Assessment of the Processing Capacity and Capability of the

Transcription

Report
Assessment of the Processing
Capacity and Capability of the
Newport Facility
Project I.D.: 15R002.02
Prepared For:
Ramsey/Washington Recycling and Energy Board
(fka) Ramsey/Washington Resource Recovery Project Board
November 2015
R-Assessment of Processing Capacity and Capability.docxX:\FOTH\IE\Ramsey Wash Co RRP\15R002-01\10000 Reports\10 Fitness
for Duty\R-Assessment of Processing Capacity and Capability.docx
Eagle Point II 8550 Hudson Blvd. North, Suite 105
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 288-8550 • Fax: (651) 288-8551
www.foth.com
November 10, 2015
Zack Hansen, Judy Hunter, Kate Bartelt, and Mike Hagan
Joint Leadership Committee
(fka) Ramsey/Washington Counties Resource Recovery Project Board
2785 White Bear Ave N
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Leadership Committee Members:
RE:
Assessment of the Processing Capacity and Capability of the Newport Facility
This letter transmits the final report of the Assessment of the Processing Capacity and
Capability of the Newport Facility. Separate documents have been prepared addressing
safety and IT hardware and software capabilities and are not part of this assessment.
This report documents that the Newport Facility has the capacity and capability to produce
RDF to meet the Xcel Fuel Supply Agreement provided:
♦ Adequate MSW quantities of at least 380,000 to 400,000 tons are delivered per year.
♦ The supplies of spare parts for ongoing maintenance are available and restocked at
adequate levels.
♦ Existing supervisors and key staff continue in their employment at the Newport
Facility during the transition of ownership providing the experience and knowledge
to operate the Facility.
♦ Relationships with the key suppliers are maintained to provide parts, service, and
knowledge known to be important for timely maintenance and repair.
We look forward to discussing this report and related documents as the Ramsey/Washington
Recycling and Energy Board further considers the purchase of the Newport Facility.
Sincerely,
Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
Nathan Klett
Project Engineer
CC:
Curt Hartog, P.E.
Technical Director
Warren Shuros, Client Director
Jennefer Klennert, Project Manager
X:\FOTH\IE\Ramsey Wash Co RRP\15R002-01\10000 Reports\10 Fitness for Duty\R-Assessment of Processing Capacity and Capability.docx
Assessment of the Processing Capacity and Capability
of the Newport Facility
Distribution
No. of Copies
1 electronic file
Sent To
Zack Hansen
2785 White Bear Avenue, Ste 350
Maplewood, MN 55109-1320
Judy Hunter
Kate Bartelt
Mike Hagan
Assessment of the
Capacity and Capability
Project ID: 15R002.02
Prepared for
2785 White Bear Avenue North
Maplewood, MN 55109
Prepared by
November 2015
Copyright©, Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC 2015
Eagle Point II • 8550 Hudson Blvd. North, Suite 105 • Lake Elmo, MN 55042 • (651) 288-8550 • Fax: (651) 288-8551 www.foth.com
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
This document has been developed for a specific application and not for general use; therefore, it may not be used without
the written approval of Foth. Unapproved use is at the sole responsibility of the unauthorized user.
Assessment of the Capacity and Capability
Contents
Page
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................v
Item 1 – Waste Deliveries .......................................................................................................v
Item 2 – Equipment Maintenance and Spare Parts ..................................................................v
Item 3 – Staff ......................................................................................................................... vi
Item 4 – Suppliers ................................................................................................................. vii
1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................1
2
Newport Facility ......................................................................................................................2
2.1 Background and General Status .....................................................................................2
2.2 Performance Metrics ......................................................................................................5
2.3 General Equipment Status..............................................................................................9
2.3.1 Equipment Evolution and Improvement - General ..........................................10
2.3.2 Scheduled Routine Service/Replacement/Maintenance - General ..................11
2.3.3 Major Plant Failure Risk - General ..................................................................11
2.3.4 RDF Processing - General ...............................................................................12
2.4 Specific Equipment Description ..................................................................................15
2.4.1 A Line: In-Feed Conveyors .............................................................................15
2.4.2 Grapple Cranes (A, B, and Bulky Waste Lines) ..............................................16
2.4.3 Bulky Waste Shear Shredder with Discharge Conveyors................................18
2.4.4 Primary Hammer Mill: .....................................................................................19
2.4.5 Troughed Roller Bed Belt Conveyors..............................................................22
2.4.6 Magnetic Separator ..........................................................................................24
2.4.7 Primary Disc Screen ........................................................................................26
2.4.8 Air Classifier ....................................................................................................27
2.4.9 Secondary Shredder .........................................................................................28
2.4.10 RDF Compactor/Loader...................................................................................29
2.4.11 Ferrous Conveyor.............................................................................................31
2.4.12 Second Cleanup Magnet ..................................................................................32
2.4.13 Secondary Disc Screen ....................................................................................33
2.4.14 Eddy Current Separator....................................................................................34
2.4.15 Aluminum Baler...............................................................................................35
2.4.16 Maintenance Shop and Associated Equipment ................................................36
2.4.17 Electrical Equipment ........................................................................................37
2.5 Building Site and Related Facilities .............................................................................40
2.5.1 Maintenance History ........................................................................................40
2.5.2 Physical Condition ...........................................................................................40
3
Employee Experience and Knowledge of Facility Operations and Performance .................41
4
Inventory of Spare Parts and Suppliers .................................................................................42
5
Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................42
iii
Contents
Tables
Table 2-1 Plant Performance Comparison .............................................................................6
Figures
Figure ES-1 Comparison of MSW Received to RDF Produced at the Newport Facility ..... vi
Figure 2-1 Newport Facility & Surrounding Properties ..........................................................4
Figure 2-2 Comparison of MSW Received to RDF Produced at the Newport Facility ..........7
Figure 2-3 Comparison of Newport Facility Residues ............................................................8
Figure 2-4 Comparison of Outputs Newport Facility..............................................................8
Figure 2-5 Newport Facility RDF to Burn Plants ...................................................................9
Figure 2-6 RRT Process Flow Diagram ................................................................................13
Photographs
Photograph 1: In-feed Pit and Inclined Conveyors ..............................................................15
Photograph 2: Grapple Cranes on A and B Lines ................................................................16
Photograph 3: Grapple and Bulky Waste Shear Shredder....................................................18
Photograph 4: Hammer Mill .................................................................................................20
Photograph 5: Rotor .............................................................................................................20
Photograph 6: Typical Troughed Roller Bed Belt Conveyor ...............................................23
Photograph 7: Magnetic Separator .......................................................................................25
Photograph 8: Primary Disc Screen .....................................................................................26
Photograph 9: Air Classifier .................................................................................................27
Photograph 10: Secondary Shredder ....................................................................................28
Photograph 11: RDF Compactor/Loader..............................................................................30
Photograph 12: Second Cleanup Magnet .............................................................................32
Photograph 13: Secondary Disc Screen ...............................................................................33
Photograph 14: Eddy Current Separator...............................................................................34
Photograph 15 Aluminum Baler ............................................................................................35
Appendices
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Operating Reports
TKDA Meeting Summary Memorandum
Spare Parts Inventory
iv
Assessment of Processing Capacity and Capability
Executive Summary
This report provides the Ramsey/Washington Recycling and Energy Board with an analysis of
the ability of the Newport Facility to continue to produce RDF to meet the Fuel Supply
Agreement with Xcel Energy. The Fuel Supply Agreement requires Resource Recovery
Technologies, LLC (RRT) to deliver “a minimum of 320,000 tons, in the aggregate for both Xcel
Combustion Plants, per calendar year.” It is important to note that a subsequent agreement does
encourage the production of RDF above the minimum annual amount of 320,000 tons but does
not establish a higher minimum value. It is also noted that RRT has historically produced RDF
at other facilities that could contribute to meeting the 320,000 minimum tons.
This report is based on observations made at the Newport Facility, discussions with RRT staff,
and the Newport Facility’s historic ability to produce the required 320,000 tons of RDF annually.
Historic production records from 1998 to 2014 were used to determine the Newport Facility’s
ability to produce RDF at the levels required. Foth has determined there are four major items to
ensure the Newport Facility continues to operate as it has in the past and meets the Fuel Supply
Agreement
Item 1 – Waste Deliveries
Based on the historical record, in order for the Newport Facility to produce a minimum of
320,000 tons of RDF annually, the Newport Facility must receive sufficient MSW to produce the
RDF. Figure ES-1 shows the historic waste deliveries and RDF produced from 1998 to 2014.
The figure indicates that the Newport Facility needs to receive 380,000 to 400,000 tons of MSW
annually to produce the required 320,000 tons of RDF. Should the Newport Facility not receive
the required MSW, then RDF production may not meet the Fuel Supply Agreement. Continued
waste deliveries to the Newport Facility are an important factor in meeting the Fuel Supply
Agreement.
Item 2 – Equipment Maintenance and Spare Parts
Foth’s reviews of the Newport Facility and discussions with RRT have concluded that the
equipment used to produce the RDF requires continued maintenance on a periodic basis. Very
few items in the RDF production process require zero maintenance. To the contrary, most
equipment requires daily inspection and maintenance of some kind. The majority of the
equipment has been modified to some extent in order to reduce the required maintenance and
increase performance at the Facility.
Maintenance requires an adequate supply of spare parts in the Newport Facility. Many of the
spare parts used for maintenance and repair have some lead time to obtain, so the inventory of
spare parts is needed for maintaining the Newport Facility. If there are delays because spare parts
are not readily available when maintenance and repair are needed, this could impact RDF
production and the ability to meet the Fuel Supply Agreement.
v
The Newport Facility typically has in inventory one or more of each major component part
(hammer mill, shredder components, etc.). When the part is replaced, the replacement part is
ordered so the inventory of spare parts on hand remains constant. Should this system of
inventory and replacement of spare parts be discontinued, meeting the Fuel Supply Agreement
would be challenging. The inventory of major components are scattered throughout the plant
area with no documentation as to the location of the parts. The location is known by the on-site
staff operating the plant, but is not documented.
It should be noted that RRT continues to perform all necessary equipment maintenance
(Appendix A contains monthly operating reports with monthly maintenance items) and is
continuing to replace/restock spare parts. To that end, there are specific spare parts with long
lead times that have been ordered for delivery after the first of the year. These spare parts will
need to be paid for upon delivery. The spare parts are needed in order to maintain Newport
Facility operation.
Figure ES-1
Comparison of MSW Received to RDF Produced
at the Newport Facility
550,000
MSW Received
MSW Processed
500,000
RDF Produced
Tons
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
Year
Source: Table 2-1
Item 3 – Staff
Foth has concluded that many of the components in the Newport Facility are considered custom
applications. This requires a knowledge base on each component and the modifications that have
been completed along with the maintenance and repair procedures for the components. This
knowledge is held by the current staff at the Newport Facility. There is little documentation as to
the repair or replacement procedures used for maintenance at the Newport Facility. Foth
recommends the R&E Board invest in the development of procedures and processes to capture
the intellectual capital held by the current staff.
vi
Should there be a disruption of staff at the Newport Facility, some of the knowledge base could
be lost and would require significant time to regain. This may impact the Fuel Supply Agreement
production requirements by experiencing longer delays in repairs and maintenance which could
increase non-production time. Foth encourages that staff turnover be limited throughout the
transition and operating period. Staff consistency and knowledge transfer are needed to continue
the historic performance.
Foth identified some key staff as being close to retirement. Procedures should be initiated at the
Newport Facility to ensure knowledge capture (from key staff) of key plant elements to ensure
continued operation. RRT Management noted that they have a current policy to cross train
employees to learn each other’s duties and roles. This may also require shadowing key plant
employees for extended periods to capture and document processes and procedures. Initiation of
maintenance and repair procedures documentation is also recommended. Since the Newport
Facility has many custom components, documentation of maintenance, repair and replacement
procedures is needed to document processes that are required to continued plant operations.
Staff have significant supplier relationships that assist in obtaining spare parts and repairs
quickly to meet RDF production requirements. For example, the key supplier when a hammer
mill rotor needs to be removed and replaced or repaired is the crane service to lift the hammer
mill unit out of the carriage through the roof of the Newport Facility. Knowing who to contact
and having the relationship to obtain quick response is needed to ensure adequate RDF
production. Foth noted, there are several of these types of relationships that exist with outside
suppliers and vendors. Losing these relationships may cause an increase in plant down time and
impact the ability to meet the Fuel Supply Agreement.
Item 4 – Suppliers
The suppliers and vendors used by the Newport Facility should be maintained throughout the
transition and continued operation of the Newport Facility. Many of the suppliers also have a
history with the Newport Facility and understand the unique nature of the plant, the
customization that has occurred and the production of the RDF. These suppliers may not to be
the “low bid” supplier because of the custom work they have completed at the Newport Facility.
For example, the machine shop used to resurface the hammer mill parts is based in Duluth. That
machine shop has completed this work for decades and understands the specific application and
wear on the hammer mill. Replacement of current suppliers with other lower cost suppliers may
impact the ability of the plant to obtain services and supplies meeting the needs for RDF
production. Additionally, there is considerable experience that is part of many of the suppliers
that allows for efficient and timely repairs. As the Board operates the Newport Facility, it is
recommended that multiple vendors be engaged to support the parts and repairs needs. This will
provide some flexibility in addressing maintenance and provide competitive pricing for service
and repairs.
Foth conducted a review of the Newport Facility and conducted interviews of current staff to
identify needs and components for the production of RDF. Since the MSW to RDF process at the
Newport Facility has two lines (Line A and Line B) the complete and total stoppage of RDF
production is unlikely. However, Foth identified a key component in the processing system,
vii
conveyor C12-ferrous, which is shared by both production lines. If this conveyor is not
operational, the RDF produced would contain ferrous material, which may not be accepted by
Xcel and the marketable ferrous will not be recovered. RRT has indicated the inventory of spare
parts is sufficient that conveyor downtime would be limited to a day or two should conveyor
parts require complete replacement. Another key component to RDF production is the power
supply to the Newport Facility. Should complete power be lost to the Newport Facility, RDF
production would cease. Finally, a natural disaster, should it impact the Newport Facility, has the
potential to cause RDF production to cease. It is important to note, the operating history indicates
that a long term and complete RDF production stoppage has not occurred.
Foth also reviewed each individual component in the MSW to RDF process and identified the
components impact on RDF production, plant failure risk and mitigation strategy to reduce or
eliminate plant failure risk. Since the plant does have two production lines, total plant failure
caused by one component failure is unlikely. However, component failure could cause reduced
RDF production for a period of time. But a component failure has historically not caused the
Fuel Supply Agreement to be violated.
This report does not address items that were presented in stand-alone reports such as the mobile
equipment, plant safety and computer systems that operate the Newport Facility. This report
should be used in conjunction with the other reports to provide the R&E Board with a complete
understanding of the Newport Facility and the production of RDF to meet the Fuel Supply
Agreement.
Based on the historical record and the continued delivery of waste, maintenance of equipment
and spare parts inventory, maintenance of staff and maintenance of supplier relationships, it is
Foth’s opinion that the Newport Facility is expected to continue to convert MSW to RDF to meet
the requirements of the Fuel Supply Agreement.
viii
St. Paul Location
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 288-8550 • Fax: (651) 288-8551
www.foth.com
October 1, 2015
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
2785 White Bear Avenue N
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Mr. Hansen and Ms. Hunter:
RE:
Safety Assessment
Site Visit - September 15-16, 2015
Resource Recovery Technologies (RRT) Facility
Introduction
Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC (Foth) conducted a third party safety assessment
of the Resource Recovery Technologies (RRT) facility located in Newport, Minnesota.
The purpose of the review was to perform a high level assessment of compliance with
federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements
that are applicable to the facility.
The on-site visit was conducted by Ms. Sarah Burns on September 15-16, 2015. During
the site visit, Ms. Burns met with several site representatives of RRT, primary personnel
interviewed included Mr. Chris Gondeck, RRT - CFO/COO, Ms. Jen Palmquist, RRT Safety Coordinator, Mr. Mark Wickoren, RRT - Supervisor, Mr. Joe Heinz, RRT Supervisor, and Mr. David Rumsey, consultant - Marsh & McLennan Agency. Ms.
Burns was provided a tour of the building and processing areas, interviewed personnel at
the facility and reviewed facility records pertaining to safety compliance.
Facility and Operations Description
The RRT facility is located at 100 Red Rock Road in Newport, Minnesota. The facility
receives municipal solid waste from residential and commercial properties within the
East Metro area. The solid waste is fed through a series of separation devices to remove
ferrous and non-ferrous metals for recycling and non-combustible materials for landfill.
After the removal of metals and fine particles from the waste stream, the final Refuse
Derived Fuel (RDF) product is ready for shipment to the burn plants. RDF mainly
consists of a combination of paper and plastic products and is shipped off site via truck.
X:\FOTH\IE\Ramsey Wash Co RRP\15R002-02\10000 Reports\19 Safety Assessment\Safety Assessment RRT 2015.docx
117
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 2
The facility’s operations are best described by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Code 4953, Refuse Systems. This corresponds with North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) 562920 for Materials Recovery Facilities. The facility employs 48 union
employees and 11 non-union/office employees. The facility operates three shifts per day which
includes two processing shifts (6:00am-4:30pm and 3:15pm – 10:15pm) and one
maintenance/housekeeping shift (10:00pm – 6:00am) and operates seven days per week. All
operations are located in one building.
Organization and Presentation of Information
Observations made throughout the site visit for each of the safety related compliance areas are
included in the discussion below. Findings of nonconformance are included in the discussion
and for ease of tracking and follow-up are specifically presented in summary form in Table 1.
This table provides a brief description of the general category of the finding, the specific
nonconformance issue and the applicable regulatory reference.
In addition to findings, there were also items that can be best identified as “recommendations”
rather than findings. While these items are not actual deficiencies from a regulatory standpoint,
it is believed that adherence to these recommendations will enhance overall compliance at the
facility. Recommendations are summarized in Table 2.
Safety and Health Compliance Review
As part of its assessment of compliance with OSHA safety and health standards, Ms. Burns
conducted a walkthrough of the facility, interviewed RRT employees and staff, and reviewed
written programs and records. Based on this assessment, the following observations on OSHA
safety and health programs were determined to be applicable to activities at the facility:
♦ General Health and Safety Requirements – Jen Palmquist is the Safety Coordinator for
RRT. Although her primary office is at the corporate office, she has ultimate
responsibility for health and safety at the Newport RRT facility and visits the facility on a
regular basis. RRT supervisors are responsible for routine/day-to-day safety related
programs/activities/compliance at the facility. Mr. David Rumsey with Marsh &
McLennan Agency is responsible for monthly employee safety training and monthly
safety inspections.
First aid supplies are readily available and maintained by Cintas. Four eyewash stations
are located near areas of liquid chemical exposure within the facility. An AED is located
in the office area. Key employees on each shift have been trained in first aid/CPR/AED.
A safety training schedule is maintained and training records are available in hard copy
form (includes sign in sheets and a copy of the training provided is attached). In general
(with only a few exceptions), all production employees receive all of the same safety
training. At the time of this site visit, the training records reviewed were up-to-date and
organized.
118
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 3
Newly hired RRT employees participate in a Cost Reduction Technology (CRT) preemployment physical exam where major muscle groups are tested in order to ensure the
employee is physically able to perform the work required by the job. There are no
mandatory drug testing requirements for employees at the pre-employment physical(s)
and/or random drug testing. However, if there is reasonable suspicion of drug use, a drug
test may be requested at RRT’s expense.
♦ Emergency and Fire Protection Plans (29 CFR 1910.38 and .39) – Under the OSHA
regulation at 29 CFR 1910.38, the facility is required to have in place a written
Emergency Action Plan (EAP). The EAP must include procedures for emergency
evacuation, including evacuation exit routes and methods to account for all employees
after evacuation. The plan shall include the names and job titles of individuals to be
contacted for more information.
A Fire Prevention Plan is also required according to 29 CFR 1910.39. Elements of a Fire
Prevention Plan must include a list of major workplace fire hazards, including proper
handling and storage practices for hazardous materials, along with procedures for regular
maintenance of safeguards installed on heat-producing equipment to prevent the
accidental ignition of combustible materials. The plan shall also include the names and
job titles of individuals responsible for maintenance of equipment and systems installed
to prevent fires and for control of fuel source hazards.
RRT has developed a written Emergency Action Plan, which describes what actions must
be taken by employees in event of an emergency situation and provides information on
fire prevention. Based on a review of the most recent version of the Plan (12/1/2001), the
EAP/FPP does generally meet OSHA requirements; however, the plan itself does include
some information that is out of date and does not include an action plan related to facility
power outage or active shooter (Note: a “safe room” has been constructed at the facility
that includes a locking door, phone line and reinforced walls in preparation for an active
shooter emergency response). Facility personnel reported that the plan is currently being
reviewed and updated. It is recommended that facility personnel consider adding power
outage and active shooter emergency response to the EAP.
When asked, facility personnel were aware of where to go in the event of a tornado
and/or fire; however, the facility has not conducted a fire or tornado drill in recent past as
required in the current EAP. It is recommended that fire and tornado drills are conducted
as required in the EAP or that the EAP be revised accordingly.
The facility is equipped with a sprinkler system, a wet (water) system for the majority of
the production area and a dry system for the control room. This system can either be
activated automatically when a sensor detects a fire and/or manually from the control
room if a fire is observed on one of the several monitors. The sprinkler system is tested
by a third party annually and maintenance on the system is performed as needed.
119
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 4
According to facility personnel, the fire department assigned to the facility is a volunteer
department and does not perform annual formal inspections; however, the fire department
has stopped by unannounced in the past and there have been no violations reported.
Fire extinguishers and water hoses are located throughout the facility and inspected on a
monthly/annual basis as required. Employees receive annual training on proper use of
fire extinguishers and hoses. Emergency exit signs and emergency lighting is provided at
the facility and inspected by the electrician on a monthly basis. Some of the emergency
lighting is the wall-mounted battery-operated type; however, the majority of the
emergency lighting is the fluorescent lighting normally used during operating hours, but
selected lighting fixtures are connected to/powered by the on-site natural gas generator in
the event of a power outage. Monthly hard copy inspection records are available on site
for the extinguishers and emergency lighting for the facility.
First aid kits are located throughout the facility and inspected/maintained by Cintas on a
regular basis. Four emergency eye wash stations are present in areas where liquid
chemicals are present (maintenance, nurse’s station, lab, and hazardous waste storage
area). All eyewashes are inspected on a monthly basis. Two eyewash stations are hard
piped and two are self-contained. The self-contained eye wash fluid is changed out every
six (6) months as part of the maintenance assurance program. Key employees on each
shift have been trained in first aid/CPR/AED.
The facility is fenced in and visitors and waste haulers must pass through a security
station upon entry.
♦ Hearing Conservation Plan (29 CFR 1910.95) – The written RRT Hearing
Conservation Plan (dated July 24, 2000) provides general guidelines on where and when
hearing protection needs to be used in the facility. In general, employees working in the
production area of the facility are required to wear hearing protection and are included in
the hearing conservation program. Hearing protection required signs were observed at
entry points to the production area, hearing protection was readily accessible, and all
employees were observed wearing hearing protection at the time of the site visit.
All employees included in the hearing conservation program are included in annual
hearing testing performed by On Site Medical Service. Records of this testing is
maintained by Jen Palmquist and retesting is performed whenever there is a suspected
Standard Threshold Shift (STS). Based on a review of records, there were 3 STSs in
2013, 2 STSs in 2014, and hearing tests have not yet been fully completed for 2015. In
2013 there is no evidence of any hearing retests having been completed for the employees
with suspected STSs and the STSs were not included as OSHA recordable incidents on
the 2013 OSHA 300 and 300A logs. However, beginning in 2014, confirmed STSs have
been included on the OSHA logs as appropriate.
120
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 5
According to facility personnel, an employee who is no longer with the company
historically maintained the OSHA logs, now Jen Palmquist maintains these logs and has
added the STSs to the 2014 OSHA logs and will continue to do so going forward.
Because this correction has been implemented prior to the completion of the safety
assessment it is not included in the findings table.
According to facility personnel, industrial hygiene testing is conducted on a regular basis
at the facility by Applied Environmental Sciences (AES). This IH testing does
periodically include noise monitoring, with the most recent testing performed in March,
2015. According to the report, one employee (Bulky Waste Residue (BWR) operator)
working on first shift and two employees (both laborers) working on third shift were
exposed to noise levels above the MN OSHA action level of 85 dBA. One of the two
laborers exposed to elevated noise levels on the third shift also had an 8-hour TWA
above the 8-hour MN OSHA PEL of 90 dBA. For employees working at this task, MN
OSHA also requires the investigation of feasible engineering controls to reduce noise
exposure levels to below 90 dBA. The AES report also noted that the BWR operator
monitored on the first shift had a measured average noise level of 89.6 dBA which is only
slightly below the MN OSHA PEL. The noise dose for this employee was 104.5%
because of working an extended shift of more than 8 hours. AES recommended treating
the task of the first shift BWR operator in the same manner as one that is above the 8hour OSHA PEL. According to facility personnel, the laborer on third shift was
performing a non-routine activity and was using an air knife, which likely contributed to
the elevated noise level reading. Because this activity is non-routine, RRT did not
investigate engineering controls. As for the employee on first shift exposed to 89.6 dBA,
facility personnel indicated that this employee was on an extended shift which is not
typical. They further stated that if this extended shift is needed in the future, they would
investigate employee rotation for this task.
Although the written hearing conservation program requires some updating, which is
reportedly currently underway, overall hearing conservation practices/recordkeeping
were generally observed to be in compliance with the OSHA standard with the exception
of confirmed STSs were not included on the 2013 OSHA logs.
♦ Job Safety Analysis – Job safety analysis has been identified as an aspect in the RRT
Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction (AWAIR) written program; however, RRT
does not currently routinely perform job safety analyses at the facility. Job safety
analysis analyzes each step of a given job task and breaks it down into components where
relevant safety hazards can be identified. The Job Safety Analysis process is strongly
encouraged by OSHA and also assists a facility to meet requirements at 29 CFR
1910.132 (d) to identify personal protective equipment needed for each job task.
Employee training is conducted on AWAIR topics as recently as 2013. According to
facility personnel, all facility specific written programs are currently being
reviewed/updated and job safety analyses will be completed as part of this review. It is
recommended that a job safety analysis be completed for each job at the facility.
121
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 6
♦ Personal Protective Equipment (29 CFR 1910.132 to .138) – RRT has developed a
written Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) program that includes required PPE at the
facility. Job specific PPE assessments were completed in 2006, but according to facility
personnel, are outdated. Employee PPE training is conducted on a regular basis as
recently as 2014. Production area employees are required to wear safety toe boots/shoes,
safety glasses, hearing protection, hard hat, leather gloves, and a high visibility vest. PPE
was readily available for employees at the time of the site visit and stored in the
supervisors office. Employees were observed wearing all required PPE at the time of the
site visit. Although the written program and Job Specific PPE assessments are in need of
updating, which is reportedly currently underway, current facility PPE practices were
generally observed to be in compliance with the OSHA standard.
♦ Respiratory Protection Program (29 CFR 1910.134) – The facility has a written
respiratory protection program in place (dated December 1, 2008), but it is in need of
updating. The facility requires respiratory protection for two jobs: BWR (dust mask)
and during quarterly facility blow downs (full face cartridge respirator – particulate).
Dust masks and welding masks (both considered “filtering face pieces”) are provided to
employees for voluntary use. Employees required to wear respirators are fit tested by
On-Site Medical Services annually and all employees receive respirator use training on a
regular basis as recently as 2014. Pulmonary function testing is currently performed
annually in conjunction with fit testing by On Site Medical Services for employees
required to wear respirators. Following this safety assessment, RRT management
thought it made sense to include pulmonary function testing in the pre-employment
physical rather than waiting until annual fit testing is conducted by On Site Medical
Services and would look into making this change. According to facility personnel, no
employees are allowed to work in the respirator required areas until pulmonary function
