RES 073 Draft 01 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Table ES -1 summarizes the recommended measures and ranking of importance for managing solid waste in Hawaii County. Considerations for ranking the individual measures included: Diversion Potential—What is the tonnage diversion potential from landfill? Local Authority—How much control must the local government exert over the disposal management system (e.g., service providers, infrastructure collection/transfer/disposal, and/or waste generators)? • Implied—indirectly through culture or practice: less likely to accomplish measure. • Influenced—by policy, permit, license or ordinance: moderately likely to accomplish measure. • Explicit—directly through contracts or operations: highly likely to accomplish measure. Receptivity—What is the relative ease and level of effort to initiate and obtain local buy -in? For example, does it involve promotional activities, recognition, no requirements on waste generators, minor costs (generally easier)? Or does it involve setting mandatory requirements, restrictions, or higher costs (generally more difficult)? Environmental Outcome—What is the environmental effect? For example, does the measure consider ecological toxicity, human heath, or greenhouse gas emissions generated by raw materials extraction and product manufacturing? Staff Knowledge—How much staff knowledge or specific expertise is needed to implement the measure? Can it be implemented by mid-level local agency staff without outside legal or contractor assistance? Community -Led Initiatives—How easy or hard is it for individuals or groups to adopt or implement the measure without actions required by the jurisdiction? Can a local nonprofit or group of interested residents carry out the activity (e.g., develop a "how-to guide") or will it require initiation by local jurisdiction staff or elected bodies (e.g., adopt a local ordinance)? Outcome of Recommendation Prioritization Ultimately, most of the recommendations and supporting implementation strategies were ranked as moderate (45), followed by high (37), with only one recommendation identified as low. This demonstrates that representative SWAC members agree that most of these actions are attainable and can improve the County's existing solid waste management program. To further prioritize, each SWAC member was tasked to identify their top five recommendations or themes. Recommendations that received a number one ranking were weighted (scored) higher than those that received a number five ranking. Additionally, because some of the recommendations are thematically similar, they were combined. Of the 83 recommendations, six recommendations or themes were identified by more than one SWAC member as priorities. The top six recommendations identified by the SWAC are: • Conduct education, outreach, and public awareness – multiple recommendations. • Regularly review and, when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract – Chapter 10, Recommendation 2. • Conduct additional household hazardous waste (HHW) collection events – Chapter 6, Recommendation 5. • Change County code to allow small businesses to drop off recyclables at recycling and transfer stations – Chapter 8, Recommendation 5. August 2020 ES -5