The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES 073 Draft 01 2020-2022COUNTY OF HAWAII 00 •JL4 ,��J�� t� •,t ig OF�HF'� RESOLUTION NO. STATE OF HAWAII A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2019 INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII. WHEREAS, Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 342G, Part III, Integrated Solid Waste Management Planning, requires each county to submit to the Office of Solid Waste Management of the Hawaii State Department of Health an integrated solid waste management plan that has been formally adopted by the County of Hawaii and is consistent with the requirements of said Chapter 342G; and WHEREAS, HRS Chapter 342G, Part III, also delineates the schedule and requirements for updating an integrated solid waste management plan; WHEREAS, the Council on October 5, 1994, adopted Resolution No. 291-94; which authorized acceptance of the first Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Council on November 20, 2002, adopted Resolution No. 238-02, Draft 5, which authorized acceptance of the Final Draft Update to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawaii; and WHEREAS, the Council on May 5, 2010, adopted Resolution No. 318-10, authorizing acceptance of the 2009 Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, Mayor Harry Kim appointed members of the County of Hawaii Solid Waste Advisory Committee in 2018; and WHEREAS; Parametrix has prepared in association with Wesley R. Segawa and Associates, Inc. this update to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawaii in consultation with the County of Hawai`i's Solid Waste Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, public meetings were conducted in Hilo and in Kailua-Kona to review the draft 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP), and to obtain public comment; WHEREAS, the Office of Solid Waste Management of the State Department of Health has provided comments to the County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management on the draft ISWMP; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Management Commission has provided input throughout the process, and supports the goals of the ISWMP; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Management Commission has sent a letter to the Council, attached hereto as Exhibit A, recommending approval of the 2019 ISWMP; and WHEREAS, the coronavirus pandemic has delayed initial timelines for approval of the 2019 ISWMP, but the Department of Environmental Management remains committed to its implementation; and WHEREAS, the Department of Environmental Management has provided a formal response to the comments provided by the Hawaii State Department of Health, Office of Solid Waste Management, and has incorporated the necessary revisions in the final Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII that pursuant to HRS Chapter 342G, Part III, the Council hereby authorizes the acceptance of the 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan prepared by Parametrix in association with Wesley R. Segawa and Associates, Inc., dated August 2019, and attached hereto as Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to HRS Chapter 342-G, Part III, the County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan is authorized to be submitted to the Hawaii State Department of Health, Office of Solid Waste Management. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the County Clerk shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the Honorable David Y. Ige, Governor, State of Hawaii; Dr. Elizabeth A. Char, Director, Department of Health; the Honorable Mitchell D. Roth, Mayor; and Ramzi I. Mansour, Director, Department of Environmental Management. Dated at Kona , Hawai`i, this 21st day of April � 2021 INTRODUCED BY: sig COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAW `I COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawaii Hilo, Hawaii I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the vote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the County of Hawaii on April 21, 2021 ATTEST: 2 ROLL CALL VOTE Reference: C-175/RAWEEMC-10 RESOLUTION NO. 73 2:1 AYESI NOES ABS EX CHUNG X DAVID INABA X KANEALI `I-KLEINFELDER KIERKIE WICZ X KIMBALL X LEE LOY X RICHARDS X V ILLEGAS X 8 0 1 0 Reference: C-175/RAWEEMC-10 RESOLUTION NO. 73 2:1 Mitchell D. Roth Mayor Ramzi !. Mansour Director, Department of Environmental Management County of H a wa i `i ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION 25 Aupuni Street a Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Ph: (808) 961-8083 - Fax: (808) 961-8086 February 5, 2021 EXHIBIT A Chair Maile David, and County Council Members 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: Support for the 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Dear Chair David and Members of the Hawaii County Council: Georjean Adams Chair Rick Gaffney Vice Chair The Environmental Management Commission is charged under the Hawaii County Code, Chapter 2, Article 40, Section 2-207(b), with providing to the Hawaii County Council, and to the Department of Environmental Management, its comments and recommendations on solid waste programs, waste reduction strategies, recycling, litter control, community involvement, and other issues related to the functions of said department. Exercising its legal responsibility, the Environmental Management Commission, at its duly noticed meeting on July 22, 2020, voted to send this letter to the Hawaii County Council in support of the 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, and recommends its approval. The Commission intends to conduct routine reviews of the Department of Environmental Management's progress, and will provide guidance as the department implements the adopted plan. Sin r ly, c Georg :Adams, Chair Environmental Management Commission C: Ramzi I. Mansour, Director, Department of Environmental Management County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer EXHIBIT B 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan t' i � �• .ti nwr ,1� �-. t-AF��"'YF '�f:.fi�=� /��` .�. .t,.T_ ♦.�' t,•_ _•,t •,• '',%� aLF rY �J° ll "1 PYA- , 1(�f �•� I - _ J �� 1 .A,•� � 'R '/rl 'A ♦ i ! r.:�. _�Y' t. � fry ye li 71 j�►x7[. 3 Ott r s 46 WE CROP. 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update Prepared for County of Hawaii Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com Prepared by Wesley R. Segawa and Associates, Inc. Hilo office (Main) 101 Silva Street, Suite 201 Hilo, HI 96720 T. 808.935.4677 ext.0 hilo@wrsasolutions.com August 2020 CITATION Parametrix. 2020. 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, WA. August 2020. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 ofH,�,' 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 Solid Waste Management Plan Ina 10 Update. Mayor Harry Kim Hawaii County Council: Valerie T. Poindexter Susan "Sue" Keohokapu-Lee Loy Ashley L. Kierkiewicz Matthew Kaneali'i-Kleinfelder Maile David Rebecca Villegas Karen Eoff Dr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards III Staff from the Department of Environmental Management and Solid Waste Division Solid Waste Advisory Committee: George Hayducsko, Chair Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Adam Scharf Barbara Bell Georjean Adams Paul Buklarewicz Steven Araujo Consultant Support: Dwight Miller, Parametrix Katheryn Seckel, Parametrix August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY.....................................................................................................................ES-1 ES.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ ES -1 ES.2 The Path to Zero Waste.............................................................................................................. ES -1 ES.3 Plan Update Process................................................................................................................... ES -1 ES.4 Chronology of Plan Updates....................................................................................................... ES -2 ES.5 Consequences of Inaction........................................................................................................... ES -4 ES.6 Summary of Recommendations................................................................................................. ES -4 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Goals of the Solid Waste Management Plan Update...................................................................1-1 1.2 Plan Implementation....................................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Organization of this Plan...............................................................................................................1-3 2. WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT.............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Population and Employment........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Generation, Disposal, and Recycling............................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.1 Historical.......................................................................................................................2-4 2.3.2 20 -Year Projection........................................................................................................ 2-9 2.4 Waste Composition..................................................................................................................... 2-10 3. SOURCE REDUCTION............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Background................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Regulatory Context....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Resolution 356-07 (Zero Waste)................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.3 Review of 2009 Plan..................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.3.1 County of Hawaii Waste Reduction Programs............................................................ 3-4 3.3.2 County of Hawaii Staffing Levels................................................................................. 3-7 3.4 Issues and Concerns...................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.5 Options for Improvement............................................................................................................. 3-7 3.5.1 County Source Reduction Practices.............................................................................. 3-8 3.5.2 Business Waste Audits and Reduction Plans................................................................ 3-9 3.5.3 Construction and Demolition Diversion....................................................................... 3-9 3.5.4 Visitor Industry ........................................................................................................... 3-10 3.5.5 Reuse Facilities........................................................................................................... 3-10 3.5.6 Establish Pay -As -You -Throw System for Residential Discards .................................... 3-11 3.5.7 Expanded Home Composting Program......................................................................3-15 3.5.8 Expanded Reusable Bag Program...............................................................................3-15 3.5.9 Expand Source Reduction Education..........................................................................3-16 3.5.10 Establish Extended Producer Responsibility Policy .................................................... 3-16 3.5.11 Create a Zero Waste Fund.......................................................................................... 3-17 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 3.5.12 Public -Private Partnerships with Community -Based Organizations ..........................3-17 3.6 Recommendations......................................................................................................................3-17 4. RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS...................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Background...................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2.1 Zero Waste....................................................................................................................4-1 4.2.2 Review of 2009 Plan.....................................................................................................4-2 4.3 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................ 4-4 4.3.1 County of Hawai'i/State of Hawaii Programs.............................................................. 4-5 4.3.2 Private Sector Programs............................................................................................. 4-10 4.3.3 Current Material Markets and Market Development Initiatives...............................4-11 4.3.4 County of Hawai'i Staffing Levels...............................................................................4-14 4.4 Issues and Concerns....................................................................................................................4-14 4.5 Options for Improvement...........................................................................................................4-14 4.5.1 Residential Curbside Collection and Processing of Recyclables................................. 4-14 4.5.2 Increase Green Waste Drop-off Opportunities at Recycling and Transfer Stations....................................................................................................................... 4-18 4.5.3 Residential Green Waste Collection and Processing..................................................4-19 4.5.4 Add Food and Other Organics to a Residential Curbside Recycling and Green Waste Collection Program..........................................................................................4-20 4.5.5 Add Food Waste Bins at Recycling and Transfer Stations..........................................4-22 4.5.6 Source Separation Ordinance (Mandatory Recycling) and/or Disposal Bans with Differential Tip Fees...........................................................................................4-24 4.5.7 Commercial Recycling and Green Waste Program.....................................................4-26 4.5.8 Bioconversion of Food and Other Organics from Businesses/ Institutions ................4-27 4.5.9 Processing Food Waste Options................................................................................. 4-28 4.5.10 Establish a County "Buy Recycled" Policy...................................................................4-31 4.5.11 Marketing Partnership with Other Hawaii Counties.................................................4-31 4.5.12 Establish Opportunity to Recycle Legislation............................................................. 4-31 4.5.13 Maintain Active State and Regional Profile on Zero Waste Public Policy ..................4-31 4.5.14 Other Potential Recycling Opportunities....................................................................4-32 4.6 Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 4-33 4.6.1 Recycling.....................................................................................................................4-33 4.6.2 Organics...................................................................................................................... 4-34 S. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION.............................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Background................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.1 Regulatory Context....................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.2 Review of 2009 Plan..................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.3.1 County of Hawai'i Public Education and Information Programs .................................. 5-2 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 5.4 Issues and Concerns...........................................:.......................................................................... 5-5 5.5 Options for Improvement.............................................................................................................5-6 5.5.1 Develop 3 -Year Landfill Diversion Education and Social Marketing Plan.....................5-7 5.5.2 Conduct Waste Management Attitude Survey............................................................. 5-8 5.5.3 Expand Existing Advertising and Marketing Efforts ...................................................... 5-8 5.5.4 Expand Public and Civic Outreach................................................................................ 5-8 5.5.5 Expand School Education Programs............................................................................. 5-9 5.5.6 Expand Business Education Programs.......................................................................... 5-9 5.5.7 Develop Visitor Industry Education Programs............................................................5-10 6.3 5.5.8 Evaluate Effectiveness and Continue to Refine Education Programs ........................5-10 5.6 Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 5-10 6. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELECTRONIC WASTE ................................................ 6-1 6.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Regulatory Background................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2.1 Summary of Household Hazardous Waste Regulations ............................................... 6-1 6.2.2 Summary of E -Waste Regulations................................................................................ 6-2 6.2.3 Review of 2009 Plan..................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................ 6-3 6.3.1 Household Hazardous Waste....................................................................................... 6-4 6.3.2 E-Waste.........................................................................................................................6-5 6.4 Issues and Concerns......................................................................................................................6-7 6.4.1 Household Hazardous Waste.......................................................................................6-7 6.4.2 Electronic Waste (E-Waste).......................................................................................... 6-7 6.5 Options..........................................................................................................................................6-8 6.5.1 Install Permanent Collection Facilities at Recycling and Transfer Stations..................6-9 6.5.2 Implement Additional Collection Events......................................................................6-9 6.5.3 Establish E -Waste Take -Back Programs with Manufacturers or Sellers .....................6-10 6.5.4 Implement Advanced Disposal Fee for E-Waste........................................................6-10 6.5.5 Explore Public -Private Partnership for Local E -waste Campaign (anything with aplug)......................................................................................................................... 6-11 6.6 Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 6-11 7. SPECIAL WASTE.................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1.1 Review of 2009 Plan Update........................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 Background................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2.1 Asbestos........................................................................................................................7-2 7.2.2 Used Motor Oil............................................................................................................. 7-2 7.2.3 Petroleum -Contaminated Soil...................................................................................... 7-2 7.2.4 Used Batteries (lead-acid)............................................................................................ 7-3 7.2.5 Sewage Sludge.............................................................................................................. 7-3 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 7.2.6 Agricultural and Farm -Generated Waste.....................................................................7-3 7.2.7 Medical Wastes............................................................................................................ 7-3 7.2.8 Used Tires..................................................................................................................... 7-4 7.2.9 White Goods (Large Appliances).................................................................................. 7-4 7.2.10 Abandoned Vehicles..................................................................................................... 7-6 7.3 Recommendations........................................................................................................................ 7-6 8. COLLECTION AND TRANSFER................................................................................................. 8-1 8.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 8-1 8.2 Background................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.3 Review of 2009 Plan Update......................................................................................................... 8-1 8.4 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................ 8-2 Recycling and Transfer Stations................................................................................. 8.4.1 Recycling and Transfer Station Features...................................................................... 8-4 8.5 Issues and Concerns...................................................................................................................... 8-9 8.6 Curbside Collection Implementation Considerations.................................................................8-10 9. RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT................................................................................................... 9-1 8.6.1 Institutional Approaches to Service Delivery .............................................................8 -10 8.6.2 Collection Technology................................................................................................ 8-13 8.6.3 Service Levels..............................................................................................................8-16 8.6.4 Service Frequency.......................................................................................................8-16 8.6.5 Funding Options......................................................................................................... 8-17 8.7 Options for Improvement...........................................................................................................8-18 8.7.1 Add Curbside Collection............................................................................................. 8-18 8.7.2 Change Permits to Allow Small Businesses to Recycle at Transfer Stations .............. 8-22 8.7.3 Continue Progress Towards Reconstruction of Stations in Need of Repair ...............8-22 8.7.4 Increase Attendants' Monitoring of Recycling and Reduce Operating Hours at Recycling and Transfer Stations.................................................................................8-23 8.7.5 Add Full -Time Attendants, Reduce Operating Hours, and Implement PAYT at Recycling and Transfer Stations................................................................................. 8-23 8.7.6 Reduce System Costs by Closing Select Stations and Reducing Operating Hours ...... 8-24 8.7.7 Lower Transportation Costs by Compacting Recyclables...........................................8-24 8.8 Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 8-26 9. RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 9-1 9.2 Review of 2009 Plan Update.........................................................................................................9-1 9.3 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................9-2 9.3.1 South Hilo Sanitary Landfill Closure..............................................................................9-2 9.3.2 West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill......................................................................................9-3 9.3.3 Landfill Disposal Fees....................................................................................................9-7 9.3.4 Evaluation of SHSL Capacity Replacement................................................................... 9-7 9.4 Issues and Concerns......................................................................................................................9-8 9.4.1 Private Facilities and Flow Control............................................................................... 9-9 9.4.2 Natural Disaster Debris Management.......................................................................... 9-9 iv August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 9.4.3 Closed Landfills........................................................................................................... 9-10 9.5 Material Recovery and Treatment Facilities Overview...............................................................9-11 9.5.1 Background................................................................................................................. 9-11 9.5.2 Overview of Recovery and Treatment Technologies.................................................9-13 9.6 Recovery and Treatment Options for the County of Hawai`i.....................................................9-18 9.7 Landfill Disposal Options.............................................................................................................9-22 9.7.1 Improve Existing Infrastructure and Operations........................................................ 9-23 9.7.2 Construct a Construction and Demolition Landfill with a Sorting and Reuse Area............................................................................................................................ 9-24 9.8 Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 9-26 10. ADMINISTRATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION....................................................... 10-1 10.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................10-1 10.2 Review of 2009 Plan Update.......................................................................................................10-1 10.3 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................10-1 10.3.1 Solid Waste Fund Revenues.......................................................................................10-1 10.3.2 Solid Waste Fund Expenses........................................................................................10-4 10.4 Issues and Concerns....................................................................................................................10-5 10.5 Administration and Funding Options ........................... 10.5.1 Establishing Solid Waste as an Enterprise Fund.........................................................10-7 10.5.2 Separating Solid Waste Management as a Line Item on Property Taxes...................10-8 10.5.3 Establish PAYT System at County Recycling and Transfer Stations............................10-8 10.5.4 Modifications to Existing Programs and Practices.....................................................10-8 10.5.5 Illegal Dumping Prevention........................................................................................10-9 10.6 Plan Recommendation..............................................................................................................10-13 11. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 11-1 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) LIST OF TABLES ES -1 Prioritization of Plan Recommendations.................................................................................... ES -6 2-1 Estimated Historical Population, Hawai'i County......................................................................... 2-1 2-2 Resident Population Forecast by District, Hawai'i County...........................................................2-2 2-3 Historical Civilian Employment in Hawaii County........................................................................ 2-3 2-4 Forecasted Civilian Employment in Hawai'i County..................................................................... 2-3 2-5 Historical Generation, Recycling/Diversion, and Disposal and Estimated Diversion Rate, Hawai'i County............................................................................................................................ 2-4 2-6 Historical Generation, Recycling, and Disposal for Hawai'i County .............................................. 2-5 2-7 Historical Disposal at Recycling and Transfer Stations and Commercial Customers for Westand East Hawaii (in tons)................................................................................................... 2-6 2-8 Historical Generation Trends in Hawai'i County........................................................................... 2-7 2-9 FY 2017-18 Disposal by Recycling and Transfer Station............................................................... 2-8 2-10 Projected Disposal with 8 Percent Increase in Recycling/Diversion 2020- 2039 ........................2-10 2-11 Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category for the Total County ............................... 2-11 2-12 Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category for West Hawai'i....................................2-11 2-13 Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category for East Hawai'i...................................... 2-12 2-14 Disposed Composition Estimates: Total County.........................................................................2-12 3-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Source Reduction ........................................ 3-3 3-2 Tonnage Diverted at Reuse Centers FY 2009-10 to FY 2016-18 .................................................. 3-5 4-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Recycling, Bioconversion, andMarkets................................................................................................................................ 4-2 4-2 Historical Generation, Recycling/Diversion, and Disposal and Estimated Diversion Rate, Countyof Hawai'i........................................................................................................................ 4-5 4-3 County of Hawaii Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations....................4-6 4-4 County of Hawai'i Segregated Rates............................................................................................. 4-8 4-5 Example of Material Loss and Utilization Rates by Material Recovery Collection System inState of Washington.............................................................................................................. 4-17 4-6 Factors Affecting Curbside Recycling Costs................................................................................ 4-18 4-7 Organics Maintenance............................................................... .............. 4-23 ................................... 5-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Public Education and Information...............5-1 6-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Household Hazardous Waste andE-Waste................................................................................................................................ 6-2 6-2 Household Hazardous Waste Collection, County of Hawai'i (All data in pounds) ........................ 6-4 6-3 E -Waste Collected, County of Hawaii .......................................................................................... 6-6 7-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Special Waste..............................................7-1 7-2 Special Waste Disposal Requirements.......................................................................................... 7-2 7-3 Recycling and Transfer Stations that Accept White Goods.......................................................... 7-5 8-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Collection and Transfer...............................8-1 Vi August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 8-2 Disposal at Hawai'i County Recycling and Transfer Stations FY 17-18 .........................................8-3 8-3 Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations.................................................8-4 8-4 Services Provided at Hawaii County Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations ............................8-6 8-5 Recycling and Transfer Station Condition..................................................................................... 8-7 8-6 Station Closure Options.............................................................................................................. 8-24 9-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management...............................9-1 9-2 Generalized Haul Route from East Hawaii Regional Sort Station ................................................ 9-5 9-3 West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill Configuration...............................................................................9-6 9-4 Technologies Proposed in Recent U.S. Alternative Technology Procurements ......................... 9-12 9-5 Landfill Gas to Energy Schematic................................................................................................ 9-23 10-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management.............................10-1 10-2 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management Solid Waste FundRevenue............................................................................................................................10-2 10-3 Solid Waste Fund Revenue Summary, Percent of Total.............................................................10-2 10-4 Solid Waste Fund Expenses........................................................................................................10-4 10-5 Projected Solid Waste Capital Improvements............................................................................10-5 10-6 Landfill Charge Rates 2018-2022................................................................................................10-6 10-7 Four Programmatic Areas for Preventing Illegal Dumping (EPA 1998) ....................................10-11 10-8 New South Wales Survey on Illegal Dumping (North South Wales 2015) ................................10-12 10-9 Recommended Programs and Capital Improvements..............................................................10-14 APPENDICES A SWAC Meeting Summaries B SWAC Recommendation Ranking Summary C 20 -Year De Facto Population Recycling, Generation, and Disposal Projections D 2008 Waste Composition Study E Chronology for Waste Reduction Technology for Hawaii County F Ordinance 18-5 — Solid Waste Fees G Draft Plan Comments and Responses H Energy Balance August 2020 Vii 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACM asbestos -containing materials ADF advance disposal fee AES AES Hawaii, Inc. BPI Biodegradable Products Institute BYOB Bring -Your -Own -Bag CATI computer-assisted telephone interviewing CBOs community-based organizations C&D construction and demolition CEDs covered electronic devices CESQGs conditionally exempt small quantity generators CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Program CRCs Certified Redemption Centers CRTs cathode ray tubes CTVs covered televisions DEA U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration DEM Department of Environmental Management DIY Do -It -Yourself DOTA Department of Transportation, Airports DPW Department of Public Works EA Environmental Assessment EHOF East Hawaii Organics Facility EHRSS East Hawaii Regional Sort Station (Reload Facility) EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPR extended producer responsibility FAA Federal Aviation Administration FOG Fat, Oil, and Grease FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FTE full-time equivalent FY fiscal year GO general obligation Viii August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) GPS global positioning system GVW gross vehicle weight HAR Hawaii Administrative Rule HCC Hawaii County Code HCPD Hawai'i County Police Department HDOH Hawaii State Department of Health HEDRP Hawaii Electronic Device Recycling Program HHW household hazardous waste H -POWER Honolulu Program of Waste to Energy Recovery HRS Hawaii Revised Statutes ISWMP Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan LED light emitting diode LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LFAs little fire ants MBT mechanical -biological treatment MMSW mixed municipal solid waste MRF material recovery facility MSW municipal solid waste OTC Over -the -Counter PAD predictive auto dialer PDF Portable Document Format PAYT pay -as -you -throw Plan County of Hawai'i Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan PVC polyvinyl chloride RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RDF refuse -derived fuel REI Recycling Economic Information RFP Request for Proposal RRCs recycling and reuse centers SHSL South Hilo Sanitary Landfill SQGs small quantity generators SRF State Revolving Fund August 2020 'x 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) SWAC Solid Waste Advisory Committee SWANA Solid Waste Association of North America SWD Solid Waste Division UH University of Hawaii UHH University of Hawai'i, Hilo UPW United Public Workers USC United States Code WHOF West Hawaii Organics Facility WHSL West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill WRT waste reduction technology WTE waste to energy WUTC Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ES -x August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i COVID-19 PROLOGUE The Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update 2019 process began in March of 2018. Early in 2020, just as the document was being finalized, Covid-19 made its appearance in the County of Hawai'i. The administration quickly enacted emergency protocols. Among everything else, solid waste operations have been and continue to be affected. This Plan represents the County's Update pre-Covid. In that some of the sites, locations, and services may still be affected at the time this Plan is adopted, please check our website at www.HawaiiZeroWaste.org or contact the Solid Waste Division at 961-8270 to obtain current information. August 2020 xi 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Introduction J��v OF y44. The County of Hawai'i, in accordance with the Hawaii Revised Statutes 4 /I Chapter 342G (HRS 342G), has completed its review, revisions, and 4p updates for the 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan). Work on this update began in the spring of 2018. The Plan development process involved monthly meetings that engaged both the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) and the County of Hawai'i (County) Solid Waste Division (SWD) of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM). The last update of the Plan was produced in 2009. The Plan update evaluates solid waste management in the County, including waste reduction practices and programs, opportunities for recycling, implementation of zero waste policies and practices, the status of active and closed landfills, and options for increasing landfill diversion. The results are organized by chapter in accordance with HRS 342G. Each chapter contains a summary of the 2009 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) recommendations and the status of those recommendations, a description of the existing conditions, a discussion of options available to the County to improve the solid waste management program, and recommendations to implement selected options. ES.2 The Path to Zero Waste In December 2007, the County Council adopted Resolution 356-07 to "embrace and adopt the principles of zero waste as a long-term goal for Hawai'i County" and the County subsequently developed a Zero Waste Implementation Plan in 2008 that outlines suggested changes to solid waste management (County of Hawaii 2009a). The zero waste philosophy promotes the efficient use of materials to eliminate waste and pollution by emphasizing a closed-loop system of production and consumption, and moving in logical increments toward the goal of zero waste. 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 and 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 Plan, have been incorporated into the Plan. The County will continue to take incremental steps toward achieving zero waste in the long term with the understanding that the ability to truly achieve zero waste is realistically challenging for an island. FS.� Plan Update Process Development of this Plan update was guided by a seven -member SWAC, appointed by the Mayor. SWAC members participated in 13 meetings at which they toured solid waste facilities on both sides of the island, reviewed draft Plan chapters, debated key issues, developed plan goals (provided in Chapter 1), and shaped recommendations. Input was requested from the public during the preparation of the updated Plan in a variety of forums including monthly SWAC meetings; routine posting of all draft documents, agendas, and meeting minutes to the County's online records archive; and two informal August 2020 ES -1 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii public informational meetings. Following review and comment by the State of Hawai'i Department of Health (HDOH), the proposed Plan was made available for public review for 60 days, which included two public hearings. Appendix A includes the meeting minutes from the monthly SWAC meetings held during the Plan update process, and Appendix G includes the draft Plan public comments and responses. The key recommendations included in this Plan update have consensus support from the SWAC and are intended to balance the many interests of the various stakeholders within the County. The County has taken the top recommendations developed during this process, and will keep the stakeholders in mind as the recommendations are implemented. This Plan update includes individual chapters that cover various waste management topics as stipulated in HRS 342G. It includes responses to comments received from the HDOH and the public. The Plan was submitted by the Mayor to the County Council for adoption. Final approval by HDOH is anticipated by the last quarter of 2020. A summary of the Plan recommendations is presented below. ESA Chronology of Plan Updates The County's initial Plan, as required by state law (HRS 342G) was adopted on October 5, 1994. Updates to the original plan were completed by the County and approved by the State of Hawaii in 2002 and 2009. 2002 Plan A key issue addressed in the 2002 plan update was the pending closure of the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (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 (EHRSS), 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 E for a chronology of waste reduction study and procurement activities in Hawaii County.) • 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: • Expanded 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. Initiated development of elements of the EHRSS that could potentially serve a number of strategic waste management functions. • Issued two 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. ES -2 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Since 2006, the County has taken three other important actions related to its solid waste management system: Completed a comprehensive engineering evaluation of its 21 recycling and transfer stations. This evaluation concluded that 13 have serious failures requiring reconstruction to correct and another six have serious problems that could be corrected without complete reconstruction. Extended the capacity of the SHSL through sliver fill—an innovative engineering solution to gaining and utilizing additional airspace. The County also implemented a comprehensive compaction program. 3. Prepared an expansion feasibility study and capital cost estimate to assess whether undertaking a 7 -acre landfill expansion immediately adjacent to the SHSL would 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 7 -acre expansion and this option was removed from further consideration. 2009 Plan In 2009, the key focus of the 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, the 2009 Plan recommended 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. • Reassess trucking waste to the WHSL site including further analysis of consolidating waste at the EHRSS and associated hauling operations, haul routes, traffic issues, and equipment acquisition plans. • Avoid issuance of RFPs for waste reduction technology during the 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, the 2009 Plan presented a series of recommendations regarding next steps on the path to zero waste, including expanded programs targeted toward reducing the volume of landfill -bound waste and improving existing infrastructure. The Plan also recommended reconstructing and upgrading one or more County recycling and transfer stations each year. After adopting the 2009 Plan, the County made many key decisions that will drive the functioning of waste management on the island for years to come, notably the decision to truck waste (residuals) to WHSL through the EHRSS (implemented in 2019). Other decisions and actions that will have a lasting impact on waste management and diversion include: • Constructed two green waste facilities—one in Hilo on the east side of the island, and one adjacent to the WHSL on the west side of the island. • Constructed seven new reuse centers located at the County recycling and transfer stations. • Planned a compost facility to process more than green waste (and wood pallets). The new facility will process food waste, paper, and compostable plastics (planned operation 2020). • Performed major upgrades to seven recycling and transfer stations—the upgraded facilities are expected to operate sufficiently through 2029. The County is also in the process of constructing August 2020 ES -3 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii a permanent recycling and transfer station in Ocean View. Although great progress has been made, the need to improve facilities with major engineering deficiencies still remains. 2019 Plan With the closure of SHSL and the shipment of residuals to WHSL, the current deteriorating global recycling market, new facilities (reuse and compost facilities), and fiscal concerns, this Plan update focuses on waste diversion, with an emphasis on education, outreach, and public awareness. Outside of maintaining or improving existing facilities, this Plan does not generally recommend the construction of costly new facilities or operations. Instead, the County will assess how the existing facilities and programs are functioning followed by a study to identify a solution that best suits the current and projected future conditions. This includes seeking joint solutions with state and other Hawaiian jurisdictions. For example, with the current market for plastics, the County has eliminated all plastics (except for qualifying deposit beverage containers) from the recycling program. If the County were to coordinate and negotiate with the City and County of Honolulu, there may be a temporary solution that keeps these formerly recyclable materials out of the landfill until market conditions change. FS.5 Consequences of inaction This Plan update outlines a series of options for the County during the next 10 -year implementation period. Some of these programs may be challenging and perhaps even controversial because they require changes to ingrained behaviors and increased costs. The status quo is not sustainable for a variety of reasons—notably market conditions, aging infrastructure, fiscal responsibilities, and environmental impacts. Some consequences of inaction would include the following: • 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. • No significant progress would be made in further reducing waste sent to the WHSL, thus resulting in a missed opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the toxicity of waste materials sent to the County's sole landfill. • The WHSL would fill up faster. The County's proposed strategy of incrementally pursuing waste reduction and diversion with continued local landfilling of residuals will result in decisions that best serve the needs for generations to come. FS.6 Summary of Recommendations The primary purpose of the Plan is to develop waste management strategies through the period of 2019 to 2029. The County developed these through careful consideration by the County's SWAC, which comprises representatives from various stakeholders. In total, 84 recommendations covering nine solid waste management programs were identified. The SWAC categorized 83 recommendations (and supporting implementation strategies) as high, moderate, or low to provide the County DEM feedback on the solid waste planning initiatives that are important to them as representatives of the community. [Note: One recommendation was added in response to a comment provided during the public hearing process and was not rated.] ES -4 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Table ES -1 summarizes the recommended measures and ranking of importance for managing solid waste in Hawaii County. Considerations for ranking the individual measures included: Diversion Potential—What is the tonnage diversion potential from landfill? Local Authority—How much control must the local government exert over the disposal management system (e.g., service providers, infrastructure collection/transfer/disposal, and/or waste generators)? • Implied—indirectly through culture or practice: less likely to accomplish measure. • Influenced—by policy, permit, license or ordinance: moderately likely to accomplish measure. • Explicit—directly through contracts or operations: highly likely to accomplish measure. Receptivity—What is the relative ease and level of effort to initiate and obtain local buy -in? For example, does it involve promotional activities, recognition, no requirements on waste generators, minor costs (generally easier)? Or does it involve setting mandatory requirements, restrictions, or higher costs (generally more difficult)? Environmental Outcome—What is the environmental effect? For example, does the measure consider ecological toxicity, human heath, or greenhouse gas emissions generated by raw materials extraction and product manufacturing? Staff Knowledge—How much staff knowledge or specific expertise is needed to implement the measure? Can it be implemented by mid-level local agency staff without outside legal or contractor assistance? Community -Led Initiatives—How easy or hard is it for individuals or groups to adopt or implement the measure without actions required by the jurisdiction? Can a local nonprofit or group of interested residents carry out the activity (e.g., develop a "how-to guide") or will it require initiation by local jurisdiction staff or elected bodies (e.g., adopt a local ordinance)? Outcome of Recommendation Prioritization Ultimately, most of the recommendations and supporting implementation strategies were ranked as moderate (45), followed by high (37), with only one recommendation identified as low. This demonstrates that representative SWAC members agree that most of these actions are attainable and can improve the County's existing solid waste management program. To further prioritize, each SWAC member was tasked to identify their top five recommendations or themes. Recommendations that received a number one ranking were weighted (scored) higher than those that received a number five ranking. Additionally, because some of the recommendations are thematically similar, they were combined. Of the 83 recommendations, six recommendations or themes were identified by more than one SWAC member as priorities. The top six recommendations identified by the SWAC are: • Conduct education, outreach, and public awareness – multiple recommendations. • Regularly review and, when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract – Chapter 10, Recommendation 2. • Conduct additional household hazardous waste (HHW) collection events – Chapter 6, Recommendation 5. • Change County code to allow small businesses to drop off recyclables at recycling and transfer stations – Chapter 8, Recommendation 5. August 2020 ES -5 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii • Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts, in addition to tonnage -based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals — Chapter 4, Recommendation 5. • Develop County policy and ordinances related to source reduction and recycling — Chapter 3, Recommendation 1; Chapter 4, Recommendation 1. Appendix B provides the average numerical scores for the low, moderate, and high rankings as shown in Exhibit ES -1. It also provides all the outcomes from the top five prioritization exercise. Exhibit ES -1. Prioritization of Plan Recommendations Chapter Program Low Moderate High Ch 3 Source Reduction 1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to reduce the - X - source of waste currently entering landfills, including: Develop a County ordinance that requires a waste reduction pian be submitted to obtain a - X - commercial building permit. Work with other counties to develop Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy - X - statements or resolutions. As a component of 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 policies, procedures, and - X - incentive programs that will reduce waste streams currently being generated within various County departments and agencies. 2. Investigate a pay -as -you -throw (PAYT) program or other funding method. - X - 3. Improve the current reuse facility program. - x - Work with contractors managing reuse centers to create a list of preferable donations to - X - distribute to customers. Work with the contractor managing the reuse centers to be more selective about - X - merchandise, emphasizing items that are lightly used, clean, and in good condition. Improve signage, organization, and display of merchandise. Provide more covered space at reuse centers. - - x Collaborate with the volunteer -based Laupahoehoe Reuse Center to increase participation - X of volunteers. Continue public-private partnerships with organizations such as Goodwill Industries to - X - develop reuse centers at existing outlets within the County. Consider expanding the program to other recycling and transfer stations and/or upgrade - x the Laupahoehoe Reuse Center 4. Expand and improve public education and awareness programs. - - X Develop a business waste audit and education program to foster source reduction within - X the local business community. Develop a visitor industry waste reduction education program. - - X Continue reuse education, outreach, and public awareness campaigns to encourage public - - X participation and use of the reuse centers. ES -6 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit ES -1. Prioritization of Plan Recommendations (continued) Chapter Program Low Moderate High Ch 4 Recycling, Sioconversion, and Markets Recycling 1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to improve - - x recycling rates. Thoroughly investigate mandates prior to implementation including assessment of markets - - X (should be well-established), operational viability (solicit input from recycling and transfer station attendants, haulers, landfill operators), and implementation in other jurisdictions with an emphasis on other Hawaii counties. Establish a differential tip fee ordinance. - X - Investigate the feasibility of establishing a mandatory curbside collection program for some - X - single-family residences. Establish mandatory source separation and recycling ordinance, which would require all - X - businesses and institutions to recycle select types of materials. This could include implementing landfill bans for select recyclables. Develop legislation that requires owners and managers of multi -family dwellings and multi- - X - tenant commercial buildings to provide recycling. Conduct research and coordinate with legislators and waste managers within Maui, Kaua'i, - X - and Honolulu counties, to evaluate the potential for combining efforts to develop a statewide landfill diversion strategy. Lobby the State to change school waste collection contracts to mandate that recycling - - X services are included. Z. Complete capital projects to facilitate implementation of expanded recycling programs. A - - X common theme expressed during discussions with the SWAC is the need for improved facilities to manage recyclables. Modify infrastructure at recycling and transfer stations to accommodate and expand - - X recycling. Improve signage at recycling and transfer stations to provide the public with - - X comprehensive information about recycling opportunities and procedures. 3. Expand opportunities for commercial recycling. Allow small businesses to use the recycling and transfer stations to recycle selected - - X materials. Work with the HDOH Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch to modify recycling and transfer - - X station operating permits to accommodate expanded recycling services. Expand education and outreach programs for both large and small businesses to foster - - X participation in commercial recycling programs. 4. Expand opportunities to recycle in public areas and during public events. - - X Install additional recycling bins in parks and other public areas. - - X Increase recycling opportunities at community events. - - X 5. Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental impacts (e.g., - - X greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts, in addition to tonnage -based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals. 6. Annually or bi-annually assess existing local and regional markets for materials across the - X - waste stream; study service voids for missed opportunities to recover commodities. August 2020 ES -7 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit ES -1. Prioritization of Plan Recommendations (continued) Chapter Program Low Moderate High Ch 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets Organics 1. Improve education and outreach programs that promote improved management of organics. — X — Ensure that the contractor responsible for administering the organics program is meeting contractual requirements. — — X Expand and further develop a master composter program. X — — Develop a training program and guidance materials for farmers and gardeners. — X — Implement a "Stop Wasting Food" program that would benefit programs such as local food banks. — X — Partner with others to establish compost demonstration gardens at recycling and transfer stations or other visible locations in the community — X — 2. Onsite composting program (subsidized composting bins and distribution to residents and businesses) — X — 3. Landfill organics ban implementation study — X — 4. Organics management facilities and equipment — — X Add food waste drop-off bins at recycling and transfer stations that already collect green waste — X — Formulate compostable bag ASTM D6400 -compliance legislation — X — Add organics/yard waste disposal to existing brochures/signage — X Expand the number of drop-off locations for green waste and/or food waste at recycling and transfer stations — X Continue operation of mulch facilities at WHSL and SHSL — — X Investigate organics collection programs, including a residential curbside collection program and recycling and transfer station drop-off facilities. As part of this investigation, perform pilot food waste demonstration projects with the potential for eventual expansion into full-scale food waste management programs. — — X Ch 5 Education, Outreach, and Public Awareness 1. Implement a 3 -year education and social marketing program to educate the public and business community about landfill diversion initiatives and opportunities. — — X 2. Conduct a waste management attitude residential survey. — X — 3. Ensure County has staffing levels commensurate with the needs of the public outreach program. — — X Ch 6 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)/Electronic Waste (E -Waste) 1. Ensure enough staffing to operate HHW/e-waste programs successfully. — — X 2. Implement HHW/e-waste education, outreach, and public awareness program. — — X 3. Research and evaluate elements of successful e-waste/HHW programs implemented in other jurisdictions and integrate those successes into the County's program — X — 4. Explore a -waste take -back programs with State and manufacturers/sellers — X — Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to mandate and manage take- back programs for specific types of e -waste. — X — Coordinate with other counties and the State to develop and implement a -waste EPR take- back programs. — X — Coordinate with local retailers to facilitate implementation of take -back programs for e- waste. — X — Assess legislative actions that may be necessary to improve a -waste programs including demanufacturing, storage and handling, and funding equity. — X — 5. Conduct additional HHW collection events (10 to 12 additional per year) — — X ES -8 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit ES -1. Prioritization of Plan Recommendations (continued) Chqftw program Low Moderate High 6. Explore legislative actions for hazardous products and packaging take -back programs. - x - Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to mandate and manage take- - X - back programs for specific types of hazardous waste or packaging. Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to facilitate storage and handling of - X - hazardous products and packaging at various types of collection locations, and funding equity. 7. Explore a public-private partnership for a local a -waste campaign (on -island - X - demanufacturing). Ch 7 Special Waste 7_1. Continue to integrate a Do -It -Yourself Used Motor Oil program within the County's public - - X education and information program. 2. Increase the number of Recycling and Transfer Stations that accept white goods. Continue to - X - explore the feasibility of removing the freon at the site to simplify the handling, loading, and transport of white goods. 4. Continue to ensure that recycling facilities responsible for dismantling of white goods are - X - trained properly for the recovery and recycling of Freon -containing appliances. 3 Continue to promote tire recycling best management practices within the County's public - - X education and information program. Ch 8 Collection and Transfer 1 Retain the County's system of recycling and transfer stations; however, also explore - - X alternative funding methods via a feasibility study as discussed in Chapter 3 recommendations (Recommendation 2). 2. Reconstruct one or more recycling and transfer stations annually. - X - 3. Consider "Satellite" compaction units for recyclables at select stations - - X 4. Reduce operating hours at recycling and transfer stations and consider closing one or more - X - stations. S. Change County code to allow small businesses to drop off recyclables at recycling and - - X transfer stations. 6. Enable nonprofits and community organizations specifically involved with litter abatement - - to drop off non-recyclables at transfer stations without the need for daily waivers or permits. 7. Conduct an operational efficiency analysis to lower costs. - - X Ch 9 Residuals Management 1 Consider recovery and treatment technology for handling of municipal solid waste if all of - X - the following criteria are met: 1) waste diversion approaches already in operation are ineffectual or cost -prohibitive in meeting County waste reduction goals, 2) it can be demonstrated that the technology is environmentally sound and economically feasible, and 3) the technology has a verifiable and viable commercial track record (minimum of S years). 2. Investigate the feasibility of a landfill with a sorting and reuse area for construction and - - X demolition materials. 3. Update infrastructure at the WHSL and EHRRS. - X - 4. Engage in dialog with the State/Counties about joint solutions (e.g., Discuss with City and - - X County of Honolulu, the shipping of market-driven unrecyclable materials to their H -Power j WTE plant). Ch 10 Administration and Funding 1. Prepare a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis. - X - 2. 1 Regularly review, and when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract. - - X August 2020 ES -9 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i INTRODUCTION This update to the County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (the Plan) presents the County's existing waste management practices and programs, explores opportunities for implementation of waste diversion policies and practices, and outlines potential options and recommendations for improving the waste management program. The Plan also 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 closure of South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL) and the transition to solid waste disposal wholly at the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill (WHSL). The County of Hawaii (the County) produced this Plan in accordance with the requirements of Hawai'i Revised Statutes Chapter 342G (HRS 342G). The information in the Plan is organized by chapter according to HRS 342G. Each chapter contains a brief summary of the previous plan's recommendations and a summary of their implementation status, a description of the County's existing waste management practices and conditions, a description of options available to the County for improvement of the waste management program, and recommendations for implementation for the next 10 -years. Development of this Plan update was guided by an 8 -member Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), appointed by the Mayor. SWAC members participated in 14 meetings that involved review of the draft Plan chapters, debate of key issues, and development of plan goals and recommendations. In addition, input was requested from the public in a variety of forums including monthly SWAC meetings; routine posting of all draft documents, agendas, and meeting minutes to the County's online records archive; and two public hearings and the public comment period to the draft Plan. Appendix A includes the meeting minutes from the monthly SWAC meetings held during the Plan update process. The key recommendations included in this Plan update have consensus support from the SWAC and are intended to balance the many interests of the various stakeholders within the County. This Plan update includes individual chapters that cover various waste management topics as stipulated in HRS 342G. It also includes responses to comments received from the State of Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) and the public (Appendix G) through the draft review process. It was adopted by the County Council on X, X, XXX and received final approval by HDOH on X, X, XXXX. 1.1 Goals of the Solid Waste Management Plan Update This Plan presents not only recommendations, it also presents a vision for solid waste management within the County for the next few decades. Consideration was given to the current state of waste management technology in the United States and internationally, the history of waste management practices in the County, and an assessment of successful waste management practices in other jurisdictions. The objective was to develop County -wide solutions that consider the desires of the many stakeholders, while balancing the fiscal realities of implementing the selected programs. It was recognized that selected programs must be both implementable and sustainable to be successful. The following goal statement and the goals that follow were developed during a series of meetings and adopted unanimously by members of the County's SWAC. "The people of the County of Hawaii 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." August 2020 1-1 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii The goals presented below were used to guide the development of waste management options and the resulting recommendations of this Plan 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. • Increase Landfill Diversion. The County views waste as an inefficient use of resources, and seeks to lessen discards to landfills by reducing waste, reusing (and repairing) 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 identifies programs that get the best value ("bang for the buck") for County ratepayers and taxpayers. • Minimize Environmental Impacts. To improve the environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Plan emphasizes transportation efficiencies, supports material reuse and recycling, and minimizes organic materials sent to the landfill. • Litter -free. To eliminate illegal dumping on public and private lands, the Plan includes legislation, education, and outreach programs. • Sound Finances with Appropriate Incentives. To include financial incentives that will increase landfill diversion, such as pay -as -you -throw (PAYT), while ensuring that the Solid Waste Division (SWD) has enough 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 diversifying funding sources. • 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 United Public Workers Union and the Hawaii Government Employees Association. The County acknowledges that the updates to this Plan could be challenging and will require a significant amount of public education and stakeholder participation to be successful. The integrated approach to solid waste management utilized by the County, the SWAC, and all contributors address the overarching waste management goals of the community. The County will continue to foster collaboration among the stakeholders for the implementation and ultimate success of the Plan. Plan Implementation With uncertainties regarding the recycling market, and the outcome of programs planned for operation early in the planning period, as described in Chapter 10, the County would: 1. Continue the current system of funding most operating expenditures using property taxes and tip fees in the near term. 1-2 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 2. Study new funding strategies (e.g., PAYT, Enterprise Fund) to assess market fluctuations and uncertainties, and to achieve less reliance on the general fund as aligned with Plan recommendations. 3. Continue to fund major capital expenditures through general obligation bonds. An initial draft Plan was distributed to stakeholders in December 2018 for comment, and a final draft was made available to the public for a 60 -day public comment period from December 6, 2019, through February 4, 2020. The draft plan was then modified based on subsequent meetings with the SWAC and key staff; comments received from HDOH; comments received at public hearings held in Hilo on January 21, 2020, and Kailua-Kona on January 23, 2020; and written comments received during the 2 -month public comment period. Comments and responses are included in Appendix G. 1.3 Organization of this Plan This Plan is organized into the chapters listed below. Each chapter 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 chapter concludes with recommendations for implementation during the next 10 years. • Chapter 2: Waste Stream Assessment. Provides an assessment of the County waste stream including background information about population and employment; historical and forecast waste generation, recycling, and disposal; and information about waste composition. • Chapter 3: Source Reduction. Discusses existing source reduction activities within the County, identifies current issues and concerns with respect to current source reduction practices, and presents options and recommendations for achieving further source reduction. • Chapter 4: Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets. Describes existing recycling and bioconversion activities within the 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. • Chapter 5: Public Education and Information. Discusses existing public education activities within the County, identifies current issues and concerns with respect to public education, and presents options and recommendations that will help enhance educational opportunities. • Chapter 6: Household Hazardous Waste and Electronic Waste. Describes the current status of the household hazardous waste (HHW) and electronic waste (e -waste) collection and disposal system within the County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents options and recommendations for achieving the County's HHW and a -waste goals. • Chapter 7: Special Waste. Defines special wastes and describes existing conditions, potential improvements, and recommendations for special wastes. • Chapter 8: Collection and Transfer. Describes current conditions of the existing solid waste collection and transfer system within the County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents options and recommendations for achieving the County's solid waste collection and transfer goals. • Chapter 9: Residuals Management. Provides current conditions of the existing residuals management system within the County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents options and recommendations for managing the residuals remaining after source reduction, reuse, and recycling. August 2020 1-3 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i • Chapter 10: Administration, Funding, and Implementation. Discusses current conditions of the existing administration and funding within the County, identifies current issues and concerns, presents options currently under consideration by the County, and provides recommendations for implementation. As required by HRS Title 19 342G -26(d), Appendix H includes a discussion of energy use in the County's existing system with the introduction of a new compost facility and the construction of a construction and demolition (C&D) reuse and recycling facility. This allows for an understanding of how proposed improvements to the system could change the net energy use or energy production attributable to the solid waste program. 1-4 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT Introduction This chapter assesses the County waste stream, including background information about population and employment, historical and forecast waste generation, recycling, disposal, waste stream projections, as well as information about waste composition. Population and Employment This section provides historical and forecast information about population and employment in the County. These variables, along with other factors such as increases in tourism and construction activity, are elements that contribute to increases in waste generation within the County. Historical resident and de facto population for the County is shown in Exhibit 2-1. The de facto population is a measure used by the State of Hawai'i to account for the effects of tourism'. As shown, the resident population of Hawaii was 198,449 in 2016. The average annual resident growth has decreased since 2000, with a peak average annual growth of 2.8 percent between 2000 and 2005 to a more modest growth between 2010 and 2015 (1.2 percent). The ratio of de facto versus resident population has remained consistent through the years. Exhibit 2-1. Estimated Historical Population, Hawaii County Persons Average Annual Growth Ratio De Facto/ Yearn Resident De Facto Resident De Facto Resident 2000 148,677 167,063 — — — 2005 168,237 188,612 2.8` c 2.0°, 1.12 2010 185,079 202,682 1.9% 2.0% 1.09 2015 196,156 220,070 1.2% 1.7% 1.12 2016 198,449 222,485 0.6% 0.5% 1.12 Source: State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (2016). Table 01.06 Resident Population, by County: 2000-2016 and Table 1.09 De Facto Population, by County: 2000 to 2016. Exhibit 2-2 provides a forecast of Hawaii resident population growth through the year 2040 in each of the County's nine council districts, and summaries for West Hawaii and East Hawai'i. As shown, future population growth is projected to be slow. This is also the same for the de facto population estimates, which are projected to exceed resident population growth at a rate of 1.6 percent compared to 1.3 percent annual growth through 2020, and then is expected to follow the same growth rate thereafter (through 2040). 