HomeMy WebLinkAboutSolid Waste Management Report 10/1986TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
�1 � j
OCT
� 2; 01986
L
TOWN] OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT REPORT
OCTOBER 1986
I—",HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C.
ConsultingEngineers, Environmental Scientists and Planners
Melville, N.Y. Farmingdale, N.Y. Riverhead, N.Y.
r2j##t HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
OCT2 41986 Uz
4.7 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES "OWN ()F SOUTH LD
As tabulated previously in Table 2-13, the Town of Southold
generated an average of approximately 70 tons per day in 1985 and
is anticipated to generate a peak of approximately 130 tons per
day by 2010 of municipal solid waste.
The selection of a technology is a major step in the develop-
ment of a resource recovery program. The costs associated with a
particular type of technology is, to some extent, dependent upon
the level of risk the Town is willing to assume. The most proven
technologies in the size range indicated above would be utili-
zation of a mass -burn refractory -lined convection boiler or a
prefabricated modular excess air mass -burn incinerator. However,
both of these technologies would require substantial capital ex-
penditures (>$10 million) and, after an allowance for heat re-
covery/electricity generation and resale, would result in costs
in excess of $30. per ton.
Two types of technology that are available in the size range
the Town of Southold falls within are composting and waste distil-
lation. Unfortunately, both of these technologies have very
limited operating data on which to make an unqualified recommen-
dation. Yet, on the other hand, both technologies offer a sig-
nificant cost savings over the mass -burn technology.
It is anticipated that a weight reduction of approximately
70 percent will be achieved with the composting process. The 30
percent by weight fraction would consist of non -compos. table items
and tailings. Ferrous metals could be magnetically separated and
the remaining fraction compacted .to 15 percent by volume in a
4.27
U244 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Instrumentation and degree of operational complexity is
higher for the waste distillation process as compared to the com-
posting process.
In consideration of the above, we recommend that the Town
proceed with composting of municipal solid waste and sludge, sub-
ject to evaluation of the first six months of operating data from
the Portage, Wisconsin facility. Since Wisconsin's climate paral-
lels the climate in Southold, we would anticipate that the data
and performance of the Eweson digester. could be extrapolated to -
this area. Likewise, the percentage of tailings and non -compost -
able items relative to the incoming waste stream could be ascer-
tained. By proceeding with this approach, it allows the Town to
proceed with a potentially innovative and cost-effective approach
for small communities while, at the same time, not committing the
Town of Southold and its financial resources to a process that
does not work. If the composting process does not meet its per-
formance objectives, this alternative will be eliminated and the
remaining three types of technologies mentioned above will be
re-evaluated.
The capital cost estimates for composting, based on the
Eweson digester and waste distillation are presented in Table
4-1, based on 1986 dollars. Although the estimated costs are
based on a very preliminary design concept, they are sufficient
to establish a relative cost for the project. Engineering, legal
and permits are estimated as a percentage of construction cost.
Capitalization is for 20 years at nine (9) percent interest.
4.29
N HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
COSTS
Capital Costs
Annual Capital Costs
(9% over 20 years)
Annual 0&M Expenses.
Total Annual Costs
Revenue
Net Annual Costs
Costs Per Ton
TABLE 4-1
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
PROCESS
COMPOSTING
$4,000,000.
438,000.
300,000.
738,000.
141,000.
$ 597,000.
$16.36*
*Based on 100 tons MSW per day.
4.30
WASTE DISTILLATION
$8,000,000.
876,000.
755,000.
1,631,000.
806,000.
$ 825,000.
$22.60*
■ I2j*#t HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
The cost per ton figures indicated are based on an average
quantity of 100 tons/day MSW for the composting operations and
100 tons/day for the waste distillation process. In addition,
the composting process would convert 10 tons/day of sludge to
compost. While the waste distillation process at'the Marcal
Paper Mills, Inc. did not decompose sludge, the process can be
designed to be capable of handling sludge. It is anticipated
that first year costs per ton of MSW would be approximately 20
percent more due to an average MSW quantity of only 80 tons/day.
4.31
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS
125 BAYLIS ROAD, SUITE 140, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747 • 516-752-9060
October 15, L986
Supervisor Francis J. Murphy and
Members of the Town Board
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Gentlemen:
We are pleased to transmit our final Engineering Report en-
titled "Solid Waste Management Report" for the Town of Southold.
This report has been prepared in accordance with our proposal
dated February 27, 1986.
This report examines current solid waste disposal practices,
identifies future alternatives in consideration of the "Long
Island Landfill Law", and recommends various steps and tasks that
should be conducted prior to implementing a full-scale resource
recovery project.
At your convenience, we would be pleased to meet with you to_
discuss any aspects of the report.
F itij� Very truly yours,
`) r
HOLZMACHER,
LO' C '� McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
\
Cr
Gary K. Loesch, P.E.
0. 0566,5 ` Project Director
�UFc S SIO`j
GEL: vm
I
�_ Melville, New York • Farmingdale, New York • Riverhead, New York • Fairfield, New Jersey
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.1
1.2 POPULATION
1.1
1.2.1 PERMANENT POPULATION
1.1
1.2.2 SEASONAL POPULATION
1.1
1.3 CURRENT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
1.5
2.0 SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION AND QUANTITIES
2.1
2.1 SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
2.1
2.2 PRESENT WASTE GENERATION
2.7
2.3 FUTURE SOLID WASTE GENERATION
2.19
2.4 SOURCE SEPARATION
2.21
2.4.1 COLLECTION METHODS FOR SOURCE SEPARATION
2.23
2.4.2 IMPACTS OF SOURCE SEPARATION ON ENERGY
RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY
2.25
2.4.3 POST COLLECTION SEPARATION
2.25
2.4.3.1 SIZE REDUCTION
2.26
2.4.3.2 PARTICLE CLASSIFICATION
2.27
2.4.3.3 MATERIAL EXTRACTION SYSTEMS
2.28
3.0 COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1
4.0 RESOURCE RECOVERY: TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
4.1
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.1
4.2 MASS -BURN TECHNOLOGY
4.2
VWAHOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.)
.PAGE NO.
4.2.1 WATERWALL TECHNOLOGY
4.,5
4.2.2 CONVECTION BOILER TECHNOLOGY
4.7
4.2.3 PREFABRICATED CONTROLLED AIR
MODULAR INCINERATORS
4.8
4.2.3.1 STARVED AIR TECHNOLOGY
4.9-
4.2.3.2 EXCESS AIR TECHNOLOGY
4.11
4.3 REFUSE -DERIVED FUEL (RDF) TECHNOLOGY
4.13
4.4 WATER DISTILLATION
4.17
4.5 COMPOSTING
4.21
4.6 OUT -OF -TOWN -DISPOSAL
4.26
4.7 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
4.27
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PLANS
5.1
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.1
5.2 ADMINISTRATIVE (INSTITUTIONAL) ALTERNATIVES
.5.1
5.3 PROCUREMENT ALTERNATIVES
5.8
5.3.1 PROCUREMENT APPROACHES
5.9
5.4 FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
5.12
5.4.1 INITIAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (CAPITAL COSTS)
5.13
5.4.2 OPERATING FUNDS
5.18
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6:1
IN, 2/ 4 HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
NO.
TITLE
NO.
1-1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - PRIOR AND CURRENT
POPULATION
1.3
1-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - FUTURE POPULATION
ESTIMATES
1.4
2-1
PRIMARY CONSTITUENTS OF CATEGORIES
OF MIXED MUNICIPAL REFUSE
2.2
2-2
MUNICIPAL REFUSE COMPOSITION (PERCENT
BY WEIGHT)
2.3
2-3
SEASONAL VARIATION OF MUNICIPAL REFUSE
COMPOSITION (1970) (PERCENT BY WEIGHT)
2.4
2-4
PROJECTED SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
(PERCENT BY WEIGHT)
2.5
2-5
HEATING VALUE, MOISTURE AND ASH CONTENT
OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
2.6
2-6
COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW IN 1983
2.8
2-7
COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW IN 1990
2.9
2-8
COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW IN 2000
2.10
2-9
AVERAGE COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW
2.11'
2-10
ESTIMATED DAILY AVERAGE TONNAGE
2.14
2-11
ESTIMATED TOTAL SOLID WASTE, MSW AND
BRUSH QUANTITIES - 1982
2.15
2-12
PROJECTED MSW QUANTITIES (TONS/DAY)
2.20
2-13
PROJECT DAILY MSW QUANTITIES (TONS/DAY)
2.22
4-1
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
4.28
5-1
FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
5.19
iii
VZ4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
NO.
TITLE
NO.
1-1
STUDY AREA
1.2
1-2
CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL
1.6
4-1
MASS BURN — WATERWALL TECHNOLOGY
4.3
4-2
MASS BURN — CONVECTION TECHNOLOGY
4.4
4-3
REFUSE — DERIVED FUEL FACILITY
4.15
4-4
WASTE DISTILLATION PROCESS
4.18
4-5
BLOCK DIAGRAM OF EWESON PROCESS
4.24
iv
IH2/4 HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.1 STUDY AREA
The Town of Southold is located on the North Fork of Long
Island in Suffolk County, New York and is comprised of the In-
corporated Village of Greenport and eight Census Designated
Places. The study area encompasses approximately 53 square
miles, or 34,059 acres. Figure 1-1 illustrates a location map of
the study area.
1.2 POPULATION
1.2.1 Permanent Population
For the purposes of this report, population data were util-
ized from the United States Bureau of the Census, population esti-
mates prepared by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), and
population projections through the year 2010, as prepared by the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
and the New York State Department of Commerce in cooperation with
county and regional planning agencies. Summarized in Table 1-1
are recent U.S. Census data and projected populations from LILC O.
Future population for the Town of Southold and Inc. Village of
Greenport are shown in Table 1-2.
1.2.2 Seasonal Population
The Town experiences seasonal fluctuations in population due
to the influx of people during the warmer months. Neither the
Town nor any other organization maintains records of the seasonal
1.1
FI UAE 1-1
CONNECTICUT
I STUDY
NEW YORK/. / p AREA
ISLAND SAN
LONG
NEW ::,: •_
JERSEY SUFFOLK '�'� IISHERB
NASSAU'
SEAN :+:;,,::...,;.::.::.• :.
O
20 rLAN1-'C
ENS
KEY M A P� ' °a'
.. .�'• EASZ .�:.•..� _�.� .;Cit' ,
• �� Vii: ���.• •_:it:�^ ,,�:;;
E
14
NO
so
PEC°N1` so.4% `N
�J+•• yam. �.
STUDY AREA
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
HOLZMACHER McLENDON & MURRELL P.C. FAR INGDA E
�� ' ' RIVERH CAD , N.Y.N.Y.
RIVERHEAD, N.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS FAIRFIELD, N.J.
1.2
11'IlJ A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 1-1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PRIOR AND CURRENT POPULATION
1.3
U.S.
U.S.
LILCO
LILCO
CENSUS
CENSUS
EST. @
EST. @
SOUTHOLD:
1970
1980
1/1/84
1/1/85
Incorporated Village
Greenport
2,481
2,273
2,398
2,398
Census Designated Places
(CDP)
Cutchogue - New Suffolk
2,718
2,788
2,823
2,864
East Marion - Orient
1,240
1,511
1,468
1,494
Fisher's Island
462
318
373
393
Greenport, Unincorporated
1,682
1,571
1,670
1,721
Laurel
598
962
1,021
1,038
Mattituck
3,039
3,923
4,122
4,170
Peconic
835
1,056
1,171
1,193
Southold
3,749
4,770
4,901
4,960
TOTAL - CDP
14,323
16,899
17,549
17,831
TOTAL - SOUTHOLD TOWN
16,804
19,172
19,947
20,229
1.3
HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
*Source: Projected populations by NYSDEC and State Department
of Commerce
1.4
TABLE 1-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FUTURE POPULATION ESTIMATES
1985*
1990* 1995*
2000*
2005*
2010*
VILLAGE 2,400
2,450 2,550
2,650
2,750
2,900
TOWN 17,850
20,000 20,900
21,450
22,350
23,200.
TOTAL 20,250
22,450 23,450
24,100
25,100
26,100
*Source: Projected populations by NYSDEC and State Department
of Commerce
1.4
2J4 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
population. However, based on the quantity of solid waste gener-
ated during the summer, the seasonal population amounts to ap-
proximately 30 to 35 percent of the permanent population on an
annual basis. Therefore, assuming a four month tourist season,
it may be inferred that the seasonal -only population is approxi-
mately equal to the permanent population. This factor is ex-
pected to remain the same in the future.
1.3 CURRENT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The Town of Southold has one active solid waste disposal
facility. The Cutchogue landfill comprises 41 acres and is lo-
cated
o-cated on North Road- between Cox and Depot Lanes, as illustrated
by Figure 1-2. The Town owns an additional 18.8 acres north and
east of the Cutchogue landfill.
At the southeast corner, adjacent to the landfill entrance,
is the municipal solid waste (MSW) receiving building. All MSW
brought to the site in an uncompacted state is dropped off inside
the building directly into compactor trailers. Once filled and
compacted, the trailers are hauled to the working face of the
landfill and the contents disposed of. MSW brought to the site
in a compacted state is delivered directly to the working face of
the landfill and disposed of. Approximately 20 tons of news-
papers are recycled at the receiving station every 7 to 10 days.
Brush is disposed of at a designated location at the land-
fill site. A tub grinder and an "Eager Beaver Chipper" are util-
ized to chip the brush, thereby reducing the volume required for
1.5
a
j j Duck Pon
at
60
o
FIGURE 1-2
CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL
TOWN OF SO UTHOLD
REFERENCE: SOUTHOLD & MATTITUCK HILLS QUADRANGLE
NEW YORK—SUFFOLK CO.
7.5 MINUTE SERIES
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
REFERENCE DATUM: N 4 1 0 01 ° 40'
W 72* 30' 00
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C. MELVILLE, N.Y.
FARM N.Y.
N.Y.
UZ14- CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVER1.11EAD. N.Y.
