HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-18-1999 - Attachment 10Agenda #3
Memorandum
To: Landfill Owners Group
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director
Subject: Presentation on Materials Recovery Facility
Date: February 11, 1999
� i� 1�+ ?ocY -re ' f 10
�i✓ err �,�0 �% �•:> �
Attached is a presentation from RRSI, our consultant on the Materials Recovery Facility
Development project. The presentation includes four parts:
1. An analysis of three different scenarios of tonnage for a MRF beginning in
2002 -03, low (21,000 tons per year), medium 30,000 tons and high 38,000 tons,
that might be achieved on our own or with different degrees of outside
participation. It demonstrates the economies of scale that are possible. RRSI is
reasonably certain that we should not build the smallest facility that would handle
only short term, Orange County recycling tonnage.
2. Comparison of current recycling system costs with costs that incorporate
commingled collections and a materials recovery facility to collect. This is an
element requested by the Owners Group. The analysis by RRSI shows a lower
overall annual system cost with the materials recovery facility due to the increased
collection efficiencies of commingled collection.
3. Evaluation of existing solid waste facility at Eubanks Road for Materials
Recovery Facility and future transfer station site. RRSI has conducted an
engineering site analysis and preliminary site layout in cooperation with solid
waste management department staff and determined that the Eubanks Road site is
suitable for these solid waste management facilities.
4. Comparison of pros and cons of a variety of public and private ownership and
operation options for a materials recovery facility. At the direction of the Owners
Group, RRSI has prepared analyses of the pros and cons of the full spectrum of
options. They recommend a blended option of public land and building
ownership with private operation. Equipment ownership could be public or
private depending upon the precise details of the deal.
With the presentation of this material, we believe the Owners Group could make the
preliminary decisions that would enable us to prepare a draft of the "Key Issues" report.
The MRF development schedule shows one additional plenary meeting that would
answer additional questions and enable finalizing the Key Issues report for presentation to
the individual boards for approval.
Orange Regional
Material Recovery Facility
LOG Working Session Presentation
Introduction
Development efforts for a "materials recovery facility" have been initiated by communities in and around
Orange County, North Carolina in order to achieve higher levels of landfill diversion.
As part of this MRF procurement project, the Town of Chapel Hill contracted with a consulting team,
Resource Recycling Systems, Inc. (RRSI). Two informational meetings have been held to date. Additional
work is needed to further explore certain key issues and decisions that will need to be made by local
elected officials. At the last meeting requests were made by elected officials for more information about
facility size (including a "do it yourself" scenario), a cost comparison of the current system versus one with
a new MRF, and pros /cons of various public/private partnership models for MRF development.
The following material responds to these informational requests and is intended to focus the attention of
decision makers on four key areas in the development of the MRF Project with a goal of making sure that
elected officials develop an understanding and are able to formulate some conclusions with regard to
these key issues and decisions necessary for MRF development.
These four key issues covered in this material are:
• Size of MRF to target for development;
• Comparison of current versus future system costs if MRF is developed;
• MRF site and its important role in the development process; and
• The public/private partnership model to use as basis for MRF Development.
This LOG Working Session can be an important part of the process of local elected officials moving
towards preliminary conclusions regarding a number of key issues in the development of an Orange
Regional MRF.
All of this effort is intended to result in a high quality RFP that would be released to MRF developers.
There are some aspects of these decisions that can be left unresolved in an RFP and then addressed in
the process of analyzing vendor proposals. For example, vendors could be asked to provide an alternate
bid for processing Orange community recyclables at an existing recycling facility. This could then be
compared to the base bids that would also be supplied. Many preliminary decisions still have to be made
prior to release of an RFP in order to get quality proposals from vendors.
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials
II: MRF Size
The capabilities of a MRF to process recyclable materials have a significant cost impact on collection
system.
• A simple MRF will require the recyclables to be sorted at curb and delivered in multi compartment
vehicles which results in higher unit collection costs but has the lowest MRF processing cost.
• A two stream MRF (i.e. commingled fibers and commingled containers) enables the recyclables to
be collected in two compartment vehicle and reduces collection cost. This method can increase
MRF processing costs but also increases recovery.
• A complex MRF enables the recyclables to be processed in a fully commingled form (ie: "single
stream" but not a "dirty MRF") reducing collection costs but increases MRF costs and reducing
recovery.
Communities in Orange County are currently serviced by area recycling processors that are similar to the
first type of MRF. This MRF Project is considering development of the second type of MRF in order to
increase recovery and lower collection costs.
This second type of MRF can be designed for small volumes of material at affordable costs for recycling
processing or can be designed to handle larger volumes of material at even lower costs.
Depending on which communities and private companies want to use an Orange Regional MRF there is
the potential for development of a MRF that handles lower quantities of material each year (10,000 tons)
or higher quantities (20,000, 30,000 or even more tons per year). A MRF that handles large quantities
costs more to construct but has much lower unit costs per ton.
Following are three potential scenario's for MRF size. Each scenario identifies the possible sources of
recyclable material as well as estimates of the quantity of recyclable material from those sources in the
current year, in 5 years and in 10 years. Any of these scenario's are possible depending on the interest of
the participants. After describing the three scenarios the project costs per ton for MRF processing is
shown, illustrating how the larger facilities can make recycling processing very affordable and a key tool in
reaching higher levels of landfill diversion.
THE 71ER 1 TONNAGE MRF"
This scenario is achievable with recycling tonnage that is controlled by Orange community recycling
programs. It is the "do it yourself" option.
Orange Community Recycling (OCR) collects recyclables from Orange County drop -off sites and
commercial glass. Through contracts with OCR, Waste Industries collects curbside from residences and
small businesses in the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough along with rural curbside recycling
and multi - family recycling. Waste Industries collected from 13,500 curbside units in FY97 -98. 7,700 rural
curbside stops are also serviced along with 190 multifamily stops.
