HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntegrated Resources & Solid Waste Management Plan Update - Dec 2009ero Waste
"Noll, o ✓,4
WEMEMM=
This document was prepared over many months with guidance and direction from County
elected officials, tireless contributions from County staff, and input from stakeholders. In
particular, the County gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the volunteer members
of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee who helped shape and guide the development of
this Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan update.
Mayor Billy Kenoi
Hawaii County Council
Guy Enriques
Brenda Ford
Kelly Greenwell
Pete Hoffmann
Donald Ikeda
Emily L Naeole
Dennis "Fresh" Onishi
Dominic Yagong
J Yoshimoto
Staff from the Department of Environmental Management and Solid Waste Division
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Barbara Bell, Chair
Paul J. Buklarewicz
Christine L Dochin
Jes M. Foster
Michael E. Gleason
Michael A. Kaha
Alexander B. Leonard
Steven K. Okoji
Shon K. Pahio
Russell E. Ruderman
Nimr Y. Tamimi
Theodore W. Vorfeld
Lane Otsu, State Department of Health (non- voting)
December 2009
Section
Acronyms and Abbreviations
n "floll,
.4
Page
ExecutiveSummary ..................................................................................... ...............................
ES -1
ES.1
Introduction .......................................................................... ...............................
ES -1
ES.2
The Path to Zero Waste .......................................................... ...........................ES
-1
ES.3
IRSWMP Update Process ....................................................... ...........................ES
-2
ESA
Transitions from the 2002 ISWMP Update .......................... ...........................ES
-2
ES.5
Consequences of Inaction ....................................................... ...........................ES
-4
ES.6
Summary of Recommendations ............................................ ...........................ES
-5
ES.7
Potential Future Directions .................................................... ...........................ES
-7
ES.8
Draft Implementation Plan .................................................... ...........................ES
-7
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................... ............................1 -1
1.1 On the Path to Zero Waste ...................................................... ............................1 -1
1.2 Goals of the Integrated Resources and Solid Waste
Management Plan Update ....................................................... ............................1 -2
1.3 Draft Implementation Plan ..................................................... ............................1 -4
1.4 Organization of this Document .............................................. ............................1 -4
2.0 Waste Stream Assessment ............................................................... ............................... 2 -1
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................ ............................... 2 -1
2.2 Population and Employment ............................................... ............................... 2 -1
2.3 Generation, Disposal, and Recycling .................................. ............................... 2 -3
2.4 Waste Composition ................................................................. ...........................2 -10
3.0 Source Reduction .................................................................................. ............................3 -1
3.1
Introduction ............................................................................ ...............................
3 -1
3.2
Background ............................................................................ ...............................
3 -1
3.3
Existing Conditions .................................................................. ............................3
-3
3.4
Issues and Concerns .............................................................. ...............................
3 -7
3.5
Options for Improvement .................................................... ...............................
3 -7
3.6
Recommendations ................................................................... ...........................3
-17
4.0 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets ........................................ ............................... 4 -1
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................ ............................... 4 -1
4.2 Background ............................................................................ ............................... 4 -1
4.3 Existing Conditions .................................................................. ............................4 -3
4.4 Issues and Concerns ................................................................ ...........................4 -11
4.5 Options for Improvement .................................................. ............................... 4 -12
4.6 Recommendations ................................................................... ...........................4 -31
December 2009
CONTENTS
5.0 Public Education and Information
.................................................... ............................5 -1
5.1
Introduction ...............................................................................
............................5 -1
5.2
Background ................................................................................
............................5 -1
5.3
Existing Conditions ..................................................................
............................5 -2
5.4
Issues and Concerns .................................................................
............................5 -5
5.5
Options for Improvement ........................................................
............................5 -6
5.6
Recommendations ...................................................................
...........................5 -11
6.0 Household Hazardous Waste and Electronic Waste ..................... ............................6 -1
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................... ............................6 -1
6.2 Background ................................................................................ ............................6 -1
6.3 Existing Conditions .................................................................. ............................6 -2
6.4 Issues and Concerns ................................................................. ............................6 -4
6.5 Options ....................................................................................... ............................6 -5
6.6 Recommendations .................................................................... ............................6 -9
7.0 Special Waste ......................................................................................... ............................7 -1
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................... ............................7 -1
7.2 Background ................................................................................ ............................7 -1
7.3 Existing Conditions and Recommended Improvements .... ............................7 -1
7.4 Recommendations .................................................................... ............................7 -5
8.0 Collection
and Transfer ....................................................................... ............................8 -1
8.1
Introduction ............................................................................... ............................8
-1
8.2
Background ................................................................................ ............................8
-1
8.3
Review of 2002 Plan Update .................................................... ............................8
-3
8.4
Existing Conditions .................................................................. ............................8
-3
8.5
Issues and Concerns ................................................................. ............................8
-8
8.6
Curbside Collection Implementation Considerations ......... ............................8
-9
8.7
Options for Improvement ....................................................... ...........................8
-19
8.8
Recommendations ................................................................... ...........................8
-29
9.0 Residuals Management ........................................................................ ............................9 -1
9.1
Introduction ............................................................................... ............................9
-1
9.2
Review of 2002 Plan Update .................................................... ............................9
-1
9.3
Existing Conditions .................................................................. ............................9
-1
9.4
Issues and Concerns ................................................................. ............................9
-5
9.5
Material Recovery and Treatment Options ........................... ............................9
-8
9.6
Landfill Disposal Options ....................................................... ...........................9
-24
9.7
Recommendations ................................................................... ...........................9
-29
10.0 Administration, Funding, and Implementation ............................ ...........................10 -1
10.1 Introduction .............................................................................. ...........................10 -1
10.2 Review of 2002 Plan Update ................................................... ...........................10 -1
10.3 Existing Conditions ................................................................. ...........................10 -1
10.4 Issues and Concerns ................................................................ ...........................10 -5
IV December 2009
CONTENTS
10.5 Administration and Funding Options .................................. ...........................10 -7
10.6 IRSWMP Recommendations ................................................. ..........................10 -10
10.7 Recommended Implementation Plan and Financial Analysis ................... 10 -11
Appendixes
A Chronology for Waste Reduction Technology for Hawai'i County
B Waste Composition Study County of Hawai'i
C Recycling and Transfer Station Reconstruction Concepts
D Hawai'i County Mechanical - Biological Treatment Facility Conceptual Design
E Considerations for Siting a New Landfill in East Hawai'i
F Planning -Level Cost Estimates for Landfill Options
G Value Model and Risk Analysis of Residuals Management Options
H Energy Balance
Exhibits
ES -1 Implementation Plan for Operations
ES -2 Implementation Plan for Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
ES -3 Implementation Plan - County Operating Revenues and Expenses
2 -1 Historical Population, Hawai'i County
2 -2 Resident Population Forecast by District, Hawai'i County
2 -3 Historical Employment, Hawai'i County
2 -4 Forecast Employment, Hawai'i County
2 -5 Historical Generation, Recycling, and Disposal and Estimated Diversion Rate,
Hawai'i County
2 -6 Historical Generation, Recycling, and Disposal, Hawai'i County
2 -7 Per - capita Generation Comparison
2 -8 Historical Disposal at Recycling and Transfer Stations and Commercial Customers
for West and East Hawai'i
2 -9 FY 07 -08 Disposal by Recycling and Transfer Station
2 -10 Historical Generation Trends, Hawai'i County
2 -11 Forecast Generation, Recycling, and Disposal and Recycling Rate, Hawai'i County
2 -12 Generation, Recycling, and Disposal Forecast, Hawai'i County
2 -13 Disposal Forecast, Hawai'i County (tons)
2 -14 Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Total County
2 -15 Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Hawai'i
2 -16 Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawai'i
2 -17 Disposed Composition Estimates: Total County
2 -18 FY 07 -08 Diversion Rate by Waste Category
4 -1 Diversion Rate Trends in Hawai'i County
4 -2 Hawai'i County Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations
4 -3 Factors Affecting Curbside Recycling Rates
4 -4 Factors Affecting Curbside Recycling Costs
December 2009 V
CONTENTS
4 -5 Estimated Per -ton Cost Range for Food and Other Organics Processing in Hawai'i
County
6 -1 Household Hazardous Waste Collection, Hawai'i County
6 -2 Electronic Waste Collected, Hawai'i County
7 -1 Special Waste Disposal Requirements
8 -1 Disposal at Hawai'i County Recycling and Transfer Stations FY 07 -08
8 -2 Recycling Services at Recycling and Transfer Stations
8 -3 Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations
8 -4 Island Wide Recycling and Transfer Station Condition
9 -1 South Hilo Landfill Site Map
9 -2 West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill (at Pu'uanahulu)
9 -3 Technologies Proposed in Recent U.S. Alternative Technology Procurements
9 -4 Summary Matrix of Residuals Recovery and Treatment Options
9 -5 Evaluation of Residuals Management Strategies
10 -1 County of Hawaii Solid Waste Revenue
10 -2 Solid Waste Fund Revenue Summary, Percent of Total
10 -3 Solid Waste Fund Expenses
10 -4 Projected Solid Waste Capital Improvements
10 -5 Four Programmatic Areas for Preventing Illegal Dumping (EPA, 1998)
10 -6 Implementation Plan for Operations
10 -7 Implementation Plan for Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
10 -8 Implementation Plan - County Operating Revenues and Expenses
VI December 2009
0111,111"'l, ,4
iq� 11111111
ELSE=
ACM
asbestos - containing material
AES
AES Hawai'i, Inc.
ARSC
Art of Recycling School Competition
BYOB
bring -your- own -bag
C &D
construction and demolition
CATI
computer- assisted telephone interviewing
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CRC
Certified Redemption Center
CRT
cathode ray tubes
OF
degrees Fahrenheit
DEM
Department of Environmental Management
DIY
do- it- yourself
DSD
Duales System Deutschland
E &P
education and promotion
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPR
extended producer responsibility
FOG
fat, oil, and grease
ft2
square feet
FTE
full -time equivalent
FY
fiscal year
GO
general obligation
HAR
Hawai'i Administrative Rule
HCPD
Hawai'i County Police Department
HDOH
Hawai'i Department of Health
HIEDB
Hawai'i Island Economic Development Board
HHW
household hazardous waste
HRS
Hawai'i Revised Statutes
HWS
Hawaiian Waste Systems
IRSWMP
Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan
December 2009 VI I
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
KRRC
Kea'au Recycling & Reuse Center
LED
light emitting diode
MBT
mechanical - biological treatment
MMSU
mixed municipal solid waste
MRF
material recycling facilities
MSW
municipal solid waste
PAD
predictive auto dialer
PAYT
pay -as- you -throw
PCs
petroleum- contaminated soil
PRO
producer responsibility organizations
PVC
polyvinyl chloride
RBRC
Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDF
refuse - derived fuel
RFP
request for proposal
RRC
recycling and reuse center
SHSL
South Hilo Sanitary Landfill
SWAC
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
SWD
Solid Waste Division
tpd
tons per day
UPW
United Public Workers
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
VOC
volatile organic compound
WEEE
waste electrical and electronic equipment
WHCBF
West Hawai'i Compost and Biodiesel Facility
WHSL
West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill
WTE
waste -to- energy
VIII December 2009
flinmr-ag
!t
The 2009 County of Hawai'i Integrated Resources and Solid
Waste Management Plan (IRSWMP or Plan) Update has been
prepared in compliance with the Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS)
Chapter 342G, which requires counties in Hawai'i to update and
revise their solid waste management plans every five (5) years.
The last update to the Plan was completed during 2002. Work on
this revision of the Plan began in early 2008, and involved the
participation of a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG), the
County of Hawai'i (County) Environmental Management
Commission, the public, the business community, the County of
Hawai'i Department of Environmental Management (DEM), the Office of the Mayor, the
Solid Waste Division (SWD), the County Council, and numerous other stakeholders.
This IRSWMP update includes an evaluation of waste management practices in the County,
including waste reduction practices and programs, opportunities for implementation of zero
waste policies and practices, the status of both active and closed landfills, and potential
options for expanding and extending the capacity of the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill
(SHSL). The results are organized by section in accordance with HRS 342G. Each section
contains a description of the existing conditions, a summary of the 2002 Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) update recommendations and status of implementation
of those recommendations, a description of options available to the County for
improvement of the solid waste management program, and recommendations for
implementation of selected options.
Concurrent with the development of this IRSWMP
update, the County contracted with a consultant to
develop a zero waste implementation plant. The
recommendations of that study were considered by
SWAC and other stakeholders during the
1 Recycle Hawaii and Richard Anthony Associates. 2009. Zero Waste Implementation Plan for the County of Hawaii.
December 2009 ES -1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
development of this Plan. This IRSWMP update includes a number of specific
recommendations from that study intended to keep the County moving forward on its path
to zero waste.
The recommendations in this Plan are projected to increase the County's current recycling
rate of 29 percent to a rate of 44 percent by the end of the planning period (FY 14 -15).
a !
Development of this IRSWMP update was guided by a 12- member SWAG, appointed by the
Mayor. SWAC members participated in 13 meetings at which they reviewed draft plan
sections, debated key issues, developed plan goals (provided in Section 1), and shaped
recommendations. Presentations to the County Council's Environmental Management
Committee were made on a monthly basis to solicit feedback from County Council members
and the public on issues and options. In addition, input was requested from the public in a
variety of forums including a series of public meetings, periodic meetings with community
organizations, and routine posting of all draft documents and meeting minutes on the
IRSWMP page of the Counts Website (rtt�_J_cc,,x 11� ai i,81 i UsZf.I� rr,m�iS"A71111.hITII).
The key recommendations included in this IRSWMP update have consensus support from
the SWAC and are intended to balance the many interests of the various stakeholders within
the County. The recommendations developed during this process have been organized into
a 5 -year implementation plan. This IRSWMP update includes each of the plan sections
covering various waste management topics, and the draft implementation plan. It includes
responses to comments received from the State of Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH),
and is being submitted by the Mayor to the County Council for adoption, and then will be
presented to HDOH for final approval. Final approval by HDOH is anticipated by the first
quarter of 2010.
A summary of the IRSWMP recommendations and the draft implementation plan are
presented below.
AIMEN • • ' f
The County's initial ISWMP, as required by state law (HRS 342G) was adopted on
October 5, 1994. An update to that original plan was completed by the County and
approved by the State of Hawaii in December 31, 2002. A key issue addressed in the 2002
plan update was the pending closure of the SHSL, which was expected to reach capacity in
the summer of 2004. The 2002 update included the following key recommendations:
• Construct no new landfills in East Hawaii
• Emphasize the recovery of recyclable materials at the planned East Hawaii Regional
Sort Station, possibly by incorporating features of a material recovery facility (MRF)
• Procure a waste reduction facility for the East Hawaii waste stream using either waste -
to- energy, thermal gasification, or anaerobic digestion technology. (See Appendix A for
a chronology of waste reduction study and procurement activities in Hawaii County.)
ES -2 December 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Establish a County recycling program with a long list of elements that have the potential
to increase waste diversion significantly
After adopting the 2002 ISWMP update, the County took steps toward implementing these
recommendations, as follows:
• Expanding the number and scope of its recycling programs, which increased its
recycling rate from 15 percent in FY 01 -02 to 29 percent in FY 07 -08
• Initiating development of elements of the East Hawai'i Regional Sort Station (now
nearing completion) that could potentially serve a number of strategic waste
management functions
• Issuing two (2) requests for proposals (RFPs) for construction of a waste reduction
facility. The first RFP was cancelled by the County. The second procurement process
resulted in a proposal for a 230 - ton - per -day mass -burn waste -to- energy facility to be
located at the SHSL. In 2008, the County Council rejected the recommended proposal, in
part because the construction and operation costs were higher than anticipated.
Since 2006, the County has taken three (3) other important actions related to its solid waste
management system:
1. It completed a
comprehensive engineering
evaluation of its twenty -one
(21) recycling and transfer
stations; this evaluation
concluded that thirteen (13)
have serious failures
requiring reconstruction to
correct, and another six (6)
have serious problems that
could be corrected without
complete reconstruction.
2. It extended the capacity of
the SHSL through innovative
engineering solutions, such
as creating a sliver fill and
utilizing additional airspace
resulting from creation of the
sliver fill.
3. It prepared an expansion
feasibility study and capital
cost estimate to assess
whether undertaking a
seven (7) acre landfill
expansion immediately
adjacent to the SHSL would
December 2009
Ka'auhuhu (Hawi) RTS
4,145 (51%)
Honoka'a RTS
3,469 (4.2 %)
Puako RTS Pa'auil4 R1
2,681 (3.3 %)
Waimea RTS 1,922(2
6,376 (7.8 %)
Honomu RTS
West Hawall
Sahlfary Landfill
(2.1 %)
Kailua R
7,860(9.7-
"R
Keauhou RTS
5,017(6.2%)
Ke'ei RTS
2,025 (2.5 %)
Waiea RTS
2,969 (3.6%)
Milol� P RTS
207 (0.3 %)
Ocean View
(Proposed)
Pahala RTS
1,304 (1.6 %)
Walohlnu RTS
3,447 (4.2 %)
Note: Numbers under transfer station = tons of trash
IN hauled in FY 07 -08 and percent of total for County.
Laupahoehoe RTS
b1,547 (1.9 %)
Honomu RTS
1,727
(2.1 %)
South Hilo
Papaikou RTS
SanPtary:LandRR:
2,902 (3.6 %)
39 575 (48.7- )
Hilo RTS
14,707 (18.1 %)
Kea'au RTS
7,44`3(9.1 %)
Glenwood RTS
2,940(3.6 %).
�� W
Volcano RTS
1,929(24/)
Pahoe RTS
5,759(7 .1%)
Ka RTS
1,069 9 (1,3 (1.3%)
Disposal at Hawaii County
Recycling and Transfer Stations
FY 07.08
ES -3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
be less expensive than long - hauling waste to the County's West Hawaii Sanitary
Landfill (WHSL) in Pu'uanahulu. The feasibility study did not support the seven (7) acre
expansion and this option has been removed from further consideration.
In response to these developments, a key focus of this Plan update was evaluating a series of
potential options for managing residuals that remain after source reduction, reuse, and
recycling. After SWAC and stakeholder consideration of potential options, this Plan
recommends the following residuals management strategy:
• Conduct a series of activities necessary to confirm the feasibility and cost - effectiveness of
undertaking development of a new landfill within the quarry adjacent to the SHSL site.
• Update the feasibility of trucking waste to the WHSL site including further analysis of
the Reload Facility and associated hauling operations, haul routes, traffic issues, and
equipment acquisition plans.
• If construction of a new landfill within the quarry adjacent to the SHSL proves to be
feasible and cost effective, then consider development of the new landfill. If not, truck
waste to the WHSL site through the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Reload Facility
while the SHSL is still active. If trucking waste to the WHSL is the more feasible option,
the County may begin that activity while the SHSL is still active.
• Do not issue an RFP for waste reduction technology during this Plan's 5 -year life cycle.
During each subsequent solid waste management plan review period, evaluate whether
new technology advances or other circumstances have occurred to warrant issuing an
RFP for a conversion technology for part, or all, of the County residuals management
stream.
In addition to activities associated with handling residual wastes, this Plan presents a series
of recommendations geared towards taking the next steps on the path to zero waste
including expanded programs targeted toward reducing the volume of landfill -bound waste
and improving existing infrastructure. It also recommends reconstructing and upgrading
one or more County recycling and transfer stations each year.
This IRSWMP update outlines a series of recommendations for action during the County's
next 5 -year implementation period. Some of these programs will be controversial because
they require changes to ingrained behaviors and increase costs in the short term. However,
the status quo is not sustainable for the long term because of a series of challenges related to
the County's existing system, demands from the public for increased services, and aging
infrastructure. Should the County elect to maintain the status quo and not proceed with the
Plan recommendations, some consequences of inaction could include the following:
As evidenced by the recent failure of a retaining wall at the Pahoa Recycling and
Transfer Station, the County's recycling and transfer stations would continue to
deteriorate resulting in reduced service and potential public safety concerns.
• No further progress would be made in providing additional waste reduction, recycling,
or reuse services that are desired by many County residents.
ES -4 December 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• No significant progress would be made in further reducing waste sent to landfills, thus
resulting in a missed opportunity to maximize available landfill airspace, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the toxicity of waste materials sent to County
landfills.
The County's landfills would fill up faster, including the existing SHSL that, based on
current waste generation and airspace consumption calculations, has an estimated
five (5) to eight (8) years of remaining capacity.
Further, this Plans proposed strategy of aggressively pursuing zero waste with continued
local landfilling of the residuals is likely to be less expensive than investing in new
conversion technologies.
r, • • ` I q . •
Expanding the availability and increasing the convenience of reuse and recycling
opportunities available to both residents and businesses
Implementing a Pay -As- You -Throw (PAYT) system for delivery of
waste materials at County recycling and transfer stations as
currently practiced in more than 7,000 communities in the United
States, and /or other revenue sources such as user fees, increased
property taxes for solid waste management, or landfill tipping fee
increases
• Implementing programs that firmly establish the path to zero waste within the County
• Implementing a variety of on -site composting programs, supplemented by a certified
master composter program
• Improving and expanding the scope of educational programs within the County to
increase public awareness of waste reduction and sustainable waste management
practices
• Implementing programs within County departments to improve waste reduction
practices
Making improvements to existing infrastructure to accommodate new waste reduction
programs including.
• Reconstructing one or more recycling and transfer stations each year
December 2009 ES -5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Restructuring operations of existing recycling and transfer stations and landfills
including adding full -time transfer station attendants, reducing transfer station
operating days and hours, and potentially closing selected transfer stations
• Completing improvements to all recycling and transfer stations to accommodate
mandatory recycling/ source separation and a PAYT system
• Completing upgrades to selected recycling and transfer stations to create additional
reuse centers
• Siting, designing and constructing a MRF at the WHSL, and re- configuring the East
Hawai'i Regional Sort Station Reload Facility to convert it to a MRF while the SHSL is
active
• Acquisition of green waste composting operations at the WHSL or other sites
• Processing green waste at select recycling and transfer stations with a mobile tub
grinder; material would be ground on -site and made available to residents as mulch
Conducting More In -Depth Evaluations of Two Options to Address the Need for Long -Term
Capacity for Residuals Needing Disposal:
The SHSL is estimated to have between five (5) and eight (8) years of remaining capacity,
and the County should act quickly to identify replacement treatment or disposal capacity.
After analysis of many treatment and disposal options, this IRSWMP update recommends
further evaluation of the following two options for providing long -term residuals
management for East Hawaii:
1. Re- configuring the Reload Facility at the SHSL, and trucking waste to West Hawai'i
2. Developing a new lined landfill in the existing quarry site adjacent to the current SHSL
that would provide an estimated fifty (50) or more years of additional disposal capacity
The result of preliminary cost estimates prepared for this IRSWMP update are as follows,
and a more detailed discussion of each option is provided in Section 9:
Per -ton Cost (2009$)
Landfill Options Low High
Transfer waste from East Hawai'i to the WHSL $82
Expand SHSL into quarries $69 $73
While the preliminary analysis conducted to date indicates that the landfill expansion
appears to be the less costly option, there are many risks associated with a new landfill that
would not be present with the trucking option. Thus, further studies should be conducted to
determine the feasibility, costs, risks, timelines, and social and environmental impacts
associated with these options. For example, assessing the feasibility of the expanded landfill
option will require consultation with HDOH, and preliminary engineering, environmental
review, land use, and permitting activities. Updating the feasibility of the trucking option
should including further analysis of the Reload Facility and associated hauling operations,
haul routes, traffic issues, and equipment acquisition plans.
ES -6 December 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
After these studies are complete, the County will be able to decide whether trucking waste
from the Reload Facility to the WHSL or construction and operation of a new landfill within
the quarry site adjacent to the SHSL is the preferred solution for managing the County's
waste stream.
In addition to these two primary options, during each subsequent solid waste management
plan review period, the County should continue to evaluate whether or not to issue an RFP
for a conversion technology for part, or all, of the County's residuals management stream.
This Plan outlines the future direction for County programs during a 5 -year implementation
period. It is expected that other opportunities will no doubt arise that the County may find
advantageous to pursue. One such opportunity currently in the preliminary planning stages
is partnering with other counties to implement collaborative programs that may result in
improved efficiency and benefits not available through each county's current waste
management systems. Other Big Island projects may develop that would provide
opportunities to process organic materials and convert them into soil products that could be
used to support land development (including commercial projects and County projects such
as regional parks), especially in West Hawaii. It is important that the County continue to
consider future long -term options that may have synergy with other County needs and
opportunities.
This section provides a draft implementation plan for the County of Hawaii IRSWMP
update. During preparation of this Plan, the County has become immersed in a fiscal crisis
resulting from the current worldwide economic recession. The County general fund has
shrunk considerably affecting all County services, including solid waste management. In
this environment, the funding and implementation of both existing services and the new
initiatives outlined in this Plan are in question. Thus, the implementation plan that follows
will be modified as the County works its way through this fiscal crisis. The DEM will make
every effort to implement programs as shown below, but fiscal realities are likely to slow
and alter the implementation plan outlined in this document. Further, the County may elect
to use any and all funding methods that become available, rather than relying on a PAYT
system.
The implementation plan includes a series of recommendations by Plan topic, and includes
estimated expenditures for each recommendation during each year of the 5 -year planning
cycle. Implementation plan recommendations are grouped by funding mechanism into
two categories: 1) those that would be implemented and funded through the County's solid
waste fund (operations), and 2) those that would be implemented and funded through the
County's capital improvement program (CIP). The draft implementation plan for operations
is shown in Exhibit ES -1; the draft CIP is shown in Exhibit ES -2. The expenses are organized
by Plan section, with a page number reference to indicate where the recommendation is
discussed in the Plan. Programs that SWAC felt were of a high priority for implementing
December 2009 ES -7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
early in the 5 -year planning cycle are denoted with an "H" in the High Priority column of
the exhibits.
A summary of solid waste fund revenues and expenses is shown in Exhibit ES -3. This
information relies on cost projections for ongoing programs made by the County Solid
Waste Division through FY 09 -10, with the addition of the new programs recommended in
this Plan. The net revenues shown are estimated revenues minus estimated expenses. Based
on these estimates, the County will require additional funding beyond revenues projected
from the PAYT system. The Plan recommends making up the shortfall using a combination
of property tax and /or tipping fee increases. For reference purposes, if no property tax
funds were used, a tipping fee increase of approximately $25 per ton (to about $110 per ton)
would result in projected revenues equaling expenses throughout the 5 -year
implementation period. The exact mix of property taxes and tipping fee increases would be
determined during the course of Plan implementation.
Since the last ISWMP update in 2002, the County of Hawai'i has made significant progress
towards updating and improving its waste management practices. With the adoption of the
zero waste philosophy and the cooperation of the various stakeholders within the County to
implement the recommendations of this IRSWMP, the County is positioned to become a
leading example of innovative waste management practices in the State. It should be noted
that the County has adopted a resolution that encourages all Hawai'i counties to form a
partnership and pursue collaborative solid waste solutions. Thus, this Plan also
recommends maintaining flexibility to examine opportunities for cooperating with other
counties to increase economies of scale and improve overall waste management practices for
all State residents.
ES -8 December 2009
}
CO
LU
0
U
w
X
w
W f
F-
LU
O r
R
} }
LL
� M
} }
LL
M �
� N
} }
LL
N
L �
R �
} }
LL
r r
O
} }
LL
O �
L �
LL
_a
�L
O
�L
CL
d .
R O
aZ
E
L
i�
O
CL
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
613 6c3
O
V3
O
V3
V3
O
V3
O
V3
V3
O
N
N
N
co
O
�
6c3
V3
(O
V3
V3
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6c3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
6c"
O
O
O
O
O
m
N
V
V)
V3
V3
V3
(O
V3
V3
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6c3 6c3
6c3
6c3
V3
V3
V3
V3
O
O
O
O
O
m
m
O
O
V3
V3
(O
6
6c"
V3
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
O_
O
O
O
O
ON
m
O
(O
V3
EH
N
N
69
_ '
EH
V3
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
69 EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
6c3
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
00
N
N
V3
r-
V3
V 3
69
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EH EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
N
O
fN C)
a)
U_ 7
n O (6
S2 >
U) 0)
S2 d O
(6 C
O W E E N O
T O
0) (6
p O w E
U) Q O S2 O O to 0) (>6 CL
O O S2 p c O N O N .E 'O
C N m u O 7 E U)) m rn m
C O U 7 N L ..-!
Q 0)
U N � O
0 - 'O , � -o cu
O U >- 0) N m C O
U U ]
U C N .O -0 03 C O a)
'O �O to ..-� (6 7 0)
0) N U 0) m -o
0) to
E O t 0) (6 O N m c N
t 0) O C C
0) (6 to E U to O 0)
U x O >0 3: 7 O (6 (6 (6
U Q m) to c } U N U 0)
d (U O d >+ N fn O -0 7 3 O N S2
C > W C .S O >+ d W O d d (n 9
U to
O U m > Ii
O
N
O V3 V3
(h
O
N
V3
O V3 V3
O
W
d)
V3
O � O
O O
(1) N
V3
V3
O O �
O O
�
N
V3 V3
� � V3
� � V3
O O
W 1-
LO 00
V3 V3
O O O
O O O
ONO (f 000
61) V3 V3
�
O O
O O
(N W
V3 V3
�
O �
O
V
N
V3
O V3 V3
O
d)
I`
V3
V3 � �
rn
O O w CO
V) (f)
V3 �
V3 �
O O
O O
N N
V3 V3
V3 �
V3 �
W W
W
ch ch
ch
ch
ch
ch ch
a)
U_ 7
n O (6
S2 >
U) 0)
S2 d O
(6 C
O W E E N O
T O
0) (6
p O w E
U) Q O S2 O O to 0) (>6 CL
O O S2 p c O N O N .E 'O
C N m u O 7 E U)) m rn m
C O U 7 N L ..-!
Q 0)
U N � O
0 - 'O , � -o cu
O U >- 0) N m C O
U U ]
U C N .O -0 03 C O a)
'O �O to ..-� (6 7 0)
0) N U 0) m -o
0) to
E O t 0) (6 O N m c N
t 0) O C C
0) (6 to E U to O 0)
U x O >0 3: 7 O (6 (6 (6
U Q m) to c } U N U 0)
d (U O d >+ N fn O -0 7 3 O N S2
C > W C .S O >+ d W O d d (n 9
U to
O U m > Ii
O
N
O V3 V3
(h
O
N
V3
O V3 V3
O
W
d)
V3
O � O
O O
(1) N
V3
V3
O O �
O O
�
N
V3 V3
� � V3
� � V3
O O
W 1-
LO 00
V3 V3
O O O
O O O
ONO (f 000
61) V3 V3
�
O O
O O
(N W
V3 V3
�
O �
O
V
N
V3
O V3 V3
O
d)
I`
V3
V3 � �
rn
O O w CO
V) (f)
V3 �
V3 �
O O
O O
N N
V3 V3
V3 �
V3 �
0
N O
O O
N
C �
N N
E 3: C
O
a) U N
0) .
U Z C
L = m
sz 2)
U) '0 O
0) (cu t
O
E
CL
I s
U) N
N 7 0)
= O C
w O S2
U) (6 0)
N -O
0) S2
C N U
w W- Ii
`o
(6
O
O (0
U Q
N N 0)
(6 0) —
C CL Y
R c N
3 a) m E
Q U M
m
E to
CL
CL U 6_
1 N (6
C U) C
C O C
U C U E
R O 7 E
w(6 U
7 3 0)
0 O A C
E
O `m o 0)
Q
� T O E
ch N
W
0) �
m (
� S
'6
O (
0) (
w
S2 �
(6
C (
N Z
w f
t S
to
r S] S
� w
>+ w u
U
rn
0
0
N
E
0
W W
W
N N
M (h
N
N
V V
0
N O
O O
N
C �
N N
E 3: C
O
a) U N
0) .
U Z C
L = m
sz 2)
U) '0 O
0) (cu t
O
E
CL
I s
U) N
N 7 0)
= O C
w O S2
U) (6 0)
N -O
0) S2
C N U
w W- Ii
`o
(6
O
O (0
U Q
N N 0)
(6 0) —
C CL Y
R c N
3 a) m E
Q U M
m
E to
CL
CL U 6_
1 N (6
C U) C
C O C
U C U E
R O 7 E
w(6 U
7 3 0)
0 O A C
E
O `m o 0)
Q
� T O E
ch N
W
0) �
m (
� S
'6
O (
0) (
w
S2 �
(6
C (
N Z
w f
t S
to
r S] S
� w
>+ w u
U
rn
0
0
N
E
0
CO
LU
H
U
LU
w
U) O
W C
F-
LU
ua
O r
m
} }
LL
� M
} }
LL
M �
� N
} }
LL
N —
L �
R �
} }
LL
r r
O
} }
LL
O �
L �
LL
_a
�L
C
�L
CL
d .
R O
aZ
E
L
0
CL
O
O
o
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O o
ER
EFT
EFT
p
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
O
O
EFT
EFT
�
N
N
N
N
'IT
V
0
N
E
m
ER
O
Z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
(
O
O�
N
(O
-
N
-
V
�
N
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
(`")
V-)
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
OO
1
OO
O
OO
O
LO
N�
LO
N
N
�
N
Ef)
EFT
EFT
EFT
N
ER
EFT
�
N
�
ER
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
N
ER
ER
ER
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
O
m
I-
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
N
N
N
N
(h
(h
N
(h
(h
(h
(h
V
V
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
�
a)
T
m
U
U
T
m
O
O
i
N
—
Q
Ul
O)
O)
(U
O
O
O)
N
Q
Ul
-p
m
2
N
Q
'6
X
>
C
U
O
O
O)
O)
m
E
O
C
>
O
O
S
'U)
U)
O
>
O
U
c
C
N
OQ )
0
c
O
U
—
7
Q
O
N
U)
m
O
O
0
Q
U
mOU
Q
m
U
O
O)
O
Ul
O)
w
O)
C
=
W
7
N
W
O)
Q
N
O
—
w
0
n
O
H
p
>U +
6
'N
m 2m
(U
LL
a
Om )
-0
�
LO
O
-0
_0
o
a)
m
m
a)
a)
c
O
o-
N
rn
o
o
N
O)
C
O
C
C
O
C
+
0
fUA
>+
m
N
Q
C
m
U
O
O
T
U
(U
T
7
(U
C
7
m
m
m
m
m
Q
O
Q
E
OU )
O
O
U
i
E
O
t
l
>
c
c
O+ )
O_
O
U
U
O
C
O
O
U
C
O
(U
(U
C
C
m
O
>
(
C
C
t
t
U
7
m
i
N
0
N
N
Ul
(u
E
U
O
N
U
Mn
_
C
N
N
o
U
m
m
O
U
E
U
W
W
O) ^
O)
U
O)
U
3
d
m
O
U
m
(6
U
N
(6
O
2)
W
W
W
Q
0
U
U
>
W
m
2
O °
O
LU
}
Q
CO
LU
0
U
w
X
w
W f
F-
m
� f
W
'a r
R
} }
LL
� M
} }
LL
M �
� N
} }
LL
N
L �
LL
LL
r r
O
} }
LL
O �
L �
LL
_a
�L
O
�L
CL
d
R O .
CL
E
L
0
CL
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
�
O
O
O
(6 (
O
co
N
N
v
0)
O
m
v
v
O
v
r-
v
i
O
O
V3
UO
m
m
V3
V3
V3
(6
N
w
V3
V3
t f
O
0
V3
0
o
N
E C
V3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CL
O
sZ S
O
O
O
O
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
E
O C
n
N
(6
O C
OA
In
C
f
U)
m
m
a)
N
(0
N
N
W
V
613
m
m
V3
V3
V3
C
V3
N
m
w
Ll
E
C
_
Fu
SZ
O i
V3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r-
r-
O
r-
O
O
N
N
N
0
V3
N
N
V3
V3
V3
N
V3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
C!-)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
m
o
(o
O
0)
f
Q�l
0
f
6c"
f
6c"
f�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6c3
O
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
N
6c
V3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
x
x
x
i —
x
x
n
y C
C
�
(U
(6 (
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
O f
(6 f
C
.-6 G
C
O f
O
U
U
�C +_
0 C
O f
C 0
C Z
C G
i Ll 0
i C
O C
i -
i (6 f
O
C
D c f
(t6 C
I � C
j C C
I O
E r
i (U
6 f
� C
to w
I O
CL
{ E f
O
U �
I N
t
I S] 4
i (6
I � �
S2 f
(U (
i O S
{ � S
IL
' U y
{ (U G
I � f
I S2
0) C
{ � G
O
D S2 C
E i
U C
I � µ
I �
(6
O r
! 0 S
D O
CL
' U 0
I 7 Z
i
C
O f
I f
U _
V) C!-)
� �
5
O U 61)
O 'O
(M) 6 to
U
(6
O
C (U
O n O O
C!-) U O C!-)
Z
0
SZ
�
O
O
(h
V3
� �
x x
O O N O
ao ao ao ao
w
N �
C i
L
H Z
C
� f
C
O f
O
U
E
0
I �
I 3
0
i O
I �
.O
Q
O
In
N N
U !'
i � m
'6 C
� U
i
(6 ()
O U
C w
w (U
i N N
L a) O
D E N
C
SZ
LL 0
O O 61) V3
O O
00 0)
V3 V3
O O � �
O O
U) N
V3 V3
O O O O
O O O O
6c3 6c3 6c3 6c3
� � � �
� � � �
� � � �
I N -
f
I � C
(U
i N Z
f
� O C
I U
C
7 U
I O' S
I '6 -
I �
t
U C
(6 (
N i
to
• � S
I O O
U - �
i Q p S
U) -
I
i n 0
1 (6 (U (
(U C
I L1J � C
G�
� 2 S
! x x u
f �
I �
{ SZ
I (6
U)
C
{ t
D T
I �
t C
i O
N
! SCZ
C
m
U
S2
I �
i N
I �
Q
O
>
t �
i o
Cn
w
rn
0
0
N
a
0
f
i —
n
y C
C
�
(U
(6 (
N
0
i
O
O
UO
wE
C
(6
w
0
t f
O
0
0
o
N
E C
N
(U
6
(6
—
3
0 r
O
O
O
CL
O
sZ S
O
U
C
O
(6
E
O C
n
N
(6
O C
OA
In
C
U)
N
O
a)
O
O
O -
C
.c
SZ
C
=
c
6
C
m
w
Ll
E
C
Fu
SZ
O i
i C
O C
i -
i (6 f
O
C
D c f
(t6 C
I � C
j C C
I O
E r
i (U
6 f
� C
to w
I O
CL
{ E f
O
U �
I N
t
I S] 4
i (6
I � �
S2 f
(U (
i O S
{ � S
IL
' U y
{ (U G
I � f
I S2
0) C
{ � G
O
D S2 C
E i
U C
I � µ
I �
(6
O r
! 0 S
D O
CL
' U 0
I 7 Z
i
C
O f
I f
U _
V) C!-)
� �
5
O U 61)
O 'O
(M) 6 to
U
(6
O
C (U
O n O O
C!-) U O C!-)
Z
0
SZ
�
O
O
(h
V3
� �
x x
O O N O
ao ao ao ao
w
N �
C i
L
H Z
C
� f
C
O f
O
U
E
0
I �
I 3
0
i O
I �
.O
Q
O
In
N N
U !'
i � m
'6 C
� U
i
(6 ()
O U
C w
w (U
i N N
L a) O
D E N
C
SZ
LL 0
O O 61) V3
O O
00 0)
V3 V3
O O � �
O O
U) N
V3 V3
O O O O
O O O O
6c3 6c3 6c3 6c3
� � � �
� � � �
� � � �
I N -
f
I � C
(U
i N Z
f
� O C
I U
C
7 U
I O' S
I '6 -
I �
t
U C
(6 (
N i
to
• � S
I O O
U - �
i Q p S
U) -
I
i n 0
1 (6 (U (
(U C
I L1J � C
G�
� 2 S
! x x u
f �
I �
{ SZ
I (6
U)
C
{ t
D T
I �
t C
i O
N
! SCZ
C
m
U
S2
I �
i N
I �
Q
O
>
t �
i o
Cn
w
rn
0
0
N
a
0
CO
w
0
U
LU
w
c
W C
H
m U
� f
W
La
La r
m
} }
LL
a
� M
} }
LL
M �
� N
} }
LL
N
L �
} }
LL
r r
O
LL
O
O �
L �
} }
LL
_a
�L
C
�L
CL
d
R
O
aZ
E
L
Z�
O
CL
O O
61) O
O
fc"
O O
V3 O
O
(h
N
V
6c"
O O
O O
O O
() N
V-T �
V3 O_
Uf)
N
V3
O O
V3 V3
O O
61) 6c"
O O O O
61) fc" fc" fc"
O O O O
V) 6c" 6c" 6c"
O O O O
61) O V3 V3
O
N
m
V-)
V3 V3 O O
O O
V3 V3
O O O O
O V3 V3 V3
N
(h
V3
O O O O
s=
m
U)
U
7
O
Q S
N
7 f
O
(U Z
N Z
(U
t �
O
Y
U �
(6
Y (
(6 f
O
to f
C
O
U
(6 -
N �
to 7
0) 7
a) °� i
� f
N .O
`o m
CL U Z
W Q <
to
E
(6
O
O
0)
O
N
N
N
N
O
O
ch
ch
ch
ch
N
(O
(O
to
�
U
(1
C
s=
m
U)
U
7
O
Q S
N
7 f
O
(U Z
N Z
(U
t �
O
Y
U �
(6
Y (
(6 f
O
to f
C
O
U
(6 -
N �
to 7
0) 7
a) °� i
� f
N .O
`o m
CL U Z
W Q <
O O
O 61)
O
LO
Uf)
fc"
O O <
O 61) <
O <
fNU) i
Ff) �
c
E
O O U) <
U
O O <
V O -O
N (U C
6c" 6 <
6c" 6
O E
O
C
O O N <
V3 O E <
(: = <
00 1
O (U 1
V3 U)
E
61) V3 I<
O
V-)
to
E
(6
0)
O
O
S2
O
O
U
N
to
�
U
C
_
E
N
C
N
E
7
O
n
3
O
C
0
O
M
Un
_
J
C
a
C
O
C
O
c
R
C
O'
t
i
E
o
Un
O
_
d
R
p)
U
O
>
O
(n
O
C
-O
N
C
C
C
N
E
O
W
n
LL
N
N
N
O O
O 61)
O
LO
Uf)
fc"
O O <
O 61) <
O <
fNU) i
Ff) �
c
E
O O U) <
U
O O <
V O -O
N (U C
6c" 6 <
6c" 6
O E
O
C
O O N <
V3 O E <
(: = <
00 1
O (U 1
V3 U)
E
61) V3 I<
O
V-)
(6
C
(6
N
i
N
S2
N
N
N
N
E
N
N
Q
N
O
Z
r
V
N
N
0
(n
w
E
(6
0)
O
S2
O
U
N
7
�
N
�
U
3
C
E
N
C
N
E
LL
O
O
CL
O
C
U
a
C
O
N
O
c
R
C
O'
t
i
N
O N
o
E
m
o)
(6
2
in
W-
U U
C
N
E
Q
(6
C
(6
N
i
N
S2
N
N
N
N
E
N
N
Q
N
O
Z
r
V
N
N
0
(n
w
}
Q
LU
H
U
w
X
w
N =
W C
H a
m 4
2 c
w
O
m
m
0
a)
C:
N
N
N
a)
E
N
Q
0
Z
M
W
rn
0
0
N
E
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
l!7
O
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
La
O
O
O
La
m r
O
C
O
}
0
co
LL
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
va
e»
o
6c"
e»
e»
e»
e»
o
6c"
e»
e»
e»
e»
CD
L iy
O
O
O
N
n
} }
LL
�
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
m N
O
O
O)
LO
a
(D
}
LOj
00
6c"
La
LL
EFT
EFT
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
EFT
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
O
La
N
00
0
0
0
00
N
L O
O
O
co
L
V
O
O
O
O
EFT
00
O
1l,
69
O
r
} }
69
69
69
E FT
LL
69
61�)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
63
63
63
63
63
63
O
O
V3
63
O
O
O
O
V3
O
O
O
V)
m
00
O
LO
I-
O
N
n
L O'
N
N
69
n
EFT
EFT
ER
ER
E9
}LL
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
O
O
O
EF
EF
EF
G
CD
O
N
M
O
EFT
EFT
N
LL
_a
L
O
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
L
a
O
N
N
O
O
Z
v
v
6
w
cN,)
w
cN,)
w
a
ao
ao
ao
rn
.N
.X
O
a)
�
D i
C
U
'N
W
O
U)
_
a)
m
0
O
C:
7
N
m
U)
O
U)
C
a)
N
L
Ul
U
C:
—
�
a)
Ul
-
m
U
>N
m
>+
m
LU
>
a)
-
o
a)
a)
U
tl)
�O
U
a)
U)
R
o
o
g
>
U)
a)
C:
of
>
a)
m
>
m
m
-Fu
a)
J
C
Q
t5
a)
' V
a)
C:
m
CL
2
m
w
U
O
w
.m
O_
ul
m
CL
m
m
7
.m
_
N
o >,
o -=
a)
o
o
o
°
E
'U
CL
E
Y
m
m
c0
m
s
N
3
U
(�
(.i
w
2-
C
i
Cp
a)
R
W
a)
C
p)
0
m
a
m o
s
m
R
n
Y
E
o
>
Ul
o
=
(.i
C
N m
W
N
O
o
s
O-
N
(7
(7
0
W
J
Y
Ci
O
7
R
m
-O
-O
>
2 2
2
d
co/)
H
O
m
m
0
a)
C:
N
N
N
a)
E
N
Q
0
Z
M
W
rn
0
0
N
E
0
CO
CO
LU
0
U
X
w
M .=
W f
F- a
m 4
= f
W
ui
a
}
LL
a
M
r
}
LL
M
N
r
}
LL
N
r
r
}
LL
r
O
r
}
LL
O
O)
O
}
LL
O)
O
O
O
}
LL
O
� O
O
a LL
O O
O
00
O
O
O
I-
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
ER O
O)
O
O
O
E F T
O)
E F T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
(I
O
O
(O
00
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
LO
O)
(O
O
N
00
(h
)O
(1)
Ln
0
N
r-
N
O
LO
LO
O)
I:
r—
of
O
Lfi
N
00
Lo
I-
O
EFT
EFT
O)
(h
O)
I-
M
(`")
N
00
LO
M
00
O
V
(O
_
O)
O
Lo
0)
6,3
(O
ER
N
ER
a
V3
V3
V3
e
ER
ER
to
EFT
ER
4a
O O
O
00
O
O
O
I-
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
E F T O
O)
O
O
O
E F T
O)
E F T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
(`")
O
O
(O
00
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
LO
O)
(O
I-
O
00
O)
(O
LO
O)
V
(h
1-
00
co
LO
LO
O)
V
1-
(h
1-
a
N
r-
L2
Ln
a
EFT
EFT
O)
N
V
O)
(I
(O
O
(O
LO
V3
00
O
M
_
(D
O
Lo
O)
V3
M
EFT
N
EFT
a
V-T
ER
ER
a
6c3
V3
61�)
V3
V3
O O
O
00
O
O
O
1-
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E F T O
O)
O
O
O
E F T
O)
E F T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
(h
O
O
(O
00
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
LO
O)
(O
V
Lo
00
(O
)O
I-
O)
I-
N
O)
)O
LO
LO
O)
Ln
M
N
a
O
00
(fl
(14
00
r-
a
EFT
EFT
O)
(h
L(i
O)
I�
(O
N_
V
00
O
(h
(O
(O
V-)
00
O
O)
0
(J)
L(i
(J)
V3
V3
a
V3
V3
V3
V3
a
ER
ER
E9
ER
E9
O O
O
00
O
O
O
I-
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E F T O
O)
O
O
O
E F T
O)
E F T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
(I
O
O
(O
00
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
O)
(O
V
O
00
V
CO
O)
(`")
00
V
(` )
CO
LO
LO
O)
V
N
(h
I-
CO
r-
r-
00
(h
00
(h
CO
EFT
EFT
O)
V
I-
O)
M
Il
LO
O
N
U)
M
6c3
00
O
(fl
n
_
0)
L(i
0)
613
11
69
M
Vi
V)
V)
Vi
M
V3
V3
69
O O
O
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E F T O
O)
O
O
O
E F T
O
E F T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
(h
O
O
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
O)
(O
r-
V
N
)O
V
V
LO
V
O
00
)O
LO
LO
O)
00
LO
LO
(O
co
N
N
00
00
(`i
CO
EFT
EFT
O)
N
I�
EFT
M
O_
(O
V
I-
O)
Ln
M
V3
00
(`")
(O
O)
(O
r-
V
00
6,3
O)
V)
V)
N
Vi
Vi
V)
V)
V)
N
V3
4a
4a
O O
O
00
O
O
O
V
O
OO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
E F T O
O)
O
O
E F T
E F T
O
E F T
O)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
(h
O
(O
00
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
L)
0)
(O
(O
m
0)
O
00
N
(O
r-
N
Lo
O
LO
LO
O)
LO
00
O
co
(O
00
(O
O
co
EFT
EFT
O)
V
O
r-
M
O)
(h
(O
Lo
M
6c3
r-
(D
N
11
V3
U)
r-
V
00
6c3
11
6c3
6c3
04
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
04
O O
O
O)
O
O
M
O
I-
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E F T O
O
O
O
E F T
O)
N
E F T
I-
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
L(i
00
O
N
r-
(fl
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
LO
I-
O
V
(O
I-
(D
CO
(D
00
O)
00
I-
O
CO
Ln
0
V
(0
V
V
LO
1-
LO
00
V
(h
1-
1-
n
EFT
O)
L(i
O
(h
N
O)
V
N
I-
(y
V
N
EFT
EFT
I-
(`")
O)
N
V3
r-
O
V
00
V3
N
V)
V)
69
M
69
V)
69
M
V3
69
O O
O
V
V
O
O
(O
N
M
Ln
V
00
N
LO
O
M
(O EFT
EFT
(h
1-
63
69
N
00
LO
N
LO
I-
O
V
V
O
N
N
O)
L(i
I�
V
�
M
L(i
(O
00
(h
0)
O
M
I-
N
M
N
M
N
LO
M
69
(O
CO
(O
N
I-
O)
I-
O)
(D
LO
1-
U)
O
U)
co
CO
ER
V
N
(h
N
n
N
N
1-
LO
(O
N
1-
wi
69
69
C-4
69
69
V3
6
C-4
O
f{)
O
ER
O
61)
O
V3
O
61)
O
61)
O
61)
O
61)
a3
a)
}
E j
(0 Ul O
O N O a) N
O
LL LL a) 11 X
a3 ' " U E 'O u!
M NO E O C T C _
N NCL CL 2
LL C a) LL Q 13 = C a)
O i5 'O
LL O C a) ~ a3 E 7 LL J a)
LL O U F (6 m a) LL Of U) J C. N
(D O i K 7
a) 2 a) > a) :: ai m B
W C
O LL O E °� a) H ul ° E a)
ul U U rn s ° R a�i c U) :N c ai
i c u! a) _ C LL 7 O- O C a3 '6 R
o
a) O U
a) Q 0 N w ~ -� N a) a3 C i cccuco
CL LL
N m o a) N N = Ul i
d d a) a) C7 D m a (7 H m > n R d
H 6 c > U) o E U >� O C
R > Li U) -i IL (7 Q H w Q d' d' U > U H O
d' W Z
O
N
C
O
.O
O
C
a3
C
a3
C
a)
U
a)
Q
Ln
N
N
a)
E
N
N
Q
r
V
N
E
U
0
w
SECTION 1
•� •
1 n �� ✓,4
This update to the Hawai'i County solid waste management plan (the Plan) presents an
evaluation of the County's existing waste management practices and programs, explores
opportunities for implementation of zero waste policies and practices, and outlines potential
options for improving the waste management program. In addition, the Plan presents
information on the status of active and closed landfills, historical information regarding the
County's evaluation of waste reduction technology alternatives during the past decade, and
potential options for expanding and extending the capacity of the South Hilo Sanitary
Landfill (SHSL). The County of Hawai'i produced this plan in accordance with the
requirements of HRS 342G.
The information in the Plan is organized by section according to HRS 342G. Each section
contains a description of the existing waste management practices and conditions, a brief
summary of previous plan recommendations along with the status of implementation of
those recommendations, a description of options available to the County for improvement
of the waste management program, and recommendations for implementation.
Development of this IRSWMP update was guided by a 12- member Solid Waste Advisory
Committee (SWAG), appointed by the Mayor. SWAC members participated in 13 meetings
at which they reviewed draft plan sections, debated key issues, developed plan goals
(provided in Section 1), and shaped recommendations. Presentations to the County Council
Environmental Management Committee were made on a monthly basis to solicit feedback
from County Council members and the public on issues and options. In addition, input was
requested from the public in a variety of forums including a series of public meetings,
periodic meetings with community organizations, and routine posting of all draft
documents and meeting minutes on the IRSWMP page of the County's website
(htt]2: / /co.Hawai'i.hi.us /env mn &/iswmp.htm).
The key recommendations included in this IRSWMP update have consensus support from
the SWAC and are intended to balance the many interests of the various stakeholders within
the County. The recommendations developed during this process have been organized into
a 5 -year implementation plan. This IRSWMP update includes each of the plan sections
covering various waste management topics, and the draft implementation plan. It includes
responses to comments received from the State of Hawai'i Department of Health (HDOH),
and is being submitted by the Mayor to the County Council for adoption. After adoption by
the Council, the Plan will be presented to HDOH for final approval. Final approval by
HDOH is anticipated by the first quarter of 2010.
Historically, waste management in many areas including Hawai'i County consisted of
collection, transfer, and disposal of garbage with a primary focus on protecting public
health. Modern waste management practices must consider multiple driving factors,
including protecting public health and the environment on both a local and global scale. The
December 2009
1.0 INTRODUCTION
paradigm for waste management during the first part of the 21St century has shifted away
from the concept of garbage being simply considered as "waste'. The zero waste
philosophy, waste reduction, recycling, sustainability, and product stewardship are key
concepts that drive contemporary approaches to waste management.
Many municipalities in the U.S. and elsewhere are incorporating these concepts into their
waste management programs and realizing significant benefits. Concurrent with the
development of this IRSWMP update, the County contracted with a consultant to develop a
zero waste implementation plant. The recommendations of that study were considered by
SWAC and other stakeholders during the development of this plan. This IRSWMP update
includes a number of specific recommendations from that study that will keep the County
moving forward on its journey toward zero waste.
The County of Hawai'i has made significant progress towards implementation of updated
waste management practices, and with the adoption of the zero waste philosophy, and
completion of this IRSWMP, is positioned to become a leading example of innovative waste
management practices in the State.
Goals of • and Solid
Management Plan Update
This IRSWMP presents not only recommendations for the short -term, but a vision for solid
waste management within Hawai'i County for the next few decades. Consideration was
given to the current state of waste management technology in the U.S. and internationally,
the history of waste management practices in the County, and an assessment of what waste
management practices are being used successfully in other jurisdictions. The objective was
to develop county -wide solutions for both the near- and long -term, that take into account
the desires of the many stakeholders, while balancing the fiscal realities of operating the
selected programs. It was recognized that selected programs must be both implementable
and sustainable in order to be successful.
