The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 10/08/2001 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE PORT AN~ELE~ WA ~836~ ~nTOSER 8, ~001 A~ ~-N~)~ I. OALI TO ORDER Ii. R~L1 ~ALL Iii, APPROVAL ~f MINUTE~ FDR SEPTEMBER ] ~ 2D~] SPECIAL MEETING UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE PA WORKS! AND CABLE TV ACCESS COMMITTEE Port Angeles, Washington September 10, 2001 L Call to Order: Chairman Reed called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. 11, Roll Call: Members Present: Chairman Reed, Larry Williams, Mayor Doyle, Orville Campbell, Allen Bentley Members Absent: None StaffPresent: Michael Quinn, Craig Knutson, Yvonne Ziomkowski, Tim Smith, Becky Upton, Ken Ridout, Scott McLain, Gary Kenworthy, Doyle McGinley, Larry Dunbar, Steve Sperr, Bob Kajfasz, Cate Rinehart Others Present: Richard Li - Metropolitan Communications Consultant Ole Langaard - Carlson Group Angie Sanchez - Economic and Engineering Services Doug Harrison - Clallam PUD Bob Jensen- Capacity Provisioning/Angeles Communications Dennis Bragg Jim Haguewood Karen Rogers Penny Thornton Lois Danks IlL Approval of Minutes: Chairman Reed asked if there were any changes or additions to the agenda. Chairman Reed asked if there were any additions or corrections to the meeting minutes of August 13, 2001. None were given. Councilman V~Tilliams moved to approve the minutes. Mayor Doyle seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. IV, Discussion Items: Cable Television and Telecommunications Needs and Interests Report Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager, gave a brief background before introducing Richard Li of Metropolitan Communications Consultants. Mr. Li advised that according to the public survey the cable operator was substantially in compliance and the quality was reasonable. Adverse remarks included programming, rates and customer relations. It was explained that the cable operator had requested the City expedite the renewal of its franchise prior to completion of an upgrade of their cable television network. A discussion followed with concerns expressed regarding a fast track compromise and the possibility of hidden costs being passed on to the customer. Chairman Reed requested the opinion of PA Works! and the Cable TV Access Committee, Both committees supported the staff recommendation. Mayor Doyle moved to recommend the City Council accept the Cable Television and Telecommunications Needs and Interests Report, and authorize staff to request a formal proposal from the cable operator to reasonably meet future cable-related needs and interests as identified in the report. Allen Bentley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. B. Fiber Optic Project Status Report $ Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager, advised the City had received interest from Qwest, Northland Cable, Capacity Provisioning and the Clallam County PUD with twenty-two priority sites. Mr. Li added that the fiber design was 65% complete but a postponement until November was suggested to allow time for proposals to reach the City. A short discussion followed with staff advising another special joint meeting would be scheduled for November 13th. Allen Bentley moved to recommend that City Council delay the fiber optic pilot project schedule to allow additional time to prepare and negotiate proposals. Councilman Campbell seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. C. Electric Rate Increases Scott McLain, Deputy Director of Power Systems, explained the 46% raise in wholesale power rates included increased taxes due to higher rates, labor cost increases and capital expenditures. Angle Sanchez of Economic and Engineering Services was introduced and gave an detailed presentation of the revenue requirements and rate design. Yvonne Ziomkowski, Finance Director, reviewed information on the low income senior and low income disabled discounts. A brief discussion followed, Mayor Doyle moved to advise Council to leave the discounts as they stand. Allen Bentley seconded the motion. Craig Knutson, City Attorney advised the committee to include the finding as part of the rate presentation at the next Council meeting. Chairman Reed directed staffto do so. Councilman Campbell moved to recommend to City Council utilization of the rate stabilization fund to set rate increases to all customer classes, except Industrial Transmission, that average 19.5% , and that the Industrial Transmission Customer's rate reflect the actual wholesale power costs plus the existing charge. Councilman Williams seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. D. High Zone Reservoir and PUD lntertie Costs Gary Kenworthy, Deputy Director of Engineering, pointed out the water system high zone which also supplies the PUD is deficient in current and projected storage capacity. A new 2.5 million gallon reservoir and intertie pipeline is proposed with a cost share of 69% to the City and 31% to the PUD. The reservoir is planned to be located near Ennis Creek at the same elevation as the Mill Creek reservoir, There was a brief discussion. Councilman Campbell moved to direct staff to continue discussions with the PUD and return to the 2 UAC with a draft inter local agreement for cost sharing in property acquisitions, design, and construction of the new high zone reservoir, iutertie pipeline, and appurtenant facilities. Mayor Doyle seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. E. Pilot Testing of Water Source Filtration Options Steve Sperr, Utility Engineer reviewed the GWI status summary, progress, evaluation of filtration alternatives, and cost estimates. Pall's Septra CB, a cartridge filtration process, has been chosen to be tested for a year. A discussion followed. Councilman Campbell moved to recommend that City Council concur with CH2M Hill and the Public Works and Utilities staff's decision to pilot test the Septra CB filtration process in order to determine if it is the best municipal facility to be installed if the EIwha dams are not removed. An additional recommendation was made to allow the Public Works and Utilities Director to negotiate with the Department of Health a Pilot Testing Protocal that may or may not include testing of membrane filtration in addition to the Septra CB. Mayor Doyle seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. F. MaguaDrive Proposal, Sewer Pump Station No. 4 Doyle McGinley, Superintendent of Water/Wastewater Collection, advised that in an effort to reduce electrical consumption, maintenance and repair costs staff was investigating potential savings by convening power couplings. An energy analysis from Bonneville Power Administration is pending. Mr. McGinley indicated that a more in depth report would be given at a later date. There was a brief discussion. No action taken. Information only. G. Amendment to Purchase of Conservation Agreement Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager, disclosed that BPA had offered the City an amendment which would include a revision for record keeping and the addition ora commercial and industrial program. This program could provide commercial and industrial customers incentives for measures in addition to lighting projects. Customers seeking this incentive would prepare a project proposal to be submitted to BPA. A brief discussion followed. Allen Bentley moved to recommend City Council accept revision 1 of project 1 and the addition of project 2 under the Purchase of Conservation Agreement with the Bonneville Power Administration. Councilman Williams seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. H. Compact Fluorescent Lamp Coupon ~4greement Amendment Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager, conveyed that BPA had offered the City an expansion to the compact fluorescent agreement to include torchiem floor lamps. A $15 coupon is planned to be inserted into the November utility bills redeemable through December 31 ~t. A brief discussion followed with the note that these lamps significantly reduce fire hazard risk. Councilman Williams moved to recommend City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the amendment to the ENERGY STAR Labeled Compact Fluorescent Lamp Coupon Agreement. Allen Bentley 3 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 10, 2001 seconded, which carried unanimously. L ¢ommuniO~ Conservation Challenge/ENERGYSTAR BrandAwarene$$ Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager, explained BPA is sponsoring a program called the Community Conservation Challenge. Customers sign and return a pledge card which obligates them to save energy. Cards are entered into a contest with the chance to win an energy-efficient hybrid car. Mr. Dunbar also pointed out the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance was sponsoring an ENERGY STAR brand awareness campaign to increase consumer awareness of the savings benefitted bypurchasing qualified products. There was a short discussion. No action taken. Information only. V. Late Items: Morse Creek Update Scott McLain, Deputy Director of Power Systems, gave a brief overview which included information on the hydrolic permit, that changes in the lease have not been received, and the analysis on the sale was in progress. No action taken. Information only. VII. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held October 8, 2001 at 3:00 p.m VIII. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:4510 p.m. Dean Reed, Chairman Cate Rinehart, Administrative Assistant N:WWKS~LIGHTXCONS\CATEXsept 10meet.wpd 4 WASHINGTON, U.S.A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: October 8, 2001 TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Jeff Young, Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent RE: Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP) Backup Generator Summary: The WWTP requires a backup source of power in the event the primary electric service is disrupted. The City received three bids for a 500 kW backup generator and automatic transfer switch for the wastewater treatment plant. The lowest bid was received by Pacific Detroit Diesel-Allison for $96,160.00 plus sales tax. Recommendation: Recommend City Council accept the bid from Pacific Detroit Diesel- Allison for a 500 kW backup generator in the amount of $96,160.00 plus sales tax. Background / Analysis: In 1999, Wastewater treatment plant staff began investigating alternatives to prevent inadequately treated wastes from being released into State waters in the event of a power failure. An alternative power source is necessary to comply with Department of Ecology pernfit regulations requiring treatment plants to provide alternate power sources, generators, or retention facilities to prevent untreated releases during power failures. During the 1993 WWTP expansion, two separate distribution transformers and lines were built so the facility would have separate electrical feeds from the City's electrical system, but this would not prevent outages at the plant if electrical problems occurred on BPA lines serving the City. To solve this problem, and comply with DOE regulations, staffis recommending the installation ora backup generator and an automatic transfer switch located at the treatment plant. The 2001 budget funded this project in the amount of $120,000. The concrete pad will be constructed by Public Works staff, and the installation of the generator and transfer switch will be done through the "small works roster" upon delivery of the equipment. Installation is expected to take 12 weeks after approval by City Council. Bid Results: B,DDER BiD AMOV 'T I SPONSI' / NON-mSSPOnSIW PACIFIC DETROIT DIESEL ALLISON $96,160 YES SIMPSON POWER PRODUCTS, LTD. $97,337 NO CUMMINS NORTHWEST, INC. $109,343.86 YES City of Port Angeles Bid No. 20.21 DIESEL GENERATOR SYSTEM BID SUBMITTAL SHEET (BID SUMMARY and SIGNATURES) Washin~lton State Sales Tax at 8,2% ~, ~,~,P..,~. '~7... Delivery time after receipt of order (calendar days) Terms of payment t"~ ~---~- "~ I Will you sell additional units to the City of Port Angeles at the bid price until further notice? Yes ID No ID IWiNsell additional units to other within the State of Washington at the bid price, terms you government agencies and conditions until further notice? The City of Port Angeles accepts no responsibility for the payment of the purchase p_rice by other government agencies. Yes {~ No [~ ADDENDA ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The bidder hereby acknowledges that it has received Addenda Nos. ~- ;~ to this project manual. % The undersigned hereby accepts the terms and conditions as set forth herein. This bid submittal sheet must be signed and dated by the bidder or a representative legally authorized to bind the bidder. FULL LEGAL NAME OF BIDDER ~ ~:k~ ~ \ ~._ ~ ~ '~ ~7_ c.~ \"[ 0\~%~_ TYPE OF BUSINESS: {~ Corporation ID Partnership (general) ID Partnership (limited) (~ Sole Proprietorship ~ Limited Liability Company ADDRESS '~ 1- t,,~ ~ 'L'LP-~ ~ '5'"'~ Q._~: '%._'~ CITY/STATE/ZIP Y-'-~-- ~"~"-" ~ ~'' o~, ~T~ % PHONE ~,~,,,...% ~,'L. "-/%~,,.~ FAX ~,~% - ~,5~ - Z_~'~ \ NAME (PLEASE PlaNT) "~q) t,,.