The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-03-10 I I.N I'ATIVI '~ :i)() I).M. M,\R( I] IlL I()()T Till ..\L'I)I'I'OIHI.'.M 'M:(:()XI)I'I()()R Call to Order. IOINT MEETING OF THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COLI~, TY '; 7SUPERVISORS. CHARLOTTESVILLE iCITYCOUNCIL AN~) THiE RIYANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY: a) Public Hearing to receive comments on a report entitled "S~[rateg~c Review and Directional Analysis - Municipal Solid Waste'Options'? prepared b~ Gershman Bnckner & Bratton (GBB), an examinatmn of the current sdlid waste disposal system in place and potential options for the future. Adjourn. a RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY · ,Eust Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Revised Strategic Review & Directional Analysis For Solid Waste Options PUBLIC HEARING Hosted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Charlottesville City Cotmcil, and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA). DATE: March 10, 1997 LOCATION: Albemarle County Office Building Lane Auditorium, 2na Floor 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 TIME: 5:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. Opening of meeting by RSWA. 2. Presentation by Gershman, Brickner, & Bratton (GBB), Malcolm Pirnie and Land Plmming & Design. 3. Comment period for officials. 4. Comment period for citizens, groups, and media. Note: 1) There will be a sign-up sheet at the door for citizens and ~oups that wish to speak. Each person will be allowed three minutes. If you are with a group of people, we request you have a spokesperson present your position and have others in agreement recognized by standing. Each spokesperson from a group will be allowed five minutes. 2) No RSWA votes will be taken in regards to selecting an option at this meeting. Word/Shared/Board~wa/AgendoYPUBLIC HEARING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER The Ivy Steering Committee P. O. Box 6084 Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-6084 March 10, 1997 Members of the Board, City Council and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority: My name is David Booth, and I am speaking on behalf of the Ivy Steering Committee, which represents hundreds of area residents. You have heard me say on 'numerous occasions, "close the Ivy Landfill." Tonight you appear poised to make a significant step in that direction. Our community must commit to a waste management system that follows the United States Environmental Protection Agency Hierarchy of Solid Waste Management including: reduce, reuse, recycle--and then disposal of the unavoidable residue in a landfill 'that is: · Environmentally Safe, · constructed and maintained to EPA "sub-title D" standards, · and Appropriately Located. What would we like to see happen as a result of tonight's meeting? · We would like to see the volume of material that goes to any landfill reduced to a minimum. · We would like to see the remaining solid waste go to a safe, already existing and commercially operated landfill. · We would like the Ivy landfill closed to further burial of material. · Remove the Hazardous Waste threat from the Ivy landfill. · Convert the Ivy landfill to recreational and educational uses. We believe that the option 6 presented by GBB is an important step in the right direction, it handles an important problem-- municipal solid waste-in the most economical and environmentally safe way. We do, however, still have major concerns about burying construction and demolition debris (also known as CDD) at Ivy, We oppose the/andfilling at Ivy of Construction and Demolition Debris, except for those truly inert materials that may fill holes and establish final use contours for the site to become a recreational facility. We are concerned about the apparent intention to build up the trash to an elevation of 750 feet. Anything over 700 feet in elevation is out of character with the surrounding topography and violates the 1993 Comprehensive Plan which says that a sanitary landfill should be located on a site that.is visually buffered through vegetation from residential and commercial land uses and from any roadways in the vicinity of the facilities. We are concerned about the absence of a final use plan and the apparent intention to keep the permit to bury MSW at the Ivy site. The Virginia Department of Environmental quality has not been given a final use plan as requested. Furthermore, given its history and the nature of the area, the Ivy site can never be made an acceptable repository for MSW. We insist upon your attention to this matter and look forward to your prompt action to resolve a problem that has plagued our community for nearly 30 years. David Booth Representing: The Ivy Steering Committee Ivy Has Paid It's Dues RIVANNA P.O. BOX 979 SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARTHUR D. PETRINI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: MODIFIED RSWA SOLID WASTE OPTIONS DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1997 Gershman, Brickner. & Brat'ton (GBB) has revised the strategic review and directional analysis for the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. The original report involved the examination of the current solid waste disposal system in place and the potential options for the future. Parameters considered were landfill capacity, financial needs, level of service, environment impact/remediation and existing reports such as the Task Force recommendations. The revised report adds two more optiOns and updates the data for the original five options. The finn will present the report at the February 13t~ public hearing at the Senior Center. The modified report consists of five parts: 1. Modifications - the reasons for the modifications are listed. RSWA Strategic Review and Direction - this part contains information in a bullet format that reviews current operations and operating parameters (assumptions). It also lists, in detail, the key points of each option along with advantages and disadvantages. Capital Outiays/Material and Cash Flows - all the pertinent financial data np to and including FY 2006 is listed on four sheets for each option. The first/wo sheets detail all activities and associated costs for capital projects. The last two sheets details waste stream tonnage, tip fees, revenue, expenditures and reserves. A new term, Environmemal Contingency Fund, is :listed at the bottom of the third sheet as well as throughout this report. This fund covers costs for all unanticipated actions by RSWA. When dealing with the varied nature of a landfill and projecting costs over 10 years, it is necessary to set aside this type of fund if self-sufficiency is a criteria. Key Decisions and Aqtivities - a simplified decision flow chart that allows a conclusion to one of seven options. Once an option is reached, a list of activities is listed that details the administrative and engineering steps. Options VI and VII list of activities are not shown since they combine parts of option IV and V. 1 Shared/BoarddSwaJRepogs/Steve/prescntation of review by GBB PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 5. Glossary - ail the terms and acronyms used in the report are listed. The options, summarized below, are the most viable future directions that could be determined based on all available information. All options assume certain ongoing activities at the Ivy Landfill (i.e., construction demolition and debris (CDD), encore center). The term diversion ~s used with all options and refers to increased recycling (including composting) and a reclassification of Waste from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) to CDD. OPTION I Continue landfflling Municipal Solid Waste at Ivy Landfill, following Federal regulations (Subtitle D) after using space allowed underVirginia liB 1205, so that current operations are maintained. OPTION II Stop landfilling MSW on a fast track basis (end of FY98) and start transfer of MSW, utilizing a central location, add Local Support revenue (funds from the City and County governments) as recommended by the Task Force to remove dependency on solid waste tip fee income m support certain activities. OPTION HI Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FYO} and start transfer of MSW, utilizing central transfer station location. OPTION IV Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY01 and start transfer of MSW, transfer station located at OPTION V Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY01 and start~transfer of MSW using private transfer station. OPTION VI Stop landfrlling MSW at the end of FY98 and start transfer of MSW using private transfer station. OPTION VII Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY98 and start transfer of MSW using, private transfer station and mini-transfer station for the western County at the Ivy Landfill. The management of solid waste is an ever changing business. The information presented is valid based on conditions as we know them now and as we can reasonably anticipate in the next ten years. With this report, there is a firm basis to arrive at a decision. However, once an option is implemented, itis necessary m recognize that the plan of action must be adjustable to new conditions, be they environmental, regulatory, social or economic. Enclos~e 2 SharedlBoard/Swa/Reports/Steve/presentation of review by GBB TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE; RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 979 CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINI-~' 22902-0979 " (804) 977°2976 MEMORANDUM RSWA BOARD OF DIRECTORS STEVE CHIDSE DIRECTOR OF SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SUMMARY COUNTY OF ALBEI~RLE [U!?" Xilll FEBRUARY 5; 1997 The Rivarma Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) recently commissioned a report by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton (GBB) to perform a strategic review and directional analysis on the solid waste options of the RSWA. GBB presented the initial draft to the RSWA Board of Directors at its November 25, 1996 meeting. The report outlined five available options to the Authority m deal with long term solid waste disposal needs. Due to additional data, two m_?.dified approaches m option 5 have been added. Prior to discussing the seven options, I believe it would be help2ul to examine the events leading up to the presentation of the aforementioned report. The Ivy Landfill has been in the putstic eye for approximately two years. The initial action that started the process was the request bySprint to place a radio tower at the Landfill so as to provide needed communications. This request was denied. Shortly after the denial the RSWA staff; as directed by its Board of Directors, s_nbmitted to the County Planning Commission a Master Site Plan. In accordance with the 1993 Comprehensive Plan of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the Master Site Plan called for the maximization of the capacity of the Ivy Landfill site.. The initial submission called for an elevation of approximately 910 feet above sea level, 160 feet above the historical levels at the Landfill. RSWA staff held a meeting with the neig/aborhood ~oup following submission of the Master Site Plan. The neighbors had ~eat concern about the longevity 0fthe facility. Extensive outcry was heard at the following Board of Directors meeting whereupon they decided to ask the County Planning Commission to hear public comments rather than make a decision at that time. Comments.were heard at the Planning Commission meeting from a large number of'citizens concerned about numerous issues ranging from the ~longevity of the site to ground/surface water issues and in general, the environmental impact of having a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) facility in their growing neighborhood (the area has developed extensively since the Landfill was established in the mid-1960's). As a result of ali the public concerns, the master site plan was withdrawn. During the late fall of 1995, the Authority established a Task Force to evaluate different waste management alternatives for the region. The RSWA Board of Directors, the Charlottesville City Council, and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors appointed members to the Task Force. