Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
East End Solid Waste Management Study 1980
East End Solid Waste Management Study for the Towns of Southampton , Riverhead, Southold, East Hampton and Shelter Island 4l \ a � f SOUTt! ST TON RIVERHEAO t•� 1 i � � .t SOUTHAMPTON g : 3 Funded partially through United States Environmental Protection Agency Grant No. D-002156-01-0 with the cooperation of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C./ H2M Corp. Consulting Engineers, Planners and Environmental Scientists Melville,N.Y. Farmingdale,N.Y. Riverhead,N.Y. Newton,N.J. 1 ROBERT G.HOLZMACHER,P.E.,P.P.,L.S. SAMUEL C.MCLENDON.P.E. ' H 2M Corp. HARMAN E.DUMBELL,P.E. HAROLD A.DOMBECK,P.E. HUGO D.FREUDENTHAL,Ph.D. HOLZMACHER,McLENDONandMURRELL,P.C. CARL E.BECKER,P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS DONALD A.SI SS.P.E. 5 7S BROAD HOLLOW ROAD.MELVILLE.NY 1i 747 51 F 694-3040❑ GARY E.LOESCH,P.E. ',6o R;OAD HOLLOW ROAD MELVILLE NY 1174> 16,;7;2 9060❑ BRIJ M.SHRIVASTAVA,P.E. CHARLES E.BANKS,P.E. 375 F _TON STREET FARMINGDALE.NY 11735(5,61694 3410 L] 209 WEST MAIN STREET-R VERHEAD NY 11901 15161 727-3480 r_1 40 PARK PLACE NEWTON.NJ mwo 2f1 ,4A, 3ti44❑ TEL dex 41(1O, +6i 7,5 9`167 November 28, 1980 ' Honorable Supervisors and Members of the Town Boards Of the Towns of Southampton, ' Riverhead, Southold, East Hampton and Shelter Island Re: East End Solid Waste ' Management Study NYEC 79-01 Gentlemen: In accordance with our proposal dated August 6, 1979 and ' the provisions of the contract dated December 4, 1979 with the Towns of Southampton, Riverhead, Southold, East Hampton and Shelter Island, we forward herewith the East End Solid Waste Management Study. ' We believe the study is a comprehensive document prepared to (1) provide the Towns with an overview of various solid waste management technologies available on today' s market, (2) iden- tify and evaluate those solid waste management alternatives which are applicable to the five town study area and (3) make specific recommendation to provide the Towns with technically, environmentally and economically effective long term solutions to the solid waste disposal problem. ' We appreciate the cooperation of the many State, County and Town officials who participated in this project and the opportunity of being service to the Towns . We wish also to ' recognize the major contribution of Brij M. Shrivastava, P.E. , Project Manager for this project for H2M. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Robert G. Holz cher, P .E. Presiden w, V� H. A. Dom ck, P.E. Vice President & Principal Engineer ' BMS/jm CC: Mr. Donald Middleton, Regional Director New York State Department of Environmental Conservation � n I' East End Solid Waste Management Study for the Towns of Southampton , Riverhead, Southold, East Hampton and Shelter Island 1 -SHELTER ISLAND I SOUTHOLD s d EAST HAMPTON RIVERHEAD \ ' _117- SOUTHAMPTON ' Funded partially through United States Environmental Protection Agency Grant No. D-002156-01-0 with the cooperation of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C./ H2M Corp. Consulting Engineers, Planners and Environmental Scientists Melville, N.Y. Farmingdale,N.Y. Riverhead,N.Y. Newton,N.J. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The East End Solid Waste Management Study for the Towns ' of Southampton, Riverhead, Southold, East Hampton and Shelter ' Island was funded partially •through the United States Environ- mental Protection Agency Grant No. D-002156-01-0 with the ' cooperation of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. We wish to acknowledge the contribution of ' many Town, State, County and other officials in the development of the data contained in this report. Specifically, we appre- ciate the valuable assistance of the Town Supervisors and other Town Officials who provided their input at several project meet- ings. We are also grateful for the assistance of the Long ' Island Lighting Co. t ' A•-1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ HZM CORP. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. ' Letter of Transmittal ' Acknowledgements A-1 Table of Contents i - v ' List of Tables vi - viii List of Figures ix - xi ' List of Appendices xii 1 Selected Glossary G-1 to G-4 Introduction I-1 ' Executive Summary S-1 to S-9 1 .0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 ' 1 .1 STUDY AREA 1 1.2 POPULATION 1 1 .2 .1 Permanent Population 1 ' 1 .2 .2 Seasonal Population 3 2 .0 SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION AND QUANTITIES 7 ' 2.1 SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION 7 2.2 SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES 19 2.2 .1 Present Waste Quantities 19 2 .2 .2 Future Solid Waste Generation 27 3 .0 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SITUATION 41 ' 3 .1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 41 3. 1 .1 General 41 3 .1 .2 Town of Southampton 41 3 .1 .3 Town of Riverhead 45 3. 1 .4 Town of Southold 46 ' 3.1 .5 Town of East Hampton 48 3 .1 .6 Town of Shelter Island 49 3.2 EXISTING SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 50 3.3 COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 53 ' i HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE OF CONTENTS ' CONT'D Plage No. , 4 .0 MARKETABILITY OF RECOVERED RESOURCES 57 4.1 INTRODUCTION 57 4.2 RECOVERABLE RESOURCES 57 4.2 .1 Energy/Fuel Commodities 58 4.2 .2 Secondary Materials 64 ' 4.2 .3 Marketability of Other Constituent Secondary Materials 78 4.3 RESOURCE MARKET ASSESSMENT FOR STUDY AREA 82 ' 4.3 .1 Market Survey 82 4.3 .2 Market Survey Results 84 4.3 .3 Conclusions 94 5 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND SITE DETERMINATION 97 5.1 INTRODUCTION 97 ' 5.2 CLIMATE 97 5.3 GEOLOGY 99 5.4 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 102 5.4.1 Riverhead Aquifers 102 r 5.4.2 Southampton Aquifers (West of Shinnecock Canal) 103 5.4.3 Aquifers of Southold, Shelter Island and South- fork (Southampton-East of Shinnecock Canal and East Hampton) 104 5.5 HYDROGEOLOGY 106 5.6 AIR QUALITY 108 ' 5.7 SITE SELECTION AND EVALUATION 108 5.7 .1 Site Description 109 5.7 .2 Further Investigations 129 5.8 CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ON SITE SELECTION 129 5.9 ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF SELECTED SITES 134 5.9.1 Ecological Setting of Proposed Resource , Recovery Sites 134 5 .9 .2 Ecological Setting of Proposed Transfer Station Sites 139 ' ii HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 - CONT'D Page No. ' 6 .0 TRANSFER AND TRANSPORTATION OF SOLID WASTE 141 6. 1 INTRODUCTION 141 ' 6.2 DIRECT HAUL VS. TRANSFER HAUL 142 6.3 EVALUATION OF TRANSFER STATION REQUIREMENTS 146 6.3 .1 Solid Waste Quantities 146 6.4 DESCRIPTION OF TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES 148 6.4.1 Transfer Station Buildings 148 6.4 .2 Transfer Station Equipment 165 ' 6.4.3 Transportation Equipment 166 6.4.4 Personnel Requirements 167 6.5 TRANSFER HAUL ROUTES 167 6.6 ANTICIPATED TRUCK TRAFFIC AT REGIONAL FACILITY 174 ' 6.7 TRANSFER STATION AND TRANSFER HAUL COSTS 174 6.8 ALTERNATE METHODS OF REFUSE TRANSPORTATION 179 6.8 .1 Rail Haul 179 ' 6.8 .2 Barge Haul 184 7 .0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES 189 ' 7 . 1 NON-ENERGY RECOVERING TECHNOLOGIES 189 7 .1 .1 Source Separation 190 7 .1 .2 Mechanical Separation of Secondary Materials 195 ' 7.1 .3 Conventional Sanitary Landfill 207 7 .1 .4 Shredding and Landfilling with Front-End Separation 211 ' 7 . 1 .5 Baling and Landfilling 214 7 .1 .6 Shredding, Baling and Landfilling with Front- End Separation 217 7 .1 .7 Conventional Incineration with/without Shredding and Metal Recovery 218 7 .1 .8 Composting 221 7 .2 ENERGY RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES 223 ' 7.2 .1 Overview 223 7.2 .2 Latent Energy in Refuse 224 7 .2 .3 Demonstrated Technologies 225 7.2 .4 Evolving Technologies 234 7 . 3 REPORT ON RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY 265 7 .4 RESOURCE RECOVERY AROUND THE WORLD 265 ' iii HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D) Page No. 8 .0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE STUDY AREA 267 8. 1 INTRODUCTION 267 I 8.2 TECHNOLOGY SELECTION 267 8.2 .1 Non-Energy Recovery Technologies 268 8.2 .2 Energy Recovery Technologies 272 8.3 SELECTION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 311 8.3 .1 Introduction 311 8.3 .2 Identification of Alternatives313 , 8.3 .3 Proposed Brookhaven Resource Recovery Facility 313 8.3 .4 Description of the Regional and Sub-Regional Alternatives 316 8.3 .5 Comparative Evaluation of Selected Solid I Waste Management Alternatives 324 8.4 SLUDGE MANAGEMENT 338 8.4.1 Alternate Cost Evaluation 341 9 .0 RECOMMENDED PLANS 343 9.1 INTRODUCTION 343 I 9.2 PRIMARY RECOMMENDED PLAN 343 9.2 .1 Cash Flow Analysis 345 9.3 ALTERNATE RECOMMENDED PLAN 346 9.3 .1 Cash Flow Analysis 357 9.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF RECOMMENDED PLANS 357 9.4.1 Community Economics 357 I 9.4.2 Fiscal Base 359 9.4.3 Community Services 365 9.4.4 Demography 370 9.4.5 Traffic 371 9.4.6 Aesthestics and Noise 372 9.4.7 Other Impacts 373 9.4 .8 Regulatory Requirements 374 I 10.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PLANS 377 10 . 1 INTRODUCTION 377 I 10 . 2 ADMINISTRATIVE (INSTITUTIONAL) ALTERNATIVES 377 10. 2. 1 General Municipal Powers 377 10 . 2. 2 Intermunicipal Service Agreements 378 I iv HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. TABLE OF' CONTENTS 1 CONT'D Page No. 10. 2.3 Agreements for Joint Municipal Activities 379 10. 2.4 Special Purpose Districts 379 ' 10. 2.5 Public Authorities 379 10. 2.6 New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation 381 10 .3 FINANCING ALTERNATIVES 384 ' 10. 3.1 Initial Capital Investment 384 10. 3.2 Operating Funds 388 10 .4 PROCUREMENT 390 ' 10.4.1 Introduction 390 10.4.2 Procurement Approaches 392 10 .5 CONCLUSIONS 395 ' 10 .6 IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PLANS FOR EAST END SERVICE AREA 395 10.6.1 Primary Recommended Plan Regional Resource Recovery Facility 397 ' 10.6.2 Alternate Recommended Plan - Brookhaven 398 11.0 REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 399 ' 11 . 1 INTRODUCTION 399 11 .2 RECOMMENDATIONS 399 11.2.1 Intermediate Phase 402 ' 11.2.2 Intermediate Phase 404 11.2.3 Long Range Phase 406 11 .3 CONCLUSIONS 406 ' SELECTED REFERENCES R1 ' APPENDICES A-1 to A-5 v HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. LIST OF TABLES ' Table No. Page No. , 1-1 Population Projects 6 2-1 Primary Constituents of Categories of Mixed Municipal Refuse 8 2-2 Municipal Refuse Composition 9 2-3 Seasonal Variation of Municiapl Refuse ' Composition ( 1970) 10 2-4 Projected Solid Waste Composition 11 2-5 Heating Value, Moisture and Ash Content of Municipal Solid Waste 13 2-6 Composite BTU Value of MSW, 1977 14 2-7 Composite BTU Value of MSW, 1983 15 2-8 Composite BTU Value of MSW, 1990 16 2-9 Composite BTU Value of MSW, 2000 17 2-10 Average Composite BTU Value 18 2-11 Solid Waste Quantities for 1978 20 2-12 Projected Per Capita Solid Waste Generation Rates Through 2005 29 2-13 Projected Annual Solid Waste Quantities Through 2005 30 1 2-14 Projected Daily Solid Waste Quantities Through 2005 31 2-15 Projected Daily MSW and Non-Combustibles, Quantities Through 2005 39 2-16 Projected Daily Average and Peak MSW Quantities 40 , 3-1 Summary of Existing Conditions 51 3-2 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 54 4-1 Major Product Sources of Recoverable Materials 59 4-2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Material Recovery 60 4-3 Projected Recoverable Resources for Study Area 62 4-4 Major Fossil Fuel Consumers in the Study Area 87 4-5 Potential Customers for Secondary Materials 89 4-6 Electrical Revenues from LILCO 91 vi HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D) Table No. Page No. 5-1 Riverhead Research Farm, Climatology 98 5-2 Bridgehampton Station, Climatology 98 ' 6-1 Design Solid Waste Quantities for Transfer Station and Transfer Haul Equipment 147 6-2 Transfer Station Equipment Requirements 168 6-3 Transfer Station Personnel Requirements 169 ' 6-4 Round Trip Travel Time for Transfer Trailers to and from the (Regional) Facility 173 6-5 Combined Truckloads to Regional Facility 175 ' 6-6 Transfer Station Cost. Summary 176 6-7 Transfer Haul Cost Summary 177 6-8 Total Cost Summary (Transfer Station and Transfer Haul) 178 8-1 Manufacturers of Modular Incinerators 312 8-2 Selected Solid Waste Management Alternatives 314 8-3 Capital Cost Summary for Various Alternatives 330 8-4 Unit Costs for Various Alternatives 332 ' 8-5 Comparison of Alternatives for the Study Area 335 8-6 Projected Combined Sludge Quantities 339 8-7 Comparative Cost Analysis of Various Sludge ' Disposal Alternatives 342 9-1 Primary Recommended Plan, Five Town Regional Resource Recovery System Cash Flow Analysis 348 9-2 Individual Town Cash Flow Analysis Primary Recommended Plan - Five Town Regional 1 Resource Recovery System: Case A 349 9-3 Individual Town Cash Flow Analysis Primary Recommended Plan - Five Town Regional Resource Recovery System: Case B 351 9-4 MSW Transfer to Brookhaven Cash Flow 356 9-5 Projected Solid Waste Quantities 361 9-6 Annual Solid Waste Disposal Costs 363 9-7 Projected Number of Households 366 9-8 Projected Total Valuations 367 9-9 Annual Solid Waste Disposal Costs Per ' Household 368 ' vii HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. LIST OF TABLES CONT 'D Table No. Page No. r 9-10 Annual Solid Waste Disposal Costs Per ' $100.00 Assessed Valuation 369 10-1 Administrative Alternatives 383 10-2 Financial Alternatives 391 10-3 Implementation Schemes 396 viii ' r HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page No. ' 1-1 Study Area 2 1-2 Projected Population Curves , Individual ' Towns 4 1-3 Projected Population Curve, Five Town Total 5 1 2-1 Estimated Monthly Solid Waste Distribution for 1978 , Southampton 21 2-2 Estimated Monthly Solid Waste Distribution for 1978, Riverhead 22 2-3 Estimated Monthly Solid Waste Distribution for 1978 , Southold 23 ' 2-4 Estimated Monthly Solid Waste Distribution for 1978 , East Hampton 24 2-5 Estimated Monthly Solid Waste Distribution for 1978, Shelter Island 25 ' 2-6 Combined Monthly Variation of Solid Waste Quantities, for 1978 26 2-7 Solid Waste Projections, Southampton 32 ' 2-8 Solid Waste Projections, Riverhead 33 2-9 Solid Waste Projections, Southold 34 2-10 Solid Waste Projections, East Hampton 35 ' 2-11 Solid Waste Projections, Shelter Island 36 2-12 Solid Waste Projections, Five Town Total 37 ' 3-1 Existing Landfill Sites 43 ' 4-1 Major Fuel Consumers 85 5-1 Proposed Sites for Transfer Stations and ' Resource Recovery Facilities 111 ' 6-1 Economic Feasibility of Direct Haul Versus Transfer Haul 143 6-2 Proposed Transfer Station at the Existing ' North Sea Landfill Site, Southampton 149 6-3 Proposed Transfer Station at the Existing Riverhead Landfill Site 150 1 i ' ix r HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. r LIST OF FIGURES CONT'D Figure No. Page No. , 6-4 Proposed Transfer Station at the Existing , Southold Landfill Site 151 6-5 Proposed Transfer Station at the Existing Acabonack. Road Landfill Site, East Hampton 152 6-6 Proposed Intra-Town Transfer Station at the Existing Montauk Landfill Site, East Hampton 153 6-7 Proposed Transfer Station at the Existing , Shelter Island Landfill Site 154 6-8 Typical Stationary Transfer Station 157 6-9 Typical Stationary Transfer Station 159 6-10 Proposed Intra-Town Transfer Station 160 ' 6-11 Proposed Intra-Town Transfer Station 161 6-12 Proposed Intra-Town Transfer Station 163 6-13 Major Highways and Roads and Primary Proposed Sites 171 7-1 Non-Energy Recovery Technologies 191 7-2 Horizontal Shaft Size Reduction Units 196 7-3 Vertical Shaft Size Reduction Unit 198 7-4 Size Reduction Through Wet Pulping 199 7-5 Types of Magnetic Separators 203 7-6 Pyrolysis and the Energy Cycle 243 7-7 Monsanto Landguard System 246 7-8 Garrett Pyrolysis Process 249 7-9 Union Carbide Oxygen Converter 253 7-10 Hydrasposal-Wet Pulping, System Unit Process and System Material Balance 261 8-1 Typical Mass-Fired Waterwall Resource Recovery System 273 8-2 Process Flow Diagram and Material Balance Mass-Fired Waterwall System 279 8-3 Energy Flow Diagrams Mass-Fired Waterwall System 280 8-4 Typical Spreader Stoker Waterwall Resource Recovery System 285 1 1 x , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' LIST OF FIGURES CONT'D Figure No. Page No. ' 8-5 Process Flow Diagram and Material Balance Spreader Stoker Waterwall System 288 8-6 Energy Flow Diagrams, Spreader Stoker System 289 8-7 Process Flow Diagram and Material Balance Refuse Derived Fuel for Combustion in Suspension Fired Waterwall System 292 ' 8-8 Typical Refuse Derived Fuel Manufacturing Facility 293 8-9 Typical RDF Receiving and Firing Facility 295 ' 8-10 Typical Three-Dimensional Modular Incin- eration Resource Recovery System 304 8-11 Typical Modular Incineration Resource Recovery System 305 9-1 Projected Waste Generation vs . Facility ' Requirements 344 9-2 Projected Life Tipping Fees for Primary Recommended Plan 347 ' 9-3 Utilization of Proposed Brookhaven Facility by East End Towns. Based on Brookhaven' s Average Loading 354 9-4 Utilization of Proposed Brookhaven Facility by East End Towns. Based on Brookhaven' s Peak Loading 355 ' 11-1 Implementation Schedule 403 ' :K 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. LIST OF APPENDICES ' Page No. 1 . Market Investigation of Recovered Resources Selected Correspondence Al 1 to 28 2 . Comparative Alternative Evaluation A2 1 to 54 , 3 . Detailed Costs of Recommended Plans A3 1 to 30 , 4. Resource Recovery Facilities in the United States A4 1 to 8 ' 5 . Suggested Daily Landfill Record Sheet A5 1 i r xii HOLZMACHER McLENDON and M RR , U ELL, P.C.P C /HZ CORP. ' SELECTED GLOSSARY ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. SELECTED GLOSSARY AC-FT Acre-Feet BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory Btu British Thermal Unit Btu/lb British Thermal Units Per Pound BuMines U. S. Bureau of Mines °C Degrees Centigrate ' CEA Combustion Equipment Associates Cu-Ft (CF) Cubic Feet ' Cu-Yd (CY) Cubic Yard ' DPHS New York State Department of Health Standards DOE United States Department of ' Energy $/Mwh Dollars Per Megawatt Hour ' $/Kwh Dollars Per Kilowatt Hour EQBA Environmental Quality Bond Act OF Degrees Farhenheit Gals. Gallons GCMI Glass Container Manufactures Institute GOB General Obligation Bonds i G-1 n MURRELL P.C./ H2M CORP. , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and , I SELECTED GLOSSARY (CONT'D. ) H2M Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell , P.C./ H2M Corp. HDR Henningson, Durham & Richardson HRRC Hempstead Resources Recovery ,Corp. , Hr./Day Hours Per Day 1 HVAC Heating, Ventilating, Air Con- ditioning ' IFB Invitation For Bids IRB Industrial Revenue Bond ' kw Kilowatts ' kwh Kilowatt Hour lb. Pound lb/day Pounds Per Day , lb/cap/day Pounds Per Capita Per Day lb/hr. Pounds Per Hour LILCO Long Island Lighting Company ', , LIRPB Long Island Regional Planning Board MCR Maximum Continuous Rating 1 MGD Million Gallons Per Day MSL Mean Sea Level , MSW Municipal Solid Waste G-2 1 i HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' SELECTED GLOSSARY (CONT 'D. ) MW Megawatt Mwh Megawatt Hour ' NC Non-Combustibles NCRR The National Center for Resource Recovery Inc. NYCRR New York Code for Rules and Regulations NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSEFC New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation ' OBW Oversized Bulky Waste ' PCRB Pollution Control Revenue Bond PSD Prevention of Significant Deteri- oration PCRB Pollution Control Revenue Bond ' psi Pounds Per Square Inch ' psig Pounds Per Square Inch Gauge RC Rising Current RCA Radio Corporation of America RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ' RDF Refuse Derived Fuel ' G-3 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' SELECTED GLOSSARY (CONT 'D. ) , RFP Request For Proposal RFQ Request For Qualification SEQR State Environmental Quality , Review tpd (TPD) Tons Per Day ' tph (TPH) Tons Per Hour ' tpw (TPW) Tons Per Week tpy (TPY) Tons Per Year ' USEPA United States Environmental ' Protection Agency w/o With Out G-4 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' INTRODUCTION 1 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE ' This study was performed to investigate resource and energy recovery from solid waste generated in the Towns of ' Southampton, Riverhead, Southold, East Hampton and Shelter ' Island, and to evaluate various solid waste management alter- natives to provide the towns with the most cost effective as well as technically and environmentally sound long term solution to refuse disposal problem. The study was par- tially funded through the United States Environmental Agency ' Grant No . D-002156-01-0 with the cooperation of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. SCOPE ' The scope of this study, included establishing a data base by assesment of the existing situation, future popula- tion growth, anticipated quantities and compositions of solid waste generated in the: study area. Next activity undertaken was market investigation for ' energy and secondary materials recoverable from the solid waste stream. Energy markets included steam, electricity ' and Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) . Several potential sites for the location of resource recovery facilities, transfer stations and residue landfills ' were looked at and a preliminary environmental assessment ' I-1 / ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. H2M CORP. was performed to select the most likely potential sites. Detailed refuse transportation analyses were performed. , A discussion of the various solid waste management tech- nologies available on todays market was included. Based on the applicable technologies, several regional and sub-regjonal ' alternatives were developed for the five town study area. A comprehensive cost analysis was performed to provide a com- parison of the alternatives which led to the selection of ' two most viable recommended plans. Sludge management alter- natives were also identified and evaluated. , Cash flow analyses of the recommended plans were per formed to determine the projected tipping fees. ' Various methodologies for implementing the selected 'plans were discussed including institutional , financing and P rocure- ment. ' Specific recommendations for the five town area were ' made. Finally, the overall report recommendations included ' short term and long term solutions to the solid waste problem in the five towns. ' Environmental assessment included potential impacts of ' recommended solid waste management alternatives on air and water quality, land use, traffic, employment and local tax , base. ' 1-2 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL,P.C./ H2M CORP. ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' FINDINGS 1 The area considered in this study consists of the Towns of Southampton, Riverhead, Southold, East Hampton and Shelter 1 Island located on the eastern most part of Suffolk County, 1 Long Island, New York. The combined 1980 permanent popula- tion of the five towns is 109,405 . ' The five town population would produce an estimated 182 , 500 tons of solid waste in 1980 of which approximately ' 30 percent would be generated by the out of town summer 1 vacationers. This figure is expected to increase by approx- imately 22 percent to 222 ,650 tons/year by 1985 and 149 per- cent to 454, 220 tons/year by 2005 . At present all five towns are disposing of their solid 1 waste at sanitary landfills. The New York Department of 1 Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has required compliance with Part 360 Regulations in order to continue operation of ' the existing landfills. Even with the required upgrading, the five towns face a potential closure of their landfills 1 by 1985 due to their unique location in this sole source aquifer region. Accordingly, the five towns must come up 1 with an alternative method of solid waste disposal between 1 now and 1985 . All towns are presently engaged in 201 wastewater 1 facility planning studies which would address disposal of 1 1 S-1 M LENDON and MURRELL P.C./ H2M CORP. , HOLZMACHER, c , scavenger waste and sludge from the existing wastewater treat- ment facilities . The scavenger waste and sludge is currently ' disposed of in separate lagoons at the existing landfills� or at separate sites. The projected sludge quantities are small in , comparison with solid waste generation. ' Solid waste energy resource recovery presents a viable alternative to the five towns . By recovering resources avail- ' able in solid waste, one not only reduces the amount of waste requiring disposal but also enhances resource conservation ' practices. As fuel costs escalate at unprecedented rates;, ' solid waste energy and resource conservation become increas- ingly attractive both environmentally and economically. , Conversely, the stringent environmental regulations are making conventional land disposal too expensive. ' A comprehensive survey was conducted to determine the , marketability of recovered resources from solid waste. Our survey indicated that at present there are no major fuel users ' in the study area which could potentially utilize all steam available from a resource recovery facility. The only major ' customer for electrical energy is LILCO. LILCO has expressed interest in purchasing all electrical power the solid waste ' facility could generate. Sale of electricity to LILCO appears ' to be the most feasible energy recovery alternative. There are no major customers at this time within economical distance of the study area for the purchase of secondary materials: such S-2 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. as ferrous, aluminum and glass . No market exists for Refuse ' Derived Fuel (RDF) . Several solid waste management technologies are avail- able on today' s market, both non-energy recovery and energy- recovery types. The report contains an in-depth description of these technologies. Only the fully or partially demon- strated technologies have been considered in the development of alternatives for the East End service area. The three ' energy-recovery technologies considered are: Mass-fired waterwall incineration with electrical generation, spreader stoker waterwall incineration and electrical generation with ' front-end shredding of all MSW, and modular incineration with low pressure steam generation. The two potentially viable ' non-energy technologies evaluated are: . source separation ' and controlled sanitary landfill to comply with the prevail- ing state regulations. ' Based on the available solid waste management technolo- gies, we have identified and evaluated several solid waste tmanagement alternatives which are applicable to the five town ' study area . The alternatives are grouped into two categories: Regional , with all five towns participating in one system; ' and sub-regional where the towns participate individually as collectively with neighboring towns (up to four towns) . A ' total of twenty four alternatives were evaluated and a com- parative analysis was performed. ' S-3 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 1 One of the alternatives evaluated was the participation ' in the proposed resource recovery facility in the Town of Brookhaven. The main purpose for considering this alterna- tive was of mutual benefit to both the Town of Brookhaven as well as the five towns . The Brookhaven project is still ' in the early planning stages and the application of this , alternative to the study area requires further development and negotiations. However, the Town of Brookhaven officials ' have expressed interest in exploring such a concept. CONCLUSIONS With the exception of the Brookhaven alternative, all ' alternatives were evaluated on a complete system basis, that is, the costs were computed for all components of each alter- ' native. These components included transfer station, transfer , haul, resource recovery facility, residue transportation, residue disposal, nonburnables disposal and wastewater dis- posal . Credits included electricity sale to LILCO, stearin sale from modular incineration technology and RDF sale to LILCO. Also included in the credit was the partial capital ' funding under Environmental Quality Bond Act (EQBA) . This credit was taken as 50 percent for the capital cost of the ' resource recovery facility and 25 percent for the transfer station and transportation equipment. S-4 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Our comparative alternative analysis concluded: ' a. A regional resource recovery alternative is the most economical solution to the five town study area. The mass-fired waterwall technology is favored over the ' spreader stoker waterwall system. b. Sub-regional systems, individually or collectively, ' are more expensive than a five town regional system. C . RDF sale to LILCO is not a viable alternative at this ' time due to apparent reluctance of the utility com- pany to utilize RDF in it' s boilers. d. Modular incineration technology is not an economical ' solution due to the absence of major steam users in the study area at the present time. Even when a full sale of steam were to be assumed, our analysis in- dicates modular incineration more expensive than a regional mass-fired waterwall system. Modular incin- eration technology is relatively new and the concept ' is still being evaluated by USEPA with respect to air emission control. Electrical generation from mod- ular incinerators is an unproven concept. e . The Brookhaven alternative appears cost effective at this time. Major advantage of this concept lies in the reduced capital investment for the five towns . ' Potential advantage to Brookhaven is reduced tipping fee due to economical utilization of it' s resource recovery facility. Disadvantages of this alternative ' are mostly due to political and environmental con- straints and potential reluctance of Brookhaven to sign a long term contract with the five towns . f. Sanitary landfilling of solid waste does not appear to provide a long term solution to the solid waste disposal problem. NYSDEC has been adamant regarding ' ultimately phasing out landfills on Long Island . In addition, the cost of complying with the stringent state and federal regulations, coupled with zero ' financial assistance, has indicated that the unit cost of landfill operation would be equal if not more than that of a resource recovery system. Landfill require- ments associated with a regional resource recovery ' system are well recognized by the state officials and we do not forsee any obstacle in locating a residue landfill. ' S-S HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. g . Due to lack of markets for secondary materials re- covered through source separation within economical , travel distances, a source separation program at present does not provide a cost effective method of waste reduction. However, due to fluctuating nature of the market demand, this alternative may be econoi _ , ically justifiable in the future . The impact of source separation on regional resource recovery is considered negligible. ' h. Truck haul is the most economical method of solid waste transportation in the study area. Barge haul) and rail haul were considered in the report but were , eliminated due to several technical, environmental and economical constraints. i . Given the projected quantities of sludge generated in 1 the area, the only cost-effective method of sludge management is land disposal in a lined sanitary land- ' fill . The residue landfill required for the resource recovery facility offers the most viable option. RECOMMENDATIONS ' We have provided recommendations for both the short term ' as well as long term solutions to the solid waste management problem in the five town area. Short term solutions are those ' which would allow the towns to operate the existing landfills until 1985 , and provide adequate time for the implementation of , a regional resource recovery system. Our specific recommendations ' are: a . All towns , with the exception of Shelter Island, con- , tinue sanitary landfilling until 1985 . The existing landfills must be upgraded in accordance with the state requirements. The Town of Shelter Island should ' negotiate, as being currently recommended by NYSDEC with either the Town of Southold or the Town of East Hampton to accept its waste at their existing landfills. , A transfer station in Shelter Island provides the most effective method to accomplish this goal. S-6 t ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 1 b. Immediately commence planning for a five town regional resource recovery system. The primary recommended plan calls for initially 3 units of 400 tpd each mass-fired waterwall resource recovery system with electrical gen- eration and oversized bulky waste shredding. A fourth unit, also of 400 tpd, would be added in 1996 to handle all MSW until the year 2005 . The regional facility' s primary location, from economical, environmental and transportation viewpoints, appears to be at the exist- ing RCA site in the Town of Southampton . Other sites in the study area are also identified and discussed ' in the report. The electrical power would be sold to LILCO. Residue and nonburnables would be disposed of at the existing site in North Sea in an environmentally ' acceptable manner . Wastewater would be treated on-site to comply with the prevailing effluent limitations. Each town would construct a transfer station facility at it' s existing landfill site and transfer MSW in large tractor trailers to the regional resource re- covery facility. ' The initial capital cost of the entire system is esti- mated at $74,937,000 ($41,484,000 with state aid) in 1980 dollars . Additional cost of the fourth 400 tpd ' unit in 1996 is estimated at $13 ,500, 000 ($6 ,750,000 with state aid) in 1980 dollars. Based on the exist- ing inflation trend and the required utilization of the facility in 1985, we estimate a net average tipping fee (inclusive of transportation costs) of $24. 53/ton in 1985 dollars. ' C . As an alternative to the primary recommended plan of a regional resource recovery facility in (b) above, we have proposed an alternate recommended plan. This plan ' calls for participation in the proposed Brookhaven resource recovery facility. We recommend that the five towns immediately initiate formal negotiations ' with the Town of Brookhaven. The final decision re- garding the participation must be reached within 12 to 18 months of this date. If a negative decision is reached, the five towns would still have sufficient ' time to implement their own regional resource recovery project. ' S-7 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , The Brookhaven alternative calls for each town to ' construct a transfer station facility at the existing landfill site and transfer haul MSW to the Brookhaven , facility. At this facility a tipping fee would be charged for the ultimate disposal of MSW. The non burnables from the five towns would be disposed of ' at a regional landfill . The capital cost of MSW transfer and transportation and nonburnables disposal is $4,615,000 ($3, 681 ,000 ' with state aid) in 1980 dollars. The corresponding 1985 unit cost is estimated at $11 .74/ton. d . Other recommendations include: , - Form a solid waste management authority to imple7 ' ment the long term recommended solutions. - Commence a public education program on source sep- aration.aration. ' Evaluate source separation on an experi- mental basis. - Initiate a record keeping program. Accurate records ' of solid waste generated in the five town area would be required prior to initiating the design phase', of the resource recovery system. IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PLANS It is almost imperative for the five towns to seek , alternative methods of solid waste management attributed ' mainly to the increasing concern of state and federal govern- ments over the potential adverse impacts of sanitary landfills. ' With that in mind, it is clear that the time is now to ini- tiate planning for a long term solution to this ever-growing problem which would provide the towns with a technically, ' environmentally and economically feasible method of solid' waste disposal. To accomplish this goal, a sound implemep- ' tation of the selected alternative is equally important. We S-8 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' believe that the towns do have sufficient time between now ' and 1985 to produce a viable long term alternative provided the implementation is carried out in an effective manner. We have suggested an implementation schedule in Section 11 of this report which we believe should be adhered to in ' order to properly implement the recommended plan. 1 t ' S-9 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 1 ' SECTION 1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. t 1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ' 1 .1 STUDY AREA ' The study area comprises the five towns , namely Southampton, Riverhead, Southold, East Hampton and Shelter Island, located in ' the eastern most portion of Suffolk County. Southampton, the ' largest town is composed of twenty eight (28 ) communities total- ing 92 ,884 acres, followed in order by East Hampton with four- teen ( 14) communities and 53, 739 acres; Riverhead with seven (7) communities and 43, 428 acres; Southold with thirteen ( 13 ) com- munities and 34, 059 acres, and Shelter Island with three (3 ) com- munities and 7 ,616 acres . The total land area of these towns is 231,726 acres, equaling 362 square miles or 39 percent of the total land area of Suffolk County. Figure 1-1 is a location map of the study area, showing the five East End towns in relation to the ' rest of Long Island. ' 1 .2 POPULATION 1 .2 .1 Permanent Population For the purposes of this report, we have utilized the population ' projections formulated by the Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB) presented in the November, 1976 208 Water Quality Manage- ' ent Study. These same projections have also been used by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) for its planning purposes. ' 1 FIGURE N° 1-1 1 , ,(Ork* CONNECTICUT LONG ISLAND SOUND o . 1 2 � +ti NEW SUFFOLK 1 YORK S NASSAU �� Yr...... CITY OCEAN ArL,gNtIC 1 1 � 1 � 1-SHELTER, ISLAND SOUTHOLD \ EAST O� HAMPTON 1 , RIVERHE AD SOUTHAMPTON 1 1 STUDY AREA 1 A i E ST ENO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON ,, 1 SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.Y. 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARMING9ALE.N.Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEA .N V. - NEWTON.N.J. 2 1 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Based on the above, we have plotted and tabulated the popula- tion projections for each town as well as for the study area as a whole. As indicated in Figures 1-2 and 1-3 along with Table 1-1 ' the population is expected to increase in all five towns . The LIRPB projected populations only thru 1995 . However, by assuming ' a similar nominal increase in population, we have extrapolated 1 the projections to the year 2005. Although each town will experience some growth in the next 25 ' years, Southampton will grow at the fastest rate whereas Shelter Island will grow at the slowest rate. This differential in growth ' rates is in part due to the size of Southampton relative to the other towns . 1 .2 .2 Seasonal Population Each town in the study area experiences seasonal fluctuations in population due to the influx of people during the warmer months . However, due to the differences in summer popularity, some towns ' experience greater seasonal variations in population than others , i .e. , Southampton, East Hampton and Shelter Island generally experience greater summer population variations than do Southold and Riverhead. The LIRPB does not maintain records of the sea- sonal population nor do any of the five towns . However, it is ' estimated that the quantity of solid waste generated by the seasonal population amounts to approximately 33 percent of the ' solid waste generated by permanent population on an annual basis. From this it may be inferred that the seasonal only population ' is approximately equal to the permanent population (assuming ' four months tourist season) . 3 r FIGUR NO. 1-2 ' 1995 2000 20051 75000 100,000 ' LIRPB PROJECTIONS / 70000 ---- H2M ESTIMATES / 95,000 SOUTHAMPTON 65000 90,000 f � 1 ' 60000 85,000 ZO 55000 /� 80,000 H � .aj 50000 75,000 M CL0 a 45000 RIVERHEAD i 40000 ' / . SOUTHOLD 35000 � i EAST HAMPTON 30000 - 25000 -- 20000-- 15000-- 10000 .- 5000 -- 000025000200001500010000 5000 _ — SHELTER ISLAND ' 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 ' POPULATION PROJECTIONS ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR 'TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLC N.V. ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE,N V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERNEWTONN.'.Ni ,N N v NEWT .J. 4 ' FIGURE N21-3 210,000 / ' 195,000 180,000 / ' I 165,000 Z 150,000 ' O ~ 135,000 Q 120,000 0 O ~ 105,000 I ' O 90,000 H a a75,000 O a- 60,000 60,000 ' 45,000 30,000 15,000 ' 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 TIME POPULATION PROJECTIONS ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND NAS.D.E.C. ' MELViLLE.N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE.N V CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N V NEWTON.N.J. 5 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 1-1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000(x) 2005 (x` Southampton 27, 095 32, 820 36, 154 41, 239 47,200 54, 837 64, 352 75, 518 88, 500 98,400 Riverhead 14, 519 17, 023 18,909 21, 184 23,412 26, 529 30,363 34, 752 39,400 44, 200 Southold 13 , 295 14, 780 16 ,804 18, 733 21,016 23, 814 26, 716 29, 972 33, 250 36,400 East Hampton 8,827 10, 480 10 ,980 13, 053 15, 549 18, 992 22,066 25, 637 29,200 33, 000 � I Shelter Island 1,312 1,460 1 ,644 1, 918 2,228 2, 790 3 ,324 3, 960 4, 750 5 , 750 TOTAL 65,048 76, 563 84,491 96, 127 109,405 126, 962 146,821 169,839 195, 100 217 , 750 Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board (a) : H2M Estimates HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' SECTION 2 .0 SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION AND QUANTITIES HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 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 muni- cipality to municipality. Only by separating and weighing samples ' of refuse can waste composition be determined precisely for a 1 particular locality. Such preciseness is not necessary for a study of this type. Since exact data was not available for ' the study area, general compositional data has been obtained by examining figures for similar communities and for the nation as a whole. ' 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 municipal refuse . ' Seasonal variations of the municipal refuse composition is 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 packaged foods expands. In general home garbage dis- posal units also help decrease the amount of food wastes entering the municipal solid waste stream, however, this is not believed to be true for the East End Towns. Glass and metal wastes will probably increase if the present popularity of non-returnable ' liquid containers persists without regulation. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 2-1 ' PRIMARY CONSTITUENTS OF CATEGORIES , OF MIXED MUNICIPAL REFUSE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ' Paper Various types, some with fillers. Plastic Polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, styrene, , etc. , as found in packaging, housewares, furniture, toys and non-woven synthetic fabrics . , Rubber & Leather Shoes, tires, toys, etc. Textiles Cellulosic, protein, woven synthetics . ' Wood Wooden packaging, furniture, logs, twigs. ' Food Garbage. Yard Grass, brush, shrub trimmings . ' Glass Bottles (primarily) . Metal Cans, wire, foil, scrap iron. Miscellaneous Inorganic ash, stones, dust . , 8 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 2-2 MUNICIPAL REFUSE COMPOSITION (PERCENT BY WEIGHT) ESTIMATED ' HEMPSTEAD, PROJECTED COMPOSITION CATEGORY NY EPA 1980 (1978 ) Paper 46 34.9 36.1 37 ' Plastic 2 3 .8 2 .5 4 ' Rubber & Leather 2 2 .6 1 .3 2 Textiles 3 1 .7 1 .9 2 ' Wood 7 3 .8 1 .7 4 Food 12 14 .9 14 .1 14 ' Yard 18 16 . 3 24. 1 16 Glass 4 10 .5 9.0 10 Metal 4 9 .8 8 . 1 9 ' Miscellaneous 2 _ 1 .6 1 .2_ 2 TOTALS 100 100.0 100.0 100 Source : EPA Reports and Long Island data from Handbook of Solid Waste ' Management by David Gordon Wilson (1977 ) and Multi-Town Engi- neering Report (1979) . HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 2-3 ' SEASONAL VARIATION OF MUNICIPAL REFUSE COMPOSITION (1970 ) ' (PERCENT BY WEIGHT) % BY WEIGHT , CATEGORY SUMMER FALL WINTER SPRING Paper 31 .0 39.0 42 .2 26. 5 , Plastic 1 .1 1. 2 1 .4 1. 1 Rubber & Leather 1.1 1 .4 1 .5 1 . 2 ' Textiles 1 .8 2 . 5 2 .7 2 .2 Wood 2 .6 3.4 3 .6 3. 1 , Food 17.7 22 . 7 24.1 20. 8 , Yard 27. 1 6. 2 0.4 14.4 Glass 7.5 9. 6 10 .2 8.8 , Metal 7.0 9. 1 9. 7 8. 2 Miscellaneous 3 .1 4.0 4 .2 3 .7 , TOTALS 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100. 0 ' 1 10 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 2-4 PROJECTED SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION ' PERCENT BY WEIGHT Year ' Materials 1978 1983 1990 2000 Paper 37 39.5 43.4 45. 9 ' Plastic 4 4. 7 6. 4 8. 7 ' Rubber & Leather 2 2 .0 2.0 2.0 Textiles 2 2 .0 2.0 2.0 ' Wood 4 4.0 4. 0 4. 0 Food 14 11 .4 7. 6 5 . 2 ' Yard 16 16.0 16 . 0 16. 0 Glass 10 9.7 8.8 7 . 6 Metal 9 8.7 7 . 8 6. 6 Miscellaneous 2 2 .0_ _ 2.0 _ 2 .0 TOTAL 100 100.0 100. 0 100. 0 Source : Multi-Town Engineering Report, Volume 1, 1979. ' 11 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , 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 heat- , ing value, moisture content and ash content. As shown in Tables 2-6 through 2-9, as the relative quantities of these , materials 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 2-10 . .L 2 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 2-5 HEATING VALUE, MOISTURE AND ASH CONTENT ' OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ' Heating Value Btu/lb. Percent Percent Material as Received Moisture Ash ' Paper 6,800 5 6 Plastic 11 ,000 0 10 Rubber & Leather 91000 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. ' 13 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' TABLE 2-6 ' COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW IN 1977 Heat Content Composition Moisture Ash as Fired , Material (lbs . ) (lbs. ) ( lbs. ) (BTU/1b. ) Paper 37 1 .9 2 . 2 2 , 516 , Plastic 4 0 0.4 440 Rubber & Leather 2 0. 2 0. 1 180 ' Textiles 2 0. 2 0. 1 128 Wood 4 0. 3 0. 1 312 , Food 14 9.8 0. 7 364 ' Yard 16 11. 2 0. 3 400 Glass 10 0 10. 0 0 ' Metal 9 0 9.0 0 Miscellaneous 2 0. 1 0. 1 116 ' TOTALS 100 23. 7 23 . 0 4,456 ' Source: Multi-Town Engineering Report, 1979. ' 14 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 2-7 ' COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW IN 1983 Heat Content Composition Moisture Ash as Fired Material (lbs . ) ( lbs. ) ( lbs. ) (BTU/lb. ) Paper 39.5 2.0 2.4 2, 686 Plastic 4.7 0 0. 5 517 ' 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 11.4 8. 0 0 . 6 296 Yard 16.0 11. 2 0. 3 400 ' Glass 9.7 0 9. 7 0 Metal 8. 7 0 8. 7 0 ' Miscellaneous 2.0 0. 1 0. 1 116 TOTALS 100.0 22 .0 22. 6 4, 635 ' Source : Multi-Town Engineering Report, 1979. ' 15 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , TABLE 2-8 ' COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW IN 1990 Heat Content ` Composition Moisture Ash as Fired , Material ( lbs . ) (lbs. ) ( lbs. ) (BTU/lb. ) Paper 43.4 2. 2 2 . 6 2 ,951 , Plastic 6.4 0 0. 6 704 Rubber & Leather 2 .0 0. 2 0. 1 108 Textiles 2.0 0. 2 0. 1 128 , Wood 4.0 0. 3 0. 1 312 Food 7.6 5. 3 0. 4 198 , Yard 16.0 11. 2 0. 3 400 Glass 8.8 0 8. 8 0 ' Metal 7.8 0 7. 8 0 ' Miscellaneous 2 .0 0. 1 0. 1 116 TOTALS 100.0 19. 5 20.9 41989 , Source: Multi-Town Engineering Report, 1979. ' 16 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' TABLE 2-9 ' COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW IN 2000 ' Heat Content Composition Moisture Ash as Fired Material (lbs . ) (lbs. ) ( lbs. ) (BTU/lb. ) ' Paper 45.9 2 .3 2 . 8 3 ,121 ' Plastic 8.7 0 0. 9 957 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 5. 2 3 .6 0. 3 135 Yard 16.0 11 . 2 0. 3 400 Glass 7 .6 0 7. 6 0 ' Metal 6.6 0 6. 6 0 Miscellaneous 2 .0 0 .1 _0. 1 116 ' TOTALS 100.0 17 .9 18. 9 51349 Source: Multi-Town Engineering Report, 1979. ' 17 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' TABLE 2-10 ' AVERAGE COMPOSITE BTU VALUE OF MSW Heat Content Composition Moisture Ash as Fired , Material (lbs. ) (lbs. ) ( lbs. ) (Btu/lb. ) Paper 41 .4 2 . 1 2. 5 2,818 , Plastic 6.0 0 0. 6 655 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 9.6 6 .7 0. 5 248 ' Yard 16.0 11 .2 0. 3 400 Glass 9.0 0 9. 0 0 , Metal(a) 8.0 0 8. 0 0 Miscellaneous 2.0 0 .1 0. 1 116 ' TOTALS 100.0 20.8 21. 3 4,857 ' Source: Multi-Town Engineering Report, 1979. ' (a) Composition of Metal: Ferrous 7%, Aluminum 0. 7%, remaining is ' other Non-Ferrous. 18 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 2 .2 SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES ' 2 .2 .1 Present Waste Generation The five eastern towns are noted for their recreational and therefore, tourist attractions. Consequently, the amount of solid ' waste generated varies significantly from the tourist season to the non-tourist season. However, due to the absence of weighing facilities at each landfill, a precise determination of incoming refuse quantities at each landfill is difficult. ' Nevertheless, by utilizing all available information, we have ' developed an annual distribution of solid waste generated by each town for the year 1978 . These sources of information varied from ' actual landfill records in Southampton, to previous engineering studies in Riverhead, Southold and East Hampton. For the town ' of Shelter Island, we utilized the previous relationships developed ' to form a composite distribution. The 1978 monthly quantities for the five towns are shown in Table 2-11 and are graphically pre- sented in Figures 2-1 through 2-5 . A combined monthly distribution is shown in Figure 2-6. Included in the annual distribution is ' the quantity of solid waste generated by the seasonal population amounting to approximately 33 percent of the solid waste gen- erated by permanent population on an annual basis. This upward ' adjustment factor is based on the actual records obtained from the Town of Southampton, conversations with various town officials and previous studies conducted by various towns. ' 19 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' TABLE 2-11 SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES FOR 1978 - TONS ' (a) River- (b) East- Shelter ' Southampton Head(b) Southold Hampton Island Total January 4, 600 2,000 2, 100 1 ,500 200 10, 400 ' February 3, 700 11800 11900 1 ,200 160 8, 760 March 5, 700 2,300 2,500 1 ,900 250 12, 650 ' April 6, 000 2,900 3, 100 2,000 260 14, 260 ' May 7, 100 3, 100 3, 300 2,300 300 16, 100 June 8, 300 3,000 3,200 2,700 360 17, 560 ' July 8, 600 3,400 3,600 2,900 370 18, 870 August 8, 500 3,300 3,500 2,800 370 18, 470 ' September 8, 200 2,700 2,900 2,700 360 16, 860 October 6, 300 2,900 3,100 2,100 270 14, 670 ' November 4, 900 2,500 2,700 1 ,600 210 11, 910 ' December 4, 900 2 ,000 2 ,100 1,600 210 10, 810 TOTAL 76, 800 31 ,900 34,000 25, 300 3, 320 171, 320 ' Monthly Average 6, 400 2,659 2 ,833 2, 108 277 14, 277 Monthly Variation Max/Avg 1.3437 1.2789 1.2705 1.3754 1. 3373 1 .322 ' Min/Avg 0. 5781 0.6771 0. 6705 0. 5691 0. 5783 0.614 (a) Obtained from Southampton Landfills records. ' (b) Obtained from Previous Part 360 Studies and revised for seasonal population. ' 20 ' FIGURE N° 2-1 ' 10- 8600 8500 ' 8300 8200 8 O ' 7100 x ' Z0 ' 0 6 6000 5700 W Q4900 4900 ' 3 4600 4 J 3700 N U, ' O N Z ' FO- 2 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 1978 ESTIMATED MONTHLY SOLID WASTE DISTRIBUTION SOUTHAMPTON ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVIL HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE, N.Y. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N.V NEWTON,N.J. 21 FIGURE N° 2-2 ' a 1 0 3400 O 3300 O 'x 3100 3000 3 2900 2900 Z 2700 ' 0 2500 *-% 2300 W a2 2000 2000 3 1800 ' _o J N ' r� O 1 'N O H , 0 'JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 1978 , ESTIMATED MONTHLY SOLID WASTE DISTRIBUTION RIVERHEAD t EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR 'TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACIJER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARM INGDALE,N.Y . CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD N V NEWTON.N.J. 22 ' FIGURE N° 2-3 ' 4 „ 3600 3500 O O ' O 3300 3200 x 3100 3100 �•3 = 2900 ' Z 2700 O 2500 N2100 2100 9 2 1900 G J N O I U) O ' 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC ' 1978 ESTIMATEG MONTHY SOLID WASTE DISTRIBUTION ' SOUTHOLD ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. ' MELVILLE.N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE,N.Y. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N V NEWTON.N.J. ' 23 FIGURE N° 3 2900 27007 2800 ' 270 2300 O 2100 ' O 200 1900 ' H O '� 1600 1600 W 1500 H ' 3 120 ,J N u. I O N ' O H 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 1978 , ESTIMATED MONTHLY SOLID WASTE DISTRIBUTION EAST HAMPTON ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR 'TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./1-12MFARMINCiDA 2M CORP. ARMINLE.N.V. ' LE.N.Y. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N.V. NEWTON.N.J. 24 1 FIGURE N2 2-5 4 ' 360 370 370 360 O ' O 3 300 z 260 270 O 250 N 2 200 210 210 3 _c 160 J N LL O I N O H 1 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 1978 ESTIMATED MONTHLY SOLID WASTE DISTRIBUTION SHELTER ISLAND ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. ' MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE,N V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N.V. NEWTON.N.J. 25 FIGURE N° 2-6 ' + 32.2 % 19- 17- - 917 O 15 14 X 13 AVERAGE: 14,277 TPM ' Z 12 H ,0 II 10- 9- w 09 W a 8 -38.6 % Z 7- 0 6- 5- 4- 3- 2- 1 54 32 I JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN. JULY AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. ' 1978 COMBINED MONTHLY VARIATION OF SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES ( 1978) ' 1 EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR ,TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELV: LE. HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARM: GALE. ' N.V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N V NEWTON.N.J. 26 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. As shown, the solid waste generation rates are seasonally ' correlated, with the maximum amounts being generated in June, July, August and September, and the minimum amounts in November, ' December, January and February. The peak occurs in July and amounts to 32. 2 percent above average. The minimum month (February) is about 38.6 percent below average. Although these rates are probably representative of the actual annual distri- butions, and will therefore be used in this feasibility study, ' they are nevertheless based on previous studies and not on ' actual records . In this study, we have recommended that each town initiate a daily record keeping program in order to provide more accurate records of solid waste generated within the town. 2 .2 .2 Future Solid Waste Generation. ' Future Solid Waste Generation quantities are estimated by ' projecting the per capita generation rate as well as the popula- tion growth rate . Initial per capita waste quantities were based ' on currently available information for the year 1978 and escalated at 1% per year on a linear basis, as shown in Table 2-12 . The ' population projections were obtained from the LIRPB for the 208 ' Water Quality Management Study. By multiplying the future solid generation rate times the future population projection, we obtained ' the future solid waste generation by each town' s permanent pop- ulation. However, due to the seasonal fluctuations associated ' with the transient tourist population, the projected solid waste ' 27 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. quantities of the permanent population are then adjusted up- ward to account for this increased solid waste volume. As ' previously stated, this upward adjustment factor is computed as a percentage of the permanent population' s solid waste ' quantities and amounts to 1 .33 . Table 2-13 and 2-14 show the ' projected solid waste generations for the five towns on an annual and daily basis respectively through 2005. ' Figure 2-7 through 2-11 show graphically the projected ' solid waste quantities for the five eastern towns on an in— dividual town basis, whereas Figure 2-12 is a plot of the ' aggregate solid waste generation for the five eastern towns as a whole. Southampton is by far the largest single contributor ' of solid waste, (44.8%) followed by Southold ( 19 .8% ) , Riverhead ( 18. 7% ) , East Hampton (14.7%) and Shelter Island (2 .0$ ) . ' A percentage of the total solid waste generated would in- clude a non-combustible component. This type of waste includes concrete, large tree stumps and other demolition waste which ' cannot be incinerated and requires landfilling . Based on the observation at the existing landfill sites and other studies ' conducted for Long Island Towns, we have estimated this por- tion to be approximately 10 percent by weight. The remaining 90 percent of the total waste stream is hereafter referred to ' 28 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 2-12 ' PROJECTED PER CAPITA SOLID WASTE GENERATION RATES THROUGH 2005 (Lb/Capita/Day) ' East- Shelter Year Southampton Riverhead Southold Hampton Island ' 1978 6.9 5 .97 6 .9 6. 9 6 .50 ' 1980 7.04 6.09 7 .04 7.04 6 .63 1985 7. 38 6 . 39 7 . 38 7. 38 6 .96 1990 7.73 6.69 7 .73 7.73 7 .28 1995 8.07 6 .98 8 .07 8. 07 7 .60 2000 8.42 7 .28 8 .42 8.42 7 .93 ' 2005 8.76 7 . 58 8 .76 8. 76 8. 26 ' 29 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 2-13 ' PROJECTED ANNUAL SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES THROUGH 2005 ' TONS PER YEAR East- Shelter , Year Southampton Riverhead Southold Hampton Island Total 1978 76,800 31,900 34, 000 25,300 3,320 171 ,320 ' 1980 80,700 35, 280 36, 500 26, 360 3 ,660 182, 500 ' 1985 98,550 41,610 43, 440 34,310 4,740 222,650 ' 1990 121,180 50,000 51, 100 41,980 5 ,840 270,100 ' 1995 146,880 60,000 59, 880 50, 340 7 ,750 324,850 ' 2000 180,400 70,440 68, 990 60, 230 9,490 389, 550 2005 210 ,080 82,730 79, 080 70,570 11, 760 454,220 30 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 1 ' TABLE 2-14 PROJECTED DAILY SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES ' THROUGH 2005 (7 Days/Week) ' TONS PER DAY ' — East- Shelter Year Southampton Riverhead Southold Hampton Island Total 1978 211 87 93 69 9 469 1980 221 97 100 72 10 500 ' 1985 270 114 119 94 13 610 1990 332 137 140 115 16 740 ' 1995 403 164 164 138 21 890 ' 2000 494 193 189 165 26 1,067 ' 2005 576 226 217 193 32 1,244 ' 31 FIGURE. N° 2-7 ' 600 -- 500 -- (L 00500 a H v 400 -- w 00 w , a rn z '300--p 200-- loo 00 100 1978 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 ' i SOLID WASTE PROJECTIONS , SOUTHAMPTON EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR ,TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y,S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.Y. ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARM INGOALE.NY CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHNEWTON.EA NNJ N Y - NEWT .J 32 ' ' FIGURE N° 2-8 ' 300-- 250-- 200 -- 150 -- 100 -- 50 -- 0 00250200150100S00 i i i i i i 1978 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 ' SOLID WASTE PROJECTIONS RIVERHEAD EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY tFOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , ' SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.V. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE,N V CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N V NEWTON.N.J. ' 33 FIGURE N° 2-9 ' 300-- 250-- 200-- 150-- 100-- 50- 1978 00250 200 150 10050 1978 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 SOLID WASTE PROJECTION ' SOUTHOLD EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY , FOR 'TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.Y. , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARM INGDALE.N Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N V NEWTON.N.J. 34 ' FIGURE N° 2- 10 300-- 250-- 200 -- 150 -- 100 -- 50 -- 0 00250200150100S00 1978 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 SOLID WASTE PROJECTIONS ' EAST HAMPTON ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , ' SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE.N.V. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE,N V CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N V NEWTON,N.J. ' 35 FIGURE NO.2-II , 50 -- 40 -- 30-- 20 -- 10 0 4030 20 10 ' 0 1978 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 ' SOLID WASTE PROJECTIONS ' SHELTER ISLAND , EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR ' TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. ' MELVILLE,N.V. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE.N Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N V NEWTON,N.J. 36 , ' 1500 'FIGURE Nt -12 1 1400 1 1300 1 1200 1 1100 1 1000 1 900 800 1 700 1 600 1 500 1 400 1 300 i Or I ;. 1978 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1 SOLID WASTE PROJECTIONS 1 FIVE TOWN TOTAL 1 EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY 1 FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE, HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON&MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE. N.VRVERHEAD . CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON..N N V NEWTON.N.J. 1 37 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' as Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) . Table 2-15 shows the daily ' projections of MSW and non-combustible quantities for the five towns. The MSW quantities shown in Table 2-15 also in- ' eludes approximately 10 percent over-sized bulky waste (OBW) which constitutes such items as furniture, white goods and , tires. The OBW portion of :MSW requires shredding prior to , incineration. Since any resource recovery facility design should take ' into consideration the peak quantities of MSW, we have form- ulated another table (Table 2-16) which show the town by ' town breakdown of MSW quantities, both average and peak, on ' a 7, 6 and 5 days/week basis. These quantities will be later utilized in the system design of various solid waste alterna- tives. 38 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' TABLE 2-15 PROJECTED DAILY MSW AND NON-COMBUSTIBLES ' QUANTITIES THROUGH 2005 (7 Days/Week) ' TONS PER DAY ' East- Shelter Year Southampton Riverhead Southold Hampton Island Total MSW NC MSW NC MSW NC MSW NC MSW NC MSW NC 1978 190 21 78 9 84 9 62 7 8 1 422 47 ' 1980 199 22 87 10 90 10 65 7 9 1 450 50 ' 1985 243 27 103 11 107 12 85 9 12 1 550 60 1990 299 33 123 14 126 14 104 11 14 2 666 74 1995 362 41 148 16 148 16 124 14 19 2 801 89 2000 444 50 174 19 170 19 149 16 23 3 960 107 1 2005 518 58 204 22 195 22 174 19 29 3 1, 120 124 Note: NC (Non-Combustibles) comprise 10 percent of total solid waste - remaining 90 percent is MSW. ' 39 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 2-16 PROJECTED DAILY AVERAGE AND PEAK MSW QUANTITIES 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Avg Peak Avg Peak Avg Peak Avg Peak Avg Peak Avg Peak 7 Days/Week Southampton 199 265 243 322 299 401 362 488 444 598 518 684 Riverhead 87 116 103 137 123 158 148 189 174 222 204 268 Southold 90 120 107 142 126 160 148 187 170 216 195 257 East Hampton 65 87 85 113 104 142 124 171 149 204 174 230 Shelter Island 9 12 12 16 14 19 19 25 23 32 29 38 TOTAL 450 600 550 730 666 880 801 1, 060 960 1, 272 1, 120 1,477 6 Days/Week .a. Southampton 231 306 282 375 348 468 423 569 518 698 605 798 Riverhead 101 135 120 160 144 184 172 220 202 259 239 312 Southold 103 137 125 165 147 187 172 219 199 252 228 299 East Hampton 74 101 99 131 121 166 145 200 174 238 204 267 Shelter Island 11 14 14 19 17 22 22 30 27 37 34 44 TOTAL 520 693 640 850 777 1 ,027 934 1, 238 1, 120 1,484 1, 310 1,720 5 Days/Week Southampton 279 371 340 450 419 561 507 683 621 837 726 958 Riverhead 121 162 144 192 172 221 207 265 244 311 287 375 Southold 126 168 150 198 176 224 207 262 238 302 273 360 East Hampton 91 122 119 158 146 199 174 239 209 286 243 322 Shelter Island 13 17 17 22 20 27 27 35 32 45 41 53 TOTAL 630 840 770 1,020 933 1 ,232 1, 122 1,484 1, 344 1, 781 1, 570 2, 068 (a) Based on Peak Factors of Table 2-11. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' SECTION 3 .0 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SITUATION 1 t ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 3 .0 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SITUATION 3 .1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 3 .1 .1 General ' All towns within the study area currently dispose of their solid waste in landfills. Each of the Towns of Southampton, ' Riverhead, Southhold, and Shelter Island utilize one landfill, whereas the Town of East Hampton utilizes two landfills, one in Montauk and one in Acabonack (Figure 3-1) . In each town a ' significant portion of the refuse generated is directly hauled by individuals, thus obviating the need for separate collection. ' 3 .1 .2 Town of Southampton 3 .1 .2. 1 Existing Facility Operations The Town of Southampton has one existing active solid ' waste disposal facility operating at North Sea. Previously active landfills have been converted into transfer stations, ' (hauling to North Sea) and one previously active landfill site has been closed. There are approximately 115 acres available at North Sea of which about 40 acres of land are now or have been utilized to landfill . In 1978 the North Sea Site received approximately 211 TPD (7 days/week) . Using solid waste pro- jections the North Sea Landfill is expected to have sufficient capacity until the year 2000 . ' 41 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' The Town of Southampton. landfills its refuse by the trench ' method. This method consists of placing solid waste in exca- vated trenches and filling the trenches with the excavated ' sand, gravel, or clay. Any excess excavated material is util- ized by the town' s highway department. The scavenger waste is currently discharged in separate lagoons at North Sea and ' Westhampton Sites. At North Sea the town currently employs four (4) Heavy ' Equipment Operators who work from 7 :00 A.M. to 5 :30 P.M. ' four (4) days per week. The town also employs two (2 ) Guards working ten ( 10 ) hour days. To accomplish the landfill pro- ' cedures, the town currently owns three ( 3) front-end loaders and one (1) bulldozer. ' 3 .1 .2 . 2 Management Practices ' Solid waste is brought to the landfill by private haul- ers and residents in private vehicles. The private haulers ' picking up from residents and commercial establishments charge for the services. The charge also includes the fee imposed by ' the town on the carter. There is no charge to residents direct ' hauling. The responsibility to the operation of the solid waste disposal facilities lies with the Superintendent of Highways . ' 42 ' FIGURE N° 3-1 l f I C' MONTAUK I � Tr •— EXISTING LANDFILLS y 5 0 5 MILES wz . o EXISTING LANDFILL SITES EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY 'Y FOR ,Q TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVQLE.N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. FAR^"W-KDALE N Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWT EAD N Y NEWTON N J 43/44 r HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 3 .1 .3 Town of Riverhead 3 .1 .3 . 1 Existing Facility Operations ' The Town of Riverhead has one operating solid waste dis- posal facility, located in the central section of Riverhead ' bounded by Youngs Avenue to the south and Osborne Avenue to the east . Of the 40 .5 acres of land available at this site ' approximately 12 acres of land have been lost to a 50 foot ' margin, slopes of excavation, site facilities, access road and completed areas to grade. As of 1979 the total remaining ' capacity of the landfill site is estimated to be 760, 000 cubic yards . This volume is expected to be exhausted by 1985 . Solid waste is landfilled in Riverhead by the trench method. Any excess excavated cover material is utilized by the highway department. The solid waste disposal facility is open from ' 7:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. year round except for Sundays and Holi- days. All scavenger wastes are currently being discharged into ' separate leaching lagoons on the site. ' The town currently employs five (5 ) full time personnel at the landfill site, each working 37. 5 hours per week. The ' town also owns and operates two ( 2) front-end loaders each with a 7 cubic yard bucket. Both machines are extensively used for ' excavating, compacting and spreading. ' 45 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 3 .1 .3 . 2 Management Practices ' Of the total amount of solid waste generated within , the town, 65 percent is collected by private haulers and 35 percent is brought to -the landfill directly by residents. ' The private haulers directly charge residents for their services. The town imposes an annual fee on haulers. ' There is no charge to direct hauling residents. , The solid waste operation is administered by the Depart- ment of Sanitation with the foreman of Sanitation having ' overall responsibility. 3 .1 .4 Town of Southold , 3 .1 .4. 1 Existing Facility Operations , The Town of Southold currently operates one sanitary land- fill located on North Road in the Town of Southold. The landfill comprises a total of 41 acres of land. As of 1979 approximately 12 acres of land have been completed to grade ' and approximately 13 acres have been lost due to slope and ' buffer requirements. Therefore, only about 790,000 cubic yards of capacity is available. This capacity is estimated ' to be depleted by 1985 . Solid waste is landfilled in Southold by utilizing the ' trench method . Any excess excavated material is sold to pri- vate contractors and/or utilized by the town' s highway depart- ment. All scavenger wastes received at the landfill are ' discharged into separate settling lagoons. 46 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' The town currently employs four (4) full-time personnel ' and one (1) part-time worker at the site . The personnel work on a rotating schedule so that each employee works a four (4) ' day, 40 hour work week. The town owns one (1) front end loader with a 4 cubic yard bucket used for excavating, com- pacting and spreading. ' 3 .1 .4. 2 Management Practices Of the total amount of solid waste generated within the town, 60 percent is collected by private haulers and 40 percent is disposed of by residents self hauling refuse to the landfill . ' The private haulers directly charge the residents for collec- tion, however, there are no dumping charges at the landfill . At present, there are no residence requirements for waste ' disposal by individuals at the landfill. Solid waste is managed by the Department of Highways with the Superintendent ' of Highways having overall responsibility. ' Fishers Island, one of the thirteen communities in the Town of Southold, maintains a separate refuse collection dis- trict and disposes of the solid waste generated (by approximately 400 persons) in a landfill located on the Island itself. The ' Town of Southold is not responsible for any aspects of solid waste disposal in this community. Although we have included ' the small quantity of solid waste generated (approximately 1 .4 tpd) in our overall computations, we have assumed that the com- munity would continue to be independent in the solid waste operations . ' 47 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 3 .1 .5 Town of East Hampton ' 3 .1 .5 . 1 Existing Facility Operations ' The Town of East Hampton has two (2 ) existing solid waste disposal facilities. The Acabonack Road Landfill is , situated on 60 acres of land. northeast of the Village of East Hampton between Acabonack Road and Spring Fireplace Road. ' The Montauk Landfill is situated on 25 acres, one and one-half , miles east of the eastern boundary of Hither Hills State Park, and just north of Montauk Highway. Of the two sites, Acabonack ' receives approximately 70 percent of the refuse generated with the remaining 30 percent going to the Montauk site . As of ' December 1979 (Greenman-Pedersen, Solid Waste Management Study) the life expectancy at Acabonack is estimated at 25 years and ' at Montauk 40 years. ' As is the case with the other towns, solid waste is land- filled in East Hampton by the trench and fill method. Any ' excess excavated material is sold to private contractors and/or utilized by the town' s highway department. All scavenger ' wastes are discharged into separate settling lagoons at the ' sites . The town currently employs twelve (12 ) operating personnel ' dispersed between the two landfill sites . The town owns four payloaders, three (3 ) at the Acabonack Site and one ( 1) at , the Montauk Site. One of the three payloaders at Acabonack , Site is used as a standby. 3 .1 .5 . 2 Management Practices , Of the total amount of solid waste generated within the town, a relatively small amount is collected by private haulers, , 418 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL,P.C./H2M CORP. ' whereas a fairly sizable amount is brought to the landfill by self hauling residents. The private haulers directly charge residents and are then charged themselves by the town on an ' annual basis. Self hauling residents, on the other hand, are not charged at the landfill. It should also be noted that for the past five (5) years the town has provided containers for voluntary separation of ' glass , paper, aluminum, and ferrous metals. A private re- cycling firm was contacted for removal of the metal and paper which yielded about $8, 500 per annum. ' 3 .1 .6 Town of Shelter Island 3 .1 .6. 1 Existing Facility Operations ' The Town of Shelter Island currently operates one sani- tary landfill located in the town. The landfill comprises a total of 20 acres of land. The life expectancy of the land- fill is estimated as 20 years. The town utilizes the modified trench method. All scavenger ' wastes are discharged to separate settling lagoons . The town currently employs two (2) personnel at the solid ' waste disposal facility and currently owns one ( 1) front-end loader. 3 .1 .6 . 