Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0266.095• ® City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM, CITY !o[A."jAGER DEPARTMENT: PubHc Works DATE: May I!!, 1995 CMR:266:9S SlTBJEer, SMaRT STATION UPDATE REPORT iN BRIEF This is an infonnational report and ""luire<; 00 action b; Council It pr"vid.. ... Council with an update on contract activltie; at the SMaRT Station. The City of Sunnyvale and National Recovety Technologies, Inc. have tentatively rea<:hed ~ negotiated settlement lOr acceptance ofNRT's installation ofma!eriaIs recQvety equipment at the SU!l!lyvale Materials Recovety ond Transfer Station, whick will he presented 10 the SUnnpak Counct1 on May 23, 1995. POLICY iMPJ.JCATlQNS This report does not contain any change I<:l existing policies. BACKt'rROUNP laMarcl! 1993,the Sunnyvale City Council selo.'"Ied W.,,1ern Waste IndllSlrics (Western) is the opera!"," of the SMaRT Station. lbe Sunnyvale agreement with Western is lOr National Recovery Techoologies, Ioc. INRT) I<) provide the materials teCQ\'''}' equipment lOr the SMaRT Station. The contract provided for an Acceptance Test, measuring factors such as hourly Ihroughpul, equipment-specific materials recovery rates, and an ",'",all fac;);ty materials recovery rate 10 be perfurmed 00 the NRT insta/latioo after it was mecbanically =plele, The results of the Acceptance Test would determine whe1her or not Sunnyvale "''OS to accept the equipment. NRT has & Facility Roc",',,}' Guarantee of >0 percent which measured the overall recovery achieved by the entire SMaRT Station during. multi-<lay rest, and allowed !Or several options should it not be initially achi<:ved. NRT's op6oos inciuded retesting. ietllnll the results stand but paying SunnY"aIe & rebate 011 the purohase prke, and soo",ing that the romposition oftbe refuse entering the SMaRT Statioo significantly varied from the composition information provl<led by the City and upoll which the Westemil'.'RT prOjlOSa! was based. , "-. - . " -"' . , h&<l.n ~", - .~ ,-' "--:: :; -' '';'~.' -. o In November 1994,CiIy 0( Palo Allo staff provided Cooncil with. sta!\lS 00 the SmaRT Station, (CMR:52!:94} inciU<iing •• taff r."art from Sunny",le which discussed the NRT Acceptance Test. During the testing, NRT caJled to the attention 0( Sunnyvale its belief that the waste being processed did not cootai 0 the targeted rccy dable materials in tbe quantities pre-.ioosly assumed. (Please not< that .. 1ille the contract foe NRT equipment specified. 30 percent recovery rate, based upon the 1990 waste stre= !IS a.fjUSled for cbanges in waste stream composltion, Western Waste guaranteed 2S petCe!lt recovery, !IS adju:.1ed for changes in !be waste stream. This Western Waste guarantee is theltey target OIn<-'WlI foe overall SMaRT Station perfocmance.) In Iune 1994, the Cily 0( Sunnyvale couducted • waste COI!1p05itioo .nalysis ill cooperation with NRT. The purpose o(fi'is analysis "'as to quantify the percentages o(var'oous materials in the waste arriving ill the SMART Station, Sl> thai NRT'. facility recovery guarantee could be ll<fJU51ed to account for ma1erial changes in the waste stream "ver the past four ye",,-1be results of!be test showed. significant overall reduction in the a,,,,,unt <>f"targeted" recyclaNe materials in the waste. "'When ~'RT's guarantee is adj1JSted to account foc increased scurce separation """Ycling. !be