~ r.j k~ ~.4. t.._ t t,,k% ~=, ~,-A TITLE BILL OF MATERIALS SIMPSDN POWE. P,ODUCTS,TO. FOR APPROVAL 11545 K ngston St., Maple Ridge (Vancouver), B.C., Canada, V2X 0Z5 Date: Aug-01-2001 '[el:604-460-3611,Faxes;604-460-1974, To F~'ee:888-291-2011 Quote: CD00411 Website; www.simpower.com E-mail: sales @simpower,com ~ WO: Rev: 1 PROJECT: City of Port Angeles - Contract No 20.21 Customer: City of Port Anqeles CONTACT: City Clerk Public Works and Utilities Department 360-417-4724 371 E?st Fifth Street. P,O. Box 1150. PQrl; ,~paeles. Washinaton 98362 Enqineer: .CONTACT: Contractor: .CONTACT: Approval Status: SIMPOWER is an Approved Supplier Pages of specifications received: Drawings received: none Addenda received: none Quotation is: As per this Bill of Materials SIMPOWER MODEL: SP0500D:S6A3-PTAS RATING: STANDBY POWER FACTOR: 0.8 KILOWAq-]'IKVA: 500 KVV / 625 KVA D/C VOLTAGE: 24 VOLTS OVERLOAD: 0 % FUEL: DIESEL R.P,M: 1800 AMBIENT TEMPERATURE: 40 C (104 F) PHASE: THREE PHASE ELEVATION: 100 M (328 ft) A/C VOLTAGE: 277/480 FREQUENCY: 60 Hz City of Port Angeles Bid No. 20.21 DIESEL GENERATOR SYSTEM BID SUBMITTAL SHEET (BID SUMMARY and SIGNATURES) QUANTITY I DESCRIPTION I UNIT PRICE EACH TOTAL PRICE Washington State Sales Tax at 8.2% ,,~.~'~rt ~t ~ ~%t, ~ TOT~ Delivery time after receipt of order (calendar days) jD*'I %~t~(~. (-'t-~W-V feCt,_Ht~' Terms of payment N~ ~O ~ ~11 you sell additional units to the Ci~ of Pod Angeles at the bid price until f~dher notice? Yes ~No ~ ~1 you sell additional units to other government agencies within the State of Washington at the bid price, term~ J and conditions until fu~her notice? The Ci~ of Po~ Angele~ccepts no responsibili~ for the payment of the ~purchase price by other government agencies. Yes ~No ~__ ~ ADDENDA ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The oidder nereoy acKnow eages ~ it s i Addenda Nos. to this project manual The undersigned hereby accepts the terms and conditions as set fo~h herein. This bid submit~a~eet must be signed and dated by the bidder or a representative legally authorized to bind the bidder. ~ FULL LEGAL NAME OF BIDDER ?mdu< TYPE OF BUSINESS: g Corporation ~ Padnership (general) g Partnership (limited) ~ Sole Proprietorship ~ Limited Liabili~ Company Project No. 20.21 ' I~ Page 11 of 23 City of Port Angeles Bid No. 20.21 DIESEL GENERATOR SYSTEM BID SUBMITTAL SHEET (BID SUMM/M~Y and SIGNATURES) QUANTITY I DESCRIPTION I UNtT PRICE EACH I TOTALPRICE One 500 kW Genset and accessories $109~343.86 $109,343.86 Washington State Sales Tax at 8.2% 8,966.20 8,966.20 TOTAL $118,310.06 $118,310.06 Delivery time after receipt of order (calendar days) 10 0 Da y s Terms of payment Net 30 Days I Will you sell additional units to the City of Port Angeles at the bid p;'ice until further notice? Yes li~ No O I Will you sell additional units to other government agencies within the State of Washington at the bid price, terms and conditions until further notice? The City of Port Angeles accepts no responsibility for the payment of the purchase pr ce by other government agencies. Yes (~ No O ADDENDA ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The bidder hereby acknowledge~ that it has received Addenda Nos. 1 & 2 to this project manual. /' The undersigned hereby accepts the terms and conditions as set forth herein. This bid submittal sheet must be signed and dated by the bidder or a representative legally authorized to bind the bidder. FULL LEGAL NAME OF BIDDER Cummins No~thwes~ I~¢, TYPE OF BUSINESS: I~ Corporation [~ Partnership (general) O Partnership (limited) ~ Sole Proprietorship O Limited Liability Company ADDRESS 811 SW Grady Way CITY/STATE/ZIP Renton, WA 98055 PHONE 425-235-3400 FAX 425-235-8202 NAME (PLEASE PRIf'¢'~ .,l~'--.~b"t';-~-.tYLl ( TITLE Generator Sales WASHINGTON, U.S.A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: October 8, 2001 TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager SUBJECT: Compact Fluorescent Lamp Coupon Agreement Summary: Local lighting retailers have entered into an agreement with BPA in support of the Compact Fluorescent Lamp Coupon Agreement BPA has with the City. The City received information from BPA that a local lighting retailer may not be in compliance with its Agreement with the Bonneville Power Administration. Recommendation.; This is for information onl}', there is no action requested. Background/Analysis: Local lighting retailers have entered into an agreement with the Bonneville Power Administration that will enable them to redeem coupons for customer purchases of ENERGY STAR® Labeled Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL's) 13 watts or greater. It has recently come to our attention that a local lighting retailer may not have been distributing ENERGY STAR® Labeled CFL's. The subject retailer is attempting to redeem about 5,500 coupons for CFL's sold over the last few months which may not qualify under its agreement with BPA. More than half of the coupons were collected at the Clallam County Fair. At the time of preparing this memo, all BPA payments to the subject retailer were on hold. BPA has authorized payment for about 1,400 CFL's, but may not issue payment for the remaining CFL's. BPA has requested that the subject retailer provide an affidavit that states how many qualifying CFL's were distributed. Upon resolution of the outstanding issue, we understand that BPA plans to terminate its agreement with the subject retailer based on breach of contract. N:~pwKSkLIGHTXCONSkSTAFFRPTS/CON S ERVAT ION 13 DOC pORTANOEL, ES W ~ $ H I N ~ T O N, U.S.A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: October 8, 2001 To: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works & Utilities Subject: LANDFILL LONG-RANGE PLAN Summary: The City landfill will close not later than December 31, 2006. A long range plan for replacement of the landfill functions needs to be approved to provide a course of direction for the future disposal of solid waste. Recommendation: Review the draft Landfill Long-Range Plan and recommend to City Council the role the City should take for managing solid waste disposal services after closure of the landfill. Background / Analysis: The Port Angeles Landfill is scheduled to be closed not later than December 31, 2006 due to its location adjacent to the commercial airport and because the existing cells will be full. The City needs to plan for. the functions now provided by the landfill. The City Council adopted the Clallam County Solid Waste Management Plan on May 8, 2000. One of the objectives of this plan is to develop an alternative to the landfill. The City needs to determine if it desires to take a leadership role in the replacement of the landfill operations. A number of key issues need to be addressed, and decisions made prior to the City moving forward. This includes, but is not limited to: 1. Post closure land use of the landfill. 2. Revenues from utility taxes. 3. Yard waste and biosolids co-composting. 4. Transfer station location and operation. 5. Lead agency status. 6. Operation of the transfer station. 7. Recycling. A presentation will be made on staff's recommendation on the role of the City for replacement of landfill functions after closure in the summer of 2006. The recommendation from the UAC will be presented to City Council on November 6, 2001 and if approved, will be presented to the Clallam County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). N CPWKS~LIGHT~POWM~Ivl EMOS~sw long range plan.wpd Today's'Presentation * Ba~kgrotmd · Lollg-Range planning Issues -- * City's Role in · Land -Use · Implementation Sirateg~es · Schedule ~und ;2006 · RePlace Landfill with a Waste PoliCy is sue Isit in..theCi~"~ be ,to:take transition for Solid' waste 2 ' Development Plan · Planning ~tUdieS '/~" · Planning Workshops with Public Works and City staff Port Angeles as Lead Agency WhY the City? · . · Control (40%+) of the Waste Stream · Represent the Largest C°nstimency of Rate Payers Land A aiiabig¢!'Permitfing · Slgnififiant E~perience Managing · Responsible for 30 Years of Landfill Monitoring/IVlaintenanee · Control of Rate Structure and Revenues~ cover costs · Haul Distan~t'or CollectiOns Known ,:. : · · Tax Beneflt~ {Utility Tax) *. R~duces City Liability for EnVironmental Impacl~ DirectiOn Changes -- · Lan~till.baSed to 'Export System (Transf~..$i'atioio~,:i.'il ,~ · Separate City Collection System fi'om Di,posal System 4 Solid Waste Management Long Range Plan * Infrastructure CLltilities and Roads) Transfer Station Features · Enclosed: Compatible with Airport ~* Scales · Commercial and Citizen Drop Off Maint ent ~ecYcii Yard Waste/B~o-Sohfls Co-Compostmg Yard Waste/Bio-Solids Co-Compost~ng · Balanced Bio-Solids Management · .Land P~pglicati~n · co.c0mposting -,: :' · * Commence 2002 · 25% Bio-Solids/100% Yard Waste construction ~gmolJtJon Wastes City Facilityl Land Use Maps Clallam County Acceptance Maximize Proposed Acquisition Process Perform Administration foi~Export and Collection Evaluate Transfer Station Financing/Construction/Operation Solicit Proposals for Transfer StatiO Financing/Construction/Operation · "Best Value" to Rate Payers *. Consideration given t6 t2ity submitting proposal>, 9 ~, Solid Waste Management '~ Long Range PMn WASTE EXPORT IIdPLEMFNTATIOH SCHEDULE Task~lllestone 2002 2003 2004 2005 I 2006 __ Proceed ~oCity Councd Supportm,,g;~tiatiT~. , · City s'Le~dership Role * Implementation Strategy · Transition 10 11 Report Long-Range Plan for Solid Waste Management Port Angeles Landfill October 2001 Parametrix, Inc. 5700 K/tsap Way, Suite 202 Brernerton, Washington 98312 1.0 BACKGROUND The City Council has established that the Port Angeles Landfill will close in 2006. The closure is necessary to meet the regional solid waste management objectives, address regulatory concerns related to the Fairchild Airport, and shift to waste export system for solid waste disposal. The landfill closure and transition to a waste export system meets the recommendations of the Clallam County SWMP and is intended to address the solid waste needs of rate payers, regulatory and jurisdictional agencies; and private sector stakeholders. In response to the closure, the City is planning a transition to a waste export delivery system involving a solid waste transfer station at the current location of the landfill. Wastes currently processed through the Port Angeles Landfill will be redirected through transfer station facilities for long haul and disposal at regional landfills located in eastern Washington and Oregon. The transition will begin in 2002 and continue through final landfill closure in 2006. The successful transition to a waste export delivery system hinges on participation and commitment of waste streams from jurisdictions and private sector agents that control the collection and in-county hauling of municipal solid wastes and recycle materials. To achieve equitable fees and to Ievelize disposal rates across Clallam County, the transfer station will need to accommodate as much of the County's waste stream as possible. Currently, the City controls 41% of the waste stream and handles disposal for over 90% of existing in-County wastes. The City will seek commitments of intra-county waste streams and execute inter-local agreements to maximize the transfer station volume, thereby providing the most cost-effective level of service to solid waste rate payers. 2.0 PLANNED CHANGES The transition to a waste export delivery system must provide for the entire waste stream currently being received by the landfill. The landfill operations provide many alternatives for managing waste stream disposal. The new transfer station will not effectively accommodate all the waste streams and alternative methods must be developed to handle construction and demolition wastes and yard wastes. From an operations perspective, the landfill-based system involves: ,, Recycling (including curbside collection). · Collections. · Landfill Disposal. · Closure and Post-closure Fund Accrual. · Administration. Ci~ of Port Angeles i 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 October 2001 Long-Range Plan executive summao' doc The waste export system will involve the following: · Recycling (inclusive of yard ~vaste composting). Transfer Station Operations. · Long-haul and Disposal. · Debt Service. · Administration. The transition will result in several changes and impacts to the solid waste utility operating costs. A number of factors will influence the final operational cost impact including: · Acquisition Strategies. Volume of Committed Waste Stream. · Operational Models (i.e., public or private). The City will conduct further analyses during the U'ansition process to identify policy considerations and opportunities for "best value" to the rate payers. The analyses will be completed and presented to stakeholders prior to establishing inter-local agreements for waste stream commitments. A key element of the City's plan for the ~ransition is to separate the collections and disposal components of the solid waste utility. The City historically has combined landfill operations with the City,s durbside collection program, which includes MSW and recycle collections. Beginning in 2002, the City will begin to separate these two elements of the Solid Waste Utility, thereby allowing the City to control the collection system independently of the transition process to a waste export system. 