testing and fit testing are completed as required. Employees typically store their
individual respirators in their locked lockers. At the time of the site visit, visual
inspection of employee respirators could not be completed as most employees who wear
respirators work on third shift and were not available for interview. Although the written
program is in need of updating, which is reportedly currently underway, current facility
respiratory practices and recordkeeping were generally observed to be in compliance with
the OSHA standard.
♦ Confined Space Entry (29 CFR 1910.146) – RRT has a written confined space entry
program; however, the most recent revision date is unknown. The facility has identified
23 confined spaces throughout the facility and through engineering controls (e.g.,
ventilation, access, etc.) and repeated documented air monitoring have determined that all
currently identified confined spaces are non-permit required spaces. Although these
confined spaces are non-permit required, facility personnel have been trained and
continue to use the multi gas monitors during entry in addition to current engineering
controls (e.g., ventilation, lighting, egress options, etc.). The program includes
monitoring for a hazardous atmosphere using a multi-gas detector (oxygen content,
122
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 7
methane, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen sulfide) and outlines use of personal protective
equipment. All employees are trained in confined space entry on an annual basis as
recently as this year. As with many of the written programs, this program requires
updating to reflect current practices (e.g., there are no current permit required confined
spaces on site) and facility personnel indicated they are in the process of
reviewing/updating this written program. Although the written confined space program
requires some updating, overall the current confined space practices were generally
observed to be in compliance with the OSHA standard.
♦ Energy Control Plan (29 CFR 1910.147) – RRT has developed a written Energy
Control Plan with the latest revision date of June 4, 2009. Although the written
document provides a general OSHA compliant overview of the program, the program is
slightly outdated and does not reflect all of the current lockout/tagout practices.
Lockout/tagout is performed on a routine basis by facility personnel using detailed
machine specific shutdown procedures. The specific written procedure outlines the steps
that must be taken when de-energizing each piece of equipment during maintenance and
includes three signatures for employee verification to ensure the equipment is properly
shut down. The program has locks and keys (with name tags) for employees certified at
the facility to perform lockout/tagout activities. Group lockout/tagout is typically
performed using a group lockbox. Although rarely used, the written lockout/tagout
program contains a detailed abandoned lock removal process and associated form that is
required to be completed as part of the lock removal process. In addition, the written
program details how the lockout/tagout process is handled during a shift change. The
lockout/tagout station is located in a central area. Although the written lock out/tag out
program requires some updating, which is reportedly currently underway, overall the
current lockout/tagout practices were generally observed to be in compliance with the
OSHA standard.
♦ Arc Flash (NFPA 70E) – An arc flash assessment was completed for the RRT facility in
2004. Arc flash labels were observed on electrical panels throughout the facility. The
facility employs a certified electrician who has been with the company for approximately
7.5 years. Recent arc flash training has been provided to the RRT electrician and selected
RRT personnel and reportedly the arc flash survey is reviewed during the training. Arc
flash PPE was observed for general use stored in the maintenance area and the electrician
has his own designated PPE. PPE observed on site included rubber/leather gloves, hard
hat with visor, balaclava, and jumpsuit. The rubber gloves were all recently certified
within the past 6 months.
Although an arc flash survey has been completed for the facility and reportedly no
significant equipment/electrical changes have been made, there have been three
revisions/updates to NFPA 70E (2007, 2014, and 2015) since the 2004 arc flash survey
was conducted.
123
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 8
In addition, NFPA 70E requires that the arc flash risk assessment shall be updated when a
modification or renovation takes place and that it shall be reviewed periodically, not to
exceed five years, to account for changes in the electrical distribution system. It is
recommended that a qualified third party vendor review the current arc flash assessment
as related to current facility equipment, operations, and electrical distribution system as
well as compliance with current NFPA 70E (2015) requirements.
♦ Machine Guarding (29 CFR 1910.212) – The RRT facility utilizes a series of conveyors
to transport municipal solid waste through various modes of separation (i.e., hammer
mill, magnets, eddy current, shredders, etc.) in order to produce RDF and to separate
recyclables. The conveyors are equipped with a trip wire that runs parallel to the
conveyor rollers and serves as an e-stop for the conveyor system. Although the trip wire
is an integral part of the safety of the conveyor system, the conveyor belt/rollers are still
an exposed nip point where injury may occur. RRT employees are routinely trained on
the appropriate lockout/tagout procedures and safe work practices regarding the
conveyors as well as the other integral parts of the separation system; however, a
machine guarding assessment has not been completed for the facility and it was uncertain
at the time of the site visit if the trip wire along with employee training was adequate
employee protection. It is recommended that a third party machine guarding assessment
be completed not only for the conveyor system, but the various solid waste separation
stations within the conveyor system (e.g., hammer mill, magnets, eddy current, shredder,
etc.) to ensure all appropriate machine guarding/safeguards are in place for this type of
facility.
♦ Housekeeping (29 CFR 1910.22) and Combustible Dust (NFPA 654) – RRT has two
written programs related to facility housekeeping; “Housekeeping” (dated September 11,
2010) and “Safe Work Practices/Dust Control” (dated November 14, 2014).
Housekeeping at the RRT facility was generally good; however, with this type of
operation (i.e., shredding garbage) continued attention to housekeeping is important.
Employees on day shifts routinely remove debris from walkways and clean up areas
where recyclables and RDF are collected. Every evening an entire shift is dedicated to
housekeeping/maintenance. In addition, an entire facility blow down is completed
quarterly to remove dust and debris starting from the top of the facility working down.
This 6 person crew each has specific cleaning details during this blowdown and is critical
in reducing the potential for the accumulation of potentially combustible dust at the
facility. During blowdown, the entire facility (with the exception of the lighting, which is
reportedly intrinsically safe) is shut down.
Additional controls are also in place in order to control the amount of dust in the facility.
The facility is equipped with a dust collection system to remove particulate from the air.
Incoming material is thoroughly mixed in order to reduce dust and any very dusty
material (e.g., flour) is immediately rejected as part of the “Suspect or Unacceptable
Waste” procedure.
124
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 9
According to site personnel, facility dust was tested for combustibility in 2008, 2009, and
2010 and the dust was reportedly not readily combustible. Housekeeping and dust
control is reportedly a regular topic of the safety committee and any issues are discussed
and addressed as quickly as possible. This program was generally observed to be in
compliance with the OSHA and NFPA standards.
♦ Suspect or Unacceptable Waste – The RRT facility accepts a variety of general
municipal solid waste from commercial and residential properties. All waste is received
on the tipping floor where trained employees sort through the waste using grapple cranes.
Any unacceptable or suspect waste is immediately quarantined for further inspection
and/or testing. This suspect/unacceptable waste can include anything from propane
tanks, suspect asbestos containing material, etc. Following inspection/testing the waste is
disposed of according to federal/state regulations. Facility personnel reported that
historically a propane tank made it past initial inspection and into the hammer mills
where it exploded. Following this incident a concrete block bunker was installed in order
to contain any potential propane tank explosions in the event a propane tank is missed
during the initial inspection process. No additional propane tank explosions were
reported by facility personnel. This program was generally observed to be in compliance
with OSHA standards and best management practices.
♦ Powered Industrial Trucks (29 CFR 1910.178) – RRT uses two forklifts and a skid
steer in daily operations. At the time of the site visit, daily documented inspections of
each piece of equipment is conducted prior to each use. Completed forms are available in
the supervisor’s office. A review of the forms indicates these inspections are being
completed, deficiencies are noted, repairs are made, and inspections are up-to-date.
Routine maintenance and any PIT deficiencies are either addressed by RRT personnel or
by Minnesota Lift Truck depending on the repair/maintenance activity required. Because
this equipment is used 24-hours per day, OSHA requires that a pre-use inspection be
conducted for this equipment at least once per shift. According to facility personnel, the
forms have been updated to include inspections once per shift and employees will be
trained on this change. Training is provided to employees using this equipment by either
RRT employees and/or union representatives that have received powered industrial truck
train-the-trainer certification. Records of this training is maintained in hard copy form.
The facility also utilizes an aerial lift and mobile scaffold (scissor lift) on occasion. At
the time of the site visit no documented pre-use inspections are completed for this
equipment. Although not required by OSHA, a best management practice is for
employees to complete a documented pre-use inspection for this equipment. According
to facility personnel, a written pre-use inspection checklist has been developed for this
equipment and will be implemented.
125
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 10
With the exception of the minor findings noted above, this program was generally
observed to be in compliance with the OSHA standard.
♦ Bloodborne Pathogens Program (29 CFR 1910.1030) – RRT has developed a written
Bloodborne Pathogens (BBP) plan (dated November 30, 2011). Employees receive
annual training on bloodborne pathogens and hard copy training records are on file.
Employees with possible exposure to BBP, which is the majority of the RRT production
employees, have been offered the hepatitis B vaccination. If the vaccination was
accepted, employee vaccination records are maintained on file. If the vaccination was
declined, a declination form has been signed by the employee and maintained on file.
This program was generally observed to be in compliance with the OSHA standard.
♦ Hazard Communication Program (29 CFR 1910.1200) – RRT has developed a written
program (date June 7, 2010) to address the physical and health hazards of chemicals
being used in the facility and to comply with 29 CFR 1910.1200. Most chemicals
used/stored at the facility were observed in their original containers and labeled
appropriately. Chemicals transferred to a secondary container were also observed to be
labeled appropriately with the contents of the container. Employees have been provided
updated training on hazard communication to include elements of the Global
Harmonization System (GHS) as stipulated by changes in the OSHA standard. As
required, the updated training was completed prior to December 1, 2013 and annually
thereafter. Hard copy training records are maintained for employees. Copies of MSDSs
are located in two binders within the office which is unlocked/available 24 hours/day.
Although a review of MSDSs revealed that randomly selected chemicals were found
within the binders, the binders would benefit from a bit more organization which can
easily be accomplished when the new safety data sheets (SDSs) are received from
suppliers. Although the written hazard communication program requires some updating
to incorporate GHS information, which is reportedly currently underway, current hazard
communication practices were generally observed to be in compliance with the OSHA
standard.
♦ Fall Protection (29 CFF 1910.23) – RRT has developed a written fall protection
program for the facility (dated April 16, 2005). This information is used to train
employees that will be performing activities where fall protection is necessary. For the
RRT facility, fall protection is typically used when using the aerial lift, when receiving
materials on a platform (guardrail removed), and non-routine activities. Harnesses,
lanyards and other fall protection equipment is stored in a cabinet within the maintenance
area and was observed to be in good condition at the time of the site visit. Anchor points
were recently installed near platform areas where guardrails are removed to receive
material (an improvement that was brought up during a safety committee meeting).
126
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 11
The harnesses and lanyards are informally inspected prior to use and formally annually
inspected by RRT personnel. The annual inspection is documented. Although the written
fall protection program requires some updating, which is reportedly currently underway,
current fall protection practices/recordkeeping were generally observed to be in
compliance with the OSHA standard
♦ Hoists and Cranes (29 CFR 191.179) – RRT uses approximately 13 hoists/cranes
located throughout the facility. RRT employees are initially trained on the use of this
equipment during their two-year apprenticeship program and as needed thereafter.
Monthly in house inspections are conducted on all hoists as part of the maintenance
assurance program. Annual hoist inspections are conducted by Sharrow, a third party
vendor.
All lifting equipment is stored in a locker within the maintenance area (e.g., slings,
hooks, chains, etc.) and is inspected by Sharrow on a monthly basis. Any missing
equipment is replaced and equipment in poor condition is immediately removed from
service and replaced with new equipment. Invoices/Inspections were available for review
from Sharrow. All lifting equipment was observed to be in good condition at the time of
the site visit. This program was generally observed to be in compliance with the OSHA
standard.
♦ Hot Work (29 CFR 1910.252) – RRT maintenance operations include stick welding.
There are two designated hot work areas, one in the maintenance area and one in the
production area. Both areas were well maintained and free of combustible material at the
time of the site visit. A moveable welding vent is present in the maintenance area to
capture welding fumes. There is no written hot work program (one is not required by
OSHA, but recommended); however, RRT employees (and Corval contractors) are
trained in hot work practices regularly (as recently as May 2015) and hot work permits
are completed when working outside the designated hot work areas.
Fire watches are also maintained as appropriate and fire extinguishers are available
throughout the facility. Hard copy completed hot work permits were available for
review in the supervisors office. This program was generally observed to be in
compliance with the OSHA standard; however, it is recommended that facility personnel
consider developing a (non-OSHA required) written hot work program.
♦ Ongoing Monitoring Programs (29 CFR 1910.1000) – RRT uses an industrial hygiene
consultant, Applied Environmental Sciences (AES), to conduct indoor air monitoring
throughout the facility. Although AES is not on a strict sampling schedule, based on
several reports reviewed AES is on site approximately once per quarter.
127
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 12
Contaminants monitored are varied based on the time of the year and have recently
included the following:
Asbestos
Fungal
Total dust
Mercury
Formaldehyde
Carbon monoxide
Elemental carbon (diesel exhaust particulate)
Nitric Oxide
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Endo toxins
Pesticides
Noise
Recently completed IH reports reviewed indicate that the consultant has adequately
described monitoring, calibration, and set-up procedures used during the tests. A
sampling of monitoring data reviewed by Foth indicate that concentrations of the above
contaminants were below applicable limits and facility personnel reported that historical
IH testing is generally within acceptable limits. David Rumsey also reviews all newly
completed IH testing during his monthly inspections for any exceedances. Based on the
sampling of information reviewed, workplace exposure levels are in compliance with
OSHA standards for the substances reviewed. This program was generally observed to
be in compliance with the OSHA standard.
♦
Safety Training – All RRT production employees are part of the union and are included
in a comprehensive 2-year apprenticeship. Although this apprenticeship trains employees
on job responsibilities it includes safety training as well including, but not limited to,
hoists, powered industrial trucks, fall protection, confined space, lockout/tagout, etc.
Each employee progresses through seven levels during the apprenticeship program before
the training is complete.
Training during this program is provided by experienced RRT personnel/supervisors and
outside union personnel. In addition to the apprenticeship program, all new RRT
employees undergo a two-week orientation process that includes classroom safety
training, employee shadowing, and a meeting with a safety committee member to review
safety topics. After orientation the new employee typically moves to the night shift
where they continue to shadow an experienced employee for another two-week period
prior to being independent.
The facility also uses a variety of contractors from Corval. Currently there are two
laborers on site full-time who undergo a safety orientation provided by the RRT
supervisors and they also receive monthly safety training provided by RRT/David
Rumsey. Corval also provides many other contractors to RRT (e.g., building contractors,
128
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 13
electricians, etc.). Any new contractors on site also undergo a safety orientation provided
by the supervisors. All contractor training records are maintained on site in hard copy
form.
Most of the safety training provided to RRT personnel is provided by David Rumsey with
Marsh & McLennan Agency. He provides safety training on a monthly basis on a variety
of safety related topics for all three shifts. The training is typically classroom/powerpoint
training and all training records/power point presentations are maintained in hard copy
form. The facility also maintains a training schedule for each year that outlines the safety
training that is planned for the year. In addition to Mr. Rumsey’s monthly training, he
also performs a monthly walkabout where he performs a visual inspection of the facility
and reports any safety related issues. According to facility personnel and Mr. Rumsey,
many of the reported items are taken care of immediately if possible. Hard copies of
these monthly inspections are maintained on site.
Employee safety training was generally observed to be in compliance with OSHA
requirements and was very organized; however, office personnel are not typically
included in the monthly safety training and do not formally participate in a safety
orientation if newly hired. It is recommended that RRT evaluate what safety training
program(s) office staff must participate in (e.g., EAP, fire extinguisher training, etc.) and
include office personnel in regular safety training as appropriate.
♦ Safety Committee - The RRT facility has a long standing safety committee comprised of
union RRT employees, Jen Palmquist, and David Rumsey. The committee meets on a
monthly basis to review any new safety concerns, in process safety projects, and
completed safety projects. Foth sat in on the September safety committee meeting while
on site. Based on conversations with RRT employees, the safety committee has been a
productive way to identify and complete safety related projects at the facility and is a
good way to communicate any concerns to management. During employee interviews,
many safety related improvements have been accomplished at the facility including, but
not limited to, the following:
Modification to the C6 line in order to more easily unplug the conveyers,
reducing the risk of employee injury;
Installation of guards on many of the fixed ladders at the facility in order to
reduce the risk of falls; and
Installation of anchor points on mezzanines where guardrails need to be removed
in order to receive supplies.
♦ Safety Incident Recording and Recordkeeping - RRT tracks safety incidents and near
misses via hard copy forms. The employee and supervisor complete the form anytime
there is a safety incident (recordable or non-recordable), property damage, and/or near
miss. The completed forms are sent to Jen Palmquist for initial review and then incidents
are communicated to management during the weekly management meeting.
129
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 14
If the safety incident is “significant”, the safety incident is communicated to management
immediately. Root cause investigations are conducted for any “significant” employee
injuries and any property damage related incidents. Nearly all employee injuries are
reported to the insurance company and included in the workers compensation process
even though it may not require anything beyond first aid. According to facility
personnel, this “over reporting” has helped the facility better manage employee injuries.
Foth reviewed the last three years of the OSHA 300 and 300A logs, below is a summary
of the information:
2012
4 OSHA recordable injuries;
27 total days away from work;
36 total number of days of job transfer or restriction; and
Calculated Incident Rate – 7.7*
2013
5 OSHA recordable injuries ;
Calculated Incident Rate – 9.6*
2014
11 OSHA recordable injuries;
Calculated Incident Rate – 20.61
In addition to the OSHA logs, David Rumsey provided a facility specific graph of the workers
compensation costs since November 2006 (see Attachment 1). Although the number of OSHA
recordable incidents have increased over the three years of OSHA logs reviewed, the amount
paid out from insurance for workers compensation claims has continued to decrease since 2011.
According to facility personnel, there have been no safety related deaths at the facility and the
most recent significant employee injury was in 2014 when an employee broke his foot after
falling from a fixed ladder while responding to a fire alarm. A root cause investigation revealed
that many of the fixed ladders could be removed as stairs are located nearby. Therefore, many
fixed ladders have been removed and any remaining fixed ladders were equipped with guarding
to prevent employee falls.
1
As a point of reference, the bureau of labor statistics (BLS) annual industry benchmark for NAICS 562920 for
calendar year 2012 was 8.8. Data for this industry was not available for the most recent survey data for calendar year
2013.
130
Mr. Zack Hansen
Ms. Judy Hunter
October 1, 2015
Page 15
According to facility personnel, the employee with the broken foot has returned to work and
there were no open workers compensation claims at the time of the site visit. This program was
generally observed to be in compliance with the OSHA standard.
It was a pleasure to assist with this review. If you have questions regarding any of the above,
please feel free to contact Sarah Burns (414) 336-7926 or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Sarah Burns
Technical Support Environmental
Curt Hartog, P.E.
Technical Director
Attachments:
Tables
Table 1: Audit Findings Summary
Table 2: Recommendations Summary
Attachment 1: RRT Workers’ Compensation Policy Incurred Losses vs. Incidents by
Policy Period
131
132
Tables
133
134
Table 1
Audit Findings Summary
Item
General Category
1
Safety and Health
Written Programs
2
Machine Guarding
Findings
Safety and Health Program
Several of the OSHA required written health and safety related programs contained
outdated information and/or information that did not match current practices.
Although facility personnel were already in the process of reviewing and updating all
of these programs and have set a goal to have the programs reviewed/updated by the
end of November 2015, the following OSHA required written health and safety
programs require updating for various reasons:
• Emergency Action Plan (29 CFR 1910.38(b))
• Respiratory Protection (29 CFR 1910.134(c))
• Confined Space Entry (29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4))
• Hazard Communication (29 CFR 1910.1200(a)(2))
Machine Guarding
The RRT facility utilizes a series of conveyors to transport municipal solid waste
through various modes of separation (i.e., hammer mill, magnets, eddy current,
shredders, etc.) in order to produce RDF and to separate recyclables. The conveyors
are equipped with a trip wire that runs parallel to the conveyor rollers and serves as an
e-stop for the conveyor system. Although the trip wire is an integral part of the safety
of the conveyor system, the conveyor belt/rollers are still an exposed nip point where
injury may occur. A machine guarding assessment has not been completed for the
facility and it was uncertain at the time of the site visit if the trip wire along with
employee training was adequate employee protection. It is recommended that a third
party machine guarding assessment be completed not only for the conveyor system,
but the various solid waste separation stations within the conveyor system (e.g.,
hammer mill, magnets, eddy current, shredder, etc.) to ensure all appropriate machine
guarding/safeguards are in place for this type of facility.
Regulatory Citation
Various
29 CFR 1910.212
Tables
Page 1
135
Item
3
General Category
Arc Flash Assessment
Findings
Arc Flash Assessment
An arc flash assessment was completed for the RRT facility in 2004. Although PPE
was readily available, arc flash labels were observed on electrical panels throughout
the facility, arc flash training has been provided to appropriate personnel, and
reportedly no significant equipment/electrical changes have been made, there have
been three revisions/updates to NFPA 70E in 2007, 2014, and 2015. In addition,
NFPA 70E requires that the arc flash risk assessment shall be updated when a
whenever modification or renovation takes place and that it shall be reviewed
periodically, not to exceed five years, to account for changes in the electrical
distribution system. It is recommended that a qualified third party vendor review the
current arc flash assessment as related to current facility equipment, operations, and
electrical distribution system as well as compliance with current NFPA 70E (2015)
requirements.
Regulatory Citation
NFPA 70E
Powered Industrial Trucks
4
Powered Industrial
Trucks
RRT uses two forklifts and a skid steer in daily operations. At the time of the site visit,
daily documented inspections of each piece of equipment is conducted prior to each
use. Because this equipment is used 24-hours per day, OSHA requires that a pre-use
inspection be conducted for this equipment at least once per shift. According to
facility personnel, the forms have been updated to include inspections once per shift
and employees will be trained on this change.
1910.178(q)7
Tables
Page 2
136
Table 2
Recommendations Summary
Item
General Category
1
Emergency Action
Plan
2
Powered Industrial
Trucks
3
Hazard
Communication
4
Hot Work
Recommendations
Although the existing emergency action plan covers most of the emergencies that may
occur at the facility, it is recommended that facility personnel consider adding facility
power outage and active shooter emergency response to the plan when updating the
plan. In addition, the current emergency action plan indicates that fire and tornado
drills will be completed on an annual basis; however, facility personnel indicated drills
have not been completed on a routine basis. It is recommended that fire/tornado drills
be completed as per the EAP. Facility personnel reported that the plan is currently
being reviewed/updated and will incorporate these recommendations and will conduct
fire and tornado drills.
The facility also utilizes an aerial and boom lifts on occasion. At the time of the site
visit, no documented pre-use inspections are completed for this equipment. Although
not required by OSHA, a best management practice is for employees to complete a
documented pre-use inspection for this equipment in order to identify any issues.
According to facility personnel, a written pre-use inspection checklist has been
developed for this equipment and will be implemented.
Copies of MSDSs are located in two binders within the office area which is
unlocked/available 24 hours/day. Although a review of MSDSs revealed that
randomly selected chemicals were found within the binders, the binders would benefit
from a bit more organization. It is recommended that the MSDS binders be
consolidated when the new (GHS compliant) safety data sheets (SDSs) are received
from suppliers.
RRT maintenance operations include stick welding. There is no written hot work
program. RRT employees (and Corval contractors) are trained in hot work practices
regularly and hot work permits are completed when working outside the designated hot
work areas. Current hot work practices/recordkeeping was generally observed to be in
compliance with the OSHA standard; however, it is recommended that facility
personnel consider developing a written hot work program.
Regulatory Citation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Tables
Page 3
137
Item
General Category
5
Employee Safety
Training
6
Safety and Health
Program
Recommendations
Office personnel are not typically included in the monthly safety training and do not
formally participate in a safety orientation if newly hired. It is recommended that RRT
evaluate what safety training program(s) office staff should participate in (e.g., EAP,
fire extinguisher training, etc.) and include them in routing safety training as
appropriate.
RRT has developed several non-OSHA required written programs for the facility.
Although the majority of these programs are generally representative of work
practices, minor changes are needed to update written programs to reflect current
practices and/or update programs with current information. Although facility
personnel are currently reviewing and updating all of these programs and anticipate all
updates will be completed by the end of November 2015, the following non-OSHA
required written health and safety programs require updating for various reasons:
• Lockout/Tagout;
• Hearing Conservation;
• Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction (AWAIR) written program
including completion of Job Safety Analysis;
• PPE written program and completion of job specific PPE Assessments; and
• Fall Protection written program.
Regulatory Citation
N/A
N/A
Tables
Page 4
138
Attachment 1
RRT Workers’ Compensation Policy
Incurred Losses vs. Incidents by Policy Period
139
Attachment
Page
1401
Resource Recovery Technology, LLC (RRT)
Newport Resource Recovery Facility IT
Assessment
For Ramsey/Washington Recycling and Energy Board
Nov 6th 2015
Presented by:
Heartland Business Systems
Engineering Associates: Rob Claxton, Cody Hodowanic
7760 France Avenue South, Suite 1100
Bloomington, MN
800.236.7914
www.hbs.net
Version 1.5
141
RRT Newport Facility
IT Business Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) ......................................................................................... 3
Applications Usage at RRT ........................................................................................................... 4
Tier 1 (Critical) ........................................................................................................................ 4
Tier 2 (Highly Important) ......................................................................................................... 5
Recommendation(s) and Comment(s) ........................................................................................ 5
Infrastructure- Data Room ............................................................................................................ 6
Data Room .................................................................................................................................. 6
Power .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Cooling/Humidity Control ............................................................................................................ 6
Fire Control .................................................................................................................................. 7
Cabling ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Recommendation(s) and Comment(s) ........................................................................................ 7
Telephone System ...................................................................................................................... 7
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 7
......................................................................................................................................................... 8
......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Network......................................................................................................................................... 10
Locations ................................................................................................................................... 10
LAN............................................................................................................................................ 10
INTERNET/WAN ....................................................................................................................... 10
Security ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Recommendation(s) and Comment(s) ...................................................................................... 12
Storage ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Local .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Backup ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Replication ................................................................................................................................. 13
Virtual Environment .................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix A: hardware/software workstations ......................................................................... 16
Prepared by Heartland Technology Group
1
142
Appendix A.1 Monitors ............................................................................................................... 25
Appendix A.2 Printers ................................................................................................................. 27
Appendix A.3 Radios ................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix A.4 non-classified ...................................................................................................... 29
Appendix A.5 Glossary ............................................................................................................... 30
2
143
OVERVIEW
HBS has partnered with Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC (Foth) to provide a hardware and
software assessment of existing information technology (IT) infrastructure at the Newport
Resource Recovery Facility (Facility). With the completion of this assessment further direction
and scope will be given to the Ramsey/ Washington Recycling and Energy Board (R&E Board)
validating current IT designs and making recommendations for pre and post-sale business
objectives.
Purpose
The purpose of this document is assessment of current hardware, software and business
processes; to-the-end ensuring business continuity when transfer of ownership occurs. This
executive summary will highlight areas according to core business IT services. These services
include Data Room Analysis, Server Analysis, Network Analysis, Software Analysis and core IT
business processes critical for daily business functions.
Scope
The scope of this document is in direct relationship to the SOW (Statement of Work) given and
agreed upon with the R&E Board. The scope includes assessment only of hardware, software,
and business objectives for ownership transfer.
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
The objectives of this project are to provide the R&E Board with the following for Phase 1:





