SBWMA Completes Review of Allied Shoreway Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Retrofit Plan
SAN
CARLOS, CA – South Bayside Waste
Management Authority (SBWMA) Board have reviewed the results of a staff and
outside consultant review of Allied Waste’s “Plan Summary for Retrofit of
Existing Shoreway Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).” In response to a request
by the SBWMA and its Member Agencies Allied submitted a copy of this plan to the
SBWMA on August 28th. SBWMA staff was directed to review the plan and
report back to the Board with its findings.
Highlights of this Allied
plan have previously been reported-on over the past four-weeks in local
newspaper articles and referenced in correspondence sent by Allied Waste to
local elected officials (and in some cases sent directly to residents). Such
newspaper articles and correspondence claimed that Allied’s plan would deliver
needed Shoreway improvements at a much lower cost, estimated by Allied at $42
million over ten years.
The
Shoreway Master Plan was approved by the SBWMA Board in April 2007 to address
needed infrastructure improvements (i.e., expanded transfer station and new MRF
building) for future new
collection
programs (i.e., weekly residential single stream collection, commercial single
stream collection, and weekly residential organics collection); fix traffic circulation, traffic stacking and
traffic safety issues; accommodate administrative and operational support
space needed by the new Facility Operations Company; and to incorporate sustainability and environmental enhancements
into the facility operations.
The
high level findings from the SBWMA analysis are as
follows:
The
estimated capital costs savings of $31.183 million over ten years offered by the
Allied MRF plan would be largely offset by increased operating
costs.
The
10 year net costs savings (lower capital costs vs. higher operating cost) for
the Allied MRF plan would be just under $3.4 million.
Adoption of the Allied MRF
plan would significantly reduce the flexibility to modify the sorting equipment
and would significantly impact the overall recycling capacity of the
facility.
The lack of flexibility within the retrofitted MRF building could require
significant future modifications of the building much earlier than under the
proposed master plan.
The Allied MRF Plan did not include any engineering assessment of the existing MRF
building foundation, roof and other structural support systems. Thus, Allied
assumes the use of an existing building without demonstrating that the building
can support installation of new recycling equipment, and most importantly, that
the building can withstand future seismic activity.
Operational enhancements
such as better traffic flow, less self haul queuing and better public recycling
access proposed under the SBWMA plan would not be achieved under the proposed
Allied plan.
Following the staff and consultant presentation, the SBWMA Board reaffirmed its commitment to the
approved Master Plan. Allied Waste questioned the staff and consultant findings
and requested that they be provided an opportunity to review the assumptions
used in evaluating their proposal. It was agreed that a meeting would be held no
later than October 6, 2008.
SBWMA
Formed in 1982, the SBWMA is
a joint powers authority comprised of 12 member agencies (Atherton, Belmont,
Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City,
San Carlos and San Mateo along with the County of San Mateo and the West Bay
Sanitary District) in San Mateo County and is a leader in implementing
innovative waste reduction and recycling programs. The SBWMA also owns and
manages the SRDC consisting of a permitted solid waste transfer station and a
materials recovery facility. For more information on the SBWMA please visit out
website at www.RethinkWaste.org.
The key findings of the
analysis are as follows:
* The Allied plan only addresses MRF building and equipment capital improvements and
thus is much narrower in scope than the SBWMA’s Shoreway masterplan which takes
into account the entire Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center (SRDC) facility
operations (i.e., traffic circulation and scales, public use areas such as the
buyback and drop-off recycling areas, transfer station, and environmental
enhancements).
* A direct comparison of Allied’s MRF Retrofit Plan with the Shoreway masterplan MRF
improvements (see Table 1 below) reveals that the SBWMA’s Plan has a higher
capital cost (there is a $31.183 million capital cost difference between the two
MRF plans - assuming that Allied’s plan captures all capital needs and no
additional improvements are required over the next ten
years).
* The higher capital cost of the masterplan are a result of constructing a new and
larger MRF building, purchasing of larger and more complex state-of-the-art single stream sorting equipment, redundant baling equipment and adding other MRF
related improvements (i.e., upgraded foundation system, office area for the new
Facility Operations Contractor, adequate employee facilities, public education
area, new public recycling center, improved traffic-flow, electrical upgrades,
energy efficiency, and solar ready roof). By contrast, Allied’s Retrofit Plan is
limited to adding 10,000 square feet to the existing building and installing a
small-capacity sorting system.
