Solid Waste Management Options for Shaftsbury
DRAFT 10/10/05
In this White Paper we first consider the current status of the landfill, the mobile transfer station now being operated at the landfill site and the proposed TAM transfer station across the road from the landfill site on North Road. We then pose a number of questions that frame the debate on solid waste management issues in Shaftsbury. Finally, we make three recommendations:
1.Continue with the present mobile transfer station for the next few years.
2.Develop a pay-as-you-throw fee system.
3.Develop a swap shed.
I. Current status:
A. Shaftsbury landfill:
The Shaftsbury landfill was in operation from 1967 to 2003. By 2003 the landfill was nearly full, and from that point on was used only for token disposals that kept the state landfill certification current. Early in 2005 the Select Board voted to start the closure process.
The closure process has not gone as smoothly as hoped. KAS, our consultant, estimated the cost of closure to be less than $230K. The first round of bidding produced only one bid, and it was for $467K. Since the landfill closure fund, thought to be ample for the task, is currently about $330K, this bid was a major setback.
A second round of bidding was a bit more successful, owing in all likelihood to the correction of a two order of magnitude error in the consultant's specification for the maximum permeability of the clay cover. This time two bids were received, one for $394K, the other for $340K. Unfortunately, the $340K bid has some problems including lack of the required bid bond and may therefore not be acceptable. This leaves the $394K bid, and if that were to be accepted, the town would need to raise an additional $64K to make up for the shortfall in the landfill closure fund. In addition, the town will owe about $8K more to KAS for ongoing consulting services, and an additional $10K per year will be needed to monitor the closed landfill.
There is both good news and bad news. The bad news is that the contractor, Capital Earthmoving, is having trouble finding a good source of cover material for the cap. They were expecting to use pond fill from the Peckham site, but tests of the permeability were initially not encouraging. Additional tests yielded material that was of low enough permeability, but this material was covered with unsuitable material and the cost of removing the overburden appears to be a major obstacle. The only other known source of cover material is OMYA, and the cost of that material will be quite a bit higher.
The good news is that in order to close the landfill, a pocket in the southwest corner of the landfill needed to be filled, and Shaftsbury obtained permission from ANR (Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources) to fill this in with municipal solid waste (MSW) from Vermont towns with certified MSW programs. TAM was contracted to do this, and over the two to three month period it is taking, the town is saving about $5K per month in MSW disposal fees and is receiving $20 per ton for waste from other towns. The size of the pocket was not known accurately, but was thought to be able to hold as much as 500 tons of MSW. However, as TAM was preparing the site, a source of sandy material was uncovered that was suitable for daily cover. Excavating this material both simplified the daily cover activities and increased the volume of MSW that could be dumped. Much to everyone's surprise, the tonnage TAM actually deposited in this pocket quickly reached 1445 tons, and dumping had to cease because the tonnage exceeded the State mandated limit of 1000 tons/year. As of this writing, the Town is still trying to resolve the problems this has caused.
The total savings in filling this pocket is more than $40K. The savings from having Shaftsbury's MSW dumped there during the two months of operation was at least $10K. The income derived from dumping waste from other towns was approximately $30K. Furthermore, filling the pocket saved our having to truck in 1000 cubic yards or more of fill. Total savings must therefore be well over $40K.
The shortfall in funding of the landfill closing would be about $30K if the Peckham pond fill could be used (and the problem of the overburden resolved). If we have to use the OMYA material the shortfall could be substantially greater. Exactly how much greater is not yet known.
B. Mobile Transfer Station:
The current mobile transfer station, run by TAM under contract, uses the town-owned landfill site and recycling shed in combination with a TAM packer truck parked at the landfill during the hours of operation of the facility. The recycling shed receives recyclables - paper, glass and plastic – and the TAM truck, acting as a mobile transfer station, receives the non recyclable MSW. This mobile transfer station replaced a municipally run system that was in use for many years while the landfill was active.
As long as the total MSW collected in the truck does not exceed 10 tons and can be removed to a transfer station in NY within 48 hours, the mobile transfer station can serve Shaftsbury's needs. The mobile transfer station is an ingenious solution to Shaftsbury's MSW disposal, and as long as the 10 tons/truck limit is not exceeded, is a reasonable and effective solution to the problem. To date, the most waste realized in one day is just over 7 tons. The average tonnage of MSW is currently about 11.5 tons/week, and the tonnage of recyclables is comparable.
