Session 9

Solid Waste Management Study

2018 and Beyond

Southampton County Board of Supervisors Meeting

December 15, 2008

Session 9

SCS Scope• Task 1 - Review Existing Regional Solid

Waste System• Task 2 - Evaluate Future Technology and

Facility Needs• Task 3 - Evaluate Institutional Models for

Solid Waste Management• Task 4 - Facilitation with Chief

Administrative Officers• Task 5 - Prepare Report and

Recommendations2

Session 9

Fundamentals

• Study is forward thinking• Takes a clean slate view – what is the

best approach to take for the Region• Not an audit, although current situation

carefully considered• Considers institutional, technological,

economic, and political challenges and opportunitities

3

Session 9

Evaluation Factors

• Technology status and reliability• Institutional status and reliability• System reliability• System flexibility• Funding approach• Ease of implementation• Financial metrics

4

Session 9

Assumed 2018 Conditions • Current system debt retired• In Region disposal capacity• Out-of-region disposal capacity• Transfer station network• Waste-to-energy• C&DD disposal capacity• Solid waste quantities• Feasible technologies• Recycling

5

Session 9

Solid Waste Authorities/Organizations

Information gathered on other county/regional solid waste organizations:

• Central Virginia Waste Management Authority

• Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority

• Delaware Solid Waste Authority

• Environmental Cooperative of Main

• Fairfax County, Virginia• Lancaster County Solid

Waste Management Authority

• Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County

• Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority

• Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County

• Pinellas County, Florida• Portland Metro• Virginia Peninsulas Public

Service Authority

6

Session 9

Solid Waste Authorities/Organizations

Evaluate differences in:– Membership– Governance– Day-to-day administration– Operations– Debt management

• Applicability of other approaches to Region

7

Session 9

Pro Forma Evaluation• Evaluated various cooperative

scenarios• Disposal

– New regional landfill– Out-of-Region disposal

• WTE– Maintain existing RDF WTE Facility– Expand with mass burn WTE Facility– Abandon existing RDF WTE Facility

8

Session 9

Scenarios Descriptions

• Scenario A – All eight communities continue to cooperate for

recycling and disposal services similar to existing cooperative model with SPSA

– Assumed major debt retired by 2018.– Major variables

• New Regional Landfill• Dispose at out-of-region Landfill

• WTE (with and without, expand and /or replace)

9

Session 9

Scenarios Descriptions

• Scenario B – All eight communities in the region

cooperate on a consolidated solid waste management program for all municipally collected solid waste

– Variables• New Regional Landfill• Dispose at out-of-region Landfill• WTE (with and without, expand and /or replace)

10

Session 9

Scenarios Descriptions

• Scenario C – All eight communities go their separate

ways and contract for disposal– Virginia Beach continues to operate its

landfill through 2022, contracts for disposal after 2022

– Decommission RDF WTE Facility

11

Session 9

Scenarios Descriptions• Scenario D

– The City of Franklin, Isle of Wight County, and Southampton County align to provide recycling and disposal services

– The Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach align to provide same

– Variables• Smaller communities contract for disposal• Same as Scenario A for larger communities

12

Session 9

Scenarios Descriptions• Scenario E

– The City of Virginia Beach independently provides for municipal recycling and municipally and commercially collected solid waste disposal services

– Other communities align to provide recycling and municipally and commercially collected solid waste disposal services

– Variables• Similar to Scenario A

13

Session 9

Landfill

• Options considered:– Siting a new publically-owned and

operated facility in Region– Contracting with out-of-region landfill for

disposal.– Transfer via road haul (rail haul an option

depending on final location of facility)

14

Session 9

Waste-to-Energy Options

• Expanding, adding an additional 2,000 tpd mass burn WTE Facility

• Replacing existing RDF WTE Facility with new 3,000 tpd mass burn WTE Facility

• Operating without WTE

15

Session 9

Host Fee

• Added host fees for– Landfill– WTE facility

• Amount can be easily varied in model

16

Session 9

Current Cost Structure

• SPSA costs used in pro forma analysis for:– Administration– Environmental– Transfer Station– Recycling– WTE

• City of Virginia Beach

17

Session 9

Financial Metrics• 30-year Net Present Value Analysis

18

Session 9

Net Present Value

19

• Present Value of a cash flow at a given discount interest rate

• Allows for comparison of complex alternatives

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years

Paym

ents

, $

Session 9

Financial Metrics

• 30-year Net Present Value Analysis• System Rate Analysis

– $/Total Tons per year– NPV/Total Tons during planning period

Total Tons = MSW + YW + Recyclables

20

Session 9

Sensitivity Analysis

• Transportation Rate• Location of New Regional Landfill• CPI and Fuel Escalation Factors• Out of Area Tip Fee

21

Session 9

Pro Forma Analysis• Expanding WTE capacity resulted in

the highest NPV costs• Cooperating appears to provide long-

term value, although in the early years some savings could be realized by individual member communities

• Host fees could provide substantial benefit to community hosting landfill and WTE facility

22

Session 9

Pro Forma Analysis

• City of Virginia Beach has most flexibility with respect to disposal options and ability to control costs, at least in the short-term and possibly long-term depending on fate of permitting efforts at Landfill No. 2

23

Session 9

24

Scenario No.