Programs being considered for implementation by Orange Community Recycling would significantly
increase these volumes during the next ten years, from current levels of 8,510 to as high as 21,650 tons
per year in year 10 (see Table 1). The projected MRF tonnage under this scenario includes newspaper,
magazines, white paper, mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, aluminum cans, steel cans, plastic bottles
and glass jars.
A summary of this tonnage under the Tier 1 Tonnage MRF scenario follows. As this chart shows, there is
a risk of designing a MRF that is too small given the expected growth in ORC tonnage, yet that tonnage is
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials
not available in year 1 which means that the facility "uld be underutilized in early years resulting in more
costly processing unless other regional users for the MRF can be found.
TABLE 1
THE "TIER 1 TONNAGE MRF"
RECYCLED TONNAGE SOURCE
1997/98
2002/03
YEAR 10
- Urban Single Family Curbside
3,141
5,623
5,765
- Rural Single Family Curbside
539
4,130
4,234
- Drop -off System
2,346
4,441
4,553
- Multi- Family
942
2,836
2,908
- Commercial
1,542
4,070
4,190
TOTALS
8,510
21,100
21,650
THE "TIER 2 TONNAGE MRF"
The "Tier 2 Tonnage MRF" models the scenario where Tier 1 Tonnage controlled by Orange County is
then supplemented with selected sources of additional recyclable materials from potential regional
partners as described below.
A summary of this tonnage under the Tier 2 Tonnage MRF scenario follows, showing that this approach
begins to assemble a larger first year "critical mass" of recyclables so that early years of the facility
operation are cost effective. In year 5 and year 10 the facility needs to be designed to handle 30,000
ton/year, rather than the Tier 1 20,000 tons per year.
TABLE 2
THE "TIER 2 TONNAGE MRF"
RECYCLED TONNAGE SOURCE
CURRENT
YEAR 5*
YEAR 10**
- Total Tier 1 Tonnage
8,510
21,100
21,650
- University of North Carolina
2,368
2,960
3,700
- UNC Hospitals
322
403
503
- Orange County Schools
87
109
136
- CH/CCS Schools
85
106
132
- Chatham County Recycling
2,526
3,158
3,947
- Alamance County Recycling
1,087
1,359
1,698
TOTALS
14,985
29,195
31,766
Notes:
25% increase used for all year 5 programs except Tier 1 Tonnage
25 %increase used for all year 5 programs except Tier 1 Tonnage
THE "TIER 3 TONNAGE MRF"
There are other potential users that are interested in the facility. If these potential customers end up
bringing their recyclables to this facility then the design throughput of the facility would have to be even
larger. This "Tier 3 Tonnage MRF" scenario combines Tier 2 Tonnage with selected sources of additional
recyclable materials as described below.
A summary of this tonnage under the Tier 3 Tonnage MRF scenario follows:
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 3
THE "TIER 3 TONNAGE MRF"
RECYCLED TONNAGE SOURCE
CURRENT
YEAR 5'
YEAR 10"
- Total Tier 2 Tonnage
14,985
29,195
31,766
- City of Burlington
1,211
1,513
1,891
- Duke University
768
960
1,200
- Other Users "'
5,000
6,250
7,813
TOTALS
21,964
37,918
42,670
Notes:
25% increase used for all year 5 programs except Tier 2 Tonnage
' 25% increase used for all year 5 programs except Tier 2 Tonnage
Potential "Other Users' include private haulers, Town of Cary,or others.
KEY ISSUES IN FACILITY SIZING
A range of expected MRF throughput tonnage must be anticipated at this stage in the process. During
early years as little as 10,000 to 20,000 tons per year may be all that is available as collection programs
are reconfigured and ramped up to deliver materials to the MRF and as some communities make final
decisions to participate in the project. Over the long term, however, the MRF need to be prepared to
handle higher volumes cost effectively. Depending on the number of participating communities and
private companies and the scope of their collection programs the MRF may need to handle tonnage
during the next ten to twenty years that range from 32,000 tons per year to 42,000 tons per year. These
demands need to be anticipated early in the MRF procurement process.
It is important to assemble a "critical mass" of material for early years of operation that is in the range of
15,000 tons per year. This insures the viability of your project in the eyes of potential MRF developers. It
is also important to be able to communicate the expected growth to potential bidders. Finally, its important
to understand that some bidders may come to the table with their own tonnage in hand and be able to
justify even larger facilities by combining your tonnage with theirs. The City of Burlington tonnage, for
example, is currently serviced by FCR's Greensboro MRF. FCR could bid on your project and bring that
tonnage with them under their own separate agreements with Burlington and their recycling contractor.
Similarly, Durham and Durham County are currently serviced by Tidewater Fibers. Tidewater could bid on
your project and bring those 12,000 to 15,000 tons, requiring an even larger facility. So there is a need for
some flexibility as part of the RFP process, but also recognize that a'critical mass" of tonnage must be
assembled for the MRF that you want developed for your own needs.
These requirements for flexibility and the demands for "scaling up' to respond to increased tonnage mean
that the MRF needs to have room to grow (sufficient building square footage) either as part of the original
construction or permitted but added later. The MRF also needs to be equipped with processing systems
that are cost effective in the early years and expandable as throughput tonnage increases over time.
Preliminary technical and cost data has been evaluated for three phases of development of the MRF. The
first being a small MRF that would be difficult to ever expand to the high volume scenarios. The second is
sized for the Tier 2 volumes and represents a "partial" build out of a larger MRF. The third is sized for the
large tonnage shown in the Tier 3 scenario.
