WASTE NICHOLAS COUNTY SOLID AUTHORITY I.. RE: March 1,2013

Transcription

1 ... NICHOLAS COUNTY SOLID... WASTE AUTHORITY I.. P.O. BOX 59 * CALVIN, WV Phone Cell Fax nclfl@dishmail.net March 1,2013 West Virginia Public Service Commission Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary PO Box 812 Charleston WV RE: SWF-C Please accept and file Nicholas County Solid Waste Authoriti s ceptions to Nicholas Sanitation Inc. s response to formal complaint SWF-C. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Since re I y, Executive Director NCSWA cc: Sam Hanna

2 Case No SWF-C Nicholas County Solid Waste Authority v. Nicholas Sanitation Inc. ResDonse Number One 1. Exceptions to Nicholas Sanitation Inc. s response to formal complaint Nicholas Sanitation Inc. did not place roll off boxes at Wal-Mart. The boxes placed at Wal-Mart belonged to the City of Summersville. Secondly Nicholas Sanitation Inc. s participation in the stated recycling program was to haul the boxes to the Raleigh County Recycling Center and back. Nicholas Sanitation Inc. was paid $52, which was a cost of per ton to haul recycling from Wal-Mart of Summersville to the Raleigh County Recycling Center. The monies paid to Nicholas Sanitation Inc. were paid from a grant received through the WV DEP REAP Program. 2. The joint venture mentioned by Nicholas Sanitation Inc. council was as follows: Nicholas Sanitation Inc. requested that NCSWA continue to pay Nicholas Sanitation Inc. to haul recycling from Wal-Mart in Summersville to the Raleigh County Recycling Center since the grant monies had been exhausted. 3. Since Nicholas Sanitation Inc. s owner is a Board member of the NCSWA Board, the other NCSWA Board members felt that paying Nicholas Sanitation Inc. to haul recycling was unethical and would be deemed improper. That is the partnership described by council for Nicholas Sanitation Inc and this is the unknown reason NCSWA rejected Nicholas Sanitation Inc. s offer. Secondly the recycling project started with grant monies was not serving its purpose and was not the best use of public monies. The recycling hauled to Raleigh County was not a clean product which resulted in the majority of the product having to be land filled rather than recycled. Since the recycling was being land filled rather than recycled the grant monies which are public funds were being wasted. Mayor Robert Shafer approached NCSWA to develop a program for the citizens of the City of Summersville to recycle. He was informed by NCSWA that the only way NCSWA would develop a program is if it was a proper program that could be controlled to

3 ensure a clean product, convenience to the citizens and not waste public monies. At a town hall meeting to explain and implement the curbside recycling program Councilman Joe Rapp asked the question what is the incentive dollar wise to the citizen to source separate their waste and still pay a monthly bill for pickup of their waste. In other words there was no incentive for the citizen to recycle. The NCSWA recycling program has been a huge success and has received National honors and has the full support of Governor Tomblin. Upon implementation of the NCSWA recycling program, the program was offered to Nicholas Sanitation Inc. as it was designed and the offer was declined. This is understandable as Nicholas Sanitation Inc. had no means to adjust their tariff without filing with the WV PSC. The wet waste incentive program is designed at a dollar five per thirty two gallon bag exactly as it is if the customer brought their own waste to the Nicholas County Landfill. All assessment fees on each bag of wet waste picked up and delivered to the Landfill are included in this price. This program is community based and is County wide. 4. NCSWA had no knowledge of any recycling services offered by Nicholas Sanitation Inc. and would ask that Nicholas Sanitation Inc. specify what recycling they are doing. ResDonse Number Two 1. NCSWA never stated that Nicholas Sanitation lnc. denies service in its geographical area included in its tariff. Only that, it does not make the public aware of their hauling rights for these areas and that their rates may be cheaper than other haulers who are serving Nicholas Sanitation lnc. s geographical areas. NCSWA believes Nicholas Sanitation Inc. has a duty to at least inform the public that they can provide service to the citizens in these areas if they so desire. Nowhere in the formal complaint are allegations made that Nicholas Sanitation Inc. denies service in any geographical areas they are authorized by their tariff to serve. Response Number Three 1. It is NCSWA belief that by Nicholas Sanitation Inc. not making citizens aware of its capability to provide service in all of the geographical areas covered by its tariff, the rates of Nicholas Sanitation Inc. which are based on all of the areas covered by the Nicholas Sanitation Inc, tariff may be excessive and unreasonable to the customers Nicholas Sanitation Inc. does serve. NCSWA s further concern is that the citizens currently being served by Nicholas Sanitation Inc. may be damaged by Nicholas Sanitation Inc. s rates which are based on the assumption that Nicholas is picking up waste in all of its certificated area. As NCSWA understands rates are based on population served, tipping fees at the landfill the hauler dumps at and distance traveled by the hauler to serve the population in all of its certificated area. There are three certificated haulers who serve areas of Nicholas County. Nicholas Sanitation Inc. s rates are higher than the other certificated haulers and Nicholas Sanitation Inc. dumps at the