Inventory of all server, phone, and network hardware at the Facility.
Inventory all applications at the Facility.
Map high level business processes and application functionality / use in a limited
timeframe.
Identify high level risks found for hardware and software.
Recommend best practices for integration between R&E Board and the Facility from a
data and security perspective.
3
144
APPLICATIONS USAGE AT RRT
Tier 1 (Critical)

TKDA
o TKDA is the heart of Newport Facility Operations controlling all functionalities that
make this waste management system unique and successful. As a core entity of
this facility redundancies have been put in place ensuring multiple fail saves in
the event of a single failure.
o
o

This includes the following redundant systems:
 Full Hardware Switch Control of all Critical Resource Recovery Systems.
 As illustrated, (see below) every component is hardwired via AllenBradley Relays and can be manually controlled via a manual control
board if need be.

The main TKDA software resides on 3 Independent PCs that can take control of
the system at any time providing redundancy. The TKDA monitoring station is
constantly manned and the systems in place are well run. No added redundancy
is recommended.
The CompuWeigh System
o This is another critical software piece allowing the precise weighing of billable
loads to given vendors. This is proprietary and as such needs to be secure and
reliable.
 The software resides on the Facility’s main server with the software’s
core functions residing in a SQL database.
 Facility’s server has sufficient capacity in terms of processing power,
memory, and disk space for this critical application.
 Multiple replication techniques including offsite VMWare replication,
onsite replication to another server and tape backup were observed and
are in-line with the latest disaster recovery techniques.
 No further redundancies are recommended.
4
145
Tier 2 (Highly Important)


MP2 Software
o MP2 software resides on most workstations at the Facility and also talks to a
backend server. This software provides maintenance records and processing for
inventory needs related to parts replacement. MP2 is used for tracking
approximately fifty (50) parts identified as critical or difficult to procure.
 It is advised to keep this same system in place allowing for a smoothtransition at time-of-sale.
Video System:
o The surveillance video system at the Facility is composed of 29 analog only
cameras and is centrally run to the control room of the Facility. These cameras
are located throughout the facility and provide real-time security and monitoring
of the waste processing equipment.
o The cameras are run through a Multiplex Video System KTD-440 allowing
combining and isolation of the video feeds coming in if need be.
o Two disk arrays are also hooked up to the video system allowing approximately 2
weeks of recording time for all cameras.
o The video system utilizes a video server and software named Matrix for multigridview monitoring.
o This system meets the immediate needs of the Facility and software appears to
function well.
Recommendation(s) and Comment(s)

Critical for Replacement before Time-of-Sale.
o None.
Tier 1 and 2 applications exhibit appropriate redundancy methodologies consistent with
hardware/software objectives. No immediate changes observed needed.
An analysis of the server and physical inspection of the cameras on a yearly basis is
recommended.
5
146
INFRASTRUCTURE- DATA ROOM
Data Room
Physical Layout

The demarcation for the Newport Facility was transitioned to be the data room with all
network and phone connections coming into it. The space houses 2 19” data racks which
host servers and core IT systems and is sufficient in terms of space and any future
capacity needs.
Power
Generator

No observed generators for the data room.
UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply)


A pair of APC 1500 Smart UPS powering the 2 19” data racks with load rates of below
50% were observed. These units would provide the necessary ten to fifteen (10 to 15)
minute window in order to properly shutdown servers and network equipment in the event
of power failure.
These UPSs also provide surge protection for the racks and keeps power conditioned to
nominal levels.
Power Supplies

Most networking and server devices observed in the room have a single power supply.
The main server has two power supplies.
Cooling/Humidity Control

A newer Carrier Wall Mounted Cooling unit (see below) model 40MVC018-301 provides
more than adequate cooling capacity for this room. With a 1.5Ton rating or 18,000BTUs
this unit will provide years of service and enough cooling power for additional equipment
in the data room.