The following goal statement and the individual goals that follow were developed during a
series of meetings and adopted unanimously by members of the County's SWAG.
"The people of the County of Hawai'i understand they are a part of the global community
and can create a model for others. They value the environment, healthy social relationships,
fiscal prudence, and long -term goals coupled with specific, local accomplishments. The
following long -term goals will guide us as we develop an implementable Plan."
The goals presented below were used to guide the development of waste management
options and the resulting recommendations of this IRSWMP update.
Sustainability - To ensure that programs and actions meet the environmental, economic,
and social equity needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.
1 Recycle Hawaii and Richard Anthony Associates. March 14, 2009. Zero Waste Implementation Plan for County of Hawaii.
1 -2 December 2009
1.0 INTRODUCTION
• Make Progress Toward Zero Waste - To act in a consistent manner with the zero waste
concept. This ongoing process views waste as an inefficient use of resources, and seeks
to eliminate all discards to landfills by reducing waste, reuse (and repair) of still good
stuff, and recycling/ composting by all County residents, visitors, businesses, and
institutions.
• Efficient and Affordable - To balance funds available for managing solid waste with
other County priorities. The Plan will identify programs that get the best value (bang for
the buck) for County ratepayers and taxpayers.
• Minimize Environmental Pollution - To improve the environment and reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions, the Plan will emphasize transportation efficiencies, support
material reuse and recycling, and minimize organic materials sent to landfill.
• Litter -free - To eliminate illegal dumping on public and private lands. The Plan will
include legislation, education, and outreach programs.
• Sound Finances with Appropriate Incentives - To include financial incentives that will
speed us down the path towards zero waste, such as pay -as- you -throw (PAYT), while
ensuring that the Division has sufficient funds to pay for the services it provides.
• Customer Service - To share aloha as well as information.
The goals listed above are intended to support all aspects of plan implementation including
the following:
• Policy - In County legislation and support for State legislation
• Funding - Move towards PAYT as well as other funding sources (grants)
• Operations - Reuse and recycling, household hazardous waste collection, residuals
management, recycling and transfer stations, and special events
• Regulatory/ Legal - Consistency and compliance with all federal, state, and county
requirements
• Education and Outreach - For County employees, residents, visitors, businesses, and
institutions
• Management and Employee Safety - Working in partnership with the unions (the
United Public Workers Union and the Hawai'i Government Employees Association)
The integrated approach to solid waste management developed during this Plan update will
be challenging and require a significant amount of public education and stakeholder
participation in order to ultimately be successful. The goals were developed to address the
overarching waste management goals of the community, in order to foster collaboration
between the various stakeholders during implementation of the Plan recommendations.
December 2009 1 -3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1/ ' 90
The draft implementation plan for the County of Hawai'i IRSWMP Update includes a series
of recommendations, with estimates of the required annual operations expenditures, and
capital improvement funds required for their implementation. These recommendations are
provided in Section 10. An initial draft implementation plan was distributed to stakeholders
in March 2009 for comment, and a final draft was made available to the public for a
two -month public comment period during September and October 2009. The draft plan was
then modified based on subsequent meetings with the SWAC and the County Council
Environmental Management Committee, comments received at public hearings during
November 2009, and written comments received during the two -month public comment
period.
Organization of Document
The remainder of this IRSWMP is organized into the sections listed below. As noted
previously, each section contains a summary of the existing conditions and waste
management practices related to the specific topic covered, potential issues or concerns, and
options that the County may consider to improve the program. Each section concludes with
recommendations for implementation during the next five years.
• Section 2.0, Waste Stream Assessment, provides an assessment of the Hawai'i County
waste stream including background information about population and employment,
historical and forecast waste generation, recycling, and disposal, and information about
waste composition.
• Section 3.0, Source Reduction, discusses existing source reduction activities within
Hawai'i County, identifies current issues and concerns with respect to current source
reduction practices, and presents options and recommendations for achieving further
source reduction.
• Section 4.0, Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets, describes existing recycling and
bioconversion activities within Hawai'i County, identifies current issues and concerns
with respect to current recycling, bioconversion, and marketing practices, and presents
options and recommendations for achieving the County's recycling and bioconversion
goals.
• Section 5.0, Public Education and Information, contains existing public education
activities within Hawai'i County, identifies current issues and concerns with respect to
public education, and presents options and recommendations that will help enhance
educational opportunities.
• Section 6.0, Household Hazardous Waste & Electronic Waste, describes the current
status of the household hazardous waste (HHW) and electronic waste (e- waste)
collection and disposal system within Hawai'i County, identifies current issues and
concerns, and presents options and recommendations for achieving the County's HHW
and e -waste goals.
1 -4 December 2009
1.0 INTRODUCTION
• Section 7.0, Special Waste, defines special wastes and describes existing conditions,
potential improvements, and recommendations for specials wastes including asbestos,
used oil, petroleum- contaminated soil, used batteries, sewage sludge, agricultural and
farm - generated waste, medical waste, used tires, white goods, and derelict vehicles.
• Section 8.0, Collection and Transfer, describes current conditions of the existing solid
waste collection and transfer system within Hawai'i County, identifies current issues
and concerns, and presents options and recommendations for achieving the County's
solid waste collection and transfer goals.
• Section 9.0, Residuals Management, provides current conditions of the existing residuals
management system within Hawai'i County, identifies current issues and concerns, and
presents options and recommendations for managing the residuals remaining after
source reduction, reuse, and recycling.
• Section 10.0, Administration, Funding, and Implementation, discusses current
conditions of the existing administration and funding within Hawai'i County, identifies
current issues and concerns, presents options currently under consideration by the
County, and presents the implementation plan for this IRSWMP update.
December 2009 1 -5
SECTION 2
.-MV, =- I I V4 111
1 sn �� ✓,4
This section provides an assessment of the Hawai'i County waste stream including
background information about population and employment, historical and forecast waste
generation, recycling, and disposal, and information about waste composition. The waste
stream projections provided in this section include the effects of recommended reduction,
re -use, and recycling programs outlined in this IRSWMP update.
''• • !
roil`
This section provides historical and forecast information about population and employment.
These variables, along with other factors such as increases in tourism and construction
activity, are factors that contribute to increase waste generation within Hawai'i County.
Historical resident and de facto population for Hawai'i County is shown in Exhibit 2 -1. The
de facto population is a measure used by the State of Hawaii to account for the effects of
tourismt . As shown, the population of Hawai'i County was 173,057 in 2007. The County
population increased at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent during the 1980s, and has
increased at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent since that time. The de facto population
has increased somewhat more rapidly than the resident population.
Exhibit 2 -2 provides a forecast of Hawai'i County resident population growth through the
year 2030 in each of the County's nine council districts, and summaries for West Hawai'i
and East Hawai'i. As shown, future population growth is projected to be slower than in the
County's recent past, with more rapid growth expected in West Hawai'i than in East
Hawai'i.
EXHIBIT 2 -1
Historical Population, Hawaii County
Year
Persons
Resident De Facto
Average Annual Growth
Resident De Facto
Ratio
De Facto/
Resident
1980
92,053
98,588
1.07
1990
120,317
133,202
2.7%
3.1%
1.11
2000
148,677
167,063
2.1%
2.3%
1.12
2006
169,419
191,733
2.2%
2.3%
1.13
2007
173,057
not available
-
-
-
Source: Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. 2008
Hawaii County Data Book, Table 1.1 last modified 4/16/08. Accessed at:
http: / /www.co.Hawai'i.hi.us /databook current/section01.htm
1 De facto population is defined as the number of persons physically present in an area, regardless of military status or usual
place of residence. It includes visitors present but excludes residents temporarily absent.
December 2009 2 -1
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
EXHIBIT 2 -2
Resident Population Forecast
by District, Hawaii County
District
2000 2005 2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Population
Puna
31,458 37,054 42,546
48,361
54,322
57,827
61,452
South Hilo
47,572 47,168 47,427
47,209
46,437
49,432
52,531
North Hilo
1,727 1,675 1,718
1,746
1,752
1,865
1,982
Hamakua
6,132 6,316 6,554
6,733
6,834
7,275
7,731
North Kohala
6,062 6,750 7,909
9,173
10,514
11,192
11,893
South Kohala
13,183 15,962 18,165
20,463
22,780
24,250
25,770
North Kona
28,655 31,056 33,988
36,826
39,427
41,971
44,602
South Kona
8,623 10,451 11,402
12,314
13,143
13,991
14,868
Ka'u
5,850 6,568 7,043
7,475
7,842
8,347
8,871
Total
149,261 163,000 176,750
190,300
203,050
216,150
229,700
West Hawaii
56,522 64,220 71,463
78,776
85,863
91,403
97,133
East Hawaii
92,739 98,780 105,287
111,524
117,187
124,747
132,567
Annual Growth Rate
West Hawaii
2.6% 2.2%
2.0%
1.7%
1.3%
1.2%
East Hawaii
1.3% 1.3%
1.2%
1.0%
1.3%
1.2%
Sources: The proportion of residents in each District in each year is from the County of
Hawaii General Plan
2005 (Amended December 2006), Table 2 -2. Source: Economic Assessment, PFK Hawaii, January
2000.
Those proportions were multiplied by County total forecast total resident population in each
year from
Hawaii Department of
Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. 2008. Population
and Economic
Projections for the State of Hawai' i to 2035, DBEDT 2035 Series. Accessed at:
httD: / /Hawai'i.aov /dbedt/info /economic /data reDorts /2035LonoRanoeSeries
/2035 Lono
Ranoe
Series ReD
ort1. df
Historical employment in Hawaii County is shown in Exhibit 2 -3. Employment has grown
substantially in recent years, from 40,850 in 1980 to 81,300 in 2006, which corresponds to an
average annual growth rate of 2.7 percent over that period.
Forecast employment for Hawaii County is shown in Exhibit 2 -4. Employment is forecast to
increase at an annual rate of 2.3 percent between 2006 and 2010, at an annual rate of
1.8 percent between 2011 and 2015, and at an annual rate of 1.5 percent thereafter. As noted
in the table, the state of Hawai'i's employment forecast is based on information from a
source that differs from the historical data reported in Exhibit 2 -3.
2 -2 December 2009
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
EXHIBIT 2 -3
Historical Employment, Hawaii County
Year Employment Average Annual Growth
1980
40,850
1990
55,200
3.1%
2000
65,450
1.7%
2006
81,300
3.7%
1980-2006
2.7%
Source: Civilian employment from County of Hawaii Data Book
Section 11: Labor Force, Employment & Earnings, Table 11.4. Accessed
at: http: / /www.Hawai'i- county.com /databook current/Table %2011/11.4.pdf
EXHIBIT 2 -4
Forecast Employment, Hawaii County
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Civilian Jobs 92,400 103,400 113,100 122,000 131,700 141,600
Annual Growth Rate 2.3% 1.8% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Note: This forecast is based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which differs from
the historical information provided in Exhibit 2 -3 which is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(personal communication with Yang -Seon Kim, Economist, DBEDT on August 12, 2008).
Source: Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. 2008.
Population and Economic Projections for the State of Hawai'i to 2035, DBEDT 2035 Series.
Available at: http: / /Hawai'i.gov /dbedt/info /economic/
2.3.1 Historical
Historical generation, recycling, disposal for Hawaii County, and the resulting diversion
rates are shown in Exhibits 2 -5 and 2 -6. Generation is the sum of recycling and disposal. As
shown, estimated fiscal year2 (FY) 07 -08 generation was 296,473 tons, 29.2 percent of which
was recycled (86,443 tons) with the remainder (210,030 tons) going into landfills for
disposal.
Since FY 00 -01, both recycling and disposal in the County have increased substantially.
Recycling has increased from 26,416 tons in FY 00 -01 to 86,443 tons in FY 07 -08, and disposal
has increased from 163,825 to 210,030 over the same period. These increases correspond to
average annual growth rates of 18.5 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively.
Particularly strong growth was experienced in FY 03 -04 and FY 04 -05, which can be
attributed, in part, to the effects of storm debris. The County's estimated diversion rate has
2 The County fiscal year is from July 1 to June 30.
December 2009 2 -3
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
more than doubled in the past seven years increasing from 13.9 percent in FY 00 -01 to
29.2 percent in FY 07 -083.
EXHIBIT 2 -5
Historical Generation, Recycling, and Disposal and Estimated Diversion Rate, Hawaii County
Generation Recycling Disposal Diversion Rate
Tons
FY 00 -01
190,241
26,416
163,825
13.9%
FY 01 -02
190,764
24,139
166,625
12.7%
FY 02 -03
200,300
30,991
169,309
15.5%
FY 03 -04
239,217
37,375
201,842
15.6%
FY 04 -05
281,855
56,422
225,433
20.0%
FY 05 -06
300,121
77,734
222,387
25.9%
FY 06 -07
290,865
69,117
221,748
23.8%
FY 07 -08
296,473
86,443
210,030
29.2%
Percent Change FY 00 -01 — FY 07 -08
Total 156% 327% 128%
Average Annual 6.5% 18.5% 3.6%
Source: Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management.
Exhibit 2 -7 reports waste generation on a per- capita basis and compares Hawai'i County's
per- capita generation to that of other Hawai'i counties, a reported U.S. average, Seattle,
Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia. For Hawai'i counties, the data are shown
using both resident and de facto population. As shown, Hawai'i County's per- capita
generation is less than that of the other counties in the state, excepting Kauai's when
calculated on a de facto basis.
The estimates shown in Exhibit 2 -7 are much higher than the 4.6 pound -per- capita - per -day
U.S. average reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)4. This may be the
result of the EPA using a different methodology for calculating generation, and because the
EPA estimate excludes construction and demolition debris, which is included in the Hawai'i
data.
3 Quantifying recycling is challenging because of the number of entities involved and the corresponding lack of a centralized
location for data reporting. While the County exerts considerable effort obtaining data from the many recyclers in the County to
compile recycled quantity data, it is likely that some materials are recycled that are not included in the data reported in
Exhibit 2 -5. Thus, the County's actual recycling rate may be higher than what is shown.
4 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 2006. Facts and Figures.
Accessed at: http: / /www.epa.gov /msw /facts - text.htm
2 -4 December 2009
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
EXHIBIT 2 -6
Historical Generation, Recycling, and Disposal, Hawaii County
350,000
300,000
250,000
� 200,000 —
— �� - - -� -- - } - - -y ♦ Generation
0 150,000 j, — — — Ar ........... .....................Recycling
— — Disposal
100,000
... w.w.w.w.�u
50,000
FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08
Year
EXHIBIT 2 -7
Per - capita Generation Comparison
Jurisdiction Pounds /Capita /Day
Resident Population Basis
Hawaii County FY 07 -08'
9.4
Honolulu County, 2004b
9.5
Maui County FY 05 -06'
14.2
Kauai County 2005b
10.0
Seattle, 2006d
9.8
Metro Vancouver, B.C.e
8.6
De Facto Population Basis
Hawaii County FY 07 -08' 8.3
Honolulu County, 2004b 8.7
Maui County FY 05 -06' 10.8
Kauai County 2005b 7.4
'Exhibits 2 -1 and 2 -5.
bDraft IRSWMP, Kauai County, Section 2 and Hawaii data book.
'Draft IRSWMP, Maui County, Table 2 -4, and Hawaii data book.
dCalculated based on information in City of Seattle. 2008. Recycling Rate 2007 Update, and population
from the Greater Seattle Data sheet. Assumes 10 %construction and demolition debris recycling rate.
eCalculated based on information in Metro Vancouver. 2005. GVRD Solid Waste Management 2004
Annual Report. Includes demolition, land clearing, and construction waste.
December 2009 2 -5
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
Exhibit 2 -8 provides a breakdown of total waste discarded at County recycling and transfer
stations and total commercial waste delivered directly to landfills between 2001 and 2008 for
West and East Hawai'i. As shown, disposal at recycling and transfer stations has grown
slightly faster in East Hawai'i than in West Hawai'i during this period. Commercial
disposal growth in West Hawai'i has been particularly strong, increasing 53 percent in
7 years for an average annual rate of 6.3 percent. Commercial waste comprises
approximately 61 percent, while waste from recycling and transfer stations comprise
approximately 39 percent of the total disposed waste countywide. Commercial waste
accounts for a larger share of the total in West Hawai'i (68 percent) than in East Hawai'i
(51 percent).
EXHIBIT 2 -8
Historical Disposal at Recycling and Transfer Stations and Commercial Customers for West and East Hawaii
Commercial includes waste delivered directly to landfills by commercial haulers, and some businesses, institutions,
and residents.
Source: Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management.
FY 07 -08 disposal totals broken down by recycling and transfer station are shown in
Exhibit 2 -9. Total disposal during 2008 at recycling and transfer stations ranged from a low
of 207 tons at the Miloli'i station, to a high of 14,707 tons at the Hilo station.
2 -6 December 2009
West Hawaii
East Hawaii
Total County
Recycling/
Recycling/
Recycling/
Transfer
Transfer
Transfer
Stations
Commercial
Stations
Commercial
Stations
Commercial
Tons
FY 00 -01
35,757
56,745
33,302
38,021
69,059
94,766
FY 01 -02
37,721
58,593
34,278
36,033
71,999
94,626
FY 02 -03
37,789
63,582
32,765
35,173
70,554
98,755
FY 03 -04
44,699
81,759
37,756
37,628
82,455
119,387
FY 04 -05
47,072
95,007
40,456
42,898
87,528
137,905
FY 05 -06
45,230
93,501
40,400
43,257
85,629
136,758
FY 06 -07
44,131
94,208
40,586
42,823
84,717
137,031
FY 07 -08
41,655
86,888
39,575
41,912
81,230
128,800
Percent Change FY 00 -01 - FY 07 -08
Total
16.0%
53.0%
19.0%
10.0%
18.0%
36.0%
Average
2.2%
6.3%
2.5%
1.4%
2.3%
4.5%
Annual
Percent of
Total
32%
68%
49%
51%
39%
61%
Commercial includes waste delivered directly to landfills by commercial haulers, and some businesses, institutions,
and residents.
Source: Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management.
FY 07 -08 disposal totals broken down by recycling and transfer station are shown in
Exhibit 2 -9. Total disposal during 2008 at recycling and transfer stations ranged from a low
of 207 tons at the Miloli'i station, to a high of 14,707 tons at the Hilo station.
2 -6 December 2009
EXHIBIT 2 -9
FY 07 -08 D
West Hawaii
Kailua
Keahou
Ke'ei
Waiea
Miloli'i
Ka' u
Waimea
Puako
Kohala
Honoka'a
Pa'auilo
Laupahoehoe
S u btota I
East Hawaii
and Transfer Station
Tons
7,860
5,017
2,025
2,968
207
3,447
6,376
2,681
4,145
3,459
1,922
1,547
33,795
Percent of Subtotal
23.3%
14.8%
6.0%
8.8%
0.6%
10.2%
18.9%
7.9%
12.3%
10.2%
5.7%
4.6%
100.0%
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
Percent of Total
10.7%
6.8%
2.8%
4.0%
0.3%
4.7%
8.7%
3.7%
5.6%
4.7%
2.6%
2.1%
46.1%
Hilo
14,707
37.2%
20.0%
Kea'au
7,443
18.8%
10.1%
Pahoa
5,759
14.6%
7.8%
Kalapana
1,069
2.7%
1.5%
Glenwood
2,940
7.4%
4.0%
Volcano
1,929
4.9%
2.6%
Pahala
1,304
3.3%
1.8%
Papaikou
2,563
6.5%
3.5%
Honomu
1,727
4.4%
2.4%
Other
135
0.3%
0.2%
Subtotal
39,575
100.0%
53.9%
Total Recycling and Transfer Stations 73,370 100.0%
Source: Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management.
2.3.2 Forecast
Tons per person - employee (persons + employment) is a metric that is useful for projecting
future generation because it considers factors that tend to influence both residential and
commercial waste. The generation forecast was prepared by examining forecast population
and employment, past generation trends, and potential changes to those trends.
December 2009 2 -7
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
Historical generation in tons, pounds per- capita per -day, tons per person - employee,
population, and employment are shown in Exhibit 2 -10. As shown, the overall trend over
the past seven years through FY 07 -08 had been for strong growth in all of these variables,
including more than 4- percent annual growth in per- capita and per person - employee
generation. However, the slowdown in the world economy resulted in a substantial decline
in waste generation in Hawaii County during FY 08 -09. During the first eight months of the
fiscal year, disposal was down 17 percent from the first eight months of FY 07 -08.
EXHIBIT 2 -10
Historical Generation Trends, Hawaii Count
Year
Generation
(tons)
Tons
Population
Employment
Pounds/
capita /day
Tons /person-
employee
FY 00 -01
190,241
149,261
214,711
7.0
0.52
FY 01 -02
190,764
150,860
218,160
6.9
0.52
FY 02 -03
200,300
153,162
219,312
7.2
0.54
FY 03 -04
239,217
156,320
230,370
8.4
0.62
FY 04 -05
281,855
160,129
235,629
9.6
0.71
FY 05 -06
300,121
164,770
243,420
10.0
0.74
FY 06 -07
290,865
169,419
250,719
9.4
0.69
FY 07 -08
296,473
173,057
256,207
9.4
0.69
FY 08 -09 est.
254,920
Average Annual
Percent Change
6.5%
2.1%
2.6%
4.3%
4.1%
The forecasts shown in Exhibits 2 -11 through 2 -13 assume 0- percent growth in generation
per person - employee in FY 08-09,5 percent per year in FY 09 -10 - FY 11 -12 (as the economy
improves from recession), and 1- percent growth thereafter. The reasons for these
assumptions include the following:
• The severe worldwide recession has resulted in a dramatic (17 percent) decline in
disposal during the first eight months of the 2009 fiscal year (compared to the first eight
months of FY 07 -08). It is likely that it will take some time for construction and
underlying waste generation to approach the levels that existed prior to the recession.
• Waste generation (per person - employee) did not change significantly between FY 04 -05
and FY 05 -06 and has declined thereafter: FY 07 -08 tons per person - employee is about
7 percent lower than what it was in FY 05 -06.
• The strong growth in FY 03 -04 and FY 04 -05 was in part related to booming construction
and disposal of large quantities of storm debris.
2 -8 December 2009
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
• The County's record - keeping practices have steadily improved over the period,
particularly in recycling. Thus, actual increases in generation in the early years may have
been less than shown in Exhibit 2 -10.
• The recent slowdown in the economy has the potential to moderate per- capita waste
generation for a period of time.
• Ongoing efforts by the County and local residents, businesses, and institutions to reduce
waste may help moderate waste generation in the future.
• Most jurisdictions in the U.S. report little change in per- capita generation in recent years.
Nationwide, the EPA reports long -term per- capita waste generation growth of
1.2 percent per year from 1960 to 2006, with per- capita generation being essentially
unchanged since 1990.
Forecast generation, recycling, and disposal are shown in Exhibits 2 -11 and 2 -12. As shown,
assuming planned increases in the County's diversion rate, disposal is projected to increase
from 210,030 in FY 07 -08 to 253,085 by FY 27 -28.
Forecast disposal for recycling and transfer stations and commercial customers in both East
and West Hawaii are presented in Exhibit 2 -13.
EXHIBIT 2 -11
Forecast Generation, Recycling, and Disposal and Recycling Rate, Hawaii County
Year Generation Recycling Disposal Recycling Rate
FY 07 -08 296,473 86,443 210,030 29.2%
FY 12 -13
315,881
126,352
189,529
40.0%
FY 17 -18
357,759
157,414
200,345
44.0%
FY 22 -23
402,442
177,075
225,368
44.0%
FY 27 -28
451,937
198,852
253,085
44.0%
Average Annual Growth Rate
FY 07 -08 —
12 -13
1.3%
7.9%
-2.0%
FY 12 -13 —
17 -18
2.5%
4.5%
1.1%
FY 17 -18 —
22 -23
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
FY 22 -23 —
27 -28
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
Assumes diversion rate ramps up from 29.2 percent in FY 07 -08 to 44 percent by the end of the
5 -year planning cycle (FY 14 -15). In order to be conservative for the purposes of estimating
remaining capacity at County landfills, the diversion rate is assumed to remain at 44 percent
throughout the forecast period. Future recycling programs would hopefully reduce waste going to
landfills further.
Assumes 0- percent growth in generation per person - employee in FY 08 -09, 5 percent per year in
FY 09 -10 — FY 11 -12 (as the economy improves from recession), and 1- percent growth thereafter.
December 2009 2 -9
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
EXHIBIT 2 -12
Generation, Recycling, and Disposal Forecast, Hawaii County
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000 f Generation
N
250,000 -� -r * _ _ ............... Recycling
200,000 -A _ _A- -A_ * _A - ..... - f - Disposal
150,000
100,000
50,000
F�o�
x x F F��� �
F�� F��� F���
Year
EXHIBIT 2 -13
Disposal Forecast, Hawaii County (tons
Assumes diversion rate ramps up from 29.2 percent in FY 07 -08 to 44 percent by the end of the 5 -year planning
cycle (FY 15). In order to be conservative for the purposes of estimating remaining capacity at County landfills, the
diversion rate is assumed to remain at 44 percent throughout the forecast period. Future recycling programs would
hopefully reduce waste going to landfills further.
Assumes 0- percent growth in generation per person - employee in FY 09, 5 percent per year in FY 09 -10 - FY 11 -12
(as the economy improves from recession), and 1- percent growth thereafter.
R-Wen MTV •
A waste composition study was recently conducted for Hawaii County and is included as
Appendix B. That report includes composition estimates, both for the overall waste stream
and broken down by recycling/ transfer station, commercial, and self -haul wastes5 disposed
at the landfill. The results are based on samples taken at the WHSL during May of 2008. A
5 Self -haul refers to waste delivered directly to the landfill (as opposed to a transfer station).
2 -10 December 2009
West Hawaii
East Hawaii
Total
Recycling/
Recycling/
Recycling/
Transfer
Transfer
Transfer
Total
Year
Stations
Commercial
Stations
Commercial
Stations
Commercial
County
FY 07 -08
41,655
86,888
39,575
41,912
81,230
128,800
210,030
FY 12 -13
36,547
77,535
36,755
38,692
73,301
116,227
189,529
FY 17 -18
39,214
81,039
38,270
41,822
77,485
122,861
200,345
FY 22 -23
44,562
90,124
42,600
48,082
87,162
138,205
225,368
FY 27 -28
49,922
100,044
47,960
55,159
97,882
155,203
253,085
Assumes diversion rate ramps up from 29.2 percent in FY 07 -08 to 44 percent by the end of the 5 -year planning
cycle (FY 15). In order to be conservative for the purposes of estimating remaining capacity at County landfills, the
diversion rate is assumed to remain at 44 percent throughout the forecast period. Future recycling programs would
hopefully reduce waste going to landfills further.
Assumes 0- percent growth in generation per person - employee in FY 09, 5 percent per year in FY 09 -10 - FY 11 -12
(as the economy improves from recession), and 1- percent growth thereafter.
R-Wen MTV •
A waste composition study was recently conducted for Hawaii County and is included as
Appendix B. That report includes composition estimates, both for the overall waste stream
and broken down by recycling/ transfer station, commercial, and self -haul wastes5 disposed
at the landfill. The results are based on samples taken at the WHSL during May of 2008. A
5 Self -haul refers to waste delivered directly to the landfill (as opposed to a transfer station).
2 -10 December 2009
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
similar study was performed at the SHSL in 20016. We have used the results of the 2001
study and current County disposal data to estimate the composition of waste that enters the
East Hawai'i landfill. The results are combined to provide waste composition estimates for
total County disposal.
Exhibits 2 -14, 2 -15, and 2 -16 show disposed composition estimates for nine waste categories
for the entire County, for West Hawai'i, and for East Hawai'i, respectively. When combined,
organics and paper comprise more than half of the waste stream. The organics category
contains such components as food, green waste, and textiles. Construction and demolition
waste accounts for another 22 percent by weight. The construction and demolition category
includes such components as clean lumber and gypsum scrap.
The composition of waste disposed in West Hawai'i is similar to the composition of
disposed waste in East Hawai'i. Two differences that merit mention include: there are more
organics disposed of in West Hawai'i (35.3 percent) than in East Hawai'i (29.6 percent); and
there is more special waste disposed of in East Hawai'i (5.2 percent) than in West Hawai'i
(1.9 percent). The majority of the special wastes disposed of in East Hawai'i consist of
industrial sludge, bulky items, and tires.
The waste stream assessment developed data for the amount of waste disposed of for
58 different types of waste. Countywide composition estimates for all 58 waste components
evaluated during the study are shown in Exhibit 2 -17.
EXHIBIT 2 -14
Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Total County
6 Cascadia Consulting Group, 2001. Waste Composition Study, South Hilo Landfill, County of Hawaii.
December 2009 2 -11
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
EXHIBIT 2 -15
nisnnsarl (.mmnnsitinn Fstimatas by VVasta (atannni VVast Hawai'i
EXHIBIT 2 -16
nlSnnSP.d (,mmnnsitinn FstimatPS by Waste (,atPnnrv• Fast Hawai'i
2 -12 December 2009
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
EXHBIT 2 -17
Disposed Composition Estimates: Total County
Total Tons 210,030
Sample Count 100
December 2009 2 -13
Tons
Percent of
Tons
Percent of
Disposed
Total
Disposed
Total
Paper
47,130
22.4%
Construction and Demolition
46,702
22.2%
Cardboard
16,182
7.7%
Concrete
5,128
2.4%
Bags
723
0.3%
Asphalt Paving
2,212
1.1 %
Newspaper
4,193
2.0%
Asphalt Roofing
381
0.2%
White Ledger
1,540
0.7%
Clean and Treated Lumber
22,984
10.9%
Colored Ledger
280
0.1%
Gypsum Board
1,471
0.7%
Computer
92
0.0%
Rocks and Soil
1,707
0.8%
Office
1,510
0.7%
R/C Demo
12,819
6.1%
Magazines
2,424
1.2%
Household Hazardous
527
0.3%
Directories
109
0.1%
Paint
171
0.1%
Miscellaneous
8,634
4.1%
Vehicle Fluids
20
0.0%
R/C Paper
11,443
5.4%
Oil
54
0.0%
Glass
4,592
2.2%
Batteries
117
0.1%
Clear Containers
1,476
0.7%
R/C Hazardous
165
0.1%
Green Containers
1,296
0.6%
Special
6,762
3.2%
Brown Containers
1,024
0.5%
Ash
93
0.0%
Other Containers
307
0.1%
Sewage Sludge
0
0.0%
Flat Glass
160
0.1%
Industrial Sludge
2,826
1.3%
R/C Glass
329
0.2%
Treated Medical
139
0.1%
Metal
16,388
7.8%
Bulky Items
2,177
1.0%
Aluminum Cans
565
0.3%
Tires
1,124
0.5%
Tin Cans
1,525
0.7%
R/C Special
404
0.2%
Ferrous
7,441
3.5%
Mixed
997
0.5%
Nonferrous
504
0.2%
Mixed Residue
997
0.5%
White Goods
742
0.4%
R/C Metal
5,611
2.7%
Plastic
17,482
8.3%
#1 Containers
1,067
0.5%
#2 Containers
882
0.4%
Other Containers
818
0.4%
Film
6,170
2.9%
Durable
4,002
1.9%
R/C Plastic
4,543
2.2%
Organics
69,448
33.1%
Food
34,230
16.3%
Textiles
5,485
2.6%
Leaves and Grass
6,160
2.9%
Prunings
7,057
3.4%
Stumps
2,637
1.3%
Crop Residue
3
0.0%
Manure
0
0.0%
R/C Organic
13,875
6.6%
Total Tons 210,030
Sample Count 100
December 2009 2 -13
2.0 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
An estimated diversion rate for the nine waste categories is shown in Exhibit 2 -18. The
results suggest that more than half of the metal and glass generated in the County is
recycled (60 and 58 percent, respectively). Conversely, only 15 percent of paper is recycled
and there is very little construction and demolition debris currently being recycled.
EXHIBIT 2 -18
FY 07 -08 Diversion Rate by Waste Category
Recycling composition from Hawaii County Department of Environmental
Management with some additional allocations by CH2M HILL. Disposal composition
from CH2M HILL, 2008. Draft Waste Composition Study, County of Hawaii.
2 -14 December 2009
Generation
Tons
Recycling
Disposal
Diversion Rate
Paper
55,296
8,166
47,130
14.8%
Glass
10,872
6,280
4,592
57.8%
Metal
40,784
24,395
16,388
59.8%
Plastic
18,730
1,248
17,482
6.7%
Organics
115,248
45,799
69,448
39.7%
C &D
46,738
35
46,702
0.1%
HHW
698
171
527
24.5%
Special
7,111
349
6,762
4.9%
Mixed
997
0
997
0.0%
Total
296,473
86,443
210,030
29.2%
Recycling composition from Hawaii County Department of Environmental
Management with some additional allocations by CH2M HILL. Disposal composition
from CH2M HILL, 2008. Draft Waste Composition Study, County of Hawaii.
2 -14 December 2009
SECTION 3
! t
1 n �� ✓,4
Source reduction is the adoption of practices that generate less waste. Source reduction
approaches include changes in product design and packaging, reduction of consumer
purchases, and the reuse of materials or goods. By decreasing the amount of waste that
must be disposed of, waste reduction programs decrease the environmental issues
associated with waste disposal. Reusing a grocery bag, buying materials in bulk, and
reselling unwanted but still useable materials or products are typical examples of waste
reduction.
This section describes existing source reduction activities within Hawai'i County, identifies
current issues and concerns with respect to current source reduction practices, and presents
options for achieving further source reduction.
■ , V ! p
3.2.1 Regulatory Context
As described in the Hawai'i Integrated Solid Waste Management Act ( Hawai'i Revised
Statutes [HRS] Chapter 342G -2), each county is required to consider solid waste
management practices and processing methods in the following order of priority:
1. Source reduction
2. Recycling and bioconversion (including composting)
Landfilling and incineration
HRS 342G -3 established a 25- percent waste reduction goal by 1995, and a 50- percent goal by
2000. Hawai'i County's 5 -year management plan (developed following the 2002 IRSWMP
Update) established a 50- percent goal by 2008.
3.2.2 Resolution 356 -07 (Zero Waste)
In 2007, the County of Hawai'i adopted Resolution 356 -07, "A Resolution to Embrace and
Adopt the Principles of Zero Waste as a Long -term Goal for Hawai'i County." The
resolution embraces the zero waste philosophy of solid waste management and commits to
taking the necessary steps to incorporate the zero waste philosophy into legislation, policies,
and actions.
The zero waste philosophy is based on the concept that current standards of waste
management are inefficient and unsustainable, and that waste can be virtually eliminated by
emulating sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are treated as resources
that can effectively be reused. It is a whole- system approach that emphasizes a closed -loop
production and consumption system by (1) reducing the volume and toxicity of waste
through product and packaging redesign strategies, (2) reusing materials and products for
December 2009 3 -1
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
alternative uses, as well as for their original intended use, and (3) recycling and composting
all remaining materials for their best use. Within the zero waste framework, materials that
cannot be easily and conveniently reduced, reused, recycled or composted are returned to
the manufacturer, who is ultimately responsible for product disposal. The zero waste
approach includes aggressive education of public and private entities, as consumer choices
are considered to be the driving force in changing consumption and disposal patterns.
With a focus on eliminating waste at the source, one of the fundamental principles of zero
waste is redesigning products and packaging, by taking into account the entire life -cycle of a
product. In contrast to the current emphasis on disposability, products and packaging
within the zero waste framework are designed with an emphasis on minimal use of
materials, use of recycled and benign resources, longer product lives, and maximum
potential for every product to be repaired, reused, or recycled. Critical to this principle is the
concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR), a policy tool in which manufacturers are
held legally and financially responsible for the waste and environmental impact associated
with their product and packaging, rather than passing that responsibility on to the
consumer. Under EPR, manufacturers are mandated to 'take back' their end -of -life products
and create closed looped systems. As a result, EPR enforces design, production and
packaging strategies that take into account the quantity and type of materials required for
production, product lifespan, and the ability with which products can be disassembled and
recycled.
In addition, zero waste emphasizes an aggressive combination of reuse, recycling and
composting. Within the zero waste framework, all organic materials, including yard
trimmings and food scraps are composted and treated as "biological nutrients' rather than
being disposed of in landfills where they can potentially contribute to future environmental
liabilities. Instead of using revenues generated through the tax base or other financial
resources to build new landfills or incinerators, the zero waste approach advocates for
investment in recycling, composting, and reuse facilities, especially those that accommodate
the entire spectrum of reuse and recycling activities (for example, resource recovery parks).
By supporting the reuse and recycling of discarded products and materials, the zero waste
approach creates jobs and stimulates local economies. According to the Institute for Local
Self Reliance's report Wasting and Recycling in the United States 2000, "On a per -ton basis,
sorting and processing recyclables alone sustains ten times more jobs than landfilling or
incineration." The report concludes, "each recycling step a community takes locally means
more jobs, more business expenditures on supplies and services, and more money
circulating in the local economy through spending and tax payments."
A Zero Waste Implementation Plan developed for the County of Hawaii' during 2008
outlines suggested changes to the way that solid waste is handled within the County. As
stated in Resolution 356 -07, the County of Hawaii recognizes "that zero waste is a long-
term goal and that in the interim, programs may need to be implemented that may be
counter to the zero waste philosophy but are necessary to reach the long -term goal of zero
waste and that such programs should not be prohibited by the embracing and adoption of
the long -term goal of zero waste." To this end, the components of the Zero Waste
Implementation Plan which can be realistically achieved during the life span of this
1 Recycle Hawaii and Richard Anthony Associates. 2009. Zero Waste Implementation Plan for the County of Hawaii.
3 -2 December 2009
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
IRSWMP have been incorporated into this Plan. The remaining components are expected to
be implemented over the longer term, as part of the County's effort to take incremental
steps toward achieving zero waste.
3.2.3 Review of 2002 IRSWMP
Following is a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2002 IRSWMP relative to
source reduction, and a description of the actions taken to achieve each recommendation.
2002 IRSWMP Recommendation
Status
Source Reduction and Reuse
Hire County Recycling Coordinator
The County hired a full -time Recycling Coordinator in mid -
2003 who is responsible for directing other County staff and
vendors engaged in waste reduction and recycling efforts.
Ban Yard Trimmings at Recycling and
No ban has been established to date. In order to establish
Transfer Stations and Landfills
such a ban it is necessary to provide an alternative process
for disposal of yard trimmings. The County has issued a
request for proposals to determine if there are vendors
interested in operating a yard trimmings disposal facility.
Establish County Policy to Restrain Disposal
In 2007 the Solid Waste Division drafted a resolution that
of Recyclable Materials
would mandate recycling at County offices. This has not yet
been implemented.
Increase Tipping Fees at Landfills
The County has incrementally increased the landfill tipping
fees from $35 /ton in 2002 to the currently approved rate of
$85 /ton in 2007. Increasing the tipping fee provides
incentive to generate less waste.
Enhance Construction and Demolition (C &D)
The County opened the Kea'au Recycling and Reuse
Waste Recovery
Center, as well as two smaller reuse centers at the
Laupahoehoe and Keauhou Recycling and Transfer
Stations, each of which collects limited C &D materials for
reuse.
Increase Incentives for Diversion of Clean
The County is encouraging demolition permit applicants to
C &D Wastes
include a re -use component in demolition plans for larger
projects.
Phase -in Landfill Bans on Recyclable C &D
The County is currently focused on Public Education and
Wastes
facilitating private entities that can create programs or
facilities that provide incentives for diversion of clean C &D
wastes. In 2007 Arc of Hilo opened a C &D waste re -use
center and is promoting this to local contractors.
Institute New Fee System for Waste
Not implemented yet.
Management
! $
The current status of source reduction efforts in Hawaii County is described below. This
discussion includes (1) a description of County operated or sponsored programs, (2) an
overview of County waste reduction staffing levels, (3) a description of other programs
conducted by private entities, and (4) recent or pending legislative efforts.
December 2009 3 -3
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
3.3.1 Hawaii County Waste Reduction Programs
3.3.1.1 Backyard Composting
Using funding received from the County of Hawai'i, Recycle Hawai'i (and subcontractor
Hawai'i Rainbow Worms) conducts a minimum of 12 composting workshops across the
island on an ongoing basis. In addition, they distribute Earth Machine backyard composters
to both workshop attendees and schools. In 2005, they distributed approximately
336 composters, 43 of which were provided to schools across the island.
3.3.1.2 Reuse Centers
The Kea'au Recycling & Reuse Center (KRRC) is located at the Kea'au Recycling and
Transfer Station. It was initially funded as part of an Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) grant to the County of Hawai'i, Department of Environmental Management (DEM)
and Hawai'i Island Economic Development Board (HIEDB). Recycle Hawai'i manages
operations at this site under a contract with the County of Hawai'i. KRCC provides a
designated area for drop -off and pick -up of useable materials such as toys, clothing, house
wares, and small appliances. KRCC also includes an area dedicated to home remodeling
materials (for example, reusable toilets, pipes, gutters, doors, windows, and so forth). Items
are available for free or sold at a modest price, and the money is used to help fund
operations and education outreach programs. In addition, reusable latex paint collected at
designated household waste collection events and at KRRC is sorted and mixed and is
available for purchase at a discount over the retail price of new paint. KRCC also serves as a
location for the composing workshops, and is used for school tours.
Kea'au Recycling & Reuse Center located at the Kea'au Transfer Station
KRRC serves as a model for creating similar recycling and reuse centers at other recycling
and transfer stations around the County of Hawai'i. Two smaller limited reuse centers have
been opened at the Laupahoehoe and Keauhou Recycling and Transfer Stations. Each of
these locations includes an unstaffed, but regularly monitored, designated drop -off area
3 -4 December 2009
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
near the transfer chute. The County of Hawai'i intends to open approximately nine
additional Recycling and Reuse Centers at other recycling and transfer stations around the
island.
3.3.1.3 Reduction and Reuse Education
The County of Hawai'i has a well - developed education program targeting waste reduction
and reuse. Its main education initiatives include:
• Information provided via the internet
• Recycling infoline
• Newspaper, radio, and television advertising
• Brochures
• Community outreach
• Community events
• School programs
• Business education
• Awards program
More information about these initiatives is provided in Section 5.0, Public Education and
Information.
3.3.1.4 Landfill Disposal Fees
In July 2007, the County of Hawai'i increased landfill disposal fees to $85 per ton. Rates by
vehicle size and volume, which apply when weights cannot be obtained, were increased to
$51 per vehicle for light trucks, $96 for medium trucks and $153 for large trucks. For all
other vehicles, disposal fees were increased to $27 per cubic yard for compacted material,
and $17 per cubic yard for non - compacted material.
3.3.1.5 Procurement Policies
Public sector procurement can help reduce waste, foster reuse of products and stimulate
markets for recyclable materials and compost. In addition, these procurement policies can
serve as a model for other entities, including private sector businesses and institutions.
Pursuant to HRS 342G- 41 -44, the County has a policy to "give preference to vendors who
utilize products with recycled content," when purchasing paper and plastic materials (for
example, office paper, printed materials, plastic bags, and so forth), and has a policy to
make double -sided copying standard practice at County offices.
3.3.1.6 Elimination of Tires from Landfills
In December 2007, the County of Hawai'i approved Bill 189, which amends the Hawai'i
County Code, and prohibits the disposal of whole, cut, sliced, chipped or shredded tires in
the island's landfills.
3.3.1.7 E -Waste Producer "Take- Back" Program
http: / /www.recycleHawai'i.org /images /stories /documents /EwasteFl er.pdf
December 2009 3 -5
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
The County of Hawaii contracts with Recycle Hawai'i to operate two permanent electronic
waste (e- waste) collection locations. This program allows residents and businesses to recycle
their entertainment electronics (TVs, VCRs, DVD players, radios), computers, computer
monitors and peripherals, cell phones, telephones, microwaves, fax machines, copiers,
digital cameras, printers, and laptops. Kona and Hilo drop off locations are available for the
residents and selected non - profit organizations to drop off used items at no charge;
businesses and other government agencies are assessed a recycling fee. Recycle Hawai'i
ships the used e -waste to California for recycling, which is being conducted by E -World
Recyclers. Recycle Hawai'i has also partnered with various foundations and the Sony
Corp/ Waste Management Inc.'s Take Back Recycling Program to expand the program this
year to include the permanent drop -off sites. To date more than 400 tons of e -waste has been
shipped off - island for recycling.
Hawai'i State legislation enacted during 2008 will require development of take back
programs by manufacturers of certain types of electronic equipment (primarily nonmedical,
stand -alone equipment containing CRTs, liquid crystal, or plasma display screens). The
purpose of the legislation is to establish, conduct, and manage a program for the collection,
transportation, and recycling of certain types of electronic devices sold in the State. More
information about this program is provided in Section 6.
Recycle Hawaii also operates year -round collection sites for cell phones, ink, and toner
cartridges. See:
http: / /www.recycleHawai'i.org /images /stories /documents /Ewaste Fl, e�r.pdf
Several private businesses also operate programs designed to promote recycling of e- waste,
including Long's Drugs and Home Depot. Long's Drugs operates collection bins for used
batteries and small electronic devices.
During 2007 the County approved Resolution 30 -07 "Requesting that the Mayor issue a
Directive to Implement Recycling Programs at all County Agencies and Departments." The
drafted directive has not been issued to date.
3.3.1.8 Private Reuse Programs
In addition to the KRRC, there are several privately operated reuse facilities including the
Habitat for Humanity Restore and Laulima Hana (The Arc of Hilo). The Habitat for
Humanity Restore is located in Kona, and is primarily focused on reusable building
materials, as well as products returned to local big -box stores, such as Wal -Mart. The
Laulima Enterprise is a non - profit enterprise of the Arc of Hilo and is a reuse store for
construction and demolition (C &D) materials donated by contractors and home - owners. In
addition to these facilities, there are a variety of other reuse businesses, including thrift
shops and used book stores, located around the island that sell used merchandise, such as
furniture, clothing, house wares and books.
3.3.1.9 Product Bans
Several counties in the State of Hawai'i have attempted to ban a variety of products,
including plastic bags, styrofoam food containers and incandescent light bulbs; however, to
date, none of these bans have been successfully implemented in Hawai'i County. On July
22, 2008, the County Council's Environmental Management Committee voted in support of
3 -6 December 2009
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
Bill 326, which would ban plastic bags at the point of retail purchase, however, the
legislation was not ultimately adopted by the Council.
3.3.2 Hawaii County Staffing Levels
Successful delivery of local government waste reduction programs requires devoting an
appropriate amount of resources including staffing. Hawai'i County has demonstrated its
commitment to waste reduction by assigning the following staff to County waste reduction
and recycling programs:
• One full -time recycling coordinator
• Two full -time equivalent (FTE) recycling specialists for the HI -5 recycling program
• Two FTE recycling specialists
• One part -time student helper
In addition, using funds provided by the County of Hawai'i, Recycle Hawai'i employs three
full -time education specialists, who are responsible for educating the public about waste
reduction and recycling programs on the north, west and east portions of the island,
respectively. Recycle Hawaii also has other personnel that conduct educational programs at
KRRC and other various workshops & community events.
1 !
As described above, a number of source reduction activities have been recently conducted in
the County of Hawai'i, including programs and initiatives by both the County as well as
other organizations. In spite of these efforts, the County recycling rate is just under
30 percent, which is well below its 2008 target of 50 percent. There is more that could be
done by the County and waste generators to promote changed behaviors that would
ultimately reduce the quantity of materials entering the waste stream. The need to
implement additional programs and policies is further established by the County's
commitment to zero waste.
•� •
MEMP •
Pursuant to HRS 342G -26, an overview of various measures that could be implemented to
increase source reduction is provided below. These options were developed based on
successful initiatives implemented in other jurisdictions that may be applicable and
appropriate for Hawai'i County. Note that the options focus on waste reduction and reuse;
education, recycling, and composting programs are discussed in other sections of the
IRSWMP update.
3.5.1 County Source Reduction Practices
The County of Hawai'i has an opportunity to serve as a model for the entire island and
demonstrate their commitment to the zero waste approach by implementing comprehensive
source reduction policies for all County operations. The County could make a more
pronounced commitment to environmentally preferable products. This effort could include
an evaluation of current practices at all County offices and buildings, and identification of
December 2009 3 -7
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
opportunities for increased source reduction. All County employees could be provided with
documents providing information about the County's commitment to zero waste, and ideas
of how each employee and department can reduce their waste.
Specific policies and activities that the County could adopt include the following:
• Adopt and implement an environmentally preferable purchasing policy and additional
environmentally preferable procurement guidelines. Set environmentally preferable
purchasing and recycled content as "defaults" for departments to use in departmental
purchases of supplies and equipment not centrally procured.
• Establish a Zero Waste Purchasing Committee with a mandate to develop the County's
purchasing policy.
• Include measurable zero waste goals in job descriptions and annual performance
evaluations.
• Establish a Green Building Policy and evaluate the extent to which those policies can be
encouraged or required for new private construction and major renovation projects.
• Use electronic mail, document storage and retrieval systems to achieve a "paperless
office."
• Accept electronic submittal of all applications and required submittals.
• Provide incentives for staff members who develop and implement new initiatives that
reduce waste.
• Promote and encourage in -house composting programs.
• Encourage or mandate the use of re- usable mugs, plates, and silverware and install
dishwashers in County facilities where feasible.
• Publish major accomplishments and progress of each department on the County Web
site.
The federal government has undertaken various initiatives to include the environment in its
purchasing decisions. The County could consider EPA's Comprehensive Procurement
Guideline program as a model for helping its employees purchase products that use
materials recovered through recycling.2 The EPA has already designated or is proposing to
develop recycled- content recommendations for a series of products.
Estimated Cost: There are many County actions that could be accomplished at little or no
cost. The initial review of purchasing policies would require staff resources throughout
many departments but should not require additional staff. Green - building policies will
increase the cost of construction somewhat: estimates on the extent of likely increases differ,
but many jurisdictions have successfully implemented such policies. Purchasing policies can
increase the cost of materials somewhat. The net result would probably be a small
percentage increase in costs for many County activities and material purchases.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. Available at: www.epa.gov /cpg.
3 -8 December 2009
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
3.5.2 Business Waste Audits and Reduction Plans
The County currently produces the Hawai'i Island Business Recycling Guide and
Workbook, which provides local businesses with information on how to conduct a waste
audit and establish a waste reduction and recycling program. This effort could be expanded
into a program that includes County staff increasing the extent of the technical assistance
provided to local businesses to conduct waste audits and help them implement sustainable
best business practices to minimize waste, with an emphasis on zero waste principles.
As part of the County's effort to work with local businesses to reduce waste, the County
could encourage retailers and their suppliers to take -back products and packaging that are
currently difficult to reuse, recycle or compost. Potential take -back programs could be
publicized by posting all cooperating retailers on the County's Web site and publishing
frequent articles and /or ads in the local newspaper and County newsletter.
The County could develop a program to work cooperatively with local businesses to
emphasize building deconstruction and support local initiatives for adaptive reuse of
materials generated during deconstruction projects.
A more aggressive stance that has been adopted by some communities would be to require
that all new building permits in the county above a particular size threshold include a Waste
Reduction Plan, perhaps with a monetary deposit, to address waste associated with
construction or demolition projects. To be effective, this type of policy must be accompanied
by good opportunities for recycling of construction and demolition materials. Thus, these
requirements would need to be structured in a manner that it is consistent with available
reuse and recycling opportunities.
Estimated Cost: The cost of this option would differ depending on the speed of
implementation. It could be implemented slowly with existing staff and resources or more
rapidly if additional resources were provided. At least initially, there would be some added
cost to businesses to conduct audits and change existing material management methods.
3.5.3 Visitor Industry
Because tourism is one of the largest industries in Hawai'i County, hotels, motels and other
lodging facilities contribute a significant portion of the County's waste. There are a variety
of basic measures that these facilities can implement to reduce their waste stream, including:
• Replace disposable products with reusable products (utensils, dishes, cleaning supplies).
• Buy in bulk, when possible.
• Offer newspapers only upon request.
• Change linens only upon request.
• Utilize soap and shampoo dispensers rather than disposable containers.
• Utilize air hand dryers or reusable napkins in public restrooms, rather than disposable.
• Change lighting fixtures from incandescent to fluorescent bulbs or light emitting diodes
(LEDs).
December 2009 3 -9
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
• Practice grasscycling.
• Implement onsite composting.
• Donate or sell lightly used furniture or appliances instead of landfilling.
This program could be implemented as a sub - element of a broader business waste audit and
reduction program (see Chapter 3.5.2), or as a stand -alone program. The County could seek
partner businesses and organizations within the visitor industry to build on existing waste
reduction efforts by industry. At least initially, there would be some added cost to
businesses to change existing material management methods.
Estimated Cost: The cost of this option would differ depending on the speed of
implementation. It could be implemented slowly with existing staff and resources or more
rapidly if additional resources were provided.
3.5.4 Expanded Reuse Facilities
The County currently operates the KRRC, as well as two smaller reuse centers at the
Laupahoehoe and Keauhou Recycling and Transfer Stations, all of which have been
successful at diverting both household products and C &D materials from the landfill.
Recently, the County has selected a vendor to develop reuse centers at other recycling and
transfer stations. Additional facilities could be added to the other recycling and transfer
stations around the island, to increase the number of residents with nearby access to a reuse
facility. In addition, the County could develop and communicate to residents and
businesses a list of the highest priority materials to be reused, and coordinate with private
and non - profit reuse centers to maximize the type and quantity of materials that can be
accepted.
Estimated Cost: The cost of this option would depend on the number of facilities
implemented, site specific design considerations, and the resources devoted to staffing and
outreach at each facility. For planning purposes, a new reuse center can be established for
somewhere in the range of $20,000 to $80,000 depending on site specific conditions. Each
new facility would probably require an additional $30,000 to $70,000 per year in annual
staffing costs.
3.5.5 Establish Pay -As- You -Throw System for Residential Discards
Implementing a PAYT system creates a financial incentive for residents and businesses to
reduce their waste. As reported in a recent EPA co- sponsored publication3, PAYT systems,
also known as variable rates programs or user pay, ask households to pay more if they put
out more garbage for collection. This simple concept - akin to paying a water or electricity
bill - has been embraced by almost 7,100 communities in the United States, and has led to
the diversion of perhaps 6.5 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) per year that
would otherwise have been landfilled. It provides a powerful financial incentive for
residents to reduce waste discards.
3 Pay as you Throw (PAYT) In the US: 2006 Update and Analyses, Final Report. 2006. Co- Sponsored by: EPA Office of Solid
Waste, Jan Canterbury, Washington DC Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc., Superior, CO, Prepared by Skumatz
Economic Research Associates. Inc.
3 -10 December 2009
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
In Hawai'i County, this program could be implemented in one of two ways:
• By charging residents on a volume or weight basis for garbage delivered to County
recycling and transfer stations while allowing drop -off of recyclable or compostable
materials at no- charge.