2 Management Practices ' As is the case with the other eastern towns , most of the refuse brought to the Shelter Island landfill is by self ' it is relatively small compared to the self hauling portion. tTable 3-1 shows a summary of the existing conditions with respect to waste management practices of the five towns . ' 49 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. , 3 .2 EXISTING SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ' As previously mentioned, the scavenger waste generated ' within each town in the study area is disposed of at the landfill sites utilizing leaching lagoons. Presently, sev- eral 201 Wastewater Facility Planning Reports are being con- ducted by H2M in connection with wastewater and scavenger , waste treatment/disposal within each township. These studies ' are examining various alternative methods of treating and disposing of the scavenger waste, wastewater and, in turn, ' sludge. All of these studies are in the preliminary stage with final recommendations still pending at this writing. ' However, present plans are. for Riverhead and Southampton to ' combine efforts and construct a separate treatment facility for scavenger waste at the Riverhead Wastewater Treatment ' Plant. Southold is negotiating with Greenport for the Village Sewage Treatment Plant to be upgraded to handle a combined wastewater and scavenger flow stream. Shelter Island is also ' looking into the possibility of joining with Greenport and Southold. The East Hampton study has not progressed enough , to determine a possible alternative. No matter which alternatives are selected and implemented, ' the end product of sludge requires disposal . Sludge presently ' generated from sewage treatment plants within the study area are hauled and disposed of at existing town landfills with the ' 50 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Method Management Practices of Landfill Acreage Life Expectancy Collection Responsible for Disposal Costs Town Disposal Total Unused as of 1980 Method Operation Annual Dollars/Ton Southampton Landfill 115 75 20 Years Private Carters Superintendant of $380,095/Yr. $ 4.73/Ton (w/Transfer and Self Haul Highways Stations) Riverhead Landfill 40.5 28.5 5 Years Private Carters Superintendant of 170,000/Yr. 4.82/Ton and Self Haul Highways r 'i Southold Landfill 41 16 5 Years Private Carters Superintendant of 93,000/Yr. (1) 2.66/Ton F and Self Haul Highways l East Hampton 2 Landfills Private Carters Town Board and 301,000/Yr. (2) 11 .49/Ton and Self Haul Councilmen Acabonack 60 27 25 Years Montauck 25 16 40 Years Shelter Island. Landfill 20 10 20 Years Private Carters Dept. of Highways 38,500/Yr. 10.58/Ton and Self Haul I (1) Does not include debt service on new equipment. (2) Based on Greenman and Pedersen Report 1979 . ( 3) All costs and tonnage apply to 1980. it 51/52 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. exception of the Inc. Village of Greenport Plant which land- fills on-site . Table 3-2 shows the treatment facilities within the study area. Future sludge volumes will increase greatly once scavenger ' waste treatment facilities are constructed. The current dis- posal methods of landfilling will most likely be evaluated as being environmentally unacceptable in the near future. ' Therefore, the aforementioned 201 studies are also evaluating sludge treatment alternatives such as, incineration, com- posting, co-disposal and landfills meeting Part 360 require- ments. 3 .3 COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Under the requirements of NYCRR, Part 360 of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, all five ' towns are currently conducting application procedures to obtain a Part 360 permit in order to continue landfill operations . Preliminary applications have been submitted to the NYSDEC. ' With the exception of Shelter Island, all towns have con- ducted a comprehensive Part 360 study as a part of the initial ' application. After the application phase, the towns are required to upgrade the landfills in accordance with the Part 360 guidelines and permit and initiate a comprehensive ' groundwater and methane monitoring program. A non-compliance with these requirements may also result in the declaration ' 53 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' TABLE 3-2 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES , Town Treatment Facility Design Flow (MGD) ' East Hampton Village of Sag Harbor 0 .1 East Hampton U. S. Air Force Base - Montauk 0 .03 , Southampton Southampton Hospital 0 .105 , Riverhead Riverhead 1 .20 , Shelter Island Shelter Island Heights Assoc . 0.03 Southampton Yardarm Condominum 0 .046 Southampton Suffolk County Comm. College .032 ' Southold Inc. Village of Greenport 0 . 5 ' 54 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. of the landfill as an open dump. The open dump inventory, ' being conducted by the state is required under the Federal ' Resource Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 . There are eight (8) criteria which the state utilizes in evaluating an existing ' landfill for the open dump inventory. Given the existing conditions of the study area landfills, it is highly likely that these landfills will fall into the open dump category. ' However, until such determination is made the NYSDEC may issue a conditional Part 360 permit containing a compliance schedule regarding upgrading of the landfill . If the land- fill is classified as an open dump, the 360 conditional per- mit' s compliance schedule or any required modifications ' thereof would still enable the towns to operate the landfill provided the landfills are being upgraded in accordance with ' the compliance schedule. It would be in each town' s interest to compare the cost of upgrading the landfills with the cost of alternative methods of solid waste disposal such as Resource Recovery. Another requirement the landfills on Long Island have to comply with is that of Leachate Liner Policy enforced by NYSDEC. The leachate liner policy was formulated on the basis of findings of the 208 study which labels all of Long ' Island as a sole source acquifer and divides the area into eight (8) groundwater management zones. Each zone has specific landfill siting criteria. According to this policy, no new ' 55 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. landfills are permitted for certain areas of Long Island, , and other areas require an. extensive leachate collection ' and treatment system for a new landfill facility or extension of an existing landfill . , At present, the Towns of Southampton and East Hampton have received conditional permits. The Towns of Southold , and Riverhead are in the process of receiving such permits. ' Based on the 208 study recommendations the Town of Shelter Island, however, has been required to close it' s landfill ' and seek alternative methods of solid waste disposal. Generally speaking, NYSDEC" s long range plans for Long , Island are inclined toward. phasing out existing landfilling ' practices and implementation of resource recovery. The East End Solid Waste Management. Study is one step forward in this ' direction. 56 t ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' SECTION 4.0 MARKETABILITY OF RECOVERED RESOURCES ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 4.0 MARKETABILITY OF RECOVERED RESOURCES 4 .1 INTRODUCTION ' The economic success of any project designed to recover ' valuble resources from solid waste streams ultimately hinges on the availability of markets. Equally important is the ' ability of the recovery facility to suitably tailor its products for purchase by these markets. 4 .2 RECOVERABLE RESOURCES Resources that can be realistically considered for re- trieval or conversion for productive use from MSW comprise two categories: fuel/energy commodities and secondary mater- ials. The fuel/energy commodities are: Steam/Chilled Water Electricity Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Derivation and utilization of the energy commodities are ' based on thermal conversion. Mixed municipal refuse averages over 80 percent carbonaceous matter and over 60 percent cell- ulosic matter. The long term trend has been for the cellulose content to increase with the decreasing moisture content; hence refuse heat value has been rising. In addition, MSW 1 is not depleting with time as are fossil fuels, but is being generated in increasing quantities. ' The value of recovered fuel/energy commodities is related 1 directly to the costs for competitive fossile fuels. Heat 57 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. recovery processes are detailed elsewhere in this report. The other category of the recoverable resources is that ' of secondary materials which are: , Paper Ferrous Petal , Non-Ferrous Metal (Aluminum, Copper etc. ) Glass These commodities are directly present in varying forms ' in the MSW streams . Ultra secondary recoverable materials include plastics, rubber, wood, compost and incinerator ' residue. Table 4-1 identifies major product sources of the ' secondary materials. Table 4-2 provides an overview of pros and cons of material recovery. ' Projected recoverable resources for the five town study area are shown in Table 4-3 . ' 4 .2 .1 Energy/Fuel Commodities ' Thermal conversion of solid waste can be performed in sev- eral ways such as through combustion of as-received solid , waste to generate steam and/or electrical energy, or through preparation of refuse derived fuel for combustion in a fossil fuel fired boiler. Steam generation could be for two purposes: ' either to be used directly for heating and cooling (chilled water system) or to produce electricity. In some cases, if ' economically justified, the :steam for direct heating or cooling purposes can be extracted from the electrical genera- , tion facilities (steam turbines) . Advantages of direct steam 58 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. ' TABLE 4-1 MAJOR PRODUCT SOURCES OF RECOVERABLE MATERIALS ' MATERIAL PRODUCT SOURCES ' Primary Secondary Paper Containers , Packaging Newspapers, Books , Magazines Ferrous Metal Containers , Packaging Major Household Appliances Non-Ferrous Metal Containers , Packaging Major Household Appliances ' Glass Containers, Packaging Major Household Appliances, Furni- ture, Furnishings Plastics Containers , Packaging Clothing, Footwear ' Rubber Clothing, Footwear Major Household Appliances Wood Furniture, Furnishings Containers , Packaging 1 ' 59 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 4-2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF MATERIAL RECOVERY Secondary Material Advantages Disadvantages Paper Extends useful life of paper fibers Volatile market; limited demand Separation and recovery methods Costlier than virgin wood production advancing Fluctuations in supply Substantial Btu content High level of contamination Discriminatory attitudes favor virgin pulp High shipping costs Ferrous Metal Inexpensive source of iron Market instability Proven separation technology High level of contaminants (tin, Valuable tin content recoverable aluminum) oioEasily justified in large-s.^a-le High costs of �r alspGrt ti' recovery systems Limited supplies of properly pre- Can be recovered following prepared material combustion Aluminum High market price Separation processes unproven Increasing amount available in Scrap competes directly with municipal refuse primary ingot Lower investment costs for scrap Limited supplies than primary ingot production Ability to recover economically Aluminum castings market expanding viable grades uncertain Other Non-Ferrous High, stable market values Very small quantities present in Limited worldwide supply of municipal solid waste primary metals Extraction and reprocessing difficult HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 4-2 (Continued) ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF MATERIAL RECOVERY Secondary Material Advantages Disadvantages Glass Demand exists Inherently recyclable-no major process changes required Abundance of low priced raw materials Reduces fuel consumption (sand, soda ash and limestone) Reduces air pollution Mechanical separation techniques Extends life of furnace lining unproven Aids in melt process Separation by color often required Froth-flotated cullet cannot be optically sorted Highly sensitive to contaminants rn ~ Compost Product can be used as soil Poor marketability; competitive conditioner; increases products relatively inexpensive moisture retention Limited disposal potential Affords volume reduction Time- and land-intensive Proven technology Markets often far from waste centers Plastics High Btu content Markets virtually nonexistent Increasing amount available Extremely difficult to extract in municipal refuse and separate PVC emits hydrogen chloride when burned Rubber Eliminates major problem Poor marketability of tire disposal Cannot be mixed with virgin rubber High Btu content Demand for retreads declining high capital cost for specialized furnaces Wood Various minor applications Very small quantities present in municipal solid waste Minimal recovery activity HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 4-3 PROJECT RECOVERABLE RESOURCES FOR STUDY AREA 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Remarks ENERGY Steam, lb/hr 116,400 142,300 172, 700 207, 700 249,000 290,300 Based on Modular In- cineration @ 4,000 lb/ton, 5 days/week Electricity, Mwh 95,490 116,450 141,270 170,000 203,800 236, 500 Based on a Mass Fired System RDF, Tons 118,600 144, 700 175,600 211,200 253,200 295,300 Based on 65% of Total Waste rn SECONDARY MATERIALS N Ferrous Metal, 11,500 14,000 17,000 20, 500 24, 500 28,600 Based on 7% of Total Tons Waste with 90% Recovery Non-Ferrous Metal 1,150 1,400 1,700 2,050 2,450 2,860 Based on 0. 7% of Total (Aluminum) , Tons Waste with 90% Re- covery Glass, Tons 8, 210 10,000 12,160 14,620 17, 530 20,440 Based on 9% of Total Waste with 50% Re- covery Paper (Newsprint) , Tons 9,860 12,020 14,590 17, 540 21,040 24, 540 Based on 18% of Total Waste with 30% Recovery (Mixed Paper) , 12,050 14,700 17,830 21,440 25, 710 29,980 Based on 22% of Total Tons Waste with 30% Re- covery ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 1 uses are two fold: first a direct contract could be entered into with the user, and second, the sale of steam yields greater energy, and therefore revenue, from the solid waste. ' Major disadvantage of steam sale is that the customer must ' be located within an econmical and practical distance from the steam production facility. Electrical generation, on ' the other hand, requires additional equipment and operation cost but could be generated almost anywhere in the study area ' and tied into an existing power distribution system. ' Refuse derived fuel is obtained by means of processing the incoming MSW and removing the non-combustibles. Pro- cessing of MSW includes ( single and double stage) shredding and air classification to separate the non-combustibles from ' the combustibles. The combustible fraction, sometimes after ' a secondary shredding process, if required, is known as Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) . The quality of RDF both for size and purity (purity is a measure of the presence of non-com- bustibles in the RDF) depends upon the market specifications . ' If the RDF is to be utilized in existing boilers of a utility company, then the quality and quantities of RDF is normally dictated by the utility company. There are several types of ' RDF which could be produced depending upon the process type and technology, and requirements of the utility company. ' Three more commonly known forms of RDF are: Confetti, pellets ' 63 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , and powder (Eco Fuel II) . Confetti type of RDF is suspension ' fired in pulverized coal fired boilers. Pellets of RDF could be utilized in boilers with grates . Powdered RDF could be , utilized in fuel oil fired, boilers . 4.2 .2 Secondary Materials ' The marketing of products separated and converted from ' wastes is necessary to close the recovery cycle. By far the greatest single obstacle to successful large scale recycling ' is market instability and the absence of adequate market prices for many recycled materials . Specialized industries utilizing recycled materials often ' require a high degree of separation and/or processing - both historically labor-intensive. By the time solid wastes are ' collected, separated, processed and transported to an appro- priate manufacturer, costs can increase to the point where the recycled materials are no longer competitive with their virgin counterparts, whose producers have highly efficient and economical production technologies. Consequently, pre- , vailing economics are such that incentives to recycle most of the materials found in municipal refuse are weak or non- existent. In cases where pre-processing costs can be effec- tively reduced, recycling success is still contingent upon whether sufficient demand exists to support a stable, viable ' marketing climate. 64 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Presented in the followingsection is an in-depth eval- uation of the market histories of the widely recovered and previously mentioned secondary materials such as paper, ' ferrous metal , aluminum and glass . ' 4 .2 .2. 1 Paper Paper is the largest single component of municipal solid ' waste - roughly 40 percent by weight. There are three prin- cipal kinds of waste paper: ( 1) pulp substitute requiring ' very little preprocessing other than defibering; (2) de-inked paper consisting mostly of heavy books and ledgers ; and (3 ) bulk grade consisting mostly of newspapers and corrugated ' paper . The bulk grade category accounts for 70 percent of consumed paper stock and is used principally in the manu- facture of fiberboard containers, boxboard, molded pulp ' products, felt roofing materials, and building board. a. Trends in Wastepaper Use ' Approximately 60 percent of all recycled paper is dis- carded post-consumer waste. Quantities of recycled wastepaper ' have grown much more slowly than the amount of paper consumed in this country. The ratio of these two tonnages, known as the ' "recycling rate", has declined from 35 .3 percent in 1944 to ' just under 19 percent. One reason for this drop is that re- cycled boxboard and related products ( cereal and other food ' packages , shoe boxes and other product containers) which have traditionally accounted for 40 to 50 percent of all wastepaper 65 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' use, have in recent years continually lost market share to solid bleached sulfate board, a virgin wood product . , Technological advancements in wood pulping have enabled , the paper industry to tap abundant virgin raw materials at low enough costs and in quantities large enough to meet rising ' paper demands. The demand for products made of virgin fiber has outpaced demand for products predominantly of secondary ' fibers in three ways : ( 1) products made predominantly of , paper stock (construction papers, folding cartons) tend to grow at a lower rate than other paper products and are losing ' markets to competitive materials; (2 ) wood pulp has taken some markets from paper stock: as consumers "upgraded" their ' products to improve appearance and to achieve higher "purity" ' where functional performance requirements did not change, as in packaging; (3 ) paper stock has penetrated only one new ' market in recent years - newsprint. The most significant area of wastepaper growth has been , in the production of recycled corrugated medium with growth also in use of corrugated wastepaper as a blend with virgin ' kraft fiber in the manufacture of linerboard. Newsprint re- ' cycling still remains a potentially excellent wastepaper recycling source. Whereas the economics of wastepaper utili- zation have been questionable for many products, they have been generally acknowledged as favorable in newsprint manu- facture. Future developments in this area remain unpredictable. ' 66 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' One of the fastest growing recent trends has been in waste- paper export. Rising worldwide consumption of paper products ' coupled with declining availability of timber resources is frequently cited as the reason for increased foreign demand ' for U. S. wastepaper . ' b. Wastepaper Acquisition Discarded wastepaper is recovered in two ways : salvage ' industry collections of old corrugated boxes and office papers from industrial and commercial establishments, and ' municipal or private collection of old newspapers from resi- dences. Through such source-segregated collection techniques, paper can be recovered in homogeneous form which is desirable ' from a product use standpoint since fiber types differ from one paper product to another. Source separation also keeps paper relatively free of contaminants which would be picked up if the paper were mixed with other solid waste before recovery. Paper soiled through contact with food wastes or ' otherwise contaminated is not considered reusable by paper mills or mills specializing in de-inking . Home separation and curbside collection of bundled news- papers has jumped rapidly from 12 programs in 1970 to over 135 current operations. Such programs can provide low cost, ' quickly implementable resource recovery that, unlike more sophisticated recovery technology, is not contingent upon ' population size. They reduce landfill space consumption and ' 67 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' incinerator input and also foster citizen involvement . The ' economic success of separate collection programs depends ' heavily on the level of public participation and the market for collected newsprint. Many communities have found the , economics favorable and have been able to obtain one to ten- year purchase contracts with guaranteed minimum prices. ' Various mechanical separation techniques are currently ' under development. One such system is the Black-Clawson Hydrasposal Fibreclaim process, a wet pulping concept which ' has demonstrated success at Franklin, Ohio, under EPA funding. This process is designed to extract up to half the paper fiber ' from mixed municipal refuse. An experimental air separation ' system is also undergoing testing at the Forest Products Laboratory. ' To economically justify :Long-term paper recycling, changes in this widely-fluctuating demand history to more predictable ' levels that will allow the development of steady, reliable , supplies at reasonable prices are essential . Since 1971 the wastepaper recycling rate has shown some stability. The ' future, however, will largely depend on trends in the use of wastepaper in corrugated boxes, boxboard and de-inked newsprint; ' and other factors such as growth in wastepaper exports and ' alternate supply channels, price and availability of wood pulp, environmental regulations, capital availability and technological ' progress . 68 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 4.2 .2.2 Metals Ferrous metals are usually among the first items a resource recovery facility considers reclaiming. These metals constitute roughly eight 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 mattresses and sofas; and (4) other heavy ferrous material such as brake drums, structural steel forms, automobile axles, etc . Final pro- duct mix of a resource recovery facility will be affected by the amount of white goods and bulky waste accepted; the size ' of the recovery facility; laws , ordinances, regulations and ' programs relating to source reduction and source separation; and shredder size. Fluctuations are common and largely unpredictable in the ferrous scrap market as well, although scrap consumption and ' steel production continue to rise. ' Many of the current installations recovering ferrous metal have operated far below capacity and have generally been un ' successful largely because of shredder design problems and poor product marketability due to contamination or failure ' to meet specifications. 69 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Emergent resource recovery facilities represent excellent ' opportunities for increased ferrous metal extraction. In , all instances, refuse shredding is required; and in most energy recovery systems, combustibles must be separated from ' non-combustibles to maximize burning efficiency. In order ' to take advantage of these opportunities, adequate supplies of properly extracted and processed cans must be available , for marketing; and information is needed by municipalities on the configuration and economies of optimum techniques for , recovering cans from the waste stream, the necessary form and ' quality of scrap to ensure suitability for available markets, and appropriate means of establishing contact with these ' markets. a. Steel Cans ' Steel cans constitute 60 to 90 percent of the ferrous fraction of municipal waste and are the principal recoverable. , The salvaged cans are sold through scrap dealers for three ' main uses: ( 1) as precipitation iron in a leaching process for the beneficiation of low grade copper ore; (2) as a source , of tin via chemical detinning operations; and (3 ) as a source of steel scrap for reuse in steel making. ' b. Copper Precipitation ' The largest of the scrap can applications is for precipi- tation iron. In the U. S. about eight percent of all copper ' consumed is obtained by leaching lean ore deposits or tailings 70 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' with sulfuric acid to obtain copper sulfate. Shredded tin ' cans are ideally suited for the precipitation process and are extensively used by copper mines. Unfortunately, these mines ' are located exclusively in the western United States. Most precipitation iron comes from can-making wastes - either ' directly from can producers or by way of detinning operations ' with only a small percentage coming from municipal solid waste . With the market for precipitation iron expected to ' nearly double by 1990, steel can recycling will depend heav- ily on success in transporting supplies to markets. C. Detinning Industry The detinning industry is an intermediate processor, chemically-treating tin plate to extract tin while marketing detinned ferrous to the steel industry. The industry pres- ently processes a limited amount of post-consumer cans, ob- taining most of its raw material as aluminum-free can manu- facturing scrap. In spite of the high value of tin, detinning of post- consumer scrap cans has not been more widespread largely because of contaminants. Aluminum from bi-metal cans has been by far the major deterrent. Excessive amounts of aluminum in the ' detinning process causes foaming and production of hazardous hydrogen gases. Entrapped organics, labels, paper, plastics, ' and lead are also viewed as tramp materials . In addition, ample supplies of properly prepared post-consumer cans have been difficult to obtain from municipalities. ' 71 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' The economies of scale of detinning operations are such , that small - scale plants can be built near cities or resource ' recovery plants processing 2000 tpd or more of refuse. At present, detinners are actively soliciting post-consumer , light gauge ferrous and offer the strongest potential for steel can recycling. , d. Steel Industry ' Tin-plated steel cans recovered from mixed municipal waste are not used much as input in the iron and steel industry , because more desirable types of scrap metal are readily avail- able. For example, in 1972 the steel industry consumed roughly 11 ,000 tons of old cans. This is extremely small , relative to the industry' s total raw material input. Old cans have not been considered a desirable raw material by the ' steel industry in the past because of tin, aluminum, and lead residuals. These contaminants can cause either quality loss in steel production and/or refractory damage to the melting , furnace. Tin is usually the most serious contaminant. How- ever, if cans have first been processed through a detinning plant, they are then readily marketable to the steel industry at roughly the price of No. 1 heavy melting scrap. Trends in steel-making include future changes to the basic ' oxygen furnace to permit higher input scrap consumption, and the increased development of electric furnaces which are de- ' signed to operate almost entirely on scrap. Widespread 72 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' acceptance and consumption of old can scrap by the steel ' industry is possible but severely limited by a host of prob- lems. ' e. White Goods and Heavy Ferrous White goods and heavy ferrous pieces are not handled as ' part of the City' s regular rubbish collections but are picked up separately in special open trucks . The marketability of these metallics depands on end use, degree of processing, and ' general demand conditions. Refrigerators, stoves, washers, driers, water heaters, and ' other white goods typically found in municipal OBW have a ' porcelain enamel or "frit" coating which yields sulfur in the steelmaking process and is thus undesirable . Copper or alum- inum wiring, glass , plaster, paperboard and other contaminants are also usually present. These elements strongly limit via- bility of these metallics . When passed through an automotive ' shredder, however, frit can be blasted off and the remaining ferrous content magnetically separated to yield a higher ' quality scrap. f. Obsolete Automobiles Significant numbers of automobiles in this country are ' discarded in an uncontrolled manner. Obsolete automobiles generally do not enter the municipal waste stream and are ' discarded, processed, and recycled separately from other products . The high proportion of potentially reusable ' materials in automobiles has encouraged salvage rather than ' 73 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' outright disposal. ' The automobile wrecking industry acquires discarded vehicles for their spare part value and sells stripped hulks to scrap ' processors. Most retired vehicles entering the scrap cycle ' follow this route. A small percentage of vehicle$ that are very old or have no part value are conveyed directly to ' scrap processors by their owners. Steel is the primary metal recoverable from obsolete auto- ' mobiles and can be processed in three fashions : (1) baled ' into No. 2 bundles (removal of engine, seats, and gas tank and compression of the hulk into a block) ; ( 2) slabbed ( flat- t tened automobile bundles sliced into slabs) ; and (3 ) shredded (hulk shredding with magnetic separation of ferrous ) . The ' first two processes yield a low-value contaminated steel , scrap while the third generally results in a high-value, high demand material . ' Various strategies have been developed to prevent or re- duce automobile abandonment including disposal certification, ' deposits, bounties, and provision of storage or disposal sites. Few of these measures have been implemented on any ' large scale. , Scrap metal salvage from junked vehicles has proved to be a viable recycling technique. Its continuance will depend , upon the market demand for automobile scrap. Developments that could significantly affect scrap prices include automobile ' 74 , __ gloom., tHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. design changes, shifts in the steel industry, and fluctua- tions in export markets . g. Aluminum and Other Non-Ferrous Metals Non-ferrous metals are recycled to a high degree within ' particular industries but widespread salvage from municipal solid waste is not practiced. Within the domestic waste stream, aluminum offers the greatest recycling promise. ' Aluminum constitutes less than one percent by weight of most municipal solid waste but comprises the bulk of non- ferrous metals. Most recycled aluminum is recovered by in- dustry via separate collection programs. Similar to glass , aluminum is a valuable and desirable ' recycling material from the user' s standpoint, in this case the secondary aluminum smelter . Current market prices for ' secondary aluminum range from $ .10 to $ . 30 per pound, many times that of other materials in municipal waste. Aluminum recovery can thus represent a significant contribution to ' the revenue of a resource recovery system. The major constraints to aluminum recycling is supply. ' Consumer separation efforts have generally been successful and appear increasingly stable and institutionalized. Alum- inum recovery is considered in planning most large-scale ' recovery systems although actual separation processes (heavy media separation in most instances) have not been fully demonstrated. 75 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Market prospects for aluminum cans are good and will be enhanced substantially by more efficient methods of separa- tion. Aluminum recovery may also, however, be affected by container legislation eliminating beverage cans or pulltab tops . other non-ferrous metals„ mainly copper, lead and zinc, also command excellent market prices. The limited supply of ' these metallics in the wastestream plus difficulties in separating them are the major constraints. 4 .2 .2. 3 Glass ' Glass constitutes about nine percent by weight of muni- cipal solid waste and consists almost exclusively of discarded ' containers and packaging. Beverage containers account for roughly half of this. ' Recycling of waste glass (cullet) has long been practiced ' by glass manufacturers who generally use only in-house supplies in their production process . The proliferation of non-return- ' able bottles has greatly increased the glass fraction of domestic refuse. There has also been a concurrent, renewed interest in salvaging glass from the solid waste stream. ' In terms of market suitability and potential demand, glass is inherently recyclable. Clean, color-sorted glass is an , attractive raw material to the glass industry, and demand exists at prices comparable to virgin materials. No major process modifications are required to reuse even very large , 7 E, ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. quantities of cullet in glass manufacturing. In that recycling reduces fuel consumption and refractory wear, cullet is to some degree preferable to virgin materials. Glass is not easily separable from mixed municipal waste. Home separation and separate collection of glass are practiced only on a limited scale. Glass recycling is thus limited to supply. ' The ideal opportunity for segregating glass from waste is by mechanical separation in recovery facilities where waste ' is already undergoing shredding, air classification, or other ' types of separation. Glass separation in such instances can generally be achieved, but glass must also be color-sorted ' to make it marketable. Technology for extracting and color- sorting glass is being developed and demonstrated. ' Waste glass can also be used as a road-paving material or in building products. New applications are currently being tested by various researchers . Presently, however, the value ' of glass in such applications is much lower than its value as cullet. The economic feasibility of glass recovery remains uncertain ' and will depend largely on processing developments. Recovery is likely to increase significantly as effective separation ' techniques are proven. Measures to eliminate nonreturnable beverage bottles could, however , affect glass recovery. ' 77 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 4 .2 .3 Marketability of Other Constitient Secondary Materials A brief description of marketability of some of the other ' secondary materials is presented below. 4 .2 .3 . 1 Plastics ' Plastics constitute approximately four percent of muni- cipal solid waste. As the use of convenience packaging increases, this fraction will. rise. , Of all municipal waste components, plastics are the most difficult to extract. The plastic industry' s high quality ' control requirements necessitate separation and cleansing prior to reuse. Most plastic salvage is done in-house by plastic manufacturers where it is possible to keep the various ' types of plastics (e.g. , polyethylene, polystyrene, and polyvinyl chloride) source separated. Post-consumption , plastics are much more difficult to extract and essentially no recovery from municipal waste is practiced. Experimental ' separation techniques are far from full-scale realization. ' With separation economically unjustifiable, plastics are most effectively recovered as a source of energy. Plastics ' have the highest Btu content of any of the materials in mixed waste . One potential drawback, however, involves the presence , of polyvinyl chloride which under combustion yields hydrogen , chloride, a toxic gas posing significant environmental problems . 4 .2 .3 .2 Rubber Rubber as found in mixed municipal refuse is usually a component of products - tires, inner tubes, shoe soles and ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. heels, rubber textile backings, wire coatings , gaskets, and ' insulation in small appliances. Pure rubber articles such as water bottles and rubber bands are an insignificant portion. ' Current recycling activity of discarded rubber products is limited. With the exception of obsolete tires and inner tubes, little if any other used rubber products are recycled. Tradi- tionally conducted by secondary materials dealers, rubber re- cycling is no longer very profitable. ' All three major scrap rubber industries - reclaimers, re- treaders, and tire splitters - have failed to match growth with the rubber industry at large. Market decline has been due to the low cost of virgin rubber and oil-derived synthetic rubber as well as the incom- patibility of recycled rubber in high quality rubber products ' and various technical limitations . With high Btu content, rubber ' s most practical application ' remains in energy recovery or distillation. 4 .2 .3 . 3 Wood ' Wood wastes originates from municipal tree maintenance ' operations, lumber mills, lumber conversion, cosntruction, and other activities harvesting or converting wood. ' They are used in four main areas: ( 1) agricultural and horticultural applications (agricultural mulch, cushioning ' and weed control agents, poultry litter, etc. ) ; (2 ) input to ' 79 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , building board mills and paper mills; (3) fuel for uses such as meat smoking, baking, tobacco curing and brooder heating; ' and (4) chemical applications such as distilleries, vinegar ' manufacturing and tanning . Discarded wood comprises about four percent by weight of , municipal refuse. Due to contamination by other wastes and the limited amount available„ however, very little of this ' wood is recycled. ' 4.2 .3.4 Compost Composting is a technically feasible and proven disposal ' method. Depending on product grade, compost can increase a soil' s humus content, water-retention and nutrient capacities, ' and workability, while reducing erosion. Chemical additives , can enrich the processed waste and sludge from sewage treat- ment plants can also be used to increase organic content and ' moisture level. The major obstacle to compost production is economic, how- ' ever, the compost market is small and specialized. Not only ' are operating costs high, but competitive products such as chemical fertilizers and peal: moss are relatively inexpensive. ' Large scale compost markets have not evolved for several reasons: ' 1) The application of fertilizers by airplane or by dis- solution in irrigation water is an established and economical practice in the western United States. 80 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 2 ) Liquid ammonia has proved both economically and technologically attractive. ' 3 ) Agriculturists are satisfied with current practice using commercial fertilizers to such an extent that ' even animal manures are viewed as waste material. 4) Mechanical application of compost can be cumbersome. ' 5 ) Major compost sources are usually distant from consumption sites. ' Thus, except for local situations where the sale of com- post for special private or public purposes is desirable, ' commercial composting for use as a soil conditioner is gen- erally uneconomical. As put by the late Professor P.H. ' McGauhey, the conversion of a "low-value waste material that nobody wants" into a "low-value resource that nobody wants" should be deferred . 4.2 .3 . 5 Incinerator Residue The recovery of residue from the incineration process , sometimes termed "urban ore" was investigated at College Park, ' MD by the Metallurgy Research Center of the U.S. Bureau of Mines (BuMines) , beginning in 1969. Using mineral-handling ' techniques such as shredding, screening, washing and magnetic separation, BuMines' pilot project demonstrated that metals 1 and glass recovery from residue can be both feasible and ' economic . Various new products utilizing incinerated glass were also developed including bricks containing glass , glass ' wool insulation material, glass-based roofing material and a "Glasphalt" road material . ' 81 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Several communities on Long Island are currently engaged in residue reclamation. The purpose is two fold: One to ' recover ferrous metal through. magnetic separation process, and two, reduce or eliminate the land disposal requirements. , In some cases the incinerator, residue after removing ferrous , metals is utilized for road construction purposes. Since East End Towns do not incinerate their waste, the residue- ' reclamation does not apply at. present. However, any future engagement in energy recovery, should consider incinerator residue reclamation provided such concept is economically and ' environmentally feasible. 4 .3 RESOURCE MARKET ASSESSMENT FOR STUDY AREA ' 4.3 .1 Market Survey In order to adequately assess the market for the products , of the resource recovery operation, a survey of all potential ' markets was conducted. Based. on the applicable resource re- covery technologies, which are discussed in detail in the ' following sections of this report, the survey was accomplished on three fronts : Energy (steam and electricity) , refuse ' derived fuel and secondary materials. ' 4.3 .1. 1 Energy Our survey included all major fuel users in the study ' area who are currently utilizing fossil fuel (oil and natural gas) for generating steam and could potentially util- ize steam from a resource recovery facility. Some of the ' 82 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' major fuel consumers include Grumman Aerospace Corp. in P P Riverhead, Strebels Laundry, Suffolk County Center and Suffolk County Jail in Southampton and East Hampton High ' School . A list of the major fuel users is provided in Table ' 4-4 . Figure 4-1 shows the locations of the major fuel con- sumers. Also shown in Table 4-4 is the steam equivalent to ' the quantities of fossil fuel consumed in pounds/hour on a five days/week basis. ' The only major potential customer for the sale of elec- trical energy is Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) . Communications with LILCO regarding electrical power sales are included in the appendix of this report. 4 .3 .1. 2 Refuse Derived Fuel ' As described earlier, the RDF could be utilized either to produce energy on the site of RDF manufacturing facility ' or transported off-site for combustion into a dedicated ' energy recovery system. Another alternative is to utilize RDF as supplementary fuel in an existing fossil fuel fired ' facility. Based on this concept, LILCO was contacted as a potential RDF user . There are two locations where LILCO could ' potentially utilize the RDF from an East End Resource Recovery ' Facility. One is at Port Jefferson Facility (combined base load of 360 MW) which is currently being considered for ' conversion into a coal fired plant. The two boilers in con- sideration at this facility were originally coal fired. Of course, the boilers will require retrofitting to accept ' 83 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. RDF as a supplementary fuel. The other location is in the , proposed 800 megawatt coal fired plant in Jamesport. Although the proposed facility is only, in its planning stage, it may , be on-line by the time a resource recovery facility is con- , structed for the East End area. 4.3 .1 .3 Secondary Materials , A questionaire was sent to potential users of recyclable materials such as paper, glass , aluminum, ferrous metal etc. ' As in the case of major fuel users, the New York State Department ' of Environmental Conservation also provided assistance in identifying the potential customers for the secondary materials . , Table 4-5 shows various industries surveyed for this purpose. The industries included manufactures of steel, aluminum, glass and paper products . Copies of the questionaire and letters of ' response are provided in the appendix. 4 .3 .2 Market Survey Results ' The results of the market: survey were fairly conclusive. A summary of the results is presented below: ' 4.3 .2. 1 Energy , Although the aggregate fuel consumption of the East End is fairly significant, there does not exist a single , large fuel user which could utilize all of the exportable steam. Thus a regional resource recovery facility generating ' only steam is not feasible since the steam market is not , enough to justify the sale. In considering steam generation 84 ' FIGURE N24-1 STEAM PRODUCTION VS. DEMAND (1980) STEAM (1) PRODUCTION (2) 1980 PRODUCTION STEAM VS. ' TOWN TONS PER YEAR LB/HR DEMAND _ DEMAND ___ Southampton 80,700 51,600 36,800 71% (1980 _ Riverhead 35,280 22,400 47,393 100% Only) Southold 36,500 23,200 0 0% J.' East Hampton 26,360 16,800 7,600 45% ) ' r Shelter Island 3,660 2,400 0 0% TOTAL 182,500 116,400 90,793 79% - •f' r, (1) Based on modular incineration technology, 5 day 5/wk, 24 hrs/day. Pm, SHELTER i (2) Demand is based on fuel users shown on this map. i ISLAND �. d EAST HAMPTOUTHO !i ; IS ©rt a [J 7,8,13 20000 0 20000 12 0 RIVERHEAD _ � SCALE: 11� = 200001.� 14 - i �`„�.s 1.' 1 0 _a aM Numbers refer to mayor fuel comsumers listed in Pablo ,T 318,4 SOUTHAMTON RI I6 �y - :� MAJOR FUEL CONSUMERS EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR ,Q TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. /1-12M CORP. FARMW3DALE.NY FAVEP*CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON.. N v NEWT .N J 1 85/86 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL,P.C./H2M CORP. Lf t E TABLE 4-4 MAJOR FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMERS IN THE STUDY AREA Annual Use Steam Equivalent Facility Type of Fuel Gals . (X1000) @ Lb/Hr 5 Days/Week 1. Grumman Aerospace Corp. #4 Oil 1920 38,800 #2 Oil 11 240 2. Strebels Laundry #4 Oil 504 10 ,200 3. Suffolk County Center #2 Oil 276 6,000 4. Suffolk County Jail #2 Oil 216 4,700 5. East Hampton Middle School #4 Oil 204 4,100 6. East Hampton High School #4 Oil 172 3 ,500 7. Southampton Elementary School #4 Oil 165 3,300 8. Southampton High School #$ Oil 162 3,300 9. Westhamtpon Beach High School #4 Oil 160 3,200 10. Mattituck High School #4 Oil 156 3,100 11. Riverhead High School #4 Oil 148 3 ,000 12. Little Flower Institute #4 Oil 135 2,700 13. Southampton Hospital #4 Oil 132 2 ,700 14. Suffolk County Agway Corp. #4 Oil 130 2,600 15. Suffolk County Airport #2 Oil 11 240 16. Suffolk County Community College #2 Oil 17. Central Suffolk Hospital Natural Gas 365 X 103 CF 53 18. Sag Harbor Savings Bank Natural Gas 416 X 103 CF 60 TOTAL STEAM EQUIVALENT 91, 793 Lb/Hr Source: NYSDEC, List of Major Fuel Consumers on Long Island 87/88 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 4-5 POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS FOR SECONDARY MATERIALS Response Name of Company Surveyed Location Yes No Details of Response Jet Paper Company Central Islip, NY X S & L Metals Holbrook, NY X Gemine Paper Fibres Westbury, NY X David Markowitz Metal Company Deer Park, NY X q Garden State Paper Saddle Brook, NJ X $25/Ton - Source Separated Paper Long Term Contract I' Farmer & Sons Patchogue, NY X i Cousins Metal Company Oceanside, NY X I' Crestwood Metal Co. Holbrook, NY X Patchogue Scrap Iron Medford, NY X All Metals - Short Term Contracts with Delivery Required Owens - Illinois Toledo, OH X $30/Ton - Glass Delivered, Separated by Color Reynolds Aluminum Richmond, VA X Specifications call for Clean Alum- inum - Prefer Wet System, No Price Attonito Company Westbury, NY X Attco Metals Westbury, NY X Metro Glass Carteret, NJ Brockway Glass Freehold, NJ X $30/Ton - Glass Delivered, Separated by Color Bethlehem Steel Corp. Bethlehem, PA X No Price Quoted - Ferrous Metal Yearly Contracts Franz' a Scrap Company Farmindale, NY X No Price Quoted - Will Accept Alum- inum, Glues, Paper, Seek Long Term Contract CMS Metals Oceanside, NY X * Refere to Responses in Appendix. 89/90 I' I ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 4-6 ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ELECTRICAL REVENUES FROM LILCO Payment Payment Year ($/Mwh) Year ($/Kwh) 1985 $57 . 38 1995 $72 . 34 1986 58. 38 1996 78. 90 1987 48.90 1997 83 .99 ' 1988 53 .02 1998 91 .87 ' 1989 48.27 1999 96. 62 1990 51 .36 2000 104. 87 1991 54. 30 2001 111. 10 1992 59.03 2002 123. 99 ' 1993 62 .45 2003 129.44 ' 1994 67 .86 2004 138. 60 ' 91 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' on a town by town basis ( sub•-regional basis) through utili- zation of modular incineration technology, only the Town of , Riverhead could market the entire steam production (1980) by sale of steam to Grumman Aerospace Corp. In the Town of , Southampton and East Hampton the steam demand is approximately ' 71 percent and 45 percent of the estimated steam production. There is no steam demand at present in the Towns of Southold ' and Shelter Island. The advantage of modular incineration technology lies in the fact that small modular units could , be installed at more than one location in each town in the ' proximity of the steam customer. Of course, the system must be economically and environmentally justifiable. ' In a letter of June 20th 1980 , LILCO indicated that they would be interested in purchasing all the electrical power ' generated at a regional resource recovery facility. Based on , the projected fossil fuel costs, LILCO also supplied electrical revenue stream through year 2004. These revenues are shown , in Table 4-6, and are based on the assumption that LILCO will own and operate the electrical generating facilities. The revenue stream shown also takes into consideration all the ' prevailing federal regulations tailored to promote resource recovery from solid waste. ' 4 .3 .2. 2 Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) LILCO at this point in time appears somewhat reluctant to ' accepting RDF at its existing or proposed coal fired facilities. ' 92 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1 or proposed coal fired facilities. It' s reluctance mainly ' stems from the fact that the technology of utilizing RDF as an auxiliary fuel in existing utility boilers is not suf- ficiently advanced and the potential for detrimental effects of RDF firing on the boiler tubes is not presently known. However, LILCO has indicated interest in such a concept if ' a long term test program of utilizing RDF and monitoring of boiler performance was conducted to its satisfaction. This ' is true with any type of RDF. Even with the RDF in powdered ' form, such a test program would be necessary. The powdered RDF, Eco-Fuel II, is an exclusive product of Combustion Equip- ment Associates (CEA) . Recently a 1800 tpd plant in Bridgeport, Connecticut went into operation manufacturing Eco-Fuel II and co-firing in the existing boilers of the United Illuminating ' Company. A successful operation of this plant may increase LILCO' s interest in such a concept. Our conversation with CEA has ' indicated that for their system to be cost effective the minimum quantities of solid waste must be about 2000 tpd. ' Based on this, the Eco-Fuel II concept does not seem feasible ' for the East End Towns. In any case, it should be noted that the RDF production for the East End Service area would be less than 10 percent of the heat input rate at LILCO' s Port Jefferson Facility. ' 93 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 4.3 .2. 3 Secondary Materials , Of the several companies contacted for the sale of secondary materials, we received responses from seven com- panies. The letters containing their responses are provided in the appendix of this report. In summary, their responses indicated interest in accepting secondary materials provided , that delivery would be made to their location. Given the locations of many of these firms, as well as the price quoted ' for each ton of commodity, it does not appear economically prudent to pursue this market at this point in time. As market conditions change in the future, it may be then more ' economical to pursue marketing of the secondary material. 4 .3 .3 Conclusions ' Based on the findings in this section we have concluded that: 1) Steam production from a single resource recovery ' facility is not feasible due to lack of single large steam market. 2) Steam recovery utilizing modular incineration ' technology from the market availability viewpoint is feasible for the Town of Riverhead. No major fuel consumers exist in other towns to utilize , the produced steam. 3 ) LILCO has indicated willingness to purchase all ' electrical power generated at a regional resource recovery facility. Given the existing steam market conditions and locations of the potential ' steam users, generation of electrical energy and sale to LILCO appears to be the most viable alterna- tive. 94 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. t 4) There is no market for RDF at present. LILCO has expressed reluctance in utilizing RDF at ' its existing or proposed facilities due to potential detrimental effect on boilers . LILCO also requires a demonstration project prior to considering the RDF concept. 5 ) No markets exist at present for the secondary material within economical distance of the study ' area . This includes ferrous, non-ferrous and paper. 95 tHOLZMACHER McLENDON and MURRELL P.C./ H2M CORP. ' SECTION 5 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND SITE EVALUATION ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' 5 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND SITE EVALUATION 5 .1 INTRODUCTION ' Prior to selecting sites for any solid waste management (processing, transfer or disposal) systems, one must carefully ' examine the existing environmental conditions . Minimization of adverse impacts on the environment due to locations of new ' facilities should be one of the prime considerations. In ' this section, we have discussed the study area environmental conditions which is followed by the selection and evaluation ' of various proposed sites for transfer stations and resource recovery facilities. ' 5 .2 CLIMATE Located between 40 degrees and 42 degrees northern latitudes, Long Island exhibits the typical temperate climate ' common to continental regions to its north, south and west. Data given in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 from the Riverhead Research ' Farm and the Bridgehampton climatology stations, respectively, summarize the area' s weather patterns from 1969 to 1979 . The data shows the average annual temperature over this 1 11 year period to be 52 .4 degrees F for the Riverhead region and 50.9 degrees F at Bridgehampton . This 1. 5 degrees F difference is negligible and, therefore, the study area' s ' climate may be viewed rather uniform. Average annual pre- cipitation supports this conclusion . The 11 year average ' 97 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' TABLE 5-1 RIVERHEAD RESEARCH FARM ' CLIMATOLOGY Year Avg . Temp. F Tot. Preci . - Inches ' 1969 5.1.4 46 . 30 , 1970 52 . 1 39 .12 1971 52. 4 38 .96 1972 5:2 .0 58.59 , 1973 54. 3 50.60 1974 5:2 .8 38 .85 1975 53. 7 52 .91 ' 1976 5.1.7 43 .22 1977 52 .9 50 .62 1978 50. 3 46 .54 1979 5:2 .8 48 .25 ' Tot. Avg. 52. 4 46 .72 TABLE 5-2 BRIDGEHAMPTON STATION ' CLIMATOLOGY Year Avg . Temp. F Tot. Precip. - Inches 1969 50. 6 45 .18 ' 1970 50. 5 41 .78 1971 51. 1 39 .63 ' 1972 50. 1 56 .09 1973 52 .4 45.49 1974 51. 1 39 .33 1975 52 . 2 56 .53 1976 510. 4 42 .43 1977 51.1 51 .82 1978 49.6 46 .54 1979 51.5 51 .42 Tot. Avg. 50. 9 46 .93 t Difference 1. 50 .21 Ppt. indicates Precipitation (Ref. : NOAA, 1969-1978) 9 8 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' of 46 .72 at Riverhead vs the Bridgehampton average of 46.93 ' inches of precipitation per year exhibits only a .21 inch difference. ' Comparing these annual average temperatures to the re- mainder of New York State, an increase of a few degrees is ' noticeable. This is due to the combined moderating effect ' of the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound. In addition, a higher relative humidity is evident on Long Island due to ' its low altitude and proximity to these large water bodies . In general , temperatures decrease slightly progressing east- ward. At similar longitudes, south shore temperatures tend to be lower than on the north shore, as well. 5 .3 GEOLOGY The geology of Long Island consists of a series of un- consolidated marine/alluveal and glacial deposits lying uncon- ' formably over bedrock which slopes in a southeasterly direction. ' The bedrock is composed of impermeable, crystalline gneiss and schist. The bedrock surface slopes away in a ' southerly direction beneath the five towns , and is approxi- mately 1 ,000 feet below mean sea level (MSL) at the north shore ' near the Riverhead-Southold line and 1 ,600 feet below MSL at ' Shinnecock Inlet. The Raritan formation lies atop bedrock. The two members ' of this formation are characterized as follows: 1 ' 99 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' 1 . Lloyd Sand is the lower- member and ranges from 100 - 350 feet thick below the study area. It consists of ' beds of coarse sand and gravel, fine sand and clayey sand . This geologic unit has good hydraulic charac- teristics, and contains the Lyoyd Aquifer. Lloyd Sand is over lain by the Raritan clay member. ' 2 . Raritan clay is a layer- of silty clay ranging from 100 - 200 feet thick. This clay layer is relatively , impermeable, forming an effective aquaclude (or barrier) between the Lloyd and Magothy Aquifers. The Magothy formation consists of glacial deposits lying above the Raritan clay layer , It is composed of fine sands, silt, lenses of clay and scattered beds of coarse sand and gravel. The Magothy has excellent hydraulic characteristics . ' In Riverhead, and Southampton (west of Shinnecock Canal) the Magothy serves as an important source of fresh ground- ' waters. In Southold, Shelter- Island and the eastern extremity of the south fork, the Magothy Aquifer is generally too saline to provide significant public: water supplies. The Magothy ' surface is extensively eroded and the formation is therefore, very variable in thickness. ' Monmouth Greensand also lies directly over the Magothy formation approximately 200 feet below the northern shoreline ' of south shore bays. This formation has low permeability ' and is of no importance to public water supply. Gardiners clay overlies the Monmouth Greensand unit be- ' neath south shore areas, and overlies the Magothy in scattered locations beneath Southold. This unit consists of silty clay, ' 100 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. woody material, shell fragments and scattered lenses of coarse sand. This clay ranges from 10 - 50 feet in thickness and is about 100 - 150 feet below MSL. Upper (Pleistociene) glacial deposits also overlie the ' Magothy formation (or Gardiner' s clay) , and compose the ' surface features. Upper glacial deposits consist of: 1 . Till or unstratified drift - commonly a heterogenous ' mixture of clay, sand and boulders deposited from glacial ice and are poorly sorted. This material was part of the original terminal moraine and ground mor- aine of the glacier. The amount of till in Southold' s ' glacial deposits is negligible compared to the strati- fied or semi-stratified drift. ' 2 . Outwash deposits or stratified or semi-stratified drift - this material was deposited from glacial melt water and consists of moderately to well sorted de- posits of medium to coarse sand with some gravel and clay lenses. The dominant features formed by the upper glacial de- posits are the terminal moraines. In Middle Island the two ' moraines bifurcate, with the Ronkonkoma moraine running south- easterly to and continuing along the south fork, and the ' Harbor Hill moraine continuing easterly along the north shore/ north fork. These two moraines largely determine the direc- tion of horizontal groundwater flow in the five towns , and ' the basin formed between them is drained by the Peconic River. 1 ' 101 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 5 .4 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 5 .4 .1 Riverhead Aquifers* ' To insure maintenance of acceptable drinking water quality of groundwater, Long Island' s primary source, and to protect the public' s health when using it, quality tests are , routinely performed by federal, state and local agencies. In general , water quality in the study area is acceptable, ' meeting most New York State Department of Health Standards (DPHS) for Class GA waters. This means that the water in , the Riverhead area is suitable as a source of fresh potable ' water. Although meeting state requirements there have been occasional high concentrations of nitrate, iron and chlorides ' in this area. Nitrate concentrations greater than the state limit of ' 10 mg/l have been discovered in a number of wells. Although nitrates can originate from decomposition of organic matter, ' the major source of nitrates currently found are from the ' use of agricultrual and home garden fertilizers. Water con- taining high nitrate concentrations, if ingested by infants, ' might affect their blood oxygen carrying capacity resulting ' in a disease known as methmoglobinemia or "blue baby" disease (cyanosis, in relation to high nitrates as well) . I * Throughout agricultural areas of eastern Suffolk, aldicarb levels ' have been found in contravention of the 7. 0 mg/l standard in numerous wells on or within several thousand feet of potatoe fields where the ' pesticide temik was applied. 102 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' The Magothy Aquifer around Riverhead exhibits naturally high iron concentrations. Iron presents little health risk ' significance but may render water esthetically displeasing and unfit for certain industrial usages. Iron laden water ' may be easily treated through various physical and chemical ' means . Since Riverhead borders a number of marine systems, salt ' water encroachment poses some threat to Riverhead groundwater supplies . High chloride concentrations have been found in ' wells near salt water bodies on the North Fork. In some ' areas shallow water supplies are protected from salt water encroachment by confining clay lenses between them. Aside ' from an obvious salty taste resulting from high chlorides, a definite public health risk exists to those with hyperten- sion and others needing to restrict their salt intake . ' Direction of flow from the Riverhead landfill site is into Long Island Sound. ' 5 .4 .2 Southampton Aquifers - (West of Shinnecock Canal ) West of Shinnecock Canal, Southampton aquifers are vir- tually indentical in character to Riverhead' s . Major excep- tions to this rule are the Gardiner ' s clay layer underlying the South Shore Bays and partially confining the Magothy Aquifer, shallow fresh water aquifers of the barrier beach which are underlain by Saline Aquifers, and ( in southern and central Southampton) the predominantly southward flow of ground- water off the Ronkonkoma Terminal Moraine. Groundwater flow from beneath Westhampton, Eastport and Quogue landfill sites ' 103 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' will therefore, ultimately discharge into the Moriches Bay- , Quantuck Bay region. The direction of groundwater flow , beneath the Hampton Bays landfill is currently unknown. Groundwater quality was determined from samples collected ' by federal, state and local agencies at wells screened in the glacial and Magothy Aquifers . These wells were tested for , ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, pH, surfactants, specific conductance, ' chloride, iron, manganese, copper, zinc, hardness, sodium, and coliform ( fecal and/or total) . None of there wells were found , in contravention of Class GA Groundwater Standards . The purity of groundwater in this part of Southampton is presumably due , to large tracts of relatively undisturbed pine barriers in ' Southampton' s northern sections, combined with a predominantly horizontal groundwater flow beneath its developed residential , southern sections. 5 .4 .3 Aquifers of Southold, Shelter Island and South Fork - Major geologic units underlying Southold and the south , fork are the same as those underlying the balance of Long Island (the same is presumed to be true for Shelter Island) , ' but the characteristics of their fresh water aquifers differ greatly. Since freshwater is less dense than saline water, freshwater aquifers in these areas exist as lenses which ' "float" on saline aquifers. The thickness of these fresh- water lenses varies from 600 feet on the south fork (north , of Bridgehampton) to only a few feet along Shelter Island shoreline. Recharge of these lenses is from rainfall , but ' 104 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. groundwater flow radiates outward from several zones of ' primary recharge in each of these communities . Groundwater flowing beneath the North Sea landfill is expected to dis- charge into marine environments between Little and Great ' Peconic Bays. Waters in the aquifers suppling these communities are ' of generally acceptable quality, but some problems do exist. Nitrate levels have been found in excess of 10 mg/l in several Southold communities ( i.e. , Orient, Southold, Green- port) and in several south fork communities ( i.e . , Montauk, East Hampton, Sag Harbor) . These contraventions are pre- sumably due to agricultural and domestic application of fertilizers in Southold, and fertilizers and/or cesspool discharge on the south fork. ' Chloride/salt water encroachment is a greater concern in these areas than in Riverhead and Southampton (west of ' Shinnecock Canal) . On the south fork, many wells show an increase in chloride concentration as pumping increases to ' its summer maximum, but the relatively large size of the freshwater lense below the south fork tend to limit this problem. The Town of Southold has more serious salt water ' encroachment problems. The salt water encroachment manage- ment program for the Greenport public water supply consists ' of 12 active wells from which chloride concentrations are ' recorded periodically and 8 wells that monitor water table 105 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' level. If there is any significant increase in chloride ' concentration or evidence of water table lowering, with- , drawal from wells in that area is reduced. Information for Shelter Island regarding this problem ' is presently unavailable, but salt water encroachment is a , serious concern due to the shallowness of the Island' s freshwater lenses. ' 5 .5 HYDROGEOLOGY The Towns of Riverhead and Southampton are situated ' upon a fresh groundwater reservoir that underlies most of Long Island. This reservoir is bound in a state of equil- ibrium on the north and south shores by salt water that ' surrounds Long Island and by an impermeable layer of bedrock beneath it. This reservoir can be divided into three strata ' from the bottom up. They are: the Lloyd aquifer, separated ' from the others by a semi-permeable layer of Raritan clay; the Magothy aquifer; and the Upper Glacial aquifer . Fresh ' groundwater reservoirs in Southold, Shelter Island and the south fork (eastern Southampton, East Hampton) are bounded ' both laterally and beneath by saline aquifers. ' Precipitation is the sole source of groundwater recharge for these aquifers. Accretion, that portion of the precipi- tation not lost to evapotranspiration or runoff, percolates down through the soil column until it reaches the water table. ' 106 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. This water will then flow in line with the direction dictated ' by head differences and the hydraulic properties of the ' aquifer . Groundwater flow will move from areas of high hydro- static head to areas of lower hydrostatic head in the direc- tion of the steepest hydraulic gradient. Net horizontal flow is normally greater than net vertical flow. The average horizontal rate of flow in the area is approximately 0. 5 foot ' per day in the Upper Glacial aquifer, 0. 2 foot per day in the Magothy aquifer and 0 .1 foot per day in the Lloyd aquifer. In Riverhead and Southampton (west of Shinnecock Canal) , the overall direction of flow is usually in a northerly or ' southerly direction starting from the imaginary groundwater ' divides that extends through Long Island in an east-west fashion. West-central Riverhead and northern central Southampton also have a strong vertical component of groundwater flow, and were therefore, designated by the 208 study (Long Island Re- gional Planning Board, 1978) as a part of the Zone III, deep recharge area considered vital to Long Island' s aquifers. On the north and south forks , groundwater flows from the cen- tral areas of primary recharge toward adjacent shorelines. 107 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 5 .6 AIR QUALITY ' Air quality information was obtained from the Long Island , Lighting Company, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Suffolk County Department of Health Services , air quality monitoring stations throughout Suffolk County. ' Air quality in the study area meets New York State and federal standards for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon ' monoxide, suspended particulates and hydrocarbons. Photo- chemical oxidant (ozone) levels often exceed both federal ' and state standards . This problem accurs state-wide, and is not a concern unique to the East End Towns . ' 5 .7 SITE SELECTION AND EVALUATION ' In choosing an area for a solid waste management facility, several criteria must be met, they are: ' FOR A RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY: 1 . Land availability ( 10 -- 15 acres) and pricing. ' 2 . Proximity and access to developed transit and utility ' network. 3 . Location with natural buffer or sufficient site area ' to allow integration of buffering measures ( land use compatibility) . 4. Proximity to a wastewater treatment facility. ' 5 . Centralization to proposed service area. 6 . Location in or contigous to an industrial area if , feasible. 108 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' FOR A TRANSFER STATION: ' 1 . Minimize or eliminate requirement for land acquisition. 2 . Utilize property already committed to refuse handling. ' 3 . Minimize impact of collection vehicle or transfer truck traffic at any one facility. ' 4. Centralize to existing network of collection districts/ routes. ' 5 . Minimize capital costs associated with site acquisi- tion and facility construction. ' 6 . Minimize return transfer haul costs. 5 .7 .1 Site Description ' In response to these selection criteria, the following is a description of the alternative site locations chosen ' for the proposed resource recovery facility and transfer ' stations . Figure 5-1 also identifies the locations of these alternative sites. ' THE POTENTIAL SITES ARE: FOR A PROPOSED RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY ' Location ' 1 . RCA Site Vicinity of Old RCA Radio Town of Southampton Station 2 . Westhamtpon Site A North of Sunrise Hwy. and West ' Town of Southampton of Rt. 31 , Old Riverhead Rd . 