6
147
Fire Control



There is no special fire control system for the data room.
There is a heat/smoke detector in the data room tied to the building fire system.
No special zoning of the data center was observed.
Cabling


Internal data cabling is composed of Category 5e cable to the desktop. The 5e category
standard is compliant with current POE (Power over Ethernet) specifications and will
provide necessary bandwidth for any future VoIP or wireless system.
Multimode fiber to the Scale House is used and is buried underground. Multimode fiber is
used appropriately for this distance and application.


o None
In terms of the space, the space is adequate to meet the IT Infrastructure needs of the
Newport Facility for the foreseeable future. The recent addition of the wall mounted
cooling unit ensures good ventilation and sufficient cooling. However, a refresh in server,
network racking and cabling is in order. This refresh will allow proper labeling and
location information important in emergency situations.
Telephone System






The phone system is composed of a digital PBX with digital station ports. A PRI ISDN
card provides 23 outside line capacity.
Voice Mail is activated on this system and provides 2000hours of storage.
Model # of phone system is NEC SV8100 and is approximately two to three (2 to 3) years
old.
The phone system also has a digital connection to Eden Prairie. The main phone system
node resides in Eden Prairie.
Current plans are to migrate the hardware components of the main node in Eden Prairie
over to the Facility before time-of-sale.
This will ensure all phone numbers and current phone system will remain in-place and
unchanged at time-of-sale.
Recommendations






o None
Phone system provides adequate capabilities/ports for Facility and will provide good
functionality for at least 2 more years.
Digital PBX technology is 100% proprietary and is a technology which has run its course
in most businesses.
Most businesses upgrading phone systems will upgrade to a VOIP based system.
Full Integration of Board Telecommunications systems will need VOIP capabilities.
Again switches will need to be upgraded to VOIP quality along with internal routing before
discussions can begin for Board systems integration.
7
148
8
149
9
150
NETWORK
Locations
Newport and Eden Prairie


The network consists of two (2) locations Newport and Eden Prairie.
For purposes of this report the Newport Facility will only be highlighted for Networking.

It is important to note any core IT functionality that is needed to run the Newport facility
will be identified and transferred over from the Eden Prairie site to the Newport facility
before time-of-sale. This identification will be done by RRT’s IT consulting firm Cyber
Advisors.
LAN
Internal Lan
The internal Lan is a simple single subnet for all devices at the Newport facility.

The subnet is 10.16.24.x/24 with a DHCP range of 50-150.

There are 2 HP switches supporting Lan connectivity. These switches are non POE,
but are Gigabit capable.
Layer 2
No Layer 2 instances observed with only 2 switches.

No vlans observed in given topology.
Layer 3
No Layer 3 internal routing observed.
INTERNET/WAN
The Internet consists of bonded T1s for a total bandwidth of around 3 to 4mbits of aggregate from
Integra Telecom. For a relatively small office with core business functionality away from the
Internet, the current bandwidth meets needs. There is also a dedicated private WAN between
Newport and Eden Prairie for office and replication purposes. This bandwidth is around 3mbits.
Provider
Integra- Bonded T1s. (2) for Internet, (2) for private WAN.
Private WAN
The private WAN currently in place between Newport and Eden Prairie will be
shutdown prior to sale.
10
151
Redundancy
Currently no Internet redundancy is observed.
Internet Speed:

Speed of Internet in terms of download and upload speed are consistent with bonded
T1 connections (see illustration).
Speed Test of Internet Connection at RRT.
Security

Firewall – The firewall consists of a Watchguard x750e with no failover. It is observed to
have an inside port and an outside port.


Firewall is appropriate for amount of observed Internet traffic at Facility.
Physical Access- Access to the room is secured by a single key. No other physical
security was found beyond a door handle door lock.
11
152

o None.

A Layer 3 switch/router for internal routing is recommended.
o

Update Switches to POE (Power over Ethernet)
o

Regardless of the direction of the next phone system, POE enabled ports are
necessary for wireless and other networking devices.
Update Internet Connection
o

Though this network is smaller in size, a layer 3 switch/router will provide
segmentation and security of key infrastructure investments.
T1s are expensive and offer little bandwidth options. With better connectivity
options now available for businesses, other options for Internet with increased
speed should be considered.
Update Firewall
o NGFW (Next Generation Firewalls) offer businesses next generation firewall
protection. As assets are integrated with Board systems it is recommended to
update to an enterprise-level firewall.
12
153
STORAGE
Local
Most storage is local on the main servers with local storage groups called (RAID). These storage
groups allow redundancy of information to be deployed over multiple hard disks. This
methodology is commonly deployed to ensure continued functionality in the event of a single disk
failure. This level of redundancy was observed at the Facility.
Backup
Onsite backup is performed on a regular basis to an external server and local disk via Veeam
Technology. Server used for backup:
DL350 G5
Model
4 processors, Intel
2.3GHz, 8GB Ram,(3)
72GB drives, (3) 160 GB
drives, Windows Server
2003
Serial
#
MXQ80300BB

Offsite Replication
o Offsite is currently performed to Eden Prairie, though the offsite replication is
scheduled to terminate at time-of-sale. It is recommended to work with the R&E
Board to come up with an offsite solution that will be appropriate with this
environment.

Onsite Replication
o Onsite replication is done via a server to server disk method via Veeam (see
illustration). Onsite replication in this same matter is recommended to continue.
Veeam backups are highly reliable and is current with best-practice backup
methodologies.
Replication
13
154
Replication is done by Veeam and VMWare.
14
155
VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT
DL380 G5
Model
4 processors, Intel
2.3GHz, 8GB Ram,6
300GB drives, Windows
Server 2003
Serial
#
ZUX91Z07MV
VMware vSphere 5.0 Hosts 5-Virtual Hosts.





Domain Controller, (DC, DNS, DHCP, Windows 2003)
SQL Server (2005)
Print Server
Exchange Server(Windows 2008)
Other Servers (Unknown)-unable to observe fully




o Server Transition
A single server with local disk is serving the needs of this facility adequately.
With only 5 virtual servers with varying OS levels, any current host server will be
sufficient to meet immediate and future needs of the facility.
It is noted before time-of-sale a newer host with VMWare will be provided and
setup with proper licensing. It is an expectation of the R&E Board and its IT
associate to participate in the transferring of templates/resources to the new
server ensuring a smooth transition before time-of-sale.
The IT equipment which was viewed and assessed for this document is not the
equipment which will be on site at the close. This is a risk to the R&E Board in
understanding if the new server will adequately meet the R&E Board’s needs.
It is expectation of the R&E Board the new server will have 2012 Server Licenses for
the new VM environment.
It is expectation of the R&E Board all software licenses and/or maintenance contracts
will be transferred over to the R& E Board at time-of-sale.
15
156
APPENDIX A: HARDWARE/SOFTWARE
WORKSTATIONS
The following is a compilation of software/hardware assets for all workstations in the Newport
Facility.
Note: Most of these workstations are scheduled to be replaced with newer hardware before timeof-sale. Similar applications with proper licenses are expected on new systems.
Computer Applications
Computer1 -Sandy Koger
Model
Applications
7-Zip 9.20 (x64 edition)
Adobe Acrobat 9 Standard
Adobe Flash Player 19 ActiveX
Adobe Reader XI (11.0.10) MUI
Citrix Online Launcher
CompuWeigh 32bit
Dell Backup and Recovery Manager
Dell Client System Update
Fitbit Base Station (Driver Removal)
Fitbit Connect
Fitbit v2.1.0.9
Google Chrome
GoToMeeting 6.0.0.1259
join.me
Kaspersky Endpoint Security 10 for
Windows
Kaspersky Security Center Network
Agent
Microsoft Office File Validation Add-In
Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2007
Microsoft Silverlight
MP2 6.1 SQL Server Edition
Topaz SigPlus Basic 3.95
Computer2 -Doug Germain
Model
Applications
Adobe Reader XI MUI
Hardware Specs
Dell Optiplex 9020
Serial# J34K9Z1
Windows 7 Professional x64
Memory: 8GB
Processor: Intel 3.2 GHz
HD: (used)72.6/104GB
Dell Optiplex 9020
Serial # F4CNT52
Windows 7 Professional X64
Memory: 8GB
16
157
CompuWeigh 32bit
Dell Backup and Recovery
Dell Command | Update
Dell Digital Delivery
Dell Foundation Services
Dell Protected Workspace
Dell Update
Google Chrome
HP LaserJet 400 M401
Windows
Microsoft Office
Topaz SigPlus Basic 3.95
Computer3 -Jim Schiltgen
Model
Applications
MSXML 4.0 SP2 (KB954430)
MSXML 4.0 SP2 (KB973688)
Redundancy Module Config Tool
Rockwell Automation Download
Manager
Rockwell Automation USBCIP Driver
Package
Rockwell Software Hardware
Maintenance Tool
RSLinux Classic 2.5902 CPR 9 SR 5
RSLogix 5000 Online Books
Adobe Reader XI (11.0.12)
ControlFLASH
Dell Command | Update
Dell Data Protection | Access
FactoryTalk Activation Manager
3.60.00 (CPR 9 SR 6)
FactoryTalk Diagnostics 2.60.00 (CPR 9
SR 6)
FactoryTalk Services Platform 2.50
(CPR 9 SR 5)
Google Chrome
Agent
Processor 3.6GHZ
HD (used)89.1/226GB
Dell Optiplex 9010
Serial # FS10DX1
Memory: 4GB
Processor: Intel 3.2GHZ
HD: 54.5/916GB.
17
158
Microsoft Office Home and Business
2013 - en-us
Microsoft SkyDrive
Computer4 -Joe Heinz
Model
Applications
Adobe Reader XI (11.0.08) MUI
Google Chrome
Windows
Agent
Computer5 -Supervisor
Model
Applications
Adobe Reader XI MUI
Windows
Computer6 -Lori Jelich
Model
Applications
Adobe Reader XI MUI
Google Chrome
Windows
Microsoft Office
Dell Optiplex 9020
Serial# D5NFY1
Memory: 8GB
Processor: Intel 3.2GHz
HD: (used) 101/104GB
Dell Optiplex 9020
Serial# 9C6DH02
Memory: 8GB
HD (used) 60.6/108GB.
Dell Optiplex 9020
Serial#GNZ5T52
Memory: 8GB
Processor: Intel 3.6GHz.
HD (used) 57/226GB.
18
159
Computer7 -Dave Erdman
Model
Applications
Adobe Reader I MUI
Windows
Computer8 -Mark Wickoren
Model
Applications
Adobe AIR
Adobe Reader X (10.1.11)
Compatibility Pack for the 2007 Office
system
CyberLink PowerDVD 9.5
Dell Security Device Driver Pack
GeoVision
Java 8 Update 51
Windows
Agent
Microsoft Office Professional Edition
2003
MSXML 4.0 SP2 (KB954430)
MSXML 4.0 SP2 (KB973688)
Roio Creator Starter
Computer9 -Rick Hernandez
Model
Applications
Adobe Reader XI MUI
Google Chrome
Dell Optiplex 9020
Serial# 9C68H02
Memory: 8GB
HD (used)60.7/108GB
Dell Optiplex 380
Serial# 3W3V8P1
Windows Professional x32
RAM 2GB
HD (used) 108/222G
Dell Optiplex 3020
Serial # BWSC932
Windows 7 Porfessional x64
Memory: 8GB
19
160
Microsoft Office
Computer10 -Dan Scott
Model
Applications
Adobe AIR
Adobe Reader X (10.1.9)
system
CyberLink PowerDVD 9.5
Dell Security Device Driver Pack
Java 7 Update 45
Java(TM) 6 Update 23
Windows
Agent
MSXML 4.0 SP2 (KB954430)
MSXML 4.0 SP2 (KB973688)
Roxio Creator Starter
Computer11 -Brad Bulger
Model
Applications
Adobe Reader XI MUI
Windows
Model
Applications
Not Available
HD (used) 58/453GB
Dell Optiplex 380
Serial #3W4N8P1
Memory 2 GB
HD (used) 47/222GB
Dell Optiplex 9020
Serial# 9C6CH02
Memory: 8GB
HD (used) 52.8/108GB
Dell Optiplex 9010
Service Tag: FRZZCX1
No other info available
20
161
Model
Applications
Adobe Flash Player ActiveX
Adobe Reader 8.1.2
AVG Free 8.5
Control Center
CyberLink DVD Suite Deluxe
HP Customer Experience
Enhancements
HP Total Care advisor
HP Update
HPTCSSetup
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment 6
Update 1
Microsoft Office Powerpoint Viewer
2007 (English)
PCIe Soft Data Fax Modem with
SmartCP
Computer14 - (Tour room)
Model
Applications
Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Professional
Adobe Flash Player ActiveX
CompuWeigh 32bit
Control Center
GoToMeeting 4.5.0.457
HighMAT Extension to Microsoft
Windows XP CD Writing Wizard
Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 for Windows
Workstations
Microsoft Compression Client Pack 1.0
for Windows XP
2003
MSXML 6.0 Parser (KB933579)
RealPlayer
WebEx
Computer15 - (Control room) Video
Model
Applications
Matrix Video System
HP Compaq SR5605F
Serial# 3CR8340976
Windows Vista Home Prem
Memory: 1 GB
Processor: AMD 2.7 GHz
HD: Not Available
Compaq D5PS/C1
Serial# 6X1C-JYDZ-B03A
Windows XP SP3
Memory: 320MB
Processor: 548MHZ
HD (used) 13.3/18.6GB
Dell Precision T3600
Service TagL 8VJNHX1
Processor: Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
21
162
Memory :8GB
HD: unknown
Computer16 - (Control room 1)
Model
Applications
TKDA
Model
Applications
TKDA
Model
Applications
TKDA
Computer19 - (Scale house)
Model
Applications
Cisco Systems VPN Client 4.8.01.0300
Citrix online plug-in -web
system
HP Backup and Recovery Manager
InterVideo WinDVD 8
Java(TM) 6 Update 7
Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware
Microsoft Office Converter Pack
2003
Dell Optiplex 9010
Serial# FS0ZCX1
Memory 4GB
HD: unknown
Dell Optiplex 9010
Serial# FS00DX1
Memory 4GB
HD: unknown
Dell Optiplex 9010
Serial# FS01DX1
Memory 4GB
HD: unknown
HP Compaq DC5800
Serial #2089380ZB2
Windows XP SP3
Memory: 1.97GB
Intel 1.2GHz
HD (used)13.9/58.5GB
22
163
MSXML 4.0 SP2 (KB954430)
MSXML 4.0 SP2 (KB973688)
MSXML 6.0 Parser
SoundMax
SUPERAntiSpyware
Windows Genuine Advantage
Validation Tool (KB892130)
Model
Applications
CompuWeigh 32bit
Java(TM) 6 Update 7
Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 for Windows
Workstations
Kaspersky Network Agent
Agent
LogMeIn
Microsoft SQL Server 2005
Microsoft SQL Server Management
Studio Express
Microsoft SQL Server Native Client
Microsoft SQL Server Setup Support
Files (English)
Microsoft SQL Server VSS Writer
MSXML 6.0 Parser
PDF Complete
SuperProNet Combo Installer
Windows Genuine Advantage
Validation Tool (KB892130)
Model
Applications
Accidental Damage Services
Agreement
Adobe Reader XI MUI
Bantec Service Agreement
Cisco EAP-FAST Module
Cisco LEAP Module
HP Compaq DC5800
Serial# 20A81091
Windows XP SP3
Memory: 1.97GB
Intel 2.49GHz
HD: 18.4/232GB
Dell Inspiron 3647
Serial# 6C4W12
Memory: 4GB
HD (used) 48.1/441GB
23
164
Cisco PEAP Module
Complete Care Business Service
Agreement
Consumer In-Home Service Agreement
Dell Backup and Recovery
Dell Home Systems Service Agreement
GeoVision
My Dell








