2008-07-10 Work SessionKodiak Island Borough
Assembly Work Session
Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:30 p.m., Borough Conference Room
Work Sessions are informal meetings of the Assembly where Assembly members review the upcoming regular meeting agenda
packet and seek or receive information from staff. Although additional items not listed on the work session agenda are discussed
when introduced by the Mayor, Assembly, or staff, no formal action is taken at work sessions and items that require formal
Assembly action are placed on regular Assembly meeting agenda. Citizen's comments at work sessions are NOT considered part of
the official record. Citizen's comments intended for the "official record" should be made at a regular Assembly meeting.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker)
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. DRAFT Solid Waste Management Plan Presentation
2. Kodiak High School Master Plan
PACKET REVIEW
PUBLIC HEARING
Ordinance No. FY FY2009 -02 Rezoning a Portion of Lot 1A -3, U.S. Survey 3465 From PL-
Public Use Lands To RR1- Rural Residential One Zoning District. (P &Z Case 07 -001.)
NEW BUSINESS
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution No. FY FY2009 -01 Approving Fiscal Year 2009 Kodiak Island Borough Non - Profit
Funding.
Resolution No. FY2009 -02 Urging Federal Funding of Observer Coverage in the Gulf of
Alaska.
Resolution No. FY2009 -03 Approving Fiscal Year 2009 Support to the Kodiak Island Bed and
Breakfast Association.
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
Ordinance No. FY 2009 -01A Amending Ordinance No. FY2009 -01 to Appropriate Funds for the
Purpose of Providing Information on Ballot Proposition No. 1.
Ordinance No. FY2009 -03 Rezoning Four (4) Parcels of Land in the Russian Creek
Subdivision, Totaling Approximately 20 Acres, From B- Business To RR1 — Rural Residential
One District (P &Z Case 08 -023.)
Ordinance No. FY2009 -04 Amending Title 17 Zoning of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of
Ordinances Section 17.02.030 Comprehensive Plan to Incorporate the Kodiak Island Borough
Coastal Management Program Plan Update.
OTHER ITEMS
Declaring a Seat on the Service Area No. 1 Board Vacant.
Declaring a Seat on the Womens Bay Service Area Board Vacant.
MANAGER'S COMMENTS
CLERK'S COMMENTS
MAYOR'S COMMENTS
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS COMMENTS
JULY 2008
zT
61
9Z
4
INDEPENDENCE
DAY —
BOROUGH
OFFICES
CLOSED
TT
81
SZ
3
7:30 p.m. ASSY
RM - XNCLD
10
7:30 p.m. ASSY
WS — CR
7:30 p.m. CITY
CNCL RM - AC
OV
ASSV .wrd OE:L
LTI
24
7:30 p.m. CITY
CNCL RM - AC
31
7:30 p.m. ASSY
WS —CR
2
5:15 p.m. SWAB
RM - CR
9
5:15 p.m. SWAB
Info MTG - AC
7:30 p.m. P &Z WS
- CR
16
5:15 p.m. SWAB
WS —CR
7:30 p.m. P &Z
RM - AC
£Z
OE
1
7 p.m. WBSA RM
— WBFH
7:30 p.m. FPA #1
WS —BFH
8
7 p.m. P &R RM —
XNCLD
7 p.m. ARB RM —
KFRC LCR
7:30 p.m. CITY
CNCL WS — CR
15
7:30 p.m. FPA #1
RM - BFH
22
7 p.m. P &R RM —
SD/CR
7:30 p.m. CITY
CNCL WS — CR
6Z
N
14
7 p.m. KIBSD WS
— SD /CR
1Z
28
7 p.m. KIBSD WS
— AC
LO
ET
OZ
LZ
AUGUST 2008
N
al
91
EZ
OE
c--I
co
ST
ZZ
7
7:30 p.m. ASSY
RM - AC
14
7:30 p.m. ASSY
WS -CR
21
7:30 p.m. ASSY
RM - AC
U ~ Q
Q U
E Es w
Q. � QJ
c'(:). ��c, Z
I��
6
5:15 p.m. SWAB
RM - CR
13
7:30 p.m. P &Z WS
- CR
Cd - 1Al2:1
Z'9d *wdOE:L
2JO - SM
VMS w*d 91.:5
OZ
n
N
5
7:30 p.m. FPA #1
WS -BFH
12
7 p.m. P &R RM -
SD/CR
19
7:30 p.m. FPA #1
RM - BFH
i
w �U
cc U�
n. E
w QJ
E000
LO ap co Z
cv tiU)r— O
11
7 p.m. KIBSD WS
- SD /CR
81
U)
n
co
M
OZ
LT
tiZ
-LE
DA 2 LE TO/VVEK
D 11
Tarnm, L rr,
C'/,',/ r��,_
,d r /�/4� ��'k (0
i-NA k\K v\ c: k ,,..\
,----
a it4 1-1 -chi I 1
a � 04 L"
k !' /O Gc , e V
ep‘ Lymay\
()) ;, “ ;lq 6m /e
J rvs Co -1kr-2-
-- 3c„ -A' g
\ \ ca_Nr■
( A.e.J,k__-Yk
(1 1:41 li
k (54 - Pot. t-ro
Cl U ti.a., v 0-,e u,,
! 5
iel / �i-t�
4 eu lei,t,
( r >.�,, ��f�i
A .\,� Y\
�.- rr
i`l,�(.- lY- j! f72i 'L,
0 0-0 a a V
j'
43,,,,,,a__O
L,..„,
n
f G
weA\
,( hi, Ma ( -- r, r, 5,.
Please print your name
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
ASSEMBLY WORK SESSION
Work Session of: .ii/ v /Oe'
Please print your name
Resource Recovery Park
>'.'�T{:tiTy�Glirv<ThT"ri2�:Sfi:'��.�'���4�j�i4�x'v'�ii�.'+,'�.'','i'.'Z•�.C'`'�.�:'.4:'�:T���Z��fi'' �., ��ti�:.:'J.
T TX rTTT T S`� �. �� X;�/1k''�T.� /•�i� T� `� T C 'Stiti♦ ,�
S T � 5.S � �5�. �� ��4� '� S �c !� 'x� �'" . . . . . � T �s
5. sr�x4 s. ����s�«� � � xx .r ��y�� � '� c •� ' � � ���i`�1�rs�s ,���'�iI'li�t�l'�M�ti�tt� r�i
� � �� �`k5�', �s�, � ..�.�1` ��� , •� , � ��
r,�,�S� � t,k`�`4....''•�' x}
���:�'.� � �#Q�f��M� �`hk � ., '� � r '�' �, �� ��� +�ie ^. 3 ��'MC���CYM i��"�I
� ,� �;� � �
x���� �����!'�t7C�k1i y. . T . �,��i�� �, , `��. � ��` .�'�� �
. ,, , �'" .
x '
� 3 '" q "." �h I 1
�,�. I I
�,�.���.� � v.. � I I
�`�'� �`„"#'' -- -- ------------- ----r�----------------a
rk 3," —'v-- —'j —r— I
����� i � � 1 � I
��'''"' ,*�a � 1 � �
3��,�•��r.*r i � � ' �
TT,TxTa
'�77T�h�7�T 7� / � �
,��333�r�� . � � � �.� ���� . � , i
�' � . , �c k�ia�rdci�s � �
��';: .. ` . ;_ �: � � �Cr� i�eu�e=,� ° �
���s.� � �� . - �r i i�c��" � �Pe�c�ai �
�: �� �. ` 3 � h�� �� � � � yy�stt:"� �Ul�'l�Ms �eal�t�'� '
� ��` r� Ce�rte� �
� ,n .�:. �'�' • �� -�.�.� �
E. n. .,
♦
� t �.�"�'tk,?�4(5�i 'i'' t� '"��" �1����r�'��1��`�� I
� � �� H Et^ i
� rs c
/ :�E"�E� �� �; a k��.. �
1 � '," I
� I� ,:,,�...,' d ����.
S�';l`c .., �
� c
���1,
� ��v "... F�,�I"k�l�� .' Materials c� — �
r---
�i, �,� .r � , � �{ �.vat Recovery 4 — — — —, �
� � _ ` Facility (MRF) o �`
i
i � ;� �r' ` � �
i � � o �
i � �
m' � �
i� ----------------- � i
i i i i i E ? i
I Scale House � � _ � Scale Hquse
i I . r a�+� � o � a.4t � � �^aa'� o�^°�.°.;*."'.*ro� � �
��¢ C'�f�ice.� ° � "'�$ °� �+�����*�'o.o�'s�o''r.'''��'�$ a�. �
� i � � � �. i a�� � � <.*.� , ,t•,
� �°� �� i Ec#UI��� . �� � � �,� ��.�s'4�'�a''g'a``�� � �.�r� �� ��
a 4 Cet{f�� ��$�$,°;.�:;$v$°$ ��i��
t i � �. �+�oo+�+Y�s ���
� � �� ���5& �
fi
� �+t'�ur�t
4a �. .' � � °°�° �' a'.�'' � �"�� `�;
` C�reertery t ���$� � ' �
� � �.
i i
� � .'
