bilkUM
Bay
-¦ ¦ Ok- JH
.wste^™
G fader
SOUTHEAST
Alaska's Panhandle
SOUTHEAST ALASKA
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY
Location
~ v
so!cctk>n Agency
D C
Prepared For
S-E. CONFERENCE
Under EPA Technical Panels Program
November 20, 1980
fini%sources
, Aiwv»rm»!>ir«»:s jioftmUHitt
¦,;J «"*- . -WiMl'i/rift P»»l itW) Wll till Wj»h» p#>'6tpftA
*v ,i- ij • hnu«» m uw» m Urn sjf.xc
LW. ¦;— JXiVT
*&i*Y
K\ it n
*V
'v
IWll® AWmMmK >
Environmental Engineering 6 Consulting
9807 FAIRVIEW BOISE. IDAHO 83704 12001376 0630
-------
gfiq o
The Map of Southeast Alaska which is the background of the front
cover of this report and is contained in Appendix B is reprinted
from Vol. 5, No. 2 ALASKA GEOGRAPHIC, "Southeast: Alaska's
Panhandleby permission of The Alaska Geographic Society,
Box 4-EEE, Anchorage, Alaska 99509.
Proper;/ of
US Environmental Protection Agency
Library Region x
AUG 5 1982
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
This report was prepared by Finite Resources, Inc., Boise, Idaho
under sub-contract with Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company,
prime contractors under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X Technical Panels Program.
The contents of the report does not necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does the mention of commercial products constitute endorsement
by the U.S. Government.
U.S. EPA LIBRARY REGION 10 MATERIALS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SCOPE 1
INTRODUCTION 2
S.E. ALASKA GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS 3
EXISTING MUNICIPAL/BOROUGH SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
AND VOLUME 5
CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU 5
TABLE I (SOLID WASTE WEIGHTS FROM CHANNEL
SANITATION RECORDS) 7
TABLE II (SOLID WASTE TOTALS) 8
TABLE III 9
KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH AND CITIES OF KETCHIKAN AND
SAXMAN 13
CITIES OF CRAIG AND KLAWOCK 15
CITY OF WRANGELL 16
CITY OF PETERSBURG 18
CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA 19
CITY OF SKAGWAY 20
CITY OF HAINES 23
CITY OF ANGOON 25
CITY OF HOONAH 26
CITY OF HYDABURG 26
CITY OF KAKE 27
CITY OF KASSAAN 27
CITY OF METLAKATLA (NATIVE VILLAGE) 27
CITY OF PELICAN 28
CITY OF YAKUTAT 28
WOOD WASTE 30
GENERAL INFORMATION 30
GENERAL WOOD WASTE VOLUMES 31
WOOD WASTE SURVEY DATA 31
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
Page
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL 38
GENERAL INFORMATION 38
LAND DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE AND SOLID WASTE 38
CO-DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AND SLUDGE IN MODULAR SOLID
WASTE INCINERATORS 39
JUNK AUTO DISPOSAL AND SALVAGE 41
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS 43
SANITARY LANDFILLS WITH LEACHATE CONTROL 44
SOLID WASTE BALING AND BALEFILL OPERATIONS 46
SOLID WASTE SHREDDERS AND LANDFILLS 49
MODULAR SOLID WASTE INCINERATORS WITH AND WITHOUT
ENERGY RECOVERY 51
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 53
S.E. ALASKA REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 56
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGIONAL SYSTEM 56
ANALYSIS OF THE REGIONAL SYSTEM 56
S.E. ALASKA SUB-REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ... 58
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS 58
IDENTIFICATION OF SUB-REGIONAL WASTE SHEDS 58
ANALYSIS OF SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS . . 59
S.E. ALASKA INDIVIDUAL CITY/BOROUGH SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS 61
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS 61
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE INDIVIDUAL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 61
ECONOMIC SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 77
FUNDING ALTERNATIVES 79
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 82
REFERENCES 84
ii
-------
APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX A - SCOPE OF WORK AND SURVEY FORM 85
APPENDIX B - MAP OF S.E. ALASKA 95
APPENDIX C - POPULATION DATA FOR THE COMMUNITIES. ... 96
APPENDIX D - COMPLETED SURVEY FORMS 115
APPENDIX E - FUEL OIL ENERGY CALCULATIONS 133
APPENDIX F - BUILDING HEATING FUEL CONSUMPTION DATA . . 136
iii
-------
SCOPE
-------
SCOPE
In the fall of 1979, the officials of the S.E. Alaska Conference
requested solid waste management technical assistance from the EPA as
provided for under the technical panels program of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).
In response to the request Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., the
technical panels prime contractor for EPA Region X subcontracted with
Finite Resources, Inc. to conduct a Phase I study. This consisted of
attending a S.E. Conference meeting in Ketchikan and developing a pro-
posal for a Phase II solid waste management study. (A copy of the
proposal and plan outline are contained in Appendix A.)
After review of the Phase II proposal by the S.E. Conference, Peat,
Marwick, Mitchell and Co. and EPA, Finite Resources made some requested
modifications and EPA gave approval to proceed with the S.E. Alaska
Phase II solid waste management study.
-1-
-------
INTRODUCTION
-------
INTRODUCTION
As is evident from the proposal in Appendix A, the strategy was to
determine the current status of existing solid waste management systems
in S.E. Alaska and then develop a technical analysis of alternative
solid waste management systems which are reasonable and practical for
the study area.
The relative feasibility of three basic solid waste management systems
would then be determined on the following basis.
* A regional solid waste management system serving the entire S.E.
Alaska Panhandle. This would entail using barges or the Marine
Highway and a large central solid waste processing or disposal
facility.
* Two or three subregional solid waste management systems serving
logical waste sheds as determined by the geographic and transpor-
tation characteristics.
* Solid waste management systems based on the premise that each
municipality or borough will operate their own solid waste manage-
ment facility.
The initial step of the study was to physically inspect the existing
solid waste management systems in each municipality or borough, that
was active in the study, and meet with the local officials responsible
for the operation of the solid waste management systems to gather
fiscal and general demographic information and determine existing
technical and environmental problems. The survey form in Appendix A was
completed by most municipalities and/or boroughs and was used as an
outline during the meetings.
During the initial survey, the status of existing management systems for
municipal solid waste, junk automobiles and wood waste would be empha-
sized. However, the survey would also attempt to determine if there are
potential energy markets if solid waste energy recovery systems prove
to be feasible in any areas.
Finite Resources utilized fourteen days in S.E. Alaska for the survey
with the itinerary established with the assistance of the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC).
-2-
-------
S.E. ALASKA GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
-------
S.E. ALASKA GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
As is evident from the map in Appendix B, S.E. Alaska is a rugged sea-
board of mountainous islands and peninsulas with very few miles of
highway.
The climate, geology and geography are not well suited for solid waste
management, especially land disposal. The following specific character-
istics outline some of the general solid waste management problems shared
by almost all of the S.E. Alaska communities.
* Limited land area with the mountains virtually rising out of the
sea makes land very valuable and solid waste disposal sites cannot
compete with other types of land development. Numerous areas of
muskeg or marsh land further limit what is suitable for conventional
land disposal systems.
* Extremely high precipitation rates as rain or snow in conjunction
with much lower evapo-transpiration rates results in the generation
of leachate from land disposal sites. The leachate is primarily a
hazard to surface water quality because of the unique geology and
resulting absence of ground water in most areas of S.E. Alaska.
* A very limited soil depth in most areas of S.E. Alaska complicates
the covering of the solid waste deposited at land disposal sites.
This increases leachate generation and attracts such vectors as
birds, flys and even bears which constitute a definite safety hazard
for site users. In many areas the expensive practice of importing
soil cover is even necessary.
* The only transportation modes which are available between most of
the communities are air or marine. This definitely complicates the
regional or subregional approach to solid waste management.
* Since most all goods and commodities related to the generation of
solid waste are shipped in from outside the S.E. Alaska area the
solid waste stream is very high in packaging waste and primarily
paper and paper products.
During the course of the survey, it became evident that even "good
estimates" of the solid waste generation rates or solid waste volumes
were going to be very difficult to acquire. The survey sheets which
-3-
-------
were completed by most of the communities did provide some rough esti-
mates of solid waste volumes. However, since the amount of solid waste
available is an important parameter when used to size solid waste
management facilities especially baling, shredding and energy recovery
plants, better solid waste generation data was deemed a very high
priority item.
Fortunately, Channel Sanitation, which is the private firm operating
the Juneau sanitary landfill and collection service, weigh all of the
solid waste that is delivered to that facility. The cooperation of
Channel Sanitation and the efforts of the ADEC have resulted in some
very good estimates of the solid waste generated in the Juneau area.
This data will be used in conjunction with the Juneau population to
calculate a solid waste per capita generation rate which will be used
with the population information from the other S.E. Alaska communities
and boroughs to estimate solid waste volumes.
The composition of the solid waste stream is also an important element
especially for energy recovery systems since this affects the BTU
value of the solid waste which of course affects the amount of energy
that can be generated by a solid waste energy recovery facility. The
results of numerous analyses and investigations reveal that a typical
BTU range for residential solid waste is 4200 BTUs/lb to 4700 BTUs/lb.
In view of the many independent surveys that support these figures, a
value of 4500 BTUs/lb will be assumed for energy recovery computations
in this report.
It is important to note that moisture content will significantly affect
the available energy that can be extracted from the solid waste and
this parameter may definitely warrant further investigation at a later
time if solid waste energy recovery appears feasible for any of the
communities because of the high precipitation rate characteristic of
S.E. Alaska.
-4-
-------
EXISTING MUNICIPAL/BOROUGH
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND VOLUMES
-------
EXISTING MUNICIPAL/BOROUGH
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND VOLUMES
The following data for the S.E. Alaska municipalities and boroughs
ware obtained primarily from the survey trip, related follow up
activities and the efforts of the participating communities and
ADEC. Information is listed for the majority of the S.E. Alaska
communities although the data is more complete for those communities
that were active participants in the study and were therefore surveyed
in person.
Appendix C contains information on the specific municipalities and
boroughs including recent population estimates and Appendix D con-
tains those survey forms that were completed by the S.E. Alaska
communities.
The city and borough of Juneau will be analyzed first to allow the
use of the solid waste per capita generation rate in the subsequent
analysis of the other S.E. Alaska communities. Those communities
using the same disposal site will be analyzed jointly.
After Juneau, the communities will be reviewed in the order surveyed
during the trip.
I. CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU
A. Population
The information in Appendix C lists the'population of the city
and borough of Juneau at 23,115. However, during the survey
the 1980 population was estimated at 25,000 persons. Local
officials have estimated the area growth at approximately 5%
per year primarily in the outlying areas of Mendenhall and
Lemon Creek.
B. Solid Waste Volumes
As was previously referenced, Channel Sanitation, the operators
of the solid waste collection and disposal service, weigh all
the solid waste that is deposited at the Juneau sanitary land-
fill. The following tables have been derived from their weight
records with assistance from ADEC accountants.
-5-
-------
There are four major categories of solid waste'depending on the
method of payment of the disposal charge. These are cash, two
charge columns and the Channel Sanitation collection vehicles.
There were also specialized solid waste categories for auto and
wood combined, white goods (primarily appliances) and wood
crates and boxes.
Detailed record keeping of cash sales is a relatively new
practice with information available for only April through June
of 1980. There also appears to be a considerable variation
for some of the smaller categories of solid waste such as white
goods and auto/wood, but this is not significant when compared
to the relatively larger magnitudes of the "cash" category
hauled by individuals, the Channel Sanitation collection vehicles,
the residential solid waste and auto and wood from charge
accounts. The rather significant increase in the larger cate-
gories during the month of September has been explained as a
general community clean-up month and would not necessarily be
expected in other communities.
Table I contains the solid waste weights from the Channel
Sanitation records.
Based on the following facts, observations and assumptions, the
solid waste weights in Table I will be analyzed and adjusted.
* Channel Sanitation currently salvages auto hulks and other
iron and steel products including white goods.
* The only categories of significant size to affect the
daily solid waste tonnage are the first four columns
(Individual, Channel Sanitation Vehicles, General Solid
Waste from Charge Customers and Auto and Wood from Charge
Customers). (For example, even totally deleting the auto
and wood waste column from the April 1980 figure only
incorporates a 2.4% error.)
* One of the charge customers is the City Parks Department
and based on this information the auto/wood waste charge
category will be assumed to be primarily wood waste. In
view of the small percentage of error incorporated if this
category were ignored completely this assumption is
considered to be reasonable.
* Based on the preceding two assumptions and observations,
only the first four columns in Table I will be used to
calculate daily tonnages and per capita generation rates
in Tables II and III.
-6-
-------
TABLE I
Solid Waste Weights From Channel Sanitation Records (In Pounds)
Year/
Month
Individual
Hauled
Cash Sales
Channel
Sanitation
Collection
Vehicles
General
S.W. From
Charge
Customers
Auto and
Wood From
Charge
Customers
White Goods
From Charge
Customers
Channel
Sanitation
Auto and
Wood
Channel
Sanitation
White
Goods
Wood Crates
and Boxes
1979
July
No records
No records
273,336
5,332
240
August
No records
1,168,640
322,256
40,300
100
Sept.
No records
3,870,249
297,129
45,671
17,223
1,200
Oct.
No records
1,533,130
258,392
38,760
840
604
Nov.
No records
1,513,619
283,202
79,758
900
Dec.
No records
1,351,478
221,692
33,804
1,203
1980
Jan.
No records
1,606,263
270,638
37,542
Feb.
No records
1,454,179
251,672
40,667
1,800
March
No records
1,253,229
253,346
18,371
360
April
483,630
1,476,053
306,220
56,513
4,227
2,106
740
May
525,480
1,513,101
255,826
61,276
1,339
960
780
300
June
391,533
1,936,377
316,817
65,574
4,795
1,820
July
246,142
(No figure)
-------
TABLE II
Solid K'aste Totals
Year/
Month
Monthly
3 Column
Total
(Lbs)
Monthly
3 Column
Total
(Tons)
Monthly
4 Column
Total
(Lbs)
Monthly
4 Column
Total
(Tons)
Ratio
Factor
4 Months/
3 Months
Calculated
Monthly
4 Column
Estimate
(Tons)
1979
July
Insufficient
Data
Insufficient
Data
NA
NA
August
1,531,196
766
NA
NA
950
September
4,213,049
2,106
NA
NA
2,611
October
1,830,282
915
NA
NA
1,135
November
1,876,579
938
NA
NA
1,163
December
1,606,974
804
NA
NA
997
1980
January
1,914,443
957
NA
NA
1,187
February
1,746,518
873
NA
NA
1,082
March
1,524,946
762
NA
NA
945
April
1,838,786
919
2,322,416
1,161
1.26
May
1,830,203
915
2,355,683
1,178
1.29
June
2,318,768
1,159
2,710,301
1,355
1.17
I
00
I
Average Factor
1.24
-------
TABLE III
Year/
Month
Total Days
in Months
7 Days/Week
Operating
Days
6 Days/Week
Total Tons
of
Solid Waste
Per Month
Daily
Tonnage
( 6 Days/Week)
Operation
Daily
Tonnage
(7 Days/Week)
Operation
Per Capita
lbs/Person-Day
Based on
(7 Days/Week)
1979
July
August
30
25
950
38
32
2.56
September
30
25
2,611
104
87
6.96
October
31
26
1,135
44
37
2.96
November
30
25
1,163
47
39
3.12
December
31
26
997
38
32
2.56
1980
January
31
26
1,187
46
38
3.04
February
29
25
1,082
43
37
2.96
March
31
26
945
36
30
2.4
April
30
26
1,161
45
39
3.12
May
31.
27
1,178
44
38
3.04
June
30
25
1,355
54
45
3.60
Averages
1,251
49
41
3.30
Total Estimated Tons/Year 15,012
-------
* The Juneau sanitary landfill is operated on a 6 day per
week basis. However, the per capita generation rate will
be computed on a 7 day per week basis.
* Since information is only available for all four major
columns for the months of April, May and June of 1980, the
total solid waste tonnages and per capita generation rates
will be based primarily on these months.
* In order to estimate the monthly totals for July 1979
through March 1980 where there is no information available
on the volume of solid waste received from individually
hauled cash sales, an extrapolation technique will be used.
For the months of April, May and June of 1980 where the
solid waste volume is available for all four major cate-
gories, a ratio of the four categories versus three
catiegories will be determined. An average ratio will then
be calculated and used to extrapolate a four category total
for the months of July 1979 through March 1980.(Table II),
If the three calculated ratios are reasonably close, this
assumption is probably somewhat valid. However, it is
important to note that the extrapolation technique does
assume that a proportional or equal number of individuals
deliver solid waste to the site in the winter and in the
summer and this may not be true.
* After the four category total has been estimated a daily
tonnage will be determined on the basis of 6 days per week
and 7 days per week respectively. The 6 day per week figures
are extremely useful for application to solid waste process-
ing and energy recovery facilities since this is the most
common operating schedule (Table III).
The population estimate for Juneau of 25,000 will be used
to calculate the per capita generation rates of pounds of
solid waste per person per day. The per capita figure is
based on continuous solid waste generation 7 days per week.
An analysis of Table III reveals the following very interesting
facts and conclusions.
* The expected seasonal fluctuation in solid waste volume is
not evident from the figures in Table III. The variation
in the monthly solid waste figures is almost random and
this fact, although somewhat unusual, supports the use of
-10-
-------
average daily tonnages and per capita generation rates.
This will also simplify the analysis for the other communi-
ties without sacrificing significant accuracy.
* The averagfe per capita generation rate of 3.30 lbs/person-
day is somewhat lower than was qualitatively expected
because of the importation of consumer goods. However,
excessive packaging is practiced on a national basis and
perhaps this should not be that surprising. The 3.30 figure
compares favorably with the range of generation rates in
Idaho Of 2.9 to 4.0 lbs/person-day. The 6 day per week
daily average of 49 tons is also in agreement with the 40
to 50 tons per day estimate made by Channel Sanitation
during the survey.
* It is interesting to note that the extrapolation technique
used to determine the solid waste volume estimates would
if anything reflect a larger than actual solid waste
stream. The calculated relatively low per capita generation
rate further supports the extrapolation assumptions.
* The Juneau population estimate of 25,000 persons is a very
sensitive variable when determining a per capita generation
rate to be used for the other S.E. Alaska communities.
For example, if the 23,115 population figure from Appendix
C is used in the calculation, the resulting figure is
3.55 lbs/person-day.
Based on this fact, and in order to help insure against
under designing a solid waste management system, for the
remainder of this study a S.E. Alaska per capita generation
rate of 3.50 lbs/person-day will be used for the other
S.E. Alaska communities.
C. Status of Existing Solid Waste Management Systems
1. Collection Service
Channel Sanitation operates the solid waste collection
service in the Juneau area under a Public Utility Commission
Franchise. The service is voluntary not manditory and this
results in a large number of persons hauling their own
solid waste to the disposal site (refer; to Table I Cash
Sales). This causes heavy traffic at the disposal site
on Saturday and is also very energy intensive since a private
automobile is not as efficient as a solid waste compactor
truck. The collection service is entirely privately owned
and operated and supported by monthly billings to customers
by Channel Sanitation.
-11-
-------
Disposal Site
The Juneau disposal site is operated as a sanitary landfill
with a solid waste compactor unit probably achieving an in-
place density of 800 to 1000 lbs/yd3.
The site is located in a diked area and ground and surface
water contamination may be a problem due to the proximity
of the water and the high precipitation rate. The land
available within the diked area under the current land use
agreement is very limited and is projected to be totally
used up in the near future unless the diked area can be
expanded.
The disposal site is totally supported by revenues from the
gate charge assessed at Ihi per pound with a minimum of
$2.42 per load. The disposal cost for the Channel Sanitation
collection vehicles is passed along to the customer in the
collection billing.
Recycling
Channel Sanitation currently recycles auto hulks (which are
crushed with a crawler tractor) and other ferrous scrap and
uses their own barges to ship to markets in Vancouver or
Seattle. Barging costs are estimated at $3,500 per 24 hour
day including labor and the $100 to $200 per day lease of
the barge. Market price is a critical factor. A minimum
price to make the trip south economically feasible is $60
per ton of scrap and at the time of the survey the price
was only $50 per ton.
The erratic fluctuation characteristic of scrap iron market
prices increase the risk of the business venture. Since it
takes from 6 to 14 days to make the trip the scrap iron
price might be favorable when leaving Juneau yet be depressed
when arriving at the market site.
Although the crawler tractor used to crush the junk autos
does not achieve the volume reduction of a hydraulic car
crusher, apparently Channel Sanitation cannot justify the
expense of this specialized piece of equipment. However,
the use of a car crusher might increase the number of junk
autos that can be placed on a barge.
Some aluminum can recycling is practiced by a social club on
a voluntary source separation basis.
-12-
-------
KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH AND CITIES OF KETCHIKAN AND SAXMAN
A. Population
The data in Appendices C and D report an area population within
the Ketchikan Gateway Borough of approximately 13,464 persons.
The population growth is estimated at 3% per year.
B. Solid Waste Volumes
The following solid waste figures have been calculated using the
per capita generation rate estimate of 3.50 lbs/person-day in
conjunction with the reported population of 13,464 persons.
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility ¦ 28 tons/operating day
From Appendix D the city roughly estimated the landfill volume
consumed to be 10,500 yd3/year of solid waste and cover material
compacted in place. Assuming 1,000 lbs/yd3 in-place density this
equates, to 5,250 tons/year compared to the estimated 8,600 tons/
year. However, the discrepancy can be at least partially
explained by the use of the air curtain destructor at the site
and some open burning.
C. Status of Existing Solid Waste Management Systems
1. Collection System
The city of Ketchikan currently operates a collection system
serving the estimated 8,000 plus residents within the city
limits. The collection system is estimated to cost approxi-
mately $263,000 per year and is supported entirely by the
collection route customers.
Tongass Sanitation, a private solid waste collection con-
tractor serves the borough residents and some commercial
accounts within the city limits. The collection system is
also financed by a user fee.
2. Disposal Site
The Ketchikan landfill is owned and operated by the city.
It was originally in a deep muskeg ravine which has since
been filled. The remaining land area is very limited with
an estimated life of only two years if burning is continued
to be allowed.
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total Annual Tonnage
24 tons/day
168 tons/week
8,600 tons/year
-13-
-------
Cover material must be imported and adds substantially to
the operational cost of the site. The limited cover
material and the very high precipitation rate results in
the generation of leachate of sufficient quantity to reach
a small stream which is located adjacent to the fill area.
There is no ground water at the site because of underlying
bedrock.
Junk autos were a problem at the landfill site in the past
because of the excessive landfill volume consumed by the
disposal of auto hulks. However, recently Jim Church, a
local private contractor, is salvaging the junk autos in
the Ketchikan area and has even removed a large number of
auto hulks from the landfill. This and recent improvements
in site management and cover application frequency has
improved the appearance of the site.
Burning at the facility continues to be a problem primarily
due to fires being set illegally by users of the site and
the poor performance of an air curtain type incinerator.
The problems with the incinerator may be partially due to
faulty trench construction in conjunction with attempts to
burn waste other than brush and similar wood waste for which
the unit was designed.
The city has been searching for alternative landfill sites
due to the limited life expectancy of the existing facility.
The acquisition of a site approximately 12 miles north of
Ketchikan is being investigated. Based on visual inspec-
tions, the site appears to be suitable. However, the
increased haul distance and associated costs have caused some
concern.
The existing facility is financed by general fund monies
and is estimated to cost approximately $100,000 per year.
Since users residing outside the Ketchikan city limits are
not taxed for the operation of the facility, a question of
equitability is evident.
3. Recycling
As was discussed in a previous section, Jim Church, a private
contractor, is currently recycling junk autos for salvage in
Canada or Seattle. A 90,000 lb/in^ hydraulic car crusher is
used to prepare the autos for barging south. One major
problem (in addition to the market price fluctuations) is a
lack of sufficient land area for storage of the junk autos
until a barge load has been accumulated.
-14-
-------
Mr. Church is interested in salvaging junk autosfrom other
S.E. Alaska communities but most lack sufficient storage
area to allow the accumulation of 40 to 50 of the auto hulks
required to make it feasible for him to transport the car
crusher to the other communities.
A number of junk autos have been removed from the Ketchikan
landfill with a minor $10 per car subsidy, from the city.
Mr. Church required the subsidy primarily because of the
extra handling at the fill and the difficult access for
trucks because of the steep narrow road to the site.
III. CITIES OF CRAIG AND KLAWOCK
A. Population
Based on the data from Appendices C and D the population of
Craig and Klawock is 587 and 404 respectively. The disposal site,
located between the two communities, serves the two community
total of 991 persons with a possibility of also acquiring some
solid waste from the small community of Hollis.
B. Solid Waste Volumes
The solid waste generated by the residents of Craig and Klawock
are estimated below using the population data in conjunction with
the Juneau per capita generation figure of 3.50 lbs/person-day.
The city of Craig, operator of the disposal site, estimated that
approximately 10,000 yd3/year are collected and deposited at
the disposal site. However, it is not known if this is loose,
compacted on the truck or inplace at the fill.
C. Status of Existing Solid Waste Management Systems
1. Collection System
The city of Craig operates a collection route, in their
jurisdictional area only, using a small 11 yd3 compactor
truck. The total cost is estimated to be $25,000 per year
with $15,000 of the total acquired from user fees at the
rate of $4.25 per residence. The remaining $10,000 per
year is from general fund revenues.