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning Di~ chaired the Task Force. The group met over many months evaluating different systems. They came out with a set 0f re~6ommendations in late spring of I996. The recommendation neither addressed the final disposition of waste from the region or whether the Ivy Landfill should be closed ~o MSW or other materials. The Task Force felt that certain reports and findings, such as EPA investigation, had to be done before a decision on these critical issues could be made. Following a joint meeting of the RSWA Board of Directors, City Council, and Board of Supervisors, the Pdvanna. Solid Waste Authority increased the S,cope of the work to OBB Consultants who had been hired to review some early data used by the Task Force in their evaluations. On November 25, 1996, GBB presented a Strategic Review and Directional Analysis for Municipal Solid Waste Options for the Rivarma Solid Waste Authority to the Board of Directors. This analysis outlined five potential options available to RSWA. These included the continued long term acceptance of MSW at the Ivy Landfill, a fast track two-year closure for MSW and several options which looked at a five to seven year closure to MSW. The original five options are: OPTION I - Continue landfilling Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) at Ivy Landfill, following Federal regulations (Subtitle D) after using space ~llowed under Virginia HB 1205, so that current operations are maintained. OPTION II - Stop landfilling MSW on a fast track basis (end of FY98) and start transfer of MSW, utilizing a central location, add Local Support revenue (funds from the City and Goumy governments) as recommended by the Task Force to remove dependency on solid waste tip fee income to support-certain activities. OPTION III - Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY01 and start transfer of MSW, utilizing central transfer station location. · OPTION IV - Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY01 and start transfer of MSW at a transfer .station located, at Ivy. · OPTION V - Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY01 and start transfer of MSW at a private transfer station. The GBB report incorporated the effects of two dynamic changes. The first being the MSW diversion from the Ivy Landfill by Browning Ferris Industries; second, the ongoing education /diversion programs designed by RSWA to switch waste from the MSW to the Construction Demolition Debris (CDD) stream and Vegetative (VEG) waste stream. As the numbers, from the changes became stable, GBB has revised the previously mentioned five options. In addition, an assumption on waste diversion tl~rough recycling waste reduction or export has been added as a factor to the program. A question was raised by the general public relative to the inability of Option 2 to fast track the removal of MSW from the facility in a more expeditious manner other than with tax supports. Options VI and VII (which are modifications of Option V) which have been prepared in response to that request, call for the removal of Murdcipal Solid Waste from the facility in approximately t5 months. These scenarios are possible due to the fact that there is a leveraging potential associated with early closure and the obtaiaing ora beneficial private contract.- It would call for funds, or an Authority Service Contribution (ASC), back to .the AuthQrity from a private firm handling the MSSV or, the recovery of a similar contribution from a RSWA mini-transfer station. In addition, the increase in construction demolition debris and vegetative waste along with the composting program has allowed for the economies of the situation.to be re-evaluated in a more positive fashion. It is anticipated that these wastes along with other wastes generated in smaller tonnages, Would be handled at a downsized Ivy facility. The other options are: · OPTION VI - Stop landfilling MSW on a fast track basis (end of FY 98) and start transfer of MSW using private transfer station. An Authority Service contribution returned to RSWA. · OPTION VII - Same as VI plus RSWA also operates a mini-transfer station ar the Ivy Landfill With mileage adjustment charge. Presently, it is felt that making a decision relative to the seven options presented by GBB will be beneficial to the Authority for a number of reasons: The Authority currently is doing a Phased Alternative Use Plan for the Landfill. This includes potential utilization of the facility prior to final closure. Particular areas that have been discussed are nature trails and soccer fields for the facility. It would be helpful to know the constraints of the site prior to designing these into the final use plan. In addition, the consulting firm needs direction as to utilization of particular areas to develop the location on on-going activities. The Department of Environmental Quality requires a five-year solid waste plan due on July 1, 1997. The Thomas Jefferson Planning Commission will be working on such a plan in the coming months and will need to know the direction of the RSWA. The Department of Environmental Quality is also requiring an update on the closure plan. In order to update the solid waste closure plan for the Ivy Landfill, the fill sequencing and fill areas of the site must be identified in order to develop final grades. The assessment of corrective measures is also an ongoing document which should be submitted to the DEQ sometime th/s spring and capping of closed cells is a critical component. Knowing the areas to be filled will assist us in designing the capping program that will limit infiltration and greatly reduce the generation of liquid (leachate) throughout the cells. If Cell 4 (a potential future Subtitle D Cell) is m be developed, there is a two or two and a half year lead time. Some of the Options could have us at a critical juncture within a year on the decision to go forth with permitting this area. It is important to remember-the RSWA is not unique in facing many of these issues. Many of these issues would have presented themselves even without the high profile of the Ivy Landfill as they have throughout ¥irginia and theNation. 5fhe Carbone Supreme Court Case (1994) voided flow control except under contract. The RSWA is'endeavoring to avoid the pitfalls encountered by so many others by developing a system for'the future whilb taking responsibiY~3y for the past. The big picture is that the Rivanna Solid,Waste Authority must decide which waste streams it can economically handle, integrate at the Ivy Landfill ,the waste stream system and other final uses (i.e, recreation; passive) and continue to protect neighboring citizens and the enviroranem for the long term. Timely choosing one of the seven options will allow RSWA staff meet the aforementioned needs. SC/mac shared\board~swaXreportsXsteve\GBB six options RIVANNA · ' P.O. BOX 979 SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY CHARLO'3--rESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22.90~'-0979 (804) 977-2976 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: ARTHUR D. PETRINI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR STEVE CHIDSEY, DIRECTOR OF SOLID WASTE SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL OPTION UPDATE DATE: MARCH 6, 1997 Staff has been asked to explain in more detail Option VI and Option VII as presented under the Modified Strategic Review and Directional Analysis submitted by Gershman, Bricker & Bratton, Inc. (GBB)and present a further modification to Options VI and VII which are referred to as Option VIA and VIIA. Listed below is a summation of Option VI and VII. OPTION VI - Stop landfilling Murficipal Solid Waste (MSW) on a fast track basis (end of FY 98) and start transfer of MSW using private transfer station and construct a convenience center at the Ivy Landfill. For each ton going to the private transfer station, a negotiated dollar amount would return to the RSWA, which is referred to in the GBB Analysis as an "Authority Service Contribution". A convenience center is a structure to Which citizens haul their own MSW. OPTION VII - Same as VI plus RSWA also operates a mini-transfer station ar the Ivy Landfill with a mileage adjustment charge for tonnage deposited (to cover additional Authority mileage costs to haul MSW from the mini-transfer station to an approved landfill). Each of these options call for the delivery of the majority of waste to a privately operated transfer station. Under these scenarios, ~t is assumed that the privately operated transfer facility would rebate, on a per ton basis, to the Authority an Authority Service Contribution. This contribution would go to fund activities such as recycling, education and household hazardous waste collection. Ongoing activities at the Ivy Landfill would include waste-to-compost, wood waste processing, Construction Demolition Debris (CDD) recovery and residue burial, the Encore Center, and other similar re-use and recycling operations. [t is imponam to note that under Options VI and VII that the convenience cemer and the transfer stations capital costs are the same. A convenience center (requinng no DEQ permitting) serves only self-hanling generators (primarily County residents but also users from the City) while a transfer station accepts waste from both self-hauling generators and commercial refuse collectors. The mini-transfer option is designed to provide an economical alternative m western PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER County haulers as opposed to hauling directly to a private transfer facility and will involve permitting costs estimated at $5,000. The capital budget for the aforementioned facility(s) indicated in the GBB report can be lowered if built only to serve the current needs (i.e. moving from Options VI and VII to Options VIA and VIIA). The GBB report in Option VI and VII uses costs for a facility that could serve as a full scale transfer station in the future if necessary. A low tech convenience center (and/or transfer station) with an estimated cost of $55,000 (assuming shared access roads) is already in this year's budget and can be built under Option VIA and Option VIIA instead of the moro expensive facility (estimated at $500,000) listed in Options VI and VII. Currently, the RSWA is in good fmancial shape and has taken progressive steps in limiting the environmental impact of the waste disposal facility on adjacent properties. Staff has worked over the past year to alter and improve ~ts waste management handling techniques. The Authority has a pilot waste-to-compost project and is wprking to establish a permanent waste-to-compost facility for source separated organic waste. Its wood mulch program is now producing over 11,000 tons per year of mulch. An education program has led to the increase of CDD with a corresponding reduction of the MSW stream. These changes are environmentally sound in that they serve to better protect the env/ronment while maximizing the amount of materials that were potentially recoverable for reuse or recycling from CDD. Under all Options, the curbside recycling collection/processing systems remains as currently operated. Refuse collection haulers will still be able to drop their recyclable materials either at the Ivy, Landfill for transportation to the RSWA Paper Sort Facility or Coiner's Salvage or directly at those same facilities. SC/mac shared\boardXswakreports\steve\SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL OPTION UPDATE FAX TP~%NSMITTAL TO Dana Hubbard FROM L E Neher CO Daily Progress CO Albemarle County DEPT Classified PHONE # 296-5843 FAX # 978-7223 FAX # 296-5800 ~CLASS,MonAd, AlbemarleCounty PUBLIC NOTICE\qcr\ Albemarle County\qcr\ Board of Supervisors\qcr\ March 10, 1997\qcr\ ...Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, along with Charlottesville City Council, and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority will conduct a public hearing on March 10, 1997, 5:00 P.M., in the Auditorium of the Albemarle County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider a report entitled "Future Options for Solid Waste" by GBB.\qlr\ ...Anyone desiring further information about the above matter, please contact the Clerk to the Board, Fourth Floor, County Office Building, .or telephone 296-5843.\qlr\ ...Reasonable accommodations will be provided to persons with disabilities, if requested. Please call 296-5827.\qlr\ Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC\qlr\ Purchase Order No. A-1266 Bill to: Albemarle County Account Number 204066 Date: February 24, 1997 Date Run: February 26, March 3, and March 5, 1997 L ,.,Monday,_ M~.,rch 3. 1997 .;,...'. ,.:;, ';:' ...,.. ':'~.;,'. C.. :' .. 1928 Arlington Blvd., Room 105, Charlottesville, VA 22903 (804) 970-1707 Phone [804) 9T1-1708 Fax Rivauna Solid Waste Authority Board Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville City Council From: Loagne of Women Voters Re: Solid Waste Management and the Ivy Landfill The LWV has long been an advocate of responsible solid waste management which place~ emphasis on environmental stewardship as well as human health and safety. Along wi~ ~3' ohher organizations, we espouse the hierarchy which promotes waste reduction, reuse, recycling and resource recovery, over landfilling. Yet here we are in our community with an old landfill, poorly sited by today's standards, that we have relied on for nearly 30 years, and we have come to a crossroads where a decision must be made about its future. It is important to acknowledge the complexity of this issue and the reality that no one solution can resolve all the conflicts surrounding it, but we can~ shrink from the task. A decision must be made now! The League urges the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and Charlottesville City Coundl to direct the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority to pursue the course of action in revised options 6 or 7, outlined by consultants,Gershman, Brickner and Bratton (GBB). These plans stop the burying of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) at the Ivy Landfall at the end of FYg$ and start the transferring out of MSW with increased diversion of other waste throngh expanded reus% composting and recycling activities. We support these options because they assure that alt of our MSW will go only to Sub Title D lined cells and because they provide an economically viable means for cOntinRLrlg RSWA solid waste management and remediafion of thc Ivy site. Our support includes, however, the following caveats: - In transferring out our MSW, we must not succumb to "out-of-sight, out-of-mintL" Full community commitment to the 3 R's must continue and our performance improve so that we minimize the waste we send to fill our neighbor's lands. We urge City, Count~ and University support of the goals and strategies for waste reduction recently recommended by the RST~VA Citizen's Advisory Committee. Il'voluntary efforts do not produce the. desired results in a reasonable time, we urge consideration of mandatory measures as recommended by the Solid Waste Task Force in August, 1996. ...a non Parasan'ddir. aM to PI informed and act ve pan atu,n of cmzen m govem, - Shipping out of our MSW should not be done without full commiWaent to monitoring the facility ~ecdvingand handling that waste. We must also be fully aware of and willing m accept the possibility of liability, along with other users, for pollution damage ff tho company contracti~ for our MSW were m fail. Because there is still not absolute certainty about the rate and extent of migration of contaminants from past landfilling, the most stringent monitoring of the Ivy site must continue and Construction Demolition and Debris (CDD) should be disposed of only over lined areas. The time to act on the decisions is now! Why? Marketplace dynamics indicate a small window of opportunity for an economically viable contract for transfer of municipal solid waste and retention of some measure of control over our own future. Funding for all of the functions of the RSWA has presumed an ever-increasing volume of waste which would generate fees to cover operations and development, recycling and remediafion. Not foreseen, perhaps, was the rapid rise of the private megawaste companies and the competitive advantage afforded them by the ruling which denies localities control of their own waste stream. Now, with the increasing loss Of MSW to these companies, locally- nm landlilis face financial disaster. RSWA, however, appears to have an advantage because of its increasing volume of CDD waste that the mega landfill companies dofft want. A deal shuck now to lock in a reasonable rate for transfer out of our MSW, combined with fees for increasing amounts of CDD, should enable RSWA to continue its critical activities. Several other factors make a decision now critical: First, environmental stewardship requires that we begin now looking seriously at how our community will adeqnateiy fund public education and incentives for waste reduction in the coming years. Second, the location of RSWA's enclosed waste-to-compost program needs to be determined now m order to have a fully DEQ permitted facility. This program will remove significant amounts of.food from the waste stream, diverting it from landfilling and turning it into a usable end product. The City and County should facilitate this valuable waste reduction effort without delay. Third, The Ivy Landfill Alternative Use Plan will be completed this spring. Decisions on future disposal and waste reduction activities at'the Ivy site will impact the implementation of the Plan, so those decisions should be made as soon as possible. A final important reason has to do with human issues. Indecision is taking its toll on staff, neighbors of the landfill, and officials, among others. It may further polarize people who need to be working cooperatively to solve problems. We also want to express support GBB's recommendations from page 4 of theft November, 1996 ~port that state: -' RSWA's prinmry emphasis should b~: Reduce, Rcus¢, Rccyclh~ and then Disposal" -" RSWA should reflect this diversion focused mission in changing its name to Rivanna Waste Utilization Authority (RWUA)." - "An Environmental Cdntingency Fund is needed to handle unforeseen events without adversely impacting the budget." This would be important for protection of the air, groundwater and surface water, and for protection of the neighbors from -undue harm. In closing wc want to recognize the individuals and organizations that have straggled long and hard on this issue of how we deal with our waste. We commend the diligent citizens who care enough about their environment that they probe, question, and research the sources to ~ducate themselves and others; and we thank our public sevcants who display competenc~ and dedication in carrying out thdr responsibilities, even under trying circumstances. We look forward to these potent forces coming together in the furore to make a better community. Thank you 03-O?-9~AIG :50 RCVD of Women Voters of Charlottesville. 1928 Arlington Blvd., Room 105, Charlottesville, VA 22903 (804) 9'(0~708 .... Fax~ ~arch 3, 1997 Mayor Siaughter, Members of City Council Good Evening, 1 am Katie Hobbs, President of the Charlottesville and Albemarle League of WOmen Voters. The League of Women Voters of Charloltesville and Albemarle continue to study and up-date their positions on local government services and structures. We support long-range planning, sharing and/or consolidating resources, services, and structures. We support and encourage increased cooperation between Charlottesville, Albemarle and the University of Virginia. As the City and the County each investigate this new phase of their long relationship resulting from the filing of the reversion petition, the League urges both governments to work together bring forth the best possible solutions for all our citizens. It is most important to always understand that we are one community. Thank you. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE "...a r~n-p~isan organization dedicated to t~e promotion of informed and ~ctive participation ~f citi~eos in go~rr~ent. ' 0 Modified Strategic Review and Directional Analysis PREPARED FOR: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 200 Franklin Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 SUBMITTED BY: GBB SOLID WASTE CONSULTANTS 2735 Hartland Road Falls Church, Virginia 22043-3537 (703) 573-5800 (1-800) 573-5801 E-Mail - gbb@csgi.com FEBRUARY 1997 Printed on Recycled Paper © 1997, Oershman, Brickner & Brat~on, [nc, TABLE OF CONTENTS .TAB NO. MODIFICATIONS ........................................... 