1.6
7
...........
0
<
HOG 66oo\
.30-
.
CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL
TOWN OF SO UTHOLD
REFERENCE: SOUTHOLD & MATTITUCK HILLS QUADRANGLE
NEW YORK—SUFFOLK CO.
7.5 MINUTE SERIES
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
REFERENCE DATUM: N 4 1 0 01 ° 40'
W 72* 30' 00
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C. MELVILLE, N.Y.
FARM N.Y.
N.Y.
UZ14- CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVER1.11EAD. N.Y.
1.6
U2A4 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
disposal, as well as providing a marketable commodity (wood
chips).
Waste oil brought to the site is deposited in a 275 -gallon
tank which, when full, is picked up by Strebel's Laundry, Inc.
Strebel's
Laundry, Inc. is a
licensed
NYSDEC
waste oil collector,
located in
Westhampton Beach.
Backup
drums
are provided should
the Contractor not make it back to the site prior to the tank
being filled.
Up until July 1986, scavenger waste was discharged to open
lagoons at the Cutchogue landfill. Since that time, scavenger
waste has been treated at the Southold Scavenger Waste
Pretreatment Plant.
The landfill, for the most part, is surrounded by open
space, Town -owned
undeveloped
parcels, agricultural
tracts and
several houses.
The landfill
site is provided with a
good buffer
i
1 which helps reduce its visual impact.
Sludge from the Southold scavenger waste and Inc. Village of
Greenport sewage treatment plants is disposed of at the Cutchogue
landfill.
The Superintendent of Highways is responsible for the oper-
ation of the solid waste disposal facilities. The landfill is
open 7 days per week from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Equipment avail-
able for use at the landfill includes:
3 - 4 cu. yd. payloaders
1 - 1-1/2 cu. yd, payloader
1 - D.6 bulldozer
1.7
t,'12/44 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
1 - Auger/Royer shreader
2 - compactor trailers
1 - trailer cab
Solid waste is brought to the site by both private carters
and Town residents.
OL_J
Eir I/CJ�� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
2.0 SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION AND QUANTITIES
2.1 SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
Because of variations in the use of materials throughout the
United States, the composition of solid waste differs from munici-
pality to municipality. Only by separating and weighing samples
of refuse can waste composition be determined precisely for a
particular locality. With the exception of a very limited survey
and weighing program conducted in 1982, the Town does not have
exact data available regarding the composition of its waste
stream. General compositional data have been obtained by ex-
amining figures for other Long Island communities.
Table 2-1 indicates the primary components of various cate-
gories comprising municipal refuse. Studies have been made to
determine the percentage of the waste stream that falls into each
of these categories. Table 2-2 shows the results of these
studies. As shown, paper constitutes the major portion of the
municipal refuse. Seasonal variations of the municipal refuse
composition are shown in Table 2-3.
The portion of food wastes in municipal solid waste has been
declining in recent years. As indicated in Table 2-4, this down-
ward trend will probably continue as the use of preprocessed,
frozen and package foods expands.
As the composition of municipal solid waste varies in time,
so does its aggregate heating value. As indicated in Table 2-5,
each material comprising municipal solid waste has a different
heating value, moisture content and ash content. As shown in
2.1
r
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 2-1
PRIMARY CONSTITUENTS OF CATEGORIES
CATEGORY
Paper
Plastic
Rubber & Leather
Textiles
Food
OF MIXED MUNICIPAL REFUSE
DESCRIPTION
Various types, come with fillers
Polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, sty-
rene, etc., as found in packaging,
housewares, furniture, toys and non-
woven synthetic fabrics
Shoes, tires, toys, etc.
Cellulosic, protein, woven synthetics
Garbage
Yard Grass, brush, shrub trimmings
Glass Bottle (primarily)
Metal Cans, wire, foil, scrap iron
Miscellaneous Inorganic ash, stones, dust
W
I I284 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
ESTIMATED
COMPOSITION
(1978)
SOURCE: EPA Reports and Long Island data from Handbook
of Solid Waste Management by David Gordon Wil-
son (1977) and Multi -Town Engineering Report by
M&E/H2M (1979),,respectively.
2.3
37
4
2
2
4
14
16
1-0
9
2
100
MUNICIPAL REFUSE
COMPOSITION
(PERCENT -BY
WEIGHT)
HEMPSTEAD
CATEGORY
RANGE
NY
EPA
Paper
25-45
46
34.9
Plastic
2-8
2
3.8
Rubber & Leather
0-4
2
2.6
Textiles
0-4
3
1.7
Wood
1-4
7
3.8
Food
6-26
12
14.9
Yard
0-20
18
16.3
Glass
4-16
4
10.5
Metal
2-11
4
9.8
Miscellaneous
0-10
2
1.6
TOTALS
100
100.0
ESTIMATED
COMPOSITION
(1978)
SOURCE: EPA Reports and Long Island data from Handbook
of Solid Waste Management by David Gordon Wil-
son (1977) and Multi -Town Engineering Report by
M&E/H2M (1979),,respectively.
2.3
37
4
2
2
4
14
16
1-0
9
2
100
IH2,4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 2-3
SEASONAL VARIATION OF
MUNICIPAL REFUSE COMPOSITION (1970)
CATEGORY
SUMMER
Paper
31.0
Plastic
1.1
Rubber & Leather
1.1
Textiles
1.8
Wood
2.6
Food
17.7
Yard
27.1
Glass
7.5
Metal
7.0
Miscellaneous
3.1
TOTALS
100.0
% B Y
W E I G H T
FALL
WINTER
SPRING
39.0
42.2
26.5
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.2
2.5
2.7
2.2
3.4
3.6
3.1
22.7
24.1
20.8
6.2
0.4
14.4
9.6
10.2
8.8
9.1
9.7
8.2
4.0
4.2
3.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.4
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
PROJECTED SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
(PERCENT BY WEIGHT)
SOURCE: Multi -Town Engineering Report, 1979
2.5
Y E A R
CATEGORY
1983
1990
2000
Paper
39.5
43.4
45.9
Plastic
4.7
6.4
8.7
Rubber & Leather
2.0
2.0
2.0
Textiles
2.0
2.0
2.0
Wood
4.0
4.0
4.0
Food
11.4
7.6
5.2
Yard
16.0
16.0
16.0
Glass
9.7
8.8
7.6
Metal
8.7
7.8
6.6
Miscellaneous
2.0
2.0
2.0
TOTALS
100.0
100.0
100.0
SOURCE: Multi -Town Engineering Report, 1979
2.5
�LMAOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 2-5
HEATING .VALUE, MOISTURE AND ASH CONTENT
OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
HEATING VALUE
SOURCE: Multi -Town Engineering Report; 1979
2.6
BTU/LB.
PERCENT
PERCENT
CATEGORY
-AS RECEIVED
MOISTURE
ASH
Paper
6,800
5
6
Plastic
11,000
0
10
Rubber & Leather
9,000
10
2
Textiles
6,400
10
2
Wood
7,800
7
2
Food
2,600
70
5
Yard
2,500
70
2
Glass
0
0
100
Metal
0
0
100
Miscellaneous
5,800
2
5
SOURCE: Multi -Town Engineering Report; 1979
2.6
V2-_J4,HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Tables 2-6 through 2-8, as the relative quantities of these ma-
terials change over time, the aggregate BTU value also changes.
However, for purposes of our calculations in this report, we will
use the average composite BTU value of municipal solid waste
shown in Table 2-9.
2.2 PRESENT WASTE GENERATION
Water -related and water -dependent activities are enjoyed by
both residents and tourists in the Towri of Southold. Conse-
quently,
onse-quently, the amount of solid waste generated varies significantly
from the tourist season to the non -tourist season. However, a
precise determination of incoming refuse quantities is difficult
due to the absence of weighing equipment at the Cutchogue land-
fill.
The Town currently maintains daily records of the number of
cars/pickups, compactor vehicles and commercial vehicles depo:s.it-
ing waste at the landfill. However, these data do not offer any
information regarding the quantity and type of waste entering the
facility.
During 1982, H2M prepared a solid waste quantities report
based on a solid waste survey and a limited weighing program con-
ducted by the Town of Southold. The objective of this program
was to obtain separate estimates of the quantities of `municipal
_J solid waste (MSW) and brush/demolition debris being accepted at
the Cutchogue landfill.
2.7
.( HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 2-6
COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW IN 1983
Paper
Plastic
Rubber & Leather
Textiles
Wood
Food
Yard
Glass
Metal
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
COMPOSITION MOISTURE
(LBS.) (LBS.)
39.5
4.7
2.0
2.0
4.0
11.4
16.0
9.7
8.7
2.0
100.0
2.0
0
0.2
0.2
0.3
8.0
11.2
0
0
0.1
22.0
HEAT CONTENT
ASH
AS FIRED
(LBS.)
(BTU/LB.)
2.4
2,686
0.5
517
0.1
180
0.1
128
0.1
312
0.6
296
0.3
400
9.7
0
8.7
0
0.1
116
22.6
4,635
SOURCE: Multi -Town Engineering Report, 1979
Nm
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW IN 1990
CATEGORY
Paper
Plastic
Rubber & Leather
Textiles
Wood
Food
Yard
Glass
Metal
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
COMPOSITION MOISTURE
(LBS.) (LBS.)
43.4
6.4
2.0
2.0
4.0
7.6
16.0
8.8
7.8
2.0
100.0
2.2
0
0.2
0.2
0.3
5.3
11.2
0
0
0.1
19.5
SOURCE: Multi -Town Engineering Report, 1979
2.9
HEAT CONTENT
ASH
AS FIRED
(LBS.)
(BTU/LB.-)
2.6
2,951
0.6
704
0.1
180
0.1
128
0.1
312
0.4
198
0.3
400
8.8
0
7.8
0
0.1
116
20.9
4,989
SOURCE: Multi -Town Engineering Report, 1979
2.9
E�2 AA HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW IN 2000
Paper
Plastic
Rubber & Leather
Textiles
Wood
Food
Yard
Glass
Metal
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
COMPOSITION MOISTURE
(LBS.) (LBS.)
45.9
8.7
2.0
2.0
4.0
5.2
16.0
7.6
6.6
2.0
100.0
2.3
0
0.2
0.2
0.3
3.6
11.2
0
0
0.1
17.9
HEAT CONTENT
ASH
(LBS.)
AS FIRED
(BTU/LB.)
2.8
3,121
0.9
957
0.1
180
0.1
128
0.1
312
0.3
135
0.3
400
7.6
0
6.6
0
0.1
.116
18.9
5,349
SOURCE: Multi -Town Engineering Report, 1979
2.10
VZ44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 2-9
AVERAGE COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW
HEAT CONTENT
(a) Composition of Metal: Ferrous 7%, Aluminum 0.7%
Remaining is Other Non -Ferrous
2.11
COMPOSITION
MOISTURE
ASH
AS FIRED
CATEGORY
(LBS.)
(LBS.)
(LBS.)
(BTU/LB.)
Paper
42.9
2.2
2.6
2,919
Plastic
6.6
0
0.7
726
Rubber & Leather
2.0
0.2
0.1
180
Textiles
2.0
0.2
0.1
128
Wood
4.0
0.3
0.1
312
Food
8.1
5.6
0.5
210
Yard
16.0
11.2
0.4
400
Glass
8.7
0
8.7
0
Metal(a)
7.7
0
7.7
0
Miscellaneous
2.0
0.1
0.1
116
TOTALS
100.0
19.8
21.0
4,991
(a) Composition of Metal: Ferrous 7%, Aluminum 0.7%
Remaining is Other Non -Ferrous
2.11
V2AMOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL,"P.C.
The initial survey was conducted in April 1982. Vehicle
counts for MSW and brush were divided into four and three cate-
gories, respectively. In addition, a separate category. was -es-
tablished for clean-up trucks, since the initial survey was
conducted during the Spring clean-up period. Based on the vehi-
cle counts, a statistical analysis was performed to determine the
number of each type of vehicle that must be weighed. in order to
obtain reliable results. Weighing schedules were prepared by H2M
and submitted to the landfill operators.
A telephone search of companies on Long Island that rent or
a
sell weighing scales was conducted. This search resulted in our
office recommending that the Town:
A. Weigh larger commercial trucks at I.M. Young &
company facilities in Southold prior to and
after the vehicle unloads its contents. Obvi-
ously, the tare weight would only have to be
weighed once.
B. Weigh contents of smaller vehicles (i.e., cars,
jeeps, pickups, vans, etc.) using the following
procedure:
1. Tare weight of each dump truck to be
obtained.
2. Transfer contents of several small Vehi-
cles to town -operated dump trucks, re-
cording the number and type of vehicles
contributing MSW and brush.
2.12
HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
3. At capacity, trucks to be weighed prior
to disposal (gross weight).
The first weighing program was scheduled for June 3rd
through June 5th, 1982 (Thursday through Saturday) in order to
obtain weekday and weekend weights per vehicle category for MSW
and brush. However, only the first two days, of weighing were
completed, due to problems with the scale on Saturday, June 5th.
Since the scale was inoperable, the weighing data for June were
only for weekdays.
The second weighing program was conducted during July 1982.
Vehicle counts were taken the week of July 19th through 25th,
utilizing separate schedules for weekdays and weekends. Vehicles
were weighed July 29th through the 31st, 1982 (Thursday - Satur-
day).
The estimated daily average tonnages received at the
Southold landfill, based on the survey and weighing programs con-
ducted by the Town of Southold, are shown in Table 2-10. As
shown, the average daily quantities during the survey program
were 75.4 tons of MSW and -81.1 tons of brush, resulting in an
average daily tonnage of 156.5 over the 3 -month interval.
These data were then utilized to project annual tonnages for
total solid waste quantities. These estimates, which appear in
Table 2-11, were adjusted for the remaining months of the year by
considering seasonal variations in generation rates.
However, in extrapolating these data, certain deficiencies
Iin the weighing program decreased the desired level of accuracy.