3 . Westhampton Site B South of Sunrise Hwy. and East ' Town of Southampton of Rt. 31 and North of Suf- folk County Airport ' 4. Westhampton Site C Existing Old Westhampton Land- Town of Southmapton fill South of LIRR, East of Peters Path and North of So. Country Rd . ' 109 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' 5 . Jamesport Site West of Southold/Riverhead Town- Town of Riverhead line, North of Sound Avenue ' adjacent to Proposed LILCO Coal Plant FOR PROPOSED TRANSFER STATIONS , Transfer station sites were selected on the basis of their surrounding land use and siting. Sites previously com- mitted to solid waste handling were considered the most ' acceptable, and are grouped as follows : Group A - Existing (operating) landfill sites. Propose ' conversion to transfer station and hauling waste to resource recovery site . One of the Group A sites, Montauk, is pro- , posed as an intra-town subtan.sfer station. Instead of waste , hauled directly to the resource recovery facility, it will be transported to another East Hampton landfill, Acabonack , Road. Group B - Existing (closed) landfill . Propose conversion ' to transfer station for hauling waste to resource recovery ' site. Group C - Existing (closed) sanitary landfills, operating ' demolition landfill . Presently used as a transfer station and solid waste transported to North Sea landfill . Propose ' conversion to transfer station for hauling waste to resource ' recovery site . The sites under each of the above groups are: , 11.0 , a' FIGURE N0.5-I LilE \ c •`Epsj HpMP Z H)LO c • y Q- INTRA-TOWN TRANSFER ISTATION (PRIMARY) INTRA-TOWN TRANSFER STATION ( ALTERNATE) 1F :a ` t 5 0 5 O - CENTRAL TRANSFER STATION �. MILES _ RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY ( PRIMARY) RESOURCE RECOVERY uTHpMPjpN r� O FACILITY ( ALTERNATE) ` ,(`•{^vim-�1,, . . . ? ��� �,� �/ t A w „a► +°�' PROPOSED SITES FOR TRANSFER STATIONS potEst : AND RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES f EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR ny TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , ` SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MEWILLS.W Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./1-121M CORP. FAfPk4r=ALE.NY CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NvEF►+EAO.N r NEWTON.N J 111 /112 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Group A - Central Location ' 1 . North Sea Site Existing North Sea Landfill East Town of Southampton of Majors Path and South of ' Great Hill Road 2 . Riverhead Site Existing Riverhead Landfill on Town of Riverhead South Side of Youngs Avenue, West of Osborn Avenue 3 . Southold Site Existing Southold Landfill on Town of Southold North Side of North Rd. , East of Depot Lane ' 4. Acabonack Rd . Site Existing Acabonack Rd. Landfill Town of East Hampton on West Side of Acabonack Rd. , South of Abrahams Path ' 5 . Shelter Island Site Existing Shelter Island Landfill Town of Shelter on Menantic Rd . (East Side) and Island North of Smith Rd. Group A - Intra-Town ' 6 . Montauk Site Existing Montauk Landfill , North Town of East Hampton of Montauk Pt. State Hwy. , South of LIRR, East of North Shore Rd . ' Group B 7 . Quogue Site Existing Quogue Landfill, South Town of Southampton of Old Country Rd. , North of LIRR, East of Old Depot Rd. and West of Quogue-Riverhead Rd. 1 Group C 8. Eastport Site Existing Eastport Landfill, South 1 Town of Southampton of Sunrise Hwy. and East of North- way Lane 9 . Westhampton Site Existing Old Westhampton Landfill, Town of Southampton South of LIRR, East of Peters Path and North of So. Country Rd. 113 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Location , 10 . Hampton Bays Site Existing Hampton Bays Landfill, Town of Southampton South of Old Squires Rd. on Jackson Ave . , North of Sunrise Hwy. ' 11 . Sag Harbor Site Existing Sag Harbor Landfill, East Side of Sag Harbor Tpke. North of CR 39 5.7 .1 .1 Proposed Sites for Resource Recovery Facility Four of the five sites being considered for the. East End Resource Recovery Facility are located in the Town of Southampton. Three are in Westhampton and one is in River- side. This portion of the study area is considered more ' desirable for locating a resource recovery facility than other possible areas in the five eastern towns region for the following reasons: ' First, sites in this area are centrally located to the proposed service area, which minimizes transportation im- pacts . Secondly, the proposed use for this area is consistent with priority uses specified in the Nassau-Suffolk Comprehen- sive Development Plan. The plan calls for the concentration of non-residential uses along the central transportation corridor on the Island. Thus, the corridor will contain the ' major industrial activity, employment centers , public service facilities and other traffic generators. Consolidation of ' these types of uses takes advantage of economic investments ' in access roads, sewage and water treatment facilities and 114 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' other services needed for industrial activity. All of the ' Westhampton sites are located adjacent to, or easily acces- sible to the major transportation corridor. Thirdly, suf- ficient land is available to buffer the site so that noise and any accidental leaks from the facility on residential and natural ecological areas will be minimized, if not non- existent. The opportunity for doing this exist now at the Westhampton sites. The Westhampton sites and Jamesport site were considered ' as alternative locations for the East End Resource Recovery Facility on the basis of land availability, access and ' surrounding land uses. In relation to groundwater resources, however, all of the sites are located within restrictive use ' areas, Hydrogeologic Zones III and IV. Section 5-8 discusses ' the specific hydrogeologic sensitives of each of these zones . The following is a site specific description of the ' alternative locations, surrounding land use, sensitive land use issues and areas for futher study. a. RCA Site One site for a resource recovery facility is situated in the vicinity of the old RCA Radio Station. This site was ' donated to the NYSDEC by RCA. 1 115 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' The RCA site is surrounded primarily by vacant forested , land. Small parcels of residential and recreational (golf ' course) uses are situated to the west . In addition there are several large tracts of open space to the east of Rt. 104 ' which are devoted to wildlife management and conservation areas to protect unique pine forests. t The site meets the selection criteria quite well. Of , the approximately 2, 000 acres donated by RCA, only about 10 - 15 acres will be required . Due to the large size of the , parcel, it will be possible to site the facility to provide maximum buffering to adjacent land uses. Accessibility and ' location, due to its proximity to major roads , existing site ' roads and closeness to the Riverhead Wastewater Treatment Plant, are excellent. ' The drawbacks that might lead to opposition of a resource recovery facility at this site are twofold; the presence of ' "Pine Barrens, " and land use goals for the parcel and surround- , ing properties. RCA dedicated their property to NYSDEC for the purpose , of fish and wildlife management as a nature preserve and historic trust. Although the ultimate future land use of the ' RCA property is uncertain as yet, it meets the necessary criteria for dedication as a nature perserve due to its unique "Pine Barrens" habitat. , 116 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. This may not preclude the use of a portion of the RCA property for a resource recovery facility provided sufficient steps are taken to protect natural ecological areas. A comprehensive environmental control and management plan ' should be developed to achieve this objective . In addition to the sensitivities of the RCA property itself, 1,650 acres adjacent to the west represents a sensi- tive land use area since it is being proposed for residential cluster development. Hampton Hills is proposed as a planned- ' unit development by Teamsters Local 282 which currently owns the property. The proposed development includes a mixture of ' housing types clustered around the existing Hampton County ' Club and golf course. The 2,000 unit residential community is expected to support an estimated 4, 910 persons. Other ' uses proposed for this community include a shopping center, office comples, golf course and convention center. The Hampton Hills proposal is currently under review by ' the Southampton Planning Board. Although only in the pre- liminary planning stages, the proposed residential use will ' represent an incompatible land use with the proposed resource recovery facility due to it' s proximity and proposed densi- ties. Coordination with town officials, planning commission and developers is essential to assure sound planning of this area . ' 117 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' b. Westhampton Site A ' This second site in Westhampton is located north of ' Sunrise Highway, east of Route 31 and adjacent to the RCA property. The site is owned by Teamsters Local 282 and is ' part of the area proposed for the Hampton Hills development described in the previous site. Vacant land is the predominate land use surrounding the ' site. Route 31 and Sunrise Highway represent land uses de- voted to transportation, which form respectively the eastern and southern boundaries of the site. Although this site meets less of the selection criteria , than the RCA site, of the requirements met, each are better fulfilled (by) this site. Since the property is privately owned, land availability ' represents a possible constraint to development on this site. However, the Hampton Hills proposal calls for several large ' tracts of land to be dedicated to Southampton Town and County , Agencies for parks , conservation and other municipal purposes. If the plan is adopted and the site is dedicated for public ' use ( resource recovery) it will have to be determined if sufficient acreage is available for buffering from residen- tial and open space areas . This site has several advantages , over the RCA site. It is more accessible to transportation routes and is recommended by the Suffolk County Planning Depart- ment for higher density uses and cluster development under it' s 118 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. open space policy. A resource recovery facility would be ' consistent with this policy. ' Although the site is not located in proximity to a wastewater treatment plant, this does not represent a constraint to development on this site. Any wastewater pro- duced at the resource recovery facility would either be treated on-site or if feasible pumped to the Riverhead Treat- ment Plant. C. Westhampton Site B ' The second possible Westhampton site investigated is located just north of Suffolk County Airport, east of Route 31. The dominant land use surrounding the site is transpor- tation. To the south is Suffolk County Airport comprising ' 4,000 acres. The airport presently has a low volume of air traffic. Sunrise Highway forms the northern boundary of the ' site. A large parcel, 190 acres, of vacant dwarf pine forest ' is situated to the west . The closest residential land use is a small subdivision located off Route 104 (Lewis Road) to 1 the east of the site . This site meets all the selection criteria stipulated, ' except proximity to a wastewater treatment plant. The site is compatible with existing land uses and consistent with future use proposed for the property. The property is zoned ' 119 HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' for industrial use and is also indicated by Long Island Regional Planning Boards Coastal Zone Management Projected , Land Use Map for this use. Since the site is located adja- cent to the Airport, industrial land use is consolidated, ' which minimizes economic impacts of expanding public service facilities . In addition, air and noise quality impacts are reduced due to proximity to developed transportation corridor ' and airport. There has also been other land use recommendations pro- ' posed for this site by the Long Island Regional Planning Board. In their Long Island Fisheries Report, the site was proposed for a fish processing .facility utilizing fish landed ' at Lake Montauk Harbor, Shinnecock and Greenport . As the commercial fishing industry is expanded by public incentives , ' such as the proposed public commercial pier at Shinnecock Inlet, and private investments, this competing use for the , site should be recognized as a sensitive land use issue for ' which further study is recommended. The dwarf pine forest to the west also represents a sen- ' sitive land use area, requiring that its natural resources are protected from possible adverse impacts of a resource , recovery facility. The majority of the property is owned by ' Suffolk County. The privately owned parcels are proposed for acquisition in order to create a contiguous parcel of dwarf ' pine vegetation. The entire parcel is proposed for long range open space area. 120 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Similar to Westhampton Site A, Site B is not located ' proximate to a wastewater treatment facility. d. Westhampton Site C The third Westhampton Site is the old Westhampton Sani- tary Landfill . Located 0 .6 miles north of Old Country Road, and 0 .8 miles east of the intersection of Old Country Road ' and Montauk Highway, the site occupied approximately 15 acres of land. Although no longer utilized as a sanitary landfill , ' demolition wastes are deposited on the site . A portion of the ' site was converted to a transfer station and solid waste is transported to North Sea Landfill . ' The site is surrounded by three general categories of land usage; vacant, transportation and commercial . The LIRR ' and Suffolk County Airport define the northern boundary of ' the site . To the east and west are several medium density residential subdivisions. Old cars are placed in a privately ' owned auto salvage yard south of the landfill . Unlike the previous alternatives discussed, the West- hampton Site C is already devoted to refuse handling and the ' actual siting of the facility is determined . Several land use sensitivities are evident at this site . ' Although the site is not regulated by the Southampton Zoning Ordinance since it is municipally owned property, the sur- rounding land on three sides is zoned for low density resi- dential use. At the present time the area is only sparcely ' 121 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. settled, however, it is difficult to project future housing trends. Future studies are necessary to determine if suf- ficient land is available to provide adequate buffering to adjacent residential areas. Additionally, the site is located ' in proximity to beach resorts to the south and east, and recreation/commercial fishing activity in Quantuck Creek and Shinnecock Bay. The construction of a resource recovery facility , at this site requires that these resources be protected and the continued viability of the region' s two prime economic , activities are assured. As in the case with Westhampton Sites A and B, Site C , is not proximate to a wastewater facility. Utilization of ' this site would require resolution of this issue . e. Jamesport Site ' The fifth site being considered for the resource recovery facility is located in the Town of Riverhead, just west of , the Southold/Riverhead townline and north of Sound Avenue. ' The site is currently owned by Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and represents a portion of the approximate 525 acres ' proposed for the Jamesport Coal.-Fired Facility. Acquistion of this site for resource recovery would require the acquiesence ' of LILCO. , The site and surrounding land consists of farmland with small confined areas of woodland. An abondoned recreational , boy' s camp is situated to the northwest close to the shore, as well as an adjacent abondoned sand mining operation. There ' 122 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. are a few residences along Sound Avenue to the south of the ' site. The closest community of any size is situated 1 .5 miles southwest in Northville. The Jamesport Site meets almost all the selection cri- teria . One advantage of this site to any of the other sites ' is that it would allow for the option of transporting by ' barge recovered materials to markets in southern New England in conjunction with the LILCO Coal-Fired Facility' s operations. This additional factor would make the recovery of secondary materials more economically feasible by assuring a wider geographical market area. The existing and proposed land use for the site and surrounding properties are consistent with the development ' of a resource recovery facility. Although the area is zoned for agricultural and low density residential uses, the spar- ' cely settled nature of this area would allow for the planning of this type of use. Sufficient land would be available for buffering and integration with its environs . There is no nearby wastewater treatment plant, however, on-site treatment could be provided for the resource recovery facility. The location of the site so far to the north on the fork ' is not centrally located to the proposed service area . Nor is it accessible to major transportation routes. The as- sociated transportation impacts might preclude the use of this site and require further in-depth analysis. ' 123 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , 5 .7 .1. 2 Proposed Sites for Transfer Stations ' Eleven sites are being considered as transfer stations ' in the East End Resource Recovery Facility service area . These sites can be classified into three groups according to their existing operations. The definitions of each of , these groups are included in Table A. All of the sites are presently devoted to solid waste , management uses and are projected in future land use plans to continue as refuse handling facilities. Therefore, land , use and siting impacts are minimal. , Since all of the sites are existing landfills, either operating or closed, further studies would be required to , determined available land on the parcel for siting of the actual transfer station facility. Included would be the , assessment of adequate setbacks from adjacent properties to , allow for aesthetic treatment and buffering from residential areas . ' One beneficial impact associated with the conversion of a landfill to transfer station is the general upgrading of ' solid waste practices. The containment of wastes temporarily , in a building before transporting to the resource recovery facility would be cleaner than present handling operations. , In addition, it is further possible to close operating land- fills as the resource recovery facility begins handling refuse. ' 124 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. At present, only the North Sea Site is envisioned to remain operating for the disposal of residue and nonburnables. With regard to solid waste disposal, all of the land- fill sites in existence are owned by the individual towns . Following is a site specific description of each of the ' sites. ' A. Group A - Central 1 . North Sea Landfill - is located on Majors Path, south ' of Great Hill Road. Approximately 115 acres are designated for landfill use, although only 36 acres have been utilized. ' Salvaging is permitted at the site and some oversized, ' bulky materials are removed from the site as part of this practice. Scavenger wastes are deposited on a high pile ' of refuse, which is designed to act as a buffer to prevent groundwater pollution. This site has been operating for over ten years. ' Oak-pine forest predominates in the surrounding areas . Scattered pockets of low and medium density housing are found in every direction. Large agricultural land tracts are found further south. Croplands and pine barrens sur- rounding the site are considered vacant land; they will even- tually give way to further low density residential development. 2 . Riverhead Town Landfill - is located south of Youngs Avenue and west of Osborn Avenue occupying 40 acres of land. An additional 20 acres of land north of Youngs Avenue was ' 125 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. previously landfilled until the late 1960 ' s . A buffer zone of oak-pine forest separates the site from surrounding farm ' lands . Scavenger wastes are presently disposed of at this site. The Long Island Regional Planning Board hopes to see ' the area reserved for agricultural use in the future. ' 3 . Southold Town Landfill - is located north of North Road between Cox and Depot Lanes, and occupies approximately 35 , acres of land . The landfill is owned and operated by the Town of Southold, and is the only landfill in the town. , Scavenger wastes are deposited directly on the ground at a , specified location in the landfill . Bulky or oversized materials are deposited in the site. , 4. Acabonack Road Landfill - is situated on 40 acres of land northeast of the Village of East Hampton between Aca- , bonack Road and Spring Fireplace Road. It is owned and op- , erated by the Town of East Hampton. Scavenger wastes are deposited directly on the ground. Scrap metal and oversized ' materials are deposited at designated areas in the landfill site. 5 . Shelter Island Landfill - occupies approximately 20 , acres of land south of Bowditch Road and east of Menantic Road. Oversized material is accepted at the site, and scrap , dealers are contracted by the town to remove metal wastes. Scavenger wastes are deposited on the ground in a specified ' area of the site. ' 126 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Group A - Intra-Town 6 . Montauk Landfill - is owned and operated by the Town of East Hampton . It is located one and one-half miles east ' of the eastern boundary of Hither Hills State Park, and just ' north of Montauk Highway. Scavenger wastes are deposited in pits at the site. The site accepts household garbage, wood, ' scrap metal and construction wastes. b. Group B 7 . Quogue Landfill - operates as a dump by the Village ' of Quogue until it was closed by order of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation early in the 1970 ' s . The site, which is just south of Old County Road and west of Quogue-Riverhead Road, occupies approximately 12 acres ' of land. ' c. Group C 8. Eastport Landfill - occupies approximately ten acres ' of land north of Old Country Road on Northway Lane . It is presently being used as a transfer station, however, small ' amounts of miscellaneous refuse are still being deposited ' there on occasion. The site had been used as a dump until the 1960 ' s when it was closed. Most of the estimated 9, 300 ' cubic yards of refuse lies buried in the southeastern section of the site. Trees and shrubs are cut up and deposited in the northwestern part of the site. ' 127 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , 9. Westhampton Landfill - (Also Resource Recovery Site C) occupies about fifteen acres of land north of Suffolk County ' Airport. See the resource recovery land use and siting sec- tion for further detail . ' 10 . Hampton Bays Landfill - occupies approximately 25 acres , on Jackson Avenue, north of Old Riverhead Road. Like other transfer stations in the Town of Southampton, the Hampton ' Bays site was converted from landfill to a transfer station in the latter part of the 1960 ' x. Land clearing and shell- ' fish wastes are still deposited at the site. The landfill ' is situated amidst a large tract of pine barrens . forests to the east of the site as well as Sears-Bellows ' Pond County Park to the west are designated as open space. Remaining natural tracts are considered vacant land suitable for low-density housing . Scattered medium density residential , developments (2-4 dwelling units per acre) are located to the east. Commercial and scattered residential land use is found , south of Sunrise Highway. 11 . Sag Harbor Landfill - is located west of the Sag Harbor Bridgehampton Turnpike, approximately 1,500 feet south of ' Laurel Lane . It was operating as an open dump until the late 1960 ' s when it was then covered and converted to a transfer , station. Shrubs and tree stumps are still deposited at one locality at the site, and shellfish wastes are still placed ' in another area in the site. ' 128 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' 5 .7 .2 Further Investigations The sites considered for resource recovery and transfer station facilities were investigated only on a preliminary ' reconnaissance basis. Upon approval or recommendation of any site(s) a detailed investigation should be conducted, to ' evaluate (them) on a more detailed basis . Criteria inves- tigated will include, but not be limited to: a. Availability of Site b. Social and Cultural Resources and Historic Impacts ' C. Wastewater Disposal Methods d. Environmental Impacts For cost analysis purposes all costs associated with transfer haul have been computed based on the availability ' and acquisition of the RCA Site. If the RCA property is not available for any reason, the cost analysis prepared ' will still be appropriate due to the fact that many alter- nate locations are situated in the general vicinity of the RCA Site and a few miles added or deleted will not signifi- cantly alter the cost estimates. 5 .8 CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ON SITE ' SELECTION The varying conditions in these aquifers (including, ' but not limited to those just outlined) were used by the ' Long Island Regional Planning Board during the 208 Study to divide the East End Towns into H ydrogeologic zones III, ' IV, V, VI and VIII . Since these zones designations summarize the above information, they will be used in the discussion ' 129 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' of h dro eoloic considerations pertinent to East End Solid ' Y 9 Waste Management. ' Zone III a deep flow, groundwater recharge area, covers most of western and west - central Riverhead, and north , western and central Southampton (west of Shinnecock Canal) . , It "is an area that still has good quality groundwater in both the Upper Glacial and Magothy aquifers. Median nitrate- , nitrogen concentrations in water from wells in this area have always been low. Moreover, since the hydraulic conductivities ' of both aquifers are high, there is considerable potential , for water supply development in this zone. Much of the area is in low density, primarily non-agricultural, land use. ' This zone should be protected by applying land use restric- tions, as strict pollution source controls . In this zone, , control of non-point sources is necessary for the protection ' of the resource itself, and the entire zone should be governed by non-degradation regulations . "1 I The RCA and Westhampton A and B potential resource recovery sites are located within Zone III . Therefore, , groundwater supply should present no difficulties, but dis- charge of wastewater to ground would require an advanced level of wastewater treatment. Potential transfer station sites , within Zone III are the currently-operating Youngs Avenue l Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978 . Long Island Compre hensive Waste Treatment Management Plan. , 130 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' Landfill , and the currently-operating transfer station on ' the closed Hampton Bays Landfill . Constructing or upgrading transfer stations on these sites should present no problem, ' so long as good engineering practice is adhered to in mana- ging the small quantities of wastewater which may be pro- duced at these facilities (this conclusion applies to trans- fer stations in all hydrogeologic zones) . Zone III occurs in eastern Riverhead, the north fork, Shelter Island, Northern Southampton and most of East Hampton. "This area has unique groundwater conditions, and ' special management alternatives apply to it . Intensive ' agricultural activities have resulted in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in wells located in agricultural areas that ' are above six-milligrams per liter, with many observations exceeding ten milligrams per liter. High chloride concen- trations (over 250 milligrams per liter) have been found ' in a few areas on the north fork, in New Suffolk, and along both shores of Great Hog Neck and Little Hog Neck. Public ' supply wells in the Greenport area have experienced saltwater upconing where pumpage was concentrated at one site. Based ' on assessments of the groundwater development potential in ' each of these areas, there appears to be sufficient available groundwater to support projected land uses, if pumpage is ' properly developed and managed. This conclusion is supported by the results of a detailed hydrologic model study of the ' South Fork, conducted as part of the 208 Program. However, ' 131 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' because of the limited depth of fresh water on the forks, wastewater management controls must protect those areas that , still have acceptable groundwater quality if the areas are , to remain self-sufficient in water supply. Failing this, ernative engineering solutions based on water importation ' or large-scale renovation, will be extremely expensive. " 1 Jamesport is the only potential resource recovery site , within Zone IV, and discharge of wastewaters would most likely be into Long Island Sound. Potential transfer station sites in Zone IV are the currently-operating Southold, Shelter ' Island,2 Acabonack and North Sea Landfill Sites, and cur- rently-operating transfer stations/closed landfills in Sag ' Harbor and Montauk. Finally, the North Sea Landfill is considered the pri- mary alternative for resource recovery residue disposal . ' Determination of the need to install a leachate collec- tion and wastewater treatment facility at this landfill should ' be made in future studies . Zone V comprises most of Southern Southampton, west of ' Moriches Bay. Zone V, "differs from Zone IV in having less , agricultural activity and, consequently less of a fertilizer runoff and leaching problem. In all other respects, Zone V , shares the characteristics of Zone IV. " 1 1 IBID 2 Shelter Island, while in the Zone IV region, was actually considered ' separately under the 208 . However, previous statements regarding impacts of transfer stations on groundwater stilll apply. ' 132 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' The Westhampton C Site (currently-operating transfer ' station/closed landfill ) , which is being considered for both a resource recovery facility or a transfer station, ' is located within Zone V. Discharge of treated wastewater to ground or marine environments are both possibilities at ' this site; discharge to ground would not impact groundwater in Zone V as severly as it would in Zone III . The Quogue site is a closed landfill and is being considered as a pos- sible transfer station. Zone VI occurs in Southwestern Southampton and "is that ' portion of the groundwater system that discharges to Moriches ' Bay and the eastern portion of Great South Bay. Because the flushing rate in eastern Great South Bay is so low contam- inant concentrations are not sufficiently dispersed and diluted"1 The Eastport Site is located in this zone. It is a ' currently-operating transfer station/closed landfill, and is being considered as an upgraded transfer station. ' Zone VIII occurs along western portions of Riverhead' s north shore. "The southern boundary of Zone VIII on the ' north shore was determined using existing information on ' head distribution near the coastline and interpolating be- tween these points. Flow in the upper aquifer in Zone VIII ' is, again, essentially horizontal . Further investigation is required to evaluate the flow relationships in most ' areas before specific management schemes can be implemented. "1 ' 1 IBID ' 133 HOLZMACHER McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' No alternative solid waste management sites were con- ' sidered in Zone VIII . 5 .9 ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF SELECTED SITES , All alternative sites, except for Jamesport, occur in areas which are (or were) vegetated by various forms of , pine barrens . Pine barrens are a component of the great ' belt of coastal plain pine-oak vegetation that extends from the Gulf and southern Atlantic Coasts north to the New Jersey , pine Barrens and are also found north and east of Long Island in areas of coastal New England (Whittaker and Woodwell, 1968 ' and 1969 ) . This formation of oaks and pines is character- ' istic of the most xeric and infertile areas on the Island. The Jamesport Site occurs in an area of the north shore ' usually vegetated by moist oak forest. A more detailed description of national communities on ' specific alternative resource recovery and transfer station ' sites is contained in the following sections. 5 .9 .1 Ecological Setting of Proposed Resource Recovery Sites ' 5 .9.1. 1 RCA Site The RCA Site is situated on 2, 000 acres of property just south ' of Riverhead, which was donated by the RCA Corporation to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) . ' The Interim Management Plan (DEC, February 1980) for this ' property indicates that: 134 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' "Parcel Q-UA Suffolk 51 .1 (2 ,000 acres, Town of Southampton) will be accepted by the Department of Environ- mental Conservation on behalf of The People of the State of New York under the authority of (a) Section 45-0113 for ' the purposes of the State Nature and Historical Preserve ' and/or (b) Section 9-0105 (6 ) of the Environmental Conser- vation Law for general conservation purposes as set forth ' in such sub-section and/or ( c) Section 11-2103 of the Environmental Conservation Law for purposes of fish and ' wildlife management. " This document futher indicates that an "industrial research park is an activity for which permits shall not ' be issued. Therefore, it appears that a resource recovery facility, will probably not be considered compatible with ' the aforementioned management goals. The proposed development site is an area which was severaly disturbed for the construction of RCA' s antennas ' and control buildings, and is currently in a ground cover/ low shrub stage of revegetation ( except for one or two acres of buildings) . Dominant plant species are: ' Bearberry Arctostaphylos usa-ursi Dwarf Huckleberry - Gaylussacia baccata Sweet Fern Myrica asplenifolia ' 135 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' Property surrounding the proposed development site is ' vegetated by mature oak-pine Woods . Dominant plant species in this vegetative type include: ' Trees Black Oak - Quercus velutina ' White Oak - Q. alba Scarlet Oak - Q. coccinea ' Post Oak - Q. stellata Pitch Pine - Pinus rigida Undergrowth , Scrub Oak - Q. ilicifolia Black Huckelberry - Gaylussacia baccata , Late Low Blueberry - Vaccinium angustifolium Early low blueberry - V. vaccillans Animal species are very diverse and abundant in the , above vegetative types. Two typical species are: White - Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) - I feeds on shrubs, fruits, mast and herbs; shelters in dense ' brush. Rufous - sided towhee (Pipilo erythro - phthalmus) feeds on seeds, fruits, mast and insects ; nests on ground or in low shrubs. 5 .9 .1.2 Westhampton B Site The Westhampton B Site (north of Suffolk County Airport) occurs in a portion of the Dwarf Pine Plains, which has been ' moderately disturbed by human activity. Dwarf Pine Plain vegetation is characterized by a stunted ' variety (10 - 20 feet tall) of pitch pine, growing only a few ' 136 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. feet above a dense undergrowth. Plant species dominating ' this area are: ' Pitch Pine (Dwarf) - Pinus rigida Bear Oak - Quercus ilicifolia Black Huckleberry - Gaylussacia baccata Blue Berries Vaccinium sp ' Animal species occuring in this vegetative g e type are ' very similar to those in oak pine woods . However, it sup- ports abundant populations of several butterfly and moth species which are rare or absent elsewhere in New York. This unique variety of Long Island pine barrens is maintained 1 in this area by very drought - prone soils and frequent fires. ' Development of the site for a resource recovery facility would require utilizing areas which are currently in a natural condition. 5 .9 .1. 3 Westhampton A Site 1 The Westhampton A Site (north of Sunrise Highway,g y, Exist ' 63) occurs along the northern edge of the dwarf pine plains. Six to ten acres of the site have been severly disturbed, but ' the balance is occupied by the natural community described in 6. 5.7 .2 . Construction of resource recovery facilitythis s ' on site ' would require utilizing some areas currently in a natural condition, but less area than would be disturbed at the ' site north of Suffolk County Airport. 137 HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. While natural communities do not occur on the actual ' development site, they do occur in its vicinity, and may be ' impacted by construction and operation of resource recovery facility. In addition, if a solid waste facility were to ' draw process waters from, or dispose of them into, Long ' Island Sound, marine communities (not described above) occuring in the vicinity of the intake/outfall could be ' negatively impacted. 5 .9 .1.4 Westhampton C Site ' The Westhampton C Site is a closed landfill occuring ' between the Long Island Railroad and South Country Road in Westhampton. The site and immediately adjacent areas are ' severly disturbed, with virtually none of the original oak pine woodland species remaining. Construction of a resource ' recovery facility or transfer station on this site would re- ' quire very little disturbance of areas currently in a natural condition. However, the impact of a resource recovery facility ' on nearby Aspatuck Creek would have to be determined. 5 .9 .1.5 Jamesport Site t The Jamesport Site lies ina predominantly agricultural ' area just west of the Riverhead-Southold townline and north of Sound Avenue. It is currently being used for agriculture, ' with some small patches of trees and hedgerow intermixed. 138 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Due to the site' s proximity to Long Island Sound, natural ' communities in the area are of several types: 1 . First Growth Woods Trees Black Cherry - Prunus serotina ' Black Locust - Robinia psuedoacacia Undergrowth ' Wild Grape - Vitis labrusca Virginia Creeper - Parthenocissus quinquefolia ' Blackberry Rubus allegehunsis 2 . Fresh Water Ponds ' Pond Weed - Potgmageton sp. Foils - Myr ophyllum sp. Rushes - Juncus sp. ' Pickerelweed - Pontenderia cordata Duckweed - Lamnaminor sp. 3 . Bluffs/Beachs ' Black Cherry (stunted) - Prunus serotina Beach Grass - Ammophila brevilulata Searoiket - Cakile edentula Beach Pea - Lathgrus japonicus Bayberry - Myrica pensylvanica ' Beach Plum - Prunus maritima 5 .9 .2 Ecological Setting of Proposed Transfer Station Sites ' The Youngs Avenue, Southold, Shelter Island, Eastport, Quogue, Hampton Bays , North Sea, Sag Harbor, Acabonack and ' Montauk Sites are all either closed landfills , transfer ' stations, or operating landfills. Therefore, construction or expansion of transfer stations on these sites will most probably not require disturbance of areas currently in a natural condition. Consequently no impacts would be expected. ' 139 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' SECTION 6.0 TRANSFER AND TRANSPORTATION OF SOLID WASTE ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' 6.0 TRANSFER AND TRANSPORTATION OF SOLID WASTE ' 6 .1 INTRODUCTION ' An integral part of any solid waste management system is transportation of solid waste from the point of collection to ' the final processing and/or disposal site. In this section we will evaluate different methods of transfer and transpor- tation of waste, the most :feasible of which would be utilized ' in the development of overall solid waste management alterna- tives . There are three principal methods which could be considered for refuse transportation: Waterways, Railways and Highways . Given the locality and sorroundings of the East End service ' area, all three methods appear applicable. However, several considerations must be taken into account in selecting the most ' feasible mode of transportation. These considerations are primarily economic but also include access to the destination, existing conditions of rail roads, additional traffic, existing water depths, potential disturbance to communities etc. After a preliminary evaluation, it became obvious that under the ' existing circumstances, the rail and water transportation of solid waste for the five town area would be impractical, and ' economically prohibitive. Therefore barge and rail transpor- tations were eliminated from further consideration and detailed evaluation. A brief summary of our rationale in not considering ' L41 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , these methods is presented later in this section. As a re- , sult, we have concluded that the most feasible alternative ' for refuse transfer and transportation is the utilization of existing roadways. A detailed evaluation of this method is ' presented. ' In developing and evaluating the various truck trans- portation modes available to the East End Communities the ' following basic assumptions were made: 1 . Only MSW will be handled at a regional resource recovery ' facility. 2 . For the purpose of cost comparison, it is assumed the ' MSW will be hauled to a regional facility located at or in the vicinity of the RCA Site in the Town of Southampton. ' 3 . Present collection practices would remain unchanged. No collection costs are included in the analysis. ' 4. Transfer stations will be located at existing landfills. 5 . Transfer stations are sized for 2005 peak (20 year life) ' tonnage and haul equipment for 1992 peak tonnage (7 year life) . 6.2 DIRECT HAUL VS. TRANSFER HAUL ' Economic justification of a transfer station system ' is essential, given the high initial capital expenditures in- volved and associated operating costs. Various factors must ' be considered, but in most cases, feasibility comparisons be- tween direct haul and transfer haul depend ultimately on , mileage from collection routes to disposal sites and concom- ' mitant travel times. A transfer station will lower neither door-to-door collection cost nor disposal cost. Savings are ' 142 ' ' FIGURE NO.6- 1 8 ' BREAKEVEN POINT 7 APPROX. 16.5 MILES ROUND TRIP TRANSPEft HAUL z ' o 5 Jv ' a 4 - 3 3 O 7 ' 2 1 . Transfer Station Cost . Unproductive Cost (loading, unloading I and maneuvering of vehicles) O ' a. Collection Cost from Centroid to Transfer Station 2 t z _____ r________ _ 5 10 15 20 25 ' ROUND TRIP DISTANCE (MILES) I ' ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF DIRECT HAUL VERSUS TRANSFER HAUL EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE.N.Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N Y ' NEWTON.N J 143 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' realized only in reducing haul distance from collection zone ' to unloading area. ' Figure 6-1 illustrates an example of unit cost comparison for the two types of transportation systems. Round trip dis- tance in miles is taken as a variable and unit costs ( 1980 ' dollars) are plotted for various values of X for direct haul as well as for transfer haul . In the case of direct haul ' there is no fixed cost whereas for transfer haul there exists a fixed cost for the transfer station and for loading, man- ' euvering and unloading of transfer vehicles. A third fixed cost under transfer haul consists of cost of haul to the ' transfer station from the terminus of the collection areas. , If the collection centroids were the locations for the trans- fer stations then the third fixed cost would be zero. However, ' based on the geographical locations of existing disposal facil- ities which are proposed sites for transfer stations, the ' centroid of the entire collection district for the Towns of ' Southampton, Riverhead, Southold, East Hampton and Shelter Island is located away from the transfer station sites. ' Figure 6-1 indicates that the breakeven round trip dis- tance is approximately 16 . 5 miles . Thus a transfer station ' can be justified, based strictly on the economics, if the ' distance between the transfer station and the resource re- covery facility is equal to or greater than 8 miles. Stated ' differently, all the communities within 8 miles of the proposed t 144 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. resource recovery facility can economically direct haul their waste in collection trucks . All five towns have their existing solid waste disposal facilities located approximately 8 miles ' or greater from the proposed resource recovery site. The second major consideration for utilizing a transfer ' transport system is truck traffic inside and in the vicinity of a regional resource recovery facility. A transfer trailer carries approximately four times the payload of a collection ' vehicle and reduces the traffic congestion by that factor eliminating major queing problems . Reduction in truck traffic ' results in an improved environment for the East End facility and its vicinity. Transfer stations also provide capabilities of transporting ' solid waste to remotely located landfills in case of a break- down or complete shutdown of the resource recovery facility. ' Therefore, for this study, we generally concur that sta- tions will be constructed at the locations of the existing ' solid waste disposal facilities. The communities which are ' located in the immediate vicinity of the regional facility, will continue to follow existing collection practices hauling ' directly to the facility whereas the other communities will haul their solid waste to the designated transfer stations . ' .145 HOLZMACHER McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' 6 .3 EVALUATION OF TRANSFER STATION REQUIREMENTS 6 .3 .1 Solid Waste Quantities We have assumed that only municipal solid waste (MSW) ' will be handled at the regional facility. It is also assumed that the present collection practices will remain unchanged; ' i.e. , private cars and small pickups will still be received , at the existing sites. Table 6-1 shows the designed solid waste quantities for various transfer stations and transfer ' haul equipment. Approximately 10 percent of the incoming MSW is considered to be bulky waste which includes furniture, ' white goods and tires. Bulky waste from the transfer station , service areas which are not processable at the transfer sta- tion will be hauled directly to the regional facility. ' 6 .3 .1 . 1 Southampton Communities, east of the Shinnecock Canal, will utilize ' the transfer station and their waste sent to the regional , site through transfer haul, where as the waste from the remaining communities, west of the Shinnecock Canal, will continue to utilize the existing satellite transfer stations of Eastport, Westhampton and Hampton Bays. The existing ' collection practices, as previously stated will remain the ' same. Approximately half of the total MSW will be processed through North Sea Transfer Station. ' 6 .3 .1.2 Riverhead 100 percent of Riverhead' s MSW will be designated for ' transfer haul . Existing collection practices will remain ' the same. 146 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1 TABLE 6-1 DESIGN SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES FOR TRANSFER STATION AND TRANSFER HAUL EQUIPMENT 1. Transfer Station 2005 tpd(a) ' Southampton 405 ' Riverhead 300 Southold 290 ' East Hampton ' Montauk 85 Acabonack 200 Shelter Island 45 2 . Transfer Haul Equipment. 1992 tpd(a) Southampton 255 Riverhead 200 ' Southold 195 East Hampton Montauk 55 Acabonack 130 ' Shelter Island 25 ' (a) All tpd figures represent peak design solid waste quantities of MSW and are computed on a 6 day/week 312 day/year operating schedule of transfer stations. ' 147 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 6 .3 .1.3 Southold ' 100 percent of Southolds MSW will be designated for , transfer haul . Existing collection practices will remain the same. ' 6 .3 .1 .4 East Hampton Existing collection practices, in East Hampton will remain the same e.g. private cars and trucks will continue ' to be received at the existing sites and the carting companies will continue their existing collection network. The Montauk site will be converted to a intra-town transfer station from where the waste will be hauled to the Acabonack site in ' large vehicles. The Acabonack site in turn will be a perm- , anent type of transfer site for the East Hampton' s total MSW. 6 .3 .1.5 Shelter Island ' 100 percent of Shelter Islands MSW will be transfer hauled Existing collection practices for both private and commercial ' haulers will remain the same. ' 6 .4 DESCRIPTION OF TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES 6 .4.1 Transfer Station Buildings ' Proposed site locations of transfer stations for each town are shown :in Figures 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6 and 6-7 . ' These sites are presently the existing sites for each town' s landfill . We have proposed two types of transfer stations . One is the stationary type with permanent structures, sta- tionary compactors, pushpits and floor storage areas. The 148 , 1 FIGURE N26-2 1 0 o PGG � 1 To wo I 1 / NORT Z SEA o ° HARBQR� 1 d �� GREAT HILL RD q0 I I 1 , NORTH SEA I LANDFILL SITE 1 1 1 � l U ; ` � D 1 w FST NECK � � x 1 1 PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION AT THE EXISTING NORTH SEA LANDFILL SITE 1 SOUTHAMPTON_ - 1 EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY 1 FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , 1 SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE,N Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N Y NEWTON.N J 1 149 FIGURE N26-3 1 1 0 AVENJ� yo� O 9� 1 C / SOUNOO O ,pA O; \ �~ RIVERHEAD v4 1 LANDFILL SITE � 4 GS P 1 � 9L� 4 I P 1 HALE � RppO MIOOLE � RON C GO`yNT RY 90/ M 1 1 PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION AT THE EXISTING RIVERHEAD LANDFILL SITE 1 EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY 1 FOR 1 TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. 1 MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. /1-12M CORP. FARMINGDALE.N Y RIVERHEAD,N Y. CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON,N J 150 1 1 FIGURE N2 -4 i 1 0 _ --- 0 1 � i ' / h 1 � � j OUTHOLD LANDFILL SITE 1 � � i 1 1 PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION AT THE ' EXISTING SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SITE 1 EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY 1 FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , 1 SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. ARMINGDALE N.Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N V NEWTON.N.J 1 151 FIGURE N26-5 1 1 1 p /4.�00Q'o cQO \ i ct a ACABONACK ROAD , 1 _ 4�RgHq LANDFILL SITE I 4` 4'yip �F v Cam ' 1 1 1 PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION AT THE 1 EXISTING ACABONACK ROAD LANDFILL SITE EAST HAMPTON 1 EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY 1 FOR 'TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELV ILLE,N.Y. 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. I HZM CORP. FARMINGDALE.N V RIVERHEAD.N V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON.N J 152 1 1 FIGURE N26-6 O vN 61 1 � � / FORT \ 1 POND \ MONTAUK SOULEVARD LANDFILL SITE �� I ,gyp \ �G 1 � / 1 1 1 PROPOSED INTRA TOWN TRANSFER STATION AT THE 1 EXISTING MONTAUK LANDFILL SITE EAST HAMPTON 1 EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY 1 FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , 1 SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILL N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. ARMINGDALE N V CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N V NEWTON.N J 1 153 FIGURE NQ 6-7 ' O / DERING v roo�;L HARBO / \ � F / ER y S , I � s 3t 3 I" •::.; cr H F 9y� gM`�H SHELTER R cp c W _ 1 LANDFILL � SIT E X. �\ WEST NECK OG HARBOR PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION AT THE EXISTING SHELTER ISLAND LANDFILL SITE ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY , FOR 'TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. ' MELVILLE,N.V. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. /1-12M CORP. FARMINGDALE.N V RIVERHEAD.N.V CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON.N J. 154 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. other type of transfer station is the intra-town transfer ' station used for small tonnages and to transfer MSW within a town. Figures 6-8 and 6-9 show a typical floor plan and ' a cross section of a stationary transfer station facility. ' All stationary transfer stations utilize floor dump in a completely enclosed building. The intra-town transfer sta- tions will incorporate a double ramp platform system, where one ramp serves as the entrance and the other, the exit . ' Figures 6-10, 6-11 and 6-12 show plan section and sketch of the proposed intra-town transfer station system. During off peak hours, at stationary transfer stations, ' the collection vehicles will discharge their loads directly into the push pits whereas the floor dump method will be ' employed to handle refuse during peak periods . Front-end ' loaders will push the refuse from the floor into the push- pits. The tipping floor will be cleaned and washed at the ' end of each working day. Excluding the vehicle maneuvering areas and storage in push pits, each transfer station' s tip- ping floor is sized to provide one days storage capacity. ' Each facility will be provided with an equipment control cabin, front end loader parking area, office room and toilet ' facilities . At the intra-town transfer stations, the carters will deposit their load directly into a hopper or open top style transfer trailer. All ingress and egress roads for collection vehicles and transfer trailers will be paved. A separate 1.55 `I FIGURE N0. 6-8 f I ll 'c /217- ....................Tn a C O xa Sr4 rIOn/AR y . .._ C O/VJffIC r0l _ SECTION SCALE- I = 40' TYPICAL STATIONARY TRANSFER STATION EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y,S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON&MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE.N.Y. CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N.Y.NEWTON.N.J 157/158 I ' FIGURE N° 6-9 ' PUSHPIT I (� TIPPING I u FLOOR I I i I I I I I I I I 0 I I = ' PLAN TRAILER -11 Ll I �I II I it STATIONARY ' = COMPACTOR UNIT Ln ' SIDE VIEW TYPICAL STATIONARY TRANSFER STATION 1 EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , ' SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE.N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE,N Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N V NEWTON.N.J. IL 5 9 FIGURE NO.6-10 ' CANOPY ' TOP LOADING TRAILER , IN RAMP OUT RAMP MAINTENANCE a SUPPLY AREA ' TOP LOADING TRAILER , CANOPY-"4 PLAN ' PROPOSED ' INTRA TOWN TRANSFER STATION EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR 'TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.V. ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE.N V CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N V. NEWTON.N.J 160 ' ' FIGURE N26-11 ' 1 CANOPY ' -SUPPORT ' TOP LOADING TRAILER 1 SIDE VIEW PROPOSED INTRA TOWN TRANSFER STATION ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y,S.D.E.C. ' MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE.N Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N V NEWTON.N J ' 161 FIGURE NO. 6-12 LOADING HOPPER \\ CANOPY f I yrR4&CE LOADING PLATFORM TRAILERS u PROPOSED -INTRA TOWN TRANSFER STATION EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVIUM, HOLZMACHER, MaLENDON a MURRELL, P.C./1-12M CORP. FARMNpALE. N.V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RVEFiHEAD.N.Y. NEWTON.N.J. 163/164 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. area will be designated, for both stationary transfer sta- tions and intra-town transfer stations, that will be utilized to receive refuse from private cars and small pick-ups in ' order to minimize interference with the large vehicles. All incoming waste will be passed through a vehicle spotting booth which will be manned . The normal operating schedule for the transfer stations will be 8 hours/day, 6 days/week. ' 6 .4 .2 Transfer Station Equipment All stationary transfer stations will be provided with stationary compactors. Pushpits will be provided for trans- fer stations handling large quantities of MSW. The stationary compactor is a standard 11 cubic yard unit capable of proces- sing up to 50 tpd. Nominal. capacity on 8 hours/day basis is 340 tpd with 85 percent availability. ' 6 .4 .2. 1 Southampton One ( 1) stationary compactor unit with pushpit will ' handle the MSW quantities generated until 2000. A second ' unit will have to be added in 2000. 6 .4 .2. 2 Riverhead ' One ( 1) compactor unit. and pushpit will handle all MSW quantities for the 2005 design year. No other compactor ' units will be necessary. ' 6 .4 .2 . 3 Southold One ( 1) compactor unit. and pushpit will handle all the ' MSW generated for the 2005 design year . No other units will be necessary. ' 165 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 6 .4 ,2.4 East Hampton ' One ( 1) compactor unit with pushpit will handle all ' MSW generated for the 2005 design year at the Acabonack site. The Montauk site will be provided with an intra-town transfer , station system. Montauk transfer station will be equipped with three (3 ) ' mobile compactor units, each having a capacity of 19 tons. ' Three (3 ) units will be sufficient to handle all MSW generated for the design year 2005, with replacement every 7 years. The ' mobile compactor units are transfer trailers with self mounted compaction unit . The compaction unit is an integral part of ' the transfer trailer . ' 6 .4 .2 .5 Shelter Island Shelter Island will be equipped with two (2 ) mobile ' compactor units, each having a 19 ton capacity. This will be sufficient to handle MSW quantities up to the year 2000 . t A third unit will be required after 2000 . t It should be noted that all figures are computed using an eight hour day, six days a week and 312 days per year for , operations of a transfer station. In certain cases, it might be feasible to increase the operating hours of existing com- pactor units rather than to install additional units. ' 6 .4 .3 Transportation Equipment Requirements of transportation equipment depends on sev- eral parameters, such as travel time between the transfer stations and the regional resource recovery facility, daily 166 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' tonnage transported, operating hours of the transfer station ifacility and efficiency of the transfer haul operation. The transportation equipment consists of 65 cubic yard transfer ' trailers and compatible tractors. Payload of the trailer is approximately 19 tons based on the prevailing road limits. ' The transfer trailers used at the intra-town transfer station ' are also 65 cubic yard capacity with 19 ton payload. A de- tailed analysis was performed to determine the number of trailers and tractors required for each transfer station. Life of a transfer trailer vehicle is assumed to be 7 years and therefore the equipment requirements have been computed for year 1992 . Spare equipment is provided for breakdown per iods . ' Table 6-2 lists transfer station equipment including the number of transfer trailers, top loading trailers and tractors. ' 6 .4 .4 Personnel Requirement Table 6-3 lists the manpower requirements at various transfer station facilities. Personnel include superintendent, ' foreman, mechanic, equipment operators, tipping floor attendant, laborers , clerical and truck drivers. Relief personnel have tbeen considered where applicable. ' 6 .5 TRANSFER HAUL ROUTES A selection of the routes that the transfer trailers will use in traveling between the proposed transfer stations and the regional resource recovery facility has been made in order to optimize the MSW transportation from the transfer site ]'_67 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' TABLE 6-2 TRANSFER STATION EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS , East Shelter ' Southampton Riverhead Southold Hampton Island Stationary Compactors 1 1 1 1 Push Pits 1 1 1 1 - Front End ' Loaders 1 1 1 1 - Transfer ' Trailers 4 3 3 3 - Top Loading ' Trailers - - - 3 2 Tractors 4 3 3 4 1 ' 1 1 1.68 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL,P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 6-3 ' TRANSFER STATION PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS ' East Shelter Southampton Riverhead Southold Hampton Island ' Superintendent/ Foreman 1 1 1 1 (a) 1 ' Equipment Operators 2 2 2 2 ' Tipping Floor - Attendent 1 1 1 1 ' Laborers 1 1 1 2 1 Truck ' Drivers 4 3 3 5 1 TOTAL 9 8 8 11 3 (a) Rotates between Montauk Station and Acabonack. 1 ' 169 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , to the regional facility. This entails minimizing mileage and travel time with as little disruption to the surrounding environment as possible. ' Significant factors which influence the selection of routes are listed below: ' 1 . Total Mileage Travelled 2 . Existing Traffic Conditions ' 3 . Road Capacities ' 4. Speed Limits 5 . Traffic Control Devices ' 6. Future Road Improvements 7 . Surrounding Land Uses ' The suggested paths will be the primary routes for the ' transfer trailer. Alternate routes may be taken if problems arise with a primary route. ' Figure 6-13 is a map of the East End service area with the transfer trailer routes indicated. Table 6-4 calculates ' the total mileage and roundtrip travel time between transfer ' station and regional facility. Transportation of MSW for the Town of Shelter Island ' includes the utilization of the ferry between the Towns of Southampton and Shelter Island. The ferry will charge a ' fee per round trip depending on the size and type of the ' transfer trailer. 1.70 ' i FIGURE N° 6-13 ISSIES s �' v! SHELTER SLAND r Pon a ,EAST HAMPTON s, 4� t INTRA-TOWN TRANSFER STATION V I / w j •— CENTRAL TRANSFER STATION �1 �° *� 3� •— RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY w • 20000 0 20000 RIVERHEAD SCALE I"= 20000 r SOUTHAMPTON y- �o - 0 MAJOR HIGHWAYS 81 ROADS AND PRIMARY PROPOSED SITES EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE.N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./1-12M CORP. FARMINGOALE.N Y RVECONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWT EAO.N Y NEWTON.N J 171/172 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' TABLE 6-4 ROUND TRIP TRAVEL TIME FOR TRANSFER TRAILERS ' TO AND FROM THE (REGIONAL) FACILITY ' Weighted Roundtrip Average Roundtrip Transfer Travel Speed Limits Travel Time Station Location Distance (Miles) MPH Minutes (1) Southampton 42 48 60 ' Riverhead 19 42 30 ' Southold 38 47 60 East Hampton 75 51 105 ' Shelter Island 70 45 150 (2) ' ( 1) Round trip travel time increased by approximately 20 percent to account for delays due to lights, turns etc . This repre- sents strictly travel time and does not include loading and unloading of transfer trailers. ( 2 ) Includes 45 minutes of ferry time. ' 173 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 6 .6 ANTICIPATED TRUCK TRAFFIC AT REGIONAL FACILITY Selection criteria for any regional resource recovery ' facility includes the transportation aspects of refuse handling. The site must be able to handle the traffic flow of all col- , lection trucks, transfer trailers, residue removal and metal , recovery trucks . The transfer trailers will account for a majority of the total traffic. A listing of the projected ' number of truck loads per day from each town is indicated on Table 6-6 . The truck loads include MSW transportation to the regional resource recovery facility along with the resi- due and the metal recovery trucks from the regional facility. 6 .7 TRANSFER STATION AND TRANSFER HAUL COSTS , A detailed cost analysis for each transfer station was performed, which included developing capital and annual op- erating costs for both the transfer station facility and the ' transfer haul system. The capital cost was developed based on the design parameters and the site plan layouts for the , transfer stations described earlier. Similarly, operating costs were prepared based on the manpower requirements and , various operating conditions for each facility. Overtime ' allowance has been incorporated for over normal operating schedule of eight hours per day, six days per week . ' A summary of costs have been presented in Tables 6-6 , 6-7 and 6-8. Table 6-8 shows the total cost of the entire transfer system, including transfer station facility and , 174 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' TABLE 6-5 COMBINED TRUCKLOADS TO REGIONAL FACILITY ' 1985 1992 2005 Type of Truck Truck Truck ' Vehicle TPD Loads TPD Loads TPD Loads 1. MSW TRUCKLOADS Southampton Top Loaders 190 10 255 14 405 22 Transfer 190 10 255 14 405 22 ' Riverhead Transfer 155 9 200 11 300 16 Southold Transfer 160 9 195 11 290 16 ' East Hampton Transfer 135 8 185 10 285 15 ' Shelter -- — — — Island Top Loaders 18 1 25 2 45 3 ' TOTAL MSW TRUCK LOADS 848 47 1 ,115 62 1 ,730 94 2 . TOTAL RESIDUE TRUCK LOADS 126 7 116 9 257 14 3 . TOTAL METAL RECOVERY TRUCK LOADS 59 3 76 4 117 7 ' TOTAL ANTICIPATED TRUCK LOADS 1 ,031 57 1 ,357 75 :2 , 104 115 1 . Truckloads are based on 19 ton payload for MSW, residue and metal recovery trucks . ' 2 . All TPD figures are peak loads on a 8 hours/day, 6 days/week basis. ' 175 x 0 r N TABLE 6-6 a n x TRANSFER STATION COST SUMMARY (ALL COSTS ARE IN 1980 DOLLARS) r M Z v 0 Initial Annual Annual Total Z m Capital Capital Operating Annual a Transfer Station Cost ($ ) Cost ($/Yr) Cost ($/Yr) Cost ($/Yr) ; c x Southampton $505, 000 $65, 500 $138, 500 $204,000 M r Riverhead 455,000 59, 600 133,400 193 ,000 v n Southold 455, 000 59, 600 133,400 193 ,000 x N i Montauk 127,000 15, 000 44,000 59 ,000 0 �x � v Acabonack 315, 000 42, 300 105, 700 148,000 Shelter--Island _ 110, 000 13, 000 42,000 55 ,000 x 0 r N 3 TABLE 6-7 D 0 x M x TRANSFER HAUL COST SUMMARY ; (ALL COSTS ARE IN 1980 DOLLARS) z v 0 z Initial Annual Annual Total Capital Capital Operating Annual z Transfer Station Cost ($ ) Cost ($/Yr) Cost ($/Yr) Cost ($/Yr) C M Southampton $364, 000 $75, 000 $228,800 $303,800 v Riverhead 273, 000 56, 100 122,000 178, 100 0 Southold 273, 000 56, 100 164,400 220, 500 n Montauk 176, 000 36, 200 53, 300 89, 500 2 Acabonack 273, 000 56, 100 210, 100 266,200 Shelter Island 136, 000 28,000 66,900* 94 ,900 * Includes yearly ferrying costs. x O r N a n TABLE 6-8 M TOTAL COST SUMMARY (TRANSFER STATION AND TRANSFER HAUL) n r M z (ALL COSTS ARE IN 1980 DOLLARS) C O z m Initial Annual Annual Total a 3 Capital Capital Operating Annual c Transfer Station Cost ($ ) Cost ($/Yr) Cost ($/Yr) Cost ($/Yr) x M r r Southampton $869, 000 $140, 500 $367, 300 $507,800 V n Riverhead 728,000 115, 700 255,400 371,100 x N Southold 728, 000 115,700 297,800 413 ,500 0 f 0 00 Montauk 303, 000 51,200 97, 300 148, 500 L coo nnn Qo Ann �lr iZnn IIIA Inn Ac a bo n a c:k J O U, V V V J",T V V J i J,V V V T i T,-V V Shelter Island 246, 000 41,000 108,900 149,900 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. transfer haul . It should be noted that the transfer station ' facility, designed for the year 2005, has been amortized over a period of its normal life of 20 years, whereas the transfer ' haul equipment and front-end loaders are amortized over a ' 7-year period. 6 .8 ALTERNATE METHODS OF REFUSE TRANSPORTATION ' 6 .8 .1 Rail Haul Rail transportation of solid waste is not a new concept ' and has been considered by several communities throughout the country. In England, rail haul is currently being utilized on a large scale. The city of Philadelphia has been consider- ing rail transportation of it' s solid waste long distances for over a decade now but has not yet implemented the scheme ' due to many constraints, primarily being the economics, i. e. ' truck transfer to the existing sites in New Jersey being more economical than rail haul to sites in Pennsylvania. The city ' also encountered several political obstacles in it ' s rail haul development. ' Generally, feasibility of rail haul depends on meeting several criteria such as: 1 . Solid waste quantity. ' 2 . Access to rail car loading and unloading terminals. 3 . Additional transportation to and from the rail term- inals. 4. Unit train requirements to insure dependability. ' 179 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' 5 . Travel distances. ' 6 . Existing railroad conditions. , Several methods in rail haul. could be visualized including, containers with compacted waste on flatbed cars, open top load- ' ing gondola rail cars and piggyback system with transfer trailers on flatbed cars. In most cases, a transfer station to collect ' and compact solid waste into transfer trailer or containers is , still required. Additionally, the transfer trailers must be brought to the rail terminals and transported to the final des- , tination from the unloading point. Thus an enormous double handling of materials is envolved. To justify this, of course, ' the solid waste quantities must be sufficient and the rail haul , distances much beyond the economical truck transfer distances. Additionally, the railroad owner, such as Long Island Rail Road, , must be able to accomodate the refuse railcars. In many cases, the existing railroad requires substantial upgrading at the expense of the user. ' 6 .8.1.1 Rail Haul for East End Service Area Preliminary conversations with the officials of Long Island , Rail Road (LIRR) indicate the rail haul between points in the East End would, in some areas be almost impossible and where ' possible it would be extremly costly on a per ton basis, due to ' short haul distances. Rail haul in the south fork, 'between East Hampton and ' Southampton would, at present, be ' impossible. This is because 180 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. there is no freight siding available in East Hampton. While ' a siding could be constructed, this would be an additional ' cost to the participating towns . The only sidings available, in the south fork, are located in Southampton and Bridgehampton . ' Therefore rail haul on the south fork is not feasible. On the north fork, freight sidings exist in both Southold ' and Riverhead. Here rail haul is possible, but costs would be ' high. LIRR haul costs are based on a minimum 40 mile distance and a minimum weight of 60,000 pounds. The approximate dis- tance between the Southold and Riverhead sidings is only 20 miles, this means that the 40 mile rate of $ . 77/100 pounds would be applied to a 20 mile distance resulting in a high cost/mile for rail haul . From the above information and from the viewpoints of the ' proposed site locations for the resource recovery facility, the only towns in the East End that could conceivably utilize ' rail haul would be Southold and Shelter Island. If Southold and Shelter Island were to utilize rail haul, the transfer stations will still have to be constructed at their existing ' landfills in order to compact and containerize the MSW to re- duce: ' 1 . Shelter Island' s ferry costs to Southold for trans- portation to the railroad siding. ' 2 . Southold' s round trips from the refuse collection point ( landfill) to the railroad siding (the LIRR will not accept uncontainerized refuse. ) ' 181 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' 3 . The number of rail haul trips between the Southold and Riverhead sidings at the minimum weight of 60,000 ' pounds gross weight. If rail hauling in gondola cars were considered, the LIRR has indicated that it would, not engage in the loading ' and unloading of the refuse. This would necessitate refuse ' handling crews at the two railroad sidings, one crew to load the rail cars and the other crew, to unload the rail cars. ' In a containerization system the equipment for the handling of the containers would be quite costly. The crews would ' need at the minimum, two fork lifts at each end point, one ' for the actual work and a second for backup. In addition to the material handling crews, two transportation networks ' would have to be employed. On transportation network would deliver the compacted containerized refuse to the Southold ' siding while the second transportation network would deliver ' the refuse from the railroad siding to the proposed resource recovery facility. ' If yet another method of rail haul is considered to haul fully loaded transfer trailers, less tractor, on flat bed cars ' from the Southold siding to the Riverhead siding, an awaiting , tractor fleet would be required, at the Riverhead siding to haul the trailers to the proposed resource recovery facility. ' The problem with this concept is that LIRR does not presently own flat bed cars. This means that the towns would have to ' 182 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. either purchase flatbed cars, rent them or contract with LIRR. In the latter event, LIRR would rent or buy the ' flatbed cars and charge the user an increased haul rate. The other obstacle is that there are no loading and un- loading ramps available at Southold or the unloading point for the trailer to be loaded and unloaded on the rail cars . ' This can be accomplished by: ' 1 . Construction of suitable ramps on either bought or leased land. ' 2 . Purchase of equipment (crane, forklift) that is capable of lifting a trailer, approximately 60, 000 pounds, on to a flatbed car. ' Both of these alternatives are quite costly in relation to the amount of MSW handled. There are other logistical problems to be considered, ' besides those already stated . They are: I . The LIRR has no rates applicable to hauling loaded transfer trailers on flatbed cars. We were informed ' that the price would be based on distance, rental of flatbed cars ( if not arranged by the towns) , gross weight of combined trailer and refuse, and the fre- quency of service use. 2 . The LIRR does not have daily runs into the East End ' with respect to freight pickups. If the LIRR has to make a special trip to pick up, this would constitute an additional charge. 3 . In case of a LIRR strike the MSW would have to be stored for the duration. A back-up truck transpor- tation system may still be required. ' In light of the short rail haul distance between the ' Southold railroad siding and the Riverhead railroad siding, ' 183 HOLZMACHER McLENDON and MURRELL P.C. / H2MCO RP. ' it would be uneconomical to rail haul the 20 miles. This is ' because the refuse still has to be truck hauled from the ' Shelter Island and Southold landfills (transfer stations) to the Southold railroad station siding and from the Riverhead , railroad siding to the proposed resource recovery facility. The extra time in material handling, additional equipment ' and personnel and duplication of transportation networks ' will far out weigh any potential savings that might be incur- red by not truck hauling directly from Shelter Island and ' Southold to the proposed resource recovery facility. From the forgoing discussion, it is apparent that rail ' haul for the East End Communities is not cost effective and ' therefore is removed from futh er evaluation and consideration. 6 .8.2 Barge Haul ' Barge haul of solid waste has been practiced by New York City for many years. The landfill located in Freshkills, t Staten Island receives most of the solid waste through barge t haul from various points in lower' Manhattan. One has to see the actual operation inorder to fully comprehend the mag•- ' nitude of the operation and the waste quantities which are handled at this landfill. Barge! haul, as in case of rail ' haul, also requires duplicate material handling. The waste ' must be brought to the barge loading docks, loaded on to the barges and then unloaded at the receiving end . If the pro- ' posed facility is not located on the waterfront, additional 184 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL P.C. / H 2M CORP. ' transportation of waste must be provided. Construction of loading and unloading docks in most of the cases is necessi- tated. Existing water depths may have to be increased to accomodate barges in the waterway. Additionally, the loca- tions of barge loading and unloading docks may require ' special consideration in order to minimize interference with communitie' s summer boating activities . Economic considera- tions include purchase and operation of barges, expensive barge loading and unloading equipment and added potential ' cost of truck transportation. Barge haul may be cost-effec- tive and environmentally sound if large quantities of solid waste and long haul distances were the criteria, such as, is the case of New York City. 6 .8 .2. 1 Barge Haul for East End Service Area ' Barge haul of MSW, if at all feasible with respect to ' the East End, would limit the location of the resource re- covery facility to an area in close proximity to the existing waterways, to minimize additional overland transportation. The only resource recovery facility site under consideration ' that is on water front is LILCO' s proposed Jamesport Elec- trical Power Plant. LILCO plans to barge haul large amounts of coal to this location and remove residue via ' barges also. The site is located on the boundary between Riverhead and Southold, bordering the Long Island Sound. ' 185 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Barge hauling MSW to this site would appear practical for the towns of Southampton, Shelter Island and East Hampton . The ' distances from Riverhead and Southold are so minor that the ' cost associated with barge haul would be unwarranted. South- ampton would have to barge haul east and then around Montauk. ' Point into the Long Island Sound and then back west to the Jamesport Site. Shelter Island would barge haul east, around ' Plum Island and then west on Long Island Sound to Jamesport. East Hampton would follow the same route as Shelter Island ' only it would be a little longer. This site has a potential ' advantages of utilizing LILCO constructed docks to remove residue and any recovered secondary materials through barge, ' if economically justified. If the Peconic Bay were chosen as the water route, the obvious problem associated would be the necessity of additional ' overland transportation to the :regional site. The following obstacles must be overcome in considering ' barge haul of MSW for the service area . 1 . With respect to the PeconiC Bay, near-shore waters are not deep enough to accommodate a barge or a tug boat. Our conversation with the Coast Guard Officials ' and the Southampton Bay Constable indicates that a barge needs 8 to 10 feet of draw as does a tug boat. The near shore waters alone the Peconic range in depth from 1 to 10 feet, not quite deep enough for ' a barge or tug boat. 2 . The construction of loading and unloading docks would ' necessitate the possible disruption of existing wet lands. This might cause legal complications and com- munity opposition. ' 186 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 3 . Any construction or dredging in the Peconic Bay area would need to be reviewed and approved by the Army Corps . of Engineers and also requires a Tidal Wetland Permit. 