1 STRATEGIC REVIEW AND DIRECTION ............................ 2 CAPITAL OUTLAY / MATERIAL AN D CASH FLOWS ................... 3 A. Option I B. Option II C. Option III D. Option IV E. Option V F. Option VI G. Option VII Continue MSW Landfilling at Ivy Transfer MSW Fa~t Track Basis Transfer MSW, Central Transfer Station Transfer MSW, Ivy Transfer Station Transfer MSW, Private Transfer Station Fast Track Private MSW Transfer Fast Track Private MSW Transfer With Western Mini Transfers KEY DECISIONS AND ACTIVITIES ............................... 4 GLOSSARY. ............................................... 5 FEBRUARY 1997 MODIFICATIONS The original Strategic Review and Directional Analysis was presented to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority at the Board meeting held November 25, 1996. The discussion after the presentation and subsequent input from the Board and stakeholders indicated that a modification of the Strategic Review and Directional Analysis was wanted to explore: · Expanded diversion of MSW from disposal, · Additional options evaluating a greater private industry partner- ship with the Authority · Fast track options · Improved service for western County. Options modified from previous presentation are designated by '~." In addition, complete 1996 waste quantity data provided a revised projec- tion of future waste quantity receipts. FEBRUARY 1997 Rivanna Solid, Waste Authority Strategic Review and Direction - Revision 1 February 7, 1997 By Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) Solid Waste Management Consultants Falls Church, Virginia Common Assumptions · Authority ~s needed to assure Integrated Solid Waste Management and reasonable costs · Authority will remain in the closure and post-closure maintenance business at the Ivy Landfill · Authority will continue recycling and construction/demolition, vegetative, yard waste and other processing · Authority will continue public information activities · Authority will maintain and develop the Convenience Center at · An aiternate landfill site for MSW, to be operated by the Authority, will not be sought · Authority will manage HITvV only as long as it operates the MSW business · Authority will phase out operation on part of Ivy Landfill site and create phased alternative uses · The estimated quantity of wastes received in Fiscal Year 1997 are: - MSW - 67,200 Tons - CDD - 28,800 Tons - Vegetative waste - 11,000 Tons - Yard waste - 1,000 Tons - Ash - 2,000 Tons · More intensive diversion of MSW will be developed by the Authority as follows: - To composting, 3,500 tons in 1998, 3,000 additional tons in 1999. 500 additional tons in 2000 and 2001 - An additional 3,000 tons starting in 1999 by source reduction, intensive recycling, and other programs Rivarma Solid Waste Authority 1 GBB/C96015 - 2/4/97 · The Authority will develop with new capital investment and expand the following diversion operations at Ivy - Wet Stream Composting, vegetative waste, food waste, em ...... using wood chips as a bulking agent; - CDD Processing and Recycling - Wood Waste Processing, new grinder will expand capability; - Tire Processing; - White Goods Recycling, collect, process and ship for recycling; - Citizens Convenience Center; and - Encore Center · Reuse Program Swap Shop will be developed · MSW landfilling continues in Option I, all other options have limited MSW landfilling · Landfilling of CDD residue after processing and ash is in all options · The quantity of each type of waste increases annually by 1.3 percent in each category, except for ash, which is constant · Post-Closure Fund is maintained at $7.5 million starting in 1998, a reduction of $500,000 used for landfill air quality construction · Tipping fees are charged for ail wastes received including ash · Tipping fees escalate at 2.5 percent per year · Capital costs were estimated in FY 97 dollars and escalated at 2.5 percent per year until expended. For example, the current estimate for the convenience center is $56,000, the budget for FY 98 constmctJ_on is $51,250. · Operating costs escalate at 2.5 percent per year. · Interest rate on reserve funds is 6 percent per year and is calculated by averaging the amounts in the fund at the beginning and end of the fiscal year =/Option I A - Continue landfilling MSW at Ivy Landfill, Subtitle D after I-IB1205, so that current operations are maintained with increased diversion · No transfer station is built: · Landfflling continues, first in the HB1205 area, then in new Subtitle D tined ceils. · There is no local support revenue. Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 2 GBB/C96015 - 2/4/97 · Recycling processing equipment and other capital expenditures are made in FY98 and FY99. · The Environmental Contingency Fund has approximately $0.9 million at the end of FY06; · Advantages - Does not involve major change - Tipping fee controlled by the Authority - Maintains active MSW landfill permit · Disadvantages - Vulnerable to loss of waste and revenue - Larges~ capital expenditure required, $20 million - Smallest Environmental Contingency Fund - Delays utilization of Sub Title D fac'~lities the longest - Ivy neighbors impacted - No Rivanna service contribution ~lOption II A - Stop landfilling MSW on a fast track basis (end of FY9$) and transfer of MSW from central Authority owned facility, Local Support revenue to implement the Task Force recommendations with increased diversion · Local Support continuing at $500,000 per year is initiated in FY 98; · Stop landfilling MSW at the earliest possible po'mt meeting the assumptions above, at the end of FY98; · The capital expenditures for the transfer station and recycling processing equipment are made in FY97 and FY98; · Transfer operations start at the begjsLmng of FY 99 at centrally located transfer station; · Transfer operation cost is estimated at 85 percent of the MSW tipping fee; · Operation at Ivy after start of transfer is estimated at 50 percent of FY97 budget escalated to operational year; · The Environmental Contingency Fund bas approximately $2.9 million at the end of FY06; · Advantages Rivarma Solid Waste Authority GBB/C96015 - 2/4/97 5 - Implements Task Force approach - Develops Local Support revenue - Resolves the MSW issues rapidly - Begins use of contracted Sub Title D landfill earliest (FY99) - Opens a portion of Ivy site for near term recreational use - Keeps permit alive as hedge against high private disposal fees · Disadvantages - Fast track construction implementation is hard to manage and may increase costs - Transfer station siting may prove difficult in short time frame - Relies on Local Support to meet financial requirements - Most subject to impacts from changes in the disposal market - No Rivanna service contribution ~Option III A - Stop landfilling MSW atthe end of FY01 and start'transfer of MSW, utilizing Authority owned central transfer station location with increased diversion · Landfilling stops at the end of the HB 1205 capacity, at the end of FY01; · Transfer operations start at the beginning of FY 02; · The capital expenditures for the transfer station and recycling proces~mg equipment are made in FY00 and FY01; · The Environmental Contingency Fund has approximately $3.7 million at the end of FY06; · Transfer station is built at a location central to the waste generation; · Transfer operation cost is estimated at 85 percent of the MSW tipping fee and is escalated at 2.5 percent. For example, in the year 2000 the projected MSW tipping fee is $40.92 per ton. The cost of transfer operations, excluding capital costs, is estimated at $34.78 per ton. · Operation at Ivy after start of transfer is estimated at 50 percent of FY97 budget escalated to operational year; · CDD is processed for recovery and the residual is landfilled at the Ivy Landfill; · There is no local support revenue. Rivarma Solid Waste Authority 4 GBB/C96015 - 2~4~97 · Advantages - Begins use of contracted (not Ivy) Sub TitleD landfill in FY02 - Fills the HB 1205 area with MSW - Tipping fee should stay steady Opens a portion of Ivy site for near term recreational use - Keeps permit alive as hedge against high private disposal fees - Authority customers will exper,ence collection cost savings · Disadvantages - Delays Sub Title D facilRy use until FY02 - Risk of MSW loss is higher than contract options - Transfer station siting transfer station is difficult - No Rivarma service contribution ~Option IV A - Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY01 and start transfer of MSW, Authority owned transfer station located at Ivy, with increased diversion · Landfilling stops at the end of the I-IB 1205 capacity, at the end of FY01; · Transfer operations start at the beginning of FY 02; · The capital expenditures for the transfer station and recycling processing equipment are made in FY00 and FY01; · The Environmental Contingency Fund has approximately $3.0 million at the end of FY06;. · Transfer station is built on the Ivy site · Transfer operation cost is estimated at 85 percent of the MSW tipping fee plus incremental cost of additional haul time · Operation at Ivy after start of transfer is estimated at 50 percent of FY97 budget escalated to operational year; · CDD is processed for recovery and its residue is landfilled at the Ivy Landfill; · There is no local support revenue. · Advantages - Begins use of contracted (not Ivy) Sub Title D facilities in FY02 - Fill the HB1205 area with MSW Rivanna Solid Waste Authority GBB/C96015 - 2/4/97 - Tipping fee should stay steady - Opens a portion of Ivy site for near term recreational use - Keeps permit alive as hedge against high private disposal fees - No new site needed · Disadvantages - Delays Sub Title D facility use until FY02 - Operations costs are kfigher than Option III A - ECF is lower than Option III A - Risk of MSW loss is higher than contract options - Cost of transfer is higher than Option BI A - Collection cost savings for the Authority's customers are lower than Option BI A - No Rivanna service contribution ~Option V A - Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY01 and start transfer of MSW using private transfer station with increased diversion · Competitive procurement required to contract with pfivafe industry · Landfilling stops at the end of the HBt205 capacity, at the end of FY01; Transfer operations start at the beginning of FY 02;. · The Bnvironmental Contingency Fund has approximately $5.3 million at the end of FY06; · Transfer station location assumed to be in Fluvanna County for analysis; · Cost of transfer and disposal is $42 per ton (19965) and is paid directly by collectors not the Authority · Operation at Ivy after start of transfer is estimated at 50 percent of FY97 budget escalated to operational year; · CDD is processed for recovery and its residue is landfilled at the Ivy Landfill; · CDD from private industry processed starting in FY02: · There isno local support revenue. · Advantages - Begins use of contracted (not Ivy) Sub Title D facilities m Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 6 GBB/C96015 - 2~4/97 FY02 - Fill the 14331205 area with MSW - Develops the largest Environmental Contingency Fund - No capital is needed for development of transfer station - Opens a portion of Ivy site for near term recreational use - Keeps permit alive as hedge against high private disposal fees · Disadvantages - Delays Sub Title D facility use until FY02 - Procurement necessary to contract for transfer - Tipping fee may increase with market conditions - Authority looses operational control over t~ansfer and disposal - Authority must downsize - Some Authority customers have higher Collection costs ~Option VI - Stop landf'dling MSW at the end of FY98 and start transfer of MSW using private transfer station With increased diversion · Competitive procurement required to contract with private industry · Landfilling stops at the end of FY98, partially utilizing the HB 1205 capacity · Transfer operations start at the beginning of FY99: · The Environmental Contingency Fund has approximately $2.9 million at the end of FY06; · Transfer station location assumed to be in Fluvanna County for analysis; · Rivanna service contribution paid by private operator and convenience center users, estimated at $4 per ton · Operation at Ivy after start of transfer is estimated at 50 percent of FY97 budget escalated to operational year; · CDD is processed for recovery and its residue is landfflled at the Ivy Landfill; · CDD from private industry processed starting in FY99 · There is no local support revenue. · Advantages - Begins use of contracted (not Ivy) Sub Title D facilities in Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 7 GBB/C96015 - 2/4/97 FY99 - No capital is needed for development of transfer station - Opens a portion of Ivy site for near term recreational use - Keeps permit alive as hedge against high private disposal fees · Disadvantages - Delays Sub Title D facility use until FY02 - Procurement necessary to contract for transfer requires time and resources - The HBi205 area is not fully utilized with MSW - Tipping fee may increase with market coudltions after contract term - Authority looses control over transfer and disposal - Authority must downsize - Some Authority customers have higher Collection costs DOption VII- Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY98 and start transfer of MSW using private transfer station with increased diversion and mini-transfer for western County at Ivy · Competitive procurement required to contract with private industry; · Landfflllng stops at the end of FY98, partially utilizing the HB 1205 capacity · Transfer operations start at the beginning of FY99; · The Environmental Contingency Fund has approximately $3.4 million at the end of FY06; · Rivanna service contribution paid by private operator, estimated at $4 per ton; · Private vendor delivers 7500 tons of CDD annually to Authority starting in 1999; · Mini-transfer for convenience center MSW operated by Authority (3100 tons annually) · Authority handles western County MSW through Mini-transfer (3900 tons annually); · Transfer station location assumed to be in Fhivanna County for analysis; · Cost of transfer and disposal is $4Oper ten (19965) and is paid Rivanna Solid Waste Authority GBB/C96015 - 2/4/97 directly by collectors not the Authority · Operation at Ivy after start of transfer is estimated at 50 percent of FY97 budget escalated to operational year; · CDD is processed for recovery and its residue is landfilled at the Ivy Landfill; · There is no local support revenue. · Advantages - Begins use of contracted (not Ivy) Sub Title D facilities in FY99 - Capital requirement is significantly reduced - Opens a portion of Ivy site for near term recreational use - Keeps permit alive as hedge against kigh private disposal fees - Authority has permitted transfer station · Disadvantages - Procurement necessary to contract for transfer - The ITB1205 area is not fully utilized with MSW - Tipping fee may increase with market conditions - Authority looses control over transfer and disposal - Authority must have a limited downsizing - Some western County Authority customers have higher disposal costs, estimated at an additional $4 per ton in 1996 dollars Rivanna Solid Waste Authority GBB/C96015 - 2/4/97 o · Glossary Authority - The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority BFI - Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., a major national solid waste company Carbone - The decision of the Supreme Court stating that laws that restrict the free flow of solid waste are a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution CDD - Construction waste and demolition debris ECF - Env'tronmental Contingency Fund Environmental Contingency Fund Reserve fund built up from Authority's revenues to pay for unanticipated environmental requirements due to changes in regulations and unanticipated environmentally related events at the Ivy landfill FY - Fiscal year for the Authority, runs from July 1 through June 30 GBB - Gerstunan Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. solid waste management consultants HB1205 - State of Virginia House Bill that provides for the continued filling of existing landfills but not their expansion HHW - Household hazardous waste, potentially toxic waste generated by residences Local Support - Revenue to the Authority paid with funds from the City and the County governments MSW Municipal solid waste, includes generated by residential, commercial and business, and institutional sources. Hazardous waste is not included in MSW Piggy Back Liner - A landfill liner constructed on top of an existing landfill Site Development - The Authority's budget category that deals with capital expenditures Sub Title D - The portion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that deals with MSW UVA ~ University of Virginia located in Charlottesville FEBRUARY 1997 Strategic Reviewand Directional Analysis Municipal Solid Waste Options PREPARED FOR: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 200 Franklin Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 PREPARED BY: SOUD WASTE CONSULTANTS 2735 Hartland Road Fails Church, Virginia 22043-3537 (703) 573-5800 Fax: (703) 698-1306 E-Mail: gbb@csgi.com NOVEMBER 1996 Printed on Recycled Paper © 1996, Gershman, Brickner & Braffon, inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ........... TAB KEY DECISIONS AND ACTIVITIES ............... 1 STRATEGIC REVIEW AND DIRECTION ........... 2 CAPITAL OUTLAY/MATERIAL AND CASH FLOWS ........................................ 3 A. Option I - Continue MSW Landfilling at Ivy B. Option H- Transfer MSW Fact Track Basis C. Option III - Transfer MSW, Central Transfer Station D. Option IV - Transfer MSW, Ivy Transfer Station E. Option V- Transfer MSW, Private Transfer Station TIMELINE CHART ............................. 4 ATTACHMENTS ............................... 5 A2 Site Development Estimates (Source: Joyce 'Engineering B. Revenue Source Estimates C. GBB Overview __ ~ NOVEMBER 1996 RIVANNA P.O. BOX g79 SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARTHUR D. PETRINI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PRESENTATION OF REVIEW BY GERSHMAN, BRICKNER & BRATTON NOVEMBER 14, 1996 Gershman, Brickner, & Bratton (GBB) has performed a strategic review and a directional analysis for the Rivarma Solid Waste Authority. This report involved the examination of the current solid waste disposal system in place and the potential options for the future. Parameters considered were landfill capacity, financial needs, level of service, environment impact/remediation and existing reports such as the Task Force recommendations. The firm will present the report at the Board meeting. The report consists of four parts: Key Decisions and Activities - a simplified decision flow chart that allows a conclusion to one of five options. Once an option is reached~ a list of activities is listed that details the administrative and engineering steps. These steps are also listed in the lintel'me chart as described in part four. RSWA Strategic Review.and Direction - this part contains information in a bullet format that reviews current operations and operating parameters (assumptions). It also lists, in detail, the key points ofeach option along with advantages and'disadvantages. Finally, Appendix A states the credentials of GBB, Appendix B lists GBB's comments on the Citizen's Solid Waste Task Force recommendations and Appendix C is a glossary of abbreviations and terms. Capital Outlays/Material and Cash Flows - all the pertinent fmancial data up to and including FY 2006 is listed on four sheets for each option. The first two sheets detail all activities and associated costs for capital projects. The last two sheets details waste stream tonnage, tip fees, revenue, expenditures and reserves. A new term, Environmental Contingency Fund, is listed at the bottom of the third sheet as well as 1 Shared~3oard/Swa/Reports/Steve/presentation of review b5 GBB PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPE~ throughout this report. This fund covers costs for all unanticipated actions by RSWA. When dealing with the varied nature of a landfill and projecting costs over I0 years, it ~ ~s necessary to set aside this type of fund if self-sufficiency is a criteria. 