o All Windows XP boxes need to be replaced
o All Windows Updates need to be applied to all machines
o All Windows firewalls need to be activated and turned on.
o Most workstations are behind in software updates and as such pose a significant
risk to software viruses.
 One of the workstations did not have any AntiVirus Software and one
had multiple anti-mal-ware packages, none of which was the apparent
standard
Any workstation with Windows XP should be removed immediately since it is end-of-life
and no longer supported by Microsoft.
Some observed workstations did not have Windows firewalls enabled and thus pose an
even greater risk of becoming infected with viruses and/or malware.
It is recommended to standardize application offerings throughout the Newport Facility
and have regular updates run overnight on local workstations.
It is highly recommended to have all workstation firewalls enabled regardless if they are
on a “closed” system or not. It was found some workstations have access to other
workstations, but no Internet.
The workstations which were viewed and assessed for this document are not the
workstations which will be on site at the close. This is a risk to the R&E Board in
understanding if the new workstations will adequately meet the R&E Board’s needs.
Several of the workstations are running operating systems other than Windows 7
Professional including Windows XP and Vista Home. Some of the workstations do not
have Microsoft Office at all. To minimize R&E Board risk, all workstations should be
running Windows 7 Professional at the time of the closing.
Several of the workstations have less than 4GB of memory.
24
165
APPENDIX A.1 MONITORS
Monitor1
Model
HP L2045W
Serial #
CNT812H04P
Office-Downstairs
Monitor2
Model
HP L2045W
Serial #
CNT83520H7
Office-Downstairs
Monitor3
Model
Dell P2213
Serial #
CN-0FP04F-72872-260-DTPS
Office-Downstairs
Monitor4
Model
Samsung UN32EH5300F
Serial #
Z4SS3CED401712E
Office-Downstairs
Monitor5
Model
Dell P2213
Serial #
Not Available
Office-Downstairs
Monitor6
Model
Dell P2314H
Serial #
Not Available
Office-Downstairs
Monitor7
Model
Dell E2211H
Serial #
CN-019G4H-74261-0AR-09MS
Office-Downstairs
Monitor8
Model
Dell P2314H
Serial #
Not Available
Office-Downstairs
Monitor9
Model
Samsung Syncmaster
2253BW
Office-Downstairs
Serial #
AQ22H9LQ101136V
Monitor10
Model
Samsung 2268W
Serial #
ME22H9NP420237Z
Office-Downstairs
Samsung UN32EH5300FXZA
Serial #
Z4SS3CED401719L
Supervisor’s Room
Downstairs
Emerson LHD32K20US
Serial #
JQ2982
Supervisor’s Room
Downstairs
Monitor11
Model
Monitor12
Model
25
166
Monitor13
Model
Dell P2213
Serial #
CN-0FP04F-72872-26J-C9JS
Dan Scott’s Room
Upstairs
Dell P2314
Serial #
Not Available
Brad Bulger’s Room
Upstairs
Monitor14
Model
Monitor15
Model
Monitor16
Model
Monitor17
Model
Monitor18
Model
Monitor19
Model
Control Room
Dell Precision T3600
Serial #
8VJNHX1
Upstairs
Control Room
Acer V223W
Serial #
3301238342
Upstairs
Control Room
Samsung LN32B360C5D
Serial #
AZA43CRSA02189H
Upstairs
Control Room
Samsung UN32EH5300F
Serial #
Z4SS3CED401680V
Upstairs
Control Room
Sansung UN32EH5300F
Serial #
Z4SS3CED401640N
Upstairs
Control Room
Monitor20
Model
Dell S2209W
Serial #
CN-0N764H-74261-913-1AUU
Upstairs
Monitor21
Model
HP L1710
Serial #
CNC912RKGW
Scale House
Monitor22
Model
HP L1710
Serial #
3CQ92313C9
Scale House
Monitor23
Model
Dell S2209W
Serial #
CN-0N764H-74261-913-1ALU
Scale House
26
167
APPENDIX A.2 PRINTERS
Printer1
Model
Printer2
Model
Printer3
Model
EPSON LQ-590
Serial #
FSQY137898
Supervisor’s Room
Downstairs
Supervisor’s Room
HP LaserJet Pro 400
Serial #
PHGDD59331
Downstairs
Joe Heinz Office
HP LaserJet M1212NF MFP Serial #
CNJ8F1B22H
Upstairs
Break Room
Printer4
Model
RICOH Aficio MP4000B
Serial #
M5485400742
Downstairs
Printer5
Model
RICOH Aficio MP161
Serial #
M0189000346
Upstairs
Printer6
Model
HP LaserJet P3015
Serial #
VNB3S39092
Upstairs
Printer7
Model
HP LaserJet Pro 400
Serial #
PHGDD59333
Downstairs
Printer8
Model
HP C8184A
Serial #
MY87F680TT
Downstairs
Printer9
Model
HP OfficeJet 6000
Serial #
CN22K3F078
Office-Downstairs
Printer10
Model
RICOH FAX 4430L
Serial #
Not Available
Scale House
Printer11
Model
HP LaserJet 4100
Serial #
USBNG11860
Downstairs
27
168
APPENDIX A.3 RADIOS
Radio1
Model
Cobra 18 WX ST II
Serial #
511052463
Scale House
Radio2
Model
Motorola AAM0-1QNC9AJ1AN
Serial #
751TPT477
Scale House
Radio3
Model
Motorola RADIUS CM200
Serial #
922TML6438
MCC
Radio4
Model
Serial #
922TWN0644
Control Room
Radio
Charger1
Model
Motorola HTN9005B
Serial #
Not Available
Control Room
Radio
Charger2
Model
Motorola HTN9005C
Serial #
Not Available
Control Room
Base Radio1
Model
Serial #
2012090253
Supervisor’s Room
Base Radio2
Model
Serial #
922TNN0652
Supervisor’s Room
Base Radio3
Model
Serial #
99030365
Supervisor’s Room
28
169
APPENDIX A.4 NON-CLASSIFIED
Tank Gauge
Certificate
1158116 #
Model
Site Sentinel 1
Serial #
Projector
Model
EPSON PowerLite 915W
Serial #
PAKK3500820
UPS
Model
APC Smart UPS 1500
Serial #
AS103525467
Switch
Model
3COM 3C16790
Serial #
0200/7RTG017631
UPS
Model
APC Smart UPS 1500
Serial #
AS0935130771
UPS
Model
APC Smart UPS 1500
Serial #
AS1418122647
Gas
Monitor
Model
RKI JX2003
Serial #
438030072RN
Gas
Monitor
Model
RKI GX2012
Serial #
226030099RN
Repeater
Model
Motorola XPR8400
Serial #
484TRG2852
(2) HP Prosafe GS748T
Serial #
Unknowm
Serial #
80BE05DD14DA1
EX 93C2251
SYST
Network
Switches
Firewall
Model
Watchguard XTM 5
Series
29
170
APPENDIX A.5 GLOSSARY
VoIP
Instead of traditional Copper or Cat3 wiring,
VoIP or Voice over Internet Protocol allows
voice traffic to be delivered and routed just
like traffic from the Internet. Thus VoIP uses
the same data cable as the computer for
sending and receiving.
POE
Power over Ethernet allows the transmission
of power from a standard Cat5e data cable to
a given device. In most environments this
usually powers an IP Phone or Wireless Access
Point. Ranges of 5 to 30 watts of power per
device are common.
RAID
Stands for Redundant Array of Independent
Disks and is used for disk redundancy in the
event of a single disk failure. RAIDs are
defined in terms of RAID level where 0-10 are
most common. In general, the higher the RAID
level the more disks can be lost without total
system failure.
Layer 2 or 3
Broadly speaking-- Layer 2 and 3 are
networking terms describing the OSI model of
networking where layer 2 is the local network
with vlans and layer 3 defines how things are
to be routed. Usually layer 2 is on a switch and
layer 3 is on a router.
VM Host and
Guest
VM stands for Virtual Machine and is defined
by the server (host) and the number of virtual
machines (guests) it has on its systems. A host
can now support hundreds of guests. The
most common brand of VM is VMWare.
30
171
Memorandum
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 288-8550 • Fax: (651) 288-8551
www.foth.com
October 6, 2015
TO:
Zack Hansen, Judy Hunter, and Kate Bartelt
Ramsey/Washington R&E Board
Joint Leadership Team
CC:
Warren Shuros, Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC (Foth)
FR:
Susan Young, Foth
Rob Larson, Foth
Jennefer Klennert, Foth
RE:
Analysis of Trailer Options
Executive Summary
The R&E Board requested a review of trailer replacement options as part of the due
diligence processes for purchase of the Newport Resource Recovery Facility (Facility).
During previous work, Foth determined that as many as thirty-nine (39) new trailers
could be required.
Foth evaluated current operating conditions and usage of trailers as well as repairs made.
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) trailers are special use trailers with specific requirements for
design including modifications to the axle location as well as the door handle release
lever.
Foth evaluated multiple options for managing the fleet including Ramsey/Washington
R&E Board (Board) ownership, lease to purchase, lease of all trailers, contract for trailers
with owner-operators of tractors, and contract for trailers. Advantages and disadvantages
of each are listed.
The following recommendations are being made to the R&E Board based on the
information gathered as well as the amount of time allotted for collection of data for the
report. Foth recommends replacement of thirteen (13) trailers listed due to condition.
Seventeen (17) trailers are listed for initial replacement, but four (4) are ferrous trailers
which are recommended to be outsourced to the Ferrous Market vendor. Twenty-three
(23) trailers need to be individually reviewed for replacement by a trailer maintenance
company.
1
X:\FOTH\IE\Ramsey Wash Co RRP\15R002-02\10000 Reports\12 Transfer Trailer\M-Trailer Options Evaluation.docx
172
This review could be completed within the next thirty (30) days with additional Board direction.
Trailers that are to be replaced should be either scrapped or sold for their value. Once the final
number of trailers to be replaced is determined the Board could prepare a Request for Proposal
(RFP) for potential leasing of the trailers as well as an RFP for potential outright purchase of the
trailers. Foth recommends the Board accept delivery of the trailers as they are produced to
expedite the addition into the Facility fleet.
Purpose
As part of the due diligence processes for purchase of the Newport Resource Recovery Facility
(Facility), the R&E Board requested that Foth review options for procurement and use of transfer
trailers. During previous work, Foth determined that as many as thirty-nine (39) new trailers
could be required.
This memo documents the evaluation of trailer conditions and procurement options.
1
Current Operating Conditions
There were a total of 108 trailers included in the appraisal completed in 2013 to determine the
value of the rolling stock at the Facility. There are currently 111 trailers listed in the trailer
inventory provided. Eighty-six (86) trailers are steel, purchased in years 1987 through 2002.
Twenty-five (25) trailers, purchased in 2004, 2008 and 2014 are aluminum.
Figure 1 shows the use of steel and aluminum trailers, by month, January 2013 through August,
2015. During this period an average of 1,485 trailer trips were made per month. The lowest
month was February, 2013 with 1,135 trailer pulls and the highest month was April, 2013 with
1,886 trailer pulls. Although twenty percent (20%) of the trailers are aluminum, aluminum
trailers make between fifty-six to sixty-three percent (56% to 63%) of the RDF trailer trips. Staff
at the Facility are directed to use an aluminum trailer if one is available to load and the aluminum
trailers are cycled more frequently.
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
ALUMINUM TOTALS
STEEL TOTALS
Jul-15
Apr-15
Jan-15
Oct-14
Jul-14
Apr-14
Jan-14
Oct-13
Jul-13
Apr-13
COMBINED TOTALS
Jan-13
TONS
Figure 1
Steel and Aluminum Trailer Use
2
173
The daily use of trailers is highly variable, depending on the needs of the Xcel combustion
facilities for fuel. As reported by RRT staff (personal communication, Ryan Howell, 10/2/2015),
the maximum number of trailers shipped out of Newport from January 2014 through August
2015 was 103 trailers on August 26, 2014. On that day seventy-eight (78) RDF, twenty-one
(21) landfill and four (4) metals trailer trips were made. On four (4) occasions, RRT hauled over
100 loads in a day over that time period. Typically, the Facility makes eighty (80) loads per day.
The number of times that a trailer can be “turned,” or make round trips, depends on the dumping
pattern at the Xcel facilities. If a trailer is unloaded in the barn, it can be returned to the Facility,
loaded, and make a second and sometimes third trip. If the trailer is staged in a bay at Mankato
and is walked off in the afternoon, that trailer cannot make a second trip that day, although it can
be loaded late afternoon for transport the next day. RRT keeps trailers at each Xcel facility for
back-hauling waste to be processed at the Facility or other material. The aluminum trailers
usually make more than one (1) load per day; the steel trailers get at least one (1) load a day.
The Facility continuously processes waste during the day and the Xcel facilities need to be “fed”
at a different pace than RDF is produced, therefore, an important function of the trailers is
storage. Trailers are typically filled throughout the day and staged at the Facility for later
transport. When determining the total number of trailers needed, daily, and occasionally multiday storage is needed depending on Xcel needs. In the winter, overnight storage can lead to
RDF freezing in the trailers; the loads must be thawed before they can be unloaded. Thawing
typically occurs in one of the repair bays at the Facility.
The trailers purchased in 1987 were push-plate trailers; all Facility trailers purchased since 1987
have been walking floor trailers. The push-plate trailers are solely used for bulky waste and
residual waste transfer. Two to three (2 to 3) residue loads are made each day and three to four (3
to 4) bulky waste loads are hauled each day. The 1987 trailers are not used for RDF because the
Facility can only load fifteen (15) tons of RDF, at most, in those trailers. The 1987 trailers are
very fuel inefficient; they are compared to “pulling a parachute down the road.” Of the nineteen
trailers in the 1987 cohort, six (6) have been scrapped, two (2) have recently had major repairs
completed and one (1) is in for major repairs. Ren (10) have current DOT certification and are in
use.
2 Trailer Repairs
Three types of repairs are made to trailers:
♦ Daily, minor repairs that are done at the Facility by RRT staff;
♦ Significant repairs done by North American Trailers (NAT) either at the Facility or at
NAT; and
♦ Major repairs, done by NAT at their facility.
Daily or minor repairs are made to keep trailers on the road, and predominantly consist of DOTrelated issues. When a tractor driver hooks up to a trailer, a “walk-around” DOT inspection must
be done to confirm that the tractor and trailer meet DOT specifications for road-worthiness. If a
trailer does not meet the specifications, it may not leave the Facility. Typical DOT-related
3
174
issues include marker, brake or running lights, mud flaps and hydraulic couplers. Other issues
that are fixed at the Facility include doors that need to be greased, are warped, or have minor
holes, bent doors and door latches, minor landing gear repairs and minor oil leaks. These repairs
require a relatively small amount of time to fix per repair and must be made quickly to keep the
RDF delivery schedules and turn the trailers quickly.
Table 1 shows the repairs that were made at the Facility in the month of July, 2015, and the
hours that the total number of repairs required. July, 2015 was the historically highest tonnage
month for the Facility. Eighty three (83) total hours of labor were required for the on-site repairs
in July.
Table 1
Repairs Made to Trailers at the Facility
Number of
Vehicles
17
12
1
1
11
1
3
6
6
2
1
12
73
Type of Repair
Lights
Mud Flaps
Push Plate
Air Lines
Big door, Latches
Hole in Big Door
Door Hinges
Grease Back Door
Small door bent
Dolly Handle
Ram Oil Leak
Landing Gear
Total
Total
Hours
14.5
6.4
0.5
1
24
1
4.8
4.3
6.8
1
1.5
16.8
82.6
Table 2 shows the number of times in July, 2015 that the trailers were full of material when the
repairs were made. Whenever possible, the repairs to full trailers are made without emptying the
trailer, but occasionally the trailer must be emptied to make the repair.
Table 2
Full and Empty Trailers Repaired at the Facility
Number Trailers Full When Repaired
Number Trailers Empty When Repaired
Number Trailers Fullness Unreported
25
46
7
North American Trailer (NAT) is used by RRT for more-than-minor repairs, repairs to brake and
hydraulic systems, DOT Annual Inspections and other repairs that cannot be handled by RRT
staff or equipment. NAT performs work both on the Facility site and at the NAT shop. RRT
provided the repairs performed by NAT in July, 2015. Table 3 shows these repairs. The
Summary of Repairs and the Cause for Repair were listed on the invoices. Costs of the repairs
were not provided.
4
175
Brakes, lighting systems and hydraulics were the major systems repaired. No trailer newer than
2010 required repairs at NAT in that month. Trailers purchased in 1990, 1997, 2002 and 2008
had the highest number of repairs.
Table 3
Repairs Performed by NAT
July, 2015
Trailer
Unit
720
Trailer
Year
2002
706
Summary of Repairs
Cause for Repair
Rear Wall and Door
Lighting System
Hydraulic System
Replace Rear Springs
Wear
Wiring and Failed ABS Sensors
Requested
Broken
2008
Replace Rear Brakes and Drums
Leaking Slacks Seized, Shoes Cracked
783
1988
Repair Walking Floor Hydraulics
Repair Lighting System
Missing Floor Sections
Failed License Plate Light
812
1990
Repair Hydraulic System
Failed Pipe
817
1990
Failed Drive Unit
Failed Light and Connector
710
2000
Repair Wheels, Hubs, Bearings
Failed Hub Cap
Loose Connections
707
2008
Repair Rear Wall And Door
Clean and Check Hydraulic System
Damaged Linkage, Holes, Bent Hinge Rods
Loose Connections
Requested
3004
1995
Replace Walking Floor Hydraulic System
Repair Multiple Holes in Side Walls
Worn Floor Slats
Failed Light
Wear And Damage
840
1997
Perform Dot Inspection
General Air System Repair
Body-Side Wall Repair
Safety Devices
Lighting System Repairs
Trailer Frame Support Leg Repair
Floor Assembly Repair
Hydraulic System Repair
Frame Assembly Repair
Tires and Rims, Replace
Repair Rear Wall And Door
Replace Walking Floor Hydraulics
Repair Frame and Coupler
Required
Wear
Age
Coated, Dirty
Wear/Age
Wear
Wear
Age
Wear/Age
Flat
Age/Wear
Failed
Age/Wear
837
1994
General Air System Repair
Leaking Valves
839
1997
Repair Air Brakes
Failed Valve
5
176
Trailer
Unit
844
Trailer
Year
1997
Summary of Repairs
Cause for Repair
Repair Brakes
Failed Air Line
722
2002
Repair Brakes
Failed Sensor
727
2002
Repair Brakes
Failed Chamber
844
1997
Repair Brakes
Failure in Tractor
843
1997
Repair Brakes
Needed Adjustment
705
2008
Repair Rear Wall and Door
Bent Door Latch
781
2004
Failed Connectors
825
1990
Repair Support Leg Assembly
Failed Landing Gear
713
2004
Air Brake System Repair
Failed Chamber
703
2008
Walking Floor Hydraulics Repair
Shafts and Seals Failed
812
1990
Failed Light and Connector
722
2002
Repair Brakes
Failed Chamber
824
1990
Corroded Light Cord, Dirty Lenses
729
2004
Leaking Hydraulic Coupler
744
2008
7-Way Plug Corroded
726
2002
Repair Hubs And Bearings
Leaking Hubcap
Major repairs on trailers have been done to ensure that RRT has enough usable trailers on hand
to meet the daily transfer and storage demands. RRT decided to make major repairs on certain
trailers instead of scrapping the trailers because at the time of the major repairs, a long-term
processing contract was not in place. The costs of the major repairs made to six (6) trailers are
shown in Table 4. In each case the cost of the repairs was more than the appraised value of the
trailer.
Major repairs were determined to be more rapid and cost-effective than purchase of new trailers1.
The specific repairs included welding holes in the trailer bodies and doors, replacing floors,
repairing or replacing bracing, repairing and replacing dolly legs, rewiring trailers, replacing
hydraulics and rebuilding trailer walls or fronts. The trailers can be considered “rebuilt,” and
while not in “as-new” condition, are road worthy.
1
Personal Communication, Chris Gondeck, September 22, 1015
6
177
Table 4
Major Repairs Made to Trailers versus Valuation
Trailer
Unit
843
834
833
831
844
826
3
Trailer
Year
1997
1994
1994
1994
1997
1990
Cost of
Repairs
$22,549.59
$19,275.88
$24,230.82
$19,066.72
$20,536.90
$27,297.68
Trailer
Appraisal
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$20,000.00
$12,000.00
Status of Trailers at the Facility
Table 5 lists the trailers, their types, the year they were purchased and the most recent DOT
Annual Inspection date.
Table 5
Status of Annual DOT Inspection
Trailer
Unit
Trailer Type
Year
Material
Latest DOT
700
End Dump
1987
Steel
12/10/2014
730
Push Plate
1987
Steel
3/19/2015
732
Push Plate
1987
Steel
8/7/2014
735
Push Plate
1987
Steel
12/11/2014
736
Push Plate
1987
Steel
In For Repairs
737
Push Plate
1987
Steel
7/26/2014
738
Push Plate
1987
Steel
In For Repairs
740
Push Plate
1987
Steel
3/23/2015
741
Push Plate
1987
Steel
8/22/2014
747
Push Plate
1987
Steel
4/21/2015
748
Push Plate
1987
Steel
9/19/2014
752
Push Plate
1987
Steel
2/19/2015
753
Push Plate
1987
Steel
11/20/2014
783
Open Top Walking Floor
1988
Steel
10/21/2014
805
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
8/26/2014
808
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
3/23/2015
809
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
In For Repairs
810
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
8/1/2015
812
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
1/20/2015
814
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
7/11/2014
815
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
2/12/2015
7
178
Trailer
Unit
817
Trailer Type
Year
Material
Latest DOT
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
9/21/2015
818
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
9/25/2014
823
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
4/22/2015
824
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
4/14/2015
825
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
1/30/2015
826
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
In For Repairs
827
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
10/24/2014
828
Walking Floor
1990
Steel
7/11/2014
829
Walking Floor
1994
Steel
7/16/2014
831
Walking Floor
1994
Steel
9/1/2015
832
Walking Floor
1994
Steel
In For Repairs
833
Walking Floor
1994
Steel
9/28/2015
834
Walking Floor
1994
Steel
9/21/2015
835
Walking Floor
1994
Steel
6/6/2015
837
Walking Floor
1994
Steel
6/11/2015
3006
1994
Steel
2/26/2015
3004
1995
Steel
9/29/2014
3005
1995
Steel
2/18/2015
839
Walking Floor
1997
Steel
6/18/2015
840
Walking Floor
1997
Steel
In For Repairs
841
Walking Floor
1997
Steel
8/26/2014
842
Walking Floor
1997
Steel
10/17/2014
843
Walking Floor
1997
Steel
7/25/2014
844
Walking Floor
1997
Steel
9/3/2014
845
Walking Floor
1997
Steel
1/9/2015
846
Walking Floor
1997
Steel
4/15/2015
847
Walking Floor
1997
Steel
1/27/2015
848
Walking Floor
1997
Steel
9/29/2014
712
Walking Floor
1999
Steel
8/1/2015
715
Walking Floor
1999
Steel
10/13/2014
716
Walking Floor
1999
Steel
3/2/2015
760
Walking Floor
1999
Steel
6/15/2015
761
Walking Floor
1999
Steel
10/3/2014
762
Walking Floor
1999
Steel
12/11/2014
764
Walking Floor
1999
Steel
7/10/2015
766
Walking Floor
1999
Steel
8/20/2014
8
179
Trailer
Unit
770
Trailer Type
Year
Material
Latest DOT
Walking Floor
1999
Steel
8/29/2014
804
Walking Floor
1999
Steel
11/12/2014
710
Walking Floor
2000
Steel
6/25/2015
763
Walking Floor
2000
Steel
10/15/2014
765
Walking Floor
2000
Steel
12/19/2014
767
Walking Floor
2000
Steel
2/13/2015
768
Walking Floor
2000
Steel
1/19/2015
769
Walking Floor
2000
Steel
1/14/2015
771
Walking Floor
2000
Steel
2/4/2015
773
Walking Floor
2000
Steel
6/16/2015
775
Walking Floor
2000
Steel
11/3/2014
779
Walking Floor
2000
Steel
1/5/2015
3000
2001
Steel
1/12/2015
3001
2001
Steel
2/13/2015
718
Walking Floor
2002
Steel
10/29/2014
719
Walking Floor
2002
Steel
12/1/2014
720
Walking Floor
2002
Steel
11/25/2014
721
Walking Floor
2002
Steel
5/1/2015
722
Walking Floor
2002
Steel
5/18/2015
723
Walking Floor
2002
Steel
10/29/2014
724
Walking Floor
2002
Steel
2/19/2015
725
Walking Floor
2002
Steel
12/1/2014
726
Walking Floor
2002
Steel
6/16/2015
727
Walking Floor
2002
Steel
5/18/2015
708
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
3/5/2015
709
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
9/12/2014
713
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
11/26/2014
714
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
2/17/2015
717
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
12/11/2014
728
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
1/9/2015
729
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
6/6/2015
781
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
1/30/2015
782
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
7/11/2014
785
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
8/1/2015
792
