Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0528.094~. : : ~ i \1 J '-1 :1 I City of Palo Alto City Manager's Summary Report -.-------------------~---- TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Pnblk Works DATE: November 23, 1994 SUBJECT: SMaRT STATION UPDATE REQ!!EST Thilli is an informational report and require!' no action by C(JunciJ. REC01:rIMENDATI!lliS Staff has provided th~~ report a" inJorm;).tton lmly. and wHl ret'tJ.m to COI.mdl if 3ny mOdification of the agreement with Surmyvale and the sUr'p!ier or op~rator i.e'5ult'i in (,·it.her reduced performance or increased cost to PaJo Alto. POue Y IMPI.JC "TIONS TIus report does not contain any chang,e to ex.istmg pol~cies. EX¥CJJTIVE SUMMARY ~ attached staff report has been provided by the City of Sunn),·al<. The r")lOrt de']s wi th two items, an update of Sunnyvale's solid waste diversion activities, and issues related to percentage of materW.s recovered by equipment in the SMaRT 'tation. The Sec<lnd issue is of potential signiflcance 10 Palo Alto, since it may affect our future diversion attainment levels. Tbe City of Sunn),'ale agreed to a provision in the operating proposal from Western Woste Industrie!' to purchase equipment designed and manufactured by National Recovery Technologies (NR1) for the recovery of r",yel.ble materials at the SMaRT station. The City had the equipment install<>d and started testing the equ.ipment last spriDg. The al1ached repen provides information on the perfonnance of the equipmenl, and the potential issue of recovering less rn:ycl.bles from tho waste stream than originally anticipated. Staff at the City of Sunnyvale are continuing to work with both the manufacturer of the equipment and the operator, \\~estem Waste, in an attempt to recaJculate or revise the e;f;.pected tonnage figures and to settle outsta.'1ding construction contract Issues. CMR:528:<)4 l'88<lol 2 DSCAI. lMfAcr This report bas 00 fiscal impaCf 10 the City at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 'JbeTe is 00 ecvi..ronmental assessT,Jent required in conjunction with this report. AITACDMENT City of Sunnyvale City Manager's Repon PREPARED BY: Michael Miller, Deputy Director of Public Worn Operations DEPARTMENT HEAD RE\IjE'",,; ~4, __ k1L _'_" __ n_ GLENN S. ROBERTS ~tor of Pub~C\Vorks I I" I .' i !~'W::",\ CITY l>1ANAGER APPROVAL/\I • K 0 (JVN r'LEMING .. -------- \J!'ity Manager .J • · , I ! REl'ORT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL NO. 94-597 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCil DATE: November 22, 1994 SUBJECT: Progresa r"""".d Slate Solid Waste Requirements· Information Tr.e State of CaI:fOfnja Leg;slature In 1989 mandatetl that each city and county pJan and ir,-.ple'neflt' strate-gy to drv<>rt frcm disposal 25% of the so,:d waste generated by 1995 and 5~;% by ttie :.rear .2(:('0. The Crty r.as taker] a rnuJ'ti·facetsd Gppwac."'l to meeting tn,s mandate. This report w;,1 provi,je a progress report on tile ',.rarious components of the Crty's approach a:;ned a1 rr::-eelng th:s mandate. S1aH is pleased to report a projeCted d~,:ersion level of 48% '" ',I be acr;omp~;-shed bv ye.ar end i 99:', wl"\1 aboJvs t'1e State mandated requirement and close to tt18 year 20)] rE'qu (el1'.ents. Brtgrcyod The Integreted Waste Management Act of 1989 (AS 939, Sher) mandated that each ci!y and COl-'f1ty plan and implement a st>"ategy to dIVert from disposal 25% 01 the solid waste generated by 1995 Md W% by !Me ,'ear 2000. On June ii, 1991 the City of Sunny.ale beccrne the nrst jurisdiction 'n the state to adopt its Source Reduction and Recycling Element iSRAEl, the p:anning oocument mandated by the Act. The SRRE desCfibed a combination 01 source reduction, source separation re>:yc!ing, and mechanized materials recovery at the then·proposed Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and T,a'lSler (SMaRT) Station that together woutd rr.eel