The URL can be used to link to this page

FY2025-57 Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update With Jacobs EngineeringCONTRACTS TRANSMITTAL FORM RETENTION SCHEDULE: CL -09 CONTRACTS Records related to obligations under contracts, leases, and other agreements between the Borough and outside parties, successful bids, and proposals. Active records are kept by the corresponding department. Apply retention (plus 4 years) once contract or agreement expires, or once product is procured. Apply retention (plus 25 years) for agreements that involve real property. DATE: 09/18/25 TRANSMITTED BY: Patricia Valerlo DEPT: Engineering & Facilitie CONTRACT NO.: FY 2025-57 VENDOR OR CONTRACTOR: Jacobs Engineering CONTRACT TITLE(Please provide details that are available such as purpose and/or the amount): KIB Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update Administrative contracts are contracts approved by the manager that are within the spending authority allowed by code. Assembly approved contracts are beyond the manager's spending authority and require approval by the Assembly during a meeting. APPROVED BY: Assembly TYPE OF CONTRACT: Contract DATE OF APPROVAL: 06/06/25 PROVIDE DETAILS FOR ANY AUTOMATIC RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS BELOW: When project is complete EXPIRATION OR REVIEW DATE: 02/01/2026 PURGE DATE: 02/01/2030 If there's no expiration date or the contract is open-ended, enter 9999 in the date field and explain when it should be flagged for review: Are all relevant attachments, exhibits, referenced documents attached? ❑1 Are the successful bids and proposals incorporated in the attachments? P1 ONLY COMPLETE THIS SECTION IF THE RECORD AMENDS, EXTENDS, IS A CHANGE ORDER, OR AN ADDENDUM TO AN EXISTING CONTRACT m7_r N Z CONTRACT NO.: FY REQUESTED BY: CATEGORY: Select One APPROVED BY: Select One TYPE OF CONTRACT: Select One PROVIDE DETAILS FOR ANY AUTOMATIC RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS BELOW: EXPIRATION DATE: PURGE DATE: If there is no expiration/purge date, enter 9999 as the year for open-ended contracts AND explain the process below on how or when it should be flagged for review. Rev. 04/09/2025 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Professional Services Agreement Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Project No. 25008 FY2025-57 Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 (907) 486-9341 Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Professional Services Agreement Page 1 of 11 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. for KIB Regional Solid Waste Management Plan This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this June 6, 2025, by and between the KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, organized under the laws of the State of Alaska, hereinafter referred to as the 'Borough" and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. a corporation authorized to do business in Alaska, with offices located at 710 Mill Bay Road, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Borough wishes to enter into an agreement with an independent consultant to KIB Regional Solid Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. submitted a proposal asserting it is qualified to perform these services and able to do so in a timely manner. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1.0 DEFINITIONS 1.1 "Agreement" shall mean this Professional Services Agreement, including: Exhibit A — Amendment No. 1 dated May 22, 2025. Exhibit B - Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. proposal dated April 8, 2025. Exhibit C — Request for Proposals dated February 21, 2025 1.2 "Change Order" is an addition to, or reduction of, or other revision approved by the Borough in the scope, complexity, character, or duration of the services or other provisions of this Agreement. 1.3 'Borough" shall all mean the Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska. 1.4 "Contracting Officer" shall mean the KIB Borough Manager and include any successor or authorized representative. 1.5 "Project" shall mean the KIB Regional Solid Waste Management Plan; 2.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall take effect upon execution. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until the Project has been completed and further, until all claims and disputes have been concluded. The work is considered complete when the Borough has received and found acceptable the finished product of all work described in 4.0 Scope of Services or changes thereto. This date is not necessarily the Completion Date as described in 5.0 Completion Date. This Agreement may be amended only in writing and upon compliance with all applicable statutes, ordinances, and regulations. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Professional Services Agreement Page 2 of 11 3.0 FEES AND PAYMENT TERMS: For KIB Regional Solid Waste Management Plan; as described in Scope of Services, the Borough will compensate the Contractor an amount not to exceed $246,000.00. Monthly invoices will be issued by the Consultant based on percentage complete for services performed under the terms of this agreement. Invoices are due and payable net 30 days. 4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES. The Borough and Consultant have agreed upon a scope of work described in the Addendum No. 1, Exhibit A, and the Consultant's proposal, Exhibit B, to provide professional services based on approved standards and instructions, as specifically described in Exhibit C. This Scope of Services can only be changed in writing pursuant to Section 26.0 of this Agreement. 5.0 SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION. Post award of this RFP. Completion of project update will be no later than February 28, 2026, in accordance with Exhibit A. 6.0 PERSONNEL/ORGANIZATION 6.1 Key Personnel. Work and services provided by the Consultant will be performed by: As specified in Exhibits A & B. 6.2 Changes in Key Personnel. The Consultant shall give the Borough reasonable advance notice of any necessary substitution or change of key personnel and shall submit justification therefore in sufficient detail to permit the Borough to evaluate the impact of such substitution on this Agreement. No substitutions or other changes shall be made without the written consent of the Borough. 7.0 STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. The Consultant agrees to provide all required professional services to complete the project and any additions or changes thereto. The Consultant accepts the relationship of trust and confidence established between it and the Borough by this Agreement. The Consultant covenants with the Borough to furnish its best skill and judgment, and to further the interest of the Borough at all times through efficient business administration and management. The Consultant shall provide all services in a competent manner. It is understood that some of the services to be rendered hereunder required professional judgment and skill. In those cases, the Consultant agrees to adhere to the standards of the applicable profession. 8.0 TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. Consultant's failure to meet any such deadlines or required performance may adversely imperil other contractual obligations of the Borough. 9.0 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The Consultant shall be familiar with and at all times comply with and observe all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and executive orders, all applicable safety orders, all orders or decrees of administrative agencies, courts, or other legally constituted authorities having jurisdiction Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Professional Services Agreement Page 3 of 11 or authority over the Consultant, the Borough, or the service which may be in effect now or during performance of the services. 10.0 INDEMNITY. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Borough from and against any claim of, or liability for, negligent acts, errors, and omissions of the Consultant under this agreement, including attorney fees and costs. The consultant is not required to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the Borough for a claim of, or liability for, the independent negligent acts, errors, and omissions of the Borough. If there is a claim of, or liability for, a joint negligent act, error, or omission of the Consultant and the Borough, the indemnification, defense, and hold harmless obligation of the Consultant, and liability of the parties, shall be apportioned on a comparative fault basis. In this provision, "Consultant" and "Borough" include the employees, agents, and contractors who are directly responsible, respectively, to each. In this provision, "independent negligent acts, errors, and omissions of the Borough" means negligence other than in the Borough's selection, administration, monitoring, or controlling of the Consultant, or in approving or accepting the Consultant's work or the Consultant's subcontractors. 11.0 INSURANCE. The Consultant understands that no Borough insurance coverage, including Workers' Compensation, is extended to the Consultant while completing the services described in this Agreement. The Consultant shall carry adequate (commercially reasonable coverage levels) insurance covering Workers' Compensation, general public liability, automobile, professional liability, and property damage including a contractual liability endorsement covering the liability created or assumed under this Agreement. The Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement or any work on any phase of the Project until the Consultant provides the Borough with certificates of insurance evidencing that all required insurance has been obtained. These insurance policies and any extension or renewals thereof must contain the following provisions or endorsements: a. Borough is an additional insured thereunder as respects to general liability arising out of or from the work performed by Consultant of Borough. b. Borough will be given thirty (30) days prior notice of cancellation or material alteration of any of the insurance policies specified in the certificate. c. Insurer waives all rights of subrogation against Borough and its employees or elected officials. d. The insurance coverage is primary to any comparable liability insurance carried by the Borough. Upon request, Consultant shall permit the Borough to examine any of the insurance policies specified herein. Any deductibles or exclusions in coverage will be assumed by the Consultant, for account of, and at the sole risk of the Consultant. The minimum amounts and types of insurance provided by the Consultant shall be as set forth in Exhibit C, subject to revision at the Borough's request in order to provide continuously throughout the term of the Agreement a level of protection consistent with good business practice and accepted standard of the industry. 12.0 GOVERNING LAW. The laws of Alaska will determine the interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Professional Services Agreement Page 4 of 11 13.0 OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCTS. Payment to the Consultant for services hereunder include full compensation for all work products and other materials produced by the Consultant and its subcontractors pertaining to this Agreement. The originals of all material prepared or developed by the Consultant or its employees, agents, or representatives hereunder, including documents, drawings, designs, calculations, maps, sketches, notes, reports, data, models, computer tapes, and samples shall become the property of the Borough when prepared, whether delivered or not, and shall, together with any materials furnished the Consultant and its employees, agents, or representatives by the Borough hereunder, be delivered to the Borough upon request and, upon termination or completion of this Agreement. Materials previously created and copyrighted by the Consultant included in this project will remain property of the Consultant. Copies will be made available to the Borough upon request. Materials purchased from and copyrighted by third parties are not included in this provision. 14.0 PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and save the Borough harmless from and against any and all claims, costs, royalties, damages and expenses of any kind of nature whatsoever (including attorneys' fees) which may arise out of or result from or be reasonably incurred in contesting any claim that the methods, processes, or acts employed by the Consultant or its employees in connection with the performance of services hereunder infringes or contributes to the infringement of any letter patent, trademark, or copyright. In case such methods, processes, or acts are in suit held to constitute infringement and use is enjoined, the Consultant, within reasonable time and at its own expense, will either secure a suspension of the injunction by procuring for the Borough a license or otherwise, or replace such method, process, etc., with one of equal efficiency. 15.0 NONWAIVER. No failure of the Borough or Consultant to insist upon the strict perfor- mance by the other of any of the terms of this Agreement or to exercise any right or remedy herein conferred, shall constitute a waiver or relinquishment to any extent of its rights to rely upon such terms or rights on any future occasion. Each and every term, right, or remedy of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 16.0 SAFETY/PERFORMANCE. The Consultant shall perform the work in a safe and workmanlike manner. The Consultant shall comply with all federal and state statues, ordinances, orders, rules, and regulations pertaining to the protection of workers and the public from injury or damage and shall take all other reasonable precautions to protect workers and the public from injury or damage. 17.0 SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION. 17.1 Fault Termination or Suspension. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon ten (10) days written notice if the other party fails substantially to perform in accordance with its terms. If the Borough terminates this Agreement, it will pay the Consultant a sum equal to the percentage of work completed and accepted by the Borough that can be substantiated by the Consultant and the Borough, offset by any amounts owed to the Borough. However, within the ten (10) day Notice of Intent to terminate the party in default shall be given an opportunity to present a plan to correct its failure. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Professional Services Agreement Page 5 of 11 17.2 Convenience Suspension or Termination. The Borough may at any time terminate or suspend this Agreement for any reason including its own needs or convenience. In the event of a convenience termination or suspension for more than six (6) months, the Consultant will be compensated for authorized services and authorized expenditures performed to the date of receipt of written notice of termination or suspension. No fee or other compensation for the uncompleted portion of the services will be paid, except for already incurred indirect costs which the Consultant can establish, and which would have been compensated but because of the termination or suspension would have to be absorbed by the Consultant without further compensation. 17.3 Activities Subsequent to Receipt of Notice of Termination or Suspension. Immediately upon receipt of a Notice of Termination or suspension and except as otherwise directed by the Borough or its Representative, the Consultant shall: a. stop work performed under this Agreement on the date and to the extent specified in the Notice; and b. transfer title to the Borough (to the extent that title has not already been transferred) and deliver in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Borough's representative, work in progress, completed work, supplies, and other material produced as a part of, or acquired in respect of the performance of the work terminated or suspended by the Notice. 18.0 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY. The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, or because of age, physical handicap, sex, marital status, change in marital status, pregnancy, or parenthood when the reasonable demands of the position do not require distinction on the basis of age, physical handicap, sex, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, or parenthood. The Consultant shall take affirmative action required by law to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, or marital status. 19.0 NO ASSIGNMENT OR DELEGATION. The Consultant may not assign, subcontract or delegate this Agreement, or any part of it, or any right to any of the money to be paid under it without written consent of the Contracting Officer. 20.0 INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT. The Consultant shall be an independent Consultant in the performance of the work under this Agreement and shall not be an employee or agent of the Borough. 21.0 PAYMENT OF TAXES. As a condition of performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall pay all federal, state and local taxes incurred by the Consultant and shall require their payment by any other persons in the performance of this Agreement. 22.0 PRECEDENCE AND DIVISIBILITY. The provisions of this Agreement shall fully govern the services performed by the Consultant. If any term, condition, or provision of this Agreement is declared void or unenforceable, or limited in its application or effect, such event shall not affect any other provisions hereof and all other provisions shall remain fully enforceable. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Professional Services Agreement Page 6 of 11 23.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties as to the services to be rendered by the Consultant. All previous or concurrent agreements, representations, warranties, promises, and conditions relating to the subject matter of this Agreement are superseded by this Agreement. 24.0 COMPLETION OF WORK, TERM OF AGREEMENT. The Consultant shall perform all work in a timely fashion, and in accordance with the schedules included in this Agreement and Exhibits. 25.0 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES. Venue for all claims and disputes under this Agreement, if not otherwise resolved by the parties, shall be in the appropriate Alaska State court in Anchorage or Kodiak, Alaska. 26.0 CHANGES IN SCOPE OF WORK. 26.1 General. No claim for additional services not specifically provided in this Agreement will be allowed, nor may the Consultant do any work or furnish any materials not covered by the Agreement unless the work or material is ordered in writing by the Contracting Officer. Preparation of Change Orders and design changes, due to errors and/or omissions by the Consultant, will be done at the sole expense of the Consultant. 26.2 Changes in Scope of Work. The Borough or its representative may, at any time, by a written Change Order delivered to the Consultant, make changes to the scope of work, or authorize additional work outside the scope of work. 26.3 Compensation to the Consultant. If any Change Order for which compensation is allowed under this Article causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of, or time required for, the performance of any part of the work under this Agreement, or if such change otherwise affects other provisions of this Agreement, an equitable adjustment will be negotiated. Such an adjustment may be: a. in the estimated cost or completion schedule, or both; b. in the amount of fee to be paid; and c. in such other provisions of the Agreement as may be affected, and the Agreement shall be modified in writing accordingly. 26.4 Any claim by the Consultant for adjustment under this section must be asserted within fifteen (15) days from the day of receipt by the Consultant of the notification of change; provided, however, that the Borough or its representative, deciding that the facts justify such action, may receive and act upon any such claim asserted at any time prior to final payment under this Agreement. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute within the meaning of Section 25.0 of this Agreement. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Professional Services Agreement Page 7 of 11 27.0 LIMITATION OF FUNDS. 27.1 At no time will any provision of this Agreement make the Borough or its representative liable for payment for performance of work under this Agreement in excess of the amount that has been appropriated by the Borough Assembly and obligated for expenditure for purposes of this Agreement. 27.2 Change orders issued pursuant to Section 26 of this Agreement shall not be considered an authorization to the Consultant to exceed the amount allotted in the absence of a statement in the change order, or other modification increasing the amount allotted. 27.3 Nothing in this Section shall affect the right of the Borough under Section 17 to terminate this Agreement. 28.0 PRIOR WORK. For the purposes of this Agreement, work done at the request of the Borough or its representative before execution of this Agreement shall be deemed to be work done after its execution and shall be subject to all the conditions contained herein. 29.0 NOTICES. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by the Agreement shall be sufficient if sent by the parties in the United States mail, postage paid, to the address noted below: Kodiak Island Borough Attn: Borough Manager 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 125 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Attn: Mary Beth Baxter 3800 Centerpoint Dr., Suite 920 Anchorage, AK 99503 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. Kodiak Island orough Signed: By: Aimee Williams Title: Borough Manager Date: i �- JlAa%J �-S A 'TEST: -A � ova M. Javier Borough Clerk Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. —INj�CuO Signed: By: Mary Beth Baxter Title: Manager of Projects Date: June 12, 2025 Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Professional Services Agreement Page 8 of 11 EXHIBIT A Amendment No. 1 [2 pages] Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Professional Services Agreement Page 9 of 11 May 22, 2025 Mrs. Mary Beth Baxter Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 3800 Centerpoint Dr, Ste 920 Anchorage, AK 99517 Kodiak Island Borough Engineering & Facilities Department 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Phone (907) 486-9340 Fax (907) 486-9394 dconrad@kodiakak.us RE: Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan- Amendment No. I Mrs. Baxter Thank you for taking the time to meet with Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) staff on May 16, 2025. As discussed, KIB intends to recommend to the KIB Assembly that the contract for updating the Borough's Regional Solid Waste Management Plan be awarded to Jacobs. Following our discussions during the May 16 meeting and subsequent correspondence, KIB staff have decided to amend the scope of work to better align with the needs of both KIB and the Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA). This Amendment No. 1 ("Amendment") shall be made a part of the CONTRACT between the Kodiak Island Borough ("OWNER") & Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. ("Jacobs"). This Amendment changes the proposed scope of work for the Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan as presented in the Jacobs Proposal for Project No. 25008, dated April 8, 2025, as follows: Proposed Methodology (p.3) • Flexibility in the project timeline has been agreed upon: The final deadline is flexible if responses from KIB or KANA are delayed. However, this flexible deadline will not extend more than two months beyond the originally stated deadline. Task #1 Project Initiation, Regulations & Data Review (p.3) For data requests, KIB and the Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) will communicate any issues that arise. While the original two-week turnaround may be extended, we request a minimum of four -weeks to respond, particularly during the summer months when staff availability may be limited. All meetings will include both KIB and KANA with KIB serving as the primary point of contact. KIB and KANA are the only stakeholders referenced in the proposal. However, other entities deemed appropriate by KIB and/or KANA may be invited to participate in meetings. Amendment No. 1 May 22, 2025 Page 1 of 1 • All feasible recycling options for Kodiak will be reviewed. This may include, but is not limited to, Threshold Services, Backhaul Alaska, Net Your Problem, and Oceans Plastic Recovery. TASK # 2 Data Collection/Community Input (p.4) Task 2, which originally focused on gathering input from village communities, will also include the KIB landfill community. Up to 4 focused surveys (total) will be developed under Task 2 for both KIB and KANA stakeholders. Jacobs will generate the survey content, which will then be reviewed by both KIB, and KANA. Both entities (KIB & KANA) will also assist Jacobs in distributing the surveys to appropriate stakeholders. Jacobs will analyze the survey data and provide the results to KIB and KANA staff. TASK #3: Waste Characterization (p.4) • No change TASK #4: Development of the Draft Regional SWMP (p.4) • Task 4 will include one round of consolidated comments from both KIB and KANA. TASK #5: Finalize Plan (p.5) • The final plan deliverable will include an executive summary designed for public presentation. This summary will incorporate visuals where applicable. • A final presentation, including a slideshow, is requested. It is understood that these items will be addressed under a lump -sum contract for $246,000, as indicated in the Jacobs Proposal for Project No. 25008, dated April 8, 2025. In the event of conflict with other articles, exhibits, schedules, terms, conditions, or contract documents this Amendment shall be final. Mary Beth Baxter Jacobs Engineering Grou c. David Conrad E&F Director -Kodiak Island Borough kiw(ee Williams Manager -Kodiak Island Borough ATTEST. P(-') Vovar.Javier, C Borough Clerk DATE: n cel 11I a.s June 12, 2025 Date (I t Z /'Zzs.S Date l2 1UfV �S Date ��,AND9090 � C O � 9`ISKA -0'\% Amendment No. 1 May 22, 2025 �°"'°r.�� Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT B Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc Proposal Dated April 8, 2025. [29 pages] Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Professional Services Agreement Page 10 of 11 a -1 r , L J Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) Kodiak Island Borough, AK Project No. 25008 1 April 8, 2025 Jacobs. r i 008DQQ Copyright Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.© 2025. All rights reserved. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of the Jacobs group of companies. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright. Jacobs, the Jacobs logo, and all other Jacobs trademarks are the property of Jacobs. ATTACHMENT A PROPOSAL COVER PAGE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I certify that I am a duly authorized representative of the firm listed below and that intormation and materials enclosed with this proposal accurately represent the capabilities of the office listed below for providing the services indicated. The Borough is hereby authorized to request any owner identified in this proposal to furnish any pertinent information deemed necessary to verify information provided or regarding reputation and capabilities of the firm. AMENDMENTS The Proposer represents to the Borough that it has relied upon no oral representations from the Borough in the preparation of this proposal. If any amendments are issued to this RFP, the Proposer must acknowledge the receipt of such amendments in the space provided on the line below. Failure to acknowledge receipt of amendments shall render the proposal non responsive and it will not be evaluated. Amendment Acknowledgment Number(s): —1i2, 5, ti-., — ORIGINAL SIGNATURE Acknowledgment sheet must be manually (original signature) signed. A proposal shall be rejected when the proposal is not signed by hand. �r �{L Office address for which this Signaturlaof Reprci niative submittal is made: Date: Name: Mari Beth Baxter _ Title: Manager of Projects Firm: Jacobs Engineenn Group Inc. Type of Firni (check one) Individual Partnership X Corporation to the State of: Delaware Other (Specify): Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request fur Proposals Page 14 of 21 Street: 3800 Centcrpoint Drive Suite 920 P. O. Box: City, State, Zip: Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone:` 1 425 468 3041 AK Business Lie. No. 153499 Jacobs Challenging today. Reinventing tomorrow. April 8, 2025 Attn: Kodiak Island Borough Attn: Finance Department 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Project No: 25008 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 3800 Centerpoint Drive Suite 920 Anchorage, AK 99503 T +1.907.762.1500 F +1.907.762.1199 www.jacobs.com Subject: Sealed Proposal, Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Dear Kodiak Island Borough The Kodiak Island Borough is seeking a qualified consultant to develop a Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) that ensures waste management systems adapt to changing conditions, are environmentally responsible, and meet regulatory standards. We understand the scope of services you require and are well-positioned to help you achieve your goals. Our proposed SWMP adopts a comprehensive and inclusive approach that includes KIB regional communities including Kodiak and Alaskan Native villages (Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions) that builds on the existing plan to better understand community challenges and provide practical solutions for increasing responsible waste management across the Borough and villages. We prioritize affordability and accessibility while investigating environmental impacts and exploring new technologies to minimize harm, reduce landfill use, promote recycling, and manage hazardous waste effectively. Our plan also addresses evolving needs due to population changes, industrial activity, and regulatory changes. By optimizing waste collection, processing/consolidation, recycling, and disposal methods, we aim to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and enhance resource utilization. Jacobs has been supporting solid waste work in Alaska for over 4 decades, providing a wide range of services - evaluation, planning, design, and construction. We are honored to have partnered with you for more than 20 years on a range of solid waste -related projects (landfill construction, infrastructure, monitoring, and biosolids composting facility design). With our deep understanding of the region and local experience, we provide waste management solutions specifically designed to meet the needs of Kodiak Island Borough and its citizens with the following added benefits: Local Knowledge: With a history of successful projects in Kodiak and other Alaska locations, we have consistently delivered high-quality results that meet local regulations and account for the unique conditions of Kodiak Island. This local knowledge results in waste management strategies that are effective, practical for the region, and reliable. Our project manager, Cory Hinds, provides valuable local insight with his knowledge of Kodiak's community, landscape, state regulations, and solid waste challenges. Cory is also a member of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Alaska Chapter and has taught the Rural Alaska Landfill Operator (RALO) curriculum, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 008DQQ Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan which addresses the challenges and solutions specifically relevant to effective management of solid and hazardous waste in KIB's villages. Proven Track Record: 20+ years delivering solid waste projects in Alaska and similar projects around the globe to both public and private sector clients. Examples include successful completion of the Juneau Solid Waste Study and Guam Zero Waste Master Plan —demonstrates our ability to collaborate with clients, agencies, nonprofits, and their local partners to identify and solve complex waste management challenges for remote areas. This proven track record provides you credibility and confidence in our ability to provide a high-quality regional plan for the Kodiak Island Borough. Comprehensive Approach and Expertise: Our ability to provide a comprehensive approach to solid waste management—including technical expertise in sustainable solutions, project delivery, and coordination—demonstrates that we can address all aspects of the project (environmental, social, and economic value). Our expertise in providing innovative solutions (biosolids composting, Recycling Enterprise Zones of consolidation, food waste diversion, etc.), both in Kodiak and other remote locations (Juneau, Guam, Hawaii and several Alaskan islands) further strengthens our position as a reliable partner for this work. Our proposed SWMP is aimed at ultimately improving the quality of life for all Borough citizens through community involvement that gathers diverse perspectives and fosters ownership and collaboration among residents to enhance the plan's effectiveness and sustainability. Together we can develop economical and technically feasible recommendations for improving solid waste management within the Kodiak Island Borough and, ultimately, the environment and health of its citizens. We are eager to start. Mary Beth Baxter is authorized to make representations and commitments on behalf of Jacobs. Her contact information is provided below. Regards, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Mary Beth Baxter Manager of Projects +1.425.503.7860 Marybeth.baxter@jacobs.com Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 008DQQ Cory Hinds Project Manager +1.907.229.6809 Cory.hinds@jacobs.com A. Response to Criteria/Technical Proposal 1. Key Project Personnel Our team includes highly skilled professionals with extensive experience in their respective fields. Each member brings a unique set of skills and expertise that bring efficiency and lead to successful execution of the project. Their proven track record and commitment to excellence make them invaluable assets to our team. Resumes for these key personnel are provided in Appendix A. Figure 1: Organizational Chart of Key Personnel Cory Hinds, PE Asst. Project Manager Grace Hadinata Solid Waste Expert/Senior Reviewers Lyndsey Lopez & Dan Pitzler Technical Lead(s) Lyndsey Lopez Terra Miller-Cassman (Stakeholder/Community (Materials & Waste Engagement) Management Specialist) Data & Research Amy Rodman I Anabel Needham I Carlin Coleman AiCory Hinds, PE, Project Manager 29+ years of relevant experience MS, Civil Engineering i BS, Civil Engineering Professional Engineer: AK #CE9313/EN 14405 Based in our Anchorage office, Cory will lead the project team to meet client needs while providing invaluable Local insights. With extensive experience in waste management and infrastructure projects in Kodiak, Cory will serve as your primary point of contact. As a team Lead and project manager with 29 years of experience in regional planning, design, construction administration, and management of solid waste, water, wastewater, transportation, and site development projects, Cory excels in fostering regional collaboration. He is our 008DQQ regional expert on the design, construction, and operation of solid waste landfills. He is known for developing practical, cost-effective technical solutions that meet client needs. He brings several decades of experience with the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Alaska Chapter, particularly the Rural Alaska Landfill Operator (RALO) training. This knowledge allows him to suggest best solid waste practices for borough villages through the Rural Alaska. Cory instructed portions of the RALO course, covering topics such as managing common challenges in Alaska's small villages (e.g., waste burning, consolidation and compaction, hazardous waste, water and snow removal, backhaul, and funding). He played a key role in updating the course materials. Cory's leadership and expertise will drive the success of this project to exceptional results. Grace Hadinata, Assistant Project Manager, 15+ years of relevant experience MS, Civil & Environmental Engineering I BS, Civil Engineering, University of California, TRUE Advisor As Assistant Project Manager, Grace brings extensive expertise in managing waste management projects, including landfill construction, environmental compliance, zero waste planning, and multiple waste management plans for the US Navy, US Air Force, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) including various remote sites. Leveraging her experience with remote islands with similar challenges to Kodiak, she will provide technical support in developing the regional solid waste management plan (SWMP). Grace's recent collaborations with Cory on master planning projects (including the Recycling Enterprise Zone project in Guam for consolidation of junk vehicles, waste tires, and appliances) demonstrates exceptional teamwork and partnership. Her strong collaboration and problem - solving skills enhance efficiency in budget management and quality assurance, complementing Cory's focus on technical solutions and stakeholder collaboration. Grace works closely with Cory, bringing her communication and adaptability strengths, to meet client needs with projects delivered on time, within budget, and to the highest quality standards. Lyndsey Lopez, Solid Waste Expert/ �y= Senior Reviewer, 20+ years of relevant experience BS, Chemical Engineering, Colorado School of Mines Lyndsey's responsibilities as Senior Reviewer includes providing strategic planning for improving current waste management practices and developing regional approaches. She will provide support in developing diversion initiatives and long-term vision and planning. She will also guide the team as Technical Lead for Stakeholder/Community Engagement. She has a wealth of experience in managing complex waste master planning projects and in providing the related stakeholder/community engagement and regional collaboration instrumental to successful plans. Her expertise spans waste diversion, processing, consolidation, and collection, all aimed at achieving cost efficiency and meeting community needs. This includes working with various jurisdictions including Juneau, Guam, City of Honolulu, and Kauai—remote locations with challenges similar to Kodiak. Dan Pitzler, Solid Waste Expert/ Senior Reviewer, 35 years of relevant experience Professional Certificate, Strategic Decisions and Risk Management, Stanford University; MA, Economics, University of Washington; BA, Economics, Western Washington University With over 35 years of experience, Dan has led the development of regional sustainable solid waste management solutions for clients across the U.S. and in seven foreign countries. As the lead for our decision science practice, he spearheads the analysis of waste management and diversion alternatives, balancing multi - objectives such as cost efficiency and regional needs, and conducting risk assessments. His leadership in facilitating regional decision-making and collaboration processes is unparalleled. Additionally, he is a prolific author of numerous presentations and publications on waste management and transportation economics, showcasing his deep knowledge and influence in the field. EXPERIENCE, EXPERTISE, LOCAL KNOWLEDGE, STRATEGIC PLANNING, AND COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE— OUR TEAM DELIVERS COMPREHENSIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS! 008DQQ .1w 11 Terra Miller-Cassman, Materials & Waste a. Management Specialist, 10+ years of relevant experience PhD, Materials Science & Engineering, Boise State University & BA in Environmental Studies, University of Washington As Materials and Waste Management Specialist, Terra will be responsible for integrating innovative solutions and current industry trends to enhance efficiency in managing the Kodiak region's waste and resources. Terra brings a wide range of technical expertise in waste diversion solutions and technologies, materials and waste characterization, and strategic planning. She is currently leading a comprehensive evaluation of the City and Borough of Juneau's waste management system, considering the unique challenges of Juneau's wet climate and remote location. This solid waste evaluation provides critical insights to optimize long-term solid waste management in Juneau. Amy Rodman, Environmental Specialist, 20+ years of relevant experience BS, Geology, University of Alaska Fairbanks Based in the Juneau office, Amy will be responsible for Leading the waste characterization tasks; work plan development and leading the on-site waste characterization in accordance with ASTM D5231. She is a seasoned Environmental Specialist with over 20 years of experience in environmental projects. She has a proven track record of expertise in on-site assessments, work plan development, and logistics management. Amy's extensive experience includes numerous projects in Alaska (Umiat, Ketchikan, Fairbanks, Juneau, and others) where she has successfully navigated the unique environmental challenges of the region. Her comprehensive knowledge and dedication to the region make her a valuable asset to this project. 9LAnabel Needam, Project Engineer,1 year of relevant experience MS and BS, Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University Based in the Anchorage office, Anabel will be responsible for providing data collation and writing support to update the SWMP. She will be responsible for regulations research and data collection needed for waste characterization. She will also organize preparation of cost estimates for diversion and management options. She has experience with waste management and environmental compliance projects in Alaska including Anchorage, Juneau, King Salmon and Shemya. Carlin Coleman, Project Engineer, 4 years of relevant experience I BS, Environmental Engineering, University of California; LEED Green Associate Carlin will play a crucial role in supporting data collation and research to support costing. She recently spearheaded comprehensive updates of SWMPs for the US Navy, meticulously reviewing and collecting data, identifying opportunities for improved diversion, and maintaining strict compliance with local and naval regulations. Her proven expertise in conducting thorough research, developing insightful questionnaires, analyzing complex data, and confirming regulatory compliance for similar plans at overseas naval sites will be instrumental in driving this project to success. 2. The proposed methodology for addressing the scope of this RFP Our methodology for developing the SWMP leverages our regional knowledge and solid waste expertise to optimize waste collection, processing, and disposal, resulting in cost reductions and better resource utilization. Our team includes seasoned professionals (Cory, Lyndsey, Dan, Grace, Terra) and delivery staff (Amy, Anabel and Carlin), providing a balanced and cost effective approach that combines experience and fresh perspectives to achieve the SWMP milestones within the set timeline (Figure 2). Figure 2: Proposed Schedule (estimated) Kodiak Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Contract start Submit Draft Final Plan (5/15/25)I (12/16/25) I 1 ♦ 2025 4 t SIep 1 Oct Nov Dic 1 � Regs & Data Review 2 � Data Collection/Community Input 3 � Waste Characterization 4 Draft Development Review by KIB and KANA � Respond to Comments Finalize Plan 5 � Legend: 0 = Milestones = Tasks Assumption: To meet the completion date of December 31, 2025, the schedule above assumes I'T 1 �- 11 contract starts May 15, 2025 and KIB and KANA will provide data within 2 weeks of data requests. Strategic Staffing for Success We structured our pricing to provide appropriate senior oversight to charter the project with KIB, deliver majority of the scope using efficient mid-level staff, with expert guidance and reviews. We maintain scope and budget control by tracking spending and progress weekly. We own the responsibility of delivering the project under the stated assumptions for the lump sum price. Jacobs' Solution/Methodology TASK #1: Project Initiation, Regulations & Data Review (completed within 1 month of contract start) Initial Data Request/Review: Gather necessary data to understand current waste management practices and identify areas for improvement. The data to be requested from KIB and KANA includes current waste management policies and procedures, waste generation data (types, quantities, sources), waste disposal and recycling records, contracts with waste management vendors, and financial data related to waste management costs. Data request forms will be prepared and submitted to KIB and KANA. Assumptions: Data (village profile, waste generation data, and existing waste management practices) will be provided by KIB and KANA within 2 weeks of data requests to meet December completion date. KIB and KANA will provide responses to requests for clarification within 1 week. - Review of EPA Guidelines: Familiarize the team with the EPA Chapter 2 Developing Solid Waste Management Plans document to confirm compliance and alignment with the guidelines. - Workshop Meeting: Prepare for and organize 1 workshop meeting with Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) staff to discuss project objectives (recycling hub/consolidation options, priorities and constraints), timelines, and deliverables. Assumption: All meetings will be conducted virtually. The workshop will be up to 2 hours with up to 4Jacobs staff in attendance. Summary of Finalized Options: As a result of the workshop, we will prepare a comprehensive table of changes, including the finalized and agreed- upon waste management options, to be incorporated into the plan update. TASK # 2 Data Collection/Community Input (completed within 2 months) Community Input: Gather community input on waste management issues, concerns, and priorities in native villages. The collected input will be analyzed to highlight common themes and specific areas of concern, which will then be used to inform and refine the waste management plan. This approach ensures that the plan reflects the community's needs and priorities, fostering greater engagement and support for its implementation. - Stakeholder Meetings: Conduct meetings with KANA staff to gather input and feedback on waste management practices, priorities and challenges. Assumptions: KANA is responsible for gathering community feedback from KIB Villages, which will then be incorporated into the plan. This process assumes up to 2 meetings. All meetings will be conducted virtually. The meetings will be 1 hour with up to 4Jacobs staff in attendance. > TASK #3: Waste Characterization (completed within 2 months) - On-site waste characterization: Conducted in accordance with ASTM D5231 for 3 sites: the Kodiak Island Borough Landfill, 1 road system (accessible by ferry) village landfill, and 1 remote (accessible by plane) village landfill. This task will include: preparing a detailed work plan; planning, coordination, and travel; executing the waste sort, and reporting the findings. The work plan will include defining objectives, safety protocols, and Logistics. The waste sort will include categorizing waste as per ASTM D5231 guidelines, recording data, and confirming safety compliance. A waste characterization report will be included as part of the SWMP and will provide a summary of data, results, and recommendations to support waste management improvements to be outlined in the plan. Assumptions: Conducting waste characterization for 3 sites will take a total of 10 working days (5 days for Kodiak and 5 days for 2 native villages). Sites are accessible and meet safety requirements, and necessary access to waste materials and personnel providing site access are available. No seasonality of waste composition to be completed. TASK #4: Development of the Draft Regional SWMP (completed within 4 months) Draft Plan: Develop a draft of the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan using the guidelines provided in EPA Chapter 2 Developing Solid Waste Management Plans. Incorporate data analysis, regulatory review, and community input. Step 1: Develop a Profile of the Planning Areas (Kodiak, Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions) Step 2: Define Solid Waste Generators Within Planning Areas Step 3: Identify Existing Waste Management Practices Within the Planning Areas Step 4: Conduct a Waste Assessment (See Task 3) Step 5: Estimate Future Waste Generation Quantities Step 6: Develop Waste Handling Options Step 7: Identify Existing Regional Programs or Infrastructure the Planning Area Might Use Step 8: Develop Costs for Waste Handling Options Step 9: Compare Options Based on Criteria Defined by the Tribes Assumptions: Successful completion of Steps 1-9 rely on adequate data being provided as part of the data collection tasks in Task 1 and 2 and through the waste characterization in Task 3. KIB data and input will be provided by KANA and KIB within 2 weeks of data request. Waste management options will only be assessed qualitatively in Step 9. Waste Solutions Expertise: Leverage the expertise of Jacobs' solid waste management and planning specialists to create a comprehensive plan that includes innovative waste solutions and technologies that are practicable for the region (focusing on recycling/consolidation options and addressing identified challenges). Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation: Recommend a framework for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of waste management practices to provide continuous improvement. - Submit Draft for Client Review: Submit the draft plan for KIB and KANA to review and provide comments. Assumption: There will be 1 round of comments. Comments from KIB will be provided in 1 consolidated file, within 2 weeks of draft submittal. > TASK #5: Finalize Plan - Respond to Comments: Provide response to comments to confirm resolutions. KIB to confirm responses adequately addresses comments. - Final Updates: Confirm draft final report adequately addresses comments and make final changes. Assumptions: Final deliverable will be up to 50 pages, not including appendices. All draft and final deliverables will be electronic. Final Report Submission: Submit the final Regional SWMP to KIB and KANA. .O. Suggested additions/ideas Focusing on efficiency and a SWMP that aligns best with your goals and community, we propose a minimal scope that meets your requirements with the following optional add-ons for consideration: > Discuss tried methods during the kickoff workshop to reach a practical, right -size approach Contract the full grant amount and negotiate tasks for best value 3. Example outline for the Kodiak Island Borough Regional SWMP Provided in Appendix B. 4. A description of any intended use of subcontractors Jacobs will self -perform all scope. 5. A description of experience with similar projects, particularly in the public and/or private sector in Alaska Jacobs has been supporting solid waste work in Alaska for over 4 decades, providing a wide range of services - evaluation, planning, design, and construction. This experience includes various projects such as the City of Kodiak Composting Facility Design, the Kodiak Landfill Lateral Expansion, City and Borough of Juneau Solid Waste Study, and the Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Disinfection. We partner with both public and private sector clients to JACOBS IN ALASKA 20+ Years Providing landfill support to KIB 40+ Years Supporting solid waste projects in Alaska 50+ Environmental professionals in Alaska address evolving solid waste needs and improve efficiency in managing costs through cost sharing, grants, and affordable waste solutions for communities around the world. Our commitment to the functionality, longevity, and success of solid waste facilities is driven by our investment to partner with our clients in minimizing environmental harm and enhancing source reduction and diversion, which benefits both the local community and the planet. Examples of our Alaska solid waste experience include: Composting Facility Feasibility Study and Design, City of Kodiak, AK (further highlighted in Question 6) Kenai Peninsula Borough, Cell 3 Design, and Construction Support, Soldotna, AK Municipality of Anchorage Solid Waste Services, Landfill Gas Development Project Evaluation, Anchorage, AK Kodiak Landfill Lateral Expansion, KIB, Kodiak, AK (further highlighted in Question 6) > City and Borough of Juneau Solid Waste Study Project, Juneau, AK (detailed in the following) City and Borough of Juneau Solid Waste Study I Juneau, Alaska Client: City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) Key personnel: Lyndsey Lopez, Terra Miller-Cassman Highlights: Alaska Regional Solid Waste Management, Public Engagement Reference: Refer to Figure 4 (page 9) Project description and services provided transfer station needs, capital costs, and D waste- to energy relevant regulations for new facility facilities, such as a landfill, D ship g in offsite via transfer station, and waste -to - barge energy facility, as well as the option of shipping waste offsite via barge. Using waste characterization data, we conducted a thorough analysis to develop various waste management options and their associated costs. This process involved examining the types and quantities of waste generated at each site and evaluating different disposal and recycling methods. We collaborated with a subcontractor that provided financial expertise in Alaska to evaluate the cost and financial aspects of the scenarios. We prepared a technical memorandum and presented the evaluation findings to inform elected officials and key partners of the feasibility of the proposed options. Following the success of the Solid Waste Study, CBJ is now in discussions to engage us to perform a comprehensive life -cycle analysis with operating costs for the solid waste management. In addition, we will engage with the public through surveys and community information presentations to inform the public about the study's results and provide inclusive and meaningful engagement with a diverse community, including those who may be impacted by the proposed scenario(s), relevant organizations, government entities, and special interest groups. Public and Private Sector Community Outreach Experience in Alaska With extensive experience in community outreach, we have successfully led numerous environmental projects in Alaska (Figure 3). We prepared community outreach materials such as annual newsletters, support public meetings, maintain administrative records, and generate other community outreach documents like the Proposed Plan (PP), public announcements, fact sheets, and newsletters to update stakeholders. We also established communication with local stakeholders, including EPA Region 10, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Air Force, and local/native communities like Alutiiq, and mentored a native -owned civil company in health and safety. Figure 3: Jacobs Community Outreach in Alaska 1 Composting Facility Feasibility Study and Design, City of Kodiak 2 Taku Gardens RI/Interim Remedial Action, Fort Wainwright 3 Site Investigation, Treatability Study, Time Critical Removal Action and Non -Time Critical Removal Action Characterization, Port Heiden 4 Performance Based Remediation (PBR), Eielson AFB, AK 5 Fort Randall Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) RI, Operations & Maintenance, and Remedial Optimization, Cold Bay, AK 6 North River PCB -Contaminated Soil Removal Action, Unalakleet, AK 7 SI and RA at U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Air Station, Annette Island 8 RI/Feasibility Study (FS) and TCRA at USCG Base, Ketchikan 6. A description of experience with similar projects, particularly in the public and/or private sector in Kodiak, Alaska Our SWMP experience in Kodiak, Alaska includes various infrastructure work related to the Kodiak landfill, monitoring work, and the Biosolids Composting Facility Design for the City. CBJ is exploring various Demonstrated Team options for long-term Efficiency: management of solid waste in Rapid 2.5 -month the region. CBJ engaged turnaround to complete Jacobs to evaluate the solid waste management economic and logistical evaluation and draft technical report with an feasibility for 3 potential solid approximately $50,000 waste management scenarios. budget. We conducted a comprehensive review of CBJ's Future Planning current solid waste Assessed future solid waste options including: management system, examining waste landfill characterization data, facility transfer station needs, capital costs, and D waste- to energy relevant regulations for new facility facilities, such as a landfill, D ship g in offsite via transfer station, and waste -to - barge energy facility, as well as the option of shipping waste offsite via barge. Using waste characterization data, we conducted a thorough analysis to develop various waste management options and their associated costs. This process involved examining the types and quantities of waste generated at each site and evaluating different disposal and recycling methods. We collaborated with a subcontractor that provided financial expertise in Alaska to evaluate the cost and financial aspects of the scenarios. We prepared a technical memorandum and presented the evaluation findings to inform elected officials and key partners of the feasibility of the proposed options. Following the success of the Solid Waste Study, CBJ is now in discussions to engage us to perform a comprehensive life -cycle analysis with operating costs for the solid waste management. In addition, we will engage with the public through surveys and community information presentations to inform the public about the study's results and provide inclusive and meaningful engagement with a diverse community, including those who may be impacted by the proposed scenario(s), relevant organizations, government entities, and special interest groups. Public and Private Sector Community Outreach Experience in Alaska With extensive experience in community outreach, we have successfully led numerous environmental projects in Alaska (Figure 3). We prepared community outreach materials such as annual newsletters, support public meetings, maintain administrative records, and generate other community outreach documents like the Proposed Plan (PP), public announcements, fact sheets, and newsletters to update stakeholders. We also established communication with local stakeholders, including EPA Region 10, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Air Force, and local/native communities like Alutiiq, and mentored a native -owned civil company in health and safety. Figure 3: Jacobs Community Outreach in Alaska 1 Composting Facility Feasibility Study and Design, City of Kodiak 2 Taku Gardens RI/Interim Remedial Action, Fort Wainwright 3 Site Investigation, Treatability Study, Time Critical Removal Action and Non -Time Critical Removal Action Characterization, Port Heiden 4 Performance Based Remediation (PBR), Eielson AFB, AK 5 Fort Randall Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) RI, Operations & Maintenance, and Remedial Optimization, Cold Bay, AK 6 North River PCB -Contaminated Soil Removal Action, Unalakleet, AK 7 SI and RA at U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Air Station, Annette Island 8 RI/Feasibility Study (FS) and TCRA at USCG Base, Ketchikan 6. A description of experience with similar projects, particularly in the public and/or private sector in Kodiak, Alaska Our SWMP experience in Kodiak, Alaska includes various infrastructure work related to the Kodiak landfill, monitoring work, and the Biosolids Composting Facility Design for the City. Kodiak Landfill Lateral Expansion, Kodiak Island Borough I Kodiak, Alaska Client: KIB Key personnel: Cory Hinds Highlights: Kodiak Community and Stakeholder Engagement Experience, Comprehensive Solid Waste Support, Solid Waste Management System Evaluation, Waste Management Practices and Needs Assessment, Prioritization of Options, Landfill Engineering/Design, Construction/Compliance Project description and services provided The Lateral Expansion project involved the planning and development of a lined expansion of the Kodiak Landfill. We introduced a phased development approach to meet schedule and funding constraints. We evaluated landfill expansion options and successfully developed a plan to increase efficiency—increasing landfill life to 30 years over initial project estimates. We assisted with design and bid document preparation, permitting cost estimating, and troubleshooting during construction. This project provided us with strong familiarity and experience in working with the Kodiak community, local governments, and environmental regulators. f MY WORK AT THE KODIAK LANDFILL, COMPOSTING PILOT STUDY, WASTE COMPOSITION STUDIES AND SWANA'S RALO TRAINING ALLOWS FOR EXPERT GUIDANCE FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH. " -CORY HINDS, PE PROJECT MANAGER Composting Facility Feasibility Study and Design I Kodiak, Alaska Client: City of Kodiak Key personnel: Cory Hinds Highlights: Local Experience, Cost Savings, Comprehensive Solid Waste Support, Solid Waste Management System Evaluation, Planning & Implementation, Stakeholder Engagement, Waste Management Practices and Needs Assessment, Prioritization of Options, Engineering/Design, Construction/Compliance Project description and services provided We worked with the City of Kodiak on a compost facility feasibility and design when dewatered solids from the water reclamation facility could no longer be landfilled. We conducted a feasibility study comparing alternative options including composting, incineration, drying, alkaline stabilization, and cannibal solids reduction processes. A pilot study was conducted to validate the technology and product quality before design of a full- scale facility to process dewatered solids into biosolids compost compliant with EPA and Alaska regulations. Coordination and ongoing cooperation between the City, KIB, Alaska regulators, and our engineering team was key to the success of this program. This collaborative approach was crucial in addressing public concerns and ensuring successful diversion of biosolids. Relevant solid waste project experience with similar scope outside of Alaska. The following solid waste projects and programs are examples of regional collaborative work we deliver involving a variety of waste management issues, project challenges, and stakeholder engagement requirements. Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, Zero Waste Plan, and Sustainable Materials Management Program I Guam Client: Guam Environmental Protection Agency (Guam EPA) and Port of Guam Key personnel: Cory Hinds, Lyndsey Lopez, Grace Hadinata, Carlin Coleman, Anabel Needham, Terra Miller-Cassman Highlights: Remote Location, Waste Characterization, Investigate Existing Waste Management Practices, Stakeholder Engagement, Solid Waste Master Plan Development, Waste Management Practices and Needs Assessment, Prioritization of Options for Master Plan and Recycling Enterprise Zone Reference: Refer to Figure 4 (page 9) Project description and services provided We have been working with Guam EPA and Port of Guam to provide technical support to design, plan, develop, and implement Guam's sustainable materials and zero waste programs. The team exhibited proven teamwork and partnership, effectively leveraging their strengths to enhance efficiency and deliver cost-efficient solutions for the client. Our initial tasks included a variety of Demonstrated Team sustainable materials Efficiency: 8 -month management activities and turnaround to initiatives. Over the 4 year complete period, we conducted a waste comprehensive composition study, food waste integrated SWMP with and food recovery an approximately demonstration projects, $150,000 budget. biosolids composting demonstration project, plastics circular economy study, greening roadway (using recycled asphalt pavement, recycled concrete aggregate, recycled glass, waste tires, and compost), and a utility infrastructure demonstration project and report. For the next phase of the project, we developed 2 other plans, an integrated solid waste management plan (ISWMP) and a zero -waste master plan. In the ISWMP, we reviewed and summarized the existing infrastructure, challenges, recommendations, and identified landfill diversion goals. Our team also reviewed the existing solid waste program against new legislative requirements, identified gaps, and made program recommendations to 008DQQ meet the new regulatory requirements. For the zero -waste master plan, we assisted the client to prioritize, implement, and evaluate zero -waste initiatives. Twelve different zero waste initiatives were included in the zero -waste master plan issued in 2023. We incorporated stakeholder engagement throughout all phases of the project, including online surveys, facilitated discussions, and presentations for groups such as government, military, non-government organizations, and non -profits. We evaluated recyclable material processing and handling methodologies that included policy -focused initiatives like extended producer responsibility for packaging as well as materials processing, recycling, and reuse initiatives like construction and demolition materials processing, junk vehicles, waste tires and appliances recycling, food waste composting, and more. Solid Waste Management System Planning & Implementation I Portland, Oregon Client: Portland Metro (Metro) Key personnel: Lyndsey Lopez, Dan Pitzler Highlights: Comprehensive Solid Waste Support, Solid Waste Management System Evaluation, Planning & Implementation, Stakeholder Engagement, Solid Waste Master Plan Development, Waste Management Practices and Needs Assessment, Prioritization of Options, Reference: Refer to Figure 4 (page 9) Project description and services provided Metro is the solid waste planning authority for the Greater Portland region of 24 cities and 3 counties, representing 1.7 million people. Metro has a complex system of public/private partnerships and waste hauling Licenses and exclusive franchises, with a network of over 40 private hauling companies and a mix of public and private facilities. For over 2 decades, we have supported Metro with the comprehensive long-term planning and execution of their solid waste management system, providing technical analysis, procurement assistance, and education and outreach. A few of the projects we have assisted Metro with include: Analysis, Document Development, and Seamless Implementation of New Programs and Processes: Metro engaged us (Lyndsey Lopez and Dan Pitzler) to conduct the gap analysis, cost modeling, and planning that was integral to the development of the recently submitted Regional System Facilities Plan. We worked closely with Metro to develop this plan. The plan presents the regional garbage and recycling strategy for the next 20 years and includes the new solid waste infrastructure and investments needed for improving waste reduction, increasing access to services, and keeping fees affordable. Decision Analysis, Risk Assessment, and Procurement Assistance: We have performed a variety of solid waste system evaluation and procurement services for Metro in preparation for various expiring contracts (Transport and Disposal and Transfer Station Operations). For the Transport and Disposal contracts, Metro engaged us (Lyndsey and Dan) to apply our multi -objective decision analysis (MODA) and risk assessment methods to compare various multimodal transportation scenarios (for example, truck, rail, and barge hauling) and various disposal facilities. For the Transfer Station Operation contracts, we conducted benchmarking activities to identify improvements for the future contract (e.g., performance requirements, reporting requirements, contingency plans, and health and safety requirements). Both engagements culminated in the development of Metro's procurement strategies and the creation of Request for Quotation (RFQ) and RFP documents. We provided technical assistance and strategic advice to decisionmakers throughout the procurement process, reviewing and evaluating proposals from multiple parties for the Transport and Disposal project, which included 4 different disposal facilities covering 11 disposal scenarios and 4 transport providers, covering 24 transport scenarios. Stakeholder Engagement: Throughout our long-time assistance with solid waste planning for Metro, our staff has facilitated numerous meetings between Metro staff and key stakeholders (government, industry, community, and other private and non- governmental organizations). .=-V F1 7. Reference contact information of at least two but no more than four other organizations for work performed on similar projects. Figure 4: References City and Borough of Dianna Robinson, Environmental Project Juneau Solid Waste Specialist, Engineering & Public Works I City Study I Juneau, and Borough of Juneau Alaska Phone: 907.586.0800; ext. 4197 E-mail: dianna.robinson *uneau.gov 2023 Integrated Glenn V. San Nicolas, Environmental Health SWMP, Zero Waste Specialist I Guam EPA Plan, and Phone: 671.300.4764 Sustainable E-mail: glenn.5annicolas0epa.guam.gov Materials Management Program I Guam Solid Waste Estee Segal, Principal Planner & Project Management Manager, Metro Waste Prevention and System Planning & Environmental Services I Metro Implementation I Phone: 503.753.9231 Portland, Oregon E-mail: estee.segal(@oregonmetro.gov a Appendix A' Key Project Personnel Resume Jacobs Cory Hinds, PE I Education I Qualifications Project Manager MS, Civil Engineering, University of California, 1991 Cory is a project manager who serves as our Solid Waste Facilities Practice Lead. He has managed or co- BS, Engineering, Swarthmore managed more than 50 separate complex, multi -discipline projects valued at more than $50 million. College, 1990 This work has included engineering feasibility studies, solid waste permitting, environmental monitoring Registrations I Certifications plans, landfill cell design and construction management, implementation of zero waste initiatives, and wastewater treatment feasibility study and design. He has demonstrated excellence in communicating Professional Civil and with clients, technical staff, subcontractors, and regulators to find the best solution for each project. Environmental Engineer: Cory has managed multiple solid waste projects for the Kodiak Island Borough. This experience and Alaska (1996, EN 14405); knowledge give him local insight and understanding of Kodiak's geographical and regulatory California (1994, C053308) challenges. He also brings immense value to the Kodiak SWMP with his multiple decades of experience Years of Experience with the Solid Waste Association of North America (Alaska Chapter) and his expertise in teaching Rural Alaska Landfill Operator (RALO) courses, making him highly knowledgeable in waste management 29 Years strategies and challenges for small villages in Alaska (burning waste, public safety, consolidation & Membership I Affiliation compaction, hazardous waste backhaul, water & snow removal, funding, etc.) Solid Waste Association of Relevant project experience North America (SWANA) Alaska Chapter — member/trainer Kodiak Landfill Lateral Expansion and Leachate Pretreatment5ystem/Kodiak Island Office Location Borough / Kodiak, AK/ ProjectManager Cory managed the permitting, design, and construction services for the expansion of the Kodiak Landfill. Anchorage, Alaska Work included facility planning; analysis of grading, geotechnical and waste stability; leachate collection Key Skills I Areas of Expertise and treatment and stormwater drainage; preparation of design and construction documents; permitting support; and services during construction. Follow-on work included design and construction services for • Landfill cell design and a new leachate treatment plant using membrane bioreactor technology. Worked closely with the owner construction to facilitate water handling during construction of the new lined cell and leachate treatment plant. • In-depth knowledge of Managed the design of a pretreatment facility to remove calcium carbonate scale from impacting the SWANA Rural Alaska Landfill leachate treatment plant. Work included alternatives evaluation, multiple concept designs, final design, Operator (RALO) training construction cost estimate, support for USDA funding application, preparation of bid documents, • Leachate system design modification of bid documents to align with funding requirements, pre-bid site visit, and responses to ■ Landfill gas system design bidder questions during the bid phase. • Solid waste permitting Composting Economic Feasibility Study/MOA, SWS/Anchorage, AK/ Project Manager • Environmental monitoring Managed the development of an economic feasibility study for a small-scale composting operation. • Construction management Gathered estimates of available green waste and developed the conceptual operation, including odor control and analysis of project economics. Technical Evaluation of Options for Co -Treatment ofBiosolids and MunicipalSolid Waste / City and Borough ofJuneau/Juneau, AK/ ProjectManager Conducted research and authored a technical memorandum presenting options for co -treatment. Technologies included co -disposal, co -composting, co -digestion, conventional gasification, plasma -arc gasification, and mass -burn incineration. Prepared cost estimates for comparison of alternatives. Landfill Gas De velopment Project Evaluation /MOA, SWS/Anchorage, AK/ Project Manager Conducted a multi -objective decision analysis to support recommendations for beneficial end use with the best return for the MOA. Performed financial and technical evaluation of bids, including running alternative scenarios with an Excel -based financial model spreadsheet, and facilitated workshops. Jacobs Grace Hadinata Education I Qualifications Assistant Project Manager MS, Civil Environmental Engineering, University of Grace is an environmental engineer with over 15 years of experience in various aspects of civil and California environmental engineering including waste minimization/management, environmental compliance, and BS, Civil Environmental civil engineering design. Her solid waste management experience includes developing Solid Waste Engineering, University of Management Plans (SWMPs) for various international sites, including Guam, Italy, Bahrain, and the US. California Grace's expertise focuses on providing zero waste strategies through source reduction approaches. She Registrations I Certifications has assisted in the development of a Zero Waste Master Plan for Guam EPA (zero waste initiatives to be implemented over a 20 -year period). Additionally, she contributed to the Port of Guam Sustainability TRUE (Total Resource Use and and Resilience Plan by developing zero waste strategies that benefit both the port and island of Guam. Efficiency) Zero Waste Advisor, Grace also served as lead researcher in development of the Clean and Circular: Design and Construction 2021 Guidelines for the New York City Economic Development Corporation, supporting decarbonization and LEED Green Associate, 2017 zero waste initiatives. Years of Experience Relevant project experience 15+ Years lntegratedSolidWaste Management Plan Updates/Navy andAirForce Installations/ Office Location Bahrain, Sigonella, Italy,-MoodyAFB, Georgia; andSeymourJohnsonAFB, North Carolina Irvine, California / Waste Solutions Engineer andAssistant ProjectManager Key skills Areas of expertise Provided lead support in managing tasks, schedules and budgets. Developed questionnaires to gather data and information from base personnel. Analyzed tonnage data, generation rates and costs to report • Waste minimization and and compare with Department of Defense (DoD) recycling and diversion goals. Provided research and management and zero recommendations to improve diversion rates including education & outreach, food waste recovery, waste initiatives reusables programs, hauler contract updates, and other measures to improve efficiency. • Research and development for sustainability initiatives Port of Guam Sustainability and Resilience Plan- Zero Waste Strategies/The Port of . Environmental compliance Guam/Guam/Waste Solutions EngineerandAssistantProjectManager • Solid waste permitting Assisted in managing schedules, tasks and staff to support development of the Plan. Provided research, technical writing and conducted presentations of the five-year strategy for the island's commercial port Project coordination including implementation of environmental preferred purchasing, mandatory recycling, and shipment of priority wastes (vehicles, tires & white goods) for recycling, among others. Development and Implementa tion ofa Sustainable Materials Management Program / Guam EPA / Guam / Waste Solutions Engineer Assisted in development of a master plan to support zero waste initiatives for the government of Guam to implement over a 20 -year period. Providing technical support and research during development of white papers on programs including: Environmentally Preferable Purchasing, Mandatory Recycling in Government and Commercial Buildings, Used Building Materials Facility, and Construction and Demolition Debris Processing. Clean and Circular- Design and Construction Guidelines/New York City Economic Development Corporation / NYl Lead Author/Researcher Provided research and development of construction guidelines to support decarbonization and zero waste initiatives for the built environment in New York City. Conducted interviews of international leaders in the industry and provided New York City Economic Development Corporation with recommendations, targets, reporting templates and strategies for the agency to implement circular measures to support New York City's commitment to reduce embodied carbon by 50% by 2033. Sustainability Stra tegic Plan / L os Angeles World Airports / CA / Waste Solutions Engineer Provided on-site assessments, coordination with internal airport staff, and evaluation of the zero waste program at Los Angeles Airport. Provided technical support and assisted in development of presentation materials and reports providing recommendations for improvements in operations, policies and staffing to meet the City's zero waste initiatives. Waste Hauler Franchise / City of Los Angeles Bureau OfSanita tion / CA / Waste Solutions Engineer Assisted in development of the exclusive waste hauler franchise program for the City of Los Angeles to meet the City's recycling and diversion goal of a Zero Waste Plan (ZWP) by 2025. Supported procurement services including development of the Request for Proposal (RFP), rates and financial analysis model, criteria for public outreach and education, health and safety program, and waste diversion plan. Lyndsey Lopez Solid Waste Expert I Senior Reviewer Lyndsey brings more than 20 years of experience working on regional solid waste, sustainable materials management, and net -zero waste projects. She has participated in stakeholder engagement, regional collaborations, strategy development, grant application preparation, solid waste and sustainable materials management planning, needs assessment, alternative evaluation, facility design, procurement assistance, and program implementation. She has held a lead role and/or senior role on numerous solid waste management plans (SWMPs). Through her experience in solid waste, recycling, and organics waste projects throughout North America and beyond, she has gained a thorough understanding of changing regulatory trends as well as the associated challenges and success of existing strategies. Relevant project experience Solid Waste Study.- Scenario Evaluation, Technical Report, and Committee Presentations / City and Borough ofJunea u / Junea u, AK/ Senior Reviewer Lyndsey is providing senior review for this regional solid waste study that is evaluating the feasibility and costs for three solid waste management infrastructure scenarios for the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ), Alaska. Metro Garbage & Recycling System Facilities Plan /Metro /Portland, OR/SeniorSolid Waste Planning Consultant Lyndsey is helping Metro prepare a Garbage and Recycling System Facilities Plan which will serve as the companion document to the 2030 Regional Waste Plan (RWP). The Garbage and Recycling System Facilities Plan will identify the infrastructure investments that are needed to meet the 2030 RWP vision for the region. As part of this project, the team assessed how the current garbage and recycling system is working, existing gaps and opportunities related to facilities, capital improvement strategies to address the gaps and modernize the system, and financing strategies. The plan was recently submitted for final council approval. Zero Waste Plan and Sustainable Materials Management Programs /Guam EPA/ Guam/ SeniorSolid Waste Planner and Technical Reviewer Lyndsey provided technical support to design, plan, develop, and implement Guam's Zero Waste Plan and other sustainable materials management programs. Reviewed the existing solid waste program against new legislative requirements, identified gaps, and made program recommendations to meet the new regulatory requirements. Assisted the client to prioritize, implement, and evaluate zero -waste initiatives using best practices applicable for small island communities. Jacobs Education I Qualifications BS, Chemical Engineering, Colorado School of Mines Registrations I Certifications Professional Engineer -In - Training (CO) Master Recycler Certification (OR) Memberships I Affiliations Compost Facility Operator Training (Washington Organics Recycling Council) Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Years of Experience 20+ Years Office Location Portland, Oregon Key Skills I Areas of Expertise ■ Stakeholder Engagement ■ Technical Consulting ■ Strategy Development ■ Grant Application Preparation ■ Project Planning and Implementation ■ Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis ■ Facility Design and Procurement Assistance ■ Program Implementation management County ofKauailntegratedSolidWaste ManagementPlan(ISWMP)/County ofhauai/ I Kauai, Hl / Senior Solid Waste Planning Consultant Lyndsey guided the overall project team in this regional planning and engagement effort and led the research and preparation of several sections of the plan. She led the preparation for and facilitation of multiple Solid Waste Advisory Committee meetings, meetings with the mayor, the public hearing, and presentations to County Council. The ISWMP update was prepared pursuant to the Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 342G. City and County of Honolulu Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP)/ City and County of Honolulu / Honolulu, HIl Senior Solid Waste Planning Consultant Lyndsey guided the overall project team in this regional planning and engagement effort and led the research and preparation of several sections of this plan including the source reduction, recycling and bioconversion, public education and outreach, and marketing sections. Additional sections included a review of current practices as well as future strategies. Lyndsey was also responsible for presenting materials and gathering feedback from the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and interested members of the public. The ISWMP update was prepared pursuant to the Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 342G. Dan Pitzler Subject Matter Expert I Senior Reviewer Dan Pitzler has over 35 years of experience developing regional sustainable solid waste management solutions for clients in the US and seven other countries. He specializes in solid waste management planning, transfer systems, collection efficiency, feasibility analysis, waste composition, procurement, financial management and analysis, rate design, computer modeling, and forecasting. He is responsible for advancing internal decision science tools and processes including structured decision processes, analysis of alternatives with multi -objectives, and risk assessment and management. Relevant project experience Collection and Recycling Procurement/ Kodiak Island Borough / Kodiak, AKl Task Lead Dan helped conduct an RFP process to select a contractor to provide solid waste collection and recycling processing services. Incorporated the recycling processing specifications into the collection RFP and contract and modified the RFP and contract to reflect changes in the service desired by the Borough. Transport and Disposal Study & ProcurementAssistance /Metro /Portland OR/ Project Manager Dan led a consulting team that analyzed multi -modal logistics issues for truck, rail, and barge transport and evaluated procurement options for transport and disposal of waste from Metro's two transfer stations. After assisting Metro in deciding the best procurement strategy, helped Metro staff prepare the RFP, and led a team of evaluators in evaluating proposer responses and preparing a ranking of transportation and disposal submittals. Landfill Gas to Energy Financial Feasibility Model Development/Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative/Homer, AK/ Financia lAna lysis Task Lead Dan developed a financial model to assess the feasibility of installing a dual fuel combined heat power unit to generate electricity and use waste heat to evaporate landfill leachate. Designed the model with a flexible interface that allowed rapid adjustment of many variables to test financial feasibility to both the landfill operator and the electric utility under multiple scenarios. Waste Management Facility Master Plan / Western Pla cer Waste ManagementAuthorityl Roseville, CA /Senior Technical Consultant Dan advised the authority about how best to conduct an evaluation of long-term costs of three options with differing facilities and time horizons. Advised about best practices for using multi -objective decision analysis (MODA) to evaluation options and used the Jacobs MODA tool to compare three long-term investment options. Integrated Solid Waste ManagementPlan (ISWMP) Update / City and County of Honolulu l HIl Technical Lead Dan served as technical lead for preparation of the City and County's ISWMP. The plan was developed to address current and future solid waste issues on Oahu in consultation with a Solid Waste Advisory Committee, who provided feedback on each section of the plan during its development. Dan led the initial kickoff meeting with the Advisory Committee, led the preparation of the existing system and special waste sections, and development of the waste generation, energy balance, and system cost sections. He provided review for all other sections of the plan. Jacobs Education I Qualifications Professional Certificate, Strategic Decisions and Risk Management, Stanford University MA, Economics, University of Washington BA, Economics, Western Washington University Memberships I Affiliations Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences, Decision Analysis Society Transportation Research Board, Transportation and Economic Development Committee Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Years of Experience 35+ Years Office Location Seattle, Washington Key Skills I Areas of Expertise ■ Financial analysis and rate design, decision science, solid waste planning ■ 30+ years of experience developing sustainable solid waste management solutions for clients in the US and 7 foreign countries ■ Author of numerous presentations and publications on decision science, waste management, and transportation economics Task Lead, Rate Studyand Rate Model Development/ City of Unalaska /AKI Task Lead Dan led a rate study for the City that included estimating revenue requirements, analyzing the City's cost of service, and developing recommended rates to cover planned solid waste services, including two years of major system improvements at the City's landfill. Following the initial study, conducted study updates and provided the City with a rate model and documentation that it now uses for annual rate reviews. Evaluation ofSolidWaste Rate Structure Alternatives /Matanuska SusitnaBorough lAK/ProjectManager Dan prepared a discussion of ratemaking principles, identified general revenue -generating options, and prepared an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of five distinct rate structure alternatives. Terra Miller-Cassman Materials & Waste Management Specialist Terra Miller-Cassman is a subject matter expert in plastics, materials engineering, and solid waste management with more than 10 years of experience in technical consulting for industry and government entities. Terra recently joined Jacobs to help clients address materials and waste management challenges. Her role involves developing strategies for long-term solid waste management; evaluating the economic and logistical feasibility of waste management infrastructure; preparing grant applications, zero -waste plans, and technical reports; conducting jurisdictional interviews; and advising on sustainable materials selection and characterization. Terra has managed pollution prevention programs for municipal clients and led environmental monitoring and reporting efforts to comply with state and federal regulations. She has developed monitoring plans, led field teams in environmental data collection, and prepared presentations and reports for clients and stakeholders, contributing to the adoption of standardized solid waste pollution monitoring methodologies in California. Through her experience in environmental monitoring and materials design, characterization, and detection, Terra has a comprehensive understanding of sustainable materials management, from regulatory compliance strategies to the development of innovative solutions for waste management and materials design. Relevant project experience Zero Waste Strategy and Sustainable Materials Management Programs/ Port of Guam/ Guam l Solid Waste Planning Consultant Terra provided technical review and supported plan development for Guam's Zero Waste Plan; consulted on sustainable material selection and lifecycle assessment approach for proposed construction projects. Reviewed Guam's Zero Waste Master Plan/Initiatives and identified port -related initiatives and potential opportunities to achieve zero waste. Solid Waste Study.- Scenario Evaluation, Technical Report, and Committee Presentations/ City and Borough ofJuneau /Juneau, AK/Solid Waste Planning Consultantand Project Manager Terra evaluated feasibility and costs for three solid waste management infrastructure scenarios for the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ), Alaska, which included capital costs for a transfer station, new landfill, and waste -to -energy facilities and considered the challenges of isolation and escalated costs in Juneau. Conducted workshops with the client to assess community needs and optimal resource allocation; prepared a technical report and presented findings to solid waste planning committees. Jacobs Education I Qualifications PhD in Materials Science & Engineering, Boise State University, 2024 BA in Environmental Studies, University of Washington, 2013 Memberships I Affiliations Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Years of Experience 10+ Years Office Location Boise, Idaho Key skills I Areas of expertise ■ Strategies for waste management and diversion ■ Waste management infrastructure, including transfer stations, landfills, waste -to -energy plants, and material recovery facilities • Grants preparation ■ Sustainable materials design, selection, and characterization ■ Environmental sampling and pollution monitoring ■ Regulatory compliance ■ Circular economy principles Green Waste, Food Waste, andManufactured Compostable Materials Reduction Project/ City and County of Honolulu/Honolulu, Hl/ Solid Waste Planning Consultant Terra supported the implementation of the City and County of Honolulu's residential organics diversion program, interviewing jurisdictions to obtain best practices for implementation of similar program and preparing technical reports to guide internal operations and public education and outreach activities. Assisted the City and County of Honolulu with planning and implementation of the green waste, food waste, and manufactured compostable material recycling program, including market research and public education/outreach, and developing best management practices. TechnicalAssistance for EPA Community Change GrantProgram/ EnDyna /South Dakota l SubjectMatterExpert Consulted with Crow Creek Sioux Tribe on proposed solid waste management and pollution control activities and the corresponding budget prepared for the grant application. Performed operational solid waste consultation with the tribal applicant/community as part of technical assistance services for the EPA Community Change Grant. Grant Prepara tion Support for EPA Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling GrantApplica tion / Wasatch Integrated Waste Management Districtl Layton, Utah /Solid Waste Planning Consultant and Technical Reviewer Terra supported the preparation of the grant strategy and application materials for the U.S. EPA Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling (SWIFR) program; she collaborated with the client to advance the proposed activities and budgets. She provided grant support to aid in reviewing and acquiring potential funding for the projects needed to continue implementing the goals and vision of the District. Amy Rodman, CPG Environmental Specialist I Data & Research Based in Juneau, Alaska, Amy is a geologist with approximately two decades of expertise in waste characterization, including environmental sampling, soil logging, drill core logging, and geotechnical investigations. Her professional experience includes responsibilities such as environmental sampling, soil logging, drill core logging, regulatory oversight of privately -owned and state-owned properties, conducting geotechnical investigations, technical work plan and report writing. Prior to employment with Jacobs, Amy spent eight years as a regulator for the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and six years in the private sector. Through this experience Amy gained valuable regulatory insights from reviewing reports and work plans from consultants on contaminated sites in Alaska. Relevant project experience Moose Creek Water Expansion Project/ City ofNorth Pole /Moose Creek, Alaska l Environmental Specialist. Met and communicated with Moose Creek property owners to explain PFAS groundwater contamination issue, environmental covenants, water rights, financial compensations, and water connection service offered by U.S. Air Force (Eielson Air Force Base). Documented all signed property -related agreements and environmental covenants. Scanned and recorded (online) environmental covenants and water rights agreements for Moose Creek properties. Addressed property documentation for regulatory purposes that required in-person meetings that complied with Covid-safe guidelines. Umia tAir Force Station Landfill Remedial Design Investigation (RDI)lParagon-Center Joint Venture (PCJV)l Umiat, Alaska / Geologist As Geologist, supported advancing soil borings using hand auger or direct push drilling technology for sampling of petroleum, solvents, PCB's, pesticides, and RCRA metals analysis in soil, along with petroleum and solvents in groundwater. Logged soil, field -screened, sample soil, and assisted with monitoring well installation, development, and sampling. Field work location was remote, above the Arctic Circle, and in continuous permafrost terrain. September's field work was conducted in below - freezing temperatures and with limited daylight. Jacobs Education I Qualifications BS, Geology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, May 2004 Registration I Certification Certified Professional Geologist (CPG) No. 12245 Membership I Affiliation American Institute of Professional Geologists Years of Experience 18 years Office Location Juneau, Alaska Key Skills I Areas of expertise ■ State and local regulatory knowledge of solid waste in Alaska (air, transportation, etc.) ■ Technical Report preparation ■ Work Plan development • Sonic Rig Geologist ■ Groundwater Monitoring Well installation Solid Waste Transfer Fa cility/Municipality ofSkagway/Environmental Scientist/Alaska I Project involved a decades old incinerator at a small landfill where they put the ash with the goal of eventually building a new solid waste transfer station. Client planned to decommission, upgrade or replace the incinerator for something with the same capacity. Coordinated with waste management and contacted the barge to discuss the different types of waste that need to be shipped out. Communicated with state and federal regulators to determine solid waste and air quality requirements. Obtained cost and dimension data for consideration of the solid waste transfer facility design. Researched surrounding area/properties for potential contaminants that may migrate on site. Developed a spreadsheet that could be presented to stakeholders (City, Mayor, public works director) to help determine the cost of different options to ship out the waste. U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune PFASRI /Jacksonville, North Carolina /Field Team Lead, Field Quality Manager, Safety Liaison, Lead Geologist. Advanced soil borings using Sonic drilling technology for sampling of petroleum, solvents, and PFAS in soil and groundwater. Logged soil, oversaw field -screening, soil sampling, and groundwater monitoring well installation for PFAS RI drilling program. Drilling locations occurred within several gated, secure areas and required DBIDS security clearances, daily security checkpoint, and badging. Anabel Needham Engineer I Data & Research Anabel is an entry-level environmental engineer with experience supporting engineering feasibility studies, solid waste permitting, and environmental monitoring and compliance projects. She uses strong communication skills with coworkers, clients, and regulators to assist in finding solutions for each project. Anabel spent three summers employed at Michigan Technological University as a researcher for projects including carbon foot printing of the university campus, wastewater lagoon treatment via floating wetlands (EPA funding), and an aluminum landfill mining feasibility study (DOE funding and Anabel's master's degree research topic). Relevant project experience Alaska Hazardous Waste Management Feasibility5tudy/ University ofAlaska Anchorage/ Anchorage, AK/ Researcher Anabel completed federal- and state -level regulatory research for hazardous waste management facilities, utilizing online resources and reaching out to state regulators for clarifications. Compilation of hazardous waste generation data for the state of Alaska with Excel -based manipulations and analysis allowed for the basis of the feasibility study for in-state management options. Scheduled and organized weekly client meetings for project status and communications. Currently assisting with concept facility design and cost estimations. Environmental-APDESPermit Compliance/ Furie Operating Alaska —Environmental APOESCompliance Supportl Furie Operating Alaska /Anchorage, AK/Environmental Compliance Anabel assisted with environmental compliance for this client and their APDES permit. Work included writing the monthly sample plans, assembling and shipping sample packs, glassware, and coolers for monthly sampling, and entering reportable data results to NetDMR. Work is ongoing. Jacobs Education I Qualifications MS, Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 2024 BS, Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 2024 Years of Experience 1 year Office Location Anchorage, Alaska Key Skills I Areas of expertise ■ Regulatory research ■ Data research and management ■ Solid waste permitting ■ Environmental compliance Solid Waste Study,- City and Borough ofJuneau /Juneau, AK/ Researcher Anabel provided research assistance to project leads for regulatory and permit requirements for three different solid waste management options for the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ). Work included research of federal, state, and local regulatory and permit requirements and authoring applicable portions of text in the technical memorandum client deliverable. Landfill PermitApplication Renewals/ King Salmon and Eareckson Air Stadonsl U.S. Air Force 6111 Division /Alaska / DocumentAuthorandPermitPreparation Anabel prepared updated operations and monitoring plans for the King Salmon Air Station and Eareckson Air Station. This task included regulatory research, client meetings, and permit preparation. FCC Composting Facility Remote Dashboard /FCC/Roseville, California/DataManagement Anabel completed remote quality control and quality assurance data management of daily entries for the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA) facility within an online dashboard for project managers to provide remote oversight and recommendations. Work included cross checking physical handwritten logbooks with online entries, confirming data presentation to the dashboard, and other miscellaneous client research for facility operations. 55109 Ventilated Stockpile Soil Vapor Extraction System; Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson / U.S. Air Force /Alaska l Environmental Monitoring and DocumentAuthor Anabel preformed weekly site visits for the ventilated stockpile (VSP) soil vapor extraction system (SVE) and authored the 2024 annual report. Work included dewatering of the VSP via sump valve, writing and distributing situational reports of the visits, and authoring the 2024 annual report. Currently awaiting client response to submitted report. Carlin Coleman Engineer I Data & Research Carlin is a dedicated waste solutions engineer with a passion for sustainability and zero waste. She works on diverse projects, including Integrated Solid Waste Management Plans (ISWMPs), drilling oversight, and groundwater sampling. Her work has focused on implementing sustainable engineering practices and minimizing environmental impacts across various industries. Carlin is particularly interested in contributing to sustainability, urban planning, and environmental management, and is eager to explore innovative opportunities within these fields and beyond. Relevant project experience ISWMP':Navat Station Rota Spain, NSFRedzikowo, Poland, and NSF Deveselu/NavaI Facilities Engineering Command/Idanticl Romania / Project Engineer Carlin conducted comprehensive evaluations of ISWMPs to identify areas for improvement, ensuring alignment with local and naval regulations. Developed and updated ISWMP documents with actionable recommendations based on thorough research, stakeholder meetings, and client feedback; enhanced operational efficiency and regulatory compliance. Maintained a detailed comment matrix to track client responses, edits, and insights; facilitated seamless collaboration and transparent documentation of project progress. Guam Sustainable Materials Management Program / Guam EPA / Guam l Waste Solutions Engineer Jacobs assisted in evaluating and implementing sustainable waste disposal alternatives, aiming to optimize waste management practices, reduce environmental impact, and enhance overall efficiency. Carlin conducted research on alternative disposal methods for fats, oils, and grease (FOG) waste and treated wood waste, considering environmental regulations, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability. Compiled and analyzed data to assess the feasibility and impact of various disposal options, providing detailed insights on potential benefits and drawbacks Collaborated with team members to contribute to a comprehensive technical memorandum summarizing research findings and presenting clear recommendations for optimized waste disposal strategies. Jacobs Education I Qualifications BS, Environmental Engineering, University of California, Merced Registrations Certifications LEED Green Associate, Green Business Certification Inc., 2021, 11442388 -GREEN -ASSOCIATE Memberships I Affiliations Member, National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), 2023, active Years of Experience 4 Years Office Location Sacramento, California Key skills I Areas of Expertise ■ Waste Management ■ Groundwater Sampling • Sonic Drill Rig Oversight Zero Waste Plan /LosAngeles WorldAirports (LA WA) /LosAngeles, CA/Zero Waste Plan Analyst Carlin assisted AWA in updating their Zero Waste Plan (ZWP). Conducted analysis and provided valuable feedback on LAWA's existing Zero Waste Plan (ZWP). Attended client meetings and effectively communicated with stakeholders, taking comprehensive notes and relaying critical information to relevant parties. Demonstrated strong analytical and communication skills, leading to effective collaboration and successful project outcomes. Pacific Region Compliance Supportl Confidential Clientl CA /Junior Waste Manager Jacobs provided support to the Confidential Energy Client by assisting with waste management and various administrative tasks. Carlin conducted waste characterization and waste management activities to improve waste disposal practices. Managed invoice processing and effectively handled email correspondence with stakeholders. Generated weekly reports to track progress and identify areas for improvement, demonstrating strong organizational and communication skills. Odor Evaluation /North Transfer Sta tion l Seattle, WA / Waste Solutions Engineer Jacobs provided odor control solutions for the North Transfer Station in Seattle, WA, with aims to assess existing odor sources, propose remediation strategies, and enhance environmental conditions. Carlin monitored and assessed public odor complaints, collecting relevant data and feedback to identify specific odor sources and patterns. Conducted a comprehensive cost -benefit analysis for various odor control methods, considering both short-term effectiveness and long-term sustainability. Recommended and implemented optimized odor control strategies, balancing community concerns with cost-efficient and environmentally sound solutions. Mills College Waste Studyl Mills College at Northeastern University/ Oakland, CA / Waste Solutions Engineer Jacobs reevaluated Mills College's waste plan to accommodate their growing student populations and recommended efficient and sustainable waste management practices for a clean and healthy campus environment. Carlin conducted a waste study to assess bin locations and waste characterization on campus. Analyzed data from waste study and held interviews with key employees to understand waste disposal practices. Developed and presented recommendations for clients on how to improve waste management practices on campus. Appendix B: a Example outline for the Kodiak Island Borough Regional SWMP An example SWMP for KIB Region would include: I. Introduction a. Purpose, goals, planning region, and planning period b. Overview of solid waste management in Kodiak region c. Scope and assumptions of the SWMP d. Updates to the 2008 SWMP II. Local Conditions a. Description of Kodiak and KIB Villages in the planning region b. Key stakeholders, regulators, tribes, and governing bodies c. Ordinances and regulations III. Waste Stream Analysis a. Current waste types, quantities, generators, and disposal or diversion pathways b. Projected future waste types, quantities, generators, and disposal or diversion pathways c. Results and data from waste characterization at 3 sites in Kodiak Island IV. Existing Solid Waste Management System in Kodiak and KIB Villages a. Facilities, process, owners, and operators i. Collection ii. Processing and storage iii. Disposal iv. Diversion b. Needs, challenges, and opportunities (transportation costs, environmental concerns, landfill closure periods, diversion goals, etc.) i. Key considerations for each landfill in the planning region V. Future Solid Waste Management Options a. Evaluation criteria to compare waste management options (community priorities, environmental impact, economic impact for community, cost/financing, etc.) i. Guiding priorities/principles for future waste management practices b. Collection c. Processing and storage d. Disposal i. Landfill (improvements, expansion, new construction) ii. Incineration with or without energy recovery iii. Shipping/export e. Diversion and source reduction i. Recycling ii. Composting (commercial or at-home composting) iii. Other strategies for increasing resilience and diversion, as applicable to region and diversion markets f. Optimization of existing systems (collection, processing, consolidation, transport, etc.) g. Economic considerations (program costs, financing mechanisms, grants, and cost sharing opportunities) VI. Regional Waste Management Opportunities and Approach a. Stakeholder input b. Partnerships (backhauling, non-profit collaboration, etc.) c. Public engagement, education, and outreach VII. Recommendations, Timeline, and Next Steps VIII. Conclusion a PROPOSED COST AND FEE SCHEDULE FOR: Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Kodiak Island Borough, AK Project No. 25008 1 April 8, 2025 Jacobs. -1 r , L J 008DQQ Copyright Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.