4. We have been informed that during the months of Jan- uary and February, both the Little and Great Peconic ' Bay, as a general rule, tend to ice over. This of course is dependent of the severity of the weather. This icing over of the bays would restrict any sort of navigation. This would necessitate either storage facilities for the MSW or a backup system of overland transportation. This backup system or storage would constitute an additional cost. We were also informed ' that the Peconics, at times , get quite rough, which would impede navigation. ' Other considerations, mainly economic, are: -- Construction of loading and unloading docks . ' -- Purchase or rental of barges and tug boats. -- Operation of barges; labor, maintenance, fuel, etc. ' -- Purchase and operation of loading and unloading equipment. ' -- Transportation of MSW to and from barge. -- Additional MSW transportation time involved. ' In conclusion, based on our preliminary investigation, ' we have eliminated barge haul from futher consideration. ' 187 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. ' SECTION 7 .0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 7.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES ' There are a variety of solid waste management technolo- gies available on today' s market. Prior to selection of particular technologies for the East End communities, it is ' essential to examine these technologies. Basically, the available technologies can be grouped into two categories; ' non-energy recovery technologies and energy recovery technologies. ' The energy recovery technologies can be further divided into two categories, demonstrated technologies and non-demonstrated ' technologies. This section will identify and briefly describe various technologies. The subsequent section will evaluate ' those technologies which are applicable to the East End study ' area. 7 .1 NON-ENERGY RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES ' There are several alternatives in this category which deal with disposal of solid waste without recovery of energy ' as a primary resource. As illustrated in Figure 7-1 these are: 1 . Source Separation ' 2 . Mechanical Separation of Secondary Materials 3 . Conventional Sanitary Landfilling 4 . Shredding and Landfilling with Front-End Separation ' 5 . Baling and Landfilling 1 ' 189 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 6. Shredding, Baling, and Landfilling with Front-End Separation ' 7. Conventional Incineration with/without Shredding and Metal Recovery 8. Composting ' 7.1.1 Source Separation ' 30 - 50 percent of municipal solid waste is made up of secondary or recoverable material, with paper, glass , ferrous ' and non-ferrous metals making tip the bulk of this material. Under favorable conditions, the recovery and sale of secondary ' material from MSW can provide a source of revenue usually used ' to offset the cost of owning and operating a solid waste manage- ment program. ' Either one of two possible methods are used in the re- covery of secondary material from MSW: Source separation or ' post collection separation. Source separation is defined as ' the setting aside of recyclable waste materials by the generators, followed by collection of the :separated materials from the various ' points of generation and transportation to a secondary materials dealer or a processor. The seca,nd waste materials recovery ' approach involves collection of 'unseparated MSW which is delivered ' to a central site where recoverable materials are then removed, usually by mechanical means, from the waste stream. In this sec- ' tion we will consider only source separation. 190 , FIGURE N°7-1 SOLID WASTE SOURCE SEPARATION SOLID WASTE BALING CONVENTIONAL FRONT-END SEPARATION FRONT-END SEPARATION BALING (WITH SHREDDING SANITARY (WITHOUT SHREDDING) A14D (WITH SHREDDING) AND (WITHOUT SHREDDING AND) AND/OR METAL RECOVERY) CONVENTIONAL LANDFILLING LANDFILLING LANDFILLING LANDFILLING AND LANDFILLING INCINERATION COMPOSTING i f f WITHOUT SHREDDING WITH SHREDDING OVERSIZED BULKY WASTE SHREDDING ONLY WITH OR WITHOUT WITH OR WITHOUT WITH OR WITHOUT BACK-END RECOVERY FRONT-END MATERIAL BACK-END FERROUS RECOVERY RECOVERY i RESIDUE TO LANDF'IL.L I I i NON ENERGY RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES i I EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON &MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE.NY CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N Y NEWT6N N J 191/192 i ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Advantages realized in the separation of secondary materials are:: A reduction in the volume of solid waste requiring disposal, revenues gained to offset operating costs and in the case of ' source separation as opposed to post collection separation, a clean, uncontaminated secondary material . Source separation ' also promotes recycling awareness and provides opportunities to employ handicapped or retarded people. Some disadvantages associated with source separation are: An increase in collection ' costs and the fact that the volume actually recovered is norm- ally a small fraction of what is available for recycling. The ' success of a source separation program also depends heavily on public participation. 7 .1 .1. 1 Collection Methods for Source Separation ' Although there are any number of collection methods avail- able for a source separation program, most fall into one of three ' principal categories: Centrally located collection centers, sep- arate collection and combined collection. ' In the centrally located collection centers method the gen- eral public is responsible for collecting, storing and transporting the secondary materials to a collection center from which the ' 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 ' 193 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M TORP. ' el MSW. There will be associated with this method, a capital cost for collection trucks and additional operating costs for crews , to run and maintain these trucks . In the combined coll ection approach, the existing fleet of ' solid waste collection trucks are modified to provide separate ' compartments for the var ous secondary materials. This method tends to yield a higher percent of recovery of secondary materials , 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 interupt the collection of other materials and drive the truck to a disposal site to ' empty the filled compartment. 7 , 1.2,2; Impacts of Source Separation on Energy Recovery Technology ' Recent EPA studies have shown that even a high level of , source separation does n t adversely affect the various resource/ energy recovery technolo ies. Removing newspaper and clean cor- rugated, the most easily separable items, from the waste stream does not substantially decrease the amount of energy contained 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 decrease the ' ferrous and glass content of waste somewhat. However, process design is unaffected. T e tonnage being processed would decrease ' 1 194 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 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 detactable and is essentially the ' same according to the analysis. 7 .1 .2 Mechanical Separation of Secondary Materials This section describes the post collection mechanical seg- regation of secondary materials such as ferrous, aluminum, glass ' etc . ' 7 .1 .2. 1 Basic Unit Process Unit processes essential to nearly all material and energy ' recovery systems are size reduction and particle classification. 7 .1 .2 . 2 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 hardware have become increasingly important. ' There are three basic types of dry horizontal shredders, ' Figure 7-2 . Of these, the horizontal hammermill (Type 3) is most ' 195 i FIGURE N27- 2 Type 1 Solid Waste Flow ' Type 2 Solid Waste Flow 1 0 CO O l 1 Size Reduced Material Size Reduced Material I Solid Waste Flow Hammers;Fixed or Free Swinging , Rejected Material 1 / Adjustable Grate Bars �I 1 1 1 1 1 Size Red iced Material Type 3 ' 1 HORIZONTAL SHAFT 1 SIZE REDUCTION UNITS 1 EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY 1 FOR 1TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVE HIEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVHOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURREL , P.C./H2M F CORP. ARM LE,N.V. 1 ARMINGDALE.N.Y. CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONM N'TAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N.Y. NEWTON.N.J. 196 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. common in solid waste processing. Reverse hammer rotation capa- bility is often preferred to increase hammer life. Another design is the vertical shaft shredder, Figure 7-3 . ' 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. Some designs of this unit use grinders that crush instead of impact the waste; still others ' use a combination of hammers and grinders. ' The last major class of shredders is the wet pulper, Figure 7-4. This device, also known as a hydrapulper, had its begin- nings in the paper industry. Solid waste and water are intro- duced simultaneously; a vortex is created which draws waste down toward an impeller 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 recep- tacle. Problems that have plagued shredding include fires, explo- sions, excessive hammer wear, material handling difficulties, ' dust, debris and spillage. Many of these conditions are being alleviated with increased operating experience. ' 7 .1 .2 .3 Particle Classification Following size reduction, particle classification is the ' next critical step in most recovery sequences. The efficiency ' with which classification can be effected and the degree to ' 197 FIGURE N'7-3 ' iil 1 I t Solid Waste FI♦� ♦ Ro ary Action ' Rejected Material 1 Support Plates for ' Grinders or Hammers Size Reduced Material ' -VERTICAL SHAFT ' SIZE RE UCTION UNIT EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY , FOR 'TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVE HEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. HOLZ;MACHER, MCLENDON&MURREL , P.C./H2M CORP. MELVILLE,N.Y. ' FARMMJGDALE.N.Y. CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONM RsITAL SCIENTISTS FOVERHEAD.N.V. NEWTON.N.J. 1 8 ' ' FIGURE N°7-4 ' Solid Waste Flow Water Flow • Rejected Material 1 ' I f Perforated Plate Size Reduced Material ♦ ' Rotary Action SIZE REDUCTION THROUGH WET PULPING 1 EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILHOLZMACHER, MCLENDON&MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FARMIN DALE.. FAFlMINODALE.N.V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON..N N.Y. NEWTON.N.J. ' 199 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M dORP. ' I till which recyclable materials can then be separated are signifi- cant factors contributing Ito the cost and marketability of re- ' covered products. Classification processes can be categorized by their fluid medium. ' a. Air Classification Very few air classification systems are commercially available at present; most units that have been developed are ' experimental. Foremost in the air classification field are Radar Pneumatics for developments in St. Louis, MO and Ames, IA; Triple S/Dynamics forldevelopments in Chicago and other Mid- ' west points; and Americol gy in Chemung County, NY and Milwaukee . b. 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, CA. The unit uses water ' to recover metals and glass from municipal shredded wastes. In a typical flow sheet, MSW is shredded, air classified, exposed ' to magnetic separation, screened to remove oversize 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 capable of meeting municipal size demands yet. ' The national Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. currently operates an Equipment Test and Evaluation Program in coopera- tion with the department of Environmental Services, District of 1 200 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL P.C./ H2M CORP. Columbia . Shredders, separators, classifiers and other recovery ' equipment can all be evaluated at this working lab. 7 .1 .2 .4 Material Extraction Systems a. Manual Sorting ' Manual sorting has generally been used at compost plants and some municipal incinerators to remove such items as clean newsprint and corrugated cardboard, metals, glass, plastics and rags. These materials are separated for salvage and, in the case ' of composting, to upgrade final product quality. ' Such operations are incompatible with large-scale recovery and utilization for four main reasons: 1) they are economically ' non-competitive; 2 ) limited degree of separation with nominal size and force; 3) human fallability; and 4) 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 developed. b. Mechanized Separation ' With the advent of major large-scale recovery systems, more sophisticated separation technology was needed. Modern, mechanized processes operating on large centralized waste loads are now capable of sorting mixed refuse. Comprehensive material ' separation systems as well as unit subsystems for the segrega- tion of individual waste components exist in various stages of development and operation. ' 201 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. I ( i) Ferrous Metals - Ferrous metals constitute roughly 7 per- cent of municipal solid waste, excluding discarded automobiles. ' The four ferrous components in mixed municipal waste are: ( 1) cans of all types; (2) otter light gauge, non-can material such ' as bicycle fenders, pots nd 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 such as white! goods are usually source separated, , where as smaller items sullh as cans could either be source sep- arated or separated mecha i.cally at a resource recovery facility. There are three major types of ferrous recovery systems: ' single or dual rotating drum magnets; dual drum pulley type separator (either suspended type permanent magnet or pully type ' permanent magnet) ; and multistage belt separator, Figure 7-5 . ' Of these three major types, the multistage belt configura- tion is the most effective because it entraps the least amount , of contaminants with ferrous scrap. In a typical multistage 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 dis- charge it. When attracte :metal reaches the area where there is no magnetism, 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. 202 ' ' FIGURE N'7-5 Solid Wesle 6p Iron ' "�: • "tSZOt'6`e1L�._:de`. ? Deo Gen AO• DA n D n e t•. ..a.. '� ` Single Rotating Drum --i •� Iron Solid Wastes • 6,0 De Dual Rotating Drums ' Soud Waste•p—i --' Pulley-Type Permanent Magnet ' Magnetic Pulby Iron i e Iron solid;uasfe� „ • Suspended-Type Permanent Magnet ' Pick-up agnef Dischar Transfer 9 a net Magnet - a Iron :ioi�d Waste ;.,1t" '..! .•., , *'t LThree Magnet/Belt System tr . s • ' TYPES OF MAGNETIC SEPARATORS ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILHOLZMACHER, MCLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FARMIN DALE. FARMMK�lOALE.N.V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N.V. NEWTON,N.J. 203 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M �OIRP. ' In actual application as much as 90 percent of the ferrous content of solid Waste can be recovered using these i techniques . This will vary, however, depending on waste comp- osition and degree of pri?r processing. , ( ii) 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 out- 1 door furniture, with the bulk of aluminum being cans. Aluminum can be source separated, however, methods do exist for mechan- ical separation at a resource recovery facility. The major extraction techniques include: Gravity Separation, ' Electrostatic and Eddy Current Separation, Froth Flotation and , Cryogenic Separation. Gravity Se arati n: Heavy media or sink/float separa- tion is one of the most promising gravity separation concepts. Here a mix of aluminum and other non-ferrous metals is placed ' in a heavy liquid medium. Particles with greater specific , gravity than the liquid will sink, while lighter particles will float to the surface wher they can be removed. ' Electrostatic Se aration: This method employs aluminum as a conductor of electri ity and glass as an insulator . When a glass/aluminum mix is a posed to an electric charge, conduc- tors quickly lose the charge, while non-conductors retain it . A revolving drum with an opposite electrical charge will then ' attract and hold non-conductors, separating them from conductors which immediately fall. ' 1 204 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Eddy Current Separation: Passing an electro-magnet that generates a magnetic field through a non-ferrous con- ductive 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 segre- gated by floating one of them in a foam to the surface of a liquid. This process is based on surface characteristics - not ' relative weigh - 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 na- ture 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, MD, has evalu- ated recovery of metals from incinerator residue by a process involving successive grinding, size segregation by screening, ' and separation by froth flotation. ' 205 I I HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. II Cryogenic Separation: The U. S. Bureauof Mines has ' tested a cryogenic technique for separating non-ferrous con- centrates produced from air classification and water elutri- ation of shredded auto sc ap. 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 cryogeni cseparation places mixed materials , in a cold substance such as liquid nitrogen where the more brittle materials shatterllupon impact or crushing. Screening ' and/or flotation is then used to classify outflow. ( iii) Glass - Glass constitutes about nine percent by weight , of municipal solid waste and consists almost exclusively of ' discarded 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 charged drum. Whereas conductors such as ' metals briefly retain their charge before falling off the drum, non-conductors such as glass adhere to the drum. The ' outflow next enters an opacity sorter which separates and re- moves all non-transparent material, such as ceramics and stones. The remainder, essentially pure glass, is fed to a color sorter ' where it is separated into clear and green-amber piles. 206 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 1 Here glass particles travel in single file channels on narrow, highspeed belts. As each fragment falls between a ' photocell and special background in a fixed shade, the com- bined reflectance 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 color sorts glass and separates foreign materials from the flint glass fragments. ' 7. 1.3 Conventional Sanitary Landfill The sanitary landfill is a post World War II concept, ' offering at least cost, a method of disposing of refuse in a sanitary, nuisance free manner. There is an established sequence of steps in the daily operation and final grading ' and seeding of the sanitary landfill which renders it dis- tinct from, and far superior to, the historical dump. If ' designed, operated and maintained well, a conventional san- itary landfill can improve land for various uses such as, ' parks, recreational areas and golf courses. Sanitary 'Land- fills must meet the following minimum criteria: - Waste must be spread and compacted over a limited face in thin layers. - Waste must be covered daily with clean earth, com- pacted in place after covering. ' - Operation must be carefully controlled in a manner which minimizes odors, nuisances, blowing paper, ' vectors, and the potential for water and air pollution. 1 207 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' - Leachate control must be reco gnized and properly , handled. - All landfill codes must be met. , A recent development in sanitary landfill design tech- nology is the use of impermeable liners or barriers which , inhibit the movement of leachate: into groundwater sources. The construction of a satisfactory impermeable barrier over ' a large area requires special techniques, good specifications , and on-site supervision of the installation and placement of the first lift of waste. With Other provisions such as gas , venting added, the system is called a controlled landfill. A properly designed controlled landfill site can be op- ' erated in an environmental acceptable manner. Improved tech- ' niques for landfilling continue to develop. Regardless of the alternative chosen, even with a resource/energy recovery ' alternative, a landfill will always be required to dispose of the residue and nonburnables and occasionally by-passed MSW due , to unforseen shut-downs of the resource recovery facility. ' Some of the advantages and disadvantages of a conventional sanitary landfill follow. ' III 208 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ADVANTAGES 1. Where land is available and suitable for use, sanitary landfill is usually the most economical method of solid ' waste disposal. ' 2. Initial investment is low, and operating costs are min- imal compared with other methods. ' 3. A well designed and efficiently operated sanitary land- fill can meet all public health standards and serve as a complete disposal method. 4. A sanitary landfill can be put into operation in a short ' period of time, can receive all types of solid wastes, and is flexible with regard to increasing capacity for emergency conditions . ' 5. Integrated with an open space, park and recreation pro- gram, a sanitary landfill after completion can provide ' land reclamation and property improvement for parks, play- grounds, golf courses, and other recreational areas. ' 6. Since sanitary landfill involves no burning, there is no danger of air pollution from ashes or soot. ' 7. The value of reclaimed land is usually higher than its original value. 8. The possibility of economical energy recovery by tapping landfill gas is being investigated. 9. Landfills can supply areas for holding ferrous metal re- coveries during periods of low market values. ' 209 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. DISADVANTAGES ' 1. Sanitary landfills require large amounts of land area , which are normally located at considerable distances from collection areas, thereby increasing haul dis- tances and overall cost of transportation and disposal. 2. Inclement weather can ,hamper operations drastically. 3. If not properly operated and funded, a sanitary land- fill can quickly degenerate into an open dump. Defects , in operation are not apparent immediately. 4. Improper location in residential areas or residential , growth adjacent to the site can result in extreme public opposition and abandonment,. 5. The completed fill has limited use. Special costly de- sign and construction must he utilized for building on , landfills due to settlement and gas production factors. 6. The completed fill will settle and require periodic ' maintenance, as explosive decomposition gas can become a hazard or nuisance problem. 7. Contamination of ground and surface water supplies can occur and present a continuing pollution control problem. ' 8. Recovery of potentially valuable material is eliminated when wastes are buried and covered. , 9. Development of voids in the fill can occur if material , is bulky or improperly compacted. �I I 210 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 1 7 .1 .3. 1 Sanitary Landfill for the Study Area At present all Towns in the East End service area util- ize convential sanitary landfilling for their solid waste disposal. In the past few years however, the new state reg- ulations (Part 360) have required these towns to improve their landfill operations . These improvements include such ' requirements as placement of single or double liner in new ' sections of landfill , capping of finished sections of the landfill, leachate collection and treatment system and meth- ane control systems. Because of Long Island' s designation as a sole source acquifer, some Towns such as Shelter Island ' are prohibited from landfilling. The economic impact of ' compliance with such regulatory requirements has overshadowed some of the advantages described earlier and controlled sani- tary landfilling has proven equal to or more expensive •than a resource/energy recovery alternative. ' 7.1 .4 Shredding and Landfilling with Front End Separation Front end separation of solid waste includes three prin- cipal areas: receiving, separation, and recovery. Products ' retrieved are ferrous and non-ferrous metals and color sorted glass, while recyclable kraft, corrugated papers plus bundled ' newsprint may be adjunct to the system. 211 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Shredding is a processing technique which reduces refuse to a homogeneous mixture of uniformly sized particles. Shred- , ding has shown effectiveness in reducing land requirements in sanitary landfills and changing refuse characteristics to , reduce cover requirements, nuisaLn a problems, and differen- tial settling. Shredders, crushers, grinders, and mills are interchange- ' able terms for essentially the sane equipment. Shredders have usually been developed for specific types of homogeneous ' materials such as coal, rock, and scrap metal . Conversion of , these machines for processing heterogeneous materials such as refuse presented a temporary technological barrier. However, ' new technologies in refuse processing and disposal usually require particle size reduction and homogeneity of input and work on shredding has flourished resulting in more advanced ' machinery. Hammermills are generally used for municipal waste and large auto body shredders ar also available. ' Efficient shredding is the first step in many advanced refuse processing, disposal, and recycling schemes . It is ' also required in proposed waste transport schemes which util- ize gravity flow and pressure pipe systems. More uniform, smaller particles enable easierompaction and higher den- ' sities for transfer stations, ba ing plants, and sanitary landfills. ' II 212 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Compared to unprocessed waste, shredded material appears ' to decompose more uniformly in a landfill . If leachate is formed, organic and mineral elements build up more rapidly, ' but return of the leachate concentration to low levels :is ' also rapid, compared with unshredded waste. This causes a shredded landfill to behave differently from a conventional ' landfill. Settling factors are more predictable and leachate production follows a more consistent pattern. ADVANTAGES 1. Higher in-place densities allow landfill savings of 30-50 ' percent compared with unprocessed refuse. 2. Less cover material is required and also immediate place- ment of cover material is reduced. ' 3. Homogeneity permits easier spreading, minimizing spreading and compacting machine requirements. ' 4. Differential settlement is minimized through elimination of voids . Nesting places are reduced radically. ' 5. Milled refuse has little or no odor and overcomes rat, fly and vector problems . 6. Nuisances such as blowing paper and fires are minimized and more easily controlled. 7. Can be incorporated into advanced disposal or recovery systems. 8. Overall downtime for landfill equipment repairs and maintenance is lessened . ' 213 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. ' 9. Shredded wastes can be magnetically separated and screened to recover potentially valuable material as part of the ' shredding operation. 10. Bulk refuse items can be processed with ordinary refuse. 11. The landfill operation is more sightly and decomposition more uniform. i DISADVANTAGES 1 . More costly than conventional sanitary landfill. , 2. As for unprocessed refuse, an impermeable membrane , barrier may be needed to prevent leachate contamination of groundwater. 3. Plant design must provide equipment backup for opera- ' tional dependability. 4. There is a relatively high maintenance factor on the ' shredders. 5. Precaution must be taken against explosions. Many muni- , cipal shredding installations have been plagued by ex- plosions resulting from the materials received which by themselves may not be hazardous, but become explosive ' when shredded. 6. Shredders are noisy, particul rly when white metal goods are introduced into the machi nes. ' 7.1 .5 Baling and Landfilling Baling is a processing technique whereby refuse volume ' is reduced by means of direct high compression. Refuse may ' be wetted to improve cohesiveness or shredded prior to baling. Through compaction in a pressing chamber by a hydraulic ram, ' void spaces are reduced. The res lting contact between particles facilitates adhesion and interlocking . The degree IIS 214 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. of compaction is dependent upon the mechanical pressure ex- erted and the counter pressure developed in the compressed ' material . Densities ranging from 55 to 65 pounds/cubic foot can be achieved. Bale size can also vary, with a typical size ' being 5 ' x 4 ' x 3 ' . Wire binding may or may not be applied prior to disposal. ' The first full scale baling system was the Tezuka system developed in Japan several years ago. This system can crush, compress , and bale all mixed municipal waste including bulky ' items . It is a 3-step process consisting of pre-compaction, main compression, and final baling. Refuse volume reduction ' is reportedly one-tenth of original volume. American Solid Waste Systems, a division of American Hoist & Derrick Co . , employs a similar process at its 1,000 ' tpd press in St. Paul, Minnesota. A 3-step cycle is used to reduce refuse to 3 ' x 3 ' x 4 .5 ' bales, of approximately 1,700 pounds/cubic yards density. The Town of Smithtown currently operates a baling facility near the landfill in Kings Park. The baler is capable of pro- cessing up to 400 tpd. The baler facility is also equipped for recovery of ferrous metal through magnetic separation. The bales , compacted to a density of 1,600 pounds/cubic yard are ' deposited in the nearby landfill . This is the only landfill on Long Island which complies with the latest state regulations . ' 215 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , ADVANTAGE ' 1. Volume reduction reduces landfill space and transfer vehicle requirements. ' 2. No compaction equipment is needed at the landfill . 3. Baled refuse can be easily 'handled by specialized , equipment. 4. odors , fires, blowing paper:-, and gas generation are ' reduced. 5. As nuisance potential is reduced, cover requirements ' can be lowered. 6. Reduced settlement allows faster, broader reuse ' potential. 7. Trucks can safely drive ove in-place bales. , DISADVANTAGES 1. High costs compared to conventional sanitary landfilling. 2. Baling equipment requires substantial maintenance and ' repair work. 3. Baled refuse undergoes slow organic degradation, thus ' gas and leachate generationlcould go on for many years. 4. Many bulky items cannot be baled and some pre-sorting and special handling may be needed. ' 5. Technical problems can aril such as moisture extrusion , during compaction, shearing difficulties, and low co- hesive sustenance. 6. Eliminates recovery of reso rces within the refuse. SII ill 216 1 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 7 .1 .6 Shredding, Baling and Landfilling with Front End Separation This is a combination of all of the foregoing concepts. ' The advantages and disadvantages of shredding alone and bal- ing alone outlined previously apply on a selective basis to ' the concept of shredding and baling of the refuse. ' There are several other considerations which apply to the combined system. Shredding is the front end of most ' state-of-the-art recovery systems . Shredding produces a more aesthetically pleasing material, one that, due to lack of ' voids, results in more cohesive material when baled. ' Baling buys time in the landfill . Shredding and baling is an interim range, aesthetically pleasing answer to solid waste problems. A shredder-baler system has been designed for Atlanta, Georgia, where baled refuse originally was to be rail hauled ' approximately 100 miles to landfill . The rail haul portion has now been abandoned, and the shredder and baler construc- tion is nearing completion. The Town of North Hempstead, New York, has commenced a shredder-baler installation. The Town has a double priority ' in selecting this system: aesthetics and reducing landfill volume consumption. Shredding and baling provided the re ' quired solution to the problem. ' 217 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 7 . 1.7 Conventional Incineration with without Shredding and Metal Recovery , Originally modified from coal burning plants, modern incineration represents an evolutionary process which is , constantly changing to improve operational performance and ' meet more stringent environmental codes. In the 1970 ' s and 1980 ' s incineration represents o e of the few techniques ' which can dependably reduce volu es and conserve land. Modern conventional high quality incineration achieves max- ' imum volume reduction while protecting air and water from ' unnecessary contamination. Incinerator designs must be geared to the job. Of the ' three types of refuse furnaces - single chamber, cylindrical, batch feed; single or multiple cell, rectangular, batch feed; ' and continuous feed - the continuous feed fur6ace is the most adaptable to the goals of high q ality residue and minimum , air pollution. ' There are six types of grate system furnaces : 1) trav- eling grates, 2) rocker grates, 3) forward and 4) reverse ' reciprocating grates, 5) drum grates, and 6) rotary kiln. The first five types employ a rectangular primary combustion ' chamber followed by various downstream elements. The rotary ' kiln employs an inclined, horizontal rotating kiln furnace lined with refractory. The kil.nlrotates slowly, tumbling ' and advancing the material from one end to the other. The II 218 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. kiln has primarily been used for secondary burnout following ' combustion in continuous furnaces employing stokers. I:t is ' also used in pyrolysis. The hourly combustion rate in all of these incinerators ' is determined in the primary chamber while the secondary chamber provides the necessary furnace volume to complete ' combustion of volatile gases and to trap flyash. The air ' pollution control segment of the incinerator can include any one of a combination of such devices as settling chambers, ' cyclone collectors, impingement scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and fiberglass bag filters. ' The efficiencies of individual air pollution control devices are shown below. In combination as systems these ' can achieve removal efficiencies in the 99.8 percent range. ' Maximum Percent Type of Collector Demonstrated Efficiency ' Settling Chambers 35 Wetted Baffles 53 Cyclone Collectors 75-90 Direct Impaction Scrubbers 94-96 Electrostatic Precipitators 99 plus Bag Filters* 99 plus * Require extensive gas cooling to prevent damage to bags. ' Incineration has been successfully practiced in recent years in many facilities, including the Town of North Hemp- stead' s Roslyn Plant (inoperative at present) . This plant incorporates continuous type furnaces employing both traveling ' 219 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' The air pollution control sequence combines settling chambers, baffles, water sprays, and dry cyclone collectors. This system of devices enabled the incinerator as tested in 1967 ' to pass the 1970 N.Y.S. Air Pollution Code even though it was designed in 1964 . , Incineration has proven its dependability in solid waste processing when a plant has been properly designed and built, the input has matched the plant capacity, and the plant has ' been well maintained. Due to lack of proper air pollution control equipment, most of the incinerators on Long Island ' and around the country have failed to comply with the state/ federal air emission codes and subsequently have been forced ' to shut down. ' Conventional incineration may be coupled with shredding operation to improve the homogini y of solid waste and to ' accomodate processing of oversize bulky waste. Shredding also provides opportunity for rem Oval of ferrous metals prior ' to incineration. ADVANTAGESI ' 1 . Reduces solid waste volumes. 2. When operated well, disposes of the health problems associated with refuse accumulation. ' 3. Adaptable over a wide range of equipment capacities from domestic size to 6, 000 t d in municipal service. ' 4. Quality and inorganic nature: •f residue aid considerably in proper disposal in sanitary landfills and reduce water pollution and gas concentration. ' �I 220 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. s less landfill volume than an 5. Require Y other conventional processing technique. 6. Adaptable to recovery systems through heat energy reclama- tion and residue separation. 7. Possesses the best record of dependable and predictable volume reduction when properly designed and operated. ' DISADVANTAGES ' 1. High capital and operating costs. ' 2. Generates gaseous and solid combustion products which must be controlled. 3. Must have landfill for residue and noncombustibles. ' 4. Value of combustible materials, including paper, wood and chemicals, is usually lost. ' 7 .1 .8 Composting ' Composting of refuse is defined as "the aerobic, thermo- philic degradation of putrescible refuse by micro-organisms. " ' Using large volumes of oxygen, bacteria and other micro.-organ- isms stabilize putrescibles and kill pathogens, producing a ' uniform, relatively dry, humus-like material. Modern composting has its beginning in the 1920 ' s when attempts were made to mechanize and accelerate the aerobic ' decomposition process . European plants in Holland and Denmark were among the first composting facilities during that decade. ' Composting was introduced in this country as the Frazer Process ' and the Becari System. Current American composting is limited to a few non-sub- sidized commercial plants, pilot research facilities, and local municipal operations such as Scarsdale, using Windrow composting. ' 221 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' The prospects for successful composting in the United ' States have been hampered primarily by two factors : ' 1 . Composting at best represents only a partial solu- tion to high volume disposal problems . 2 . The economic viability of the process is determined ' by the sale price of the end product. Although composting is one of the oldest solid waste ' management practices, its full us has yet to be realized. The almost uniform record of fail re of commercial plants in ' the United States, coupled with tlie lessening percentage of ' food waste in refuse, indicates 1 'ttle promise for this sys- tem as the sole method for municipal refuse disposal although ' composting can be considered for satellite systems . ADVANTAGES , 1. Plants can be located near waste stream centers. ' 2. The process is applicable to sewage sludge and other organic refuse. ' 3. Finished compost can be used s an organic *soil con- ditioner. 4. Landfill volume requirements can be decreased by com- posting. 5. Composting can be adapted to lew separation and proces- sing systems for resource re:c very. 6. Windrow composting in the opea is a simple procedure. ' 7. Composting is recycling. DISADVANTAG S , 1. No adequate long range marketlfor compost exists. ' 2. Open storage of compost has caused public objection to odors and aesthetics. ' 222 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 3. Composting is only effective on organic refuse and repre- sents only a partial answer for solid waste disposal. 4. Toxic heavy metals must be controlled for long term applications. ' 7.2 ENERGY RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES ' 7.2 .1 Overview There has been accelerating interest in solid waste as ' a substitute for fossil fuels since 1973 . The concept :is not new but to date has been used sparingly in this country. At 1 present one major United States electric utility company is ' mixing solid waste with pulverized coal on an intermittent basis. Such systems, with and without a fossil fuel addi- tive, have been heavily and successfully used in major Western European cities for 20 years. In the late 1950 ' s, the high cost of fossil fuel coupled with lower wage rates relative ' to United States conditions, impelled cities in France, Germany, Holland, Switzerland and Austria to embark on solid ' waste to energy programs. Present local prices of fossil fuel and new currency rates now place the United States in a situation analogous to that in Europe 20 years ago. ' The East End communities' primary mission in solid waste management is to dispose of refuse in an economic, effective, ' dependable and environmentally sound manner . This goal can now be joined with the nation' s critical need for resource ' recovery. The conversion of solid waste to energy uniquely offers long term security and economy for the communities. ' 223 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Rising percentages of paper, plastic and the like in refuse have caused the Btu value per you d of refuse to increase ' steadily. It is now about equiva ent to 38 percent of bit- ' uminous coal and 27 percent of No. 6 fuel oil. Based on this equivalency, at $50 per ton for c al, for example, refuse has ' a $19 fuel value per ton. On the same basis, using attainable conversion efficiencies (coal-to- seful-energy conversion of , 80 percent, and a refuse-to-useful-energy conversion of 60 percent) , refuse would be valued. at $14 per ton. 7 .2 .2 Latent Energy in Refuse ' Mixed municipal refuse is now generally taken to have a latent energy (higher heating value) of 5,000 Btu/pound, as received, averaged on an annual basis. However, depending on the season and wet or dry weather, this value varies in ' the range of 4,000 to 6,000 Btu/pound and can dip as low as ' 3, 500 and peak as high as 6, 500 Btu/pound. Using demonstrated technology of direct combustion of 1 as-received refuse on continuous-ifeed grates in waterwall furnaces, one ton of refuse having a higher heating value of 5,000 Btu/pound can produce about 7,000 pounds of steam. This ' steam can be used for heating or, by the use of steam absorp- tion equipment, for cooling buildings. The steam may also , be used in commercial or industrial processes. Alternately, it is possible into generate electricity as a by-product of the thermal reduct:ilon of refuse. Here a ton 224 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' of refuse canroduce anywhere from 365 to 1 00 P y 0 KWH, depend- ing on refuse-to-electrical-energy system selection. The 365 KWH per ton figure is based on conservative application fof demonstrated technology. The higher level, approaching ' 1,000 KWH per ton, is predicated on evolving technology in various stages of development. Using the lower 365 KWH per ' ton figure, if all the refuse produced in New York State could be converted to electrical energy, it would satisfy ' over 10 percent of the needs of the State. ' 7 .2 .3 Demonstrated Technologies Demonstrated technologies are defined as technologies ' for which a proven track record exists. For the purposes of this report, they will consist of the following: ' 1. Low Pressure Steam Systems 2. High Pressure Steam Systems with Electrical Generation ' 3 . Modular Incineration with Low Pressure Steam Generation 7 .2 .3 . 1 Low Pressure Steam Systems ' These systems can either be of the waterwall type with or without back-end ferrous metal recovery; or of the re- fractory wall type with ferrous recovery and flue connected boilers. In the discussions that follow, reference will be made to the term "low pressure steam. " Low pressure steam ' here is defined as nominally in the range of 100 to 650 psig, with temperature of steam not to exceed 500 degrees F. These 225 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' steam pressures cover the range generally used for district ' steam distribution systems or utilization in large commercial, institutional or industrial facilities . The 500 degrees F ' temperature ceiling is intended to set a limit for steam temp- eratures in refuse-burning waste heat boiler plants. This is done to avoid boiler tube failures due to corrosive attack ' of refuse gas products of combustion. These failures are known to be more likely when the 500 degrees F limit is exceeded. Experience in the U.S. has demonstrated the technical feasibility and environmental acceptability of refuse disposal ' plants incorporating waste heat generation from the combustion of refuse on continuous-feed grates in waterwall furnaces pro- ' vided with electrostatic precipitators . However, specifically at Brainree, Chicago Northwest, ' Harrisburg, and in Canada at Mon real, the experience has been ' somewhat disappointing. These plants have been expensive to own and operate and, because insufficient attention was given to the development of dependable and profitable steam outlets, there was little or no revenue from sale of steam to offset their ' higher costs. ' Only at the Norfolk Naval Stat on in Virginia, the first waterwall furnace plant to be pl ced in operation in the United ' States in 1967, has the steam generated in an American plant of I, 226 1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. ' this type been put to acceptable use. At Norfolk it was made possible by interconnecting into the large naval base steam ' distribution system so that all steam generated in the refuse combustion plant is utilized in the naval base facilities, ' thereby saving the cost of fossil fuel which otherwise would ' be required. An alternate system which can be specified is direct com- bustion of as-received refuse on continuous-feed grates in refractory wall furnaces with flue connected boilers. ' If there is no steam customer the boiler plant simply ' need not be provided. For the waterwall furnace, however, since the grate system is contained within the waterwall furnace ' enclosure which serves as the radiant section of the boiler, steam is generated as long as refuse is burned on the grate. ' If steam cannot be used, it then must be condensed or wasted. ' In the alternate refractory wall furnace arrangement, if there is little or no demand for steam to justify the higher ' expense of the flue-connected boiler and waste heat steam aux- illaries, it is possible to construct the facility without the boiler plant and add it at a later date if and when needed. ' In order to synopsize the relative advantages and disad- vantages of the refractory wall and waterwall systems, the ' following brief comparison was formulated. 1 227 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , System A - Waterwall System B - Refractory Wa]_1 , F U R N A C E T R A I N Waterwall furnace with continuous- Refractory wall furnace with contin- , feed grate system. uou -feed grate system. Conditioning Tower. Secondary combustion chamber with ' afterburners. Electrostatic precipitator. Flue connected boiler. , Induced draft fan. Conditioning tower . Stack. Electrostatic precipitator. Induced, , draft fan. Stack. F E A T U R E S ' Waterwall enclosures do not require Refractory walls reradiate heat in ' refractory maintenance to the ex- furnace to maintain uniform combustion tent of System B. temperatures and provide complete com- bustion. ' Afterburners in neck of waterwall Secondary combustion chamber and after- furnace (transition between water- burners assure complete combustion of wall furnace enclusure and boiler soot and hydrocarbons in effluent gas ' convector section) assure complete stream for superior air pollution con- combustion of soot and hydrocarbons trol performance during furnace startups in effluent gas stream for superior and shutdowns and when refuse is wet , air pollution control performance and difficult to burn. during furnace startups and shut- downs and when refuse is wet and Flue connected boiler more adaptable , difficult to burn. for package shipment, reducing field erection time and labor costs. More steam production compared to Instillation of boiler plant may be System B. defered if there is no immediate steam ' dema d. If steam not required, plant is s mpler and less costly to own and ' oper te. Assuming prudent design and selection of equipment, the concept of a refractory wall furnace and flue connected boiler rates ' high. Essential elements are continuous-feed grate systems, afterburners in the secondary combust on chambers, the addi- tion of conditioning towers and electrostatic precipitators, the discrete design of refractory enclosure and supply air and control systems, waste heat boilers stecified for moderate in- ' let temperatures and low gas velociti s with wide in-line spacing of boiler tubes and adequate provision for soot blow- ing . ' 228 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' As indicated in the opening paragraph of this section,, ' both the refractory wall and waterwall units may be coupled with back-end ferrous recovery equipment. This back-end ' recovery equipment would be a rotating drum type magnetic sep- arator or any other suitable type to effectively separate ' ferrous metals from the residue. of course the overall viability of the low pressure steam systems is dependent upon securing a steam purchase agreement ' with a user who will consume a relatively large share of the total steam generated. Since low pressure steam systems cannot ' generate electricity, steam sales are the major source of funds to offset operating expenses. ' 7 .2 .3.2 High Pressure Steam Systems with Electrical Generation ' Unlike the low pressure steam systems which would be of the waterwall or flue connected type, the high pressure steam systems ' would normally use the waterwall type. High pressure steam is de- fined as steam pressure and temperatures normally used :in elec- trical utility power station thermal cycles for the production ' of electricity using condensing steam turbine driven electrical generators . These pressures are in excess of 650 psig, usually in the range of 700 to 1,450 psig. Corresponding temperatures exceed 500 degrees F and are usually between 850 degrees F and ' 1,000 degrees F. ' Since this system will generate electricity, a waterwall boiler is preferred due to the increased steam output relative to ' the flue connected type. In the high pressure steam system ' 229 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. category, the two most common systems are: , 1 . Mass fired waterwall incineration with Oversized , Bulky Waste (OBW) shredding and back-end ferrous recovery. 2 . Spreader stoker waterwall system with front-end ' separation and ferrous recovery. The mass-fired waterwall system is the successor to mass- , fired refractory furnaces, the type of unit built in the United States up until the mid 1960 's . A number of successful water- , walled boilers burning refuse in Europe were first put on-line , in the mid to late 1950 's . Some of these European boilers suff- ered corrosion in the waterwalls and in superheaters. The , newer European boilers and present water-walled units in the United States, such as those at Chicago, Norfolk, Oceanside and ' Eastman Kodak are excellent examples of improved designs for ' totally refuse-fired boilers . Operating efficiency is higher than the refractory-wall furnace and convective boiler combination, ' and control of the system is simpler and more reliable. Since the late 1960 's , a number of mas -fired systems have been put in- ' to operation and are running successfully. , The mass-fired incinerator tents to be a large and robustly built unit in order to be able Itc operate successfully utilizing ' unprepared MSW as a fuel. The s ortcomings of the system when compared with other types of tec nologies are recognized to be ' a lower availability resulting f om more frequent shutdowns, ' mainly caused by damage to the giates. Additionally, using un- prepared MSW as a fuel introduce ) cycles in steam-raising perfor- 230 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' mance caused by variations in the heat content of the MSW as ' collected. Mixing of the solid waste in the storage pit would reduce the impact of such variations in heat content to some ' degree, though not entirely. Merits of the mass-fired system are recognized to be the ' system's simplicity and proven track record. Refuse preparation ' not being required removes the need for costly equipment and associated building space and operating and maintenance costs. However, the mass fired system is normally equipped with a shredder for reducing large, oversized items such as tree stumps, ' couches, or other large combustible items in the waste stream. ' In addition, the mass fired system may be equipped with back- end ferrous recovery equipment. ' The spreader-stoker waterwall system offers some advan- tages over mass-fired technology. The use of a thin, fast-burn- ' ing, fuel bed provides rapid response to variations in load un- like that found in the mass-fired boiler . Spreader-stokers operate with a lower excess air requirement than mass-fired ' units, and with higher efficiencies. Because of front-end prep- aration, the distribution of fuel on the grate is more precise. It would be generally found that a spreader-stoker waterwall ' boiler would be somewhat smaller and correspondingly less costly than a mass-fired unit of equivalent heat input. The front-end preparation and tipping floor needed to assure that the boiler supplier' s fuel specifications are met usually incur additional capital and operating costs relative to similar ' 231 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' functions for mass-burning, which are usually more than offset , by lower boiler costs and higher perating efficiency. As previously mentioned, the spreader-stoker system requires ' that some front end preparation of solid waste be performed to prepare the refuse for firing. The exact front end preparation , processes will be discussed in greater detail in the section on ' refuse derived fuel production. However, briefly, the front end preparation flow scheme consists of the following: , Refuse Shredding Ferrous Metal Removal by Magnetic Separation , Disc Screens RDF Storage 7 .2 .3 . 3 Modular Incineration with Low Pressure Steam Generation , The terms "Modular Incineration" applies to units which have been constructed of integral components, one for the primary , chamber, one for the secondary chamber, and so on. Each component ' has been assembled and packaged in the factory for immediate on- site installation. Only electri al, fuel, water, and gas duct ' connections are required at the ''nstallation site. When the waste volume has exceeded the capacity of the installed units, addi- ' tional incinerators are incorporated to meet the increased d.e- ' mand. Since the additional incl erators are constructed and. function as modules, the integrated units become known as modular ' incinerators. These incinerators are generally of the mass fired, flue ' connected boiler type. The basic operational principles involve 232 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. the use of controlled or starved air combustion. The term ' "controlled air" denotes the control and regulation of the air flowing into the two combustion chambers. Whereas the air supplied to the conventional incinerators was uncontrolled, ' the velocity and volume supplied to the modular units is kept at a calculated minimum to improve the efficiency of the com- bustion process , to lower the horsepower of the fan motors, and to reduce the amount of particulates entrained in the exiting ' flue gasses. The air flow can be either preset to a calculated ' level based on the amount and the type of waste burned or continuously modulated to produce the optimum combustion with ' the varying system needs and chamber conditions. The steam produced by modular incinerators is character- ized as low pressure steam and therefore is not usable -to gen- erate electricity. The only available revenue stream for modular incineration systems is the sale of steam to nearby ' consumers. 7 .2 .3.4 Summary of Demonstrated Technologies The above demonstrated technologies have all had a proven ' track record of success . However, not all are appliable to the East End. Since there is no large steam customer, the :Low pres- sure steam systems are not applicable. The modular incineration systems are applicable because of their factory engineered nature and the small quantities of solid waste generated by the town on an individual basis. . The high pressure steam systems with electrical generation are most viable and will be evaluated in ' more detail in subsequent sections. 233 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' 7 .2 .4 Evolving Technologies Evolving technologies are defined as those technologies ' which have not been fully proven in full scale operation. They consist of the following: 1. RDF Suspension Firing of an Electrical Utility' s ' Boilers 2. Wet Fibre Extraction and Combustion 3 . Pyrolysis - ' 4. Ultra High Temperature Incineration 5. Hydrasposal Wet Pulp:i g System 7 .2 .4. 1 RDF Suspension Firing in an Electrical Utilitiy' s Boilers ' The RDF manufacturing system developed in the St. Louis Union Electric EPA - sponsored solid waste demonstration is ' being vigorously promoted on many fronts. In the current con- cept the refuse is first shredded and then, by means of an ' air classifier, is separated intc its combustible and non- , combustible fractions. The combustible fraction can then be passed through a secondary shredder to provide a confetti-like ' fuel or it may be further dried and chemically treated in a proprietary process to manufacture either a powder-like fuel. ' or pellets which may be stored for longer periods of time. ' The combustible fuel in St. Louis is used for auxillary firing in the Meramec coal-fired electric generating plant. The non- , combustible fraction may be sent to landfill or, if warranted, may be further processed for separation of ferrous metals, ' aluminum, copper, glass and other materials . ' The main distinction of the RDF fuel system is the re- covery of the energy in refuse irk a two step procedure. The func- ' 234 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. tion of separation is accomplished by the municipality or its ' agent and that of combustion is performed by a separate entity such as a utility or industrial company. The firing of refuse occur's in existing or new boiler facilities for the generation of steam for heating, cooling, and/or electricity. Besides the above mentioned demonstration facility, there are several other facilities now in design and construction stage which utilize the concept of suspension firing of RDF into existing boilers. One such facility recently went into ' operation in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The proprietary, powder- like RDF known as Eco-Fuel II, is manufactured at the Bridgeport ' Resource Recovery Facility designed, built and operated by Combustion Equipment Associates (CEA) . The RDF is burned as ' supplementary fuel at the existing boilers of the United ' Illuminating Company. The plant is designed to process 1,800 tpd of municipal solid waste. Manufacturers of different types of refuse derived fuel have claimed various characteristics for their product. Eco-Fuel ' II, for example, is said to have the following characteristics. ' Particle Size 1/4" to 100 Mesh Higher Heating Value 7500-8000 Btu/LB. Moisture Content Less than 2% by Weight Inorganic Content Approximately 5% by Weight Storage Life Indefinite Bulk Density Approximately 30 LB/cf Handling Properties Free Flowing Powder 1 ' 235 HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , The confetti RDF has the following approximate charac- teristics: harac-teristics: Gross Heating Value 5585 Btu/lb ' Moisture 20 Percent Ash 6 Percent Density 5 to 10 lb/cf loose ' 20 to 25 lb/cf Compacted burning refuse ' Experience to date in b g on grates in both European and American wat rwall boilers shows this system to , have three major drawback as follows: 1. To avoid excessive outages due to failure of boiler tubes , caused by attack from gas products of combustion from un- ' processed refuse burning on grates, it has been found pru- dent to limit boiler steam temperatures to about 500 degrees ' F. This is the major conclusion of an EPA-sponsored study undertaken by Battelle-Columbus through 1969-72 entitled, , "Fireside Wastage in Municipal Incinerators (Research Grants EP-00325 and EP-00325 1) . " The 500 degrees F temperature ceiling results in poor overall , thermal efficiencies for waterwall boiler systems in con- ' densing steam turbine applications used for generation of electricity; net heat rates range from 25,000 to 30,000 , Btu/KWH. These heat rates compare unfavorably with modern utility company station fossil fuel burning designs for the ' generation of electricity. The utilities achieve rates , 236 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. approximately 10 ,000 Btu/KWH, primarily by using higher steam temperatures, in the order of 1000 degrees F. The ' higher steam temperatures are obtained in superheater and re-heater sections of the boilers. ' 2. European designs of waterwall grate systems for generation ' of electricity from refuse have been oriented to achieve the maximum in energy recovery. Super heat and reheat steam ' temperatures in the order of 1000 degrees F are usual. This has provided good overall thermal efficiencies but an ex- acting penalty in outages due to boiler tube failures. Thus, suspension burning of a mixture of processed refuse ' with a fossil fuel in a modern utility company boiler, opera- ted with steam temperatures in the order of 1000 degrees F, ' holds forth the potential for achieving in a practical way, the maximum energy recovery from refuse and its utilization ' for the generation of electricity without recurring outages due to the cutting effects of the refuse gas products of combustion on the boiler tubes. The processing of the refuse by removing non-combustibles, re- ducing particle size, pre-drying, and its homogenization makes it a much more tolerable fuel for suspension firing ' in the modern utility boiler. Mixing the processed refuse gas products of combustion with the tamer fossil fuel gases 237 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. , within the boiler furthermore mutes the deleterious effects , that undiluted refuse gases may have on the boiler tubes. ' American waterwall-grate boiler installations up until the resent have been buillt without electric generation facil- ities. These installations are designed for steam temp- ' eratures below 500 degrees F and boiler tube failures have not been a recurring problem. Even with lower steam temp- ' eratures, these installations have an excellent potential , for efficient energy e:covery if the steam generated can be used in building h ating and air conditiioning systems ' or commercial and ind strial processes requiring low-temp- erature steam. To date, however, there has been little ' success in locating steam customers conveniently close to , refuse burning steam ources. 3. The waterwall-grate r fuse burning system has a limitation in its capacity for hand i.ng oversized bulky waste (OBW) . ' The moving grate syst is in a waterwall furnace are designed ' to incinerate the usu 1. household refuse. OBW materials often- times foul the grates or get hung up in the associated refuse ' feed and residue remo al systems. Certain wood products in the OBW, having cross sectional dimensions exceeding 2 ", are ' 238 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. not completely combusted in the usual 1-hour dwell time ' allowed for the material through the furnace. Even bundled newspapers, magazines and discarded books may not be com- pletely burned . ' The processing of refuse, as proposed for the study area, ' will provide for the shredding of the OBW. Thus, this material, which may otherwise have its energy recovery ' potential lost, is properly prepared for combustion in the utility company boilers. ' 7 .2 .4. 2 Wet Fiber Extraction and Combustion ' Since 1968, the EPA has been supporting the demonstrations of an innovative solid waste recovery and disposal system in Franklin, Ohio which utilizes wet mechanical processing for recycling and disposing of municipal solid wastes. ' The original purpose of the grant was to demonstrate a new system for separating and disposing of municipal solid waste. ' This system was developed by the Black Clawson Company, manu- facturers of paper mill machinery, and given the trade name "Hydrasposal System. " The Hydrasposal System utilizes an array ' of paper mill machinery to grind and pulp the solid wastes into ' a watery slurry and mechanically separate the non-grindables and non-combustibles. The non-combustibles were landfilled and the remaining pulped combustible material was burned in a fluid bed incinerator in the same manner as sewage sludge is burned. ' 239 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M C RP. , Black Clawson continued its developmental work and in 1970 ' Franklin was awarded a second grant to demonstrate a fiber re- ' covery system ( "Fibreclai System" ) which utilizes other paper mill type equipment to se axate reusable paper fibers from the ' pulped solid wastes. During construction of he Hydrasposal and Fibreclaim , systems, the Glass Contai er Manufacturers Institute announced , that it had completed a s ries of tests and trial operations on an equipment train which as capable of separating and recover- ' ing recyclable glass and l.uminum from one of the non-combustible reject streams at the Fra k:lin plant. Based on a proposal from ' GCMI to the City of Frank in, a supplemental award from EPA was ' granted to demonstrate th so-called "Glass Recovery System. " Noteworthy is the intim to relationship between Franklin' s ' solid waste processing pl rit and the adjacent regional sewage treatment plant which is perated by the Miami Conservancy Dis- tict. The sewage treatme t. plant effluent is used as the makeup ' water for the pulping ope ation in the solid waste processing plant, and the discarded ater from the solid waste plant is ' treated in the sewage treatment plant. Also, the sewage sludge from the treatment plant is burned in the fluid bed incinerator ' and the flyash captured by the air pollution control equipment ' is used as a settling agent in the sewage treatment plant. The Hydrasposal and Fibreclaim Systems have been operating ' since August 1971. The plant, processing 30 to 40 tons of 240 ' ' HOLZMACHER, MaLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. municipal solid wastes per 8 hour day, separates and recovers ferrous metals which are sold to a nearby steel company, and reusable paper fibers which are sold to a nearby roofing felt ' manufacturer. The non-recoverable organic materials, along with the sewage sludge, are burned in the fluid bed incinera- tor, and the non-recoverable inorganic material is landfilled. ' Black Clawson supplied most of the equipment for the Hydrasposal and Fibreclaim Systems, and they have been opera- ting the plant under a contract with the City. In 1973 an EPA contract was awarded to a Dayton, Ohio ' consulting engineering firm to perform a 15-month evaluation ' of the process . Meanwhile, Black Clawson has been actively pro- moting their process for installation in other communities. In ' 1974, the Town of Hempstead, New York accepted a bid to have the Hempstead Resources Recovery Corporation (HRRC) , a wholly ' owned subsidiary of Black Clawson, build a resource recovery ' facility which would enable the Town to dispose of some 2, 000 tons per day of refuse. However, after an unsuccessful shake- down period, in 1978 the plant encountered several operational and environmental problems and is closed as of this writing ' until further notice by the NYSDEC and EPA. ' 7 .2 .4. 3 P)�rolysis Pyrolysis is the physical and chemical decomposition of or- ganic matter brought about by the action of heat in an oxygen- deficient atmosphere. Its application to mixed municipal solid ' 241 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' waste is primarily to reduce the volume of waste requiring dis- posal and to recover latent energy in the form of usable fuel , gas, oil and steam. Municipal solid waste ''s over 80% carbonaceous matter and ' over 60% cellulosic by w ight. If cellulose is burned in an , oxygen-rich atmosphere, s is the case in incineration, car- bon dioxide gas is produ ed. This is the lowest or most re- , gressive ecological ener y level. This gas yields no positive contribution to energy r sources and can only be regenerated by , the carbon cycle of plant growth and fossilization. However , ' when the cellulose molecule is "burned" in an oxygen-free atmosphere, the produced pyrolysis gas is, with respect to , ultimate resources conservation, ecologically less regressive (Figure 7.6) . ' Pyrolysis, unlike incineration, is an endothermic reaction. , Heat must be applied to solid waste in order to distill off volatile compounds . In an oxygen-deficient atmosphere, instan- taneous heating causes cellulose molecules in organic refuse to explode rather than burn. In this explosion, as in any explosion, the molecule is randomly blown apart. Fragments of the molecule , form new organic compunds with simpler molecular structures-- predominantly methane, ca bon dioxide, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, ' and water. The thermal d gradation of cellulose is a complicated phenomenon; time, tempera tire, pressure and the presence of ' catalysts all affect prod c:t formation. , The product of pyrolysi ---solids, liquids and gases--are of 242 , ' FIGURE NQ 7-6 ' I CHLOROPHYLL PLANT CELLELOSE FOSSILIZATION + (LARGE TIME i CO21H29 GROWTH FACTOR) ' COAL,OIL NATURAL GAS RECLAMATION CO,CH4 RAW GENERATED COMBUSTION PYROLYSIS ' HZ,CH MATERIALS SOLID WASTE ' LOST THE CHOICE OF PRODUCTS ' INCINERATION CARBONACEOUS USED FOR THE OR RECOVERY WASTE P ODUCTS ECONOMIC AND RECYCLE ENVIRONMENT ' PYROLYSIS AND THE ENERGY CYCLE EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , ' SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILHOLZMACHER, MCLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./1.12M CORP. FARMIN D N.Y. ARMNVC3DAlE.N.Y. CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N.Y. NEWTON.N.J. ' 243 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. prime interest as source of energy as fossil fuel reserves ' dwindle and waste loads ise. In some systems recovered pyro- ' lytic fuels are of suff i ient quality that they can be substi- tuted for fossil fuels in existing off-site facilities. In , other systems, fuel is o lower quality and the cost..of trans- porting it cannot be jus ified. In such cases, the fuel can be used directly to prod ce electricity or steam. ' Advantages Pyrolysis can reduce w ste volumes requiring disposal by ' up to 97%. Pyrolysis can recover ost of the values in municipal solid waste in usable form. ' Pyrolysis is non-polluting and produces a sterile, class- ifiable residue . ' A pyrolysis installation requires no more land than an incinerator. i Estimated operating costs of pyrolysis are feasible and ' can be substantially offs is depending on market climate. Since pyrolysis is non- olluting and requires little land, ' a facility can be sited within a city, with resulting economies in haul costs . ' Disadvantages ' No record of proven per ormance in day-to-day municipal operation. ' Pyrolysis requires a hi It capital investment compared to landfill although compara le to incineration; also, interest rates ' are usually higher becaus of the risk capital involved. ' 244 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Insurance is required of adequate market demand for ' pyrolytic product quality and quantity. Current Applications of Pyrolysis ' There are at least ten different pyrolysis systems under ' development at this time. Five major processes are described below. ' a. Monsanto Landgard System A 1 ,000 tpd low temperature pyrolysis plant has been devel- oped for the City of Baltimore by Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, ' Inc. The Landgard system was constructed by Monsanto under a turnkey contract with moneyback performance guarantee provisions. ' Monsanto guaranteed plant availability at 85%, particulate emis- sions to meet local and Federal Standards, and residue putrescible content to be less than 0 .2 percent. ' The development of this system was begun by Monsanto in 1969 with the testing of 0.3 ton per day pilot plant in Dayton, Ohio. ' Shortly thereafter, a 35 ton per day prototype plant was put into operation in St. Louis County, Missouri. Data from this unit ' were used by Monsanto to design the Baltimore facility. ' The plant is built on a 5-acre industrial site about one mile south of the central business district. It handles all mixed municipal solid waste including tires and white goods ( see Figure 7-7 ) . All incoming waste is shredded to a 4 inch ' particle size and conveyed to a refractory-lined horizontal ' rotary kiln. About 7.1 gallons of No. 2 heating oil per in- ' 245 FIGURE Ns 7-7 t GENERATED. , SOLID WASTE RECEIVE ' a HANDLE SOLID WASTE SHREDDERS ' GAS SHREDDED PURIFIER SURGE ' BOILERS) PYROLYSIS RESIDUE WATER KILN QUENCH SCRUBBER STEAM ' EXHAUST FLOTATION FAN ' Q N O Z U. y DEHUMIDIFIER THICKENING MAGNETIC ' FILTRATION SEPARATION ATMOSPHERE CARBON GLASSY IRON CHAR AGGREGATE MONSANTO L NDGARD SYSTEM EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR 'TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVE HEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOL AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVIL N.Y HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON& MURRE L, P.C./1-12M CORP. FARMINGDALE. t N.Y. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N.Y. NEWTON.N.J. 46 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' coming ton of waste is combusted toP rovide heat for the ' pyrolysis reaction. In addition, about 40% of stoichiometric air is added to the reactor to allow some of the pyrolysis ' gases to combust and add additional heat to the unit. Off ' gases flow in the kiln counter-current to the flow of refuse, exit the kiln at about 1, 200 degrees F and are combusted in an ' afterburner. The hot afterburner exhaust gases pass through waste heat boilers that generate steam for sale. Boiler ex- haust gases are scrubbed, dehumidified, and released to the ' atmosphere. Pyrolysis residue is water quenched and ferrous metals ' separated. Water flotation and screening processes separate char residue, which is landfilled, from a glassy aggregate ' fraction which will be used for City asphalt concrete street ' construction. Approximately 30 percent of the heat energy in refuse is lost in the char, a disadvantage from the viewpoint ' of energy recovery. Another drawback is the system's demand for supplementary fuel oil. The requirement that all refuse ' be shredded may also reduce the usually high order of reli- ability associated with the combustion process . Until recently normal operations of the Baltimore Plant ' had been possible due to several environmental and mechanical problems. Monsanto is no longer associated with the project. ' The plant was taken over, modified and restarted by the city and is currently operating. ' 247 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M C ORP. t b. Garrett Flash P rol s ' s Process A 200 tpd demonstration project was designed constructed ' for the County of San Diego by Occidental Petroleum Corp. with the financial assistance f the EPA. ' Its key component is a low-temperature flash pyrolysis ' unit developed by the Garrett Research and Development Company. The block diagram is showa in Figure 7-8. This concept was ' originally tested in a sm 1.1 laboratory unit. Subsequently a 4 ton per day pilot plant was built on Garrett property in La ' Verne , California, and pe formed successfully. Mixed municipal solid waste is coarsely shredded to a 3 inch ' particle size and then air classified into two fractions: a ' light fraction consisting of paper and plastic, and a heavy fraction consisting of gl ss, metals, wood and stones . The ' light material is dried and shredded to fine particle size (practically a powder) pr 'or to flash pyrolysis at a temp- ' erature of about 900 degr es F. ' The pyrolysis reaction takes place in a transport reactor 30 inches tall and 8 inches in diameter. An oil-like liquid ' with a heat value about 75 percent that of No. 6 fuel oil will be condensed from the pyrolysis gases. This liquid is used as ' a supplementary fuel in an existing San Diego Gas and Electric ' Company boiler. The heavy waste fraction is processed further to separate ' ferrous metal and glass . Ferrous is separated by an electro- magnet and glass is extracted as a mixed-color cullet by froth ' flotation. Residual char with approximately 15 percent of ' the heat energy in the refuse requires landfilling. 