HomeMy WebLinkAboutSolid Waste Management Option for Fishers Island Review 1989FURTHER REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR
FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK`
OCTOBER 4, 1989
PREPARED FOR
FISHERS ISLAND CONSERVANCY, INC.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.
111 CHARTER OAK AVE.
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106
(203) 722-1709
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.
BACKGROUND
1
N Cfl-
2.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3
N�
3.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
COMPOSTING PROJECT
7
4.
OTHER LONG ISLAND OPTIONS
19
5.
TAX BENEFIT/BURDEN
23
6.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
32
Attachment A
36
1 0 ' p
Among other recommendations, PMA advised the Conservancy
that the Island enter into cooperative discussions with the
Town of Southold regarding the Town's compost project
development activities.
This Report
This report was prepared at the direction of the Fishers
Island Conservancy, and documents further analysis of solid
waste management issues for the Island, including the
following:
1. Examination of documentation with respect to the
Southold composting project, including
contractual provisions and estimated economics,
to the extent available.
2. Identification and review of all logically
available Long Island based solid waste
management options potentially available to the
Town of Southold.
3. Analysis of information provided by the Town
regarding the tax contribution of Fishers Island
to the Town and the dollar level of service the
Island receives in return.
4 Review of on -Island management practices with
respect to bulky waste and metals.
Fd
Opportunities available to the Town to reduce the impact
upon the tax base appear to be the following:
1. To charge a user fee for the disposal of MSW, as
the Town currently does for brush and demolition
wastes.
2. To "sell" excess processing capability to other
municipalities, to the extent it is available.
.(Note: the RFP requested a facility sizing
matching the flow of MSW to the Town's Landfill.
Company proposals may ultimately offer additional
capacity.
3. To maximize revenue received from recovered
materials.
Following the availability of proposals for the
finalists, or for the selected company, and the release of an
Agreement it will be possible to comment further on the
economic, business and technical materials contained therein.
Other Long Island Options
A review of solid waste management activities other than
those of the Town of Southold was performed in early 1989, in
order to identify alternatives available to Fishers Island or
the Town, in the event Southold did.not implement its
composting project: No alternative appears readily available
for the Town to participate in the near future.
The Towns of Brookhaven and Islip appear to be potential
partners to Southold, for j.oint development of a waste
disposal facility in the future to serve a multi -town region.
Since no specific options were discovered, PMA can only
4
scrap auto.dealers permitted to serve the Island,
for the routine disposal of those materials, even
for those times when the "value" of scrap results
in payment of fee for disposal of the material.
2. For white goods, responsibility should be
delegated to an individual for the continuous, as
received, preparation of these items for
recycling (removal of capacitors, refrigerator
doors, etc.), and for their separate storage for
ease of retrieval. Further, it is recommended
that long term arrangements (e.g. a contract) for
the regular removal and disposition of those
materials be entered into.
3. For other, non-ferrous metals (aluminum, copper,
etc.) separate storage areas, or containers
should be placed at the,site, and arrangements be
made for their routine removal as well.
Implementation of the above program will require
education of the citizens and businesses that use the
facilities, and allocation of personnel assigned with the
responsibility to monitor compliance.
Brush Chipper
In the event the Island wishes to implement utilization
of a brush chipper, consideration should be given to purchase
of a unit equivalent to the Eeeger Beever unit, as discussed
in Section 6. The initial cost for the unit is approximately
$15,000, with the annual operation and maintenance costs
reported to be approximately $1,500.
6
i
Proposals were to be submitted by September 20, 1988.
Mr. Murphy supplied PMA with a copy of the RFP, and reported
that at that time the following three companies were
finalists, based on the proposals received:
-Bedminster Bioconversion Corp.
-Reidel Environmental Services, Inc.
-Daneco
The Proposed Project
In summer, 1989 the Town released the information
contained in Attachment A. The reader is referred to that
document for available information regarding the Daneco
Project which the Town is now pursuing. Since the degree of
detail is somewhat limited, the nature of PMA's review
constitutes an initial const eration of the project
information, rather than a comprehensive analysis.