© 2025. All rights reserved. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of the Jacobs group of companies. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright. Jacobs, the Jacobs logo, and all other Jacobs trademarks are the property of Jacobs. Proposed Cost and Fee Schedule for Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Lump Sum Total $246,000 This lump sum total for development of the Kodiak Island Borough Regional SWMP is valid for a period of 90 days from April 8, 2025. Proposed Cost and Fee Schedule for Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Fee Schedule Invoicing and Coordination Kick-off meeting (internal) Detailed review of 2008 SWMP and EPA Guidelines Initial data request/review (from KIB and KANA) Prepare workshop meeting material Workshop with KIB to identify and discuss priorities and options (1 workshop) Meeting notes Prepare a table of changes and finalized options indicating the updates from the 2008 SWMP Community Input/Surveys through KANA (issues, needs, priority, etc) Meetings with KANA (2 meetings) Workplan Development On-site Waste Audit (3 sites) Reporting Step 1: Develop a profile of the planning area using data collected Step 2: Define the solid waste generators within the planning area Step 3: Identify existing waste management practices within the planning area Step 4: Conduct a waste assessment/waste audit (Task 3) Step 5: Estimate future waste generation quantities Step 6: Develop waste handling options Step 7: Identify existing regional programs or infrastructure the planning area might use Step 8: Develop costs for waste handling options Step 9: Compare options based on criteria defined by the tribe. Assumes qualitative assessment Submit Draft SWMP Respond to Draft comments Develop Final SWMP 7%J Submit Final SWMP Note: We will invoice by percent complete by task. Our Lump Sum total includes the assumptions in our Methodology section and listed below: > Contract start date of May 15 to meet Dec 31 project completion. All meetings will be conducted virtually. The workshop in Task 1 will be up to 2 hours with up to 4 Jacobs staff in attendance. Village profile, waste generation data, and existing waste management practices will be provided by KIB and KANA within 2 weeks of data requests to meet completion date in December. KIB and KANA will provide responses to requests for clarification within 1 week. Waste management options will be assessed solely qualitatively in Step 9. > Community input will be gathered by KANA (issues, needs, priority, etc) and provided for incorporation into Plan > Up to 2 meetings for Task 2. All meetings will be conducted virtually. The meetings will be 1 hour with up to 4 Jacobs staff. > All draft and final deliverables will be electronic. Up to 70 pages. Rates The lump sum pricing for each task was developed based on a 2.5 raw labor rate multiplier plus applicable direct expenses. A sample of hourly rates is provided below for staff in the described labor categories. If future work is identified for T&M delivery, we will provide a more comprehensive labor rate table. Cost Estimator - Senior $ 267.90 Project Management - Senior $ 223.77 Engineer - Senior $ 214.23 Engineer - Mid $ 200.76 Engineer - Associate $ 155.69 Environmental Specialist $ 123.80 Document Control $ 100.56 Engineer - Entry $ 91.94 H m O A lK Ta¢ F �3• tnn� mto0 m LO m Q W �z � Q = Q' m 2 C9 O m c a Qzor B E= o aD J m Q7 2 m Q ao- oQ/ YLU— O y a � ZN Z � c E -r cesUSU Q «M N d r H O C R:°C `o E a :3 c a A ?, a c ucne„3 �?A A A S 2 d o£ m C �n c H m O A lK Ta¢ F �3• tnn� mto0 � m LO m Q W �z � Q = Q' m 2 C9 O m mz4 Qzor B E= o aD J m 2 m J ao- oQ/ YLU— dCD a QVE N I W OLLCD ZN Z 0 iy � E -r cesUSU z0 OQIQWZ OT -i4¢ N� � m LO m Q W �z � Q = Q' m m Q L p •f -a: . S ; B E= Lrl O 3 m m Q L p B E= ro L h0 CU C V ?•. E -r E 40,E '� G o 2,p Obi c ro E =a .E a, N �o E a a E c a A E u v E vo S 2 d o£ m C �n c ++ c /G VU y N 0 A OC N C E ccN E N vri ZO ppW Tn �Qy` c o ? C C a c o a ro E E o y m m Q v= w u'S c W m a a d N o a E E m r a _ ai ai m�� a� E ai u a o E c v r s5 p G o W E w$> a' a V `y C d C o 2 0 N v c d ar c v o d v a u, v w d r J m N b9 C W C C d J O� d P= c c E +-' u0 y L N V O w C w C C v ano C 0 h C. a C o a G'm E w e fa o o q Z v v IQ t• y[ EXHIBIT C Request for Proposals dated February 21, 2025. [412 pages] Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Professional Services Agreement Page 11 of 11 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Project No. 25008 [Contract Number] February 21, 2025 Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 (907) 486-9341 Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 1 of 21 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Proposals will be received until 2:00 PM (local time) on March 26, 2025, by the Kodiak Island Borough (Borough) for the Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposal documents are available electronically through our website: www.kodiakak.us. Interested Proposers should complete the online Registration Form when obtaining the Request for Proposal documents from the Borough's website. Registration ensures that all interested Proposers receive any addenda or other important updates to this Request for Proposals. Contact information for questions regarding this request for proposals: Engineering/Facilities Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Phone: (907) 486-9341 Fax: (907) 486-9394 Email: EFprojectskkodiakak.us Proposals will be received until the date and time stated above by delivery in a sealed proposal package in the format requested. Proposals received after the time stated above will be returned unopened. Submit Proposals to: Office of Finance Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Envelopes must be clearly marked: Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan The Kodiak Island Borough reserves the right to reject or accept any or all proposals, to waive irregularities or informalities in the proposals, to cancel the procurement at any time prior to contract signing, and to give particular attention to the qualifications of the proposer. Aimee Williams, Borough Manager February 18, 2025 Publish: Anchorage Daily News February 23, March 2 & 9, 2025. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 2 of 21 ADDENDUM 5 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update Kodiak, AK March 21, 2025 TO ALL PLAN HOLDERS OF RECORD: This addendum forms part of and modifies the contract documents as noted below. Bidders must acknowledge receipt of this addendum in the space provided on the Acknowledgement of Addenda form. Failure to do so may submit Bidder to disqualification. This addendum consists of 3 page and attachments. RESPONSES TO PROPOSER'S QUESTIONS: QUESTION 1: The RFP indicates that the Price Proposal should be submitted as a separate document. To ensure compliance with your requirements, could you please confirm whether the Price Proposal should be included in a separate envelope, distinct from the technical proposal, or if it should accompany the technical proposal within the same envelope? RESPONSE 1: Same envelope as the technical proposal. QUESTION 2: Could you please confirm if there is any flexibility in the specified page limit outlined in the RFP for the proposal response? We would like to inquire if we might be permitted to extend our submission to 7 or 10 pages. RESPONSE 2: KIB will allow an increased maximum of 10 pages (front and back) for the response to criteria section. Proposal documentation summary shall read as follows: Proposal Cover Page Signed by a person authorized to bind the respondent. Cover Letter 1 page suggested maximum Response to Criteria 10 pages suggested maximum Resumes 1 page, suggested maximum each resume Price Proposal Per instructions. QUESTION 3: We are aware of the likelihood of an eruption of Mt. Spurr Volcano in the next few weeks. Should an untimely eruption occur and delay further flights from Anchorage (as well as mail), will accommodations be provided via acceptance of email submittals or deadline extensions? RESPONSE 3: If eruption does occur and causes disturbance in flight schedules, KIB will issue an addendum at that time with instructions. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update ADDENDUM NO. 5 PAGE 1 QUESTION 4: Is this project grant -funded? What is the funding source? RESPONSE 4: Yes. The source is the Denali Commission. It was verified prior to RFP posting that funding is still available for this project. QUESTION 5: Is the intent of the SWMP to enhance the current disposal system? RESPONSE 5: The intent is to have a well -structured plan that outlines all aspects of solid waste management, including waste reduction, collection, transportation, processing, recycling, disposal, and regulatory compliance. It ensures a coordinated approach to handling waste efficiently while considering environmental, economic, and community impact. QUESTION 6: Is Kodiak Island wanting to include on sustainable materials management initiatives as part of this SWMP (i.e., reuse, recycling/circular economy/EPR, composting)? RESPONSE 6: Yes. Kodiak Island is wanting to incorporate sustainable materials management initiatives into its RSWMP. This could include strategies for waste reduction, recycling, and the responsible disposal of materials to extend landfill capacity, minimize environmental impacts, and promote long-term sustainability in waste handling. QUESTION 7: Will Kodiak Island be expecting a task to conduct a Waste Characterization Study or will information on waste characteristics be provide through existing studies? RESPONSE 7: Yes. Kodiak Island would like waste characterization studies to be completed for the Kodiak Island Borough Landfill, 1 road system (accessible by ferry) village landfill, and 1 remote (accessible by plane) village landfill. During negotiation process scope of work could be modified due to budgetary constraints. QUESTION 8: Will the project include scope for community engagement, outreach, or education (including workshops, public hearings, advertising, surveys, etc.)? RESPONSE 8: Community engagement remains a priority for the Kodiak Island Borough; however, the primary objective of this plan is to assess operational needs and ensure that current practices are both feasible and environmentally responsible. The selected firm will be responsible for conducting an introductory meeting, participating in bi-weekly progress meetings, and delivering a final presentation to internal and external stakeholders. These meetings may be conducted virtually, with the schedule to be determined at a later date. QUESTION 9: What is the planning period for the project? RESPONSE 9: Current anticipated award date is May 15, 2025. The successful firm is expected to being within 30 -days of award with a completion date of no later than December 31, 2025. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update ADDENDUM NO. 5 PAGE 2 QUESTION 10: The EPA Chapter 2 document requires a waste assessment/ waste audit. Will the project include scope for a field waste assessment, or should the consultant assume that a desktop waste assessment will suffice? RESPONSE 10: Kodiak Island would like waste characterization studies to be completed for the Kodiak Island Borough Landfill, 1 road system (accessible by ferry) village landfill, and 1 remote (accessible by plane) village landfill. Past disposal tonnage information will be provided, if available. During negotiation process scope of work could be modified due to budgetary constraints. QUESTION 11: If a field waste assessment is required, should the consultant assume a full field waste sort in accordance with ASTM D5231? If so, how many sites should the consultant assume will require waste sorts? Would the Borough like to assess the seasonality of waste composition by performing multiple sorts at each facility RESPONSE 11: Yes. Kodiak Island would like waste characterization studies to be completed for the Kodiak Island Borough Landfill, 1 road system (accessible by ferry) village landfill, and 1 remote (accessible by plane) village landfill. No seasonality of waste composition to be completed. During negotiation process scope of work could be modified due to budgetary constraints. QUESTION 12: Addendum 1 indicates that the "addendum consists of 1 page and attachments." However, no attachments were included with Addendum 1. Is this a typo? If not, can you please provide the referenced attachments? RESPONSE 12: Yes, that was a typo. There are no attachments associated with Addendum 1. QUESTION 13: Can designed front and back cover pages be included in the proposal? If so, will they count toward the page limits referenced in the RFP? RESPONSE 13: Yes, they can be included. No, they will not count towards the page limits. END OF ADDENDUM NO. 5 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update ADDENDUM NO. 5 PAGE 3 ADDENDUM KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update Kodiak, AK March 18, 2025 TO ALL PLAN HOLDERS OF RECORD: This addendum forms part of and modifies the contract documents as noted below. Bidders must acknowledge receipt of this addendum in the space provided on the Acknowledgement of Addenda form. Failure to do so may submit Bidder to disqualification. This addendum consists of 1 page and attachments. Due Date: Proposals will be received until 2:00 PM (local time) on April 8t", 2025, March 18, 2025, - by the Kodiak Island Borough (Borough) for the Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan IMPORTANT DATES are updated to be written as follows: Issue Date: February 21, 2025 Pre -proposal Meeting: 10:00 AM (local time) March 11, 2025 Questions Deadline: 1:00 PM (local time), March 14, 2025 Proposal Deadline: 2:00 PM (local time), April 8, 2025 Proposal Evaluations: Week of April 14, 2025. Interviews/Negotiations: Week of April 21, 2025 Notice of Intent to Award: April 25, 2025 Protest Period: April 25 -May 5, 2025 Anticipated Contract Approval: May 15, 2025 =I'Ioxelff_101Q=I'Dili ��10[91W KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update ADDENDUM NO. 3 PAGE 1 ADDENDUM KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update Kodiak, AK March 11, 2025 TO ALL PLAN HOLDERS OF RECORD: This addendum forms part of and modifies the contract documents as noted below. Bidders must acknowledge receipt of this addendum in the space provided on the Acknowledgement of Addenda form. Failure to do so may submit Bidder to disqualification. This addendum consists of 1 page and attachments. EXHIBITS: Please find the exhibits mentioned in the RFP posted to the webpage: Bid Postings • Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update. Exhibit A: August 2008 Kodiak Island Borough Final Solid Waste Management Plan Completed by Bell & Associates Exhibit B: 1997 Kodiak Island Borough Master Plan for Waste Management Exhibit C: EPA Chapter 2. Developing Solid Waste Management Plans END OF ADDENDUM NO. 3 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ADDENDUM NO. 3 Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update PAGE 1 ADDENDUM KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update Kodiak, AK March 6, 2025 TO ALL PLAN HOLDERS OF RECORD: This addendum forms part of and modifies the contract documents as noted below. Bidders must acknowledge receipt of this addendum in the space provided on the Acknowledgement of Addenda form. Failure to do so may submit Bidder to disqualification. This addendum consists of 1 page and attachments. RESPONSES TO PROPOSER'S QUESTIONS: QUESTION 1: Can you share an expected total budget for this project? RESPONSE 1: No. QUESTION 2: Do the suggested page maximums in the RFP refer to single- or double -sided pages? RESPONSE 2: Double sided. QUESTION 3: Can the example outline requested in the "Response to Criteria" section be included as an attachment to the proposal or will it be included in the 5 -page suggested maximum for that section. RESPONSE 3: Attachment to the proposal will be acceptable. QUESTION 4: Can you please confirm that resumes should be provided in an attachment to the proposal? RESPONSE 4: Yes, attachment to the proposal. Per the Request for Proposals, Proposal Documentation section, please see the suggested 1 page maximum for each resume. END OF ADDENDUM NO. 2 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ADDENDUM NO. 2 Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update PAGE 1 ADDENDUM1 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update Kodiak, AK February 24, 2025 TO ALL PLAN HOLDERS OF RECORD: This addendum forms part of and modifies the contract documents as noted below. Bidders must acknowledge receipt of this addendum in the space provided on the Acknowledgement of Addenda form. Failure to do so may submit Bidder to disqualification. This addendum consists of 1 page and attachments. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: Page two of the request for proposals package will be updated to align with the rest of the document, to state: "Proposals will be received until 2:00 PM (local time) on March 26, 2025, by the Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Plan Update." IMPORTANT DATES Section Page four of the request for proposals package will be updated to align with the correct days of the week, to state: Issue Date____________________________________________ February 21, 2025 Pre -proposal Meeting: ......................... 10:00 AM (local time) Tuesday, March 11, 2025 Questions Deadline: ........................... 1:00 PM (local time), Friday, March 14, 2025 Proposal Deadline: .......................... 2:00 PM (local time), Tuesday, March 26, 2025 Proposal Evaluations: ....................... ..Week of April 1, 2025. Interviews/Negotiations: ...................... ................ Week of April 1, 2025 Notice of Intent to Award_-------------------- April 7, 2025 Protest Period_____________________________________ April 7 - 17, 2025 Anticipated Contract Approval: ........... May 1, 2025 The Kodiak Island Borough reserves the right to modify or extend this timeline. PLEASE NOTE: the changes listed on this addendum have been incorporated into the posted Request for Proposals, to ensure the proper dates are posted for all potential proposers. END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update ADDENDUM NO. I PAGE 1 IMPORTANT REGISTRATION FORM MANDATORY In order to receive addenda and any other information which may impact or alter the specifics of this Request for Proposals, please fill out the contact information below and return to the Kodiak Island Borough. ONLY REGISTERED PARTIES WILL RECEIVE NOTIFICATIONS. Contact Information Name of Company: Contact Name: Street Address: City, State, Zip: Phone Number: Fax Number: Email: Return this form via fax, email, regular mail, or hand delivered to the following location: Engineering/Facilities Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Phone: (907) 486-9341 Fax: (907) 486-9394 Email: EFprojects&kodiakak.us Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 3 of 21 INTRODUCTION The Kodiak Island Borough (Borough) is requesting proposals from qualified contractors for the creation of a Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan A. Registration required. All Proposers must register prior to submitting proposals. Proposals from unregistered respondents will not be accepted. B. For questions and clarifications regarding this Request for Proposals, contact Jena Hassinger, Kodiak Island Borough, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615, telephone 907-486-9341 or email EFprojectskkodiakak.us until the question deadline stated herein. Individual responses will not be provided, and all questions and responses will be released as an addendum. C. Pre -Proposal Meeting: A mandatory preproposal meeting will be held on March 11, 2025, at 10:00 AM (local time) via Zoom providing an opportunity for Proposers to ask questions about the project. Only registered proposers will be sent the link for the Zoom meeting. IMPORTANT DATES The following timeline shall apply: Issue Date: Pre -proposal Meeting: Questions Deadline: Proposal Deadline: Proposal Evaluations: Interviews/Negotiations: Notice of Intent to Award: Protest Period: Anticipated Contract Approval: February 21, 2025 10:00 AM (local time) Tuesday, March 11, 2025 1:00 PM (local time), Friday, March 14, 2025 2:00 PM (local time), Tuesday, March 26, 2025 Week of April 1, 2025. Week of April 1, 2025 April 7, 2025 April 7 - 17, 2025 May 1, 2025 The Kodiak Island Borough reserves the right to modify or extend this timeline. SCOPE OF WORK A. Introduction. The Borough desires to contract with a responsible contractor or firm to create a Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan B. Background. Kodiak Island is located off the southcentral coast of Alaska, separated from the mainland by the roughly 30 -mile -wide Shelikof Strait. Kodiak Island, a 100 -mile -long strip of remote land, encompasses approximately 3,600 square miles and is home to the City of Kodiak, Kodiak, as well as Alaska Native villages of Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie and Port Lions. All of which is situated within Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) limits. Kodiak is unique and challenged in many ways especially when it comes to regional solid waste management planning. There are different classifications of landfills within the region including Class I and Class III. Class I landfills are lined municipal/commercial landfills that are solely Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 4 of 21 under contract with a local government taking municipal waste generation within the boundaries of local government and permitted to accept over 20 tons of waste per day. Class III landfills are unlined landfills permitted to accept non -hazardous waste, accept less than five tons per day, and are engineered to hold and isolate waste from environments. Road system residents on Kodiak Island have access to a Class I landfill that Kodiak Island Borough owns and operates while the Alaska Native Villages located within the KIB dispose of waste in Class III landfills operated by their local government or Tribe. A Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan ensures that the systems adapt to changing conditions, is environmentally responsible, and meets regulatory standards. Including the village communities in the process ensures a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to waste management, fostering a better understanding and collaboration across the entire island by: 1. Addressing Evolving Needs: Over time, the volume and types of waste generated may change due to population growth, industrial activity, or changes in regulations. An up-to-date plan ensures that the management system stays current with these shifts. 2. Looking at Improved Efficiency: Regular updates allow for better optimization of waste collection, processing, recycling, and disposal methods. This can reduce costs, improve resource use, and streamline operations. 3. Investigating Environmental Impact: With updated strategies, the Solid Waste Management Plan can incorporate new technologies and techniques that minimize environmental harm, such as reducing landfill use, promoting recycling, or managing hazardous waste more effectively. C. Scope of the Project. The Borough is seeking a qualified and experienced individual or firm to: Create a Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. The proposal submission should address the ability of the consultant to carry out the tasks for the creation of a Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. The EPA Chapter 2. Developing Solid Waste Management Plans document should be used as a guide for the creation of the plan. The proposed deliverable plan will investigate current waste management practices, trends, regulations, and challenges that each landfill in the region faces. It will include the Kodiak Island Borough landfill as well as the landfills of the Alaska Native Villages of Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie and Port Lions. This will ensure a regional approach to solid waste management, encompassing all communities on the island. The contractor will be working with the Kodiak Island Borough and Kodiak Area Native Association staff to obtain information pertaining to the different locations. This information includes, but not limited to, waste material type, landfill operations, historical and current data. Proposers are encouraged to submit any additional recommendations that would benefit the project. Time to Complete Project. Post award of this RFP. Completion of project update will be December 31St, 2025. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 5 of 21 D. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this solicitation: Exhibit A - August 2008 Kodiak Island Borough Final Solid Waste Management Plan completed by Bell & Associates Exhibit B —1997 Kodiak Island Borough Master Plan for Waste Management Exhibit C - EPA Chapter 2. Developing Solid Waste Management Plans PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION Proposal Cover Page Signed by a person authorized to bind the respondent. Cover Letter 1 page suggested maximum Response to Criteria 5 pages suggested maximum Resumes 1 page, suggested maximum each resume Price Proposal Per instructions. A. Proposal Cover Page Fill and sign Attachment A, Proposal Cover Page provided and include it in the front of the proposal package. B. Cover Letter In the cover letter, the respondent should: 1. State its understanding of the services to be performed; 2. Explain why the respondent firm is the best qualified to provide those services; Including a description of the Proposer's business activities, and a description of the Proposer's business qualifications, 3. State why the respondent firm is most likely to help the Kodiak Island Borough achieve the goals outlined in the Project Scope of Work portion of this Request for Proposals; and, 4. Provide the name and contact information of the individual who is authorized to make representations and commitments on behalf of the respondent. C. Response to Criteria The narrative response to the Selection Criteria should specifically and accurately address each criterion in the order listed in this proposal. Project and individual experience must be verifiable by listed references. It is the responsibility of the Proposer to make certain that contact information is current. Content should include: 1. A summary description of the key project personnel expected to participate on the project listing the name, title, intended role and responsibilities for the duration of the contract, educational background, and specific qualifications related to their role and responsibilities for the project, past relevant experience, number of years of relevant experience; attach a resume limited to one page for each key project personnel, 2. The proposed methodology for addressing the scope of this RFP 3. Example outline for the Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan 4. A description of any intended use of subcontractors, Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 6 of 21 5. A description of experience with similar projects, particularly in the public and/or private sector in Alaska. 6. A description of experience with similar projects, particularly in the public and/or private sector in Kodiak, Alaska. 7. Reference contact information of at least two but no more than four other organizations for work performed on similar projects. D. Price Proposal The price proposal information shall be included as a separate document clearly marked "Proposed Cost and Fee Schedule for Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan". This will be a lump sum price proposal. If the proposer has a fee schedule to provide evidence for the lump sum cost, they are encouraged to include that with their price proposal. Proposal contents, including price, shall be valid for a period of 90 days from the submission deadline. SUBMITTAL INFORMATION To be considered, respondents must deliver proposals to the address stated herein on or before the deadline. A. Submittal Deadline. Proposals will be accepted until March 26, 2025 at 2:00 PM local time. B. Submittal Address. Hand Delivery, Courier, or U.S. Mail: Proposals shall arrive in a sealed envelope or box including one original and one USB drive with an electronic copy, and clearly addressed as follows: Kodiak Island Borough Attn: Finance Department 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Sealed Proposal, Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Respondents should allow adequate time for mailing or special delivery of proposals. Kodiak is considered a remote location and, as such, mail and special deliveries by couriers such as UPS or FedEx are commonly delayed beyond the advertised guaranteed arrival of carriers and couriers due to local weather and flight schedules. C. Submittal Amendment and Withdrawal. After depositing a proposal, a Proposer may withdraw, modify, or correct that proposal providing that the designated representative of the Borough (EFproj ectsnkodiakak.us) receives the request for such withdrawal, modification, or correction before the time set for the submittal deadline. The original proposal, as modified by such written communication, will be considered as the proposal. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 7 of 21 No changes may be submitted after the deadline unless specifically requested by the Borough. Any proposal not so timely withdrawn shall constitute an irrevocable offer, for a period of 90 to sell to the Kodiak Island Borough the services described in the attached specifications, or until one or more of the proposals have been approved by the Kodiak Island Borough, whichever occurs first. PROPOSALS OR MODIFICATIONS THAT DO NOT ADHERE TO THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED OR OPENED FOR EVALUATION. EVALUATION AND SELECTION Selection of a proposal and execution of any agreement for services will be accomplished in accordance with the Kodiak Island Borough policies and procedures. Proposal contents will remain confidential until a contract is awarded, subject to subsection F of this section permitting limited release of the successful proposal after a Notice of Intent to Award. The Borough will select an individual or firm to provide the services requested according to the following: A. Minimum Qualifications. To be considered for selection, Proposers must meet at least the following minimum qualifications: 1. Qualified proposers should demonstrate the project team's overall technical expertise and experience in the solid waste management field, environmental engineering and possess a thorough knowledge of solid waste management rules and regulations. 2. The firm should demonstrate that the firm, specifically the assigned project managers and key personnel, has a thorough understanding of the regulatory requirements affecting the siting, design, permitting, and construction of solid waste management and disposal facilities within the state of Alaska. A Proposer's failure to meet these minimum requirements shall cause their proposal to be considered non-responsive and their proposal eliminated from further consideration. B. Criteria. Proposals will be evaluated on the following criteria: CRITERIA POSSIBLE POINTS Proposed Method to Accomplish the Project Organization, Capacity of Firm and Personnel Qualifications Relevant Experience and Past Record of Performance Proposer's Fee Schedule Total Possible 100 oints 1. Proposed Method to Accomplish the Project (30%) a. Proposer exhibits a complete understanding of the project and requested deliverables. b. Proposer clearly address the requested scope of work. c. Proposer identifies other beneficial additions or ideas. d. The proposed approach to the scope of work is technically feasible. e. Proposer identifies specific staffing strategies and efficiencies to minimize impacts on project budget. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 8 of 21 Organization, Capacity of Firm and Personnel Qualifications (20%) a. Evaluation will be made of the Proposer's organization and the ability to perform the desired services within the established schedule. b. Proposed schedule for completion of the scope of work is in accordance with the requested project duration and schedule. c. Proposed deliverables are in aligned with the deliverables requested in the scope of work. d. Evaluation will be made based on proposed personnel, their relevant qualifications and experience, and their proposed scale of involvement. e. Evaluation will be made on whether or not experiences, technology and successes cited are applicable to the geographic location of Kodiak. Relevant Experience and Past Record of Performance (30%) a. Proposed team members and personnel qualifications. b. Proposed team's past record of performance. c. Proposed team's efficiency (The project cost estimate divided by the quantity of days). d. Experience developing a Solid Waste Management Plan or similar landfill document in Alaska. e. Past experience in Kodiak, Alaska, including any relevant projects or local knowledge. 4. Proposer's Cost and Fee Schedule (20%) a. The cost is reasonable and adequate for the work proposed. b. The cost provides good value for the funds requested c. The fee schedule provides backup to the overall cost. C. Method. Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by a committee comprised of Borough and Kodiak Area Native Association staff members whose positions include the proper knowledge to evaluate the criteria. D. Preliminary Selection. Based upon an evaluation of the above criteria, the Borough may select a short list of up to three (3) individuals or firms for a more in-depth evaluation, reference checks and interviews. The Borough reserves the right to use interviews for negotiations to clarify and assure full understanding of the requirements of the request for proposals and to obtain last and best offers as permitted in KIBC 3.30.110(E) E. Final Selection. The Borough will select the preferred individual or firm by considering any factors it deems necessary and proper for best value, including price, quality of service, responsiveness to this Request for Proposals, and the general reputation and experience of the respondents. The Borough reserves the right to cancel the procurement without liability to any proposer, other than return of any proposal security, at any time before the Agreement has been signed by all parties, including the Borough. F. Notice of Intent to Award. A notice of intent to award will be sent to each Proposer, notifying them of the recommended Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 9 of 21 selection. After a notice of intent to award has been made a Proposer may receive, on written request, the summary rating for their proposal. The proposal recommended for award, and the summary rating for that proposal, will be made available to the public on the Assembly Meeting Agenda for the date it is to be awarded (www.kodiakak.us). may be made available on written request after a contract has been entered into. Information identified in a proposal as confidential proprietary information will be redacted prior to release of that proposal and will not be released. G. Protest. Any Proposer may protest the selection by filing a written protest with the Borough Manager within ten (10) calendar days of the issuance of the notice of intent to award. A protest must identify a material defect in the procurement process. Disagreement with the ratings is not a sufficient basis for a protest. Failure to file a timely protest waives the opportunity to protest an award. If a timely protest is filed, the administrative review process will begin, and a final administrative decision will be made by the Borough Manager and will occur within thirty (30) working days of the receipt of protest. CONTRACT The contract shall be awarded by the Manager or Assembly, as applicable under the Borough Code, based upon the Borough's standard professional services contract form (Attachment B), to the individual or firm which, in the Borough's sole judgment, is best suited to perform the services required. If a protest has been filed, the contract award may be postponed until the protest is resolved. If the time for protest has not yet expired, the contract may be awarded conditioned on either no timely protests or resolution of any protests in a manner which allows the award to stand. Before execution of a contract, the successful bidder or Proposer must have a current State of Alaska business license; and must be in good standing in terms of all taxes, fees, and monies due to the Borough. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Throughout the term of the Contract, the selected respondent and/or any and all subcontractors retained by the respondent shall maintain in force at their own expense, and provide to the Borough evidence of insurance as follows: Workers' Compensation: As required by AS 23.30.045, for all employees of the Consultant engaged in work under this Contract. The Consultant shall be responsible for Worker's Compensation Insurance for any subconsultant who performs work under this Contract. The coverage shall include: 1. Employer's Liability Protection at $1,000,000 each accident/each employee and a $1,000,000 policy limit. Commercial General Liability: On an occurrence policy form covering all operations with combined single limits not less than: 1. $2,000,000 Each Occurrence; 2. $2,000,000 Personal Injury; 3. $2,000,000 General Aggregate; and Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 10 of 21 4. $2,000,000 Products -Completed Operations Aggregate. Automobile Liability: Covering all vehicles used in Contract work, with combined single limits not less than: 1. $1,000,000 each occurrence. (If applicable) Professional Liability. The proposer, at his own cost and expense, shall affect and maintain at all times during the life of the Contract with combined single limits not less than: 1. $1,000,000 each occurrence. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION A. Contact Person Any information required or questions regarding this RFP should be addressed to: Engineering/Facilities Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615-6398 Phone: (907) 486-9341 Fax: (907) 486-9394 Email: EFprojectskkodiakak.us B. Deadline for Receipt of Proposals Proposals may be mailed, or hand delivered and must be physically received by KIB no later than 2:00 PM prevailing time (AK), March 26, 2025. Faxed proposals are not acceptable. Proposals received after the above proposal submission deadline will not be considered and will be returned. C. Proposers' Review and Substantive Questions Proposers should carefully review this RFP for errors, questionable or objectionable materials and items requiring clarification. Proposers shall put comments and/or questions in writing and submit them to the contact persons noted above. Please submit questions by 1:00 PM prevailing time (AK) on March 14, 2025. This will allow time for an addendum to the RFP to be issued, if required, to all recipients of the RFP. D. Solicitation Amendments and Cancellation The Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) reserves the right to amend or cancel this solicitation, without penalty, at its sole discretion. a. KIB reserves the right to issue written addenda, to revise or clarify the RFP, respond to questions, and/or extend or shorten the due date of proposals. b. KIB retains the right to cancel the procurement and the RFP process at any time up until a contract is signed by all parties, including the Borough, if it is in the KIB's best interest to do so. KIB shall not be responsible for costs incurred by proposers for proposal preparation. E. Right to Reject Proposals The Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to waive any informality or technicality in the interest of the Borough. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 11 of 21 a. The KIB reserves the right to request clarification of information submitted, and to request additional information on any proposal. b. The KIB may award a contract on the basis only of written proposals received, without requesting clarification, discussions, or a best and final offer. Therefore, each proposal shall contain the Proposer's best terms from cost/price and technical standpoints. F. Disqualification Factors such as, but not limited to, the following may disqualify a proposal without further consideration: a. Evidence of collusion among respondents. b. Any attempt to improperly influence any member of staff or Assembly. c. A respondent's default under any type of agreement, which resulted in the termination of that agreement. d. Existence of any unresolved litigation between the respondent and the KIB. G. Proposal Withdrawal and Correction A proposal may be corrected or withdrawn by a written request received prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals by faxing 907-486-9394 or emailing EFprojects(kkodiakak.us . H. Retention of Proposals All proposals and other material submitted become KIB property and may be returned only at KIB's option. I. Cost of Proposal Preparation The Borough shall not be responsible for proposal preparation costs, nor for costs including attorney fees associated with any (administrative, judicial, or otherwise) challenge to or protest of the award of contract and/or rejection of proposal. By submitting a proposal each Proposer agrees to be bound in this respect and waives all claims to such costs and fees. J. Delivery of Proposals KIB assumes no responsibility or liability for the transmission, delay, or delivery of proposals by either public or private carriers. K. Compliance with Laws The proposer shall observe and abide by all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances and other rules of the State of Alaska and/or any political subdivisions thereof, or any other duly constituted public authority wherein work is done, or services performed, and further agrees to indemnify and save the Borough harmless from any and all liability or penalty which may be imposed or asserted by reason of the Contractor's failure or alleged failure to observe and abide thereby. L. Media Announcements Any and all media announcements pertaining to this solicitation require prior written approval by the Borough Manager. M. Acceptance of Conditions Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the individual or firm of the conditions contained in this Request for Proposals unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the contract between the Kodiak Island Borough and the individual or firm selected. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 12 of 21 N. Binding Contract This solicitation does not obligate KIB or the selected proposer until a contract is signed and approved by all parties. O. Disposition of Proposals All materials submitted in response to this RFP become the property of the Borough. One copy shall of the submitted material shall be retained for the official files and will become public record after award of the contract. Should a Proposer claim that a Proposal contains confidential proprietary information the proposer shall identify any such information at submission of Proposal and request that it be held as confidential or returned. The Borough is not responsible for release of proprietary information not identified by the Proposer. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 13 of 21 ATTACHMENT A PROPOSAL COVER PAGE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I certify that I am a duly authorized representative of the firm listed below and that information and materials enclosed with this proposal accurately represent the capabilities of the office listed below for providing the services indicated. The Borough is hereby authorized to request any owner identified in this proposal to furnish any pertinent information deemed necessary to verify information provided or regarding reputation and capabilities of the firm. AMENDMENTS The Proposer represents to the Borough that it has relied upon no oral representations from the Borough in the preparation of this proposal. If any amendments are issued to this RFP, the Proposer must acknowledge the receipt of such amendments in the space provided on the line below. Failure to acknowledge receipt of amendments shall render the proposal non-responsive and it will not be evaluated. Amendment Acknowledgment Number(s): ORIGINAL SIGNATURE Acknowledgment sheet must be manually (original signature) signed. A proposal shall be rejected when the proposal is not signed by hand. Signature of Representative Office address for which this submittal is made: Street: Name: P. O. Box: Title: Firm: Type of Firm (check one) Individual Partnership Corporation in the State of: Other (Specify): Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 14 of 21 City, State, Zip: Telephone: AK Business Lic. No. ATTACHMENT B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT with *Business Name* for KIB Regional Solid Waste Management Plan This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this *DATE* by and between the KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, organized under the laws of the State of Alaska, hereinafter referred to as the "Borough" and *Business Name* a corporation authorized to do business in Alaska, with offices located at *Business Address*, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Borough wishes to enter into an agreement with an independent consultant to KIB Regional Solid Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, *Business Name* submitted a proposal asserting it is qualified to perform these services and able to do so in a timely manner. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1.0 DEFINITIONS 1.1 "Agreement" shall mean this Professional Services Agreement, including: Exhibit A — *Business Name* proposal dated *Date*. 1.2 "Change Order" is an addition to, or reduction of, or other revision approved by the Borough in the scope, complexity, character, or duration of the services or other provisions of this Agreement. 1.3 'Borough" shall all mean the Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska. 1.4 "Contracting Officer" shall mean the KIB Borough Manager and include any successor or authorized representative. 1.5 "Project" shall mean the KIB Regional Solid Waste Management Plan; 2.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall take effect upon execution. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until the Project has been completed and further, until all claims and disputes have been concluded. The work is considered complete when the Borough has received and found acceptable the finished product of all work described in 4.0 Scope of Services or changes thereto. This date is not necessarily the Completion Date as described in 5.0 Completion Date. This Agreement may be amended only in writing and upon compliance with all applicable statutes, ordinances, and Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 15 of 21 regulations. 3.0 FEES. For HIB Regional Solid Waste Management Plan; as described in Scope of Services, the Borough will compensate the Contractor an amount not to exceed *Cost* 4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES. The Borough and Consultant have agreed upon a scope of work described in the Consultant's proposal, Exhibit A, to provide professional services based on approved standards and instructions, as specifically described in Exhibit A. This Scope of Services can only be changed in writing pursuant to Section 26.0 of this Agreement. 5.0 SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION. Post award of this RFP. Completion of project update will be December 31 st, 2025. 6.0 PERSONNEL/ORGANIZATION 6.1 Key Personnel. Work and services provided by the Consultant will be performed by: As specified in Exhibit A. 6.2 Changes in Key Personnel. The Consultant shall give the Borough reasonable advance notice of any necessary substitution or change of key personnel and shall submit justification therefore in sufficient detail to permit the Borough to evaluate the impact of such substitution on this Agreement. No substitutions or other changes shall be made without the written consent of the Borough. 7.0 STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. The Consultant agrees to provide all required professional services to complete the project and any additions or changes thereto. The Consultant accepts the relationship of trust and confidence established between it and the Borough by this Agreement. The Consultant covenants with the Borough to furnish its best skill and judgment, and to further the interest of the Borough at all times through efficient business administration and management. The Consultant shall provide all services in a competent manner. It is understood that some of the services to be rendered hereunder required professional judgment and skill. In those cases, the Consultant agrees to adhere to the standards of the applicable profession. 8.0 TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. Consultant's failure to meet any such deadlines or required performance may adversely imperil other contractual obligations of the Borough. 9.0 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The Consultant shall be familiar with and at all times comply with and observe all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and executive orders, all applicable safety orders, all orders or decrees of administrative agencies, courts, or other legally constituted authorities having jurisdiction or authority over the Consultant, the Borough, or the service which may be in effect now or during performance of the services. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 16 of 21 10.0 INDEMNITY. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Borough from and against any claim of, or liability for, negligent acts, errors, and omissions of the Consultant under this agreement, including attorney fees and costs. The consultant is not required to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the Borough for a claim of, or liability for, the independent negligent acts, errors, and omissions of the Borough. If there is a claim of, or liability for, a joint negligent act, error, or omission of the Consultant and the Borough, the indemnification, defense, and hold harmless obligation of the Consultant, and liability of the parties, shall be apportioned on a comparative fault basis. In this provision, "Consultant" and "Borough" include the employees, agents, and contractors who are directly responsible, respectively, to each. In this provision, "independent negligent acts, errors, and omissions of the Borough" means negligence other than in the Borough's selection, administration, monitoring, or controlling of the Consultant, or in approving or accepting the Consultant's work or the Consultant's subcontractors. 11.0 INSURANCE. The Consultant understands that no Borough insurance coverage, including Workers' Compensation, is extended to the Consultant while completing the services described in this Agreement. The Consultant shall carry adequate (commercially reasonable coverage levels) insurance covering Workers' Compensation, general public liability, automobile, professional liability, and property damage including a contractual liability endorsement covering the liability created or assumed under this Agreement. The Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement or any work on any phase of the Project until the Consultant provides the Borough with certificates of insurance evidencing that all required insurance has been obtained. These insurance policies and any extension or renewals thereof must contain the following provisions or endorsements: a. Borough is an additional insured thereunder as respects to general liability arising out of or from the work performed by Consultant of Borough. b. Borough will be given thirty (30) days prior notice of cancellation or material alteration of any of the insurance policies specified in the certificate. c. Insurer waives all rights of subrogation against Borough and its employees or elected officials. d. The insurance coverage is primary to any comparable liability insurance carried by the Borough. Upon request, Consultant shall permit the Borough to examine any of the insurance policies specified herein. Any deductibles or exclusions in coverage will be assumed by the Consultant, for account of, and at the sole risk of the Consultant. The minimum amounts and types of insurance provided by the Consultant shall be as set forth in Exhibit B, subject to revision at the Borough's request in order to provide continuously throughout the term of the Agreement a level of protection consistent with good business practice and accepted standard of the industry. 12.0 GOVERNING LAW. The laws of Alaska will determine the interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 17 of 21 13.0 OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCTS. Payment to the Consultant for services hereunder include full compensation for all work products and other materials produced by the Consultant and its subcontractors pertaining to this Agreement. The originals of all material prepared or developed by the Consultant or its employees, agents, or representatives hereunder, including documents, drawings, designs, calculations, maps, sketches, notes, reports, data, models, computer tapes, and samples shall become the property of the Borough when prepared, whether delivered or not, and shall, together with any materials furnished the Consultant and its employees, agents, or representatives by the Borough hereunder, be delivered to the Borough upon request and, upon termination or completion of this Agreement. Materials previously created and copyrighted by the Consultant included in this project will remain property of the Consultant. Copies will be made available to the Borough upon request. Materials purchased from and copyrighted by third parties are not included in this provision. 14.0 PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and save the Borough harmless from and against any and all claims, costs, royalties, damages and expenses of any kind of nature whatsoever (including attorneys' fees) which may arise out of or result from or be reasonably incurred in contesting any claim that the methods, processes, or acts employed by the Consultant or its employees in connection with the performance of services hereunder infringes or contributes to the infringement of any letter patent, trademark, or copyright. In case such methods, processes, or acts are in suit held to constitute infringement and use is enjoined, the Consultant, within reasonable time and at its own expense, will either secure a suspension of the injunction by procuring for the Borough a license or otherwise, or replace such method, process, etc., with one of equal efficiency. 15.0 NONWAIVER. No failure of the Borough or Consultant to insist upon the strict perfor- mance by the other of any of the terms of this Agreement or to exercise any right or remedy herein conferred, shall constitute a waiver or relinquishment to any extent of its rights to rely upon such terms or rights on any future occasion. Each and every term, right, or remedy of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 16.0 SAFETY/PERFORMANCE. The Consultant shall perform the work in a safe and workmanlike manner. The Consultant shall comply with all federal and state statues, ordinances, orders, rules, and regulations pertaining to the protection of workers and the public from injury or damage and shall take all other reasonable precautions to protect workers and the public from injury or damage. 17.0 SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION. 17.1 Fault Termination or Suspension. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon ten (10) days written notice if the other party fails substantially to perform in accordance with its terms. If the Borough terminates this Agreement, it will pay the Consultant a sum equal to the percentage of work completed and accepted by the Borough that can be substantiated by the Consultant and the Borough, offset by any amounts owed to the Borough. However, within the ten (10) day Notice of Intent to terminate the party in default shall be given an opportunity to present a plan to correct its failure. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 18 of 21 17.2 Convenience Suspension or Termination. The Borough may at any time terminate or suspend this Agreement for any reason including its own needs or convenience. In the event of a convenience termination or suspension for more than six (6) months, the Consultant will be compensated for authorized services and authorized expenditures performed to the date of receipt of written notice of termination or suspension. No fee or other compensation for the uncompleted portion of the services will be paid, except for already incurred indirect costs which the Consultant can establish, and which would have been compensated but because of the termination or suspension would have to be absorbed by the Consultant without further compensation. 17.3 Activities Subsequent to Receipt of Notice of Termination or Suspension. Immediately upon receipt of a Notice of Termination or suspension and except as otherwise directed by the Borough or its Representative, the Consultant shall: a. stop work performed under this Agreement on the date and to the extent specified in the Notice; and b. transfer title to the Borough (to the extent that title has not already been transferred) and deliver in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Borough's representative, work in progress, completed work, supplies, and other material produced as a part of, or acquired in respect of the performance of the work terminated or suspended by the Notice. 18.0 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY. The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, or because of age, physical handicap, sex, marital status, change in marital status, pregnancy, or parenthood when the reasonable demands of the position do not require distinction on the basis of age, physical handicap, sex, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, or parenthood. The Consultant shall take affirmative action required by law to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, or marital status. 19.0 NO ASSIGNMENT OR DELEGATION. The Consultant may not assign, subcontract or delegate this Agreement, or any part of it, or any right to any of the money to be paid under it without written consent of the Contracting Officer. 20.0 INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT. The Consultant shall be an independent Consultant in the performance of the work under this Agreement and shall not be an employee or agent of the Borough. 21.0 PAYMENT OF TAXES. As a condition of performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall pay all federal, state and local taxes incurred by the Consultant and shall require their payment by any other persons in the performance of this Agreement. 22.0 PRECEDENCE AND DIVISIBILITY. The provisions of this Agreement shall fully govern the services performed by the Consultant. If any term, condition, or provision of this Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 19 of 21 Agreement is declared void or unenforceable, or limited in its application or effect, such event shall not affect any other provisions hereof and all other provisions shall remain fully enforceable. 23.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties as to the services to be rendered by the Consultant. All previous or concurrent agreements, representations, warranties, promises, and conditions relating to the subject matter of this Agreement are superseded by this Agreement. 24.0 COMPLETION OF WORK, TERM OF AGREEMENT. The Consultant shall perform all work in a timely fashion, and in accordance with the schedules included in this Agreement and Exhibits. 25.0 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES. Venue for all claims and disputes under this Agreement, if not otherwise resolved by the parties, shall be in the appropriate Alaska State court in Anchorage or Kodiak, Alaska. 26.0 CHANGES IN SCOPE OF WORK. 26.1 General. No claim for additional services not specifically provided in this Agreement will be allowed, nor may the Consultant do any work or furnish any materials not covered by the Agreement unless the work or material is ordered in writing by the Contracting Officer. Preparation of Change Orders and design changes, due to errors and/or omissions by the Consultant, will be done at the sole expense of the Consultant. 26.2 Changes in Scope of Work. The Borough or its representative may, at any time, by a written Change Order delivered to the Consultant, make changes to the scope of work, or authorize additional work outside the scope of work. 26.3 Compensation to the Consultant. If any Change Order for which compensation is allowed under this Article causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of, or time required for, the performance of any part of the work under this Agreement, or if such change otherwise affects other provisions of this Agreement, an equitable adjustment will be negotiated. Such an adjustment may be: a. in the estimated cost or completion schedule, or both; b. in the amount of fee to be paid; and in such other provisions of the Agreement as may be affected, and the Agreement shall be modified in writing accordingly. 26.4 Any claim by the Consultant for adjustment under this section must be asserted within fifteen (15) days from the day of receipt by the Consultant of the notification of change; provided, however, that the Borough or its representative, deciding that the facts justify such action, may receive and act upon any such claim asserted at any time prior to final payment under this Agreement. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute within the meaning of Section 25.0 of this Agreement. Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 20 of 21 27.0 LIMITATION OF FUNDS. 27.1 At no time will any provision of this Agreement make the Borough or its representative liable for payment for performance of work under this Agreement in excess of the amount that has been appropriated by the Borough Assembly and obligated for expenditure for purposes of this Agreement. 27.2 Change orders issued pursuant to Section 26 of this Agreement shall not be considered an authorization to the Consultant to exceed the amount allotted in the absence of a statement in the change order, or other modification increasing the amount allotted. 27.3 Nothing in this Section shall affect the right of the Borough under Section 17 to terminate this Agreement. 28.0 PRIOR WORK. For the purposes of this Agreement, work done at the request of the Borough or its representative before execution of this Agreement shall be deemed to be work done after its execution and shall be subject to all the conditions contained herein. 29.0 NOTICES. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by the Agreement shall be sufficient if sent by the parties in the United States mail, postage paid, to the address noted below: Kodiak Island Borough *Business Name* Attn: Borough Manager 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 125 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. Kodiak Island Borough Signed: By: Aimee Williams Title: Borough Manager Date: ATTEST: Nova M. Javier Borough Clerk *Business Name* Signed: By: Title: Date: Kodiak Island Borough Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Request for Proposals Page 21 of 21 `SLAND @_ RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT Page 1 of 157 August 2008 Kodiak Island Borough Final Solid Waste Management Plan ter. - r��,, ��` r'•'�r r �l:�y�l �1I '7C � �% , y�-f • �.� � �4f { . f�, „� r `•'YL , •Lst.` 1. Jim GBELL & Associates, Inc. .a' I i RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 157 - KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 Kodiak Island Borough Solid Waste Management Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Concept of the Solid Waste Management System................................................................... 1 1.2 Plan Contents and Methodology.............................................................................................. 2 1.3 Core Questions........................................................................................................................ 4 2.0 Local Conditions.......................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Overview................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Current and Future Population................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Political / Institutional Entities and Responsibilities.................................................................. 6 3.0 Description of Wastestream........................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Overview................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Quantities and Types of Disposed Wastes.............................................................................. 8 3.3 Quantities and Types of Diverted Wastes.............................................................................. 11 3.4 Projected Waste Disposal...................................................................................................... 13 4.0 Existing Solid Waste Management System............................................................................... 15 4.1 Overview............................................................................................................................... 15 4.1.1 System Revenue................................................................................................................ 15 4.2 Collection...............................................................................................................................15 4.2.1 Cost of Community Dumpsters in Residential Areas of the Borough .................................. 17 4.3 Handling / Transfer................................................................................................................ 17 4.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................17 4.4.1 Labor..................................................................................................................................17 4.4.2 Baler Versus Compactor.................................................................................................... 18 4.4.3 Closure Costs.................................................................................................................... 18 4.4.4 Sludge................................................................................................................................19 4.4.5 Disposal Costs on Kodiak.................................................................................................. 20 4.5 Diversion — Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting........................................................... 21 4.5.1 Recycling........................................................................................................................... 21 4.5.2 Composting........................................................................................................................22 4.6 Household Hazardous Waste................................................................................................ 22 4.7 Special Wastes...................................................................................................................... 23 4.8 Organization and Administration............................................................................................ 23 5.0 Analysis of Existing Solid Waste Management System............................................................. 24 5.1 Observations and Findings.................................................................................................... 24 5.1.1 Service Arrangements / Contracts...................................................................................... 24 5.1.2 Residential Sector Refuse Pickup...................................................................................... 25 5.1.3 Recycling........................................................................................................................... 25 5.1.4 Construction and Demolition (C & D) Debris...................................................................... 26 5.1.5 Landfill Operation............................................................................................................... 26 5.2 Needs, Challenges and Opportunities................................................................................... 26 5.2.1 Recycling........................................................................................................................... 26 5.3 Guiding Priorities / Principles for Future Waste Management Practices ................................. 27 6.0 Description of Options for System Components........................................................................ 30 6.1 Collection...............................................................................................................................30 6.3 Disposal.................................................................................................................................34 6.3.1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 34 6.3.2 Additional Landfill Capacity................................................................................................ 34 aBell & Associates, Inc. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 6.3.3 Incineration........................................................................................................................ 36 6.3.4 Waste Export..................................................................................................................... 36 6.3.5 Future Landfill Expansion................................................................................................... 37 6.3.6 Projected Costs.................................................................................................................. 38 6.3.7 Next Steps......................................................................................................................... 38 6.4 Diversion — Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting........................................................... 39 6.4.1 Recycling........................................................................................................................... 39 6.4.2 Composting........................................................................................................................40 6.5 Household Hazardous Wastes.............................................................................................. 43 6.6 Special Wastes...................................................................................................................... 43 6.7 Organization and Administration............................................................................................ 44 6.7.1 Private Sector Service Provision........................................................................................ 44 6.7.2 KIB / US Coast Guard Cooperation and Coordination........................................................ 44 6.7.3 Responsibilities of Waste Collector.................................................................................... 44 6.7.4 Public Sector Service Provision.......................................................................................... 44 7.0 Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 45 aBell & Associates, Inc. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Concept of the Solid Waste Management System This Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP or the Plan) has been prepared for Kodiak Island Borough (KIB or the Borough) by Bell & Associates, Inc. (Bell & Associates or the consultant). The consultant approaches the analysis of solid waste management issues and alternatives from an integrated perspective. This means the various practices and operations that characterize how solid waste is handled in a given area are viewed as the related elements of a solid waste management system. Consideration of individual elements is done within the framework of the whole system. Such a perspective involves examining how the system elements are connected and either conflict with or support each other. The diagram below illustrates the basic structure and selected key components of a solid waste management system. Figure 1: Basic Components for Solid Waste Management System Guiding Priorities and Principles 1 aBell & Associates, Inc. 1 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 In analyzing a solid waste management system it is important to look at the relationship between the priorities and principles that guide the system, how the system components function, and the resources allocated to the system operations. Is there balance and consistency between these factors and are they logically connected or do they go in different or opposing directions? For example, is there an expectation or desire the system will achieve a high level of waste reduction / recycling but the infrastructure of programs, policies, and facilities to carry out this purpose are inadequate? 1.2 Plan Contents and Methodology The Kodiak SWMP is set up so detailed technical material is placed in a series of appendices and referenced in the substance of the Plan, which consists of seven chapters including this Introduction. The intention is to make the chapters concise, focused, and understandable with supportive and explanatory data, information, and calculations in the appendices. In an orderly progression, this SWMP covers the following topics, proceeding ultimately to a series of recommendations presented in the form of a coherent system scenario: • Discussion of current solid waste management methods, arrangements, and facilities. • Waste disposal projections with related assumptions. • Advantages and disadvantages of current management methods, arrangements, and facilities. • Identification of system needs and improvement opportunities. • Definition of varying management priorities / principles for solid waste system. • Program, policy, and facility options for basic system components as portrayed in Figure 1 above. • Combinations of options organized into distinct system scenarios that accomplish different priorities / principles. The format for comparing and contrasting the alternative system scenarios is displayed in Table 1 at the end of this section. The final result of the solid waste planning process is that the KIB Assembly will select a preferred system scenario. aBell & Associates, Inc. 2 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 157 N O •� a) � U O C .� U :N, cn cn �Z ch � ♦ C ca N OO_ ti sy (n.L � a > V OO U) 2Q� a L a E a. O O s �+ 'i V to = O E (D V .F y O U- U)i _0 N od 06 � 5.06 2 U) ++ d O m i O r N p 0 �► a� c= R��, N_ �'c 5 Eu OLS •— cl)c•L o. (� = LLO 1 Q j M i RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 7 of 157 - KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 1.3 Core Questions In using the methodology and steps noted in the previous section, the SWMP is a resource for determining the future direction of solid waste management in KIB. To assist the Assembly in selecting a preferred system scenario the SWMP should discuss the circumstances and conditions that make KIB unique and how those factors impact solid waste management. In that regard the Plan addresses three sets of questions as presented below. 1.3.1 Waste Collection • What are the advantages and disadvantages of current methods for collecting trash? • What are the alternatives for trash collection? • Should customer contact / interaction be the responsibility of the waste management contractor or KIB? • What is the best method for billing customers and who should complete the monthly invoicing? 1.3.2 Waste Disposa • How much waste will KIB need to dispose of in the coming years? • What are the options for disposal, which one is recommended, and why? • Should a transfer station be constructed? 1.3.3 Recycling • What is a reasonable estimate for the amount of recyclable materials that could be recovered? • Assuming increased recycling is deemed a priority, what combination of policy, program, and facility initiatives are necessary to implement this priority? • Who should be the lead entity for promotion and education and what are the roles or contributions of other stakeholders regarding promotion / education? • What resources will be needed to sustain effective promotion / education? aBell & Associates, Inc. 4 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 8 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 2.0 Local Conditions 2.1 Overview KIB is a remote island with a largely rural character and expansive natural environment that is critical to its economy. It has a small, stable population with minimal growth forecasted over the next 30 years. 2.2 Current and Future Population Population projections for Kodiak Island Borough were calculated using data from the Alaska Department of Labor's (AKDOL) Research and Analysis Section / Demographics Unit. The KIB 2008 population estimate is the basis for projections. An annual growth rate of 0.17% as determined by AKDOL was used to extrapolate KIB population growth from 2008-2013. Similarly, an annual population growth rate of 0.19% for KIB was used for the 2013-2018 period as determined by AKDOL. Finally, an annual growth rate of 0.18%, the average of the two previous growth rates, was used to calculate population figures for the years 2018-2038. The figure and table which follow illustrate the small amount of population growth expected in KIB. 30,000 25,000 p 20,000 15,000 M a 10,000 5,000 0 Figure 2: Population Trend O`b NO �`�. ��` N1 b ^1 b1 O l�' tib` � ti� IO ,;. ��` N1lo NQ' �O 1p 1O 1O 1O 1O TO TO TO TOtiTO TO rO rO 'O eO Year aBell & Associates, Inc. 5 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 9 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 2.3 Political / Institutional Entities and Responsibilities KIB and the City of Kodiak are separate political entities. Each has a mayor and a legislative body. The KIB Assembly consists of seven members plus the mayor who votes in case of a tie. The Kodiak City Council has six members plus the mayor who also votes in case of a tie. KIB holds the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska for purposes of solid waste management. Therefore, it can contract for services throughout the Borough road system including the City of Kodiak. The City operates a sewage treatment plant that also serves Borough residents and businesses. Solid waste management falls under the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department and is specifically handled by the Environmental Specialist in that Department. The Environmental Specialist reports to the Department Director. KIB operates a landfill for disposal of wastes that employs six full - time people including a Supervisor who is in charge of five Operators. The Supervisor reports to the Environmental Specialist. All the landfill employees are part of the Engineering and Facilities Department. An organizational chart for KIB is provided in Appendix A. aBell & Associates, Inc. Table 2 Population Projections Year Estimated Population 2008 14,159 2009 14,183 2010 14,206 2011 14,230 2012 14,253 2013 14,277 2014 14,305 2015 14,332 2016 14,360 2017 14,388 2018 14,416 2019 14,442 2020 14,468 2021 14,494 2022 14,520 2023 14,546 2024 14,572 2025 14,599 2026 14,625 2027 14,651 2028 14,678 2029 14,704 2030 14,730 2031 14,757 2032 14,783 2033 14,810 2034 14,837 2035 14,863 2036 14,890 2037 14,917 2038 14,944 6 i RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 10 of 157 - KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Au 3.0 Description of Wastestream 3.1 Overview Table 3: What Is In KIB's Disposed Wastestream? What Can Be Diverted From Disposal? Disposed Wastestream Com Material Material Cateqory Type 10 Plastic Metals Newspaper' White / Mixed Pap Office Paper Magazines/Books/ Cardboard Other Paper able Film Other Aluminum Cans Tin Cans Other Metals Glass Diapers Food Waste Yard Waste Lumber & Wood Electronic Waste Batteries Other Total Recyclable Materials Compostable Materials osition & Diversion Potential Percent Composition 2007 Tons 34.3% 3,383.29 4.9% 540.47 er 3.0% 330.90 2.7% 297.81 Mail 4.2% 463.26- 12.6% 1,389.78 6.9% 761.07 5.6% 617.68 1.9% 209.57 1.8% 198.54 1.9% 209.57 7.7% 485.32 0.8% 850.11 1.0% 88.24 5.9% 110.30 4.4% 651.57 1.5% 165.45 11.9% 1,312.57 3.4% 372.04 7.5% 824.38 1.1% 121.33 0.1% 11.03 22.5% 2,481.75 100% 11,024.95 37.0% 4,081.90 22.8% 1 2,508.99 2008 Waste composition percentages used in the table above are from EPA (Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. 2005 -Facts and Figures) and KIB's 1992-93 Waste Characterization Study. The 1992-93 Waste Characterization Study showing the composition of waste from KIB is in Appendix B. Figure 3 below summarizes the portions of the disposed wastestream that theoretically could be diverted from disposal through recycling or composting. aBell & Associates, Inc. 7 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 11 of 157 - KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 Figure 3: Diversion Potential in Disposed Waste ❑ Recyclable Materials ❑ Compostable Materials ❑ Disposable Materials 3.2 Quantities and Types of Disposed Wastes It is noted that "MSW Tons" in the table below refers to municipal solid waste or garbage from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial generators in KIB. Construction and demolition (C & D) debris will vary from year to year, sometimes dramatically, depending on the number and type of building / renovation projects that occur. Table 4: What's Going into the Landfill? Material Category 2004 tons 2005 tons 2006 tons 2007 tons MSW Tons 11,231 11,202 10,890 11,030 Sludge 1,925 2,053 2,143 1,777 C & D Debris 1,596 2,189 4,100 1 1,867 Total Tons 14,752 15,443 17,133 14,674 The data from the table above is displayed in the figure which follows. aBell & Associates, Inc. 8 i RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 12 of 157 - KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 = 10,000 0 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Figure 4: Disposal by Type of Waste ��I� �ZI • d Year ❑ MSW Tons ❑ Sludge ❑ Construction & Demolition The sources of disposed waste from KIB are as shown in the table below. Total MSW from the previous table comes from three sources - refuse collected by Alaska Waste; self -hauling done by the public or businesses; and waste from the US Coast Guard (USCG), which is collected by a USCG contractor and delivered to the KIB landfill. Table 5: What Are the Sources of Disposed Waste? 2002 tons 2003 tons 2004 tons 2005 tons 2006 tons 2007 tons Alaska Waste & Self- Hauling 10,190 9,987 9,972 10,020 9,735 9,870 US Coast Guard 1,477 1,384 1,259 1,182 1,155 1,160 Sludge 1,890 1,864 1,925 2,053 2,143 1,777 Construction & Demolition 3,068 2,203 1,596 2,189 4,100 1,867 Total Tons 16,625 1 15,438 1 14,752 1 15,443 1 17,133 1 14,674 Data from the table above is portrayed graphically in the following figure; "Kodiak" refers to trash taken to the landfill by Alaska Waste and self - haulers combined. aBell & Associates, Inc. 9 i RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 13 of 157 - KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 Figure 5: Sources of Disposed Tonnage 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 3,068 2,203 1,596 2,189 4,100 1,867 1,890 1,864 1,925 2,053 2,143 1,777 1,477 1,384 1,259 1,182 1,155 1,160 10,19C 9,987 9,972 10,02C 9,735 9,870 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 ❑ Kodiak ❑ US Coast Guard ❑ Sludge ❑ Construction & Demolition aBell & Associates, Inc. 10 i RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 14 of 157 - KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 3.3 Quantities and Types of Diverted Wastes For calendar year 2007 Threshold Recycling Services Inc. recovered 500 tons in KIB, as listed in Table 6, based on its contract with the Borough (rounded figure; does not include material from US Coast Guard base; see Section 4.5.1 for discussion of Threshold Recycling). Of that amount 468 tons or 94 percent was various types of waste paper, as follows (data is rounded): mixed paperboard -111 tons; office paper -23 tons; newspaper— 52 tons; magazines -68 tons; cardboard— 214 tons. Under a separate contract Threshold handled an additional 186 tons of recyclables from the US Coast Guard in 2007 (material composition not available). The information noted above is summarized in the two figures below. Table 6: 2007 Threshold Tonnage from KIB (excludes Coast Guard) Materials Tons Mixed Paperboard 110.7 Office Paper 23.3 Newspaper 51.6 Magazines 68.4 Cardboard 214.3 Aluminum 4.3 Tin 1.7 HDPE # 2 Colored 3.5 HDPE # 2 Natural 2.2 PET # 1 6.7 Plastic Bags / Shrink Wrap 10.6 Subtotal 497.3 Other not identified 2.4 Total Tons 499.7 Figure 6: Threshold KIB Tons - Specific Percentages by Weight 0.3% 0.4% 0.9% ❑ All Paper Products ❑ Aluminum ❑ HDPE#2 Colored ❑ HDPE#2 Natural ❑ PET #1 ❑ Bags/Shrink Wrap ❑ Tin ❑ Other not identified aBell & Associates, Inc. 11 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 15 of 157 - KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 Figure 7: Threshold KIB Tons - General Percentages by Weight ❑ All Paper Products ❑ Other Material For calendar year 2007 KIB processed and marketed 822 tons of scrap metals. Scrap metals (excluding auto bodies) are presently received, processed, and stored at the KIB landfill by Borough personnel. 3.3.1 Calculation of Diversion Rate The diversion rate (also sometimes called the recycling or recovery rate) shows what percentage of the total material generated is being diverted from disposal due to reuse, recycling, composting and other similar methods. Two formulas define how to determine the diversion rate: Tons Generated = Tons Disposed + Tons Diverted Diversion Rate = Tons Disposed divided by Tons Generated The diversion rate is usually used in reference to municipal solid waste (MSW) since sludge is not refuse or trash but rather biosolids and construction / demolition debris quantities often fluctuate from year to year. The MSW diversion rate does not normally include recycled scrap metals because the weight of these materials can inflate and thus distort how much MSW is actually being diverted. When feasible, the tonnage of recycled scrap metal is documented but kept separate from the MSW diversion rate. aBell & Associates, Inc. 12 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 16 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 Based on these considerations the diversion rate for KIB in 2007 is calculated as follows: • 11,030 tons disposed (see Table 4) + 686 tons diverted (see Section 3.3) = 11,716 tons generated • 686 tons diverted divided by 11,716 tons generated = 5.8 % or say 6 % diversion rate 3.4 Projected Waste Disposal How much waste from KIB will need to be disposed in the future? There are three important variables to consider in projecting future disposal needs — existing disposed tonnages, population growth estimates, and anticipated diversion rates. Reliable data is available about the first two variables but anticipated diversion rates are difficult to predict. Therefore three different diversion levels — low, medium, and high — have been assumed in order to calculate projected waste disposal amounts: low—no increase beyond existing diversion; medium -25 % diversion; high -50 % diversion. Further, the disposal projection is for MSW or municipal solid waste. The projection does not include construction / demolition debris, which changes annually due to various cyclical economic factors. It also does not include biosolids or sludge, which is not part of the everyday wastestream produced by consumer behavior or commercial activities although it is currently part of the overall wastestream requiring disposal at the landfill. The waste disposal projection was calculated using MSW data from 2007 as a baseline against the previously discussed future population estimates. The first projection represents the status quo, where increases in MSW are directly linked to increases in population, with no additional diversion. The second projection represents a 25% reduction goal by 2018. The total MSW from the status quo projection is reduced by 2.5% in 2009 and an additional 2.5% every year for ten years until a full 25% of projected MSW is diverted from the wastestream. The remaining 20 years is then calculated using this 25% diversion rate from the status quo projection. The third projection is calculated in the exact same way as the 25% diversion except that it uses a goal of 50% by 2018. Each of the first 10 years increases its diversion by an additional 5% until 2018, thereafter using 50% for the next 20 years. aBell & Associates, Inc. 13 i RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 17 of 157 - KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Table 7: Disposal Tonnage Projections Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 aBell & Associates, Inc. Population 14,159 14,183 14,206 14,230 14,253 14,277 14,305 14,332 14,360 14,388 14,416 14,442 14,468 14,494 14,520 14,546 14,572 14,599 14,625 14,651 14,678 14,704 14,730 14,757 14,783 14,810 14,837 14,863 14,890 14,917 14,944 Tons Disposed - No Diversion Increase 11,030 11,049 11,067 11,085 11,103 11,122 11,144 11,165 11,187 11,208 11,230 11,250 11,271 11,291 11,311 11,331 11,352 11,373 11,393 11,413 11,434 11,455 11,475 11,496 11,516 11,537 11,558 11,578 11,599 11,620 11,642 Tons Disposed w / 25% Diversion 11,030 10,772 10,513 10,254 9,993 9,732 9,472 9,211 8,949 8,687 8,423 8,438 8,453 8,468 8,483 8,499 8,514 8,530 8,545 8,560 8,576 8,591 8,606 8,622 8,637 8,653 8,669 8,684 8,700 8,715 8,731 Auqust 2008 Tons Disposed w / 50% Diversion 11,030 10,496 9,960 9,423 8,883 8,341 7,801 7,257 6,712 6,165 5,625 5,625 5,635 5,645 5,656 5,666 5,676 5,686 5,697 5,707 5,717 5,727 5,737 5,748 5,758 5,769 5,779 5,789 5,800 5,810 5,821 14 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 18 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 4.0 Existing Solid Waste Management System 4.1 Overview Due to its isolated location and small waste volumes, KIB has historically not had a great deal of private sector competition for previous refuse service contracts. The landfill's current operating area has a limited life (see Section 4.4 for additional discussion). 4.1.1 System Revenue The current KIB solid waste management system is funded from two primary sources: collection rates charged to residents and businesses plus disposal rates charged at the landfill. The table below details these revenue sources from the past fiscal year. Table 8: Sources of Revenue, FY 2007 Revenue Source 2007 Actual Customer Count Residential Customers $ 1,015,535 2,768 customers Commercial Customers $ 1,672,247 494 customers Disposal for Self — Haulers $ 617,686 Business and residential customers Kodiak Sludge $ 168,059 1,777 tons US Coast Guard $ 129,875 1,129 tons of waste Total $ 3,603,402 The table below shows the average number of customers serviced by the collection contractor in FY 2007: Table 9: Solid Waste Service Customers City of Kodiak 1,275 Service District #1 978 KIB Residential 515 Commercial 494 Total 3,262 4.2 Collection Under a contract with KIB, refuse collection services are provided by Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC doing business as Alaska Waste in the Borough. The contract between KIB and Alaska Waste is in Appendix D. The US Coast Guard has their own contractor for solid waste collection — Kodiak Support Services — who hauls trash to the KIB landfill. Residents within the boundaries of the City of Kodiak are provided with curbside collection of waste as well as drop—off sites at various locations throughout the City. Drop—off aBell & Associates, Inc. 15 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 19 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 sites or community dumpsters are also found at different places throughout the Borough and are either 3.6 cubic yard or 5.5 cubic yard dumpsters or a 20 cubic yard drop box. Residents outside the city limits do not receive curbside refuse collection and therefore must use the community dumpsters. The monthly collection cost for residential customers in the City of Kodiak and the Borough is comprised of the following three components: Table 10: Monthly Residential Refuse Collection Cost Rate Component City of Kodiak Kodiak Borough Collection $ 13.82 $ 18.38 Administration 4.41 4.41 Disposal 15.06 15.06 Cost of Service $ 33.29 $ 37.85 Collection Rate $ 31.00 $ 31.00 It must be noted that the collection cost and collection rate are at odds. An explanation of the cost components follows: • Collection Cost — This is the contracted amount paid to Alaska Waste to collect waste. • Administration — These are Borough costs associated with contract management, customer billing, and accounting. • Disposal — Assumes the average set—out weight of waste is 68' pounds a week per residence at approximately $ 102 per ton for disposal plus all other landfill functions (see Section 4.4.5, Table 13 and Appendix C). All residences are charged a flat rate regardless of how much garbage is put out for collection or discarded in the community dumpsters. However, in the commercial / institutional / industrial sector, rates are based on the number and size of containers serviced and the frequency of service. Appendix D contains the rates for businesses, institutions, and industries. The 68 pounds per customer per week assumption is calculated in Appendix . aBell & Associates, Inc. 16 -` RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 20 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan August 2008 4.2.1 Cost of Community Dumpsters in Residential Areas of the Borough The cost of the community dumpsters in residential areas of KIB was calculated from January 2007 to December 2007 using the billing records submitted by Alaska Waste. During that period of !� .:` time, the cost to the KIB for collection service was $329,211. The disposal cost on the estimated 2,656 tons @ $102 per ton is an additional $270,072 for a combined cost of $599,283. 4.3 Handling / Transfer Photo 1: Community Dumpster Garbage is transported directly to the landfill from collection routes. There is no transfer station in KIB. Threshold Recycling Services processes, consolidates, and stores recyclable materials at their site in Kodiak (see Section 4.5 below). Threshold also manages a few satellite sites that are used to collect recyclables. KIB, through the contract with Alaska Waste, has the six community cardboard recycle dumpsters brought to Threshold's main location. Bales of recyclable materials are placed in fully enclosed intermodal containers or "vans" for shipment by barge to markets in the Seattle region. 4.4 Disposal Waste collected on the Island is disposed by burial at the landfill located north of the City of Kodiak off Monashka Bay Road. The unlined landfill is classified by the State of Alaska as a Class I landfill. The landfill accepts the following materials for disposal: municipal solid waste (which is baled on site prior to burial), construction and demolition debris, and sludge from the City's wastewater treatment plant. In addition to disposal operations, the landfill accepts lead acid batteries, appliances, and scrap metal for recycling. Household hazardous waste such as oxidizers, cleaning products, and pesticides are handled, collected, and stored for removal by a contractor. The Borough also operates a small incinerator located in the baler building for medical wastes, confidential documents, euthanized animals and animals for cremation. 4.4.1 Labor The daily operations of the KIB baler and landfill facility are performed by an on-site staff of five baler / equipment operators and one supervisor. The facility operates six days a week from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and is open to the public from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm. The nature of the work performed at the facility requires a minimum labor force of four people during working hours to maintain efficient operations and provide a safe environment for employees and customers. That labor force consists of a baler operator, skid loader operator on the tipping floor who also conducts the waste screening and is the scalehouse operator, an equipment operator at the scrap metal area and an equipment operator that conducts road maintenance, works the construction/demolition cell as well as the working face of the landfill. aBell & Associates, Inc. 17 ` RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 21 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 4.4.2 Baler Versus Compactor There are two primary methods used at landfills to compact waste: a wheeled compactor or a stationary hydraulic baler. A new wheeled compactor - 1` (Caterpillar 816 F Series 2) has a price tag of _ $335,000 plus the operational costs. This machine has a weight of 52,364 pounds and should get the same compaction as the baler. The baler has been fully = amortized by the Borough, so future costs are the scheduled routine maintenance and occasional Photo 2: Caterpillar 816F Compactor overhauls. Over the last five years the Borough has spent $43,499 to keep the baler running or an average of $8,700 a year. The annual amortized purchase price for a new compactor over 10 years is $33,500. The current baler operation keeps waste confined to a small protected area, reduces the impact of windblown litter, eliminates the need for public access to the working face of the landfill, and compacts waste to a density of about 1,200 pounds per cubic yard. While the wheeled compactor is the most widely used method of compaction, it is not the best choice for Kodiak given the low number of wet waste tons, weather conditions, replacement expenses, and service costs. 4.4.3 Closure Costs Subtitle D of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires a landfill owner to assure adequate funds are available to cap and close a landfill and provide the necessary monitoring requirements for no less than 30 years after it has reached full capacity. KIB has prudently encumbered the projected cost of these environmental requirements. Closure and post—closure costs were initially estimated by the Borough's engineering firm of CH2M Hill in 1996. These costs have been adjusted annually for inflation during the budgeting process. In 2007, the remaining life of the landfill and the closure costs were in synchronization, meaning that 70% of the landfill had been filled and 70% of the closure costs had been collected. For 2007 the estimated closure costs were $4,603,696. As of the same year the Borough had $3,222,600 (70%) of estimated closure costs in trust. The remaining $1,381,096 will be collected based on the projected 120,000 tons the landfill would receive over the next eight to ten years. The closure cost per ton is $11.51 ($1,381,096 divided by 120,000 tons). As part of this Solid Waste Management Plan the Borough has updated the projected closure and post -closure costs. While the closure costs were reasonable, the post -closure costs for leachate treatment ($502,600) and operations and maintenance ($341,086) will increase the aBell & Associates, Inc. 18 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 22 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 amount the Borough must set aside during the remaining life of the current cell. This is summarized in the table below: Table 11: KIB Landfill Closure and Post -Closure Costs Cost Category Prior Estimate Updated Estimate Notes Closure Cost (cap and fill current cell) $ 3,335,700 $ 3,344,654 Post -Closure Costs Leachate System 190,200 692,800 Monitoring 697,399 690,047 Operations and Maintenance 285,298 626,384 Required Cost to be funded by the KIB 4,508,597 5,353,885 A Closure Fund Balance (June 30, 2008) 3,222,587 3,222,587 B Remaining Amount to Fund 1,286,010 2,131,298 C Remaining Landfill Tons 105,000 105,000 D Closure / Post -Closure Cost per Ton 12.25 20.30 E Projected Tons of Mun. Solid Waste, 2008-9 15,600 15,600 F Amount to Encumber in 2008 / 2009 $ 191,064 $ 316,650 G Notes A: Sum of projected costs B: Assumed fund balance C: Required amount to fund less the current fund balance D: Projected landfill life in tons E: Remaining amount to fund divided by projected landfill life (tons) F: Average tons received by the landfill over the last 5 years G: Cost per ton multiplied by projected tons 4.4.4 Sludge The KIB landfill accepts sewage sludge from the City of Kodiak's treatment plant for disposal. In other jurisdictions sewage sludge or bio—solids are either composted, land applied, or incinerated. Sludge accounted for 1,777 tons or 12% of the total waste tons disposed in 2007 and 18% of disposal revenue. aBell & Associates, Inc. 19 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 23 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 4.4.5 Disposal Costs on Kodiak There are two primary activities at the KIB baler and landfill facility — recycling and disposal. The costs of operating the landfill for purposes of refuse disposal are summarized in the following table covering fiscal year 2007, that is, July 2006 to June 2007: Table 12: What Does It Cost for Landfill Disposal? Category Cost / $ Comments Labor $ 571,047 Staff (6.5 Full -Time Equivalents) Professional Services 113,830 Engineering & Contracting Services Closure Costs 270,000 Fixed Amount Operations 203,357 Supplies, Utilities, Insurance Building & Equipment 272,639 Depreciation Total Cost for Disposal $ 1,430,873 15,900 tons of material (a) Disposal Cost per Ton $ 90 15,900 tons of material (a) NOTE: (a) municipal solid waste + sludge + construction / demolition debris Processing of residential and commercial recyclable materials is carried out by Threshold Recycling while scrap metal recycling is part of the operations conducted at the landfill. Both are discussed under Section 4.5 below. Funds to pay the costs of Threshold's contract and scrap metal recovery come from landfill revenues. The following table considers these additional expenses (bold text) in calculating the total cost for operating the baler and landfill facility. Table 13: Total Cost for Baler / Landfill Facility Category Cost / $ Comments Labor $ 571,047 Staff (6.5 Full -Time Equivalents) Professional Services 113,830 Engineering & Contracting Services Closure Costs 270,000 Fixed Amount Operations 203,357 Supplies, Utilities, Insurance Building & Equipment 272,639 Depreciation Scrap Metal Recycling 17,273 Transport Cost to Seattle Markets Threshold Recycling 168,963 Contracted Cost Total Cost for Facility $ 1,617,108 15,900 tons of material (a) Facility Cost per Ton $ 102 15,900 tons of material (a) 2 The half FTE is the Environmental Specialist who is split between landfill and administration. aBell & Associates, Inc. 20 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 24 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 Disposal costs at the landfill noted above are portrayed visually in the figure below. Operations 14% Figure 8: Disposal Costs by % Building & Equipment 19% Labor 40% Closure Costs \ 8% 19% ❑ Labor ❑ Professional Services 0 Closure Costs ❑ Operations ❑ Building & Equipment 4.5 Diversion — Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting 4.5.1 Recycling Threshold Recycling Services Inc. maintains a receiving, handling, processing, storage, and marketing operation for recyclable materials in Kodiak. Outside of the site are two drop—off stations for recyclables. Three additional satellite drop-off stations are located in the Borough. Six cardboard — only dumpsters in the Borough and the City are hauled to Threshold's main site through KIB's contract with Alaska Waste. Threshold also picks ups recyclables from commercial businesses and institutions. Materials handled by Threshold include but are not limited to the following: • Aluminum cans • White office paper • Tin cans • Colored office paper • Cardboard • File folders • Brown paper bags • Envelopes • Newspaper • Paper towel / toilet paper rolls • Magazines • Mixed waste paper • Paperboard boxes (such as for cereal, crackers, tissue) • PET (polyethylene terephthalate) # 1 clear plastic containers • HDPE (high — density polyethylene) # 2 colored plastic containers In calendar year 2007 KIB paid $196,434 to Threshold for recycling services. Under terms of the contract, KIB pays $9,000 per month for up to 30,000 pounds of recyclable materials aBell & Associates, Inc. 21 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 25 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 processed and shipped to markets off -island ($9,000 / 30,000 pounds = $0.30 per pound or $600 per ton). After 30,000 pounds, the payment amount is reduced by 50% to $0.15 per pound or $300 per ton. During 2007, Threshold processed about 500 tons of material (KIB contract; Threshold has a separate recycling contract with the US Coast Guard) at an average cost to KIB of $393 per ton. The KIB landfill is a collection, processing, and storage point for scrap metals. The landfill receives approximately 1,500 to 2,500 pounds per week from residents and businesses on the Island. The current rate charged by the Borough for handling this material stream is $275 per ton. The cost to process the material in 2007 was approximately $70 per ton. In 2008, the value of scrap increased from $73 per ton to $200 per ton, thus decreasing the Borough's processing cost per ton to $9 per ton profit. The table below displays the difference in cost over calendar year 2007 to the first four months of 2008. Table 14: Scrap Metal Processing Costs Cost Category 2007 2008 Tons processed 822.20 564.25 Labor cost $ 47,075 $ 31,383 Equipment cost $ 24,070 $ 16,518 Shipping cost $ 42,026 $ 33,844 Material value $ (55,641) $ (86,550) Cost per ton $ 69.97 $ (8.51) In 2007 the Borough shipped out 1,644,400 pounds (822 tons) of scrap metals to Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. in Tacoma, Washington and anticipates the remaining stockpile of 1,800,000 pounds (900 tons) will be reduced further to 80,000 pounds (40 tons) by September 2008. 