248 ' FIGURE N0. 7-8 I I �gg S I� f i I f fG Ir I I- f DRYER GAS TO PURIFICATION ih AND RECYCLE SCREEN N FINE GRIND AIR RECEIVE GENERATED LASSFIE 8 HANDLE SOLID WATER TO PURIFICATION CHAR LD WAS WASTE M AND DISPOSAL ONDENSER PYROLYSIS REACTOR OIL CHAR INORGANIC PROCESSING SUBSYSTEM CLEAN MAGNETIC GLASS METALS GARRETT PYROLYSIS PROCESS EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. %AELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENCON& MURRELL, P.C./1.12M CORP. FARKRINGDALE,N.Y FIVERHECONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS -.EWTCN N N V NEWT .N J. I, 249/250 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' This system requires no external fuel and produces a stor- able, transportable fuel that may be marketed. However, raw waste must be shredded to a very fine size, which is a dis- advantage. The process of converting the refuse to a market- able oil has a poor efficiency, estimated at 37 percent. ' Combined with the 80 percent expected efficiency of firing the ' oil in a boiler, the overall efficiency is close to 30 percent, considerably less that the 60 pecent efficiency of a continuous- feed grate system burning refuse in a waterwall furnace. The project' s operations are currently suspended after in- itial testing. Futher possible funding and modifications are ' being considered. e. Union Carbide Oxygen Refuse Converter ' Of the various high temperature processes also being developed, Union Carbide is the most promising entry. All of ' these processes, which have in common the use of a vertical shaft ' cupola type furnace and temperatures in the order of 3000 de- grees F, slag refuse to an inert, innocuous, lava-like solid ' which when quenched in water fractures into granular frit. Maximum refuse volume reduction on the order of 97% can be ' achieved. ' Union Carbide' s process, called the PuroxTM system, yields a viable fuel gas and a sterile, compact residue . The system ' requires no shredding or waste separation. Bulky waste, how- ever, must be reduced to fit through charging doors. Original ' pilot plant work on this system was done in Tarrytown, New ' York on a 10' tall packed-column retort having a capacity of ' 251 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M ORP. ' 5 tons per day. A 200 ton per day test facility is located in ' South Charleston, West Virginia. This facility began operation , in 1974 for the purpose of confirming engineering scale-up criteria, obtaining operating data and experience on mixed ' municipal solid waste, and confirming projected economics. Refering to the block diagram in Figure 7-9, refuse is fed ' into the top of a vertical shaft furnace through a receiving ' bin and a feed lock device. It passes through a drying zone at the top, a thermal de omposition zone in the middle, and a ' combustion and melting zone at the bottom. Oxygen is injected into the combustion and melting zone, firing a temperature ' high enough to melt noncombustibles in the refuse. Molten ' inorganic slag, representing from 2-3 percent of incoming re- fuse volume, is discharged as residue. Metal can be recovered ' in molten form or separated out of the slag. Water quenching breaks the slag into frit . ' The hot combustion gases cooled by endothermic pyrolysis ' reaction ascend through the descending refuse, together with gaseous products from the thermal decomposition of organic ' waste. While the gases no longer have sufficient thermal energy to pyrolyze waste, they are hot enough to vaporize re- ' fuse moisture and volatilize waste producing a fuel gas. This ' gas leaves the furnace at a low temperature with a heat value of about 300 Btu per standard cubic foot . Approximately 80% ' by weight of incoming refuse is converted into fuel gas . The remaining 20% is reduced to residue. ' 252 ' r FIGURE NO 7-9 l R t' RECEIVE GENERATED B HANDLE SOLID SOLID WASTE WASTE NEUTRALIZING AGENT OFF GAS OIL OFF ELECTROSTATIC WATERDVAPOR GASWE OFF PRECIPITATOR SHAFT GASACID FURNACE ABSORBER 01L OXYGEN MOLTEN METAL a GLASS NEUTRALIZED 3 ORGANIC SALTS IN SOLUTION WATER FUELN CONDENSER SLAG QUENCH GAS COLLECTOR WASTE GRAINULATED WATER METAL 9 GLASS UNION CARBIDE OXYGEN CONVERTER EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELV ILLI,N.Y. HOLZMACHER. McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FAfiMRK30ALE.14 Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERMEAO NY, NEWTON.N J. 253/254 �I, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. The gas passes through an electrostatic precipitator, an ' acid absorber and a condenser to remove acids, moisture, and particulate matter . This cleaned fuel gas is low in sulphur content and can be upgraded to quality heating gas . The ' limitation on use of this gas is the extra cost of compressing it for storage and shipment. Energy consumption per million ' Btu' s to compress it will be 3 .1 times greater than for natu- ral gas. As a result, Union Carbide engineers feel that gas markets should be no more than one or two miles from the pro- ducing facility and that only short term storage should be contemplated. ' The reason that the Purox gas can be recovered for off- site use is that by using oxygen instead of air, the combust- ible gas product is not diluted by the 79 percent inert nitrogen ' present in air. This does require the use of an oxygen supply, however, which can be relatively costly for small scale plants. ' Pyrolysis System Products A sampling of the useful products recovered in the pyrolysis process follows . ' Monsanto-Landgard In this system, off-gases resulting from pyrolysis and com- bustion reactions occurring in the kiln are transmitted to an afterburner or gas purifier. These gases have a heat content ' 255 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. of 75-100 Btu per standard cubic foot. In the afterburner, additional air is introduced allowing them to burn to , completion. Hot combustion gases then pass through modular water tube boilers (heat exchang rs) to recover steam which ' is then utilized to drive electr' cal turbines . ' Garrett The liquid fuel obtained from this system is a complex, , highly oxygenated, organic fluid that differs in many respects from petroleum-derived fuel oil. At 0 .1 to 0 .3 percent by ' weight, its sulfur content is a good deal lower than even the , best residual oils . However, nearly twice the weight of this oil is needed to obtain an equivalent amount of energy as No. ' 6 fuel oil . Because it is lower in both carbon and hydrogen, and con- ' tains much more oxygen, the average heating value is about 1.0,500 , Btu per pound compared with 18, 200 Btu per pound for a typical No. 6 . However, fuel oils are generally sold on a volume basis, , and since the specific gravities of pyrolytic oil and No. 6 are 1.30 and 0.98 respectively, a comparison of heating values is ' much more favorable to the former when expressed on a volumetric ' basis. A gallon of pyrolytic oil contains about 76 percent of the heat energy available from a gallon of No. 6. ' Pyrolytic oil is more viscouE than a typical residual. However, its viscosity falls off more rapidly with temperature ' 256 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' than does that of No. 6 fuel oil. Hence, although it must be ' stored and pumped at higher temperatures than are needed to handle heavy fuel oil, it can be atomized and burned quite ' well at 240 degrees F. This is only about 20 degrees F higher than the atomization temperature for electric utility fuel ' oils. ' It has been found that pyrolytic oil can be blended with several different No. 6 oils . Successful combustion trials ' have been performed with blends containing 50 and 25 percent by volume of pyrolytic oil with a No. 6 from an Alaskan crude. ' Two precautions must be taken in the utilization of pyro- lytic oil. It tends to be thermally sensitive about 200 degrees F and, if held at such temperatures for extended periods, will ' undergo changes which adversely affect viscosity. It is also somewhat corrosive to mild steel at 200 degrees F, although ' no attack upon 304 or 317 stainless coupons could be observed. ' Blending with No. 6 counteracts both its mildly acidic prop- erties and its tendency to suffer with excessive heating. ' Union Carbide The gas resulting from this pyrolysis reaction is a clean ' burning fuel comparable to natural gas in combustion charac- teristics, but with a heating value of about 300 Btu per cubic foot. It is essentially free of sulfur compounds and nitrogen oxides. This fuel burns at approximately the same temperature as natural gas. The volume of combustion air needed per ' 257 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , million Btu' s is about 80 percent of that needed for natural. gas. , The volume of combustion products is about 90 percent of natural , gas . Because these characteristics are so close to natural gas, it should be possible to substitute this gas for natural gas in t an existing facility. The only plant modification would en-- tail enlarging the burner nozzle because a larger volume of ' gas must be introduced into the furnace in order to obtain the ' same heat input. This gas can also substitute for oil or coal in utility boilers or other large heat consuming operations. ' Application of Pyrolysis to the Study Area The application of pyrolysis to solid waste as a disposal ' and resource recovery method is a relatively new, unproven con- ' cept. Until recently pyrolysis has been mainly used for con- verting wood to charcoal and for ore beneficiation. To date, , with the exception of the City of Baltimore, no full-scale commercial pyrolysis facility has been in day to day municipal ' operation. With no reliable performance history, reported , costs associated with pyrolysis remain theoretical and subject to substantiation. Likewise, judgement on other merits of these ' innovative combustion processes must be withheld until the results of current demonstrations and prototype applications have been ' fully assessed. 7 .2 .4.4 Ultra High Temperature Process ' a. American Thermo en High Temp rature Process ' This company offers a system which was tested on municipal refuse in a semi-commercial scalE pilot plant in Whitman, , 258 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. Massachusetts . A 6 t d commercial plant has been sold to a ' government agency. In this system, refuse feed volume is re- duced to about 3 to 5 percent of its original volume by complete ' burning of all combustible materials, largely in suspension, ' and by the melting down of all metal and glass objects. The melt-down is accomplished at temperatures of about 3000 degrees ' F by burning a relatively small amount of auxiliary fuel, either oil or gas. ' Fuel gases are combusted in a waste heat boiler generating ' steam and cooling the gases. This steam is used to run tur- bines which drive in-plant equipment or generate electricity. ' Excess steam over and above that required to make the plant self-sufficient is available for export. All steam generated ' constitutes a recovered resource. ' b. Torrax High Temperature Incineration Torrax Systems, Inc. , a division of the Carborundum Corp- oration, has developed a high temperature solid waste disposal system using 2000 degrees F preheated combusion air provided by a large gas-fired blast heater. Hydrocarbon rich gases from the furnace are combusted into a secondary combustion ' chamber and flue gases pass into a waste heat boiler for low pressure steam generation. A 75 tpd plant has been in intermittent operation in Erie ' County, New York since 1972 . In December 1974, however, the County voted to abandon the Torrax experiment as economically ' unfeasible for the region. ' 259 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 7 .2 .4. 5 Hydrasposal - Wet Pulping System , All the mechanical functions of this proprietary process have been observed at the Franklin, Ohio test facility. Recent , observations have been made at Hempstead, Long Island, and it ' is intended that these continue until the end of the study period. Figure 7-10 shows, in block diagram form, the arrange- ' ment of system unit processes and system material flow. The receiving facilities for this system are considered similar to those for the mass-fired boiler alternates because ' of the large quantities of refuse to be handled. Pit storage and crane transfer to process infeed conveyors is envisioned ' as one satisfactory method for handling the incoming raw refuse. The Hempstead plant presently uses pit storage and front-end ' loaders working within the pit . ' The finished fuel is conceived to be pneumatically trans- ferred to a large storage area where it is stockpiled. A ' retrieval system of front-end loaders, mechanical conveyors, and a final pneumatic conveying system to boiler surge hoppers ' would complete the fuel transfer. ' Major Processing Components Hydro-pulper. This unit has. been scaled up to 20 feet ' in diameter from the small system at the Franklin, Ohio plant. Apparently, the design horsepower and performance has been ' confirmed at Franklin and is adequate for the 800 tpd proces- sing rate at Hempstead. More running time must be gained and observations made when Hempstead, Plant is once again placed in ' operation. 260 ' ' FIGURE NO.7-10 W = oN �� Ua J Jw nyf O ZOH +[6` O_ O WUZ J J CL IL W N a N Z O mw F W WpYWW x*w t Y J O N CWCO sy ofdo nW N ' O W Ud < O W Z = J N ' K = K K W 0 � � � LL N Q z Z J W4 (7 < Z 1 Y Y x ' al Ec cc N ' W N K N W — g o j o ' U 0a IL :)Ix U W F K =W W~ rL d OJ CpCp KF 40 4i aJ F LL ' WET PULPING SYSTEM EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , ' SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. LE, HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON&MURRELL, P.C. /1-12M CORP. FARMINK3DALE. N.V CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N.V. ' NEWTON,N.J. 261 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Liq uid Cyclones. These cyclones accept slurry from the ' hydro-pulper. At Franklin, a high degree of fine grit in the ' underflow had been observed, along with the normal load of inerts. This results in a clean fiber in the cyclone overflow ' and a low ash content in the fuel . Experience at Franklin ' indicated aggravated wear in the cyclone . The use of "Nihard" , a cast-iron alloy and some rubber 'Lining in the cyclone head ' was discussed for future plants. More observations are necessary because this is also a key element in the quality of the final ' fuel product. ' Dewatering Equipment. The hydro-denser thickener and cone press are devices found in the paper industry and have been ' observed to function well at Franklin. The dewatering effic- iency is important to this process therefore, the proper func- tioning of the equipment is vital to the adequacy of the final product. A difference of 2 or 3 p rcent in moisture content ' of the fired fuel affects boiler a ficiency and material- ' handling characteristics. Spreader-Stoker Firing. Prior to the startup of the ' Hempstead Plant, spreader-stoker firing of the Black-Clawson fiber fuel produced at Franklinviras conducted in a B & W bark- ' burning boiler at the Nekoosa Paper Co. , Ashdown, Arkansa. ' Representatives from the Detroit Stoker Company, who witnessed the combustion tests, have provide a verbal report which notes , i 262 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. that the material handled well from a shallow bin on the ' boiler front. The distribution of fuel of 55 percent moisture ' from air-swept spouts was good in a boiler of approximately the same size as at Hempstead. Ash handling was found easy in ' the plant. Undergrate air at 550 degrees F was used during the eight-hour test, which was supervised by personnel from Babcock and Wilcox Co. , Inc. and the Detroit Stoker Co. ' The present boilers at Hempstead were observed last year . One of the boilers was operating at approximately one-third ' load, therefore, it was not possible to evaluate firing at average or peak duty. One of the major reasons given for the ' limited load was that the pneumatic ash conveyor system is in- operative, is being modified, and that ashes were being re- moved by manual means. From what could be observed, the distribution of fuel on the stoker was uniform and coverage was fairly complete. Never- theless, firing at a rate not much greater than 30 to 40 per- cent of rating did not produce a representative fuel bed. At the time of observation, it was noted that the turbine generator ' was producing 6 .5 mw (megawatts) of electrical power. The visit to Hempstead and studies of spreader-stoker ' boiler drawings of other refuse-fired boilers by Babcock and Wilcox give the impression that the installation at Hempstead ' 263 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , is well designed regarding the fuel feed system and that the ash removal design deficiencies are correctable. Additional ' observations will be made as we ave noted regarding other major components of the system. Spreader-stoker firing of ' the pulpy, fibrous fuel in the installation and of mechanically ' shredded, screened refuse constitutes an important combustion technique which qualifies for further investigation. ' Materials Recovery All of the heavy media equipment was operative and the ' scale-up of equipment sizes from the devices at Franklin ' was readily apparent. It is considered that the aluminum re- covery system will perform effectively. ' Despite reasonably good performance of most of the Black Clawson equipment, the vibratory conveyors originally instal- ' led malfunctioned and required replacement at an early date. ' Different conveyor designs have proven more effective. 7 .2 .4.6 Summary of Evolving Technologies ' Although a number of these technologies show significant promise, their lack of full scale proven success and experi- ences at the existing facilities such as .Hempstead pre- ' cludes our recommending these processes further. However, should the state-of-the-art improve in the near future, this ' recommendation might change. 264 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 7 .3 REPORT ON RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY Appendix 4 provides an up-to-date summary of various re- source recovery projects currently in operation or nearing completion throughout the United States. This information ' was obtained from the September 1980 Bulletin published by ' National Center for Resource Recovery Inc. Also presented in the list are the locations where modular incineration ' technology is employed for resource recovery. 7 .4 RESOURCE RECOVERY AROUND THE WORLD ' In a report published by EPA, in November 1979 , detailed ' evaluation of the existing refuse-fired systems in Europe was presented . Based on this report, a summary of the ' existing systems in Europe and Japan follows: West Germany (FGR) has the most systems ( 39) of any ' European country. The Germans have concentrated on steam for electrical production, district heating and for industrial processes. ' Denmark has (35) systems. Unlike the Germans, most Danish systems supply hot water for district heating. France with 26 systems but none produce hot water. Comparatively France has led developments in sludge drying and destruction with 6 systems. Steam for ' electricity production and district heating is a common energy requirement. ' Switzerland with 26 systems is ranked third behind Germany and the U. S.A. in production of electricity. Both steam and hot water district heating are prevalent. ' Italian systems produce steam for electrical production or for only internal use. ' Swedish systems supply hot water for district heating and government owned hospitals. ' 265 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , Japan has municipal waste twice as wet (55 percent H20) ' and three times more plastics 10-15 percent) than waste in America. As a result, energy left after water evap- oration is severely limited. in addition, the high presence of chlorine in the plastics potentially causes ' "high temperature chloride corrosion" . This limits the steam temperature possible. liftile Japan has more systems (85 ) and more installed tonnagE capacity 44, 581 tons , than any other country, the us able and sellable energy output is rather small. Our records show that only 4 of these 85 systems produce enough high temperature ' steam for electrical productior and sale. Twelve ( 12 ) systems produce only enough electricity for internal use. Heating swimming pools ( ) green houses (3 ) and public facilities (18 ) are other energy uses. About ' 61 systems produce hot water f r internal or other un- identified uses. Comparison ' The United States (with 55 systems) has the broadest ' range of energy uses for systems s between 1896 and 1983 . Interestingly, 31 of the Unite States systems have been major pilot plants or lar a demonstrations. This highlights a major difference between the U.S.A. and ' most other countries. The Americans have spent money looking for new systems while the remainder of the world has built systems based on the proven "European ' Technology" . Of note is the absence of hot water sys- tems in the U.S. This is consistent with U.S. district heating practice of using onl' steam ( in contract to ' Denmark and Sweden) . The single most common American energy use is production of electricity. The inventory includes 9 systems producing a methane based gas or pyrolytic oil . The inventory purposely excludes another ' 75 or so syrolysis liquifactio , gasification, etc. developments that are not commercially relevant to in- clude. , 1 266 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' SECTION 8.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE STUDY AREA HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 8.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE STUDY AREA 8. 1 INTRODUCTION ' In the previous section, we have identified and discussed various solid waste management technologies available on ' today' s market. Some of those technologies are well proven, whereas some other technologies are evolving and are at a ' development stage. In this section, we will discuss in more ' detail only those technologies which we believe are well demon- strated or nearing such stage, and subsequently we will develop ' specific solid waste management alternatives for the five town study area. After the identification of the various alterna- tives, a comparative evaluation of these alternatives will be ' presented which then will be utilized to develop our final recommendations. ' 8. 2 TECHNOLOGY SELECTION Based on the evaluation of technological, operating per- formance and track-record of various existing resource recovery ' facilities around the country, we have selected the following technologies for the East End Communities. ' 1. Non-Energy Recovery Technology - Source Separation - Controlled Conventional Sanitary Landfill 2. Energy Recovery Technology ' - Mass Fired Waterwall with Electrical Generation ' 267 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' - Spreader Stoker Waterwa 1 with FE Shredding and Electrical Generation - RDF Preparation and Combustion in LILCO' s ' Utility Boilers - Modular Incineration with Steam Generation , 8. 2.1 Non-Energy Recovery Technologies t The two technologies selected for the East End area have already been discussed in depth in the previous section. , As mentioned before, all five towns are presently engaged in sanitary landfilling practices. Although the future of ' even a controlled conventional .sanitary landfilling appears ' bleak for Long Island Communities, we have included this method of solid waste disposal mainly for comparative pur- poses. Although source separation is not currently practiced by any of the five towns, due to its increasing popularity ' we have presented an evaluation of this alternative. ' 8. 2. 1 . 1 Evaluation of a Source Separation Program for East End Service Area Previously, we have described source separation as a re- source recovery technology and :i s associated advantages and ' disadvantages. In the following pages, we have evaluated a source separation program which could be specifically applied , to the five town study area. Our evaluation includes an ex-• ample showing various cost eleme is of a source separation ' program. I 268 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' Example of Source Separation Feasibility Analysis The following criteria were taken into consideration in our evaluation. ' 1. All costs and credits apply to 1980. 2. Secondary material recoverable as a percent of ' total solid waste (182, 500 tpy in 1980) . Newsprint: 5. 40% 9, 855 tpy Aluminum: 0. 21% 385 tpy Scrap Iron: 0. 6 % 1, 095 tpy TOTAL 11, 335 tpy ' 3. No markets for glass and tin cans exists at present. Only detinned metals can be marketed. ' 4. Revenues from sale of secondary materials are: Newsprint: $ 15 .00/ton delivered ' Aluminum: 350.00/ton delivered Scrap Iron: 50.00/ton delivered ' S. Savings due to reduced disposal costs $5. 00/ton based on existing disposal methods. ' 6. Delivery costs are based on 100 mile round trip distance. That is the market is located within 50 mile radius . ' 7. Source separated materials are collected and brought to a central location by separate trucks specifically designed for such purposes. ' 8. No state aid is assumed. ' 269 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , SOURCE SEPARATION COST ANALYSIS - FIVE EASTERN TOWNS ' COLLECTION COSTS ' Capital Costs: 5 Collection Trucks @ $40,000 $200,000 ' Storage Containers 50,000 Total Capital Cost $250,000 ' Annual Capital Cost ( 7 Years @ 10%) $ 51,350 Annual Operating Costs : ' Collection Crews @ $30, 000/C ew $150,000 Benefits and Overtime 75,000 ' Fuel, Maintenance, Repairs Licenses & Insurance 145,000 Total Annual Operating Cost $370,000 ' Total Annual Capital & Operating Cost $421,350 ' Unit Collection Cost = $37 .20/ton Delivery Costs (50 TPD, 100 Miles Roundtrip) , Capital Costs: 3 Tractors @ $50,000 $150,000 ' 3 Trailers @ $25,000 75,000 $225,000 ' Annual Capital Cost $ 46, 200 Annual Operating Costs : ' Drivers @ $15 ,000 $ 45,000 Benefits and Overtime 22, 500 ' Fuel, Maintenance, Repairs Licenses & Insurance 55,000 Total Annual Operating Costs $122,500 ' Total Annual Operating & Capital Cost $168,700 Unit Delivery Cost = $14.80/ton ' Total Collection and Delivery I Cost: $52 .00/ton , 270 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Annual Revenues from Sale of Secondary Material Newsprint: 9,855 tpy x $ 15 .00/ton = $147, 900 ' Aluminum: 385 tpy x 350 .00/ton = 134, 750 Scrap Iron: 1,095 tpy x 50 .00/ton = 54, 750 ' Total Annual Revenue $337, 400 Credit for Reduction in Disposal Cost ' 11, 335 tpy x $5 .00/ton $ 56, 700 Total Annual Credit $394, 100 ' Credits - $/ton = $34.80/ton ' Net Cost of Source Separation = $17. 20/ton Conclusions ' 1. Source separation in the above example is not cost- effective due to: ' a. Additional cost of collection of source separated materials. ' b. Poor revenues from sale of secondary materials . C. High delivery costs due to remote location of markets. 2. Source separation could become feasible when: ' a. Additional collection costs can be reduced by having public bring the source separated materials to a central location. This re- quires sound and dependable public partici- pation. b. Market conditions improve to yield higher ' revenues . C. Landfill costs become prohibitively high. In the above example, if the disposal costs were as high as $22/ton with other parameters remaining constant, the source separation costs would breakeven. ' 271 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' t 3. Even if source separation is proven cost effective, ' only a small reduction in solid waste quantities is generally experienced. The remaining waste must ' be disposed of by an alternative method. In the example above, source separation reduced the solid waste quantities by merely, 5 percent. Such small t reduction in waste stream w uld not require design changes of a resource recovery facility. 4. By way of examining the exiting conditions it does ' not appear practical or fea ible to consider source separation program for the! tudy area. However, the market conditions may chang in the future to warrant ' further consideration of su h program. A careful watch of the market-pulse is therefore recommended. Our recommendations also in Jude increased effort on the part of the town officials to encourage public ' participation. 8. 2. 2 Energy Recovery Technologies ' Although already discussed in, hapter 7, we have presented a more specific description of these technologies in this ' section. 8. 2.2 .1 Mass-Fired Waterwall with Electrical Generation ' A section through a typical mass-fired waterwall energy ' recovery system is shown in Figure 8. 1. Municipal solid waste is delivered by collection ruck or transfer trailers , and discharged into a receiving pit. From the pit, the refuse is transferred by overhead crane to a charging chute. ' The refuse flows continuously from the charging chute onto t the furnace grate where it is burned. Radiant and convec- tive heat from combustion is used to generate steam. Pro- ' ducts of ' combustion pass through an electrostatic precipitator 272 ' FIGURE NO.8-1 ii 4 t' Steam i f CONDITIONING TOWER BOILER Stack ELECTROSTATIC CRANE PRECIPITATOR TIPPING I.D. FAN ROOM WATERWALL FURNACE ® Magnetic Separator REFUSE STORAGE Ferrous Metals PIT Residue Truck For Sale TYPICAL MASS FIRED WATERWALL RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE.N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON&MURRELL. P.C./H2M IN CORP, FIAMGOALE.NY PoVE%4EAD.N Y. CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON,N J 273/274 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' where hot gases are cleaned to comply with air pollution control codes prior to being discharged from the stack . ' Ferrous metals could be collected from the boiler residue, ' and the remaining ash and fly ash is landfilled. The furnace charging system limits the maximum size of any single item to be incinerated. Such oversized items such as tree stumps, couches, and other large combustible ' items in the waste stream are collected in a special area ' on the tipping floor. On a regularly scheduled basis, the oversized bulky refuse is fed through a shredder for size reduction. The shredder discharges into the storage pit for later transfer by crane to the furnace charging systems . ' MSW Receiving and Storage ' Vehicles discharge collected MSW into the storage pit, which is sized to allow continued firing of the system over weekends and holidays. A tipping floor allows ample space for maneuvering and an efficient flow of traffic. Bays are provided on the edge of the storage pit to allow the discharge of waste from collection vehicles. Free water in the storage pit is drained out by gravity ' across a sloped floor through vertical openings and bar screens in the pit wall. The function of this screen is to retain any solids in excess of storage pit sump pump safe ' handling size. 275 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' The storage pit is protected by a fire-smothering system ' utilizing carbon dioxide or a similar inert gas system. Smaller fires could be extinguis ed with the use of fire ' hoses• Bi-weekly, the pit is emptied cleaned and deodorized , by cleaning down in sections. Furnace Charging System The furnace charging system is designed to transfer MSW , from the storage pit to the furnace charging hoppers . This operation includes mixing and stacking of MSW and rejection of unsuitable objects from the pit . ' The system is comprised of overhead traveling bridge cranes, each equipped with a grapple bucket. Each crane is ' operated from its own bridge-mounted cab. The crane operator could open, close, raise and lower the bucket while moving t in two directions: bridging and trolleying. "Bridging" is , travel along the length of the p t; "trolleying" is travel across the width of the pit. I To support proper burnout and attain maximum heating value, refuse being transferred from the pit to the charging ' hoppers should be as dry and as intermixed as possible. ' Mixing is achieved utilizing the traveling bridge cranes. Stacking of refuse is required to utilize all of the ' length, *width, and depth of the refuse storage pit. This allows for a backlog for continu us night and weekend burning. 1 276 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' Unsuitable objects may inadvertently be dumped in the refuse storage pit. These objects are normally removed in order to prevent possible damage to the furnace . MSW is burned on grates with underfire and overfire air fans supplying combustion air to the furnace . An induced ' draft fan is utilized to draw flue gases through the boiler, economizer and electrostatic precipitator and discharge it ' into the atmosphere through chimneys. Residue from the in- cinerators is quenched and discharged onto apron-type con- veyors. All make up water to the boiler is softened, de- aerated and preheated. The furnace is designed on the basis of the required ' plant throughput. The steam is generated on a 24 hours/day, ' 7 days a week basis . Boilers consist of a top steam drum and a mud drum, boiler tubes and waterwalls. Flue gases ' from the boiler pass through the economizer section to cool the gases and heat feedwater. Boilers are also furnished ' with auxiliary burners sized to produce the full steam rating. ' The electrostatic precipitators are furnished to remove par- ticulates entrained in the combustion gas prior to discharge ' into the atmosphere through the chimney. The precipitator is selected to meet all PSD (Prevention of Significant De- terioration) air pollution control regulations. 277 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. OBW Shredding The mass-fired waterwall system is generally accompanied ' by an OBW Shredding operation . rhe shredders are designed ' to :shred oversized items such as household furniture, chairs, sofas, tree limbs, tree trunks, flooring, siding, lumber, , tires, etc. The shredded material is conveyed to the storage pit and mixed with general waste and burned in the boilers. Back-End Ferrous Metal Recovery ' At the- end of the residue conveyer, a magnetic separator will be installed to recover ferrous metal from the residue.. The metal is sold to salvage dealers and the residue is transported to a landfill. t Electrical Generation ' The steam from the boiler will be utilized for inplant usages and electrical power generation. The steam conditions ' at the inlet of the steam turbine will be approximately 650 PSI and 750 degrees F. Of the total power generated by the ' system, about 10 percent will be used for the plant operation and the remaining will be sold to LILCO. , Material Balance and Energy Flow , Figure 8-2 shows the process low and diagram material balance for a 730 tpd mass fired waterwall system. This , tonnage represents the five town combined peak MSW loading ' for 1985. As shown, the residue requiring landfill is ap- proximately 15 percent of the input. Figure 8-3 depicts the , energy flow for the years 1985 a id 2005 corresponding to the peak MSW loadings . , 278 ' ' MSW FIGURE N° 8-2 ' 1985 730000%) 73 ' OVERSIZED MSW BULKY RECEIVING ow WASTE BUILDING 73(10%) SHREDDER 730000%) ' ELECTRICITY FOR SALE ELECTRICITY MASS GENERATING (v FLUE GASES FIRED FACILITY WATERWALL ' INCINER- ATORS STEAM FOR ELECTRICITY ' INPLANT FOR 148 (20.3%) USE INPLANT USE AIR FERROUS FERROUS POLLUTION METAL 47 (6.4%) METAL CONTROL RECOVERY FOR FLUE FACILITIES FACILITY SALE GASES ' TO STACK 10103.9%) ASH TO LANDFILL FLY ASH 108 (14.99'0) ' 70%) FLY ASH TO LANDFILL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AND MATERIAL BALANCE ' MASS FIRED WATERWALL SYSTEM ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , ' SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE.N.V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N V. NEWTON,N.J. ' 279 FIGURE N2 8-3 ' INPLANT USE ' 1985 ( PEAK) POWER 2MW STEAM ' ENERGY 650P. 750° F TURBINE N RECOVERY ENERATOR 730 TmswPD FACILITY 210,000 189,000 BS 20 M W 04857 . LBS/HRLB HR ELECTRIC ' POWER FOR SALE INPLANT 18 mw USE STEAM 21,000 LBS HR INPLANT USE POWER ' 4 MW 2005 (PEAK) ' STEAM ENERGY 650 P, 750° F , RECOVERY TURBINE FACILITY ENERATOR 1480 TPD 424,000 382,0 0 k&400pmw , MSW LBS/HR LBS/H 0 4857 BTU/LB ELECTRIC: POWER FOR SALE— INPLANT ALE INPLANT 36 MW USE ,STEAM 42,000 LBS/ HR ENERGY FLOW DIAGRAMS MAS FIRED WATERWALL SYSTEM ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY , FOR I ' TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y .D.E.C. MELVIL N.Y HIOLZMACHER, McLENDON&MURRELL, P.C./H M CORP. FARMINODALE, ' N.Y. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FIVERMEAD.N.Y. NEWTON.N.J. 280 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Technology Summary The mass-fired waterwall system is the successor to mass- fired refractory furnaces, the type of unit built in the United States up until the mid 1960 's . A number of successful waterwalled boilers burning refuse in Europe were first put ' on-line in the mid to late 1950' s. Some of these European boilers suffered corrosion in the waterwalls and in super- heaters. The newer European boilers and present waterwall units in the United States, such as those at Chicago, Norfolk, ' Oceanside and Eastman Kodak are excellent examples of improved ' designs for totally refuse-fired boilers. Operating efficiency is higher than the refractory-wall furnace and convective ' boiler combination. Control of the system is simpler and more reliable. Since the late 1960' s, a number of mass-fired, ' waterwall systems have been put into operation and are running successfully. The mass-fired, waterwall incinerator tends to be a large ' and robustly built unit in order to be able to operate successfully utilizing unprepared MSW as a fuel . The short- comings of the system when compared with other types of tech- nologies are recognized to be a lower availability resulting from more frequent shutdowns, mainly caused by grate damage. ' Additionally, using unprepared MSW as a fuel introduces cycles in steam-raising performance caused by variations in the heat content of the MSW as collected. Mixing of the solid ' 281 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. waste in the storage pit would reduce the impact of such , variations in heat content to some degree, though not entirely. Merits of the mass-fired system are recognized to be the ' system' s simplicity and proven track record. Refuse prep- ' aration is not required. This removes the need for costly equipment and associated buildin.g space and operating and ' maintenance costs. 8. 2.2.2 Spreader Stoker Waterwall with Front End Shredding and Electrical Generation Spreader-stoker-operated boilers have been in successful ' operation for decades, utilizing coal as fuel. In recent years, an adaptation of the design has been used for the ' firing of RDF at a plant in Hamilton, Ontario. Recently, a ' plant in Akron, Ohio went into operation utilizing this tech- nology. Other spreader stoker systems to go on-line in the ' United States are those at Detroit, Michigan; Albany, New York and Pueblo, Colorado. Manufacturers of the spreader ' stoker boilers include Combustion Engineering, Inc. ; Foster- ' Wheeler Company; Riley-Stoker Corporation; Erie City, Energy Division of Zurn Industries; and Babcock & Wilcox. ' MSW is delivered by collection truck or transfer trailers and discharged onto a receiving floor . From the floor, the , MSW is transferred by small front-end loaders onto shredder ' infeed conveyors. The MSW is shredded to a maximum size compatible with boiler manufactur r requirements, probably , 282 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' a maximum 4- to 6-inch dimension in any direction. Following shredding, ferrous metals are recovered from the MSW stream ' using a magnetic shredded separator. MSW is stored in bins ' equipped with reclaim conveyors, with large enough capacity to accommodate boiler firing over a period such as a weekend ' when no refuse collection is taking place. From the storage floor, the MSW is transferred into boiler surge bins. The ' boiler surge bins supply a metered quantity of MSW to the ' boiler for burning. Heat from combustion is used to generate steam. Products of combustion pass through an electrostatic ' precipitator where hot gases are cleaned to comply with air pollution control codes prior to being discharged from the ' stack. Figure 8-4 shows a section of the spreader stoker ' waterwall system utilized at Akron, Ohio. Steam is utilized for power generation for inplant usage and for sale to in- dustrial customers located around the Akron facility. MSW Receiving and Storage Collection vehicles discharge MSW onto a floor sized to accommodate maximum daily refuse input. The delivered MSW is stacked, utilizing a combination of mobile loaders and ' stackers. The principal use of the mobile loaders is to maneuver the refuse, while the stackers with high-lift capa- bility, pile the refuse up to a height of approximately 12- feet. From the stacks, the refuse is transferred by the use ' 283 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' of mobile loaders to infeed conveyors protruding onto the , tipping floor. The infeed conveyors transfer the MSW to the shredding equipment. , The tipping floor storage requirements are determined ' by the following factors: 1. Accommodation of delivered MSW. ' 2.- Space to maneuver mobile equipment. 3.- Logistics of transferring 14SW onto infeed conveyors. , 4., Expansion of available storage if required in the ' future . Shredding, Metal. Recovery and Screening All incoming MSW is shredded to a particle size of approx- imately 4- to 6-inches . The sh.r dded MSW is conveyed through , a magnetic separation process where most of the ferrous metals are recovered. The ferrous free shredded MSW is then routed , through product size screening process which screens the MSW to the desired particle size in rder to meet boiler manu- facturer' s specifications. The creens reject all oversized product for return to the shredder infeed. The accepted pro- duct is then conveyed to the MSW storage building . ' Surge Bins MSW is transferred from the storage floor by belt and pneumatic conveyor to a surge bia at the boiler inlet. The , bin is selected with a surge capacity approximately equivalent to 30 minutes of firing time. C nstant agitation within the , 284 ' FIGURE N° 8-4 'I TYPICAL SPREADER STOKER WATERWALL RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM i S I I Return Air+-- Blower Steam to Customers - Stack Material 4_ ✓ Handling Blower Turbine CycI,on Generator - C 1 e _ - f Electrostatic Precipitator f Flash Deaerating Heater { Tank CityBoiler B Wateriin Economizer Ir RDF Fly Ash Storage B_lo d wn Boiler Removal eat xc nger Feedwat r Waste Pump Heat Fuel ejection Economizer Overfi Air Air Water Treatment A Fa Pre-heater Drain A.H. Booster — IIIIIIII — P_1P Air CLa i tion F.D. Fan an Met rin / Su a Bih f I i Shredder Shredder OBlower Infeed Magnetic Air Lock Heavies Separator Feeder Conveyor 00 Conveyor Fer5quq_j0utlpAding 00 ib olutriator Surge Bin n-Ferrous Removal Fluidizing Blower EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , REFERENCE; RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY, AKRON, OHIO SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE.N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON&MURRELL, P.C./142M CORP. FARMINWALE.N.Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWT EAD.J V NEWTON.N. 285/286 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' surge bin by vertical and horizontal augers maintain a low ' fuel density and eliminate bridging. RDF is discharged at a controlled rate to the boiler feed chute by way of hori- zontal augers at the bottom of the bin. The boiler is fed with MSW from the surge bin by way of ' air-swept distributor spouts. MSW fines are burned in sus- pension and larger fuel particles burned on the grate. The grate is generally of the continuous ash discharge type. Material Balance and Energy Flow The material balance and energy flow diagrams for a spreader ' stoker waterwall system are depicted in Figure 8-5 and 8-6, ' respectively. Technology Summary ' The spreader stoker waterwall system offers some advantages over mass-fired technology. The use of a thin, fast-burning, ' fuel bed provides rapid response to variations in load unlike ' that found in the mass-fired boiler. Spreader stokers operate with a lower excess air requirement than mass-fired units, and ' with higher efficiencies. Because of front-end preparation, the distribution of fuel on the grate is more precise. It ' would be generally found that a spreader stoker waterwall ' boiler would be somewhat smaller and correspondingly less costly than a mass-fired unit of equivalent heat input. ' The front-end preparation and tipping floor needed to assure that the boiler supplier ' s fuel specifications are met usually ' 287 MSW FIGURE N° 8-5 ' I 1985 730 ( 00%) IIII MSW RECEIVING BUILDING, ' 730 (100%) MSW ,SHREDDING FACILITY 730 (1100%) ' FERROUS ME'C L T50(6.8'/o-L FERROUS METAL RECOVERY FACT ITY FOR SALE 680 ( 32%) , FSHREDDED MS TORAGE FACIL TY ' 680 (93.2%) SHREDDED MSW SU GE ' BINS AND DISTRIBUTIOq SYSTEM 6801 3.2%) ELECTRICITY FOR SALE ' AIR FLUE ELECTRICITY SPREADER POLLUTION GAS GENERATING OKER , ST FACILITY CONTROL ST FLUE GAS FACILITIES INCINERATION ' TO STACK STEAM FOR INPLANT USE ° ) ' 5 (0.7 /0 [ASH 01 (13.18%) ELECTRICITY FLY ASH ASH REMOVAL FOR INPLANT USE FACILITY ' ASH TO LANDFILL ' 10604.5%) PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AND MATERIAL BALANCE ' SPREADER STOKER WATEAWALL SYSTEM WITH ONE-STAGE HR DDING AND FERROUS RECOVERY) EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , ' SOUTHOLD AND N.Y. .D.E.C. MELVILN.Y. HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./H M CORP. FARMINGDALE, ' N.V. 6ONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N.V. NEWTON.N.J. 288 ' ' FIGURE N° 8-6 INPLANT USE 1985 POWER ' 2.5 MW TURBINE STEAM GENERATOR ENERGY 600P, 7500 F' STEAM RECOVERY -- (U 680TPD FACILITY TURBINE 21 MW 221,000 OD5 29 BTU 3.9 LBS LBS/HR ' LB LB OF RDF ELECTRIC POWER FOR SALE INPLANT 18.5 M W 1076 USE STEAM ' 22,000 LBS HR INPLANT USE ' POWER 5.2 MW 2005 ' TURBINE STEAM GENERATOR ENERGY 600P, 7500 F ' RECOVERYSTEAM N 1379TPD FACILITY 448,000 TURBINE 43MW ' LBS/HR ELECTRIC POWER FOR SALE ' INPLANT 37.8 M W I 0%USE ' STEAM 45,000 LBS/ HR 1 ENERGY FLOW DIAGRAM ' SPREADER STOKER WATERWALL SYSTEM ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. ' MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE,N.Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N Y. NEWTON,N,J 289 OLZMACHER MCLENDON n , and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. i III incus additional capital and operating costs relative to similar functions for mass-burning, which are usually more than offset by lower boiler cosi: and higher operating , efficiency. 81x2. 2 . 3 RDF Preparation and Combustion in LILCO ' s Utility Boilers ' A. refuse-derived fuel plant could be designed to produce ' a high quality refuse-derived fuel (RDF) of high heat content. It is normal to schedule operation of an RDF plant for two ' shifts per day as maximum capacity. Of the 16-hour, two-shift operation, at least two hours pex day are allowed for un- ' scheduled slowdowns and stoppages usually caused by minor , difficulties in the shredding equipment such as an occasional oversized item in the waste stream temporarily jamming or , plugging the shredder. Additionally, the two hours are con- sidered for use as a normal daily maintenance period. Some ' additional capacity beyond design could be obtained by in- creasing the number of operating hours each day. Refuse processing trains include shredders with associated ' infeed and discharge conveyors, magnetic separation equipment, screening for the removal of si.l. 'ca, air classification for ' the removal of noncombustibles, econdary screening for final , size selection, secondary shredrl'ng to assure final size of the fuel which should be compatile with the fuel purchaser 's ' (LILCO) requirements. Beyond th processing plant, a trans- portation system would be necess ry to transfer RDF from the ' II 290 I I ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' processing plant to the site of a fuel purchaser. At the fuel purchaser ' s site, receiving and handling facilities are ' necessary for off-loading the fuel, storage for periods when ' refuse collection was not in effect, and a boiler feed system. Figure 8-7 is a block diagram showing the unit processes ' and illustrating the material balance of the system. Figure 8-8 and 8-9 show the components of a RDF manufacturing and RDF receiving and firing facility respectively. The principal ' advantage of an RDF plant is realized wherever it is possible to sell the fuel to a customer with boilers requiring compara- tively minor modifications, thus reducing the overall capital cost of the facility. Commonly, the RDF is fired in suspension ' with pulverized coal. Utilities generally recommend that the ' heat input from RDF not exceed 10 to 15 percent of the total boiler heat input at Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) . ' MSW Receiving, Shredding and Primary Screening MSW receiving, storage and conveying to the shredders is essentially the same as described for the spreader stoker system. The MSW is first shredded through the primary shredding process followed by primary screening . Previous projects in the United States, principally those at St. Louis, Missouri; Ames, Iowa; and the Americology plant ' in Milwaukee, Wisconsin have each experienced, to a greater or lesser degree, boiler slagging problems . ' 291 1985 Msw FIGURE N' 8-7 ' 30000%) , LISW RECEIVING BUILDING t REFUSE DERIVED FUEL FOR COMBUSTION IN 73CI (100%) SUSPENSION F RED WATERWALL SYSTEM (WITH TWO S AGE SHREDDING, AIR , CLASSIFICATION AND FERROUS RECOVERY) !! MSW PRIMARY SHREDDING ' FACILITY 730 (100%) 562 (77%) LIGHT FRACTION ' AIR L SCREENS SECOND RY LASSIFICAT:ION SCREENSHREDD NG FACILITY SFACIE, TY ' F' HEAVY FRACTION ON 25 (72%) ' 37 (5%) FERROUS RDF RECOVERY' me STORAGE FACILITY FACILITY o 25 (72%) 4 7.2%) i RDF STORAGE BINS ELECTRICITY AND DIS RIBU- SALE ' 152 (20.8%) TION SYSTEM FLUE —4�25 (72%) ELECTRICITY GASES GENERATING ^J , STACK POLLUTION FACILITY CONTROL SUSPENSLOT FIRED FACILITY WATERWALL SYSTEM ELECTRICITY ' FOR FLY ASH INPLANT USE STEAM FOR HEAVY REJECTS 2 (0.25%) FLUE 37 (5%) INPLANT USE ' TO LANDFILL GAS ASH REMOVAL FACILITY ASH TO ' LANDFILL 39 (5.25%) PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AND MATERIAL BALANCE , EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR 'TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , S ELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y .D.E.C. IHOLZMACHER, MCLENDON&MURRELL, P.C./H M CORP. MELVILLE,N.Y. ' FARMINGDALE.N.V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N.V. NEWTON.N.J. 292 ' j I FIGURE NO.8-8 f CYCLONE SEPARATOR CRANE GRAPPLE SECONDARY SHREDDER PRIMARY SHREDDER VIBRATING < j FEEDER x¢ W REFUSER!TRY FEED � O s �HOPPER � AIRLOCK AIR �i STORAGE CLASSIFIER i SILO N C -'al MAGNETIC BELT HEAVY REJECTS TO LANDFILL TO RDF RECEIVING FERROUS METALS 1 OR OTHER PROCESSING AND FIRING FOR SALE FACILITY j TYPICAL REFUSE DERIVED FUEL MANUFACTURING FACILITY EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND NAS.D.E.C. i. MELVILLE.N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON&MURRELL, P.C.1 1-12M CORP. FAAMI%4WALE.N V CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAO.N Y. NEWTON.N.J. 293/294 FIGURE NO. 8-9 if ko- k RECEIVING BIN ! I jib F RDF CYCLONE TRANSFER TRAILERS FROM Q •! / RDF MANUFACTURING 9 FACILITY �►,,� •`ridgy /9� � ..s ` / SURGE SILO LLI W 10 v / UP LLBLOWER / 1 EDER � •I f j TANGENTIALLY FIRED\\ STEAM GENERATOR FE BLOWER TYPICAL RDF RECEIVING AND FIRING FACILITY EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MaLVILL HOLZMACHER, McLENDON&MURRELL. P.C./H2M CORP. FAFOAWARM�NE.N.Y. GO/►LE.N r FVVrcCONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWT Ego.N r NEWTON.N J 295/296 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' Slagging problems are attributed principally to the quantity of pulverized glass and grit in the waste stream. At boiler ' firing temperatures, the glass and grit can liquify and adhere ' to internal surfaces of the furnace and boiler. This initially leads to a reduction in steam generating performance, but as ' slagging quantities increase, physical damage can result. Reduction of this problem can be achieved by the removal of ' substantial quantities of pulverized glass and grit as part of the process . This could be attained by the use of disc ' screens and other fine screens. The combustible fraction of ' the small particles is recovered utilizing a vibratory air classifier and transported pneumatically to RDF storage and ' compaction equipment. Incombustible pulverized glass and grit is conveyed to containers for removal to landfill . ' Air Classification ' Each processing train utilizes air classification systems for the separation of the light combustible fuel fraction ' and discharge of heavier noncombustibles. Air classification divides the waste stream into a light combustible fraction and heavy inert fraction containing ' materials which are conveyed to the ferrous recovery system through magnetic separation. The remaining heavy fraction ' is sent to the landfill. High air velocity in the air density classifiers lifts the light combustible fraction and transports it to a cyclone separator located above the roof of the pro- cessing floor. Collected combustible materials from the ' 297 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , cyclone separator are discharged onto a feed conveyor inside , the building and transferred to the secondary screening stage of the process. , Secondary Shredding Equipment The secondary shredder is reqst�fired to reduce the product ' . I size of the feed material to that I compatible with RDF user' s requirements . Other than a difference in hammer configura- tions suitable for reduction of the product to a smaller size, ' the secondary shredders would bein all respects similar to the primary shredders . Interchangeability of parts, particularly motors, between all shredders in. lthe facility, therefore is possible. Fuel product meeting sizing soecifications is transported ' from the secondary shredder intc, l'a storage area which would act in the capacity of surge control. RDF is stored on an , open floor to avoid undue compaction of the fuel and to allow easytransfer into stationary compactors. Transfer to station- ary compactors is achieved by the use of front-end loaders , which move the RDF into compactors feed hoppers located in the s storage area floor. The station Iry compactors load transfer- ' trailer vehicles of up to 19 ton capacity each for transpor- tation by road to the fuel purch, ser' s site. RDF Receiving Facilities s , A receiving building is furnished at the fuel purchaser' s site within which all functions of RDF delivery and un- , loading would take place. The building serves to protect 298 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' workers, equipment and the refuse-derived fuel from adverse weather conditions. Similarly, control of dust and litter ' is facilitated. Incoming transfer-trailer vehicles containing RDF from the RDF processing plant back into the building and ' discharge their contents into a receiving bin. ' A number of high rate unloaders used for the transfer of the RDF to the storage facilities are required to accommodate ' the loads from transfer-trailer vehicles. The high rate un- loaders consist of a motor-driven, multi-screw active bottom feeder, located at the bottom of the receiving bin. The ' receiving bins are of metal construction on three sides and the top. The remaining side is fitted with two rows of ' leather-strip curtains to allow trailer trucks to back into place and eject RDF into the unloader which transfers RDF in ' a metered fashion onto a cross-conveyor feeding the storage facilities. ' Storage facilities are located adjacent to the receiving ' building. Since delivery rates from the RDF manufacturing facility normally exceed the firing capacity of the system, ' storage is designed to accommodate the excess RDF allowing for continued firing after daily delivery and during weekends. ' This requires the capacity to store RDF for one or two days. ' Surge Bins RDF is conveyed from storage facilities to surge bins at ' each boiler. The bins are selected with a surge capacity approximately equivalent to 30 minutes of RDF firing time. ' 299 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Constant agitation within the surge bins b vertical and , g 9 Y horizontal augers maintains a low fuel density and eliminates bridging. g RDF is discharged at al controlled rate to the , boiler feed chute or pneumatic filring system, dependent on , the type of boiler in use, by way of horizontal augers at the bottom of the bin. , Conveying Equipment Belt conveyors are primarily sed throughout hout the instal- lation. Depending upon the anglof inclination of the , conveyor transporting RDF from the storage facilities to the boiler surge bins, cleats may, be required to prevent ' roll back on the belt. RDF is el.istributed to each of the boilers by plows diverting the f'.' el from the main belt onto ' smaller surge bin feed belts. ' Technology Summary Co-firing of RDF with coal in utility-owned boilers was ' introduced under EPA contract in i,St. Louis, Missouri . Sub- sequent plants were installed at:. ,Ames, Iowa; Chicago, Illinois; ' and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The design of a complex RDF plant has just been completed for Metropolitan Toronto, Ontario. The fuel will be utilized at the: Lakeview Generating Station ' owned by Ontario Hydro. As mentioned previously, the principal advantage of an RDF system is thalt firing takes place in an ' existing boiler needing comparat:.iively minor modification. However, it is necessary to have: a boiler installation within 300 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' reasonable transport distance of the RDF plant capable of accepting all of the fuel prepared at the processing plant. ' There are two potential sites where LILCO could use the ' RDF. One site is LILCO' s existing power generating station at Port Jefferson which is currently being considered for ' conversion from fuel oil to coal . The other location is the proposed 800 MW coal fired power plant at Jamesport. Although LILCO has expressed reluctance to accept RDF as ' a supplementary fuel at its facilities, due mainly to poten- tial detrimental effects on the boiler tubes and lack of ' successful track-record, we have included this concept in our study. The existing skepticism about the success of this ' technology may change in the next few years. ' 8. 2.2.4 Modular Incineration with Steam Generation Introduction ' During the 1960' s virtually all operational incinerators were still uncontrolled air units. To ensure a high degree ' of combustion in these incinerators, air was supplied in ' fixed amounts with a volume considerably more than that re- quired for stoichiometric combustion. Consequently, large ' quantities of both combustible and inert particulates were discharged to the atmosphere with the exiting flue gases. In the late 1960 ' s, the industry introduced the controlled air incinerator, that is, an incinerator with an afterburner or an incinerator with a primary and a secondary combustion 301 I H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. chamber. The term "controlled a.ir" denotes that the air ' flowing into the two combustion cihambers is regulated at a rate. The lower airflow uires less motor horse- re t minimum ra q power on the fans and reduces the amount of the particulates ' entrained in the exiting flue gases. The first, or primary, chambez is also called the lower , chamber, the combustion chamber, lor the gasifier. Similarly, the second, or secondary, chambe� is also called the upper ' chamber, the ignition chamber, the afterburner, or the thermal , reactor. The term "modular" as a descriptor for the controlled air , incinerator developed as followsThe controlled air incin- erators designed for burning cont ercial and industrial waste ' have been constructed of integral components, one for the ' primary chamber, one for the secondary chamber, and so on. Each component has been assembled and packaged in the factory ' for immediate on-site installation. Only electrical, fuel, water, and gas duct connections are required at the instal- , lation site. When the waste volt me has exceeded the capacity of the installed units, additional incinerators have been incorporated to meet the increased demand. Since the addi- tional incinerators are constructed and function as modules, the integrated units became known as modular incinerators. ' While the capacity of the modular incinerators has increased I from 1 to 4 tons of waste per hoer, most of the components are 302 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' still completely assembled and packaged in the factory for ' immediate on-site installation. Controlled air incinerators are grouped under two main categories according to the degree of combustion, complete or partial, in the primary chamber. Since the complete com- bustion requires excess air and the partial combustion needs ' substoichiometric conditions, the categories are excess air incinerators and substoichiometric, or starved air, incin- erators . In addition to the airflow regulation, the combustion ' process is also controlled by varying the waste feed rate and, in some incinerators, by spraying water into the primary ' chamber. ' Figure 8-10 shows a three dimensional sketch of a typical modular incineration facility. The process flow through the ' system is depicted in Figure 8-11. Feeding Mechanism The waste to be burned is fed into the primary chamber in ' controlled batches and at prescribed intervals. The feed rate is usually dictated by the temperature in the secondary chamber. ' except for the removal of white goods and large metals, the waste stream usually need not be preprocessed before it enters the primary chamber. Primary Chamber During start-up of the substoichiometric, or starved air, ' incinerator, one or two auxiliary burners in the primary chamber 303 FIGURE NO 8-10 ' BOIL[.P iil ' £xNAl/T T STACK 'Du 11"AIT, , STACK" \ BDILEje CLI It[OT//v,,"045 / A S o.CATo&I Sf—__Op PY CNAMBE� I/ SOOT'd[owlC y fAC£SS AIR e[owrC C / 0� ft SUrL DIN[ / � `o x-r \� •`'covre I I ' MrSTER GAS � Y i B.✓ARIVe.P J I T,PP/NG FLoojp COM dUTTiON AIR d[O we,- 00 dio 4 Y� 4 ��R CONTROL , ' v[�Mg� PANfL A5 ASK COA'Y£rOR `� .' ILAYI7�'/ON -1 dvCA{rip ' NrDPOtiC Bt OtU£CrPF II ' ..^I A S N p I r ill TYPICAL THREE-DIMENSIONAL DULAR INCINERATION RES URCE RECOVERY SY M ' I! EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SMELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE.N.V. ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON&MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE.N.V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N.V. NEWTON.N.J. 304 i __ ' FIGURE NO 8-II ®From the secondary chamber, a portion ' of the gases is passed through a hO recovery boiler where steam is produced. IDThe refuse is pushed into and through ' the primary chamber by one or more hydraulic rams. If a customer 1 is available,the 'O steam from the boiler is then In the secondary chamber, routed to the user. a controlled air and gas mixture ' /J is maintained to complete combustion. I < rb ' ©The ash left as the residue from combustion is cooled in a wet sump and conveyed to a ., a dosed-bottom container for transport to a t The primary chamber landfill. operates with a controlled volume o'air so the gases 5, aren't fully burned in the chamber. TYPICAL MODULAR INCINERATION ' RESOURCE V Y Y 1 ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , ' SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MEL V ILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE.N.V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N.V. NEWTON,N.J. ' 305 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' II progressively dry, volatize, andignitethe waste. When the 1 combustion rate is sufficient to sustain partial oxidation reactions, the auxiliary burnersareshut off. The partial ' oxidation is maintained by supplying the primary chamber with less air than that needed for the complete combustion of the gases and chars. The combustible gases and particulates gen- ' erat:ed in the primary chamber fl w into the secondary chamber where combustion is completed. � y unburned carbon in the , primary chamber is removed with (the ash and other inert materials . ' During start-up of the excess air incinerator, an auxiliary ' burner in the primary chamber dr-es, volatizes, and ignites the waste. With 75 to 150 perce�t excess air introduced ' under, over, and beside the waste, the combustion is sustained sufficiently to turn off the bu.r#ner and to burn both the gas , by-products and the combustible �olids of the initial and . As t:h' ' � subsequent waste batches the gases flow into and through the secondary chamber, any remailing combustibles are burned ' to completion. Secondary Chamber In the substoichiometric, or (starved air, incinerator, the 1 heated b an auxiliary burner. ' secondary chamber is initially y Y This burner ignites the partially oxidized combustibles flowing , from the primary chamber into the secondary chamber. Then as the burning gases mix with additional air, complete combustion ' II 306 , �I HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1 1 is achieved and the flue gas temperatures increase to 760 ' degrees and 888 degrees C (1400 degrees and 1600 degrees F) . As the combustion generating this heat is self-sustaining, the burner is automatically shut off by a temperature control device and remains off while the unit is maintained at the designed operating level. ' In the excess air incinerator, no auxiliary burner is needed in the secondary chamber since the high temperature of the entering gases and the addition of more air is suf- ficient to sustain combustion. The excess air introduced into the chamber ranges from 75 to 150 percent of the air ' needed for combustion. Excess air, turbulence, and retention time collectively provide the conditions for the nearly com- plete burning of all the combustible gases and particulates. ' Temperature Control The temperature in the primary chamber is sensed by thermo- couples . hermo- couples . Temperature control is maintained at a set point with a 37 . 7 degrees C (100 degrees F) control band by varying the waste feed rate and the amount of air injected and by spraying the chamber with a water mist. While the set points vary with the incinerator manufacturer and the waste to be burned, they generally range from 649 degrees to 982 degrees C (1200 degrees to 1800 degrees F) . 1 1 307 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1 The temperature in the secondary chamber is also sensed by the thermocouples with set ports. When the chamber temp- erature reaches the set points, t�e thermocouples activate ' controllers which modulate airfl.o� dampers and turn the burner on and off. ' Residue Removal Ash and other noncombustible residue which settle on the hearth of the primary chamber after the combustion process ' are periodically removed by manually or automatically operated systems . In the manual system t:he operator scoops out the ' ash (by shovel or front-end loadeir) after the unit has been shut off and cooled down. In the automatic system the ash is pushed or forced ahead of the �urning waste until it exits ' the chamber, generally through a drop chute into a water-sealed pit or an air-lock chamber. If esired, metal recovery can also be accomplished at this stat a through the utilization of a magnetic separator. Energy Recovery Several incinerator systems incorporate water or fire tube boilers to recover the their al energy from the flue ' gases exiting the secondary chamber. Either an induced draft t fan in the gas stream or an aspix ator fan outside the gas stream draws the flue gas throuc�Y} the boiler. Steam recovery ' from modular units amounts to approximately 4800 pounds per ton of refuse. , ISI I 1 308 ' II -- ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. 1 ' Auxiliary Fuel Consumption An auxiliary fuel, either natural gas or number 2 fuel ' oil is required to start the incinerators at the beginning ' of the week. Fuel may also be required at other times in order to maintain proper combustion temperatures. ' Waste Consumption The waste consumption capacity of the controlled air in- cinerators varies greatly with the waste characteristics. ' The energy content is the most important factor in determining the capacity. The modular units are designed to burn a spec ' ific amount of energy per hour; therefore, the higher the energy content per unit mass, the slower the feed rate. ' The incinerator capacities in industrial plants and those in municipal plants are conventionally expressed in waste feed rates of kilograms (pounds) per hour and megagrams (tons) ' per day, respectively. The capacities of the substoichiometric, or starved air, ' incinerators range from 10. 9 to 45 .4 Mg/day (12 to 50 tpd) ' while those of the excess air incinerators range from 10. 9 to 272. 1 Mg/day ( 12 to 300 tpd) . ' Stack Emissions Since the controlled air combustion into the two chambers ' burns most, but not all, of the combustible gases and particu- lates, the stack emissions, without any additional air pollution equipment, will contain some unburned carbon, as well as inert ' particles and vapors. ' 309 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. 1 H2M CORP. III t Industrial incinerators that burn a consistent waste have been designed and operated so tliat their stacks would not require additional emission cont: of equipment. In contrast, municipal incinerators that burrs a highly heterogeneous and ' changing waste may require additional air emission control equipment to meet the applicable state standard since it is , difficult to maintain combustion, at steady-state conditions, and, consequently, to keep emissions at prescribed levels . ' Currently Available Modular Incinerators A recent EPA survey identified 16 manufacturers that pro- duce ' modular incinerators capable of processing upto 50 tpd ' of industrial and/or municipal solid waste and of recovery the 'heat for energy production. (Table 8-1 shows pertinent ' information about the different systems . Technology Y Summar ' Although several municipalitiels are engaged in resource recovery through modular incineration, the technology is still new and being tested out by EPA to evaluate its eco- ' nomic and environmental viability. One of the primary areas is the stack emmissions and req u 'Irements of additional air ' pollution control equipment. FEILCilities over 50 tpd per ' module or 250 tpd per facility a e considered to come under the Federal Standard of PerformElL ce for new stationary sources ' and the prevention of significan deterioration regulations. Thus in planning for a facility with the application of ' p � �t i II ', 310 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' modular incineration technology potential, additional ex- penses for air pollution control should not be overlooked. ' Similar precautions should be taken for wastewater and in- cinerator residue disposal. Modular incineration technology to date has been limited ' to the production of low pressure steam which requires a customer within practical distance of the facility. Elec- trical generation is being talked about but has not been ' proven viable thus far. Revenues from the steam sale is re- quired to off-set the capital and operating facility in order ' to justify the system' s economic viability. As mentioned in the earlier section, the lack of major steam customers in the five town study area is a significant barrier in the ' application of the modular incineration technology. An economic evaluation is provided later in this chapter on a ' town-by-town basis which reinforces our conclusions. 8. 3 SELECTION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ' 8. 3.1 Introduction ' Based on the selected technologies described in Section 8-2, we have developed several alternatives pertaining to ' the solid waste disposal for the five town study area. Fac- tors considered in developing these alternatives includes the large area which the five towns encompass, transportation distances, existing solid waste collection and disposal ' 311 TABLE 8-1 MANUFACTURERS OF MODULAR INCINERATORS Incinerator Type Municipal No. Industrial No. with Without With Without Air Emissions Capacity Heat Heat Heat Heat Control Equipment Combustion Range Manufacturer Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Normally Employed Process (TPD) Basic 0 0 6 6 # (150) Burn-Zol 0 0 1 0 X + ( 24) C.E. Bartlett 0 0 0 19 X # ( 38) Clear Air 0 3 0 0 X # (300 ) Consumat 4 13 4 N X + ( 50 ) c Econotherm 0 0 4 N + ( 32 ) M a ECP 1 0 14 N + ( 48) N x Giery 1 0 0 0 X # ( 72 ) a Kelley 0 6 49 N + ( 24) W Lamb-Cargate 0 0 2 0 + (200 ) Morse-Boulger 0 4 1 0 X # (250 ) SEE 0 1 0 0 X + ( 150) Z Simonds 0 0 7 N # ( 30) °c Smokatrol 0 0 1 N + ( 30) z v Washburn 1 1 0 0 X + ( 24) W x # Excess air incineration g + Starved air incineration N AF, N NilmPrAllR HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' practices, projected solid waste quantities and availability of market for recovered resources. This sub-section will ' identify, evaluate and screen these alternatives in order to ' develop the final recommendations. 8. 3.2 Identification of Alternatives ' The solid waste management alternatives for the five towns are grouped into two categories: ' A. Regional Alternatives B. Sub-Regional Alternatives ' The regional alternatives are those in which all five towns participate collectively and all solid waste from the five town area is disposed of at one central facility. The sub-regional alternatives are defined as those in which the towns participate individually, or collectively ' with the neighboring towns, with the involvement of up to four towns. ' We have selected five regional alternatives and six sub- regional alternatives. Table 8-2 provides a list of these alternatives . ' 8. 3. 