Nonetheless, PMA has identified certain questions and concerns
about the Project information supplied, as discussed below.
a. Annual Waste Processing Capacity
The information identifies the design capacity of the
facility at 120 tons per day, with a design "surge" of 158
tons per day (3 day duration, we believe is intended). While
the design capacity is important, it is critical to evaluate
i
the effective, annual waste processing capacity.of the
facility and to base projected economics on that quantity of
waste reasonably expected to be processed resulting from:
i) average daily amounts of waste to be processed after
taking into account downtime for maintenance, both
N
V.)- It is not clear from the presentation whether
additional property would be needed to implement the
facility, and whether any such costs have been
included. If additional property must be purchased, the
above costs may need to be revised upwards.
vi.) It is not clear whether the contractor would be
paying, as part of its O&M fee, all insurance, utilities
costs, costs of transportation of residues and compost
products, and comparable items, or whether allowances
for those potential "pass-through" costs were included
in projections of annual costs.
vii.) The process description calls for brush to be
shredded prior to its introduction into the facility.
It is not clear that all annual costs associated with
this activity are included.
C. Proposed System Process Description
Since no information was supplied regarding the history
of experience of the proposed contractor with the specific
process to be employed,, equipment specifications included, it
is not possible to comment on the feasibility of the proposed
system. In general, the technologies proposed represent -
proven equipment components (shredders, trommels, etc.), and
as such it is expected that if properly designed and operated,
the proposed process is technically feasible. This statement
---------
does not represent an endorsement of the technology ^nor of the
I
made regarding projected recovery rates and
c
process efficiency; neither of which can be effectively
evaluated with the _l.imi.ted n-forma-ti.on-.av-ail1 able.
11
r ' �
technologies offered, and -the stated -,experience the selected
proposer possesses.
In general, composting of municipal solid waste has been
more common in Europe than the U.S.. As a result, PMA
speculates that the majority of proposers will be offering
specialized equipment which has been proven overseas, but not
yet here. Although many communities in the U.S. are presently
considering implementation of MSW composting projects, few,
examples of operating facilities in this country exist.
A review of the specific technology, and the experience
offered by the proposer cannot be undertaken until the
selection is made, and the proposal data is available.
Contractual Provisions
A proposed agreement to be executed between the Town and
the successful contractor was unavailable for review.
However, the RFP did contain information regarding the Town's
desired contractual position. To the extent the proposers,
and the selected vendor in particular, has agreed to accept
the Town's stated position, then one would expect that the
risk posture for the Town will be as presented in Exhibit 1,
which is excerpted directly from the Town's RFP.
Schedule
Mr. Murphy reported the Town anticipated selecting a
contractor by the beginning of February, 1989. Following
completion of contract negotiations, receipt of permits from
the DEC as required, and completion of financing for the
facility, Mr. Murphy's expectation at the time of the meeting
was that approximately 12 months will be required to construct
the facility and begin operations.
13
,EXHIBIT 1 (Continued)
FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE
Private
Public -
Facility
Public -
Terminable
20 -Year
20 -Year
After
Risk
Service
Service
One Year
Failure to meet
environmental quality
requirements
P
P
P
Failure to market
compost
P
P
P
Failure to meet waste
processing guarantee
P
P
P
Uncontrollable circumstances:
- capital costs
P
T
T
- operating cost
increases
P
P
P
- temporary shutdown
P
T
T•
- permanent shutdown
P
T
T
Key: P = Proposer -
T = Town
0*
Regulatory Issues
In order to develop a better understanding of.the
regulatory environment under which the Town's composting
program would potentially be implemented, discussions were
held with representatives of the USEPA. As a result of those
discussions, three separate regulatory areas were identified
that could have impact on the Town project, in the opinion of
EPA staff.