4.5.2 Composting There is no KIB composting operation at the present time. 4.6 Household Hazardous Waste Household hazardous waste (HHW) can be taken to the KIB landfill Monday through Saturday from 10 am to 4 pm year round free of charge. As well, there is an annual clean—up event held on the first Saturday of May when the public can bring their HHW to the Kodiak High School parking lot free of charge. The materials gathered over the year and from the event are shipped off -island to a disposal facility permitted for HHW. KIB currently contracts with Phillips Services Corporation (PSC) out of Anchorage to assist in disposing of HHW materials. aBell & Associates, Inc. 22 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 26 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 In addition, there is a "tag—on" service for commercial generators, who are responsible for contacting PSC directly and paying for the shipping and disposal of their waste. The benefit to commercial generators is that KIB has already paid to have PSC come to the island for the clean—up event. The KIB landfill does not accept commercial hazardous waste so generators must make arrangements directly with PSC. 4.7 Special Wastes Table 15: Current Handling Methods for Special Wastes 1 / Sludge Collected by the City and disposed of in working face of landfill. 2 / Tires Disposed of in dumpsters or brought to the landfill by the public are then baled and landfilled. 3 / E — waste Baled and landfilled or the public can take to Threshold to recycle for a fee. 4 / Wood Disposed of in construction / demolition cell at landfill. 5 / Fishing gear Disposed of in construction / demolition cell at landfill. 6 / Carcasses Generally disposed of in dumpsters and are then baled and landfilled. 7 / Construction / demolition Disposed of in construction / demolition cell at landfill. debris 8 / White goods / scrap metal Brought to the landfill either by the public or the collection contractor. Fluids are removed; material is shipped off -island for recycling. 9 / Restaurant cooking oil / Disposed of in dumpsters, baled and landfilled. grease Threshold also takes restaurant cooking oil to burn at their facility. The oil that is not able to be burned is then disposed of in a dumpster. 10 / Furniture / mattresses / Disposed of in dumpsters or brought to the landfill by other bulky items the public are then baled and landfilled. 11 / Yard waste Disposed of in dumpsters or brought to landfill by the public. Therefore some is baled and landfilled and some is disposed of in the construction / demolition cell. 12 / Propane tanks Disposed of in dumpsters or brought to landfill by the public; disposed of in the construction / demolition cell. 4.8 Organization and Administration Solid Waste Management falls within the responsibilities of the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department and is specifically handled by the Department's Environmental Specialist. Other Department employees (six total; see Section 4.4.1) operate the baler and landfill facility for disposal of waste, scrap metal recycling, and HHW receiving / storage. KIB does not deal with auto bodies. There is a contract between KIB and the US Coast Guard that allows refuse from aBell & Associates, Inc. 23 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 27 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 the USCS to be disposed at the landfill. Other waste management functions are performed by contracted private entities, as noted below: • Contract with PSC for HHW management services. • Contract with Threshold Recycling Services. • Contract with Alaska Waste for residential and commercial refuse collection. KIB staff also does the billing for solid waste collection services and responds to inquiries about those services from residents and businesses. 5.0 Analysis of Existing Solid Waste Management System 5.1 Observations and Findings 5. 1.1 Service Arrangements/ Contracts In the past KIB has relied on a variety of arrangements with private entities — both for— profit companies and non—profit organizations — to manage various wastestreams such as scrap metals, residential and commercial recyclables, household hazardous waste, and municipal trash. Some of these arrangements resulted from competitive procurement procedures and others have been informal, sole source oral agreements or contracts executed without a formal request — for — proposals or bids process. From the consultant's knowledge of such arrangements it does not appear they have been reviewed by an attorney with expertise in solid waste contractual terms and conditions. In particular, some of the arrangements lack a clearly defined, equitable distribution of obligations, responsibilities, and protections among the involved parties. They also do not provide for specific, regular reporting requirements and protocols by contractors. Both of these are essential for KIB to monitor contract compliance and meet accountability standards. An illustration of how this currently presents problems for KIB is the way refuse collection is presently set up. Customer billing is done by the Borough rather than the hauler; the hauler does not pay for disposal; and the Borough pays the hauler rather than the customer paying the hauler. Also, both the hauler and the Borough receive and respond to customer complaints. This situation places administrative burdens on KIB personnel that consume time and resources. Another illustrative problem is the lack of clarity surrounding the handling of hazardous waste, particularly generated in the harbor / cannery area. Such material is placed in dumpsters, picked up by the hauler, and placed on the floor in front of the baler at the landfill. At that point it becomes a health and safety issue for Borough staff. The parties responsible for the generation or collection of the waste, under current conditions, do not share in the responsibility or liability for management and disposal of this material. aBell & Associates, Inc. 24 yb` RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 28 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 Collection must be set up so the hauler manages the wastestream. Rather than have the hauler compile and submit data to KIB for subsequent payment, the contract needs to be reworked so that the hauler is the service provider, pays for disposal, bills the customers, reports on a regular basis to the Borough, and includes the necessary service and system fees in the rates. If the hauling company pays for disposal then it is very unlikely to pick up materials for which it is not charging a rate. 5.1.2 Residential Sector Refuse Pickup Residential waste collection in KIB is inefficient because there are no standardized, uniform refuse containers; trash is picked up manually by crews; and in City neighborhoods with collection there are also dumpsters. This is a duplicative and costly service to offer. In addition, the present residential waste collection method does not offer a basis for implementing curbside recycling service. 5.1.3 Recycling There are material conservation benefits from recycling. However, the closest markets for recyclables from KIB based on existing ocean barging routes are in the Seattle region. Getting recyclables from KIB to this region consumes significant resources, so it is likely the overall environmental impact is marginally positive or even negative. Within the context of conditions in KIB, the main benefits of waste reduction / recycling are landfill preservation and avoidance of the costs and impacts associated with disposal. However at the current diversion rate of 6 % (see Section 3.3.1) these benefits are minor and do not represent a large amount of cost reduction or diminished disposal impacts. Nevertheless the current cost to recycle through the Threshold contract averages nearly $ 400 per ton and adds about $ 196,000 per year in contract fees that must be paid for through rates at the landfill. There is no curbside residential recycling collection service currently available in KIB. Threshold Recycling offers pickup of recyclables from commercial / institutional generators but this is limited by the resource and equipment constraints Threshold operates under. These constraints influence not only collection of recyclables but also materials processing, storage, and marketing operations since those operations are done in a building not designed for such purposes (see Section 5.2 below). aBell & Associates, Inc. 25 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 29 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 5.1.4 Construction and Demolition (C & D) Debris By its nature, the quantities and types of C & D debris can vary widely over time based on economic activity involving building and renovation. Further, much C & D debris is bulky, heavy, inert, hard — to — handle, and non — organic. For these reasons, under any disposal alternative it should be understood that most C & D debris will continue to be disposed in the KIB landfill because it is not capable of being incinerated or economically transported off— island. 5.1.5 Landfill Operation The consultant has found no compelling operational or economic reasons to justify terminating operations of the landfill by the KIB. Given the small volume of disposed refuse, along with the historical and contemporary liabilities associated with the landfill, it is not a desirable investment target for the private sector. However, the only way to reliably determine private sector interest is to issue an RFP (request—for—proposals) for operation of the landfill and evaluate responses in comparison with continuing the Borough's role in this part of the solid waste system. If such an RFP is issued the Borough itself should respond for purposes of evaluating costs for public versus private operation of the landfill. 5.2 Needs, Challenges and Opportunities 5.2.1 Recycling The role of Threshold Recycling under a scenario where recycling is broadly expanded in KIB is not clear at this time. The consultant offers no recommendation on this matter because ultimately the future of recycling and Threshold's involvement with it are policy issues for KIB to decide. A letter from Threshold to the consultant dated March 27, 2008 (see Appendix H) explains that "challenged employees" are used in various aspects of the recycling operation amounting to 15 percent of personnel costs. This is a valuable community service fulfilled by Threshold. As the letter notes, "...one of our avowed goals is to provide work and training for persons with disabilities." However, the letter estimates Threshold could handle about twice the current material volume at its existing site 3. Threshold acknowledges another facility with more automated equipment would be needed to accept, process, store, and market additional material quantities above that level. This may not be consistent with the previously stated organizational goal. Further, Threshold is not sure their favorable shipping rate of $ 475 per container would be maintained if material volumes increased. 3 In 2007, Threshold processed around 686 tons of materials from KIB, including the US Coast Guard. aBell & Associates, Inc. 26 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 30 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 Another challenge is trying to predict what it would cost if Threshold handled larger quantities of recyclables. In its letter Threshold understandably hesitates to make such a prediction because the nature of its recycling operation would change dramatically with a new facility and more automated equipment. A budget from Threshold for the period October 2006 to September 2007 is in Appendix G. Based on the current contract between Threshold and KIB, payments to Threshold from the Borough for calendar year 2007 totaled $196,434 for 500 recycled tons. It costs the Borough an average of $ 393 per ton for recycling. Whether this cost would go up or down if the tonnage grew is an open question. Threshold Recycling seems to enjoy broad community support in KIB, however, it is doubtful if Threshold by itself has sufficient resources for significant recycling expansion. Threshold acknowledges such an expansion could not be accomplished with its existing building and manual operation. Increased recycling in KIB will necessitate a centralized facility deliberately designed for receiving, processing, and storing recyclables. Depending on land availability, such a facility could serve multiple purposes such as materials reuse / exchange and refuse transfer. It is recognized that KIB's geographical location, distance from markets, and comparatively small wastestream pose challenges for making recycling cost — effective. To control the expenses related to handling recyclables, KIB could consider providing various forms of assistance and resources to facilitate a public sector / private sector partnership setting up a Resource or Materials Recovery Facility (RRF or MRF) for expanding recycling. This is discussed further in Section 6.5.1 below. 5.3 Guiding Priorities / Principles for Future Waste Management Practices The KIB Strategic Plan for 2008 — 2012 outlines the Borough's mission, vision, and guiding principles. It was adopted by the KIB Assembly on January 12, 2008 as Resolution # FY 2008 — 22. Section V — G is titled "Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Goals and Objectives". This section contains the following statements which could be viewed as the main priorities and principles for directing the development of solid waste programs, policies, and facilities in KIB: • 1 — Consolidate existing plans and long — term needs into a comprehensive solid waste plan that addresses the solid waste function for the next 30 years in an economic and efficient manner. • 1 — e: Continue to take steps that will extend the existing landfill site through comprehensive recycling and other means for as long as possible without going out of the current permitted area. • 1 — f: Develop a fee structure to give citizens incentive to recycle. aBell & Associates, Inc. 27 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 31 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 • 1 — g: As part of the plan identify and quantify all forms of subsidies and equate progressive effects such as recycling to the impact on landfill life and the relationship to costs. • 1 — I: Encourage KIBSD and Kodiak College to recycle waste and to add recycling education to their education programs. • 2 — Evaluate and analyze the recycling program to create a long — term participatory program and plan that is economically sustainable. • 2 — a: Coordinate with stakeholders and product producers with a focus on rewarding good practices and minimizing solid waste production. • 2 — b: Identify key sources of the waste stream and, through stakeholder and task force methods, address how to minimize the volume and costs of handling those items identified. As portrayed in Table 1, Section 1.2, there should be a close connection between the priorities and principles that guide a solid waste management system and the combination of programs, policies, and facilities that perform the essential functions of the system — refuse collection, handling, transfer, and disposal; waste reduction / recycling; promotion / education; organization and administration. Consistency between the substance of the system elements and the guiding priorities / principles is necessary if goals and objectives are to be achieved. For KIB, there are three general directions for solid waste management in the future — maintain the system, modify the system, or change the system. With each of these directions there are related priorities, programs, policies, and facilities, as outlined below. 5.3.1 Maintain the Solid Waste System • Provide trash collection services at the lowest cost possible. • Residences should all pay the same rate for garbage pickup and be able to put out whatever trash they have. Families that are large should not be penalized by having to pay higher rates. • Expand the landfill outside of the current permitted area so there is enough capacity to handle KIB's waste disposal needs for the short — and long — term. 5.3.2 Modify the Solid Waste System • Provide trash collection services using modern trucks and containers that can be operated efficiently. • Rates for garbage service should be based on how much you throw away. The more you put out for disposal the more you should pay. Bell & Associates, Inc. 28 b ` RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 32 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 • Remove trash dumpsters from residential areas that already have or will have regular collection service. • Minimize the administrative time and resources KIB staff now devote to solid waste collection activities. • Whatever the KIB solid waste program turns out to be, the promotion / education / outreach activities associated with this program should be a major responsibility of KIB staff. 5.3.3 Change the Solid Waste System • Take steps immediately to stop putting regular garbage into the landfill. The landfill should only be used for debris from construction or demolition projects. All remaining trash should be shipped off of KIB to another disposal site in Alaska or the Pacific Northwest. • Collection of refuse and recyclable materials are vital services that should be provided directly by KIB employees with equipment owned by KIB. • Adopt a formal KIB policy that reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting of materials is preferable to disposal through landfilling or incineration. • KIB should commit to achieving specific reductions in the amount of disposed waste within certain timeframes, such as 25 % by 2012 and 50 % by 2020. • Provide economic and / or other incentives for KIB residents, businesses, institutions and service providers to reduce waste. • Establish a central facility for receiving, processing, and storing recyclable and reusable materials. • Make recycling significantly more convenient, available, and accessible for residents, businesses, and institutions. • Adopt policies and procedures that require residents, businesses, and institutions to recycle certain specified materials. aBell & Associates, Inc. 29 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 33 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 6.0 Description of Options for System Components 6.1 Collection Emphasize operational efficiency for residential refuse pickup by adopting a uniform system using standardized carts for storage emptied by either semi—automated or fully —automated vehicles where logistically feasible. For example, all involved residences would be offered a cart in three different sizes — say, 48, 65, or 95 gallons. Each residence picks a cart appropriate to its waste generating behavior. The rate would vary for each cart size, with the larger cart costing more. Every extra cart would be charged at a rate equal to, or greater than, the first cart. This approach is consistent with having a variable, "Pay — As — You — Throw" residential rate structure similar to what exists now in the commercial sector where cost is directly connected to the amount of trash set out for collection. 6.2 Procuring of Collection Services 4 J . Photo 4: 96 and 48 gallon roll carts One of the primary objectives of this Plan is to procure collection services for the KIB. Before an RFP for collection services is issued to potential vendors the following questions on the future solid waste and recycling collection system need to be considered, and a decision reached by the members of the Assembly. Once a decision has been reached, Borough managers and the consultant will develop an RFP that incorporates the policy direction provided by the Assembly. 6.2.1 Should Kodiak implement a cart system for collecting garbage and recyclables from residences and small businesses? The existing manual method of residential collection is labor-intensive, out-of-date, inefficient, and unsafe. Waste is set out for collection at the curb in cans, carts, bags, boxes, or loose. Collection crews of one, two or three people, one driving the truck and the other(s) collecting the waste by hand, pick up the trash and throw it into the rear of the truck. There are two ways to collect waste using the cart — based system: semi — automated and fully automated. Semi — Automated Trash is collected using standardized roll carts and dumped into the truck with a hydraulic cart tipper. Crew size for a semi -automated collection route is one. The truck is equipped with a steering wheel on the right side of the cab so the driver can stand while driving from house to house. Rather that picking up various containers or bags by hand, the driver rolls the cart onto the tipper affixed to the truck where the mechanized lift dumps the materials into the hopper. aBell & Associates, Inc. 30 ` RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 34 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 The primary advantage of semi -automated over manual is the tipper dumps the cart rather than the driver. The other is the use of standardized containers for waste. Fully Automated Trash is collected in the same carts as semi -automated however the trucks are equipped with a mechanical arm that picks up the cart. The driver operates the mechanical arm from inside the cab of the truck. There are two big advantages of a fully automated route: driver safety and increased productivity based on the number of carts serviced. Since the mechanical arm picks up and dumps the cart, the driver's risk of injury is greatly diminished. The second advantage is the mechanical arm can pick up and dump a cart in about 15 seconds, therefore increasing the number of carts collected over a semi - automated and manual route. Other reasons for moving to cart — based collection system are as follows: • Standardized collection containers: Carts may range in volume from 20 gallons up to 96 gallons. • Higher level of service: Customer convenience is increased and litter and garbage in the streets is reduced. • Rate stability: Collection rates over the long-term (5 to 10 years) fluctuate less for automated when compared to other methods of collection. • Future services: Automated collection trucks can pick up carts designated for residential recyclables and yard debris, so the KIB can add additional services in the future at a lower cost due to fleet / cart standardization. • Commercial collection tubs: Fully automated trucks can also be fitted with a universal arm gripper to collect 300 and 450 gallon commercial collection tubs4. Bears One of the Borough's primary concerns with moving to a fully automated system is the use of collection carts that are not resistant to bears. The current collection method along the road system is not designed to address the bear issue although roll -off containers presently used are bear -resistant. Trash day in the City of Kodiak offers any bear a wide selection of dining choices because waste is set out in open cans, bags, and in any other manner residents choose to place waste out on the curb. Some community dumpsters located along the road system are not resistant to bears or other vectors and the doors on bear resistant dumpsters are consistently and routinely left open by the public. 4 300 gallon tub is equal to 1.5 cubic yard container and a 450 gallon tub is equal to a 2.25 cubic yard container. aBell & Associates, Inc. 31 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 35 of 157 It is recommended that curbside refuse collection be expanded to include not only residences in the City of Kodiak but also the metropolitan and outlying, rural areas of KIB on the road system. In the more urban sections of the City and Borough regular roll carts would be provided. Residential customers in the outlying, rural areas of the Borough will get collection at the curb with bear - resistant roll carts similar to the ones currently being utilized in Anchorage, based on an investigation into the applicability of the Anchorage containers to KIB. Hybrid System There are three manufacturers that build a collection body and Auqust 2008 system to collect carts either fully automated, semi -automated, or manually. This gives the waste collector the flexibility to utilize one truck for various circumstances. For example, collection in town could be fully automated and in the remote areas that would use bear resistant carts, the driver could move to semi -automated. 6.2.2 Should rates be variable, that is, a Pay -As -You -Throw structure based on the size / number of the cart(s) / container(s) and the frequency of collection? Pay -As -You -Throw (PAYT) is a method of setting collection rates based on the amount of waste set out for collection. This method creates a direct economic incentive to recycle more and/or to generate less waste. Two key considerations for PAYT on Kodiak are rate equity and economics. PAYT treats garbage collection the same as other utilities in that customers pay for the services they consume. Secondly, PAYT would eliminate waste generators that are currently subsidized in the existing system by setting rates at a cost of service for both residential and commercial services. This is a fair and equitable approach to establishing collection and disposal rates. 6.2.3 If a cart collection program is implemented, should the utilization of community dumpsters be discontinued where curbside waste collection is provided? The City of Kodiak is one of a few jurisdictions in the United States where duplicative residential services are offered — residential curbside collection of waste and local dumpsters for additional disposal. While the community dumpster program is popular with many residents, it's also expensive and wasteful. As noted earlier, the cost of the program in 2007 for the approximately 33 containers located within the metropolitan area was estimated at $599,284. Revenue generated from Borough customers @ $31 per month covers $555,396, leaving a shortfall of $43,887. In addition to regular garbage, many items disposed in the community dumpsters are large and bulky such as televisions and furniture that normally would be self -hauled to the landfill. The community dumpsters provide an ideal way for individuals to avoid the responsibility of paying for disposal, thus creating increased costs to the overall solid waste management system. aBell & Associates, Inc. 32 x: MOW Gtl O Photo 6: Bear Resistant Cart system to collect carts either fully automated, semi -automated, or manually. This gives the waste collector the flexibility to utilize one truck for various circumstances. For example, collection in town could be fully automated and in the remote areas that would use bear resistant carts, the driver could move to semi -automated. 6.2.2 Should rates be variable, that is, a Pay -As -You -Throw structure based on the size / number of the cart(s) / container(s) and the frequency of collection? Pay -As -You -Throw (PAYT) is a method of setting collection rates based on the amount of waste set out for collection. This method creates a direct economic incentive to recycle more and/or to generate less waste. Two key considerations for PAYT on Kodiak are rate equity and economics. PAYT treats garbage collection the same as other utilities in that customers pay for the services they consume. Secondly, PAYT would eliminate waste generators that are currently subsidized in the existing system by setting rates at a cost of service for both residential and commercial services. This is a fair and equitable approach to establishing collection and disposal rates. 6.2.3 If a cart collection program is implemented, should the utilization of community dumpsters be discontinued where curbside waste collection is provided? The City of Kodiak is one of a few jurisdictions in the United States where duplicative residential services are offered — residential curbside collection of waste and local dumpsters for additional disposal. While the community dumpster program is popular with many residents, it's also expensive and wasteful. As noted earlier, the cost of the program in 2007 for the approximately 33 containers located within the metropolitan area was estimated at $599,284. Revenue generated from Borough customers @ $31 per month covers $555,396, leaving a shortfall of $43,887. In addition to regular garbage, many items disposed in the community dumpsters are large and bulky such as televisions and furniture that normally would be self -hauled to the landfill. The community dumpsters provide an ideal way for individuals to avoid the responsibility of paying for disposal, thus creating increased costs to the overall solid waste management system. aBell & Associates, Inc. 32 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 36 of 157 - KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 Alternatives that could be implemented to replace the community dumpsters may include a "call -to - haul" for bulky items such as old furniture or appliances, a drop-off depot for household hazardous waste, and larger garbage carts (up to 95 gallons). A new approach will be implemented over time; dumpsters will not simply disappear without implementation of one or more replacement services. Elimination of the burden of disFncn , the waste, would greatly reduce the commercial sector dumpsters, and be compatible with a PAYT rate structure. community dumpsters puts the I expenses on the generator of subsidy necessary to fund the 6.2.4 Should the next collection contract be a long-term one, for example, a 7-10 year term of contract with 7 years to amortize equipment and a 3 year extension as an incentive? Collection operations are capital -intensive ventures. An automated garbage truck will cost approximately $220,000. A roll cart for garbage storage and collection will cost $55 each, plus shipping costs. This is equipment that, while expensive, will last seven to ten years with regular care and maintenance. For a hauler, making a large capital investment in this equipment is more feasible with a long — term contract. It will allow for ample time to recover the capital costs, provide a longer period for distributing rate increases, and provide greater control over rising rates for the Borough and City of Kodiak. 6.2.5 Should the collection company be responsible for billing all residential and commercial customers? and, 6.2.6 Should the collection company be responsible for customer service? There is an inefficient duplication of efforts and costs under the current system. KIB provides the contractor with a detailed monthly billing register which the contractor fills in to reflect the account activity for that billing period. The contractor generates a detailed monthly billing register and submits the invoice to the KIB for payment. All information on that register / invoice is then keyed in by the KIB to generate invoices that are mailed out to KIB residential and commercial customers. The City invoices residential customers that are hooked up to the water and sewer systerm. In addition to the billing, a high percentage of customer calls are handled twice: first by the Borough, and then by the contractor (or vice versa). If the customer's question can't be answered by Borough staff, that individual or Borough staff calls the contractor to relay the question or issue for resolution. aBell & Associates, Inc. 33 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 37 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 The Borough budgets $20,000 for the billing and customer service functions alone, which is low considering the person completing this task spends over 50% of their time on these tasks. The contactor already generates the activity for the billing register and answers all the customer complaints that come through the Borough, so their costs are being paid for in the rates. The only item that the contractor is not paying for is the cost of mailing out the invoice. Turning over the duties of billing and invoicing solely to the collection contractor will not totally relieve the Borough of its responsibility as the manager of the collection contract. If a customer has a complaint, whether it is billing or customer service related, and it is not addressed by the contractor in a manner that is satisfactory to the customer, their next call would be to the Borough program manager for final resolution. 6.3 Disposal 6.3.1 Overview The current active cell receiving municipal solid waste (MSW) at the Kodiak Landfill has a projected life expectancy until July 2014 5. In the interim period, Kodiak Island Borough has three disposal options to consider prior to the closure of this cell: 1) construct a lined cell adjacent to the current active cell, 2) incineration of MSW, or 3) export MSW to an off — island landfill. Each option analyzed in this section has specific challenges and substantial costs. Two of the options, construction of a lined cell and incineration, require an extensive planning period if one or the other is chosen as the future method of disposal. Thus the earlier action can be initiated for undertaking either option the better. 6.3.2 Additional Landfill Capacity KIB reviewed this alternative in 1997-98 with a study completed by CH2M Hill. The preliminary design recommended construction of a lined 6 to 8 acre cell adjacent to the existing active cell. For this Solid Waste Management Plan the consultant reviewed two additional sites. Site 1 is to the southwest of the current inert cell and Site 2 is the land currently leased to the VFW. The table below summarizes the three areas and the expected cell life of each. Table 16: Proposed Lined Cell Sites Cell Site Square Site Size In Feet Feet Acres Tonnage Capacity Life in Years CH2M Hill 650'x 525'x 650'x 525' 345,156 7.9 138,600 10 Site 1 1,087'x 945'x 1012'x 919' 978,134 22.45 400,000 30 Site 2 2024'x 966'x 2360'x 1269' 2,449,560 56.23 3,000,000 200 5 KIB Landfill Permit to ADEC aBell & Associates, Inc. 34 ' RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 38 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 The area identified by CH2M Hill has a limited life of only eight to ten years. This should be considered a short—term solution to the long—term disposal needs of the Borough. Site 1 has a longer life, but its constraint is the stream that runs through the middle of the site would have to be re-routed. Re-routing the stream would add significant costs to the project. Site 2 is the best option for a long—term solution-, however, the VFW has a lease with the Borough for the property until 2027. Moving from the Borough's current unlined cell to a fully compliant lined cell will be expensive due to the additional environmental and operational features of the lined cell (as required by Subtitle D of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) and the treatment of leachate. s Recovering the costs of the new cell and the operational costs is exacerbated by the small amount of waste generated by KIB toward which these costs can be allocated. Aside from the high costs to operate a lined landfill in a wet climate, _- landfilling as a disposal method is a known and proven technology. r - Projecting construction and operating costs six years into the future with precision (once the current active cell has been filled) is difficult. Therefore, the costs associated with the 6 Leachate is the liquid that drains or "leaches" from a landfill and it varies widely in composition depending on the age of the landfill and the type of waste disposed. It usually contains both dissolved and suspended material. aBell & Associates, Inc. 35 ` RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 39 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 construction of a lined cell are presented using low, medium, and high estimates (see Appendix L for details). Operational costs have been projected using the current costs and then inflated. The expected landfill disposal costs from these estimates ranges from a low of $212 a ton to a high of $258 per ton. Planning and permitting necessary to expand the current landfill is a process that could take three to six years. The permitting process can be time—consuming and expensive and thus it is strongly emphasized this process be started immediately if the decision is made to continue with landfilling waste as the preferred disposal method. 6.3.3 Incineration An alternative to landfilling waste is incineration'. Incineration would be used to reduce the volume of the wastestream and thus extend the life of the current cell from six to almost twenty years. A controlled air modular unit would be the type of incineration technology utilized in Kodiak. A modular incinerator uses a three—step process to heat and dry the waste, release volatile combustible gases, and finally burn the gases. To accommodate the unit, the current configuration of the baler building would have to be upgraded and expanded to allow for floor sorting and temporary storage of waste. The incinerator would burn continuously for 24 hours a day, five days a week and require an increase in the workforce. The permitting process involves state and federal agencies charged with the regulation and protection of air and land resources. However, the time required for completion could be less than compared to landfilling. Incineration is most cost—effective if the current active cell can be utilized for ash disposal. Ash disposal at the KIB landfill has been assumed in estimating the cost per ton for incineration. The projected cost per ton for incineration is approximately $219 per ton. 6.3.4 Waste Export Regional landfills in the Columbia River basin and the Kenai Peninsula were considered for the export of Kodiak's MSW. Compared to landfilling and incineration, barging waste to an off— island landfill is the simplest method of disposal but also the most expensive. Shipping costs, which have been historically volatile, comprise over 54% and up to 77% of the total projected costs for this option. Since a majority of the costs for exporting waste are tied to the price and volatility of fuel, costs could be unpredictable and the span of control for KIB is limited. For these reasons it is Incineration is a waste treatment technology that involves the burning of organic materials and / or substances. 8 There are three regional landfills: Waste Management owns Columbia Ridge Landfill in Arlington, Oregon, Allied Waste owns Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Roosevelt, Washington, and Waste Connections owns Finley Buttes Landfill in Boardman, Oregon. aBell & Associates, Inc. 36 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 40 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 recommended to not pursue further consideration of exporting waste as a disposal alternative and to focus the remaining analysis on landfilling and incineration. 6.3.5 Future Landfill Expansion The Borough will need a landfill for the foreseeable future whether it chooses to incinerate or continue to landfill MSW. The primary byproduct of incineration is ash that will require disposal at the landfill. Inert waste such as construction and demolition materials will also require landfilling. Therefore, the Borough needs to insure that an adequate area is available to expand the existing landfill over the next 20 to 50 years. The current active cell has approximately eight years of life and the lateral expansion on the northeast side of the landfill would add an additional 10 years of life for a total of 16 years or until 2025. Once these areas have been filled to capacity, Site 1 would be the next logical area to expand. However, re—routing the stream will present an engineering challenge as well as a financial burden. Securing Site 2 land would require the Borough to cancel the lease with the VFW prior to 2027, a decision that could have legal and public relations impacts. The decision to construct any future cells has to be made dependant on the ability of the Borough to secure the land necessary for expansion. The only other alternative for expansion is the adjacent Sawmill property to the northeast. The best case scenario would be to secure the Sawmill property now and include this area as part of any future expansion of the landfill. If the Borough decides in the future this property is not needed for expansion, it can either sell it or use it for other purposes. Figure 9: Adjacent Land Northeast of Landfill W; •,� +: �-r aBell & Associates, Inc. -� 44�-v{.. t.t "Air : rI Photo 10: Sawmill property 37 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 41 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 6.3.6 Projected Costs Comparing costs for the disposal options is complicated because of the different implementation timeframes associated with each alternative. For example, landfill design and permitting costs will be incurred over the next 18 months, whereas the construction costs will not be incurred until 2013-14 calendar year. Incineration costs will be incurred over the next 18 to 24 months. Quotes for barging costs from September 2007 are already outdated and will vary relative to fuel price fluctuations. Each disposal option has separate detailed costs and needs to be reviewed in their respective context. Please refer to Appendix L for further discussion. The table below provides a cost summary. Table 17: Cost Per Ton for Disposal Options Disposal Option Implementation Year Cost per Ton Lined Landfill 2014 $ 212 to $258 Incineration 2010 $ 219 Waste Export 2016 $ 209 to 289 6.3.7 Next Steps The landfill option provides the Borough with a definite disposal method until 2025. At that point in time, if the Sawmill property is owned by the Borough, the landfill could expand in that direction or KIB could re-route the stream and expand to the southwest of the inert cell. Either way, there are decisions that need to be made in order to plan beyond the year 2025. If Incineration is chosen, the Borough will still require a landfill to dispose of the ash, but the current cell life is extended for approximately 20 years. Once that cell has been exhausted, the Borough would have to build a lined cell to handle the ash. In addition to the cost of constructing a lined cell, the incinerator will be approaching the end of its useful life and need to be replaced. A prudent solid waste plan will require a sinking fund not only for the replacement of the incinerator, but also for the replacement (or partial) replacement of the current unlined cell once it has been filled with ash. A detailed discussion of the three primary disposal options — continued landfilling on KIB, incineration, and transport to an out — of — state landfill — is contained in Appendix L. aBell & Associates, Inc. 38 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 42 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 6.4 Diversion — Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting 6.4.1 Recycling • Increase the convenience of recycling participation through the use of standardized roll carts for storage and collection of recyclables from residences and small businesses. Recyclables would be mixed together or commingled in the carts. This strategy depends on implementation of the modernized, cart—based refuse collection approach discussed in Section 6.2 above. Vehicles utilized for the collection of trash could be used for picking up recyclables as well. • For larger commercial / institutional generators using dumpsters or other storage bins for refuse, collection of designated commingled recyclables using a variety of containers would be offered where logistically feasible. • Establish centralized facility for receiving, processing, and storing recyclables along with a materials reuse / exchange area and refuse transfer capability. • Identify land approximately 5 acres or more in size owned by the Borough or the private sector for the materials recovery / reuse / transfer facility. It is recognized that KIB's geographical location, distance from markets, and comparatively small wastestream pose challenges for making recycling cost — effective. To control the expenses related to handling recyclables, KIB should consider providing various forms of assistance and resources to facilitate a public sector / private sector partnership for expanding recycling and setting up a Resource Recovery Facility, as outlined below: 1. Leasing land owned by KIB at a nominal fee for the purpose of locating a centralized operation dedicated to the storage, processing, and marketing of recyclables, as well as other materials reuse, exchange, and diversion activities that may be developed in the future. 2. Sharing the costs and construction management responsibilities for a building / facility to fulfill the recycling and other functions noted in # 1 above. 3. Sharing the costs for purchasing a baler and other basic handling equipment for the recycling building / facility. 4. Expediting procedures related to the zoning and permitting of the recycling building / facility. 5. Reduction of property taxes related to the recycling building / facility. 6. Assumption of primary responsibility for implementing promotion / education / outreach (PEO) efforts and preparation / production / distribution of PEO materials. aBell & Associates, Inc. 39 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 43 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 6.4.2 Composting Composting on Kodiak Island must overcome five primary challenges: • Adequate area to compost • Sufficient bulking materials • Climate • Initial investment for facility and equipment • Market development These are discussed in the sections below. Adequate Area to Compost To sustain a municipal — scale composting operation a flat area of at least 3 acres is needed. The most logical area to compost materials would be the northeast corner of the landfill for the following reasons: 1) The area is already permitted for disposal operations, so an amendment to the permit to allow composting should be relatively easy to obtain; 2) This is already a central drop — off point for most of the compost feedstock; and, 3) The staff and equipment necessary for compost operations are already located at the landfill. Although the landfill is the most logical area, it also presents a problem because the area that would be used for composting is also the area planned for lateral expansion of the next landfill cell. Placing the compost site in that area would limit the Borough's future disposal capacity. Other areas of the island could be used for composting operations, but costs would increase substantially due to the transport of feedstocks, the duplication of staff and equipment, and the cost of permitting an additional solid waste site, unless that area was adjacent to the existing landfill footprint. Sufficient Bulking Materials Due to the wet and heavy nature of sewage sludge, a bulking agent is required for effective composting and to produce a quality end product. This assumes a policy decision is reached between the KIB and City of Kodiak that the ultimate best use for sludge or biosolids is composting rather than disposal. The ratio of sludge to bulking material is approximately 1 part sludge to 2.5 parts bulking material. The City of Kodiak produces 2,000 tons of sludge annually, or 77 tons every two weeks. Assume that a new batch of compost would be started every two weeks and the total time needed to compost the materials is 12 weeks. The aBell & Associates, Inc. 40 ` RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 44 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 Borough will need an initial stock of 1,155 tons of woody material (77 tons of sludge x 6 two week cycles x 2.5:1 ratio of wood to sludge). Assuming that 45% of the bulking material will be screened out and reused, the Borough will need an inventory of no less than 635 tons of woody feedstock to carry out the composting process involving sludge. Based on waste composition data, the annual yard and wood waste delivered to the landfill is estimated to be approximately 1,196 tons. However, this number should be reduced to account for materials that either are unsuitable for composting, such as treated or painted wood, or are too small to be separated from the wastestream such as a small bag of lawn clippings. These calculations are summarized as follows: Table 18: Composting Feedstock Estimates Material Waste Feedstock Tons Tons Assumptions Yard Waste 372 223 Assumes 60% of waste would be diverted to compost Wood Waste 824 164 Assumes 20% of clean lumber is diverted to compost Totals 1,196 388 The annual amount that could be diverted from the landfill and used in composting operations is approximately 388 tons. Therefore, to assure uninterrupted composting operations the Borough would need to find more adequate, reliable supplies of bulking materials, in addition to those disposed at the landfill. Climate The high annual rainfall on KIB presents further complications to composting and increases costs. Excess water absorbs heat, increasing the time required for the pile to reach adequate composting temperatures. Too much water can significantly diminish the quality of the product. Additional steps such as placing protective covers over the windrows as the product cures or employing a bag containment system during active composting will allow the compost to maintain adequate levels of moisture without saturation. A covered area will be necessary to protect feedstock (mainly sludge) as well as the finished products from erosion due to rain and wind. Since the growing season is limited, the storage area must be adequate to secure finished product for six to nine months when weather conditions are typically not conducive to land application. Initial Investment for Facility and Equipment The initial cost of the equipment and infrastructure will be substantial. At a minimum, a non -porous (paved) area must be constructed to prevent leaching of the compost liquids into the soils and groundwater. A storm aBell & Associates, Inc. Photo 12: Trommel Screen RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 45 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 water system will divert run-off from the compost piles to an adequate filtering system. Some of the necessary equipment such as a dump truck, front loader, and tractor are already in use at the landfill. The following table is a listing of some of the projected facility components, equipment, and related costs the Borough would need to consider prior to commencing composting operations. Table 19: Composting Capital / Start — Up Expenses Description Facility Upgrades Concrete / asphalt (sq. foot) 12,000 $ 480,000 $40 per sq. foot Curing pad drainage system 1 $ 319,700 prior work cost Filter system for run-off 1 $ 363,400 prior work cost Covered area for material storage 3,200 $ 352,000 $110 per sq. foot Equipment Grinder / Shredder used 1 $ 75,000 Trommel screen 1 $ 100,000 small unit Windrow turner 1 $ 25,000 Attach to tractor Aeration equipment 1 $ 20,000 Total Cost $ 1,735,100 Market Development Assuming there is an adequate supply of bulking material, the Borough could produce approximately 2,200 tons of compost annually. Is there a market or markets for 2,200 tons of soil amendments in KIB? To justify the investment in a composting operation this question needs to be answered at the outset. The rocky nature of the island and the high cost of transporting soil from other areas provide a great opportunity for the sale of compost and compost — blended products. There is an apparent need for high-quality soil amendments that may attract both commercial and residential buyers. It may be possible to develop IPhoto 13: Shelter area for the storage of finished compost aBell & Associates, Inc. partnerships with agricultural users and wholesale / retail outlets, thus reducing the need for the Borough to actively market the compost products over the long—term. However, the Borough must take the lead in determining potential outlets for the finished products. 42 ` RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 46 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 Conclusions Composting is a proven method of waste management used by many communities to produce a useful end product for sale and reduce the quantities of material disposed. Composting is consistent with an overall solid waste system scenario in KIB that emphasizes maximizing diversion. As discussed above though, there are considerable obstacles to creating a viable composting program in KIB. The critical factors are expressed in the following questions: • Are there stable, long — term markets for the compost in Kodiak? • Does KIB have sufficient resources and the political will to site, procure, and finance a composting system that would be effective, given the local climate and geographic conditions? • Can the compost be produced and transported to market(s) at a cost lower than the selling price? • Is composting cost — effective compared with other methods (such as landfilling) for managing the organic portion (including sludge) of Kodiak's wastestream? There is already some historical experience and basic infrastructure regarding recycling in KIB's public, private for—profit, and non—profit sectors. In contrast, composting would be an entirely new enterprise. Thus it seems logical that if KIB made a commitment to a maximum diversion scenario then expanding recycling would be emphasized first while the feasibility and impacts of composting are explored further. Indeed, some of the primary elements of that scenario such as semi — or fully — automated residential refuse collection vehicles, different sized carts, variable "Pay — As — You — Throw" rates, and the development of a conveniently located, multi — purpose Resource Recovery Facility, would all support the ultimate implementation of composting. 6.5 Household Hazardous Wastes Maintain current contractual arrangement since there is no facility on the island permitted for the management / disposal of household hazardous wastes. 6.6 Special Wastes Table 15 in Section 4.7 summarizes current management methods for 12 types of special wastes. To significantly enhance the recycling of some of these materials, or initiate recycling or reuse for those presently disposed, necessitates construction and operation of the central Resource Recovery Facility discussed previously. aBell & Associates, Inc. 43 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 47 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan Auqust 2008 6.7 Organization and Administration 6.7.1 Private Sector Service Provision Future arrangements for managing various wastestreams should be secured through competititive procurement procedures rather than informal, sole source oral agreements or non—competitive contracting. Existing and future service contracts should be reviewed by an attorney with expertise in solid waste contractual terms and conditions. Such contracts should contain an equitable distribution of obligations, responsibilities, and protections among the involved parties. In particular, clearly defined regular reporting requirements and protocols for contractors are essential for KIB to monitor contract compliance and meet accountability standards. 6.7.2 KIB / US Coast Guard Cooperation and Coordination KIB and the USCG should consider greater cooperation and coordination in solid waste management by jointly contracting for refuse collection and recycling collection / processing / marketing services. From a strictly technical perspective there are operational efficiencies, economies of scale, and negotiating advantages to be achieved through such a combined approach to service procurement. It is acknowledged there may be institutional hurdles to overcome; however, this alternative is worth examining. 6.7.3 Responsibilities of Waste Collector Refuse collection should to be set up so the contracted hauler directly manages the wastestream both operationally and economically. Since the hauling company is the service provider it should logically pay for disposal of collected waste; bill the customers; report on a regular basis to the Borough; and include all necessary service and system fees in the rates. 6.7.4 Public Sector Service Provision KIB's remote island location, rural environment, stable population, and small amount of refuse do not make it an attractive market for private sector competition and investment regarding solid waste management services and infrastructure. Given this situation and these factors, KIB may want to seriously consider directly operating other primary components of the solid waste system such as refuse collection and collection, processing, and marketing of recyclables. For future procurement of these and possibly other solid waste services, KIB itself could prepare and submit proposals / bids in response to RFPs and RFBs. The RFPs / RFBs would be written and issued by an independent panel which would also review responses and select the winning vendor. aBell & Associates, Inc. 44 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 48 of 157 KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan 7.0 Conclusion 7.1 Alternative System Scenarios Auqust 2008 Based on the existing solid waste system evaluation and different guiding priorities for the future (Section 5), plus the program, policy, and facility options (Section 6), contrasting combinations of priorities and options can be formulated into alternative system scenarios. These are presented in the table that follows. aBell & Associates, Inc. 45 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 49 of 157 (O lq L L O « L LC N > -R( W I Z a)) cu a) a) c�I � 0 cn � m O E � UN � or C: � U E LU s O >U �, .5 aa) Q ! °°'cu �U� >� �� o cn o a CUa,a o=� m y 06 ��E N ,N O a) N 5 c_0 c O O L U U) L) a Y i w O L 0 06U) LED L E 15 60 = �, � a� > L O L N 2 Z 0—co U �O� E a) � �� oE� � O� V E a) U) a) cn > O CD a) a) •� cu '— o6 O :� m -r c O- }' p c li0 T A a) -p N M (0 to >+ U ca U a) �. L O �, c U o �y//� •� a� E a) a) a) m O ;� U a •0 iL cu c0 N w a) co � E o � co 0 � ui -C U c cy) _ (u cn c U a) L) 0 a) a) J a c� � � � � c •r co E N E O N— !n C 0) a) ' a) N m 0 m p0 Z3 O 0- a Qi p W D LL N CV W U c O cco Q 7 (n a) 'i Y z Y U U O 1 1 I L I I 1 LL }. 1 1 1 -0 a 1 1 1 L }, V/ w N 06 }.O W U O.>— E N i O O O �_ L Qi Min � O a) - 0 `n a) 7 � j > _0+ a) (6 m E W y M—S2 O c co cu CL U U E O U) O O O a � U c O O +r U O U OL (n (n U t y -cL° N _0 O cu 0) U -O U O U) ��c s" o0 i ti 0-0 �� co m cm O cu O O�� r3c (n�� ++ N Qi COrn L) W G) CO 5 (n a) a)_0� � U c U) °? Fn acs a) O- _ _ O >. � CO a) p L U co c rn L O — a) E U L C2 (0 i a c U > c6 Q L DL -O Z . U .m O �_ N p _O ca _ O _ O Q L cu N —O N O Q = m C C fn O Q c (� � M L c m O N L L) a) a) L L) U J m U c -O L L O O O a) L (� N 0) a .6 x 0 L c: -0 E x >+ �?w Y (0 O U O c U O W �w LL oCN> �w U m U)U co U= o U > (n U L O Vd Q j >, 0 O) O Q x E V O /1L W wo LI ca O U Co L c) Q LU y U Ny (0 L— U o L O L N L— O L +r a) c U ca (0 c � Uco O c6 (U �_ � U c6 L O W = N OL O L O 0 0 N Q cu n� a > a) v na A, W �� V •� c ca m L) m (6 L c a � c > (o D � c6 LL i.i C LWi C . .� Fu C w--. C �+ O N �"1 _ +-� L O U '� LL (D m G '� a �n > L Q _N L U U � x >+ �J•� LJ..1 •U) O a) c6 O U O L D � (n Y Ua U UW Y mU> (n Ute' co c N a+ Y Y O U)�' i as O i Gi N O _ cv U N O ON N '^ •i a V ca m = � � m j5 0 m im L p V, W M �� IL Lu O-0 •2 08r N w — Q LO to Od (O lq `SLAN�e 0 � a OBELL & Associates, Inc. A B C D E F G H J K L RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 51 of 157 Kodiak Solid Waste Plan Appendices KIB Organizational Chart Waste Characterization Study Current Refuse Collection Methods Alaska Waste Contract and Rates Solid Waste Service Area Maps Threshold Recycling Services Contract Threshold Recycling Services Budget Threshold Recycling Services Letter Refuse Collection Alternatives o Costs for Cart — based Residential Refuse Collection Costs for Processing Recyclables Composting Disposal Alternatives o Landfilling on KIB o Incineration o Transport to Off — Island Landfill RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 52 of 157 Appendix A KIB Organizational Chart Borough Attorney Assistant Fire Chief RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 53 of 157 Kodiak Island Borough 2007-2008 Electorate Borough Mayor Borough Assembly Borough Manager HR Officer/ Executive Assistant Engineering/Facilities I Community Director Development Director ¢ Assessor KFRC Environmental Associate Planner LRP Property Appraiser Maintenance Specialist Engineer Associate Planner Appraiser Technician Enforcement KFRC Receptionist Baler/Landfill Supervisor Drafting Technician Assessment Clerk I Project Manager/ Inspector Secretary III Baler Operator II Project Assistant Baler Operator I Maintenance Baler Operator I Worker Baler Operator I Secretary III Baler Operator II Borough Clerk Assistant Clerk Arts Council Director Deputy Clerk Finance/MIS Director General Accountant Accounting Tech Accounts Payable Accounting Tech Payroll Revenue Accountant Cashier Childcare Assistance Administrator Secretary III MIS Programmer/ Analyst MIS Operations Supervisor MIS Network Administrator RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 54 of 157 Appendix B Kodiak Waste Characterization Study RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 55 of 157 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 56 of 157 Appendix C: Kodiak Collection System The KIB is authorized to operate as a public utility as defined by AS 42.05.701 (2)(f) for the purpose of furnishing refuse services under the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity No. 222. As such, the KIB maintains exempt status under AS 42.05.711(b), and is therefore not subject to Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) oversight. This gives the Borough the ability to contract for collection services and set collection rates. The Borough currently provides mandatory waste collection services to both residents and businesses through a collection contract with Alaska Waste. Residential waste within the City limits is collected from the curb on a weekly basis using either a customer provided can or a hauler provided roll cart. In addition to the non mandatory curbside collection of waste, the Borough provides several unattended community (public) dumpsters and roll off containers (drop boxes) located along the road system to provide supplementary opportunities for disposal of waste. Business customers are serviced primarily by front load commercial dumpsters ranging in volume from 2 cubic yards up to 6 cubic yards or by roll off drop boxes up to 20 cubic yards. Container sizes are determined by the businesses based on the amount of waste generated. Areas outside of the City of Kodiak such as Chiniak and Pasagshak are serviced community drop boxes. Front load containers and drop boxes are available to both residential and business customers on an as needed basis for construction and demolition as well as occasional household clean-up projects. Collection of bulky items such as old furniture and appliances is offered on a monthly basis as part of the current contract with AK Waste along Kodiak's road system. Collection of recyclable materials at the curb or place of business is not offered as a service through the Borough; however, the Borough does provide the opportunity to recycle through a finite number of cardboard collection containers located at commercial/institutional and public locations. Collected cardboard is delivered to Threshold Recycling for processing and transportation to markets in Seattle. Invoicing for collection services is accomplished by the City and the KIB. The City invoices residential customers on a combined sewer, water, and garbage bill. This includes all residential customers within the city limits as well as the customers located within Service District #1. The KIB is responsible for all businesses and residential customers other than those invoiced by the City. Collection Rates Revenue generated by the collection rates are reviewed by the KIB Finance Director during the annual budget process. When the projected revenues are less than anticipated expenses, the rates are recalibrated to eliminate the budget shortfall. The budget and updated user fee schedule is then presented to the Assembly for approval. The four primary components of the Residential collection rates in the 2007/08 fiscal year for the KIB are as follows: Rate Component City of Kodiak Kodiak Borough Collection $ 13.82 $ 18.38 Administration 4.41 4.41 Disposal 15.06 15.06 Cost of Service $ 33.29 $ 37.85 Collection Cost is the contracted rate charged by AK Waste Kodiak SW Plan Appendix C RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 57 of 157 Billing is the Borough's cost for invoicing and customer service Disposal is based on a set out weight of 68 pounds a week' Collection rates for customers requiring a container are set based on the volume of the container and frequency of collection. The following table details the components that comprise the rates in the 2007/08 fiscal year for various containers collected once a week. Container Volume Container Rent Collection Rate Disposal Cost Billing Cost of Service System Fee Monthly Rate 2.0 yards $5.00 $12.10 $12.71 $4.41 $116.84 $138.32 $255.16 2.6 yards 5.00 15.20 16.52 4.41 146.78 108.38 255.16 3.0 yards 5.00 20.70 19.07 4.41 181.60 103.57 285.17 3.6 yards 5.00 20.70 22.88 4.41 198.11 87.06 285.17 4.0 yards 5.00 25.50 25.42 4.41 229.90 104.54 334.44 5.0 yards 5.00 25.50 31.78 4.41 257.42 107.33 364.75 5.5 yards 5.00 25.50 34.95 4.41 271.18 93.57 364.75 6.0 yards 5.00 30.00 38.13 4.41 304.42 76.33 380.75 10 yards 20.00 60.00 63.55 4.41 559.39 15.09 544.30 15 yards 20.00 150.00 95.33 4.41 1,086.69 472.46 1,559.15 20 yards 20.00 150.00 127.10 4.41 1,224.28 594.98 1,819.26 Container Volume determines the collection method. Containers from 2 yards to 6 yards are collected by a front load truck whereas containers 10 yards or larger are collected by a roll off truck. Container Rent is the rent amount charged to the KIB by AK Waste for use to the containers for the storage and collection of waste. Collection Rate is the contracted amount charged to the KIB by AK Waste each time the container is picked up and dumped (tipped) into the collection truck. Disposal Cost is the cost per pick-up, assuming a average container weight of 125 pounds per yard. The disposal cost for the 2 yard container per pick up is calculated as follows: 2 (yards) x 125 (pounds) / 2,000 (pounds per ton) x $101.68 (disposal cost per ton) _ $ 12.71 Billing is the Borough's cost for invoicing and customer service Cost of Service is the sum of Container Rent + (Collection Rate x 4.332) + (Disposal Cost x 4.33) + Billing Cost = Cost of Service. System Fee is the difference of the Monthly Rate and the Cost of Service. This difference subsidizes the current system. Monthly Rate is the current collection rate for weekly service. ' The weight is calculated by dividing the estimated community dumpster tons by the number of customers per month. 2 The value of 4.33 is derived by dividing 12 months into 52 weeks. This is the frequency of collection multiplier used to set monthly rates Kodiak SW Plan Appendix C 2 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 58 of 157 Community Dumpsters The cost of the community dumpsters in the Kodiak metropolitan area was calculated from January 2007 to December 2007 using the billing records submitted by Alaska Waste. The following table summarizes the cost of the program for the calendar year 2007. Community Dumpster Summary Costs Container Rent $ 4,146 Collection Cost $ 325,065 Total Estimated Disposal Tons 2,656 Disposal Cost $ 270,072 Total Cost for KIB Community Dumpsters $ 599,283 Container Rent and Collection Costs are the amounts billed to the Borough by Alaska Waste. Disposal Costs were calculated by assuming an average container weight of 100 pounds per cubic yard, multiplied by the container volume, divided by 2,000 pounds. The tonnage amount was multiplied by the landfill disposal cost of $102. It was assumed that the container was full when dumped. One of the goals for this project is to reduce the amount of waste currently being dumped at the landfill because the costs of all future disposal alternatives will be expensive. The most effective way to reduce the amount of waste is to assign the responsibility of the waste to the individual or entity that generated it in the first place. Kodiak SW Plan Appendix C 3 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 59 of 157 Appendix D Alaska Waste Contract and Rates RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 60 of 157 AGREEMENT Solid. Waste Collection Services for the Kodiak Island Borough Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 (907) 486-9343 May. 2006 \\Dove\Departments\EF\i3aler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc *SWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 61 of 15* AGREEMENT FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES This Agreement, executed this day of , 2006, by and between the Kodiak Island Borough (hereinafter referred to as "KI ') and Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC., d.b.a. Alaska Waste/Kodiak Sanitation (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). General Provisions and Information Contractor shall collect all garbage, rubbish, and trash placed or deposited for collection by individuals, residences, commercial businesses, and public agencies located on the regularly maintained public road system (Road System) connected to the City of Kodiak, in accordance with Chapter 8.20 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code (KIB Code) unless otherwise specified. For purposes of this contract, the term "commercial" is used herein to designate commercial, business, industrial, institutional, and public agency customers and to distinguish these entities from residential customers. Contractor shall perform all work in compliance with applicable requirements and recommended procedures of 40 CFR 243 — "Guidelines for the Storage and Collection of Residential, Commercial and Institutional Solid Waste". Contractor shall collect all residential solid waste from residences, dwellings, and commercial entities on the Road System of KIB. The general area of service extends from the Kodiak Island Borough Landfill/Baler Facility to Chiniak and the Rocket Launch Facility. Service is not provided on the road to Anton Larsen Bay. Approximately 13,000 Borough residents are served by this contract. The USCG base is not served by this contract. Types of Service: KIB Code requires that the following types of services be provided to residential and commercial customers. Contractor shall provide these services as defined in KIB Code 8.20.041, Services Available. • Weekly Residential Can or Bag Service • Residential Carryout Service • Residential Dumpster Service • Commercial Can Service • Commercial Dumpster Service Weekly door-to-door collection is required within the City of Kodiak. For areas where Contractor deems it unsafe to provide door-to-door service, Contractor will provide dumpsters. Contractor will not be compensated for dumpsters within city limits. Residential dumpsters are utilized outside the City of Kodiak. Contractor shall haul and deliver all collected garbage, rubbish, and trash to the Landfill/Baler Facility located at mile point 6.1 on Monashka Bay Road, Kodiak. Residential garbage shall be collected no less than once per week, unless otherwise directed by KIB. Collection shall occur at hours that are reasonable and not disruptive to the cormnunity. Collection in residential areas shall not occur prior to 7:00 a.m. \\Dove\Dcpartments\EF\13aler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 62 of 157 Solid waste collected shall be the property of K113, subject to the right of a customer to claim lost property of value. Authority to Operate as a Public Utility: KIB is authorized to operate as a public utility as defined by AS 42.05.701 (2) (f) for the purpose of furnishing refuse services under Certificate of Convenience and Necessity No. 222. 2. Duration of Agreement The term of this Agreement is - two (2) years with two (2), one (1) year optional extensions. The Agreement will start on July 1, 2006. 3. Weekly Residential Door -to -Door Service Contractor shall divide the areas of the City of Kodiak into routes. Collections shall be made from residences on a regular schedule on the same day every week for each route. Contractor shall show on a map the routes and the day of the week that the waste will be collected for each route. Contractor shall provide KIB with a current copy of this route map. It will be Contractor's responsibility and at Contractor's expense to obtain the map. Contractor may change the day of collection by giving notice to KIB and the customer affected at least fourteen (1,4) calendar days prior to the effective date of the change. The form of notice to the customer shall be subject to the approval of KIB. It will be Contractor's responsibility and at Contractor's expense for obtaining the notification information (names and addresses) if the approved notification requires United States Postal Service (USPS) mailings. When the day of regular collection falls on a legal holiday, Contractor may reschedule the regular collection to the earliest succeeding workday. Saturday collections will be permitted to collect solid waste collected regularly on a Friday, had such collection not been deferred because of the holiday. Contractor shall notify KIB in writing by January 15t" of each year of the contract, of those holidays that Contractor will not work for said year. When snow or ice is on the streets, roadways providing access are closed, or other disruption beyond Contractor's control prevents collection on the scheduled day, Contractor shall make collection on the earliest succeeding workday when collection becomes possible. If such conditions continue for an entire collection cycle, or more, Contractor shall collect all the solid waste amassed for collection. The collection that resumes scheduled service shall take bags, boxes, and other secure wrappers and shall empty temporary receptacles, limited to a maximum weight of sixty (60) pounds that customers have used when the regular cans and containers have been filled. For other than the reasons noted in the immediately preceding paragraph, if Contractor fails to collect a customer's solid waste during a regular collection, KIB may: • Require Contractor to make a special make-up collection within 24 hours after an oral make-up order is given; which collection shall include excess solid waste accumulated during the interval between the scheduled collection day and the special collection; • Authorize Contractor to defer the collection; and authorize the customer to place a proportionally larger amount at such customer's next scheduled collection day without any additional charge, and to accommodate such a disposal, allow the customer to use a bag or temporary containers as well as additional bundles; \\Dove\Departments\EF\Baler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc 3_ RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 63 of 157 • Authorize Contractor to forego collection for the interval altogether; and make a compensatory reduction in the billing to the customer, and an equal reduction in the amount payable to Contractor; or • Take any combination of the actions specified above. 4. Residential and Commercial Dumpsters Refuse containers (dumpsters), except for individual household or commercial can service containers; will be made available by Contractor. These refuse containers must be designed and maintained for convenient use and disposing of appropriate solid waste materials. Dumpsters shall be designed to withstand wind loads typical of the area. Dumpsters shall be metal, either painted, galvanized, or aluminum. Contractor shall furnish additional dumpsters within two (2) days of a request by KIB. Contractor shall maintain a minimum inventory of dumpsters of each capacity at all times for such requests. Residential waste dumpsters will be located on sites determined by KIB. Contractor will review the site for safety and operational purposes prior to the final determination of location by KIB. Residential dumpsters placed within the City of Kodiak, where door-to-door service is not possible, shall be located on sites approved by City of Kodiak and KIB. Contractor shall maintain a map showing the locations of all residential dumpsters and another map showing the locations of all commercial dumpsters. Contractor shall provide KIB with a current copy of these maps which will not be provided by KIB free of charge. Commercial customers will request service directly with KIB to set up account. KIB will notify Contractor of new commercial customer. Commercial customer and Contractor will determine size of dumpster and type of service. The specifications regarding Residential and Commercial Dumpsters shall apply to the roll offs. KIB must approve of the design of such alternative equipment, KIB shall approve of any locations for Residential use. Frequency-.ofmptying Dumpsters: All dumpsters shall be emptied at least once per week, unless otherwise directed by KIB. Contractor shall record the number of dumpsters tipped each day at each location. Residential dumpsters and roll off containers shall be at least two-thirds full when emptied. Contractor shall notify KIB of dumpsters which are under-utilized or where additional dumpsters are possibly needed to handle the volume of wastes. Contractor shall determine frequency of emptying commercial dumpsters with commercial entity, but dumpsters shall be emptied at least once per week unless otherwise directed by KIB.. .Contractor shall verify that all dumpsters/containers owned by commercial establishments and for which Contractor has agreed to empty shall meet the requirements of the KIB Code and 40 CFR 243. For any such dumpsters not meeting KIB requirements, Contractor shall issue, in writing to KIB, a notice of such deficiency, with a copy sent to the commercial customer. \\Dove\Departments\EF\Baler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.cloc 4 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 64 of 157 Signage on Containers: Contractor shall provide signage, approved by KIB, on residential and commercial dumpsters, as follows: • Identify, in large letters, minimum of 3 inches high and placed on the front and back of the dumpster, either as a "Residential Waste Only" dumpster or "Private/Commercial Use Only" dumpster; • "Keep lids closed"; • "No Used Oil or Batteries — Take directly to landfill"; • Useable volume of dumpster, in cubic yards; • Name and phone number of the Contractor; • On residential dumpsters only — "No Commercial Wastes — Minimum $300 fine, report violators to KIB at 486-9343";.and • Sign to `Be Bear Aware" on Residential Waste dumpsters. Condition and Design of Dumpsters: Dumpsters shall be structurally sound, well maintained, and attractive in appearance. Most dumpsters are in public view and their appearance is important. All dumpsters must have lids to keep rain and snow out. Bear -proof lids will be required in some outlying areas where bears may frequent dumpsters. Lid design shall have lids return to closed position when not in use. Residential dumpsters must be easily useable by the public with lid handles located no more than four (4) feet above ground level. KIB will have the authority to require the replacement of any dumpster considered being in unsuitable condition or appearance. All dumpsters furnished by Contractor shall be steam -cleaned or pressure washed by Contractor at least once each year at Contractor's expense. Contractor shall be responsible for all repairs to residential and commercial dumpsters; unless dumpster is owned by commercial entity. Cleaning Up Around Residential Dumpsters: At least twice weekly, Contractor shall pick up around each residential durnpster and provide all labor and equipment for this service. The intent of the clean up around the dumpsters is to gather all refuse that may have fallen out of dumpsters, been set near dumpsters, and/or scattered From the dumpster location. If refuse has fallen out of dumpsters, been set near dumpsters, and/or scattered from the dumpster location at the time the dumpster is tipped, clean up must occur immediately. Contractor is to provide a map and schedule for twice weekly cleanup. This will not be compensated for under the conditions of this contract. Contractor shall do this same clean up around residential dumpsters placed within the City of Kodiak at no additional charge, with the cost to be included in the monthly rate for door- to-door residential service. KIB may request additional clean up if complaints are received. Contractor shall be paid for this additional service for residential dumpsters located outside the City of Kodiak on the basis of an hourly rate established in the Bid Schedule. Each month with its invoice information, Contractor shall provide KIB with detailed documentation of the time invoiced for this service. Contractor shall do this same clean up around residential dumpsters placed within the City of Kodiak at no additional charge, with the cost to be included in the monthly rate for door-to-door residential service. Locking Lids: Contractor shall make lockable lids available for commercial dumpsters. Lids should be capable of being unlocked by both the commercial entity and Contractor. Contractor may charge an extra fee for lockable lids at the amount listed in the Bid Schedule. 5. Trucks and Equipment All trucks and equipment which are used by Contractor in the collection, hauling and disposal of garbage and refuse shall be kept clean and maintained in a safe operating condition and conform with requirements and recommended procedures of 40 CFR 243 — "Guidelines for the Storage \\Dove\Departments\EF\Baler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 65 of 157 and Collection of Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Wastes". KIB may require Contractor to clean any collection equipment, including residential and commercial dumpsters. Contractor will provide documentation with the invoice information that cleaning has occurred and on which dumpsters. Vehicles used to collect garbage from door-to-door, commercial can, or du rlpster services shall be all metal, watertight, completely enclosed "packer" type bodies that are designed and manufactured for the collection of solid waste. The number, capacity, and type of collection vehicles furnished and used by Contractor shall be sufficient to effectively perform the work and render the services required by this contract. All vehicles used on this contract shall be operated in conformity with state traffic laws and traffic codes. The proper authority will be notified if weight of truck exceeds gross vehicle weight on the certified landfill scales. Used collection vehicles and dumpsters proposed for use on this contract shall be completely reconditioned, repainted, and subject to KIB approval prior to such use. Service areas for parking, repair, or cleaning of vehicles or equipment shall be located in areas zoned for such activities. Washwater shall be properly contained and legally disposed of at Contractor's expense. 6. Use of Landfill/Baler Facility Contractor shall deliver all collected garbage and refuse to the Landfill/Baler Facility located at milepost 6.1 of Monashka Bay Road. The baler/landfill facility is owned and operated by the KIB. Contractor's trucks shall enter scales for weighing before emptying loads. KIB staff will record weights. If the Contractor delivers solid waste to the tipping floor when KIB staff is not present, Contractor shall read and record weights. Empty trucks shall be weighed for tare purposes at the request of either KIB staff or Contractor. The Contractor shall empty its trucks on the tipping floor where directed by Landfill/Baler Facility staff. Contractor needs to use safe operating procedures around the Baler Facility and follow KIB rules and staff direction. Contractor's equipment must be designed for the clearances available at the Baler Facility. Baler building door openings are 16 feet wide by 22 feet high. Trucks shall be emptied in the Baler Building in a manner that allows all trash to be deposited in the building with no waste being placed outside the building. Contractor will be provided with access to the Baler Facility before and during normal operating hours, six days a week, Monday through Saturday. No more than four (4) loads may be placed on the tipping floor when KIB staff is not present. The Landfill/Baler Facility is open a half-day on holidays. Contractor shall make arrangements acceptable to KIB for delivery of waste on holidays. KIB holidays are: New Year's Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday, President's Day, Seward's Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day, the day after Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. There are no truck washout facilities available at the landfill. Contractor must provide its own truck washing facilities. \\Dove\Departments\EF\Baler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 66 of 157 In order for KIB staff to clean the Landfill/Baler Facility, all loads of refuse must be tipped on the Baler floor by 2:00 p.m. each afternoon, unless KIB approves other arrangements. No dumping of any other waste type will be allowed at the Landfill/Baler Facility between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. without KIB approval. When the baler is not operational the trucks will be directed to the active face of the landfill for open dumping (conventional landfilling operations) of the garbage and refuse. In addition to an occasional repair, routine maintenance is performed on the baler each year, with the baler not being operational for up to two (2) or three (3) weeks. The Landfill/Baler Facility staff will give Contractor one week notice of scheduled baler shutdowns and will notify Contractor as soon as possible for unplanned shutdowns. During periods of conventional landfill operations, Contractor shall arrange with Landfill/Baler Facility staff for timing of trucks to minimize the litter problem and control the compaction. Landfill/Baler Facility staff must be present during conventional landfilling periods unless KIB approves other arrangements. No construction/demolition waste may be dumped at the Landfill/Baler Facility during high winds, i.e., gusts exceeding fifty (50) miles per hour. Contractor should contact KIB if wind conditions are questionable in order to avoid being turned away at the gate. Contractor will be totally responsible for its equipment and employees while operating at the Landfill/Baler Facility. 7. Construction and Demolition Debris Contractor shall provide separate dumpsters or roll -offs to commercial customers, such as building contractors, for construction and demolition wastes. Such wastes shall be collected separately for disposal by open dumping in the C&D portion of the landfill. Such wastes shall not contain putrescible solid waste and shall not be co -mingled with other residential or commercial wastes. Commercial customers will be charged for such wastes by weight; therefore, if roll offs are not utilized by customer, where weights can be determined on the landfill certified scale, then each individual customer/haul shall be weighed on a certified scale and that certification ticket must be accompanied with load brought to the landfill and correspond with customer and tips for that day. A log of customers, project location, date, and weight will be submitted each day of collection via fax to 486-9394; and a copy will also be left at the landfill on the day of collection. Contractor will be paid per the unit price established in Bid Schedule for rental and pickup of C&D waste dumpsters. 8. Collection of Bulky Items from Residential Customers Contractor shall collect bulky items, such as water heaters, major appliances, furniture, and similar household items from residences. These items shall be collected a minimum of once each month. Only households within the City of Kodiak and on the road system between the Baler Facility and Salonie Creek are eligible for this service. Contractor shall be paid for this service on the basis of an hourly rate established in the Bid Schedule. Contractor shall provide all labor and equipment for this service. Each month with its invoice information, Contractor shall provide KIB with documentation on the time spent, addresses from which bulky wastes were collected, and type of wastes collected. Residents will make arrangements for use of this service directly with Contractor. \\Dove\Departments\EF\Baler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 67 of 157 Contractor shall provide to KIB information by the 15°i of each month on the specific dates of pick-up for KIB to incorporate in KIB's notices in the local newspaper and/or radio. 9. Loading and Transport Care shall be taken in the loading and transporting of solid waste, so none of the material collected is scattered or spilled either on private property or on streets or alleys. Should any garbage or rubbish be spilled, or if any refuse falls out of, has been set near, and/or scattered from the dumpster location, this waste shall be immediately cleaned up. A broom and shovel shall be carried on each truck at all times for this purpose. If Contractor fails to clean the same, KIB may cause such work to be done and deduct the cost thereof from the monthly payments due Contractor. 10. Wastewater Sludge Contractor is not responsible to collect or dispose of wastewater sludge or other residue generated by the City of Kodiak Wastewater Treatment Plant. 11. Liquids, Special Wastes and Hazardous Wastes Disposal of liquids is not allowed in the landfill. Contractor shall not knowingly transport liquids to the landfill mixed with the solid wastes. Containers containing liquids found in or around dumpsters should be delivered separately to the landfill (not mixed with the trash in the packer trucks). Used oil and paint are commonly found. Contractor shall inform KIB of the dumpsters where such liquids are found. Contractor shall notify KIB of any 55 -gallon drums of liquids found near or in dumpsters. KIB will pick up the 55 -gallon drums with liquids from around dumpsters. Should any lead -acid batteries be observed in or around dumpsters, they shall be separated from the trash and delivered separately to the Landfill/Baler Facility. Contractor shall not knowingly collect, transport, or deliver to the Landfill/Baler Facility any toxic waste or any materials classified as hazardous wastes by local, State, or Federal agencies. KIB will refuse to accept loads that contain hazardous materials brought to the Landfill/Baler Facility for disposal. KIB will work with Contractor to remedy hazardous materials not knowingly delivered to the Landfill/Baler Facility. This will be accomplished by Contractor working with KIB to notify and hold accountable customers who are disposing of hazardous materials. KIB will accept used oil and household hazardous wastes retrieved from residential wastes. KIB can not accept hazardous wastes from commercial entities. Contractor shall not knowingly collect, transport, or deliver to the Landfill/Baler Facility, any metal waste. This waste type is considered a special waste and KIB will refuse to accept loads that contain greater than 10% metal brought to the baler facility for disposal. KIB will work with Contractor to remedy metals not knowingly delivered to the Landfill/Baler Facility. This will be accomplished by Contractor working with KIB to notify and hold accountable customers who are disposing of metal waste. Commercial entities which generate metal waste as part of their business will require a separate dumpster for such waste to be transported and disposed of at the landfill. Contractor shall provide separate dumpsters or roll -offs to customers, such as canneries and auto repair shops, for metal waste. Such waste shall be collected separately for disposal by open dumping in the metal portion of the LandfilUBaler Facility. Such waste shall not contain putrescible solid waste and shall not be commingled with other residential or commercial waste. Customers will be charged for such waste by weight; therefore, if roll offs are not utilized by \\Dove\Departments\EF\Baler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 68 of 157 customer, where weights can be determined on the landfill certified scale, then each individual customer/haul shall be weighed on a certified scale and that certification ticket must be accompanied with load brought to the landfill and correspond with customer and tips for that day. 12. Recycling Contractor shall actively promote recycling and cooperate with KIB's efforts to encourage recycling. Contractor shall supply equipment and containers to collect cardboard (OCC) for recycle. The Borough will compensate Contractor for cardboard dumpster rental and delivery of cardboard (OCC) to the Recycle Center at the rate set forth in the Bid Schedule. Contractor shall cooperate with Threshold, the operator of the Recycle Center, in its recycling endeavors. Contractor shall furnish six (6) dumpsters specifically designed to receive cardboard that has been flattened. The dumpsters shall be designed to keep rain and snow from entering. Cardboard dumpsters shall be painted red in color and provided with highly visible signage explaining that the dumpsters are for cardboard only. Dumpsters need to have openings that allow for easy filling. Contractor shall place the cardboard dumpsters in locations designated by KIB. Contractor shall pick up dumpsters when at least two thirds full, transport them to the Recycle Center, and empty them inside the recycle building. Contractor will need to arrange times for emptying the cardboard dumpsters with the operator of the Recycle Center. Dumpsters are to be emptied during normal open hours for the Recycle Center. 13. Contractor's Office Contractor shall maintain within the Road System of KIB, an office provided with telephones and such attendants as may be necessary to take care of the complaints, orders for service, and instructions from KIB. 14. Handling Customer Complaints Contractor shall maintain a log of all customer complaints and the actions taken by the Contractor to rectify the situation. A copy of the log shall be provided to KIB each month with the invoicing documentation. 15. Contractor's Employees Contractor shall require all its employees to be courteous at all times, not to use loud or profane language, and to do their work as quietly as possible. Employees, in collecting solid waste, shall follow the regular walks for pedestrians while on private property. They shall also replace all garbage cans and covers and close all gates opened by them. Employees shall not trespass, loiter, cross property to adjoining premises, or meddle with property that does not concern them in the performance of this work. Employees shall not loiter at the LandfilUBaler Facility when delivering solid wastes. \\Dove\Deparhnents\EF\Baler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 69 of 157 No "scavenging" shall be allowed. Scavenging means sorting through solid waste collected looking for items of possible value or picking out individual pieces for re -use while loading or unloading; it excludes searches by owners for valuables accidentally misplaced or that may be 1 ost. KIB has the right to request the dismissal of any employee of Contractor who violates any provision hereof, or who is wanton, negligent, or discourteous in the performance of their duties. Contractor should provide suitable operating and safety training for all its personnel and provide a site specific safety plan to KIB. Contractor shall comply with all provisions of Equal Employment Opportunity regulations. 16. Invoicing Customers for Collection Services: Collection of the solid waste collection fees from residential and commercial customers will be the responsibility of KIB. Providing the necessary documentation for KIB to invoice the commercial customers shall be the responsibility of Contractor. Invoicing for Collection of garbage collection fees for residents and commercial/business/industrial/governmental customers will be the responsibility of KIB. Information required to invoice commercial/business/industrial/governmental customers shall be supplied to KIB by Contractor each month. There will be a 5% administration fee charged by KIB for this service. Invoicing information for residential dumpsters, commercial entities served, and other dumpster activities will be supplied by Contractor in a form acceptable to KIB. K.IB will establish by resolution the rates that the public shall be charged for collection and disposal of garbage, rubbish, and trash. KIB reserves the right to change these rates provided, however, that if any resolutions, changes in KIB ordinances, or changes to other laws and regulations result in increased expenses to Contractor, the payments made to Contractor under the Bid Schedule will be increased by an amount equal to the increase in expenses. Contractor shall provide documentation on all services provided to all customers each month. The cut-off date for invoice documentation shall be the second to the last Saturday of each month and the invoice documentation shall be delivered to KIB's Engineering & Facilities Department by the following Wednesday morning. Contractor shall not provide any commercial customer with reduced -cost or free services. Any new customer, residential or commercial, will make arrangements directly with KIB for services. Commercial customers must also make credit/payment arrangements with KIB prior to receiving services. Contractor shall direct new commercial customers to KIB Finance Department for credit arrangements. 17. Compensation A. Unit Price Work Items: Compensation will be made to Contractor for the following unit price work items: Weekly Residential Door-to-door Can or Bag Service: Within existing city limits of Kodiak, Contractor will be paid for weekly residential door-to-door collection service based on the \\Dove\Departments\ERBaler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc 10 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 70 of 157 number of residential units served, multiplied by Contractor's monthly unit price for such service. Contractor will not receive payment for dumpsters placed in the City of Kodiak to receive wastes where door-to-door service can not be provided. Residential Carry Out Service: This is a monthly fee added to regular residential door-to-door collection for customers requesting carry out service. Residential Dumpsters: On the Road System outside the city limits of Kodiak, Contractor will be paid for the monthly rental of residential waste dumpsters requested by KIB, such rates being determined by Contractor's unit price Bid Schedule. Contractor will receive a tip fee for each time Contractor tips (empties) a residential dumpster. Contractor will present unit prices for dumpsters located between the Landfill/Baler Facility and Salonie Creek and separate unit prices for dumpsters located beyond Salonie Creek. Cleaning up Around Residential Dumpsters: At least twice weekly, Contractor shall pick up around each residential dumpster; and provide all labor and equipment for this service. The intent of the clean up around the dumpsters is to gather all refuse that may have fallen out of dumpsters, been set near dumpsters, and/or scattered from the dumpster location. If refuse has fallen out of dumpsters, been set near dumpsters; and/or scattered from the dumpster location at the time the dumpster is tipped, cleanup must occur immediately. Contractor is to provide a map and schedule for twice weekly cleanup. This will not be compensated for under the conditions of this contract. Contractor shall do this same clean up around residential dumpsters placed within the City of Kodiak at no additional charge, with the cost to be included in the monthly rate for door-to-door residential service. KIB may request additional clean up if complaints are received. Contractor shall be paid for this additional service for residential dumpsters located outside the City of Kodiak on the basis of an hourly rate established in the Bid Schedule. Each month with its invoice information, Contractor shall provide KIB with detailed documentation of the time invoiced for this service. 14 Commercial Dumpster Service: Contractor will be paid for the monthly rental of residrn waste dumpsters requested by commercial customers. Contractor will receive a tip fee for each time Contractor tips a commercial dumpster. Contractor will present unit prices for dumpsters located between the Landfill/Baler Facility and Salonie Creek and separate unit prices for dumpsters located beyond Salonie Creek. Commercial Can Service: Contractor will receive a monthly fee for one (1) pick up of a maximum of four (4) 30 -gallon bags or cans per week. Home Business Service within Kodiak City Limits: Contractor will be paid a monthly fee for one (1) pick up of four (4) 30 -gallon bags or cans per week. This fee is for the combination of the residential fee and the business fee. Lockable Lids: Contractor will be paid a monthly fee for providing lockable lids on Commercial dumpsters, if requested by the commercial customer. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Wastes Services: Contractor shall receive compensation for the rental of the container and a fee for each time the container is picked up and delivered/tipped at the Landfill/Baler Facility. Customers will also be charged ori the basis of weight (per ton) delivered to the Landfill/Baler Facility (which is not a compensable contract item). Therefore, if roll offs are not utilized by customer, where weights can be determined on the landfill certified scale, then each individual customer/haul shall be weighed on a certified scale and that certification ticket must be accompanied with load brought to the landfill and correspond with \\Dove\Departments\ERBaler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\$olid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc 11 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 71 of 157 customer and tips for that day. A log of customers, project location, date, and weight will be submitted each day of collection via fax to 486-9394; and a copy will also be left at the Landfill/Baler Facility on the day of collection. Pick-up of Bulky Household Items: Contractor will be paid for the pick-up of bulky household items from residences on an hourly cost basis. The hourly rate is to include all costs for this service (labor and equipment). Special Waste - Metal: Contractor shall receive compensation for the rental of the container and a fee for each time the container is picked up and delivered/tipped at the Landfill/Baler Facility. Customers will also be charged on the basis of weight (per ton) delivered to the Landfill/Baler Facility (which is not a compensable contract item). Therefore, if roll offs are not utilized by customer, where weights can be determined on the landfill certified scale, then each individual customer/haul shall be weighed on a certified scale and that certification ticket must be accompanied with load brought to the Landfill/Baler Facility and correspond with customer and tips for that day. Recycle Dumpsters for Cardboard: Contractor will be paid for the monthly rental of cardboard container and a tipping fee for each time a container is picked up and tipped at the Recycle Center. Temporary Dumpster Delivery/Pick-Up: Contractor will be paid a fee each time a dumpster is located for a temporary period of time. The fee shall include both initially locating the dumpster and retrieving it at the end of the temporary period. B. Documentation Contractor shall maintain throughout the duration of the Agreement plus three (3) years, documentation on all of the services provided. Contractor shall maintain records to substantiate all work performed and fees requested. Such records shall include, but not be limited to, daily records on the number and size of dumpsters rented and tipped for each customer using dumpster service; pick-ups of commercial can service for commercial customers using such services, changes in customer requests for services, time sheets by employee for all hourly -rate items, etc. Copies of portions of this documentation may be requested by KIB to be supplied with Contractor's monthly requests for payment. C. Payment For performance under this Agreement, Contractor will be paid on the basis of the established unit prices set forth in the Bid Schedule. Contractor shall submit a request for payment to KIB not more frequent than once per month. Contractor shall be paid monthly by KIB based on documentation provided by Contractor for the actual unit price work items completed. This is the same documentation required by KIB for invoicing customers for all work completed by Contractor in which the five (5) percent administration fee for this service will apply. Documentation shall include all quantities for each customer for each of the unit price fee items in the Bid Schedule KIB will issue payment to Contractor within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice and required documentation. \\Dove\Departments\EF\Baler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc 12 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 72 of 157 D. Adjustments to Compensation Negotiated Payment Adjustment: Compensation to Contractor will be modified by negotiation between Contractor and KIB under the conditions stated within this section, Adjustments to Compensation. Except as noted in this section, Contractor will not be allowed an adjustment in contract prices, since Contractor should have established the prices in the contract bid based upon Contractor's estimate of Contractor's costs over the two (2) year life of the contract and the two (2), one (1) year optional extensions. For a change in the Contractor's bid price to be approved, the Contractor must submit clear documentation to KIB showing the change in costs. If the change in costs is clearly shown, KIB will adjust the compensation accordingly. A change will be allowed only if one of the following conditions exists: • The scope of work of the Agreement is modified; • A state or federal ruling modifies the existing regulations affecting Contractor's operations; • The location of the solid waste disposal site is moved to another site; • Contractor's price for fuel changes by more than twenty percent; and/or • The tonnage delivered to Contractor changes by more than fifteen (15) percent, in which case, KIB will request Contractor to submit cost documentation and shall adjust the bid price accordingly. For purposes of this contract, an initial rate of 10,000 tons per year is assumed. Should any of the changes listed above result in similar reduced costs to Contractor, Contractor shall agree to reduce the appropriate unit prices by the actual costs of such reduction. Payments or credits for additional work shall be no greater than Contractor's actual costs for performing the work plus ten (10) percent of the actual costs. E. Payment Upon Change in Law Upon petition of Contractor and approval by KIB under the limitations, conditions and procedures of this section, KIB shall pay one hundred (100) percent of Contractor's reasonable, actual increased costs of performing the contract if the increased costs result from a change in law or regulation and the change was adopted after the deadline for submission of bids leading to this Agreement, providing the costs result from applying the least costly means of ensuring full compliance with the relevant change. Contractor must fully demonstrate and document the need for the requested reimbursement to KIB's satisfaction and approval. Should the Change in Law result in a reduction in costs to Contractor, Contractor shall agree to reduce the appropriate unit prices by the reasonable, actual decreased costs of performing the contract. F. Withholding Payments KIB shall have the right to withhold from payments due Contractor such sums as necessary, in KIB's sole and exclusive opinion, for the purposes listed below in this section. Action taken under this section shall not affect other rights or remedies of KIB granted by other provisions of this agreement or by law; and do not relieve Contractor from the consequences or liabilities arising from Contractor's acts or omissions. \\Dove\Departments\EF\Baler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc 13 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 73 of 157 • To protect KIB against any loss or damage that may result from the events listed in this section and any other negligence or unsatisfactory work by Contractor; • Failure of Contractor to perform or abide by an obligation under the contract; • Claims against Contractor of KIB related to Contractor's performance of work; • Damages by Contractor to others not adjusted; • Failure of Contractor to make proper payment to Contractor's employees, material suppliers, or subcontractors; and • Probable filing of a claim against KIB or Contractor. 18. Compliance with Laws Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules, and regulations that apply under this contract and future amendments to these laws and rules. Contractor shall secure permits and licenses required by law to conduct activities undertaken by Contractor. 19. Bonds Performance Bond: A performance bond shall be required of Contractor. It shall be executed yearly by a surety company licensed to do business in Alaska and be in the amount of $650,000 the first year. Thereafter, the performance bond shall be renewed annually for each succeeding year in an amount equal to fifty (50) percent of the total compensation paid in the past year. Said bond shall be obtained within ten (10) days of the execution of the initial contract and prior to January 1 of each year of the contract thereafter. Payment Bond: A payment bond will be required of Contractor. It shall be executed by a surety company licensed to do business in Alaska and be in an amount of $650,000. The bond shall be conditioned to guarantee the payment of all wages and costs of materials, supplies, and insurance premiums incurred by Contractor in fulfilling the terms of the agreement. Insurance premiums include, but are not limited to, worker's compensation, liability insurance, and bonds. The payment bond will need to be delivered to KIB within ten (10) days of the execution of the contract. The payment bond must be in place during the entire term of the contract. Any cost incurred by Contractor for required bonds shall be borne by Contractor. 20. Insurance Requirements A. General Insurance Provisions: Contractor shall not commence with work under this contract until it has obtained the insurances required under this section. Contractor shall supply KIB with two (2) copies of certificates. All coverage shall be with insurance carriers licensed and admitted to do business in the State of Alaska. All coverage shall be with insurance carriers acceptable to KIB. Proof of Insurance Coveraee: Contractor shall provide KIB, at the time the contract is returned to it for execution, certified copies of Certificate of Insurance and/or policies, acceptable to the KIB, for all insurances required herein. \\Dove\Departments\EF\Baler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc 14 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 74 of 157 Continuation of Covera;;e: If any of the above coverages expire during the term of this contract, Contractor shall deliver renewal certificates and/or policies to KIB at least ten (10) days prior to the expiration date. B. Specific Insurance Provisions: Workers Compensation and Employers Liability: Contractor shall procure and maintain during the life of this contract, Workers Compensation Insurance including Employers Liability Coverage, in accordance with all applicable statutes of the State of Alaska. This coverage must include statutory coverage for States in which employees are engaging in work and employer's liability protection not less that $1,000,000 combined single limits per occurrence. Commercial General Liability Insurance: Contractor shall procure and maintain during the life of this contract, Commercial General Liability Insurance on an "Occurrence Basis" with limits of liability not less than $3,000,000 per occurrence and/or aggregate combined single limit, Personal Injury, Bodily Injury, and Property Damage. Coverage shall include the following extensions: (A) Contractual Liability; (B) Products and Completed Operations; (C) Independent Contractors Coverage; (D) Broad Form General Liability Extensions or equivalent at; (E) Per contract aggregate; and (F) Deletion of Environmental Pollution Exclusions. Motor Vehicle Liability: Contractor shall procure and maintain during the life of this contract, Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance, including applicable No-fault coverages, with limits of liability of not less than $3,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit Bodily Injury and Property Damage. Coverage shall include all owned vehicles, all non -owned vehicles, and all hired vehicles. Owners and Contractors Protective Liability: Contractor shall procure and maintain during the life of this contract, a separate Owner & Contractors Protective Liability Policy with limits of liability not less than $3,000,000 per occurrence and/or aggregate, combined single limit, Personal Injury, Bodily Injury, and Property Damage. KIB shall be "Named Insured" on said coverage. Sixty (60) days Notice of Cancellation shall apply to this policy. Additional Insured: The following shall be Additional Insureds on Commercial General Liability and Vehicle Liability insurances: KIB, including all elected and appointed officials, all employees, and volunteers. This coverage shall be primary to the Additional Insureds, and not contributing with any other insurance or similar protection available to the Additional Insureds, whether other available coverage is primary, contributing, or excess. Cancellation Notice: Workers Compensation Insurance, Commercial General Liability Insurance, and Motor Vehicle Insurance, as described above, shall include an endorsement stating the following: "Sixty (60) days Advance Written Notice of Cancellation, Non -renewal, Reduction and/or Material Change shall be sent to: Finance Director, Kodiak Island Borough, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615". 21. Indemnification Contractor shall indemnify and hold KIB, its elected officials, officers, and employees free and harmless from all losses, damages, expenses, judgments, liens, claims, demands, or liabilities of any kind, including reasonable attorneys' fees, for injury or death to persons, or loss, or damage \\Dove\Departments\EF\6a1er Facifity\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc 15 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 75 of 157 to property arising out of Contractor's performance of this contract. Such indemnity shall not cover losses, damages, expenses, judgments, liens, claims, demands, or liabilities.that are caused by the sole negligence of KIB. Contractor shall be given notice of any suit, claim, or demand within a reasonable time after KIB acquires knowledge thereof, and shall be authorized to defend the same without cost to KIB (saving that KIB shall pay its own counsel fee if it wishes to have separate representation in any suit). Contractor shall be given all information and assistance that it may reasonably require to defend the action. No compromise or settlement of any such suit, claim, or demand shall be entered into until the written notice of Contractor has been given to KIB. 22. Non -assignment of Contract Contractor shall not assign any of its rights under this contract without: the written consent of KIB. However, subcontracting portions of the project shall not be considered an assignment for the purposes of this section. 23. Independent Contractor It is expressly understood and agreed that Contractor is an independent contractor and KIB shall not be liable for any of Contractor's acts or omissions in the performance of the work. 24. Subcontractors Contractor agrees to provide a list of subcontractors to KIB for written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Contractor agrees to bind all subcontractors by the terms of this contract and submit to KIB proof of insurance coverage of the subcontractors. Contractor shall accept all responsibility for the acts of the subcontractors related to this work. 25. Right to Audit Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records, kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards, of all of Contractor's costs that are chargeable to KIB and shall retain such records for at least four (4) years after completion of the contract. Contractor shall also maintain records of customers served. KIB shall have the right, at any reasonable time, to inspect and audit those records during the course of work and throughout the four (4) year retention period. Contractor shall accommodate such review at no additional cost. Contractor shall incorporate this requirement in all contracts with third parties to which this work may be subcontracted. 26. Correcting Deficiencies and Dispute Resolution Correcting Deficiencies: A deficiency in Contractor's work that is noted by KIB shall immediately be corrected to the satisfaction of KIB. KIB's interpretation or decision is binding on Contractor, subject to the following dispute resolution provisions of this Agreement. Dispute Resolution: The Borough Manager shall at the request of Contractor, decide any dispute arising under this contract which is not disposed of by agreement between Contractor and KIB's Environmental Specialist. The Borough Manager shall reduce their decision to writing and furnish a copy to Contractor. The Borough Manager reserves the right to make a written request to Contractor at any time for any additional information needed to make their decision. The decision of the Borough Manager shall be final and conclusive unless, within thirty (30) days \\Dove\Departments\ERBaler Facility\RFPs\Conections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc 16 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 76 of 157 from the date of receipt of such copy, Contractor mails or otherwise furnishes to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, a written appeal. The Notice of Appeal shall include specific exceptions to the Borough Manager's decision, including specific provision of the contract relied upon. General assertions that the Borough Manager's decision is contrary to law or to fact are not sufficient. The decision of the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly shall be rendered within one hundred twenty (120) days of the Notice of Appeal. The decision shall be final and conclusive unless determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been fraudulent, or capricious, or arbitrary, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith. 27. Default Either party shall have the right to terminate this agreement upon notice in writing to the other party. Notices are to be mailed to: Office of the Borough Manager, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 (for notices to KIB) and Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC, 6301 Rosewood Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Attn: Bobby L. Cox (for notices to Contractor) upon the occurrence of any of the following events: • Should the other party be declared insolvent or bankrupt, or make an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or in the event that a receiver is appointed or any proceeding is demanded by, for, or against that party under any provision of the Federal Bankruptcy Act or any amendment thereof; • Should the other party default in the performance of any agreement made under this agreement and such default shall not be remedied to the noticing party's satisfaction within ten (10) calendar days of the demand. It is understood that significant environmental harm or danger to person or property may result by any failure of performance under this agreement and therefore time is of the essence in this provision for termination; and • Should the business of Contractor be sold, leased, or for any reason pass from the actual supervision or control of its principal agents as of the date of this agreement. Contractor shall not discontinue required service under this agreement without ninety (90) days notice to KIB. The failure of either party to exercise any of its rights under this Agreement for a breach of an obligation created by this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such rights nor shall the same be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach. No custom or practice of the parties at variance with the terms of this agreement shall constitute a waiver of any right to demand exact compliance with the terms of this Agreement. In the event suit is filed to enforce any of the terms or conditions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. In the event of default Contractor shall allow KIB to rise its equipment in order to continue collection services for a period of up to six (6) months. All contracts, leases, or other documents encumbering or limiting Contractor's interest in such property shall contain this provision. 28. Choice of Law This Agreement shall be deemed to be a contract under the laws of Alaska and for all such purpose shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of such state. \\Dove\Departments\EF\Baler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc 17 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 77 of 157 29. Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and is intended to replace and supersede all prior negotiations, understandings, and agreements between the parties. No modification of the terms and conditions of this Agreement will be valid or binding on the parties unless made in writing after the date hereof and signed by an authorized representative of each of the parties. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH p4 By: O! Rick L. Gifford Borough Manager BY Bud Cassidy, Director Engineering and Facilities ATTEST: JTRTITf I�L. TYG11'SGII- Borough Clerk ALASKA PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ANCHOR GE, LLC By: Bobby L. Cox General Manager \\Dove\Departments\EF\Baler Facility\RFPs\Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc 18 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 78 of 157 Bid Schedule RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 79 of 157 ® B. ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, SITE VISIT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, BID SCHEDULE, AND BIDDER'S STATEMENT Solid Waste Collection Services for the Kodiak_ Island Borough Addendum Acknowledgement: If any addenda are issued by the KIB, please acknowledge receipt of Addenda by recording the Addendum Date in the appropriate space provided below: 41 4/5/06 #2 4/7/06 #3 4/10/06 #4 4/12/06 Site Visit Acknowledgement: Required Community Visit Acknowledgement: Dates of Required Visit: 4/7 , 2006 ® Person(s) Attending Visit: Bobby Cog Title: General Manager Jeff Riley Sr Operations Manager Caroll Mahoney Title:Site Manager Bid Schedule: PLEASE NOTE: Before completing this Bid Schedule, read carefully all items in this Invitation for Bids and include all costs for all work described therein. All Borough ordinances that regulate bidding procedures are incorporated into these specifications by reference, and are applicable. Bid Item No. 1 Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Weekly Residential Door- Bid: $ 11.95 per residential to -Door Can or Bag Service unit. Bid: $ 17.33 Bid: $ 17.85 Bid Item No. 2 Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Residential Carry -Out Bid: $ 10.00 per month in Service addition to Door -to -Door Can or Bid: $ 14.50 Bid: $ 14.94 Bag Service Page 11 of 35 v RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 80 of 157 Bid Item No, 3A Residential Dumpsters located between Landfill and Salonie Creek Dumpst , Capacity, Cubic Yards Bid: Monthly Rental Fee; $/month each dum ster Bid: Fee to empty and deliver to landfill, $/ti Option Year 1 Option Year 2 2.0-2.4 5.00 12.10 .25/17.5 7.47/18. 2.5-2.9 5.00 15.20 .25/22.0 7.47/22. 3.0-3.4 5.00 20.70 .25/30.0 7.47/30. 3.5-3.9 5.00 20.70 .25/30.0 7.47/30. 4.0-4.4 5.00 25.50 .25/36.9 7.47/38. 4.5-4.9 5.00 25.50 .25/36.9 7.47/38. 5.0-5.4 5.00 25.50 .25/36.9 7.47/38. 5.5-5.9 5.00 25.50 .25/36.9 7.47/38. 6.0-6.5 5.00 30.00 .25/43.5 7.47/44. Roll - off Containers 10 20.00 60.00 2).00/87.0) 29.87/8 15 20.00 150.00 2 .00/217.0 29.87/ 20 20.00 150.00 23.00/217.5029.87/2 Bid Item No. 3B Bid: Monthly Bid: Fee to Option Option Residential Dumpsters located Capacity, Rental Fee; empty and Year 1 Year 2 beyond Salonie Creek - includes Cubic Yards $/month each deliver to Chiniak dum ster landfill, $/ti 2.0-2.4 5.00 16.00 .25/23.2 7.47/23. 2.5-2.9 5.00 20.00 .25/29.0 7.47/29. 3.0-3.4 5.00 23.50 .25/34.0 7.47/35. 3.5-3.9 5.00 23.50 .25/34.0 7.47/35. 4.0-4.4 5.00 28.00 .25/40.6 7.47/41. 4.5-4.9 5.00 28.00 .25/40.6 7.47/41. 5.0-5.4 5.00 28.00 .25/40.6 7.47/41. 5.5-5.9 5.00 28.00 .25/40.6 7.47/41. 6.0-6.5 5.00 35.00 .25/50.7 7.47/52. Roll - off Containers 10 20.00 200.00 20.00/290.)0 29.87/ 15 20.00 200.00t2.00/290.)O .00 290.0 29.871 20 20.00 200.00 29.87/ Page 12 of 35 )7 70 92 92 )8 )8 )8 )8 31 .61 24.03 24.03 90 39 10 10 52 32 32 62 27 98.70 98.70 98.70 0 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 81 of 157 Bid Item No. 4A Dumpster Bid: Monthly Bid: Fee to Commercial Can Service Option Option Commercial Dumpsters located Capacity, Rental Fee; empty and Bid: $ 23.90 Year 1 Year 2 between Landfill and Salonie Creek Cubic $/month each deliver to Yards dum ster landfill, $/ti 2.0-2.4 5.00 12.10 .25/17.5 7.47/18. 2.5-2.9 5.00 15.20 .25/22.0 7.47/22. 3.0-3.4 5.00 20.70 .25/30.0 7.47/30. 3.5-3.9 5.00 20.70 .25/30.0 7.47/30. 4.0-4.4 5.00 25.50 .25/36.9 7.47/38. 4.5-4.9 5.00 25.50 .25/36.9 7.47/38. 5.0-5.4 5.00 25.50 .25/36.9 7.47/38. 5.5-5.9 5.00 25.50 7.25/36.9 7.47/38. 6.0-6.5 5.00 30.00 7.25/43.5 7.47/44. Roll - off Containers 10 20.00 60.00 29.00/87.01 29.87/89 15 20.00 150.00 29.00/217.10 29.87/2 20 20.00 150.00 29.00/217.500 29.87/2 Bid Item No. 4B Commercial Dumpsters located beyond Salonie Creek Capacity, Cubic Yards Bid: Monthly Rental Fee; $/month each dum sten Bid: Fee to empty and deliver to landfill, $/tip Option Year 1 Option Year 2 2.0-2.4 5.00 16.00 25/23.207.47/23.( 2.5-2.9 5.00 20.00 .25/29.0 7.47/29. 3.0-3.4 5.00 23.50 .25/34.0 7.47/35. 3.5-3.9 5.00 23.50 .25/34.0 7.47/35. 4.0-4.4 5.00: 28.00 .25/40.6 7.47/41. 4.5-4.9 5.00 28.00 .25 40.60 7.47/41. 5.0-5.4 5.00 28.00 .25/40.6 7.47/41. 5.5-5.9 5.00 28.00 .25/40.6 7.47/41. 6.0-6.5 5.00 35.00 .25/50.7 7.47/52. Roll - off Containers 10 20.00 200.00 2 .00/290.00 29.87/ 15 20.00 200.00 29.00/290.00 29.87/ 20 20.00 200.00 2).00/290.00 29.87/ Bid Item No. 5 Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Commercial Can Service Bid: $ 16.00 per tip Bid: $ 23.20 Bid: $ 23.90 Page 13 of 35 7 2 2 B B B B 1 61 4.03 4.03 0 7 0 0 2 2 2 2 7 98.70 98.70 98.70 11 11 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 82 of 157 Bid Item No. 6 1 Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Service to Home Business within the Bid: $ 16.00 per Construction and Demolition Wastes Capacity, City of Kodiak month each Home Bid: $ 23.20 Bid: $ 23.90 (C&D) Services Business $/month each deliver to Bid Item No. 7 Dumpster Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Clean up around Residential Bid: $ 65.00 per Construction and Demolition Wastes Capacity, Dumpsters hour for labor and Bid: $ 94.25 Bid: $ 97.08 (C&D) Services equipment. $/month each deliver to Bid Item No. 8 Dumpster Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Monthly Fee for Lockable Lid on Option Construction and Demolition Wastes Capacity, Commercial Dumpster Bid: $ 10.00 per Bid: $ 14.50 Bid: $ 14.94 (C&D) Services month $/month each deliver to Bid Item No. 9A Dumpster Bid: Monthly Bid: Fee to Option Option Construction and Demolition Wastes Capacity, Rental Fee; empty and Year 1 Year 2 (C&D) Services Cubic $/month each deliver to Yards dum ster landfill, $/ti 2.0-2.4 10.00 12.10 14.50/17.15 14.94/U 2.5-2.9 10.00 15.20 4.50/22. 4 14.94/2 3.0-3.4 10.00 16.90 .4.50/24.51 14.94/2 3.5-3.9 10.00 19.20 4 14.94/24 4.0-4.4 10.00 22.45 5 14.94/3 4.5-4.9 10.00 24.10 a 5 14.94/3 5.0-5.4 10.00 25.50 8 14.94/3 5.5-5.9 10.00 25.50 .4.50/36.08 14.94/3f 6.0-6.5 10.00 30.00 4.50/43.0 14.94/4 Roll -off Containers 10 40.00 100.00 58.00/145.00 59.74 15 40.00 160.00 8.0 32 00 59.74 20 40.00 160.00 8.000/2232,,00 59.74 Page 14 of 35 .07 .70 .24 .68 .53 ..99 08 .08 x.81 '149.35 '238.96 '238.96 0 • v RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 83 of 157 Bid Item No. 9B Dumpster Bid: Monthly Bid: Fee to Option Option Construction and Demolition Wastes Capacity, Rental Fee; empty and Year 1 Year 2 (C&D) Services —Beyond Salonie Cubic $/month each deliver to Bid: $ 100.00 per each pickup and tip at Creek Yards dumpster landfill, $/tip Roll - off Containers i0 40.00 200.00 8.00/290 00 59.74 15 40.00 200.00 58.00/290.00 59.74 20 40.00 200.00 58.00/290.00 59.74 Bid Item No. 10 Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Collection of Bulky Items from Bid: $ 65.00 per Residential Customers hour for labor and Bid: $ 94.25 Bid: $ 97.08 equipment Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Bid Item No. 11 Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Roll — off Containers for Cardboard Bid: $ 20.00 per Recycling month rental each unit Bid: $ 29.00 Bid: $ 29.87 combination of delivery Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Bid: $ 100.00 per each pickup and tip at Bid: $145.00 Bid: $ 149.35 Recycle Center Bid Item No. 12 Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Temporary Dumpster Delivery/Pick- up Fee Bid: $ 45.00 Bid: $ 65.25 Bid: $ 67.21 combination of delivery andpick-up End of Bid Schedule Page 15 of 35 298.70 298.70 298.70 11 • RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 84 of 157 ADDENDUM #1- ATTACHMENT B ADDITIONAL BID ITEMS Bid Item No. 13A Dumpster Bid: Monthly Bid: Fee to Option Option Special Waste - Metal Capacity, Rental Fee; empty and Year 1 Year 2 empty and Year 1 Cubic $/month each deliver to $/month each Yards dum ster landfill, $/ti 2.0-2.4 10.00 16.34 4.50/23.9 14.94/2 Roll - off Containers 2.5-2.9 10.00 20.52 4.50/29. 75 14.94/3 3.0-3.4 10.00 50/339 14.94/3 22.82 4K4.5049.112 210.00 8.00/304 3.5-3.9 10.00 25.92 8 14.94/3 .40.00 4.0-4.4 10.00 30.31 5 14.94/4 4.5-4.9 10.00 32.54 8 14.94/4 5.0-5.4 10.00 34.43 14.94 55.5-5.9 10.00 34.43 2 14.9415 6.0-6.5 14.9416 Roll - off Containers 10 15 40.00 187.00 !8.00 271 15 59.74 20 40.00 187.00 8.00/271 15 59.74 Bid Item No. 13B Dumpster Bid: Monthly Bid: Fee to Option Option Special Waste - Metal Capacity, Rental Fee; empty and Year 1 Year 2 Beyond Salonie Creek Cubic $/month each deliver to Yards dum ster landfill, $/ti Roll - off Containers 10 40.00 210.00 8.00/304 50 59.74 15 40.00 210.00 8.00/304 50 59.74 20 .40.00 210.00 58.00/304450 59.74 End of Bid Schedule Addendum #1 - Attachment B Page 1 of 1 1.40 ).65 1.08 9.71 i.27 9.60 .42 x.42 ).49 F149.35 X279.28 F279.28 F313.64 '313.64 F313.64 • RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 85 of 157 ADDENDUM #2 — ATTACHMENT D ADDITIONAL BID ITEMS Bid Item No. 14 Bear Resistant Dumpsters Dumpster Capacity, Cubic Yards Bid: Monthly Rental Fee; $/month each dum ster Bid: Fee to empty and deliver to landfill, $/tip Option Option Year 1 Year 2 4.0-4.4 36.00 28.00 52.20/40.6 53.77/4 4.5-4.9 40.00 28.00 58.00/40.60 59.74/41 5.0-5.4 40.00 28.00 5 .00/40.6 59.74/41 5.5-5.9 40.00 28.00 5 .00/40.6 59.74/41 End of Bid Schedule Addendum #2 - Attachment D Page 1 of 1 .82 .82 .82 .82 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 86 of 157 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT 2006-39 BETWEEN KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AND ALASKA PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ANCHORAGE, LLC REVISION TO CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT This amendment becomes part of the solid waste collection contract, 2006- 39, between the Kodiak Island Borough and Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC dated May 2006. Residential dumpsters, located within City limits, will remain in place and the Kodiak Island Borough will compensate Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC at the increased City residential rate of $13.82 (as proposed by Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC) and will be retroactive to July 1, 2006. This cost will replace the cost of $11.95 in the Bid Schedule which is incorporated as part of the agreement. All other language in the contract as it relates to residential dumpsters in the City limits is still applicable. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ALASKA PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ANCHORAGE, LLC s Rick L.ord �-obby.$Cox Borou anager Generaf Manager By:. Bud Cassidy irector Engineering & Facilities d ATTEST: JPU?� Nova M. Javier, C C Boroug=h Clerk RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 87 of 157 AMENDMENT #2 CONTRACT 2006-39 BETWEEN KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AND ALASKA PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ANCHORAGE, LLC EXTENSION OF CONTRACT TO ENTER INTO OPTION YEAR ONE JULY 19 2008 - JUNE 309 2009 This amendment becomes part of the solid waste collection contract between the Kodiak Island Borough and Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC dba Alaska Waste. 1. Exercise Option Year One in the contract agreement from July 1, 2008 — June 30, 2009. Compensation for contract will be as per bid specifications column titled Option Year 1 included as part of original contract agreement with an average monthly deduction of $6,250 applied after administrative fee. 2. Contractor may deliver loads of municipal solid waste to the Landfill/Baler facility on Sundays I no more than four (4) loads may be delivered when KIB staff is not present. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Date: ,-5'Z!�5",4 If Date: Woody Koning, Director Engineering & Facilities/ ALASKA PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ANCHORAGE, LLC By: _--A�;�� .07- ��z obby L. Cox General Manager Date: 0. ATTEST: Nova M. Javier, C Borough Clerk RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 88 of 157 Appendix E Solid Waste Service Area Map RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 89 of 157 Appendix F Threshold Recycling Services Contract RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 90 of 157 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 91 of 157 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 92 of 157 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 93 of 157 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 94 of 157 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 95 of 157 Appendix G Threshold Recycling Services Budget RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 96 of 157 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 97 of 157 Appendix H Threshold Recycling Services Letter RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 98 of 157 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 99 of 157 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 100 of 157 Appendix I Refuse Collection Alternatives RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 101 of 157 Appendix I Residential Trash Collection One of the three primary objectives of this project is to procure collection services for the KIB. Before the services are requested to potential vendors, the following questions on the future solid waste and recycling collection system need to be considered, and a decision reached by the members of the Assembly. Once a decision has been reached, Borough managers and the Project Team will develop the Request for Proposals (RFP) that incorporates the policy direction provided by the Assembly. 1. Should Kodiak implement a cart system for residential (and small business) garbage and recyclables? The existing manual method of residential collection is labor-intensive, out-of-date, inefficient, and unsafe. Waste is set out for collection at the curb in cans, carts, bags, boxes, or loose. Collection crews of two or three people; one driving the truck and the other(s) collecting the waste by hand, pick up the trash and throw it into the rear of the truck. There are two ways to collect waste using the cart based system: semi- automated and fully automated. Semi-Automated Trash is collected using standardized roll carts and dumped into the truck with a hydraulic cart tipper. Crew size for a semi-automated collection route is one. The truck is equipped with a steering wheel on the right side of the cab so the driver can stand while driving from house to house. Rather that picking up various containers or bags by hand, the driver rolls the cart onto the tipper affixed to the truck where the mechanized lift dumps the materials into the hopper. The primary advantage of semi-automated over manual is the tipper dumps the cart rather than the driver. The other is the use of standardized containers for waste. Some residents have roll carts with a capacity of 60 gallons that are dumped by way of a cart tipping mechanism affixed to the rear of the truck. Fully Automated Trash is collected in the same carts as semi-automated; however, the trucks are equipped with a mechanical arm that picks up the cart. The driver operates the mechanical arm from inside the cab of the truck. There are two big advantages of a fully automated route: driver safety and increased productivity (collected carts). Since the mechanical arm picks up and dumps the cart, the driver’s risk of injury is greatly diminished. The second advantage is the mechanical arm can pick up and dump a cart in about 15 seconds; therefore increasing the number of carts collected over a semi-automated and manual route. Other reasons for moving to cart based collection system:  Standardized Collection Sizes: Carts may range in volume from 20 gallons up to 96 gallons.  Customer convenience and reduction of litter and garbage in the streets  Rate Stability: Collection rates over the long-term (5 to 10 years), fluctuate less for automated when compared to other methods of collection  Future Services: Automated collection trucks can pick up carts designated for residential recycling and yard debris, so the KIB can add additional services in the future at a lower cost due to fleet / cart standardization  Commercial Collection Tubs: Fully automated trucks can also be fitted with universal arm gripper to collect 300 and 450 gallon commercial collection tubs1 Bears One of the Borough’s primary concerns of moving to a fully automated system is the use of collection carts that are not resistant to bears. The current collection system along the road system is not designed to address the bear issue although roll off containers currently used are bear resistant. Trash day in the City of Kodiak offers any bear t a wide selection of dining choices because waste is set out in open cans, bags, 1 300 gallon tub is equal to 1.5 yard container and a 450 gallon tub is equal to a 2.25 yard container. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 102 of 157 and any other method residents choose to place waste out on the curb. Some community dumpsters located along the road system are not resistant to bears or other vectors and the doors on bear resistant dumpsters are consistently and routinely left open by the public. As of the writing of this report, there are no roll carts that are compatible with a fully automated collection system; however, there are roll carts that are compatible with semi-automated collection systems. Our recommendation is to provide carts to all residential customers in the populated areas that currently receive regular collection at the curb. In the areas just outside the city, we would recommend the use of the bear resistant roll carts. Hybrid System There are three manufacturers that build a collection body and system to collect carts either fully automated, semi-automated, or manually. This gives the waste collector the flexibility to utilize one truck for various circumstances. For example, collection in town could be fully automated and in the remote areas that would use bear resistant carts, the driver could move to semi-automated. 2. Should rates be variable, that is a Pay-As -You-Throw structure that is based on the size of the cart / container and the frequency of collection? Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) is a method of setting collection rates based on the amount of waste set out for collection. This method creates a direct economic incentive to recycle more and/or to generate less waste. Two key considerations for PAYT on Kodiak are rate equity and economics. PAYT treats garbage collection the same as other utilities in that customers pay for the services they consume. Secondly, PAYT would eliminate waste generators that are currently subsidized in the current system by setting rates at a cost of service for both residential and commercial services. This is a fair and equitable approach to collection and disposal rates. 3. If a cart collection program is implemented, should the KIB discontinue the utilization of community dumpsters? Kodiak is one of a few jurisdictions in the United States that offer duplicative services: residential curbside collection of waste and local dumpsters for additional disposal. While the community dumpster program is popular with many residents, it’s also expensive and wasteful. As noted earlier, the cost of the program in 2007 for the 37 containers located within the metropolitan area was estimated at $599,284. Revenue generated from Borough customers @ $31 per month covers $555,396, leaving a shortfall of $43,887. Many of the items disposed in the community dumpster are large, bulky items such as televisions and furniture that normally would be self hauled to the landfill. The community dumpsters provide an ideal way for individuals to avoid the responsibility of paying for disposal while ensuring increased costs to the system. The system that could be implemented to replace the community dumpsters may include a “call-to-haul” for bulky items such as old furniture or appliances, a drop off deport for household hazardous waste, and larger garbage carts (up to 95 gallons). A new system will be implemented over time; dumpsters will not simply disappear without implementation of a new system. Elimination of the community dumpsters puts the burden of disposal expense on the generator of the waste; would greatly reduce the commercial subsidy necessary to fund the program and; be compatible with a PAYT rate structure. 4. Should the next collection contract be a long-term? (7-10 year term of contract, 7 years to amortize equipment with a 3 year extension as incentive) Collection operations are capital intensive ventures. An automated garbage truck will cost approximately $220,000. A roll cart for garbage storage and collection will cost $55 each, plus shipping costs. This is equipment that, while expensive, will last seven to ten years with regular care and maintenance. For a hauler, making a large capital investment in this equipment is more feasible with a long – term contract. It will allow for ample time to recover the capital costs, provide a longer period for distributing rate increases, and provide greater control over rising rates. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 103 of 157 5. Should the collection company be responsible for billing all residential and commercial customers? 6. Should the collection company be responsible for customer service? There is a duplication of efforts and costs under the current system. KIB provides the contractor with a detailed monthly billing register which the contractor fills in to reflect the account activity for that billing period. The contractor generates a detailed monthly billing register and submits the invoice to the KIB for payment. All information on that register/invoice is then keyed in by the KIB to generate invoices that are mailed out to KIB residential and commercial customers. The City invoices residential customers that are hooked up to water and sewer. In addition to the billing, a high percentage of customer calls are handled twice: first by the Borough, and then by the contractor (or vice versa). If the customer’s question can’t be answered by Borough staff, that individual or Borough staff calls the contractor to relay the question or issue for resolution. The Borough budgets $20,000 for the billing and customer service function alone, which is low considering the person completing this task spends over 50% of their time to billing and customer service. The contactor already generates the activity for the billing register and answers all the customer complaints that come through the Borough, so their costs are being paid for in the rates. The only item that the contractor is not paying for is the cost of mailing out the invoice. Turning over the duties of billing and invoicing will not relieve the Borough of its responsibility as the manager of the collection system. If a customer has a complaint, whether it is billing or customer service related, and it is not addressed by the contractor in a manner that is satisfactory to the customer, their next call would be to the Borough program manager for final resolution. Consultant’s Recommendation: Yes to all six collection questions and issues. Projected System Costs What would a cart based system based on the previous six recommendations cost the residential ratepayers? The tables on the following pages detail assumptions used to project collection costs of the three collection systems (manual – status quo, semi-automated, and fully automated)2. It must be noted that the following costs are planning level only and actual rates will vary depending on the specific collection services outlined in the contract, various cost including fuel, equipment, and labor, as well as any rate incentives and program costs. Assumption Note: Total Can / Cart customers: 2,768 with no community dumpsters 2 Manual – status quo system assumes no community dumpsters in the City or the metropolitan area of the Borough. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 104 of 157 Collection System Cost Comparison Solid Waste Collection Manual Semi-Auto Full Auto Notes Cans/Carts per Hour 70 55 70 A Weekly Collection Hours 40 50 40 B Crew Size 2 1 1 C Truck Cost $175,000 $200,000 $235,000 D Truck Interest Cost @ 8% / 7 yr $54,117 $61,848 $72,672 E Required Frontline Trucks 1 1 1 F Labor Cost per Hour $70 $35 $35 G Truck Cost per Hour $17 $19 $22 H Truck Op Cost per Hour $35 $40 $45 I Operations Costs $40 $40 $40 J Collection Cost per Hour $162 $134 $142 K Weekly Collection Cost $6,396 $6,743 $5,620 L Annual Collection Cost $332,566 $350,639 $292,254 M Annual Cost per Customer $120.15 $126.68 $105.58 N Monthly Cost per Customer $10.01 $10.56 $8.80 O Cart Costs ($75 each) N/A $228,360 $228,360 P Monthly Cart Cost @ 8% / 7 years $1.17 $1.17 Q SW Disposal Mo. Wt (48 gal cart @ 40 lbs per set out) 173 173 173 R Disposal Cost @ $105 per ton $9.09 $9.09 $9.09 S Mo. Wt (90 gal cart @ 60 lbs per set out) 260 260 260 T Disposal Cost @ $105 per ton $13.64 $13.64 $13.64 U Estimated Solid Waste Monthly Residential Collection Rate 48 gallon cart Manual Semi-Auto Full Auto Notes SW Collection 10.01 10.56 8.80 O SW Cart - 1.17 1.17 Q SW Disposal 9.09 9.09 9.09 S Administrative Costs @ $4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 V Hauler Profit Margin @ 10% 2.36 2.53 2.36 W City Tax @ 6% of cost 1.56 1.67 1.55 X Total Estimated Collection Rate $ 27.52 $ 29.52 $ 27.47 Y 90 gallon cart Manual Semi-Auto Full Auto SW Collection 10.01 10.56 8.80 O SW Cart - 1.17 1.17 Q SW Disposal 13.64 13.64 13.64 U Administrative Costs @ $4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 V Hauler Profit Margin @ 10% 2.82 2.99 2.81 W City Tax @ 6% of cost 1.86 1.97 1.86 X Total Estimated Collection Rate $ 32.82 $ 34.82 $ 32.77 Y Table Notes A: Assumed collection productivity B: Customers divided by cans/carts per hour C: Workers per collection truck D: Approximate cost for a new truck E: Interest cost on borrowed capital F: Number of trucks needed to service Kodiak G: Labor is $25 per hour plus 40% for taxes and benefits RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 105 of 157 H: Hourly cost for the collection truck I: Truck operational costs (fuel, tires, R&M) J: Operational Costs (cart delivery, equipment, back-up collection vehicle) K: Sum of items G through J L: Item K multiplied by Item B M: Item L multiplied by 52 weeks N: Item M divided by 2,768 can/cart customers O: Item N divided by 12 months P: Cart cost of $75 multiplied by can cart customers (2,768) plus 10% inventory Q: Monthly cart cost assuming 8% borrow rate with a 7 year life R: Monthly garbage weight 40 pounds multiplied by 4.33 (52 weeks / 12 months = 4.33) S: Disposal cost of 173 pounds per week at $105 per ton for landfill disposal T: Monthly garbage weight 60 pounds multiplied by 4.33 (52 weeks / 12 months = 4.33) U: Disposal cost of 260 pounds per week at $105 per ton for landfill disposal V: Administrative cost at $4.50 per customer (management, billing, overhead, etc.) W: Profit at 10% on the sum of items O, Q, S or U, and V X: Sales tax on the sum of items O, Q, S or U, V, and W Y: Sum of items O, Q, S or U, V, W, X to arrive at the monthly collection rate Residential Recycling Collection Program performance would be primarily dependant on collection system, rates, frequency of collection, policy, and outreach and education. Jurisdictions with established recycling programs, such as the City of Mercer Island, Washington report as much as 1,000 pound per customer using a 65 gallon roll cart whereas the City of Boise report 214 pounds per customer using a 14 gallon bin. Each city offers recycling, but all the variable factors contribute to the program performance. The table below gives an indication of the potential material that could be diverted from the 2,768 can and cart customers on Kodiak. Diversion Percentage Table 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Estimated SW Tons 3,239 3,077 2,915 2,753 2,591 2,441 2,267 2,105 1,943 Projected Curbside Recycling Tons 0 162 324 486 648 798 972 1,133 1,295 Annual Pounds per Resident 0 117 234 351 468 585 702 819 936 To maximize the amount of material collected and to keep truck costs low, the best approach for curbside recycling is to use a cart. Most of the cart recycling programs in Washington and Oregon that utilize carts for collection report annual pounds per customer over 500 pounds.  Collect recyclable materials in a comingled stream with the exception of glass  Cart based recycling programs yield more materials per household than bin programs  Use the same truck to collect solid waste and recyclables to reduce collection costs  Carts keep the materials dry and reduce litter  The comingled stream would be baled and shipped to Seattle for processing  Collection could be either weekly or every other week (EOW) RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 106 of 157 Using the same approach as the Collection System Cost Table on the previous page, the additional collection cost for a curbside program is detailed below. The notable exception is the carts per hour is 100 for weekly collection since participation is assumed to be 70% of garbage collection. Residential Recycling Collection System Cost Comparison Recycling Collection Weekly Every- Other-Week Notes Carts per Hour 100 88 A Annual Collection Hours 1,439 822 B Crew Size 1 1 C Truck Cost (full auto) $235,000 $235,000 D Truck Interest Cost $72,672 $72,672 E Required Trucks 1 1 F Labor Cost per Hour $35 $35 G Truck Cost per Hour $32 $54 H Truck Op Cost per Hour $45 $45 I Other Op Cost per Hour $10 $10 J Collection Cost per Hour $122 $144 K Weekly Collection Cost $3,364 $4,569 L Annual Collection Cost $174,935 $118,800 M Annual Cost per Customer $63.20 $42.92 N Monthly Cost $5.27 $3.58 O Cart Costs ($75 each) $228,360 $228,360 P Monthly Cart Cost @ 8% / 7 years $1.17 $1.17 Q Estimated Residential Recycling Collection Semi-Auto Full Auto Recycling Collection 5.27 3.58 O Recycle Cart 1.17 1.17 Q Recycling Processing 2.50 2.50 R Administrative Costs @ $1 1.00 1.00 S Hauler Profit Margin @ 10% 0.99 0.82 T City Tax @ 6% of cost 0.66 0.54 U Total Estimated Collection Rate 11.59 9.62 V Table Notes A: Assumed collection productivity B: Customers divided by cans/carts per hour and multiplied by 52 or 26 weeks C: Workers per collection truck D: Approximate cost for a new truck E: Interest cost on borrowed capital F: Number of trucks needed to service Kodiak G: Labor is $25 per hour plus 40% for taxes and benefits H: Hourly cost for the collection truck I: Truck operational costs (fuel, tires, R&M) J: Operational Costs for recycling (cart delivery, equipment) K: Sum of items G through J L: Item K multiplied by Item B and divided by 52 or 26 weeks M: Item L multiplied by 52 weeks or 26 weeks N: Item M divided by 2,768 can/cart customers O: Item N divided by 12 months P: Cart cost of $75 multiplied by can cart customers (2,768) plus 10% inventory Q: Monthly cart cost assuming 8% borrow rate with a 7 year life R: Estimated processing cost (from recycling section at 25% diversion rate) S: Additional administrative cost for recycling T: Profit at 10% on the sum of items O, Q, R and S RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 107 of 157 U: Sales tax on sum of items O, Q, R, S, and T V: Sum of items O, Q, R, T, and U to arrive at the monthly collection rate Assembly Expectations What are the expectations of the Assembly when the collection contract is put out to bid? The following questions need to be addressed by the Assembly: 1. What services do the citizens expect? 2. What are the service expectations of the hauler? 3. Are the expectations of service and the associated rates compatible? 4. At what point are the rates considered too high? (range of rates) 5. Does the Assembly have a plan in case the services and rates do not meet expectations (rates too high)? These five questions need to be answered prior to moving forward with the RFP process to provide Borough mangers with clear direction. In the event that a contractor cannot be secured, what is the next step? Eagle Pass, Texas was put into this situation last year. The collection contractor proposed rates that were higher than the city council was willing to pay. The public works department took over collection operations from Waste Management in July 2007. While many on the Assembly have publicly stated that the Borough should not be in the garbage business, the Borough needs to have a back-up plan ready to implement in the event that terms can’t be reached for the necessary collection services. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 108 of 157 Appendix J Costs for Processing Recyclable Materials RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 109 of 157 Ap p e n d i x J : P r o j e c t e d C o s t s t o P r o c e s s a C o m i n g l e d R e c y c l i n g S t r e a m Re s i d e n t i a l C u s t o m e r s 2, 7 6 8 Pr o j e c t e d R e s i d e n t i a l T o n s 3, 5 9 8 Co m m e r c i a l C u s t o m e r s 49 4 Pr o j e c t e d C o m m e r c i a l T o n s 5, 1 0 2 Di v e r s i o n P e r c e n t a g e 0% 5% 10 % 15 % 20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % A Re s i d e n t i a l C u s t o m e r s 2, 7 6 8 B Es t i m a t e d R e s i d e n t i a l S W T o n s 3, 2 3 9 3, 0 7 7 2, 9 1 5 2, 7 5 3 2, 5 9 1 2, 4 4 1 2, 2 6 7 2, 1 0 5 1, 9 4 3 C Pr o j e c t e d C u r b s i d e R e c y c l i n g T o n s 16 2 32 4 48 6 64 8 79 8 97 2 1, 1 3 3 1, 2 9 5 D An n u a l P o u n d s p e r R e s i d e n t 11 7 23 4 35 1 46 8 58 5 70 2 81 9 93 6 Co m m e r c i a l C u s t o m e r s 49 4 E Es t i m a t e d C o m m e r c i a l S W T o n s 5, 1 0 2 4, 8 4 7 4, 5 9 2 4, 3 3 7 4, 0 8 2 3, 8 4 5 3, 5 7 1 3, 3 1 6 3, 0 6 1 F Pr o j e c t e d C o m m e r c i a l R e c . T o n s 25 5 51 0 76 5 1, 0 2 0 1, 2 5 7 1, 5 3 1 1, 7 8 6 2, 0 4 1 G To t a l P r o j e c t e d R e c y c l i n g T o n s 41 7 83 4 1, 2 5 1 1, 6 6 8 2, 0 5 5 2, 5 0 2 2, 9 1 9 3, 3 3 6 Pr o c e s s i n g C o s t s H An n u a l C o m p a c t o r C o s t ( f i x e d ) $2 0 , 0 0 0 I Co m p a c t o r A n n u a l R & M ( f i x e d ) $1 0 , 0 0 0 J Fa c i l i t y & E q u i p m e n t C o s t ( f i x e d ) $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 K Pr o c e s s i n g C o s t p e r T o n ( v a r i a b l e ) $2 5 L Sh i p p i n g @ $ 1 , 2 0 0 p e r C o n t a i n e r $1 , 2 0 0 M Ma t e r i a l T o n s p e r C o n t a i n e r 22 N Ma t e r i a l V a l u e p e r T o n $( 4 0 ) Pe r U n i t P r o c e s s i n g C o s t s O Co m p a c t o r p e r T o n $4 8 $2 4 $1 6 $1 2 $1 0 $8 $7 $6 P Co m p a c t o r R & M C o s t p e r T o n 24 12 8 6 5 4 3 3 Q Fa c i l i t y C o s t p e r T o n 24 0 12 0 80 60 49 40 34 30 R Pr o c e s s i n g C o s t 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 S Sh i p p i n g C o s t p e r T o n 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 T Ma t e r i a l V a l u e p e r T o n (4 0 ) (4 0 ) (4 0 ) (4 0 ) (4 0 ) (4 0 ) (4 0 ) (4 0 ) U To t a l P r o c e s s i n g C o s t p e r T o n 35 1 19 5 14 3 11 7 10 3 92 84 79 V To t a l M a t e r i a l P r o c e s s i n g C o s t 14 6 , 4 9 2 16 2 , 9 8 3 17 9 , 4 7 5 19 5 , 9 6 6 21 1 , 2 7 6 22 8 , 9 4 9 24 5 , 4 4 1 26 1 , 9 3 2 W Av o i d e d D i s p o s a l C o s t @ $ 9 0 t o n 37 , 5 3 3 75 , 0 6 5 11 2 , 5 9 8 15 0 , 1 3 0 18 4 , 9 7 2 22 5 , 1 9 5 26 2 , 7 2 8 30 0 , 2 6 0 X Ad d e d La n d f i l l L i f e ( i n d a y s ) p e r Y e a r 10 21 31 42 51 63 73 83 Y Re c y c l i n g C o s t p e r p o u n d $0 . 1 8 $0 . 1 0 $0 . 0 7 $0 . 0 6 $0 . 0 5 $0 . 0 5 $0 . 0 4 $0 . 0 4 Z Mo n t h l y R e c y c l i n g c o s t p e r r e s i d e n t $1 . 7 1 $1 . 9 1 $2 . 1 0 $2 . 2 9 $2 . 5 0 $2 . 6 8 $2 . 8 7 $3 . 0 6 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 110 of 157 Ta b l e N o t e s A: C u s t o m e r c o u n t a s o f D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 7 B: T o n s c a l c u l a t e d b y m u l t i p l y i n g c u s t o m e r c o u n t b y 4 0 p o u n d s p e r w e e k m u l t i p l i e d b y 5 2 w e e k s a n d d i v i d e d b y 2 , 0 0 0 p o u n d p e r t o n C: C u r b s i d e t o n s a r e c a l c u l a t e d b y m u l t i p l y i n g t h e e s t i m a t e d r e s i d e n t i a l t o n s ( i t e m A ) b y t h e s l i d i n g d i v e r s i o n p e r c e n t a g e s D: P r o j e c t e d c u r b s i d e t o n s d i v i d e d b y t h e c u s t o m e r c o u n t E: E s t i m a t e d c o l l e c t e d c o m m e r c i a l t o n s F: C o m m e r c i a l t o n s a r e c a l c u l a t e d b y m u l t i p l y i n g t h e e s t i m a t e d c o m m e r c i a l t o n s ( i t e m E ) b y t h e s l i d i n g d i v e r s i o n p e r c e n t a g e s G: T o t a l p r o j e c t e d t o n s i s t h e s u m o f r e s i d e n t i a l t o n s ( i t e m C ) a n d c o m m e r c i a l t o n s ( i t e m F ) H: C o m p a c t o r c o s t $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 p u r c h a s e p r i c e a m o r t i z e d o v e r 1 0 y e a r s I: C o m p a c t o r s e r v i c e a n d r e p a i r s J: A n n u a l c o s t o f b u i l d i n g a n d e q u i p m e n t K: V a r i a b l e c o s t s s u c h a s l a b o r , i n s u r a n c e , u t i l i t i e s , e t c . L: C u r r e n t r a t e p a i d b y t h e B o r o u g h t o m o v e m e t a l t o S e a t t l e u s i n g H o r i z o n l i n e s M: A m o u n t o f b a l e d m a t e r i a l s t h a t c a n b e l o a d e d a n d t r a n s p o r t e d u s i n g a n i n t e r m o d a l c o n t a i n e r N: V a l u e o f t h e r e c y c l a b l e m a t e r i a l s O: A n n u a l c o m p a c t o r c o s t ( $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 ) d i v i d e d b y t o t a l p r o j e c t e d r e c y c l i n g t o n s ( i t e m G ) P: C o m p a c t o r R & M ( $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ) d i v i d e d b y t o t a l p r o j e c t e d r e c y c l e d t o n s ( i t e m G ) Q: F a c i l i t y c o s t ( $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) d i v i d e b y t o t a l p r o j e c t e d r e c y c l e d t o n s ( i t e m G ) R: P r o c e s s i n g c o s t i s a s s u m e d t o b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t o n s S: S h i p p i n g c o s t p e r c o n t a i n e r ( $ 1 , 2 0 0 ) d i v i d e d b y 2 2 t o n s T: M a t e r i a l v a l u e i s a s s u m e d t o b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t o n s U: S u m o f i t e m s O t h r o u g h T V: T o t a l p r o c e s s i n g c o s t p e r t o n ( i t e m U ) m u l t i p l i e d b y t o t a l p r o j e c t e d r e c y c l i n g t o n s ( i t e m G ) W: T o t a l p r o j e c t e d r e c y c l i n g t o n s ( i t e m G ) m u l t i p l i e d b y t h e l a n d f i l l d i s p o s a l c o s t X: T o t a l p r o j e c t e d r e c y c l i n g t o n s d i v i d e d b y t h e n u m b e r o f t o n s ( 4 0 ) d e l i v e r e d t o t h e l a n d f i l l d a i l y . Y: T o t a l p r o c e s s i n g c o s t ( i t e m V ) d i v i d e d b y t o t a l p r o j e c t e d r e c y c l i n g p o u n d s ( i t e m G x 2 , 0 0 0 p o u n d s p e r t o n ) Z: R e c y c l i n g c o s t p e r p o u n d m u l t i p l i e d b y a n n u a l p o u n d s p e r r e s i d e n t ( i t e m D ) RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 111 of 157 KIB Solid Waste Plan Appendix J: Composting 1 Appendix K: Composting 1 INTRODUCTION Composting is the breakdown of organic material through the action of microbes, molds, fungi, and other microorganisms. In the U.S., composting is a popular method of diverting green waste (lawn clippings, leaves, shrub and tree trimmings, etc.) from landfill disposal. Biosolids (sewage sludge), a waste that is difficult to dispose of, can be added to green waste that is being composted. While biosolids composting is less prevalent than yard waste composting, it a useful alternative to either land applying or incinerating biosolids. Composting of municipal solid waste (MSW) is even less common in the U.S., for various reasons discussed below. The goals of all composting programs are to:  Reduce the amount of material being landfilled.  Convert the waste material into a useful soil amendment product with viable markets.  Perform waste collection, composting, and marketing of compost products in a cost- effective manner. Most people are familiar with backyard composting, where green waste is left in a pile to decompose, sometimes in the open, more often in a container with air holes to promote aeration of the pile. Occasional turning or agitation of the pile is necessary to ensure that air/oxygen contacts all the material to promote aerobic conditions (where oxygen is present). Anaerobic conditions encourage different microorganisms that produce unpleasant odors. Fruit and vegetable waste can be added to yard waste, but meat and dairy products contain fat and will cause odors and attract rodents and other pests. Backyard composting is “low-tech”, relatively low cost, and prevents the waste from entering the garbage collection system, saving the cost of hauling. However, it requires yard space and some manual labor to reduce the green matter to a suitably small size and to aerate the pile. Furthermore, waste does not compost well as temperatures approach freezing. Composting on a municipal scale requires the collection of significant amounts of green waste. Generators must either drop off yard waste at central depots, or a curbside collection system (similar to garbage collection) must be implemented. It is preferable not to accept yard waste in plastic bags; these must be opened manually or with special machinery, and residual pieces of plastic in the final compost result in a product that virtually no one will purchase. Automated curbside collection of yard waste, wherein wheeled totes are emptied into the collection vehicle by a mechanical arm, avoids the problem of plastic bag contamination and the tearing of bags as they are lifted. Automated collection is also more efficient, since larger quantities of yard waste can be collected more rapidly than by manually picking up plastic bags. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 112 of 157 KIB Solid Waste Plan Appendix J: Composting 2 2 THE COMPOSTING PROCESS Once the raw materials have been collected, the composting process consists of four basic steps: 1) separation and preparation of the feedstock, 2) decomposition, 3) curing, and 4) finishing or preparation of the end product. 2.1 Feedstock Preparation Organic materials suitable for composting include grass, leaves, tree trimmings, fruit and vegetable waste, land clearing debris, and untreated/unpainted wood, various types of paper, and cardboard. The materials are usually shredded to roughly uniform size using a device such as a tub grinder. A bulking agent is a material added to the raw materials mix to help maintain aerobic conditions by forming voids that ensure adequate flow of air through the compost pile. Wood waste (bark, tree limbs, scrap wood and unpainted lumber) that has been chipped can be used as a bulking agent. Sometimes, tire chips shredded into approximately 2-inch squares are used as a bulking agent. They must later be removed from the finished product by screening. In municipal-scale composting operations, shredded and mixed organic materials are typically placed in long piles called windrows that have a trapezoidal shape in cross- section. A machine called a compost turner travels the length of the windrow, using its blades or paddles to lift, turn, and aerate the mix periodically. Alternatively, the materials can be placed in “vessels”. For small operations, the vessels may be fully enclosed shipping containers modified to include an aeration system where pressurized air is introduced through numerous small orifices in the floor of the container. These enclosed vessels do not utilize any mechanical agitation. For larger operations, the vessels may be indoor concrete troughs similar to parallel swimming pools; a large mixing machine travels on rails down the length of the trough, using blades or paddles to stir up, turn over and the mix. Another type of in- vessel composting utilizes special large diameter plastic tubes filled with the mix and subjected to forced aeration but not agitation. 2.2 Decomposition This is the critical step.  The mesophilic, or moderate temperature lasts for a few days as the microbes rapidly break down the soluble, readily degradable compounds and raise the temperate of the compost to 105° F.  The thermophilic, or high temperature phase, can last from a few days to several months as the microbes increase the compost temperatures to between 130° and 148° F., breaking down proteins, fats, and carbohydrates and also destroying many of the human and plant pathogens. During the thermophilic phase, compost managers use aeration and compost turning to keep temperatures below 150° F. because above RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 113 of 157 KIB Solid Waste Plan Appendix J: Composting 3 150°F, most of the microbes are killed and the rate of decomposition greatly diminishes. When that occurs, the compost mixture may produce odors. 2.3 Curing Cooling and maturation involves a reduced level of biological activity. Curing can take several weeks to months and produces a stable end product. 2.4 Finishing and Preparation of the End Product This can include:  Screening to create a relatively uniform end product size by removing large bulking agents such as wood or tire chips;  Fine grinding to reduce oversized materials  Blending with various additives such as soil and sand  Bagging  Storage in outdoor piles for bulk sales  Shipment. 3 COMPOSTING BIOSOLIDS Biosolids complicate the composting process. First, they have unpleasant odors and are aesthetically quite different from handling “clean green” yard wastes. Second, because they contain large amounts of water (up to 80 or 90 percent), they must be processed on a non-porous floor or pad. They are messy to handle unless significant quantities of bulking agents are added to absorb the excess moisture and create voids in the mixture that promote aeration. Third, although biosolids can be composted in an exposed pile (windrow), this is not recommended because of the odors and the tendency for biosolids to attract flies and other insects. Fourth, because the biosolids are derived from sewage and contain human pathogens, the composting process has more stringent requirements than yard waste composting. The most important standard to be met is PFRP (Process for Further Reduction of Pathogens), as required by US EPA 503 Biosolids rules. One method of meeting PFRP is to maintain the compost mix at 131 deg. F. for 72 hours. A process called Vector Attraction Reduction (VAR) is also required, wherein the compost mix is maintained at 104 deg. F for 14 days. Biosolids composting requires extensive documentation of each batch to demonstrate that the time and temperature requirements have been met. Biosolids compost requires frequent sampling and testing to ensure that it meets the PFRP standards, with an emphasis on pathogen levels. Without certification that the standards have been met, the product may be unsafe and will not likely find any buyers. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 114 of 157 KIB Solid Waste Plan Appendix J: Composting 4 4 COMPOSTING MSW The organic fraction of the MSW stream can be composted. The tonnage that would qualify as organic from the Borough is approximately 53% of the total MSW tons, or 5,880 tons of the 11,030 tons landfilled in 2007. The difficulty lies in separating that organic fraction from the non-compostable fraction in a cost-effective manner. Manual separation of organics is obviously unpleasant, difficult, and prohibitively expensive. Many types of mechanical equipment are available to separate out non-compostable waste based on characteristics such as size, density, magnetic properties, etc. For example, trommels are rotating inclined drums with holes that pass small (e.g. less than 2-inch) items such as stones and broken glass. Disk screens remove large items such as newspaper and cardboard and let smaller items such as cans and bottles fall through the spaces between disks. Ballistic separators vibrate lighter materials up an incline, while heavier items such as bottles roll downhill. Ferrous magnets attract iron and steel. Eddy current magnets eject aluminum itemsand air knives blow light or low-density plastic items out of the waste stream. Unfortunately, this separation equipment is expensive and does not remove all the contaminants. For example, although the pieces of compostable organic material are typically small in size, attempting to separate organics solely by size will result in a feedstock that contains small bits of metal, glass, plastic, stones, and other undesirable matter. Because metal, glass, and plastic are not decomposed during the composting process, they will remain in the final compost product and render it virtually unmarketable. The sort line required for this operation as well as the in-vessel compost units range in cost from $6 million to $12 million in the Continental US. In addition, this equipment would require a new building, thereby adding $5 to $7 million to the cost. Figure 1 on the following page details a typical processing line for MSW and the necessary equipment. There are only 13 facilities in the United States that process and compost MSW. Of those 13, two have recently stopped accepting MSW and have restricted the waste stream to source separated materials such as paper, food scraps, and yard debris. The quality of compost at four of the facilities is so poor that the material is provided free of charge and another facility uses the material as alternative daily cover at the landfill. Ironically, the members of the SWAB were given a presentation in February about the “success” of composting MSW at the Pinetop facility in Lakeside, Arizona. In November 2007, this facility was transitioned from accepting MSW to only paper, cardboard, and biosolids. The primary reason was the compost contained a high amount of glass and other inorganic contaminants that greatly reduced the value farmers and contractors were willing to pay for the product. While composting is an alternative to disposal for organic material in the waste stream, it is not the sole disposal option for the Borough. Assuming a best case scenario of 100% of organic material being composted, the remaining 5,145 tons of inorganic and residual waste will still need to be disposed. Kodiak will still need to maintain the landfill. A composting operation would extend the landfill’s life an additional 6 years at an RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 115 of 157 KIB Solid Waste Plan Appendix J: Composting 5 additional cost of approximately $150 per ton. Given the high capital cost of the facility and the low volume of waste, composting MSW is not a viable disposal alternative to be considered by the Borough. [comments on Fig 1: Note that other types and combinations of equipment can be used to accomplish the functions shown below. For example, a trommel with internal teeth can be used to break open plastic bags. For separation based on size, disk screens (rows of toothed wheels) “float” large items like newspaper and cardboard, while allowing containers, cans, and smaller items to fall through the spaces between the disks. Some degree of manual sorting is typically required, but it is dusty, repetitive work.] RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 116 of 157 KIB Solid Waste Plan Appendix J: Composting 6 Figure 1. Typical Process Flow Diagram for the Composting of MSW (A) Conveyor System Conveyor System (B) Conveyor System (C) Conveyor System (D) (E) (F) Compost to Market (F) Manual Removal of Bulky Materials Plastic Bag Breaker (A) Manual removal of recyclables (B) Screening with Trommel (C) Shredding (D) Magnetic Separation Mixing In-Vessel Composting (E) Maturation Post Processing Bulky Items and Cardboard Paper, Glass, Plastic, and Metals Water, Nutrients & Additives Recoverable Metals Residual Waste to the landfill RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 117 of 157 KIB Solid Waste Plan Appendix J: Composting 7 References William D. Robinson, The Solid Waste Handbook, Wiley-Interscience, 1986 George Tchobanoglous, Frank Kreith, Handbook of Solid Waste Management, Second Edition, McGraw Hill, 2002 Cornell University, College of Science and Engineering, www.css.cornell.edu BioCycle (2007) “Mixed MSW Composting in Transition,” BioCycle November 2007, vol 48, No. 11, pp 22-30 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 118 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 1 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Alternatives RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 119 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 2 1.0 / Landfill Analysis The purpose of this analysis is to generally describe the elements of permitting, design, and construction necessary to develop a modern municipal solid waste landfill. The target facility is one capable of managing and disposing approximately 11,500 tons of municipal solid waste, and 2,100 tons of construction and demolition waste annually on Kodiak Island, Alaska for the Kodiak Island Borough (KIB). Included is a general description of the process, estimated costs associated with each element of the process, and an estimated time frame for completing the process. Figure 1: The following overview of the Kodiak Landfill exhibits the two sites referenced in Section 1.1 plus the initial site researched by CH2M Hill Site 2 North CH2M Hill Site 1 The analysis is applied to two potential sites being considered as new landfill sites in Kodiak. Site 1 is located directly south of the existing KIB Landfill. This site covers approximately 22 acres and is essentially dissected by a non-anadromous (salmon) stream. Site 2 is located directly west of the existing landfill and is currently being used by the VFW for a shooting range. This site covers approximately 56 acres and is located on a ridge line. The analysis includes:  A cost estimate to permit, design and construct a facility that has approximately 5 years of disposal capacity. This estimate essentially applies to both sites. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 120 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 3  An estimate of refuse disposal capacity for both sites when fully developed.  An estimate of annual operating costs.  An estimate of annual costs to fund closure and post – closure activities. 1.1 / Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Basics By law (Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle D), modern municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) and construction and demolition (C&D) waste landfills must be designed and operated to prevent impacts to air quality, groundwater quality, and surface water quality. Generally this is accomplished by placing MSW and C&D waste into containment areas commonly called cells. In general, these cells are lined with a composite liner system that separates waste placed in the cell from underlying soil and groundwater. The composite liner is covered with a leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) that removes leachate captured by the composite liner system. The collected leachate must then be treated, and in a wet climate environment like Kodiak, this treatment is typically accomplished in a wastewater treatment plant before it is discharged. As waste is placed into cells, interim and final cover systems are placed over the waste to prevent surface water and rain water from contacting the waste. In some cases systems are installed to remove landfill gases generated in the waste so that air quality is protected. Occasionally, a separately permitted, designed and constructed facility is developed for disposal of C&D wastes. In the state of Alaska, a C&D landfill may be permitted without a liner and leachate collection system. It is likely that waste placed into the unlined landfill would be limited to inert wastes, which are noncombustible, non-dangerous solid wastes that are likely to retain their physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal, including resistance to biological attack and chemical attack from acidic rain water. Examples include asphalt and concrete. If the inert wastes include organic waste such as wood and sheet rock, or others products that are not likely to retain their physical and chemical structure, then it is common practice to co-mingle the C&D waste with MSW in a composite-lined facility. This analysis assumes that C&D waste will not be co-mingled with MSW waste in a composite lined landfill. The permitting, design, and construction process leading up to eventual operation of a new MSWLF and/or C&D landfill is complex. The process generally includes the following steps: 1. Site selection; 2. Preparing a solid waste management plan; 3. A fatal flaw analysis of the selected site or sites; 4. Site characterization including geologic, hydrogeologic and geotechnical investigations; 5. Land use permitting such as a conditional use permit; 6. Wetlands mitigation permitting, where applicable; 7. Wastewater treatment plant permitting, design and construction, if none are available to serve the new facility; 8. Air quality permits such as new source performance standards (NSPS) permits and Title V permits; 9. Solid waste operating permits; 10. General building permits and other permitting related to utilities and supporting infrastructure; 11. Preparation of construction documents; 12. Bidding and award of a construction contract; 13. Construction itself; RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 121 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 4 14. Construction management, construction quality assurance, and construction certification. In the case of Site 1, the process would also include work to mitigate impacts to the stream that dissects the site. These mitigation measures could include designs to re-route the stream, or designs to develop the landfill around the stream. 1.2 / MSWLF Permit, Design, and Construction Process Site Selection As discussed above, the KIB is considering two potential sites for developing a single new MSWLF and C&D Landfill. Consideration of these two sites should take into account the complex and potentially costly nature of permitting, designing, constructing and operating a modern solid waste disposal facility. The following information is a general synopsis of what may be involved in this process. Solid Waste Management Plan Alaska solid waste regulations require that an applicant for a solid waste permit demonstrate that all reasonable solid waste management options have been considered, and that the permit is consistent with the waste management hierarchy established in AS 46.06.021. The permit application information must be accurate and complete and ensure that the applicant is proposing a waste management system consistent with the hierarchy of source reduction, recycling, treatment, and disposal wherever economically feasible. If the solid waste management plan includes a proposal for a new landfill, the solid waste management plan must be submitted to and approved by the ADEC before a landfill permit application will be considered complete under Alaska state regulation 18 AAC 60.210. The solid waste management planning process is currently under way in the KIB. Land Use Permit Application Permitting a solid waste landfill typically includes a land use permitting process, such as the process to receive a conditional use permit, or some similar type of land use permit. The land use permitting process will require a relatively detailed description of how the land will be used. For this reason, much of the information prepared to obtain a solid waste disposal permit (hydrogeologic report, design report, design drawings, operating plans, closure plans) can also be utilized to apply for and obtain a land use permit. Because of this common use of information, the land use permitting and waste disposal permitting processes can often proceed on a parallel path. Both the solid waste permitting and land use processes include public participation. Public reaction to a new landfill is difficult to predict, but history indicates that some form of negative response can be expected. Because of this negative response, a plan for public awareness and education regarding the design and operation of landfill may be just as important to the process as the design itself. The land use permitting process may require participation of a public affairs consultant and will almost certainly require the services of a land use attorney. In the case of the KIB, each of the two preliminary sites has a clear land use issue. Site number 1, located directly south of the existing landfill, has a non-anadromous stream running through the center. Even if a design were possible to re-route the stream, public perception of impacts to a stream may be severe. If the site were developed around the stream, the total developable area would be significantly impacted as would the total refuse capacity of the site. On the surface, Site 2 would seem like the best choice for the following reasons: RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 122 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 5  Site 2 is larger, which would result in a larger refuse airspace volume (design capacity).  Site 2 appears to be located on a ridge line, therefore controlling storm water run-on to the facility would be less of an engineering problem than Site 1, which is essentially located in a valley.  Site 2 does not have a stream running through it, so all of the acreage could be developed as a landfill. However, Site 2 has been leased to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), and breaking the lease agreement may involve some legal matters. 1.3 / Waste Disposal Permit Application Fatal Flaw Analysis The first step in obtaining a waste disposal permit from the ADEC is typically a fatal flaw analysis of the selected site or sites. This work should be accomplished immediately following site identification and before significant time and effort are spent on permitting efforts. By rule (18 AAC 60), solid waste landfills cannot be sited where the following location restrictions exist:  Located within 10,000 feet of an airport runway used by turbojet aircraft or within 5,000 feet of any airport runway end used by only piston-type aircraft  Located in a 100-year flood plain  Located within a wetland  Located within 200 feet of a fault visible at the surface or shown on a published topographical or geological map, that has had displacement in Holocene time  Located in a seismic impact zone  Located in an unstable area that more likely than not will result in differential settling or ground failure under static conditions or during an earthquake, which pose a potential risk to the integrity of containment structures Although procedures exist to mitigate against these location restrictions, one or all of them could stop a solid waste permitting process for any given site. Therefore, completing this analysis very early in the process is essential. Site Characterization and Hydrogeologic Report The next step in the solid waste permitting process is a thorough site characterization. This includes a combination of records research and site-specific subsurface investigations. The goal of the work is to characterize the geologic, hydrogeologic, and geotechnical aspects of the site with respect to the site’s compatibility with MSWLF design standards. The work commonly involves the installation of groundwater monitoring wells that are utilized to define aquifer conditions and to determine background groundwater quality. In Kodiak this effort may include the determination on whether or not an aquifer of resource value exists at the site. Assuming one does, then a groundwater monitoring system must be installed. Sampling and analysis may be required over an eight-quarter period (2 years) to determine background water quality, and groundwater gradient conditions prior to use of the site. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 123 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 6 Subsurface investigations are also performed to determine the geotechnical aspects of the site. These conditions include soil and bedrock stability, soil and bedrock characteristics, foundation characteristics, and the availability of materials that can be utilized to construct, operate and close the landfill. Based on our site visit to the existing landfill, subsurface conditions for either Site 1 or Site 2 appear to include a thin mantel of soil over hard bedrock. Therefore site development would likely include significant amounts of drilling and shooting to develop the lined landfill configuration. Design Report The design report provides critical design information regarding site analysis, landfill design, and landfill closure. Its primary purpose is to document design methodology and design results that demonstrate the proposed landfill meets all design standards of the solid waste regulations. Critical elements and components of the landfill that would be described in the design report may include:  Demonstration regarding compliance with location restrictions;  Climate conditions at the site;  Proposed site classification;  Summary of the hydrogeologic and geotechnical aspects of the site;  Foundation analysis related to subsurface conditions at the site;  Landfill design capacity, and site life information;  Site soil balance;  Composite liner design;  Composite liner stability analysis;  Leachate collection and removal system design;  HELP modeling;  Leachate treatment design;  Phasing plan for site development and closure;  Closure design;  Final cover stability analysis;  Landfill gas collection and control system design;  Storm water run-on and run-off control designs;  General operational guidelines;  Waste types that are accepted. Design Drawings Design drawings are prepared that complement the design report. They graphically present how the landfill will be constructed, operated and closed. Typical drawings included in a permit application include:  Cover sheet  Regional site plan and vicinity plan  Site plan and current topographic information  Landfill subgrade plan indicating the base grades of the entire proposed landfill footprint before composite liner construction  Composite liner and LCRS plan indicating the limits of composite liner and components of the LCRS RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 124 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 7  Landfill cross sections indicating the relationship between original ground surface, groundwater contours, composite liner surface, and final cover surface  Landfill phasing plan that indicates the sequence of cell development, waste fill placement, and final closure over the entire life of the landfill  Sections and details for the composite liner, LCRS, final cover, and landfill gas collection and control system  Sections and details of the storm water management systems Designing composite liners and leachate collection systems has become common and designing these systems for the new KIB landfill would not pose any significant problems. However, designing a cost-effective system to treat leachate that is collected on the composite liner will pose some engineering challenges. Construction Quality Control and Quality Assurance Plan The purpose of the construction quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) plan is to guide third party observation, testing, and documentation during construction. The goal is to have a plan in place that results in a demonstration that the landfill is constructed and closed in substantial accordance with the design report, design drawings and permit conditions. Contents of a typical QC/QA plan include the following information:  An introduction that defines the format of the document and provides definitions specific to terms used in the document  Definition of personnel and organizations that will be implementing the plan and their roles  Information regarding various project related meetings  Definition of general QC/QA procedures including items such as project reporting, data collection, record keeping, project filing, etc.  Testing program specific to interface shear testing of composite liner and final cover system components  QC/QA procedures related to earthwork construction  QC/QA procedures related to geosynthetics manufacturing and installation  QC/QA procedures for mechanical components such as leachate pumping and piping systems, and landfill gas collection systems Plan of Operation The Plan of Operation defines how the landfill will be operated over the life of the facility. Elements of the plan can include:  Description of personnel and equipment necessary to operate the facility  Site access controls, and systems for accepting and/or rejecting waste that arrives at the facility  Procedures for placing the various types of waste accepted at the landfill  Procedures for placing special wastes such as sewage sludge, asbestos, medical waste, or industrial wastes  Procedures for constructing and maintaining temporary storm water and snow management systems  Procedures for controlling odor, dust, litter, noise, vectors, birds  Operating procedures during severe weather events RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 125 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 8  Emergency and site safety procedures  Procedures for operating, inspecting, maintaining and repairing the LCRS  Procedures for operating, inspecting, maintaining and repairing interim landfill gas collection and control systems  Procedures for inspecting, maintaining and repairing final cover systems that are sequentially installed while other portions of the landfill remain active  Procedures for operating, inspecting, maintaining and repairing leachate treatment systems  Record-keeping and reporting procedures Closure, Post-Closure Plan and Financial Assurance Plan The Closure and Post-Closure Plan (C/PCP) presents plans to close, perform post-closure monitoring and maintenance, and provide closure and post-closure financial assurance for a MSWLF. The closure plan contains a planned approach to close the landfill and incorporates design information provided in the design report. The post-closure plan describes tasks that will be performed during the post-closure period including environmental monitoring, plans to perform post-closure inspections, maintenance, and repair, and procedures for decommissioning leachate treatment systems. The financial assurance plan describes how the owner will fund future closure and post-closure activities. Related Permitting Requirements In addition to land use and solid waste permit applications, other permits may be required to construct and operate landfill systems and support infrastructure. Recent regulations now consider landfills a new emission source under federal and state air quality regulations, and for that reason air quality permitting may be required. These permitting requirements become more stringent if the landfill has a design capacity greater than 2.5 million metric tons. A leachate treatment system will be required to develop a new landfill for the KIB. This will likely require a permitting and land use process similar in nature to the landfill permitting process. If an existing wastewater treatment system were used to treat landfill leachate, upgrades and additional permitting for an existing system may be required. Construction Documents Construction documents include bidding requirements, contract forms, contract conditions, technical specifications, and drawings. Design information provided in the design report is typically used as the basis to prepare specific technical specifications and construction drawings for each phase of development, including the initial phase. Once all design and permitting efforts are complete, then construction documents are prepared. These documents will define construction of the initial cell development, and any support infrastructure necessary to bring the landfill on line. In the case of the KIB facility, we assumed that a 4-acre lined landfill would provide up to 6 years of operating capacity before lateral expansion into a new lined area was required. However, it is possible that a smaller cell (3-acres) would provide the required refuse capacity, so our initial cost estimate could be high. We also assumed that the existing baler facility would serve the new landfill. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 126 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 9 Construction, Construction Management and QC/QA This first phase of construction for a new landfill is typically the most diverse and expensive phase of development, because in addition to constructing the first lined landfill cell, support infrastructure, much of which will be in place for the entire life of the landfill, must also be constructed. Besides retaining a contractor to build the facility, consultants are often retained to assist the owner with construction management and QC/QA services. 1.4 / MSWLF Permit Design and Construction Cost Estimates Permitting, Design, and Construction Costs The cost to permit, design and construct a new MSWLF can vary dramatically from site to site. Two major factors drive the costs during permitting: 1) The complexity of site conditions, and 2) Public acceptance of the facility. Design costs are typically driven by site conditions. For example, if groundwater is very deep below the surface, then the cost of installing a monitoring system may be very high. If the site is located in an exceptionally severe climate, designs to control storm water and to minimize leachate production are emphasized and become costly, as is the case for the KIB. If new leachate treatment systems are required, then an entire set of design obstacles exist that increase engineering and project costs. Construction costs are generally driven by the complexity of the site, availability of natural resources (such as clay for liner system, and gravel for LCRS), and geographic location. For example, if a double liner system is required, obviously the cost of the liner system would increase. While the unit costs of installing composite liner and leachate collection systems components can be reasonably estimated, costs for leachate treatment are difficult to estimate until designs are nearly complete. The geographic location of a site also impacts costs as they relate to labor, mobilizing equipment, and shipping materials. Given these cost variables, developing a new MSWLF in Kodiak, Alaska is likely to cost much more than other landfills in the lower 48 states that have drier climates. Factors that may lead to these high costs include the following:  Public perception  Site characterization costs  Complexity of site conditions and terrain  Severe weather conditions  Leachate treatment  Geographic location RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 127 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 10 The following table summarizes an estimated range of costs to complete the permitting, design and construction of a new MSWLF in Kodiak. Costs are summarized by the major elements described above. These costs are limited to those that would be incurred to permit, design and construct an operating MSWLF that is approximately 4 acres in size with approximately eight years of disposal capacity for 11,500 tons of MSW and 2,100 tons of C&D waste. Beyond the eight years, additional engineering and construction costs would be required to expand the lined area of the landfill and its operating life. Table 1 Landfill Cost Estimates for Kodiak PROCESS ELEMENT LOW ESTIMATE HIGH ESTIMATE Cell Design and Waste System Layout $ 75,000 $ 95,000 ADEC Class I Landfill Permit and Stormwater Plan $ 85,000 $ 105,000 Misc. Related Permit Applications $ 20,000 $ 40,000 Landfill Construction Documents $ 12,000 $ 18,000 Landfill Construction Management and CQA $ 230,000 $ 270,000 Site Preparation, Earthwork, and Construction $ 3,500,000 $ 3,700,000 Liner and Leachate Pipe System $ 150,000 $ 180,000 Leachate Treatment System Construction Documents $ 15,000 $ 25,000 Leachate Treatment System Construction $ 500,000 $1,000,000 TOTAL $ 4,587,000 $ 5,433,000 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 128 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 11 Leachate Treatment In the absence of even a conceptual leachate treatment system design, our leachate treatment cost estimate is limited to estimating leachate production, and estimating treatment costs on a per gallon basis. Leachate production estimates are based on a 4-acre active cell, and either 50 percent of precipitation hitting the cell becoming leachate, or 90 percent of precipitation hitting the cell becoming leachate. Kodiak receives approximately 68 inches of precipitation annually. Based on 50 percent of the annual precipitation hitting the 4-acre landfill and becoming leachate, annual leachate production would be approximately 3,692,944 gallons. If 90 percent of the precipitation hitting the 4-acre cell became leachate, annual leachate production would be 6,647,299 gallons. The following table summarizes potential annual leachate treatment costs. Table 2 Estimated Cost of Leachate Treatment Assumed Treatment Cost Per Gallon Assumed Annual Leachate in Gallons Annual Cost $.05 per Gallon 3,692,944 $184,647 $.05 per Gallon 6,647,299 $332,365 $0.15 per Gallon 3,692,944 $553,942 $0.15 per Gallon 6,647,299 $997,095 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 129 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 12 Design Capacity Design capacity is defined as the volume of waste and daily cover soil that can be placed in a landfill, and it excludes the volume of liner and final cover systems. Gross estimates of design capacity were made for Sites 1 and 2. Assumptions used in the estimates follow. Site 1  The site is generally rectangular in shape with the four sides having the following dimensions 1,087’ x 945’ x 1012’ x 919’;  A 100-foot setback from all four sides to the edge of waste would be required;  Re-routing the stream or avoiding development near the stream would consume 50 percent of the developable area;  Developing the lined landfill configuration would include excavating an average of 20 feet below existing ground surface;  Perimeter waste slopes would be no steeper than 4 horizontal to 1 vertical (4H:1V) Based on these assumptions, the estimated design capacity of Site 1 would be 600,000 cubic yards or approximately 400,000 tons. Assuming that the annual fill rate at the landfill was 20,000 cubic yards, Site 1 could potentially provide 30 years of disposal capacity. Figure 2: Overview of the Kodiak Landfill looking north Site 1 North RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 130 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 13 Site 1 Figure 3: Overview of the Kodiak Landfill looking south Site 1 North This is the view of the landfill from the south with Site 1 outlined in white. The photo details the contours of the ridge that runs north to south, separating the existing landfill (left side of the photo) from the land used by the VFW (right side of this photo). RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 131 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 14 Site 2  The site is generally rectangular in shape with the four sides having the following dimensions: 2024’ x 966’ x 2360’ x 1269’;  A 100-foot setback from all four sides to the edge of waste would be required;  Developing the lined landfill configuration would include excavating an average of 20 feet below existing ground surface;  Perimeter waste slopes would be no steeper than 4 horizontal to 1 vertical (4H:1V) Based on these assumptions, the estimated design capacity of Site 2 would be 4,500,000 cubic yards or approximately 3,000,000 tons. Assuming that the annual fill rate at the landfill was 20,000 cubic yards, Site 2 could potentially provide 225 years of disposal capacity. If leachate treatment systems and other infrastructure had to be constructed on site, this would reduce the available design capacity for both sites. Without any details for this infrastructure, we estimate the design capacity reduction for both sites would be approximately 20 percent. Figure 4: Overview of the area leased to the VFW, Kodiak landfill to the east Site 2 The proposed area for Site 2 is currently leased to the VFW until 2027 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 132 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 15 Closure and Post-Closure Funding Funding for closure and post-closure costs should be built into the cost of operating a landfill, because collection of money to fund closure and post-closure must be included in rates charged to the facility users. Closure of landfills can cost just as much as installing base liner systems. Based on this, closure of a landfill in Kodiak could cost $150,000 to $250,000 per acre. Assuming Site 2 is constructed, when fully developed it would cover approximately 42 acres, meaning closure costs would be between $6,300,000 and $10,500,000. Post-closure inspection, maintenance, repair and environmental monitoring can cost approximately $100,000 to $150,000 per year for a 30-year period, which adds $3,000,000 to $4,500,000 to the funding requirement. This means that the total closure and post-closure funding requirement could be between $9,300,000 and $15,000,000. Based on Site 2 receiving approximately 3,000,000 tons of waste during its active life, disposal rates would have to include a $3.10 to $5.00 surcharge to cover closure and post-closure costs. Although this is a simple estimate that doesn’t include factors such as interest on deposits and inflation, it does point out the importance of at least estimating these costs when estimating the total cost of operating a modern landfill. Projected Disposal Fees Considering all the previously mentioned costs to permit and construct a lined cell, the projected tip fee based on 11,500 tons of MSW and 2,100 tons of C&D debris will range in cost from $212 per ton to $258 per ton. The complete details of the landfill costs and projected life are detailed at the end of this report. Recommendation Landfilling of waste is a widely accepted and proven technology for the disposal of waste. The KIB should give full consideration to expanding the landfill for future disposal. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 133 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 16 2.0 / Incineration Analysis Introduction Incineration is a waste treatment technology that involves the combustion of organic materials and/or substances. Incineration and other high temperature waste treatment systems are described as "thermal treatment". Incineration of waste materials converts the waste into ash, flue gases, particulates, and heat, which can in turn be used to generate electricity. The flue gases are cleaned for pollutants before they are dispersed in the atmosphere. The purpose of using incineration as a waste disposal method in the KIB would be to reduce the amount of MSW (municipal solid waste) requiring landfill disposal. However, approximately 10-25% by weight of the waste stream would still need to be landfilled. This waste would consist of non- combustibles that will not burn at all, such as glass, metal, concrete, soil; ash, meaning combustible material that passes through the incinerator but does not burn completely; and bulky waste that is too large to fit into the incinerator. 2.1 / Waste Streams Used as Feedstocks What types of wastes are suitable for incineration? In general the following types of wastes are suitable for incineration: • Garbage, trash, or refuse generated by residences, offices, businesses and similar institutions. This includes paper, plastic, food waste, cardboard, leather, textiles, wood and similar materials that are not in a suitable condition for recycling or re-use because they are broken, dirty or otherwise contaminated. • Small amounts of metals, glass, dirt, rocks, concrete, and other non-combustible materials mixed in with solid waste. These materials do not burn; furthermore, they cause wear and damage to incineration equipment. However, they are tolerated because it is generally not practical to sort out and remove such materials from the waste stream. • Automobile and pickup truck tires can be burned, but the rate at which tires are fed to the incinerator must be carefully controlled to minimize air emissions from the tires. What types of wastes are not suitable for incineration? The following types of wastes are not suitable for incineration: • Chemical and hazardous wastes, whether from residential, commercial, or industrial sources. • Large tires such as from earth-moving equipment are generally not suitable for burning. • Bulky wastes such as couches, mattresses, and other items that are too large to fit into the incinerator feed hopper. • Wastes containing large amounts of metal, glass, or other non-combustible materials. • Wastes that could otherwise go to a landfill permitted to receive inert waste. Examples of these materials are tree stumps, concrete, rubble, broken asphalt, bricks, and gypsum wallboard. • Yard wastes such as lawn clippings, leaves, tree and shrub trimmings contain too much moisture to burn efficiently and will generally decrease the efficiency of incineration. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 134 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 17 What about medical wastes? Modular incinerators are still used to burn medical waste in the U.S., although other methods of disposing of medical waste have become more popular. The existing Kodiak incinerator is currently used to burn medical waste and pathological waste (animal carcasses) and could continue to be used for these wastes. It could potentially serve as a back-up to a new MSW incinerator, although there are a number of reservations: 1. The existing unit was designed for batch processing, not continuous burning. 2. Because its throughput capacity is quite small (on the order of 1-2 tons per day), it should probably be used to burn only the most putrescible and odor-causing waste. 3. A modification to its medical waste permit may be required to allow burning of MSW. 4. Regulators may require the existing unit to be connected to the new air pollution control system associated with the new MSW incinerator. 5. Regulators may allow the new MSW unit, which is likely to be more efficient, to also burn medical and pathological waste. The existing unit would only be used in emergencies as a back-up. Figure 1: KIB Incinerator How are materials separated prior to burning? • It is difficult to separate suitable from unsuitable materials. A skid-steer loader (such as a “Bobcat”) may be used to push relatively large, unsuitable materials such as furniture and metal objects off to one side of the facility tipping floor. • Manual separation is inefficient, unpleasant, and exposes workers to health and ergonomic hazards. Manual separation should be minimized. • Vehicles carrying yard, construction / demolition, and bulky wastes such as couches and mattresses can be required to unload in an area that does not receive solid waste for burning. This is an effective way to keep these unsuitable materials out of the incinerator feedstock, but may be an inconvenience to customers, especially if the materials are mixed in a single load. How do seasonal waste fluctuations affect incineration? In most geographic areas solid waste experiences some seasonal fluctuations. For example, more waste is typically generated during warmer months than colder months, except for the Christmas holiday period. During the holidays there are surges in shopping, consumption, and resultant refuse disposal. Tonnage spikes are also attributed to spring and fall cleanups. During periods of significant rainfall, the waste may contain more moisture and therefore not burn as well as during drier periods. An incineration facility could adjust its operating hours to match seasonal fluctuations in waste tonnage. 