� S ales 4 ` � . .,., . .,... .t � �> . �b � ��� SFales
� � � � I
_ . . . I
Public / Commercial Exit Employee / Visitor * Special Waste egs. —Tires, Public / Commercial Entrance
Entrance & Exit Carpet, E-Waste
D 1
cnc)
cn c
c
CD 0
-n
- o 73
0 0
0 CI
O g
cn
C
0
0
0 0
0 =n
0 0 0
CD c-,
w cm b
�, o
a
0 0 73
a aC
� o
o -
C C.
0 0
3 N
(1) _
a
0
CD
N
' (D '
0- (I)0
O O
o 3 a C))
o o
o D
o
O C
cn C
N
N O
n 3 O
o a
E °
cn C) cn
-0 m v
wa
m
o
C —
co
vncc;
o
o ow.
a 0
CD
c m
o �
c1
CD
a d)
(.0 o
a
0
v n c o n CO
0�C'.
cu 0
aCD
v —<
0 c (D
0 c 0
c
- 0
m 0 5.
� - 0
0
0
cn v
0 3 CD
a
0 CD
O
0 00
O N
3 5
CD n)
a C CD
g)
-
o -
O N
CD
0 .
CD
0
n:
CD
o m C)
0 0
CD -
1
a <• - 0
o
o v 0
- -0
v o
0 C
0
a
CD '
CD CD a
CD
c
a `•�
CD
0
sv
c �
v o
CT
0
a
"O Cr
CD C/)
aa)*
cn
Cl)
o co --,
- CD C") <.
a
`< CD
Cp' O O-
0 0
a C
v �
- a
o'
C C
m
o
520
77 D
C CC) co
cn C) N
cn m
m —
y
cr CC DD
C) n
O O
m 3
oC
0 ( O n
m
3
m
* -n cn n. CD
C
CD '<
Q 5 = O
C ` CD C
N o'<0 T
O 20 = pj
v C a
C. C C
Cn CD 0
X c
v C 0
0
o o
N
O
a) <
a CD
a "
I I I
M C < N 0 T
3 a) o -, c
o- a a v
m m
Cb03
a Cn 7 CD
CD 0 n O_
vim) m o
v
CD
cn cn
CD 3
3
v c
cD cn O
cn N 3
CD 0)
2° m
a
M N C (n D -n
C C' C 0)
v a c
0 (,) 0
a 0
CD n 0 a
N
.7-. O o
v) Cl)
3 � ' 3
-D 0.
co 0
3
co
a
O
C/)
m 0
FIT `IG
` `
2 a)
cn
F6
m- ■
cD 33z
'O CD <
C cn 0
cn t:r cn
N C CD
CD a
a E,
O C
< cn C 0 .., =
0 0 ``' C) <
CL cn m C
( a < CD O
Ell CD Z
C Cn
a
o
CD m_° C
0 � CD 0 CD m
= CT)
O � y
C/) -i C CD
Eh)
o Cl) '<
0'O CD
5 .
3 - m
0
y
v m o
< O
CD C
m
a
CD
3
c ,
m
Cl)
CD
sv
CD
O
A)
Cn
CD
A)
CO
CD
3
CD
n
CD
A)
0�
Cl)
0
w
0
C31:
BELL & Associates, Inc.
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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
Bell & Associates, Inc.
ii
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
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
("Bell & Associates, Inc.
June 2008
iii
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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
El Bell & Associates, Inc.
Promotion
and
Education
Transfer
Solid Waste
System
Components
Organization
and
Administration
Collection
Waste
Reduction
and Recycling
1
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
Bell & Associates, Inc.
2
0
U,
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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 Disposal
• 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?
Bell & Associates, Inc.
4
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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
o.
°
O.
10,000
5,000
Figure 2: Population Trend
o e ff o ry o ^ t* 0� 0� c 0 1° o ry o ( ' b 0 (6 0 f b off o nj � e � 0 � 6
f ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti
/�/Behl & Associates, Inc.
Year
5
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
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
/3Bell & Associates, Inc.
6
Disposed Wastestream Composition & Diversion Potential
Material
Category
Material
Type
Percent
Composition
2007
Tons
Paper
34.3%
3,383.29
Newspaper'
4.9%
540.47
White / Mixed Paper'
3.0%
330.90
Office Paper'
2.7%
297.81
Magazines /Books /Mail'
4.2%
463.26
Cardboard'
12.6%
1,389.78
Other Paper
6.9%
761.07
Plastic
5.6%
617.68
Recyclable'
1.9%
209.57
Film
1.8%
198.54
Other
1.9%
209.57
Metals
7.7%
485.32
Aluminum Cans'
0.8%
850.11
Tin Cans'
1.0%
88.24
Other Metals'
5.9%
110.30
Glass
4.4%
651.57
Diapers
1.5%
165.45
Food Waste
11.9%
1,312.57
Yard Waste
3.4%
372.04
Lumber & Wood
7.5%
824.38
Electronic Waste
1.1%
121.33
Batteries
0.1%
11.03
Other
22.5%
2,481.75
Total
100%
11,024.95
'Recyclable Materials
37.0%
4,081.90
2 Compostable Materials
22.8%
2,508.99
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
3.0 Description of Wastestream
3.1 Overview
�Be11 & Associates, Inc.
Table 3: What Is In KIB's Disposed Wastestream?
What Can Be Diverted From Disposal?
June 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.
7
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
1,867
Total Tons
14,752
15,443
17,133
14,674
f
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
Bell & Associates, Inc.
The data from the table above is displayed in the figure which follows.
8
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
15,438
14,752
15,443
17,133
14,674
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
c 10,000
I� 8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
/i Be118 Associates, Inc.
2004
Figure 4: Disposal by Type of Waste
2005 2006
Year
2007
• MSW Tons ❑ Sludge • Construction & Demolition
June 2008
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.
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.
9
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2002
Bell & Associates, Inc.
Figure 5: Sources of Disposed Tonnage
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
• Kodiak
• Sludge
❑ US Coast Guard
• Construction & Demolition
June 2008
10
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
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
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.
�BOII & Associates, Inc.
Figure 6: Threshold KIB Tons -
Specific Percentages by Weight
2.1%
0.5° 1.3%
0.4% 0.9%
0.3%
• All Paper Products • Aluminum
O HDPE#2 Natural • PET #1
• Tin • Other not identified
• HDPE #2 Colored
• Bags /Shrink Wrap
June 2008
11
1
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
•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:
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.
Bell & Associates, Inc.
Figure 7: Threshold KIB Tons -
General Percentages by Weight
Tons Generated = Tons Disposed + Tons Diverted
Diversion Rate = Tons Disposed divided by Tons Generated
June 2008
12
i
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
Bell & Associates, Inc.
13
Year
Population
Tons Disposed
- No Diversion
Increase
Tons
Disposed w /
25 %
Diversion
Tons
Disposed w /
50 %
Diversion
2008
14,159
11,030
11,030
11,030
2009
14,183
11,049
10,772
10,496
2010
14,206
11,067
10,513
9,960
2011
14,230
11,085
10,254
9,423
2012
14,253
11,103
9,993
8,883
2013
14,277
11,122
9,732
8,341
2014
14,305
11,144
9,472
7,801
2015
14,332
11,165
9,211
7,257
2016
14,360
11,187
8,949
6,712
2017
14,388
11,208
8,687
6,165
2018
14,416
11,230
8,423
5,625
2019
14,442
11,250
8,438
5,625
2020
14,468
11,271
8,453
5,635
2021
14,494
11,291
8,468
5,645
2022
14,520
11,311
8,483
5,656
2023
14,546
11,331
8,499
5,666
2024
14,572
11,352
8,514
5,676
2025
14,599
11,373
8,530
5,686
2026
14,625
11,393
8,545
5,697
2027
14,651
11,413
8,560
5,707
2028
14,678
11,434
8,576
5,717
2029
14,704
11,455
8,591
5,727
2030
14,730
11,475
8,606
5,737
2031
14,757
11,496
8,622
5,748
2032
14,783
11,516
8,637
5,758
2033
14,810
11,537
8,653
5,769
2034
14,837
11,558
8,669
5,779
2035
14,863
11,578
8,684
5,789
2036
14,890
11,599
8,700
5,800
2037
14,917
11,620
8,715
5,810
2038
14,944
11,642
8,731
5,821
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
Table 7: Disposal Tonnage Projections
June 2008
G Be1I 8 Associates, Inc.
14
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
Table 9: Solid Waste Service Customers
City of Kodiak
1,275
Service District #1
978
KIB Residential
515
Commercial
494
Total
3,262
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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
The table below shows the average number of customers serviced by the collection contractor
in FY 2007:
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
/"Bell & Associates, Inc.
15
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
fira
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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
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.
1 The 68 pounds per customer per week assumption is calculated in Appendix .
Bell & Associates, Inc.