Federal regulations identified that would potentially
affect the project, each deal specifically with the
expectation that sludge would be introduced with MSW, into the
process system are:
1. Section 257 regulations, which were promulgated in 1979
provide direction to the design and -operation of the facility
(including stockpiling of compost product at the facility),
and also would regulate land application where the land is
being used for agricultural purposes, in the (human) "food
chain".
2. Section 503 regulations (which primarily address sludge
disposal) are now issued in Draft form and do not presently
cover material resulting from co -composting of sludge and
MSW. Further, EPA staff confess that in developing the Draft,
they did not consider the potential for co -composting.
However, even though the regulations to be adopted soon would
not address co -composting activities, it is important to
recognize that the current effort represents only Round I of a
two-phase mandate. Round II, which is reported to be
approximately two years away, may address co -composting,
acc ro di.ngof the staff
17
SECTION 4
OTHER LONG ISLAND OPTIONS
PMA has sought to identify Long Island based solid waste
management options that may be available to Southold in the
event it does not proceed with the composting, or a different
Town sponsored, project. Contact was made with
representatives of the following Towns:
-Riverhead
-Brookhaven
-Smithtown
-Islip .
The following summarizes the information provided:
Riverhead
Information regarding the Town of Riverhead's solid
waste management program was obtained from Ms. Denise
Civiletti, a member of the Town Board of Supervisors, and
Chairperson of its Solid Waste Management Committee.
It was reported that Riverhead, together with the Towns
of South Hampton and Brookhaven had historically considered
implementation of a waste -to -energy facility to meet the
disposal needs for all three Towns. Although Brookhaven
continues to promote a waste -to -energy facility, neither South
Hampton nor Riverhead anticipate doing the same'at this time.
19
excluded private ownership or operation for the facility
itself.
Regarding schedule, the Town anticipates initiating
project procurement activities in late 1989.
Smithtown
Discussions were held with the Town Engineer, Mr.
Mooney. Smithtown is currently evaluating its solid waste
management options, and anticipates selecting an option for
implementation in the near future.
The two options under consideration at this time include
development of a new waste -to -energy facility (at an
identified site previously used for solid waste management),
or to contract for disposal services with the private company
that will build a waste -to -energy facility in the Town of
Huntington. The contractor for the Huntington project,
Combustion Engineering, has expressed a desire to add an
additional processing train to the facility, and.to provide
Smithtown waste disposal services through the disposal
capacity derived therefrom.
Smithtown has identified several benefits from
participation in the Huntington program, which include a
shorter lead time for implementation and the avoidance of
potential neighborhood objections that may result from an
attempt to site a new facility.
21
SECTION 5
TAX BENEFIT/BURDEN
In an effort to identify the tax contribution Fishers
Island, as a discrete geographic entity, makes to the Town of
Southold, and in particular the Island's share of the Refuse
and Garbage portion of the Town budget, representatives of PMA
met with John Cushman of the Town's Accounting & Finance
Department. Mr. Cushman supplied the following documents,
which have been relied upon in undertaking this analysis:
1. Town of Southold Budget for
1989
2. Budget summaries for the Town
of Southold for 1988 & 1989
3. Fishers Island Garbage & Refuse
District Budgets for 1988 &
1989
4. Status of Outstanding Indebtedness
for the Town of Southold as of
December 31, 1987
Mr. Cushman advised PMA that in order to estimate
Fishers Island's tax contribution to the Town, the appropriate
assessed valuation would be that applicable to the Fishers
Island School District. This valuation differs only slightly
from that used for purposes of the Fishers Island Fire, Ferry
and Garbage & Refuse Districts and is reportedly the more
current. The assessed valuation data for 1988 and 1989 is
summarized below.
23
TABLE 2
SUMMARY -NONBENEFICIAL BUDGET CATEGORIES
STOP A8510.4 21,426 31,376
TOTAL $ 763,558 $499,994
(1) Appropriation as it appears in 1989 Town Budget less
direct revenues and fees.
Tables 3, 4 and 5, following, present the derivation of
the above figures.