3 Proposed Brookhaven Resource Recovery Facility For a number of years, the Town of Brookhaven has been ' considering resource recovery as its solid waste management ' alternatives . In a study conducted in 1979 by Henningson, Durham and Richardson (HDR) , it was recommended that the Town of Brookhaven construct a 2000 tpd mass-fired waterwall type of resource recovery facility. The site of this facility ' 313 H LZMACHER McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 8-:21 ' SELECTED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT , ALTERNATIVES FOR STUDY AREA A REGIONAL ALTERNATIVES 1 1 . Five Town Mass-Fired Waterwall Resource Recovery System with OBW Shredding. , 2 . Five Town Spreader Stoker Waterall Resource Recovery System with Front End Shredding 3 . Five Town Refuse Derived Fuel 1Z. source Recovery System, RDF Sold to LILCO' s Proposed Ja. esport Facility (or Port Jefferson Facility) . ' 4. Five Town MSW Transfer to Proposed Brookhaven Resource Recovery Facility. t 5. Five Town Conventional Sanitary Landfill to Comply with Prevailing State Regulations. B SUB-REGIONAL ALTERNATIVES 1 . Modular Incineration Resource R. covery for Shelter Island ' and Four Town Mass-Fired Waterw 11 Resource Recovery System with OBW Shredding. i ' 2 . Modular Incineration Resource 1;1,e covery for Shelter Island and East Hampton and Three Town Mass-Fired ' Waterwall Resource Recovery Sy.s em with OBW Shredding. 3 . Conventional Sanitary Landfill or Shelter Island and East Hampton and Three Towr.� Mass-Fired Waterwall ' Resource Recovery System with 0 W Shredding. 4. Modular Incineration Resource Recovery for Shelter Island and East Hampton and Three Town MSW Transfer ' to Proposed Brookhaven Resource Recovery. 5 . All Five Towns to Operate Indiv'dual Conventional , Sanitary Landfills to Comply w:i. h Prevailing State Regulations. 6. All Five Towns to Operate Individual Modular Incin- eration- Resource Recovery System. I' 314 , I tHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' was proposed in the proximity of Brookhaven National Labora- tory (BNL) . The facility would generate both steam for sale ' to BNL and electricity for sale to LILCO. In the HDR report, a regional concept was also evaluated on the basis of having other towns such as Smithtown, Southampton and Riverhead. ' However, the alternative evaluation led to the final recom- mendations of the construction of a 2000 tpd for the Town of Brookhaven only. In light of the developments in the Town of Brookhaven, ' we have selected the use of the proposed Brookhaven facility ' as potential alternatives for the five East End communities. Advantages of this concept include: ( 1) substantial reduction ' in the capital investment for the five towns, ( 2) potential reduction in tipping fees at Brookhaven due to better econo- mies of scale, (3 ) economical utilization of the excess capa- city in the initial years, since the Brookhaven facility would be sized for 20 years ' projection of solid waste quanti- ties, (4) small quantities of solid waste generation in the initial years of a five East End Town Resource Recovery ' Facility, and ( 5) proximity of the proposed Brookhaven fa- cility to the centroid of the major waste generation in the five town area. There are, of course, disadvantages associ- ated with such concept, primarily political, implementational and environmental . Environmental factors include increased truck traffic near the facility and use of energy for trans- portation. 315 OLZMA H C ER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Preliminary conversations with the Brookhaven officials , have indicated that such concep•t'lis acceptable and viable provided it is of a mutual benefit to all the participating ' towns. No further communicationi, has taken place beyond this ' point. 8. 3.4 Description of the Regional and_ ub-Re ional Alternatives ' A. Regional Alternatives A. 1. Five Town Mass Fired Waterwall Resource Recovery System ' with OBW Shredding This alternative would combine the total MSW generated , by the five towns at one central ''iprocessing point, that being the selected site for the resource recovery facility. Each , town would have a transfer station located at their existing ' landfills from which the compacted MSW will be transfer hauled to the East End Resource Recover: Facility. The internal col- , lection practices of each individual town would not be affected, the only difference being that instead of landfilling, as is ' currently the case, the refuse �okr 11 be compacted and trans- .. 'I fered in large transfer trailers 1 It must be noted that only MSW is to be transfered to the 3-esource recovery facility with , all nonburnables being hauled to a designated regional landfill. The resource recovery would :r ceive, process and use the , refuse to generate electric power both for sale and for in-plant ' use. The resultant residue, as well as the ferrous fraction, if no profitable market is foun('.i,, would be transferred to a ' designated regional landfill. 316 ' I ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' The landfill for the disposal of residue would be designed ' to comply with the prevailing state, federal and local reg- ulations, such as pertaining to installation of liners, leach- ate collection and treatment system, methane control and final closure of the landfill . ' A. 2. Five Town Spreader Stoker Waterwall Resource Recovery System with Front End Shredding ' This alternative and the mass-fired alternative are identical in all aspects of transportation, electrical gen- eration, residue disposal and transfer stations. These two ' alternatives are also interchangeable with respect to site locations . The major difference lies in that the spreader ' stoker system requires front end shredding and separation of all incoming MSW. In the mass-fired concept, only oversized ' bulky waste is shredded and the remaining MSW is burned as ' received. Other minor differences between these two systems are the relative quantities of electrical energy and residue ' produced. The spreader stoker system is more efficient than the mass-fired system but requires more energy to operate the necessary refuse front end processing equipment. ' A. 3. Five Town Refuse Derived Fuel Resource Recovery System, RDF Sold to LILCO' s Pro osed James ort Facility (or Port Jefferson Facility ' This alternative calls for transfer hauling MSW to a regional site and preparation of RDF for shipment to LILCO. The non-combustibles (heavy rejects) from the RDF facility ' would be hauled to a regional landfill. The RDF would be ' 317 OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' transported in large transfer trailers to LILCO at the existing ' Port Jefferson or the proposed Jamesport facilities. Residue ' from RDF combustion will be disposed of by LILCO. The RDF re- ceiving storage and firing facilities would be located at the ' LILCO sites and financed by the East End Towns. The RDF will be co-fired with coal in LILCO- owned boilers. ' A. 4. Five Town MSW Transfer to Proposed Brookhaven Resource , Recovery Facility Each town would have a transfer station located at its existing landfill site from where the MSW would be transported ' in large transfer trailers to the proposed Brookhaven Resource ' Recovery Facility. Nonburnables would be hauled to a regional landfill. The towns will pay a tipping fee at the Brookhaven ' facility for disposal of their MSW. The tipping fee would also cover the residue disposal.. ' A. 5. Five Town Conventional Sanitary Landfill to Comply with ' Prevailing State Regulations As stated earlier in this report, the sanitary landfill alternative appears to have a bleak future, particularly on ' Long Island. However, since this is the method of the existing ' solid waste disposal, we have considered this alternative to provide for a comparison between the conventional landfill , and resource recovery alternatives . In this particular alter- native, a regional landfill for the five towns would be designed ' and constructed in a way to meet the prevailing state regulations. I 318 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 1 ' Each town would transfer haul its solid waste to this facil- ity. Nonburnable portions of the solid waste would be de- posited in a separate section of this landfill since it does ' not require the extensive environmental protection measures. ' B. Sub-Regional Alternatives B. 1. Modular Incineration Resource Recovery for Shelter Island and Four Town Mass-Fired Waterwall Resource Recovery ' Systems with OBW Shredding This sub-regional alternative would combine the MSW ' generated in the towns of Southampton, Southold, Riverhead ' and East Hampton at one central processing point. These four towns would each have a transfer station constructed ' at their existing landfill sites, at which the MSW would be received, compacted and then transfer hauled to the resource ' recovery facility. ' At the resource recovery facility, the MSW would be pro- cessed in a mass-fired waterwall unit to produce steam and ' electricity, for in-plant use and electrical power for sale to LILCO. This sub-regional alternative is essentially the ' same as the regional five town mass-fired alternative. The ' variation here is that a separate modular incineration system would be provided for the Town of Shelter Island, instead of ' transfer hauling its MSW to the regional mass-fired resource recovery facility. ' 319 OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' B. 2 . Modular Incineration Resource Recovery o Shelter Isla for d ' n_ and East Hampton, and Three Town Mass-Fired Waterwall Resource Recovery System with OBW Shredding ' This concept of the sub-regional alternatives combines the MSW of Southampton, Riverhead and Southold at a central ' point to be processed at a mass,-fired waterwall resource re- ' covery facility. These three towns will have transfer stations constructed at their existing landfill site, where MSW will be t received, compacted and transfer hauled to the central facility. This facility would generate steam and electrical power for ' in-plant use, in addition to electrical power for sale to LILCO. ' The second portion of this sub-regional alternative is modular incineration for the towns of East Hampton and Shelter ' Island. The modular incineration plant would be located in East ' Hampton in the proximity of a major steam user. Shelter Is- ' land would construct a transfer station at the existing land- fill site and transfer haul, via ferry and truck, its MSW to the East Hampton facility. This transfer of Shelter Island MSW will occur approximately eight times per week, based on , 1992 peak quantities. The East. Hampton location was picked t because of Shelter Island' s small MSW quantities requiring transportation and greater potential for steam sale in the ' Town of East Hampton. The residue and nonburnables for both towns will be deposited at the East Hampton Acabonack site. ' 320 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. B. 3. Conventional Landfill for Shelter Island and East Hampton, ' and Three Town Mass-Fired Waterwall Resource Recovery System with OBW Shredding In this concept, Southampton, Riverhead and Southold ' would combine their MSW at a central mass-fired resource ' recovery facility, exactly the same in all aspects of trans- portation, transfer stations and energy recovery as the previous alternatives. The variations here are in the mode of solid waste disposal by the Towns of East Hampton and Shelter Island. ' East Hampton and Shelter Island would combine their gen- erated solid waste for disposal at a conventional sanitary ' landfill to be located at the existing Acabonack Landfill site in East Hampton. Shelter Island would construct a trans- fer at its existing landfill to transport, via ferry and ' truck, solid waste to the East Hampton site. All nonburnables generated in both Shelter Island and East Hampton would also ' be disposed of at this landfill site. B. 4. Modular Incineration Resource Recovery for Shelter Island ' and East Hampton, and Three Town MSW Transfer to the Proposed Brookhaven Resource Recovery Facility ' The first portion of this sub-regional alternative is modular incineration for the Towns of Shelter Island and East Hampton, as stated in B. 2. The second portion of this sub-regional alternative involves hauling MSW from the ' towns of Southampton, Riverhead and Southold to the proposed ' Brookhaven Resource Recovery Facility. These three towns ' 321 H LZMACHER, McLENDO N and MURRELL P.C./ H2M CORP. ' would have transfer stations con tructed on the existing ' landfill sites, which would act as the central collecting point of all MSW generated in eal h town. At these transfer , stations, the MSW would be compa ted and then transfer hauled ' to the proposed Brookhaven Resolu ce Recovery Facility. The nonburnables will be hauled to allregional landfill located ' in the three town area. B. 5. All Five Towns to Operate: Individual Conventional Sani- tary Landfills to Comply w'th Prevailing State Regulations This alternative is basic ally a no-action alternative. That is, each town continues to 'Fuse landfill for its solid ' waste disposal . As stated before, the existing landfills are not in compliance with the Part: 11360 regulations and will re- ' quire extensive upgrading, involving major capital expenditures, in order to keep them operationa. 1. Although the towns of ' Southampton and East Hampton do have capacities beyond 1985, ' the Federal Open Dump Inventorsbeing currently g enforced by the state may force these towns 'Ito close their landfills be- ' fore 1985 . Even until that time, the towns are required to upgrade the landfill. The Towns of Southold and Riverhead ' would exhaust their landfill capacity around 1985 and, if permitted at all, would requirE! a new landfill which would have to meet the prevailing state regulations. The Town ' of Shelter Island, at this writing, is required by NYSDEC to cease landfilling for solid wa,.,5tILe disposal and seek alterna- tive methods . ' 322 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' The alternative presented herein is for the purpose of ' comparing the cost of landfilling, if at all permitted by the state, versus that of resource recovery alternatives. ' The landfill in each town would be a new landfill designed to meet the required regulations . No transfer stations are ' considered since the refuse collection practices are assumed ' to remain unchanged. If a new location for the landfill site (other than the existing or in the vicinity thereof) is con- sidered, the individual towns will be responsible to bring solid waste to this site as a part of its refuse collection . ' B. 6. All Five Towns to Operate Individual Modular Incineration Resource Recovery Systems ' In this concept, all five towns would operate individual modular incineration systems and generate low pressure steam ' for sale to potential customers within each town. Main ad- vantages of this concept are savings in refuse transfer and transportation and operation of a resource recovery facility ' independent of the other towns. Major disadvantage is the present lack of steam customers in some of the towns and ' potential problems in locating a facility near a steam cust- omer. The operating expenses of such a facility must be at least partially offset by the steam revenue for the supplier ' to be cost effective. Another disadvantage of this concept is that a landfill is ' still required in each town to dispose of the incinerator ' 323 I HOLZMACHER McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' residue and nonburnables. Again,l, this landfill will have to ' be designed to comply with the prevailing state regulations, an added cost to the overall system operation. ' Conclusion ' The foregoing description of various solid waste manage- ment alternatives was provided J.q order to give the reader ' some familiarity with these alternatives prior to going into a more detailed comparative costevaluation. From the various ' technologies available, and given the five town service area, the list of the selected alternatives could be expanded even further. However, we have select ed only those alternatives ' which we believe are best applicable to the study area. 8. 3. 5 Comparative Evaluation of Select d Solid Waste Management ' Alternatives 8. 3. 5 .1 Introduction ' After having selected the solid waste management alternatives ' for the study area, both regional and sub-regional, we per- formed g formed a detailed economic analysis of each alternative for , the purpose of comparison of the overall system costs and to eliminate those alternatives wh:i�h are not considered feasible ' from an economic, environmental, , technical and/or political I' perspective. The detailed economic evaluation included the development ' of costs, both capital and operating, applicable credits from sale of electricity or steam, and applicable state/federal ' 324 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' aid. Each alternative was evaluated for its various com- ponents, right from the collection point (not including the actual collection) to the final disposal. These components ' include : Transfer Stations ' Transfer Haul Resource Recovery Facility RDF Transportation ' Residue Transportation Residue Disposal Nonburnables Disposal ' Sanitary Landfill Wastewater Disposal 8. 3. 5 . 2 Basic Assumptions ' As required for any comprehensive comparative alternative ' evaluation, we made a number of basic assumptions and fixed certain parameters in order to develop costs for the selected ' alternatives . It should be carefully noted that these assump- tions are made solely for comparing the alternatives and the ' bottom line costs may not reflect the actual conditions and ' circumstances under which a particular alternative(s ) may be developed for the eventual implementation. ' The assumptions were: 1. All costs and credits are computed in 1980 dollars. 2. Unit costs are based on 1980 average annual tonnages. 3. The project planning span is 20 years - 1985 through 2005. ' 4. Fixed Capital Costs are amortized over 20 years at 10 percent interest rate. Rolling stock is amortized over 7 years at 10 percent interest rate. ' 325 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. II t 5. State and/or Federal aid is assumed as 50 percent for ' Resource Recovery Facility and 25 percent for Transfer Station and Equipment. No aid is assumed to be avail- , able for conventional sanitary landfill. The state aid may be available under futu a EQBA (Environmental Qual- ity Bond Act) fundings. ' 6. Electrical Generation Facilities are owned, operated and maintained by LILCO. 7. All facilities are sized an d operated to accommodate , peak solid waste quantities up to year 2005. Rolling equipment replacement costs are excluded for the com- parative evaluation purposes - 8. urpose .8. All landfill costs with they exception of non-combust- ibles are based on required environmental protection t measures under prevailing s ate regulations such as leachate collection and tre tment system, final capping, drainage systems, methane c ntrol, etc. , 9. Existing collection practi.c s are assumed to remain unchanged. Satellite Transfer Station System, currently ' in planning, is considered art of the existing collec- tion practices. 10. Credit for ferrous metal recovery is excluded from cost , analysis due to existing market unavailability. 11. Net unit costs for modular incineration systems are ' based on the assumption that all available steam will be marketed. 12. Site for the regional reso Irce recovery/landfill facility is selected in the vicinit:.y of the former RCA property in the Town of Southampton., currently owned by the NYSDEC. The selection is based on the preliminary investigation ' of the general areas and conversations with various town and NYSDEC officials. It s assumed that selection of any site within that genet. 1 area will not affect the ' overall transportation cos S. 13. Transfer station sites are located at the existing trans- fer or disposal sites. ' 14. Residue and nonburnable di.sjposal for regional and sub- regional alternatives are assumed at the available , existing landfill sites upgraded to meet the prevailing state regulations. Transportation of the nonburnables to the landfill site is exc luded from the analysis. 326 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 1 15. A preliminary tipping fee of $20. 00 (1980) is assumed at the proposed Brookhaven Resource Recovery Facility. The basis for this assumption is the prevailing tipping fees at various resource recovery plants of similar ' type in operation or at implementation stage. 16. Wastewater disposal is assumed to be on-site for all ' resource recovery alternatives. 17. Additional air pollution control for modular incinera- tion technology is assumed where applicable based on the current EPA and state requirements . 8. 3.5 .3 Cost Analysis Appendix 2 , Tables 1 through 24 show the cost summary of various components for each of the regional and sub-regional alternatives . ' a. Costs 1. Capital Cost: Capital costs include land acquisition, ' site preparation, buildings and structures, process equipment, ' electrical and instrumentation, transportation equipment, front-end loaders, environmental protection measures and final ' capping of disposal sites. In addition, engineering, financing and legal fees and contingencies are also provided in the ' capital costs. ' 2. Annual Capital Cost: These costs are obtained by amortizing the fixed capital costs at 20 years and 10 percent ' and the rolling equipment costs at 7 years and 10 percent 3. Annual Operating Cost: Operating costs are comprised of labor costs including fringe benefits, overtime allowance, ' shift differential, maintenance and repairs, fuel, utilities and administration costs. ' 327 HOLZMA H R M LENDON ' C E c and HUBBELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. �I b. Credits Credits are: (1 ) those applicable to capital costs due to state or federal aid whit help reduce the initial ' I capital investment, and (2) those derived from sale of re- ' covered resources, i.e. , electric ity, steam, refuse-derived fuel, and metals (if marketable) ,II'I which help reduce the ' tipping fee at the facility. 1. State/Federal Aid: At present, the only aid that is ' potentially available is the sta a aid through EQBA fundings for resource recovery facilities .) Preliminary conversation with the NYSDEC officials have indicated the possibility of ' future EQBA funding availabilitylto the East End towns. We have assumed 50 percent aid on c �pital costs for resource ' recovery facilities and 25 perce t aid on capital cost for transfer stations and rolling eq ipment under such funding. No aid is assumed for sanitary 1.aandfilling and wastewater ' disposal facilities. 2. Revenues from Sale of Rec overed Resources , Electricity: The revenues from the sale of electri- city were supplied by LILCO. Ba ed on LILCO ' s projected revenue stream, we computed the evenue for electricity for , the mass-fired system at $26/tonllof solid waste. The rev- enue for the spreader stoker system was computed at $27. 50/ ' ton of refuse. 328 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Steam: Revenue from the sale of low pressure steam in 1980 dollars was taken at $20 .00/ton based on the steam ' production rate utilizing modular incineration technology ' and steam sale of approximately $6.00 per 1, 000 pounds . RDF: Revenues from the sale of RDF was computed on ' the basis of fossil fuel replacement due to combustion of ' RDF. The assumptions are: Coal Price. $50/ton Coal Heat Value: 1, 200 Btu/lb ' RDF Heat Value: 5, 585 Btu/lb Inservice Efficiency: 75% Coal 65% RDF Coal vs. RDF Heat Equivalency: 2. 5 lbs. of RDF/lb of Coal RDF User' s Charge: $5 .00/ton Net Estimated RDF Sale Price: $15/ton of RDF ' C. Net Annual Cost This cost is the net yearly cost of debt service and ' operating a facility, less annual revenues derived from from ' sale of recovered resource from that facility. d. Unit Cost ($/Ton) : Net annual costs are derived by the ' average tonnage handled to compute the net unit cost which is also the tipping fee charged at the gate of the facility. ' Average tonnage for 1980 is 182, 500 tons. ' 8. 3. 5 .4 Summary of Cost Analysis Table 8-3 presents a summary of the capital costs for var- ious alternatives with and without state aid . Table 8-4 shows a summary of the net unit cost ($/ton) . All unit costs are ' computed with state aid. ' 329 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. t TABLE 8-3 CAPITAL COST SUMN1: RY FOR ' VARIOUS ALTERNA IVES Capital Cost ' ( In Thousands of 1980 Dollars) Alternatives W/ State Aid W/O State Aid ' A REGIONAL SYSTEMS Five Town Mass-Fired Waterwall , Resource Recovery System with OBW Shredding $47, 566 $87, 102 Five Town Spreader Stoker Waterwall. ' , Resource Recovery System with Front: ' End Shredding. 48,466 88,902 ' Five Town Refuse Derived Fuel Resource Recovery System, RDF Sold i , to LILCO' s Proposed Jamesport Facility 29,417 55, 548 (or Port Jefferson Facility) i (29,895) (56, 185 ) 4. Five Town MSW Transfer to Proposed ' Brookhaven Resource Recovery Facility. 3, 681 4, 615 Five Town Conventional Sanitary ' Landfill to Comply with Prevailing State Regulations . 46,830 46, 830 , BJ SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ]� . Modular Incineration Resource ' Recovery for Shelter Island and Four Town Mass-Fired Waterwall Resource Recovery System with ' OBW Shredding. Shelter Island 1, 085 2, 346 Four Towns 47, 382 86,856 ' Modular Incineration Resource Recovery for Shelter Island and ' East Hampton and Three Town Mass- Fired Waterwall Resource Recovery System with OBW Shredding . ' Shelter Island & East Hampton 9, 172 14, 371 Three Towns 42, 088 77,901 ' 330 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS (CONT- D. ) Capital Cost ' (In Thousands of 1980 Dollars) Alternatives W/ State Aid W/O State Aid ' 3. Conventional Sanitary Landfill for Shelter Island and East Hampton and Three Town Mass-Fired Waterwall Resource Recovery System with OBW ' Shredding. Shelter Island & East Hampton $13 ,556 $13, 556 ' Three Towns 42,088 77, 901 4. Modular Incineration Resource Re- covery for Shelter Island and East Hampton and Three Town MSW Transfer to Proposed Brookhaven Resource Recovery Facility. ' Shelter Island & East Hampton 9, 172 14, 371 Three Towns 2,474 3, 101 ' 5. All Five Towns to Operate Individual Conventional Sanitary Landfills to ' Comply with Prevailing State Regulations . Southampton 13 ,552 13, 552 ' Southold 13, 156 13, 156 Riverhead 10, 142 10, 142 East Hampton 10,605 10, 605 ' Shelter Island 1 ,749 1,749 6. All Five Towns to Operate Individual Modular Incineration Resource Re- covery System. Southampton 22,030 36, 030 ' Southold 8,658 13, 795 Riverhead 8,658 13, 795 East Hampton 7,980 12, 540 ' Shelter Island 1 ,585 2, 346 ' 331 OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' TABLE 8-4 UNIT COSTS FOR VARIOUSIIALTERNATIVES , Unit Cost ( $/Tc. Alternatives _ 1980 Dollars , A. REGIONAL SYSTEMS 1 . Five Town Mass-Fired Waterwall ' Resource Recovery System with OBW Shredding. $37. 64 2 . Five Town Spreader Stoker Waterwal.11 1 Resource Recovery System with Front' End Shredding. 39. 54 ' 3 . Five Town Refuse Derived Fuel Resource Recovery System, RDF Sold to LILCO' s Proposed Jamesport Facility 42. 31 ' (or Port Jefferson Facility) . (46. 09) 4. Five Town MSW Transfer to Proposed. , , Brookhaven Resource Recovery Facility. 34. 05 5 . Five Town Conventional Sanitary Lan�3- ' fill to Comply with Prevailing State Regulations . 43. 82 SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ' 1 . Modular Incineration Resource Re- covery for Shelter Island and ' Four Town Mass-Fired Waterwall Resource Recovery System with OBW Shredding. ' Shelter Island 143. 44 Four Towns 38. 18 ' 2 . Modular Incineration Resource Recovery for Shelter Island and ' East Hampton and Three Town Mass- Fired Waterwall Resource Recovery System with OBW Shredding . ' Shelter Island & East Hampton 60. 14 Three Towns 40. 30 II 332 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS (CONT 'D. ) Unit Cost ($/Ton) ' Alternatives 1980 Dollars 3 . Conventional Sanitary landfill for Shelter Island and East Hampton and Three Town Mass-Fired Waterwall Resource Recovery System with OBW Shredding. ' Shelter Island & East Hampton $66. 21 Three Towns 40. 30 ' 4. Modular Incineration Resource Recovery for Shelter Island and East Hampton and Three Town MSW Transfer to Pro- posed Brookhaven Resource Recovery Facility. ' Shelter Island & East Hampton 60.15 Three Towns 29 .16 ' 5 . All Five Towns to Operate Individual Conventional Sanitary Landfills to Comply with prevailing State Regulations. Southampton 25 .04 Southold 51 .93 ' Riverhead 41 .89 East Hampton 57 . 74 Shelter Island 109.61 ' 6 . All Five Towns to Operate Individual Modular Incineration Resource Re- covery System. Southampton 49.52 Southold 41 .78 ' Riverhead 43 . 22 East Hampton 56.97 Shelter Island 143 .44 ' 333 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' ' 1 8. 3.5 .5 Comparison of Alternatives There are several other parame ers other than economics , T one must utilize in comparing various alternatives. This ' comparison is presented in Table ', 8-5. 8. 3. 5 .6 Conclusions ' Based on the comparative analysis of various alternatives, we have concluded that: ' 1. A regional resource recovery alternative is the most ' economical solution to thellfive town study area. 2. Sub-regional systems, indi idually or collectively, are more expensive than a five town regional system. 3. Although the cost differential between the mass-fired technology and spreader stoker technology is very ' marginal, the choice between the two technologies should be made with careful considerations of other factors such as proven track record and front-end ' processing (particularly sredding) requirements. We have recommended mass-f 'red technology in our report. ' 4. Refuse-derived technology, although involving sub- stantially reduced initial capital investment on the part of East End communit.is, is still in its ex- ' perimental stage. The maj r obstacle is LILCO' s re- luctance at this time to utilizing RDF in its facili- ties, without a successfu.11pilot plant demonstration. ' Therefore, we have eliminated this alternative from our recommendations. 5. The success of modular inc 'neration technology depends ' heavily on the sale of stemn. No major steam users exist presently and the re ulting unit costs are pro- hibitive. Even with full 3ale of steam, as we assumed t for our comparative analysis, this alternative is sub- stantially more expensive an a regional mass-fired alternative. t 6. Even with a tipping fee ofl $20/ton, the Brookhaven alternative appears more c st effective than any other alternative. Other advan.t ges are substantially reduced ' 334 , �i HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ 142M CORP. i F TABLE 8-5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE STUDY AREA ECONOMICAL IMPACT POTENTIAL STATE/ TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICAL INITIAL UNIT OF TRANSPORTATION ENERGY FINANCIAL TRACK RECORD) ACCEPTABILITY ACCEPTABILITY CAPITAL COST SITE AVAIL. REQUIREMENTS MARKETS AID REMARKS G P H M L H M L H L H L G P H L Yes No Yes No Regional A-1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ J ✓ A-2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ A-3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ .� ✓ A-4 J J ✓ ✓ ✓ J ✓ A-5 ✓ J ✓ ✓ J ✓ J J ✓ Sub- Regional REFES TO B-1 ✓ �/ ✓ ✓ °✓ ✓ ✓ 0j ✓ 1� ✓ ✓ iI ✓ °✓ ✓ 01/ MOD.RINC N. B-2 ✓ ✓ ✓ o✓ ✓ REFS TO ✓ �/ ✓ o✓ ✓ °� ✓ B-3 ✓ ✓ XiI ✓ 'I v V 1I � ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ SAN.ERLANDFILL B-4 ✓ °✓ ✓ , o✓ ✓ o, , , o✓ °✓ J REFERS TO MOD. INCIN. B-5 ✓ J J ✓ J ✓ ✓ ,l J B-6 ✓ J ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ J ✓ H- HIGH M-MEDIUM L-LOW G - GOOD P- POOR 335/336 III ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. capital costs and economical utilization of the trans- fer facilities at a later date when the towns may want to construct their own regional resource recovery facility because of increased solid waste quantities within the study area. This concept has some short- comings such as: ( 1) the willingness of the Town of ' Brookhaven to participate in such a system, due to political, social and environmental constraints, (2 ) potential unwillingness in guaranteeing long term de- pendability, (3) disposal of nonburnables would still require a landfill in the five town area, and (4) the Town of Brookhaven is still in its planning stage for ' the implementation of the resource recovery facility. Since the town officials in Brookhaven have expressed interest in further exploring this alternative, we ' would consider participation with Brookhaven as our alternative recommended scheme. ' 7. Conventional landfilling does not appear to provide a long term solution to the solid waste disposal problem for the five towns. Main reasons for this conclusion ' are the stringent environmental protection regulations and the elimination of landfill practices for certain areas due to the designation of Long Island as a sole source aquifer. Landfill requirements associated with ' a regional resource recovery facility are well recog- nized by the state officials and we do not foresee obstacles in locating a residue landfill, since such ' landfill will be designed and operated in accordance with the state regulations and be part and parcel of resource recovery. ' 8. Due to lack of markets for secondary materials recovered through source separation within economical travel dis- tances, a source separation program does not provide a ' cost-effective method of waste reduction. However, due to the fluctuating nature of the market demand, this alternative should be periodically evaluated. State ' aid under EQBA available for source separation programs should also be considered. The impact of source sepa- ration on the regional resource recovery is considered negligible. ' 337 OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , . 4 SLUDGE MANAGEMENT The existing and projected sludge quantities generated in t the study area are not significant. Table 8-6 shows the sludge quantities for the five towns through 2005 . As men- ' tioned previously, all five towns, individually or collec- tively are at present engaged in 201 wastewater management studies . These studies will also evaluate various alter- ' natives for disposal of sludge. One of the studies, con- ducted jointly for the Towns of Southampton and Riverhead ' has already been completed and :has recommended land disposal , of sludge in a lined landfill as' the most cost-effective alternative for the two towns . The studies for the remain- , ing three towns are underway at this writing. In this section, we have performed a preliminary sludge management ' alternative for the three towns (Southold, East Hampton and ' Shelter Island) and concluded that the most viable alterna- tive for these towns, also is the disposal in a lined land- , fill . These conclusions are subject to the final recommenda- tions of the 201 studies. Five alternatives were analyzed: 1. Landfilling: The digestedland dewatered treated sludge 20 percent solids ) would be brought in trucks to the ' lined landfill from the proposed wastewater treatment facilities. The landfill will be specifically designed ' to accept residue from thelresource recovery facility. The sludge will be disposed of at this landfill in an environmentally acceptable, manner. 338 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 8-6 ' PROJECTED COMBINED SLUDGE QUANTITIES ' (20 PERCENT SLUDGE CAKE) 1985 2005 TPY TPD TPY TPD 5 Town Total Scavenger Waste 2, 980 8.2 4,926 13 .5 ' Wastewater 2, 286 6 .3 3,044 8 .3 TOTAL 5, 266 14 .5 7,970 21 .8 Dry Solids 1,053 2 .9 1,594 4 .4 ' 3 Town Total(a) Scavenger Waste 900 2 .5 1,570 4.3 ' Wastewater 794 2 .2 800 2 .2 TOTAL 1,694 4 .7 2,370 6 .5 ' Dry Solids 339 0 .9 474 1 .3 ' (a) Towns of Southold, East Hampton and Shelter Island. 1 339 OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 2. Co-Disposal: Co-disposal is the burning of dewatered , sludge and municipal solid waste in the same combus- tion unit. The combustion unit could be a mutiple hearth furnace, a fludized bed reactor, or from any other technologies described earlier . The City of , Glen Cove, New York presently has under construction a 225 tpd mass-fired waterwall system which will burn vacuum filtered sludge. Sludge alone has been incin- erated in multiple hearth furnaces for many years. Of late, the concept of burning RDF with sludge is being experimented with at various locations in the ' country. The important aspect of the co-disposal al- ternative is the quality and quantity of sludge and the costly front-end preparation (moisture removal in particular) prior to its combustion. Generally, a mix- , ture of sludge and MSW should not exceed the ratio of 1 to 10 (1 ton of sludge to 10 tons of MSW) in a co- disposal process . ' 3. Composting: Composting of municipal solid waste has been discussed previously. On similar principles, - ' the sludge can be composted by encouraging natural decomposition. This is za�ccomplished by assuring aera- tion era tion of sludge piles with bulking agents (usually wood chips) . The final product, known as compost, ' may be utilized as a soil conditioner. In some in- stances, due to presence of heavy metals, the use of compost as a soil conditioner may be limited. ' 4. Incineration at the Existing Southwest Sewer District (SWSD) Sewage Treatment Plant in Babylon: The sludge ' would be truck transported to the SWSD Plant for com- bustion in the multiple hearth incinerators . The plant is equipped with two 118 tpd units. Prior to incineration, the sludge is thickened and treated by , the Zimpro process. Sludge is fed at the top of the furnace by rabble arms to successively lower levels . The uppermost levels serve to dry the sludge further ' whereas the lower levels complete the incineration of the sludge to ash. Cost elements of this alterna- tive are truck transportation and a tipping fee at ' the SWSD Facility. 5. Co-Disposal at the Resource Recovery Facility: Since the quantities of sludge from the three towns is in- ' significant in comparison with the MSW quantities processed at the resource recovery facility, it appears feasible to process the sludge with MSW in the same , 340 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. furnace. In a typical arrangement, the dewatered sludge will be brought to the resource recovery plant, where it would be subject to moisture removal in a separate drying unit. The heat from the combustion ' gases would be utilized in the drying process. The dried sludge then would be mixed with MSW and fed to the boilers . 8. 4.1 Alternative Cost Evaluation The following assumptions were made in analyzing the ' aforementioned sludge disposal alternatives for the Towns ' of Southold, East Hampton and Shelter Island. The costs are presented in Table 8-7. ' 1. All sludge disposal facilities were sized for design year 2005, three town combined quantities - 6. 5 tpd ( 20 percent solids ) . ' 2. Annual operating and maintenance costs were based on 1985 sludge quantities (4. 7 tpy) . ' 3. Landfill location is taken at North Sea, which is the proposed residue landfill for a regional resource recovery plan. ' 4. Sludge in Southold is generated at the existing Green- port Sewage Treatment Plant. Sag Harbor is the loca- tion for East Hampton Sludge origin. 5. Fixed equipment is amortized over 20 years and 7-1/8 ' percent interest rate. Rolling stock is 10 years at 7-1/8 percent. (Interest assumptions from 201 studies as mandated by EPA) . ' 6. Compost or on-site incineration is assumed at Sag Harbor location. ' 7. Tipping fees were assumed for the landfill, co-disposal and haul to SWSD Plant alternatives. ' 8. Federal and State funding was not included in our cost analysis . Funding of 87-1/2 percent is obtainable for capital cost through the 201 Wastewater Facilities Construction Program. t ' 341 x r ' N D TABLE 8-7 n x m COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS n r OF VARIOUS SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES z a 0 (1980 DOLLARS) Z m G. 9 Capital Annual Costs ( $/Yr) Unit CoC �a) � Cost ($) Capital Operating Total ($/Ton) m r r On-Site Incineration $1,195, 000 $115, 000 $64,000 $179,000 $105 v 0 Composting 196,000 25,000 22,000 47,000 27 N 3 Landfill 40,000 4,000 40,000 44,000 26 0 w �o N Haul to SWSD Plant 40, 000 12, 000 109,000 121,000 71 Co-Disposal 540, 000 52,000 19,000 71,000 66 (a) Dollars per ton of sludge cake (1985 quantities from Table 8-6 ) ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' SECTION 9.0 RECOMMENDED PLANS ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 9.0 RECOMMENDED PLANS ' 9 .1 INTRODUCTION ' The previous section outlined two plans which are most viable for the East End Service area: One is the plan com- prising a five town regional resource recovery facility ' utilizing mass-fired waterwall technology with oversized bulky waste shredding, and the second consists of participa- tion in the proposed resource recovery facility in the Town of Brookhaven . We recommend these plans as the primary and ' alternate recommended plans. ' This section presents a cash flow analysis for the primary recommend plan. A detailed breakdown of the cost of various ' components of the mass-fired resource recovery system is presented in Appendix 3 , of this report. Also presented in ' Appendix 3 is the detailed costs of transporting MSW to the ' proposed Brookhaven Facility. 9.2 PRIMARY RECOMMENDED PLAN ' Under this plan, each town would construct a transfer sta- tion facility at the location of it ' s existing landfill and ' transfer MSW to a regional resource recovery facility located ' at or near the RCA Site south of Riverhead. The resource recovery facility would consist of three 400 tpd mass-fired ' waterwall boilers with all periphiral equipment and facilities. The electrical generating facility will be owned and operated ' 343 FIGURE 9 - 1 ' 700 600 , 4 BOILERS ' AT 400 t p d 1500 , 400 m 1300 PEAK 3 3 BOILERS AT 400 t d ' cn 200 — o 1100 co cr- 000— Ill 00w ' (n 900 O 2 BOILERS �N��P� AVERAGE I— 800 AT 400 tpd S-(E G �1P 700 �G,��O ' i 600- 500- 400- 1980 00 500 4001980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 ' PROJECTED WASTE GENERATION VS. ' FACILITY REQUIREMENTS EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR ' TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y:S.D.E.C. ' MELVILLE,N.Y. OLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. /1~12M CORP. FARMINGDALE,N Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD,N V NEWTON.N.J. ' 344 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. by LILCO. The facility would have expansion capability ' to install a fourth unit sometime in mid 1990 ' s. Residue ' from the facility would be transported in enclosed containers to a lined landfill at North Sea which would also handle the nonburnables from the five towns. Ferrous metal would be recovered from the residue, if markets can be found. ' Wastewater would be heated and disposed of on-site in accor- dance with the required treatment standards . The disposal of residue and nonburnables will be performed in accordance ' with the prevailing Part 360 Regulations . 9 .2 .1 Cash Flow Analysis ' In performing a cash flow analysis we have assumed the ' construction and operation of the facility on an as-needed basis. This was necessary to obtain a more realistic ' picture of unit costs ( tipping fees) during the project life of 20 years. Particulary in the case of the study area, where solid waste quantities increase substantially over the ' 20 year period, it would be more practical to construct the main resource recovery facility in accordance with the pro- cessing requirements. Figure 9-1 shows the projected waste generation versus facility requirements. ' Other assumptions made in the development of cash flow ' analysis are: 1 . Escalation of costs is taken at 10 percent per year. ' 345 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 2 . Facilities other than the resource recovery plant are ' sized to handle 2005 peak quantities. 3 . Operating costs are compUted in accordance with the ' tonnage throughput. 4. Replacement of rolling equipment is considered based , on a 7 year equipment life. 5 . Revenues for sale of electrical energy are obtained ' from LILCO. No revenue from the sale of ferrous metals are applied. Table 9-1 shows a cash flow ,:analysis for the primary recom- mended plan. As shown a fourth unit is added to the resource ' recovery plant in 1996 . The tip.ping fee in 1985 is computed as $24.53/ton. Figure 9-2 shows the tipping fees for the project ' life. It should be noted that a substantial reduction in the tipping fee would occur beyond 1995 , attributed mainly to in- , creased electrical revenues projected by LILCO. , Table 9-2 shows a town by town breakdown of the tipping fee based on one entity operating the entire system from the ' point of delivery of solid waste to the transfer stations to the final disposal of residue. If the town elected to con- ' struct the transfer station facilities on their own and trans- ' port the MSW to the regional resource recovery facility, the transfer station and transfer haul unit costs would vary ' from town to town. The cash flow by town under this method is shown in Table 9-3. ' 9.3 ALTERNATE RECOMMENDED PLAN ' Similar to the primary plan this plan requires that each town construct a transfer station facility at the location ' of its existing landfill and transfer MSW to the proposed 346 ' ' FIGURE NS 9-2 ' 25- 20-- z 520Z ' O _ 15-- w ' W W O Z ' a to 1 ' 5 ' 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 ' PROJECT LIFE TIPPING FEES FOR PRIMARY RECOMMENDED PLAN ' EAST END SOLID WASTE S E M ANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.V. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. /H2M CORP. FARMI=ALE.N V CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N V NEWTON,N.J ' 347 TABLE 9-1 ' PRIMARY RECOMMEINDED PLAN FIVE TOWN REGIONAL RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM ' CASH FLOW ANALYSIS THOUSANDS OF DOLI:.ARS PER YEAR Debt Service 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Transfer Stations 248 248 286 315 315 ' Transfer Haul 346 346 630 1,036 1,036 Resource , Recovery Fac. 4, 976 4,976 4,976 7,038 7,038 Residue Haul 56 56 108 143 143 , Residue & Non burnables Disp. 589 589 668 820 820 Wastewater , Disposal 443 _443 443 _443 _443 Sub-Total 6,658 6, 658 7,111 9, 795 9, 795 , Operating Costs Transfer Station 537 717 1,560 2,429 3, 149 , Transfer Haul 761 1,015 2,209 3,439 4,457 Resource ' Recovery Fac. 3, 708 4,944 7,725 9, 398 13, 706 Residue Haul ' & Disposal 344 460 981 1,177 1,526 Wastewater Disposal 135 180 338 405 _525 ' Sub-Total 5,485 7, 316 12,813 16,848 23, 363 Total , Annual Cost 12, 143 13,974 19,924 26,643 33, 158 Electrical ' Revenues 6,682 7, 245 12,297 21,391 32, 772 Net Annual Cost 5,461 6, 729 7,627 5, 252 386 ' Annual Tonnage 222,650 270,100 324,850 389,550 44,220 Tipping Fee- ' Unit Cost 24. 53 24.91 23 .48 13.48 0.85 ($/ton) 343 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. TABLE 9-2 INDIVIDUAL TOWN CASH FLACW ANALYSIS PRIMARY REOONAENDED PLAN - FIVE TOM REGIONAL RESOURCE REODVERY SYSTEM CASE A: ENTIRE SYSTEM OWNED AND OPERATED BY SINGLE ENTITY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR Riverhead Southampton Southold East Hampton Shelter Island 1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005 Transfer Station 147 341 631 347 835 1,602 153 340 603 121 286 538 17 44 90 u Transfer Haul 207 524 1,000 490 1,284 2,540 216 523 956 171 440 853 24 68 142 { Resource Recovery(a) 374 76 -2,191 886 183 -5,563 391 75 -2,094 308 63 -1,869 43 10 -311 Residue Haul, Residue & Non burnable Disp. 185 324 454 438 794 1,151 193 324 433 153 272 388 21 42 64 Wastewater Disposal 108 144 176 256 353 448 113 144 169 89 121 150 12 19 25 TOTAL 1,021 1,409 70 2,417 3,449 178 1,066 1,406 67 842 1,182 60 117 183 10 Annual 41,610 60,000 82,730 98,550 146,880 210,080 43,440 59,880 79,080 34,310 50,340 70,570 4,740 7,750 11,760 Tonnage Tipping Fee- 24.53 23.48 0.85 24.53 23.48 0.85 24.53 23.48 0.85 24.53 23.48 0.85 24.53 23.48 0.85 Unit Cost ($/ton) (a) Reflects Revenue from Sale of Electricity to LILCO. i 349/350 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 9-3 I INDIVIDUAL TOW CASH FLOW ANALYSIS PRIMARY RECOMMENDED PLAN - FIVE TOM REGIONAL RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM CASE B: SAME AS CASE "A" EXCEPT - MSW TRANSFER AND TRANSPORTATION PERFORMED BY INDIVIDUAL TOWNS �M THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR Ip i' Riverhead Southampton Southold East Hampton Shelter Island " 1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005 Transfer Station 178 419 786 188 440 828 178 421 786 191 448 842 50 118 222 h Transfer Haul 172 437 847 291 747 1,446 211 542 1,050 341 874 1,693 92 233 450 Resource i Recovery (a) 374 76 -2,191 886 183 -5,563 391 75 -2,094 308 63 -1,869 43 10 -311 Residue Haul Residue & Non- burnable Disp. 185 324 454 438 794 1,151 193 324 433 153 272 388 21 42 64 Wastewater Disposal 108 144 176 256 353 448 113 144 169 89 121 150 12 19 25 TOTAL 1,017 1,400 72 2,059 2,517 -1,690 1,086 1,506 344 1,082 1,778 1,204 218 422 450 Annual 41,610 60,000 82,730 98,550 146,880 210,080 43,440 59,880 79,080 34,310 50,340 70,570 4,740 7,750 11,760 Tonnage Tipping Fee- 24.44 23.33 0.87 20.89 17.14 -8.04 25.00 25.15 4.35 31.54 35.32 17.06 45.99 54.45 38.26 R Unit Cost ($/ton) (a) Reflects Revenue from Sale of Electricity to LILCO. 351/352 'f ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. resource recovery facility in the Town of Brookhaven. 1 The main thrust behind this concept is one of mutual ' benefit. The Brookhaven facility would be designed to handle projected wastes. The excess capacity in the initial years ' could be utilized by East End Towns which should lower the tipping fees at Brookhaven facility - a cost benefit to Brook- haven. On the other hand, the East End Towns , in the later years, ' would generate enough waste to operate their own regional facility in a more cost effective manner - a cost benefit to ' the East End communities. At that time Brookhaven would have increased waste generation to utilize the full capacity ' of it' s plant. Of course, depending on the economics of ' Brookhaven and five towns, the towns could negotiate long term contracts with Brookhaven in which case Brookhaven would design, construct and expand it' s facility for the entire project life and no separate regional facility would be re- quired for the East End Towns. Based on the Projections of solid waste quantities for the town of Brookhaven (obtained from HDR Report) , and the pro- posed plant capacity of 2 ,000 tpd, we have presented in Figures 9-3 and 9-4, how the waste from the East End commun- ities could be accomodated at this facility and the period ' of time of such accomodation . Based on the peak loadings of both Brookhaven and five towns , the facility will have to be ' 353 3500-- FIGURE N29— , C , 3000 D 2500 EAST END , PEAK M S W } G PROPOSED EAST END BROOKHAVEN RESOURCE AVERAGE MSW ' RECOVERY FACILITY cr W 2000 TPD a N 2000 A A ' 0 C P'>00-0� B D 1500 BROOKHAVEN ' AVERAGE MSW B 1000 ' 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 ' UTILIZATION OF PROPOSED BROOKHAVEN , FACILITY BY EAST END TOWNS ( BASED ON BROOKHAVEN'S ,AVERAGE LOADING) EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR 'TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. OLZMACHER, MCLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. /11.12M CORP. M ARMING ,N.Y. ' FAMINGOALE.N.V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N V NEWTON.N.J. 354 ' ' FIGURE N° 9-4 C ' 4000 ' D ' 35 00, Q 3000 O EAST END AVERAGE MSW W a ' EAST END Z C PEAK MSW B H 2500-- D 500D BROOKHAVEN ' PEAK MSW A 2000 A PROPOSED BROOKHAVEN RESOURCE ' RECOVERY FACILITY B 2000 TPD ' 1500 ' 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 UTILIZATION OF PROPOSED BROOKHAVEN FACILITY BY EAST END TOWNS ( BASED ON BROOKHAVEN'S PEAK LOADING ) ' EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C. /1-12M CORP. FARM INGDALE.N Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD.N Y NEWTON,N.J. ' 355 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' TABLE 9-4 , MSW TRANSFER TO BROOKHAVEN CASH FLOW( l) ($1 ,000) ' Debt Service(2) 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Transfer Station 248 248 286 315 315 ' Transfer Haul 410 410 754 1,198 1, 198 Nonburnable Disposal 186 186 211 259 259 Sub-Total 844 844 1 ,251 1,772 1,772 ' 0 erating Cost , Transfer Station and Haul 1 ,613 2 , 150 4 ,610 6, 224 81069 , N nburnable Disposal 158 210 394 472 612 ' Sub-Total 1 ,771 2 ,360 5 ,004 6,696 8, 681 Total Annaul , Cost 2,615 3 ,204 6,255 8,468 10,453 Annual ' Tonnage 222,650 270,100 324,850 389,550 454, 220 Unit Cost 11.74 11.86 19.26 21.74 23 .01 , (S/ton) ( 1) Does not include tipping fee that would be charged by Brookhaven. ' (2 ) Debt Services includes State Aid under EQBA. 356 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. constructed larger than 2 ,000 tpd right from the beginning . However, if average quantities were considered, the East End Towns could utilize the facility until 1989 . ' 9 .3 .1 Cash Flow Analysis ' Since the tipping fee at the proposed Brookhaven facility depends on how the facility would be constructed and utilized, ' it is difficult to predict the unit cost for cash flow pur- poses. However , we have presented in Table 9-4 a cash flow ' of the transfer and transportation system. These costs ' would be over and above the tipping fees the towns will pay at the Brookhaven facility. ' 9 .4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF RECOMMENDED PLANS The following is a partial assessment of the potential ' impacts of the recommended plan on the study area environ- ment. 9 .4.1 Community Economics Community economics includes factors such as household unit income, employment levels, industries of employement, ' retail sales and costs to consumers for goods and services. Secondary level factors include changes in any of those levels due to changes in population growth or worker influx when implementing or operating one of the alternatives. Excluded are the specific fiscal costs of construction, op- eration and financing of the alternatives which are addressed ' separately. ' 357 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Employment, retail and secondary factors should not be ' significantly impacted by any of the alternatives presented . , As labor requirements for operation of each alternative are comparable to those requirements for existing solid waste , facilities, there would be no relative difference in secondary , economic impacts. Labor requirements for construction of any of the alterna- tives will present short term positive impact. Based upon labor for construction of similar sized facilities approx- imately 200-250 positions would be created. The most bene- ficial approach would provide priority hiring from the ' existing regional labor force. The number of positions over ' a typical two year construction period is positive, although the degree of impact cannot be assessed without specific ' facility design and schedules . Additional economic impacts may be realized due to increased requirements for municipal water supply, wastewater treatment ' fire protection or other community services. If existing services become stressed by any alternative, economic impacts ' may be realized in extension or increased operation and main- tenance of these services. ' A generalized cost impact of the regional facility upon ' the community has been presented in the section on fiscal impact. If the cost were apportioned as a fixed annual charge ' 358 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' on each house, it could have a significant adverse impact g P on low or distressed economic level families, many of whom now minimize solid waste cost by self hauling. A charge based upon assessed value would spread the cost on a pre- sumed ability-to-pay impact on low economic levels. With respect to the cost of collection, individual homes ' will still have the option of using private carter' s for collection of the refuse or self carting to the transfer ' stations. For those who contract with a carter the economic ' impact is dependent on whether disposal costs to the munici- pality are increased or decreased and in turn are passed on ' to the carter in the form of different tipping fees at the transfer stations . There should be relatively little impact ' because all of the municipalities will be trading individual landfill operations for a central facility with economies ' of scale. The cost impact of the solid waste facility will be born by all residents, whether seasonal or full-time . The cost ' of collection would continue to be based only upon those months in which service is provided. 9.4.2 Fiscal Base ' Existing solid waste collection practices on the East End differ slightly from town to town, but in general, solid ' waste is delivered to each towns ' landfill by a combination ' 359 HO ZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. of private carters and self hauling. In private carting the hauler charges the individual. customer a fee for pickups , and in turn is charged a fee, by the town, for disposal at the landfill , usually in the form of a yearly permit fee. ' In evaluating the impacts of a resource recovery system , on the tax base we have assumed that the resource recovery facility and transfer stations will be owned and operated by , a regional solid waste management: authority. The tipping fee charged to the haulers on a tonnage basis, has been estimated , to cover the difference between the costs and the revenue ' from the sale of power. Therefore, for disposal of solid waste which a town delivers to its transfer station, it will ' pay the solid waste management authority the following tipping fees , for the years noted. The projected tipping fees are ' obtained from Table 9-1. ' 1985 - $24.53 Per Ton 1990 - 24.91 Per Ton ' 1995 - 23.48 Per Ton 2000 - 13 .48 Per Ton 2005 - 0.85 Per Ton Table 9-5 lists the projected annual solid waste quantities, ' generated by each of the participating East End Towns, to be ' delivered to the regional resource recovery facility. These figures multiplied by the appropriate tipping fee for that ' year will yield the total cost to the authority for disposing of a towns solid waste. These costs are shown in Table 9-6 . 360 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and fAURRELL,.P.C./H2M CORP. TABLE 9-5 I PROJECTED SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES i Southampton Riverhead Southold East Hampton Shelter Island Total 'ear TPY (TPD) TPY (TPD) TPY (TPD) TPY (TPD) TPY (TPD) TPY (TPD) _985 98, 550 (270 ) 41,610 (114 ) 43 ,440 (119 ) 34, 310 ( 94 ) 4, 740 (13 ) 222 ,650 ( 610) _990 121, 180 (332 ) 50,000 (137) 51 ,100 (140 ) 41,980 ( 115 ) 5 ,840 (16 ) 270 , 100 ( 740) 1995 146,880 (403 ) 60,000 (164) 59,880 (164) 50, 340 ( 138) 7 , 750 (21) 324,850 ( 890) P 2000 180,400 (494) 70,440 (193 ) 68,990 (189) 60, 230 ( 165 ) 9,490 (26 ) 389 , 550 (1,067) I I 2005 210, 080 (576 ) 82 ,730 (226 ) 79,080 (217 ) 70, 570 (193 ) 11,760 (32 ) 454,220 (1,244) TPY = Tons Per Year TPD = Tons Per Day 361/362 i HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 9-6 ANNUAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS ($1,000) Year Southampton Riverhead Southold East Hampton Shelter Island 1985 2,417 1 ,021 1,066 842 116 1990 3, 018 1 ,246 1,273 1,046 145 1995 3,449 1,409 1,406 1, 182 182 2000 2,432 905 930 812 128 rn 2005 178 70 67 60 10 w HC LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. The regional authority can recover these costs in one of ' ho y e:� two ways, either by charging the carter the tipping fee, or by , keeping record of the solid waste:: delivered by each towns trans- fer station and billing the town periodically. In the first , method, the carter would include the cost in his charges to , the householder. This method Could prove difficult due to the sizable percentage of the total .solid waste delivered in small ' quantities by self hauling residents. In the second method, the town pays the authority' s bills and recovers the cost in , taxation. ' In this report we assume the latter method, i .e. the house- holder pays a tax to the town to cover only the authority' s ' tipping fees and either self hauls or pays a carter separately to pickup and deliver his solid waste to the transfer station. ' The tax a householder will pay to the town for solid waste ' disposal can be assessed in one of two ways, as a fixed annual charge per house, or on the basis of assessed (or full value , assessed) valuation. The projected number of households in each town are listed , in Table 9-7 and projected total valuations for each town in ' Table 9-8 . The total valuation projections were made by pro- rating the current total valuations on the basis of the pro- ' jected number of households . Nolte, that of the five towns, only Riverhead 'has undergone reassessment and uses full assessed ' valuation. In the absence of any olther data, we assume no ' change in the current assessment pattern. 364 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. By dividing the number of householders into the annual dis- posal costs charged by the authority we obtain the annual cost per household shown in Table 9-9. Using the assessed valuations in Table 9-8 instead of households, we obtain the ' annual taxation rates per $100 assessed (or full assessed) valuation shown in Table 9-10. ' 9 .4.3 Community Services No significant impacts are anticipated on health care facil- ities due to OSHA Requirements for municipal facilities. Nor ' should any alternatives stress fire and police services based on assumed site engineering and security measures associated ' with similar facilities. Public water supply should not be impacted by any alterna- tive located on the main body of the Island . Any water con- sumptive facility placed on either the north or south fork may result in increased water table draw-down. Siting of a ' facility therefore is the significant factor in assessing im- pact on water supply, whereas the quantity of water consumption associated with comparable facilities is within an acceptable ' level . Impact on wastewater treatment facilities is not a significant concern. Assessment of wastewaters from comparable facilities identified the wastewater constituents to be treatable. Sec- ondary impacts due to treatment of wastewaters may be the 365 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 9-7 PROJECTED NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Year Southampton Riverhead Southold East Hampton Shelter Island 1985 27,430 9, 330 11,635 11, 910 1,870 1990 30, 140 10,425 12, 565 12, 935 2,075 1995 33, 350 11,680 13,565 14, 135 2,315 2000 34, 645 12 ,230 14,085 14, 580 2 ,390 2005 35, 845 12,965 14,985 16, 185 2,500 w rn ON Number of households include seasons- units. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. �I TABLE 9-8 PROJECTED TOTAL VALUATIONS ($110001000 ) Year Southampton Riverhead(l) Southold East Hampton Shelter Island 1980 $150. 50 $528.00 $ 75 .45 $ 73 .40 $22. 35 1985 163. 50 573 . 50 83 .95 80 .75 24.65 1990 179. 65 640.80 90.70 87 .70 27.35 1995 198. 80 717 . 95 97.90 95 .85 30. 50 rn 2000 206. 50 751.75 101.65 98.85 31.50 J 2005 213 .65 796.95 108. 15 109.75 32.95 (1) Full value assessed valuation. (2 ) All valuations are expressed in 1980 dollars. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL,P.C./H2M CORP. TABLE 9-9 ANNUAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD Year Southampton Riverhead Southold East Hampton Shelter Island 1985 88 109 92 71 62 1990 100 120 101 81 70 1995 103 121 104 84 79 2000 70 78 66 56 54 2005 5 5 5 4 4 w co HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 9-10 ANNUAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS PER $100 ASSESSED VALUATION Year Southampton Riverhead( 1) Southold East Hampton Shelter Island 1985 1 .48 . 18 1 .27 1 .04 .47 1990 1 .68 .19 1.40 1 .19 .53 1995 1 .73 .20 1 .44 1 .23 .60 2000 1 .18 . 13 .80 .82 .41 w 2005 0 .08 .01 .06 .05 .03 ( 1) Riverhead' s cost is based on the full assessed valuation. i HO ZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' required effluent quality discharged to Zone III or marine waters. ' Resource recovery presents long term positive impacts on ' electricity supply and the potential level of service. The significance of each alternative is dependent on design ' specifics. 9. .4 Demography ' All of the alternatives presented were developed to serve ' the defined study area, with its population projected through a 20 year planning period. Growth in numbers of individuals ' and dwelling units, as well as density and seasonal fluctua- tions have been incorporated into the projections of solid ' waste quantities. ' The improvement to solid waste disposal by any of the alternatives would present moderate long term beneficial im- pact on population growth trends .. However, the demographic characteristics of the study area are varied due to the ' seasonal nature of the population and the range in land usage ' from agricultural to suburban residential. The characteristics of the current population can not be ' accurately assessed until the 19£:30 census characteristics information is released, which will occur after 1981 . At ' that time, based upon the census and the specific alternatives , ' reassessment should be made to determine if different impacts would be perceived by the different socio-economic demographic , levels. 370 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 9 .4 .5 Traffic The roads proposed for the transfer routes have been clas- sified under the Suffolk County Comprehensive Transportation Plan, rural classification system. The dominant classifica- tions of these roads and their uses are: Minor Arterials - includes 6-12 percent of the total route miles, providing service to corridors having trip lengths and travel densities greater than those served by collectors . ' Major and Minor Collectors - includes 20-25 percent of total route miles, providing service from local ' roads to the arterial system. Local includes 65-75 percent of the total route miles, providing access to adjacent land use and ' relatively short distance travel . Most of the roads are in the arterial and collector system ' and provide the most direct service from the transfer stations to proposed facility sites. Local roads are proposed only ' when required for access to the transfer stations and are in- significant in distance. The plan also identifies level of service for the roads ' determined by its operating speed and the ratio of its demand volume to capacity using estimated peak hour volumes. Level ' "E" roads operate at or above the maximum number of vehicles that can be accomodated under prevailing conditions. Transfer routes which are classified in the rural arterial system gen- erally operate at a "D" or "C" level of service as defined by ' 371 HO ZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' p the Transportation Plan. The level of service defines the ' priority given to road improvements; D: Secondary, and ' C: Tertiary. Another factor which aids in estimating the sensitivity , of the proposed routes is the number of "high accident , locations" . Such locations are frequent along Route 27 , and each of these locations have between 9 and 29 accidents annually. Based upon these known condit:i.ons# transfer traffic pre- , sents potential impact on sensitive portions of the road ' system. The degree of impact may be defined following detailed ' hourly traffic sampling performed along each transfer route specifying passenger and truck counts. A significant impact ' is considered any increase of 5 percent or more, or increases ' resulting in volumes over capacity ( "E" level of service) . The last factor which defines the level of impact is the ' public perception of traffic conditions, road capacity and associated noise and odors. ' 9 . .6 Aesthestics and Noise Aesthetic impact can not be assessed until site and facility , designs are completed. Potential areas of concern include ' design of buildings and appurtenances, location and potential views from the surrounding community and the acreage of natural ' 372 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' habitat or woodland disturbed. Other factors include miti- gating measures to reduce noise, night lighting beyond the facility property line and control of odors or drift plumes . ' Criteria for fully addressing noise includes the absolute ' and perceived level and character of noise in the study area, site vicinity and transfer routes. The change in noise can ' be assessed based on designed equipment specifications and findings of similar facilities. The noise due to transfer ' stations may generally be mitigated by requiring the vehicles ' to meet state or more stringent standards. The transfer sta- tions are not considered areas of particular sensitivity due to the sites current and projected continued committment to solid waste handling. Odors and drift can be controlled by application of appro- priate technology. ' 9.4.7 Other Impacts ' An in-depth evaluation of potential impacts on the climate hydrogeology and air quality is contingent upon the specific ' details of the selected alternatives which is beyond the scope of this study. Any new facilities will be designed and operated in accordance with the prevailing federal, state, 1 county and local requirements. For example, the resource re- covery facility will be provided with all necessary air pol- lution control measures in order to minimize any adverse impacts on the existing air quality. Similar considerations ' 373 HO ZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. will hold for climate, hydrogeology and the natural environ- ' ment of the five town area. ' 9. .8 Regulatory Requirements The general environmental review process will be performed , under the scope of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. Based upon monies contributed to the project ' and the permits required, and due: to the regional nature of ' the project, head agency status would most likely be assigned to NYSDEC. NYSDEC in turn would coordinate and preside over ' the Draft EIS preparation and review. The SEQR process pro- vides for public participation through written comments and t public hearings in addition to similar formal input from ' cognizant agencies. The primary agencies which may be cognizant include federal, state and local units. The agencies concerned include but are not limited to: ' - US Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources ' - US Army Corp. of Engineers: Dredging Permits - New York State Department of Environmental ' Conservation: SEQR, Solid Waste, Water, Wastewater, Air, ' Noise, Pine Barrens, Wetlands - New York State Department of Energy ' - New York State Department of Transportation - New York State Office of Historic Preservation ' 374 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' - Suffolk County Department of Health Services - Suffolk County Department of Transportation ' - Suffolk County Department of Public Works - Long Island Regional Planning Board - Town Level Environmental, Planning, Transportation, Community Development, Public Works Departments ' Permits which would be required are also administered from federal, state and local levels. Federal permits are limited ' to air (pending transfer of responsibility to state level) ' and dredging as in the case of the Jamesport Site. State permits include the full spectrum of SPDES, water supply well ' and solid waste permits. Wetland permits may be required de- pending on site specifics. County permits relate to water ' supply. Assuming the proposed authority is established as a ' public benefit corporation, it will be exempt from local zoning regulations and general ordinances including noise. However, ' compliance within these statutes assures project integrity and local acceptance. ' 375 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. SECTION 10.0 ' IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PLANS ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 10.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PLANS ' 10 .1 INTRODUCTION ' A sound implementation of any project requires a careful examination of various administrative, (institutional) , ' financial and procurement alternatives available to the com- munities. In this section we have described these alterna- tives and recommended those which we consider most applicable ' to the East End Communities. 10 .2 ADMINISTRATIVE (INSTITUTIONAL) ALTERNATIVES ' y There are six kinds of mechanisms available in New York State which may be considered for use in the recommended ' solid waste resource recovery alternatives : 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 ' 10 .2. 1 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, proces- sing and disposal) as a municipal function within its borders. In all cases the authority extends to acquisition of property and financing with either general tax revenues or service charges . This mechanism is obviously available where primary ' functional responsibility is assigned at either the local government level, or at the county level. ' 377 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , 10. 2.2 Intermunicipal Service Agreements , p The General Municipal Law enables any municipal corpora- , tion in the East End area 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 consider- ' ation. Agreements under this general provision require approval by each participating municipal corporation or district by a , majority vote of the voting strength of its governing body. Section 119-o of the statute requires equitable allocations of , revenues and capital and operating costs, but allows various ' formulas to be used, including those that allocate in propor- tion to full valuation of real property, to the amount of ser- , vices rendered, or to the benefits received. A more specialized authority for inter-municipal service ' contracts is provided by Section 120-w of the Municipal Law. ' This statute enables any municipality which owns and operates any solid 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 fee for the use of their ' landfills by non-residents. The intermunicipal services contract may be an important legal ' mechanism for different assignments of primary responsibility. For , 378 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 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 wastes. Or if a facility is located on county owned land, and operated by the county the county can make a service contract with the town. 10 .2. 3 Agreements for Joint Municipal Activities ' These agreements are similar to intermunicipal service arrangements 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 or ' their appointees or others as specified. 10 .2.4 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. 10 .2. 