These deficiencies are outlined as follows:
2.13
1-42AA HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 2-10
* Based on vehicle count/weighing program conducted
by the Town of Southold
2.14
ESTIMATED DAILY
AVERAGE TONNAGE*
TONS PER DAY
(1982)
TYPE OF WASTE
APRIL
JUNE
JULY
AVG.
MSW
79.0
51.3
96
75.4
Brush
118.0
87.1
38.1
81.1
TOTAL
197.0
138.4
134.1
156.5
* Based on vehicle count/weighing program conducted
by the Town of Southold
2.14
2-A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 2-11
ESTIMATED TOTAL SOLID WASTE
MSW AND BRUSH QUANTITIES
1982
* MSW/Brush estimates based on survey program and adjusted for
the remaining months of the year by considering seasonal vari-
ations in generation rates. Since the June results were
based on a survey conducted on two weekdays, June 3rd and
4th, 1982, the monthly estimates were adjusted for seasonal
and weekend variations.
2.15
TOTAL SOLID
WASTE
MSW*
BRUSH*
MONTH
TONS/MO.
TONS/DAY
TONS/DAY
TONS/DAY
JANUARY
2,400
77.4
58.0
19.4
FEBRUARY
2,200
78.6
58.1
20.5
MARCH
2,900
93.5
59.0
34.5
APRIL
4,700
157.5
63.2
94.3
MAY
3,900
125.8
61.1
64.7
JUNE
4,200
138.4
78.5
59.9
JULY
4,200
134.1
96.0
38.1
AUGUST
4,100
132.3
96.0
36.3
SEPTEMBER
3,400
113.3
70.8
42.5
OCTOBER
3,600
116.1
60.5
55.6
NOVEMBER
3,200
106.7
59.9
46.8
DECEMBER
2,400
77.4
58.0
19.4
AVERAGE
3,433
-112.6
68.3
44.3
* MSW/Brush estimates based on survey program and adjusted for
the remaining months of the year by considering seasonal vari-
ations in generation rates. Since the June results were
based on a survey conducted on two weekdays, June 3rd and
4th, 1982, the monthly estimates were adjusted for seasonal
and weekend variations.
2.15
„it 2A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
a. The scales were inoperable on the June weekend
sampling date (June 5, 1982).
b. Clean-up week impacted ,the estimated quantities
of MSW and brush received during April 1982.
It is estimated that at a minimum, the daily
tonnages for April were inflated by twenty per-
cent. In the annual tonnage estimate, the
April 1982 quantities were decreased by this
percentage.
C. Our statistical analysis required a minimum
number of vehicles weighed per category for MSW
and brush based on the previously described
weighing schedules. However, the gross weights
of all large vehicles (including flat beds,
stake trucks, dump trucks and solid waste col-
lection vehicles) were recorded once, regard-
less of the number of trips to the landfill.
Since some of these vehicles had net weights of
5 to 8 tons, the impact of not weighing the
truck's gross weight each time it arrived at
the landfill is significant. This is particu-
larly true for open -bed vehicles which do not
have compactors.
The data shows that the total solid waste generation rates
are seasonally correlated, with the maximum quantities of MSW
generated in June through September and the minimum amounts in
November through March. Although the above rates are probably
2.16
HOLZMACHER, McLEN00N & MURRELL, P.C.
representative of the actual annual distribution and will there-
fore be used in this feasibility study, they are based on esti-
mated quantities and densities and not measured amounts.
It is strongly recommended that the Town conduct a short-
term weighing and classification program to develop a better data
base on which to design and construct a resource recovery fa-
cility, regardless of the technology to be utilized. Since it is
anticipated that future solid waste management activities will
continue to utilize the Cutchogue landfill site, a permanent
scale should be installed. In conjunction with the scale, a
scale house and computer equipment/software package should be
purchased as part of the project. The composition and quantity
of waste being delivered to the site needs to be better defined
due to the following reasons:
A. While most facilities are designed to provide
for future capacity, it is important that the
facility constructed not be too large when com-
pared to the Town's needs. This is even more
applicable for facilities that are modular by
design, since they can be added to as the Town
grows. There is no reason to provide surplus
capacity at this time, since the cost of sur-
plus capacity will increase the cost per ton
for disposal of solid waste.
B. Likewise, constructing a facility that is too
small will result in the Town having to dispose
of waste by trucking waste in excess of the
2.17
',2U.HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
allowable 10 percent bypass limit to a neighbor-
ing facility or disposing of same to an out-of-
state landfill.
C. By analyzing and recording the compositor of
the waste, the Town will be in a better po-
sition to ascertain how much waste:
1. Can potentially be recycled
2. Can go to the resource recovery fa-
cility (incineration, composting,. etc.)
3. Can be chipped
4. Can be landfilled
D. If the Town proceeds with private ownership, the vendor
will require a guaranteed tonnage. If this estimate is
too high, the Town will pay for the higher quantity,
even if it was not,generated. The resultant cost per
ton of solid waste disposed will increase as a result.
we expressed similar concerns to the Town of Southampton
after reviewing their inadequate data base. The Town of Southamp-
ton proceeded with installation of a scale, scale house and a.
solid waste management computer program and associated hardware.
During the peak ,summer months, quantities of brush, construction/
demolition waste and household refuse were substantially (>50%)
more than what was anticipated based on the old data base.
Clearly, the new data will allow the Town of Southampton to be in,
a better position to plan for the future.
The Town of Southold may or may not have the same disparity
between anticipated and actual solid waste quantities. However,
P►Ai11:1
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
until such time that weighing facilities are in place, we will
not have a very clear answer.
The capital costs associated with construction/installation
of the scale, scale house and- data management system are esti-
mated below:
Construction $145,000.
Engineering 15,000.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $160,000.
Prior to proceeding with construction of a resource recovery
facility, the Town of Southold should conduct a solid waste compo-
siton and weighing program.
2-.3 FUTURE SOLID WASTE GENERATION
Future solid waste quantities are estimated by projecting
- the per capita generation rates, as well as the population growth
rate. Initial per capita waste quantities were bas -ed on data
from the limited 1982 survey. Population projections, which were
previously discussed in Section 1.2, were multiplied by existing
municipal solid waste generation rates' to estimate future munici-
pal solid waste quantities for the Town of Southold. The pro-
jected annual and monthly daily municipal solid waste (MSW)
generation rates through 2010 are presented in Table 2-12. It is
anticipated that brush will continue to be disposed of by using
the "chipper" and "tub grinder", resulting in the production of
wood chips which would be available for public use, subject to
NYSDEC approval. Construction/Demolition (C/D) waste would be
disposed of to a lined landfill.
2.19
°H2—I4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 2-12
PROJECTED MSW QUANTITIES (TONS/DAY)
MONTH
1982
1990
2000
2010
JANUARY
58.0
67
72
78
FEBRUARY
58.1
67
72
78
MARCH
59.0
68
73
79
APRIL
63.2
73
78
85
MAY
61.1
70
76
82
JUNE
78.5
90
97
105
JULY
96.0
110
119
128
AUGUST
96.0
110
119
128
SEPTEMBER
70.8
81
88
95
OCTOBER
60.5
70
75
81
NOVEMBER
59.9
69
74
80
I] DECEMBER
58.0
79
72
78
AVERAGE
68.3
79
84
91
2'.20
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
The MSW quantities also include approximately 10 percent
over -,sized bulky waste (OBW), which includes such items as furni-
ture, white goods and tires. A portion of the OBW can be inciner-
ated, but requires shredding prior to same.
Since any resource recovery facility design should take into
consideration the seasonal variation in MSW quantities, Table
2-13 presents the estimated minimum, average and peak quantities.
These quantities will be utilized in the system design of various
solid waste management alternatives.
2.4. SOURCE SEPARATION
Source separation is defined as the setting aside of recycla-
ble waste materials by the generator. The separated material is
collected from the various points of generation and transported
to a secondary materials dealer or processor. Thirty to fifty
percent of municipal solid waste is made up of secondary or re-
coverable material such as paper, glass, and ferrous and non-
ferrous metals. Source separation of paper has been widely prac-
ticed in the United States. .,Separation of other material is less
common. The recovery and sale of secondary material from MSW can
provide a source of revenue to offset the cost of operating a
solid waste management program.
The "bottle bill" is considered one method of source sepa-
ration, since it encourages the generator to recycle glass and
aluminum beverage containers. There is a financial incentive for
2.21
I H-2/4 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 2-13
PROJECT DAILY MSW QUANTITIES
TONS/DAY
Factors for minimum and peak quantities based on 1982 data
2.22
DAILY
MSW QUANTITIES
YEAR
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
PEAK
1982
58
68.3
96
1990
67
79
110
2000
72
84
119
2010
78
91
128
Factors for minimum and peak quantities based on 1982 data
2.22
U2A4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
compliance by the consumer, since the container deposit is re-
funded only when the container is returned to a redemption fa-
cility. The Town of Islip recycling program has noted a 25
percent decrease in the quantity of glass since the bill was
enacted.
Advantages realized in the separation of secondary materials
are: A reduction in the volume of solid waste requiring dis-
posal, revenues gained to offset operating costs, raising public
awareness about solid waste disposal, and in the case of source
separation as opposed to post collection separation, a clean,
uncontaminated secondary material. Source separation also pro-
motes recycling awareness and provides employment opportunities.
Some disadvantages associated with source separation are: An
increase in collection costs, the volume actually recovered is
normally a small fraction of what is available for recycling, and
the solid wastes remaining after source separation tends to have
a higher moisture content, which makes disposal by landfill or
incineration more difficult. The success of a source separation
program also depends heavily on public participation.
2.4.1 Collection Methods for Source Separation
Although there are any number of collection methods availa- , _
ble for a source separation program, most fall into one 'of three
principal categories: Centrally located collection centers, sepa-
rate collection and combined collection.
In the centrally located collection center method, the gen-
eral public is responsible for collecting, storing and transport-
ing the secondary materials to a collection center from which the
2.23
fig l2 A 4HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
materials are shipped to the processor for sale. This method
minimizes collection costs, but is also the least efficient be-
cause it relies entirely on the public.
In the separate collection method, special trucks are used
to collect the secondary material separately from the remaining
MSW. There will be a capital cost for collection trucks associ-
ated with this method and additional operating costs for crews to
run and maintain these trucks. Separate collection trucks can
generally cover several normal routes in a day because not all
households participate and there are fewer items on hand at each
stop. EPA studies report higher participation rates for higher
frequencies of collection, although higher collection costs will
result. A modification of this method is used in the Town of
Islip. Household wastes are collected twice a week while recycla-
bles are collected on Wednesdays.
In the combined collection approach, the existing fleet of
solid waste collection trucks are modified to provide separate
compartments for the various secondary materials. This method
tends to yield a higher percent of recovery of secondary ma-
terials, because it provides the public with a single collection
schedule. This method can also result in an increased collection
cost because once the allocated space of one of the recoverable
materials is filled, it is necessary to interrupt the collection
of other materials and drive the truck to a disposal site or
transfer facility to empty the filled compartment.
2.24
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
2.4.2 Impacts of Source Separation. on Energy
Recovery Technology
Recent EPA studies have shown that even a high level of
source separation does not -adversely affect the various resource/
energy recovery technologies. Removing newspaper and clean corru-
gated cardboard, the most easily separable items, from the waste
stream does not substantially decrease the amount of energy con-
tained in a ton of refuse, since much of the combustibles are
plastics, food, contaminated wood and paper products. Removal of
glass and cans, particularly beverage containers, would somewhat
decrease the ferrous and glass content of waste. However,
process design is unaffected. The tonnage being processed would
decrease, but it can be accounted for by construction of a
smaller plant.
For example, according to an EPA study, a seven percent re-
duction in the quantity of solid waste through source separation
would only reduce the heating value by about three percent. This
presumes that there will be a replacement of waste quantity to an
energy recovery facility. A three percent difference in such
heating values is not readily detectable and is essentially the
same according to the analysis.
2.4.3 Post Collection Separation
This section describes the post collection segregation of
secondary materials, such as ferrous metal, aluminum, glass,
etc., from solid waste.
Unit processes essential to nearly all material and energy
recovery systems are size reduction, particle classification and
material extraction systems.
2.25'
U, I2/44 HOLZMACHER, McLEN00N & MURRELL, P.C.
2.4.3.1 Size Reduction
Size reduction of municipal solid waste is the mechanical
separation of bodies of material into smaller pieces. With most
modern refuse processing and disposal systems requiring particle
size reduction and homogeneity of input, shredders and other size
reduction equipment have become increasingly important.
There are three basic types of dry horizontal shredders. Of
these, the horizontal hammermill is most common in solid waste
processing. The grates on the bottom control the particle size
of the output. Reverse hammer rotation capability is often pre-
ferred to increase hammer life.
Another design is the vertical shaft shredder. In this
unit, material is introduced from the top. Refuse then falls by
gravity into the path of the plates and is ground up by hammers -
either free swinging or fixed - as it progresses down through
tapered walls. Particle size is controlled by feed size. Some
designs of this unit use grinders that crush instead of impact
the waste; still others use a combination of hammers and grinders.
This configuration is less subject to damage than a horizontal
shaft hammermill.
Problems that have plagued shredding include fires, ex-
plosions, excessive hammer wear, material handling difficulties,
dust, debris and spillage. Many of these conditions are being
:1 alleviated with increased operating experience.
Another method of shredding (shear shredders) exists which
utilizes countercurrent revolving cutting edges to tear/slice
i material into smaller particles. Shear shredders are not capable
2.26
�2,U HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
of handling as wide a range of materials as horizontal shredders,
but do offer advantages including quieter operating, lower energy
use and are safer to use.
ti
The last major, class of shredders is the wet pulper. This
device, also -known as a hydropulper, had its beginnings in the
paper industry. Solid waste and water are introduced simultane-
ously; a vortex is created which draws waste down toward an im-
peller where it is discharged through a perforated plate. The
waste leaves as a..pulped slurry with non-pulpable material
ejected tangentially and collected in a disposal receptacle. The
slurry is then processed to separate recyclable material.
