Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFI Analysis of Solid Waste Mngmnt f' 1 ) 1 ] J 1 J J ] 1 .J ] ] ] . 1 ] 1 j """, J . . ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR FISHER'S ISLAND, NEW YORK JULY 7, 1988 PREPARED FOR FISHERS ISLAND CONSERVANCY, INC. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. 111 CHARTER OAK AVE. HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106 (203) 722-1709 }J-. I '-/. 19 tlf j j j j j j j j j . . CONTENTS j j j :J j j j j j j SECTION PAGE l. BACKGROUND AND WASTE 1 GENERATION ESTIMATES 2 . SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 6 3. ECONOMIC COMPARISONS 8 4 . FISHER'S ISLAND INCINERATOR 18 OPTION 5. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OPTION 21 6. CONNECTICUT OPTION 23 7 . RECYCLING 25 Appendix A: Information Supplied By Cummings And Lafayette Appendix B: Information Supplied By NEWTEC . JI IJI I. . . SECTION 1 i I ~. I I. I BACKGROUND AND WASTE GENERATION ESTIMATES BACKGROUND Project Management Associates, Inc. ("PMA") was engaged by the Fisher's Island Conservancy, Inc. to provide a comparative analysis of the long range solid waste management options available to the residents of Fisher's Island. More specifically, PMA was charged with the task of comparing on- island incineration with off-island disposal, in terms of expected cost, environmental concerns and long-term availability. iI I '3 I - ~ ~ I ~. 1]1 j I ..; .- ; . , 1.1, The Fisher's Island Garbage anc ~efuse District ("FIGRD") had previously engaged Lockwood, Kessler and Bartlett, Inc. to perform a study "to identify a long-term plan for the environmentally-sound, cost effective disposal of the Island's municipal solid wastes". The LKB study, completed in December 1983, recommended that: o the existing trench and fill landfilling method should be an interim measure to be phased out as the alternative is implemented o the Island purchase a modular incinerator for the disposal of combustible waste, to be located at either the existing landfill or the gun pit o depending upon the location of the incinerator and the status of applicable regulations, an ash landfill should be located at either the existing landfill or the gun pit . o a wood chipper should be purchased to process wood debris . The FIGRD, acting upon the LKB recommendation, engaged Cummings & Lafayette of Norwich, Connecticut to assist in the development and environmental permitting for a modular incinerator facility, including an ash landfill, both to be located at the "gun pit" site owned by the District. 1 -.......' III I- I- I- i_ ~ i~ . . To date, a Consumat system with one or two C-325MA incinerators has been considered. The Conservancy, desiring that all the alternatives for solid waste management be thoroughly evaluated, and recognizing the passage of time since LKB's final report, have undertaken this re-evaluation of alternatives. Although obvious, the unique characteristics of Fisher's Island must be addressed in a study of the Island's options: As an island community, Fisher's Island has a very limited amount of land available to devote to solid waste management, whether landfilling, incineration or whatever. As a "summer vacation" community, the Island experiences significant population fluctuations summer-to-winter (as much as 10 to 1). Transportation to and from the Island is a critical consideration - water transport being the only available method - whether it is to transport supplies and equipment to an on-island facility or to transport waste materials (solid waste or leachate) off-island for disposal. In addition to the economic, environmental and technical considerations with which one would normally be concerned, the Island population must grapple with the issue of control. As a somewhat isolated, and therefore self-sufficient, community, the desire to solve and control the solid waste management issue confronting the Island is a strong one. ESTIMATES OF WASTE GENERATION , In order to study the solid waste management options available to the Island, and to provide an economic comparison of alternatives, PMA prepared an estimate of the amount of waste requiring disposal. ." Since no weigh data is available regarding the quantity of solid waste produced on the Island, PMA has sought to estimate these quantities." The method of estimation chosen was to rely upon separate estimates of population and per capita rates of waste generation. Estimates of the year-round, and seasonal fluctuations, for population on the Island were obtained from the Conservancy. That information is presented in Table 1. 2 . -.u-' ~ . . 1 ~ TABLE 1 FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK ESTIMATED POPULATION AND ~ASTE GENERATION BY MONTH, 1988 .~ M 0 N T H A"lNUAl j . JAN FES MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL .......-.....---------..-----------..----..-----...------------------------.-----------------------...--.-.-----.- ~ -- .:. . : :~ (1) 300 300 300 700 1,200 2,500 3,500 3,500 2,500 1,200 700 300 1,417 J .-. - '::'.3"V::~TH (2) 17.5 17.5 17.5 40.8 70.0 145.8 204.2 204.2 145.8 70.0 40.8 17.5 991. 7 . -',S/.EEI( 4.0 4.0 4.0 9.4 16.2 33.7 47.1 47.1 33.7 16.2 9.4 4.0 j __ l.. ~ ..:':;TE: TC~S/MONTH (3) 3.8 3.8 3.8 8.8 15.0 31.3 43.8 43.8 31.3 15.0 8.8 3.8 212.5 TC:~S/'WEEK 0.9 0.9 0.9 2.0 3.5 7.2 10.1 10.1 7.2 3.5 2.0 0.9 .~ ,OTAl 'WASTE: 4.9 4.9 4.9 11.4 19.6 40.9 57.2 57.2 40.9 19.6 11.4 4.9 1,204.2 ;';:~UCED \.lITH RECYCLING IMPACTS: ~..) t ,. ;:::~ ',,::EK AFTER GOAL REACHED) ., "j "~"" : 3.9 3.9 3.9 9.2 15.7 32.7 45.8 45.8 32.7 15.7 9.2 3.9 963.3 --', 3.4 3.4 3.4 8.0 13.7 28.6 40.0 40.0 28.6 13.7 8.0 3.4 342.9 .', ;j -',. 2.9 2.9 2.9 6.9 11.8 24.5 34.3 34.3 24.5 11.8 6.9 2.9 722.5 '" -"'-. 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.7 9.8 20.4 28.6 ~8.6 20.4 9.8 5.7 2.5 602.1 ',' . ='::CYCLABlES POTENTIALLY AVAI LABlE j .C:) ~::::( AFTER GOAL REACHED) .. . 