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. August 2020 2-1 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Exhibit 2-2. Resident Population Forecast by District, Hawai'i County District 2010 Census (base year)' 2010-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 2035-2040 East Hawaii Hamakua 6,513 6,871 7,421 8,091 8,576 9,048 9,500 Puna 42,326 44,654 47,556 52,578 55,733 58,798 61,738 North Hilo 2,041 2,153 2,326 2,535 2,687 2,835 2,977 South Hilo 50,927 53,728 58,026 63,262 67,058 70,746 74,284 South Kona 9,997 10,547 11,391 12,418 13,164 13,888 14,582 West Hawaii Ka'u 8,451 8,916 9,629 10,498 11,128 11,740 12,327 North Kohala 6,322 6,670 7,203 7,853 8,324 8,782 9,221 North Kona 37,875 39,958 43,155 47,049 49,872 52,615 55,246 South Kohala 17,627 18,596 20,084 21,897 23,210 24,487 25,711 Total 176,750 186,471 201,389 219,562 232,735 245,536 257,813 East Hawaii 105,287 111,078 119,964 130,789 138,637 146,262 153,575 West Hawai'i 71,463 75,393 81,425 88,772 94,099 99,274 104,238 Forecasted Average Annual Growth Rate - 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% ' Baseline 2010 population by district, obtained from the Hawai'i Statewide GIS program (metadata source: US Census Bureau [20101). Source: State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tounsm (2018x). The 2010 population by district were multiplied by the County resident annual growth rate from the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism Table A-3. Hawaii County Population Projection, Selected Components, 2010-2045. Historical employment in the County is shown in Exhibit 2-3. Employment has grown in recent years, from 79,100 in 2010 to 88,150 in 2016. The average annual 1.8 percent growth (2010 to 2016) in employment exceeds the County's average resident average annual population growth (1.2 percent) during that same time frame. Forecasted employment for the County is shown in Exhibit 2-4. Employment is forecast to increase at an annual rate of 1.4 percent between 2020 and 2025, at an annual rate of 1.3 percent between 2025 and 2030, and dropping to an annual rate of 1.1 percent by 2040. 2-2 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Exhibit 2-3. Historical Civilian Employment in Hawaii County Year Civilian Employment 1980 40,850 1985 46,150 1990 56,150 1995 58,600 2000 70,150 2005 78,000 2010 79,100 2015 84,800 2016 88,150 Average Annual Growth 1980-1985 2.5% 1985-1990 4.0°.6 1990-1995 0.9% 1995-2000 3.7% 2000-2005 2.1% 2005-2010 0.3% 2010-2016 1.8% Source: Hawai'i Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (2018b). Historical employment data spanning 1980-2016. Table A-30. Total Civilian Jobs, Labor Force, and Employment for Hawai'i County, 1980-2016. Exhibit 2-4. Forecasted Civilian Employment in Hawaii County 160,000 140,000 120,000 .a 100,000 c �� 80,000 u a 60,000 0 40,000 20,000 0 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 yp'�! 2040 2045 August 2020 2-3 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 2.3 Generation, Disposal, and Recycling 2,3.1 Hicl;toricaI Historical generation, recycling, and disposal for the 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, since estimated fiscal year (FY)2 2009-10, both recycling and disposal in the County have changed substantially. Recycling tonnage reported to the County by local businesses and the amount of recyclables managed by the County decreased from a 36.1 percent diversion rate in FY 2009-10 to 20.8 percent in FY 2017-18, and disposal increased from 155,682 tons to 224,196 tons over the same period. Review of the County's annual solid waste disposal summaries dating back to FY 2009-10 shows a decrease in metal recycling starting in FY 2012-13. The County -contracted scrap metal recycling facilities were required to remove their stockpiles prior to permit expiration. With the facilities no longer in operation, the County limited the scrap metal they would accept and diverted scrap metal to the private sector; thus, there is a marked decrease in subsidized scrap metal recycling following FY 2012-13. For example, in FY 2014-15, County data show 5,757 tons of scrap metal recycled, which is 10.0 percent of the total recycling/ diversion tonnage. In comparison, County data show 35,240 tons or 39.0 percent of the total volume diverted or recycled in FY 2011-12. Although there appears to have been a decrease in the recycling and diversion rates, this number is skewed because the County began sending most of the scrap metal recycling to the private sector starting in 2013. Finally, Exhibits 2-5 and 2-6 do not account for non - County -sponsored (private) recycling or diversions. These could include big -box stores (e.g., Costco, Walmart) that ship combined bales of cardboard and plastic to either the West Coast to third -party brokers or to the retailer's distribution center. Contractors or nonprofit groups also sell recycled materials directly to brokers on the mainland. Exhibit 2-5. Historical Generation, Recycling/Diversion, and Disposal and Estimated Diversion Rate, Hawai'i County Fiscal Year Generation Recycling/Diversion Disposal Recycling/Diversion Rate 2009-2010 243,719 88,037 155,682 36.1% 2010-2011 234,308 67,854 166,454 29.0% 2011-2012 243,457 90,508 152,949 37.2°x6 2012-2013 235,483 79,029 156,455 33.6% 2013-2014 221,915 55,025 166,890 24.8°x6 2014-2015 239,052 60,028 179,024 25.1% 2015-2016 246,679 57,921 188,758 23.5% 2016-2017 259,472 64,309 195,162 24.8% 2017-2018 283,021 58,825 224,196 20.8% Percent Change between 14.0% 1.6% 44.0% -48.0% FY 2009-10 and FY 2017-18 Average Annual Percent Change 2.0% 2.5% 4.6% -6.4% Source: Multi-year data provided by County of Hawaii DEM, Solid Waste Division. Note: The table does not account for non -County -sponsored (private) recycling or diversions. These could include big -box stores (e.g., Costco, Walmart) that ship combined bales of cardboard and plastic to either the West Coast to third -party brokers or to the retailer's distribution center. Contractors or nonprofit groups also sell recycled materials directly to brokers on the mainland. 2 The County fiscal year is from July 1 to June 30. 2-4 August 2020 300,000 250,000 200,000 0 M 150,000 C a� l� 100,000 50,000 0 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Exhibit 2-6. Historical Generation, Recycling, and Disposal for Hawaii County 2009 — 2010 — 2011— 2012 — 2013 — 2014 — 2015 — 2016 — 2017 — 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Fiscal Years 40.00% 35.00°% 30.00°,6 0) 25.00% o a 20.00°16 2 ao 15.00°,6 v v 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% ti Generation Recycling/ Diversion Disposal —Recyling/ Diversion Rate Exhibit 2-7 provides a breakdown of total waste discarded at County recycling and transfer stations and total commercial waste delivered directly to landfills between FY 2009-10 and FY 2017-18 for West and East Hawai'i. As shown, disposal at recycling and transfer stations has grown faster in West Hawai'i (approximately 35 percent) than in East Hawaii (approximately 12 percent) during this period. Commercial disposal has increased substantially over the past 9 years, experiencing percent change of approximately 83 percent in West Hawaii and approximately 19 percent in East Hawaii. Commercial waste comprises approximately 59 percent, while waste from recycling and transfer stations comprise approximately 41 percent of the total disposed waste County -wide. Commercial waste accounts for a much larger share of the total waste sent to landfill in West Hawai'i (approximately 70 percent) than in East Hawaii (approximately 48 percent). August 2020 2-5 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Exhibit 2-7. Historical Disposal at Recycling and Transfer Stations and Commercial Customers for West and East Hawaii (in tons) Fiscal Year West Hawaii Recycling/ Transfer Stations Commercial East Hawaii Recycling/ Transfer Stations Commercial Total County Recycling/ Transfer Stations Commercial 2009-2010 34,295 55,961 34 525 30,902 68,820 86,863 2010-2011 35,417 67,592 321421 31,025 67,838 98,617 2011-2012 39,303 51,880 28,018 33,749 67,321 85,629 2012-2013 35,898 55,628 31,688 33,240 67,586 88,868 2013-2014 38,358 61,955 331640 32,936 71,998 94,891 2014-2015 42,162 64,442 35,016 37,404 77,178 101,846 2015-2016 44,000 70,967 36,529 37,262 80,529 108,229 2016-2017 46,022 76,892 35,956 36,291 81,978 113,183 2017-2018 46,442 102,442 381737 36,606 85,179 139,048 Percent Change between FY 2009-10 35.4% 83.1% 12.2% 18.S% 23.8% 60.1% and FY 2017-18 Average Annual Percent Change 4.0%6.4°,6 2.5°,6 2.2°,6 2.4%5.8% Note: Commercial includes waste delivered directly to landfills by commercial haulers, and some businesses, institutions, and residents Source: Multi-year data provided by County of Hawai'i DEM, Solid Waste Division. Starting in 2009, the County resident and de facto population has shown a decrease in both generation and disposal compared to previous planning cycle. As reported in the 2009 Plan, the 2007-8 resident and de facto population of the County generated 9.4 pounds and 8.3 pounds of solid waste per capita per day, and landfilled 6.3 pounds and 5.8 pounds per capita per day respectively. Using the same methodology as the 2009 Plana, comparatively, 2016-17 waste generation dropped to 7.1 pounds and 6.4 pounds per capita per day and waste disposal dropped to 5.4 pounds and 4.8 pounds per capita per day for respective resident and de facto populations. Historical generation in tons, resident and de facto population, and pounds per capita per day are presented in Exhibit 2-8. The reduction in pounds per day could be attributed to the County's adoption of the zero waste philosophy in 2008 aimed at significantly reducing the volume of generated solid waste. For instance, the County has opened eight new reuse locations where residents may donate household items for resale, thus reducing tonnage values for disposal or recycling. The County also added a new convenience center (Ocean View), increased opportunities for scrap metal recycling and yard waste collection at recycling and transfer stations, and added two new facilities for processing green waste on both the east and west sides of the island. However, as shown in the Exhibit 2-8, there is a slight uptick in the amount of materials generated and disposed the last few years, thereby emphasizing the need to continue and expand zero waste initiatives. i Estimated 2016 solid waste generation divided by estimated 2016 resident population and estimated 2016 de facto population. Table 2-2 provides a breakdown of the estimated resident and de facto populations from 2000-2016. 2-6 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Exhibit 2-8. Historical Generation Trends in Hawai'i County Generation Resident/De Facto (tons)1 Disposal' Population" 3 Fiscal Year r a a '' 5 Ca D p / Y (Generation) /Day Pounds/ Da C 4,5 Capita p / y (Disposal) 2009-2010 243,719 155,682 183,629/199,047 7.3/6.7 4.6/4.3 2010-2011 2.34,308 166,454 185,079/202,682 7.1/6.3 4.9/4.5 2011-2012 243,457 152,949 186,933/205,570 7.1/6.5 4.5/4.1 2012-2013 235,483 156,455 188,765/209,099 6.6/6.2 4.5/4.1 2013-2014 221,915 166,890 191,147/212,373 6.6/5.7 4.8/4.3 2014-2015 239,052 179,024 193,885/216,108 6.6/6.1 5.0/4.5 2015-2016 246,679 188,758 196,156/220,070 7.1/6.1 5.3/4.7 2016-2017 259,472 195,162 198,449/222,485 7.1/6.4 5.4/4.8 2017-2018 283,021 224,196 200,38 1/-6 7.7/-6 6.1/-6 ' Generation and Disposal data for fiscal years 2009 through 2018 were derived from Annual Reports for Recycling and Diversion from all Transfer Stations and Recycling Programs, provided by County of Hawai'i DEM, Solid Waste Division. 2a Source: State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (2016). Table 01.06 Resident Population, by County: 2000-2016 and Table 1.09 De Facto Population, by County: 2000 to 2016. 3 FY 2017-2018 data estimated from U.S. Census Bureau (2018x). Pounds per capita is the annual total generation divided by the annual de facto population. 5 Resident/De Facto 6 Data available at the time (Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism) do not go beyond 2016 for de facto population. FY 2017-18 disposal totals specific to each of the County's 22 recycling and transfer stations are shown in Exhibit 2-9. Total disposal during 2018 at recycling and transfer stations ranged from a low of 509 tons at the Kalapana station, to a high of 15,592 tons at the Hilo station. August 2020 2-7 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 2-9. FY 2017-18 Disposal by Recycling and Transfer Station Recycling and Transfer Stations Tons Percent of Subtotal Percent of Total East Hawaii East Hawaii Regional Sort Station 1,192 2.5 1.4 Glenwood 1,907 4.1 2.2 Hilo 15,592 33.1 18.3 Honoka'a 4,154 8.8 4.9 Honomu 983 2.1 1.2 Kalapana 509 1.1 0.6 Kea'au 9,211 19.6 10.8 Laupahoehoe 1,045 2.2 1.2 Pa'auilo 771 1.6 1.0 Pahala 1,087 2.3 1.3 Pahoa 7,318 15.5 8.6 Papa'ikou 1,597 3.4 1.9 Volcano 1,366 2.9 1.6 Other 330 0.7 0.4 Subtotal (East Hawaii) 47,062 100.00,6 55.3% West Hawaii Ka'auhuhu (115M) 4,247 11.1 5.0 Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) 12,089 31.7 14.2 Keauhou 5,922 15.5 7.0 Ke'ei/Napo'pop'o 1,276 3.3 1.5 Miloli'i 687 1.8 0.8 Puak6 2,011 5.3 2.4 Waiea 1,084 2.8 1.3 Waimea 6,586 17.3 7.7 Wai'ohinu/Ka'u 3,496 9.2 4.1 Other 713 1.9 0.8 Subtotal (West Hawaii) 38,111 100.0°A 44.7% Total 85,173 100.0'.6 Source: County of Hawaii County DEM. 2-8 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 2.3 20 -Year Projectior, To plan for future solid waste management needs, projections are made using a generation forecast model. The County prepared the 20 -year projection by examining forecasted de facto population, past generation and diversion trends, and potential changes to those trends (Exhibit 2-10). The de facto generation estimate for 2016 was applied as the baseline for disposal tonnage. The diversion rate estimate (29 percent = average of approximately 5 pounds/day/per person) is based on the median diversion rate from FY 2009 through FY 2017. The implementation of additional diversion programs and other outside factors have the potential to increase or decrease the diversion rate in coming years beyond the average annual diversion rate. These factors could include: • Market stagnation. For example, China set new limits on imported recycled materials, significantly decreasing the amount of recycling accepted. • Economic trends. An economic upturn typically results in increased waste generation, as well with a waste generation decrease during an economic downturn. Because Hawai'i is a popular vacation destination, economic trends can be particularly influential. • County -wide reduction efforts. Ongoing efforts by the County and residents, businesses, and institutions to reduce waste may help moderate waste generation in the future (i.e., yard waste mulching facilities introduced during the last planning period). • Availability of curbside collection infrastructure. • Availability of educational program funding. • Improvements to diversion rate calculations. Non -County program recycling — big box stores, for example. • Investment in new technology. For example, potential for privately or publicly funded recovery and treatment facility (e.g., waste to energy [WTE], pyrolysis). Exhibit 2-10 shows a conservative increased diversion rate of 8 percent through 2039. This is based on the potential for increased diversion when the proposed compost facility is in operation (estimated for operation during the early part of the 10 -year implementation period, see Chapter 4 for further details). The waste composition study performed in 2008 estimated 16.3 percent of the waste going into the landfill as food waste (see Section 2.4 Waste Composition). Eight percent conservatively represents a diversion of half of this total. This 8.0 percent diversion rate is extended through 2039. Detailed data for Exhibit 2-10 are provided in Appendix C. August 2020 2-9 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 2-10. Projected Disposal with 8 Percent Increase in Recycling/Diversion 2020- 2039 400,000 Lu 350,000 Z 300,000 z 0 250,000 Z 200,000 0 g 150,000 Q. 100,000 0 A 50,000 ti� ti~ titi ti� tib` tih ti(0 til ti0 ti°� '�( 3~ �ti 3� � 3a � 3rO �1 3O'�0) ,ti0 ,LO ,ti0 ,LO ,ti0 ,y0 ,y0 ,LO ,y0 ,LO ,y0 ,ti0 ,LO ,LO ,y0 ,y0�,LO ,ti0 ,y0 ,L YEAR - Projected De Facto Population -Total Generation without Increased (8%) Diversion/ Recycling Rate -Total Generation with Increased (81%) Diversion/ Recycling Rate 2.4 Waste Composition Hawaii County conducted a waste composition study in 2008, included as Appendix D (CH2M Hill 2008). That study includes composition estimates for the overall waste stream and results broken down by recycling and transfer station, commercial, and self -haul wastes' disposed at the landfill. The results are based on samples taken at the WHSL during May 2008. A similar study was performed at the SHSL in 2001 (Cascadia Consulting Group 2001). Results of the 2008 and 2001 waste composition studies and the 2008 disposal data were combined to estimate the composition of waste that enters both landfills. The results are combined to provide waste composition estimates for the total County disposal. Exhibits 2-11, 2-12, and 2-13 show disposed composition estimates for nine waste categories for the entire County, for West Hawai'i, and for East Hawaii, 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 22.0 percent by weight. The construction and demolition category includes such components as lumber and gypsum scrap. The composition of waste disposed in West Hawaii is similar to the composition of disposed waste in East Hawaii. Two differences that merit mention: 1) there are more organics disposed of in West Hawai'i (35.3 percent) than in East Hawaii (29.6 percent); and 2) there is more special waste disposed of in East Hawai'i (5.2 percent) than in West Hawaii (1.9 percent). Most of the special wastes disposed of in East Hawaii consist of industrial sludge, bulky items, and tires. The waste stream study includes the amount of waste disposed for 58 different types of waste. County- wide composition estimates for all 58 waste components evaluated during the study are shown in Exhibit 2-14. 4 Self -haul refers to waste delivered directly to the landfill (as opposed to a recycling and transfer station) 2-10 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 2-11. Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category for the Total County 10.0°0 0.0°0 Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed Exhibit 2-12. Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category for West Hawaii August 2020 2-11 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 2-13. Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category for East Hawai'i -50010 c 40000 a� 2 30.0°0 a� a 222°k 22.50/6 2001_, 10.0°0 8.0% 8.1 2.986 0.3°% 120k 00004 Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed Exhibit 2-14. Disposed Composition Estimates: Total County 2-12 August 2020 Tons Percent of Tons Percent of Composition Disposed Total Composition 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 0.806 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°,6 R/C Paper 11,443 5.4% Oil 54 0.0°/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°/0 Other Containers 307 0.1% Sewage Sludge 0 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°/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% 2-12 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 2-14. Disposed Composition Estimates: Total County (continued) August 2020 2-13 Tons Percent of Tons Percent of Composition Disposed Total Composition Disposed Total 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 August 2020 2-13 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 3. SOURCE REDUCTION Introduction Source reduction adopts practices that generate less waste. Source reduction strategies 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 or donating unwanted and still usable materials or products are typical examples of waste reduction. This chapter describes the County's source reduction activities, identifies current issues and concerns regarding current source reduction practices, and presents options for achieving further source reduction. 3.2 Background 3.2.1 Regulatory Context As described in the Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 342G (HRS 342G), 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). 3. Landfilling and incineration. HRS 342G-3 established a 25 percent waste reduction goal by 1995, and a 50 percent goal by 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and bioconversion. Recycling and bioconversion practices were first detailed in the original Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan created in 1993 and in subsequent updated plans. In 2003, the County passed a resolution with a goal to divert 50 percent of the solid waste from landfills by 2008 and 80 percent by 2013. 3.2.2 Resolution 356-07 (Zero Waste) In 2007, the County adopted Resolution 356-07, "A Resolution to Embrace and Adopt the Principles of Zero Waste as a Long-term Goal for Hawaii 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 alternative uses, as well as for their original intended use. 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 August 2020 3-1 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii disposal. The zero waste approach includes aggressive education of public and private entities because 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 considering 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 consider 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 Eco -Cycle Solutions, recycling creates an "average of ten times more jobs than trash [landfilling], composting creates at least twice as many jobs as landfills, and reuse creates as many as 30 times more jobs than landfills" (Eco -Cycle Solutions 2018). According to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 2016 Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report, recycling of construction and demolition waste provides the largest contribution to job, wage, and tax revenue, followed by ferrous and non-ferrous metals (EPA 2016a). A Zero Waste Implementation Plan developed for the County in 2008 outlines suggested changes to the way that solid waste is handled within the County (Recycle Hawaii 2009). As stated in Resolution 356-07, the County 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 and 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 Plan, have been incorporated. In conclusion, the County will continue to take incremental steps toward achieving zero waste in the long term with the understanding that the ability to truly achieve zero waste is realistically challenging for an island. Rpvip�Aj nf ?009 Plar, Exhibit 3-1 provides a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2009 Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan (2009 Plan) relative to source reduction, and a description of the actions taken to achieve each recommendation. 3-2 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 3-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Source Reduction 2009 Plan Recommendation Status Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to reduce the source of waste currently entering landfills. Develop ordinances requiring that a waste reduction plan be submitted. Develop EPR policy statements or resolutions Implement a campaign to develop EPR for difficult -to -recycle products. Implement a County government source reduction program. Implement Pay -as -You -Throw program or other funding method. Expand the current reuse program. Expand reuse facilities. Develop public-private partnerships. Expand and improve public education and awareness programs. Develop a business waste audit and education program. Develop a visitor industry waste reduction education program. Develop a reuse education, outreach, and public awareness campaign. 3.3 Existing Conditions 2012-01-17 Ordinance 12-1 Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance adopted; 2013-01-17 implemented. 2017-09-29 Ordinance 17-63 Polystyrene Disposable Food Service Ware Reduction Ordinance adopted, to be implemented 2019-07-01. Did not pass an ordinance; however, the County permit process does require commercial, industrial, and multiple structure demolition projects to develop solid waste demolition diversion plans. In 2007 the Solid Waste Division (SWD) drafted a resolution that would mandate recycling at County offices. This has not yet been implemented. Did not implement. No staff available for program implementation. Difficult to achieve a balanced community -supported outcome in advancing this recommendation. The County has added additional reuse centers. Added Hilo, Kealakehe, Pahoa, and Wai'ohinu reuse centers; closed Ka'auhuhu (Hawii) reuse center. The County's website, HawaiiZeroWaste.org, provides a listing of private reuse stores. The County contracted Recycle Hawaii to consult with large-scale Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) construction sites to recommend how construction and demolition materials could be diverted from the landfill. No dedicated public education and awareness program since summer 2014. The County maintains the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website and provides facility tours, press releases, advertisements, and presentations. No staff available for audits. The County provides disposal and recycling information on the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website. No staff available for developing the visitor industry waste reduction education program. The County provides disposal and recycling information on the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website. Information is available on the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website and Reuse Center vendors can promote program. The status of source reduction efforts in the County is described below. This discussion includes a description of 1) County -operated or sponsored programs, 2) other programs conducted by private entities, and 3) County staffing levels. August 2020 3-3 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 3.3.1 County of Hawai'i Waste Reduction Programs 3.3.1.1 Backyard Composting The County's Zero Waste website includes links to guidance by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other resources on backyard composting, and locations on the island where vermiculture bins, worms, and accessories can be purchased. 3.3.1.2 Reuse Centers Reuse centers are located at eight of the County's recycling and transfer stations. The County contracts the management and operation of seven of these facilities, which include Kealakehe, Keauhou, Waimea, Wai'ohinu, Hilo, Pahoa, and Kea'au. Laupahoehoe is a volunteer -based facility. Materials accepted are as follows: • Furniture and furnishings.' • Working appliances (contingent on space availability). — • Office equipment (non -computer or -. electronics). • Toys and baby items.] • Recreational items. • Small kitchen appliances (e.g., electric coffee makers, toasters). • Garden/farm items. • Tools. Kea'au Recycling and Transfer Station: Reuse Center • Books, magazines, music and movie media (CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays, etc.). • Crafts and craft supplies. • School supplies. • Clothing and fabric. • Home construction and demolition materials (except for Kea'au, contingent on space availability). Items are available for free or sold at a modest price, and the revenue is used to partially fund operations and education outreach programs. Reusable latex paint is collected at Hilo, Kea'au, and Waimea reuse centers. The latex paint collected at the select reuse centers and during designated household waste collection events is sorted and available for purchase at a discount over the retail price of new paint. Upon written approval from the County's Contract Manager, the reuse center contractor may be allowed to collect latex paint at additional reuse centers. No oil-based paint may be collected at any reuse centers because it requires special handling. The reuse center contractor is also required to provide an area at the Kea'au and Hilo reuse centers to collect clean and dry reusable newspaper. The containers are covered to store the newspaper, which is made into high-quality shredded material that is aesthetically pleasing (e.g., packing material for island -grown flowers shipped off -island). The Contractor must ensure that the newspaper is being reused. 3-4 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 3-2 breaks down the tonnage of material recycled at reuse centers since FY 2009-10. The peak timeframe for participation was FY 2017-18, which is likely due to the increased availability of facilities (increased from one facility to eight facilities since FY 2009-10). Exhibit 3-2. Tonnage Diverted at Reuse Centers FY 2009-10 to FY 2016-18 Year East Hawaii (tons) West Hawaii (tons) Total (tons) 2009-10 172.6 71.5 244.1 2010-11 206.9 148.7 355.6 2011-12 236.3 133.6 369.8 2012-13 241.0 145.3 386.3 2013-14 245.0 120.9 365.8 2014-15 275.2 69.8 345.0 2015-16 185.1 59.8 245.0 2016-17 182.2 58.6 240.8 2017-18 265.0 175.8 440.8 3.3.1.3 Reduction and Reuse Education The County has an education program that targets waste reduction and reuse. Its main education initiatives include: • Information and resources provided through the County's HawaiiZeroWaste.org website. • Newspaper, radio, and television advertising. • Brochures. • Community outreach (e.g., promotion of zero waste event planning and reuse centers on County's HawaiiZeroWaste.org website). • Community events. • Sporting events. • School programs (e.g., recycling site tours). • Business education (e.g., HawaiiZeroWaste.org). More information about these initiatives is provided in Chapter 5 Public Education and Information. 3.3.1.4 Solid Waste Demolition Diversion Plan The County Department of Environmental Management (DEM) currently works with the County Department of Public Works (DPW) and County Planning Department to advise developers with large projects with alternative ways to dispose of demolition waste other than the landfill. The County DEM also routinely comments on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs) for development projects, advising the project proponents to consult with the DEM to determine the best way to dispose of demolition waste. The DEM's comments on NEPA environmental documentation often result in projects that are committed to alternative methods of handling demolition waste in lieu of landfilling. August 2020 3-5 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Common materials recycled through this program include roofing, steel posts, and gutters. Concrete rubble from foundations or other structures is usually reused as fill material and road subgrade once the rebar is removed. Asphalt, otherwise called "reclaimed asphalt pavement" is reused in asphalt pavement mixtures, road base course, or utility backfill. 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 E -Waste Producer "Take -Back" Program As of 2010, the State of Hawaii legislature enacted Act 13 to encourage recycling of electronics, and mandated manufacturers to establish, conduct and manage take -back recycling programs for "covered electronic devices" (CEDs). Act 13 was revised in 2011 to include "covered televisions" (CTVs) [herein referenced as e -waste]. The HDOH is responsible for implementing the program. County public awareness campaigns educate residents on a -waste programs and promote collection events. The County contracts for the collection of e -waste products, which are then shipped off island for proper disposal or treatment. See Chapter 6 Household Hazardous Waste and Electronic Waste for more information related to the a -waste take -back program. As described in Section 3.3.1.2, seven reuse centers throughout the County allow residents to drop off unwanted and still useful non -e -waste electronics such as small kitchen appliances for purchase at a nominal fee. 3.3.1.7 Product Bans Since the 2009 Plan, the County regulates the use of plastic bags and polystyrene foam food containers to reduce landfilling of these products and for gaining the overall environmental benefits. Hawaii Ordinance 121, as codified in Chapter 14 of the Hawaii County Code (HCC), bans businesses from providing plastic checkout bags to their customers and encourages use of environmentally preferable alternatives, such as reusable bags. This law went into effect in 2013. Pursuant to HCC 20-60, the County proposes to reduce the use of polystyrene foam food containers and food service ware by restaurants, supermarkets and other vendors, eliminate the use of polystyrene foam for packaging prepared and unprepared food, and in doing so promote the use of environmentally preferable alternatives. Under this reduction plan, outside purveyors are encouraged, and not required to use alternative packaging to polystyrene foam. On July 1, 2019, all food vendors and County facility users (i.e., concession contracts with the County, renters of County facilities) using disposal food service ware are required to use recyclable or compostable products. If not exempted and found out of compliance, a fine may be imposed by the County; the amount ranges from $10 to $600 depending on the circumstances. In preparation for the ban, the County established an education program for businesses, nonprofits, and the public regarding compostable alternatives to polystyrene foam. 3-6 August 2020 1019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 3.3.1.8 Private Reuse Programs In addition to the County reuse centers, there are several for-profit and nonprofit reuse facilities. For example, Habitat for Humanity Restores, located in Kona and Waimea in West Hawai'i and in Hilo in East Hawai'i, emphasizes reusable building materials, as well as products returned to local "big box" stores, such as Wal-Mart. Home building items accepted by Habitat for Humanity include lumber (greater than 4 feet long), kitchen and bathroom fixtures, doors, windows, concrete blocks and bricks, latex paint, large appliances, and light and fan fixtures. Re -use Hawaii, a local nonprofit deconstruction company, salvages building materials for reuse on other construction projects. Re -use Hawai'i opened their West Hawai'i location in 2018 in Kona. Their first job involved dismantling the Kona Village Resort, which was destroyed by a tsunami in 2011. Re -use Hawaii sells lumber and other building materials at their redistribution center at a discounted price if the materials have undergone a two-step quality control. The cost of the operation requires approximately 10 percent of its annual budget from outside sources with donations from local foundations and grants from the State. These funds supported the company's expansion from Oahu to West Hawaii (West Hawaii Today 2019). There are also a variety of other reuse businesses throughout the island — thrift shops and consignment stores, appliance stores, swap meets, and used book stores that sell used merchandise, such as furniture, rebuilt appliances, clothing, housewares, and books. Many local businesses also accept packing materials such as bubble wrap and foam peanuts. The DEM website, HawaiiZeroWaste.org, provides a listing of for-profit and nonprofit reuse centers throughout the island with store locations, contact phone numbers, and hyperlinks to reuse websites. 3.3.7 County of Hawaii Staffing Levels Successful delivery of local government waste reduction programs requires devoting an appropriate amount of resources including staffing. The 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. • Three FTE recycling specialists. The County recycling staff conducts most education and outreach activities. The County has a contract with a consultant to help develop and enhance the education and outreach programs, as described in greater detail in Chapter 5 Public Education and Information. Issues and Concerns As described above, several source reduction activities are conducted in the County, including programs and initiatives by the County as well as other organizations. 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 greater diversion. 3.5 Options for Improvement 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 August 2020 3-7 1019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii implemented in other jurisdictions that may be applicable and appropriate for the County. Note that the options focus on waste reduction and reuse; education, recycling, and composting programs are discussed in other chapters of this Plan update. County Source Reduction Practices The County has an opportunity to serve as a model for the entire island and demonstrate their commitment to waste diversion 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 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: • 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 reusable mugs, plates, and silverware and install dishwashers in County facilities where feasible. • Publish major accomplishments and progress of each department on the County website. 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 (EPA 2016b). Cost Considerations. Many County actions could be accomplished at little or no cost. The initial review of purchasing policies would require staff resources throughout many departments, but it is unlikely that additional staff would be required. Green building policies will increase the cost of construction somewhat; estimates on the extent of likely increases differ, and many jurisdictions have successfully implemented such policies. Purchasing policies can increase the cost of materials; however, the higher costs could be offset by efforts to eliminate certain products from the waste stream (plastic flatware) or by reduction efforts (paperless office). The net result would probably be a small percentage increase in costs for many County activities and material purchases. 3-8 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 3.5.? Business Waste Audits and Reduction Plans The County currently provides a dedicated page to businesses on their HawaiiZeroWaste.org website. Information on the dedicated business page includes guidance for the handling of hazardous materials and promotion of a business waste reduction plan for environmental benefits as well as savings in disposal costs. The web page also includes links to information from other websites including: the City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services "How to Conduct a Waste Audit" guide, Hawai'i Green Business Program at the Hawai'i State Energy Office (green business. hawaii.gov), the EPA (e.g., WasteWise Program, Procurement Guidelines), and Energy Star. The County would expand their business waste reduction program by teaming up with others (e.g., grassroots organizations such as Zero Waste Big Island and Recycle Hawaii) to conduct business waste audits, provide outreach, or develop an updated business recycling and reuse guide (the latest version is reported to have been produced by Recycle Hawaii in 2005). As part of the County's effort to work with local businesses to reduce waste, the County could conduct outreach to local businesses to: 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 website and publishing frequent articles and/or advertisements in the local newspaper and County newsletter. Teach environmentally sensitive lean manufacturing practices to reduce or eliminate non - reusable packaging, transport containers, and serviceware. This effort could target both organizational processes and retail practices. Advertise on the County's HawaiiZeroWaste.org website opportunities for material exchanges to foster business -to -business connections to match unwanted material byproducts or commodities for reuse or recycling as feedstock. Cost Considerations. The cost of this option would differ depending on the speed of implementation. County staffing levels would need to increase to implement and manage the program. 3.5.3 Construction and Demolition Diversion As described in Section 3.3.1.4, the County DEM currently works with the DPW and County Planning Department to assist developers with large projects in finding alternative ways of disposing demolition waste other than the landfill, and similarly advises large development proponents through the NEPA process. The County would expand the program to emphasize building deconstruction and support local initiatives for adaptive reuse of materials generated during deconstruction projects. Initiatives could include: • Require demolition projects to publicize in the local newspaper to solicit salvage of reusable items by deconstruction companies. • Include a dedicated page on the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website that emphasizes construction and demolition recycling and reuse. It could include "how-to" guidance on deconstruction and a listing of available deconstruction companies on the island. • Require contractors to separate reusable or recyclable construction and demolition debris from non -recyclable materials as a component of permit conditions. • Separate ceramic items, such as sinks and toilets from the waste stream, and utilize the crushed material in construction. • Construct a construction and demolition demonstration salvage yard in East Hawaii. August 2020 3-9 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Cost Considerations. The cost of this option would differ depending on the speed of implementation. At least initially, there would be some added cost to businesses to conduct audits and change existing material management methods. County staffing levels would need to increase to implement and manage the program. Chapter 9, Sections 9.7 and 9.8, discuss the option and recommendation to develop a Construction and Demolition landfill with a sorting and reuse area. 3.5.4 Visitor Inclustry Because tourism is one of the largest industries in the 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 to LED (light emitting diode) bulbs. • 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 Section 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. Cost Considerations. The cost of this option would differ depending on the speed of implementation. County staffing levels would need to increase to implement and manage the program. 3.5.5 Reuse Facilities As described in Section 3.3 Existing Conditions, the County currently contracts seven reuse centers, and one reuse facility is managed by volunteers, which is far greater than the number of facilities in operation at the time of the 2009 Plan. All reuse centers have been successful at diverting household products and, to a lesser extent, construction (demolition and deconstruction) materials from the landfills. The County has three options: • Expand and develop more reuse centers. • Improve programs at existing facilities. • Increase promotion of the many for-profit and nonprofit thrift stores throughout the County. The Reuse Center at Laupahoehoe is run by volunteers with assistance from the solid waste facility attendants from time to time to remove large items. The County has considered upgrading the volunteer facility at Laupahoehoe and contracting the management; however, the amount of overall waste diverted from the landfill is relatively low and resources are better used elsewhere. Instead of 3-10 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii investing in new facilities, the County is working with the contractor responsible for managing the existing facilities to improve operations as follows: • Develop and communicate to residents a list of the highest priority materials to maximize the type and quantity of materials that can be accepted. • Be selective about merchandise, emphasizing items that are lightly used, clean, and in good condition. • Improve signage. • Provide more covered space. • Improve organization and display of merchandise. The County could also work collaboratively with the volunteer -based Laupahoehoe site to increase participation, which has decreased since the initial enthusiasm around the program. If the acceptance of highest priority materials results in greater diversion, expanding the program to other recycling and transfer stations, or upgrading the Laupahoehoe Reuse Center could be considered. The County could increase their support of other thrift stores (for-profit and nonprofit) by providing an interactive map showing store locations and providing details on materials accepted on the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website or through other promotional efforts such as radio or other media. This support could focus on stores that divert construction demolition and deconstruction materials because this is a significant portion of the waste stream (estimated at 22.2 percent in 2008). Cost Considerations. The cost of expanding facilities would depend on the number of facilities constructed, site-specific design considerations, and the resources devoted to staffing and outreach at each facility. The cost of improving the functionality of existing facilities to increase waste diversion would be nominal. 3.5.6 Establish Pay -As -You -Throw System for Residential Discards Implementing a pay -as -you -throw (PAYT) system creates a financial incentive for residents and businesses to reduce their waste. As reported in the most recent EPA co-sponsored publication, PAYT systems, also known as variable rates programs or user pay, ask households to pay more if they put out more garbage for collection. According to the EPA, the most effective way for local governments to reduce residential solid waste, increase recycling, and decrease waste -related greenhouse gas emissions is by implementing PAYT programs (EPA 2016c). A 2017 study of 20 municipalities in the State of Maine concluded that communities with PAYT generated, on a per capita basis, 44.8 percent less trash than those without PAYT. In this same study it was estimated that communities with PAYT generated approximately 340 pounds of residential trash per capita of municipal solid waste (MSW) per year compared to non-PAYT communities that generated approximately 645 pounds (WasteZero 2015a). PAYT provides a powerful financial incentive for residents to reduce waste discards. A good example of a smaller jurisdiction in the State of Hawaii implementing a PAYT program is the County of Kauai. In 2014, the Kaua'i County Council passed PAYT Ordinance 975. The ordinance went into effect in July 2015. An important component of the program was the development of an implementation plan that was funded through the EPA Region 9 Solid Waste Management Assistance Grant (County of Kauai 2018a). In the County, this program could be implemented in multiple ways: • PAYT at County Recycling and Transfer Stations: Charge 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. August 2020 3-11 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii • Provide Universal Collection with PAYT Rates: Implement universal collection for households in densely populated areas and charge rural 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. Implement universal collection for households in densely populated areas and charge a base fee to all residents (including those who opt out of universal collection or rural populations that are outside the universal collection zones), while allowing drop-off of recyclable or compostable materials at recycling and transfer stations at no charge. Implement universal collection of garbage for all households in the County. Except for the universal collection program that would charge a base fee to all residents, the above options have the additional benefit of eliminating misuse of the recycling and transfer stations by non- residential generators. To successfully implement a PAYT program, it is advisable to develop a study or implementation plan to fully understand the system that would work best for the residents of the County. A discussion of each option follows. 3.5.6.1 PAYT at County Recycling and Transfer Stations PAYT could be implemented at County recycling and transfer stations by establishing rates either proportionally by volume or by weight, which would be charged for discarding materials at each station. Another option could be a flat rate. Option 1: Bag or Tag Proportional Pricing System 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 recycling and transfer stations, this system could be implemented using pre -purchased bags or 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, or tags that can be used for disposing of larger items. Additional bags or 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. Option 2- Variable Rate Three -Can System The County could consider charging residents based on the volume of cans (e.g., 12- ("micro can"], 20-, 32-, 64-, or 96 -gallon) they dispose of at their local recycling and transfer station. In this option, residents may haul their rubbish, green waste, and recyclables to their nearest recycling and transfer station. The onsite attendant would visually count the number, size, and type of cans. Variable rates would be enforced for the type of waste (green waste, rubbish, or recyclables) as well as the number and size of the cans. 3-12 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii This option would require: • Adequate space to allow for vehicle queuing at the recycling and transfer stations. • A small building or other structure for an attendant to use while monitoring incoming loads. • Collection of fees at the recycling and transfer stations. Option 3: Variable Rate Scale System The County could consider a PAYT system that is established by weight through the installation of scales at the County recycling and transfer stations. An inbound and outbound scale would have to be installed at the station. Because of the high initial costs of this option, scales could be installed at recycling and transfer stations that experience the highest traffic and disposal volumes. Residents would drive onto an inbound truck -mounted scale, dispose of their waste, drive onto an outbound scale, and pay the attendant for the per pound weight difference. This option would require: • Installation of an inbound and outbound scale. • Installation of a recording system. • Adequate space to allow for vehicle queuing at the recycling and transfer stations. • Collection of fees at the recycling and transfer stations. Option 4: Multi -tiered Pricing According to the EPA, multi -tiered pricing generates the greatest revenue for localities (EPA 2016c). Through this system, residents are required to pay a monthly fee for baseline solid waste service. The County may require residents to pay for every bag and/or cart they fill on top of this fee, or they may include up to two or three bags/cans per week into the baseline fee (Solid Waste Association of North America [SWANA] 2007). If residents exceed this amount, they will be required to pay a second tier for additional bags or containers they fill on top of this fee. Residents must then pay a second tier to dispose of extra waste, which may be based on volume (SWANA 2007). Recyclables and green waste could then be collected at a reduced fee or for no charge. Option 5: Automated Transfer Station Pay Station The County could install self-service electronic fee payment mechanisms at all recycling and transfer stations that charge a flat fee. The County could also consider installing a self-operating compactor as a component of the system, which would charge customers based on weight. For example, a gated customer -operated drop box is in operation in rural Skykomish, King County, WA, allows customers to drive up to an automated gate, make payment at a self-service kiosk, and then enter the gated area to dispose of their solid waste into two Automated Rural Drop Box Pay Station in Skykomish, WA soirce: King County (2018) top -loading drop boxes, each with two stalls. It does not have a self-operating compactor. Recycling facilities are also provided outside the gated area, allowing customers to drop off recyclables without paying a fee. The waste ultimately ends up being transported to a transfer station 50 miles away for August 2020 3-13 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii eventual disposal at the regional landfill. Because of its remote location, cameras are used to monitor activities, and staff make regular visits for maintenance. King County's Solid Waste Division has formed a partnership with the Road Services Division in which staff working at the adjacent road services facility regularly monitor the site. Some of the challenges related to the Skykomish self-operating system includes illegal dumping (including in the recycling bins), little to no control of materials that require special handling (e.g., hazardous waste), exceedances of load limits, unwanted visitors (e.g., black bear, people scavenging during afterhours), loss of revenue, and maintenance of bins for proper weight distribution. However, the advantages of the Skykomish rural drop box includes rubbish collection for an underserved community, the availability of recycling, opportunities to educate customers, and the partnership with the Road Services Division. In the County, potential complications of such a system could include: • Upfront cost of fee payment technology and compactors at recycling and transfer stations lacking these facilities. • Upgrades to existing compacting systems for use by the public. • Maintenance of fee -payment systems and security cameras. • Administrative costs (although this would be realized in varying degrees with any PAYT program). • Potential safety issues (people operating compactors). • Potential for illegal dumping. • If unstaffed, issues with weight distribution in drop box. However, the introduction of such a system would have the advantage of less reliance on the general fund, and the potential reduction in recycling and transfer station staffing. C0nCIUsior, It is possible that not all recycling and transfer stations would have the physical space to accommodate the infrastructure needs for a PAYT system — some stations may need to be closed, relocated, or substantially modified to implement this program. There is the potential to consolidate "wastesheds" to fewer facilities (i.e., closing some and enhancing others based on usage and/or distances from population centers to the facilities). Chapter 8, Section 8.7.6, identifies potential recycling and transfer stations for optional closure. Implementation of these options would require an aggressive public education and information campaign to ensure that residents understand the rationale for implementing the PAYT program. Cost Considerations. Estimating the initial infrastructure costs for this option would require conceptual designs at each of the County's 22 recycling and transfer stations. The infrastructure cost could vary considerably depending on site-specific conditions and the extent to which modifications are feasible at each station. The County would need to modify its financial systems to account for the new revenue source. 3.5.6.2 Universal Collection with PAYT Rates While not unprecedented, the County's current system of solely 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 to provide universal garbage, recycling, and 3-14 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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 Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i "Konno decision" affirmed the rights of the United Public Workers (UPW) union to perform work that "customarily and historically" had been performed by government workers. However, subsequent to that ruling, the Hawai'i 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 if this is 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 (e.g., one can per week). Like PAYT at County recycling and transfer stations, implementation of this option would require an aggressive public education and information campaign to ensure residents understand the rationale for implementing the PAYT program. Significant upfront planning would be required. The County would need to establish billing systems and 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. Cost Considerations. The County of Kauai PAYT variable rates are $10 per month for a 64 -gallon cart and $18 per month for a 96 -gallon cart. Service is once per week. Everyone pays a $6 base fee whether they have County -provided collection service or opt out and only use the County -operated recycling and transfer stations. They provide a 50 percent cost reduction for low-income households, both on the base fee and the rubbish collection fee. 3.5.7 Expanded Home Composting Program Since the 2009 Plan, the County has decreased emphasis on a public campaign around home composting, which formerly entailed educational workshops and distribution of backyard composting units. The County's home composting promotion is now primarily emphasized on the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website, which includes links to EPA guidance and other resources on backyard composting, and locations on the island where worm bins, worms, and accessories can be purchased. The program could rekindle a more aggressive promotion campaign and a target penetration rate of at least 25 percent of single-family households within 5 years. Cost Considerations. The County would have to consider the cost for purchase, storage, and delivery of each unit. 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. 3.5.8 Expanded RPijsahle Bag Program 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 expand August 2020 3-15 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii its outreach to encourage participating grocery stores to increase the financial discount for using reusable bags. Cost Considerations. This option would require additional staff time and funding for additional materials. 3.5.9 Expand Source Reduction Education A key to successful reuse programs is the education of the staff (government, private for-profit, and nonprofit) who operate the facilities within the program. Once staff have been trained on program basics, 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. Chapter 5 Public Education and Information includes a series of proposed enhancements to the County's education and promotion programs. n 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. When considering the life cycle of a product, manufacturers should take into consideration the environmental footprint of a product, from its beginning to end of life. Through EPR, the responsibilities and life cycle costs of their products and packaging shift from municipalities towards manufacturers. For instance, through EPR, producers analyze the natural resource, energy, packaging, and transportation - associated costs and impacts of their products (MacKerron 2012). In 2012, 32 states enacted greater than 70 producer responsibility laws, including products such as batteries, telephones, paint, pesticide containers, carpet, and fluorescent lamps. However, none of these programs took into consideration product packaging (MacKerron 2012). Around the globe, British Columbia mandated a fully funded EPR paper and plastic packaging program by manufacturers in 2014 (Resource Recycling Inc. 2016); after 1 year, the province reported a 77 percent recovery rate. In Europe, since the European Union's adoption of EPR in 1994, 25 member states have enacted national packaging policies and achieved a 65 percent recycling rate in 2012 (EUROPEN 2018). 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 taking physical and/or financial responsibility for their products and packaging through reuse, repair, or recycling. • 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. 3-16 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii EPR framework policy and legislation can be drawn from successful programs implemented in California, Oregon, Washington, and Minnesota, as well as other areas of the world including Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany. Cost Considerations. To implement this option, the County would need to invest some ongoing staff time and potential consulting assistance for research, policy analysis, and drafting legislation. The price of some products affected by EPR programs could increase depending on implementation. 3.5.11 Create a Zero Waste Fund To encourage local innovation and participation, the County would fund community zero waste initiatives with fees levied on landfill disposal. The County could leverage private sector investments by adopting supportive policies and by providing technical assistance, matching funds, and letters of support for independent financing and/or grants. The more that nonprofits and private companies invest in expansion of reuse, recycling, and composting programs, the less the County 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. For example, in Boulder, Colorado, the Boulder County Resource Conservation Division distributes $50,000 annually as part of its Zero Waste Funding Program. Since 1997, they have awarded over one million dollars for education and infrastructure initiatives to businesses, residents, and governments. Cost Considerations. The cost of this option would depend on the extent to which the County elects to fund this program. Some added staff time would be necessary to develop and administer the program. 3.5.12 Public -Private Partnerships with Cnmmunity-Based Organizations A survey of the reuse industry (e.g., Goodwill Industries, Habitat for Humanity) on the island would be beneficial. Other nonprofits or businesses may be 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. They are potentially available to take on repairing and refurbishing as well as dismantling of discarded items into recyclable commodities. Cost Considerations. Some added staff time would be necessary to develop and administer the program. Recorn mendations, Based on the analysis presented above, and discussions with the SWAC, the Plan recommends the following to improve the source reduction program: 1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to reduce the source of waste currently entering landfills, including: Develop a County ordinance that requires a waste reduction plan be submitted to obtain a commercial building permit. Coordinate implementation with the County Planning Department. Work with other counties to 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, August 2020 3-17 1019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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. Investigate 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 the SWAC about its advantages and disadvantages, this Plan update recommends conducting a feasibility study regarding the implementation of a PAYT program or other funding method. The feasibility study of a PAYT program or other funding method would include the following components: Suite of funding mechanisms and logistics for implementing programs (i.e., capital improvements, administration, self -haul versus collection, or a combination of the two). Education and public outreach campaign (including retail businesses) that would be necessary for the implementation. Pilot program that would be at no cost to the public to introduce the program and identify ways in which the program can be implemented most effectively. Training for County staff to implement the program. "Phasing -in" of the program, which would span over several years. Prevention of illegal dumping. Plan for monitoring and evaluation of program results and participation. Note: Chapter 81 Section 8.8 (Recommendation 1) discusses the continued operation and maintenance of recycling and transfer stations until a decision on the best method of collection and transfer is determined, and to also explore alternative funding mechanisms via a feasibility study. Chapter 10, Section 10.6 (Recommendation 1) discusses a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis. 3. Improve the current reuse facility 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 improving the current reuse program include the following: Work with contractors managing reuse centers to create a list of preferable donations to distribute to customers. Work with the contractor managing the reuse centers to be more selective about merchandise, emphasizing items that are lightly used, clean, and in good condition. Improve signage, organization, and display of merchandise. Provide more covered space at reuse centers. Collaborate with the volunteer -based Laupahoehoe Reuse Center to increase participation of volunteers. Continue public-private partnerships with organizations such as Goodwill Industries to develop reuse centers at existing outlets within the County. Consider expanding the program to other recycling and transfer stations and/or upgrade the Laupahoehoe Reuse Center. 3-18 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii If improvements to the existing reuse facility program results in greater diversion, expanding the program to other recycling and transfer stations or upgrading the Laupahoehoe Reuse Center could be considered. 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. Continue reuse education, outreach, and public awareness campaign to encourage public participation and use of the reuse centers. August 2020 3-19 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 4. RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS Introduction Recycling and bioconversion involve reprocessing materials that would have been disposed as solid waste into new and marketable products. Common recycled materials include beverage containers, paper products, and scrap metal. 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 chapter describes existing recycling and bioconversion activities within the County, identifies issues and concerns with respect to current recycling and bioconversion practices, and presents options for achieving the County's recycling and bioconversion goals. Background As discussed in Chapter 3, the State of Hawaii prioritizes solid waste management practices and processing methods for each county according to Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 342G-2 (HRS 342G-2). This chapter covers the State's second priority — recycling and bioconversion (including composting). Furthermore, HRS 342G-3 established a 25 percent waste diversion goal by 1995, and a 50 percent goal by 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and bioconversion. Landfill Diversion Goals: State of Hawaii and County of Hawai'i 90% 80% o 70% 60%0 County Waste Reduction 0 50%Goal +• 40°,6 30% ■ State Waste Diversion a 20% Goal 10% 0% 1995 2000 2008 2013 Year Recycling and bioconversion practices were first detailed in the original Integrated Solid Waste Management plan created for the County in 1993 and in subsequent updated plans. In 2003, the County 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 further enhanced solid waste practices and concepts by adopting Resolution 356-07, a zero waste philosophy toward solid waste management. In 2008, the County passed Resolution 766-08 urging the state to enact legislation to shift costs and responsibilities for waste management from local governments to manufacturers of products and create incentives for product redesign. In 2008, the County contracted with Recycle Hawaii to conduct a zero waste implementation plan (Recycle Hawaii 2009). The Zero Waste Implementation Plan was completed in March 2009. The Zero Waste Implementation Plan evaluates resource management options including reuse, recycling, composting, and special discards management, among others, that may help the County achieve its waste reduction goals. The Zero Waste Implementation Plan includes input from 12 stakeholder meetings and a Zero Waste Conference. These were held in September 2008 at multiple locations in the County to present zero August 2020 4-1 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii waste concepts, and receive input from local residents and business owners about ways to turn currently discarded materials into resources. The plan received input from over 300 participants. The recommendations of the Zero Waste Implementation Plan have been incorporated into this Plan update, where applicable, based on consensus of the SWAC, and Solid Waste Division (SWD) staff. Greater detail regarding the Zero Waste philosophy and the implementation plan is provided in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2. 4.2.2 Review of 2009 Plan Exhibit 4-1 provides a summary of the recommendations from the 2009 Plan relative to recycling, bioconversion, and marketing, and describes the actions taken to achieve each recommendation. Exhibit 4-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets 2009 Plan Recommendation Status Recycling Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to improve recycling rates. Establish a differential tip fee ordinance Establish an ordinance that mandates source separation and recycling. Develop legislation requiring multi -family dwellings and multi -tenant commercial buildings to have recycling services. Change County procurement policies to require the use of recycled materials. Work with County and state legislators and encourage other communities in the region [Hawaiian counties] to adopt zero waste goals and plans. Coordinate with legislators and waste managers from other counties to develop a statewide zero waste strategy. Lobby the State of Hawai'i to change school waste collection contracts to mandate that recycling services are included. Complete capital projects to facilitate implementation of expanded recycling programs. Expand recycling opportunities at recycling and transfer stations. In 2016, via Resolution 709-16, the County Council requested the Departments of Environmental Management and Research and Development initiate a feasibility impact study related to extended producer responsibility and incentives. The request was not implemented due to staffing and financial constraints. In 2005, Ordinance 05-27 adopted a 25 percent of the landfill disposal fee for green waste and acceptable organics [green waste must be separated from other solid waste to qualify for the discounted disposal fee]. This was formerly codified in 2015 as HCC 20-49(a)(2)(B) and implemented on July 1, 2015. Difficult to achieve a balanced community -supported outcome in advancing this recommendation. Difficult to achieve a balanced community -supported outcome in advancing this recommendation. Difficult to achieve a balanced community -supported outcome in advancing this recommendation. Informal discussions have occurred. Staff time was not allotted to this recommendation. Informal discussions with the State have occurred. Did not implement due to funding constraints. Did not implement due to funding constraints. 4-2 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 4-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations (continued) 2009 Plan Recommendation Status Improve signage at recycling and transfer The FY 2018-19 Recycling Program Educational Outreach stations. Consultant Scope of Services includes the redesign of new signage Improve education and outreach programs that at recycling and transfer stations. The signs were installed at the promote improved management of organics. recycling and transfer stations. Reconfigure the East Hawaii Regional Sort Changed goals and direction. County will use the existing facility Station Reload Facility for use as a material as a transfer station with limited separation. recovery facility. Construct a new material recovery (bailing and The County no longer plans to develop a material recovery facility storage) facility for West Hawaii. in West Hawaii. Allow small businesses to use the recycling and Did not implement. Implementation would require funding and an transfer stations to recycle select materials. ordinance to amend County code. Modify the operating permits of the recycling Current operating permits allow more materials to be recycled and transfer stations to accommodate when and if funding becomes available. expanded recycling services. Did not implement. Hire one full-time staff member to serve as a No funding available for this position. commercial recycling specialist. Expand business education and outreach No funds allocated for this project except to provide information programs. on the website. Expand opportunities to recycle in public areas The SWD offers recycling bins for events. and during public events. Install recycling bins in parks and other public The County has installed recycling bins in some parks and public areas. areas; however, most have been damaged or removed, and many of the recyclables are diverted by individuals seeking income through recycling (e.g., HI -5 program). Conduct additional recycling events within the Did not implement, limited staff. County has reduced the type of community each year. materials accepted due to market constraints (e.g., certain plastics). Implement and expand the Recycling Art In FY 2015, the County canceled procurement of the Recycling campaign in public schools. Education and Outreach Services contract. The previous contract with the Recycling Education and Outreach vendor expired in 2014-06-30. Bioconversion Promote both large- and small-scale private The County is in the process of acquiring a site for a privately organics composting operations. managed County facility. Improve education and outreach programs that Organics education included in original Request for Proposal (RFP) promote improved management of organics. 3298 and in the original contract. Current lack of funding for business organics management. Hire one full-time staff member to serve as the Did not implement. organics program coordinator. Expand and further develop a master The County is developing a Master Recycler program, which composter program. includes composting in its curriculum. Develop a training program and guidance Did not implement. materials for farmers. Implement a "stop wasting food" program with Did not implement. local food banks. Partner with other local groups to establish Did not implement. compost demonstration gardens. August 2020 4-3 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 2009 Plan Recommendation Status Initiate an onsite composting program for residents and businesses by distributing subsidized units to both residences and businesses. Conduct a study to evaluate the potential for implementation of a landfill ban on organics. Implement added organics management facilities and equipment. Add green waste drop-off locations at recycling and transfer stations. Process green waste at select recycling and transfer stations. Develop an organics composting facility at the West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill or other sites. Investigate opportunities for pilot food waste demonstration projects. Marketing Enhance local markets for recyclable materials Existing Condition Earth Machine Composters and Backyard Composting Workshops were provided under the Recycling Education contract, which has since been discontinued. Did not implement. Did not implement. Facilities were added to the Pahoa, Volcano, Ke'ei, and Waimea Transfer Stations. Did not implement. The County has been actively engaged in planning for a composting facility. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was developed for a proposed site at a former rock quarry adjacent to the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill, and was withdrawn from consideration due to concerns over the location and the potential impacts to the local community. An EA was then completed for a compost facility on 40 acres in the Shipman Industrial Park in Kea'au, and land procurement for 20 of the 40 acres is currently being negotiated. Design work is currently being completed for the facility and the composting facility is slated for operation during the early part of the 10 -year implementation period. Did not implement. The County encourages state or on -island reuse and end- markets for recycled materials. Currently, green waste, 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 decreased from approximately 36.1 percent in FY 2009-10 to 20.8 percent in FY 2017-18. Exhibit 4-2 provides yearly data of waste generation, recycling, and disposal activities. The FY 2016-17 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 green waste and metal recycling, at 63.3 percent and 14.2 percent, respectively. Although the FY 2017-18 current diversion rate is 20.8 percent, there is likely a significant amount of recycling being conducted independently by private businesses that is 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 status of recycling, bioconversion, and marketing efforts in the County of Hawaii is described below. As described in Chapter 2, scrap metal recycling facilities contracted with the County were required to clear -out their stockpiles prior to permit expiration. With the facilities no longer in operation, the County limited the scrap metal they would accept and diverted scrap metal to the private sector—thus, there is a marked decrease in subsidized scrap metal after FY 2012-13. Therefore, although 4-4 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i the recycling and diversion rates appear to have decreased, this number is skewed since most scrap metal recycling was diverted to the private sector starting in 2013. Exhibit 4-2. Historical Generation, Recycling/Diversion, and Disposal and Source: County of Hawaii DEM. Note: The table does not account for non -County -sponsored (private) recycling or diversions. These could include "big -box" stores (e.g., Costco, Walmart) that ship combined bales of cardboard and plastic to either the West Coast to third -party brokers or to the retailer's distribution center. Contractors or nonprofit groups also sell recycled materials directly to brokers on the mainland. 