16
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
June 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
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
as well as the working face of the landfill.
Bell & Associates, Inc.
17
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
4.4.2 Baler Versus Compactor
June 2008
Photo 2: Caterpillar 816F Compactor
There are two primary methods used at landfills to
compact waste: a wheeled compactor or a stationary
hydraulic baler. A new wheeled compactor
(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
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
Bell & Associates, Inc.
18
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
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
amount the Borough must set aside during the remaining life of the current cell. This is
summarized in the table below:
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.
�Be11 & Associates, Inc.
Table 11: KIB Landfill Closure and Post - Closure Costs
June 2008
19
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)
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)
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
4.4.5 Disposal Costs on Kodiak
June 2008
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?
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
2 The half FTE is the Environmental Specialist who is split between landfill and administration.
Bell 8 Associates, Inc.
20
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
Disposal costs at the landfill noted above are portrayed visually in the figure below.
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
Bell & Associates, Inc.
Figure 8: Disposal Costs by %
• Labor
• Closure Costs
• Building & Equipment
• Professional Services
• Operations
June 2008
21
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)
re
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
E t /Bell 8 Associates, Inc.
Table 14: Scrap Metal Processing Costs
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.
22
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
debris
Disposed of in construction / demolition cell at landfill.
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 /
grease
Disposed of in dumpsters, baled and landfilled.
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 /
other bulky items
Disposed of in dumpsters or brought to the landfill by
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.
t.
�� KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
4.7 Special Wastes
Table 15: Current Handling Methods for Special Wastes
June 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.
4.8 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
Bell & Associates, Inc.
23
c
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
rip en & Associates, Inc.
24
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
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
�BeII & Associates, Inc.
June 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.
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).
25
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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 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.
Bell & Associates, Inc.
26
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
D Be11 & Associates, Inc.
27
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
G BeI18 Associates, Inc.
28
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
Bell & Associates, Inc.
29
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
6.0 Description of Options for System Components
6.1 Collection
6.2 Procuring of Collection Services
�Be118 Associates, Inc.
June 2008
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.
aea
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.
30
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
Photo 5: Fully Automated Collection
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 tubs
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.
a 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.
Bell 8 Associates, Inc.
31
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
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.
Bell & Associates, Inc.
June 2008
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
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.
the
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.
32
i
° W KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
Photo 7: Community drop box overflowing
with garbage and left open for bears.
Elimination of the community dumpsters puts the
burden of disposal expenses on the generator of
the waste, would greatly reduce the commercial sector subsidy necessary to fund the
dumpsters, and be compatible with a PAYT rate structure.
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.
Bell & Associates, Inc.
33
Cell Site
Site Size In Feet
Square
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
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
5 KIB Landfill Permit to ADEC
Bell & Associates, Inc.
Table 16: Proposed Lined Cell Sites
34
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
and Recovery Act) and
the operational costs is
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.
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.
�Be11 & Associates, Inc.
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
the treatment of leachate. 6 Recovering the costs of the new cell and
exacerbated by the small amount of waste generated by KIB toward
35
f
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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 bum 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.
Bell 8 Associates, Inc.
36
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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
//Bell & Associates, Inc.
37
Disposal Option
Implementation Year
Cost per Ton
Lined Landfill
2014
$ 212 to $258
Incineration
2010
$ 219
Waste Export
2016
$ 209 to 289
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
6.3.7 Next Steps
Bell & Associates, Inc.
Table 17: Cost Per Ton for Disposal Options
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.
38
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
Bell & Associates, Inc.
39
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
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.
Bell & Associates, Inc.
June 2008
Photo 11: Suitable Composting Site
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
40
Material
Waste
Tons
Feedstock
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
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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
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
D Bell & Associates, Inc.
41
Description
Facility Upgrades
Quantity
Cost
Notes
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
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
/2Be11 & Associates, Inc.
Table 19: Composting Capital / Start — Up Expenses
ono
VS On
IN ow
vs. ems
Photo 13: Shelter area for the storage of finished compost
June 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.
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
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
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 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.
�Be118 Associates, Inc.
43
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
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.
�Be11 & Associates, Inc.
June 2008
44
f KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan
7.0 Conclusion
7.1 Alternative System Scenarios
June 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.
D Be118 Associates, Inc.
45
Z
t� Q w
to V c
' >
RI Q c co
0 2
t/?
2
N
C
O
= C
N ` 7
(o
.V) E
u) 0
u) 0)
�
a) N
C
E
C N
O
a ) )
(o
i
O a)
m a
E a) N
N •0
w�N
O — ( p
'O as U N
• a'a
co us E > a) 2 us
N
O U (o
C M .
u_ u
I-
U)
E
a)
(o
C
a)
a
U)
a)
7 N =p a) N
— 0 ' a L
LL ON> 7 W
1 .2 1 I C I
> ns
O
U
O L N
O N N
u)
�
L
C
a O
0 us
0 0
E L >�
O I a)
E'
.,
aS •
U m c co oco
ots
a
L
O
N
C c
Q c
L
o) . a
7 V
oY
- O
N
'> U a )
>..
_ U
o 2
N O O
O
a _ co a)
a.` C
co 0.
a
2
X >+
o m
N
N
U
2
a
U
rn
c
co O 0)
c
O+ O
0 L- i3
(0 N
(oc
a) o w l
U 2
I I
O)
C
0
L)
C
O
U
0
2
a)
0
3
C c
0
E
a. W
N
0
C
0
U
a)
0 0
0
a o
a
m IL
�
a N
co
U a
L
m
KIB Draft Solid Waste Plan June 2008
�Be11 & Associates, Inc.
47
BELL & Associates, Inc.
Solid Waste Plan Appendices
Kodiak Solid Waste Plan Appendices
A KIB Organizational Chart
B Waste Characterization Study
C Current Refuse Collection Methods
D Alaska Waste Contract and Rates
E Solid Waste Service Area Maps
F Threshold Recycling Services Contract
G Threshold Recycling Services Budget
H Threshold Recycling Services Letter
I Refuse Collection Alternatives
o Costs for Cart — based Residential Refuse Collection
J Costs for Processing Recyclables
K Composting
L Disposal Alternatives
o Landfilling on KIB
o Incineration
o Transport to Off — Island Landfill
Appendix A
KIB Organizational Chart
KFRC
Maintenance
Engineer
KFRC Receptionist —
Project Manager! _
Inspector
Project Assistant —
Maintenance
Worker
Engineering/Facilities
Director
Secretary III —
Borough Attorney
Environmental
Specialist
Baler /Landfill
Supervisor
Assistant Fire Chief
Baler Operator II —
Baler Operator I —
Baler Operator I —
Baler Operator I —
Baler Operator II —
Kodiak Island Borough
2007 -2008
Community
Development Director
— Associate Planner LRP
Electorate
Borough Mayor
Borough Assembly
Borough Manager
Associate Planner
Enforcement
— Drafting Technician
Secretary III
HR Officer!
Executive Assistant
Assessor
Property Appraiser —
Appraiser Technician —
Assessment Clerk I —
Assistant Clerk
Borough Clerk
Arts Council Director
General Accountant
Accounting Tech
Accounts Payable
Accounting Tech
Payroll
Revenue Accountant
Cashier
Childcare Assistance
Administrator
Secretary III
Deputy Clerk
Finance/MIS Director
MIS Programmer!
Analyst
MIS Operations
Supervisor
MIS Network
Administrator
Appendix B
Kodiak Waste Characterization Study
i
'.veal vuaro
Residential 244
I OIIIICIICa
132
1 %..urririlercial
Retail 548
I
vrner
Commercial 930
Residential 441
19
W
A
24
64
31
W
0
0
Q
27
p
3
13
0
0
0
N
O
N
32
N)
N
56
1 55
78
751
CD
86
1 191
491
151
1161
Cn
40,
270
294
1
180
56
22
40
172
247
128
101
N
0
15
22
19
J
J
241
16'
77
115
50
)
O
co
O
O
O
O)
23
pp
19
1
80
110
1 53
CJ1 CO
54
A
A
56
143
67
AND
.TE CO
TOTAL
GLASS
209
CO
p
A
A
56
108
67
O
0
O
O
35
O
CO
0 C71
31
14
37
85
358
129
1 7
34
18
16
N
W
1 34
28
O)
11
0
47
291
W
i
A
O
0
N
O
A
W
-
-
cc
m
O I •
■
W 1
V
01
CO
CO
W
0
(0
A
A
V
W
N CO
O
CO
f
J
v 0
O
N
O
0 CO
o C
N
V N
W
W
NJ
C)1
N
A ( � C
A _
.
O
(O 01
Co CO —
u. C71
(P
!
o
N 0)
N
V (A
m
CO
h
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
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:
Collection Cost is the contracted rate charged by AK Waste
Kodiak SW Plan Appendix C 1
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
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 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 4.33 + (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
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
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.