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 3.9 8.2 11.4 11.4 8.2 3.9 2.3 1.0 240.8 H~. . :1 :::"L 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.4 5.9 12.3 17.2 17.2 12.3 5.9 3.4 1.5 361.3 -., . 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.6 7.8 16.3 22.9 22.9 16.3 7.8 4.6 2.0 481. 7 --" ~ . _."l: 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.7 9.8 20.4 28.6 28.6 20.4 9.8 5.7 2.5 602.1 ]I I~ ". . ~.:: : ~~:tJ C~ INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE CONSERVANCY, REFLECTING AVERAGE MONTHLY POPULATION (TOTAL SHO~N IS AVERAGE) " :_"'J'.G .7 TONS PER CAPITA PER YEAR RATE OF GENERATION, TOTAL IS TONS PER YEAR ~. ~__~~I~G .15 TONS PER YEAR PER CAPITA RATE OF GENERATION, TOTAL IS TONS PER YEAR . .~ 11 11 ;j i:j :1 . . ~ ~ The Suffolk County Planning Board was contacted in order to ascertain whether any additional information was available, and PMA was supplied with population estimates and projections and seasonal data for the Town of Southold, without a separate allocation for the Island. As a result, the estimates of population from the Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land have been used in this analysis. ~ l Waste generation estimates have been based upon historical data generated within the State of Connecticut, with which the Island is closely linked. Estimates of waste generation have been broken down into two categories: .:..1 '=1 1. Municipal Solid Waste: which is comprised of refuse collected by refuse collection vehicles and which would constitute the majority of the wastes produced by residential and institutional facilities on the Island. .=1 2. Bulky Waste: which is comprised of land clearing, demolition wastes and similar items. ~ For the above two categories of materials, the per capita rates of generation have been assumed to be .7 tons per capita per year and at least .1 tons per capita per year, respectively. While slightly less than the Statewide average for Connecticut, these estimates are believed to represent the Island's largely residential characteristics and the lack of industry thereon. '1 :) Combining these per capita estimates with the estimates of population on the Island produces the estimates of waste generation on the Island, by month, as presented in Table 1. As shown, the estimated amount of waste produced annually is approximately 992 tons of MSW and 213 tons of bulky waste. The resulting seasonal fluctuation ranges from 4 tons/week to 47 tons/week for MSW and from .1 to 10 tons for bulky waste. These totals compare with the prior work of LKB and the Trust For Public Land. ::1 ~ :3 Estimation of annual, and in particular monthly rates of waste g~neration for the Island is by its nature difficult. One would expect the normal seasonal variations associated with municipalities having less variable populations may not apply to the Island. P~ believes it is reasonable to expect the generation of MSW will-~losely follow population swings, as shown on Table 1. For bulky waste we do not have this same degree of confidence. The large number of residences on the Island, relative to its average population, may result in higher than average rates of bulky waste generation, and less seasonal variation than for MSW. An "empty" home may still produce bulky waste materials, resulting from improvements, groundskeeping, and comparable activities. Unfortunately, no 4 ".""'.. ~ :J ~ ~ ~ . . records are available from which to verify the amount of bulky waste produced. tt' !II t1I ~ WASTE REDUCTION Recognizing both New York State and Connecticut (the possible states in which the Island's waste would be disposed of) have adopted strong attitudes about recycling, PMA has estimated the impact on waste generation from various levels of recycling. This information is also presented in Table 1. While Connecticut has adopted a 25% recycling/waste reduction goal, New York's goal now represents 50% of total waste generation. If this were evenly applied to MSW and bulky waste, then the annual total produced would drop to just over 600 tons per year. Lesser recycling efforts would yield greater quantities of material requiring disposal. d rd 1I ;II III 1lI 18 . }J 1I 1I )JJ :3l - 5 .-.~' - ~ - I . . t. . r' llJ frJ I VI Jt [ , ~ [ 3 [ , tIJ "- I ~ . I ~ ~ I ~ )I 3 tt . . SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are offered to the Conservancy and the Island, and are based upon PMA's review of information available for each of the options: 1. Given the uncertainty regarding the impact on the current incinerator project from the expected adoption of the new DEC regulations, it is recommended that: a. The District undertake a comprehensive review of the technical and economic impact upon the project of the new regulations, (see page 20) and; b. That implementation activities (other than permit preparation) for the project be delayed until such a review is completed. 2. It is recommended that the Island undertake the preparation of a recycling plan, and its implementation. Such a plan will reduce the amount of waste requiring disposal, regardless of the option chosen. Arrangements should be sought as follows: ... -with the materials recovery facility in Groton for the delivery of mixed bottles and cans. -with waste paper recyclers for the acceptance of recovered newsprint and corrugated produced on the Island. -with scrap metal recyclers for the baling and removal of white goods and other metals from the Island. -for the segregation, and recycling, where possible, of bulky wastes (landclearing and demolition materials in partiCUlar). One item that could be implemented immediately would be the purcha~e of a brush an wood chipper to provide for the re-use of a portion of the waste wood now disposed of. 3. It is recommended that the Island enter into cooperative discussions with the Town of Southold regarding their compost project development activities. As additional information becomes available (the Town has a~reed to 6 :-0/ .1 ~ ; 1 .. . -1 ~ 5. -l ::) 1 6. 