2.2 / Incinerator Technologies What types of incineration technology have been used in the United States? The following incineration technology has been used in the United States for MSW: RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 135 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 18 • Controlled-air, modular (factory-fabricated) units are suitable for a facility with a total capacity of up to about 150 Tons per Day (TPD). At about 45 to 50 TPD, Kodiak would fall into this category. • Mass burn, field-assembled facilities of 500 to 3,000 TPD are used to serve large urban areas. This technology will not be suitable or cost-effective for the KIB due to the relatively small quantity of solid waste projected over the next 30 years. • Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) field-assembled units are suitable only for areas with high waste generation. They require shredding of MSW and removal of non-combustibles prior to burning. There are very few operating RDF facilities in the United States. Like mass burn, this technology is not applicable to the KIB due to the small amount of disposed tonnage. • Rotary kiln and fluidized bed units utilize different technology to promote clean burning. This technology does not have an established history of operation in the U.S. Since the 1970s, the vast majority of small (less than about 150 TPD capacity) U.S. incineration facilities have employed controlled-air, modular units. While mass burn incinerators are more efficient at generating electricity, they are not the appropriate choice of technology for areas with relatively small waste streams such as the KIB. Most waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities currently operating in the U.S. and Europe utilize mass burn technology; Spokane, Washington and Marion County (in Brooks) Oregon are two examples. How does a modular incinerator work? The term “modular incinerator” is synonymous with “controlled-air incinerator.” A modular incinerator uses a three-step process to heat and dry the waste, release volatile combustible gases, and finally burn the gases. Waste is loaded into a feed hopper and then pushed into the primary chamber by a hydraulic ram. The waste sits on a stair-step series of stationary hearths. A hydraulic ram pushes the waste across each hearth and tumbles it down to the next lower level hearth, promoting burnout of the waste. The primary chamber uses the principle of pyrolysis to burn waste with less than the amount of oxygen required for complete combustion (called sub-stoichiometric conditions). By using less air in the primary chamber, less particulate matter is carried into the secondary chamber by the hot gases. Burners fired with oil or natural gas maintain the primary chamber temperature at about 1,600 degrees F. An ash ram pushes the residue through an opening at the far end of the primary chamber, where it drops into a water-filled tank for quenching (cooling). A chain conveyor is typically used to drag the ash up an incline and into a dump truck or container, for subsequent disposal in a landfill that is specifically designed and permitted to receive ash. Volatile gases flow from the primary to the secondary (oxidizer) chamber where more combustion air is added to consume carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organics. State regulations require that the gases be exposed to elevated temperatures for at least 1-2 seconds, which may require a third (tertiary) chamber. Fossil fuel-fired burners maintain secondary and tertiary chambers at a temperature required by local regulations, typically 1,800 degrees F. The basic design elements and layout of a typical modular incinerator are presented in the following diagram. . RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 136 of 157 Ap p e n d i x L : K o d i a k D i s p o s a l O p t i o n s 19 Sc h e m a t i c o f M o d u l a r I n c i n e r a t o r (C o u r t e s y o f A C S , I n c . ) RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 137 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 20 2.3 / Air Pollution Control What are the regulations for incinerator air pollution? The numerous Federal, state and local regulations for air emissions from incinerators address a wide variety of air pollutants including particulate matter, acid (corrosive) gases, and compounds that are toxic or otherwise hazardous to the health of humans, animals, and plants. Incinerators in the capacity range of 35 to 250 TPD (the range of interest to the KIB) are governed by Federal regulations 40 CFR Part 60, “New Source Performance Standards for New Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units; Final Rule”, promulgated on December 6, 2000 and its subsequent subpart EEEE “Other Solid Waste Incineration Units, Final Rule” Dec. 16, 2005. The air pollutants covered under these regulations include dioxins/furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and fugitive ash. These regulations are comprehensive and cover the following major aspects of an incineration system: • Pre-construction requirements • Materials separation plan • Siting analysis • Good combustion practices • Operator training • Operator certification • Operating requirements • Emission limits • Monitoring (automated continuous emissions monitoring for carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide) • Stack testing • Record – keeping and reporting Figure 2: Incinerator & Scrubber System As a minimum, a 50 TPD incinerator in the KIB will need to meet the Federal air emissions limits of 40 CFR Part 60 and subpart EEEE (the NSPS regulations cited above). Furthermore, State of Alaska and local officials have the option of making the limits even more stringent. Emissions requirements would not be finalized until a permit application was actually submitted to state and local authorities. A Title I (Federal) permit application, based on the anticipated performance of the incineration and air pollution equipment, would be necessary to begin construction. Within one year after facility startup, a Title V (Federal) permit application is required to demonstrate that the installed equipment actually meets emissions and operational requirements. It may be possible to claim exemption from some of the Federal 40 CFR 60 subpart EEEE regulations by meeting both of these criteria: • The unit must be “rural”, defined as being located at least 50 miles from a city listed as a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). (Kodiak is over 300 miles from Anchorage, the nearest MSA). • The incinerator must be located in an area “where alternative disposal options are not available or are economically infeasible.” RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 138 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 21 If Kodiak’s new incinerator were granted a rural exemption, it would have to re-apply for that exemption every 5 years. The uncertainty of permitting conditions as described above poses some degree of implementation risk for an incinerator. What is the trend for regulation of small incinerators? In general, the trend over the last 15 years has been to make air pollution regulations more stringent, thus decreasing the level of air emissions allowed. Operating conditions and operator training requirements have become tougher as well. Gaining a rural exemption under subpart EEEE could reduce the cost of building and operating a new incinerator in Kodiak. However, there is still some risk that the exemption might not be renewed because of a change in regulations. How is incinerator air pollution controlled? Hot gases from an incinerator are treated in a scrubber to remove particulate matter, acid gases, and toxic compounds. First, the gases must be cooled from about 1,800 degrees F down to less than about 400 degrees F. This can be accomplished by sending the gases through a boiler or heat exchanger to remove heat and lower the temperature. Alternatively the gases can be sprayed with water (or a lime solution) to quench (cool) the gases. Carbon particles are minimized by maintaining proper combustion conditions – adequate temperature of about 1,800 degrees F, turbulence in the combustion chambers, and sufficient residence time in the incinerator. Carbon and metal particles can be captured in a fabric filter (often called a baghouse) that works like a furnace filter or vacuum cleaner bag. Alternatively, the particles can be electrically charged and then captured on magnetized metal plates in an electrostatic precipitator, similar to a household electronic air cleaner. Typical acid gases such as hydrochloric and sulfuric acid result from burning waste that contains chlorine (e.g., vinyl plastics or food waste that contains salt) or sulfur. Contacting the acid gases with lime or a similar alkaline solution can neutralize these gases. Dry scrubbers inject dry lime powder into the gas stream, while wet scrubbers use a liquid lime solution. In the latter case, the water evaporates and the lime particles, along with sulfur or chlorine compounds, are captured by the particle-removal device (bag house or precipitator described above). Toxic or hazardous compounds are controlled by: • Banning them from the waste entering into the incinerator (directing them to a licensed hazardous waste facility). • Maintaining proper combustion conditions as described above for particles. • Capturing them along with the lime particles. • Injecting powdered, activated carbon into the gas stream. Toxic compounds attach to the carbon powder and are captured in the precipitator or bag house. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 139 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 22 2.4 / Ash Disposal How would an incineration facility dispose of its ash? An incinerator produces two kinds of ash: 1) bottom ash (metal, glass, soil, rocks, unburnable materials, plus partially burned pieces of potentially burnable materials) and 2) fly ash (particulate matter captured by the air pollution control system). In general, bottom ash is less of an environmental concern because toxic compounds are less likely to leach out of bottom ash. Fly ash may contain heavy metals and other toxic compounds and is considered more of an environmental concern. Based on the tonnage of waste processed by the incinerator (i.e. greater than 20 tons/day), the resulting ash must be disposed in a Class I municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF), in accordance with 18 AAC 60.300(c)(1). A Class I landfill newer than 1991 requires a liner. While the KIB landfill is a Class I landfill, it does not have a liner. The KIB has applied for approval from DEC to dispose of ash into the current active cell. Once the current cell capacity is reached, a new lined cell would have to be constructed. Incinerator ash must pass the Federal Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test before it can be disposed in a landfill. Ash must be tested on a regular basis, with frequency of testing determined by state or local environmental officials. If the ash proves to be hazardous, it would be prohibited from disposal in the KIB Landfill. Disposal at a licensed hazardous waste landfill would likely be more expensive than at the KIB Landfill and involve higher transportation costs. This uncertainty about ash disposal is another implementation risk for a new incinerator in Kodiak. If there is no locally available ash landfill, what are the implications/options? The nearest landfills with a permitted ash cell are the Allied Waste Regional Landfill located near Roosevelt, Washington and the Columbia Ridge Regional Landfill owned by Waste Management located in Arlington, Oregon. Ash would need to be shipped by barge to this landfill in enclosed shipping containers or top-loaded boxes with a weather/bird resistant cover approved by regulatory officials, possibly including the Coast Guard. 2.5 / Incineration Operation What operating cycle would the incinerator use? In general, it is more efficient to operate an incinerator continuously (24 hours a day). Intermittent operation (“cycling” the incinerator) requires fossil fuel to heat up the incinerator to proper burning temperatures after it has cooled down from inactivity. Heating and cooling cycles can eventually cause damage to the refractory (“fire brick”) lining of the incinerator chambers, increasing repairs, an important component of operating and maintenance (O & M) costs. An incinerator of a given capacity and sized for 24 hour / day operation will be smaller than one sized for 8 hour / day operation. Therefore, the continuous-burn (24 hour / day) unit will have a lower capital cost. Fossil fuel use will be lower as well, since the incinerator does not need to be warmed up each morning. Modular incinerators typically operate 5 days a week, allowing the weekend for cool-down and maintenance. A two-week shutdown for annual maintenance and overhaul is also typical. Therefore, 250 operating days per year is normally assumed when calculating the necessary incineration capacity. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 140 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 23 2.6 / Potential Incineration Facility in the KIB What would be the major components of an incineration facility? An incineration facility for KIB would require the following major components: • Scales and scale house. • Incinerator building with waste receiving and storage areas, control room, restrooms/locker rooms, lunch room/ meeting room, office, storage, and maintenance shop. • Modular (controlled air) incinerators and air pollution control system. Some of the equipment might be located outdoors. • Site roadways, landscaping, parking and stormwater control. • Utilities: sewer, water, stormwater, natural gas (or other fossil fuel), electricity, phone, Internet. • Rolling stock: front-end loader or tool-carrier with various attachments, pickup truck. A waste-to-energy (WTE) facility would require all of the above, plus the following: • Steam generating equipment (boiler). • If generating electricity: a steam turbine, electrical generator, electrical substation and power transmission lines. Would waste-to-energy (WTE) make incineration more attractive financially? The heat released by burning solid waste is typically captured in a boiler, producing steam and (in a few cases) hot water. Steam can be piped directly for use in space heating, industrial processes, or drying applications. In many European cities, it is common to have “district heating” systems of underground pipes that send steam to nearby buildings to provide space heating. In the U.S., steam is typically used to turn a steam turbine that in turn drives an electrical generator. Most large (over 400 TPD) U.S. incineration systems generate and sell electricity to help offset their operating costs. The following factors contribute to the success of a WTE system: • A long-term, reliable, politically stable supply of solid waste. This generally requires that local jurisdictions sign an agreement that commits them to send a certain amount of solid waste to the WTE plant each year. Each jurisdiction pays for incineration of a guaranteed minimum quantity of waste, regardless of whether it actually delivers the waste. The agreement must last long enough to recover the cost of the plant. • Sufficient revenue to recover capital costs (interest and principal on borrowed funds) and operating costs (labor, utilities, ash disposal, equipment replacement, repairs, etc.). Revenues include: o Tipping fees ($/ton charged to dispose of waste at the WTE plant); o Income from the sale of electricity or steam; and o Funds contributed by local governments. • Continuing citizen support for the WTE facility and its operations. Dealing with citizen protests or lawsuits regarding issues such as air or water emissions, odors, truck traffic, etc. is time-consuming and expensive. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 141 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 24 • Stable regulatory environment. Essential changes in regulations may require frequent and/or expensive upgrades or changes in plant operation, the costs of which may be difficult to recover without increasing tipping fees. • A basic incineration facility requires incinerators, waste storage and administration buildings, air pollution control equipment, and a control system. A WTE plant requires all that, plus a steam turbine, electric generator, electrical switching gear, and a more sophisticated control system. Funding either an incineration facility or a WTE plant will probably require the sale of bonds. • The approximately 11,500 tons per year (TPY) of disposed municipal solid waste from the KIB represents a relatively small quantity of MSW to burn, compared with other U.S. locations where WTE has been successful. Small amounts of waste convert to small amounts of steam or electricity and result in a small revenue stream that will not justify the additional construction and operating costs of steam generation and electrical generation equipment required for a WTE facility. • Selling steam requires a major steam customer in close proximity to the WTE plant. A piping system to deliver steam and return condensate (water from the condensed steam) must be constructed between the WTE plant and the steam customer. Unlike Europe, it is rarely the case that an American industrial steam user is located an economical distance from the WTE plant. Furthermore, the WTE plant would be required to deliver steam according to the customer’s demand schedule, typically 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for most industries. The modular incinerators that would likely be used at a KIB facility may be continuous (24 hour/day) units, but most likely will be shut down on weekends and are not suitable for 24/7 operation. The incineration facility would probably operate 5 days a week before shutting down on the weekend for cleaning and routine maintenance. The resulting intermittent steam delivery would likely not be acceptable to most industrial users. • Selling electricity requires even more infrastructure. Besides the boiler to produce steam, there is a steam turbine / generator combination to generate electricity. Although the retail price of electricity (cents per kilowatt hour) may seem high to most homeowners, a WTE plant would be selling electricity at wholesale rates that are considerably lower. Utilities are no longer required by law to purchase electricity from small facilities such as WTE plants. A KIB WTE facility would produce relatively small amounts of power. Furthermore, the power would be intermittent (say 5 days a week) and not have the high degree of reliability required by a utility. For these reasons, a KIB WTE facility would probably be paid lower rates for its electricity. Pending a detailed cost / benefit analysis, it seems unlikely that a WTE facility would be able to cover its operating costs and pay off its loans or bonds by using the small revenue stream resulting from sale of small amounts of electricity or steam, unless tipping fees were relatively high to make up the difference. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 142 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 25 2.7 / Costs What order-of-magnitude / planning level capital costs should be expected? “Hard” components of the capital cost include: • Site improvements (roadways, parking, utilities) • Off-site improvements (access roads, traffic signals) • Retrofit of existing and/or construction of new buildings • Equipment purchase and installation “Soft” components of the capital cost include: • Environmental and land use permitting process (cost increases in proportion to the amount of opposition to the project). An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be required for permitting a facility in Kodiak. • A health risk assessment may be required by local authorities. • Engineering feasibility studies, designs, plans and specifications. • Legal fees during project development. • Administration / staff time during project development. • Economic feasibility studies, financing arrangements, bond reports. • If WTE, negotiation of power sales agreement. • Testing of air emissions from completed facility to obtain a permit to operate. Very few incineration facilities have been constructed in the U.S. in the last 10 years. In 2005, a small (about 4 TPD) incineration only (not WTE) facility was built in Bridgewater, New Hampshire for about $2 million (M. Milnes, VP of ACS). Advanced Combustion Systems (ACS), a Bellingham, Washington manufacturer, provided the incinerator, air pollution control equipment, controls and air emissions monitoring equipment. Besides the equipment and the usual site improvements, the $2 million cost included closing / capping a small existing landfill and providing propane storage (natural gas was not available as an auxiliary fuel). It is not clear whether the town already owned the land, or had to purchase it for this project. The costs for Bridgewater are indicative of the range and types of capital costs for incineration facilities, but are not strictly comparable with Kodiak, since at 45 TPD the KIB facility would be considerably larger. Developing an accurate engineering cost estimate for an MSW incinerator in the KIB is made difficult by the following factors: 1. For the last three years or more, construction costs have escalated at rates far in excess of historical rates. The cost of basic building materials (cement, steel, etc.) has escalated between 15 and 50%. So many projects are currently under construction that contractors have difficulty finding qualified subcontractors to perform various trade work such as concrete, plumbing, etc. This labor shortage tends to drive up prices. The combination of volatile material costs and a shortage of experienced labor have made it very difficult to accurately predict what it will cost to construct a project. 2. The “premium” for work in Alaska due to overall higher construction costs, partly due to higher freight and shipping costs, adds another degree of complexity to the cost estimating. 3. Permitting costs are an uncertainty. Regulatory agencies generally wait until they see a detailed facility proposal before they develop their specific list of permit requirements. For example, RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 143 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 26 an agency may wait to gauge the public’s reaction to a proposed incinerator before requiring a health risk assessment to examine potential health impacts to humans in the vicinity of an incinerator. Experience has shown that as opposition grows, agencies tend to request increasing amounts of technical documentation to demonstrate that the facility will not harm humans or the environment. 4. It is tempting to accept an unsolicited cost proposal from a developer or equipment supplier as being independent, reliable and comprehensive. The equipment costs may be reasonably accurate and up-to-date, but equipment is only one major component of the total project cost. It is unlikely that the buildings and site infrastructure have been engineered to the level of detail necessary to provide an accurate construction cost estimate. In addition, developers may assume that there will be minimal opposition and few environmental hurdles. This is often not the case, and permitting costs can easily be underestimated. In light of the factors discussed above, a very preliminary planning-level estimate of project costs (engineering, permitting, construction, emissions testing and startup) for an incineration – only plant could range from about $5 to 6 million (2007 dollars), excluding land purchase. Upgrading to WTE could add another $2 to 3 million. To get more precise cost estimates one must develop a specific project scope and solicit bids. What order-of-magnitude / planning level operating costs should be expected? Operating costs depend on a variety of factors, including: • Labor (scale attendant/bookkeeper, plant operators/equipment drivers, maintenance personnel, and plant manager, etc.). Labor rates and customary fringe benefits vary widely between geographic areas and public/private sectors • Insurance (liability, fire, property damage, environmental pollution, etc.) • Utilities (water, sewer, electricity, stormwater disposal, phone, Internet) • Permits and fees (solid waste, sewer, air pollution, etc.) • Periodic air emissions and ash testing, including laboratory analysis and reporting to regulatory agencies • Ash disposal (assume that 1 ton of MSW produces about 0.2 tons of ash). Cost of ash disposal can vary quite significantly depending upon the mode in which it must be disposed. If ash fails the TCLP test and is classified as hazardous waste, it will have to be shipped to a permitted hazardous waste handling and disposal facility in either Oregon or Washington. • Equipment maintenance • Sinking fund to pay for major refurbishment of equipment (e.g. every 5 years) • Site and building maintenance • Emergency fund Operating costs in the range of $70 to $120 per ton (2007) could be expected. Many costs (some labor, insurance, permits, some utilities, sinking fund, building maintenance, and emergency fund) will be relatively constant, provided a certain threshold amount of waste is burned each year. However, some costs will vary in proportion to the amount of waste burned (ash disposal, electricity). What factors contribute to a financially successful incineration facility? • Adequate tipping fee to cover capital and operating costs, plus a sinking fund to cover periodic major maintenance, overhaul, and upgrade. • A reliable, long – term waste supply. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 144 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 27 • A stable regulatory environment and citizens that support the facility rather than continually trying to shut it down. What impact would attracting more (or other) types of waste have on incineration economics? Modular incinerators are used to burn medical waste in the U.S., although other methods of disposing of medical waste are becoming more popular. While operating parameters (e.g. amount of combustion air, process control, etc.) may be slightly different for solid waste, medical waste and animal carcasses, it is technically feasible to burn all three types of waste in the same modular incinerator. However, there may be regulatory requirements that limit or prohibit burning of medical wastes in the same incinerator. Regulations may require the two wastes to be burned at separate times. In the 1990s this was the case in Ferndale, Washington where an incinerator burned medical waste exclusively during certain hours each week, and solid waste the remainder of the time. Burning medical wastes in the same incinerator used for solid waste could provide additional income to the facility and help dispose of a difficult waste. On the other hand, local authorities may require that MSW be burned in a totally separate incinerator from the one used for medical waste and animal carcasses. The table on the following page details the projected cost to procure, site, and operate an incinerator in Kodiak. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 145 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 28 Table 1 Projected Incineration Disposal Cost for Kodiak Fixed Costs Note Land KIB Landfill Utilities Upgrade $ 40,000 A Building Retrofit and Additions 2,000,000 B Engineering, Design, and Permitting 300,000 C Misc. Equipment 250,000 D Incinerator/Air Pollution System Equipment & Installation 2,800,000 E Total Land, Building, and Incinerator 5,390,000 F Monthly build payment @ 6% for 15 years 45,484 G Annual Fixed Cost $ 545,807 H Annual Variable Costs I Labor (assume 8 people for continuous burn incinerator) $ 875,000 J Equipment and Building Maintenance and Repairs 75,000 K Diesel Fuel @ $6 per gallon (13 gallons per hour) 468,000 L Utilities 50,000 M Operating Supplies and Equipment 70,000 N Regular Air Emissions and Ash Testing 100,000 O Ash Disposal 56,000 P Insurance 50,000 Q Sinking Fund for Major Maintenance/Replacements 100,000 R Equipment and Vehicle Costs 50,000 S Landfill Operational Costs 272,000 T Landfill Closure Costs 272,000 U Total Estimated Annual Variable Costs $ 2,438,000 V Total Annual Cost ( H + V) $ 2,983,807 W Total Waste Tons (11,538 MSW + 2,107 C&D) 13,645 X Estimated Disposal Fee per Ton $ 219 Y Notes A: Upgrade electricity, water, and sewer service to the facility B: Upgrade the baler building to sort waste and house the incinerator C: Facility siting study, public involvement program, solid waste and air pollution permits D: Equipment needed to pull materials out of the waste stream prior to incineration and to pull metals and other inerts from the ash E: Approximate cost of an incinerator, air pollution control (APC) equipment and control system F: Total of items A through E G: Monthly payment on a note for $5,390,000 over a fifteen year period @ 6% interest H: Annual Fixed Cost (Monthly payment amount x 12 months) I: Variable costs J: Labor cost is assumed at $87,500 per person (fully loaded rate) for a staff of 10 K: Repair and routine maintenance for the building, site, and equipment L: The incinerator burns 13 gallons of diesel per hour. The incinerator will burn continuous for 24 hours a day, 5 days a week for 50 weeks a year. The incinerator will be shut down for an annual two week period for routine maintenance. M: Approximate cost of electricity, water, and sewer N: Approximate annual supply cost RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 146 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 29 O: Approximate cost of compliance P: Costs associated with operations at the landfill (testing, etc.) Q: Assumed cost of insurance R: Annual amount set aside for replacement and repair, excluding items covered in Note K S: Cost of equipment and vehicles at the landfill T: Cost to run the landfill @ $20 per ton x 13,600 annual tons U: Closure costs @ $20 per ton x 13,600 annual tons V: The sum of items J through U W: Annual fixed cost plus the annual variable cost V: Total MSW tons of 11,538 plus the annual 2,107 tons of construction and demolition waste W: Total annual cost of $2,983,807divided by the annual 13,645 waste tons 2.8 / Policy Considerations What is the compatibility of incineration with an emphasis on waste reduction/recycling (diversion)? Recycling materials such as newspaper, cardboard, office paper, and plastics will reduce the amount of combustible material going to the incinerator. This will decrease the average heating value of the waste and make it more difficult to burn, since wet wastes such as food scraps would then comprise a larger percentage of the waste after dry recyclables such as paper and plastic were removed. On the other hand, recycling glass and metal containers will reduce the amount of non-combustibles in the waste stream and thus increase its average heating value, making it burn more easily. Removal of glass and metal, which are abrasive and can damage the refractory lining of the incinerator, helps reduce wear and damage to the incinerator. Some recyclables (paper, plastics) are burnable and others (metals, glass) are not. Kodiak’s population and disposed trash growth rates are relatively flat. It is not expected there will be significant increases in either category of material. If an aggressive waste reduction / recycling program is instituted after the incinerator is built, it may draw tonnage away from the incinerator, thus raising the cost per ton of waste that actually passes through the incinerator. Labor and fuel costs may decrease somewhat as tonnage decreases due to recycling, but the incinerator itself will be somewhat oversized. 2.9 / Conclusion and Rationale Considering the technical, economic, environmental, public acceptance factors and implementation risks associated with an incineration facility, would incineration be feasible in the KIB? While incineration is technically feasible, permitting and cost are significant hurdles. The most reliable way to obtain accurate cost information regarding incineration is a staged procurement process: • Develop a preliminary project summary (for example, waste flow, site, permit conditions, range of proposed tip fees, potential KIB construction and operating budget). • Request letters of interest and qualifications from equipment vendors and facility operators. • Based on the quality of responses and range of preliminary costs, determine whether a formal Request-for-Proposals (RFP) is justified. • If the KIB determines that incineration could be economically feasible, develop a detailed RFP and draft contract, and advertise for bids. • Evaluate bids and select a suitable proposal. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 147 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 30 The complete details of incineration costs follow this report. REFERENCES Incineration report completed by Terrill Chang, P.E. EnviroMech, Waste-to-Energy Feasibility Study for Coos County, Oregon, 2002 Communication with Mike Milnes, VP of Advanced Combustion Systems, Bellingham, WA, July 27, 2006. Communication with Jim Baumgartner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), August 8, 2007; 907 / 465 – 5108 Communication with Karin Hendrickson, ADEC, August 9, 2007; 907 / 269 – 7626 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 148 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 31 3.0 / Waste Export / Waste-By-Barge Barging waste to an off-island landfill is the simplest method of disposal and the most expensive. Shipping expenses, which have been historically volatile, comprise 85% of the total projected costs. Contracting for disposal with the regional landfills in the Columbia River basin can take two forms: a bundled contact for all transportation and disposal or a series of contracts with the various transportation companies (truck, barge, rail, and disposal). 3.1 / Logistical Process Description The following description outlines the primary steps involved in a typical waste-by-barge scenario from Kodiak to one of the large privately-held, rail-served regional landfills in the Pacific Northwest. Figure 1: The Barging Process 1. Waste is collected locally from the curb, dumpster, and drop boxes as well as “self- haul” waste is delivered to a transfer facility located at the landfill. 2. At the transfer facility, the waste is dumped (tipped) on the floor where it would be sorted for recyclables and contaminants prior to being loaded into an open top intermodal container. The payload of the garbage in the container is approximately 25 tons (non-compacted). 3. The intermodal container is then covered, sealed and trucked to the Samson Marine Terminal for loading onto a barge. The barging of the intermodal container(s) takes approximately five days from Alaska to the marine terminal in Seattle. 4. Once the intermodal container arrives in Seattle, it is removed from the barge and trucked to a local railroad yard and loaded onto a rail car for shipping to the landfill. 5. Trainloads of waste are shipped daily to the regional rail-served landfill, approximately 350 miles away. This trip takes about 12 hours. 6. At the landfill the intermodal container is lifted from the rail car and placed on awaiting trucks which deliver them to the landfill’s “working face” to be dumped. 7. Once dumped, the container is returned to the landfill’s rail yard and placed back on the rail car to complete the return trip to Seattle and then to Kodiak where the intermodal container is returned for re-use and the cycle begins again. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 149 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 32 3.2 / Landfills and Routes We researched the potential for utilizing the Alaska Marine Highway System (ferry system) as a means to transport municipal solid waste from Kodiak to either the Central Peninsula Landfill (CPL) outside Soldotna via Homer, Alaska and truck draying it from there to the landfill as well as “ferrying” the containerized waste from Kodiak to Homer, Alaska via the ferry system and truck draying it to the Anchorage Regional Landfill (ARL) near Eagle River, Alaska. Both landfills were considered for their regional vicinity to the KIB as disposal alternatives, ones within the region as opposed to exporting the KIB’s waste to private landfills in the lower 48 States. Several challenges presented themselves in terms of the respective landfills’ interest in accepting the waste for disposal and the Alaska Marine Highway (AMH) System’s interest in transporting waste in enclosed trailers or intermodal containers on their ferry vessels. The AMH officials state that while the vessels do transport general freight commodities in standard intermodal containers and trailers, the vessels are primarily designed for the transportation of passengers and passenger vehicles. While these key components pose a challenge for the regional waste export concept, Samson Tug and Barge, a regular route barging company with year round service to the KIB, provided a transportation rate from Kodiak to Anchorage and Seward in the event either Anchorage or the Kenai Borough would accept Kodiak’s waste at their regional landfill. Contained herein are the highlights of the research and responses received from the various parties. Alaska Marine Highway System Dana Jensen, the Port Captain for the Alaska Marine Highway System was contacted to seek the AMH’s interest, shipping requirements and rate levels to transport the KIB’s waste to Homer for subsequent truck drayage to either the Anchorage Regional Landfill or the Kenai Peninsula Borough’s Central Peninsula Landfill located just outside of Soldotna. The purpose of contacting them was to seek an alternative transportation means to compare their service offerings and costs to that of a private barging company. Mr. Jensen agreed to investigate the opportunity internally with the AMH’s Operations Manager and Safety Officer. After much internal review, discussion and deliberation, Dana Jensen, Bill Miller, their Safety Officer, and Jim Beatle, their Operations Manager, all concluded and jointly decided to decline interest in transporting containerized waste. The following reasons are what they cited as their most significant concerns:  Health and safety concerns for the passengers and crews with solid waste onboard the vessel  New Alaska Fish and Wildlife regulation over relocation of rodents (rats) in areas that are currently “rat free”  Political concerns and ramifications of accepting shipments of waste on passenger ferries  U.S. Coast Guard oversight and adherence to regulations  Intermodal containers and / or trailers are placed below deck with automobiles and any fire similar to the one in the SE could not be contained onboard an enclosed area causing significant risk to passengers, crew and vessels  Container odor and leaching of non-solids (liquids)  Recent spontaneously combusted intermodal container fire on a barge with garbage and other goods in Southeast Alaska (see photo on the following page) RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 150 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 33 Figure 2: Fire on AML Barge Mr. Bill Miller, Safety Officer for the Alaska Marine Highway System, provided this internal recommendation to his peers regarding the inquiry to transport the KIB’s solid waste on the ferry system: “This concern is not only for the introduction of rodents to other areas in Alaska but shipboard as well. Transporting large quantities of refuse from Kodiak on a recurring basis would ultimately result in the introduction of rodents (rats and mice) on our vessels. They are destructive. Being rodents, they need to constantly chew to wear down their teeth. Any wiring, fuel lines, foam, fabric, wood, nets, and cargo are all fair game. Chewing on wires can cause fires. What they don’t chew they foul with urine and feces (40 droppings a day). They contaminate food storage areas and can even spread disease by inhabiting crew quarters and introducing fleas and mites. Considering the introduction of rodents onto our vessels and the (unintentional) transport to remote parts of the State of Alaska, I highly recommend this request be denied on the basis of both Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety.” Respectfully, W. J. Miller W. J. Miller Safety Officer Alaska Marine Highway System Mr. Miller also cited and provided the following supporting documentation, specifically, the new regulations issued by Alaska Fish and Wildlife concerning potential relocation of rodents to non- contaminated areas in Alaska: 1. Prohibits the intentional or negligent (e.g., unsecured garbage, improperly-stored food) feeding of rats, mice, and other “deleterious exotic wildlife”; 2. Make it against the law for the owner or operator of a vessel, vehicle, aircraft, structure being translocated, or other means of conveyance to knowingly or unknowingly harbor live rats or mice, or to enter Alaska (including Alaska waters) while knowingly or unknowingly harboring these animals; and 3. Requires that the owner or operator of a harbor, port, airport, or food processing facility in which live rats or mice have been found develop and implement an ongoing rodent response and eradication or control plan. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 151 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 34 Alaska Marine Highway Equipment Restrictions In addition to the Alaska Marine Highway’s concerns and reasoning for deciding not to accept KIB waste on board their vessels, the capacity of the ferries to accommodate equipment over 40’ in length (no overhang for container chassis) is prohibited due to the size and weight capacity rating of the internal elevators. The lift capacity of the onboard elevators is limited to 60,000 pounds, including both the equipment tare weight and payload. In order to load the trailer or container onboard, two trucks are required on each end to perform what is known as a “double shuffle”, where one truck rolls the trailer onto the ferry and onto the elevator platform and the other removes it on the lower deck for staging while the ferry is enroute. This is a service performed regularly, however the significance of the trailer length restriction is that most modern day trailer manufacturers do not build 40’ long live floor (walking floor) trailers and the payload capacity of this short trailer is estimated to be less than 15 tons, significantly increasing the resulting cost per ton for transportation, making the ferry option not only disagreeable with the AMH, but economically challenging on a cost per ton basis. Again, the main restriction with the Alaska Marine Highway ferry service is the denied request to transport solid waste by the Safety Officer and Port Captain, not the equipment length and payload restrictions. Alaska Marine Highway Contact Information: Bill Miller Safety Officer - State of Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Alaska Marine Highway System Phone: (907) 228-7277; E-mail: william.miller@alaska.gov Samson Tug & Barge The other transportation alternative researched within the region that provides regular route barging service between Kodiak and the Kenai Peninsula and is willing to accept waste is Samson Tug and Barge. Samson provides indirect regular route service to Seward via Seattle and Sitka. Samson departs Seattle with service to Kodiak every other week year round or two barges per month. The transit time from Seattle to Kodiak is approximately 12 days. The transit time from Kodiak to Seattle is approximately 9 days. The Kodiak to Seward schedule at this time runs from Kodiak to either Sitka or Seattle and then returns to Seward. This is not an efficient transit time. Samson may consider a Kodiak weekly service or a Kodiak to Seward direct call with a multi-year contract with the KIB. The cost per container from Kodiak via either route is $2,559. Figure 3: Samson Alaska Ports The combined pricing for both the conceptual Alaska regional disposal scenario where the KIB ships its waste via Samson Tug and Barge to either the Anchorage Regional Landfill (ARL) or the Kenai Peninsula Borough’s Central Peninsula Landfill (CPL) via Seward is detailed in the waste export cost pro forma. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 152 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 35 Samson Tug & Barge Contact Information: Bill Ludwig Sales, Samson Tug & Barge Phone: 206.812.3429; E-mail: bill@samsontug.com Municipality of Anchorage - Anchorage Regional Landfill (ARL) Brian Crewdson, Director of Solid Waste Services for the Municipality of Anchorage, was contacted about accepting the KIB’s waste for disposal at their local landfill located near Eagle River, just outside Anchorage. Currently, the only outside jurisdiction that the ARL is accepting solid waste from is in small quantities from the City of Whittier, Alaska. The ARL charges a rate that is exactly twice their posted gate rate to the City of Whittier and Brian expects this rate would remain in effect in the event the KIB waste were be to accepted at the ARL. Their current posted gate rate is currently $45.00 per ton and is anticipated to increase in the near future to $55.00 per ton. The City of Whittier is currently paying $90.00 per ton and with the rate increase the cost per ton will be $110.00. At present, there is not a formal or defined process for seeking approval for waste acceptance outside the Municipality of Anchorage. Brian suggested that a formal request in writing be submitted explaining the KIB’s potential need to transport and dispose of their waste at the ARL. The KIB would need to provide justification as why such a strong need exists, demonstrating that local options are not available. Brian commented that the process would most likely be fairly subjective and a response to a written request from the Municipality could be developed within two weeks of receiving the request. ARL Contact Information: Brian Crewdson Director of Solid Waste Services, Municipality of Anchorage Alaska Phone: 907-343-6275; E-mail: crewdsonBI@ci.anchorage.ak.us Kenai Peninsula Borough – Central Peninsula Landfill (CPL) As part of the KIB project research, Bob Garlock, the Solid Waste Director for the Kenai Peninsula Borough was contacted about accepting the KIB’s waste at the Borough’s Central Peninsula Landfill (CPL). At present, the Kenai Peninsula Borough code of ordinances does not allow the acceptance of waste from outside the Borough. Bob suggested that if a dire need exists for accepting and disposing of solid waste from another Alaska community, one with compelling enough reasons, the Kenai Peninsula Borough’s Assembly may reconsider its ordinance on waste acceptance from outside the Borough. When asked about an approximate disposal rate for the KIB study, the Solid Waste Director stated he could not respond since quoting a rate could imply that they would consider accepting the KIB’s waste, a decision that would be up to the Borough’s Assembly and the Mayor. He did comment that their current internal cost of disposing of their own waste is approximately $60.00 per ton. At present, they do not charge disposal rates for the citizens of the Borough. The revenues required to maintaining the landfill is derived from local property taxes. At the suggestion of the Solid Waste Director, the KIB drafted a letter to the Mayor of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, that could be given consideration and would have to be voted on by the Assembly since the ordinance already exists preventing the importation of waste from outside the Borough. CPL Contact Information: Bob Garlock Solid Waste Director, Kenai Peninsula Borough RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 153 of 157 Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 36 Phone: 907-262-2002; E-mail: bgarlock@borough.kenai.ak.us Preliminary transportation and disposal pricing for MSW and / or incinerator ash were secured from various interested disposal companies previously detailed. The pricing was based on shipping the municipal solid waste or ash from the Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) to one of the privately held regional landfills in either Eastern Washington, Idaho or Oregon. The price ranges are provided for planning and informational purposes only. The price quotations shall not be construed as enforceable or binding on any of the potential disposal companies that provided price ranges unless and until a written agreement has been executed and signed by all parties. Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, if a particular jurisdiction solicits price quotes for solid waste management services from qualified vendors through a procurement process, the disposal companies reserve the right to base their official price quotes on the specific parameters of that procurement process. The table below identifies the disposal firms and the contacts that provided price quotations that determined the planning price range. Table 2 Contact Information for Private Disposal Companies Disposal Company Contact Position Phone Number Allied Waste Joe Casalini Business Development 206-255-4070 Idaho Waste Systems Grant Gauthier VP of Business Development 208-447-7127 Waste Connections Eddie Westmoreland Division Vice President 253-414-0349 Waste Management Mike Holzschuh Business Development Landfill Group 425-825-2004 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 154 of 157 Ap p e n d i x L : K o d i a k D i s p o s a l O p t i o n s 37 3. 3 / C o s t A s s u m p t i o n s  A s s u m e s 2 3 t o n s p a y l o a d p e r c o n t a i n e r f o r M S W a n d 2 0 t o n s f o r a s h .  T h e c o s t o f t h e c o n t a i n e r s w o u l d h a v e t o b e b o r n e b y t h e B o r o u g h a n d t h a t c o s t i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e c o s t a n a l y s i s .  T h e r a t e r a n g e i n c l u d e s t r u c k d r a y a g e f r o m a t r a n s f e r s t a t i o n , b a r g e l o a d i n g a t o r i g i n , b a r g e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o S e a t t l e , c o n t a i n e r o f f - lo a d i n g , d r a y a g e t o a r a i l y a r d i n S e a t t l e , r a i l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o o n e o f t h e r e g i o n a l l a n d f i l l s ( i n E a s t e r n W a s h i n g t o n , O r e g o n o r I d a h o ) an d d i s p o s a l , i n c l u d i n g t a x e s .  T h e b u n d l e d c o s t s a s s u m e a d i s p o s a l r a t e o f $ 2 2 p e r t o n f o r M S W a n d $ 2 9 p e r t o n f o r i n c i n e r a t o r a s h , p l u s t a x e s . Ta b l e 2 Wa s t e E x p o r t S u m m a r y C o s t s Wa s t e O r i g i n KI B - Ko d i a k Is l a n d KI B - Ko d i a k Is l a n d KI B - Ko d i a k I s l a n d KI B - Ko d i a k Is l a n d De s t i n a t i o n L a n d f i l l Ea s t e r n O R o r WA Ea s t e r n O R o r W A An c h o r a g e R e g i o n a l Ce n t r a l L a n d f i l l Wa s t e T y p e MS W In c i n e r a t o r A s h MS W MS W La n d f i l l O w n e r Pr i v a t e l y O w n e d Pr i v a t e l y O w n e d Ci t y o f A n c h o r a g e Ke n a i B o r o u g h As s u m p t i o n s : Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n M e t h o d (C o m b i n a t i o n o f M o d e s ) Tr u c k / B a r g e / R a i l Tr u c k / B a r g e / R a i l Tru c k / B a r g e Tr u c k / B a r g e Tr a n s f e r S t a t i o n L o c a t i o n Ko d i a k Ko d i a k Ko d i a k Ko d i a k An n u a l T o n s 11 , 5 0 0 2, 8 7 5 11 , 5 0 0 11 , 5 0 0 Ba c k h a u l O p p o r t u n i t y no no no no Da y s W o r k e d P e r w e e k 5. 5 5. 5 5. 5 5. 5 To n s P e r 4 8 ' C o n t a i n e r o r 2 0 ' A s h C on t a i n e r 23 20 23 23 Co n t a i ne r s N e e d e d D a i l y 1. 7 5 0. 5 0 1. 7 5 1. 7 5 To t a l T r a n s f e r , T r a n s p o r t & D i s p o s a l Co s t P e r T o n : $2 0 8 . 7 6 $2 3 9 . 0 7 $2 8 8 . 5 4 $2 4 3 . 6 5 Pe r c e n t a g e o f f i x e d c o s t t o v a r i a b l e c o s t s 12 % 12 % 8% 6% Pe r c e n t a g e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t t o t o t a l co s t 77 % 76 % 54 % 61 % Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Th e K I B s h o u l d n o t c o n s i d e r w a s t e e x p o r t a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o e i t h e r l a n d f i l l i n g o r i n c i n e r a t i o n . T h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s a r e un p r e d i c t a b l e d u e t o c h a n g i n g f u e l p r i c e s a n d t h e K I B ’ s l e v e l o f c o n t r o l o v e r t h i s o p t i o n i s l o w . RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 155 of 157 SHIPPING QUOTATION Date: 06/28/2007 By: Bill Ludwig Quote Number: BIL6888 Chris Bell Solid Waste Management PHONE: 360.326.8937 FAX: EMAIL: solidwaste@comcast.net Origin Port:Kodiak Destination Port:Seattle Project / Bid Name: Quote Date (09/14/07)Shipper / Consignee: Booking Number:Est. Ship Date: Description of Terms, Rates Offered, Etc. Description of Items Weight/Qty Rate Rate Type Totals TOTAL: $2,559.60 THIS QUOTATION HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS DATE. CHARGES MAY DIFFER FROM THOSE QUOTED DUE TO CHANGES IN DIMENSIONS, WEIGHT, DESCRIPTION OF GOODS, OR SHOULD THE SHIPPING CIRCUMSTANCES VARY FROM THAT DESCRIBED HEREIN. FINAL RATE APPLICATION WILL BE BASED ON TARIFFS, CLASSIFICATIONS OR CONTRACTS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF SHIPMENT. THIS QUOTE IS ONLY BINDING IF YOUR ACCOUNT IS CURRENT. ANY PAYMENTS RECEIVED, INCLUDING PREPAYMENTS, WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY PAST DUE BALANCES FIRST. TENDERED FREIGHT MAY BE HELD AT YOUR EXPENSE UNTIL PAST DUE BALANCES ARE PAID. QUOTE VALID FOR 60 DAYS. Shipper Owned 48' Open Top Containers 27 Ton Minimum/48' Open Top Container Current fuel surcharge *Rate does NOT apply to hazardous shipments. 27 .185 $80.00 $2,160.00 TON PCT $2,160.00 $399.60 *Municipal Solid Waste Alaskans Serving Alaskans SEATTLE TERMINAL 6361 1st Ave South Seattle, WA 98108 www.samsontug.com TELEPHONE CONTACT voice 206.767.7820 toll free 800.331.3522 facsimile 206.767.5358Page 1 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 156 of 157 SHIPPING QUOTATION Date: 06/28/2007 By: Bill Ludwig Quote Number: BIL6888 Chris Bell Solid Waste Management PHONE: 360.326.8937 FAX: EMAIL: solidwaste@comcast.net Origin Port:Kodiak Destination Port:Anchorage Project / Bid Name: Quote Date (09/14/07)Shipper / Consignee: Booking Number:Est. Ship Date: Description of Terms, Rates Offered, Etc. Description of Items Weight/Qty Rate Rate Type Totals TOTAL: $2,559.60 THIS QUOTATION HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS DATE. CHARGES MAY DIFFER FROM THOSE QUOTED DUE TO CHANGES IN DIMENSIONS, WEIGHT, DESCRIPTION OF GOODS, OR SHOULD THE SHIPPING CIRCUMSTANCES VARY FROM THAT DESCRIBED HEREIN. FINAL RATE APPLICATION WILL BE BASED ON TARIFFS, CLASSIFICATIONS OR CONTRACTS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF SHIPMENT. THIS QUOTE IS ONLY BINDING IF YOUR ACCOUNT IS CURRENT. ANY PAYMENTS RECEIVED, INCLUDING PREPAYMENTS, WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY PAST DUE BALANCES FIRST. TENDERED FREIGHT MAY BE HELD AT YOUR EXPENSE UNTIL PAST DUE BALANCES ARE PAID. QUOTE VALID FOR 60 DAYS. Shipper Owned 48' Open Top Containers 27 Ton Minimum/48' Open Top Container Current fuel surcharge *Rate does NOT apply to hazardous shipments. 27 .185 $80.00 $2,160.00 TON PCT $2,160.00 $399.60 *Municipal Solid Waste Alaskans Serving Alaskans SEATTLE TERMINAL 6361 1st Ave South Seattle, WA 98108 www.samsontug.com TELEPHONE CONTACT voice 206.767.7820 toll free 800.331.3522 facsimile 206.767.5358Page 1 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT A Page 157 of 157 6.4 .1 Waste Oil Burners ...................................................................................................... 63 6.4.2 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Systems ............................................... 69 6.5 Wastewater Treatment .................................................................................................... 69 7. SYSTEMATIC WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES ............................................................ 76 7.1 Operations and Maintenance .......................................................................................... 76 7.1.1 Constraints on Rural Operations and Maintenance ............................................. 84 7.1.2 Basic Maintenance Requirements ........................................................................... 84 7.1.3 Training Opportunities ............................................................................................. 86 7.1.4 Funding Needs ........................................................................................................... 87 7.2 Transportation ................................................................................ : ................................. 87 8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 89 LIST OF TABLES 3-1 Identification of Receptors ................................................................................................ 19 4-1 Basic Community Data ...................................................................................................... 21 4-2 Bulk Fuel Storage ................................................................................................................ 26 5-1 Quantities of Scrap Metal and Municipal Waste ........................................................... 41 5-2 Used Oil and Household Hazardous Waste Generation by Community .................. 45 5-3 Assumptions for Estimating Used Oil and Hazardous Waste Quantities ................. 46 6-1 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities ......................................................................................... 57 6-2 Landfill Ratings ................................................................................................................... 58 6-3 Waste Management Facilities ........................................................................................... 64 6-4 Wastewater Treatment by Community ........................................................................... 70 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Akhiok Waste Management Facilities and Receptors ........ ; .......................................... ll 2 Chiniak Waste Management Facilities and Receptors .................................................. 12 3 Karluk Waste Management Facilities and Receptors .................................................... 13 4 Larsen Bay Waste Management Facilities and Receptors ............................................ 14 5 Old Harbor Waste Management Facilities and Receptors ........................................... 15 6 Ouzinkie Waste Management Facilities and Receptors ............................................... 16 7 Port Lions Waste Management Facilities and Receptors .............................................. 17 8 Akhiok Waste Flow Diagram ........................................................................................... 77 9 Chiniak Waste Flow Diagram .......................................................................................... 78 10 Karluk Waste Flow Diagram ............................................................................................ 79 11 Larsen Bay Waste Flow Diagram ..................................................................................... 80 12 Old Harbor Waste Flow Diagram .................................................................................... 81 13 Ouzinkie Waste Flow Diagram ........................................................................................ 82 14 Port Lions Waste Flow Diagram ...................................................................................... 83 -n- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 4 of 213 APPENDICES A Division of Energy Summary PHOTOS Photo Page: Kodiak Facilities Potentially Av ailable for Reg ional U se .............................. 33 Photo Page: Locally-A v ailable Heavy Equipment ............................................................... 34 Photo Page: Construction /Demolition /Remedia tion Debris ............................................. 39 Photo Page: Water Sys tem Failure .......................................................................................... 42 Photo Page: Potential Impacts Due to Petroleum Storage .................................................. 50 Photo Page: Hazardous Waste Asso ciated with Scrap Metal ............................................. 54 Photo Page: Landfills ................................................................................................................ 61 Photo Page: Solid Was te Incine r ation .................................................................................... 65 Photo Page: Used Oil Burners ................................................................................................. 67 Photo Page: Accumulation of Used Oil.. ................................................................................ 68 Pho to Page: Used Oil and Household Hazardous Waste Collection ................................ 71 Photo Page: Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................. 85 -m- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 5 of 213 committee will meet several times over the course of the study to Identify and pnontlze problems, develop solutions, and to Identify and pursue fundmg for the solutions from a vanety of sources mcludmg federal, state, and local government agencies, non-profit orgamzations, and pnvate busmesses This proJeCt IS modeled after the Sound Waste Management Plan proJect which was made possible through fundmg from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (EVOS). The Kodmk Island proJect, however, With Its focus on the villages, the mvolvement of the Borough, and Its somewhat different set of environmental problems will make this proJect an umque effort 1.3 Project Goals and Objectives The goals of the proJect as stated m the Agreement are to Identify the maJOr sources of marme pollution, and to Identify solutions to be Implemented by the communities, state, federal government, pnvate mdustry, or non-profit groups to reduce the amount or the effects of that pollutiOn Specific obJectives of the proJect have been Identified by the Borough as follows· 1 Identify and pnontize the maJor sources of marme pollution and sohd waste m the commumties 2 Estabhsh a pubhc participation program to understand and address commumty concerns and needs 3. Develop waste management recychng and disposal alternatives The development of alternatives will mclude estimatmg costs, Identifymg regulatory reqmrements, and explormg logistical and other ImplementatiOn considerations for each of the waste management alternatives Pnmary focus will be on the waste streams of used ml, household hazardous waste, sohd waste, sewage, and leachate 4 Pursue the fundmg, techmcal assistance, and other resources needed to Implement the solutions Fundmg Will be pursued from a vanety of sources, mcludmg Kodmk Island Borough, non-profit orgamzations, state and federal government agencies, and pnvate mdustry 1.4 Project Team Site Visits Members of the Montgomery Watson proJeCt team traveled around Kodiak Island VISitmg all of the rural villages as well as the City of Kodiak durmg the penod from February 18 to February 28, 1997 The purpose of the travel was to develop an understandmg of existmg and potential pollutiOn problems from first-hand observation and from discussiOns with local residents The proJect team stayed overmght m each village and attempted to contact as many mterested people as possible Commumty meetmgs were held to ensure that anyone havmg an mterest could talk to members of the proJect team -2- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 8 of 213 The proJeCt team mvolved m the site VISits mcluded. 0 Brett Jokela, ProJect Manager, a civil/environmental engmeer from Montgomery Watson m Anchorage, 0 Deborah Luper, ProJect Team Leader, a chemical engmeer from Montgomery Watson m Anchorage, 0 Chns Allard, an associate CIVIl engmeer from Montgomery Watson m Anchorage, and 0 Jeff Brown, a specmhst m waste matenals processmg and recyclmg, a subconsultant of Sound Resource Management Group, based m rural Washmgton state. A kickoff meetmg was held m the Kodiak Island Borough offices on Tuesday, February 18, with the Montgomery Watson proJeCt team and 0 Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, Environmental Engmeer for Kodiak Island Borough (KIB), 0 Brenda Schwantes, Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA), 0 Bill Rieth, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), 0 Steve Russell, Remote Mamtenance Coordmator for Kodmk Island VIllage Ubhties Council (KIVUC), and 0 Martm Owen, Harbormaster, City of Kodiak The Montgomery Watson proJect team was also provided a tour of Threshold's recyclmg center facilities, operated under the direction of the Amencorp volunteer, and the Kodiak Island Borough baler facihty and landfill, where we met with Tom Dunham, landfill ~anager On Wednesday, February 19, the team proceeded by Island Air Charter to Ouzmkie KIVEC representative, Tom Qmck, gave us a tour of the commumty, mcludmg the old and new landfill sites, water plant, hydroelectnc fac1hty, bulk fuel storage, and diesel generators We VISited the store, the VIllage Corporation offices, city dock, and fuel storage facilities In addition to Tom Qmck, we also spoke with Katherme Panamanoff, Pubhc Ubhties Clerk Elena Kelila, City Clerk James Anderson, Resident Dave Campfield, Telecommumcations Mamtenance (volunteer) Roger Johnson, Fuel Dehvery Zack Chichenoff, Mayor Love Chichenoff, Health Aide -3- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 9 of 213 Joan VIllage Corporation Clerk Rosie Anderson, Storekeeper Trm Mauerus, School PrmCipal Team representatives attended the evemng basketball game and held a pubhc meetmg (no attendees) man effort to meet and talk With residents On Thursday, February 20, the team proceeded by Island Air Charter to Port Lions KIVEC representative, Wayne Lukm, met us at the airport and gave us a tour of the commumty, mcludmg the landfill site, harbor and harbormaster office, fuel facilities, and the locatiOns of several sites where scrap metal and JUnk vehicles were accumulatmg We VISited the store, the school, City offices, and Port Wakefield dock In addition to Wayne, we also spoke with Evelyn Mullan, City Clerk/Treasurer Bob Nelson, Tnbal Council President Russ Gundersen, Harbormaster Dave Mullen, Resident Mel Squartsoff, Storekeeper Frank Wicks, School PrmCipal Kevm and Kate Atkms, Owners, Lion's Den Lodge Dave Shortland, Health Aide Nattie Boskoffsky, Health Aide Helen Barns, the other KIVEC representative, was out of town. In the evenmg, team members attended a commumty meetmg at the tnbal offices Bob Nelson, tnbal council president, was the only attendee On Fnday, February 21, Chris Allard and Deb Luper VISited Larsen Bay, while Brett Jokela, and Jeff Brown went on to Karluk Randy Chnstensen met Deb and Chns at the Airport Other contacts m Larsen Bay mcluded Charles Christensen, Mayor Frank Carlsen, VIce Mayor Eh Squartsoff, KIVEC Representative Lynn Lacey, Head Teacher Mile Carlsen, Lodge Owner, Commercial Fisherman Valen Moss, Health Aide Char he Aga, Resident Alberta Aga, Resident Carla Aga, Resident Jimmy Johnson, Store Owner -4- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 10 of 213 Chns Anneson, Eqmpment Operator VIrgmia Squartsoff, City Clerk Team members attended dmner at the Semor Center m order to meet and talk with commumty residents Due to weather constramts, the proJect teams were able to spend Saturday and Sunday m Larsen Bay and Karluk, respectively, before returmng to Kodiak on Monday, February 24, when the weather permitted au travel Unfortunately, several Karluk residents traveled with schoolchildren to Kodiak over the weekend, preventmg discussions with the proJect team Dale Reft, however, spent a considerable amount of hme with the proJect team m Karluk, pomtmg out the fuel facihhes, existmg dump, water system, and sewage facihhes, as well as showmg us the old bmldmgs and scrap metal near the nver mouth Dale provided considerable mput on the Issues of concern to the village, mcludmg the mcreasmg development of sport-hshmg m the Karluk dramage and problems with design and mamtenance of the existmg commumty mfrastructure We also spoke with· Betty Lmd, Health Aide Emil Sugak, Member, IRA Traditional Council Nick Charheaga, Fuel Dehvery Operator Monday afternoon also gave the proJeCt team a chance to VISit Chmiak. Betty O'Dell met us at Thumb's Up Cove and provided a tour of the area, mcludmg the school, a vanety of developments and dump sites, and the old Chmiak Naval Au stahon, which has been demohshed, but remams uncontrolled We also met Larry LeDoux, Pnncipal of the School Distnct's "Areawide" Program Ned Gnffm, Head Teacher for Chmiak School On Tuesday, February 25, Chns Allard and Brett Jokela VISited Old Harbor Jim Nestle met Brett and Chns at the Airport Jim provided a tour of the community mcludmg the old and new landhlls, water plant, city shop, diesel generator and fuel storage facihtles, commumty fuel storage, city dock near the old-town sewage outfall, and sewage lagoon servmg mid-town and new-town Other contacts mOld Harbor mcluded Jeff Peterson, VIllage Tnbal Council President Jonetta Cratty, City Clerk/Treasurer Arthur Matfay, Harbormaster (and "Go-To Guy" for most all uhhty problems) Char he Powers, Propnetor of Sitkahdak Lodge Anne-Mane O'Bnen, School Pnncipal Naomi Peterson, Commumty Meetmg Participant Todd , Commumty Meetmg PartiCipant Leroy Gregory, Commumty Meetmg Participant -5- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 11 of 213 In Kod1ak, on Tuesday and Wednesday, Deb and Jeff v1s1ted the harbor, US F1sh and Game, U S Coast Guard fac1hty, and several vessels, and met w1th Steve Hunt, U.S Coast Guard Lt Commander Frost, U S. Coast Guard Roger Sm1th, U S. F1sh and Game Karen Llgon, KIB V11lage Pnne1pal (by telephone) Ray Sla1gle, Marma Tom Dunham, KIB Landf1ll Operator On Wednesday, February 26, Brett returned to Anchorage, stoppmg m Kod1ak to compare notes on utihty fmdmgs w1th Steve Russell Deb met w1th KANA and KIB staff m Kodmk m the mornmg, and traveled to Akh1ok m the afternoon, v1a Old Harbor, where she JOmed forces w1th Chns In Akh1ok on Wednesday mght and Thursday, Chns and Deb toured the commumty, and met w1th. Dav1d Eluska Sr , Mayor and KIVEC Representative Mary Peterson, Res1dent Judd Brenteson, Health A1de Edd1e Phllhps, Jr, Trash Collector Cathy and Sonny Cook, Teachers Spendon Srmeonoff, Former Amencorp Volunteer W1lham Eluska, Res1dent Lawrence Peterson, Water and Wastewater Operator Edward Philhps, Sr., the other KIVEC member, was out of town due to Illness and was not ava1lable Deb and Chns returned to Anchorage on Fnday, February 28, bnngmg a close to the site v1s1t component of our mventory task of the project 1.5 Format of Findings Th1s document d1scusses our fmdmgs m a manner that 1s mtended to broaden our view beyond a v1llage-by-v1llage recountmg of ex1stmg practices and problems A number of previous efforts have successfully catalogued Issues that pertam to md1vidual v11lages In some cases, tnp reports drafted by VISitors to villages have only served to document that nothmg has changed smce the last guy came to town We are attemptmg here to 1dentify commonalties between v1llages to underscore the need for a broader scope for potential solutions Section 2.0 Identifies what 1mmedmte threats to human health and manne resources ex1st due to common waste management practices -6- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 12 of 213 Section 3 0 recognizes sensitive habitats, resources, and land uses which may be affected by waste management Section 4.0 provides a picture of the structure and function of rural communities of Kodiak Island, mcludmg discussions of the provision of drmkmg water, the Importation and use of fossil fuels, the movement of goods mto and out of the villages, the Importance of the school system as a commumcahon lmk, and fmally, the vanety of economic activities and entitles that have mfluence m the commumties Section 5.0 presents a discussion of the generation of wastes, With tables companng the types and quantities of wastes that are produced m each community Section 6 0 compares the development of facihhes for waste management m the rural communities, mcludmg collection, processmg, and disposal of sohd and hqmd waste streams Section 7 0 recogmzes that appropnate waste management systems are a necessary part of a healthy community By considermg how each community's waste management system IS composed, and comparmg the composition of these systems between communities, we can Identify common weaknesses m the systems which can potentially be corrected by a regional approach. We anticipate that there are solutiOns to existmg problems that threaten manne resources We trust that the discussion that follows IS an rmportant first step m Identifymg those solutions -7- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 13 of 213 octopus, salmon, hahbut, bernes, and sometimes, marme mammals for a significant portion of their diet. As shown on the community maps (Figures 1-7), the subsistence resources are typically located m the VIllage Itself or very nearby In some cases, they are located adJacent to waste management facihties or potential pollution sources such as sewage outfalls, landfills or fuel tank farms Both quantity and quahty are cntical measures for protection of food resources Quahty of the food source can be Impacted by pollution For example, bactena and viruses can be transmitted by the mgestion of shellfish contammated With raw sewage, especially the sohd components Additionally, shellfish are excellent accumulators of heavy metals (such as lead from battenes disposed adJacent to shellfish) and other contammants Contammants discharged to sml or water adJacent to the food resources can cause decreases m the quantity of the resource, as well For example, petroleum from fuel spills, bilge water discharged at sea, or cleanmg solvents discharged through the sewer outfall can Impair reproduction or otherwise decrease the population of fish or arumals used for food Decreases m the amount of food may mean that Kodmk borough residents would need to rely more heavily on expensive, Imported foods, or that nutntion may suffer The expense of rmported foods decreases the quahty of hfe, while poor nutntion can make residents more susceptible to other ailments Recreational Use. Protection of land or waters used for picmckmg, swimmmg, sport fishmg, kayakmg, hikmg, campmg, boatmg, sport huntmg and fishmg IS Important, because appeal Is deceased by trash, stamed smls, distressed vegetation and/ or the absence of Wildhfe These resources mclude local recreational areas m the village as well as state and federal parks, forests and refuges Some recreational uses, such as swimmmg, mcrease contact with contammants, If the areas are Impacted by waste management For example, residents sometimes swim near the docks at Ouzmkie m the VICmity of the sewage outfalls. Other recreational uses benefit the economic health and hvehhood of the commumty For example, JUnk cars and trucks, old drums and other scrap metal destroy the pnstme-Alaska Image that attract many tounsts to Alaska When given a chmce, sport hunters, fishers and recreational users Will choose commumties where recreational resources are protected from the negative Impacts of waste management. The economic benefits of tounsm (e.g., mcome from gmde services, lodgmg, food) will flow to those commumties that have visual appeal -10- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 18 of 213 Commercial Resources. Commercial fishmg IS the maJor factor m the economic health of Kodiak commurutles, because hshmg IS the pnmary source of mcome for many residents However, the quantity of fish can be decreased by pollution Although laws and regulations prohibit ocean discharge of pollutants, the lack of alternative disposal faCihtles and cost of those that do exist, reportedly results m discharges of bilge water, used ml, and trash at sea. F1gures 1-7 show the receptors/resources m each commumty and their proximity to waste management fac1ht1es and other potential sources of pollutmn Table 3-1 shows the data on resources and Impacts documented for each commumty These data were _ evaluated to develop the followmg hst of Situations of particular concern to the protection of precwus commumty resources 0 Raw sewage overflow m Akhiok, where fish are traditionally cleaned and spht and children play The concern IS exacerbated because there IS a hepatitis B earner m town and hepatitis B IS a long-hved pathogen 0 Raw sewage overflow m Karluk 0 The planned breakwater at Ouzmkie will reduce ocean mixmg dilution of the sewage outfall Plans for the breakwater should mcorporate provisions that will ensure that With the new breakwater, the sewage discharge will not adversely Impact human health or the envuonment 0 Watershed protection m Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, and Old Harbor 0 Raw sewage overflow m Ouzmkie from Donald Mornson' s residence -18- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 26 of 213 Ta b l e 3- 1 Id e n t i f i c a t i o n of Re c e p t o r s L~ f s e n Ba y ; ,, .. dt t z i n R . i e pfi , ~%~ ,, Ak h i o k Ch i n i a k Ka r l u k ·· ; , t Ol d Ha r b o r Li o n s Us e of Ma r i n e Si g n i f i c a n t S i g n i f i c a n t Si g n i f i c a n t Si g n i f i c a n t Si g n i f i c a n t S i g n i f i c a n t Si g n i f i c a n t 1ke s o u r c ~ ~ ~16! " l1 / ~ ~- « - Su b s i s t e n ~ e 'Fo o d Us e of Ma r i n e Si g n i f i c a n t Si g n i f i c a n t Si g n i f i c a n t Si g n i f i c a n t Si g n i f i c a n t Si g n i f i c a n t S i g n i f i c a n t "Re s o u r i : e s fo f :~ ') i ' . .- Co m m e r c i a l Fi s h i n g Dr i n k i n g - ~ a t e r Bo r n e Pe r i o d i c ep i s o d e s Pe r i o d i c ep i s o d e s of Di s e a s e of ga s t r o - i n t e s t i n a l ga s t r o - i n t e s t i n a l -~ * = pr o b l e m s pr o b l e m s ,, , Wa t e r s h e d Is s u e s Be a v er s Sp o r t hu n t e r u s ag e pe r i o d i c a l l y of wa t e r s h e d L in h a b i t dr i n k i n g re s u l t e d in de a d wa t e r re s e r v oi r de e r in dr i n k i n g wa t er so u r c e -1 9 - RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 27 of 213 Ta b l e 4 - 1 Ba s i c Co m m u n i t y Da t a Co m m u n i t y Ak h i o k Ch i n i a k Ka r l u k La r s e n Ba y Ol d Ha r b o r ' Ou z i n k i e Po r t Li o n s In c o r p o r a t i o n St a t u s 2n d cl a s s Ur u n c o r p o r a t e d Un m c o r p o r a t e d 2n d cl a s s 2n d cl a s s 2n d cl a s s 2n d cl a s s C1 t v KI V E C Re p r e s e n t a t i v e Ed w a r d Ph 1 i l 1 p s Be t t v O d e l l na Eh Sq u a r t s o f f }1 m N e s h c To m Qu 1 c k , V1 c e Ma y o r Wa v n e L u k m Te l e p h o n e ·- 83 6 - 2 2 2 9 48 6 - 5 5 9 7 na 84 7 - 2 2 1 1 28 6 - 2 2 0 4 68 0 - 2 2 0 9 45 4 - 2 3 3 2 Tn b a l Co u n c i l KI V E C Co n t a c t Da v 1 d El u s k a na Da l e R e f t Ra n d v Ch n s b a n s e n IJ e f f Pe t e r s o n La r r y Cl u c h e n o f f He l e n Ha m s Te l e p h o n e 83 6 - 2 2 1 3 na 24 1 - 2 2 1 8 84 7 - 2 2 0 7 28 6 - 2 2 1 5 68 0 - 2 2 5 9 45 4 - 2 2 3 4 Da t e Of VI S i t 27 - F e b - 9 7 24 - F e b - 9 7 2 1 - F e b - 9 7 2 1 - F e b - 9 7 25 - F e b - 9 7 19 - F e b - 9 7 20 - F e b - 9 7 PO P U L A T I O N Po p u l a t i o n (v a n o u s so u r c e s ) 60 80 60 14 0 25 0 21 0 26 0 #o f ho u s e h o l d s (l o c a l es h m a t e ) 19 30 21 44 87 68 73 Po p tr e n d (% pe r ye a r -l o c a l es t ) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% Su m m e r Po p u l a h o n Ch a n g e 10 13 mo n t ! 50 13 mo n t h s 30 14 mo n t h s 34 0 13 mo n t h s 82 13 mo n t h s 70 13 mo n t h s 70 13 mo n t h s An n u a l Po p u l a t i o n Eq w v a l e n t 62 92 70 22 4 27 0 22 7 27 7 Sc h o o l En r o l l m e n t 32 35 14 24 92 42 65 CO M M E R C E St o r e 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 Ca n n e r y 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lo d g e s 0 1 3 3 1 0 3 Re s t a u r a n t s 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Co m m e r C i a l fi s h m g ve s s e l s 0 0 0 4 30 2 20 Bo a t ha r b o r ca p a o t v 0 0 0 35 10 0 Mo o n n g o n l y 80 19 8 9 Me d 1 a n Ho u s e h o l d mc o m e $4 2 , 5 0 0 $4 4 , 3 7 5 $3 1 , 2 5 0 $3 9 , 7 5 0 $1 6 , 8 7 5 $4 8 , 3 9 3 $4 0 , 9 3 8 Es t i m a t e d # of Jo b s 26 37 30 36 42 77 85 VE H I C L E S Pe r s o n a l au t o s / t r u c k s 3 30 4 20 15 10 20 4- w h e e l e r s 22 5 8 20 25 25 40 He a v y eq u 1 p m e n t 2 0 2 6 5 5 9 UP C O M I N G PR O J E C T S No n e fu n d e d US C G r e m e d 1 La n d f t l l '9 7 Ha r b o r '9 7 No n e fu n d e d Br e a k w a t e r '9 7 Re p l a c e Da m '9 7 MI S S i l e ra n g e -2 1 - RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 30 of 213 With the exceptwn of mdividual wells m Chmmk, the commumtles m the KIB use surface water sources for their water supply systems Port Lions and Ouzmkie have mstltuted watershed protection by zomng the watershed off hmits to recreational uses such as huntmg and campmg The Surface Water Treatment Rule, part of 18 AAC 80, reqmres that 99 9% of the Giardia present m the water source be removed before distnbutlon to the users This IS generally accomplished with a combmatlon of filtratiOn and chlormahon Most of the communities, except Ouzmkie, would benefit from additional filtration This would proVIde greater protectiOn to the community water supply Akhiok. The water source IS a small earth dam located above the community Water flows down to the water treatment plant where there are a pair of pressure filters and chlorme and fluonde are added The treated water IS pumped up to a pair of 10,000 gallon water storage tanks and distnbuted by gravity from there The storage tanks were observed overflowmg The PHS has proposed renovatmg the water treatment plant to comply With the surface water treatment rule Other aspects of the proposal mclude Improved storage, mveshgatmg source Improvement, and providmg operatiOns and mamtenance trammg This proJect Is ranked number two of the ten projects on Kodiak m their sanitatiOn deficiency system Chiniak. Most of the homes have mdividual wells Some of the other households haul their water from the school Karluk. The water source IS an mflltrahon gallery on the hillside above the town Water IS stored m a 50,000 gallon water tank near the source and IS piped to the water treatment plant Treatment mcludes chlorme and fluonde addition but these systems are not always m serv1ce There IS no pa1d operator for the system. The PHS has proposed upgrades to the water system to comply With the Surface Water Treatment Rule They would also hke to help establish an operations and mamtenance orgamzahon This proJect IS ranked number eight out of the ten projects m their samtahon deficiency system Larsen Bay. The pnmary water source 1s the wet well and water mflltrahon gallery adJacent to and under Trout or Humpy Creek The backup source IS the reservOir for the hydroelectnc system The water treatment cons1sts of a pressure filter and chlorme and fluonde add1hon -22- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 31 of 213 After treatment, water IS stored m a 100,000 gallon wooden storage tank that has some leaks and was observed to be overflowmg Water IS dtstnbuted by gravity to the commumty In the commumty some concern was expressed about the effectiveness of the chlorme dismfectwn because of "bml water alerts." The recent repa1r of a water service lme to a home mcluded the opemng of a hydrant A quantity of very Silty water was flushed from the system suggestmg that the filtration IS not always effective The PHS has proposed upgradmg the system by replacmg the water treatment plant and the water storage tank Operations and mamtenance trammg, tools, and eqmpment are also part of their proposed proJect This proJeCt IS ranked number five out of the ten proJects m their samtahon deficiency system Old Harbor. The water source IS an mfiltratwn gallery and wet well by Old Harbor Creek Water treatment consists of pressure filtration and the addition of chlorme and fluonde Treated water IS pumped up to a 120,000 gallon water storage tank and distnbuted by gravity to the commumty The 100,000 gallon water storage tank above the Old Town portion of Old Harbor IS no longer m service The PHS has proposed upgrades to the water treatment system to meet the requnements of the surface water treatment rule Operation and mamtenance trammg and support would be part of the proJect. This proJeCt IS ranked number siX of the ten prOJects on Kodiak Ouzinkie. The pnmary water source for Ouzmkie IS Mahoona Lake Water travels through the penstock for the hydroelectnc system and IS drawn off JUSt upstream of the turbme The backup source for water IS Katmai Creek near the water treatment plant Water treatment consists of a pau of 60-mch sand filters, two pairs of bag filters, and the addition of chlonne and fluonde Water IS distributed to two zones, about half of the town Is served directly from the water treatment plant and the other half IS served from the 200,000 gallon water storage tank near the school The effect of thts distnbuhon system IS that the water that comes directly from the water treatment plant has a higher chlorme concentration than the water that comes from the water storage tank People m the commumty who have the higher chlonne concentration do not hke the taste of thetr water The PHS has proposed operation and mamtenance assistance to Ouzmkte m the form of trammg and tools as part of their samtatlon deficiency system Thts proposal1s ranked seven out of the ten proposals m the KIB -23- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 32 of 213 Port Lions. The water source IS the Branchwater Creek Reservoir located west of the commumty The watershed IS protected by zonmg by the KIB The dam was bmlt m 1965 and reportedly Is m need of repau Water treatment consists of sand filters and the addition of chlorme and fluonde The use of chlorme gas for water disinfection has been replaced with a more standard hypochlonte system. Treated water IS pumped to a 125,000 gallon water storage tank and from there It IS distnbuted by gravity feed. A recent water and sewer proJect replaced portions of the water distnbution pipmg. The PHS has proposed replacmg the dam at the water source and upgradmg the water treatment to meet the Surface Water Treatment Rule The other component of their proJect IS to provide operatiOn and mamtenance trammg This proposal Is ranked number one out of the ten proposals for Kodiak m their samtation deficiency system Fortunately, all of the watersheds are located above the commumhes and their fuel storage and all provide an adequate supply of water It IS Important, however, to protect the watersheds by zonmg to exclude recreatiOnal use. This may be one of the easiest steps to take m relatmn to the benefits realized The operation and mamtenance of most of the systems could be Improved The water system operator should 0 Receive trammg, 0 Have a set of tools dedicated to the water treatment plant, 0 Have wntten procedures, and 0 Keep wntten records. In addition to helpmg ensure the quality of the water supply, these recommendations, If followed, Will help the commumties to secure fundmg from public agencies Fundmg agencies look at the effort bemg spent on operations and mamtenance when they are decidmg which proJects to support The two commumbes where we heard reports of people gettmg sick from the water were Akhiok and Larsen Bay For this reason we would consider these commumtles to be a pnonty for system Improvement It was also m these two communities that water storage tanks were observed overflowmg While this IS not a health nsk, It Is a symptom of an operational problem Wastmg treated water causes mcreased costs for chemicals and for pumpmg Another operational problem observed may have greater consequences Some water taps m homes are left open to prevent pipes from freezmg This practice can place a great burden on not only the water supply system but on the wastewater system as -24- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 33 of 213 well. Ideally, pipes should have adequate insulation, along with proper system design, to prevent freezing . If there are specific portions of a system that require constant water flow they should be evaluated and the most efficient remedy used. 4.3 Fuel Storage Each community has one or more bulk fuel storage facilities. The facilities are identified on Figures 1 through 7. In addition to the community bulk fuel facilities there are tanks at the school and generator and most homes are heated by~ small tank or drum of fuel oil. Fuel storage and use often results in petroleum wastes and contamination. In the KIB communities, fuel is off-loaded from a vessel into the community's bulk fuel storage tanks. Then the fuel is transferred to a fuel truck or drums and transported across the community and transferred to the home heating oil tanks. Spills during transfer, overfilling and accidents result in small amounts of fuel spilled repeatedly and often on the soil. Taken together, the spills add up. Large fuel tanks are· of particular concern, especially if they are designed, built or maintained in a way that fuel can spill or leak into soil or water. Based on experience, tanks that are placed directly in or on the ground often develop an unseen hole and fuel leaks into the ground unnoticed for a long time. Large tanks in the Kodiak communities are of particular concern because most are staged on or near the ocean and a catastrophic release (e.g., rupture, broken pipe, open valve) will result in a large fuel spill to the water. Because many fuel tanks have leaked significant amounts of fuel into the soil or water in the past, fuel storage systems are strictly regulated by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), En_vir._onmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). Besides design and maintenance criteria, most tanks require a Spill Planning, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan and Emergency Response Plan. Having the proper equipment and supplies, trained spill response personnel and taking immediate action are the most important items in minimizing harm to the environment. Table 4-2 lists the in-service and out-of-service bulk fuel storage facilities in e a ch community, and some of the system components. Tanks that are out-of-service should be empty and soils should be checked to verify they are uncontaminated. In-service tanks should be designed, maintained and operated to prevent spills or leaks. The Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Energy, maintains a database of bulk fuel storage facilities throughout Alaska and has some funds available to upgrade high priority systems. Their listings for Kodiak communities is shown in Appendix A. -25- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 34 of 213 Table4-2 Bulk Fuel Storage Tank Systems Akhtok Cluruak Karluk Lamen Bay Old Harbor Ouzmlo.e Port L1ons Commumtv Bulk Fuel Storage Number ofT anks 3 3 4 6 3 Storage Capac1ty 10,000 and 4@ (approx m gallons) 30,000 50,000 50,000 6,000 7,00C 15,000 70,000 30,000 each System Age New Unknown before9/84 about 6 years fa1r, but structural Tank cond1hon Excellent Fa1r supports fadmg good good Diked Yes Earthen berm no yes no-double wall Fenced and locked Yes Yes no yes and no no Maintenance Tesoro C1ty pr1vate V1S1ble leaks None No no no no Proxunaty to ocean Adjacent 500 feet adjacent 150 feet 200 feet Contammated soli Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Planned upgrades Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown In des1gn phase Pnonty Low low hlgh low low Eleclrtcal Generator~~ Same as commun1ty Number of Tanks bulk fuel storage 1 4 2 (approx) 4900 10,000 each 500each System Age 4 years Tank cond1tl0n good D1ked yes no Fenced and locked yes yes no Mamtenance AVEC V1s1ble leaks no Proxunaty to ocean 600 feet 300 feet 1000 fuet Contammated soil ViSible stammg none seen 7 Planned upgrades Pnority low School Number of Tanks 1 UST 5AST,3UST 4UST 1 UST 4UST 2AST 1 UST 5 AST at 500 gal ea Storage Capacity 1 UST at 12,000 gal 2at500gal 3 at 2,000 gal 500 gal (approx) 5,000 gal 2 UST at 500 gal 2 at 12.000 gal 2,000 gal 1 at 300 gal 5,000 gal 1,000 gal System Age 15 years 13 years 15 years 10years 10 years years 9years Tank condition Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Diked NA Unknown NA NA NA Unknown NA Fenced and locked No No No No No No No Maintenance Unknown Unkn.own Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Visible leaks No No No No No Unknown No Prox1maty to ocean BOO feet 700 feet BOO feet 500 feet 500 feet 1 000 feet 500 feet Contammated sml Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Other Locatton Cannery Water Plant KIB KEA (volume) 11 (128 900 gal) AST 5200gal 1100 Contammated sml Unknown Unknown Unknown Locatmn Guard City of Ouzmk1e (volume) 5300 1400 Contammated sml Unknown Unknown Out-of-Setvlce Tanks Beach near sep!lc LocatiOn outfall Cannery Above Old Town Behmd C1ty Offices Port Wakefields (volume) 1 (60,000 gal) 8 60,000 90,000 25,00C Contammated soil Unknown Unknown Unknown Locallon End of runway (volume) 4-6 Contammated sml Unknown Loca!lon mtown (volume) 4 @ 5,000 each Contammated sml Unknown -26- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 35 of 213 Fuel storage is included in this report because spills and leaks from substandard systems and operations can result in significant waste, pollution and damage to the marine environment. The recommended action is: 0 Verifying that in-service tanks in direct contact with the ground are not leaking by maintaining a fuel inventory and sampling the soil 0 Planning spill response actions, equipment and supplies 0 Full documentation of the tank system condition and developing an upgrade program 0 Sampling soils at out-of-service fuel systems to verify that the soils are uncontaminated. As sh own in Table 4-2, the condition of the fuel storag e facili t ies varies from co m munity to community. Akhiok's new community bulk fuel storage tanks appear to be exceptional, while Old Harbor's bulk fuel storage represents an immediate threat to nearby marine resources. 4.4 Transportation The transportation infrastructure serving the Kodiak Island are a is well developed, with existing operators available to handle most shipping requirements. Materials move in and out of Kodiak City and villages via ferry, barge, ship, landing craft and aircraft. Villages have varying levels of marine transportation facilities. Port Lions, Larsen Bay and Old Harbor have barge loading facilities. Ouzinkie, Karluk and Akhiok are accessible by landing craft with varying degrees of difficulty. All villages have airstrips. The following sections address the various transportation resources available to Kodiak and the rural villages. 4.4.1 Marine Kodiak City is served by a number of ship and barge lines connecting the city with Puget Sound and other Alaska communities. Major marine operators include American President Lines, SeaLand, Samson Tug & Barge, Western Pioneer and Crowley Marine Services. These operators generally have the ability to handle both containerized and bulk goods and offer regularly-scheduled service to and from off-island population centers. Western Pioneer and Samson Tug & Barge also serve some outlying communities. Western Pioneer offers direct service from Seattle to Ouzinkie, Larsen Bay and Port Lions, using a fleet of several 190-foot freighters. We stern Pioneer's twice-monthly route leaves Seattle, stops at Kodiak Island communities, continues to the Aleutians and then returns to Seattle. Goods are loaded on pallets and off-loaded via forklift and crane. Deck space is available for larger items such as vehicles and equipment. The freighters do not handle standard shipping containers. Two of Western Pioneer's freighters have re gulatory certification to serve Kodiak City. -27- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 36 of 213 Samson Tug & Barge provides barge service to Kodiak City twice each month Durmg the summer season, weekly routes are operated to Larsen Bay and Ugamk to serve cannenes Their barge service handles both bulk and contamerized matenals The Alaska Marme Highway system provides regular ferry service to Kodiak and Port Lions The M/V Tustumena travels a regular loop from Valdez to Seward, Kodiak, Port Lions, Homer and Seldovia, with scheduled vanatlons. Service to Port Lwns IS weekly, with more frequent stops m Kodiak Several landmg craft of varymg Sizes are available m the Kodiak Area There are several operators with smaller craft (30 to 60-foot) that run supphes, vehicles and small eqmpment to remote commumhes. The Cape Douglas IS an older landmg craft capable of handlmg scrap metal The Cape Douglas IS based m Kodiak harbor and was used for the 1995 Ouzmkie scrap metal cleanup. The Polar Bear IS a 5-year old 120-foot landmg craft With a 250-ton capacity The Polar Bear IS based m Cook Inlet and provides service to the Kodiak Island area on request. Other operators, such as Coastal Fretght & Salvage out of Homer, also provide landmg craft services Most villages also have pnvate small craft, mcludmg both pleasure and fishing boats, that may traverse between their home village and Kodiak These craft may serve as an mformal transportation service on some occasions Similarly, some US Coast Guard vessels also travel between Kodiak city and the VIllages. Although Coast Guard buoy tenders and cutters might have some space available for transportmg matenals, this may be outside of the scope of the USCG' s mission. 4.4.2 Air Air transportation IS the most common method of travel for both residents and tounsts Regularly-scheduled air service IS available to each of the subJect remote commumhes Schedules vary with season, With summer travel peaks for tounsts PenAir currently offers scheduled service twice daily from Kodiak to Old Harbor, Larsen Bay, Ouzmkie and Port Lwns Service to Karluk, Old Harbor and Akhwk Is daily, with twice-daily flights startmg m the summer m Karluk and Old Harbor Island Air and other compames also provide scheduled or unscheduled service to these commumtles Five to nme seat aircraft are used to serve these commumties Mall, school meals, and freight are shipped on the regularly-scheduled flights A fair amount of goods arnve by mail due to subsidized postal rates Numerous retail stores m Kodiak and elsewhere regularly ship goods to customers m remote villages For example, the Safeway store m Kodiak ships grocenes to customers throughout the Borough Most of these goods are shipped via atr, either as freight or mall Some heavy, bulky or dangerous goods are shipped on spectal charter flights For example, drums of gasolme for outboard motors are shipped VIa charter to support Karluk sport fishmg operators PriOr to gomg out of busmess, MarkAtr backhauled crushed alummum cans free of charge for recyclmg -28- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 37 of 213 4.4.3 Road Systems In general the local road access withm the communities IS adequate to allow the use of wheeled eqmpment to gather and transport scrap metal from the vanous stockpiles to a location where It could be loaded onto a landmg craft and shipped off-site Possible exceptions to the easy access are the scrap tanks m Larsen Bay located north of the bulk fuel storage, the Junk vehicles m Port Lions located past the end of Beach Road, and the two old fuel storage tanks m Port Lions located northeast of the existmg bulk fuel storage Road access to a new landfill site m Akhiok will be an rmportant consideratiOn The site preferred by the community, north of the existmg dump Site, will reqmre the extensiOn of the existmg road for less than a quarter of a mile The convemence to the commumty and the relatively short access road are both factors that favor this Site 4.5 Education Our understandmg of how our actions Impact the environment have undergone significant changes over the last 40 years and contmue to evolve Teachmg current mformation on environmental practices m schools IS cntical to havmg a population well-Informed and attentive to environmental Issues Children takmg the envuonmental protection message home to their Siblmgs and parents IS often a sigmficant force for changmg environmental awareness and action withm a commumty Durmg the site VISits, the teachers m each community were mterviewed to understand the current status of environmental education m KIB Each of the rural KIB communities has a local school for first through twelfth grade The school populations range from 12 to about 90 students and vary sigmficantly year to year because of the transient populations Each school has several teachers who together teach all grades Grades are typically combmed because of the small numbers of students Environmental curnculums m the KIB school systems are left to the discretiOn of the mdtvidual teachers The teachers Indicated that they typically cover environmental topics m the science courses usmg prepared texts and other matenals. Often the texts address global warmmg or ozone depletion, which are not pertment to everyday hfe m rural Kodmk communities None of the teachers were aware of teachmg matenals that focus specifically on topics and actions pertment to protection of human health or the environment m a rural Alaskan coastal community The teachers m each commumty md1cated an mterest m reviewmg and/ or usmg pertment resources, If they are available The 1995 Amencorp program m Akhwk focused heavily on teachmg environmental Issues m the local school and motlvatmg youth to undertake local environmental proJects, such as collectmg alummum cans and lead acid battenes for recyclmg Smce the Amen corp volunteer's term has ended, no further programs have been targeted at -29- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 38 of 213 the schools. The AmeriCorps volunteer indicated that there was a high le v el of interes t in environmental issues among the students. High school students are often unaware of career options open to them and this is often exacerbated in villages where students do not have exposure to a large variety of people and industries. The environmental field offers a diverse assortment of careers many of which can be practiced in Alaska. Residents holding environmental jobs in the village (e .g., maintenance of the drinking water and wastewater s y stems and the landfills) have not been invited into the schools to discuss their respons ibilities . Similar positions in larger facilities, AmeriCorps positions, and other environmental careers (e.g., environmental engineering, design, new product development) are also absent from the current curriculums. 4.6 Local and Regional Business Resources 4.6.1 Tribal Entities A number of tribal entities are active in the Kodiak Island Borough area and prov ide a central point of contact for specific issues. The table below presents a list of tribal corporations functioning in Kodiak. Corporation Function Regional Kodiak Area Native Association Regional Health/Social Native Non-Profit Corporation (KANA) Koniag, Inc. ANSCA Regional Native For-Profit Corpora tion Village Akhiok Kaguyak, Inc. Akhiok For-Profit Village Native Corporation Lesnoi, Inc. Village Corporation for Kodiak area Ouzinkie Native Corporation Ouzinkie For-Profit Village Native Corporation Old Harbor Native Corporation Old Harbor For-Profit Village Native Corporation Afognak Native Corporation Port Lions For-Profit Village Native Corporation Natives of Kodiak Village Corporation 4.6.2 KIB Landfill Recycling efforts at the KIB Landfill include Borough operations for used oil, lead acid batteries, refrigerator decommissioning and a contracted scrap metal operation. Refrigerator decommissioning occurs on a concrete slab behind the baler building. Refrigerators are stockpiled and then batch processed for Freon® r e covery and compressor removal. The remaining shells are then processed with other scrap metal by the Borough's metal contractor. The Borough is currently in the third year of a four-year scrap metal handling contract with Northern Exploration & Equipment Company. This contractor is responsible for handling all scrap metal delivered to the Borough facilities . Scrap includes derelict -30- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 39 of 213 vehicles, appliances, Iron, structural steel, and miscellaneous metal scrap Both ferrous (e g, Iron and steel) and non-ferrous (e.g, copper, brass, alummum) metals are handled at the site The Contractor also processes lead acid battenes for shipment, although the ownership of the battenes remams with the Borough Scrap handlmg operations occur at vanous areas at the landfill facility, With stockpiles of vehicles and scrap plies occurnng throughout the Site. Actual processmg occurs m a relatively small area rmmediately adJacent to the Borough's car crusher Processmg mcludes drammg flmds from vehicles, filling vehicles with hght scrap, crushmg the vehicles and stackmg them on flatbed shippmg contamers for transport to General Metals m Tacoma, Washmgton Non-ferrous, cast Iron and heavy scrap IS prepared to specification and shipped separately to General Metals The current scrap contractor also operates a truck and auto parts busmess at the landfill site This has caused some operational difficulties for the Borough, smce the contractor has an mcentive to keep unprocessed abandoned vehicles as long as possible to maximize revenues from parts sales The resultmg proliferation of vehicles and stockpiled parts (axles, engme blocks, etc) substantially expands the footprmt of the scrap operation to the pomt of mterfermg With landfill mamtenance The Borough expects this situation to be corrected with the next contract Under the current contract, the Borough pays the contractor $97 77 for each ton of metal shipped to market. The contractor also retams revenues from the sale of parts and scrap In 1995, 1,549 tons of metal were shipped and m 1996, 1,307 tons were shipped The 1995 quantities exclude the 250 tons of metal recovered from Ouzmkie under a separate Borough contract. 