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
Appendix D
Alaska Waste Contract and Rates
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\Baler Facility \RFPs \Collections Contract 2006 \Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc
AGREEMENT FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
This Agreement, executed this D 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 ").
1. 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 community.
Collection in residential areas shall not occur prior to 7:00 a.m.
\\Dove\Departments\EE\Baler Facility \RFPs \Collections Contract 2006\Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc
2
Solid waste collected shall be the property of KIB, 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 (14) 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 15 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 \ERBaler Facility \RFPs \Collections Contract 2006 \Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc
3
• 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 of Emptying 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.doc
4
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 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, 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
5
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 dumpster 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 \EBBaler Facility \RFPs \Collections Contract 2006 \Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc
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
Contractor shall provide to K[B information by the 15 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 LandfilllBaler 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
8
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 K1B. 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 Landfill/Baler Facility when delivering solid wastes.
\ \Dove\Departments \EF\Baler Facility \RFPs \Collections Contract 2006 \Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc
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
Iost.
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.
KIB 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 \EF\Baler Facility \RFPs \Collections Contract 2006 \Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc
10
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.
ceroAj
Commercial Dumpster Service: Contractor will be paid for the monthly rental of residtial-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 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 and correspond with
\\Dove\Departments \EF\Baler Facility \RFPs \Collections Contract 2006 \Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc
11
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
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
• 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 Coverage: 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
Continuation of Coverage: 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\Baler Facility \RFPs \Collections Contract 2006 \Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc
15
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 \EF\Baler Facility \RFPs \Collections Contract 2006 \Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc
16
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 use 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
By:
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 ALASKA PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ANCHOR GE, LLC
Rick L. Gifford
Borough Manager
By:
ATTEST:
Bud Cassidy, Director
Engineering and Facilities
ov & M.vetVie/, CM c
E7Neilterr
Borough Clerk
By:
Bobby L. Cox
General Manager
s 711 OP c
\ \Dove \Departments \EF\Baler Facility \RFPs \Collections Contract 2006 \Solid Waste Collection Agreement May 2006.doc
18
•
•
Bid Schedule
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
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
•
•
B. ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, SITE VISIT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, BID SCHEDULE, AND BIDDER'S
STATEMENT
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:
#1 4/5/06 #2 4/7/06 #3 4/10/06 #4 4/12/06
Site Visit Acknowledgement:
Required Community Visit Acknowledgement:
• Person(s) Attending Visit: Bobby Cox
Jeff Riley
Caroll Mahoney
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.
Page 11 of 35
Dates of Required Visit:
Solid Waste Collection Services
for the
Kodiak Island Borough
4/7
, 2006
Title: General Manager
Sr Operations Manager
Title :Site Manager
Bid Item No. 3A
Residential Dumpsters located
between Landfill and Salonie
Creek
Dumpster
Capacity,
Cubic Yards
Bid: Monthly
Rental Fee;
$ /month each
dumpster
Bid: Fee to
empty and
deliver to
landfill, $ /tip
Option
Year 1
Option
Year 2
2.0 - 2.4
5.00
12.10
7.25/17.55
7.47/18.
2.5 - 2.9
5.00
15.20
7.25/22.04
7.47/22.
3.0 - 3.4
5.00
20.70
7.25/30.02
7.47/30.
3.5 - 3.9
5.00
20.70
7.25/30.02
7.47/30.
4.0 - 4.4
5.00
25.50
7.25/36.98
7.47/38.
4.5 - 4.9
5.00
25.50
7.25/36.98
7.47/38.
5.0 - 5.4
5.00
25.50
7.25/36.98
7.47/38.
5.5 - 5.9
5.00
25.50
7.25/36.98
7.47/38.
6.0 - 6.5
5.00
30.00
7.25/43.50
7.47/44.
Roll - off Containers
10
20.00
60.00 29.00/87.00
29.87/89
15
20.00
150.00 29.00/217.5029.87
/2
20
20.00
150.00 29.00/217.50
29.87/2
Bid Item No. 3B
Residential Dumpsters located
beyond Salonie Creek - includes
Chiniak
Capacity,
Cubic Yards
Bid: Monthly
Rental Fee;
$ /month each
dumpster
Bid: Fee to
empty and
deliver to
landfill, $ /tip
Option
Year 1
Option
Year 2
2.0 - 2.4
5.00
16.00
7.25/23.24 7.47/23.
2.5 - 2.9
5.00
20.00
7.25/29.00 7.47/29.
3.0 - 3.4
5.00
23.50
7.25/34.08 7.47/35.
3.5 - 3.9
5.00
23.50
7.25/34.08 7.47/35.
4.0 - 4.4
5.00
28.00
7.25/40.60 7.47/41.
4.5 - 4.9
5.00
28.00
7.25/40.60 7.47/41.
5.0 - 5.4
5.00
28.00
7.25/40.60.7.47 /41.
5.5 - 5.9
5.00
28.00
7.25/40.60 7.47/41.
6.0 - 6.5
5.00
35.00
7.25/50.75 7.47/52.
Roll - off Containers
10
20.00
200.00 29.00/290.00 29.87/2
15
20.00
200.00 29.00/290.00
29.87/2
29.87/2
20
20.00
200.00 29.00/290.00
Page 12 of 35
0 7
70
9 2
9 2
0 8
0 8
0 8
0 8
8 1
.61
24.03
24.03
9 0
89
10
10
8 2
8 2
2
2
2 7
8.70
98.70
98.70
Bid Item No. 4A D
Dumpster B
Bid: Monthly B
Bid: Fee to O
Option O
Option
2.0 - 2.4 5
5.00 1
12.10 '.25/17.55 7
7.47/18.0
2.5 - 2.9 5
5.00 1
15.20 7.25/22.01- 7
7.47/22.' 0
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
2
2
8
8
8
8
1
61
4.03
4.03
0
7
0
0
2
2
2
2
: 7
98.70
98.70
98.70
•
•
Page 13 of 35
2
2
8
8
8
8
1
61
4.03
4.03
0
7
0
0
2
2
2
2
: 7
98.70
98.70
98.70
Bid Item No. 9A
Construction and Demolition Wastes
(C &D) Services
Dumpster
Capacity,
Cubic
Yards
Bid: Monthly
Rental Fee;
$ /month each
dumpster
Bid: Fee to
empty and
deliver to
landfill, $ /tip
Option
Year 1
Option
Year 2
2.0 - 2.4
10.00
12.10 :4.50/17.55 14.94/18
2.5 - 2.9
10.00
15.20 1.4.50/22.04 14.94/22
3.0 - 3 . 4
10.00
16.90 :4.50/24.51 14.94/25
3.5 - 3 . 9
10.00
19.20 .4.50/27.84 14.94/2i
4.0 - 4.4
10.00
22.45 .4.50/32.55 14.94/3:
4.5 -4
10.00
24.10 .4.50/34.95 14.94/1
5.0 -5
10.00
25.50 :4.50/36.98 14.94/31
5.5 - 5 . 9
10.00
25.50 .4.50/36.98 14.94/3*
6.0 -6.5
10.00
30.00 _4.50/43.50 14.94/44
Roll - off Containers
10
40.00
100.00 58.00/145.00 59.741
15
40.00
160.00 58.00/232.00
59.744
59.744.
20
40.00
160.00 58.00/232.00
Bid Item No. 6
Bid: $ 10.00 per
Option Year 1
Option Year 2
Service to Home Business within the
Bid: $ 16.00 per
City of Kodiak
month each Home
Bid: $ 23.20
Bid: $ 23.90
Business
Bid Item No. 8
Monthly Fee for Lockable Lid on
Commercial Dumpster
Bid: $ 10.00 per
Option Year 1
Bid: $ 14.50
Option Year 2
Bid: $ 14.94
month
Bid: $ 65.00 per
Bid Item No. 7
Option Year 1
Option Year 2
Clean up around Residential
Bid: $ 65.00 per
Dumpsters
hour for labor and
equipment.
Bid: $ 94.25
Bid: $ 97.08
s
•
Page 14 of 35
.07
.70
.24
.68
.53
. 99
. 08
.08
.81
149.35
238.96
238.96
Bid Item No. 9B
Construction and Demolition Wastes
(C &D) Services — Beyond Salonie
Creek
Dumpster
Capacity,
Cubic
Yards
Bid: Monthly
Rental Fee;
$ /month each
dumpster
Bid: Fee to
empty and
deliver to
landfill, $ /tip
Option
Year 1
Option
Year 2
Roll - off Containers
10
40.00
200.00 58.00/290.00 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. 11
Roll — off Containers for Cardboard
Recycling
Bid: $ 20.00 per
Option Year 1
Bid: $ 29.00
Option Year 2
Bid: $ 29.87
month rental each unit
Bid: $ 65.00 per
Bid: $ 100.00 per
Option Year 1
Bid: $145.00
Option Year 2
Bid: $ 149.35
each pickup and tip at
Recycle Center
Bid: $ 97.08
Bid Item No. 12
Temporary Dumpster Delivery/Pick-
up Fee
Bid: $ 45.00
Option Year 1
Bid: $ 65.25
Option Year 2
Bid: $ 67.21
combination of delivery
and pick -up
Bid: $ 65.00 per
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
equipment
Bid: $ 94.25
Bid: $ 97.08
•
End of Bid Schedule
Page 15 of 35
298.70
298.70
298.70
Bid Item No.13A
Special Waste - Metal
Dumpster
Capacity,
Cubic
Yards
Bid: Monthly
Rental Fee;
$ /month each
dumpster
Bid: Fee to
empty and
deliver to
landfill, $ /tip
Option
Year 1
Option
Year 2
Roll - off Containers
2.0 -2.4
10.00
16.34
14.50/23.69 14.94/24
40.00
2.5 -2.9
10.00
20.52
14.50/29.75 14.94/3C
59.744
3.0 -3.4
10.00
22.82
14.50/33.09 14.94/34
3.5 - 3.9
10.00
25.92
14.50/37.58 14.94/31
4.0 -4.4
10.00
30.31
14.50/42.95 14.94/4!