the ma'>dated diversion levels on the schedule set by the St.ate. The SMaRT Station was built by the City to accept waste from the cities ot Mountain VieW, Palo AIIo, and Stfilyvale, remove recyc:able materials from the waste, and transfer the residue to the Kirby Canyon LandfiU in San Jose for disposal. Construction of the Station was a COOdition to the City's right to use Kirby Canyon under the disposal contract with Waste Ma."'gemen! of California, operator of Kirby Canyon. Under the terms of the June 9, 1992 Memo'Mdum of Understanding (MOUl among the three cities, Sur,nyvaie financed and buih the facility, "flile the cities of Mountain View and Palo AltO are responsible for reimbursing 23% and 21%, respectively, of the capital costs. Each city also pays a proportionate share oi the SMaRT Station operating costs, based on the amount 01 waste each city delivers to the iaaiity. Mountain VteW agre-eo to deliver all of its solid waste to the SMaRT Station, while Palo Mto ccmm':tted a specmc number of to:lS of waste for each year of the MOU, which runs through the year ~)21. Sunnyvale contributes about 50% of the waste entering the Station while Mcunlaln V.ew and Palo Alto currently contribute approximately 28% and 22% respectively. tL.. ____________ Issued by the City Manager __________ _ I II I I I I ! -"', . ..... ., ..... azs·," Progress T owsrd Stat. Solid Waste Requ irements -Intormatioo Novemb6f 22, 1994 Page 2 of 5 Mer <:OI'l$Il\K:\io: at !he St<>tioo was uOOeo way, 001 Sept""'.Der 1, 1992 the GIl' issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) lor !he operotioo of!he SMaRT Station Each proposer was asked !o gUarantee thai at ieast 15% 01 !he SOlid wast. cleWered to the tacit1y would be recowred for recycling, meas<xed by the pet .... <ta,)6 of waste entering !he SMaRT S1aIion that was no! subsequently b a ... len ed to the Kifby Canyon LandfflI for dlspoSaJ. Three PfC?OS8Is were presented for ronslderaliOn by !he Co<.ncii with tt.eir guaranteed r9CYdi'lg ieIIe/s for routfne operatiOn as IDI!ows (!he unsl.'CC8SS1l.:i proposers arB shown for purposes c! iIlustra1icO 0l1!Y, and are ttl,," represer.ted by pseudOnyms): F:opase' A. 2G% P:0p0s':, 8 17~~ V,'e~'?m/I'mT 2:5% On March 2, 1993 th-e Ot'y CO"..;:tb: se:f?:::ed ~'\'€'S'tem \Va$".r. rr,-::,dtr:es, \,~,,:::, (\-VE'stern) to be tJ"'I€. operawr of the SMaRT StaF:::1 (HfC 93·101), We31p.rn's. 25% focovl,;:ry guarantee was jinked spa-cm:-3~:,Y to a cond\:,'J(', .,,'1a1 tne Oty p .. ·..'n:;:has8 me rec,:ci'ir.g equipment to: tr,a fac:!~ty from National Recovery Tectmoiogit"$, Inc. (NRTJ. On April 6, 19S3 !he Councoi approved a contract to; NRT \0 des-'gn, tabri..-a1e, delivef and insta~ the recy.:,,,r.g equipmi!f1t for $6,279,000 (RTC 93-164). The contract between !he City and NRT called fOf NRT te pass a series of performance tests ~ ~o measure b."Xh tt1e performance of spe~f.c p~eces of eqc;pmec~ and the overall effectVffieSS 0\ the SMaRr Staton WIth respect 101M recovery of materials from the waste stream During t!'!3 RFP pcocess ti'.at led to the seIectioo 01 Western Waste and N RT ~ was recognized that the composition of the wasta aol8ring the lacOt.y would haw a majOr influence on the level of materials recovery that the SMaRT Station CCUd be expec:t8d to acI!iev9, "'9ardfess of the type of materials recovery equipment fisIa!Ied or who was operaling the station. lOOs, !he RFP included tables snow.ng the estimaU>d perC<lf1lBgeS of !he various mateciaIs in the three cities' waste streams, based on consultant sIUdies pertocmed n 1990. Moreover, the contract included a provision that allowed for the rect:JY8ry rate guaranteed by the operator 10 be adjusted W a waste characterizStion study showed that !here had been a Signlficant change in the cha'acter 01 the waste. (Staff is preparing a Request For Proposals to bE-gin the Pfocess of select;ng a ronsuitam to perform <his scierrt.'fic stuo!y, which is to be canied out in a manner spedfied by the Western Waste contraCt-The results of ttUs study wili form the basis of discussions be1ween the Clty and Western as to whether an adiustmen! of Westem's 25% guarantee is jus\Jfied, and ~ so, what the new recycling guarantee should be.) ----- Progress Toward State Solid Wa..'