2.4.3.2 Particle Classification
Following size reduction, particle classification is the
next critical step in most recovery sequences. The efficiency
with which classification can be affected and the degree to which
-- recyclable materials can then be separated are significant fac-
tors contributing to the cost and marketability of recovered
products. Classification processes can be categorized by their
fluid medium.
Air Classification
Air classifiers operate by allowing the waste stream to fall
through a rising current of air. The shredded solid waste is
separated into a light fraction consisting primarily of paper,
plastic and other light organic material and a heavy fraction
consisting of heavy organic and inorganic material.
2.27
0
2A'HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P:C.
Very few air classification systems are commercially avai'la-
ble at present; most units that have been developed are experi-
mental. Foremost in the air classification field are Radar
Pneumatics for developments in St. Louis, Misso.uri and Ames,
Iowa;. Triple S/Dynamics for developments in Chicago and other
midwest points; and Americology in Chemung. County, New York and
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Liquid Classification
A pilot model of the Advanced RC (Rising Current) Separator,
a water medium separation device, has been tested by the WEMCO
Division, Envirotech Corp., Sacramento, California. The unit
i uses water to recover metals and glass from municipal shredded
wastes. In a typical flow sheet, MSW is shredded, air classi-
fied, exposed to magnetic separation, screened to remove over-
sized particles and fines, and the result is fed to the RC
Separator where an aluminum/glass mix is separated. This type of
device is in the early development stage and is not yet capable
of meeting municipal size demands.
The National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. currently
operates an Equipment Test and Evaluation Program in -cooperation
with the Department of Environmental Services, District of Colum-
bia. Shredders, separators, classifiers and other recovery equip-
ment can all be evaluated at this working lab.
2.4.3.3 Material Extraction -Systems
A. Manual Sorting
Manual sorting has been used at some municipal incinerators
i
to remove such items as clean newsprint and corrugated cardboard,
2.28
H2O HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
metals, glass, plastics and rags. These materials are separated
for salvage.
Such operations are generally incompatible with large-scale
recovery and utilization for four main reasons. They (1) may be
economically non-competitive, (2) result in a limited degree of
separation with nominal size and force, (3) are subject to human
error, and (4) are health and safety hazards.
Hand sorting of household and commercial refuse prior to
collection has also been practiced to varying degrees. Both
voluntary and mandated source separation programs have been de-
veloped.
As of January 1, 1983, all homeowners in the Town of Islip
have been required to separate recyclables (newspapers, glass and
metal) from other trash. After collection and transport to the
processing center, the recyclables are placed on a conveyor where
town employees manually sort the recyclables. A magnet is.used
to remove ferrous cans from the conveyor. Islip collects 200
tons per week, making it the largest program in the United States.
Approximately 15 percent of the residential solid waste is being
recycled and the participation rate has been 40 to 50 -percent.
B. Mechanized Separation
With the advent of major large-scale recovery systems, more
sophisticated separation technology was needed. Modern, mecha-
nized processes operating on large centralized waste loads are
Jnow capable of sorting mixed refuse. Comprehensive material sepa-
ration systems, as well as unit subsystems, for the segregation
2.29
INZ4 HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
of individual waste components, exist in various stages of de-
velopment and operation.
(1) Ferrous Metals - Ferrous metals constitute roughly 7
percent' of municipal solid waste, excluding discarded automobiles.
-The four ferrous components in mixed municipal waste are: (1)
cans of all types; (2),other light gauge, non-can material such
as bicycle fenders., pots and pans, shelving, etc.; (3) white
goods and ferrous metals contained in bulky items such as mat-
tresses and sofas; and (4) other heavy ferrous material such as
brake drums, structural steel forms; automobile axles, etc.
Large ferrous items such as white goods are usually source sepa-
rated, whereas smaller items such as cans could either be source
separated or separated mechanically at a resource recovery'fa-
cility. Ferrous metal recovery is accomplished using -magnetic
separators which attract ferrous metals, but not other solid
waste components.
There are three major types of ferrous recovery systems:
single or dual rotating drum magnets; dual drum pulley type sepa-
rator (either suspended type permanent magnet or pulley type
permanent,magnet); and multi -stage belt separator. Of these
three major types, the multi -stage belt configuration is the most
effective because it'entraps the least amount of contaminants
with ferrous scrap.
In a typical multi -stage belt system, three separate magnets
are used to do the following: attract metal, convey it a long
distance around a curve, agitate it, release it, attract the same
metal again, redirect its path, convey it again, and discharge it.
2.30
HOLZMACHER, McLEN0ON & MURRELL, P. -C.
When attracted me=tal reaches the area where there is no magnet-
ism,, it falls away freely, and any non-ferrous material trapped
by the metal against the belt also falls.- Thus, clean metal is
pulled back to the belt by the final magnet.
In actual application, 70 to 99 percent of the ferrous con-
tent of solid waste can be recovered using these techniques. The
efficiency will vary, however, depending on waste composition and
degree of prior processing.
(2) Aluminum - Aluminum constitutes less than 1 percent by
weight of municipal solid waste, but comprises the bulk of non-
ferrous metals. Examples of aluminum are cans., foils and outdoor
furniture., with the bulk of aluminum being cans. Aluminum can be
source separated, but methods do exist for mechanical separation
at a resource recovery facility.
The major extraction techniques include: Gravity Separ-
ation, Electrostatic and Eddy Current Separation, Froth Flotation
and Cryogenic Separation.
Gravity Separation: Heavy media or sink/float separation is
one of the most promising gravity separation concepts. Here, a
mix of aluminum and other non-ferrous metals are placed in a
heavy liquid medium. Particles with specific gravity greater
than the liquid will sink, while lighter particles will float to
the surface where they can be removed.
Electrostatic .Separation: This method employs aluminum as a
conductor of electricity and glass as an insulator. When a
glass/aluminum mix is exposed to an electric charge, conductors
2.31
0
iv 2AA HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
quickly lose the charge, while non-conductors retain it. A re-
volving drum with an opposite electrical charge will then attract
and hold non-conductors, separating them from conductors which
immediately fall.
Eddy Current Separation: Passing an electromagnet that
generates a magnetic field through a non-ferrous conductive metal
surface
induces
eddy
currents. These currents
resemble the
ripples
that form
when a
rock is dropped into water.
Interaction
of the eddy currents and the magnetic field exerts a repellent
force on the metal, thus separating it.
Froth Flotation: Here, two or more solids are segregated by
floating one of them in a foam to the surface of a liquid. This
process is based on surface characteristics - not relative weight
- and is thus independent of material density.
-� The basic device is a tank fitted with an aeration unit at
the bottom. It is filled with water, a mixed material slurry
and, when needed, a special flotation agent. Bubbles of air are
continuously circulated through the slurry. Material with a
greater surface affinity for air than for water (either by nature
or by use of the special flotation agent) attracts air bubbles,
causing it to rise
to
the surface in a
light froth
which flows
over the walls of
the
vessel. Material
with -greater
affinity for
water is "wetted" and sinks to the bottom of the tank.
The U.S. Bureau of Mines in College Park, Maryland has evalu-
ated recovery of metals from incinerator residue by a process
involving successive grinding, size segregation by screening and
separation by froth flotation.
2.32
V �
HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Cryogenic Separation: The U.S. Bureau of Mines has tested a
cryogenic technique for separating non-ferrous concentrates pro-
duced from air classification and water elutriation of shredded
auto scrap. It is based on the reduction of different materials
to an intensely cold environment. Materials such as aluminum and
copper remain malleable, while others such as steel, rubber, zinc
and some plastics become brittle. Actual cryogenic separation
places mixed materials in a cold substance such as liquid nitro-
gen, where the more brittle materials shatter upon impact or
crushing. Screening and/or flotation is then used to classify
outflow.
(3) Glass - Glass constitutes about nine percent by weight
of municipal solid waste and consists almost exclusively of dis-
carded containers and packaging. Beverage containers account for
roughly half of this.
In most mechanized glass recovery systems, ferrous -free
heavies are air classified to remove aluminum and then exposed to
an electrically changed drum. Whereas, conductors such as metals
briefly retain their charge before falling off the drum, non-con-
ductors such as glass adhere to the drum. The outflow next
enters an opacity sorter which separates and removes all non -
transparent material, such as ceramics and stones. The re-
mainder, essentially pure glass, is fed to a color sorter where
it is separated into clear and green -amber piles.
2.33
�•� HOLZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C.
In optical sorting, glass particles travel in single fine on
narrow, high speed belts. As each fragment falls between a photo-
cell and special background in a fixed shade, the combined re-
flectance of the fragments and the background is evaluated
photogrametrically by special optical filters. This photocell
differentiates virtually all colored glass or foreign material
from flint glass and expels them using air jets. Thus, the unit
both sorts color glass and separates foreign materials from the
flint glass fragments. A disadvantage of this process is that
particles must be between 3/16 and 5/8 inch in size.
2.34
I 1j4HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
3.0 COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
NYSDEC standards for solid waste management are contained in
6 NYCRR Part 360. The operators of a solid waste management fa-
cility are required to obtain an operations permit. The Town of
Southold submitted a Part 360 permit application on February 15,
1984.
On June 21, 1983, the NYS Environmental Conservation Law was
amended to prohibit the siting of new landfills and expansion of
landfills in the deep flow recharge zone of Nassau and Suffolk
Counties. The act also requires the cessation of land burial and
disposal of domestic and industrial solid waste in Nassau and
Suffolk by December 1990. The purpose of the law is to protect
Long Island's sole source aquifer from contamination by land-
fills, since the potable water supply is derived from this
source.
The deep flow recharge zone has been defined as Hydrogeo-
logic Zones I, II and III, as described in the Long Island Compre-
hensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (1978). The Cutchogue
landfill is located outside of the deep flow recharge area in
Hydrogeologic Zone IV.
Limited expansion to an existing landfill located in the
deep flow recharge area will be allowed prior to 1990 only for
the purpose of providing solid waste disposal capacity prior to
implementation of a resource recovery system. Outside of the
recharge zone, existing landfills could be expanded or new land-
fills could be developed only when the NYSDEC Commissioner has
3.1
U:L/4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
made an affirmative determination that such a landfill will not
pose a threat to groundwater, quality and the following conditons
are met:
1) The landfill owner posts a financial guarantee
which will cover costs to correct groundwater,
surface water or air pollution problems that
may occur;
2) The landfill is underlain by a double liner,
with provisions for leachate collection and
disposal;
3) The landfill is designed and operated to mini-
mize migration of methane and other gases;
4) The landfill is not located in a wetland or
flood plain;
5) Hazardous wastes are not accepted at the land-
fill, and
6) The landfill accepts only material which is the
product of resource recovery, incineration or
composting, after 1990.
After 1990, all landfills in the Counties of Nassau and
Suffolk must conform to the conditions listed above. Landfills
outside of the deep flow recharge area may accept wastes other
than those authorized, upon approval of the Commissioner.
Downtime wastes and wastes that are untreatable by resource
recovery must be deposited in a separate disposal area at the
landfill. Not more than 10 percent of the annual rated capacity
of a resource recovery facility may be diposed of as downtime
waste per year.
3.2
U2J4 HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4.0 RESOURCE RECOVERY: TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Resource recovery from solid waste is not a new concept. It
has been practiced in one form or another in various parts of the
world, including the United States, for many years. The recent
trend toward energy conversion has resulted in the rediscovery of
energy and material recovery from discarded waste.
Depending on the degree of sophistication, resource recovery
can range from the elaborate high tech process concepts to the
simple source separation of materials prior to being discarded.
In response to recently enacted legislation which eliminates
landfilling as a primary means of solid waste disposal by 1990,
Southold has expressed interest in a resource recovery facility
as a possible solution to dispose of municipal solid waste (MSW)
in an environmentally sound and economical manner.
Although there are many technologies and variations within
such technologies which have appeared in the industry, only a few
are applicable to the projected average annual quantities of
solid waste generated by the Town of Southold.
The alternatives to be evaluted in this report include:
Mass -Burn Incineration
Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) Incineration
Waste Distillation
r
Composting
Out -of -Town Disposal
4.1
U! Ifs HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4.2 MASS -BURN TECHNOLOGY
Mass -burn, the incineration of MSW, is proven and the most
widely used technology today. When combined with the proper en-
vironmental precautions and energy recovery, it becomes an at-
tractive solution to the disposal of solid waste.
Under the mass -burn concept, the furnace is charged with
as -received refuse. In a resource recovery facility, the heat
generated from the burning waste is recovered by convection, radi-
ation, or a combination of both depending on the boiler design.
Two methods are currently in use; the waterwall, Figure 4-1; and
the convection type, Figure 4-2.
In order to reduce the quantity of material directed to the
landfill, municipalities have frequently added a shredder or chop-
per to reduce the size of combustible bulk materials, such as
pallets, furniture, crates, tree branches, etc. into a size
readily acceptable to the incinerator. Depending upon the design
of the feed system, some bulk items with high BTU content, i.e.,
discarded automobile tires, can be fed directly into the furnace
without preprocessing.
With proper design and operation of a resource recovery
facility, the original MSW volume can be reduced by 85 to 90 per-
cent and the residue limited to approximately 5 percent combusti-
bles. This significant reduction in volume, together with
ferrous metal separation, if installed, clearly extends the life
of a landfill. If a market can be developed, screened inciner-
ator residue can be used as a base material for roads or parking
lots.
4.2
FIGUME 4-1--
INCINERATOR
-,i:
INCINERATOR SIDE VIEW
HEATING PLANT
NASHVILLE THERMAL TRANSFER CORPORATION
COMPACTION TRANSFER
TRAILER
I. CRANE
2. CHARGING HOPPER
3. SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR TRAILER
4. FOUR LEVEL RECIPROCATING GRATES
5. SOLID WASTE STORAGE PIT
6. FORCED DRAFT FAN
7. ASH HOPPER
8. ASH DISPOSAL TRAILER
9. AUXILIARY BURNER
10. DUST COLLECTOR
11. PRECIPITATOR POWER SUPPLY
12.
ASH REMOVAL SYSTEM '
13.
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
14.