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total Annual Tonnage
1.7 tons/day
12 tons/week
620 tons/year
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility
2 tons/operating day
-15-
-------
Although the information was not totally clear, it appears
the city of Klawock does not have a formal collection system.
However, a private individual is providing some voluntary
collection with a flatbed truck.
2. Disposal Site
The Craig-Klawock disposal site is operated by the city of
Craig in a muskeg area, 3 miles northeast of Craig, owned
by the Klawock-Heenya Native Corporation. Limited land
area and a total absence of cover material on site are the
primary problems with the facility. The site also generates
leachate which may be contaminating Crab Creek which is a
potential water supply.
Uncontrolled burning is also a problem which was of great
concern at the time of the survey because of the forest
fire hazard due to dry weather and possible loss of Native
Corp. timber around the site. The fire danger did promote
the importation of cover material from the city of Klawock
and initiated the development of future plans to blast
nearby rock for cover material.
Junk autos are not a severe problem because of the limited
number of auto hulks. However, the junk autos do consume
valuable land area when placed in the site.
The operation of the solid waste disposal facility is
currently financed by the city of Craig and is included in
their solid waste collection budget. However, the formation
of a joint Craig-Klawock solid waste commission to manage
the site and more equitably distribute operating and cover
material costs was also discussed during the survey.
3. Recycling
No recycling is currently practiced in the Craig-Klawock area.
CITY OF WRANGELL
A. Population
The population in both Appendices C and D list the city of
Wrangell at 3,325 with an estimated annual growth rate of 2%.
B. Solid Waste Volumes
The following solid waste figures have been estimated using the
Wrangell population in conjunction with the per capita generation
rate of 3.50 lbs/person-day.
-16-
-------
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total Annual Tonnage
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility
5.8 tons/day
41 tons/week
2,124 tons/year
6.8 tons/operating day
The city reported (Appendix D) that approximately 9,500 yd are
delivered to the disposal site per year. If this is assumed to
be compacted on the collection vehicle at approximately 400
lbs/yd^ this converts to 1,900 tons per year which correlates
closely with the above estimate.
C. Status of Existing Solid Waste Management Systems
1. Collection System
3
The city operates a 16 yd compactor truck for residential
and commerical collection which is financed by both user
fees and the general fund which total to approximately
$52,480 per year.
2. Disposal Site
The Wrangell disposal site is situated on city owned land
and is also operated by the city. The two most significant
problems which in turn cause secondary complications is the
very limited land area and a total absence of cover material.
The lack of cover material attracts birds in large quanti-
ties which constitute a hazard to the jet airport which is
within the two mile limit contained in FAA and EPA regu-
lations. In addition, the limited land area promotes
almost continual open burning in an attempt to conserve the
site.
As is true with the other S.E. Alaska communities, the high
precipitation rate generates leachate which may cause sur-
face water pollution. Ground water is not present at the
site because of subsurface geological conditions.
The cost for the site attendant and limited equipment
operation is estimated at $15,000 per year.
Junk autos are not a problem at the site since a local
individual acquires them from the city for storage on
private property.
3. Recycling
The only recycling in Wrangell is the junk autos listed
-17-
-------
above which are primarily stored for used auto part
sales.
V. CITY OF PETERSBURG
A. Population
From Appendix C the reported population is 3,197 with a growth
rate of 2-4%.
B. Solid Waste Volumes
The population data in coiijunction with the per capita generation
estimate of 3.50 lbs/person-day result in the following estimates.
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility = 6-5 tons/operating day
The city did not have an estimate of the solid waste volumes.
C. Status of Existing Solid Waste Management Systems
1. Collection System
The city operates two compaction vehicles supported by user
fees and general fund monies at an estimated annual cost of
$40,000 per year. The landfill operation costs approxi-
mately $46,000 per year for a total of $86,000 per year
solid waste management cost. The total $86,000 solid waste
expenditure is funded by $72,000 in user fees and $14,000
from local taxes.
2. Disposal Site
The site is situated on muskeg and is owned and operated by
the city. A crawler tractor is used to manage the waste
but limited cover material restricts the operation. Open
burning is also practiced almost continually for most of
the solid waste deposited at the site.
The high precipitation rate and muskeg cause the generated
leachate to remain on or near the land surface and creates a
potential for contamination of a nearby stream. True
ground water is not present at the site and therefore this
contamination potential is non-existent.
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total Annual Tonnage
5.6 tons/day
39 tons/week
2,042 tons/year
-18-
-------
Junk cars are disposed of at the site at an approximate rate
of 12 per year, a practice which consumes a significant
amount of usable landfill volume.
As was indicated in the preceding section the annual land
disposal cost is $46,000 supported by user fee and general
fund.
3. Recycling
A very limited amount of aluminum can recycling is practiced
on a social group or individual basis.
CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA
A. Population
From Appendices C and D the population in Sitka is approximately
8,787 with a 1% annual growth rate.
B. Solid Waste Volumes
The estimated per capita generation rate of 3.50 lbs/person-day
is applied to the Sitka population to generate the followifig
solid waste figures.
Sitka officials estimated the annual in-place solid waste volvaae
at the disposal site to be 23,400 yd3. Assuming an in-place
density of 800 lbs/yd^ this converts to 9,360 tons per year.
This does not correlate well with the per capita derived estimate.
One possibility is that the city estimate included cover material.
Also if the city estimated the volume based on one ton per
person per year as was indicated during meetings, this is
approximately 5 lbs/person-year and does not agree with the
3.50 generation rate.
C. Status of Existing Solid Waste Management Systems
1. Collection System
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total Annual Tons
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility
15.4 tons/day
108 tons/week
5,621 tons/year
18 tons/operating day
A privately operated manditory collection service requires
two 25 yd3 and one 20 yd3 packer trucks. Approximately
-19-
-------
2,327 residential and commercial customers utilize the
collection service. The system is financed entirely by
user fees which totals approximately $179,634 per year.
The city would like to replace the larger 25 yd^ packer
truck with another 20 yd^ unit because they are better
suited for the Sitka road conditions.
2. Disposal Site
The disposal site is owned by the city and operated under
contract by a private corporation. The city also owns a
solid waste shredder for increased volume reduction, which
at the time of the survey was not operational.
The soil is reported to be a mixture of volcanic ash and
glacial till which, according to city officials, requires
screening and processing to remove the volcanic ash.
Apparently, if the ash is not removed, the cover material
flows uncontrollably when wet. The availability of cover
material arid site land area are both very limited.
As is characteristic of other S.E. Alaska sites, the high
precipitation rate generates leachate which may contaminate
ground or surface water. Some leachate collection is
practiced with ultimate deposition in a municipal sewage
system. The amount or percent of leachate that is actually
collected or treated is not known. However, if secondary
municipal sewage treatment is initiated in the future, the
heavy metals usually found in solid waste leachate may
adversely affect the aerobic digestion process.
The current cost of the landfill operation is $130,000 per
year with an estimated future cost of $220,000 per year.
The reason for the increase was not explained and it is
also not certain if the annual figure includes the operational
costs of the shredder.
3. Recycling
Approximately 100 junk autos per year are barged south for
salvage by a private individual. The junk autos are not
crushed before shipment.
Some aluminum can recycling is practiced by social clubs and
private individuals on a very limited basis.
VII. CITY OF SKAGWAY
A. Population
-20-
-------
The reported Skagway population from Appendix C is 877 persons.
However, because of the tourist nature of the community during
the months (May through September) when the tourist trade is at
the maximum level, it is estimated that the city population
doubles. Tdurists from cruise ships are not included in this
summer total.
B. Solid Waste Volumes
Because of the heavy tourist trade compared to the relatively low
permanent population, the solid waste generation figures will
reflect the seasonal fluctuations. The solid waste generation
rates calculated for Skagway will be computed on the following
basis:
* The per capita generation rate of 3.50 lbs/person-day will
be applied to the estimated 877 permanent residents for
^the months of October through April.
* In order to approximate the increase in commercial solid
waste from tourism, the 3.50 lbs/person-day will be used with
1754 persons for the month of May through September. This
assumption is based primarily on input from the city solid
waste personnel that during the tourist months the solid
waste collected is approximately twice that of the volume
during the winter months. (This does not include solid
waste from cruise ships)
* Based on information from the city solid waste personnel
each cruise ship removes from 3 to 7 yd3 of solid waste
(on truck compacted volume) depending on the size of the
ship. In the absence of better data, it will be assumed
that an equal number of each size ship dock at Skagway
thereby resulting in an average of 5 yd3 per ship of solid
waste at an estimated density of 400 lbs/yd3. This equates
to one ton of solid waste per ship. This assumption and
the 1980 cruise ship schedule which indicates that 90 cruise
ships dock in Skagway from May through September result in
an additional 90 tons of solid waste generated during the
tourist months.
Tourist-Month Solid Waste Volumes will be calculated for the
estimated 1,754 persons using the 3.50 generation rate and the
cruise shipr Solid waste will be added to the sub-total.
Tourist Months (May through September, 153 days)
Daily Tons Generated = 3.1 tons/day
-21-
-------
Weekly Tons Generated •
Sub-Total Tons Generated
(153 Days)
Cruise Ship Tons
Total Tons Generated
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility
22 tons/week
474 tons
90 tons
564 tons
4.3 tons/operating day
Non-Tourist Months (October through April, 212 days)
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total Tons Generated
1.5 tons/day
11 tons/week
318 tons
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility
.1.8 tons/operating day
882 tons/year
Total Annual Tons
C. Status of Existing Solid Waste Management Systems
1. Collection System
A city owned and operated collection route serves approxi-
mately 280 residential and 36 commercial customers. The
residential user fee is $3.60 per month for once per week
service of two cans. Commercial charges are based on the
number of cans and frequency of collection. The recently
purchased 20 yd3 compactor truck has the capability of
emptying 2 or 3 yd3 bins which are currently being used by
commercial accounts.
2. Disposal Site
The site is located on the side of a hill in plain view of
the city and is an aesthetic problem. Both land area and
cover material are very limited and as a result the site
burns almost continually. The equipment used to work the
site is very old and should be replaced if a true landfill
operation is implemented.
Ground or surface water contamination does not appear to be
a critical problem although any leachate generated would
definitely drain down the hillside towards the river.
Domestic pigs feeding at the dump site could constitute a
public health hazard if slaughtered and sold. However,
this has not been documented as an actual problem.
-22-
-------
The city is investigating the suitability of an alternate
site location in bottom land near the river. Test holes
have been excavated with ground water encountered at an 8
to 12 ft. depth. The proximity of the ground water,
cobbly porous soil and a high precipitation rate indicate
ground water could be contacted by leachate. However,
the actual impact on the ground water is not known.
If a move is made to the new site, the creation at a solid
waste budget for the site operation and the purchase of
landfill equipment would probably be necessary. There is
currently no budget for the existing site. Trench
excavation at the proposed site could be contracted to
reduce the size of the landfill equipment required.
Junk autos are currently being buried in lieu of recycling
because of the small number of such vehicles and the
distance to markets.
3. Recycling
None is practiced in Skagway
VIII. CITY OF HAINES
A. Population
From Appendix C the reported population for Haines is 1,366 with
approximately 1,100 in the city limits. The annual growth rate
was not estimated.
6. Solid Waste Volumes
The base solid waste generation rate will be determined by the
population and per capita generation rate of 3.50 lbs/person-
day. However, there is also additional solid waste from the
Alaskan ferries and the park service.
Frank Shull, the operator of the collection and disposal system
estimate 260 ferries per year with each generating approximately
8 yd3 of loose solid waste. At 200 lbs/yd^ this results in
approximately 208 tons per year of solid waste from the ferries.
An additional 54 tons per year is collected from the park ser-
vice.
Daily Tons Generated *
Weekly Tons Generated =
Sub-Total Tons Generated *
2.4 tons/day
17 taits/week
870 tons/year
-23-
-------
Park Service Solid Waste
Total Tons Generated
Ferry Solid Waste
208 tons/year
54 tons/year
1,138 tons/year
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility
3.6 tons/operating day
The solid waste contractor indicates the collection route
generates approximately 240 yd3 of loose solid waste for the
four tourist months of the year and 160 yd3 per week for the
remaining eight months. This totals to approximately 9,760 yd3
per year of loose solid waste. Assuming a 200 lb/yd3 density
for loose solid waste this converts to 976 tons per year which
compared relatively well with the previously estimated 1,138
tons per year.
C. Status of Existing Solid Waste Management Systems
1. Collection System
As indicated previously, the collection service is
privately owned and operated. Three packer trucks are
utilized with the most service provided by a 20 yd3
unit. Although there is a manditory collection ordinance
in effect it is not enforced and only about 60% public
participation is realized.
The collection service extends out into the borough 27
miles north and south to Chilcat Park. The route is
financed by a user fee with approximately 250 to 350
residential and commercial customers or pick up points
with a total estimated annual cost of $80,000.
2. Disposal Site
The Haines landfill has good loam and gravel cover
material in greater amounts than most of the other sites
in the S.E. Alaska area. The cover material is applied
on a regular basis and no burning is practiced. Two
D-6 size crawler tractors and one front end loader are
used to manage the site.
Even with the cover material application, leachate is still
generated because of the high precipitation rate. Sur-
face water contamination does not appear to be a signifi-
cant problem and ground water is not currently monitored
at the site. The land area is somewhat limited with only
an estimated five years of remaining site life unless
additional land is dedicated or acquired.
-24-
-------
Overall, the site is one of the better small land dis-
posal sites in the S.E. Alaska area. Unfortunately, the
site is supported only by collection system revenues and,
according to the private contractor, is currently oper-
ating at a loss. Estimated annual cost of operating the
site is $30,000.
Some junk autos have been deposited at the site in the
past but most ar6 salvaged. Some junk autos have also
been dumped near the ocean over a ledge at what is termed
as garbage point. This has created an aesthetic problem
and is a Source of complaints from tourists.
3. Recycling
Approximately two years ago, Channel Sanitation removed
and salvaged approximately 110 junk autos. However, with
only approximately 20 junk autos per year generated in
Haines, land area for storage is a problem. An accumu-
lation of between 50 to 100 autos is necessary to make
salvage economically feasible.
The following S.E. Alaska communities and villages were not active
study participants and were therefore not visually inspected or
surveyed. The information in the following paragraphs has been
taken from published population data with solid waste data as pro-
vided by the ADEC. The solid waste volumes or weights have been
computed from the 3.50 lbs/person-day generation rate.
Since leachate generation is inevitable due to the high precipitation
rate in the S.E. this item will not be addressed under each
individual city. However, if it is specifically known that leach-
ate creates surface or ground water contamination it will be
noted.
CITY OF ANGOON
A. Population - 541
B. Solid Waste Volumes
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total-Annual Tons
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility
0.9 tons/day
6.6 tons/week
329 tons/year
1.1 tons/operating day
-25-
-------
C. Status of Disposal Site
Uncontrolled open burning is practiced at the site. The
frequency or type of cover is not known. Some junk autos are
also reported at the facility.
D. No recycling is practiced.
. CITY OF HOONAH
A. Population - 1,093
B. Solid Waste Volumes
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total Annual Tons
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility
C. Status of Disposal Site
Open burning is practiced at the facility. There is a good
probability that a nearby surface water ditch has been
contaminated with leachate. The status of the ground water
is unknown. Cover frequency is not known but since bears are
considered a major problem at the site, cover must not be
applied regularly.
D. No recycling is practical in Hoonah.
CITY OF HYDABURG
A. Population - 381
B. Solid Waste Volumes
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total Annual Tons
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility
C. Status of Disposal Site
Uncontrolled open burning is practiced. The site is located
in a water filled gravel pit and the effluent appears to
1.9 tons/day
13 tons/week
694 tons/year
2.2 tons/operating day
0.7 tons/day
4.9 tons/week
256 tons/year
0.8 tons/operating day
-26-
-------
enter the Hydaburg River. No cover is applied and rats are
very common.
D. No recycling is practiced in Hydaburg.
XII. CITY OF KAKE
A. Population - 710
B. Solid Waste Volumes
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total Annual Tbns
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility
d. Status of Disposal Site
Burning is reportedly not frequently practiced. There is
some possibility of surface water contamination. Bears
are a problem at the site thus indicating the lack of a
regular cover frequency.
D. No recycling is practiced in Kake.
XIII. CITY OF KASSAAN
A. Population - 38
B. Solid Waste Volumes
Total Annual Tons ¦ 25 tons/year
C. Status of Disposal Site
Burning is reportedly not regularly practiced. There is no
application of cover material.
D. No recycling is practiced in Kassaan.
XIV. CITY OF METLAKATLA (NATIVE VILLAGE)
A. Population - 1,119
B. Solid Waste Volumes
1.2 tons/day
8.4 tons/week
438 tons/year
1.4 tons/operating day
-27-
-------
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total Annual Tons
Daily Tons Available For
a $ Day/Week Processing
Facility
2.0 tons/day
14 tons/week
730 tons/year
2.3 tons/operating day
C. Status of Disposal Site
Open burning is practiced and cover material is not applied.
D. No recycling is practiced in Metlakatla.
XV. CITY OF PELICAN
A. Population - 221
B. Solid Waste Volumes
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total Annual Tons
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility
C. Status of Disposal Site
0.4 tons/day
2.8 tons/week
146 tons/year
0.5 tons/operating day
Frequent burning is practiced. Surface water contamination
is a possibility but has not been documented. Cover is
reported to be applied on a weekly basis.
D. Recycling of aluminum cans is being considered.
XVI. CITY OF YAKUTAT
A. Population - 442
Solid Waste Volumes
B.
Daily Tons Generated
Weekly Tons Generated
Total Annual Tons
Daily Tons Available For
a 6 Day/Week Processing
Facility
0.8 tons/day
5.6 tons/week
292 tons/year
0.9 tons-operating day
C. Status of Disposal Site
Burning is practiced at the site. Bears have been a problem
-28-
-------
at the site but increased burning in recent years have mini-
mized this safety hazard. Junk auto recycling of approximately
40 to 60 stockpiled cars is practiced. An estimated 6 to 10
autos are generated each year.
D. No recycling is practiced in Yakutat.
-29-
-------
MOOD WASTE
-------
WOOD WASTE
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Sawmills and pulp mills are two of the primary wood waste generators.
However, as was evidenced by the survey trip, most of the companies
are independently developing solutions to their wood waste problems.
The production of electricity from water-wall wood waste boilers
is the most common management technique. Some of the wood waste
boilers and other energy recovery systems are not yet operational
and are in various stages of planning or development. However,
even with the utilization of incinerators or other energy recovery
units, it must be realized that disposal is required for certain
components of the wood waste. Land disposal and intertidal fills
are two options for ultimate disposal. Leachate generation and
the resulting negative impact on water quality is a major con-
sideration and concern.
It is important to recognize that wood waste incinerators cannot
process municipal solid waste properly due to the heterogeneous
nature of solid waste and the related handling problems. Air
emissions, slagging problems and the incinerator residue from
solid waste also creates technical problems which wood waste
incinerators are not designed to handle. Because of the non-
compatibility of wood waste boilers and residential solid waste,
the timber companies do not want any of the solid waste generated
by the municipalities and boroughs.
The reverse is not true. Wood waste can be processed in municipal
solid waste incinerators. However, since most timber companies
are solving their own problem and want the energy from the wood
waste to offset the price of fossil fuels, there were almost no
companies interested in a joint operation. S.E. Cedar was
the only company that openly expressed an interest in using a
municipal solid Waste incinerator to process wood waste and the
residential solid waste from the city. Their proposal would be
to use the recovered energy from both waste streams to operate a
kiln to dry lumber for the S.E. Cedar Co.
Most of the wood waste in S.E. Alaska contains an estimated 50%
moisture content and relatively higfc concentration* of salt
since the logs are typically rafted to the mill and are in
direct contact with sea water. Hie corrosive affect of the
-30-
-------
salt on municipal solid waste incinerators is not known or
documented. The timber companies report little affect on the
wood waste boilers that are in operation except that in some
instances the bark cannot be burned because the high salt
concentration makes the stack gasses and smoke exceed particu-
late emission standards.
II. GENERAL WOOD WASTE VOLUMES
Although it is not directly applicable to the S.E. Alaska
timber industry, the following are typical wood waste volumes
which were acquired from the Idaho timber industry. The
figures are for a cross section of the Pacific Northwest timber
resource which is undoubtedly different than the predominately
hemlock and cedars forests in S.E. Alaska.
The following weights are based on 1000 Bd. ft. of green lumber
produced.
The following weights or densities per unit of specific types
of wood waste are also estimates for the same cross section of
timber and is based on the fact that a unit is 200 ft^.
III. WOOD WASTE SURVEY DATA
The following information was derived from meetings with some of
the various timber industries in S.E. Alaska during the survey
trip. The figures are estimates only based on very informal
meetings and discussions and should be treated as such. The
data will be grouped by Company name and plant location and
listed in the order surveyed.
A. S.E. Cedar Co., Saxman
Green Lumber
Bark
Chips
Sawdust
Shavings (dry)
Trim Waste
2,800 lbs
900 lbs
800 lbs
600 lbs
500 lbs
200 lbs
Bark
Sawdust
Shavings
Trim Waste (Hogged)
3,600 lbs/unit
3,000 lbs/unit
2,000 lbs/unit
4,000 lbs/unit
This is a cedar shingle mill located in Saxman which is
just outside the city limits of Ketchikan. This was the
only timber industry that expressed a definite interest in
-31-
-------
using a residential solid waste energy recovery incinerator
to process the Ketchikan municipal solid waste and the cedar
waste from the mill for cogeneration of electricity and steam
for a kiln to dry cedar lumber. S.E. Cedar has a large stock-
pile of cedar bark and waste which resulted when they were
required to shut down a teepee burner. They are therefore,
interested in eliminating the stockpile and also generating
the energy required for the mill.
In addition to the stockpiled wood waste, S.E. Cedar estimated
that, when operating^ the mill would generate approximately
200 yd-* of wood waste per day. Based on a 5 day per week 11
month per ye4r operating schedule, this is 1,000 yd3 per week
or 48,000 yd3 of wood waste per year requiring disposal.
The energy requirements and solid waste energy recovery
facility sizing will be determined in this section because
of the interest expressed by S.E. Cedar in the energy recovery
option.
The following energy requirements for the mill and kiln
operation were estimated by S.E. Cedar.
* Approximately 800 Kw-Hr of electricity would be
required for the mill per operating day.
* The mill would produce 240 squares per day of shingles
with each square loosing approximately 50 lbs of water.
This equates to 12,000 lbs of water that is required to
be removed per operating day. Although the kiln is a
batch operation that requires three or four days for a
drying cycle the energy needs will be approximated on
the basis of an operating day.
* Assuming the cedar enters the kiln at approximately
45°F and 130 psia approximately 1040 BTUs are required
to evaporate one pound of water. To remove the total
12,000 lbs of water each operating day, approximately
12.5 X 106 BTUs of energy would be required.
* Assuming a 15% efficiency for the kiln, 8.3 X 10^ BTOs
of energy would be required per operating day. The
efficiency is only an estimate but most units of this
nature are quite inefficient.
* Approximately 873 BTOs/lb can be extracted from steam
condensing at 130 psia.
-32-
-------
* A typical modular solid waste energy recovery facility
is reportedly capable of generating 5,000 lbs,-steam per
ton of solid waste. However, with the increased moisture
content of the solid waste in S.E. Alaska, only 4,000
lbs/ton of solid waste will be anticipated. (However,
the moisture content and assumption of 4,000 lbs of
steam must be documented before any energy recovery
facility is selected for implementation.)
A hypothetical solid waste energy recovery facility will
be sized based on the previous information and
assumptions.
(8.3 X 107 BTU )(lb-steam) = 9.5 X 104 lb-steam
Oper. Day 873 BTUs Oper. Day
(9.5 X 104 lb-steam)( 1 Ton S.W. ) = 24 Tons S.W.
Oper. Day 4,000 lb-steam Oper. Day
This indicates that based on the very rough estimates of
the energy requirements, kiln efficiencies and energy
recovery system output 24 tons per day of solid waste
would be required to supply the energy for the kiln.
However, there are other factors which must be con-
sidered when matching potential steam customers and
energy recovery facilities. These will be analyzed in
depth in a later section of this report.
B. Alaska Timber Corp., Klawock
This is a large sawmill operation primarily producing cants
and chips.
Alaska Timber Corp., is currently constructing a wood waste
incinerator with two Erie City water wall boilers to be used
to generate steam to produce electricity for the sawmill.
Plans are to have the incinerator in operation before Spring
of 1981.
Production rates and wood waste generation rates were not
acquired during the interview. However, the wood waste
incinerator is capable of processing 200 tons per day of
wood waste and according to Alaska Timber Corp. officials,
the mill generates more fuel than is needed. The large
stockpile of wood waste is estimated by company officials to
be enough boiler fuel to last approximately one or two years.
There has also been some discussion of selling electricity
to the cities of Craig and Klawock, if there is a surplus.
-33-
-------
C. Louisiana Pacific (LPK), Ketchikan
This large pulp mill utilizes two large power boilers burning
a combination of wood waste and heavy oil to generate steam
at 860 psi and 680° F to generate from 17 to 19 megawatts of
electricity for on-site use in the plant.
The pulp mill incinerates from 900 "to 1100 tons per day of
wood waste comprised of hog fuel, bark and primary sludge.