Acceptance Test is shown to have achieved the equivalent 0( 243 percent for the facility ,,",overy test The ('ootracI between Sunnyvale and NRT pro'"'&" that if Jess ilion 30 percent recovery is achieved by the Facility Recovery Guarantee 1eSt, Illen NRT must pay ~ financial penalty. lbe lest achieved the equinlenl of 243 percent (af'.er adjustment fur increased source separatioo recycling). This is Jess tllao the 30 perce'! gua>",,-,tee, aJld l'iRT agreed to a fin.ancial penalty to reJlect this fae!. A comprebensive wa;1e composition study is scheduled '" be per".ormed under the tenns 0( the Wes!ena contract, and the resull5 0( this s!udy will form the basis of <fISCussions between SllImyvale and Western as In whether an ad';ustment <>f Western's 2S percent gu2A-'I1ce is justified, and if so, wbat the new recycling guarantee should be. A Reqcest fur Proposals fur this study has been jointly iwled by Western and the City 0( Sunnyvale, and the wod is anticipated \0 be done during J=e 1995. Sunnyv~ staff is rec.ommencfmg 10 their Council an approval 10 ao<:ept the project and approve • resolution 0( acceptaoce. These acticns will close out !be NRT contract FISCAl. !WAC{ Th= is 00 fiscal impact 10 the City of Palo AIIo at this time. v,'hen the comprebensive Waste Composition Study is complet<d, staff "ill return 10 Council if the fe>"1lIts increase our <<>sis fur use of the SMaRT Station. • • " ENYUiONMENTAL ASSESSMENT There is BO ..,vlroomen!al asses5menl reqcired in coojuncfun with Ihls report. AUACQMENT CMRS28:94 PREPARED BY; Mkhael Miller, DepIit;. DirecIor of Public Worle, Operations DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW, /u?'lcrJ,4, &.u?- " ;;> GLENN S. ROBEJtTS Di=IoI.' of Pub!ic Wor!cs CITY MANAGER APPROVAL; .' ·-, -.,; . . -.. ") ,r;::- City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: I'IIbIic Works DATE; NO'fell1ber 23, 1994 SUBJECT: SMaRT stATION UPDATE UQITEST This is an informational report and requir.,; 00 action by Council. BEOOMMEr,TlA.TIONS Staff bas provided this report os info<ma6!>n only. and will retufa 10 COOIICiI if any lD()Q~tion 0( tbe ogreemem willi S;umywle and tbe SlJppiier or operalor results in ei:her roduc<d performance or increased cost 10 Palo Alto. PpUcy IMP! .]CATIQNS This report <Joe. 00( cootain any change 10 existing policies. f.XECJmyE SUMMARY The "ltBcbed SIafl' report bas been provided by tbe GIy I)( Sunnyvale. The report deals wiIh tWo items; an update 0( Sunnyvale'. solid waste diversion activities. and issues r~lated 10 pereemage of. materials recovered by equipment in the SMaRT station. The secood issue is 0( potential significance 10 Palo AlIO, since if: _y .freel our future Qrvers>:>il attainment levels. The City I)( Swmyv-.tIe agreed 10 • prov'.sion in the operating proposal from Western Waste 1ndustrles 10 purcbase equipment designed and manufactured by National Recovery . Teclmoiogies (NR 1) for !be recovery 0( recyclable materials al the SMaR 1 station. The City bad !be ~ insWIed and starfed testing tbe eqWpl!leDllasI spring. The attaclled report provicIes infc<mation on the performance of tbe equipment, and the potential lssue 0( recovering less recyclables from tbe waste stream than originally anticipated. Staff al lhe GIy 0( Sunnyvale are continuing 10 work with boIh lhe manufacturer 0( the equipmenl and tbe operator, We"tern Waste, in an attempt 10 recalculate or