To measure these economy of scale issues, the MRF Operating Cost Chart on the following page shows
costs per ton for small, medium and large MRFs designed to handle the Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 tonnage
scenarios. The unit costs are net after market revenues are accounted for
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 4
These figures should not be confused with the "fees" that might be charged by a service provider which
will be higher since those need to cover profit and risk. The chart shows a local "merchant MRF tip fee" at
$45 /tan leveled across the range of tonnage. It is clear that significant savings are possible in MRF
processing through development of a MRF where tip fees would be closer to actual costs especially if the
medium or large volume facilities can be built. Again, these are preliminary cost opinions and subject to
further refinement.
This analysis shows that processing can be secured at affordable costs even with the lower Tier 1
volumes. However, significant benefits are gained when total volume increases with the Tier 2 and Tier 3
facilities . The Tier 2 "medium volume" MRF would provide a very cost effective system for the Orange
regional communities, and is expandable at relatively low costs as long as smart choices are made in the
beginning with regards to the site selected for the MRF, the building size that is invested in from the start,
the accommodations that are made for growth and the continued and growing interest of project
participants ready to supply larger quantities of materials to the MRF.
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 5
MRF Operating Cost Comparison
$140.00
$120.00
$100.00
r
$80.00
o
� $60.00
$40.00 1
$20.00 \ •
$(20.00)
8,000 18,000 28,000 38,000 48,000
Tons per year
-Small (12,000) — - -Medium (20,000) - - - Large (32,000) — --NC Merchant TlpFee Landfill Tipfee
0
41
Comoarison of Current To Future Svstem Costs If MRF is Developed
The purpose of the MRF project is to provide for diversion of larger quantities of recyclables through cost
effective collection and process. The assumption is that collection costs can be reduced and that these
can offset what are expected to be higher processing costs. The following analysis documents that this is
the case, using current Orange Community Recycling system costs as the baseline and then comparing
those to projected system costs with a new MRF and a two stream commingled collection system for
single family and multi - family recycling.
ORANGE COMMUNITY RECYCLING COLLECTION SYSTEM
The existing collection system involves the collection of source separated recyclables using multi -
compartment vehicles, the collection schedule in the rural areas is every two weeks and in the urban area
is weekly. The curbside collection program is supported by a number of drop of depots located in the
County.
The current costs of the collection program from households are $3.05 per month ($37 per year) in the
urban area and $1.65 per month ($20 per year) in the rural area. The rural costs appear to be low and
may not be sustainable over the long term. The rural capture rate is significantly lower than in the urban
area and if this were to increase due to increased type of materials and associated increased quantities
the costs could escalate. We believe that a base line cost of $2 per hh/month would be a good base cost
for the existing rural cost.
In the rural areas at this time we would estimate that there would be only a 10% reduction in collection
costs due to two stream collection in the rural area. In the urban area we would estimate that there could
be a 25% reduction in collection cost.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
The effect of these savings is illustrated in the following analysis shown in the Charts on the next two
pages. These charts compare, on a total cost and a cost per ton basis, the existing programs and
diversion levels as well as the projected year 2002/2003 diversion levels. The analysis shows costs for
the current source separation based collection and processing system as well as costs for the "New MRF'
two stream commingled scenario.
Existing costs have been based on 7,690 households in the rural area and 13,733 in the urban area with
a annual collection cost of $3.05 in the urban area and $2 per household in the rural area.
As more materials are added to the materials collected the costs of collection will show minimal change
with-the two stream approach to collection. However adding materials to the existing collection system will
only increase the collection costs (primarily in the urban area) due to the increased time required to sort at
the curb.
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials
Orange Regional MRF Full System Cost ($)
®Collection ■Processing 13 Avoided Tlpfee GTotal Cost
$2,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
,,■■■
Us
Raw
c
::'
.
U
o
$1,000,000.00
o
WKSM ...
MM
~
$500,000.00
an
: IM
..
::E
Una
..
$-
$(500,000.00)
Current Costs/ Current Costs/ New MRF/ Current New MRF/ 2002 -03
Current Volumes 2002 -03 Volumes Volumes
Volumes
Scenario
Page 8 -
Orange Regional Full System Cost ($ /ton)
■ Collectlon ■Processing 13 Avoided Tipfee C: Total Cost
$200.00 /ton
$150.00 /ton
c
$100.00 /ton
m
Q
U
$50.00 /ton
$0.00 /ton
- $50.90 /ton
Current Costs/ Current Costs/ New MRF/ Current New MRF/ 2002 -03
Current Volumes 2002 -03 Volumes Volumes
Volumes
Scenario
- Page 9-
The costs of multi - family collections will be reduced with the use of two stream collections, however there
may be a need to change the type of container to realize the full extent of the savings. Our experience is
that 4 or 6 yd capacity bins with top loading collection is the lowest cost method of serving the multi - family
units. The existing costs of collecting multi residential sites is $97 per month. Total costs for the 165 sites
amounts to $192,060. With 1,494 tons of recyclables (as projected for 1998/99) per year this would result
in a collection cost of $128 per ton. We consider that a realistic savings with a two stream commingled
system would be 25 %. With two stream collection the costs of servicing the 165 sites would be reduced
by $48,015 per year. If the number of sites were expanded to 528 sites (one at every dumpster) then a
two stream commingled system would result in cost savings of over $150,000.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall we believe that a reasonable estimate of the savings in the recyclable collection service as a result
of changing to a two stream system would amount to approximately $270,000 per year collecting current
tonnage. With the proposed increased level of service the savings in the recycling collection services
could reach $400,000 per year or more (in year five) and also increase the recovery rate of the program.