4.3.1 County of Hawaii/Stag of programs The 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, metal cans, glass, and redeemable beverage containers through the State of Hawai'i Beverage Container Deposit Program. Mixed recyciables and glass are placed in separate bins through the 2 -bin program. The County has also implemented the following measures: • Maintains a limited number of recycling bins in some parks and public areas; however, most have been damaged or removed. Provides technical assistance and bins to event coordinators looking to recycle at major events. • Manages programs and facilities for green waste and composting. To encourage recycling and bioconversion activities, the County provides public education and awareness programs for residents. These education programs are discussed in Chapter 5 Public Education and Information. Recycling also encompasses proper diversion of household hazardous wastes, household appliances, and electronics; these programs are discussed in Chapter 6 Household Hazardous Waste and Electronic Waste. Special Wastes, which require special handling or processing, are discussed in Chapter 7. August 2020 4.5 Estimated Diversion Rate, County of Hawaii Tons Year Generation Recycling Disposal Diversion Rate FY 2009-10 243,719 88,037 155,682 36.1% FY 2010-11 234,308 67,854 166,454 29.0% FY 2011-12 243,457 90,508 152,949 37.2% FY 2012-13 235,483 79,029 156,455 33.6% FY 2013-14 221,915 55,025 166,890 24.8% FY 2014-15 239,052 60,028 179,024 25.1% FY 2015-16 246,679 57,921 188,758 23.5% FY 2016-17 259,472 64,309 195,162 24.8% FY 2017-18 283,021 58,8251 224,196 20.8% Percent Change FY 00-09 — FY 07-18 Total 13.3% 1.6% 44.0% -48.0% Average Annual 1.7% 2.5% 4.60,6 -6.4°% Source: County of Hawaii DEM. Note: The table does not account for non -County -sponsored (private) recycling or diversions. These could include "big -box" stores (e.g., Costco, Walmart) that ship combined bales of cardboard and plastic to either the West Coast to third -party brokers or to the retailer's distribution center. Contractors or nonprofit groups also sell recycled materials directly to brokers on the mainland. 4.3.1 County of Hawaii/Stag of programs The 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, metal cans, glass, and redeemable beverage containers through the State of Hawai'i Beverage Container Deposit Program. Mixed recyciables and glass are placed in separate bins through the 2 -bin program. The County has also implemented the following measures: • Maintains a limited number of recycling bins in some parks and public areas; however, most have been damaged or removed. Provides technical assistance and bins to event coordinators looking to recycle at major events. • Manages programs and facilities for green waste and composting. To encourage recycling and bioconversion activities, the County provides public education and awareness programs for residents. These education programs are discussed in Chapter 5 Public Education and Information. Recycling also encompasses proper diversion of household hazardous wastes, household appliances, and electronics; these programs are discussed in Chapter 6 Household Hazardous Waste and Electronic Waste. Special Wastes, which require special handling or processing, are discussed in Chapter 7. August 2020 4.5 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 4.3.1.1 County Recycling and Transfer Stations The County operates 22 recycling and transfer stations for residents to drop off garbage and at 18 of those stations, residents can drop off recyclables. The Ocean View Recycling and Transfer Station, located in West Hawaii, is the most recent addition, and accepts HI -5 containers; however, it does not accept 2 -bin recyclables. Most of the recycling and transfer stations have a 2 -bin recycling area. One bin is for corrugated cardboard and brown paper bags, and the other bin is for container glass (non HI -5 such as wine and liquor bottles). Several of the recycling and transfer stations also accept metal cans (food type) with the scrap metal, and a few collect newspaper. Some of these recycling and transfer stations also serve as collection points for other types of recyclable materials. ,r Exhibit 4-3 lists the recycling and transfer stations and the materials accepted at each location. 16 EXIT The County has expanded recycling activities at recycling and transfer stations by expanding recycling and reuse 101* Mahalo centers (RRCs) at various recycling and transfer stations. for The Kea'au Recycling and Transfer Station, was the first +* " to be developed into a full-time recycling and reuse .� Recyclirt�. '•'`'* center. These centers have been developed at the Hilo, Kealakehe, Pahoa, Waimea, Laupahoehoe, Keauhou, and Wai'6hinu recycling and transfer stations. Exhibit 4-3. County of Hawaii Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations iv :� Ln o W o M °' 3 a ,n u X a C d 41 Recycling and Transfer Station In f0 cu v LA '= 3 L d c Ln W W _ CC v East Hawaii East Hawaii Organics Facility (EHOF)b — — — — — X Glenwood X X X — — — — — Hiloa X X X X X — X X Honoka'a X X X X X — — X Honomu X X X — — — — — Kalapana X Kea'aua X X X X X X X X Laupahoehoe X X X X X — X — Pa`auilo X X X — — — — — Pahala X X X X X — — — Pahoa X X X X X X X — Papa'ikou X X X — — — — — Volcano X X X X X X — X West Hawaii Ka'auhuhu (Hawi) X X X X — — — X Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona)a X X X X X X x X Keauhou X X X — — — X X 4-6 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Exhibit 4-3. County of Hawaii Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations (continued) 'Hilo, Kea'au, and Kealakehe recycling and transfer stations contain separate bins for newspaper and cardboard. b Green waste recycling only. 4.3.1.2 HI -5 Beverage Container Deposit Program The State of Hawaii enacted a new Beverage Container Deposit Program in late 2004. Otherwise known as the "Bottle Bill," a 5C redeemable deposit is placed on each beverage container, as defined under the law. Consumers may then return the container to redeem their 5C at any redemption center. Other details of the program include the following: • A 1C non-refundable container fee is assessed for program administration. • Redeemable containers are marked with a "Hl5C" or "Hawai'i 5C" 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). In 2009, the HI -5 program's state redemption rate reached a high of approximately 79 percent representing 705 million containers. In FY 2015, the County had about a 68 percent redemption rate representing 647 million recycled beverage containers (HDOH 2015). In FY 2017, the County's estimated HI -5 redemption rate reached approximately 87 percent representing approximately 117 million containers, down from about 89 percent the previous year (County of Hawaii DEM 2017a).5 5 The redemption rate is estimated using data from HDOH on the number of deposit containers redeemed divided by the number of containers sold on the Big Island during FY 2017 based on the de facto population. August 2020 4-7 N M 4; ate+ ar l7 3 C u a x s ar LA c Recycling and Transfer Station M Ke'ei X x X X X — — — Miloli'i x — — — — — — — Puak6 x x x x x — — x Ocean View x — — — — — — x Waiea x x x — — x — — Waimea x x x x x x x x Wai'ohinu x x x x x — x x West Hawai'i Organics Facility (WHOF)b — — — — — x — — 'Hilo, Kea'au, and Kealakehe recycling and transfer stations contain separate bins for newspaper and cardboard. b Green waste recycling only. 4.3.1.2 HI -5 Beverage Container Deposit Program The State of Hawaii enacted a new Beverage Container Deposit Program in late 2004. Otherwise known as the "Bottle Bill," a 5C redeemable deposit is placed on each beverage container, as defined under the law. Consumers may then return the container to redeem their 5C at any redemption center. Other details of the program include the following: • A 1C non-refundable container fee is assessed for program administration. • Redeemable containers are marked with a "Hl5C" or "Hawai'i 5C" 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). In 2009, the HI -5 program's state redemption rate reached a high of approximately 79 percent representing 705 million containers. In FY 2015, the County had about a 68 percent redemption rate representing 647 million recycled beverage containers (HDOH 2015). In FY 2017, the County's estimated HI -5 redemption rate reached approximately 87 percent representing approximately 117 million containers, down from about 89 percent the previous year (County of Hawaii DEM 2017a).5 5 The redemption rate is estimated using data from HDOH on the number of deposit containers redeemed divided by the number of containers sold on the Big Island during FY 2017 based on the de facto population. August 2020 4-7 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii The 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, the County loans out recycling bins for collection of HI -5 beverage containers to organizers of any public event. The recycling bins consist of an easy -to -transport, lightweight steel frame that uses a clear bag to hold HI -5 beverages. The County -supplied recycling containers are secured by reservation and availability is on a first-come, first-served basis. 4.3.1.3 Redemption Centers Since June 2015, CRCs were opened to the public in the State of Hawaii. In 2019, the County had about 20 CRCs in operation throughout the island. Segregated rates allow consumers an efficient method of redeeming container refunds by weight (lb) instead of hand counting. Rates are set by the HDOH. However, consumers also have the option of redeeming their containers by hand count; CRCs must hand count hauls of 200 or less containers upon the request of the customer. Exhibit 4-4 illustrates the Office of Solid Waste Management's last update to segregated rates by material type. Exhibit 4-4. County of Hawaii Segregated Rates Material Type No. of Containers per Ib. Refund Amount per Ib. Aluminum 32 $1.60 Bi -metal 5.9 $0.295 Glass 2.4 $0.12 Plastic (17 fl. oz. or less) 26.3 $1.315 Plastic (mixed sizes) 18.8 $0.94 Sources: HDOH. 2015. Report to the twenty-eighth legislature State of Hawai'i : Annual report on solid waste management. 4.3.1.4 Green Waste Mulching and Drop-off Opportunities In 2008, the County passed a resolution for an ordinance that prohibits paper and compostable organics from the County Landfills by 2012 (Council Resolution No. 826-08). Thus, in 2016, the County contracted with a private contractor to construct two mulch operation sites: East Hawai'i Organics Facility (EHOF) in Hilo and West Hawaii Organics Facility (WHOF). During FY 2016-17, a Notice to Proceed was approved for the construction of these facilities through a private contractor, and they are now fully operational. EHOF is located on Ho'olaulima Road, which also leads to the East Hawaii landfill and other County - operated solid waste management facilities. WHOF is located in Pu'uanahulu, adjacent to the West Hawaii landfill. Residential customers may self -haul their organics to green waste bins at County recycling and transfer stations (see Exhibit 4-3 for County -managed green waste recycling locations) free of charge. Residential self -haul is restricted to 5 cubic yards or less and under 20,000 gross vehicle weight (GVW) with a maximum of one load per day. For loads greater than 20,000 GVW or that surpass 5 cubic yards, customers are routed to either the EHOF or WHOF. These facilities accept yard waste and untreated wood pallets. Commercial entities, including landscapers and haulers, businesses, and government agencies are required to dispose of their green waste at the EHOF or WHOF (County of Hawai'i DEM 2018a). These entities are charged a per ton disposal fee to offset expenses associated with green waste handling and management, and must have a Solid Waste Facility Disposal Permit with an annual renewal fee. The business fee is 25 percent of the MSW tipping fee at County -operated landfills. 4-8 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Pian Update County of Hawai'i A minimum volume of mulch is available to residents for no charge, contingent upon availability. For residential and commercial convenience, a mulch pickup area was added to the Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Station, in addition to mulch pick up at EHOF and at WHOF. Mulch must undergo the enhancement process before being available for public use. This consists of a minimum of 15 -day processing of mulch, wherein it undergoes a minimum of five rotations held at a temperature of 131 degrees Fahrenheit to eliminate potential invasive species or other unwanted organisms (County of Hawaii DEM 2018a). The green waste program diverts green yard waste and untreated wood pallet material from the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill (WHSL), and up until the end of 2019, the East Hawaii Organics Facility (EHOF) South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL). In FY 2017-18, green waste comprised approximately 73 percent of all waste diverted from the landfills for approximately 38,000 tons (County of Hawaii DEM 2018b). 4.3.1.5 Scrap Metal Scrap metal is often the bulkiest and heaviest material collected at municipal recycling and transfer stations. Recycling scrap metal reduces tipping fees, conserves landfill space, and conserves natural resources by replacing the need for virgin raw materials to produce new metal goods. Residents may haul their scrap metal (ferrous and non-ferrous) to various County -operated recycling and transfer stations (see Exhibit 4-3). No commercial, government agency, or nonprofit may use these facilities to manage their scrap (Section 4.3.2.4 describes privately owned and operated facilities that accept non-residential scrap). No automobiles, auto/boat/motor parts (including but not limited to engines, motors, transmissions, or other metals with fluids), propane/oxygen/acetylene tanks, or other compressed gas cylinders are accepted at recycling and transfer stations. The scrap metal is sorted by a HDOH-approved contractor and sold to brokers for shipment in domestic and international markets. To assist with the removal of abandoned vehicles, the County operates an Abandoned Vehicle Remova Program. Under this program, abandoned vehicles may be hauled by a contractor to the Hilo or Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Station after certain procedures have been followed by the Hawaii County Police Department (HCPD) and DEM. Section 7.2.10 provides more detail regarding the abandoned vehicle program. In July 2007, the Hawaii State Legislature enacted Act 197, which establishes new rules for scrap dealers and redeemers to deter copper theft, a class C felony. The Act requires dealers to obtain a written statement certifying the seller has the lawful right to sell the copper, and the seller must be 18 years or older with valid identification. Paperwork received by the seller from the recycler must be notarized before payment is issued. The County does not buy back copper. Section 4.3.2.4 describes private sector copper recycling and redemption. 4.3.1.6 Tire Program According to the State of Hawai'i, over 1 million new motor vehicle tires are brought into Hawaii each year with the majority being used to replace used tires and the remainder arriving on new vehicles August 2020 4-9 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii (HDOH 2017). County Ordinance No. 07-182 (as codified in HCC 20-46) prohibits the disposal of tires that are whole, cut, sliced, chipped, or shredded at any landfill and all island -wide recycling and transfer stations. The County does not collect any tires at any recycling and transfer station or landfill. It is illegal to drop off tires at any County facility. When consumers purchase a new tire, under HRS 3421-22, they are also charged for its proper end -of -life disposal. Thus, tire companies are required to accept and properly dispose of used tires from their customers. Currently, used tires generated in the County are shipped to Oahu for processing, either at H -Power or AES Hawai'i, Inc. When left outside in the elements, old tires collect water and serve as breeding grounds for mosquitos that carry various infectious diseases. In FY 2015-16, during the Dengue fever outbreak, the County collected over 50,000 tires. Both County code and state statute are instrumental in the proper disposal of old tires upon point of purchase. 4.3.1.7 Fats, Oils, and Grease Program FOGS are accepted at the WHSL subject to a special handling fee. Restricted items include petroleum- based oil, coolants, refrigerants, liquid paints and stains, and process water. Currently, FOGS are accepted at various businesses listed on the County's website on the green waste and motor oil web pages. Residents can take limited quantities of household cooking oil to Pacific Biodiesel Logistics or treat FOG waste at home, through solidification via absorbent materials such as kitty litter or newspaper. Once solidified, this waste may be disposed of in the trash. Resources are also provided on the County's web page on how residents may convert their used oil into biodiesel. 4.3.2 Private Sector Programs Many businesses in the private sector develop in-house recycling programs. These programs are often not tracked by the County and 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. The County plans to request data from the private sector to better understand the actual recycling numbers on the island. 4.3.2.1 Curbside Collection of Recyclables Businesses 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 the County; however, several companies offer collection of recyclables in limited areas of the County for both business and residential customers. In addition to trash service, a few haulers are also providing recycling collection service to their customers. 4.3.2.2 Large Retail Business Recycling Large retailers, such as Walmart, Kmart, Costco, Home Depot, and others, maintain in-house recycling programs at their stores. Cardboard and plastic (plastic bags and shrink wrap) constitute most 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 20 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. 4-10 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Data provided during interviews conducted with many of the retailers indicate 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 Green Waste Green waste facilities on the island are primarily County -operated. Residents may dispose of their organics at the six recycling and transfer stations that accept green waste if their volume is less than the load restriction (see Section 4.3.1.4) and at the two organic facilities (EHOF and WHOF). The County also promotes home "grasscycling" where grass clippings are used as fertilizer, along with backyard composting where small-scale organics are converted to soil or mulch at residents' properties. The County promotes home composting on their website. To manage larger volumes and to increase their diversion rate, a compost facility that can process food waste, wood pallets, paper, and compostable plastics is planned for operation during the early part of the 10 -year implementation period. In 2016, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture issued a permanent rule, pursuant to Hawaii Administrative Rule (HAR) 4-72-13, placing a quarantine on 6hi'a lehua (Metrosideros polymorphs) and prohibiting the transport of all 6hi'a-containing materials to prevent the spread of 6hi a -wilt disease, an infection caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fimbriato and leading to the mortality of ohi'a trees (Friday et al. 2015). Because contaminated soil, sawdust, and wood are transmitters of this fungus, transport of these materials is prohibited, unless under permit. Invasive species found in compost include little fire ants (LFAs) and Coqui frogs (County of Hawaii DEM 2018a). Thus, these organics must be treated under an enhancement process to restrict the spread of invasive species and other organisms. 4.3.2.4 Metals Recycling Businesses in the private sector with solid waste permits to collect and sort scrap metal at their facilities include Atlas Recycling, Business Services Hawaii, and Big Island Scrap Metal on both sides of the island; as well as Mr. K's Recycling and Redemption in Hilo. Atlas Recycling and Mr. K's Recycling and Redemption are licensed to buy back copper. The metal is sold to brokers for markets in domestic and international markets. 4.3.2.5 Tires Multiple haulers collect and bale tires and tire parts for shipment to the West Coast or Oahu for processing into ground and crumbed materials for use as fuel at the H -Power waste -to -energy (WTE) facility. One contractor repurposes tires to make concrete tire blocks used in decorative walls. The contractor is currently attempting to gain approval from the State of Hawaii to allow contractors to use the tire blocks as a component in structural walls. 4.3.3 Current Material Markets and Market Development Initiatives Only a small percentage of materials is processed and reused locally, and the cost of the County's recycling program is highly dependent on remote market prices for recycled materials in Asia. Therefore, Hawaii recyclers are susceptible to market fluctuations due to leaner profit margins originating from high shipping costs, and in recent years, the downward trend in recycling market prices. For example, in 2018, China's government implemented new restrictions on what type of recyclables may be imported into the country. China no longer imports low-grade plastics and unsorted paper. China also aims to increase the quality of recyclables entering China by requiring low contamination. Although the Asian market is in flux, the United States' recycling rate for polyethylene terephthalate (PET #1) plastic bottles August 2020 4-11 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i increased from approximately 28 percent in 2016 to about 29 percent in 2017. This indicates the demand is strong enough to continue recycling this product, which is mostly used in textiles and bottles. With these uncertainties, the County has had to reconsider its target market and list of recyclable materials according to Section 20-31, Chapter 20 of the HCC. On December 1, 2018, the County eliminated #5 plastics (e.g., yogurt containers, margarine tubs), plastic grocery bags, and clam -shell -type plastic (e.g., salad, bento boxes) in the mixed recyclable bins at the recycling and transfer stations. Maui County has also stopped collecting these materials in response to China's ban. Then in October of 2019, the County ceased collection of plastic in their recycling program. The global markets for plastics had all but collapsed. This did not affect the HI -5 beverage container program. In comparison, Honolulu diverts 74 percent of waste from landfilling at their H -Power WTE facility through incineration and energy recovery (HDOH 2015). During the development of the 2009 Plan, the County did not intend to pursue this form of diversion because they agreed with Chapter 342G, HRS's definition that incineration does not constitute a form of recycling and considered it too costly to implement. However, the County has not discounted the potential for some form of material recovery and treatment for future implementation (see Chapter 9). With the onset of limited recycling opportunities for plastics and mixed paper, the County will consider other opportunities for diversion that does not discount an alternative material recovery system. 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, use mulch and composted materials produced locally. Customers use compost and mulch for both residential and agricultural applications. It is likely that 100 percent of the materials produced through recycling of green waste can be handled locally. The County offers mulch free to residents at EHOF and WHOF as well as the Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Station in the mulch pickup area. A new business in East Hawai'i offers food waste collection service for composting. They also provide workshops for home composters. 4.3.3.2 Cooking Oil, Fats, Oils, and Grease FOGS are accepted at the WHSL for a fee. Restricted items include petroleum-based oil, coolants, refrigerants, liquid paints and stains, and process water. Currently, businesses can dispose of FOGs at various locations listed on the County's green waste and motor oil web pages. The County encourages residents to treat FOG waste at-home, through solidification via absorbent materials such as kitty litter or newspaper. Once solidified, this waste may be disposed of in the trash. Resources are also provided on the County's website on how residents may convert their used oil into biodiesel. 4.3.3.3 Paper Currently, much of the recycled paper and cardboard generated on the island is shipped to domestic and international markets 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 Some plastic containers (#1 and #2) are included in the HI -5 Redemption Program. As described in Chapter 3, the County has enacted a Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance, regulating plastic bag and 4-12 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i polystyrene plastic products to reduce the volume of this material and thereby decrease landfilling and pollution -associated costs. Number 1 and 2 plastics are baled and shipped to overseas markets. 4.3.3.5 Glass Glass is being reused in the County and shipped off island for recycling. On island uses have included crushing for use in local construction projects. Up to 10 percent of aggregate is replaced with crushed glass for "glasscrete." Other uses for crushed glass include landscaping, backfill, and drainage, among other things. Several smaller businesses in the County use recycled glass to produce artistic, architectural, or Pahoa Recycling and Transfer Station educational products; however, 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 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, and require development of infrastructure, equipment, and/or facilities to accommodate the manufacture of these materials. The HDOH administers a state-wide glass recovery program funded by an advance disposal fee (ADF). The department collects a 1.5 cent fee per non -deposit container glass from those who manufacture or import glass containers (excluding deposit beverage containers). Those who import or manufacture fewer than 5,000 non -deposit beverage glass containers within a 1 -year period are exempt from payment of the 1.5 cent fee; however, are still required to register with HDOH. Exclusions from the program include tempered glass containers, including drinking glasses, cups, bowls, plates, and ashtrays; and/or glass containers holding less than 2.5 ounces intended for human consumption. 4.3.3.6 Metals There are limited facilities in the County for processing scrap metal. The Kealakehe Metal Salvage Facility closed in 2016 due to onsite lead soil contamination. The bulk of the scrap metal generated in the County is shipped either to Oahu for processing and subsequent shipment to the mainland, or directly to Asian markets. In the past half -decade, the price of scrap metal experienced a downturn (Lasky 2018), primarily because the high cost of shipping to distant markets has affected its value. While the scrap metal market is expected to increase in the following years (World Steel Association 2017), this market remains highly variable and subject to fluctuations. In addition to shipping costs, factors such as tariffs and product bans will also affect prices. August 2020 4-13 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 4.3.4 County of Hawaii Staffing Levels Successful delivery of local government waste diversion programs requires devoting an appropriate amount of resources including staffing. The County has demonstrated its commitment to waste reduction and recycling by assigning the following staff to County waste reduction and recycling programs in the DEM: • One FTE (full-time employee) recycling coordinator. • Two FTE recycling specialists for the HI -5 recycling program. • Three FTE recycling specialists. 4.4 Issues and Concerns As described above, a number of recycling, bioconversion, and marketing activities have been conducted in the County, including programs and initiatives by other organizations. Despite these efforts, the County recycling rate hovers around 20 percent (County of Hawaii DEM 2018c), which is well below its 2013 target of 80 percent. As described in 4.3.2, private sector recycling programs are often not tracked and may constitute a large percentage of recycled materials. However, more could be done by the County and waste generators to treat materials as resources and further reduce the volume of solid waste delivered to the landfills. The need to implement additional programs and policies is further established by the County's commitment to maximize diversion. 4.5 Options for Improvement Pursuant to HRS 342G-26, the following subsections provide an overview of various options that could be implemented to improve recycling and bioconversion and solidify markets. These options were developed based on successful initiatives implemented in other jurisdictions that may be applicable and appropriate for the County. Note that the options focus on recycling and bioconversion — waste reduction and reuse are discussed in Chapter 3, public education is discussed in Chapter 5, and institutional approaches to collection service delivery (i.e., public versus private) is discussed in Chapter 8. 4.5.1 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 categories: multi -stream or 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. Multi -stream and single -stream recycling and other important considerations are described below. 4.5.1.1 Multi -Stream Recycling With multi -stream systems, households separate and 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 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, and five to seven material sorts are done in some programs. 4-14 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii According to a 2016 study, single -stream systems (also referred to as commingled systems) produce 25 percent system loss on average for all steps in the process (mixed recycling facility, processor, mill, and end user). The losses from a system where all recoverable materials are collected separately from each other are much lower, at about 5 percent. In a multi -stream recovery system, where most materials are kept separate from each other at the point of collection, a far greater amount of material collected is made into new products or used beneficially. If completely separated, conversion to new or beneficial products can range between 90 and 99 percent [depends on the material, the level of contamination, and the sorting and processing accuracy] (Ecology 2016). Advantages Separating different types of materials generally results in higher quality recycled material and thus higher market prices. • Can raise consumer awareness that sorted materials are valuable resources. Disadvantages • Requires more effort by households to sort materials. • Requires a higher level of effort by haulers, resulting in higher collection costs. 4.5.1.2 Single -Stream Recycling Single -stream or "commingled" recycling is a system in which all dry recyclables are placed into a single container. The container is oftentimes lifted using a hydraulic arm attached to a collection vehicle. This 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 photograph below). In a single -stream system, only around 75 to 80 percent of the collected materials are made into new products, with 20 to 25 percent landfilled or burned in incinerators or boilers [energy recovery] (Ecology 2016). 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. Disaavantages • Much higher contamination of recyclables; significant effort is required to ensure that residents maintain material quality. • 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. • 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. August 2020 4-15 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 4.5.1.3 Service Standards Curbside collection is generally offered on a subscription basis, or made mandatory for some or all single-family residents within a jurisdiction. The 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 include designated zones where curbside service would be mandatory. For the purpose of developing diversion estimates, a rough analysis of housing units in the 2010 Census Designated Places was conducted. The result was an estimate of 72,894 households (US Census Bureau 2010) that would be served by the program, which is about 84 percent of the estimated 86,778 occupied single-family households in the County in 2017 (US Census Bureau 2018). Collection frequency could be weekly or bi-weekly. Weekly collection generally is more costly, and 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. 4.5.1.4 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 is to bale single -stream recyclables and ship them to the mainland for processing (as is currently done by a privately -owned facility 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 long distances to a central facility. The most likely locations for such facilities would be in East Hawaii (Hilo), one in West Hawai'i (Kona), and one in the Waimea area. 4.5.1.5 Other Considerations There are a number of other factors that would 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 are many 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 the County, it would be costly to collect both at curbside and at all 22 of the County's recycling and transfer stations. • Pilot programs and consumer research would 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. 4-16 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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 4-5. Some of the more successful curbside recycling programs in the United States report collection rates of 800 to 1,000 pounds of recyclable materials per participating single-family household per year. For example, in 2014, the City of San Jose exhibited curbside collection of 894 pounds per participating household per year (City of San Jose 2015), and Seattle reported dry recyclables collection of 1,086 pounds per participating household per year in 2017 (Seattle Public Utilities 2017). Both jurisdictions have a single -stream system. Exhibit 4-5. Example of Material Loss and Utilization Rates by Material Recovery Collection System in State of Washington' Material Loss Rate Material Utilization Rates Collection System for Recoverable Material (percentage) (percentage) Commingled/Single Stream (Mixed recyclables) 16.6-31.0 69.0-83.4 Dual Stream (Commingled with glass on the side) 2.0-6.0 94.0-98.0 Source -Separated Materials' 1.0-4.3 95.7-99.0 Commingled Construction and Demolition Materials 18.7-26.0 74.0-81.3 Source: Ecology 2016. ' Materials kept separate; common for large-scale commercial recovery and residential drop box locations or buyback centers. In FY 2016, 14,887 tons of dry recyclables were collected from County recycling and transfer stations (County of Hawaii DEM 2017a), which is approximately 408 pounds per household per year. Using results from the County's 2008 waste composition study (Appendix D), assuming 72,894 households (US Census Bureau 2018) would be served and material capture rates of 80 percent for most recyclables (such as paper, cardboard, and containers), a curbside recycling program could result in additional recycling of 11,910 tons, which is about 327 pounds per participating household per year, or about 735 pounds per participating household per year, including materials currently being collected from County recycling and transfer stations. Cost Considerations. 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). In a study conducted by the Solid Waste Association of North America, switching from weekly to bi- weekly service can result in a 20 to 40 percent decrease in cost (California Recycle 2016). A 2014 cost -benefit analysis from the City of Austin revealed that switching from weekly to bi-weekly trash collection resulted in a cost savings of approximately 33 percent for customers (City of Austin 2015). • Subscription versus mandatory service (mandatory collection has a higher total cost and lower cost per household because the travel distance between stops is reduced). • If recyclable materials are separated versus single -stream, more collection time is required at each stop, thus increasing costs for collection. • Cost of recycling -only versus a program that also includes curbside collection of garbage and/or organics. • Costs are higher in more rural service areas (because of longer distances and increased travel time between stops). • Shipping costs increase with distance to markets. • Unstable recyclables market. August 2020 4-17 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Information about the extent to which various factors affect the cost of recycling is shown in Exhibit 4-6 The EPA reports that typical costs for curbside recycling range from $2.70 to $4.90 per household per month (EPA 2016d). However, costs can be considerably higher depending on the contracted hauler in the area and whether they own or operate a landfill or recycling and transfer station. All these costs assume that there is a curbside garbage service in place. Should the County implement curbside recycling in the absence of curbside garbage or green waste collection, costs would be considerably higher 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. However, as illustrated in Exhibit 4-6, in a study conducted in Ontario consisting of 223 provincial municipalities over a 10 -year period, curbside operating costs are affected by various impact parameters. For instance, while single -stream recycling exhibits 50 percent lower management costs than multi -stream systems, single -stream systems also show 49 percent higher operating costs and a 9.6 percent lower market price for recyclables (Lakhan 2015). The County might consider similar factors when determining the feasibility of a curbside program. Exhibit 4-6. Factors Affecting Curbside Recycling Costs Program Feature Cost Increase or Decrease Single Stream (Program Implementation by 1 Municipality) $4,101 to $5,122 increase Curbside Collection $9,888 to $11,586 increase Pay -As -You -Throw (Program Implementation by 1 $2,484 to $2,798 increase Municipality) Municipal Promotion and Education Expenditures $1.20 to $4.80 increase (per household) ($) Population Density per Square Kilometer $44 to $58 decrease Source: Lakhan (2015) As discussed above, the cost of curbside recycling could vary significantly. A curbside recycling -only system, without garbage or yard waste, and including material processing and marketing, would require development of significant collection infrastructure and would be costly. The costs would likely be significantly less if the service was combined with curbside garbage and/or organics collection. 4.5.2 Increase Green Waste %rop-Off Opportunities at Recycling and Transfer Stations As discussed above, green waste can be dropped off at EHOF and WHOF, and the Kealakehe, Ke'ei, Waimea, Kea'au, Pahoa, and Volcano recycling and transfer stations. This option would increase the number of recycling and transfer stations that accept green waste. Diversion Potential. The operation of EHOF and WHOF, together with the acceptance of green waste at various recycling and transfer stations, has resulted in an organics diversion rate of 73 percent of all waste diverted from the landfill for approximately 38,000 tons in FY 2017-18 (County of Hawaii DEM 2018c). Additional quantities could be captured with the implementation of a green waste disposal ban, by allowing small commercial customers to participate in the program, and by expanding green waste collection to include food waste. 4-18 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Updote County of Hawaii Cost Considerations. The existing EHOF and WHOF will have continued operational and monitoring costs, which will be in part offset by tipping fees. The introduction of a collection system for food waste will also increase operational costs. 4.5.3 Residential Green Waste Collection and Processing 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. Types of bags or containers and associated advantages and disadvantages of each type of container follow. Plastic bags. Relatively inexpensive, convenient; however, 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. • Compostable bags. Somewhat less convenient than plastic bins and expensive over the long term for households, which is likely to lower recovery rates. The bags compost well and avoid the contamination issues associated with plastic bags. • Plastic bins. Most programs now use plastic containers provided by the local government, or in some cases by the user, and use rolling 30- to 90 -gallon carts that are easier to get to the curb than non -wheeled bins. Bin contents are either loaded by hand (manual) or hydraulically (semi- or fully -automated) into the truck. Most programs use trucks equipped with hydraulic loaders to limit lifting by collection workers, thus reducing injuries and workers compensation claims. 4.5.3.1 Service Standards Like curbside collection, it is recommended that any green waste collection program be a mandatory program for densely populated single-family neighborhoods to increase efficiency and reduce operating costs. Further, it is recommended that the program include rolling carts loaded by using semi - automated or fully -automated equipment. 4.5.3.2 Processing Requirements The County currently has a successful mulch program at East Hawaii Organics Facility (EHOF), West Hawaii Organics Facility (WHOF), and residential haul to certain recycling and transfer stations (see Exhibit 4-3). Mulching produces a relatively low value product that is less desirable than compost or soil products made from compost. Thus, mulch is available for free to residents at EHOF, WHOF, or Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Station (a nominal charge for assisted loading may be instituted). The County is also in the process of developing a compost facility that can process both green waste and food waste. After the compost facility is operational; the County would conduct a cost -benefit analysis August 2020 4-19 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii of coupling curbside green waste collection with existing method of self -haul to EHOF, WHOF, and recycling and transfer stations. 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 would 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. As discussed previously, green waste can be dropped off at EHOF and WHOF, and the Kealakehe, Ke'ei, Waimea, Kea'au, Pahoa, and Volcano recycling and transfer stations. Additional quantities could be captured with the implementation of a green waste disposal ban, and by expanding green waste collection to include food waste. Cost Considerations. The factors affecting the cost of curbside recycling discussed above would also help determine the cost of green waste collection. Costs would depend on the other curbside services provided. For example, the existing garbage and recycling transfer system network will impact the cost of curbside recycling and its associated disposal tonnage. 4.5.4 Add Food and Other Organics to a Residential Curbside Recycling and Careen Waste Collection Program As described previously, the County is in the process of identifying a compost facility site that would accept yard waste, untreated wood pallets, food, acceptable paper, and acceptable compostable serviceware. The facility would be constructed by a private contracto through a contractual agreement with the County. The finished product would be sold island -wide, with a minimum portion made available free to the public. The compost facility would accept green waste and untreated wood pallets initially and then transition into accepting the food, acceptable paper, and acceptable compostable serviceware allowing time for the County to develop a program for collecting these materials. 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, thereby converting to a three -stream system in which food and other organics are collected along with garbage and recyclables either weekly or on alternative weeks. Example cities include Kaua'i County, HI; Boulder, Colorado; and San Francisco, CA: • Kaua'i County, HI: Adopted a zero waste resolution in 2011 and plans to achieve a 70 percent diversion rate by the year 2023. Implementation of PAYT program has incentivized residents to reduce their waste generation. Also, a volunteer organization, Zero -Waste Kaua'i, supports the ban of materials such as expanded polystyrene (commonly called Styrofoam'" ), and advocates waste reduction practices at outreach events and schools (County of Kauai 2018b). 4-20 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Boulder, CO: A zero waste ordinance was developed in 2015 where all single-family homeowners were required to subscribe to a waste hauling service by 2016, and where all multi -family property managers had to provide proper waste disposal for tenants. This ordinance also applied to businesses and stated that there must be proper signage on all bins for recyclables and compostables. Boulder plans on achieving an 85 percent waste diversion rate by 2025 (City of Boulder 2016). San Francisco, CA: The City plans to become zero waste by 2020; in 2012, an 80 percent diversion rate was achieved. A mandatory recycling and composting ordinance was passed in 2009 where all residents and commercial businesses had to properly sort their waste in the proper bins. In relation to residential curbside collection, the City enforces a program that provides separate collection of single -stream recyclables, compostables, and trash in three separate bins (EPA 2018a). These systems 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 a 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 a 35 to 40 percent residential organics participation rate (Wake County 2014; SAFE 2016; Hennepin County 2017). Recently, curbside organics recycling has proliferated. According to a waste characterization study conducted by BioCycle of various cities in the United States, between 2009 and 2011, food waste collection expanded by more than 50 percent (Yepsen 2011). In fact, cities such as Portland, Oregon, which also employ a PAYT system, exhibited an organics participation rate of 72 percent in 2013 (City of Portland 2014). Implementation of aggressive PAYT rates is one method communities are using to improve participation rates. 4.5.4.1 Processing Food waste 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 Section 4.5.9 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 72,894 households would be served and a 50 percent capture rate of food and wet or food -soiled paper, it is estimated that 20,232 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 32,142 tons, or an amount equivalent to 16 percent of the 195,887 total tons of waste delivered to recycling and transfer stations in 2016. When the 14,887 tons currently being recycled at recycling and transfer stations are included, the program would result in an increase in diversion equivalent to 37 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 dwellings would not be covered by the three -stream program, they would deliver materials to the recycling and transfer stations. • The materials arriving at County recycling and transfer stations include materials rarely set out at the curb by single-family residents on a routine basis, such as construction and demolition debris. August 2020 4-21 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii To make an equivalent comparison to other residential communities, the diversion rate was adjusted for these two factors. Including only the 72,894 participating households and typical curbside commodities, the three -stream system could result in an estimated diversion of 68 percent. Cost Considerations. Rates for three -stream collection service depend on the size of containers residents subscribe to. As examples, San Francisco and Seattle charge approximately $45 per month for service with 32 -gallon discard and organics carts (City and County of San Francisco 2018; Seattle Public Utilities 2018); 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. 4.S.c Add Food Waste Bins at Recycling and Transfer Stations Around the United States, local governments are adding food waste bins to their drop-off facilities: In 2010, numerous counties in Twin Cities, MN, enacted food waste programs. Hennepin County has combined their food waste collection locations with recycling and transfer stations (Hennepin County 2018). Other counties in the area, such as Anoka and Ramsey counties, have certain drop-off locations dedicated solely to residential food waste (Anoka County 2018; Ramsey County 2018). Minnesota state law (HF403-SF383) requires yard and organic waste to be disposed of in a compostable or Kraft paper bag, or in a reusable container. In Brown County, WI, a pilot program is being run where participants may bring their food waste to one of two drop-off locations. Residents must register with the County to use these locations for tracking purposes (Brown County 2018). According to BioCycle's annual report, in 2017 there were 67 drop-off programs located in 15 states servicing approximately 6.7 million households. The report also included a survey where 25 out of 30 municipalities stated that they considered their program a success (BioCycle 2017). yo,j-ce; Ramsey County (2018). Organics recyclirg. The County currently has green waste (yard waste, untreated pallets) bins located at six County - operated recycling and transfer stations. The County is currently considering the best -suited location for a composting facility that will not only process green waste, but also food waste. The County is investigating the possibility of accepting soiled paper among other compostable materials. Once constructed, food waste bins could be added to recycling and transfer stations with existing green waste bins. The contract with the current licensed hauler of green waste would then be modified to add food waste to the collection agreement. 4-22 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii To address odor and contamination -related concerns, certain practices would be implemented by the County and program participants (Exhibit 4-7). The County could also consider legislation restricting the type of compostable bag that may be disposed of in the food waste bins. For instance, legislation could mandate that residents use a certified compostable bag for disposal at drop-off locations, according to the U.S. Standard ASTM D6400 specification, similar to Minnesota (HF403-SF383) or California (AB1972- S13567) state law. Recycling and transfer station attendants may determine if a bag meets this specification by looking for a Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) logo on the bag (Biodegradable Products Institute 2018). If the bag does not contain this logo, or if it is not a Kraft paper material, attendants may deny disposal of these uncertified bags into the food waste bins. By limiting contamination in the organics, the ultimate quality and processing of the compost will be significantly improved. To be effective, the program will require rigorous educational and promotional efforts, particularly at the onset. Exhibit 4-7. Organics Maintenance County Recycling and Maintenance Residential Participants Transfer Stations Freeze or refrigerate compostables X Use a BPI -certified compostable container X X liner and change after each use Line the bottom of compost containers - X with shredded paper Rinse compost containers regularly X - The County may consider running a pilot food waste program similar to that in Brown County (Brown County 2018). As part of the program, the County could formulate a recording system for the food waste bins. At the recycling and transfer stations, participants who wish to deposit organics in the food waste bins would be required to sign -in with the onsite attendant. Thus, data pertaining to usage frequency would be ascertained. To launch the program, the County could hand out a limited supply of countertop compost bins and a roll of BPI -certified compost liners to residents on a first-come, first-served basis, contingent upon funding availability. As stated in Chapter 5, Public Information and Education, the County plans to expand signage at recycling and transfer stations. As part of this initiative, visually enticing signs could be added near food waste bins. Also stated in Chapter 5, the County plans to update their public information brochures. A brochure could be formulated illustrating acceptable and unacceptable items that may be placed in food waste bins. These brochures could also be handed out at the recycling and transfer stations and at public outreach events. August 2020 Source: City of Charlottesville (2018) 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Diversion Potential. With many residents already accustomed to participating in an organics program, there is the potential for increased diversion of food (and other compostable products), particularly if introduced as a pilot program where residents are already accustomed to hauling green waste (e.g., Kealakehe). After understanding functionality, additional quantities could be captured by increasing the number of recycling and transfer stations that accept food and other compostable products, and the implementation of a green waste and food waste disposal ban. Cost Considerations. The addition of food waste bins will have associated maintenance, transportation, and processing -related costs. However, by adding food -waste bins to recycling and transfer stations with existing green waste bins, the County will reduce transport -related costs and maximize efficiency for haulers. 4.5.6 Source Separation Ordinance (Mandatory Recycling) and/or Dispose Rans with nifferential Tip Feec 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 2014 Honolulu mandated that commercial businesses and government recycle. Bars were required to recycle glass, restaurants to recycle food waste, and businesses to recycle paper. In 2017, compliance rates in Honolulu ranged from 74 percent for glass, 64 percent for office paper, and 74 percent for food waste (City and County of Honolulu 2018a). In California, state law requires businesses that generate 4 or more cubic yards of waste per week and multi -family complexes (5 or more units) implement recycling programs. They are also required to recycle their organic waste (e.g., food scraps, yard waste). In support of the program, Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority provides free waste assessments to help these entities improve their recycling programs. Because of the commercial recycling mandate, Greenfield, located in Salinas Valley, exhibited a 152 percent increase in recycled material by the end of 2010 (Institute for Local Government 2011). 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. According to the EPA (EPA 2018b), best practices to consider when formulating a recycling system include: Incentives and penalties: Incentivize residents by implementing a PAYT system or via adding additional payments. Separate compensation from rates: Allows contractors to base their fees on the number of customers or cost of service rather than flat customer rates. Align costs to rates: Instead of funding for solid waste programs to occur primarily via tipping fees, rates could be charged for commercial recycling and composting once the area reaches a high diversion rate. 4-24 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i • Limit or eliminate disposal payments: Limit or discard landfill or recycling and transfer station contractor fees related to waste volume. • Reward employees for more diversion: Train and reward workers for waste reduction promotion. • Require productive market use of yard debris and other organic materials: Require that organics be composted at a compost or anaerobic digest facility, rather than being used as daily cover in a landfill. • Direct materials to local markets: Route recyclable materials for local use in the community on a conditional basis. • Education and outreach: Promote waste reduction efforts in-person, via social media, and via proper signage and literature. • Equal capacity commercial bin size and frequency: Provide equal capacity for recyclable and compostable bins in comparison to waste bins. • Equal services for multi -family customers: Contract with multi -family units and waste haulers to provide equal services to that of a single-family resident. • Source separation requirement or preference: Develop contracts that specify how recyclable and compostable material are separated, based on the area. • Purchasing preferences (Green Vehicles and Products): Develop contracts that include hauler best management practices related to zero waste such as fuel-efficient vehicles or the use of recycled plastic and paper products, etc. • Innovations clause: Develop contracts to allow leeway in recycling programs for potential novel disposal practices and technologies Diversion Potential. Most of the recycling and transfer stations have a 2 -bin recycling area. One bin is for corrugated cardboard and brown paper bags, and the other bin is for container glass (non HI -5 such as wine and liquor bottles). Several of the recycling and transfer stations also accept metal cans (food type) with the scrap metal, and a few collect newspaper. Green waste is also accepted at the facilities listed in Exhibit 4-3. Thus, residents currently have the opportunity to recycle these materials. 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 would 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 would have signage prominently displayed at each station that announces the pending ordinance and clarifies recycling options. Once enacted, it is recommended that initial enforcement be less stringent (that is, encourage, but not strictly enforce compliance 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 security employees for the recycling and transfer stations, 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 would accommodate the drop-off of all banned materials for recycling. Drop-off would be free (such as at the August 2020 4-25 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii recycling and transfer stations) except the County could charge a fee for metals that is less than the fee for garbage (the County started offering this to the commercial sector for green waste in 2015). This differential tip fee would help encourage diverting metals to private recyclers. The ordinance could be enforced by banning these materials from the landfill, with a penalty of two times the regular disposal rate if loads are found containing the banned materials. In 2009, Seattle mandated food and yard service for all single-family residents, and in 2010 the recycling rate increased by 2.6 percent. In a 2005 survey, only 25 percent of Seattle residents used an organics bin while in 2010, the utilization rate increased to 72 percent (Seattle Public Utilities 2017). Similarly, a green waste and mulch ban from Guam's one operating landfill in 2013 resulted in support from residents, due to the multiple potential applications of compost in the agricultural and commercial sectors (One Guam 2018). Cost Considerations. To implement this option, the County would need to increase staffing and potentially seek consulting assistance to research, and draft policies and legislation. Additional staffing would be likely required to handle the additional material diverted from the landfill as well as enforcement. 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 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. It is likely that 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 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 would 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 could provide additional bins to accommodate small business recycling efforts. If accommodating small business recycling at the stations is not acceptable or feasible, the mandatory recycling ordinance would 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 would be tied to the list of mandatory recyclables. If all firms are required to provide a recycling service, competition would 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 4-26 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii County -owned sites and/or allowing contractors to propose sites. Facilities would probably be needed in West Hawaii, East Hawaii, and possibly in the Waimea area. This option would require significant outreach to the business community, as well as a marketing and technical assistance program. The option would include a reasonable phase-in period so that collection firms can ramp up for the changed requirements. The County could consider implementing an incentive program and/or recognition program for businesses that meet the recycling requirements. 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. Cost Considerations. 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. 4.5.8 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 on the mainland and elsewhere of organics management programs that incorporate food and other organics as feedstock. This option discusses the potential for collection from non-residential sources. All material would have to be treated under the enhancement process to restrict the spread of invasive species and other organisms. In 2016, a contract was signed with Hawaiian Earth Recycling to operate a compost facility that can process organics including food waste. Thus, it is expected that the County will have an established treatment facility to process incoming food waste and other compostable materials from businesses and institutions during the early part of the 10 -year implementation period. The County would need to take the following steps to attract material to the facility: • Price the tipping tee at the tacility less than the tipping fee at its landfills to provide a financial incentive for businesses to separate food. • 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 if the first two steps above are not enough to attract material to the processing facilities. August 2020 4-27 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Diversion Potential. Food and other organics, such as waxed cardboard and 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. Cost Considerations. The potential need for increased staffing to effectively communicate among County staff, the collection company, and businesses and institutions. 4.1 q Processing Food Waste Options Compared to a green waste processing operation, processing food waste 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 food scraps in an enclosure and allowing biodegradation via earthworms (e.g., vermicomposting) Receiving collection trucks and preparing/mixing feedstocks in an enclosed building with biofilters and other features to manage air flow and odors. Mixing and agitating feedstock daily (unlike green waste where under certain circumstances material can be stored for days at a time). Organic material may be heated to remove potential invasive species and other unwanted organisms, and to speed up the degradation process. The bioconversion process requires either more sophisticated electronic controls and/or more Membrane -covered system (Everett, WA) Bunker with roof (Latah Co., ID) sophisticated and meticulous daily operations. Many systems conduct this step of the process in enclosed buildings or vessels. A brief overview of four commonly used bioconversion technologies for food follows. 4.5.9.1 Covered Forced Air Some relatively recent innovations have taken place 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. 4-28 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii These systems have lower capital costs than other systems; however, may require more knowledgeable, experienced operators to maintain final product quality and minimize nuisance odors. 4.5.9.2 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 or bed by a machine that is suspended above or -00 P, I rides on rails along the top of the bay or bed. Bed composting system Turning aerates the material, and additional aeration may be provided by a 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 because there is no further opportunity for amendments to be added. However, odors can be easily controlled because bays and beds are usually constructed inside buildings. Bays and bed systems typically are more expensive than turned windrows and static piles; however, less expensive than in -vessel systems. 4.5.9.3 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 a type of sealed container (the vessel) where the environment is highly controlled, and access is restricted (may be aerobic or anaerobic). 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. Microbes biodegrade the material, and at the end of the primary composting process, the container is disconnected, emptied, and the material is formed into turned windrows or static piles to complete the composting process (curing). A common byproduct of the system includes biogas that may be utilized as energy. The vessel is then available for the next batch of feedstock. August 2020 4-29 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 4.5.9.4 Energy Recovery with Wet and Dry Anaerobic Digestion Significant amounts of energy are contained in food and other organics currently sent to landfills. The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative seeks to generate 70 percent of Hawai`i's energy from renewable sources by 2030 (HDOH 2015). The variability 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 paper. Biogas is then transformed in block -type thermal power stations into electrical energy and heat. Like the wet system, the digestate residual is cured 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 the County provides an advantage for this technology locally compared to other areas of the country. Diversion Potential. Using results from the County's 2008 waste composition study, and assuming capture rates of 50 percent Wet anaerobic system (Germany) 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. W1 Dry anaerobic system (Germany) Cost Considerations. The cost of processing food wastes and other organics will vary depending on the type of technology, market conditions, contract terms, permitting requirements, power purchase agreements, and other factors. 4-30 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 4.5.10 Establish a County "Buy Recycled" Policy This option, also discussed in the draft source reduction section, is important for 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 would 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. Cost Considerations. 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. 4.5.11 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 Hawai'i 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. Diversion Potential. Difficult to quantify diversion potential; however, this initiative could result in long- term benefits. Cost Considerations. The County would need to dedicate additional staff to develop and participate in potential studies or pilot programs. 4.5.12 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. Diversion Potential. Difficult to quantify diversion potential, however this initiative could result in long- term benefits. Cost Considerations. 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; however, after there is familiarity with the new requirements, impacts on construction project cost would be modest. 4.5.13 Maintain Active State and Regional Profile on Zero Waste Public P0HCV 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. August 2020 4-31 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii • Funding of zero waste initiatives through state-wide 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. Diversion Potential. Difficult to quantify diversion potential; however, this initiative would result in long- term benefits. Cost Considerations. There would be cost associated with staff time spent on zero waste advocacy, and modest expenses for supplies. 4.5.14 ower Potential Recycling Opportunities There are other initiatives that the County could adopt to support recycling, including: Improve Recycling Opportunities in County Parks. The County could consider developing a program to provide additional recycling opportunities in all County parks. This could mirror the 2 -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 would first be tested with a pilot program. Improvements could include the addition of lock -kits to recycling bins as well as improved illumination systems to deter vandalism. Improve Recycling Opportunities on Downtown Streets. The County Public Works Department collects trash in downtown areas of communities such as 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 and event bins 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 would 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. A good example of the popularity of recycled art, "The Trash Show: Hawaii Artists Recycle" has held annual arts events that are free and open to the public in East Hawaii for over 30 years. 4-32 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Expand Visitor Industry Recycling. Hotels, resorts, and other businesses that service the County's 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 processing, building deconstruction, salvage, reuse, and repair. Actions by the County could include passing favorable zoning ordinances and/or tax relief to incentivize this type of activity. 4.6 Recommendations Based on the analyses presented above and discussions with the SWAC, the Plan recommends the actions listed below to improve the County recycling, bioconversion, and markets program. The operating expenditures associated with the recommended actions would likely be funded by a new funding method (e.g., PAYT), property taxes, and tipping fees, and the capital expenditures would be financed by general obligation bonds as discussed in greater depth in Chapter 10 Administration. 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 the recycling recommendations may be slower than initially anticipated because of the impact that the world-wide commodity market volatility has had on County recycling revenues. 4.6.1 kecycling 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 County decided the following options are best suited to the specific conditions within the County: Thoroughly investigate mandates prior to implementation including assessment of markets (should be well-established), operational viability (solicit input from recycling and transfer station attendants, haulers, landfill operators), and implementation in other jurisdictions with an emphasis on other Hawaii counties. Establish a differential tip fee ordinance. Investigate the feasibility of establishing a mandatory curbside collection program for some single-family residences. Establish mandatory source separation and recycling ordinance, which would require all businesses and institutions to recycle select types of materials. This could include implementing landfill bans for select recyclables. Develop legislation that requires owners and managers of multi -family dwellings and multi - tenant commercial buildings to provide recycling. Conduct research and coordinate with legislators and waste managers within Maui, Kaua'i, and Honolulu counties, to evaluate the potential for combining efforts to develop a statewide landfill diversion strategy. Lobby the State to change school waste collection contracts to mandate that recycling services are included. August 2020 4-33 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 2. Complete capital projects to facilitate implementation of expanded recycling programs. A common theme expressed during discussions with the SWAC is the need for improved facilities to manage recyclables. The County plans to: - Modify infrastructure at recycling and transfer stations to accommodate and expand recycling. - Improve signage at recycling and transfer stations to provide the public with comprehensive information about recycling opportunities and procedures. 3. Expand opportunities for commercial recycling. The results of the waste stream assessment conducted for this Plan update (Chapter 2) demonstrated clearly that commercial businesses dispose of large quantities of potentially recyclable materials. After deliberation with the SWAC and reviewing programs implemented by other jurisdictions, the County could implement the following actions to increase commercial recycling: - Allow small businesses to use the recycling and transfer stations to recycle selected materials within limits manageable by the County. Work with the HDOH Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch to modify recycling and transfer station operating permits to accommodate expanded recycling services. - Expand education and outreach programs for both large and small businesses to foster participation in commercial recycling programs. 4. 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 landfill diversion. The County could achieve this by: - Installing additional recycling bins in parks and other public areas. - Increasing recycling opportunities at community events.. S. Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental impacts. (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts, in addition to tonnage -based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals. 6. Annually or bi-annually assess existing local and regional markets for materials across the waste stream; study service voids for missed opportunities to recover commodities. The County could shape strategic action plans around the findings. This process would need to consider community, environmental, and other factors; this would not just be a commodity -driven effort. An initial assessment could consider other destinations for shipping recyclables that have lost value in the current market. For example, the County could consider shipping formerly recyclable materials (e.g., plastics) to the H -power facility in Honolulu if determined economically cost effective (i.e., cost savings, cost neutral) through close coordination and negotiations with the City and County of Honolulu. 4.6.2 Organics Waste stream studies conducted previously and, as part of this project, have determined that organics comprise a relatively large portion of the waste entering County landfills annually. Diversion of organics was identified as a priority by the SWAC; therefore, the County developed the following actions: 1. 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 4-34 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii effective at reducing organics households and businesses send to landfills. After considering various options, the County plans to implement the following education and outreach programs: Ensure that the contractor responsible for administering the organics program is meeting contractual requirements. Expand and further develop a master composter program. Develop a training program and guidance materials for farmers and gardeners. Implement a "Stop Wasting Food" program that would benefit programs such as local food banks. Partner with others to establish compost demonstration gardens at recycling and transfer stations or at other visible locations in the community. 2. Initiate an onsite composting program for residents and businesses by distributing subsidized composting bins to both residences and businesses. Data from similar communities indicate 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 the County with many homes in rural areas that cannot be served cost-effectively by collection truck routes. This program would fund subsidized bins for onsite composting of green waste and food waste. 3. Conduct a landfill organics ban implementation study. 4. Implement added organics management facilities and equipment. Although onsite 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 the SWAC and other stakeholders, the County will consider the following programs: Add food waste drop-off locations at recycling and transfer stations that already collect green waste. Formulate compostable bag ASTM D6400 -compliance legislation. Add organics/yard waste disposal to existing brochures/signage. Expand the number of drop-off locations for green waste and/or food waste at recycling and transfer stations. Continue operation of mulch facilities at WHSL and SHSL. Investigate organics collection programs, including a residential curbside collection program and recycling and transfer station drop-off facilities. As part of this investigation, perform pilot food waste demonstration projects with the potential for eventual expansion into full-scale food waste management programs. August 2020 4-35 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION Introduction Public education is a critical component of a successful environmental program because it informs citizens about proper solid waste management and diversion methods. The public's understanding of various reuse, recycling, and composting activities are improved through these education and outreach programs. Education informs residents of the wide variety of solid waste services and opportunities provided by the County and other entities. This chapter describes existing public education activities within the County of Hawaii, identifies current issues and concerns with respect to public education, and presents recommendations that will help enhance educational opportunities. 