Some may argue that the above presentation understates
the value of services not benefiting the Island, citing police
protection as an example (noting that the Island has only two
assigned constables and a vehicle, and the Town has numerous
full-time officers). However, the fact that there is an
assignment of resources to the Island indicates the Island
does receive some advantage from this budget item. Further,
25 1
As Amended
As Adopted
Category
Acct #
1988
1989
Dog Control
A3510.4
$76,818
$81,633
Recreation
A7020.1
$33,989
$44,092
& Parks (1)
A7110.1
Beaches
A7180.1
$46,171
53,743
Refuse &
A8160.1
$585.,154
$289,150
Garbage (1)
STOP A8510.4 21,426 31,376
TOTAL $ 763,558 $499,994
(1) Appropriation as it appears in 1989 Town Budget less
direct revenues and fees.
Tables 3, 4 and 5, following, present the derivation of
the above figures.
Some may argue that the above presentation understates
the value of services not benefiting the Island, citing police
protection as an example (noting that the Island has only two
assigned constables and a vehicle, and the Town has numerous
full-time officers). However, the fact that there is an
assignment of resources to the Island indicates the Island
does receive some advantage from this budget item. Further,
25 1
AM'T RAISED BY
TAKES
581,633
544,092
553,743
$289,150
$31,376
$499,994
52,857,979
H
r
td
�P
1989 TOWN BUDGET (AS
ADOPTED) CATEGORIES
NOT BENEFITING FISHERS
ISLAND
1989 AS ADOPTED
BUDGET CATEGORY ACCOUNTS
APPROPRIATION (1) +
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT
+ DEBT SERVICE -
STATE GRANT -
REVENUES (5) -
UNEXPENDED =
ALLOCATION (2)
ALLOCATION (3)
ALLOCATION (4)
BALANCE (6)
DOG CONTROL (7) A3510
$81,403
$0
$17,779
$17,550
EO
EO
PARKS A7110
$46,500
511,543
50
$10,025
$0
$3,926
BEACHES A7180
$59,600
$12,024
$0
$12,849
$0
$5,032.
REFUSE d GARBAGE A8160
$687,000
5107,416
$120,849
$148,110
$420,000
$58,005
STOP PROGRAM (7) A8510
540,000
$0
$0
$8,624
$0
$0
TOTAL
$914,503
$130,983
$138,628
$197,157
$420,000
$66,963
GENERAL FUND TOWNWIDE
$3,671,609
$619,900
$479,220
$822,280
$780,470
$310,000
NOTES
(1) APRROPRIATION AS STATED IN TOWN BUDGET FOR 1989. FOR GENERAL FUND TOWNWIDE,
APPROPRIATION IS TOTAL
APPROPRIATION LESS
TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED.
TOTAL APPROPRIATION $4,770,729
TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED $1,099,120
(2) ALLOCATION BASED UPON RELATIONSHIP
PERSONAL SERVICES OF BUDGET CATEGORY
HAS TO TOTAL PERSONAL
SERVICES AS APPLIED
TO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS CATEGORY
OF UNDISTRIBUTED
AMOUNT.
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES IN 1989
$1,933,300
(3) ALLOCATION OF BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE ("BANS") DEBT SERVICE (PRINCIPAL 8
INTEREST) BASED UPON BANS
IDENTIFIABLE AS
SPECIFIC TO BLIDGET CATEGORY
AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BANS
OUTSTANDING AS OF 12/31/87.
TOTAL BANS AS OF 12/31/87
$1,102,400 DOG CONTROL
$70,000 POUND IMP.
REFUSE 8 GARBAGE
$120,000 BLDG.8EOUIP.