3.0 IMPACTS FROM LANDFILL CLOSURE In response to the decision to transition to a waste export program, the City must evaluate ~mpacts resulting from closing the landfill. These include: · Timing. · Closure Costs. · Post-closure Land-use. · Recycling System Management. · Yard Waste/Bio-solids Composting. · CD Waste Disposal. City of Port Angeles ii 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 October 2001 Long-Range Plan erecutive summary doc 3.1 Timing The ability to maximize and extend landfill capacity will directly influence the timing of landfill closm:e and the transition process to a waste export system. The Port Angeles Landfill has approximately 500,000 cubic yards of capacity that must accommodate an anticipated 260,000 tons of waste between 2002 and 2006. It is essential the City manage landfill operations to extend the finite capacity through 2006. 3.2 Closure Costs Financial assurance for landfill closure is required under WAC 173-351. To meet the requirement, the City currently accrues funds fi'om the solid waste revenues to fund closure and 30 years of post closure maintenance. In 2002, the City will adjust the accrual rates to fully fund closure and post closure requirements by the end of 2004. 3.3 Land-use The principal criteria affecting Iand-use at the closed landfill are closure design and post-closure maintenance requirements. At closure, the City anticipates between 15 and 20 acres of developable land will be available to accommodate a variety of future uses, including a waste transfer station: The selection of a post-closure land-use ultimately needs to assess the overall development cost and return on investment to the City. Relocating solid waste facilities off the current landfill property will involve several elements that will impact both the cost and schedule of the transition process. The following table highlights the key elements and their impact on developing replacement facilities at locations other than the landfill site. Replacement Impacts for New Waste Handling Sites Action Replacement Value Duration Site Selection Up to $50,000 0 to 6 months Environmental/Siting Analysis $200,000 to $700,000 2 to 5 years Acquisition/Permitting $750,000 to $2M 1 to 3 years Infrastructure Oevelopment $750,000 to $2M 6 months to 1 year TOTALS $1.75M to $4.75M 3.5 to 7+ years Considering the cost impacts and public process requirements, the City intends to locate the transfer station at the landfill property. The City will use additional developable lands for a City park and will continue to evaluate the potential of co-locating the new water treatment plant with the new solid waste facilities. 3.4 Recycling System Management The City currently provides recycling for a variety of commodities. Under the waste export system, the City will provide new systems and facilities capable of achieving recycling goals for export system waste streams. This will accommodate approximately 7,000 tons of material annually that without new facilities would be at risk following landfill closure, City of Port Angeles iii 235-2191-008 Landfill Engtneering 2001 October 2001 Long-Range Plan executive st~mmary doc 3.5 Yard Waste/Bio-solids Co-composting The City currently manages yard waste by using it as alternative daily cover at the landfill. Bio-solids are currently disposed through beneficial land application. The City recognizes that land-application will not completely serve future bio-solids disposal requirements and that after landfill closure, an alternative yard waste management strategy will be required. Therefore, beginning in 2002, the City will commence partial yard waste composting and partial bio-solids co-composting using existing facilities. The composting program will be gradually expanded so that by landfill closure the facility is capable of processing 100 percent of all yard waste and 100 percent of all bio-sol/ds. The program will include a marketing and re-sale strategy for the finished product. 3.6 Construction/Demolition Wastes The landfill currently provides a cost-effective means for disposing of construction and demolition wastes. The waste export system will be much less cost effective for handling these wastes. Therefore the City will use new rate structures and waste acceptance policies to divert this waste stream to the private sector for processing and disposal. The City will further evaluate alternative disposal sites that would serve as a contingency to private sector disposal. The goal is to have 80% of construction and demolition waste disposal diverted to the private sector or alternative disposal systems by 2006. 4.0 REPLACEMENT FACILITIES Several replacement systems are required to accommodate landfill closure and the new waste export delivery system. These include: · Post-closure facilities. This includes infrastructure for monitoring and maintaining the closed landfill. A solid waste transfer station. · Improvements to the Co-composting facility. · New recycling facilities. The replacement facilities are estimated to cost between $3.1M and $3.8M and will be funded through a variety of sources including closure and post-closure funds, operating revenues, and either public or private financing strategies. In addition to the capital costs, the facilities will require annual operating budgets expected to range from $2.5M to $3.0M. The operating budgets will be funded principally through solid waste revenues and the post-closure fund. 5.0 IMPLEMENTING THE TRANSITION TO A WASTE EXPORT PROGRAM Implementing the transition to a waste export system will require the following: · A committedlead agency. · An approved transition plan. · Waste stream commitments. Ci~' of?orr Angeles iv 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 October 2001 Long-Range PItln executiw summary.doc · Acquisition strategies. The City is best suited to act as the lead agency for the following reasons: · The City controls the majority of the waste stream (40%+). · The City represents the largest constituency ofratepayers. ,, The City has the administrative and physical infrastructure needed to implement the program. · The City controls landfill operations and closure, which ultimately establish the transition schedule. · The City has 20+ years experience managing solid waste disposal in Clallam County. · The City will be responsible for 30 years of landfill monitor/ng and maintenance. · As lead agency, the City can control the solid waste rate structure and revenues. Essential to a successful transition is the support of Clallam County on the City as the lead agency. To establish lead agency status for the transition, the City will seek the support of Clallam County in the review and approval of this Long-Range Plan and the other key elements of the transition. Once a lead agency is identified, inter-local agreements will be prepared to commit waste streams from jurisdictions and private industry to the new transfer station. A waste export acquisition strategy will be developed that will identify the elements of the solid waste system that will be publicly operated or contracted to private industry. Based on successful programs implemented throughout the Pacific Northwest and the desire of the City for managing the Solid Waste Utility, the following acquisition alternatives will be considered: Waste Export Program Anticipated Roles and Responsibilities Service Provider Function Public Private Administration X Collect[on X Transfer To be determined Recycling To be determined Co-Composting To be determined Long-haul X Disposal X City of Port Angeles V 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 200l October 2001 6.0 SCHEDULE The schedule for implementing the waste export, system is shown in the attached schedule. In summary, it includes the following key milestones: · Long-range plan acceptance - 2nd Qtr 2002 · Inter-local agreements - 3rd Qtr 2003 · Issue RFP(s) - Ist Qtr 2004 · Receive proposals - 2nd Qtr 2004 · Award contracts- 4th Qtr 2004 · Begin design-construct 2nd Qtr 2005 · Begin waste export 2nd Qtr 2006 City of Port Angeles vi 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 October 200l Long-Range Plan executive summary doc Long-Range Plan for Solid Waste Management Prepared for City of Port Angeles Department of Public Works and Utilities 321 East Fifth Street P.O. Box 1150 Port Angeles, Washington 98362 Prepared by Parametrix, Inc. 5700 Kitsap Way, Suite 202 Bremerton, Washington 98312-2234 (360) 37%0014 www.parameaix.com October 2001 ProJect No 235-2[914)08 PURPOSE LONG-RANGE PLAN 1.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Stakeholders ............................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Timing ......................................................................................................... :~: ............ 3 2.0 PLANNED CHANGES ..................................................... ~ .............................................. :..... 4 - 2.1 The Port Angeles Landfill ......................................................................................... 4 2.2 Landfill-based Waste Slream ..................................................................................... 6 2.3 Landfill Operations .................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Waste Export System ............................................................................................... 10 2.5 Transfer Station Waste Stream ................................................................................ 12 2.6 Transfer Station Operations ................................................................................ 1.2.12 2.7 Delivery System Comparison .................................................................................. 16 3.0 IMPACTS FROM LANDFILL CLOSURE ......................................................................... 16 3.1 Landfill Closure ....................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Closure Costs ........................................................................................................... 18 3.3 Land-use .................................................................................................................. 18 3.4 Impacts to Recycling Systems ..................................................................... ::! ......... 21 3.5 Yard Waste Management ........................................................................... ,: .......... 21 3.6 CD Waste Management ............................................................................. ;: ....... 2... 22 4.0 REPLACEMENT FACILITIES ............................................................................. ii .......... !. 23 4.1 Post-closure Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 23 4.2 Transfer Station ....................................................................................................... 24 4.3 Co-composting .................................................................................................. :.:.2.24 4.4 Recycling Facilities ................................................................................................. 25 4.5 Capital Costs ............................................................................................................ 25 4.6 Operational Costs ..................................................................................................... 27 5.0 IMPLEMENTING THE TRANSITION TO A WASTE EXPORT PROGRAM ...... :::2.;...i 27 5. l Leadership ............................................................................................................... 27 5.2 Transition Plan Review and Approval ........................................................ :.:.; ........ 29 5.3 Procurement of Waste Export Services .............................................................. :.... 29 5.4 Waste Stream Commitments ................................................................................... 30 5.6 Schedule ................................................................................................................. :. 31 6.0 SUMMARY OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS ......................... : 31 City of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 i October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt doc LIST OF FIGURES 1 Area ~ap ................................................................................................................................ 5 2 Landfill-based Delivery System ............................................................................................ : 7 3 Site Features ............................................................................................................................ 8 4 Waste Export Delivery System ............................................................................................. 11 5 Transfer Station Concept Plan .............................................................................................. 