Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-SWAC-rpt.pdf 9 DRAFT `�\�� REPORT OF THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMIXJ/ \,./J Line Items Town Meeting Articles 27 (Curbside Collection & Disposal) 28 (Transfer. Station & Disposal) 29 (NESWC) Line Items - 4900 DPW Collective Bargaining; 5800 Garbage Collection Contract, 5850 Sanitary Landfill INTRODUCTION The Town of Lexington has committed to the State the closure of the Hartwell Ave Sanitary Landfill for general public use by July 1981. This date leaves only fifteen (15) months of operation remaining at the writing of this report. During the past year, at the instructions of the 1979 Town Meeting and the Board of Selectmen, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee has investigated short- term solutions (less than or equal to 5 year commitment) to our waste disposal problem, and also possible long-term solutions other than the NESWC and 128 WRRC plans discussed last year This report recommends a short-term refuse disposal plan (3 year duration) with immediate startup and reaffirms the NESWC recommendation for a long-term solution. NEAR TERM SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS Since the discussions of solid waste disposal at the 1979 Town Meeting, only small amounts of progress have been made toward the initiation of construction of either the NESWC or 128 West (128 WRRC) disposal plants This fact has underscored the Town's requirement for an economic near-term solid waste disposal option. Over the period July 1979-Jan./Feb 1980, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee met approximately every 2 to 3 weeks with proponents of solid waste disposal schemes Some schemes were analyzed only once, other concepts were asked back for clarification and further questioning By the September/October time frame it became clear that since there were so many options open, the only fair and realistic approach to choosing a near-term option was to advertise for bids which called for 1) Formally listed the Town's overall requirements for solid waste disposal. 2) Allowed the bidder to use either the existing landfill or one of his own choosing for final disposal 3) Provided a recycling component 4) Included, either as options or as combinations, waste from private homes, schools, condominiums and municipal buildings. 5) Provided for town-wide curbside pickup In addition, the Committee recognized that townwide curbside pickup itself is an issue in Lexington, and so also recommended the issuance (again through D.P W ) of a second RFP dealing with a transfer station located at the Hartwell Ave facility Note that the location of a transfer station at Hartwell Avenue was accepted by Town Meeting two or three years ago Such a transfer station would allow for 1) a Town Meeting Article centering around curbside pickup, the allowance of private and individual hauling to the site at Hartwell Ave The refuse would thus be hauled to another disposal site for final (out-of-town) disposition. -2- Each of the proposals and their responses will be discussed below BIn #1 - TOWNWIDE COLT.FCTION AND DISPOSAL Table I shows the options presented to potential bidders for townwide collection and disposal Table II is a summary of those options As one can see from Tables I and II, the options were structured so as to enable the Town to get the incremental cost estimates for such areas as separate recyclable collection, the cost of school refuse pickup, the added cost of apartment and condominium refuse pickup, etc This bid was similar to the Townwide Collection and Disposal bid issued by the D P W in 1979 Table III shows the low-bid comparison for 1979 and 1980, option by option. It is immediately obvious that 1) For any given option, the costs have risen by 33% - 57% 2) Once the contract is let, the contract allows costs to rise by approximately 4% 3) That while the "A" options are less expensive than the "B" options, they are really for comparison purposes only, since the "A" options in- volve disposal at the Hartwell Ave Sanitary Landfill. The Town D.P W has, this year obtained estimates of the solid waste tonnage generated by private homes in Lexington The 18,000 to 20,000 tons per year figure used by the Town still seems to be accurate Hence the Townwide collection, haul, and out-of-town disposal costs appear to be on the order of $25.50 to $28.00/ton, which is substantially cheaper than the present combination of private contractor, individual haul and Sanitary Landfill costs, even at last year salary and energy costs (estimated to be $38/ton for FY '79 in last year's $ W A.0 report) The possibility of townwide pickup with disposal at Hartwell in FY '81 was discussed, and then switch to out-of-town disposal in FY $2 and FY '83 Table IV shows that the apparent "savings" to the Town of $154,000 (Table III Options lA vs. 1B) is more than consumed by the extra $170,000 cost incurred by D.P W operation of the Hartwell Ave facility as a landfill (Table IV) rather than closing it In summary, we find that 1) Townwide Collection and out-of-town disposal is far less expensive ($25 - $28/ton) than even last year's estimates of the real cost to the townspeople for solid waste disposal ($38 - $41/ton) . 