revise lhe expected tonnage figures I>ld 10 settle outstanding CO!lStruction rontract issues. I'q. I al J USCAI. IMpAc:r 1'I!is i'epcxt bas no fiscal impacllO tl!e Cgy 11 !his lime. £NVIBONMfNlAl, AssrSSWM' Tbere is DO enviromnental usessment required in 00Iljuncti0a with !his report. A1TACHMEN7 City of Sunnyvale City Manager', ~ PREPARED BY: Michael Miller, Deputy Direc!or of Public Wocb Operallom DEPARTMFRI' HEAD REVIEW: ~ ~ ~ GLENN S. ROBERTS ofiA··orks CiTY MANAGER APPROV AL::h~~~~::::r.,""-'f~------ 11 ityMinager h&<lal 2 ~"f:-~ .> ~--:- , ".' , "'~-' I \ • • ." -.' ® 0 '" REPORT TO MAYOR AND ~ NO. 94-597 TO THE HONOAASlE MAYOR ANO COUNCIl OA TE: NoYember 22. 1994 SOSJECT: Progress Toward State SolId Waste Requirements. l!1formalion The Slate 01 California lagisIaIure i1 1989 mandaled Itla! each ci!y and co.r:ty plan and i:npIemert s strslegy 10 00ert tom disposal 25% 01. ile sofod waste generated by 1995 and 50% by Ih& year 2000. The Cil)' has taken a mul!i-faceted app<oacl1lo meeting flis mancIa!e. This report wiJ p.-ovide a progress report on the various components oIlhe Cily"s approach aimed at meemg lhis mandate. Staff is pleasAd 10 report a projected cflVersioo.feveI 01. 46% wi( be!lOXl<Tlpfl$hed by year end 1995, wei above the Stale mandated requl!emenl and close 10 D"Ie year 2000 requirements. &QsgmyM The Wegraled Waste Managemart /4d. 01. 1989 (AS 939, Shel) mandated Itla! each ci!y and co.r:ty pi"", and iTlplemenl a strategy \() divert from disposal 25% 01. !he sofoa waste generated by 1995 and 50% by !he year 2000. On June 11, 1991 !he City 01. SuMyvaie became the fir;t f.risdicIion h the ~ 10 adopt its Source ReO.lC!iOn and Recycling E'.emert (SRRE). the plamng dOGvnenI ma<Idaled by the Ad-The SRRE <Iescribed a combinaIion 01. source reducIion, source separetion recycling, and mechanized male1ials reot:Nefy lit the 1hen-pr0p0sed Sunnyvale ...... !~.riaIs Recovely and Transfer (SMaRT) Station Itla! 1Oge!her .. 'OUId meat I1e mancia!ed cfrversioo levels on.the SChecluIe set by I1e Slate. The SMaRT Station was buill by fle City 10 accepI waste from f'.e cities of Mountain View, Palo AlIo. and Sumyvaie, remove recyclable ma1erials from fle wast~, and lransfer Ih& residue 10 the Ysby Canyon Landfil i1 San Jose for disposal Construc!ion 0I.1le Station was a condition 10 fle City's tight 10 use Xirby Csnyon under fle disposal oon!racl with Waste Managemert 01. Carlfomia, operator 01. Kirby Canyon. Under !he Iemls 01. D"Ie June 9, 1992 Memoranclum 01. Under.landing (MOU) among 1he 1!lree cilles, Sumy\'ale financed and built Ile facility. wf1iie f1e cities d Mounlain V_ and Palo Me are responsible for reimtuslng 23'J(, and 21%, respecCoveiy. d D"Ie capital oos!s. Each dIy also pays a propot1ionate share Of Ile SMaRT Station operating 00SIs, bas6d on !he amount of waste each ci!y derIVers 10 f1e faciIiIy. Mountain View agreed 10 derIVer aft 01 its soI'od waste 10 Ile SMaRT Sletion, while Palo Alto committed a specific number of Ions 01. waste for each year of !he MOO, Which runs hOOJg!\ Ile year 2021. SurI\y'Iale cooIribules abOut 50% Of \he waste enler'rog the SIatioo, while Mountain View and Palo Me currently oontrb.Jte app<C»dma!eiy 28% and 22"­ respectrtely. "-___________ -by"'" Ci:yManager _______ _ ·····K . -.---~. ~.....::. .. .- I I I I I ". -.--z. .. o Progress Toward Slate SoCid W"",ts Requirements • k oformatlo<". . November 22. 