1 1 1 ~ ~ :I :J 3 :I ]I ~ . . forward a copy of their Request for Proposal to PMA), the Island will be in a better position to evaluate the attractiveness of this option. It is recommended that the Island maintain communications with the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resources Recovery Authority regarding the project's development and its ability to accept material from the Island, and with the Lisbon, Connecticut project as its viability is further established. It has come to our attention that the "metals dump" on the Island has accumulated a large volume of metals and other materials. It is suggested that arrangements be made with scrap metal recyclers to position a baler at the site and to remove as much of the recoverable materials as possible. An engineering investigation of the site would be justified in order to establish the most environmentally acceptable method of closing the site, and to protect the groundwater in its vicinity. Although on-Island options have generally been perceived as providing greater "local" control than off-Island options, in practice we believe the "essential control" for solid waste management issues will continue to ultimately rest in the hands of State and Federal regulators. Although the on-Island option may be more appealing from a control viewpoint; regardless of cost, one should expect continued changes in the regulatory requirements associated with incinerator facilities. . 7 ~ /1 ~ ~L ~ r ~ I ~ ~ -I ill ( ~ -r nt r . f- a r- !II I'" JI \- 1I 1--- :I -(- :3 . . SECTION 3 ECONOMIC COMPARISONS An attempt has been made to estimate the annual costs associated with each of the three options considered. Where available, information was incorporated as supplied from participants involved in the incinerator project and from the ferry districts. Otherwise, assumptions as noted were utilized. It is important to recognize this information is offered for comparison purposes, and does not represent estimated costs for implementing a specific engineering design for any of the options, since such a design is not available (even for the incinerator project). The information should be considered as "estimated budget costs" for each of the options. For purposes of comparison, it is useful to note that according to the Town of Southold Accounting Department, the FIGRD has a fiscal year 1988 budget of $240,600, which consists of the following: Contract for Collection and Burnable Dump Commissioners' Fees and Expenses Lease of Land Office Expenses and . Advertising Bonds and Insurance Legal Rodent Control Trenching and Grading Epgineering study and . Incinerator Planning Other $115,000 9,000 14,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 600 10,000 70,000 ~.' , 10.000 ~ Total $240,600 The FIGRD submits its budget to the Town of Southold which, without review or approval, includes on the Fishers Island residents' tax bill a line item for the FIGRD. The Town then acts as the collection agency for the District. 8 11 ~-~' 11 . . ~ The amount collected by the Town, on behalf of the FIGRD must be distinguished from, and is in addition to, the Town property taxes paid by Fishers Island residents. It is a special assessment used for the purposes of supplying disposal services by the FIGRD. 11 JJ Based upon the current FIGRD budget, the cost of disposal for the Island, on per ton basis, is $242.61. Excluding the $70,000 allocated to the Engineering Study & Incinerator Planning and including the Pro-rata Southold Property Tax of $64,000, results in a $236.57 per ton cost. ~ ~ A. INCINERATOR PROJECT ca For the incinerator project two separate approaches are presented to estimate the annual costs. Information was supplied to PMA by Mr. Lafayette of Cummings & Lafayette, consultants to the FIGRD, regarding their estimate of costs. :a After reviewing that information, and discussing it with Mr. Lafayette, PMA determined it would offer an independent estimate of the incinerator option. Please refer to material following in this section and in section 4 for the rational behind this determination. .~ ~ FIGRD Estimates "j Table 3A presents the cost data supplied by Cummings & Lafayette to PMA. The only calculation performed by PMA in preparation of Tdble 3A was that to determine annual amortization of capital cost. This was performed in order to provide consistency in the review of information among the options. ~ PI1A Estimates .2 For the reasons stated later and in in Section 4, PMA undertook to independently develop an estimate of the capital and operating costs of the incinerator project, as follows: "3 1. . Equipment: We have used equipment cost data supplied to us by Consumat representatives. The equipment option incorporated would include two combustion units, plus acid gas and particulate control equipm~nt. A word of caution is in order; this i~formation was developed prior to the publication of the new DEC proposed regulations. The vendor has informed PI1A that the equipment specifications were not designed to meet the new, proposed air emission limitations, and particulate limits. Other aspects of the regulations not addressed in the estimates are ~1I ~ :D . 9 :t . . requirements for continuous emission monitoring devices and record keeping. 2. Cost of Building and Site Work: The amount was assumed as shown in Table 3A. 3. Landfill Capital Cost: An assumption was made with respect to the additional costs necessitated to comply with the new regulations. 