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 10
IV: The MRF Site
Eubanks Road Landfill site has been considered as a possible site for the MRF. RRSI was asked to
examine this site and determine how a MRF could be integrated into other relevant solid waste and
recycling activities at that site and determine the best relationship between these selected activities.
A detailed review of the Eubanks Road Landfill site has been completed in order to determine its suitability
as a location for the proposed Orange Community MRF. A potential site layout has been conceptualized
in order to determine whether all targeted functions could successfully be combined at the site. This
analysis and site plan is presented below.
CURRENT SITE ACTIVITIES
A brief summary of current activities at the site is presented in the following table.
Activity Name
Volumes
Comments
Solid waste landfilling
5,000 tons per month
Estimated 7 year life span remaining
Recyclable drop -off collection
54 tons per month
Can be relocated nearby
Construction and demolition waste
2,000 tons per month
Estimated 18 months life span left.
landfilling
Construction and demolition waste
50 tons per month
Recovery limited by constraints of staff
recovery
and equipment
Recycling Processing and
2,500 tons per year
Activities are on adjoining land to the
Equipment Maintenance
west but traffic through site
Tire recovery
9,100 tons per year
Currently operated on southern edge of
main site.
White goods recovery
400 tons per year
Currently operated on,southem edge of
main site.
Household Hazardous Waste
140 customers per event
Operated on an isolated portion of the
Collection
south side landfill site
Mulch management
5,000 tons per year
Very little grass is accepted, mostly brush
and leaves.
POTENTIAL SITE PLAN
The conceptual site configuration is presented in the accompanying drawing. It features the proposed
material recovery facility as the "anchor" operation with other major functions including a transfer station,
construction and demolition waste landfill, construction and demolition waste recovery area, mulch, white
goods, and tire collection, and equipment maintenance and storage. The main facility entrance is
relocated to the eastern end of the site with an entry road run parallel to Eubanks Road to facilitate
queuing before the scale.
At full development the site will incorporate a "ring road" that allows all traffic to circulate the site in a
counter clockwise direction accessing operational centers on the inside of the site directly from the ring
road. An extra site entrance will be maintained closer to the current entrance in order to facilitate safe and
efficient passenger vehicle access to the proposed MRF and its associated administrative offices and
educational centers.
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 11
i
1
_PROPOSED — =R�
r--
i
1
1
I PRQPOSU EXPANDE2
1 24 ACM
!1
i
I
1
I
I
AND TRAN5R ST
ZANGE,C"OUNT)i' N.
ac soar
J �
i
� x
77RE
W
z PR22PQSED EXPANDED C a D LANDFILL '
22.3 ^Cars
J I
I
Li
o ;
�1
C1
Pi
Ld
(A 11
011
❑I cY
of l
1 umm MFA a
1
i�
it
� / f
— 1ow 2ND'
I ,
1 ♦�
1 �
a
� OR1R �A
i
F
ool
Jew�
h. t,wp o�.
Mn pbar. w 4.,06
(7itj ..6 -13.1
'9341 ..6-sm NO
rr r< R•rI . 1 en • b
MRF' SI
POTENTIAL SITE ACTIVITIES
The following chart clarifies some of the constraints that were considered in allocating space in the
conceptual site plan.
Activity Name
Constraints
MRF
Requires safe access by curbside, semi - trailer, & passenger vehicles
Transfer Station
Requires frequent safe access by curbside and semi - trailer vehicles
Solid waste landfilling
Will continue to operate. Current fill has 7 year life expectancy.
Recyclable drop -off
Should be located in an area that can be isolated from balance of site.
C &D waste landfilling
Will continue to operate in its current location for 18 more months.
C &D waste recovery
Current activities are constrained. Possibly sited on adjoining land.
Equipment Storage Yard
Current equipment maintenance facility is newly constructed.
Tire recovery
Needs to be located to share supervision with other functions.
White goods recovery
Needs to be located to share supervision with other functions.
Mulch management
Needs to be located to share supervision with other functions.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS - NOISE
Potential impacts of noise on the surrounding communities have been raised as concerns by residents of
the neighborhoods surrounding the Eubanks Road site. RRSI has obtained noise sampling data and
noise survey analysis work from a large MRF in the suburban Detroit area. This data shows that the
loudest activities within the plant are in and around the automated glass sorting area. Specifically, at 100 -
feet from the plant open door, the noise readings show a noise exposure level of 74.6 dBA (for reference
sake the noise level at the glass sorting station itself is 94.1 dBA). Using standard sound pressure level
decay calculations the following chart documents expected impacts of noise levels anticipated at the
Eubanks Road site based on experience with similar MRFs.
Sound Decay Over Distance - Eubanks Road Site
Distance
dBA
Typical Noise Levels
Proximity to Neighbors
100 -feet
74.6 dBA
Busy Street Noise
No neighbors
200 -feet
68.6 dBA
Normal Street Noise
No neighbors
400 -feet
62.6 dBA
Normal Conversation
No neighbors, passing vehicles
800 -feet
.6 dBA
Office Noise Level
One neighbor, passing vehicles
1,600 -feet
6 dBA
f5 .
Residential Neighborhood
Handful of neighbors to northeast
and southwest
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF THE EUBANKS ROAD SITE
The Eubanks Road Site is the only specific site that is currently being reviewed for these activities. Some
of the following points could apply to other sites as well. However, many are unique to the Eubanks Road
Site. There are both advantages and disadvantages to its use for the purposes described above and in
the site plan. These include:
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 13
• Maintains a counterclockwise traffic pattern
• Can be expanded from MRF operations to
Transfer Operations quite easily
• Maintains all drop -off activities off of the ring
road
• Isolates County convenience center away from
non - public access activities
• Features MRF and associated offices and
education center as focal point of solid waste
activities
• Maintains continuity of tire, white goods, and
mulch activities on same site with one operator
• Create opportunity to expand construction and
demolition recovery activities if required
• Already owned and properly zoned by Town of
Chapel Hill
• Already prepared for this type of activity with
existing haul roads, scales, etc.