5 Public Authorities ' A public authority (sometimes called a public corporation) is a corporate instrumentality of the State, created by the State ' Legislature for the furtherance of self-liquidating public im- provements. As creations of the State, such authorities can be formed for a multiplicity of purposes and with a wide range of ' powers. ' 379 HOI ZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Article 10 and 15 of the N.Y.S. Constitution provides 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 State, county or any municipality, and are payable only out of ' the funds of the Authority. The ;Authority is deemed to be oper- ating in a "governmental function" in the exercise of the powers , conferred and is exempted from the payment of taxes on any prop- erties acquired or used by it. The Authority has power to construct ' 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 in and outside the service ' area for the purpose of treating and disposing of solid waste materials. ' To finance its operations and to pay off its capital obliga- tions, the Authority has power to fix rate$ and collect charges for any services it renders. It also can issue negotiable bonds ' with up to 40 years to maturity and negotiable bond anticipation notes with up to five years to maturity. To secure its bonds, the Authority can pledge revenues derived from its operations and can , 380 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' also provide further security by trust indentures . The bonds ' can provide financing for any of the Authority' s corporate purposes, including incidental expenses connected with the ' issuance of bonds . 10 .2. 6 New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation ' The NYSEFC is a public authority and Corporation created by ' Special Act of the State Legislature in 1967 , 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 authorized ' to contract with municipalities and State agencies to undertake ' the following projects : 1. Turnkey construction of solid waste disposal facilities. ' 2. Operation and maintenance of solid waste disposal facilities. 3. Service contracts whereby the Corporation provides for treat- ment, compaction, or disposal of solid wastes by means of solid waste disposal facilities owned and constructed by the Corporation. ' 4. Provide loans for the construction of solid waste disposal facilit 5. Advice, technical assistance, research, planning, and testing ' with respect to matters related to the planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of solid waste disposal 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 governing body, ' i.e. , the elective body or board vested with jurisdiction to ' 381 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , initiate and adopt local laws and ordinances. Where the Corp- oration 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 municipality does ' not acquire any vested rights in the facilities and the annual payments made by the municipality to the Corpora- ' tion are deemed to be current operating expenses; 2 . If under the service contract the municipality does acquire rights in the facilities then - I a. The term of the contract must not exceed 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, and; , 3 . The annual payment of the municipality must commence within two years after the indebtedness 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 lease or rent projects constructed and owned by it with approval of the contracting municipality and may make other im- provements at a facility site for which the contracting municipality has the power to provide. ' Table 10-1 delineates some of the advantages and disadvan- tages of various administrative alternatives. 382 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 10-1 ADMINISTRATIVE ALTERNATIVES Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Intermunicipal Service Has Working Precedents Requires One Town to Operate Agreements & Accept the Major Respon- sibility Agreements for Joint Representative from Each Town Ex- Towns May Abrogate Agreement Municipal Activities ercizes Control Special Purpose Can Raise Money Through Special Politically Unpopular CO Districts Benefit Assessement w � III Public Authorities Bonds & Notes Issued by Authority Politically Unpopular are Not Debts of the Town NYSEFC Can Own, Operate, Construct and Presently Limited in Financing Finance Resource Recovery Facility Abilities H DLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 10 .3 FINANCING ALTERNATIVES Solid waste management and,, more recently, resource recovery , are necessary public services which must be adequately financed. In order to implement an effective system, two basic financial , decisions must be made: 1) how to cover the initial capital in- vestment; and 2) how to provide revenue to meet operating costs. ' Financing techniques for each are discussed briefly in the fol- ' lowing paragraphs . 10 .3. 1 Initial Capital Investment ' Possible means for financing of initial capital investment are: A) pay-as-you-go method; B) long term obligations. A. Pay-As-You-Go ' This method dictates that all equipment and facilities are paid for as the purchases are made. The advantages asso- ciated with this policy are (a) saving of interest and carrying charges involved, and (b) no long term commitments. A large initial capital expenditure as is required here generally would ' preclude this method of financing and accordingly pay-as-you-go does not have application. ' B. Long Term Obligations At present, there seems to be no single method of finan- cing resource recovery projects. Most facilities are financed ' by one or a combination of methods . 384 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Six basic mechanisms of financing resource recovery ' facilities are: 1. General Obligation Bonds ' ' 2. Municipal Revenue Bonds 3. Government Aid 4. Industrial Revenue and Pollution Control Revenue Bonds ' 5. Leasing 6. Leverage Leasing ' 10. 3.1 .1 General Obligation Bonds General obligation bonds (G.O. Bonds) are long-term obli- gations secured by the "full-faith-and-credit of a political jurisdiction which has the ability to raise and issue taxes . The full-faith-and-credit clause pledges the general revenue ' of that jurisdiction. The jurisdiction' s revenue sources may include property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes , unincorpora- ted 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 dis- tributions from the State ( excluding Federal revenue-sharing receipts) . ' Interest paid on general obligation bonds is non-taxable, both State and Federal . 10 . 3.1 .2 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 ' 385 OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 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 financed) to guarantee payment of the funds obtained in the issue. ' 10 . 1.3 .3 Government Aid The New York State Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972 ' was created to supply maximum g3:,*ants of 50 percent for re- ' source recovery projects and 25 percent for solid waste transport and disposal projects. Funds are only available to municipal- ' ities 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 intermuni- cipal projects . The Federal Department of Energy in accordance with the ' Energy Security Act, P.L. 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 financing is 25 million, with an ultimate authorization for 225 ' million. 10 1.3 .4 Industrial Revenue and Pollution Control Revenue Bonds An industrial revenue bond (IRB) and a pollution control ' revenue bond (PCRB) are issued by a municipality for or on be- half of a private enterprise. The municipality acts as a ' vehicle through which a corporation may obtain low cost financing. 386 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 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 "installment sale, " the corporation may claim ownership for tax purposes. This gives the corporation tax benefits in the form of accelerated 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. 10 .1 .3. 5 Leasing ' The lease-purchase agreement is a leasing arrangement which ' is growing in popularity. It is attractive to private operators as well as to municipalities. The method is ideally suited for capital 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. ' 387 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , A lease arrangement 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. 10 .3 .1.6 Leverage Leasingt 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 casts) that accrue to a city if a financial intermediary, corporation or individual, is interposed t between a long-term source of capital and the municipality. ' Leveraged leasing, using tax-exempt funds as a debt source, is a new concept. Its future, is promising and it has stirred ' a great deal of interest in the public financing investment com- munity. om-munity. ' Advantages and disadvantages for each financing method are ' shown in Table 10-2. 10 3 .2 Operating Funds ' Four basic methods are used to generate operating funds: 1) tax levies; 2) fixed chargee; 3 ) user charge; and 4) revenues ' from sale of recovered resources. ' 10 3 .2. 1 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 is that the solid waste management budget is ' 388 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' subject to the normal budgetary process and might be cut ' without regard to the operating costs. Furthermore, it is difficult to develop a case for required rate increases. ' 10 .3 .2. 2 Fixed Charges ' These revenues are generated from a fixed charge which is separate from taxes in a municipally 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 competition 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 rela- tively easy to determine the operation efficiency of the solid waste system. Another advantage is that demands for rate increases can readily be justified by providing profit and ' loss data. 10 .3 .2. 3 User Charge ' This is a charge which varies according to the level of service rendered; for example, an additional charge may be made for backyard compared to curbside collection. ' This method has all the advantages of a fixed charge, and in addition provides that only beneficiaries of a service ' pay for that service . ' 389 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 1 10 3 .2.4 Revenue From Sale of Recovered Resources Sale of energy (steam and/or electricity) and secondary ' materials provides substantial income which contributes signi- ficantly to the viability of the plan. 10 .4 PROCUREMENT ' 10 .4 .1 Introduction There are two basic method;: of procurement that are ' generally used in both state and local government construction: 1 . Formal Advertising or Non-Negotiated Procurement ' 2 . Negotiated Procurement Non-negotiated procurement is always a competitive bid , procedure. This method is the common method issued by govern- ment for purchasing standard items such as landfill equipment. A document termed as Invitation for Bids (IFB) is used to , solicit bidders . Since only very limited exchange of additional information is permitted between the bidder and the sponsor, the ' requirements must be very precisely defined in specifications included as a part of the IFB. Awards are based on the lowest , responsible bid. ' Negotiated non-competitive or sole source procurement is often used in the hiring of professional services or 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 alterna- tive proposals and for coordinating requirements with bidders. 390 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORF TABLE 10-2 FINANCING ALTERNATIVES Alternative Advantages Disadvantages 1 . General Obligation Low interest rates. Requires voter approval. Debt. Bonds ceiling of Town limits amount of bond 2 . Municipal Revenue Voter approval not required - High interest rates. Municipali- Bonds no debt limitations ties cannot issue in N.Y. State. 3. Government Aid State Environmental State grant minimizes capital At .resent, no funding. g Qualification Bond Act cost to municipality w Federal - Dept of Price supports and loan guaran- At present, no construction loan Energy tees may attract private full available. service operators. 4. Industrial Revenue Same as revenue bonds Same as revenue bonds Pollution Control Revenue Bonds 5. Leasing Can be instituted quickly High interest rates. Asset not owned by municipality. Inabil- ity to sign long term contracts. 6. Leverage Leasing Reduces capital cost to munici- New and legally complex. At end palities and interest charges. of lease, asset owned by corp- oration, not municipality. OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. It also provides an opportunity to consider the important inter- ' relationships between technical, cost, and management elements , of a proposal. In a negotiated procurement, a document referred to as a ' Request for Proposal (RFP) is used for solicitation. Award is based on a comprehensive evaluation of proposals using a pre- ' developed evaluation process . The negotiated procurement process ' usually involves the following steps. Solicitation of Proposers ' Evaluation of Proposals Selection of Finalists Interview and Ranking 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 prequalification step.. A Request for Qualification (RFQ) is issued to all pro- ' spective proposers . Full technical and financial proposals are then solicited only from a limited number of firms that are the , best qualified. ' 10 . .2 Procurement Approaches There are five approaches for a resource recovery system: ' 1 . Conventional (A/E) 2 . Turnkey ' 3 . Full Service 4. Full Service with Governme:tit Ownership 5 . Modified Full Service ' 392 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' With the exception of the conventional method, all are negotiated through the use of a RFP. The following is a brief ' discussion of each: 10 .4.2. 1 Conventional Approach This approach is the traditional one used by cities to ' procure public buildings and other construction projects. It involves two main steps . The first step is to hire an engineer consultant to design the facility and draw up detailed speci- fications and drawings. The second step is to obtain the con- struction, material and equipment through competitive bidding. ' This approach is almost always accompanied by government ownership and operation of the facility. ' 10 .4.2. 2 Turnkey Approach In this approach 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 have the ' responsibility for system implementation. In addition to assigning sole responsibility for the pro- ject to a single party, it provides the municipality some as- surance regarding initial process performance. If the plant does not operate as specified, the municipality does not have to accept it. ' 393 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 1 10 4.2. 3 Full Service Approach The third basic approach commonly used in acquisition of ' resource recovery facilities adds to the turnkey approach of , elements of private ownership and operation. Thus a system con- tractor has full responsibility for financing, design, implemen- tation, continued operation, and ownership. It makes public financing unnecessary and provides incentives for efficient , design and operation by private industry. ' 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 dump fee for delivered solid waste. The Hempstead Resource Recovery Project ' is an example of this approach. , 10 4.2.4 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 t providing a service to the municipality while the municipality retains ownership of the facility. ' The advantage over the turnkey approach is that the same sys- tem contractor who designs and builds the plant is also responsible ' for its operation. ' 394 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 10 .4.2. 5 Modified Full Service Approach ' The most original approach that has emerged from resource recovery acquisition is a hybrid, combining full service ad- vantages with the requirement to adhere to competitive bidding laws which at times, may be necessary. ' The arrangement involves government ownership and respon- sibility for procuring construction, equipment, and material and private responsibility for design, supervision of construction, ' shakedown and operation as a package. It is used when a full service approach is desired, but competitive bidding laws must ' be met. ' 10 .5 CONCLUSIONS Integration of administrative (institutional) , financial and procurement alternatives is a key element in the implementa- tion of a resource recovery facility. We have compiled Table 10-3 showing the implementation schemes utilized in various ' resource recovery projects in New York State. 10 .6 IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PLANS FOR EAST END SERVICE AREA ' The primary recommended plan (Five Town Regional Resource Recovery Facility) and the alternate recommended plan (Brookhaven) ' can be implemented in several ways . The following are some of the more feasible methods . ' 395 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. TABLE 10-3 Implementation Schemes Project Administrator Financing Procurement Albany, N.Y. Municipal-City City G.O. Bonds Modified ANSWERS of Albany State EQBA Funding Full Service (Fuel Preparation Only) Hempstead, N.Y. H.R.R.F. Industrial Development Bond Full Service RESOURCE RECOVERY Issued by Town of Hempstead FACILITY on Behalf of H.R.R.F. as w well as Capital from H.R. R.C. �o Islip, Huntington, Rti?sylon, N.Y. p,L,thnri tv RP_VP_nup Rands Full Service MULTI-TOWN Multi-Town EQBA Funding w/Authority Ownership Niagara Falls Hooker Chemical Industrial Development Bond Full Service Issue by Niagara County on behalf of Hooker Chemical Plastic Corporation Monroe County Monroe County Municipal G.O. & State EQBA Full Service w/Count owner- ship ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 10 .6 .1 Primary Recommended Plan - Regional Resource Recovery Facility A. Authority, turnkey procurement with revenue bonds, state EQBA funding and DOE loan guarantees or price support. This method provides that the towns would pass necessary ' local legislation to guarantee control of all wastes generated with it' s territory. In addition, the towns would jointly form an authority, with various town offi- cials or appointed officials being the members of the authority. The authority could issue municipal revenue bonds and also seek state EQBA funding and federal DOE loans. We recommend this method due to it' s simplicity and potential EQBA funds availability. Another advantage of an authority is that on an interim ' basis it can manage solid waste between towns which will exhaust landfill capacity or be required to close landfills by NYSDEC prior to construction of the regional resource ' recovery facility. B. Intermunicipal, full service procurement with industrial ' or pollution control revenue bond financing and DOE loan guarantees or EQBA funding. This method calls for each town to pass necessary local legislation to guarantee control of all waste generated within its respective boarders. Each town then would contract the lead town, say Town of Southampton to dispose ' of the waste for the project life of 20 years. The lead Town Southampton would then issue industrial or ' pollution control revenue bonds on behalf of a full service contractor who would finance, construct and operate a facility which would handle all the waste that Southampton has control over . Under this plan the overall project ' responsibility lies with the lead town. The responsibilities include technical, legal and managerial . This plan may or may not be desirable by the lead Town. We propose this ' as our alternate recommended implementation plan. C. Use the services of the Environmental Facilities Corpora- tion. orpora- tion. Because of the complexity of long range financing and the problem of integrating the needs of the five town govern- mental entities into the plan, the use of NYSEFC does provide a feasible approach to the five towns . Each town would jointly or individually contract with the NYSEFC ' which, through its bonding power would fund the entire ' 397 OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' operation including turnkey construction loans as well as ' operation, maintenance and service contracts . In addition, NYSEFC would provide administrative management and tech- nical assistance. However, due to the present limitations ' in financing abilities of the NYSEFC, is not a recommended alternative. D. The towns may elect to construct and operate transfer ' station facilities on their own and transfer haul MSW to the resource recovery facility which could be constructed ' by an authority. In this case the transfer costs for each town would vary according to the solid waste quan- tities and haul distances. Each town would pay the same tipping fee at the resource recovery facility. Division , of control of solid waste flow in this case may not be desirable from the resource recovery facility' s viewpoint. We recommend that this option be considered. , 10 .6 .2 Alternate Recommended Plan - Brookhaven A. Form an authority which would act as a negotiating vehicle ' between Brookhaven and the East End Towns . The authority could also construct and operate the transfer station facilities and provide administrative and management ser- , vices. The main advantage of an authority is that it is in place and can also implement a five town regional re- source recovery facility at a later date upon expiration ' of a Brookhaven contract. The authority would also guaran- tee waste flow to Brookhaven, hence making Brookhaven more attractive to a full service contractor . ' Another function of an authority could be to provide assistance in interim solid waste management as in the case of the regional resource recovery facility. ' B. Each town individually negotiate with Brookhaven and construct and operate it' s own transfer station and haul ' to Brookhaven. Advantage in this case obviously is the independent type of operation for each town. A disadvan- tage would be loss of time which may be required to re- , initiate a regional resource recovery facility if Brook- haven' s is a short term contract. 398 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. 1 1 ' SECTION 11.0 REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ' 11.0 REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 11 .1 INTRODUCTION Disposal of solid waste in a legal and environmentally acceptable manner is a vital and necessary requirement. ' Meeting this requirement has become almost imperative in re- cent years due to many stringent regulations imposed upon the towns by the federal government and NYSDEC. This report identifies and analyzes several alternatives applicable to ' the East End Communities, which will permit them to meet ' their solid waste disposal needs. Implementation of the recommended alternatives is the key to the success of pro- viding the East End Towns with a technical environmental and economical solution to the refuse disposal problem. ' 11 .2 RECOMMENDATIONS ' Our recommendations are based on the existing conditions in the study area and our projections of these conditions in ' to the future through 2005. Any modifications of these conditions may necessitate revisions of our recommendations. ' Our recommendations for a long range solid waste manage- ment are: 1 . A five town regional resource recovery facility to be located at or in the vicinity of the existing RCA Site in the Town of Southampton. All five towns would construct a transfer station at the existing landfill site and transfer ' haul MSW in large tractor trailers to the resource recovery facility. We also recommend consideration of alternate sites ' 399 OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , for the location of the resource recovery facility. Several ' sites have been identified and discussed in this report. The resource recovery facility would initially consist of three , 400 tpd units, mass-fired waterwall system with oversized bulky waste shredding with a fourth 400 tpd unit to be installed in ' 1996 to handle the peak MSW through the year 2005. The facility would be equipped with two 20 MW turbine generators which will be owned and operated by LILCO. The electrical power ' generated at the facility would be sold to LILCO and the rev- enues from such sale would be applied to defray the cost of , operation of the facility. An on-site wastewater treatment ' facility would be provided to treat the effluent of the re- source recovery plant in an environmentally acceptable manner. ' The residue from the facility would be transported and dis- posed of at a regional landfill site which would be designed ' and operated in compliance with the prevailing state and ' federal regulations. Nonburnables from the five towns would also be disposed of at this site. ' We estimate the initial capital cost of the entire sys- tem at $74,937, 000 in 1980 dollars. The capital cost with ' EQBA funding is estimated at $41,484,000 . Additional cost ' of the fourth 400 tpd unit is estimated at $13,500,000 in 1980 dollars. Based on the projected tonnage throughput in 1985, , anticipated utilization of the facility and a 10 percent es- calation rate due to inflation, we estimate a net tipping fee ' of $24.53/ton in 1985 . We recommend formation of a solid waste management authority for effective implementation of the 400 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. regional resource recovery plan. ' 2 . Alternatively, all five towns, individually or collec- tively, participate in the proposed Brookhaven Resource Re- covery Facility. As in the case of the five town regional resource recovery facility, all five towns would construct transfer stations at the existing landfill sites and transfer thaul MSW in large tractor trailers to the Brookhaven Facility. The towns would pay a tipping fee at this facility for the ultimate disposal of the MSW. We also recommend a regional landfill site in the five town area for the disposal of non- ' burnables which are not processible at the resource recovery ' facility. Since this alternative is still in the planning stage ' and requires further development through negotiations with the Brookhaven officials, we do not have the projections of ' the estimated tipping fees at this facility at this writing. ' However, we have estimated the cost of MSW transfer station and transportation, and disposal of nonburnables. The capital ' cost in 1980 dollars is $4,615,000 ($3 ,681,000 with EQBA funding) . The unit cost in 1985 is estimated at $11. 74/ton. In addition to the recommendations for the long range ' solution to the solid waste disposal problem for the five town, we have made several other recommendations which we ' believe would provide solutions to not only the immediate disposal requirements, but also assist the towns in implementing 1 ' 401 OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. t the long range plans. These recommendations, with a suggested ' implementation schedule, are presented below. ' Figure 11-1 depicts an implementation schedule which is formulated to provide the towns with a regional resource re- ' covery facility of their own and. yet with the flexibility of participating with Brookhaven, should such concept become more viable in the near future, without any loss of time. We have divided our implementation recommendations in three time phases: ' Immediate Phase: 0 to 1 .5 Years Intermediate Phase: 15 to 5 Years ' Long Range Phase: Beyond 5 Years In formulating our recommendations, we have assumed that ' by 1985 all five towns will phase out their existing method of solid waste disposal sanitary landfilling, by virtue of ' either: 1 . exhaustion of existing landfill capacities; 2. regulatory requirements or 3. implementation of a long ' range solution. ' ll .I .1 Intermediate Phase - (o to 1 .5 Years) 1 . Continue Sanitary Landfilling , Southampton: Upgrade landfill in accordance with the existing conditional permit . Continue landfill until ' 1985 . Riverhead: Obtain conditional permit, upgrade landfill ' in accordance with the conditional permit. Continue landfill until 1985 . Southold: Obtain conditional permit, upgrade landfill ' in accordance with the conditional permit. Continue landfill until 1985 . 402 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' FIGURE 11-1 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ' IMMEDIATE- TIME-YEARS PHASE INTERMEDIATE PHASE LONG RANGE PHASE TASK I 3 4 5 Continue Landfilling ' with Upgrading Review & Approve Report Make Institutional Arrangements Begin Communications -�.sDECISION POINT with Brookhaven ' Initiate Source Separation Program ' Initiate & Continue Landfill Record Keeping Retain Financial, Legal echnical Consultant ' Secure Site for RR Facility and Residue Landfill ' Prepare EIS, Secure z SEQR & Part 360 Permits a a, Secure Financing, EQBA ' q & DOE Funding w z Prepare RFP and Select Contractor ' U Design & Construction W of RR Facility z Design & Construction of ' Transfer Stations H a Negotiate with Lilco ' Pass Waste Control Legislation Commence Resource Recovery - A ' Close Existina Landfill Negotiate Contracts a With Brookhaven ' a q Initiate Planning for � A Design & Construction w of Transfer Stations ' b Secure Environmental w Permits a w Design & Construct z&4 Transfer Stations W Commence Resource Recovery ' Close Existing Landfills ' 403 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' East Hampton: Upgrade landfill in accordance with the , existing conditional permit. Continue landfill until 1985 . , Shelter Island: Negotiate with Southold or East Hampton for disposal of solid waste. East Hampton is recommended ' due to higher volume availability at the existing land- fill . Transfer of waste to East Hampton site is pre- sented in this report. Negotiate for a contract at least ' until 1985 . 2 . Review the report, revise and approve the recommended plan. , 3 . Commence planning for a five town regional resource recovery facility. Initiate institutional arrangements ' by forming an authority. Until a formal authority is formed, the towns should form a solid waste committee and designate a chairperson. 4. Begin formal communication with the Town of Brookhaven. ' The chairperson should be in constant communication with the Brookhaven Town officials with periodic meetings , between the solid waste committee and the Town of Brook- haven. 5 . Commence a public education program on source separation. , Initiate source separation program on an experimental basis if feasible. 6 . Initiate and continue record keeping at the existing landfills . The Town of East Hampton has already begun its record keeping efforts. ' 7 . Select consultants for legal, financial and technical advice. 11 2 .2 Intermediate Phase - (1.5 to 5 Years) , It is assumed that a decision regarding Brookhaven par- ticipation would be reached prior to this point in time. If the Brookhaven Decision is NO , 1 . Initiate planning for a five town regional resource , recovery facility. II 404 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 2 . Secure site for the proposed resource recovery facility. Primary and alternative sites have been recommended in ' our report. 3 . Initiate environmental impact statement preparation in accordance with the state regulations such as SEAR. ' 4. Secure Environmental Permits. 5 . Begin exploring financing options for the implementation of resource recovery project. Negotiate with NYSDEC and federal DOE for funding. ' 6 . Prepare Request for Proposal for construction of facility. 7 . Issue revenue bonds for the construction of the facility. ' 8. Secure contractor full service through RFP procedure . ' 9. Initiate design and construction of facility. 10 . Initiate transfer station design and construction. Pro- cure transfer haul equipment. ' 11 . Secure land and/or agreements for residue disposal and commence design and construction of a regional landfill . Obtain Part 360 Permits. 12 . Pass local legislations for solid waste control . ' 13 . Undertake negotiations with LILCO and obtain energy mar- ket contract. ' If the Brookhaven Decision is YES 1 . Negotiate contracts with Brookhaven. The contract terms ' and duration should be well defined. 2 . Initiate planning for design and construction of transfer stations. Explore EQBA funding. Procure transfer haul equipment. 3 . Secure landfills and/or agreements for nonburnables. A ' regional landfill is recommended. 4. Secure environmental permits for transfer station and landfill (nonburnables only) facilities. ' 405 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 11 .2.3 Long Range Phase - (Beyond 5 Years) ' 1 . Commence resource recovery. 2 . Close existing landfills in accordance with the Part ' 360 requirements. 3 . If Brookhaven alternative is selected, and the contract ' duration is of short range nature, initiate planning for a five town regional resource facility at a suit- able time. , 11. 3 CONCLUSIONS In light of the increasing awareness of the potential health ' hazards associated with landfills, the future of land disposal of solid waste does not appear promising on Long Island. Coupled ' with the ever escalating cost of land disposal in order to comply ' with the stringent state regulations and the nationwide search for alternative energy sources to cope with potential energy crises, ' resource recovery seems to be the only viable solid waste disposal alternative. We believe the forgoing study provides the towns , with recommendations to implement an environmentally, technically ' and economically effective long term solution to the solid waste disposal problem. ' Respectfully submitted, . EO�!`G,V Y� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. , Brij M. Shrivastava, P.E. Projer,:t Manager �r�FES SSC`;.}i 406 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' SELECTED REFERENCES 1 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. ' SELECTED REFERENCES - A Solid Waste Marketing Study for Philadelphia Leonard S. Wegman Co. , Inc. Engineers - April 1976 ' - Broward County, Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Study Leonard S. Wegman Co. , Inc. Engineers - June 1976 - Cayuga, Cortland and Tompkins Counties Marketability Invest- igations of Recovered Energy and Secondary Materials from Solid Waste ' John S. MacNeil, Jr . , Engineers , Leonard S. Wegman Co. , Inc . Engineers - October 1975 ' - Engineering Report and Study on Scavenger Wastein Riverhead and Southampton - Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. /H2M Corp. June 1979 ' - Modular Combustion Units Walter R. Niessen and Thomas C. Pond, Public Works - May 1980 ' - Multi-Town Engineering Report, Volume I Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C./H2M Corp. Prepared under Subcontract to Metcalf & Eddy of New York Inc. - 1979 - Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Generating Facility Henningson, Durham & Richardson under Contract to Gill, Koroff & Associates, Architects and Engineers, P.C. - August 1979 - NCRR Bulletin, Volume 10 Number 3 National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. - September 1980 ' - Population Survey, 1979 - Long Island Lighting Company, 1979 ' - Refuse-Fired Energy Systems in Europe: An Evaluation of Design Practices, an Executive Summary EPA Report (SW-771) Prepared Under Contract for the Office of Solid Waste - November 1979 - Resource Recovery Systems Part III : Implementation Micheal D. Brown and Diana L. Powers ' Solid Waste Management/RRJ/July 1980 - Small Modular Incinerator Systems with Heat Recovery. A Technical, Environmental and Economic Evaluation Executive ' Summary EPA Report (SW-797) Prepared Under Contract for the Office of Solid Waste by Richard Frounfelner - November 1979 ' R-1 SELECTED REFERENCES (CONT' D. ) - Suffolk County Catalog The Suffolk County Planning :Dept. - 1975 ' - 201 Facility Plan, Peconic River Basin Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C./H2M Corp. - August 1976 ' - 208 Report Nassau - Suffolk Regional Planning Board - 1977 - Town of Southold, Solid Waste Management Plan and Report Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. /H2M Corp. - June 1979 - Town of Riverhead, Solid Waste Management Plan and Report ' Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C./H2M Corp. - March 1979 - Town of East Hampton, Solid Waste Management Plan and Report ' Greenman-Pedersen Associates, P.C. - December 1979 - Westchester County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Study t Leonard S. Wegman Co. , Inc. :Engineers - April 1974 R-2 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' APPENDICES ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. ' APPENDIX 1 MARKET INVESTIGATIONS OF RECOVERED RESOURCES ' (SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE) ' - LILCO Correspondence - Sample Questionnaire - Responses to Questionnaire ' - Eco-Fuel Correspondence 1 ' ROBERT G.HOLZMACHER,P.E.,P.P.,L S. SAMUEL C.MCLENDON,P.E. NORMAN E.MURRELL,P.E. H 2M Corp. HAROLD A.DOMBECK,P E. HUGO D.FREUDENTHAL,Ph.D. ' HOLZMACHER,McLENDONand MURRELL,P.C. CARL E.BECKER.PE. JOHN J.MOLLOY,P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS DONALD A.SIosS,P.E. 575 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD MELVILLE NY 11747' (516)694-3040 0 GARY E.LOESCH.P.E.BRW M.S E.BANKS,P P.E. 560 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD.MELVILLE.NY 11747(516)752-9060❑ CHARLES E.BANKS.P E. 375 FULTON STREET.FARMINGDALE,NY 11735(516)694-3410 0 ANTHONY SIMONE,L.S. 209 WEST MAIN STREET.RIVERHEAD,NY 1 1901 (516)721-3480 O ROBERT J.MCGINNIS.P.E. 40 PARK PLACE NEWTON NJ 07860(201)383-3544 0 JEFFREY A.HARTMAN.P.E. 1 ' April 24, 1980 ' Mr. John i�. Weismantle, P.E. Manager, FJanning Department Long Island lighting Company ' 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 ' Re: Energy Recovery Alterna- tives - East End Solid Waste Management Study NYEC 79-01 Dear Mr. Weismantle: ' It was a pleasure meeting with you in your Hicksville office on Thursday, April 10, 1980. As we discussed at our meeting, we are enclosing herewith preliminary data pertaining to electfttal power generation from a solid waste energy re- covery facility, which is being considered as one of the al- ternatives in our East End Solid Waste Management Study. Under this alternative, the facility will be of mass-fired waterwall type and will be located at a buitable location in the East End service area. The power generated from this facility will be supplied into the nearest LILCO grid. Table 1 shows monthly power available for sale to LILCO, in kwh, for the years 1985, 1995 and 2005. Figure 1 depicts the export power in MM for these years. ' On the assumption that LILCO will own the turbine generat- ing facilities, we are providing the following preliminary costs for such equipment which we hope will enable you in ' computing the payments for the sale of electricity: - Components of Turbine Generator Facility to be owned ' by LILCO: - Turbine generators (two 20 MK) ' - Condensers - Condensate pumps - Air ejectors ' - Installed cost of Turbine Generator tacilitys $6,300,000. (P9e0 dollars) ' Al-1 OLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. 1 Mr. John A. WeisMantle, P.E. -2-.. April 24, 1980 , - Annual O&M expanses for Turbine Generator Facility: ' $400,000. - Life of Contract: 20 years (1965-2005) . Another alternative we are considering in our study is ' the preparation of refuse derived fuel from solid waste and transporting the RDF to LILCO's existing Port Jefferson plant ' or proposed Jamesport plant. The quality of RDF prepared will be in accordance with LILCO's requirements for combustion in: 1. the existing oil fired facility at Port Jefferson, ' 2. the coal fired boilers at Port Jefferson plant (which Is currently being considered to be convertbdefrom ' oil to coal) or, 3. the proposed new coal fired Jamesport plant. , In any case, we are fully cognizant of your reservations about utilizing RDF in your boilers without prior demonstration of such concept. Table 2 presents monthly quantities of RDF in ' confetti form (to be utilized in coal fired boilers) for the years 1985, 1995 and 2005. The characteristics of this type of RDF are as follows: , Heat content: 5585 Btu/lb. Ash: 6% Moisture content: 20% , Density: 5. to 10 lbs/cft loose 20 to 25 lbs/cft compacted. The RDF will be transported to the LILCO facility in large 65 , cubic yard transfer trailers. With regards to the revenues applicable to the RDF sale ' to LILCO, as you suggested, we will compute these on the basis of the quantity of fossil fuel that will be replaced by the RDF, and its prevailing costs. Also, factored into these com- putations will be the costs of handling the RDF at the LILCO facility, any modification of the boilers to accept the RDF and ash disposal applicable to the RD#. We have enclosed the , RDp related data ' (quantities and quality) for your information should you prefer to compute the RDF revenues. We would also appreciate it if in your response to our , letter, you could provide some information pertaining to the 1990 windfall profit tax legislation and how it affects the revenue streams of the East End solid waste resource! recovery , project. Ai-1'.. ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Mr. John A. Weismantle, P.E. -3- April 24, 1980 ' Thank you very much for your time and consideration and we look forward to receiving an early response to our request. ' very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON 4 MURRtLL, P.C. Brij M. Shrivastava, P.E. ' Project Manager BMS/pak ' Enclosures 1 ' Al-3 OLZMACHER McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. ' TABLE 1 EAST END SOLID WASTE ' MANAGEMENT STUDY MONTHLY POWER TO LILCO ' 1985 1995 2005 t (kwh X 1000) (kvrh X 1000) (kwh X 1000) January 7, 070 1.0, 270 14, 360 ' February 5, 910 8, 670 12, 100 March 8, 560 1.2, 500 17, 410 ' April 9, 650 1.4, 040 19, 580 May 10, 860 1.5, 920 22, 170 June 11, 880 17, 350 24, 120 t July 13, 390 1.9, 420 26, 780 August 12, 500 1.8, 230 25, 370 ' September 11 , 380 16, 630 23, 180 October 9, 900 :1.4, 510 20, 160 , November 8, 060 -1.1, 740 16, 340 ' December 7, 290 1.0, 710 14, 880 Total 116, 450 11591990 236, 450 ' Al-4 ' 1 FIGURE N21 ' 35 � � 2005 30 25-- \\ 61995 �\ U 20-- w o a 1985 ' Io -- i F M A M J J A S 0 N D MONTH MONTHLY POWER TO LI LCO EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. ' MELVILLE HOLZMACHER, McLENDON&MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FARMINCIDALE. N.V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERMEAD.N.V. NEWTON.N.J. ' Al-5 LONG IBCAN D LIGHTING COMPANY ' L�Ls'Q 175 EAST OLD COUNTRY ROAD HICKSVILLE, NEW YORK 11801 , Direct Dial Number June 20 , 1980 I Mr. Brij M. Shrivastava , P.E . Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell , P.C . 560 Broad Hollow Road Melville , New York 11747 East End Solid Waste Management Study Dear Brij : , This letter is in response to your April 24 , 1980 memo pertaining to the subject study. ' The attached table indicates an estimated schedule of payments developed by us based on the turbine generator costs and annual ' 0&M expenses provided by you in the April 24 memo. It is noted that there are many ways in which payment schedules could be developed . One way, consistent with the approach taken ' with Hempstead Resource Recovery, is to take the average system fuel cost and apply and multiply it. This results in a series of numbers that is greatly influenced by new capacity additions (and ' coal conversions) . This approach is reflected in the attached table . Other approaches could be used , including an escalating $/Mwh approach which would be the economic equivalent of the attached schedule of payments. ' Of course this payment schedule would be increased tangibly if it were assumed that LILCO did not put up the capital for the turbine ' generator and pay the 0&M expenses. It should be emphasized that numerous different assumptions were used to develop the payment schedule . Some of the more important ones were : oil prices , coal prices , new unit type , new unit timing, units converted to coal , .load forecast , fuel escalation rates and unit capacity factors . Obviously changes in any one of these assumptions would effect the schedule. Sincerely , ' o�hn A. Weismantle, Manager ' Planning Department JAW/lf Ai-6 , Attachment HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' ATTACHMENT 1 Payment Payment Year ($/Mwh) Year ($/Mwh) 1985 57 . 38 1995 72 . 34 1 1986 58 . 38 1996 78 .90 1987 48 .90 1997 83 .99 1 1988 53. 02 1998 91 .87 1 1989 48 . 27 1999 96 .62 1990 51 . 36 2000 104 . 87 1 1991 54 . 30 2001 111 .10 1992 59 .03 2002 123.99 1993 62. 45 2003 129 . 44 1 1994 67 .86 2004 138 . 60 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Al-7 ROBERT G.HOLZMACHER,P.E.,P.P.,L.S. ' SAMUEL C.McLENDON,P.E. NORMAN E.MURRELL,P.E. O A. K,P.E.Corp.Cor„„' HUGO D.FREUDENTHAL. ' Ph.D. HOL MACH ER,McLENDON and MURRELL,P.C. CARL J.E.MOLLO.P.E. JOHN OlLOY,P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS DONALD A.SIOSS.P.E. 575 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD,MELVILLE,NY 11747(516)694-3040 0 GARY E.LOESCH,P.E. BRIJ M.SHRIVASTAVA,P.E. ' 560 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD.MELVILLE,NY 11747(516)752-9060 0 CHARLES E.BANKS,P.E. 375 FULTON STREET,FARMINGDALE.NY 11735(516)6943410 0 ANTHONY SIMONE,L.S. 209 WEST MAIN STREET,RIVERHEAD,NY 11901 (5161 727-34800 ROBERT J.McGINNIS,P.E. 40 PARK PLACE NEWTON.NJ 07860(201)383-3544 0 JEFFREY A.HARTMAN.P.E. Gentlemen: Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. , (H2M) is conducting a survey of the marketability of materials that can be extracted from the municipal solid waste generated by the Five Eastern ' Towns of East Hampton, Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southampton and Southold; Long Island, New York. We are contacting poten- tial users of such recoverables in order to realistically assess ' market conditions and requirements. Enclosed is a preliminary questionnaire. Any information you can provide concerning your firm' s interest, capability, and system or product specifications will be of help to us in our study. If you are not interested in such a program, we would ask that you indicate same and return the form for survey ' accuracy. Please understand that, your reply represents a market indicator and in, no way obligates you. It may, however, provide a basis for further consideration should a major resource recov- ery system be implemented in the Five Town area. Please return your questionnaire and direct all inquiries to Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. , telephone 516-752- 9060. A stamped return envelope is enclosed for your con- venience. We would appreciate your response within the next two weeks. :Efforts have been made to coordinate this study with those of neighboring municipalities in the interests of buyers and , sellers alike. Material developed for prior surveys may be submitted where applicable. Thank you again for your cooperation. ' Very truly yours, HC)LZMACHER, McLENDON &MURRELL, P.C. Robert J. McGinnis P.E. ' RJM/pak ' Enc. Ai-8 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE Salvage Markets for Materials In Solid Waste Name of Organization: Address: Telephone Number: / Area Code Name Of Person Completing Questionnaire: 1. Type of Industry: ' 2. Principal Products: 3. Indicate the potential use for the following recyclable materials (TPY) : ' a. Newsprint b. Corrugated ' c. Other paper wastes (specify) d. Ferrous metals (specify) e. Aluminum f. Other non-ferrous metals g. Glass ' h. Textiles i. Rubber ' J. Plastics k. Incinerator residues ' 1. Organics 4. Give specifications of desired secondary materials - ' a. Quality of Paper: b. Grade of scrap metal: c. Acceptable degree of impurities in metals (specify) : d. Color of glass: ' e. Is removal of metal rings on bottles, required?. f. Must textiles be separated by type? g. Other 5. What are the minimum and maximum quantities (if any) of secondary materials required? Page 1 of 2 ' Al-9 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP.6. ' 1 What preparatory processing of secondary materials is required? , a. Shredding b. Baling c. Crushing of Glass d. Separation By Color e. Washing ' f. Dewatering g. Other ' 7, Give specifications of the types of storage containers to be used (if arty) : 8. Is delivery of materials necessary, or can pickup be arranged? 9. What is the anticipated price of the secondary materials 0/ton)? 0. What are the contractual agreements for the purchase of these materials? (bong term/short term) 1. Describe previous experience in use of materials derived from municipal solid waste. 2. Additional Comments: ' page 2 of 2 , Al-10 Bethlehem Steel Corporation BETHLEHEM, PA 18016 R.K.SMITH R.W. YOUNG VICE PRESIDENT,PURCHASING nI E�E� PURLXASINO MANAGER J.F, KEGG 0IDAHL 1M EHE RAW MATERIALS/METALS ' GENERAL PURCHASING AGENT ST. El J.PUN.RCHASING O ASING ASSISTANT PURCHASING MANAGER April 28, 1980 ' — Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. 575 Broad Hollow Road Melville, NY 11747 Attn: Mr. Robert J. McGinnis, P.E. Gentlemen: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 19803 informing ' us that you are conducting a market survey of the marketability of materials that can be recovered from municipal solid waste generated on Long Island, N.Y. and asking if we would be interested in any of the recoverable material. Rather than completing your preliminary questionnaire we will attempt to outline our position and thinking on the subject of municipal resource recovery systems. Bethlehem has for some time endorsed the establishment of modern resource recovery systems as being the best approach to solving the problems associated with solid waste. In support of that endorsement, it is our intention to provide an outlet for as much suitable municipal ferrous scrap as we can use at each of our steelmaking plants. Our Eastern steelmaking plants are located in Burns Harbor, Ind., Johnstown, Steelton, Bethlehem, PA, Lackawanna, NY and Sparrows Point, MD. As you can see, these plants are located near large population ' centers, some of which are planning their own resource recovery systems. Political, as well as economic realities, will therefore bear heavily on the choice of the ultimate source of municipal scrap for our plants. Specifications for this type of scrap have not been established. It may be necessary to become more specific as we gather experience ' in the use of ferrous products, but at the present time, our preference is for material conforming to the following specification: 1 Municipal ferrous scrap, predominently steel cans, magnetically separated or hand sorted from other current refuse prior to any incineration or burning. Material to be loose, free-flowing and nuggetized or otherwise processed to a density of not less than 75 pounds per cubic foot. May include aluminum tops of beverage cans but must be free of all-aluminum cans, loose tin or terne plate, dirt, garbage, ' closed containers, non-ferrous metals and non-metallics of any kind. Must be sufficiently clean so as not to present a health hazard. ' Al-11 From the specification you will note that our interest is in "front-end" separated metallics. Such material is also , suitable for detinning and we would strongly recommend that you check with the detinners as to their possible interest in this material. , The subject of pricing and contract duration can be quite involved but we will try to provide some of our thinking. We would hesitate to endorse long term contracts. In the matter of , pricing we do not hold with the majority who believe municipal ferrous should be priced on the basis of fluctuating quotations for some loosely comparable grades cited in one of the trade t publications. Instead, we believe that a transaction involving the sale and purchase of municipal scrap is particularly amenable to yearly contracts at fixed prices. However, we would not , absolutely rule out pricing on the basis of published prices. With regard to the marketing of municipal ferrous scrap we , would suggest that you consider working with the scrap industry in addition to working directly with the consumers. We hope that the above will serve the immediate purpose of your market survey. If there are any items on which you require clarification or additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. ' Very truly yours, -.r 1 Resistant Purchasing Manager ' Raw MaterialsMetals wJNOmdahl/kap Al-12 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE Salvage Markets for Materials In Solid Waste Name of Organization: !mwx , &;'Pex �- �lLct°s '/�� �/U�� Address: 2, Telephone Number:Si�-.2 /� f ' Area Code Name Of Person Completing Questionnaire: 1. Type of Industry: YC 4/N' 2. Principal Products: ' 3. Indicate the potential use for the following recyclable materials (TPY) : a. Newsprint R&I(t-"7 416'4'6 b. Corrugated 1nRK67`'daZ !5- c. Other paper wastes (specify) V_.d dam_ ' d. Ferrous metals (specify) Frpi/�L`Qi4 �f�tff��N/Y/�9L�iy%wy�7'.n� A7,�� EA)�rQ1'-ems. e. Aluminum AW4°Kf7'Ig&-4,E f. Other non-ferrous metals g. Glass X h. Textiles M6 A1,65 i. Rubber J. Plastics ' k. Incinerator residues ZAN ,8E' �C ye,�,� tri 1. Organics '41,46 ' 4. Give specifications of desired secondary materials a. Quality of Paper: 'It- e-V�-RR Xrw-s ' b. Grade of scrap metal: c. Acceptable degree of impurities in metals (specify) 2:2:OrArr h19 D Ol d,fr (T ae)d ' d. Color of glass: &sT BE ,L V 19}1 6,44 Oe e. Is removal of metal rings on bottles, required?. ' f. Must textiles be separated by type? g. Other ' 5. What are the minimum and maximum quantities (if any) of secondary materials required? iri ON /eo Tonmr. A)Ah M&JM dAJY AR'OVNT ' Page 1 of 2 Al-13 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , j. What preparatory proCussing of secondary materials is required? a. Shredding_ ' b. Baling c. Crushing of Glass d. Separation By Color V e. Washing f. Dewatering g. Other 7, Give specifications of the types of storage containers to be u844 (it agy) t ' S. Is delivery of materials necessary, or can pickup be arranged? , �°iG/fy/� GDA�J 0e 9. What is the anticipated price of the secondary materials ($/ton)? 0. What are the contractual agreements for the purchase of these materials? , (Long term/short term) 40 N k ,&*M - 31. D P P Describe previous experience in use of materials derived from municipal ' solid waste. `V z!Z±PdC �FE�i/ C YC.�%N!'= /Y02WI-E PIP"A.14' (74) s�_1 C-�.1n:A1Vin * FA& 0s /yJc.rA)Z 16& Tf/� /o k�A Rs. �,v --����IN C LAI&OVAe.4 rAr �r. ,C Fie 7tJ /�.r n.; !ZA'�' ' I2. Additignal Comments: ' page 2 of 2 Al-14 ' ' REYNOLDS ALUMINUM REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY • RICHMOND,VIRGINIA 23218 1980 April 25 Mr. Robert J. McGinnis , PE ' H2M Corporation Consulting Engineers and Environmental Scientists 560 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11747 ' Dear Mr. McGinnis: SUBJECT: EASTERN LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK This letter is in response to your 1980 April 14 request to fill out a preliminary questionnaire on salvage markets for materials recovered from municipal solid wastes. I am filling out the ' items on the preliminary questionnaire and will also provide a short statement on Reynolds' position on material recovered from municipal refuse. I am enclosing copies of. Reynolds' specifications for aluminum recovered from municipal refuse. These specifications are currently being used by several municipalities with whom Reynolds ' has contracts to purchase aluminum recovered from municipal refuse. ' Reynolds is interested in the aluminum recovered from municipal refuse and when your firm is at the point where a resource recovery facility is to be designed and built in the Eastern Long Island area, please contact me for discussions that could lead to a purchasing arrangement. As part of your planning processes, you may be interested in ' reviewing some of Reynolds' activities in the area of recovering aluminum or concentrates from municipal refuse. Some of these activities are described in the attached technical publications. Sincerely, G. F. Bourder / 1 Manager, Environmental Planning GFB:myj ' Enclosures cc: R. F. Testin S. T. Abbate J. R. Amos Al-15 HO ZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' REYNOLDS' STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR ALUMINUM ' RECOVERED FROM MIXED MUNICIPAL REFUSE ' GRADE A The scrap aluminum in mixed municipal refuse must be separated from all other materials. If the material is reclaimed using dry , processing following thermal treatment of the refuse, it must be baled to a density of 1.5-25 pounds per cubic foot. If the aluminum is separated from raw refuse or if wet processing techniques are ' used to separate the aluminum, the aluminum must be shredded or d ied prior to baling. The shredded material must pass over a U. S. Standard 12 mesh screen to reduce fines (dust, dirt, sand, paint, , etc. ) . Fines must not exceed three percent (3%) of gross weight. The finished product must be baled to a density of 15-25 lbs./ft. 3 Alternatively, dry shredded material may be shipped loose if it has a density of 15-25 lbs/ft. 3 Analyses will be on the melt of a , total shipment. Each shipment shall yield after melting a total net weight of , at least 85 percent (85%) of the gross weight of aluminum scrap received and shall contain by chemical analysis the following maximum elements. ' MAXIMUM ELEMENT WEIGHT PERCENT Si . 30 , Fe . 60 Cu . 25 ' Mn 1. 25 Mg 2. 0 i Cr .10 ' Ni . 05 Zn . 25 Ti . 05 Bi . 02 , Pb . 02 Sn . 02 Others - Each . 04 ' Others - Total .12 Al remainder R vised March, 1977 Reynolds Metals Company This specification is subject to change without notice and should not , be reproduced or distributed without the prior written approval of Reynolds Metals Company. ' Al-16 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. REYNOLDS' STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR ALUMINUM ' RECOVERED FROM MIXED MUNICIPAL REFUSE ' GRADE B ' The scrap aluminum in mixed municipal refuse must be separated from all other materials. If the material is reclaimed using dry processing following thermal treatment of the refuse, it must be ' baled to a density of 15-25 pounds per cubic foot. If the aluminum is separated from raw refuse or if wet processing techniques are used to separate the aluminum, the aluminum must be shredded or ' dried prior to baling. The shredded material must pass over a U. S. Standard 12 mesh screen to reduce fines (dust, dirt, sand, paint, etc. ) . Fines must not exceed three percent (3%) of gross weight. The finished product must be baled to a density of 15-25 lbs./ft. 3 Alternatively, dry shredded material may be shipped loose if it has a density of 15-25 lbs./ft. 3 Analyses will be on the melt of a total shipment. ' Each shipment shall yield after melting a total net weight of at least 85 percent (85%) of the gross weight of aluminum scrap ' received and shall contain by chemical analysis the following maximum elements. MAXIMUM ' ELEMENT WEIGHT PERCENT Si . 5 ' Fe 1 . 0 Cu 1. 0 Mn 1. 25 Mg 2. 0 Cr . 3 Ni . 3 Zn 1. 0 ' Ti . 05 Bi . 3 Pb . 3 Sn . 3 Others - Each . 05 Others - Total . 15 1 Al remainder Revised March, 1977 Reynolds Metals Company This specification is subject to change without notice and should not ' be reproduced or distributed without the prior written approval of Reynolds Metals Company. ' Al-17 H LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE ' Salvage Markets for Materials In Solid Waste Name of Organization: Reynolds Metal s('nm an4z Address- 6601 West Broad Street ' Richmond, Virginia 23261 Telephone Number: 804 ./ 281-3911 ' Area Code Name Of Person Completing Questionnaire: Gilbert F. Bourcie r 1. Type of Industry: Primary Aluminum 2. Principal Products: All types of aluminum =rnrinrtom , 3. Indicate the potential use for the following recyclable materials (TPY) : a. Newsprint ' b. Corrugated e. Other paper wastes (specify) d. Ferrous metals (specify) , e. Aluminum X !. Other non-ferrous metals ' q. Glass h. Textiles , i. Rubber J. Plastics k. Incinerator residues ' 1. Organics 4. Give specifications of desired secondary materials a. Quality of Paper:�_� b. Grade of scrap metal: Specifications enclosed ' e. Acceptable degree of impurities in metals (specify) : d. Color of glass: e. Is removal of metal rings on bottles required?. f. Must textiles be separated by type? , g. Other 5. What are the minimum and maximum quantities (if any) of secondary materials ' required? 'Truckload minimums, maximum quantities subject to discussions. Page 1 of 2 ' Al-18 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 6. What preparatory processing of secondary materials is required? (See Specs) a. Shredding ' b. Haling _ c. Crushing of Glass ' d. Separation By Color e. Washing ' f. Dewatering g. Other ' 7. Give specifications of the types of storage containers to be used (if any) $ N A ' S.' Is delivery of materials necessary, or can pickup be arranged? Either, ' 9. What is the anticipated price of the secondary materials ($/ton)? To be determined. 10. What are the contractual agreements for the purchase of these materials? (Long term/short term) Long-term (of 5 years or morg) Aregerred, ' 11. Describe previous experience in use of materials derived from municipal solid waste. See attached technical Duh? ications- , 12. Additional Comments: ' Page 2 of 2 Al-19 HC LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE ' Salvage Markets for Materials In Solid Waste ' Name of Organization: e'Q0C Vk)A ' CL%. t0 Ad re ss: pop Telephone Number: Area Code Name Of Person Completing Questionnaire: d3 eO� J�&e yrn A 1. Type of Industry: g��-&5 S 2. Principal Products: CaLA SS l3 At.S , 3. Indicate the potential use for the following recyclable materials (TPY) : a. Newsprint ' b. Corrugated e. Other paper wastes (specify) ' d. Ferrous metals (specify) e. Aluminum f. Other non-ferrous metals ' g. Glassa`1 Ler- 4NUJARS O'JLy h. Textiles r i., Rubber J.. Plastics , k. Incinerator residues 1. Organics 4. Give specifications of desired secondary materials - a.. Quality of Paper:_ b,. Grade of scrap metal: ' c.. Acceptable degree of impurities in metals (specify) : d. Color of glass: �=��N r &Tf,��I TA QS e. is removal of metal rings on bottles., required?. X E S f. Must textiles be separated by type? g. Other 5. What are the minimum and maximum quantities (if any) of secondary materials , required? AP 'y A «C A-4 Page 1 of 2 Al-20 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MU RRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 6. What preparatory procussiny of secondary materials is required? a. Shredding ' b. Baling C. Crushing of Glass 1�� � �w�� Nr (3ai,t L04 d. Separation By Color N Vr S ' e. Washiny f. Dewatering g. Other 7. Give specifications of the types of storage containers to be us*4 (it any) $ 8.' Is delivery of materials necessary, or can pickup be arranged?_�"'��T 9. What is the anticipated price of the secondary materials ($/ton)? 30`� ' 10. What are the contractual agreements for the purchase of these materials? (Long term/short term) (V0 �.4 - W v ve. O'i - 11. Describe previous experience in use of materials derived from municipal ' solid waste. 12. Additional Comments: ' fage 2 of 2 Al-21 HO LZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE ' Salvage Markets for Materials In Solid Waste Name of Organization: Address: Telephone Number: Area Code , Name Of Person Completing Questionnaire: L�aezi�i�t 1. Type of Industry: 2. Principal Products: ! 22 3. Indicate the potential use for the following recyclable materials (TPY) : a. Newsprint 000 od0 b. Corrugated c. Other paper wastes (specify) d. Ferrous metals (specify) ( , e. Aluminum f. Other non-ferrous metals ,.. C]. Glass h. Textiles i. Rubber j Plastics r' /( k. incinerator residues ' 1. Organics 4. Give specifications of desir secondary materials a. Quality of Paper:_ � � ✓� / � ��� b. Grade of scrap metals ' c. Acceptable degree of impurities in metals (specify) : d.. Color of glass: ' e. is removal of metal rings on bottles, required?. ' f. Must textiles be separated by type? g. Other 5. What are the minimum and maximum quantities (if any) of secondary materials ' required? Page l of 2 Al-22 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 6. What preparatory processing of secondary materials is required? a. Shredding __ b. Haling c. Crushing of Glass - ' d. Separation By Color — e. Washing - f. Dewatering g. Other - 7, Give specifications of the types of storage_.containers to be used (it ar►y) $ ' 8.' Is delivery of materials necessary, or can pickup be arranged? ' 9. What is the anticipaited price of the secondary materials ($/ton)? 10. What are the contractual agrements for the purchase of these materials? ' (Dong term/short term) ' 11. Describe previous a erience in use of materials derived from municipal solid waste. c � r 12. Additional Comments: Page 2 of 2 Al-23 HOLZMA\CHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE Salvage Markets for Materials In Solid Waste , Name of Organization: (�6f/Ps �/'$� /L4 iI /D/-C Address: ,�, �0 ID 3 a5- ' AJ10 43646 Telephone Number: 41 Area Code Name Of Person Completing Questionnaire: Z)O/,{A,1 MIAIA,"S 1. Type of Industry: ,/?ff A.1 P.12 /W9.t/v4r7L-02 A.,K 2. Principal Products: <�c.s95S 0o.t/7/a ..✓ i2 ' 3. Indicate the potential use for the following recyclable materials (TPY) : a. Newsprint ' b. Corrugated c. Other paper wastes (specify) , d. Ferrous metals (specify) e. Aluminum f. Other non-ferrous metals ' g. Glass 14 d d 7'U'.15 n—L0161 7-0,J . tS'r. , t�,�+J . 41,*_j s h. Textiles ' i. Rubber J. Plastics ' k. Incinerator residues 1. Organics , 4. Give specifications of desired secondary materials - a. Quality of Paper: b. Grade of scrap metal: ' c. Acceptable degree of impurities in metals (specify) : d. Color of glass: / 7- e. e. Is removal of metal rings on bottles, required?. rke 5f f. Must textiles be separated by type? ' g. Other ' S. What are the minimum and maximum quantities (if any) of secondary materials required? Page 1 of 2 Al-24 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 6. What preparatory processing of secondary materials is required? a. Shredding ' b. Baling � /! c. Crushing of Glass !� ' d. Separation By Color e. Washing ' f. Dewatering^^ g. Other 3L€.. ' 7. Give specifications of the types of storage containers to be used (it any) t ' 8.' Is delivery of materials necessary, or can pickup be arranged? ' 9. What is the anticipated price of the secondary materials 0/ton)? 10. What are the contractual agreements for the purchase of these materials?off �""L�✓�, � ' (Long term/short term) : / '. &. ' 11. Describe previous experience j'in use of materials derived from municipals solid waste. 41-1 ��,� � .4. 4� . 12. Additional Comments: ' page 2 of 2 Ai-25 COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. 555 Madison Avenue, N.Y., N.Y. 10022 • 212/980-3700 • Telex 126695 ' August 12, 1980 Brij Shrivastava Holzmacher, McLemmon, Murrell ' 560 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11373 Dear Mr. Shrivastava: ' Enclosed is the Bridgeport Resources Recovery Facility information kit , which we discussed yesterday. As I mentioned, John Reilly, Vice President of Sales and. Marketing for ' our resouces recovery area would be the person to contact regarding the cost effectiveness of an Eco-Fuel plant for the five town area. Thanks for your continued interest in Combustion Equipment Associates. , Cordially, ' Barbara A. Koeth ' Manager, Public Information BAK/slk , Enclosure cc: John Reilly ' Vice President, Sales and Marketing As per a verbal conversation , Ms . Koeth indicated that a system capacity less than 2000 tons/day would not be cost ' effective . Al-26 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE Salvage Markets for Materials In Solid Waste r � J Name of Organization: ' Address: Telephone Number: ti GD Q ' Area Code Q Name Of Person Completing Questionnaire: /��i? '�� ,, A, �' ,� ✓ �t� ' 1 1. Type of Industry: �S 2. Principal Products: 11A t�f _t�-, �=-c '_r�-JI � `�i,C T- 3. Indicate the potential use' for the following recyclable materials (TPY) : ' a. Newsprint b. Corrugated c. Other paper wastes (specify) d. Ferrous metals (specify) e. Aluminum f. Other non-ferrous metals g. Glass ' h. Textiles i. Rubber ��, fir_ �,.���., c`t,• ��7 ' J. Plastics k. Incinerator residues ' 1. Organics 4. Give specifications of desired secondary materials - a. Quality of Paper: ' b. Grade of scrap metal: c. Acceptable degree of impurities in metals (specify) : 1 d. Color of glass: ' e. Is removal of metal rings on bottles, required?. f. Must textiles be separated by type? ' g. Other 5. What are the minimum and maximum quantities (if any) of secondary materials required? Page 1 of 2 ' Al-27 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 6. What preparatory procuss-iny of secondary materials is required? a. Shredding_ b. Baling c. Crushing of Glass ' d. Separation By Color e. Washing , f. Dewatering g. Other 7. Give specifications of the types of storage containers to be used (if agy) l B. Is delivery of materials necessary, or can pickup be arranged?ke zJ p 1 9. What is the anticipated price of the secondary materials ($/ton)? + �� 10. What are the contractual agreements for the purchase of theseInatexials? ' 9 (Long term/short term) ll. Describe previous experience in use of materials derived from municipal solid waste. , 12. Additional Comments: ' 1 page 2 of 2 Al-28 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. t ' APPENDIX 2 COMPARATIVE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 1 (COST SUMMARIES) t ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Comparative Alternative Evaluation In this appendix we have provided the cost summary of various components for each of the regional and sub-regional alternatives presented in Section 8 of this report. For ' reader' s convenience, we have repeated the previously out- lined basic assumptions made in developing the costs. The ' summary of costs is presented in Tables 1 through 24. Basic Assumptions As required for any comprehensive comparative alternative ' evaluation, we made a number of basic assumptions and fixed certain parameters in order to develop costs for the selected ' alternatives. It should be carefully noted that these assump- tions are made solely for comparing the alternatives and the ' bottom line costs do not reflect the actual conditions and ' circumstances under which a particular alternative(s) may be developed for the eventual implementation. ' The assumptions were: 1 . All costs and credits are computed in 1980 dollars. ' 2 . Unit costs are based on 1980 average annual tonnages . ' 3 . The project planning span is taken every 20 years - 1985 through 2005 . 4. Fixed Capital Costs are amortized over 20 years at ' 10 percent interest rate. Rolling stock is amortized over 7 years at 10 percent interest rate. 1 ' A2-1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. t 5 . State and/or Federal aid is assumed as 50 percent for Resource Recovery Facility and 25 percent for Transfer Station and Equipment. No aid is assumed to be avail- , able for conventional sanitary landfill . The state aid may be available under future EQBA (Environmental Qual- ity Bond Act) fundings . Although the EQBA funding ' will apply to initial capital investment for the pur- pose of this analysis and unit cost comparison we have converted and utilized this credit on an annual , basis. 6. Electrical Generation Facilities are owned, operated and maintained by LILCO. , 7 . All facilities are sized and operated to accommodate peak solid waste quantities up to year 2005. Rolling ' equipment replacement costs are excluded for the com- parative evaluation purposes. 8. All landfill costs with the exception of non-combust- ' ibles are based on required environmental protection measures under preventing state regulations such as leachate collection and treatment system, final capping, ' drainage systems, methane control etc. 9 . Existing collection practices are assumed to remain ' unchanged. Satellite Transfer Station System currently in planning is considered part of the existing collec- tion practices. , 10 . Credit for ferrous metal recovery is excluded from cost analysis due to existing market unavailability. 11 . Net unit costs for modular incineration systems are t based on the assumption that all available steam will be marketed. ' 12 . Site for the regional resource recovery/landfill facility is selected in the vicinity of the former RCA property ' in the Town of Southampton, currently owned by the NYSDEC:. The selection is based on the preliminary investigation of the general areas and conversations with various town and NYSDEC officials. It is assumed that selection of ' any site within that general area will not affect the overall transportation costs. 1 A2-2 1 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 13 . Transfer station sites are located at the existing tran- sfer or disposal sites. 14 . Residue and nonburnable disposal for regional and sub- regional alternatives are assumed at the available existing landfill sites upgraded to meet the prevailing state-regulations. Transportation of the nonburnables ' to the landfill site is excluded from the analysis. 15 . A preliminary tipping fee of $20 .00 ( 1980) is assumed ' at the proposed Brookhaven Resource Recovery Facility. The basis for this assumption is the prevailing tipping fees at various resource recovery plants of similar type in operation or at implementation stage. ' 16 . Wastewater disposal is assumed to be on-site for all resource recovery alternatives. ' 17 . Additional air pollution control for modular incinera- tion technology is assumed where applicable based on the current EPA and state requirements. Cost Analysis A. Costs 1 . Capital Cost: Capital costs include land acquisition, ' site preparation, buildings and structures, process equipment, electrical and instrumentation, transportation equipment, ' front-end loaders, environmental protection measures and final ' capping of disposal sites. In addition, engineering, financing and legal fees and contingencies are also provided in the ' capital costs . 2 . Annual Capital Cost: These costs are obtained by amortizing the fixed capital costs at 20 years and 10 percent and the rolling equipment costs at 7 years and 10 percent. ' A2-3 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , 3 . Annual Operating Cost: Operating costs comprise of labor costs including fringe benefits, overtime allowance, , shift differential , maintenance and repairs, fuel, utilities and administration costs. , B. Credits , Credits are; 1. Those applicable to capital costs due to state or federal aid which help reduce the initial. ' capital investment and; 2 . Those derived from sale of re- covered resources, i .e. electricity , steam, refuse derived ' fuel, metals (if marketable) , which help reduce the tipping fee at the facility. ' 1 . State/Federal Aid: At present, the only aid that is , potentially available is the state aid through EQBA fundings for resource recovery facilities. Preliminary conversation , with the NYSDEC officials have indicated the possibility of future EQBA funding availability to the East End Towns,. We ' have assumed 50 percent aid on capital costs for resource ' recovery facilities and 25 percent aid on capital cost for transfer stations and rolling equipment under such funding. ' No aid is assumed for sanitary landfilling and wastewater disposal facilities. ' 2 . Revenues from Sale of Recovered Resources ' Electricity: The revenues from the sale of electri- city were supplied by LILCO. Based on the L:ILCO' s projected ' revenue stream, we computed the revenue for electricity for A2-4 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. the mass-fired system at $26/ton of solid waste. The rev- enue for the spreader stoker system was computed at $27 .50/ton ' of refuse. Steam: Revenue from the sale of low pressure steam ' in 1980 dollars was taken at $20.00/ton based on the steam production rate utilizing modular incineration technology and steam sale of approximately $6.00 per 1,000 pounds. ' RDF: Revenues from the sale of RDF was computed on the basis of fossil fuel replacement due to combustion of ' RDF. The assumptions are: Coal Price: $50/ton ' Coal Heat Value: 1,200 Btu/lb RDF Heat Value: 5,585 Btu/lb Inservice Efficiency: 75% Coal ' 65% RDF Coal vs RDF Heat Equivalency: 2. 