Transcript Slide 1

Session 9
Solid Waste Management Study
2018 and Beyond
Southampton County Board of Supervisors Meeting
December 15, 2008
Session 9
SCS Scope
• Task 1 - Review Existing Regional Solid
•
•
•
•
Waste System
Task 2 - Evaluate Future Technology and
Facility Needs
Task 3 - Evaluate Institutional Models for
Solid Waste Management
Task 4 - Facilitation with Chief
Administrative Officers
Task 5 - Prepare Report and
Recommendations
2
Session 9
Fundamentals
• Study is forward thinking
• Takes a clean slate view – what is the
best approach to take for the Region
• Not an audit, although current situation
carefully considered
• Considers institutional, technological,
economic, and political challenges and
opportunitities
3
Session 9
Evaluation Factors
• Technology status and reliability
• Institutional status and reliability
• System reliability
• System flexibility
• Funding approach
• Ease of implementation
• Financial metrics
4
Session 9
Assumed 2018 Conditions
• Current system debt retired
• In Region disposal capacity
• Out-of-region disposal capacity
• Transfer station network
• Waste-to-energy
• C&DD disposal capacity
• Solid waste quantities
• Feasible technologies
• Recycling
5
Session 9
Solid Waste
Authorities/Organizations
Information gathered on other
county/regional solid waste organizations:
• Central Virginia Waste
• Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
•
•
•
•
•
•
Management Authority
Connecticut Resource Recovery
Authority
Delaware Solid Waste
Authority
Environmental Cooperative of
Main
Fairfax County, Virginia
Lancaster County Solid Waste
Management Authority
6
•
•
•
•
County
Northeast Maryland Waste
Disposal Authority
Solid Waste Authority of Palm
Beach County
Pinellas County, Florida
Portland Metro
Virginia Peninsulas Public Service
Authority
Session 9
Solid Waste
Authorities/Organizations
Evaluate differences in:
– Membership
– Governance
– Day-to-day administration
– Operations
– Debt management
• Applicability of other approaches to
Region
7
Session 9
Pro Forma Evaluation
• Evaluated various cooperative
scenarios
• Disposal
– New regional landfill
– Out-of-Region disposal
• WTE
– Maintain existing RDF WTE Facility
– Expand with mass burn WTE Facility
– Abandon existing RDF WTE Facility
8
Session 9
Scenarios Descriptions
• Scenario A
– All eight communities continue to cooperate for
recycling and disposal services similar to existing
cooperative model with SPSA
– Assumed major debt retired by 2018.
– Major variables
• New Regional Landfill
• Dispose at out-of-region Landfill
• WTE (with and without, expand and /or replace)
9
Session 9
Scenarios Descriptions
• Scenario B
– All eight communities in the region
cooperate on a consolidated solid waste
management program for all municipally
collected solid waste
– Variables
• New Regional Landfill
• Dispose at out-of-region Landfill
• WTE (with and without, expand and /or replace)
10
Session 9
Scenarios Descriptions
• Scenario C
– All eight communities go their separate
ways and contract for disposal
– Virginia Beach continues to operate its
landfill through 2022, contracts for
disposal after 2022
– Decommission RDF WTE Facility
11
Session 9
Scenarios Descriptions
• Scenario D
– The City of Franklin, Isle of Wight County,
and Southampton County align to provide
recycling and disposal services
– The Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk,
Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach
align to provide same
– Variables
• Smaller communities contract for disposal
• Same as Scenario A for larger communities
12
Session 9
Scenarios Descriptions
• Scenario E
– The City of Virginia Beach independently
provides for municipal recycling and
municipally and commercially collected
solid waste disposal services
– Other communities align to provide
recycling and municipally and
commercially collected solid waste
disposal services
– Variables
• Similar to Scenario A
13
Session 9
Landfill
• Options considered:
– Siting a new publically-owned and
operated facility in Region
– Contracting with out-of-region landfill for
disposal.