• Aids integration of Solid Waste /Recycling
activities
• Significant buffer from residential areas
• Environmental controls and monitoring in place
• Consolidates equipment parking and
maintenance activities
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Constrains transfer station activities to back of
site.
• Moves county convenience center from existing
location
• Requires construction of new gate, access
road, and scale complex
• Requires traffic crossing of passenger cars and
truck traffic returning to scale
The Eubanks Road site provides an excellent site for the integrated activities of material recovery,
transfer, construction and demolition recovery and disposal, tire, white goods, mulch management, and
equipment parking and maintenance. It is possible to configure the site in such a way as to reasonably
accommodate all of the planned and potential activities that Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County
might contemplate for this site.
Furthermore, this site has an excellent setback from neighboring residents. With the exception of one
household, all of the planned activities for the new recovery areas would be undertaken mostly out of sight
and earshot of the nearest neighbors. The combination of retired landfill space as well natural forest,
railroad right of way, and roadway buffers makes for an unusually compatible site with the neighboring
activities and residents.
The transition of this site from solid waste disposal to the more environmentally friendly recovery and
recycling activities is compatible with the cutting edge trends of solid waste management for the 21 st
Century. The activities'are more conducive to economic growth and activity, far less likely to cause
environmental degradation, and will comprehensively work to reduce the community's reliance on
transferring or landfilling solid waste as its primary means of managing is solid waste stream.
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 14
V: ' Public/Private Partnership Model as Basis for MRF Development
The last key issue covered in this white paper is the basic "business" arrangement or "public/private
partnership" to be used for the MRF project which must be clearly identified prior to releasing the RFP.
This will define what kinds of companies are being targeted by the RFP, what kind of responses the RFP
is looking for and how those companies should price out their proposals to cover the risks that they are
being asked to bear.
THE RANGE OF OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC /PRIVATE MRF PROJECTS
Successful MRFs are operating today that represent a broad range of these public/private partnership
models. The following chart illustrates this spectrum. On the left side is the private sector dominant
model characterized by the "merchant facility". On the right side is the public sector dominant model
characterized by publicly owned and operated MRFs. In between are variations that represent a balance
between public and private sector interests unique to the varying circumstances of communities across
the country.
PRIVATE PUBLIC OWN/FINANCE PUBLIC OWN/FINANCE
"MERCHANT" PRIVATE PUBLIC DESIGN/BUILD
MRF DESIGN/BUILD /OPERATE PUBLIC OPERATION
"MERCHANT" MRF PUBLIC LAND PUBLIC OWN/FINANCE PUBLIC OWN/FINANCE
W/MAJOR HOSTING PUBLIC DESIGN/BUILD PUBLIC DESIGN/BUILD
PUBLIC CONTRACTS PRIVATE MRF PRIVATE OPERATION NON- PROFIT OPERATION
There are many variations off these basic alternatives. For example, a simple variation of the Public
Own/Finance and Private Design/Build/Operate Model is for the private sector to finance the equipment,
thus taking on the risk of short and long term maintenance, renewal and replacement of that equipment.
RECOMMENDED PUBLIC/PRIVATE MODEL
To date with the MRF Project, assessments have been completed of private and public sector capabilities,
strengths and weaknesses that impact what the best business arrangements are for a successful MRF to
serve the Orange County communities. There are a number of private sector firms that are capable of
and interested in partnering in development of recycling capacity to service the area. We expect a strong
response to any RFP that would be released for an Orange Regional MRF. The public sector also brings
significant strengths and capabilities to its side of the potential partnership.
Through effective use of the RFP process, the Approach D: Public Ownership and Financing with Private
Sector Design, Build and Operate becomes our recommended 'baseline" approach to the Orange
Regional MRF Project. Such an approach would allow the public side of this partnership to optimize
public/private strengths, accept risk for the public sector if it will lower costs and fees, accept risk for the
public sector if it provides valuable control, and accept risk for the public sector if it builds off public sector
strengths.
This recommended "baseline" approach to the Orange Regional MRF Project takes advantage of private
sector capabilities to design, build and operate a MRF, access recycling markets under all types of market
conditions, apply their knowledge and experience with technology, provide.their operational experience
and capabilities and use their flexibility in managing staff resources. Financing of equipment by the private
sector may also be desirable to consider. Such an approach also take advantage of the private firms
ability to attract regional tonnage, spread all costs across that tonnage and make some of those savings
available to the public sector -- if the public sector can approach the bidding process correctly.
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 15
This recommended "baseline' approach also takes advantage of the public sectors capabilities to bundle `
tonnage within their own community, to bundle tonnage regionally, to commit that tonnage over long term,
to provide and prepare a site, provide and prepare long term low cost financing, and to make possible
various "value added" projects like educational center capabilities and potentially to integrate this MRF
with other related functions at a site like the Eubanks Road Landfill site.
This "baseline" approach, leveraging the best strengths and capabilities of both public and private sector
participants, brings lower capital and operating costs, lower risks to private partners, spreading of all this
risk over longer term, the combined effect resulting in significant cost savings and lower fees.
In the following two sections, background material is provided on examples of MRF public/private
partnership models as well as a summary of the pros and cons of each of these approaches.
EXAMPLES OF MRF PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP MODELS
There are many examples of each of the public /private partnership models described in this section.
Following are selected examples to highlight what risks and financial burdens are being bome by the
private sector and by the public sector.