• By implementing universal collection of garbage for all households in the County.
Both options have the additional benefit of eliminating misuse of the residential -only
recycling and transfer stations by non - residential generators. A discussion of each option
follows. These options will be investigated in greater detail in Section 8.0, Collection and
Transfer.
3.5.5.1 PAYT at County Recycling and Transfer Stations
PAYT could be implemented at County recycling and transfer stations by establishing
volume -based rates that would be charged for discarding materials at each station. Typical
volume rates include some combination of per -bag and per - vehicle fees. Because the County
would prefer to avoid security and other issues relating to collection of fees at transfer
stations, this system could be implemented using pre - purchased bags and tags, eliminating
the need to collect fees at the recycling and transfer stations. Residents would be provided a
pre - determined number of County- approved garbage bags, and tags that can be used for
disposing of larger items. Additional bags and tags could be purchased from the County or
through local retail outlets.
To implement this option, all recycling and transfer stations would need to have a full -time
attendant to monitor residential disposal. In addition, the program would need the
following:
• Adequate bins for dropping off readily - recyclable materials at, or nearby, the recycling
and transfer stations.
• A small building or other structure for an attendant to use while monitoring incoming
loads.
• Adequate space to allow for vehicle queuing at the recycling and transfer stations.
• An agreement with retail stores to sell pre- approved bags or tags on behalf of the
County.
It is possible that not all recycling and transfer stations would have the physical space to
accommodate the infrastructure needs for a PAYT system. Thus, it is possible that some
stations would need to be closed, relocated, or substantially modified in order to implement
this program.
Implementation of this option would require implementation of an aggressive public
education and information campaign to ensure that residents understand the rationale for
implementing the PAYT program. The County would need to modify its financial systems
to account for the new revenue source.
Estimated Cost: Estimating the initial infrastructure costs for this option would require
conceptual designs at each of the County's 21 recycling and transfer stations. The
December 2009 3 -11
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
infrastructure cost could vary considerably depending on site - specific conditions and the
extent to which modifications are feasible at each station. For planning purposes, the initial
infrastructure requirements would probably cost somewhere between $1 million and
$2 million. The annual cost of operating the system would probably be between $1.5 million
and $2 million.
3.5.5.2 Universal Collection with PAYT Rates
While not unprecedented, the County's current system of providing recycling and transfer
stations distributed throughout the county is a relatively uncommon way of providing
garbage collection services to residents. PAYT rates could be implemented as part of a move
to provide universal garbage, recycling, and perhaps organics collection services to all
County residents. Elsewhere in the United States, residential collection services typically are
either provided by local government or by the private sector under a contract or franchise
arrangement. The Hawaii Supreme Court's "Konno decision" affirmed the rights of the
United Public Workers (UPW) union to perform work that "customarily and historically"
has been performed by government workers. However, subsequent to that ruling, the
Hawaii Legislature in HRS 46 -36 provided for a "managed competition' process in which
local government and the private sector would compete on the basis of efficiency,
effectiveness, and price for new government services. Additional research would be needed
to decide the best way to proceed with universal collection should this be an option the
County would like to implement.
PAYT collection rates can take many forms including using a variable can, metered bag or
metered tag system. The key aspect of this system is to charge a progressive rate for each
additional garbage unit collected above the basic service level (for example, one can per
week).
Like PAYT at County recycling and transfer stations, implementation of this option would
require implementation of an aggressive public education and information campaign to
ensure that residents understand the rationale for implementing the PAYT program.
Significant up -front planning would be required to assess a wide range of implementation
details. The County would need to establish billing systems, a customer service
organization, and modify its financial systems to accommodate this new service. The
County could elect to assess the potential for reducing property taxes as an offset to the new
revenue source.
Estimated Cost: Garbage collection rates in Hawaii County (where available by
subscription) typically range from $20 to 30 per household per month. On the mainland,
rates can vary from $10 to $30 or more per household per month depending on disposal fees
and the type of service provided (e.g., including separate collection of recyclables and /or
yard and /or food waste).
3.5.6 Expanded Home Composting Program
The County has an ongoing backyard composting program, including educational
workshops, that has distributed more than 300 composting machines to residents and
schools. The County has indicated their intent to continue this program, which could be
expanded to reach a wider audience. The program could include an aggressive promotion
3 -12 December 2009
campaign and a target penetration rate of at least 25 percent of
single - family households within five years.
Estimated cost: It would cost the County approximately $75 to $100
per unit for purchase, storage and delivery of each unit. Thus, if the
County were to target delivering approximately 2,000 households
per year, it would reach a 25 percent penetration rate in 4 to 5 years
at a cost of $150 to $200,000 per year. Existing staff resources would
need to be used to develop the plan for how best to distribute the
units and to provide suitable promotion and user education.
3.5.7 Expanded Reusable Bag Program
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
THE EARTH MACHINE
As part of their educational outreach program, the County has conducted Bring- Your -Own
Bag (BYOB) promotional events at local grocery stores and at various community events
such as Earth Day, during which reusable grocery bags are given to interested residents. To
expand this program, the County could significantly increase the number of reusable bags
that are distributed to residents, and increase its outreach to encourage participating grocery
stores to increase the financial discount for using reusable bags.
Estimated cost: This option would require additional staff time and $10,000 to $30,000
annually for additional materials.
3.5.8 Expand Source Reduction Education
A key to the success of reuse programs is the education of the staff (government, private for -
profit, and non - profit) who operate the facilities within the program. Once staff have been
trained on the basics of how these programs work, they will need to develop systems to
implement programs for the public. The methods for providing materials to markets include
retail sales, dismantling for recycling, and ensuring materials reach markets accessible to the
public.
A series of enhancements to the County's education and promotion programs are suggested
in Section 5.0, Public Education and Information.
3.5.9 Establish Extended Producer Responsibility Policy
As previously described, EPR is a policy tool that extends manufacturer's responsibilities to
include responsibility for life cycle costs of their products and associated packaging. This
approach has been successfully implemented in various communities throughout Europe
and Canada, as well as parts of the United States. A brief discussion of some international
and United States EPR experience, as documented in a recent report4, follows.
The first EPR program was put in place in Germany in 1991 with the advent of the German
Packaging Ordinance, also referred to as the Green Dot program. The Packaging Ordinance
held producers responsible for managing packaging waste. The Packaging Ordinance
resulted in the Duales System Deutschland (DSD), a non - profit company, which licenses its
4 Van Rossem, C., Tojo, N., Lindhqvist, T. 2006. Extended Producer Responsibility An examination of its impact on
innovation and greening products. Report commissioned by Greenpeace International, Friends of the Earth and the European
Environmental Bureau (EEB).
December 2009 3 -13
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
logo - the green dot - for a fee. Packages bearing the symbol are collected, sorted, and
directed to recyclers by DSD. Fees are based on the material and weight of the package and
are paid by the "filler' - usually the owner of the product brand name. Germany has shifted
full responsibility for managing packaging waste to industry.
Because take back and recycling of packaging by each individual producer is not always
practical, EPR policies usually permit producers to form "producer responsibility
organizations" (PROs) which enable them to fulfill their responsibilities collectively. There
are presently more than 250 PROs established to meet EPR obligations in Europe. These
organizations license their logos for a fee and use the revenues to finance collection and
recycling. It is important that the fee structures imposed by PROs reward companies that
choose to design less wasteful and more economically recyclable products. PROs include the
DSD in Germany, Eco- Emballages in France, Alstoff Recycling in Austria, Fost Plus in
Belgium, VALPAK in the United Kingdom and the Rechargeable Battery Recycling
Corporation (RBRC) in the United States.
Canada has widely embraced the EPR principle, referred to there as'Product Stewardship'
or 'Industry Product Stewardship' by governments and producers. All ten provinces have
developed mandatory EPR programs for a wide array of product groups. Products that are
covered by mandatory programs in some or all provinces include packaging materials,
newsprint and fine paper, household hazardous wastes (HHW) such as paint, motor oil,
tires, lead -acid batteries and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). There are
also a number of nationwide voluntary programs, namely for rechargeable consumer
batteries, agricultural pesticide containers and beer containers.
British Columbia sets itself apart from other provinces by its approach to Product
Stewardship, where there are currently nine industry groups in B.C. operating recycling
programs for electronics, paint, oil, beverage containers, tires, pharmaceuticals, pesticides,
gasoline, solvents and flammable liquids. In April, 2008, British Columbia announced plans
to add mercury - containing products such as light bulbs and thermostats to its product
stewardship program, and expanding its list of covered electronics to include products such
as stereos, cell phones, and other hand -held devices.
There are also a wide variety of EPR programs in Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Australia, New
Zealand and other countries that span the full range of voluntary and mandatory programs.
Although there are no nationwide mandatory EPR programs in the US, there are several US-
wide voluntary programs, namely for batteries, cars and carpets. The RBRC was established
to manage a program for the recovery and recycling of Ni -Cd batteries. RBRC launched the
first industry -wide voluntary take -back program in the US (and Canada) and set a goal of
70 percent Ni -Cd battery collection by 2001. Attempts to create national programs for drink
containers and electronics (the "NEPSI process" from 2001 to 2004) did not come to fruition.
At the state level, especially for electronics, there are a number of proposed and operational
regulations in place that employ various elements of EPR. The State of Hawaii s pending e-
waste take back program is a good example. Other examples include California, Maine,
Maryland, and Washington that have either implemented or proposed regulations requiring
the collection and recycling of certain categories of WEEE. Although the Californian and
Maryland programs incorporate few or no elements of EPR, the Maine and Washington
3 -14 December 2009
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
legal texts have proposed a framework that encourages elements of individual
responsibility to be incorporated in any operational programs that are developed.
A good example of how local governments can work together to promote EPR is the
California Product Stewardship Council ( http:// www.caproductstewardship.or & /). It is an
organization of local governments from throughout California who aim to shift California's
product waste management system from one focused on government funded and ratepayer
financed waste diversion to one that relies on producer responsibility in order to reduce
public costs and drive improvements in product design that promote environmental
sustainability. Its function includes the following:
• Build capacity and knowledge among local governments, and build relationships with
stakeholders, to bring about producer financed and managed systems for product
discards, including, but not restricted to, products covered by the Universal Waste Ban.
• Provide a forum for the exchange of information regarding existing and proposed EPR
programs.
• Develop and recommend practical local and statewide EPR policy and educational tools
such as model ordinances and legislation, newsletters, articles, policy briefings, and so
forth
• Provide effective leadership on EPR initiatives in California and develop a prioritized
list, with timelines, of future EPR programs.
• Educate elected and appointed officials and other decision makers on the benefits to
local government of EPR.
At the local level, New York City has tabled its own law on the take -back and recycling of
certain WEEE categories. This sentiment for a fundamental shift in the financial burden of
dealing with end -of -life products from municipalities to producers and consumers seems to
be gaining momentum in the U.S., as highlighted by the recent resolution by the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors that supports state -wide legislation and local initiatives
requiring manufacturers to take responsibility for collecting and recycling their products at
the end of their useful life. Many other municipalities are preparing EPR plans and working
with industry and state and federal EPR advocates to advance EPR programs.
Although the County of Hawaii has some limited programs that resemble EPR, such as the
HI -5 program in which qualified containers can be returned to Certified Redemption
Centers for a rebate, significant progress would be required to implement a fully - functional
EPR program. Given its relatively small size and geographic isolation, it would be difficult
for Hawaii County to effectively implement an EPR program on its own. However, the
County could prepare and adopt resolutions stating its support for EPR, and could work to
lobby state and federal lawmakers to advance EPR initiatives. It could collect and review
various city/ county resolutions related to EPR and state its strong support for EPR to its
citizens and state and federal officials.
Some policy statements the County may want to consider include the following:
• Express support for state and federal policies to eliminate subsidies, internalize
externalities for virgin material production and wasting, and involve producers in
December 2009 3 -15
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
taking physical and /or financial responsibility for their products and packaging through
reuse, repair, or recycling them back into nature or the marketplace.
• Express support for state and county agencies to support product stewardship, by
creating a state /counties coalition to work towards EPR, along with other active states.
Express support for policies designed to relieve local taxpayers from the burden of
managing wastes they have no control over. This could include identifying specific
product categories that have the greatest impact on local programs.
Express support for mandatory recycled content, as well as "cradle -to- cradle" product
take -back and recycling services. Insist that the cost of the programs be paid by
manufacturers and internalized into the cost of their products.
Examples of EPR framework policy and legislation from California, Oregon, Washington,
and Minnesota can be found at http:/ /www.productstewardship .net /policies.html.
Estimated cost: To implement this option, the County would need to invest some ongoing
staff time and perhaps $30,000 to $70,000 of consulting assistance for research, policy
analysis, and drafting legislation. The price of some products affected by EPR programs
could increase depending on exactly how EPR was implemented.
3.5.10 Create a Zero Waste Fund
In order to encourage local innovation and participation, the County could fund community
zero waste initiatives with fees levied on landfill disposal. This funding could include
leveraging private sector investments by adopting supportive policies and providing
technical assistance and support letters for independent financing and /or grants. The more
that non - profits and private companies invest in expansion of reuse, recycling and
composting programs, the less the City needs to invest. The County could also identify and
support proposals for state, federal and foundation grants and loans for local zero waste
businesses and service providers.
Estimated cost: The cost of this option would depend on the extent to which the County
elects to fund this program. For planning purposes, initial seed funding could be budgeted
in the range of $50,000 to $200,000 per year. Some added staff time would be necessary to
develop and administer the program.
3.5.11 Public- Private Partnerships with Community Based Organizations
The reuse industry on the island should be surveyed. In Austin, Texas, Goodwill Industries
has developed a dismantling program, with the backing of Dell Computers (also based in
Austin). There may be other non - profits or businesses interested in participating in reuse
programs within the County. The County could convene a meeting of interested parties to
determine the level of interest, evaluate what challenges such a program would face, and
identify potential mechanisms to assist with initiation of the program.
Independent community -based organizations (CBOs) may see this as an opportunity for
their clients. From sheltered workshops to social enterprises, these CBOs are potentially
available to take on repair and refurbishing as well as dismantling of discarded items into
recyclable commodities.
3 -16 December 2009
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
Reusable items delivered to drop -off centers and landfills could either be sold from ReStores
at these locations or picked up in covered box trucks or bins and taken to an offsite ReStore.
Providing available and convenient drop -off locations is key to the success of this program.
Companies with sheltered workshops could bid for individual products such as appliances,
electronic discards, and furniture repair or for collecting all the reusables received at a
designated site.
t, 9 ! " q . !
On the basis of the analysis presented above, the results of the zero waste study, and
discussions with stakeholders, the Plan recommends the following to improve source
reduction. Implementation of these recommendations will likely be slower than initially
anticipated because of the impact that the worldwide economic recession has had on
County finances.
1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to
reduce the source of waste currently entering landfills, including:
— Develop County ordinances requiring that a waste reduction plan be submitted to
obtain commercial or residential building permits. Coordinate implementation with
the Department of Planning and Permitting.
— Develop EPR policy statements or resolutions expressing strong support for
initiatives that require manufacturers of certain products or materials to take
responsibility for the life cycle costs of their products.
— As a component of the EPR policy, implement a campaign to develop EPR for
difficult to recycle products, and lobby state and federal lawmakers to advance EPR
initiatives.
— Implement a County government source reduction program, by implementing
policies, procedures, and incentive programs that will reduce waste streams
currently being generated within various County departments and agencies.
2. Implement a PAYT program or other funding method. A critical element of the County
waste management program is to provide incentives for the public to participate in
source reduction and other programs to reduce waste going to landfills. PAYT programs
have proven to be a highly successful and cost - effective method of reducing waste going
to landfills in many similar communities nationwide. After considerable deliberation by
SWAC about its advantages and disadvantages, this Plan update recommends
implementing PAYT at County recycling and transfer stations. Due to the County's
current fiscal crisis, the County may elect to use any and all funding methods (such as
user fees, increased property taxes, and landfill tipping fees) that become available,
rather than relying on a PAYT program.
If the County chooses to implement a PAYT program, the implementation steps
recommended for the PAYT program include the following:
— Designing a program that can be effectively implemented at the County's recycling
and transfer stations, and that is convenient and cost - effective for the public.
December 2009 3 -17
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION
— Conducting an education and public outreach campaign prior to implementation of
the PAYT program.
— Conducting outreach to retail businesses in order to facilitate their participation in
the program.
— Purchasing and delivering the PAYT bags and tags.
— Developing and implementing a pilot program at no cost to the public to introduce
the program and identify ways in which the program can be implemented most
effectively.
— Training County staff who will participate in implementing the program and public
outreach campaign.
— Implementing the PAYT program in phases over several years. A component of
implementation will include monitoring and evaluation of program results and
participation.
3. Expand the current reuse program. One of the most popular existing waste reduction
programs among County stakeholders is the operation of reuse facilities where
unwanted products that are still useful can be made available to others rather than
discarded. Several recommendations relating to expanding the current reuse program
include the following:
— Expand reuse facilities, including improving and expanding services at the existing
facilities located at Kea'au, Lapahoehoe, and Keauhou, and construction of new
reuse facilities at other recycling and transfer stations.
— Develop public - private partnerships with organizations such as Goodwill Industries
to develop reuse centers at existing outlets within the County.
4. Expand and improve public education and awareness programs. Stakeholders agreed
that education was a key element of implementing source reduction programs within
the County. The following are recommendations regarding development of educational
programs:
— Develop a business waste audit and education program to foster source reduction
within the local business community.
— Develop a visitor industry waste reduction education program that includes
promotional events or advertisements targeting specific sectors of the visitor
industry.
— Develop a reuse education, outreach, and public awareness campaign to encourage
public participation and use of the reuse centers.
3 -18 December 2009
SECTION 4
I ih M,
0q
Recycling and bioconversion involves taking materials that would have otherwise been
disposed of as solid waste, and instead, reprocesses the materials into new and marketable
products. Common recycled materials include beverage containers, paper products, scrap
metal, and green waste. Bioconversion consists of processing organic materials such as
grass, leaves, branches, untreated wood, or food to produce new products, such as compost
and fertilizer, using biological means.
This section describes existing recycling and bioconversion activities within Hawaii
County, identifies current issues and concerns with respect to current recycling and
bioconversion practices, and presents options for achieving the County's recycling and
bioconversion goals.
As discussed in Section 3.0, Source Reduction, the State of Hawaii prioritizes solid waste
management practices and processing methods for each county as per Chapter 342G -2 of the
Hawaii Revised Statutes. The second priority, as discussed in this chapter, consists of
recycling and bioconversion (including composting). Recycling and bioconversion practices
were first detailed in the original Integrated Solid Waste Management plan created in 1993
and in the subsequent updated plan drafted in 2002. In 2003, the County of Hawaii passed
a resolution with a goal to divert 50 percent of the solid waste from landfills by 2008 and
80 percent by 2013.
4.2.1 Zero Waste
In 2007, the County of Hawaii further enhanced solid waste practices and concepts by
adopting Resolution 356 -07, a zero waste philosophy toward solid waste management, and
in 2008 contracted through Recycle Hawaii to have a zero waste implementation study
conducted. The purpose of that study was to evaluate recycling options that may help the
County achieve its waste reduction goals.
The zero waste implementation study included public meetings held in September 2008 at
multiple locations in the County to present zero waste concepts, and receive input from
local residents and business owners about ways to turn currently- discarded materials into
resources.
The recommendations of the zero waste study have been incorporated to this IRSWMP
update where applicable based on consensus of the SWAG, Solid Waste Division staff, and
other stakeholders.
December 2009 4 -1
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
4.2.2 Review of 2002 Plan Update
The following is a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2002 Plan update
relative to recycling, bioconversion, and marketing, and a description of the actions taken to
achieve each recommendation.
2002 Plan Update Recommendation
Status
Recycling
Hire County Recycling Coordinator
The County hired a full -time Recycling Coordinator in mid
2003 responsible for directing other County staff and
vendors engaged in waste reduction and recycling efforts.
Increase Budget for Promotion and Education
Substantial budget increase for Promotion and Education.
Ban Yard Trimmings at Recycling and
No ban has been established to date. In order to establish
Transfer Stations and Landfills
such a ban, it is necessary to provide an alternative process
for disposal of yard trimmings. The County has established
green waste facilities in Hilo, Kona, and Kea'au with plans to
expand to other sites through a request for proposals.
Additionally, a request for proposal will be issued for
compost and biodiesel.
Establish Dropoff Centers at Transfer Stations
All Transfer stations contain a two -bin system, one bin for
for Source - Separated Recyclable Materials
glass and the other bin with mixed recyclables (paper,
plastic, and metal).
Establish Dropoff Centers at Locations Other
There are HI -5 Certified Redemption Centers at some
Than Transfer Stations (Shopping and
transfer stations and private facilities conveniently located to
Community Centers, Schools)
shopping areas. Other recycling dropoff centers outside of
transfer stations have not been implemented.
Reconfigure Transfer Stations to Emphasize
The County is currently in the process of re- designing the
Recycling
transfer stations to enhance recycling efforts, provide better
signage, and allow commercial recycled materials.
Increase Funding for the Existing Diversion
No longer a grant program — now done using request for
Grant Program
proposals. Increased funding underway.
Establish a County Policy that Restrains
In 2007, City Council passed a resolution to request Mayor
Disposal of Recyclable Materials
Harry Kim to issue a directive mandating recycling at County
offices recycling. The Mayor has not issued a directive to
date.
Increase the Tipping Fee at Landfills
The tipping fee has been increased to $85 /ton at the
landfills.
Enhance C &D Waste Recovery
Kea'au Transfer Station has accepted construction debris
(residential only). Private contractors are also providing
assistance with C &D waste recovery.
Emphasize Recycling in the Design of Sort
Designed but not implemented.
Station
Increase the Incentives for Alternatives to
Not implemented.
Disposal of C &D Waste
Phase -in Landfill Bans on Recyclable C &D
The County is currently focused on Public Education and
Wastes
facilitating private entities that can create programs or
facilities that provide incentives for diversion of clean C &D
wastes. In 2007 Arc of Hilo opened a C &D waste re -use
center and is promoting this to local contractors.
4 -2 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
2002 Plan Update Recommendation
Status
Institute New Fee System for Waste
Not implemented yet.
Management
Bioconversion
No Recommendation (s) Addressed
In 2008, a request for proposal was issued for potential
Diversion
contractors to furnish and implement an organics diversion
Generation
program at the future West Hawaii Compost and Biodiesel
Disposal
Facility.
Marketing
Enhance Local Markets for Recyclable
The County encourages state or on- island reuse and end -
Materials
markets for recycled materials. Currently, green waste,
FY 01 -02
glass, paper, and tires are used locally.
According to the County Department of Environmental Management (DEM), the waste
diversion rate, signifying the quantity of recycled materials taken as a percentage of total
waste generation, has more than doubled from approximately 14 percent in FY 00 -01 to
more than 29 percent in FY 07 -08. Exhibit 4 -1 provides yearly data of waste generation,
recycling, and disposal activities.
EXHIBIT 4 -1
Diversion Rate Trends in Hawaii Count
Percent Change FY 00 -01 — FY 07 -08
Total 56% 227% 28%
Average Annual 6.5% 18.5% 3.6%
Source: Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management.
The 2008 diversion rate may be divided into categories to characterize the amount of
recycling and disposal by material. The two highest waste diversion rates occur in glass and
metal recycling, at 57.8 and 59.8 percent, respectively, which may be due to the HI -5
December 2009 4 -3
Tons
Diversion
Year
Generation
Recycling
Disposal
Rate
FY 00 -01
190,241
26,416
163,825
13.9%
FY 01 -02
190,764
24,139
166,625
12.7%
FY 02 -03
200,300
30,991
169,309
15.5%
FY 03 -04
239,217
37,375
201,842
15.6%
FY 04 -05
281,855
56,422
225,433
20.0%
FY 05 -06
300,121
77,734
222,387
25.9%
FY 06 -07
290,865
69,117
221,748
23.8%
FY 07 -08
296,473
86,443
210,030
29.2%
Percent Change FY 00 -01 — FY 07 -08
Total 56% 227% 28%
Average Annual 6.5% 18.5% 3.6%
Source: Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management.
The 2008 diversion rate may be divided into categories to characterize the amount of
recycling and disposal by material. The two highest waste diversion rates occur in glass and
metal recycling, at 57.8 and 59.8 percent, respectively, which may be due to the HI -5
December 2009 4 -3
4.0 RECYCLING, B1000NVERSION, AND MARKETS
Beverage Container Deposit Program instituted by the State of Hawai'i. Exhibit 2 -18
presents the 2008 diversion rate by waste category.
Although the current diversion rate is more than 29 percent, there is a large amount of
recycling being conducted independently by private businesses that is presently not being
tracked or measured by the County. These recycling efforts from the private sector
significantly increase the overall diversion rate, especially in the paper and plastic waste
categories. The current status of recycling, bioconversion, and marketing efforts in Hawaii
County is described below.
4.3.1 Hawaii County /State of Hawaii Programs
Hawai'i County offers recycling services through various state and county programs. The
County utilizes recycling and transfer stations as collection points for the majority of
recycled material from residents. Recycled material accepted at these locations includes
paper products, green waste, scrap metal, glass, and redeemable beverage containers
through the State of Hawai'i Beverage Container Deposit Program. The County has also
initiated programs for tire disposal, disposal of fats, oils, and greases (FOGs), and
composting.
To encourage recycling and bioconversion activities, Hawai'i County provides public
education and awareness programs for residents. These education programs are discussed
in Section 5.0, Public Education and Information. Another part of recycling involves proper
diversion of household hazardous wastes and household appliances and electronics.
Household hazardous waste and electronics recycling programs will be discussed in
Section 6.0, Household Hazardous Waste and Electronic Waste.
4.3.1.1 County Recycling and Transfer Stations
The County operates 21 recycling and transfer stations for residents to drop off recyclable
materials and garbage. A new recycling and transfer station is currently being proposed for
Ocean View near the southern end of the island. Most of the recycling and transfer stations
currently have a Two -Bin Recycling Area which consists of dropoff bins for mixed
recyclables (paper, plastic, and metal), and a separate bin for glass. Some of these recycling
and transfer stations also serve as collection points for other types of recyclable materials.
Exhibit 4 -2 lists the recycling and transfer stations and the type of recyclable materials
accepted at each location.
The County is presently expanding recycling activities at the recycling and transfer stations
by creating recycling and reuse centers (RRCs). The Kea'au Recycling and Transfer Station,
referred to as the KRRC, was the first to be developed into a full -time recycling and reuse
center. New full or part -time reuse centers will be developed at recycling and transfer
stations in Hilo, Kealakehe, Pahoa, Waimea, Laupahoehoe, Keauhou, Waiohinu, Hawi, and
Volcano. In addition, the County is in the process of a complete redesign of the recycling
and transfer stations by reconfiguring the site area and improving signage to promote
recycling activities by residents. The County is also evaluating the potential of commercial
recycled material being accepted at all recycling and transfer stations.
4 -4 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
EXHIBIT 4 -2
Hawaii County Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations
East Hawaii
Kea'au (KRRC)
X
X
X
a�
a�
X
Hilo
X
ayi
X
X
c
o
Pahoa
X
X
X
Laupahoehoe
X
X
X
E N
-0
Recycling and Transfer Station
f4
1C v
i
U)
y
ui a
East Hawaii
Kea'au (KRRC)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hilo
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pahoa
X
X
X
Laupahoehoe
X
X
X
X
Honoka'a
X
X
X
Kalapana
X
X
Volcano
X
X
Glenwood
X
X
Honomu
X
X
X
Papaikou
X
X
Pa'auilo
Pahala
X
West Hawaii
Kealakehe (Kailua)
X
X
X
X
X
Keauhou
X
X
X
X
Ka'auhuhu (Hawi)
X
X
X
Puako
X
X
X
Waimea
X
X
X
Ke'ei
X
X
Waiea
X
X
Miloli'i
Waiohinu
X
X
X
Note: Hilo, Kea'au, and Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Stations contain separate bins for
newspaper and cardboard
December 2009 4 -5
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
4.3.1.2 HI -5 Beverage Container Deposit Program
The State of Hawai'i enacted a new Beverage Container Deposit Program in late 2004.
Otherwise known as the "Bottle Bill," a 5a redeemable deposit is placed on each beverage
container, as defined under the law. Consumers may then return the container to redeem
their 5a at any redemption center. Other details of the Program include the following:
• A U non - refundable container fee is assessed to support the costs of recycling and
program administration.
• Redeemable containers are marked with a "HI 5a" or " Hawai'i 5a" label.
• The container size is limited to 68 ounces (2 liters) or smaller.
• The beverage type consists of non - alcoholic drinks (soda, water, coffee, tea, juice) and
limited alcoholic drinks (beer, malt beverages, mixed spirits, and mixed wine).
• The container material includes aluminum, glass, bi- metal, and plastic ( #1 and #2 only).
The annual redemption rate for the fiscal year 2008 (FY 07 -08) in the state of Hawai'i (June 1,
2007 through June 30, 2008) was at 72 percent, which represents approximately 680 million
recycled beverage containers. This was a 4- percent increase from the prior year rate of
68 percent. In FY 08, Hawai'i County's HI -5 estimated annual redemption rate reached an
all time high of 90 percent, up from 81 percent last years. Redemption Centers report that
approximately 116 million containers were redeemed on the Big Island last year.
Hawai'i County provides Certified Redemption Centers (CRCs) for consumers to redeem
their HI -5 beverage containers at select recycling and transfer stations (see Exhibit 4 -3 for
locations). Additionally, Hawai'i County offers free recycling bins for collection of HI -5
beverage containers special events. The recycling bins consist of an easy -to- transport,
lightweight steel frame that uses a clear bag to hold HI -5 beverages. Reservations are
required and the County makes the recycling containers available on a first come, first serve
basis.
4.3.1.3 Green Waste Mulching and DropofP Opportunities
Hawai'i County designated sites at the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL) and Kealakehe
Recycling and Transfer Station for processing green waste and untreated wood pallets. The
Kea'au Recycling and Transfer Station also includes a roll -off bin for residents to deposit
green waste; the green waste is then hauled to a mulching facility located at the SHSL site
for processing. The County contracts with a private business to process the green waste into
mulch for planting, gardening, and farming applications. Consumers, including both
residents and commercial entities, may drop off their green waste and pick up mulch at the
Hilo Landfill and Kealakehe locations. Currently, dropoff is free and the mulch is made
available for consumers at no charge.
Future actions planned by the County involve soliciting proposals from private companies
to operate island -wide green waste recycling collection sites. The proposed green waste
collection sites would be conveniently located at or in close proximity to current recycling
1 The redemption rate is estimated using data from the Department of Health on the number of deposit containers redeemed
on the Big Island from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 and the County's estimates on number of deposit containers sold based
on defacto population.
4 -6 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
and transfer stations. Residential green waste disposal would continue without incurring a
disposal fee; however commercial green waste would be charged a fee, as set by the County
or the selected contractor(s).
4.3.1.4 Home Composting
Hawai'i County promotes and educates residents on composting through Recycle Hawai'i,
a tax - exempt, educational organization. Recycle Hawai'i and the County DEM initiated a
program to furnish multiple Hawai'i schools and residents with composting bins called
Earth Machines. Based on availability, residents may request Earth Machines for their
homes; various workshops and educational programs are provided to the participants in the
program.
4.3.1.5 Recent Bioconversion Requests for Proposals
The County issued two requests for proposals (RFPs) during 2008 for projects that would
dramatically increase the quantity of organics diverted from landfill. The first is for a 10 -acre
composting and biodiesel production that has been designed by the County and is located
at the West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill (WHSL). The plan is that the selected contractor will
process collected green waste, untreated wood, biosolids, and /or organic materials into
mulch, compost, soil amendments and /or other landscaping products. The second is an RFF
for contractors to develop dropoff facilities for green waste and possibly other organics at or
near each of its 21 recycling and transfer stations. As of the second quarter of 2009, the
County has not funded either of these projects. The ultimate schedule for implementation of
these projects will depend on the availability of funds in upcoming budgets.
4.3.1.6 Scrap Metal
Scrap metal may be dropped off at Hilo, Kealakehe, and Kea'au Recycling and Transfer
Stations. The Kea'au Recycling and Transfer Station only accepts residential scrap metal, but
the Hilo and Kealakehe recycling and transfer stations accept both commercial and
residential scrap metal. The scrap metal is sorted by a County- approved contractor and sold
to brokers for shipment to the mainland or Asian markets.
To assist with the removal of abandoned vehicles, Hawai'i County developed an
Abandoned Vehicle Removal Program. Under the program, abandoned vehicles may be
hauled by a contractor to either the Hilo or Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Stations after
certain procedures have been followed by the Police and DEM.
4.3.1.7 Tire Program
Hawai'i County approved an ordinance in 2008 prohibiting all tires and parts of tires being
disposed of at the SHSL and WHSL. Consumers may drop off used tires at select tire
company locations, and companies generating tire waste are required to recycle. Recycling
options include baling and then shipping the tires to the West Coast to be ground or
crumbed, or shipping the tires to the AES power plant in O'ahu and utilized for fuel. Tire
recycling contractors may also assist in tire collection and disposal.
December 2009 4 -7
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
4.3.1.8 Fats, Oils, and Grease Program
The Hilo and Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Stations accept waste cooking oil and FOGs
from permitted haulers. The waste cooking oil and FOGs are placed in 300- to 500 - gallon
totes and shipped to either O'ahu or Maui for processing at a biodiesel facility.
As a component of the composting request for proposal, Hawai'i County will be soliciting
proposals to operate the biodiesel operation of West Hawai'i Compost and Biodiesel
Facility. The biodiesel operation would accept cooking oil, FOGs, and grease trap waste
from the County and other private sources. The waste would be processed into clean
burning biodiesel and sold as a fuel to consumers.
4.3.2 Private Sector Programs
Many businesses in the private sector develop in -house recycling programs. These
programs are often not tracked by Hawai'i County but may constitute a large percentage of
recycled materials. Some larger businesses have sophisticated systems to document the
amount of recycled material generated, while smaller businesses sometimes do not carefully
track the amount of materials that they recycle. In general, however, most businesses are
willing to document and share the data that they collect with the County.
4.3.2.1 Curbside Collection of Recyclables
Private contractors provide HI -5 beverage container redemption services at their business
locations, community centers, and schools, or through mobile redemption units. Contractors
and nonprofit groups also pick up paper products, such as mixed office paper, newspapers,
and cardboard. The recycled materials are generally sold to brokers on the mainland.
No island wide or large -scale curbside recycling program is currently implemented in
Hawaii County. Although pilot curbside recycling programs have previously been
implemented by private waste haulers, they have not been sustained due to various
logistical, technical, and financial challenges.
4.3.2.2 Large Retail Business Recycling
Large retailers, such as Wal -mart, Kmart, Costco, Home Depot, and others maintain in-
house recycling programs at their stores. Cardboard and plastic (plastic bags and shrink
wrap) constitute the majority of the materials recycled at these large retailers. Recycling
quantities may range from a couple of bales of combined cardboard and plastic per week up
to twenty bales per week for the largest retailers; each bale averages approximately 800 to
1,000 pounds. Depending on the retailer, HI -5 beverage containers, mixed paper, wood
pallets, batteries, and light bulbs are also recycled at the stores.
Data provided during interviews conducted with many of the retailers indicates that most
of the materials, especially cardboard and plastic, are shipped either to the West Coast to
third -party brokers or to the retailer's distribution center. Other recycled materials are
picked up by permitted haulers.
4.3.2.3 Composting
Several private businesses operate composting facilities on the island. Generally, these
facilities accept green waste from local residents at no charge, and offer mulch and compost
4 -8 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
products to consumers. One operator is reported to process as much as 350 cubic yards of
green waste per month. Some of the challenges facing such businesses include cost of
operation, and lack of public education about the benefits of recycling green waste and
using the resulting products. There is a significant existing and potential market for the
mulch and compost products generated from such facilities.
4.3.2.4 Metals Recycling
In general, metals (ferrous and nonferrous) are recycled and sorted by a County contractor
at the Hilo, Kealakehe, and Kea'au recycling and transfer stations. However, there is also a
booming scrap metal business in the private sector, spurred on by the current spike in scrap
metal prices. Certain contractors have obtained solid waste permits to collect and sort scrap
metal at their facilities. The metal is sold to brokers for markets in the mainland and Asia.
4.3.2.5 Tires
Multiple haulers collect and bale tires and tire parts for shipment to the West Coast or
O'ahu for processing into ground and crumbed materials for use as fuel at the H -Power
waste to energy facility. One contractor utilizes the tires to make concrete tire blocks used in
decorative walls. The contractor is currently attempting to gain approval from the State of
Hawai'i to allow contractors to use the tire blocks as a component in structural walls.
4.3.3 Current Material Markets and Market Development Initiatives
Currently the primary markets for various types of recycled materials generated within
Hawai'i County include local businesses, and larger manufacturing or recycling facilities in
the U.S. Mainland and Asia. The majority of recycled materials generated within the County
are either sold to brokers or shipped directly to buyers in the U.S. Mainland and Asia. Only
a small percentage of materials are processed and reused locally. As a result, the cost of the
County's recycling programs is highly dependent on remote market prices for recycled
materials. In the fall of 2008, market prices paid for County recyclables fell by up to
80 percent over a two -month period, which had a profound negative impact on the cost of
recycling. On the other hand, during 2007 market prices for most recyclables were well
above what was projected when contracts with private recyclers were negotiated. This
underscores the financial risk to the County of shipping materials off - island to remote
markets, and the potential advantages of developing sustainable local markets for
recyclables.
Some examples of local and mainland markets are described below.
4.3.3.1 Mulch and Compost Products
Local businesses including landscapers, contractors, and public agencies utilize mulch and
composted materials produced locally. Residents use compost and mulch in both residential
and agricultural applications. It is likely that 100 percent of the materials produced through
recycling of green waste can be utilized locally. One local composting business reported that
they are selling compost for $3 per cubic yard. The County offers mulch free to residents at
the SHSL and the Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Station.
December 2009 4 -9
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
4.3.3.2 Cooking Oil, Fats, Oils and Grease
During the past 5 years several commercial businesses in Hawai'i have been established to
recycle used cooking oil and FOGs in the production of biodiesel. Several commercial
ventures are currently evaluating the construction of facilities within Hawai'i County. As
noted above, the County plans to contract for the operation of a biodiesel production facility
at the WHSL. It is likely that a large percentage of these waste materials generated locally
could eventually be utilized in the production of alternative fuels. Data were not available
for the value of used FOGs; however, the biodiesel produced using such materials is
currently selling at a price slightly higher than that of refined diesel fuel.
4.3.3.3 Paper
Currently much of the recycled paper and cardboard generated on the island is either
shipped to the U.S. mainland or Asia for reuse. Several local businesses accept newspaper
for recycling, and produce shredded paper products used primarily by the local agriculture
businesses. Businesses interviewed indicated that 100 percent of the materials that they
produce through recycling are purchased by local farmers for use in growing and shipping
of agricultural products and flowers.
4.3.3.4 Plastics
Plastic containers ( #1 and #2) are included in the HI -5 Redemption Program. Other plastics
including plastic shopping bags are baled and shipped to overseas markets. There is a local
business that has conducted successful pilot tests of a process that processes film plastics
into growing medium for orchids.
4.3.3.5 Glass
Currently, glass is both recycled (or reused) in the county and shipped to the U.S. mainland
or Asia for remanufacturing. A significant amount of glass is crushed for use in local
construction projects. The County Solid Waste Division often specifies glasscrete (10 percent
of aggregate is replaced with crushed glass), and uses crushed glass for backfill behind
retaining walls. More could be done to use glass for County construction projects.
Several smaller businesses exist within the County that use recycled glass for the production
of artistic, architectural, or educational products: the market for these products is somewhat
limited.
The potential exists to develop local markets serving the construction industry that would
recycle most or all of the glass containers generated in the County. Doing so would require
marketing and promotion efforts, changing specifications and regulations, and developing
additional processing infrastructure. Products such as glassphalt or reflective materials used
in signage could potentially be produced on the island, but require development of
infrastructure, equipment, and /or facilities to accommodate the manufacture of these
materials.
The HDOH recently changed the handling fee paid to redemption center operators. The fee
was lowered from 3 cents per container to 2 cents per container for on- island use, and was
increased to 4 cents per container for remanufacturing, which translates to shipping and off -
island processing because there are no glass remanufacturers on the island. County Solid
4 -10 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
Waste Division staff believe that paying more for off - island reuse and remanufacturing than
for on- island use is a barrier to developing local markets for glass. Developing local markets
for glass has a number of benefits including: saving natural resources by not having to mine
raw materials, eliminating diesel fuel use associated with shipping glass to off - island
markets, and creating local jobs.
4.3.3.6 Metals
There are limited facilities on the Big Island for processing scrap metal. The bulk of the scrap
metal generated in the County is shipped either to O'ahu for processing and subsequent
shipment to the U.S. mainland of Asian markets, or shipped directly to those markets.
During the last decade, scrap metal value increased steadily until the financial crisis of late
2008, at which time market prices plummeted. Due to its weight, the processing required to
ship scrap metal, and distance to markets, processing and shipping costs will likely continue
to impact the economics of selling scrap metal.
4.3.3.7 Market Development Initiatives
The County helps provide incentives for recycling through its diversion incentive program.
In this program, the County issues requests for proposals for companies to process and
market and /or collect recyclable materials. Currently, it has contracts with companies for
processing paper, metals, plastics, glass, FOG, latex paint and green waste. It also contracts
with a company for collecting and processing mixed recyclables and glass at its recycling
and transfer stations.
4.3.4 Hawaii County Staffing Levels
Successful delivery of local government waste reduction programs requires devoting an
appropriate amount of resources including staffing. Hawaii County has demonstrated its
commitment to waste reduction and recycling by assigning the following staff to County
waste reduction and recycling programs:
• One full -time recycling coordinator
• Two FTE recycling specialists for the HI -5 recycling program
• Two FTE recycling specialists
• One part -time student helper
In addition, using funds provided by the County of Hawaii, Recycle Hawaii employs three
part -time education specialists, who are responsible for educating the public about waste
reduction and recycling programs on the north, west and east portions of the island,
respectively. Recycle Hawai'i also has other personnel that do education at KRRC and other
various workshops and community events.
• 7 =-
As described above, a number of recycling, bioconversion, and marketing activities have
been recently conducted in the County of Hawaii, including programs and initiatives by
both the County as well as other organizations. In spite of these efforts, the County recycling
rate is just under 30 percent, which is well below its 2008 target of 50 percent. There is more
that could be done by the County and waste generators to treat materials as resources and
December 2009 4 -11
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
further reduce landfill garbage. The need to implement additional programs and policies is
further established by the County's commitment to zero waste.
H�WTPR 652MMOT
Pursuant to HRS 342G -26, an overview of various options that could be implemented to
improve recycling and bioconversion and solidify markets follows. These options were
developed based on successful initiatives implemented in other jurisdictions that may be
applicable and appropriate for Hawaii County. Note that the options focus on recycling
and bioconversion; waste reduction and reuse are discussed in Section 3.0, Source
Reduction, and public education is discussed in Section 5.0, Public Education and
Information.
4.5.1 Increase Green Waste Drop -off Opportunities at Recycling
and Transfer Stations
As discussed above, green waste can be dropped off at the Hilo, Kealakehe, and Kea'au
recycling and transfer stations. The County plans to issue a request for proposals for private
firms to provide green waste collection sites for materials at or near each of the other 18
recycling and transfer stations.
Diversion Potential. Using results from the County's 2008 waste composition study,
assuming 50 percent of the green waste currently being disposed at recycling and transfer
stations could be diverted through a drop off program, this green waste collection program
might result in additional recycling of 4,900 tons. This estimate assumes no green waste
curbside collection program is implemented and recycling and transfer stations remain open
legally only to residents. Additional quantities could be captured with rigorous enforcement
of a green waste disposal ban and /or by allowing small commercial customers to
participate in the program.
Estimated Cost. The current cost of green waste processing is approximately $37 per ton.
Extending the program to all stations that are further from County mulching facilities and
that have less frequent traffic would probably increase this cost by 20 to 40 percent for a
total annual cost increase of approximately $650,000 to $800,000.
4.5.2 Residential Curbside Collection and Processing of Recyclables
In this option, the County would collect
recyclables from single family residents or
contract with a private collection firm for the
service. There is a wide variety of curbside
recycling programs in use in North America
today. They can generally be grouped into two
types: multi- stream and single stream systems.
A third type, co- collection, in which bags of
garbage and recycling are collected in a single
vehicle, is becoming less popular because of
contamination concerns and low participation rates. A brief discussion of multi- stream and
single stream recycling and some other important considerations follows.
4 -12 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
4.5.2.1 Multi- Stream Recycling
With multi- stream systems, households place recyclables into rectangular containers, bags,
or bundles and place them at the curb. The collector lifts materials by hand into multiple
compartments on the collection vehicle. Glass is often separated from other materials in
order to avoid high contamination of fiber and fiber processing difficulties that can result
when broken glass is present. Most programs sort materials into two or three types of
commodities, but five to seven materials sorts are done in some programs.
Advantages
• More thoroughly separating differing types of materials generally results in higher
recycled material quality and market prices.
Can reinforce zero waste principles by raising consumer awareness that sorted materials
are valuable resources.
Disadvantages
• Requires more effort by householders to sort materials.
• Requires a higher level of effort by haulers, resulting in higher collection costs.
4.5.2.2 Single- Stream Recycling
In recent years, there has been a movement towards single- stream recycling systems in
which all dry recyclables are placed into a single rolling carte. The cart is lifted using a
hydraulic lifting arm attached to a collection vehicle. This more automated type of system
lowers collection costs. The lowest cost per ton of material recycled is typically achieved by
single stream recycling with fully automated collection in which a single driver can collect
material from many stops without leaving the cab of the truck (see photo below).
Advantages
• Generally results in the highest rate of
diversion of materials from landfill.
• Simpler system for participants to use because
all materials are combined in a single bin and
no sorting is necessary.
• Lower cost per ton of material recycled
because of higher resident participation rates
combined with automated collection efficiency
(lower collection costs).
• Results in fewer injuries to collection workers and corresponding workers compensation
claims because no lifting or handling of materials is required.
Disadvantages
• Higher contamination of recyclables: significant effort is required to ensure that
residents maintain material quality.
2 MSW Management Magazine (July /August 2007) reports the results of a 2005 study that indicated single stream collection
was used in 27 percent of U.S. recycling programs in 2005 compared with 10 percent in 2000.
December 2009 4 -13
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
• Requires sophisticated materials processing facilities and equipment, as well as good
communication with processors and end -use markets to ensure that manufacturing (raw
material quality) requirements are met.
Higher initial capital cost because of the cost of carts ($45 to $60 each on the U.S.
Mainland).
• Fully automated systems require higher initial and long -term capital costs because
mechanically complex trucks are needed, that have more rigorous long -term
maintenance requirements.
4.5.2.3 Service Standards
Curbside collection is generally offered on a subscription basis, or made mandatory for
some or all single - family residents within a jurisdiction. Hawai'i County is predominantly
rural in character with relatively small urban and suburban areas in Hilo, Kona, Waimea,
and a few other locations. Many of the rural areas within the County have steep,
unimproved roads not suitable for collection vehicles. Thus, mandatory curbside collection
for all County residents is likely to be impractical. Further, longer distances between
collection stops will occur in many of the geographically dispersed small communities in
the County. A voluntary subscription service, for which not all residents would sign up,
would potentially make the distance between collection stops even longer. For program cost
efficiency, it is recommended that this option should include designated zones where
curbside service would be mandatory.
For the purpose of developing diversion and cost estimates, a rough analysis of housing
units in Census Designated Places was conducted. The result was an estimate of
37,000 households that would be served by the program, which is about 73 percent of the
estimated 51,300 occupied single family households in Hawai'i County3.
Collection frequency could be weekly or bi- weekly. Weekly collection generally is more
costly, but can potentially result in somewhat higher diversion from landfill. The collection
frequency could be evaluated during a pilot program and determined at a later date.
4.5.2.4 Processing
The processing requirements for the collection program would need to be determined. The
economics of material recovery facilities are characterized by substantial economies of scale.
It is likely that the County's most cost - effective strategy to bale commingled recyclables and
ship them to the U.S. Mainland for processing (as is currently done with mixed recyclables
collected at County recycling and transfer stations). The resulting requirements for a County
processing facility would consist of a covered building with space to store incoming
materials, one or more balers for densifying materials, and equipment and facilities to load
shipping containers for transportation to markets.
It is likely that one or more new processing facilities would be needed to support this
program. The cost of developing and operating several smaller storage and baling facilities
would need to be weighed against the costs and other impacts of trucks hauling materials
3 Based on data from U.S. Census 2006 Selected Housing Characteristics (single - family was counted as dwellings with 1 to
4 units), and 2000 -2006 annual growth rate used to project 2008 total occupied housing units (63,347).
4 -14 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
long distances to a central facility. The most likely potential locations for such facilities
would be in East Hawai'i (Hilo), one in West Hawai'i (Kona) and one in the Waimea area.
4.5.2.5 Other Considerations
There are a number of other factors that should be considered when evaluating curbside
recycling:
• Collection is typically performed through a contracting mechanism with a private
service provider, although many cities and counties collect recyclables using municipal
workers. This decision would need to be made with State contracting laws in mind.
• There a many different ways of organizing the collection of garbage, recyclables, and
green waste/ organics. The program must be integrated with other collection programs.
If curbside recyclable collection were implemented in Hawai'i County, it would be
costly to collect both at curbside and at all 21 of the County's recycling and transfer
stations.
• Pilot programs and consumer research should be conducted prior to full -scale
implementation to develop data that can be used to refine and tailor the program to the
needs of the various communities within the County.
• Education and promotion of the program would be critical to success.
Diversion Potential. Curbside recycling has the potential to divert significant quantities of
material from County landfills. The extent of diversion could vary significantly depending
on the type of program that is instituted and other factors such as those presented in
Exhibit 4 -3. Some of the more successful curbside recycling programs in the United States
report collection rates of 500 to 1,000 pounds of recyclable materials per participating single -
family household per year. For example, Seattle reported dry recyclables collection of
876 pounds per participating household per year in 20074. A 2007 analysis of 134 curbside
recycling programs in Ontario found a collection rate of 339 pounds per participating
household per years.
In FY 08, 5,557 tons of dry recyclables were collected from County recycling and transfer
stations, which is approximately 175 pounds per household per year. Using results from the
County's 2008 waste composition study, assuming 37,000 households would be served and
material capture rates of 80 percent for most recyclables (like paper, cardboard, and
containers), a recycling program would result in additional recycling of 8,800 tons, which is
about 460 pounds per participating household per year, or about 635 pounds per
participating household per year including materials currently being collected from County
recycling and transfer stations.
4 See http: / /www.seattle.gov /util /stelient /groups/ public /2spu /2usm /documents /webcontent /spuOl 003756.pdf
5 Wilson, Bruce. A Comparative Analysis of Ontario's Recycling Programs. 2007. Proceedings, Papers, and PowerPoint
presentations of the ISWA World Congress.
December 2009 4 -15
4.0 RECYCLING, B1000NVERSION, AND MARKETS
EXHIBIT 4 -3
Factors Affecting Curbside Recycling Rates
Estimated Recycling Rate
Program Feature Impact (in percentage points)
Variable garbage collection rates
+5 to 6
Weekly recycling collection
+2 to 4
Add additional materials
+2 to 4
Commingled collection
+1 to 3
Sources: California Integrated Waste Board. 2002. Curbside
Recycling, the Next Generation: A Model for Local Government
Recycling and Waste Reduction. Accessed at
http: / /www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ publications /default.asp ?pubid =969
Estimated Cost. The cost of curbside recycling ranges significantly for different programs.
Factors that influence costs are similar to those that affect the amount of recycling such as:
• Costs increase with the frequency of collection (for example, weekly versus bi- weekly).
One recent study estimated only a small reduction in diversion, but as much as a
40- percent reduction in collection costs by moving from weekly to bi- weekly service6.
• Subscription versus mandatory service (mandatory collection has a higher total cost but
lower cost per household because the travel distance between stops is reduced).
• If recyclable materials are separated versus commingled, more collection time is
required at each stop, thus increasing costs.
• Costs are higher in more rural the service areas (because of longer distances and
increased travel time between stops).
• Shipping costs increase with distance to markets.
Information about the extent to which various factors affect the cost of recycling are shown
in Exhibit 4 -4.
The EPA reports that typical costs for curbside recycling range from $2.75 to $5 per
household per month7. However, costs can be considerably higher. For example, the City of
Calgary, Alberta's new curbside collection program costs residents $8 per month$. All of
these costs assume that there is a curbside garbage service in place. Should the County of
Hawai'i implement curbside recycling in the absence of curbside garbage or green waste
collection, costs would be relatively high because administration, billing, overhead, vehicle
maintenance, training, and other costs would be applied only to recycling and would not be
spread over the cost of multiple services.
6 Skumatz Economic Research Associates. 2008. Roadmap for Moving Recycling and Diversion Forward in Colorado:
Strategies, Recommendations, and Implications.
7 http: / /www.epa.gov /osw /conserve/ tools /localgov /economics /collection.htm
8htto: / /content.calaa rv.ca /CCA /City +Hall/ Business+ Units /Waste+ and +Recvclina +Services /City +Initiatives /Curbside +Recvclin
+Program /Calgary+ Launches+ Curbside +Recycling +Program +in +2009.htm
4 -16 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
EXHIBIT 4 -4
Factors Affecting Curbside Recycling Costs
Estimated Cost
Program Feature Increase or Decrease
Commingled collection 20 to 35% decrease
Less than weekly collection 20 to 40% decrease
Mandatory recycling 10 to 25% decrease
Long program history 10 to 25% decrease
Automating collection 5 to 15% increase
Adding variable rates 10 to 20% increase
Adding new materials 15 to 35% increase
Source: California Integrated Waste Board. 2002. Curbside
Recycling, the Next Generation: A Model for Local
Government Recycling and Waste Reduction. Accessed at
http: / /www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ publications /default.asp ?pubid =969
Depending on the types of issues discussed above, the cost of curbside recycling could vary
significantly. A curbside recycling only system, without garbage or yard waste, but
including material processing and marketing, would require development of significant
collection infrastructure and would probably cost $20 to $30 per household per month. The
costs would likely be significantly less if the service was combined with curbside garbage
and /or green waste collection.
4.5.3 Residential Curbside Collection and Processing of Green Waste
In this option, the County would collect green waste from single -
family residents or contract with a private collection firm for the
service. The choice of County collection versus private collection
would need to be made with State contracting laws in mind.
In this type of program, materials are typically collected in bags or
plastic bins provided by residents or the local government. While
some systems are used for bulk collection without containers,
these are typically only used seasonally in the fall for leaf
collection9_ Types of bags or containers and associated advantages
and disadvantages of each type of container follow.
Plastic bags. Relatively inexpensive, convenient, but a significant problem for processors
because the cost of removing all plastic from the organics results either in contaminated
low - quality feedstock, extremely high -cost bag removal methods, or both. Grass in
plastic bags can go anaerobic and become odorous when opened at the compost facility.