5.2 Background 5.2.1 Regulatory Context In accordance with Hawai'i Revised Statutes Chapter 342-G (HRS 342G-26), 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 alternative 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 2009 Pian Exhibit 5-1 provides a summary of the recommendations from the 2009 Plan relative to public education and information, and describes the actions taken to achieve each recommendation. Exhibit 5-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Public Education and Information 2009 Plan Recommendation Status Implement a 3 -year zero waste education and social marketing program to educate the public and business community about zero waste initiatives and opportunities. Hire one full-time staff member to serve as the zero waste program coordinator Implement a community -wide social marketing plan. Did not implement due to funding constraints. Did not implement due to funding constraints. Did not implement due to funding constraints. August 2020 5-1 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 5.3 Existing Conditions 5.3.1 County of Hawaii Public Education and Information Program The County employs several recycling specialists who conduct basic educational activities along with their other duties. In addition, the County contracts with several business entities to coordinate and provide educational activities to the community. The County's main education initiatives include the following: • Website (HawaiiZeroWaste.org). • Newspaper advertisements. • Radio, television, and movie theater advertising. • Brochures/flyers/posters. • Community outreach. • Networking with existing nonprofit and community groups (e.g., Recycle Hawaii, Zero Waste Big Island). • Community events. • Sporting events. • School and group tours of the solid waste/recycling facilities. • Business education (HawaiiZeroWaste.org). • Person-to-person interaction (emails, telephone calls, interaction with customers at the recycling and transfer stations). A brief description of each of these initiatives follows. 5.3.1.1 County Website The Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division (SWD), has its own page on the County's government website. Two links are provided on the SWD's dedicated page. The first link is to the County Public Document portal, which directs the user to solid waste documents and standard forms. The second link is for access to the SWD's website, HawaiiZeroWaste.org. The public document portal includes official solid waste documents and operational information, recycling and transfer station locations and operating hours, guidelines, permits, and plans. The HawaiiZeroWaste.org website is a comprehensive public education resource that emphasizes current events and announcements, as well as providing tips and options for residents and businesses regarding: • Waste reduction, reuse, recycling. • Detailed facility (e.g., recycling and transfer facilities) information. • Zero waste initiatives. • Educational school -oriented resources. • Event planning resources to increase recycling and reduce litter at special events. Relating to social media, the SWD will occasionally post information to the Mayor's Facebook page. 5-2 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Recycle Hawaii, a volunteer -based organization, provides information on recycling and reuse services via its own website. Their site includes general recycling, waste reduction, and reuse information along with specific County program information. 5.3.1.2 Radio, Television, and Print Media Advertising The County advertises a variety of waste reduction and recycling programs, including Christmas tree cycling, the polystyrene (Styrofoam) ban, green waste/mulch, 2 -bin recycling, reuse centers, tire recycling, household hazardous waste, e -waste, and used motor oil programs. Forms of outreach include the Recycle Guide, signage, flyers, printed media advertisements, banners, radio spots, television advertisements, and movie theater advertisements. Recycling Education in Movie Theatres The County is expanding the program to further educate the public about various waste issues and keep them informed of upcoming events. 5.3.1.3 Flyers The County and their vendors have prepared flyers that cover a range of waste management topics for public distribution. The flyers, which are the same as the signage posted at the recycling and transfer stations across the island, address green waste recycling, composting, plastics recycling, household hazardous waste, used motor oil collection, and the HI -5 recycling program. The flyers are available to the public at community events, at recycling and transfer stations, and at other County solid waste facilities. They are also available in Portable Document Format (PDF) at www.HawaiiZeroWaste.org. In early 2019, the County updated flyers related to the used motor oil program; recyclable and non -recyclable materials; cardboard and paper bags; paper, metal cans, and plastic; and glass. Paper Metal Plastic • Can LQ�aQ Cardboerd ,,,.,, �,.- ts•++e.orae �� NO pUstrc bags. only clean nems Recycle Clean 0S Recycle Right Only recycle items listed for each bin. Do NOT include: dirty or food stained items • plastic trial is not !ar lug or bottle • plastic LULt n� & U • plastic caps, covers or lids . plastic bags or plastic film • plastic take-out containers • poison. pesticide or automotive fluid containers • shredded. waxed or coated paper . squeeze tubes and juice boxes or bags • spray cans and propane or gas containers - aluminum fo,l or single use penoat pans Please, NO trash. F51-1 When to doubt. leave it out! ov'*� 5.3.1.4 Community Outreach • Lif Rinsed. No capsicovers/lids. "�Redeerr MI -5C glass contamert. � www.HawaiiZeroWaste org The County strives for transparency and collaboration in its ongoing efforts to further community outreach. This includes an emphasis on networking with nonprofits, community groups, and businesses whose goals align with waste diversion (waste reduction, recycling, and composting). There are clear August 2020 3-3 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii benefits of transparency and collaboration when and where possible and appropriate to build support for a program, disseminate new information, and – perhaps most importantly – ensure that community messaging is accurate and congruent. Examples of the County's community outreach activities: Contracted with a consulting firm to assist with the design and coordination of an expanded community outreach program. The expanded program emphasizes proper sorting and use of recycling bins to reduce contamination in the waste stream. Developing a Master Recycler Program in collaboration with the nonprofits Recycle Hawaii and Zero Waste Big Island. This program will include all aspects of waste diversion, not just recycling. This will be modeled after existing programs, such as the Master Recycler Program in Oregon (which has generously offered technical support). • Developing a Facebook page as an additional opportunity for public connection. Again, this is where networking with existing waste reduction and diversion -oriented groups will provide a much broader audience with accurate and real-time information. Transfer Station Thrift Store, LLC, (TSTS) the company that manages and operates the reuse centers at select County recycling and transfer stations, are contractually obligated to provide community education. TSTS provides educational brochures at all its locations, educating the public on landfill waste and measures that can be implemented to further reduce waste. 5.3.1.5 Community Events The County participates in various community events throughout the year aimed at enhancing environmental awareness (e.g., University of Hawaii, Hilo [UHH] Earth Day Fair). 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. Organizations may reserve these bins for their events, subject to availability. As part of the County's expanded community outreach campaign, education material related to waste reduction will be promoted at local sporting and civic events. A County booth will be present at these events to inform the public of their facilities County DEM Booth: Hawai'i Academy of Arts and Science in Pahoa and of landfill diversion practices as well as providing current, up-to-date recycling information. Promotional materials such as magnets, pens, pencils, and reusable bags—all bearing the www.HawaliZeroWaste.org address—are used to further spread the recycling message. In addition, local nonprofit groups such as Hawai'i Wildlife Fund, Zero Waste Big Island, Recycle Hawaii, Keep the Hawaiian Islands Beautiful, among others, participate in and/or create community events throughout the year. For these events, recycling/reuse specialists are available to engage with the public to answer questions and provide technical assistance. -4 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 5.3.1.6 School Programs The County and its vendors organize a range of waste reduction and recycling programs for local schools. The County currently offers tours of the landfill, scrap metal and composting facilities, and the recycling and reuse centers for school groups on an as -requested basis. Complementary school programs offered by other organizations are described below. Recycle Hawaii provides school curriculum and presentations related to zero waste, recycling, and sustainability. For example, Recycle Hawaii encourages schools and organizations to "upcycle" materials by reclaiming, recreating, or repurposing them through their Art and Craft of Upcycling program. This program motivates participants to practice sustainable practices by reducing and repurposing their waste through a creative outlet. Submitted art pieces are showcased on the Recycle Hawaii website. County DEM: School Education Keep America Beautiful's Recycle -Bowl (Keep America Beautiful Program 2018) encourages schools to participate in a competition that tracks the weight of their recyclables for 4 weeks. This program encourages schools to increase their recycling rate and to educate students and teachers about waste reduction and sustainability. The Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanup Project encourages schools and volunteers to participate in marine waste removal along shorelines. By identifying sources of debris and illustrating the harmful impacts of debris on marine life, students and the public are inspired to properly dispose of their waste. 5.3.1.7 Business Education The County provides business education emphasizing proper disposal of commercial waste, the polystyrene ban, and tire recycling. The County: • Helps businesses dispose of commercial waste, such as mercury -containing light bulbs. • Encourages the formulation of "Green Teams" where a business designates a group of employees to manage and discuss opportunities related to waste reduction that could ultimately result in cost -savings for the company. • Provides the food service industry information and support during the transition Polystyrene Foam Container & Food Service Ware Reduction program. A flyer is available to businesses explaining how the food service industry can meet the County requirements. • Maintains a tire recycling educational program that targets both the tire businesses and the public. Activities have included inspection by a County contractor to see if businesses are abiding with the state requirements, the provision of information on the state requirements, and posters and radio and newspaper advertisements. Ic.St� S and Cnnrern As described above, the County currently invests resources into creative education and outreach programs. However, given the County's commitment to landfill diversion, additional effort could be expended to further reduce the quantities of materials discarded in landfills. The County plans to employ social marketing principles to guide the design and implementation of education programs. August 2020 5-5 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Social marketing is the planning and implementation of programs designed to bring about social change. 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 therefore should be partitioned into segments. 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 that 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 would 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. Relating to the contamination issue, new recycling signs have been developed and installed at the recycling and transfer stations from early 2019 to middle 2019. The new recycling signs are consistent with a standardized format, making it easier for visitors as well as residents to easily identify what and how to recycle. The County is considering requiring proper signage at businesses and public events. The County plans to expand its technical assistance for businesses to educate and inform them of proper solid waste management including waste reduction and recycling, as well as to encourage their customers of proper recycling and composting practices. At community outreach and school events, brochures and fliers are handed out to inform the public of proper recycling and waste diversion techniques. Options for Improvement Substantial progress in advancing the County's landfill diversion objectives will require enhancements to the County's current education and outreach programs. Implementation of these programs and initiatives will require additional funding for outreach activities. This could be achieved either directly by the County or by contracts with appropriate consultants, vendors, or government entities. 5-6 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 5.5.1 Develop 3 -Year Landfill Diversion Education and Social Marketing Plan 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 landfill diversion education efforts, including specific programs and initiatives that will be implemented to obtain those goals. This 3 -year 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. The 3 -Year Landfill Diversion Education and Social Marketing Plan could: • State the County's key messages (broad goals and specific objectives). • Identify specific demographic groups or geographical areas the County would like to reach with its messaging. Identify educational programs tailored 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 this Plan update. • Develop improved public awareness programs that publicize current and future waste management and recycling programs. • Develop improved 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. • Estimate the costs of future education and promotion efforts. • Identify how to promote a change in administration and funding (e.g., PAYT program and fee schedules for residents and businesses). • Leverage cultural importance of proper waste management on Hawaii Island—for its community and for tourism. The plan would address immediate, short- and long-term actions pertaining to the following programs: • Diversion as an overarching County waste management policy. • Residential waste reduction and reuse. • School programs for waste reduction, recycling, and composting. • Residential recycling. • Visitor industry waste reduction and recycling. • Business waste audit and education programs. • Other business waste reduction and recycling. • Construction and demolition waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. • Implementation of alternative funding mechanisms. Cost Considerations. To implement this option, the County would need to budget for consulting time to assist in the preparation of an education and promotion plan and development of program identification and materials. August 2020 5-7 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Recommendations from the plan would likely result in initiatives that would require funding in subsequent years for plan implementation. The plan would be evaluated and updated every other year. 5.5.2 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 would 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 telephone 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 would not exceed 10 minutes because 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 would be considered to ensure randomness and survey efficiency. Cost Considerations. To implement this option, the County would need to budget for consulting time to conduct the market survey. It would also require County staff time to deliver, analyze, and monitor the survey. The specific amount of spending for the survey would be developed as part of development of the 3 -year education and promotion plan. Expand Existing Advertising and Marketing Efforts The County currently advertises various aspects of its waste management program, such as recycling, through television, movie theaters, 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 paid advertisements, as well as promotional opportunities such as news stories, talk show interviews, and additional special event outreach. Increasing the number and scope of County participation in community events is also recommended in Chapter 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets. Expanding participation in community events will create additional opportunities to distribute educational and marketing materials to both residents and businesses. Cost Considerations. This option could be funded at a variety of levels. The specific amount of spending on added advertising and marketing would be developed as part of development of the 3 -year education and promotion plan. 5.5.4 Expand Public and Civic Outreach The County plans to increase its presence at public outreach events. Events such as high school and college sporting events as well as civic events such as fairs, festivals, and expositions. The County could design a simple, easily transportable booth to further engage the public to learn about waste reduction, proper waste disposal, and about the recycling and transfer stations. Literature and brochures would be handed out to the public at these events as well as small promotional items such as magnets, compostable pencils, and note pads with the www.HawailZeroWaste.org address. 5-8 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i County presence at these events will spread the waste reduction and sustainability message to the public. Not only will the community learn how and where they can properly dispose of their waste, they can also discover how they are better able to reduce their ecological footprint through recycling and reuse. Expanded outreach at more events will also increase accurate waste disposal on site. Cost Considerations. Presence at public and civil events would require County staff time, preparation, and analysis. 5.5.5 Expand School Education Programs The County has a school outreach 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 overtime and would integrate zero waste concepts. Potential activities could include recycling and composting initiatives, specific curriculum, field trips, guest speakers, and waste audits. If the County incorporates recycling as a requirement for hauling contractors that service schools, as recommended in Chapter 4, it could create opportunities for schools to involve students with the recycling effort on individual campuses. Cost Considerations. 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. 5.5.6 Expand Business Education Programs The County plans to further encourage partnerships and sponsorships by local environmental and community groups to help them take ownership of waste management concerns and provide recognition for waste reduction successes. The County could expand on its program of technical assistance for individual business owners and business and trade groups, with a focus on reducing both the quantity of commercial and industrial discards to the landfill. The County could conduct technical assistance that includes visiting the businesses, and suggesting ideas to further waste reduction practices, and better inform them of business recognition opportunities. 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 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 could also look to businesses that provide advertising services (such as utilities, transit, newspapers) and search for opportunities for free advertising. Cost Considerations. This option could be funded at a variety of levels. Much of the expense would be for added staff time. August 2020 5-9 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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 for hotels; adding more 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 they can implement to reduce waste, and contact information for technical assistance. For example, a tip sheet for hotels and motels could be formulated that illustrates best management practices in relation to waste reduction. Cost Considerations. This option could be funded at a variety of levels. Much of the expense would be for added staff time. 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 changes in the program. As part of this effort, the County would include ongoing evaluations of the progress and effects of its source reduction and recycling programs. This effort would 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 education and promotion 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 drop-off surveys. • Focus groups. • Mail -back response cards. • Evaluation of the number of hits on the County's website. The County could include evaluation as part of every education and promotion program. Results would be communicated to appropriate audiences including elected officials, interest groups, and the public. Cost Considerations. A good rule of thumb is that approximately 10 percent of the cost of a program is spent on the program's evaluation to make changes as deemed necessary to ensure success. Recommendations Based on the analysis presented above and discussions with the SWAC, the Plan recommends the actions listed below to improve public education and information program.. Many of the options discussed above and other education initiatives, such as those in support of residential and business 5-10 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i recycling, visitor industry waste management practices, and organics and composting, are addressed in other sections of this Plan update. 1. Implement a 3 -year education and social marketing program to educate the public and business community about landfill diversion and recycling initiatives and opportunities, including proper disposal and recycling to reduce contamination. 2. Conduct a waste management attitude residential survey. 3. Ensure the County has the staffing available commensurate with the needs of the public outreach program. August 2020 5-11 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaf'f HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELECTRONIC WASTE introduction Household products exhibiting corrosive, reactive, toxic, or ignitable properties are considered "household hazardous waste" (HHW), as defined by the EPA. These products include, but are not limited to: automotive fluids, paints, oils, cleaners, pesticides, poisons, and batteries. They require special handling, transport, and disposal or recycling methods, and they present special risks and disposal methods. Electronic waste (e -waste) consists of any broken or unwanted electronic devices. Computers, VCRs, copiers, stereo equipment, televisions, cell phones, and monitors are examples of common e -wastes. Like HHW, many e -wastes, such as cathode ray tubes (CRTs) from older televisions and monitors, include components that are toxic and restricted from the landfill. This chapter describes the status of the HHW and a -waste collection and disposal system within the County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents options for achieving the County's HHW and a -waste goals. 6.2 Regulatory Background The discussion in this section describes the regulatory framework for management of HHW and e -waste. 6.2.1 Summary of Household Hazardous Waste irtegulations According to HRS 342G-1, solid or municipal waste is defined as: Solid waste or municipal solid waste means: garbage, refuse, and other residential or commercial discarded materials, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous materials resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations; sludge from waste treatment plants and water supply treatment plants; and residues from air pollution control facilities and community activities. This term does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage or other substances in water sources, such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial wastewater effluents, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows, or other common water pollutants. According to HRS 342J-2, hazardous waste means: A solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may. (1) Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in a serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) Pose a substantial existing or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. HHW are typically generated in small quantities and, as a result, are not considered hazardous waste. HHW are exempt from federal and state hazardous waste regulations, according to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40 Part 261.4 and the State of Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR 11-261-4). According to HRS 342G-1 definitions, household hazardous waste means: Those wastes resulting from products purchased by the general public for household use which, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may pose a substantial known or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, disposed of, or otherwise managed. August 2020 6-1 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Because components of household waste may be hazardous to human health or the environment, HRS 342G-26 requires that integrated solid waste management plans: 1. Assess the quantity and type of hazardous wastes generated by residences in the county; 2. Describe current collection, recycling, and exchange programs, as well as current methods of disposing of household hazardous waste; and 3. Develop programs for the collection of household hazardous wastes that protect the public and the environment from these substances. The household hazardous wastes collected by the counties shall be disposed of by a state program. 6.2.2 Summary of E -Waste Regulations As of 2010, the Hawaii legislature enacted Act 13 to encourage recycling of electronics, and mandated manufacturers to establish, conduct, and manage take -back recycling programs for "covered electronic devices" (CEDs). Act 13 was revised in 2011 to include "covered televisions" (CTVs). The HDOH is responsible for implementing the "Hawai`i Electronic Device Recycling Program." Manufacturers of CEDs sold in Hawaii must register with HDOH and pay an annual registration fee of $5,000 and must set up recycling plans. Television manufacturers must follow the same protocol except for the fee, which is $2,500 annually. Any manufacturer that sells both CEDs and CTVs are required to pay a combined $7,500 in annual registration fees. The collected fees are used by HDOH to administer the program. According to Chapter 339D, Electronic Waste and Television Recycling and Recovery Act, a "covered electronic device" or "covered television" includes a computer, computer printer, computer monitor, or portable computer with a screen size greater than 4 inches measured diagonally; and televisions with a viewing screen greater than 9 inches intended for use by a household. The program does not cover certain electronic devices including those that are a component of a motor vehicle, part of a larger part of equipment (e.g., medical diagnostic equipment), or electronic devices in appliances (e.g., refrigerator), nor does it include telephones or global positioning system (GPS) units. The program is offered to any household, government entity, business, or nonprofit organization exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, regardless of size or place of operation within the State. 6.2.3 Review of 2009 Plan Exhibit 6-1 provides a summary of the recommendations from the 2009 Plan relative to household hazardous waste and e -waste, and describes the actions taken to achieve each recommendation. Exhibit 6-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Household Hazardous Waste and E -Waste 2009 Plan Recommendation Status Hire a Household Hazardous Waste/Electronics Waste specialist. Implement HHW and e -waste public outreach and education programs. Explore e -waste take -back programs with state and manufacturers/sellers. Using existing staff to manage the program. The County promotes HHW collection events when they are scheduled to occur. The County also promotes e -waste through flyers and information on the County's HawaiiZeroWaste.org website. Extended producer responsibility—Funding challenges. 6-2 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 6-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations (continued) 2009 Plan Recommendation Status Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to mandate and manage take -back programs for specific types of e -waste. Evaluate the elements of successful similar programs. Coordinate with other counties and the state to develop and implement a -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 hazardous waste 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. Conduct additional HHW collection events. Explore legislative actions for hazardous products and packaging take -back programs. Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to mandate and manage take -back programs. Coordinate with local retail businesses to develop and implement take -back programs. Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to facilitate storage and handling of hazardous waste 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. Explore public-private partnership for local a -waste campaign. 6.3 Existing Conditions Hawaii Electronic Device Recycling Program (HEDRP) a -waste recycling extended EPR program was implemented 2010-01-01. Funding challenges. Ongoing Task Force meetings. Lacking in counties of Hawaii and Kaua'i. Did not implement due to staffing constraints. Did not implement due to staffing constraints. Funding and organizational challenges. Conducted two events at Wai`6hinu Recycling and Transfer Station (2011-09-03 and 2012-09-08); despite broad awareness, campaign turnout was disappointing. Discontinued. Lack of administration support for EPR legislation; lack of legislative support for improving a -waste take -back EPR. Lack of administration or legislative support for EPR legislation. Lack of business support for EPR programs. Did not implement due to staffing constraints. No new hazardous or a -waste take -back programs to outline for public education. Did not implement due to staffing constraints. Household hazardous waste in the County is collected on specified collection dates at select recycling and transfer stations during the year. E -waste is collected every Saturday on a rotating schedule at the Wai'6hinu, Waimea, Kealakehe, and in Hilo at Mr. K's Recycle & Redemption Center. The County provides public awareness and educates residents on HHW and a -waste programs, promotes HHW collection events, and contracts for the collection of the hazardous products, which are then shipped to the mainland for proper disposal or treatment. The following subsections describe in greater detail the County's existing a -waste and HHW program. August 2020 6-3 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 6.3.1 Household Hazardous Waste An established HHW collection frequency of six HHW collection events per year are held at four of the recycling and transfer stations. Success at the Hilo and Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) recycling and transfer stations caused unacceptable traffic congestion during the HHW collection events. Both sites were relocated to accommodate traffic flow. The Hilo and Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) recycling and transfer stations each historically hosted two HHW collection events per year. The County's FY 2020-21 budget reduced the frequency to one event per year in August in Hilo and Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona), instead of two. Eventually, the County plans to resume twice a year collection. Future HHW collection events are currently scheduled for the following specific dates at these four locations: • Hilo: Waiakea High School—First Saturday of August, 7:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. • Kailua-Kona: Kealakehe High School —Second Saturday of August, 7:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. • Pahoa Recycling and Transfer Station—First Sunday of March, 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. • Waimea Recycling and Transfer Station—First Saturday of March, 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. HHW collection rates have remained consistent the past 5 years with a marked decrease from years prior (FY 2010 to FY 2012 averaged 136 tons/year while FY 2013 to FY 2017 averaged 58 tons/year). This difference is attributable to residents having greater opportunities for battery disposal at other non - County -managed locations as well as the promotion of Do -It -Yourself Used Motor Oil Collection sites available year-round to residents. Exhibit 6-2 displays the type and quantities of HHW collected from FY 2015 through FY 2017. Exhibit 6-2. Household Hazardous Waste Collection, County of Hawaii (All data in pounds) Material Collected FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Batteries (Automotive and Industrial)a 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 Miscellaneous 1,175 100 200 Oxidizing Material 240 195 155 Oil (gallons) 3,105 5,310 5,860 Source: Date provide from the County of Hawai'i DEM, multiple years. After 2013, the County stopped accepting automotive batteries at the recycling and transfer stations due to high disposal costs. However, these batteries are accepted at County -run take -back days where residents may bring in their household hazardous waste free of charge. 6-4 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii The HHW program is free for County residents. It is advertised via signage and flyers at the recycling and transfer stations, newspaper and radio advertisements, and on the County HawaiiZeroWaste.org website. Social media outlets also promote the events such as local community Facebook pages, and nonprofits (e.g., Recycle Hawaii). Video feeds such as Big Island Video News promote the events at no cost to the County. Commercial entities may contact private contractors for hazardous waste storage, recycling, and/or disposal. Residents who cannot come to one of the events or who have items that are not acceptable for collection at the residential events, can contact private contractors to have their HHW disposed for a fee. 6,3." E -Waste The "Computers, Electronics, & Printer Cartridges" page of the County's HawaiiZeroWaste.org website explains why a -waste should be recycled and provides resources for the public to learn more about the State of Hawai'i Electronic Device Recycling Program. The website lists the locations where items can be recycled free for residents and for a fee for both businesses and residents. The website also provides an inventory of manufacturers and producers that have their own trade-in recycling programs where it is possible that a consumer may get value for the a -waste item towards the purchase of new electronic equipment (or in some cases, may get a return in value without making a purchase [e.g., mobile telephones and accessories]). The County also recycles more types of e -waste than what is supported by the Electronic Waste and Television Recycling and Recovery Act. The County also recycles VCRs, CD/DVD players, stereo receivers/amplifiers (no speakers), UPS systems, digital cameras, and mobile and landline telephones— none of these items are listed as approved Covered Electronic Devices (CEDs) under the Hawai'i Electronic Device Recycling Program (see Section 6.2.2). E -waste is accepted at one permanent drop-off site in Hilo, Mr. K's Recycle and Redemption (Mr. K's), which is open daily from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Residents can recycle their a -waste for free on Saturdays and must pay a fee of $0.55 per pound on the other days. E -waste accepted includes televisions, computers, laptops, monitors, printers/fax machines/multi-function printers, VCRs, CD/DVD players, stereo receivers/amplifiers (no speakers), UPS systems, digital cameras, and mobile and landline telephones. Microwaves and heating/cooling devices are not accepted. Commercial entities may also recycle e -waste at Mr. K's; however, businesses are normally charged a fee of $0.95 per pound to recycle e -waste Sundays through Fridays, with a discounted rate of $0.55 per pound on Saturdays. In June 2018, Mr. K's held a one -day special event allowing free a -waste collection for everyone, including nonprofits, state/government agencies, and businesses by appointment only. Approximately 73,624 pounds of commercial and 7,932 pounds of County government a -waste were collected during this event. In addition to free a -waste recycling every Saturday at Mr. K's in Hilo, free residential household a -waste recycling collection occurs on other parts of the island on a monthly rotating basis at three locations: • Wai'ohinu Recycling and Transfer Station—First Saturday of every month. • Waimea Recycling and Transfer Station—Second Saturday of every month. • Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) Recycling and Transfer Station—Third Saturday of every month. These collections are prohibited from accepting e -waste from businesses, agencies, and nonprofits. Rotating a -waste collection sites are open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., only on their scheduled days. The list of e -waste accepted at the County facilities, also collected at Mr. K's Recycle and Redemption, are described above. In addition to managing the permanent a -waste collection site in Hilo, Mr. K's Recycle and Redemption collects e -waste from the rotating drop-off sites, then repairs a small portion for resale and/or recycles the material. Other local companies provide e -waste recycling services for a fee. August 2020 6-5 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Many manufacturers and producers of electronics have programs that allow consumers to get value for their products through trade-ins or to simply recycle their e -waste. The County's website lists the retailers and manufacturers with website links to these recycle/trade-in programs (e.g., Walmart, Panasonic, Nokia). The County website also provides contract information for businesses that take -back mobile telephones and accessories (e.g., Sprint, AT&T) and inkjet/toner cartridges (e.g., Office Depot, Target). Local retailers who collect e -waste ship the e -waste to the mainland for recycling at certified facilities. The mainland recyclers segregate the a -waste into glass, plastics, and metals components, which are sold to waste management entities. Exhibit 6-3 presents the total quantity of a -waste collected during the 2010 to 2018 fiscal years. Exhibit 6-3. E -Waste Collected, County of Hawai'i Fiscal Year Quantity Collected (July 1 through June 31) (Tons) 2009-2010 383 2010-2011 200 2011-2012 No a -waste shipped to market 2012-2013 292 2013-2014 155 2014-2015 156 2015-2016 166 2016-2017 229 2017-2018 287 Source: County of Hawai'i DEM, Solid Waste Division. 2018. As described in Chapter 3, there are seven reuse centers throughout the County sited next to the recycling and transfer stations. Though not classified as e -waste, these centers allow residents to drop off unwanted and still useful small electronic appliances that still have some use left in them. Residents can then purchase the appliances for a nominal fee at the center. In 2006, 2008, and 2010; the University of Hawaii (UH), in conjunction with Apple Corporation, sponsored the Hawaii Education and Government eDisposal Day. The event allowed residents to dispose of their personal a -waste during a single -day event at locations in Hilo and Kona and two events in Maui (Kahului and Lihue). In 2012, the event was expanded to allow 3 days of a -waste collection from County, state, or federal military branches; small to medium-sized businesses (of less than 100 employees); and nonprofit organizations while continuing with single -day event for Hawaii households. It is estimated that over 5 million pounds of e -waste was collected statewide during these events. The UH is no longer holding these community events; however, they are Reuse Center Electron ics—Kea'au Recycling and Transfer Station 6-6 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i still recycling university -generated a -waste on a quarterly basis and encouraging reuse through a university -supported "swap meet." The Apple Corporation is still supporting their efforts. issues and Concerns 6.4.1 Household Hazardous Wastc 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 transfer 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 waste stream. Despite the County's current efforts to keep HHW out of its landfills, the 2008 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study estimated that 527 tons of HHW was disposed of in County landfills in FY 2008. Although the County added two new collection locations for hazardous waste in 2008, the amount of hazardous waste collected has decreased. For example, FY 2010 through FY 2012, HHW collected was approximately 243 tons, and for FY 2015 through FY 2017, approximately 191 tons'. With an average of only 87 tons/year of hazardous waste managed between FY 2010 and FY 2017, and the estimated 527 tons disposed of in County landfills in FY 2008, there is a marked need to increase funding to educate the public about this program. [The County spent about $220,096 on its HHW program in FY 2017, of which approximately $11,000 was used towards advertising the program]. Thus, additional education and more convenient opportunities to properly manage HHW would be beneficial. Potential opportunities for improving the existing system are presented below. 6.4.2 Electronic Waste (E -Waste) The County is charged $0.55 per pound by the vendor to collect, process, and market the e -waste. The County pays for the residential e -waste program through state funding (electronic device recycling fund') and property taxes; however, there is no similar program to address a -waste generated by businesses, schools, or government entities such as the military branches. Although the County provides businesses with a reduced rate on Saturdays, the cost of e -waste disposal remains a disincentive for many private businesses to recycle e -waste, and results in much of the business a -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. 6 In FY 2009 through FY 2011, a large component of HHW was car batteries; they were not collected under the HHW program in later years. The car battery tonnage was removed for a more accurate comparison to later years of collection. ' According to Chapter 339D, Electronic Waste and Television Recycling and Recovery Act, there is an electronic device recycling fund, which is a culmination of fees, payments, and penalties as collected from manufacturers and retailers. The funds are administered through the HDOH, and expended for the sole purpose of implementing and enforcing the Electronic Waste and Television Recycling and Recovery Act. August 2020 6-7 2019 integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i The State of Hawai'i's Electronic Waste and Television Recycling and Recovery Program is a positive step in reducing a -waste disposal although a -waste is not banned from landfills under state or Hawai'i County laws. The City and County of Honolulu have a landfill ban on business and governmental e -waste, while households are exempt. Stronger legislation may be required to deter residents or businesses from disposing of a -waste in ways that result in the waste entering landfills. The HDOH 2016 Report to the legislature underlines several concerns and challenges related to the Electronic Waste and Television Recycling and Recovery Program: 1. The law gives manufacturers too much leeway in recycling programs they offer consumers. With no criteria or performance standards tied to the manufactured -generated recycling plans (which describe collection and recycling procedures), some manufacturers end up implementing inconvenient programs that require consumers to do much of the work to recycle their Covered Electronic Devices (CEDs). 2. Most collection programs have been drastically scaled back, or eliminated because of budget constraints, and comprehensive services are centered on O'ohu because of its population concentration. 3. Some manufacturers do not put effort in establishing CED recycling programs (as evidenced by the reporting of recycling 0 pounds of CEDs) and other manufacturers are only implementing programs in Oahu, with no comprehensive services to the other islands. The 2016 Report to the legislature suggests that statutory mandates for minimum e -waste recycling goals and customer convenience are necessary to encourage a state-wide program that is both effective and convenient. The HDOH's plan is to continue to work with the Legislature to strengthen the program with respect to consistency of service provided across the state, convenience of the recycling programs, long term stability of the programs, and to setting recycling goals. 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 potentially result in discarded a -waste being shipped to third world countries where fewer desirable practices are implemented. Use of certified recyclers can increase costs of recycling or disposal. The County's current program (implemented through Mr. K's Recycle and Redemption) uses recyclers that provide certificates of destruction. The County spent about $165,000 ($0.55 per pound) on its e -waste recycling program in FY 2017-18. State grants are available to help defray the cost of recycling, the County received a $160,000 grant from the state for FY 2018-19 and will receive the same amount in FY 2019-20. The design of collection facilities for e -waste and HHW must consider 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 precipitation areas) and the potential for export of invasive species (such as African tree snails or coqui frogs) must be evaluated during design. options 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 the County. 6-8 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 6.5.1 Install Permanent Collection Facilities at Recycling and Transfer Stations Permanent collection facilities 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 has constructed a special waste collection facility at the Pahoa Recycling and Transfer Station as a component of its upgrade; however, it is currently unused due to staffing deficiencies. Guidelines could be developed for both residential and business use of the facilities. Facilities are designed with safe work practices in mind for operation of equipment such as forklifts or trailers. Operational plans are established to minimize the risk of injury to workers. In areas with higher rainfall, facility designs 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 at recycling and transfer stations would potentially reduce the amount of illegal dumping, and would allow the County to set up a safer and more efficient system for storage, handling, transport, and eventual disposal of the wastes. Cost Considerations. Permanent facilities for HHW can range significantly in costs depending upon their design and function. If permanent facilities are developed at multiple recycling and transfer stations, the facilities could be smaller and would be less costly. Annual operating costs would depend on how often the facilities are open and the extent to which the programs are successful in attracting HHW. 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 type 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 documents the days that the service would be provided by 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, second week of January, April, and July). Cost Considerations. Costs for conducting such events would include cost of temporary facilities to store wastes dropped off during the events, costs 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 used to transport and dispose of the waste collected. August 2020 6-9 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 6.5.3 Establish E -Waste Take -Back Programs with Manufacturers or Sellers As described in Section 6.3.2, the Computers, Electronics, & Printer Cartridges page of the SWD's website (HawaiiZeroWaste.org) does a thorough job explaining why e -waste should be recycled, and provides resources for the public to learn more about the Hawai'i Electronic Device Recycling Program, which includes an inventory of manufacturers and producers that have their own trade-in recycling programs. The County's website lists the retailers and manufacturers with website links to these recycle/trade-in programs (e.g., Walmart, Panasonic, Nokia). The County website also provides contract information for businesses that take back mobile telephones and accessories (e.g., Sprint, AT&T) and inkjet/toner cartridges (e.g., Office Depot, Target). There are also opportunities for corporate sponsorships (e.g., UH program with Apple Corporation, Hawaii Education and Government eDisposal Day) to promote e -cycling. The County could potentially apply for grants from manufacturers, or work directly with sellers to establish collection events to promote the concept of producer take -back programs and the general importance of e -cycling. Cost Considerations. The County already incorporates information about a -waste take -back programs into their educational materials on their HawaiiZeroWaste.org website. They could expand this program by working in conjunction with either sellers or manufacturers to establish take -back programs that involve collection events (similar to the UH/Apple Corporation -sponsored Hawaii Education and Government eDisposal Day). 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 a -waste reaches the end of its useful life. Currently, only California has implemented legislation requiring consumers to pay a fee upon purchase of equipment. The California law applies to purchases of specific types of e -waste items known to contain materials that are considered hazardous upon disposal (primarily televisions, computers, and other types of equipment that use CRTs, liquid crystal displays, or plasma screens). The fee only applies when purchasing new equipment and is restricted to products covered under the law. Retailers are required to implement the fee system and can capture 3 percent of the fee to cover the costs of implementing the program. Cost Considerations. 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. 6-10 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 6.5.5 Explore Public -Private Partnership for Local E -waste Campaign (anything with a plug) The 2009 Zero Waste Implementation Plan discussed the concept of hand -dismantling electronic components (e -waste) to segregate high-grade metals and segregate working parts rather than shipping materials off island as is currently the practice under the Electronic Waste and Television Recycling and Recovery Act. Currently, a -waste collected on the island is shipped, typically without being pre-sorted, to the mainland for proper disposal. An on -island a -waste campaign would present a potential opportunity to create value-added products, jobs, and tax revenues in the County rather than shipping a -waste off island to benefit another jurisdiction. There are several ways to initiate on -island hand -dismantling of e -waste: • Provide financial incentives for local dismantling to a company that is currently shipping bulk e - waste off the island. • Encourage a joint venture with companies that have established hand -dismantling operations, or have designed their own e -waste processing equipment and may be seeking joint ventures with nonprofit organizations or for-profit businesses. • Apply for a grant to promote green infrastructure jobs. In this option, the County would study different models for promoting local dismantling of e -waste 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. Depending on the material source and process used for dismantling, a solid waste and/or hazardous waste permit may be required. Cost Considerations. The cost of an a -waste campaign could vary widely depending on the extent to which the program would require County funding to initiate and sustain. The funding would have to cover an initial study to investigate opportunities. Recommendations Based on the analyses presented above, and the preferences of the SWAC and County staff, the Plan recommends the actions listed below to improve the HHW and a -waste program. Proposed funding and the timing of implementation for each program are described in Chapter 10. 1. Ensure enough staffing to operate HHW/e-waste programs successfully. 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 a -waste programs, it is recommended that the County review the staffing needs to make the program successful. 2. Implement HHW/e-waste public education, outreach, and public awareness program. 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 would expand the existing marketing programs through: Providing event -specific announcements or advertisements. Displaying additional signage at recycling and transfer stations. August 2020 6-11 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Expanding outreach programs by conducting community-based educational events at schools or other public institutions. 3. Research and evaluate elements of successful e-waste/HHW programs implemented in other jurisdictions and integrate those successes into the County's program. 4. Explore a -waste take back programs with state and manufacturers/sellers. Take -back programs by manufacturers and sellers of e -waste 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. Coordinate with other counties and the state to develop and implement a -waste take -back EPR programs. Coordinate with local retailers to facilitate implementation of take -back programs for e - waste. Assess legislative actions that may be necessary to improve a -waste programs including demanufacturing, storage and handling, and funding equity. 5. Conduct additional HHW collection events. During the development of the 2009 Plan update, a consensus was expressed by 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 be expanded to create additional opportunities for proper HHW disposal. It is recommended that the County establish 10 to 12 additional HHW collection events per year. 6. 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. Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to facilitate storage and handling of hazardous products and packaging at various types of collection locations, and funding equity. 7. Explore public-private partnership for a local a -waste campaign (on -island demanufacturing). It is recommended that the County initiate a study of different models for promoting local dismantling and refurbishing of electronics. As part of the study, the County would 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 a -waste 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 a -waste program. 6-12 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawal'f %. SPECIAL WASTE Introduction As defined in Hawaii 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 and/or disposal. 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 comprise a significant portion of the total waste stream for most communities. The South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL) formerly accepted a wide range of special wastes; however, because the site closed in 2019, the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill (WHSL) receives the bulk volume of special wastes in the County. Rpvip\�, of ?nog PIpr I Irriate Exhibit 7-1 is a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2009 Plan update relative to source reduction, and a description of the actions taken to achieve each recommendation. Exhibit 7-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Special Waste 2009 Plan Update Recommendation Status Include special waste drop-off and collection areas in the design of new or renovated recycling and transfer stations. Continue the current effort to modify convenience center permits to allow white goods recovery at recycling and transfer stations. Include information regarding the environmental benefits of properly disposing of scrap tires, and current disposal options in the County's education and promotion programs. Background Limited special wastes drop-off opportunities designed/implemented (White Goods). Modified certain permits for White Goods acceptance. HDOH administers the tire/wholesaler scrap tire education program. The County implemented an educational program that targeted both the tire dealers and the public. The County also did multiple inspections of each tire dealer and provided information to the dealer on proper tire management. Special wastes are generated by both residents and commercial businesses, and in some cases require special handling or processing to comply with federal and state regulations. As shown in Exhibit 7-2, certain types of special wastes can be disposed of in WHSL, with varying levels of documentation depending on the type of waste. Some types of special wastes cannot be disposed at the landfill 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. The County Department of Environmental Management (DEM) sponsors household annual and bi- annual hazardous waste collection events at select recycling and transfer stations for residential waste. August 2020 7-1 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Special wastes accepted at these events include used oil (also accepted at six permanent collection locations), lead -acid batteries, and medication. Waste must be from residential households. Commercia and industrial -generated wastes are managed through the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH). Exhibit 7-2. Special Waste Disposal Requirements Accepted at West Hawaii Special Storage, Handling, or Disposal Landfill Practices Required Asbestos -Containing Materials Yes Yes Used Oil No N/A Petroleum -Contaminated Soil Yes Yes Used Batteries (lead -acid) No N/A Sewage Sludge (non -hazardous) Yes Yes Agricultural Waste Yes Yes (deceased livestock) Medical Wastes No N/A Used Tires No N/A White Goods No N/A Derelict Vehicles No N/A Asbestos Asbestos -containing materials (ACM) are currently accepted for disposal at the WHSL in designated areas within the landfill. 7.2.? Used Motor Oil The County sponsors a do-it-yourself used oil recycling program. The program is funded by the County, made possible through the donated support of businesses collecting the used motor oil. Under the program, residents can drop off used motor oil at no charge at any of seven collection locations. The oil is accumulated at these collection centers, and then transported to recycling or energy recovery facilities by waste hauling or disposal contractors. During 2015, 2,750 gallons (86.6 tons) of motor oil were collected and either recycled or used in an energy recovery facility (County of Hawaii DEM 2016a). During the period from January through June 2016, 2,035 gallons (64.1 tons) of used motor oil were collected (County of Hawai'i DEM 2017b). Potential issues (public health and environmental) with used motor oil disposal include residents disposing of used motor 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. 7.2.3 Petroleum -Contaminated Soil Soil affected by release of petroleum products is currently accepted at the WHSL, if it has been chemically profiled and determined to be non -hazardous. The contractor, Waste Management Corporation, reviews chemical profiling data for petroleum -contaminated soil entering the WHSL, and manages the placement and disposal of this material at the landfill. 7-2 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 7.2.x' Used Batteries (lead -acid) Used lead -acid batteries are typically recycled by distributors such as auto parts stores or auto service centers. Prior to 2013, specific collection areas for batteries were set up at the Kealakehe, Hilo, and Kea'au recycling and transfer stations. They were transported to their respective base yards and eventually to scrap metal yards or handled as household hazardous waste (HHW). After 2013, the County stopped accepting automotive batteries at the recycling and transfer stations. However, these batteries are accepted at County -run HHW collection events where residents may bring in their HHW free of charge. Potential issues with used battery disposal include residents disposing of batteries into the waste stream that enters the landfills, discarding used batteries at recycling and transfer stations, or in more remote areas. 7.2.5 Sewage Sludge WHSL receives non -hazardous sewage sludge from the Hilo Wastewater Treatment Plant, and 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. 7.2.1`7 Agricultural and Farm -Generated Waste Agricultural wastes generated in the County typically include dead livestock, spoiled foods, and green waste. Farm -generated wastes include containers of herbicides, pesticides, or other agricultural chemicals. 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 at the landfill). Green waste produced at farms is most frequently used by the farm owners. Green waste is accepted for recycling at EHOF and WHOF; residential green waste is accepted at select recycling and transfer stations, as described in Chapter 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets. The HDOH's pollution coordinator provides guidance for the management and disposal of farm - generated hazardous wastes. Relating to pesticides, conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) may contact the state's pesticide branch for disposal information. Triple -rinsed chemical containers are allowed in the commercial solid waste stream (HDOH 2013). 7.2.7 Medical Wastes Under Hawai'i County Code, untreated medical wastes are considered "prohibited materials" and not allowed to be disposed in landfills. Medical wastes pre-treated at the generating facility to remove pathogens and other hazards are permitted to be disposed at the WHSL. To prevent misuse and improper disposal of prescription drugs and sharps, various levels of government have developed pharmaceutical take -back programs: • The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) offers bi-annual free take -back days for prescription and Over -The -Counter (OTC) pharmaceuticals. The State of Hawaii Department of the Attorney General, HDOH, and the Hawaii County Police Department (HCPD) administer the Hawaii Medication Drop Box Program through federal funds. Residents may dispose of their prescriptions in designated boxes located inside the Hilo, Puna, or Kona police stations. August 2020 7-3 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii • The County accepts residential prescription drugs at Kona or Hilo's HHW collection events, or at Waimea or Pahoa's annual HHW collection event. Longs Drugs operates a take back program for prescription medications, over-the-counter medications, and liquid medicine bottles Hilo, Pahoa's, and Kona (Kealakehe). This was made possible through the House Bill (HB) -1272 that was passed by the state legislature in 2019. Sharps and needles are not accepted at these events. Residents may dispose of their sharps and needles through their medical provider or by properly securing their syringes in a puncture -resistant container and placing it in the garbage. Information on proper disposal of needles and pharmaceuticals are provided on the County's zero waste website. Some businesses subcontract medical waste disposal to private businesses that specialize in medical waste disposal. The HDOH is the lead regulatory agency tasked with oversight per HAR 11-104.1. In FY 2016-17, an estimated 442 tons of treated medical waste were disposed of at County landfills. 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. 7.2.8 U -,ed Tires County Ordinance No. 07-182, as codified in HCC 20-46, prohibits the disposal of tires that are whole, cut, sliced, chipped or shredded at any landfill and all island -wide transfer stations. The County does not collect tires at recycling and transfer stations or landfills, and it is illegal for residents and business owners to drop off tires at any County facility. Both residential and commercial scrap tires are typically collected and disposed of by automotive 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 removed by the scrap metal hauler and then transported to a recycling or disposal facility. Tires generated in the County are shipped to Oahu for crumbing and subsequent blending with coal at the AES Hawai'i Inc. coal-fired power plant or processed in the H -Power waste to energy facility (City and County of Honolulu. 2017). A small percentage of used tires are recycled for use in artistic or industrial products. At least one business in the County has conducted a pilot project that mixes scrap tires and concrete to create blocks for landscaping walls or fences. Nationally, markets are increasingly being 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 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. The County will continue to promote tire recycling best management practices in its public education and information programs. 7.2.9 White Goods (Large Appliances) White goods (large appliances) consist of used appliances including dishwashers, ranges, refrigerators, water heaters, freezers, and other similar domestic appliances. According to the EPA, steel and iron are the predominant materials in major appliances, and the recycling of these materials avoids the environmental impacts associated with the mining and processing of virgin material (EPA 2016a). Thus, 7-4 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Pion Update County of Hawai'i recycling at scrap metal facilities is highly encouraged. Big Island Scrap Metal, located on both sides of the island, Hilo and Kona, currently accepts these items. The County also promotes on its website the Refrigerator Trade -Up "Rid -A -Fridge" Program that offers residents the option to replace and dispose of energy inefficient appliances, contingent upon funding availability. Through this program, rebates are offered to residents to replace their white goods with more updated and efficient models. Residents may also drop off unwanted white goods at various recycling and transfer stations (Exhibit 7-3). Since 2009, the White Goods Collection—Hilo Recycling and Transfer Station County has expanded their white goods recycling program by adding reuse facilities to seven more recycling and transfer stations. Drop-offs are allowed at other recycling and transfer stations to keep them from ending up in the transfer trailers and the landfill. The County employees monitor the number of white goods to remain in compliance with permit requirements, and regularly load and recycle them at a scrap metal facility. At those facilities, freon is recovered and recycled in accordance with federal law from appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners. Exhibit 7-3. Recycling and Transfer Stations that Accept White Goods Recycling and Transfer Station White Goods Accepted Recycling and Transfer Station White Goods Accepted East Hawaii West Hawaii Glenwood — Ka'auhuhu (Hawi) X Hilo X Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) X Honoka'a X Keauhou — Honomu — Ke'ei X Kalapana — Miloli`i — Kea'au X Ocean View — Laupahoehoe X Puako X Pa'auilo — Waimea X Pahala X Wai'ohinu X Pahoa X Papa'ikou — Volcano X August 2020 7-5 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Some retail outlets will pick up used appliances and transport them to scrap metal facilities 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 and limited recycling options may consequently lead to Illegal dumping by residents. Options to improve the white goods disposal process include changing the operation permit for more recycling and transfer stations to accept residential white goods, establishing additional targeted collection days and locations, or having mobile collection events. 7.2.10 Abandoned Vehicles Abandoned vehicles are managed by the County Abandoned Vehicle Coordinator in conjunction with the HCPD. According to HCC 24-199, abandoned vehicles (operational and non -operational) in public right- of-way are subject to a $250 fine and vehicle removal -associated expenses. Abandoned vehicles that have been reported to the HCPD are tagged, monitored, and evaluated to assess if they are derelict. If after the monitoring period the vehicle has not been moved, it is considered derelict; the vehicle is then hauled by a County -contracted towing company to one of the two waste metal recovery facilities. If the vehicle is abandoned and not considered derelict, the vehicle is impounded by the County, and an attempt is made to notify the registered owner. Recommendations The current program for special wastes is somewhat limited by the County recycling and transfer station infrastructure. It was agreed through consensus of the SWAC 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. Based on the analysis presented above, and discussions with the SWAC, the Plan recommends the following to improve the special waste program: 1. Continue to integrate the Do -it -Yourself Used Motor Oil program within the County's public education and information program. 2. Increase the number of recycling and transfer stations that accept white goods. Continue to explore the feasibility of removing the freon at the site to simplify the handling, loading, and transport of white goods. 3. Continue to ensure that recycling facilities responsible for dismantling of white goods are trained properly for the recovery and recycling of freon-containing appliances. 4. Continue to promote tire recycling best management practices within the County's public education and information program. 7-6 August 2020 2019 integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 8. COLLECTION AND TRANSFER Introduction The County currently operates a network of 22 recycling and transfer stations. The County contracts with private firms to transport recyclables from most of the stations to privately operated processing facilities. Municipal waste is transported by the County's Department of Environmental Management (DEM) Solid Waste Division (SWD) staff to the West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill (WHSL). This chapter describes current conditions of the existing solid waste collection and transfer system within the County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents options and recommendations for achieving the County's solid waste collection and transfer goals. 8.2 Background The County of Hawaii developed the transfer station system in the 1970s to provide a transition from operating local dump sites to instituting a more centralized landfill system. The transfer stations were initially constructed as inexpensive, temporary facilities to fulfill the immediate needs of residential users by consolidating smaller residential loads into combined larger loads for transfer to landfills. The recycling component of the transfer station was incrementally added beginning in the early 2000s, and the County now refers to the facilities as "recycling and transfer stations." The 22 recycling and transfer stations operate under Solid Waste Management Permits issued by the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH). Review of 2009 Plan Update Exhibit 8-1 provides a summary of the recommendations presented in the 2009 Plan update relative to solid waste collection and transfer, and a description of the actions taken to date to achieve each recommendation. Exhibit 8-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Collection and Transfer 2009 Plan Update Recommendation Status 1) Retain the County's system of recycling and transfer stations. 2) A component of retaining the system includes completing upgrades to address structural deficiencies. 3) Provide expanded services in support of zero waste initiatives. 1) Reconstruct one or more recycling and transfer stations annually, including a new South Kona recycling and transfer station at Ocean View. 2) The County should also consider installing compaction units for recyclables at selected stations. Consider adopting a "satellite" system where compactors would be installed at selected stations, which would accept uncompacted recyclables from nearby stations lacking compactors. 1) County's MSW system retained. 2) Upgrades to several recycling and transfer stations completed (see below). 3) Zero Waste initiatives include plastic bag/polystyrene foam ban, addition of seven reuse centers. 1) Reconstructed Pahoa, Glenwood, and Volcano recycling and transfer stations. Currently reconstructing Wai'ohinu/ Ka'u recycling and transfer station. The Ocean View Recycling and Transfer Station is being constructed. 2) Recycling compactor system not implemented. August 2020 8-1 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Exhibit 8-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Collection and Transfer (continued) 2009 Plan Update Recommendation Status Implement full-time staffing and reduced operating Public dernand requires more recycling and transfer hours at recycling and transfer stations; consider stations and longer days and hours of operation. Current closing one or more stations. funding provides limited staffing levels. Develop a system to license private collection firms. Currently, collection firms must have an account/permit to In this program, all firms that collect garbage from dispose at the landfill. A license program has not been residents or businesses would be required to register developed. vehicles, document that the vehicles meet safety requirements, and pay a nominal licensing fee (to cover the cost of licensing). Change permits to allow small commercial businesses to drop off recyclables at County recycling and transfer stations. These permits 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 1 ton) would be allowed to use the stations. Conduct an operational efficiency analysis. Develop a base yard facility and equipment maintenance facility for transfer vehicles at the SHSL. Existing Conditions The increased cost of processing the material is a concern. The County has not added enough funds to take material from the businesses. Did not implement. No funds were available for operational efficiency analysis. Constructed a new South Hilo base yard, but not the maintenance facility. Currently, there is no curbside recycling or garbage pickup provided by the County. Most island residents use the network of 22 recycling and transfer stations to dispose of their rubbish. The recycling and transfer stations are geographically distributed for the convenience of island residents. A map showing the relative size of each station as correlated to garbage received (FY 2017-18) is included in Exhibit 8-2. Private companies provide curbside pickup within limited geographic regions of the island for a fee. Based on residential credit information from the County", it is estimated that about 6,000 households currently subscribe to curbside service. This represents approximately 9 percent of the estimated 66,094 occupied households in the County in 2017. Fees for curbside collection quoted by private collection firms appear to range between $20 and $40 per household per month. In 2018, the Honolulu, Kauai County, and Maui County curbside pickup costs for residents were approximately $10, $12, and $18, respectively. There are several companies that collect garbage from businesses and institutions in the County. Collection rates charged vary by company, the type of service provided, and the distance from the collection point to the landfill. Use of the recycling and transfer stations to drop off recyclables or garbage is currently free for residents. 8 The County provides credit against tipping fees to collection firms that document waste that is collected from residences. 