Future growth might bring the daily tonnage above the 10 ton limit; alternatively, the limit would be breached if a higher percentage of Shaftsbury residents started using the facility (currently about 60% of Shaftsbury's MSW is handled at the transfer station).
C. Proposed TAM transfer station:
TAM is in the process of seeking permits for a TAM transfer station to be located right across the road from the Shaftsbury landfill. It will be a regional transfer station and (depending on just what is finally permitted by the State and Shaftsbury) is expected to have a capacity of 10,000 to 15,000 tons/year. This transfer station will be able to handle all wastes not classified as “hazardous” - that is, MSW, recyclables and C&D debris. It will have a standard tipping floor where waste brought in by various trucks will be sorted. MSW will be placed in appropriate containers and removed to NY within 48 hours of arriving at the transfer station. Wastes such as C&D and recyclables do not have the 48 hour transfer requirement, and are expected to be stored on-site in containers until those containers are full. The tipping floor that is an important feature of most transfer stations can have a significant impact on the recycling rate. However, the main economic justification for regional transfer stations is the cost savings in fuel and manpower that are realized when large trucks, filled to capacity, are used to transport the waste to incinerators and other disposal facilities.
II. Questions:
With the current landfill soon to be just a large grassy hill, Shaftsbury must either develop a new landfill or use a transfer station of some sort to dispose of MSW. As discussed in the Appendix, developing a new landfill is simply not a viable option. Therefore, questions Shaftsbury needs to address are:
1.Should Shaftsbury have a municipally run system, a municipal system run by a private contractor, or should we turn the entire job over to the private sector?
2.What type of transfer station should Shaftsbury use? Should we construct a new transfer station or should we continue to use a mobile transfer station?
3.If Shaftsbury continues to use a mobile transfer station, when will the waste volume approach the 10 ton limit?
4.Should we use the proposed TAM regional facility or another near-by regional transfer station?
5.How should we pay for this service? Should it be taxpayer funded or funded through user fees?
6.What can Shaftsbury do to increase the reuse/recycling rate?
Questions 1-5 above are addressed by the following:
If Shaftsbury decides to continue with a municipal system, a transfer station (or perhaps more accurately, a MSW collection system) will continue to be needed at the landfill property. Although some provisions are being made for retail operations at the proposed TAM facility in the future, this is currently not in the TAM plan and therefore is not an alternative. We have the following options:
A. Continue with the mobile transfer station: At present volumes (<1200 tons/year, including recycling) the mobile transfer station works quite well. While the mobile transfer station is not optimal from a recycling perspective, it is quite cost-effective in terms of invested capital. Although packer trucks represent a significant capital cost, rough estimates indicate that a transfer station similar to Pownal's would cost considerably more. Also, the packer trucks are available for other uses about half the time and the cost is therefore shared. Wear and tear, depreciation, insurance, equipment, maintenance and management are different for these two approaches, so a simple comparison of capital costs does not tell the whole story. Nonetheless, the cost structure of a mobile transfer station appears to be favorable, especially when costs can be shared with other users.
Using a mobile transfer station is in some senses a half-way step to municipal pickup of MSW. However, instead of having the packer truck stop at each residence, individuals bring the MSW to a central collection point. For a town as sparsely populated as Shaftsbury, this is a reasonable compromise.
The operation of a mobile transfer station is governed by two State regulations: 1) the MSW deposited in the truck must be taken to an incinerator or other facility within 48 hours, and 2) the amount of waste deposited in the truck cannot exceed 10 tons. To date, the most waste collected in a single day was just over 7 tons. While the average weekly tonnage is 11.5 tons, the amounts collected on Saturdays are larger and the amounts also fluctuate with the season.
As Shaftsbury continues to grow, we can expect the tonnage to increase. In addition, if the percentage of residents who use the town facility increases (currently about 60%), this would also increase the daily tonnage. When the 10 ton limit is reached, either a replacement truck must be available or the station must close for the day. Closing the station on a regular basis would be unacceptable, and options such as requiring a replacement truck to be on standby or increasing the number of days of operation are likely to increase costs. At that point it may be necessary to find an alternative to the mobile transfer station.
If the TAM proposal is approved, a regional transfer station would then be located across the road from the Shaftsbury landfill. This could, in principle, greatly extend the operating life of the mobile transfer station. If another packer truck happened to be available at the transfer station, the mobile transfer station operation could continue seamlessly. At worst, the trip to the transfer station to empty the truck would take only a few minutes.