4.6.3 Threshold Recycling Durmg the early 1990s, the Borough operated some paper recyclmg programs Average annual quantities ranged from 36 to 133 tons, with an annual average of approximately 80 tons per year dunng the 1990 to 1995 penod In 1996, Threshold Recyclmg was estabhshed m an existmg warehouse withm the City of Kodmk With this additional capacity, Borough paper recovery mcreased to 262 tons m 1996 Durmg the last four months of 1996, Threshold Recycling was handlmg an average of 38 tons per month Threshold Recyclmg IS a non-profit orgamzahon which IS fmancmlly-supported by the Borough Fac1hty eqmpment mcludes a forkhft and a small downstroke baler capable of low density bales At this trme, the facihty handles paper fiber exclusively Most of the recycled tonnage IS baled cardboard (185 tons m 1996), w1th roughly equal amounts (20-23 tons each m 1996) of newspaper, wh1te ledger and magazmes handled m gay lords Mmor amounts of colored ledger and computer paper were also recycled -31- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 40 of 213 Matenals are shipped by Sea Land to markets m Seattle and Tacoma At this time, Sea Land provides the "backhaul" shlppmg at no cost to Threshold Recyclmg The Threshold Recyclmg operation has sigmficant potential for expansiOn If contamenzed transportation contmues to be available at no cost, a number of additional matenals could be recovered, baled and shipped to markets m the Seattle area At the present time, the pnmary bottleneck IS the downstroke baler The use of this baler IS labor-mtensive and It produces low density bales that must be rebaled m Seattle for forwardmg to domestic or Pacific Rim markets If a more efficient htgh denstty baler were obtamed, the per-ton bahng costs would be reduced and more revenues would be realized from the sale of baled matenals As long as free transportatiOn to Seattle IS available, It IS hkely that office pack, miXed waste paper, tm cans, HDPE plastic and possibly clear and brown glass could be economically recycled by Threshold Recyclmg (See Photos titled Kodiak Facihbes Potentially Available for Regional Use) 4.6.4 Boy Scouts Alummum cans are collected by the Boy Scouts throughout the Kodiak city area Contamers are provided m central areas for drop-off delivery by area residents The contamers are penodically emptied by a spectahzed vehicles that vacuums the cans mto an on-board bnquette. The bnquettes are then shipped to market m Tacoma, With revenues retamed by the Boy Scouts 4.6.5 Locally-Available Equipment and Labor Each of the Kodiak commumties has some heavy eqmpment, fuel and skilled heavy eqmpment operators available for hire Eqmpment IS generally owned by the commumty and could be rented for a one-hme or annual scrap metal removal action Additionally, semi-skilled and unskilled labor IS generally available Withm the commumhes, especially outside of fiShmg season -32- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 41 of 213 4.7 Community Economics The city budgets of the commuruhes of the KIB rely on state and federal transfer payments and revenues collected from residents to fund city operations In Port Lwns about 15% of the City operatmg budget goes toward utlhtles water, sewer, and sohd waste As budgeted for FY 1997, the water, sewer, and refuse assessment fees match the expenses for those departments The uhhty budget mOld Harbor mdicates that the water, sewer, and garbage revenues cover less than half of the operational expenditures for those utlhtles It appears that the sale of electnc power along with the state Power Cost Equalization and the revenue from pole/lme rental help to pay for water, sewage, and garbage KODIAK UTILITY COSTS ($) Akhiok Chiniak Karluk Larsen Bay Old Harbor Ouzmk1e Port Lwns Monthly Water 5 md1V1dual 0 15 2350 30 Monthly Wastewater 5 md1V1dual 0 mcluded mcluded 15 mcluded Monthly Sohd Waste 5 2150 0 mcluded mduded 5 mcluded Electr1c1ty (KWH) 024 040 032 030 017 D1esel (gal) 135 168 Gasohne (gal) 145 Propane (lb) 065 4.8 Military Installations Kodiak has been used for numerous rmhtary bases by all branches of the U S military smce the onset of World War II. Abandoned mthtary sites often have debns and contammated soil associated with them from the past use of fuels, pestiCides/herbiCides, solvents and other matenals Cape Chm1ak IS the only abandoned mihtary facihty adJacent to the ex1stmg commumhes Investigation and cleanup at Cape Chmtak' IS underway under the direction of the Army Corps of Engmeers. KIB may be asked to accept non-hazardous waste, debns and sml generated durmg the cleanup at the Kodiak landfill No other remediation sites were Identified that would contnbute significant amounts of waste to the KIB rural commumty landfills -35- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 44 of 213 Section 5.0 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION «&> MONTGOMERY WATSON RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 45 of 213 system) Commercial fishers, sport fishers and hunters often dispose of wastes m Isolated areas around the commumty Commercial/Industrial Enterprises. CommerCial/mdustnal enterprises are the community store, health chmc, fuel storage and dispensmg facility, electnc generator(s), lodge/restaurant(s), a cannery (Larsen Bay only), timber harvest (Chrmak only) and ferry (Port Lions only). Waste generation IS unique to the enterpnse and typically breaks down as E nterprtse T . I W t :yptca as es Store Packagmg_ matenals,pallets Healthchmc Syrmges and other sharp obJects, products contammated With blood, feces or unne Cannery Fish wastes, petroleum products, battenes, pamts, solvents, scrap metal and wood, municipal sohd wastes Electnc generators and fuel Used ml, fuels, fuel-contammated storage and dispensmg smls, fuel-contammated water, faCilities fuel sludges, scrap metal (upon decomm1ssmnm_g) Lodges I restaurants Food wastes, mumCipal sohd waste Domestic livestock Manures Timber harvesting Scrap wood Vehicles and Vessels. Mamtenance of vehicles and vessels results m numerous waste matenals with a high potential for causmg environmental damage, for example, used ml, mly filters and rags, mly water, mly sludges, lead-acid battenes, cleamng solvents and degreasers, antifreeze, transmission and brake flmds, refngerants (Freon®) and pamts Because of their high potential for adversely rmpactmg human health and the environment, these matenals are often targeted for special management Construction Programs. Vanous types of construction proJects are scheduled throughout the communities, such as renovation/Improvements to HUD housmg units, fuel tank system Improvements, port/harbor Improvements and environmental cleanups (e g, US Army Corps of Engmeers at Cape Chmiak) Wastes generated by construction proJects typically consist of rock and construction rubble, waste wood and metal, concrete, and contammated soils Construction proJects usually result m one-time generation of large amounts of matenal. Although typically not an Immediate danger to human health or the environment, these matenals are often difficult to manage because of their size -37- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 47 of 213 and volume When left unmanaged, they degrade the commumty' s appearance and discourage an environmental ethic withm the commumty Past Accumulation. Over the years, scrap matenals (e.g, drums, vehicles and apphances) have accumulated m the commumties because of the lack of waste management mfrastructure and pnonty for alternative waste management The unmanaged scrap metals degrade the commumty' s appearance and discourage an env1ronmental ethic withm the commumty No situations were Identified that would dramatically mcrease or decrease the population and commercial profiles of the Kodiak Island commumties Therefore, proJections of waste generation rates over the next 20 years was assumed to be stable and comparable to current rates 5.2 Waste Quantification 5.2.1 Solid Waste Sohd waste m rural Alaska mcludes a vanety of matenals either Imported or produced from local sources Most matenals are Imported by plane or boat. Packagmg constitutes a large component of the waste stream, mcludmg canned food and drmks, cardboard, and plastic contamers Glass packagmg IS a much smaller proportion of the sohd waste load than IS typical m urban areas due to the we1ght and potential for breakage Newspapers, although common m urban wastes, are almost non-existent m rural Alaska Locally generated matenals would be hmited to carcasses of game, espeCially deer and canbou Fish waste IS normally disposed at sea or along the nverbanks Commercial fish processmg waste IS ground and discharged to the sea VIa slurry outfalls Brush, grass chppmgs, and other orgamc "yard wastes" common to urban landfills are uncommon, as ornamental gardenmg and lawn care IS rare Durable goods form a sigmhcant portion of the rural waste stream, m the form of discarded outboard motors, other engme parts, and old washers, refngerators and other "white goods" Junk vehicles and wh1te goods become sigmflcant m the total volume of waste produced m rural areas, due to the difficulties m handlmg and disposmg of these Items. Construction wastes occur occasionally, often m conJunction with maJOr pubhc housmg Imhatlves or rehabilitation proJects Excess bmldmg matenals for small pnvate proJects are often held as resources for future efforts, so httle waste results -38- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 48 of 213 For planrung purposes, we have set the gross production of sohd waste at 5 pounds per capita per day, shghtly below the typical value for the state as a whole Alaska stands a bit higher than the national average due to our propensity for consumer goods Rural Alaska mcomes are lower and pnces are higher due to transport costs, so consumption IS assumed to be lower, and this IS reflected m reduced waste generation rates. Table 5- 1 shows the quantities of mumcipal sohd waste generated m each commumty The prmCipal concern associated With municipal sohd waste matenals IS for the contammatwn of ground water and surface water by leachmg of chemicals from the garbage . Excessive nutnent ennchment and toxic effects can result Food waste found m garbage can also attract animals, mcludmg rats, foxes, bears, and birds The proliferatiOn of ammals near garbage can harbor disease, as well as bemg a direct threat from attack 5.2.2 Sewage The wastewater of the commumties of the KIB consists almost entirely of domestic wastewater from mdividual households The general exception IS the wastewater generated m the schools which Is srmilar to domestic wastewater Domestic wastewater Is made up of the water from tmlets, smks, tubs, and laundry An effective wastewater system will collect the wastewater, treat It, and properly dispose of the treated product The collection portion of the system should remove the wastewater from the home so that people do not come m contact with It. Treatment should neutralize the hazardous components of the wastewater and disposal should get nd of the end product From a health perspective, the most Important charactenstic of wastewater IS that It contams pathogens, organisms that can cause disease Other components of wastewater are Important from the perspective of the environment orgamc compounds that can be food for microorgamsms, suspended solids that can, under certam conditions, hmit the amount of oxygen available and cause anaerobic conditions, and nutnents that can pollute groundwater or change the balance of aquatic hfe In addition, cleaners and solvents that go down the dram may pass through the wastewater system and mto the environment Because of their harmful effects their use should be mmimiZed. The quantity of wastewater produced Is essentially the same as the quantity of water that IS used. Typical design values are 60 to 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) This amount, however, can vary greatly If faucets are allowed to run m order to keep water pipes from freezmg In one home that was VIStted about 900 gallons of water per day was allowed to go down the dram -40- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 50 of 213 Ta b l e 5- 1 Qu a n t i t i e s of Sc r a p Me t a l an d Mu n c i p a l Wa s t e Co m m u n i t y Ak h i o k Ch i n i a k Ka r l u k La r s e n Ba y Ol d Ha r b o r Ou z i n k i e Po r t Li o n s EX I S T I N G ME T A L S (p o u n d s / u r u t ) Li g h t Ve h i c l e s 30 0 0 6 10 10 57 20 5 10 0 He a v y tr u c k s 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 He a v y eq m p m 13 0 0 0 1 1 1 mn v e r 3 0 0 3 35 0 / 0 7 / l o a d e r 55 Ga l l o n Dr u r 50 15 0 0 15 0 17 0 10 0 40 40 Ta n k s 75 0 0 18 re s fu e l 0 0 5 0 Ap p h a n c e s 20 0 50 0 18 jg e n s e t s 0 40 10 0 no n e no t e d MI S c e l l a n e o u s 20 0 0 20 la r g e ta n k 5 La n d m g m a t 5 bo a t e q m p 20 ca n n e r y 0 15 ha r b o r 40 lg ta n k s / p o t s To t a l Ex i s t i n g Sc r a p In v e n t o r y 50 To n s 27 To n s 33 To n s 12 9 To n s 37 To n s 25 To n s 25 3 To n s WA S T E GE N E R A T I O N MU N I C I P A L SO U D WA S T E S (a n n u a l ) Re f u s e co l l e c t e d (5 # / ca p I da y ) 57 to n s / y e a r 84 to n s / y e a r 64 to n s / y e a r 20 4 to n s / y e a r 24 7 to n s / y e a r 20 7 to n s / y e a r 25 3 to n s / y e a r Vo l u m e (u n c o m p a c t e d @ 2 5 0 # / C Y ) 45 6 cu y d 67 4 cu y d 51 0 cu y d 16 3 4 cu y d 19 7 3 cu y d 16 5 9 cu y d 20 2 4 cu y d Re d u c b o n by bu r n / co m p a c b o n 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 80 % 50 % Su b t e c t to sa l v a g e / r e c y c h n g 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % An n u a l So l i d Wa s t e Di s p o s a l Vo l u m e 20 5 cu y d 30 3 cu y d 23 0 cu y d 73 5 cu y d 88 8 cu y d 29 9 cu y d 91 1 cu y d SE W A G E SL U D G E (s e p b c ta n k s ) 50 0 0 !g a l / y e a r 15 0 0 0 lg a l / v e a r 50 0 0 !g a l / y e a r 70 0 0 !g a l / y e a r 70 0 0 lg a l / y e a r 22 5 0 0 !g a l / y e a r 30 0 0 0 lg a l / y e a r Vo l u m e of ex t s b n g pu m p e r 50 0 ga l Va n o u s pn v a t e ha u l e r s 50 0 ga l 50 0 ga l BO O ga l 50 0 ga l 80 0 ga l Tn p s re q ' d fo r em p t y m g 10 10 14 9 45 38 Dr y Sl u d g e Vo l u m e (2 0 % so h d s ) 5 cu y d 15 cu y d 5 cu y d 7 cu y d 7 cu y d 22 cu y d 30 cu y d -4 1 - RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 51 of 213 The quahty, or strength, of the wastewater IS a function of the amount of wastewater, the number of people served, and the average contnbution of those served A typical value of the amount of biOdegradable orgamcs, expressed as BOD5, IS 0 2 pounds per capita per day. A typical value of suspended sohds IS 0 25 pounds per capita per day The followmg table IS based on the current population estimate from Table 4-1 and the followmg assumptions 0 Average water usage of 100 gallons per capita per day, 0 BODS quantity of 0 2 pounds per capita per day, and 0 Suspended sohds of 0 2S pounds per capita per day. WASTEWATER PRODUCTION, DAILY BASIS Volume Orgamcs Commumty Current Wastewater BODS Population (gallons) (pounds) Akluok 62 6,200 124 Cluroak 92 9,200 184 Karluk 70 7,000 14 Larsen Bay 224 22,400 448 Old Harbor 270 27,000 54 Ouzmk1e 227 22,700 454 Port Lions 283 28,300 566 Suspended Sohds (pounds) 155 23 175 56 675 5675 7075 Most of the wastewater systems m the communities of the KIB use septic tanks to treat the wastewater and then ocean outfalls to dispose of the effluent Septic tanks, which are always full when they are m service, act hke a settlmg pond and allow sohds to settle out They also provide an anaerobic environment to help break down the orgamcs m the wastewater and to kill the pathogens Septic tanks are most effective when they have an adequate volume to hold the wastewater for at least a day For example a 1,000 gallon septic tank would provide a detentiOn time of one day for a flow of 1,000 gallons per day The mamtenance of a septic tank consists of pumpmg out the contents, generally once every two years This removes the sohds that have settled out and also the scum layer that may form on the surface Performmg thiS mamtenance safeguards the quahty of the effluent by allowmg the septic tank to function properly and reduces the chances of havmg a discharge lme plug up Proper mamtenance of the septic tank does, however, result m another disposal problem The concentrated wastewater pumped from a septic tank, called septage, needs to be disposed One method bemg used IS ocean disposal at a time and place where tidal conditions will allow maXImum dispersal. A preferable method, that safeguards the marme environment, IS to treat the septage with hme for dtsmfectlon and then discharge It to a lagoon. -43- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 53 of 213 The pnmary advantage of ocean outfalls IS that they allow dilution of the septic tank effluent As long as tidal flow IS sufficient to disperse the wastewater, the marme envuonment has a great capacity to assimilate the orgamcs and suspended sohds of domestic wastewater The outfalls must, however, be away from food sources, especmlly clams wh1ch are filter feeders Properly operated and mamtamed these systems can provide satisfactory service and help to safeguard the health of the community and the health of the environment In most cases the bas1c physical components, the pipes, the septic tanks, and the outfalls, are m place m the commumties It 1s the operation and mamtenance of the systems that 1s the key to the1r proper functionmg The individual systems w1ll be discussed m the fac1hties section 5.2.3 Used Oil and Household Hazardous Waste In simple terms, used ml1 IS lubncatmg ml that results from changmg the ml m cars, trucks, four-wheelers, snow machmes, the engmes of flshmg vessels and skiffs, electnc generators and srmllar eqmpment Hazardous waste1 , as used m this document, refers to waste matenals that are recognized to cause senous harm to people or the environment, such as petroleum products, solvents, battenes and medical wastes Because of the high potential for small quantities to harm people and the environment, disposal of these matenals IS often stnctly regulated by law In general, hazardous wastes generated by pnvate citizens m their homes (I e., household hazardous waste) and m small amounts by busmesses (I e , a conditionally-exempt small quantity generator) are often exempted from many of the legal reqmrements For ease of understandmg, th1s document focuses on Idenhfymg the matenals and technical1ssues Regulatory 1mphcations will be fully considered m the selection and evaluation of alternatives, but are only noted m this document when they are anticipated to s1gmflcantly help or hmder the identification of alternative solutions and fundmg sources Table 5-2 presents a tabulation of the maJOr sources and quantities of used ml and hazardous waste by commumty Both waste mventory methods descnbed m section 5 0 were used to prepare the mventory, however, emphasis was placed on estimates made by extrapolatmg from the number of vehicles, vessels and other pertment mdicators because the matenals are often managed outside of existing waste management systems or could not be observed due to the large volume of other, commmgled matenals Table 5-3 presents the bas1s for the calculations and hsts the assumptions In both cases, the exact def1mt1on ts defined by Jaw for used 01! (40 CFR 260 10) and hazardous waste (40 CFR 261) and must be used when determ1mng regulatory reqmrements -44- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 54 of 213 Ta b l e 5- 2 Us e d Oi l an d Ho u s e h o l d Ha z a r d o u s Wa s t e Ge n e r a t i o n By Co m m u m t y Wa s t e pe t r o l e u m Us e d ve h i c l e an d ge n e r a t o r oi l Wa s t e di e s e l fu e l , Oi l s Un u s a b l e ga s o l m e Tr a n s m i S S i o n an d br a k e fl m d s Bi l g e wa t e r 01 l y wa t e r (f r o m fu e l ta n k s ) 01 l y fi l t e r s / r a g s Pe t r o l e u m sl u d g e s Le a d - a c i d ba t t e n e s An t i f r e e z e So l v e n t s Re f n g e r a n t s Me d t c a l Wa s t e Sh a r p s B1 o h a z a r d Dr y ce l l s Ex p l o s i v e ha z a r d s Am m u r u h o n Ae r o s o l ca n s Co n t a m m a t e d So d St a h s b c s Bu l k fu e l st o r a g e (e x d ca n n e r y ) Ve r u c l e s AT V s Ve s s e l s (m d u d m g sk i f f s ) Ho u s e h o l d s Fu l l - h m e ge n e r a t o r s Ba c k u p / a u X I l i a r y ge n e r a t o r s Un i t s ga l l o n s I ye a r ga l l o n s I ye a r ga l l o n s / y e a r ga l l o n s I ye a r ga l l o n s / y e a r ga l l o n s / y e a r po u n d s / y e a r ga l l o n s / y e a r ba tt e n e s I ye a r ga l l o n s / y e a r ga l l o n s I ye a r ga l l o n s I ye a r ba t t e n e s / y e a r po u n d s pe r ye a r ca n s / y e a r cu b t c ya r d s / y e a r ga l l o n s Nu m b e r Nu m b e r Nu m b e r Nu m b e r Nu m b e r Nu m b e r Ak h i o k Ch t r u a k 72 31 8 Mm r m a l M! m m a l Mt m m a l Mm t m a l M! m m a l Mt m m a l 3, 7 5 0 3, 7 5 0 38 60 10 0 22 5 Va n a b l e Va n a b l e 4 9 5 11 15 35 2 4 95 0 1, 5 0 0 57 90 Un d e f m e d Un d e f m e d 30 , 0 0 0 12 , 5 0 0 5 30 22 5 15 15 19 30 0 0 -4 5 - Ka r l u k La r s e n Ba y 45 3 60 3 Mt m m a l M1 r u m a l Mr m m a l Mm r m a l Mm 1 m a l Mm 1 m a l 3, 7 5 0 13 , 7 5 0 36 88 10 5 40 5 Va n a b l e Va n a b l e 4 16 5 20 16 62 2 5 90 0 2, 2 0 0 54 13 2 Un d e f m e d Un d e f i n e d 50 , 0 0 0 75 , 5 0 0 6 26 8 20 15 55 18 44 2 2 Ol d Ha r b o r Ou z m k 1 e Po r t Lm n s 67 8 19 1 56 8 Mi m m a l Mt m m a l Mm t m a l M! m m a l Mm t m a l Mm 1 m a l Mm i m a l M! n r m a l Mm r m a l 16 , 2 5 0 10 , 5 0 0 12 , 5 0 0 17 4 13 6 1 4 6 55 5 28 5 89 5 Va n a b l e Va n a b l e Va n a b l e 22 11 36 28 14 45 85 44 13 6 11 8 9 4, 3 5 0 3, 4 0 0 3, 6 5 0 26 1 20 4 21 9 Un d e f m e d Un d e f m e d Un d e f m e d 12 1 , 7 0 0 78 , 0 0 0 92 , 0 0 0 20 15 29 25 25 40 65 42 50 87 68 73 2 0 0 2 5 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 55 of 213 Ta b l e 5- 3 As s u m p t i o n s fo r Es t i m a t i n g Us e d Oi l an d Ha z a r d o u s Wa s t e Qu a n t i t i e s Wa s t e As s u m e d Ge n e r a t i o n Ra t e Ba c k u p Wa s t e pe t r o l e u m Us e d ve h i c l e an d ge n e r a t o r ml 2 5 ga l / v e r u c l e / y e a r , 20 0 ga l / f u l l - t l m e Ty p i c a l 2 5 0 KW ge n e r a t o r ha s 4- 6 ge n e r a t o r / y e a r , 24 ga l /b a c k u p ge n e r a t o r / y e a r ga l l o n ca p a c i t y an d re q l l l r e s ml ch a n g e ev e r y 25 0 ho u r s or 3 mo n t h s , Wa s t e fu e l , ml s Mi m m a l Tr a n s m i s s i o n an d br a k e fl l l l d s Mi m m a l Bt l g e wa t e r 25 0 ga l l o n s / v e s s e l / y e a r Oi l y wa t e r (f r o m fu e l ta n k s ) 2 ga l l o n / h o u s e h o l d / y e a r , 5% of bu l k fu e l Oi l y fi l t e r s / r a g s 5 po u n d / v e s s e l & v e r u c l e / y e a r Pe t r o l e u m sl u d g e s 10 ga l l o n s / 1 0 , 0 0 0 ga l st o r a g e ca p a c i t y /y e a r Le a d - a c t d ba t t e n e s On e ba t t e r y /v e h i c l e / 5 ye a r s An t i f r e e z e 1 qu a r t / ve r u c l e I ve s s e l / ye a r So l v e n t s 0 1 qu a r t / h o m e / y e a r , 3 qu a r t s / v e h i c l e or Re f r i g e r a n t s 0 5 qu a r t / h o u s e h o l d / y e a r Me d i c a l Wa s t e Sh a r p s No t ap p l i c a b l e Bi o h a z a r d No t ap p l i c a b l e Dr y ce l l s 50 / h o u s e h o l d / y e a r Ex p l o s i v e ha z a r d s Am m u r u h o n Un d e f m e d Ae r o s o l ca n s 3 /h o u s e h o l d / ye a r Co n t a m i n a t e d So d Un d e f m e d -4 6 - RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 56 of 213 In the Kodtak Island cornmumties, the most prevalent used ml and hazardous wastes appear to be 0 Petroleum products (e g, used ml, waste fuels and mls, transmission and brake flmds, bilge water, mly water, mly filters and rags, and petroleum sludges), 0 Lead-acid batteries from automobiles, trucks, four-wheelers, snowmobiles, heavy eqmpment, and fishmg vessels, 0 Antifreezes (1 e, ethylene glycol), 0 Chlormated engme-cleanmg solvents and degreasers, 0 Refngerants (Freon®), and 0 Medical wastes Other hazardous wastes m the Kodtak Island commumties mclude pamts, household cleaners (e g, bleaches, scounng powders, oven cleaners, dry cleanmg flmd), waste medications, household batteries (e g., flashlight and watch), computer dtsks, audio and vtdeo tapes, fire alarms, hght bulbs and ballasts and pesticides/herbicides In some cases, smls are already contammated because of past practices, for example from fuel spills or leaks Fuel tanks and military mstallations typically reqmre soil samplmg and laboratory analysts to determme whether soils are contammated, because contammation Is not always easy to see In the rural Kodtak Island Borough faCilities the quantity of contammated soil, If It exists, IS not known Contammated soils often reqmre special handling and often are generated m large quantities However, existing mformabon IS not sufficient to document or even estimate a quantity for Kodiak. Smce httle top soil IS present, It IS anticipated that contammated sml will not be a maJOr source of waste m the rural Kodtak Island commumties Once the biggest waste streams are Identified mtegratmg them with site-speCific disposal practices and receptors shows which wastes have the btggest effect on the people or the environment on Kodiak Island and therefore are the htghest pr10nty Usmg thiS cntena, used ml and hazardous wastes rank as htgh pnonty waste management Issues. Petroleum Products. Petroleum products play a cntical role m the operation and welfare of all of the Kodtak Island communities Large quantities of fuel are used for heatmg, generation of electnctty, and to fuel and lubncate personal vehicles and ftshmg vessels. When petroleum products reach the water m htgh concentrations (such as the Exxon Valdez ml sptll), they ktll fish, birds and other seahfe Over time the petroleum products become diluted, b10degrade and cause less harm Effects of diluted petroleum, such as from the discharge at sea of used ml, ballast or btlge water, are not fully understood, because they are harder to document In general, scientific research typtcally dtscovers that smaller and smaller amounts of petroleum does tmpact the enVIronment -47- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 57 of 213 When petroleum IS spilled m sml, It kills or damages plants, and the hazardous substances m 1t can effect the health of humans and Wildlife exposed to It Humans and wildhfe are exposed to It by airborne dust When It gets on hands and shoes It IS tracked m houses Over time, petroleum products biodegrade m soil, but some of the most dangerous parts (e g, the polynuclear hydrocarbons) are the slowest to degrade If a large amount of petroleum IS m the sml, It can travel honzontally and seep mto the sea In other areas, petroleum m sml can migrate to groundwater and contammate the dnnkmg water, but ground water IS not used m Kodiak as a dnnkmg water sources, so this IS not an Issue Any used ml or other petroleum disposed on the ground withm the watershed could potentially enter the drmkmg water Table 5-2 shows that large amounts of petroleum products are generated m the Kodiak Island Borough The wastes are generated by vehicles, vessels, and the power generators and are m different forms mls (used ml, waste fuels and mls, transmiSSion and brake flmds), aqueous hqmds (bilge water, mly water), and solids (mly filters and rags, and petroleum sludges) Often times the petroleum IS mixed With other matenals (e.g, water, antifreeze, solvents) for storage and disposal Mixmg petroleum products with water, antifreeze and/ or solvents often tnggers compliance with more strmgent environmental regulations and mcreases the complexity and cost of waste disposal Three communities had facilities for disposal of waste petroleum products Ouzmkie has a household hazardous waste collectiOn shed (although no permanent disposal facility) Port Lions has a used ml burner, however, the capacity IS not sufficient for the community's generatiOn The Larsen Bay mcmerator Is eqmpped to burn used or waste ml as an alternative to fuel ml, though It may not be used consistently Old Harbor has an used ml burner, but It IS not yet connected to a supply tank and filter There are several used ml burners m the city of Kodiak, one at pubhc works, two at the marma, one at the fish meal processmg plant and one at USCG The Kodiak marma mamtams a used ml and mly water collection faCility and burns the ml m two used ml burners and has secured agreements with the USCG to burn excess used ml Vessels stoppmg at the Kodiak manna may dispose of their used ml and mly water (bilge water and ballast water) for a fee Comparmg the quantities of waste petroleum products observed m the villages to the waste calculatiOns based on the number of vehicles and vessels md1cates that much of the petroleum wastes are probably bemg disposed m the landfills, at sea or on the land Typically, It IS assumed that small quantities of petroleum become diluted and do not result m environmental damage, however, this thmkmg Is generally recogmzed as out of date because the shear numbers of small discharges together become a sigmficant amount of petroleum (See photos titled Potential Impacts Due to Petroleum Storage) Because of the rare and precious resources m and around the Kodiak Island borough communities and the heavy reliance of the residents on these resources for food (e g, subsistence food sources) and hvehhood (e g., commercial fishmg, tounsm), developmg alternative, mexpenstve methods for collection and dtsposal of waste petroleum -48- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 58 of 213 products IS viewed as a high pnonty waste management Issue Evaluation of alternative waste recyclmg/ disposal facilities will need to address the different types of petroleum wastes (used ml vs sludges vs ml filters), segregation of wastes, collection schemes, transportation, recyclmg/reuse/disposal and regulatory constramts There are a number of regulatory exemptwns that facilitate appropnate management of petroleum products, however, different exemptions apply to different waste streams For example used ml and waste oil could be managed the same way, but for different reasons Lead Acid Batteries. Lead-aCid battenes are the battenes from automobiles, trucks, four-wheelers, snowmobiles, heavy eqmpment, and fishmg vessels, not the disposable household ones The hqmd m the battery IS a strong acid that can cause severe burns and contams high levels of dissolved lead The metal core IS lead, which chips or d1ssolves mto soil or water and IS harmful to humans and wildlife Lead 1s not biodegradable, so It never goes away The body accumulates lead rather than ehmmatmg It as a waste product, so small amounts mgested over a whole lifetime add up Shellfish typically bwaccumulate heavy metals and lead, so lead m battenes disposed near the shore can be concentrated m the shellfish eaten by residents Two communities have lead-aCid battery collection procedures Ouzmkie collects battenes at the household hazardous waste collection shed at the landfill The AmenCorps volunteer m Akhtok started lead aCid battery collection through the school In both cases, there IS no permanent program for transportatiOn and recyclmg/ disposal of the battenes In other commuruties, lead acid battenes were observed m the dump and scrap metal piles. Comparmg the number of battenes observed to the number of vehicles and vessels, It appears that many battenes are disposed m the dump, at sea or on the land Because of the health and environmental hazards associated With lead, Its persistence m the environment and the quantity of battenes, developmg alternative systems for the collection, transportation and recycling/ disposal of lead acid batteries IS a high-pnonty waste management Issue Antifreezes. Antifreeze m vehicles and vessels (1 e, ethylene glycol) IS a strong, but sweet pmson Although btodegradable under the nght condttions, when 1t 1s disposed to soil or water It generally persists for a long time Because of Its sweetness, w1ldhfe, domestic animals (e g., dogs) and chtldren have been reported to readily eat or drmk It -49- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 59 of 213 The Ouzinkie household hazardous waste collectiOn shed IS the only facility for the collectiOn of antifreeze, however, there are no established practices for transportation and disposal Typically antifreeze IS miXed With used ml and other wastes for disposal As used ml collection and reuse/recyclmg programs are developed, an alternative disposal method for antifreeze will be needed The maJonty of antifreeze Is probably bemg disposed m the dump, With used ml, or to the land or sea Because antifreeze IS pmsonous and attractive to wildhfe, domestic ammals and children, but not generated m large quantities, developmg an alternative waste disposal option IS a medmm-hlgh pnonty Chlorinated Engine-Cleaning Solvents and Degreasers. Chlormated engme-cleanmg solvents and degreasers are typically used to clean greasy or mly parts When these cleaners reach the sml or water, they typically do not biodegrade and, m quantity, can harm humans, wildlife and seahfe populations. Typically chlormated cleamng solvents are mixed With used ml and other wastes for disposal As used ml collection and reuse/recychng programs are developed, an alternative disposal method for the cleanmg solvents will be needed The maJOrity of chlormated solvents are probably bemg disposed m the dump, with used ml, or to the land or sea Because chlormated solvents are persistent and pose significant danger to human health and the envuonment, but are not generated m large quantities, developmg an alternative waste management option IS a medmm-high pnonty Refrigerants. Refrigerants (e.g , Freon®) are used as the heat transfer hqmd m home and mdustnal refrigerators and air conditioners Although alternative refrigerants are commerCially available, the old, JUnk appliances and existmg eqmpment m the Kodiak Island commumties typically use Freon® Refrigerants are very volatile, so they typically are not found m sml or water However, they have been lmked to depletion of the ozone layer and associated problems No facilities for managmg refrigerants are present m the Kodiak Island Borough commumties Typically, refngerants appear to be left m unused eqmpment, which, with bme, Will rust and discharge the refrigerants to the soil or water. The dangers associated with the discharge are global (e g, reduction m the ozone layer) and would effect Kodiak residents m the same way It would the rest of the world Although diverting refrigerants from release to the atmosphere IS a h1gh-pnonty Issue globally, Kodiak Island borough residents have other Issues that have a more Immediate Impact on their health and hvehhoods Therefore, collectiOn of refrigerants Is VIewed as a low pnonty Issue. -51- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 61 of 213 Medical Wastes. Medical wastes that contam sharp obJects (e.g, syrmges) and bodily flmds (e g, blood, feces and urme) are hazardous because of then potential to spread disease Sharp obJects, referred to sunply as "sharps", and matenals contammg bodily flmds, referred to as "biohazards", are typically contamenzed and disposed of separately In the rural Kodiak Island communities, the health chruc IS the pnmary generator of medical wastes In all communities, the sharps are sent outside by air for disposal and the biohazard wastes are burned The health aide contamenzes the biohazard wastes m red bags and bum It m a burn barrel at the health chmc The exception IS Larsen Bay where the health aide has tramed a samtahon worker to pick up the red-bagged biohazard waste and bum It at the commumty mcmerator The medical waste segregation, collection and disposal practices m all the Kodiak communities are excellent and appear to adequately protect the commumty from the dangers of medical waste No changes are needed 5.2.4 Commercial/Industrial Wastes Commercial and mdustnal faCilities generate wastes that are often addressed mother sections and will not be repeated here, for example, 0 Mumcipal sohd wastes (e g., paper, plastic, cans, packagmg, pallets) covered m sectiOn 5 2.1. 0 Hazardous wastes (e g., medical wastes, used ml, petroleum products) covered msechonS 2 3 The cannery m Larsen Bay IS the only large mdustnal facility m the rural Kodiak Island communities Generally, the cannery contracts with Larsen Bay for use of the dump for disposal of municipal solid wastes, as discussed m section 5 2 1 The cannery appears to collect and ship hazardous wastes off-site Fish processmg wastes are ground and discharged subsurface mto the ocean Accordmg to some residents, the fish waste discharge IS another factor m attractmg bears to Larsen Bay Solutions to the bear problem m Larsen Bay will need to take mto account the cannery fish discharge Livestock (e.g., chickens and horses) m Larsen Bay and Ouzmkte, generate manures which are managed on-site In other commumhes around Alaska, manures have been a sigruficant problem because of the odor, and migratiOn of mtrates to ground or surface water Due to the small numbers of livestock m Larsen Bay, manure management does not appear to be an Issue Trmber harvest m Chmiak results m wood wastes that are typically left m the forest to degrade With time Takmg of the hmber has an environmental Impact, and transportmg the cut timber by floatmg the product m open waterways potentially has an adverse environmental Impact. However, leavmg the wood wastes m the forest does -52- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 62 of 213 not appear to be a sigruficant problem The Issues of timber harvest and transportation are outside the scope of this waste management study. 5.2.5 Scrap Metal Scrap metal Is one of the most visible sohd waste ISsues Withm Kodiak Island Borough commumhes Although scrap has traditionally been considered more of a VIsual problem than environmental Issue, there are a number of environmental concerns associated With stockpiled scrap metal. Many scrap Items contam a number of potentially hazardous matenals that can cause significant damage to marme and freshwater environments Example mclude mercury switches m older appliances; PCB- contammg fluorescent hghtmg ballasts, Freon"' and/or PCB-contammg compressor mls m old refngerators and freezers, residual ml m fuel drums and tanks, batteries, fuel, motor ml, gear oil and brake flmd m abandoned vehicles, and hydraulic, fuel and lube mls m abandoned eqmpment In several villages, potentially hazardous scrap Items are stockpiled or abandoned m environmentally sensitive areas such as tidal areas, saltwater marshes or adJacent to surface waters that dram mto marme areas (See photos titled Hazardous Waste Associated With Scrap Metal) Thus, the potential Impact on the marme environment of existmg scrap metal stockpiles m KIB villages may be of greater concern than mitmlly anticipated Additionally, scrap metal piles are a physical hazard, because of the sharp edges and mstabihty of the decaymg obJects All of the surveyed VIllages had accumulations of scrap metals, although not necessanly proportional to vtllage size Stockpiled scrap metal m the villages mcludes derehct vehicles, ml tanks and drums, old eqmpment and miscellaneous hght scrap Scrap diVersiOn effort vanes among villages In some communities, ( e g Ouzmkie and Akhiok) a substantial effort IS made to separate essentially all scrap metal In these cases, the scrap metal mix mcludes everythmg from lawn chaus and toaster ovens to automobile parts In other commumtles, metal segregation IS limited to vehicles, With no segregated stockpiles of drums, appliances or hght scrap Items noted In these other commumbes, It appears that all hght scrap (mcludmg unprocessed appliances) IS directly landftlled Thus, the surveyed scrap quantities only reflected current segregahon practices, not necessanly potential generation If metal segregation were actively enforced and practiced Table 5-1 provides an estimate of existmg scrap stockpiles m each commumty These estimates are order-of-magnitude due to the difficulties of visually esbmatmg weights This IS particularly true for heavy eqmpment and large tanks The reported quantities do not mclude abandoned fuel tanks unless specifically noted Most of these tanks should be available for future recyclmg, once fully decommiSSioned -53- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 63 of 213 In 1995, the Borough mttiated a scrap metal removal proJect for the VIllage of Ouzmk1e A contractor was retamed to prepare the stockpiled scrap at the Ouzmkie landfill and transport to an off-Island scrap recycler The stockpiled scrap at the landfill was loaded mto 20 foot sruppmg contamers and transported to the mam harbor A scrap bulldozer located at the site of the older closed Ouzmkie landfill was cut up m-place and also transported to the harbor The landmg craft "Cape Douglas" was used to transport the contamers of metal to Kodiak where the scrap was consolidated and shipped to market m Tacoma. The contractor retamed revenues from the sale of scrap At the time the hid documents were prepared, the available scrap quantity was estimated at about 600 tons The Borough received three bids $117,777, $207,000, and $248,500. The low bidder was Northern Exploration & Eqmpment Co, the same contractor currently used by the Borough for landfill scrap handhng After the low hid of $117,777 was accepted, It was determmed that the actual quantity of scrap was lower than ongmally forecast The origmal contract amount remamed the same for handlmg only 250 tons, which mcreased the cost per ton removed from $196 to $471 The unexpectedly high total and umt costs of this program shelved plans to continue removmg metals from area VIllages, until further mvestlgabons could be made -55- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 65 of 213 Ta b l e 6- 1 Sl " d W to · IF 01 as e ts p o s a aC l l l e S Co m m u n i tv Ak h i o k Ch i n i a k Ka r l u k La r s e n Ba v Ol d Ha r b o r Ou z i n k i e Po r t Li o n s PR E S E N T SO L I D WA S T E PR A C I ' I C E S CO L L E C T I O N Me a n s se l f ha u l lo c a l du m p s t e r s se l f ha u l se l f ha u l se l f ha u l se l f ha u l Ct t y pt c k - u p Eq w p m e n t pn v a t e by Bo r o u g h pn v a t e !p n v a t e pn v a t e Hr r e Ct t y tr u c k P1 c k - u p tr u c k Fr e q u e n c y as ne e d e d as ne e d e d as ne e d e d as ne e d e d as ne e d e d as ne e d e d we e k l y DI S P O S A L FA C I L I T Y {Y e a r b w l t ) 19 6 0 ' s Ko d i a k 19 8 0 ' s 19 7 0 ' s 19 9 4 ± 19 9 2 19 6 6 ± Dt r n e n s 1 0 n s of ex i S t i n g ur u t 40 • 5 0 n/ a 1o o • w o 10 • 1 5 0 15 0 • 2 0 0 15 0 • 1 2 10 0 . 4 5 0 To t a l fa c 1 h t y ar e a 1 ac r e + / - n/ a 0 22 9 6 ac r e s 5 ac r e s 11 4 7 8 ac r e s 5 ac r e s 10 ac r e s La n d Ow n e r s h i p ch u r c h Bo r o u g h Tn b a l Co u n C i l Ct t y C1 t y Ci t y Ct t y ? ? ? DI S t a n c e to to w n 10 0 0 fe e t 36 m ! 30 0 fe e t 1 mi l e 25 0 0 ± fe e t 28 0 0 fe e t 35 0 0 fe e t DI S t a n c e to w. r s t r l p 26 0 0 fe e t 36 0 0 fe e t 1m l l e 36 0 0 ± fe e t 32 0 0 fe e t 35 0 0 fe e t Ac c e s s !g r a v e l ro a d 24 hr du m p s t e r mu d d y pa t h gr a v e l ro a d ,g r a v e l ro a d gr a v e l ro a d at hi g h w a y Fe n c e I ye s n/ a no no lv e s ye s no Ga t e no No n e no I Op e n Op e n No n e Ha z m a t Se g r e g a t t o n no No pr O V I S I O n No n e No pr o V I S l o n No pr O V I S I O n fa o h t y av w . J a b l e No Sc r a p me t a l se g r e g a t t o n 'v e s lo c a l Ju n k de a l e r No n e ve s lv e s ve s No Co n t r o l l e d bu r r u n g so m e no t at du m p s t e r s no t us e d mo n no t m u s e so m e un a t t e n d e d bu r n e d m tr e n c h so m e un c o n t r o l l e d La n d f i l l me t h o d ar e a ba l e f t l l ar e a tr e n c h mo d t f t e d ra m p tr e n c h m be d r o c k ar e a sp r e a d m g Co v e r fr e q u e n c y No n e dm l y No n e ra r e we e k l y No n e ra r e Co v e r av m l a b l e li m i t e d n/ a No t mu s e No st o c k p i l e Ye s No st o c k p i l e No st o c k p t l e Lo c a l so l i qu a h t y sa n d v s l l t n/ a sa n d y _ si l t y cl a y Fa r r si l t y sa n d st l t y sa n d sd t y c l a y Dl v e r s t o n of ru n - o n dr m n a g e Pa r r n/ a mt e r s e c t s st r e a m dr m n s of f - s i t e fm r !g o o d ro a d he l p s Ru n o f f co n t r o l ft l l m we t l a n d ru n o f f to la g o o n dr m n s to st r e a m dr m n s to sl u d g e la g o o n no w a t e r eV I d e n t La n d f i l l ar e a ne e d e d (3 3 SF /C Y /Y R ) 67 7 n/ a 75 7 24 2 6 29 2 9 98 5 30 0 6 Ar e a le f t m cu r r e n t ur u t (s f ) 20 0 0 n/ a 0 15 0 0 30 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 YE A R S RE M A I N I N G 3 n/ a 0 1 10 2 D Op e r a t i n g un d e r pe m u t ? N n/ a N N N N N Op e r a t o r re s P o r ! S t b l e No n e n/ a No n e No n e we e k l y No n e We e k l y by co n t r a c t -5 7 - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 68 of 213 Ta b l e 6- 2 La n d f i l l Ra t i n g s by AD E C Sc o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Co m m u n i t y Ak h i o k Ch i n i a k Ka r l u k La r s e n Ba y Ol d Ha r b o r Ou z i n k i e Po r t Li o n s LA N D F I L L EV A L U A T I O N Sc o r e Ou t of Sc o r e Ou t of Sc o r e Ou t of Sc o r e Ou t of Sc o r e Ou t of Sc o r e Ou t of Sc o r e Ou t of 1) Ac c e s s ro a d 3 3 n /a 3 1 3 1. 5 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2) Fi r e Pr o t e c t i o n 0 3 n/ a 3 1 3 0 3 0 3 1 3 0 3 3) Li m i ted Ac c e s s (L o c k e d , at t e n d e d ) 1 3 n /a 3 0 3 0 3 2 3 2 3 0 3 4) Wo r k i n g fa c e li m i ted in si z e 0 3 n /a 3 0 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 0 3 5) Li t t e r co n t r o l l e d by fe n c e / p i c k u i J 2 3 n /a 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 0 3 6) Sp rea d in g an d co m p a c t i o n 1 io : 3 n /a 3 0 13ci l t 1. 5 3 . 2 3 1 3 & \1 1 1 · 1 3 7) Op e rat io n a l co v e r "' ' • ' io ,: · ·· : !b if R I£ ! ' J i l J 4 $ ~ " ~ 0 10 n /a 0 2 l O 2 . 0 0 10 i• l i l ~; : . • 'J :r 8) Fi n a l co v e r 0 2 n /a z 0 2 1 2 0 2 na 2 0 2 9) Ha z . wa s t e s ex c l u d e d 0 1 n /a 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 I 1 0 1 10 ) Se p t a g e co n t a i n e d , li m e d , co v e r e d 1 3 n /a 3 1 3 0 3 3 3 2 3 0 3 11 ) Bu r n i n g co n t r o l l e d 0 3 n /a 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 0 3 2 3 12 ) Sa l v a g e co n t r o l l e d 0 2 n /a 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 0 2 13 ) Ve c t o r /b e a rs : co v e r, li m e , fe n c e 0 5 n/ a 5 0 5 0 5 1 5 . 3 5 0 5 :• < >, '\ ; < ' tr : 14 ) Nu i s a n c e : du s t,no ise , od o r 2 2 n /a 2 0 ' 2·· . • & ; J b , " x ' 2 2 "' " :; ~ ~ ~ : ; · I 2 ' 2 ~ 0 2 ,; ~ ~. ; ; . :: : g Jf11 ~ ! ' ~ 0 1s*' J f % f @ \ V f 1 , ~ ts +111~ 15) Gr o u ndw a te r pr o tec tio n 5 15 n/ a 15 j 5 ., 5 5 15 10 5 ,, 16) Su r f a c e wa t e r di v e r s i o n 0 2 n /a 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 ., 0 2 17 ) Fi n a l gr a d i n g 0 2 n /a 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 18 ) Tr a i n i n g pr o g r a m 0 2 n /a 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 19 ) Op e r a t i o n a l re co r d s 0 2 n /a 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 20 ) Rec y c l i n g 0 2 n/ a 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 • y TO T A L SC O R E : 15 71 0 71 10 71 ·; : : : · 19 71 w 28 71 35 7, 1 :! } 10 71 -5 8 - RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 69 of 213 Water Quality Protection. Appropnate landfill design and operation IS rmportant to protection of human health and wildlife resources, particularly ground water and surface water When water comes mto contact With garbage, contammants can be transferred from the refuse to the garbage by a process known as "leachmg" "Leachate" IS the product of this process, and carnes w1th It extraordmanly high levels of naturally occurrmg mmerals as well as some traces of toxic contammants Leachate occurrmg downstream from a landfill can make ground water unfit to drmk, and can harm aquatic w1ldhfe communities If 1t exists m suffiCient concentratiOns To mmimiZe leachate generation, landfills should be located and structured to mmunize contact w1th water Placement of garbage m or near wetlands should be avmded Water commg from h1llslopes upgrad1ent of the landfill should be diverted And while snowmelt and precipitatiOn can not be avo1ded, the landfill s1te should be graded to mrmm12ed potential for accumulation of snow or collection of runoff From an operational perspective, accumulation of water w1thm the refuse can be mmimized by compactmg the refuse and covenng It with earth to promote runoff By mmun1zmg the area which 1S actively bemg used to deposit waste -the "workmg face" of the fill -the potential for water contact IS further reduced Regular compactiOn and cover have other benefits for site management, as well Wmd IS less hkely to spread trash around 1f the refuse IS adequately compacted and covered And, while bears are certamly capable of diggmg through buned trash to fmd a meal, covermg and compactmg trash can help reduce odors and make the landfill less attractive to bears, foxes, and buds Burning Trash. One of the most useful means of discouragmg ammals from garbage dumps IS to ensure that any potential food Items for the anunals are mcmerated Incmerahon also helps reduce the volume of trash that accumulates m the landfllt thus providmg a longer hfe for that landfill Site Burnmg trash IS common at most village landfills, particularly for cardboard and household garbage Ouzmkie carefully controls placement of trash at the workmg face of Its trench, and uses waste ml or other matenals to hght a fire, ensurmg thorough combustiOn of the waste The bedrock trench walls and contmuous attendance durmg the burnmg process ensure that the fire does not smolder endlessly and/ or escape from the confmes of the trench Other commumbes have used commercial mcmerators, or makeshift "burn-boxes" to effectively reduce the volume and attractiveness of trash (See Section 6 3 Incmerators) Use of controlled burmng techniques such as these are preferred over "open-burmng", which the proJect team Witnessed m Port LIOns and Old Harbor While open burmng can have the same effect of reducmg volume and attractiveness, several less desuable results can occur First, there 1s the potential for fire to spread to other matenals m the landfill, or beyond the landfill to forest or vegetation nearby At Port LIOns, we heard reports of waste ammumbon bemg discharged after the spread of a landfill fue begun by open bummg -59- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 70 of 213 Second, mcomplete combustion can produce foul smoke, pollutmg the air and mcreasmg the potential for toxic contammants to be released with landfill leachate Controlling Access. Fences delmeate the landfill boundary and prevent casual access to the steep slopes, sharp matenals, and other hazards of the landfill They also assist m controllmg wmdblown htter by capturmg trash before It blows off the property However, conventional cham-lmk fences are not sufficient to prevent access by ammals Bears have been known to crawl under or over fences, and have even burst through fencmg when particularly anxious to get to the other side On Kodiak Island, only Old Harbor and Ouzmkie presently have fencmg surroundmg the landfill Gates are typically left open at Old Harbor to provide a non-destructive alternative for bear access Even so, Old Harbor city staff spend several days each year mamtammg the fence Site Closure and Establishing New Sites. For the most part, the dump Sites have been long established Karluk, Akhiok, and Port Lions, for example, began dump operations shortly after the ongmal development of the commumty and have not changed locatiOns smce Each of these commumties IS seekmg to close their existmg operation and develop a new site with Improved controls. Karluk Is closest to openmg a new site, with a design complete and fundmg available for construction by the KIB this year Ouzmkie and Old Harbor have established new sites withm the past five years, takmg care to close the old Sites by cappmg the waste with a layer of earth Larsen Bay has also closed an older Site pnor to begmmng landfill operatmns at the present location When properly designed, the closure cap can mmimize mfiltrabon of snowmelt and ramfall which might come mto contact with the refuse, causmg leachate Closed sites that remam m Kodiak's remote commumhes have a neat appearance on the surface, suggestmg that cover IS generally adequate However, Iron-stamed seepage downgradient from the closed landfill may suggest the continued productmn of leachate Withm the closed landfill, such as occurs at Ouzmkie (See Photos titled Landfill) At closure, sites should be graded to ensure that snowmelt and precipitation runoff from the Site Without mfiltratmg, and that ground water from sources upgrad1ent of the closed site are appropnately diverted -60- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 71 of 213 Landfills Provision for cover. controlled bumlng, fencing, and drainage are charactertstics of a planned landfill (Ouzinkie). Trash dumped on the ground Is unappealing and a hazard to public health. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 72 of 213 6.2 Recycling Negligible amounts of matenals are currently recycled m the subJect VIllages In the past, MarkAir offered to backhaul bagged alummum cans from villages at no cost Schools or other orgaruzatlons took advantage of this program m some villages (e g Ouzmkie, Port Lions, etc ). These collection programs have been discontmued smce MarkAir's bankruptcy, as other airhnes have not been wlllmg to offer backhauls on regular fhghts Bags of stockpiled cans m Ouzmkie were eventually landfllled due to the lack of a backhaul arrangement The school m Port Lions has restarted an alummum collection program, although this community IS somewhat uruque m that they have regular ferry access, and the abihty to market cans directly m Anchorage Cardboard, paper, glass, tm cans, plashes, tires and wood are generally burned or landfllled m the villages. No recyclmg programs currently exist for these matenals Some orgarucs are handled via home compostmg This IS an mformal activity and IS not currently supported by the Borough through composter subsidization or education programs Some larger waste generators may self-haul quantities of recyclables duectly to market Examples might mclude contractors at USCG facihhes, Larsen Bay cannery, fish processors, and wholesale and grocery operations The quantities and composition of these matenals are unknown. 6.3 Incinerators As tabulated m Table 6-3, Larsen Bay IS the only community With an mcmerator. The mcmerator, a Therm-tec, IS housed m a locked bmldmg and consists of a klln-hke combustion chamber and an afterburner Sohd waste Is loaded mto the chamber by hand, the door IS closed and the facihty IS started up Combustion IS Imhated and the afterburner fired With fuel ml (or used ml) Exhaust gases are discharged through the afterburner to the atmosphere After one batch IS complete and cooled, a second batch can be processed Ash Is removed from the kiln by hand penodically and d1sposed m the dump (See Photos t1tled Sohd Waste Incmerator) The facihty was purchased used from Bracket Lake and currently has about 13,110 hours on It Therm-tec, located m Tualatm, Oregon, has designated Proctor Sales, located m Anchorage for mamtenance and repairs. No operational or mamtenance problems were reported on the facthty, however, unburned wastes were observed at the dump -62- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 73 of 213 6.4 Waste Oil Burners and Household Hazardous Waste Collection 6.4.1 Waste Oil Burners As tabulated and shown on Table 6-3, Port Lions and Larsen Bay both have the facthbes to burn used ml The Akhtok electncal generators burn used ml generated by the electncal generatiOn facihty, but not other used ml Several used ml burners are operational withm the city of Kodiak, some of wh1ch could potentially accept on-spec used ml generated m the outlymg commumbes. The Department of Pubhc Works has a used ml burner at the landfill, the manna runs two, and the U.S Coast Guard and fish meal processor each run faCihbes The U.S Coast Guard has mdicated that they are wllhng to accept add1bonal quantities of on-spec used ml. -63- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 74 of 213 .. ~- ~ J Ak h i o k Ch i n i a k Ka r l u k La r s e n Ba y Ol d Ha r b o r Ou z i n k i e Po r t Li o n s Re g i o n a l Re s o u r c e s No n - H a z a r d o u s So l i d Wa s t e In c i n e r a t o r s / B u r n e r s No n e No n e No n e Th e r m - t e c , no mo d e l nu m b e r , 13 , 1 1 0 hr . , Tu a l a t i n , Or , Co m b u s t i o n an d Co n t r o l (A n c - 5 6 2 - 3 0 7 3 ) . Al s o fe e d s us e d oi l . Ba t c h pr o c e s s , af t e r b u r n e r , ma n u a l as h di s p o s a l No n e So l i d wa s t e bu r n e d in du m p . No n e Ko d i a k La n d f i l l So l i d Wa s t e In c i n e r a t o r lo c a t e d at KI B La n d f i l l J - ~ -- J Ta b l e 6- 3 Wa s t e Ma n a g e m e n t Fa c i l i t i e s Us e d Oi l Bu r n e r s Ho u s e h o l d Ha z a r d o u s Wa s t e Co l l e c t i o n Me d i c a l Wa s t e s Vi l l a g e el e c t r i c a l ge n e r a t o r s de s i g n e d to Ve h i c l e ba t t e r i e s co l l e c t e d th r o u g h Am e r i c o r p s Sh a r p s us e d , co l l e c t e d an d st o r e d at he a l t h cl i n i c . co n t i n u o u s l y bl e e d a po r t i o n of th e lu b r i c a t i n g oi l pr o g r a m an d st o r e d in d e f i r t i t e l y . Tr a n s p o r t e d by ai r to Ko d i a k fo r in c i n e r a t i o n . Bi o h a z a r d in t o th e fu e l oi l an d re p l e n i s h lu b r i c a t i n g oi l su m p . wa s t e fr o m he a l t h cl i n i c co l l e c t e d an d bu r n e d by th e No n e No n e Sh a r p s us e d , co l l e c t e d an d st o r e d at he a l t h cl i n i c . Tr a n s p o r t e d by ai r to Ko d i a k fo r in c i n e r a t i o n . Bi o h a z a r d wa s t e fr o m he a l t h cl i n i c co l l e c t e d an d bu r n e d by th e No n e No n e Sh a r p s us e d , co l l e c t e d an d st o r e d at he a l t h cl i n i c . Tr a n s p o r t e d by ai r to Ko d i a k fo r in c i n e r a t i o n . Bi o h a z a r d wa s t e fr o m he a l t h cl i n i c co l l e c t e d an d bu r n e d by th e Sa m e as in c i n e r a t o r Us e d ge n e r a t o r lu b e oi l co l l e c t e d an d st o r e d at Sh a r p s us e d , co l l e c t e d an d st o r e d at he a l t h cl i n i c . ge n e r a t o r in d e f i n i t e l y . Ba t t e r i e s ac c u m u l a t i n g at Tr a n s p o r t e d by ai r to Ko d i a k fo r in c i n e r a t i o n . Bi o h a z a r d ca n n e r y do c k . wa s t e fr o m he a l t h cl i n i c co l l e c t e d an d bu r n e d at th e La r s o n Ba y in c i n e r a t o r by tr a s h co l l e c t o r . In s t a l l e d , bu t no t op e r a t i o n a l No n e Sh a r p s us e d , co l l e c t e d an d st o r e d at he a l t h cl i n i c . Tr a n s p o r t e d by ai r to Ko d i a k fo r in c i n e r a t i o n . Bi o h a z a r d wa s t e fr o m he a l t h cl i n i c co l l e c t e d an d bu r n e d . by th e No n e Ho u s e h o l d ha z a r d o u s wa s t e an d us e d oi l Sh a r p s us e d , co l l e c t e d an d st o r e d at he a l t h cl i n i c . co l l e c t i o n an d st o r a g e fa c i l i t i e s Tr a n s p o r t e d by ai r to Ko d i a k fo r in c i n e r a t i o n . Bi o h a z a r d wa s t e fr o m he a l t h cl i n i c co l l e c t e d an d bu r n e d by th e Bl a c k Go l d , Sm a r t b u r n e r , Mo d e l Su n 2, No z z l e on l y Us e d oi l st o r e d at ma r i n a in dr u m s pr i o r to us e . Sh a r p s us e d , co l l e c t e d an d st o r e d at he a l t h cl i n i c . 30 6 0 9 - 5 , Se r i a l No . BR 2 7 4 2 , 1. 4 ga l / h r , 16 0 , 0 0 0 BT U , Tr a n s p o r t e d by ai r to Ko d i a k fo r in c i n e r a t i o n . Bi o h a z a r d fa c t o r y - s u p p l i e d fi l t e r on l y , ma n u a l fi l l i n g op e r a t i o n w' a s t e fr o m he a l t h cl i n i c co l l e c t e d an d bu r n e d bv th e Ko d i a k Ma r i n a Ko d i a k La n d f i l l Le a d Ac i d ba t t e r y co n s o l i d a t i o n Fr e o n re c o v e r v Tw o us e d oi l bu r n e r s 1. Bl a c k Go l d , mo d e l Su n II , No z z l e 30 6 0 9 - 5 ; 1. 4 ga l / h r . , 16 0 , 0 0 0 BT U , eq u i p p e d wi t h fa c t o r y fi l t e r an d pr e h e a t e r an d ad d i t i o n a l wa t e r an d pa r t i c u l a t e 2. Om n i 35 0 , OW H 35 0 , 2 . 4 ga l / h r . , 35 0 , 0 0 0 BT U , eq u i p p e d wi t h pr e - h e a t e r an d ex t r a wa t e r an d pa r t i c u l a t e fi l t e r s US C G On e us e d oi l bu r n e r : Sm a r t a s h bu r n e r On e oi l fi l t e r cr u s h e r : Ko d i a k La n d f i l l Re z n o r us e d oi l bu r n e r Fi s h Me a l Pr o d u c e r Us e d oi l bu r n e r -6 4 - RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 75 of 213 Solid Waste Incineration Controlled incineration of Larsen Bay solid waste decreases It's at1Taction to bears. However, batch processing Is very labor Intensive. Larsen Bay incinerator shed with fueVused oil storage tank. Afterbumer reduces discharge of air pollutants. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 76 of 213 Port Lions operates a used ml burner located on the second floor of the Port Lions marma bmldmg The facility consiSts of a Black Gold, Smartburner model Sun 2 (senal number BR2742) w1th nozzle number 30609-5 and an ml storage reservmr. The umt ts rated at 160,000 BTU and consumes about 1.4 gallons per hour Operation of the umt IS labor mtens1ve. Used ml 1s stored outs1de m drums The laborer decants the used ml to a bucket from the drum leavmg the mly water m the drum He carnes the ml upstatrs and transfers tt to the burner reservmr The burner reservmr ts eqmpped w1th a water trap and filter. The water trap 1s penodtcally emptted, and the ftlter should be changed penodically No disposal facthty has been tdenhfted for the mly water Heat generated from the used ml burner ts used to heat a small porhon of the marma bmldmg It IS reported to work well, but consumes far less used ml than 1s generated m the commumty Part of the problem 1s that only a small portion of the burner capactty 1s reqmred to heat the manna (See Photos htled Used Otl Burners) The Larsen Bay mcmerator ts capable of burnmg used ml and ts descnbed m section 6 3 Currently used ml from the electnc generators 1s stored m drums at the generators and httle or no used ml1s bemg burned at the mcmerator The new Akhiok electric generators at the bulk fuel storage facthty burn the used ml generated by the electncal generators The system reportedly works automatically by dnppmg a small portion of the lubncatmg ml mto the fuel stream and contmuously replemshmg the lubncahng ml The system 1s qmte new, but reportedly works well and ehmmates the need to periodically change the otl However, the fac1lity Is not eqmpped to burn used ml from other sources m the commumty In Ouzmkie used ml IS collected at the household hazardous waste collection facility, however, no permanent transportation and recyclmg d1sposal scheme IS defmed In Karluk and Old Harbor, used ml from the electnc generators, 1s collected and stored at the generator m drums mdefmttely Old Harbor has recently Installed an used ml burner, but It 1s not yet operational (See photos titled Accumulation of Used Oil) Used ml and other petroleum products have been Identified m this report as a htgh pr10nty waste management Issue However, tf collected, extsting facthties m all commumties are madequate to collect, store and recycle/ d1spose of the collected materials Because there has not been adequate petroleum collection and d1sposal facihttes, none of the commumties has been urgmg residents to brmg the petroleum products to a centralized factlity for management, so along With capttalimprovements, an educational program would be needed m each commumty to change extstmg habits -66- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 77 of 213 Used Oil Burners Used oil bumer In Port Lions works well, but Is labor IntensiVe. More used oil is generated 'than is bumed In the unit. Used oil burner In Old Harbor ready for Installation. RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 78 of 213 6.4.2 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Systems One community, Ouzmk1e, has a household hazardous waste collection facihty, a drop- off area located at the dump, for used 011 and other household hazardous wastes The facility consists of an outside dtrt stagmg area and a covered shed constructed under a tight budget usmg scavenged matenals. Both areas are clearly marked and w1thm the fenced dump area (See photos titled Used Oil and Household Hazardous Waste Collection) Drop-off can be made at any time The shed floor IS lmed With an Impermeable HDPE lmer and a ftsh tote IS staged on the lmer to hold lead acid battenes pnor to disposal. Weldmg gases were also stored m the faCility FaCility capabilities are d1ssemmated by word of mouth and few wastes were m storage at the time of the site visit Transportation and disposal of wastes are arranged on a case-by-case basiS, which IS very labor-mtens1ve Evaluatmg transportation and recyclmg/ disposal alternatives and developmg standard procedures and contracts would ease the adm1mstrative burden of the facility. Facility capacity IS hmited and would probably reqmre roof repairs and expansiOn, If a higher volume of commumty household hazardous wastes were directed to the facility Part of the 1995 Amencorp program m Akhiok was collection of the lead acid battenes and mdeflmte storage m a fish tote Currently, methods for transportation and recycling/ disposal of the battenes IS undefmed As shown on Table 6-3, no other communities currently have hazardous waste collection facilities Hazardous wastes, especially petroleum products, lead aCid battenes, antifreeze and chlormated solvents, have been Identified as high or medmm-high pnonties for waste management However, facilities are non-existent or too small to handle the antiCipated quantities and would reqmre upgrade pnor to mstitutmg a collection program The Ouzmkie household hazardous waste collection facihty IS a startmg pomt for faCilities m other commumties S1mliar to used 011, hazardous waste management has an operational as well as faCihhes component Members of the community are not used to havmg centralized facihhes for collection and disposal of hazardous wastes, so an educational program will be a key part of the success of any faCility VariOus alternatives for collection and recycle/ disposal Will be Identified and evaluated m the next report 6.5 Wastewater Treatment In almost every home, wastewater flows by gravity to one or more septic tanks and then flows to an ocean outfall Table 6-4 summariZes the wastewater treatment by commumty -69- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 80 of 213 Table 6-4 Wastewater Treatment by Community Akhiok Chiniak Karluk Larsen Bay Old Harbor Ouzinkie Port Lions Collection Wastewater Vo lume (gallon s I day) 6,200 9,200 7,000 22,400 27,000 22,700 28,300 (Ba sed on 100 gallon s per person per day) Septic tanks N umber 3 30± 2 12 ± 2 25 ± 4 To tal Vo lume (gal) 13 ,000 + 3,00 0 + 10,000 14 ,000 + 14 ,000 45 ,000 60,000 Ocean Outfalls N umber 1 none kn own n on e 2 1 12 1 Length (fee t) 2,050 unknown 1,100 varies 2000 Comments Wastewater Indi vi dual se pti c Was tewater Cannery h as Also has 3 o utfall s will Lift station to overfl ows systems overfl ows Was tewater percola tin g b e re-r o uted force main on ground w ith drainfields on ground; package plant la goo n fo r breakwater across Se ttl er wastewa ter Cove, th en la goo n unused grav ity outfall -70- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 81 of 213 Used Oil and Household Hazardous Waste Collection Household hazardous waste collection shed at Ouzinkie Landfill. Underutilized waste oil collection area at Ouzinkie Landfill . RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 82 of 213 Akhiok. The wastewater collection system flows mto three separate septic tanks which each empty mto 6-mch PVC lmes These lmes JOin m the bay and are connected to a 2050 foot long, 6-mch polyethylene ocean outfall Manhole 7 by the middle septic tank was observed overflowmg and manhole 9 by the septic tank on the east Side of town IS reported to overflow periOdically, exposmg the pubhc to raw sewage The overflow Is located m the center of town and on the beach where residents traditionally clean and spht fish. Dogs walk through the wastewater and track It mto homes There IS one known hepatitis B earner m town, whtch exacerbates the health concerns associated w1th exposure to raw sewage Elrmmatmg raw sewage overflow onto the ground IS a h1gh pnonty Issue Some residents typically leave water flowmg to prevent the water p1pes from freezmg Durmg the site VISit, the flow rate m a smgle house was observed at 0 6 gallons/mmute or 600 gallons per day Assummg Similar flow rates from 10 other residences, th1s results m an added load on the septic system of 6000 gallons per day, which could contnbute to the overflows observed As discussed m the section on water supply, this practice should be evaluated with a view toward ehmmatmg It Possibly the water pipe msulat10n should be Improved as a way to reduce the load on the water supply and wastewater systems Operation and mamtenance support IS needed Chiniak. Most of the homes m Chmiak have on-site septic systems With a septic tank followed by a dramfleld The school has a 1,500 gallon septic tank and dramfield of about 1,000 square feet The system reportedly backed up mto the school a couple of years ago The septic tank was then pumped for the fust time m 11 years In order to mamtam the proper functionmg of the system It IS rmportant to pump the septic tank every other year With on-site systems, home owners have to take responsibility for their own systems. Commumty members should be mformed and encouraged to have theu septic tanks pumped every other year Th1s practice will help mcrease the hfe of their dramf1eld Karluk. The sewer system consists of a collector that runs from east to west and fiVe branches that run from south to north The sewer goes to a pair of septic tanks with a combmed volume of approximately 10,000 gallons and then to a "dosmg" tank that IS supposed to serve as a hft station In about 1989, a pump and 1,700 feet of 4-mch polyethylene pipe were mstalled and a wastewater lagoon was constructed Although the pump has been replaced more than once, -72- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 83 of 213 the hft station/ force mam/ sewage lagoon d1sposal system has reportedly never worked for an extended penod of time Currently the septic tanks and dosmg tank are full and the wastewater overflows from manhole MH-1 and runs across the surface of the ground, exposmg the pubhc to raw sewage and the health hazards associated With It Based on the volume of the septic tanks and the assumed water usage rate of 100 gallons per person per day there IS the potential for more than one day of retention tnne m the septic tanks Th1s potential, however, will not be realized until the wastewater flows through the septic tanks and the effluent Is disposed of m some manner It IS a high pnonty that sewage not flow on the ground OperatiOn and mamtenance support, mcludmg the Identification of a person who will have respons1b1hty for the wastewater system 1s needed Larsen Bay. There are at least two ocean outfalls for septic tank effluent m the community Outfall #1 handles the wastewater from C Street and the area to the east There are two septic tanks on the sewer lmes served by the outfall Outfall #2 handles the wastewater from two branches of sewer lmes and serves D, F, and G Streets, mcludmg the school and commumty bmldmgs There are 7 septic tanks on these hnes The septic tanks are reportedly pumped every other year and the septage 1s d1scharged mto Larsen Bay from the pomt of land near First and B Streets There was a report of wastewater smell from the beach near First and B Streets on hot summer days This IS the location of outfall #1 but no VISible evidence of leakage or overflow was observed The beach 1s about 300 feet from the nearest septic tanks so 1t IS unhkely that the odor ongmated at the tanks This should be mveshgated durmg the summer or whenever the odor IS detected Although we do not have enough mformahon to make a meamngful evaluation of the effectiveness of wastewater treatment, wastewater collection and disposal appears to function successfully. The orgamc load of the commumty wastewater system Is probably small relative to the orgamc load of the cannery when the cannery IS operatmg Old Harbor. There are two separate wastewater systems m Old Harbor, one servmg the old town area, and one servmg midtown and new town The old town system consists of wastewater collection hnes, a pair of septic tanks w1th a combmed volume of approxnnately 14,000 gallons, and an 1,100 foot ocean outfall made of 6-mch ductile Iron -73- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 84 of 213 The volume of the septic tanks IS enough to provide more than one day of residence time for the wastewater, assummg water usage of 100 gallons per person per day The system servmg the midtown and new town areas consists of gravity sewers that empty mto a two-cell lagoon The wastewater seeps mto the floor of the first cell of the lagoon and does not build up enough to cover the floor The second cell IS dry The lagoon was bmlt m 1979 and an apparent problem With the application of the clay lmmg has resulted m the wastewater contmumg to dram mto the underlymg silty gravel The lagoon IS located about 100 feet from the shore of Sitkahdak Strait with the bottom of the lagoon at about the same elevation as mean high water No odor was detected along the beach norm a small hole dug m the beach The system appears to be well-mamtamed Although the wastewater lagoon does not provide the treatment for which It was designed, It does function hke an absorption held Because the wastewater percolates mto the ground, the maJOr mamtenance Item of a lagoon, the annual discharge of partially treated wastewater, Is not needed Ouzinkie. There are 12 ocean outfalls and they vary from "sewer system I" which serves a smgle 500 gallon septic tank to "sewer system K" which serves a senes of two 3,000 gallon and two 5,000 gallon tanks. Pubhc Health Service records mdicate that all of the outfalls are made of 6-mch polyethylene The total volume of septic tanks IS about 45,000 gallons At the assumed wastewater flow rate of 100 gallons per person per day and the assumed population equivalent of 228 persons, the average detention time of the wastewater m the septic tanks 1s almost two days This IS a very general analysis but It does suggest that that the community has adequate septic tank capacity to provide the one day detention time recommended by standard practice The sludge disposal pit, located at the landfill site, IS not workmg the way It was envisiOned when designed When observed m February, ram water from the sohd waste disposal trench was flowmg mto the sludge disposal pit and overflowmg at the east comer The Army Corps of Engmeers IS plannmg a breakwater on the east side of the harbor As part of the proJect, planned to be constructed durmg the summer of 1997, 3 of the ocean outfalls will be mtercepted and routed to the outside of the proposed breakwater At one house raw sewage IS discharged directly to the ground and IS accessible to the pubhc Hooks-ups to the pubhc system are available to the house Hookmg up the system and ehmmatmg the raw sewage Is a high pnonty Item -74- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 85 of 213 Port Lions. Wastewater from the marn part of the commumty flows by gravxty to two septic tanks with a combrned capacity of 50,000 gallons A hft station pumps the effluent through a 2,700 foot long, 4-mch force mam across Settler Cove to a pau of 5,000 gallon septic tanks at Port Wakefield Wastewater from the homes rn Port Wakefield also flows rnto these tanks From there, the effluent flows by gravity through the 2,000 foot long, 6-mch polyethylene outfall rnto Kizhayuk Bay. There may be one or more rndividual systems that discharge septic tank effluent rnto Settler Cove. Some of the sewer lrnes m the mam part of town were replaced dunng the summer of 1996. The total volume of septic tanks m the commumty system Is about 60,000 gallons At the assumed wastewater flow of 100 gallons per person per day and the assumed population of 278, the average detention time of the wastewater m septic tanks IS greater than two days This system appeared to be one of the best mamtarned Along with contmued support for the operation and mamtenance effort, the next step for Port Lions should be a site for sludge disposal, possibly at the new landfill. When a wastewater system Is not workmg It affects everyone m the commumty, and on Kodiak It also affects the marme environment and Its food resources Although the specific problems vary from system to system, the recommended action IS. 0 Identify operators who will be responsible for their systems 0 Tram them to do their JOb 0 Pay them enough to keep them on the JOb 0 Provtde them with tools, dedicated to their operator responsibilities 0 Provide them w1th eqmpment and spare parts to operate and mamtam their systems 0 Provtde technical assistance 0 Educate the commumty, perhaps through the schools, as to the Important role of the system operators -75- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 86 of 213 (Ill) MONTGOMERY WATSON Section 7.0 SYSTEMATIC WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 87 of 213 7. SYSTEMATIC WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES Typically we tend to think of waste as only two types of materials: garbage is solid and sewage is liquid. Actually, the waste that is produced by rural communities is composed of a variety of materials. Each material offers different opportunities for processing and treatment or disposal. By classifying wastes into categories of materials, we can identify ways to segregate or group materials so that costs for processing and disposal are reduced, and that communities can be improved. The charts that follow show how each Kodiak Island community processes each waste. In some cases, the system is incomplete, there is currently no endpoint for disposal and/ or re-use of some . items. By comparing the charts, it can be seen that the rural communities share some of the same systematic weaknesses. These shared systematic problems can be v ie wed as opportunities for collaborative efforts among several communities for problem solving. 7.1 Operations and Maintenance Waste management ~ystems require a considerable amount of attention for consistent system operations. There needs to be a thorough understanding of system functions, with diligence on the part of the community to ensure that the system operates effectively. The community may appoint an individual for some of the technical aspects of systems operations, but the community as a whole must support the operations and maintenance functions. This means that the resources of the community must be dedicated to this purpose. -76- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 88 of 213 WA S T E ST R E A M RE U S E ST O R A G ~ A N S P O R T PR O C E S S I N G DI S P O S A L I KI T C H E N / F O O D WA S T E I I I FI S H W A S T E I ·I Ca r c a s s e s re t u m e d to I se a or st r e a m I GA M E CA R C A S S E S I I Du m p I J I I DI S P O S A B L E DI A P E R S I I I AL U M I N U M CA N S I ·I Co l l e c t e d at Sc h o o l ~ I Fr e e ai r tr a n s p o r t 1- - - - 1 St o r e d In d e f i n i t e l y I I ne v e r ma t e r i a l i z e d II ST E E L J i l N CA N S I I II PL A S T I C CO N T A I N E R S I I II CA R D B O A R D I So m e ho m e bu m 1 n g ~ I I ~~ L U M B E R I I ll l l R E S I I i I WA S T E OI L & RL TE A S l No pr o v i s i o n s fo r -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ Un c o n t r o l l e d I J co l l e c t i o n an d st o r a g e I LE A D / A C I D BA T T E R I E S I .. Co l l e c t e d by Am e n c o r p s -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No sc h e d u l e or co m m 1 t m a n t l vo l u n t e e r an d In sc r a p fo r re c y c l l n g f r e m o v a l me t a l p1 l e 'I DR U M S I I St o r a g e at se v e r a l si t e s I AP P L I A N C E S I Ex p e c t t n g KI B to co n t r a c t Se D to Se a t t l e I Du m p 1s ce n t r a l -- - - - - - wa s t e re m o v a l , es oc c u r e d - -- - I co l l e c t i o n po 1 n t In OU Z i n k i e In 19 9 5 sc r a p de a l e r s I JU N K VE H I C L E S / M O T O R S I I I SE W A G E I Co m m u n i t y Se p t 1 c Ta n k ( s ) I I Mu l t i p l e ma r i n e ou l l a l l s to I I 1 Ak h i o k Ba y ' Sl u d g e pu m p e d pe n o d 1 c a l l y v1 a ho n e y wa g o n -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Oc c a s i o n a l ha u l an d du m p I at l a n d f d l or be a c h Fe b r u a r y Ko d l l ! l l c le l a n d Bo r o u g h Rg u r a l El l l l ' l l n g W a a t e <D 19 9 7 Ma a t a r Pl a n fo r Wa l d e MM 1 1 ~ lo r Mt m ~ ~ g < ~ - n t Sy a t e m fo r -- - Ru r a l Co 1 1 1 1 1 1 Co m m u n l t l a a AK H I O K RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 89 of 213 WA S T E S m E A M RE - U S E ST O R A G S T R A N S P O R T PR O C E S S I N G DI S P O S A L II KI T C H E N / F O O D WA S T E I I I FI S H W A S T E I -I Ca r c a s s e s re t u m e d to I se a or st r e a m II GA M E CA R C A S S E S I I So m K I B du m p s t e r s , Wt l h I KI B la n d l t l l I I I sc h e d u l e d pi c k · u p I II DI S P O S A B L E DI A P E R S I I .I AL U M I N U M CA N S I I I ST E E L I T I N CA N S I I I PL A S T I C CO N T A I N E R S I I I CA R D B O A R D I I So m e ho m e bu m i n g I I Lo c a l as h bu r i a l I II LU M B E R I I II TI R E S I J II WA S T E OI L & FI L T E R S l KE A ma 1 n t a m s ge n e r a t o r s No sc h e d u l e or co m m i t m e n t I -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j No pu b l i c la c i l l l i e S fo r re c y c l i n g / r e m o v a l I LE A D / A C I D BA T T E R I E S I • No pr o v i S i o n s fo r -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No sc h e d u l e or co m m i t m e n t ' co l l e c t i o n an d st o r a g e lo r re c y c l i n g / r e m o v a l II DR U M S L I Lo c a l JU n k de a l e r II AP P U A N C E S I ma l n t a 1 n s la r g e I Ha s so l d to lo c a l an d I I In v e n t o r y 1 Ou t s i d e de a l e r s ! I JU N K VE H I C L E S / M O T O R S J I SE W A G E I Co m m u m t y se p t t c ta n k s l _I Le a c h l 1 e l d di s c h a r g e I J an d pt l pn v i e s I I ' Co m m e r c 1 a l pu m p 1 n g I .I KI B la n d f i l l I se r v i C e I I Fe b r u a r y KO d i a k la l a n d Bo r o u g h Fl g u r e t El l l l l l n g We a t e (1 1 ) ) _. . _ , __ 19 9 7 Me a ~ Pt e n lo r Wa a t a MM ! a g e m e n l fo r Ma n a g e m e n t Sy a t o t m lo r Ru r a l Co l l a t e ! Co m m u n l l l e a CH I N I A K RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 90 of 213 WA S T E S m E A M RE · U S E ST O R A G E I T R A N S P O R T PR O C E S S I N G DI S P O S A L II KI T C H E N / F O O D WA S T E l I I FI S H W A S T E I ~I Ca r c a s s e s re t u r n e d to I se a or st r e a m II . GA M E CA R C A S S E S I I Du m p J J I [ I DI S P O S A B L E DI A P E R S I I I AL U M I N U M CA N S I ~I Co l l e c t e d at Sc h o o l t- I Fr e e al r t m n s p o r t 1- - - - , St o r e d ln d e f t m t e l y I I ne v e r ma t e n a l l : l : e d i I ST E E U T I N CA N S I I i I PL A S T I C CO N T A I N E R S I I i l CA R D B O A R D I So m e ho m e bu m t n g ~ I I 'l U M B E R I I I TI R E S I I II WA S T E OI L & FI L T E R S I I Ge n s e l lu b e oi l st o r e d at No sc h e d u l e or co m m i t m e n t J I ge n e m t o r bu 1 l d 1 n g -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - fo r re c y c l i n g / r e m o v a l I LE A D / A C I D BA T T E R I E S I ~ No pr o v t s t o n s fo r 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No sc h e d u l e or co m m i t m e n t co l l e c t i O n an d st o m g e fo r re c y c l i n g / r e m o v a l II DR U M S I I St o r a g e at se v e r a l sr t e s II AP P U A N C E S I Ex p e c t i n g KI B to co n t r a c t Se l l to Se a t t l e Du m p Is ce n t r a l __ _ _ _ _ .. . . , . wa s t e re m o v a l , as oc c u r e d - -- - I co l l e c t i o n po i n t In Ou z m k l e In 19 9 5 sc m p de a l e r s i I JU N K VE H I C L E S / M O T O R S : II SE W A G E I Co m m u m l y Se p t i C Ta n k ( s ) 1- - - - - - Se p t i c le a c h f 1 e l d fl l ! l e d Se w a g e la g o o n Is dr y -- - ~ Se p t i c dt s c h a r g e sp i l l i n g I Pu m p s to la g o o n fa d e d on t o gr o u n d ne a r to w n s i t e ' Ho n e y wa g o n ne e d s pu m p -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wt l l di s c h a r g e pu m p e r to an d mo t o r re p a 1 r s la g o o n fo l l o w i n g re p a i r s Fe b n l a r y Ko d l a l l l a l a n d Bo r o u g h Fl g u r • 1 0 Ex l l l l n g w .. . . <I I J ) -· - - 19 9 7 Ma l t e r Pl a n fo r Wa l l a Ma n a g a r M n t lo r Mt n ~ ~ g e m e n t Sy a t a m fo r Ru r l l l Co a l l . t l Co m m u n l t l e l KA R L U K RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 91 of 213 WA S T E ST R E A M RE U S E ST O R A G E n R A N S P O A T PR O C E S S I N G DI S P O S A L II KI T C H E N / F O O D WA S T E I I I FI S H W A S T E I ·I Ca r c a s s e s re t u r n e d to I se a or st r e a m II GA M E CA R C A S S E S I J Se l l ha u l to la n d l t l l I .J Op e n bu m t n g al l o w e d l I Co m p a c t e d In tr e n c h I 1 I 1 Bu m bo x dt l l t c u l t t o ac c e s s 1 I at d u m p i I DI S P O S A B L E DI A P E R S I t I I I I AL U M I N U M CA N S I Fo r m e r f y co l l e c t e d at -- - - - - - Fr e e ai r tr a n s p o r t 1- - - - La n d l l l l e d In li e u of Sc h o o l ne v e r ma t e n a l t z e d re c y c l i n g .I ST E E l l T I N CA N S I I ., PL A S T I C CO N T A I N E R S I I II CA R D B O A R D I I II LU M B E R I I :1 TI R E S I I II WA S T E OI L & AL T E R S I I Co l l e c t e d by Ci t y -- - - - II Z f i O l wa s l e oi l bu m e r ne e d s -- - Ex p e c t i n g to he a t Ci t y Sh o p I I 1 St o r e d ne a r Ct t y Sh o p ll l e d In s t a l l a t i o n an d st a r t u p IL E A D f A C I D BA T T E R I E S I I So m e de p o s i t e d Wi t h 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No sc h e d u l e or co m m i t m e n t ! I -J sc r a p me t a l ne a r la n d f i l l lo r re c y c l i n g f r e m o v a l I DR U M S & AP P L I A N C E S I I f Se l f ha u l to JU n k de p o t I JU N K VE H I C L E S / M O T O R S I -- - - - " " " 1 Ex p e c t i n g KI B to co n t r a c t Se l l to Se a t t l e I I l ne a r la n d f i l l wa s t e re m o v a l , as oc c u r e d - -- - In Ou z r n l d e 11 1 19 9 5 sc r a p de a l e r s I SE W A G E NE W , MI D - TO W N I I Tw o ce l l la g o o n lo r I . I Di s c h a r g e pe r c o l a t e s I ·1 !l l o r a g e an d tr e a l l n e n t I ll h r o u g h la g o o n fl o o r to In l e t II SE W A G E OL D TO W N I ·l Co m m u m t y Se p t i C Ta n k ( s ) I J Ma n n e ou t f a l l I I I ne a r Ci t y do c k ' I Sl u d g e pu m p e d pe n o d r c a l l y I vt a ho n e y wa g o n j .I Oc c a s t o n a l ha u l an d du m p I It o se w a g e la g o o n s Fe b r u a r y Ko d l l l k l• l • n d Bo r o u g h Fl a u r e 1 2 <1 1 » - - · - - Ex l . t l n g Wa e t e 19 9 7 Ma s t e r P1 1 n fo r W• m Ma n a g e m e n t fo r Ms n - s 1 4 1 m e n l Sy a t e m lo r Al l f l l l Co a l l l l Co m m u n i t i e s , OL D HA R B O R RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 93 of 213 7.1.1 Constraints on Rural Operations and Maintenance. Presently there are several lumtabons to adequate operations and mamtenance Frequently systems rely on one mdividual for expertise m certam operations Without proper trammg, that mdividual may make mappropnate or mcons1stent deciSions regardmg site management Moreover, when that person becomes unavailable, no one IS able to stand m and provide the eqmvalent service There should be at least two mdiVIduals who are tramed appropnately and tasked with the responsibility for Site management accordmg to well speCified standards For cntical systems, the back-up operator must have practice on a regular basis to keep up his level of understandmg and commitment to the system operation (See Photos titled Operations and Mamtenance) Procedures for operations and mamtenance should be fully documented and retamed m an accessible place to provide assurance for the pnmary operator, and to gmde the back-up operator when necessary This Is particularly true for procedures that take place mfrequently, when there IS potential for new people to take over the operation, or the mam operator IS not practiced. Checklist style directiOns are very useful, and can be posted close to the operations. Tools and spare parts are a specml concern m the remote communities Where there 1s no convement access to supplies, the simplest repau can take weeks If appropnate eqmpment and parts are not on hand. Furthermore, trammg specific to the mamtenance of the systems Is reqmred The remote operator must be able to troubleshoot mecharucal eqmpment and make repairs mdependently. Agam, detailed checklist documentation can ass1st m undertakmg these activities 7.1.2 Basic Maintenance Requirements The followmg presents a bnef overview of the tasks and responsibilities that are reqmred for basic mamtenance of waste management systems. Solid Waste Collection. Mamtam collection vehicle Insure that sohd waste contamers are adequate and secure from wmd, weather, and ammals -84- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 96 of 213 Landfill. Keep fence m good condition Pick-up trash that has blown away from workmg face Keep trash contamed to one area Mmimize the area of exposed "workmg face" of the trash. Mamtam an adequate stockpile of earthen cover matenal Keep the landfill heavy eqmpment m good operatmg order lubncate hydraulics dnve tram frequently Compact trash with heavy eqmpment by makmg several passes with a track loader or dozer each hme that matenalis added Cover the trash With 6 mches of earthen matenal every workmg day Prevent Impoundment of water anywhere on site Keep a mimmum of 5% slope on the ground surface, directmg dramage away from the workmg face Understand the operatmg fill plan and stay With It If a burn box ISm use at the landfill, provide access to make It easy for people to get garbage mto the box Always remove ash to the landfill workmg face when the depth of accumulated ash exceeds 6 mches depth, or otherwise Impedes the burner operation Prevent spilhng of fuel or waste ml outside of the bum box Sewer System. Establish a regular schedule for pumpmg of septic tanks-don't wmt until the system backs up Annual pumpmg every sprmg might be simpler and easier to document than pumpmg every other year Insert suction hose to bottom of tank to maximize removal of solids Be sure to wash down the pumper truck completely upon completion of the operation Waste Oil. Keep all the village waste ml together m one designated location Store m drums or buckets m a safe and weatherproof site Ensure that bungs on drums and hds on buckets are on tight for storage and/or movement of waste ml The site for storage and handlings should have an Impermeable lmmg of asphalt, concrete, or heavy duty plastic membrane Keep a supply of adsorbent pads available near the worksite Use adsorbent pads m conJunction wherever you undertake operations transferrmg ml between contamers Fuel Storage and Delivery. Keep a supply of adsorbent pads avmlable whenever you are transferrmg fuel or makmg connectiOns with fuellmes 7.1.3 Training Opportunities Trammg for waste management IS available through a vanety of sources KANA has been responsible for a senes of workshops for utihty operators and managers Together With the KIB, KANA has provided demonstrations for members of the Kodiak Island VIllage Environmental Council The Kodiak Island VIllage Utihty Council was formed m part to provide technical gmdance for cnbcal water system mamtenance This entity does not presently have authonty for waste management trammg, however Several statewide orgamzahons provide significant opportumbes The Alaska Section of the Sohd Waste Association of North Amenca (SWANA) provides workshops on an annual basis to demonstrate all aspects of landfill operations A cerhflcatmn program IS avmlable through SWANA for landfill managers and operators The Alaska Water and Wastewater Management Association provides trammg for water and wastewater -86- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 98 of 213 operators Public Health Service provides trammg programs for water plant operators, with grant fundmg hed to long term apphcahon of the traimng program for villages Few of the waste management staff operatmg m the villages are tramed professionally Some are not even paid for theu service Short duration trarmng sessions m Kodiak or Anchorage could certamly be useful as well as economical to pursue The potential for follow-up IS hm1ted, however, and there IS httle supervision or oversight of the tramed staff once back m the v1llage In add1hort to the need for tramed staff people, there IS an unfulfilled need for prepanng young people for rural waste management as c1t1zens and as future techn1cal staff for the commumties Few young people understand the relat1onsh1ps between the1r own actions m the commumty and the Impacts on waste management For example, wrnle every k1d knows how to turn on and off the hghts, few recogmze that the use of d1esel generators not only burns large volumes of fossil fuels, but also creates a steady supply of waste ml wrnch must be processed and disposed of every 250 hours (12 days) Young people need to have mentors m the commun1ty who can teach techn1cal waste management sk1lls while developmg values that are essential to self- reliance m modern rural Alaska 7.1.4 Funding Needs A vanety of fundmg sources exist for capital mvestments for waste management system enhancements We mtend to Identify these sources and pursue capital fundmg for particular proJects as part of the later phases of this master planmng effort However, we are concerned that fulfillmg the capital Improvement fundmg needs alone will not be sufficient to ensure effective waste management Rather, the most Important hope for effective waste management hes m developmg a commitment to sustamable operations at both the commumty and reg~onallevel Th1s means that either ex1stmg fmancml resources available w1thm the communities must be re-d1stnbuted to provided for secure waste management fundmg, or economic development must proceed at a rate of growth that can support waste management operations at an mcreased level over extstmg practices 7.2 Transportation The ex1sting transportation Infrastructure IS sufficient to handle essentially all matenals reqmrmg removal from remote commumbes For stockpiled/accumulated matenals, the most effiCient removal method will hkely be marme-based Smce each commumty appears ·to have multiple manne operators providmg service, the competitive procurement of marme transportation should not be difficult Once stockp1les are removed, a broader range of backhaul arrangements should be smtable for matenals generated on an on-gomg bas1s For example, when drums of fuel are flown VIa charter to a remote VIllage, It can be village pohcy to make sure that the same number of empty drums are returned on the same charter flight Similar arrangements might be possible -87- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 99 of 213 for matenals dehvered vta freighter or barge The on-gomg backhaul of certam matenals could reduce the need for relatively costly clean-up proJects sponsored by the Borough For those matenals that are not easily handled by regular backhaul (e g., vehicles, eqmpment, appliances), penodic bulk transport may be more cost effective Constdermg the hmtted quanhhes of scrap metal and some other matenals, bulk shipments might be relatively mfrequent -perhaps once every few years m some villages Although some communities may prefer to sh1p matenals more frequently, the need to obtam economies of scale may dictate less frequent shipments The logistics of vanous options will be discussed m the ensumg report on Alternative Solutions and Fundmg Sources. -88- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 100 of 213 Section 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS <II)) MONTGOMERY WATSON RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 101 of 213 8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Montgomery Watson project team completed visits to each of the rural coastal communities on Kodiak Island and made as many contacts in each community as possible to ascertain existing waste management problems and uncover pollution issues potentially affecting marine resources. With assistance from many people, notably the participants in the Kodiak Island Village Environmental Council as well as City and Tribal Council staff, we conclude the following: 1. Raw sewage is being discharged onto the land and into surface waters in several communities. This is a result of poor system design and operation, and is creating an immediate health threat in the affected villages. The affected communities should place a high priority on correction of the conditions leading to the discharges. 2 . Used oil from boats, diesel generators, and vehicles is accumulating in the villages with a high potential for improper disposal, including discharge to the marine environment. Use of waste oil for heating fuel and incineration of refuse has been attempted, but technical assistance for installation and operation of these systems is needed. 3 . Improved waste management practices are needed for economic development. Clean air, clean water, and tidy solid waste management systems will help promote rural Kodiak as a destination for tourism and sport-fishing, and will assist in maintaining the marketability of commercial seafood. 4 . Old fuel tanks present a potential hazard . Several communities have older fuel delivery and storage systems that do not provide for spill containment and response in accordance with modern standards. While there is no evidenc e that the tank systems are presently polluting soil or water, the proximity of fuel tanks to the water's edge at Old Harbor, for example, in conjunction with their age and upright orientation, s uggests that contamination from a major fuel spill may be more likely than from other chronic sources. 5 . Septage facilities and methods will have an impact on health and manne resources. Several villages u se community se ptic tanks to remove solids from wastewater before discharging to the coastal waters. These tanks may fill with solids (septage) unless appropriately pumped every couple of years. Presently, septage receiving facilities are inadequate in all of the villages. If left without maintenance, the solids will overfill the septic tank and discharge raw sewage directly into the marine environment. Tidal flushing may carry away some of these wastes, masking the effect of the discharge. Harbor and breakwater construction, such as planned for Ouzinkie, may reduce the flushing effect of the tides, and concentrate contaminants to the extent that toxic effects may occur. -89- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 102 of 213 6 Scrap metal removal IS recommended to prevent release of associated contammants and bmld an envuonmental ethic. Junk vehicles, appliances, and heavy eqmpment harbor hydrauhc flmd, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other flmds which pose a hazard for aquahc wildhfe m the case of spills. Additionally, scrap metallymg uncontrolled on nghts-of-way and pubhc property can pose a hazard to children and VISitors who might casually encounter the matenals 7 Household hazardous wastes should be kept out of village landfills Battenes, solvents, pamts, and other matenals can lead to toxic contammahon of surface and ground water These matenals should be collected m a central location and disposed of through a regiOnal cooperative effort 8 Watershed protection IS Important Ouzmkie and Port L10ns have established watershed protection zonmg to prevent certam activities which could contammate local water supphes This process should be extended to other commumties 9 Operation and Mamtenance trammg IS needed for local village techmcal staffs Few village residents have the technical trammg necessary to Implement appropnate waste management practices Landfill operations, waste ml management, and sewer system management could be topics for local workshops provided by committed reg10nal experts 10. Landfill operations plannmg can Improve the function, longevity, and VIsual quahty of disposal Sites Site specific documentation of how a system should be operated would provide a convement mstruction gmde for landfill users and City staff Operations plannmg could be used to prevent the development of water pollution, mmimize the attraction of ammals to the site, and encourage appropnate use of the site by residents and VISitors 11 Dramage control at landfills IS needed to prevent leachate production Upstream water sources should be diverted away from the landfill Snowmelt and precipitation on the landfill should be dramed off the site so that water does not come mto contact w1th garbage 12 The solutiOn to bear encounters mcludes, but Is not hmited to, Improved landfill operations Incmeration, Improved gradmg, compaction, and cover placement w1ll reduce attraction of bears However, the long term presence of bears m the area, m addition to other attractions, such as fish processmg at Larsen Bay, means that bears will not necessanly disappear solely as a result of changes to sohd waste management. 13 Waste management achvlhes need a sustamable source of fundmg Short term grant-funded capital proJects are not suffiCient to provide for meanmgful waste -90- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 103 of 213 management Communities should consider means of addressmg long term operations and mamtenance costs 14. Local responsibility IS needed for successful waste management Although state and federal regulations mandate certam standards for sohd waste management, bmldmg and mamtaming a successful program comes from the ongomg commitment of the commumty. 15 Raismg Pollution Prevention awareness IS key to promotmg local responsibility A tailored education program IS needed to help build an environmental ethic for children, focusmg on local self-reliance Further community education can be developed for specific concerns by targetmg segments of the population, such as harbor users for waste ml and battery recyclmg 16 Recyclmg of consumer packagmg matenals to off-Island sources Is not hkely to be fmancially self-supportmg However, programs such as school collection of alummum cans for recyclmg through the statewide "Flymg Cans" program does provide for bulldmg of an environmental eth1c among school children, as well as provide some modest revenue -91- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 104 of 213 Ka r l u k Ta n k Fa r m 10 Ow n e r ev a l u a t t o n da t e ca p a c t t y St t e Ot k t n g Fo u n d Ta n k s Pt p t n g El e c Sa f e t y To t a l 3 Ka r l u k Vt l l a g e Co u n c t l 11 / 2 4 / 9 6 50 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 La r s e n Ba y Ta n k Fa r m 10 Ow n e r ev a l u a t t o n da t e ca p a c i t y St t e Ot k l n g Fo u n d Ta n k s Pt p t n g El e c Sa f e t y To t a l 2 Ct ! y of La r s e n Ba y 11 / 2 4 / 9 6 70 , 5 0 0 0 20 5 10 10 10 20 75 3 Ct t y of La r s e n Ba y 11 / 2 4 / 9 6 4, 9 0 0 0 30 0 5 10 0 10 55 Ol d Ha r b o r Ta n k Fa r m 10 Ow n e r ev a l u a t i o n da t e ca p a c t t y St t e Ot k t n g Fo u n d Ta n k s Pt p t n g El e c Sa f e t y To t a l 3 Al a s k a Ar m y Na t i o n a l Gu a r d 11 / 1 3 / 9 6 5, 3 0 0 0 30 10 0 20 0 10 70 Ou z i n k i e Ta n k Fa r m 10 Ow n e r ev a l u a t i o n da t e ca p a c t t y St t e Ot k t n g Fo u n d Ta n k s Pl p t n g El e c Sa f e t y To t a l 1 Na t t v e Co r p o r a t t o n Fu e l Fa c t h t y 11 / 1 4 1 9 6 71 , 6 0 0 0 10 10 20 10 0 10 60 2 Ko d t a k Is l a n d bo r o u g h 11 / 1 4 / 9 6 5, 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 3 Ct t y of Ou z t n k t e 11 / 1 4 / 9 6 1, 4 0 0 10 30 10 30 40 0 20 14 0 Po r t Li o n s Ta n k Fa r m 10 Ow n e r ev a l u a t i o n da t e ca p a c t t y St t e Ot k t n g Fo u n d Ta n k s Pt p t n g El e c Sa f e t y To t a l 1 Kt z h u y a k Ot l Sa l e s 11 / 1 3 1 9 6 90 , 6 0 0 0 20 0 10 0 10 0 40 2 Ko d t a k El e c t n c As s o c t a ! t o n 11 / 1 3 / 9 6 1, 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 20 0 10 40 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 107 of 213 Site Location S1te su1table for tank farm < 1 00 feet from a public well DIVISION OF ENERGY TANK FARM EVALUATION CRITERIA < 25 feet from an erod1ng bank or beach, or 1n a flood plarn Gasoline tanks < 25 feet from an Important bu1ldrng Secondary Contarnment *L1qu1d-t1ght, lined d1ke of proper volume and constructron (not plywood, 12" mm freeboard) *Lrqurd-trght, hned drke of Improper volume or construction (plywood or< 12" freeboard) *Fully diked but not hqu1d-t1ght (sand bag d1ke, permeable gravel, tom or mrss1ng hner) *Partral or no drke Foundations *Tanks on acceptable foundatrons (mrn 6" timbers, no cnbbrng, stable) *Tanks directly on gravel pad or light t1mbers (rarsed small timbers, on permeable gravel) *Tanks drrectly on tundra or natural sorls (no drke or liner, subject to erosron) Tanks leamng consrderably or unstable foundations (sersmrc hazard) Tanks *Tanks rn farr to good condrtron (no dents, mrmmum rust, no maJor reparrs needed) *Immediate need of cleamng and pa1nt1ng *Rusted or dented beyond reparr or nveted, bolted or other P1prng (choose most likely to leak, i.e., victauhc, threaded or welded, only) *Welded prpmg above grade *Welded prprng below grade *Threaded prprng above grade *Threaded p1pmg below grade *Vrctauhc p1p1ng above grade *Vrctauhc prpmg below grade Rubber hose Add1t1onal for actrve leaks Electrical Winng appears appropnate Exposed wmng, rmproper groundrng, etc Life, Health & Safety *Code compliant *Low nsk *Medrum nsk *Hrgh nsk *Potential for loss of hfe *Indicates that only one of the group should be chosen 0 po1nts 10 pomts 10 pomts 10 po1nts 30 pomts max 0 po1nts 10 pornts 20 pomts 30 pornts 30 pornts max 0 po1nts 5 pornts 10 pomts 10 pornts 20 po1nts max 0 pornts 10 po1nts 30 pornts 30 pornts max 0 pornts 5 pornts 10 pornts 20 pornts 30 pornts 40 pornts 20 pomts 20 pornts 80 pornts max 0 pornts 10 pornts 1 0 pornts max 0 pornts 10 po1nts 20 pornts 30 pomts 40 pornts 40 pomts max RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 108 of 213 Commumty Larsen Bay Old Harbor Old Harbor Tank Farms Removed From Defictency Rankmgs Owner Kod1ak Salmon Packers Old Harbor Fuel Company AVEC Capacrty (gal) 128,900 76,400 41,200 Page 1 of3 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 109 of 213 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Authorization ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Approach To Selection Of Alternative Solutions .......................................................... 