Allied’s Plan creates
significant MRF operational inefficiencies that significantly drive up
operational costs (e.g., reduced processing equipment throughput, limited
tipping/unloading area, lack of baler redundancy, limited bale storage,
constrained traffic movement within the building, etc.) compared to the new MRF
building proposed in the Shoreway masterplan. .
The Allied MRF Retrofit Plan will increase MRF operating costs by $25.61 per ton and
$2.22 million per year above the average costs proposed by the SBWMA’s two
short-listed facility operations proposers, South Bay Recycling, LLC and Hudson
Baylor Corporation.
Additional operational costs
of $2.076 of million over the ten-years of the Facility Operation Contract will
be incurred due to the limited capacity of the Allied MRF(limited capacity means
the Allied proposed MRF operations will be overwhelmed in times of equipment
failure and that materials will need to be shipped off-site for processing
during equipment downtime).
Table 3 shows that over the
ten-years of the Facility Operations contract, the up-front capital cost savings
offered by the Allied Retrofit Plan are reduced by the higher operational costs
(a difference of $3.388 million between the Allied and Master plan over ten
years).
Allied’s MRF Retrofit plan
only addresses MRF improvements whereas no other operational site improvements
are contained in the plan. Hence, the operational efficiencies that are gained
from the Masterplan scale improvements, transfer station improvements, traffic
circulation improvements and the relocation of the public recycling center are
not included in Allied’s plan.
The
above point is critical because the Shoreway masterplan was the operational
basis for the scope of work included in the SBWMA’s facility operations RFP.
Based on this scope of work, the two short-listed firms both submitted annual
costs below Allied’s current 2008 Shoreway operations costs; the projected
savings from future operations, assuming implementation of the Shoreway
masterplan, may exceed $3.388 million.
Advertisement
The
Allied Plan contained no engineering assessment of the existing MRF building
foundation, roof and other structural support systems. Thus, Allied assumes the
use of an existing building without demonstrating that the building can support
installation of new recycling equipment, and most importantly, that the building
can withstand future seismic activity.
In
contrast, during the SBWMA’s design and engineering process for the transfer
station and MRF buildings, a geotechnical analysis reveled that that the SRDC
facility is underlain by soft “Bay Mud” and that new buildings will need to be
constructed on a pier foundation system. The pier foundation system is necessary
to comply with building codes and to ensure that a new building will not sink or
collapse in an earthquake event.
October 8, 2008
SBWMA Completes Review of Allied Shoreway Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Retrofit Plan
SAN
CARLOS, CA – South Bayside Waste
Management Authority (SBWMA) Board have reviewed the results of a staff and
outside consultant review of Allied Waste’s “Plan Summary for Retrofit of
Existing Shoreway Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).” In response to a request
by the SBWMA and its Member Agencies Allied submitted a copy of this plan to the
SBWMA on August 28th. SBWMA staff was directed to review the plan and
report back to the Board with its findings.
Highlights of this Allied
plan have previously been reported-on over the past four-weeks in local
newspaper articles and referenced in correspondence sent by Allied Waste to
local elected officials (and in some cases sent directly to residents). Such
newspaper articles and correspondence claimed that Allied’s plan would deliver
needed Shoreway improvements at a much lower cost, estimated by Allied at $42
million over ten years.
The
Shoreway Master Plan was approved by the SBWMA Board in April 2007 to address
needed infrastructure improvements (i.e., expanded transfer station and new MRF
building) for future new
collection
programs (i.e., weekly residential single stream collection, commercial single
stream collection, and weekly residential organics collection); fix traffic circulation, traffic stacking and
traffic safety issues; accommodate administrative and operational support
space needed by the new Facility Operations Company; and to incorporate sustainability and environmental enhancements
into the facility operations.
The
high level findings from the SBWMA analysis are as
follows:
The
estimated capital costs savings of $31.183 million over ten years offered by the
Allied MRF plan would be largely offset by increased operating
costs.
The
10 year net costs savings (lower capital costs vs. higher operating cost) for
the Allied MRF plan would be just under $3.4 million.
Adoption of the Allied MRF
plan would significantly reduce the flexibility to modify the sorting equipment
and would significantly impact the overall recycling capacity of the
facility.
The lack of flexibility within the retrofitted MRF building could require
significant future modifications of the building much earlier than under the
proposed master plan.
The Allied MRF Plan did not include any engineering assessment of the existing MRF
building foundation, roof and other structural support systems. Thus, Allied
assumes the use of an existing building without demonstrating that the building
can support installation of new recycling equipment, and most importantly, that
the building can withstand future seismic activity.