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
8/1/2015
794
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
8/4/2014
9
180
Trailer
Unit
795
Trailer Type
Year
Material
Latest DOT
Walking Floor
2004
Aluminum
1/6/2015
702
Walking Floor
2008
Aluminum
2/5/2015
703
Walking Floor
2008
Aluminum
11/4/2014
704
Walking Floor
2008
Aluminum
4/10/2015
705
Walking Floor
2008
Aluminum
2/10/15
706
Walking Floor
2008
Aluminum
4/15/2015
707
Walking Floor
2008
Aluminum
1/6/2015
731
Walking Floor
2008
Aluminum
1/21/2015
743
Walking Floor
2008
Aluminum
1/6/2015
744
Walking Floor
2008
Aluminum
12/11/2014
745
Walking Floor
2008
Aluminum
6/4/2015
750
Walking Floor
2014
Aluminum
5/6/2015
751
Walking Floor
2014
Aluminum
5/5/2015
The 2014, 2008, and 2004 trailers are in generally excellent to good condition. The 2002 trailers
are usable, but these and older trailers have significant rust and are not aesthetically desirable.
These trailers are for the most part road worthy, but appear to require more frequent repairs.
Sandblasting and repainting the 2002 and the 2000 trailers as other repairs are made would
improve their looks and protect the surfaces from further corrosion.
Trailer 736 will be scrapped by RRT; the ram from this trailer is scheduled to be put into Trailer
730 as part of major repairs to 730. Trailer 738 is recommended by RRT staff to be scrapped; it
has a bad cylinder and replacement cylinders are not currently available for this model/year of
trailer.
There is general consensus among RRT staff that the 1987 trailers should be scrapped or sold as
soon as practicable. There are thirteen (13) 1987 trailers. They have long outlived their expected
useful life, they are fuel in-efficient, and they can carry fewer payloads than the newer walking
floor trailers. It is very difficult to find repair and replacement parts for these trailers. The
“best” 1987 trailers could be phased out last and could continue to be used for bulky waste
transport. Bulky waste cannot be compacted to a 20-ton load, and the pay-load loss of the pushplate design is not as significant for transportation of this material.
The 1990 through 1994 trailers should be evaluated individually for use or replacement. There
are twenty-three (23) trailers in this category. Foth’s reccomendations includes the Board
purchasing new trailers as soon as possible. There is a ninety (90) day to more than one hundred
twenty (120) day lead time from the placement of a trailer order until the trailer is delivered. The
need for usable trailers may require that sub-optimal trailers be retained and repaired to keep
them in service as new trailers are phased in. Any additional major repairs should be specifically
evaluated for cost-effectiveness balanced against the need for usable trailers until new trailers
can be purchased and delivered.
10
181
3.1
Special Use Trailers
There are several trailers that have special applications. One of these is the “Rag Monster
Trailer” as shown in Photos 1 and 2 below. RRT provides an open top trailer for the purpose of
loading tangled balls of RDF at the Xcel Red Wing combustion facility. These balls of material,
called “rag monsters” by the staff, are occasionally produced by the scalpers near the load floor
when the RDF is exceptionally “raggy”. The “rag monsters” must be removed from the load
floor by grappling hook and loaded into the trailer by a bucket loader as they cause issues with
Xcel’s combustion equipment. .
The “rag monster” trailer is currently equipped with a tarp cover that is supported by arched bars
running laterally across the box. These bars must be removed for the loading of “rag monsters”
to prevent damage, and replaced to support the cover once the trailer is ready for shipping.
Removing and replacing the bars necessitates an Xcel employee climbing onto the trailer to
access the bars. This is an issue particularly in wintery icy conditions. This trailer is greater than
twenty (20) years old and is considered beyond its end of life; however it remains suitable for its
use. The trailer should have an automatic tarp installed without the support bars. The automatic
tarp can be transferred to another trailer when this trailer reaches final end-of-life.
Photo 1
“Rag Monster” Trailer
Photo 2
“Rag Monster” Trailer
With Supports Removed
Trailer 783 is the recyclable aluminum trailer. This is an open-top walking floor trailer
purchased in1988. The Facility bales aluminum that is recovered from the incoming waste and
this trailer is used to transport the baled aluminum to market. This trailer could continue to be
used for transport of aluminum bales to spot markets. Transportation of baled aluminum by the
Board allows the Board to seek the best price for each aluminum load, and keeps markets
“honest” since the Board can control through its own transportation the market it chooses for
aluminum.
11
182
Trailers 3000, 3001, 3004, 3005 and 3006 are used to transport scrap metal to markets. These
trailers are open top walking floor trailers, vintage 1995 through 2001. Metal scrap is extremely
problematic for walking floor trailers. Nails and other small and/or sharp objects puncture the
gaskets or are caught between the plates. These trailers have been known to leak small metal
pieces on roadways, causing concern for the Facility’s neighbors. The prominent metal markets
in the metro area provide options for the Board to contract for transportation and marketing of
metals, including siting of trailers at the Facility that would be owned by the metal market
vendors.
This option would reduce the problems caused by the walking floor trailers, since the vendors
predominantly use open-top trailers with solid bottoms. There may be a slight reduction in net
metal revenues to the Board, which could be offset by the lack of trailer problems and improved
neighbor relations.
4 Evaluations of Current Specifications for Trailer Purchase
Modifications were made to trailer purchase specifications over the years of Facility operation.
The push-plate trailers purchased in 1987 were not found to have optimum payloads, and the
push-plate requires larger hydraulic tanks than walking floor trailers. Steel walking floor trailers
had advantages of payload and unloading efficiency over the push-plate designs. Steel trailers,
instead of aluminum were purchased for their lower cost and easier repair in 1994 through 2000.
As aluminum trailers became better made, and the ability to perform aluminum welding and
repairs was achieved, aluminum trailers were purchased in 2004, 2008 and 2014. Modifications
of standard trailer design were made in cooperation with MAC trailers; on occasion these trailers
were further modified after delivery to optimize the designs as the trailers were used and the
designs were field tested.
4.1
Aluminum vs. Steel trailers
As part of the trailer analysis, Foth was asked to review the differences of purchasing and
operating aluminum or steel trailers. Specifically Foth reviewed the Facility trailers used for
hauling RDF from the Facility to the Xcel generating plants. Foth conducted phone interviews
with Shawn Fredritz of Mac Trailers on September 17, 2015; and Jordyn Wilkins of Wilkens
Manufacturing on September 18, 2015. The positives and negatives of utilizing both steel and
aluminum were researched.
Foth received overwhelming feedback from the interviews that not only is aluminum the
preferred material, but that in the waste hauling industry today, steel trailers are the exception,
not the rule. Many trailer vendors including MAC (Shawn Fredritz) do not produce steel trailers
in normal production, and MAC will not even quote steel trailers at this time. The general
consensus is that while aluminum trailers do bear a cost premium at purchase, one vendor, MAC
Trailer Manufacturing, stated that steel would actually cost more due to it being outside of their
normal build practice.
12
183
Steel trailers have the following benefits:
♦ Lower up front purchase price (although this may be manufacturer dependent), and
♦ Ease of locating qualified shops that can make welding repairs. Steel is a more
commonly welded material. However, as the industry has moved toward aluminum,
more and more shops have become familiar with and proficient in aluminum welding
techniques, so this benefit is rapidly waning. It is important to note that the Newport
Facility has an aluminum welder as well as knowledgeable aluminum welders.
Steel trailers have the following limitations:
♦ Maintenance on steel trailers tends to be more frequent, and more costly due to corrosion,
especially in harsh service conditions such as refuse hauling. It can be difficult to
monitor and maintain the integrity of the corrosion protective coating, whether paint, or
galvanizing. If steel trailers are not maintained properly, corrosion repair costs can
outpace those of repairing non-corroding aluminum.
♦ Welding repairs of steel are more costly than aluminum due to the need to restore the
protective coating in the area of the repair.
♦ Steel trailers weigh approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) percent more than their
aluminum counterparts. The additional weight results in less RDF hauled per trip and
higher fuel use when hauling empty.
Aluminum trailers have the following benefits:
♦ The only regular maintenance an aluminum trailer might need is an acid wash every few
years, and this is strictly for cosmetic purposes. This is in addition to standard
maintenance of air and hydraulic lines, brakes, wheels, and tires which is necessary with
any trailer.
♦ The properties of aluminum translate into few if any repairs due to component
degradation from corrosion.
♦ Aluminum trailers are often warrantied longer.
♦ Aluminum trailers have higher resale values on average.
♦ Aluminum trailers weigh 10 to 15% less than their steel counterparts, which directly
translates into an ability to haul one to two (1 to 2) more tons of actual payload, reducing
the numbers of trailers trips required to move a given amount of material on an annual
basis.
♦ Aluminum trailers have reduced fuel consumption due to lighter weight when hauling
empty, with increased savings when the haul between facilities is longer.
Aluminum trailers have the following limitations:
♦ Aluminum trailers have a higher up front purchase price. According to NAT there can be
as much as an additional $25,000 premium for aluminum trailers over a steel trailer. This
value is highly dependent on the options chosen.
13
184
♦ Potential increased difficulty in locating qualified welders familiar with aluminum
welding techniques. However as noted above, depending on the trailer vendor, steel may
actually cost more, and maintenance shops familiar with welding aluminum are becoming
easier to find. The Facility has the capability and knowledge in-house to weld aluminum.
4.2
Design Modifications to Trailers
As part of the trailer analysis, Foth visited the Xcel facilities in Mankato and Red Wing. Foth’s
intent was to review the necessity of modifications being made to the RDF trailers. RRT utilizes
trailers that were manufactured by several different manufacturers over a thirty (30) year period
of time. While different modifications have been made, the primary changes are as follows as
shown in Photos 3 and 4:
♦ Relocation of the trailer’s axles and
♦ Relocation and/or modification of the primary door release handle.
Photo 3
Relocated Rear Axles
4.2.1
Photo 4
Modified Door Release
Axle Modification
Axle modification involves shifting the axles forward on the trailer by approximately one (1)
foot. Foth observed trailers with modified axles at the Mankato facility (Photos 5 and 6). Axle
modification moves the tires away from the extreme rear of the trailer, allowing it to be backed
to a curb (Photo 7) at the edge of the loading pit. The modified axle facilitates virtually spill free
unloading into the pit. If this modification was not in place, some of the RDF would fall onto
and adjacent to the concrete curb during unloading, creating debris that must be cleaned up with
a loader (Photo 8).
14
185
If the debris is not immediately removed when the trailer departs, it builds up and creates a false
tire stop for subsequent trailers, exacerbating the problem by moving the unloading point further
from the pit. The axle modification seems to be of significant benefit to keeping the areas clean
at the Xcel facilities. RRT staff have seen a significant reduction in the frequency of mud flap
repairs or replacement for the trailers with the axel modification, compared to trailers without the
axel modification.
Photo 5
Standard axle location
Photo 6
Modified axle location
Photo 7
Curb Stop
Photo 8
Spilled RDF at Curb
15
186
4.2.2
Door Handle Release Lever Modification
The axle modification to accommodate the loading of the trailers does however create a conflict
with the door handle release lever. With the trailer able to be backed in an additional one (1)
foot, the door handle release lever located about mid trailer ends up in conflict with a structure
that protects Xcel’s walking floor hydraulic systems. Consequently, when the axle location is
modified, the door handle release lever must be relocated as well.
Photo 9
Mankato Hydraulics Structure
Photo 10
Red Wing Hydraulics Structure
Two options can be utilized for the door handle release lever modification:
♦ Option 1 is to shorten the door release linkage to less than a foot and move the door
handle lever to the back corner of the trailer. This is the simplest and current best
performing method of modification, and the only one that has been executed to date.
However, there is a steel column (Photos 10 and 11) near the pit at both facilities that
prevents operation of the handle once the trailer has been fully backed in. This change
requires the door handle release lever to be manipulated prior to backing in which is a
training issue with the drivers. There is also potential for the handle to be left in various
positions if the driver pulls away without remembering to reposition the handle out of the
way. Leaving the handle out could cause it to hit the structure around the hydraulics as
well as the building support structure.
♦ A second option would be to move the door handle lever one (1) foot forward from its
original location. This would allow the door handle lever to clear all structures at
Mankato and Red Wing. This is the best known option for the door handle lever location
on all future built trailers. However it is important to note that there are not currently any
trailers with these modifications.
16
187
Photo 11
Relocated handle interference
Photo 12
Standard handle location
Trailers 750 and 751 are the newest trailers. These trailers are considered to be “almost perfect”
in design for the Facility; there are four issues that RRT staff would change in the next major set
of trailer purchases. Changes to the pocket door, the door handle placement, the wiring in the
front for the trailers and modifications to the bearings or the fitting of the large doors are the only
functional changes recommended by RRT staff. Purchasing smooth sided trailers would allow
the Board to easily change messaging on the trailers, and allow them to be used as “advertising”
or “education” tools. Jordyn Wilkens of Wilkens Manufacturing stated on 10/2/15 that exterior
aluminum panels are a $6000 add-on for a 48’ trailer. She said users have noted that this added
cost pays for itself in a very short time due to the fuel savings achieved by improved
aerodynamics. Additionally it creates an insulating layer to aid in freeze prevention, and
provides an ideal surface for company decals.
5 Options for Future Trailer Fleet Ownership.
Trailers are estimated to cost approximately $95,000. Approximate prices are shown below:
♦ Trailer Cost (including smooth side upgrade) $80,000.00
$2,000.00
♦ Freight
$12,900.00
♦ Various Taxes
♦ Document, Title, Reg. Fees
$100.00
Aluminum prices are currently depressed, and it would be beneficial for the Board to take
advantage of both the current pricing and the leverage of a large trailer order to obtain new
trailers. There are several purchase structures for the Board to consider to obtain new trailers,
which are presented below.
17
188
5.1
Board-owned Trailer Fleet.
In this Option the Board would own the trailers and be responsible for operation and maintenance of
the trailers. There are immediate needs for trailer procurement that were identified in a previous
Foth report. Outright purchase of the trailers has the following benefits:
♦ Trailer design and options can be solely determined by the Board; there is no need for a
lessor to require a trailer that would have broad appeal to potential buyers at the end of the
lease.
♦ Trailers can be used and maintained to the specifications of the Board. The Board can
choose any vendor to maintain the purchased trailers.
♦ Because the Board determines the repair and maintenance vendor, it does not have to depend
on the schedule of the lease-holder or their repair vendor when trailers need to be repaired.
♦ Maximum use can be derived from the trailers; they remain the property of the Board for the
entirety of their useful life, which the Board determines.
♦ The Board can establish a pay-as-you go plan to purchase vehicles, building the capital
expenses into the Board’s annual budget.
♦ At end-of-life, the trailers can be traded or sold, with the proceeds returning to the Board to
fund new purchases.
Outright purchase of the trailers has the following drawbacks:
♦ Capital funds must be used for the purchase; these funds are then not available for other
Board uses.
♦ The Board must develop detailed specifications for the trailers and “own” the consequences
if the specifications do not perform as desired. The experience of the existing staff at the
Facility reduces this risk.
♦ The Board is responsible for repair and maintenance of the trailers, including contracting
with a vendor and overseeing the performance of the vendor.
♦ There may be a temptation to delay capital purchase of trailers beyond their cost-effective
life, resulting in extensive repairs to maintain a sufficient number of trailers on-hand.
♦ The Board must pay sales and excise taxes on the capital purchase, similar to a private
business that transfers waste.
The City of Red Wing owns the tractors and trailers for their RDF transfer fleet. The City initially
bought one used tractor and two used trailers from NAT. The trailers were purchased for $45,000
each, and required an additional $5,000 each for repairs before they could be put into service. The
City has since purchased an additional used tractor and a third used trailer, and would like to buy
two (2) to three (3) more trailers. Jeff Schneider, with the City of Red Wing, noted that having
additional trailers will allow them to rotate the fleet to reduce the wear and tear on each trailer and
provide enough trailer capacity to tide them over when major repairs are being made. He noted that
major repairs to the City’s trailers are done by NAT and typically take two (2) to three (3) weeks
each. The City purchases used trailers due to the high capital cost of new trailers.
18
189
5.2
Board Lease to Purchase a Trailer Fleet.
In the Lease-to-purchase alternative, the Board would lease the trailers with the option to
purchase the trailers during or at the end of the lease. With appropriate contract provisions, the
trailers could also be returned to the leaser during the lease period if they are unsuitable.
Advantages to the Lease-to-purchase alternative include:
♦ Leasing lowers the initial capital outlay by the Board, reserving funds for other needed
purchases.
♦ Leasing to purchase eases the Board into ownership of the trailers, allowing the Board to gain
experience and fine-tune their trailer needs for future purchase specifications.
♦ The lease can be structured to include maintenance during the lease portion. Minor or quick
repairs should still be done by the Facility staff to make sure that trailers are on the road; this
cost should be built into the lease.
♦ The lease can be structured to allow the Board to sell back the trailers during or at the end of
the lease period instead of taking ownership of the trailers if conditions change and the Board
uses another method for trailer use.
♦ There is a pre-determined end to the lease, which requires the Board to routinely evaluate the
trailers and make plans for replacement or lease extension.
♦ Lease-to-purchase is typically less costly than a straight lease of trailers.
Disadvantages to a lease-to-purchase arrangement include:
♦ The remaining capital value of the trailers is lost at the end of the lease period if the trailers
are returned to the lease-holder.
♦ The lease-holder is typically responsible for the repair and maintenance of the trailers. The
Board is then held to the lease-holder repair vendor, and their schedule for repairs.
♦ The lease-holder receives compensation for holding the lease; leases may be more expensive
on a “present-value” basis than outright purchase.
♦ Clear contract specification and enforcement is critical to maintaining sufficient trailers onsite to maintain functions of the Facility. Staff must be committed to consistent contract
enforcement.
♦ Because the Board does not “own” the trailers, there is potential risk associated with the
financial strength of the lease-holder.
5.3
Lease all Trailers
The Board could lease all trailers without purchasing the trailers at the end of the lease. The
lease would include maintenance and on-road assistance provisions.
Advantages to the Leasing option include:
♦ Leasing lowers the initial capital outlay by the Board, reserving funds for other needed
purchases.
19
190
♦ Leasing to purchase eases the Board into ownership of the trailers, allowing the Board to gain
experience and fine-tune their trailer needs for future purchase specifications if the Board
changes its trailer ownership direction.
♦ The lease includes maintenance during the lease. Minor or quick repairs should still be done
by the Facility staff to make sure that trailers are on the road; this cost should be built into the
lease.
♦ The end of the lease period coincides with a new lease for trailers. The Board will have a
planned replacement program that will maintain a trailer fleet that is within an expected
useful life.
Disadvantage to leasing trailers include:
♦ The remaining capital value of the trailers is lost at the end of the lease period.
♦ The lease-holder is typically responsible for the repair and maintenance of the trailers. The
Board is then obligated to use the lease-holder’s repair vendor, and their schedule for repairs
may not meet the needs of the Board.
♦ The lease-holder receives compensation for holding the lease; leases are typically more
expensive on a “present-value” basis than outright purchase.
♦ Clear lease specification and enforcement is critical to maintaining sufficient trailers on-site
to maintain function of the facility. Staff must be committed to consistent lease enforcement.
♦ Because the Board does not “own” the trailers, there is potential risk associated with the
financial strength of the lease-holder.
5.4
Contract for Trailers with Owner-Operators of Tractors
This option would require transfer tractor vendors (ITOs) to also supply the transfer or other
trailers as part of their contract. The Board would include provision of a number of trailers
specified by the Board in their contracts with each ITO. Each ITO would be required to have not
only the number of trailers needed for the base contract, but a percentage redundancy to ensure
that the Board always has a sufficient number of trailers on hand. Alternatively, the Board could
own some trailers as “flex,” to cover seasonal or extreme needs for transfer.
Advantages of this option include:
♦ The ITO owns the trailers. The Board has no capital outlay or repair and maintenance
requirements for the trailers. All trailer responsibilities are outsourced.
♦ The Board could explore this option during the first years of ownership, offering to sell some
of the existing trailer stock to ITOs as part of the out-source contract.
♦ The Board is not responsible for maintaining excess trailers on-site to cover peak needs; the