8-2 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Exhibit 8-2. Disposal at Hawai'i County Recycling and Transfer Stations FY 17-18 Source: County of Hawai'i DEM SWD Note: Numbers under transfer station = tons of trash hauled in FY 17-18 and percent of total for County. August 2020 8-3 Ka'suhuhu (Nawi) RTS 4.247 (5.0"x) 0 Honoka'a RTS 111 4.154 (4.9%) Pa'auilo RTS Laupahoehoe RTS Puakd RTS Waimea RTS 771(0.9%) 1,405 (1.23%) 2.011 1..2.4% 6,586 (7.7%) Honomli RTS South Hilo West Hawaii 983 (1.2%1 Sanitary Landfill Sanitary Landfill 38.737 (45.6%) 46,442(54.4%) Piiipa'Kcou RTS 1.597 (1.9%) East Haw 11 Kali Kona RTS Regional sort Station 12.08 14.19%) mile RTS 1.192 (1.4%) 15.592 (18.396) Kea'au RTS 9.211(10.8%) Kewhou RTS 5,922 (7.0%) Glenwood RTS 1,907 (2.29e) Keel RTS 1,276 Volcano RTS Piihoa RTS (1.5'x) 1,369 (16%)* 7.318 (8.6%) Waiea RTS 1.083 (1.346) Kalapana RTS 509 (0.6%) Mlloli9 RTS Pahala RTS 687(0.8%) 1,087 73% Wai'ohlna RTS Ocean View 3.496 (4.1%) No Data G Source: County of Hawai'i DEM SWD Note: Numbers under transfer station = tons of trash hauled in FY 17-18 and percent of total for County. August 2020 8-3 1019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaf'1 8.4.1 Recycling and Transfer Station Features The 22 recycling and transfer stations managed by the County 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. Except for Miloli`i and Ocean View recycling and transfer stations, rubbish is compacted typically three to four times per day by SWD facility attendants who distribute their time among the different facilities. The Miloli`i Transfer Station has a roll -off container that is hauled twice per week to the WHSL by the SWD. Recycling and transfer station attendants clean and maintain the stations, operate the compactors, periodically monitor haulers for prohibited materials, and report any unusual activity at the stations. The recycling and transfer stations are permitted to accept only residential rubbish; commercial and hazardous wastes are prohibited at all stations. For each volunteer event, nonprofit organizations and community groups are required to get a waiver to dispose of material at the recycling and transfer stations, which can be time consuming and inconvenient. Commercial businesses frequently use the stations due to a lack of resources for enforcement and/or suitable alternatives for solid waste disposal. Without adequate security measures and enforcement, it is difficult for the County to ensure that all permit requirements are being met. Currently, 21 of the 22 stations are gated and have part-time security guards. Exhibit 8-3. Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations Approx. FY 2016-17 Recycling and Population Parcel Size Number of Tonnage Gated Hours/Days of Transfer Station District Served (Acres) Chutes (Tons/Day) Operation East Hawaii Glenwood Puna 4,300 1.97 1 4.73 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Sun, Tues, Fri Hilo South Hilo 42,000 72.7 4 40.90 6:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Daily Honoka'a Hamakua 5,100 0.73 1 11.57 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Daily HonomG South Hilo 3,400 0.84 1 2.71 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Mon, Tues, Sat Kalapana Puna 1,200 13.2 1 1.22 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Mon, Thurs, Sat Kea'au Puna 11,700 19.54 2 22.95 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Daily Laupahoehoe North Hilo 1,700 1.02 1 2.87 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Sun, Tues, Fri Pa'auilo Hamakua 1,800 0.85 1 2.06 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Mon, Thurs, Sat Pahala Ka'u 1,700 0.75 1 2.90 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Sun, Tues, Fri Pahoa Puna 9,400 3.77 2 23.34 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Daily Papa'ikou South Hilo 5,800 0.57 1 3.78 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Sun, Tues, Fri Volcano Puna 2,000 2.19 1 3.81 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Mon, Thurs, Sat 8-4 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 8-3. Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations (continued) Approx. FY 2016-17 Recycling and Population Parcel Size Number of Tonnage Gated Hours/Days of Transfer Station District Served (Acres) Chutes (Tons/Day) Operation West Hawaii Ka'auhuhu North Kohala h,000 17.28 1 11.85 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (Hawi) Daily Kealakehe North Kona 21,000 30.32 3 32.41 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (Kailua-Kona) Daily Keauhou North Kona 8,500 5.47 2 15.09 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Daily Ke`ei South Kona 5,600 11.6 1 3.14 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Sun, Tues, Fri Miloli'i South Kona 700 0.17 1 2.12 Sunrise to Sunset (not gated) Daily Ocean View Ka'u Temporary site, formal recycling and transfer station on 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. County land in planning stages. Saturday Puako South Kohala 5,600 8.9 1 5.52 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Sun, Tues, Fri Waiea South Kona 3,300 2.28 1 2.65 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Mon, Thurs, Sat Waimea South Kohala 11,700 0.31 2 19.19 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Daily Wai'ohinu Ka'u 3,000 31.65 1 9.06 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Daily Source: County of Hawai'i DEM (2017d) At 18 recycling and transfer stations the County employs a 2 -bin system for recycling, with limited stations providing a separate bin for cardboard. This system consists of separate roll- off containers to accommodate the recyclables. Currently, most stations have stairs and platforms to allow convenient customer access to the recycling bins. Select stations offer a HI -5 -� redemption center, and reuse opportunities and/or facilities for the recycling of green waste and metals. The recycling services provided at Pahoa Recycling and Transfer Station each station are shown in Exhibit 8-4. Several of the recycling and transfer stations are used illegally by private recyclers or community groups to drop off recyclable materials. The County facilitates the use of the recycling and transfer stations as collection points for recyclables to the extent practicable, 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 (except Pahoa), which are then hauled by SWD staff to the landfill. 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 provides part-time security monitoring. August 2020 8-5 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Exhibit 8-4. Services Provided at Hawaii County Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations Recycling and Transfer Station 3M GJ T x W ;° g M i Ln o t 3 M 3 5U �7 o a Ln '0 c = a°'c u East Hawaii East Hawai'i Organics Facility (EHOF)b — — — — — X — — Glenwood X X X — — — — — Hilo' X X X X X — X X Honoka'a X X X X X — — X Honomu X X X — — — — — Kalapana X — — — — — — — Kea'aua X X X X X X X X Laupahoehoe X X X X X — X — Pa'auilo X X X — — — — — Pahala X X X X X — — — Pahoa X X X X X X X — Papa'ikou X X X — — — — — Volcano X X X X X X — X West Hawaii Ka'auhuhu (Hawi) X X X X — — — X Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona)a X X X X X X X X Keauhou X X X — — — X X Ke'ei X X X X X — — — Miloli'i X — — — — — — — Puako X X X X X — — X Ocean View X X — — — — X Waiea X X X — — X — — Waimea X X X X X X X X Wai'ohinu X X X X X — X X West Hawai'i Organics Facility (WHOF)b — — — — — X — — Note: Hilo, Kea'au, and Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Stations contain separate bins for newspaper and cardboard. 8-6 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 8-5. Recycling and Transfer Station Condition Recycling and Transfer Station Condition Improvements Following Adoption of 2009 Plan No Minor Deficienciesl Deficienciesz 2018 Status Intermediate Major Deficiencies3 Deficiencies' East Hawai'i East Hawaii Organics Operations began in 2013. In 2016, Facility (EHOF) enhanced mulching procedures were introduced per Hawaii Administrative X — — — Rule (HAR) 4-72-13 to restrict the spread of invasive species Glenwood Reconstructed in 2015: • Removed deteriorating retaining walls • Added covered concrete docks for x drop boxes Reconfigured the site for improved vehicular flow patterns Hilo 2017: Constructed and opened new reuse — x facility Honoka'a No improvements — — — x Honomu No improvements — — — x Kalapana No improvements — — — x Kea'au Remodeled in 2011: • Added reuse area, recycling drop-off area, and green waste bins X — — — • Reconfigured and repaved the site for improved vehicular flow patterns Replaced rubbish chutes Laupahoehoe No improvements — — — x Pa'auilo No improvements — — — x Pahala No improvements — — — x Papa'ikou No improvements — — — x Pahoa Reconstructed in 2011: • Includes sustainable building features and materials (e.g., solar, water catchment) • Designed for improved vehicular flow patterns • Improved signage • Replaced drop-off recycling roll -off box x — — — system with covered recycling bin bays (seven total) • Constructed new building for HHW collection/office with restroom • Added public meeting area Constructed a covered bay for MSW and for green waste 8-7 August 2020 1019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 8-5. Recycling and Transfer Station Condition (continued) Condition 2018 Status Recycling and Improvements Following Adoption of No Minor Intermediate Major Transfer Station 2009 Plan Deficiencies' Deficienciesz Deficiencies3 Deficiencies4 Volcano Reconstructed in 2015: • Removed deteriorating retaining walls • Added covered concrete docks for drop boxes X — — — • Reconfigured the site for improved vehicular flow patterns 2015: Added green waste collection services West Hawaii Ka'auhuhu (Hawk No improvements. Removed reuse center. — — X — Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) • 2010: Reconfigured and repaved for improved vehicular flow patterns x - - - • 2013: Constructed and opened new reuse facility Keauhou No improvements — — — X Ke'ei No improvements — — x — Miloli`i Expanded the concrete pad to accommodate two bins. X Puako 2010: Reconfigured and repaved for improved vehicular flow patterns — X — — Ocean View Temporary site on County -owned park parcel. Phase 1 construction for the permanent site, notice to proceed issued — — — x February 2019 Waiea No improvements — — — X Waimea • Reconstructed in 2010, upgrades include: Recycling area customer accessibility improvements Site reconstruction for improved traffic flow x — — — • 2012: Opened the Waimea Reuse and HI -5 Redemption Center Building • 2015: Added green waste collection services Wai'ohinu • 2017: Constructed and opened new reuse facility • Design -build project. Notice to Proceed x — — — for reconstruction issued in 2018, first task is design. West Hawaii Organics 2013: Beginning of operation Facility (WHOF) x — ' Recent/Planned upgrades are sufficient through 2029. z Deficiencies can be corrected while station in operation 3 Deficiencies correctable without reconstruction 4 Deficiencies require reconstruction 8-8 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii The County has placed a strong emphasis on waste diversion. Since 2009, the County has expanded its green waste program. Green waste bins have been added to various recycling and transfer stations. In 2013, EHOF and WHOF began operation. In their first year, these facilities collected 40,465 tons of green waste representing 63 percent of diverted waste from the SHSL and WHSL (County of Hawaii DEM 2017a). Although these facilities accept yard trimmings and untreated wood pallets, they do not err La Lh- n accept food waste. According to the EPA (EPA 2018c), food waste composes 15.1 percent of MSW—a value exceeding yard trimmings ste (13.3 percent) and wood (6.2 percent). Thus, in 2014, a request for R.�aeaaatoNur proposals (RFP) was released for a compost and green waste =Gross • _processing facility that would accept food and yard waste East Leaves Y Branches Less than *'Trees 4' long and Hawai' i Organics Facility). The County plans to develop the facility on * stumps 18" diameter the east side of the island as early as 2020. r * Untreated To further the philosophy of waste reduction and zero waste, the umber County has also expanded reuse facilities. Reuse centers have been N 0 rubb{s installed at eight recycling and transfer stations (see Exhibit 8-3); Plastic ba9s, these facilities accept donated reusable items that are then sold for u reuse back to the public. Through reuse, negative environmental impacts associated with landfilling and reprocessing are bypassed or delayed. The County has garnered recognition for these improvements and updates. For example, the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) recognized the Pahoa Recycling and Transfer Station's 2012 improvements for environmental and economic solid waste management. This station accepts green waste, cardboard, glass, and scrap metal, and includes an onsite reuse center and HI -5 redemption center. Waste reduction is also achieved through the County's white goods program; residents may bring clean empty household appliances to 13 recycling and transfer stations (see Exhibit 8-3). 8.5 Issues and Concerns The County's network of recycling and transfer stations provides convenient locations for County residents to drop off recyclables and garbage. Residents who prefer curbside collection must make arrangements with a local business providing the service. When evaluating a curbside service program, the County would assess the need to continue operating all 22 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 Chapter 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets, it would also be desirable to provide additional opportunities to divert waste from landfill disposal. Many such opportunities would require significant and potentially expensive changes to the existing infrastructure and operations at County recycling and transfer stations. August 2020 8-9 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 8.6 Curbside Collection Implementation Considerations This section provides a discussion of a variety of issues that would 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. • Service frequency. Many of these issues were also discussed in Chapter 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets. References to this chapter will be made as appropriate. Institutional Approaches to Service f?elivery In the United States, 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: 1. No government -organized collection service. 2. Local government owned and operated collection service. 3. Non-competitive 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 the 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 residents. Many of these individuals would 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 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 leading to increased costs. In other words, residential collection service 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 8-10 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii social considerations become more important; garbage should be removed at least once every 7 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, especially where the county is the most basic level of government. 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 County does have to pay the General Excise Tax), 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 privately provided service were of equal cost, on average, for smaller local governments with a population of less than 20,000. And the survey found that privately provided service with exclusive collection territories was significantly less costly (up to 37 percent) for larger jurisdictions with populations of more than 50,000 (Stevens 1980). According to certain reports, privatization of MSW collection may result in a cost savings ranging from 20 to 40 percent for local government (NSWMA 2011). However, privatization may not always be less costly than government collection, as the weak competition between collection companies often reduces cost savings. In fact, a meta-analysis study conducted between 1960 and 2008 across the United States and nine other countries determined no cost difference between public versus private collection (Bel and Warner 2008). Some other 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, terminate 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. • The initial cost to purchase vehicles and containers and subsequent operation and maintenance costs can be difficult for some communities to finance. 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 services (Kenny 2013). In summary, it is likely but not certain that local government collection August 2020 8-11 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii would be somewhat costlier than collection provided by the private sector in the 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 Non -Competitive 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 non- competitive 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 the state of Washington, hauler rates are regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) 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 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 non-competitive 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. 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: • 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. 8-12 August 2020 1019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 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 contracting 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 from low prices; however, there can be protracted difficulties in getting the contractor to perform in accordance with the contract. The County would need to address many issues when implementing curbside collection using competitive contracts including the following: • Deciding how many collection zones and contracts are appropriate to establish. 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 contractor performance. In the County of Hawaii, a 2004 Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii decision affirmed the right of private 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 to provide public services, such as collection (Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i 2004). 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 (.oiiection Technology Curbside collection can use various levels of automation. The traditional approach to 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 rubbish into the truck. This section discusses the relative merits of manual, semi -automated and fully automated collection systems, and their applicability to the County. August 2020 8-13 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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 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 - loaded vehicles can be operated somewhat more efficiently than rear -load vehicles when smaller (one - or two -person) crews are used. To reduce labor costs, many communities are modifying their solid waste collection program to add some level of automation. According to the National Waste and Recycling Association, in 2013, approximately half of all newly purchased waste collection vehicles were fully automated and manned by one person (Rogoff 2015). In Hawaii, the counties of Honolulu, Kauai, and Maui have transitioned from manual collection to fully automated collection (City and County of Honolulu 2018b; County of Kauai 2018b; Maui County Government 2008). Automated collection vehicles reduce labor costs by allowing for smaller crews; however, this is 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 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 dumping unit (tipper). These systems require special containers that are designed to be compatible with the lifting units. Virtually all the heavy lifting associated with rubbish collection is eliminated; thus, worker fatigue and injury is reduced, and the vehicles can be operated by crews as small as one person. Considering that solid waste collectors have the highest injury rate of any industry nationally, the benefits associated with eliminating lifting can be significant. 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, resulting in decreased litter. For rural customers with long dirt driveways, larger, wheeled containers may be a drawback because 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 costs, or a perceived reduction in the incentive to recycle because of the larger can sizes. Municipalities with successful semi -automated 8-14 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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 rubbish into trucks from cans is faster than using semi -automated loading systems. Labor costs can be reduced by reducing the size of the crew per truck; however, 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 the County because of factors not conducive to automation, including: • Unimproved roads. • Lack of curbs or sidewalks for set outs. • Steep slopes. • Dense vegetation. A focused study would be needed to evaluate if semi -automated or fully automated collection (described below) could be implemented effectively in the 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. 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. August 2020 8-15 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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. 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 costlier 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. Service Lever 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 they use the service. The advantages of a subscription service are that residents are given a choice of whether to pay for the service. The disadvantage is that it makes collection costlier 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 Chapter 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets. The 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 is 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. 8.6.4 Service Frequency Most collection systems now include both garbage and recycling and many offer green waste services. Some communities are taking the next step toward zero waste and are diverting food and other organics from the garbage at curbside. Considering the County's commitment to increasing landfill diversion, if 8-16 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i the County elects to make the substantial commitment to begin offering curbside collection services, it would make sense to offer curbside collection of 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 common; weekly collection of garbage is typical in most communities. Recyclables are typically collected either weekly or bi-weekly. Weekly collection generally is costlier and may result in higher diversion from the landfill. However, as discussed in Chapter 4, the evidence of increased diversion from weekly collection versus bi-weekly collection is weak and is not consistent in all jurisdictions. Organics (e.g., yard and food waste) collection 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 alternative weeks. 8.6.E Funding Option There are several ways that the County could pay for a curbside collection service, including: 0 Property taxes. • Direct billing. 0 PAYT program. 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. To educate the public on program costs, the County could 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. 8.6.5.2 Direct Billing The County could provide curbside collection and other waste management services in a similar manner to utility services, such as 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. August 2020 8-17 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 8.6.5.3 Pay -As -You -Throw As discussed in Chapter 3, Source Reduction, 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. Implementing a PAYT system for residential garbage collection service or at existing recycling and transfer stations would require implementation of an aggressive public education and information campaign to ensure that residents understand the rationale for implementing the PAYT program. Significant upfront 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. See Chapter 3 for a dedicated discussion of PAYT options. Options for Improvemen, 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 Chapter 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets) would also apply to collecting garbage. Mandatory curbside collection of garbage for all County residents is impractical because of the 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 include designated zones where curbside service would be mandatory. Cost Considerations. The cost of curbside collection of garbage would depend on many factors including the type of collection vehicles used (manual versus semi -automated versus 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). A collection study would be required to further explore opportunities for this type of service. 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. This may be achieved by increasing the diversion rate through increased recycling and composting endeavors. The County's full complement of recycling and transfer stations would be somewhat less necessary if curbside collection were implemented. However, it should be recognized that 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. 8-18 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 8.7.1.1 Collection Sub -Options This section explores several different opportunities for residential curbside collection as collaborated between the County and the SWAC. While there are many possible methods of implementing collection service, the sub -options considered in this section reflect current opportunities and constraints that exist in the County, including: • The County transfer system provides reasonably convenient service for all households, and there is no County -sponsored curbside service. • About 9 percent of County households receive garbage service from private companies that compete for customers with little County involvement. • Few 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 the 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. The following sub -options provide an increasing level of change, potential benefits and costs, and implementation difficulty: A. Retain existing system. B. License all 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 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 22 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 western 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; however, in most areas of the 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 prefer curbside collection would make arrangements with a collection company. August 2020 8-19 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii This system would have the advantage of simplicity by just continuing existing practices at no additional 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 require proof of 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 would inform the public about the services available. 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 the annual cost of the program could be paid through licensing fees. C. License All Existing Collection Companies and Require Bi-WeeKIV Recycling This option is similar to 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 must match the list of materials accepted in the County's 2 -bin recycling system at its recycling and transfer stations. To implement this option, the County would need to ensure 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, or at a private facility or facilities on the west and east sides of the island, and possibly Waimea. This option would have the advantage of increased recycling. It would, however, increase the cost of curbside service and probably result in some customers discontinuing collection service. D. County Collection Services Using County Crews In this option, the County would establish a new section of collections, and implement weekly curbside collection of garbage and every -other -week collection of recyclables County -wide. Private sector collection from 1 -unit detached housing 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 (The 2009 Plan estimated that this would be about 70 percent of all 1 -unit detached housing). The County 8-20 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii would need to ensure that processing facilities are available for the west and east sides of the island, and possibly Waimea. Collection options would need to be studied further including an economic analysis. Customers who do not sign up for collection service would continue to use the remaining recycling and transfer stations. This option would have significant implementation challenges, some of which include: • Hiring additional staff and procuring 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 for vehicles and carts in two or three locations on the island. The County would need to estimate the cost of collection service, including start-up costs, and then decide if it would be provided at cost or at a subsidized rate. 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 6,000 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, and presumably with an exclusive territory, costs would fall compared to existing rates and the number of customers served would probably grow through time. All companies would be required to offer a similar service, ideally using 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, and possibly Waimea. 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. 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. 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 August 2020 8"21 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 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, some 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. Cost Considerations. The cost of this option would depend on many factors as described above. 8.7.2 Change Permits to Allow Small Businesses to Recycle at Transfer Stations In the 2009 Plan, the County attempted to change the operating permits for each station from a convenience center to a recycling and transfer station. This change would have eliminated a 40 -cubic - yard per day delivery maximum and would have allowed non-residential customers to access the stations. Yet, the County encountered difficulties in the permit change process with the HDOH. If the County reconsiders the permit change process, this option would allow non-residential customers to use the recycling services at each recycling and transfer station. Non-residential customers would not be allowed to deliver rubbish at the stations. This policy would provide more convenient recycling opportunities for small businesses throughout the County within limits manageable by the County. Cost Considerations. Under this option, the amount of recyclables that would be delivered to recycling and transfer stations is uncertain. The County would anticipate increased costs associated with handling and transportation for increased tonnage. The County would also need to invest in additional signage, education, and promotion of this new policy. This would require the County to identify a system to bill commercial haulers for recycling at the recycling and transfer stations. Although the commercial haulers would be required to pay into the recycling system, they would ultimately realize a cost savings in the reduction of landfill tonnage. . Continue Progress Towards Reconstruction of Stations in Nees! of Repair As shown in Exhibit 8-5, 11 of the County's 22 recycling and transfer stations have major engineering deficiencies requiring reconstruction, and another two have intermediate engineering deficiencies that can be addressed while the station is operational. As described in Exhibit 8-5, the County has made improvements to the following facilities since the adoption of the 2009 Plan: • Glenwood—Reconstructed in 2015. • Kea'au—Remodeled in 2011. • Kealakehe—Reconfigured and repaved in 2014. • Ocean View—Planned and designed, phase 1 construction in early 2019. • Pahoa—Reconstructed in 2011. 8-22 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i • Volcano—Reconstructed in 2015. • Waimea—Remodeled and reconfigured in 2010. • Wai'6hinu—Awarded contract for reconstruction in 2019. Cost Considerations. If the County plans to implement a curbside service program, station upgrades and reconstruction would be planned with this service in mind. 8.7.4 increase Attendants' Monitoring of Recycling and Reduce Operating Hours at Recycling and Transfer Stations The County could improve recycling by increasing attendants' presence at the recycling roll -offs at each station. The attendants would encourage customers to separate recyclables and provide information about different ways residents could reduce the amount of waste going to landfills. Currently, the County stations are open for 12 hours (except for Hilo [10.5 hours], Ocean View [8 hours) and Miloli'i [sunrise to sunset]). The feasibility of reducing operating hours is challenging because the County has concerns about reducing operating hours due to high public demand for disposal service. The County could consider conducting a customer survey to provide feedback regarding staffing levels and hours of operation to understand the needs of the customers and the cost of operation. Past surveys have shown customers want increased hours for recycling and transfer stations however including survey questions regarding additional recycling information/education at the sites would help define future needs. Cost Considerations. The cost of the initial survey to the residents would be a nominal fee. If it results in the County providing full-time attendants at each station with existing staff, there would be station attendant staff that could perform functions currently done by private security guards. Thus, the County could significantly reduce or eliminate the cost of employing private security guards. 8.7.5 Add Full -Time Attendants, Reduce Operating Hours, and Implement PAYT at Recycling and Transfer Station-, As discussed in Chapter 3, PAYT systems provide a powerful incentive to reduce waste and increase reuse and recycling. It is possible that the introduction of a PAYT system at recycling and transfer stations would be a step in incentivizing a curbside collection program. This option includes a PAYT program, with full-time attendants and reduced operating hours. 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 grace period during which bags or tags would be collected; however, 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 rare. 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. Cost Considerations. See Chapter 3, Section 3.5.6.1 for details on the implementation of PAYT at Recycling and Transfer Stations, including cost considerations. August 2020 8-23 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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 (Exhibit 8-6): Exhibit 8-6. Station Closure Options Closed Stations Closest Remaining Station(s) Glenwood Volcano Honomu Laupahoehoe, Hilo Kalapana Pahoa Ke'ei Keauhou Miloli'i Keauhou, Oceanview, Wai'ohinu Pa'auilo Honoka'a, Laupahoehoe Pahala Wai'ohinu Papa'ikou Hilo Puako Waimea, and new facility planned at WHSL 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 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. Cost Considerations. With ten fewer stations, a reduction in operating hours, allowing for the added cost of full-time attendants, and providing budget for increased enforcement, it is estimated that this option could result in significant annual cost savings. Lower Transportation Costs by Compacting Recyclables In FY 2017-18, the County spent about $960,000 transporting recyclables from recycling and transfer stations to processors. The transportation costs could be lessened thereby reducing the volume of material transported by compacting recyclables prior to transportation from stations. Two possible methods of compaction include: • Convert one garbage chute to handle recyclables at larger stations with multiple garbage chutes (Kea'au, Pahoa, Hilo, Waimea, Kailua, Keauhou). • Breakdown/flatten cardboard boxes. • Use compactor drop boxes at stations for mixed recyclables. 8-24 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 8.7.7.1 Converting One Garbage Chute to Accept Recyclables In this option, for stations with more than two chutes, one chute would be designated for accepting recyclables only as depicted in the adjacent photo. 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, Waimea, and Keauhou stations Garbage Mixed Recyclables 4%ft W each have two chutes for garbage, the Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) station has three, Hilo station has four, and Pahoa has two transfer trailers. 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 Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona), or Hilo stations where converting one chute would leave multiple shoots still available for garbage. Transportation cost savings from compacting at the Hilo Recycling and Transfer Station may be small because mixed recyclables are transported a short distance for processing in Hilo. In summary, this concept appears to be feasible at the Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) station, and might be feasible at the Kea'au and Waimea stations. The County would likely conduct a pilot program to test its effectiveness. 8.7.7.2 Use Compactor Drop Boxes at Stations for Mixed Recyclables The County could increase truck payloads and lower transportation costs by installing stationary compactors at each station for recyclables. This system would include a compaction unit and a charging hopper (two cubic yards is a typical size) that residents would place their recyclables into. When the charging hopper is full, an operator would activate compaction and material would be pushed into an enclosed drop box. For safety, the system should be key- or code -operated so that only trained operators would be able to engage the compaction unit. Enclosed drop boxes come in many sizes, and 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 2017-18, the uncompacted mixed recyclables hauled from recycling and transfer stations averaged about 4.5 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. August 2020 8-25 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Cost Considerations. 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). There would be a small initial cost for extra signage, education, and promotion. The cost of compacting recyclables would need to be taken into consideration. If the County were to install one compaction unit at each station and purchase various containers, the total initial capital cost would be properly budgeted. In subsequent years, amortization of these units and containers would also be equated into future budgets. When considering the added annual maintenance cost of about 5 percent of capital 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 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 with compactors installed at stations that would accept uncompacted recyclables from stations more distant from processors. 8.8 Recommendations Based on the analyses presented above and discussions with the SWAC, the Plan recommends the actions listed below to improve the collection and transfer program. the recommendations discussed below. Implementation issues related to these activities are discussed in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. 1. Retain the County's system of recycling and transfer stations; however, also explore alternative funding methods via a feasibility study as discussed in Chapter 3 recommendations (Recommendation 2). Until a decision is made on the best method of collection and transfer, the County will continue to maintain and upgrade recycling and transfer stations to address structural deficiencies and provide expanded services to divert waste from the landfill. Note: Chapter 10, Section 10.6 (Recommendation 1) discusses a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis. 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. 3. Consider "Satellite" compaction units for recyclables at select stations. The County would 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. 4. Reduce operating hours at recycling and transfer stations and consider closing one or more stations. Reduce operating hours at recycling and transfer stations, and consider closing one or more stations. In Chapters 3, 4, and 6, a number of proposed programs are recommended for implementation at County recycling and transfer stations. It will be imperative that County staff are present during station operating hours to inform users of the various recycling, reuse, organics, and other programs available. As more services are provided, it will become prohibitively expensive to keep recycling and transfer stations open 10 to 11 hours per day, 362 days per year. The County could consider closing select recycling and transfer stations if the 8-26 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii benefits of increased services in some areas are deemed to be less than the cost of providing that service. To start this process, the County would consider conducting a customer survey to provide feedback regarding staffing levels and hours of operation to understand the needs of customers. 5. Change County code to allow small businesses to drop off recyclables at County recycling and transfer stations within limits manageable by the County. 6. Enable non -profits and community organizations specifically involved with litter abatement to drop off non-recyclables at transfer stations without the need for daily waivers or permits. 7. Conduct an operational efficiency analysis to lower costs. the County would 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. August 2020 8-27 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 9. RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT Introduction 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 economically used in any other way. The County of Hawaii provides landfill disposal for residual materials at the West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill (WHSL) located in Pu'uanahulu. The South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL) reached capacity and subsequently closed in 2019. Located near the closed SHSL, MSW and commercially generated waste is now collected at the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station (EHRSS) and routed to the WHSL. For residents, the common forms of residual materials sent to landfill are household rubbish, or municipal solid waste (MSW), and DIY construction and demolition waste. Businesses and institutions send a wide range of different non -hazardous residual materials from their daily operations. This chapter describes current conditions of the existing residuals management system within the County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents options for managing residuals after source reduction, reuse, and recycling. Review of 2009 Plan Update Exhibit 9-1 below provides a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2009 Plan update relative to residuals management, and describes the actions taken to achieve each recommendation. Exhibit 9-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management 2009 Plan Update Recommendation Develop a conversion technology facility Truck waste from the SHSL to the WHSL. Status Between 2006 and 2014, the County issued several RFPs to vendors who could potentially design, construct, and operate a waste to energy (WTE) facility. The County's evaluation of proposals during this time determined that a mass burn WTE facility was the most commercially and technically feasible option. The County rejected a proposal in 2008 due to higher than expected costs. Advanced diversion technology (e.g., WTE, pyrolysis) must demonstrate that it is environmentally and economically feasible, and the technology has a verifiable and viable commercial track record (a minimum of S years) for handling of municipal solid waste, before it will be considered by the County. The County began trucking waste exclusively to WHSL in late 2019. Investigate the feasibility and cost of expanding the Not implemented due to high costs and Hawaii Department of SHSL. to a northwest parcel adjacent to the landfill Transportation, Airports (DOTA) Division and the Federal Aviation or to a rock quarry located next to the SHSL site. Administration (FAA) restrictions on landfills within 10,000 feet of an airport using turbojet aircraft. County to conduct a more in-depth evaluation of the The County conducted evaluations of trucking residuals to WHSL. feasibility and cost of re -configuring the reload The County will continue to look at means and methods to facility at the SHSL and trucking waste to the WHSL. maximize the load. August 2020 9-1 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 9-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management (continued) 2009 Plan Update Recommendation Status County to conduct a more in-depth evaluation of the A study was performed and it was determined that this option is feasibility and cost of a new lined landfill in the unfeasible due to proximity to the airport, among other existing quarry site adjacent to the current SHSL that considerations. Instead, residuals are shipped to WHSL. would provide an estimated fifty (50) or more years of additional disposal capacity. County to prepare a master planning document for the WHSL and SHSL facilities. 1) The County is preparing a plan focused on reconfiguring circulation, scalehouse location, and other facilities in anticipation for additional residuals entering WHSL from the SHSL. 2) In 2012, the County commissioned a Hilo Landfill Feasibility Study. In 2017, the Cover System Alternatives Evaluation for SHSL was prepared, and in 2018 the EA and subsequent Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by the County Department of Environmental Management (DEM) on behalf of the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill Final Closure. Because it was determined in the Hilo Feasibility Study that expansion of the Hilo landfill is unfeasible, there is no need to proceed with a master planning document during this planning period. Near the conclusion of the 30 -year monitoring and maintenance period of the closed landfill, there will be a need to develop a plan on behalf of the future use of this site. County engage in a dialogue with other Hawai'i Some contractual efforts with Waste Management have been counties about the potential for mutually beneficial made between Hawai'i Community College, University of Hawaii, joint solutions. Kaua'i County, and County of Hawaii County conduct a feasibility study of remediating the The County is still dealing with ongoing issues associated with the closed Kailua-Kona landfill. closed landfill's subsurface fires. A feasibility study is still on the horizon for the required 30 -year post -closure remediation efforts. 9.3 Existing Conditions Residual waste from the western part of the County is disposed of at the WHSL and waste from eastern part of the County is brought to EHRSS and shipped to WHSL. Residential residual waste is accepted at no charge at 22 recycling and transfer stations and transported by County Solid Waste Division (SWD) staff for disposal at both facilities. In 2019, commercial disposal of residual waste generally required a landfill disposal permit through the DEM and a landfill tipping fee of $110 per ton. Per Hawaii County Code, tipping fees may be waived when it is "in the best interest of the County," including one-time events for community organizations, nonprofit organizations, or private property owners who are remediating illegal dump sites that they did not create. The status of each landfill is described in the following sections. 9.3.1 South Hilo Sanitary Landfill Closure The SHSL is located in Hilo, approximately 1 mile east of Kanoelehua Avenue and one mile south of the Hilo International Airport. The landfill, which closed to customers in late 2019, is accessed via Leilani Street and an unnamed access road. The County of Hawai'i owns the SHSL, and the DEM estimates that the landfill started operations in the 1970s. The landfill facility is located on approximately 40 acres, the majority of which was used for municipal solid waste disposal. The landfill was established on a former quarry and is unlined. The landfill accepted approximately 75,400 tons in FY 2017-18, an average of approximately 6,300 tons per month. The County permanently closed the SHSL when it reached capacity in late 2019. In 2012, the County commissioned a Hilo Landfill Feasibility Study, which determined that design and expansion of a landfill on 9-2 August 2020 the Hilo side of the island was not feasible, and shipping to the WHSL was both feasible and cost effective. In 2018, an Environmental Assessment (EA) and subsequent Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by the DEM on behalf of the SHSL final closure and shipping to the WHSL. The primary drivers for shipping to the WHSL include: • Limited capacity at the existing SHSL. • Significant constraints to expanding the existing SHSL (e.g., proximity to Hilo International Airport). Significant constraints to establishing a new landfill in East Hawai'i. 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 2018 South Hilo Sanitary Landfill Thus, the landfill was closed, and residual waste is now hauled from the East Hawai'i waste stream to the WHSL in Pu'uanahulu (Exhibit 9-2). A 30 -year closure and monitoring program has been developed for the SHSL. Plans include slope stabilization, installation of a gas ventilation system, and an improved stormwater system (County of Hawaii DEM 2017c). To continue service to customers on the east side of the island upon the SHSL closure, the County converted the East Hawai'i Regional Sort Station (EHRSS) in Hilo to not only accept recyclable and reusable material, but also MSW. The County then trucks the residuals from the EHRSS to the WHSL. Construction and demolition (C&D) debris, including grading and grubbing (G&G) materials (e.g., large stumps) are not accepted as EHRSS, these materials must be hauled to WHSL. 9,3.2 'Nest Hawaii Sanitary Landfill The WHSL is located southwest of Waikoloa at Pu`uanahulu in the North Kona District (Exhibit 9-2). The County of Hawai'i owns the WHSL and County personnel operate the landfill. The WHSL is operated by Waste Management of Hawaii under a contract with the County. 2018 West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill Waste Management is currently responsible for construction of new 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' (40 CFR Section 257.2) as administered through Hawaii Administrative Rules Chapter 58.1 (HAR 58.1). The 9 Non -hazardous solid waste is regulated under Subtitle D of RCRA. Regulations established under Subtitle D ban open dumping of waste and set n7inimurn federal criteria for the operation of municipal waste and industrial waste August 2020 9-3 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii landfill is lined with a geomembrane, and has an engineered leachate collection system. To comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act, a new landfill gas collection and recovery system was installed in 2013. The landfill accepted approximately 12,000 tons per month or 150,000 tons in FY 2018. The landfill has 23 cells currently permitted, of which 10 have been filled, and one (Cell 11) is active. Waste Management is in the process of preparing Cell 12 for the next phase of disposal. The landfill property also provides large areas for material recovery, disaster debris processing, and greenwaste. As reported by the County in a 2019 Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) meeting, the WHSL has an estimated 100 years of life remaining at current recycling rates (Exhibit 9-3). If the community manages their waste responsibly by reducing, reusing, and recycling; the life expectancy could exceed 100 years. As forecasted in Chapter 2, the community would experience an average increased diversion rate of 8 percent through 2039 if approximately 50 percent of food waste is diverted when the proposed compost facility is in operation during early part of the 10 -year implementation period. As described in Section 9.3.1, in 2012, the County commissioned a Hilo Landfill Feasibility Study, which determined that the expansion of a landfill on the Hilo side of the island was unfeasible and shipping to the WHSL was both feasible and cost effective. In preparation of hauling waste to WHSL, the County Council adopted resolutions 310-17 and 311-17. Resolution 310-17 authorizes the payment of a multi-year lease for five trailers and 311-17 authorizes the payment of funds for five semi -tractors. With the final closure of SHSL, the County is preparing a master plan focused on reconfiguring circulation, scalehouse location, and other facilities in anticipation for additional residuals entering the landfill. landfills, including design criteria, location restrictions, financial assurance, corrective action (cleanup), and closure requirement. States play a lead role in implementing these regulations. (EPA 20184) 9-4 August 2020 ! Ka'auhuhu (Hawi) oka'a braauilo Waimea Puako West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill 0 Kailua-Kona (Kealakehe) Keauhou . Ke'ei Waiea Miloli'i Ocean View Source: County of Hawaii DEM SWD • Pahala • Wai'ohinu . Laupahoehoe Honomu Papa'ikou East Hawaii Hilo Regional Sort Station Kea'au Glenwood Pahoa Volcano • • Kalapana Exhibit 9-2 Generalized Haul Route From East Hawai'i Regional Sort Station CELL 16 CELL 8 "t • ; Q __j CELL 17 1.. - ' CEtt 9 i CELL 1 -; •` Al RKOYERY AREA CELL 18 f' "s` CEL 10 i CELL 2 10 , LL 11 CELL 3 • i VL 20 CELL 12 CELL DISASTER DEBRIS 4' .. PROCESSING AREA CELL 13 CELL 5 k r'A, .. J---------- ------ CELL 22 CELL 14 CELL 6 23 i y CELL 15 CELL 7', COUNTY GREENWASTE t .. COMPOST4NG FACILITY i i Ilk r r Source County of Hawal l DEM Exhibit 9-3 COMPLETED BUT NOTYET CLOSED West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill Configuration Q ACTIVE CELL CELL CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS CELLS STILL TO BE EXCAVATED 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 9.3.3 Landfill Disposal Fees Under Ordinance No. 18-5, the County amended HCC 20 to increase the landfill disposal fees. Ordinance No. 18-5 reads as follows: The purpose of this ordinance is to increase disposal fees to cover costs incurred by the Solid Waste Division of the Department of Environmental Management for services it provides to the residents of and visitors to Hawaii County. The County of Hawaii's Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan complies with state mandates of waste reduction and provides a path to provide solid waste disposal services for all, including the operation of all transfer stations and recycling operations. The current plan requires capital improvements, new equipment, maintenance of existing equipment, as well as improved service. The County seeks a healthy economy that requires intelligent and efficient solid waste management and disposal. Presently, the General Fund subsidy is substantial. Adoption of these changes will reduce the Solid Waste Division's dependence on the General Fund as well as provide the groundwork for implementation of the updated plan. In July 2019, landfill disposal fees increased to $110 per ton. Rates by vehicle size and volume, which apply when weights cannot be obtained, were increased to $66 per vehicle for light trucks, $111 for medium trucks and $198 for large trucks. For all other vehicles, disposal fees were retained as $36 per cubic yard for compacted material, and $22 per cubic yard for non -compacted material. Special handling fees (for handling asbestos) increased to $110 per truck load (or a fraction thereof). The fee schedule is set to change in subsequent years, with specific rates established through 2022. 9.3.4 Evaluation of SHSL Capacity Replacement 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 (WRT). Thus, in 2004, the County Council adopted Resolution 218-04 that supports solid waste landfill diversion through waste reduction technology with procurement criteria that matches Howal'i County policies, needs and waste stream, and delineates next actions. In 2006, the County initially evaluated five different waste reduction technologies: mass burn incineration (mass burn), incineration using refuse derived fuel, 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 likely not commercially viable technology. In addition, the evaluation concluded 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." Thus, it was determined that either mass burn or thermal gasification, both WTE facilities, were the most viable waste reduction technologies. Between 2006 and 2014, the County issued several RFPs to vendors who could potentially design, construct, and operate a mass burn or thermal gasification WTE facility. The County's evaluation of proposals during this time determined that a mass burn WTE facility was the most commercially and technically viable option. Notably, a mass burn WTE facility was identified as having the potential to reduce the volume of processed solid waste by 90 percent, reduce weight by 70 percent, and would have air emissions below EPA standards. In March 2008, Wheelabrator Technologies Incorporated (a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Management) was selected to develop a mass burn WTE project by the County. In response, August 2020 9"7 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Wheelabrator submitted a detailed cost proposal to design and construct a mass burn WTE facility to replace the SHSL. After evaluating the Wheelabrator submittal, the County Council rejected the WTE proposal largely because of concerns about higher than anticipated costs for the facility. In 2014, a third RFP was issued for WTE facility proposals, and was withdrawn prior to the selection process. As described in Chapter 4, in consideration of alternative methods for waste reduction to more advanced technologies, the County contracted with a private contractor in 2016 to construct two organics management sites: EHOF and WHOF. During FY 2016-17, a Notice to Proceed was approved for the construction of these facilities through a private contractor and both facilities are now operational. The County has also been engaged in developing a compost facility that not only handles green waste, but also food waste and other compostables, to divert a larger volume of waste from the SHSL and WHSL. In 2016, an RFP was issued for the construction of a Compost and Green Waste Processing facility, and an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared that considered a proposed site at a former rock quarry adjacent to the SHSL. The EA was ultimately withdrawn from consideration due to concerns over the location and the potential impacts to the local community. Three new sites are under consideration, with the composting facility slated for operation during early part of the 10 -year implementation period. A chronology of County waste reduction technology procurement dating back to 1995 is provided in Appendix E. Issues and Concerns Since the 2009 Plan, establishing a place for disposal of residuals from East Hawaii when the existing SHSL closes was a key residuals management issue. As described in Section 9.3.1, the County continues to provide service to residents on the east side of the island regardless of SHSL closure. The County converted the EHRSS in Hilo to not only accept recyclable and reusable material, but also MSW. The County started hauling residuals from the EHRSS to the WHSL in 2019. The County no longer considers hauling and landfilling residual waste from East Hawaii an issue. The County considers the potential for private sector development of residuals management facilities without County involvement a policy issue. Section 9.4.1 considers how those facilities could affect flow control and contractual obligations with landfill management companies that currently or may be under contract to the County in the future. Section 9.4.2 describes debris management in response to natural disasters. Section 9.4.3 includes the long-term management of the closed Kailua-Kona and Waimea landfills. In December 2018, the County recycling program revised the materials accepted due to changes in the global recycling market. The County eliminated #5 plastics (e.g., yogurt containers, syrup bottles, margarine tubs), plastic grocery bags, clam shell -type plastic (salad, bento, fruit, etc.) in the mixed recyclable bins at the recycling and transfer stations. And again, in October of 2019, only cardboard, glass, and bi-metal cans were collected for recycling — no plastic or paper. The HI -5 program remains intact. With uncertainties in the global market, the County will need to consider other opportunities to dispose of formerly recycled materials that end up in the waste stream, following a concerted effort of public outreach to encourage residents to reduce and reuse these materials. Section 9.5 describes existing recovery and treatment technologies and recovery and treatment options for the County that have the potential to capture these formerly recycled materials. 9-8 August 2020 20191ntegrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Private Facilities and Flow Control Many government jurisdictions in the United States have flow control laws in effect to ensure that materials flow to facilities in which they have significant capital investment and/or other interest. They are common in jurisdictions with capital intensive WTE facilities. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the "Carbone decision1O" 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 state and local government flow control laws affecting public facilities in question. In April 2008, this issue was resolved when the Supreme Court ruled that state and local government laws directing locally generated wastes to publicly owned waste facilities do not discriminate against interstate commerce". This decision appears to establish the right of counties to establish flow control ordinances directing locally -generated wastes to publicly -owned facilities. In the County, a private waste processing firm, BioEnergy, has expressed interest in developing a relatively large WTE recovery facility for processing the residuals it collects from businesses and institutions. There are reasons to believe that this may not be a desirable for the County. A flow control ordinance is 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 protects the County against several risks associated with the private sector developing facilities without explicit County approval. Some of those risks include: • Because of the County's relative isolation and small size, the potential barriers for local private collection firms who wish to establish operations in the County are perhaps higher than on the mainland. It is possible that a single private firm with a large national 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 waste reduction 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. At this time, the BioEnergy Hawaii still has issues it must resolve to secure land and permits. The County continues to monitor the progress of this facility. If it appears that the facility will be developed, the County will evaluate whether it is in the County's best interests to allow the facility to proceed, or whether it will establish a flow control ordinance to keep the flow of waste in the County system. q 11 ? Natt_ir?l Dicaster Dehric, Management The responsibility of natural disasters in the State begins at the county level. The State Civil Defense System provides the operational infrastructure and procedures to meet the demands of natural disasters but to be effective, input is necessary by each county. Hawaii County Civil Defense is the local agency that develops mitigation plans at the county level as coordinated with State Civil Defense. The 10 C&A Carbone v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 11 United Haulers Association v. Oneida -Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, No. 05-1345 August 2020 9-9 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii County regularly updates their Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is a requirement to be eligible for Federal Emergency Management Funds. 9.4.3 Closed Landfills 9.4.3.1 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 Ka'ahumanu 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 final 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 undergone damage from subsurface fires and intrusive investigations to evaluate options for extinguishing the fires. Temperature and gas monitoring occur periodically as part of the post -closure monitoring Subsurface waste combustion continues to be a concern at the landfill. The County and its engineering consultants are monitoring the current condition and extent of the subsurface fires and developing options for subsurface fire suppression. The once rural setting surrounding the landfill is being developed including a Hawaii County Police Department (HCPD) station, Kealakehe High School, West Hawaii Civic Center, State Judiciary Complex, and Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Station. There are also plans for an affordable housing neighborhood in the future. A regional park is in the draft NEPA environmental assessment phase. Although there have been no recent complaints from neighbors since the County began proactively managing the site, long-term management plans for the landfill are being evaluated by the County. Management plans being considered include: • Relocation of the Waste: The waste could be relocated to West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill; however, there are major health and safety concerns with digging into the landfill and moving the waste. While this alternative is extremely expensive, it is considered clean closure and will no longer require post -closure monitoring and maintenance, and the land can be used for another purpose. • Construction of a New Engineered Cap: Construction of an engineered cap could limit oxygen infiltration into the waste mass and limit the current "chimney effect" that is occurring at the landfill now. This alternative would not eliminate post -closure monitoring; however, it would lessen maintenance costs. • Implementation of a New Technology: The County is currently looking into technology being used to extinguish subsurface coal fires. The technology works by injecting a foam mixture into the waste mass. The foam consists of a biodegradable fire retardant and is injected using nitrogen gas. The foam wets and cools the area of combustion. This is considered interim mitigation. 9.4.3.2 Waimea The Waimea Landfill is 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 ceased during 1986, and the landfill was closed in 1987. A cover of several feet of fine soil was placed over the top of the landfill. Records indicate that the quarry was originally excavated to an approximate depth of 30 feet, and that approximately 35 feet of rubbish was landfilled at the site. 9-10 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Based on past investigations, filling and grading activities have been completed over portions of the landfill and have extinguished subsurface fires by limiting the amount of influx of oxygen to the subsurface of the landfill. Currently, post -closure monitoring is being performed on a quarterly basis. The County and state are currently in the discussion phase on the required word to "sunset" the post -closure monitoring requirements. Additional cover material may be added to seal the landfill from the atmosphere to prevent combustion and to provide stormwater control measures. Once the HDOH agrees with the plan, the parcel can be used for other uses. 9.5 Material Recovery and Treatment Facilities Overview This section provides 1) a background description of EPA's waste management hierarchy and worldwide trends regarding recovery and treatment of residuals (Section 9.5.1), 2) an overview of recovery and treatment technologies (Section 9.5.2). Recovery and treatment options for the County are discussed in Section 9.5.6. 4.x.1 Background The EPA's integrated waste management hierarchy (EPA 2018e) includes the following four components, listed in order of preference: 1. 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. Energy recovery. 4. Treatment and Disposal. Waste Management Hierarchy Source Reduction 8 Reuse Recycling/ Composting Energy Recovery Treatment 8 Disposal 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 August 2020 9-11 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii bioconversion are completed, there will be residual materials that must be managed. Currently, 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 waste to energy (WTE) or mechanical -biological treatment (MBT). Locally, Honolulu's WTE facility reduces approximately 90 percent of its waste volume and has saved approximately 500 acres of landfill space since its construction (SWANA 2014). 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 United States jurisdictions. A recent assessment of alternative technologies is included in Exhibit 9-4 below. Exhibit 9-4. Technologies Proposed in Recent U.S. Alternative Technology Procurements Finding Advanced Thermal Thermal Biological Description Recycling Conversion Conversion Diversion Rate Air Emissions Wastewater Generation Solid Residue Generation Expected Diversion: 90% Worst -Case: 80% Air emission control systems available to limit emissions to well - below regulatory limits Expected Expected Diversion: 90% Diversion: 80% Worst -Case: 80% Worst -Case: 50% Systems Emissions lower expected to than thermal result in technologies due emissions below to lower operating regulatory limits temperatures No significant difference among technologies Generation of bottom Similar to Generation of ash, boiler ash, and fly advanced unmarketable ash. Assuming bottom thermal recycling residuals ash is recycled, about systems consisting of 15- 5% of incoming material 40% of the total will be landfilled throughput Source: City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works (2005). Outside the United States, many other countries are implementing recovery and treatment technologies prior to landfill disposal. The European Union initiated a circle economy plan wherein they aim to achieve 65 percent recycling of municipal waste and to restrict MSW landfilling to 10 percent by 2030 (European Parliament 2017). Implementing technologies to meet these requirements is projected to 9-12 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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. 9.5.2 Overview of Recovery and Treatment Technologies 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 Hawaii, Manoa). There are various ways of grouping recovery and treatment technologies for MSW; however, this Plan update classifies them into the following three groupings: • Thermal. • Mechanical -Biological Treatment. • 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 de polymerization, 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, they are not assessed further in this Plan update. 9.5.2.1 Thermal Technologies For the purposes of this discussion, thermal technologies have been grouped into the following five main categories: mass -burn, refuse -derived -fuel (RDF), gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc. A summary of each type of technology follows. Mass -burn. These facilities are by far the most common recovery technology currently utilized in the United States and around the world. In this system, residual materials are loaded from a pit into a furnace with little or no pre- processing. The materials are combusted, and the heat is used to produce electricity and/or steam. In fact, European countries such as Sweden and Denmark have the capacity to treat 100 percent or more of their MSW through incineration (European Parliament 2017). In the United States, 70 mass -burn facilities utilize 14 percent of waste destined for landfilling (Seltenrich 2018). As discussed above, the County conducted a procurement process for a waste reduction technology to replace the SHSL and selected mass -burn WTE technology. This technology was selected mainly because of its long, successful, track record for processing MSW. The main advantages of this technology are its proven and reliable operating history, the ability to expand, and the environmental benefits that result when WTE output are used to displace power that would otherwise be generated by fuels such as oil or coal. A main disadvantage of this technology is that the upfront money necessary to construct a mass burn WTE facility is considerable, and it may take several years before the economic benefits are realized. August 2020 9-13 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i According to the EPA, a small new plant typically requires at least 100 million dollars to construct (EPA 2017b). Refuse -Derived -Fuel. Reduced -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. Compared to mass burn WTE facilities, RDF facilities can -' result in increased recovery of recyclable materials. On the • other hand, the pre-processing requirements add complexity to the system and there are more types of materials that cannot be burned in an RDF plant than in a `C► WTE facility. In part because of these distinctions, RDF ; - f. plants are somewhat less popular than WTE facilities. 'y+ However, the cost, reliability, and performance of this technology is relatively like that of mass -burn facilities. 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 (1,6502F to 2,2002F) 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 shutdowns to maintain and clean the reactor. • Lack of successful commercial demonstration in the United States (few examples worldwide) and related uncertainties surrounding the cost and long-term effectiveness of the technology. 9-14 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii • Environmental permitting regulations are unclear or nonexistent. • Public education is needed to overcome negative perceptions of thermal technologies. Pyrolysis. Pyrolysis refers to the chemical decomposition of a substance by heating in the absence of oxygen. Pyrolysis tllt t ypicay occurs aemeratures ran pging from 7502F to 1,6502F. 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 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 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, and 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; however, 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 7,0002F) 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. An estimated 22 plasma arc waste processing facilities exist around the world, notably in Japan, France, and by the United States Navy (Circeo 2009). The advantages and disadvantages of this technology are like those of pyrolysis and gasification. One additional advantage of this system compared to the others is the more complete breakdown of August 2020 9-15 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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. 9.5.2.2 Mechanical -Biological Treatment Mechanical -Biological Treatment (MBT) describes the integration of processes normally found in material recycling facilities (MRFs), RDF (refuse -derived -fuel), 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. In 2017, Europe had an estimated 570 active MBT facilities in 2017 resulting in the diversion of 55 million tons of residual waste (O'Brien 2017). The operation of these facilities can further zero waste endeavors. 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 modifying and optimizing systems; however, there are challenges that must still be overcome. Examples of challenges with this technology include the Pine Top, Arizona, MBT plant, which was 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 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. However, the feasibility of this option is improving, in 2017 the first functioning MBT facility in the United States was opened in West Virginia. The end -product will be used as a clean - burning alternative to coal (Recycling Production News 2016). Recent experience with European MBT plants has 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 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, and in some facilities, 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, and it can also involve wet processes, such as 9-16 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii flotation and hydro -pulping. Depending on the quality and market demand, the recyclables are typically sold. Paper fibers, textiles, rubber, plastics, and residual organics can 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 Plan 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. 