5 lb of RDF/lb of Coal RDF User ' s Charge: $5 .00/ton Net Estimated RDF Sale Price: $15/ton of RDF ' C. Net Annual Cost ' This cost is the net yearly cost of debt service and operating a facility in less annual revenues derived from ' sale of recovered resource from that facility. D. Unit Cost ($/Ton) : Net annual costs are derived by the ' average tonnage handled to compute the net unit cost which is also the tipping fee charged at the gate of the facility. Average tonnage for 1980 is 182, 500 tons. ' A2-5 HOLZMA HER McLENDON and MURRELL P.C./H2M CORP. ' C , A2-6 , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 1 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS r A. REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 1 - FIVE TOWN MASS FIRED WATERWALL RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM WITH OBW SHREDDING Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans . Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility Station Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total C Capital Cost ($ ) 1,967 1,495 77, 340 - 180 2,340 880 - 2,900 $87, 102 Annual Capital Cost ($/Year) 255 308 9, 084 - 37 288 133 - 341 10,446 Annual Operating " Cost ($/Year) 597 846 3,916 - 149 59 175 - 150 5, 892 Total Annual Cost ($/Year) 852 1 ,154 13,000 - 186 347 308 - 491 16, 338 Electricity _ _ _ _ _ _ - - 4, 786 786 ar 4, — ($/Ye ) a Steam ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - - State Aid ($/Year) 64 77 4, 542 - - - - - - 4,683 Total Annual Credits ($/Year) 64 77 9, 328 - - - - - - 9,469 Net Annual ' Cost ($/Year) 788 1,077 3,672 186 347 308 - 491 6,869 Unit Cost - 4.32 5.90 20 .12 - 1 .02 1. 90 1. 69 - 2.69 37 .64 ( $/Ton) 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2 ) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3 ) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage 182, 500 A2-7/8 f HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 2 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS A. REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 2 - FIVE TOWN SPREADER STOKER WATERWALL RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM WITH FRONT END SHREDDING I Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total i Capital Cost ($ ) 1, 967 1,495 79,140 - 180 2, 340 880 - 2,900 $88, 902 Annual Capital 6 Gr Cost ($/Year) 255 308 9,296 - 37 288 133 - 341 10,658 p E+ Annual Operating 0 Cost ($/Year) 597 846 4, 396 - 149 59 175 - 150 6,372 E Total Annual Cost ($/Year) 852 1,154 13,692 - 186 347 308 _ 491 17,030 Electricity 5,025 � ($/Year) - - 5,025 - - - - - - E- Steam ~ ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - - Q w State Aid W ( $/Year) 64 77 4,648 - - - - - - 4,789 U Total Annual Credits ($/Year) 64 77 9,673 - - - - - - 9, 814 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) 788 1,077 4,019 - 186 347 308 - 491 7,216 Unit Cost ($/Ton) - 4. 32 5.90 22 .02 - 1 .02 1 .90 1.69 - 2.69 39 .54 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage: 182, 500 A2-910 �� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 3 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS A. REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 3 - FIVE TOWN REFUSE DERIVED FUEL RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM, RDF SOLD TO LILCO' S PROPOSED JAMESPORT FACILITY Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Rejects Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost ($ ) 1, 967 1, 495 49 , 910 1, 001 - 240 935 - - 55, 548 A Annual Capital Cost ($/Year) 255 308 5 , 464 206 - 50 140 - - 6 , 423 E-+ EO Annual Operating o Cost ($/Year) 597 846 3, 556 530 - 213 196 - - 5, 938 U Total Annual Cost ($/Year) 852 1, 154 9 ,020 736 71 263 336 - - 12 , 432 Electricity Lo ($/Year) - - 1, 774 - - - - - - 1, 774 Ei Steam ' ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - - Q w State Aid x ( $/Year) 64 77 2 , 732 52 - 12 - - - 2, 937 U Total Annual Credits ($/Year) 64 77 4, 506 52 - 12 - - - 4, 711 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) 788 1, 077 4, 514 684 71 251 336 - - 7, 721 Unit Cost 4.32 5. 90 24. 73 3. 75 0 . 39 1 . 38 1. 84 - - 42 . 31 ($/Ton) - 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage : 182 , 500 * RDF Mfg. Facility Costs include Receiving & Firing Facility at LILCO A2-1112 HOLZMACHER, MCLENOON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 4 Ii COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS A. REGIONAL SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 3 - FIVE TOWN REFUSE DERIVED FUEL RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM, RDF SOLD TO LILCO' S PORT JEFFERSON FACILITY i Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Rejects Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost ($ ) 1,967 1,495 49,910 1,638 - 240 935 - - $56,185 Annual Capital - - - Cost ($/Year) 255 308 5,464 336 50 140 6, 553 H Annual Operating O Cost ($/Year) 597 846 3,556 1,123 - 213 196 - - 6,531 U Total Annual Cost ($/Year) 852 1,154 9,020 1,459 71 263 336 - - 13 ,155 Electricity 774 � ($/Year) - - 1 - - - - - - 1, 774 E Steam ~ ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - - Q w State Aid x ($/Year) 64 77 2 , 732 84 - 12 - - - 2 ,969 U Total Annual Credits ($/Year) 64 77 4,506 84 - 12 - - - 4, 743 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) 788 1,077 4,514 1,375 71 251 336 - - 8,412 Unit Cost ($/Ton) - 4.32 5 .90 24.73 7.53 0 .39 1.38 1.84 - - 46.09 1) A11 Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage 182,500 RDF Mfg. Facility Costs include Receiving b Firing Facility at LILCO A2-1314 I� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 5 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS A. REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 4 - FIVE TOWN MSW TRANSFER TO PROPOSED BROOKHAVEN RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY i Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost ($ ) 1,967 1, 768 - - - - 880 - - $ 4, 615 c f � Annual Capital 255 364 - - 133 - - 752 Ei Cost ($/Year) - "" r4 Annual Operating o Cost ($/Year) 597 1, 195 - - - - 175 - - 1, 967 U Total Annual Cost ($/Year) 852 1, 559 3 ,650 - - - 308 - - 6, 369 A Electricity - ($/Year) E Steam ~ ($/Year) - - - - - - 0 w State Aid 64 91 - _ _ _ _ _ _ 155 x ( $/Year) U Total Annual Credits ($/Year) 64 91 - - - - - - - 155 Net Annual 788 1, 468 3, 650 - - - - - Cost ($/Year) 308 6, 214 Unit Cost ($/Ton) - 4. 32 8.04 20 .00 - - - 1.69 - - 34.05 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage : 182, 500 A2-1516 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 6 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS A. REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 5 - FIVE TOWN CONVENTIONAL SANITARY LANDFILL TO COMPLY WITH PREVAILING STATE REGULATIONS li Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost ($ ) 1,967 1,495 - - - - - 43,368 - $46,830 Annual Capital Cost ($/Year) 255 308 - - - - - 5,030 - 5,593 H cn Annual Operating o Cost ($/Year) 597 846 - - - - - 962 - 2,405 U Total Annual I Cost ($/Year) 852 1, 154 - - - - - 5,992 - 7 ,998 Electricity M ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - - E- Steam ~ ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - - 0 w State Aid ix ( $/Year) - - - - - - - - - - U Total Annual Credits ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - - Net Annual Cost ($/Year) 852 1,154 - - - - - 5, 992 - 7,998 Unit Cost ($/Ton) - 4 .67 6.32 - - - - - 32.83 - 43 .82 i 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage : 182, 500 I� A2-1718 HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 8 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 1 - FOUR TOWN MASS FIRED WATERWALL RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM WITH OBW SHREDDI G I I Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total i Capital Cost ($ ) 1,857 1,359 77 ,340 - 180 3, 220 - 2,900 $86,856 Annual Capital Cost ($/Year) 242 280 9,084 - 37 421 - 341 10,405 a Annual Operating I 0 Cost ($/Year) 555_ _ 779 3,916 - 149 234 0 - 150 5,783 U Total Annual Cost ($/Year) 797 1,059 13,000 - 186 655 - 491 16 , 188 a Electricity ($/Year) - - 4,687 - - - U) - - 4,687 E-4 Steam z ~ ($/Year) - - - - - - ~ - - - w State Aid w A a ( $/Year) 60 70 4, 542 - - - a - - 4,672 U Total Annual z H Credits ($/Year) 60 70 9,229 - - - - - 9,359 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) 737 989 3 ,771 - 186 655 - 491 6,829 Unit Cost ($/Ton) - 4. 12 5.53 21.08 - 1 .04 3. 66 - 2.74 38. 18 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage : 178,840 A2-1920 i i HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL,P.C./ H2M CORP. EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 7 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS s i B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS I ALTERNATIVE 1 - MODULAR INCINERATION RESOURCE RECOVERY FOR SHELTER ISLAND Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost t 1, 522 - 324 - 500 $ 2, 346 Annual Capital Cost ($/Year) - - 179 - 0 50 0 - 58 287 H EOa a Annual Operating 4 4 0 Cost ($/Year) - - 299 - 70 n - 32 401 U a a U" Total Annual Cost ($/Year) - - 478 - A 120 A - 90 688 Electricity LO ($/Year) - - - - En U) H a a Steam 73 _ z _ z - 73 H H ($/Year) H A w State Aid a ( $/Year) - - 90 - A - Q - - 90 U a a Total Annual Credits ($/Year) - - 163 - H - H - - 163 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) - - 315 - 120 - 90 525 Unit Cost ($/Ton) - - - 86 .06 - 32. 79 - 24. 59 143. 44 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage: 3,660 i h r A2-2122 4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 9 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS 4 B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 2 - MODULAR INCINERATION RESOURCE RECOVERY FOR SHELTER ISLAND AND EAST HAMPTON i Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total r Capital Cost ($ ) 110 136 10,275 - 1,750 - 2, 100 $14,371 U) Annual Capital U) m 1. Cost ($/Year) 13 28 1,206 - 0 236 O - 247 1,730 E� 10 Annual Operating O Cost ($/Year) 42 54 990 - 112 R - 90 1,288 U U) Total Annual H Cost ($/Year) 55 82 2 ,196 - q 348 q - 337 3,018 Electricity r ($/Year) - r_ a x E Steam z z '-' ($/Year) - - 600 - H - H - - 600 q q q w State Aid A Q x ($/Year) 3 7 603 - a - a - - 613 U U U Total Annual H H Credits ($/Year) 3 7 1,203 - - - - 1, 213 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) 52 75 993 - 348 - 337 1,805 Unit Cost ($/Ton) - 1 .73 2.50 33 .08 - 11.60 - 11 .23 60.14 i 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage: 30,010 A2-2324 .: i ,r HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / C.nsull ng Eng-neers EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS Table 10 z B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 2 - THREE TOWN MASS FIRED WATERWALL RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM WITH OBW SHREDDING Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost ($) 1,415 910 70,464 - 180 2,332 - 2,600 $77,901 to W Annual Capital E' H Cost ($/Year) 185 187 8,277 - 37 316 0 - 307 9,309 o Annual Operating f, U Cost ($/Year) 405 515 3,673 - 149 191 - 135 5,068 i° a Total Annual N Cost ($/Year) 590 702 11,950 - 186 507 ca - 442 14,377 Electricity o ($/Year) - - 4,000 - - - U) - - 4,000 a F' Steam Z H ($/Year) - - - - - - ►-a - - - L1 w State Aid ($/Year) 46 47 4, 138 - - - a - - 4,231 a u Total Annual U Credits ($/Year) 46 47 8, 138 - - - H - - 8,231 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) 544 655 3,812 - 186 507 - 442 6,146 Unit Cost - 3.57 4.30 25.00 - 1.22 3 .31 - 2.90 40.30 ($/Ton) 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage 152,480 A2-25/26 HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. ; Cc^s itmg Engineers EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 12 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS G B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 3 - THREE TOWN MASS FIRED WATERWALL RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM WITH OBW SHREDDING i Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost ($) 1,415 910 70,464 - 180 2,332 - 2,600 $77,901 4 Annual Capital Ems., E'' Cost_($_/Year) 185 187 8, 277 - 37 316 n - 307 9, 309 U 0 Annual Operating U Cost ($/Year) 405 515 3,673 - 149 191 Q - 135 5,068 Total Annual rn Cost ($/Year) 590 702 11,950 - 186 507 - 442 14,377 Electricity w ($/Year) - - 4,000 - - - o - - 4,000 Ei Steam a ~ ($/Year) - A W State Aid o w a ($/Year) 46 47 4, 138 - - - A - - 4,231 U Total Annual Z Credits ($/Year) 46 47 8, 138 - - - - - 8,231 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) 544 655 3,812 - 186 507 - 442 6, 146 Unit Cost 3. 57 4.30 25.00 - 1.22 3.31 - 2.90 40.30 ($/Ton) _ 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage: 152,480 A2-27/28 HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / Cc rsuit ng Engineers EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 11 ' COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS l B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONVENTIONAL LANDFILL FOR SHELTER ISLAND AND EAST HAMPTON Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost ($ ) 110 136 - - - - 13,310 - $13,556 Annual Capital Ems., E' Cost ($/Year) 13 28 - - - - y 1,606 - 1,647 V] U 0 Annual Operating a U Cost ($/Year) 42 54 244 - 340 O Total Annual W Cost ($/Year) 55 82 - - - - 0 11850 - 1,987 3 Electricity ($/Year) - - - - - - - - F Steam z H ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - o w w State Aid a x ($/Year) - z U Total Annual ~ Credits ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - Net Annual Cost ($/Year) 55 82 - - - - 1,850 - 1,987 Unit Cost - 1.83 2.73 - - - - 61.65 - 66.21 ($/Ton) 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage 30,010 I:. A2-2930 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / Corsuit ng Erg,neers EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS Table 14 B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 4 - THREE TOWN MSW TRANSFER TO PROPOSED BROOKHAVEN RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost k ($) 1,415 1,092 - - - - 594 - - $ 3, 101 i W Annual Capital E-+ Cost ($/Year) 185 225 - - - - 94 - - 504 a 0 Annual Operating i Cost ($/Year) 405 776 - - - - 119 - - 1,300 U "y Total Annual Cost ($/Year) 590 1,001 2,745 - - - - 213_ - - 4,549 i Electricity ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - - - - Vj E-' Steam H ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - - 0 W State Aid x ($/Year) 46 56 - - - - - - - 102 U Total Annual Credits ($/Year) 46 56 - - - - - - - 102 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) 544 946 2,745 - - - 213 - - 4,447 Unit Cost 3.56 6.20 18.00 - - - 1.40 - - 29.16 ($/Ton) r i 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) Tipping Fee at Brookhaven will be $20/Ton i. II, A2-31/32 i i� HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / Gonsu tg Engineers i EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 13 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS f ALTERNATIVE 4 - MODULAR INCINERATION RESOURCE RECOVERY FOR SHELTER ISLAND AND EAST HAMPTON Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total i Capital Cost ($ ) 110 136 10, 275 - 1,750 - 2, 100 $14,371 cn F u) Annual Capital E- E. Cost ($/Year) 13 28 1,206 - 0 236 U - 247 1,730 rn Annual Operating a Cost ($/Year) 42 54 990 - 112 0 - 90 1,288 u e cn Total Annual H o Cost ($/Year) 55 82 2,196 - ° 348 - 337 3,018 I Electricitycn H ($/Year) - - - - cn - a E-' Steam z F-+ ($/Year) - - 600 - H - ~ - - 600 c w State Aid x ($/Year) 3 7 603 - ° - a - - 613 U Z u Total Annual z H Credits ($/Year) 3 7 1,203 - - - - 1,213 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) 52 75 993 - 348 - 337 1,805 Unit Cost 1.73 2.50 33.09 - 11.60 - 11.23 60.15 ($/Ton) - i 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Averaqe Annual Tonnage 30,010 A2-33/34 li Ilei HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / Ccnsulting Engineers i EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS Table 15 B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 5 - ALL FIVE TOWNS TO OPERATE INDIVIDUAL CONVENTIONAL SANITARY LANDFILLS TO COMPLY WITH PREVAILING STATE REGULATIONS - SOUTHAMPTON - Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total F Capital Cost ($) - - - - - - 13,552 - $13,552 E Annual Capital E., N Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - 1,652 - 1,652 V1 U 0 Annual Operating a u Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - 4 369 - 369 0 C4 i Total Annual Cost ($/Year) 2,021 - 2,021 Electricity 3 ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - E E' Steam ~ ($/Year) - L1 C3 w State Aid q o: ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - U U Total Annual Fj Credits ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - Net Annual Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - 2,021 - 2,021 Unit Cost - - - - - - 25.04 - 25.04_ ($/Ton) 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage 80, 700 1995 Average Annual Tonnage 146,880 2005 Average Annual Tonnage 210,080 A2-55/36 HOLZMACHER. McLENOON and MURRELL. P.C. ; ^.c^s.:;nrg Eng.neers `i EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 16 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS t ALTERNATIVE 5 - ALL FIVE TOWNS TO OPERATE INDIVIDUAL CONVENTIONAL SANITARY LANDFILLS TO COMPLY WITH PREVAILING STATE REGULATIONS - RIVERHEAD - Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost 10,142 - $10,142 H Annual Capital rA E. Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - u 1,234 - 1,234 I O Annual Operating u Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - O 244 - 244 Oki Total Annual Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - A 1,478 - 1,478 Electricity vi ($/Year)Vj - Z E- Steam H ($/Year) - G1 Ca w State Aid a a ($/Year) - H u Total Annual Credits ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - Net Annual Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - 1,478 - 1,478 Unit Cost - - - - - - - 41_.89 - 41.89 ($/Ton) 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage: 35, 280 i 42-37/18 HOLZMACHER. MCLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / Consult.ng Engineers EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 17 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 5 - ALL FIVE TOWNS TO OPERATE INDIVIDUAL CONVENTIONAL SANITARY LANDFILLS TO COMPLY WITH PREVAILING STATE REGULATIONS - SOUTHOLD - f i Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost ($) _ _ _ _ _ - 13,156 - $13,1.56 ;€ rn Annual Capital Ei E, Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - 0 1,588 - 1,588 Annual Operating 244 - 244 Cost WYear) - - - - - - a Total Annual H a Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - A 1,832 - 1,832 3 Electricity ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - Z E' Steam H ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - G1 W w State Aid Q ($/Year) - - - - - - ►a - - - a 2 U Total Annual H Credits ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - Net Annual Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - 1,832 - 1,832 Unit Cost - - - - - 51.93 - 51.93 ($/Ton) I f 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage ; 36,500 A2-39/40 'i HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. i C�rsu!t ng Engineers i, EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 { Table 18 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 5 - ALL TOWNS TO OPERATE INDIVIDUAL CONVENTIONAL SANITARY LANDFILLS TO COMPLY WITH PREVAILING STATE REGULATIONS EAST HAMPTON - f l Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost 10,605 - $10,605 Annual Capital E+ E- Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - O 1,288 - 1,288 p Annual Operating a r, u Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - 234 - 234 a Total Annual W Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - A 1,522 - 1,522 3 Electricity Cn ($/Year) E4 ,., Steam F2� A ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - w w State Aid A ($/Year) a u z Total Annual H Credits ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - Net Annual Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - 1,522 - 1,522 Unit Cost = - - - - - - 57 .74 - 57.' 4 ($/Ton) i r j 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage 26,360 A2-44/42 i HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 19 t COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS E> B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 5 - ALL FIVE TOWNS TO OPERATE INDIVIDUAL CONVENTIONAL SANITARY LANDFILLS TO COMPLY WITH PREVAILING STATE REGULATIONS - SHELTER ISLAND - i Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater r Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost ( $ ) - - - - - - - 1,749 - $ 1 ,749 Annual Capital Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - - 235 - 235 H 10 Annual Operating o Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - - 164 - 164 U Total Annual Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - - 399 - 399 Electricity ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - - E-4 Steam ~ ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - Q w State Aid x ( $/Year) - - - - - - - - - - U Total Annual Credits ($/Year) - - - - - - - - - - Net Annual Cost ($/Year) - - - - - - - 399 - 399 Unit Cost ($/Ton) - - - - - - - - 109.31 - 109.02 i 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage: 3 ,660 A2-4344 j HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / C cs ?;^z ung .vers EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 20 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS F! ALTERNATIVE 6 - ALL FIVE TOWNS TO OPERATE INDIVIDUAL MODULAR INCINERATION RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS - SOUTHAMPTON - Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater l Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost 28,000 - cn 1,730 - 6,300 $36,030 Annual Capital O En E+ Cost ($/Year) - - 3,288 - v 228 O - 741 4,257 i. 0 Annual Operating O En u Cost ($/Year) - - 2,600 - 0 127 0 - 270 2,997 ;gym Total Annual o Cost ($/Year) - - 5,888 - 355 M - 11011 7,254 Electricity ($/Year) Steam z z ($/Year) - - 1,614 - H - H - - 1,614 a - - - w w w State Aid A ($/Year) - - 1,644 - a - a - - 1,644 U - Z 7 Total Annual Credits ($/Year) - - 3,258 - - - - 3,258 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) - - 2,630 - 355 - 1,011 3,996 Unit Cost - - 32.59 - 4.40. - 12 .53 49.52 _ ($/Ton) I i 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage: 80,700 A2-45/46 f HOLZMACHER. MGLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / C� .. !ng Eng-Pers Appendix 2 EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Table 21 ; COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 6 - ALL FIVE TOWNS TO OPERATE INDIVIDUAL MODULAR INCINERATION RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS RIVERHEAD - Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost ($ ) - - 10,275 - 1,420 - 2,100 $13,795 Annual Capital W E" Cost ($/Year) - - 1,206 - u 184 0u - 247 1,637 rA O Annual Operating Q u Cost ($/Year) - - 990 - 0 117 0 - 90 1,197 Total Annual o A Cost ($/Year) - - 2,196 - 301 - 337 2,834 Electricity o A ($/Year) Steam z z H ($/Year) - - 706 - ~ - ~ - - 706 a w w w State Aid j x ($/Year) - - 603 - a - - - 603 z z u Total Annual Credits ($/Year) - - 1,309 - - - - 1,309 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) - - 887 - 301 - 337 1,525 Unit Cost - - 25.14 - 8.53 - 9.55 43 .22 ($/Ton) 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2 ) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage: 35,280 A2-4748 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 22 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 6 - ALL FIVE TOWNS TO OPERATE INDIVIDUAL MODULAR INCINERATION RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS SOUTHOLD - Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost 10, 275 - 1, 420 - 2, 100 $13, 795 Annual Capital cost ($/Year) - 1, 206 - 0 184 0 - 247 1, 637 Annual Operating a 990 o Cost ($/Year) - - - v� 117 - 90 1, 197 U w a Total Annual U) - 2 , 196 - q 301 A - 337 2, 834 Cost ($/Year) � w Electricity ($/Year) - - - ra - a w F a Steam '-' ($/Year) - 706 - z - z - - 706 H N w State AidA A ( $/Year) - - 603 603 rx Q a �D U Total Annual _ 1, 309 - z - z _ _ 1, 309 Credits ($/Year) - H H Net Annual Cost ($/Year) - - 887 - 301 - 337 1, 525 Unit Cost ($/Ton) - - - 24. 30 - 8. 25 - 9. 23 41. 78 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage : 36, 500 A2-4950 HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P C. Erg�nee+S EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 23 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS f B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 6 - ALL FIVE TOWNS TO OPERATE INDIVIDUAL MODULAR INCINERATION RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS - EAST HAMPTON - Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total Capital Cost ($ ) - - 9, 120 - 1,320 - 2,100 $12,540 w Annual Capital oI: Cost ($/Year) - - 1,071 - 172 U - 247 1,490 Annual Operating - Cost ($/Year) - - 876 - 0 109 0 90 1,075 Total Annual Cost ($/Year) - - 1,947 - Q 281 A - 337 2,565 Electricity A A H H ($/Year) - - - - wrz - - - - w E- Steam zz 527 ,-, ($/Year) - - 527 - - - - Ll w State Aid - a ($/Year) rj 536 - - - 536 U Total Annual `� ~ Credits ($/Year) - - 1,063 - - - - 1,063 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) - - 884 - 281 - 337 1,502 Unit Cost - - 33.53 - 10.66 - 12.78 56.97 ($/Ton) 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage 26, 360 A2-51/52 �I HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / crsclt ^g cng—Pers I Ii EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY Appendix 2 Table 24 COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS B. SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE 6 - ALL FIVE TOWNS TO OPERATE INDIVIDUAL MODULAR INCINERATION RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS - SHELTER ISLAND - Transfer Transfer Res. Rec. RDF Trans- Residue Residue Nonburnables Refuse Wastewater Station Haul Facility portation Transportation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Total k Capital Cost ($ ) - - 1,522 - 324 - 500 $ 2,346 f Ca r I Annual Capital E' W i Ea Cost ($/Year) - - 179 - 0 50 - 58 287 I 0 Annual Operating u Cost ($/Year) - - 299 - 70 0 - 32 401 Total Annual Cost ($/Year) - - 478 - 120 .L - 90 688 Electricity Q En ($/Year) a E' Steam z H ►-+ ($/Year) - - 73 - H - - - 73 Ca D to w State Aid o x ($/Year) - - 90 - - ;? - - 90 a � z U Total Annual z H Credits ($/Year) - - 163 - - - - 163 Net Annual Cost ($/Year) - - 315 - 120 - 90 525 Unit Cost - - 36.06 - 32 .79 - 24.59 143 .44 ($/Ton) 1) All Costs and Credits are in 1980 Dollars 2) All Figures are Rounded to and Expressed in Thousands of Dollars 3) 1980 Average Annual Tonnage: 3 ,660 A2-53/54 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. 1 1 APPENDIX 3 ' DETAILED COSTS OF RECOMMENDED PLANS 1 1 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' APPENDIX 3 - DETAILED COSTS OF RECOMMENDED PLANS Basic Assumptions ' 1 . All costs are in 1980 dollars. 2 . Transfer station, wastewater treatment facilities and residue disposal facilities are sized for 2005. Resource recovery facility is planned on an as needed basis. Transfer haul is based on 1992 con- ditions. 3 . Five Town Resource Recovery Facility is located in the Town of Southampton in the proximity of RCA Site . 4. Fixed Capital Costs are amortized over 20 years at a 10 percent interest rate. Rolling stock is amor- tized over 7 years at 10 percent rate. 5 . EQBA State Aid on Capital Cost is assumed to be 50 ' percent for the resource recovery facility and 25 percent for the transfer stations and equipment. ' 6 . Electrical Generation Facilities are owned and op- erated by LILCO. 7 . Residue disposal site is existing North Sea Landfill ' and is designed to comply with the prevailing state regulations. Nonburnables are also disposed of at this site. ' 8. Wastewater treatment is provided on site. ' 9. Only transfer stations, transfer haul and nonburnable disposal costs are applicable for the alternate recom- mended plan (transportation to proposed Brookhaven Resource Recovery Facility) . All other costs are assumed to be included in the tipping fee at Brookhaven. Note : Also refer to Figures 3-1 and 3-2 at the end of this Appendix. 1 1 ' A3-1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 1 . PRIMARY RECOMMENDED PLAN - FIVE TOWN REGIONAL RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM ' a. Transfer Stations Town of Southampton - North Sea Site , Provide one pushpit and one stationary compactor with ex- ' pansion capability of an additional compactor . CAPITAL COSTS , Site Work $ 150,000 ' Building and Foundation 112,000 Electrical 35,000 Plumbing ?.1,000 ' Heating, Ventilation, Air Cond. 17,000 Stationary Compactors & Pushpit Installed with Controls 130,000 Engineering & Contingency 70,000 , Front-End Loader 70,000 Total Capital Cost $505,000 t Annual Capital Cost $ (.6,500 ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Rate ($/Yr. ) Total ($ ) ' 1 Superintendent/Foreman $ ;10,000 $ 20,000 ' 2 Equipment Operator 1.5,000 30, 000 1 Tipping Floor Attendant 1.3,000 13, 000 1 Laborer 1.1,000 11,000 ' Sub-Total $ 74,000 Fringe Benefits & Overtime All. 37,000 Total Labor Costs $111,000 ' Electrical & Utilities 10, 000 Maintenance & Repairs 15, 000 Miscellaneous (Telephone & Supplies etc. ) 2, 500 Total Annual Operating Cost $138, 500 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST $204, 000 ' A3-2 , ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Town of Southold - Depot Lane Provide one pushpit and one stationary compactor. ' CAPITAL COSTS ' Site Work $ 40,000 Building and Foundation 90,000 Electrical 30,000 ' Plumbing 20,000 Heating, Ventilation, Air Cond. 15,000 Stationary Compactors & Pushpit Installed with Controls 130,000 ' Engineering & Contingency 60,000 Front-End Loader 70,000 ' Total Capital Cost $455,000 Annual Capital Cost $ 59,600 ' ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Rate ($/Yr. ) Total ($ ) 1 Superintendent/Foreman $ 20,000 $ 20, 000 2 Equipment Operator 15,000 30, 000 1 Tipping Floor Attendant 13,000 13, 000 ' 1 Laborer 11,000 11,000 Sub-Total $ 74,000 Fringe Benefits & Overtime All. 37,000 ' Total Labor Costs $111,000 Electrical & Utilities 81000 Maintenance & Repairs 12,000 Miscellaneous (Telephone & Supplies etc. ) 2,400 ' Total Annual Operating Cost $133, 400 ' TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST $193, 000 ' A3-3 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Town of Riverhead - Youngs Avenue Provide one pushpit and one stationary compactor . ' CAPITAL COSTS , Site Work $ 40,000 Building and Foundation 90,000 , Electrical 30,000 Plumbing 20,000 Heating, Ventilation, Air Cond. 15,000 , Stationary Compactors & Pushpit Installed with Controls 1,30,000 Engineering & Contingency 60,000 Front-End Loader _70,000 , Total Capital Cost $4.55,000 Annual Operating Cost $ 59,600 , ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Rate: ($/Yr. ) Total ($ ) ' 1 Superintendent/Foreman $ 20,000 $ 20, 000 2 Equipment Operator 15,000 30, 000 ' 1 Tipping Floor Attendant 13,000 13,000 1 Laborer 11,000 11,000_ Sub-Total $ 74,000 , Fringe Benefits & Overtime All. 37,000_ Total Labor Costs $111,000 Electrical & Utilities 8, 000 , Maintenance & Repairs 12, 000 Miscellaneous (Telephone & Supplies etc. ) 2,400 Total Annual Operating Cost $133, 400 ' TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST $193, 000 A3-4 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Town of East Hampton ' Acabonic Site ' Provide one stationary compactor. CAPITAL COSTS Site Work $ 27,000 Building and Foundation 70,000 ' Electrical 22,000 Plumbing 15,000 Heating, Ventilation, Air Cond. 11,000 ' Stationary Compactors & Pushpit Installed with Controls 70,000 Engineering & Contingency 40,000 Front-End Loader 60,000 Total Capital Cost $315,000 ' Annual Capital Cost $ 42,300 ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Rate ($/Yr. ) Total ($ ) ' 1 Superintendent/Foreman $ 20,000 $ 20,000 2 Equipment Operator 15,000 30, 000 ' 1 Laborer 11,000 11,000 Sub-Total $_ 61,000 Fringe Benefits & Overtime All. 30, 500 ' Total Labor Costs $ 91,500 Electrical & Utilities 5, 000 Maintenance & Repairs 8, 000 Miscellaneous (Telephone & Supplies etc. ) 1,200 ' Total Annual Operating Cost $105, 700 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST $148, 000 t ' A3-5 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , Montauk Site Provide one top loading trailer type compactor with an , enclosed ramp-both side loading. , CAPITAL COSTS Site Work $ 20,000 , Building and Foundation 85,000 Electrical ' Plumbing 10,000 Heating, Ventilation, Air Cond. Stationary Compactors & Pushpit ' Installed with Controls Engineering & Contingency 12,000 Front-End Loader _ Total Capital Cost $127,000 ' Annual Capital Cost $ 15,000 ' ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Rate ($ Yr. ) Total ($ ) 1 Tipping Floor Attendant/Foreman $ 15,000 15, 0013 ' 1 Laborer 11,000 11,000 Sub-Total $ 26,0013 ' Fringe Benefits & Overtime All. 13,000 Total Labor Costs $ 39,000 Electrical & Utilities , Maintenance & Repairs 5, 000 Miscellaneous (Telephone & Supplies etc. ) Total Annual Operating Cost $ 44, 000 ' TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST $ 59,000 A3-6 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Town of Shelter Island - Menantic Road Provide top loading trailer type compactor with an enclosed ' ramp - single side loading. ' CAPITAL COSTS Site Work $ 20,000 ' Building and Foundation 70,000 Electrical Plumbing 10,000 Heating, Ventilation, Air Cond. ' Stationary Compactors & Pushpit Installed with Controls Engineering & Contingency 10,000 ' Front-End Loader Total Capital Cost $110,000 ' Annual Capital Cost $ 13,000 ' ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Rate ($/Yr. ) Total ($ ) 1 Tipping Floor Attendant/Foreman $ 15,000 $ 15, 000 ' 1 Laborer 11,000 11,000 Sub-Total $ 26,000 Fringe Benefits & Overtime All. 13,000 Total Labor Costs $ 39,000 ' Electrical & Utilities Maintenance & Repairs 3, 000 Miscellaneous (Telephoen & Supplies etc. ) ' Total Annual Operating Cost $ 42, 000 ' TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST $ 55, 000 ' A3-7 = I O r N TABLE 3 -1 a A Transfer Stations Cost Summary o n r M 2 Annual Annual Total o Town Capital Capital Operating Annual m a Southampton 505 ,000 65, 500 138,500 204, 000 Riverhead 455,000 59,600 133,400 193, 000 M r Southold 455,000 59,600 133,400 193, 000 n East Hampton x (Acabonack) 315 ,000 42,300 105, 700 148, 000 ; n w East Hampton 00 (Montauk) 127,000 15,000 44,000 59,000 Shelter Island 110,000 13,000 42 ,000 55,000 TOTAL 1,967,000 255,000 597,000 852,000 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' b. Transfer Haul Town of Southampton ' (255 TPD, 42 miles round trip to Resource Recovery Facility) ' CAPITAL COSTS 4 Tractors @ $56,000 each $224,000 ' 4 Trailers @ $35 ,000 each 140 ,000 Total Capital Cost $364,000 ' Annual Capital Cost $ 75,000 ' ANNUAL OPERATING COST ' Operating Personnel 4 Truck Drivers @ $15 ,000 $ 60,000 10% Overtime 6,000 ' 40% Fringe Benefits 24,000 Total Labor Cost $ 90 ,000 ' Fuel, Oil, Maintenance & Repairs $124, 200 Insurance & Licenses 14,600 ' Total Annual Operating Cost $228,800 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL & OPERATING COST $303,800 t ' A3-9 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. ' Town of Riverhead ' (197 TPD, 19 miles round trip to Resource Recovery Facility) CAPITAL COST ' 3 Tractors @ $56,000 $168,000 ' 3 Trailers @ $35,000 10.5 ,000 Total Capital Cost $273 ,000 ' Annual Capital Cost $ 516 , 100 ANNUAL OPERATING COST Operating Personnel ' 3 Truck Drivers @ $15 ,000 $45, 000 10% Overtime Allowance 4, 500 ' 40% Fringe Benefits 18,000 Total Labor Cost $ 6-7 ,500 ' Fuel, Oil, Maintenance & Reports $ 43,500 Insurance & Licenses 11,000 ' Total Annual Operating Cost $122,000 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL & OPERATING COST 1713, 100 , A3-10 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Town of Southold (195 TPD, 38 miles round trip to Resource Recovery Facility) CAPITAL COST ' 3 Tractors @ $56,000 $168,000 3 Trailers @ $35 ,000 105 ,000 ' Total Capital Cost $273 ,000 Annual Capital Cost $ 56, 100 ANNUAL OPERATING COST Operating Personnel ' 3 Truck Drivers @ $15 ,000 $ 45,000 10% Overtime Allowance 4,500 40% Fringe Benefits 18,000 Total Labor Cost $ 67 ,500 Fuel, Oil, Maintenance & Repairs $ 85,900 ' Insurance & Licenses 11,000 Total Annual Operating Cost $164,400 ' TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL & OPERATING COST $220,500 1 ' A3-11 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , Town of East Hampton ' Acabonack Site (126 TPD, 75 miles round trip to Resource Recovery Facility) ' CAPITAL COST ' 3 Tractors @ $56,000 $168,000 3 Trailers @ $35,000 105 ,000 Total Capital Cost $273 ,000 Annual Capital Cost $ 56 , 100 , ANNUAL OPERATING COST Operating Personnel , 4 Truck Drivers @ $15 ,000 $ 60,000 10% Overtime Allowance 6,000 40% Fringe :Benefits 24,000 Total Labor Cost $ 90,000 Fuel, Oil, Maintenance & Repairs $109, 100 ' Insurance & Licenses 11 ,000 Total Annual Operating Cost: $210 , 100 ' TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL & OPERATING COST $266,200 A 3'�-12 t ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Montauk Site (54 TPD, 38 miles round trip to Acabonack Site) ' CAPITAL COST 1 Tractor @ $56, 000 $ 56,000 3 Top Loading Trailers @ $40,000 120 ,000 ' Total Capital Cost $176,000 ' Annual Capital Cost $ 36 ,200 ANNUAL OPERATING COST ' Operating Personnel ' 1 Truck Driver @ $15 ,000 $ 15 ,000 10% Overtime Allowance 1,500 40% Fringe Benefits 6,000 Total Labor Cost $ 22,500 Fuel, Oil, Maintenance & Repairs $ 23,700 ' Insurance & Licenses 7 ,100 Total Annual Operating Cost $ 53 ,300 ' TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL & OPERATING COST $ 89, 500 A3-13 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. Town of Shelter Island (25 TPD, 70 miles round trip to Resource Recovery Facility) ' CAPITAL COST ' 1 Tractor @ $56, 000 $ 56,000 2 Trailers @ $40,000 80,000 Total Capital Cost $136,000 Annual Capital Cost $ 28,000 ANNUAL OPERATING COST Operating Personnel ' 1 Truck Driver @ $15 ,000 $ 15 ,000 10% Overtime Allowance 11500 40% Fringe Benefits 6,000 Total Labor Cost $ 22,500 ' Fuel, Oil, Maintenance & Repairs $ 19,700 Ferry Cost 19,200 ' Insurance & Licenses 5,500 Total Annual Operating Cost $ 66,900 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL & OPERATING COST $ 94,900 A3-i4 ' x 0 r N TABLE 3-2 a n x TRANSFER HAUL COST SUMMARY a 3 e r M Z Annual Annual Total o Town Capital Capital Operating Annual m 3 a Southampton 364,000 75,000 228,800 303,800 c Riverhead 273 ,000 56, 100 122,000 178, 100 m r Southold 273 ,000 56, 100 164,400 220,500 East Hampton N (Acabonack) 273 ,000 56, 100 210, 100 266, 200 ; Y o w East Hampton (Montauk) 176,000 36,200 53 ,300 89, 500 vt Shelter Island 136,000 28,000 66 ,900 94, 900 TOTAL 1,495 ,000 307,500 845 ,500 1 ,153, 000 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , C. RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY Three 400 TPD Mass Fired Waterwall Boilers with OBW Shredding ' in 1983 and One Additional 400 TPD Unit in 1996 . INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS , Land Acquisition $ 200,000 Site Preparation 1,610,000 ' Buildings & Foundations 12,500,000 Process Equipment 35, 500,000 Electrical & Instrumentation 3,000,000 Utilities 1,500,000 Sub--Total $54,310,000 ' Engineering & Contingencies $10,865 ,000 Total Capital Cost $65,175,000 , Annual Capital Costs $ 7,655 ,000 , ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Annual Salary Total ' 1 Plant Engineer $40,000 $ 40,000 3 Foremen 30,000 90,000 2 Chief Operator 26,000 52,000 ' 2 Scale Operator 14,000 28,000 2 Tipping Floor At:tendents 13,000 26,000 4 Crane Operators 22,000 88, 000 ' 4 Mechanics 20,000 80,000 4 Mechanics Helpers 14,000 56, 000 4 Electricians 21,000 84,000 2 Welders 20,000 40, 000 ' ll Laborers 12,000 132, 000 2 Control Operators 22,000 44, 000 9 Boiler. Operators 20,000 180, 000 , 5 General Operators 18,000 90,000 3 Clerical 10,000 30,000 58 Sub--Total $1,060,000 1 Fringe Benefits 1424,000 Allowance for Overtime & Shift Differential 106, 000 ' Total Labor Cost. 1,590,000 Maintenance, Operation and Utilities 1,500,000 Total Annual Operating Cost $ 3',090,000 , TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL & OPERATING COST $10,745, 000 ' A3-16 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. ' ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTS - (For Fourth Unit in 1996 ) ' Buildings & Foundations $ 2, 150, 000 Process Equipment 7 , 500, 000 Electrical & Instrumentation 1,200, 000 Utilities 400,000 Sub-Total $11,250, 000 Engineering & Contingencies $ 2 ,250,000 Total Additional Capital Cost $13 ,500, 000 ' Total Additional Annual Capital Cost 1 ,586,000 ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS ' Annual Salary Total 1 Scale Operator $14,000 $14,000 2 Crane Operators 22,000 44,000 ' 3 Mechanics 20,000 60,000 1 Mechanics Helper 14,000 14 ,000 1 Electrician 21 ,000 21 ,000 ' 4 Laborers 12,000 48,000 1 Control Operator 22 ,000 22,000 3 Boiler Operators 20,000 60,000 ' 2 General Operators 18,000 36,000 1 Clerical 10,000 10 ,000 Sub-Total $329,000 ' Fringe Benefits 132,000 Overtime & Shift Differential 30 ,000 ' Total Labor Cost 491,000 Maintenance, Operation and Utilities 335 ,000 Total Additional Annual Operating Cost $826,000 TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL CAPITAL & OPERATING COST $2, 412 ,000 1 A3-17 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' d. RESIDUE HAUL ' CAPITAL COSTS ' 3 Tractor Treiilers @ $60,000 each $180, 000 Annual Capital Costs $ 37,000 ' ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS ' 3 Truck Drivers @ $15 ,000 $ 45, 000 , 10% Overtime 4, 500 Fringe Benefits 18, 000 Fuel, Oil, Maintenance and Repairs 74, 000 ' Insurance & Licenses 7, 200 Total Annual Operating Cost $148, 700 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL & OPERATING COST $185, 700 ' A'3-18 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. e. RESIDUE AND NONBURNA3LES DISPOSAL ' CAPITAL COSTS Land Acquisition $ 340,000 ' Environmental Protection, Leachate & Gas Collection & Site Preparation 1, 950,000 Site Facilities 200,000 ' Equipment - 1 Payloader 200,000 2 Bulldozers 280,000 ' Engineering & Contingencies $ 250,000 Total Capital Costs $3, 220 ,000 Annual Capital Costs $ 421,000 ' ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Annual Salar Total ' 1 Superintendent $20,000 $ 20,000 3 Equipment Operators 15, 000 60,000 1 Gate Attendant 13, 000 13 ,000 ' 1 Laborer 11,000 11 ,000 Sub-Total $ 89,000 ' Fringe Benefits & Overtime Allowance $ 44,500 Maintenance, Repairs, Fuel 57 ,500 Utilities 10,000 ' Cover Material 30,000 Miscellaneous 2 ,500 ' Total Annual Operating Cost $233 ,500 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL & OPERATING COST $654,500 Approximate Breakdown of Costs .. ' Capital Annual Capital Annual Operating Nonburnables $ 880,000 $133 ,000 $175 ,000 Residue 2 ,340,000 288,000 59 ,000 Total $3 ,220,000 $421 ,000 $234,000 1 ' A3-19 HOLZMACHER, MCLENOON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. f. WASTEWATER DISPOSAL_ CAPITAL COSTS ' Site Work $ 200,000 , Buildings/Superstructures 200,000 Wastewater Processes 1,400,000 Electrical Instrumentation 150,000 , Mechanical/Piping 400,000 HVAC/Utilities 70 ,000 Engineering & Contingencies $ 480,000 ' Total Capital Cost $2,900 ,000 Annual Capital Costs $ 341,600 Annual Operating Costs ' 1 Chief Operator $ 26 ,000 ' 2 Operator @ $18,000/Year 36,000 Fringe Benefits & Overtime 31,000 Maintenance & Utilities 57 ,000 , Total. Annual Operating Cost $ 150,000 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL & OPERATING COST $ 490 ,600 ' A3-20 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' g . NONBURNABLES DISPOSAL Costs are based on a regional system. All towns dis- pose of the nonburnables at one landfill site. Transpor- tation of nonburnables is excluded. Costs are same as for the Primary Recommended Plan. ' Capital Cost: $880,000 Annual Capital Cost: 133, 000 Annual Operating Cost: 175, 000 Total Annual Cost: 308, 000 1 ' A3-21 x 0 r Marr N 11'�DLf-+ J—J a n COST SUMMARY OF PRIMARY RECOMMENDED PLAN m (THOUSANDS OF 1980 DOLLARS) 3 A r M Z G Initial Annual Annual Total z Capital Capital Operating Annual 11 a Without State Aid s Transfer Stations $ 1,967 $ 255 $ 597 852 rM Transfer Haul 1,495 308 846 1,154 Resource Recovery Facility 65, 175 7,655 3,090 10 ,745 = N Reduce Transportation 180 37 149 186 3 n a Residue Nonburnable M to 3, 220 421 234 655 Wastewater Disposal 2,990 341 150 491 TOTAL $74,937 $9,017 $5,066 $14,083 With State Aid Transfer Stations $ 1,475 $ 191 $ 597 $ 788 Transfer Haul 1, 121 231 846 1,077 Resource Recovery Facility 32, 588 3,828 3,090 6,918 Residue Transportation 180 37 149 186 Residue & Nonburnable Disposal 3, 220 421 234 655 Wastewater Disposal 2,900 341 150 491 TOTAL $41,484 $5 ,049 $5,066 $10 ,115 Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' 2 . ALTERNATE RECOMMENDED PLAN - MSW TRANSFER TO PROPOSED BROOKHAVEN a. Transfer Stations Costs of transfer stations is the same as computed for the primary recommended plan. b. Transfer Haul Town of Southampton (255 TPD, 78 Miles round trip to Brookhaven Facility) ' CAPITAL COSTS 5 Tractors @ $56 ,000 $280, 000 ' 5 Trailers @ $35,000 175,000 Total Capital Cost $455,000 ' Annual Capital Cost $ 93, 500 ' ANNUAL OPERATING COST Operating Personnel ' 5 Truck Drivers @ $15 ,000 $ 75, 000 10% Overtime Allowance 7, 500 40% Fringe Benefits 30,000 ' Total Labor Cost $112, 500 Fuel, Oil, Maintenance & Repairs $230, 800 ' Insurance & Licenses 18, 200 Total Annual Operating Cost $361,500 ' TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST $455, 000 A3-23 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. ' Town of Riverhead , (200 TPD, 33 Miles Round trip to Brookhaven Facility) CAPITAL COST , 3 Tractors @ $56,000 $168,000 ' 3 Trailers @ $35,000 105 ,000 Total Capital. Cost $273 ,000 ' Annual Capital Cost $ 56, 100 ANNUAL OPERATING COST Operating Personnel , 3 Truck Drivers @ $15 ,000 $ 45,000 10% Overtime Allowance 4,500 , 40% Fringe Benefits 18,000 '.Dotal Labor Cost $ 67 ,500 , Fuel Oil, Maintenance & Repairs 75,500 Insurance Sc Licenses 11,000 ' Total Annual Operating Cost $154,000 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND 'OPERATING COST $210 ,100 ' A3-24 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Town of Southold (195 TPD, 69 Miles round trip to Brookhaven Facility) CAPITAL COST ' 4 Tractors @ $56 ,000 $224, 000 4 Trailers @ $35,000 140,000 ' Total Capital Cost $364, 000 ' Annual Capital Cost $ 75, 000 ANNUAL OPERATING COST ' Operating Personnel ' 4 Truck Drivers @ $15 ,000 $ 60, 000 10% Overtime Allowance 6, 000 40% Fringe Benefits 24, 000 Total Labor Cost $ 90,000 Fuel, Oil , Maintenance & Repairs 156, 200 ' Insurance & Licenses 14, 600 Total Annual Operating Cost $260, 800 ' TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST $335, 800 A3-25 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. , Town of East Hampton ' Acabonack Site (126 TPD, 110 Miles .round trip to Brookhaven Facility) ' CAPITAL COST ' 4 Tractors @ $56,000 $224, 000 4 Trailers @ $35,000 140_, 000 , Total Capital Cost $364, 000 Annual Capital Cost $ 75, 000 ' ANNUAL OPERATING COST , Operating Personnel ' 5 Truck Drivers @ $15 ,000 $ 75, 000 10% Overtime Allowance 7, 500 , 40% Fringe Benefits 30,000 Total :Labor Cost $112, 500 :Fuel, Oil , Maintenance & Repairs 160,900 ' :Insurance & Licenses 14,600 Total Annual Operating Cost $288, 000 ' TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST $363, 000 A3-26 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Town of East Hampton Montauk Site ' (59 TPD, 38 Miles round trip to Acabonack Site) ' CAPITAL COST ' 1 Tractor @ $56, 000 $ 56,000 3 Top Loading Trailers @ $40,000 120,000 Total Capital Cost $176,000 Annual Capital Cost $ 36,200 ANNUAL OPERATING COST ' Operating Personnel 1 Truck Driver @ $15, 000 $ 15,000 ' 10% Overtime Allowance 1,500 40% Fringe Benefits 6,000 ' Total Labor Cost $ 22,500 Fuel, Oil , Maintenance & Repairs 23, 700 ' Insurance & Licenses 7, 100 Total Annual Operating Cost $ 53,300 ' TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST $ 89, 500 A3-27 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. ' Town of Shelter Island ' (25 TPD, 104 Miles round trip to Brookhaven Facility) CAPITAL COST 1. Tractor @ $56,000 $ 56,000 , 2 Trailers @ $40 ,000 80,000 Total Capital Cost $136, 000 ' Annual Capital Cost $ 28,000 Amortized @ 7 years at 10% t ANNUAL OPERATING COST ' Operating Personnel ' 1 Truck Driver @ $15,000 $ 15, 000 10% Overtime Allowance 1, 500 40% Fringe Benefits 6, 000 ' Total Labor Cost $ 22, 500 Fuel, Oil, Maintenance & Repairs 30, 200 ' Insurance & Licenses 5, 500 Ferry Cost 19,200 , Total Annual Operating Cost $ 77, 400 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST $105, 400 ' t A3-28 ' x 0 N D TABLE 3-4 i M TRANSFER HAUL COST SUMMARY 3 n r M Z Annual Anuual Total o Town Capital Capital Operating Annual m CL Southampton 455,000 93,500 361,500 455, 000 c c M Riverhead 273 ,000 56, 100 154,000 210, 100 M r Southold 364,000 75,000 260,800 335, 800 East Hampton N (Acabonack) 364,000 75,000 288,000 363,000 ; n w East Hampton M 1 (Montauk) 176,000 36, 200 53,300 89, 500 Shelter Island 136,000 28,000 77 ,400 105,400 TOTAL 1,768,000 363,800 1, 195,000 1,558,800 x 0 r N D TABLE 3-5 n x m P COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATE RECOMMENDED PLAN � TRANSFER STATIONS, TRANSFER HAUL AND NONBURNABLES DISPOSAL ONLY - z (THOUSANDS OF 1980 DOLLARS) o z m a Initial Annual Annual Total Cap i+al rani ta1 Operatina Annual s m WITHOUT STATE AID Transfer Station $1,967 $255 $ 597 $ 852 x N Transfer Haul 1,768 364 1,195 1,559 n 0 w Nonburnables Disposal 880 133 175 308 m W TOTAL $4,615 $752 $1,967 $2, 719 WITH STATE AID Transfer Station $1,475 $191 $ 597 $ 788 Transfer Haul 1,326 273 896 1, 169 Nonburnables Disposal 880 133 175 308 TOTAL $3,681 $597 $1,668 $2, 265 FIGURE N0.3-I { I ,7 C SEA �/-• 3+.F•` \ .yam.t^L"�Z b� �C• rf t` , is � � _ -jC�� ��\� may. •- J Q- INTRA-TOWN TRANSFER STATION ` _ f4 i� 5 0 5 \ O- CENTRAL TRANSFER STATION MILES - e ;_. - �,vE�HE - y �`+. �,,•>✓. �'.�` - /�/.,t• e is ,� ,•�?, O- RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY NA„ptON MILES .. `Y': - MSW f --- - RESIDUE SOU -L mss: y I ' MILEAGE SHOWN IS ONE WAY PROPOSED SOLID WASTE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK FOR PRIMARY RECOMMENDED PLAN EAST ENO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY r FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , SOUTHOLD AND NAS.D.E.C. MELV ILLE,N.r. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL. P.C./H2M CORP. FAwMYGoAL,E.N V CONSULTING ENGINEERS.PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FNE NEWTON.OF4.N N r. N J. A3-11/32 1 FIGURE N° 3-2 r / LTER I LAND f I MIONTAUK S HOLD 1 EAST HAMPT ACABONACK � 1 RI V HEA •ice NORTH SEA SOUTHAMPTON HAMPTON BAYS BROOKHAVEN EASTPORT 0 - PROPOSED BROOKHAVEN RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY WESTHAMPTON O - CENTRAL TRANSFER STATIONS O - INTRA-TOWN TRANSFER STATIONS PROPOSED SOLID WASTE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK FOR ALTERNATE PLAN EAST END SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR TOWNS OF EAST HAMPTON , RIVERHEAD , SHELTER ISLAND , SOUTHAMPTON , 5 0 5 SOUTHOLD AND N.Y.S.D.E.C. MILES MELVILLE,N.Y. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON& MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. FARMI=ALE.N.V. CONSULTING ENGINEERS,PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWT EAD.N.V. NEWTON,N.J. A3-33/34 ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL,P.C./H2M CORP. APPENDIX 4 ' RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. APPENDIX —_4 STATUS REPORT OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ' ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES REPORTED ' CAPITAL COSTS REPORTED (MILLIONS LOCATION KEY PARTICIPANTS PROCESS OUTPUT CAPACITY OF$) STATUS CONTACT CONNECTICUT lrilgapert Conn. Resources Re- Shredding magnetic Eco-Fuel Ilm (pow- 1800 tpd 53 Construction complete; Barbara A. Koeth covery Authority;Oc- separation,air classi. ered fuel)for use in start-up has begun; Public Information cidental Petroleum fication; froth flota- utility boiler; ferrous Eco-fuelw in pioduc- Manager ' Corp.and Combus- tion metals;nonferrous tion and being test- Combustion Equip- tion Equipment As- metals;glass burned at United Illu- ment Assoc. soc.(designer/ minating Co. 555 Madison Ave. operator) New York,N.Y. 10022 ' DELAWARE wowpow Delaware Solid Waste Shredding air classi- Ferrous metals;non- 1000 tpd mu- 11.3 Groundbreaking Aug. Pasquale S.Canrano Authority; EPA, Rel. fication;magnetic ferrous metals;glass; nicipal solid 1.4 from EPA 1919;construction be- Chief Engineer ' theon Service Co. and other mechani- RDF;humus waste co-proc- OSW;213 gun; start-up expected Delaware Solid Waste (designer) al separation; froth eased with 350 from EPA We- in Nov. 1981 Authority flotation;aerobic tpd of 20%sol- ter Prog 1.1 P.O. Box 981 digestion ids digested from State Dover,Del. 19901 ' sewage sludge matching grants;re- mainder from the Authority through sale ' of revenue bonds FLORIDA DaM Ci arty County; Black Claw- Hydrasposallm(wet Steam for utility to 3000 tpd 165 Contracts signed be, Dennis Carter ' son/Parsons I pulping)-magnetic produce electricity; tween County,PIW Asst.County Man- Whittemore, hic.(de- and other machani. aluminum;ferrous and Fla.Power I light; ager signer) al separation metals pollution control bonds Room 911 sold by state;construc- Dade County Court- tion began April 1919; house completion scheduled 13 W.Heller St. for April 1981 Miami,Fla.33130 1 ' A4-1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ 1112MCA 2M CORP. APITALP ' CTAL COSTS REPORTED (MILLIONI; LOCATION KEY PARTICIPANTS PROCESS OUTPUT CAPACITY OF STATUS CONTACT t Lafurlarrl City(operator and Shredding magnetic Steam to produce 300 tpd 5 Equipment purchased; Claude Hiers pint owner with Or- separation;burning electricity for use by construction begun; Supt.of Industrial lando Utility Com- RDF with coal City of Lakeland and shakedown expected in Engineering b , missionk C.T. Main, Orlando Utility Com- mid-1981 Business Affairs Inc.(power plant de- mission;ferrous met- Box 368 signer);Horner b ah Lakeland,Fla. 33802 Shifrin, Inc.(waste ' processing plant de- signer) Omega Colft U.S.Department of Slagging pyrolysis in- High temperature 100 tpd 14 Demonstration plant; Carl P.Gertz (wall ohm Energy, Idaho Opera- cineration(Andco- water for heating final design complete; Project Mgr. ' We" tions Office; Reedy Torrax) and cooling construction began U.S. Dept.of Energy Creek Utilities Co. July 1980 550 Second St. Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 ' Ploallac county County;Florida Mass burning Electricity;ferrous 14,000 tons per 160 Construction began Don F.Acenbrack, Power Corp.;UOP, metals,aluminum week Aug. 1980;operational Director Inc. and other nonferrous in 36 months Solid Waste metals recovered Dept.of Public , atter burning Works and Utili- ties Pinellas County Court S Clearwater, ' Clearwater,Fll a. 33516 Panpaao Reach Waste Management, Shredding,air classi• Methane gas;carbon 50.100 tpd 3.65 Demonstration plant; Peter J.Hare,Proj. ' Inc.; U.S. Dept of fixation;magnetic dioxide operational Mgr. Energy;Jacobs Engi- and other mechani- Waste Management, neering Co.(de- cal separation;on- Inc. signer) aerobic digestion of 900 Jorie Blvd. air classified light Oak Brook, Ill. ' fraction with sewage 60521 sludge ILLINOIS , Cftlap City;Metcalf b Waterwall combus• Steam for Brach 1600 tpd 23 Operational since Emil Nigro (Northwed In. Eddy, Inc.(designer) tion Candy Co.;ferrous 1971;steam delivery Supervising Engineer cirN►alor) metals expected to be on line Dept.of Streets b in 1980 Sanitation Room 700 ' City Hall Chicago, III.60602 Cwcage City;Ralph M. Par- Shredding air clessi- RDF for use by util- 1000 tpd 19 Temporarily off-stream (Same as previous t (Soodnaat Sup- sons Co.and Con- fication, magnetic ity;ferrous metals to review experience to listing) p smutary soar,Townsend b separation date and evaluate fu- Foal Preuaaleg Assoc.(designer) ture operations;deci- Fa ft sons pending wo ' Antos City;Gibbs,Hill, Bailing waste paper, Refuse-derived fuel 200 tpd 619 Operational since 1975 Arnold Chantland, Durham b Richard- shredding magnetic for use by utility; 50 tph Dir. son, Inc.(designer) separation;air classi- baled paper;ferrous Dept.of Public , fication;screening metals;aluminum, Works other mechanical other nonferrous City Hall separation metals 5th and Kellog St. Ames, Iowa 50010 LOUISIANA ' Now Orlaarra City;Waste Manage- Shredding air classi- Ferrous metals;alu- 700 tpd 9.1 Shredding/landfilling Clifford Scineaux ment, Inc. fication; magnetic minum and other operational;recovering Deputy Director (owner/operator); and other mechani- nonferrous metals; ferrous;aluminum, Dept.of Sanitation ' National Center for cal separation glass other nonferrous met- City Hall Resource Recovery, als,glass in shake- New Orleans,la. Inc.(designer/ down 70112 implementer) A4-2 ' ' REPORTED HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ H2M CORP. CAPITAL COSTS ' REPORTED (MILLIONS LOCATION KEY PARTICIPANTS PROCESS OUTPUT CAPACITY OF 8) STATUS CONTACT MARYLAND ' OdMaaaa City;EPA Formerly Monsanto Steam for use by 600 tpd 30.1 Plant operating 24 Ed May Landgard® process, city utility hrs./day,6 days/week Baltimore City Pyrol- now modified signifi- ysis Plant cantly by Baltimore 1800 Annapolis Rd. City; includes shred- Baltimore, Md. ' ding; pyrolysis; 21230 steam production; water quenching ' Sommers Ca" County; Maryland Shredding air classi- RDF; ferrous metals; 600.1500 tpd 8.4 Operational;recovering Kenneth Cramer Environmental Serv- fication; magnetic glass for secondary ferrous metals and Teledyne National ice;Teledyne Na- separation products;aluminum producing secondary Padonis Centre tional(designer/ shredded and pelle- Suite 401 operator) tiled RDF;glass and 30 E. Padonis Rd. ' aluminum recovery op- Timonium,Md. erational 21093 MASSACHUSETTS ' Rraftee City(owner/ Mass burning Steam;producing% 250 tpd 2.8 Operational since 1971 Edward Courchene, operator);Camp, million lbs./day; Supt. Dresser i McKee selling%of steam Braintree Thermal Inc.(designer) production to Art& Waste Reduction Leather Co. Center ' Ivory Street Braintree, Mass. 02184 ' End IddgawaMr City of Brockton and Shredding;air classi- Eco-Fuel Ile for in- 550 tpd being 10.12 Operational since (Same as Bridgeport, nearby towns;Com- fication; magnetic dustrial baler,far- processed 1977;plant has served Conn.) bustion Equipment separation;other rous metals as pilot operation for Assoc.;East Bridge- mechanical separa- production of Eco-Fuel water Assoc. tion IIS ' Saaypa Thirteen communi- Waterwall combus- Steam for electrical 1200 tpd 50 Operational since Joseph Ferrante ties including Sau- tion; magnetic Sept generation and in- (two boilers with 1975;expansion being Wheelabrator-Frye, gus and part of ration dustrial use;ferrous 600 tpd capacity considered Inc. northern Boston; metals each) Liberty Lane ' RESCO(owner/ Hampton, N.H. operator) 03842 MICNNJUII ' D"t City Shredding air classy Steam and/or elec- 3000 tpd 115 Negotiating with Com- Michael Brinker fication;magnetic tricity for use by De- bastion Engineering, Dept.of Public separation; dedicated troit Edison; ferrous Inc./Waste Resources Works boilers metals Corp.prior to contract City of Detroit signing steam to be City-County Bldg., ' purchased by Detroit Room 513 Edison;State of MichF Detroit, Mich.48226 gan environmental im- pact statement being ' MINNESOTA prepared DWA Western Lake Supe- Shredding magnetic RDF;ferrous metals; 400 tpd of 19 Full operations sched- John Klaers ria Sanitary District separation;air classi- steam for heating MSW; 340 tpd uled for Fall 1980 Western Lake Supe- (operator);Consoer, fication; secondary and cooling of plant of 20%solids ria Sanitary Dist. Townsend 3 Assoc. shredding fluidized and to run process sewage sludge 27th Ave.West& (engineer) bed incineration of equipment The Waterfront ROF and sludge Duluth, Minn 55806 ' NEW JERSEY Newark City;Combustion Shredding air classi- Eco-Fuel Ilei for 3000 tpd(in 70(for 3000 Final contract signed (Same as Bridgeport, Equipment Assoc. fication; magnetic use by utility; fer- 1000 tpd mod- tpd)(initially 1971;site preparation Conn.) and Occidental Pe- and other separation rous metals;alumi- ules),to serve 1000 tpd with completed ' troleum Corp.(de- num Newark's 700 a cost of$25 signers and opera- tpd and sur- million includ- tors) rounding com- ing fuel user munity conversion) A4-3 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ 1-12M CORP. REPORTED ' CAPITAL COSTS ' REPORTED (MILLIONS LOCATION KEY PARTICIPANTS PROCESS OUTPUT CAPACITY OF t) STATUS CONTACT NEW YORK ' Amey City and 10 nearby Shredding;magnetic RDF;ferrous metals; 150 tons per 26.6 .Construction corn- Patrick Mahoney communities;Smith separation;burning steam for urban shift (11.6 process- plated in March 1980; Smith 6 Mahoney 6 Mahoney(de• in semi-suspension, heating and cooling; ing plant; 15 processing in opera- 40 Steuben St. signer/project mgr.) stoker-grate boiler; nonferrous metals $tarn plant) tion;steam generating Albany, N.Y. 11207 nonferrous recovery facility operational in ' from boiler ash 1981 an Cove City(owner/ Mass burning in Steam for electricity 215 tpd 34($22 At for Sewage plant and in- Joseph P. Hurley ' operator);William F. stoker-filed furnace for use at sewage mass burning cinerator unit under Director of Public Cosulich and Ernest with vacuum filtered plant unit;$12 M construction Works F.W.Frank(de- sewage sludge for sewaglr City Hall signer) plant) Bridge St. Glen N.Y. 11542 ' Nampdud Town;Hempstead HydrasposaRM(wet Electricity from util- 2000 tpd 130 In shakedown;tempo- D.C.Cullingham RAlource Recovery pulping);magnetic ity-owned turbine (150 tph) rarily shut down due VP &Gen.Mgr. , Corp.(Div.of Black and mechanical sap- generators;color- to contractual dispute; Hempstead Resource Clawson/Parsons& oration;burning of sorted glass;alumi- also closed by pint Recovery Corp. Whittemore,Inc.) RDF product in air- num;ferrous metals agreement between Roosevelt Field Sta- (owner/operator) swept spout spreader Town and HRRC until tan ' stoker boilers EPA establishes uni- Garden City East, form standards for N.Y. 11530 testing of dioxins Mara County County(owner);Ray Shredding;air classi- ROF for use by util- 2000 tpd 60.2 Construction complete; Howard Christensen ' theon Service Co. fiction;magnetic & ity; ferrous metals; startup began Sept. Dir.of Solid Waste (designer) other mechanical nonferrous metals; 1979 Department of Pub- separation;froth flo- mixed glass lic Works , cation I10 Colfax St. Rochester,NY 14606 Niagara Falls Hooker Energy Corp. Shredding;magnetic Steam and electricity 2200 tpd 74(apex.) In startup;full opera- games Green ' (Hooker Chemicals 6 separation;burning for use by company tion expected in Oct. Media Relations Plastics Corp.) shredded refuse complex;ferrous 1980 looker Chemical (owner/operator) metals MPO Box 728 Niagara Falls, N.Y. ' 14302 Ocearai/e Township of Hemp- Mass burning in we- Steam(60,000 750 tpd 9 Operational since 1965 Al Albanese stud(owner/ terwall furnace lbs./hr.)in-pint use Supt.,Sanitation opewtor);Charles R. for electricity Township of Hemp Valzy(designer) stud 1600 Merrick Rd. Merrick,N.Y. 11566 ' Wistchaater County 1134 munici- Mass burning in wa- Steam and electricity 1500 tpd 100 Negotiations underway Edward K.Davies Coaety pdities;UOP.Inc. terwall furnace for sale to utility with UOP, Inc.,for Deputy Commis- (PakiliN) full-service contract; suer, ' construction expected Solid Waste Mgmt. to begin mid to late Room 522,County 1981 with operations Office Bldg. in Jan. 1984 White Plains,N.Y. ' 10601 OHIO Antra City;Claus, Pyle, Shredding;air classi- Steam for urban and 1000 tpd 55 In shakedown;fully Dave Chapman ' Schomer,Burns fi fication;magnetic industrial hating operational in Sept. 203 Municipal Bldg. De Haven;Roblin separation;burning and cooling;ferrous 1980 166 South High St. Const.Co.;Babcock ROF in semi-suspen- metals Akron,Ohio 44308 6 Wilcox Co.(boiler sion,stoker{rata ' supplier);Teledyne boiler National(operator) A4-4 ' ' REPORTED CAPITAL HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ 1-112M CORP. COSTS REPORTED (MILLIONS ' LOCATION KEY PARTICIPANTS PROCESS OUTPUT CAPACITY OF 4 STATUS CONTACT Cdoe b a City;Alden E. Stilson Shredding;magnetic Electricity for City 2000 tpd 127 Equipment being pur- Henry Bell,Supt. Assoc.(designer) separation;burning customers chased;site prepara- Div.of Electricity ' of shredded refuse tion began July 1979; 50 W.Gay St. with supplemental piling begun for foun- Columbus,Ohio coal in semi-suspen- dations;operational in 43215 sion stoker-grate late 1982 boiler to produce ' steam;generation of electricity from steam OREGON mCaaeb County;Allis-Chal- Shredding;air classi- RDF; ferrous metals 500 tpd 2.1 Closed in Now. 1979 Mike Turner mars Corp.(de- fication;magnetic for repairs and modifi- Adm.Analyst signer);Western separation cations following ex- Lane County Solid Waste Corp.(opera- plosion;began pre-ac- Waste Mgt. Div. ' tor) ceptance testing in Environmental Mgt. Spring 1980,but has Dept. not met all contract 125 East 8th St. Specifications;awaiting Eugene,Ore. 97401 ' further action by de- signer PENNSYLVANIA Nurmisrg City;Gannett,Flem- Waterwall combus- Steam for utility- 720 tpd 8.3 Operational since Oct. Paul W. Bricker ' ing,Corddry and tion;bulky waste owned district heat- 1972;steam sale to Gannett,Fleming, Carpenter,Inc.(de- shredding(steam ing system and for utility began Dec. Corddry and Car- signer) driven)magnetic city-owned sludge 1978;sludge drying fa- penter, Inc. separation;Sewage drying systems;fer- cility started early P.O.Box 1963 ' sludge drying rous metals 1980 Harrisburg,Pa. 17105 TENNESSEE GatlNie Sumner County;Cit- Mass burning in we- Steam for industrial 200 tpd 8.1 Under construction; Jerry H. Metcalf ies of Gallatin and terwall rotary com- processing and elec- completion in July Project Manager Hendersonville; bustor tricity generation 1981 P.O. Box 961 Sanders 6 Thomas, Gallatin,Tenn. Inc.(designer) 31066 ' NaafvaVle Nashville Thermal Thermal combustion Steam for urban 400 tpd 24.5 Operational since Milton E. Kirkpatrick Transfer Corp.; I.C. heating and cooling 7 days per week 1974;recently up- Exec.V.P.A Gen. Thomasson i Assoc., graded two boilers to Mgr. ' Inc.(designer) 530 TPD capacity each Nashville Thermal Transfer Corp. 110 First Ave. South Nashville,Tenn 37201 VIRGINIA Naispin City;NASA Langley Mass burning Stam for use by 200 tpd 10.3 Plant operational July Frank H. Miller,Jr. Research Center; NASA Langley Re- 1980 Dir.of Public Works U.S.Air Force at search Center Hampton,Va. 23669 Langley Field;l.M. Kenith Co. (designer/builder) NKfd& U.S. Nary(owner); Mass burning in we- Steam(40,000 360 tpd 2.2 Operational Richard Eitel fu Naval Navy Public Works terwall furnace lbs./hr)for use by (two boilers op- Head,Utilities Dept. Stedae) Center(operator); Naval Station erated alter- Navy Public Works ' Metcalf i Eddy, Inc. nately) Center (designer) Norfolk,Va. 23511 ' Pabm" U.S. Navy(owner); Mass burning in wa- Steam(30,000 160 tpd 4.5 Operational since 1976 Pete Cunanan (NwW Naval Public Works Dept., terwall furnace lbs./hr)for use by (two-80 tpd boil- NAVFAC ENC COM 94"4 Norfolk Naval Ship- facilities at Naval ers,operated al- Environmental Qual- yard Shipyard ternately) ity Division Norfolk,Va 23511 A4-5 REPORTED ' CAPITAL HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. COSTS REPORTED (MILLIONS LOCATION KEY PARTICIPANTS PROCESS OUTPUT CAPACITY OF$) STATUS CONTACT ' Parbm" Southeastern Public Shredding;air clossi- RDF;ferrous metals; 2000 tpd 144.9 Design 40%complete; Durwood S.Curling (SerrNaastom Service Authority of fiction;ferrous 6 nonferrous metals; site acquired;Environ- Executive Director T16arater En- Va.;Heaningson, nonferrous metals steam 6 electricity mental Impact Assess- Southeastern Tidewa- ' erp Pajact) Durham 3 Richard- separation;burning for Shipyard ment approved;con- ter Energy Project son(architect/ RDF in semi-suspen- tract for sale of steam 16 Koger Executive engineer);Day i sion,stoker-grate A,electricity to Ship- Center,Suite 129 Zimmerman(con- boiler yard being negotiated; Norfolk,Va.23502 struction manager); construction to begin ' Norfolk Navel Ship- following completion yard of negotiations i con- tract approve,process WASHINGTON ' Taunus City(owner/ Shredding;air classi- RDF;ferrous metals 500 tpd 2.5 Operational since 1979 Bill Larson, Proj. operator);Boeing En- fication;magnetic Mgr. giasering(designer) separation Refuse Utility 740 St.Helens Ave. , Room 304 Tacoma,Wash. 98402 WISCONSIN ' Madbo City and M.L. Smith Shredding;magnetic RDF for use by Mad- 400 tpd 2.5 Process plant i boiler Robert Vetter Enviromental(de- separation;sepsra- icon Gas 6 Electric (maxx200 tpd firing facility opera- Div.of Engineering signer};Madison Gas tion of combustibles Co;ferrous metals being processed) tionat Room 115 i Electric Co.(RDF and non-combustF City-County Bldg. t user) bier secondary Madison,Wis.53709 shredding air swept filKwaaka City;(to expand to Shredding;air clossi- RDF for use by util- 1600 tpd 18 Now operational at de- George Mallon surrounding Milwau- fiction;magnetic ity;bundled paper (Plus 4.2 at sign capacity;RDF uti- Dir of Operations A, ' kee County areas): and other mechani- and corrugated;far- Wisconsin lization problem at Marketing Americology Dir.of u(separation rous metals;alumi- Electric Paver WEPCO due to boiler Americolm American Can Co. num;glassy owe- Co.) slagging on cal only, American Can Co. (owner/operator); gate under evaluation;$4.6 GOP 08 Bechtel,Inc.(designer) million production im- Greenwich„Conn. provement program 06830 held in abeyance pending aveluation Wa dom City;Donohue A,As- Mass burning in re- Steam for local in- 120 tpd(burn- Incinerator 1.7 Incinerator operating Rodney Vanden ' soc.(incinerator de- froctory furnace; dustry and sewage ing)175 tpd (1971);Had since 1971;waste heat Noven signer):Sanders At waste hod recovery treatment plant (design) recovery sir recovery boiler added Dir.of Public Works Thomas,Inc.(heat tem 3.9 in 1979;operating and 201 Delafield St. recovery system de- (1979) sending steam to local Waukesha,ft ' signer) industry;sewage plant 53186 under construction and will be ready for steam in July 1981 ' The following localities are either operating or constructing small modular combus- tion units to produce steam from mass combustion of municipal solid waste: REPORTED ' REPORTED CAPACITY CAPITAL COSTS LOCATION MANUFACTURER Ih4 (MILLIONS OF W STATUS CONTACT ARKANSAS ' khooille Consumat 50 1 Under construction;operation ex- Peyton Golden,Maya pected in early 1981 Municipal Bldg. 170 S Forth St. Batesville,Ark. 75201 NY"i b Consumot 75 N/A Temporarily shut down for installation Tom Little,Mayo ' to be processed of additional units City Hal Blytheville,Ark. 72315 A4-6 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. ' REPORTED REPORTED CAPACITY CAPITAL COSTS IDCATION MANUFACTURER Opd) (MILLIONS OF i► STATUS CONTACT ' Us IN*Raab Consumat 100 1.45 Operational Mike wutner U.S. Recycle Corp. P O.Box 7561 Little Rock,Ark. 72217 Oaaala Consumat 50 1.1 Began operations Jan. 1980 R. E. Prewitt,Mayor City Hall Osceola,Ark. 71370 ' Sim Spdap Consumat 16 .4 Began operations in Sept. 1975 Al Varwig,Dir. (Presently used as incinerator only) Sanitation Dept. 410 N.Broadway Siloam Springs,Ark. 72761 CONNECTICUT yAwb r Consumat 108 3.7 Construction to begin by Na. 1980; Ken Williams startup expected in Summer 1981 First Selectman ' Town of Windham Town Office,979 Main St. Willimantic,Conn.06226 ' IDAINI Srarky Consumat 50 1.5 Operation expected by end of 1980 Norman Dayley County Commissioner Cassia County Court House Burley, Idaho 83318 ' MAINE Arhwra Consumat 200 3.9 Startup planned for Nov. 1980 Robert Belz Public Works ' Auburn City Hall 45 Spring St. Auburn,Marne 04210 MASSACHUSETTS PNtaRa11 Vicon Recovery Assoc.(Ener- 240 6.2 Construction to be completed in Joseph J.Domas,Jr. con designed incinerator) Sept. 1980 President Vicon Recovery Assoc. ' P.O.Box 100 Butler Center Butler,N.J.07405 MICIIIWI iaaaa Taanahip Consumat 100 2.0 Began operations in Feb. 1980;3- Hanumanthsiya Marur, P.E. ' shift opeutions on non-interruption Township Engineer basis began August 1980 7244 N.Genesee Rd. Genesee,Mich.48437 ' NEW NAMPSHIRE Dwhaaa Consumat 108 3.3 Operations expected by Sept. 1, 1980 Malcolm Chase,Chairman umbar *. Lamprey Regional Solid pad SdId Waste Cooperative ' We*Commt 13.15 Newmarket Rd. 04 Durhsm,N.H.03824 Crew" Environmental Control 24 N/A Operational since 1975 Rick Coville Products Groveton Paper Mill, Inc. ' Grovaton,N.H.03581 TENNESSEE Craaailb Smokstrol,modified by Envi- 60 1.11 In shakedown Nelson C.Walker ' ronmental Services Corp. Gen.Mgr. Environmental Services Corp. P.O.Box 765 Crossville,Tenn.38555 ' Dyaaalrug Consumat 100 2 Startup scheduled for Aug. 1980 Alderman Bob Kirk Colonial Rubber Dyersburg,Tenn.38024 ' A4-7 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./ 1-12M CORP. ' REPORTED t REPORTED CAPACITY CAPITAL FASTS LOCATION MANUFACTURER (tpd) (MILLIONS OF S) STATUS CONTACT lawisbnrg CICO 60 N/A In shakedown John D Lambert ' City Manager 505 Ellington Pkwy. Rl 1 Lewisburg,Tenn. 37091 TEXAS ' Gatesdlla Consumat 7 .2 Under construction;operations ex- R. E.Howell (Texas Dept.of petted in early 1981 Chief,Bldg. 6 Eng. Mgmt. Corrections) Construction Div. Texas Dept.of Corrections ' P O. Box 99 Huntsville, Texas 11340 Palestine Consumat 28 3 Under construction;operations ex- (same as Galesville, Taxes) ' (Bete Unit, petted in early 1981 Islas Dept.of Corlsewns) VIRGINIA ' Newport News consumal 40 1.4 Under construction;operation ex- Ed Shuford (n.Eustis) peeled in ea,ly 1981 Area Engineer Southern Va.Area Office P.O. Drawer ' Ft. Lustrs,Ya.. 23604 Salam Consumat 100 1.9 Operational since 1979 William Paxton, Jr. City Manager P.O Box 869 ' Salem,Va. 24153 The following localities reportedly are in advanced planning :Mages for resource re- covery facilities, have issued Requests for Proposals, or are negotiating with bidders/contractors: t ALABAMA MASSACHUSETTS OHIO Huntsville (Redstone Arsenal) Boston Cincinnati ' CALIFORNIA Haverhill/Lawrence Cuyahoga County Martinez North Andover Toledo San Diego Peabody OKLAHOMA CONNECTICUT Springfield (and surrounding area) Oklahoma City ' Hartford (and surrounding area) MINNESOTA Tulsa South/Central Connecticut St. Paul OREGON FLORIDA MISSOURI Portland ' Dade County Springfield RHODE ISLAND HAWAII NEW YORK State of Rhode Island Honolulu Cattaraugus County TENNESSEE ' IOWA Babylon, Huntington, Islip Memphis Dubuque (Multi-Town Authority) Nashville MARYLAND New York City WISCONSIN Prince Georges County Oyster Bay Appleton ' Staten Island REF: NCRR Bulletin, The Journal of Resource Recovery Sept. 1980, Volume 10, Number 3„ A4-8 ' ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C./H2M CORP. APPENDIX 5 SUGGESTED DAILY LANDFILL RECORD SHEET 4 i. SUGGESTED DAILY LANDFILL RECORD SHEET DATE: SOLID WASTE SPECIAL WASTE SCAVENGER WASTE NO. OF OPEN-TOP VEHICLES BULKY OTHERS ' NO. OF NO. OF HOUSE- DEBRIS AGRICUL- ITEMS TIRES, ETC. NO. OF PACKER TRUCKS PRIVATE SMALL HOLD & DEMO. TURAL (REFRIG- NO. OF NO. OF lOCY 15CY 25CY CARS PICKUPS WASTE WASTE WASTE ERATORS) TRUCKS VEHICLES GALLONS REMARKS i I 4 f ! A5-1/2