The composite mixture of wood waste is approximately 40 to
42% dry at the present time. However, there is some concern
that when the facility begins producing secondary sludge in
the very near future, the existing dewatering press will not
adequately handle the sludge and the moisture content will be
too high for incineration. This phenomenon has been exper-
ienced by the Alaska Lumber and Pulp (ALP) in Sitka. This is
because of some technical problems with a Fulton bark press
and ALP and LPK are currently conducting a joint experiment
to see if a LMP bark press at LPK will dewater the sludge
successfully. If not, this definitely increases the land
disposal requirements for wood waste. The volume of
secondary sludge will be approximately 3 tons of bone dry
secondary sludge per day. Ata99% moisture content this
equates to 300 tons of sludge per day.
The salt concentration in the wood waste (mostly in the bark)
has not created any significant corrosion problems in the
boilers. However, if plans are initiated to change from a
hydraulic to a mechanical de-barker the salt concentration
in the bark would increase and could possibly cause some
corrosion problems.
In addition to the wood waste generated by the pump mill
approximately 45 wet tons is reported to be acquired from the
Ketchikan Spruce Mill and infrequently some is imported
from the Alaska Timber Corp., in Klawock at a barging cost
of $15 per unit.
LPK officials estimate that hemlock hog fuel has a heating
value of approximately 4,500 BTUs/lb wet and hemlock bark
ranges from 3,850 to 4,200 BTUs/lb.
D. Alaska Lumber and Pump (ALP), Wrangel1
This sawmill utilizes three 8,000 lb»/hour and one 10,000
lbs/hour wood waste boilers to generate steam for the
production of electricity for use in the plant. The boiler
fuel is primarily hog fuel and sawdust.
-34-
-------
The bark waste is being deposited in an approved intertidal
fill approximately six miles north of the mill. Approxi-
mately 30 units per day of bark is deposited in the inter-
tidal fill because, reportedly, the salt in the bark causes
the wood waste boilers to exceed particulate emission
standards. Using the Idaho wood waste figures the 30 units
of bark equates to approximately 54 tons per day.
The volume of wood waste incinerated in the boiler was not
acquired during the meeting with ALP officials. However,
the wood waste volume can be roughly estimated using the
Idaho figures -and the reported 200,000 bd. ft. of green
lumber produced each 12 hour operating day.
Based on 200,000 bd. ft. per day
Sawdust ® 60 tons/day
Trim Waste = 20 tons/day
Therefore, a rough estimate is that approximately 80 tons
per day of wood waste is used as boiler fuel.
E. Mitkof Lumber Co., Petersburg
This sawmill currently generates approximately 32 tons per
day of wet wood waste. Some of the waste is currently
being burned with auxiliary fuel to prevent smoke with
the remainder being deposited in an intertidal fill.
The company is currently investigating the feasibility of
using a pyrolytic gasifier to produce methane gas from the
wood waste to burn in a turbine to generate electricity.
Gas production data and electrical generation rates are
listed below as reported by Mitkof Lumber. The viability
of the proposal is not known or within the scope of this
report. However, it should be noted that methane from
pyrolytic units is usually low BTU gas which requires
methanization to up grade it to pipeline quality.
* One ton of wood waste should produce 30,000 ft^ of
methane, 80 gallons of diesel oil, 40 gallons of
octane gas and carbon.
* One ton of wood waste will produce approximately
1000 Kw hours of electrical energy.
* Approximately 35% of the usable energy is used in the
gasifier to produce the gas.
-35-
-------
F. Alaska Lumber and Pulp (ALP), Sitka
This pulp mill utilizes two hog fuel boilers to generate
steam which is u5ed to produce electricity to operate the
plant. The boilers are fed a combination of wood waste
supplemented with diesel fuel ranging from 1,300 to 1,800
bbl of oil per day depending on the moisture content of
the wood waste. The electrical generators are capable of
producing 27 megawatts at maximum capacity and usually
operate at 94 to 96% of capacity or approximately 25 mega-
watts of power. The actual volume or tonnage of wood waste
incinerated was not acquired during the survey.
The primary wood waste problem is .the secondary sludge
which has a v&ry high moisture content (approximately 99%
water). The sludge has an almost greasy texture which
creates technical problems when attempts are made to de-
water a sludge and bark mixture with a Fulton bark press.
This is the main reason for the previously mentioned joint
experiment with LPK. If a LMP bark press will dewater the
mixture sufficiently enough to allow its incineration
such a unit will be installed at Sitka.
At the present time, the bark is added to the sludge in a
concentration of 20 to 1 respectively to solidify the
sludge for easier handling. Over a 9 month period approxi-
mately 30,000 yd^ of the sludge-bark mixture has been
landfilled. The problem is becoming critical since one
half the landfill volume has been consumed and the site has
only been in operation for one year. A variance or waiver
has been requested to allow the discharge of more of the
secondary sludge to the sea but no decision had been made
on the request at the time of the interview.
ALP also indicated that there is a problem with burning
bark and exceeding particulate emission standards due to
salt concentrations.
G. Schnabel Lumber Co., Haines
This lumber mill processes approximately 175,000 bd. ft.
of logs per 8 hour operating day.
The mill generates approximately 50 units per day of bark
and sawdust wood waste and plans to construct a wood waste
boiler to generate electricity for the plant and possibly
for the city of Haines.
-36-
-------
The mill predicts 33 million bd. mean log scale for 1980,
if an adequate supply of timber can continue to be acquired.
There has been much opposition to logging in the Haines
area that is creating supply problems for the mill.
-37-
-------
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL
-------
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
The construction and start up of increasing numbers of secon-
dary municipal sewage treatment plants in S.E. Alaska is
creating a disposal problem for the sludge from the waste
water facilities.
Specialized sludge incinerators are currently being used by
some S.E. Alaska communities but this practice is very energy
intensive and expensive and has therefore come under severe
criticism. In fact, because of some of the environmental and
economic problems associated with secondary sludge disposal there
is a faction that think the overall environmental impact would
be minimized in sparsely populated areas of S.E. Alaska, if
the sewage plants were limited to primary treatment with
subsequent ocean disposal of the settled solids.
The controversial subject of ocean disposal of primary treated
sewage and other sludge disposal alternatives should be
investigated in detail in the forth coming ADEC - 208 Water
Quality Sludge Management Study and is far beyond the scope
of this report. However, there are some areas of interface
with sludge and residential solid waste disposal which will be
discussed on a preliminary basis.
II. LAND DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE AND SOLID WASTE
The high precipitation rates, geology and abundance of surface
water in S.E. Alaska indicates that leachate will be generated
from the land disposal of residential solid waste alone.
The addition of sewage sludge which characteristically has a
94 to 95% moisture content only serves to increase the leachate
production. Even if a vacuum filter is used the sludge can
only be concentrated to approximately 20% solids. In
addition, depositing sewage sludge at land disposal sites
creates seveve operational problems.
Based on the above information, the land disposal of solid
waste and sewage sludge is not recommended for S.E. Alaska.
Land spreading of sludge on forest land may be environmentally
feasible y$t is most likely not economically viable. However,
this determination should be addressed in the 208 study and
not this report.
-38-
-------
III. CO-DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AND SLUDGE IN MODULAR SOLID WASTE
INCINERATORS.
The co-disposal of sludge and municipal solid waste has been
discussed in numerous meetings and initially sounds like it has
considerable promise. However, closer investigation reveals that
there are certain technical factors that do not favor co-disposal
by incineration. Two of the more important items are listed
below.
With secondary sewage sludge ranging from 80% to 95% moisture
content, this constitutes the addition of large quantities of
water to a solid waste stream which will already be very high in
moisture content because of the high precipitation rate in
S.E. Alaska. This variable is even more critical if energy
recovery is anticipated, since the moisture in the incoming
solid waste stream significantly affects the recoverable energy.
Modular incinerator manufacturers indicate that sewage sludge
can be handled in a modular solid waste incinerator without
odor and technical problems up to a maximum of 14% to 20% by
weight of the total incoming solid waste and sludge stream for
a continuous feed unit and possibly up to 40% sludge for a batch
feed. However, actual field testing has not been conducted at
the higher sludge concentrations. It is also very important to
recognize that sludge management must be engineered and designed
into the unit before actual construction is commenced. Auger
type sludge feeds or comparable feeding apparatus are examples
of the specialized equipment needed.
The per capita solid waste generation rate is approximately
3.50 lbs/person-day. Based on information from waste water
treatment manuals, it can be shown that the quantity of sludge
from a given population far exceeds 14% or 20% of the solid waste
and sludge total.
Basis: Sludge at 94% moisture has a sp.gr. of 1.03.
Secondary sludge is generated at an approximate rate of
36 ft3/l,000 persons.
(1.03 sp.gr.)(62.4 lb ) ¦ 64.3 lb sludge density
ftT HT
(36 ft3 sludge)(64.3 lbs sludge) = 2.32 lbs sludge
1,000 persons ft3 sludge person
% of total incoming stream that is sludge
(2.32 lbs sludge/person) X 100 = 40%
(2.32 lbs sludge/person) + (3.50 lbs S.W./person
-39-
-------
This indicates that it would not be possible to incinerate all the
sludge in the modular solid waste facility without far exceeding
the 14% to 20% maximum sludge concentration for automatic feed
units. The above figures indicate that if batch incinerators
can actually operate at a 40% sludge concentration they could
theoretically handle the sludge and solid waste generated in a
community. However, it is important to realize that the above
calculations and solid waste and sludge volumes are only estimates
and are very near the sludge concentration limit of 40% which
has not been proVen through actual operation. Based on these
facts, Finite Resources would not recommend designing a co-
disposal system at least until the incinerator limitation and
solid waste and sludge volumes could be verified.
In addition, with this high concentration of water in the feed
stream large amounts of auxiliary fuel would undoubtedly be
required which would substantially increase operational costs.
Further it is important to note that batch incinerators would
only be practical for relatively small solid waste volumes
and are not recommended for large daily tonnages.
-40-
-------
JUNK AUTO DISPOSAL AND SALVAGE
-------
JUNK AUTO DISPOSAL AND SALVAGE
Landfill disposal of junk autos consumes large quantities of yaluable
landfill space and should not he practiced if there are any possible
alternatives. Stockpiling of auto hulks until a sufficient number
have been accumulated is a much better alternative if the storage
space is available. Unfortunately, with the limited land available
in most S.E. Alaska communities storage areas are very limited.
However, even in view of this difficulty, it is definitely more
logical to temporarily use land area for storage than it is to
permanently consume landfill space by disposing of an item that is
currently recyclable.
As has been indicated in previous sections of this report the auto
salvage business is somewhat risky because the market price for the
salvaged ferrous metal can change significantly in the time it takes
to barge the recyclables tb markets in Canada or the Pacific Northwest.
There are currently four individuals or companies involved in some
aspect of auto salvage or recycling operations. A brief description
of each auto salvage operation will be listed below.
* Channel Sanitation, Juneau
This solid waste and salvage contractor recycles junk autos and
other ferrous metal utilizing a company operated barging system.
A crawler tractor is used to crush the auto hulks. Since the
barge reportedly exceeds the weight limit before the volume limit,
better volume reduction is not deemed necessary according to
Channel Sanitation. However, after visually inspecting a loaded
barge it is highly probable that at a minimum a car crusher would
improve the stability of the loaded barge. This company will sal-
vage junk autos in most areas of S.E. Alaska provided there are
enough auto hulks stockpiled to make the venture economically
feasible.
' Jim Church, Ketchikan
This private contractor specializes in junk auto salvage utilizing
a hydraulic car crusher and related equipment. The company is
located in Ketchikan where a large number of autos have been
removed since the company has been in business. However, this
company is also interested in salvaging junk autos from other areas
in the S.E. if there are enough stockpiled.
-41-
-------
Jim Wickham, Sitka
Junk autos in the Sitka area are salvaged and barged south by this
private contractor in a non-compacted state. Activities in the
past have been primarily limited to the Sitka area.
Virgil Byford, Wrangell
This private individual is primarily engaged in stockpiling junk
autos for the sale of used auto parts in Wrangell. The junk
auto bodies are not barged south for salvage at the present time.
-42-
-------
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
OF ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
-------
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
OF ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
This section of the report will analyze the different types of solid
waste processing and disposal systems which may be reasonable or
practical for the study area. Large volume material recycling for
residential solid waste is not considered a viable solid waste
management option for S.E. Alaska and is therefore not considered
in this study. The primary reasons are distances to southern
markets and the technical and social problems affecting either
mechanical or voluntary separation respectively.
Sanitary landfilling with leachate control, baling and balefill
sites, shredding and landfilling and modular incineration with and
without energy recovery are the solid waste management systems that
will be investigated. The analysis will also include the technical
and environmental details of each complete with pros and cons.
General ranges of capital costs and operating and maintenance costs
will be listed, but the specific economics of different systems
depend on the size of the facility and will therefore be analyzed
in detail under specific applications for different communities.
It is very important to recognize that a land disposal site will be
required even if some type of solid waste processing or volume
reduction facility is selected. Shredding, baling, incineration
and even recycling systems will require some type of ultimate
disposal for residue and solid waste that cannot be processed.
Final deposition of solid waste must be on or in the land, air or
water. It is virtually impossible to place all solid waste in the
air and disposal at sea has considerable environmental opposition.
Therefore, deposition of at least some of the solid waste on land
is required. Because of the high precipitation rates character-
istic of S.E. Alaska) leachate generation is inevitable by direct
infiltration of precipitation and/or contact by surface or ground
water. However, there are certain practices that can minimize
the amount or strength of the leachate produced and the impact
on the environment.
Unfortunately, in addition to being very expensive, some of the
leachate control options may not be totally practical for S.E.
Alaska because of the hydrology and geology and especially the high
precipitation rate and limited soil depth, cover material and land
area.
-43-
-------
The following analysis of alternative solid waste management systems
will stress the need for a minimization of the environmental impact
of leachate by either treatment or a reduction in the amount or
strength of the leachate produced. All alternatives are based on
the assumption of a water saturated soil because of the high
precipitation rate characteristic of S.E. Alaska.
The analysis of each specific solid waste management alternative
will include a list of advantages and disadvantages of each system
in order to allow a relative.comparison of the different management
options.
I. SANITARY LANDFILLS WITH LEACHATE CONTROL
Sanitary landfills have historically been a primary method of solid
waste disposal in the United States. Unfortunately, in some instances
the term sanitary landfill applies in name only since many such
sites are nothing more than open burning dumps.
For the purpose of the analysis the term sanitary landfill will refer
to a properly operated site with compaction and cover. Because of
the inevitable generation of leachate from land disposal sites in
S.E. Alaska the subject of leachate control will be stressed.
The actual site operational requirements such as cover frequency and
leachate control is dependent on the interpretation of environmental
statutes and regulations by Federal and State agencies and the
following discussion is not intended to influence this fact.
Other than the regular application of compacted cover material, one
of the simplest methods of decreasing leachate production which
should be practical at all sanitary landfills is to intercept any
surface water drainage upgradient or above the site. However, some
sites in Alaska are located in muskeg over bedrock and simple
interceptor ditches would simply not work. Relocation of the site
appears to be the most practical solution in these situations.
Unfortunately, in some cases this is the only land that is available.
The construction of impermeable concrete or clay interceptor
ditches may be a partial answer but at best it would be an expensive
endeavor practical for only a few sites.
One method that has been recommended (blindly on many occasions) as
a solution to the environmental problems associated with leachate
production is to seal the landfill area with clay or artificial
impermeable barriers. This technique in conjunction with interceptor
ditches will decrease the time it takes for leachate to be produced and
migrate off site. However, in any area where the precipitation rate
exceeds the evapo-transpiration rate sealing the site and using
-44-
-------
surface water interceptor ditches does not alter the fact that
leachate will be generated and will ultimately migrate off-site.
This is especially true for an area like S.E. Alaska with extremely
high annual precipitation rates. A staple mass balance illustrates
this fact.
In - Out = Accumulation
After the sealed site reaches its volume capacity the water or
leachate must flow out.
The obvious next step in minimizing the environmental impact of
leachate from land disposal sites is to collect and treat it.
Normally to be effective, leachate collection systems must be
designed for the site before it is active, different types of
collection systems of varying degrees of sophistication are available
ranging from simple layers of permeable tutorial such as sand or
ground placed oyer the impermeable seal^to complex piping with
recirculation pumps.
The simplest approach (where geology allows) is to merely intercept
the leachate as it leaves the site. This is of course impossible
for sites without liners which are located over permeable soil
causing the leachate to flow vertically down to ground water.
However, the S.E. Alaska geology indicates that most leachate would
actually surface because of bedrock.
After the leachate has been collected, it must be treated. This
is both a complex and costly process at best. Because of the
extremely high biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen
demand (COD) characteristics of leachate from municipal solid
waste extensive aeration and^microbial action is required for
treatment. However, because of the heavy metals present in most
solid waste leachate, pretreatment is usually required to remove
the heavy metals in order to mot contaminate the aerobic bacteria.
One simple method is additiomlof lime or similar alkali in order to
precipitate out the heavy metals. The complexity of leachate
treatment increases with each step and is usually quite expensive.
The total cost associated with operating a sanitary landfill with
a leachate collection and treatment system is dependent on the size
of the operation.
The following is a concise list of the major pros and cons of land-
fills with leachate control including some which are unique to
S.E. Alaska.
Pros
1. Processing of the solid waste is not necessary before
deposition in the landfill.
-45-
-------
2. Sanitary landfills have historically been the most economical
disposal alternative for solid waste, requiring only one
piece of equipment, such as a crawler tractor, at smaller
sites. However, factors such as the importation of cover
material and construction and operation of leachate collec-
tion and treatment systems increase landfill costs signifi-
cantly.
3. Landfills are relatively simple to operate if an operational
procedure report has been developed. However, the operation
of leachate treatment systems can be somewhat complex.
Cons
1. To minimize leachate production cover material will be
required and in some locations must be imported.
2. Since the sol\d waste is not processed in any manner to
reduce its volume, landfill space or cover material is not
conserved.
3. If sophisticated leachate collection and treatment is
required, the Sfte must be designed and constructed to
accommodate a leachate control system which could be quite
expensive.
II. SOLID WASTE BALING AND BALEFILL OPERATIONS
The baling of solid waste is actually an off shoot of metal scrap
balers, hay balers and corrugate balers resulting from investigations
to improve the efficiency of transporting solid waste long distances.
As reported by EPA* there are three main types of solid waste balers
which are listed below.
* High density balers in which non-processed solid waste is com-
pressed at pressures high enough to eliminate the need for
tie wires.
* A continuous push-through type developed from the hay baler
which requires preshredding of the solid waste and utilization
of tie wires.
* A baler developed from those used for corrugate recycling which
bales non-processed solid waste with tie wires required because
of the lower densities achieved.
The third type of baler which utilizes tie wires and requires no
solid waste preprocessing is the most common for communities with
the population range of those in S.E. Alaska. Therefore, this
-46-
-------
analysis will be limited to this type of baling system. The
following are general technical and economic characteristics of
this type of unit.
* The bales vary in size and density depending on the specific
manufacturer but a typical bale size and density of a baling
operation in northern Idaho is 66" X 42" X 30" weighing
approximately 2300 lbs/bale which is a density of approximately
1300 lbs/yd3.
* The processing capacity of balers range from 10 to 15 tons per
day to over 500 tons per day.
* The initial investment costs are of course proportional to
the size of the baler but range from approximately $175,000
for smaller units to^ larger multi baler systems costing 4
to 5 million dollars.
* The solid waste baling ^ystem in northern Idaho which is
processing between 140 t<* 150 tons per day experienced a total
capital cost of approximately $625,000 based on 1978-1979
monies. The major items aire listed below.
The capital cost for the baler conveyor and wire tyer was
approximately $240,000.
The capital cosls for a building 100* X 120' was $200,000.
Two large front end loaders were $85,000 and $60,000
respectively.
* The cost of wire for the bales, which is sometimes overlooked,
is approximately $1 per bale.
The following general pros and cons of baling and balefill operations
are in order to allow a comparison of this option with the other
management systems.
Pros
1. The density achieved in the bales in conjunction with the
fact that cover material is generally not needed on the
vertical face of the in-place bales approxinately doubles
the life of the land disposal site. (A net 50% volume
reduction.)
2. A balefill operation is a simpler and cheaper operation than
a conventional sanitary landfill.
-47-
-------
3. The open vertical face of the balefill disposal site does
not appear to attract vectors.
Cons
1. Contrary to some theories that baling prevents leachate
production EPA studies and publications indicate that
leachate is generated from balefill operations in sufficient
quantities to require treatment.1 One study revealed that
leachate from a balefill operation was generated sooner and
in greater quantities than from a conventional landfill.
The same study indicated that in a saturated hydrologic
situation the contaminant flux from a balefill operation
was comparable to that of a conventional landfill of un-
processed solid waste.2 However, it was also shown that
the leachate from a balefill seemed to stabilize in a shorter
period of time but would be generated longer than leachate
from a conventional landfill.
2. Although some companies that sell balers claim that no cover
material is required in order to minimize the infiltration
of water, cover material should be placed over the top of
the bales.
3. No utility is extracted from the solid waste stream.
Ultimately, it is still merely being buried with no direct
benefit to society.
4. As is true with any solid waste processing facility there
are capital and operating costs inherent with a solid waste
baling operation. Since in S.E. Alaska long distance
transportation of the solid waste is not required the
only offsetting cost that can be used to compare to the
baling costs are the savings in landfill expenses associated
with the use of less cover material and slower consumption
of valuable site area.
5. The operation of a baler is not an extremely complicated or
difficult job but qualified personnel are necessary.
6. The compaction associated with the actual baling operation
generates leachate which would require treatment.
-48-
-------
III. SOLID WASTE SHREDDERS AND LANDFILLS
The term solid waste shredder refers to many different types of
processes which reduce the volume of the solid waste and converts
it into a relatively homogeneous material. The most common types
are hammer mills and shear units with many additional variations
within these larger categories, (i.e. vertical shaft, horizontal
shaft, etc.)
Shredders wete investigated primarily as a volume reduction technique
and preprocessing step for resource recovery and refuse derived fuel
(RDF) incinerators. Since exotic mechanized resource recovery
systems and RDF facilities are not practical for the population base
of the communities in S.E. Alaska, this report will only analyze
shredders used in conjunction with landfills.
EPA studies have shown that shredded solid waste did not attract j
vectors, support combustion readily or have an objectionable odor.
However, the major advantage of saving landfill space through simple
volume reduction and not requiring daily cover at the disposal site
is not totally applicable to S.E. Alaska because of the leachate
potential due to the high precipitation rates.
Although the capital costs for shredders are usually somewhat lower
than for solid waste balers, operation and maintenance costs are
normally greater depending on which type of shredder is used.
Solid waste is very abrasive and shears and hammer mills both require
intensive maintenance on a regular basis. The primary problem is the
^heterogeneous nature of the solid waste. Some shredders such as
hammer mills are well suited for some types of materials and shear
units are better for other components of the solid waste stream
but no one type is well suited for all the material that comprise
residential solid waste.
The General Electric Company^ has good examples of this problem.
An automobile fragmentizer has problems with vinyl seat covers and
a machine to size reduce concrete and large pieces of metal encounters
difficulty with plastic bleach bottles. Shear types are well
suited for wood but are dulled or destroyed when encountering metal
or concrete objects.
Explosions in solid waste shredders are a major problem from the
aspect of worker safety and damage or outright destruction of the
shredder. There have been many recent incidents of explosions and
fires in shredders. This is because the solid waste stream can
contain flammable or explosive materials and shredders provide
the conditions that can lead to explosions and fires such as
enclosed spaces and metal-to-metal sparks.*
-49-
-------
The following concise list of the pros and cons of solid waste
shredders and associated landfill operations may also include some
of the items contained in the previous paragraphs.
Pros
1. Landfill space is conserved due to the volume reduction of the
solid waste. However, since daily cover will probably still
be required due to the high precipitation rates in S.E.
Alaska the savings will probably be somewhat less than the 50%
savings assumed for baling.
2. The capital cost of a shredder is somewhat less than a baler
and ranges from $120,000 for smaller units up into the millions
for large facilities.
3. A landfill operation with shredded solid waste can achieve
better in-place densities than a conventional landfill and
creates less wear on landfill equipment.
4. Shredded solid waste in landfills reportedly does not attract
vectors and will not support combustion.
Cons
1. Deposition of shredded solid waste in a hydrologically saturated
media, such as is evident in S.E. Alaska, will increase leachate
strength because of the greater surface area of solid waste
available for contact with the water. The increase in leachate
strength provides less time for natural attenuation by the
environment and leachate treatment would probably be necessary.
2. Because of the high potential for leachate generation daily
cover would probably be required. Therefore, the only conser-
vation of cover material would be due to the volume reduction
of the solid waste which is probably less than 50%.
3. No utility is extracted from the solid waste stream. It is
merely being processed and deposited in the ground.
4. The capital and operational costs of the shredding can only be
compared with the savings associated with the conservation of
landfill cover material and site area since no revenues are
realized directly from the shredding operation.
5. Landfill equipment to compact and cover the shredded solid
waste would still be required.
6. Although shredding is not a complex operation qualified trained
personnel are required to operate and protect the equipment
from the solid waste that should not be shredded. Specialized
maintenance personnel are also required.
-5Q-
-------
MODULAR SOLID WASTE INCINERATION WITH AND WITHOUT ENERGY RECOVERY
Modular solid waste incinerators usually have a primary chamber
operated in a starved air mode and a second combustion chamber
!JCeSS/Jr- ReCml technological improvements in
the design of the modular units have reduced particulate emissions
without relying on auxiliary fuel except during start-up and
shutdown.