13 6 Transfer Station Typical Sections ................................................................................. ::..i... 14 7 Post-closure Land-use Alternative ........................................................................................ 20 LIST OF TABLES 1. Clallam County Stakeholders Solid Waste Export Delivery System Transition .............. ;; ............ 2 2. Current Solid Waste Operations Cost ............................................................................................. 9 3. Waste Export Delivery System Costs (2001 dollars) .................................................................. 15 4. Replacement Impacts for New Waste Handling Sites .................................................................. 19 5. Replacement Facility Costs .......................................................................................................... 26 6. Estimate of Post-closure Operation Costs ..................................................................................... 27 7. Waste Export Program Possible Roles and Responsibilities ..................................................... :. 29 APPENDICES A Technical Memorandum on Landfill Closure Prepared by: Parametrix, Inc. B Technical Memorandum on Landfill Post-closure Prepared by: Parametrix, Inc. B2 Technical Memorandum on Post-closure Land-use Prepared by: Parametrix, Inc. C Technical Memorandum on Bio-solids Co-composting Prepared by: Price-Moon Enterprises D Technical Memorandum on Recycling Prepared by: The City of Port Angeles E Technical Memorandum on Transfer Station Prepared by: EnviroMech, Inc. F Technical Memorandum on Waste Export Procurement Prepared by: Clinton Stanovsky G Preliminary Cost Comparison Between Landfill and Waste Export Systems Cio~ of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 ii October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range plan Rpt doc The City of Port Angeles will close the Port Angeles Landfill in 2006, and establish new facilities to replace the solid waste handling and disposal functions the landfill currently performs. The decision to close the landfill is consistent with the recommendations of the Clallam County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) and is the consensus of the regional Solid Waste Advisory Committee. In response to the SWMP recommendations, the Port Angeles City Council formally committed to the City to close the landfill and participate in the transition to a waste export delivery system for solid waste management. This Long-Range Plan (Plan) is the City's initial step in defining the closure process and the impacts that will result from the closure. This Plan presents key issues and planning decisions the City has made to prepare for the landfill closure and the resulting changes to the City's Solid Waste Utility. The ultimate goal of the City is to develop a waste management strategy that provides the rate-payers and users of the solid waste system with equitable disposal rates and compliant facilities that can meet solid waste disposal needs for 20 years following the landfill closure. This Plan is organized to inform City staff, Clallam County residents and intra-County jurisdictions of the existing conditions and describe the changes that will occur as a result of the closure. The first portion of this Plan presents key planning issues; discusses the existing conditions and the expected changes relative to each planning issue; and describes the planning decisions the City has made to address key elements of the closure. Based on these decisions, the Plan discusses implementation activities and defines additional planning decisions. Specific technical analyses performed during the development of this Plan, which help to support the planning decisions, are referenced and presented as appendices. These technical analyses include: · Appendix A: Technical Memorandum on Landfill Closure prepared by Parametrix Inc: · Appendix B: Technicm Memorandum on Landfill Post-closure prepared by Parametrix Inc. · Appendix B2: Technical Memorandum on Post-closure Land-use prepared by Parametrix Inc. · Appendix C: Technical Memorandum on Bio-solids Co-composting prepared by Price,Moon Enterprises. · Appendix D: Technical Memorandum on Recycling prepared by the City of Port Angeles. · Appendix E: Technical Memorandum on Transfer Station prepared by EnviroMech, InC. * Appendix F: Technical Memorandum on Waste Export Procurement prepared by Clint Stanovsky. · Appendix G: Preliminary Cost Comparison between Landfill and Waste Export Systems. The reader is directed to these analyses for specific information regarding the planning issues and technical information about waste delivery systems. Ctty of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 i October 2001 l~ong-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc 1.0 BACKGROUND Planning Issue: What solid waste delivery system will the City employ following landfill closure? Changes to the solid waste industry, regulatory and regional planning concerns, and environmental liabilities have resulted in the transition to large regional arid climate landfills providing for the majority of waste disposal in the Pacific Northwest. Local waste streams are collected and processed at solid waste transfer stations, where wastes are loaded in containers, compacted, and transported via truck, barge, or rail for final disposal. Many local governments in the Pacific Northwest now transport their non- recycled solid waste beyond their jurisdictional boundaries, for disposal in large regional landfillsl The principal factors driving a shift to waste export during the last I0 years have been: 1) the uncertainty, expense and local opposition associated with the development of new solid waste facilities in populous areas of the region; and, 2) the dry climate and geologic advantages of sites available east of the Cascade Mountains. Economies of scale, lower land costs, and lower operating costs have made the total cost of transportation and disposal in eastern Washington and Oregon competitive with the cost of disposal in new landfills west of the Cascades. This approach is currently the preferred method for rural and small City waste handling, and the majority of County and municipal agencies are using or are planning the transition to transfer station based waste export systems. The reduction in long-term liability and the long-term reduction in development and operational costs generally balance against the increased cost of transport. Planning Decision: The City will employ a waste export system following landfill closure. Planning Issue: Is a transition to a waste export system necessary? The impetus for transitioning to a waste export delivery system is found in the SWMP (Green Solutions 2000). The SWMP was prepared by Clallam County under their jurisdictional responsibility for planning solid waste activities (Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-351). Entities and jurisdictions in the County with control over the collection and disposal of solid wastes. The SWMP recommends developing a waste export system to replace the current landfill system operated by the City of Port Angeles. The City Council accepted these recommendations and has formally committed to closing the Port Angeles Landfill. The replacement system will include a waste handling facility that can receive, containerize and transport in-County solid waste to a regional landfill in eastern Washington or Oregon. This approach is currently the preferred method for rural and small city waste handling, and the majority of county and municipal agencies in Washington State are using, or are planning to transition to waste export systems. The waste export approach provides reduced environmental concerns and liability associated with arid conditions, which balance against the increased cost of long-range transport. Another factor influencing the transition concerns as the neighboring airport. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has requested that the City of Port Angeles Landfill cease landfill operations. The landfill is operating within 10,000 feet of an active jet runway, which is in conflict with FAA requirements for wildlife and bird hazard management. Since 1998, the City has been participating with the airport operators, the FAA, and the United States Department of Agriculture to implement a Wildlife Civy of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 ] October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc Mitigation Plan. Provided the Mitigation Plan continues to be successfully implemented, FAA is acceptant of landfill operations through the planned closure in 2006. Lastly, the current landfill will, at the latest, reach capacity between the 2nd and 4th Quarter of 2006: The City's analyses conducted to date clearly demonstrate that establishing new landfill-based systems in Clallam County will be very difficult and add significant cost to the rate payers. Information presented in Appendix B2 shows that the environmental review process, the public perception and potential opPosition to new landfill based systems, and the regulatory requirements for siting and landfill development make the waste export system the preferred alternative for replacing the City's landfill. The City also recognizes that a new landfill-based system is not consistent with the SWMP and the overall goal of providing equitable and cost-effective solid waste services to City residents and other rate payers. Planning Decision: The City will transition to a waste export delivery system for solid waste and permanently close landfill operations. 1.1 Stakeholders Planning Issue: Who is affected t4v the transition and who will be involved in the tra~Sition planning process? The City is preparing for the transition to a waste export delivery system that will include developing a waste transfer station, a long-haul contract for waste export, and disposal agreements with a regional landfill. The City intends to plan this transition and engage other affected jurisdictions and stakeholders ~vithin the County to effectively implement the change. Entities to be involved or directly affected by this transition and the decisions presented in this Plan include: · Residents of Clallam County that rely on the Port Angeles Landfill for disposing of solid wastes. · Agencies that will permit, regulate, and oversee the new waste export facilities. · Jurisdictions that currently utilize the Port Angeles Landfill for solid waste disposal. · Private industry that is involved in the collection, handling, and/or disposal of in-County waste streams. Table 1 identifies the entities affected by this transition. Table 1. Clallam County Stakeholders Solid Waste Export Delivery System Transition Rate Payers Regulatory Jurisdictions Industry Clallam County Environmental Health City of Port Angeles Waste Connections Washington Department of Ecology Clallam County Waste Management Olympic Air Pollution Control Agency City of Sequim West Waste City o/Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engl'neerlng 200l 2 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt doc Table 1. Clallam County Stakeholders Solid Waste Export Delivery System Transition Rate Payers Regulatory Jurisdictions Industry United States Department of Agriculture City of Forks Shotwell Industries Federal Aviation Administration Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe LTJ Recycling Lower EIwha Tribe Gary's Disposal Makah Tribe Hermanson Bros. Quileute Tribe Olympic National Park It is essential that, in addition to the City, jurisdictions and industry participate to effect the transition to a waste export system. The efficiency and ultimate cost of the replacement program will hinge on maximizing the volume of waste handled by the export system and the commitment of industry to be a partner in managing key portions of the waste stream. Without full participation, individual jurisdictions will incur greater costs of service that will eventually be passed to the rate payer. To facilitate participation, the City will engage the stakeholders and seek commitments to parmering through the transition process. The City wilt seek partners and inform stakeholders through the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). This group has representation from most of the stakeholders and is expected to communicate the issues, decisions, and timeframes presented in the Plan to interested parties in the County. Planning Decision: The City will inform and seek input from C/a/lam Couniy Stakeholders in the transition to a waste export system through the SWAC. 1.2 Timing Planning Issue: When will the transition occur and how long will it take? The timeline associated with the planning effort is driven by the need to replace the landfill by the middle of 2006. The process described in this Long-Range Plan intends to engage stakeholders in 2002 and develop a consensus on elements of the Plan before beginning the transition. The transition activities will begin in 2003 with the negotiation of inter-local agreements and the development of procurement and site development strategies. Most work related to procurement, negotiation, and system design will occur in 2004 with the waste export system being constructed in 2005 and 2006. Planning Decision: The City of Port Angeles will begin the transition process in 2002 with the expectation of completing the transition by the middle of 2006. City of Pon Angeles 235 -2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 3 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc 2.0 PLANNED CHANGES There are several key differences between the landfill-based system and the proposed waste export system. To understand the planning issues the City faces, it is important to recognize the key featUres and differences between the current and proposed solid waste delivery systems. This section discusses the aspects of each system and is intended to provide the reader with a basis of understanding to evaluate planning issues and decisions presented later in this Plan. The changes to the current solid waste delivery system will involve replacing the existing landfill with facilities that can receive, process, and package waste streams for truck transport to either a regiOnal Solid waste landfill or to a multi-modal center for transfer to a rail system. The key consideration in transitioning to a waste export delivery system is the replacement of the existing landfill and developing a new system that can accommodate all waste streams currently being handled by the landfill-based system. 