Most green waste collection programs now prohibit collection of green waste in plastic
bags.
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Composting Yard Trimmings and Municipal Solid Waste. Accessed at
http: / /www.epa.gov /osw /conserve /rrr /composting /pubs /cytmsw.pdf
December 2009 4 -17
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
Compostable bags. Somewhat less convenient than plastic bins and
expensive over the long term for households which is likely to lower
recovery rates. Bags cost $0.50 to $1.00 per bag. The bags compost well
and avoid the contamination issues associated with plastic bags.
claims.
4.5.3.1 Service Standards
Like curbside collection, it is recommended that any green waste collection program should
be a mandatory program for more densely populated single family neighborhoods to
increase efficiency and reduce operating costs. Further, it is recommended that the program
include rolling carts loaded using semi- automated of fully- automated equipment.
4.5.3.2 Processing Requirements
The County currently contracts for green waste processing (into mulch) at sites at the SHSL
and the Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Station, and it is currently in the process of
contracting for development and operation of a composting facility at the WHSL. To
minimize transportation costs, it would be advantageous to develop another processing
facility in the Waimea area. If that facility is developed, there will be sufficient capacity to
process the material. However, mulching produces a relatively low value product that is
less desirable than compost or soil products made from compost. After the West Hawai'i
compost facility is operational, the County should evaluate the costs and benefits of
developing a similar facility in East Hawai'i and possibly in the Waimea area. This is
recommended regardless of whether or not curbside green waste collection is implemented.
4.5.3.3 Other Considerations
The other considerations that apply to curbside recycling also apply to curbside green
waste:
• A decision would need to be made if collection would be provided by County workers
or under a contract with a private service provider consistent with State contracting
laws.
• The program must be integrated with other collection programs and with the current
green waste services provided at County recycling and transfer stations.
• Pilot programs and consumer research should be conducted prior to full -scale
implementation to develop data that can be used to refine and tailor the program to the
needs of the various communities within the County.
• Education and promotion of the program would be critical to success.
4 -18 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
Diversion Potential. Using results from the County's 2008 waste composition study,
assuming about 37,000 households would be served and a 90 percent capture rate, a green
waste collection program might result in additional recycling of 5,600 tons. This estimate
assumes no extra green waste from collection at recycling and transfer stations.
Estimated Cost. The factors affecting the cost of curbside recycling discussed above would
also help determine the cost of green waste collection. Costs would depend on what other
curbside services are provided (for example, garbage, recycling). Curbside collection of
green waste including processing and material marketing would probably cost between
$20 and $30 per household per month.
4.5.4 Add Food and Other Organics to a Residential Curbside Recycling
and Green Waste Collection Program
Throughout the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, many large and small communities
with a commitment to zero waste are modifying their waste collection programs to include
food and other organics such as food - spoiled paper. Some examples of existing programs
and how they are organized follow:
San Francisco: Weekly collection of garbage, recyclables,
and organics in plastic 32- gallon rolling carts. Fully -
automated collection with garbage and recyclables in a
dual collection truck (separate compartments for each
material), organics in a separate truck. Variable rate for
garbage. No curbside green waste collection.
• Seattle: Starting in 2009, service will be same as San Francisco with variable rates and
can sizes for both garbage and organics. Major difference is that all streams are collected
in separate trucks (no dual collection trucks).
• Toronto: Weekly collection of organics in 20- gallon rolling carts, and recyclables and
garbage collected on alternating weeks in 32- gallon rolling cart. Variable rate for
garbage.
These three basic types of systems have been implemented in a number of communities,
both large and small. They require residents to learn new ways of managing food and other
organics and program managers must clearly communicate to residents what materials
must go in each bin. Most of these systems have some type of variable rate to encourage
behavior that minimizes garbage. In general, after initial pilot testing and consumer
research, these programs have typically been well received by residents. Current research
efforts are focusing on ways to increase participation by residents: many programs report
less than 30 percent of residents participate in organics recycling10. Implementation of
aggressive pay -as -you throw rates is one method communities are using to improve
participation rates.
10 Goldstein, Nora. Source Separated MSW Composting in the U.S. BioCycle December 2005, Vol. 46, No. 12, p. 20
December 2009 4 -19
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
4.5.4.1 Processing
These programs require more sophisticated composting systems. Once food is added to the
organics stream, composting must be done with some type of covered system with managed
air flows to minimize odors and prevent unsanitary feeding by birds, rodents and other
vermin. See Chapter 4.5.7 for more information about processing systems appropriate for
food and other organics.
Diversion Potential. Using results from the County's 2008 waste composition study,
assuming 37,000 households would be served and a 50 percent capture rate of food and wet
or food - soiled paper, it is estimated that 4,400 tons of food and other organics would be
collected. When combined with recyclables and green waste, the combined system is
estimated to result in additional diversion of 18,800 tons, or an amount equivalent to
23 percent of the 81,300 total tons of waste delivered to transfer stations in 2008. When the
4,800 tons currently being recycled at transfer stations are included, the program would
result in an increase in diversion equivalent to 27 percent of total current waste delivered to
recycling and transfer stations.
Note that this is considerably lower than the 50 to 70 percent diversion rates reported by
other three - stream programs. This is the result of the following two factors:
• Residents who live in multi - family dwellings and in very rural single family dwelling
would not be covered by the three- stream program, but do deliver materials to the
recycling and transfer stations.
The materials arriving at County transfer stations include materials rarely set out at the
curb by single - family residents on a routine basis such as construction and demolition
waste, metals other than containers, textiles, and special wastes.
In order to make an equivalent comparison to other residential communities, we adjusted
for these two factors. Including only the 37,000 participating households and typical
curbside commodities, the three - stream system would result in the diversion of 68 percent
of the wastes generated by those residents away from County landfills.
Estimated Cost. Rates for three - stream collection service depend on the size of containers
residents subscribe to. As examples, San Francisco and Seattle both charge approximately
$25 per month for service with 32- gallon discard and organics carts: costs are higher if larger
containers are desired. These costs include disposal, processing/ composting,
administration, education, and other costs, including the cleanup and long -term monitoring
of closed landfill sites. Based on data from the City of Seattle, it is estimated that costs for
the collection portion (excluding processing or other system charges) of the residential
monthly rate are perhaps one -third of total costs or about $7.50 per months 1.
It is estimated that the cost of a three- stream collection service in Hawaii County, including
and recyclables and organics processing and material marketing/ sales (but excluding
disposal, administration, transfer stations, and other solid waste programs), would probably
range between $50 and $60 per month for each participating household.
4 -20 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
4.5.5 Source Separation Ordinance (Mandatory Recycling) and/or
Disposal Bans with Differential Tip Fees
A growing number of local governments are adopting policies and legislation that prohibit
disposal of recyclable products and /or mandate source separation and /or recycling of those
materials. For example, in January 2006, the City of Seattle, Washington, began enforcing a
policy that all waste generators recycle. As a result of this policy, residents can lose pickup
services temporarily if their garbage contains more than 10- percent recyclable materials.
Once recycling opportunities for select materials are in place, some policies the County
could consider include the following:
• Require residents and businesses to participate in recycling and composting programs.
An ordinance could be developed that either requires residents and businesses to
source - separate recyclables, or bans the combination of designated recyclable or
compostable materials with the garbage.
• Ban readily - recyclable and reusable materials and products from landfills and /or any
future energy from waste facility.
Ban single -use disposable products from public events and festivals and as many other
places as possible.
A good discussion of mandatory recycling policies recently prepared by Portland Metro
(Oregon) 12 included the following lessons learned from communities that have
implemented such policies:
• Required recycling programs have the potential to divert a significant portion of the
waste stream and help communities meet recovery goals.
• Education and technical assistance are key factors to the implementation of mandatory
recycling requirements. Virtually all of the program managers stressed the importance
of education as a key element to a successful program.
• Using a cooperative approach with haulers, business owners, and community
organizations can build program support for required recycling and influence
participation.
• Strong commodity markets ultimately determine what is recyclable and influence
participation. It is not practical to mandate materials recycling unless the markets exist
for the materials. Therefore, any program mandating recycling should only include
recyclables with developed and stable markets in order to avoid having to change
policies in the future.
• A number of programs require the recycling of materials for which the cost of recycling
is less than or equal to the costs of proper disposal at a solid waste facility.
12 Required Recycling and Incentive Program Survey, Summary of Findings. 2002. Portland Metro Regional Environmental
Management Department.
December 2009 4 -21
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
• Enforcement is a key component of mandatory recycling requirements and disposal
bans. The most common enforcement measures used in the profiled programs include
random business inspections and landfill load inspections. Penalties for noncompliance
include warnings and fines that range from $25 to $10,000. The majority of the programs
offer an assistance period to help businesses meet the requirements.
• Adequate resources need to be budgeted to support required recycling programs. A
major impediment for communities implementing effective mandatory recycling
requirements or disposal bans is sufficient resources for enforcement measures. Five of
the nine programs noted lack of resources for enforcement measures as an obstacle to
the program's success.
• Program managers stressed that businesses will not adhere to required recycling policies
unless they fear the potential repercussions of noncompliance. In contrast, programs that
have full -time enforcement officers stated that strong enforcement can boost both the
quantity and quality of participation.
• Landfill bans can spur the market development for some materials. For example, landfill
bans of yard debris have led to the development of composting infrastructure at the
local and regional levels. In Vancouver, British Columbia, the ban on drywall has
enabled recyclers and salvagers to competitively bid on the demolition of buildings,
which has led to an increase in construction and demolition diversion from the local
landfill.
• Disposal bans require extensive promotion and education campaigns targeting the
affected parties. Durham, North Carolina, conducted a 2 -year education period before
enforcement of a disposal ban, although the city noted that a concentrated 6 -month
campaign prior to enforcement would likely be sufficient.
• Local government can influence the marketplace by the way it structures its garbage
collection rates, franchise fees, and permit fees. A number of the surveyed communities
utilize multiple incentives to reward recycling over disposal. Program managers
indicated that one of the best voluntary incentives for businesses to recycle is an
economic incentive.
• Diversion deposits provide sufficient incentive to encourage businesses to recycle. A
number of communities in California have adopted diversion or recycling deposit
systems to encourage the recovery of construction and demolition materials. Program
approaches vary and deposits range from a flat fee based on a project's total cost to fees
based on square footage and the type of project.
• The largest barrier to a diversion deposit system is the administration of the transaction
and refund process. Program managers commented that the refund turn - around process
is slow and managing the financial components of the program requires additional
resources and time. For example, San Jose's Construction and Demolition Diversion
Deposit Programs refund process takes approximately 3 weeks, which is longer than
the city originally anticipated.
The County now has mixed- material and glass -only recycling bins available at all but one of
its recycling and transfer stations. Thus, residents currently have ample opportunity to
4 -22 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
recycle these materials. If the County is successful in implementing green waste collection
points at or near most of its recycling and transfer stations, the situation will be similar for
green waste.
These materials would be good candidates for inclusion in a source separation ordinance or
disposal ban. Enforcement would be the main challenge because there is relatively little
monitoring and no enforcement authority currently in place at recycling and transfer
stations. Prior to enacting the ordinance, the County should conduct an extensive education
and promotion program that highlights the reasons for the ordinance and the recycling
options available to residents. For a period of 6 months to a year before enacting the
ordinance, the County should have signage prominently displayed at each station that
announces the pending ordinance and clarifies recycling options.
Once enacted, it is recommended that initial enforcement should be less stringent (that is,
encourage, but not strictly enforce compliance so as to minimize conflicts and the potential
for illegal dumping). More strict enforcement, such as fining those not in compliance, would
require significant changes to the authority and role of environmental management or
transfer station security employees, or subcontracting this function to a suitable security
provider. Such changes could be considered if less stringent enforcement proves ineffective.
For the commercial sector, the County could consider a similar ordinance that would apply
at its landfills to readily recyclable materials such as cardboard, green waste, and metals. At
its landfills, it should make opportunities for drop -off of all banned materials. Drop -off
would be free (like at the transfer stations) except the County could charge a fee for green
waste and metals that is less than the fee for garbage. This would help encourage on -site use
of green waste and diverting metals to private recyclers. The ordinance could be enforced
by banning these materials from landfill, with a penalty of two times the regular disposal
rate if loads are found containing the banned materials.
Diversion Potential. A nationwide study of recycling and green waste programs indicated
that mandatory participation 13 resulted in a 4- to 5- percentage point increase in green waste
diversion but no statistically significant increase in recyclables diversion. Similar results
would probably result for Hawai'i County, although it may be that some increase in
recycling would occur.
Estimated Cost. Costs would include a one -time cost for the education and promotion
campaign and for signage at all transfer stations. This would probably cost between $30,000
and $100,000 depending on implementation details. Enforcement costs could be relatively
small if little action is taken, or they could be substantial if additional staff or subcontracted
security personnel are assigned to each recycling and transfer station during the initial
implementation period.
4.5.6 Commercial Recycling and Green Waste Program
While there are some businesses and institutions that currently recycle, there is considerable
opportunity to increase recycling from the non - residential sector. Because current markets
13 Skumatz, Lisa. 1996. Nationwide Diversion Rate Study, Quantifying Effects of Program Choices on Recycling and Green
Waste Diversion: Beyond Case Studies. Reason Foundation Policy Study, No. 214. Accessed at:
http://www.reason.org/ps2l4.htmi
December 2009 4 -23
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
for most recyclables are in Asia or the U.S. Mainland, the cost of shipping recyclables to
markets makes recycling less cost - effective for businesses than it is in most U.S. Mainland
communities. Much of the non - residential recycling currently results from backhaul
opportunities, or generation of large quantities of valuable materials such as metals which
are currently experiencing record high prices. It is likely that in order to increase the rate of
non - residential recycling, the County will need to take regulatory steps to drive the process.
Regulatory measures may include the following elements:
Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation Ordinance. Adopt a mandatory recycling
ordinance that requires all businesses and institutions to recycle an approved list of
commodities. That list could include cardboard, metals, green waste, and perhaps other
select commodities.
2. Business Recycling at Recycling and Transfer Stations. Mandatory recycling could be
expensive for smaller firms that do not generate much waste (such as small offices or
retail operations). Thus, the County should change the permits that govern its recycling
and transfer stations to allow small businesses and institutions to drop off materials.
Businesses would still be prohibited from disposing of waste at stations. At stations
where space is available, the County should provide additional bins for source
separated cardboard to accommodate small business recycling efforts.
If accommodating small business recycling at the stations is not acceptable or feasible,
the mandatory recycling ordinance should provide an exemption for businesses with
less than a certain threshold number of employees (for example small businesses
employing less than 20 persons).
3. Require Collection Firms to Provide Recycling Services Through Licensure. License
all garbage collection companies with a condition of the license that stipulates they must
provide an approved recycling collection service. The required service should be tied to
the list of mandatory recyclables. If all firms are required to provide a recycling service,
competition should lead to competitive rates for hauling both recyclables and garbage.
4. Develop and Contract for New Processing Facilities. As discussed above for residential
recycling, the County would need to ensure that processing and marketing
opportunities are available for these materials. The same processing facilities could be
used for residential and non - residential recyclables. This would probably include the
County issuing an RFP for these services either at County owned sites and /or allowing
contractors to propose sites. Facilities would probably be needed in West Hawai'i, East
Hawai'i, and possibly in the Waimea area.
4.5.6.1 Implementation Considerations
This option would require significant outreach to the business community, and a marketing
and technical assistance program. The option should include a reasonable phase -in period
so that collection firms can ramp up for the changed requirements. The County should
consider implementing an incentive program and /or recognition program for businesses
that meet the recycling requirements.
4 -24 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
If this program is to apply to state and federal government institutions such as schools,
negotiations and consultation with agencies will need to take place. For schools, collection
contracts would need to be revised to allow for recycling in addition to garbage collection.
Diversion Potential. Using results from the County's 2008 waste composition study,
assuming 80 percent of business and institutions would participate and a 60- percent capture
rate for readily recyclable materials and green waste, this program could result in additional
recycling of approximately 13,400 tons per year.
Estimated Cost. If the County continues its current policy of making incentive payments for
processing and marketing materials, 13,400 tons of material would cost the County
approximately $540,000 per year (assuming $40 per ton). Alternatively, this cost could be
passed on directly to the businesses and institutions by charging a tipping fee at the
processing facility.
The County would need to dedicate staff to draft ordinances and to follow through with the
required legislative process to enact them, and set aside funds for the promotion and
education of the program.
4.5.7 Bioconversion of Food and Other Organics from Businesses/
Institutions
The County's 2008 waste composition study estimated that discarded food makes up
34,000 tons, or 16 percent, of disposal at County landfills. The putrescible nature of food
requires more costly and sophisticated collection and processing infrastructure than green
waste; however, there are many successful examples in the U.S. and elsewhere of organics
management programs that incorporate food and other organics as feedstock. This option
focuses on options for collection (from non - residential sources) and processing of this waste
stream (residential collection is discussed in Section 4.5.4).
As an option, the County could issue a request for proposals for development and operation
of organics processing facilities designed to accept food and other organics as part of the
incoming feedstock. It's likely that individual facilities would be necessary in West and East
Hawaii (and possibly in Waimea). The County would need to take the following steps to
attract material to the facility:
Price the tip fee at the facility less than the tip fee at its landfills to provide a financial
incentive for businesses to separate food (perhaps $3
• Develop an outreach program that would work
with collection firms and major food generators to
encourage participation well in advance of the
facility operation date.
Be prepared to establish an ordinance preventing
food from disposal at major food generators
should the first two steps not be sufficient to
attract material to the processing facilities.
December 2009 4 -25
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
4.5.7.1 Collection from Businesses and Institutions
Food and other organics, such as waxed cardboard or wet or food - soiled paper, could be
collected from businesses and institutions that discard reasonably large quantities of food.
Existing hauling routes and schedules would need to be altered to provide a separate
service for food and other organics.
Businesses and institutions would need to change work practices to separate food and other
organics from garbage. Other communities have found that one significant challenge for
businesses and institutions has been finding space on the premises to set out a separate
collection bin for organics. Addressing these challenges would require effective
communication between County staff, the collection company, and businesses and
institutions.
4.5.7.2 Processing
Compared to a green waste processing operation, processing food requires additional
design and operational features to prevent odors and the attraction of birds, rodents and
other vermin. This is typically accomplished as follows:
• Receiving collection trucks and preparing/ mixing feedstocks in an enclosed building
with biofilters and other features to manage air flow and prevent odors.
• Mixing and moving feedstock daily (unlike green waste where under certain
circumstances material can be stored for days at a time).
• The bioconversion process requires either more
sophisticated electronic controls and /or more
sophisticated and meticulous daily operations.
Many systems conduct this step in enclosed
buildings or vessels.
• A brief overview of four commonly used
bioconversion technologies for food follows.
Covered Forced Air. Some relatively recent
innovations have taken place in an attempt to lower
the cost of bioconversion with food. These systems
include engineered fabric buildings with aluminum
frames, air control, and biofilters for receiving and
feedstock preparation. The buildings typically range
in size from 2,000 to 10,000 square feet.
Once feedstocks are prepared, the material is placed
into outdoor windrows with a fabric membrane
covers (for example, Gore or Ag -Bag) and aeration
systems, or into roofed pole buildings with concrete
bunkers, aeration systems, and organic covers
(typically finished product). After approximately
30 days, the feedstock is cured in windrows or piles
either outdoors or under a covered structure.
Membrane covered system (Everett, WA.)
Bunker with Roof (Latah Co., ID.)
4 -26 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
These systems have lower capital costs than other systems, but may require more
knowledgeable, experienced operators to maintain final product quality and minimize
nuisance odors.
4.5.7.3 Bays, Beds, and Tunnels
Bays, beds, and tunnel systems are normally
constructed inside buildings, and are
essentially a variant of a turned windrow
system. The feedstock is placed either in a bay
formed by two long parallel walls, or in a
four -sided reactor bed. The walls of the bay or
bed are generally about 6 feet high.
The material is turned down the length of the
bay or bed by a machine that is suspended
above or rides on rails along the top of the bay
or bed. Turning aerates the material, and
additional aeration may be provided by a
Bed Composting System
forced air system in the floor of the bay or bed. The turning machine gradually moves the
material down the length of the bay or bed, and is timed so that by the time the material
reaches the end, the primary composting process is largely completed. The product is cured
in turned windrows or aerated static piles. As with static piles, the mixture must be
perfectly balanced when it is added, as there is no further opportunity for amendments to
be added. However, odors can be easily controlled, since bays and beds are usually
constructed inside buildings. Bays and bed systems typically are more expensive than
turned windrows and static piles, but less expensive than in- vessel systems.
4.5.7.4 In- Vessel Systems
In- vessel systems offer the greatest degree of control
over the composting environment. In- vessel
systems also have the smallest land requirements,
although they are the most expensive technology to
design, construct and operate. An in- vessel system
is defined as one in which the composting process is
conducted inside some type of sealed container (the
vessel) where the environment is highly controlled
and access is restricted.
In- vessel systems can be either flow or batch In- vessel system (Mariposa Co., CA.)
reactors. Larger systems consist of permanent
chambers installed within a building. Mechanisms are in place to load raw waste into and to
remove compost from the chambers. At a minimum, the system includes monitoring
systems for temperature and oxygen content and an aeration system. Smaller systems
involve the use of portable containers. Modular vessels, which are similar in appearance to
international shipping containers, are filled with raw organic waste, sealed, and attached to
aeration manifolds and monitoring equipment. At the end of the primary composting
process, the container is disconnected, emptied and the material is formed into turned
December 2009 4 -27
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
windrows or static piles to complete the composting process (curing). The vessel is then
available for the next batch of feedstock.
4.5.7.5 Energy Recovery with Wet and Dry Anaerobic Digestion
Significant amounts of energy are contained in food and other organics currently sent to
landfills. Recent increases in energy prices and concerns over global climate change have led
to the development of anaerobic digestion systems for food and other organics. Anaerobic
digestion is a proven technology that has been used in the wastewater field for years. The
process converts food and other organics to biogas (that can be used to produce electricity
or to power vehicles) and dewatered digestate that can be composted and sold for
agricultural uses.
In a wet system, incoming materials are loaded into an enclosed building for tipping, pre-
sorting, and a series of pre - processing activities to remove recyclable and non - recyclable
inorganic elements from the material. Feedstocks are then fed into a hydropulper, which is
designed to separate the remaining inorganics from the biodegradable elements and to
convert the organics into an organic suspension. The biodegradable organic elements are
pumped from the hydropulper to a grit removal system to further remove unwanted
materials that may have passed through the hydropulper sieve. The grit -free suspension is
then pumped to the anaerobic digester where the digestible material is converted into
methane -rich biogas. Non - digestible material is segregated for final curing and stabilization
into compost.
Dry systems allow solid materials to be mixed into
the biomass, whereas traditional wet digesters make
only minimal use of solids. In a dry system, up to
50 percent of the biomass can be solids such as
green waste, wood chips, or papers. Biogas is then
transformed in block -type thermal power stations
into electrical energy and heat. Like the wet system,
the digestate residual is cured in order to convert it
into compost or other agricultural products.
The dry systems have the advantage of being
relatively cost - effective organics management
solutions for relatively small waste streams (as
small as approximately 6,000 tons per
year). A key to the cost effectiveness of
wet or dry systems is proximity to a
power user, and /or relatively high
prices paid for electricity generation or
fuels. The relatively high cost of
electricity in Hawai'i County provides
an advantage for this technology
locally compared to other areas of the
country.
Dry anaerobic system (Germany)
Wet anaerobic system (Germany)
4 -28 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
Diversion Potential. Using results from the County's 2008 waste composition study, and
assuming capture rates of 50 percent for food, 50 percent for wet- and food - soiled paper,
and 10 percent for wood, this program could result in additional diversion of 21,600 tons.
Additional carbon may need to be obtained from green waste, wood chips, or other sources
depending on the type of processing system selected.
Estimated Cost. The cost of processing food and other organics will vary depending on the
type of technology, market conditions, contract terms, permitting requirements, power
purchase agreements, and other factors. Estimated cost ranges for various processing
technologies in Hawaii County are presented in Exhibit 4 -5. These costs were developed
using information from the construction of actual facilities in the United States and Canada,
which were adjusted based on estimated construction cost differentials for Hawaii County.
EXHIBIT 4 -5
Estimated Per -ton Costa Range for Food and Other Organics Processing in
Hawaii County
Technology Low High
Covered Forced Air $70 $80
Bays, Beds, Tunnels $80 $90
In- Vessel $90 $170
Wet and Dry Anaerobic Digester $90 $170
'Includes amortized capital, operations, and maintenance less product
sales. Costs adjusted from U.S. Mainland to Hawaii County using
estimated construction cost differentials for Hawaii County.
Source: CH2M HILL.
4.5.8 Establish a County "Buy Recycled" Policy
This option, also discussed in the draft source reduction section, is important to promoting
markets for recycled materials. The County could change its procurement practices to
require the use of recycled glass, organics, and other materials to the extent practicable. This
would help support the development of local markets for readily recyclable materials. The
County should work with local businesses to identify materials that can be reused and
recycled as part of County operations.
Diversion Potential. Difficult to quantify: this is a program that would support additional
recycling.
Estimated Cost. The County may need to pay a higher price for some recycled products,
and would need to devote staff resources to refining its procurement policies.
4.5.9 Marketing Partnership with Other Hawaii Counties
The County's geographic isolation makes it expensive to ship recyclables to most existing
markets. The County could team with the other Hawaii counties and the State government
to investigate joint marketing and market development opportunities. This could include
improved pricing for backhauling containers to the mainland and overseas markets,
funding pilot programs for new local end uses, or joint marketing of materials to improve
market prices and /or lower transportation costs.
December 2009 4 -29
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
Diversion Potential. Difficult to quantify: this is an initiative that could result in long -term
benefits.
Estimated Cost. The County would need to dedicate additional staff to develop and
participate in potential studies or pilot programs.
4.5.10 Establish Opportunity to Recycle Legislation
The County could consider developing new requirements for owners and managers of
multi - family dwellings and multi- tenant commercial buildings that ensure that all tenants
have reasonable access to recycling services and premises -based facilities comparable to
single - family dwellings and small businesses. Any such requirements would be best
implemented following consultation with the local building industry.
Estimated cost: There would be some cost associated with industry consultation and
modifying building codes to support the new requirements. The cost of buildings affected
by the legislation could increase somewhat, but after builders become familiar with the new
requirements, impacts on construction project cost should be modest.
4.5.11 Maintain Active State and Regional Profile on Zero Waste Public Policy
The County could work with State and Federal legislators and encourage other communities
in the region to adopt similar zero waste goals and plans. This effort could include a
coordinated effort with regional cooperation, to support state and national efforts to adopt:
• Extended producer responsibility.
• Deposit programs.
• Funding of zero waste initiatives through statewide or regional landfill surcharges and
product charges.
• Change school collection contracts to include recycling.
• Full cost accounting for waste disposal.
• Packaging levies (for example, on plastic bags).
• Minimum recycled content standards for additional products.
• Design for the environment programs.
• Green procurement and green building guidelines for the public sector.
• National measuring, monitoring and reporting in achieving zero waste goals.
• New mechanisms for financial assurance for post - closure liabilities for landfills.
Estimated cost: There would be little cost associated with this option beyond some staff
time spent on zero waste advocacy, and modest expenses for supplies.
4.5.12 Other Potential Recycling Opportunities
There are other initiatives that the County could adopt to support recycling, including:
• Improve Recycling Opportunities in County Parks. The County should consider
developing a program for providing recycling opportunities in all County parks. This
could mirror the two -bin system used at recycling and transfer stations by placing small
mixed- material bins and glass -only bins adjacent to all garbage bins at each park. The
effectiveness and cost of this program should be first tested with a pilot program.
4 -30 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
Improve Recycling Opportunities on Downtown Streets. The County Public Works
Department collects trash in downtown areas of communities like Hilo and Kailua-
Kona. A pilot program, similar to the one suggested above for County Parks could be
implemented to test the effectiveness and cost of providing recycling opportunities at all
trash collection locations.
Expand the Promotion of Event Recycling. The County currently provides technical
assistance to event coordinators looking to recycle at major events. This program could
be expanded by developing a list of major recurring events, contacting event
coordinators, and working with those coordinators to develop plans to improve
recycling. The County should consider providing financial assistance for recycling bins
and /or developing an ordinance that requires event recycling and possibly the use of
compostable or reusable cutlery. The County could also consider requiring waste
reduction and recycling plans for event and facility rental permits.
Establish a Recycle Art Campaign. The County could establish a "Recycle Art"
campaign, similar to the Art of Recycling School Competition, with the goal of
coordinating the efforts of business and public offices and schools to organize and
conduct recycle art contests at various venues once per quarter. Examples of places
where recycle art could be displayed include bank lobbies, grocery stores, government
offices, libraries, schools, airports and museums.
• Expand Visitor Industry Recycling. Hotels, resorts, and other businesses that service
the Hawai'i County visitor industry are major waste generators. The County could
increase its efforts to work with this sector to improve recycling opportunities.
Explore Opportunities to Develop an Eco- Industrial Park. Eco - industrial parks are
clusters of complementary businesses that can make beneficial use of currently
discarded materials and products produced by others. Candidates are organics, building
deconstruction, salvage, reuse, and repair. Actions by the County could include passing
favorable zoning ordinances and /or tax relief to spur on this type of activity.
Source Reduction Options that could Increase Recycling. The source reduction section
discussed a number of options that could also help increase recycling in addition to
reducing waste. Four options discussed in Section 3.0, Source Reduction, are
construction and demolition waste reduction plans, extended producer responsibility,
establishing a pay -as- you -throw system, and establish a zero waste fund.
On the basis of the analysis presented above and discussions with stakeholders, this Plan
recommends several types of actions to improve the County recycling program. The
operating expenditures associated with the recommended actions would be funded by a
PAYT program, property taxes, and tipping fees, and the capital expenditures would be
financed by general obligation bonds.
The recommendations presented here include requiring waste collection firms to establish
recycling programs as part of the licensing requirements, and establishing a marketing
December 2009 4 -31
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
partnership with other Hawai'i counties. Those two recommendations are also discussed in
further detail in Section 8.0, Collection and Transfer.
The recommendations are divided into two categories, those relating to recycling of non -
organic materials (Recycling) and those relating to diversion of organics from landfills
(Organics). Implementation of these recommendations will likely be slower than initially
anticipated because of the impact that the worldwide economic recession has had on
County finances.
Recycling
1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to
improve recycling rates. In many communities nationwide, experience has shown that
updated policies and ordinances are necessary to support new programs designed to
treat discarded materials as resources and keep them out of landfills. After reviewing
various options, the following are those that appear best suited to the specific conditions
in Hawai'i County:
— Establish a differential tip fee ordinance that would encourage landfill users to
recycle targeted types of materials by charging higher fees if their loads contain these
recyclable materials.
— Establish an ordinance that mandates source separation and recycling and requires
all businesses and institutions to recycle selected types of materials. This could
include implementing landfill bans for select recyclables.
— Develop legislation requiring owners and managers of multi- family dwellings and
multi- tenant commercial buildings to ensure that all tenants have reasonable access
to recycling services and premises -based facilities comparable to single - family
dwellings and small businesses.
— Change County procurement policies to require the use of recycled glass, organics,
and other materials to the extent practicable.
2. Work with County and State legislators and encourage other communities in the
region to adopt zero waste goals and plans. The geographic separation of the counties
on the main Hawaiian Islands presents constraints and opportunities not faced by
Mainland counties. With a very modest expense in resources, the County could explore
potential benefits from increased collaboration with other counties and the State. Two
recommendations for this Plan follow:
— Conduct research and coordinate with legislators and waste managers within Maui,
Kauai, and Honolulu Counties, to evaluate the potential for combining efforts to
develop a statewide zero waste strategy.
— Lobby the State to change school waste collection contracts for schools within the
County to mandate that recycling services are included.
3. Complete capital projects to facilitate implementation of expanded recycling
programs. A common theme expressed during discussions with SWAC and other
stakeholders is that the County needs additional facilities to manage recyclables.
4 -32 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
Recommended added facilities to support new zero waste programs include the
following:
— Expand recycling opportunities at recycling and transfer stations by modifying
infrastructure to accommodate recycling processes.
— Improve signage at recycling and transfer stations to provide the public with
comprehensive information about recycling opportunities and procedures.
— Reconfigure the East Hawai'i Regional Sort Station Reload Facility for use as a MRF
while the SHSL is active.
— Construct a new materials recovery (baling and storage) facility for West Hawai'i.
4. Expand the opportunities for commercial recycling. The results of the waste stream
assessment conducted for this Plan update (Section 2) demonstrated clearly that
commercial businesses and institutions currently dispose of large quantities of
potentially - recyclable materials. After deliberation with SWAC and reviewing programs
implemented by other jurisdictions, the following actions are recommended to increase
commercial recycling:
— Allow small businesses (using trucks 1 ton or smaller, with a daily load limit) to use
the recycling and transfer stations to recycle selected materials.
— Work with the HDOH Solid Waste Division to modify the operating permits of the
recycling and transfer stations to accommodate expanded recycling services
(currently in process).
— Hire one full -time staff member to serve as a commercial recycling specialist.
— Expand education and outreach programs for both large and small businesses to
foster participation in commercial recycling programs.
5. Expand opportunities to recycle in public areas and during public events. Providing
recycling bins in public places and at public events is a very visible way for the County
to demonstrate its commitment to zero waste and to divert materials from landfills.
Recommended public area and event recycling programs follow:
— Install recycling bins in parks and other public areas.
— Conduct additional recycling events within the community each year.
— Implement and expand the Recycle Art campaign in public schools.
December 2009 4 -33
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
Organics
Waste stream studies conducted previously and, as part of this project, have determined
that organics comprise a relatively large fraction of the waste entering County landfills
annually. Diversion of organics was identified as a priority by SWAG, and the following
recommendations were developed:
1. Promote both large- and small -scale private organics composting operations by:
— Modifying zoning rules and County codes to relax restrictions on, and clarify
operational requirements for composting on agricultural lands.
2. Improve education and outreach programs that promote improved management of
organics. Composting has many benefits and is one area where education and outreach
has been shown to be effective at reducing the amount of organics households and
businesses send to landfills. After considering various options, the following education
and outreach programs are recommended for implementation:
— Hire one full -time staff member to serve as the coordinator for the organics program.
— Expand and further develop a master composter program.
— Develop a training program and guidance materials for farmers.
— Implement a "stop wasting food" program with local food banks.
— Partner with other local groups to establish compost demonstration gardens at
recycling and transfer stations or at other visible locations in the community.
3. Initiate an on -site composting program for residents and businesses by distributing
subsidized units to both residences and businesses. Data from similar communities
indicates that the lowest cost method of keeping organics out of landfills is to manage
them on -site. This eliminates the need for costly collection or transfer of organics. This is
particularly true for Hawai'i County with many homes in rural areas that cannot be
served cost - effectively by collection truck routes. This program would fund subsidized
bins for on -site composting of green waste and food waste.
4. Conduct a study to evaluate the potential for implementation of a landfill ban on
organics.
5. Implement added organics management facilities and equipment. While on -site
programs are beneficial, more centralized infrastructure is also needed to provide
opportunities for those residents and businesses that are not interested in managing
organics on -site. After reviewing many options with SWAC and other stakeholders, the
following programs are recommended for implementation:
— Add green waste dropoff locations at recycling and transfer stations where there is
space to do so.
4 -34 December 2009
4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
— Process green waste at select recycling and transfer stations with a mobile tub
grinder. The material would be ground on -site and then made available to residents
as mulch. This is less expensive than hauling waste from individual stations to a
central facility and will foster community ownership of the program.
— Develop an organics composting facility at the WHSL or other sites.
— Investigate opportunities for pilot food waste demonstration projects with the
potential for eventual expansion into full -scale food waste management programs.
December 2009 4 -35
SECTION 5
•t •
Public education is a critical component of a successful environmental program as it informs
citizens about proper solid waste management methods and ways to reduce waste, and
enhances public understanding and participation in various reuse and recycling activities.
Education programs also serve to inform people of the wide variety of solid waste services
provided by the County and other entities.
This section describes existing public education activities within Hawai'i County, identifies
current issues and concerns with respect to public education, and presents
recommendations that will help enhance educational opportunities.
5.2.1 Regulatory Context
In accordance with HRS 342G- 26(g), the public education and information section of an
Integrated Solid Waste Plan shall describe the programs that will be used to do the
following:
1. Provide comprehensive and sustained public notice of the options for alternate source
reduction, recycling, and bioconversion, and for the proper handling of household
hazardous and special wastes.
2. Distribute information and educational materials regarding general solid waste issues
through the media, schools, and community organizations.
5.2.2 Review of 2002 Plan Update
Following is a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2002 Plan update relative
to source reduction, and a description of the actions taken to achieve each recommendation.
2002 Plan Update Recommendation
Status
Education and Promotion
Hire County Recycling Coordinator
The County hired a full -time Recycling Coordinator in mid 2003.
The Coordinator currently has four full -time recycling specialists
on staff, each of which engages in various education and
promotion activities.
Increase Budget for Promotion and
The County budgeted nearly $400,000 on advertising and
Education
outreach education in FY 07 -08, which is a substantial increase
above 2002 levels.
December 2009 5 -1
5.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
5.3 Existing ConditionE
5.3.1 Hawaii County Waste Reduction Programs
The County of Hawai'i employs several recycling specialists, who conduct basic educational
activities. In addition, the County provides funding to several business entities to coordinate
and provide educational activities to the public and private schools. A portion of the
funding provided by the County for public education is used by Recycle Hawaii to support
the activities of three education specialists. The County's main education initiatives include
the following:
• Internet
• Recycling infoline
• Radio and television advertising
• Brochures
• Community outreach
• Community events
• School programs
• Business education
• Awards program
A brief description of each of these initiatives follows.
5.3.1.1 Internet
The County maintains a listing of information on the internet including solid waste plans
and operational information at the following address:
http: / /co.hawaii.hi.us /directory /dir envmn .htm. This Web site is periodically updated to
reflect changes in information regarding the County's waste management program and
policies. The County is also in the process of researching the use of an independent external
Web site dedicated to recycling, reuse and other solid waste management issues.
In addition, the County frequently submits articles and information regarding their waste
reduction and recycling programs for publication in the County Newsletter, which is
electronically distributed to residents around the island on a weekly basis.
Recycle Hawai'i, as part of its overall recycling education contract, provides information on
recycling and reuse services via its own Web site.
5.3.1.2 Recycling Infoline
The County of Hawai'i sponsors an infoline, to provide answers to most basic solid waste
and recycling questions relating to topics including green waste and mulch, the HI -5
recycling program, abandoned vehicles, disposal of used appliances, the used motor oil
program, household hazardous waste events, e -waste collection dropoff sites, and the
collection of used cooking oil. The infoline is an automated program that is available
24 hours a day.
The County is upgrading its infoline to provide more information and options to
communicate with County Recycling or Solid Waste Division staff. With funding from the
5 -2 December 2009
County, Recycle Hawai'i also
maintains a live telephone information
line from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, to answer
waste reduction and recycling
questions from the public.
5.3.1.3 Radio, Television, & Print
Media Advertising
The County and its vendors engage in
multiple forms of advertising
including radio, television, theater,
newspaper and other print media.
The County has a current contract
with Out of the Sea Media Arts to
develop an advertisement plan. Initial
efforts have included radio and
5.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
&2-Bin Recycling
Now Available at most County Transfer Stations
Recycling is convenient and easier than ever!
Separate in 2 Recycling Bins
One Bin for non -1-115 Rinsed Glass Jars & Bottles
One Bin for Mixed Recycling Including:
Plastic Containers ( #1, 2 & 5)
• Milk Jugs & Yogurt containers
• Detergent Bottles
i
Paper (Office & Mixed)
• Newspaper & Magazines
• Junk Mail
• Cereal boxes & egg cartons
Aluminum & Tin Containers
Pet & food cans (rinsed)
• Clean foil
Corrugated Cardboard
• Flattened boxes
• Paper Grocery Bags
NO wax coated or food contaminated
M Nw NO i
television advertisements, and
Look for Recycling Signs at your local transfer station)
development of informational signage
to be posted at recycling and transfer Everyone Recycle!!
stations. Print media advertisements County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management
have included ads in the yellow pages Call 961 -5044 for Recycling Info or complete list of accepted materials.
and various local newspapers.
Through this contract the County hopes to develop a robust program to help educate the
public about various waste issues and keep them informed of upcoming events.
Recycle Hawai'i assists the County by advertising for a variety of waste reduction and
recycling programs, including the Christmas Treecycling, backyard composing, household
hazardous waste, e- waste, and used motor oil programs. Forms of outreach include the
Recycle Guide, printed media advertisements,
banners, and radio spots.
5.3.1.4 Brochures
The County of Hawai'i and their vendors have
prepared brochures that cover a range of waste
management topics for public distribution. The
brochures address various programs that are
provided by the County and their vendors
including green waste recycling, composting,
plastics recycling, household hazardous waste,
used motor oil collection, and the HI -5 recycling
program. The brochures are made available to the
public at community events, at the various
recycling and recycling and transfer stations, and
at other County solid waste facilities.
Go ahead,
Give yourself
,.
-s
I DEPOSIT BEVERAGE
REDEMPTION
y
P;
- PLASTIC= ;,;= .,= AiUM1NUM "';`flirMCTAk
r
%'
,.,
EEO
i0l"
1c,
NEW! tu5t6MPF5 mfny reque5t,hand CduMtf5 far,tilri:a?zho tiiitttr�BY;LktN3a:
December 2009 5 -3
5.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
5.3.1.5 Community Outreach
Recycle Hawai'i conducts a minimum of 40 outreach presentations per year. The
presentations are intended to educate the public about existing waste reduction and
recycling programs and to encourage participation in those activities. The presentations are
given to a wide array of organizations including schools, businesses, and at various
conferences.
Recycle Hawai'i also conducts workshops on reuse of materials, proper recycling methods
and composting.
5.3.1.6 Community Events
The County of Hawai'i participates in various community events throughout the year
aimed at enhancing environmental awareness. The County also participates in promotional
events, such as BYOB at grocery stores, which includes a give -away of reusable grocery
bags. An emphasis has been placed on the HI -5 program through the installation of HI -5
recycle bins at larger community events such as the Merrie Monarch Hula festival.
In addition, with funding from the County, Recycle Hawai'i participates in a minimum of
fifteen community events throughout the year, including Earth Day festivals, the Kuleana
Green Business Conference, and similar events. As part of each event, educational
information is distributed and recycling /reuse specialists are available to talk to members of
the public. Recycle Hawai'i also participates in the annual Trash Art Exhibit at East Hawai'i
Cultural Center.
5.3.1.7 School Programs
The County and its vendors organize a broad range of waste reduction and recycling
programs for the local schools. The Artists and the Environment Program brings artists,
resource educators, native Hawaiian cultural practitioners and community outreach staff
into classrooms throughout Hawai'i Island. The two -part presentations link art and native
culture with awareness and sustainable practices for our unique natural environment.
Presentations range from 45 to 90 minutes depending on grade level.
The Art of Recycling School Competition (ARSC) is an educational art project that motivates
youth to create art objects from recycled materials while helping to save landfill space,
energy, and natural resources.
The "HI -5 Show!" is a magic show designed to raise awareness about the environmental
benefits of recycling, and in particular the HI -5 Beverage Container Deposit Program. Each
school performance can accommodate up to 350 students and is specifically designed to
encourage students to participate in recycling of deposit beverage containers.
In addition, the County and Recycle Hawai'i both offer tours of the landfill, scrap metal and
composting facilities, and the recycling and reuse centers for school groups on an as-
requested basis.
5.3.1.8 Business Education
On request, the County will assist in the set up of new recycling businesses and provide
guidance to help new businesses understand and navigate applicable laws, regulations and
5 -4 December 2009
rules. The County will also occasionally assist
with establishing or improving recycling
programs at businesses at the request of
companies and business organizations.
With funding from the County, Recycle
Hawaii has produced the Hawaii Island
Business Recycling Guide and Workbook,
which is provided as a membership benefit.
The Workbook provides information for
businesses including how to conduct a waste
audit and establish a waste reduction and
recycling program.
5.3.1.9 Award Program
Recycle Hawaii has recently initiated an
award program called Keeping it Green
Hawaii. It is an incentive -based program that
provides certificates and awards to
14 businesses and schools that demonstrate
5.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
0 -121
Y
A NON - PROFIT EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION
24 -Hour Info Lines: 961 -2676 • 329 -2886 • www.recyclehawaii.Org
HAWAII ISLAND RECYCLING GUIDE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KEA'AU RECYCLING AND REUSE CENTER About Recycle Ia i'i 7 1. (KRRC) putomobile(SAband en dial) 5
Alt omobiics, Pans for Sale 7
Since October 1, 2007, KRRC has been featuring daily Bnneries, Automotive/Deep Cycle 5
sales from "1 5 is Home Remodelin batteries, Househ i,d 5
p.m. ati g Batteries, H— Wireless Phone 5
Reuse C enter -- latex paint stitai —at$2 /gallon, low 61, 1wmp 2
prices on furniture, fixtures, doors, windows, pve pipe, Cellphones/Equipment 2
fen a lumbera.d other reuse items. Donate Don't Damp B
�r P Dan to Reaae ,,.p 3
E- Waster Compute /t:lecrronics 4
Contractors are welcome to dmp -off, s ble leftover Fire Extinguishers 7
home remodeling waste daily from 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 Glass Peanuts 2
p.m. at no charge to help Recycle I I— Vi work towards Green Wnste 6
¢aching the eotmty a goals in diverting "still good stitfF' lil-5 Bever age COntalnors b
from island landfills. biouseho,[ Hazardous Waste 5
InkjeVTOner Cartridges 2
Illegal Dump Site Reporting 5&7
Location - H ighway 130 noxt W the Keaau transfer Membership 7
station and the ARC of I ^filo Hl'redt.ption site (I st Metals,Aluminum 2,3,6 &7
left past the humane Society Pahoa- bound). Closed Metals, NOo-Ferroas 2
'thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's Days. Oil, Cooking 7
Oil, Used Motor 4 & 5
Cell KRRC at 895 -6815 for more information. Paint, Disposal /Reuse 5 & 7
Paper, Brown Bags 3
Paper, C rrugated Card6 3
Paper, Document Shredding 4
Visit the new Habitat for Humanity Paper, Junk Mail 3&7
West Hawaii Re3torel Paper, Magazines 3
Paper, Mixed Olfioe 3
We ore happy to offer a wide variety of new and Paper, Newspaper 3
gently used home improvement products at discounted Paper, Phone Book 7
prices ofup to 50 -75%o _iii. value. Habitat for Paper, White Office 3
Humanity West Hawaii will use the proceeds from Plastic, HI & #2 3 & 6
he sales m our efforts to eliminate poverty housing in PI.Aic, Shnppiag Bags 7
West Hawaii. Our inventory is generated through the Prepamtion/Markets B
generous donations of local businesses and community Propane Tanks (see Metals) 2
embers and changes daily, so be sure [o slap by Recycle Pick Up Service ')
fre ti to see what we have in ,meld Reuse Items, Donate 3
Yuen y Scrap Metal 2
Visito%r,fbsiteat www.habi[atwesthawaii.org or Scrap Metal, Appliances 2
contact us 808 -331 -8010. Tires 3
leadership in at least three aspects of sustainability. The award package includes a free
membership to Recycle Hawaii, and an Earth Machine composter or recycling collector bin.
As described above, the County currently invests considerable resources into a number of
creative education and outreach programs. However, given the County's commitment to
zero waste, additional effort could be expended to further reduce the quantities of materials
discarded in landfills. Successful adoption of the zero waste approach is intimately linked
with the ability to influence public perception and modify existing behaviors, which is the
main purpose of public education and promotional programs.
It is recommended that the County consider using social marketing principles to guide the
design and implementation of education programs (see the Social Marketing Institute at
http: / /www.social- marketin .orgZsm.html). Social marketing is the planning and
implementation of programs designed to bring about social change using concepts from
commercial marketing. Some of its key concepts include the following:
• The ultimate objective of marketing is to influence action.
• Action is undertaken whenever target audiences believe that the benefits they receive
will be greater than the costs they incur.
• Programs to influence action will be more effective if they are based on an
understanding of the target audience's own perceptions of the proposed exchange.
• Target audiences are seldom uniform in their perceptions and /or likely responses to
marketing efforts and so should be partitioned into segments.
December 2009 5 -5
5.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
Marketing efforts must incorporate all of the "4 Ps," that is:
• Create an enticing "Product" - the package of benefits associated with the desired action.
• Minimize the "Price" - the target audience believes it must pay in the exchange.
• Make the exchange and its opportunities available in "Places" that reach the audience
and fit its lifestyles.
• Promote the exchange opportunity with creativity and through channels and tactics that
maximize desired responses.
Recommended behaviors always have competition which must be understood and
addressed. Because the marketplace is constantly changing, program results must be
regularly monitored and management must be prepared to rapidly alter strategies and
tactics to optimize the effectiveness of the program.
Other key features of successful education programs that the County should strive to
achieve include the following:
• Research different segments of the population who are targeted for programs.
• Maintain a consistent "look" for the program.
• Use a variety of communication methods.
• Keep detailed records of efforts and results.
• Evaluate the impact of education and promotion programs.
• Cross - promote solid waste management activities with other County environmental
initiatives.
•� • • 11111111 irelT=
Substantial progress in advancing the County's zero waste objectives will require
enhancements to the County's current education and promotional program. Specific
programs and initiatives that could potentially be part of this expanded effort are described
below. Implementation of these programs and initiatives will require added County
education staff and additional funding for outreach activities. This could be achieved either
directly by the County or by contracts with appropriate consultants or vendors, such as
Recycle Hawaii.
It is critical that the County allocate significant resources to education and promotion. For
example, the Curbside Value Partnership, a curbside recycling advocacy group
( http : / /www.recyclecurbside.org /), recommends spending $1 per household on curbside
recycling education alone, and $2 to $3 per household when major new programs are being
implemented. Considering the importance of education to the County's zero waste
resolution, the County should consider hiring a zero waste education specialist who would
work under the direction of the County recycling coordinator.. This person would be
responsible for planning and coordinating all waste management education activities.
5 -6 December 2009
5.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
In addition to adding a zero waste education specialist, initial, planning -level estimates of
additional costs are provided for each option. These estimates will be refined after receiving
comments from stakeholders and after other sections of the plan are completed. Revised
cost estimates will be presented in the draft plan in the implementation section.
5.5.1 Develop 3 -Year Zero Waste Education and Social Marketing Plan
In order to maximize the effectiveness of the County's educational and promotional efforts,
a 3 -year plan could be developed that identifies the major goals and objectives of the
County's zero waste education efforts, and specific programs and initiatives that will be
implemented to obtain those goals. This plan would provide a schedule or "blueprint" of
activities that will be undertaken to support waste reduction and recycling activities. It
would help ensure effective use of staff time and budget as well as offering a benchmark for
measuring success.
Development of the plan could include a brainstorming session attended by various
stakeholders such as the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG), County Council, and
recycling vendors. Specific elements of plan development could include the following:
• Identify and target specific demographic groups or geographical areas that the County
would like to reach with its messaging.
• Identify and clearly state the County's key messages (broad goals and specific
objectives).
• Tailor educational programs to target the specific types of materials that are easy to
recycle yet are not being diverted effectively, based on the results of the waste stream
assessment section of the IRSWMP update.
• Develop and implement public awareness programs that publicize current and future
waste management and recycling programs.
• Develop educational and promotional activities specifically geared toward new
programs and initiatives identified in this plan.
• Evaluate the benefit of providing educational and promotional materials in other
languages.
• Identify how the County will measure the success of its efforts (evaluation).
• Estimate the costs of future education and promotion efforts.
• PAYT program and fee schedules for residents and businesses.
The plan should address immediate, short- and long -term actions pertaining to the
following programs:
• Zero waste as an overarching County waste management policy
• Residential waste reduction and reuse
• Residential backyard composting
• School programs for waste reduction and recycling
• Residential recycling
December 2009 5 -7
5.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
• Visitor industry waste reduction and recycling
• Business waste audit and education programs
• Other business waste reduction and recycling
• C &D waste reduction, reuse, and recycling
• Implementation of PAYT program
Estimated Cost: To implement this option, the County would need to budget for consulting
time to assist in the preparation of an education and promotion (E &P) plan and
development of program identification and materials. In the first year, the County should
budget for consulting costs of approximately $30,000 plus some time from existing staff.
Recommendations from the plan would probably result in initiatives that would require
funding in subsequent years for plan implementation. The plan should be updated every
other year.
5.5.2 Develop Zero Waste Theme and Logo
To launch and implement a comprehensive educational program, it is beneficial to have a
set of unified promotional materials, including a theme, slogan and /or logo. The County
currently has a logo that has been effective in establishing a "brand" for County waste
reduction and recycling efforts. Given the County's commitment to zero waste, the County
may want to consider changing its logo to adopt a zero waste theme. The potential benefit of
this approach must be weighed against the cost and potential confusion that could occur
during the transition to a new theme and brand. During the development of the Plan, it was
decided by consensus that a zero waste theme be incorporated to the Plan, and the title of
the plan was changed to include "On the Path to Zero Waste" to reflect the County's
commitment to this goal.
Estimated Cost: This option could be implemented by existing staff, with perhaps a
relatively low -cost contract with an outside vendor for graphics assistance. The County
could experience added costs if a zero waste theme was implemented rapidly, thus making
various education and recycling materials with the existing logo obsolete.
5.5.3 Conduct Waste Management Attitude Survey
The County would benefit from conducting a market survey to assess public attitudes about
waste management in the county. The survey would be used to assess perceptions, attitudes
and behavior of non -users and users towards the County's programs and services. The
results could be used to shape messages to target audiences in different communities.
The survey should be conducted over the telephone by a firm experienced in conducting
market research. Respondents would be randomly selected from commercially available
lists that are specially prepared and which provide phone numbers in the target geographic
area (excluding fax numbers, business numbers and other non - residential numbers).
Because non - response tends to increase with survey length, the survey should not exceed
10 minutes in length, as this tends to be the upper limit of tolerance for surveys. Methods
such as using a predictive auto dialer (PAD) and a computer assisted telephone
interviewing (CATI) system should be considered to ensure randomness and survey
efficiency.
5 -8 December 2009
5.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
Estimated Cost: A market survey of County attitudes toward waste management would
probably cost in the range of $15,000 to $40,000. County staff time would be needed to
further develop the survey scope and monitor its execution.
5.5.4 Expand Existing Advertising and Marketing Efforts
The County currently advertises various aspects of its waste management program, such as
recycling, through television, radio, print advertising and outreach at community or special
events. These efforts could be expanded to include zero waste programs and initiatives and
incorporate new themes or slogans implemented by the County. Expanded television and
radio advertising could include both paid advertisements, as well as promotional
opportunities such as news stories, talk show interviews and additional special event
outreach.