4.5 -4.9
10.00
32.54
14.50/47.1.8 14.94/M
5.0 -5.4
10.00
34.43
1.4.50/49.92 14.94/5:
5.5 - 5.9
10.00
34.43
14.50/49.92 14.94/5:
6.0 -6.5
10.00
40.50 "
4.50/58.73 14.94/6(
Roll - off Containers
10
40.00
100.00
58.00/145.00 59.74,
15
40.00
187.00 58.00/271 15 59.74,
20
40.00
187.00 58.00/271.15 59.74,
Bid Item No. 13B
Special Waste - Metal
Beyond Salonie Creek
Dumpster
Capacity,
Cubic
Yards
Bid: Monthly
Rental Fee;
$ /month each
dumpster
Bid: Fee to
empty and
deliver to
landfill, $ /tip
Option
Year 1
Option
Year 2
Roll - off Containers
10
40.00
210.00 58.00/304.50 59.744
15
40.00
210.00 58.00/304.50 59.744
20
40.00
210.00 58.00/304.50
59.744
•
•
ADDENDUM #1- ATTACHMENT B
ADDITIONAL BID ITEMS
End of Bid Schedule
Addendum #1 - Attachment B Page 1 of 1
.40
.65
.08
.71
. 27
.60
.42
. 42
.49
149.35
279.28
279.28
313.64
313.64
313.64
Bid Item No.14
Dumpster
Bid: Monthly
Bid: Fee to
Option
Option
Bear Resistant Dumpsters
Capacity,
Cubic
Yards
Rental Fee;
$ /month each
dumpster
empty and
deliver to
landfill, $ /tip
Year 1
Year 2
4.0 - 4.4
36.00
28.00 52.20/40.60 53.77/41
4.5 - 4.9
40.00
28.00 58.00/40.60 59.74/41
5.0 - 5.4
40.00
28.00 58.00/40.60 59.74/41
5.5 - 5.9
40.00
28.00 58.00/40.60 59.74/41
•
•
End of Bid Schedule
ADDENDUM #2 — ATTACHMENT D
ADDITIONAL BID ITEMS
Addendum #2 - Attachment D Page 1 of 1
.82
.82
. 82
. 82
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
Rick L.) rd
Borou: anager
By:
Bud Cassidy tl' irector
Engineering & Facilities
By: a _
Bobby . Cox
Genera Manager
ATTEST:
Nova M. Javier, C
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 1, 2008 — JUNE 30, 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.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ALASKA PACIFIC
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ANCHORAGE, LLC
By:
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 ; no more than four (4) loads may
be delivered when KIB staff is not present.
Rick L. Gif
Borough anager
Date: ,5
By:
Date:
Woody Koning, Director
Engineering & Facilitie
By:
Date:
obby L. Cox
General Manager
ATTEST:
Nova M. Javier, C
Borough Clerk
7/
Appendix E
Solid Waste Service Area Map
urban map
Appendix F
Threshold Recycling Services Contract
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITNESSETH:
That the KIB and Contractor for the consideration hereinafter recited agree as follows:
THIS AGREEMENT made this day ofFei3Nd( , by and between the Kodiak Island Borough
(KIB) and Threshold Services, Inc. (Threshold), hereinafter called the Contractor.
1. Project. The Contractor agrees to perform all services necessary for the processing and shipment of recyclable
materials within the city and borough limits, as identified in the Contractor's proposal dated October 2006,
made part of this contract.
2. ,lob Commencement and Performance. The contractor will commence work on this project on the l ~r day of
0 uctov0. -200ite
7-
3. Project Manager. The project manager shall be the Director of Engineering and Facilities Department of the Kodiak
Island Borough or his designee.
4. Compensation. The Kodiak Island Borough agrees to pay to the Contractor as compensation for services under the
following payment schedule:
$9,000 per month, up to 30,0001bs; and
$ .15 per lb over 30,000.
5. Payment. All requests for payment shall be for work completed unless otherwise agreed to by KM and Threshold.
The Contractor shall provide any additional information to KIB which may be reasonable in support of any payment
request. Monthly invoices and shipment backup shall be delivered to KIB no later than the end of the month and
shall be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice unless KIB shall notify the Contractor in writing of
its reason for not making payment of the sums requested. A service charge of one and one half percent (1.5 %) per
month may be charged on balances not paid by KIB within the terms stated above.
6. Indemnification. The Contractor specifically obligates himself to the Kodiak Island Borough in the following
respects to wit: (i) to indemnify the Kodiak Island Borough against, and save it harmless from any and all claims,
suits, or liability, on account of any negligent act or omission of the Contractor, or any of his officers, agents,
employees or servants; (ii) to pay for all materials furnished and services performed under this Agreement.
7. Insurance. (a) Contractor shall at all times, at its own expense, keep in force the following described insurance for
protection against the claims of employees or other persons, insuring both the Contractor and the Kodiak Island
Borough against liability that my accrue against them or either of them in connection with Contractor's performance
under this assignment;
(1) Insurance in at least the required statutory amounts, covering claims under Worker's Compensation,
disability benefits and other similar employee benefit acts; and
(2) Public Liability Insurance covering bodily injury, death, and property damage with combined single limit of
not less than $1 million.
\ \Dove \Departments\EF\Con tracts \Threshold Contracts\Professional Services Agreement12.07.06.doc1
Page I of 5
(b) If Contractor fails to comply with the insurance requirements of this Agreement, the Kodiak Island Borough may
terminate the Agreement with ten (10) days written notice;
(c) Contractor covenants to maintain all insurance policies required in this Agreement for the period of time in which
a person may commence a civil action as prescribed by the applicable statues of limitations. The coverage required
by this Agreement shall over all claims arising in connection with the performance of Contractor under this
Agreement, whether or not asserted during the term of this Agreement and even though judicial proceedings may not
be commenced until after the expiration of this Agreement;
(d) If Contractor is self - insured the Kodiak Island Borough will require a statement to that effect;
(e) Certificate of Insurance for liability and errors and omissions insurance, especially for Contractor acting as agent
(n /a if self insured); and
(f) Kodiak Island Borough must be name as "Additionally Insured ".
8. Claims. (a) Partial payments for work performed under this Agreement will equal the value of the work done by the
Contractor at the agreed price, less the sum of previous payments as provided above; provided that the Contractor is
not indebted to the Kodiak Island Borough or anyone else for professional services, fringes, taxes, supplies, materials,
equipment, rental or other proper charges against the services covered by this Agreement. The Contractor will, upon
completion of the Scope of Services and before final payment, furnish the Kodiak Island Borough with reasonable
evidence that all services, labor, materials and equipment have been paid for in full. (b) The Contractor must notify
the Kodiak Island Borough or its agent of any and all claims for costs in excess of the contract amount within ten (10)
days of incurring such cost.
9. Changes and Modifications. (a) The Kodiak Island Borough may, at any time by written order signed by the Project
Manager of the Kodiak Island Borough, make changes in the specifications for services hereunder or in the project
schedule. Any additions or reductions to the amount of this Agreement resulting from authorized changes whether
initiated by Contractor or the Kodiak Island Borough must be agreed upon in writing by both parties hereto, subject
to the contract and sale provisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Code. (b) The cost or credit to the Kodiak Island
Borough resulting from a change in the services or in the project schedule shall be determined as follows:
(1) by mutual acceptance of a lump sum properly itemized and supported by sufficient substantiating data to
permit evaluation; or
(2) by the hourly fees stated in the Contract Documents or subsequently agreed upon.
10. Prosecution of Work. The Contractor shall prosecute the work in a prompt and diligent manner whenever such
work or any part of it becomes available, in order to promote the general progress of the entire Project. Upon
written request by the Kodiak Island Borough, the Contractor shall furnish to the Kodiak Island Borough such
evidence as the Kodiak Island Borough may require relating to the ability of the Contractor to complete the Project.