One of the most significant factors affecting the improved economic
feasibility of modular solid waste incinerators has been the high
and increasing cost of fossil fuels. Because of the high cost of
fossil fuels modular solid waste incinerators with energy recovery
(E.R.) capability are economically viable with the conventional
fossil fuel boilers.
However, before an E.R. facility can be considered, even on a
preliminary basis, there are two very critical prerequisites
There must be a guaranteed or at least reliable source of solid
waste in large enough quantities to generate a sufficient amount of
steam or energy to make the project worthwhile. A steam or energy
customer must be available that is willing to purchase all or most
of the steam at an equitable market price under the provisions of
a long term contract.
There are of course many additional factors and variables that must
be considered before implementing a solid waste E.R. system. But
without the two above items there is no need to investigate
further. In fact, because of the very limited population of many
of the S.E. Alaska communities it is evident that there is probably
not enough solid waste to make E.R. practical in those areas.
However, if the advantages exceed the disadvantages and costs
modular incineration without E.R. may be feasible for some of the
smaller communities because of the high volume reduction and result-
ing conservation of cover material and disposal site area.
Modular solid waste incinerators range from small two to three ton
per day batch units without E.R. to large automated systems de-
signed to incinerate in excess of 500 tons per day with E.R.
capability. E.R. is not recommended for any units processing less
than eight to ten tons per day of municipal solid waste.
In order to avoid underestimating capital, operating and labor costs
for modular incinerators the manufacturers of the units were con-
tacted after the Juneau meeting and they provided the following
current information and estimates. The capital costs are somewhat
-51-
-------
higher than the figures contained in the first draft to cover
freight costs and the higher construction costs inherent in Alaska.
Labor costs will also be calculated on the basis of annual salaries
in lieu of cost per ton to reflect the higher salaries in Alaska.
The capital costs are listed in dollars per ton of daily processing
capacity and include construction and freight costs but not land
purchase. Labor and operating costs are dependent on specific
size and application and will be itemized in a later section of
this report.
* Batch units without E.R. $20,000 to $25,000/ton
* Automated continuous feed units without E.R. $25,000 to
$27,000/ton
* Automated continuous feed units with E.R. $30,000 to
$35,000/ton
Some incinerator companies also offer remanufactured used units,
when available, at a substantial savings.
The following pros and cons will be for modular solid waste inciner-
ation with and without E.R. (Any difference will be noted.)
Pros
1. Both solid waste volume and weight reduction are realized from
solid waste incineration. EPA funded studies reveal that
residential modular incinerators achieve 94% volume reduction
and a 55% weight reduction.5 The volume and weight reduction
would result in a very significant conservation of landfill
space and cover material.
2. The incinerator residue is not totally inert and will generate
leachate and cover material would probably be required.
However, the incinerator residue has been used as a fill
material for parking lots and similar applications where the
residue is covered with asphalt or similar impermeable
material to eliminate the direct infiltration of precipi-
tation.
With the saturated soil in S.E. Alaska this may not be
acceptable but with the 94% volume reduction the amount
of cover material required would be minimized and the area
requiring leachate control would be very small. In addition,
there is another important factor significantly affecting the
amount and strength of the leachate. Since the solid waste
is reduced in weight, only 45% of the total solid waste
-52-
-------
generated is placed in the ground and thus has the ability
to leach. The other 55% has, in essence, been deposited in
the air (in compliance with air emissions standards).
3. For the modular incinerators with E.R. capability there is
a positive benefit derived from the solid waste as an
alternative to fossil fuels. TTiis is of course, not true for
incinerators without E.R.
Cons
1. The capital and operating and maintenance costs of the solid
waste incinerators are somewhat high when compared to conven-
tional landfilling. However, these costs for the smaller
units are generally of the same order of magnitude as
baling and shredding systems. The capital cost of the
larger E.R. facilities are higher than baling and shredding
units but the revenue from energy sales tend to offset the
costs.
2. Auxiliary fuel as oil or natural gas is required to operate
the solid waste incinerators but usually only during start-
up and shutdown. However, the high moisture content of the
solid waste in S.E. Alaska might affect the amount of fuel
required and will definitely reduce the amount of energy
that can be recovered from the solid waste stream. These
areas will require further investigation.
3. Solid waste incinerators and especially the larger units
with E.R. capability require trained and skilled operators.
4. Proper maintenance of the solid waste incinerators is very
important, tfith the larger E.R. facilities this is very
important since down time means no energy production. When
the facility is shutdown capital costs and operating and
maintenance costs continue without the benefit of revenues
from energy sales.
5. Some slagging and related incidents with the incinerator
residue has caused some difficulty with air injectors but
recent technological improvements have reportedly solved
these problems. It should be noted that the removal of the
residue from the smaller batch incinerators is a labor
intensive operation.
V. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
There are a number of general qualitative observations that can be
made based on the results of the preceding analyses and
-53-
-------
especially the pros and cons of alternative systems in conjunction
with the solid waste volumes of the S.E. Alaska communities.
The small population of many of the cities and boroughs of S.E.
Alaska almost preclude expensive solid waste processing facil-
ities unless there are substantial advantages and savings
associated with the system. It is not the purpose of this study
to suggest or imply how solid waste regulations should be
enforced but the interpretation and enforcement of State and
Federal statutes will obviously affect the selection of solid
waste management systems. For example, there has been some un-
official discussion of allowing some of the more sparsely popu-
lated areas in S.E. Alaska to bum combustible solid waste in
specially prepared, controlled and possibly even enclosed areas.
Finite Resources does not intend to discuss the advantages, dis-
advantages, logic or desirability of this concept. However, it
is quite obvious that any decision on the regulatory acceptability
of the concept will affect the selection of solid waste management
systems one way or the other. The following discussion is
restricted to the solid waste management systems previously
analyzed and does not include the option of special bum areas.
Solid waste shredding units for landfilling will not be considered
a viable option for the S.E. Alaska communities primarily because
of the high probability of explosions and the associated repair
costs and worker safety. The high maintenance costs, the
leachate generation characteristics of the shredded solid waste,
the anticipated less than 50% volume reduction of the solid waste,
the most probable daily cover requirement and the need to operate
a conventional sanitary landfill also influenced this decision.
Solid waste baling or incineration facilities both appear to be
viable solid waste management options. Modular incineration
appears to be somewhat superior on technical factors such as
solid waste volume reduction (and even weight reduction for
incineration), conservation of cover material and minimization of
leachate generation and leachate strength. However, simplicity of
operation and lower maintenance costs probably favor the baler.
The revenue from energy sales for the large E.R. facility may
partially offset the operating costs but the complexity of the
facility operation is increased. Another important factor that
must be considered is that for any solid waste processing
facility to be realistically feasible it must be operating at or at
least in the vicinity of its design capacity. For example, it
would be absolutely illogical to operate a baler for a community
that only generates one or two tons of solid waste per day since
one bale weighs approximately two tons.
-54-
-------
Leachate collection and treatment may be required for some of
the landfills. However, it is important to note that this may
not be practical or possible for all landfill sites because of
adverse geological conditions. In addition, leachate control
does not solve the very major problems of limited land area and
cover material.
-55-
-------
S.E. ALASKA REGIONAL
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
-------
S.E. ALASKA REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
I. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGIONAL SYSTEM
The concept of a single centralized regional solid waste management
system to serve the entire S.E. Alaskan Panhandle has been the
topic of numerous meetings and conversations and initially appears
to have some merit. However, during the investigations and surveys
that preceded this report it became quite evident that the regional
concept was probably not feasible. In addition to general economic
considerations related to excessive transportation costs there are
other more basic technical and practical problems associated with
a regional approach to solid waste management in S.E. Alaska.
Since it is a basic fact that no one wants another persons problem,
it is very evident for the regional concept to work, the solid
waste must have some value. In basic terms this means the solid
waste central processing facility must be either a material
recycling center or an E.R. unit. Since material recycling has
already been considered infeasible for S.E. Alaska the only
remaining system is a solid waste E.R. facility. For a solid waste
E.R. unit to be feasible a steam or energy customer must be
acquired that can use at least 75% of the energy recovered from all
the solid waste in S.E. Alaska. However, before a search is made
for such a customer there are other issues that need to be analyzed
that may reveal that the proposal is not viable,
II. ANALYSIS OF THE REGIONAL SYSTEM
The following data and details reveal the complications and problems
associated with the concept of a regional solid waste management
system based on the assumption of transporting all solid waste
to a central solid waste E.R. facility. For the purpose of a
hypothetical analysis this will be considered to be Juneau. It
is evident that the only realistic transportation modes for the
solid waste are the Marine Highway, open barges and container barges.
Details associated with each of these will be analyzed as follow:
* A typical open barge will transport approximately 650 units of
wood chips at 200 fttyunit. This converts to approximately
4,800 yd* of usable volume which would accommodate approximately
480 tons of loose solid waste. Using the solid waste generation
rate for the city of Ketchikan of 24 tons per day it would
require over 20 days to fill the barge. The problems with
odors, birds and other vectors, litter and aesthetics for this
waiting period would be significant.
-56-
-------
* Loading and unloading the barge would be a difficult propo-
sition because of the heterogeneous nature of the solid waste.
* In order to minimize back haul at least two barges would be
required at a leasing rate of $750 per day for each barge or
$6,000 for a four day trip.
* It costs between $3,000 and $3,500 per 24 hour day to operate
a tug and single barge. Since it is estimated to require a
minimum of two days to travel one way from Ketchikan to Juneau
a round trip would cost approximately $12,000 to $14,000.
Towing one barge is inefficient since the costs to operate the
tug do not increase substantially if two barges are towed
simultaneously. (Although, this is probably impossible due
to lack of sufficient solid waste to fill two barges.)
* Assuming that an E.R. facility will generate 5,000 lbs of
steam from each ton of solid waste (this is probably optimistic
in view of the anticipated high moisture content of the solid
waste) the 480 tons of solid waste on the barge would generate
2.4 million lbs of steam. If the steam were sold at the
current competitive market price of $7.00 per 1,000 lbs the
revenue would be $16,800 for the solid waste from the barge.
This gross income does not even cover the barging and leasing
costs without considering the operational costs of the E.R.
facility.
* Considering the adverse economics of open barges, the utili-
zation of container barges would require that the solid waste
be compacted since the container barges are more expensive per
yd3 than open barges. However, even if a 4 to 1 compaction
ratio were achieved in a stationary compactor or transfer
station the cost of the processing equipment in addition to
the barging costs would most likely exceed any value the
solid waste might have as an alternative fuel.
* The Marine Highway system is a possible transportation mode.
However, in addition to the questionable attitude of the State
towards utilizing the Ferry system to transport 75 yd3 solid
waste transfer trailers the economics are not attractive.
A compaction type transfer station would be required at a
minimum capital cost of $200,000 in addition to annual oper-
ational costs and transfer trailers which cost $30,000 per unit
with a minimum requirement of five trailers. These costs would
all be in addition to the cost of $970 to ferry a single trailer
one way.
The above analysis was very simplified and did not consider the logis-
tics of collecting the solid waste from the smaller communities. How-
ever, even based on the results of the simplified example it is quite
evident that a single regional solid waste management system for S.E.
Alaska is not feasible and would actually be very energy intensive.
-57-
-------
S.E. ALASKA. SUB-REGIONAL
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
-------
S.E. ALASKA SUB-REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS
The primary purpose of sub-regional solid waste management systems
is to group communities within given areas for inclufion in a
solid waste management plan for the mutual benefit of all
participants. As was true with the regional system there must be
some advantage for one area to accept solid waste from another.
For example if Ketchikan were to implement a solid waste E.R.
system the solid waste from Craig and Klawock may prove to be of
value if it could be economically transported. Another example
is the Haines Sanitation Service collecting the Skagway solid
waste and transporting it to the Haines landfill for disposal.
Since this is a private enterprise venture the profit motive would
be the primary reason for implementing the solid waste collection
system.
IDENTIFICATION OF SUB-REGIONAL WASTE SHEDS
The following waste sheds have been hypothetically defined primarily
on the basis of geographical proximity and ADEC knowledge of the
local areas. Some of the waste sheds may actually be comprised of
smaller more logical systems but it would be virtually impossible
to list all the possible combinations.
The following waste sheds have been named only to avoid confusion.
A. Southern Waste Shed
Daily Solid Waste (Tons)
Area Population 7 Days/Week 6 Days/Week
Ketchikan 13,464 24 28
Metlakatla 1,119 2 2.3
Hydaburg 381 0.7 (h8
Craig-Klawock 991 1.7 2
Hollis (est) 200 0.35 0.41
Totals 16,155 28.8 33.5
-58-
-------
B. Central Waste Shed
Daily Solid Waste (Tons)
Area Population 7 Days/Week 6 Days/Week
Petersburg 3,197 5.6 6.5
Wrangell 3,325 5.8 6.8
Kake 710 1.2 1.4
Totals 7,232 12.6 14.7
C. Northern Waste Shed
Daily Solid Waste (Tons)
Area Population 7 Days/Week 6 Days/Week
Juneau 23,115 41 49
Haines 1,366 2.4 3.6
Skagway 877 (Ave. of 2.3 3.1
tourist and
non-tourist)
Hoonah 1,093 1.9 2.2
Totals 26,451 47.6 57.9
The communities of Sitka, Angoon, Pelican and Yakutat are somewhat
isolated and do not logically fit into any waste shed grouping.
An analysis of the solid waste generators in the Southern and
Northern waste sheds reveal that there is only one major source of
solid waste in each waste shed. The other generators are quite
small and it is highly doubtful that it would be worthwhile to
transport that small an amount of solid waste to the G.R. facility.
The solid waste processing plant could only be logically located
at the site of the major generators in the waste sheds which are
Juneau and Ketchikan respectively.
The Central Waste Sheds largest solid waste generators are
Petersburg and Wrangell which are approximately the same size.
The entire waste shed only generates approximately 15 tons per
day of solid waste and it is questionable if the energy recovered
from this relatively small amount of solid waste would justify
the transportation logistics and inherent costs.
III. ANALYSIS OF SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS
Many of the transportation problems listed in the previous section
for the regional solid waste system are also appliable to the
sub-regional waste shed and will not be repeated in the analysis
of sub-regional waste sheds.
-59-
-------
The following information, details and potential problems affect
the feasibility of sub-regional solid waste management systems
and especially the transportation of the solid waste.
* The relatively small volumes of solid waste generated in
the communities preclude the use of open or containerized
barges. The only reasonable transportation system would
be to ferry either packer trucks or stationary compactors.
* A major difficulty in using the ferry system is matching
the Marine Highway schedule to the needs of the solid waste
system. The cities on the main ferry line would not be as
unpredictable as the communities on the feeder lines. The
smaller ferries which run the feeder routes cannot withstand
the rough seas encountered during periods of inclement
weather and this could delay the solid waste transportation.
* All transportation is energy intensive and for it to be
practical the energy recovered at an energy recovery
facility must be greater than the energy expended to trans-
port the solid waste.
* Officials from the Marine Highway system have not been
enthusiastic about transporting packer trucks or stationary
compactors. They are concerned about the potential of fires,
odor and leaching from the units.
In view of the above data and information in the preceding section
and primarily due to the cost of the transportation and compaction
equipment the feasibility or practicality of sub-regional systems
is not good. However, in a few instances solid waste transpor-
tation may be realistically feasible. Since these are isolated
cases and do not encompass an entire waste shed they will be
addressed under individual systems.
-60-
-------
S.E. ALASKA INDIVIDUAL CITY/BOROUGH
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
-------
S.E. ALASKA INDIVIDUAL CITY/BOROUGH
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
Based on the solid waste generation estimates solid waste processing
only appears to be logical for the more populated areas such as
Juneau, Ketchikan and Sitka. However, if environmental regulations
are stringently enforced some of the lesser populated areas may be
required to implement substantially improved solid waste management
systems.
The S.E. Alaska geology, hydrology and precipitation rates do not
favor conventional landfill sites or leachate collection and
treatment systems. Therefore, improvements in solid waste management
should be directed towards minimizing the amount of solid waste
requiring disposal and leachate control. This assumption definitely
favors solid waste incineration. In addition, if the smaller
communities are required to implement improved solid waste management
systems small batch incinerators are some of the only units that
can be acquired in a small enough size to operate at or near their
design capacity.
Projected capital and operating costs for baling and E.R. facilities
will be compared for Juneau and Ketchikan and only an E.R. facility
will be analyzed for Sitka since they already have a solid waste
shredder. The cost of small batch incinerators will also be listed
for the other communities although the logic of actually implementing
such a system will depend on many factors unique to each community.
Examples are regulatory pressures and how critical the landfill space
and cover material problem is in each specific area.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE INDIVIDUAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
The cost figures used in the economic analysis are based on the best
information available yet are only estimates used to provide order
of magnitude costs for comparison of alternative solid waste manage-
ment systems.
The cost of land for the processing facility or landfill is not in-
cluded in the analysis for any alternative system and all are there-
fore on the same basis although the land required for the disposal
of incinerator residue would be less.
-61-
-------
A. Basis for Economic Calculations
The basis for the economic calculations will be listed in the
following section for the E.R. facility, baler and batch inciner-
ators.
1. Modular Solid Waste E.R. Facility
* Capital costs are estimated at $32,000 per daily ton of
plant capacity. The annual capital cost payback will
be estimated at 1%% for 15 years.
* Operating costs will be estimated at $5.50 per ton of
solid wiste processed. The following is an itemization
of the cost estimate
Auxiliary Fuel $ 1.00
Utility, water, power, chemicals $ 1.50
Refractory Reserve
Maintenance and Repair
Residue Removal and Disposal
Total
Labor Cost Estimates
20 to 30 ton/day facility
3 Operators (at $40,000/yr) =
1 Maintenance Supervisor
(at $45,000/yr)
Sub-Total
25% Fringe Benefits approx.
Total
50 ton/day facility
Same as 20 to 30 ton except
add one relief operator at
$40,000 + 25% Fringe Benefits
Total
$ 0.50
$ 2.00
$ 0.50
$ 5.50/ton
$120,000/yr
$ 45,000/yr
$165,000/yr
$ 41,000/yr
$206,000/yr
$ 50,000/yr
$256,000/yr
For this analysis it will be assumed that the solid waste
will be converted to process steam. Because of the high
-62-
-------
moisture content of the solid waste it is estimated that
only 4,000 lbs of steam can be generated from a ton of
solid waste instead of the normal estimate of 5,000 lbs
of steam per ton of solid waste.
* Revenue from steam sales will be computed at $7.00 per
1,000 lbs of steam which is approximately 20% less than
the cost of steam generated from #2 fuel oil.
Appendix E contains fuel oil energy and thermodynamic
calculations including data to support the $7 per 1,000
lbs of steam which is actually 21% less than the cost
to generate steam from #2 fuel oil. The annual revenue
from steam sales will be dependent on the steam demand
of specific customers and will be addressed under a
subsequent section of this report.
Solid Waste Baling Facility
* Capital Cost Estimate
Baler, Feed Conveyor and Wire Tyer $240,000
- Metal Building (80' X 80') $180,000
Front End Loader (Landfill) $ 60,000
- Fork Lift $ 30,000
Flat Bed Truck $ 20,000
Total $530,000
Annual capital cost payback will be calculated at 10%%
for 15 years. Based on the preceding capital cost
estimate of $530,000, the annual capital cost payback
is approximately $70,000 per year.
* Labor costs will be based on requiring one operator/
mechanic at $40,000 per year and a general labor at
$25,000 per year. The total labor estimate is therefore
$65,000 per year plus 25% fringe benefits for a total
of approximately $81,000/year.
* Operational costs for the utilities, wire and miscel-
laneous expenses are estimated at $30,000 per year.
Solid Waste Batch Incinerators
* Capital cost estimates are listed for various sizes of
incinerators including construction and freight costs.
-63-
-------
The annual cost payback for each has been computed at
10%% fo* 15 years.
Batch unit with 2 to 4 tons per day capacity is
$170,000 or approximately $23,000 per year.
Batch unit with a 6 to 8 tons per day capacity is
$185,000 or approximately $25,000 per year.
Batch unit with 10 to 12 tons per day capacity is
$260,000 or approximately $34,000 per year.
Batch unit with 25 tons per day capacity is $575,000
or approximately $76,000 per year.
Automated continuous flow units are also available at an
approximate $100,000 increase in price.
Labor costs are dependent on size as is evident from
the following estimates which are based on salaries
and 25% fringe benefits.
2 to 4 ton/day 1 person
part-time = $ 25,000/yr
6 to 8 ton/day 1 person
full time » $ 50,000/yr
10 to 12 ton/day 1% persons = $ 75,000/yr
25 ton/day facility
1 Maintenance person = $ 50,000/yr
1 Operator = $ 50,000/yr
1 Standby and part-
time ash reimoval » $ 25,000/yr
Total $125,000/yr
Operating costs are estimated at $4.50 per ton of solid
waste processed based on the following itemized schedule.
Auxiliary Fuel
$ 2.50
Utility, water, power
$ 0.50
Refractory Reserve
$ 0.50
Maintenance and Repair
$ 0.50
Residue Removal and Disposal
$ 0.50
Total
$ 4.50
B. Juneau Solid Waste Management Options
The following calculations are based on a six day per week solid
waste facility operating at 49 tons per day.
-64-
-------
Juneau E.R. Facility
Annual Cost Estimates
Capital Cost (Based 0n a 50 ton/
day unit at $1.60 million at
10*s% for 15 years)
$212,000
Operating Cost ($5.50/ton at 49
tons/day for 312 days/year
$ 84,000
$256,000
Labor Cost
Total Cost Estimate
$552,000
Annual Revenue Estimate
There are two major factors that limit the amount of
steam that can be generated and sold. The actual amount
of solid waste available for incineration and the energy
demand of the steam customer.
Normally it is advisable to compare steam demand and
availability on a monthly basis in order to determine
the quantity of steam that can be sold. However,
preliminary calculations reveal that the solid waste
E.R. facility can generate far more steam than is needed
to heat four potential customers which are within a
2,000 ft. radius of an area where an E.R. facility could
be located. Therefore, annual totals will be used to
compute energy needs.
Appendix E contains thermodynamic calculations which
reveal that approximately 115 lbs of steam can be
generated from a gallon of #2 fuel oil This information
and the gallons consumed on an annual basis in different
buildings (supplied by ADEC and Channel Sanitation in
Appendix F) will be used to approximate the amount of
steam that could be sold.
Although there are numerous state office buildings that
could be potential energy customers ADEC has indicated
that four buildings are in close proximity to each
other and a potential E.R. site. Since this logistical
information is not available for the other structures the
following four buildings and annual fuel oil usages will
be used in this report. However, it is important to
recognize that if some of the more energy intensive
-65-
-------
buildings (such as the state office building in Appendix
F) could be acquired as energy customers more of the solid
waste E.R. steam could be sold thus resulting in in-
creased revenues.
Potential Steam Customer Fuel Consumption and Energy
Demand.
City and Borough Swimming Pool
September 1979 through August
1980 delivered approximately 54,000 gallons
Harbor View
August 30, 1979 through June 26,
1980 (school year) delivered
approximately 37,000 galIons
High School
July 18, 1979 through June 20,
1980 delivered approximately 72,000 gallons
Marie Drake
October 1979 through June 25,
1980 delivered approximately 25,000 gallons
Total Gallons Per Year 188,000
Using the steam generation factor of 115 lbs-steam per
gallon of oil (from Appendix E) this means that approxi-
mately (188,000 gallons/year)(115 lbs-steam/gallon) =
21.62 million lbs of steam are needed each year to heat
the three buildings and swimming pool.
Before steam revenues can be determined at $7 per 1,000
lbs of steam the steam demand must be compared to the
steam available from the solid waste E.R. facility. Both
the total annual availability and demand and the peak
monthly availability and demand should be compared to
insure that the E.R. facility can supply the needed steam
even during peak monthly demands.
-66-
-------
Total Annual Steam Available from the E.R. Facility
(49 tons)(312 days)(4,000 lbs-steam) ¦ 61.15 million
day yr tons S.W.
lbs of steam can be generated by the E.R. facility
per year which is greater than the demand.
The peak fuel oil steam demand (Appendix F) was during the
month of January, 1980 with approximately 27,000 gallons
of oil. A comparison of this energy demand with the monthly
solid waste steam generation rate indicates that even
during the month of peak demand the E.R. facility could
deliver the required amount of steam.
(27,000 gal)(115 lbs-steam) « 3.11 X 106 lbs-steam
mo gal mo
(49 tons S.W.)(22 days)(4,000 lbs-steam) = 4.31 X 106
day mo tons S.N.
lbs-steam
mo
Therefore, the estimated revenue from steam sales can be
based on the annual customer demand for steam previously
estimated to be 21.62 X 106 lbs of steam/year.
(21.62 X 106 lbs-steam)( $7 ) »
yr 1,000 lbs-steam
$151,340/year or approximately $151,000/year
As was previously referenced there is a rule of thumb that
at least 75% of the steam generated from an E.R. facility
must be sold for the project to be economically feasible.
Since the preceding calculations reveal that there is only
a demand for approximately 35% of the available steam
the economics are not favorable.
