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..,.....'.,-:--,...".,,..... () ""......',..,.. ...,"......