Approach A Paper Stock Dealers and Orange Recycling Services represent merchant MRF vendors
Private Merchant MRF offering recycling services to its customer base but without any one key customer that
"makes or breaks" their business success. Most traditional recycling paperstock
dealers are merchant MRFs. There are not very many merchant MRF vendors that
have invested extensively in commingled separation equipment. Communities using
this approach tend to be pushed towards more expensive source separation programs
which limits the total recovery levels of these recycling programs.
Approach B Resource Management, Inc. in suburban Chicago, constructed and operates its own
Merchant MRF w/Major advanced two stream commingled MRF with its success guaranteed by a large portfolio
Public Contract of long term contracts it has with municipalities to process their recyclables. This facility
is viewed as a successful service provider in its area by various municipalities since it
offers very attractive tipping fee and revenue sharing arrangements and has
traditionally pushed the communities to collect more materials. Tidewater Fiber, with its
new arrangements with Durham City and County is taking on a similar role, but with
much less core tonnage under contract than most other similar examples and no local
base of operations to build on.
Approach C The Athens - Clarke County, Georgia MRF was completely financed, designed, built and
Public Land Hosting operated by a private MRF vendor (selected through an RFP process on publicly owned
Private MRF land supplied by the County, with put or pay contracts for some base tonnage. The
County is just now approaching their 'put" volumes which, once exceeded, start to
provide for reductions in costs to the County for the processing services they secure
from this private MRF. Athens also has the right to purchase the MRF on a straight -line
depreciated basis and take over operation R it chooses.
Approach D
This approach was used in Ann Arbor, MI with the two stream commingled MRF built on
Public Ownership and
the Cit)(s landfill property, financed with a municipal bond, and then designed,
Financing with Private
constructed and operated by a private MRF vendor selected through an RFP process.
Sector Design, Build and
The City has guaranteed its own recyclables to the facility under long term contract. So
Operate
has the University of Michigan. There is no "put or pay' arrangement since the City
owns and has financed the facility (in other words, the City has to pay the bond off no
matter what so it has taken on its own "put" obligations). There are incentives to the
MRF operator to find other merchant tonnage with a merchant fee paid back to the City
to compensate it for the capital costs of the facility. The City also gets a reduction in its
own tipping fees for every additional ton brought in, along with a percent of market
revenues over a trigger market revenue floor price. These arrangements have been
very successful for the City and for the MRF operator who is now processing nearly as
much other tonnage in a typical year as is supplied by the City and the University.
16
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials
Approach E The approach used in Charlotte, NC for their two stream commingled MRF is much like
Public Ownership,
this, with the exception that the Operator also selected the equipment and its layout, but
Financing, Design and
in a building already designed and constructed by the public sector. Again, the City has
Construction w/ Private
its obligations for the bond financing so is committed to bond payments and thus to
Sector Operation Under
continue using this facility. The contract with the MRF operator has incentives for them
Contract
to secure additional tonnage from other sources, which it is successfully accomplishing.
Approach F
The Winnebago County two stream commingled MRF in Wisconsin uses a variation of
Public Ownership,
this approach in which a work force of minimum security corrections labor (and
Financing, Design, and
supervisors) operate sorting lines and some of the material handling equipment at this
Construction w/local
publicly owned, financed, designed and constructed MRF. Some municipal employees
Community Based
also assist in management and equipment operations. Unfortunately, demand for
Operation
processing of recycling both from local sources and regional sources has outstripped
the capabilities of this MRF which can not be easily expanded.
Approach G
The Portage County Solid Waste District in Ohio just south of Cleveland successfully
Public Ownership,
operates a two stream commingled MRF with county employees after having designed,
Financing, Design,
financed and constructed an addition to its existing transfer station. The District
Construction and
manager is able to run the MRF like a business with a system enterprise fund
Operation
approach. The MRF has been successful in marketing its material and has become a
regional processing facility taking in material from a wide variety of sources throughout
the area.
PROS AND CONS OF VARIOUS MRF PUBLIC /PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP MODELS
As shown in the following table, there are advantages and disadvantages to each of these public/pdvate
approaches to MRF development -- taken from the perspective of the public sector municipal recycling
program and its elected officials.
Approach A: Private Merchant MRF
PRO
- No capital outlay by public sector
- No long term commitment required to use a particular vendor
- Not tied to a particular facilities capabilities (eg: source separation only)
- Buying MRF services on spot market can sometimes result in discount pricing
CON
- Private financing has higher interest rates with shorter payback required
- Buying on the spot market often results in higher pricing
- No connection between actual costs and your fee
- No market revenues (typically) shared back to municipality
- No guarantees of service availability
- No guarantees of type of service (eg. two stream commingled)
- No control over quality of service, adding new materials, etc.
- Possible disruption of service w /no backup
- Facility is often not in a good location resulting in high transportation costs
- Siting can be difficult especially with expansions
- No ability to get other value added services (educational center, etc.)
Approach B• Merchant MRF w/Maior Public Contract
PRO
- No capital outlay by public sector
- Commitment of tonnage over long term can get favorable pricing
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 17
- Avoid risk of higher pricing that results from spot market purchasing
- Often can negotiate for market revenue sharing back to municipality
CON
- Private financing has higher interest rates with shorter payback required
- Long term commitment required to use a particular vendor
- No connection between actual costs and your fee
- Have to take type of service available in market (eg. source separated)
- Little control over quality of service, adding new materials, etc.
- Possible disruption of service w /no backup
- Other larger users may end up "buying" away your capacity
- Facility is often not in a good location resulting in high transportation costs
- No ability to get other value added services (educational center, etc.)