2 1.3.1 Systems Approach ................................................................... _ ................................... 2 1.3.2 Shared Resources-Collaboration Among All Communities ............................... 3 1.3.3 Provide Atmosphere For Self-Reliance And Self-Determinatio n ......................... 3 1.4 Format Of Alternatives Summary ................................................................................... 4 2. BUILDING FUNCTIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ................................... 5 2.1 Domestic Wastewater ........................................................................................................ 5 2.1 .1 System Description ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1 .2 Present Weaknesses .................................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Prospective Solutions ................................................................................................ 11 2.1.4 Prospective Systems Operations Costs .................................................................. 12 2.2 Solid Waste Management ............................................................................................... 13 2.2 .1 System Description .................................................................................................... 13 2 .2.2 Present Weaknesses .................................................................................................. 21 2.2 .3 Prospective Solutions ................................................................................................ 21 2.2.4 Prospective Solid Waste Operations Cos t s ............................................................ 26 2.3 Used Oil And Hazardous Waste Management ........................................................... 27 2.3.1 Sys tem Description .................................................................................................... 27 2.3.2 Present Weaknesses .................................................................................................. 31 2.3.3 Description of Solutions ........................................................................................... 34 2.3.4 Pros pective Costs for Used Oil and Household Hazardous Waste Management···································································:··········································· 35 2.4 Scrap Metal Management ............................................................................................... 36 2.4.1 System Desc ription .................................................................................................... 36 2.4.2 Present Weaknesses .................................................................................................. 38 2.4.3 Prospective Solutions ................................................................................................ 40 2 .4 .4 Prospective Co s ts for Scrap Metals M a nagement Operations ............................ 41 2.5 Fuel Delivery Systems ..................................................................................................... 42 2.5.1 System Description .................................................................................................... 42 2.5.2 Present Weakness ...................................................................................................... 42 2.5.3 Prospective Solutions ................................................................................................ 44 2.5.4 Pros pective Costs for Fuel Systems Operations ................................................... 46 2.6 Resource Protection (Drinking Water And Subsistence Foods) ................................ 46 -1- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 111 of 213 In the meehng, Montgomery Watson staff presented their fmdmgs The Montgomery Watson team concluded that successful Improvements to Kodiak Island VIllage waste management systems will reqmre work m four distmct areas 1 Systems plannmg, mcludmg the IdentificatiOn of responsibilities and mechamsms for all parts of the process, 2 Commumty education, so that the commumty as a whole understands the value of appropnate waste management, 3 Techmcal trammg, to ensure that local paid staff have the tools and the know- how to keep the systems operatmg; and 4 Community Improvements, as necessary to fac1htate appropnate operations and mamtenance This report prov1des an analysis of alternative waste management systems and proposes a senes of Imhahves, or proJects, which are meant to address fundamental weaknesses m the current systems m place for waste management around the Island 1.3 Approach To Selection Of Alternative Solutions Three themes provide a basis for all of the recommendations m this report First, Identification of problems and prospective solutions IS best done usmg a systems approach Second, successful solutions are those that maximize sharmg of resources between villages and encouragmg collaboration Fmally, solutions will be sought that provide for commumty self-rehance and self determmation These themes are explamed further below 1.3.1 Systems Approach It 1s Important to recogn1ze that waste management mvolves ImplementatiOn of a system -a complex arrangement of activities and matenals A system works when It provides for the needs of the community effectively In order to be effective, all the system components and relatmnshtps between components provide a useful role m the operations The system components can be mechamsms of transport, such as ptpes or trucks They can be storage or processmg fac1hties, such as a waste ml burner, or landfill People have roles m the system, too, as generators of waste and operators of the system And of course, money IS needed m the system, to buy parts and fuel, and to pay for labor to operate and mamtam the system All components are necessary to provide for a successful system However, a fault m any one of the components or relationships can cause the system to break down, for example· -2- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 114 of 213 0 If the money stops, the system fails, 0 If people don't participate, the system fails, 0 If the spare parts aren't available when the pump breaks, the system fatls, etc The success of the system reqmres all of the activities to be coordmated As most communities can attest, havmg money to build a landfill Is not sufficient to ensure that the sohd waste system will function appropnately Although most systems allow for small vanat10ns m the way thmgs work, there are weaknesses m every system that make It vulnerable More sophisticated systems provide checks and balances and back- ups for cntical processes VIllage environmental systems tend to be less reliable because there IS often no alternative, or back-up If something goes awry This report will reflect on common weaknesses of present systems based on the first mtenm report, the Inventory of Pollution Sources and Problems By focusmg resources to bolster the weaknesses of the present system, the reliability of the system as a whole can be Improved 1.3.2 Shared Resources -Collaboration Among All Communities The remote coastal villages of the Kodiak Island Borough have small populations, no more than a few hundred people m any case In this rural environment, there are generally few hands available to do the work of operatmg local government, and little money to accommodate the needs of the commuruhes Pnontization of the use of community time, money, and energy sometimes means that Important and useful tasks get deferred m spite of the best mtentions of the commuruty This has happened with respect to operatmg and mamtammg waste management systems One means of overcommg the constramt of havmg too few resources to work with IS to pool the resources that are avmlable to provide a larger base to draw from 11us can be done m the villages by sharmg eqmpment and expertise among neighbormg villages, or combmmg m a cooperative sense with all of the other Island villages, for mutual problem solvmg This process 1s already started through such Initiatives as the Kodiak Island VIllage Environmental Council, and the Kodmk Island VIllage Ubhty Council We anticipate that "the biggest bang for the buck" can be achieved by developmg a network for support of waste management operations composed of all of the villages 1.3.3 Provide Atmosphere For Self-Reliance And Self-Determination. As noted by the Alaska Natives Commission Gmnt Federal-State CommiSSion on Policies and Programs Affectmg Alaska Natives, Fmal Report, May, 1994), smce contact with western culture, Alaska Natives (Komagmmt/ Aluthq) people have been subJect to a contmuous senes of external mfluences, some good, some bad Often, the work of the outsiders has been for the well-mtended purpose of Improvmg the hves of local VIllagers Outsiders have provided a Chnsban tradition, an economy based on the use of money, a host of material goods, public housmg, a school system, med1cal care, and a -3- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 115 of 213 vanety of social services Many decisiOns regardmg the development of the commuruhes are bemg made by KANA, KIB, or the School Distnct m Kodiak, or by State and Federal agencies m Anchorage, m Juneau, or m Washmgton, DC As a result, local people learn to depend on the activities and decisions of outsiders &Iy by re-estabhshmg control of commuruty systems locally can those systems be effective This affects all community systems, mcludmg waste management Therefore, the best approach to complete and strengthen waste management systems will be to stimulate local responsibility and mshtute local control to the furthest extent Thereby, communities can bmld an atmosphere of self-reliance that will extend beyond the grants that are currently sponsormg many commumty efforts, mcludmg the development of this Master Waste Management Plan 1.4 Format Of Alternatives Summary Section 2 of this report provides a senes of model systems for waste management for Kodmk Island villages, mcludmg waste water management, sohd waste management, hazardous matenals management, scrap metal, waste ml, fuel dehvery systems, and resource protection systems Alternative prospective solutmns will be presented m response to correct or complete madequate systems Section 3 of this report Identifies four regional proJects which are proposed to respond to the weaknesses of the present systems While mtended to be viable candidates for fundmg, the proJects by themselves do not provide complete solutions to the system needs and problems Identified m Section 2 Rather they are zmtzatzves, that IS, a means to begm estabhshmg effective self-reliance and self-determmation With respect to waste management m remote coastal commumties Section 4 of this report provides a discussmn of sources of fundmg recommended to mitiate the changes m local waste management that are necessary to protect the environment and encourage viable economic development m the remote coastal communities Grant fundmg will not provide for complete and viable systems Only the commitment of mdividual commumtles will allow that to happen However, grant fundmg can be used to assist villages m the process of defmmg appropnate commumty systems, and m completmg the lmks between system elements -4- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 116 of 213 In order for the collection portion of the system to work by gravity, the next part of the system, storage and treatment, must be located downhill from the homes bemg served If distances are large or there are uphill sections, pumps are reqmred as part of the collection system Pumps, however, need mamtenance If they are not properly mamtamed they stop workmg, the collection portion of the system stops workmg, and the wastewater system stops workmg. Where homes are Isolated from one another, mdividual on-site treatment of domestic wastewater has advantages The collection portion of the system IS relatively short, from the home to the septic tank and dramfield This type of system, however, reqmres well-dramed smls and adequate depth to bedrock Storage and treatment Domestic wastewater IS treated to reduce disease-causmg orgamsms and sohds that can suffocate aquatic wildlife Generally two kmds of systems are appropnate for KIB villages Septic tanks and lagoons Septic tanks are used when there are a small number of homes to serve The tanks provide pnmary treatment by collectmg sohds from the sewage and allowmg them to decompose m a "septic" environment, that IS, where httle or no oxygen exists The SIZe of the tank IS dependent on the number of people served Baffles m the tank enhance the separation of sohds from hqmds As the tank is full all of the time, hqmd wastewater movmg through the tank IS discharged after treatment to the sml or to a water body The sohds are partially digested m the tank, but eventually build up as "septage" and must be removed for disposal elsewhere A sewage lagoon IS a large shallow pond engmeered to store and treat wastewater from numerous households, mcludmg an entire village. Lagoons m KIB VIllages are used for treatment of raw wastewater as well as for septage from septic tanks Lagoons have advantages over septic tanks m that they have a larger capacity and longer retentmn time, so that septage has a chance to be digested by bmlogical processes m the lagoon The disadvantages of a lagoon system are the potential hazard of pubhc access, the extensive land reqmrement, and potential for unpleasant odors Also, unless the lagoon IS located downhill from the commumty, the collection system will have to mclude one or more pumps which reqmre additional operation and mamtenance effort Discharge of liquids. Where sml conditions permit, a septic tank should d1scharge mto the ground through a dramfield composed of a perforated pipe lymg m a trench or trenches lmed with free drammg coarse graveL The discharge mto the soil allows for completion of the biological digestiOn of the sewage by bactena m the smL As an alternative to soil discharge, most communities on Kodiak discharge septic tank effluent dtrectly mto the sea VIa outfall pipelmes This approach does not provide the extra treatment that would occur m the sml followmg a conventiOnal septic tank discharge to a dramfield, but It does allow for mixmg and flushmg of the sewage with -7- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 119 of 213 the marme waters When the marme outfall Is sited well and Ism good condition, the marme discharge Is qmckly assimilated, and the treated sewage discharge does not pose a hazard to marme resources However, a marme outfall can have bad effects If 0 the septic system Is poorly mamtamed and sohds are allowed to escape mto the outfall, 0 offshore miXmg IS Inhibited by structures or poor natural Circulation patterns, or 0 the outfall pipe 1s damaged or obstructed. A properly sized lagoon should mamtam a certam water levet dischargmg to a controlled overflow spillway only mtermittently durmg break-up or followmg ram events Alternatively, the lagoon can be designed to hold a year's supply of wastewater Once a year the hqmd m the lagoon IS pumped out m an annual "discharge event" that IS allowed by the State of Alaska Wastewater General Permit No 9440-DB004 The planned d1scharge usually mvolves movmg a large portable pump mto place, pumpmg down the hqmd level for several days, and putting the pump back mto storage Some water losses from the lagoon are anhc1pated due to evaporation but ramfall IS expected to exceed evaporation on Kodiak Contmual overflow IS usually a sign of undersizmg of the lagoon, or of too much water bemg diverted mto the lagoon On the other hand, If the lagoon drops below Its design volume due to leaks m the lagoon floor or contamment berms, the level of treatment IS reduced, and raw wastewater can leak mto receivmg water With very httle treatment Operations and maintenance: disposal of solids. It IS of paramount Importance that sohds from a septic tank are removed and disposed of on a regular basis A tank full of sohds means that there IS no further abihty to collect sohds, and that raw sewage passes straight through the system to the outfall without treatment For septic systems dischargmg to the ground, sohds discharge can plug the smls around the dramheld and cause the entire system to fail This kmd of septic system fmlure reqmres replacement of the entire dram system, If It can be done at all For discharges to marme outfalls, solids spllhng over from the septic tank can cause obstructions m the lme and build-up of deposits of orgamc muck on the sea floor near the outfall This muck build- up can suffocate ammals that hve on the sea floor Every commumty needs to have a regular program of septic system sohds removal and disposal. This means there must be a procedure or mamtenance plan, the eqmpment to carry out the plan, and a location to properly dispose of the sohds -8- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 120 of 213 Each septic tank should be cleaned out annually Eqmpment reqmred IS 0 proper eqmpment to gam access to the sephc tank clean-out manhole, 0 a pump system to draw sohds out of the septic tank, 0 and a mobile tank or tank truck to transfer those sohds to the septage disposal lagoon or landfill pit Generally, a trailer-mounted pump and tank system has been used for the last two Items The pump and tank should have adequate capacity to Withdraw the entire volume of retamed sohds m one cycle That IS, If a tank IS design to be pumped when 1000 gallons of septage has accumulated, then the pump and tank haul system should have a capacity of 1000 gallons It IS also very Important to msert the mtake hose of the pump to the bottom of the tank m order to withdraw the sohds that have settled to the bottom of the tank. 2.1.2 Present Weaknesses Figure 2-2 compares aspects of the model system descnbed above, With existing conditions m each KIB commumty Most people assume that their sewer system IS workmg fme until there IS a problem with their tmlet backmg up In truth, the system may be failing even If there IS no evidence at the residences upstream. It IS easy to forget about mamtenance of the sewer system until the health of the commumty IS m danger, or the manne environment IS bemg damaged KIB villages rarely pump septic systems on a regular schedule. This leads to flllmg of the septic tank With sohds and ultimately failure of the disposal system Excessive sohds m the septic tanks Is at least partially responsible for ongomg raw sewage discharge m Akhiok and Karluk, and IS suspected of causmg sepbc system failure at Chrmak School. Other commuruties do not have a program of septic tank pumpmg that IS adhered to ngorously. This may be causmg raw sewage discharge mto marme waters mOld Harbor and Ouzmkie Commuruty wastewater systems also do not have adequate septage disposal Port Lions discharges septage at the landfill, but the landfill has httle control Larsen Bay dtscharges septage mto the bay, reducmg the effectiveness of the Imtial separation of the sohds from the wastewater flow At Ouzmkte, the sludge lagoon sometimes overflows wtth local stormwater runoff, affectmg 1ts capacity for sludge storage Several communities do not have a functional pump and tank system for haulmg sludge Although each commumty was supphed with a system by PHS when the -9- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 121 of 213 systems were constructed, they have fallen mto disrepair due to lack of expertise and spare parts to keep the pump, pump motor, and httmgs operable Some tank trailers were underdesigned, callmg for many repeat tnps and significant labor to ensure that the septage would be appropriately removed 2.1.3 Prospective Solutions Systems/Community Planning. The followmg hst of Issues shows areas that can be addressed by an overall plannmg process 0 Each commumty should have a wastewater system operations plan that detmls the parts of the system, the mamtenance schedule, and the procedures to be followed durmg mamtenance 0 Each commuruty should have a landfill operations plan that Identifies a specific sludge disposal area and procedures for sludge disposal there Dramage should be diverted from any septage or sludge diSposal area 0 Each commumty should charge water users to allow for a wastewater management system budget, to mclude the expense of pumpmg and disposmg of septage annually 0 Commumties should share resources for operation and mamtenance of community septic systems. As septic pump and tank haul systems are replaced, equipment from the same manufacturer should be used so that spare parts and expertise can be shared between commumtles 0 Each community should estabhsh ordmances to 1 Prohibit discharge of hazardous matenals, mcludmg ml, pamt, or solvents, mto the sewer system 2 Reqmre use of the sewer system for disposal of domestic wastewater when available, 3 Support collaborative efforts With other commumhes for operations and mamtenance Technical Training. There needs to be a lugher degree of skill developed for wastewater management m each village The operators have a very large responsibility to mamtam expensive systems and to safeguard the health of the commumty 0 Operators of the septage pumpmg eqmpment should be tramed m pump and motor operation, mamtenance, and repair -11- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 123 of 213 0 Basic system hydraulics and prmciples of operation of wastewater treatment should be taught to each village operator 0 A certificatiOn program, perhaps through a group such as the Alaska Water Management Association, or ADEC's Remote Mamtenance Worker program could provide the necessary trammg and allow for enhanced recogmtion for VIllage operators The commumty as a whole does not need to understand the techmcal details Identified m this section. The technical trammg can be limited to the few residents staffmg the facility Community Education. The elements of a community education program necessary to Improve domestic wastewater systems mclude 0 Educate residents on matenals to be kept out of the sewer system 0 Mark positions of outfalls on a map and mount signage to mdicate outfall locations 0 Build an environmental ethic through the curnculum of the KIB School Distnct 0 Educate residents on the hazards of contact With raw sewage Community Projects. Several commumties have system problems that may reqmre capital mvestment, but are also related to operations and mamtenance of former capital Improvements We recommend Improvement of operations and mamtenance practices, m conJunction With a Improved systems operation plannmg, pnor to suggestmg expenditure of further capital funds Some purchases that would assist this effort would be 0 A dedicated set of tools for wastewater system operations and mamtenance 0 Spare parts to mamtam pumps and other eqmpment 0 Jomt purchase of a septage pump and tank haulmg system that could be shared by commumties, provided that transportatiOn between villages could be made available for the eqmpment 2.1.4 Prospective Systems Operations Costs The followmg hst provides plannmg level cost estimates for labor and eqmpment on an annualized basis Each commumty should provide for system operations and mamtenance from Its own resources 0 Septage haulmg pumper trailer and tank (mcludes spare parts and mamtenance). -12- $1,000 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 124 of 213 0 Annual septic tank clean out $500 -$2,000 I year (depends on commumty septic tank capactty) 0 Ongomg operator trammg $500/year (assume 2 days m Kodtak wtth RMW) 2.2 Solid Waste Management 2.2.1 System Description Commumty sohd waste management IS more than JUSt a garbage can or a fence around a commumty dump. Sohd waste comes about by brmgmg goods mto the vtllage from outside, mcludmg everythmg from old ml heaters to pop cans, disposable dtapers, and the packagmg that the goods come m What follows IS a descnpbon of an tdeal sohd waste dtsposal system, mcludmg alternatives for vanous parts of the system The baste parts of the system are Illustrated m the schematic drawmg of Ftgure 2-3 These mclude collectiOn operations, waste processmg operations, and disposal operations The elements of the sohd waste disposal system for each commumty should be spelled out m wntmg This wntten descnpt10n of the way thmgs work becomes an operations plan The operations plan becomes a ready reference for both the community and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, which regulates sohd waste disposal ADEC regulatiOns allow for permittmg of Kodtak Island village landfills as Class III landfills, reqmnng only the most baste management Collection Operations. Gettmg garbage from homes and busmesses to the dtsposal stte can be done m a vanety of ways Many restdents of Kodtak Island Borough commumties haul thetr own garbage to the landftll While this can work effectively m small communthes, there are several reasons to constder havmg commumty collectiOn servtce Ftrst, some restdents are not able to travel to the landftll m all weather Ice and snow hm1t the ability of many people to get to the landftll_ especmlly If there 1s a steep road Not everyone has a vehicle or four-wheeler to haul garbage A collection service operated by the community, or an enterpnsmg mdivtdual, can provtde a greater degree of control m how the landfill s1te IS managed When each mdtvtdualts responsible for his own disposal, sometimes wastes are put m the wrong place at the landfill Individuals may not want to spend the time necessary to segregate waste and make sure that the burnable garbage IS burned safely and completely Hazardous wastes can get mixed up with other garbage A commumty sponsored employee or contractor can be tramed to take care of the site each time he brmgs m a load of garbage -13- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 125 of 213 Collection techniques do not need to be elaborate and expensive for rural commumties Typically, a pick-up truck IS used to collect bags of trash from busmesses and homes In some communities, four-wheelers with trailers are used. A tilt-bed pick-up allows the trash to be unloaded efficiently at the burn box, or directly mto a landfill cell Gettmg m and out of the truck for each house IS very tnne consummg If one person IS domg all the work A second person can walk or nde along the bed of the truck and load trash while the dnver concentrates on steermg and stoppmg for trash pick-ups It IS Important that the matenals to be picked up by the collection service are contamed so they can reasonable be handled Rules may be formulated by the collection service to make sure they can economically handle the waste Examples of rules are 0 Ammal carcasses must be double bagged m strong plastic trash bags or game bags. 0 No leaky battenes or hazardous waste Is allowed 0 Maximum SIZe contamer for pick--up IS a ten gallon plastic bag 0 Each bag must be cmched tight and sealed 0 Matenals for pick-up must be at (name the location) by (name the time) on the day of collection Waste Processing Operations Waste processmg can take place at several levels. To a certam extent, everyone processes waste m the home by choosmg to retam or discard Items. In some homes, matenals are retamed for re-use or recyclmg that would be discarded by others Other waste processmg Is typically apphed at the landfill, as mdicated by each commumty's operations plan Figure 2-4 shows a typical Site layout at the landfill, which provides for waste processmg m addition to disposal at the landfill Note that specific areas are Identified for storage of wastes that should not be buned m the trench, and a burn box for mcmeratmg burnable trash Waste Segregation. Each commumty should have a specific area designated for collection and storage of matenals that should not go mto the landfill Dedicatmg space at the landfill Site IS an obvious chmce for mamtammg the area, smce discarded matenals can be added to the recycled matenals storage or disposed of m the landfill at the same time. The landfill attendant can duect users of the landfill to separate out alummum cans, battenes, scrap metal and lumber from waste matenals to be burned or buned Bms for storage of matenals can be set up with signs to Identify what matenal goes where There may be other places m the commuruty that are mdividually more smtable for storage of matenals than at the landfill For example, often there IS warehouse space -15- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 127 of 213 near the airstrip, or space m a hangar that can be set aside for alummum can storage pnor to bemg shipped out by air Waste ml or battenes can be collected at a covered and controlled VIllage shop, or near the waterfront Each community should decide where the best place IS for storage of these matenals and make sure that everyone m the commuruty knows where to put the recyclable goods to conserve buned landfill space The storage space would be covered and must be accessible to people brmgmg matenals as well as for bulk shipment of matenals out of the commumty Recyclable matenals can also be collected at drop off boxes around the commumty The drop off boxes for recyclable goods could be located With commumty dumpsters for gathenng and storage by a commuruty collection service Incineration. Many landfill problems are solved by mcmeratmg all burnable garbage before placmg It m the landfill Attractiveness to ammals, volume, odors, and potential for groundwater contammat10n are mimmized when garbage IS burned down to a clean ash For most villages this entails the use of a burn box or mcmerat10n vessel located near the disposal area, but away from the disposal trench Itself Ouzmkie does a remarkable JOb of reducmg all of Its sohd waste to ash through controlled burns m the trench Ouzmkie also has the advantage of a landfill trench cut mto bedrock, so the potential for the fire spreadmg IS mimmized. By carefully segregatmg the hazardous matenals and scrap from the refuse dehvered to the landfill, and then burnmg the remamder, Ouzmkie typically achieves greater than 80% reduction of the waste volume that would otherwise fill up the landfill trench. Alternatively, Larsen Bay has a commumty mcmerator that 1s located outside of the landfill faCility boundary When the mcmerator Is properly mamtamed, the ash, after coolmg, IS removed from the firebox with a shovel, and transported to the landfill As long as no hazardous wastes, mcludmg explosives, are placed m the mcmerator, the ash residue IS essentially mert Old Harbor established a burn box, but It was located too close to the disposal area and has become difficult to access, load, and clean, so It IS not regularly used As a result, many residents have resorted to open burnmg, hghtmg their own trash on fire on a level place near the landfill entrance Th1s practice may or may not be attended, and ash from the burnmg IS left m place, preventmg future access Port L10ns residents also use open burnmg at the landf1ll to reduce the trash volume This burnmg, too, IS rarely coordmated with fill placement, and often ends up as an unattended smoldenng mass Open burnmg can lead to spreadmg of the fires to the buned landfill mass, where the fire can spread underground, or beyond the landfill boundary to adJacent forest or tundra Incmerahon should take place m a controlled vessel that provides efficient combustion, IS easy to clean, and con tams the ftre so that only the target waste ts burned -17- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 129 of 213 Disposal Operations Compaction and Cover. The most Important practice for contammg disposed refuse at the landfill site Is compactiOn and cover It IS not enough to dump garbage mto the trench until It IS full and then cover It up To msure that ammals are not attracted to the waste, to msure that the waste IS not soaked by ram and snowmelt, to prevent the wmd from blowmg waste all over the countryside, and to reduce odors of decaymg garbage, the refuse should be compacted and covered at the end of every operating day The hfe of the landfill can be extended to twice Its capaCity If matenal IS adequately compacted Refuse should be piled up no more than two feet high m any area of the workmg cell without workmg over the fill with heavy earthmovmg eqmpment Specmlly manufactured machmery for this purpose has large wheels mstead of tracks, and has steel compression pomts mounted-nn. the wheels to mcrease the machmery's capacity to shear the deposited refuse and apply greater pressure for compaction While It may be difficult to JUstify this kmd of dozer for exclusive use of the commumty's landfill, every community m the Kodmk Island Borough has a bulldozer or loader that could be used for compaction Most villages have a small loader or dozer for use With water system mamtenance, school proJects, electnc cooperatives, mdustnal operations, or construction These pieces are already employed on an Irregular basis for excavatmg new landfill trenches or regradmg the site To maximize the use of the site, however, the eqmpment should be dnven over the refuse at least 6 passes, msurmg that the whole weight of the eqmpment IS placed over each square foot of exposed garbage This should be done every day that the landfill Is m operation The second part of the operation 1s equally Important Not only should the refuse be smashed down With a dozer every day that the landfill IS m operation, but the compacted refuse should be covered with about SIX mches of sml The source of this cover matenal might be a borrow area on the landfill site or even off-site Often, the most economical approach 1s to extend the cell slightly by excavatmg cover matenal from the edge of the cell A trench operator, for example, can extend the trench while usmg the excavated matenalimmedmtely m covermg the recently placed garbage An example of a trench operation With dally cover IS shown m Figure 2-5 Leachate Control. Leachate IS the contammated water that escapes from saturated garbage When saturated With water, decaymg garbage release chemicals such as nutrients, salts, metals, and orgamc compounds m a process called "leachmg" The chemicals exist m leachate at much higher concentrations than normally found m ground water. When the concentrations get too high, the chemicals pose a hazard to people whose water supphes are affected Also pollution of surface water can occur when leachate seeps out of the ground water mto a bog, a stream, or a lake or lagoon -18- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 130 of 213 Leachate production can be mmimized by carefully plannmg and operatmg the landfill so as to hmit the amount of wet garbage m the fill and to mmimize the chances for the refuse to contact water on the site, whether m the ground, fallmg as ram, or collectmg or flowmg on the Site from floods or snowmelt Animal Controls. Garbage placed m a landfill mvites bears, gulls, ravens, rodents, and other cntters to the site to scavenge for food If there IS no garbage or ammal waste (carcasses, guts, and so on) m the landfill, most problems are avmded Home compostmg can be used to make the refuse less attractive Compostmg mvolves puttmg all food waste mto a pile m a backyard, turnmg and mixmg the pile every couple of days to ensure that the compostmg waste remams well aerated Those who feed food scraps to chickens or pigs are less hkely to have ammals attracted to their compostbms Another useful way to avmd ammal problems IS to mcmerate all the food waste, disposable dmpers, and other burnable matenal completely before puttmg It mto the fill Once garbage IS placed mto the fill, however, It should be compacted and covered Immediately to limit Its attractiveness to ammals Monitoring. When a landfill Is bemg operated, It IS useful to keep good records of what happens at the site, who IS m attendance, where wastes are placed, and how developments occur The records can be used to defend your commumty agamst claims that the landfill operation damaged an adJacent property or water resource It IS particularly useful to document dramage control at the site and mamtam records of water quality near the site to ensure that ground water IS not bemg affected by the operation Closure. Every landfill has a fmite hfe After some hme, the site will be fully used up In some cases this means the entire area IS covered with refuse More and more, the landfill operatmg plans are callmg for multiple cells constructed on top of each other to save space In any case, the landfill must be appropnately closed when It meets the end of Its useful life This doesn't mean necessanly that the fill will be useless Many commumties have effectively covered and regraded their sites so that the old landfill might be useful as a recreation facility, such as a ball field or sled hill The landfill operatmg plan should consider the fmal configuration of the landfill at closure A fmal cover should be designed to provide at least two feet of relatively Impermeable sml on top of all of the compacted refuse The design should ensure that no ramwater or snowmelt IS allowed to agglomerate on the site or seep mto the ground where It could come mto contact With garbage Leachate can contmue to be generated -20- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 132 of 213 after the landfill Is closed Specml attention should be made to nearby water resources, and considerations should be made concemmg water quahty momtonng after closure As the refuse degenerates, microbes produce methane gas mside the landfill At large mstallations, this mass of methane can accumulate and pose a fire hazard The landfill cap should be designed to allow any methane generated to escape, by providmg gravel seams m the cap and/or providmg vent pipes mtrudmg down mto the refuse 2.2.2 Present Weaknesses Figure 2-6 compares the adequacy of existmg village sohd waste systems to the model system presented above None of the KIB villages have established a clear operatmg plan to gmde the development, use, and closure of their landfills Attempts to segregate waste have had vanous success, with Old Harbor and Ouzmkie bemg very successful m keepmg scrap metal and other durable goods away from the landfill workmg face Access control Is poor m most cases Few directions are provided for landfill users and operators As a result, the landfill operation IS mconsistent, wasting landfill space and cover matenal, and allowmg spreadmg of trash by wmd and anrmals 2.2.3 Prospective Solutions 2.2.3.1 Systems/Community Planntng Locating a new landfill. A pubhc waste disposal site should be close enough so that It IS convement for people to use, yet far enough away from everyday VIllage activity that the waste disposal does not pose a hazard or a nmsance to village hfe Typically, the Site should be owned by the commumty either deeded to an mcorporated City or held m trust by the State for umncorporated villages Alternative ownership IS possible, some landfills are pnvately owned and operated A commumty non-profit corporation, or local village corporation may develop a landfill. Pnncipal rules to keep m mmd m sitmg a new landfill mclude. 0 The site should be on well-dramed mmeral sml A vmd wetlands and peaty orgamc sml, or areas exposed to floodmg from snowmelt or tides Make sure that If a landfill trench IS dug, no water would seep mto It or be trapped m the bottom 0 Sandy loamy smls are best smted for landfills Too much gravel and course gramed sml allows for water to mfiltrate and contact the garbage The landfill should be located above bedrock to avmd dramage problems Silty or clay smls tend to collect and hold water, causmg contmual contact with the garbage Also, -21- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 133 of 213 saturated smls can cause mechamcal eqmpment like bulldozers, trucks and loaders to get stuck 0 The site should be at least 5000 feet from an mrstnp, or 10,000 feet from a stnp that can accommodate Jet aircraft This mmimizes the potential that birds near the landfill might pose a hazard to aircraft approachmg or departmg from the runway 0 The terram should be flat to gently slopmg It should be stable, With mmimal potential for landshdes or seismic activity. Geologic faults should be avmded 0 Access must be provided Consider how garbage will get to the landfill by four- wheeler; by pick-up truck, or by dump truck Each of these kmds of vehicles has different reqmrements for road construction Larger capacities of bigger trucks also need wider roads and improved roadbeds and dramage 0 The landfill should be located away from any residential water wells, subsistence resource areas, or public facilities that might be subJect to nmse, smoke, or odor from the landfill operations. 0 Your landfill should last many, many years If sized and operated correctly Even so, be prepared to thmk about how that land will be used after the landfill Is closed, and what steps and costs need to be factored m for future closure It will be useful to get technical assistance from an expenenced engmeer to assist m sitmg and developmg cost estimates for landfill construction and operations Developing an Operations Plan. Through the gmdance of a professional sohd waste engmeer, a plan can be tailored to mdividual Kodmk Island village commumties, as part of a workshop traimng exercise for landfill operators The operations plan should mclude the followmg as a mimmum, as reqmred by State law 1 Procedures for site access control, 2 waste acceptance policies, 3 waste placement and compaction practices, 4 htter control and clean-up, 5 ammal control 6 traffic control, 7 dust, nmse, and odor control 2.2.3.2 Technical Trazmng The Operator's Job. Bemg the operator of a commumty landfill IS an Important position, and should not be taken lightly There are a number of responsibilities which the operator should understand plamly and be qualified for. Operator responsibilities should mclude -23- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 135 of 213 0 Controllmg access to the landfill, mamtammg locks and keys and opemng and closmg the facihty at the appomted hours 0 Controllmg site safety, the operator must understand safety procedures specific to the landfill, mcludmg fue protection and control, eqmpment operations, and potential contact With hazardous matenals He should know some basic first aide and know how to contact the commumty health aide and Kodiak Island Hospital m case of accident 0 Directmg the segregation of wastes Whether this IS done personally by the operator or by a landfill user under his direction, the operator must be able to differentiate burnable from non-burnable waste and must Identify hazards such as battenes, solvents, and waste ml He must mamtam the storage areas for wastes that are not to be landfilled and be able to commumcate the rules of operation on the site to landfill users 0 Loadmg and burmng wastes m the mcmerator or burn box, the operator must attend the fire, and clean out and dispose of ash after burnmg He IS responsible for f1re safety durmg the burn 0 Understandmg and communicatmg the landfill operatmg plan, the operator must know what parts of the fill are completed and what areas are next to be uhhzed 0 Heavy eqmpment operations and mamtenance, the operator must be competent m operatmg all eqmpment used on-site· trucks, dozers, loaders, pump trucks He must keep them m good operatmg condition and provide regular mamtenance grease, ml, fuel He must know where to turn for more advanced procedures If he Is not quahfled as a mechamc. It may not be possible to fmd a new employee with all the skills necessary to serve as the community's landfill operator Trammg could be done through participation m workshops sponsored by the Kodiak Island Borough, the Kodiak Island VIllage Environmental Council, or the Kodiak Island VIllage Uhhty Council The workshops may be two or three day meetmgs, or longer term "apprenticeship" VISits to other communities to work alongside expenenced operators Alternatively, the trmmng could come through more formal channels, such as landfill trmmng and certification programs sponsored by the Sohd Waste Association of North Amenca (SWANA) 2.2.3.3 Community Educatton Landfill signs. Postmg signs at the landfill can be very helpful m duectmg the appropnate disposal of waste without the oversight of a full time attendant Signs should hst 0 hours of operation 0 prohibition of hazardous waste 0 mstrucbons for burn box use -24- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 136 of 213 0 where to put battenes, ml, metals, other special wastes 0 who to call for help 2.2.3.4 Community Projects The followmg proJect Ideas are efforts that can engage local people m productive activity, while servmg the community as a whole 0 Sign Project: Produce signs for each village landfill. Creatmg signs for the landfill can be a useful and mexpensive community service proJect for Implementation by the Tnbal Council, Lions Club, School, or other local orgamzation Signs should be large enough to be posted on fence posts or self-supportmg structure, and easily read from the landfill entrance Letters should be 2 5 mches tall m order to be legible, and should stand out from the background by usmg contrastmg colors A vanety of matenals are available Commercially made signs of galvamzed steel or alummum can be ordered from Anchorage, Seattle, or Kodiak. Stencil ktts can be used to pamt large letters over plywood that has been pnmed and pamted a hght background color A router and )lg available from most hardware or department stores can be used to etch lettenng mto hardwood or dimensiOnal lumber. Signs should provide the mformation suggested under section 2.2.3 3 above 0 Bum boxes: Build burn boxes for use in each village. Every community seems to have old bmlers or scrap metal bms that can be converted with some clever weldmg mto a burn box, without sigmflcant expense to the commumty The examples of Dot Lake, or Ivanoff Bay, closer to home, demonstrate that effective designs can be scrounged and put together at low cost The bum box should have a sufficient fuebox capacity to burn the garbage delivery from a smgle family dehvery, up to a full pick-up load The firebox should have a grate to allow ash to fall out Typically, ash IS shoveled by hand out of the ash hopper below the grate, although some commumtles have bmlt m arrangements such as hmged grates or openmgs to facilitate ash removal There should be a chimney sufficient to provide a draft, with a spark arrestor of mesh at the top of the chimney to prevent fires from spreadmg Fires can be started with paper tmder or petroleum based startmg flmd Instructions for use should be posted on signs near the bum box, or better yet, burnmg could be supervised by a paid attendant. Note: Make sure that no explosive or hazardous materials, including batteries, ammunition, spray cans, or propane cylinders, are placed in the burn box. Segregate waste for safety and to maximize effectiveness! -25- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 137 of 213 0 Access facilities: Build fences, gates, and storage facilities for each village. Several commumhes have reported problems with residents unclear about where to dump matenals taken to the landfill. This can be handled by developmg a drop off box/dumpster arrangement at the landfill entrance that provides a defmihve place to depos1t wastes. More simply, a retammg wall/grade break can be used on slopmg ground to hmit the areas than can be traversed by vehicular traffic carrymg waste. The City's landfill operator would be responsible for movmg the matenal from the drop off pomt, or dumpster to the burn box or appropnate trench location for ultimate disposal Gates provide a clear signal that access IS hmited, allowmg for better control of disposal practices, as well Welded pipe gates hmged to flanges on vertical pipe posts are common These can be put together at nommal expense with scrounged or surplus p1pe matenals Port Lwns, Akhiok, and Karluk are m need of new landfills or substantial Improvements to existmg landfills 2.2.4 Prospective Solid Waste Operations Costs Communities should plan on fundmg sohd waste operations costs from their own resources The followmg hst provides a rough plannmg level estimate of costs 0 Weekly residential garbage pickup $3,000-$12,000 0 Collection eqmpment mamtenance $1,000 -$5,000 0 Waste segregation/bum box operations $8,000 (by paid attendant 10 hrs/week) 0 Landfillmg, compaction, and cover $5,000 (4 hrs/week, me eqmpment costs) 0 Trammg $500 (2 days m Kodiak) -26- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 138 of 213 2.3 Used Oil And Hazardous Waste Management 2.3.1 System Description Any used ml and hazardous waste management system consists of the followmg elements. 0 Collection 0 Storage 0 In Town Processmg 0 Transportation 0 D1sposal As shown m Figures 2-7 and 2-8, vanous optmns are technically feasible. The options and how they relate to the KIB commumbes IS discussed below As background, the wastes mcluded m this section are Identified pnor to the discussion Wastes. Used ml, waste ml, mly water, used ml filters, mly rags, mly sludges, lead aCid battenes, solvents, refngerants, and aerosol cans Collection. Throughout the U.S., the two standard practices for waste collection are that either the wastes are dropped off by the residents at a centrallocatmn or that the wastes are segregated and picked up by a waste management employee. In all of the KIB commumties, the existing practice IS to place responsibility m the hands of the resident to drop-off the used ml or hazardous waste In all cases, the restdents play a key role m Idenhfymg which wastes should be managed separately and stormg them separately Storage. Part of an extstmg facility can be used for storage or a new fac1hty can be constructed specifically for management of the matenals Both methods are used m KIB Akhiok IS temporanly stormg the lead actd battenes at the school, while Ouzmk1e has bmlt a household hazardous waste storage shed at the landfill In-town Processing. Some processmg can be performed m the commumty Options mclude 0 Matenals exchange (reuse) 0 Used ml/waste ml burner 0 Incmerator 0 Oil filter crusher 0 Oil/water separator 0 Testing 0 Packmg and labelmg -27- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 139 of 213 The benefit of mstallmg these systems m town IS that It mmimizes transportation and disposal costs However, each system requires constant attention to operate and mamtam It Either residents must mamtam It on a volunteer basiS or allocate part of the commumty's operatmg budget to mamtammg these faCilities (I e ,labor, spare parts) Used oil/waste ml burners are particularly attractive, smce they cut vugm fuel consumption and have the potential to manage one of the largest and highest pnonty waste streams The three used ml burners currently m use m vanous locations around Kodmk Island are Reznor, Black Gold, and Omm 350 Ex1stmg expenence suggests that the Black Gold eqmpment operates the most reliably, IS capable of burnmg the Widest vanety of matenals, and operates With the mmimum amount of upkeep It's efficiency IS shghtly less than the Reznor and Omm 350, but the reliability factors seem to outweigh effiCiency Installations planned for villages should mclude, at the mmimum, water and particulate filters, and a feed preheat Reznor can be made to work m village conditions, but It reportedly reqmres the pretreatment of the waste ml (additional flltermg and preheatmg). This has been the expenence of the KIB landfill staff m Kodiak Mamtenance IS high and equipment IS often fmicky and does not operate Transportation Transportation costs have repeatedly plagued KIB proJects Transportation options mclude D Landmg craft D Barge 0 Air 0 Pnvate vessels 0 Transfer m Kodiak As a pubhc relations effort, many of the transportation compames offer free backhaul of some recyclable matenals, notably alummum cans It would seem that economical transportation of the small quantities of most wastes could be negotiated as backhaul m conJunction w1th the haulmg of school lunches Economical transportation options will mvolve transportmg the hazardous wastes m conJunction With other matenals, because the quantities are very small Disposal. Dtsposal options mclude 0 Energy recovery (m the local commumty or m Kodtak) 0 Recyclmg m the lower 48 (e g, for lead-acid battenes, refngerants, antifreeze) 0 Disposal m the lower 48 0 Discharge (of treated wastewater) -30- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 142 of 213 The small quantities of these matenals generated m KIB suggest that costs for recyclmg or offsite disposal will be qmte high, on a umt pnce basis. 2.3.2 Present Weaknesses Figures 2-9 and 2-10 present a companson of model systems With existmg KIB VIllage practices Managmg used ml and hazardous wastes reqmres a low level of capital mvestment, but a high level of community attention and participation Specific techmcal knowledge IS necessary for appropnate Implementation of storage and transportation components of the waste management system Typically, even large commumties look to contractors to handle the disposal of household hazardous wastes It appears that the few existmg systems are not capturmg most of the used ml or hazardous wastes. Additionally, the existing systems could all use some additional operations and mamtenance attention (e g., mrmmizmg leakmg contamers and spills) Part of the problem IS that all elements of the system depend on each other Communities do not push residents to segregate the hazardous wastes, because transportation and diSposal options have not been Identified and funded. Residents are not pushmg commumty leaders to Improve the used oil and hazardous waste management systems, because they may not be aware of the Impact on pubhc health and nshmg In any small-sized community, numerous Important Issues vie for the attention and energy of residents. Hazardous waste management must compete With pressmg Issues such as children's education, economic development, housmg and socml problems Commumty leaders do not have the resources to estabhsh and admmister systems for a problem that does not present the urgency of other commumty needs -31- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 143 of 213 Household Hazardous Waste Adequacy of Existing System Larsen Old Port Akhiok Chiniak Karluk Bay Harbor Ouzinkie Lions Collection Drop off X X X X X ., X City Pick-up X X X X X X X Community Clean- X X X X X X X up Storage HHW Shed X X X X X ., X Existing Community X X X X X X X Building Processing ···---· ·-· Exchange X X X X X X X ' Packing/Labelling X X X X X X X Disposal Landfill X X X X X X X Batteries X X X X X X X Fluids (Antifreeze/ X • X X X X X Refrigerant) Transport X X X • X X X Key ., System is adequate (green) • System is inadequate (red) If This system component not applicable for this community Montgomery Watson Figure 2-10 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 145 of 213 2.3.3 Description of Solutions 2.3.3.1 Systems/Commumty Planntng The followmg hst of Issues shows areas that can be addressed by an overall plannmg process. 0 Review subsistence food sources and economically-Important resources that could be Impacted by used ml and hazardous waste management 0 Present hazardous waste management as an Important commumty Issue 0 Establish a location for collection of wastes (e.g, at the landfilL city shop, harbor, or other location agreed to by the community) 0 Identify operations and mamtenance responsibilities and staffmg 0 Develop and Implement agreements with contractor to handle collected wastes 0 Motivate residents to partiCipate m the program on an on-gomg basts 0 Incorporate hazardous waste management costs m ubhty billmgs to assure contmued fundmg 0 Oversee environmental aspects of government proJects m the commumty (I e , their fuel management and waste disposal practices) 0 Review past practices that may be causmg current problems (1 e., were battenes typically dumped near shore? Have the prachces changed? 2.3.3.2 Techntcal Traming The speCific techmcal aspects for the staff startmg and runnmg a used ml and hazardous waste collection faCility are 0 Learn reqmrements for spill prevention and containment 0 Learn techniques for plumbmg, filtration, and cleanmg of used ml collectiOn and burnmg eqmpment 0 Learn the regulatory reqmrements affectmg which matenals can be accepted and which can't 0 Learn how to mmimize disposal costs by segregatmg matenals from each other (e.g, antifreeze and used ml) 0 Develop standard operatmg procedures that address safety and envuonmental Issues (I e., worker protection, mmimizmg leaks and spills, deny pubhc access, segregation of mcompahble matenals) 0 Learn stnct EPA and DOT packagmg, markmg, labelmg, placardmg transportation and dtsposal reqmrements The community as a whole does not need to understand the technical details Identified m this section The technical trammg can be hm1ted to the few residents staffmg the facility -34- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 146 of 213 2.3.3.3 Commumty Education The elements of a commuruty education program necessary to startmg a successful used ml and hazardous waste management program mclude 0 Educate residents on what matenals are considered dangerous to pubhc health and the environment and what to do With them 0 Communicate the rmportance of collectmg and disposmg of used ml and household hazardous waste appropnately with pamphlets or educational programs at bmgo 0 Motivate residents to make used ml and hazardous waste management a pnonty m their hves 0 Teach an environmental ethic m school 0 Teach children the Impact of waste management on the community 2.3.3.4 Commumty ProJects An mterested commumty can start a used ml and hazardous waste program with minimal or no capital mvestment Most of the Items necessary can be scavenged and mclude· 0 Contamers (I.e, drums, tanks) for stormg collected matenals 0 Secondary contamment (e g., plastic sheetmg, fish totes) 0 Collection and storage areas (e g, landfills, stores, garages) that protect matenals from the weather 2.3.4 Prospective Costs for Used Oil and Household Hazardous Waste Management Local commumties need to retam responsibility for fundmg of ongomg operations The followmg hst provides rough plannmg level estimates for elements of system operations Capital expenses, such as the purchase and mstallation of a burner system, are not mcluded 0 Used ml/HHW collection site mamtenance $2,000 (2 hrs/week, pa1d staff+ expenses) 0 Staff trammg $500 (2 days m Kodmk) 0 Used ml burner mamtenance $800 ( 40 hrs /burner) 0 Transportation from used ml collection to burner vanes 0 Fuel saved by burmng used ml ($1,000) (500 gal/year x $2/ gal) -35- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 147 of 213 2.4 Scrap Metal Management 2.4.1 System Description Figure 2-11 presents a VIsual depiction of a successful scrap metal system Scrap metal IS one of the most VISible types of sohd waste that IS generated m villages When appliances, motor vehicles, drums, and tanks have come to the end of their useful hfe, they become scrap The metal still has some value If It can be recycled but many of the scrap Items have hazardous matenals that must be removed before the metal can be recycled. It Is the removal of the hazardous material and puttmg It mto the hazardous waste system ( descnbed m section 2 3) that protects the environment A system to manage scrap metal must have the bas1c elements of collection, processmg, storage, and transportation off-site The details of these elements will be different from village to village but It Is Important that the system be wntten down The wntten system becomes part of the sohd waste operations plan Collection. In most communities the person (or busmess) who discards the scrap metal IS responsible to get It to the scrap metal pile. Communities that have collection services for household trash may not be able to handle bulky scrap metal Items m their normal pick-up Some villages, however, do have a large vehicle that could be used to move large or heavy Items The community should decide how scrap metal will get from the home or busmess to the storage area Whether It IS the responsibility of the md1vidual, the sohd waste utlhty, or a contractor, or If the responsibility IS shared, the system should encourage people to get scrap metal to the des1gnated area Processing. As mentioned above, scrap metal sometimes has hazardous matenal that must be removed Scrap vehicles and eqmpment should be dramed of fuel, motor ml, gear ml, hydraulic flmd, and antifreeze Battenes should be removed Small tanks and fuel drums should be completely dramed Recovered flmds and batteries will need to be handled as hazardous waste as descnbed m section 2 3 Old refngerators and freezers are a special case because of the reqmrements of handlmg the refngerant Freon® removal reqmres specialized eqmpment and knowledge of refngerat10n systems This IS a task that may have to be handled by a specialist from outside of the village Wntten procedures for the processmg of scrap metal should be developed In addition to removmg flmds and battenes, the procedures should descnbe how spills will be prevented and what needs to be done m response to a spill -36- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 148 of 213 Storage. In each village an area should be designated for scrap metal handlmg The area would be used for processmg, segregatmg, and storage Processmg, the removal of hazardous matenals, was descnbed above Segregation IS dividmg the scrap by type, such as autos, appliances, hght scrap, and drums The area needs to be large enough to store the scrap until It IS removed In most villages the storage site will be at or near the landfill Thts will allow the flmds and battenes that are removed durmg processmg to be stored at the hazardous matenals storage facility Storage at the landfill also keeps the sohd waste of the commuruty m one place - An alternative location for scrap metal storage IS closer to barge or landmg craft loadmg sites This would make transport out of the commumty easter. The advantage of easter transport would have to be compared With the-advantages of storage at the landfill site Transportation. The removal of the scrap metal from the village IS the only capital mtenstve, that Is, expensive part of the system Matenal could be shtpped out of the villages on a barge or landmg craft that IS makmg the tnp for the special purpose of removmg scrap metal A vessel such as the Island Provider could load from docks and take a hghtermg craft to transport scrap from those villages Without docks Because of the htgh cost of keepmg a vessel at a VIllage durmg loadmg, It IS Important that the effort be coordmated and the scrap be staged close to the pomt of loadmg Other steps can be taken to remove scrap metal from villages It could be a pohcy that when full drums are delivered to a VIllage that empty drums be hauled away This would reduce the accumulation of drums that IS takmg place When construction proJects are bemg planned, the VIllage could reqmre that scrap metal generated dunng the proJect be removed The focus of scrap metal management m Chlmak Is different, smce residents have road access and the abthty to properly dtspose of metals at Borough faCilities m Kodtak In Chmiak, educational and enforcement measures are more appropnate to ensure that residents use the existing systems available to manage these matenals. 2.4.2 Present Weaknesses F1gure 2-12 compares the elements of successful scrap metal management agamst existmg Kill VIllage practices The current system does not allow for the safe contamment and recovery of hazardous flmds and gases or the effective off-site recyclmg of metals Disposal practices such as abandonmg vehicles m coastal marshlands not only have visual Impacts, but potentially senous freshwater and marme environmental Impacts from ruptured gas tanks and leakmg mls and flmds Abandoned fuel drums and large fuel storage tanks are present m all VIllages Both drums and large tanks can contam mly restdues that may be -38- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 150 of 213 Scrap Metal System Component Adequacy of Existing System Larsen Old Port Akhiok Chiniak Karluk Bay Harbor Ouzinkie Lions Collection Self haul v v • • v v • City pick-up • • • • • • • Community • • v • • clean-up • • Storage Landfill v • • • v v • Harbor • • • • • • • Other • • • • • • v Processing Fluid removal • • • • • • • Fluff removal • • • • • • • Compact • • • • • • • Cut to fit • • • • • • • Disposal Local burial • • • • • • • Transport • • • • • • • Key v System is adequate (green) • System is inadequate (red) ~.oi"'..&..ill . ..-. .... This system component not applicable for this community Montgomery Watson Figure 2-12 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 151 of 213 released as the containers dismtegrate No Immedmte plans for tank removal and remediation were noted durmg site VISits Abandoned apphances were also present m varymg quantities m villages In some cases, no apphances were noted, which Imphes that refngerators and freezers are generally landfllled as-Is In other cases, these apphances were piled w1th other scrap without special handlmg for Freon® and compressor ml removal Lead acid battenes were also present throughout the VIllages GIVen the low volumes of stockpiled battenes, It IS hkely that many have been landfllled or otherwise dumped Two of the commumhes, Akhiok and Karluk, do not have docks for the loadmg of scrap metal for transportation out of the village 2.4.3 Prospective Solutions 2.4.3.1 Systems/Community Planning As VIllages plan for Improved sohd waste handlmg, areas should be dedicated for scrap metal handling These areas could be used to segregate metals by type (e g., autos, refngerators, hght scrap, etc) m stockpiles. The areas should be large enough to stockpile matenals for efficient periOdic removal, which might occur relatively mfrequently While the metal stockpile area for each VIllage might be at each village's disposal site, alternative areas closer to barge or landmg craft loadmg sites would be more appropnate for some VIllages A coordmated system of removmg scrap metal from the commumbes should be developed Annually, or on a scheduled basis, a barge or other vessel could stop at each VIllage to load the accumulation of scrap metal that has been processed and staged for removal Some on-site techmcal trammg might be necessary to stabilize scrap matenals for stockpile storage Scrap vehicles and eqmpment should be Immediately dramed of fuel, engme, gear, and hydrauhc mls Small tanks and fuel drums should also be completely dramed. Recovered flmds Will need to be managed, With mls burned for heat recovery (as appropnate) and gasolme used as fuel or safely stored for removal as hazardous waste While these tasks are not necessanly techmcal m nature, they will need to be performed with regulatory compliance m mmd A responsible person m each village must manage stockpiles and ensure that this preparation occurs m a timely and safe manner This person will reqmre some trammg to understand the regulatory environment, safe handhng of scrap, and contamment procedures for the Imbal handlmg of scrap Items Written procedures for Imbal processmg, as well as spill response and contamment, should be developed for each village. -40- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 152 of 213 VIllage staff should be able to perform essentially allimtial handlmg of scrap w1th the exception of Freon® removal Freon® removal reqmres specmhzed knowledge of refngeration systems as well as specialized eqmpment For this function, an annual coordmated recovery program could be the most cost-effective A specialized contractor could be flown to each village to dram refngerators, freezers and any scrapped cars With air conditiomng accumulated durmg the previous year 2.4.3.2 Community Educatwn Community education will be rmportant for residents to understand the need to segregate metals at disposal or stockpile sites Residents Will also need to be mformed about the Importance of contammg hazardous flmds For example, scrap refrigerators should be handled carefully to ensure that both compressor mls and refrigerant are not carelessly released mto the environment Long term environmental education IS enhanced through environmental stewardship curnculum (see Section 3 3) directed at school children However, many of the educational Issues related to the safe handlmg of scrap are fairly specific and will need to be targeted directly to waste generators. The most appropnate community education formats for scrap metals management mclude duect one-on-one contact, commumty meetmgs (e g, a meetmg to descnbe the VIllage's new waste management system), and to a lesser degree, wntten matenals 2.4.3.3 Community Projects No capital Improvements should be necessary to upgrade village scrap handlmg However, a contmuahon of the KIB scrap metal removal program IS recommended to reduce health hazards m the villages resultmg from contact with uncontrolled disposal of scrap metals around the villages, or degradation of subsistence resources from hazardous matenals associated with uncontrolled scrap disposal This IS envisiOned as a recurrmg regiOnal proJect mvolvmg contractor assistance for a commumty wide collection process and contractor transport from each village 2.4.4 Prospective Costs for Scrap Metals Management Operations Local commumbes need to provide for operations fundmg through theu own resources The followmg hst provides rough estimates of fundmg reqmrements 0 Community scrap mventory (8 hrs) 0 Local matenal segregation and processmg (12-24 hrs) 0 Transport coordmahon/ contract admmtstration (2-20 hrs/year) 0 Technical trammg for local processmg (2 days m Kodtak) -41- $120 $2,000-$5,000 $50-$500 $500 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 153 of 213 2.5 Fuel Delivery Systems 2.5.1 System Description As depicted m Figure 2-13, proper design, construction and operation of fuel systems typically mclude the followmg elements 0 S1t1ng 0 Appropnate hardware 0 Fuel delivery 0 Sp1ll prevention plans and eqmpment 0 Operations 0 Mamtenance 0 Use 0 Waste management 0 Decomm1ssmmng and cleanup Fuel systems usually represent the largest smgle source of potential environmental pollution m a rural Alaskan commumty, because It IS a large quantity of petroleum IS typically stored near preciOus marme resources The tank system Itself IS often substandard (I e, does not have the reqmred safety devices) and typical operatmg procedures present a sigmficant opportumty for catastrophic spills (I e, unloadmg fuel from barges and tankers) If a release does take place, the cleanup costs alone could be devastatmg to the commumty, not to mention the loss of subsistence food sources and economically-Important resources Fuel for the KIB schools Is typically stored m underground storage tanks (USTs) Leaks on underground tanks can't be observed VIsually and therefore can go undetected forever Fuel added to the tanks promptly leaks out and more fuel Is added, causmg an ongomg, ever-growmg problem Although no evidence was observed that suggests the KIB USTs leak, the problem IS the potential for the leak and the potential for It to go undetected for a long time which could result m costly cleanup reqmrements Additionally, fuel storage faCilities generate numerous ancillary waste streams, such as off-spec fuel, mly water, mly rags, petroleum contammated sml and sludges that reqmre specml management 2.5.2 Present Weakness Weaknesses m the fuel storage systems m Kodiak Island villages were mventoned and reported m the 1996 audit by the Alaska Department of Commumty and Regmnal Affairs The concerns mcluded the mtegnty and design of the fuel systems, operations and mamtenance -42- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 154 of 213 Most of the Issues mvolve the absence of features that reduce the hkehhood or seventy of a fuel release, such as secondary contamment, and leak detection systems Community preparedness IS equally Important m many cases If a leak or spill IS detected early, Its Impact can be mmimized by rap1d, coordmated actmn by properly- eqUipped on-the-scene responders. 2.5.3 Prospective Solutions 2.5.3.1 Systems/Commumty Planning From a strategic standpomt, the followmg Issues were Identified that would stgmftcantly reduce the vulnerability of the KIB commumties to the Impact of fuel storage and use They mclude 0 Identify and tram an emergency response team that could Immediately respond to a fuel spill 0 Store spill response matenals m each community 0 Prepare a hst of outside resources to call m the case of a sizable spill Put any necessary agreements or contracts m place ahead of hme. 0 Actively participate m the oversight of fuel storage fac1hhes m the commumty, mcludmg those owned and operated by pnvate entitles (e.g, Kodiak Salmon packers m Larsen Bay) and government programs (e g, schools) Make sure these entitles are m compliance with existing federal and state requirements 0 Establish a program of routme, penodic mspechons of all tank systems by a knowledgeable resident that IS mdependent of all fuel system owners and operators 2.5.3.2 Technical Training The followmg trammg Items were Identified for fuel delivery staff m the KIB commumtles 0 tram fuel delivery staff m fuel transfer procedures that reduce the hkehhood of spills 0 tram fuel delivery staff to notice and repair fuel leaks m household systems 0 establish waste management procedures for wastes associated with the fuel systems, such as madvertently-contammated soil, mly water and sludges, off- spec fuel, and mly rags Figure 2-14 presents a companson of ex1stmg systems to model fuel dehvery management -44- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 156 of 213 2.5.3.3 Community Educatwn Management of the fuel tank systems does not reqmre participation of the commumty residents as a whole If residents transport and transfer their own fuel ml, then broader education throughout the community IS desirable No other areas for commumty education were Identified 2.5.3.4 Capttal Equipment Extensive upgrades are warranted on many, If not all, rural Alaskan fuel tank systems The cost of the reqmred or recommended upgrades IS generally qmte high and unaffordable by most communities The Alaska Department of Commuruty and Regional Affairs currently has a program to mventory and upgrade fuel systems m rural Alaska, but avatlable fundmg Is only a fraction of what IS needed. ADEC, ADCRA and local communities are m the throws of determmmg how and when rural fuel systems can be upgraded and the Issue IS unresolved 2.5.4 Prospective Costs for Fuel Systems Operations In addition to the cost of the bulk fuel and delivery (usually by a pnvate enterpnse), the commumty would be well served by the followmg ongomg mvestments to ensure resource protection 0 Tank site mamtenance/splll control eqmpment mventory 0 SPCC review and update $500 $500 2.6 Resource Protection (Drinking Water And Subsistence Foods) Resource protectiOn IS an attitude that permeates all waste management systems and planmng As shown m Figure 2-15, It does not reqmre Its own mfrastructure, but rather IS a factor taken mto account when designmg other waste management system upgrades ImplementatiOn reqmres community educatiOn and planrung An mventory of community resources, such as drmkmg water, subsistence food sources, economically- Important resources (e g, to commercial fishmg and/or tounsm) and recreational resources (e.g, swimmmg and picmc areas), must be compiled so there IS consensus on what must be protected and why These resources must be placed on a map of each village ~o that they can be commumcated to outside agencies and orgamzations that design and Implement proJects m the vtllages Montgomery Watson's first report, Inventory of PollutiOn Sources and Problems, presents a first-attempt at this effort and can be used as a basts for discussiOns -46- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 158 of 213 For KIB commumhes, some of the first topics for discussion at a community meetmg should be 0 watershed protectiOn through zonmg and/ or ordmances 0 oversight procedures for prOJects Implemented m and around the commumty -48- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 160 of 213 3.1.2 O bjectives The purpose of the utility council is to provide: • A permanent resource for coordination between KIB communities and between communities and outside agencies • A forum for collaboration to solve problems • An administrative center to manage the business aspects of utility operations • A resource for technical and utility expertise · 3.1.3 Description of Solution The council will evolve from the KIVEC and KIVUC and expand to provide more time and resources for information sharing and exchange, as well as provide a recognized administrative structure, with formal membership and support from both tribal and city governments. Utility system improvements will be coordinated through the council on an area-wide basis. As envisioned, the borough-wide utility council will be the next step to strengthen and formalize the work of the existing utility council. With a director and a legal structure, the council will be positioned to empower the communities, support community projects, and provide ongoing project administration. The utility council will provide the structure to allow communities to tackle their waste management system problems at the local level. The council will be the key to the implementation of the remaining three initiatives. 3.1.4 Key Elements for Success The following key elements have been identified for the success of the Borough-wide utility council: • An administrator dedicated to the improvement of waste management systems and the operations of utilities in the KIB communities • A legal structure that serves as an entity for the administration of funding and utility system support • Formal membership that represents the KIB communities • Support of tribal and city governments • Borough-wide focus -50- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 162 of 213 3.2 Systems Development: Fixing and Improving on What is There Regional Training And Oversight For Operations And Maintenance Of Waste Management Systems 3.2.1 Background And Rationale During our site visits, Montgomery Watson observed that each village has existing infrastructure to manage waste and provide utilities (e.g., dr:inking water treatment and distribution, landfill, septic systems). The systems are intended to serve the needs of the community, but often don't because most of these systems are partially broken. For instance, sometimes, septic systems are overflowing, drinking water sources periodically become contaminated, unsightly landfills have uncovered garbage and are frequented by bears. Many of the most severe problems can be fixed immediately without waiting for new facilities. In fact, based on past experience, the new facilities will not be any better than the old ones, because the problem is not with the facility, but with the operation and maintenance. No facility will continue to work, unless it is given the continuous attention at an appropriate level. One example is the discharge of overflowing septic systems or sewers near subsistence food sources. The systems appear to be correctly sized for the communities, but many of the communities have ongoing problems with them. They plug and overflow. Part of the breakdown is because these systems were designed and built by outside agencies and experts who don't use them. Therefore, when part of the system breaks, it is only a problem and priority to the local community, not the outside agency. Although each village has a talented maintenance worker who works on the broken systems, he often lacks the detailed knowledge of the system designer; was only trained in part, if any, of the maintenance activities; lacks tools and equipment; or has conflicting priorities (e.g., lack of time). The maintenance worker, working with the available resources and time, is able to temporarily Band-Aid the system so it limps along for a short time, rather than get to the root problem and permanently fix it. Soon the problem crops up again and the cycle repeats, the problem never really goes away, and frustration builds within the community. Many of the systems require not only training, but experience. A person cannot be expected to have the skills to fix difficult, complex problems, unless they have troubleshot numerous problems with numerous similar systems. In larger communities, the operations and maintenance workers are usually specialists expected to know only one system (e.g., water treatment). In small communities, like the Kodiak Island villages, a single person is often expected to have this level knowledge on all of the village facilities. -51- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 163 of 213 To further illustrate the point, the attractiveness of the landfills to bears can be reduced by covering the garbage immediately or burning it. Each community has the equipment to move garbage (e.g., front end loader) and cover material, people to run it, and a spot to pile and bum garbage, but it is not routinely happening in any of the communities, except Ouzinkie. In the 1995 EPA report titled, "Federal Field Work Group Report to Congress on Rural · Sanitation," EPA states that: " .. .it will not be possible to attain a satisfactory level of sanitation service in a significant number of rural Alaskan communities unless the O&M issue is addressed effectively." In summary, the major reason why the KIB waste management systems don't work well is because they don't get fixed. The KIB waste management systems will not work better until each village takes even more responsibility of the system operations and maintenance. To do this, each village needs village-based people who have the training, experience, tools, time and motivation to keep the many complex technical systems from breaking and these maintenance workers need to be compensated for their work. 3.2.2 Objectives The objectives of this initiative are: 0 To establish a network of operations and maintenance specialists within each KIB village that has the knowledge, tools, equipment, budget, and motivation to make the KIB waste management systems perform reliably and well always. 0 To retain the necessary skills and experience in the villages and continually improve them. 3.2.3 D escription O f Solution This section describes a vision for a comprehensive operations and maintenance training program for maintenance workers selected from each village. The program focuses on hands-on training and will involve the training group fixing the malfunctioning waste managem ent systems in each village. As envisioned, each village would select several residents from the community that are to receive the in-depth training as operations and maintenance workers. There would be three groups of train ees, paired as follows: 0 Ouzinkie and Port Lions 0 Larsen Bay and Karluk 0 Akhiok and Old Harbor -52- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 164 of 213 Each group of trainees would be provided with an experienced specialist, who would lead them through troubleshooting and fixing the broken systems in the their communities. During the 8-month program, trainees would spend half of their time in their own community and the other half in the partner community. Selection would be made by the community members and based on a competitive selection process. Communities may want to consider selecting a mix of experienced personnel and new high school g r aduates in order to maximize the long-term benefit to the community. Trainees would be provided a stipend during the training program. Trainees found to be unsuited to the program or unwilling to commit the time would be released from service immediately and replaced, so the community would not suffer. The KIB program would be greatly enhanced by incorporating existing resources, such as ADEC's Remote Maintenance Workers (RMW). The RMW's focus is education and training of rural maintenance workers. Currently, one RMW, funded through the Rural Economic and Development Association, is assigned to serve the six Kodiak Island villages. The curriculum would consist of, at a minimum, achieving a thorough grasp of the following aspects of operations and maintenance: 0 Read and understand existing drawings 0 Troubleshoot problems in facilities and equipment 0 Identify and order spare parts 0 Compile and be responsible for complete tool kit 0 Cleaning and maintaining of tools and parts 0 Have, read and understand maintenance manuals or checklists 0 Have, read and understand operations manuals or checklists 0 Develop a preventative maintenance program 0 Identify and plan for routine maintenance requirements 0 Inventory planning and control 0 Budgeting and prioritization 0 Keep mainten ance lo gs and budgets 0 Routine systems inspections 0 Identify suppliers and vendors for unmet needs for parts and services 0 Develop a work ethic that is responsive to the needs of the community 0 Work alongside peers from other KIB villages 0 Meet and talk with system designers, experts and other resources from outside the community -53- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 165 of 213 0 Identify, evaluate and contract outside experts, when needed 0 Provide feedback to the community on waste management issues 0 Develop standard safety and environmental practices A short list of preliminary activities for each of the waste management systems is shown below to provide a flavor of the training program and show the value that will be provided by the program to each community. Waste water treatment 1. Repair sludge pumping trucks 2. Identify I construct a septic sludge disposal pit 3. Develop a preventative maintenance schedule for pumping and disposing of septic tank sludges, changing oil on pumper trucks, etc. 4. Routinely pump and dispose of septic tank solids into the pit 5. Inspect tanks and piping for plugs or restrictions 6. Remove any blockages 7. Identify and fix any systemic problems (such as the excess use of water) 8. Community education (e.g., provide feedback on any community practices that may break the septic system--such as disposal of plastic bags through the septic system) Landfills 1. Develop an operations plan 2. Perform all tasks associated with the plan (e.g., collection, hazardous waste segregation, temporary storage, put solid waste into cell, burn, compact and cover) 3. Community education Used oil burners 1. Develop a streamlined operations plan 2. Develop a preventative maintenance checklist to routinely change oil and filters, etc. 3. Practice all items on the operations and preventative maintenance plan 4. Install any new, uninstalled systems 5. Identify appropriate disposal for oily rags, filters, oily water, etc. 6. Formalize used oil storage area and transfer procedures 7. Rig piping and pumps to streamline transfers -54- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 166 of 213 As evident from the list of subjects, many of the most urgent waste management problems will be fixed by the trainees during the training program. For example, when in Akhiok, the training group will troubleshoot the overflowing septic system, when in Port Lions, it can develop an operations plan for the landfill and start a routine of daily cover. This approach fixes frustrating, reoccurring waste management problems in each village using local labor. It builds a network of trained experts in each village and encourages ongoing collaboration between KIB villages, so that when a system breaks, the local experts can bring in additional manpower from other Kodiak Island villages, rather than Seattle or Anchorage. 3.2.4 Key Elements For Success Montgomery Watson has identified the following key elements for success of the training program. 1. Selection of trainees. The skill and motivation of the trainees are the single most important factor in the long-te-rm success of the training program. The community is investing time and money in the trainees in the expectation that they will master the necessary skills, apply them to the benefit of the village, and remain in the village to use them. Therefore, Montgomery Watson recommends a competitive selection, based on applications, with final selection decided by the community. Interest, aptitude, reliability and motivation should be given more weight than experience. The position is not an entitlement or political appointment. The community retains the ability to rapidly hire and fire personnel for non-attendance, poor performance, etc. 2. Nurture and retain expertise. Retain trained personnel in the village once they have the skills by: (1) training more than one person per village, (2) encouraging networking and sharing of resources within the region, (3) provide ongoing training, (4) provide adequate compensation for the time and skill. 3. Selection of trainer. More important than specific technical degrees or skills, the trainer should be someone who has a track record of success in working with rural Alaskans and operating and maintaining rural Alaskan facilities. The successful Alaskan maintenance worker is a jack-of-all-trades, whose skill lies in the ability to figure out solutions to problems s/he has never encountered, rather than someone who knows how to fix a specific problem because they have been taught a routine. Besides the necessary experience with the systems, the trainer must have the ability to transfer the skill of ingenuity, rather than rote learning. 4. Accountability. Both trainer and trainees must be held accountable for the community's investment in them. A successful program will include a mechanism to measure performance and compensate based on results. -55- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 167 of 213 3.2.5 Other Alternatives Considered Three potential alternatives for in-depth training of village resources were identified and are discussed below: Established trade school or university programs. Maintenance trainees from the KIB communities could be enrolled in an established training program for the mechanical or electrical trades or wastewater treatment operators. This option was considered inferior because personnel would receive training only in the chosen field, rather than the broad range of skills necessary in the KIB communities. Furthermore, this alternative provides no . hands-on experience with the systems currently in use and leaves the villages without maintenance workers for an extended period of time. Off-site group training. This option involves training the selected personnel, as a group, in an off-site location, such as Kodiak or Anchorage. Off-site training of the maintenance workers as a group has the advantage of bringing the trainees together and strengthening ties between the communities. It also would allow a fast-paced learning environrne~t. Classes could be targeted to the systems in use in the KIB villages, however, hands-on training would be minimal. This option was considered inferior because of the minimal amount of hands-on training with existing KIB village systems and because all of the maintenance workers would be gone from the villages for an extended period of time. During the time the maintenance workers were gone, the existing waste management systems would fall into disrepair. Round-robin training in KIB villages. This option involves the group of trainees from all villages traveling to each village to troubleshoot problems and fix the existing systems. The two main advantages of this option are: the broken equipment in the villages gets fixed and the maintenance workers receive hands-on training on the very systems they will be expected to fix next time. The disadvantage is the extended period of time personnel will be away from their own community, the lack of facilities to house and feed a group of this size, and large class size. 3.2.6 Benefits Of This Solution Over Alternatives. Montgomery Watson is recommending this solution over other approaches for the following reasons: 0 It is most likely to provide KIB villages with a permanent solution (i.e., working waste management systems) rather than a temporary fix. 0 Control and decision-making regarding village systems is at the village level. 0 Provides job training and valuable skills to residents. 0 Money allocated to waste management is returned to the villages in the form of operations and maintenance salaries rather than expended with an outside consultant. -56- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 168 of 213 3.3 Community And Environment Curriculum Development 3.3 .1 Background and Rationale This project would involve the development and implementation of a unique approach to teaching young people in rural Kodiak Island village schools about how their community works and how their own behavior affects both the local economy and environment. Developed in conjunction with local tribal councils and the KIB School District, KIVEC would implement this curriculum as an intensive, but short duration unit affecting a large number of students in each school. 3.3.2 Objectives The principal purpose of the special curriculum project would be to introduce or emphasize an ethic of environmental stewardship among the children of each individual village. Closely related would be the development and encouragement of citizenship among village children, providing insight into the way that their community functions. A side benefit from the curriculum development process would be a closer association between lhe school district and village tribal council leaders. In the long run, the community and environment curriculum could assist in identifying prospective utilities system operators and managers, leading to mentorships as discussed in Section 3.2. 3.3.3 Description of Solution Since local teachers are fully committed to existing duties, a teacher (or teachers) with specialized expertise would venture from village to village, on a one-to two-week rotation. The roving teacher would implement the community environmental systems curriculum, working with the local teaching staff to optimize the interaction with students in each village. The close and extended contact with students in each school allows the student and teacher to build trust and develop a level of communication that is impossible for day visitors and substitute teachers. The curriculum would focus on issues germane to local village life: the hydrologic cycle; use of water and the production and disposal of wastewater; health hazards from exposure to pollutants; protection of subsistence resources; generation, collection, and disposal of garbage; definition and handling of hazardous materials; energy use and conservation; duties and responsibilities of citizens and government; and (for older children) costs and cost recovery mechanisms for waste management systems. Based on a pilot program to be developed in the 1998-'99 school year with grant funds, the School District may elect to incorporate some of the information in the standard school curriculum, or alternatively, devote funding to a continued or expanded program in future years. Steps and recommended timeframe involved in implementation of this curriculum are as follows: -57- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 169 of 213 1. Develop agreement(s) between tribal and village councils and school district outlining approach and commitment. (Summer, 1998) 2. Grant funding requested and obtained. (Fall, 1998) 3. Develop requests for proposals for curriculum development. (February, 1999) 4. Award contract for curriculum development. (April, 1999) 5. Contractor meets with tribal and village councils and teachers in each village .. (May, 1999) 6. Contractor submits draft report with implementation plan to school district. "(September, 1999) 7. School district and tribal and village council representatives meet in Kodiak to discuss plan with contractor. (October, 1999) 8. Final implementation schedule established. (November, 1999) 9. Pilot implementation in each village. (March through May, 2000) 10. Evaluate program and make recommendations for follow-up. Oune, 2000) 3.3.4 Key El ements for Success Montgomery Watson has identified the following key elements for a successful program: 0 The environmental curriculum must be tailored to and specific to the KIB communities (e.g., impact of waste petroleum on subsistence food resources), rather than a superficial treatment of global issues that are not readily felt in the Kodiak Island communities (e.g., global warming). 0 Including tours of local waste management facilities, interviews with environmental professionals in the village (e.g., waste management maintenance workers) would underscore the relevance of the curriculum to students 0 The educational program should take place after improved waste management practices are ready for implementation. In the past, the sense of accomplishment with student projects was mediocre, because it was not possible to complete the projects. For example, no transportation or recycling facilities were identified for collected aluminum cans and batteries, so they remain stored in the communities indefinitely. This leads to frustration and sends the message that environmental projects are not successful. These detrimental messages must be avoided. 0 The curriculum should include a list of immediate actions the students and their families can take to improve waste management in their community. The list should contain all information necessary to successfully make a positive impact -58- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 170 of 213 on the environment and should not require the student to figure out technical or logistical questions that are beyond their grasp. 3.3.5 Other Alternatives Considered. Using materials already developed. A host of curriculum materials for "environmental studies" have been prepared by agencies and educators around the nation, including materials developed specifically for Native American Communities. The Northwest Renewable Resources Center has even published a teachers guide entitled "Changing Waste in Changing Times: Solid Waste and Natural Resource Issues in Rural Alaska", written by Shirley Moses. This book is full of ideas and methods to focus school kids thinking about personal responsibility in the environment. By assembling many of these materials, and making them available to the rural Kodiak teachers, the teachers could be better prepared to bring these issues to the forefront in their classrooms. This could be done at minimal expense, although it takes considerable work on the part of each teacher to tailor the methods to his or her individual classroom. Additionally, as Ms. Moses points out in her book, the curriculum will still need to be adapted for the specific geography and culture of the school's region. 0 - Provide teacher training. Through a special in-service or summer program, the rural teachers could be introduced to an environment and community curriculum which is more specifically tailored to the KIB environment. As many new rural teachers are visitors from Outside Alaska, with little teaching experience, this workshop environment could help orient teachers into the unique community structures in rural coastal KIB villages. Emphasis would be placed on the operations of community systems and utilities, which are taken for granted in larger communities, but rely heavily on individual commitment in rural Alaska. The workshop would be convened in Kodiak, perhaps as part of an orientation session or special summer program. Contributors could be drawn from city and tribal organizations to discuss utility and community systems. Develop community education as a tribal council activity. Through collaboration among village tribal councils, develop a curriculum to augment existing activities that take place in the schools. Using similar techniques and approaches as described for the development of the school curriculum, the participating village councils may use external consultants, or perhaps more appropriately, local community elders, to present information concerning the environment and history of the development of each community. This could be a regularly scheduled activity through the winter months, taking 3 to 8 hours on evenings or Saturdays in addition to school. Provided that the school and local village council develop an agreement on approach, it is possible that the school district may allow incorporation of this effort as part of the school day. 3.3.6 Benefits of this Solution over Alternatives The benefits of this approach to the KIB communities include: -59- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 171 of 213 0 This activity can be combined with other community planning or educational activities to the benefit of both programs. For example, it can be used as a means to rapidly communicate practices that would have an immediate beneficial impact on the functioning of community waste management systems. For example, students can learn why it is important to dispose of plastic bags and garbage in the landfill rather than through the septic system, where they currently cause plugged pipes. 0 The curriculum can provide students the rare opportunity to be exposed to career opportunities outside the community. The curriculum can discuss environmental careers within and outside the community. 0 Lessons can draw on the traditional cultural value placed on the environment to reinforce their importance. 3.4 On-going Village Waste Management Implementation Initiative 3.4.1 Background and Rationale Rural Alaskan communities face an increasingly large and complex set of not only environmental concerns, but social, cultural, educational, physical, and economic concerns as well, all of which are so interrelated that it is practically impossible to consider one without considering the other. Long-term waste management planning and implementation by the villages of Chiniak, Ouzinkie, Port Lions, Old Harbor, Akhiok, Karluk, and Larsen Bay must consider environmental concerns in a holistic context. Any attempt to implement technical solutions to the problems identified in our earlier report, "Kodiak Island Borough Inventory of Pollution Sources and Problems," must be done with the active concurrence and participation of individuals, families and organizations throughout each village community. Because important community development of this kind is something the villages can only do for themselves, it is critical that community members take ownership of the on- going waste management process. Significant community development takes place only when local community members are committed to investing themselves and their resources in the effort, and in order for a technical solution to be sustainable, it requires the "buy in" of the majority of a community. The implementation of the "Kodiak Island Borough Master Waste Management Plan" is a necessary first step in the development of solutions for the coastal villages of Kodiak Island. It has examined and identified pollution sources and problems and is developing some suggested next steps for remedy. This process is taking place primarily with assistance from the Kodiak Island Village Environment Council and -60- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 172 of 213 representatives from the Kodiak Island Borough and the Kodiak Area Native Association. Additionally, this process provides for public participation during two half-day meetings within each community to share the thinking and suggestions of our consultants and regional representatives. Once the "Kodiak Island Borough Master Waste Management Plan" is completed the next step is for each community to gather its residents and determine how, when and why suggestions from the "KIB Master Waste Management Plan" can and will be further internalized and implemented within each community. This process will require "grass roots" participation by residents throughout the community to ensure a strong sense of ownership in the solutions implemented within each village. Additionally, this process must address how environmental concerns will be prioritized against other village issues and concerns; how technical solutions will be maintained and supported by village residents; and how on-going education will be prioritized and supported by village residents. This is not to say that outside resources are not important, but it is increasingly futile for communities to wait for and depend on help to arrive from outside the community. The villages should fully utilize all available resources by "tapping" them, but not relying on them for sole support. Outside resources should only complement the existing local resources and assets of the village. It is increasingly difficult for villages to rely on outside resources, and it is only going to get more difficult in the future. It is not likely, in light of continuing budget constraints, that there will be significant new pools of federal money. 3.4.2 Objective To establish and implement an ongoing community-based waste management system within each KIB village that results in a broad-based, collaborative process for addressing critical on-going waste management issues, as well as to develop a long- term waste management action plan for each village that can and will be self- sustainable. 3.4.3 Description of Solution Participation. Unlike public participation processes in government based planning, community initiatives require full-scale participation from all village residents. Public participation in government processes involves providing the opportunity for public comment and input. On the other hand, the process required to engage village residents actively in sustaining on-going effective waste management requires broad- based, widespread resident participation, with the fi rst step being to engage community members. This process will allow the village members themselves, not outside agencies, and not only village leaders, but all members of the village to have a role in the process and be a part of the village goals. -61- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 173 of 213 Approach. In order to accomplish the obJective of estabhshmg and Implementmg ongomg community-based waste management systems, a necessary startmg pomt will be to engage the villages m the process and provide an action plan for development The followmg activities will be mcluded m the mitial commumty process V11lage residents will pnontize environmental concerns agamst other village Issues and opportumties, both short and long-term This allows the village to pnontize waste management goals that fit the village needs and to choose methods of achievmg those waste management goals that are compatible With their level of commitment and their VISion of the village's future VIllage resources Will be Identified and allocated to environmental concerns and other waste management Issues as village members feel Is most appropnate VIllage residents will Identify regwnal activities and on-gomg mitiatives for further local ImplementatiOn, and/ or Identify additional local waste management pnonhes and activities A wntten action plan will be developed for each village Possible Topics for Discussion. Possible topics for community discussion mclude the followmg ISsues. 