Solid Waste Management Study - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Solid Waste Management Study PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 52688d-Njk3M



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Solid Waste Management Study

Description:

Session 9 Solid Waste Management Study 2018 and Beyond Southampton County Board of Supervisors Meeting December 15, 2008 Our study also evaluated and reported on ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:406
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 49
Provided by: BobGa98
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Solid Waste Management Study


1
Session 9
  • Solid Waste Management Study
  • 2018 and Beyond
  • Southampton County Board of Supervisors Meeting
  • December 15, 2008

2
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

3
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

4
Evaluation Factors
  • Technology status and reliability
  • Institutional status and reliability
  • System reliability
  • System flexibility
  • Funding approach
  • Ease of implementation
  • Financial metrics

5
Assumed 2018 Conditions
  • Current system debt retired
  • In Region disposal capacity
  • Out-of-region disposal capacity
  • Transfer station network
  • Waste-to-energy
  • CDD disposal capacity
  • Solid waste quantities
  • Feasible technologies
  • Recycling

6
Solid Waste Authorities/Organizations
  • Information gathered on other county/regional
    solid waste organizations
  • Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
  • Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority
  • Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
  • Pinellas County, Florida
  • Portland Metro
  • Virginia Peninsulas Public Service Authority
  • Central Virginia Waste Management Authority
  • Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority
  • Delaware Solid Waste Authority
  • Environmental Cooperative of Main
  • Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority

7
Solid Waste Authorities/Organizations
  • Evaluate differences in
  • Membership
  • Governance
  • Day-to-day administration
  • Operations
  • Debt management
  • Applicability of other approaches to Region

8
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

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)

10
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)

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
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)

15
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

16
Host Fee
  • Added host fees for
  • Landfill
  • WTE facility
  • Amount can be easily varied in model

17
Current Cost Structure
  • SPSA costs used in pro forma analysis for
  • Administration
  • Environmental
  • Transfer Station
  • Recycling
  • WTE
  • City of Virginia Beach

18
Financial Metrics
  • 30-year Net Present Value Analysis

19
Net Present Value
  • Present Value of a cash flow at a given discount
    interest rate
  • Allows for comparison of complex alternatives

20
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

21
Sensitivity Analysis
  • Transportation Rate
  • Location of New Regional Landfill
  • CPI and Fuel Escalation Factors
  • Out of Area Tip Fee

22
Pro Forma Analysis
  • Expanding WTE capacity resulted in the highest
    NPV costs
  • Cooperating appears to provide long-term 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

23
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

24
Scenario No.
25
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

26
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

27
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

28
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

29
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 Authoritys mission

30
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

31
Remaining Disposal Capacity
  • SPSAs 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 30-year
    planning, but additional capacity would need to
    be permitted

32
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

33
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

34
Role of Privates
  • Collection
  • Recycling
  • Transportation
  • Municipal solid waste and construction,
    demolition and debris disposal

35
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

36
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

37
Other Factors Considered
  • Conversion technologies
  • Yard waste
  • Recycling
  • Rail haul
  • Transfer station network
  • Regional disposal asset ownership

38
Solid Waste Conversion Technologies
Technology Process Output Output Uses
Thermal Incineration (waste-to-energy WTE) Steam Power
Thermal Gasification, Pyrolysis, Autoclave, etc. Syngas Power / Chemical feedstock
Biological Anaerobic Digestion, Aerobic Digestion Compost, Biogas Soil amendment / Power
Bio-Chemical Hydrolysis Ethanol Biofuel
39
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

40
Yard Waste
  • Should be managed separately from MSW and not
    disposed in landfill
  • Process and recover for beneficial use

41
Rail Haul
  • Viable transportation option
  • Should be evaluated in more detail once disposal
    option and location determined

42
Transfer Station Network
  • Critical to solid waste system
  • Long-term viability, status, and capacity of each
    transfer station should be evaluated
  • Optimization study recommended

43
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

44
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

45
Recommendations and Next Steps
  • Review findings of study
  • Present study to City and County Councils and
    Supervisors, respectively

46
Recommendations and Next Steps
  • 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

47
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

48
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
About PowerShow.com