Approach C• Public Land Host for a Private MRF
PRO
- Small capital outlay by public sector (possibly none if land already owned)
- Commitment of tonnage over long term can get favorable pricing
- Commitment of land provides some leverage to control project
- Some control in case of vendor failure (ie: potential to kick vendor out)
- Avoid risk of higher pricing that results from spot market purchasing
- Often can negotiate for market revenue sharing back to municipality
- Ability to get MRF in good location resulting in lower transportation costs
- Some ability to get other value added services (educational center, etc.)
CON
- Private financing has higher interest rates with shorter payback required
- Long term commitment required to use a particular vendor
- No connection between actual costs and your fee
- Vendor risk of "building to suit needs to be covered with "put or pay'
- Have to take type of service available in market (eg. source separated)
- Hard to guarantee quality /consistency of service once up and running
- Possible failure of vendor with complicated process to replace
Approach D• Public Ownership and Financing with Private Sector Design. Build and Operate
PRO
- Public financing of capital provides lower rates and longer term (20 years)
- Public absorbing of financing risk results in lower bids from vendors
- Provides option for vendor to own/finance equipment
Commitment of tonnage over long term can get favorable pricing
- Significant leverage to control project - selecting best of private sector
- Closer match of actual costs to fees that are paid
- Ability to negotiate favorable terms on tip fees (graduated structure)
- Ability to negotiate favorable terms on other user tonnage (merchant fee)
- Ability to negotiate favorable terms on revenue sharing
- Ability to get value added capabilities (e.g. education center)
- Ability to get optimum site location and integrate with other functions
- Positioned to deal with changes over time through contract renegotiation
- Failure of vendor can be addressed relatively easily through default clause
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 18
CON
- Capital requirements may compete with other municipal bonding priorities
- Responsible for facility over long term (future equipment replacement, etc.)
- Public sector sometimes is less flexible and responsive to market changes
- Requires long term commitment to project as part of overall strategy
Approach E• Public Ownership Financing Design and Construction w/ Private Sector Operation Under
Contract
PRO
- Same as "D" above with:
- Larger pool of potential bidders for operating contract
- Can use shorter term contracts (5 years and less)
- More control over project on a year to year basis
- More opportunities to change contract to address shifts in market
- More control over revenues, tipping fees, costs and income
- Close match of your actual fees to real costs
CON
- Same as "D" above with:
- More month to month management responsibility and burden
- Vendor may not bring as strong a connection to markets
- May require more direct end - market commitments from public sector
Approach F• Public Ownership Financing Desion, and Construction w/local Community Based Operation
PRO
- Same as 'D" above with:
- Larger pool of potential bidders for operating contract
- Can use shorter term contracts (5 years and less)
- More control over project on a year to year basis
- More opportunities to change contract to address shifts in market
- More control over revenues, tipping fees, costs and income
- Close match of your actual fees to real costs
CON
- Same as 'D' above with:
- More month to month management responsibility and burden
- Vendor may not bring as strong a connection to markets
- May require more direct end - market commitments from public sector
Approach G• Public Ownership Financing Design, Construction and Operation
PRO
- Public financing of capital provides lower rates and longer term (20 years)
- Complete control over revenues, tipping fees, costs and income
- Close match of your actual fees to real costs
- Ability to get value added capabilities (e.g. education center)
- Ability to get optimum site location and integrate with other functions
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 19
- Positioned to deal with changes over time through contract renegotiation
- Failure of vendor can be addressed relatively easily through default clause
CON
- Capital requirements may compete with other municipal bonding priorities
- Complete day to day responsibility and burden
- Risk of inefficiency with failure to correct over time
- May require separate contract for market brokering
- Require more direct end - market commitments from public sector
- Responsible for facility over long term (future equipment replacement, etc.)
- Public sector sometimes is less flexible and responsive to market changes
- Requires long term commitment to project as part of overall strategy
2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 20
NGE REGIONAL MRF PROJECT
EY ISSUES FOR LOG REVIEW
:• MRF Size
.-..Cost Savings
:• MRF Site
+Ownership /Operating Options
F SIZE
--.-Economies of Scale Impact
❖ Higher Volumes /Lower Costs
-.--Lower Volumes /Higher Costs
❖ Expect Volumes to Grow Over Time
-:- Need Critical Mass for Early Years,
2
Page 1
4.
r
M F SIZE SCENARIOS
.-.Low Tonnage Scenario
— Starts at 9,000 /Grows to 20,000
— Designed for Orange County Recycling Only
❖ Medium Tonnage Scenario
— Starts at 15,000 /Grows to 32,000
— Designed for Orange Plus Selected "Partners"
-.-.High Tonnage Scenario
— Starts at 22,000 /Grows to 42,000
— Designed for Orange and Surround Region
Doesn't include Durham/Durham County
3
'F COST PROJECTIONS
MRF Operating Cost Comparison
i @0.00
(100.00
$80.00
$60.00
% �— �.
sa0.00 —�
Ic
$-
8(20.0())
Y R
Page 2
ti
U
K POINTS ON MRF SIZE
•:- Need Critical Mass for RFP
..-.Bidders Bring Tonnage Too
Medium Scenario Accomplishes This
..-.Medium Scenario Very Cost Effective
• :- Partners Still Needed
5
<: C ST SAVINGS WITH MRF PROJECT
.-..Evaluated "System Costs"
— Collection, Processing and Marketing
--.-Evaluated Current System Tons
— Without MRF @ $880,000
— With MRF @ $740,000
— Savings with MRF Estimated @ $140,000 /yr
•:- Evaluated Future System Tons
— Without MRF @ $2,000,000
— With MRF @ $1,620,000
— Savings with MRF Estimated @ $380,000 /yr
6
Page 3
�ST SAVINGS WITH MRF
• :-$400,000 saved annually with MRF
.:-MRF allows diversion goals to be met
❖ May not be possible without MRF
❖ MRF prepares for Landfill closure
- :- Avoided transfer /disposal fee cost saving
g
Page 4
Q_
,J
M F SITE SELECTION FOR RFP
..-.Identified site is essential to RFP
•:- Engineering review of Eubanks Road Site
•:- Completed Conceptual Site Plan
❖ Integrated related activities
9
E BANKS ROAD SITE FINDINGS
.-..Identified 20 available acres
..--Located MRF on site
-:- Located support system (roads, etc.)