2,1 The Port Angeles Landfill The existing permitted facility is approximately 56 acres on three parcels located at the western City limits just north of Fairchild Airport (Figure 1). Of this, approximately 25 acres are solid waste disposal cells; 15 acres are undeveloped and used for materials storage; and 12 acres house administrative, maintenance, and materials handling areas. The remainder is roads and buffers. The landfill currently has the following primary facilities (as shown on Figure 3): · An active waste disposal cell covering approximately 11 acres with a current capacity between 500,000 and 550,000 cubic yards. · Closed landfill cells covering approximately 14 acres. · Approximately 15 acres of outdoor storage for green waste and cover soil. · Leachate control facilities including aeration and settling ponds with a capacity of approXimately I. 1M gallons. · Administrative buildings. · Equipment maintenance facilities. · Scales and access roads. · Stormwater control facilities (one quantity/quality control and two quality control ponds). · Public drop-box facilities for municipal solid waste (MSW). · Recycle area. City of Port Angeles 235-2191 008 Landfill Engineering 2001 4 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc Parametrlx. Inc. ANGELES POINT EDIZ -tOOK PORT ANGELES HARBOR POR- ANSELES PORT ~ ANGELES TO H~RR'OA.E RIDGE LANDFILL Figure 1 Port Angeles Landfill Area Map · Household hazardous waste collection facilities · Co-composting facilities. · Gas collection and flare system. · Yard waste and materials storage areas. In summary, there are approximately 25 acres of active or closed waste cells, and approximately 15 acres of graded land on the south end of the site. In addition to the solid waste facilities, the City owng ~fCp~ that is used by local law enforcement agencies as a firing range. In September 2001 the City purchased approximately 10 acres of residentially zoned property near the northwest comer of the landfill t~fi~ fib% provides direct access to Dry Creek and shoreline monitoring wells. An industrial water line transects the property from east to west approximately 60 feet below grade and an easement for City fight-of-way (80 feet) runs along most of the eastern boundary of the landfill property. 2.2 Landfill-based Waste Stream In 2002, the landfill is expected to receive between 48,000 and 50,000 tons of MSW and approximately 4,800 tons of recycle materials. Figure 2 depicts the current landfill-based waste system. From w~§te stream records for the past 10 years, as compiled from landfill records and the SWMP, the City exPepts the total tonnage to increase at 1.7 percent to 2 percent per year through landfill closure. These projections indicate the landfill will receive upwards of almost 260,000 tons of municipal solid waste between now and the end of 2006. : Most waste received at the landfill is currently placed in the active landfill cell (Cell 3). This ~tudes principally MSW and construction and demolition (CD) wastes. These materials are comp~te~ ~d covered with soil or alternative cover material (tarps or shredded yard wastes). Recycle materials fire separated by self-haulers and accumulated in the recycling area. Routinely, contractors collect the ~cy~le materials and either transport them off-site or process them on-site for use in landfill operatiofis Yard wastes and special wastes are separated, and stockpiled for use in landfill operations. For the mo~ ~rt, shredded yard wastes and special wastes are used as alternative daily cover within the landfiit,:, i; ~is avoids the cost of processing these waste streams, conserves airspace for the landfill and reduce~ the ~eed for purchasing materials to cover waste. 2.3 Landfill Operations The landfill receives approximately 91 percent of MSW disposed in Clallam County. As shown in ~igUre 2, this includes commercial and residential self-haul and public and private collection agreem~tg ~d specifically includes the following: · MSW from the City of Port Angeles, City of Sequim, the Elwah and S'Klallam Tribes, the Clallam Bay Correctional Facility, portions of the Olympic National Park, and the eastern portion of unincorporated Clallam County. · CD wastes from commercial and residential self-haul. City of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 6 October 200l Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc Yard wastes from commercial and residential self-haul, and curbside collection programs · Recyclable materials including white goods, metal, cans, bottles, cardboard, and paper.. · Household hazardous wastes. · Special wastes such as petroleum-contaminated soils, bulky wastes, and asbestos. Operating costs for the solid waste utility were provided by the City based on a solid waste cost of service analysis for the period of 1998 through 2000. This information does not necessarily r~res~t current operating costs, but does provide a basis of comparison for possible future waste expor~ ~y~tem operating models. The anticipated solid waste operating costs currently incurred by the City for l~fitifill operations are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Current Solid Waste Operations Cost Collections $667,000 17% Landfill Operations $1,600,000 41% Recycling (Curbside) $560,000 14% Closure $610,000 15% Post-Closure $392,000 10% Admin. $120,000 3% TOTAL 3,949,000 100% The City historically has combined landfill operations with the City's curbside collection progra~ whigh includes MSW and recycle collections. Beginning in 2002, the City will begin to separate these two elements of the Solid Waste Utility, removing the collection system from the solid waste disposal s~stem. This will allow the City to control the collection system independently of the transition process andto continue with publicly provided residential curbside collection services regardless of th~ ~h~te export/disposal operating model. Planning Decision: The City will separate collections from the disposal system in order to cbn~rol collections independent of the waste export transition process. Landfill operation costs include the following: · Manpower. · Fuel. · Landfill gas treatment. · Administration. · Permitting. Cio/of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 9 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc · Engineering. · Equipment maintenance and depreciation. · Leachate discharges. · Environmental monitoring · Capital improvements · Consumable materials (i.e., soil, pumps, safety gear). The City also contributes solid waste revenues to fully fund a compliant landfill closure and 30 years of post-closure monitoring and maintenance of the landfill property. These revenues are accumulated in trust funds required by the Minimal Functional Standards for Solid Waste Facilities (WAC 173-35 l). The City collects revenues to fund solid waste operations from a series of revenue programs and utility taxes. The revenue programs include tipping fees at the landfill, residential billings, and contracts with private disposal companies. The City's current "tipping fee" is $76.80 per ton for self-haul MSW and recycle materials (exclusive of yard wastes) received at the landfill. Disposal contracts with Waste Connections (dba Olympic Disposal and Murrey Disposal) and the City of Sequim provide guaranteed rates for the waste streams collected and disposed by these organizations. The City currently does riot charge fees for disposing yard waste at the landfill. 2.4 Waste Export System The waste export system will be developed around a waste transfer station. Clallam County waste streams will be collected and transported to the transfer station where they will be compacted, toaded into containers and long-hauled via truck to disposal facilities outside Clallam County. A diagram of the waste export system is shown in Figure 4. This will be a steel frame building designed to handle waste streams for the 20-year planning period from mid to late 2006 through 2027. Assuming an equivalent waste stream to the existing landfill-based system, the transfer station will need to accommodate up to 75,000 tons of waste annually, this estimate accounts for all waste streams at the current recycling and diversion rates. Per the SWMP, these programs are planned to achieve 40 percent of the waste stream by 2020; if achieved, it will decrease the design capacity to between 55,000 and 60,000 tons per year. The transfer station will require a minimum of five to seven acres of land and have the following infrastructure: · A t~vo-level pre-engineered metal building (nominally 11,000 to i2,000 square feet with waste tipping on upper level and a waste compactor in a tunnel on lower level. · Employee facilities. · Scales and a scale house. · Access roads to accommodate 80,000 GVW truck traffic. City of Port Angeles 23 5~2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 10 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc · Equipment storage and maintenance. · Security and lighting. · Stormwater control facilities. · Recycle area. · Household hazardous waste collection facilities. · Co-composting facilities. · Yard waste and materials storage areas. A conceptual configuration for a 50,000 ton per year transfer station is shown in Figures 5 and 6: 2.5 Transfer Station Waste Stream As mentioned above, Port Angeles and Clallam County are expected to generate up to 75,000 tons of waste for disposal or recycling by 2027. The transfer station will be effective principally for the handling and export of MSW. It will be much less effective for CD wastes because of the limited volume of CD wastes in the current waste stream and the high cost of disposal for these wastes. Yard wastes are similarly not optimal for processing through a waste transfer station. They require prep~gcessing (shredding) to achieve compaction goals and the cost per ton for processing through the transfe~tion is considered excessive. Based on these considerations, alternative handling and disposal oPfi~hs are recommended for yard wastes and CD wastes. 