4. Operating Expenses: PMA has discussed with Consumat the operating cost parameters for the proposed facility (a two unit system with air pollution control). Consumat recommended the following approach to estimating the operating budget: a.) That a small tractor be included to manage wastes at the facility and to load the incinerator. b.) That during the summer months a staff of three would be required to operate the facility _ two persons at other times of the year. c.) That power consumption will represent 42 kwh per ton of waste processed. d.) That lime consumption will represent $1.17 per ton of waste processed. e. ) ash for That a contract be let to the ashfill to avoid this purpose. for transportation of purchase of a truck f.) That a repair and replacement fund of $6.00 per ton be included. g. ) '!'hat the facility would need to be heated in the winter to prevent damage to the equipment. . h.) . hour oil consumption will be 19 gallons per 10 operating day, per unit. 5. Cost of Disposal of Leachate: For the incinerator option, it is recognized there would be a need to transport and dispose of leachate collected from the ash landfill at a wastewater treatment plant, or hazardous waste treatment facility (proposed part 360-2.17). This can be an expensive activity, but estimates of this cost are not available from the District. Since no information has been available regarding the 10 ~ I J I J B. OFF-ISLAND OPTIONS - SOUTHOLD & CONNECTICUT . . amount of material to be produced, or the location or cost of its disposal, this cost element has shown as an unknown. I These two options would both entail the construction of a transfer station, and delivery of waste off-island via truck and ferry. 1. 1 I 2 . J , 3 . 1 ] 4. ~ ~ 5. ~ .. ] ] ] ] ] Station; this capital cost has been estimated at $400,000, including site work. This would provide an adequate budget to construct an enclosed building, and to provide space for recycling containers. Equipment; It is estimated that $150,000 will be expended to purchase a truck, and boxes for transport of waste off-island. This is deemed a conservative budget in 1988 dollars. Operations; An estimate has been prepared of the operating cost associated with the transfer station. It was assumed that a single, full - time operator would be required (at $25,000 per year) and additional part-time labor would be required to handle the seasonal needs of the system, and sick and vacation time for other staff. Off-Island Transportation; Based on information supplied by the Fisher's Island Ferry District and the Cross Island Ferry Service, we have developed an estimate of what it may cost to deliver to either of the two off-island options, Connecticut or Southold. Off-Island Disposal Costs; For each of the Options PMA included the estimate supplied to us of th~ portion of real property taxes paid by the Island, attributed to Southold's waste disposal activities ($64,000 per year was estimated by the FIGRD). If the Island were successful in obtaining a ~ax<reduction in the event other than the Southold option were selected, then the estimated costs associated with those options could be reduced by approximately $60 per ton per year. 11 ._u--' J1 . . . - C. COST COMPARISON lIt A comparison of the estimated total annual costs, and per ton annual costs is presented in Table 2. Based on the assumptions utilized, it appears that Option One, the incinerator project, may be the most expensive option should the elements provided for by PHA be needed. Options Two and Three (Southold and Connecticut) are relatively close in cost and are judged roughly equivalent. ill None of the Options considered is without uncertainty. Reviewing each of the above options, attempting to identify which of the cost elements for each have the greatest possibility for change results in the following lists: ~ !II 1. Incinerator Facility - Facility Capital and Operating Costs - Landfill Capital and Operating Costs - Application of the proposed DEC regulations to the above elements. Il1 iIJ 2. Southold Option - Future cost of the new compostingjlandfill program ZI 3. Connecticut Options If the Southeastern Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority will provide access to their facility, or the Lisbon Project becomes a reality and access is desired, then the capital, operating, and disposal cost assumptions should be reasonably accurate. .. .... Jl l1t As noted on Table 2, PHA has certain reservations regarding the FIGRD estimates, and do not recommend their use ~or direct comparison. Included among those reservations are: .. 1.) PHA is not convinced the project will avoid the ~1stallation of acid-gas and particulate control equipment. :I 2.) The FIGRD plan ~ one unit only - may prove difficult to manage-tn the summer months when the unit is down for unscheduled outages. Mr. Lafayette has indicated that under these circumstances, waste would either a) be placed in the new landfill for subsequent reclamation and combustion or b) transported to Connecticut for disposal. Both of the "back-ups" involve a cost to Fishers Island, which was not provided for. 11 ~ ~ 12 '11ft ~ ......... ;II . . . - - . III , III 3.) The size of the landfill (according to Mr. Lafayette) is too small to address the 20 year horizon of the facility. 4.) No tractor was included to manage the waste within the building. 5.) It does not appear that an allowance was made for landfill operations cos~; which, under the NYDEC's new regulations, could be extensive in terms of monitoring and reporting. 6.) No allowance was made for leachate disposal off- Island, to the extent that will be required. 7.) There was no contingency allowance. q 8.) The landfill design (details of which have not been available), may not comply with the new, proposed NYDEC regulations based upon the minimal estimate provided. 1lt 9. ) There was no allowance for insurance. ;11 , 111 - .. II .... II . ']I . 