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 value of this fuel is relatively high and can be used as a substitute for fossil fuels in a wide range of applications, including power stations and vehicle fuel. The process also produces composted material that can be landfilled. Through this process, a 65 to 90 percent diversion rate may be achieved (Arsova 2015). Biological treatment with composting. In this process, relatively little mechanical pre-processing is done upfront and materials are fed into a long, rotating drum (made by companies like Bedminster and Dano) where the MSW is processed for 1 to 4 days. The combination of the mechanical rotation and the beginning of the biological degradation of the organic material allow a reduction of the organic fraction size and good mechanical separation of the organics from physical contaminants. At the end of the process, the organics are sent to composting. The inorganic fraction is either sent directly to a landfill or sorted further to recover recyclables depending on whether markets exist for the sorted materials. This process achieves a 50 percent diversion rate and does not produce biogas, rendering energy recovery inolausible (Arsova 2015). 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 technologies exist for the initial separation process that use water, screens, magnets, separators, and shredders in various combinations. August 2020 9-17 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 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. Anaerobic digestion systems for MSW treatment are limited in the United States, which may be due in part to the relatively low cost of fossil fuels in the United States in comparison to Europe, where anaerobic digestion technology is more widely used due to high fossil fuel prices, high tipping fees, and government incentives (Edwards et al. 2016). [European Union Directive requires union members to reduce landfilled organics by 65 percent by 2020 (Rogoff et al. 2014)] According to a study performed in 2014, many factors come into play regarding the viability of an anaerobic digestion system as a large-scale MSW disposal option in the United States, including the need for: • Significant centralized source of high-quality organic waste. • High energy costs (higher revenue for facility). • Limited land for siting a compost facility. • Lack of conventional WTE facilities. • Markets for residual (compost) or an outright ban on organics in landfills (Rogoff et al. 2014). It has also been reported that aerobic composting MBT systems (e.g., biological treatment with RDF for combustion) are likely to cost 30 percent less than anaerobic digestion treatment systems for both low and high capacity systems (Arsova 2015). Additional costs may include landfilling of unmarketable residual waste, daily operation, and maintenance fees. In 2017, the EPA developed a co -digestion economic analysis tool "CoEAT" that helps users (e.g., municipal managers) quantify the cost to benefit analysis of processing organics including parameters such as: • Fixed and recurring costs. • Solid waste diversion savings. • Capital investments. • Biogas production and energy savings. In recognizing the need to better understand anaerobic digestion facilities, the EPA is also conducting a study that collects data from operators of anaerobic digestion facilities for 3 years (data collection began in 2015). To date, they have published survey results from three types of systems: stand-alone food waste digesters (multi -source and industry -dedicated), on-farm digesters that co -digest food waste, and digesters at water resource recovery facilities that co -digest food waste. The survey establishes the number of anaerobic facilities processing in the United States and their locations, and their processing amounts and available capacity. Other information gathered includes non-food waste processed, feedstock types and sources, tipping fees, pre-processing and de -packaging processes, operational specification, and biogas production. At the time of the survey, none of the three systems surveyed is in operation in the State of Hawai'i. The final reporting of EPA's anaerobic digestion study findings is expected to conclude in 2019 or 2020 (EPA 2018f). RPcnvery and Treatment Options fnr the County of Hawaii 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. With the onset of SHSL closure, the County has three primary landfill disposal options: trucking East Hawai'i residuals to the WHSL at Pu'uanahulu, or barging residuals to another Hawaiian island, or to the mainland. As previously 9-18 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii described, the County began trucking MSW to the WHSL in 2019. A recovery and treatment facility could play an important role in decreasing the volume of solid waste landfilled at the WHSL. A new recovery and treatment facility will likely cost considerably more than the cost of trucking East Hawai'i waste to the WHSL. Thus, a central question to evaluate when assessing whether 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 Study Recovery and Treatment Technology R-2 WTE Facility for all County Residuals; Ash and Bypass Materials to WHSL R-3 One or More Modular WTE Facilities in Rural Areas; Ash and Bypass Waste to WHSL R-4 Develop MBT Facilities at the SHSL and/or WHSL Sites 9.6.1.1 R-1 No Action; Study Recovery and Treatment Technology In this option, the County would take no immediate action toward developing a new recovery or treatment project. The County would instead assess the change in volume of residuals after the proposed organic composting facility in Hilo is fully operational (slated to accept food waste and other compostable materials beyond yard waste during early part of the 10 -year implementation period). Further, the County would engage in a dialogue with other Hawai'i counties about the potential for joint solutions. For example, the County may consider shipping materials that were formerly recyclable (e.g., #5 plastics) to the H -Power facility in Honolulu if determined economically cost effective (i.e., cost savings, cost neutral) and through close coordination and negotiations with the City and County of Honolulu. If deemed necessary, these efforts could be followed by a study that emphasizes the identification of appropriate recovery and treatment technology sizing options for the County. Advantages Disadvantages Reduces the risk of unsuitable sizing of recovery and treatment technology Reduces the risks associated with being at the leading edge of a new technology, such as technology failure or unexpected cost increases. Continued reliance on landfilling as the County's singular residuals management for a few more years. Cost Considerations. The cost would be nominal since the County would only investigate recovery and treatment options if it is determined that the proposed compost facility and/or the possibility of shipping waste to the H -Power Plant in Honolulu would not markedly increase the quantity of waste diverted from WHSL. 9.6.1.2 R-2 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 large WTE facility that could accept residuals from the entire County. This would require a siting study to determine where it would be located; typically, the closer such a plant is located to the primary population and employment centers in West Hawaii, the lower the associated operating costs. August 2020 9"19 1019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Advantages Disadvantages Reliable, long-term recovery technology Environmental benefits, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions from displacing electricity from oil -fired combustion units and additional recycling of metals Preservation of land, and landfill capacity Reduced potential for water quality impacts from landfilling unstabilized residuals, and reduced volatile organic compound emissions Economies of scale of a larger facility would result in lower costs than a smaller facility Considerably higher cost than landfill The facility would provide a disincentive for aggressive additional waste reduction and recycling, which goes against zero waste principles Emissions and costs associated with trucking rubbish to the plant \NTE facilities burn waste resources that can be recycled or composted in a well -integrated system Cost Considerations. The cost of large WTE would probably be less than smaller facilities due to economies of scale. This cost savings, however, could potentially be offset by the cost of transferring and trucking waste materials to the facility. 9.6.1.3 R-3 Modular Incinerators in Rural Areas; Ash and Bypass Waste to WHSL Much of the County is rural in character, and the County incurs considerable cost transporting residuals from its recycling and transfer stations to the landfill. 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 on the mainland, there are more than 1,000 modular incinerators serving rural areas, military facilities, and hospitals around the world. These facilities can be good recovery systems for smaller, remote locations. These R\41WIWI systems generally cost less in installed cost per ton -day than larger, mass burn WTE facilities; however, they 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 tire 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 to maintain a quiet combustion area. Ash is removed using a roll -off box that when filled can be transported to the landfill. 9-20 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 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. For the purposes of sizing and developing cost estimates, this option assumes the following: • The facility would be located at the Wai'ohinu Recycling and Transfer Station, which would accept waste from other surrounding recycling and transfer stations. • The waste stream assessment forecast in 2009 estimated that 18 tons would go to the facility on an average day (assuming the recycling rate at that time). Thus, a 20 -ton -per -day unit would provide adequate capacity for peak flows; yet, it would not be oversized if significantly more waste is 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 square feet) building with a tip floor and a bulky waste load out chute. This could be integrated with planned improvements to the Wai'ohinu 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 WHSL. • Thirty to 35 percent of the incoming material by weight would need to be transported to the WHSL as ash. Advantages Disadvantages Reduction of about 20 percent of total system transfer truck miles and reduced landfilling of organics would result in less air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Potential for additional metal recovery for recycling after combustion While the system should be able to meet EPA air quality requirements, some air pollutants would result from the incineration process Likely community opposition Capital and operating costs are 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 Cost Considerations. It is estimated that this option will have a range in cost and will be highly influenced by site specific considerations, particularly installation of the unit in a relatively remote area. Additional research and/or 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 recycling and transfer station trailer fleet. Costs associated with landfilling will be substantially decreased. It is assumed that the project would be combined with a reconstruction of the Wai'ohinu Recycling and Transfer Station. It is possible that electricity sales could be profitable for this facility, and considering its remote location, it would be safe to assume no cost for the equipment necessary to generate electricity and no revenues from energy sales. August 2020 9-21 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 9.6.1.4 R-4 Develop Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Facilities at the WHSL Site As discussed above, there are a handful of Mechanical Biological Treatment (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 developing a facility for East Hawaii because there will be fewer residuals received at the EHRSS compared to WHSL and these materials would not have to be transported. 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 is 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 Reduced potential for water and air pollution from landfilling Additional recovery of materials not reused or recycled prior to reaching the plant 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 Much higher cost than landfilling Higher risk of system failure leading to higher than anticipated costs compared to WTE or landfill disposal options Systems have many moving parts and will require specialized operating expertise, sound preventive maintenance, and vigilant on-going odor management practices Cost Considerations. This option would have a wide range in costs. These costs would be influenced by multiple different types of MBT systems currently available, wide ranges in the reported cost of these systems, and challenges in translating those costs to the County. The results of a conceptual design of two MBT facilities (one for East Hawai'i and one for West Hawaii) would also have an associated cost. In general, lower cost systems; • Achieve lower material recovery. • Send more residual materials to landfills. • Are in rural areas so that odor controls are less critical. • Produce residual materials that must be landfilled. 9.7 Landfill Disposal options The County's progress toward waste reduction and any decision on whether 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 2019 closure of SHSL, WHSL has approximately 100 years of remaining life (2119). As more materials are reused or recycled, or if a recovery facility is developed, the capacity of WHSL will be extended. The following two landfill disposal options address both short-term and long-term considerations. 9-22 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii a.7.1. Improve Existing Infrastructure and Operations Because the WHSL receives East Hawai'i's waste with the closure of the SHSL, another option includes improving the operation and monitoring of WHSL. The public has various concerns related to environmental degradation, odor, and impacts to the tourism industry; some of these issues can be resolved through the implementation of innovative technology at the landfill. Potential improvements are described below. 9.7.1.1 Update Infrastructure at the WHSL and EHRSS The County will continue to conduct periodic evaluations as needed to improve facility operations and efficiencies at WHSL and EHRSS in response to changes in flow patterns and increased volume. Activities could include: • Integrate compaction into the floor space of the EHRSS. • Reconfigure circulation, scalehouse location, and other facilities at WHSL to handle the additional residuals. Cost Considerations. The County SWD already has funding allocated via the County Capital Improvements Program for EHRSS facility upgrades. 9.7.1.2 Landfill Gas to Energy Once landfilled, waste undergoes anaerobic digestion, wherein microorganisms break down organic matter and release products such as carbon dioxide and methane (Exhibit 9-5). Landfills constituted 14.1 percent of United States methane emissions in 2016 (EPA 2018g). Methane is approximately 28 to 37 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (EPA 2017a). This gas may be collected, compressed, and isolated (Silva dos Santos et al. 2018). Once isolated, methane may be used to run gas turbines and fuel cells as an energy source (California Energy Commission 2018) or as compressed gas for services vehicles. Exhibit 9-5. Landfill Gas to Energy Schematic Source: EPA (2018f) August 2020 9-23 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Monogement Plon Update County of Hawai'i The collection and conversion of methane not only will mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions, it will also decrease odors from the landfill. The volume of methane may be tripled through the addition of water to a landfill through an acceleration of the decomposition process (FirmaTek 2017), leading to increased energy generation as well. The County already collects landfill gas at WHSL. Instead of combusting the methane in a flare, this gas could be converted to energy, an effective, environmentally friendly means of recovering the resource. Cost Considerations. As the landfill owner, the County could receive revenue from the sale of electricity generated from the landfill gas and could possibly be eligible for revenue from renewable energy and tax credits and other incentives. These potential revenue sources could help offset capital costs. 9.7.1.3 Odor Control In addition to landfill gas, odors from landfills are often generated from leachate. Leachate contains relatively high concentrations of organic matter, sulfur -based compounds, heavy metals, and chlorinated salts (Berihum 2017) resulting in odorous compounds. Because of its generally low pH, leachate often contains high concentrations of acidic odor -causing compounds (Goldstein 2005 et al.). Although odors are not an issue at this time, if they are in the future due to changed surrounding land uses or increased volume of residuals, landfill odors may be managed in various forms: Water -Soluble Misting: Liquid or solid waste can be treated through the application of mists containing antibacterial disinfecting compounds (Berihum 2017). For instance, Odor Management Industries has developed a product called Ecosorb that uses a non -hazardous mixture of plant -based material, surfactant, and water to absorb odor -causing molecules and deodorize the surrounding air (OMI Industries 2017). Enzyme Protein Misting: When odor molecules contact enzyme/protein solutions, a chemical reaction occurs, changing the odor -causing chemical's molecular structure and eliminating the odor -causing scent (Peter 2014). These enzymes may also be applied through a mister. Lime: The application of lime to leachate, animal waste, and sludge solidifies waste and can reduce odor from acidic compounds (Goldstein 2005 et al.). Cost Considerations. Cost of alternative odor control mechanisms varies depending on the desired application, and would be assessed if there is a future need—the current system of combusting methane is effective in reducing odors at this time. 9.7.2- Construct a Construction and Demolition Landfill with a Sorting and Reuse Area As defined in Hawaii Administrative Rules 11-58.01-03: "Construction and demolition waste" means solid waste, largely inert waste, resulting from the demolition or razing of buildings, of roads, or other structures, such as concrete, rock, brick, bituminous concrete, wood, and masonry, composition roofing and roofing paper, steel, plaster, and minor amounts of other metals, such as copper. Construction and demolition waste do not include cleanup materials contaminated with hazardous substances, friable asbestos, waste paints, solvents, sealers, adhesives, or similar materials. C&D waste commonly contains inert materials including cement, concrete, bricks, wood, and ceramics. These materials may be recycled and used as aggregates for embankments, layers of foundation, road foundations, and asphalt (Mei et al. 2014). Materials of significant market value, such as metals, may be sold to specialized recyclers while other materials such as aggregates and wood may be ground at the C&D facility and sold or used in a beneficial manner (Harter 2014). Developing a specialized C&D landfill 9-24 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i with a sorting and reuse area would provide an opportunity to divert materials that would otherwise be landfilled. This section discusses existing C&D material handling facilities in the State of Hawaii, mechanisms to increase diversion, management options, and benefits. 9.7.2.1 Existing C&D Material Handling Facilities—State of Hawaii The State of Hawaii currently has one privately owned C&D landfill located on Oahu. The C&D landfill and recycling facility is owned and operated by PVT Land Company. According to the company website, at full capacity, the facility processes up to 1,775 tons and diverts up to 1,420 tons of debris daily for reuse and recycling instead of landfilling the material. Of the 1,755 tons of processed material, approximately 42 tons is metal, 900 tons is feedstock for energy production, and 840 tons includes rock, concrete, and dirt. The remaining unrecyclable material (200 tons) is landfilled. The feedstock is stockpiled for eventual use in a gasification facility. At the time of this Plan, PVT Land Company is preparing to relocate their operations to 179 undeveloped acres across the road from the existing operations. The new facility would be expanded to include two materials recovery and processing lines as well as the installation of an enclosed gasification unit and photovoltaic panels to power operations. The project is currently in the planning and environmental approval phase, and will require a Special Use Permit because the proposed activity is not consistent with the zoning of the site (State Land Use Agricultural District) (PVT Land Company 2019). Although not a C&D landfill, Hawaii Materials Recycling in Maui County accepts concrete, concrete block, asphalt, rock, dirt, and sand. The facility is sited so that it can use reclaimed water from the island's wastewater treatment plant. 9.7.2.2 Diversion Mechanisms For an effective program, the County would need to consider methods to maximize the diversion rates of C&D waste. These methods are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5.3. The options include building permit requirements, establishing mandates to prevent certain materials from disposal at the landfill, or setting specific recycling rates for C&D. As discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5.1, the County could explore opportunities to develop an Eco -Industrial Park that includes clusters of complementary businesses (e.g., organics, building deconstruction, salvage, reuse, and repair) through favorable zoning ordinances and/or tax relief in conjunction with the C&D landfill. In the City of Seattle, new construction, remodeling, and demolition activities are banned from disposing of asphalt paving, bricks, and concrete; metal; cardboard; new construction gypsum scrap; and unpainted and untreated wood. During the early part of the 10 -year implementation period, the City of Seattle plans to add carpet, plastic film wrap, and tear -off asphalt shingles to the banned items list. The program is implemented by first requiring projects with work areas greater than 750 square feet to develop a waste diversion plan as a component of building permit applications. To demonstrate compliance, the City requires all demolition projects and new construction and remodeling (that entail demolition) that receive a building permit to submit an electronic waste diversion report within 60 days of final inspection. The success of the program is highly contingent on a robust network of Seattle - certified salvage and source -separated recyclers, including mixed -waste recyclers and disposal facilities (City of Seattle 2019). 9.7.2.3 Management Options With C&D representing a significant proportion of the MSW waste stream, there is an opportunity to divert these materials from disposal and to manage them into productive uses. August 2020 9-25 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i C&D can be managed in the following ways: • Recycled—Material separated for recycling. • Reused—Materials that have or can be salvaged or reused on the same or other construction projects. • Beneficially Used—Material that is not recyclable or reusable can be used for other purposes, such as unpainted and untreated wood used as feedstock for biomass -mass burners or for groundcover (dog runs), pathways, or temporary roads. • Disposed—Material permanently placed in a landfill where it could be used as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) in lieu of dirt or soil to cover landfill garbage. 9.7.2.4 Benefits The benefits to limiting the disposal of C&D materials include: • Provides the largest contribution to job, wage, and tax revenue from C&D recycling, followed by ferrous and non-ferrous metals (EPA 2016a). • Reduces purchase and disposal costs. • Provides a tax benefit if recovered materials are donated to a qualified 501(c)(3) charity. • Reduces transportation costs if materials are used on site. • Reduces environmental impacts associated with the extraction and consumption of virgin resources and production of new materials. • Conserves landfill space. Cost Considerations. There would be upfront costs to plan, design, and construct the landfill and sorting and reuse area; however, when in operation the County would charge a tipping fee, and repurposed C&D products would also generate revenue. 9.8 Recommendations As described previously, the County studied various alternatives to expand the existing SHSL or to find an alternative landfill site in East Hawaii, and determined several significant constraints would interfere with these efforts. Therefore, trucking and disposal of waste to the existing WHSL is the County's singular residual waste disposal option at the time of Plan development. With a final decision on landfilling, and based on the analyses presented above and discussions with the SWAC, the Plan recommends the following residual management strategies during the next planning period. 1. Consider recovery and treatment technology for handling of municipal solid waste if all of the following criteria are met: 1) waste diversion approaches already in operation are ineffectual or cost -prohibitive in meeting County waste reduction goals, 2) it can be demonstrated that the technology is environmentally sound and economically feasible, and 3) the technology has a verifiable and viable commercial track record (minimum of 5 years). 2. Investigate the feasibility of a landfill with a sorting and reuse area for construction and demolition materials. 9-26 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 3. Update infrastructure at the WHSL and EHRSS. The County will continue to conduct periodic evaluations as needed to improve facility operations and efficiencies at WHSL and EHRSS in response to changes in flow patterns and increased volume. Activities could include: Integrate compaction into the floor space of the EHRSS. Reconfigure circulation, scalehouse location, and other facilities at WHSL to handle the additional residuals. 4. Engage in a dialogue with the state/counties about joint solutions (e.g., Discuss with City and County of Honolulu, the shipping of market-driven unrecyclable materials to their H -Power WTE plant). August 2020 9-27 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 10. ADMINISTRATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION 10.1 Introduction 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 Hawaii 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 chapter describes current conditions of the existing administration and funding within the County, identifies current issues and concerns, presents options currently under consideration by the County, and provides a recommendation for implementation. 10.2 Review of 2009 Plan Update Exhibit 10-1 below provides a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2009 Plan update relative to administration, funding, and implementation, and describes the actions taken to achieve each recommendation. Exhibit 10-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management 2009 Plan Update Recommendation Status Establish Solid Waste Division (SAID) Operating Expenses Establish Capital Improvement Fund Expenditures Projection of Solid Waste Fund Revenues and Expenses 10.3 Existing Conditions Ongoing Ongoing Maintained existing funding mechanisms with increased tip 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, a -waste recycling, and the beverage container deposit program (1-1I-5). State funding is generally allocated based on 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 Revenue Exhibit 10-2 presents FY 2017-18 actual and FY 2018-19 budgeted revenues for the solid waste fund. The main sources of revenue are discussed below. August 2020 10-1 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 10-2. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management Solid Waste Fund Revenue Revenue Category FY 2017-18 Actual FY 2018-19 Budget Federal Grants Actual Budget Total Federal Grants 5,267 0.00 State Grants Other 201� 15% Glass Recycling Program 35,751 111,876 E -Waste Recycling 45,000 160,000 Beverage Container Deposit Program 300,013 452,153 Lava 2018—State 1,756 0.00 Solid Waste Landfill Tipping Fees 11,415,595 11,600,000 Landfill Permit Fees 18,230 20,000 General Fund General Fund Balance (Previous Year) 0.00 4,385,252 Transfer from General Fund 19,483,277 19,281,770 Miscellaneous Revenue Charges for Services—General Government 0.00 0.00 Sale of Equipment 12,965 0.00 Sundry Revenues—Current Year 1,767 0.00 Sundry Revenues—Prior Year 6,629 0.00 Certified Redemption Center 204,625 2 26, 104 Total Solid Waste Fund $31,530,874 $36,237,155 Note: Figures have not been finalized by the County and are pending approval. A summary of the funding methods used in FY 2017-18 and projected for FY 2018-19 is shown in Exhibit 10-3. Exhibit 10-3. Solid Waste Fund Revenue Summary, Percent of Total 10-2 August 2020 Percent of Total FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Actual Budget General Fund 62°,, 53° Tip Fees 36",, 32 Other 201� 15% Total 10006 100° 10-2 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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 1.5 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. Beverage Container Deposit Program (1-1I-5). The Beverage Container Deposit Program is a state - administered program, which places a 5C redeemable deposit on each beverage container, as defined under law. Consumers may then return the container to redeem their 5C at any redemption center. A 1C 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. Electronic Device and Television Recycling Law. The Electronic Device and Television Recycling Law (Chapter 339D-7.5) reinforces product stewardship by requiring manufacturers of electronics to run recycling programs to comply with local government regulations. Manufacturers of covered electronic devices (CEDs) sold in the State of Hawaii must register with HDOH and pay an annual registration fee of $5,000 and must set up recycling plans. Television manufacturers must follow the same protocol except for the fee, which is $2,500 annually. Any manufacturer that sells both CEDs and covered televisions (CTVs) are required to pay a combined $7,500 in annual registration fees. 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. According to HDOH, these programs have been scaled back because of budget constraints (HDOH 2015). The State Revolving Fund (SRF) program. The SRF program assists local governments in the financing the construction of water pollution control projects necessary to prevent contamination of our groundwater and coastal water resources and to protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens through awarding of low interest loans. Since the 2009 Plan, the County has benefited from the SRF to finance stormwater-related projects at their recycling and transfer stations. 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. In 2019 non-residential customers paid $110 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. Businesses, agencies, farms, and nonprofits are subject to a $27.50 per ton tip fee for source -separated green waste. Customers may also pay special handling fees on non -routine disposal of solid wastes that require additional personnel or costs for disposal (i.e., solid waste that requires special storage, handling, or disposal practices such as asbestos or petroleum -contaminated soil). 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 August 2020 10-3 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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 $25 per registered vehicle to pay for program administration, towing companies, and scrap metal vendors. 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 single-family accounts multiplied by a factor of 1.5 (tons per year per customer) multiplied by the landfill tipping fee (e.g., $110/ton). 10 3 2 Solid V\/este Fend Expenses FY 2017-18 (actual) and FY 2018-19 (budgeted) expenses for the County solid waste fund are shown in Exhibit 10-4. 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 greater than 500 lines of expenditures were assigned to functions using appropriate, available data and professional judgment by County staff. Exhibit 10-4. Solid Waste Fund Expenses Note: Totals may not add because of rounding As shown, budgeted expenses for FY 2018-19 are higher than FY 2017-18 actuals. Expenses are projected to increase because of inflation, waste stream increases, increased staffing at recycling and transfer stations, tariffs, import bans, and substantial reductions in forecast prices received for recycled materials. Also, due to the 2018 Kilauea Volcano lava event, many properties were devalued, which resulted in the loss of real property tax revenues, the main source of taxes to the general fund. As shown in Exhibits 10-2 and 10-3, the general fund is the primary source of revenue for the management of solid waste in the County. Exhibit 10-5 provides the SWD's prioritized capital improvement funding request as submitted to the County Council. These improvements have been included in the Capital Improvement Program forecasts shown later in this section. As shown, the County also made provisions for SHSL closure requirements. Closure and post -closure requirements for the WHSL are the responsibility of the County's contractor. 10-4 August 2020 FY 2017-18 Actual FY 2018-19 Budget Percent of Total FY 17-18 FY 18-19 SWD operations 13,642,032 15,383,194 43% 43°io West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill 9,326,825 12,647,456 30% 35% Recycling Programs 6,570,097 8,046,505 21% 22% FY 2016-17 Encumbrances 5,416,274 0.00 17% 00,6 FY 2017-18 Encumbrances -3,873,145 0.00 -12% 00% FY 2017-18 Fund Balance for Future Years 448,790 0.00 1% 0% Total $31,530,874.37 36,077,155.00 100% 100% Note: Totals may not add because of rounding As shown, budgeted expenses for FY 2018-19 are higher than FY 2017-18 actuals. Expenses are projected to increase because of inflation, waste stream increases, increased staffing at recycling and transfer stations, tariffs, import bans, and substantial reductions in forecast prices received for recycled materials. Also, due to the 2018 Kilauea Volcano lava event, many properties were devalued, which resulted in the loss of real property tax revenues, the main source of taxes to the general fund. As shown in Exhibits 10-2 and 10-3, the general fund is the primary source of revenue for the management of solid waste in the County. Exhibit 10-5 provides the SWD's prioritized capital improvement funding request as submitted to the County Council. These improvements have been included in the Capital Improvement Program forecasts shown later in this section. As shown, the County also made provisions for SHSL closure requirements. Closure and post -closure requirements for the WHSL are the responsibility of the County's contractor. 10-4 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 10.4 Issues and Concerns 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. 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 10-4, the FY 2017-18 County general fund provides approximately two- thirds of the revenue used to fund current solid waste expenses (excluding debt financing for major August 2020 10-5 Exhibit 10-S. Projected Solid Waste Capital Improvements Estimated Cost (in thousands) Prior Funds Project Allocated FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Total South Hilo Sanitary $678 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,678 Landfill Closure Rural Recycling and $9,874 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $21,874 Transfer Station Reconstruction Closure of Cesspools at $100 $1,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200 Solid Waste Facilities East Hawaii Organics $100 $10,401 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,501 Processing Facility Hilo Scrap Metal Site $0 $0 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000 Remediation West Hawaii Materials $0 $0 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 Recovery System Replacement of Kona $0 $0 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 Baseyard Building Replacement of Hilo $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $3,000 Disposal Area Replacement of the Kona $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 Disposal Area East Hawai'i Regional $0 $0 $0 $700 $0 $0 $0 $700 Sort Station (EHRSS) Reload Facility Upgrades (for future transfer of waste to WHSL) Ongoing WHSL Gas $2,651 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $6,651 Collection and Control System Stormwater $0 $0 $17,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,500 Improvements for East Hawai'i Transfer Stations 10.4 Issues and Concerns 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. 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 10-4, the FY 2017-18 County general fund provides approximately two- thirds of the revenue used to fund current solid waste expenses (excluding debt financing for major August 2020 10-5 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii infrastructure). This aligns with the 2009 Plan update. However, general fund transfers supporting solid waste expenses are expected to drop to around 50 percent in FY 2018-19 compared to about 60 percent in FY 2017-18. This is attributable to excess monies from the FY 2017-18 general fund that are expected to carry over to FY 2018-19, and to a lesser extent, an increase in state grant contribution to the glass recycling, e -waste, and beverage container deposit programs. In FY 2017-18, about 36 percent of the funding was derived from landfill tipping fees, and in FY 2018- 19, tipping fees are estimated to contribute closer to 32 percent. Except for a projected lessened reliance on the general fund in FY 2018-19, these percentages are relatively unchanged from those reported in the 2009 Plan update. This indicates that few changes to the overall funding structure have occurred since the last planning effort, although tipping fees have increased from $85 to $110 per ton during the past 5 years. According to Ordinance Number 18-5 (Appendix F), which amends HCC 20 of the, the landfill charge rate per ton cannot exceed $116 in 2022. Exhibit 10-6 shows a breakdown of the landfill charge rates through 2022 (Ordinance No. 18-5). Exhibit 10-6. Landfill Charge Rates 2018-2022 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 $108 $110 $112 $114 5116 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 Plan 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. Three key issues facing the County that may require legislative changes include: • Increasing diversion by thinking of waste as a resource and reducing wasteful behavior. • Minimizing or eliminating illegal dumping. • Reducing contamination at the recycling and transfer stations and green waste facilities. 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 Plan update process, the County is evaluating potential options and setting both recommendations for waste management. To successfully expand and adapt the current county -wide waste management program to meet its goals, the County will need to: • Make decisions regarding the path forward according to the Plan's recommended priorities. • Take advantage of best practices and lessons learned from other jurisdictions regarding funding and administration mechanisms, and related legal and regulatory requirements. The County must also consider the potential implications of various existing Federal, State, and County regulations on the implementation of the waste management program. 10-6 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaf'f 10.E Adminirtration and Funding Options Many of the options being considered in previous chapters of this Plan 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, about two-thirds of the County's expenditures for solid waste management are currently 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 funding mechanism for solid waste systems costs commonly used in many communities is to establish a self-sustaining enterprise fund. An enterprise fund can be supported primarily by user fees, dedicated taxes, or dedicated property taxes. Some advantages often cited for enterprise funds include: • Promoting fairness by charging specifically for waste composition and volume disposed. • Reducing burden on the general fund. • Requiring more sensitivity to customer's needs. • Allowing managers more discretion; however, still holding them accountable to customers. • Running government more like a business. The main disadvantages 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. Enterprise funds also may be more cumbersome to administer (management of financing) and politically unpopular for those with the expectation that solid waste is subsidized through the general fund. Several factors would be considered to establish an enterprise fund system: • Determine local authority (i.e., Can the County legally charge solid waste management user fees?). • Gain support from decision makers. • Decide the appropriate type of user fees to support the enterprise fund. • Perform full cost accounting to identify and report costs of operation, including the preparation of a long-range budget. • Educate the public. August 2020 10-7 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 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 used to fund solid waste services. A possible breakdown might include the three primary categories of expenses shown in Exhibit 10-3: SWD Operations, West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill, and Recycling Programs. The addition of a line item on property taxes would be an interim step to educate the public on the breakdown and costs of solid waste management. 10.5.3 Establish PAYT System at County Recycling and Transfer Stations As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3, there are several ways that the County could implement a PAYT system at recycling and transfer stations. A PAYT program may be implemented via: • Charging residents' solid waste by weight through the addition of scales at County recycling and transfer stations while accepting drop-off of recyclable or compostable materials at no charge. • Charging residents' solid waste by volume where residents pre -purchase tags and/or bags that they would then place their waste in and haul to their nearest recycling and transfer station. • Charging residents' solid waste by volume being disposed of, while allowing drop-off of recyclable or compostable materials. • Implementing universal curbside collection of garbage for all households in the County where practical. 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. A PAYT program could be a user fee option integrated into an enterprise funding program (see Section 10.5.1). This program has been shown to work in other jurisdictions on the mainland and in Hawaii (e.g., Kaua'i). 10.5.4 Modifications to Existing Programs and Practices The County could consider modifications or improvements to existing programs that may increase revenue instead of changing funding mechanisms (e.g., enterprise fund): • Seek more non -user -fee funding (e.g., federal grants, opportunities such as SRF). • Increase recycling rates through improved operations (e.g., public outreach, transfer and recycling station upgrades). • Determine adequacy of handling fees on non -routine solid wastes (e.g., asbestos, petroleum - contaminated soil). • Increase participation of the hotel/tourism industry through tax incentives or other mechanisms. 10-8 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i • Determine adequacy of the registration fee for the abandoned vehicle program. • Reevaluate the residential hauler credit program. • Regularly review and, when appropriate, renegotiate the WHSL contract. 10.5.5 Illegal Dumping Prevention Illegal dumping of household and commercial waste 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, economic impacts resulting from costs of clean up can affect County resources, and illegal dumping degrades quality of life —the beauty of the island for residents and visitors. 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. This section describes existing regulations at the federal, state, and local level. It also describes illegal dumping prevention measures within the County, issues and concerns, and options to deter illegal dumping that have the potential to bolster the County's existing prevention system. 10.5.5.1 Regulations At the federal level, Statute 42 United States Code (USC) 6928(d)(2)(B) & (C) of the Criminal Provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) indicts offenders who knowingly treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste without a permit with penalties up to 2 years of incarceration and a $50,000 per day in fines. The County regulates "littering" and the state regulates "illegal dumping." The state defines illegal dumping as the illicit disposal of solid waste that is equal to or greater than 1 cubic yard. The County's litter law does not quantify what is considered litter; therefore, it could be less than or greater than 1 cubic yard. In accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 342H (HRS 342H), illegal dumping could be subject to enforcement action and administrative civil penalties up to $10,000 per day. Those who knowingly dispose of solid waste equal to or greater than 1 cubic yard and less than 10 cubic yards are subject to criminal penalties (petty misdemeanor) up to $25,000 per day for each offense. If illegal dumping is equal or exceeds 10 cubic yards, it is considered a class C felony and potentially subject to $50,000 for each separate offense. If illegal dumping is suspected, a complaint can be filed with the State Department of Health, Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch, State Department of Attorney General Investigations Office, District Health Office located in Hilo, or Hawaii County Police Department (HCPD). Hawai'i County Code (HCC 20-8) contains provisions that prohibit littering. In the past five years, revisions such as Ordinance 12-1, aimed at reducing plastic bag littering and pollution, have been enacted to further reduce contamination. 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 cleanup is also allowed under the current County code. August 2020 10-9 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 10.5.5.2 Countywide Illegal Dumping Prevention The County's HawaiiZeroWaste.org website provides a wealth of information related to illegal dumping including: • A link to "Trash Free Hawai'i" website, an initiative by the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT), Highways Division, and Oahu District's Storm Water Management Program, which seeks to reduce litter entering the storm drains that ultimately enter the ocean. • State of Hawai'i's regulations, including information related to potential hazardous contaminants that may be within commercial or industrial waste from small quantity generators. • Education of the potential health consequences of open dumps (illegal dumps). • Actions that can be carried out by private landowners, contractors, and "everyone" to address and prevent illegal dumping, including reporting procedures. • A link to a brochure that describes how to conduct a community cleanup of a dump site. • Contact information for the County Department of Public Works, Highways Maintenance Division, to request rubbish removal in County right-of-way. • Information emphasizing the role of small businesses in the handling of hazardous materials, including a link to HDOH guidance and other resources. The County holds household hazardous waste collection events per year at well-known and well- publicized locations in Hilo, Kona, Waimea, and Pahoa. Chapter 6 provides further information regarding the handling of hazardous waste. The 501(c)(3) nonprofit, Keep the Hawaiian Islands Beautiful website, provides an online litter "hotline" as another avenue to report illegal dumping. The nonprofit's mission emphasizes the engagement of individuals to take a greater responsibility for improving the community environment and preserving the beauty of the Hawaiian islands. Solid waste initiatives and recycling, beautification, and litter prevention and control are activities emphasized by the nonprofit. 10.5.5.3 Issues and Concerns Regardless of the existing regulatory framework and "grassroots" approach to prevent illegal disposal of rubbish, illegal littering or dumping still occurs, notably along roadways in more rural areas, on vacant lots, and in gulches with major roadways crossing them or near industrial facilities. Enforcement of existing illegal dumping and litter laws is challenging due in part to the rural nature of the County. Currently enforcement of the County code is the responsibility of the 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 recycling and transfer station properties. 10-10 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 10.5.5.4 Options to Prevent Illegal Dumping Illegal Dumping Prevention Studies 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, most 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 10-7 presents four programmatic areas the EPA has suggested focusing on for preventing illegal dumping. Exhibit 10-7. 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, dedicating staff who have the authority to conduct surveillance and inspections, and writing 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. Source: EPA (1998) The New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency conducted a report on illegal dumping including an online survey consisting of 63 government authorities, 100 trade and industry authorities, and 1,009 community members. Respondents were given various methods to reduce illegal dumping and were asked to rank their effectiveness. Patrolling and surveillance were viewed as the most effective, with 81 percent of participants responding that the method was "somewhat or very effective." Community outreach and education was viewed by 77 percent of participants as "effective," and fines/enforcement were viewed by 70 percent of participants as "effective." Relating to joint campaigns with the New South Wales EPA, 56 percent of local government authorities stated the method was "very effective," while signage received the least support with 43 percent of respondents stating the method was "not August 2020 10-11 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i effective" (NSW 2015). Exhibit 10-8 graphically depicts the outcome of the illegal dumping survey performed by the New South Wales EPA. Exhibit 10-8. New South Wales Survey on Illegal Dumping (North South Wales 2015) ■Somewhat effective ■ Very effective ■ Don't Know Not effective Patrollingrsurveillance (n=46) Community events (n=43) Community education/awareness Limiting access (n=30) Changes to council waste services Fines/enforcement (n=40) Joint campaigns with EPA (n=18 ) Signage (n=42) 11 r 14 61 16 14 61 16 3 53 23 4 -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70ob 80% 90% 10" Base n■63 all respondents 022 Flow effective have each of these initiatives been on reducing illegal dumping and/or illegal landfilling? Source: NSW (2017) Illegal Dumping: County's Options 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 the County. Potential actions that may be considered for the County to prevent illegal dumping are listed below. • Civil and Criminal Penalties. Develop legislation that sets more severe civil and criminal penalties for illegal dumping activities than what is legislated by the state (HRS 342H). 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. Work 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 emphasize prevention, and conduct periodic clean ups of illegal dump sites, to raise community awareness and involvement in reducing illegal dumping activities. • Install Signage at Problem Areas. Install signage where illegal dumping typically occurs listing the more severe civil and criminal penalties for violators to curb future dumping. This process may be completed in conjunction with the planned re-signing at recycling and transfer stations, as stated in Chapter 5, Public Education and Information. 10-12 August 2020 R 50 93 �a 28 7 NJ 41 7 -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70ob 80% 90% 10" Base n■63 all respondents 022 Flow effective have each of these initiatives been on reducing illegal dumping and/or illegal landfilling? Source: NSW (2017) Illegal Dumping: County's Options 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 the County. Potential actions that may be considered for the County to prevent illegal dumping are listed below. • Civil and Criminal Penalties. Develop legislation that sets more severe civil and criminal penalties for illegal dumping activities than what is legislated by the state (HRS 342H). 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. Work 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 emphasize prevention, and conduct periodic clean ups of illegal dump sites, to raise community awareness and involvement in reducing illegal dumping activities. • Install Signage at Problem Areas. Install signage where illegal dumping typically occurs listing the more severe civil and criminal penalties for violators to curb future dumping. This process may be completed in conjunction with the planned re-signing at recycling and transfer stations, as stated in Chapter 5, Public Education and Information. 10-12 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii 0 Increase Security at Recycling and Transfer Stations. Hire full-time attendants to monitor the recycling and garbage facilities to deter potential violators. Install a fence around Miloli'i to reduce illegal dumping during non-operating hours. 9 Small Quantity Generator Program. Inform small businesses how to best dispose of their hazardous waste to reduce illegal dumping and contamination. Businesses who are small quantity generators (SQGs) and produce between 100 and 1,000 kilograms per month of hazardous waste may accumulate waste for up to 180 days without a permit. As described in Section 10.5.5.2, the County provides information and guidance targeting businesses (SQGs) on their HawaiiZeroWaste.org website. This program could be bolstered by initiatives such as County interaction with small businesses through meetings and site visits. • Recycling and Transfer Stations. Allow small businesses to utilize the recycling and transfer stations for recycling (see Recommendations, Chapters 4 and 8). 10.6 Plan Remmmendation Exhibit 10-9 outlines the 10 -year funding projections for the 84 recommendations identified throughout this Plan. Fluctuations in markets and uncertainties regarding the outcomes of programs that will be operational early in the planning period will likely involve the County continuing with the current system of funding most operating expenditures using property taxes and tip fees until the outcome of programs are better understood. The County must ensure that DEM has resources commensurate with the needs of all current and future solid waste programs. Based on the analyses presented above and discussions with the SWAC, the Plan recommends implementing the following administrative activities during the next planning period: 1. Prepare a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis. Prepare the analysis to align with programs identified in this Plan and to achieve less reliance on the general fund. Major capital expenditures would continue to be funded through general obligation bonds. The planning effort would also consider methods and costs associated with the discouragement of illegal dumping, particularly because there is a correlation between this undesirable activity and the implementation of a PAYT program. Note: Chapter 3, Section 3.6 (Recommendation 2) discusses the analysis of a PAYT program or other funding mechanism for source reduction. Chapter 8, Section 8.8 (Recommendation 1) discusses the continued operation and maintenance of recycling and transfer stations until a decision on the best method of collection and transfer is determined, and to also explore alternative funding mechanisms via a feasibility study. 2. Regularly review and, when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract. August 2020 10-13 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 10-9. Recommended Programs and Capital Improvements Program Status and High Type Priority Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6+ FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 25-29 Chapter 3. Source Reduction Work with the contractor managing the reuse centers to be more Ongoing/ - Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken Ongoing/ Program to reduce the source of waste currently entering landfills. Program and display of merchandise. Develop a County ordinance that requires a waste reduction plan Planned/ - $13,000 Planned/CIP x be submitted to obtain a commercial building permit. Program Planned/ -- No Added Cost Work with other counties to develop Extended Producer Ongoing/ - $38,000 $40,000 Responsibility (EPR) policy statements or resolutions. As a Program (policy) (campaign) component of EPR policy, implement a campaign to develop EPR within the County. for difficult -to -recycle products, and lobby state and federal Ongoing/ - $116,000 $250,000 stations and/or upgrade the Laupahoehoe Reuse Center lawmakers to advance EPR initiatives. Expand and improve public education and awareness programs. Ongoing/ X Implement a County government source reduction program Ongoing/ -- $39,000 policies, procedures, and incentive programs that will reduce waste Program $39,000 $39,500 $40,000 $210,000 source reduction within the local business community. streams currently being generated within various County departments and agencies. Investigate a pay -as -you -throw (PAYT) program or other funding method. Planned/ -- See Chapter 10 Prepare a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis Program Improve the current reuse facility program: Work with contractors managing reuse centers to create a list of Planned/ -- No Added Cost preferable donations to distribute to customers. Program Work with the contractor managing the reuse centers to be more Ongoing/ - No Added Cost selective about merchandise, emphasizing items that are lightly Program used, clean, and in good condition. Improve signage, organization, and display of merchandise. Provide more covered space at reuse centers. Planned/CIP x $75,000 $76,000 $78,000 $79,000 $80,000 $414,250 Collaborate with the volunteer -based Laupahoehoe Reuse Center Planned/ -- No Added Cost to increase participation of volunteers. Program Continue public-private partnerships with organizations such as Ongoing/ - No Added Cost Goodwill Industries to develop reuse centers at existing outlets Program within the County. Consider expanding the program to other recycling and transfer Ongoing/ - $116,000 $250,000 stations and/or upgrade the Laupahoehoe Reuse Center Program Expand and improve public education and awareness programs. Ongoing/ X Program Develop a business waste audit and education program to foster Planned/ -- $39,000 $39,500 $40,000 $210,000 source reduction within the local business community. Program 10-14 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 10-9. Recommended Programs and Capital Improvements (continued) centers. Chapter 4. Recycling Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to improve recycling rates. Thoroughly investigate mandates prior to implementation including assessment of markets (should be well-established), operational viability (solicit input from recycling and transfer station attendants, haulers, landfill operators), and implementation in other jurisdictions with an emphasis on other Hawai'i counties. Establish a differential tip fee ordinance Investigate the feasibility of establishing a mandatory curbside collection program for some single-family residences. Establish mandatory source separation and recycling ordinance, which would require all businesses and institutions to recycle select types of materials. This could include implementing landfill bans for select recyclables. Develop legislation that requires owners and managers of multi- family dwellings and multi -tenant commercial buildings to provide recycling • Conduct research and coordinate with legislators and waste managers within Maui, Kaua'i, and Honolulu counties, to evaluate the potential for combining efforts to develop a statewide landfill diversion strategy. Lobby the State to change school waste collection contracts to mandate that recycling services are included. Modify infrastructure at recycling and transfer stations to accommodate and expand recycling. Improve signage at recycling and transfer stations to provide the public with comprehensive information about recycling opportunities and procedures. Allow small businesses to use the recycling and transfer stations to recycle selected materials. Ongoing/ Program Ongoing/ Program Planned/ Program Planned/ Program Planned/ Program Planned/ Program Planned/ Program Planned/ Program Ongoing/ CIP Ongoing/ Program Planned/ Program X X X X X X $13,000 $33,000 $100,000 $32,000 $10,000 $33,000 $14,000 $30,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 $ 36,000 No Added Cost See Chapter 8 reconstruct one or more recycling and transfer stations annually. $129,000 $131,500 $32,500 $33,500 $34,000 $178,000 August 2020 10-15 Status and High Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6+ Program Type Priority FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 25-29 Develop a visitor industry waste reduction education program. Planned/ X $39,000 Program Continue reuse education, outreach, and public awareness Ongoing/ X No Added campaigns to encourage public participation and use of the reuse Program Cost centers. Chapter 4. Recycling Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to improve recycling rates. Thoroughly investigate mandates prior to implementation including assessment of markets (should be well-established), operational viability (solicit input from recycling and transfer station attendants, haulers, landfill operators), and implementation in other jurisdictions with an emphasis on other Hawai'i counties. Establish a differential tip fee ordinance Investigate the feasibility of establishing a mandatory curbside collection program for some single-family residences. Establish mandatory source separation and recycling ordinance, which would require all businesses and institutions to recycle select types of materials. This could include implementing landfill bans for select recyclables. Develop legislation that requires owners and managers of multi- family dwellings and multi -tenant commercial buildings to provide recycling • Conduct research and coordinate with legislators and waste managers within Maui, Kaua'i, and Honolulu counties, to evaluate the potential for combining efforts to develop a statewide landfill diversion strategy. Lobby the State to change school waste collection contracts to mandate that recycling services are included. Modify infrastructure at recycling and transfer stations to accommodate and expand recycling. Improve signage at recycling and transfer stations to provide the public with comprehensive information about recycling opportunities and procedures. Allow small businesses to use the recycling and transfer stations to recycle selected materials. Ongoing/ Program Ongoing/ Program Planned/ Program Planned/ Program Planned/ Program Planned/ Program Planned/ Program Planned/ Program Ongoing/ CIP Ongoing/ Program Planned/ Program X X X X X X $13,000 $33,000 $100,000 $32,000 $10,000 $33,000 $14,000 $30,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 $ 36,000 No Added Cost See Chapter 8 reconstruct one or more recycling and transfer stations annually. $129,000 $131,500 $32,500 $33,500 $34,000 $178,000 August 2020 10-15 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 10-9. Recommended Programs and Capital Improvements (continued) Program Increase recycling opportunities at community events. Ongoing/ X Program Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental Ongoing/ impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider Program full life cycle impacts, in addition to tonnage -based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals. Annually or bi-annually assess existing local and regional markets for Status and High Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6+ Program Type Priority FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 25-29 Work with the HDOH Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch to modify recycling Planned/ X $13,000 Planned/ and implementation. Program Develop a training program and guidance materials for farmers and and transfer station operating permits to accommodate expanded recycling Program Program Implement a 'Stop Wasting Food' program that would benefit programs such Ongoing/ as local food banks. Program services. Planned / and transfer stations or other visible locations in the community Program Onsite composting program (subsidized composting bins and distribution to Planned/ residents and businesses) Expand education and outreach programs for both large and small Ongoing/ X $32,000 $33,500 $34,000 $178,000 businesses to foster participation in commercial recycling programs. Program Add food waste drop-off bins at recycling and transfer stations that Planned/ already collect green waste Program Install additional recycling bins in parks and other public areas. Ongoing/ X $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $40,000 Program Increase recycling opportunities at community events. Ongoing/ X Program Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental Ongoing/ impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider Program full life cycle impacts, in addition to tonnage -based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals. Annually or bi-annually assess existing local and regional markets for Ongoing/ materials across the waste stream; study service voids for missed Program opportunities to recover commodities. Chapter 4. Organics Improve education and outreach programs that promote improved Ongoing/ management of organics. Program Ensure that the contractor responsible for administering the organics Planned/ program is meeting contractual requirements. Program Expand and further develop a master composter program - includes planning Planned/ and implementation. Program Develop a training program and guidance materials for farmers and Planned/ gardeners. Program Implement a 'Stop Wasting Food' program that would benefit programs such Ongoing/ as local food banks. Program Partner with others to establish compost demonstration gardens at recycling Planned / and transfer stations or other visible locations in the community Program Onsite composting program (subsidized composting bins and distribution to Planned/ residents and businesses) Program Landfill organics ban implementation study Planned/ Program Organics management facilities and equipment Ongoing/ Program Add food waste drop-off bins at recycling and transfer stations that Planned/ already collect green waste Program X X X $10,000 $10,500 $11,000 No Added Cost No Added Cost $11,500 $56,500 $31,000 $31,500 $32,000 $33,500 $34,000 $178,000 No Added Cost $350,000 82,500 $248,000 Part of Overall Public Education Program $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $13,000 10-16 August 2020 $30,000 $54,000 $610,000 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Exhibit 10-9. Recommended Programs and Capital Improvements (continued) collection program and recycling and transfer station drop-off facilities. As Program part of this investigation, perform pilot food waste demonstration projects Status and High Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6+ Program Type Priority FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 25-29 Formulate compostable bag ASTM D6400 -compliance legislation Planned/ - $33,000 $93,000 $98,000 public and business community about landfill diversion initiatives and Program opportunities. Add organics/yard waste disposal to existing brochures/signage Ongoing/ X $10,000 $11,000 Program Program Ensure County has staffing levels commensurate with the needs of the public Ongoing/ X To be Determined Through Program Implementation Expand the number of drop-off locations for green waste and/or Planned/ -- Chapter 6. Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) / Electronic Waste (E - $59,000 food waste at recycling and transfer stations Program Ensure enough staffing to operate HHW/ a -waste programs successfully. Continue operation of mulch facilities at WHSL and SHSL Ongoing/ X No Added Cost Implement HHW/ a -waste education, outreach, and public awareness Program $39,500 $84,000 program. Program Investigate organics collection programs, including a residential curbside Planned/ X $55,000 No Added Cost implemented in other jurisdictions and integrate those successes into the collection program and recycling and transfer station drop-off facilities. As Program part of this investigation, perform pilot food waste demonstration projects with the potential for eventual expansion into full-scale food waste management programs. Chapter 5. Education, Outreach, and Public Awareness Implement a 3 -year education and social marketing program to educate the Planned/ X $93,000 $98,000 public and business community about landfill diversion initiatives and Program opportunities. Conduct a waste management attitude residential survey. Planned/ $125,000 Program Ensure County has staffing levels commensurate with the needs of the public Ongoing/ X To be Determined Through Program Implementation outreach program. Program Chapter 6. Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) / Electronic Waste (E - Waste) Ensure enough staffing to operate HHW/ a -waste programs successfully. Ongoing/ X To be Determined Through Program Implementation Program Implement HHW/ a -waste education, outreach, and public awareness Ongoing/ X $39,500 $84,000 program. Program Research and evaluate elements of successful e -waste/ HHW programs Ongoing/ - No Added Cost implemented in other jurisdictions and integrate those successes into the Program County's program Explore a -waste take back programs with state and manufacturers/sellers. -- Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to Planned/ - mandate and manage take -back programs for specific types of e- Program waste. $39,000 Coordinate with other counties and the State to develop and Ongoing/ - implement a -waste EPR take -back programs. Program August 2020 10-17 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 10-9. Recommended Programs and Capital Improvements (continued) Status and High Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6+ Program Type Priority FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 25-29 Coordinate with local retailers to facilitate implementation of take- Planned/ back programs for e -waste. Program Assess legislative actions that may be necessary to improve e- Ongoing/ waste programs including demanufacturing, storage and handling, Program and funding equity. Conduct additional HHW collection events (10 to 12 additional per year) Planned/ Program Explore legislative actions for hazardous products and packaging take -back programs. Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to Planned/ mandate and manage take -back programs for specific types of Program hazardous waste or packaging. Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to facilitate Planned/ storage and handling of hazardous products and packaging at Program various types of collection locations, and funding equity. Explore a public-private partnership for a local a -waste campaign (on -island Ongoing/ demanufacturing). Program Chapter 7. Special Waste Continue to integrate a Do -It -Yourself Used Motor Oil program within the Ongoing/ County's public education and information program. Program Increase the number of Recycling and Transfer Stations that accept white Planned/ goods. Continue to explore the feasibility of removing the freon at the site to Program simplify the handling, loading, and transport of white goods. Continue to ensure that recycling facilities responsible for dismantling of Ongoing/ white goods are trained properly for the recovery and recycling of Freon- Program containing appliances. Continue to promote tire recycling best management practices within the Ongoing/ Countys public education and information program. Program Chapter 8. Collection and Transfer Retain the County's system of recycling and transfer stations; however, also Planned/ explore alternative funding methods via a feasibility study. Program Reconstruct one or more recycling and transfer stations annually. Ongoing/ CIP Consider 'Satellite' compaction units for recyclables at select stations Planned/ CIP Reduce operating hours at recycling and transfer stations and consider Planned/ closing one or more stations. Program x $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 2,000,000 $ 39,000 $43,000 X No Added Cost -- $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 -- No Added Cost X No Added Cost X See Chapter 10 Prepare a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis. - $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $20,350,000 X $40,000 $41,000 $41,000 $42,000 - Potential Cost/Savings to be Determined 10-18 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Exhibit 10-9. Recommended Programs and Capital Improvements (continued) Regularly review, and when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract. Planned/ X No Added Cost Program Note: Assumes 1.75 percent annual inflation August 2020 10-19 Status and High Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6+ Program Type Priority FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 25-29 Change County code to allow small businesses to drop off recyclables at Planned/ X $13,000 recycling and transfer stations. Program Enable nonprofits and community organizations specifically involved with No Added Cost litter abatement to drop off non-recyclables at transfer stations without the need for daily waivers or permits. Conduct an operational efficiency analysis to lower costs. Ongoing- X $56,000 Planned/ Program Chapter 9. Residuals Management Consider recovery and treatment technology for handling of municipal solid Planned/ -- No Added Cost waste if all of the following criteria are met: 1) waste diversion approaches Program already in operation are ineffectual or cost -prohibitive in meeting County waste reduction goals, 2) it can be demonstrated that the technology is environmentally sound and economically feasible, and 3) the technology has a verifiable and viable commercial track record (minimum of 5 years). Investigate the feasibility of a landfill with a sorting and reuse area for Planned/ CIP X $125,000 construction and demolition materials. Update infrastructure at the WHSL and EHRRS. Ongoing/CIP $7,000 Engage in dialog with the State/Counties about joint solutions (e.g., Discuss Planned/ X No Added Cost with City and County of Honolulu, the shipping of market-driven unrecyclable Program materials to their H -Power WTE plant). Chapter 10. Administration and Funding Prepare a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis. Planned/ -- $125,00 $125,000 Program Regularly review, and when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract. Planned/ X No Added Cost Program Note: Assumes 1.75 percent annual inflation August 2020 10-19 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i 11. REFERENCES Anoka County, Minnesota. 2018. Anoka county organics drop-off program. Retrieved from: https://www.anokacounty.us/360/County-Organics-Drop-off-Program. Accessed August 24, 2018. Arsova, L. 2015. Waste conversion mechanical biological treatment (MBT) concept for material and energy recovery from mixed MSW. Waste Advantage Magazine. Retrieved from https://wasteadvantagemag.com/waste-conversion-mechanical-biological-treatment-mbt-concept- for-material-and-energy-recovery-from-mixed-msw/. Accessed August 14, 2018. Bel, G. and M. Warner. 2008. Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs? A review of empirical studies. University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 52: 1337-1348. Berihum, D. 2017. Control mechanism of bad odor generated from sanitary landfill leachate using swiss pharm BioMist. Advances in recycling and waste management, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2:2. doi: 10.4172/2475-7675-10000129 Biodegradable Products Institute. 2018. What is a certified compostable product? Retrieved from: https://bplworld.org/products.html. Accessed August 27, 2018. Biocycle. 2017. The state of organics recycling in the US. Retrieved from: https://www.biocycle.net/2017/10/04/state-organics-recycling-u-s/. Accessed August 24, 2018. Brown County. 