1994 Page 2 a! 5 Mer oonslnJC;!ion d U'>e Station was underway. on September 1, 1992 1tle City iSsued " Aequest lor Proposals (RFP) Ie< \he opeta1iarl a! the SMaRT Station. Each proposat was esked 10 gUarantee !hat at least 15% of !he solid waste de!l'lere6 10 the faciIiIy would be reco'I8r8d lor rec-p"1g. measured by i1e percelltage of wam entemg \he SMaRT S1aIion f1at was ncI subsequenCfy transferred 10 !he Kirby canyor. landfi~ for disposal. TtYee propouIs were presenle6 lor consideration by h COUnci wiIIl hir guaranteed recycling levels lor routine operation as IoIlows (!he l6ISUCCeSsf\.I proposers are srown lor purposes d IIustra!ion criJ. and are f>.Js represented by ~): Proposat A 20% . Proposer B 17% Weste.-r.jNRT 25% On Match 2, 1993 1tle City cOurd selected Western Waste Induslries, Inc. (Western) 10 be f1e operator a! !he SMaRT Station (RTC 93-101). Western's 25% rerovert guarantee was linked specifICally 10 " conclition Vat the City pu-chase the recycflOQ eqJipmert Ie< lie facility from National Recovery Tec1".noIOgies. he. {NRT). On Api 6, 1993 I1e Council apprOVed a COf1Il"aCi lor NRT 10 desigr\ fabricale, deliver and inslall tie recycl"IIlQ eqJipmart fOr $6,279.000 (ATC 93-164). Tl'>e COf1Il"aCi between tie City and NAT called lor NAT 10 pass a saI'ies a! pertormanoe tests designed 10 measure boIh !he per10rmance of speci!iC pieCes d equipment and the c~eraft effeclNeness of I1e SMaRT $ta!ion wiI11 respect 10 !he recovery of materials i"om !he waste Slream. Durin!: ~ RFP process !hailed 10 I1e selection d Western Waste and NAT l was recognized t1a! fle composl!ion of !he waste e..,temg !he IaciIiIy WOl.4d have a major inIIuence on hI level ci materials recovery _ tie SMaRT $ta!ion could be expec!ed 10 achieve, regardless ci!he ty;le of materials recovery eQUipmenI nstaJIed or whO was operating !he stalion. Thus, t1e RFP rdJ:led !E6les sIIcw!ng Ihe esIimaIed peccantages ()( 'fie various materials. il \he bee ciIies' waste strea,,,s, based on consuftanI studies performed ... 1990. Moreover,!he contract ilc:iuded a proviSion ht aI10wed lor !he reco;e,"j rate guaranteed 1:1)' 'fie operator 10 be adjusted r a waste characterization SIudy showed _ Itoere had beer: a significanl change n f1e character d !he waste. (Staff is preparing a Request For Proposals 10 begin 1M process d selecting a consuftart 10 perform tlis sden!ilic study, wNo'l is 10 be carried out in a manner specilied by f1e Western Waste conIract The res<Mt!3 of "lis study wiIIlctrn the basis a! discussions between '!he City and Western as 10 whe\he( an ~. 01 Western's 25% ~ is )Jstified. and iso, wha! fie new recydlng guarantee should be.) -.;,-----. -. -~--------------,.--. , . . , . . • <,' .-.. Progress Toward State Sc'"Y.! Waste Requirements -!nIonnalion November 22. 1994 Page 3 015 Signi!icanI changes i'1 fle level 01 p"e-SMaRT recycling have n IacI occurred s!oce fle 1 S9C • studies were performed b1lhe lIvee cities. In 'hi case 01 SumY'IeJe. fle amour:! of .. -aste disposed by landliiling I1sd decIfled by 27.727 IOnS (1~l from 1990 10 1993. This decrne is <lJe 10 a number of !acIors. h:Iuding a sIc.wing n ... 