13 ~ ~ -~'lf-' '!;; ;., ..J! '.:i ;l., ,( A,;" II ...,[ 1"11 i,~<'-., j'.I; !J':;U,I;i:! i-':,(,2'!2 ! AnnUill Opel'"l ing Cost $48,500 1129,'7S0 $66,875 Transportntion Unknown $44,627 Off-lsLund Processing/DisposaL Unknown ,~' Pro-rata SouthoLd Property Tax $64, ,JO $64,000 $64,000 TotaL Annual Ccst $198,840 $454,562 $242,724 i, Per Ton Cost $200,50 $458.37 $244.76 . The FIGRO figures are presented here for informationaL purposes onLy. PMA has certain reservations about the FIGRD estimates and therefore advises against thei r use for comparative purposes. . $67,222 $66,875 $29,751 $54,544 $64,000 $282,392 . $284.76 ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ :l ~ :1 '1 :1 ,~ ,:] 3 ~ ."J ~ ;J ::J . . TABLE 3 A - FIGRD (BASED UPON INfORMATION SUPPLIED BY CUMMINGS & LAFAYETTE) OPTION ONE INCINERATOR I lINED ASHFILL PROGRAM ($ 1988) ASSU1lptions A. Tons of ~aste Processed AnnualLy B. Ammount of Landfill Leachate Requiring Off-Island Disposal C. Capital Costs Incinerator One Consumat #C.325MA Pollution Control Equipment Building & Site Uork 992 Unknown $239,835 $239,835 $0 $366,580 $0 $100,000 Tractor lined Ashfill Total Capital Cost D. Annual Ammotization Term Interest Rate Capital Ratio Annual Amortization E. Ferry Cost To New London From New London to Southold F. Annual Cost of Operations Personnel Fuel Utilities, Lime, Etc. Insurance Maintenance of Incinerator Lined AshfiLl O&M (Incl. Monitoring) Repairs & RepLacements Contingency - 25% of Above Items $706,415 20 years 8.00% 1.2 $86,340 $0 Per Round Trip $0 Per Round Trip $35,OUO $3,000 $2,000 $0 $8,500 $0 $0 $0 Tota~ Annual O&M Cost $48,500 Estimated Gast Per Ton Annual Capital Cost Amortization Annuat O&M cost TrJnsportation Cost Off-Island Leachate Processing Cost Pro-rata Southold Property Tax $86,340 $48,500 Unknown Unknown $64,000 Estimated Total Annual Cost $198,840 .~.. Per ton $200.50 1 1 1 1 J :J :l J =1 "] 1 J 1 :] ] 1 ] J ] . . TASLE 3 B - BASED UPON INFORMATION DEVELOPED BY PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES OPT ION ONE INCINERATOR I LINED ASH'ILL PROGRAM ($ 1988) ASSUTlpt ions A. Tons of Uaste P,rocessed Annually B. Ammount of Landfill leachate Requiring Qff.lsland DisposaL C. Capital Costs Incinerator * Two Consumat #C-325MA Pollution Control Equipment Building & Site uork 992 Unknown $1,553,906 $446,500 $1,107,406 $350,000 $30,000 $200,000 Tractor lined Ashfill Total Capital Cost D. Annual Ammotization Term Interest Rate Capital Ratio Annual Amortization E. Ferry Cost To New London From New London to Southold F. Annual Cost of Operations Personnel Fuel & Heat Utilities, Lime, Etc. Insurance Suppl i es lined Ashfill O&M (Incl. Monitoring) Repairs & Replacements Contingency - 25% of Above Items $2,133,906 20 years 8.00% 1.2 $260,812 $150 Per Round Trip $150 Per Round Trip $42,500 $5,000 $6,500 $5,000 $10,000 $30,000 $6,000 $24,750 Tot~'... Annual O&M Cost $129,750 Estimated Cost Per Ton ~ Annual Capital Cost Amortization Annu<Jl O&M cost Transportation Cost Off-Island leachate Processing Cost Pr04rata Southold Property Tax $260,812 $129,750 Unknown Unknown $64,000 Estimated Total Annual Cost $454,562 .......- Per ton $458.37 * Source: '1/16/87 Harper (NEUTEC) Letter to Lafayette . . TABLE 4 - BASED UPON INFORMATION DEVELOPED BY PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES OPTION T\.IO fOUN OF SDUTHOLD ($ 1988) Assumptions A. Tons of ~aste Processed Annually B. Tons Of Waste Per Off-Island Truck Trip C. Capital Costs Transfer Station (Incl. Rolling Stock:) .Total Capital Cost D. Annual Ammotization Term Interest Rate Capital Ratio Annual Amortization E. Ferry Cost To New London From New London to Southold F. Annual Cost of Operations Personnel Fuel & Chemicals Uti 1 ities Insurance SuppL i es Contingency 25j~ Of Above I terns Total Annual O&M Cost Estimated Cost Per Ton Annual Capital Cost Amortization . Annual O&M cost Transportation Cost Off-Island Disposal Cost Pro-rata.SouthoLd Property Tax Estimated Total Annual Cost Per ton 992 10 $550,000 $550,000 20 years 8.00% 1.2 $67,222 $300 $150 Per Round Per Round Trip Trip $40,000 $5,000 $1,000 $5,000 $2,500 $13,375 $66,875 $67,222 $66,875 $44,627 (IncLuded in Southold Property Tax) $64,000 $242,724 $244.76 ".u..P., I . . , 1 TABLE 5 - BASED UPON INFORMATION DEVELOPED BY PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES OPTION THREE CONNECTICUT I ($ 1988) Assumptions I A. Tons of Uaste Processed Annually B. Tons Of Uaste Per Off-Island Truck Trip C. Capital Costs Transfer Station (Incl. Rolling StOCK) 992 10 , $550,000 1 Total Capital Cost D. Annual Ammotization Term Interest Rate Capital Ratio Annual Amortization E. Ferry Cost To New London From New London to Southold F. Annual Cost of Operations Personne l Fuel & Chemicals Uti l ities Insurance Suppl i es Contingency $40,000 $5,000 $1,000 $5,000 $2,500 $13,375 $550,000 J 20 years 8.00% 1.2 $67,222 $300 $150 J Per Round Per Round ) ] 25% of Above I terns 1 Total AnnuaL a&M Cost $66,875 Connecticut Cost of Disposal $55 Per Ton J Estimated Cost Per Ton I Annual CapitaL Cost Amortization Annual O&M cost Tran~~ortation Cost Off-Island Disposal Cost P~o-rata ~outhold Property Tax $67,222 $66,875 $29,751 $54,544 $64,000 1 1 Estimated Total Annual Cost $282,392 Per ton $284.76 I ] 1 .--0/ Trip Trip :J . . :I I i ':i I ILl I '~ 1 SECTION 4 FISHER'S ISLAND INCINERATOR OPTION la i iej , I ~ I iL! This section provides information obtained from various sources about the incinerator program now under development by the FIGRD. Sources contacted to obtain information about the program were: 1. The Garbage and Refuse District. 2. Mr. Lafayette, of Cummings & Lafayette, the District's consultant. 3. Representatives of Consumat, and NEWTEC, their New England dealer who has supplied information about the project to the District. -1 4. Mr. Paul Roth of the N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYDEC"), regarding the solid waste aspects of the project. :J i ~ , ~ I ~ 5. Mr. Robert Capp, also of NYDEC, regarding the air emissions aspect of the project. 6. Mr. Frank Murphy, of the Town of Southold regarding the Town's potential ability to accept leachate produced by the project's ash landfill. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Although PMA has not been supplied with a formal project description. containing details regarding the facilities to be included, the following generally describes the pr9ject: . I 'rJ I I '~ I 'a I . ~ I . , a. An incinerator building would be constructed that would house one incinerator. The units priced thus far arQ ~he Consumat model C-325MA, which offer an extended mode of operation. b. A new, lined ash landfill would be constructed to dispose of ash produced by the incinerator facil i ty. '-'""~ 18 . . Municipal solid waste would be received within the enclosed building, and loaded into an incinerator. Following loading, the unit would "incinerate" the material (including during the evening hours). At the beginning of the next work day, the unit would be opened up, ash removed, and then recharged with waste. Ash generated by the facility would be deposited at the newly developed ash landfill. No energy would be recovered from the combustion of Haste at the facility. Under current regulations of the DEC, the small size of the units would eliminate the inclusion of air pollution control equipment (other than the inherent design of the system and its combustion controls). However substantial modifications to those regulations have been proposed, as discussed below. The facility and the ash landfill would be located at the site of the "gun pits", presently owned by the District. Bulky waste would be disposed of as currently, relying upon a burning permit from the DEC. ,':iRESOLVED ISSUES Since permit applications have not been prepared at this ti~e, it is difficult to fully evaluate the proposed project. [':.!1\ has identified the following issues which could impact the ~urrent plans of the District, and or the cost thereof: 1. - A plan has not been developed for the disposal of lea~hate collected from the ash landfill. This material will need to be disposed of at an approved waste-water treatment facility off- Island. Fishers Island does not have such a facility. Only two waste-water facilities have been identified in .suffolk County that might be relied upon; one is in Greenport, the ot~er is the Suffolk County Belle Haven facility. PMA has not pursued the acceptability of those treatment 'plants from either on environmental or economic basis. Estimates of the amount and or quantity of leachate from-the Island have not been offered. Further~ concerns exist regarding whether this material would be classified as a hazardous waste, and what impact such a classification would have on its transportation off-Island. . ~"-:.. 19 . . 2. Mr. Roth, of the DEC, reported that in order for permit applications for the construction of the facility and landfill to be deemed complete, a recycling plan would have to be prepared which addresses the recycling goals of the state of New York (currently stated as 50% waste reduction). To our knowledge, the preparation of such a plan has not been initiated. 3. The DEC has recently (May, 1988) promulgated new, Draft Regulations regarding both the solid waste (particularly the landfill) and air emissions aspects of (the incinerator) waste facilities in the state. The solid waste regulations (part 360) would substantially affect the design and operating requirements associated with ash handling and landfill systems. If the Fisher's Island project application is deemed complete by the end of this year, it is possible that some aspects of the landfill design may still be based on the existing regulations. However, we have been informed by DEC that the new air emission regulations (part 219) would require initial installation or later retrofit of air pollution control equipment on the facility, notwithstanding its small size. The equipment would be designed to remove both acid gases (HCl and S02)' and particulates from the state emissions. These requirements are distinguished from the Federal PSD permitting requirements, from which it is our understanding the facility would remain exempt. ~ 4 A comprehensive review of the impact of all the new, proposed regulations on the project should be undertaken. It is recognized that the proposed regulations are not now a requirement, however the trend in environmental regulation of waste disposal systems suggest the Island should expect most, if not substantially all, of the proposed ~egulations will be adopted in the near future. .. "-" 4 . Back-up lanofill disposal. Depending upon the configuration.~f the system, and in particular whether one or two units are incorporated into the plant, some amount of waste may not be processed during the summer months due to unscheduled outages. A plan for the disposal of wastes during this period, including an estimate of the quantity of material to be disposed of in this fashion should be prepared. :] l 1 20 1 ---~...., > . . SECTION 5 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OPTION ill." !~ ~u ill". ~ ~ I d 1 This section discusses the potential for delivering wastes produced on the Island to disposal facilities operated by the Town of Southold. PMA traveled to Southold, and met with Mr. Frank Murphy, the ~own Supervisor. Mr. Murphy confirmed the Town is willing (and obligated) to accept and dispose of waste produced by the Island. Other than taxes paid (estimated by the FIGRD to be ~64,OOO annually), there would be no special charge for waste so delivered to the Cutchogue landfill. He reported the Town's Cutchogue Landfill has adequate capacity to serve the entire Town, particularly given the efforts now underway to implement a composting program that would reduce the rate at which landfill space is consumed. Recycling in the Town is voluntary, and bins are provided at the landfill to receive recyclable materials. No plans are made to implement a mandatory recycling program in the Town. The Town is currently planning a composting facility, and has selected seven "finalist" companies from responses to a request for qualifications issued approximately one year ago. These finalists will be invited to submit detailed proposals in the near future, and it is planned that a firm will be selected by the end of this year. The selected vendor