4. Timeline Chart - four separate topics and the five options are listed. The topics are the DEQ/RSWA Consent Order, the EPA Site Evaluation Report, the Waste to Compost project and the Landfill Alternative Use Plan. All nine items are detailed by month through the calendar year 2002. This chart graphically depicts key decision points and illustrates the rapid action needed to fulfill certain options. The options, summarized below, are the most viable future directions that could be determined based on all available information. All options assume certain ongoing activities at the Ivy Landfill (i.e., construction demolition and debris, encore center). OPTION I Continue landfilling Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) at Ivy, Landfill, following Federal regulations (Subtitle D) after using space allowed under Virginia HB 1205, so that current operations are maintained. OPTION II Stop landfilling MSW on a fast track basis (end of FY98) and start transf~ of MSW, utilizing a central location, add Local Support revenue (funds from the City and Counw governments) as recommended by the Task Force to remove dependency on solid waste tip fee income to support certain activities. OPTION III Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY01 and start transfer of MSW, utilizing central transfer station location. OPTION IV Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY01 and start transfer of MSW, ~ransfer station located at Ivy. OPTION V Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY01 and start transfer of MSW using private transfer station. The management of solid waste is an ever changing business. The information presented is valid based on conditions as we know them now and as we can reasonably anticipate in the next ten years. With this report, there is a fu'm basis to arnve at a decision in the coming months. However, once an option is implemented, it is necessary to recognize that the plan of action must be adjustable to new conditions, be they environmental, regulatory, social or economic. SC/mac 2 Share d/Boar d/S wa/Repot t~/St~ve/pre~entafion of review by GBB 2 Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Strategic Review and Direetion · November 25, 1996 .ay · Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) · Solid Waste Management Consultants · Fails Church, Virginia Analysis Approach · Review pertinent Authority information and understand situation · Determine common assumptions · Ident~' decisions to make · Review operational options · Revise financial forecasts · Analyze advantages and disadvantages of options Overview of Current Situation of Authority City of Charlottesville pays tipping fee charges for disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) at the Ivy Landfill fi.om its General Fund and user fees · University of Virginia pays tipping fees fi.om its Operating Budget · Albemarle County has 21 private haulers who operate in the County in an open market collection system and pay directly to use the Authority's facilities · The City of Charlottesville has designated that the residential and c0mmarchfl waste that it collects be directed to Authority facilities via contract; this is good and important o County residential and commercial waste is not designated or directed to Authority facilities; further loss of County waste will reduce Authority revenue · Economic flow control measures encouraged in Carbone decision are the preferred way ro assure the supply of waste and recyclable materials for Authority facilities/services · There is little interest in charging generator fees or organizing County residential collection via fi.anchise or contract to provide consistent service and delivery of waste and recyclable materials to Authority facilities -- acceptable approaches for flow control; Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 1 GBB/C960t 5 - 11/22/96 this essentially rules out Author/ty's ability ro consider revenue bonding for capital needs · Ivy Landfill has 5 to 7 more years of capacity for MSW under lib 1205 · BFI has implemented a transfer station in Ftuvanna County; Authority expects 35 % of MSW deliveries tobe diverted from Authority facilities; so far, diversion has been at approximately 30 %. (Note: BFI currently collects approximately 39, ~00 tons per year in the County and from UVA.) University of Virginia contracts for waste collection and disposal without Authority designation; BFI is the current contractor; 7,500 tons per year goes to Fluvarma, and 6,000 tons per year of ash, CDD and other, goes to Authority Authority's site development requirements for different construction, remediafion and closure needs are estimated at $17 million (19965) for the next 10 years (see table in Attachment 1) · Postclosure capital requirement is estimated at $8 million · Authority has $10.5 million in reserve funds as of 8/1/96 · Closure on the I-IB 1205 area is estimated to be $ 2.6 million · 10 % ofthe tipping fee revenue (FY1997) currently funds non- disposal operations for processing, recycling, HHW, and public education -- approximately $286,000 per year or $3.65 per ton of MSW · Site Development (capital) funding thus far has been accomplished on a pay as you go basis; in FY 1997 represents $17 per ton of the tipping fee, contributing to making Authority tipping fees comparable to BFI's · 70 % of Authority revenue from MSW tipping fees · See Attachment 2 for pie chart showing revenue sources Common Assumptions · Authority is needed to assure Integrated Solid Waste Management and reasonable Costs · Authority will remain in the closure and post-closure maintenance business at the Ivy Landfill · Authority will remain in the paper recycling, wood waste and other processing, and public informationbnsiness · An alternate landfill site for MSW, to be operated by the Authority, will not be sought Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 2 GBB/C96015 - 11/22/96 · Authority will manage HI-IW only as long as it operates the MSW business · Authority will phase out operation on part of Ivy Landfill site and create phased alternative uses · The estimated quantity of wastes received in Fiscal Year 1997 are: - MSW - 78,400 Tons - CDD - 15,500 Tons - Vegetative waste - 9,000 Tons - Yard waste - LO00 Tons - Ash - 2,000 Tons · The Authority will develop and maintain the following operations at Ivy - Wet Stream Composting, vegetative waste, food waste, ere ...... using wood chips as a bulking agent; 5000 tons per year moved from MSW into this operation; - CDD Processing - Wood Waste Processing; - Tire Processing, continue as currently, purchase equipment if necessary; - Citizens Convenience Center - Reuse Program Swap Shop - White Goods Recycling, collect, process and ship for recycling; and - Landfilling, CDD residue after procassing and ash; MSW landfilling is specified in the individual options. · Post-Closure Fund is maintained at $8 million. · The quantity of waste increases annually by 1.3 percent in each category, except for ash, which is constant. · Tipping fees escalate at 2.5 percent per year · Capital costs were estimated inFY 97 dollars and escalated at 2.5 percent per year until expended. For example, the current esfmmte for the convenience center is $50,000, the budget for FY 98 construction is $51,250. · Operating costs escalate at 2.5 percent per year. · Interest rate on reserve funds is 6 percent per year and is Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 3 GBB/C96015 - 11/22/96 calculated by averaging the amounts in the fund at the beg~nmng and end. of the fiscal year Recommendations Authority's primary emphasis should be: Reduce, Reuse, Recycling and then Disposal Authority should reflect this diversion focused mission tn changing its name to the Rivanna Waste Utilization Authority (~WUA) · The Authority should establish a programmatic Full Cost Accounting system An Environmental Contingency Fund:0ECF) is needed to handle unforeseen events without adversely impacting the budget Authority should negotiate with UVA to have UVA waste and recyclable materials designated to Authority facilities · Purchase sorting line to support CDD operation · Purchase shredding system with ferrous metal removal equipment to support yard waste operation Expand the Convenience Center to include all wastes and recoverable materials Move maintenance and convert existing maintenance building to house the Swap Shop a.,qer maintenance is moved Option I - Continue landfilling MSW at Ivy Landfill, Subtitle D after 1-t131205, so that current operations are maintained · No transfer station is built; · Landfilling continues, first in the I-IB 1205 area, then in new Subtitle D lin~ cells. · There is no local support r~venue. · Recycling processing equipment and other capital expenditures are made in FY98 and FY99. · The Environmental Contingency Fund has approximately $12 million at the end of FY06; · Advantages - Does not involve major chanSe - Builds largest Environmental Cun 'tmgency Fund, $12 million in FY06 - 'ripping fe~ should stay steady Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 4 GBB/C960t 5 o 11/22/96 · DiSadvantages - Vulnerable to loss of waste end revenue - Delays utilization of Sub Title D facilities the longest - Ivy neighbors impacted Option II - Stop landfilling MSW on a fast track basis (end of FY98) and start transfer of MSW, add Local Support revenue to implement the Task Force recommendations Local Support continuing at $500,000 per year ~s initiated in FY 98; Stop landfllling MSW at the earliest possible point meeting the assumptions above, at the end of FY98; · The capital expenditures for the transfer station and recycling processing equipment are made in FY97 and FY98; · Transfer operations start at the beginning of FY 99 at centrally located transfer station; · Transfer operation cost is estimated at 85 percent of the MSW tipping fee; · Operation at Ivy after start of transfer is estimated at 50 percent of FY97 budget escalated to operational year; · The Environmental Contingency Fund has approximately $3.4 million at the end of FY06; · A decision to implement this option must be made before December 31, 1996. · Advantages - Implements Task Foroe approach - Develol~ Local Support revenue - Resolves the MSW issues r~pidly - Be~'n* use of contracted Sub Title D lendfill earliest (FY99) · Disadvantages - Fast track implementation is hard to manage and may increase costs - Siting may prove difficult in short time flame - Relies on Local Support to meet financial requirements - Environmental Contingency Fund is the lowest of all options C} Option HI - Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FYO1 and start transfer of MSW, utilizing central transfer Rivanna Solid Waste Authority OBB/C96015 - 11/22/96 9 station location · Landfilling stops at the end of the HB1205 capacity, at the end of FY01; · Transfer operations start at the beginning of FY 02; · The capital expenditures for the transfer station and recycling processing equipmem are made in FY00 and FY01; · The Environmental Contingency Fund has approximately $6 million at the end of FY06; · A decision to implement this option must be made before December 31, 1998. · Transfer station is built at a location central to the waste generation; · Transfer operation cost is estimated at 85 percent of the MSW tipping fee and is escalated at 2.5 percent. For'example, in the year 2000 the projected MSW tipping fee is $40.92 per ton. The cost of transfer operations, excluding capital costs, is estimated at $34.78 per ton. · Operation at Ivy after start Of transfer is estimated at 50 percent of FY97 budget escalated to operational year; · CDD is processed for recovery and the residual is landfilled at the Ivy Landfill; * There is no local support revenue. · Advantages - Begins use of contracted (not Ivy) Sub Title D landf'lll in FY02 - Fills the FIB 1205 area with MSW - Develops an Falvironmuntal Contingency Fund of $6 million in FY06 - Tipping fee should stay steady - Or-ns a portion of Ivy site for near term recreational use - Keeps potmit alive