Operational enhancements
such as better traffic flow, less self haul queuing and better public recycling
access proposed under the SBWMA plan would not be achieved under the proposed
Allied plan.
Following the staff and consultant presentation, the SBWMA Board reaffirmed its commitment to the
approved Master Plan. Allied Waste questioned the staff and consultant findings
and requested that they be provided an opportunity to review the assumptions
used in evaluating their proposal. It was agreed that a meeting would be held no
later than October 6, 2008.
SBWMA
Formed in 1982, the SBWMA is
a joint powers authority comprised of 12 member agencies (Atherton, Belmont,
Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City,
San Carlos and San Mateo along with the County of San Mateo and the West Bay
Sanitary District) in San Mateo County and is a leader in implementing
innovative waste reduction and recycling programs. The SBWMA also owns and
manages the SRDC consisting of a permitted solid waste transfer station and a
materials recovery facility. For more information on the SBWMA please visit out
website at www.RethinkWaste.org.
The key findings of the
analysis are as follows:
* The Allied plan only addresses MRF building and equipment capital improvements and
thus is much narrower in scope than the SBWMA’s Shoreway masterplan which takes
into account the entire Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center (SRDC) facility
operations (i.e., traffic circulation and scales, public use areas such as the
buyback and drop-off recycling areas, transfer station, and environmental
enhancements).
* A direct comparison of Allied’s MRF Retrofit Plan with the Shoreway masterplan MRF
improvements (see Table 1 below) reveals that the SBWMA’s Plan has a higher
capital cost (there is a $31.183 million capital cost difference between the two
MRF plans - assuming that Allied’s plan captures all capital needs and no
additional improvements are required over the next ten
years).
* The higher capital cost of the masterplan are a result of constructing a new and
larger MRF building, purchasing of larger and more complex state-of-the-art single stream sorting equipment, redundant baling equipment and adding other MRF
related improvements (i.e., upgraded foundation system, office area for the new
Facility Operations Contractor, adequate employee facilities, public education
area, new public recycling center, improved traffic-flow, electrical upgrades,
energy efficiency, and solar ready roof). By contrast, Allied’s Retrofit Plan is
limited to adding 10,000 square feet to the existing building and installing a
small-capacity sorting system.
Allied’s Plan creates
significant MRF operational inefficiencies that significantly drive up
operational costs (e.g., reduced processing equipment throughput, limited
tipping/unloading area, lack of baler redundancy, limited bale storage,
constrained traffic movement within the building, etc.) compared to the new MRF
building proposed in the Shoreway masterplan. .
The Allied MRF Retrofit Plan will increase MRF operating costs by $25.61 per ton and
$2.22 million per year above the average costs proposed by the SBWMA’s two
short-listed facility operations proposers, South Bay Recycling, LLC and Hudson
Baylor Corporation.
Additional operational costs
of $2.076 of million over the ten-years of the Facility Operation Contract will
be incurred due to the limited capacity of the Allied MRF(limited capacity means
the Allied proposed MRF operations will be overwhelmed in times of equipment
failure and that materials will need to be shipped off-site for processing
during equipment downtime).
Table 3 shows that over the
ten-years of the Facility Operations contract, the up-front capital cost savings
offered by the Allied Retrofit Plan are reduced by the higher operational costs
(a difference of $3.388 million between the Allied and Master plan over ten
years).
Allied’s MRF Retrofit plan
only addresses MRF improvements whereas no other operational site improvements
are contained in the plan. Hence, the operational efficiencies that are gained
from the Masterplan scale improvements, transfer station improvements, traffic
circulation improvements and the relocation of the public recycling center are
not included in Allied’s plan.
The
above point is critical because the Shoreway masterplan was the operational
basis for the scope of work included in the SBWMA’s facility operations RFP.
Based on this scope of work, the two short-listed firms both submitted annual
costs below Allied’s current 2008 Shoreway operations costs; the projected
savings from future operations, assuming implementation of the Shoreway
masterplan, may exceed $3.388 million.
The
Allied Plan contained no engineering assessment of the existing MRF building
foundation, roof and other structural support systems. Thus, Allied assumes the
use of an existing building without demonstrating that the building can support
installation of new recycling equipment, and most importantly, that the building
can withstand future seismic activity.
In
contrast, during the SBWMA’s design and engineering process for the transfer
station and MRF buildings, a geotechnical analysis reveled that that the SRDC
facility is underlain by soft “Bay Mud” and that new buildings will need to be
constructed on a pier foundation system. The pier foundation system is necessary
to comply with building codes and to ensure that a new building will not sink or
collapse in an earthquake event.