In addition, the County's Web site could be upgraded to include specific information about
source reduction and recycling capabilities (for example, interactive guide with drop -down
options for material type and location), a calendar of events with upcoming events, a list of
businesses that participate in "take -back programs ", and educational materials and
reference list. The County's Web site is currently being expanded, which should improve its
function as a solid waste education medium.
Increasing the number and scope of community events that the County participates in is
recommended in Section 4.0, Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets. Expanding
participation in community events will create additional opportunities to distribute
educational and marketing materials to both residents and businesses.
Estimated Cost: This option could be funded at a variety of levels. The specific amount of
spending on added advertising and marketing should be developed as part of development
of the 3 -year education and promotion plan. For planning purposes, this could range from
$50,000 to $100,000 per year.
5.5.5 Expand School Education Programs
The County has a well developed school education program that includes several
educational initiatives being implemented in the public schools around the island. These
existing educational programs could be expanded to incorporate a multi -level approach that
is consistently implemented across a range of age groups over time, and should integrate
zero waste concepts. Potential activities could include recycling and composting initiatives,
specific curriculum, field trips, and guest speakers.
If the County is able to incorporate recycling as a requirement for the hauling contractors
that service schools as recommended in Section 4.0, it could create opportunities for schools
to involve students with the recycling effort on individual campuses.
Estimated Cost: This option could be funded at a variety of levels. Much of the expense
would be for added staff time for County staff or contracts with its education vendors. The
County may want to add an additional $10 to $20,000 annually for additional school
education materials and supplies.
December 2009 5 -9
5.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
5.5.6 Expand Business Education Programs
The County could further encourage partnerships and sponsorships by local environmental
and community groups to help them take ownership of waste management issues, and
provide recognition to them for waste reduction successes. The County could expand on its
program of written education information and technical assistance for individual business
owners and business and trade groups, with a focus on reducing both the quantity and
toxicity of commercial and industrial discards to landfill. County education staff could
collaborate with other agencies that interact with businesses about environmental issues
such as air, energy, water, wastewater, and disaster planning to leverage resources and
avoid duplication of effort.
Key steps in expanding the County's business outreach programs could include the
following:
• Identifying major generators and generating sectors.
• Developing a database of key contacts at individual businesses and organizations.
• Identifying classes of readily recyclable materials and toxics generated by businesses.
• Establishing priorities.
• Developing strategy and preparing education and outreach materials.
• Monitoring effectiveness.
• Revising and refining the program annually based on results of effectiveness analysis.
County education staff should also look to businesses that provide advertising services
(such as utilities, transit, newspapers, and so forth) and search for opportunities for free
advertising.
Estimated Cost: This option could be funded at a variety of levels. Much of the expense
would be for added staff time. The County may want to add an additional $10 to $20,000 to
its annual budget for business education materials and supplies.
5.5.7 Develop Visitor Industry Education Programs
Given the significant contribution of the visitor industry to the County's waste stream, it
would be beneficial to develop focused educational and promotional programs that
specifically target the visitor industry. This could include developing brochures to provide
in hotels, adding recycling bins at airports, beaches and parks, and installing displays at
airports. The County could also provide a list of recommended actions to hotels and resorts
outlining measures that they can implement to reduce waste, and contact information for
technical assistance. A good example of this and potential resource for the County is a waste
reduction tip sheet prepared by the City of Austin, Texas, which can be found at:
http: / /www.ci.austin.tx.us/ sws/ downloads /wrap hoteltips.pdf.
Estimated Cost: This option could be funded at a variety of levels. Much of the expense
would be for added staff time. The County may want to add an additional $10 to $20,000 to
its annual budget for visitor education and promotion materials and supplies.
5.5.8 Evaluate Effectiveness and Continue to Refine Education Programs
The long -term success of the County's education program will be dependent on the extent
to which educational and promotional materials can be continually modified to respond to
5 -10 December 2009
5.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
changes in the program. As part of this effort, the County should conduct an on -going effort
to evaluate the progress and effects of its source reduction and recycling programs. This
effort should include evaluating the public's understanding of various programs,
establishing benchmarks for success at current levels of effort, and evaluating the
effectiveness of education and promotional campaigns.
The information needed to evaluate the effects of an E &P program might be gained through:
• Analysis of recycling rates, monthly participation rates, and capture rates
• Analysis of levels of contamination in recycling programs
• Analysis of the extent of media coverage
• Personal interviews
• Soliciting opinions at community events and meetings
• Mail, telephone, or dropoff surveys
• Focus groups
• Mail -back response cards
• Evaluation of the number of hits on the County's Web site
The County should include evaluation as part of every education and promotion program.
Results should be communicated to appropriate audiences including elected officials,
interest groups, and the general public.
Estimated Cost: A good rule of thumb is that approximately 10 percent of the cost of
programs should be spent on evaluation.
On the basis of the analysis presented above, the results of the zero waste study, and
discussions with stakeholders, this Plan update recommends the following improvements.
It should be noted that many of the options discussed above and other education initiatives,
such as those in support of residential and business recycling, the implementation of a
PAYT program, visitor industry waste management practices, and organics and composting
are addressed in other sections of the Plan update.
1. Implement a 3 -year zero waste education and social marketing program to educate the
public and business community about zero waste initiatives and opportunities.
2. Hire one full -time staff position to serve as the coordinator of zero waste programs.
3. Implement a community -wide social marketing plan. This plan would increase public
awareness of new waste reduction and sustainable waste management programs being
implemented and foster participation in the programs. The education and social
marketing plan should include the elements outlined in Section 5.5.1, plus all other
aspects of the County's solid waste management efforts that may benefit from focused
education or promotion.
December 2009 5 -11
SECTION 6
limol''T 'o
III III 111111111 11 I'll, to ' , t
%0 •t •
Used household products exhibiting corrosive, reactive, toxic, or ignitable properties are
considered "household hazardous waste' (HHW), as defined by the EPA. These products,
including but not limited to automotive fluids, paints, oils, cleaners, pesticides, poisons, and
batteries require special handling, transport, and disposal or recycling methods. These types
of wastes present special risks and disposal in landfills or via the sanitary sewer system is
not permitted.
Electronic waste (e- waste) consists of any broken electronic devices, or unwanted electronic
products, at or nearing the end of their useful life. Computers, VCRs, copiers, stereo
equipment, televisions, cell phones, and monitors are examples of common electronic
wastes. Similar to household hazardous waste, many e- wastes, such as cathode ray tubes
(CRTs) from televisions and monitors, include components that are toxic and should be
restricted from the landfill.
This section describes the current status of the household hazardous waste and e -waste
collection and disposal system within Hawaii County, identifies current issues and
concerns, and presents options for achieving the County's HHW and e -waste goals.
Household hazardous wastes are typically generated in small quantities, and as a result, are
exempt from Federal and State hazardous waste regulations, per the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 [Code of Federal Regulations] CFR 261.4) and the State of Hawaii
Administrative Rules (HAR 11- 261 -4). State and local governments often hold collection
events during the year or have permanent facilities established where residents can drop off
their used hazardous products for proper disposal.
Limited Federal regulations exist regarding electronic wastes; the EPA has regulations for
the management of universal waste, which includes batteries used in electronics. The
majority of e -waste regulation is established at the state and /or local municipality level.
Some states and counties have introduced legislation to ban e -waste from landfills, imposed
a fee to consumers at time of product purchase, or mandated electronics manufacturers to
take back used electronics.
6.2.1 Review of 2002 IRSWMP
The 2002 IRSWMP issued recommendations for HHW including to increase one -day
collection events to four per year at four different locations, and to establish a collection
facility for HHW, batteries, tires, or other problem wastes as part of a recycling and reuse
December 2009 6 -1
6.0 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELCTRONIC WASTE
center. The current 2008 HHW collection frequency includes six collections per year at
four locations on the island. As described below in Chapter 6.5, the County has established
collection centers at four of the existing recycling and transfer stations. There were no
recommendations issued in the 2002 IRSWMP for e -waste collection.
6.3 Existing ConditionE
Household hazardous waste in Hawai'i County is collected periodically on specified
collection dates at select recycling and transfer stations during the year. E -waste is collected
at two permanent locations in Hilo and Kona.
Hawai'i County provides public awareness and educates residents on HHW and e -waste
programs through Recycle Hawai'i, a tax - exempt, educational organization. Recycle
Hawai'i promotes HHW collection events and a county contractor collects the hazardous
products which are then shipped to the mainland for proper disposal or treatment.
6.3.1 Household Hazardous Waste
The current 2008 county diversion rate for HHW is 24.5 percent, as depicted in Section 4.0,
Recycling, Bioconversion, and Marketing. HHW collection rates have steadily increased
during the past 5 years and the County of Hawai'i has increased the number of collection
events in response. Exhibit 6 -1 displays the type and quantities of HHW collected from
FY 06 through FY 08.
EXHIBIT 6 -1
Household Hazardous Waste Collection, Hawaii County
(All data in pounds unless otherwise noted)
Material Collected
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
Batteries (Automotive and Industrial)
172,430
146,150
113,120
Aerosol Cans
510
915
1,160
Poisons
4,900
13,100
12,300
Acids
600
230
1,350
Bases
165
70
240
Paints and Solvents (Oil Based)
12,500
19,910
24,020
Batteries (Household)
2,400
4,000
3,200
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
10
22
-
Oil and Solvents (Halogenated)
-
-
400
Mercury
75
40
45
Fluorescent Lamps /Bulbs /Ballasts
-
380
1,220
Compressed Gas Cylinders
-
-
360
M isc.
1,175
100
200
Oxidizing Material
240
195
155
Oil (gallons)
3,105
5,310
5,860
Source: Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste
Division. 2008.
6 -2 December 2009
6.0 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELCTRONIC WASTE
Until 2008, collection points for HHW were provided at the Hilo and Kealakehe recycling
and transfer stations only. HHW collection points were established at the Pahoa and
Waimea transfer stations in 2008. Currently, residents are allowed to drop off HHW on the
following specific dates at these four stations:
• Hilo Recycling and Transfer Station -1st Saturday of June and December
• Kealakehe (Kailua) Recycling and Transfer Station - 2nd Saturday of June and December
• Pahoa Recycling and Transfer Station -1st Sunday of March
• Waimea Recycling and Transfer Station -1st Saturday of March
The HHW program is free for Hawai'i County residents, and is advertised via signage at the
recycling and transfer stations. Commercial entities may contact private contractors for
hazardous waste storage, recycling and /or disposal.
6.3.2 Electronic Waste
Electronic waste is accepted at two permanent dropoff sites in Hilo and Kona. Both locations
are open Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and allow residents to recycle
their e -waste for free. Common e -waste includes entertainment electronics (TVs, VCRs,
DVD players, radios, and so forth), computers, computer monitors & peripherals, cell
phones, telephones, microwaves, fax machines, copiers, digital cameras, printers, and
laptops. Commercial entities may also recycle e -waste at both locations; however,
businesses are charged a fee of $0.55 per pound to recycle e- waste.
Recycle Hawai'i collects e -waste from the dropoff sites in Hilo and Kona, then repairs,
reuses and recycles the material. Recycle Hawai'i recycles the e -waste under a partnering
agreement with Bayside Computer Shop. Some e -waste manufacturers offer various other
support programs for e -waste collection, recycling, and disposal. E -waste is shipped to the
U.S. mainland, and recycled by certified facilities. The mainland recyclers segregate the
e -waste into glass, plastics, and metals components which are sold to waste management
entities. Exhibit 6 -2 presents the total quantity of e -waste collected during the 2004 to 2008
fiscal years.
EXHIBIT 6 -2
Electronic Waste Collected. Hawaii
Fiscal Year Quantity Collected
(July 1 through June 31) (Tons)
2005 78
2006 87
2007 165
2008 77a
aThe decline shown in FY 08 resulted from contracting delays. E -waste
collections increased considerably in the latter months of 2008.
Source: Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management,
Solid Waste Division. 2008.
December 2009 6 -3
6.0 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELCTRONIC WASTE
At the Kea'au Recycling and Transfer Station, a product exchange and re -use center has
been established by the County that allows residents to drop off unwanted but still useful
electronic appliances. Residents can then purchase the appliances for a nominal fee at the
center.
In addition to services provided by the County, during 2008 the University of Hawai'i in
conjunction with Apple Corporation sponsored the Hawai'i Education and Government
eDisposal Day, during which residents were allowed to dispose of their personal e -waste
during a single -day event at locations in Hilo and Kona. It is estimated that approximately
one million pounds of e -waste was collected statewide during this event.
1 • =-
6.4.1 Household Hazardous Waste
Household hazardous waste presents unique hazards to humans and the environment.
Storage, handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste require special procedures
and equipment. Currently there are a limited number of locations for residents and
businesses to dispose of HHW. The distance to collection sites, and challenges associated
with storage, handling, and transporting HHW may be a disincentive for residents or
businesses in rural areas to properly dispose of their waste.
If County or landfill staff identify HHW, they take steps to manage it appropriately and
keep it out of the landfill. County staff also respond to occasional reports of HHW discarded
in remote areas of the county. However, once in a garbage bag or bin, it is very difficult (and
expensive) to identify HHW in the garbage stream. In spite of the County's current efforts to
keep household hazardous waste out of its landfills, the 2008 County of Hawaii Waste
Composition Study estimated that 527 tons of household hazardous waste was disposed of
in County landfills in FY 08. Thus, additional education and more convenient opportunities
to properly manage HHW would be beneficial. Potential opportunities for improving the
existing system are presented below. The County spent about $130,000 on its HHW program
in FY 08.
6.4.2 Electronic Waste
Recycle Hawai'i estimates that a container of e -waste currently costs approximately $2,250
for shipment to the Mainland, plus $675 for ground transport to selected recyclers. The
County pays for the residential e -waste program through property taxes; however, there is
no similar program to address e -waste generated by businesses, schools, or government
entities such as the military branches. The cost of e -waste disposal is a disincentive for
private businesses to recycle e- waste, and results in much of the business e -waste being sent
to the landfills. A lack of staff assigned to monitoring and enforcement at recycling and
transfer stations and landfills contributes to e -waste entering the landfills. Under current
HDOH guidance e -waste is considered hazardous and is not allowed to be disposed of in
landfills. Stronger legislation may be required in order to deter residents or businesses from
disposing of e -waste in ways that result in the waste entering landfills.
The ultimate final disposition of e -waste is an important factor to consider with e -waste
recycling or disposal. Disposal or recycling of e -waste by uncertified companies can
6 -4 December 2009
6.0 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELCTRONIC WASTE
potentially result in discarded e -waste being shipped to third world countries where less
desirable practices are implemented. Use of certified recyclers can increase costs of recycling
or disposal. The County's current program (implemented through Recycle Hawaii) uses
recyclers that provide certificates of destruction. The average cost charged by recyclers to
provide certified destruction is $0.10 per pound. The County spent about $70,000 on its
e -waste recycling program in FY 08.
The design of collection facilities for e -waste and HHW must take into account special
conditions within the County, including invasive species concerns, and operating conditions
in areas where the facilities are established. Dangerous conditions (wet and slippery
surfaces in high rain areas) and the potential for export of invasive species (such as African
tree snails or coqui frogs) must be evaluated during design.
An overview of various options that could be implemented to improve the management of
HHW and e -waste follows. These options were developed based on successful initiatives
implemented in other jurisdictions that may be applicable and appropriate for Hawaii
County.
Advocating for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) was an option discussed in the
Source Reduction and Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets sections. Hawaii State
legislation enacted during 2008 will require development of take back programs by
manufacturers of certain types of e- waste.
Note, the following options assume that the two permanent dropoff sites for e -waste
continue beyond the end of 2008 (when the contract expires). The County has published a
request for proposals to continue these services in 2009.
6.5.1 Install Fixed (Permanent) Collection Facilities at Recycling
and Transfer Stations
Additional, permanent collection facilities located at recycling and transfer stations would
provide more opportunity for residents to properly dispose of HHW, e- waste, and some
special wastes. The facilities could be incorporated into the standard layout design at
selected stations. The County is currently planning to build a special waste collection facility
at the Pahoa recycling and transfer station during its pending upgrade. Guidelines could be
developed for both residential and business use of the facilities.
In areas with higher rainfall, facilities should be designed with safe work practices in mind
for operation of equipment such as forklifts or trailers. Operational plans must be
established to minimize the risk of injury to workers. Facility design should include covered
or enclosed areas that incorporate measures to prevent invasive species from entering waste
storage areas, or being transported off -site with waste.
Having fixed facilities would potentially reduce the amount of illegal dumping that is
occurring, and would allow the County to set up a safer and more efficient system for
storage, handling, transport, and eventual disposal of the wastes.
December 2009 6 -5
6.0 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELCTRONIC WASTE
Estimated Cost: Fixed facilities for HHW can range significantly in costs depending upon
their design and function. Facilities to serve West and East Hawai'i could range in cost from
$500,000 to $1.5 million each. If multiple facilities are developed at recycling and transfer
stations, the facilities could be smaller and would cost at the lower end of that range.
Annual operating costs would depend on how often the facilities are open and on the extent
to which the programs are successful in attracting materials. Based on information provided
in a recent survey of HHW programs 'l, the estimated cost of operating two fixed facilities
(including recycling and appropriate disposal of materials collected) would be
approximately $750,000 per year. Adding household hazardous waste facilities at additional
locations would not increase operating costs proportionally (that is, if two facilities cost
$750,000 per year to operate, the third might cost an additional $100 to $200,000 per year).
6.5.2 Implement Additional Collection Events
Additional one -day collection events, combined with promotional campaigns could
potentially increase diversion of HHW, e- waste, and special waste from the landfills. Events
could be designed to target a single or multiple types of waste. Similar to the currently
scheduled events, the County could sponsor events that are implemented on an island -wide
basis, or community- specific events that are rotated through various geographic areas. The
County could conduct such events at fixed locations, or conduct a mobile event utilizing
trucks or trailers set up to transport specific types of waste. The County could also set up
events that are specific to either residents, agricultural businesses, or commercial and
industrial businesses.
For e -waste only, collection events could be accomplished using a trailer or container that
would rotate among various recycling and transfer stations. A schedule could be published
that documented the days that the service would be provided at a particular location. As an
example, a trailer could get to 12 locations each year if it spent a set week every third month
at a different station (that is, 2nd week of January, April, July).
Estimated Cost. Costs for conducting such events would include cost of temporary facilities
to store wastes dropped off during the events, Cost for promoting the events, and additional
training costs for staff who would manage the events and the storage and handling of the
waste. Additional expenses would include the cost of any subcontracted waste hauling or
disposal firms utilized to transport and dispose of the waste collected.
Each additional event would probably cost the County about $30 to $40,000. A single
e -waste trailer or container that rotated between various recycling and transfer stations
could be installed for about $100,000 per year.
6.5.3 Establish E -Waste Take Back Programs with Manufacturers or Sellers
In 2008, the State of Hawai'i passed legislation (Senate Bill 2843) that will require
manufacturers of certain types of electronic equipment (primarily non - medical, stand -alone
equipment containing CRTs, liquid crystal, or plasma display screens) to establish, conduct,
and manage a program for the collection, transportation, and recycling of these types of
1 Cascadia Consulting Group, prepared for Portland Metro, Oregon. 2005. Comparison of Household Hazardous Waste
Programs.
6 -6 December 2009
6.0 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELCTRONIC WASTE
electronic devices sold in the State. Manufacturers must develop plans to implement such
programs by June 1, 2009, and by January 1, 2010, must make available to their customers
information on collection services in the State. The HDOH will also maintain a Web site and
toll -free phone number with current information on where specific types of electronic
devices can be returned for recycling.
Electronic products manufacturers such as Apple®, Dell 1, Hewlett Packard ®, and others
have established e -waste take back programs. Consumers in Hawai'i County could
potentially take advantage of these established programs if the County provided additional
information, and some type of incentive to return products to manufacturers. In many cases
the manufacturers will accept used electronic equipment they originally manufactured at no
charge, and many manufacturers will accept other brands of equipment for a small fee.
Residents may have to pay for shipping the item back to the manufacturer if they elect to
recycle their own equipment. The County could evaluate requesting grants from
manufacturers or sellers that could be used to offset the costs of handling and shipment of
e -waste back to manufacturers. Used electronics that are still functional are also being
redistributed using the power of the internet. For example, Intel® and other manufacturers
have collaborated with EBay to establish a network (Rethink Initiative) that allows
consumers to sell or donate their used equipment to others.
Some of the larger electronics sellers, such as Best Buy ®, have established programs allowing
customers to periodically drop off unwanted electronic equipment for recycling. Often these
e -waste stewardship initiatives are undertaken as one day or weekend events, and in some
cases store credit is given to consumers as an incentive in exchange for donating unwanted
equipment that is only lightly used and still functional. Best Buy and other sellers have also
established grant programs that communities may apply for in order to fund such events.
The County could potentially apply for such grants, or work directly with sellers to
establish collection events.
Estimated Cost. The County could potentially incorporate information about these types of
programs into their educational materials, and work in conjunction with either sellers or
manufacturers to establish take back programs. It would require additional costs for the
County to provide staff to initiate and manage such programs. Some costs could potentially
be offset by grants provided by the manufacturers or sellers.
6.5.4 Implement Advanced Disposal Fee for E -Waste
The County could implement requirements to collect advance disposal fees on certain types
of e- waste. The fee would be collected at the point of sale and would be earmarked to
support the management and eventual disposal when the electronic equipment reaches the
end of its useful life. Currently only California has implemented legislation requiring
consumers to pay a fee upon purchase of electronic equipment. The California law applies
to purchases of specific types of electronic items known to contain materials that are
considered hazardous upon disposal (primarily televisions, computers, and other types of
equipment that use cathode ray tubes, liquid crystal displays or plasma screens). The fee,
which ranges from $6 to $10 per device, only applies when purchasing new equipment, and
is utilized to recycle the types of products covered under the law. Retailers are required to
implement the fee system, and are allowed to capture 3 percent of the fee to cover the costs
of implementing the program.
December 2009 6 -7
6.0 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELCTRONIC WASTE
Estimated Cost. Implementation of this type of system would require the County to invest
labor costs to draft legislation supporting the requirements, and to implement a program to
manage money collected. It is anticipated that implementation of such a program could
potentially result in revenue that would partially offset costs the County would eventually
spend to manage disposal of e -waste generated at recycling and transfer stations or during
collection events. Costs would be incurred by local retailers and manufacturers to establish
and administer the program. Consumers would ultimately pay any added cost associated
with the fee at the point of purchase.
6.5.5 Add E -Waste Product Exchange and Re -Use Centers at Recycling
and Transfer Stations
A product exchange and reuse center is currently established at the Kea'au recycling and
transfer station, where residents can drop off electronic appliances that are no longer
wanted, but still functional. The County is in the process of establishing additional exchange
centers at selected recycling and transfer stations, which will create more opportunities for
residents to drop off unwanted electronic appliances and, thus, increase diversion of this
waste stream from landfills.
Estimated Cost. Construction of such centers could be incorporated into the design of
permanent drop off locations for e -waste at recycling and transfer stations. Construction of
exchange and re -use centers is not expected to significantly increase the cost of constructing
permanent drop off locations for e -waste at recycling and transfer stations. However,
additional labor costs would be incurred to staff and operate such centers, including the cost
of bundling and transporting materials. Each center would likely cost between $20,000 and
$100,000 per year to operate, depending on how the program is operated and the extent to
which products could be re -used versus transported and recycled.
6.5.6 Explore Public- Private Partnership for Local E -scrap Campaign
(anything with a plug)
The zero waste implementation study discussed the concept of hand dismantling electronic
components (E- scrap) to segregate high -grade metals and segregate working parts rather
than shipping materials off - island. Currently, e -waste collected on the island is shipped,
typically without being pre- sorted, to the U.S. Mainland for proper disposal. An E -scrap
campaign would present a potential opportunity to create value -added products, jobs, and
tax revenues in the County rather than shipping E -scrap off - island to benefit another
jurisdiction.
There are several ways to initiate hand dismantling of E- scrap:
• Provide financial incentives for local dismantling to a company that is currently
shipping bulk E -scrap off of the island.
• Encourage a joint venture with companies that have established hand dismantling
operations, or have designed their own E -scrap processing equipment and may be
seeking joint ventures with non - profit organizations or for - profit businesses.
• Apply for a grant to promote green infrastructure jobs from the new Federal
administration.
6 -8 December 2009
6.0 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELCTRONIC WASTE
In this option, the County would conduct a study of different models for promoting local
dismantling of electronics and convene a meeting of interested parties to determine the level
of interest and what help might be needed to move forward. The County could assist them
in implementing a process on their own (perhaps with some initial funding support), or
issue a request for proposals to develop new services as needed.
Estimated Cost. The cost of an E -scrap campaign could vary widely depending on the
extent to which the program would require County funding to initiate and sustain. The cost
of an initial study and meetings to investigate opportunities would be approximately
$30,000.
MIT. !
On the basis of the analysis presented above, the results of the zero waste implementation
study, and the preferences of SWAG, staff, and other stakeholders, this Plan recommends
the following actions to improve the management of HHW and e- waste. Proposed funding
and the timing of implementation for each program is shown in Section 10 (Exhibit 10 -6).
In addition to the recommendations presented below, as noted in Sections 3.0 and 6.5.5, the
County is in the process of establishing more reuse centers at selected recycling and transfer
stations, which will also create more opportunities for diversion of e -waste from landfills.
1. Hire a Household Hazardous Waste/Electronics Waste specialist. The current County
staffing level is a limiting factor for the implementation of new waste management
programs. Whether new programs are implemented solely by County staff or involve
subcontractors, additional staff will be necessary to successfully initiate and manage new
programs. To expand the HHW and e -waste programs, it is recommended that the
County create and staff one full -time HHW /E -Waste specialist position.
2. Implement HHW and a -waste public outreach and education programs. As a
component of the additional HHW and e -waste programs, advertising will need to be
increased to make the public aware of the events and to encourage participation. The
County should expand the existing marketing programs through:
— Event - specific announcements or advertisements.
— Additional signage at recycling and transfer stations.
— Expansion of outreach programs by conducting community -based educational
events at schools or other public institutions.
3. Explore a -waste take back programs with State and manufacturers /sellers. Take back
programs by manufacturers and sellers of electronic products are a cost - effective
method to divert e -waste from landfills. Such programs can reduce costs of proper
disposal for consumers, make it more convenient for consumers to discard their e- waste,
and ultimately, provide an incentive for manufacturers to design less toxic and more
recyclable products. It is recommended that County staff:
— Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to mandate and manage
take back programs for specific types of e- waste.
December 2009 6 -9
6.0 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELCTRONIC WASTE
— Evaluate the elements of successful similar programs implemented in other
jurisdictions during the planning process.
— Coordinate with other counties and the State to develop and implement e -waste take
back programs.
— Coordinate with local retail businesses to facilitate implementation of take back
programs for e- waste.
— Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to facilitate storage and handling of
e -waste at various types of collection locations.
— Incorporate information about existing and new e -waste take back programs in the
community outreach and education effort.
4. Conduct additional HHW collection events. During the development of the IRSWMP
update, a consensus was expressed by both members of the public and the SWAC that
periodic HHW collection events were successful and offered the best opportunity for
both proper disposal of HHW and diversion of these wastes from landfills. One of the
most prevalent comments was that the number and locations of collection events should
be expanded to create additional opportunities for proper HHW disposal. It is
recommended that the County establish ten to 12 additional HHW collection events per
year.
5. Explore legislative actions for hazardous products and packaging take back programs.
Take back programs by manufacturers and sellers of hazardous products are a cost -
effective method to divert these types of waste from landfills. It is recommended that
County staff:
— Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to mandate and manage
take back programs for specific types of hazardous waste or packaging.
— Coordinate with local retail businesses to develop and implement take back
programs for hazardous products and packaging.
— Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to facilitate storage and handling of
hazardous products and packaging at various types of collection locations.
— Incorporate information about existing and new hazardous materials and packaging
take back programs in the community outreach and education effort.
6. Explore public - private partnership for local E -scrap campaign. It is recommended that
the County initiate a study of different models for promoting local dismantling of
electronics. As part of the study the County should convene a meeting of interested
parties to determine the level of interest and identify ways that the County can help
facilitate development of a locally -based E -scrap program. Depending on the economics
of on- island dismantling, the County could then evaluate the extent to which it would
provide funding to support implementation of a public - private partnership E -scrap
program.
6 -10 December 2009
SECTION 7
�1�0 RY MOU
7.0 Special Waste
As defined in Hawai'i Administrative Rules 11- 58.01 -03, "Special wastes' means any solid
waste which, because of its source or physical, chemical, or biological characteristics, require
special consideration for its proper processing or disposal, or both. This term includes, but is
not limited to, asbestos, used oil, lead acid batteries, municipal waste combustion ash,
sewage sludge that is non - hazardous, medical wastes, tires, white goods, and derelict
vehicles.
Special wastes typically make up a significant portion of the total waste stream for most
communities.
Special wastes are generated by both residents and commercial businesses, and in some
cases require special handling or processing in order to comply with federal and state
regulations. As shown in Exhibit 7 -1, certain types of special waste are allowed to be
disposed of in landfills, with varying levels of documentation depending on the type of
waste. Some types of special wastes are not allowed to be disposed of in either the South
Hilo or West Hawai'i sanitary landfills, and require transport to separate recycling,
processing, or disposal facilities. The County manages many types of special wastes by
establishing drop off or collection points, and then transporting the waste materials to either
the landfill or other recycling or disposal facilities.
" iiiiiiiiI 111111111111111111 11,111 11111111�illillillillilil III IIII 1111111111111111 1111 1111111111111111 1111111111111
A summary of current procedures for handling special wastes in Hawai'i County, and
recommended improvements in those procedures, follows. The current system of handling
and disposing of special waste is generally successful in diverting these materials from the
landfill. However, the facilities for residents to drop off some of these wastes are limited in
number and capacity; an expansion of the current system would make it more convenient
for residents. With the exception of lead -acid batteries and tires, there are no current
requirements for businesses that sell or produce products that eventually become such
wastes to be ultimately responsible for their final disposition (recycling or disposal). In
addition, programs to educate the public or businesses about procedures for proper disposal
are limited in scope.
Consistent education and convenient opportunities to properly dispose of special wastes is
required to prevent the disposal of these materials as garbage at existing recycling and
transfer stations, in other areas, or into the sanitary sewer or cesspool systems. The County
must monitor for and then manage these materials when they are left at the stations, and
must respond to reports of wastes discarded in more remote areas. Wastes illegally
December 2009 7 -1
7.0 SPECIAL WASTE
EXHIBIT 7 -1
Special Waste Disposal Requirements
Special Storage, Handling
Accepted at East
Accepted at West
or Disposal Practices
Hawaii Landfill
Hawaii Landfill
Required
Asbestos Containing Materials
No
Yes
Yes
Used Oil
No
No
N/A
Petroleum Contaminated Soil
No
Yes
Yes
Used Batteries
No
No
N/A
Sewage Sludge (non- hazardous)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Agricultural Waste
Yes
Yes
Yes (deceased livestock)
Medical Wastes
No
No
N/A
Used Tires
No
No
N/A
White Goods
No
No
N/A
Derelict Vehicles
No
No
N/A
discharged to sanitary sewer or cesspool systems can disrupt sewage treatment plant
operations or directly impact soil and groundwater near cesspools. It is likely that in more
rural areas, the distance to dropoff locations, and difficulties associated with transporting
and handling, are disincentives for residents to properly dispose of these types of wastes. In
some cases, these types of materials end up being landfilled if they are dumped into the
refuse chutes at the recycling and transfer stations, and are inside bags or other containers
that make it difficult for County or landfill staff to identify the wastes. Special wastes that
end up being landfilled present hazards to both the landfill operations staff and individuals
who transport and dump refuse at the landfill.
A discussion of individual special wastes follows, with recommendations for improving
existing special waste management methods where appropriate.
7.3.1 Asbestos
Asbestos - containing materials (ACM) are currently accepted for disposal at the WHSL.
ACMs are not currently accepted at the SHSL or at the County recycling and transfer
stations. ACM is typically hauled to the WHSL for disposal by contractors, and placed in
designated areas within the landfill that are documented for future reference.
7.3.2 Used Oil
Currently, a County and State sponsored Do- It- Yourself (DIY) Used Motor Oil Recycling
Program is being implemented in Hawai'i County. The program is funded by a surcharge
on oil imported to the state. Recycle Hawai'i manages the program under contract to the
County. Under the program, residents are allowed to drop used motor oil off at no charge at
any of seven permanent collection locations. The oil is accumulated at these collection
centers, and then transported to recycling or energy recovery facilities by subcontracted
7 -2 December 2009
7.0 SPECIAL WASTE
waste hauling or disposal contractors. During 2007, 5,985 gallons (22.8 tons) of motor oil
were collected and either recycled or used in an energy recovery facility. During the period
from January through June 2008, 2,915 gallons (11.3 tons) of used motor oil were collected.
Potential issues with used oil disposal include residents disposing of used oil into the waste
stream that enters the landfills, discarding containers of used oil at the recycling and
transfer stations, or discharging used oil to the ground surface.
7.3.3 Petroleum Contaminated Soil
Soil that has been impacted by releases of petroleum products is currently accepted at the
WHSL, if it has been chemically profiled and determined to be non - hazardous. Petroleum
contaminated soil (PCS) is not currently accepted at the SHSL. Waste Management
Corporation reviews chemical profiling data for PCS entering the WHSL, and manages the
placement and disposal of this material at the landfill.
7.3.4 Used Batteries
Used lead -acid batteries are typically recycled by distributors such as auto parts stores or
auto service centers. Lead acid batteries are not accepted for disposal at the landfills or
recycling and transfer stations. Each month, a small number of lead acid batteries are
typically discarded by residents at unmonitored recycling and transfer stations. In addition,
specific collection areas for batteries are set up at the Kealakehe, Hilo, and Kea'au recycling
and transfer stations. The County sets batteries discarded at recycling and transfer stations
aside and County employees pick them up. They are transported to their respective
baseyards, and eventually to either of the two scrap metal yards or to the HHW event
whichever, is more convenient. During 2007 approximately 130,025 pounds of automotive
and industrial batteries were collected and recycled. During the period from January to June
2008, approximately 52,745 pounds of automotive and industrial batteries were collected
and recycled.
Potential issues with used battery disposal include residents disposing of batteries into the
waste stream that enters the landfills, or discarding used batteries at recycling and transfer
stations or in more remote areas.
7.3.5 Sewage Sludge
Non - hazardous sewage sludge is accepted at both the SHSL and WHSL for disposal. The
volume of sewage sludge entering the landfills is typically relatively small. The SHSL
receives sewage sludge from the Hilo WWTP, and the WHSL receives sewage sludge from
two private wastewater treatment plants. Other private facilities, including resorts and a
private wastewater treatment plant located in Waimea recycle sewage sludge by
composting the sludge on their properties.
7.3.6 Agricultural and Farm - Generated Waste
Agricultural wastes generated in Hawai'i County typically include dead livestock, spoiled
foods, containers of herbicides, pesticides, or other agricultural chemicals, and green waste.
Currently the County accepts livestock, or makes arrangements to assist the owner with
proper burial of deceased large animals (smaller animals such as cats and dogs are accepted
December 2009 7 -3
7.0 SPECIAL WASTE
at the landfills). Green waste produced at farms is most frequently utilized by the farm
owners. Green waste is accepted for recycling at the SHSL and the Kea'au and Kealakehe
recycling and transfer stations, as described in Section 4.0, Recycling, Bioconversion, and
Markets.
7.3.7 Medical Wastes
Under Hawai'i County Code untreated medical wastes are considered "prohibited
materials" and are not allowed to be disposed of in landfills. Medical wastes that have been
pre- treated at the generating facility to remove pathogens and other hazards are permitted
to be disposed of in the SHSL and WHSL.
Some businesses likely subcontract medical waste disposal to private businesses that
specialize in medical waste disposal. In addition, expired pharmaceuticals are accepted
during the periodic HHW disposal events. Waste disposal practices likely vary by facility or
clinic, and there currently are no required standard practices or documentation procedures.
The HDOH is the lead regulatory agency tasked with oversight. The 2008 County of
Hawai'i Waste Composition study estimated that 139 tons of treated medical waste was
disposed of at County landfills in FY 07 -08.
While medical waste management practices are generally effective, County staff members
have, on infrequent occasions, observed untreated medical waste at recycling and transfer
stations or landfills.
7.3.8 Used Tires
State regulations exist for the storage, processing, and disposal of tires in Hawai'i. The
County of Hawai'i amended the banning of whole tires in 2008 to include banning cut,
sliced, chipped, or shredded tires from disposal at County of Hawai'i landfills. Both
residential and commercial scrap tires are typically collected and disposed of by auto service
centers, during installation of newly purchased tires. Residents can also drop off tires at
several local companies that are permitted by the HDOH to conduct tire disposal facilities;
these businesses charge a nominal fee to dispose of used tires. Scrap tires on abandoned
vehicles are transported by the scrap metal hauler to their facility, removed from the
vehicles, and then transported to a recycling or disposal facility.
Most of the used tires generated on the Big Island are shipped to O'ahu for crumbing and
subsequent blending with coal at the AES Coal fired Power Plant. A smaller percentage of
the used tires are recycled for use in creation of artistic or industrial products. At least one
business in the County has conducted a pilot project that mixed scrap tires and concrete to
create blocks for landscaping walls or fences. Nationally, markets are being increasingly
developed to use recycled products from tires, including steel alloys from belted tires,
rubber products such as playground surfaces or mats, and landscaping products. Local
markets for scrap tires are, however, still fairly limited.
Although tires are relatively inert and do not break down quickly when discarded in the
environment, discarded tires can trap rainwater and provide an environment that
mosquitoes, vermin, or invasive species can thrive in, creating a public nuisance or potential
public health concerns.
7 -4 December 2009
7.0 SPECIAL WASTE
7.3.9 White Goods
White goods consist of used appliances that are no longer wanted or operational, including
dishwashers, ranges, refrigerators, water heaters, freezers, and other similar domestic
appliances. Residents can currently drop off unwanted white goods at the Pahoa, Ke'ei,
Hilo, and Kealakehe recycling and transfer stations. Drop offs occur at other recycling and
transfer stations to keep them from ending up in the transfer trailers, and the landfill. The
County employees monitor the stockpile of white goods, and regularly load and transport
the white goods from any collection points to the base yards, and eventually to the proper
Scrap Metal disposal facility. At those facilities, if the white goods are undamaged, Freon is
recovered and recycled in accordance with Federal law from any Freon - containing
appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners.
Some retail outlets such as Sears will pick up used appliances and transport them to
disposal centers when a new (replacement) appliance is purchased with the delivery option.
However, delivery to remote areas of the island such as North Kohala or Ka'u is not offered
by most retail outlets.
The difficulties associated with transporting bulky items such as white goods are potential
disincentives for residents to properly dispose of these items. Illegal dumping of white
goods is a potential result of limited disposal alternatives. Options to improve the white
good disposal process include changing the operation permit for the convenience centers to
make them transfer stations, including the dropoff of white goods; establishing additional
targeted collection days and locations in order to increase the opportunity for residents to
properly dispose of white goods; or mobile collection events.
7.3.10 Derelict Vehicles
Abandoned vehicles are managed by the County Abandoned Vehicle Coordinator in
conjunction with the Hawai'i County Police Department. Abandoned vehicles that have
been reported to the Police Department are tagged and then monitored and evaluated to
assess if they are actually derelict. If after the monitoring period the vehicle has not been
moved, and it is considered derelict, the vehicle is hauled by a County of Hawai'i contracted
towing company to one of the two waste metal recovery facility. If the vehicle is abandoned
but not considered derelict, the vehicle is impounded by the County, and an attempt is
made to notify the registered owner.
The current program for special wastes is somewhat limited by the County recycling and
transfer station infrastructure. It was agreed through consensus of stakeholders that it
makes sense to include functional elements necessary for proper handling of special wastes
in new facility plans or designs. Permits will have to be modified to allow the handling and
temporary storage of special wastes at recycling and transfer stations, and staff will require
training to implement new programs correctly. Further study will be required to develop
programs that are adequately protective of human health and the environment. The
following are recommendations to improve the existing system.
December 2009 7 -5
7.0 SPECIAL WASTE
Include special waste dropoff and collection areas in the design of new or renovated
recycling and transfer stations. To the extent possible, the County should seek to provide
geographically dispersed collection points.
2. Continue the current effort to modify convenience center permits to allow white goods
recovery at recycling and transfer stations.
3. Include information regarding the environmental benefits of properly disposing of scrap
tires, and current disposal options in its education and promotion programs.
7 -6 December 2009
SECTION 8
The County of Hawai'i currently operates a network of 21 recycling and transfer stations at
which residents can drop off recyclables and waste. The County contracts with private firms
to transport recyclables from the stations to privately operated processing facilities.
Municipal waste is transported by the County's Solid Waste Division (SWD) staff to either
the South Hilo or West Hawai'i sanitary landfills. The recycling and transfer stations
provide geographically distributed collection points that are conveniently located for public
users. A map of the stations that describes the relative size of each station by denoting
FY 07 -08 garbage received is included in Exhibit 8 -1.
Currently, there is no residential curbside pickup of recyclables or garbage provided by the
County, so most residents use the recycling and recycling and transfer stations as their
primary means of recycling or disposing of materials. There are private collection
companies in the county that offer fee -based curbside garbage collection services. These
services are used by a relatively small percentage of residents on the island.
Commercial businesses are served by private firms in a competitive market. There is
evidence that some non - residential customers use the recycling and transfer stations.
This section describes current conditions of the existing solid waste collection and transfer
system within Hawai'i County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents options
for achieving the County's solid waste collection and transfer goals.
The County of Hawai'i developed a recycling and transfer station system in the 1970s to
provide a transition from operating local dump sites to instituting a more centralized
landfill system. The recycling and transfer stations were initially constructed as inexpensive,
temporary facilities to fulfill the immediate needs of residential users. The rationale behind
a recycling and transfer station system is to create efficiency by consolidating many smaller
residential loads into combined larger loads for transfer to landfills.
The County's Solid Waste Division, Department of Environmental Management operates
and maintains the recycling and transfer stations. Twenty of the 21 recycling and transfer
stations operate under Solid Waste Management Permits issued by the HDOH1.
1 The Miloli'i transfer station is currently not under permit.
December 2009 8 -1
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
Ka'auhuhu (Hawi) RTS
4,145 (5.1 %)
Honoka'a RTS
3,459 (4.2 %)
Keauhou RTS
5,017 (6.2 %)
Ke'ei RTS
2,025 (2.5 %) �¢
Waiea RTS
2,969 (3.6 %)
Miloli i RTS Pahala RTS
207 (0.3 %) 11304 (1.6 %)
Waiohinu RTS
Ocean View 3,447 (4.2 %)
(Proposed)
,
0 Note: Numbers under transfer station = tons of trash
IN hauled in FY 07 -08 and percent of total for County.
37412x10 01, ES002008003SEA Ez9- 1_�ispnsal at Hewsii Connfy_ei KM
Glenwood RTS
2,940 (3.6 %)
Volcano RTS
1,929(2.4 %),>
Pahoe RTS 0/0,
5,759(7.1 %)
�Kalapana RTS
1,069 (1.3 %)
Exhibit 8 -1
Disposal at Hawaii County
Recycling and Transfer Stations
FY 07 -08
8 -2 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
The following is a summary of the recommendations presented in the 2002 Plan update
relative to solid waste collection and transfer, and a description of the actions taken to date
to achieve each recommendation.
2002 Plan Update Recommendation
Status
Design and Construct a Sort Station in Hilo
The sort station is currently under construction and is
scheduled for completion in May 2009.
Establish Recycling Dropoff Centers at All
All but three recycling and transfer stations now have recycling
Transfer Stations
dropoff centers.
Operate the WHSL for West Hawaii Waste
Currently, the SHSL is still operational and the proposed
Stream and Residual from East Hawaii
transfer of waste to the WHSL is not taking place.
Waste Stream that Cannot be Managed
Otherwise
Close SHSL
SHSL has not been closed. Its capacity has been extended
using various engineered approaches.
Design and Construct Waste Reduction
The County issued an RFP for construction of a waste
Facility
reduction facility. The City Council rejected all proposals
submitted to construct a waste reduction facility primarily
because the costs of construction looked to be significantly
higher than initially estimated.
8.4 Existing ! !
Currently there is no municipal curbside
recycling or garbage pickup provided by
the County. Most island residents use the
County recycling and transfer stations to
dispose of their refuse. Private
companies currently provide curbside
pickup within limited geographic
regions of the island for a fee. Based on
residential credit information from the
County2, it is estimated that about
6,600 households currently subscribe to
curbside service. This represents
approximately 10.5 percent of the 63,300 estimated occupied households in Hawai'i County
in 2008. Fees for curbside collection quoted by private collection firms appear to range
between $20 to $30 per household per month.
There are a number of companies that collect garbage from businesses and institutions in
the County. An analysis of August 2008 County scale records suggests that there are two
private collection firms that deliver more than five percent of the waste delivered to County
landfills: Pacific Waste (22 percent) and Business Services Hawai'i (6 percent). Companies
that delivered between one and five percent of the waste to County landfills include: Atlas
2 The County provides credit against tipping fees to collection firms that document waste that is collected from residences.
December 2009 8 -3
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
Recycling (2 percent), PFI (2 percent), CTS Earthmoving (1 percent), Superior Sanitation
(1 percent), Hawai'i Dredging and Construction (1 percent), and Leo's Rubbish Service
(1 percent). Collection rates charged vary by company, the type of service provided, and the
distance from the collection point to the landfill. Representative rates are $180 for collection
of a 3- cubic -yard bin once per week or $228 for collection of a 4- cubic -yard bin once per
week.
Use of the recycling and transfer stations for the dropoff of recyclables or garbage is
currently free for residents. The County recently instituted a two -bin system for recycling at
transfer stations. This consists of one roll -off container for glass and another for mixed
recyclables. Currently, most stations have stairs and platforms to allow reasonably
convenient customer access to the recycling bins. Selected stations offer a HI -5 redemption
center, reuse opportunities and /or facilities for the recycling of green waste and metals. The
recycling services provided at each station are shown in Exhibit 8 -2.
Several of the recycling and transfer stations are used by private recyclers or community
groups for collection of recyclable materials. The County facilitates the use of the recycling
and transfer stations as collection points for recyclables to the extent practical, and intends
to eventually upgrade all of the recycling and transfer stations to enhance recyclable
collection capabilities.
At the stations, residents deposit garbage into chutes that lead to truck - mounted,
compacting containers, which are then hauled by SWD staff to the two landfills. The County
operates and maintains stationary compacting units, truck mounted compacting units, and a
fleet of trucks and compacting containers utilized in the operation of the recycling and
transfer station system, and also provides part -time security monitoring at the busiest
recycling and transfer stations.
8.4.1 Recycling and Transfer Station Characteristics
The stations vary in size, population served, tonnage of waste collected per day, types of
waste accepted, and hours of operation. Site characteristics for each recycling and transfer
station are presented in Exhibit 8 -3.
With the exception of one station ( Miloli'i) refuse is compacted at each of the recycling and
transfer stations three to four times per day by roving SWD recycling and transfer station
attendants. The Miloli'i recycling and transfer station has a roll -off container that is hauled
twice per week to the WHSL by a private contractor. Recycling and transfer station
attendants clean and maintain the stations, operate the compactors, periodically monitor
refuse haulers for prohibited materials, and report any unusual activity at the stations.
The recycling and transfer stations are permitted to accept only residential refuse;
commercial and hazardous wastes are prohibited at all stations. However, commercial
businesses frequently use the stations because of a lack of enforcement and lack of suitable
alternatives for solid waste disposal. Without adequate security measures and enforcement
(for example, fences and security guards or SWD personnel to document the origin and type
of waste being disposed of at the recycling and transfer stations), it is virtually impossible
for the County to ensure that all permit requirements are being met. Currently, 18 of the
21 stations are gated and have part -time security guards.
8 -4 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
EXHIBIT 8 -2
Recyclinq Services at Recyclinq and Transfer Stations
East Hawaii
Kea'au (KRRC)
X
N
X
X
X
X
Hilo
X
N
X
X
X
�
Pahoa
X
X
O
Laupahoehoe
X
X
X
X
Honoka'a
X
X
X
Kalapana
X
X
E
Volcano
X
X
Glenwood
X
X
L
Honomu
is
1C
L
? a
Recycling and Transfer Station
X
X
U)
= v
East Hawaii
Kea'au (KRRC)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hilo
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pahoa
X
X
X
Laupahoehoe
X
X
X
X
Honoka'a
X
X
X
Kalapana
X
X
Volcano
X
X
Glenwood
X
X
Honomu
X
X
X
Papaikou
X
X
Pa'auilo
Pahala
X
West Hawaii
Kealakehe (Kailua)
X
X
X
X
X
Keauhou
X
X
X
X
Ka'auhuhu (Hawi)
X
X
X
Puako
X
X
X
Waimea
X
X
X
Ke'ei
X
X
Waiea
X
X
Miloli'i
Waiohinu
X
X
X
December 2009 8 -5
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
EXHIBIT 8 -3
Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations
Recycling and
Approx.
Parcel
FY 07 -08
Transfer
Population
Size
Number
Tonnage
Gated Hours of
Station
District
Served
(Acres)
of Chutes
(Tons /Day)
Operation (Summer)
East Hawaii
Kea'au
Puna
11,700
19.54
2
20.39
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Pahoa
Puna
9,400
3.77
2
15.78
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Kalapana
Puna
1,200
13.2
1
2.93
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Volcano
Puna
2,000
2.19
1
5.29
Not gated
Glenwood
Puna
4,300
1.97
1
8.06
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Hilo
S. Hilo
42,000
72.7
4
40.29
6:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Honomu
S. Hilo
3,400
0.84
1
4.73
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Papaikou
S. Hilo
5,800
0.57
1
7.02
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Laupahoehoe
N. Hilo
1,700
1.02
1
4.24
6:30 a.m. -6:30 p.m.
Pa'auilo
Hamakua
1,800
0.85
1
5.27
6:30 a.m. -6:30 p.m.
Honokaa
Hamakua
5,100
0.73
1
9.48
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Pahala
Ka'u
1,700
0.75
1
3.57
Not gated
West Hawaii
Ka'auhuhu
(Hawi)
N. Kohala
6,000
17.28
1
11.36
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Puako
S. Kohala
5,600
8.9
1
7.34
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Waimea
S. Kohala
11,700
0.31
2
17.47
6:30 a.m. -6:30 p.m.
Kailua
(Kealakehe)
N. Kona
21,000
30.32
3
21.54
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Keauhou
N. Kona
8,500
5.47
2
13.75
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Ke'ei
S. Kona
5,600
11.6
1
5.55
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Waiea
S. Kona
3,300
2.28
1
8.13
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Miloli'i
S. Kona
700
0.17
1
0.57
Not gated
Waiohinu
Ka'u
3,000
31.65
1
9.44
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
8 -6 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
8.4.2 Recycling and Transfer Station Repair and Enhancement
Since the initial construction of the County's current recycling and transfer stations, there
have been relatively few major repair or improvement projects conducted to maintain or
upgrade the stations. Repairs and maintenance on equipment and infrastructure is currently
provided by the County Department of Public Works on an emergency or time available
basis. Many of the recycling and transfer stations have deteriorated and have existing
engineering or structural deficiencies that require repair or complete renovation. The
majority of the recycling and transfer stations have not been upgraded to accommodate
population growth within nearby communities, or to effectively accommodate recycling or
reuse.
In 2006, the County conducted detailed inspections of all of the recycling and transfer
stations in an effort to inventory and assess the conditions of each station. Infrastructure and
equipment needing repair was identified and documented, and the layout and capacity of
each station were evaluated based on the needs and current population of the surrounding
communities. The County then drafted the Island Wide Transfer Stations Repair and
Enhancement Plan, which detailed the results of the inspections conducted at each recycling
and transfer station and rated the condition of each facility. The condition of the recycling
and transfer stations documented in the Plan is shown in Exhibit 8 -4.
Major deficiencies were identified at many of the recycling and transfer stations. In order to
prioritize the stations with the most pressing needs for repair and enhancement, the County
rated each station in four areas: structural adequacy, functionality, safety, and regulatory
compliance. Based on these ratings, the County developed a 5 -year repair and upgrade plan,
in which major construction projects were planned for the Volcano, Glenwood, Pahoa, and
Waiohinu recycling and transfer stations between 2006 and 2011. At this time, funding has
been authorized only for reconstruction of the Pahoa station.
The Solid Waste Division's planned future enhancements and upgrades at the stations
include a standardized layout plan that combines the most effective layout components
identified during the inspections. Uniformity at the stations will help to ensure safety and
regulatory compliance, and to reduce long -term maintenance and repair costs. Repairs and
upgrades to the existing stations are being planned with the intent to minimize or eliminate
closure of each station during the project in order to mitigate disruption of service to
residents.
Additional components that will be included in the plans for upgrades to existing recycling
and transfer stations are specific recycling goals for each station, and identification of
specific stations that will serve as collection points for additional waste streams including
green waste, household hazardous waste, and white /bulky goods.
December 2009 8 -7
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
EXHIBIT 8 -4
Island Wide Recycling and Transfer Station Condition
Recycling and Transfer
Station
Minor Engineering
Deficiencies —
Can be Corrected While
Station is in Operation
Serious Engineering
Deficiencies —
Correctable Without
Reconstruction
Major Engineering
Deficiencies —
Reconstruction
Required
Kea'au
X
Pahoa
X
Kalapana
X
Volcano
X
Glenwood
X
Hilo
X
Honomu
X
Papaikou
X
Laupahoehoe
X
Pa'auilo
X
Honokaa
X
Pahala
X
Ka'auhuhu (Hawi)
X
Puako
X
Waimea
X
Kealakehe (Kailua)
X
Keauhou
X
Ke'ei
X
Waiea
X
Miloli'i
X
Waiohinu
X
Source: County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management. Island Wide Transfer Stations Repair
and Enhancement Plan. February 2006.
i . 1 6 !
The County's network of recycling and transfer stations provides convenient locations for
most County residents to drop off recyclables and garbage. Residents who prefer to have
curbside collection must make arrangements with a local business willing to provide the
service. This type of system is still in effect in some rural counties in the United States, but it
is uncommon, particularly for a county the size of Hawaii with over 170,000 people. This
IRSWMP update includes an evaluation of potential effects on costs or service levels if
curbside service is implemented by the County.
8 -8 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
When evaluating a curbside service program, the County should assess the need to continue
operating all 21 recycling and transfer stations. Curbside service would require significant
additional capital start -up and yearly operations costs, and the net cost increase could
potentially be reduced by closing some of the County's existing recycling and transfer
stations.
As discussed above, the County's existing transfer system was established in the 1970s and
most of the stations require significant upgrades to address structural and functional
deficiencies. As discussed in the recycling, bioconversion, and markets section, it would also
be desirable to provide additional opportunities to divert waste from landfills. Many such
opportunities would require significant and potentially expensive changes to the existing
infrastructure and operations at County recycling and transfer stations.
