10182011 SOLID WASTE PRESENTATIONSolid Waste Management Study
2018 and Beyond
Member Community Briefing
Virginia Beach
By
Robert B. Gardner, PE, BCEE
Senior Vice President
October 18, 2011
Presentation Overview
Scope of study
•
Executive summary overview
•
Implementation schedule
•
2
Scope of Study
Meet with member communities
•
Update historical and projected waste flows
•
Re-evaluate institutional alternatives
•
Develop and evaluate future scenarios
•
Prepare new pro forma model
•
Develop conclusions and recommendations
•
3
Scenarios Evaluated
Basis for scenarios
•
Eastern and Western options
•
Special considerations
•
City of Portsmouth (Proximity to WTE Facility)
–
City of Virginia Beach (VB LF No. 2, Closure
–
Costs)
City of Suffolk (Host fee)
–
Commercial waste
–
Market assumptions
–
Integrated solid waste management hierarchy
–
4
Waste Management Hierarchy
5
Waste to EnergyEnergy
Transfer Station
Residential/Landfill
Commercial
Energy
Organics Processing
System Scenarios
6
Cooperation Scenarios
Status quo
•
Western communities operate own transfer
•
stations and contract haul waste to WM’s
Waverly Landfill
Eastern communities either stay with SPSA
•
or self perform all transfer and disposal
operations, with or without WTE
SPSA
•
Landfill + Transfer Operations
–
Transfer Operations Only
–
Landfill Operations Only
–
7
Transfer Scenarios
Ownership Models
•
SPSA owns and operates
–
Each member community owns and operates
–
Privatization of transfer stations/transportation
–
8
Complexity
9
System NPV Analysis Scenarios
A Series (Use existing systems, LF, and
•
WTE)
B Series (ORLF, Regional LF closed)
•
C Series (Regional LF) (E/W split)
•
D Series (Regional LF Closed, Muni TSs)
•
E Series (New WTE in VB) (E/W split)
•
10
System NPV Analysis Scenarios
F.1 -Suffolk operates Regional LF for own
•
municipal solid waste disposal
G.1 –Similar to A.2, except Portsmouth
•
does not participate in SPSA.
11
Key Factors in Scenario
Development
12
Pro Forma Analysis
Many variables, assumptions, and moving
•
parts
Allocation of municipality costs for solid
•
waste services
Full cost accounting based on budgets
–
Allocation of disposal and transfer costs for all
–
scenarios
With SPSA
•
Without SPSA
•
13
14
Virginia Beach -SPSA 2012 Projected System
Costs By Function
244,100 , 3%
731,600 , 9%
Disposal
Recycling
1,141,800 , 14%
746,100 , 9%
Transfer Station
5,473,500 , 65%
Transfer Fleet
Support
1,900 , 0%
Reserves
15
Virginia Beach -SPSA 2016 Projected System
Costs By Function
1,317,300 , 9%
380,600 , 2%
Disposal
2,056,700 , 13%
Recycling
1,783,100 , 12%
Transfer Station
9,659,400 , 64%
Transfer Fleet
Support
Reserves
6,900 , 0%
16
Key Findings
Future landfill needs and capacity
•
17
-Scenario EOY Remaining Site Life Curve -Regional LF Fiscal Year End Tons 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000
Regional LF Capacity
Regional LF -EOY Remaining Site Life Curve
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
Tons
Scenario
2,000,000
A.1
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-
Fiscal Year End
18
-Scenario EOY Remaining Site Life Curve -Regional LF Fiscal Year End Tons 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000
Regional LF Capacity
Regional LF -EOY Remaining Site Life Curve
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
Tons
Scenario
2,000,000
C.2
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-
Fiscal Year End
19
-Scenario EOY Remaining Site Life Curve -Regional LF Fiscal Year End Tons 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000
Regional LF Capacity
Regional LF -EOY Remaining Site Life Curve
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
Tons
Scenario
2,000,000
B.1
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-
Fiscal Year End
20
Key Findings
Future landfill needs and capacity
•
WTE, Regional LF, Transfer Stations
•
(Status Quo)
21
Yearly SW System Cost
Projection
Scenario A.1 - All SPSA LF/
TS/WTE
Municipality: Virginia Beach
80
Projected Waste Management Costs,
70
60
$millions/year
Recycling
50
Transfer
40
Collection
Disposal
30
Support
20
10
0
20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028
Fiscal Year
22
Summary NPV Results
23
Key Findings
Benefits of WTE
•
Reduce disposal quantities and volumes
–
Renewable energy resource producing electricity
–
and steam
Reduce dependence on fossil fuels
–
Facilities and systems in place
–
Major upgrades made to facility
–
Revenue offsets
–
24
Key Findings
Future landfill needs and capacity
•
WTE, Regional LF, Transfer Stations
•
(Status Quo)
Value of existing Regional Landfill and
•
Virginia Beach No. 2 Landfill
25
Value of Regional Landfill
(C & D Scenarios)
26
Key Findings
Future landfill needs and capacity
•
WTE, Regional LF, Transfer Stations
•
(Status Quo)
Value of existing Regional Landfill and
•
Virginia Beach No. 2 Landfill
Relevance of waste management hierarchy
•
27
Key Findings
Future landfill needs and capacity
•
WTE, Regional LF, Transfer Stations
•
(Status Quo)
Value of existing Regional Landfill and
•
Virginia Beach No. 2 Landfill
Relevance of waste management hierarchy
•
Out-of-region disposal
•
28
29
Out-of-Region Disposal
(B Scenarios)
30
Key Findings
Significance of ash disposal
•
Transfer station operation and ownership
•
Role of private sector
•
Collection
–
Disposal
–
Recycling
–
Yard waste management
•
Projected tip fees
•
31
Projected Tips Fees for SPSA Operation -Status Quo
(Scenario A-1)
Virginia BeachSuffolk
140
120
Projected System Tip Fee, $/ton
100
80
60
40
20
-
20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028
Fiscal Year
32
Recommendations
Future Regional Authority
•
Governance
•
System funding
•
WTE
•
Regional Landfill
•
Host fee considerations
•
Yard waste management
•
Recycling
•
Implementation schedule
•
33
34
Schedule
Final report submitted –October 10, 2011
•
Regional meetings –October/November
•
2011
Other deliberations -TBD
•
35