would then be responsible for constructing (and possibly operating) a municipal solid waste composting facility. It has been projected that the new system would be implemented within eighteen months following selection. Until proposals are received, the cost for participation in the program can not be .eliably projected. However, Mr. Murphy stated the compostingjlandfill program may cost in the range of $25-$30 per ton. ' _ ~ REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION In order to transport municipal solid waste (and possibly all or a portion of the Island's bulky waste) to Southold, the following would be required: 21 -~-o/ j~ 1 . , . . "~ . . A "transfer" station on the Island that would accept materials delivered by collectors and residents. , 1 .!J j 'lj ~ :U l 11 1 1 1] i A compactor that would load the waste into high density containers ("roll-off boxes"), for ease of transport off- Island. A vehicle, either hired or owned by the District, to be used to deliver the loaded containers to Southold. To accomplish this the truck would first travel to New London (via Ferry) and then to Southold (via ferry). Sufficient operating personnel (at least 2) during the peak generation months to allow one individual to be fully dedicated to delivering waste, and yet to maintain operation of the station at the same time. At the transfer station, equipment to accept waste deliveries would be housed within a building enclosure. Additional space may be appropriate to provide for receipt and storage of recyclables. j Waste would be compressed hydraulically, and loaded into large containers, for transport off-Island. A special "roll- off" truck would be purchased, that would pick up the loaded containers, replace them with empties and transport them off- Island. The same truck would be able to pick up open or closed "boxes", containing recyclables o.r "white goods" for their delivery off-Island as well. :1 I j l j ~ Although hydraulic equipment of the nature envisioned is quite reliable, it is recommended that the facility provide for two "compactors" for redundancy purposes. - ~r 22 'j I , 11 Ij . . SECTION 6 j CONNECTICUT OPTION I I ,.,.;1; ~ Consideration has been given to the potential for disposing of municipal solid waste and recyclable materials in Connecticut, with a focus on the regional waste program sponsored by the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resources Recovery Authority. I Ij i U ~I It is known, based upon prior studies performed by PMA, that the only landfill which is privately owned and operated in Southeastern Connecticut has been deemed unacceptable by the Connecticut DEP to allow contractual arrangements to be made for additional materials to be deposited there, due to the large volume now received and the limited remaining life of the site. Recognition is also given to the private resource recovery development effort now underway to site a new project in Lisbon, Connecticut, which would potentially be available to the Island. However, the developers have been unable to quote a proposed service fee and key environmental permits have not been applied for at this point. As a result, although the potential exists for this project to offer service to the Island in the future, we are unable to provide principal features of the project (e.g. cost) at this time. u j J :1 I i :J I 1 ~ I ~ 1 I 1 I I~ For the reasons given above, our Connecticut investigations have been directed to the Regional Authority's programs. The status of the resource recovery facility being developed by the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resource Recovery Authority is as Follows: 1. The site has been acquired. 2_The agreement with American REF-Fuel providing for the construction, ownership, and operation of the facility by REF-Fuel has been negotiated and entered into. 3. Key environmental permits necessary to the construction of the facility have been applied for, and the Connecticut DEP is now in the process of holding final hearings on the project prior to reaching a determination as to the environmental suitability of the project. .,"'"' ~ . 23 ~ . . !t 4. The host community and other groups have opposed the implementation of the project. d 5. The Authority has entered into Agreements with municipalities which, over time (after 10 years of operations) are expected to produce an amount of waste sufficient to fill the plant provided current projections of rates of growth in waste generated and population are realized. !I 11 'It ~ ~ I 11 ~ As a result of the above factors, the Authority represented an inability to enter into discussions with the Island at this time regarding the potential for accepting municipal solid waste at their plant. However, the relatively small amount of waste produced on the Island, in comparison with the large size of the Connecticut facility (600 tons per day of capacity) suggests that discussions with the Authority could be revisited in approximately six months. Additionally, at that time information now lacking may be available from the developers of the Lisbon facility. Further, should the landfill in Canterbury be granted expansion permits applied for, it is conceivable the Island's waste may be accepted there for some duration. REOUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION Participation in a Southeastern Connecticut Project, if achievable, would require the construction of a transfer station, as discussed previously in connection with the Town of Southold option. .. 