08 local economy. However. m< .. eIl 01 hi <lecIir.e n disposal IomageS is believed 10 be rue 10 i'ocreased source-separa!ion d"1IIerSion of IeC)'tIable materials by boIh residents and buSinesses. This is relleC'.ed in ~ , Cily's meased diversion rate. Measured by fle rri8lhods specified n reguIa!ions clIMe California Integrated W .... ote Management Board, !he City's overaI1 diverskln rate haS i1creaseO from 19'16 n 1990 10 26'J6 n 1993. Thus. two yeatS tlatfy. and before Ihe c:ompIefion of lhe SMaRT Station. f;e CIty exceeded hi Stale mandate 1hat 25% diversion be achfeved by 1995. A similar reeoo,.ery nI!& adjust"Tleni clause and a set of tables describing 'Reference Waste" ..... i'dJcfed in !heNRT contract. and NRT was 10 notify the CiIy cfuYIg !he acceptance test f NAT developed a reasonable bar .... 1hat !he y,'2Sle being processed did not meet Il".e Cha"aC'.eriza1ion of flefe<ence Wa.ote. Moreovet.!he contract COOIempfofed !he jolt1( .c!evelci:>ment (l( detailed "Acce?!ance Test PrcllX:cls: one funcIioo (l( which woc.id be to ealcu!ale an approptiate ad"Ju!'-trnentlo fle 30% guaranlee 10 renect cIlanges M> or dowr,J in !he amount of reGyCiable materials available n Ihe mixed waste stream. . Oiscussion The Cily's success n increasing source sepaatioo recydiflg haS reduced !he petCenIage 01 recyclable materials available in !he mbced solid waste sIre!llTl enlemg the SMaRT Sla!ion a'1d run \IYougI11he NAT materials recco/ery sysIem. Acceptance tes!ing of Ihe NAT System was conducled n Api. 1994. 000ng!he leS6ng, NAT caned 10 !he attention of the Ci!y its berlef 1hat fle waste being proces..«ed did not meet fle choracterization 01 Reference Waste. O...mg fle Accep!ance Test NRT's equipmenl passed aI! 01 !he Quantified tests except fle O'o'efal! rea:NeIy ~ which measured \he alliIiIy 01 \he en1ite faclfrty to achieve <10% rec:ove<y under leSt concfrtions. (Please no!e 1hat while !he COOIract lor NfIT equipmerll spec.'lied a :30% reccvery rate based t..pon !he 1990 waste stream as adjusted for chanQes in waste stream .:omposi!ion. !he Western waste gvsrantee was lor 25%, as adjusted lor Changes n !he waste stream, and.is hi key large! atT1O!.<1Ilor over-.,)I SMaRT Station pet10rmance a'1(f !he City's calculations n determining who and hew 10 build and operate It.e slaOOn.) The facifrty reoovery !e\ieI measured by tle lest was 14A%, as compared 10 \he 30% guarantee in !he NRT oonIract. o Progress Toward State Sold Waste Requiremen!$ -InfOOTIa1ion NOV5lOOer 22, 1934 Page 4~5 in.u>e, 19941he City conducted a waste composition analy5ls in cooperation with NRT. The pupose or 1his enaIysIs was to q..oan!iIy 1he pe<centages cI various meteriaIs i'I 1he waste anMng 1II1he SMaRT Slalion so thai NflT's lac:1ily reoavery guuarfte could be adjusted 10 accounI for material dIanges in !he waste stream over Ihe past lou' years. loads of waste we<e random.')' selected as lhey were deii'NeC! ~ !he SMaRT Sta!ion so as 10 test a represen!aIive sample of alb _II de!lveted durYlg 1he week or h leSt. The resul!s of 1he !es! showed a significanI overaI redu<:!ion i'I !he amount 0( 'large!ed" recyclable maIesials in 1he wasIII. WIlen Nffi's guarantee is adjusted to acoounI for inCreased so-.rce separation recycling, the Accep'.ance T&S! 15 Shown to have aChieved the equivaier1 0( 24.3% tor h Iaciiity rect:NerY test. below 1he 30% guaronlee. \'lESTEAN WASTE OPERATIONS CONTRACT GU,r..;v.NTEE As noted above, a comprehensive waste composition S1Wt is scheduled 10 be pertom1ed under 1he terms oIlhe Weslem waste contract and will form !he basis or dlsa.'SSians between !he City and Wes!9rJ1 as to whelher an