2.6 Transfer Station Operations Transfer station operations will be sensitive to several planning and implementation criteria inclu~g: · Volume of the waste stream. · Private or pubic operating model. · Financing strategies. · Facility location. · Design conditions. The City will commit its waste stream (approximately 40 percent of the County total), to the new waste export system; however, commitments from other jurisdictions and industry will be required to quantify the planning and implementation criteria. For the purpose of comparison, this Plan presents operatirns information based on a City-financed, constructed and operated facility that receives the 90 percent of the County's waste stream. This operating model is intended solely to provide an initial expectafirn of operating requirements. The actual operating model will be developed later, as discussed in Section 5.0. City of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Englneerlng 2001 l 2 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc Because the City intends to separate the collection system from the disposal system, cost elements of the transfer station operations will include: · The capital investment to finance, design, construct, and permit the new facility ~d site improvements. The current estimate is $3.08M, which includes approximately $500i000 in contingencies (refer to Appendix E). · The capital investment in new equipment, which will include: Articulated wheel loader with rubber tires and bucket Skid-steer multi-purpose tractor (i.e., "Bobcat") Inter-modal (rail, road, barge) shipping containers Chassis for containers y d tractor or yard goat to position container-on-chassis at compactor · Transfer Station Operations that are expected to include: Manpower Equipment maintenance, depreciation, fuel Administration Permitting Site maintenance and security · Long-haul and disposaI of wastes. A review of recently negotiated contracts suggests the long- haul and disposal costs will range from $42 to $47 per ton. An anticipated cost of service for the waste export system described above is shown in Table 3; A detailed description of the design criteria, operational requirements, and preliminary estimates of cos~ fOr the transfer station are provided in Appendix E. Table 3. Waste Export Delivery System Costs (2001 dollars) Element Cost Percent Transfer Station ©ps. $288,500 9% Debt Service $343,800 10% Recycling (inclusive of yard waste) $257,800 8% Long-haul Disposal $2,350,000 70% Admin $120,000 4% CiO: of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 ] 5 October 200l Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc Table 3. Waste Export Delivery System Costs (2001 dollars) Element Cost Percent TOTAL $3,359,900 100% Assumes the following: Collections are not included City financed and operated transfer station Recycling includes yard waste co-composting Debt Service is a 5% interest municipal bond over 30 years with annual coupon payment of 5% Long-haul/disposal for 50,000 tons per year at $47 per ton Values are in 2001 dollars 2.7 Delivery System Comparison The differences in operational requirements are most notably the landfill-based waste disposat ~th compaction and soil cover. Under the waste export system these activities will be replaced vei~ the containerized long-haul of wastes to a regional multi-modal facility or regional landfill. The difference in the operational cost will greatly vary based on the structure of the long-haul contract and the selected disposal facility. With the exception of CD wastes and yard wastes, waste stream handling will be similar between the current landfill operation and future transfer station. Without the landfill to provide cost avoidance for CD and yard wastes, alternative handling and disposal methods are required Another significant difference between the delivery systems is the accrual of reserve funds to e~pita!ize the closure and post-closure maintenance of the landfill, and the amortization of capital cos~ fog the construction of the transfer station, new equipment purchases, and potential property acquisition: Fo~ the transfer station there will be no reserve fund; however, the capital improvement costs will n~ed to be recovered, either through amortization of public financing or a private Contractor bid. Also the 19ng-h~ul and disposal of waste streams will need to be recovered through adjustments to "tipping fees." The procurement methods and contracting strategy for the transfer station will have a great d~a! of influence on the transfer station operational costs and revenue production for the solid waste ufiii~i; Cost impacts under a privately financed and operated facility will likely vary from a publicly financed, City operated facility. 3.0 IMPACTS FROM LANDFILL CLOSURE There are several impacts on the current solid waste system as a result of closing the landfill. ~e Ci¢'S transition plan will account for these impacts which include: Landfill Closure. · Closure Costs. · Land-use. City of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 ] 6 October 200l Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc · Recycling System Management. · Yard Waste/Bio-solids Management. · CD Waste Management. The following sections discuss the planning issues and related decisions to address these impacts: 3.1 Landfill Closure Planning Issue: How does landfill elosure influence the transition process? Closure requirements for municipal solid waste landfills are established in Chapter 173-351 WAC, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills which specifies: · Engineenng controls for the closure system. · A BO-year post-closure maintenance program. · Financial assurances for closure and post-closure activities. Three criteria influence the timing of a municipal solid waste landfill closure: · Airspace, defined as the volume of permitted landfill that can receive waste. - Tonnage, as determined by total scale weight. · Effective Density, measured as the ratio of tonnage received to airspace consumed. For the Port Angeles Landfill, available airspace as of July 2001 is approximately 500,000 cubic yards. This is a finite volume that must accommodate all wastes through closure. Therefore, the transifi°n t0 a waste export system must be completed before capacity is reached. Based on waste stream p~0jg~tions (260,000 tons through closure) and the available airspace (500,000 cubic yards), the City must ~0mPact wastes at a rate of 0.52 tons per cubic yard of airspace to meet the mid-2006 closure goal. Analysis shows that changes in tonnage most influence the ability to achieve the established closure schedule. The second biggest influence is the ability of City crews to meet operational g0alS for compactive effort. Therefore, monitoring, segregating, and regulating waste streams will be ~dti~I ~0 extending the landfill operational life to meet the established closure date of 2006. Refer to AP~~: for a detailed analysis of landfill closure issues. : Planning Decision: The City will continue to monitor airspace at the landfill, and make adjustments to waste stream acceptance and waste handling, as needed, to achieve a mid- 2006 closure date. Ciiy of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engmeering 2001 / 7 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc 3.2 Closure Costs Planning Issue: How will the CiO?finance the closure and post-closure of the landfill? Financial assurance tbr closure and post-closure care are established through reserve funds that are set aside solely to fund closure construction, and up to 30 years of post-closure maintenance and monitoring. Payments to the reserve fund are required by WAC 173-351 to be equal at a minimum to the current closure estimate divided by the number of years of remaining active operations. The City will fund the final landfill closure from the reserve fund. The cost of final closure is currently estimated at $3.7M (year 2000 dollars). Escalating closure costs for inflation (assumed at 3.5 percent per year) results in an estimate of $4.5M (year 2007 dollars). The reserve fund for closure is at $!..07M, effective December 31, 2000. Annual payments of roughly $610,000 are scheduled for years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Based on this schedule of contributions and 6 percent annual interest, the closure fund is projected to accumulate $4.01M by the completion of closure activities. The City will need to adjust the accrual rates to fully fund closure before completing the transition to a waste export system. Post-closure activities will focus principally on the continued monitoring of gas, leachate, and groundwater; and the maintenance of the closed landfill infrastructure. The City currently sets aside roughly $392,000 annually to fund the post-closure reserve account. Based on the current post-closure cost estimate, existing reserve fund balances and programmed contributions, the post-closure reserve fund should adequately fund post-closure care from 2007 to 2034, two years short of the 30-year minimum period. The City will adjust the accrual rates to fully fund post-closure monitoring and maintenance before completing the transition to a waste export system. Refer to Appendices A and B for more specific information regarding closure and post-closure issues. Planning Decision: The City will adjust the accrual rates for the closure and post-closure funds beginning in 2002 to ensure adequate funds are available by 2005 to finance closure and post-closure activities. 3.3 Land-use Planning Issue: What can the City do with the landfill property following closure? To properly consider post-closure land-use the City will need to consider several limiting factors that balance constmctability (both fi.om a design and cost perspective), post-closure operations and maintenance, public and environmental health, available infrastructure, and state and local regulatory requirements. The principal criteria affecting land-use are closure design and post-closure maintenance requirements. Relatlvely steep slopes, the expectation of several feet of subsidence annually, and the integrity of the engineered cover system ~vill limit redevelopment within the footprint of the existing waste cells. Development outside the waste cells will be subject to engineering controls to account for possible landflI1 gas accumulations. At closure, the City anticipates between 15 and 20 acres of constructable land will be available to accommodate a variety of commercial/light industrial (including a sohd waste transfer station) or open space land-uses. Active recreational facilities such as a golf course do not appear compatible based on Cio~ of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 200l /8 October 200! Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc available area and post-closure requirements. Residential and heavy industrial uses are not considered compatible with the existing infrastructure and post-closure requirements. The selection of a post-closure land-use ultimately needs to assess the overall development e0St and return on investment to the City. Using the landfill for a solid waste transfer station eliminates S~ml requirements for: · Property acquisition. · Siting analyses. · Environmental permitting · Zoning or land-use decisions. · New infrastructure development. Should the City or County look to siting the replacement facilities elsewhere from the landfill ~6~, there are several cost and schedule factors they should consider. The overall impact to post-cloS~e i~d- use is related to cost and public process. Ire cost for acquisition, siting, permitting processes;and infrastructure improvements for the new transfer station are estimated to range from $1.75M to $4.75M and require upwards of three years to complete. Costs for replacement facilities do not accommodate post-closure monitoring requirements, which could be integrated with transfer station operations if they were located at the landfill. Replacement values and the timeframe required to establish new facilities within the County or City are summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Replacement Impacts for New Waste Handling Sites Action Replacement Value Duration Site Selection Up to $50,000 0 to 6 months Environmental/Siting Analysis $200,000 to $700,000 2to 5 years Acquisition/Permitting $750,000 to $2M 1 to 3 years Infrastructure Development $750,000 to $2M 6 months to 1 year TOTALS $1,75M to $4.75M 3.5 to 7+ years Considering the cost impacts and public process requirements to site the transfer station off th~ l~dfill property, this Plan recommends the transfer station be located on the south end of the landfilllP~0p~. The City will use additional developable areas as open space, parklands and shoreline access. The City will continue to look at the landfill as one of the alternative locations for the water treatment replhcem~nt facility. A conceptual plan for the landfill property following landfill closure is shown in Figure 7, A more in-depth discussion of post-closure land-use issues are provided in Appendix B2. Planning Decision: The City will use the closed landfill for a solid waste transfer station. Available lands remaining following transfer station construction will be as parklands and industrial uses. City of Port ,tngeles 235-2191-008 Lamlfill Engineering 2001 19 October 200l Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc 3.4 Impacts to Recycling Systems Planning Issue: Can the City achieve recycling goals with replacement facilities at the landfill? The landfill provides drop-off facilities for self-haul customers to recycle a variety of co~6dities including: · Tin, Aluminum, Glass · Mixed Paper · Cardboard · Yard Waste · Tires ,, Metal · Oil · Antifreeze · Batteries · Freon The City of Port Angeles also operates a curbside collection program serving City residential customers. With the exception of yard wastes, curbside collection currently does not process through the landfill. The collection contractor transports directly to commercial recycling facilities for processing. The existing landfill site plays an important role in recycling efforts in Clallam County. Currently the Site receives and processes over 52,000 tons of waste annually with over 5,000 tons directly diverted and/or recycled. Closure of the site in 2006, without regard to replacement recycling facilities, will p[~? these 5,000 tons at risk. Export of these materials to a regional landfill for disposal is expected t0~dd~an additional $500,000 of cost to the waste export program. The goal of post-closure recycling is t6 ~¢hi~ve goals presented in the SWMP. A further discussion of recycling system impacts is provided in ApPendix Planning Decision: The City will provide new systems or facilities capable of recycling th~ current waste stream received at the landfill. These will include fitcilities to ~hdle all current recycle waste streams being received by the landfill.. 