INDUCED DRAFT FAN
15.
STACK
16.
ECONOMIZER
17.
TOP OR STEAM DRUM
18.
SUPER HEATER
19.
LOWER DRUM
20.
FORCED AIR INLET
MASS BURN WATERWALL TECHNOLOGY.
_Town of Southold.
Solid Waste Management Report
REF: NASHVILLE THERMAL TRANSFER COMP.
HOL,ZMACHERMcLENDON Sa MURRELL, P.C. MELVILLE, N.Y. I
FARMINGDALE, N.Y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVERHEAD. N.Y.
4.3
: MASS BURN —CONVECTION TECHNOLOGY17'
Town of .Southold
Solid Waste Ma*nagernent Report
HOLZMACHER, McLEN®ON &. MURRELL, P.C. MELVILLE, N.Y. I
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS R VERINY
HEAD...
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
No resource recovery project can be considered -without equal
consideration to a satellite landfill which will not only accept
unburna bles and incinerated residue, but also emergency bypass, of
MSW when the plant is inoperable.
4.2.1 Water -wall Technology
The term waterwall does not refer to cascading water similar
to a waterfall, but rather to a series of many closely -spaced
water -filled interconnected steel tubes which surround the stoker
and absorb radiant heat from the burning refuse.
Attractive high thermal efficiencies inherent in utility
power boilers prompted the technology transfer and European de-
velopment of the waterwall incinerator. Active competition has
promoted the development of a number of European proprietary de-
signs, listed below, which are available through license agree-
ments in the United States.
U.S. licensee.
The firm in the parenthesis is the
Joseph Martin, West Germany (Ogden -Martin, Inc.)
Seghers, Belgium (Fulton Iron Works Co.)
Vareinigte Kesselwerke VKW, West Germany (Browning
Ferris Ind.)
Von Roll, Switzerland (Signal Resco, Inc.)
Widmer & Ernst, Switzerland (Blount, Inc.)
Some of the above technologies have been introduced in the
United States in.the larger -sized facilities. (For example:
Chicago, IL; Harrisburg, PA; North Andover, MA; Pinelles, FL;
Saugus, ME, and Westchester, NY).
4.5
V2/44 HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
There is considerable similarity between each of the large
proprietary designed plants. The major difference is the stoker
configuration.
A novel approach to waterwall is the O'Conner Water Cooled
Rotary Combustor (Penn Engineering). The O'Conner concept is a
rotating kiln constructed of water -filled tubes. Combustion of
the refuse takes place within the kiln. There are a number of
various capacity units operating in Japan burning dedicated in-
dustrial waste.
Prefabricated waterwall modules have been developed to
satisfy the growing demand for smaller -sized waterwall inciner-
ators. The concept has the advantage of the high thermal conver-
sion efficiency without the associated high cost of a proprietary
design. The one feature which greatly reduces the cost is the
prefabrication of the waterwall tubes which form the outer shell
of the incinerator.
Examples of 'the smaller -sized waterwall resource recovery
facilities include the successful 200 TPD Hampton, VA refuse -to -
steam plant, the proposed 140 TPD Waterbury, CT plant and the 200
TPD conversion of the Long Beach, NY facility.
The above cursory review can be summarized in terms applica-
ble for waterwall technology. Specifically, the advantages and
disadvantages have been outlined below:
Advantages:
• Capable of reliably generating steam and/or power
• High thermodynamic efficiency
. Proven technology
,
HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
• Adaptable to co -disposal of sludge
• Low -to -moderate operation and maintenance cost
• Good on-line performance
Disadvantages:
• High capital cost
• Proprietary design (except for prefabricated water -
walls)
• Full-service contracts generally required with pro-
prietary design
• Immediate waterwall tube repair or replacement re-
quired
4.2.2 Convection Boiler Technology
In contrast to the waterwall design, the convection boiler
relies on extracting heat from combustion gas as it passes
through the tube section. Because of the high particulate concen-
tration in incinerator flue gas, convection boilers must be de-
signed specifically for MSW. The thermal efficiency of the
convection boiler system is not as high as the waterwall. Many
facilities using the convection boiler concept are usually custom
designed for a specific project incorporating standard stokers,
boilers and other components. These designs compete favorably
with the proprietary designs currently available. -A typical con-
vection boiler system was previously shown in Figure,4-2.
Advantages:
• Considerable design flexibility
• Capable of reliably generating steam and/or power
• Proven technology
4.7
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
• Low operating and maintenance costs
• High on-line performance
I Adaptable to co -disposal of sludge
Disadvantage:
• High capital cost
4.2.3 Prefabricated Controlled Air Modular Incinerators
The term "modular" by definition [1] means:
1. Each unit is identical
2. Each unit operates independently
3. One or more units can be integrated in an exist-
ing system as waste demand increases
By the above definition, any facility incorporating a number
of identical but independent heat recovery incinerators, regard-
less of size, can be considered to be a.modular installation.
This category of incinerator technology has been touted as the
cost-effective solution to small volume installations by many
manufacturers and some engineers. Past experience has shown that.
the real cost of a facility must not only include the initial
equipment cost, but also the hidden cost of an emerging tech-
nology in terms of operation and maintenance. Earlier units were
manufactured of materials inadequate for the long -life strenuous
i operation of MSW incineration.
[1] Small Modular Incinerator Systems with Heat Recovery -
EPA SW -797
W.
.B�,ffjv% HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Modular systems in the past were limited to sizes from 12 to
50 TPD. However, as demand for heat recovery incineration in-
creased, so did the capacity of units offered by various manu-
facturers. Although some manufacturers' catalogs offer units up
to 300 TPD, installations have not exceeded 200 TPD and typically
do not exceed 150 TPD.
A recent study [2], conducted for the U.S. Navy, reviewed
small scale heat recovery incinerators manufactured by thirteen
American companies. All manufacturers offered a complete con-
trolled air combustion system including the boiler. Of the two
,controlled air processes offered, starved air and excess air,
starved air manufacturers were predominant (85 percent). One
manufacturer offered both technologies. Excess air designs were
generally higher in design capacity, reaching 16,700 pounds per
hour, while the starved air units did not exceed 8,400 pounds per
hour. Consistent with the controlled air technology, all units
were equipped with auxiliary fossil fuel burners.
4.2.3.1 Starved Air Technology
Starved air technology, used by many manufacturers, is the
incineration of solid waste or any other combustible material in
the absence of sufficient air to complete combustion or, in other
words, burn waste with less than the amount of air theoretically
required to complete combustion. The resultant combustible gas,
rich in carbon monoxide and other volatile components, is then
[2] Survey of Small Scale Heat Recovery Incinerators - CR 83.017
(1983)
4.9
V2/4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
burned in a secondary chamber. Both the primary and secondary
chambers are usually equipped with auxiliary burners. The pri-
mary burner serves to ignite the waste and if the material is
unusually wet, it continues to operate and sustain combustion.
The secondary burner, thermostatically controlled, operates if
the temperature of the flue gas is insufficient to complete com-
bustion alone. Auxiliary fossil fuel, such as oil or gas, is
used intermittently as required to sustain the combustion
process.
The concept of operating less than stoichiometric air gener-
ates less combustion which, in turn, requires smaller -sized fans
and auxiliary equipment and thus results in lower power consump-
tion and capital cost. There is also the claim that lower
volumes produce lower gas velocities, thus enhancing particulate
fall -out. Theoretically, secondary chamber combustion reduces
particulate emission to levels which eliminate the need for
costly precipitators. This concept at best has been marginal.
With the increased concern for more stringent particulate
emission levels, the need for air pollution control devices has
also been increased and should now be considered mandatory. The
burning of auxiliary fossil fuels to complete the combustion of
gases generated by the burning of solid waste increases the possi-
bility of higher levels of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and ni-
trogen oxides.
Because
waste reduction by
weight
is generally lower
and the
combustible
fraction (carbon)
found
in the residue
higher,
4.10
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
starved air units tend to have lower combustion efficiencies
whi.c-h, in turn, reduce energy revenue.
A typical starved air installation is the.Comsumat System at
North Little Rock, AR. The facility consists of two (2) 25 TPD
incinerators. The units are charged by a front "end loader feed-
ing a .charging chute. Sub -stoichiometric combustion takes place
in the primary chamber as the waste is systematically moved to
the residue sump by transfer rams. The carbon monoxide rich com-
11 bustion gas enters the secondary chamber and is burned. This
exhaust gas, at a temperature of 1800°F, is drawn through a heat
exchanger, thus generating steam for export.
4.2.3.2 Excess Air Technology
In contrast to the starved air process where sub -stoichio-
metric, air is applied to the primary chamber and excess air in
the secondary chamber to burn the resultant combustion gas, ex-
cess air processes operate with air in excess of stoichiometric
supplied to both chambers. Auxiliary fossil fuel is fired in the
secondary chamber to reduce unburned particulates entrained in
the gas stream.
Manufacturers of excess air systems claim that the ad-
ditional air allows the incinerator to operate at design capacity
with a good burnout and also provides a low carbon residue.
Basic Environmental Engineering, Inc.. provides an excess air
waterwall incinerator to improve thermal conversion efficiency.
Its concept involves the use of waterwells in the furnace cham-
bers which are directly coupled to a convection boiler. Because
of the added radiant heat absorbed in the primary chamber, the
4.11
HOLZMACHER; McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
company claims to generate up to 40 percent more steam than compa-
rable refractory -lined models.
One working example of the excess air process is the 240 TPD
full service contract built by Vicon for Pittsfield, MA. The
facility is equipped with three (3) 120 TPD units. For redun-
dancy, two units are on-line continuously and the third is a
standby unit. The primary chamber temperature is maintained by
controlled overfire and underfire combustion air. Complete com-
bustion of the flue gas takes place in the secondary chamber as-
sisted by auxiliary burners. Two (2) boilers rated at 35,000
pounds per hour each generate superheated steam at 100 psig and
360°F. For added efficiency, an economiser is used to preheat
the boiler feedwater. Unlike many earlier controlled air instal-
lation, the Pittsfield facility was designed and built with heavy
duty equipment permitting it to operate seven days per week, 24
hours per day at 83 percent [3] of rated capacity and a design
efficiency of 62 percent.
Although past performance of modular technology has not
lived up to the claims of manufacturers, efforts are being made
by some companies to improve the image and performance of their
units.
At present, large modular units, 150 TPD and above, should
be considered as advancing the state-of-the-art in modular in-
cineration.
As with stoker -fired waterwall technology, there are advan--
tages and disadvantages to prefabricated modular technology.
[3) Resource Recovery Year Book 1982-1983, Columbia Univ., p. 181
4.12
'VLJt HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Advantages:
• Low initial capital cost
• Factory assembly of_smaller modules
Disadvantages:
Starved Air
• Low thermodynamic conversion
• Requires auxiliary fossil fuel
• High operating and maintenance. cost
• Not generally suited to power systems
Long-term reliability,of equipment to burn MSW
Excess Air
• Medium thermodynamic conversion (waterwall)
• Requires auxiliary fossil fuel
• Not generally suited to power systems
• Long-term reliability of equipment to burn MSW
4.3 REFUSE -DERIVED FUEL (RDF) TECHNOLOGY
Refuse -derived fuel (RDF) facilities require the separation
of components such as glass, inerts and metals from the waste.
The remaining burnable components, paper, plastic, wood, etc. are
used "as is" or pelletized. The. ultimate use of RDF generally
determines which MSW processing procedure is used. Many RDF
processes introduced in the last decade have experienced design
and operational problems, especially in the shredding, separation
and storage of processed RDF.
Excessive -wear and periodic explosions in the shredding
process are now considered acceptable occurrences in everyday
4.13
U LQ 4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. ._
operations. Separation and classification of components require
considerable material handling equipment, much of which is sub-
jected to abrasive wear from glass embedded in the RDF component
itself.
Prepared RDF can be a fluff -like material which clings to-
gether creating a flexible mat, making long-term storage and
later distribution extremely difficult. Experience has shown
that immediate use or at most, short-term storage, prevents RDF
interlock. RDF can be transported to a dedicated RDF utility
boiler or used on-site in a combined RDF boiler plant, as shown
in Figure 4-3.
The sale of materials derived from generating RDF can par-
tially offset the high operating costs. Ferrous and non-ferrous
metals separated from the waste stream being of higher quality
than that generated from mass -burn MSW incinerated residue would
command a higher price. Other components, glass and paper, are
much more difficult to market unless the glass is separated by
color and the paper free of impurities. Additional capital cost
necessary to classify glass according to color may be uneconomi-
cal unless long-term purchase contracts for the glass can be ar-
ranged.
Some RDF systems are very similar in concept to the mass -
burn processes described earlier. For example:
1. Refractory - Stoker Fired - Convection Boiler
System - Except for combustion parameters, this
system could be considered equivalent to the
4.14
P
:M
Electrostatic
precipitator
Scale
Bulk refuse pit
Nonferrous
REFUSE -DERIVED FUEL FACILITY -
Town 'of Southold
Solid Waste Management Report
REF: POWER MAGAZINE, MAY 1978
Ferrous
FIGURE 4-3
IHZ*i HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. MELVILLE. N.Y.
FARMINGDALE, N.Y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 11
4.15
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
mass -burn concept described previously. The
simplest form of RDF, shredded with limited
component separation, can be fired in this sys-
tem. However, the degree of separation must be
determined in advance.
2. Waterwall - Stoker Fired - Boiler System -
Again, except for combustion parameters, this
system could be considered equivalent to the
waterwall mass -burn concept. The system can
accept the simplest form of RDF.
3. Spreader Stokers -'RDF Dedicated Boiler - RDF
is introduced and ignites while in suspension.
Complete combustion takes place on a traveling
stoker. This system requires quality RDF in
order to operate efficiently. A review of oper-
ating results from Akron; Buffalo; Hooker Chemi-
cal, Hamilton, Ont., and Ohio RDF -to -energy
facilities indicate limited success with ma-
terial handling or introduction of RDF.