The E.R. facility will probably not be economically feas-
ible unless a larger volume steam customer(s) can be ac-
quired, especially in view of the high labor costs inherent
in Alaska. For example if all of the generated steam could
be sold at the 20% discounted price of $7/1,000 lbs of
steam the steam revenue estimate would be as follows:
(61.15 X 106 lbs-steam) ( $7 ) -
yr 1,000 lbs-steam
$428,050/year or approximately $428,000/year
-67-
-------
Juneau E.R. Facility Estimated Economic Summary
(Annual Basis)
Cost $552,000
Revenue $151,000
Net Cost $401,000
However if all the generated steam could be sold the
net cost estimate would only be as follows.
Cost $552,000
Revenue $428,000
Net Cost $124,000
Juneau Baling Facility Annual Cost Estimates
Capital Cost ($530,000 total) $ 70,000
Plant Operation $ 30,000
Labor $ 81,000
Total $181,000
Comparing the E.R. facility and baler cost figures reveal
that the baler has a very significant economic edge unless
a steam customer can be acquired that can purchase all or
most of the steam generated by the E.R. facility.
C. Ketchikan Solid Waste Management Options
The following economic analysis is based on a six day per week
solid waste facility operating at 28 tons per day.
Ketchikan E.R. Facility
This analysis is based on using the energy for space heating
offices or the S.E. Alaska Corp. kiln or any other potential
customers.
Annual Cost Estimates
Capital Cost (Based on a 30 ton/day
unit at $960,000 at 10%% for 15 yrs.) $127,000
Operating Cost ($5.50/ton at 28 tons/
day for 312 days/yr) $ 48,000
Labor Cost $206,000
Total Cost Estimate $381,000
-68-
-------
Annual Revenue Estimate
From the wood waste section of this report it was roughly
estimated that 95,000 lbs of steam would be required for
teach day the S.E. Cedar drying kiln was operated. Newly
acquired figures from kiln manufacturers indicate that
approximately 144,000 lbs of steam would be required for
each operating day for a 120,000 bd. ft. kiln which
would operate on a 3Jj to 4 day drying period.^ (However,
these figures only reflect an 8 to 10% moisture content
which may be low for S.E. Alaska.)
As was previously indicated, kiln sizing and energy
requirements should be accurately determined if S.E.
Cedar is to be a steam customer. Using the new figures
it is evident that the kiln could use all the energy
from the 28 ton/day of municipal solid waste and would
actually require supplemental wood waste.
Assuming the sale of all steam that could be generated
the estimated revenue would be
C28 tons)(312 days)(4,000 lbs-steam) ¦
~3ay rT~ tons S.W.
34.94 X 106 lbs-steam at $7/1,000 lbs-steam ¦
yr
$244,580/year or approximately $245,000/year
Appendix F contains fuel oil consumption for the
Ketchikan airport which is approximately 38,000 gallons/
year and the Borough office which is approximately
4,700 gallons/year. Since the airport is more energy
intensive this fuel consumption figure will be used to
determine if space heating is a logical use for the solid
waste E.R. steam. Using the 115 lbs-steam per gallon
of fuel oil calculated in Appendix E in conjunction with
the fuel usage allows the following calculation.
(38,000 gal oil)(115 lbs-steam) ¦ 4.37 X 106 lbs-steam
yr gal oil yr
As was true with space heating in Juneau the energy
requirement is considerably less than can be generated
by the Ketchikan E.R. facility which was previously
calculated to be 34.94 X 106 lbs-steam/year.
-69-
-------
The estimated revenue for space heating the airport is
therefore
(4.37 X 106 lbs-steam)( $7 ) =
yr 1,000 lbs-steam
$30,590/year or approximately $31,000/year
It is quite evident from the preceding calculations that
process steam customers utilize far more steam than do
space heating steam customers. However, this is
actually not surprising since process steam machinery
operate at far higher temperatures than space heating.
Ketchikan E.R. Facility Estimated Economic Summary
(Annual Basis)
Kiln Drying (Process Steam)
Cost $381,000
Revenue $245,000
Net Cost $136,000
Space Heating (Airport)
Cost $381,000
Revenue $ 31,000
Net Cost $350,000
Ketchikan Baling Facility Annual Cost Estimates
Capital Cost ($530,000 total) $ 70,000
Plant Operation $ 30,000
Labor $ 81,000
Total $181,000
To reiterate, it is quite evident that most or al1 of the
steam generated by the solid waste E.R. facility must be
sold for the system to be economically feasible.
D. Sitka E.R. Facility
The following economic analysis will be based on a six day per
week solid waste E.R. facility operating at 18 tons per day
selling steam to one or more of the Sitka Schools for space
heating.
-70-
-------
Annual Cost Estimates
Capital Cost (basted on a 20 ton/day
unit at $640,000 at 10^% for 15 yrs.) $ 85,000
Operating Cost ($5.50/ton at 18
tons/day for 312 days/yr) $ 31,000
Labor Cost $206,000
Total Cost Estimate $322,000
Annual Revenue Estimate
The annual fuel demand for various schools in Sitka
are contained in Appendix F. Since it is not known if
one or more of the schools are close enough together
to utilize the steam or hot water from the E.R.
facility only one school will be used in this analysis.
Since only the high school utilizes steam heat it is
assumed to be the steam customer. However, it is
important to note that the E.R. facility is compatible
with hot water heat which can even be transported
further than steam. One possibility would be to
locate near the high school to generate steam and
then pipe hot water to Blatchely Jr. High if the
two are close enough together.
Using the approximated 69,000 gallons of oil per year
consumed in heating the high school in conjunction with
the 115 lbs steam per gallon of oil from Appendix E
allows the computation of the steam needs for the high
school.
(69,000 gal oil)(115 lbs-steam) = 7.94 X 106
yr gal oil
lbs-steam at $7/1,000 lbs steam the estimated
yr
revenue is: (7.94 X 10^ lbs-steam) ( $7 ) =
yr 1,000 lbs-steam
$55,580/year or approximately $56,000/year
Total Annual Steam Available from the E.R. facility is:
(18 ton)(312 day)(4,000 lbs-steam) - $22.46 X 106
day yr ton
lbs-steam (22.46 X 10^ lbs-steam) ( $7 ) *
yr yr 1,000 lbs-steam
$157,200/year or approximately $157,000/year
-71-
-------
As was true with space heating steam customers in Juneau
and Ketchikan there is not enough energy to consume very
much of the available solid waste E.R. steam unless two
or even three of the larger schools are close enough
together to use the energy from a single E.R. facility.
Sitka E.R. Facility Estimated Economic Summary
(Annual Basis)
Cost $322,000
Revenue (High School Only) $ 56,000
Net Cost $266,000
If all the E.R. steam could be sold the economics improve
but are still marginal due to the high labor cost and
absence of economy of scale.
Cost $322,000
Revenue (based on sale of all steam) $157,000
Net Cost $165,000
E. Batch Incinerator Costs for a 2 to 4 Ton Per Day Unit
As was indicated in a previous section of this report it may not
be practical for the smaller communities to implement a solid
waste incineration system unless there are overriding circum-
stances such as extremely limited land area or solid waste
cover material or other critical factors.
The following alphabetical list of communities would fall in the
capacity range of this size incinerator with the only variable
being the operating cost based on the amount of solid waste
processed. The capital cost and annual capital cost payback
and labor costs would be the same for every community. The
operating cost estimate does include residue removal and disposal.
Sub-Total (constant for all communities) $ 48,000
Annual Operating Cost Estimate is based on $4.50 per ton of
solid waste processed at each community.
Capital Cost Estimate is $170,000 or approx-
imately $23,000/yr at 10*s% for 15 yrs
Annual Payback
$ 23,000
Annual Labor Cost Estimate including
salary and fringe benefits for a part-
time employee
$ 25,000
-72-
-------
Area and Facility Annual Cost Estimate
Angoon
Operating Cost (1.1 tons/day) $ 1,500
Total Cost $50,000
Craig and Klawock
Operating Cost (2 tons/day) $ 2,800
Total Cost $51,000
Haines
Operating Cost (3.6 tons/day) $ 5,100
Total Cost $53,000
Hoonah
Operating Cost (2.2 tons/day) $ 3,100
Total Cost $51,000
Hydaburg
Operating Cost (0.8 tons/day) $ 1,100
Total Cost $49,000
Kake
Operating Cost (1.4 tons/day) $ 2,000
Total Cost $50,000
Metlakatla
Operating Cost (2.3 tons/day) $ 3,200
Total Cost $51,000
Pelican
Operating Cost (0.5 tons/day) $ 700
Total Cost $49,000
Skagway
Operating Cost (3.1 tons/day) $ 4,400
Total Cost $52,000
Yakutat
Operating Cost (0.9 tons/day) $ 1,300
Total Cost $49,000
-73-
-------
The constant labor cost of $25,000/year may be somewhat high
for some of the small communities since they may only
incinerate once per week but a constant salary is probably
more realistic than a per ton cost for these small volumes,
F. Batch Incinerator Costs for a 6 to 8 Tons Per Day Unit
Only the communities of Wrangell and Petersburg fall within this
range of daily operating capacity. The operating cost also
includes residue removal and disposal.
Capital Cost Estimate is $185,000 or approx-
imately $25,000/yr at 10^% for 15 yrs $25,000
Annual Labor Cost Estimate including
salary and fringe benefits for one
full-time employee $50,000
Sub-Total (constant for both communities) $75,000
Annual Operating Cost Estimate is based on $4.50 per ton of
solid waste processed.
Petersburg
Operating Cost (6.5 tons/day) $ 9,100
Total Cost $84,000
Wrangell
Operating Cost (6.8 tons/day) $ 9,600
Total Cost $85,000
The cities of Wrangell and Petersburg are at a very unfortunate
size as it pertains to solid waste incineration. Alone neither
is large enough to justify energy recovery, yet the cost to
merely incinerate the solid waste is quite high. As was indi-
cated in the sub-regional analysis for the Central Waste Shed
it is somewhat doubtful that the amount of energy extracted
from the solid waste sould justify transporting it by ferry from
one town to the next. However, in view of the high batch
incineration costs without E.R. and the fact that the city of
Wrangell is being pressured to move their disposal site due to
FAA regulations regarding birds and airports a hypothetical E.R.
facility located in Petersburg will be analyzed. The availability
of steam customers is not known nor is it obvious if there is
enough energy recovered to even interest a steam customer.
-74-
-------
G. Wrangell and Petersburg E.R. Facility
The following analysis is based on an E.R. facility in Petersburg
processing the Wrangell and Petersburg solid waste of 13.3 tons
per day on a six day per week basis. An estimate of ferry costs
will also be included.
Ferry Costs
At 6.8 tons per day of solid waste this equates to 68 yd3
of solid waste per day in an uncompacted state. Assuming a
3 to 1 compaction ratio this reduces to approximately 23 yd3.
A preliminary analysis of the Marine Highway simmer schedule
reveals that a system using a special pull-on-drop-off type
stationary compactor and rail truck with extra compactor
boxes the concept might be feasible. (Assuming the winter
ferry schedule is frequent enough.)
The next step is to determine if the ferry cost is prohibitive.
Assuming a compactor box of approximately 40 ft in length it
would cost $80 per trip one way or $160 per round trip per
container. Although a single Container would not be trans-
ported every day the solid waste generated would have to
ultimately be transported. Since stationary type compactors
are rated at a 3 or 4:1 compaction ratio it is assumed that
the daily solid waste volume could be placed in one compactor
box.
Basis:
3
1 - 20 yd compactor box per day transported on a six
day per week basis of $160 per trip
(312 trips)($160) » $50,000/year approximately
year trip
Petersburg-Wrangell E.R. Facility Economic Analysis
The facility will be based on incinerating 13.3 tons per
day six days per week.
Capital Cost based on a 15 ton/day unit
for $480,000 at 10*s% for 15 yrs
Annual Capital Cost Estimate $ 64,000
Labor Cost (3 person estimate) $150,000
Operating Cost Estimate $ 23,000
Total Cost Estimate $237,000
-75-
-------
Annual Steam Revenue
(4,150 tons S.WQ (4,000 lbs-stearn") f $7 ) =
yr tons S.W. 1,000 lbs-steam
$116,200/year
Optimistically assuming sale of all the steam, the
annual steam revenue rounds to $116,000
Net E.R. Facility Cost Estimate
(Cost - Revenue) $121,000
Adding in Ferry Cost Estimate $ 50,000
Total Annual Cost Estimate $171,000
This reveals that the E.R. cost estimate of $171,000 per
year is almost identical to the $169,000 per year
estimate for both cities to incinerate without E.R.
However, the E.R. system estimate does not include the
cost of the compactor units or truck and this fact
in conjunction with the logistics of ferrying the waste
reveal that a joint E.R. facility for Wrangell and
Petersburg is probably not a viable alternative.
-76-
-------
ECONOMIC SUMIiARY OF EXISTING
AND POTENTIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
-------
ECONOMIC SIMiARY OF EXISTING
AND POTENTIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
The projected annual cost estimates of the alternative solid waste
management systems will be listed for each S.E. Alaska conmunity
or area for comparison with the annual cost of the existing disposal
site operation where that information is available.
Area and Facility Annual Cost Estimates
Juneau
Existing Disposal Site Unknown
E.R. Facility
Four Schools Steam Customers $401 000
With Sale of all Steam $124*000
Baling Facility $181'oQO
Ketchikan
Existing Disposal Site $100,000
E.R. Facility
Airport Steam Customer $350 000
Sale of all Steam to S.E. Cedar $136^000
Baling Facility $181^000
Sitka
Existing Shredder and Disposal Site $130,000
E.R. Facility
School Steam Customer $266,000
Sale of all Steam $165,000
Wrangell and Petersburg
E.R. Facility $171,000 (plus cost
of coupactor units)
Wrangell
Existing Disposal Site $ 15,000
Batch Incinerator $ 85^000
Petersburg
Existing Disposal Site $ 46,000
Batch Incinerator $ 84,000
-77-
-------
Area and Facility
Craig and Klawock
Existing Disposal Site
Batch Incinerator
Skagway
Existing Disposal Site
Batch Incinerator
Haines
Existing Disposal Site
Batch Incinerator
Angoon
Existing Disposal Site
Batch Incinerator
Hoonah
Existing Disposal Site
Batch Incinerator
Hydaburg
Existing Disposal Site
Batch Incinerator
Kake
Existing Disposal Site
Batch Incinerator
Metlakatla
Existing Disposal Site
Batch Incinerator
Pelican
Existing Disposal Site
Batch Incinerator
Yakutat
Existing Disposal Site
Batch Incinerator
Kassaan
Very small at only 25 tons per
year generated
Annual Cost Estimates
Unknown
$ 51,000
No Budget
$ 52,000
$ 30,000
$ 53,000
$ 50,000
$ 51,000
$ 49,000
$ 50,000
$ 51,000
$ 49,000
$ 49,000
-78-
-------
FUNDING ALTERNATIVES
-------
FUNDING ALTERNATIVES
There are many funding alternatives available to communities and
boroughs but most of the new grants and loans from the Department
of Energy are reserved for alternative sources of energy and only
the E.R. facilities would be eligible.
* Private Lease-Purchase Bonding Companies
This option was used in this analysis to calculate estimated
annual costs for the solid waste facilities.
* Revenue Bond
This type of bond must be approved by the voters, however, a
positive feature is that the payback is financed from the
revenue of the operation such as the steam sales. The interest
rate is usually significantly lower than the normal lending
rate.
* General Obligation Bond
This type of bond must also be approved by the voters and
even has a lower interest rate than the Revenue Bonds. However,
the General Obligation Bond is supported and paid off through
property tax revenues and it is highly improbable that the
residents would support it in view of the depressed economy.
* EPA Grants
The urban policy grants are reserved for feasibility studies
for energy and resource recovery projects with emphasis for
distressed urban areas and not construction monies.
* State of Alaska grants may be available for certain solid waste
management activities if a bond is approved by voters this fall.
The regulations governing the grants are currently being finalized
and should be available in the near future.
* HUD Community Block Grant Assistance
Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG)
This grant is primarily directed towards promoting economic
-79-
-------
development by stimulating industrial growth. There is a 3 to
1 leverage rule of private funds which means that for every $1
of grant funds spent industry would have to spend $3.
Small Cities Program
Certain solid waste activities may be eligible.
* USDA - Farmers Home Administration (FHA)
Resource Conservation and Development Loans
These loans are primarily oriented towards watershed and
irrigation projects and must be approved by the Soil Conservation
Service. However, there is some indication that solid waste
facilities may be eligible.
Community Facility Loans
These loans may be used for waste disposal facilities and
related equipment. Communities over 10,000 in population are
not eligible.
Rural Industrialization Loans
These loans may also be directed for waste disposal improvements
for areas under a 50,000 population.
* Department of Energy Grants and Loans
The Urban Waste Technology Program does have grant monies and
loan guarantees available for energy programs. The funds are
primarily research and development funds and the Department of
Energy is interested primarily in funding research projects
which emphasize new innovative technological advances. However,
recent modifications in this legislation may increase the scope of
projects that are eligible under the Urban Waste Demonstration
Facility Guarantee Program released in the May 13, 1980 Federal
Register.
* The Windfall Profits Tax Legislation signed into Law by the
President on April 2, 1980, will directly affect solid waste E.R.
programs in a positive manner.
Four of the incentives that will directly impact waste to energy
systems include the following.
a 10% Investment Tax through 1985 on the equipment and
property needed.
-80-
-------
a credit worth $3 a barrel for the production of
alternative fuels (approximately $4.20 per ton of solid
waste converted to energy)
an excise tax exemption for gasohol and other alcohol
fuels through 1992
allowing the use of tax exempt industrial development
bonds to finance systems that produce steam or alcohol
-81-
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To reiterate, the interpretation and enforcement of environmental
regulations and the level of severity of the cover material and
land area problems in conjunction with the economics of alternative
solid waste management systems will actually determine what, if any,
changes or improvements are made to existing solid waste management
systems.
The practicality of requiring some of the smaller communities to
implement expensive solid waste management systems such as batch
incinerators is a valid question especially in view of the recent
discussions pertaining to a special burn area. However, the only
manner reach an equitable practical solution to this and other
regulatory questions is through negotiations and meetings with the
local communities, the ADEC and the EPA.
Since the first draft of this report, the refinement of projected
E.R. facility and batch incinerator capital costs and the reflection
of the higher labor costs in Alaska have definitely affected the
economic viability of the incineration system when compared to
baling or other solid waste processes.
The inclusion of existing potential energy customer steam demands
have also dramatically illustrated the importance of selling all or
most of the E.R. steam. If most of the energy cannot be sold it is
not E.R., merely expensive solid waste volume reduction.
Co-disposal of sewage sludge and municipal solid waste by incineration
appears to be a very marginal proposal because of the relative volumes
of these two waste streams and the high moisture content of both.
Before investing in co-disposal further study is definitely recommended
possibly under the 208 Sludge Management Study.
If it is determine that upgrading is necessary or if any improvements
are voluntarily implemented and E.R. or incineration is selected the
following recommendations may prove to be of assistance.
* E.R. facilities are very attractive since some utility is extracted
from the solid waste stream. However, before any decisions can
be made to implement a solid waste E.R. system acquisitions of a
reliable steam customer that can use all or most of the E.R. steam,
a long term contract, an equitable marketing formula and a clear
legal title to the solid waste are absolute necessities.
-82-
-------
* The operation of an E.R. facility requires trained skilled
personnel and the importance of proper operation cannot be over-
emphasized. The plant must be operated on a profit motive basis.
If the unit breaks down steam revenues stop but capital costs
and most operational costs continue.
* If limited land area and a shortage of cover material is a
critical problem batch incineration with solid waste volume and
weight reduction may provide a long term solution. If the price
of land for disposal sites is considered, what first appears to
be excessively expensive incineration may not be unreasonable.
However, it is important to note that some materials such as
bulky solid waste is not suitable for modular incineration.
To reiterate, the projected labor costs may be somewhat high for
the small batch incinerators if local help can be acquired at a
lower salary on a part-time basis. However, this determination
is unique to each area and must be determined locally.
Junk auto salvage should be practiced whenever possible with the
communities stockpiling the autos until a sufficient number has been
accumulated to warrant a trip by the salvage company. Although
storage requires land area it is only a temporary use and disposal
in landfills permanently consumes valuable site volume.
-83-
-------
REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES
1. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Decision-Makers
Guide in Solid Waste Management. U.S. Government Printing
Office* Washington, D.C., 1976.
2. Brunner, Dirk R., and Rittenhouse, Bonnie, "Baling and
Balefilling of Municipal Refuse."
3. Solid Waste Management-Technology Assessment, by General
Electric Company, Van Nostrand Reinhold-General Electric
Series, 1975.
4. Duckett, E. Joseph, Director of Research, Schwartz § Connally, Inc.
Washington, D.C., "Explosions-Approaches to Explosion Protection
in Refuse Processing Facilities." Solid Wastes Management,
Resource Recovery Issue, May 1980.
S. Small Modular Incinerator Systems with Heat Recovery, A Technical,
Environmental, and Economic Evaluation, Prepared bySystems
Technology Corporation, Xenia, Ohio, 1979.
6. Dry Kiln Manufacturers - Compliments of the WIDJAC Corp.
-84-
-------
APPENDIX A
SCOPE OF WORK AND SURVEY FORM
-85-
-------
TECHNICAL
PROPOSAL FOR A PHASE II
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR S.E. nLASKA
INTRODUCTION
Based on the findings of a sub-committee on solid waste disposal the
South East Conference requested assistance from EPA, under the
technical panels program of RCRA, to conduct a solid waste management
study in S.E. Alaska. Pursuant to this request Peat, Marwick,
Mitchell Co., the prime contractor for EPA Region X, negotiated
a contract with Finite Resources, Inc. to conduct a Phase I solid
waste management study which included a meeting with the represen-
tatives of the municipalities in S.E. Alaska and the development
of this proposal for a Phase II solid waste management study.
BACKGROUND
A preliminary investigation was conducted to determine the status of
the existing solid waste management systems in S.E. Alaska with
special emphasis on recent activities of the S.E. Conference solid
waste disposal sub-committee. A meeting was then conducted with
municipal representatives on September 27, 1979 to discuss the
solid waste management problems of S.E. Alaska and to determine
which solid waste subjects the municipalities wanted to have
investigated. It is interesting to note that due to the geographical,
climatological and socio-economic similarities of the communities
which comprise the S.E. Conference the solid waste management
problems were very similar for each community as can be readily
determined by analyzing the following concise list of the topics
discussed at the meeting.
* Suitable land for disposal sites is extremely difficult
to locate and acquire due to the very limited amount
of land that is available in conjunction with the
severe competition from residential and commercial
land development.
* Acquisition of suitable ground for landfills was further
complicated by the extremely high annual precipitation
rate which creates leachate problems and also produces
numerous areas of muskeg or marshes which are not
generally suitable for landfilling.
-86-
-------
* An additional factor complicating siting and operating a
disposal site is the extremely limited supply of suitable
cover material.
* Concern was expressed over the impact of the impending solid
waste regulations for disposal sites under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and state open
burning restrictions which are in effect.
* Due to the absence of automobile salvage and recycling
programs the disposal of auto hulks in landfills rapidly
consumes valuable disposal site volume. Much concern was
expressed for the need for a junk auto salvage program
and an almost unanimous request was made to investigate
this subject area.
* Sewage treatment plant sludge disposal is also a problem due
to limited land area and high precipitation rates and some
communities requested that the co-disposal of solid waste
and sludge be investigated.
* Wood waste from lumber mills was also of concern to the
group especially due to the large volume of wood waste and
the corrosion problems associated with incinerating the
wood waste which contains large concentrations of salt
from the ocean water. However, there was some indication
that the lumber companies were in the process of solving
much of the wood waste problem by the installation of
on-site wood-waste boilers which are used to generate
steam for the mill.
III. PROPOSAL FOR A PHASE II SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY
In concise terms the proposed Phase II study is intended to determine
the following:
* The status, cost and problems associated with each
communities' existing solid waste management system.
* Develop an analysis of alternative solid waste management
systems. The characteristics of each system would be
listed including technical and economic details with
pros and cons in order to allow the selection of an
economically and technically viable solid waste management
system or combination of systems.
-87-
-------
* Distribute the results of the survey of existing systems and
the analysis of alternative solid waste management systems
to the municipal representatives for their input and to
determine if there is a consensus of opinion.
* Develop and distribute the final Phase II report incor-
porating the comments and opinions of the municipal
representatives.
The status of the existing solid waste management systems will be
determined by personal interviews and meetings with municipal
project participants and on-site inspection of existing facilities.
This primary source of information will be supplemented by existing
solid waste reports after they have been reviewed by the affected
municipality to insure their present applicability and accuracy.
During the site inspections and interviews the characteristics and
volumes of solid waste generated will be determined on a qualitative
basis including estimates of the percent composition of the solid
waste stream. However, if the analysis of alternative solid waste
management systems favor energy recovery facilities a quantitative
laboratory analysis of the solid waste stream may be warranted at
a later date. The lab analysis would accurately determine the
variables of the solid waste stream which significantly affect
energy recovery such as moisture contact and associated BTU values.
The ADEC 208 Water Quality Management Planning Staff is currently
finalizing plans to conduct a comprehensive sludge management study
which will be initiated in the near future. The objectives of the
study is to develop a set of guidelines for the selection of a
sludge management system based on the sludge characteristics,
climate, terrain and community socioeconomic conditions of different
areas in Alaska.