Curbside i on Implementation Considerations
This section provides a discussion of a variety of issues that should be considered when
evaluating the merits of the County implementing a residential curbside collection service,
including:
• Institutional approaches to service delivery
• Funding options
• Service levels
• Collection technologies
• Services and service frequency
It should be noted that many of these issues were also discussed in Section 4.0, Recycling,
Bioconversion, and Markets. References to that section will be made as appropriate.
8.6.1 Institutional Approaches to Service Delivery
In the United States today, residential waste collection services are provided by both the
private and public sectors. Although there are numerous ways to group or categorize
different ways of delivering waste collection services, the four most common types of
service delivery arrangements currently used in the United States follow:
1. No government - organized collection service
2. Local government owned and operated collection service
3. Noncompetitive franchise collection service with rate regulation
4. Competitive contract collection service
This section provides a brief discussion that highlights the features of each service delivery
arrangement.
8.6.1.1 No Government - Organized Collection Service
This is the method of collection currently in effect in Hawaii County, where customers
either deliver their own waste to a processing or disposal facility, or select a private business
to pick up recyclables and /or waste at the curb. In many communities, "going to the dump"
has long been part of a routine for some local residents. Many of these individuals would
December 2009 8 -9
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
prefer to make the time to deliver waste materials on their own rather than pay for
collection services.
Historically, many communities have given residents the option to either sign up for
curbside collection services or to self -haul their materials. The main advantage to self -haul
collection is that the (typically smaller) percentage of residents who prefer to self -haul their
waste may do so without being charged for a service they do not want or need.
In most industries, having many firms compete with each other for business tends to result
in efficiencies and lower costs for consumers. However, this is usually not the case for
residential collection of garbage because the benefits of competition are usually overcome
by the inefficiencies of having multiple haulers driving down the same street each day.
Trucks must drive greater distances between stops resulting in fewer stops per collection
day resulting in increased costs. In other words, residential collection service is a good
example of an industry in which costs can be reduced by regulatory structures that ensure
that a product or service is delivered by a single entity.
Another disadvantage of this arrangement is that billing and other overhead costs will also
be higher than in service arrangements in which billing is combined with billing for other
municipal services and handled by a single entity. Finally, as communities grow and
housing density increases, public health and social considerations become more important:
garbage should usually be removed at least once every seven days to control flies and odors.
8.6.1.2 Local Government Owned and Operated
Local government collection is most typically performed by
city governments although collection is sometimes
provided by counties. Advantages typically associated with
local government collection include the following:
Local governments have some inherent cost advantages
over private firms, such as not having to pay income or
other taxes, the ability to combine overhead costs for
collection programs with other existing programs (such
as water, power, or sewer), not earning profits, and
lower costs of borrowing.
• Local governments may place a higher value on service
to customers than private firms.
When local government collection is provided as part of a utility structure, rate increase
proposals are discussed in an open, public forum.
Local government collection typically includes all households in a city or county
allowing for increased efficiency through the economics of contiguity (the contiguous
alignment of customers along a service route), and for larger jurisdictions, potential
economies of scale.
While local government has some inherent cost advantages, the cost of local government
collection is often higher than when collection is provided by the private sector. A
comprehensive national survey of collection practices found that local government and
8 -10 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
privately - provided service were of equal cost, on average, for smaller local governments
(with a population of less than 20,000), but that privately - provided service (with exclusive
collection territories) was significantly (up to 37 percent) less costly for larger jurisdictions
with populations of more than 50,0003. Another study reported the results of a national
survey of 60 communities which indicated that the average cost per household for local
government collection was 32 percent greater than that of private contract collection4.
Some of the factors that can lead to inefficiency and higher costs for local government
collection include:
Civil service requirements can hamper the ability of supervisors to motivate employees
and, if necessary, fire underperforming employees.
• The lack of the profit incentive removes a powerful motivator toward efficiency.
• Work rule requirements can make it much more difficult for public sector managers to
affect a flexible response to changed conditions.
While local government collection can be cost competitive with the private sector, there are
many documented cases where local government has cut collection costs significantly by
contracting out collection services5. In summary, it is likely but not certain that local
government collection would be somewhat more costly than collection provided by the
private sector in Hawai'i County. If the County were to establish a collection service, it
would be critical to ensure good, experienced, proactive management, and the use of
appropriate incentives to motivate the behavior of collection personnel.
8.6.1.3 Noncompetitive Franchise with Rate Regulation
In this type of service arrangement, collection is provided by private firms holding
franchises that give them an exclusive right to collect waste from all residences within a
specified geographic area. The noncompetitive aspect of the franchise means that rates are
negotiated between the hauler and the state or local government. This is a common
arrangement in many communities in the United States. As an example, in Washington
State hauler rates are regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
for jurisdictions that opt for this collection arrangement.
This method of providing collection service can foster a sense of partnership between the
private and public sectors. It is one of the most flexible institutional arrangements, because
there is usually an ongoing mechanism for negotiation between the public and private
sectors. If conditions change it is often easier to make adjustments to service levels, or add
additional services such as curbside recycling programs than other types of service
arrangements. For example, local government collection programs are often difficult to
change because of civil service agreements. Contract collection is inherently less flexible
because a good contract specifies numerous details that are part of a legally binding
3 Stevens, Barbara J. 1980. Handbook of Municipal Waste Management Systems Planning and Practice. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company.
4 CH2M HILL in association with Ecodata. 1995. City of Tacoma, Refuse Utility Performance Analysis.
5 Hilke, John. Cost Savings from Privatization: A Compilation of Study Findings. Reason Foundation Privatization Center.
March 1993.
December 2009 8 -11
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
agreement that can be complex to alter. With an exclusive franchise, the jurisdiction retains
flexibility to negotiate change, and the efficiency advantage of contiguous routes.
One disadvantage associated with noncompetitive franchises is the lack of competition to
establish a true, baseline cost of service. Without competition, local governments must rely
on various regulatory measures, rate comparisons with similar -sized operations, auditing
methods, and negotiating techniques to try and mandate that collection service providers
establish reasonable pricing for services. Often, these efforts result in only modest success:
thus, competitive contracting for collection services often is cheaper than a non - competitive
franchise collection service. Finally, it is often difficult and costly for governments to secure
the expertise to effectively regulate the rates charged by haulers.
8.6.1.4 Competitive Contract Collection Service
The competitive contract arrangement refers to a system in which a city or county goes
through a competitive selection process and awards a single contract to the successful firm
for the exclusive right to provide collection services in a designated area for a specified
period of time. Assuming there are multiple firms competing for the business, contract
collection for exclusive collection zones usually result in lower prices for residential
collection services than the other institutional arrangements. This occurs because firms must
keep their prices low to be competitive.
However, contract collection is not always the lowest cost institutional arrangement for
collection. Higher costs can occur if local governments do not use adequate care in the
development, implementation, and administration of the contractual relationship with its
contractor. Three key factors that must be present for a community to ensure low cost, high
quality service from a competitive contract follow:
The procurement process must be structured to ensure that multiple firms bid on the
collection zones, and that multiple firms will be willing to bid once the initial contract
ends and must be rebid.
The procurement documents, and in particular the contract, must precisely specify the
services required.
The contracting jurisdiction must devote significant resources to craft a good contract.
Once the contract is in place, additional resources are needed to actively monitor and
manage contractor performance.
Some disadvantages of contract collection include the following:
• There is added risk associated with contracting because it is difficult to foresee the
future and to devise a contractual relationship that protects the interests of the
contacting jurisdiction yet leaves the private sector the flexibility to profitably and
creatively provide the requested services.
• Customer service can suffer if the contract does not clearly specify service requirements
and /or if the contracting jurisdiction does not enforce contractual requirements.
• In some cases, intense competition or intra -firm marketing pressures result in firms
bidding prices below the true cost of service. In such cases the local government benefits
8 -12 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
from low prices, but there can be protracted difficulties in getting the contractor to
perform in accordance with the contract.
If Hawai'i County were to implement curbside collection using competitive contracts, it
would need to address many issues including the following:
• Deciding how many collection zones and contracts are appropriate to establish. In order
to ensure long -term competition and economies of scale, the County would need a
minimum of two zones awarded to two different contractors and probably a maximum
of three or four zones.
• Developing a complex request for bids or proposals including a good contract that spells
out clearly the services to be performed and penalties for non - performance.
• Communicating daily with haulers about ongoing billing, customer service, and
equipment or logistical issues.
• Monitoring hauler performance.
In Hawai'i County, a recent Supreme Court decision6 affirmed the right of public sector
unions to provide services traditionally performed by the public sector. The Hawai'i State
legislature has made provisions to allow for managed competition, in which both the public
and private sectors could compete for the provision of public services, such as collection.
However, there is no process yet established for such a competition, and it is highly likely
that an attempt to enact such a process would result in litigation with an uncertain outcome.
8.6.2 Collection Technology
Curbside collection can be provided using various levels of automation. The traditional
approach to refuse collection relies on crews of two to three people to manually toss refuse
into collection trucks. To reduce crew sizes, some communities have implemented semi -
automated or fully automated collection systems. This requires providing each household
with a wheeled container that is rolled to the curb on collection day. Automated collection
trucks have lifting mechanisms that empty the refuse into the truck. This section discusses
the relative merits of manual, semi- automated and fully automated collection systems, and
their applicability to Hawai'i County.
8.6.2.1 Manual Collection
Manual collection is the traditional method of collecting
materials at curbside. Waste is typically collected by two- or
three - person collection crews in rear - loaded and side - loaded
collection vehicles. This arrangement is a common method of
collection in the United States, although in some rural areas
where the distance between stops is great, one - person crews
are sometimes used. Side - loaded vehicles use compartment
openings on the driver side of the vehicle rather than at the
back, and therefore the driver or crew member does not have to
walk as far to unload waste into the truck. For this reason, side-
6 Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii. 2004. No. 22022. Konno et. al., vs. County of Hawaii.
December 2009 8 -13
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
loaded vehicles can be operated somewhat more efficiently than rear -load vehicles when
smaller (one- or two - person) crews are used.
In an effort to reduce labor costs, many communities are modifying their solid waste
collection program to add some level of automation. In one survey, most solid waste
managers contacted who operate with manual collection equipment plan to transition to
semi - automated or fully automated systems as soon as is practical7. In Hawai'i, the counties
of Honolulu, Kauai, and Maui are all currently transitioning from manual collection to fully
automated collection.
Automated collection vehicles reduce labor costs by allowing for smaller crews, but at the
expense of higher capital investment in trucks. Therefore, automated collection is best suited
to areas with relatively high labor costs, and manual collection is best suited to areas with
relatively low labor costs. Insurance premiums are also higher with manual collection
because many refuse workers suffer injuries to backs and shoulders by repetitively lifting
waste into the truck. Thus, the appropriateness of manual versus automated collection will
depend on the relative cost of labor plus associated costs versus capital costs, and the
characteristics of local collection routes.
8.6.2.2 Semi - Automated Collection
In semi - automated systems, the collector wheels the
container from the curb to the rear or side of the truck
and attaches the container to an automated hydraulic
Although semi - automatic systems require more time per pickup than manual loading,
service time per crew member can decrease because semi- automated systems usually allow
for a sizable reduction in crew size. The wheeled containers used with semi- automated and
fully automated systems are often perceived by the customer as a more convenient, cleaner
collection system, with a resulting decrease in litter.
For rural customers with long dirt driveways, larger, wheeled containers may be a
drawback as they are difficult to load into a personal vehicle to take to the set out location.
In rural areas, customers could be allowed to set out smaller, 30- gallon cans to make it more
convenient.
Semi- automated collection has been successful in some communities but unsuccessful and
ultimately canceled in others. This type of collection service typically failed due to slower
route times, overly stringent container set -out requirements, higher vehicle and container
7 Merrill, Lynn. Improving the Bottom Line on Curbside Collection. MSW Management. January/ February 1996.
8 -14 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
costs, or a perceived reduction in the incentive to recycle because of the larger can sizes.
Municipalities with successful semi- automated collection programs devised ways to work
around these problems. In some cases, it has been determined that despite the challenges,
overall collection costs were less than manual collection because of the reduction in crew
sizes, decrease in insurance premiums, and reduced injury rates.
Compared with manually loaded vehicles with two- or three- person crews, semi - automated
collection results in longer route times and higher capital costs. Manually loading refuse
into trucks from cans is faster than using automated loading systems. Labor costs can be
reduced by reducing the size of the crew per truck, but capital costs are increased because
more trucks may be required to pick up the same quantity of waste.
Semi- automated (and fully automated) collection would be challenging to implement in
rural areas of Hawai'i County because of factors not conducive to automation, including:
• Unimproved roads
• Lack of curbs or sidewalks for set outs
• Steep slopes
• Dense vegetation
More study would be needed to evaluate if semi - automated or fully automated collection
could be implemented effectively in Hawai'i County.
8.6.2.3 Fully Automated Collection
Although fully automated systems are not as common as semi -
automated systems, the number of communities throughout
the country that use fully automated collection vehicles is
growing. Fully automated systems use one - person side -
loading vehicles equipped with a lifting mechanism (collection
arm) on the side of the vehicle. The operator pulls up to the
container at the curb and controls the entire loading operation
from the right -hand driver's seat. The collection arm allows the
operator to grasp, empty, and return the container without
leaving the truck cab. In certain cases, such as improperly
positioned or obstructed containers, the operator may have to
leave the cab to respond to a problem.
Fully automated systems have similar advantages to the semi-
automated systems discussed in the previous section. Because
virtually all lifting is eliminated, the costs associated with worker injury and fatigue are
greatly reduced. In addition, there is usually an improvement in collection labor efficiency
because fully automated systems use a single person on each truck and the driver does not
have to get out of the truck as frequently. Benchmark fully automated collection systems can
collect from more than 800 households per day per truck with a single driver. Since
commercial containers compatible with fully automated systems are available up to
300 gallons, some communities have lowered collection costs by incorporating commercial
accounts on residential routes.
December 2009 8 -15
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
Fully automated systems require cooperation by residents to set out containers in a
prescribed way. Implementing fully automated systems presents additional physical
constraints as well. Single side of the street routing is required (which will increase miles
driven and drive time between accounts). Parking restrictions may need to be instituted,
and obstructions (for example, trees, and utility wires) may present problems in certain
areas.
Compared with manually loaded vehicles with two- or three- person crews, route times will
be longer and capital costs will be greater with either semi- or fully- automated collection.
However, labor costs would decline by reducing crew sizes to one (plus extra replacement
drivers for sick days, vacation, and holidays). The total operational collection cost will
depend on a community's labor costs and route structure. Because capital costs will be
higher and route times slightly longer, the main source of savings compared to manual
collection is in labor. Communities that have shifted to automated collection typically have
relatively high labor costs. It should be noted that this is an important factor in case studies
of automated collection that show an overall reduction in collection costs.
Compared to semi- automated collection, fully automated collection requires trucks that are
more costly with higher maintenance requirements. Those costs are typically overshadowed
by the cost savings that results from the reduced time per stop. Thus, in most cases, fully
automated collection appears to be more advantageous than semi- automated collection.
8.6.3 Service Levels
Curbside service is generally provided in one of two ways:
Subscription basis - where residents have the option to either subscribe to the service or
not.
• Universal collection - where all residents in a jurisdiction or a sub -area of a jurisdiction
are charged for curbside service regardless of whether or not they use the service.
The advantages of a subscription service are that residents are given a choice of whether or
not to pay for the service. The disadvantage is that it makes collection more costly on a per -
household basis by lengthening the distance between stops on a route. Universal collection
has just the opposite set of advantages and disadvantages: residents no longer have a choice
and are required to pay for a service, yet per - household costs are lower.
This issue was discussed in the recycling, bioconversion, and markets section. Hawaii
County is predominantly rural in character with relatively small urban and suburban areas
in Hilo, Kailua -Kona, Waimea, and a few other locations. Many of the rural areas within the
County have steep, unimproved roads not suitable for collection vehicles. Thus, mandatory
curbside collection for all County residents is likely to be impractical. Further, longer
distances between collection stops will occur in many of the geographically dispersed small
communities in the County. A voluntary subscription service, for which not all residents
would sign up, would potentially make the distance between collection stops even longer.
While there's no binding constraint against implementing a subscription service, the fact
that the County has many geographically dispersed rural communities suggests that
designating specific geographic zones where curbside service would be mandatory would
make more sense than mandating island -wide collection.
8 -16 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
8.6.4 Services and Service Frequency
recyclables.
Some communities in hot and humid climates
offer garbage collection service twice weekly.
This is significantly more expensive than weekly
collection and this practice seems to be less and
less common; weekly collection of garbage is the
norm in most communities.
Recyclables are typically collected either weekly
or bi- weekly. Weekly collection generally is wI
more costly, but may result in higher diversion from landfill. However, as discussed in the
recycling, bioconversion, and markets section, the evidence of increased diversion from
weekly collection versus bi- weekly collection is weak and is not consistent in all
jurisdictions. Green waste services are offered in a wide variety of service frequencies
including weekly, bi- weekly, monthly, and seasonally.
The most aggressive approach to diversion at curbside is a three- stream system in which
food and other organics (which could include green waste) is collected weekly and garbage
and recyclables are collected either weekly or on alternate weeks.
8.6.5 Funding Options
There are a number of ways that the County could pay for a curbside collection service,
including:
• Property taxes
• Line item on property tax bill
• Direct billing
• Pay -As- You -Throw (PAYT)
8.6.5.1 Property Taxes
This is how solid waste management expenditures are currently funded. Thus, it would be
relatively simple for the County to continue with this method and would potentially
streamline implementation of a new service.
The main disadvantage of this funding method is that it would provide no information to
customers about the cost of the program. The lack of information for consumers about
program costs would indirectly eliminate one way of providing incentive to program
managers to keep service costs low.
December 2009 8 -17
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
8.6.5.2 Line Item on Property Tax Bill
Many jurisdictions separate the costs of waste management services on property tax bills.
This would be relatively simple for the County to implement and would provide some
information to customers about the cost of curbside collection, and potentially other waste
management services.
8.6.5.3 Direct Billing
The County could provide curbside collection and other waste management services in a
similar fashion to utility services like water or electricity, and send bills directly to
customers. This is a very common arrangement in the United States. The main advantages
of this type of system are to provide better information to customers about the cost of the
collection service, and to indirectly provide incentives to provide services more efficiently.
To implement this type of system, the County would need to hire personnel, establish
computer -based systems for the program, and conduct considerable public education.
Ongoing customer service would need to be provided to address disputes about services
and billing, and for collection of unpaid bills.
8.6.5.4 Pay -As- You -Throw
As discussed in the source reduction section, PAYT can take many forms including using a
variable can, metered bag, or metered tag system. The key aspect of this system is to charge
a progressive rate for each additional garbage unit collected above the basic service level
(for example, one can per week). In other municipalities, PAYT has proven to be a highly
effective method of reducing waste and increasing the use of recycling and organics
diversion programs.
The variable can system is becoming increasingly popular in the United States and
integrates well with automated collection. In this approach, residents are charged more for
larger can sizes. Some communities charge progressively increasing rates for a wide menu
of can sizes ranging from a 12- gallon micro -can to one or more 96- gallon carts. This system
requires the collector to keep a substantial inventory of different cart sizes and spare parts,
and requires billing and account systems to keep track of changes in can sizes.
A metered bag program consists of charging customers on a per -bag basis. This requires the
collector to keep track of how many bags are set out by each customer. It can be prone to
disputes about how many bags are set out by each customer during each billing cycle.
A metered tag program requires each bag of garbage to be accompanied by a county -
sanctioned tag. Tags can be sold at County offices and /or at local supermarkets. This system
has the advantage of minimizing disputes about how much waste is set out each month, but
places a burden on customers to remember to purchase tags.
Implementing a PAYT system for residential garbage collection service would require
implementation of an aggressive public education and information campaign to ensure that
residents understand the rationale for implementing the PAYT program. Significant up-
front planning would be required to assess a wide range of implementation details. The
County would need to establish billing systems, a customer service organization, and
8 -18 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
modify its financial systems to accommodate this new service. The County could elect to
assess the potential for reducing property taxes as an offset to the new revenue source.
i P 6 ! M! '.
The County's system of recycling and transfer stations is a unique system that has served
the County well for more than 30 years. Options for improving that system follow.
8.7.1 Add Curbside Collection
The challenges associated with implementing curbside collection of recyclables (as
discussed in the Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets section) would also apply to
collecting garbage. Mandatory curbside collection of garbage for all County residents is
impractical because of Hawaii County's predominantly rural character and the many areas
with steep, unimproved roads not suitable for collection vehicles. Further, longer distances
between collection stops will occur due to the large number of geographically dispersed
small communities in the County. A voluntary subscription service, for which not all
residents would sign up, would potentially make the distance between collection stops even
longer. For program cost efficiency, it is recommended that this option should include
designated zones where curbside service would be mandatory.
For the purpose of developing diversion and cost estimates, a rough analysis of housing
units in Census Designated Places was conducted. The result was an estimate of
37,000 households that would be served by the program, which is about 73 percent of the
estimated 51,300 occupied single family households in Hawaii County$. Under this
assumption, there would be approximately 14,000 single family households for which
curbside collection would not be available. Those residents and the approximately
12,000 multi - family households would need to transport recyclables and garbage to
recycling and transfer stations.
Estimated Cost. The cost of curbside collection of garbage would depend on many factors
including the type of collection vehicles used (manual vs. semi - automated vs. fully
automated), the number of rural households included in the program (increased distance
between collection stops), and the institutional arrangement (for example, public versus
private). Curbside garbage collection is likely to cost between $20 and $30 per household
per month (excluding the cost of disposal), or $8.8 million to $13.3 million per year in total.
Combining garbage collection with recyclables and organics would potentially cost between
$40 and $60 per household per month.
The cost of curbside collection would be offset somewhat by reducing the amount of waste
that would be transported from recycling and transfer stations to landfills. In FY 07 -08, the
County's variable costs of transporting waste from recycling and transfer stations to
landfills was approximately $4 million. It would be reasonable to expect annual
transportation cost savings of $1.5 million to $2.5 million per year if curbside collection were
implemented. The County's full complement of transfer stations would be somewhat less
necessary if curbside collection were implemented. However, it should be recognized that
8 Based on data from U.S. Census 2006 Selected Housing Characteristics (single - family was counted as dwellings with 1 to
4 units), and 2000 -2006 annual growth rate used to project 2008 total occupied housing units (63,347).
December 2009 8 -19
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
the rural residents not easily served by curbside service are dispersed geographically
throughout the island and still need convenient locations to dispose of recyclables and
garbage. As shown in Option 5 above, closing 10 stations might result in $700,000 to
$1.5 million per year savings in station operation costs.
8.7.1.1 Collection Sub - options
During the October 20, 2008 SWAC meeting, an in -depth discussion was held about
curbside collection for single - family households, and various implementation ideas were
put forth. In response, the following suboptions have been developed to further explore
possible ways to implement residential curbside collection. While there are many possible
methods of implementing collection service, the following suboptions are intended to reflect
a number of current opportunities and constraints that exist in Hawai'i County, including:
• The County transfer system provides reasonably convenient service for all households,
and there is no County- sponsored curbside service.
• About 10 percent of County households receive service from private companies that
compete for customers with little County involvement.
• No companies currently provide curbside recycling for residences (in part because there
are very few locations they could take the materials collected).
• Universal curbside collection of garbage for all County residents is impractical because
of Hawai'i County's predominantly rural character and the many areas with steep,
unimproved roads not suitable for collection vehicles.
• State law may preclude the County from engaging in franchises or contracts with
private sector collection firms.
In response, the following suboptions were developed for SWAC consideration. As the
options move from A to E, they provide an increasing level of change, potential benefits and
costs, and implementation difficulty:
A. Retain existing system.
B. License all existing collection companies.
C. License existing collection companies and require every- other -week recycling.
D. County offer collection services using County crews.
E. Exclusive franchises for private sector collection.
Note that in all of these options, collection service would be optional for residents. A
universal collection service would be more efficient than an optional service because it
would result in more stops per hour of collection. However, in most areas of the County the
total cost for universal collection would probably be quite high when combined with a
means of providing service to the many rural residents that are spread out widely
throughout the County. To serve these residents, the County would need to retain many of
its existing stations (perhaps ten to 15 of the existing 21 stations) or provide an additional
collection service (such as bins located on main roads where residents could dispose of their
waste). It is possible that universal collection could be implemented in Hilo or in select areas
on the eastern side of the County at the same time recycling and transfer stations that serve
those areas could be closed. This could be evaluated at a later date, but in most areas of the
8 -20 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
County, the sum total of universal curbside collection and maintaining recycling and
transfer stations for more rural areas is likely to be cost - prohibitive compared to any
advantages it might provide.
A. Retain Existing System
In this option, the existing system would be retained. Residents who would like curbside
collection would make arrangements with a collection company.
This system would have the advantage of simplicity by just continuing existing practices at
no cost to the County: those living in more urbanized areas of the County have the service
available to them. Some disadvantages of this option include:
• Many areas of the County are currently not served because of the difficulty of profitably
serving customers outside of more densely populated areas.
• The current collection system is relatively inefficient with both low route densities and
the potential for multiple companies collecting from homes on the same street.
• This system is somewhat less compatible with recycling because persons receiving
garbage collection still would have to go to a recycling and transfer station to drop off
recyclables.
• There is currently no standardization of services and no control over the type and
condition of vehicles used by haulers.
B. License All Existing Collection Companies
In this option, the County would pass an ordinance requiring all companies collecting
garbage or recyclables from residents to obtain a "material collection license." The County
would place certain conditions for obtaining a license such as: paying a small annual fee,
obtaining a "license sticker" to be displayed on each vehicle used for collection purposes,
and requiring annual safety inspections of each vehicle.
The County could then assist in the promotion of collection service by licensed haulers by
listing haulers name and phone numbers on its website and in promotional material. This
may help inform the public about the services available and provide some measure of
sanction by the County of those providing the service.
Other than requirements associated with licensure, collection companies would be free to
engage in operations as they see fit including where and when to offer service, the method
of set -out, and the price of the service.
There would be a small initial cost to prepare the ordinance and develop the licensing
program, then a small annual cost to license each vehicle. Part or all of the annual cost of the
program could be paid for through licensing fees.
C. License All Existing Collection Companies and Require Bi- Weekly Recycling
This option is like Option B, with an additional requirement that licensed haulers also offer
a bi- weekly recycling service, and submit documentation about the method of collection for
County approval. Materials collected should match the list of materials accepted in the
County's two -bin recycling system at its recycling and transfer stations.
December 2009 8 -21
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
To implement this option, the County would need to ensure that there are places for haulers
to deliver recyclables: at a minimum, facilities would be needed on the west and east sides
of the island. This could be accomplished at the South Hilo sort station, at a new facility
developed by the County on the east side of the island, and or at a private facility or
facilities.
This option would have the advantage of helping to increase recycling. It would, however,
increase the cost of curbside service and probably result in some customers discontinuing
collection service.
D. County Offer Collection Services Using County Crews
In this option, the County would establish a new department of collections, and implement
weekly curbside collection of garbage and every- other -week collection of recyclables
County -wide. Private sector collection from single - family residents would no longer be
allowed. It is assumed that this would be an optional service available in areas of the
County that could be reasonably served by a collection vehicle (initial estimates are that this
would be about 70 percent of all single family households). The County would need to
ensure that processing facilities are available for the west and east sides of the island.
Customers who do not sign up for collection service would continue to use the recycling
and transfer stations.
This option would have significant implementation challenges, some of which include:
• Hiring a collection supervisor to oversee the operation, and hire additional staff and
procure vehicles, carts, and equipment.
• Hiring consulting expertise with an individual or firm that has expertise in establishing
a collection operation.
• Establishing a billing mechanism to charge customers for the service.
• Establishing base yards with basic maintenance services for vehicles and carts in two or
three locations on the island.
The County would need to estimate the cost of collection service and then decide if it would
be provided at cost or at a subsidized rate. Estimating the cost of serving each household at
this time is difficult: it is likely to be somewhere between $30 and $50 per month.
E. Exclusive Franchises for Private Sector Collection
In this option, the County would establish two to four franchises in which a collection
company would have the exclusive right to collect waste and recyclables from residential
customers. Currently, it is estimated that there are only about 6,600 customers that currently
subscribe to collection service. Considering that a single truck in a somewhat rural system
can collect from 200 to 600 customers each day on a route (depending on route density), the
franchises would be small initially. Thus, more than a few territories would be very
inefficient to implement.
The service would be optional for residents, but presumably with an exclusive territory,
costs would fall compared to today and the number of customers served would probably
grow through time. All companies would be required to offer a similar service, ideally using
8 -22 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
the same type of cart, with weekly collection of garbage and every- other -week collection of
recyclables. The County would need to ensure that processing facilities are available for the
west and east sides of the island.
It is uncertain if this could be implemented under current state law. If the County were to
implement this option, the County would probably face a legal challenge from the union
that serves County workers. Thus, the County would need to test the legality of this
approach. It might be able to proceed by engaging in a managed competition process in
which the County could also vie for franchises in competition with private collection firms.
But the County would need to receive approval from the state to engage in such a process.
Thus, there is some legal work to be done prior to determining if this option could be
implemented.
Assuming implementing this option is legal, there are many ways that franchises could be
awarded. It would be challenging to develop a method of assigning franchises that is
perceived as "fair' by all existing collection companies: many (or all) of them are likely to
oppose any particular franchise award method. One approach would be to have firms bid a
price per month for collection service in each zone (i.e., bids would differ in each zone). The
lowest price offered in a zone would be the winning bid. The County could then set a
County -wide rate that all residents would pay for collection services (say $30 or $40 per
month). The County would then pay (or receive a payment from) the collection firm for the
difference between the bid price and the County -wide rate paid by residents for service in
each franchise territory. The collection firm would bill and collect the County -wide rate
from residents who elect to sign up for the service.
The County would need to establish rate review capabilities and establish a process for
firms to adjust bid prices as costs change in the future. This would include reviewing the
justification for any proposed rate increases. The County would continue to set the actual
rate paid by residents. That rate could be set so that the County breaks even or it could
subsidize the collection service as it prefers.
In this option, County recycling and transfer stations would remain open for those that
prefer to not pay for curbside collection.
The main advantages of this option are providing a way of improving the efficiency of
service provision (only one firm passing down a residential street), standardized services
County -wide, increased recycling, and flexibility and choice for residents.
Some disadvantages of this approach include: existing collection firms would lose the ability
to provide services as they see fit, and significant administration and legal expertise would
be required for implementation and to regulate rates. Implementing this approach would
require project management and specific expertise. It would probably take the County a
year or more to put into place and would probably require hiring a project manager and /or
using consultants to provide specific expertise.
The cost of this option would depend on many factors, but would probably range between
$30 and $50 per month per household.
December 2009 8 -23
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
8.7.2 Change Permits to Allow Commercial Recycling at Recycling and
Transfer Stations
The County is currently in the process of changing the operating permits at each station
from a convenience center to a transfer station. This change eliminates a 40 cubic yard per
day delivery maximum and allows non - residential customers to access the stations. The
County anticipates submitting the permit changes to the State Department of Health for
approval by the end of 2008.
Once the permits are changed, this option would include allowing non - residential
customers to use the recycling services at each recycling and transfer station. Non-
residential customers would not be allowed to deliver garbage at the stations.
This policy would provide more convenient recycling opportunities for small businesses
throughout the county.
Estimated Cost. Under this option, the amount of added recyclables that would be
delivered to recycling and transfer stations is uncertain. If 20 to 40 percent of current
recyclables could be added by this option, the result would be approximately 1,100 to
2,200 tons per year. At 2008 prices for transportation and diversion incentive payments, this
would cost the County about $200,000 to $400,000 annually. The County would also need to
spend a small amount for additional signage, education, and promotion of this new policy.
8.7.3 Timely Reconstruction of Stations in Need of Major Repair
As shown in Exhibit 8 -4,13 of the County's 21 recycling and transfer stations have major
engineering deficiencies requiring reconstruction, and another six have serious engineering
deficiencies that can be addressed while the station is operational. The County has
conducted conceptual engineering design for the replacement of the Waiohinu, Pahoa,
Glenwood, and Volcano recycling and transfer stations and is currently designing the
reconstruction of the Pahoa station which is scheduled to be completed in FY 09 -10, most
likely followed by Waiohinu. The County is also planning to develop a new recycling and
transfer station in South Kona - Ocean View.
Conceptual drawings of the proposed reconstruction of those four facilities are presented in
Appendix C. It is recommended that the County commit to a schedule to reconstruct one
station per year. At that rate, all of the station reconstructions could be completed within the
next 13 years. After that, the deficiencies not requiring reconstruction could be addressed.
Estimated Cost. The County estimates that station reconstructions will cost between
$3 million and $5 million each. Assuming the County continues its current practice of
funding such reconstructions with general obligation bonds, each station would add annual
costs of approximately $250,000 to $400,000 assuming a 5.5- percent rate of interest and a
20 -year term.
8.7.4 Add Full -Time Attendants and Reduce Operating Hours
at Recycling and Transfer Stations
The County could increase recycling by having full -time attendants at each station. These
attendants could encourage customers to separate recyclables and provide information
8 -24 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
about different ways residents could reduce the amount of waste going to landfills. The
stations are already partially staffed, but adding full -time staff to all stations would be a
significant added cost. Thus, in this option it is proposed to reduce the number of hours that
stations are open to the public. The County stations are open 12 hours per day in the
summer and 11.5 hours per day in the winter (excepting Hilo, which is open 10.5 hours per
day throughout the year). All stations are open 7 days per week, 362 days per year. It is
common in many rural areas of the United States to have stations that are open just a few
days per week and /or fewer hours per day than the County stations.
In this option, operating hours would be reduced (for example 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) for 3 to
7 days per week depending on the size of the station - with the more heavily used stations
open more frequently. One approach would be to have the six stations that accept more than
5,000 tons per year open 7 days per week (Kailua, Keauhou, Waimea, Hilo, Kea'au, Pahoa)
and have all other stations open only three days per week. The 3- day - per -week schedule
should be structured so that adjacent stations are open on different days and all stations are
open at least one weekend day. For example, the County could have Laupahoehoe open
Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday, and Honomu open Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
This schedule would reduce the operating hours of County stations by approximately 50
percent.
Estimated Cost. With a 50- percent reduction in operating hours, it is estimated that the
County could provide full -time attendants at each station with existing staff, and there
would be excess station attendant staff that could perform functions currently done by
private security guards. It is estimated that this would allow the County to significantly
reduce or eliminate the $800,000 it spent on private security guards in FY 07 -08.
8.7.5 Add Full -Time Attendants, Reduce Operating Hours, and
Implement PAYT at Recycling and Transfer Stations
This option is similar to the option discussed above in Chapter 8.6.4 with the addition of
implementing a PAYT system at the recycling and transfer stations. As discussed in the
source reduction section, PAYT systems provide a powerful incentive to reduce waste and
increase reuse and recycling.
While there are many ways this system could be implemented, one approach would be a
"bag /tag" system in which regular household garbage would be accepted only in approved
pre - purchased bags, and bulky waste that doesn't fit in a bag would need to be
accompanied by an approved pre - purchased tag. The bags and tags would be sold at
various retail establishments throughout the county. The County would need to work with
local retail establishments to ensure the availability of bags and tags. A key advantage of
this system is to eliminate the need to exchange money at stations. Accepting money at
stations would add substantial extra costs for security, record keeping, and potentially could
result in longer wait times at stations because of the time needed to assess the fee, accept
money, and make change.
The County would need to devote considerable upfront resources to educate residents
about the reasons for the new program and to explain how the new program works.
Further, it is recommended that this type of program be phased in with a 3- to 6 -month
December 2009 8 -25
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
grace period during which bags and tags would be collected, but no one would be turned
away for not using the appropriate bag or tag.
Illegal dumping is always a concern, although results from around the country have shown
that long -term increases in illegal dumping from PAYT programs are rare9. The County
may need to consider increasing enforcement authority for the DEM or other County
agencies to allow them to levy fines against those caught engaging in illegal dumping
practices.
Estimated Cost. At startup, a small attendant shed would need to be added to each station.
With reduced operating hours at stations, this program should not cost extra money and
should result in substantial increased revenues from sales of bags and tags. It is estimated
that a charge of $2 per bag would result in approximately $11 million in additional revenue
less the cost of program administration and purchasing and distributing bags and tags.
8.7.6 Reduce System Costs by Closing Select Stations and Reducing
Operating Hours
In this option, the County would close some stations and reduce the operating hours of
some stations that remain open. The money saved could be used to increase waste
reduction, reuse, and recycling or used to lower the amount of money collected from
property taxes for solid waste management purposes.
This option would include closing the following ten stations:
Closed Stations Closest Remaining Station(s)
Papaikou
Hilo
Honomu
Laupahoehoe, Hilo
Pa'auilo
Honoka'a, Laupahoehoe
Puako
New facilities would be opened at the Pu'uanahulu Landfill site, Waimea
Ke'ei
Keauhou
Waiea
Keauhou, Waiohinu
Miloli'i
Keauhou, Waiohinu
Pahala
Waiohinu
Kalapana
Pahoa
Glenwood
Volcano
This option would require an aggressive public education program that stresses the reasons
for closing some stations. As discussed above in the PAYT option, the County would need
to educate residents and increase enforcement to prevent illegal dumping. It is likely that
some residents would continue trying to drop off waste at closed transfer stations for some
9 A good guide to preventing illegal dumping can be found in EPA. 1998. Illegal Dumping Prevention Guidebook. Accessed at
http : / /www.epa.gov /reg5rcra /wptdiv /illegal dumping /downloads /il- dmpng.pdf
8 -26 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
time until residents become comfortable with the new arrangement. The County would
need to plan for this and increase its budget for enforcement and cleanup crews.
Estimated Cost. An analysis of the County operating budget indicates that the variable cost
of operating the County transfer stations in FY 07 -08 (that is, excluding certain "fixed" costs
and the cost of transportation) was about $2.7 million. With ten fewer stations, some
reduction in operating hours, allowing for the added cost of full -time attendants, and
providing some budget for increased enforcement, it is estimated that this option could save
$700,000 to $1.5 million per year.
8.7.7 Lower Transportation Costs by Compacting Recyclables
In FY 07 -08, the County spent about $720,000 transporting recyclables from recycling and
transfer stations to processors. About $430,000 of that amount was for transporting mixed
recyclables, which are transported loose in 40 cubic yard drop boxes. The transportation
costs could be lessened by compacting these recyclables prior to transportation from
stations. Two possible methods of compaction include:
• Converting one garbage chute to handle recyclables at larger stations with multiple
garbage chutes ( Kea'au, Pahoa, Hilo, Waimea, Kailua, Keauhou).
• Use compacted drop boxes at stations for mixed recyclables.
8.7.7.1 Converting One Garbage Chute to Accept Recyclables
In this option, one garbage chute at
certain stations would be
designated for accepting
recyclables only (as shown in the
adjacent example). Once dropped
into the chute, materials would be
compacted in the County's 75 -yard
compaction trailers, using the same
operational methods currently
used for garbage.
The Kea'au, Pahoa, Waimea, and Keauhou stations each have two chutes for garbage, the
Kailua station has three, and the Hilo station has four. Where only two chutes are available,
it may be difficult to devote one chute entirely to recyclables; long lines may form during
peak conditions for disposal. Signage would need to be changed, public education would be
needed, and a full -time attendant would need to be present on -site to ensure that only
recyclables went into the chute designated for recycling. This concept might work better at
the Kailua or Hilo stations where converting one chute would leave two (Kailua) or three
(Hilo) chutes for garbage. Transportation cost savings from compacting at the Hilo recycling
and transfer station may be small because currently mixed recyclables are processed in Hilo
and the distance transported is small.
In summary, this concept appears to be feasible at the Kailua station, and might be feasible
at the Kea'au, Pahoa, and Waimea stations. If the County is interested in this option, it
should conduct a pilot program to test its effectiveness.
December 2009 8 -27
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
8.7.7.2 Use Compacted Drop Boxes at Stations for Mixed Recyclables
Enclosed drop boxes come in many sizes, but a 40- cubic -yard box is recommended to allow
containers to stay at stations for longer periods of time before they needed to be hauled. The
installation would require pouring a concrete pad to support each compactor, and building
a safe and convenient platform around the charging hoppers for customers. County
equipment operators (or a station attendant) would have to routinely operate the
compaction units to compact recyclables as they currently do for the County's garbage
trailers. In FY 07 -08, the uncompacted mixed recyclables hauled from recycling and transfer
stations averaged about 1.4 tons per 40- cubic -yard bin. This type of unit at County stations
could probably achieve an average compaction ratio somewhere between 3:1 and 5:1 for
mixed recyclables.
Estimated Cost. Converting garbage chutes to accept recyclables would probably require
one additional site attendant at each station (to ensure that materials are placed in the
proper chute) for an annual cost of about $100,000. There would be a small initial cost for
extra signage, education, and promotion.
Compacting recyclables would cost about $30,000 for each compaction unit and about
$15,000 for each enclosed 40- cubic -yard drop box. If the County were to install
one compaction unit at each station and purchase 30 containers, the total initial capital cost
would be about $1.1 million. Adding an additional $10,000 per station for site improvements
would result in a total cost of about $1.3 million. Amortized at 5.5 percent over 5 years, this
would result in an annual cost of about $300,000. When considering the added annual
maintenance cost of about 5 percent of capital ($55,000), and labor costs for staff, it is
uncertain if installation of compactors at all stations would be cost - effective given the
current recycling rates at County recycling and transfer stations.
However, it is important to note that many options considered in the Plan update (such as
mandatory recycling, PAYT, allowing non - residential recycling) would increase the
quantities of mixed recyclables accepted at stations. The larger the volume of recyclable
materials that is transported, the more likely compaction will be cost - effective. Another
option to consider is installing the units only at selected stations. The County could adopt a
"satellite' system at which compactors would be installed at selected stations that would
accept uncompacted recyclables from stations more distant from processors. It would be
8 -28 December 2009
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
appropriate to revisit this option after recycling options for this IRSWMP update are more
clearly defined.
8.7.8 New Baseyard and Equipment Maintenance Facilities
The County has identified a need for two new facilities to enhance ongoing operations. The
first is new baseyard facilities in Hilo to provide shelter and improved working conditions
for solid waste workers.
The second is a new equipment maintenance facility. The County's existing facilities are too
small to allow for prompt servicing of trailers and other heavy equipment operated by the
Solid Waste Division. This results in a very high percentage of out -of- service equipment and
higher equipment leasing costs.
Estimated Cost. The County's current CIP budget includes $2 million for the new baseyard
facilities, and $9 million for the new equipment maintenance facility.
i i !
MIT. !
On the basis of the analysis presented above and discussions with stakeholders, this Plan
update recommends the improvements discussed below. Implementation issues related to
these activities are discussed in Sections 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0.
1. Retain the County's system of recycling and transfer stations. Currently, there is no
government- organized residential waste collection service in Hawaii County. Thus, an
analysis of curbside collection options was presented above in Section 8.7.1 and in
Section 4.0, Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets. Based on the outcome of SWAC and
DEM staff deliberations about the cost and other advantages and disadvantages of
curbside collection, it is recommended that the County maintain its existing system of
recycling and transfer stations. To continue operating the stations, which are more than
30 years old, the County will need to complete upgrades to address structural
deficiencies and provide expanded services to help support zero waste initiatives.
2. Reconstruct one or more recycling and transfer stations annually. The decision
discussed above to maintain the County's recycling and transfer system will require
repair and /or reconstruction of the recycling and transfer stations. After considering
other County funding needs, it is recommended that the County fund at least one
reconstruction each year, and develop a new South Kona recycling and transfer station
at Ocean View. The County should also consider installing compaction units for
recyclables at selected stations. This would include consideration of adopting a
"satellite' system where compactors would be installed at selected stations, and those
stations would accept uncompacted recyclables from nearby stations with no compactor.
3. Implement full -time staffing and reduced operating hours at recycling and transfer
stations, and consider closing one or more stations. In Sections 3, 4 and 6, a number of
proposed new zero waste programs are recommended for implementation at County
recycling and transfer stations. It will be imperative that County staff are present during
transfer station operating hours to inform users of the various recycling, reuse, organics,
and other programs available. As more services are provided, it will become
December 2009 8 -29
8.0 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
prohibitively expensive to keep transfer stations open 10 to 11 hours per day, 362 days
per year. Thus, it is recommended that the County reduce operating hours as needed to
keep its overall staffing costs similar to what they are today. The County may want to
consider closing select transfer stations if the benefits of increased services in some areas
are deemed to be less than the cost of providing that service.
4. Develop a system to license private collection firms. As the County invests more into
its recycling and transfer system and aggressively pursues zero waste programs, it is
recommended that the County develop a simple licensing program for waste collection
firms. In this program, all firms that collect garbage from residents or businesses would
be required to register vehicles, document that the vehicles meet safety requirements,
and pay a nominal licensing fee (to cover the cost of licensing). As discussed in
Section 4.0, Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets, an added requirement of the license
would be that all licensed firms must offer a recycling service along with its garbage
service. This would help ensure that residents and businesses that do not use the
recycling and transfer stations stay in compliance with mandatory recycling
requirements.
5. Change permits to allow small commercial businesses to drop off recyclables at
County recycling and transfer stations. The County is already in the process of
converting its State permits to allow commercial businesses to recycle at the recycling
and transfer stations. This would make it much more convenient for small businesses in
rural areas to recycle. To ensure efficient and safe operations, only trucks below a certain
size threshold (for example, less than one ton) would be allowed to use the stations.
6. Conduct an operational efficiency analysis. It is recommended that the County
continue to monitor the cost of its recycling and transfer network including contracting
with a third party to conduct an efficiency analysis and identify potential opportunities
to lower costs.
7. Develop a baseyard facility and equipment maintenance facility for transfer vehicles
at the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill. Development of these facilities would help ensure
adequate working conditions for County employees and provide infrastructure that
would enable the County to proactively maintain its vehicles in a more cost - effective
manner.
8 -30 December 2009
SECTION 9
■ 104 _
.: . !
9 go, TW�y
Residuals refer to materials remaining after source reduction, reuse, recycling, and
bioconversion. Residuals management is the final treatment and /or disposal of the waste
that cannot be used in any other way. The County of Hawai'i provides landfill disposal for
residual materials at the West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill (WHSL) located in Pu'uanahulu
and the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL) located in Hilo. For residents, the common
forms of residual materials sent to landfill are household refuse, or municipal solid waste,
and do- it- yourself construction and demolition waste. Businesses and institutions send a
wide range of different non - hazardous residual materials from their daily operations.
This section describes current conditions of the existing residuals management system
within Hawai'i County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents options for
managing residuals after source reduction, reuse, and recycling.
Following is a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2002 Plan update relative
to residuals management, and a description of the actions taken since 2002 to achieve each
recommendation.
2002 Plan Update Recommendation
Status
Operate the WHSL Accepting West Hawaii
Ongoing. Currently, no residuals from SHSL are being
Waste Stream and Residuals from East
transferred to the WHSL. Residuals from some recycling
Hawaii Waste Stream that Cannot be
and transfer stations that are located closer to the SHSL
Managed Otherwise
than the WHSL are being directed to the WHSL.
Recommend Construction of a Waste
The County issued an RFP for construction of a waste
Reduction Facility in East Hawaii
reduction facility. The County Council rejected all proposals
submitted because the costs of construction and operation
were higher than anticipated.
Utilize SHSL to Maximum Currently Planned
SHSL capacity has been extended by implementing a "sliver
Capacity and Then Close the Landfill
fill." The County is currently investigating the potential for
additional expansion of the landfill.
Currently, residual waste from the eastern part of the County is disposed of at the SHSL,
and waste from the western part of the County is disposed of at the WHSL. Residential
residual waste is accepted at no charge at 21 transfer stations and transported by County
Solid Waste Division staff for disposal at both landfills. Commercial disposal of residual
waste generally requires a landfill disposal permit through the Department of
Environmental Management and a landfill tipping fee of $85 per ton is currently being
December 2009 9 -1
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
charged for waste disposal. Per Hawai'i County Code, tipping fees may be waived when it
is "in the best interest of the County," including one -time events for community
organizations, non - profit organizations, or private property owners who are remediating
illegal dump sites that they did not create. The current status of each landfill is described in
the following sections.
9.3.1 South Hilo Sanitary Landfill
The SHSL is located in Hilo, approximately one mile east of Kanoelehua Avenue and
one mile south of the Hilo International Airport. The landfill is accessed through Leilani
Street and an unnamed access road. The County of Hawai'i owns and operates the SHSL,
and the Department of Environment Management estimates that the landfill has been in
operation since the 1970s. The landfill facility is located on approximately 40 acres, the
majority of which is used for municipal solid waste disposal. The landfill is established on a
former quarry and is unlined. A figure showing the existing landfill and some potential
expansion areas is shown in Exhibit 9 -1.
According the SHSL Proposed Expansion Feasibility and Capital Cost Report prepared by SWT
Engineering in 2008, the established refuse footprint includes approximately 910,000 cubic
yards of airspace capacity. Using forecasts from Section 2, the SHSL has an estimated 4 years
of life remaining at current recycling rates (or through 2013).
9.3.2 West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill
The WHSL is located southwest of Waikoloa at Pu'uanahulu in the North Kona District (see
Exhibit 9 -2). The County of Hawai'i owns the WHSL and County personnel operate the
landfill. The WHSL is managed by Waste Management of Hawai'i under a contract with the
County. Waste Management is currently responsible for construction and development of
new landfill cells, environmental monitoring, and closure and post - closure activities.
The WHSL facility has been in operation since its construction in 1993, and is located on
approximately 300 acres, of which 149 acres are currently permitted for landfill activities.
The WHSL is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle -D Landfill, is
lined with a geomembrane, and has an engineered leachate collection system. A landfill gas
collection and control system was installed in 2006. The landfill accepts approximately
12,000 tons per months or 140,000 tons per year. The landfill has 23 cells currently
permitted, of which seven have been filled, and two are active. Using forecasts developed in
Section 2, (extended into the future using estimated long -term growth rates), the WHSL has
an estimated 38 years of life remaining at current recycling rates.
9.3.3 The County's Recent Waste Reduction Facility Procurement
Because the SHSL was near its permitted capacity and planned closure date, in 2003 the
County began a focused evaluation of potential options for future disposal of residual waste
on the east side of the island. One potential component to the overall solid waste
management approach was to develop waste reduction technology.
9 -2 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
EXHIBIT 9 -1
South Hilo Landfill Site Map
December 2009 9 -3
7
7
7
C
f4
J
f4
N
H =
m
2
W
-§ t
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
The County initially evaluated five different waste reduction technologies: waste -to- energy
(WTE; combustion), aerobic composting, thermal gasification, anaerobic digestion, and bio-
refining. During the process, aerobic composting was found to be unsuitable due to the
potential for offensive odors; and bio- refining was found to be unproven and may not be a
commercially viable technology. In addition, R.W. Beck, a consultant to the County,
concluded through a technical assessment that anaerobic digestion was not suitable
"because it could only deal with a limited portion of the waste stream and did not yet have
a sufficiently viable commercial track record dealing with a municipal solid waste stream
like that of Hawai'i."
In 2006, the County issued RFPs to vendors who could potentially design, construct, and
operate a WTE or thermal gasification facility. The County evaluated proposals submitted in
response to the initial RFP and determined that a WTE facility was the most commercially
and technically viable option. The WTE facility would potentially reduce the volume of
processed solid waste by 90 percent, reduce weight by 70 percent, and air emissions would
be lower than EPA standards.
Based on technical merits of the initial proposals, the County issued a second RFP to three
potential vendors requesting additional technical and cost information. In March 2008,
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Management) was
awarded the project by the County. In response, Wheelabrator submitted a detailed cost
proposal to design and construct a WTE facility to replace the SHSL.
After evaluating the Wheelabrator submittal, the County Council recently rejected the WTE
proposal largely because of concerns about higher than anticipated costs for the facility. A
chronology of County waste reduction technology procurement is provided in Appendix A.
ICU =-
A key residuals management issue is to establish a place for disposal of residuals from East
Hawai'i when the existing landfill closes in 5 to 8 years. The County is currently evaluating
expansion opportunities at the SHSL site, and other available options.
Another issue to consider is whether or not the County should develop a recovery/
treatment process that would further recover materials and energy from residuals that
would otherwise go to landfills. A series of recovery and treatment options are evaluated in
this section.
In addition to questions about future residuals management options, the long -term
management of the closed Kailua -Kona and Waimea landfills must be addressed by the
County.
A policy issue that should be considered by the County surrounds the potential for private
sector development of residuals management facilities without County involvement. This
section considers how those facilities could affect flow control and contractual obligations
with landfill management companies that are currently or may in the future be under
contract to the County.
December 2009 9 -5
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
9.4.1 Closed Landfills
9.4.1.1 Kailua -Kona
The Kailua -Kona Landfill was a municipal solid waste landfill that operated from the late
1970s until it was closed in 1993. The landfill occupies approximately 20 acres and is located
east of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway approximately 3 miles north of Kailua -Kona in the
North Kona District. Subsurface fires from waste material have been documented at the
landfill since 1991. During closure of the landfill, a final cover system of 30 -mil polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) geomembrane liner and 2 feet of cover soil were installed in 1993. The cover
has damage resulting from the subsurface fires and intrusive investigations to evaluate
options for extinguishing the fires. Temperature and gas monitoring equipment have been
installed with monitoring events occurring routinely at the site.
Subsurface waste combustion continues to be a concern at the landfill. The County and its
consultants are investigating the current nature and extent of the subsurface fires and
developing options for subsurface fire suppression.
Long -term management options for the landfill are also being evaluated by the County.
Potential options include extinguishing the subsurface fires, repairing the cover, and
managing the waste in place. This option would require maintenance and periodic
monitoring of site conditions, and would not eliminate potential issues such as nuisance
odors or the proximity of the landfill to existing facilities and future development. Another
option being considered is to excavate the landfill, remove materials that can be recycled or
composted, and transfer residuals to the WHSL. This option may have the effect of reducing
the estimated life of the WHSL.
9.4.1.2 Waimea
The Waimea landfill is located in Lalamilo, in the South Kohala district, and consists of a
single, unlined landfill cell. The landfill was established in the late 1960s at a former quarry
site, has an area of approximately 9.28 acres, and is located on land parcels owned by the
State and the County. Landfilling activities reportedly ceased during 1986, and the landfill
was closed in 1987. A cover consisting of several feet of soil was placed over the top of the
landfill according to Hawai'i Department of Health (HDOH) records. Available records
indicate that the quarry was originally excavated to an approximate depth of 30 feet, and
that approximately 35 feet of refuse was landfilled at the site.
The landfill is currently being monitored for subsurface fires, and stormwater control
measures are being implemented. A subsurface fire investigation was conducted in 2006
and a subsurface fire over an area of approximately 14,500 square feet was identified in the
landfill. Subsequent investigations in 2008 have also indicated the presence of subsurface
fires. Backfilling and grading activities have been completed over portions of the site and
have extinguished subsurface fires by limiting the amount of influx of oxygen to the
subsurface of the landfill. Additional cover material will be applied to the surface to seal the
landfill from the atmosphere in an effort to prevent further combustion.