– Transfer via road haul (rail haul an option
depending on final location of facility)
14
Session 9
Waste-to-Energy Options
• Expanding, adding an additional 2,000
tpd mass burn WTE Facility
• Replacing existing RDF WTE Facility
with new 3,000 tpd mass burn WTE
Facility
• Operating without WTE
15
Session 9
Host Fee
• Added host fees for
– Landfill
– WTE facility
• Amount can be easily varied in model
16
Session 9
Current Cost Structure
• SPSA costs used in pro forma
analysis for:
– Administration
– Environmental
– Transfer Station
– Recycling
– WTE
• City of Virginia Beach
17
Session 9
Financial Metrics
• 30-year Net Present Value Analysis
18
Session 9
Net Present Value
• Present Value of a cash flow at a
given discount interest rate
• Allows for comparison of complex
alternatives
1
2
3
4
5
Payments, $
0
19
6
7
8
9
10 Years
Session 9
Financial Metrics
• 30-year Net Present Value Analysis
• System Rate Analysis
– $/Total Tons per year
– NPV/Total Tons during planning period
Total Tons = MSW + YW + Recyclables
20
Session 9
Sensitivity Analysis
• Transportation Rate
• Location of New Regional Landfill
• CPI and Fuel Escalation Factors
• Out of Area Tip Fee
21
Session 9
Pro Forma Analysis
• Expanding WTE capacity resulted in
the highest NPV costs
• Cooperating appears to provide longterm value, although in the early years
some savings could be realized by
individual member communities
• Host fees could provide substantial
benefit to community hosting landfill
and WTE facility
22
Session 9
Pro Forma Analysis
• City of Virginia Beach has most
flexibility with respect to disposal
options and ability to control costs, at
least in the short-term and possibly
long-term depending on fate of
permitting efforts at Landfill No. 2
23
Session 9
Comparative Analysis
2008 Dollars
$2,500,000
$90
$80
$2,000,000
$70
$60
$1,500,000
$50
$40
$1,000,000
$30
$20
$500,000
$10
$0
$0
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.3
2.1
1.4
2.3
2.4
A Scenarios - All
Region
Members
Cooperate
to
Scenario No.
Manage Solid Waste System
Comparative Net Present Value Results ($1,000)
First Year System Rate, $/ton
24
Session 9
Pro Forma Results
• Siting a new Regional Landfill a
significant factor to control costs –
provided lowest NPV costs
• Regional landfill only scenario (without
WTE) lowest cost NPV
• Transport and disposal in out-of-region
landfill had highest NPV costs
25
Session 9
Pro Forma Results
• If contract out for disposal, operating
the WTE facility reduces NPV costs
compared to eliminating WTE
• Operating system with existing WTE
facility generally 5 to 8 percent higher
costs (assuming Regional Landfill), but
allows for significant volume reduction
and energy recovery
26
Session 9
Sensitivity Analysis
• The further a new regional landfill is
located, the more competitive the
WTE and contracting out alternatives
become
• Significant discounts on tip fees and
transportation needed to make
contracting out disposal cost effective
• Reducing escalation factors favors
WTE operations, but ranking remain
similar
27
Session 9
Cooperation - Pros
• Various systems already in place
• More efficient development of facilities
• Current shortcomings are resolvable
• Some joint responsibilities after 2018
• Cost efficiencies, especially relating to siting
•
•
•
•
a new regional landfill
Economies of scale
Leveraged purchasing
Solid waste planning
Achievement of recycling goals
28
Session 9
Cooperation - Cons
• Loss of autonomy and control
• Reduced flexibility to respond to
changes in market conditions
• Increased organizational and
governance complexity
• Interplay of regional politics in
implementation of Authority’s mission
29
Session 9
Institutional Recommendations
• Scope and function dependent on
decision regarding ownership and
operation of a regional landfill and the
RDF WTE Facility and Mission of the
organization
• Proportional representation
• Board membership qualifications
• Debt management
• System funding approach
30
Session 9
Remaining Disposal Capacity
• SPSA’s Current Regional Landfill
– Should confirm expansion potential
– Limited unless wetlands issue can be
resolved
• City of Virginia Beach Landfill No. 2
– Expansion potential exists