In order to not duplicate the impending 208 sludge management study
and at the request of EPA the proposed Phase II solid waste manage-
ment study is not intended to be a comprehensive sludge management
study. The Phase II study is envisioned as only investigating those
sludge management practices which are compatible with solid waste
management practices. Examples of compatible disposal practices
would be conventional land disposal in landfills or aerobic com-
positing of a sludge and solid waste mixture. Conversely surface
application or spreading of sludge on agricultural or forest lands
is not acceptable for residential solid waste and solid waste energy-
recovery modular incineration systems are not well suited for
sludge disposal.
-88-
-------
A. Existing Solid Waste Management Practices
Major Task A-l. Determine the status of the existing solid waste
management system serving each community and borough.
* A data sheet will be sent to each municipality for review and
familiarization prior to the interview with the consultant.
* Personal interviews or meetings will be conducted with
municipal project participants, private solid waste con-
tractors and a representative of the ADEC.
* Solid waste disposal site inspections will be conducted by
the consultant, municipal project participants and an ADEC
representative.
* The information gathered during the interviews and inspections
will be supplemented with existing solid waste reports and
other available on file data after this information has been
reviewed by the affected municipalities to insure its
current applicability and accuracy.
* Summarize the status and economics of existing solid waste
collection and disposal systems.
An example of a data sheet is contained in Appendix A. However
it is important to note that modification of the data sheet may
be logical after it has been field tested.
Major Task A-2. Determine the magnitude of the wood waste
problem and conduct a preliminary survey of potential markets
for recovered energy.
* A telephone interview will be conducted with mills in the
area to determine the volume of wood waste generated,
anticipated trends in the generation rates of wood waste
and planned wood waste management strategies (i.e. install
a company owned wood waste energy recovery boilers in the
near future).
* Desire of company to supply wood waste to city or borough.
* Desire of company to purchase energy from city or borough.
* Estimate % of NaCl present in wood waste.
* Preliminary survey of potential energy users.
-89-
-------
Major Task A-3. Determine the magnitude of the automobile dis-
posal problem.
* Use information from the Task A-l data sheet to estimate the
cost for the landfill disposal of an auto hulk.
* Conduct telephone interviews with the salvage dealers that
may be interested in smashing and recycling cars and
determine and document their economic needs and problems
(i.e. excessive transportation costs and land area required
for storage).
* Investigate the possibility of State operated barge-contained
car smashers.
Major Task A-4. Determine current sludge disposal practices and
requirements.
* Interview the ADEC 208 water quality representative to
estimate future needs and the current status of sludge
management.
* Determine the status and projected timetable of the proposed
208 sludge management study.
B. Analyze Alternative Solid Waste Management Systems
Major Task B-l. Determine alternative solid waste sheds or
areas.
* Summarize general areas currently served by solid waste
collection systems and disposal site service areas
(information from data sheet).
* Group existing service areas into reasonable 2 or 3 sub-
regional waste sheds based on population distribution,
transportation routes (Ferry and highway) and other
pertinent characteristics.
* Group existing service areas into one regional waste shed
and identify tentative regional solid waste processing or
disposal site areas.
Major Task B-2. Develop a technical and economic analysis or
overview with pros and cons and risk elements for solid waste
management systems which are reasonable or practical and
environmentally acceptable for the study area. These altern-
ative systems would include but may not be limited to improved
landfilling with leachate control, solid waste shredding, solid
-90-
-------
waste baling and balefill operations, solid waste modular
incineration with and without energy recovery (determining
potential customers for energy would be a very important portion
of the energy recovery systems).
* Develop a technical and economic analysis for new solid waste
management systems including compatible.sludge disposal options
within the existing service areas.
* Develop a technical and economic analysis for new solid waste
management systems including compatible sludge disposal
options in the sub-regional areas or waste sheds identified
in Task B-l.
* Develop a technical and economic analysis for a solid waste
management system including sludge disposal options for the
regional waste shed identified in Task B-l.
* Outline alternative management systems for the automobile
disposal problem including economic comparisons of landfilling
vs. private auto salvage to recycle the hulks.
* Summarize alternative funding mechanisms which may be used
by each municipality, sub-region or region.
* Summarize the feasibility of cooperative energy recovery
systems with generators of wood waste.
* Summarize the technical and economic feasibility of co-
disposal operations with sewage sludge.
C. Gather and Tabulate the Comments and Opinions of Municipal and
Borough Representatives.
Major Task C-l. Gather input to develop a consensus of opinion
from the municipal representatives as to which solid waste
system or systems is preferred.
* Distribute draft copies of the report to municipal represen-
tatives with a request for specific and direct comments
and opinions.
* Conduct a meeting with municipal representatives to discuss
the draft copy of the report.
* Tabulate the input from municipal representatives and re-
define waste sheds based on the comments received.
-91-
-------
* Determine which solid waste management systems are economically
and technically feasible based on the population and solid
waste volumes of the redefined solid waste sheds or areas.
* Develop and distribute the final copy of the Phase II Report
which includes study participant comments.
CONCLUSIONS
As indicated earlier two or three solid waste reports or studies have
been completed for specific areas in S.E. Alaska and this information
will be relied on to the extent it is useful in conjunction with the
wealth of knowledge that is available from individuals in the private
and public solid waste sectors.
Liaison activities with EPA, ADEC and especially the local municipalities
will be stressed since the proposed study is for the benefit of the S.E.
Conference.
N. ED BARKER, P.E.
President, Finite Resources, Inc.
-92-
-------
APPENDIX A
S.E. ALASKA PHASE II
SOLID WASTE DATA SHEET
GENERAL INFORMATION
Name of City and/or Borough
Brief Description of Geographical and/or Political Boundaries
Population of City or Borough
Estimated Population Growth Rate .
COLLECTION ROUTES
Owner ' Operator/Manager
Number of Employees
Number and Type of Equipment
General Description of Areas Served by Collection Routes.
Estimated Number of Customers/Accounts
Residential (i.e. cans)_
Commercial
Estimated Total Population Served by Collection
Estimated Volume ot weight per day/wk or year
Estimated Cost of Collection System^
Source of Funds -—-—
Comments or Problems with System (i.e. undersized, worn out)
-93-
-------
DISPOSAL SITES
Type of Site (Land Disposal etc.)
Site Owner Operator/Manager
Land Owner
General Location of Site
Estimated Population Served by Site
% Private Drive Ins
% by Established Collection Systems
Land Characteristics (i.e. steep, rolling)
Soil Type
Approximate Size of Site Area
Site Volume Remaining
Estimated Remaining Life of Site
Estimated Waste Characteristics and Volumes (identify annual or other)
Residential/Commercial
Automobi 1 e
Wood Waste
Other (Identify)_
Estimated Total Annual Solid Waste Volume or Weight (identify in-place or loose)
Estimated % Moisture winter
summer
Identify Problems with Site (i.e. Limited Land Area, Limited Cover, Wet, Leachate,
Burning, Automobiles, Bears)
Identify Alternative Disposal Site Locations
Annual Cost of Site Operation
Source of Funds (i.e. User Fee, General Fund)
-94-
-------
APPENDIX B
MAP OF S.E. ALASKA
-95-
-------
tm Ma Mm miMmi im
Uf*M< MM M* » IM W*
MW< * M«MI UMkH lIM
Ml MMMiyiMlll'irilt.miMH
r-. ZmZ
^iSlSMP
SOUTHEAST
Alaska^ Panhandle
.as:
wnue Put ft Yukon foul*
Mitn. MMiMMtMir
225525
Ferry Routes
«#M» MIC M UMMf wMrt HM M>-»l
ll'IKK IUf»IT COttMl
-------
APPENDIX C
POPULATION DATA FOR THE COMMUNITIES
-96-
-------
t i^^on
P.O. Box 189
Angoon, Alaska
99820
Phone: (907) 788-3653
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
CITY COUNCIL MEETS:
MAYOR:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Wally Frank, Sr.
David Willard
Barbara Johnson
Edward Gamble, Sr.
Rodney hunter, Sr.
Albert Kookesh
Second Class City
May 7, 1963
541
First Tuesday in October
2%
Third Tuesday of Each Month
Richard George, Sr
1980
1980
1980
1981
1982
1982
1980
ADVISORY SCHOOL BOARD
Daniel Johnson, Pres.
Francine Willis
Edward Gamble, Sr.
Gertrude Pemmert
Cynthia Ann Williams
CLERK Genevieve Guanzon
TREASURER David Willard
ATTORNEY Bruce Monroe
CHIEF OF POLICE Michael Nelson
FIRE CHIEF Reginald Nelson, Sr,
HEALTH AIDE DIRECTOR Barbara Johnson
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Joseph Kahklen
-97-
-------
LrtCU^
P.O. Box 23
Craig, Alaska 99921
Phone: (907) 826-3232
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
CITY COUNCIL MEETS:
MAYOR:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Patrick Gardner
Stan Marsden
Richard Wayne
Vesta Holter
Carolyn Coats
Lee Axmaker
First Class City
March 1, 1922
587
First Tuesday in October
3%
First and Third Thursdays
James F. Sprague 1981
1980
1982
1982
1981
1980
1980
PLANNING ft ZONING COMMISSION
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES
Water,
Refuse
Dock, Sower
Collect ion
Kim PaLutzka
Tom Abel
Mary Lee Perkins
SCHOOL BOARD
Jeanine Russell
Joyce Jones
John Slaub
Merle Snavely
Shawn Christensen
1980
1982
1980
1980
1980
1981
1981
1982
J—™ "entworth
nvoni Jac.obson
CHIEF OF POLICE 'GeraKhtv
FIRE CHIEF L l Axmnkor
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIRECTOR ' G,Z
HEALTH OFFICER ] ] ; ; ; !Ma?EaSe? Hatch
™™™0RKS DIRECT0R Brian Holter
HARBORMASTER !.!!!!!!!!! P?°X & Associates
PUBLIC UTILITY MANAGER S"y, J,aehJy
PORT DIRECTOR Merle Snavley
WATER & SEWER SUPERINTENDENT*.".!!.' !Jat Gai"dner
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS JJ an |olter
MAGISTRATE !!! Tyrus Brown
SECRETARY ®lh Dennis
YOUTH CENTER DIRECTOR 5° V
GRANT WRITER Pauline Hamilton
Ronald Hatch
-98-
-------
Haines
P.O. Box 576
Haines, Alaska 99827
Phone: (907) 766-2231
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
CITY COUNCIL MEETS:
MAYOR:
First Class City
January 24, 1910
1,366
First Tuesday in October
3%
First and Third Mondays
John D. Halliwi11 1981
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Roy C. Clayton 1981 Annette Smith, Chrm 1982
Arne Olsson 1982 Ken Gross 1981
Marvin P. Hartshorn 1981 Frank Haas 1980
Debra J. Schnabel 1980 Dick Jackson 1982
John F. Tompkins 1982 Tom Jackson 1981
Frank L. Wallace 1980 Charles Jones 1980
Donna Truax 1982
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES
• Water, Dock, Sewer, Boat Harbor
CLERK Toni Enos
TREASURER Edna Hatch
ADMINISTRATOR Dan Bockhorst
ATTORNEY Thomas Blanton
CHIEF OF POLICE James E. Wadsworth
FIRE CHIEF. Frank Wallace
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIRECTOR Richard Jackson
HEALTH OFFICER Dan Bockhorst
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Ralph P. Anderson
HARBORMASTER Larry Munroe
-99-
-------
nuonah
P.O. Box 360
Hoonah, Alaska
99829
First Class City
Phone: (907) 945-3222/3202
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
CITY COUNCIL MEETS:
MAYOR:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kenneth Schoonover
Corrine Thompson
Albert Dick
James Helmbree
George Mills
Kelly St. Clair
June 8, 1946
1093
First Tuesday in January
3%
Second Tuesday of Each Month
Miles Murphy
1981
1981
1980
1980
1980
1981
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES
Water
Dock
Refuse Collection
1981
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Adam Greenwald, Chrm.
Mike Thompson
Richard Bear
George Dultov, Jr.
James Erickson, Sr.
Kenneth Grant
Louis Underwood
SCHOOL BOARD
Marlene Johnson, Pres. 1980
Melody DesRosiers 1981
Darlinp Joyce Mills 1981
Maxine Savland 1982
Lorin Bradbury 1982
CLERK Judy Brown
TREASURER.... Net a Mills
ATTORNEY L.B. Jacobson
VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT HEAD Gerald Peterson
HEALTH OFFICER Gertrude Wolfe
PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR Dan Donavon
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Tom Brown
WATER & SEWER SUPERINTENDENT Karl Groenowald
HARBORMASTER Gilbert Mills
Sr.
-100-
-------
Hydaburg
Box 4f)
Hyfiaburu, Alaska 99922
Hionv: (907; 28.0-3761
INCORPOR ATION DATE :
POPULATION-
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
MAYOR:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Victor Burgess
Matthew Charles
Norman Charles
1927
381
November
None
Robert Sanderson
1980
1980
1980
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES
Water, Refuse Collection
Second Class City
1980
SCHOOL BOARD
Freida Page, Pres.
Victor Burgess
James Lockhart
1981
1980
1980
CLERK/TREASURER ,
ADMINISTRATOR nill » £ ^ ?oele
FIRE CHIEF /lino?!6™" K!!lley
HEALTH OFFICER AW r Ef*®"shaw» Sr-
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR J!™? t °£/K*ren Bernhardt
HARBORMASTER umH ]*a®kin&ton
PUBLIC UTILITY MANAGER ri JrlnL d ?y ,
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS %tZhT 5 ' A*'
I. Soboleff
-101-
-------
uty and borough of Juneau
155 S. Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-3300
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
ASSEMBLY MEETS:
MAYOR:
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
Fred Baxter
Dianne Bergstrom
Ernest Polley
Alexander Hoke
John Jensen
Harry Aase
Chuck Wells
James Wakefield
Unified Home Rule Municipality
July 1, 1970
23,115
First Tuesday in October
1% areawide; 2% service areas 1 and 2
First and third Thursdays of each month
W.D. Overstreet
1980
1981
1982
1982
1981
1980
1981
1982
1982
PLANNING & ZONGIN COMMISSION
1980
1980
1980
1981
1981
1981
1982
1982
1982
Kay Diebles, Chrm.
James Triplette
Hugh Grant
Stanley Beadle
Terry Quinn
Ventura Samaniego
Malcolm Menzier
Robert Minch
Marjorie Gorsuch
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES
Water, Airport, Dock
BOROUGH POWERS Carole Burner. Pres.
Areawide: Fire coordination, civil
defense, wharves fc small boat harbors,
library, assessment & collections, docks,
education, planning, zoning, cemetary,
ambulance, animal control, hospital,
public health, airport, transit,
court administration, business regulation,
public utility regulation; Non-areawide: police, fire, water, sewer.streets
SCHOOL BOARD
Carole Burger,
Marcia Freer
Jim Wilson
Bill Johnson
Allan Barnes
Mark Warner
Gerry Jenkins
1980
1981
1981
1982
1982
1982
1980
CLERK E.J. Emery
MANAGER Mar Winegar
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Kevin Ritchie
ATTORNEY Lee Sharp
CHIEF OF POLICE James Barkley
FIRE CHIEF Doug Boddy
FINANCE DIRECTOR James Kennedy
COMPTROLLER Quinton Duxbury
ASSESSOR Robert Howe
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR George Porter
WATER & SEWER SUPERINTENDENT Derwin Halverson
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIRECTOR Eugene McQueen
PLANNING DIRECTOR Art Hartenberger
BUILDING OFFICIAL Rao Gulur
ENGINEER George Porter
PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR James Hall
PORT DIRECTOR John Isadore
PURCHASING AGENT August Grunow
AIRPORT MANAGER Bill Palmer
HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR Tim Burns
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Donald MacKinnon
TREASURER Ed Hildebrand
-102-
-------
Kake
P.O. box 500
Kake, Alaska 99830
Phone: (907) 785-3804
First Class Citv
INCORPORATION DATE: 1952
POPULATION: 710
fSAWX:ECTJ0N: ^rSt Tu6Sday in
CITY COUNCIL MEETS: First and Third Tuesdays
MAYOR. Lonnie Anderson 1981
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS „ . _
Henry Smith 1981 PLANNING ft ZONING COMMISSION
Wilbur Brown 1980 „ 1jllam Cheney, Chrm
Jerry Kahklen 1980 CaY?"auBh
Manuel Aceveda 1980 n ° !
Norman Jackson 1981 ] Bean
Dan .Stachowiak 1981 ctoria McDonald
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES SCHOOL BOARD
Water n Jw y Jackso". Pres. 1980
Refuse Collection re fT*" !^a^ake 1980
Sewer Cecelia Mills 1982
Liquor Store Kahklon 1982
Pauline James 1981
CLERK. ri
TREASURER n2»S?h» r?US
ATTORNEY Lsertha. Cavanau^h
CHIEF OF POLICE.' tJac,obson
FIRE CHIEF p°J;} Jackson
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIRECTOR.. n!„,i ',ommert • Jr.
HEALTH OFFICER pJUis?01™? ' Jr*
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Do!! in Jonfs
ENGINEER ! Oemmert, Jr.
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS .*Dave Diiiman
-103-
-------
Kassaan
Kasaan, Alaska 99924
Phone: (907) 542-8001
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
CITY COUNCIL MEETS:
Second Class City
1976
38
First Tuesday in October
None
Second Tuesday of Each Month
(no other information reported)
*****#********************************************~******************#*
Kenai
P.O. Box 580
Kenai, Alaska 99611 Home Rule City
Phone: (907) 283-7535
INCORPORATION DATE: May 10, 1960
POPULATION: 4,421
REGULAR ELECTION: First Tuesday in October
SALES TAX: 3%
CITY COUNCIL MEETS: First and Third Wednesday of Fach Month
MAYOR: Vincent O'Reilly 1980
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PLANNING ft. ZONING COMMISSION
Philip Aber 1981 Phillip Bryson, Chrm. 19&1
Edward Ambarian 1980 Sol Raymond 1980
Betty Glick 1982 Jerry Andrews 1982
Ronald Malston 1980 Karen Mahurin 1982
Raymond Measles 1982 Dave Curtis 1981
Michael Seaman 1981 Dwain Gibson 1980
James Blanning 1981
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES
Water, Airport, Sewer
CLERK Janet Whelan
TREASURER Charles Brown
ATTORNEY Ben Delahay
CHIEF OF POLICE Richard Ross
FIRE CHIEF Walter Winston
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Keith Kornelis
ENGINEER William Nelson
PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR Kayo McGillivray
WATER & SEWER SUPERINTENDENT Clyde Johnson
-104-
-------
KetcmKan Gateway Borough
344 Front Street
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: (907) 225-6151
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
ASSEMBLY MEETS:
Second Class Borough
September 6, 1963
13,463
First Tuesday in October
1.5%
First and Third Mondays
MAYOR:
Carroll Fader
1981
MEMBERS
ASSEMBLY
Gary Emard
Gai*y Elkins
Len Laurance
Robert Watt
Helen Finney*
Michael Kouni*
J^ck McBride*
Walt Boiling*
Normand Dupre*
Charles Freeman*
Edward Zastrow*
1981
1980
1981
1982
1980
1982
1982
1981
1980
1981
1981
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Betty Streeper, Chrm. 1981
~Denotes City Representative
BOROUGH POWERS
Areawide: Assessment & taxation
education, animal control, airport,
planning and zoning; Service areas:
Shoreline - fire
John Garland
Darlene Crostick
John Benson
Doug Winscot
Ralph Gregory
Eric Muench
SCHOOL BOARD
Kaye King, Pres.
Jim Alguire
Tom Carl in
Cheri Davis
Alaire Stanton
Willard Jones
Judy Montgomery
Mountain Point - water;
1982
1980
1981
1981
1982
1980
1982
1982
1981
1981
1980
1980
1982
CLERK Tommy Neb 1
REVENUE COLLECTOR Mari* w„{fftll
Janager A. "iijer
ATTORNEY .Russell W. Walker
PLANNING DIRECTOR Kathryn Carssow
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS R W Stekl
AIRPORT MANAGER .'.'Hank Wise
ASSESSOR Michael Worley
-105-
-------
Ketchikan
P.O. Box 7300
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: (907) 225-3111
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
CITY COUNCIL MEETS:
MAYOR:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Edward Zastrow
Jack McBride
Michael Kouni
Helen Finney
Normand Dupre
Charles Freeman
Walter Boiling
Home Rule City
August 25, 1900
8,542
First Tuesday of October
2.5%
First and Third Thursday of Each Month
John W. "Jack" Shay
1981
1982
1982
1980
1980
1981
1981
1982
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIE
Water
Electricity
Telephone
Dock
Refuse Collection
CLERK . , VK i i) I ey
FINANCE DIRECTOR Allan Learned
MANAGER Tames Van Altvorst
ATTORNEY Russell Walker
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY Richard Treiser
CHIEF OF POLICE Ray Hackstock
FIRE CHIEF John Divelbiss
HEALTH OFFICER Dr. A.N. Wilson, Sr.
ENGINEER Fred Monrean
HARBORMASTER Sam Young, Jr.
PUBLIC UTILITY MANAGER. Donald Bowey
WATER & SEWER SUPERINTENDENT Bud Brostrom
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS R.W. Stekl
PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR Jane Boubel
-106-
-------
Klawock
P.O. Box 113
Klawock, Alaska 99925 v-i i
rirst ciass City
Phone: (907) 755-2261
INCORPORATION DATE: bctober 29 1929
POPULATION: 404
REGULAR ELECTION: First Tuesday in October
SALES TAX: 2**
CITY COUNCIL MEETS: First and Third Tuesdays of Each Month
MAYOR: A1 P. Macaseat, Sr. 1980
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SCHOOL
Sonj a Armour 19&2 Snnia ~ r,
Leonard Kato 1981 Robert u' 1980
Rudolph Smith, Sr. 1980 Leonard Kat^ IS!81
Delores Peratrovich 1980 Donna wnn»
Dewey Skan Jr 1980 Selena McC^Sy
Roy S. Williams,III 1980 y i»oi
CLERK/TREASURER M g
ATTORNEY Fred Miller
POLICE CHIEF Macas Sr
PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE KSbley
UTILITY CLERK Mo£re V
WATER MANAGER Theodore Roberts Sr
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR Rodnev «?ic«n '
SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT ' 'william SuS*
PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR Karen Hoop*
PURCHASING AGENT Rubv Smith
MAINTENANCE Gilbert Fred
HARBORMASTER ErnfJt!J
S?EfcElEFT OPERATOr' ^"rovich.IU
Nickerson, Sr.
*****************************************
Kobuk
General Delivery
Kobuk, Alaska 99751 Second Class City
INCORPORATION DATE: 1973
POPULATION: 60
REGULAR ELECTION: First Tuesday in October
(no other information r< sorted)
-107-
-------
Metlakatla
P.O. Box 8
Metlakatla, Alaska 99926
Phone: (907) 886-4868
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
CITY COUNCIL MEETS:
MAYOR:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Bernard Guthrie
Jack Booth
Edward Leask
Frank Hayward
Casey Nelson, Sr.
Russell Hayward
Federal Law City
1944
1,119
First Tuesday in November
None
First Tuesday of each month
Stanley Patterson
1981
1982
1982
1982
1981
1981
1982
ADVISORY SCHOOL BOARD
Edward Gunyait, Pres.
Karen Thompson
Freida Haldane
Bruce Guthrie
Kathleen Guthrie
CLERK Rosebelle Nelson
TREASURER Ronald Milne
FTRE CHIEF Richard Johnson
ilKALTH AIDE DIRECTOR Karen Thompson
ENGINEER Henry Li ttlefield
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Larry Rocheleau
NATURAL RESOURCES DIRECTOR .Gregory Argel
CITY PLANNER John Pearson
JUDGE , Harris Atkinson
-108-
-------
Guy and Borough of Sitka
P.O. Box 79
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: (907) 747-3294
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
ASSEMBLY MEETS:
MAYOR:
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
fcarl Richards
Alice Johnstone
Russell Wright
Gordon Whitcomb
Dan Keck
Roberley Potter
Unified Home Rule Municipality
December 2, 1971
8, 787
First Tuesday in October
4%
Second and Fourth Tuesdays
John Dapcevich
1982
1982
1981
1981
1980
1980
1981
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
1980
1980
1981
1981
1982
BotT Couch, Chrm.
Michael Trent
Ron McClain
Taylor Potter
A1 Perkins
SCHOOL BOARD
Laraine Glen, Pres
Colleen McFarland
Carol Welsh
Francis Eddy
Karen Guymon
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES
™ater, Electricity, Airport, Landfill
borough powers
Areawide: Electric, water, garbage,
Sewer, streets, police, fire protection
Myrtle Flynn
ADMINISTRATOR Fermin Gutierrez
ATTORNEY Peter Hallgren
CHIEF OF POLICE Ed Thornton
CHIEF Martin Fredrickson
TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR Richard Anderson
ASSESSOR John Stein
J^BLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Jerry Simpson
JLECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT James Dwyer
WATER & SEWER SUPERINTENDENT Jerry Simpson
"EALTH OFFICER Dr. Edward Spencer
JMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIRECTOR Bennie Meyer
RUNNING DIRECTOR Richard Smith
GILDING OFFICIAL Jerry Hughes
JNGINEER Eugene Rehfield
nil KS & RECREATION DIRECTOR Doug Dralle
URCIIASING AGENT Richard Anderson
AIRPORT MANAGER Michael Binkie
SimPlTAL ADMINISTRATOR Mark Hawkins
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS John Coffee
iiAft STRATE Marilyn Hanson
ARBORMASTER Don Owens
1982
1982
1980
1981
1981
-109-
-------
Skagway
P.O. Box 415
Skagway, Alaska
99840
First Class City
Phone: (907) 983-2297/2298
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
CITY COUNCIL MEETS:
MAYOR:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Lillian Litzenberger
James Richards
Christopher Rohlf
Oscar Selmer
Marvin Taylor
David Waugh
June 6, 1900
877
First Tuesday in October
3%
First and Third Thursdays of Each Month
Robert Messegee
1980
1981
1981
1980
1982
1982
1981
PLANNING pt ZONING COMMISSION
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES
Water
Refuse Collection
Sewer
Alvin Gordon
Valerie Lawson
Edith Leo
Richard Sims
Garrison Trozzo
Robert Vaughn
SCHOOL 130 A RD
Carl Rose, Pres.