0 Technical Issues 0 Watershed protection (e g, zonmg, ordmances) 0 Rankmg of waste management agamst other commumty pnonbes 0 Determmatlon of waste management pnonhes 0 Allocation of community fundmg for waste management 0 Environmental oversight for proJects Implemented m and around the commumty 0 Commumty Issues 0 What are the community's waste management pnontles and how do their fit mto overall community pnonhes? 0 What resources will the commumty commit to ongomg management and Implementation of waste management systems? 0 What community factors, mcludmg busmess environment, capital, mfrastructure, education, quahty of hfe, natural resources, must be considered m the waste management plannmg process? 0 What community problems, needs and assets must be considered m the waste management plannmg process? 0 How does the community sustam resident support for the Ideas and prOJects outlmed durmg the commumty waste management plannmg process? -62- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 174 of 213 3.4.4 Other Alternatives Considered Other alternatives for ImplementatiOn of the waste management plan mclude External implementation. In the past, a commumty Implementation plan IS put together by personnel external to the community Usmg external consultants mlnlffiizes the volunteer effort reqmred from the commumty However, rmplementahon plans prepared by external resources often lack msight mto what IS necessary to make a proJect a success m a particular commumty Additionally, without community buy-m, even the best programs are often not understood, valued or used Fragmented implementation. Several Initiatives are planned for each KIB village Each time a new phase of waste management IS mihated, KIVEC members and proJect planners could arrange a separate meetmg w1th the community to explam the new program, seek commumty support and buy-m The disadvantage of this approach IS the lack of contmmty and coordmation among the programs -63- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 175 of 213 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE The estimated cost of the Master Plan for Waste Management is described in this section. The four components, or initiatives, of the plan; a Borough-wide utility council, systems development, community and environment curriculum development, and local waste management implementation , are casted-out in the following pages . First, a brief summary of the initiatives, along with their potential funding sources, can be found in the table on the following page. After the summary, there is a one-page budget overview followed by the detailed breakdown of costs for the systems development initiative. In addition to the funding sources, the communities will continue to actively participate in the implementation and to provide in-kind support including: Personnel • Community planning and organizational meetings • Borough-Wide Council Meetings • Supplemental Salaries • Volunteer Labor Facilities • Land for siting faci litie s • Use of heavy equipment • Space for community planning and organizational meetings Administration • Workspace, communications, support services • On-going operation and maintenance of existing and new facilities - 1 - RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 177 of 213 Ph a s e I Re c o m m e n d a t i o n s 1 A Bo r o u g h - W t d e Ut t h t y Co u n c t l Es t a b l t s h m g A Re s o u r c e fo r Co l l a b o r a t i v e Pr o b l e m - s o l v m g 2 Sy s t e m s De v e l o p m e n t Ft x m g Wh a t Is Th e r e 3 Co m m u m t y an d En v u o n m e n t Cu r n c u l u m De v e l o p m e n t Bw l d m g an En v r r o n m e n t a l Co n s c w u s n e s s 4 Lo c a l Wa s t e Ma n a g e m e n t Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Co m m u m t y - L e v e l Pl a n n m g an d Or g a m z a t w n SU M M A R Y OF PR O J E C T IN I T I A T I V E S an d FU N D I N G SO U R C E S St a r t Pu r p o s e Da t e Co s t To es t a b l i s h a pe r m a n e n t Au g u s t 19 9 8 $2 6 9 , 0 0 0 ad m 1 m s t r a t t v e en t i t y to co o r d m a t e sh a r e d re s o u r c e s an d ma n a g e m e n t of sy s t e m Im p r o v e m e n t s m th e co a s t a l vi l l a g e s To pr o v i d e ca p i t a l t m p r o v e m e n t s Se p t e m b e r 19 9 8 $2 , 2 2 2 , 0 0 0 to ex t s t m g wa s t e ma n a g e m e n t sy s t e m s an d pr o m o t e lo c a l re s p o n s i b i l i t y To mt r o d u c e an d em p h a s t z e an Ja n u a r y 19 9 ~ $1 8 0 , 0 0 0 et h i c of en v i r o n m e n t a l st e w a r d s h i p m th e co m m u m t y To es t a b l i s h an d tm p l e m e n t Au g u s t 19 9 8 $1 6 8 , 0 0 0 pr o c e d u r e s fo r on g o m g co m m u m t y - b a s e d wa s t e ma n a g e m e n t sy s t e m s wt t h m ea c h vt l l a g e - 2- Fu n d i n g • Fu n d m g wt l l be re c e t v e d fr o m th e co m m u m t 1 e s • Fu n d m g ha s be e n re q u e s t e d fr o m th e Ad m 1 m s t r a t 1 o n fo r Na t t v e Am e n c a s (A N A ) • $1 8 mt l l t o n ha s be e n re q u e s t e d fr o m Ex x o n Va l d e z Ot l Sp i l l Tr u s t e e s • Ba l a n c e to be de t e r m m e d • $1 4 5 , 0 0 0 wt l l be re c e t v e d fr o m th e Ko d i a k Ar e a Na t i v e As s o c t a t m n (K A N A ) an d th e En v u o n m e n t a l Pr o t e c t i O n Ag e n c y (E P A ) • $3 5 , 0 0 0 wt l l be re q u e s t e d by KA N A fr o m AN A • Fu n d m g wt l l be re c e t v e d fr o m th e co m m u m t l e s - • Fu n d m g ha s be e n re q u e s t e d fr o m AN A RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 178 of 213 Systems Development Total Cost Construction New EqUipmenVSpare Parts Waste Transport/Outs1de Serv Tools MISC Parts 0 & M Laborfframmg A1rlare PerD1em KIBAdm1n Borough Wide Utility Council Adm1mstrator (new htre) Travel Supplies Computer Orgamz Cost KANA Admtn cost (29%) Annual Subtotal Kod1ak Island Borough Master Plan for Waste Management Budget Overv1ew DetailS $1,060,726 pg4 $360,400 pg5 $293,000 pg6 $17,500 Assumphon 1 $35,000 Assumpbon 1 $338,454 pg7 $12,000 Assumpl1on 2 $80,000 Assumption 3 $25,000 F1rstYear Second & Thu'd Year $46,000 $46,000 $20,000 $20,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $22,000 $19,000 $97,000 $86,000 $2,222,000 $269,000 Community and Environmental Curriculum Development $180,000 Annual costs for 3 year program Teacher A1de Travel Matenals Product1on Costs and Demos Admmcost $20,000 $10,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Community Organization for Waste Management Total Assumptions Annual costs for 3 year program Facilitators Travel Supplies Admmcosts $48,000 $7,000 $1,000 $0 1 Tools est1mated at $2,500/commumty; MISe parts est1111ated at $5,000 per communily 2 Airfare= Trainees, 3 mtg 1n Kocllak ($100ea) Tra10ers 1 RTto Kod1akevery 5 wk days 3 Per dlel'll= $120/day for !ramer residence days (see Labor detail) + 6 days 10 Kodiak lor tra1nees Page3 $168,000 $2,839,000 $12,000 $80,000 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 179 of 213 Um t s Wa s t e w a t e r Co n s t r u c t / E x p a n d Se p t a g e Dt s p o s a l La g o o n cy So l i d Wa s t e (l a n d i i U , bu r n bo x ) La n d f i l l ar e a (1 0 ye a r ) sq f t Ro a d up g r a d e s (a c c e s s to la n d f i l l ) lm e a r ft Co n s t r u c t La n d f i l l Ce l l s cy St o c k p i l e La n d f i l l co v e r cy sh o t ro c k St o c k p i l e fi n a l co v e r fo r ex t s l l n g LF cl o s u r e cy sh o t ro c k Ne w ro a d (a c c e s s to la n d f i l l ) . sh o t ro c k cy sh o t ro c k St o c k p t l e sh o t ro c k (m t s c un p r o v e m e n r s ) cy sh o t ro c k Ex c a v a l l o n re q u t r e m e n r s cy St o c k p t l e re q m r e m e n r s cy sh o t ro c k To t a l ex c a v a u o n an d sh o t ro c k cy sh o t ro c k Fe n c e la n d f i l l lm e a r ft Co n s o l t d a t . e sc r a p me t a l at la n d f i l l pe r s c n da y s Us e d Ot l an d HH W Bu t l d un h e a t e d ho u s e h o l d ha z wa s t e sh e d sq ft I Nu m b e r Un i t It e m Un U s c 05 t Wa s t e wa t e r an d so l i d wa s t e Su b t o t a l Bl a s l l n g an d ex c a v a t i n g fo r la n d f i U , la g o o n , an d sh o t ro c i 38 , 7 2 5 cy sh o t $1 1 ro c k Fe n c e la n d f i l l 5, 2 0 0 lm e a r f t $2 5 Dr a m a g e l g r a d t n g of la n d f i l l dr a m a g e 4 ac r e s $3 , 0 0 0 la n d f i l l ~ .. . ~ Co n s o l t d a t . e sc r a p me t a l at la n d f i l l 50 da y s $1 , 4 2 0 Us e d Ot l an d HH W Su b t o t a l Bu d d un h e a t e d ho u s e h o l d ha z wa s t e sh e d 2, 6 2 5 sq f t $1 0 0 Ul l b t y up g r a d e s (p o w e r on l y to HH W sh e d ) 7 lu m p s m n $1 0 , 0 0 0 Gi > n e r a l Su b t o t a l He a v y Eq u t p St o r a g e (c o v e r e d , un h e a t e d , 40 0 sq ft ea ) 1, 6 0 0 sq ft $7 5 To t a l No t e s Ko d i a k Is l a n d Bo r o u g h Ma s t e r Pl a n fo r Wa s t e Ma n a g e m e n t Sy s t e m s De v e l o p m e n t Co n s t r u c t i o n Co s t s Ak b t o k Ch t m a k Ka r l u k La r s e n Ba Ol d Ha r b o r Ou z m l a e 72 NA 55 77 77 24 8 10 . 2 5 0 11 , 5 0 0 36 , 7 5 0 44 , 4 0 0 14 , 9 5 0 2, 0 0 0 NA 1, 2 0 0 0 0 0 2, 4 6 0 NA 2, 7 6 0 7. 9 3 8 0 2, 8 7 0 41 0 46 0 1, 4 7 0 1, 7 7 6 59 8 24 8 24 8 1, 3 3 3 80 0 so 50 10 0 10 0 10 0 2, 5 3 2 2, 8 1 5 8, 0 1 5 77 3, 1 1 8 2, 0 4 1 1, 5 5 8 1, 5 7 0 1, 8 7 6 69 8 4, 5 7 3 4, 3 7 3 9, 5 8 5 1, 9 5 3 3, 8 1 6 80 0 80 0 1, 2 0 0 80 0 10 10 10 20 10 10 37 5 37 5 3 7 5 3 7 5 37 5 37 5 l! x l e n d e d Co s t Ak l ! l o ! t Ch ! ! l l o ! t Ka r l u k La r s e n B a v Ol d Ha r b o r Ou z l n l d e $6 3 8 , 2 2 6 $4 2 5 , 9 7 2 $5 0 , 3 0 3 $0 $4 8 , 1 0 5 $1 0 5 , 4 3 5 $2 1 , 4 8 3 $4 1 . 9 7 5 $1 3 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $1 1 , 2 5 4 $7 0 6 $7 9 2 $2 , 5 3 1 $3 , 0 5 8 $1 , 0 3 0 $7 1 . 0 0 0 $7 , 1 0 0 $7 , 1 0 0 $7 , 1 0 0 $1 4 , 2 0 0 $7 , 1 0 0 $7 , 1 0 0 $3 3 2 , 5 0 0 $2 6 2 , 5 0 0 $3 7 , 5 0 0 $3 7 , 5 0 0 $3 7 , 5 0 0 $3 7 , 5 0 0 $3 7 , 5 0 0 $3 7 , 5 0 0 $7 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $9 0 , 0 0 0 $9 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 6 0 , 7 2 6 $1 2 5 , 6 1 1 9 $5 4 , 6 0 8 $1 5 3 , 4 9 7 $2 2 9 , 6 6 6 $7 9 , 1 4 1 $1 4 7 , 6 0 5 I Ka r l u k la n d f i l l ca n he co n s t r u c t e d m so d (n o bl a s t i n g re q u t r e d ) Bu d g e t nu m b e r ba s e d on bl a s l l n g an d as s u m e d to he co m p a r a b l e Pl l ! ) e 4 Po r t L t o D S Ba S i s 33 0 To t a l vo l u m e of co m m u m t y se p ! J c ta n k s 45 , 5 5 0 0 10 , 9 3 2 An n u a l SW dt s p vo l pl u s 20 % co v e r tu n e s 10 yr mt n u s yr re m a m m cu r r e n t LF (R p t l , Ta b l e 5- 1 . 6- 1) 1 R l' l l ' l f ' ~ nn t tr w 1 C' : l : n n f ' r v wa ~ t P ~ : 1, 8 2 2 1, 2 4 1 (P L - S O O X I O O ft X 8 m ), AK , K= I O O X I O O X 8 Ro a d = 18 tn c h e s de e p ro c k , 12 ft wi d e (1 e , I 8 co fl ro c k l l m ft ma d ) 10 0 11 , 2 6 2 3, 1 6 3 14 , 4 2 5 1, 6 0 0 Fe n c e do u b l e !b e lt r e a of !b e la n d f i l l (a s s u m m g 5 so fr l c v wa s t e an d co v e r ) 30 37 5 1/ c o m m u n t t y , 37 5 sq ft 1' 9 1 n ! L l ! ! ! ! S I l! a s ! s $1 5 8 , 6 7 2 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $3 , 1 3 7 $2 1 , 3 0 0 pe r s o n da y s , at 2 pe o p l e / d a y pl u s ba c k h o e Wt l b th u m b cu t to r e h an d tr u c k $3 7 , 5 0 0 HH W sh e d as s u m e d to he lo c a t e d m to w n $1 0 , 0 0 0 HI I W sh e d ad t a c e n t to eX I S U n g po w e r dr o p $2 7 0 , 6 0 9 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 180 of 213 Sy s t e m / I t e m So l i d Wa s t e Sh o t ro c k fo r la n d f i l l an d se p t a g e Pe r m i t t i n g Us e d Oi l an d HH W Op e r a t i o n s pl a n / R e g u l a t o r y do c . Sc r a p me t a l pi c k u p , tr a n s p o r t . an d re c y c l e Fu e l sy s t e m Sp i l l re s p o n s e pl a n Ge n e r a l Sp e c i a l i z e d Te c h n i c a l Se r v i c e s To t a l Ko d i a k Is l a n d Bo r o u g h Ma s t e r Pl a n fo r Wa s t e Ma n a g e m e n t Sy s t e m s De v e l o p m e n t Ou t s i d e Se r v i c e s Co s t s Nu m b e r Un i t s Un i t Co s t Ex t e n d e d Co s t Ak h i o k Ch i n i a k Ka r l u k La r s o n Ba y Ol d Ha r b o r Ou z i n k i e Po r t Li o n s Su b t o t a l $3 5 , 0 0 0 Se e Co n s t r u c t i o n 7 ea c h $5 , 0 0 0 $3 5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 Su b t o t a l $2 1 0 , 5 0 0 7 ea c h $1 , 5 0 0 $1 0 , 5 0 0 $1 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $1 , 5 0 0 $1 , 5 0 0 $1 , 5 0 0 $1 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 NA ea c h NA $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 Su b t o t a l $1 7 , 5 0 0 7 ea c h $2 , 5 0 0 $1 7 , 5 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 $ 2 , 5 0 0 Su b t o t a l $3 0 , 0 0 0 6 ea c h $5 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $2 9 3 , 0 0 0 $3 4 , 0 0 0 $2 9 , 0 0 0 $3 4 , 0 0 0 $5 4 , 0 0 0 _$ 5 4 , 0 0 0 $3 4 , 0 0 0 $5 4 , 0 0 0 Pa g e 6 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 182 of 213 Ko d i a k Is l a n d Bo r o u g h Ma s t e r Pl a n fo r Wa s t e Ma n a g e m e n t Sy s t e m s De v e l o p m e n t La b o r r r r a l n l n g Co s t s Ac t i v i t y Ak h i o k Ch i n i i l k Ka r l u k La r s e n Ba y Ol d Ha r b o r Ou z i n k i e Po r t Li o n s No t e s Wa s t e w a t e r tr e a t m e n t Su b t o l a l $3 1 , 8 7 2 Re p a i r sl u d g e pu m p i n g tr u c k s 12 $4 2 $4 9 8 $2 , 4 9 0 $4 9 8 $4 9 8 $4 9 8 $4 9 8 $4 9 8 Id e n t i f y / su p r . co n s t r u c t se p t a g e la g o o n 20 $4 2 $8 3 0 $4 , 9 8 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 Pu m p se p t i c ta n k s (a l l ) $4 2 $3 3 2 $1 8 , 5 9 2 $9 9 6 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $8 , 3 0 0 $3 , 9 8 4 In s p e c t se p t i c ta n k s an d pi p i n g fo r pl u g s or re s t r i c t i o n s 12 $4 2 $4 9 8 $3 , 8 1 8 $1 , 3 2 8 $4 9 8 $ 4 9 8 $ 4 9 8 $4 9 8 $4 9 8 In s t a l l se p t i c li n e cl e a n o u t s 24 $4 2 $9 9 6 $1 , 9 9 2 $9 9 6 $9 9 6 So l i d wa s t e Su b t o l a l $1 2 2 , 5 0 8 Co l l e c t ga r b a g e 12 8 $4 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $3 1 , 8 7 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 4h r s / w e e k Pr o c e s s th r o u g h bu r n bo x (w e e k l y ) 12 8 $4 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $3 I , 8 7 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $ 5 , 3 1 2 4 hr s l w e e k Pl a c e in la n d f i l l , co v e r 12 8 $4 2 $S , 3 1 2 $3 1 , 8 7 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $ 5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 $5 , 3 1 2 4h r s l w e e k Co n s o l i d a t e ex i s t i n g ma t e r i a l s (i n co n s t r u c t i o n co s t s ) 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 Co v e r ex i s t i n g ma t e r i a l s (i n co n s t r u c t i o n co s t s ) 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 Bu i l d fe n c e (i n co n s t r u c t i o n co s t s ) 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 Mi l k e an d pu t up si g n s (L F an d HH W / U s e d oi l ) 8 $4 2 $3 3 2 $1 , 9 9 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 $ 3 3 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 In s t a l l bu r n bo x e s 20 $4 2 $8 3 0 $3 , 3 2 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 In c i n e r a t o r lo a d / u n l o a d up g r a d e s 20 $4 2 $8 3 0 $1 , 6 6 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 Co o r d i n a t e sc r a p me t a l ma r s h a l l i n g 12 $4 2 $4 9 8 $2 , 9 8 8 $4 9 8 $4 9 8 $ 4 9 8 $4 9 8 $4 9 8 $ 4 9 8 Pr e p a r e la n d f i l l cl o s u r e pl a n 20 $4 2 $8 3 0 $4 , 9 8 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 $8 3 0 Us e d 01 1 an d HH W Su b t o l a l $4 1 , 0 0 2 Pr o c e s s oi l y ra g s th r o u g h sm a r t as h bu r n e r 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 I hr / 2 we e k s Pr o c e s s us e d oi l th r o u g h us e d oi l bu r n e r 64 $4 2 $2 , 6 5 6 $1 5 , 9 3 6 $2 , 6 5 6 $2 , 6 5 6 $2 , 6 5 6 $2 , 6 5 6 $2 , 6 5 6 $2 , 6 5 6 2h r s l w e e k In s t a l l ne w us e d oi l bu r n e r s 40 $4 2 $1 , 6 6 0 $6 , 6 4 0 $0 $1 , 6 6 0 $0 $1 , 6 6 0 $1 , 6 6 0 $1 , 6 6 0 In s t a l l ne w sm a r t as h bu r n e r s 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 Ch a n g e us e d oi l bu r n e r fi l t e r s 2 $4 2 $8 3 $4 9 8 $8 3 $8 3 $8 3 $8 3 $8 3 $8 3 Cl e a n u p an d fo r m a l i z e us e d oi l st o r a g e pr o c e d u r e s 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 St r e a m l i n e fe e d sy s t e m fo r us e d oi l bu r n e r 24 $4 2 $9 9 6 $5 , 9 7 6 $9 9 6 $9 9 6 $ 9 9 6 $9 9 6 $9 9 6 $ 9 9 6 Fu e l Sy s t e m s Su h t o l a l $1 4 , 3 1 8 25 NA 25 50 90 75 80 # of bl d g s . In s p e c t re s i d e n t i a l fu e l ta n k s (f i x le i l k y co n n e c t i o n s , di g up c 57 . 5 $4 2 $2 , 3 8 6 $1 4 , 3 1 8 $1 , 0 3 8 $1 , 0 3 8 $2 , 0 7 5 $3 , 7 3 5 $3 , 1 1 3 $3 , 3 2 0 I gr o u p hr . / b l d g . Ge n e r a l Su b t o l a l $1 2 8 , 7 5 4 Re a d an d un d e r s t a n d ex i s t i n g dr a w i n g s Wa t e r sy s t e m 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 Wa s t e w a t e r sy s t e m 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 Bu l k fu e l sy s t e m s 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 In c i n e r a t o r 6 $4 2 $2 4 9 $1 , 4 9 4 $2 4 9 $2 4 9 $2 4 9 $2 4 9 $2 4 9 $ 2 4 9 Id e n t i f y an d or d e r sp a r e pa r t s (7 sy s t e m s ) 40 $4 2 $1 , 6 6 0 $9 , 9 6 0 $ 1 , 6 6 0 $1 , 6 6 0 $1 , 6 6 0 $1 , 6 6 0 $1 , 6 6 0 $1 , 6 6 0 Co m p i l e an d be re s p o n s i b l e fo r to o l ki t 8 $4 2 $3 3 2 $1 , 9 9 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 $ 3 3 2 $3 3 2 Cl e a n i n g an d ma i n t a i n i n g to o l s an d pa r t s 8 $4 2 $3 3 2 $1 , 9 9 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 Pr e p a r e op e r a t i o n s an d ma i n t e n a n c e ma n u a l s La n d f i l l 24 $4 2 $9 9 6 $5 , 9 7 6 $9 9 6 $9 9 6 $ 9 9 6 $9 9 6 $9 9 6 $9 9 6 B ur n b o x l i n c i n e r a t o r 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 Us e d oi l bu r n e r 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 Sm a r t a s h bu r n e r 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 HH W an d Us e d Oi l co l l e c t i o n fa c i l i t y 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 Pr e p a r e op e r a t i o n s an d ma i n t e n a n c e ch e c k l i s t $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Wa s t e wa t e r sy s t e m 12 $4 2 $4 9 8 $2 , 9 8 8 $4 9 8 $4 9 8 $4 9 8 $4 9 8 $4 9 8 $4 9 8 Pa g e 7 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 183 of 213 Ko d i a k Is l a n d Bo r o u g h Ma s t e r Pl a n fo r Wa s t e Ma n a g e m e n t Sy s t e m s De v e l o p m e n t La b o r / T r a i n i n g Co s t s Ac t i v i t y Ak h i o k Ch i n i a k Ka r l u k La r s e n Ba y Ol d Ha r b o r Ou z i n k i e Po r t Li o n s No t e s Pr e p a r e an d ke e p in s p e c t i o n an d ma i n t e n a n c e lo g s (8 sy s t e m s ) $2 , 6 5 6 $2 , 6 5 6 . $2 , 6 5 6 $ 2 , 6 5 6 $2 , 6 5 6 $2 , 6 5 6 2h r / w e e k Ro u t i n e sy s t e m in s p e c t i o n s (8 sy s t e m s ) 64 $2 , 6 5 6 $2 , 6 5 6 $ 2 , 6 5 6 $2 , 6 5 6 $2 , 6 5 6 $2 , 6 5 6 2 hr / w e e k Me e t an d ta l k wi t h re s o u r c e s ou t s i d e th e co m m u n i t y AD E C (s o l i d wa s t e ) 4 $4 2 $1 6 6 $9 9 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 AD E C (w a s t e w a t e r ) 4 $4 2 $1 6 6 $ 9 9 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $ 1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 AD E C (p o l l u t i o n pr e v e n t i o n ) 4 $4 2 $1 6 6 $ 9 9 6 $ 1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 PH S 4 $4 2 $1 6 6 $9 9 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $ 1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 DC R A (t a n k s ) 4 $4 2 $1 6 6 $9 9 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 Id e n t i f y ve n d o r s , RF P , se l e c t an d aw a r d co n t r a c t s Sc r a p me t a l pi c k u p , tr a n s p o r t an d re c y c l i n g 2 $4 2 $8 3 $8 3 $8 3 Du m p tr u c k s $4 2 $4 2 $ 4 2 $4 2 Bu m bo x 2 $4 2 $8 3 $8 3 $8 3 Fe n c e $4 2 $4 2 $ 4 2 $4 2 Sh o t ro c k 2 $4 2 $8 3 $8 3 $8 3 Le a d ac i d ba t t e r y tr a n s p o r t $4 2 $ 4 2 $ 4 2 $4 2 Le a d ac i d ba t t e r y re c y c l i n g $4 2 $ 4 2 $ 4 2 $4 2 An t i f r e e z e , so l v e n t tr a n s p o r t $4 2 $4 2 $ 4 2 $4 2 An t i f r e e z e , so l v e n t di s p o s a l $4 2 $4 2 $ 4 2 $4 2 Us e d oi l bu r n e r s 2 $4 2 $8 3 $8 3 $8 3 Sm a r t as h bu r n e r s 2 $4 2 $8 3 $1 6 6 $8 3 $8 3 Us e d oi l ta n k s 2 $4 2 $8 3 $ 8 3 $8 3 Sa f e t y eq u i p m e n t 4 $4 2 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 $1 6 6 To o l ki t 8 $4 2 $3 3 2 $1 , 9 9 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 $ 3 3 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 $3 3 2 Bu d g e t i n g an d pr i o r i t i z a t i o n 16 $4 2 $6 6 4 $3 , 9 8 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 $ 6 6 4 $6 6 4 $6 6 4 Su b t o t a l 1, 2 2 8 gr o u p ho u r s Su b t o t a l $4 7 , 8 7 5 $0 $4 6 , 8 3 7 $5 1 , 1 3 7 $5 0 , 0 5 6 $5 7 , 1 3 8 $ 5 3 , 1 1 7 $3 0 6 , 1 5 9 31 we e k s Or i e n t a t i o n / c o o r d i n a t i o n / d i s c u s s i o n (t r a i n e e s ) 40 tr a i n e e ho u r s $5 . 7 6 0 $9 6 0 $9 6 0 $9 6 0 $9 6 0 $9 6 0 $9 6 0 Le s s o n pl a n n i n g / c o o r d i n a t i o n l a d m i n (t r a i n e r ) 12 8 tr a i n e r ho u r s $2 6 , 8 8 0 $4 , 4 8 0 $0 $4 , 4 8 0 $4 , 4 8 0 $4 , 4 8 0 $4 , 4 8 0 $4 , 4 8 0 8 ho u r s / w e e k of re s i d e n c e To t a l $3 3 8 , 4 5 4 $5 3 , 3 1 5 $0 $5 2 , 2 7 7 $5 6 , 5 7 7 $5 5 , 4 9 6 $6 2 , 5 7 8 $5 8 , 5 5 7 3 tr a i n e e I tr a i n e r To t a l $3 3 8 , 7 9 9 $3 5 na i n e r c o s t To t a l tr a i n e r ho u r s : 44 5 0 . 5 $1 5 5 , 7 6 8 pe r di e m : 55 6 da y s $ 8 tr a i n e e c o s t To t a l tr a i n e e ho u r s : 22 8 1 5 $1 8 2 , 5 2 0 32 we e k s of su p e r v i s e d ac t i v i t y in ea c h vi l l a g e 50 % Ti m e fo r tr a i n e r in re s i d e n c e $3 3 8 , 2 8 8 Pa g e S RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 184 of 213 Kodiak Island Borough Master Plan for Waste Management Systems Development Costs Unbudgeted items 1. Supplemental salaries for trainees. Base pay, vacation pay, fringe 2. Shortfalls in labor/training salaries due to variations from the average training time (e.g. a community with lots to fix) 3. Labor for· routine community services (e.g., trash collection, electric) 4. · Transportation and disposal costs for household hazardous waste 5. Land for siting new facilities (heavy equipment storage, landfills, bum box, HHW center, etc) 6. Administrative costs in each community --Meeting/work space, communications, computers, support services 7. Administrative costs for community education and implementation initiatives 8. On-going operations and maintenance costs for new facilities (e.g., bum box, used oil burners, etc) 9. Use of heavy equipment and fuel in community 10. DisposaVrecycling cost of the scrap metal 11. Hazwoper training -Trainer and materials 12. Community-specific issues-e.g., Chiniak schoolleachfield, Akhiok septic outfall repair, etc. Page9 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 185 of 213 commumties of the Kodiak Island Borough collecting mfonnation and talking to as many residents as possible The result of the information gathering was the firSt report, Inventory of Pollution Sources and Problems, which is Appendix A of the final report. The Environmental Committee met on April 23, 1997, to review the fmdings of the Montgomery Watson report The meeting was also used to set priorities on issues the consultant should address in reviewing and developing potential solutions In August, 1997, Montgomery Watson submitted the second report, Alternatives Analysis and Potential Funding Sources, which is Appendix B of the fmal report The Environmental Committee met on August 21 and 22, 1997, to review and evaluate this report. Committee members discussed their priorities and which of the recommendations they wanted to pursue. In September, 1997, the Environmental Committee met and reviewed the alternatives and action plans developed in the August meeting. The village representatives listed the priority projects for the areas of solid waste, wastewater, used oil and household hazardous waste, scrap metal, and fuel delivery systems In December, 1997, the Environmental Committee met to review cost estimates for the proposed solutions and to prioritize projects for grant applications. The meeting was also used to develop consensus on the process of implementing the projects The membership of the Kodiak Island Environmental Committee, along with their positions in their communities, are listed below. Akhiok David Eluska, City Mayor Tribal Council Vice President Edward Phillips, City Council Member Tribal Council Member Chiniak Betty Odell, Commumty Representative Karluk Alicia Reft, IRA Traditional Tribal Counctl President Substitutes. Dale Reft, Tribal Council Member Kathryn Reft, Tribal Council Member Larsen Bay Randy Christensen, Tribal Council Member City Council Mayor -2- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 188 of 213 Eli Squartsoff, City Council Member Substitutes· Mary Mullins, Tribal Council Member Virgirua Squartsoff, Tribal Council President Old Harbor Jim Nestic, City Council Vice Mayor Jeff Peterson, Tribal Council Member City Council Member Substitute· Russell Fox, City Accountant Ouzinkie Tom Quick, City Council Vice Mayor Larry Chichenoff, Tribal Council Member Port Lions Wayne Lukin, City Council Member Helen Harris, Tribal Council President Substitute Arnie Kewan U S Coast Guard Steve Hunt Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Laura Ogar Bill Rieth Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) Brenda Schwantes Kodiak Island Borough (Kill) Ron Riemer -3- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 189 of 213 Randy Christensen, Larsen Bay; Wayne Lukin, Port Lions; and Edward Phillips, Akhiok at a KIVEC meeting The committee met on the following dates to discuss waste management, review the findings and recommendations of the consultant, and to set priorities: November 6 & 7, 1996 April 23, 1997 August 21 & 22, 1997 September 29, 1997 December 17, 1997 Further information on the topics that were covered in the meetings, as well as the chronology of the project, are described in the following monthly progress reports. The philosophy of the Kodiak Island Borough throughout the planning process has been that the role of the consultant is to gather information and guide the development of alternatives while it is the responsibility of the Environmental Committee to decide the priorities that will be pursued. -4- RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 190 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO. 1 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXXON VALDEZ Oil.. SPll...L TRUSTEE COUNCil.. PROJECT 97304 Report Penod ProJect Commencement through January 31, 1997 1 Estabhshmg the Committee -In October 1996, the committee was established, cons1stmg of the followmg a Two representatives from Akluok, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzmkle, and Port L1ons For each of these commuruties, one representative was chosen from the Tnbal Council and one from the City government The second village representative was funded by KANA Karluk and Chmlak have one representative each b Other representatives mclude ADEC (represented by Bill Rieth, who 1s bemg phased out ofKodiak), KANA, USCG, and Kod1ak Island Borough (KIB) 2 K.lck-offMeetmg-The Irnt1al meetmg of the Committee was held m Kod1ak on November 6 & 7, 1996 All representatives attended the meetmg V 1llage representatives had been sent disposable cameras to take p1ctures ofwhat they cons1der to be waste management 1ssues in the1r v1llages The photos were developed and v1ewed dunng the meetmg The meetmg addressed the followmg Issues 0 The Committee -Why are you here? 0 Educational sess10n on used od, household hazardous waste, sohd wastes, sewage, and scrap metal D A rev1ew of the Pnnce Wilham Sound Management Plan D V1s1t to the KIB landfill, Kod1ak water and wastewater treatment plants, and the Recycle Center D Specific obJectives ofthe proJect and methods to be used D Procedure for selection of the Consultant, mcludmg rev1ew of a prelimmary request for proposal and establishing the selectiOn committee D Prelimmary ProJect Schedule A prelimmary poll was taken of each v1llage at the end of the meetmg to pnont1ze what the maJor waste management concerns might be m the1r v1llages The results are attached There was defirutely a showmg of mterest and enthusiasm for the proJect The meetmg was also attended by the Remote Village Worker for the Kod1ak Island VIllage Ut1hty Council and a representative from the Conservation Fund RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 191 of 213 3 Consultant Selection - A request for proposal and qualifications was advertised startmg November 20, 1996 Six proposals were received from consultants on December 12 The selection committee met on December 18 Montgomery Watson was selected as the Consultant for the proJect Their team mcluded Alaska VIllage Initiatives for assistance With pubhc participation and fundmg The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly will approve the contract on February 6, With the consultant startmg work at that time 4 Community PartiCipation -The Consultant IS scheduled to VISit each VIllage three times dunng the course ofthe proJect Each VISit Will mcluded a community meetmg The first VISits to the VIllages will be m February and March to gather mformation on Identifymg pollutiOn sources and problems The next meetmg ofthe Committee IS scheduled for April after the Consultant has presented Its draft report, "Inventory of Pollution Sources and Problems" 5 Administration/Budget -The grant agreement was finalized m December and paperwork finished m January KIB decided to Initiate the proJect pnor to finalization of the grant, startmg work m October A verbal reguest was made ofthe Grant AdminiStrator to consider reimbursement of expenses pnor to the December 20 date of the grant agreement These costs are associated with the initial meetmg of the village representatives m early November and the selectiOn!contractmg of the consultant Travel arrangements and expenses for one representative from each village are bemg administered by KANA KIB will reimburse KANA for these travel related expenses KANA IS financmg the second representative from villages 6 ProJect Schedule-The proJect schedule IS attached ProJect completion IS scheduled for November 1997 7 AntiCipated Work for February - a Contract finalized with Consultant b Consultant meetmg with KIB, KANA and USCG representatives m Kodiak and mformation gathenng tnps to the villages Submitted by Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, KIB-February 4, 1997 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 192 of 213 Sh e e t 1 -- · Pr e l i m i n a r y De t e r m m a t 1 o n of Pn o n t i e s fo r Ma s t e r Wa s t e Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n ~- - -- - - - -- - Pr e l i m m a r y Pn o r i t y Co m m u m t y F1 r s t Se c o n d Th i r d Fo u r t h Fi f t h Sr x t h Ak h i O k La n d f i l l ' - Se w a g e HH W *S c r a p Me t a l *T a n k s Wa s t e Oi l Ch i m a k HH W Ta n k s La n d f i l l Wa s t e 01 1 Ka r l u k La n d f i l l Se w a g e HH W Wa s t e 01 1 Sc r a p Me t a l Ta n k s Ko d 1 a k La n d f i l l (S l u d g e ) Wa s t e 01 1 Sc r a p Me t a l La r s e n Ba y Sc r a p Me t a l La n d f i l l Wa s t e Oi l HH W Se w a g e Ta n k s Ol d Ha r b o r *S e w a g e *L a n d f i l l HH W Wa s t e Oi l Ta n k s Sc r a p Me t a l Ou z m k r e Se w a g e Sc r a p Me t a l Wa s t e Oi l HH W Ta n k s La n d f i l l Po r t Li o n s La n d f r l l Wa s t e 01 1 IH H W Sc r a p Me t a l Se w a g e Ta n k s No t e * me a n s th e pr i o n t y is sh a r e d -~ - ' -~ - - - Su m m a r y of Pr i o r i t i e s -- - - La n d f i l l 4 2 1 0 0 1 Se w a g e 2 2 0 0 2 0 -- - Wa s t e 01 1 0 2 2 3 0 1 -- - HH W 1 0 4 2 0 0 - Sc r a p Me t a l 1 1 1 2 1 1 -- !T a n k s 0 1 0 0 3 3 Pa g e 1 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 193 of 213 PROJECT SCHEDULE Master Waste Management Plan for Kodiak Island Borough 1996 October November 6 & 7 November 18 November 20 Dec. 12 Dec. 18 and 19 1997 Establish Waste Management Committee First Committee Meeting All comments to KIB or KANA on Request For Proposal Advertise Request for Proposal for Planning Consultant Proposals from Consultants due at KIB Meeting of Special Committee to select Consultant February 6 KIB Assembly Approval of Consultant Contract Feb 18 thru Mar 24 Consultant gathers data, has meetings with villages, etc. April 7 Draft Report from Consultant to KIB - Inventory of Problems Apri123 Committee meets to Prioritize Waste Streams June 16 Draft Report from Consultant to KIB- Alternatives and Funding June 17 to July 8 Committee seeks community input and presentations to villages July 9 Committee meets to Prioritize July 11 to July 29 July 30 August 13 Aug 18-Nov Alternatives Village representatives get community consensus Committee meets to finalize Plan Final Report to KIB Community meetings, grant applications, etc. Revised: January 30, 1997 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 194 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO.2 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENt' .PLAN EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL TRUSTEE COUNCIL PROJEO'IB7304 Report Penod February 1 through 28, 1997 1 Consultant Agreement-The Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) Assembly approved the agreement With Montgomery Watson on February 6, 1997 The contract was executed, With the Consultant startmg work on February 7, 1997 2 Irutial Meetmg with Consultant -Representatives of KANA, ADEC, Kodiak Island VIllage Utility Councll (KIVU C) and KIB met with the 4-member team from Montgomery Watson on February 18, 1997 Some of the Items discussed were a The Harbormaster from Kod1a}<: was brought m to discuss waste oll and waste solvent Issues from fishing vessels and other boats b A general discussion was held to fairuhanze the Consultant with known Issues m the villages, possible contacts for mformat10n on waste management on the Island, and to update them on the proJect status The schedule was reVIewed and there were no problems noted c The Consultant was taken on a tour of the Recycle Center m Kodtak and the KIB landfill d The Consultant was given a copy of the EVOS TC report format document e Photos taken by the VIllage Representatives for the November 1996 meetmg were shown to the Consultant, along with some photos from ADEC 3 lruttal Data Gathenng -The Consultant team started Its tnps to the VIllages on February 19, 1997, and had visited all VIllages by February 27 All4 members of the team VISited Port Lions and Onzmkle Then the team spht mto two groups and went to the other VIllages 4 Dunng the imtial data gathenng tnps, the Village Representatives escorted the team wtthm their villages and arranged for a commuruty meetmg The next meetmg for the Comiruttee IS scheduled for Apnl after the Consultant has presented its draft report, ''Inventory of PollutiOn Sources and Problems" 5 Admirustrat10n/Budget -Contractual work has been finalized With the Consultant The second invmce will be subiiDtted With this report The proJect IS within budget 6 Project Schedule -The Project IS on schedule, With the Consultant fimshlng the Initial data gathenng tnps to the villages by the end of February RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 195 of 213 7 Anticipated Work for March - a Consultant wdl prepare draft report on the mventory of problems The report IS due Apnl 7 b Consultant will contmue to make contacts and gather mformat1on needed to complete the data gathenng phase Submitted by Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, KIB -March 4, 1997 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 196 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO.3 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL TRUSTEE COUNCIL PROJECT 97304 Report Penod March 1 through 31, 1997 1 Dunng March, the Consultant was prepanng the draft mterun report of the inventory of pollutiOn sources and problems 2 Village Representatives were remmded about the next meeting scheduled for April 23, 1997 The purpose of the meeting is to review the draft report by the Consultant and to set pnonties on the Issues for which the Consultant is to develop solutions - 3 Admimstration/Budget -The third invoice will be submitted with this report The Consultant has not submitted an invoice yet The project Is within budget 4 Project Schedule -The Project is on schedule, With the Consultant planning to fimsh the mterim draft report on April 7 5 Anticipated Work for April - a The intenm draft report Win be completed by the Consultant on April 7 Copies of the report will be distributed to the village representatives and other members of the EnVIronmental Committee The village representatives are to reVIew the report w1th tribal and c1ty groups and be prepared to set priorities on April23 b The next meetmg of the entire EnVIronmental Committee will be held m Kodiak on April 23 c Following the April23 meetmg, the Consultant will begm work on developing possible solutions to the problems given pnority by the Environmental Committee Submitted by Ron Riemer, Project Manager, KIB -Apnl4, 1997 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 197 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO. 4 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL TRUSTEE COUNCIL PROJECT 973,04 Report Penod Apnl 1 through 30, 1997 1 The Consultant, Montgomery Watson, completed the first draft mterim report of the mventory of pollution sources and problems for the villages in Kodiak Island Borough The report was completed on ttme ( Apnl 7) and was sent out to the members of the Conuruttee for reVIew This report will remain a "draft" report until it ts mcluded With the final report 2 Twelve Village Representatives which compnse the Kodiak Island Village EnVIronmental Comm1ttee met on April23, 1997 The purpose of the meeting was to review the findmgs of the Consultant and to set prionties on the Issues for which the Consultant ts to develop solutiOns All commumties were represented at the meetmg Others represented were ADEC, KANA, Kodiak Island Borough, Kodiak Island Village Utility Council, and Montgomery Watson The meetmg mcluded response from the Comm1ttee on the draft report, VIdeos on two different trash mcmeratton systems ("Burn Box" being used in Dot Lake, AK, and the TWERP mcinerator-Tribal Waste Energy Recovery Plant-bemg used in Qutnhagak, AK), discussmg the pollut10n problems into by types, and prioritizing the issues There was a discusston on educatton needs and tmpacts 3 Admtmstrat10n/Budget -The fourth invotce ts submttted with this report The Consultant submttted tts first mvoice, which covers work from February 6 to the completion of the draft mtenm report The Consultant and the overall project is wtthin budget Travel expenses for the second representative from VIllages is proVIded by KANA 4 ProJect Schedule -The Project ts on schedule The next milestone IS June 16 with the delivery by the Consultant of the report on alternative soluttons 5 Anticipated Work for May - a. The Consultant Will be working on the alternative solutions to the problems tdenttfied in the draft mterim report b The representatives are requested to send additional comments on the draft intenm report to the Consultant Submitted by Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, KIB-May 5, 1997 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 198 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO.5 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL TRUSTEE COUNCIL PROJECT 97304 Report Penod May 1 through 31, 1997 1 The consultant, Montgomery Watson, is prepanng the alternatives analysts and fundmg draft report Montgomery Watson submitted a detailed outhne and is proceedmg w1th the draft 2 A presentation about the Master Waste Management Plan was made to the momrng Rotary Club m Kod1ak on May 28 3 AdmimstratiOn!Budget -The fifth invmce is submitted With this report The Consultant and the overall proJect are Within budget 4 ProJect Schedule -The ProJect IS on schedule The next milestone 1s June 16 wtth the delivery by the Consultant of the report on alternative solutiOns and fundmg 5 Anticipated Work for June- a The Consultant will submit the draft report on the alternative solutions to the problems identified m the preVIously submitted draft intenm report b The draft report on alternative solut10ns will be sent to the Committee members The Village Representatives will seek commumty input The next Committee is scheduled for July 9 to prionttze the alternatives Submitted by Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, KIB -June 3, 1997 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 199 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO.6 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMBNTlf:tAl\1 EXXON VAWEZ Oil.. SPll.L TRUSTEE COUNCil.. PROJECT 97304 Report Penod June 1 through 30, 1997 1 The consultant, Montgomery Watson, is preparing the alternatives analysis The draft mtenm report on alternatives and funding, due June 16, was delayed until mid July 2 Admmistration!Budget-The sixth mvmce IS submitted with this report The Consultant and the overall proJect are within budget 4 ProJect Schedule -The ProJect is about 3 weeks behind schedule 5 Anticipated Work for July - a The Consultant will complete the draft interim report on the alternative solutions and funding for the problems identified in the previously submitted draft mtenm report b The next Committee meeting is scheduled for July 30 and 31 The purpose of the meeting will be to reVIew the alternatives developed by the Consultant, to pnontiZe the alternatives, and to prepare for reviewmg the alternatives within each of the villages (public partiCipation) c Village Representatives will discuss alternatives With village and tribal groups Consultant Will VIsit each village to explam alternatives Submitted by Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, K.IB-July 1, 1997 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 200 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO.7 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL TRUSTEE COUNCIL PROJECT 97304 Repon Penod July 1 through 31, 1997 1 The consultant, Montgomery Watson, contmued to prepare the alternattves analysis The draft mtenm repon on alternatives and fundmg Will be Issued on August 4, 1997 ProJect Manager, Ron Riemer, met m Anchorage With Brett Jokela and Deb Luper of Montgomery Watson and With Ann Campbell and Perry Eaton of Alaska Village Imtiatives ( subconsultant) on July 23 to reVIew t_he development of alternatives to the pollution problems prev10usly Identt:fied 2 Ad1rumstrat10n!Budget -The seventh invmce IS sub1rutted with this report The Consultant and the overall project are Within budget 4 ProJect Schedule -The ProJect IS about 7 weeks behind schedule The schedule Will be updated at the next Coffiffilttee meeting (August 21 and 22) 5 Anticipated Work for August - a The Consultant will complete the draft intenm report on the alternative solut10ns and fundmg for the problems identified m the preVIously sub1rutted draft mtenm report The report Will be Issued August 4 b The next Coffiffilttee meeting IS scheduled for August 21 and 22 The purpose of the meetmg Will be to reVIew the alternatives developed by the Consultant, to pnontiZe the alternatives, and to prepare for reVIeWing the alternattves wtthm each of the villages (pubhc panictpation) Coffiffilttee members will receive a copy of the repon for reVIew pnor to the meetmg c Village Representatives will discuss alternatives with village and tnbal groups Consultant will begin VISiting each village to explam alternatives Sub1rutted by Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, KIB -August 1, 1997 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 201 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO. 8 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXXON VALDEZ OIT... SPIT...L TRUSTEE COUNCIT... PROJECT 97304 Report Penod August 1 through 31, 1997 1 The consultant, Montgomery Watson, subm1tted the draft intenm report on alternatives and fundmg on August 7, 1997 Copies ofthe report were sent to all Comm1ILee members 2 A Comm1ttee meetmg was held in Kodiak on August 21 and 22 The consultant reviewed Its recommended alternatives The Comm1ttee then evaluated these alternatives agamst each of the pnonty pollution problem areas Some of the recommendations were modified and some new recommendations were established The Consultant will rewnte the recommended alternatiVes section of the report to reflect the recommendations accepted by the Comm1ttee 3 Comm1ttee requested that the EVOS Trustee Council be contacted to determme tf the planrung grant could be used to purchase a pilot mcmerator (about $3,000) to be taken to each of the villages when the consultant V1Stts each of the Villages m October The mcmerator will be used for demonstratmg used od burmng and left m one village for longer term demonstration 4 Adm1rustratmn!Budget -The etghth mvoice ts subm1tted with this report The Consultant and the overall proJect are within budget 5 Project Sc.hedule -The ProJect Is about 7 weeks behind the ongmal schedule The schedule was updated at the August Comm1ttee meeting August 23 to Sept 5 Sept 5 to Sept 24 Sept 29 October November December 5 Vtllage representatives get comments about selected alternatives from commuruties and sends comments to Consultant Consultant redrafts Recommendations portiOn of report (Section 3) Committee meets agam to finalize plan Consultant Visits each Village to review the waste management plan Start grant request activities Final Plan report subm1tted by Consultant RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 202 of 213 5 Anticipated Work for September - a Village representatives will reVIew the recommended alternatives Within each of their VIllages and forward comments to the Consultant b Ron Riemer and Brenda Schwantes Will meet with the Consultant to review comments from the VIllages and review redraft of the recommendations portion of the report on alternatives and funding c The next Committee meetmg IS scheduled for September 29 The purpose of the meetmg will be to finalize the alternatives developed by the Consultant and the Committee Schedules will be established for VISiting each of the villages to review the alternatives Submitted by Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, KIB-September 2, 1997 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 203 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO. 9 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXXON VALDEZ on., SPILL TRUSTEE COUNCll., PROJECT 97304 Report Penod September 1 through 30, 1997 1 Brenda Schwantes (KANA), Laura Ogar (ADEC) and Ron Riemer (KJB) met with the consultant, Montgomery Watson, on September 18 to review the proJect and to discuss the presentation of alternatives for the September 29 meetmg 2 A Commtttee meetmg was held in Kodiak on September 29 The consultant revtewed the alternatives and action plans developed by the Commtttee at the August meeting The vtllage representatives listed the.. priority projects for handling problems m the areas of solid wastes, wastewater, used oil and household hazardous wastes, scrap metals, and fuel delivery systems The consultant will make modifications to draft Report No 2 to mcorporate these pnonties The final waste management plan will be prepared by Montgomery Watson The Committee decided jomt meetings of both the City Counctl and Tnbal Council should be arranged in each village to present the plan and get approval to proceed wtth proJects and grant requests for the prionty items. These meetmgs will be held m mtd-November 3 The EVOS Trustee Council approved our to purchase a pilot incmerator to be taken to each of the villages when the consultant visits each of the villages in October The incinerator will be used for demonstrating used otl burning in the villages The "Smart Ash" mcmerator has been ordered 4 Administration/Budget -The nmth mvoice is submitted wtth this report The Cuusultat1t ar;.d the o-verall project ::u-e within budget. 5 ProJect Schedule -The Project is going according to the revised schedule as presented in last month's report October Mid-November December 5 Consultant will revise draft Report No 2, work on final waste management plan, and begin preparation of grants Smart Ash incinerator pilot umt will be tried in villages Hold meetings with City Council!rribal Council in each village Final Waste Management Plan report ts to be submitted by Consultant RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 204 of 213 6 Anticipated Work for October - a Ron Riemer (KJB) and Brenda Schwantes will meet with the Consultant to review status of final plan and to plan November meetmgs m each of the villages b Consultant will reVIse draft Report No 2 and work on Final Waste Management Plan c No Committee meetings were scheduled for October Subffiltted by Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, K1B -October 10, 1997 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 205 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO. 10 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL TRUSTEE COUNCIL PROJECT 97304 Report Penod October 1 through 31, 1997 1 Brenda Schwantes (KANA) and Ron Riemer (KIB) met with the consultant, Montgomery Watson, on October 16 to reVIew the project and to discuss the estimated costs for each of the alternatives selected for implementatiOn 2 Montgomery Watson developed cost estimates for the prionty soluttons/altematives selected for Implementation Preliminary work started on grant preparation and planning the November visits to the VIllages The Committee had decided JOint meetmgs of both the City Council and Tribal Council should be arranged in each VIllage to present the plan and get approval to proceed wtth proJeCts and grant requests for the prionty items 3 The ptlot mcmerator (Smart Ash Incinerator) was received and test bums were conducted at the Kodiak Island Borough landfill The unit will be taken to each of the villages when the consultant visits each of the villages m October The mcmerator wtll be used for demonstrating used oil burrung in the villages 4 AdmimstratiOn!Budget -The tenth mvoice is submitted with this report The Consultant and the overall proJect are within budget 5 ProJect Schedule -The ProJect IS going according to the reVIsed schedule as presented m last month's report November December 5 Hold meetings With City Council/Tribal Council m each village Final Waste Management Plan repon ts to be submitted by Consultant 6 Anttctpated Work for November- a Jomt meetmgs will be held with City and Tribal Councils in each of the villages b Consultant Will reVIse draft Report No 2 and work on Final Waste Management Plan c Work Will contmue on grant apphcation preparation d An extensiOn of time will be requested for the planrung grant Submitted by Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, KIB -November 7, 1997 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 207 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO. 11 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLA-N EXXON ·vALDEZ OIL SPILL TRUSTEE COUNCIL PROJECTMQa.\14: Report Penod_ November 1 through 30, 1997 1 Montgomery Watson finalized the cost estimates for the prionty solutiOns/alternatives selected for implementation The total cost for the proposed solutions exceeded expectations, requiring additional priontization of the solutions pnor to holdmg meetmgs With the city and tnbal councils in the villages The pnontiZation Will be completed dunng a meetmg of the Committee scheduled for December 17 in Kodiak 2 The JOint meetmgs of both the City Council and Tribal Council, origmally scheduled for November, Will be held in late January These meetings Will be used to present the plan proposed by the Committee and to get approval to proceed With projects and grant requests for the pnonty Items 3 Test bums were conducted m the pilot incinerator (Smart Ash Incinerator) at the Kodiak Island Borough landfill The urut Will be demonstrated at the meetmg of the village representatives on December 17 4 AdmirustratiOn!Budget -The eleventh invmce is submitted with this report The Consultant and the overall project are within budget 5 ProJect Schedule -The ProJect schedule has changed KIB requested an extension of time on the grant for 3 months (January through March, 1998) December9 December 17 January 16 Late January F ebruary/1\1arch End ofMarch Revtew Waste Management Plan at the Village Mayors Conference in Kodiak Committee will meet m Kodiak for additional priontiZation of the options Final report submitted by Consultant to KIB Jomt meetmgs of the City and Tribal Councils Will be held m each village Prepare and submit grant applications End of Planning ProJect RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 208 of 213 Anticipated Work for December - a Brenda Schwantes and Ron Riemer to meet with Montgomery Watson m Anchorage to discuss cost estimates for solutions, grant applications, and plans for the December 17 Waste Management Plan Committee meeting b Consultants wdl get final report format and complete final report by the end ofDecember. c Ron Riemer wtll meet with the village mayors in Kodiak at thetr annual meeting to dtscuss the Waste Management Plan d Committee wtll meet to do additional pnonttzation of the possible soluttons on December 17 m Kodiak e An extensiOn oftme was requested for the planrung grant. Upon approval of the tme extension, the contract With the Consultant will be extended Submitted by Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, KlB-December 5, 1997 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 209 of 213 MONTBL Y PROGRESS REPORT NO. 12 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL TRUSTEE COUNCIL PROJECT-97304 Report Period: December 1 through 31, 1997 1. Brenda Schwantes and Ron Riemer met with Montgomery Watson in Anchorage on December 2 to finalize cost estimates for implementation of solutions to pollution problems. Prepared for Environmental C01ruruttee meeting of the village representatives to finalize prioritization of projects. 2. The Environmental Committee met on December 17 to review cost estimates for solutions, to prioritize projects for grant applications and to develop consensus on proceeding with implementation of the projects. 3. The Village Mayors were updated on the status of the Waste Management Plan at their meeting in Kodiak on December 9. 4. Administration/Budget -The twelfth invoice is submitted with this report. The Consultant and the overall project are within budget. 5. Project Schedule-The Project schedule has changed. KIB received an extension of time on the grant for 3 months (January through March, 1998). 6. The joint meetings of both the City Council and Tribal Council, originally scheduled for November, will be held in February and March. These meetings will be used to present the plan proposed by the Committee and to get approval to proceed with projects and grant requests for the priority Items. 7. Anticipated events: January 16 January 23 February/March February/March End of March Draft final report submitted by Consultant to KIB. Draft Final report submitted to EVOS TC. Joint meetings of the City and Tribal Councils will be held in each village. Prepare and submit grant applications. End of Planning Project Submitted by: Ron Riemer, Project Manager, KIB-January 13, 1998 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 210 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO. 13 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL TRUSTEE COUNCIL PROJECT 97304 Report Period: January 1 through 31, 1998 1. Montgomery Watson provided a draft of the final report to the Borough. Comments were returned to the consultant on January 30. The draft final report will be ready to send to EVOS/ADEC for review in February. 2. Project Manager attended the 1998 EVOS Restoration Workshop in Anchorage on January 29 and 30. Discussed the Prince William Sound Waste Management Project with the Mayor of Tatitlek. Project Manager also met with Montgomery Watson on January 30 to review status of the project. 3. Project Schedule and Budget-The Project is scheduled for completion m March 1998. The project is within budget. 4. The jomt meetings of both the City Council and Tribal Council in each village, origmally scheduled for November, may be held in March. Consideration IS being given to holding these meetings later in the year when implementation is closer. 5. Anticipated events: Februa..ry/March February/March/ April EndofMarch Joint meetings of the City and Tribal Councils will be held in each village. These may be postponed until later in the year. Prepare and submit proposal for Phase 2 (Implementation). End of Planning Project Submitted by: Ron Riemer, Project Manager, K.IB -February 6, 1998 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 211 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO. 14 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL TRUSTEE COUNCIL PROJECT 97304 Report Penod February 1 through 28, 1998 1. A review was made of the Appendices to the draft final report and Montgomery Watson made the changes. The Appendices were finahzed on February 27 and the draft final report will be sent to DEC m early March 2 Project Schedule and Budget-Per phone conversation wtth JoEllen Hanrahan on ADEC on February 18, an extension ofume until the end of April will be processed. This should provtde sufficient time for reVIew of the draft final report and to Issue the final report. The project remams withm budget 3 Anticipated events March Subrrut draft final report to DEC Apnl Issue final report Subrrut proposal for Phase 2 (ImplementatiOn) Jomt meetmgs of the Ctty and Tnbal Councils may be held m each village Enc Myers has suggested combmmg these meetmgs with commuruty meetlns on future uses of the Reserve. PreviOusly, consideratxon was gxven to postponmg the village meetmgs untlllater m the year .. End of planmng portiOn of Project Subrrutted by· Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, KlB -March 3, 1998 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 212 of 213 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO. 15 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL TRUSTEE COUNCIL PROJECT 97304 Report Penod: March 1 through 31, 1998 1. The draft fmal report will was sent to DEC for review and comment on March 2, 1998. Comments were received from DEC on March 24, 1998. 2. The draft proposal for the Implementation phase for the Waste Management Plan was submitted to DEC for review and comment on March 27, 1998. 3. ProJect Schedule and Budget-The addendum to extend the time until the end of April was received. This should provide sufficient time for rev1ew of the draft final report and to issue the fmal report. The project remains Within budget The trips to the villages with the final report Will not take place m April. Because of the time span until the beginning of the implementation phase, 1t was decided to make the village trips in summer. Local funds wdl be used for the trips to the villages. 4. The RestoratiOn Funds meetmg by EVOS was held m connectiOn with COM FISH on March 28 in the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers. EVOS staff traveled to the villages the following week. 5 Ant1c1pated events: April Issue fmal report. Submit proposal for Phase 2 (ImplementatiOn). End of plannmg portion of ProJect Submitted by: Ron Riemer, ProJect Manager, KIB -March 3, 1998 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT B Page 213 of 213 Chapter 2. Developing Solid Waste Management Plans Solid waste management plans offer a host of benefits for tribes and Alaskan Native villages. Through the prepara tion of these plans, you can assess your cur- rent and future waste management needs, set priorities, and allocate resources accordingly. Working through these issues can help you ensure your waste management system offers the highest level of protection to the health of tribal members and the natural environ ment. This chapter explains the purpose of solid waste management plans and the steps involved in developing these plans. It also includes references to solid waste manage ment plans that tribes have already devel oped and are successfully implementing. Throughout this chapter, several publica tions are cited or referenced. For a complete listing of these documents and specific order ing information, refer to the Resources sec tion at the end of this chapter. What Is a Solid Waste Management Plan? A solid waste management plan is simply a document developed by a tribe or Alaskan Native village that outlines how the tribe or Native village will reduce, manage, and dis pose of its solid waste. A solid waste manage “Solid waste management is an evolving pro- gram in which planners try one strategy, and, if they are unsuccessful, change and try another.” ~Laura Weber, Director of Solid Waste Management, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe ment plan will assist and guide your tribe or village in developing and implementing its solid waste management program by estab lishing what actions need to be taken and setting the criteria for decision-making. A basic solid waste management plan typi cally includes: • A profile of the tribal community. •The goals and objectives of the plan. •An overview of the existing solid waste management program. •Solid waste management alternatives, along with a discussion of the issues and uncertainties associated with each alter- native. • The selected alternative, implementa tion measures, and potential funding sources. 5 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 1 of 14 • Any solid waste codes that need to be developed. Reasons To Develop a Solid Waste Management Plan Planning is the first step in designing or improving a solid waste management system. A solid waste management plan will help your tribe take institutional, social, financial, economic, technical, and environmental fac tors into consideration as it manages its waste stream. A solid waste management plan is a practical document that can help guide your commu nity’s solid waste management efforts. It can help you: • Define and understand current waste management practices and the system in place. • Identify problems and deficiencies with the current system. • Identify opportunities for improvement in the current system. • Set priorities for action to address prob lems and affect improvement. • Measure progress toward implementing actions. • Identify the resources needed and devel op budgets and schedules. • Revisit and modify priorities as the plan develops. A solid waste management plan also can sup- port proposals for solid waste management grants. Government agencies that provide financial assistance to tribal communities for solid waste management place a high priority on good planning to support a grant proposal. Agencies involved in funding tribal solid waste management projects often prefer that a tribe complete a solid waste management plan as a prerequisite for grant applications related to solid waste handling facilities or closing open dumps. In addition, tribes can ask for funding for a project that is a step toward solving, but does not completely solve, a solid waste problem. For example, an agency might be more likely to fund clean up and closure of an open dump site if the tribe offers a plan addressing the waste currently being generated, such as taking waste off site to an approved facility. See Chapter 7 for more information on grants and other fund ing sources. Determining the Scope of the Solid Waste Management Plan Several factors help determine the scope of a solid waste management plan, including available funding and technical expertise. You might not have the resources on hand to develop a comprehensive plan initially, but starting a plan is still useful. Solid waste management plans are living documents that can be revisited and revised. Your initial plan can describe existing waste management practices, identify existing sys tem limitations and opportunities for improvement, and delineate a plan of action to address these limitations and make improvements. If it is well thought out and effectively describes your tribe’s priorities, goals, and plans, this initial plan will be suf ficient to support your requests for funding future activities. The Hannahville Indian Community in north- ern Michigan prepared an initial plan present ing basic information about the tribe and its solid waste needs, including a description of the reservation’s location and geography, exist ing conditions, a brief waste stream analysis, an evaluation of the tribal solid waste manage ment program, and a 3-year action plan. The Washington-based Spokane Tribe of Indians’ solid waste management plan also presents basic information and includes details on regu latory requirements and landfill closure. 6 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 2 of 14 Figure 1 illustrates all of the steps in the comprehensive solid waste management planning process, from planning to imple mentation. This diagram can help you see where you are in the process and determine the path you need to take. Developing Long-Term and Short-Term Goals Solid waste management is a complex puzzle with many pieces, and it is easy to get side- tracked in your planning process. Developing goals will help guide your solid waste manage ment planning and keep you focused on your priorities. Goals also can help you set targets by which your tribe can measure progress. A good way to determine your goals is to develop a list of your tribe’s values and what you want to accomplish. Look for problems that require solutions, and actively solicit input from the tribe, including tribal mem bers. Typical considerations related to solid waste management are: • Protecting tribal members’ health and safety. • Protecting the natural environment. • Complying with federal and tribal laws. • Protecting and conserving natural and cultural tribal resources. • Contributing to the economic develop ment of the tribe. Figure 1. Comprehensive Integrated Solid Waste Management Planning Process 7 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 3 of 14 For each problem or proposed improvement you identify, develop a goal statement. For example, if the community has a problem with uncontrolled open dumping that is impacting the natural environment, a typical goal statement could be: Control open dumping as necessary to protect the environ ment and tribal resources. One action relat ed to this goal could be developing and enforcing regulations that prohibit open dumping. The tribe would measure success by how much open dumping decreases. The Gila River Indian Community in Arizona identified illegal open dumping as a goal to address. The community added a pro- vision about illegal dumping to its Solid Waste Management Ordinance and held a workshop for tribal officials to discuss how to enforce the provision and delegate enforce ment responsibility. The community also maps dump sites and categorizes them into three levels of risk so it can focus its limited resources on sites that pose the most severe health threats. The tribe measures its success by the reduction in the number of illegal dump sites in the community. Key Decisions To Be Made on Basis of Plan The solid waste management plan will pro- vide information and guidance you need to make critical waste management decisions, such as whether you need a transfer station for exporting solid waste or need to construct a landfill on your reservation. The plan also can help your tribe focus on solid waste man agement enhancements, including waste pre vention, materials reuse, recycling, and household hazardous waste management. Key decisions your tribe can address in the planning process include: • How important is waste reduction, as a priority, compared with other solid waste management priorities? • What opportunities exist for waste reduction? • Which materials can be recycled? • What type of waste and recyclables col lection system can the tribe use? • What type of disposal system can the tribe use? • What will the present/future costs of the waste management program be? • What resources does the tribe need to implement its solid waste management plan? • What resources are available to the tribe? Getting Star ted Before your tribe starts drafting its solid waste management plan, you should consider a few key parameters that will provide a framework around which planning can take place. These include: • Defining the planning area. • Identifying the regulatory entities within the planning area. • Establishing planning periods. • Developing a community education and outreach plan to solicit public input. Defining the Planning Area A natural planning area for tribal communi ties or nations is defined by the reservation boundary. Some tribes will have a contiguous boundary, while other tribes will have more of a “checkerboard” boundary, whereby some areas of the reservation are not directly con nected to other areas. At minimum, the planning area should reflect the extent of the area serviced by the current solid waste management program. 8 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 4 of 14 Identifying the Regulatory Entities Within the Planning Area Regulatory entities will include tribal envi ronmental programs and the other tribal pro- grams that handle solid waste. Include not only the entities actively managing your solid waste, but also departments that might be able to contribute resources, such as the road department for construction equipment, and those that can assist with regulatory development and implementation. Also con sider community, county, state, and federal agencies. Tribes might fall under more than one state regulatory entity. Look for opportu nities to pool resources and share informa tion and costs. Establishing Planning Periods Determine the time period your plan will cover. Typically, a solid waste management plan will cover 20 years, with 5-year review intervals. Longer terms may be needed to site and construct new facilities. Siting, designing, permitting, and constructing a new landfill may take 10 years, while it may take 3 years to design and construct a recy cling facility. Regardless of the planning period, the tribe should build a regular review interval into the plan. Review periods let planners incorporate new regulations, changes in waste generation rates, or experi ence gained from operating the solid waste management program. Developing a Community Education and Outreach Plan To Solicit Public Input The backbone of waste management plan ning is public involvement, participation, and cooperation. The planner can compile data, estimate costs, and develop lists of potential sites and solid waste management options; however, the choices and positive changes must ultimately come from within the tribal community. Tribal education and outreach is a continuous process that includes a variety of activities, such as dis tributing newsletters, sponsoring open hous es, mailing fact sheets, conducting community surveys, and distributing infor mation through advisory groups and commit- tees, public meetings, interviews, and workshops. For more information on devel oping an education and outreach campaign, refer to Chapter 6. Steps in Developing a Solid Waste Management Plan Solid waste management planning is specific to each tribe. The lack of technical or finan cial resources needed to develop a solid waste management plan can be a drawback for many tribes. Available resources can vary greatly from one tribe to another—every tribe comes into the planning process at a different place. Some tribes have access to landfills but are considering implementing source reduction and recycling programs to reduce disposal costs. Others need to close open dumps, which often requires imple menting new waste management practices such as finding an appropriate facility for dis carding waste before the dump can be closed. The following steps outline the general process required to develop your solid waste management plan. As you go through this process, remember to stay focused on your goals. You might wish to revisit and modify your goals as you develop a better under- standing of your situation. Step 1: Develop a Profile of the Planning Area. Compile information on the population, number of households, and estimated growth rate of your tribe. This can include informa tion on any planned economic development. The tribe can use this information to esti mate the present and future waste stream. Information on climate, geology, and natural resources also is important to have when you 9 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 5 of 14 are siting waste handling facilities. Identifying transportation routes, distances to potential recycling markets, distance to solid waste (Subtitle D) landfills and other disposal sites, and infrastructure needs will help you when you are developing cost esti mates for waste management activities. The Hannahville Indian Reservation in northern Michigan, for example, is composed of 13 separate parcels of land, so its plan identifies the location of the parcels and their proximi ty to the nearest highway and landfill. Step 2: Define the Solid Waste Generators Within the Planning Area. Examine all of the residential, commercial, and municipal solid waste (MSW) genera- tors in your planning area (e.g., homes, tribal government buildings, schools, restaurants, casinos, health care facilities). Also, deter- mine whether you will have to handle solid waste from illegal dumping sites. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in New York identified 100 businesses in the community. Time con straints limited the number of waste audits the tribe could conduct, so the tribe took a representative approach—classifying busi nesses into different categories and selecting 10 percent of the businesses in each category for a waste audit. Step 3: Identify Existing Waste Management Practices Within the Planning Area. Where is waste going now? Are individuals or community organizations reusing or recy cling products or materials? Identify any sig nificant amounts of waste entering and leaving the reservation. Don’t forget to include waste left from illegal dumping or lit ter. Many tribal members use burn barrels and backyard dumps for waste disposal; your community outreach program can help you identify this portion of your waste stream. Step 4: Conduct a Waste Assessment/Waste Audit. Characterizing the solid waste requiring man agement in your tribal community is the back- bone of the whole planning process. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in New York used vol ume-based estimates to determine the waste generated by the residential and commercial sectors. Using information from both the waste collectors and generators, along with visual inspections of waste materials, the tribe quanti fied the waste composition. Your tribe might need to determine the quantity and composi tion of your waste to evaluate your options and estimate their costs. Quantity information can include both the weight and volume of your waste, and a composition analysis can tell you what products and materials make up your waste stream. If incineration is an option, you also will need to estimate the energy content of your waste stream to ensure you are generating sufficient waste for effective burning. Information on your waste is collected through a process called a waste stream analysis, dis cussed later in this chapter. Step 5: Estimate Future Waste Generation Quantities. Estimate future waste quantities using the projected growth information you gathered in Step 1 for the established planning period. These are the quantities that will be used to size facilities and estimate long-term waste management costs. Step 6: Develop Waste Handling Options. Once you have a good picture of your cur- rent situation, start looking at the waste management options available. What per centage of discards can be prevented, reused, reduced, or recycled? How will you dispose of everything else? Does the tribe collect resi dents’ discarded materials, or will members have to take them to a transfer station or disposal facility? A discussion of source 10 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 6 of 14 Example of Estimating Future Waste Generation Quantities The Makah Tribe of Indians in Neah Bay, Washington, had a population of 1,500 in 2002, with an estimated population growth rate of 1.1 percent per year. The planning period is 20 years, and the waste generation rate is 3.7 pounds per person per day (determined through an actual waste stream assessment by the tribe) for the 20-year period. To determine how much waste it would generate in 2002, the tribe made the following calculation: Equation 1: (population) x (waste generation rate) x (number of days per year) ÷ (number of pounds per ton) (1,500 people) x (3.7 lbs/person • day) x (365 days/year) ÷ 1 ton/2,000 lbs = 1,013 tons/year Rounding up, the tribe estimated it would generate approximately 1,020 tons of solid waste in 2002. Based on a constant growth rate of 1.1 percent per year and using a simple compound interest equation, the Makah Tribe’s population will be approximately 1,866 in 2022 Equation 2: P(1 + r) T where: P = initial population = 1,500 people r = percent growth rate/100= 1.1/100 or 0.011 T = years= 20 years 1,500(1 + 0.011)20 = 1,866 people Using Equation 1 again, the tribe calculate that these 1,866 people will generate 1,260 tons of waste during the year. (1,866 people) x (3.7 lbs/person • day) x (365 days/year) ÷ 1 ton/2,000 lbs = 1,260 tons/year The easiest way to determine the total amount of waste generated over this 20- year period is to set up a spreadsheet, similar to the one depicted in Figure 2, that tracks the tribe’s population and waste generated increases year by year. Summing the annual waste generated amounts from 2003 through 2022 shows that a total of 22,802 tons of waste will be generated during this time period. Using these projected waste quantities in its planning process, the Makah Tribe would know that a transfer station would need to be large enough to accommo date the 1,260 tons of waste expected in 2022, while a landfill would need to be large enough to hold the 22,802 tons generated during this 20-year period. Figure 2. Population and Waste Generation Spreadsheet Year Population Annual Waste Generation (Tons) 2002 (base year) 1,500 1,013 2003 (year 1) 1,517 1,024 2004 (year 2) 1,537 1,037 2005 (year 3) 1,554 1,049 2020 (year 18) 1,830 1,235 2021 (year 19) 1,847 1,247 2022 (year 20) 1,866 1,260 20-year Total — 22,802 11 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 7 of 14 reduction, recycling, and composting is pre sented in Chapter 5. Waste collection and disposal options are presented in Chapter 4. Step 7: Identify Existing Regional Programs or Infrastructure That the Planning Area Might Use. When evaluating the potential benefits of developing or participating in regional pro- grams, the following questions should be answered: Where is the closest permitted landfill? Do other tribes in your region export their waste? Is there an opportunity to combine your efforts and share certain resources? What types of collection and dis posal programs does the county or state cur rently run? Does the county or state hold annual household hazardous waste collection events near your tribe? Planners and managers involved in solid waste management usually find that it is ben eficial to participate in regional solid waste advisory committees or work groups to gain an understanding of how others are dealing with their challenges. Often, tribes involved in regional partnerships can use their increased size and associated bargaining power to gain economic advantages. In the Prince William Sound regions of Alaska, for exam ple, seven Native villages and two Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations have formed the Nunagpet/Chugachmiut Environmental Consortium. This coalition covers all aspects of environmental protection for the region, supporting solid waste manage ment and recycling efforts. Most recycling revenue is used to cover transportation costs; it takes the commitment of the member vil lages to keep the program viable. Step 8: Develop Costs for Waste Handling Options. Once a tribe has compiled information on the quantity and composition of its waste stream, planners and managers can develop options and associated costs for solid waste handling and disposal. Cost estimates should include both capital costs and operation and maintenance costs for the facilities for each option. Capital costs include costs to design and construct new facilities and purchase equipment. Operation and maintenance costs are those necessary for the day-to-day operation of the solid waste management sys tem and include employee salaries, employee benefits, utility costs, equipment fuel, equip ment maintenance, and other expenses relat ed to handling and disposing of the materials in the waste stream. Step 9: Compare Options Based on Criteria Defined by the Tribe. Look to your goals to help you develop the criteria for comparing options, and prioritize your criteria. Some common criteria include: • Environmental impacts • Relative cost • Potential to create jobs in the tribe • Operation and maintenance challenges • Regulatory requirements • Degree of tribal control • Cost of closure, post-closure care, and financial assurance for municipal landfills The Metlakatla Indian Community, a com munity of 1,600 residents located on the Annette Islands Reserve in southeast Alaska, developed a solid waste management plan in 1999 with funding from an EPA grant. The community had to address many of the issues faced by tribes today, including its remote location, open dumping, lack of infrastruc ture, and competing environmental con cerns. The plan includes the results of a waste stream analysis, a discussion of solid waste management options and costs, and a list of the criteria used to evaluate sites for waste handling facilities. 12 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 8 of 14 When and How To Use a Consultant Most tribes and Alaskan Native villages have found that they do not need a consultant to develop their solid waste management plans. Tribes and Native villages already possess or are able to obtain most of the infor mation needed for developing a plan. Additional information and resources are available to tribes and Native villages free of charge through federal agencies such as EPA, other tribes and villages, tribal and regional associations, or state environmental agencies. Some tribes and villages have hired consultants to help them develop solid waste management plans. These consultants helped organize the planning process, provided technical assistance, facilitated planning ses sions, and in some cases, wrote the plan. While consultants often do have expertise in developing plans in general, they still do not have as much expertise and knowledge of your tribe or village as a tribal member does. The consensus among many tribes and Alaskan Native villages is that tribes and villages possess enough expertise and knowledge and have access to enough free resources to develop a basic solid waste management plan without hiring outside consultants. When the time comes to implement your solid waste management plan, you might find that obtaining the help of a consultant is necessary. Designing and building a landfill, transfer station, or recycling center, for example, will require the expertise of a trained and certified engineer. If your tribe or village does not have this expertise in-house, hiring a consultant is one method of obtaining it. Contacting IHS or your state envi ronmental agency and asking the agency to provide an engineer is another potential option. To find a qualified consultant, contact your regional EPA of fice, IHS, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). These agencies can usually provide the names of several consultants that offer professional engineering and consulting services to tribes. Another place to look is in tribal newspapers and publications, such Indian Times, Indian Country Today, or American Indian Report. You can also check with other tribes and villages to ask for references and recommendations for consultants they have worked with in the past. Before hiring a consultant, ask for a statement of qualifications and references from former clients. If it is a large project, or if it is being performed through an EPA grant, a formal award process might be necessary. This involves fully describing your technical need, advertising the requirement, and requesting and reviewing several consultants’ technical and cost proposals. These need to specifically state what, where, when, and how the work will be done. The technical proposal needs to address past performance, including references from clients. Always check their references. The Alaska Native Health Board’s (ANHB) Solid Waste Management & Planning for Rural Communities in Alaska provides helpful tips on using consultants effectively while maintaining control over your solid waste management decisions. Some of these tips include: • Only ask a consultant to prepare parts of your solid waste management plan that no one else in your community or agency can do for you, or to provide technical/engineering expertise that you can not provide internally. • Have a get-acquainted meeting. Make sure the consultant understands your needs and exactly what you want. • Encourage the consultant to ask questions about your community; this will ensure that you receive a plan or design that meets your tribe or village’s specific needs and situation. • Ask your consultant for suggestions, and carefully weigh the advice. Accept advice, not direction. 13 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 9 of 14 Conducting a Waste Stream Analysis “Know your waste stream. A waste assessment provides information about potential rec ycling opportunities and helps you choose a transfer station design.” ~Calvin Murphy, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians As discussed in Step 4, conducting a waste stream analysis or audit will lay the founda tion for your planning process. A waste stream analysis helps estimate the amount of solid waste generated within a planning area. The process involves compiling reliable information on the types and quantities of solid waste being generated. The weight or volume of materials and products that enter the waste stream are measured before any recycling, composting, burning, or landfilling takes place. For example, in 2001 the U.S. waste generation rate was 4.4 pounds of dis cards per person per day. In rural areas, how- ever, the generation rate is commonly lower. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, for example, determined its waste generation rate to be 1.5 pounds per person per day. Conversely, Alaskan Native villages tend to be above the national average. According the Alaskan Native Health Board’s Solid Waste Management & Planning for Rural Communities in Alaska, the average Alaskan generates 6 pounds of waste per day. The Tribal Association of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (TASWER) and the Solid Waste Association of North America’s (SWANA) joint training course guide, Developing and Implementing Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems for Tribal Nations, provides several approaches to estimating tribal waste generation rates. A waste stream analysis will give you the information you need to answer questions such as: How much of your waste can be recycled? and, What percentage will require disposal? It gives your tribe the data it needs to develop an effective solid waste manage ment plan. Purpose and Outcome of a Waste Stream Analysis What solid waste management goals has your tribe developed during the planning process? A tribe’s goals dictate the information and accuracy needed in a waste stream analysis. A tribe that is interested in the economic benefits of recycling might want to deter- mine the quantities of higher-valued materi als (such as aluminum cans) it generates. On the other hand, a tribe that is interested in preserving landfill space might need to know the quantities of all materials it generates that it can reduce. Source reduction and landfill projects require knowledge of gross waste volumes. Recycling and waste-to-ener gy programs require knowledge of the quanti ty and composition of wastes, not only for value of the material, but also for sizing stor age and handling areas. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina conducted a weight-based waste assessment. The tribe’s Public Utilities Department randomly selected 212 houses and several businesses to participate in the study. Department staff visited each partici pant to obtain consent and explain study procedures. For a specified period of time, participants placed all of their solid waste and recyclable materials in special garbage bags. At the end of the study period, department staff collected the bags and separated the waste by hand, weighing paper, food scraps, and glass separately. The tribe used the waste assessment data to estimate its waste genera tion rates and identify recycling opportuni ties. For example, the study revealed that homes and businesses generate large quanti ties of cardboard. The tribe found a market to sell its recovered cardboard to make money 14 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 10 of 14 to support other, less profitable, recycling activities. Methods of Conducting Waste Stream Analysis Two basic approaches a tribe can use to analyze its waste stream are 1) desktop estimates and 2) field surveys. The desktop estimate uses existing data to quantify the amount of waste generated. A desktop estimate will provide a first-cut estimate. Existing data can come from your state, or a nearby county, city, or tribe. Table 1 provides the average densities of common waste categories that might also prove useful in making initial estimates. Many tribes use the EPA national generation rate and characterization data for their first-cut estimate. Visit the EPA Web page for the most current update of Municipal Solid Waste In the United States: Facts and Figures. Keep in mind, however, that tribes and other communities in rural areas often generate less waste per capita than the amount reflected in EPA’s numbers. For example, for 2001, EPA reports the per capita waste generation rate to be 4.4 pounds per person per day, while the Makah Tribe of Indians, referenced earlier in this chapter reported a rate of 3.7 pounds per person per day in waste generation. Conducting a field survey will provide you with more tribal-specific data. Desktop estimates can use an average generation rate or a more sector-specific generation rate. Both approaches use generation rate (pounds per person per day) multiplied by population (number Table 1. Average Waste Densities Waste Type Density of uncompac ted waste (pounds/yard3) General household waste (organic and inorganic wastes including food wastes, paper, cardboard, plastics, textiles, rubber, leather, wood, aluminum, tin, other metal, glass, dirt, and ashes) Uncompacted 150-300 Compacted 500-1,000 Large metal scrap (depending on metal type) 750-3,000 Mixed wood, plastic, metal waste 150-300 Miscellaneous plastics 70-120 Commercial waste (uncompac ted) 300-600 Special wastes Tires (non-shredded) 45-110 Furniture (large, e.g., couches, armchairs) 75-400 Refrigerator 160-280 Other appliances (white goods) 230-340 Automobiles 1,000-5,000 lbs/vehicle Yard and agricultural wastes Yard trimmings (e.g., tree trimmings, brush, leaves) 100-300 Grass clippings 500-1,000 Agricultural wastes (mixed) 675-1265 Dead animals 605 Fruit or vegetable waste 605 Construction and Demolition Debris Wood (unstacked) 180-350 (well stacked wood is 2 to 4 times larger) Broken concrete 2,020-3,035 Mixed construction 305-605 Mixed demolition (non-combustible) 1,685-2,695 Mixed demolition (combustible) 505-675 Source: TASWER and SWANA. Developing and Implementing Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems for Tribes. Spring 2003, pp. 41 & 66. 15 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 11 of 14 of residents or employees). Using generation rates from a community of similar size will improve the reliability of the estimate. The sector estimate uses generation rates for differ ent generators, then combines the data to derive the total generation rate. EPA’s Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 Communities lists waste gener ation rates for 30 urban, suburban, and rural communities discussed in the report. Your tribe might be able to use one of these genera tion rates from a similar size community for a desktop estimate. The Spokane Tribe of Indians in Washington state used desktop methods to estimate its volume and tonnage of waste. The Tribal Solid Waste Program did not keep track of the waste managed through its collection and landfill services. The tribe derived estimates using a combination of state-wide averages, observations by the col lection employee, billing records for com mercial accounts, and general demographic data. The tribe developed separate estimates for the waste stream from the collection service, the commercial accounts, and the commercial accounts not serviced by collec tion. Then they combined these three esti mates for a reservation-wide estimate. Field surveys can help you obtain a more accurate measure of your waste stream. Three tasks are required to develop reliable data—planning, execution, and data analy sis. The importance of planning cannot be overemphasized. Planning considerations include determining what type and how much waste is generated in the area and what equipment and personnel are available, and calculating bias factors. Several approaches are available for execut ing the field survey. One is a field weighing program, where tribal staff or contractors weigh all vehicles entering the landfill, or a randomly selected subset. The other is a field composition study, where tribal staff deter- mines the composition of the waste stream by sorting and weighing individual compo nents. A brief overview of the steps to per- form a field waste sort follows: 1. Obtain a guide on how to perform a field waste sort and talk to other tribes that have performed a waste sort. 2. Decide whether you want to conduct the waste sort in-house, using tribal staff, or whether you want to hire an outside contractor. 3. Define the waste categories to be sam pled. Based on your tribal community’s goals, select the components you will use for the field sampling. 4. Select containers for the waste compo nents. Make sure containers are of a manageable size for weighing. A 55-gal- lon container filled with glass can weigh between 200 and 500 pounds. The size and weight capacity of the scale you will be using also will influence your con tainer choices. 5. Determine the number of samples and the physical sizes of the samples. Consider the following factors: the con sistency of the waste stream, the amount of solid waste delivered to a facility by the different generators, and the number of vehicles delivering solid waste to the facility each day. Sampling 10 percent of the vehicles using the facility (daily or weekly) is a good guide. 6. Arrange for a crew and set up the equip ment. 7. Sort and weigh the waste, recording weight on category forms. 8. Compile and analyze the data. Estimating Composition and Quantity of Solid Waste Generation, by the National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities, provides technical guidance 16 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 12 of 14 for performing a waste stream analysis. The guide has worksheets and checklists for both desktop and field surveys. For a less technical approach, consult Counting Your Community’s Trash. This two-page fact sheet provides an overview for small communities on how to calculate the materials in the residential waste stream. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Environment Division’s Solid Waste Handbook provides examples of two different approaches to field surveys. Appendix B of the Solid Waste Handbook describes in detail how the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe performed a volume based waste audit, while the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina per- formed a weighted-based audit. The Solid Waste Handbook also provides a link to a waste audit manual. Potential Bias Factors Accounting for potential bias factors that can affect the estimates of waste generation rates is important. Seasonal variations account for most of the potential bias. The quantity of waste generated in any area will vary from month to month. Lack of yard trimmings in the winter months reduces the amount of residential waste. Retail wastes are higher during peak sales periods like Christmas. School-related wastes decrease during the summer. Tourism causes varia tions in population and types of waste, which impacts waste generation. Work force fluctuations affect population and also waste types and quantities generated. Subsistence activities can generate specific types of waste only at certain times of the year. To help control potential bias factors caused by the increased population during tourist season, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, for example, conducted its waste sort twice, once during the height of tourism sea- son and once during the tourism low point. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe collecting waste as a part of its waste stream analysis. Chapter Highlights • Prepare a solid waste management plan as the first step in developing a solid waste management program. It is the foundation upon which you will build your tribe or village’s program. • Use your solid waste management plan to define, prioritize, and focus your tribe or village’s solid waste management goals. • Conduct a waste stream analysis to understand the types and amounts of waste your tribe or village generates. • Complete your solid waste management plan before applying for federal solid waste grants. Many grant programs place a premium on having a solid waste man agement plan—for a few it is even a pre- requisite. • Revisit and update your solid waste man agement plan as your program develops and as your tribe or village’s solid waste- related goals change. 17 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 13 of 14 Resources EPA’s Decision-Maker’s Guide to Solid Waste Management, Second Edition (EPA530-R-95- 023), available on EPA’s Web site at <www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ dmg2.htm> or by contacting the RCRA Call Center at 800 424-9346. EPA’s Solid Waste Management: A Local Challenge with Global Impacts (EPA530-F-02- 026), available on EPA’s Web site at <www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ ghg/f02026.pdf> or by contacting the RCRA Call Center at 800 424-9346. EPA’s Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 Communities (EPA530- R-92-015), available on EPA’s Web site at <www.epa.gov/ epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/recy-com/ toc.pdf> or by contacting the RCRA Call Center at 800 424-9346. Estimating Composition and Quantity of Solid Waste Generation, by the National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities. Available by calling 800 624- 8301 or through the Center at <www.nesc.wvu. edu/netcsc/pdf/NETCSC2000catalog.pdf>. Counting Your Community’s Trash, available on the Web at <www.zender-engr.net/docs/ counting_trash_final.pdf>. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe-Environment Division’s Solid Waste Handbook available at <www.srmtenv.org/ swhandbk.pdf>. Developing and Implementing Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems for Tribal Nations: A Training Course Prepared by the Tribal Association for Solid Waste and Emergency Response (TASWER) and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), Spring 2003. Contact TASWER <www.taswer.org> or SWANA <www.swana.org> for more information. Solid Waste Management & Planning for Rural Communities in Alaska: Community Resource Guide & Planning Workbook, Draft 2003. By the Alaskan Native Health Board. Contact your ANHB contact for more information. 7 Generations: Addressing Village Environmental Issues for the Future Generations of Rural Alaska, March 1999, available on the Web at <www.state.ak. us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dsps/ compasst/7generations/7gen.htm>. Regular updates of Municipal Solid Waste In the United States: Facts and Figures, available on EPA’s Web site at <www.epa.gov/ epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ msw99.htm>. Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria (EPA530-R-93-017), November 1993, avail- able on EPA’s Web site at <www.epa.gov/ epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/landfill/ techman/index.htm>or by contacting the RCRA Call Center at 800 424-9346. Sample Solid Waste Management Plans The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Model Tribal Solid Waste Management Code, available on the Web at <www.epa.gov/ tribalmsw/pdftxt/itc10746.wpd>, includes information on how the tribe developed its solid waste management plan. Solid Waste Management Plan for the Hannahville Indian Community, available on the Web at <www.epa.gov/ tribalmsw/ pdftxt/hanplan.pdf>. Solid Waste Handbook, by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe of New York, available on the Web at <www.srmtenv.org>. Description of the Metlakatla Community Integrated Waste Management Plan, avail- able on the Web at <www.ridolfi.com/ Annette/IWMP.index.html>. 18 RSWMP RFP EXHIBIT C Page 14 of 14 View our website: www.kodiakak.us Visit our Facebook page: www.facebook.com/KodiakIslandBorough Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Newsletter Vol. FY2025, No. 25 June 06, 2025 At Its Regular Meeting Of June 5, 2025, The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Took The Following Actions. The Next Regular Meeting Of The Borough Assembly Is Scheduled On Thursday, July 3, 2025, At 6:30 p.m. In The Borough Assembly Chambers. PROCLAIMED The Week Of June 8-14, 2025, Invasive Species Awareness Week Encourage All Residents And Visitors To Learn More About And Contribute To The Prevention Of Invasive Species In Our Borough, And Thereby Support A Broad, Efficient, And Effective Effort To Protect The Health And Integrity Of Kodiak’s Natural Systems And Human Populations PROCLAIMED The Month Of June As Filipino American Heritage Month In Kodiak Urging All Citizens To Participate In The Festivities Celebrating The Rich Heritage And Traditions Of The Philippine Islands VOICED NON-PROTEST To The State Of Alaska Alcohol And Marijuana Control Office (AMCO) Transfer Of Ownership Application From Kodiak Rendezvous, Inc. DBA The Rendezvous (License No. 2639) To Rendezvous Roadhouse LLC, And Direct The Clerk To Notify AMCO Of This Decision ADOPTED Ordinance No. FY2025-17, An Ordinance Of The Assembly Of The Kodiak Island Borough Rezoning A Portion Of Tract E, U.S. Survey 4793 From R1-Single Family Residential District to I- Industrial District (Zoning Will Correspond To Lot Created By Abbreviated Subdivision S25-007) ADOPTED Ordinance No. FY2025-18, An Ordinance Of The Assembly Of The Kodiak Island Borough Rezoning A Portion Of U.S. Survey 4793, Tract E from R1-Single Family Residential District to B- Business District (Zoning Will Correspond With Lot Created By Preliminary Subdivision, Case No. S25- 006) AMENDED/ADOPTED Ordinance No. FY2026-01, Adopting The Budget For Fiscal Year 2026 And Appropriating From All Borough Funds AMENDED/ADOPTED Ordinance No. FY2026-02, Receiving The 2025 Certified Real And Personal Property Tax Roll, Levying Ad Valorem Property Taxes For Tax Year 2025 Consisting Of An Areawide Tax, Womens Bay Fire Protection Area Tax, A Womens Bay Road Service Area Tax, A Bay View Road Service Area Tax, A Fire Protection Service Area No. 1, A Monashka Bay Road Service Area Tax, A Tax In Service Area No. 1 Roads, A Woodland Acres Street Light Service Area, A Service Area No. 2 Tax, An Airport Fire Protection Service Area, A Trinity Islands Street Light Service Area Tax, And A Tax In The Mission Lake Tidegate Service Area; Levying Commercial Aircraft Tax; Providing For The Collection Of Taxes Due In 2025; And Setting The Date When Taxes Become Delinquent AUTHORIZED The Borough Manager To Award Contract No. FY2025-57 To Jacobs Engineering For The Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Update AUTHORIZED The Borough Manager To Execute Contract No. FY2025-58 For Women's Bay Service Area Contract With Brechan Construction, LLC View our website: www.kodiakak.us Visit our Facebook page: www.facebook.com/KodiakIslandBorough AUTHORIZED The Borough Manager To Execute Contract No. FY2025-59 For Service Area No. 1 Road Service Area Contract With AIM Maintenance LLC AUTHORIZED The Borough Manager To Execute Contract No. FY2025-60 For Monashka Bay Road Service Area Contract With Aim Maintenance LLC AUTHORIZED The Borough Manager To Execute Contract No. FY2025-61 For Bayview Road Service Area Contract With AIM Maintenance LLC ADOPTED Resolution No. FY2026-02, Re-Establishing The Fees Of The Kodiak Island Borough CONVENED INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Under The Authority Of KIBC 2.30.030 (F)(1)(C) To Discuss The Borough Clerk’s Performance Evaluation, A Subject That Qualifies For Executive Session As A Matter That May Tend To Prejudice A Character Or Reputation Of Any Person. INVITED The Mayor and Assembly Members Into Executive Session. The Borough Clerk Was Invited At A Later Time. ANNOUNCED That The Borough Clerk Had An Excellent Job Performance And Her Salary Should Be Increased As Stated In Her Contract