This does assume, however, that the owners of this facility are willing to continue providing waste disposal services to Shaftsbury at an attractive rate. Although it seems logical enough that they would, there is no guarantee, and without the availability of this facility, the mobile transfer station system will have to be discontinued or modified within about five to ten years.
B. Create a permanent transfer station at the Shaftsbury landfill: Although this choice maximizes local control, there are potential cost problems with this approach. Aside from the question of whether the station should be run municipally or under contract, capital costs appear to be significantly larger than for a mobile transfer station. In other respects the operations are comparable, assuming equivalent sharing of labor resources. Municipal control might facilitate increasing recycling rates, but this might require more supervision of users.
If a new transfer station were to be constructed, the design would have to be integrated into other needs of the town at the site such as a town garage. While the site appears to be large enough for all currently envisioned needs, this would require a careful and comprehensive site design.
The cost of constructing a new transfer station comparable to that in Pownal is estimated to be about $200K. Furthermore, because of the 48 hour rule for removing solid waste, at current waste volumes a transfer station would need the services of a waste hauler to remove only partially filled dumpsters. This implies that the operation would be somewhat inefficient.
C. Reduce municipal services to handling of recycling only: If municipal services were only for recycling, the remaining needs would have to be met by private haulers. This would save approximately $50K per year, but would incur many of the problems discussed for option D, below.
D. Abandon all municipal services and turn the waste collection duties over to private haulers: Shaftsbury spends about 10% of its annual budget on MSW disposal. Turning this over to private haulers ought to lead to a budget decrease, but one might ask whether the costs of disrupting the political and social functions of the current system are commensurate with this decrease. Unquestionably, for some taxpayers this change would create hardships. In general, those who use a disproportionate share of the services would see a significant cost increase whereas approximately 40% of Shaftsbury residents who already use private haulers would benefit. Note that pay-as-you-throw (PAYT), which generally involves some taxpayer subsidy, would have a similar but smaller effect.
If Shaftsbury were to close the municipal waste disposal operation completely, it might provide an incentive for TAM to develop provisions for handling retail customers. It would also enlarge the market for other private haulers as well. The private hauler market is relatively competitive, so this should not by itself cause an increase in waste disposal costs. There would be remote places in town where private haulers would not be willing to provide services and some provision would need to be made for those residents.
Even if the Town were to close the municipal waste disposal operation, the costs of monitoring the closed landfill would continue, hazardous waste collection services would still have to be offered, and brush collection services might still be necessary.
Question 6: How can we increase recycling and reuse?
A. Swap shed: Aside from the social benefits of increased recycling and reuse, increasing recycling and reuse is intimately linked to the overall cost of managing Shaftsbury's solid waste stream. Since reuse removes items from the waste stream, there is a direct savings of almost $100 per ton of reused items. Some investment to increase reuse seems appropriate.
Recycling is similar to reuse in that the overall cost of disposing of recycled material is close to zero (a profit is made on paper and metal, and this balances the cost of disposing of the other recyclables). Again, this should be compared to the present MSW disposal cost of almost $100 per ton.
One desirable addition to the current system that would encourage reuse would be a swap shed for paints, books, usable lamps and small appliances, etc.. This shed would store those goods and materials that might possibly be reused. Paints – especially latex paints – can only be stored during warm weather, so any accumulated stock would have to be disposed of before freezing weather set in each fall. Hopefully this could be done by transporting the paints to a regional facility where paints are processed for resale. Regular monitoring of the swap shed operation by town employees, a contractor, or volunteers would be necessary.
As part of developing a swap shed, another improvement that is worth considering is changes in the layout to improve traffic patterns. Right now, the traffic is forced through two bottlenecks, one just at the north end of the recycling shed where traffic enters and the second at the south end where traffic exits. An equipment shed near the north end of the recycling shed is the primary cause of the bottleneck there; a section of capped landfill creates the other bottleneck. It might be possible to reposition or at least reconfigure the equipment shed and turn it into a swap shed.
B. Pay-as-you-throw: Another way of encouraging recycling would be to adopt a unit-based pricing system or pay-as-you-throw (PAYT). If charges are levied on MSW and recycling is free, this would certainly provide an incentive to recycle. Collecting fees at the landfill might present some problems, although we note that there are some fees in the present system (for electronic equipment, freon appliances, metal and tires). One way to avoid fee collections for MSW would be to use specially marked bags, and sell these either at Cole Hall or at local stores. Exactly what the fee structure should be, what level of taxpayer subsidy will be needed, and how to administer the system are questions needing further study.