Gayle Chartier
Leslie Fairbanks
Paul Taylor
Boyd Worley
1981
1980
1982
1981
1981
1980
1982
1981
1982
1980
1980
CLERK Lorene Gordon
TREASURER Beryl llosford
MANAGER G.D. Acker
ATTORNEY William Ruddy
CHIEF OF POLICE James Hester
FIRE CHIEF/EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIRECTOR... Carl Mulvihill
HEALTH OFFICER Dr. Stanley Jones
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Don Buttle
HARBORMASTER .Raymond Calver
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Nyal Worsham
PORT DIRECTOR Marvin Taylor
PUBLIC UTILITY MANAGER Donald Buttle
PURCHASING AGENT Lorene Gordon
-110-
-------
Pelican
P.O. Box 757
Pelican, Alaska 99832
Phone: (907) 735-4101
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
CITY COUNCIL MEETS:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Hugh Jewett
Terry Wirta
Susan Koby
Becky Nash
Dave Miller
Gary Curtis
First Class City
1943
221
First Tuesday in November
OOf
o if
First and Third Mondays of Each Month
1 980
1980
1980
1981
1981
1981
SCHOOL HOARD
Don Nash, Pres.
Terri .Joseph
Cal Boord
Edith Carlson
Glen Bills
1981
1981
1980
1982
1981
.MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES
Dock, Refuse Collection, Harbor
CLERK Edith Carlson
TREASURER Louisa Whitmarsh
ATTORNEY William Ruddy
FIRE CHIEF Gerald Hewlett
HEALTH OFFICER Steve Gage
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Hugh Jewett
HARBORMASTER Gerald Hewett
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Harrv Davirf
-------
Petersburg
P.O. Box 329
Petersburg, Alaska
99833
Home Rule City
Phone: (907) 772-4511
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
CITY COUNCIL MEETS:
MAYOR:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Lars Eide
Art McTaggert
Louis Severson
Annie Slack
Ted Smith
Norma Tenfjord
SCHOOL BOARD
Mike Dean, Pres.
Patti Norheim
Carson Boysen
Wilmer Oines
Bill Jones
April 2, 1910
3 ,197
First Tuesday in October
5%
First and Third Mondays of Each Month
Richard Kito
1982
1981
1980
1980
1982
1981
1980
1982
1981
1981
1982
1981
PLANNING g: ZONING COMMISSION
Bob Jones, Chrm.
Dick Groseth
Arnold Fredrickson
Bill Grenier
Ken Welde
Dennis Murphy
Sunny Hicks
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES
Water
Electricity
Dock
Refuse Collection
Sewer
CLERK/TREASURER Jerry Van Vleck
MANAGER Bruce Aronson
ATTORNEY L.B. Jacobson
CHIEF OF POLICE Robert Harrington
FIRE CHIEF Dusty Rhoden
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIRECTOR Dusty Rhoden
HEALTH OFFICER D.A. Coon
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Dusty Rhoden
CITY PLANNER William Jones
HARBORMASTER James Stromdahl
PUBLIC UTILITY MANAGER William Moarifc
WATER & SEWER SUPERINTENDENT Dusty Rhoden
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS D.W. Schultz
-112-
-------
Wrangell
P.O. Box 531
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
Phone: (907) 874-2381
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
CITY COUNCIL MEETS:
MAYOR:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kenneth Mason
Robert M. Maxand
G.K. "Ken" Bell
Robert Grant
Gregory McCormack
Myron F. Myers
Home Rule City
June 15, 1903
3,325
First Tuesday in October
D ,0
Second and Fourth Tuesdays
Richard R. McCormick 1981
1980
1980
1981
1981
1982
1982
PLANNING 8i ZONING COMMISStt>m
William Messmer, Chrm ~T98i2
Janice Emde 1980
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES
Water ~~
Electricity
Dock
Refuse Collection
Hospital
Sewerage Treatment
Jo Anderson
Jess Howell
Willy Campbell
Larraine Kagee
SCHOOL BOARD
Pat Ilall, Pres.
Roy Martin
Don Deschenes
Anne Lowe
David Shilts
1980
1980
1981
1981
1981
1980
1981
1982
1982
CLERK/TREASURER Joyce Rasler
ATTORNEY Edward Stahla
CHIEF OF POLICE William Klein
FIRE CHIEF Gordon Buness
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIRECTOR William Klein
HEALTH OFFICER Harriet Schirmer,
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT Herbert Ingram
ENGINEER Charles Pool
PORT DIRECTOR Richard Ballard
HARBORMASTER David Work
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Robert McConnell
M.D.
-113-
-------
Yakutat
P.O. Box 6
Yakutat, Alaska 99689
Phone: (907) 784-3323
INCORPORATION DATE:
POPULATION:
REGULAR ELECTION:
SALES TAX:
CITY COUNCIL MEETS:
MAYOR:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Evelyn Anderson
Lowell Petersen
Raymond Sensmeier
Caroline Donohue
Lena Farkas
Ted Valle
First Class City
June 22, 1948
442
Third Tuesday of October
2%
First and Third Tuesdays
Larry Powell
1980
1980
1980
1981
1981
1981
1980
MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES
Water
Dock
Sewer
PLANNING &. ZONING COMMISSION
Caroline Powell, Chrm. 1981
Neva Ople 1981
Cameron James 1980
Raymond Sensmeier 1980
Gerald S. Pond 1980
SCHOOL BOARD
Victoria Demmert, Pres. 1982
Joan Pond 1980
Susan Converse 1981
Raymond Sensmeier 1981
Evelyn Anderson 1980
CLERK Carol D. Dierick
TREASURER Roy Bowman
MANAGER James M. Kohler
ATTORNEY Hugh Fleischer
FIRE CHIEF Jerry Pond
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIRECTOR Robert Anderson
HEALTH OFFICER Vivan Lewis
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS John Novak
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Ronald C. Buller
HARBORMASTER Robert Anderson
-114-
-------
APPENDIX D
COMPLETED SURVEY FORMS
-115-
-------
^ ttkS CITY OF CRAIG
P. O. Box 23 • Craig, Alaska 99921 • (907) 826-3275
John Patterson
Mayor
September 25, 1979
The following information is provided by the City of Craig for the
Proposed Solid Waste Study by the Environmental Protection Agency.
1. The City of Craig is a First Class Municipality located on the
West Coast of Prince of Wales Island with a resident population
587 persons.
2. Presently the City of Craig and the City of Klawock share the
sanitary landfill area, however the maintenance c*f the landfill
area is provided by the City of Craig. There are no areas which
are not served at the present time.
3. Based on growth patterns and projection by the year 1995 the
population of Craig is likely to increase by 90% primarily
due to stepped-up logging, tourism, and government level
activities.
4. Copies of the existing code for the City of Craig are attached.
5. Solid waste is collected in the City of Craig three times weekly
for comnercial businesses and public buildings, and the harbor
facilities and once weekly for residential users. The solid
waste collection is handled by two men from the Public works
Department. The area of collection is limited to the City
limits of Craig. Craig recently purchased a new 1979»Ford
Truck with an 11 cubic yard rear loader compactor. Businesses
are being encouraged to purchase dumpsters to aid in the storage
and collection of solid waste materials. The City of Craig's
annual volume of solid waste is approximately 10,000 cubic yards
and is composed of typical business and resirlo.itial waste. We
do not have any recycling operations of any kind and do not
have presently any industrial wastes that mm. c be disposed of.
6. A 7 ¦ The actual annual cost ut ..r.d disposal of
soxiu waste for the city of CruiF± '.'9 was $24434.
8. The City of Craig funds the scu.i.d wasco collection and disposal
operations from a fee for service and the General fund. FY
1979 showed income from fee for service of $15206. Therefore
the deficit of $9228 was made up from the City's general fund.
-116-
-------
9. No private contractors are involved in solid waste collection
or disposal in the Craig-Klawock area.
At the present time no reports or studies regarding solid waste
collection or disposal have been conducted in this area.
Solid Waste Disposal is an item that has been addressed in the
CZMP and a copy of the latest draft has been included.
-117-
-------
APPENDIX A
DRAFT
5.E. ALASKA PHASE II
SOLID WASTE DATA SHEET
GENERAL INFORMATION
Name of City and/or Borough city of Craig, Alaska 99921
Brief Description of Geographical and/or Political Boundaries
i
See attached inap
Population of City or Borough ^>87
Estimated Population Growth Rate 800 by 1985
COLLECTION ROUTES
Owner citY of Crai(3
Number of Employees
Number and Type of Equipment one each 1979 Ford Truck with 11c.y. compactor
General Description of Areas Served by Collection Routes. All of Craio
Estimated Number of Customers/Accounts
Residential (i.e. cans) 175 residonees/ ^50 cans per week
Corr.mercia 1 45 Oaiinercia 1/1050 cans per week
Estimated Total Population Served by Collection 587
Estimated Volume or weight per day'wk or year 10000 c.y. per year
Estimated Cost of Collection System $25,000.00
Source of Funds $15,000.00 fee for service $10,000.00 General fund
Comments or Problems with System (i.e. undersized, worn out") hHp^i?ed
useful likfe or area ):: depleted
Operator/Manager City of Crajq
one
-118-
-------
DISPOSAL SITES
Type of Site (Land Disposal ecc.) Land Disposal
Site Owner Operator/Manager City of Craig
K lav*x:k- i Icenyu Corporat ion
Land Owner
General Location of Site Approximately "J miles N.E. of Craig
Estimated Population Served by Site 900
Private Drive Ins 25
by Established Collection Systems 75
Land Characteristics (i.e. steep, rolling) [tolling
Soil Type Muskeg
Approximate Size of Site Area 100 feet x 400 feet
Site Volume Remaining None
Estimated Remaining Life of Site None
Estimated Waste Characteristics and Volumes [identify annual or other)
Residential/Commercial 10,000 c.y. annual
Automobile 15-20 annual
Wood Waste None
? t i ¦ /. , None
Other (Identify)
Estimated Total Annual Solid Waste Volume or Weight (identify in-place or loose)
_ .10,000 c.y.
Estimated Moisture Unk winter
Unk summer
Identify Problems with Site (i.e. Limited Land Area, Limited Cover, Wet, Leachate,
Burning, Automobiles, Bears') Limited land area, limited cover, leachate,
Automobiles, wet, bears ^
Identify Alternative Disposal Site Locations None known __
Annual Cost of Site Operation $25, 000.00
Source of Funds 'i.e. User Fee, General Fund1) n^r Fro f. rvnwal fnnri
-119-
-------
A Pi'i":M) [ X A
S.E. ALASKA PHASE II
SOLID WASTE DATA SHEET
GENERAL INFORMATION
Name of City and/or Borough /~/ . ,
General Description of Areas Served by Collection Routes. -A
75 4 7 pauJL^
Estimated Number of Customers/Accounts
Residential (i.e. cans) / & O
Commercial *//)
Estimated Total Population Served by Collection
Estimated Volume or weight per day/wk or year
0- „
Estimated Cost of Collection System pop
Source of Funds // o/e. Zm &.\J (1 t< uj C /t»J—jt(*m £.—
ft t n efr,t V g/7f/*+ H ft t *t
-120-
-------
DISPOSAL S iT!:S
/.
Type of Site (Land Disposal etc.) /#„ J (.,// ftfa
Site Owner flr-M M K SUu / / Oi»crator/Managcr_
Land Owner < *?
General Location of Site_ <=» j- fi<4t/*r<+'t
Estimated Population Served by Site |_
% Private Drive Ins / ^
h by Established Collection Systems_
Land Characteristics (i.e. steep, rolling) - a »c/-<
/ J
Soil Type ^ * '
Approximate Size of Site Area / 0 Jt, r
Identify Alternative Disposal Site Locations
Annual Cost of Site Operation a o e>
Source of Funds (i.e. User Fee, General Fund) ^ r ^
//**/•£»// tt'f* /u 9 f 5 •
-121-
-------
CITY OF KETCHIKAN
m IWOHT STMCT
P. O. tox 7900
TMPNOMiW7 23*4111
September 27, 1979
Mr. Ed Barker
Finite Resources
9®07 Fairview Avenue
Boise, Idaho 83704
Dear Mr. Barker:
Pursuant to your request, I hereby provide the following
information relative to the proposed solid waste study for
Southeastern Alaskan municipalities:
1. The 1979 population of Ketchikan is 8,541.
2. The City of Ketchikan is responsible for collection
and disposal for the population residing within the
City limits* The City's sanitary landfill also serves
the waste disposal needs of the Borough, which adds
approximately 5,000 people to the population served
by that facility.
3. Population growth in the Ketchikan area is approxi-
mately 3% per year.
4. Solid waste is managed under State guidelines and
local ordinances. A copy of Chapte 7.16 of the
Ketchikan Municipal Code (KMC) is enclosed.
5. Collection by the City of Ketchikan utilizes three
13 cubic yard packers and five employees. Disposal
by the City of Ketchikan utilizes one International
Harvester 175 dozer and two employees. The City has
2,200 weekly pick-up accounts. Approximately 150
private individuals or firms also dispose at the
landfill weekly. An estimated 40,000 cubic yards
of solid waste per year are disposed at the City's
landfill. The material contains no industrial or
unusual waste.
-122-
-------
Mr. Ed Barker
-2-
September 27, 1979
6. The annual cost of collecting solid waste by the
City of Ketchikan is $252,000.
7. The annual cost of disposing solid waste for the
City of Ketchikan and surrounding area is $84,900.
8. The City funds its current solid waste and disposal
operation from fees charged for residential and
commercial pick-ups and private disposal at the
landfill. Fees are charged in accordance with KMC
7.16.
9. Tongass Sanitation provides solid waste collection
services outside City limits and for certain com-
mercial accounts within the City limits. Contact
Andy Crowe, Tongass Sanitation, P.O. Box 7701,
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901, phone number is 225-5561.
In addition, I am enclosing copies of reports or studies done
by City staff over the last few years regarding solid waste
collection and disposal. I will provide under separate
cover, a copy of a coincineration report done several years
ago by URS, the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant consulting
engineers.
If you have further questions, please contact me. Thank you.
City Manager
Enclosures
ccs David Hanline, EPA, w/enclosures
Dick Stokes, ADEC, w/enclosures
-123-
-------
APPI:,\'1)IX A
S.E. ALASKA PHASE II
*
SOLID WASTE DATA SHEET
GENERAL INFORMATION
Name of City and/or Borough City of Ketchikan
Brief Description of Geographical and/or Political Boundaries City Of
Ketchikan and Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Population of City or Borough City - 8,293 City and Borough - 13,464 6/30/79
Estimated Population Growth Rate 3%
COLLECTION ROUTES _
City Private Co.
Owner City and Private Col 1 ectQfferator/ManagerGeorge Slvertsen Andy Crowe
Number of Employees C1 ty - 5 Private - 4
Number and Type of Equipment City - 2 Hell Packers Private - 2 Packers
General Description of Areas Served by Collection Routes. City " ty Limits
Private - Borough and certain commercial accounts within City Limits
Estimated Number of Customers/Accounts
Residential (i.e. cans) City - 2,133, Private Co. - 400
Commercial City -128, Private Co. - 80
Estimated Total Population Served by Collection 11,000
Estimated Volume or weight per day/wk or year 5,280 ton/year
10,500 CY compacted solid waste/year
Estimated Cost of Collection System $262 ,590/year
Source of Funds monthly collection rates assessed to users 6f system
Comments or Problems with System (i.e. undersized, worn out) Majority of the
population within the City appear to be satisfied witn tne collection
system. A number of Borough residents haul their own solid waste to
the landfill and the accessablllty or the present unarm maices this
Inconvenient.
-124-
-------
/
DISPOSAL SITES
Type of Site (Land Disposal etc.) Land Disposal
Site Owner City Of Ketchikan Operator/Manager City Of Ketchikan
Land Owner State of Alaska
General Location of Site Deer Mountain
Estimated Population Served by Site 11 »^00
Private Drive Ins 30%
% by Established Collection Systems ^0%
Land Characteristics (i.e. steep, rolling) Orignally a deep ravine
Soil Type Muskeg (Cover material 1s Imported)
5601 x 850'
Approximate Size of Site Area
Site Volume Remaining t 33 ,000 cubic yards
Estimated Remaining Life of Site ^ years
Estimated Waste Characteristics and Volumes (identify annual or other)
Residential/Commercial See Solid Waste Incineration Report
Charles P66I Artd Associates, inc.
Automobile April 9, 1976 for this Information
Wood Waste
Other (Identify)
Estimated Total Annual Solid Waste Volume or Weight (identify in-place or loose)
10,500 cubic yards compacted 1n place, plus 6,000 CY cover material
Estimated % Moisture very wet winter
moderately wet summer
Identify Problems with Site (i.e. Limited Land Area, Limited Cover, Wet, Leachate,
Burning, Automobiles, Bears) All of the abovel Area 1s very close to
capacity and needs to be closed out.
Identify Alternative Disposal Site Locations Currently seeking a new site
and new management plan!
Annual Cost of Site Operation $100,000
Source of Funds (i.e. User Fee, General Fund) General Fund
-125-
-------
4.
# p
October 11, 1979
RECEIVED
OCT IT 10/9
CITY MANAGE
CITY KC1CHKW
S&utiU »
ss*.#s//
Janes A. Van Altvorst, City Manager
City of Ketchikan
P.O. Box 7300
Ketchikan, Alaska
99901
Re: Solid Waste Study
Dear Mr. Van {gcvovBt:
Here are answers to questions listed in your September 20, 1979 memo.
Population of Petersburg - 3,371 (local estimate)
Population of people served equals approximately 3,425. All
areas are served.
The city's population growth has been erratic, but in the last
two years has equaled approximately 4Z a year. The population
growth should continue in the 2Z to 4Z range.
Local refuse collection ordinances are attached.
(a) Collection equipment - 2 garbage trucks (only 1 capable of
unloading dumpsters)
Disposal equipment - 1 tractor
(b) Staff - 1 truck driver
1 landfill attendent
(c) Residential - weekly service
Commercial - up to daily service
(d) Most garbage is from residential customers, with much
cardboard and crating (wood) material
6-7.Cost of collection - $40,000.00 year
Cost of disposal - $46,000.00 year
Total $86,000.00 year
8. Cost of collection and disposal is as follows:
Collection fees $72,000.00
Local tax subsidy $14,000.00
Total $86,000.00
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
-126-
-------
& & SM
s&adihi. iP£(f<$i9
9. The two largest canrteries collect their own garbage, and dispose at
city landfill. No crushing or shipping operations in the City.
Hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Bruce Aronson
City Manager
Attachment
BA/plc
-127-
-------
City and Borough of Sitka
P.O. BOX 79 • SITKA, ALASKA . 99833
September 24, 1979
TO: James Van Altvors
FROM: Rocky Gutierrez.
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SOLID WASTE STUDY BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Since I will not be arriving in Ketchikan in time to attend the meeting
scheduled with EPA on September 27, 1979, I am herewith sending you the
information requested in your memo dated September 20, 1979.
1. Current population is approximately 8500.
2. Solid waste service area is approximately 8000±.
3. Growth projection is 10,000 by year 2000. Growth pattern
in non-expansive.
4. Solid waste is managed under State guidelines and local
ordinances.
5. Collection and disposal is by private contractor utilizing
municipal-owned site and shredder. Volume is estimated at
one tone per person per year and material contains no Industrial
or unusual waste.
6. Collection cost is $180,000/year.
7. Landfill cost is $130,000/year.
8. Our collection and landfill operations are operated on an
enterprise basis.
9. None, excepting under contract with the municipality. Last
year we exported approximately 250 junked vehicles via barge
to Seattle and plan on doing the same this year. No crushing
or shredding was involved. Project was handled by a private
contractor with minimal municipal coordination.
-128-
RECEIVED
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF KETCHIKAN
-------
API'IIXDIX A
S.E. ALASKA PHASE II
SOLID WASTE DATA SHEET
general information
Name of City and/or Borough S/TJCA
Brief Description of Geographical and/or Political Boundaries SA/e/MJO/0
/JL/)A)l> ¦ ^„,jr*£Ts9SS-
Population of City or Borough__ ?SOO
Estimated Population Growth Rate / m/9JC
COLLECTION ROUTES
Owner Afc/sUfC//?/?* / 7~>" Operator/Manager S7/9/PC&
Number of Employees C
Number and Type of Equipment J - US' yz?. /.Jo ^ A**#** *
General Description of Areas Served by Collection Routes. JyJKJt
Estimated Number of Customers/Accounts
Residential (i.e. cans) J13&7 ru r
Commercial jb» y £?uT
Estimated Total Population Served by Collection tf&'Oo
Estimated Volume or weight per day/wk or year /JT&OQ C. X ^£<9#
—
Estimated Cost of Collection System /7<* Mr 79 T#A>Q AJ>A>. VP
Source of Funds COS rot+e/Z /j//.£-/aJC
Comments or Problems with System (i.e. undersized, worn out)
/$£>A/> COfy/Wl /AJ S/T/CS.
-129-
-------
DI5P05AL SITES
Type of Site (Land Disposal etc.) S'sfAJsTs&A? ^ 6.
Site Owner Operator/Manager Sf#/?QV /Aj00f/y?/ 702*4
Approximate Size of Site Area / f ___________________
Site Volume Remaining yot a?# * rnr to *aa>c# 0ur */* )
Wood Waste / &J.&
fvtjc. i
Other (Identify) 7H"d>0 cr.y. **sr>9i -/m* P o+Wj
Estimated Total Annual Solid Waste Volume or Weight (identify in-place or loose)
*3. '#*. . -4a)& Zsst'r0 £J7>1S£/jV ZAajO/7Z£. ///a#£S
Annual Cost of Site Operation /SO./yaO Zs/~ **0.000 /^tSRs/W
Source of Funds (i.e. User Fee, General Fund) Cosro+t&je .
-130-
-------
APPENDIX A
DRAFT
S.E. ALASKA PHASE II
SOLID WASTE DATA SHEET
GENERAL INFORMATION
Name of City and/or Borough City of Wrangell
Brief Description of Geographical and/or Political Boundaries located
on the north portion of Wrangell Islad, with one road running south
along Zimovia Straits about ten miles
Population of City or Borough 3,325
Estimated Population Growth Rate 21
-^COLLECTION ROUTES
0wnor—City of WnmpcH Operator/Manager Joyce Easier. Acting City
Manager
Number of Employees 7 1/2
Number and Typo 0f Equipment Internationa Load Star 16yd gas truck
General Description of Areas Served by Collection Routes.
sane a* political
boundaries
Estimated Number of Customers/Accounts
Residential (i.e. cans) approx. 2,000 cans
Commercial; 50 customers with 3 cans each s 150 cans
Estimated Total Population Served by Collection 3.3251
Estimated Volume or weight per day/wk or year 8.500 cubic vrt« per year
Estimated Cost of Collection System approx f50,000 per year r7- 4-
Source of Funds User fees, General Fund
Comments or Problems with System (i.e. undersized, worn out)
undersized and worn out
-131-
-------
DISPOSAL SITES
Type of Site (Land Disposal etc.) land disposal
Site Owner City of Wrangell Operator/Manager Joyce Rasler, Acting City
Manager
Land Owner Citv of Wrangell .
General Location of Site located 1 mile north of downtown Wrangell on northern
most point of island
Estimated Population Served by Site 3.325
% Private Drive Ins
\ by Bstablished Collection Systems 9Q|
Land Characteristics (i.e. steep, rolling) steep
Soil Type
Approximate Size of Site Area
Site Volume Remaining
Estimated Remaining Life of Site
Estimated Waste Characteristics and Volumes (identify annual or other)
Residential/Commercial 901
Automobile none
Wood Waste 51
Other (Identify) 51
Estimated Total Annual Solid Waste Volume or Weight (identify in-place or loose)
apprav Q,snn mhir y
-------
APPENDIX E
FUEL OIL ENERGY CALCULATIONS
-133-
-------
APPENDIX E
FUEL OIL ENERGY VALUE AND STEAM COST CALCULATIONS
Basis of Calculations
One gallon of #2 fuel oil has an approximate heating value of
140,000 BTU.
Fuel oil boiler efficiencies range from 81% to 84% (full fire
efficiencies with the higher value achieved only with a stack
ecoriomizer). 82% will be used in this analysis.
Approximately 1,000 BTU is required to produce 1 lb of steam
(this assumes some condensate return since approximately 1,175
BTU are required when using 60°F inlet water).
Fuel Oil Energy Value Estimates
The first set of calculations are to estimate the amount of steam generated
from 1 gallon of fuel oil in order to ultimately determine the steam
demand for space heating customers based on fuel oil consumption data.