4. Other Systems:
Other systems such as:
Suspension Firing
Fluidized Bed
Densified RDF
Hydrasposal - Fiberclaim (Hempstead)
are all variations of the RDF concept. A dis-
cussion of these systems is 'beyond the scope of
4.16
VZ44 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. ,
this review. Generally, a review of estab-
lished facilities did not demonstrate any advan-
tage over mass -burn. Such facilities have
histories of failure to perform on a continual
basis.
The advantages and disadvantages of RDF are outlined below:
Advantages:
• High quality of recovered materials
• Uniform feed stock
• Low volume and weight of residue
Disadvantages:
• Energy intensive process
• High operation and maintenance
• Potential for explosion in RDF manufacture
• Low on-line reliability
• RDF requires dedicated boiler
• Limited market for RDF
4.4 WASTE DISTILLATION
The waste distillation process is a continuous self-sustain-
ing process which uses an indirectly heated oxygen -free retort to
decompose the waste. This results in two products: a clean burn-
ing volatile gas and a carbon char. The gas.that is produced is
then used as a fuel in a standard steam boiler (see Figure 4-4).
The system is modular in design and can be provided in 50 ton/day
units.
4.17
h
11181111111
FIGURE 4-4
SCHEMATIC OF PROCESS
PROCESS STEAM
MAGNETIC b�
SEPARATION
BOILER GENERATOR
,j�� 2 O FEEDSTOCK
X'L�J�j PIT
.Q STEAM TURBINE
O{ "�►� WET REFUSc v /
SHREDDER PRODUCED GAS
`7 DRYER 1
STORAGE r —� GAS TURBINE
BIN
T (PRODUCED
WASTE DISTILLATOR GAS
RAM l I
(15% USED TO
SUSTAIN PROCESS)
CHAR BIN
O
1
WASTE DISTILLATION PROCESS
Town of Southold
Solid Waste Management Report
��HOLZMACHER, McLENDON MURRELL, P.C. FARMING N.Y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVERHEAD.N.YN.r
4.18
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
MSW is fed into a rotary shear-type shredder where waste is
reduced to an appropriate size for easy handling. Following the
shredder is a magnetic separator which is utilized to sort fer-
rous metals which may later be sold as scrap. The shredded waste
is then fed into a rotary drying unit which, after drying; is
transferred to the distillator. The distillator consists of an
insulated oven and a steel retort tube. The waste stream is
forced into the retort by a feed ram. Subsequently, the distil-
lation process takes place, whereby the waste decomposes as it
moves slowly through the rotating retort to the discharge end of
the system. Since the waste is not burned and temperatures range
from 1000°F to 1200°F, dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans should
not be formed and were not detected in the air emissions.
With the exception of a 4 ton per day unit operating in 'Cali-
fornia, there are no operating facilities in the .United States.
A full scale 50 ton/day unit was operated on an experimental
basis for two years at Marcal Paper Mills, Inc., in Elmwood Park,
New Jersey. The plant, which was partially funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy, was operated to develop data as to its suit-
ability for generating usable energy from solid waste.
During the Marcal demonstration project, municipal solid
waste was obtained from Marcal and the Monmouth County Recla-
mation Center (MCRC). All MSW was shredded at the MCRC, loaded
into the transfer trailers and transported to the test site. The
composition of the waste, based on a visual examination performed
I.
by Princeton University Testing Laboratory, was:
4.19
VZ4 HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
65 to 70%
Paper
15 to 20%
Plastic
<5%
Glass
<5%
Textiles
<5%
Organics
<5%
Metals
Tests conducted on.the demonstration project indicated a
weight reduction of 75 percent and a volume reduction of 90 per-
cent can be obtained by the distillation process.
The process, as indicated above, results in the formation of
a solid residue, called char. The char is composed of approxi-
mately 50 percent carbon, heavy metals and other elements, includ-
ing chlorine. The heavy metals and other elements, such as
chlorine, have a tendency to be adsorbed or encapsulated by the
char being formed. Until such time that additional tests are
conducted on the char and specific beneficial end uses are found
that are acceptable to NYSDEC, the char would have to be disposed
of in a sanitary landfill.
The history of pyrolytic facilities to date has been very
discouraging for a wide range of reasons. For example, the Flash
Pyrolysis process was constructed in California, operated/for
less than 24 hours and had to be taken off line due to complex
equipment problems. The Monsanto Landgard pyrolytic process was
utilized in Baltimore, Maryland and experienced high costs, low
efficiency and operational problems.
The advantages and disadvantages of the waste distillation
process are:
4.20
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Advantages:
• Low initial capital cost
Modular system, provided in 50 tons/day units
• Significant volume reduction (>90%)
• Well suited to power system
• No dibenzodioxins or dibenzofurans were detected in
the air emissions
Disadvantages:
. With the exception of a 4 ton/day unit in Cali-
fornia, there are no operating facilities in the
U.S.
4.5 COMPOSTING
Composting is a biochemical degradation process which can be
used to decompose the organic materials in municipal solid waste,
sewage sludge and agricultural and industrial wastes. A humus -
like material, known as compost, is the end product. The prop-
erties of this end product make it useful as a soil conditioner.
The composting operation consists of the following steps:
Preparation - May include sorting of bulky items, magnetic
separation and addition of sludges.
Digestion - The objective of this process is to rapidly
decompose the organic portions of the refuse
in an aerobic or anaerobic environment.
Curing - A curing process is usually provided subse-
quent to digestion to allow for further re-
duction of cellulose and lignins.
4.21
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Finishing - Following the digestion process, plastics,
glass and metals are removed via screening or
grinded.
Composting operations in the United States are almost ex-
clusively used for sludge. However, a number of innovative fa-
cilities .are being operated or constructed in the United States.
Two examples are the, static pile demonstration project being con-
ducted at the University. of Wisconsin, and the Eweson Digester in
Big Sandy, Texas.
The University of Wisconsin project is a small-scale re-
search project which is composting approximately 8 to 10 tons/
week. "Non -compos table items are removed from the waste stream
and disposed of at the landfill. The waste is then shredded and
mixed with digested sludge. The sludge is -added to the waste
stream as a supplemental source of nitrogen and moisture. The
waste is then placed in static piles 12 feet in diameter, 6 feet
in height at the center and 4 feet in height at the perimeter.
The piles were aerated and were maintained for approximately 6 to
8 weeks. The piles were then screened and cured for a few days
to further ensure pathogen destruction. Coarse screenings
greater than 1 -inch were landfilled with the non-compostable frac-
tion, resulting in 32 percent by weight of the incoming refuse
going to the landfill, or a 68 percent reduction by weight.
The Eweson Process has been used since 1972 for the co -
disposal of various agricultural wastes, sludges and MSW in Big
Sandy, Texas. A second facility is under construction in
Portage, Wisconsin and expected to go on-line in November 1986.
4.22
IH2A HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
The Eweson Digester, under aerobic conditions, decomposes
MSW and sludge into a humus -like compost product (Figure 4-5).
The sludge is a source of nitrogen and water (moisture).
The key component of the process is the rotating drum di-
gester. MSW enters the drum at one end and travels longitudi-
nally throughout its length, passing through three compartments.
The destructive action from the drum's rotation, in combination
with the high temperatures generated through the interaction with
the supplementary nitrogen source, aid to soften and initially
break down the MSW. After 1 to 2 days residency in Compartment
#1, 85 percent of ,the material is transferred to Compartment #2
via a transfer door.. The remaining 15 percent is left behind to
serve as inoculum for the next load. The waste continues to de-
compose in Compartment #3.. The bacterial activity is less in-
tense' and the air that circulates between compartments has the
lowest moisture content. Lastly, the compost is released,
screened, tailings removed, and the organic compost is cured.
The tailings represent approximately 25 to 30 percent by weight
and 15 percent by compacted volume of the feed waste stream.
Based on the estimated average quantity of MSW for, the year
1990 (79 tons), approximately 8 tons/day of sludge at 35 percent
solids would be required: Since the Town of Southold Scavenger
Waste Pretreatment Plant and the Village of Greenport STP are
anticipated to generate'l to 2 tons per day of sludge at 35 per-
cent solids, an additional nitrogen source will be required." The
sludge in the scavenger waste lagoons will most likely be capable
4.23
Packer.
Truck
FIGURE, 4-'5
BLOCK DIAGRAM OF EWESON PROCESS
Sewage-
Compost
f ►
1; Potential l Ilan.tic ► Ferrous.
Ferrous Sc{nration 1 k par,t�r �� hirtal5
J
Nondigestibles
Glass
Nonferrous Metals
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF EWESON DIGESTER
Air
131AW+ar Nondegardable
_ Trailings
Alt for
Receiving Out Dischargeoa
of Cpost ^� D -ping
tiopper
Rotating Digester
Air In
n
J First • Second • �� zuza0
t!ydraulic—
Ram Rtydreulic Friction Drive Heetanism For Landfill Soil
i Cover or Sales
I
Coarse
Screen
Hold
Ib lding
Ta!*. Pulp
Town of Southold
Solid Waste Management Report
IHZiA Ri V
HOL.ZMACHER McLENDON &MURRELL. P.C. IA RMING N.Y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS ERIHEAD. N.YN.Y
4.24 1
i
i�.`
.(� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
of serving this need on a short-term basis. However, the quan-
tity and characteristics of the sludge in the lagoons, in terms
of nitrogen and moisture content, will have to be ascertained to
determine its applicability. It is anticipated that sludge could
be readily obtained from other sewage treatment plants outside
the Town. Should the Town Board select this option, the sludges
should be examined for heavy metals prior to accepting same.
This process, based on available literature, will result in
no air or water emissions.
Lastly, the compost, when in compliance with NYSDEC require-
ments, can be sold as a soil conditioner for $5. to $10. per ton
or utilized by the Town.
The advantages and disadvantages of the Eweson Digester are
outlined below:
Advantages:
• Low capital cost
• Portability
. No harmful emissions to the atmosphere
No liquid effluents
. Accepts sewage sludge
• Low manpower requirement
• Very low power requirement
Disadvantages:
• Sewage sludge or some other nitrogen source in ex-
cess of what is available in the Town of Southold
is required
• Only 1 operating facility as of October 1986
4.25
VU-12-44HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4.6 OUT-OF-TOWN DISPOSAL
Under this alternative, the Town of Southold would transport
its municipal solid waste to a regional facility or to an ap-
proved and available sanitary landfill. With no changes to the
Landfill Law, an approved landfill for disposal of the entire
Town's MSW on Long Island would not exist. Consequently, the
Town would be faced with hauling MSW off Long Island at an esti-
mated minimum cost of $100. per ton. As a result, disposal to an
off Long Island sanitary landfill is not a viable alternative.
Transport and disposal of the Town's MSW at a regional or
suitably -sized facility is a feasible alternative. Currently,
the Towns of Southampton and Brookhaven are considering construc-
tion
onstruc-tion of Resource Recovery facilities. In addition, the Towns of
Riverhead and Southampton are contemplating a regional facility.
The advantages and disadvantages of this alternative are:
Advantages:
. Eliminates the need to site a resource recovery
facility within the Town
Provides for economy of scale, thereby decreasing
per ton costs for disposal
Disadvantages:
Decreases level of control
• Results in additional handling and transportation
costs
4.26
UZ4 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4.7 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
As tabulated previously in Table 2-13, the Town of Southold
generated an average of approximately 70 tons per day in 1985 and
is anticipated to generate a peak of approximately 130 tons per
day by 2010 of municipal solid waste.
The selection of a technology is a major step in the develop -
meet of a resource recovery program. The costs associated with a
particular type of technology is, to some extent, dependent upon
the level of risk the Town is willing to assume. The most proven
technologies in the size range indicated above would be utili-
zation of a mass -burn refractory -lined convection boiler or a
prefabricated modular excess air mass -burn incinerator. However,
both of these technologies would require substantial capital ex-
penditures (>$10 million) and, after an allowance for heat re-
covery/electricity generation and resale, would result in costs
in excess of $30. per ton.
Two types of technology that are available in the size range
the Town of Southold falls within are composting and waste distil-
lation. Unfortunately, both of these technologies have very
limited operating data on which to make an unqualified recommen-
dation. Yet, on the other hand, both technologies offer a sig-
nificant cost savings over the mass -burn technology.
The capital cost estimates for composting, based on the Ewe -
son digester and waste distillation are presented in Table 4-1,
based on 1986 dollars. Although the estimated costs are based on
a very preliminary design concept, they are sufficient to estab-
lish a relative cost for the project. Engineering, legal and
4.27
V28A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
COSTS
Capital Costs
Annual Capital Costs
(9% over 20 years)
Annual O&M Expenses
Total Annual Costs
Revenue
Net Annual Costs
Costs Per Ton
TABLE 4-1
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
PROCESS
COMPOSTING
$4,000,000.
438,000.
300,000.
738,000.
141,000.
$ 597,000.
$16.36*
*Based on 100 tons MSW per day.
4.28
WASTE DIST-ILLATION
$8,000,000.
876,000.
755,000.
1,631,000.
806,000.
$ 825,000.
$22.60*
FZ4 HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
permits are estimated as a percentage of construction cost. Capi-
talization is for 20 years at nine (9) percent interest.
The cost per ton figures indicated are based on an average
quantity of 100 tons/day MSW for the composting operations and
100 tons/day for the waste distillation process. In addition,
the composting process would convert 10 tons/day of sludge to
compost. While the waste distillation process at the Marcal
Paper Mills, Inc. did not decompose sludge, the process can be
designed to be capable of handling sludge. It is anticipated
that first year costs per ton of MSW would be approximately 20
percent more due to an average MSW quantity of only 80 tons/day.
4.29
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PLANS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Implementation of any project requires a careful examination
of various administrative (institutional), procurement and finan-
cial alternatives available. These alternatives are described in
the following sections for the Town of Southold.