PAYT is used by many communities and has significant benefits in terms of making MSW disposal more self-financing. Although some are concerned that PAYT might cause more roadside litter, communities that have switched to PAYT seem to experience only temporary problems with this.
Currently, access to the mobile transfer station is regulated by stickers on vehicles and the nominal charge for second stickers barely pays for the cost of the stickers. Increasing this fee to make the system more self-supporting seems like a reasonable idea. If we go to a PAYT system, there would still probably be significant taxpayer subsidy of waste disposal, so this would not eliminate the need for stickers.
While there are many variations on PAYT, the most reasonable limiting case would be a self-funding operation. If Shaftsbury were to develop a self-funding PAYT system, it might work as follows: The present operation incurs a fixed cost of approximately $31K per year, just to open the gates three days a week and process recycling. In addition, the town pays $95 per ton for MSW trucked to the incinerator in New York. More than 1000 stickers are passed out each year, so selling the landfill stickers for $25 per sticker would approximately fund the fixed costs. The MSW charge of $95/ton translates to about $0.05/pound, and assuming a typical bag of MSW weighs 35 pounds, charging $1.75 per bag would approximately fund the cost of disposing of MSW. Charges for metal, freon appliances, tires and electronics would be unchanged. Since the Town would still have to subsidize hazardous waste collection collection and brush collection, the system would not quite be fully self-funding.
III. Conclusions and recommendations:
1.For now, the mobile transfer station approach appears to have major cost advantages, and we recommend continuing with this approach. Guaranteeing that a mobile transfer station can continue to serve Shaftsbury's needs in the future requires long term planning, as Shaftsbury will probably hit the 10 ton limit on mobile transfer station capacity within the next five to ten years. If the TAM transfer station is approved, its close proximity to the town facility would greatly lessen the problems the 10-ton limit would impose, but that presupposes that TAM will still be supplying solid waste services to the Town at that time.
2.Pay-as-you-throw provides major incentives for recycling, and for that reason alone, we recommend developing a PAYT system. In addition, the financial problems the Town faces in closing the landfill may make it necessary to make solid waste disposal more self-funding. Short of simply getting out of the business, which we don't recommend, converting to a PAYT system would bring us at least part way to a self-funding system.
3.We recommend establishing a swap shed. This swap shed would make it possible to remove usable paints, books, and household items from the waste stream.
Appendix:
A1. Cost comparison for mobile versus fixed transfer stations:
The cost of waste disposal is dominated by the unit cost for MSW disposal, currently about $75/ton (at the disposal site), but likely to rise. Other costs include labor, taxes, fuel, transportation, equipment depreciation, etc. However, assuming comparable efficiency, motivated employees and the same attention to details, most of these costs will be similar for any system, municipal or private. The one item that appears to not be equivalent is capital investment.
Unless a particular system can somehow achieve a reduction in operating costs, the system with higher capital cost will be more expensive. In this respect the mobile transfer station has a decided edge. The capital cost of a packer truck is significantly less than the estimated $200K cost of a facility similar to Pownal's, and in addition, a packer truck can be shared. Assuming Shaftsbury continues with a 3 day per week schedule, the packer truck usage is only about 50%. Assuming other users account for the other 50%, this reduces the capital cost by a factor of two. Of course, the costs of wear and tear, maintenance and depreciation are different for the two approaches, but this simple argument suggests that a mobile transfer station has a distinct cost advantage.
A2. New Landfill:
As noted above, this is not a viable option. The unit costs for landfill disposal decrease as the size of the landfill increases, and only very large landfills are now practical. In addition to the very strict lining and siting requirements, modern landfills also use special daily cover materials and extremely large machines for compacting the waste. All of these imply economies of scale, and Shaftsbury's needs alone are simply not on that scale. Interestingly enough, landfill space is apparently in plentiful supply except in our immediate area. Around here, the cost of MSW disposal once the material reaches the site is about $75 per ton, but in Ohio and points further west the cost is closer to $20 per ton (see www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/business/12trash.html). The average at-the-site cost nationwide is about $35/ton.
Report researched and developed by the Shaftsbury Solid Waste Committee.
William Pennnebaker, Chair
Karen Mellinger
Trevor Mance
Mike Biddy
Forrest Snyder