11. Delays. In the event the Contractor's performance is delayed or interfered with by acts of the Kodiak Island
Borough, or any other justifiable cause beyond the control of the Contractor, he may request an extension of time for
the performance of same.
12. Approvals. The Contractor shall obtain and pay for all permits, licenses and official inspections made necessary by
his work, and shall comply with all laws, ordinances and regulations bearing on his work and the conduct thereof.
13. Stop Work. (a) If the Contractor fails to correct defective services as required herein or persistently fails to carry
out the project in accordance with the Contract Documents, the Kodiak Island Borough, by a written order signed
personally or by an agent may order the Contractor to stop work, or any portion thereof, until the cause for such order
has been eliminated; however, this right of the Kodiak Island Borough to stop work shall not give rise to any duty on
\ \Dove \Departments\EF\Contracts \Threshold Contracts\Professional Services Agreement 12.07.06.doc2
Page 2 of 5
the part of the Kodiak Island Borough to exercise this right for the benefit of the Contractor or any other person or
entity. (b) If the Contractor defaults or neglects to carry out the work in accordance with the Contract Documents
and fails within fourteen (14) days after receipt of written notice from the Kodiak Island Borough to commence and
continue correction of such default or neglect with diligence and promptness, the Kodiak Island Borough may, after
seven (7) days following receipt by the Contractor of an additional written notice and without prejudice to any other
remedy it may have, make good such deficiencies but use its best efforts to mitigate the cost of curing such default.
In such case an appropriate change order shall be issued deducting from the payments then or thereafter due the
Contractor the cost of correcting such deficiencies, including compensation for the Project Manager's additional
services made necessary by such default, neglect or failure.
14. Payments Withheld. (a) The Kodiak Island Borough may withhold payments from the Contractor for any of the
following reasons:
(1) The application for payment misstates the amount of services completed;
(2) Defective services not remedied;
(3) Third party claims filed or reasonable evidence indicating probable filing of such claims;
(4) Failure of the Contractor to make payments properly to consultants and subcontractors or for professional
services, materials or equipment;
(5) Reasonable evidence that the project cannot be completed for the unpaid balance of the contract sum;
(6) Reasonable evidence that the Project will not be completed within the contract time; or
(7) Persistent failure to perform the services in accordance with the contract documents.
15. Time. (a) Definitions:
1. unless otherwise provided, the contract time is the period of time allotted in this Agreement for substantial
completion of the project.
2. the date of commencement of the project is the date established in this Agreement as set forth above.
3. the date of substantial completion of the project or designated portion thereof is the date certified by the
Project Manager when the project is sufficiently complete, in accordance with the Contract Documents, so
the Kodiak Island Borough can utilize the project or designated portion thereof for the use for which it is
intended.
4. the date of final completion is the date that the Kodiak Island Borough certifies either orally or in writing
that the project is finished.
5. the term "day ", as used in the Contract Documents, shall mean calendar day unless otherwise specifically
designated.
a. all time limits set forth herein are of the essence in this Agreement.
16. Final Completion and Final Payment. When project is complete as determined by the Kodiak Island Borough, the
Kodiak Island Borough will cause a final payment to issue and make payment to the Contractor within thirty (30)
days from the date that the project was certified as finally complete on the conditions set forth below.
17. Termination and Default. (a) If the Contractor is adjudged a bankrupt entity, or if he makes a general assignment
for the benefit of his creditors, or if a receiver is appointed on account of his insolvency, or if he refuses or fails,
except in cases for which extension of time is provided, to supply enough properly skilled professionals or proper
services, or if he fails to make prompt payment to subcontractors or for materials or labor, or persistently disregards
laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or orders of any public authority having jurisdiction, or otherwise is guilty of a
\\ Dove \Departments\EF\Contracts \Threshold Contracts\Professional Services Agreement12.07.06.doc3
Page 3 of 5
violation of a provision of this Agreement, then the Kodiak Island Borough may, without prejudice to any right or
remedy and after giving the Contractor seven days' written notice, terminate the employment of the Contractor and
take possession of all materials and documents prepared by the Contractor in connection with the Project, and may
finish the work by whatever method it may deem expedient. In such case, the Contractor shall not be entitled to
receive any further payment until the work is finished. (b) If the unpaid balance of the contract sum exceeds the costs
of finishing the Project, including compensation for the Project Contractor's additional services made necessary
thereby, such excess shall be paid to the Contractor. If such costs exceed the unpaid balance, the Contractor shall pay
the difference to the Kodiak Island Borough. The amount to be paid to the Contractor or to the Kodiak Island
Borough, as the case may be, shall be certified by the Project Manager, upon application, and this obligation for
payment shall survive the termination of the Contract.
18. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned by operation of law or through negotiated Agreement by the
Contractor without the written permission of Kodiak Island Borough. However, subcontracting portions of the
Project to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be considered an assignment for the purposes of this
Agreement.
19. Waiver. Failure of the Kodiak Island Borough or the Contractor to enforce a specific section of this Agreement
against one another or to enforce a particular demand of the Kodiak Island Borough or the Contractor made pursuant
to the terms of this Agreement shall not effect a waiver of any of the Kodiak Island Borough's or the Contractor's
rights and powers as set forth in this Agreement.
20. Written Notice. Written notice shall be deemed to have been duly served if delivered in person to the individual or
member of the firm or entity or to an officer of the corporation for whom it was intended, or if delivered at or sent by
registered or certified mail to the last business address known to him who gives the notice.
21. Integration. The Agreement and the referenced documents represent the entire and integrated agreement between
the parties hereto and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral.
22. Notice. Written notice pursuant to this Contract shall be deemed delivered to either party if hand delivered to a
superintendent or officer of a party or mailed to the parties at the following addresses:
Kodiak Island Borough
Office of the Manager
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615 -6398
Threshold Services, Inc.
323 Carolyn Street, Suite 101
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Attn: Matt Jamin
23. Kodiak Island Borough Furnished Data. Kodiak Island Borough will provide to the Contractor all data in Kodiak
Island Borough's possession relating to the Contractor's services on the Project. The Contractor will reasonably rely
upon the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of the information provided by Kodiak Island Borough.
24. Reuse of Project Documents. All reports, documents and other deliverables of the Contractor, whether in hard copy
or in electronic form, are instruments of service for this Project, whether the Project is completed or not. Reuse on
another project, change, or alteration by Kodiak Island Borough or by others acting through or on behalf of Kodiak
Island Borough of any such instruments of service without the written permission of the Contractor will be at Kodiak
Island Borough's sole risk.
25. Litigation Assistance. The Scope of Services does not include costs of the Contractor for required or requested
assistance to support, prepare, document, bring, defend or assist in litigation undertaken or defended by Kodiak
Island Borough. All such Services required or requested of the Contractor by Kodiak Island Borough, except for suits
or claims between the parties to this Agreement, will be reimbursed as mutually agreed, and payment for such
\\ Dove\ Departments \EF \Contracts \Threshold Contracts\Professional Services Agreement 12.07.06.doc4
Page 4of5
26. Certification. The Contractor certifies that it is not debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment or declared
ineligible for work with the State of Alaska. Contractor shall notify the Kodiak Island Borough within five (5)
working days of any such action brought against the Contractor during the term of this Agreement.
The terms of this Agreement shall be from(ci i 106 to (t) I 30 , 208'-7'
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
By:
By:
Services shall be in accordance with Section 5, unless and until there is a finding by a court or arbitrator that the
Contractor's sole negligence caused Kodiak Island Borough's damage.
r
Rick L. Gifford, Borough
Charles E. Cassidy, Director
Engineering and Facilities Department
ATTEST:
Nov: M. Javier, CMC
B • .ugh Clerk
OVirt• 04J-624.„
B
\\Dove\Departments\EF\Contracts \Threshold Contracts \Professional Services Agreement12.07.06.doc5
Page 5 of 5
CONTRACTOR
Title I #I- ___
Appendix G
Threshold Recycling Services Budget
Ws
N N
m �
Q dl
ON
Li b
sea,
J V
• (NJ
a
1 al/ fq 1 pull
Its at7
I!p.a.
3 N OJ i
N N
W
° 8`r ° 000 g 0 0 80 OOS 1O N N v J
S� /1 y W O N
° $ 8 0 0 8 0 1 8 8 0 8 8 N O S N 8 g 8 k?
480000 si n §gg tl N g N J Wto �.
p �1 p p N pp� � $ 8 �„ N fi1 8 �1'/
° g 8°° 0 g 8 8 g O Q O S S N N N V 8 J W
41 N pppp�� p J
°g8 °O` 6J Np g S
roSa
00(0 8 NO S 8N 8g8N
° 8 8 ° 0 0 0 41 D O O g 0 g8
8 BNNW 8 (u
° ° S 6 W `" O Q O O O 8 N 0 N N m 1
Ei8 ° °ogggi88 §88 (71 s giggig
81 ggg Ng g gg aig
°" 11yy 8 °° O b (S 0 0 0 8 a v N V W
((��1NN({��q S�p1 Q m � pp 88
°gS°�0041 Oii OO V OO Jb N N CO W 1
y�pp�lo H 8 S w B ON
°00 °O004WiQi10§ §gg V�' N N m V41
a 8 S N W N
alt.gitigg ° m°gt °g°gigg$
E
m
aa
Ri
a
'OM
C
0
ii
Appendix H
Threshold Recycling Services Letter
Chris Bell
Bell & Associates, Inc.