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

1.1 1.2 2.2 1.3 2.1 1.4 2.3 2.4A Scenarios - All Region Members Cooperate to

Manage Solid Waste System

Comparative Analysis2008 Dollars

Comparative Net Present Value Results ($1,000)

First Year System Rate, $/ton

Session 9

Pro Forma Results

• Siting a new Regional Landfill a significant factor to control costs – provided lowest NPV costs

• Regional landfill only scenario (without WTE) lowest cost NPV

• Transport and disposal in out-of-region landfill had highest NPV costs

25

Session 9

Pro Forma Results

• If contract out for disposal, operating the WTE facility reduces NPV costs compared to eliminating WTE

• Operating system with existing WTE facility generally 5 to 8 percent higher costs (assuming Regional Landfill), but allows for significant volume reduction and energy recovery

26

Session 9

Sensitivity Analysis• The further a new regional landfill is

located, the more competitive the WTE and contracting out alternatives become

• Significant discounts on tip fees and transportation needed to make contracting out disposal cost effective

• Reducing escalation factors favors WTE operations, but ranking remain similar

27

Session 9

Cooperation - Pros• Various systems already in place• More efficient development of facilities• Current shortcomings are resolvable • Some joint responsibilities after 2018• Cost efficiencies, especially relating to siting a

new regional landfill• Economies of scale• Leveraged purchasing• Solid waste planning• Achievement of recycling goals

28

Session 9

Cooperation - Cons

• Loss of autonomy and control• Reduced flexibility to respond to

changes in market conditions• Increased organizational and

governance complexity• Interplay of regional politics in

implementation of Authority’s mission

29

Session 9

Institutional Recommendations• Scope and function dependent on

decision regarding ownership and operation of a regional landfill and the RDF WTE Facility and Mission of the organization

• Proportional representation• Board membership qualifications• Debt management• System funding approach

30

Session 9

Remaining Disposal Capacity• SPSA’s Current Regional Landfill

– Should confirm expansion potential– Limited unless wetlands issue can be

resolved

• City of Virginia Beach Landfill No. 2– Expansion potential exists

• Out-of-Region Disposal Capacity– Capacity available through much of 30-year

planning, but additional capacity would need to be permitted

31

Session 9

Landfill

• New Regional Landfill should be sited• Siting approaches

– Region performs siting studies, purchases land, permits, and develops site

– RFP process for privates to site, permit, and then sell back to Region, with provision for life-of-site operations contract

• Schedule tight32

Session 9

Waste-to-Energy• RDF WTE Facility a valuable asset to the

community– Volume reduction– Energy recovery– Hedge against increased transportation costs

• Can be maintained and upgraded to serve Region during planning period

• Facility extenstion study recommended

33

Session 9

Role of Privates

• Collection• Recycling• Transportation• Municipal solid waste and

construction, demolition and debris disposal

34

Session 9

Private Sector Contracting• Advantages

– Defined service levels and costs– Competitive bidding assures best pricing– Reduced number government employees,

equipment, and overhead– Perceived more businesslike approach– Optimal location of facilities– Less political interference– More responsive to market changes

35

Session 9

Private Sector Contracting

• Disadvantages– Perceived loss of control by public– Some argue more costly because of profit

and taxes included in contracts– Not as responsive to changes in

community needs– Higher potential for litigation to resolve

issues

36

Session 9

Other Factors Considered

• Conversion technologies• Yard waste• Recycling• Rail haul• Transfer station network• Regional disposal asset ownership

37

Session 9

Solid Waste Conversion Technologies

Technology Process Output Output Uses

ThermalIncineration (waste-to-energy WTE)

Steam Power

ThermalGasification, Pyrolysis, Autoclave, etc.

Syngas Power / Chemical feedstock

BiologicalAnaerobic Digestion, Aerobic Digestion

Compost, Biogas

Soil amendment / Power

Bio-Chemical

Hydrolysis Ethanol Biofuel

38

Session 9

ConversionTechnologies• Large scale implementation of most

alternative conversion technologies not proven

• Region may wish to consider pilot programs for such things as organics diversion

• Of conversion technologies evaluated, mass burn incineration most demonstrated and feasible

39

Session 9

Yard Waste

• Should be managed separately from MSW and not disposed in landfill

• Process and recover for beneficial use

40

Session 9

Rail Haul

• Viable transportation option• Should be evaluated in more detail

once disposal option and location determined

41

Session 9

Transfer Station Network

• Critical to solid waste system• Long-term viability, status, and

capacity of each transfer station should be evaluated

• Optimization study recommended

42

Session 9

Recycling

• Provisions for municipal recycling critical

• Service could be administered collectively or independently (as is case now)

• Programs may vary depending on demographics and geography

43

Session 9

System Funding• Several options evaluated• Current tip fee model works at cross

purposes with goal of resource conservation and recovery

• Consider a waste generation fee approach

• Further study needed to assess feasibility of implementing throughout Region

44

Session 9

Recommendationsand Next Steps

• Review findings of study• Present study to City and County

Councils and Supervisors, respectively

45

Session 9

Recommendationsand Next Steps

• Develop consensus on mission and goals for the Region

• Make decision on Regional cooperation and revise governance, policies, board member qualifications, and policies for debt management

• Evaluate alternative funding approach

46

Session 9

Recommendationsand Next Steps

• Maintain key assets• Proceed with siting a new Regional

Landfill and study of expansion at current landfill

• Resolve sale of RDF WTE– If maintain ownership, conduct life

extension study– If sell, revisit pro forma analysis,

conclusions and recommendations47

Session 9

HRPDC Staff & Committee Recommended Actions

• Accept the report• Refer report to participating localities

and SPSA for consideration• Request comments by Jan. 20, 2009• Await finalization of SPSA negotiations

on sale of RDF WTE Facility

48