ITOs are responsible for peak coverage. This is a Public/Private service model that may have
political benefits.
20
191
Disadvantages of this option include;
♦
The Board is at high risk for the contract performance by the ITOs. There may be seasons of
the year in which ITO’s are tempted to delay transfer of Board loads in favor of higher-paying
spot loads.
♦
Obtaining trailers that meet specific Xcel or other facility needs may be difficult. Contractors
may not purchase Board-specified trailers unless the contract term is sufficient to fully
depreciate the trailers.
♦
Clear contract specification and enforcement is critical to maintaining sufficient trailers onsite to maintain function of the facility. Staff must be committed to consistent contract
enforcement.
♦
Alternative or back-up contracts are needed to maintain the Board’s ability to move material.
These contracts may be more expensive than routine contracts, because of their on-call nature.
♦
Back up of RDF trailers could affect capability to manage MSW.
5.5
Contract for Trailers
The Board would contract with a vendor to provide trailers on a contract basis in this option. The
contract would specify the number, type and availability of trailers.
Advantages to this option include:
♦
There is no capital outlay by the Board; all trailers are owned by the contractor.
♦
There are no maintenance requirements of the Board; all trailers are maintained by the
contractor.
♦
There is potential to include transfer ownership of existing trailer fleet as part of the contract.
♦
A phased approach could be used to test the option whereby Board would retain some /all
trailers and has an on-call tractor contract.
♦
The option provides a Public/Private partnership opportunity, which has political benefits.
Disadvantages to this option include:
♦
The Board is at high risk for the contract performance by the contractor. There may be
seasons of the year in which contractors are tempted to use Board-contracted trailers for
higher-paying spot loads.
♦
Obtaining trailers that meet specific Xcel or other facility needs may be difficult. Contractors
may not purchase Board-specified trailers unless the contract term is sufficient to fully
depreciate the trailers.
♦
Clear contract specification and enforcement is critical to maintaining sufficient trailers onsite to maintain function of the facility. Staff must be committed to consistent contract
enforcement.
♦
Alternative or back-up contracts are needed to maintain the Board’s ability to move material.
These contracts may be more expensive than routine contracts, because of their on-call nature.
21
192
5.6
Combinations of the Above Options
The Project Board could consider combinations of the above alternatives: e.g. contract out
ferrous, non-ferrous and residue trailers; own RDF trailers.
♦ Board would suggest combinations they wish to have considered
♦ Pros and Cons of the option(s) would be provided.
6 Next Steps and Recommendations
The function of the Facility is to accept waste and process it for transfer to the combustion
facilities. The trailer fleet is a critical component for the operation of the Facility. Foth
recommends the following next steps be taken to determine the exact number of new trailers to
be required. There are several actions that are recommended for the Board to pursue:
6.1
Trailer Retirement and Replacement Schedule
Table 6 presents the list of seventeen (17) trailers that should be immediately scheduled for
replacement. Four (4) of the five (5) Open Top Walking Floors listed above are currently used
for ferrous transport. These trailers do not need to be replaced as Foth is recommending that the
trailers be provided by the ferrous end market.
Table 6
Initial Trailer Replacement Summary
Trailer Unit
730
732
735
736
737
738
740
741
747
748
752
753
3006
3004
3005
3000
3001
Trailer Type
Push Plate
Push Plate
Push Plate
Push Plate
Push Plate
Push Plate
Push Plate
Push Plate
Push Plate
Push Plate
Push Plate
Push Plate
Year
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1994
1995
1995
2001
2001
Material Type
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Table 7 presents the twenty-three trailers that should be individually reviewed, with the best
trailers retained for use and the worst trailers scheduled for immediate replacement. Major
repairs to these trailers should be delayed or reconsidered, depending on how quickly new
trailers can be delivered and the transfer needs of the facility.
22
193
Table 7
Summary of Trailers to be Individually Reviewed for Replacement
Trailer Unit
Trailer Type
Year
Material Type
783
805
808
809
810
812
814
815
817
818
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
831
832
833
834
835
837
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
Walking Floor
1988
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
The Board should continue to evaluate trailers, beginning with the 1995 cohort, and consider
replacement instead of major repair to the remaining trailer fleet. A plan to purchase four (4)
trailers per year after the initial purchase is recommended.
6.2
Scrap or Sell Replaced Trailers
The trailers that the Board decides to retire will have value. The Board should evaluate the scrap
value of the trailers, and consider selling the trailers either through a County process or through
one of the equipment auctions in the Metro Area (Ritchie Brothers, etc.).
6.3
Specifications for New Trailers
RRT has developed specifications over the years that have resulted in trailers that are costeffective and function well for the tasks that are needed.
23
194
The specifications that are being used should be continued, with four modifications as suggested
by RRT personnel:
♦ Changes to the pocket door
♦ Changes to the door handle placement
♦ Improvement of the wiring in the front for the trailers
♦ Modifications to the bearings or the fitting of the large doors
6.4
Prepare an RFP for Potential Leasing of New Trailers
Because potential vendors for lease arrangements were reluctant to offer detailed price estimates
without additional information, the Board may choose to relatively soon prepare a non-binding
RFP for leasing of trailers to fully evaluate leasing as a procurement option.
6.5
When Acquiring Trailers, Accept Delivery as the Trailers are
Produced
The Board will have the option of taking delivery of new trailers all at once, or to take delivery
as the trailers are manufactured. The Board should consider taking delivery of the trailers as
they are produced to effect rapid replacement of the oldest trailers. The Board should still
benefit from the number and financial value of the total order.
6.6
Contract with Ferrous Markets (Vendors) to Recycle the Scrap
metals and Transport the Material
It would be to the Board’s advantage to seek a competitive contract with ferrous recyclers that
will obtain the best net prices for the material, including transportation. Contracts should include
siting of ferrous trailers at the facility and on-demand transportation of the material.
24
195
UPS
An uninterruptible power supply is an external
battery and electrical circuitry allowing
uninterrupted power during either or power
outage or surge. UPS’s are rated in terms of
battery capacity, number of watts supported,
and work load.
PDU
A power distribution unit provides clean,
uninterrupted power to servers and
networking equipment in a given network
rack. PDUs help to isolate power surges due to
networking hardware failures keeping the
outage localized to a given rack.
31
196
Memorandum
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 288-8550 • Fax: (651) 288-8551
www.foth.com
November 6, 2015
TO:
Zack Hansen, Judy Hunter, and Kate Bartelt
Ramsey/Washington Recycling and Energy Board (R&E Board)
Joint Staff Committee
FR:
Susan Young, Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
Jennefer Klennert, Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
CC:
Warren Shuros, Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
RE:
October 20, 2015 meeting with RRT to discuss trailer status
Executive Summary
On October 20, 2015 a meeting was held at the Newport Facility (Facility) between
representatives of Resource Recovery Technologies (RRT), North American Trailer
(NAT) and Foth to discuss the repair and operations status of transfer trailers and the
RRT-recommended specifications for future trailer purchases by the Ramsey/Washington
Recycling and Energy Board (R&E Board).
Repair status and operational fitness of specific trailers was discussed. Data on repair
costs to specific trailers over time and the current specifications were provided to Foth. It
was agreed that transfer trailers are a critical component to successful operation of the
Facility and that there have been occasions when a lack of trailers limited the Facility’s
production of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF).
Recommendations resulting from the meeting include:
♦ Foth confirms the R&E Board should purchase thirty-six (36) transfer trailers as
soon as possible. New trailers should be integrated into the trailer fleet as they are
manufactured instead of taking delivery of all trailers in one batch;
♦ The specification developed by RRT and modified by experience with RDF
transfer operations should be used as the basis to purchase new trailers;
♦ All road-worthy trailers should be retained for operations use. As each trailer is
inspected for the yearly Department of Transportation (DOT) licensing, steel
“push-plate” trailers and steel trailers more than fifteen (15) years old which need
significant repair (e.g., in excess of $8.000) to obtain a DOT license should be
scrapped or sold;
1
X:\FOTH\IE\Ramsey Wash Co RRP\15R002-02\10000 Reports\12 Transfer Trailer\M-October 20 Trailer meeting.docx
197
♦ The “rag monster trailer,” although old, serves its purpose cost-effectively. An
automated tarp system would improve the efficiency of use of the trailer; and,
♦ A component of future trailer purchases should be provision of a preventative
maintenance plan for the trailers and training of the on-site staff that will be responsible
for implementing the plan.
Background and Methodology
Several memorandums specific to transfer trailers have been produced by Foth to assist the
Ramsey-Washington Recycling and Energy Board (R&E Board), in the purchase of the Newport
Facility (Facility) owned by Resource Recovery Technologies (RRT). These include:
♦ “American Appraisal - Appraisal Review,” October 9, 2013;
♦ “Review of Trailer Rolling Stock,” August 3, 2015;
♦ “Decrease in Value of Resource Recovery Technologies (RRT) Transfer Trailer
Inventory,” August 6, 2015; and.
♦ “Analysis of Trailer Options,” October 6, 2015.
Transfer trailers are used to transport refuse-derived fuel (RDF) to Xcel combustion facilities, to
transport residue and bulky waste to landfills, to transport metals to markets and to transport
wastes to the Facility. “Walking Floor” trailers are used exclusively for RDF and ferrous metal
because the action of the floor plates can be used to both load and unload the trailers without
outside (forklift, etc.) assistance. The transfer trailer fleet consisted of one hundred eight (108)
trailers in the Appraisal completed in 2013. These trailers were manufactured in years 1987
through 2008. Two (2) new trailers were specified and purchased by RRT in 2014 and added to
the fleet. The trailers used at the Facility are special use trailers with specific requirements for
design and manufacture. Typical useful trailer life in the RDF transfer industry is ten (10) to
fifteen (15) years, depending on the maintenance and repair investments in the trailer.
The Facility has maintained transfer operations through the period these reports were produced,
including continued repair and maintenance of the transfer trailer fleet and retirement to scrap of
trailers that were beyond reasonable repair. Two new trailers were purchased. Significant
repairs were made to aged or marginally valued trailers in order to maintain the minimum fleet
required for transfer of RDF, residue, metals and other materials at the Facility. These
significant repairs resulted in rebuilt, road-worthy trailers that are functional beyond their age.
A meeting with RRT, North American Trailer (NAT) and Foth staff was held on October 20,
2015 at the Facility to discuss the operational status of transfer trailers and the RRTrecommended specifications for future trailer purchases by the R&E Board. NAT is the
contractor that RRT uses to maintain and repair trailers that can not be repaired on-site by RRT
staff, and is the vendor for MAC trailers.
2
198
The inventory of transfer trailers, status of individual trailers including those undergoing
significant repair or recently scrapped, and the number of trailers needed for effective Facility
operations were discussed. RRT provided their current transfer trailer specifications to Foth,
and explained the changes that have been made to the specifications over time to enhance the
function and durability of the trailers and to reflect the specific configurations and operations
needs of the Facility and the Xcel combustion facilities.
Repair status and operational fitness of specific trailers was discussed, as was the varying
numbers of trailers needed each day. The configuration of the metals trailers was described as it
relates to the way that metals are put into the trailers.
Results and Observations
Transfer trailers are a critical component to successful operation of the Facility. The function of
the Facility is to make RDF for the Xcel combustion facilities; unless transfer capacity to the
Xcel facilities is available, the function of the facility is critically impaired. The number of
trailers in use fluctuates significantly on a daily basis as a function of the combustion needs and
trailer emptying schedules of the Xcel facilities, incoming waste loads, and quality of the waste
(more or fewer bulky items and more or fewer metal items to transfer). Weather events and
contract driver availability also affect the availably of trailers to load RDF into. There have
historically been between 1,135 and 1,886 RDF trailer pulls per month. There have been
occasions when a lack of trailers limited the Facility’s production of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF).
The average downtime at the Facility due to trailer need is two to three (2 to 3) hours per week;
RRT staff reported during the week of October 12 there were ten (10) hours of Facility downtime
due to lack of trailers. The RRT staff was very concerned that even if the R&E Board purchases
a significant number of new trailers, serviceable trailers should not be scrapped or sold if costeffective serviceable life remains in them. It was noted that, “It is better to have trailers and not
need every one of them every day, than to need to transport RDF and not have enough trailers to
make the loads.”
RRT has not invested in a significant number of new trailers due to uncertainty of the length of
the RDF and waste contracts. RRT has instead contracted with NAT for major repairs of the
“best” of the existing trailers to provide sufficient trailers for operational needs. These major
repairs included structural, hydraulic, electrical, suspension and other work that resulted in
“rebuilt” trailers. Between January, 2009 and October, 2015, twenty two (22) trailers have
received major repairs at a total cost of $858,080. Trailers repaired were of the 1988, 1990 and
1994 cohorts, and twenty (20) of the twenty-two (22) received repairs in more than one (1) year.
Total repair costs per trailer ranged between $5,861 and $67,068. Since July 1, 2015, four (4)
major trailer repairs have been completed, with two trailers currently at NAT, scheduled for
major repairs. The rebuilt trailers will have significant service life remaining, well beyond the
end of service that would be predicted from the year of manufacture alone.
RRT has both steel and aluminum trailers. The aluminum trailers are newer; advances in
aluminum welding and metals properties in recent years have allowed use of aluminum for
corrosive materials and high compaction payloads. The aluminum trailers carry a higher payload
and the design of the trailers result in lower fuel costs per trip.
3
199
Twenty percent (20%) of the RRT trailers are aluminum, but aluminum trailers make between
fifty-six to sixty-three percent (56% to 63%) of the RDF trailer trips. The standard of purchase
for RRT since 2004 has been aluminum trailers.
RRT has worked closely with trailer vendors and manufacturers to fine-tune the specifications
for trailers to:
♦ meet the operations needs of the Facility;
♦ be cost-effective; and,
♦ fit the configurations at the Xcel combustion facilities.
The staff cited an example of the continuous improvement and close working relationship they
have developed with trailer vendors to optimize the trailer design. The handle to release the
large door was moved from the front of the trailers toward the rear when the 2014 trailers were
purchased to reduce torque on the handle and minimize repairs. The first rearward handle
placement interfered with a column at the Xcel facilities. NAT and RRT collaborated to change
the placement of the handle; the current handle placement specification corrects both the excess
torque and column interference problems. The RRT staff has developed specifications that they
believe best meet the three (3) criteria above. The current trailer specifications are contained in
Attachment 1, “RRT Transfer Trailer Specifications.”
There are ten (10) push-plate trailers purchased in 1987 which have current DOT certification
and are in use. The push-plate trailers are solely used for bulky waste and residual waste
transfer. The 1987 trailers are not used for RDF because the Facility can only load fifteen (15)
tons of RDF, at most, in those trailers. The 1987 trailers are very fuel inefficient and are well
beyond their useful life. The RRT staff suggested that these trailers be replaced first as new
trailers are received.
Fifteen trailers were purchased in 1990. Some of these trailers (Units 824, 826) have had major
repairs and have useful life remaining. RRT had scheduled Units 826 and 809 for major repairs,
but the repairs are on-hold due to the high cost to make them road-worthy. RRT staff believes
that the 1990 trailer cohort should be evaluated for replacement one-by-one as either major
repairs are needed or as new trailers are available. They noted that several of these trailers have
significant useful life remaining.
There is a 1988 open-top, steel trailer that is called, “the rag monster trailer.” This trailer is sited
at Xcel and is used to transport the long and tangled strings of material that are removed from the
RDF feed equipment to the boilers. The trailer receives limited use, but is needed for the
operation. The Xcel staff currently removes the tarp and tarp supports before loading the trailer
and replaces the supports and the tarp before the trailer is moved. The system is cumbersome
and poses risk to employees climbing in and around the trailer to install and remove the supports.
The trailer has had $24,522 in repairs between 2009 and the present, and is considered fit for the
duty it is used for. RRT staff suggested that a mechanical tarp system, at a cost of approximately
$5,000 would improve the efficiency of use of the trailer.
4
200
The walking floor trailers used to transfer metals have been problematic. Sharp metals dropped
from height when loading the trailers punctures the floor plates, and small items (nails, screws)
work themselves between the plates and fall out the bottom of the trailers. Solid floor open-top
trailers, suggested as an alternative, were reported by the RRT staff as not compatible with the
current metals conveyors and loading bay.
Foth had subsequent discussion with a representative of Hallco Industries, a leading
manufacturer of walking floors floor trailers and the manufacturer of all walking floors in use at
RRT. Hallco is very knowledgably of the Facility operations and the metals trials issues, and has
a leak-resistant and heavy duty version of their walking floor (NLRHD) to consider in future
trailer purchases. The NLRHD could be appropriate for both metals-only trailers and the entire
trailer fleet. Operational efficiency could be maximized if any trailer, not just specialized
trailers, could be pulled from the lot to transfer metals. Hallco reports that the NLRHD, because
of the heavy-duty structure, may have a longer cost-effective life than standard walking floors.
Newer trailers have also been subject to significant repair needs or incidents that made them
unusable. Unit 832, a 1994 steel trailer was cannibalized for parts to repair other trailers of its
cohort. Unit 840, a 1997 trailer requires major repairs to be road-worthy, but in the opinion of
RRT staff this trailer should instead be scrapped. Unit 847, a 1997 trailer, needs a new King
Plate to be usable; this is a $27,000 repair. Incidents happen to waste hauling trailers. Examples
of occurrences that have caused premature retirement of trailers included a telephone pole
pushed through the side of a trailer and hydraulic system failures.
The state and many counties have changed the winter road salt from calcium chloride to
magnesium chloride. Magnesium chloride does a good job of clearing roads, but is much more
aggressive and is causing premature oxidation and wear of electrical and hydraulic fittings on
trucks and trailers. The electric and hydraulic systems are the only way to avoid manual loading
and unloading of the trailers, and repairs to these systems are very expensive; corrosion of these
components is a critical concern. RRT staff are concerned that more frequent repairs will be
needed in the future as compared to historic levels, and cautioned that a higher number of trailers
may be needed in the future to keep up with accelerated repair needs.
RRT does not have a routine preventative maintenance program for the trailers due to the sheer
amount of maintenance needed on the aging fleet. Instead they rely on driver reports to identify
issues that arise before or during transportation, and the yearly mandatory DOT inspection to
identify systems problems. RRT staff performs small and routine repairs (replace lights and mud
flaps, grease or straighten doors, make minor repairs to landing gear). NAT suggested that a
routine preventative maintenance program at the Facility would protect the investment in new
trailers, especially to address accelerated corrosion of undercarriages and electrical and hydraulic
systems seen in recent years.
5
201
It was noted in the meeting that Foth is recommending the R&E Board purchase thirty-six (36)
new trailers. RRT staff suggested that:
♦ new trailers should be ordered as soon as possible and integrated into the trailer fleet
because there is at least a four (4) month lead time between order and delivery of trailers;
♦ the specification developed by RRT and modified by experience with RDF transfer
operations should be used to purchase new trailers;
♦ existing road-worthy trailers at the Facility should be retained and used until significant
repairs to those trailers are required; and,
♦ no significant repairs should be made to existing trailers unless too few trailers exist in
the fleet to maintain operations.
Recommendations
Foth recommends the R&E Board purchase thirty-six (36) transfer trailers as soon as possible.
Foth recommends that the specifications developed by the RRT staff, which has been the result
of experience and continuous improvement of trailer design, be used in the R&E Board’s transfer
trailer bid documents. Use of the Hallco NLRHD could be considered as a bid alternate, to
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this walking floor system. The new trailers should be
integrated into the transfer trailer fleet as they are manufactured instead of taking batch delivery
of all purchased trailers at one time.
It is recommended that all road-worthy trailers be retained for operations use, and that as each
trailer is inspected for the yearly Department of Transportation (DOT) licensing, steel “pushplate” trailers and steel trailers more than fifteen (15) years old which need significant repair