9.4.2 Private Facilities and Flow Control
Many jurisdictions in the United States have flow control ordinances in effect to ensure that
materials flow to facilities in which they have significant capital investment and /or other
9 -6 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
interest. They are common, for example, in communities with capital intensive WTE
facilities.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the "Carbone decisions" that a town's flow control
ordinance discriminated against interstate commerce by favoring a privately owned local
facility over out -of -state private facilities. This decision put the legality of flow control
ordinances affecting public facilities in question. In April 2008, this issue was resolved when
the Supreme Court ruled that county ordinances directing locally generated wastes to
publicly -owned waste facilities do not discriminate against interstate commerce2. This
decision appears to establish the right of counties to establish flow control ordinances
directing locally - generated wastes to publicly -owned facilities.
In Hawai'i County, a private collection firm has expressed interest in developing a relatively
large recovery facility for processing the residuals it collects from County businesses and
institutions. There are some reasons to believe that this may not be a desirable development
for the County. A flow control ordinance would be one way that the County could ensure
that residual materials flow to facilities that are County owned, or operated under contract
to the County.
A flow control ordinance could protect the County against a number of risks associated with
the private sector developing facilities without direct County involvement. Some of those
risks include:
Because of its relative isolation and relatively small size, the potential barriers for private
collection firms who wish to establish operations on the island are perhaps higher than
on the Mainland. It is possible that a single private firm with a large market share and its
own recovery facility could potentially keep collection costs higher than would
otherwise exist in a more competitive environment.
Allowing a private firm to develop a large recovery facility reduces the County's
flexibility to adopt various zero waste programs. County policy makers could be in the
unenviable position of having a large firm facing financial losses if the County were to
require aggressive recycling or bioconversion from businesses and institutions.
• The County would lose some degree of control and flexibility for choosing the recovery
and disposal technology that best meets the needs of the entire County rather than the
interest of a single firm.
On the other hand, there is some appeal to allowing a private business to establish a
potentially - beneficial new recovery technology in the County.
At this time, the developer of the facility still has a number of issues it must resolve to
secure land and permits, and the recent economic slowdown and reduction in oil prices
have made its ultimate development uncertain. It is recommended that the County continue
to monitor the progress of this facility. Should it appear that the developers are likely to
develop the facility, it is recommended that the County evaluate if it is in its interests to
1 C &A Carbone v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383
2 United Haulers Association v. Oneida - Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, No. 05 -1345
December 2009 9 -7
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
allow the facility to proceed, or whether it should attempt to establish a flow control
ordinance to prevent it from proceeding.
The EPA's integrated waste management hierarchy3 includes the following four
components, listed in order of preference:
Source reduction (or waste prevention), including reuse of products and on -site (or
backyard) composting of yard trimmings
2. Recycling, including off -site (or community) composting
3. Combustion with energy recovery
4. Disposal through landfilling
More broadly, there is an intermediate step to integrated waste management after the first
"3Rs" of source reduction, reuse, and recycling (including bioconversion), the "4th R" that
can be referred to as recovery or treatment. For the foreseeable future, after source
separation, reuse, recycling, and bioconversion are completed, there will be residual
materials that must be managed. Currently in Hawaii County that residual material is
disposed of in County landfills.
Throughout the world, there is a trend to implement additional treatment of these residual
materials prior to landfill disposal using processes such as WTE or mechanical - biological
treatment (MBT). Treatment consists of applying some combination of mechanical,
biological, chemical, or thermal processes to the material prior to landfill disposal to recover
energy and additional useful materials, and to remove organics from the residuals that are
sent to landfill. The objectives and benefits of recovery and treatment include the following:
• Recovering additional materials for recycling that remain in discarded materials after
the source reduction, reuse, and recycling.
• Recovering the inherent energy remaining in discarded materials after source reduction,
reuse, and recycling.
• Stabilizing the organic fraction of residuals to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and
other air emissions from organics that remain after source reduction, reuse, and
recycling.
• Reducing the volume and toxicity of materials sent to landfill.
• Preserving land and extending the lifespan of existing landfills.
Recovery and treatment facilities (often more narrowly referred to as conversion, emerging,
or alternative technologies) are in the planning stages in many U.S. jurisdictions. During the
past few years, some of the jurisdictions have conducted processes to procure recovery or
treatment facilities include: New York City, New York; Los Angeles County, City and
... ,
9 -8 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
County of Santa Barbara, Sacramento County, and Salinas Valley, California; Taunton,
Massachusetts; Broward County, Florida; and Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska. A
recent assessment of alternative technologies proposed in recent United States procurement
processes provided the following summary of emerging technologies (Exhibit 9 -3).
EXHIBIT 9 -3
Technologies Proposed in Recent U.S. Alternative Technology Procurements
Number of
Technology Citations
Gasification 15
Anaerobic digestion 14
Mass burn WTE 12
Pyrolysis 6
Plasma gasification 3
Thermal depolymerization 3
Note: Includes only technologies mentioned at least three times in
different RFPs.
Source: Gershman, Brickner, and Bratton, Inc. 2008. Alternative
Waste Processing Technologies Assessment. Prepared for Orange
County, NC. 2008.
http: / /www.olver .com /orangecounty /PDF %20files /Alternative Technolo
pies Assessment, %200range %20County %20NC %208- 15- 08.pdf
Because of work currently underway in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere, there is a
wealth of current information about recovery and treatment technologies available. Readers
who wish to learn more about them are encouraged to access the references below4.
4 Alternative Resources Inc. October 2008. Evaluating Conversion Technology for Municipal Waste Management, presentation
to California Integrated Waste Management Board,
http: / /www. ciwmb. ca.aov /Organics /Conversion /Events /M unicipa iWst /Presentation.pdf
Alternative Resources Inc. October 2007. Los Angeles County Conversion Technology Evaluation Report, Phase 2
Assessment. http:// www .socalconversion.ora /pdfs /LACo Conversion PH Report.ndf
Bernheisel, Frank, GBB Inc. 2008. Status of Waste -to- Energy and Conversion Technologies. SWANA e- session.
http://swanastore.stores.yghoo.net/ma20ecoreofe.htmi
Eunomia. 2006. A Changing Climate for Energy from Waste? Final Report for Friends of the Earth.
http: / /www. foe.co.uk /resource /reports /changing climate.pdf
GBB, Inc. 2008. Alternative Waste Processing Technologies Assessment. Prepared for Orange County, N.C.
http: / /www.olver .com /orangecounty /PDF %20files /Alternative Technologies Assessment , %200range %20County %20NC %208
- 15- 08.pdf
TBU Consultants et. al. 2003. Cool Waste Management. A State of the Art Alternative to Incineration for Residual Municipal
Waste. Prepared for Greenpeace Environmental Trust.
http: / /www.areenDea ce.org /raw /content /a ustra lia/ resources / reports /toxics /cool- waste - management. pdf
Juniper Consultancy Service. 2005. Mechanical - Biological- Treatment: A Guide for Decision Makers, Processes, Policies, and
Markets. http: / /www.iuniper.co.uk /Publications /mbt report.html
December 2009 9 -9
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
Outside the United States, many other countries are implementing recovery and treatment
technologies prior to landfill disposal. In the European Union, there has been a rapid recent
increase in new recovery and treatment facilities resulting from the Landfill Directive which
has placed strict requirements on landfilling (Council Directive 99/31/EC). In October 2007,
the pre- treatment requirements of the Landfill Directive (EC 323/2007) came into effect. This
directive requires the treatment of all solid waste prior to landfill disposal with a physical,
thermal, chemical or biological process (which can include sorting) to change the
characteristics of waste to either reduce its volume, reduce its hazardous nature, facilitate its
handling, or enhance its recovery. Implementing technologies to meet these requirements is
projected to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfilling in the European
Union. Recovery through thermal means is widespread in Japan and other Asian countries,
and new recovery/ treatment facilities are currently being developed in Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand.
9.5.1 Overview and Comparison of Recovery and Treatment Options
There is a tremendous variety of possible recovery and treatment options for municipal
solid waste currently in operation or under development. They range from options with a
long, successful track record in the United States and elsewhere, (such as mass burn WTE
facilities) to potentially promising new technologies in various stages of testing and
development (such as the flash carbonization process being developed at the University of
Hawai'i, Manoa). There are various different ways of grouping recovery and treatment
technologies for MSW; however, this IRSWMP update classifies them into the following
three groupings:
• Thermal
• MBT
• Other
The "other' technologies refer to a wide variety of different processes (and process
elements) that are in various stages of development such as thermal depolymerization,
hydrolysis, autoclave, and flash carbonization. At this time, there are no commercial -scale
facilities processing MSW using these technologies in the United States and very few that
are currently operated at a commercial scale elsewhere in the world. Thus, while these
technologies could be investigated further through a pilot project or through a request for
information/ proposal process, they are not assessed further in this IRSWMP update.
A matrix that compares various thermal and MBT technologies is shown in Exhibit 9 -4.
4(continued). Kallassy et. al. 2008. Waste Processing: The Status of Mechanical and Biological Treatment. International Solid
Waste Association Beacon Conference on Biological Treatment.
http : / /www.iswa.it /materiali /ISWA beacon conference 2008 / Proceedings %201swa %20Bea con %20Conference %202008/2 %2
0- %2OF rid ay% 2023rd %20May %20 - %202008 /Session %204/ Boris %20Efre menko %20( Bea con %202008 %20Pa per %20 -
%20M BT %20Status %20- %20 VES).pdf
Spencer, Robert et. al. Mixed MSW Composting in Transition. Biocycle, November 2007.
http: / /www.igp[ess.com /archives/ free /001498.html
9 -10 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
9.5.1.1 Thermal Technologies
As shown in Exhibit 9 -4, the thermal technologies have been grouped into the following five
main categories: mass -burn WTE, refuse - derived -fuel (RDF), gasification, pyrolysis, and
plasma arc. A brief summary of each type of technology follows.
The main advantages of this technology are its proven and reliable operating history, and
the environmental benefits that result when WTE output is used to displace power that
would otherwise be generated by fuels such as oil or coal.
A main disadvantage of this technology is that economies of scale make it costly to develop
small projects. For example, the 230 tons - per -day (tpd) proposed during the recent
procurement for East Hawai'i is relatively small: WTE plants generally average around
1,000 tpd, with some being as large as 3,000 tpd. As a result, WTE plants are viewed by
some as being inconsistent with the zero waste concept: it is expensive to scale down the
size of these facilities - "put -or -pay" provisions are typically included in privately- financed
plants to pay for the relatively high capital costs. WTE is not inherently inconsistent with
zero waste; there are many jurisdictions with WTE facilities that also have high recycling
rates, but plant sizing can be a challenge for municipalities or jurisdictions with relatively
small waste streams.
Refuse - Derived -Fuel. RDF facilities include front -end
pre - processing to recover materials and produce a fuel
that is sent to a combustion unit to generate electricity
and /or steam. The H -Power facility in Honolulu is a
good example of this type of technology.
December 2009 9 -11
\
CO
LU
Ir
\
_
LU
)
�
�
)
2,
d
E
\
\2/
(D .-E % §
>
\)/
\ E§
/ 3\
G U-
±
\
cu
k /
j\
m
2)ƒ
§\
§\
}
\
}
=f
E
CO
co
g
0 (u
�
CL
QJ
QJ
Q
Q
Q
-
-
§
-
§
-
/
-
m
2)ƒ
=a
=f
E
CO
co
g
0 (u
o75
f
CL
§
§
3
3
\
/
\
%: E
6
6
61)
_
Q
Q
G
G
-
\
2
E
/
/
/
a�. f
FL5ƒ)§
3
3
§
§
§
2
G
§
G
§
Q
Q
G
_W r-
G
G
\
\
\
0 >
±
]
§
/
=
e
) 5
7,
e
u
)f�0
/
ƒ2
3
E
as
£
\
\
\
o EL w�z�
o =�_
!
!
�
�
/
/
]
•Ed
]%
\
\
\
��
�m )
)-
Ek\
—_
—_
U)
U)
U)
\0
k
k
$2
]
]
\9§7
+
+
+
+
+
]t])
R
R
§
r
\
2]Ĥ
§
§
6
k@_
±
r
2
k
�
�
m
=a
=f
E
CO
co
g
0 (u
CL
a
C
3/
)
\
2
\o#
m
\
u
n
/
®
)
)
±
]
§
/
=
e
) 5
7,
e
u
/
ƒ2
3
E
»
£
m
w
LU
C7
COQ
J
Q
D
Ir
w
C
a)
E
is
N
0
C
O6
On
O
X
O6
H cC
F5 C
LU CO
N
d
Y
C!4
C
N
C
O
•N
N
E
W
d
R
C
O
S
O
CL
Q
7
Q >,z
t4 t4 N
U _ � p _
O w w
O
0 .O
R.
C C a) ._ >
O E
Q L
0
O ip
� N w
_ � O
f0 .2 C
n�j Q L
LL O a
o N
!4
(� O LE
O
C. J i
E Z C O
o U t
a
y c 3 > a
i y m vO
i7 N-a�
E
W
J
!4
E
d
t
H
a N
a N
E.
= N
= N
o
= N
�T
—
o
o ��
C a) Q N
' O CL U
N —
O D U
N
O D U
C t Y 0
C t Y 0
C t Y 0
0-
.O
. CL �
.� d O'
.� d O'
.� d O'
0 ..-• a)
O 0 ..-• a)
m
m
m
E -
E
o m
> O C a)
? O C a)
? O C a)
N
N C
O
O
O N
a)
C
a) E
U m C
N
-0 —_ N
-0 —_ N
s m o
U) m o
p
N m C
C 'O p
N m C
C 'O p
N m C
N O
<
N O
Q
p a) O-
O N SZ
O N c-
CL
N SZ
N Q
U N O
U N O
U N p
E
rn o 3 t
`m
N S
'N
N S
'N
E o)
E
E o)
o
E 0)
o
E rn�
O o),S
ss
O 0)
C-o-
O o),S
Cs
NCmt
a)t N
NCmt
a) -E N
�:�MC:
3a)m
0:�oaa)
�NC�
-0 (U
3a)m
N U— m
N U— m
N a— V-
a))
N a T' a)
-N�w
N a— �
ua))
ma)Qw
ma)Qw
m26
Q
m
Q N
m2
CL
i
i �
a) 7
a) 2O >
a) 7
a)
SZ C t
SZ C t m
a a
N m 0
O) O)
N m-_ N N
O)
N m O a
'O m 0
�rn E
'O m 0
�rn E
a)a)a�
i
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
Gasification. Gasification facilities differ from
mass -burn and RDF plants because they focus on
creating a synthetic gas that can be used to
produce energy, and the gasification process uses
very limited amounts of oxygen. Materials are
first shredded and or sorted to ensure consistent
sizing, and then are fed into a gasification
chamber. The gasification process heats materials
to very high temperatures (1,650 °F to 2,200 °F)
where chemical reactions take place to form a
synthetic gas from the organic fraction of the
materials and a glass -like slag from the inorganic
fraction. Some systems reclaim recyclables prior to
gasification, or control the chemical process in
order to produce usable products from the inorganic fraction after the gasification step.
After cleaning, the gas can be burned directly in an internal combustion engine or turbine,
or used to create a synthetic fuel. The gas is usually used to generate electricity or as a
vehicle fuel. The process used to create the gas typically uses only enough oxygen to
produce the desired temperatures.
This technology has some key advantages compared to typical WTE facilities including:
• A variety of process features provide opportunities for fewer air emissions.
• The syngas created is potentially more efficient than direct combustion of MSW because
it can be combusted at higher temperatures or even in fuel cells.
• The technology appears to scale down to smaller sizes more efficiently than WTE
facilities, potentially making it more applicable to smaller communities working toward
a goal of zero waste.
Some disadvantages of this technology include:
• Service intervals are typically on the order of a few months for the plants, requiring
frequent plant shut downs to maintain and clean the reactor.
• Lack of successful commercial demonstration in U.S. (few examples worldwide) and
related uncertainties surrounding the cost and long -term effectiveness of the technology.
• Environmental permitting regulations are unclear or nonexistent.
• Public education is needed to overcome negative perceptions of thermal technologies.
9 -14 December 2009
Pyrolysis. Pyrolysis refers to the chemical
decomposition of a substance by heating in the absence
of oxygen. Pyrolysis typically occurs at temperatures
ranging from 750 °F to 1,650 °F. The composition of the
pyrolytic product is changed by the temperature, speed
of process, and rate of heat transfer. Lower pyrolysis
temperatures usually produce more liquid products
and higher temperatures produce more gases. Pyrolysis
is used frequently in the chemical industry, for
example, to produce charcoal, activated carbon,
methanol and other chemicals from wood, and to
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
produce coke from coal. For MSW, pre - processing steps are required that include separation
and screening to remove contaminants, shredding to reduce particle size, magnetic
separation to remove conductors, classifying to refine, drying to increase the calorific value,
and (in some systems) pelletizing to obtain homogeneity.
The products resulting from the pyrolysis process are a synthetic gas and /or liquid and a
char. The gas is burned in a secondary combustion chamber, then is typically passed
through a boiler for heat recovery. Although some oxygen may be used for combustion of
the gas in order to destroy organics, the combustion takes place in a gaseous phase
requiring much less oxygen than incineration. This results in the formation of much less
nitrous oxide and soot from the power generation process.
There were many attempts in the United States to scale up this technology from pilot scale
demonstration plants during the 1970s and 1980s, but none of the plants were able to
overcome challenges associated with maintaining a sealed chamber to keep air out,
adjusting the process to match the variability of the MSW inputs, and competition with
landfills and WTE facilities. Recently, interest in this technology has increased, but it
remains to be seen if it will become commercially viable in the United States.
The advantages and disadvantages cited above for gasification also generally apply to
pyrolysis, with various advantages and disadvantages associated with specific processes
and vendors.
Plasma Arc. Plasma arc technology, developed for use in the
metals industry in the late 1900s, uses intense heat (over
7,000 °F) to break down feedstocks into elemental
byproducts. Plasma is a collection of free - moving electrons
and ions that is typically formed by applying a large voltage
across a gas volume at reduced or atmospheric pressures.
MSW is fed through this gas changing the organic fraction
into elemental compounds such as hydrogen, oxygen and
carbon, and the inorganic fraction into a glass -like vitrified
mass that is claimed to be highly resistant to leaching.
There is one plasma arc facility currently being operated by
Hitachi in Japan that uses MSW combined with automobile
fluff as feedstocks. A plasma arc pilot project is currently operating in Ottawa, Ontario. The
Ottawa City Council recently signed a letter of intent for Plasco Energy to build, own, and
December 2009 9 -15
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
operate a 400 -tpd facility. This company also has an agreement with Red Deer County,
Alberta, to build, own, and operate a somewhat smaller facility that could come on line as
early as 2010. Information about these facilities is available at this Web site:
http : / /www.zerowasteottawa.com /en /. Contracts have been signed for the following two
plasma arc projects in the United States, and other communities have expressed interest in
the technology:
St. Lucie County, Florida, has signed a development contract for plasma arc facility,
currently planned to be 600 tpd. The proponents have yet to apply for air permits from
the state.
Tallahassee, Florida, has signed a development contract for a 1,000 -tpd plasma arc
gasification plant. Little new information has been made available about this facility
since early 2008.
The advantages and disadvantages of this technology are similar to those of pyrolysis and
gasification. One additional advantage of this system compared to the others is the more
complete breakdown of materials has the potential to result in the lowest possible percent of
residuals sent to landfill. One drawback of the technology is the high electric power
requirements for the torches, which may make it more difficult to obtain net energy benefits
from this technology. To address this, some developers are using the plasma arc after an
initial gasification step.
9.5.1.2 Mechanical - Biological Treatment (MBT)
MBT describes the integration of processes normally found in material recycling facilities
(MRFs), RDF plants, and composting plants. A key feature of the process is using the
activity of microorganisms to create a stabilized output. This can be accomplished either in
the presence of oxygen (aerobically; that is, composting) or in the absence of oxygen
(anaerobic digestion). The output of the process is typically either stabilized organic matter
(compost or landfill cover), biogas (for fuel), or drying (for producing a refuse - derived - fuel).
Like thermal technologies, there are many different MBT processes, systems, and vendors.
Today, there are five MBT plants operating in the United States, over 150 MBT plants
operating in Europe that are expected to treat more than 13 million metric tons5, and about a
dozen plants currently operating or under development in Australia.
Mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) composting is a type of MBT facility that has been
tried by various jurisdictions in the United States. While MMSW composting is a type of
MBT, these "first generation" plants developed in the 1980s and 1990s usually consisted of
just an initial shredding and /or biological drum treatment and aerobic composting. There
are numerous examples of failed MMSW composting operations resulting from high costs,
ongoing equipment breakdowns, odor concerns, and /or an inability to market the compost
end - products. Many of the new European MBT plants are more sophisticated than first
generation MMSW composting plants, and United States composters are continually
5 Kallassy et. al. 2008. Waste Processing: The Status of Mechanical and Biological Treatment. International Solid Waste
Association Beacon Conference on Biological Treatment. Accessed at
http : / /www.iswa.it /materiali /ISWA beacon conference 2008 / Proceedings %201swa %20Bea con %20Conference %202008/2 %2
0- %2OF rid ay% 2023rd %20May %20 - %202008 /Session %204/ Boris %20Efre menko %20( Bea con %202008 %20Pa per %20 -
%20M BT %20Status %20- %20 VES).pdf
9 -16 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
modifying and optimizing systems; however, there are challenges that must still be
overcome. Examples of continuing challenges with this technology include the Pine Top,
Arizona, MBT plant, which was recently converted from accepting MSW to accepting only
source separated organics, because of equipment maintenance issues and the challenge of
finding markets for the compost it produced. The largest MBT plant in North America, in
Edmonton, Alberta, has faced a number of challenges related to equipment failures and
maintenance, and the City is considering modifications to its current process to produce an
RDF product, or other alternatives to improve the economics of the plant.
Recent experience with European MBT plants have resulted in many similar technical
problems initially, with low throughput capacity caused by machine overload or
breakdown and higher operational costs than expected due to high maintenance and service
requirements. There have also been challenges getting rid of the high caloric fraction
produced during mechanical separation. Many of the problems encountered at European
plants have been solved, and nearly all of the European facilities are running at their
expected capacities, but in some cases this has resulted in significantly higher than
anticipated operation costs. One common weak point at MBT facilities is the final biological
treatment process, which is often designed like a composting process. Managing odors and
meeting material specifications is an ongoing process that requires constant attention.
All MBT processes involve waste input and control, mechanical preparation, biological
and /or thermal treatment, and product conditioning. Waste input and control normally
consists of manually removing oversized and hazardous materials. Mechanical processing
can include minimal separation or shredding, or sophisticated sorting of the inbound waste
into biodegradable material, recyclables, and contaminant streams. Sorting is usually done
with dry processes but it can also involve wet processes, such as flotation and hydro -
pulping. Depending on the quality and market demand, the recyclables are typically sold,
but paper fibers, textiles, rubber, plastics, and residual organics can also be used as RDF.
The biological stage of the MBT process can either be aerobic composting or anaerobic
digestion. The outputs of this process can be either a synthetic gas, RDF, or compost. The
quality of the compost will depend on the specific process used and the ability to separate
metals, plastics, glass fragments, and toxic materials from the organic fraction. However, in
general, the compost produced from an MBT process is of lower quality than compost
produced from source - separated organic material such as green waste or food waste. Some
plants produce multiple types of compost and target products for specific applications such
as agricultural use, site remediation, or landfill cover. Some processes result in large
quantities of residuals (up to 50 percent) that must be landfilled.
Like the thermal recovery options, there are many different processes and systems used in
MBT plants. For the purposes of this IRSWMP update, MBT systems are classified into three
groups:
Biological treatment with RDF for combustion
Biological treatment with composting
Anaerobic digestion
A brief overview of each type of MBT system follows.
December 2009 9 -17
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
Biological treatment with RDF for combustion. A popular approach in Europe is to do
relatively little up -front sorting, and use the heat released from aerobic breakdown of
organics to dry the materials. Metals and inert materials are then removed, and paper fibers
and plastics are made into RDF. The caloric value of this fuel is relatively high (11 to
17 MJ /kg) and can be used as a substitute for fossil fuels in a wide range of applications,
including power stations. The process also produces a low calorific value fraction that is
normally stabilized (composted) then landfilled.
Biological treatment with composting. In this
process, relatively little mechanical pre - processing
is done up front and materials are fed into a long,
rotating drum (made by companies like Bedminster
and Dano) where the MSW is processed for one to
four days. The combination of the mechanical
for the sorted materials.
Anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion uses anaerobic bacteria to break down material
without oxygen. This technology is well established for treating outputs from wastewater
treatment plants, dairy farms, and other sources of relatively homogenous organic material.
It is now beginning to be applied to source - separated organics and MSW.
To treat MSW using anaerobic digestion,
organics must be separated from inorganics
and prepared into a slurry appropriate for
the digesters. This separation process has
proved to be challenging at many facilities
processing MSW and organics. Various
different technologies exist for the initial
separation process that use water, screens,
magnets, separators, and shredders in
various combinations.
During the digestion process, about two - thirds of the biodegradable organic matter is
transformed into a biogas composed mainly of methane and carbon dioxide. The remaining
one- third comes out of the process as a digestate that must be treated using an aerobic
curing phase (composting) to stabilize it prior to landfilling.
9.5.2 Recovery and Treatment Options for Hawaii County
The County's recent procurement for a WTE facility for East Hawaii was undertaken
primarily in response to the pending closure of the SHSL. The County's 2002 IRSWMP
update projected that the SHSL would close in 2004. Since that time, various engineered
9 -18 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
solutions have been implemented that have extended the life of the SHSL until
approximately 2013 (at current recycling rates).
It is important to note than no currently known recovery or treatment technology will
remove 100 percent of residuals from the municipal waste stream: thus, for the foreseeable
future, landfill capacity will be required for residuals generated in the County. As discussed
below, the County is currently evaluating a lined extension to the SHSL that would provide
an estimated 4 additional years of landfill capacity for East Hawai'i. There are quarries
located on the SHSL site that could be developed in order to provide an estimated
additional 50 years of capacity for the SHSL. If the County chooses to not pursue those
options, the County has at least two other landfill disposal options: trucking East Hawai'i
residuals to the WHSL at Pu'uanahulu, or barging residuals to another Hawaiian Island, or
to the U.S. Mainland.
A new recovery/ treatment facility will more than likely cost considerably more than cost of
expanding the SHSL or trucking East Hawai'i waste to the WHSL (probably a minimum of
$10 to $20 per ton more, and perhaps over $100 per ton more). Thus, a central question to
evaluate when assessing whether or not to develop a recovery and treatment option is:
Do the environmental benefits of these facilities outweigh their additional cost?
The following recovery and treatment options for consideration are discussed below.
R -1 No Action; Wait to Assess Success of Current Conversion Technology Projects
R -2 WTE Facility for East Hawai'i; Ash and Bypass Materials to SHSL
R -3 WTE Facility for all County Residuals; Ash and Bypass Materials to WHSL
R -4 One or More Modular WTE Facilities in Rural Areas; Ash and Bypass Waste to SHSL
and WHSL
R -5 Develop MBT Facilities at the SHSL and /or WHSL Sites
9.5.2.1 R -1 No Action; Wait to Assess Success of Current Conversion Technology Projects
In this option, the County would take no immediate action toward developing a new
recovery or treatment project. It could then assess how successful new technologies that are
under development prove to be in Los Angeles County, California; St. Lucie, Florida;
Tallahassee Florida; and other locations. There will likely be some operating history in place
from these projects that could be evaluated when the County does its next IRSWMP update
in approximately 5 years.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Reduces the risks associated with being at
Continued reliance on landfilling as the County's residuals
the leading edge of a new technology,
management technology for a few more years. This also means the
such as technology failure or unexpected
County must ensure it has landfill capacity for residuals from East
cost increases.
Hawaii, and would require the County to implement one of the
following three options:
Develop a lined expansion cell at the SHSL (Landfill Option 1)
Truck East Hawaii residuals to the WHSL (Landfill Option 2)
Bale and barge East Hawaii residuals to the Mainland or another
Hawaiian island (Landfill Option 3)
December 2009 9 -19
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
Estimated Cost. See landfill options 1 to 3 for the estimated cost of landfill options. The cost
of landfilling is likely to be considerably less than the cost of developing a new recovery/
treatment facility.
9.5.2.2 R -2 WTE Facility for East Hawaii; Ash and Bypass Materials to SHSL
The Hawai'i County Council recently decided not to enact a contract that was negotiated for
a new 230 -tpd WTE facility to process residuals from East Hawai'i. The County could
potentially reconsider this decision. This project could potentially be revived as is, or the
County could conduct another procurement. Some cost savings would probably occur from
the original proposal if residual ash could be disposed of at the SHSL instead of being
trucked to the WHSL.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Reliable, long -term recovery technology
Considerably higher cost than landfill ($50 -75 per ton
residuals.
additional)
Environmental benefits, including reduced greenhouse
At 230 tpd, the facility would provide a disincentive for
gas emissions from displacing electricity from oil -fired
aggressive additional waste reduction and recycling,
combustion units and additional recycling of metals
which goes against zero waste principles
Preservation of land, and landfill capacity
While the facility would be highly likely to meet all
regulatory requirements, added air emissions would
result
Reduced potential for water quality impacts from
landfilling unstabilized residuals, and reduced volatile
organic compound emissions
Estimated Cost. As shown in Exhibit 9 -4, this option would be likely to cost between $120
and $145 per ton. The range in costs depends on the price received for electricity generated
by the project and where ash and bypass wastes would be landfilled (costs would be lower
if ash and bypass wastes are landfilled at the SHSL rather than at the WHSL).
9.5.2.3 R -3 WTE Facility for all County Residuals; Ash and Bypass Materials to WHSL
In this option, a new procurement would be conducted by the County seeking to develop a
larger WTE facility that could accept residuals from the entire County. This would require a
siting study to determine where it should be located; typically the closer such a plant is
located to the primary population and employment centers in West Hawai'i, the lower the
associated operating costs.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Same as Option R -2 but for a larger quantity of
Same as Option R -2, but could size the plant for
residuals.
residuals after a 50 percent or higher recycling rate,
which would be somewhat more consistent with zero
waste principles
Economies of scale would result in lower costs than
Added emissions and costs associated with trucking
Option R -2
refuse to the plant
9 -20 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
Estimated Cost. The cost of WTE would probably be $10 to $30 per ton less than Option R -2
due to the economies of scale associated with larger WTE facilities. This cost savings,
however, could potentially be offset by the cost of transferring and trucking waste materials
to the facility.
9.5.2.4 R -4 Modular Incinerators in Rural Areas; Ash and Bypass Waste to SHSL and WHSL
Much of Hawai'i County is rural in character, and the County
incurs considerable cost transporting residuals from its recycling
and transfer stations to the WHSL and SHSL. One option to
consider would be to procure and develop one or more small,
modular incinerators in rural areas. This would dramatically reduce
transportation costs and has the potential to be a cost - effective
recovery system that could be located at one or more of the County
recycling and transfer stations.
While there are relatively few such units used to process MSW in
the U.S. Mainland, there are more than 1,000 modular incinerators
serving rural areas, military facilities, and hospitals around the
world6. These facilities can be good recovery systems for smaller, remote locations. These
systems generally cost less in installed cost per ton -day than larger, mass burn WTE
facilities, but they also do not have the longevity of those facilities and can cost more to
operate on a per -ton basis.
In this type of system, MSW is loaded into a surge chamber using a rubber fire bucket
loader. The door that seals the lower chamber is then opened and waste is injected into the
combustion chamber. Additional waste can be loaded into the surge chamber after the
lower chamber door is closed. It is assumed that the unloading floor would accommodate
two unloading stalls plus some room for separated bulky waste that would need to be
transferred separately in transfer trailers or drop boxes to a County landfill.
The lower chamber operates at about 1,850 °F, while the upper chamber operates at about
1,450 °F for reducing air pollution emissions. There is no grate in this unit. Air is applied at a
rate that is less than necessary to complete combustion resulting in essentially a gasification
or pyrolysis process. The partial combustion products pass into an afterburning secondary
chamber that will ensure successful burn out of particulate combustion gases. Air is
supplied by outside blowers to provide correct combustion for a given application to meet
local emission standards. Controlling the lower chamber gas velocity is important in this
process in order to maintain a quiet combustion area. Ash is removed using a roll off box
that when filled can be transported to the landfill.
These systems can be used to recover steam and /or generate electricity. Successful
electricity generation depends on access to existing electric system infrastructure and a
power utility that is a willing partner.
6 One vendor, Consutech, claims to have over 5,400 units in operation around the world.
December 2009 9 -21
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
For the purposes of sizing and developing cost estimates, this option assumes the following:
• The facility would be located at the Waiohinu recycling and transfer station accepting
waste from that facility, Pahala, and Miloli'i (and Ocean View, should that facility come
online).
• In 2020, the waste stream assessment forecast is that 18 tons would go to the facility on
an average day (assuming today's recycling rate). Thus, a 20 -tpd unit would provide
adequate capacity for peak flows, yet wouldn't be oversized should significantly more
waste be reduced or recycled.
• The facility would be staffed by two to three County employees each day. A front -end
loader would be needed to separate bulky materials and load residuals into the unit.
• Improvements to the recycling and transfer station would be required including a small
(10,000 ft2) building with a tip floor and a bulky waste load out chute - this could be
integrated with planned improvements to the Waiohinu recycling and transfer station.
• About 10 percent of the residuals received would be bulky wastes not appropriate for
incineration - these would be transferred to the SHSL.
• Thirty to 35 percent of the incoming material by weight would need to be transported to
the SHSL as ash.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Reduction of about 20 percent of total system transfer
While the system should be able to meet EPA air
truck miles and reduced landfilling of organics would
quality requirements, some air pollutants would result
result in less air pollution and greenhouse gas
from the incineration process
emissions
Potential for additional metal recovery for recycling
Likely community opposition
after combustion
Costing is uncertain at this stage — would need an RFP
process to confirm
A new technology and system would require additional
training and skills for County staff
Estimated Cost. It is estimated that this option would cost between $30 and $120 per ton.
The large range in costs is because costs will be highly influenced by site specific
considerations; particularly installation of the unit in a relatively remote area. Additional
research and /or an RFP process would be required to refine this estimate much further.
This estimate includes capital and operating costs minus transportation cost savings. In
2020, it is estimated that this facility would eliminate about 20 percent of the miles currently
driven by the County's transfer station trailer fleet resulting in nearly $900,000 per year of
transportation cost savings. The estimated capital costs of the facility have been annualized
assuming a 5- percent interest rate and 15 -year term (approximating the useful life of the
facility).
The low estimate includes a $47 per ton savings in avoided cost of landfill; the high estimate
assumes no avoided cost savings.
9 -22 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
It is assumed that the project would be combined with a reconstruction of the Waiohinu
recycling and transfer station. A range of $0.5 million to $1.5 million of additional capital
improvements was allowed for to accommodate the incinerator.
It is possible that electricity sales could be profitable for this facility, but considering its
remote location, the cost estimate assumes no cost for the equipment necessary to generate
electricity and no revenues from energy sales.
9.5.2.5 R -5 Develop MBT Facilities at the SHSL and/or WHSL Sites
As discussed above, there are a handful of MBT facilities operating in the United States and
numerous facilities operating elsewhere in the world. While MBT facilities are not as
"proven" as WTE or RDF facilities, there is enough operating history for the County to
consider developing one or more MBT facilities. It would be prudent for the County to
consider initially development of a facility for East Hawai'i because of the capacity issues at
the SHSL, and because there are fewer residuals received there than at WHSL.
This option would require additional study, and an RFP process. Through that process, the
County could decide on the desired outputs from the process (RDF, biogas, compost), assess
markets for recovered materials, and evaluate the implications for landfill operating
practices. It's possible that the facility could be developed at the SHSL site, potentially
making use of the reload facility in some capacity.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions
Much higher cost than landfilling ($30 to $130 /ton
higher)
Reduced potential for water and air pollution from
Higher risk of system failure leading to higher than
landfilling
anticipated costs compared to WTE or landfill disposal
options
Additional recovery of materials not reused or recycled
Systems have many moving parts and will require
prior to reaching the plant
specialized operating expertise, sound preventive
maintenance, and vigilant on -going odor management
practices
Beneficial use of materials not otherwise recovered
such as electricity, vehicle fuels, compost, landfill cover
Preservation of current landfill capacity and reduced
need for additional land for landfill activities
Estimated Cost. As shown in Exhibit 9 -4, this option could range in cost from $100 to
$200 per ton. The wide range in costs occurs because of the multiple different types of MBT
systems currently available, wide ranges in the reported cost of these systems, and
challenges in translating those costs to Hawai'i County. The results of a conceptual design
of two MBT facilities (one for East Hawai'i and one for West Hawai'i) resulted in an
estimated cost of approximately $160 per ton (Appendix D). In general, lower cost systems
achieve lower recovery, send more residual materials to landfills, are in rural areas so that
odor controls are less critical, and produce residual materials that must be landfilled which
may not be stabilized as well as residuals produced by other processes.
December 2009 9 -23
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
1, ! - e =P*
The County's progress toward zero waste and any decision on whether or not to implement
a recovery or treatment option will not eliminate the need for landfill capacity for the
foreseeable future. At planned recycling rates and taking into account the current capacity
of the sliver fill at the SHSL, the SHSL has approximately 5 to 8 years of remaining life, and
the WHSL has approximately 38 years of remaining life. As more materials are reused or
recycled, or if a recovery facility is developed, the capacity of landfills in the County will be
extended.
The upcoming closure of the SHSL puts pressure on the County to develop replacement
capacity relatively quickly. Thus, this IRSWMP update must answer the imminent question
of what will be done once the SHSL is at capacity, and evaluate the long -term future of
landfilling in the County. In response, the following three landfill disposal options that
address both short -term and long -term considerations have been developed for discussion.
Expand SHSL for East Hawaii residuals, and use WHSL for West Hawaii residuals
Close SHSL and landfill all County Waste at the WHSL
Bale and Barge East Hawaii Waste and utilize WHSL for West Hawaii residuals
9.6.1 Expand SHSL; WHSL for West Hawaii
This option includes two potential expansion options for the SHSL. The first consists of
expanding the SHSL into a parcel of land, adjacent to and northwest of the existing landfill
footprint. The County is currently conducting engineering investigations into the feasibility
and cost of this expansion. The second is an expansion into existing rock quarries located on
the SHSL site. The WSHL would remain open and would function much as it does today.
Each option is discussed below.
9.6.1.1 Expansion to the Northwest Adjacent to the Existing Landfill Footprint
Hawaii County owns a vacant piece of land which borders the South Hilo Landfill on the
northwest (see Exhibit 9 -1). The lot is approximately 70 percent cleared, with some trees and
brush in the remaining 30 percent. At planned recycling rates7, it is estimated that
development of this seven -acre lot would provide approximately 4 years of additional
disposal capacity.
Development of this lot for additional landfill disposal would require: clearing the
remaining trees and brush; bulk excavation of approximately 30 feet; installation of the liner
and leachate collection and recovery system; and realignment of support facilities. This
development of additional waste disposal area adjacent to an existing landfill is typically
referred to as a lateral expansion.
The existing scale house /office building is on the south side of the existing landfill, which is
convenient for current placement of waste. When waste placement operations move to the
parcel on the northwest side of the landfill, a new traffic pattern will need to be developed.
7 This estimate assumes that this expansion would occur after capacity at the existing SHSL is exhausted, and accounts for
the effects of the current national recession, growth in disposal, and implementation of recycling programs estimated to result
in a 44 percent recycling rate by 2014 -15.
9 -24 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
For the purposes of this evaluation, it is assumed that the entrance gate and scale house can
remain in their existing configurations.
Waste placement operations would be conducted similar to existing operations, meaning
that waste is placed loose, and then compacted in place using heavy equipment.
State and federal regulations (Hawaii Administrative Rules [HAR], Title 11, Chapter 58.1
and 40 CFR 258.48) require that all new landfills be constructed with a waste containment
system consisting of a bottom liner with leachate collection and recovery system. The liner
system would consist of two layers of heavy duty plastic geomembrane, placed above and
below a geosynthetic clay liner. The bottom of the new landfill cell would also have an
engineered drainage layer.
When landfills are lined, precipitation and residual water from the waste (that is, leachate)
collects on the liner and needs to be actively managed. The leachate collection and recovery
system would consist of a series of sumps, pipes, drainage gravel, and one or more pumps
to remove the accumulated leachate. Managing leachate in regions of high precipitation
means higher volumes of leachate to manage. Hawai'i County plans to actively reduce the
volume of leachate generated in the lined lateral expansion by maintaining a system of
plastic membranes and tarps to cover the waste. When the waste is covered by membranes
or tarps, precipitation can be kept separate from the waste and managed as clean storm
water.
Even with the maintenance of membrane and tarp cover, leachate will be generated and will
require treatment. Leachate collecting on the landfill liner will be pumped out of the cell,
and then treated prior to infiltration into the ground. Treatment options include treatment at
the local wastewater treatment plant near the Hilo Airport, and treatment using constructed
wetlands. An initial feasibility evaluation indicated that wetlands treatment could
effectively treat the leachate8.
State and federal regulations require that all landfills receive final cover when they reach
capacity. Furthermore, regulations require post - closure monitoring for up to 30 years.
An expanded feasibility study and capital cost estimate was prepared to assess whether
undertaking a seven -acre landfill expansion immediately adjacent to the SHSL would be
less expensive than long - hauling waste to the WHSL. The study did not support the
seven -acre expansion and this option has been removed from further consideration.
9.6.1.2 Expansion into the Quarries at the SHSL Site
One option for providing new landfill capacity for residuals from East Hawai'i would be to
site a new landfill elsewhere in the County.
A study of locations for a new landfill was conducted as part of this IRSWMP Update, and
is included as Appendix E. That study came to the following conclusion:
"The location adjacent to the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill is the most central in terms of population.
Though not without traffic problems, is relatively well served by roads. Critically, it is makai of the
8 CH2M HILL. 2008. South Hilo Sanitary Landfill Leachate Quality Improvement Using Treatment Wetlands —High Level
Sizing and Cost Opinion. Technical Memorandum to SWT Engineering.
December 2009 9 -25
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
UIC line. The quarry site is ready -made for a landfill, another key advantage. Unencumbered State
land is available, although within the Agricultural District (a separate DEM project may attempt to
urbanize this area to bring the current landfill into conformance with its Special Permit conditions).
LUPAG and County zoning would require amendment. Its principal disadvantage is 126 inches of
rainfall, which would require extra steps to minimize and treat leachate. Overall, this location rates
highest on this selection of objective factors."
Thus, for the purposes of this IRSWMP update, the quarries adjacent to the SHSL are being
evaluated as a potential long -term landfill disposal option for disposal of residuals from
East Hawai'i rather than considering other sites.
Hawai'i County owns several parcels of land currently used for quarry operations southeast
of the existing landfill. The 75 -acre quarry site is slightly larger than the existing landfill
footprint (see Exhibit 9 -1). Preliminary estimates are that development of this quarry site for
future landfill operations would provide approximately 50 years of additional disposal
capacity for the County at planned recycling rates.
This expansion would be constructed and operated assuming development of a liner
system, constructed wetlands for leachate treatment, landfill gas management, active
stormwater management to minimize leachate production, and final closure and post -
closure monitoring.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Low risk of failure and consistent with zero waste
Challenges exist associated with operating a lined
principles because capital investment would be low
landfill in an area with extremely high precipitation
relative to most other options
Compatible with all recovery options, now or in the
A lengthy permitting process would be required,
future: some landfill disposal is likely to be required for
including a technology (constructed wetlands) that is
the foreseeable future
new to the State of Hawaii
• known location: few siting issues anticipated
A boundary review process would be required for
expansion into the quarries
• known technology that can be operated effectively
Emissions of greenhouse gases and volatile organic
by County staff
compounds (VOCs) would be higher than any recovery
option
Relatively low cost
Some risk to water quality exists with any landfill
Estimated Cost. The estimated cost of construction and operation of a lateral expansion of
the SHSL landfill is $82 to $94 per ton, which is $25 to 36 per ton above the FY 07 -08 cost of
landfill disposal at the SHSL of $57 per ton. The estimated cost of landfill disposal at the
quarries on the SHSL site is $69 to $73 per ton. The basis for these estimates is provided in a
landfill costing memorandum provided as Appendix F.
These estimates are based on the current cost of operating the SHSL, and additional costs
that would result from operating a new, lined landfill including:
• Liner system
• Leachate collection and recovery system
• One additional FTE for management of storm water
9 -26 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
• Onsite leachate treatment using constructed wetlands
• Costs for final closure and post - closure monitoring
9.6.2 Landfill All County Waste at the WHSL
In this option, residuals from East Hawai'i would be transferred at the East Hawai'i
Regional Sort Station Reload Facility and transported by truck to the WHSL for final
disposal. It is assumed that the station would keep the same operating hours as the current
operation: 10.5 hours per day, 7 days per week. It is assumed that the County would operate
the transfer operation at the reload facility. Customers would unload materials on the tip
floor, and remove any clean, readily recyclable material. County staff would use a track
loader to break up bulky materials for transport, then push materials into a waiting trailer.
From there, materials would be transported to the WHSL.
It is assumed that the County would transport residuals in 75 cubic yard, walking floor
trailers at an average payload of 18 tons. At FY 07 -08 disposal rates, this would represent
12 truck and trailer combinations traveling from the Hilo reload facility to the WHSL on an
average day.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Similar to Disposal option 1 but even lower risk of
Public opposition to trucking waste from East Hawaii
failure and less capital investment would be required
to West Hawaii is likely (12 trucks per day)
than any other option
Emissions of greenhouse gases and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) would be higher than any recovery
option, and increased emissions compared to disposal
option 1 because of added trucking
Estimated cost. The estimated cost of this option is $82 per ton, consisting of $11 per ton for
transfer station operations, $24 per ton for transportation, and $47 per ton for landfilling.
The $47 landfill costs represent the estimated variable costs associated with landfill
operations at the WSHL in FY 07 -08.
9.6.3 Bale and Barge East Hawaii Waste; WHSL for West Hawaii
One potential method of managing residuals is to
export them off - island to a waste reduction or
landfill facility located either on another island, or
on the mainland. In 2006 the United Sates
Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved
interstate movement of garbage (municipal solid
waste) from Hawai'i. In 2007 the Honolulu City
Council passed a resolution to consider the out -of-
state shipment of municipal waste for disposal.
Currently the City is evaluating this option to
supplement their residuals management program, and has procured proposals from
potential vendors to provide the service. Protests surrounding the procurement process
December 2009 9 -27
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
were resolved in March 2009, and the contractor began accepting waste in September 2009.
The first barge shipment to the Mainland is scheduled to take place in December 2009.
There is an ongoing waste export industry operating on the West Coast of the United States
with more than 3 million tons per year of materials shipped by rail and truck from Seattle,
Portland, and other population centers to three large landfills in eastern Washington and
Oregon. These systems have been operating effectively for approximately 20 years.
To ship residuals to the Mainland, materials would need to be compressed into bales, then
wrapped in an stretched plastic film that creates an airtight seal around each bale. The
airtight seal is necessary to destroy unwanted pests or invasive species that may be present
in the refuse material. To implement this option, the County would need to install a baler
and shrink- wrapping system at the South Hilo Reload facility (or contract with the private
sector to provide this service). Bales would be loaded into a trailer or onto a flatbed, and
then transported by a truck to the Port of Hilo. From there, the bales would then be loaded
onto a barge for transport to the Mainland, and then off - loaded onto a truck for the final trip
to the landfill face in Washington state or Oregon. The company that was the apparent
successful proposer on the Honolulu County procurement based its proposal on being able
to secure a back -haul or aggregates or other commodities from the Mainland to O'ahu (that
is, waste would go east, and other commodities would come west on each trip).
Barge transport to a landfill or WTE facility on another Hawaiian island would be
technically feasible. At this time no current facilities likely to have the capacity or interest in
accepting residuals from the County, but this could prove to be a potential option in the
future.
Not all materials currently sent to disposal would be appropriate for the baler that is used to
compact materials prior to loading. Thus, the County would need to have landfill capacity
for oversize and bulky materials in addition to this system.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Likely to be a technically feasible
Many have objections to the principle of sending waste to distant landfills
method for landfill disposal
in other jurisdictions
Less environmental impacts and
There is added risk associated with pricing that is dependent on securing
opposition to trucking or landfilling
a reliable back -haul of commodities
locally
There is added risk associated with shipping shrink - wrapped bales across
the Pacific Ocean on a barge — this is not a common method of waste
transportation
While barge transport is relatively efficient in fuel use per mile, there would
be considerable air emissions associated with transportation to and from a
Mainland landfill
Experience on the west coast has shown that delays in returning
containers can occur; the County would need to have contingency plans to
ship waste to the WSHL or retain capacity at the SHSL in case empty
container shipments are delayed
Estimated Cost. The cost of waste export is uncertain. Hawaiian Waste Systems (HWS)
contract with the City of Honolulu for 100,000 tons per year is reported to be $99.89 per ton
9 -28 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
for material delivered to a contractor - operated transfer station in Honolulu. Evidently, the
other bids received were $184 and $204 per ton. HWS has suggested to County staff that a
similar system could be developed for East Hawai'i for about $85 to $100 per ton including
transfer at the East Hawai'i Regional Sort Station and Reload Facility, all transportation, and
landfilling at the Roosevelt Regional Landfill near Roosevelt, Washington.
Experience with new technologies in the solid waste field suggest that the actual cost of a
new system is typical higher than initial quotes because of contract language, technical
specifications, and other requirements that would be part of an actual contract. It is highly
unlikely that this option would result in lower cost disposal than either of the other two
landfill options.
Value Model and Risk Analysis of Options. As part of the evaluation of options, a value
model and risk analysis of options was prepared and presented to the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee (SWAG) and County Council Environmental Management Committee. This
information was used to help the County decide on a residuals management option that
best meets its economic, social, and environmental objectives while considering key risks
and uncertainties. Value modeling is a quantitative technique for making decisions that
involve multiple financial, environmental, and social objectives that is based on the
principles of multi - attribute utility theory. The SWAC participated in defining the most
important objectives, and assessing the relative importance of each objective. The results of
the analysis indicated that the following three options best met the County's objectives with
risks that appeared reasonable:
Expand the SHSL
Truck East Hawai'i Waste to the WHSL
• Bale and barge waste from East Hawai'i to another County or the Mainland
A report documenting this analysis is presented in Appendix G.
The options outlined in Chapter 9.6 were presented to and discussed by the County Council
Environmental Management Committee, the SWAG, and at three public meetings held in
December 2008. The results of the value model and risk analysis of options were considered
in March 2009. After further debate about the merits of different options, an additional
analysis of conversion technologies was conducted in May 2009 and three potential
residuals management strategies were developed for further consideration9:
1. Develop a conversion technology facility
2. Truck waste from the SHSL to the WHSL
3. Investigate the feasibility and cost of expanding the SHSL
Key actions required to implement each strategy, and a comparison of the environmental,
social, economic, and risk aspects of each strategy follows.
9 Bale and barge may be an additional feasible option, but it could potentially cost considerably more than landfilling within the
County of Hawaii, and the feasibility of barging from Hawaii to the U.S. Mainland on a consistent basis has not yet been
demonstrated. This option could also be considered at a later date if the County has difficulty implementing the recommended
strategy.
December 2009 9 -29
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
9.7.1 Implementation of Residuals Management Strategies
A summary of implementation actions that would be required for each strategy follows.
1. Develop a Conversion Technology Facility
To develop a conversion technology facility, the County would need to go through an RFP
process to select a vendor, then the vendor would need to go through planning, permitting,
construction, and testing prior to implementation. It is estimated that it would take 5 to
8 years to develop an operating facility. Some of the key implementation steps follow.
• Make a series of key decisions prior to issuing an RFP:
— Decide on which technologies to include (for example, "new' conversion
technologies, mass -burn WTE and RDF, barging to a facility on another Hawaiian
island, barging to a landfill on the Mainland).
— Decide how much operating experience the County would require for any
technology.
— Decide if the facility should be for East Hawai'i only or for the entire County.
— Decide if a flow control ordinance is needed (that is, prohibit development of other
private facilities that might compete for the same waste).
— Decide if the County or a private firm would finance the facility.
• Based on those decisions, proceed rapidly with issuing an RFP.
• Expand the SHSL or truck waste to the WHSL for the short term.
• Decide where residuals from the conversion process will be landfilled.
• Decide on the backup strategy (trucking to WHSL versus expanding SHSL).
• Conduct a procurement process, award a contract, and ensure that waste is delivered to
the facility in a manner consistent with the facility operating agreement once it is
operational.
2. Truck Waste from the SHSL to the WHSL
The option of trucking waste to WHSL has the shortest lead time of the options available.
This strategy could be implemented with about 6 to 12 months lead time. The main
implementation steps for this strategy would include the following:
Leasing trucks and trailers
Hiring and training additional drivers
It is likely that this strategy could be implemented without additional environmental review
because this option was part of the Final EIS for the South Hilo Sort Station10. However, this
option would be unpopular with many stakeholders and would likely result in strong
opposition by some residents, organizations, and elected officials.
10 County of Hawaii. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Construction and Operation of the East Hawaii Regional
Sort Station. htt .- Ilco.hawaii.hi.us /env mnalehrss.htm
9 -30 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
3. Investigate the Feasibility and Cost of Expanding the SHSL
If the County decides to expand the SHSL, it is recommended to proceed with developing a
new lined landfill in the existing 65 -acre quarry site. Note that this strategy includes various
up -front activities, added evaluation, and decision points once those activities and
evaluations are complete. This would entail the following implementation steps:
• Conduct preliminary engineering and detailed cost estimates, environmental review,
and permitting for the expansion area.
• Conduct boundary review for land ownership of the quarry site.
These activities would take some time to conduct and the ultimate feasibility and cost of this
strategy is not assured until those activities are at, or near, completion.
9.7.2 Evaluation of Residuals Management Strategies
Exhibit 9 -5 provides an evaluation of the three residuals management strategies against the
following six criteria: cost, technology and regulatory risks, consistency with zero waste
approach, sustainability, environmental impacts, and social impacts.
9.7.3 Recommended Residuals Management Strategy
Selecting a preferred residuals management strategy generated the most vigorous
discussion between stakeholders. After considerable evaluation of the merits of the potential
strategies, a consensus was reached by the SWAG. On the basis of the input from the SWAC
and other stakeholders, and the evaluation provided in Exhibit 9 -5, the Plan recommends
that the County conduct more in -depth evaluations of the feasibility and cost of the
following two options for providing long -term residuals management for East Hawaii:
1. Re- configuring the Reload Facility at the SHSL and trucking waste to the WHSL.
2. Developing a new lined landfill in the existing quarry site adjacent to the current
SHSL that would provide an estimated fifty (50) or more years of additional disposal
capacity.