$175,000 COMPACTOR
1989 BAN DEBT SERVICE
$280,000
BOAT LAUNCH
$40,800 TUB GRINDER
$140,000 SCALE
HOUSE
(4) ALLOCAT16W BASED UPON RELATIONSHIP
OF APPROPRIATION TO TOTAL APPROPRIATION
TO NON-SPECIFIC STATE
AID
TOTAL STATE AID $822,280
NON-SPECIFIC PORTION $791,560
(5) IN THE CASE OF PARKS, REVENUES ARE
ALLOCATBALE PORTION OF PARKS 8 RECREATION REVENUE (ACCT. #
A2001) BASED UPON PRO -RATED APPROPRIATION AMOUNT. IN THE CASE
OF REFUSE 8 GARBAGE,
REVENUES ARE AS STATED IN THE TOWN
BUDGET OF 1989.
(6) UNEXPENDED BALANCE ALLOCATED BASED
UPON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUDGET CATEGORY
APPRORIATION AND
TOTAL APPROPRIATION.
(7) SINCE DOG CONTROL AND STOP PROGRAM
ARE CONTRACTED SERVICES, NO ALLOCATION FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
AND UNEXPENDED BALANCE.
SOURCE: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUDGET FOR 1989
AM'T RAISED BY
TAKES
581,633
544,092
553,743
$289,150
$31,376
$499,994
52,857,979
H
r
td
�P
it is beldeved that if additional police services were
required, the Town would provide a greater level.
Those who would argue the above Table 2 overstates the
nonbeneficial portion of the budget might point out the use of
the Town landfill on the Island, by Island residents and
businesses, for bulky and demolition waste disposal. It is
PMA's understanding the cost for that operation is included in
the Town's highway budget; however, its use by Island
residents is without cost, while the Town imposes a user fee
at the Cutchogue Landfill for the disposal of those same
materials. Therefore, Island residents enjoy free services
for this activity, supported in part by other Town taxpayers,
while at the same time non -Island residents pay separately for
the disposal of those same items.
The debate over the tax benefit/burden of any particular
segment of a community cannot be resolved with certainty,
however, PMA has, to the degree possible, sought to isolate
those budget items upon which it believes there is general
agreement the Island receives negligible benefit.
It is PMA's understanding that little, if any, Town
control of animals is performed on the Island. Similarly,
with respect to the STOP Program (a household hazardous waste
collection program) no Town efforts are performed on the
Island. Since the Island has no Town Parks or Beaches, these
budget categories are not deemed to benefit the tax payers of
the Island, either directly or indirectly. Finally, since the
Island disposes of its own refuse through the efforts of the
FIG&RD, the Refuse & Garbage category is not of direct benefit
to 'the Island.
By eliminating these -budget categories from the Town's
General Fund Townwide (since they are included in that budget)
PMA can create a budget which, in all respects benefits the
29
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED FISHERS ISLAND TAX BURDEN IN EXCESS OF BENEFIT
GENERAL FUND TOUNNIDE
(1) TONNNIDE VALUATION
(2) MILL RATE
(3) BUDGET
(4) ITEMS DEEMED NOT
BENEFITING FISHERS ISLAND
(5) ADJUSTED "BENEFIT" BUDGET
03 MINUS #4).
(6) ADJUSTED MILL RATE
(BASED ON #5)
(7) FISHERS ISLAND VALUATION
(8) FISHERS ISLAND TAX CONTRIBUTION
TO BENEFIT BUDGET
(9) FISHERS ISLAND ACTUAL TAX
CONTRIBUTION, AS ESTIMATED
(10) DIFFERENCE IN TAX
CONTRIBUTION (#9-#8)
(11) DIFFERENCE AS A PERCENTAGE
OF ESTIMATED CONTRIBUTION
(12) MILL RATE DIFFERNCE (#2 MINUS #6)
AS AMENDED
AS ADOPTED
1988
1989
$84,716,314
$86,363,638
31.246
32.927
$2,668,412
$2,857,979
$763,558
$499,994
$1,904,854 $2,357,985
22.485 27.303
$6,704,984 $6,818,554
$150,762 $186,167
$209,504 $224,515
$58,742 $38,348
28.04% 17.08%
8.761 5.624
•
widespread national decline in the steel industry);
and,
-Recent management changes in the Island's "brush
burning" program, which has diverted a portion of the
wastes previously disposed of through that activity.