2) Possible combinations of Townwide collection with 1st year Hartwell Ave disposal and 2nd and 3rd year out-of-town disposal show no savings over the simple plan proposed (townwide collection and out-of-town disposal) TABLE I SUMMARY OD ALTERNATIVES COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIALS CONTRACT #80-6-E Alternative la For weekly collection of combined refuse, and disposal of the refuse inside Lexington at the Hartwell Avenue Transfer Station.. Alternative lb For weekly collection of combined refuse, and disposal of the refuse outside of Lexington. Alternative 2a For weekly collection of combined refuse, ex- cluding recyclables, and disposal of the refuse inside Lexington at the Hartwell Avenue Transfer Station. Alternative 2b For weekly collection of combined refuse, ex- cluding recyclables, and disposal of the refuse outside of Lexington Alternative 3a For weekly collection of recyclable materials, and disposal of the recyclable material inside Lexington at the Hartwell Avenue Transfer Station. Alternative 3b For weekly collection of recyclable materials, and disposal of the recyclable material outside of Lexington. Alternative 4a For daily collection of refuse from school buildings, and disposal of the refuse inside Lexington at the Hartwell Avenue Transfer Station. Alternative 4b For daily collection of refuse from school buildings, and disposal of the refuse outside of Lexington. Alternative 5a. For weekly collection of combined refuse from apartment houses and condominiums, and disposal of the refuse inside Lexington at the Hartwell Avenue Transfer Station. Alternative 5b For weekly collection of combined refuse from apartment houses and condominiums, and disposal of the refuse outside Lexington. Alternative 6a. For the collection and disposal of a combination of solid wastes as described under Alternatives la, 2a, 3a, 4a and 5a Alternative 6b For the collection and disposal of a combination of solid wastes as described under Alternatives lb, 2b,3b, 4b and 5b 4 TABLE II SUMMARY OF BID OPTIONS CONTRACT #80-6-E FEBRUARY 1980 RFP Homes & Apts & Alternatives Trash Garbage Recyclables Munic. Bldgs. Condos. School Disposal Site lA x x x x Hartwell 1B x x x x Out-of-Town 2A x x x Hartwell 2B x x x Out-of-Town 3A x x Hartwell 3B x x Out-of-Town 4A x x x Hartwell 4B x x x Out-of-Town 5A x x x x Hartwell 5B x x x x Out-of-Town Combination Bids 6A (A's above) x x x x x x Hartwell 6B (B's above) x x x x x x Out-of-Town -3- RECYCLABLES For the next three year period, the Committee favors the combined collection of all solid waste (cans, bottles, paper, garbage, solid waste)for economic reasons (See Tables V and VI) However, we point out that the long-term solutions recommended and under continued study (NESWC, 128 WRRC) both extract material and energy from the waste stream. Here recycling makes sense both at the energy production facility (by making electricity, selling scrap iron and aluminum) and before the material is sent there (fewer tons to haul the 30 to 50 miles to the plant, smaller transfer stations, lower "tipping" charges) To encourage the retention of the recycling effort, recommend the placing of recycling bins at either 1) Hartwell Ave. (opened 1 or 2 days/week for recycling only) , or 2) D.P W building (open 5 days per week) RFP #2 - TRANSFER STATION AND FINAL DISPOSAL The RFP recommended by S W.A.0 was issued by the D P W Its elements are listed in Table VII The purpose of this RFP was to assess the cost to the Town if the Townwide curbside pickup and out-of-town disposal option were not favored by the Town. All three bidders (BFI, RESCO, ROKETENETZ) came in with first year costs of approximately $30 to $32/ton for construction and operation of a transfer station, hauling to the final disposal site,and disposal there Cost increases after this first year estimate were 1) Roketenetz - Increase $1/ton per year for a 5 year contract. - Escalator for increased fuel charges --a-- - $1.00/ton rebate for out-of-town tonnage 2) BFI - Increases tied to Boston Consumer Price Index - $0 50/ton rebate for out-of-town tonnage in a 500 ton/day facility (Lexington generates approximately 60 tons/day) 3) Resco - Increases tied to Boston Area Wage Index, Real Estate Tax (Saugus) - $2 50/ton rebate for all tonnage (including Lexington) delivered to transfer station. We find these costs much higher than the costs for Townwide collection and direct out-of-town disposal even when private hauling costs to the transfer station are not included All of the transfer station proposals call for long-term commitments by the Town which effectively lock us in to proposals that are not in the best interest's of the Town We do not recommend the Transfer Station option. h TABLE III LOW BID COMPARISONS