While the preliminary analysis conducted to date indicates that expanding the SHSL
appears to be the less costly option, there are many risks associated with a new landfill that
would not be present with the trucking option. Thus, further studies should be conducted to
determine the feasibility, costs, risks, timelines, and social and environmental impacts
associated with these options. For example, assessing the feasibility of the expanded landfill
option will require consultation with the HDOH, and preliminary engineering,
environmental review, land use, and permitting activities. Updating the feasibility of the
trucking option should include further analysis of the Reload Facility and associated
hauling operations, haul routes, and traffic issues, and equipment acquisition plans.
When those activities are complete, the County will be able to decide whether trucking
waste from the Reload Facility to the WHSL or developing a new landfill at the quarry site
adjacent to the SHSL is the preferred solution for managing the County's waste stream.
In addition to these two primary options, during each subsequent solid waste management
plan review period, the County should continue to evaluate whether or not to issue an RFP
for a conversion technology for part, or all, of the County's residuals management stream.
December 2009 9 -31
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
Other recommended actions to improve the management of residual wastes during this
IRSWMP update include the following:
• Prepare master planning documents for the WHSL and SHSL facilities.
• Engage in a dialogue with other Hawai'i counties about the potential for mutually -
beneficial joint solutions.
• Conduct a feasibility study of remediating the closed Kailua -Kona landfill.
9 -32 December 2009
9.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
EXHIBIT 9 -5
Evaluation of Residuals Management Strategies
Estimated County Tip Fee
Moderate -High. Very little
Truck Waste from East
Investigate Expanding
East Hawaii Only
Conversion Technology Facility
Hawaii to the WHSL
SHSL and
not working as planned
equipment requiring long -term
Low. Known technology
Continue WHSL
Per -ton Cost
$80 -$200 /ton
$82 /ton
Quarries: $69 -$73 /ton
Estimated County Tip Fee
Technology and Regulatory Risks
Moderate -High. Very little
$95 -$99 /ton for 4 years
East Hawaii Only
$95 -$140 /ton
$95 /ton
then $90 -$91 /ton for long -
not working as planned
equipment requiring long -term
Low. Known technology
te rm
For All County Residuals
$115 -$235 /ton
Same as above
Same as above
Technology and Regulatory Risks
Consistency with Zero Waste Approach
Least consistent. High capital
cost solutions are generally seen
as limiting progress toward zero
waste; to mitigate, could size for
what remains after 60 -70%
diversion
Most consistent. Little capital
being spent; As waste is
diverted, total disposal costs
decline, but not by same
percentage as waste disposal
decline
Somewhat consistent.
Moderate capital being
spent; As waste is diverted,
total disposal costs decline,
but not by same percentage
as waste disposal decline
Moderate -High. Very little
Moderate. Land use and
2a. Risk of technology
operating history. Sophisticated
permits required; constructed
not working as planned
equipment requiring long -term
Low. Known technology
wetlands to permit; Relatively
leading to added costs
maintenance
environmental impacts could
common long -term operation
land resources
be placed on future
and maintenance
2b.Backup plan if
Truck from East to West, expand
Unknown
Truck from East to West
technology fails
SHSL, or bale and barge
Moderate -High. no regulations
Moderate. Constructed
2c. Regulatory risk
exist for some aspects of
None
wetlands for landfill is new in
technologies
Hawaii
Consistency with Zero Waste Approach
Least consistent. High capital
cost solutions are generally seen
as limiting progress toward zero
waste; to mitigate, could size for
what remains after 60 -70%
diversion
Most consistent. Little capital
being spent; As waste is
diverted, total disposal costs
decline, but not by same
percentage as waste disposal
decline
Somewhat consistent.
Moderate capital being
spent; As waste is diverted,
total disposal costs decline,
but not by same percentage
as waste disposal decline
Depends on technology; most
information suggests air emissions
from thermal technologies can be
less than mass -burn WTE; All
have process water that must be
treated - anaerobic digestion in
particular
Some added air quality
impacts from trucking (about
12 to 15 trucks per day); air
and water impacts similar to
today; potential water quality
impacts low
No added trucking, but
potential exists for water
quality impacts from
landfilling in high rainfall of
East Hawaii
Social Impacts
Depends on location; potential Impacts to some along truck
environmental justice issue if sited routes (12 to 15 added trucks Environmental justice issue
at SHSL per day); strong opposition by at SHSL site
some likely
December 2009 9 -33
Sustainability (Meeting the environmental, economic, and social equity needs of the present
without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs)
High. Minimum impact on future
r
Low. Unknown potential
Lowest. Potential impacts to
generations and least impact
environmental impacts could
future generations and
land resources
be placed on future
added land impacts at
generations
two sites rather than one
Environmental Impacts
Depends on technology; most
information suggests air emissions
from thermal technologies can be
less than mass -burn WTE; All
have process water that must be
treated - anaerobic digestion in
particular
Some added air quality
impacts from trucking (about
12 to 15 trucks per day); air
and water impacts similar to
today; potential water quality
impacts low
No added trucking, but
potential exists for water
quality impacts from
landfilling in high rainfall of
East Hawaii
Social Impacts
Depends on location; potential Impacts to some along truck
environmental justice issue if sited routes (12 to 15 added trucks Environmental justice issue
at SHSL per day); strong opposition by at SHSL site
some likely
December 2009 9 -33
SECTION 10
Implementation_
l ! t i
The current solid waste management programs, as discussed in previous sections, are
primarily administered and funded through various state grants, property taxes, and
tipping fees. Departments within the County of Hawai'i develop their budgets on an annual
basis. The budgets and funding are submitted by the mayor's office, and approved by the
County Council.
This section describes current conditions of the existing administration and funding within
Hawai'i County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents options currently
under consideration by the County and associated funding and administrative issues for
options under consideration. A more detailed evaluation of County financial projections
and potential impacts to the County annual budget associated with selected options will be
provided in the Implementation Plan.
• 1 1 =e,
The following is a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2002 Plan Update
relative to administration and funding, and a description of the actions taken to achieve
each recommendation.
2002 Plan Update Recommendation
Status
Establish Solid Waste Division as Utility Enterprise
Not implemented
Establish Solid Waste Fees as Part of Property Tax Billing
Not implemented
Update of IRSWMP on 5 -Year Schedule
In progress
Waste Characterization of West Hawaii Waste Stream
A field sampling study was conducted at the
WHSL in 2008
The 2002 IRSWMP update also presented information regarding potential funding
mechanisms including private financing of large -scale projects, line item charges on
property tax bills, and increases in tipping fees.
The County accounts for revenues and expenses for solid waste management in its solid
waste fund. Revenues are received from state and county sources. The State provides grants
and subsidizes programs, such as glass recycling, used oil collection and disposal, and the
beverage container deposit program (HI -5). State funding is generally allocated based on
December 2009 10 -1
10.0 ADMINISTATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
County population or County's budgetary requests to the State for program administration.
The sources of solid waste funding from the County primarily include revenues transferred
from the general fund and revenues from fees associated with solid waste disposal at the
landfills. In addition, the County typically finances large capital improvement projects with
general obligation (GO) bonds.
Budgets for the solid waste fund and capital improvement program are created on an
annual basis and approved after a review process by the mayor's office and the County
Council that includes public testimony.
10.3.1 Solid Waste Fund Revenues
Exhibit 10 -1 presents FY 07 -08 actual and FY 08 -09 budgeted revenues for the solid waste
fund. The main sources of revenue are discussed below.
EXHIBIT 10 -1
County of Hawai'i Solid Waste Revenue
Revenue Category
FY 07 -08
Actual
FY 08 -09
Budget
Federal Grants
Total Federal Grants
$27,260
$0
State Grants
Glass Recycling Program
$155,000
$155,000
Used Oil Collection /Disposal
$67,500
$67,500
Beverage Container Deposit Program
$423,930
$1,950,000
Solid Waste
Landfill Tipping Feesa
$8,333,010
$7,456,000
Landfill Permit Fees
$22,190
$14,000
General Fund
General Fund Balance From Previous Year
$0
$3,046,290
Transfer from General Fund
$17,352,730
$19,147,720
Miscellaneous Revenue
Charges for Services — General Government
$450
$0
Sale of Equipment
$30,740
$0
Sundry Revenues — Current Year
$430
$0
Sundry Revenues — Prior Year
$2,130
$0
Total Solid Waste Fund
$26,415,370
$34,980,510
Note: Figures have not been finalized by the County and are pending approval
aFY 08 -09 estimated by CH2M HILL based on revenues through March 2009.
10 -2 December 2009
10.0 ADMINISTATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
A summary of the funding methods used in FY 07 -08 and projected for FY 08 -09 is shown in
Exhibit 10 -2.
EXHIBIT 10 -2
Solid Waste Fund Revenue Summary, Percent of Total
Percent of Total
FY 07 -08 FY 08 -09
Actual Budget
General Fund 65% 65%
Tip Fees 32% 32%
Other 3% 3%
Total 100% 100%
10.3.1.1 State Programs
Glass Recycling. The glass recycling program consists of glass containers not included in
the State Beverage Container Deposit Program. The program is administered through the
State and is subsidized with an advance disposal fee (ADF), currently at one and half cents
per container. The State allocates funds from this program to the counties based on the
population size of each island and distributes these funds on a quarterly basis.
Used Oil (motor oil). The State receives funds from a petroleum tax levied on petroleum
corporations on a per barrel basis. The collected taxes are placed in an environmental
response revolving fund, which then may be allocated to county -based recycling programs.
The funds are generally distributed to the counties based on historic needs of the island. The
County used oil program allows residents to drop off used motor oil at convenient dropoff
centers. The state requires each county to provide convenient dropoff sites and the County
of Hawaii contracts vendors to run the dropoff centers.
Beverage Container Deposit Program (HI -5). The Beverage Container Deposit Program is a
state run program which places a 5a redeemable deposit on each beverage container, as
defined under law. Consumers may then return the container to redeem their 5a at any
redemption center. A 1a non - refundable container fee is assessed to support the costs of
recycling and program administration. Any funds that are not redeemed by consumers may
be distributed to county based programs. The County submits a list of requests to the State
on annual basis, outlining budgetary needs for HI -5 projects and program administration.
The County may request additional funds during the year for more redemption centers,
shelters, bins, or public awareness programs.
10.3.1.2 County Programs
Landfill Tipping Fees and Permit Fees. The County generates revenue from solid waste
disposal through landfill tipping fees and permit fees. Non - residential customers pay $85
per ton of solid waste to the landfill, and for customers that dispose of waste on a routine
basis, a $25 one -time annual fee is assessed for account setup and administration costs.
Customers may also pay special handling fees on non - routine disposal of solid wastes that
December 2009 10 -3
10.0 ADMINISTATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
require additional personnel for disposal (for example, bulky wastes, disposal of sensitive
wastes).
Transfers from the General Fund. The primary revenue source for County solid waste
programs is transfers from the General Fund. Property taxes account for the largest portion
of the General Fund. Other fund sources include hotel/ tourism taxes, public service
company taxes, interest on invested funds, and any carryover of the General Fund balance
from the prior year. Each County department forecasts its budgetary needs for the year, and
the mayor's office and County Council approve the budgets pending a review process.
10.3.1.3 Other Programs
Abandoned Vehicle Program. The abandoned vehicle program is funded directly from a
portion of the vehicle registration fee. The program receives $12 per registered vehicle to
pay for program administration, towing companies, and scrap metal vendors.
Diversion Incentive Program. The County subsidizes the recycling program by paying
vendors a price per ton of recyclable materials that have been diverted from the landfill. The
diversion incentive is based on an average market price per ton of recycled material from
the commodities market, such as corrugated cardboard, paper, plastic, and glass. In general,
the diversion incentive program pays for costs of receiving, consolidation, transport of
recycled materials to Ports, transportation to the Mainland, and further processing and
marketing that exceed the prices received for the material from end users or brokers.
Residential Hauler Credit. Vendors that charge a fee for residential waste pickup may
qualify for a residential hauler credit. To qualify, the vendor must have a physical address
of each customer. The annual credit to the vendor is determined by the annual number of
customer accounts multiplied by a factor of 1.5 (tons per year per customer) multiplied by
the landfill tipping fee ($85 /ton).
10.3.2 Solid Waste Fund Expenses
FY 07 -08 actual and FY 08 -09 budgeted expenses for the County solid waste fund are shown
in Exhibit 10 -3. Expenses have been grouped into categories that reflect the main solid waste
functions provided by the County. The expense groupings shown were prepared by an
allocation process in which 500+ lines of expenditures were assigned to functions using
appropriate, available data and professional judgment by County staff.
As shown, budgeted expenses for FY 08 -09 are considerably higher than FY 07 -08 actuals.
Expenses are projected to increase because of inflation, waste stream increases, increased
staffing at recycling and transfer stations, and substantial reductions in forecast prices
received for recycled materials. With the recent downturn in the economy, it is quite
possible that actual expenditures will be less than budgeted.
Exhibit 10 -4 provides the Solid Waste Department's prioritized capital improvement
funding request as submitted to the County Council (with the highest priorities listed first).
These improvements have been included in the CIP forecasts shown later in this section. As
shown, the County also has made provisions for closure and post - closure requirements for
the SHSL. Closure and post - closure requirements for the WHSL are the responsibility of the
County's contractor.
10-0 December 2009
10.0 ADMINISTATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
As discussed in prior sections, the County is considering several potential changes to the
current waste management program. Some of the options currently under consideration
could be implemented relatively easily and integrated as part of the County's existing waste
management system. Other options will require more significant changes including new
infrastructure, new administrative positions within the County, coordination with other
County agencies, community outreach, behavioral changes by the public (paradigm shift),
and in some cases, will require passage of policies, ordinances, and legislation requiring
public and commercial participation.
EXHIBIT 10 -3
Solid Waste Fund Expenses
Note: FY 08 -09 figures have not been finalized by the County and are pending approval. Totals may not add
because of rounding.
A central issue for the County is determining the best policies and procedures to fund both
existing and new waste management programs and initiatives. Currently, residential
customers can deliver waste to County recycling and transfer stations at no charge, while
commercial haulers must pay tipping fees at the landfills. As shown in Exhibit 10 -2, the
County general fund provides approximately two - thirds of the revenue used for funding
current solid waste expenses (excluding debt financing for major infrastructure) with just
over 30 percent of the necessary funds derived from landfill tipping fees. These percentages
are unchanged from those reported in the 2002 IRSWMP update, which indicates that few
changes to the overall funding structure have occurred during the past eight years in spite
of the fact that tipping fees have increased from $35 to $85 per ton during the past 5 years.
The funding mechanisms, administration, and types of programs and legislation required to
implement modifications to the existing waste management program will depend on the
options selected for implementation in this IRSWMP Update. It is likely that additional
regulations will be necessary to successfully implement changes to the County's current
program and to encourage changes in the current patterns of waste disposal by both the
public and commercial businesses.
December 2009 10 -5
FY 07 -08
Actual
FY 08 -09
Budget
Percent of Total
FY 07 -08 FY 08 -09
Administration
$1,226,555
$955,790
5%
3%
Recycling
$4,297,674
$7,487,882
17%
23%
Transfer Stations
$8,797,808
$10,249,068
34%
32%
South Hilo Sanitary Landfill
$3,556,342
$4,737,647
14%
15%
West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill
$7,657,945
$8,377,370
30%
26%
Closed Landfills
$250,000
$470,000
1%
1%
Total
$25,786,324
$32,277,757
100%
100%
Note: FY 08 -09 figures have not been finalized by the County and are pending approval. Totals may not add
because of rounding.
A central issue for the County is determining the best policies and procedures to fund both
existing and new waste management programs and initiatives. Currently, residential
customers can deliver waste to County recycling and transfer stations at no charge, while
commercial haulers must pay tipping fees at the landfills. As shown in Exhibit 10 -2, the
County general fund provides approximately two - thirds of the revenue used for funding
current solid waste expenses (excluding debt financing for major infrastructure) with just
over 30 percent of the necessary funds derived from landfill tipping fees. These percentages
are unchanged from those reported in the 2002 IRSWMP update, which indicates that few
changes to the overall funding structure have occurred during the past eight years in spite
of the fact that tipping fees have increased from $35 to $85 per ton during the past 5 years.
The funding mechanisms, administration, and types of programs and legislation required to
implement modifications to the existing waste management program will depend on the
options selected for implementation in this IRSWMP Update. It is likely that additional
regulations will be necessary to successfully implement changes to the County's current
program and to encourage changes in the current patterns of waste disposal by both the
public and commercial businesses.
December 2009 10 -5
10.0 ADMINISTATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
EXHIBIT 10 -4
Projected Solid Waste Capital Improvements
Project
FY 09 -10
Estimated Cost (in thousands)
FY 10 -11 FY 11 -12 FY 12 -13 FY 13 -14
Total
S. Hilo Sanitary Landfill
$1,000
$3,000
$2,000
$6,000
Rural Transfer Station Reconstruction
$8,000
$4,000
$4,500 $5,000 $5,500
$27,000
Equipment Maintenance Facility
$1,000
$8,000
$9,000
Hilo Baseyard Facilities
$2,000
$2,000
West Hawaii Materials Recovery (MRF)
$7,000
$7,000
Ocean View Recycling and Transfer St.
$5,000
$5,000
Old Closed Kailua Landfill Remediation
$10,000
$10,000
Remediate Old Kona Scrap Metal Yard
$1,800
$1,800
South Hilo Sanitary Landfill Closure
Beyond 2014
$12,000
$27,000
$18,300 $5,000 $5,500
$86,800
Note: Preliminary figures
Examples of legislation implemented in other jurisdictions that face similar issues to
Hawai'i County were therefore evaluated as part of this IRSWMP update. Two key issues
facing the County that may require legislative changes include:
• Moving toward zero waste by thinking of waste as a resource and reducing wasteful
behavior.
• Minimizing or eliminating illegal dumping.
In addition to legislation and ordinances, community outreach and education will also be
necessary to effect a change in public perception of the issues surrounding waste
management, and thereby influence established behavior patterns. As community
involvement and concern for waste - related environmental stewardship increase, it is
expected that acceptance of additional fees and regulation regarding waste disposal
practices will become more widely embraced by the public and commercial sectors.
As part of the IRSWMP update process, the County is evaluating potential options and
setting both short -term and long -term goals for waste management. In order to successfully
expand and adapt the current county -wide waste management program to meet its goals,
the County will need to:
• Carefully evaluate the technology options currently available.
• Make decisions regarding the path forward for both the near -term and long -term.
• Take advantage of best practices and lessons learned from other jurisdictions regarding
funding and administration mechanisms, and related legal and regulatory requirements.
10 -6 December 2009
10.0 ADMINISTATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
The County must also consider the potential implications of various existing Federal, State,
and County regulations on the implementation of the waste management program.
Depending upon which waste management technologies the County elects to implement,
the steps necessary to achieve regulatory approval and compliance will vary. Because
regulatory compliance could be a significant factor in the overall applicability of specific
technologies, and could also significantly impact schedule and cost, an evaluation of
regulatory requirements should be completed as part of the feasibility analysis for specific
technologies.
Many of the options being considered in previous chapters of this IRSWMP update would
require changes to existing methods of administering and funding programs. Some
administration and funding options for consideration follow.
10.5.1 Establishing Solid Waste as an Enterprise Fund
As discussed above, currently about two - thirds of the County's expenditures for solid waste
management are funded by the County's general fund which is primarily supported by
property taxes. There are some disadvantages associated with the current funding system,
including:
• Property tax funding provides no financial incentive for residents to reduce waste.
• Using property taxes to fund solid waste services can be perceived as unfair because
property tax collections are not correlated specifically with the types and volumes of
waste generated, potentially leading to inequitable subsidization.
It can be somewhat more challenging to manage solid waste programs based on funding
allocation of money from the general fund, because the money in the general fund may
be redirected towards other pressing county needs.
Another method of funding that is commonly used in many communities is to establish an
enterprise fund for solid waste management that would be supported primarily by fees
from waste disposal. Some advantages often cited for enterprise funds include:
• Promoting fairness by charging specifically for waste disposed
• Avoiding tax increases
• Requiring a higher degree of sensitivity to customer's needs
• Allowing managers more discretion, but holding them accountable to customers
• Running government more like a business
The main disadvantage cited for enterprise funds is that they can be regressive and place a
burden on the poor by increasing the amount they must pay for an essential service like
waste management.
If the County were to establish an enterprise fund and accept no revenues from the general
fund, the tipping fee (based on FY 07 -08 County budget data) would have to be
approximately $120 per ton. If that rate were extended to residential deliveries at the
December 2009 10 -7
10.0 ADMINISTATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
transfer station, the required fee (again, based on FY 07 -08 data) for each 25 -pound bag
would have to be approximately $2.15 to fully fund solid waste services.
10.5.2 Separating Solid Waste Management as a Line Item on Property Taxes
The County could provide additional information to customers about the cost of managing
solid waste by adding a separate line item on property tax bills outlining the amount of the
tax fee used to fund solid waste services. A possible breakdown might include the
six categories of expenses shown in Exhibit 10 -3.
10.5.3 Establish PAYT System at County Recycling and Transfer Stations
As discussed in Sections 3.0 and 8.0, there are a number of ways that the County could
implement a PAYT system at recycling and transfer stations. Two methods that would
minimize staffing requirements at the stations include a "tag" or "bag" system. In a tag
system, property owners would be issued tags along with their semi - annual property tax
bills that could be used as "currency" for delivering waste, and extra tags could be available
for purchase at County offices or retail outlets. Arrangements would need to be made for
renters not served by a building collection service.
A bag system would consist of requiring all residents to put waste into a standard type of
plastic bag that would be available for purchase at County offices and /or retail outlets.
There would be many implementation challenges associated with this system. An extended
phase -in period would be necessary accompanied by an intensive public education
program.
10.5.4 Illegal Dumping Prevention
Illegal dumping of household and commercial can have a variety of potential negative
impacts. Hazardous chemicals generated from illegally dumped waste can contaminate
groundwater and surface water, potentially affecting both human health and aquatic
habitats. Flooding can result from blockage of streams and drainage culverts. Property
values can be affected by illegal dumping, and economic impacts resulting from costs of
clean up can affect County resources. Additional efforts to prevent illegal dumping would
be particularly important if the County were to implement a PAYT program or dramatically
increase the tipping fee.
The current Hawaii County code (Chapter 20) contains provisions that prohibit littering.
These provisions cover the materials commonly encountered in the municipal waste stream,
and prohibit discarding or disposing of these materials on either public or private property.
Violators may be fined up to $1,000 and /or not more than 200 hours of community service
for each offense. Cost recovery for clean up is also allowed under the current County code.
However, there have historically been areas where various types of waste have been
discarded illegally, including along roadways in more rural areas, on vacant lots, and in
gulches with major roadways crossing them or near industrial facilities. Enforcement of
existing litter laws is challenging due in part to the rural nature of Hawaii County. The
County Department of Environmental Management is eventually responsible for clean up
and disposal of the discarded waste materials.
10 -8 December 2009
10.0 ADMINISTATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
Currently enforcement of the County code is the responsibility of the Hawai'i County Police
Department (HCPD). Because littering is not one of the higher priorities for HCPD, many of
the violators who litter are not caught or penalized. DEM staff do not have the training or
legal authority to enforce litter laws. The County would increase its potential liability if it
required DEM employees to enforce policy, even within the confines of County transfer
station properties.
It is anticipated that passing ordinances or legislation that requires the public to pay for
waste disposal on a per unit basis may, in the short term, increase the occurrence of illegal
dumping. Studies conducted in rural areas of Kentucky concluded that when additional fees
were implemented for public waste disposal, illegal dumping increased, especially in areas
where a higher percentage of the population had low or poverty -level incomes. However,
the majority of jurisdictions implementing programs such as PAYT reported only short -term
increases in illegal dumping, and a decline to pre - implementation rates of incidence within
the first 1 to 2 years after implementation. Exhibit 10 -5 presents four programmatic areas the
EPA has suggested focusing on for preventing illegal dumping.
EXHIBIT 10 -5
Four Programmatic Areas for Preventing Illegal Dumping (EPA, 1998)
Cleanup Efforts. Cleanup projects will require a coordinated planning effort to ensure that adequate resources
and funding are available. Once a site has been cleaned, signs, lighting or barriers may be required to
discourage future dumping. Signs should indicate the fines and penalties for illegal dumping, and a phone
number for reporting incidents. Landscaping and beautification efforts may also discourage future dumping, as
well as provide open space and increase property values.
Community Outreach and Involvement. This may be the most important tool in ensuring that this practice is
effective. The organization of special cleanup events where communities are provided with the resources to
properly dispose of illegally dumped materials increases the understanding among residents of illegal dumping
impacts and supplies opportunities to correctly dispose of materials which may otherwise be illegally dumped.
Integration of illegal dumping prevention into community policing programs or use of programs such as Crime
Stoppers may also be an effective way to increase enforcement opportunities without the additional cost of hiring
new staff. Producing simple messages relating the cost of illegal dumping on local taxes and proper disposal
sites will aid in eliminating the problem. Having a hotline where citizens can report illegal activities and educating
the public on the connection between the storm drain and water quality, and other potential hazards associated
with dumping refuse into streams or drains will decrease disposal of waste into streams or storm drain inlets.
Targeted Enforcement. This tool involves the use of ordinances to regulate waste management and eliminate
illegal dumping through methods such as fines, cost recovery penalties for cleanup, and permit requirements for
waste management activities, to name a few. These fines and penalties can be used to help fund the prevention
program or to provide rewards to citizens who report illegal dumping activities. Other recommendations for this
tool include training of staff from all municipal departments in recognizing and reporting illegal dumping incidents,
and dedicating staff who have the authority to conduct surveillance and inspections, and write citations for those
caught illegally dumping.
Tracking and Evaluation. This tool measures the impact of prevention efforts and determines if goals are being
met. Using mapping techniques and computer databases allows officials to identify areas where dumping most
often occurs, record patterns in dumping occurrence (time of day, day of week, etc), and calculate the number of
citations issued and the responsible parties. This allows for better allocation of resources and more specific
targeting of outreach and education efforts for offenders.
Other jurisdictions in most cases have implemented litter ordinances similar to those that
currently exist in Hawai'i County. In some areas, tougher penalties are in place for more
egregious violations. For example, Pennsylvania laws against littering and illegal dumping
December 2009 10 -9
10.0 ADMINISTATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
include civil penalties up to $25,000 per incident for illegally hauling waste anywhere other
than to a permitted facility, and up to $10,000 per incident for dumping waste into streams.
In Texas, civil penalties similar to those in Pennsylvania, and criminal penalties ranging
from misdemeanor to felony level are in place for illegal dumping violations, depending on
the severity of the violation.
A combination of passing more severe penalties for illegal dumping, targeted enforcement
actions by HCPD, establishment of new community outreach and participation programs,
and other actions found to be successful in other jurisdictions may help to curb illegal
dumping in Hawai'i County.
Potential actions that may be considered for Hawai'i County include:
Civil and criminal penalties: The County could develop legislation that sets more severe
civil and criminal penalties for illegal dumping activities. Legislation could be worded
such that the penalties increase with the egregiousness of the violation, and based upon
a weight, volume, or types of material that are dumped, and location of illegal activity
(that is, higher penalties for dumping into streambeds). Legislation could require
violators to pay for consequential damages and cleanup costs resulting from specific
violations.
Targeted enforcement: the County could work in conjunction with the community and
the HCPD to develop a targeted enforcement program. Incentives could be offered for
monitoring and reporting of illegal dumping to authorities, and methods could be
developed for periodically evaluating illegal dump sites for evidence of the identity of
the violators. Legislation supporting prosecution of violators based on the evidence of
ownership at the time of the violation derived from dumped materials may need to be
developed to effectively implement such a program.
Community education, outreach, and involvement: develop programs with school and
community groups or organizations to conduct periodic clean ups of illegal dump sites,
in order to raise community awareness and involvement in reducing illegal dumping
activities.
• Installation of signage at problem areas: The County could install signage at areas where
illegal dumping typically occurs listing the more severe civil and criminal penalties for
violators in order to curb future dumping.
This Plan recommends continuing the County's current system of funding most operating
expenditures using property taxes and tip fees, along with implementation of new funding
sources including, potentially, a PAYT system at County recycling and transfer stations.
Major capital expenditures would continue to be funded through general obligation bonds.
Ideally, the County would allow for up to 3 years of planning, research, and outreach prior
to implementation of PAYT. This should include research into ways to limit the potential for
illegal dumping.
10 -10 December 2009
10.0 ADMINISTATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
10.7 Recommended Implementation Plan and Financial
Analysis
This section provides three perspectives on plan implementation: new solid waste fund
operating expenses, new CIP expenditures, and forecast revenues and expenses for the
County's solid waste operating fund.
During preparation of this Plan, the County has become immersed in a fiscal crisis resulting
from the current worldwide economic recession. In this environment, the funding and
implementation of both existing services and the new initiatives outlined in this Plan are in
question. Thus, the implementation plan that follows will be modified as the County works
its way through this fiscal crisis. The DEM will make every effort to implement
recommended programs, but fiscal realities are likely to slow and alter the implementation
plan. Further, the County may elect to use any and all funding methods that become
available, such as user fees, increased property taxes for solid waste management, or
increased landfill tipping fees, rather than relying on a PAYT system.
10.7.1 New Solid Waste Fund Operating Expenses
The new operating expenses recommended in this Plan are provided in Exhibit 10 -6. The
expenses are organized by Plan section, with a page number reference to indicate where the
recommendation is discussed in the Plan. Programs that the SWAC felt were a high priority
for implementing early in the 5 -year planning cycle are denoted with an "H" in the High
Priority column of the exhibit.
10.7.2 Capital Improvement Fund Expenditures
Recommended CIP expenditures are shown in Exhibit 10 -7. Those expenditures are
generally consistent with the County's most recent CIP funding request, with a few new
additions recommended in the Plan (such as investigations related to developing a new
landfill in the quarries adjacent to the SHSL site).
10.7.3 Projected Solid Waste Fund Revenues and Expenses
Projected solid waste fund revenues and expenses are shown in Exhibit 10 -8. This
information relies on projections of ongoing programs made by the County solid waste
division through FY 09 -10, with the addition of the new programs shown in Exhibit 10 -6.
The net revenues shown are revenues minus expenses. As indicated, additional funding
beyond revenues projected from the PAYT system will be necessary to pay for the programs
outlined in the Plan. The Plan recommends making up the shortfall using a combination of
property tax and /or tipping fee increases. For reference purposes, if no property tax funds
were used, a tipping fee increase of approximately $25 per ton (to about $110 per ton) would
result in revenues equaling expenses throughout the 5 -year implementation period. The
exact mix of property taxes and tipping fee increases would be determined during the
course of Plan implementation.
December 2009 10 -11
La
'a
R �
} }
LL
� M
} }
LL
M �
� N
} }
LL
N
L �
R �
} }
LL
r r
O
} }
LL
O �
L �
LL
_a
�L
O
�L
CL
d .
R O
aZ
E
L
i�
O
CL
co 0
C) f
H (
m�
� f
W
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
613 6c3
0
6c3
0
6c3
6c3
0
6c3
0
6c3
6c3
0
N
N
N
00
O
�
(f)
(f)
(O
(f)
ER
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6c3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
O
O
O
O
O
V3
V3
V3
(O
V3
V3
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6c3 6c3
6c3
6c3
V3
V3
V3
V3
O
O
O
O
O
m
m
O
O
V3
V3
(O
6
6c"
V3
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
O_
O
O
O
O
DN
m
O
(O
V3
EH
N
N
69
_'
EH
V3
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
69 EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
6c3
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
00
N
N
V3
r-
V3
V 3
69
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EH EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
N
O
fN C)
a)
U_ 7
n O (6
S2 >
U) 0)
S2 d O
(6 C
0 W E E N O
T 0
0) (6
p 0 w E
Q U) 0 S2 O O to 0) j CL
O O S2 p c O N 0 N .E 'O
C N m u O 7 E U)) m rn m
C O U 7 N L ..-!
Q 0) 0) - 'O , U N � � 0
-o cu
O U >- 0) N m U U C S] 0 O
.0 -0 0) 3 C CO N � a) .O
'O �O to ..-� (6 7 0)
0) N U 0) m -o
0) to
E O t 0) (6 O - m c (6
C t 0) 0 C C
0) (6 to E U to O 0)
U x O >0 3: 7 O (6 (6 (6
U Q 0) to } U N U
d N O d >+ fn O 7 O N S2
C ; W W O d d 0
�
U
o U n
O m > Ii
O
N
00 61) °ER
O
0
O
N
ER
O V3 V3
O
00
0
V3
O � O
O O
(1) N
V3
V3
O O �
O O
�
N
V3 V3
� � V3
� � V3
61) 00 00
O O
00 1-
LO 00
(f) (f)
O O O
O O O
ONO (f 000
61) V3 V3
�
O O
O O
(N 00
V3 V3
�
O �
O
V
N
V3
O V3 V3
O
0
I`
V3
V3 � �
O 0 0
61) Ef) N
E
E
D
V) �
V3 �
O O
O O
N N
V3 V3
V3 �
V3 �
W W
W
ch ch
ch
ch
ch
ch ch
a)
U_ 7
n O (6
S2 >
U) 0)
S2 d O
(6 C
0 W E E N O
T 0
0) (6
p 0 w E
Q U) 0 S2 O O to 0) j CL
O O S2 p c O N 0 N .E 'O
C N m u O 7 E U)) m rn m
C O U 7 N L ..-!
Q 0) 0) - 'O , U N � � 0
-o cu
O U >- 0) N m U U C S] 0 O
.0 -0 0) 3 C CO N � a) .O
'O �O to ..-� (6 7 0)
0) N U 0) m -o
0) to
E O t 0) (6 O - m c (6
C t 0) 0 C C
0) (6 to E U to O 0)
U x O >0 3: 7 O (6 (6 (6
U Q 0) to } U N U
d N O d >+ fn O 7 O N S2
C ; W W O d d 0
�
U
o U n
O m > Ii
O
N
00 61) °ER
O
0
O
N
ER
O V3 V3
O
00
0
V3
O � O
O O
(1) N
V3
V3
O O �
O O
�
N
V3 V3
� � V3
� � V3
61) 00 00
O O
00 1-
LO 00
(f) (f)
O O O
O O O
ONO (f 000
61) V3 V3
�
O O
O O
(N 00
V3 V3
�
O �
O
V
N
V3
O V3 V3
O
0
I`
V3
V3 � �
O 0 0
61) Ef) N
E
E
D
V) �
V3 �
O O
O O
N N
V3 V3
V3 �
V3 �
0
N O
O O
N
C �
N N
E 3: C
O
a) U N
0) .
U Z C
L = m
sz 2)
U) '0 O
0) (cu t
O
E
CL
I s
U) N
N 7 0)
= O C
w O S2
U) (6 0)
N -O
0) S2
C N U
Q 7 Z
w W- Ii
`o
(6
O
O (0
U Q
N N 0)
(6 0) —
C CL Y
R c N
3 a) m E
Q U M
m
E to
CL
CL U 6_
1 N (6
C U) C
C O C
U C U E
R O 7 E
w(6 U
7 3 0)
0 O A C
E
O `m o 0)
0) Q
R > a) E
� ch N
W
0) �
m (
� S
'6
O (
0) (
w
S2 �
(6
C (
N Z
w f
t S
to
r s
>+ w u
U
W W
W
N N
M (h
N
N
V V
0
N O
O O
N
C �
N N
E 3: C
O
a) U N
0) .
U Z C
L = m
sz 2)
U) '0 O
0) (cu t
O
E
CL
I s
U) N
N 7 0)
= O C
w O S2
U) (6 0)
N -O
0) S2
C N U
Q 7 Z
w W- Ii
`o
(6
O
O (0
U Q
N N 0)
(6 0) —
C CL Y
R c N
3 a) m E
Q U M
m
E to
CL
CL U 6_
1 N (6
C U) C
C O C
U C U E
R O 7 E
w(6 U
7 3 0)
0 O A C
E
O `m o 0)
0) Q
R > a) E
� ch N
W
0) �
m (
� S
'6
O (
0) (
w
S2 �
(6
C (
N Z
w f
t S
to
r s
>+ w u
U
La
O r
R �
} }
LL
� M
} }
LL
M �
� N
} }
LL
N —
L �
R �
} }
LL
r r
O
} }
LL
O �
L �
LL
_a
�L
C
�L
CL
d .
R O
aZ
E
L
0
CL
co O
O f
H (
m�
� f
W
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O d
ER
EFT
EFT
p
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
O
O
EFT
EFT
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o-
70
�
N
N
N
N
V
0
N
O
ER
ER
ER
I�
6c"
EFT
(O
ER
ER
ER
ER
N
�
O
Z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
(
O
O�
N
(O
-
N
-
V
�
N
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
(`")
V-)
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
OO
1
OO
O
OO
O
LO
N�
LO
N
N
�
N
Ef)
EFT
EFT
EFT
N
ER
EFT
�
N
�
ER
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
N
ER
ER
ER
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
O
m
I-
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
N
N
N
N
(h
(h
N
(h
(h
(h
(h
V
V
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
�
a)
T
U)
U
U
T
N
O
O
i
N
—
CL
6
y
O
O
O
O)
O
N
U)
-p
y
N
O
2
N
Q
'6
X
>
C
U
O
(U
O)
O)
N
O
C
>
O
p
y
S
'U)
U)
O
>
O
U
C
U)
O)
O)
0-
N
c
O
U
—
.O
7
Q
O
U)
N
U)
p
O
Q
O
O
Q
V
U
Q
m
U
U)
O
U
y
O
O)
O
CO
_
y
O)
w
O)
C
=
'
W
7
N
'
W
-
O)
Q
N
O
—
y
0
n
O
H
p
m 2m
(U
LL
a
O)
LO
o(>)
o
-0
_0
o
a)
m
a)
m
a)
c
> U
O
o-
y
rn
o
'
o
>U +
N
U y
O)
C
O
C
C
O
C
+
N
fUA
>+
N
N
Q
C
N
U
O
O
T
U
(U
T
7
(U
C
7
(u
N
N
N
U)
Q
O
Q
E
O)
O
o
U
i
E
O
t
N
N
>
O)
Q
O_
O
U
O
U
O
C
O
U
O
C
N
O
U
C
-0
=
5
U
N
0
U
O
y rn
Mn
Mn
O
E
Q
3
U)
N
a)
'm
N
Q
'm
Q
N
U °o
O
U
E
O
'O
'6
E
'6
N
>+
N
U)
y
E c�
m
m
Q
°'
E
U
w
W
w^
a)
O
2
a)
O
2
3
a
m
O
U_
m
N
U
N
N
0
O
2)
W
W
W
(n
d'
U
Q
O
U
U
>
W
m
2
E
O
O
°
La
'a
R
} }
LL
� M
} }
LL
M �
� N
} }
LL
N
L �
LL
LL
r r
O
} }
LL
O �
L �
LL
_a
�L
O
�L
CL
d .
R O
aZ
E
L
0
0
CL
(D ri
O f
F-
m
(
� f
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
�
O
O
O
O
O
00
N
N
v
0
O
m
v
v
O
v
r-
v
i
O
O
Ef)
UO
m
m
Ef)
Ef)
Qfl
(6
N
w
C
Qfl
Q9
t f
O
0
Q9
0
'
CL
a)
a)
E C
V-)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
CL
O
sZ S
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E
O
n
N
(6
O C
OA
In
C
co
If
U)
m
m
a)
N
((0
N
N
W
SZ
C
=
V)
m
m
Qfl
Qfl
Qfl
C
Ef)
N
i
m
w
d
E
C
_
(6
SZ
O Z
U
H
U)
V-T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r-
r-
r-
O
O
N
N
O
N
0
Ef)
N
N
Ef)
V)
V)
N
Ef)
Ef)
Ef)
Ef)
Ef)
V-T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
O
O
O
O
O
O
In
m
O
(0
O
0
6c"
6c"
0
6c"
f
f6c"
f6c"
f�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ef)
O
Ef)
Ef)
Ef)
Ef)
Ef)
Ef)
Ef)
Ef)
Ef)
Ef)
Ef)
N
6c
V-T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V-)
V-)
V-)
V-)
V-)
V-)
V-)
V-)
V-)
V-)
V-)
V-)
x
x
x
i -
x
x
n
y C
C
�
N
(6 (
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
O f
(6 f
C
.-6 G
C
O f
O
U
U
�C +
(6 �G
0 C
0 f
C 0
C
C G
FL o
i C
O C
i -
i (6 f
0
C
D c f
I � C
j C C
I O
E r
i N C
6 f
� C
to w
I O
CL
{ E f
O
U �
I N
t
I S] 4
i (6
I � �
S2 f
N (
i O S
� N
C
I � S
IL
' U y
I N G
I � f
I S2
0) C
I � G
O
D S2 C
E i
U C
I � µ
I �
(6
O r
! 0 S
D O
! CL
' U 0
I 7 Z
i
C
O f
I f
U _
0(n- 0(»
� �
5
O U V)
0 'O
(M) 6 to
U
(6
O
C N
O n O O
V-) U O V-)
Z
O
SZ
�
O
O
(h
V-)
� �
x x
O O N O
ao ao ao ao
w
N �
C i
L
H Z
C
C (
� f
C
O f
O
U
E
0
I �
I 3
0
i 0
I �
.O
Q
O
In
N N
U !'
i � m
'6 C
� U
i
O )
0 U
C w
w N
i N N
a) O
D E N
S2
LL 0
00 00 61) °ER
O O
00 0
V-) V-)
O O � �
O O
U) N
V-) V-)
O O O O
O O O O
V-) V-) V-) V-)
� � � �
� � � �
� � � �
I N -
f
I � C
N
i N Z
f
� O C
I U
C
7 U
I O' S
I '6 -
I �
O C
t
U C
(6 (
N i
to
• � S
I O O
U - �
i Q p S
U) -
I
i n 0
1 (6 N (
N C
I L1J � C
G�
� 2 S
! x x u
f �
I �
I SZ
I (6
0
C
{ t
D T
I �
t C
i 0
N
! SCZ
C
m
U
S2
I �
i N
I �
Q
O
t >
i o
r
V
N
E
f
i -
n
y C
C
�
N
(6 (
N
0
i
O
O
UO
wE
C
(6
w
C
0
t f
O
0
0
CL
a)
a)
E C
N
N
6
(6
—
3
0 r
O
0
O
CL
O
sZ S
O
C
(6
U
O
E
O
n
N
(6
O C
OA
In
C
U)
N
0
a)
0
O
0 -
C
.c
SZ
C
=
c
6
C
c:
i
m
w
d
E
C
�
(6
SZ
O Z
U
H
U)
i C
O C
i -
i (6 f
0
C
D c f
I � C
j C C
I O
E r
i N C
6 f
� C
to w
I O
CL
{ E f
O
U �
I N
t
I S] 4
i (6
I � �
S2 f
N (
i O S
� N
C
I � S
IL
' U y
I N G
I � f
I S2
0) C
I � G
O
D S2 C
E i
U C
I � µ
I �
(6
O r
! 0 S
D O
! CL
' U 0
I 7 Z
i
C
O f
I f
U _
0(n- 0(»
� �
5
O U V)
0 'O
(M) 6 to
U
(6
O
C N
O n O O
V-) U O V-)
Z
O
SZ
�
O
O
(h
V-)
� �
x x
O O N O
ao ao ao ao
w
N �
C i
L
H Z
C
C (
� f
C
O f
O
U
E
0
I �
I 3
0
i 0
I �
.O
Q
O
In
N N
U !'
i � m
'6 C
� U
i
O )
0 U
C w
w N
i N N
a) O
D E N
S2
LL 0
00 00 61) °ER
O O
00 0
V-) V-)
O O � �
O O
U) N
V-) V-)
O O O O
O O O O
V-) V-) V-) V-)
� � � �
� � � �
� � � �
I N -
f
I � C
N
i N Z
f
� O C
I U
C
7 U
I O' S
I '6 -
I �
O C
t
U C
(6 (
N i
to
• � S
I O O
U - �
i Q p S
U) -
I
i n 0
1 (6 N (
N C
I L1J � C
G�
� 2 S
! x x u
f �
I �
I SZ
I (6
0
C
{ t
D T
I �
t C
i 0
N
! SCZ
C
m
U
S2
I �
i N
I �
Q
O
t >
i o
r
V
N
E
O
O r
R
} }
LL
a
� M
} }
LL
M �
� N
} }
LL
N
L �
} }
LL
r r
O
LL
O �
L �
} }
LL
_a
�L
C
�L
CL
d
R
O
aZ
E
L
i�
O
CL
� c
O f
F-
LU
613 O 6c3 6c3 6c3 6c3 O 6c3
O O
V I-
(0 LO
'IT (f)
Ef)
O O
61) O
O
(h
LO
V
Ef)
O O
O O
O O
() N
ER �
V3 O_
L2
N
V3
O O
V3 V3
O O
ER Ef)
O O
(O (O
s=
m
U)
U
7
O
Q S
N
7 f
O
(U Z
N Z
(U
t �
O
Y
U c
(6
Y (
(6 f
O
to f
C
O
U
(6 -
(U �
to 7
0 7
� f
N
(o
u)
Z
Q
W
O O O O
V) Ef) Ef) Ef)
O O O O
61) O V3 V3
O
LO
(h
ER
V3 V3 O O
O O
V3 V3
O O O O
O V3 V3 V3
N
(h
V3
O O <
O 61) <
O <
LO
LO i
ER �
c
E
O O V) <
O O U <
V O -O
LO 7 (U C
Ef) 6 <
Ef) 6
O E
O
C
O O (V <
V3 O E <
O = <
O (U 1
V3 U
E
61) V3 I<
0
0
0
0
0
(U
0)
O
O
N
N
N
N
O
ch
ch
ch
ch
U
(U
to
�
U
(6
C
(6
(U
i
(U
S2
U?
N
N
(U
E
N
N
Q
N
O
Z
°o
N
a
E
t]
N
E
(U
0)
O
O
S2
0
O
U
(U
to
�
U
C
_
E
�
C
(U
7
O
U)
O
C
(6
0
O
U)
_
J
C
a
C
O
(U
O
c
O'
m
E
o
fn
o
_
E
d
R
o)
U
O
O
O
1
in
af
U U
C
N
Q
Q
N
O
m
0)
W
(n
LL
(U
(6
U
(6
N
(6
C
(6
(U
i
(U
S2
U?
N
N
(U
E
N
N
Q
N
O
Z
°o
N
a
E
t]
E
(U
0)
O
S2
0
U
(U
7
�
(U
�
U
�
C
�
E
�
C
(U
LL
O
O
O-
O
C
U
a
C
O
(U
O
c
O'
i
(U U
o
E
m
() o)
N
N
1
in
af
U U
C
N
Q
(6
C
(6
(U
i
(U
S2
U?
N
N
(U
E
N
N
Q
N
O
Z
°o
N
a
E
t]
O f
F- 4
m
Q
� f
w£
r
V
N
U
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
In
O
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
La
O
O
C
O
0
N
G
0
CD
}
0
co
LL
E9
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
G
O
L (y
O
O
O
N
n
} }
LL
�
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
R N
O
O
O)
LO
a
LO
00
69
La
LL
EFT
EFT
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
W
In
In
O
O
CO
L
V
O
O
O
O
EFT
00
O
n
LL
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
69
69
69
6c3
6c3
6c3
O
O
O
O
O
V3
V3
V3
O
O
O
O
In
(h
O
O
U)
O
In
n
L O'
N
N
V3
n
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
E9
}LL
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
G
O
O
O
N
M
N O
69
69
N
} }
69
61�)
LL
_a
L
O
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
L
CL
O
m m
N
N
O
O
Z
v
v
m
6
w
w
m
w
CL
00
00
06
rn
�
X
O
C
q i
C
(n
N
0
Q
_
-
N
0
C
C
N
U)
N
=
C
N
O
O
U)
(n
a
L
0)
C
N
W
U
-
>
>
N
0)
>+
U
C
N
Q
p
O
E
O 2
x
w
°
°
>
a)
af
=
o
U
-2
af
U
-
I
O
>.
p
>.
a)
Q
�
m
rn
o
c
�
m
=
C
�_
6s
a)
n
>
a
C
6s
'U
-U
0
i
to
a)
C
0)
>
C
O
O
C
>
N
N
>
C
N
J
C
0)
}
w
0)
w
d
(6
C
N
.0
E
."".-
O
0)
J
�.
i
to
0)
'U
0)
E
C
E
6
Q
N
L-
0)
w
0)
0)
C
O
U
O
w
O
6)
C
Q
Q
7
Q
N
o T
U �'
0)
o
U
H
o
'
E
�
a)
Q
a)
E
6s
U
6s
Y
(/)
If)
N
'U
U
N
N
l4
6)
L
C
N
(n
-O
i U
Q
i
CO
R
W
N
C
C
O 2
4
U)
N
O
to
0)
a
m�
s
m
f6
n
Y
m
E
O
>
C
O
2
E
(.i
C
N O
W
N
O
o
s
O-
N
(7
(7
0 2
W
J
Y
U
N
i
O
N
N
V
U
(1)
7
O
—
'3
l4
N
7
to
Q
V
O
a
O
U
Z
&
H
r
V
N
U
0
O
a
}
LL
a
M
r
}
LL
M
N
r
}
LL
N
r
r
}
LL
r
O
r
}
LL
O
O)
O
}
LL
O)
O
O
O
}
LL
O
� O
O
a LL
00
O 0 Lr
F— a
ma
� f
W
O O
O
00
O
O
O
1-
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
ER O
O)
O
O
O
E F T
m
E F T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
('
O
O
(O
00
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
LO
O)
(O
O
N
00
(h
)O
(h
LO
(O
(14
1-
(14
O
LO
LO
O)
I�
of
O
L2
N
00
LO
I-
O
EFT
EFT
0)
(h
O)
I�
M
(`")
N
00
l!�
M
V3
00
O
V
(O
_
0)
O
Lfi
(3)
6,3
(O
EFT
N
EFT
a
6c"
—
EFT
EFT
a
V3
V3
ta
V3
V3
4a
O O
O
00
O
O
O
1-
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E F T O
O)
O
O
O
E F T
m
E F T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
(`")
O
O
(O
00
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
LO
O)
(O
I-
O
00
O)
co
LO
O)
V
(h
1-
00
co
LO
LO
O)
V
1-
(h
r-
It
N
r-
L2
Ln
a
EFT
EFT
O)
N
V
0)
(I
(O
O
(O
LO
V3
00
O
M
_
(D
O
Lo
O)
6,3
M
ER
N
ER
a
V3
V3
V3
a
V3
V3
�
V3
V3
�
O O
O
00
O
O
O
I-
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
E F T O
O)
O
O
O
E F T
m
E F T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
(h
O
O
(O
00
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
LO
O)
(O
V
Lo
00
(O
)O
I-
O)
I-
N
O)
)O
LO
LO
O)
Ln
M
N
a
O
00
(fl
(14
00
1-
a
EFT
EFT
O)
(h
Lr
0)
I�
CO
N_
V
00
O
(h
(O
(O
V-)
00
O
O)
0
(J)
Lfi
(J)
V3
V3
a
V3
V3
V3
V3
a
ER
ER
E9
ER
E9
O O
O
00
O
O
O
I-
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E F T O
O)
O
O
O
E F T
m
E F T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
(I
O
O
(O
00
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
O)
(O
V
O
00
V
CO
O)
(`")
00
V
(` )
CO
LO
LO
O)
V
N
(h
I-
CO
r-
r-
00
(h
00
(h
CO
EFT
EFT
O)
V
I-
O)
M
Il
LO
O
N
U)
M
6c3
00
O
(fl
n
_
0)
Lfi
0)
613
11
69
M
Vi
V)
V)
Vi
M
V3
V3
69
O O
O
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E F T O
O)
O
O
O
E F T
O
E F T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
(h
O
O
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
O)
(O
r-
V
N
)O
V
V
LO
V
O
00
)O
LO
LO
O)
00
LO
LO
(O
co
N
N
00
00
(`i
CO
EFT
EFT
O)
N
I�
EFT
M
O_
(O
V
I-
O)
Ln
M
V3
00
(`")
(O
O)
(O
r-
V
00
6,3
O)
V)
V)
N
Vi
Vi
V)
V)
V)
N
V3
4a
4a
O O
O
00
O
O
O
V
O
OO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
E F T O
O)
O
O
E F T
E F T
O
E F T
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
(h
O
(O
00
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
L)
0)
(O
(O
m
0)
O
00
N
(O
r-
N
LO
O
LO
LO
O)
LO
00
O
co
(O
00
(O
O
CO
EFT
EFT
O)
V
O
r-
M
O)
(h
(O
Lo
M
6c3
r-
(D
N
11
V3
U)
r-
V
00
6c3
11
6c3
6c3
04
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
04
O O
O
O)
O
O
M
O
I-
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E F T O
O
O
O
E F T
O)
N
E F T
I-
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C D
O
Lr
00
O
N
r-
(fl
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
LO
I-
O
V
(O
I-
(D
CO
(D
00
O)
00
I-
O
CO
Ln
0
V
(0
V
V
LO
1-
LO
00
V
(h
1-
1-
n
EFT
O)
Lr
O
(h
N
O)
V
N
I-
(y
V
N
EFT
EFT
I-
(`")
O)
N
V3
r-
O
V
00
V3
N
V)
V)
69
M
69
V)
69
M
V3
69
O O
O
V
V
O
O
(O
N
M
Ln
V
00
N
LO
O
M
(O EFT
EFT
(h
1-
63
69
N
00
LO
N
LO
I-
O
V
V
O
N
N
O)
Lr
I�
V
�
M
Lr
(O
00
(h
0)
O
M
I-
N
M
N
M
N
LO
M
69
(O
CO
(O
N
I-
O)
I-
O)
(D
LO
1-
U)
O
U)
co
CO
ER
V
N
(h
N
n
N
N
1-
LO
(O
N
1-
wi
69
69
C-4
69
69
V3
6
C-4
O
ER
O
61)
O
61)
O
V3
O
61)
O
61)
O
61)
O
61)
a3
a)
}
E j
2 Ul O
O N O a) N
O
LL LL a) 11 X
a3 ' " � E 'O u!
M NO E O C T C _
N NCL CL 2
LL C a) LL Q 13 = C a)
O i5 'O
LL O C a) ~ a3 E 7 LL J a)
LL O U F (6 m a) LL Of U) J C. N
(D O i K 7
a) 2 a) > a) :: ai m B
W C
O LL O E °� a) H ul ° E a)
ul U U rn s ° R a�i c U) :N c ai
i c u! a) _ C LL 7 O- O C a3 '6 R
o
cu cu
CL 0 cu
CL LL
N (6 a3
(D>—Ul-Fucccuco a) N O
d d a) a) C7 m a (7 H m > n v°)) R d
H > ul =o E U 0 O C
f6 Li U) -i IL (7 Q H a Q af � U) U H O
a a°'' w z
O
N
C
O
.O
O
C
a3
C
a3
C
a)
U
a)
Q
Ln
N
N
a)
E
N
N
Q
0
0
N
E
E
0