3.5 Yard Waste I~lanagement Planning Issue: How will the City handle yard waste recycling after closure? The City has a yard waste composting facility located at the landfill. The facility is d~i)~ie~;t° accommodate yard waste and bio-solids produced by the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant The City currently disposes of bio-solids through a land application program and yard wastes are dsacl as alternative daily cover for landfill operations. The City recognizes that following landfill clos~e, alternative methods for yard waste processing will be needed. Additionally, the City recognizes that land application, as the sole disposal alternative for bio-solids, is an unbalanced management strategy. Loss of permits, or changes to land-use or land ownership could greatly impact the City's ability to dispose of bio-solids. City of Port d ngeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 2 l October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc To address these concerns, the City will begin composting a portion of the bio-solids with yard wastes received through self-haul and curbside collection programs. This will allow the City to simultaneously take advantage of the cost effectiveness of land application and provide for yard waste comPosting following landfill closure. In the event that land application is disrupted, it would then be a comparatively simple matter to redirect a greater portion or all of the bio-sol/ds to the composting operation. Bio-solids composting will, as currently envisioned, take place in the existing compost facility at the landfill. Composting will include yard wastes as the primary feedstock to be blended with the bio-solids. The excess yard debris (i.e., that which is over and above what is needed for bio-solids composting) will be composted without further amendment. As a result, yard waste composting will become a significant component of the City's organic waste management strategy following landfill closure and will represent a significant contribution to achieving SWMP recycling goals. To accomplish co-composting goals, the City will need to make improvements to the existing composting facility and re-initiate compost operations. To properly fund this program, the City will need to establish a "tipping fee" for yard wastes processed through the waste delivery system. This will include both self-haul and curbside collection programs. The City may also need to supplement revenues with a surcharge on the MSW tipping fee. Part of the co-composting costs may be offset by resale of the finished compost product. A marketing strategy and sales plan will be needed to establish the resale system. There are no constraints on the timing of implementing co-composting activities. Therefore, the City will implement partial co-composting in 2002 and phase-in a full scale program that includes operations and the marketing, and resale of a finished Class A product by 2006. Planning Decision: The City will commence partial yard waste composting and partial bio-solids co- composting at the existing landfill facility beginning in 2002. The composting program will be gradually expanded to include yard waste fees and 100 percent processing and resale of co-compost by 2006. 3.6 CD Waste Management Planning Issue: How will the City handle CD wastes following landfill closure? The landfill currently provides for disposal of CD wastes at the current tipping fee. During the transition to a waste export system, the City will initiate programs to move CD waste disposal to the private sector. The City has evaluated the potential of establishing a CD facility at the existing landfill. However, the in- County CD waste stream is not sufficient to justify constructing, permitting, and operating a CD facility at the landfill site. By implementing new rate structures and waste acceptance policies, the City will, during the transition period, incentivize commercial and self-haulers to dispose of CD wastes through privately operated disposal sites in the County. This may include Shotwell Industries, LTJ Recycling, Hermanson Bros., or as yet unidentified business enterprises. The City will work with local industry to identify waste stream volumes and the anticipated transition period. City of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 22 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt doc As a contingency to industry involvement, the City will further evaluate CD waste diversion strategies. An alternative plan will be in place prior to committing waste streams to the transfer station. Current alternatives include: · Export under a separate export contract. · City haul to regional facility (i.e., Jefferson County). · Developing publicly-operated processing systems. · Adding CD wastes to MSW waste stream. The City anticipates that a percentage of in-County CD wastes will still be received and processed through the waste export system. The transfer station design will need to accommodate an estimated 1,000 tons of CD wastes per year. Planning Decision: The City will move CD waste disposal to the private sector with a goal of 80 percent being processed by private industry by 2006. Alternative approaches will be developed in 2002 as contingency to the private sector. 4.0 REPLACEMENT FACILITIES To accomplish the transition from the landfill-based delivery system to a waste export system, the City will need to develop a series of replacement facilities to accommodate the changes in waste s~eam management, such as: · Post-closure facilities for the maintenm~ce and monitoring of closed waste cells. · A transfer station to handle and process waste for export to a regional disposal site. · Enhancements to the Co-composting facility. · New recycle material handling and processing facilities. The City currently provides no facilities for Moderate Risk Wastes (MRW) which includes paint wastes, spent solvents and oils, and other potentially hazardous wastes not related to household activities. This component of the waste stream is currently managed by Clallam County through annual collection days. The City intends to continue to rely on Clallam County for processing and disposal of MRW. 4.1 Post-closure Infrastructure The City is obligated by rule (WAC 173-351) to provide up to 30 years of post-closure monitoring and maintenance for the closed landfiI1 cells. The facilities to support post-closure include: · Stormwater Control Facilities: This will include water quality and water quantity treatment ponds designed to meet Department of Ecology (Ecology) Standards. The City intends to create these facilities by modifying the two existing leachate pretreatment ponds and the existing City of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 23 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc sedimentation pond to meet stormwater treatment requirements for post-closure activities. The location of these ponds are shown in Figures 3 and 7. · Access Roads: The City will improve existing roads at the site to provide for truck traffic and maintenance for the 30-year post-closure period. This will include widening, pavingl and improving drainage. · Utility Improvements: The City will improve and extend on-site utility services to accommodate post-closure infrastructure. Water, sanitary sewer, and electrical services will be extended to the new administration building with additional capacity provided for further post- closure land-use development. The post-closure infrastructure is expected to cost approximately $274,000 (2001 dollars). A cost estimate is provided in Appendix A. The City will finance the improvements using closure and post- closure funds. The improvements will be scheduled coincident with landfill closure and transfer station development. 4.2 Transfer Station The City will locate a waste transfer station on the south end of the landfill property, configured as shown ~n Figure 7. The transfer station will provide for waste disposal for commercial and residential self- haulers and public and private collection companies. The facility will be configured so vehicles arrive from the east through the existing landfill entrance. Eventually, the entrance will shift to the south end of the site via the Milwaukee Drive Corridor, which is identified in the City's transportation plan as a commercial thoroughfare. As this thoroughfare is developed, new access and on-site circulation patterns will be developed. Vehicles will have the opportunity of dropping off recycle materials before proceeding to the scales that have been relocated from the landfill entrance. Vehicles will follow on-site road systems to the transfer building, then back in through the open east side of the building to unload their waste. Alternatively, commercial vehicles can enter the building through rollup doors located on the west side of the building. Driving (rather than backing into the building) will expedite the unloading of packer trucks, an important method of increasing station throughput: A~er unloading, vehicles exit towards the north, transit across the scales, and exit the property. The extensive length of roadway provides more than adequate queuing between the scale house and transfer building to queue vehicles waiting during peak traffic times. The transfer station employee area will serve as the operations center for both the transfer station and landfill post-closure activities. The actual station layout and circulation patterns will be developed during the facility design process. 4.3 Co-composting The City will utilize the existing co-composting facility located at the landfill to process yard waste and a portion of the City's bio-solids generated at the WWTP. The existing facility was constructed in 1994 and then expanded in 1996 as part of a second phase of construction. The facility was constructed under a Centennial Grant through Ecology, and was used for approximately two years as a co-composting facility. The building is now used solely for bio-solids storage. City of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 24 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc The compost facility consists of a free-span, steel truss/metal skin building that measures 350-feet long by 70-feet wide, with an additional 30-feet wide area of concrete in front to serve as an all weather. §urfa~:: The building is enclosed on three sides and includes an area for receiving bio-solids plus 5Zba~ fo~ aerated static pile (ASP) composting. The existing blowers and pipe manifold are valved to allow for both positive and negative a~ation. biofilter is located on the north side of the building to treat odor issues from a negative pressure OPeration. Leachate from within the entire building area is directed to a 5,000 gallon underground tank locfited at the northwest comer of the building. The current condition of the building is fair to good, with a conslde[able amount of general cleanup in and around the aeration corridor, and- repairs and modifications to ~e building being necessary prior to startup. At the present time, the existing compost facility has sufficient capacity to process all of the bi6 Soiids generated by the City, plus most of the yard waste currently received at the Port Angeles Landfill. With an increase in yard waste recovery rates, the facility ~vill likely reach maximum capacity during four to six months of the year, between the year 2001, and the time of landfill closure in 2006. Use of th~existing compost building for co-composting bio-solids and green waste materials will necessitate the c°nstmefion of a new bio-solids storage building. This building will be located adjacent to the existing facility to accommodate efficient handling of materials. It will have a concrete floor with leachate collecfiofi and improved ventilation to address potential odor issues. It wilI need to be approximately 70-feet by 40:feet with a minimum vertical clearance of 16 feet to accommodate equipment access and bio-solids handling. 4.4 Recycling Facilities The City will provide a controlled drop-off area for recycle materials adjacent to the new transfer Stafi°n. The drop-off area will be configured similar to the existing public drop-off area, and will pro,de f0i:the collection and temporary storage of white goods, metals, and household hazardous wastes. Biffs ~11 be provided for cardboard, glass, aluminum cans, tin cans, and tires. : : The facility will be located to allow public drop-off prior to crossing the scales for disposal at th~ u~n~fer station. It will be constructed of asphalt and will be approximately 200-feet by 200-feet in area. ~ge will be controlled and collected in catch basins, and routed through an oil-water separatov;~ to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. 