (33,600 lbs. capacity)
0
0
a
(D
U)
C)
0
0
(D
1
-------
TABLE 321
TIME REQUIRED FOR PICK-UP ROUTiNE FOR 40 CUBIC YARD OPEN-ROLL-OPT CONTAINERS
(11TH ROLL-OFF COMPACTION UNIT OPTION FOR BARTLETT AND JACKSON, OPEN-ROLL—OFF CONTAINERS
AT ALBANY AND EATON FOR AVERAGE SUMMER WASTE GENERATION - DAILY PiCK-UP
Used 15 minutes for roll—off compaction unit pick—up time; 10 minutes for 0-R—O containers.
2 Used 13 minutes for roll-off compaction unit dump time at landfill; 15 minutes for 0-RO containers.
The number of trip, required per day were determined uttliiing population data and vast, generation
represented in Tables 1—2 and 2—1. These figures represent average suneer population and waste
generation.
Distance letveen
Transfer Transfer Site and
Sit. Landfill (one-vay)
Round—Trip Highway
Travel Time 30mph
(minutes)
(1)
Estimated Pick-Up Ti..
for Loaded Containers
(minutes) l
(2)
t
I
Dumping
Time at
Landfill 2
(3)
per
Trip
Required
(minutes)
(l)4(2)+(3)
Per Day 3 Per Day
(minute.)
Albany
8
32
10
15
57
1.15
65.55
krtlett
16
64
15
15
94
1.00
94.00
seom
7
28
10
15
53
.40
21.20
Jackson
14
56
iS
15
86
.61
52.46
233.21 or
TOTAL 3.89 hours
per day
-------
B.40
required per day for the pickup routine for 40 cu. yd. open—roll—off
containers at Albany and Eaton with roll—off compaction units at
Bartlett and Jackson for peak summer waste generation assuming daily
pickup.
During the suer months, solid waste will be collected from each
transfer station in accordance with the schedule developed in Table
B—22.
Winter
Table B—23 determines the time required for the pickup routine for
40 cu. yd. open—roll—off containers with roll—off compaction units at
Bartlett and Jackson for non—summer months waste generation. This
option derives the number of hours necessary during winter weeks to
collect the solid waste. A suggested solid waste collection scheme for
non—simimer months has been determined and is included in this section,
Table B—24.
Annual Costs — System 3
In preparing annual costs for each of the budgets it was crucial
to determine how many miles vehicles involved in the system were to
travel. To make this determination, the miles for each leg of an
option were added together to get a total mile figures for both summer
months and winter months for that option.
Distance Between Transfer
Site and Landfill (one—way)
Trips Required
Per Day
Albany
8
1.15
Bartlett
16
1.00
Eaton
17
.40
Jackson
14
.61
Gordiari Associates Incorporated
-------
TABLE B-22
SOLID WASTE PICKUP SCHEDULE
FOR SUMMER MONTHS
— Pick—up of 42 c.y. compaction container.
— Compactor equipment operator on duty.
Pick—up of 40 c.y. O—R--O container.
I.-’
H T W T P $
Bartlett
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Jackson
0
0 0
00
0
0 0
0 0
Albany
L 4 r.
z
Eaton
L
j
L
-------
TABLE B—23
TIME REQUIRED FOR PICK-UP ROUTINE FOR 40 CUBIC YARD OPEN-ROLL-OFF CONTAINERS
ROLL-OFF COMPACTION UNIT OPTION FOR BARTLETT AND JACKSON, O-R-Os AT ALBANY AND EATON
FOR NON—SUMMER MONTHS WASTE GENERATION — WEEKLY PICK—UP
Total Ti.. Total Time
Distance Between Round-Trip Eatimated Pick—Up Dumping ftnd Required
Tranafer Tranif at Bite and Highway Travel Time for Loaded Time at Par Trip Per Week
Site Lsndftll (one—way) Tim. 8 30mph Containere I landfill 2 Loads Per Loads Per (minutes) (minutes)
(minutes) (minute.) Day 3 Week 4
(1) (2) (3)
Albany
8
32
10
15
.23
2
57
114
Bartlett
16
64
13
15
.66
4
94
376
Eaton
7
28
10
13
.16
1
53
53
Jackson
14
56
15
15
.23
2
86
172
ToTAL 715 minutes
or 11.9 hours
Used 13 .inutes for roll-off compaction unit pick—up time; 10 minutes for 0-HO containere.
2 Used 15 minute. for roll—off compaction unit dump time at landfill; 15 minutes for 04—O containers.
The number of container loads per day were determined utlliaiag population data and waste generation
represented in Tables 1—2 and 2—1.
Loads per day were converted into load. per week to allow for the large discrepancies in waste generation
during the aw er and winter month.. These figures indicate weekly pick—up.
-------
TABLE B-24
SOLID WASTE PICK-UP SCHEDULE FOR
NON-S UMMER MONTHS
T 1 4
( J — Pick—up of 42 cy. compaction container.
[ J — Compactor equipment operator on duty.
— Pick—up of 40 c.y. open roll—off container.
w
N
T F S
art1ett (Route I)
- [ J
:)
[ J
C)
[ Jo
[ Jo
Jackson (Route 2)
C]
()
[ J
()
Albany (Route 3)
LS 1
Li
Eaton (Route 4)
-------
B. 44
Each of these distances multiplied by 2, determining the round
trip mileage, multiplied by the number of trips per day, yields the
number of miles per day travelled during summer months.