1628 NW 33rd Way
Camas, WA 98607
Dear Chris:
Tbres&o1a Services Inc.
323 Carolyn Street Suite I01
Koaia( AK 99615
Pone: (907) 486 -6024
Fax: (907) 486-6112
March 27, 2008
Thanks for your recent call (and the prior letter to Rick) relating to
information on Threshold Services' current costs. A subcommittee of our board met last
night to discuss how we might best assist you in your efforts on behalf of the borough to
determine how to deal with solid waste.
As you know, our current model uses a significant component of
challenged employees to handle recycled materials, in collection, sorting, processing
and shipping. Indeed, one of our avowed goals is to provide work and training for
persons with disabilities. About 15% of our current personnel costs are for challenged
employees.
We understand that your principal interest is in projecting, from the current
costs per unit which Thresholds charges the borough, to what the costs would be if a
substantially larger recyclable stream were diverted from the land fill. Our best
judgment is that while we might be able to move twice as much material through our
current plant, we certainly could not use that facility to process the more that 10 times
the current amount of recyclable materials that could be diverted. Instead, we would
have to develop a different facility, with substantial more automation that is currently
involved in our processing. We also assume that, while we would want to continue
to use our current challenged employees in any larger operation, the percentage of
personnel costs associated with their efforts would be substantially smaller.
Thus we don't think that projecting from current costs is a very helpful task
because the approach would be substantially different. We certainly would hope to
achieve significant economies of scale with a larger, more mechanized operation.
Nor are we sure that the "Horizon connection" would continue to be
available if our throughput increased dramatically. Right now Horizon charges us $475
per van to move product from our plant to Smurfit. But we understand that we are
receiving that rate in part because of Horizon's commitment to assist the community
with recycling, but also in part to assist us in providing a work environment for disabled
March 27, zoo8
Page 2 of 2.
workers. We are not sure that if we had 4 or 10 times the amount of throughput, that
rate would continue to be available.
We continue to hope that Threshold can perform a significant role for the
benefit of the borough's citizens and for our employees as a more efficient solid waste
plan is developed.
cc:
Edward Mahoney, President
Carol Tracey, Vice President
Ellen Simeonoff, Treasurer
Rick Pillans, Plant Manager
Maggie Rocheleau, Accountant
MDJ /ker
S: \WP\CLIENTS\4046\024 Correspondence\Ietter to chris bell.wpd
Sincerely,
THRESHOL ICES, INC.
Matthew D. Jamin
Secretary
Appendix I
Refuse Collection Alternatives
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 tubs'
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.
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.
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) 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.
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
Total Estimated Collection Rate
$ 27.52
$ 29.52
$ 27.47
Y
Labor Cost per Hour
$70
$35
$35
G
Truck Cost per Hour
$17
$19
$22
H
Truck Op Cost per Hour
$35
$40
$45
Q
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
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
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
0: 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 0, Q, S or U, and V
X: Sales tax on the sum of items 0, Q, S or U, V, and W
Y: Sum of items 0, 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.
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)
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
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.
0
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
0
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
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.
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
1: 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
0: 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 0, Q, R and S
U: Sales tax on sum of items 0, Q, R, S, and T
V: Sum of items 0, 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.
Appendix J
Costs for Processing Recyclable Materials
ca
re
o
co
co
in
o.
in
o
0
a.
l a
a.
o.
%017
I E176`L
96Z` l.
9E6
190'£
I.170'Z
9EE`E
9 $
co
OE
9Z
99
(017)
6 L
261,932
300,260
83
170'0$ 1
90 1
35%
90L`Z
EEL`L
668
96E`E
99L'1.
616'Z
L$
co
17 9
9Z
99
coo
178
245,441
262,728
73
170'
L8 1
%O£
L9Z`Z
ZL6
Z0L
LL9`E
L£9`L
Z09`Z
8$
017
9Z
99 I
(017)
Z6
228,949
225,195
63
90
89•Z$ 1
%SZ
1 6 1717`2
86L
989
9178'£
L9Z`
990'Z
06$
617
9Z
99
(017)
906
211,276
184,972
51
90'0$ j
09'Z$ 1
%OZ
1.69'Z
8179
8917
1 Z80`t
OZ0' L
999'1.
ZL$
co
09
9Z
99
(017)
L LL
195,966
150,130
42
90
6Z'Z$ 1
'Yogi
£9L'Z
9917
LSE
L££`17
99L
1 692' L
96$
op
08
g Z
99
(017)
£t6
179,475
112,598
31
L 0'0$
0 vZ$
%06
91. 6
1729
I KZ
269`17
01.9
1799
17Z$
ZL
OZL
9Z
99
(017)
961.
162,983
75,065
21
01. 0$
66' L$
%S
LLO`E
I Z9L
I LLL
L178
99Z
L617
917$
17Z
017Z
g Z
99
(o17)
69£
146,492
37,533
10
8 L'0$
LL'L$
89L`Z
869`9
17617
%0
Z01:9
89L`Z
6EZ'E
17617
Z06`9
000'02$
$10,000
000'00 L$
9Z$
00Z` 6$
ZZ
(017)$
Residential Customers
Projected Residential Tons
Commercial Customers
Projected Commercial Tons
Diversion Percentage
Residential Customers
Estimated Residential SW Tons
Projected Curbside Recycling Tons
Annual Pounds per Resident
Commercial Customers
Estimated Commercial SW Tons
Projected Commercial Rec. Tons
Total Projected Recycling Tons
Processing Costs
Annual Compactor Cost (fixed)
Compactor Annual R &M (fixed)
(pexg);soo luawdlnb3 vs A }Illoej
Processing Cost per Ton (variable)
Shipping @ $1,200 per Container
Material Tons per Container
Material Value per Ton
Per Unit Processing Costs
Compactor per Ton
Compactor R &M Cost per Ton
Facility Cost per Ton
Processing Cost
I
Shipping Cost per Ton
Material Value per Ton
Total Processing Cost per Ton
Total Material Processing Cost
Avoided Disposal Cost @ $90 ton
Added Landfill Life (in days) per Year
Recycling Cost per pound
Monthly Recycling cost per resident
'
c000
wLLO
2_
- YJ2z
OaOQu)F -D> X>-N
ca
re
o
co
co
in
o.
in
o
0
a.
l a
a.
o.
73 co
c a)
0 CD CU
c. (1) c
0)
CD 0 a)
0 c L
a
N c) a
O O
- c ` ^
> u' 'a 1
I() o a
c c Cl)
0 -p
Cu 0
c
c v)
a) a� >, o
a) c7) 4 - ' c D
.n^ 6-••• — o
c\I � c o
in >,_ c X
X
- 0 Q G) O a) C7
a� 4 c 0 E c
Tx w c O a) N ^ .O N° )^
N o � c �(� c 0- a N0
E U a)
N O •c0-) a) O O > c O C
N E •` o cu 0 ) 0 U O •. 0 "
a) co O c O E O- p "-
L U
N o E U N o = U Ov � a ° ^��
O "O a)
— rn
0. c O a) N U
y O O L 0 O - > 2
- CO 0 C O U O C U V
= a CD U L a) 0 - o �, a 0 c0 N a)
° mo w E > c c o c ° CO
o f O 8 r aa) U O N �O >' a) a) C
>, a) U c c N N y 0 c0 V N c‘ _O O d
- O a) 0 y O c0 O 'O N >, � a a) O a
c .c E a) +-+ O -, O >, V 3 Q c (0
o c -_ �� a c v ' 3 :c. a) 4- 2
0 co 175 U5 °a >o 0 o0 _v >y E>,>
a� v •c ai O v (7) x) _o >,
~ o E ac co E °- c c E-o > >, T c'v.° ?U _ -a-0
o Et_a) a) c 10�oc°) CD -1 :)
N n E_ °�`�- 6 E o o a ° i 4 - ' 0 E � � _ > a as
O L 0. u) U N a) .
o N N C E` N Q .c N • N p ' � O •d9 � v N "a D w+
E c a E 7 L O ` - O a o -p p O c c c> g
8 >' o? E a) ° p _ v • Q O N cco to o > a) N ++ O o O E
a) ncaa E ° o a) c cam E " v E.S a�)r- a� a) c o aa c
U c 8 v U _c No L ( a U o c (1) N o °o O4- E o a. _ .�
0 E ° ° c � _ cam � 76 --....0 0 ,„,,4_.„. (7) .,-_
c
0
�� 112 'a n, ca a� —° C0-8 E o ho 0 c L ' Wi t _ c°) ) 7 8 c)
c a cu in 0,2 � ' � o a a - ) a -� o ° � ° ( 2 ) -o '• n
= CO -12 +'a� c ° :c) . r acoLQ a) a)to
0 co o 0 8 c U L m +. o a) -a a) E ° 8 CU E a m r) ai U
N ° a) a N .2 .o V + U U as O ° O `' U - a ) a ' o ' O o c
T _a Z ° v U i � 0 CO ° a c i o a) ° a a ° a aa >,
L o coo L =cE•c� ° a0E o .2Tu aU
ce
a c > � E ¢ > Q U� ac a n ��� � �
1 r0Ua iii ii6 2_.:-; YLi 2driar iiii 5 X-N
1 INTRODUCTION
Appendix K: Composting
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 Tess
prevalent than yard waste composting, it a useful alternative to either land applying or
incinerating biosolids. Composting of municipal solid waste (MSW) is even Tess
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.
