1. Barnstable County Commissioners Summary Report Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives Analysis April 7, 2010

2. Outline for Today’s Presentation u Provide overview of study prepared for Barnstable County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) of long-term alternatives for disposal of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) u Background u Review of proposed SEMASS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) u Evaluation of future alternatives u Regional options u Conclusions and recommendations

3. Solid Waste Stream Evaluated Study focused on the portion of solid waste collected by towns through their transfer stations and town-operated curbside collection programs and sent out-of-town for disposal. Future study proposed for evaluation of recyclable portion of municipal solid waste stream.

4. Massachusetts Solid Waste Management u Solid Waste Disposal (2006) u 6.6 million tons combusted or landfilled u 1.4 million tons disposed of out of state u MassDEP estimates 2.5 to 4.1 million tons will be exported by 2014 Source: MassDEP, November 2008

5. Background - Cape Municipal Solid Waste Disposal u Fourteen Cape towns currently have long- term disposal agreements with SEMASS waste-to-energy plant in Rochester, MA u Current disposal tipping fees well below market ($18 to $37 per ton) u Approximately 164,000 tons of MSW per year u Existing disposal contracts end around 2015 u Bourne landfills their MSW At current below-market disposal tip fees, the 14 Cape communities pay a total of over $6 million per year for disposal of their solid waste at SEMASS

6. Current Hauling Methods to SEMASS Yarmouth Barnstable Regional Transfer Station Upper Cape Regional Transfer Station SEMASS Facility

7. Breakdown of Tonnages Currently Hauled to SEMASS by Cape Communities

8. Proposed SEMASS MOU u Negotiated over past 2 ½ years by Steering Committee selected from Council of SEMASS Communities u Extends term of existing Waste Acquisition Agreements (WAA) by 15 Years (until 2030) u Offered to 14 Cape Communities in 2009 u Increases current below market disposal tipping fee by $40 or $45 per ton over last 5 years of existing term

9. Impact of Proposed MOU on Near- Term Per Ton Disposal Costs Yea r Per Ton Dispsoal Tip Fee

10. Comparison of MOU at $90/ton 2015 Market ROI - Requires approximately 11 years to reclaim present value of upfront payment

11. Results of present value analysis on payback of MOU upfront payments Years to Payback Proposed MOU Upfront Payments Communities $80/ton Market $90/ton Market $100/ton Market 13 Cape Communities currently paying $37/ton 15 yrs11 yrs4 yrs Wellfleet – currently paying $18/ton 6 yrs4 yrs3 yrs

12. CDM Comparison of MOU Tip Fees to Anticipated Market u Return on “up front” investment depends on tip fees being significantly below market rates u With exception of Wellfleet, projected 2015 tip fees do not appear to be below market rate u $80- $90/ton range of projected 2015 tip fee u $74-$78/ton projected as market rate based on similar recently signed WTE agreements u Bourne quoting $71/ton for municipal contracts – low to mid $80/ton in 2015 with CPI

13. Future Alternative MSW Disposal Facilities u SEMASS Waste-to-Energy Facility u Bourne Landfill u Rochester Environmental Park Transfer Station u Disposal at Southbridge MA Landfill or MERC Waste-to-Energy Facility, Biddeford, ME u Out-of-State through rail transfer stations u Crapo Hill Landfill, New Bedford – 20,000 TPY u Middleborough Landfill – limited tonnage u Future Technologies?

14. Potential Future Alternatives

15. Comparative Evaluation Criteria - Cost Local Residential Collection Local Transfer Station Curbside Collection Hauling from Towns to Disposal Facilities Regional Transfer Stations Rail or Truck Direct Haul Tipping Fee at Disposal Facility Total Costs for MSW Disposal Same for all options evaluated

16. Summary of Relative Transportation Costs for Cape Communities (2015)

17. Total MSW Disposal Cost Summary u Transportation Costs u Bourne least expensive for Cape communities u SEMASS rail haul less expensive than REP truck haul for two Cape regional transfer station u Differences in hauling cost differential can be offset by lower tipping fees for all alternatives u Tipping Fees u Only firm proposal is SEMASS MOU u Will require RFP or negotiations process to determine firm pricing

18. Other Comparative Evaluation Criteria Environmental Impacts and Benefits u Truck traffic around and over Canal bridges u Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions u Energy Generation

19. Average Weekly Round Truck Trips 113,019 TPY Currently Hauled by Rail

20. Greenhouse Gas Generation Comparison Total emissions from disposal site Total emissions to transport MSW Avoided emissions for electricity generation Total greenhouse gas emissions Landfill or Waste-to-energy Truck or Rail All components calculated as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents

21. Total estimated GHG emissions for each alternative u Emissions from hauling u Rail less than truck u Based on mileage MSW is hauled u Disposal Alternatives u Landfill generates methane – typically flared u Waste-to-energy generates carbon dioxide u Credit for avoided emissions from energy generation u Regulatory agencies accounting of GHG versus total emissions

22. Energy Generation – Landfill and WTE Alternative Disposal Method Electricity Generated Per Ton MSW Waste-to-Energy Facility 550 kwh/ton Landfill with active gas collection and electricity generation 256 kwh/ton Note that the Bourne and Southbridge Landfills do not currently have landfill gas to energy facilities

23. Regional Options u Example – Greater New Bedford Refuse District u New Bedford and Dartmouth regional landfill since 1993 u Operated by appointed Board u Estimated total operating cost for disposal - $40 per ton u Subsidizes costs with commercial waste at higher tipping fees u Limit debt and maintain cash reserves All or a group of the towns have an ability to implement a similar regional district using the Bourne landfill site.

24. Regional Options u Example – Communities utilizing the Millbury waste-to-energy facility (Worcester area) u Communities joined together to negotiate a new long-term agreement with plant operator u Collectively retained legal and technical professionals to negotiate new agreement u Improved contractual conditions –Price escalation –Change-in-law Towns can utilize a regional RFP to minimize costs and potentially negotiate better conditions and prices.

25. Conclusions and Recommendations u All communities paying approximately $37 per ton should not sign the SEMASS MOU u Prepare RFP for disposal of MSW when current SEMASS agreements expire u Evaluate alternative methods for transportation – regional rail transfer stations u Review individual communities collection and transportation practices u Confirm guaranteed annual tonnages u Establish typical contractual terms –Change in Law –Price Escalation

26. Conclusions and Recommendations u In the near future, conduct initial discussions with Bourne to determine viability of regional district u Review other potential models for combining efforts and districts u Evaluate interest for District u Consider other waste disposal and recycling potential uses of Bourne Site

27. Conclusions and Recommendations u Evaluate recycling programs and impact on tonnages and costs u Future Commission report u Evaluate emerging technologies u Composting u Incorporating wastewater residuals u Monitor MassDEP solid waste planning efforts u Incinerator moratorium u Greenhouse gas and emissions limitations

28. Questions