<le Requirements· Inforrna<Jon NovemOOr 22. 1994 Page 3 cf 5 Significant changes in the level of pre-SMeAT recycl'"9 have in fact o=nTE<l s;r.ce tile 1990 • stud'1eS were performed by the thr6ll cities. In tile case of Sunnyvale, the amount of w-oSle disposed bylandfiiiing had declined by 27,727 tons (17%) from 1990 te 1993. TNs ctecUr.e is due 10 a number of facto.'S, including a slowing in the Iocat economy. However, mud1 of the deCline In disposal toI1nages is believed 10 be due to ir.crea.>ed source-separation ~ of recydable materials by both residents and businesses. This is re!lectod in the C-lty's increased olVersion rate. Measured by the methods specified in regu!aDons of t'le caMomia Integrated Waste Management Beard, the Citys 0Ye<a!' d,W<s.'oI1 rate has increased from 19%. in 1990 10 26% in i993. 1110$, two yea,,; early, 3"K! bemre the completion of the SMaRT Station, the City ext~eded the State mand~e that 25% d~v('~sjor; be achieved by 1995. A similar recovery rate ad;ustment c!slJse e.nd .a set cf tables d€scritl: .... fQ ·Rerere.':::e Was:e~ we:"Q included in the NRT contracl, 8nd NRT 'v'.ras to notify the Crty d!Jr;ilg the ac.('·-eptsnce test (f NRT developed 0. reasonable be~ief t.f--Jat the wasle being pro::essed c:d not rn0Et m~ characterization 01 Reference Waste. Moreover, the co.jt.fact ,-;on:emplated the jGint development 01 detailed 'Acceptance Tes! Prctt;.ccls,' one function 01 wtlich wO'.lid be to calculate an appropMate adjustment to the 30% guarantae to ,enact dlanges (up or down) in t.,e a"OOunt cf rec),clab!e materials availab~e tn the mixed waste stream . . Discussion The City's success in increasing source separation recycling IlaS redc;ced the percerr.ag e of recyciable materials available in l~ mixed solid waste stream emefing the SMaRT Sta!ioo a"1d . run through the NRT materials recovery system. Acceptance testing of me NAT S)IS1em was i conducted in April, ·t 994. During itte testing, NAT caIle<l to the attention 01 the City its belief I that the waste being processed did not meet the chatacrerization 01 Rsfmloce Waste. During I the Acceptance Test NRT's equipmem passed all of the quantified tests exoepI tile OVerai recovery test, which measured the abity of tile entire facility 10 acI1ieve 30% recavery Wlder test oonditions. (Please note that while tna contract for N AT equipment specified a 30% recovery rate based upon the 1990 waste stream as adjusted for changes in wasta stfeam compos~ion, the Westem Waste guarantee was for 25%, as adjusted fCi cnanges in the waste stream, and,s the key larget amount for overall SMaRT Station performance and the City's calculations in determi11ir,g who and how to build and operate tile statlon.) The facility recovery Jevel measured by the test was 14.4%, as compared to the 30% gua'll11lee in tile NRT contract. . , , ,I " I .t \ \ I Progress Toward State Solid Waste Requiremen'.s • Information November 22, 1994 Page 4 of 5 In June, 1994 the City conducted 8 waste composition ar">aI>'Sis in cooperation wittI NRT. The putpOS8 of tIli$ an3ly$iS was to quantif)t t'1e peroemages o! II3rious m ... .erieJs in. the waste arriving at the SMa!iT Station so that NRT's facility recovery guatantse could be adjusted to IlCCOU!'1I tor malerial changes in the wast. stream over the past fO!Jf years. L.Oads of waste were randomly selected as they were delivered to the SMaRT Station so as to lest a rep<eSe.ltative sample of all the waste delivered during the W96k of the test, The results of the test Showsd a significant Cl';erall reductio.