At the time representatives of PMA visited the site, in
mid-January, only two rusting auto bodies were visible, along
with a few appliances. Discussion with the Town employee who
supervises the site, a member of the Town Highway Department,
revealed the current operating plan and the immediate plans
for sequence of filling. The primary storage area for scrap
vehicles is currently at the Island's airport, where
approximately ten vehicles were awaiting disposal.
Management of metals of all types on the Island can be
accomplished through reliance upon the Town parcel, and the
airport vehicle storage area. However, to improve the level
of recovery, it is suggested that the following practices be
implemented:
1. For automobiles, responsibility should be
delegated to an individual for preparing vehicles
for disposal (removal of batteries, gas tanks).
Long term arrangements should be sought with
scrap auto dealers permitted to serve the Island,
for the routine disposal of those materials, even
in the event the "value" of scrap results in
payment of fee on a regular, or infrequent basis.
2. For white goods, responsibility should be
delegated to an individual for the continuous, as
received, preparation of these materials for
recycling (removal.of capacitors, refrigerator
doors, etc.), and for their separate storage for
33
The estimated cost of the unit, including the
recommended diesel engine is $15,000. Annual operation and
maintenance costs are estimated to be approximately $1,500.
35
FRANCIS J. MURPHY?' r
SUPERVISOR t. �'+ TOWN HALL, 53095 MAIN ROAD
P.O. BOX 1179
TELEPHONE SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971
(516) 765-1800
FAX NO.
(516) 765-1823 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
COMPOSTING FACILITY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
SELECTIVE ASSESSMENT AND TAX DATA
July 13, 1989
Tentative
Assessed Total Cost Cost per
Valuation Year 1 $1000 Assessed,
Townwide $37,197,035* $2,428,322 $27.85
Assessment Tax
$ 2,500 $ 69.63
M 3,500 97.48
' i
4,500 125.33
r,I 5,500- 153.18
6,500 181.03
�l� ✓j
7,500 208.88
�1 8,500 236.73
9,500 264.58
10,500 292.43
11,500 320.28
12,500 348.13
15,000 417-75
17,500 487.38
20,000 557.00
25,000 696.25
30,000 835.50
35,000 974.75
* Per Assessors
, D
1 1 .
Prepared by Fiscal Advisors, Inc.
July 121h, 1989
Estimated Debt Service Schedule
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
15 YEARS
$9,000,000 Qa 7.30%
Proposed
Total
Year
Bonds
( Outstanding
Principal
Due
Estimated
Principal &
1
000,000
V.500,000
$500,000
Interest
$657,000
Interest
$1,157,440
2
500,000
620,500
1,120,500
3
81000,000
550,000
584,Q00
1,134,000
4
7,450,000
550,000
543,850
11093,850
5
6,900,000
550,000
503,700
1,053,700
6
61350,000
550,000
463,550
1,013,550
7
5,800,000
600,000
423,400
1,023,400
8
5,200,000
600,000
379,600
979,600
9
10
4,600,000
4,000,000
600,000
600,000
335,800
935,800
11
3,400,000
650,000
292,000
248,200
892,000
898,200
12
13
2,750,000
650,000
200,750
850,750
14
2,100,000
700,000
153,300
853,300
is
1,400,000
700,000
102,200
802,200
700,000
700,000
51,100
751,100
Total
$9,000,000
$5,558,950
$14,558,950
rdety .rcr , Ctato Capartr:ont of cnvl, cnmental Conservailon
Build;.ng 40--UNY, Stony i ik, New York 11794
(516; ?, 2517
July 11, 1989 Thomas C. Jort(n
Commissioner
The Honorable rrancis J. Murphy
Supervisor - Town of Southold
Town Hall, Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Solid Haste Management Issues
Dear Supervisor Murphy:
As you know, Governor Mario Cuomo signed the Long Island
Landfill Bill (6800-A) into law on June 21, 1983. The purpose
of the legislation is to phase out the landfilling of raw
municipal refuse as the primary solid waste disposal practice
in Nassau and Suf.Olk Counties, and to have recycling programs
and resource recovery facilities replace the landfilling of raw
municipal refuse no later than December 18, 1990, Resource
recovery facilities have been defined to mean either a
waste -to -energy incineration plant or equivalently a municipal
solid waste composting facility.