acf!u$ImeriI or Western's 25% gueronlee is J.!stiIiecl, and l so, what !he new recycling guarantee should be. TI".e waste COI"I1pC!!iron analysiS CO!"ICXJcted for accepCance tes1ing or hi NRT equipmeI'4 was different in nature hIn 1haI . provided for in !he Western Waste oootract. The result oflhe brIhc:Orni".g waSle composition study is expected to approXimate t1at of Ihe NRT test If !he resu!!s are the same 1hef\ Western Waste wil be very close to meeting !heir cootracIUal requirerr>e.'lI.. and 1he City will be essenIial!y at fie diversion rate whia'l had been projecfsd. r I is assumed 1hat !he performance or fie o!het proposen; <XlIISidered by 1he Coord n March 1992 ~ PI opor1ioIl8i to !hal of NRT i1 i!s ac:c:eplanCe test. !hen Ihe ad"jUS!ed materials recovery Ievets achie\leCf 1it1he SMaRT StaIion WO<Ad be 85 loIows: Proposer A Proposer B Western Waste 12% 24% P!e.ase note ltlat Ihe petcenlages r. Tallie t refe< 10 Ihe Jevel of rewvet)' or recyc!abIe mate.'ia!s !rom Ihe mixed sefid wasle entering Ihe SMaRl SlaiiOl\ and shOuld 1"001 be CO<Jfo.JSed with lhe C-ity's C\lersU level 0( source reducIioo and recycling, .. ~. ' -: - , • ,"-. ----; < • . . -. "'"-: .r::\ ..:;:>. , , 'i.;;I . <'!J Progress Toward State Sortd waste Requirements· WC>'mation November 22. 1994 Page 5 Of 5 SOURCE REOOCTlON ANO RECYCLING STATUS 'The CIty achieved a 2S'!O diversion Of solid waste from!andfi.llor calendar year 1393. A6dilion c:I fle yard WSS'J! ooI!ec6on program, !he second commercia! cardboard recyding route, !he SMaRT Sta!ion (~ fle present recyd!ng tale). end source c:Wersion which has ocarred Since 1993 resufts n II projecled diversion tale c:I 4S% lor 1995. These ligtres ilusIra!e ~ fle Citys efforts, combiring source separatiOn with suloma!ed recovery at !he SMaRT Sta!!on. have resul!ed h !he City compI'jing v.i!h !he Stale's initial diversion r~ (25% by 1995) and cIoslnIf in on fle Stale's 50% dillersion mandate weI in a<1varce Of f>e yaar 2000 deadl'll1E_ Sased upon !he assumpticns ou!f:ned n Table 1 above, iIe ~e CIty-wide di'JerSioo rate" ~ have been 44% lor Pmposa1 A and 43% lor Proposa1 S, leaving a substantIal elklrt remai.'ing IQ meet !he year 2000 goals. As !he mcsl cost eI!icienI arve.-sion methods were !he first emplOyed, I is Clear I1a! very cosily efforts may have been required 10 i1crease !he recovery rate 10 50%. To illustrate \his poir.t, one sroOLid ror.sider It1e significance d !hi> 2% gap betweerl tie 46% cfoveloion rate with Western Waste ope!alir rg !he SMaRT Station ve<stJS Ihe 44% rate prOjec'.ed lor Proposer A. The rnuili-fan'Jly recycling program consi!'ered by !he CIty Coooci in Jaruary. 1994 wOUld have cost $750.000 per year 10 achieve only a 1.5% i1cfeese in !he Citys overall diversion rate .. TIle above prelimnary results suggestS Iha! !he approach taken makes the Stale requiremenl wilhin re8sonable reacfl even though certain COO'JsCluII1 issues remain 10 be resolved. S!af! will continue 10 keep \he Council l!!ly.i1formed on !he PI ocess c:I ~ c:I\he NRT ~ fie perfo{manc:e. gf !he SMaRT Station, and \he status of h City's solid waste / -diversion rate ... k> view of our par1nerShip relationship with V1em. fljs rBport is also bei'lg provided 10 \he cities 01 Mountain V_ and Palo AIIo_ Yt"--cv'-/" (t ~,",r Ma.1i A. Bowers Sortd Waste Program ~ Marvin A. Rose Oireclor Of Pubiic W()(\(s City Manager ,,~ , ,-'", 1;-' .. , , ~ ..