5.2 ADMINISTRATIVE (INSTITUTIONAL) ALTERNATIVES
There are six kinds of mechanisms available in New York
State which may be considered for use in implementing a solid
waste resource recovery project. They are:
1. General Municipal Powers
2. Intermunicipal Service Agreements
3. Agreements for Joint Municipal Activities
�— 4. Special Purpose Districts
5. Public Authorities
6. N.Y.S. Environmental Facilities Corporation
General Municipal Powers
Each municipal level of government (Village, Town, City and
County) in New York State now has authority to undertake solid
waste handling activities (including collection, processing and
disposal) as a municipal function within its borders. In all
cases, the authority extends to acquisition of property and fi-
nancing with either general tax revenues or service charges.
5.1
U2AA HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
This mechanism is obviously available where primary functional
responsibility is assigned at either the local government level
or at the County level.
Intermunicipal Service Agreements
The General Municipal Law enables any municipal corporation
to enter into an agreement whereby it undertakes to supply solid
waste management services to another unit of local government at
a stated rate of consideration. Agreements under this general
provision require approval by each participating municipal corpo-
ration or district by a majority vote of the voting strength of
its governing body. Section 119-o of the statute requires equita-
ble allocations of revenues and capital and operating costs, but
allows various formulas to be used, including those that allocate
in proportion to full valuation of real property, to the amount
of services rendered, or to the benefits received.
A more specialized authority for intermunicipal service con-
tracts is provided by Section 120-w of the Municipal Law. This
statute enables any municipality which owns and operates any sol-
id waste processing facility to enter into a contract with any
other municipality or private corporation for the collection,
processing and disposal of solid wastes from outside the munici-
pality. Action under this statute does not require approval by
three-fourths of the governing body. This section, it has been
held, does not permit towns to charge a surcharge fee for the use
of their landfills by non-residents.
5.2
it,12J4 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
The intermunicipal services contract may be an important
legal mechanism for different assignments of primary responsibil-
ity. For example, the township in which a resource recovery site
is located might enter into an agreement, under Section 119-o,
with other towns and municipalities to dispose of all their
i
wastes. If a facility is located on County -owned land and oper-
ated by the County the County can make a service contract with
the Town.
Agreements for Joint Municipal Activities
These agreements are similar. to 'intermunicipal service .ar-
rangements and derive their statutory authority from the same
source. The major difference is that activities are carried out
jointly and a joint governmental body may be created, composed of
designated elected officials of participating municipalities,
their appointees or others as specified.
Special Purpose Districts
Counties are empowered to create solid waste collection and
disposal districts which cover only a portion of their respective
jurisdictional areas. Such district operations may be financed
through special benefit assessments or ad valorem assessments
against the properties in the district. In a County district,
creation is subject to either permissive referendum or referendum
on petition.
5.3
W0112/4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Public Authorities
A public authority (sometimes called a public corporation)
is a corporate agency of the State, created by the State Legisla-
ture for the furtherance of self-liquidating public improvements.
As creations of the State, such authorities can be formed for a
multiplicity of purposes and with a wide range of powers.
Articles 10 and 15 of the New York State Constitution pro-
vide that no public corporation, other than a municipality, which
possesses power both to contract indebtedness and to collect
charges for services supplied, can be.created except by special
act of the Legislature. Thus, to create a solid waste disposal
authority, however limited.or extensive its geographic area of
operation and scope of authority, a bill which has sufficient
political backing for passage must be presented to the General
Assembly.
The bonds and notes of the authority are not debts of the
l�State, County or any municipality, and are payable only out of
the funds of the authority. The authority is deemed to be operat-
ing in a "governmental function" in the exercise of the powers
conferred, and is exempt from the payment of taxes on any proper-
ties acquired or used by it. The authority has power to con-
struct sites within its service area and to contract for solid
'waste disposal outside the service area, and also to contract
with municipalities and private parties both inside and outside
the service area for the purpose of treating and disposing of
f solid waste materials.
J —
5.4
II2A4 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
To finance its operations and to pay off its capital obliga-
tions, the authority has power to fix rates and collect charges
for any services it renders. It can also issue negotiable bonds
with up to forty years to maturity and negotiable bond anticipa-
tion notes with up to five years to maturity. To secure its
bonds, the authority can pledge revenues derived from its opera-
tions and can also provide further security by trust indentures.
The bonds can provide financing for any of the authority's corpor-
ate purposes, including incidental expenses connected with the
issuance of bonds.
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation
The NYSEFC is a public authority and corporation created in
1967 by Special Act of the State Legislature, which Act was
amended in 1970 to expand -the corporation's scope of concern to
include solid waste disposal facilities.
With respect to special powers, the corporation is autho-
rized to contract with municipalities and state agencies to under-
take the following projects:
1. Turnkey construction of solid waste disposal
facilities.
2. Operation and maintenance of solid waste dis-
posal facilities.
3. Service contracts, whereby the corporation pro-
vides for treatment, compaction or disposal of
solid wastes by means of solid waste disposal
facilities owned and constructed by the -corpo-
ration.
5.5
V2AA HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4. Provide loans for the construction of solid
waste disposal facilities.
5. Advise and provide technical assistance, re-
search, planning and testing, with respect to
matters relating to the planning, construction,
operation and maintenance of solid waste dis-
posal facilities.
In connection with such projects, the municipality (which
may be a County, Town, City, Village, District Corporation, or
Town or County improvement district) must have appropriate power
itself and must agree to the contract by resolution of its govern-
ing body; i.e., the elective body or board vested with juris-
diction to initiate and adopt local laws and ordinances. Where
the corporation makes loans, it may fix and collect such charges
as it determines reasonable.
In connection with service contracts, where the corporation
undertakes to provide for the treatment, compaction or disposal
of a municipality's solid waste, two approaches are possible:
1. Unless certain conditions are met, the munici-
pality does not acquire any vested rights in
the facilities and the annual payments made by
the municipality to the corporation are deemed
to be current operating expenses.
2. If, under the service contract, the munici-
pality does acquire rights in the facilities,
then;
5.6
nu"12/4 HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
a. The term of the contract must not ex-
ceed the period of probable usefulness
of the facilities;
b. The municipality must pledge its full
faith and credit for the payment of the
annual charges;
C. Any unpaid annual payments are deemed
indebtedness of the municipality;
d. The annual payments are deemed to be
"indebtedness" and "interest" within
the meaning of state constitutional
limits on real estate taxes.
3. The annual payment of the municipality must
commence within two years after the indebted-
ness has been contracted and no annual payment
may be more than 50 percent in excess of the
smallest prior annual payment.
In addition to the above powers, the corporation is autho-
rized to rent projects constructed and owned by it with approval
of the contracting municipality and may make other improvements
at a facility site for which the contracting municipality has the
power to provide.
61MA
V 2/4 HOLZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C.
5.3 PROCUREMENT ALTERNATIVES
There are two basic methods of procurement that are gener-
ally used in both state and local government construction:
1. Formal advertising or non -negotiated procurement
2. Negotiated or sole -source procurement
Non -negotiated procurement is always a competitive bid pro-
cedure and is required by law in many locations. This is the
traditional method where a governmental body procures goods or
services. A document termed an Invitation for Bids (IFB) is used
to solicit bidders. Since only a very limited exchange of ad-
ditional information is permitted between the bidder and the -
sponsor, the requirements must be precisely defined in specifi-
cations included as a part of the IFB. The contract is awarded
to the lowest responsible bidder.
Negotiated non-competitive, or sole -source procurement, is
often
used in the hiringof professional services or purchasing a
product that is unique. When negotiations are carried out with
more than one bidder, they are considered competitive.
The advantage of a negotiated procurement is that a two-way
exchange of information is permitted between bidder and sponsor.
This presents the opportunity for considering alternative pro-
posals and for coordinating requirements with bidders. It also
provides an opportunity to consider the important interrelation
ships between technical, economic and management elements of a
proposal.
MW
V2/§4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
In a negotiated procurement, a document referred to as a
Request for Proposal (RFP) is used for solicitation. The RFP
describes what is required of the proposers. A RFP generally
sets performance standards rather than providing details on the
way the result is to be achieved. Award -is based on a compre-
hensive evaluation of proposals using a predeveloped evaluation
process. The negotiated procurement process usually involves the
following steps:
Solicitation of proposals from interested firms;
Evaluation of proposals;
Selection of finalists;
Interview and ranking of finalists;
Selection of a winner;
Contract negotiation;
Contract award.
Recognizing the expense and complexity of preparing a full
response to the RFP, and the wide variety of potentially inter-
ested responders, communities often include a pre -qualification
step. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is issued to all inter-
ested firms. The experience and capabilities of the prospective
consultants are then evaluated. Full technical and financial
proposals are then solicited only from a limited number of firms
that are the best qualified.
5.3.1 Procurement Approaches
There are four procurement approaches available for a re-
source recovery system:
1. Conventional (A/E)
WE
U2/4 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
2. Turnkey
3. Full Service
4. Full Service with Government Ownership
With the exception of the conventional method, all are nego-
tiated through the use of an RFP. The following is a brief dis-
cussion of each:
Conventional Approach
This is the traditional approach used by government to pro-
cure public buildings and other public works. It involves two
main steps by the owner. The first step is to hire an engi-
neering consultant to design the facility and prepare detailed
specifications and drawings.. The second step is to obtain con-
tractors, material and equipment through competitive bidding.
This can be the lowest cost method if competitive bids are re-
ceived. The construction is monitored by either the engineer or
the municipality.
1
As owner of the facility, the governing body is responsible
for operation and maintenance after successful performance test-
ing. A disadvantage of this method is that the overall design
and construction time is usually the longest.
Turnkey Approach
In this approach, the municipality issues a general specifi-
cation outlining its needs and requirements. A system contractor
is hired to design and implement the resource recovery system in
one package.This approach is always accompanied by government
ownership and operation where the municipality does not want to
5.10
0114" HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
have the responsibility for system implementation. Only minimal
coordination by the owner is needed between design, construction
and other project elements. However, minimal involvement will
leave the owner unaware of design or construction problems that
may affect cost or schedules.
In addition to assigning sole responsibility for the project
to a single party, it provides the municipality some assurance
regarding initial process performance. If the plant does not
operate as specified, the municipality does not have to accept
it.
Design and construction time can be reduced through phased
construction. However, if this method is used, no firm project
cost can be established until construction is underway.
After successful operation, the municipality owns the fa-
cility. It has the option to retain or to contract out responsi-
bility for operation and maintenance of the facility.
Full Service Approach
The third basic approach commonly used in acquisition of
resource recovery facilities adds elements of private ownership
and operation to the turnkey approach. Thus, a system contractor
has full responsibility for financing, design, implementation,
continued operation and ownership. This shifts almost all the
risk to the contractor who will normally charge a premium for
assuming the risk. It makes public financing unnecessary and
provides incentives for efficient design and operation by private
industry. This procedure is relatively new in municipal solid
waste management.
5.11
U-2/4 HOLZMACHER, McLEN00N & MURRELL, P.C.
In reality, the full service contractor is offering the
municipality a service instead of a facility. The system con-
tractor will usually charge the municipality a tipping fee for
delivered solid waste. The contractor will usually require a
guaranteed quantity of solid waste to ensure proper operation of
the facility. The municipality pays the contractor for the
guaranteed quantity even if it cannot deliver the total quantity.
Full Service with Government Ownership Approach
The fourth basic approach is a variation of the full service
approach, in which the facility is owned by government rather
than private industry. The system contractor is responsible for
the design, implementation and operation of the facility. Thus,
he is providing a service to the municipality while the munici-
pality retains ownership of the facility.
The advantage over the turnkey approach is that the same
system contractor who designs and builds the plant is also respon-
sible for its operation. If the municipality has confidence in
the technology proposed, this method offers the potential for
lower costs over the full service approach, since the con-
tractor's charge would not include a return on equity.
5.4 FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
Solid waste management is an important and necessary public
1 service which must be adequately financed. In order to implement
_J
an effective system, two basic financial decisions must be made:
1. How to cover the initial capital investment; and
5.12
■
V2/4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
1
2. How to provide revenue to meet operating costs.
Financing techniques for each are discussed briefly in the follow-
ing inparagraphs:
�
5.4.1 Initial Capital Investment (Capital Costs)
1 Possible means for financing the initial capital investment
1 are the pay-as-you-go method and long-term obligations.
1 Pay -as -You -Go
This method dictates that all equipment and facilities are
paid for as the purchases are made. The advantages associated
with this .policy are (a) saving of interest and carrying charges
involved, and (b) no long-term commitments. A large initial capi-
L tal expenditure, as is generally required for major resource re-
covery projects, oftentimes eliminates this method of financing.
Long -Term Obligations
At present, a variety of methods of financing resource re-
covery projects exists. Most -facilities are financed by one or a
combination of methods.
Six basic mechanisms for financing resource recovery facili-
ties are:
1. General Obligation Bonds
2. Municipal Revenue Bonds
3. Government Aid
4. Industrial Revenue and Pollution Control
Revenue Bonds
5. Leasing
6. Leveraged Leasing
5.13
UZ44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
General Obligation Bonds
General obligation bonds (G.O. Bonds) are long-term obli-
gations secured by the full-Eaith-and-credit of a public body
which has the ability to raise and issue taxes. The full -faith -
and -credit clause pledges the general revenue of that juris-
diction. The jurisdiction's revenue sources may include property
taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, unincorporated business taxes,
personal property taxes, taxes on gross receipts of designated
businesses, license fees and other charges, grants-in-aid from
the federal government, and tax -sharing distributions from the
state (excluding federal revenue-sharing receipts). The credit
rating of the issuing public body is the determinant of the cost
of financing (interest rate).
Interest paid on general obligation bonds is non-taxable, by
both state and federal governments.
Municipal Revenue Bonds
Municipal revenue bonds, like general obligation bonds, are
long-term, tax-exempt obligations issued directly by authorities,
or other quasi -public agencies. Unlike general obligation bonds,
they do not contain a full -faith -and -credit clause which pledges
the issuer's general tax revenue to guarantee the schedule of
interest and principal payments. Rather, they pledge the net
revenue generated by a single project (the project being fi-
nanced) to guarantee payment of the funds obtained in the issue.