Albany (8)(2)(1.15) — 18.4 miles/day
Bartlett (16)(2)(l) — 32.0 miles/day
Eaton (17)(2)(.40) — 13.6 miles/day
Jackson (14)(2)(.6 1) — 17.0 miles/day
TOTAL 81.0 miles/day
Likewise, for non—sumner weeks:
Distance x2 x trips/wk. — mi./wk.
Albany 8 (2) 2 32.00
Bartlett 16 (2) 4 128.00
Eaton 17 (2) 1 34.00
Jackson 14 (2) 2 56.00
250.00 mi/vk
These two figures:
summer miles per day 81
winter miles per week — 250
were multiplied respectively by the number of days in a 4—month summer
(June, July, August and September) which equals 104 days,’ and the
number of weeks in the other 8—months, equaling 36 weeks, to yield the
number of miles per year traveled for that option.
1 Six days per week.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
B. 45
81 miles/day x 104 days/summer — 8,424.00 miles/summer
250 miles/week x 36 weeks/winter — 9,000.00 miles/winter.
These figures, 8,424 miles/summer and 9,000 miles/winter were added to
yield the total miles per year traveled by vehicles involved in that
option, or 17,424 miles per year.
Utilizing the mileage figures generated, the cost of fuel at $1.25
per gallon, with 5 miles per gallon, mileage costs were calculated.
The cost of oil and lubricants was calculated at $0.03 per mile. It
was estimated that each collection vehicle used would have 10 tires at
$250.00 per tire. Maintenance and repair costs were calculated to be
102 of the total cost of the vehicle over the life of the vehicle.
Insurance costs were calculated at 3% of the vehicle cost per year.
In determining labor costs for each option, a cost was developed
for equipment operators. The number of hours each collection system
took to collect the vaste was the major factor in determining how
many vehicles were necessary for the collection system and in
subsequently determining the manpower necessary to operate the vehicles
and equipment.
The labor rates for the equipment operators were derived in the
following manner:
The yearly salary paid for an equipment operators, based on a 40
hour week, is $15,200 plus 30% for fringe benefits, which equals
$19,760 per year.
To get the hourly rate $19,760 was divided by 52 weeks per year
and 40 hours a week. The hourly rate equals $9.50.
During the summer there will be three equipment operators with one
working 4 hours per day operating the tilt—frame vehicle, and 2 working
6 hours per day operating the compactor units at Bartlett and Jackson.
A total of 16 hours per day will be worked by the three equipment
operators. The operators will work 6 days a week for a total of 4
months equaling 104 days per summer. The total number of hours worked
per summer equals:
104 days/summer x 16 hours/day — 1,664 hours/summer.
The labor cost for the suer months equals:
$9.50/hour x 1664 hours/summer $15,808 summer.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
3.46
During the non—suer months (October — May) there will be two
equipment operators each working 14 hours per week. There are 36 weeks
in the winter, therefore the total number of hours per winter equals
504.
The labor cost for the winter equals:
504 hours/winter x $9.50/hour — $4,788.00/winter
The total cost of labor for the whole system equals:
$15,808/su=er + $4,788/winter $20,593/year.
Container replacement costs were calculated to be 10% of the total
cost of containers each year. This cost allows for breakage, repairs
and replacement of containers.
The debt service cost was determined by the capital equipment
costs amortized at 10% over 5 years.
Provisions were made for extra open—roll—off containers and extra
compactor containers to be placed where full ones are being removed.
Additionally, provisions were made for the containers (8 cu. yd. or 40
cu. yd., developing on the option) to be placed at the regional
landfill site for residents of Conway to use.
Table B—25 presents the annual cost for System 3.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
-------
B.47
TABLE B—25
ANNUAL COST-SYSTEM 3
Compactor unit at Bartlett and Jackson; 40 cubic yard Open—
Roll—Off Containers at Albany and Eaton sites.
Miles • 17,424 miles/year
A. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Fuel Costs
Diesel fuel @ $1.25/gallon; 5 miles/gallon $4,356.00
Oil and Lubricants
@ $0.03/mile $ 523.00
Tires
10 @ $250.00 $2,500.00
Maintenance and Repair
10% of total cost of vehicle over life of
vehicle ($8,000 i 5) $1,600.00
Insurance
3% of vehicle cost per year ($8,000 x .03) $2,400.00
Labor (including Benefits ) $20,593.00
Annual Container Replacement
10% of total cost each year $6,100.00
SUBTOTAL (A) $38,072.00
3. CAPITAL COSTS
2 Compactors @ $20,000 — $40,000
150,000—lb. Tilt—Frame Open—Roll—Off Container System
Truck @ $80,000
(continued)
Gordian Assocates Incorporated
-------
.48
(TABLE B—25 CONTINUED)
Container Costs
4 40 C.?. @ $5,000 — $20,000
3 40 C.?. @ $5,000 — $15,000 1
4 42 C.?. @ $6,500 — $26,000
$61,000
($40,000) + ($80,000) + ($61,000) • $181,000
Debt Service: $181,000.00
Amortized over 5 years @ 10%
Interest — annual multiplier .2638
($181,000) (.2638) — $47,748.00 $ 47,748.00
Site Preparation
$25,000
Debt Service: $25,000.00
Amortized over 10 years @ 10%
Interest — annual multiplier — .1628
($25,000) x (.1628) — — $ 4 .070.0O
(SUBTOTAL 3) $ 51,818.00
TOTAL SYSTEM COST/YEAR $ 89,890.00
1 There will be three OROs placed at the landfill in Conway.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
------- |