4 closest landfill and has the closest distance to travel to this landfill. The other haulers rates are as follows Western Greenbrier per month hauls to the Greenbrier County Landfill A& W Sanitation lnc per month hauls to the Raleigh County Landfill Nicholas Sanitation Inc per month hauls to the Nicholas County Landfill With Nicholas Sanitation Inc. showing a Cost of Goods Sold rate of % this shows Nicholas Sanitation Inc. having net revenue of approximately 64%. The attached document supplied as attachment one of NCSWA formal complaint was submitted in a separate civil court case by Nicholas Sanitation Inc. This document was prepared by Roger A. Griffith an expert witness for Nicholas Sanitation Inc. NCSWA also understands that motor carriers of solid waste rates are supposed to be designed that the haulers do make a profit but not an excessive profit which may place a hardship on the public. With Michael Young manager of Nicholas Sanitation Inc. stating at a recent PSC hearing held on September 25,2012 that Nicholas Sanitation Inc. grosses a little less than three million a year raises the question is Nicholas Sanitation Inc. s rates excessive and or unreasonable. 2. Counsel for Nicholas Sanitation Inc. is incorrect in that Nicholas Sanitation Inc. has not had complaints filed with the WV PSC against Nicholas Sanitation Inc. When in fact there have been three cases documented with the WV PSC. Case No Case No Case No P Nicholas Sanitation Inc. may have had other complaints which did not become public knowledge as it is the custom of the PSC to attempt to settle complaints which are received by phone before any formal filings are made. 3. If Nicholas Sanitation Inc. has complied with all rules and regulations of the West Virginia Public Service Commission as well as the laws of the State of West Virginia then Nicholas Sanitation Inc. should have no problem with complying with an investigation of Nicholas Sanitation Inc. s rates by the WV PSC.

5 CASE NO SWF-C NICHOLAS COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY v. NICHOLAS SANITATION INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Larry A. Bradford, do certify that I have served the parties listed below with a copy of the foregoing EXCEPTIONS TO ANSWERS OF THE FORMAL COMPLAINT by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 8th day of March, 2013: Samuel Hanna Hanna Law Office 3508 Noyes Avenue Po Box 2311 Charleston WV

6 W PSC Form12 Revised Form No. 12 VERIFICATION (To be added to all complaints, answers, applications and petitions.) County of Ni c'hd~, ss. of t-\cswp, the (CompanyUility, if applicable) (Com plainantldefendanvpetitioner) named in the foregoing (ComplaintlAnswer/Application/Petition), being duly sworn, says that the facts and allegations therein contained are true, except as far as they are therein stated to be on information, and that, so far as they are therein stated to be on information, he/she believes them to be true. W (Signature of person named above) Affiant Taken, sworn to and subscribed before me this Th dayof M &U, dm Notary Public in and for said County. t My commission expires on the 30'h day o ff,