Hence, the State legislature in 1983 gave the Towns seven
(7) years to eli-iinate landfilling as their prime solid waste
disposal strategy. Some towns, like Southold, are making
progress toward devising and implementing plans relating to
solid waste disposal with the intent of closing their landfills
prior to December 18, 1990. It is imperative, however, that
the progress Southold Town has demonstrated to date be
continued to insure a resource recovery (compost -in is
operational on December 18, 1990; any delays may result sinmthe
Town's non-compliance with the Long Island Landfill Law..
Please be advised that this Department intends to
Vigorously enforce the Long Island Landfill Law, Failure to
cease they landfilling of raw municipal solid waste on December
18, 1990 will restilt in initiation of enforcement action
against the Town. This may lead to imposition of substantial
fines and ar. im=mediate landfill closure order, Placing the Town
in the Position of off -Island hauling of waste.
Please contact the undersigned should you have any
questions in reference to this matter,
very truly yours,
Paul M. Roth, P.E.
Regional Solid Waste Engineer
PMR:mz ,.
EXISTING ELS
TOYER
TIPPINGAID
CESS
PROING
BUILDING
COPw7 SCPEMM.
BUILDING
COSTING LILCO—
POWER MIRES
\ EXISTING FEMME LINE
EXISTING VOCNING SCALE
NEW YEIORNG SCALE
EXIS71NO MAIN EMRANCE
4
LEGEND
UJ.L111� CUVEM BUILDINGS
CARS TRAFFIC
TPUCMS TRAFFIC
4
(��
E(ysouilRN
IR �J.W� ryry//��Q���ECO.I,..I.-
- SITE u+ -w
--
10.
n . n-c_a n 88"3-
L
0
B�
HI -'-1 A
,rJ A
110. 0.
I1�
4
0
CIiQC i7I.cll
C1i;C/i CI{ C i;el cit
1O or aMMMUD.MM.
MID YKi[/LLIDCC mi06T 110 /K'll ilk � -
YY�IW W.
I
AGGPEcATE
loo'
-0' /
C.
F to
C-
C
1 I
I I
9
170'-0'
HI -'-1 A
,rJ A
110. 0.
I1�
4
0
CIiQC i7I.cll
C1i;C/i CI{ C i;el cit
1O or aMMMUD.MM.
MID YKi[/LLIDCC mi06T 110 /K'll ilk � -
YY�IW W.
Liquid sludge feeding system (9); ,and
Grinded brush feeding system (10) .
The two feeding system 8 and 10 can be possibly used for feeding other
streams of materials such as, but not limited to: . `
- Agricultural waste;
- Compost having a maximum particle size larger than 10 millimeters (0.39
inch); and
- Screen oversize residues to be recirculated.
The mixed compostable material is transferred into the building reserved for the
accelerated composting using a belt conveyor.
The formed pile is about seven feet in height. Two aeration units (12), each
one including centrifugal blower and dampers, provide an air flow through the
pile via the perforated air distribution channels in the concrete floor. Air is
alternatively supplied under negative and positive pressure according the
preprogrammed cycle. During the negative pressure phases, the air from the
compost pile is discharged through a compost bio -filter in order to control
odors. After a two-week duration, a front loader is used to turn the pile;
after a subsequent two-week period, the compost from the accelerated
composting area is ready to be transferred to the curing area. Depending on
the operational requirements, the material can be turned several times.
The entire area
for accelerated composting is
roofed
and provided with a water
spraying system
(13) installed under the roof
of the
building. The purpose of
this system is to
control the moisture content
of the
compost.