24 "-".,..' . . ~ II ~ SECTION 7 RECYCLING Regardless of the alternative long range option selected by the Island for disposal of its solid wastes, recycling will certainly be a part of that program. This conclusion is supported by the regulatory activities of the New York state Department of Environmental Conservation, which currently suggests a 50% recycling goal. In fact, DEC has indicated that a recycling plan must be a component of any application for permits to construct or operate a new solid waste facility on the Island, whether a transfer station, landfill or incinerator. ~ I 11 ~ For several years, a recycling facility has been privately operated in the Town of Groton, Connecticut. The facility, originally owned by the Town, and recently transferred to the Regional Authority mentioned previously, accepts mixed bottles and cans from a variety of municipalities. Proprietary technology at the plant is employed to segregate the materials and to produce marketable products. PMA contacted both the operator and the Regional Authority to discuss the potential for delivery of recyclables from the Island to the facility. Mr. Peter Karter, President of Resource Recovery Systems, Inc. (the operator), reported the facility is capable of accepting the mixed recyclable materials potentially available from the Island. Currently, only mixed bottles and cans are accepted. The Island 'would need to separately plan for marketing and re- use of newsprint, white goods, waste oil, and other recyclal:).les. The ,Regional Authority also Kcported a willingness to accept recyclables from tpe Island at any time. There is currently no charge and no 'payment for the delivery of materials to the facility, although they could not assure PMA that a service charge would not be needed at some time in the future in order to maintain operation of the facility on "a break-even" basis. . 25 :.0/ .~ ~ J 'j . . iU Although plastic recycling is widely discussed as a desirable goal, unfortunately the necessary technology and capacity to re-use plastics on a Regional or state-wide basis does not now exist. Rutgers University is concentrating on the development of processes for future application to plastics recycling. The state of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management has decided to provide grant funds to one of Connecticut's Regions to implement a plastics recycling program. Hopefully, these efforts will succeed, and the Island would be able to recycle plastics at some time in the future. l J '11 IlJ . II] 1 .13 . 1 '11 One recycling activity that the Island could implement immediately would be to purchase a "brush and wood chipper". Such a device could assist the Island in reusing some of those materials (primarily for landscaping activities), and to thereby avoid open burning, or alternate disposal. ~ ] . .""" 26 j 1 j j j lJ U U , a 1 J : I ,11 I I '3 I , 1 ~ . I I II 1 .~,. . APPENDIX A . INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY CUMMINGS AND LAFAYETTE 27 . . FISHERS ISLAND INCINERATOR (Document Supp~ied By Cummings & Lafayette) The following tables list the inicial startup cost an~ the yearly operational cost of the facility. Table 1 Inicial Cost ITDl DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT UNIT PRICE .'\.MOUNT I. Consumat C-325 MA 1 L.S. S166,700.00 S166,700.00 2 . Freight 1 L.S. S4,560.00 S4,560.00 3. Equipment Installation 1 L.S. $63,245.00 S63,245.00 4 . Curing, Start Up, Training 1 L.S. S5,330.00 S5,330.00 5. Metal Building 5345 L.S. 560.00 $320,700.00 6 . Ash Landfill 1 L.S. SlOO,OOO.OO S100,000.00 7 . Gravel Road Base 710 C.Y. S16.00 Sll,360.00 8. Road Subbase 710 C.Y. S15.00 $10,650.00 9. Landscape 735 S.F. S2.00 Sl,470.00 10. Retaining \-lall 5 C.Y. 5400.00 S2,000.00 II. \-Iater Line 400 L.F. S25.00 S10,000.00 12. Sewer Line 400 L.F. S20.00 S8,000.00 13 . SeHer ~lanho1e 2 B.A. Sl,200.00 S2,400.00 -------------- Total S706,415.00 Table 2 Yearly Operational Cost ITEM 1. 2. 3. 4. DESCRIPTION Maintenance of Incinerator Building Utilities Fuel For Incinerator Labor QTY. UNIT L.S. L.S. 3000 GAL. 2800 HRS. UNIT PRICE AMOUNT S8,500.00 S2,000.00 S3,000.00 S35,000.00 S48,500.00 S1. 00 S12.50 Total . :._' j j i j a fi u ( ( ~ ~ i. I ~ , t I ~ I I 11 ~ . . . . APPENDIX B INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY NEWTEC .. ~ 28 .-.0/ j' j j 1 { { ,{ 1 , ! 1 t t t j I ~1 It j jl t t ~ I . . L1 NEWTEC NEW ENGLAND WASTE TO ENERGY CORP. 7V MAPLE STREET 0 P.O. BOX 1126 0 SOUTH LANCASTER, MA 01561 0617-365-7177 November 16, 1987 Cummings & Lafayette, P.C. 317 Main Street Norwich, CT 06360 Attention: Mr. Patrick Lafayette Subject: Fisher Island NY Project options Dear Pat: The purpose of this letter is to identify the various options we have discussed concerning the subject project. Option #1 Two Consumat model C-325M incinerators, complete with mechan- ical loader, loading bridge, and controls: 255,700 4,800 62,400 8,200 Equipment costs Freight to Fisher Island Equipment installation Curing, startup, and training $331,100 Total Option #2 Two Consumat model C-325MA (same as Ossipee, NH) incinerators, complete with mechanical loader, ash removal, loading bridge, and c\2ntrols: 333,400 7,600 97,300 8,200 Equipment costs Freight Equipment installation Curing,' startup, and training $446,500 Total Option #3 Addition of BACT (Acid gas control, particulate control,quench ~" j j . . sy~tem) to either equipment option: I.' 913,406 9,800 178,400 5,800 BACT i Freight Installation of BACT Startup < , :!]. Ullll . ~:T~ _.CIl . a. ., r Ill. ::E-. Illlllt 1Il-. ...Ill t CIl:J : A., ;;: III () ( :J 0, 1ll:J - lC tn ~ CIl CIl - 3" 0 CIl < - :Jill ...:J , n -< :!] III :T CIl ., j t $1,107,406 Total j Note that each incinerator system would be completely in- dependent so each could be run separately. ~ ~ It is very important that as is chosen, that we interface with the building structure. issue as soon as possible. soon as the equipment option our equipment structure needs Please communicate on this ( i ( In the meantime, if I can be of further service, please don't hesitate to call. III iii :J a. \ J t ~:~'~. }~~~~ Howard P. Harper Sales Manager 1 HPH/ jlm ] . 1 i I "1 l ~ l ,~ t . ......... "''''''.'~n''T''''''., <:".' C(" (' ('r-....'''''''r 4 ,...,....~,...! ,r-.... n...,..........'"..,'" ...",........,....."'. c..,.....'.,-:--,...".,,..... () ""......',..,.. ...,"......