.-..Located existing /future functions
— Mulch/waste wood recycling
— Tire collection/recycling
— Appliance collection/recycling
— Transfer station (future)
— C &D processing /recovery (future)
io
Page 5
M F SITE CONCLUSIONS
❖ Eubanks Road site
would be excellent location for MRF
.-..Identifying site secures the interest of
MRF vendors
- :•Action required to initiate
lengthy permitting process
•: -Would prevent delays in MRF
startup and availability
11
M F OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION
❖ "Business Arrangement" is
essential decision for RFP
-:• Vendors need to know
— What role will they play in ownership /financing
— What financial resources will they need
— What are terms and conditions for default
— What guarantees will they have from public sector
— What revenue streams they have access to
• :- Adjustments later during negotiation
12
Page 6
3
A
<:gNERSHIP AND OPERATION
PT/ONS FOR MRF DEVELOPMENT
"MERCHANT" PUBLIC OWN PUBLIC OWN
MRF PRIVATE BUILDS /OPERATE PUBLIC OPERATE
000 10 f0*00000 100*00* f09*00000 I
PRIVATE W/ PUBLIC HOST PUBLIC OWN PUBLIC OWN
CONTRACTS PRIVATE MRF PRIVATE OPERATE NON- PROFIT
13
y Examples of Each MRF
or wnershiplOperation Models
--.-Merchant MRF - Paper Industry MRF's
--.-Merchant w /Contracts - Resource Mgmt.
-.-.Public Hosts Private MRF - Athens
-:. Public Owns /Private Develops - Ann Arbor
-.--Public Builds /Private Operates - Charlotte
..--Public MRF /Non- Profit Operates - Winnebago
--.-Public Own and Operate - Portage
14
Page 7
<::s and Cons of MRF
Ownership /Operation Models
Variations on Merchant MRF
- Least commitment of capital
- Least commitment to a particular vendor
- Higher pricing, especially on spot market
- Little to no control of type of service
- Little control over availability /quality
- Possible disruption with no backup
- No guarantee that site location works
- No "value added" services
- Lowest level of commitment to long term recycling goal
15
t s and Cons of MRF
wnership /Operation Models
•:- Variations on Public MRF
- Most capital required but lowest cost of capital
- Complete control of revenue, tip fees, costs, income
- Complete control over project location, type, service
- Highest burden on agency management and staff
- Responsible for facility over long term
- Lowest critical mass of expertise /experience
- Risk of inefficiency with failure to correct over time
- Public sector may not respond to market changes
- No private partner to rely on for fall -back position
- Highest level of commitment to long term recycling goal
16
Page 8
A
<:: sand Cons of MRF
Ownership /Operation Models
❖Variations of Public /Private MRF
— Control over project location and type of service
— Capital intensive but lowest cost of capital
— RFP process secures lowest operating costs
— RFP process leverages favorable terms
— Ability to have "value added" services
— Use expertise and experience of private sector
— Can rely on private sector for fall -back positions
— Ability to access market revenues
— Capital requirements may compete with other uses
— Responsible for facility over long term
— Requires long term commitment to project 17
COMMEND PUBLIC /PRIVATE
PPROACH TO MRF DEVELOPMENT
•:- Optimize Public /Private Strengths
+Accept Risks that Lower Costs /Fees
..-.Accept Risks that Provide Control
•:. Accept Risks that Build off Strengths
•:- Accept Risks that Leverage RFP Process
..-.Enhance Opportunities for Private Partners
Page 9
is
E41Y FEATURES OF RECOMMENDED
UBLIC /PRIVATE APPROACH
•:- Commit Recylables of Community
•: -Seek Commitment of Other Communities
.-.-Provide and Prepare Site & MRF Building
..-.Specify Type and Quality of Service
❖ Vendor Provides Equipment
--.-Vendor Operates w /Long Term Contract
--.-Pay Vendor Processing Fee /Share Revenues
19
VANTAGES TO LEVERAGING
NIPRIVATE SECTOR STRENGTHS
❖ Access to Markets at All Times
❖ Knowledge and Experience w/Technology
.-..Operational Experience and Capabilities
--..Flexibility in Managing Staff Resources
❖ bility to Attract Regional Tonnage
❖Ability to Spread Cost
❖ Capability to Design /Build /Operate
20
Page 10
VANTAGES TO LEVERAGING
PUBLIC SECTOR STRENGTHS
-.--Lower Capital and Operating Costs
• :- Lower Risk for Private Partners
• :- Capture Cost Savings w /Lower Fees
- :• Control Type and Quality of Project
❖ Guarantee Availability and Service Levels
•:- Preserve Flexibility for Public Sector
•:- Spread Some Risk Over Longer Term
Y
',v DECISIONS NEEDED
❖ Confirm Site Selection
..-.Settle on Public /Private Structure
.-,.Continued Recruiting Potential Users
+Continued Preparations for RFQ /RFP
•:- Continued Preparations for Financing
Page 11
21
22
Q
A
NGE REGIONAL MRF
FIVE KEY MILESTONES
Sign -off on Key Issues Memo
❖ Selection of MRF Developer /Operator
.-.-Complete Financing
.-..Final Contract w /MRF Developer /Operator
❖ Facility Acceptance Testing /Startup
Page 12