as hedge against high private disposal fees - Authority custemers will expenenco collection cost savings · Disadvantages - Delays Sub Title D facility use until FY02 - ECF is lower than some other options - Siting transfer station is di0gcult Option IV - Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY01 and start transfer of MSW, transfer station located at Ivy Landfill'mg stops at the end of the HB1205 capacity, at the end of Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 6 GBB/C96015 - 11/22/96 l0 FY01; · Transfer operations start at the beginning of FY 02; · The capital expenditures for the transfer station and recycling processing equipment are made in FY00 and FY01; · The Environmental Contingency Fund has approximately $5 million at the end of FY06; · A decision to implement this option must be made before December 31, 1998. · Transfer station is built on the Ivy site · Transfer operation cost is estimated at 85 percent of the MSW tipping fee plus incremental cost of additional haul time Operation at Ivy after start of transfer is estimated at 50 percent of FY97 budget escalated to operational year; CDD is processed for recovery and its residue is landfilled at the Ivy Landfill; · There is no local support revenue. · Advantages - Begins use of contracted (not Ivy} Sub Tiflo D faoilitie~ in FY02 - Fill the HB 1205 area with MSW - Develops an Environmental Contingency Fund of $5 million in FY06 - Tipping fee should my steady - Opens a portion of I~ site for near term recreational use - Keeps permit alive as hedge againnt high private disposal fees - No new site needed · Disadvantages - Delays Sub Title D faeih'ty t~o until FY02 - ECF is lower than Option IH - Cost of transfer is higher than Optien II1 - No collection cost savings for the Authority's customers as in Option Ill Option V - Stop landfilling MSW at the end of FY01 and start ransfer of MSW using private transfer station · Landfilling stops at the end of the I-IB1205 capacity, at the end of FY01; · Transfer operations start at the beginning of FY 02; · The Environmental Contingency Fund has approximately $6 million at the end of FY06; Rivanna Solid Waste Authority GBB/C96015 - 11/22/96 Rivanna Solid Waste Authority · Transfer station location assumed to be in Fluvanna County for analys~s; · Cost of transfer and disposal is $42 per ton (19965) and is paid directly by collectors not the Authority · Operation at Ivy after start of transfer is estimated at 50 percent of FY97 budget escalated to operational year; · CDD is processed for recovery and its residue is landfilled at the Ivy Landfill; · There is no local support revenue. · Advantages - Begins use of coraxacted (not IVY) Sub Tire D fac'flities in FY02 - Fill the lib 1205 area with MSW - Develops an Environmental Contingency Fund of $6 million in FY06 - No capital is neexted for development of trausfer station - Opens a portion of Ivy site for near term recreational use - Keeps perm/t alive as hedge against high private disposal fees · Disadvantages - Delays Sub Title D facility uso until FY02 - Procurement necessary to contract for transfer - Tipping fee may increase with market conditions - Authority looses control ovar lXausfar and disposal - Authority must dowasize - Authority customers have hi,er disposal costs, estimated at an additional $4 per ton in 1996 dollars - Authority customers have kigh~ Collection eests Decisions to Be Made · Whether to close the Ivy Landfill to MSW · Whether to build transfer station(s) · Add additional MSW recyclable materials and CDD recovery processing · Who will have ownership of Transfer Station, if implemented · Who will operate the Transfer Station, if implemented · Location of Transfer Station(s); close to waste generafton center, Ivy Landfill, other · Set size of Environmental Contingency Fund based upon the level of environmental liability the local governments are willing tO assume 8 GBB/C96015 - 11/22/96 12 · Select the operational scenario, from the six Options below, to be implemented by the Authority and direct staff Appendix A - GBB Overview · Solid Waste Management Consultant · See Corporate Overview Attached · Established in 1980 · Nationally Recognized as Independent and Objective Resource for Federal, State and Local Governments Managing Solid Wastes · GBB has prepared over 150 solid waste/recycling plans and feasibility studies, and some 100 procurements of all types of solid waste/recycling operations · Previous Rivanna Solid Waste Authority work: waste composition study and Task Force briefing · Retained by the Authority to conduct a limited review of situation and recommend direction Appendix B - Citizen's Solid Waste Task Force Consensus Recommendations (paraphrased, with GBB comments in Italics) · Current directions encouraging, but additional changes needed in this community - Agree; what's listed below would he a lot of changes · Cap and close the unlined cell ASAP - Agree: but do as the ce#still so that the capacity is used up according to the closure plan and contours · For solid waste that must be landfilled, use Sub-Title D lined cells - Whenlvy£andfillunlinedcellsareusedapinitiatetransferstation(s) close to the centers of waste generation · Guarantee the adjacent community safe drinking water; control air, noise and dust - Applicable regutaaons shoutdprovide for this · Conduct high quality monitoring and remediation under public scrutiny - Agree; as state above, this should occur; public scrutiny is happening and should continue; Perhaps create a Citizens Closure~Post-Closure Review Committee; post data regularl, v on an Authorit9 Internet t~'orld Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 9 GBB/C96015 - 11/22/96 Wide Web page · Reduce volume of waste between 50 to '/0% per capita disposed in five years by: · expanding education · emphasize source reduction and reuse · unplement intensive mandatory recycling in two years · institute wet stream tempesting · continue and expand CDD separalion, leaf and raulch recycling, tire recycling, and the business waste sort facility · conduct pilots u~ing alternative technologies - Too lofiyagoal: 40-60 % under Virginiarecyclinglawrequ~rements mare realistic; this can be achieved by full implementation of recycling and wet stream composting in the County; there may be a need to create a separate funding source so that the dispasat function of the system are notjeapardized as a result of funding these significant diversion programs Finance system by distributing costs throughout the community - The manner in which integrated solid waste management islanded is subject to political choice; the choice made should assure that long term costs are funded Develop master plan for final uses of the Ivy Landfill - This is underway; key question to address is how will implementation of the plan be funded · Conduct a one-time air quality monitoring study - Closure and gas recovery will alleviate anyproblem that may ex~st · Change the Authority's administrative structure to reflect higher level of focus on Reduction, Reuse and Recycling; change the Board by: · expanding with three membem from Ivy neighborhoods · lllako th~ Ch~ir ofth~ C~ A/ivisory Committee a vothl8 member · develop a landfill Adxdsory Committee - Developing a formal mechanism for representatives from the community at large to have input to the Authority appears reasonable and appropriate · Conduct an independent program audit now and annually - This review by GBB is a goodfirst step toward doing, that; once aplan is prepared and accepted, there couM be a great number of additional program changes that are needed; having an annual check as budgets are being prepared would be a useful balance and check on progress achieved - The 5 year Solid Waste Management Plan updates, requiredby state regulations, also serve as-a review Rivanna Solid Waste Authority I0 GBB/C96015 - 11/22/96 14 It is unacceptable to: · Landfill current volumes - As mentioned above, a plan ts needed to determine how to get to 40- 50% and when: until then, landfilling is the least expensive and it is an environmentally controlled method - Not collect methane and other orgamc gases - This is already in the budget to be done · ~.ranage compost in the open - It depends upon the feedstock; yard debri~ should be able to be composted outside; sludge, food waste and mixed solid waxte should be initially composted under cover, and outside curing/finishing should be acceptable · Bury hazardous waste at the Ivy Landfill - Agre* . knplement Draper Adon surfaco water recommendations - Agree: in theplans · Conduct semi-annual waste audits for two years - Conduct after newprograms are in place to determine their effectiveness; the frequency and timing may be dtfferent than recommended depending upon implementation timing for new programs Appendix C - Glossary · Authority- The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority · BFI - Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.., a major national solid waste company · Carbone - The decision of the Supreme Court stating that laws that restrict the free flow of solid waste are a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution · CDD - Construction waste and demolition debris · ECF - Environmental Contingency Fund · Environmental Contingency Fund - Reserve fund built up from Authority's revenues to pay for unanticipated environmental requirements due to changes in regulations and unanticipated environmentally related events at the Ivy landfill · FY - Fiscal year for the Authority, runs from July 1 through June 30 · GBB - Gershman Brickner & Brattorg Inc.. solid waste management consultants · lib 1205 -' State of Virginia House Bill that provides for tho continued filling of existing landfills but not their expansion Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 11 GBB/C96015 - 11/22/96 HHW - Household hazardous waste, potentially toxic waste generated by residences Local Support - Revenue to the Authority paid with funds from the City and the County governments MSW - Municipal solid waste, includes generated by residential, commercial and business, and institutional sources. Hazardous waste is not included in MSW Piggy Back Liner - A landfill liner constructed on top of an existing landfill Site Development - The Authority's budget category that deals with capital expenditures Sub Title D - The portion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that deals with MSW UVA - University of Virginia located in Charlottesville Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 12 GBB/C96015 - 11/22/96 mI · lI I,I II t I TIMELINE CHART MAJOR DECISIONS MILESTONES AND ACTIVITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS TIMELINE ID NUMBER 11 12 19 29 49 62 75 88 DEQ CONSENTORDER A consent order signed between the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. Details the obligations and tasks to be accomplished~ by the RSWA and the timelines for doing so. Includes groundwater protection standards, hydrogeologic study, risk assessment study, rate and extent study and public hearing requirements. EPA SITE EVALUATION REPORT The final United States Environmental Protection Agency's report on the testing of residential wells in the vicinity of the Ivy Landfill. WASTE-TO-COMPOST The on-going pilot project located at the Ivy Landf'rI1 to demonstrate the feasibility of "wet stream" or source separated composting. Includes other advanced technologies currently being evaluated for long term system. LANDFILL ALTERNATIVE USE PLAN The on-going project designed to determine potential phased uses of the Ivy Landfill site as well as final uses. Includes activity design, upgrades, environmental impact and gas controls. OPTION I MSW Landfilling OPTION Il Start MSW Transfer ASAP Central Site OPTION III Start MSW Transfer '02 Central Site OPTION IV Start MSW Transfer '02 Ivy Site OPTION V Start Private Industry Transfer '02 RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY PROJECTED REVENUE FISCAL 1997 ': ".' Seurce :...:. .:...