• Out-of-Region Disposal Capacity
– Capacity available through much of 30year planning, but additional capacity
would need to be permitted
31
Session 9
Landfill
• New Regional Landfill should be sited
• Siting approaches
– Region performs siting studies, purchases
land, permits, and develops site
– RFP process for privates to site, permit,
and then sell back to Region, with
provision for life-of-site operations
contract
• Schedule tight
32
Session 9
Waste-to-Energy
• RDF WTE Facility a valuable asset to
the community
– Volume reduction
– Energy recovery
– Hedge against increased transportation
costs
• Can be maintained and upgraded to
serve Region during planning period
• Facility extenstion study
recommended
33
Session 9
Role of Privates
• Collection
• Recycling
• Transportation
• Municipal solid waste and
construction, demolition and debris
disposal
34
Session 9
Private Sector Contracting
• Advantages
– Defined service levels and costs
– Competitive bidding assures best pricing
– Reduced number government
employees, equipment, and overhead
– Perceived more businesslike approach
– Optimal location of facilities
– Less political interference
– More responsive to market changes
35
Session 9
Private Sector Contracting
• Disadvantages
– Perceived loss of control by public
– Some argue more costly because of profit
and taxes included in contracts
– Not as responsive to changes in
community needs
– Higher potential for litigation to resolve
issues
36
Session 9
Other Factors Considered
• Conversion technologies
• Yard waste
• Recycling
• Rail haul
• Transfer station network
• Regional disposal asset ownership
37
Session 9
Solid Waste Conversion
Technologies
Technology
Process
Output
Output Uses
Thermal
Incineration (waste-toenergy WTE)
Steam
Power
Thermal
Gasification, Pyrolysis,
Autoclave, etc.
Syngas
Power / Chemical
feedstock
Biological
Anaerobic Digestion,
Aerobic Digestion
Compost,
Biogas
Soil amendment /
Power
BioChemical
Hydrolysis
Ethanol
Biofuel
38
Session 9
ConversionTechnologies
• Large scale implementation of most
alternative conversion technologies
not proven
• Region may wish to consider pilot
programs for such things as organics
diversion
• Of conversion technologies evaluated,
mass burn incineration most
demonstrated and feasible
39
Session 9
Yard Waste
• Should be managed separately from
MSW and not disposed in landfill
• Process and recover for beneficial use
40
Session 9
Rail Haul
• Viable transportation option
• Should be evaluated in more detail
once disposal option and location
determined
41
Session 9
Transfer Station Network
• Critical to solid waste system
• Long-term viability, status, and
capacity of each transfer station
should be evaluated
• Optimization study recommended
42
Session 9
Recycling
• Provisions for municipal recycling
critical
• Service could be administered
collectively or independently (as is
case now)
• Programs may vary depending on
demographics and geography
43
Session 9
System Funding
• Several options evaluated
• Current tip fee model works at cross
purposes with goal of resource
conservation and recovery
• Consider a waste generation fee
approach
• Further study needed to assess
feasibility of implementing throughout
Region
44
Recommendations
and Next Steps
Session 9
• Review findings of study
• Present study to City and County
Councils and Supervisors, respectively
45
Recommendations
and Next Steps
Session 9
• Develop consensus on mission and goals
for the Region
• Make decision on Regional cooperation and
revise governance, policies, board member
qualifications, and policies for debt
management
• Evaluate alternative funding approach
46
Session 9
Recommendations
and Next Steps
• Maintain key assets
• Proceed with siting a new Regional
Landfill and study of expansion at
current landfill
• Resolve sale of RDF WTE
– If maintain ownership, conduct life
extension study
– If sell, revisit pro forma analysis,
conclusions and recommendations
47
Session 9
HRPDC Staff & Committee
Recommended Actions
• Accept the report
• Refer report to participating localities
and SPSA for consideration
• Request comments by Jan. 20, 2009
• Await finalization of SPSA negotiations
on sale of RDF WTE Facility
48