(1.40 X 105 BTU ) (0.82 eff.) ¦ 1.15 X 105 BTU
gal #2 oil gal oil
This means 1.15 X 10^ BTU is available to generate steam
gal oil
(1.15 X 105 BTU )(1 lb-steam) « 115 lbs-steam
gal oil 1,000 BTtJ gal oil
This factor needs only to be multiplied by the gallons of oil consumed to
determine steam demands or requirements.
Steam Cost Estimates
The following calculations are to determine the therms of energy required
to generate 1,000 lbs of steam and to determine the associated cost
based on the price per gallon of fuel oil.
(1,000 lbs-steam)(1,000 BTU ) ¦ 1 X 10^ BTU is required to
1 lb-steam
generate 1,000 lbs of steam.
-134-
-------
At an 80% boiler efficiency 1.2S X 106 BTU of fuel are required to
generate 1,000 lbs of steam.
Converting this to therms, 1.25 X 10^ BTU ( 1 therm ) * 12.5 therms
1 X 105 BTU
of fuel to generate 1,000 lbs of steam.
(1.40 X 105 BTU )( 1 therm ) = 1.40 therm
1 gal oil 1 X 10* BTU gal oil
At $1.00/gallon of oil
( $1)C 1 gal oil) = $0.71
gal oil 1.40 therm therm o£T
Now compute the cost of 1,000 lbs of steam
12.5 therm to generate 1,000 lbs ($.71 ) = $8.88 to generate 1,000
therm
lbs of steam from oil
20% discount is $7.10 per 1,000 lbs
21% discount is $7.00 per 1,000 lbs
At $.90/gallon of oil
( $.90)(1 gal oil ) - $.64
gal oil 1.40 therm therm oil
Which is $8.00 to generate 1,000 lbs of steam
20% discount $6.40 to generate 1,000 lbs of steam
-135-
-------
APPENDIX F
BUILDING HEATING FUEL CONSUMPTION DATA
-136-
-------
iiM ir
SEP 151980
/ ur s MMtmo. utvtm*
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES j
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS I
SOUTHEASTERN REGION
P.O. BOX 3*1000
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802
(Phone: 789-0841, ext. 105)
Mr. Brad Brtnkman
Findley & Brinkman Law Offices
110 Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Mr. Brinkman:
September 8, 1980
432E
Re: Fuel Consumption - Juneau Buildings
M3-507
I understand that you are assembling data for a feasibility study to
ascertain the marketing potential for steam generated from the inciner-
ation of trash. At your request, i have compiled fuel consumption figures
for State buildings in Juneau, covering the period July 1, 1979 to
June 30, 1980.
Bui Iding
State Capitol
State Office Building
Alaska Office Building
Subport Buliding
Alaska State Museum
Public Safety Building
1591 Glacier Avenue Building
Court 6 Office Building
Communi ty Bui Iding
Archives & Records Center
DOT S PF SE Region Complex
Island Center Building (Douglas)
5.
Fuel Consumption [x 1000 gal]
65.2
222.9
29.9
24.7
16.6
8.4
15.9
114.1
7.7
10.4
37.2
16.8
£ « .
-------
fc.v
r1 1 ¦*!'» u*iauiu vai !»•»»*• c«oa«
¦ -& v, -
•* .-* ••' V * - ' . • 4... . -
-:•* »v ¦'"•V •" ••»¦* I
> v.:;'"
warn# *
' ;• '¦ ¦r •' " •«•>'•".;V>V': '> a* ' '4»J2
b;Sfe.'|jU zift* 'CV-;.'
:¦ ••• . v'. v"
•v<
"¦'¦u ,1
» «*. 'J
-¦ ' •" - • ' •
Sssfiaafffeel
-138-
k^y--.
.'Lti.f
L- Z:3***i£:K' V: •
e^CSS**'
-------
TOWN
PHONE
TOWN
PHONE
TANK
HOT WATER
yesG noH
v Yvs V»\u
0.0.
NEXT DEL
CALS,
~ EL.
K OP
USABl CUD
0.0.
TO DATE
IN TANK
IN TANK
D.O.
NEXT OEL
K OR
USAOLL O O
'SZ7C
1L122.
DAY CARD
¦ O** irliLMI I«c .CrfJAM <.*Ovr u J.
.vv'-ltw' jt't i 'jia hito'i??,
-------
|l|gP|. 5; ¦
¦' '»• X ,f
m::.r '
jes >¦
pp;;'¦•;.•«'• :
I J1,1]\ \
" r- "srv •
I
• ; . • • « .1 . . 'J*w
*r ^
^ i«ess
4-
O
v b
^XO'S 3
^ o\
- S W, yv, ^, Ip o .'i \
0 E
:*te
, If—
0 ALS.
CEL.
IN TANK
D.O.
TO DATE
K our
UOAULL D D
D.D.
NEXT DEL .
OATE
C ALS.
oi:l.
IN TANK
O.D.
TO DATE
K on
liSAMLi: n n
O.D.
next del.
1 V
t
/US'
i*
r*
-------
o
/
{
yy/o
*************** OIL HliCORDS ***************
. totat. gallons
DEGREE PER DOLLAR
MONTH GALLONS DEL. PRICE DAYS DECREE DAY AMOUNT
9. 7
/„?/
v5V>9.^|
(
"A*
. 10 2.7
8 //
^<£>7.^9
—(
O/J.O
//y
v5\S\*./«
%¦>
v?
7//
d'o 7 ¦?£«
jh a-/ ....
— -
%
<7^/. /
3/J
"/»
12/
l
\
- y?
V;77. 4
t
3
]JjLD
«2,/ r
t, #&/..
i /•£. to 4 *2
t
( )
44
76 ^
2XL
* ¦ w
/4J3 fi\
! —
. •*/
/Sf.t 7
?!/.
Mn 2. JU-
f5
/•
/)
3 11'.
9V-
i fm?- fk
i
j
ra
I
i
o
/7 *qj, 3
' i ' i
41-
W4
—id:
/-f» <9
/ *' *?
-------
—c
ft***********
79/?0
OIL P.iiCORDS ***************
L-»/)<
MONTH
>c
GALLONS DEL.
PRICE
TOTAL
DEGREE
DAYS
GALLONS
PER DOLLAR
DEGREE DAY AMOUNT
'7L
LJL.
/4
°Al
v»
Uj
(aLl.
OL
\
%
t-
Jp91 O
-2J2JL1.
7/0,6
/n O !. 7
JulIL
jLLL
21L
2JL
777 ?
JUL
117
in
57?
us. ?.e
I/*,??..
*£*/¦ /6>
/fXS
-J7..1..J?.
7t7-#&
AL3jQJ*L
H
J7u
J_±s^ 7
Vu 1.1!
A2_
//. «? jT
i/J ....
}L>
n
7S60.O*}
A
7 ¦ Li
UL
n
/->o7. $
2rG>
.T-nfif
JLZA.
1 -y
22.
%
3Ji
'2JL
bA^.
0 r)<) X> 2
% 8 !r
7. /
.M:
/.? 9 ,Z 0
MjL
.¦?/)/?. «?
¦
3°
a"
yr /
r—
/X?o,£x
782-?- ?fP ,
^ V
//M. ¦
HULllL
^ 7?
T
1.U,
\_1L
-U-
LLLQj,.CiS
-------
, •"
(
•
79/fo j
*************** OIL RECORDS ***************
/ Sol/A -2)U?(-//)3
/?,? 4. /
'/?/
/*»/. 94
_y .
/0A*
y^v^. /
?*/
/ 467.91
/
/6//L>
/UJ/. *
/"J Z <3 -O
"A1
A 7 jr. /
1*/
SJ 9. /„/•
1
"A1
AOJUiL..
.11/
JS.20.-.A /
"/
/is
22 J7. *^
a-;*)x.o
*/*/
• t - • 4
• .v-.' /• •:. *• ' !
£/ 4/lAl
'j ••'•¦•¦ •'•¦¦•• •:-'
.
jr.//..
.. . ., .
220 s. i /f
X1
2 2
%
2JL.
/foe-/
'Z ft 6>. o
. v. • .•"(
*//
22L
7n
1A
t£L
A .A A (a ' /
llhh
tlL
iz fr ^ 1
¦JtlL
hL
2
/ • *
idL.
HL
^A/
LL3.U3.
LLW.
-4 146 9
.204.
±3L
-143-
/2?AL
AjlIQ-
J-LHuJ-
MSA5JA
JJ.S-
! JiJ/t-
-------
»
("
r
<¦-
M I i II 7V*a
*************** OIL RECORDS ***************
£/) >s r/A/e #0
MONTH
GALLONS DEL.
PRICE
TOTAL
DECREE
DAYS
CALLONS
PER DOLLAR
DECREE DAY AMOUNT
9A
'°A
aU
%
&SL
'Jul.
LZSLL.
/7. 9-2.,.? ..
JLLL
ML
ILL
ILL
-Z&L~.
-Ill
ML
;v> '/<* ¦'
Z7&
Mk
l?L
AIL
LL2JJ2.
/sjs.'rj
%LL21
L1j±L
Y-J.O&J.C
LLJ-Li
LLH23.
! /J7o. :;tiL
dlL
ILSJUl*.
%
¦20.
lift C)
O (t>
ra
rC -v
/?2 J
M7-t?
-------
70s
it
t
>(
*************** OIL RECORDS ***************
Q/rtC/ C AC TOTAL GALLONS
DEGREE PER DOLLAR
MONTH GALLONS DEL. PRICE DAYS DEGREE DAY AMOUNT
/n 90. 7
& 2<9.Sb [
/4oL.**
Hi
'/* />.SS
—(
n/z 7
a 0^)1.0
1Z/
/S 7X. 7/
J^c*-
Jo/
fat
JLXS.U
///
2*3 /. 6? Z.
PAl-
/ 7 sx. C>
-3-Z.L.
*//
LJJJ. Z/ '
J-2.
/JT9J.<4
1]
<
/-JJT
J *3 A 3- X
/a X/. X ^
s
2-i os3 ;o'
/z^s: //I
mv- •.-•r--"1*"
a/v...
„ „7_Jl£3L..-
/s/3 .&
$S6>
$7Y*
610.77 ,f
975.6?
4. rv- «
3 / n'J. 7
J'XL
. . * - , •
• .' ' *V ' ¦
/XA.1. lA
* w
/-/on
91L
7.57) £
r -
*
>
'•44/. n
X -?AT..Cr' 1
K
/ 12*
II.
J
—HI
13
-• i
j
i
¦145-
/s ux<
7
-------
*************** OIL RECORDS ***************
MONTH
//yl/CSO/C l//cuj
GALLONS DEL.
PRICE
TOTAL
DEGREE
DAYS
GALLONS
PER DOLLAR
DEGREE DAY AMOUNT
Ul
fa.
J'oo (
ML
t?/,
/o
'z 7
!5h
LL
*
/0/l
%
Z£_.
Jl>o4S
2LZ.
"A
x 7
A6
i^a
VX
..-J.AJJLA...
J* f f • /
AjULL-Z—
Zt I
//O
jlLlq.*.2. .
2 2
3/oS, vj_
^ 0*16 > 7
2k
^ /
7/7
V/
W
4
>/V- V
J //u
/7Af-
i?r().Q..
(7C) '/A. 6
>¦>
nL
/,'¦'/9-^"
ILL
12L
12L
m
1S/
hl
ILL.
2/J
ML
ill
ML
?57
L2L
LjUo-
A1L.
(J1'¦
ML
Jk2&>—
3&L.
*3 b (eClO<£
• 146-
LLS±M^
Afa/-
-------
7?/te
**A***A**iic>V*AAft OIL KLCORDS
/
).(
M/GAJ ^sc/soo/^
MONTH GALLONS DEL.
PRICE
TOTAL
DECREE
DAYS
GALLONS
PER
DECREE DAY
1
DOLLAR „
AMOUNT
Viz
/ -/ ? 7. t
,bSt
JSC,*). ??
( ¦
%
n ?'/
'H!
*
—\
/j a
'¦-¦/. X
• ' i /
~ '•
.. 1!
•7f.
• •CT
> / /
—uu* Iff
*94 S»f
/ 1~ t .
,X S. C£>
^6
" T
/&X4 0
. ...
k£rj Jivl '¦ W w-'
Hu
J1X1..2
JV/
/¦$•$ 9.0 9
i .
%,
/ O
. sm : "
\ • •- .
/o/y'//
i) •• . V
/G/,
n/
/A7
•
rt
v * •
7^/
" ' ' ' . * ' f
A5"9ii ,oVH
"/
7//
^9. /£-
*
'!*
7JV
/&n^. <1^
'¥,7
/VJ/ v>
7//
///
"/ *> )
*//
/7
i
/ ?/
V*J>
7 .? JS 9
X/J
j 7 9 7 tr
1
f
i
V
I0/7
SSCe
/75-Z.M
f
-147-
-------
<' 1 /--Vy*),
***** ****** a*** OIL RECORDS ***************
7?,
7<2
MONTH
a ' r /
GALLONS DEL.
PRICE
TOTAL GALLONS
DECREE PER DOLLAR
DAYS DECREE DAY AMOUNT
'J!
P J ' 1 /
JJjLLJLt
'Jr.
£l
"/
jL—
<3,
do.
'JO
*0/.f
/ /
its
&
2k
*//><
m.
L"A
L'L
_ «
^:lcl
/o OO¦ {>
JjjJZfL-L
J-l.S^L.3-
JUL^U
JO T?- £-
/> IS J •?.
/A OO.O
MJUM_
*£j£.
"7. '/' '¦ '/
JsXtf.4-0.
" '¦ 1
r ry
.1 \ £
AAL
$ C /0
S>. /1
/ --''
-U
5*5V,
-------
o
(
<
v:m
> .
ra
r
-(
75/fc
A************** OIL ULCORDS ***************
MONTH
GALLONS DEL.
PRICK
TOTAL
DEGREE
DAYS
GALLONS
PER DOLIJVR
DEGREE DAY AMOUNT
il
'JL
qlu.
V
Jja.
L
XJL
OH.Q
go..
////. 7
AoSL. 9
ixJ
7*q
2Ai._
tzj'-
"A
Z.:S.
fA.
tL
L
1L
/
'(0
&
a±u^L..
M * s/
_g?' //
-------
lb
/
<
0
II
In
U/to
a OIL RECORDS ***************
NT \7UM-£o TOTAL
DECREE
GALLONS
PER
DOLLAR
MONTH
GALLONS DEL.
PRICE
DAYS
DECREE DAY
AMOUNT
Vn
'.'7. J>
F!(
/
"'/ 2 ci ¦ h
Ell
x1*V.07
-(
,0At.
X/t
/ns). <*s>
/c/
7JLU
//it). J
i/t
?/!/-
U
u^o- J
-jjjL.'-
„&L%rz-
/0/.i
,r ^9 *.
x/l
•977.f<9
/0/3
7* a
*//
-------
; °7A - 75
.n ? -
137* -
I°77 -
o?S -
• ->~n _
/ /
7^
Cal. I'sed
364 ,400
.'.07 «.on
•
335.67*
351,?30
344.34^
Avq. Price Total Total ^^al.r& "T^rtiar
pcr OaJlon Year Cost 0c5T. Oav Opcree ^av r?er
5.3506
.3oon
.A 500
.572
.S/.1
$131,000
157,QS°
133.000
161.133
170.2S1
225.634
SS?1
QO">0
7341
^*<>1
a167
^1.3
-VS.?
AS.7
40. s
37.*
30. ?
536.7^o
s
y
i
s
V
rt$=?y Pe*Si
Square rt.
.A 70
. 7r>o
.625
.652
. *45
AOQ
"•-<1 reason 'Vr the rrea? rp-'ucfiors ir. i<*7a/'n vas ¦'ue c closer "^onitorinc of !' S V Svste-'s.
Installation r,f ci~e clocVc, lowrinc of roon tpr">f»rati:re to *5°. T.overfnr re—>. c'o-pstic ,:or
¦.i.;sr to tnc >i'rr vater air4 "stcai te-ner^t'ires to a n^nirm. ncinc o'itsiJe ter-r>.
c mj < j a _ ( T^ctp-is? poller c?—ts tp"".r>-'>?'at*.ir«» "00? -* o',.~, ^ . a cl,api?ff over ir ?vstp™s In
"lrh ^cu"*ol Au^itori'in an.'1 r\r^ anr? ,TarKorvipv School to rocvcle insiJe air vit*1 •"•ixture ce
' 5" outd''e air. r.e-calibration of r^ennstatcs ard all nn/»natic an-' el^rtrir controls.
"0,1- coo-ienrion * ro~ all '! strict "crco r^p\.
1
i-H
if)
rH
I
n.r.crnicAi.
'v-.rual Jol lar« cn.-rr ln7--7n $161,516.00
Aetna' '0! !ars ?nnn: «l2n.
-------
City and Borough of Sitka
N. Ed Barker, P.E.
Finite Resources, Inc.
9807 Fairview
Boise, Idaho 83704
Dear Ed:
Dick Stockes called me and requested I send you the
school's monthly fuel consumption. He also wanted
to know about the supermarket next door to Blatchley
Junior High School. That building is heated with
electricity. If I can be of further help let me know.
Very truly yours,
P.O. BOX 79 • SITKA, ALASKA • 99835
«« SEP 2 2 1980
September 17, 1980
FINITE resources
Director of Public Works
JDS:glb
Enclosure
-152-
-------
*1
o
: %4\
i.i
j*r°C
is>xi^
-------
City and Borough of Sitka
P.O. BOX 79 • SITKA, ALASKA • 99835
September 8, 1980
SEP 101980
RESOURCES
N. Ed Barker P.E.
Finite Resources, Inc.
9807 Fairview
Boise, Idaho 83704
Dear Ed:
As we discussed at the meeting we had in Juneau, I am enclosing
the fuel consumption for our various schools here in Sitka.
After looking at all the school sites, it appears that the High
School, Blatchely Jr. High, and Alice Island schools sites would
be compatible with an incinerator to furnish heat. Blatchley
Jr. High and Alice Island have hot water heat and the High
School is steam. I have discussed this with the superintendent
of schools and his maintenance director. They are in favor of
the idea so long as there is no odor or smoke and it is not
unsightly.
Your cooperation in looking into our problem here in Sitka is
appreciated. I am looking forward to your final draft on the
S.E. Alaska Solid Waste Management Study.
Sincerely yours,
jerry u. Simpson
Director of Public Works
Enclosure
dj
-154-
-------
SITKA SCHOOL DISTRICT
FUEL CONSUMPTION COMPARISONS
July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1979 and July 1, 1979 through June 30, 1980
1978-1979 1979-1980
gallons
cost
qallons
cost
%of sav
HIGH SCHOOL
89,442
$43,498.44
68,985
$56,931.26
23%
BLATCHLEY JR.* HIGH
81,157
40,310.24
77,327
62,865.14
5%
BARANOF
80,830
39.990.31
49,405
43,426.43
39%
ALICE ISLAND
9,411
4,573.82
9,127
8,415.48
3%
LINCOLN
6,745
3,281.20
5,552
4.558.66
18%
ETOLIN
-0-
-o--
'7,666
6,277.27
TOTALS
267,585
131,625,21
218,062
164,201.53
19%
Although the precentage of fuel consumption savings amounted to 19% total, the cost for less fuel
was 20% higher. The factors involved in the savings of fuel were:
1. The effort by all the staff to conserve energy
2. The balancing of the systems by Honeywell and their efforts this
past year to do the work for which they are contracted to do.
3. The efforts of the maintenance department to keep the heating systems
operating efficiently.
4; Milder winter weather in 1979-80 school year.
* During the 1978-79 school year, Etolin was heated by the Baranof boilers. During the 1979-80 school
year, Etolin was heated by its own boiler.
-------
. _KiCrati
K-.
(~-
1979
I *'•'»
i (3)
7
s.*-. i
{•>
; Cr
: C
f A-ovi I
• I.-'
.-5A70^__l304.54 •
[ .5380—[314^91'
_518Q_ 300,3.6:
t*"
5290
5690
279.63
292.74
MZ.20
417^20
16&JQ0
L145»Q0.
328.00
-4*W-
-AZQQ_
_4iAO_
4950
Jan. 'soi _48oo_
T;t AL J-
59.390 3401.22'
-351L... , ¦
_ L 450 il6.JOr __ ! _ !
J -Wil-SiZJii j
200 3.00.30' i 1
500 £70.56!
391 1236.951
AOQ—J?72~4oL
. _|
-A5Q |2Q^AS_
•%tf\ !»»t 1 AAi
319.00)
3?0 '217.99l
, 596 ¦409.9ft"
_+
I 736 |571.23|
J !
I
_4728 _ ¦ 3021.08
£'••'3, ane uilt iatA fofjiS:
ri>-rc :
'-o Til (#2 >
tVX:,< HP00 ,, f'
59.390
_ Cu.lt.
47778" S*1
fh/lcn
g^ror
f JCtC*
u2l U*'.^ *~te
I 1.600
1.050
l)i.6S0
2-5.5 mi I I ion
688.924.000
'o^
totals
1^344,650,320
(12.*.)
i 3.401,22
1 570Z1.08 ~
l
i
1 6^422^30.
(12.b. ;
• • x¦ Th*s# energy factors must 5* used, for fytfls no? listed, refer te £.";iflooring R«fer«nc<
_ Total BTU's H?.») _
utcss Square r'etC (Iteai 6 Pg. 1)
Total _Cnerr/ Costs (1?)
OftS!. Squirt Fttt (lien 6 ^5. 1
$1*17
BTU's/Sq. Ft./V**r
_$/Sq. Ft./Ytar
fn^r^, Ccn*orion Practices
?; j.*.r ?h-'.c n„-:.v,r Ouilding Energy £ va I -.a to--/v:n i tor :
_Ttrlei]fH>nc-
• . f.ncr^ A^jif ever r-cO" p^r ?
ri.x ?*y tr;int«.ring studies ever been ride?
• c*« j., t^c 1 j, va'j>••:«nr rractices in fore*?
: S o"f en^rj, ccr.sorv j t ion work &*t»n f vr'orncj*
. V»s r<,
*cs f*o y
fo s
Yes v.
arieHy cast end eneryy savings of *ny conservation reaocres prcvic.'ly ir;;J*-v.'.tcd:
Tinier placed nn fnrnnrp. - aavlngn unknown, :
r,j R^nt-.able Resource Potential:
Is thc-rc c^i»n Ij..-, forking area or yard »r*ich is not heavily shacer in
rr.e buildings iir
-------
•y
Amount
Electricity
Natural Gat '•
Fu«l Oil c-
" "1
Other: <*•
A*>«nt
UwM
Cost
IS)
toount
(CU. M.I
Cost
(SI
Anouftt 1 Cett
Iqal.l ! (SI
Amjwnt
( )
Cost
!
r«lrwt£t_
56509
3176
2457
1108
k*,,rfh
*nr.i (
44814
2769
4865
2291
44852
2624
2441
1174
37516
2058
2400
1155
1 U"«
40303
2140
2423
1166
July
31616
1660
2412
1184
ftuouM
31218
1587
2450
1228
[•ptinter
3SS21
2169
2451
1228
tetoUrr
34394
1946
2440
1222
lvc«"'l>or _
[io .J-80.
44830
2452
3711
2527
45579
2980
4804
4973
3834
TOIAt *•
485,706
28,297
37,827
2UM9
Energy costs end unit date totals:
Figure ?
Electricity
N.Hurjl Gas
fu«i ON (#2)
Cw4 '
Otrwr
Olhwr
AWlMt ENERGY UNITS
.485,706
cu. (t.
37.827
- ¦ -¦ ¦ —- Sh/l&n
Factor
(»e note below)
11,600
1.030
06,690
24.5 mill ion
Annual 8tu
¦ s,6u.iaq,6n
5,246,226,630
-28,291.
121,389 ~
2o,o<"
totals
(ll.a.l
(12.b.I
Woln Thts, *n«rgy iKtori wuttw used. For (u«li not llstatf, rater to £nglno«rlng R,'tranc< Manuals.
Total BTU't (U.a)
Cross Squirt Fttt (Itea 6 P9. 1)
Total Cnerov Costs (1?.b)
Gross Square Feet (\tta 6 Pg. )
TU's/Sq. Ft./Veer
_S/Sq. Ft./Yeir
14. Energy Conservation Practices
Nome and pho't*) ng/r&er of Building Energy Cvalusfor/Monitor:
Nama Telephone
nes en Energy Audit ever been performed?
Have any engineering studies ever been made?
Are there any Energy Management Practices in forc«?
nai any energy contirvition work been performed?
Yes No x
res mo jc_
res No
res wo x
Ooscribe briefly cost and energy savings ol any conservation Measures previously ir.pleff*nted:
Terminal heat has been set at 65 - 67 degrees and la Maintained at auch
throughout- th> year.
O. Solar and Renewable Resource Potential:
a. Is thore open land, parking area or yard which Is not heavily shaded in
the buildings Immediate vicinity? x Yes
b. Building location - Urban Suburban Rural y
c. Is the building roof and/or south exposure* heavily shaded (or more
than lour hours * dayT Yes No X
d. Mlwr ol stories in Building. 3 — 3 floors At FAA tOWer
e. Building shape. Rectangular
i. Type o* roof li.•. flat, pitched, ect.i and exposure il pitched. plat
4. Has roof any obstructions Icniameys, Mechanical room etc.)? x Yes No
Approximate amount ol south facing glass to wall area, by percent (J),
ol sowiNr* >sure »«li nviteriei, Bftfiftnry
_02_
i«»cjtio«» u< r
. . .
:«» *«it «jr©r hejtin j syst*-', . .is ;«<
2nd floor
-157-
------- |