~ in the 3fTlount of "Iarge1ecf" recyclable materels In the waste, When NRT's guarantee is adjusted to account for in<;reaSed source separation recyCling, the Accept8l1ce Test is shov.n to haye achieved the equiValent crl24.3% for the facility recovery test, below the &,"% guarantee, WESTERN WASTE OPERATIONS CamMCT GUARANTEE As noted above) a ccmprehen$tv~ waste cornposttion stlidy is scheduled to h6 performed under the terms of the Western Waste ccmfact and 'Hi!1 form the basis of discussions oerv ... een the City and Western as to whether an adjustment 01 Westem'S 25% guarantee ;s Justified, and if so, wt'.at th<3 new recycling guarantee should be, Tne wasta composition """'ysis conducted lor acoaptance tes~ng of the NRT equipment was different in nature than thai provided for i~ the Wesle·m Waste contract. The r&.uh 01 the forthcoming wasle oomposition study is expected to approximate that of tne NRT test. If the resutts are tne same t~en Western Waste w;;1 be very close to meeting their contractuaJ requirement, and the City will be ess81lbaiiy al the diversion rate which had bean prOjected. .~ it is assumed thaI the periormance oi the other proposers considered by tile Council in Mard1 1992 was proportional to that of NRT in lts acceptanoe lest, then \he adjusted matfl(iais recovery levels achieved' at \he SMaRT Station wo .. 'Id be as follows. Guarantee Achieved Proposer A 14% Proposer B 17% 12% Western Waste 25% 24% Please note that the percentages in Table 1 refer to tho level Df recovery 01 recyciable malerials from the mi>.ed solid waste entering the SMaRT Staton. and should not be ~c"fused \vith the CJty's overall level of source roduction and recycling. 1---=--......---- l , , Progress Toward Stale Solid Waste Requirements -In/ormation November 22, 1994 Page 5 of 5 SOURCE REDUCTION ANDRECYCU~JG STATUS 'The City achievOO a 26% diversion of solid waste from landfill for calendar year 1993. Add~ion aI!he yard waste co!!ection program, the second commerciaJ cardboard iecycling route, the SMaRT Statior. (assuming !he present recycling rate), arnj source diversion which has oeo.I'T1ld si1c@ 1993 results in a projected diversion rate of 46% fa( 1995. These figures iIusIra!e that the City's efforts, combining source separation witI1 81..~Omaled recovery at L~e SMaRT Statioo, have resulted in tine C~ oomp!ying with the State's initial diversion requirement (25% by 1995) and closing in on the State's 50% d'IOrsion mandate well in a~ 01 ~ year 2CX)Q deao1ir-.e. eased upon the assumptions outlined in Table 1 above, the cotl"1parable City-wide diversion ra1es woufd ha .... --e been 44% for ProposaJ A and 4,JCA, fer Proposal B. !ea'lirlg a substantia! etlan remaining to meet the year 2OClO goals. As the most cost efndent divers;on m'31hcds were the nrsr employed, ft is dear that very costly efforts may t-..ave been iec.L.~red to increase the recovery ra18 to W,,(,, To il1ustrate this point. one shouid ccnsic'er the s:gn.'ficat1ce Of the 2% gap betv.een the 4So/co diversion ra1e wrth Western \<'./aste operating the SMaRT SHrtfon versus the 44% fate projected for Proposer ,Ii,. The multi-family recycling program considered by the C~ Council in January, 19S4 would hava cost $750,000 pei year to achieve ant,. a 1.5% increase in U19 City's overal: diversion rate. The above prelimi''''')' results suggests that tTle ~.pproach taken ma~e" the State requirement within reasona..bfe reach even though certain contractiJaI issues remain to to.e resolved, Staff will continue to keep the Council1uI~' informed on the process of closeout of the NRT contract, the performance of the SM aRT Station, an d the S'.atus of lhe ~'s solid waste ~, rate, In v.ew of our partnership relationstlip witt1 them, this report is also being provided 10 the eWes of Mountain V.,.", and Palo Aho. )/c.~< MBIk A. Bowers Solid Weste Progra.11 Manager '-J!l1((1l'rL {/ t!.Cf Marvin A, Rose Director of Public Works ~-"' en -n ,'i... . ! "