$.. ".' Percentage. MSW Tipping 2,979 64.20% Yard Waste Tipping 21 0.50% Other Tipping 40 0.9 CDD Tippin,g 372 8.00% Vegetative Tipping 216 4.70% Paper Sort 230 5.00% Recycling Center 125 2.70% Interest 62', 1'3.40% Other 31 0.70% 4.637 RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY PROJECTED REVENUE FISCAL 1997 MSW Tipping 64.24% Other 0.67% 13.44% CDD Tipping 8.02% Recycling Center 2.70% Paper Sort 4.66% 4.96% %-, Other Tipping Yard Waste Tipping 0.86% 6.45% A~ITA~ 2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Corporate Overview Introduction to GBB Today, communities and businesses across the country are increasingly aware of the urgent need to find solutions for therr growing solid waste management prob- lems. GBB has been on th~ front lines as a solid waste management consulting firm since 1980. planning and implementing integrated waste management programs de- signed to provide cost-effective services, protect-the enw- ronment, and conserve natural resources. Using successful past projects as a guide, we carefaliy analyze current and future demands [o customize a solid waste management program that fits each client's unique requirements. While specific reqmrements may vary. GBB typically designs integrated solid waste management pro- grams thac encompass waste reduction, reuse, recycling, compostmg, volume' reduc'don, and landfilling. GBB's professional staff includes engineers, planners, econormsts, envtronmental scientists, and policy special- ists. We are committed co excellence, and we are confi- dent that the quality of our work and our proven experience offer our clients the best results. When making recommen- dations. GBB maintains its objectivity- by avcflding situa- tic, ns that coutd create a com2ict of interest. GBB is mctep~ndent of techi~diogy, f'man~ng, conscmcnon, and operational interests. We have earned our solid reputation by understandLqg ouz clients' goals~ and working hard to achieve them. GBB Areas of Specialization Our corporate resources are totally committed to sound solid waste management, including waste reduction, recy- cling, and systems integration. Solid Waste Management Planning and Implementation GBB prepares feasibility studies and solid waste man- agemem plans to meet the specific needs of each client. These studies include the evaluation of system components, including chamcterizatio'n collection, transport, storage, processing, and disposal of solidwaste, in order to recom- mend the best-suited and most cost-effective methods for short-term and long-term waste management. Recycling is often combined with various other methods of solid waste management to gxve communities and bnsirfesses an effec- nve. integrated approach. Administrative and Management Evaluations GBB provides analysis and guidance in planning and designing the administrative structure for the effective man- agement of solid waste systems. This includes orgamza- tional analysis and design, with a focus on efficiency in the delivery of programs and services as well as on adr~nistra- Lion of personnel, physical and financial resourEes. GBB bas prepared organizational audits, designed management information systems, and assisted in organizational plan- ping and evaluation and selection of personnel to fill key positions. GBB identifies the organizational strategy and then plans the structure of resources needed to implement effective system management to achieve the goals of the organization. Economic and Financial Analysis GBB determines system cos~ and conducts computer- aasisted life cycle cost analyses, cost of service studies and f'Mancial evaluations. GBB's financial assessments are fre- quently nsed to determine the appropriate level of fees and charges needed to support comprehensive solid waste management system costs and the mix of funding strate- gies to ensure a sustained revenue stream. GBB prepares third party feasibili ,ty studies for revenue 6ond offerings and independent cost evaluatioas of various technologies and projects. We also assist communities in establishing · enterprise funds and programs for the full cost accounting of their solid waste marmgement systems. Collection GBB has conducted collection analyses for large and small jurisdictions, including in-depth evaluations of exist- lng collection equipment: vehicle/crew configumuons: staff skill levels and training efforts; admldistrative and manage- ment practices and procedures: and public education ac- tivities. Recommended modifications to policies and procedures have resulted in improvements in serviee and cost savings. GBB also advises on franchising and contract- Lug for privatization services by assisting in procurements and contract negoti:ttions. Waste Composition Analysis GBB's waste characterization studies provide data about the quantity and compos~lion of muth~flpal and in- dustsial waste streams: the potential for exn'acung recy- ciables: the quantities of processible vs. non-processible wastes: chemical analysis and heating values: the portion ATrA~ 3 of the waste stream requiring special management: and current and future waste-generation m~es. The studies be- come the basis for designing and implementing integrated programs, ano are used to monitor program effectiveness. Municipa~ Commercia~ and Industrial ReCycling GBB has planned and implemented recycling and waste-reduction programs in malor metropolitan areas and rural communities, for Fortune 500 companies and small businesses~ C-BB has planned and procured recycling/pro- cessmg facilities for residential and commercial waste streams by': developing procurement documents and evalu- ating bids and proposals for equipment and services: pro- riding sizing and siting recommendations; obtaining percrars and environmental approval; and monitoring construction. and acceptance testing. Markets Analysis GBB maintains an extensive up-to-date, national com- puterized database of market imeormation, including com- pany names, contacts, types of materials accepted, materials specifications, current pricing, and historical -.rends, In addiuon, we are familiar with the services that these mar- kets may offer, such as providing containers, transporta- tion, collection assistance and materials upgrading. Composting and Biosolids GBB provides technical evahianons and assistance to federal, state, and municipal programs about yard waste, mixed waste, and biosolids composting systems and pme- uces, GBB has planned, procured, and implemented corn- posting programs for communities, and perfoemed engineenng audlrs of e:~dsting facilities. Our experience includes providing educational program development and technical assistance for yard waste composting for citizens and municipa~ties in the implementation of state-wide regu- lations and programs. Construction Waste and Demolition Debris .Recycling GBB assists in developing sound and cost-effective ap- proache_s to improving the handling, processing, recycling, and. or disposal of CSd) waste material, which consists of land-clearing and new coc~structioct wastes, or mixed build- rog/roadway demolition debris. GBB has experience on the local, state, and national levels advising private- and public-sector clients about C&D materials recycling. Landfill Management GBB has assisted clients in alt phases of Iandfil} acuv- ity. including: siting, cost. and feasibility analyses; permtt- ting; construction and operations monitoring; landfill capacity and service agreements: operator framing; procure- ment of landfill gas recovery' projects: closure and post- closure planning; and environmental compliance. Waste-to-Energy P~ojeet Development GBB has assisted in the development of wasm-to-en- ergy prolects from the initial feasibility stud5- to commer- cial operations monitoring GBB also conducts bond feasihi}ity sradies, and monitors construction and accep- tance testing. Our knowledge and experience enables us to evaluate operations, including the potential to use alter- native fuels, and provide recommendations that not only take into account technical issues but also the evolving role of flow control Procurement Evaluation and Construction, Accbptance, and Operations Monitoring GBB's procurement experience includes prepanng RFQs and RFPs: evaluating vendor responses: recon-Lmend- ing a preferred vendor or ownership financing strategy; negotiating'contracts: assisting with bond offerings; devel- oping test protocols and review criteria: and monitoring consrrucuon, performance tesung, and operauons. Siting and Environmental Impact Reviews GBB has conducted siting reviews for all tvpes of solid waste processing and disposal facilities, including waste- to-energy facilities, landfills, transfer stations and material processing &nd composting facilities. Our analyses are pre- pared by GBB's team of environmental experts, bringmg ~ogether authorities on air quality, management, noise poi- lution control, traffic management and veNcie emissions. Community Information, Technical Assistance, and Training GBI3's community information experts help local offi- cials involve and ir,Corm the public in solid waste tonnage- merit programs. We develop srrar, egies; orgamze and staff citizen advisory' cornsmttees: and prepare newsletters, bro- chures, videos, slide presentauons, and brieff,~gs to aid in the communications process. GBB knows what it takes to complete a project successfully. We make concepts come alive, and our track record proves it. Let us help ybu solve your solid waste management problems today GBB Corlmarate Headquarters 2735 Harrland Road Falls Church. VA 22043 (703) 573-5800 (703) 698-1306 FAX Regional Offices 60 E. Marie Avenue 1104 Fernwood Avenue Suite 202 Suite 501 West St Paul, ~ 55118 Camp Hill. PA 17011 (612) 552-0047 (717) 975-0528 (612) 552<}048 FAX (717) 975-9896 FAX 2