4.5 Capital Costs Landfill replacement facilities will include: Post-closure infrastructure. · Transfer station. Co-composting facility, including bio-solids storage. · Recycling facilities. · Park facilities. City of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 25 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt, doc The capital costs for constructing these facilities are shown in Table 5. Table 5. Replacement Facility Costs Post-closure Infrastructure Mob and Demolition $40,000 Utilities $75,000 Road Improvements $61,540 Stormwater improvements $50,000 Tax, Contingency, Engineering $47,120 Subtotal $273,660 Transfer Station Mob and Site Preparation $119,950 Transfer Station Building $413,655 Site Paving and Utilities $301,720 Compactor, Scales, Containers $881,000 Park Facilities $100,000 Amenities $23,500 Tax, Contingency, Engineering $455,835 Subtotal $2,295,660 Co-composting Facility Facility Repairs and Equipment $170 000 Bio-solids Storage Facility $105,000 Tax, Contingency, Engineering $63,800 Subtotal $338,800 Recycling Facilities Mob/Site Prep $5,200 Pavement (200 x 200) $168,200 Drainage controls $8,300 Tax, Contingency, Engineering $47,605 Subtotal $229,305 Subtotal Capital Costs $3,'137,425 Construction Management (10 Yo) $313,743 Bond and Legal (2%) $62,748 Interest During Construction (6% for six months) $94,123 TOTAL CAPITAL COST FOR REPLACEMENT FACILITIES $3,608,039 City of Port Angeles 235-219l 008 Landfill Engineering 2001 26 October 200l Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc 4.6 Operational Costs Operating the replacement facilities will involve labor, maintenance, and material costs. Prei~, operations estimates (2001 dollars), assuming City operation are provided in Table 6. Table 6. Estimate of Post-closure Operation Costs Post-closure Maintenance $142,125 Transfer Station Labor $225,940 Equipment $37,500 Permitting/Compliance/Engineering $25,000 Waste Expor~ $2,350,000 Debt Service (30-year municipal bond at 5%) $343,600 SUBTOTAL $2,982,040 Co-composting $77,310 Recycling $180,490 TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST $3,381,965 5.0 IMPLEMENTING THE TRANSITION TO A WASTE EXPORT PROGRAM Implementing the transition to a waste export delivery system will require: · Strong leadership from a lead agency. · The development and approval of a transition plan. · Commitments from entities that control the collection and direct the disposal ofin-Coun~ w~{~s. · Well thought strategies for procuring, constructing, and operating the waste export system. This section discusses the planning level decisions and initial commitments by the City of Port Ange!~to implement the transition. 5.1 Leadership : Planning Issue: Who will lead the transition process? The transition to a waste export system will require a public agency to lead and administer the process. The City is well suited to assume the leadership role for the following reasons: · The City controls the major/ty of the waste stream (40%+). Ciiy of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 2 7 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt doc · The City represents the largest constituency of rate payers. · The City has the administrative and physical infrastructure needed to implement the program: · The City controls landfill operations and closure, which ultimately establish the tr~nsifion schedule. · The City has 20+ years experience managing solid waste disposal in Clallam County. · The City will be responsible for 30 years of landfill monitoring and maintenance. · As lead agency, the City can control the solid waste rate structure and revenues. Alternatively, another lead agency could assume the leadership role. The advantage to the City of anbther lead agency includes: · Clallam County is the responsible agency for County-wide solid waste management and as such, should be considered as lead agency. · The capital investment would be deferred from the City to the other lead agency. · The City would reduce its liability for environmental impacts and contract management. · The City could greatly reduce its requirements to administer solid waste programs. Based on these conditions, the City feels they are in the best position to manage the Planfilng, procurement and development of the transition process, and ultimately the management of opera~-ti0hS and waste export systems. The City can facilitate a smoother transition than other public jurisdicti6~Si Wh~h would need to establish the administrative processes, roles, and management systems to lead the tr~siti0n rocess Therefore, the Ciw intends to seek the support of Clallam County and lead the transition Pr°~ss to meet the recommendations of the Clallam County SWMP. The City will seek comm~tmentff ff~m jurisdictions that control waste streams within the County with the expectation that the parti¢iP~on of other jurisdictional agencies will represent the most equitable approach to controlling disposal: ~ffg~siihat will be passed on to the rate payers of Clallam County. The transition effort will be led through the City of Port Angeles Department of Public Works ~d Utilities, specifically through the Solid Waste Utility. To date, the City has commissit~ned :the development of this Plan and is in the process of implementing some of the replacemefii faciii~ requirements. As commitments for participation are identified, the transition responsibilities,:may ~ spread across a broader range of organizations, both within and outside of the City. Planning Decision: The City of Port Angeles will seek the support of Clallam County and will lead the administrative, planning, and project management elements of the transition to a solid waste delivery system. City of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 28 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt.doc 5.2 Transition Plan Review and Approval Planning Issue: Who will review and approve the transition plan? The City of Port Angeles Utility Advisory Committee and City Council will be the responsible agents for monitoring, reviewing, and approving the development and implementation of the transition pi~. Aft~ elements are approved, the City will submit the Plan to in-County stakeholders through SWAC! SWAC represents waste handling and disposal interests throughout the County, and will be the venue the Ci~ will use to introduce transition elements and seek input on the planning decisions made dung th~ transition process. Ultimately, this Plan and future transition elements will be submitted to the Clallam County Co~ssi~fi. The County has the responsibility for solid waste planning for all in-County activities and does represent a large portion of the waste stream and rate payers expected to utilize the waste export delivery system. Planning Decision: The City of Port Angeles Council will review and approve plan elements that will be forwarded to the Clallam County Commission for concurrence. 5.3 Procurement of Waste Export Services Planning lssue: How will the City acquire, operate and manage the waste export delivery system ? Throughout Washington State, cities and counties have implemented a variety of approaCheS to management of waste handling services under a waste export scenario. These include publi~ ag~cy owner/operator, and private industry operations and management scenarios. C~t~es and counties across the state have developed a variety of approaches to the privatization of waste handling serviCeS These arrangements reflect the location, condition and operations of each jurisdiction's existing s0!id w~te facilities and programs. Table 7 illustrates possible public and private roles for the collection afid:~x~brt of municipal solid waste. Tabl~ 7. I/Vast~ Export Program Possible Rol~s and R,sponsibilitios Service Provider Function Public Private Administration X Collection X X Transfer X X Recycling X X Co-composting X X Long-haul X Disposal X City of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 29 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc Because the City owns and intends to place the transfer station on the landfill property, they intend to evaluate the potential for continuing to manage solid waste operations. The City currently performs collection, recycling and disposal activities under the landfill-based delivery system. For the waste export system, the City will seek private contractors to provide for the long-haul and disposal elements. The City will continue to provide collection services to City residents and will determine the public roles for the remaining elements based on policy considerations and the results of a open procurement process. Specific policy considerations include: Retaining City jobs at the landfill. · Retaining ownership of the transfer station site, structures, and/or equipment. · Preservation of the Solid Waste Utility beyond the current export and long-haul contracts. To assist in evaluating policy considerations and "best value" for solid waste services, the City will structure a public acquisition to allow either the City or the Contractor to provide specific transfer statibn services. The City will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposals received, and determine the "best value" for collections and transfer station operations. The City may, in order to achieve policy goals, select to submit a competitive bid to be included in the evaluation process. From this evaluation, the City will select the services they intend to provide, and develop planning and transition decisions to put the public operations in place. Planning Decision: The City will privatize the long-haul and disposal elements of the waste export system will retain collection services and the City will, during the planning and procurement process, evaluate current and future policy considerations and "best value" for the collections, transfer station design, construction, and operations. 5.4 Waste Stream Commitments Planning Issue: How will the City establish waste stream commitments for the waste export delivery system ? The information presented in this Plan, including waste export system design, operations, and cost elements, is based on a waste throughput equivalent to the current waste stream received at the Port Angeles Landfill. This is an important consideration in that the City will need to establish minimum expectations of waste for the long-haul and disposal contractor. To the extent allowed by law, the service agreement with a long-haul/disposal contractor commits to the disposal of some or all acceptable wastes generated within the contracting jurisdiction. Should volumes be significantly less than what is currently being received, the City will need to reassess design, operation, and cost criteria for the new waste export delivery system. At present, the other cities and the unincorporated areas of Clallam County have not committed to join with the City a waste export program. Even though the City's waste (which comprises more than 40 percent of all waste disposed in the County) is sufficient to support a cost-effective export program, without the participation from other jurisdictions it will not be possible to meeting the stated goals of this City of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 30 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt, doc Plan. Therefore, the City intends to maximize the participation of ali waste producing jurisdictions in the County in the transition to a waste export program. To give other jurisdictions the ophon of joining in a waste export program, the City will seek pr~ii~ inter-local agreements with other jurisdictions that would be implemented before devei~i~g a procurement strategy for waste export. Such agreements will set the terms and conditi°h§ 0f ~h~; procurement without finally cormmtting others to the export program until firm proposals arein hand Clear prior inter-local agreements about the structure of the waste export program are eXpected to streamline final adoption of the program by the other participants. In the event other jurisdictions do not wish to participate, the City's procurement and transfer stafiofi will be developed to accommodate solely the City's waste stream. Planning Decision: The City will seek inter-local agreements with other jurisdictions to commit waste tonnage to the new waste export system. 5.6 Schedule The schedule for implementing the waste export system is shown below. 6.0 SUMMARY OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS The following are the planning decisions set forth in this long-range plan: City of Port Angeles 235-2191-008 Landfill Engineering 2001 31 October 2001 Long-range Plan Long Range Plan Rpt. doc Technical Memorandum on Landfill Closure Prepared by: Parametrix, Inc. APPEND!~ B Technical Memorandum on Landfill Post-closure Propared blt: Parametri×, inc. APPENDIX B2 Technical Memorandum on Post-closure L~i~se Prepared by: Paramet~ixl I"~i Technical Memorandum on Bio-solids Co-composting Prepared by: Price-Moon EnterpriSes APPENdiX D Technical Memorandum on Recycling Prepared by: The City of Port Angeles APPEND~ E Technical Memorandum on Transfer Station Prepared by: EnviroMech, !~c. Technical Memorandum on Waste Export Procurem ~e~t Prepared by: Clinton StanovSky APPENDI~X G Preliminary Cost Comparison Between Landfill and Waste Export SYStems