(e.g., in excess of $8.000) to pass a DOT annual inspection be scrapped or sold. Functional
trailers that are road worthy should not be scrapped on a manufactured-year basis, but should be
retained as long as they are useful and cost-effective.
The “rag monster trailer,” although old, serves its purpose cost-effectively. Installation of an
automated tarp system would improve the efficiency of use of the trailer and reduce the risk of
injury associated with removing and replacing structural tarp components each time the trailer is
used.
When the R&E Board purchases new trailers, a component of the purchase should be provision
of a preventative maintenance plan for the trailers and training of the on-site staff that will be
responsible for implementing the plan. The R&E Board will make a significant investment in
trailers; with proper maintenance they will remain cost-effective for many years.
Attachments
Attachment 1: RRT Specification for Transfer Trailers
6
202
Attachment 1
RRT Transfer Trailer Specifications
203
BIDDING GUIDE FOR
WALKING FLOOR TRANSFER TRAILERS
Resource Recovery Technologies L.L.C.
100 Red Rock Rd.
NEWPORT, MN
55055
204
1.0
1.1
1.2
PURPOSE
GUIDE
The purpose of this guide is to provide sufficient information for suitable
qualified Suppliers to furnish transfer trailers to transport materials associated
with resource recovery facilities. These materials will include, but not be
limited to, the following: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Refuse Derived Fuel
(RDF), non-processible and residue. “Suitably qualified” means that the
Suppliers shall be able to demonstrate satisfactory performance of the offered, or
similar, equipment in a comparable application to the satisfaction of the Owner.
2.0
SCOPE OF SUPPLY
2.1
GENERAL
This guide is not intended to be restrictive. Equal, better or additional
components may be proposed but shall be approved by owner. Alternate transfer
trailers may be submitted as equal to the specified equipment. The burden of
proof or equality shall be the responsibility of the Supplier. However, to retain
consideration, the Supplier’s base bid shall be prepared using the information
provided in the guide. The owner reserves the option, at a later date, to purchase
an additional number of trailers under the terms of this contract.
The Supplier shall quote aluminum panel smooth side walking floor trailers.
2.1
WORK INCLUDED
The total scope of the contract shall include design, supply, and delivery and
performance warranties for the specified equipment. The Supplier shall furnish
complete transfer trailer, including:
•
Self-unloading trailers capable of load/unload MSW
RDF,RESIDUE or UNPROCESSIBLES.
•
Maintenance instructions/manuals
•
Assembly and Structural Drawings
•
Recommended spare parts list and pricing
•
Surface preparation and painting
•
Initial fill and operating fluids and lubricants.
205
2.3
EXCLUSIONS (PROVIDED BY OTHERS)
•
3.0
External hydraulic wet packs for walking floor operation.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The transfer trailers will be used to transport various materials to and from processing
facility, which is located in Newport, Minnesota and is owned by
Resource Recovery Technologies LLC. These trailers will be required to travel on
paved highways as well as unpaved surfaces such as sanitary landfills and roads leading
to and from such landfills.
4.0
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
The transfer trailers will be loaded by means on stationary compactors. The trailers
shall be designed to withstand all the forces exerted on the trailer body by compactor
loading (maximum compactor thrust 150,000 LBF). The trailers shall have a full size
rear door for unloading purposes. This rear door, as well as the trailer itself, shall be
compatible for loading by means of the stationary compactors at the facility. The trailers
shall be designed to provide a means for locking the trailers to the compactor using the
compactor center pin hook. Details of the required rear door center pin are shown on
the drawings it is the Suppliers responsibility to verify dimensions and compatibility
with the existing compactors.
The trailers shall be constructed of aluminum. A decisive factor for the selection of
transfer trailers will be the net payloads the trailer can carry. The transfer trailers shall
meet all the requirements for maintaining maximum payload in the State of Minnesota
over a ten (10) ton road. The trailers shall also conform to all Federal Department of
Transportation regulations.
The trailers shall be of the walking floor design (HALLCO ONLY). All trailers shall
be equipped with the necessary hardware and components such as hydraulic cylinders
and directional valves to operate the unloading system. The unloading system shall be
compatible with a hydraulic wet pack (by Owner) which operates at 3,000-PSI pressure
and a flow of 30 GPM. The trailers shall be capable of off-loading the materials being
transported in temperatures of (-) 40 to (+) 100 degrees Fahrenheit with no difficulty.
5.0
DETAIL GUIDE
5.1
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
The construction of this equipment shall generally conform to the standards as
outlined in the drawings provided .
All furnished equipment shall meet OSHA standards.
206
5.2
SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS
Target Weight
-NOT TO EXCEED 20,500 LBS
Target Height
Target Length
Maximum Width
108 CUBIC YARDS MINIMUM
- 13’6”
- 45’0”
- 8’0”
Axles
- Two 22,500 lb 71.5 IN. Meritor 5/8” WALL TP w/ 49”
spacing. Hutchens cast spring ride 3 leaf suspension.
Axles are placed 12” forward rear most of trailer.
Tires
- Michelin XZE-2 11Rx 22.5
Rims
- Steel HP 22.5 x 8.25 10 hole white powder coated
Brakes
- 16-1/2” by 7” Rockwell full air with quick disconnect
couplers mounted at the front of trailer (must comply with
all DOT requirements). Brake adjusters shall be selfadjusting. ABS braking system (Meritor/Wabco) shall be
a four sensor system.(No gunnite products)
Hub/Drum
- (4) cast w/steel hub 10 stud tp,ss,7” Hubodometer
mounted driver side front - Stemco
King Pin
- SAE standard king pin, 36” from front. All trailers shall
have a full width trailer front fifth wheel protection plate.
Landing Gear
- Heavy Duty, 2-speed crank types Holland Mark 5,c rank
mounted on driver side. 200,000-lbs. static load capacity
with cushion foot sand pad. The landing gear is to be
located 33’0” from the rear of the trailers and have a 72"
centerline spacing. The landing gear shall have heavy
duty bracing for multiple use. The landing gear shall also
Have a 4" O.D. scheduled 80 pipe installed inside the
legs. See landing gear attachments (This landing gear can
be purchased at Fleet Pride in St.Paul, Minnesota.)
Lights
- Truck lite L.E.D. lights (rear lights to be suitably
protected to prevent breakage). All lights must meet
D.O.T. requirements and regulations.
Mud Flaps
- Standard rubber composition at rear.
Paint
- Any steel structure will be blasted to SPS-6, have
2 part epoxy primer of 3 mils with an epoxy top coat of
3-4 mils in black.
207
Compactor Pin
- Pin shall be 2-3/4” in diameter by 9” high. Centered
35-1/2”opening in the sub frame.
Ejection System
- Hydraulically operated and compatible with a wet pack
operation at 3,000 PSI pressure and 30 GPM flow. Male
Pioneer 4010-6P quick disconnect couplers mounted
approximately fifteen (15) feet from rear of trailer, with 2
(TWO) duplicate sets mounted at the front of the trailer.
The couplers will be compatible with each facilities
present couplers. The walking floor shall be a Hallco
4000 ejection floor system with 3/8 aluminum slats.
Twenty-four (24) slat design with “T” block bearings on
the floor discharge end. Last 8 feet of floor to have a 3/8”
aluminum overlay.
Body
-Aluminum Smooth Side/ panels landfill tolerant design
on both trailer frame and body. Sides,front bulkhead, roof
and floor shall be able to withstand all forces exerted by
compactor loading (Max. compactor thrust 150,000
LBF). Panel inside/outside thickness to be determined
between both parties.
- A vent shall be provided in the front of the trailer to
provide a sight port at tractor window level to enable
driver to watch the progress of the unloading sequence.
- A non-stick surface shall be added to the front slope
shield to aid in self-cleaning and freeze prevention. This
surface shall be ¼” UHMW plastic or equal.
Door
Floor Height
- Rear door is of double door design, a mechanism shall
be provided for unlatching the rear doors from the driver
side. A mechanism shall be provided so the outer
door(small door) will open while the big door (inner door)
is secured. A method of adjusting both inner and outer
door closure shall be provided. Doors must rest flush
against trailer wall when open .Hinge design must be
approved by the purchaser. See attachment
- The floor height is to be at 53" empty.
Maximum Unloading Time - The trailers unloading system shall require no more than
10 minutes to fully unload a trailer at 3,000 PSI and 30
GPM flow. Curves of unloading time vs. pressure shall
be provided with bid.
•
Decal
- All trailers will be provided with a “Caution-This
trailers makes wide turns” decal affixed to the rear door
on the passenger side.
Miscellaneous
- All trailers shall be provided with a backing bell
mounted to the passenger side front axle.
All hydraulic piping shall be stainless steel seamless pipe, socket welded throughout.
208
ALL TRAILERS TO BE MINNESOTA STATE D.O.T CERTIFIED
5.1
STANDARD PRODUCT
It is not the intent of this guide to be restrictive. It outlines features that are required for
the service intended. In all cases, the standard product of the manufacture may be
proposed even if the guide is exceeded but must be approved by owner. If the owner
receives the product with components or designs unapproved, the trailer will be
rejected at time of delivery and not hold owner liable for freight expenses.
6.0
PERFORMANCE
6.1
GENERAL PERFORMANCE
The Supplier shall provide sufficient data with the quote to assure the Owner that trailer
of the type and style furnished by the Supplier have a minimum life of seven (7) years
normal landfill and/or over-the-road usage, and have demonstrated such capabilities.
The trailers will be used seven (7) days per week and twenty-four (24) hours per day.
6.2
PERFORAMANCE GUARANTEES
The Supplier shall guarantee the trailer performance as specified for a period of two
years (24 months) to commence upon delivery of the complete order to the job site.
It shall be understood that normal trailer operation shall include compacting into the
trailer with up to 150,000 pounds force on a high frequency basis (as much at fifteen
(15) times per day) with sufficient quantities of RDF, MSW , BULKY WASTE
RESIDUE or RESIDUE to obtain a gross vehicle weight of 80,000 pounds while still
maintaining legal rear axle weights. Furthermore, fully loaded trailers shall be operated
in landfills on a continuous basis
The Supplier guarantee shall address the following elements:
A.
Unit downtime
If any individual trailer supplied under this purchase contract is non-operational
for more than five working days and if the root cause of the non-operation is
traceable to the trailer Supplier (design, materials, fabrication, workmanship, or
sub-components). Then the Supplier shall provide temporary and compatible
replacement trailers until the non-operational trailers are made operational.
B.
Corrective Maintenance
209
If any individual trailer supplied under this purchase contract requires corrective
maintenance and if the root cause of the problem to be corrected is traceable to
the trailer Supplier (design, materials, fabrication, workmanship or subcomponents), then the Supplier shall, at the Supplier’s expense and at the
Supplier’s choice, perform corrective maintenance or replace the trailer
requiring corrective maintenance.
C.
Routine Maintenance
If any individual trailer supplied under this purchase contract requires and
abnormally high amount of routine maintenance, then the Supplier shall, at the
Supplier’s expense and at the Suppliers choice, either:
Perform the routine maintenance above and beyond that which is normally
expected and provide temporary and compatible replacement trailers of equal or
greater capacity while those trailers are awaiting or are receiving maintenance.
-OR- Reimburse the Owner for all routine maintenance above and beyond that
which is normally expected. In support of this guarantee the Supplier shall
provide information on expected maintenance which details schedules, materials
consumables and labor requirement
D. Guaranteed minimal carryback after unloading all materials.
7.0
EQUIPMENT WARRANTY
7.1
COMPREHENSIVE WARRANTY
The Supplier warrants that the work will be as specified and will be free from defects in
design, workmanship, and materials. If within the warranty period the materials or
equipment fails to meet the provisions of this warranty, the Supplier shall promptly
correct any defects, including non-conformance with the specification, by adjustment,
repair or replacement of all defective parts or materials without additional cost to the
Owner.
Unless otherwise specified, the warranty period shall extend a period of two years (24
months) from the date of complete delivery of the equipment to the job site.
Any deviations from the above conditions must be specifically declared in writing
with the Supplier’s bid.
7.2
PERFORMANCE WARRANTY
The equipment shall be tested by the Owner at least once within the first six (6) months
after delivery of the equipment. The test will run for thirty (30) loads over fifteen (15)
consecutive days. The equipment shall meet the following criteria:
•
No structural integrity damage.
•
No mechanical operational problems.
•
Unloading time stated in proposal with minimal carryback of material.
210
•
8.1
Stated payloads.
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
•
Proposals shall contain the following information:
•
Pricing with options as defined in Form of Proposal
•
Delivery Schedule, After Receipt of Order (ARO) as defined in Form of Proposal
•
Description of equipment furnished including all interface requirements for Owners
scope of supply.
•
Data verifying that the requirements of this guide regarding scope of supply and
performance can be met.
•
General arrangement and/or equipment outline drawings (MUST
ACCOMPANY QUOTE)
•
Spare parts list and prices, noting the items and quantities recommended to be kept
on Owner’s site and items not stocked at Supplier’s facility.
•
Alternate source of spare parts/major replacement parts including main hydraulic
cylinders, and all hydraulic components.
•
General information on expected life of components.
•
Discuss design features that provide for complete unloading of the trailer with no
carryback.
•
Manufactures user list of similar equipment.
211
8.2
SUBMISSIONS AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDER (ARO)
After award of the order, the Supplier shall furnish eight (8) copies of the following
documents to the operation staff of each facility in accordance with the agreed-upon
schedule:
9.0
•
Operations Manual
•
Maintenance and Lubrication Manual
•
Emergency Procedures
•
Wiring Diagrams
•
Electrical Schematics
•
Piping Schematics
•
•
General Arrangements and Assembly and Structural .
OSHA Certification
SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS
9.1
SHIPMENT AND STORAGE
All spare parts and unattached material shall be suitable crated, boxed, equipment with
handling fixtures, or otherwise prepared for shipment to prevent damage during
shipment and handling. Each box or crate shall contain a detailed packing list. The
weight of each component or container shall be stamped on the outside of the container
along with the Owner’s address and purchase order number. All openings shall be
properly protected to prevent the entrance of dirt or debris. Suitable weatherproofing
shall adequately protect all parts, which may be exposed to the weather. It shall be the
responsibility of the Supplier to take any other precaution required to reasonably
ensuring job site arrival of the equipment in an undamaged and satisfactory working
condition.
All parts shall be identified in an appropriate manner. When parts are crated or boxed,
detailed packing lists shall be provided with each crate or box. All parts to be joined in
the field shall be clearly matched marked after shop painting, and shall be marked with
references to applicable assembly drawings
212
9.2
SURFACE PREPARATION AND PAINTING
In general, all components of standard manufacture purchased by the Supplier and
furnished for this contract shall be prepared and finish painted in accordance with the
component manufactures standard practice. All equipment and structural steel
fabricated by the Supplier shall be cleaned, prepared, primed and finish painted in
accordance with applicable painting codes and standards of Steel Structures Painting
Council Surface Preparation Spec (SSPC-SP 6). All Painting shall be consistent with
the specified intended service and the Supplier shall adhere to the paint manufacture’s
requirements. All surfaces shall be thoroughly cleaned before priming and painting.
Priming shall be a 2 (two) part epoxy primer 4-6 mil thickness Owner approved
equivalent. Finish paint shall consist of a two (2) part polyurethane in a color selected
by the Owner of a thickness of 2-4 mils, total thickness to be no less than 6 mils. The
underside of the trailers shall be painted black.
9.3
NAMEPLATES
All equipment shall be provided with a permanently attached stainless steel nameplate
located in a readable location and fastened to the largest, least dismantled part.
Nameplates shall not be attached to a pressure-retaining surface with mechanical
fasteners.
The nameplate shall be stamped with the following information:
Item
Serial Number
10.0
Design Capacity
QUALITY PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
10.1
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) PROGRAM
10.1.1 The Suppliers/Contractor shall have an effective QC Program to ensure the
requirements of the purchaser procurement documents and specifications are
complied with. It is preferred the program be documented, but verifiable
demonstration of compliance through normal fabrication/erection practice is
acceptable.
10.1.2 The program shall assure that required procedures are prepared and
implemented, required test/measurements are made using calibrated tools and
equipment, referenced codes and standards are available for use, personnel are
trained and qualified to perform the specified task as required by codes,
standards and the specification, deviation/defects are identified and corrected in
compliance with specification requirements, and that materials are procured,
handled and shipped in compliance with the Procurement Document/Contract.
All deviations/defects must be identified to Owner in writing including
corrective action taken.
213
10.2
SUPPLIER/CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILIES FOR SUBSUPPLIER AND
CONTRACTORS
The supplier/Contractor shall identify in purchase documents to his
subsupplier/subcontractors, all applicable quality requirements imposed by the
specification on the Supplier/Contractor and ensure compliance thereof.
10.3
NOTIFICATION POINTS
The owner shall have the right to establish notification points for which the Supplier
shall give prior notification. Notification points require the Supplier/Contractor prior
notification at least ten working days in advance of the scheduled time of performance.
The Owner may require that activities performed without proper notification be
repeated for the Owner’s observation at the Supplier/Contractor’s expense.
The Owner will inform the Supplier/Contractor of its desire to witness the event or will
authorize the Supplier to proceed without witnessing the event. The above may be
performed by telephone communication. Written waiver will be issued if requested by
the Supplier/Contractor.
10.4
QUALITY PROGRAM INTERFACE
The Supplier/Contractor is subject to audits, unannounced inspections, and witnessing
by the Owner to ensure compliance with the requirements of the specifications, codes,
drawings and Owner’s approved submittals. The Owner’s exercise of, or failure to
exercise his right to inspect, witness or audit, and subsequent approval by the Owner’s
shall relieve the Supplier/Contractor obligation to comply with the terms and conditions
of the purchase order/contract. Any request for approval of deviations of
nonconformance to the purchase order/contract documents shall be preceded in
accordance with the specification.
10.5
SUBMITTAL OF MANUFACTURING/ERECTION SCHEDULE
Prior to the award of the purchase order, the Supplier/Contractor shall submit copies of
the Manufacturing Schedule to the Owner upon request for their information and
establishment of Notification Points and Project Management.
214
10.6
DOCUMENTATION
10.1.1 Records System – A record system shall be established and maintained that
provides for the identification and correlation of required records and
certifications.
10.1.2 Documentation Schedule – This specification requires specific documents to be
formally submitted to the Owner for information or review and approval. If
these documents are changed subsequent to submittal, the Supplier/Contractor
shall resubmit the revised document (s) to the Owner for information or review
and approval consistent with the original requirements. Any document required
by this specification which is produced by a subsupplier/subcontractor of the
Supplier/Contractor shall first be reviewed and noted as being approved by the
Supplier/Contractor and then submitted to the Owner for review and approval.
Supplier/Contractor and subsupplier/subcontractors who proceed to use
unapproved documents do so at their own risk, and may be required to repeat
activities that were performed if the document used is subsequently rejected by
the Owner.
10.1.3 Supplier/Contractor Documentation - The Supplier/Contractor shall assemble all
required records into two identical sets. Each page of each documents submitted
shall be clearly identified by the RRT name, the station and/or unit, the purchase
order number, the equipment description and specific identification, and the
manufacture/contractor’s name and address. Each individual document shall be
legible and shall be reproducible capability. No information shall be recorded
closer that 5/8” of the binding edge or closer that ¼” to any other edge of the
paper.
Documents that have been submitted with a previous shipment on this
order/contract shall not be duplicated. However, a statement shall be furnished
to the Owner itemizing, by document, the documents previously furnished for
each item of equipment and the date of that previous submittal.
10.1.4 Documentation by the Supplier/Contractor – The minimum documentation
required to be furnished is listed in the Purchase/Contract documents.
All records required by this specification, applicable regulations, codes and
standards, or generated as a result of the Supplier/Contractor’s QC Program
shall be retained in the Supplier/Contractor’s file for a period of 365 days after
the contract requirements for the manufactures or installation have been
complied with. At the expiration of this 365 day period, the Owner or their
authorized agent shall be provided the option of receipt and/or the
Supplier/Contractor’s continued retention of the file contents. No records shall
be destroyed or otherwise disposed of without permissions from the Owner.
215
This Bid is awarded to :
Signed :
216
Cushion Foot Installation
217
218
Trailer Door and Handle Reconfiguration
219
Modified Axle Placement
220

Assessment of the Processing Capacity and Capability of the

Transcription

Similar documents

RV Listings | Véhicules récréatifs

the original dover drag strip 26th annual

RV Dealers | Concessionnaires de VR

55 Ton Lowboy (55LB141202) 26` Deck Length, 24

2012 Straight Load Gooseneck

55 Ton Lowboy (55FA140608) 26` Deck Length, 24

Models and Enhancements

Simplifying Trailer Services

The Full Line of Featherlites

MODEL LM 1 - Log Master Portable Saw Blade