KIB Solid Waste Plan
Appendix J: Composting 1
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
KIB Solid Waste Plan
Appendix J: Composting 2
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.
KIB Solid Waste Plan
Appendix J: Composting 3
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
KIB Solid Waste Plan
Appendix J: Composting 4
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.]
KIB Solid Waste Plan
Appendix J: Composting 5
Figure 1. Typical Process Flow Diagram for the Composting of MSW
Manual Removal
of Bulky Materials
Screening with
Trommel (C)
1 Conveyor System
Plastic Bag
Breaker (A)
1 Conveyor System
Conveyor System
I Conveyor System
KIB Solid Waste Plan
Appendix J: Composting
Bulky Items and
Cardboard
Manual removal of
recyclables (B)
1
Paper, Glass,
Plastic, and Metals
Residual Waste to
the landfill
Shredding (D)
1
Magnetic
Separation
1
Recoverable Metals
Compost to Market (F)
6
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
KIB Solid Waste Plan
Appendix J: Composting 7
Appendix L:
Kodiak Disposal Alternatives
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options
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
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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 2
• 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 Tined 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;
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 3
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:
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 4
• 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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 5
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
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 6
• 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
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 7
• 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 Tined landfill would provide up to 6 years of operating capacity before lateral expansion into a
new Tined 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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 8
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
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 9
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
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
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 10
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
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
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 11
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' x945'x 1012'x919';
• 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 Tined 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:1 V)
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
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 12
Site 1
Figure 3: Overview of the Kodiak Landfill looking south
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).
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 13
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 Tined 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 21s,currently leased to the VFW un$I 2027
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 14
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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 15
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 Iandfilled. 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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 16
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.
How are materials separated prior to burning?
Figure 1: KIB Incinerator
• 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:
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 17
• 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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 18
1 6
,a
a) --.
c d
'3 c
c
L cif
as0
0Q
1
0 N
0t
V
0
E -
a)
t
0
co
Of
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."
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 20
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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 21
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 Tined 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 (0 & 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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 22
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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 23
• 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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 24
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,
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 25
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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 26
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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 27
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
0
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
Table 1
Projected Incineration Disposal Cost for Kodiak
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
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 28
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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 29
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
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 30
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.
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
Figure 1: The Barging Process
the cycle begins again.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 31
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)
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 32
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:
Respectfully,
?a 9, ier
W. J. Miller
Safety Officer
Alaska Marine Highway 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."
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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 33
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.Qov
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 bares 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.
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options
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.
34
Samson Tug & Barge Contact Information:
Bill Ludwig
Sales, Samson Tug & Barge
Phone: 206.812.3429; E -mail: biWsamsontuq.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: crewdsonBl @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
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 35
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
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
Appendix L: Kodiak Disposal Options 36
o
f
c s-
cv
c E
co
LIJ
co La CO
N O c .r
c U n
U N
0 O N 0 C 0
r c _ 13
N 4- 0 (0 O a)
cn E N O 1:2*
U , c
( L . t0 c L
< F-
N
L
I—
C 3
O 0
ti
• c
•c 0
U t,
c a.
0
O u)
co
C L
O
c _
(0 O
- L
L 4•
.�-. U
O O
O
4-.
(0 v)
E Ea
—
±2
(0 N
c _c
(a "
w�
as
(o
- u)
a- U
N 'E
4 • N
co w
3 �
L c
a) '5
v c
u) (o
c .c
O
U O
O • C
•D G)
• t
E �'U
co
o 2
CC H c
SHIPPING QUOTATION Quote Number:
*Rate does NOT apply to hazardous shipments.
—r l,.J 47 A r-3 C.z• ams — F∎[ !�
Chris Bell
Solid Waste Management
SEATTLE TERMINAL
6361 1st Ave South
Seattle, WA 98108
PHONE: 360.326.8937
FAX:
EMAIL: solidwaste @comcast.net
Alaskans Serving Alaskans
www.samsontug.com
Page 1
Seattle
Date: 06/28/2007
By: Bill Ludwig
B1L6888
Origin Port: Kodiak Destination Port:
Project / Bid Name: Quote Date (09/14/07) Shipper / Consignee:
Booking Number: Est. Ship Date:
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.
Description of Terms, Rates Offered, Etc.
Description of Items Weight/Qty Rate Rate Type Totals
*Municipal Solid Waste
Shipper Owned 48' Open Top Containers
27 Ton Minimum /48' Open Top Container 27 $80.00 TON $2,160.00
Current fuel surcharge .185 $2,160.00 PCT $399.60
TOTAL: $2,559.60
-Rate is subject to the fuel surcharge in effect at the time of shipment.
-Rate is based on Shipper Owned/Shipper Load & Count 48' Open Top Containers with Tarps.
- Shipper must Noe the containers to prevent leakage — subject to Carrier's approval,
-Rate includes 1 -free spot per container within 10 -miles of the Kodiak city snits (road legal loads only).
-Rate apples to the dock only in Seattle.
-Rate includes 3-days free time in Seattle._then daffy storage charges will apply.
- Maximum 54,000 pounds product weight per container.
- Shipments are subject to road weight restrictions.
-Total charges are based on the above Nsted dimensions.
- Samson services Kodiak at least twice per month year rvund...weekfy service is a real possibi*ty in the near future.
- Shipments are subject to space availability on the barge.
Hello Chris—note that this rate includes roundtriip service, local Kodiak drayage services, terminal trawling, and wharfage
charges. We can address the purchasing and positioning of equipment to handle the 48' containers in Kodiak in conjunction
with a multi year contract. Anyway—please contact me to discuss these shipments in further detail—thank you.
Bill Ludwig x 3021 bili@samsontug.com
TELEPHONE CONTACT
voice 206.767.7820
toll free 800.331.3522
facsimile 206.767.5358
SHIPPING QUOTATION
Chris Bell
Solid Waste Management
Origin Port: Kodiak
Project / Bid Name: Quote Date (09/14/07)
Booking Number:
`Rate does NOT apply to hazardous shipments.
SEATTLE TERMINAL
6361 1st Ave South
Seattle, WA 98108
PHONE: 360.326.8937
FAX:
EMAIL: solidwaste @comcast.net
Destination Port:
Shipper / Consignee:
Est. Ship Date:
Quote Number:
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.
Description of Terms, Rates Offered, Etc.
Description of Items Weight/Qty Rate Rate Type Totals
`Municipal Solid Waste
Shipper Owned 48' Open Top Containers
27 Ton Minimum /48' Open Top Container 27 $80.00 TON $2,160.00
Current fuel surcharge .185 $2,160.00 PCT $399.60
-Rate is subject to the fuel surcharge in effect at the time of shipment
- Rate is based on Shipper OwneddShipper Load & Count 48' Open Top Containers with Tarps.
- Shipper must fine the containers to prevent leakage...subject to Carrier's approval.
-Rate includes 1 -free spot per container within 10 -miles of the Kodiak city Uanits (road legal bads only).
-Rate ixiudes delivery in Anchorage.
-Rate includes 3-days free time in Seward. »then daily storage charges w1M apply.
- Maximum 54,000 pounds product weight per container.
- Shipments are subject to road weight restrictions.
-Total charges are based on the above listed dimensions.
- Samson services Kodiak at least twice per month year round...weekty service is a possOiNty in the near future.
- Shipments are subject to space avty on the barge.
Hello Chris...the rate from Kodiak to Anchorage is the same as the rate from Kodiak to Seattle. The rate includes roundtrip
service, local Kodiak drayage services, terminal handling, and wharfage charges. We can address the purchasing and
positioning of equipment to handle the 48' containers in Kodiak in conjunction with a multi year contract. Anyway...please
contact me to discuss these shipments in further detal...thank you.
Rill 1 ivlwin v 1,117 1 hillailcusmonnhin rnm
Alaskans Serving Alaskans
www.samsontug.com
Page 1
Anchorage
Date: 06/28/2007
By: Bill Ludwig
BIL6888
TOTAL: $2,559.60
TELEPHONE CONTACT
voice 206.767.7820
toll free 800.331.3522
facsimile 206.767.5358