5.14
IH2,_A HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Government Aid
The New York State Environmental Quality Bond Act (EQBA) of
1972 was created to supply maximum grants of 50 percent for re-
source recovery projects and 25 percent for disposal equipment.
Funds are only available to municipalities or quasi -governmental
agencies (i.e., authority, district, etc.), and are disbursed as
the project is constructed. When allocating funds, preference is
given to regional or intermunicipal projects. Grants for up to
50 percent of the cost of detailed planning for construction or
improvement of solid waste facilities which are to be part of an
areawide solution are also available. All of the EQBA "high
tech" money has been allocated. However, NYSDEC recently indi-
cated that additional EQBA funds may become available due to a
reappropriation. The Town of Southold, in June 1986, advised
NYSDEC of their interest in securing EQBA funds if they become
ill be available for "low tech" projects
available. Funds may still P J
such as source separation programs. The Town of Southold should
lobby for the allocation of additional funds to solid waste
projects.
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
has prepared a final program opportunity notice for the "develop-
ment of recycling systems for increasing the recycling of ma-
terials found in municipal solid waste". This program provides
up to 50 percent funding of the eligible costs, with a maximum
allocation of $200,000./project and a total amount of $700,000.
state-wide. Since the goal of this solicitation is to expand the
5.15
1121§4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
recycling of materials that are now being disposed of as munici-
pal solid waste, NYSERDA has indicated that composting would be
eligible for funding. Proposals are due by October 31, 1986.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PL 94-580) in-
cludes provisions to provide grants for projects which advance
the state-of-the-art of solid waste disposal, resource recovery
or in recycling useful materials. The maximum federal share is
50 percent for a project serving an area which includes only one
municipality, and not more than 75 percent in any other case.
The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) of the Department of
Agriculture provides community facility loans (7 CFR Part 1942).
Funds may be used for the construction or improvement of com-
munity facilities providing essential services, such as solid
waste disposal facilities, primarily to rural residents.
The Federal Department of Energy, in accordance with the
Energy Security Act (PL 96-294), may provide various forms of
financing for municipal solid waste projects. Types of financing
include construction loans, construction loan guarantees, price
guarantees, and price supports. Present authorization for financ-
ing is 25 million, with an ultimate authorization for 225 mil-
lion.
Industrial Revenue and Pollution Control Revenue Bonds
An industrial revenue bond (IRB) and a pollution control
revenue bond (PCRB) are long-term, tax-exempt bonds that can be
issued by a municipality for or on behalf of a private enterprise.
The municipality acts as a vehicle through which a corporation
5.16
Gd2J44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
may obtain low cost financing. PCRBs can be used only to finance
pollution control equipment. The utilization of PCRBs has been
limited in resource recovery projects.
With an IRB or PCRB, the municipality technically owns the
facility and equipment, which it then leases to the private firm.
The lease payments are specified to meet the scheduled payments
of debt and interest on the bond. If the payments between the
corporation and the municipality are structured as an "install-
ment sale", the corporation may claim ownership for tax purposes.
This gives the corporation tax benefits in the form of acceler-
ated depreciation and/or investment tax credit.
Industrial revenue and pollution control bonds are not
backed by the full -faith -and -credit of the municipality. They
are secured only by the assets of the corporation.
Leasing
The lease -purchase agreement is a leasing arrangement which
is growing in popularity. It is attractive to private operators
as well as municipalities. The method is ideally suited for capi-
tal equipment like trucks and bulldozers, which can be written
off in five years or less. It also reduces the initial capital
outlay and enables equipment costs to be treated as operating
expenses, thereby eliminating large cash demand upon replacement
of equipment.
Short-term renting is recommended only when needs are well
defined, and the renting is on a temporary basis until plans and
financing arrangements can be developed for permanent facilities.
5.17
IH 44 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
A lease arrangment involves a third party, the lessor, who
purchases an asset with his own money, and the municipality who
rents use of the asset. The length of the lease is usually not
longer than 5 years, although some recent contracts have been
made up to 20 years.
Leveraged Leasing
Leveraged leasing is technically not a financial instrument.
Rather, it is a financial package that combines several financial
options. The package's concept is based upon the benefits (lower
long-term capital and interest costs) that accrue to a munici-
pality if a financial intermediary, corporation or individual is
interposed between a long-term source of capital and the munici-
pality.
Leveraged leasing, using tax-exempt funds as a debt source,
is a new concept. This method has stirred a great deal of inter-
est in the public financing investment community.
Advantages and disadvantages for each financing method are
shown in Table 5-1.
5.4.2 operating Funds
Four basic methods are used to generate operating funds:
(1) tax levies, (2) fixed charges, (3) user charge, and (4) reve-
nues from sale of recovered resources.
Tax Levies
These are revenues raised from real estate or other taxes
and budgeted for solid waste management. They may or may not be
listed separately on the tax bill. A disadvantage of this method
5.18
� ,i- ___ -i-----
1. General Obligation Bonds
2. Municipal Revenue Bonds
3. Government Aid
- State Environmental Qual-
ification Bond Act
- NYSERDA (EQBA)
Ln
• - Federal - Department of
Energy
- Farmers Home Administration
4. Industrial Revenue and Pollu-
tion Control Revenue Bonds
5. Leasing
6. Leveraged Leasing
*Requires further investigation
TABLE 5-1
FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
Advantages
Low interest rates
Voter approval not required; no
debt limitations.
State grant minimizes capital
cost to municipality.
50 percent grants.
Price supports and loan guarantees
may attract private full service
operators.
RFI
Same as municipal revenue bonds.
Can be instituted quickly.
Reduces capital cost to munici-
palities and interest charges.
Disadvantages
Requires voter approval. Debt
ceiling of Town limits amount of
bond.
High interest rates. Municipalities
cannot issue in New York State.
At present, only limited funding is
available.
Currently in draft form with a maxi-
mum of $500,000.
At present, no construction loan is
available.
RFI
Same as municipal revenue bonds.
High interest rates. Asset not owned
by municipality. Inability to sign
long-term contracts.
New and legally complex. At end of
lease, asset is owned by corporation,
not municipality.
U2,44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
is that the solid waste management budget is subject to the nor-
mal budgetary process and might be cut without regard to the oper-
ating costs. Furthermore, it is difficult to develop a case for
required rate increases.
Fixed Charges
These revenues are generated from a fixed charge which is
separate from taxes in a municipality -controlled operation, but
which does not reflect the level of type of service. The use of
fixed charges has several advantages. Funds can be generated
specifically for solid waste management, thereby eliminating com-
petition with other municipal operations for appropriations from
the general tax fund. The solid waste operation receives income
from an identifiable source and is forced to meet expenditures
from that income, making it relatively easy to determine the oper-
ating efficiency of the solid waste system. Another advantage is
that demands for rate increases can readily be justified by pro-
viding profit and loss data.
User Charge
This is a charge which varies according to the level of ser-
vice rendered. This method has all the advantages of a fixed
charge and, in addition, provides that only beneficiaries of a
service pay for that service.
Revenues from Sale of Recovered Resources
Sale of energy (steam and/or electricity) and secondary ma-
terials provides substantial income which contributes signifi-
cantly to the viability of the plan.
5.20
U2,4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We have summarized our conclusions and outlined our recommen-
dations in this section. Based on our evaluation of current
solid waste management practices, available data on solid waste
quantities, anticipated growth and feasible alternatives, we have
concluded the following:
1. The Town currently receives an average of ap-
proximately 70 tons per day (7 -day week) of
municipal solid waste (MSW). It is projected
that municipal solid waste quantities will in-
crease to approximately 79 tons per day by 1990
and to approximately 91 tons per day by the
year 2010. Peak municipal solid waste quanti-
ties are expected to increase to approximately
110 tons per day by 1,990 and to approximately
128 tons per day by the year 2010.
2. The Landfill Law eliminates landfilling as the
primary means of solid waste disposal beyond
1990. Without a change in current legislation
or an exception granted by the Commissioner
(NYSDEC), the Town of Southold will have to
implement a resource recovery project by 1990.
3. The Town of Southold has one active solid waste
disposal facility, the Cutchogue Landfill, com-
prised of 41 acres. Should the Town implement
Ja resource recovery project, the site and the
6.1
.1 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
adjacent 18 -acre parcel allows construction of
a landfill with ample capacity to satisfy the
Town's residue disposal and bypass requirements
over the 20 -year planning period.
4. Brush received at the site is converted to wood
chips using a tub grinder and/or chipper at the
Cutchogue Landfill. This process eliminates
the need to dispose of brush in bulk form at
the landfill.
5. Based on an evaluation of available technolo-
gies, composting of MSW and sludge using the
Eweson digester is the most applicable alterna-
tive for the Town of Southold. These units can
be constructed in modular fashion to facilitate
peak loads and future expansion as required.
6. The total capital cost of three units with a
capacity of 150 tons per day of a combination
of MSW and sludge, including construction, engi-
neering, legal and permits, is estimated at
$4,000,000. The annual capital cost is
$438,000., based on nine percent (9%) interest
over twenty years. Considering annual oper-
ation and maintenance costs of $300,000. and
revenue
based on
the
guaranteed sale of compost
at $5.
per ton,
we
have estimated the net
annual cost at $597,000. This computes to a
cost per ton of $16.36 (based on 100 tons per
6.2
F2/4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
day of MSW). Cost per ton figures are expected
to be approximately 20% higher the first year
of operation based on an average MSW quantity
of 80 tons per day.
In consideration of our findings, we recommend that the Town
proceed with the following course of action:
1. Implement a carefully managed weighing and
characterization program prior to executing
contracts for a full-scale resource recover
system - Reliable data on the quantity and
types of solid waste received at the Cutchogue
landfill do not exist due to the absence of
weighing equipment. Due to the advantages of
developing a reliable year-round data base, we
---1 recommend that the Town proceed with a perma-
-J nent scale (60 -ton 50'x10' scale), scale house
and data management system (see Section 2 for
justification). Upon completion of the scale
installation, a solid waste quantification and
characterization study should be conducted.
This program would establish the waste stream
parameters which the Town can reasonably expect
to provide as input into a source separation
program and a composting facility.
2. Conduct a source separation proqram - NYSDEC
has recently mandated that source separation
programs be undertaken as a prerequisite for an
6.3
FZ4 HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
approvable resource recovery program. A source
separation program would: (a) increase the use-
ful life of the landfill over the short term,
(b) minimize the capacity and associated capi-
tal cost of the proposed composting facility,
and (c) generate revenue to defray all or a
portion of the costs of the source separation
program.
3. Prepare application to NYSERDA for funding
under Program Opportunity Notice (PON) ER105-86
- On July 31, 1986, the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority announced a
final program opportunity notice for the "de-
velopment of recycling systems for increasing
the recycling of materials found in municipal
solid waste". This program provides up to 50
percent funding of the total eligible costs, up
to a maximum allocation of $200,000. per
project and $700,000. for all projects.
NYSERDA has indicated that they anticipate com-
posting to be eligible for this assistance.
Proposals are due by October 31, 1986, for
NYSERDA funding under this program opportunity
notice (PON).
4. Meet with representatives of NYSDEC and NYSERDA
to request the allocation of EQBA funds for the
composting project - The Town should seek EQBA
6.4
IM12-Att HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
funding through NYSDEC and NYSERDA (in addition
to the program funds that are available through
PON ER105-86, as indicated in Recommendation 3).
In order to minimize the cost to be 'borne by
the Town, the New York State Environmental
Quality Bond Act (EQBA) of 1972 was created to
supply maximum grants of 50 percent for re-
source. recovery projects and 25 percent for
disposal equipment. Funds are only available
to municipalities or quasi -governmental agen-
cies (i.e., authority, district, etc.) and are
disbursed as the project is constructed. All
of the EQBA "high tech" money has been allo-
cated. However, NYSDEC recently indicated that
additional EQBA funds may become available due
to a re -appropriation. The Town of Southold,
in June 1986, advised NYSDEC of its interest in
securing EQBA funds if they become available.
Funds may still be available for "low tech"
projects such as source separation programs.
Additional funding may be available through
$1.45 billion EQBA of 1986, which will be on
the November 1986 ballot.
5. Obtain and evaluate operating data from the
Pontage, Wisconsin facility, prior to executing
contracts with a vendor - Due to the lack of
operating data for a combined MSW and sludge
6.5
112AA HOLZMACHER, M,LENOON & MURRELL, P.C.
composting operation in a climate similar to
the Town of Southold and the experimental
nature of this process, we recommend that the
Town not execute contracts with a vendor until
the first six months of operating data from the
Pontage, Wisconsin facility are obtained and
evaluated. During this interim period, the
Town should proceed with recommendations 1-4
and a scoping session for preparation of an
environmental impact statement. The Town may
also want to commence preparation of the en-
vironmental impact statement. Subsequent to
evaluation of the data, and assuming that the
process will be found acceptable as a primary
means of solid waste disposal, the following
tasks should be completed:
a. Completion of the, Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (DEIS).
b. Preparation of a Request for Pro-
posal (REP) and evaluation of pro-
posals.
C. Submittal of a Part 310 application
including the following:
a) construction permit
b) operation permit
c) engineering report including
preliminary plan and survey
1�"2AA HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
d) plan of operation
e) contingency plan
f) final environmental impact
statement
6. Consider the following administrative, procure-
ment and financinq alternatives: -
a. Administrative - General municipal
power or public authorities
b. Procurement - Turnkey or full ser-
vice with government ownership
C. Financing - Combination of bonds
and EQBA funds through NYSERDA/
NYSDEC
In closing, the above steps will provide the Town with a
more refined estimate on the variation and quantity of municipal
solid waste, sludge utilization requirements, the effectiveness
and reliability of the composting process, available funding and
the Town's level of participation on the capital, operation and
maintenance costs, and the resultant cost per ton. The above
tasks could be completed in approximately 15 months, subject to
availability of funds and timely completion and start-up of the
Portage, Wisconsin composting facility. The schedule could be
accelerated if the Town were to authorize the expenditure of
funds for the completion of the DEIS prior to evaluation of the
Portage, Wisconsin data base.
6.7