Before being cured, the compost can possibly be shredded and screened by
wing the following equipment of the compost screening section:
- Compost feeding system (14);
- Compost shredder (15); and
- Tertiary trommel screen (16) .
The final screening of the compost is done before the delivery of the compost
product to the users.
1-2
a
TABLE 1
RFP WASTE STREAM CHARACTERIZATION (1)
Component
Agricultural
Brush
Garbage (Household)
Leaves/Grass
Paper
Rubbish
Sludge (2)
TOTAL
Percent (Wet Weight)
3.75
15.09
58.68
8.41
0.62
11.50
1.95
100.00
(1) See Table 2.1.1 of Daneco proposal (Page 10)
(2) At 30o solids content
TABLE 3
REFERENCE COMPOSITION OF THE ENTIRE WASTE STREAM
Component Percent (Wet Weight)
I. Corrugated Cardboard 5.50
2. Other paper products 22.77
3. Food waste 10.84
4. Leaves, grass and branches/brush having at all
cross sections a diameter not greater than 0.25 inch 20.01
5. Other compostable materials 5.71
6. Wood and branches/brush having at one or more cross
sections a diameter greater than 0.25 inch 9.14
7. Plastics 6.61
8. Ferrous metals 3.55
9. Non-ferrous metals 1.19
10. Glass 5.90
11. Stones, sand and dirt 3.84
12. Other non-compostable materials 4.94
TOTAL 100.00
TABLE 5
COMPOST SPECIFICATIONS
Maximum particle size
(screen holes diameter)
Class I Compost
Class II Compost
Minimum period of time at no less than
55 degrees
Minimum process retention time including
composting and curing
10 mm (0.39 inch)
25 mm (0.98 inch)
3 days
50 days
The Town and the Company expressly agreed that, notwithstanding any
provisions in the Agreement to the contrary, no .requirements, specifications
and other standards must be met by the Compost except for what is set forth
in this page.
a]
3
Major components
TABLE 7
FERROUS SPECIFICATIONS
Steel cans
Maximum content of foreign substances (1) 150 (Wet weight)
(1) Materials separated with the Ferrous which are not contained by the steel
cans or attached to them (such as, but not limited to, food or paper
labels) .
�
V
v
3
Major components
TABLE 7
FERROUS SPECIFICATIONS
Steel cans
Maximum content of foreign substances (1) 150 (Wet weight)
(1) Materials separated with the Ferrous which are not contained by the steel
cans or attached to them (such as, but not limited to, food or paper
labels) .
0
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — V17, 01 a0QUE LANDFILL
PARTIALLY COMPOSTABLE MATERIAL SUMMARY
(August 1987 -- July 1988)
A 120............ .................. ................................................................... .............
.
V
G
100 ........................... :....................................................... ....................
T -
O�
.r............................................................................
....................
• N 80
RR '� r�cYf� LL
Vfee voa .0
0—_ !•'.:� .u. •.•........• •...... ... - •...••....••.••...• •�•
I,P: .• ��f •.• 1;�• ..• 'riyY.,-� •.• •• �.+�tll', ••• /.•. .•• f,'. •.•'JIL •.• '.�••S •.• °.. ••
aa����).� • j` ��: / t- .`„ ;
IVI ,-`b.r :�1?y'S `^y:� •}t' /i L'. � %'tr :: r � t�•' +,1`:•1., ..{;/�. - '�Y z.
.!l •�Ii:+.yS: hj:`•.I --i:•".;{ v, ii=.'• ELt'nr,'l•'
O20 ^\r1`' •i,, ...• _•. �' ! r••\ • ': •,; . �.`.. ••'.1 0..�`I•li '`••.J .• �4� '�.4.'
T:1; .:.0 .-�?•' �' s �:•ri� :%�r 1. rrJ •'� � r �� � �.i It: i.: �
H
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL
MONTH
Garbage Rubbish Sludge
r--iomGRUELVZLE.OUP ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS
' N.Y. RrVFRIIEAD. N.Y. FAWIELO. N.J.
G)
c
m
4