Town-wide curbside collection and disposal - first year of a three year contract 1979 1980 Low Bidder Low Bidder First Year First Year lA $245,000 $356,000 18 $382,000 $510,000 2A $225,000 $355,000 2B $343,000 $510,000 3A $ 52,000 $76,000 3B $ 58,000 $ 90,000 4A $ 14,000 No bid 4B $ 18,000 $ 10,000 5A No bid No bid 5B No bid included in 18 Cost Growth 2nd year (proposed) 2%-6% 4% ($530,000) Cost Growth 3rd year (proposed) 2%-6% 4% ($550,000) TABLE IV DPW Landfill Operation Option Costs Cost of Lexington Solid Waste Cost of Solid Waste Fiscal 1980 Landfill Closed Fiscal 1981 Landfill Operation Personnel $42,739 $29,170. Expenses $65,290 $23,550 $108,029 $52,720. Administrative Cost Director $ 5,824 $ 2,000_ Engineer $ 2,300 $ 2,300 Clerical $ 5,500 $ 500. $ 13,624 $ 4,800. Garbage Collection $ 72,000 $ 7,200. Eauiprent Maintenance - 7/1/79 - 2/8/80 Fuel Estimate $ 3,008 $ 1,000. Reppirs $38,683 $10,100. Necnanics Wages $11,905. $ 1,000. $ 53,596 $12,100. Total $247,249 Total $76,820 TABLE V RECYCLING - 1978 INCLUDING NOV & DEC.,1977 (beginning of curbside recycling) Newspaper Collected Total Income North Shore Recycled Fibers Corp. 114 280/tons @ $26 00 Salem, MA 91 40/tons @ 21.00 79 302/tons @ 16.00 88.17/tons @ 14.00 194 645/tons @ 6 .00 414 38/tons @ 5 00 982 177/tons $10,633.66 Glass Miller Disposal, Inc. 301.70/tons @ $10 00 $ 3,017 00 Bedford, MA Cans Miller Disposal, Inc. Bedford, MA 42.98/tons @ $10.00 429 80 Su.tap Metal Tewksbury Auto Parts, Inc. Tewksbury, MA 438.02 /tons @ $10.00 $ 4,380 20 GRAND it/1AL $18,460 66 TABLE VI 4' RECYCLING - X979 (Curbside Collection Ended - 5/31/79) Total Income Newspaper North Shore Recycl Fibers 853 449/tons @ $5 00 Salem, MA 01970 91 295/tons @ $8.00 944 744/tons $ 4,997 60 Glass Miller Disposal, Inc. Bedford, MA 379 30/tons @ $10 00 $ 3,793.00 Cans Miller Disposal, Inc. Bedford, MA 37 77/tons @ $10.00 $ 377_70 (6 months) Scrap Metal Tewksbury Auto Parts, Inc. 860 East St. , Tewskbury, MA (Martel Recyclables, Saugus) 303 15/tons @ $10 00 $ 3,031.50 Grand Total $12,199.80 (Revised - 2/1/80) 4 TABLE VII SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION R.F.P (7 Feb , 1980) - With/without townwide curbside pickup - Hartwell Ave location - Out-of-town processing and/or disposal - 5, 10, 20 year contracting periods allowed - Able to accept waste by 31 Dec. 1980 at location or at acceptable interim facility - Bonded construction 3 Labor and materials Bonded operation - If accepts out-of-town waste, Lexington is paid a fee J EPA/CORDIAN ANALYSIS OP ALTERNATIVE RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS IN NORTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS 100 90 • LANDPIL4. 80 • 70 SESWC 60 BAYSIDE 50 40 - NESWC 30 • 20 10 • 0 79 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 2000 02 YEARS, Mardian Assoc , Inc. for U S EPA 2 April 1979 01 A -4- NESWC At the 1979 Town Meeting, the Selectmen's Solid Waste Advisory Committee obtained the approval of Town Meeting to allow the Selectmen to sign a long-term contract for disposal of Lexington's solid waste with resource recovery from the waste stream. The program is going forward, but slowly We have included in this report a comparison of per-ton costs done by Gordian Associates, Inc of Washington, D.0 for certain North Shore communities to compare NESWC with other proposed local solutions As one can see, the cost levels and cost-growth for the NESWC facility is most favorable. This is due to the sale by the facility of electric power to the New England Power Company (NEPCO) at a certain stated rate NEPCO has recently, however, proposed a decrease in the agreed upon purchase price of electric power from NESWC and all other generators, the result of which is a less favorable cost-versus-time picture The Mass Department of Public Utilities will hold a hearing on the matter before Town Meeting The Committee still favors the NESWC project as the long-term solution to Lexington's solid waste disposal problems We are continuing to work with their Contract and Transportation Committees and to be vocal in expressing our views on the project CONCLUSION 1. The Couuuittee.recommends three year collection and out-of-town disposal as an interim cost effective measure 2 The Committee recommends support of Article 29 (NESWC) subject to the Selectmen and appropriate advisory committees feeling that this is the most cost effective measure for the Town Any change will result in a full report to Town Meeting 3 The Committee does not recommend a transfer station at this time because it is not cost effective and requires a long-term commitment that requires commitment to escalators such as the CPI that are not controllable. 4. To sustain a commitment to recycling, appropriate locations will be designated to continue a recycling commitment to cans, glass, paper and metals Respectfully submitted, James Reilly, Chairman, Solid Waste Advisory Committee Fred C. Bailey Susan Solomon Robert Hauser Michael Hanlon Warren Empey Robert M. Hutchinson, Jr.