2018. Food waste program details. Brown County Recycling. Retrieved from: https://www.browncountyrecycling.org/program-details. Accessed August 24, 2018. California Energy Commission. 2018. Landfill gas power plants. Retrieved from http://www.energy.ca.gov/biomass/landfill_gas.html. Accessed August 14, 2018. California Recycle. 2016. Curbside recycling, the next generation. Retrieved from: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LgCentral/Library/Innovations/Curbside/Default.htm. Accessed July 2, 2018. Cascadia Consulting Group. 2001. Waste Composition Study, South Hilo Landfill, County of Hawai'i. CH2MHill. 2008. Waste Composition Study of Hawaii. Prepared by CH2MH1ll in association with Sky Valley Associates, September 2008. Chin -Chance, Chris. 2018. Personal communication (email) on January 25, 2019. Recycling Specialist III, County of Hawai'i Department of Environmental Management, Recycling Section. Hilo, HI. Circeo, U. 2009. Plasma arc gasification of municipal solid waste. Georgia tech Electro -Optical Systems Laboratory (PowerPoint). Retrieved from http://www.energy.ca.gov/proceedings/2008-ALT- 1/documents/2009-02-17_workshop/presentations/Louis_Circeo- Georgia_Tech_Research_Institute.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2018. City of Austin. 2015. Curbside services -cost benefit analysis. Prepared by Austin Resource Recovery, Austin TX. August 2020 11-1 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii City of Boulder Colorado. 2016. Universal zero waste ordinance. Retrieved from: https://bouldercolorado.gov/zero-waste/universal-zero-waste-ordinance. Accessed July 5, 2018. City of Charlottesville. 2018. Composting in Charlottesville. Retrieved from: http://www.charlottesville.org/community/community-initiatives/a-green-city/sustainable-waste- management/composting-in-charlottesville. Accessed August 27, 2018. City and County of Honolulu. 2017. Audit of the city's recycling program. Retrieved from https://www.honolulu.jzov/rep/site/oca/oca docs/City RecyclinjR Program Final Report rev. 102 717.pdf City and County of Honolulu. 2018a. Report on the enforcement of mandatory business recycling ordinances. Prepared by the Department of Environmental Services, Honolulu, HI. City and County of Honolulu. 2018b. 3 -cart refuse recycling collection. Department of Environmental Services. Retrieved from http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/curbside.htm. Accessed August 1, 2018. City and County of San Francisco. 2018. New 2018 refuse rate. Retrieved from: https://www.recology.com/recology-san-francisco/rates/. Accessed July 26, 2018. City of Portland. 2014. Organic waste: Residential collection increased, but challenges remain in larger commercial sector. Retrieved from: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/auditservices/article/486584. Accessed July 4, 2018. City of Los Angeles. 2005. Department of Public Works. Evaluation of alternative solid waste processing technologies. Prepared by URS Corporation, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://oglecounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Los-Angeles-EvaI-Alt-Waste-Proc-Tech.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2018. City of San Jose. 2015. Curbside recycling; the city can enhance its single-family residential recycling program to improve waste diversion. Retrieved from: https://www.sanj'oseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44031. Accessed May 28, 2018. City of Seattle 2019. Seattle Public Utilities website: Recycling Required for Construction and Demolition Projects. Website accessed on May 2, 2019: http://www.seattle.gov/utilities/businesses-and-key- accounts/construction/construction-waste County of Hawaii. 2009. Integrated resources and solid waste management plan: The path to zero waste. Prepared by CH2M Hill, Hawaii County, HI. County of Hawai'i DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2016a. Motor oil diversion summary: FY 2015-16 (Table), Hawai'i County, HI. County of Hawaii DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2017a. Solid waste disposa summary: FY 2017 (Table), Hawaii County, HI. County of Hawai'i DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2017b. Motor oil diversion summary: FY 2015-16 (Table), Hawaii County, HI. 11-2 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii County of Hawaii DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2017c. Draft environmental assessment and anticipated finding of no significant impact for the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill. Prepared by Wilson Okamoto Corporation, Honolulu, HI. County of Hawai'i DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2017d. FY 2016-2017 Annua Operations Report- Nineteen Transfer Stations and Three Convenience Centers. County of Hawaii DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2018a. Green waste & food discards. Retrieved from: http://www.hawai'l zerowaste.org/recycle/green waste/. Accessed July 5, 2018. County of Hawaii DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2018b. Solid waste disposal summary: FY 2018 (Table), Hawai'i County, HI. County of Kauai. 2018a Program information: Pay as you throw. Retrieved from: https://www.Kaua'i.gov/PAYT. Accessed July 2, 2018. County of Kaua'i. 2018b. Division of solid waste, program description. Retrieved from https://www.Kaua'i.gov/PubllcWorks/SolidWaste, Accessed August 1, 2018. J. Edwards, M. Othman, S. Burn. A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of anaerobic digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 52 (2016), pp. 815-828 Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2016. Washington Department of Ecology. Materials Recovery & Use Study, Waste2Resources, August 2016. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. EPA Illegal Dumping Prevention Guidebook, #905-8-97- 001, March 1998 EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2016a. Advancing sustainable materials management: 2016 recycling economic information (REI) report, October 2016. US EPA. Report #EPA530-R-17-002. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2016b. Comprehensive procurement guideline (CPG) program. US EPA. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/smm/comprehensive-procurement-guideline-cpg- program#products. Access July 9, 2018. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2016c. Pricing systems. US EPA. Retrieved from: https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/payt/web/html/topl3.html. Accessed October 18, 2018. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2016d. Collection costs. US EPA. Retrieved from: https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/localgov/web/html/collection.htmi. Accessed July 5, 2018. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 2017a. Understanding global warming potentials. US EPA. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming- potentials#Learnwhy. Accessed August 14, 2018. August 2020 11-3 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 2017b. Energy Recovery from the Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste. https://www.epa.gov/smm/energy-recovery-combustion-municipal-solid-waste-msw, January 19, 2017. Accessed September 13, 2018. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018a. Zero waste case study: San Francisco. US EPA. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/transforming waste-tool/zero-waste-case-study-san-francisco. Accessed July 12, 2018. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018b. Contracting best practices for transforming waste streams in communities. US EPA. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/transforming-waste- tool/contracting-best-practices-transforming-waste-streams-communities. Accessed July 12, 2018. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018c. Advancing sustainable materials management: 2015 fact sheet. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018- 07/documents/2015_smm_msw_factsheet_07242018_fnl_508_002.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2018. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018d. EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Overview, updated July 2019: https://www.epa.gov/rcra/resource-conservation-and-recovery-act- rcra-overview#subtitleD EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018e. National overview: facts and figures on materials, wastes, and recycling. Retrieved from https://www. epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials- waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials. Accessed August 9, 2018. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018g. Anaerobic Digestion Tools and Resources. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/anaerobic-digestion/anaerobic-digestion-tools-and-resources EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018g. Landfill methane outreach program (LMOP): Basic information about landfill gas. US EPA. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic- information-about-landfill-gas. Accessed August 14, 2018. European Parliament. 2017. Towards a circular economy—waste management in the EU. Prepared by the European parliamentary research service, Brussels, Belgium. PE 581.913. doi: 10.2861/978568 EUROPEN. 2018. Factsheet: Extended producer responsibility (EPR) for used packaging. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/misivann/Downloads/EUROPEN%20factsheet%20on%20EPR%20for%20used%20pac kaging.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2018. FirmaTek. 2017. 8 ways new technology is revolutionizing landfill maintenance. Firmatek. Retrieved from http://www.firmatek.com/2017/02/28/landfill-maintenance/. Accessed August 14. 2018. Friday, J.B., L. Keith, F. Hughes. 2015. Rapid 'Ohi'a Death (Ceratocystis Wilt of 'Ohi'a). College of tropical agriculture and human resources, University of Hawai'i. PD -107. Goldstein, J. and M. 2005. Controlling odors at composting facilities. BioCycle. Retrieved from https://www.biocycle.net/2005/05/24/controlling-odors-at-composting-facilities/. Accessed August 13, 2018. Harler, C. 2014. Operations focus: Maximizing value. Recycling Today. Retrieved from: https://www. cd recycle r. com/article/cdr0314-sorting-operations-focus/. Accessed 23 April 2019. 11-4 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii HDOH (State of Hawaii, Department of Health). 2013. Common CESQG hazardous waste streams and preferred management (brochure). Hawaii. State Department of Health Environmental Management Division. Retrieved from: http://health.Hawai'i.gov/shwb/files/2013/06/commoncesqg.pdf. HDOH (State of Hawaii, Department of Health). 2015. Report to the twenty-eighth legislature State of Hawaii. Department of Health, Office of Solid Waste Management, State of Hawaii, Honolulu HI. HDOH (State of Hawaii, Department of Health. 2017. Fact Sheet—How to Manage Your Scrap Tires. State of Hawaii Department of Health, Environmental Management Division Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch. Revised May 2017. Accessed on November 20, 2018 from: http://health.hawaii.gov/shwb/solid-waste/ Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2017. County seeks nonprofits' help on organics recycling. Southwest Journal. Retrieved from: http://www.southwestjourna1.com/news/green-digest/2017/07/hennepin- county-nonprofits-organics-recycling/. Accessed July 26, 2018. Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2018. Organics. Hennepin County Green Disposal Guide. Retrieved from: https://www.hennepin.us/green-disposal-guide/items/organics. Accessed August 24, 2018. Institute for Local Government. 2011. Adopting a mandatory commercial recycling ordinance. Retrieved from http://www.ca-ilg.org/case-story/adopting-mandatory-commercial-recycling-ordinance. Accessed July 6, 2018. Karidis, A. 2017. Employing new weapons to fight landfill odors. Waste 360. Retrieved from https://www.waste360.com/nuisances/employing-new-weapons-fight-landfill-odors. Accessed August 13, 2018. Keep America Beautiful. 2018. Recycle Bowl. Retrieved from: https://www.kab.org/recycle-bowl/why- recycle-bowl. Accessed July 22, 2018. Kenny, H. 2013. Solid waste collection update: subsection of annual privatization report 2013, local government privatization. Retrieved from https://reason.org/commentary/apr-2013-sol1d-waste/. Accessed August 1, 2018. King County 2018. Skykomish Drop Box. Flyer prepared by King County Department of Natural Resource and Parks, Solid Waste Division. Accessed on the following website: your. kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/facilities/skykomish-transfer.asp?ID=366 Lakhan, C. 2015. A comparison of single and multi -stream recycling systems in Ontario, Canada. Wilfrid Laurier University, Ontario, CA. dol: 10.3390/resources4020384. Lasky, Z. 2018. Scrap metal market: May 2018. Advanced remarketing services. Retrieved from: https://www. arscars.com/scrap-metal-market-may-2018/. Accessed May 29, 2018. MacKerron, C. 2012. Unfinished business: the case for extended producer responsibility for post- consumer packaging. Retrieved from: https://static1. squarespace.com/static/59a706d4f5e2319670240ef9/t/5a7e426ff9619ab1a90b004d /1518223990918/REPORT-2012-UnfinishedBusiness—TheCaseforEPR.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2018. Maui County Government 2008. Chapter 5, MSW, White Goods, and Bulky Waste Collection DRAFT. August 2020 11-5 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Mei, G., Balletto, G., Francesconi, L., Furcas, C. Naitza, S., Pani, L., Trulli, N. 2014. Reuse of construction and demolition wastes (CDW). The case of Sardinia Island (Italy). Department of Civil, Environmental Engineering and Architecture (DICAAR), University of Cagliari, Italy. NSW. 2017. North South Wales Environmental Protection Authority. NSW Illegal Dumping Strategy 2017-20 Consultation Draft. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/"/media/EPA/Corporate%2OSite/resourceslillegaldumping/epa- illegal-dumping-strategy-2017-20-170229.ashxAccessed October 18, 2018 NSWMA (National Solid Wastes Management Association). 2011. Privatization: Saving money, maximizing efficiency, and achieving other benefits in solid waste collection disposal recycling. The National Solid Waste Management Association, Washington DC. OMI Industries. 2017. MSW management: safely countering the rise of landfill odors. Odor management industries. Retrieved from http://odormanagement.com/blog/msw-management-safely-countering- the-rise-of-landfill-odors/. Accessed August 13, 2018. One Guam. 2018. Zero waste plan. Retrieved from: http://www.one.guam.gov/zero-waste/plan/5-zero- waste-plan.html. Accessed July 24, 2018. Peter, D. 2014. Odor control chemicals; not all chemicals are the same. Waste Advantage Magazine. Retrieved from https://wasteadvantagemag.com/odor-control-chemicals-chemicals/. Accessed August 13, 2018. PVT Land Company 2019. Accessed information on April 25, 2019 at: http_//www.pvtland.com/about-us/ Ramsey County. 2018. Organics recycling. Retrieved from: https://www.ramseycounty.us/residents/recycling-waste/collection-sites/organics-recycling. Accessed August 24, 2018. Recycle Hawaii 2009. Zero waste implementation plan for the County of Hawaii. Prepared by Recycle Hawaii and Richard Anthony Associates, San Diego, CA. Recycling Production News. 2016. Entsorga opens US's first resource recovery facility to utilize mechanical biological treatment. Retrieved from https://www.recyclingprod uctnews.com/article/22366/entsorga-opens-uss-first-resource-recovery- facility-to-utilize-mechanical-biological-treatment. Accessed August 9, 2018. Resource Recycling Inc. 2016. How British Columbia can improve its packaging EPR effort. Retrieved from https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2016/11/30/how-british-coIumbia-can-improve-its- packaging-epr-effort/. Accessed May 19, 2018. Rogoff, MJ. 2015. Solid waste collection automation in the United States. WM&R. doi: 10.1177/0734242x14558164. Accessed August 1, 2018. SAFE (Sustainable Alternative Feed Enterprises). 2016. Food and organic waste recycling legislation options and opportunities (PowerPoint). Sustainable Alternative Feed Enterprises, Reno, NV. Seattle Public Utilities. 2017. 2017 recycling rate report. Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, WA. 11-6 August 2020 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Seattle Public Utilities. 2018. Cart size calculator. Retrieved from: https://www.seattie.gov/utiI/MyServices/Recycling/HouseResidentsRecycle/CartSizeCaIculator/inde x.htm. Accessed July 26, 2018. Seltenrich, N. 2018. Emerging waste to energy technologies: Solid waste solution or dead end? Environmental Health Perspectives, Petaluma, CA. 124. Doi: 10.1289/ehp.124-A106. Silva dos Santos, I., Barros, R.M., Tiago Filho, G.L. 2018. Economic study on LFG energy projects in function of the number of generators. Sustainable Cities and Society. 14: 587-600. Doi: https: dol.org/10.1016/i.scs.2018.04.029 State of Hawaii (Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism). 2016. State of Hawai'i Data Book Individual Tables and Updates by County, last modified November 2017.Retrieved from: http://dbedt.Hawal'i.gov/economic/databook/2016-individual/ State of Hawai'i (Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism). 2018a. Population and Economic Projections for the State of Hawai'i to 2045, DBEDT 2045 Series, Table A-3. Hawaii County Population Projection, Selected Components, 2010-2045. Accessed at: http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/economic-forecast/2045-long-range-forecast State of Hawaii (Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism). 2018b. Population and Economic Projections for the State of Hawaii to 2045, DBEDT 2045 Series, Table A-30. Total Civilian Jobs, Labor Force, and Employment for Hawaii County, 1980-2016. Accessed at: http://dbedt.hawail.gov/economic/economic-forecast/2045-long-range-forecast/ Steel. 2010. The new steel, appliance recycling for environmentally friendly consumers. Steel.org. Retrieved from: https://steel.org/-/media/Files/AISI/Steel%2OMarkets/fs_Appliance_sept2010.pdf?la=en. Accessed July 25, 2018. Stevens, B. J. 1980. Handbook of Municipal Waste Management Systems Planning and Practice. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii. 2004. No. 22022. Konno et. al., vs. County of Hawaii SWANA (Solid Waste Association of North America). 2007. Pay as you throw waste collection and recycling program implementation: Borough of Parkesburg, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Prepared by Gannett Fleming, Inc, Harrisburg, PA. Retrieved from: http://f1les.dep. state. pa.us/Waste/Recycling/Iib/landrecwaste/recycling/techreports/Parkesburg. pd f. Accessed October 18, 2018. SWANA (Solid Waste Association of North America). 2014. H -power: Honolulu program of waste and energy recovery. Retrieved from http://swana.org/portals/0/awards/2014/Waste�/"20to%2OEnergy/Honolulu%20_Waste-to- Energy.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2018. US Census Bureau. 2010. Census data, source data accessed September 2011. http://jzeoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/2010-census-County-boundaries County August 2020 11-7 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii US Census Bureau. 2018. QuickFacts: Hawaii County. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/Hawai'icountyHawai'i/PST045217. Accessed May 28, 2018, US Department of Commerce. 2012, Hawai'i 2010: Population and housing unit counts. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-13.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2018. Wake County, North Carolina. 2014. Strategy report part 1: Organics diversion, residential food and yard waste. Prepared by HDR, Raleigh, NC. WasteZero 2015a. Per Capita Residential Trash in Southern Main, Head -To -Head Comparison Of Municipalities With Pay -As -You -Throw (PAYT) And Those With No PAYT, June 2018. West Hawaii Today 2019. Waste not: Company takes environmental approach to deconstruction in West Hawaii, by Max Dible, Tuesday, April 30, 2019. World Steel Association. 2017. Worldsteel short range outlook -2017/2018. Retrieved from: https://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2017/worldsteel-Short-Range-Outlook- 2017-2018.html. Accessed July 21, 2018. Yepsen, R. 2011. Residential food waste collection in the US. BioCycle. Retrieved from: https://www.blocycle.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bcl20123.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2018. 11-8 August 2020 Appendix A SWAC Meeting Summaries 1 I I I I SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII MEETING MINUTES Monday, March 19, 2018 10:10 a.m. to 12:39 Hawaii County Building Puna Conference Room #1501 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Committee Members present: Staff present:, Georjean Adams Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel Steven Araujo William Kucharski, Director Barbara Bell Diane Noda, Deputy Director Paul Buklarewicz Gregory Goodale. SWD Chief Robert Ely Tina DeMello, Secretary George Hayducsko Mary Fujio. Assistant Secretary Alan Okinaka Adam Scharf 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Opening and introductory remarks were made by Gregory Goodale at 10:10 a.m. Mr. Goodale introduced himself as the Solid Waste Division Chief for the Department of Environmental Management and expressed his appreciation to all the members for being a part of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) and for making the commitment to help the County. He explained he is not technically a part of this group but wants to welcome everyone and express appreciation for the Mayor appointing everyone and everyone accepting to be a part of this committee. Mr. Goodale introduced the following people: William Kucharski. Director of Environmental Management, and Diane Noda, Deputy Director of Environmental Management; Mary Fujio and Tina DeMello, who work with the Department and will be helping and assisting at these meetings: Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel; David Tarnas, who will be helping with facilitating these meetings: and Dennis Lee, who is the Senior Project Manager Dennis Lee and a consultant with Wesley Segawa and Associates (WSA), which is the prime consultant for this project. Mr. Goodale turned it over to Director William Kucharski to say a few words. Mr. Kucharski thanked everyone for being part of this committee. It is an important effort on the County's part to plan and planning is important. He thanked the members for volunteering to be on the committee, because the plan is critically important to the County and the people who live here. His door is always open, and if there are any issues, don't hesitate to ask him. . 2. INTRODUCTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFF George Hayducsko gave an overview of who he is. Most of his career was in Wisconsin, where he worked for three different counties and designed two recycling programs. He has over 30 years of experience from landfills to waste to energy, and he designed two successful recycling programs. He hopes his experience will help Hawaii County in this process. He thanked all of the members for being here and taking time out of their day to volunteer for the community in helping making the recycling and solid waste programs better. He asked the committee to introduce themselves and explain their role today and connection with solid waste and recycling. Barbara Bell: She was the Executive Director for Recycle Hawaii before Paul Buklarewicz for a couple of years. She was also on the last two SWAC commissions and through that became the Director of Environmental Management, from where she retired in 2007. Adam Scharf: He works currently at Pohakuloa Army Training Area as the Program Manager of Solid Waste and Recycling for the United States Army on the Big Island. Pohakuloa manages over two million pounds of refuse a year and began a quality recycling program 38 months ago. They were at a five percent diversion rate. diverting waste from the County of Hawai`i's landfill. They are tracking 63 percent of all refuse generated at Pohakuloa and diverting it from the County's landfill by way of composting (food waste, grind and chip wood and turn it into organic matter). They also manage all the metals, ferrous and nonferrous. He has a lot of boots—on-the-ground experience in building programs, approaches, and techniques to approve diversion rates. He recognizes the importance of this committee. and that's why he had volunteered to be a part of it. He does a lot of data analysis and analyzes the waste stream on a regular basis to come up with metrics and posts and tracks the data to ensure they are always tracking who the large contributors are and what they are contributing, and then build programs around that and measure improvements. He knows he would be of value to this committee to help build a better plan for the next ten years. Georiean Adams: She is currently retired and is the Vice President and secretary for Recycle Hawaii. She is also on the board of the homeowners Association for where she lives at Mauna Lani Resort. She started her life as a Junior Bureaucrat with EPA after graduating college and worked with a group that defined what hazardous waste was. Then she got a job at 3M, where the focus was on product stewardship/lifecycle management, trying to figure out how to make sure that products that 3M makes do not cause issues upon disposal. She has been active with the American Chemical Society and has worked as an independent consultant for three years. She brings an industrial perspective, working with companies and their products and issues on how to manage 2 waste through the commercial stream. As a resident of this island, she wants to keep it the best and make it better. Steven Araujo: He owns and operates D&D Rubbish Service and have been doing it for twenty-five years. He started back when Steven Yamashiro was mayor and has seen the changes from that time until now. He does believe in some of the programs and is also a realist, asking questions such as is it going to work? How much is it going to cost the taxpayer, is there an actual benefit? And how is this going to affect his business and the rest of the rubbish businesses? Paul Buklarewicz: He has been the executive director for Recycle Hawaii for the past 15 years. Recycle Hawaii is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit. Education is the primary mission, and resource management recycling promotion. He has been facilitating, initiating and expediting a lot of the recycling programs here on the island (E -waste collection, used motor oil, home composting) and along with Barbara served on the last go around of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee ten years ago. Keyra Wong: She is a deputy corporation counsel and advises DEM, DPW and the Real Property Tax Division. Her capacity here is to help this committee and provide legal advice. Robert Ely: He is a retired chemical engineer and environmental engineer and is 77 years old. Right now he is fully employed as a consultant in a project that has nothing to do with what the SWAC is about. He provided some background on projects he has worked on --the design and management of Chem's Security Systems Hazardous Waste Landfill at Arlington Oregon: Casmalia Hazardous Waste Landfill in Casmalia California; he worked for Zeffro, which is based in Wisconsin, as a manager of process design on sludge management systems: he helped design the anaerobic digestive systems for Alaska Lumber and Pulp in Sitka Alaska: he got involved heavily in the Ainakoa Pono Project and came in contact professionally with Bill Kucharski when Bill was with AECOM. and during the last go around with the incinerator. he worked for Covanta as a consultant looking at both political aspects and technical aspects. He is hoping to lend professional expertise to this group. Alan Okinaka: He is a retired manager from GTE Hawaiian Tel. He was formerly an electrical engineer and initially managed technology but ended his career managing people. He feels the least certified with anything to do with solid waste management, but being a part of the committee is privileged to be a part of group that is trying to manage something that is very difficult to solve. Has two compost piles and embraces 1, 2 and 5 plastics for recycling. He gets upset if he has more than one 32 gallon bag of trash every week and flattens all corrugated boxes down religiously. Mr. Okinaka asked how the Environmental Management Commission, the Solid Waste Commission and the Department of Environmental Management interact. Mr. Goodale responded that Bill Kucharski and Diane Noda oversee the Department of Environmental Management and the two divisions that are within it, which are the Solid Waste Division and the Wastewater Division. The Environmental Management 3 Commission's members are also appointed by the mayor, and it is more of a formal commission that address solid waste management issues as well as wastewater management issues. The SWAC takes on solid waste management by itself and is required by the State of Hawaii to develop an updated plan every ten years. Ms. Noda explained that the Environmental Management Commission is created by the County Code. and part of its duties are to advise the Department on solid waste and wastewater programs, including waste reduction strategies, recycling, litter control, community involvement, and other issues. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee is created by State law, and its limited purpose and limited duration is only until our revised solid waste plan is submitted to the State Office of Solid Waste Management. The deadline for this is November 2019. A consultant has been hired to submit the plan. She explained the binders they were given included HRS Chapter 342G which addresses the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. It establishes that each County is to have a committee appointed by the mayor. This committee is convening because the ten-year mark is next year. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None 4. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Mr. Buklarewicz nominated George Hayducsko as chair and Ms. Bell seconded the nomination, and all voted in favor. Ms. Adams nominated Mr. Okinaka as vice chair: Ms. Bell seconded the nomination; and all voted in favor. Ms. Noda explained that the Charter points out that for an advisory committee. you would need a majority of those present to make any action valid, and for a committee of eight members, they will need five for a quorum. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Orientation by Office of the Corporation Counsel on: (1) Sunshine Law Ms. Wong provided a brief overview of the Sunshine Law. It applies to this committee because this body was created by State statute, and committees. boards and commissions created by State statute are subject to the Sunshine Law. According to the County Charter, Section 13-20, this committee is subject to open meetings provisions. This committee has broad discretion to make decisions and form public policy. They have to protect the public's interest and the right to know about the committee's decision-making and deliberations. The Sunshine Law requires no discussing board 4 business outside of an open meeting. Every meeting must be open to the public, unless there is an executive session or limited meeting as allowed by statute. Boards must provide notice, accept testimony, and keep minutes, and they cannot consider matters not included on the agenda. This becomes important because people from the public may testify on matters not on the agenda. If that happens. it would be the chair's role to tell that person it is not on the agenda. Committee members also should not allow a discussion to get tangential, because the public would not have had the right of notice and would not have known that would have been discussed. Basically, they cannot discuss issues that are not on the agenda. Mr. Scharf asked whether, if they were working on a component of this project and he had a question for Mr. Okinaka, he could call him and ask the question or if he had to ask it at an open meeting. Ms. Wong said it had to be at a meeting. Two members are allowed to discuss matters but cannot commit to voting on anything. Mr. Okinaka whether the committee has the authority to accept public testimony on something that isn't on the agenda, and Ms. Wong said they would have to amend the agenda by 2/3 votes to accept the topic. If it's a reasonably important topic that would affect a number of people it cannot be added to the agenda. and it could be placed on the next agenda. It is up to the chair's discretion. Mr. Buklarewicz said that Ms. Adams is on the Board of Directors for Recycle Hawaii, and he is not on the board but attends the meetings. If the SWAC has discussion on something that is also discussed at the board meetings. he and Ms. Adams may need to recuse themselves. Ms. Wong said that if they discuss matters in the board meetings that somehow relate to the SWAC and its purpose, then he should not participate in that discussion. If the SWAC is going to make a decision which would impact how he does his business, he should recuse himself from voting on that decision. Ms. Wong continued with her Sunshine Law presentation, as follows: "open meeting" requirement. Every meeting will be an open meeting and all persons will be permitted to attend unless otherwise provided by in the constitution. Portions of meetings can be closed if they go into executive session or for other limited exceptions. All meetings will need to be held in a public place, and board shall take official action and votes in public. They cannot vote in executive session. . If someone is disrupting a meeting to where the meeting cannot carry on, the chair has the discretion to remove that person. Any interested person may submit written or oral testimony on any agenda item. Most boards set a reasonable time limit of 3 minutes. The notice and agenda must list all items that the Board intends to consider, and the agenda must be sufficiently detailed as to provide the public with adequate notice. The notice and agenda must be filed with the county clerk at least six days prior to the meeting. • An agenda may be amended with a 2/3 votes of all members, but an item of reasonably major importance which would affect a significant number of people cannot be added. It would need to go on the next agenda. • The Sunshine Law does not apply to social events attended by board members in which board business is not discussed, and it does not apply to non -board members. There should be no discussion with non -board members regarding matters discussed in closed sessions. • Two board members may discuss board business outside of a meeting to seek information so long as no commitment to vote is sought or made. Beware of serial communications --the language is found in HRS 92-2.5a. • Other permitted interactions: Ms. Wong described other permitted actions pursuant to the Sunshine Law. • Executive meetings are closed to the public. A motion to enter executive session shall be stated in open session, and a two-thirds vote of the board members present is necessary in order to go into executive session. • Minutes are required to include the, date, time and place of the meeting, members absent or present, the substance of what was discussed, votes taken, and any other information that any member wants to add to the minutes. Executive minutes may be withheld, and minutes may be transcribed or summarized by notes taken. Ms. Wong said that if the rules are not followed and someone brings an action within ninety days. a person could actually be charged with a misdemeanor and then removed from the board. (2) Rules of Procedure Ms. Wong explained that the SWAC will follow the general rules of procedure formulated by a combination of the Robert's Rules of Order, the County Charter, and the Hawaii Revised Statutes. A quorum is the majority of the members of the board or committee, which would be five for the SWAG. Prior to calling the meeting to order, the chairperson has the duty to determine whether quorum is present. If quorum is not present. the chairperson either waits until there is one or, if it is known that quorum is not going to be met, than the chairperson calls the meeting to order. announces the absence a quorum, and entertains a motion to adjourn. However, you can still receive testimony and presentations on the agenda items, and question testifiers and/or presenters, provided C61 that no deliberation, and no decision-making or voting is made until the next meeting. Members shall create a record of the testimony or presentation, and this would be presented in the minutes before deliberation or decision-making at the next meeting, the board is required to present a copy of the testimony and presentations received at the canceled meeting, and the committee has an opportunity to report to the other members who weren't there about what was said. If a member is not able to make it to a meeting, please call the department and let them know in advance. Mr. Okinaka asked whether, if a member of the public submitted a large document with their testimony, if it needed to be accepted. and Ms. Wong said they would need to receive and accept the whole testimony and document. Ms. Wong explained that Robert's Rules and general procedures provide for order. decorum, fairness, efficiency and clarity. Generally when there is a motion, it is then seconded. then there is a discussion, and then you call for the vote. For boards advisory boards such as SWAC, the affirmative vote of the majority of those who are present at the meeting shall be sufficient to make any action valid. The chair's role is to be the manager of the meetings. and the chair cannot make motions or second any motion. The chair can only recognize the motion and the second. The chair must maintain a neutral position to provide credibility for rulings, protection of minority positions, and to maintain the public's trust. Active participation on of the chair taints the ability to properly manage the meetings. The chair has to manage the meeting, help it be productive, and demonstrate the power of process. The chair may relinquish his or her duties to the vice chair, and it would be best to do so prior to deliberations taking place. However. the ability to relinquish shall not be used frequently and cannot be used back and forth for convenience. The acting chair must accept limitations for the agenda item, keep the peace. and maintain order and decorum. Leadership and conflict resolution is required both for board members and anyone in attendance. Public participation should be encouraged. but the rights of one person should not trump the rights of the rest. It is easier to maintain order if all parties believe that the chair is being a fair and reasonable person without predispositions. Everyone should know their role as a board member. The members set the pace. When motions are made. they should be valid, clearly articulated, and easy to understand. Avoid getting involved in personality issues, respect others who have the floor, and wait your turn. If a member wants to make a statement or motion. raise a hand to get the chair's attention and wait until called upon by the chair. Addressing others casually is okay: but using surnames is recommended. Keep the meeting on track and don't rely on the chair to keep discussion focused. If discussion becomes repetitive or irrelevant, state as much to the chair as a point of privilege, and the chair should redirect deliberations or call for the vote. Ms. Wong said she has a cheat sheet on the Robert's Rules available. 7 Mr. Scharf asked about the process for a special field trip, and Ms. Wong said it would count as a limited meeting. The State would need to be asked for permission, and the limited meeting would be closed to the public. Minutes would be required. Members can discuss but cannot vote. If the SWAC wants to have a site visit. they need to make a request to the Corporation Counsel, who will help get permission from the State. There is a requirement to advise the public of the limited meeting and that it is closed for the public. Chair Hayducsko called for a five-minute recess at 10:58 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:07 a.m. b. Solid Waste Division program overview. Chair Hayducsko gave an overview of the County's recycling and solid waste programs using a PowerPoint presentation. The main points are summarized below. H15 Deposit Beverage Container Program — Certified Redemption Centers - We have 11 County sponsored sites at the transfer stations. - There are 8 private Certified Redemption sites around the County. - The H15 Beverage Container Redemption Program for FY 2016-2017 diverted 6,071 tons of recyclables from the County's landfill. - The H15 percent redemption rate for Hawaii Island is 87%. 2 -Bin Recycling - The 2 -Bin program consists of 2 distinct collection bins: a Mixed Recycling bin and a Glass bin - The 2 -Bin Recycling program for 2016-17 diverted 5,990 tons of recyclables from the County's Landfill. - Signage is provided at the 2 -Bin sites at the transfer stations, but they are seeing quite a bit of contamination at the sites, when the public does not abide by what recyclables are to be put into the containers. Education is critical and needs to be done constantly or you will lose the effectiveness of the program. Mr. Ely asked if there is any data available as to the cost of these individual segments of the program? Mr. Hayducsko said yes, there is cost associated and it is tracked. Mr. Scharf asked why there is a drop off in 2131n recycling and Mr. Hayducsko said the containers are sometimes not available to the public because they are full, and they are trying to address that. Mr. Scharf said residents can be lazy, and there is a culture in the home to dispose of trash in whatever way is convenient. Traffic flow could be another problem. Chair Hayducsko said these are things that they will need to look at and address. Ms. Bell asked what the contamination is percentage wise and whether they had done a waste comp study recently, and Chair Hayducsko said he was not sure and that a n. waste comp study had not been done for ten years. They are not anticipating doing one. E -Waste Recycling E -Waste Recycling for FY 2016-17 diverted 235 tons The County Electronic Waste Recycling Program for residences in Hilo, Kealakehe, Wai`ohinu and Waimea The County contracts with Mr. K's. At Mr. K's it is free for residences on Saturdays (the County subsidizes on Saturdays). and there is a reduced rate on Saturday for commercial entities. Sunday to Friday there is a fee for both residence and commercial entities. Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Over 2,882 participated in HHW during FY 2016 FY 2016-17 collected 53 tons of materials There are 4 locations Island wide: Hilo — twice a year. Kealakehe — twice a year, Waimea — once a year and Pahoa — once a year. Mr. Okinaka asked how much it costs to run a day of collecting hazardous waste. and Chair Hayducsko said it costs around $50,000 per event. The contractor required to provide personnel and move items collected off island. There is no disposal site on the island. Scrap Metal/White Goods/Automobiles Scrap Metal/Automobiles(AV) for FY 2016-17 diverted 9075 tons Used Motor Oil 16.547 gallons of Used Motor Oil was processed for FY 2016-17 The County has volunteer Used Motor Oil collection sites, island wide. Mr. Ely asked what is meant by "processed", and Mr. Hayducsko said it means what is received and taken for re -use --It is not just collected and stored, it is being utilized. Tire Education - They are educating tire vendor throughout Hawaii County of their obligation to charge customers for acceptance and disposal of used tires. Mr. Goodale wanted to make full disclosure regarding tire education. They had received a notice of violation regarding tires, and as part of a settlement with the state they developed the tire program, which communicates to the retailers their obligation to take used tires. The fee has to be charged regardless. It has produced relatively beneficial results, but a main task is making sure everyone knows about it. Green Waste - Greenwaste received in FY 2016-17 in East Hawaii — over 10.000 tons; in West Hawaii — just under 30.000 tons. �' The current commercial tipping fee to dispose of Greenwaste is $21.25 per ton, which is 25% of the current tipping fee. There is no charge for residential customers Mr. Okinaka asked what the County does with the greenwaste, and Chair Hayducsko said they contract with HER to grind up greenwaste and create mulch. In East Hawaii, they contract to make enhanced mulch which destroys vectors. In West Hawaii they don't make enhanced mulch due to the lack of vectors in the mulch. Both sites are tested for fire ants on a monthly basis. Reuse Centers - The reuse program helps to ensure usable materials are diverted from the County landfills. - The Reuse Centers diverted 350.66 tons from the landfill during FY 2016-17 Education and Outreach - The program focuses on educating the community about the value of recycling, reuse programs and diversion of materials from the County landfills. Transfer Stations - There are 22 transfer stations island wide - Landfill tonnage for FY 2016-17: South Hilo Sanitary Landfill 72,247 tons (36.291 Commercial. 35.956 County); West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill 122,915 tons (78.892 Commercial, 46.023 County) C. Preliminary Discussion on Goals and Objectives. Mr. Scharf said it would be great to bench mark where they are today, to provide a baseline for today as a part of setting goals. Ms. Adams asked how they are going to scope and update what was done ten years ago and suggested they compare numbers from ten years ago, which would be interesting. Would be interesting to compare what those numbers were ten years ago. Mr. Araujo said he would like to see the cost of Recycling Program contracts, and Ms. Bell said they would like all available data. Mr. Okinaka said they should look at new methods, landfill mining — metal, plastics that can be recycled; devices/containers developed for safe back yard burning; bon fires — clear out acres and have bon fires. HOW ABOUT: Mr. Okinaka said they should look at new methods of landfill mining, looking at what metal and plastics can be recycled and whether there are objects that can be safe for backyard burning. They could clear out land and have large bon fires. Mr. Scharf said there is food waste technology that turns food into pig/chicken feed. 10 Chair Hayducsko said he doesn't want anyone to be hesitant to throw out any thoughts or proposals. As a group it's good to throw out ideas. Mr. Buklarewicz said the Zero Waste Implementation Plan on the Recycle Hawaii website shows that 90% of the plan was adopted into the ISMP. Chair Hayducsko said the objective is to update the ISWMP. not to rewrite it. They all want to protect the land and environment. For the schedule, they were thinking of having monthly meetings. and then completing and submitting the plan to the state by the end of 2019. There will be draft plans the consultants will present to the SWAC for review and debate. There is a lot to do. Mr. Ely expressed concerns about what the consultants would be doing, whether they would be reporting to the SWAC on a regular basis, and what their timeline was for a first draft. Mr. Goodale said they could provide the scope of work and what they expect to get for the money they are paying the consultant. The SWAC will have a lot of influence over the direction the plan takes. He would arrange to have the consultant contract available for the SWAC's review. Mr. Lee explained that he worked for the consultant, and they had been hired to do basically four tasks: first is the design process --the methodology to determine how they are going to do the update. The second is to present a preliminary draft. The third task is to conduct public hearings, and the last is to finalize the draft and submit to the Department of Health. There is a schedule with detailed tasking, general tasking. and milestones for each task along with the scope. d. Discussion on frequency of meetings, best time and day to meet, and location. With Mr. Tarnas' assistance. the group settled on the second Wednesday of every month, from1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. for their regular meetings, or at such other date, time. and place as may be specified by the SWAC. Motion and Vote: Msr. Bell moved to meet on the second Wednesday of every month, starting on April 11, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. in Hilo, unless otherwise noted. Mr. Scharf seconded the motion. and all members voted aye. e. Decide on date, time, and location of next meeting. - See above. 6. ADOURNMENT Motion and vote: Mr. Scharf moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Adams seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 11 The meeting adjourned at 12:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Tina DeMello, Secretary 12 SOLID WASTE ADVISORY CONUMTTEE COLNTY OF HAW API Meetina- Minutes Wednesday, May 9, 2018 1:10 p.m. to 3:21 p.m. Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) 1055 Kino`ole Street, Suite 101 Hilo, HI 96720 Committee Members Present: Staff Present: Geo jean Adams Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel Barbara Bell Diane Noda, Deputy Director Paul Buklarewicz Gregory Goodale, Solid Waste Division Chief Robert Ely Gene Quiamas, Environmental Compliance Specialist George Hayducsko, Chair Tina DeMello, Secretary Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Mary Fujio, Assistant Secretary Adam Scharf Others Present: Not Present: Dwight Miller, Consultant Neal Fukumoto, Consultant Steven Araujo Dennis Lee, Consultant CALL TO ORDER Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Buklarewicz said a correction was needed on page 11, where there is a reference to "Mr." Bell rather than Ms. Bell. Motion and vote: Ms. Bell moved to approve the minutes as corrected, Mr. Olinaka seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC There were no members of the public present. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Distribute a copy of the 2009 County of Haivai`i Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan ("IRSWMP") update to the Committee Members Chair Hayducsko distributed copies to the members who so requested. Ms. Adams said she would like copies available for members to view at all future meetings. b. Overview by George Hayducsko of the Diverted and Landfill Tonnage and the Cost of Recycling Programs. Chair Hayducsko gave a PowerPoint overview on the percentage and tonnage of materials managed and diverted from the landfill. He also gave an overview of the cost of the recycling diversion programs. The main points of his presentation are summarized below: • FY 2016-17 Tonnage of Materials Managed o Landfill: 195,162 o Greenwaste: 40,465 o Other Reuse & Recycling Programs: 19,330 • FY 2016-17 Percentage of Materials Managed o Landfill: 76% o Greenwaste: 16% o Other Reuse & Recycling Programs: 8% • FY 2016-17 Tonnage of Materials Diverted from the Landfill o Greenwaste: 40,465 o Metal/Automobiles: 9,075 o Glass: 4,935 o Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC)/Paper: 3,575 o Plastics (1,2 &5): 1,043 o Reuse Centers: 350 o E -waste: 235 o Household Hazardous Waste: 93 o Used Motor Oil (UMO): 24 • FY 2016-17 Percentage of Materials Diverted fi-om the Landfill o Greenwaste: 68% o Metal/Automobiles: 15% o Glass: 8% o Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC )/Paper: 6% o Plastics (1,2 &5)-. 2% o Reuse Centers: 1% o E -waste: less than I% o Household Hazardous Waste: less than 1% o Used Motor Oil (UMO): less than 1% • Diversion Program Contracted Expenses and Cost per Ton (Utilizing FY2016- 17 Disposal Report Data) o Greenwaste Contracted Expenses: $4,205,675 Cost per Ton: $104 o Metal/Automobiles Contracted Expenses: $945,338 Cost per Ton: $104 0 2 -Bin Recycling Contracted Expenses: $1,018,060 Cost per Ton: $170 2 o Reuse Centers Contracted Expenses: $211,209 Cost per Ton: $603 o E -waste Contracted Expenses: $192,071 Cost per Ton: $817 o Household Hazardous Waste Contracted Expenses: $220,406 Cost per Ton: $2,370 o Used Motor Oil (UMO) Contracted Expenses: $25,723 Cost per Ton: $1,072 Ms. Bell asked whether there was a landfill cost per ton, and Mr. Goodale replied that it cost approximately $145 to put a ton into the landfill. Vice Chair Okinaka asked whether the contracted expenses discount the fees that are paid to take things to the landfill, and Chair Hayducsko said no, that it is the cost the County pays to the contractor. It is the cost to the County. Mr. Buklarewicz commented that the increase in cost for e -waste went up about 3 cents per pound. Recycle Hawaii had pulled in 225 tons in a 12 -month period, and it was about 38 cents per pound. This is based on a 3 -year average for both East and West Hawai` i. Ms. Bell said that at some point she would like to know the net prices of greenwaste minus tip fee. She would like to see the overall cost to determine whether the greenwaste tip fee is too high or too low. Chair Hayducsko answered he would have that number for the next meeting. Mr. Buklarewicz asked whether the Used Motor Oil (UMO) figure includes what is collected at the Household Hazardous Waste Collection (HHWC) events, or whether it is separate. Chair Hayducsko said the chart they were looking at shows the UMO collected by both the DIY UMO vendors, and the UNTO collected at the HHWC events is listed under the HHWC event. Mr. Goodale explained that the County is charged by the gallon for the UMO collected by the UMO vendor at the UMO volunteer collection sites, and the County is charged primarily a lump sum for all the waste collected during the HHWC events. Mr. Okinaka asked how DEM determines the tonnage of greenwaste, and Chair Hayducsko said there is a scale that weighs all the greenwaste. If the greenwaste comes from a business, there will be a charge for it. If it comes from a transfer station through the public, it is weighed but there is no charge. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Overview by George Hayducsko of the 2009 IRSWMP Chair Hayducsko handed out a draft on the status of Hawaii County's 2009 IRSWMP and explained that it shows items recommended in that plan and the status of those recommendations. Some recommendations were implemented, and some were not. The status is not yet updated on all the recommendations that are listed. As an example, he pointed out a recommendation to expand and improve public education and awareness. The status shows that there has been no dedicated public education and awareness program since June 2014. 3 Mr. Buklarewicz commented that education is the most important factor if the population is to recycle. Chair Hayducsko agreed that education is critical and explained that DEM's website is maintained, facility tours are provided, and they issue press releases, advertise, and do presentations. However, they do not have staff to design an education program. Mr. Scharf asked whether the consultant will be writing a new draft plan or will be working from the former plan. Mr. Miller explained that this is a great tool to determine how we implemented the current plan, and a new plan will be produced to follow through. Vice Chair Okinaka asked whether they would get a breakdown of what was not implemented from the old plan, and Ms. Adams asked about they would be reevaluating the old recommendations and solutions. Chair Hayducsko replied that they would be coming up with ideas, and the ideas will be put in fi•ont of staff and the consultants for inclusion into the plan. b. Overvieiv by George Hayducsko of the 2-13in Recycling Program Chair Hayducsko gave a presentation on recyclable materials and explained that having clean recyclables is always important and highly recommended, and more so now that China and other Asian countries are allowing very little contamination. There is a lot of contamination, however, in DEM's 2 -bin recycle bins. HI5 items should be recycled at certified redemption centers rather than be placed into the 2 -bin recycling bins. Plastic containers numbered 1, 2, and 5 are accepted in the 2 -bin recycling containers. It is important for people to look at the number on these containers before putting them into the bins at the transfer stations. Education is critical. The County contracts with Business Services Hawaii (BSH) to collect, transport, process, and market the recyclables fi•om the 2 -bin recycling program. BSH takes the recyclables back to their facility, where individuals sort out the materials in a sorting line. HI5 glass bottles get shipped intact off the island, as required by the Department of Health. 2 -bin glass gets recycled and used on the island. County recycling staff inspects that the HI5 cans and bottles are labeled properly at both retail locations and Certified Redemption Centers (CRCs). Chair Hayducsko announced a short break. Recess was held fiom 1:56 p.m. to 2:02 p.m., at which time he called the meeting back to order. C. Presentation by the Department of Environmental Management's Consultant regarding the ISWMP Rewrite Methodology Chair Hayducsko introduced our Dwight Miller, who would be providing the plan outline and schedule. Mr. Miller explained that he is with Parametrix and has been in Hawaii for about 32 years. He worked on Maui's S`VMP back in the early 1990s and has worked on miscellaneous parts of plans since then. He does a lot of solid waste planning as well as a full spectrum of solid 0 waste work in facility planning, design construction, and so on. He said that Chair Hayducsko's earlier handout on the recommendations from the 2009 plan and status informs the current SWAG as they go forward into the 2019 plan. They are essentially learning from the 2009 plan on what was recommended, how the recommendations were implemented, what could not be implemented, and then using all that information coming into the new planning effort. 1) Plan Outline Mr. Miller provided a PowerPoint of the plan outline and summarized the topics. Several SWAG members provided comments during the presentation. • Solid Waste Priorities and Practices with reference to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 342G-2. o Landfill and Transfer Stations — Support System o Recyclers require a higher grade of material • Background on fiscal year 2017 on landfill and waste diversion. o Solid Waste Annual Reports o Diversion Incentive Program, where the County used to pay for data. There is no longer a financial incentive for businesses to provide data. o Chair Hayducsko said he hopes to ask commercial entities for recycling data. o Require recyclers to provide recycling data; it takes a really long time for data to get into the system. - Ms. Bell said she would like at least the last ten years of annual reports. • Background on Demographics and Projections o Project out waste stream o Increase per capita - population per capita per day in ten years o County of Hawaii (COH) population percent change estimate (2010-2017): 8.3% o State percent change estimate (2010-2017): 5.0 % o COH projected growth rate (2010-2040): .5% o State projected growth rate (2010-2040): .8% • Background on Tourism o Tourist projection (2015-2040): 7.5 million -just under 10 million • Summary Status of 2009 Recommendations: What does it mean and what do we see going forward: 1. Funding constraints 2. Commodity Markets - limited recycling opportunities 3. Tip fees implemented 4. Expanded greenwaste drop-off 5. Enhanced Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) and E -Waste Programs 6. Reconstructing transfer stations - HOVE and Wai`6hinu 5 7. Closing the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL ); transferring waste to the `'Vest Hawaii Sanitary Landfill (WHSL) • SWAC's Role o Recommendations utilizing the current status of existing conditions o Alternatives development • Doing the planning process for the next ten years • What more can be done on island? Greenwaste; compost; food waste; organics; composting programs - Mr. Scharf suggested pig feed. - Ms. Adams said she would like to look at a change of technologies and smaller units. • Planning Approach o Involving the S`VAC, gathering ideas and how they will work o Developing a pragmatic plan by implementing recommendations o Maintaining and implementing the plan - Ms. Adams recommended bringing in someone from Kauai to talk about curbside pickup. Mr. Goodale agreed it would be good to evaluate curbside service and the areas where it could be implemented, given the rural nature of the island. - Mr. Miller added that a 23% diversion rate with a system that does not have curbside service or mandatory recycling is really great. • Public Review: DOH review and public to comment • Public Review and Completion • Action Items o Short -Tenn ■ Background ■ Field Visits ■ Alternatives Development o Mid -Tenn ■ ISWMP Review and Update ■ Interim Draft Review o Long -Term ■ Preliminary Draft Review ■ Final Draft Review ■ Public Hearings Mr. Miller explained that the SWAG will bring ideas to the table, and he will be providing a printout of the methodology, a memorandum, a review of past recommendation, data collection, infrastructure and human infrastructure, and develop a draft by November. The SWAC will take field trips and have additional meetings. Topics will be reviewed around the key areas as opposed to working on a chapter at a time. Mr. Scharf asked Mr. Miller what his best success story was, and Mr. Miller responded that in Washington, he did a back-to-back plan. It was a very realistic and up fiont plan, and it included recycling and facility improvement. He also worked on a study of curbside collection of recyclables and trash pickup for an urban county. Mr. Scharf asked Mr. Miller whether it is hard to convince a community to implement new technology into the infi astructure and whether he had insight on that. Mr. Miller said you don't want to hang the whole plan on technology. A feasibility study would help to get deeper on waste characteristics so they would know what they're dealing with. Chair Hayducsko explained that he had asked the committee members to delete/recycle the contract that was sent to them earlier via email and replace it with the hard copy provided today, as the copy sent via email has proprietary information. Vice Chair Okinaka asked for clarification about the term "update the plan" and whether it was assumed the former plan is quite solid and the backbone for how solid waste management will be addressed for the next several decades. Chair Hayducsko said he feels the current SWAC will help design the best plan they can with today's knowledge. The plan is something that is never truly finished, as new ways of doing things always come along. They will do their best to look into the future, figure out what to do, and provide the roadmap. Mr. Goodale added that a lot of different methodologies have been looked at on disposing of trash, recycling, and diversion; and the reality is that over the years there has not been a lot of change. DEM sees the update to the plan as incorporating whatever new technologies would make sense. Some methodologies have gotten better, and they need to figure out how the County can do better. No one wants to look at the plan as just maintaining the status quo or being stagnant. The update is to make it better for the whole County. It is a state mandate for the plan to be updated every ten years, but the reality is that the plan is looked at and used fiequently by DEM. His copy of the plan is dog-eared and tagged all over. The overall system, however, can always be improved. He does not want the program to be inflexible or rigid. 2) Schedule Mr. Miller provided the schedule via PowerPoint and said it would be emailed to the members. d. Discuss proposed limited meeting and site visit for June 13, 2018: The proposed sites to visit on June 13, 2018 are Pahoa Recycling and Transfer Station, Kea`au Recycling and Transfer Station, -Hilo Recycling and Transfer Station, South Hilo Sanitary Landfill, East Hawaii Organics Facility and East Hawaii Regional Sort Station. Areas of these site visits would be potentially dangerous to the health and safety of the public and impracticable for the public to take part in all sections of these site visits, it is recommended that the Committee approve a limited meeting for the site 7 visits pursuant to Hawaii Revised Sta and approval of the director of the Ofi Motion and second: Ms. Adams moved that the ci June 131 20181 for informational and education purposes an understanding of the County's various facilities and ho sites are the Pahoa, Kea`au, and Hilo Recycling and Tran Landfill, East Hawaii Organics Facility, and East Hawai` proposed site visits would be potentially dangerous to the impracticable for the public to take part in, it is recommer limited meeting pursuant to HRS 92.3-1, subject to the dii Practices and, she would add, Pele. Vice Chair Okinaka s § 92-3.1, subject to concurrence of Information Practices. nmittee approve a limited meeting on d for the committee members to gain each one operates. The proposed �r Stations, the South Hilo Sanitary Sort Station. As the areas of the ealth and safety of the public and .ed that the Committee approve a ctor of the Office of Information conded the motion. Ms. Bell asked why the public could not be invited, and Ms. Wong explained that realistically, it is impracticable for the public to be preseni for this limited meeting and there are potential dangers. Mr. Goodale added that only commercial haulers go into the sort station, and that from a logistics and safety standpoint, the meeting should be limited. DEM does provide opportunities for groups to tour the facilities upon request; Vice Chair Okinaka called for the question. Vote: All members voted aye except for Ms. Ms. Wong said that if the meeting was a regular meeting, it would also need to be ADA compliant. f Chau Hayducsko proposed to amend the agenda to discuss having a similar site visit in July on the west side of the island, and he asked if anyone would move to amend the agenda to add this. Motion and vote: Ms. Bell moved to amend the agenda to discuss a similar limited meeting and site visit in July in West Hawaii. Vice Chai Okinaka seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. The facilities to be visited in West Hawaii were discussed. Chair Hayducsko said they would have staff available to explain what they would be viewing. Ms. Bell said that as she is the closest resident to the Puako Transfer Station, they can either start or end the tour there and have refreshments at her home. Motion and vote: Ms. Bell moved that the committee approve a limited meeting on July 11, 2018, for informational and education purposes and for the committee members to gain an understanding of the County's various facilities and how each one operates. The proposed sites are the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill, West Hawaii Organics Facility, the RMP used motor oil drop-off, and the Waimea Recycling and Transfer Station. Vice Chair Okinaka seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. Vice Chair Okinaka asked what a sanitary landfill is as opposed to an unsanitary one. Chair Hayducsko said a sanitary landfill is engineered to protect the environment. Mr. Goodale added that the biggest advancement is the daily covering of the waste. b. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Vice Chair Okinaka said he would like to learn about some new technologies that are being deployed, not just nationwide but in the world, to handle solid waste. He would like to know their effectiveness, not just economically but in keeping communities safe and healthy. Mr. Scharf said the lieutenant colonel at his base is interested in meeting with Mr. Goodale and Chair Hayducsko to discuss possibly partnering with the County on reducing operating costs. He has some very good ideas and lots of information to share. It may also make sense for him to speak with the SWAC. Ms. Adams suggested having Bioenergy Hawaii speak with them. They are in the permitting process to provide a waste -to -energy and recycling facility on the west side of the island, and they are looking at different technologies to implement at the site. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS' Chair Hayducsko said the next regular meeting needed to be scheduled and asked if the second Wednesday in August (August 8) would work for everybody, at the same location. The date was agreed upon. Discussion was held on what time the limited meetings in June and July would start and where they would meet. Mr. Hayducsko said the information would be sent out once they had it finalized. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion and vote: Mr. Buklarewicz moved to adjourn, Mr. Scharf seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 3:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Tina DeMello, Secretary I SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII MINUTES OF LIMITED MEETING AND SITE VISITS June 13, 2018 12:15 p.m. to 4:12 p.m. Committee members present: George Hayducsko, Chair Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Geodean Adams Steven Araujo Barbara Bell Robert Ely Adam Scharf Staff and others present: Joseph Kamelamela, Corporation Counsel Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel Gregory Goodale, Solid Waste Division Chief Mary Fujio, Assistant Kiana Suganuma, Student Intern Dwight Miller, of Parametrix, Inc. Neal Fukumoto of Wesley R. Segawa & Associates 12:15 p.m.: Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order and announced all who were present. He stated that after they finished lunch, everyone was to meet outside at the van which had been arranged to provide transport. Mr. Goodale added that safety vests would be provided to- everyone where necessary. 12:28 p.m.: The group departed the Department of Environmental Management at 345 Kekuanao`a Street, Suite 41, Hilo, in a County of Hawaii van. EAST HAWAII SANITARY LANDFILL: Arrival time: 12:40 p.m. Mr. Goodale drove to the top of the landfill, where everyone got out. He explained they were standing on the last section of the landfill, which would be closing late this year or early next year. He spoke about what the workers were doing and how the rubbish was compacted, drained, and covered after work each day. Once the landfill closes, it will be covered with a top similar to Astroturf. The DOT will not allow the County to expand the landfill in Hilo because of how it attracts birds, which are a problem at the nearby airport. Also, it will be cheaper to truck the rubbish to West Hawai` i than to build a new landfill. EAST HAWAII REGIONAL SORT STATION: Arrival time: 1:13 p.m. The sort station is a large metal building in which stations is dumped. When time permits, staff will sort OI out of the trash. The remaining trash is picked up by a to transportation to the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill. EAST HAWAII ORGANICS FACILITY: Arrival time: 1:30 p.m. me the rubbish from the transfer , metal, and other recyclable material �r and placed into a trailer for Greenwaste is dropped off at this facility. The matierial is loaded into a machine which grinds it up into small pieces. The material is then laid out in windrows until it reaches a high enough temperature (130°) to kill invasive species. It is called enhanced mulch. Pallets are only accepted if they are made of untreated wood. There is no charge to drop off residential greenwaste. It costs $60,000 to $80,000 per month to operate the facility. HILO RECYCLING AND TRANSFER STATION: Arrival time: 1:42 p.m. Mr. Goodale explained that the building in the front of the group is the HI -5 Redemption Center, across is the Reuse Center, and behind is the 2 -bin system. The group departed the East Hawai` i facilities at about 1:45 p.m. and drove back to Hilo, where Mr. Kamelamela was dropped off at his office at 1:55 p.m. Keyra Wong replaced Mr. Kamelamela in the group. PAHOA RECYCLING AND TRANSFER STATION: Arrival time: 2:30 p.m. Everyone looked at the Thrift Store as well as the I arious recycling bins, trash chutes, and the greenwaste area. Mr. Goodale said the asphalt pal mg included recycled glass, and they were trying to incorporate some reusable product landscaping at the facility. KEA`AU RECYCLING AND TRANSFER STATION: Arrival time: 3:22 p.m. Everyone looked at the Thrift Store (two large tented structures), and viewed the various recycling bins. At 3:53 p.m., the van headed back to the Department of Environmental Management. En route, Chau Hayducsko said that for next month's field trip, the plan was to meet at the office again, and Ms. Adams and Ms. Bell would be picked up at the Waimea landfill, which is closer to where they lived. More detailed information would be provided as the date approached. Ms. Bell reminded everyone they were invited to her home for refreshments afterwards. i 2 Motion and vote: Ms. Adams moved to adjourn, Ms. Bell seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Fujio, Assistant SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII LIMITED MEETING MINUTES AND SITE VISITS July 11, 2018 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Committee members present: Staff and others present: George- Hayducsko, Chair Gregory Goodale, Solid Waste Division Chief Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Gene Quiamas, Environmental Compliance Specialist Georjean Adams Tanya Buckley, Recycling Specialist II Barbara Bell Sherri Izuno, Recycling Specialist II Paul Buklarewicz Kiana Suganuma, Student Intern Dwight Miller, of Parametrix, Inc. Neal Fukumoto of Wesley R. Segawa & Associates 8:30 a.m.: The group departed the Department of Environmental Management at 345 Kekuanao`a Street, Suite 41, Hilo, in a County of Hawaii van. The group consisted of committee members Hayducsko, Okinaka, Bucklarewicz, as well as Gregory Goodale, Dwight Miller, and Kiana Suganuma. Mr. Goodale added that safety vests would be provided to everyone where necessary. WEST HAWAII SANITARY LANDFILL: Arrival time: 10:03 a.m. The group met committee members Adams and Bell at the office and had a meeting with all committee members and staff listed present. There was discussion about the history of the landfill and an overview of the landfill in regards to acreage and the division of cells. It was also noted that this particular landfill is lined. The group proceeded to the top of the landfill for further discussion. WEST HAWAII ORGANICS FACILITY: Arrival time: 11:24 a.m. Green waste is dropped off at this facility. Greenwaste is loaded into a grinder which grinds the material into mulch. Committee' Chair Hayducsko led the discussion regarding the differences of the mulch process here at the West Hawai`i Organics Facility compared to East Hawaii Organics Facility (EWOF). It was discussed that because there is very little moisture and it is hotter than Hilo, they do not need to process the mulch the same way as the EHOF. The facility also collects untreated and unpainted pallets, as they also do at the (EHOF). Sherri Izuno created a handout that shows a summary of the costs and volumes of commodities for the facility. PUAKO RECYCLING AND TRANSFER STATION: Arrival time: 11:43 a.m. Mr. Goodale provided an overview of the 2 -bin system overview of the other components of the site. After leaving the Puako Recycling and Transfer Stati for lunch. WAIMEA RECYCLING AND TRANSFER STATION: Arrival time: 1:13 p.m. at this location, and staff provided an , the group convened at Ms. Bell's home Mr. Goodale and Tanya Buckley explained how the Waimea location works in regards to the 2 - bin system. Mr. Goodale also noted that a new Greenwaste drop-off was created, which is favored by residents and located towards the bottom of the transfer station: The group then looked through the reuse store and proceeded back to the van. The group departed for Hilo, and the other Committee members (Ms. Adams and Ms. Bell) proceeded to go home. The van arrived back in Hilo at 3:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: George Hayducsko, Chair 2 SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII Meetine Minutes Wednesday, August 8, 2018 1:02 p.m. to 3:05 p.m. Aging and Disability Resource Center 1055 Kino'ole Street, Suite 101 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Committee members present: Georjean Adams Steven Araujo (arrived at 1:14 p.m.) Barbara Bell Paul Buklarewicz Robert Ely George Hayducsko, Chair Staff and others present: Mary Fujio, Director's private secretary (DEM) Dennis Lee, Wesley R. Segawa & Associates, Inc. Dwight Miller, Parametrix (via phone) Gene Quiamas, Environmental Compliance Specialist (DEM) Katheryn Seckel, Parametrix Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel Not present: Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Adam Scharf, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. He pointed out that a correction was needed on agenda item 5.a. The July site visit occurred on July 11, 2018, not on July 7, 2018. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF: a. May 9, 2018, Meeting Motion and second: Ms. Bell moved to approve the minutes, and Ms. Adams seconded the motion. Chair Hayducsko said a correction needed to be made. Mr. Scharf was incorrectly listed as not present; however, he was present and made comments. Mr. Buklarewicz wanted a correction made on page 3, where he said Recycle Hawaii pulled in 225 tons of a -waste in a 12 -month period at 3�8 cents per pound. He clarified that this is based on a 3 -year average for both East and West Hawaii. Motion and vote: Ms. Adams moved to approve the minutes with the corrections, Ms. Bell seconded the motion, and all members voted ave. b. June 13, 2018, Limited Meeting and Site Visits Motion and second: Ms. Bell moved to approve the minutes, and Ms. Adams seconded the motion. Ms. Adams noted that the phrase "commissioners present" needed to be replaced with "committee members present." Motion and vote: Ms. Bell moved to approve the minutes as corrected, Ms. Adams seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. C. July 11, 2018, Limited Meeting and Site Visits Motion and second: Mr. Buklarewicz moved to approve the minutes, and Mr. Ely seconded the motion. Chair Hayducsko pointed out that again the word "commissioners" needed to be replaced with "committee members" wherever it appeared. Motion and vote: Ms. Adams moved to approvethe minutes as corrected, Ms. Bell seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. Chair Hayducsko introduced Katheryn Seckel, i with Dwight Miller. He explained that Mr. Miller woul by phone, as he was not able to be there in person. HE if he needs to. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No one from the public was present. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Distribute and discuss the "Draft Sta IRSWMP" recommendations. 2 fho is with Parametrix and works I be participating in today's meeting will be able to hear and can jump in of Hawaii County's 2009 Chair Hayducsko explained that he and Ms. Seckel would be tag -teaming on the various agenda items. Ms. Seckel passed out two handouts, one a timeline for the report and the other a workbook for recommendations and options. She explained that the 2009 plan had extensive work put into it and is a good plan. She clarified that the SWAC's task is not to create a new plan, but to revise the plan with current and new information. It was brought to her attention that the process needed to move forward a little faster, so the timeline is aggressive but doable, given that they are revising the plan and not doing a total revamp. Ms. Seckel said she is working with Dwight Miller for Parametrix. She explained her background and history in solid waste planning, and how it runs in her family. She created the SWAC Workbook for Recommendations and Options ("workbook), which is closely tied to the schedule and is designed to help the members make decisions. The objective is to engage the SWAC and County into looking at options and recommendations for the 2019 plan by starting with the 2009 plan. Since the members have visited the solid waste sites and are savvy on the current County conditions, they can focus on options and recommendations. She explained that the members were being given homework, and they would have two weeks to do it. They were to look through the 2009 plan and make decisions. She provided instructions on how to use the workbook, which includes each recommendation in the 2009 plan, the chapter to find them, and the status of each recommendation. Their help is needed to determine whether to retain or remove a recommendation, and provide context and their own ideas. They can expand as much as they want. Several members had questions about how to use the workbook, and Ms. Seckel and Chair Hayducsko provided answers. Chair Hayducsko said that if a member was interested only in certain sections of the plan, he/she could concentrate on those sections. They did not need to go through every single chapter and recommendation, but could focus on what they were most interested in. It was decided the workbook needed to be made fillable so that members could type in their comments and ideas. The font also needed to be made bigger to make it more readable. Ms. Seckel said she would have someone at Parametrix convert the workbook into something the members could work with. Ms. Wong reminded the members that they needed to do their homework on their own,- without wn,without interacting with other members. At an open meeting, they can discuss everything. Ms. Seckel stated that after she receives their input, the County will also provide input. At the September 12, 2018, meeting, the County and SWAC will come together. She transitioned to the timeline handout, which showed the schedule. It goes chapter by chapter, showing when rough drafts are to be prepared, submitted to the County, and then to Parametrix by the County with comments. They are working with the County to make sure they 3 are accurately depicting existing conditions and want to geIt a somewhat complete draft to the SWAG before they start reviewing those existing conditions. They have already prepared rough drafts on several chapters. Looking at the timeline, the SWAG members will have two weeks to look through and provide comments to the County on Chapters 3 through 7. The County will review and digest the SWAC's input. They will meet on September 12 to deliberate again and talk about options and recommendations. Parametrix will be paralleling them, working on an interim draft that will ultimately go to the SWAC for review. As the interim draft is being worked on, the SWAG will be making decisions on Chapters 8 through 10. Parametrix is slated to provide the interim draft on November 9, 2018. The SWAG will meet on November 14, 20185 where they can talk about their impressions and bring up any red flags. They County and SWAG will review and combine their comments together on the interim draft and submit it ito Parametrix on November 23, 2018, and Parametrix will start working on the next draft, which will go to the State Department of Health ("DOH") by December 14, 2018. The DOH will have 90 days by law to review the preliminary draft. The SWAG does not have a meeting scheduled during the time the DOH will be reviewing the preliminary draft. A meeting will be scheduled as they get closer to the process. Chair Hayducsko explained that the drafts Parametrix prepared so far are only on existing conditions, which need to be updated to show what is presently going on how many transfer stations exist now, how many recycling sites, etc. The SWAC members were instructed to do their homework and submit their recommendations and options to Mary Fujio by August 22, 2018. Discussion was held on whether there is a way to prioritize recommendations, as some are definitely more important than others. Chair Hayducsko said they needed to figure out a mechanism on how prioritize as a group. Ms. Seckel suggested that to help prioritize, they could reflect on the goals that were established in the plan. All of the goals are on two pages, and perhaps they could prioritize based on the seven bullets there. Ms. Adams asked why "resources" was not in the title of the plan now, and Chair Hayducsko said they are following what the state is calling the plan. The contents will be the same. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Summary by George Hayducsko of the June 13, 2018, and July 11, 2018, Limited Meetings and Site Visits and discussion regarding facility conditions. i Chair Hayducsko briefly summarized the SWAC's site visits. At the June visit they spent some time at the landfill itself, receiving an overview of the process. They also stopped by the sort station, where haulers and businesses dump their rubbish. While remaining in the van, they drove by the organics facility, the HI -5 Redemption Center, and the 2 -bin recycling area. Then they visited the Pahoa Recycling and Transfer Station and viewed the system there, and then made a quick stop at the Kea`au Recycling and Transfer Station. 4 On July 11, 2018, they visited the west side. First they saw the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill, where Greg Goodale and Gene Quiamas provided an overview. They then saw the West Hawaii Organics Facility, and then the Puako Recycling and Transfer Station. They had lunch at Ms. Bell's home. Their last stop was at the Waimea Recycling and Transfer Station, where a major issue is the heavy wind. He heard from the members that signage and education are problems. Signs need to be updated, and more education is needed. The SWAC's goal as a committee is not to micro - manage but to make sure information, such as the signage and education issues, gets into the report. He went around the table and asked each member for their thoughts from the site visits. Ms. Bell said there has to be a way to have the security guards or transfer station attendants help educate people when they dispose of their trash. She knows there are union issues, but it is not acceptable when she goes to the Puako Transfer Station and sees the worker just sitting there in his truck. Mr. Buklarewicz said he still wonders why he can't bring his used motor oil to the transfer stations. Mr. Ely said he uses the Kea`au Transfer Station fiequently and would say that about a third of the time, the bins are ovet-flowing. In addition, there is a new contractor handling the Reuse Center, and the changes made there have not been for the better. Mainly, it is very messy. Ms. Adams said she has the same comments as the others. There is a separate need for education. It is easier to throw things away than to recycle. She was sorely disappointed at the sort station in Hilo, because there is a lot of commercial waste that could be recycled. The signage also needs improving. There needs to be constant awareness and training. People just don't know what can and cannot be done. Management needs to be more on top of things. At the Waimea Transfer Station, which she uses, it is often overflowing. Pressure needs to be put on the people who run the thrift stores. Mr. Araujo said he echoes everybody. The regional sort station was originally built as a reload station before Mayor Kim's administration, and he doesn't know how it got changed. The County needs better personnel management at the transfer stations, sort station, and landfills. Scrap iron and oil still get dumped. He sees commercial vehicles dumping their loads at the transfer stations. The recycle and reuse areas are like wayward thrift stores, with rusty and open containers of paint. A lot of the items people donate end up in the landfill because they are not stored properly. The County needs better contracts with vendors. Vendors need to be held to their responsibilities. The greenwaste system, on the other hand, is working perfectly and is nice and clean. Chair Hayducsko thanked everyone for their comments. 5 b. Status of plan development and schedule'. Chair Hayducsko said this was already discussed, but if they had any questions, Ms. Seckel was there to help. Ms. Bell asked for clarification on when their work would be done, and Ms. Seckel answered that the SWAG is to try to complete their work in December. They may need to meet again, depending on the degree of comments received fi•om the DOH. C. County's proposed recommendations discussion. (1) Proposed East Hawai` i Organics Facility Wdate. Chair Hayducsko asked Gene Quiamas to update them on the status of this new project. Mr. Quiamas said the EA is done and waiting to be publislied. Chair- Hayducsko presented several slides, showing a map of the project location and an aerial photograph of the area. He also showed slides of a typical process flow diagram, a conceptual site plan, an "unwinding device" and blower unit, and covered windrows. The proposed site is on about three acres at the Shipman Industrial Park. The facility is to be operated by Hawaiian Earth Recycling. The conceptual plan has a waste receiving area, biofilter, scale, office, and windrows. The composting will be aerobic. It will be a closed, controlled system and is on the high end for composting. Ms. Adams asked where the organics will come from, and Chair Hayducsko said a lot of the material will be greenwaste and foodwaste. Exactly where the additional material will come fiom or how it will get to the facility has not yet been identified. The vendor has told the County they can make compost with what they have, but the County should look into capturing additional tonnage of organics and how to collect and transport the organics. Chair Hayducsko said if the SWAG is concerned about how the organics facility will get the waste, they should include it in the report. Does a study need to be done to figure out where the material will come from? Can the food be picked up every day? These are a few of the questions that could be answered in a report. The next slide showed the minimum annual tonnage which the County guarantees to HER and the tonnage guarantee starting July 1, 2020. Ms. Bell asked if there was a contractor to build the facility and run it, and Chair Hayducsko said the County would be building it, and there would be a contract for the management and operation. Mr. Quiamas said the draft EA is to be p ublished on August 23, 2018. As soon as the County receives the fiends, they will go into the design of the facility. The design is relatively simple. The vendor will need to go through some testing to ensure the compost being made meets the criteria set by the U.S. Composting Council. From there, the County can start taking in material for composting. The drop -dead date is July 1, 2020. m Mr. Araujo asked if the County bought the parcel from Shipman, and Mr. Quiamas said Shipman's indications are they want to lease. However, everything hinges on the outcome of the final EA. The land acquisition and design cannot be completed until the final EA is done. Mr. Araujo said the intersection by Shipman Industrial Park is very dangerous, and it will be bad if the general public has to go there. Mr. Quiamas said the DOT has a project to fund and signalize that intersection during the next fiscal year. (2) New technologies. Chau Hayducsko said some members had asked him to check out BioEnergy Hawai` i. He has been playing phone tag with Guy Kaniho. He will try to get some information about the project and perhaps have Mr. Kaniho give a short presentation on it. Ms. Seckel said there are a lot of new technologies out there, but they are very specific as to size of community, population centers, how much waste is generated, and what is trying to be done. The SWAG need to narrow ,%That they want to look at—are they looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Improve the sorting of recyclables? Improve the sorting of solid waste residuals before going to the landfill? Once the Committee identifies what needs to be improved, then a study can be done. Ms. Adams asked if the waste characterization was going to be updated, and Chair Hayducsko said there is no plan to do a waste characterization study for the plan. However, if the SWAC recommends it, they can make that suggestion. Ms. Seckel said there was a 2008 study referenced in the 2009 plan, and she believes it would have similar results now. Ms. Adams said she was just asking the question, as she wonders whether things have changed enough to warrant another study. Mr. Araujo said that being a hauler, he feels how tonnage is calculated is wrong. It is the volume that should matter, not the weight. The landfill is not getting too heavy—it is getting too frill. Chair Hayducsko said waste composition studies are useful, but he is concerned because they always get just a snapshot of the waste, whatever was dumped in that timeframe. The waste could be very different in another hour. Dwight Miller (via speakerphone) asked to weigh in on this. He said a waste characterization study could be done, focusing on those areas of greatest interest. Some major demographic and social changes have occurred in the past 10 years, particularly with online shopping and the packaging with that, and the types of plastics being used. A study would help get a better feel for the recyclables that are to go into the various facilities being proposed. He would like to do a waste characterization study and focus on those areas of particular- interest to the County and where the best opportunities are for pulling material out of the landfill. 0 Mr. Araujo said before a waste characterization study is done, they may want to go back and look at previous studies done. One was done before the initiation of the tipping fee. The company that did the study went through and weighed everything that went into the landfill. Ms. Bell said there was also a study done in 2002. (3) Other potential options of emphasis Ifor waste diversion: construction and demolition, cardboard, promotion and education. Ms. Seckel that for a waste composition study, they would try to identify particular low - hanging fruit. In looking at the 2008 study, cardboard was an item that could use a better system. Not all transfer stations have the option of separating cardboard, so an idea that could be integrated into the plan is to separate cardboard at all stations. The committee members discussed ideas on how to implement having cardboard recycling at all the transfer stations. On construction and demolition, Ms. Seckel said it' could stay on the island, as far as reusing materials fiom construction projects in new projects—such as reusing concrete. The permitting process could require commercial developers to do some sort of waste reduction plan. It has become more regulated across the nation. There are; a lot of opportunities to reuse C&D material on the island. Ms. Bell wondered how C&D material could be reused on the island, and Mr. Buklarewicz said there is an Oahu company that will be hiring in Kona to market C&D material. There is a big market for it. Mr. Miller said there is some material, such as drywall and clean wood, that would have a strong market in certain locations. There are definitely opportunities to use it. It is also better to use a lot of this material, such as concrete and asphalt, as an inert fill rather than have it go to a mixed landfill where it is just mixed in with other garbage;, which does not take advantage of the inert characteristics. When construction companies start identifying the materials they are generating, then markets will develop with vendors who will actually start using the material. It would also be good to have pre -demolition or pre -construction recycling plans for commercial projects so the recyclers out there can see what materials �IVill become available and secure them for their recycling facilities. If the message gets out that materials are available, markets can be developed around them. Regarding education and outreach, Chair Hayducsko provided an overview on what is being done this year. They have a budget to do education; and outreach, but it concerns him that not enough is being done. They currently have $85,000 budgeted for the education and outreach project discussed. In developing the outreach, the first thing is to decide what message they want to get out to the public—it needs to be a message that reaches peoples', hearts. It should be simple to update their handouts and publications. The next step is to develop signage at the transfer 'stations, which is on their schedule to do. Another step is to reach out to the community, through radio ads, TV, public service 0 announcements, and the newspaper, on how to use the recycling bins. They will be reaching out to schools to see if there can be public service announcements addressed at sporting events. He would also like to air PSAs at movie theaters. The members discussed whether a local video designed to educate could be done. Regarding the collection of used motor oil, Chair Hayducsko said they can do a better job of promoting this program. d. Status of 2009 Plan and new options and recommendations — moving forward. Chair Hayducsko said they have covered this already. He reminded the members to send their homework and any ideas to Mary Fujio, who will collect them and forward them on to Parametrix. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Hayducsko announced the next meeting: September 12, 2018, at the same time and place. 7. ADJOURNMENT Motion and vote: Ms. Bell moved to adjourn, Ms. Adams seconded the motions, and all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted: rYYZ � Mary E. euiio Private Secretary to the Director 9 SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII , Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 12, 2018 1:01 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. Aging and Disability Resource Center 1055 Kinoole Street, Suite 101 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Committee members present: Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Robert Ely Barbara Bell Paul Buklarewicz George Hayducsko, Chair Steven Araujo (arrived at 1:05 p.m.) Staff and others present: Mary Fujio, Director's private secretary (DEM) Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel Gene Quiamas, Environmental Compliance Specialist (DEM) Tina DeMello, Clerk III (DEM) Others present: Katheryn Seckel, Parametrix (via phone) Consultant Nancy Cook Lauer, West Hawaii Today reporter Not present: Georjean Adams, Member Adam Scharf, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF: August 8, 2018, Meeting Motion and Vote: Ms. Bell moved to approve the minutes, and Mr. Okinaka seconded the motion. All members voted aye to approve minutes. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No statements from the public 1 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Discussion on the June 13, 2018, and July 11, 2018, Limited Meetings and Site Visits by Committee members who were absent from the August 8, 2018, meeting. Chair Hayducsko explained that committee members spent a lot of time on tours in June and July and mentioned that since Mr. Okinaka and Mr. Scharf were not able to make the last meeting he would like to give them the opportunity to give their thoughts, concerns, or if they had anything to share with the committee. Mr. Okinaka started with the top thing that he RETAINs thinking about is the fact that we call the sort station a sorting station; and that he feels that the facility should be made into a sorting station. When Mr. Okinaka obse the tour, he felt that the sort station is simply a plac observed that there was a lot of plastics and metals went to the landfill. He thinks it is a good idea for sc a robotic sensing sorting system, where the machin and that it would be more rapid and accurate. Mr. C sensing system would detect metals and plastics an getting loaded into the trucks that would going to ti sorting is a good idea and we need to do it. He was called a sorting station when it is more of a transfer rved the sort stations operation on to load trucks indiscriminately. He that were loaded into the truck that rting out recyclables. He suggested could pick out recyclable materials Mkinaka explained that the robotic 3 then sort it out of the trash before [e landfill. Mr. Okinaka believes that 'ery disappointed to see that it was station. Mr. Okinaka really likes the reuse stores. He would like to know how we could get the public to know more about the County's reuse stores. He suggested that the reuse stores have an online catalog with a list of what items the stores have available for sale. Mr. Okinaka stated that he agrees with a lot of the ci mments made in the last meeting minutes. He agrees that the transfer stations and reclycling areas need more signage. He observed that there are a lot of bins in the recyclin area with a mixture of things and that he doesn't blame the public for putting the wrong items into the wrong bins due to the lack of signage. Mr. Okinaka would like to see if the committee could find a way to reuse plastics of all sorts. He stated that it would be good to have the possibility to recycle, reuse and reengineer plastics here on the island instead of sending it off island. He wanted to advise the committee that China is not taking dirty plastics any more. Ms. Bell's overriding thought is that the security guards at the transfer stations could provide recycling education/help. She would like to suggest maybe we could start gentle and have the security guards offer to help break down a cardboard boxes to put into the recycling bins. Chair Hayducsko advised that the Solid Waste Division currently have two employees on light duty posted at the recycling area on both the east and west side of the Island. 2 He explained that the light duty employees are educating the public about recycling. He said that we are seeing a good return for the time spent out there. He also advised that the workers are directing commercial entities/businesses not to use the residential transfer stations and informing them of what alternatives are available for them. Chair Hayducsko stated that it is working out really well and it would be nice to have someone at the recycling areas at the transfer station semi full time. Mr. Okinaka asked if it were possible to not make our transfer stations look so dumpy. He felt that the Pahoa, Waimea and Kea'au transfer stations looked nice. But, he also felt that Puako and Hilo transfer station looked dumpy and depressing. He was wondering if there was a way to make the transfer stations look better. Chair Hayducsko advised that the Department does have a schedule on improving each site. However, Chair Hayducsko doesn't know the actual schedule but, wanted to assure the committee that there will be improvements to each site over time. Mr. Buklarewicz advised the committee that the sort station was originally designed as just one small component of a large system approach. He also explained that a few years back both he and Ms. Bell had attended a brainstorm'meeting at the Naniloa Hotel that was facilitated by the late Jim Channon. He went on explaining that at that meeting there were drawings made of a big circular Resource Recovery Center. He also explained that the Resource Recovery Center included composting and windrows, as well as reuse operations and recycling. Mr. Buklarewicz said that the sort station was just one piece and that's probably why it is not being used for the purpose that it was originally intended for. Chair Hayducsko let everyone know that Kathryn Seckel with Parametrix attending today's meeting via conference phone. b) Review, discuss and categorize Chapters 3-7 of Hawaii County's 2009 ISWMP Recommendations and Options. Chair Hayducsko handed out the survey result of the SWAC Workbook of Recommendations and Options for Chapters 3 - 7. Chair Hayducsko wanted to thank the committee members on the feedback given and that there were a lot of excellent comments and concerns noted. And he advised that the committee would be going over the chapter references today. He estimated that there would be 93 items to go through. He also explained that when going through the workbook they would be agreeing on either retaining recommendations or removing recommendations. Chapter 3" Source Reduction Chapter Reference 3.5.2 and 3.6 (1) - Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate cert actions to be taken to reduce the source of waste currently entering landfills - RETAIN 3 commercial or residential building permits - RET Chapter Reference 3.5.9 and 3.6 (1) - cycle costs of their products - RETAIN, but reword and refocus and combine with reference below. Ms. Bell suggested dropping it because County probably does not have any resources to do this and that this would be more of a State effort. Mr. Ely also agrees with Ms. Bell and stated that at this level we would be wasting our time and this should be done further up the food chain. Ms. Bell said that County policy statements and resolutions do not carry enough weight for this action to be effective. Chair Hayducsko explained that as a County, it is good to work with other Counties in the state and as a group they should pitch what is agreed upon to legislature. Chair Hayducsko also explained that there are a few EPR Programs that the County is working with right now which includes the Bottle Bill, HIS Program; the E -waste Program where we are receiving money from the manufacturers to manage our e -waste; Advance Disposal Fee for glass, which importers pay per container. It does take an enormous amount of time to implement an EPR program; but, it can be effective once implemented because it forces manufacturers to be more responsible and look at the whole process especially if they have to take the back their product. Ms. Bell would like to recommend that the solid waste and/or recycling staff to get together each year and make a list and pick off a project or tw tires; and said that there could be at least fifteen thin Mr. Araujo suggested to RETAIN this section but re - suggested to word it as a future project; list a time s more acceptable. She suggested to maybe start with to put on a list. ding it to make it more realistic. -He in the wording that would make it Ms. Bell asked if there is a time frame for the recommendations section; and if we are we prioritizing recommendations in the workbook. Chair Hayducsko answered that he and Katherine are working a procedures and hoping to have a procedure established by next meeting. Mr. Okinaka asked what is the initial thought or purpose of this section. 4 Chair Hayducsko explained that this section is. to make manufacturers more responsible for their products with the hope to make remanufacturing easier. The hope would be that, manufacturers would make their products less toxic and make it easier to recycle. Also, hoping to put the responsibility on the manufacturer to recycle their product; rather than the government. Implement a campaign to develop EPR for difficult -to recycle products, and lobby Mate and federal lawmakers to advance EPR initiatives - RETAIN, but reword and refocus and combine with chapter reference above. Focus on finding ways to communicate to State and Federal Lawmakers as well as working together with other counties to prioritize a list. Chapter Reference 3.5.1 and 3.6(1) Implement a County government source reduction program, by implementing policies,c e incentive pr r that will reducewaste s e s currently being generated within various County departments and agencies. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 3.5.5 and 3.6 (2) Implement PAYT program or other funding method - RETAIN Ms. Bell commented that this is a critical section and that we need to move in this direction. Mr. Araujo believes that if we start charging people to throw away their rubbish at the transfer stations, that people will be dumping trash all over,the place. He sees illegally dumping daily even though going to the transfer station is free. He feels that there should be some kind of strategy for this program. Ms. Bell commented that it would take at least two years of education to get people to understand. Starting with step 1- start by issuing a sticker for your bag, but it's free. Then the stickers would be $.05 cents, then $.25 cent to $4.00. She suggested to start with a slow approach. - Mr. Buklarewicz commented that when doing research on any successful PAYT program; that you would see a spike in illegal dumping; but, it would level off after a while. He said that the people that choose to illegally dump will continue dump illegally and that would be problem to be addressed separately. Mr. Araujo would like to know who will be responsible for the trash that is being illegally dumped. He would like to know if it would it be the government that will be responsible to pick it up and dispose of it or would it be the landowner, who would need to pay a tipping fee to throw it away? He said that this should be a thing that is really thought out before implementing. Chair Hayducsko suggested that as a group we could recommend doing a study and look at what options are out there and at the same time get the communities involved. 5 Chapter Reference 3.5.4 and 3.6(3) RETAIN Ms. Bell would like to suggest to improve reuse facilities and that she doesn't believe that we need to add more facilities. Chair Hayducsko said that the reuse facilities already provide great service and that it would not hurt to provide better service to the community by having better facilities. Mr. Buklarewicz suggested that we should expand services in areas such as Household Hazardous Waste; instead of having occasional twice a year programs. He suggested that we should train reuse facility operators to accept Household Hazardous Waste type material. Mr. Okinaka thought for expanding services meant that the public would bring stuff in to the reuse centers and the staff would repair it, then selling it. Chair Hayducsko explained that items that are donated are sold as is, and that there is no mass repair area available at the reuse facilities. Chapter Reference 3.5.11 and 3.6(3) -nri - Reword to continue to develop partnerships with organizations... Mr. Araujo would like to get more clarity because there is no details involved. If the County would make a partnership with an organization; would the public than be taking the materials to the counties facilities, or the organizations facilities, or half and a half? Chair Hayducsko said that at this time the County is lis ing organizations such as Goodwill as an entity to donate reusable items to on our website. Mr. Okinaka asked how is what the Goodwill Industries doing anything different from what the County's reuse centers are doing. Chair Hayducsko said that he felt that both entities provide similar service, but said that the transfer station is a one stop shop for many people. He stated that it is convenience for people to donate their items at a transfer station reuse stores when they get rid of their trash. Chapter Reference 3.5.2 and 3.6(4) D Develop a business waste audit and education program to foster source reduction within the local business community. RETAIN Chair Hayducsko noticed that in one of the comments questioned if the County had enough capacity, and he assumes that the comment was referring to staffing. He explained that the County doesn't have adequate staffing to do business outreach and education.. It is hard to get everything done that we are currently trying to achieve. There is a business workbook out there that we should give to businesses to use. He asked if there was any discussion from the committee. Mr. Okinaka said that when you have source reduction, that the idea is to really reduce the amount stuff that comes in. Mr. Araujo said that consumers generate trash because they purchase the trash and that whatever we buy comes with rubbish. He explained that the main thing that everybody buys is food. Mr. Araujo said that when he was growing up he remembered that they would purchase their meat wrapped in pink paper and that today when we buy meat in the store, we get Styrofoam and a plastic wrapping. Why do we need the Styrofoam, why do we need the plastic wrapping? He said if we eliminate those items we would have a three point source reduction. He also said that in this education program we should educate consumers and supermarkets on island and statewide. Ms. Bell wondered if DOH had changed their regulations to eliminate the pink paper wrapping. Ms. Bell would like to recommend that we encourage or inform businesses to utilize the business workbook. Mr. Araujo suggested that we should educate the business owners, local and statewide. Take for instance the government enforced a Styrofoam band and pissed off everybody, and that is what you don't want to do. You want to ease in on the approach so businesses can be relaxed and be compliant. Chair Hayducsko would like to RETAIN this section and work with businesses. Chapter Reference 3.5.3 and 3.6(4) Develop a visitor industry waste reduction education program that includes promotional events or advertisements targeting specific sectors of the visitor industry. RETAIN Chapter Reference 3.5.8 and 3.6(4) Develop a reuse education, outreach, and public awareness campaign to encourage public participation and use of the reuse centers. Reword to remove Develop and change to continue to. Chair Hayducsko read a comment from the committee members under remove as recommended notes that the reuse centers really should sell themselves. Chair Hayducsko 7 said that other programs need advertisement constan program, it really should sell themselves. Ms. Bell said that it is not a bad recommendation, but public awareness. and agrees that if you have a good very broad approach outreach and Chair Hayducsko agrees with Ms. Bell. He said that it don't need to develop but to continue public awareness. Ms. Bell said that an ideal plan or recommendation wotI i ld be a couple pages and referenced to discuss and this workbooks feels really unreal to her. Mr. Okinaka said that this falls in line with one of the things that he had recommended and suggested that a data base to what's available at the reuse centers would be a great idea. Chapter 3: Source Reduction - Options that idn't become a recommendation Chapter Reference 3.5.6 TAIN as an option. Chair Hayducsko said that this was a very successful pr,' ogram for Recycle Hawaii. Ms. Bell felt that this was the most beneficial program for reducing source reduction into the landfill. Ms. Bell asked if households will be taking food waste to the County's composting locations. Chair Hayducsko explained that it hasn't been identified on how we are going to be collecting the residential food waste; a study hasn't been done and that we don't know how much food is out there. Ms. Seckel added that Parametrix did some research p found that there are quite a few areas across the contii transfer site systems for composting. Other states pros food waste specifically. She also added that there are s provide the people with compostable bags or people p it does occur and has been successful. There are a lot c it; but, it is happening. �r Chair Hayducsko' s request and iuous united states that have ride a place for people to dump their pecific systems in place where they urchase the bags. She explained that f rules and a lot of education behind Chair Hayducsko suggested that we should do a study'on how to capture the food waste for the County's compost facility. Mr. Araujo said that we should leave this as an option. He said that when looking at the whole composting option, he feels that it won't work. a said that there isn't enough rubbish to make compost and we are going to end up vuith mulch. He said that we should really focus on the program. Chapter Reference 3.5.7 To expand the reusable baa program the County could significantly increase the number of reusable bags that are distributed to residents, and increase its outreach to encourage participating r r stores toincrease e discount f-Qr usingreusable bags. Remove option Chapter Reference 3.5.9 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. Remove option Provide a forum for the exchange of information regarding existing and proposed EPR programs. Remove option Provide effective leadership. on EPR initiatives in California and develop a prioritized list with timelines of future EPR prog a� mS Remove option Chair Hayducsko would like to RETAIN the strategy from the first page in regards to EPR. Ms. Bell asked what we are going to do with the committee's comments that was suggested, she said that she feels that a lot of the comments are really good. She wanted to know if the comments were going to be included as part of the plan. Ms. Seckel answered that it isn't unheard of to included comments into the plan and that it wouldn't be a problem to include it into the appendix. She said that it would be good and that it would add value if people could see the chain of thoughts throughout this process. Ms. Bell was hoping to have some of the comments worked into some of the language of the recommendations. Ms. Seckel agreed that we could include some of the comments, but may not include every comment into the body. She believes that if it is going to add value and context, that it is something be thoughtful about. Educate elected and appointed officials and other decision makers on the benefits to local government of EPR. Remove but added to EPR section on the first page Chapter Reference 3.5.10 In order to encourage local innovation and participation the County could fund community zero waste in with fees levied on landfill disposal Remove option Chapter 4: Recycling. Bioconversion, and Markets Chapter Reference 4.5.5, 4.6.R (1) and 3.5.2 9 improve recycling rates - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5.5 and 4.6.11(1) charging higher fees for certain recyclable material. - Reword Chair Hayducsko suggested to change language to enciurage landfill diversion. We should structure our tipping fees induce or increase fees as needed. Mr. Buklarewicz advised that on the island of Oahu, if customers brings in a load with majority of recyclables in it; they would not only get rejected from disposal but could also get banned from disposing at the landfill. Chapter Reference 4.5.5, 4.5.6(1), 4.5.9 and 4.6.11 (1) materials. - RETAIN Ms. Bell personally believes that we should mandate majority of recyclable materials. Mr. Araujo would like to RETAIN this section. Mr. Araujo believes that we should put definitions on what can and should be recycled, and mi ke it clear for the public. He said that we should have a list of common things that can be recycled. Mr. Okinaka would like to add a list of businesses that recycle items as well what happens to the end product. His example would phonebooks he would like to list where they can be taken to and what the materials are being turned into. Chapter Reference 4.5.10 and 4.6.11(1) services. - RETAIN and other materials to the extent practicable. - Remove from recommendation to option Chapter Reference 4.5.8 and 4.6.11(2) region to adopt zero waste goals and plans. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5.11 and 4.6.11(2) statewide zero waste strategy- RETAIN and combine with Chapter Reference 4.5.8 and 4.6.11(2) above 10 Lobby the State to change school waste collection contracts to mandate that recycling services are included. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.6.11(3) Complete capital projects to facilitate implementation of expanded recycling programs. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5.5 and 4.6.R (3) Expand recyclingQ— - rtunities at recycling and transfe stations bymodifv, ins infrastructure to accommodate recycling processes. - RETAIN Improve signage at recycling and transfer stations. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5.3 (2) and 4.6.11(3) Reconfigure the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Reload Facility for use as a MRF while the SHSL is active. Remove indicating that it is going to be used as a transfer station Chair Hayducsko advised that facility will be used as a transfer station to transport waste to the west side when the landfill closes. Chapter Reference 4.5.6(4) and 4.6.11(4) Construct a new materials recovery (bailing and storage) facility for West Hawaii. - REMOVE Chapter Reference 4.5.6 and 4.6.11(4) Expand opportunities for commercial recycling_ - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5.6(2) and 4.6.11(4) Allow small businesses to use the recycling and transfer stations to recycle selected materials. - RETAIN Ms. Bell thinks that pay as you throw will resolve issue with businesses using the residential transfer stations. Chapter Reference 4.5.6(3) and 4.6.11(4) Modify the operating permits of the recycling and transfer stations to accommodate expanded recycling services by working with the HDOH. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5.6 and 4.6.11(4) Hire one full-time staff member to serve as commercial recycling specialist. - REMOVE Mr. Okinaka asked what a recycling specialist is. 11 Chair Hayducsko explained that we have 2 HIS recycling specialist that manages HI5 island wide. There is also 2 recycling specialist that manage other programs island wide i.e. Household Hazardous Waste and composting {just to name a few). There are 5 people total in the County's recycling section. RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5.12(1) and 4.6.R (5) - RETAIN - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5.12(3) and 4.6.R (5) in the community_ each vear. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5.12(4) and 4.6.R (5) in public schools. - REMOVE Chapter Reference 4.5.3 (3) and 4.6.0 (2) organics. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5 and 4.6.0 (2) Piro nnn fi111_timo cuff mnmhol REMOVE Chair Hayducsko explained that our contract with Hawaiian Earth Recycling requires HER to provide marketing and education. He said that this section can be reworded to say that we are already doing this. Ms. Bell wants to make sure that not too much organic materials are going into the landfill. She would like to also confirm that organics program is going as intended. Chapter Reference 4.5.S and 4.6.0 (2) - RETAIN combine with 3.5.6 (first option under chapter 3) Ms. Bell believes there is a need for a home composting program; so the county program doesn't see the waste. Chapter Reference 4.5 and 4.6.0 (2) - RETAIN Mr. Araujo suggested to change word farmers to gardeners 12 Implement a "stop wastingfood" ood" program with local food banks. - RETAIN Partner with other local groups to establish compost demonstration gardens at recycling and transfer stations and other community locations. - RETAIN Mr. Buklarewicz explained that the Laupahoehoe School included composting as part of their curriculum, and that it is also happening in schools in Kohala. The way the county got involve was to partnership with Recycle Hawaii by providing composters to schools and communities. Chapter Reference 4.5.10 and 4.6.0 (3) Initiate an on-site composting program for residents and businesses by distributing subsidized units to both residences and businesses. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5.5 and 4.6.0 (4) Conduct a study to evaluate the potential for implementation of landfill ban on organics-- RETAIN reword to investigate banning organics from the landfill Chapter Reference 4.5.6(4) and 4.6.0 (5) Implement added organics management facilities and equipment - Reword and combine with next 2 chapter references below Mr. Buklarewicz suggested to have mulch pick up available at rural transfer stations. Chapter Reference 4.5.5 and 4.6.0 (5) Add green waste drop-off locations at recycling and transfer stations. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5.1 and 4.6.0 (5) Process green waste drop-off locations at select recycling and transfer stations. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 4.5.7 and 4.6.0 (5) Develop an organics composting facility at the Wt -SL or other sites RETAIN and reword to maintain/continue organics facility at the WHSL. Chapter Reference 4.5.5 and 4.6.0 (5) Investigate opportunities for pilot food waste demonstration projects for the eventual expansion into full-scale food waste management programs. - RETAIN Mr. Araujo believes that the -County is missing a lot of steps to ensure that the composting facility receives an adequate amount of food to make compost. Mr. Buklarewicz did a food waste study with Mr. K's Drive Inn and found that the food waste would need to be mixed in with other material or it will burn(kill)the plants. 13 i !.!. !!. 1. !...�. Chapter Reference 4.5.2 residents. - RETAIN as an option and change the Investigate. Develop to Research and Mr. Araujo believes that we should define recyclables. Ms. Bell believes that we should do a pilot program. Chair Hayducsko said that we would need to do a study and investigation on curbside recycling. Chapter Reference 4.5.3 �rogr,� am. - RETAIN and move to Recommendation to include option below Chapter Reference 4.5.4 greenwaste collection grogram. - RETAIN and combine with option above Chapter Reference 4.5.9 qu development opportunities. - RETAIN as an option Chapter Reference 4.5.12(5). service the Hawaii County visitor industry. - RETAIN as an option - combine with previous chapter in regards to visitor industry. Chapter Reference 4.5.12(6) and 4.6.0 (1) modifying z� oning rules and County codes. - RETAIN as an option Chapter Reference 4.5.12(7), and 3.5.1 you throw system, and zero -waste fund. - Did not decide to RETAIN or REMOVE Ms. Bell Moves to approve the discussion and results of Chapters 3 and 4; Mr. Araujo 2nds the motion. All in favor voted aye. Motion Carries S. NEW BUSINESS 14 a) Chair Hayducsko has not secured a short presentation with Bio Energy and will continue to pursue a meeting. b) By Friday the committee will begetting the task for Status of 2009 Plan and new options and recommendations for Chapters 8 - 9 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS Next meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2018 at the ADRC Training Room at 1055 Kinoole Street, Ste#101 Hilo, HI 96720. 7. ADJOURNMENT Motion and vote: Mr. Buklarewicz moved to adjourn, Mr. Ely seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Tina DeMello Solid Waste Division, Clerk III 15 SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMN HTTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 10, 2018 1:00 p.m. to 3:52 p.m. Aging and Disability Resource Center 1055 Kinoole Street, Suite 101 Hilo, Hawai `i 96720 Committee members present: Adam Scharf Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Robert Ely Paul Buklarewicz George Hayducsko, Chair Georjean Adams Staff present: Diana Mellon -Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel (in place of Keyra Wong) Tina DeMello, SWD Clerk Greg Goodale, SWD Chief (arrived at 1:17 p.m.) Also present: Greg Larson, Cost of Government Commission Dayday L. Hopkins, Cost of Government Commission Jenipher Jones, Cost of Government Commission Daniel H. Cunningham, Member of the public Paul Montague, Member of the public Not present: Barbara Bell, Member Steven Araujo, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 12, 2018, Meering Mr. Buklarewicz noted that a correction was needed on page 4 and 5 in the extended producer responsibility section the word manufacturer is spelt five times as manufacture. Mr. Okinaka caught the same thing. I Mr. Okinaka said that a lot of the comments made by members says that we feel or we felt as if it were an unqualified observation and said that the eomments are qualified statements. Mr. Buklarewicz also noted that a correction of the word choose should be in place of the word chose in regards to illegal dumping. Motion: Vice Chair Mr. Okinaka moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Buklarewicz 2nd the motion. Vote: All members preset voted aye to approve the minutes with the corrections. ! 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: For the record, Chair Hayducsko read a statement received by email in regards to pay as you throw program: •am: Email read: I just read the article in the West Hawaii Today that said the Solid Waste Advisory Committee is proposing a pay as you throw program. If you want to increase recycling, you must have a better recycling program and empty your bins more frequently. Also, the photo shows a woman throwing out her recyclables in a plastic bag. Another trash bag is seen in the photo. These are not recyclable items. Hawaii County is the worst place that I have lived for recycling. I would like to get on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee to try to make a better- program for everyone. Thanks, Paul One member of the public, Daniel Cunningham, had signed up to testify. Daniel H. Cunningham: Mr. Cunningham brought a book with him titled Seasteading; he explained that the book goes into deep depth on the subject of 3D printing and he sees that is the only future for our children of this aina. Mr. Cunningham explained that he has been going to public meetings for over thirty years and he's been hearing same things and same problems over the years and he believe there needs to Abe an increased value in trash. He said that the only way that he sees an increase value in trash is through 3D printing and creating a local economy where recyclables such as plastic bottles can be made into local building materials where it has twice the value and the people would be more inclined to recycling it. He said that Seasteading is book written by Joe Quirk and said that it is a science book. He also said that it is written in layman's terms and that there is a lot of science in it that he has never heard of. He said that it is a very impressive book and he recommends anybody to please check this book out and he thinks that this book could answer solid waste problems. He said that the technology of 3D printing is moved to where you can make any aviation part for any airplane high tech alloys involving very high-quality 3D printing. He suggested to implement 3D printing locally to where we could make anything and we would not need to have anything shipped in with Matson. Mr. Cunningham said that if 3D printing becomes a reality of this aina and we colonize the ocean and turn this island back into a bird sanctuary and he believes that it is the only way to truly create a future for our children. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 4a. Bio Energy Hawaii presentation. Chair Hayducsko explained that the Bio Energy Hawaii representative was unable to make it to this meeting. He also explained that a committee member had asked if they were able to reach out to Bio Energy Hawaii on their own as an individual or committee member and he doesn't see anything wrong with that. He said that we could reach out to people in that industry and find out more information. Chair Hayducsko said that because of the sunshine law we shouldn't do it as a group. Ms. Mellon -Lacey clarified that we can't conduct any discussion about this group's business or discuss anything that would be moved towards a vote or promise any specific direction; but, as an individual for informational purposes is fine. 4b. Cost of Government (COG) Commission presentation on their purpose and goals. Greg Larson: Mr. Larson is a commissioner for the Cost of Government Commission here to do a presentation he is here along with Dayday Hopkins and Jenipher Jones who are also COG commissioners. Mr. Larson explained that the COG commission has nine members in their group total and he is here representing the Sanitation sub -committee that included both himself and Ms. Hopkins. He also advised the SWAC members that Ms. Jones is the Chair person for the COG commission. Mr. Larson handed out documents on what he is going to cover today. He explained that the COG commission is tasked with the study of all County Departments, Commissions and Boards and to look into the finance and cost of everything that the County's government is doing. Mr. Larson said that when looking at the County's finances in whole the COG commission is focusing on specific portions that would make the heaviest effect. He went on explaining that the commission is looking at each Department individually and they have chosen a number of individual Departments to scrutinize and get more information than what is readily available and that one of those they are looking into is Solid Waste. He asked for the committee to look at the last page of the handout that list the last COG recommendations for the Department of Environmental Management. The COG goal is to coordinate more with departments and committees to find out what those goals are and reinforce those with the COG's report when done with information gathering. He advised that they are there to gather information and support the SWAC so we would have more voices going in the same direction and he said that they believe that it is there best tool to have something positive happen. COG goal here today is to gather information and take it back to their commission, but most importantly they are here to support our SWAC. Mr. Larson said that Ms. Hopkins had put together a list of questions for the Department to generate discussion. Chair Hayducsko advised that he would take the questions back to the Department and ask them to respond to the questions from the COG. 5. NEW BUSINESS: a. Review, discuss and categorize Chapters 5-9 of Hawaii County's 2009 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan's (ISWMP) Recommendations and options. Chapter S: Public Education and Information' Chapter Reference 5.5.1 and 5.6 (1) Implement a 3 -year zero waste education and social mark eting _program to educate the public an( business community about zero waste initiatives and opportunities. - RETAIN, but change 3 - year zero waste to ongoing landfill diversion. Chapter Reference 5.5.1 and 5.6 (2) Hire one full-time staff member to serve as the zero waste program coordinator. - RETAIN, but reword to appropriate staff. Chapter Reference 5.5.4 and 5.6 (3) Implement a community -wide social marketing_ plan. - RETAIN, DEM website and Mayor's page Chapter 5: Public Education and Information ! Options that didn't becom recommendation Chapter Reference 5.5.2 Develop unified promotional material, including_ option Chapter Reference 5.5.3 Conduct a waste management attitude survey to in the County. - MOVE to recommendations. Chapter Reference 5.5.4 Expand existing advertising and marketing effort website and increasing_ participation at communit Chapter Reference 5.5.5 and 4.6.R (5) Expand school education programs to incorporat( Mandate hauling contractors that service schools Chapter Reference 5.5.6 Expand business education programs to include c individual technical assistance for business owne recommendations Chapter Reference 5.5.7 Develop visitor industry educational and promoti option Chapter Reference 5.5.8 Evaluate effectiveness and continue to refine edu analysis of the Dublic's understanding of various i and/or logo. - RETAIN as an In through expansion of the - RETAIN as an option - RETAIN as an option 1 material as - MOVE to ials. - RETAIN as an tioTgrams. Evaluation may include grams, establishing benchmarks for success. and evaluating the effectiveness of education and promotional campaigns. - MOVE to recommendations Chapter 6 — Household Hazardous Waste and Electronic Waste Chapter Reference 6.5 and 6.6 (1) Hire a Household Hazardous Waste/Electronics Waste specialist. - RETAIN, reword to staff necessary as needed Chapter Reference 6.5 and 6.6 (2) Implement HHW and a -waste public outreach and education programs through event -specific announcements additional signage and expanded outreach programs in the community. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5.3 and 6.6 (3) Explore a -waste take -back programs with State and manufacturers/sellers. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5.3 and 6.6 (3) Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to mandate and manage take -back programs for specific types of e -waste. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5.3 and 6.6 (3) Evaluate the elements of successful similar programs implemented in other jurisdictions during the planning_ process. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5.3 and 6.6 (3) Coordinate with other counties and the State to develop and implement a -waste take -back programs. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5.3 and 6.6 (3) Coordinate with local retail businesses to facilitate implementation of take -back programs for e -waste. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5 and 6.6 (3) Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to facilitate storage and handling of a -waste at various types of collection locations. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5.2 and 6.6 (3) Incorporate information about existing and new a -waste take back programs in the community outreach and education effort. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5.2 and 6.6 (4) Conduct additional HHW collection events. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5.4 and 6.6 (5) Explore legislative actions for hazardous products and packaging take -back programs. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5.3 and 6.6 (5) Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to mandate and manage take -back programs. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5.3 and 6.6 (5) Coordinate with local retail businesses to develop and implement take -back programs. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5 and 6.6 (5) Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to facilitate storage and handling of hazardous waste products and packaging at various types of collection locations. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5 and 6.6 (5) Incorporate information about existing and new hazardous materials and packaging take -back programs in the community outreach and education effort. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 6.5.6 and 6.6 (6) Explore a public-private partnership for a local E -scrap campaign. Potentially initiate a study of different models for promoting local dismantling of electronics. - RETAIN Chapter 6: Household Hazardous Waste and E+lectronic Waste — Options that didn't become a recommendation Chapter Reference 6.5.1 Install fixed (permanent) collection facilities at recycling and transfer stations. - RETAIN as an option Chapter Reference 6.5.4 Implement an advanced disposal fee for certain types of e -waste. - RETAIN as an option Chapter Reference 6.5.5 and 3.5.4 Add e -waste product exchange and re -use centers at recycling and transfer stations. - RETAIN as an option Chapter 7 — Special Waste Chapter Reference 7.4.1 Include special waste drop-off and collection areas in the design of new or renovated recycling and transfer stations. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 7.4.2 Continue the current effort to modify convenience center permits to allow white goods recovery at recycling and transfer stations. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 7.4.3 Include information regarding the environmental benefits of properly disposing of scrap tires, and current disposal options in the County's education and promotion programs. - RETAIN Chapter 8 — Collection and Transfer Chapter Reference 8.7.1.A and 8.8.1 1) Retain the County's system of recycling and transfer stations. 2) A component of retaining the system includes completing upgrades to address structural deficiencies and to 3) provide expanded services in support of zero waste initiatives. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 8.7.3, 8.7.7.2, and 8.8.2 1) Reconstruct one or more recycling and transfer stations annually, including a new South Kona recycling and transfer station at Ocean View. 2) The County should also consider installing compaction units for recvclables at selected stations. Consider adopting a "satellite" system where compactors would be installed at selected stations, which would accept uncompacted recvclables from nearby stations lacking compactors. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 8.7.4, 8.7.6 and 8.8.3 Implement full-time staffing and reduced operating hours at recycling and transfer stations, and consider closing one or more stations. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 8.7.2 and 8.8.4 Develop a system to license private 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 safely requirements, and pay a nominal licensing fee (to cover the cost of licensing)As discussed in Chapter 4 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. MOVE to option Chapter Reference 8.7.2 and 8.8.5 Change permits to allow small commercial businesses to drop off recvclables at County recycling and transfer stations. These permits 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. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 8.7.6 and 8.8.6 Conduct an operational efficiency analysis. - RETAIN Chapter Reference 8.7.8 and 8.8.7 Develop a base yard facility and equipment maintenance facility for transfer vehicles at the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill. - MOVE to option Did not finish Chapter 8 and 9 Chapter References b. Review the ISWMP schedule. Did not Review ISWMP Schedule 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next meeting is scheduled for November 14, 2018 at the ADRC Training Room at 1055 Kinoole Street, Ste# 101 Hilo, HI 96720. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion and vote: Mr. Buklarewicz moved to adjourn Ms. Adams seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 3.52 p.m. Respectfully submitted: i Tina DeMell6 i Solid Waste ;Division, Clerk III SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 14, 2018 1:01 p.m. to 4:03 p.m. Aging and Disability Resource Center 1055 Kino`ole Street, Suite 101 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Committee members present: Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Robert Ely Paul Buklarewicz George Hayducsko, Chair Geojean Adams Barbara Bell Steven Araujo (arrived at 1:25 p.m.) Staff present: Diana Mellon -Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel (in place of Keyra Wong) Tina DeMello, SWD Clerk Greg Goodale, SWD Chief (arrived at 2:02 p.m.) Dwight,Miller, Parametrix Katherine Seckel Also present: Paul Montague, Member of the public Glen Hisashima, Member of the public Not present: Adam Scharf, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 101 2018, Meeting Mr. Buklarewicz noted that a correction is needed to the word groups on the top of page 2. Motion: Ms. Adams moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Ely 2 the motion. Vote: All members preset voted aye to approve the minutes with the corrections. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: No statements from the public. 4. NEW BUSINESS: a. Bio Eneray Hawaii Presentation Chair Hayducsko explained that Bio Energy Hawai `i was not here today and is uncertain if they would be able to provide a presentation to the committee. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. Review, discuss and categorize Chapters 8-9 of Hawaii County's 2009 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan's (ISWMP) Recommendations and options. Chapter 8 — Collection and Transfer Chapter Reference 8.7.1.B License and promote all existing collection companies RETAIN Chapter Reference 8.7.1.0 License all existing collection companies and require bi-weekly curbside recycling. RETAIN Chapter Reference 8.7.1.D Establish a new collection department and crew to implement weekly curbside collection c garbage and bi-weekly collection of recvclables, prohibiting_ private collection businesses. RETAIN i Chapter Reference 8.7.1.E j Establish an exclusive franchise for a collection company to collect MSW from residential customers in an area. RETAIN RETAIN ABOVE CHAPTER REFERENCES UNDER CURBSIDE COLLECTION STUDY Chapter Reference 8.7.5 Add full time attendants, reduce operating hours, and implement a PAYT at recycling and transfer stations. REMOVE Chapter Reference 8.7.7.1 Converting ona,arrbage chute into a mixed recyclables container to then be transferred in compaction trailer. REMOVE j Chapter Reference 8.7.7.2 Install a stationary recycling compactor at each of the recycling and transfer stati recvclables. MOVE TO RECOMMENDATION Chapter 9 — Residuals Management Chapter Reference 9.6.3 and 9.7.1(1) Develop a conversion technology facility. REMOVE Chapter Reference 9.7.3(1) County to conduct a more in-depth evaluations of the feasibility and cost of re -configuring the reload facility at the SHSL and trucking-%vaste to the WHSL. REMOVE Chapter Reference 9.7.3(2) County to prepare a master planning document for the 1) WHSL and 2) SHSL facilities. RETAIN, reword to continue facility planning Chapter Reference 9.7.3(2) County engage in a dialogue with other Hawai'i counties about the potential for mutually - beneficial joint solutions. RETAIN Chapter Reference 9.7.3(2) County conduct a feasibility study of remediating the closed Kailua-Kona landfill. REMOVE Chapter Reference 9.5.2, 9.5.2.1 R-1 No Action,• Wait to Assess Success of Current Conversion Technology Projects RETAIN, reword for County to continue to evaluate landfill and transfer technology options. Agree to consolidate all chapter 9 references below with this reference Chapter Reference 9.5.2, 9.5.2.2 R-2 WTE Facility for East Hawaii, Ash and Bypass Materials to SHSL Chapter Reference 9.5.2.3 R-3 WTE Facility for all County Residuals- Ash and Bypass Materials to WHSL Chapter Reference 9.5.2.4 R-4 Modular Incinerators in Rural Areas- Ash and Bypass Waste to SHSL and WHSL Chapter Reference 9.5.2.5 R-5 Develop mechanical biological treatment CMBTi Facilities at the SHSL and/or WHSL Sites Motion to approve Chapters 8 and 9: Ms. Bell moved to approve decision and discussions made in Chapters 8 and 9; Ms. Adams 2nd b. Review and discuss Chapter 10 recommendations Mr. Miller summarized Chapter 10 recommendations and evaluated source of funds available to Hawaii County. c. Review, discuss and categorize proposed "new exercise Chapter 3-9. • Recommendation to add educational and addition website • Recommendation to identify resources and source website • Recommendation to incorporate teaching qflife q communities By consensus the SWAG agreed to the 3 above recomi d. Discuss expectations of Interim Draft Review, wl exercise. Did not review or discuss Interim Draft Review. e. Review the ISWMP schedule. Did not review ISWMP schedule 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next meeting is scheduled for December 12, 2018 at tl Kino`ole Street, Ste#101 Hilo, 141 96720. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion and vote: Ms. Bell moved to adjourn, Mr. Ok members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 4:03 p.m. Respectfully " results from workbook I resources to the Departments tion and post on Departments le thinking in schools and tions rich will include prioritization .e ADRC Training Room at 1055 inaka seconded the motion, and all submitted: Tina DeMello Solid Waste Division, Clerk III SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII Meeting Minutes Wednesday, January 9, 2019 1:14 p.m. to 4:01 p.m. Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) 1055 Kino`ole Street, Suite 101 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Committee members present: George Hayducsko, Chau Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Paul Buklarewicz Steven Araujo Geodean Adams Barbara Bell Staff present: Diana Mellon -Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel Tina DeMello, SWD Clerk Dwight Miller, Parametrix by phone Katherine Seckel, Parametrix by phone Not present: Adam Scharf, Member Robert Ely, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 1:14 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 14, 2018, Meeting Motion and vote: Ms. Bell moved to approve the minutes; Ms. Adams 2nd the motion. All members preset voted aye to approve the minutes. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: No statements fi•om the public. 4. NEW BUSINESS: a. Bio Energy Hawaii Update: Chair Hayducsko opened the discussion stating that multiple committee members had attempted to reach out to Bio Energy Hawaii and was not successful with having Bio Energy Hawaii attend to provide a presentation. Our members reached out by leaving phone messages and sent multiple emails to request for a presentation. b. Review, discuss and recommend changes to Chanters 2-6 Waste Management Plan's (ISWMP): Chair Hayducsko explained that the format being Page, Line No. and Comments. Chair Hayducsko chapter of changes and have a motion by chapter CHAPTER 2 — WASTE STREAM ASSES Motion and vote: Page 2-5, Line 11: Eliminate impact on this section. Ms. Adams moves to eli: 2' the motion. tilizing today shows the Chapter, iould like to have a consensus by edits, changes, etc. rence to plastic bags having any to reference to plastic bags, Ms. Bell Motion and vote: Mr. Okinaka moves to accept edits, changes, and deletion for Chapter 2; Ms. Bell 2nd the motion, and all members voted aye. CHAPTER 3 — SOURCE REDUCTION Motion and vote: Ms. Adams moves to accept edits, changes, and deletions for Chapter 3; Ms. Bell 2 the motion and all members voted aye. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. Review the ISWMP Schedule: Review, discuss and recommend changes to Chapter 4-10 of the ISWMP next meeting. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS: j Next meeting is scheduled for February 13, 2019 at the ARRC Training Room at 1055 Kino`ole Street, Ste#101 Hilo, HI 96720. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion and vote: Mr. Buklarewicz moved to adjourn, Mr. Araujo 2nd the motion, and all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 4:03 p.m. SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAI'I Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 13, 2019 1:03 p.m. to 3:39 p.m. Aging and Disability Resource Center 1055 Kino'ole Street, Suite 101 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Committee members present: George Hayducsko, Chair Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Paul Buklarewicz Georjean Adams Barbara Bell Staff present: Diana Mellon -Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel (in place of Keyra Wong) Tina DeMello, SWD Clerk Sanne Berrig, DEM SWD Recycling Specialist I Katherine Seckel, Parametrix by phone Also present: Nancy Cook Lauer, WHT Reporter Not present: Adam Scharf, Member Steven Araujo, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 9, 2019, Meeting Motion and Vote: Ms. Adams moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Buklarewicz seconded the motion. All members present voted aye to approve the minutes. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: No statements from the public. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. Review, discuss and recommend changes to Chapter 4 - RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND pters 2-9 of IS"P Motion and Vote: Ms. Bell moves to accept edits, changes, and deletions for Chapter 4 as discussed; Ms. Adams seconded the motion and all members present voted aye. Motion carries. Chapter 5 - PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION Motion and Vote: Ms. Bell moves to accept edits,changes, and deletions for Chapter 5 as discussed; Mr. Buklarewicz seconded the motion and all members present voted aye. Motion carries. Chapter 6 - HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ANO ELECTRONIC WASTE Motion and Vote: Mr. Buklarewicz moves to accept edits, changes, and deletions for Chapter 6 as discussed; Ms. Adams seconded the motion and all members present voted aye. Motion carries. Chapter 7 - SPECIAL WASTE Motion and Vote: Ms. Adams moves to accept edits, changes, and deletions for Chapter 7 as discussed; Ms. Bell seconded the motion and all members present voted aye. Motion carries. b. Review the ISMP Schedule Review, discuss and recommend changes to Chapters 2 -10 of the ISWMP. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next meeting is scheduled for March 13, 2019 at the ADRC Training Room at 1055 Kino`ole Street, Ste#101 Hilo, HI 96720. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Motion and vote: Ms. Bell moved to adjourn, and all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 3:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Tina 1 Solid )eMello Waste Division, Clerk III SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAI'I Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2019 1:12 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. Aging and Disability Resource Center 1055 Kino'ole Street, Suite 101 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Committee members present: George Hayducsko, Chair Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Paul Buklarewicz Georjean Adams by phone Barbara Bell Adam Scharf Staff present: Diana Mellon -Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel Tina DeMello, SWD Clerk Sanne Berrig, DEM SWD Recycling Specialist I Katherine Seckel, Parametrix by phone Dwight Miller, Parametrix by phone Not present: Steven Araujo, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 13, 2019, Meeting Motion and Vote: Ms. Bell moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Scharf 2nd the motion. All members preset voted aye to approve the minutes. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: No member of the public present 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. Review, discuss and recommend changes to Chapters 2-10 of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP). b. Review, discuss, and prioritize the ISWMP recommendations. Waste Management Plan - Master Summary of Comments Chapter 8 Motion and Vote: Ms. Bell moves to accept edits, changes, and deletions made for Chapter 8 as discussed; Mr. Scharf 2nd the motion and all members present voted aye. Motion carries. Chapter 9 Motion and Vote: Ms. Bell moves to accept edits, changes, and deletions made for Chapter 9 as discussed; Mr. Scharf 2nd the motion and all members present voted aye. Motion carries. c. Review the ISWMP schedule. Discussed prioritization of programs for recommendations and ranking. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2019 at the ',Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) Training Room at 1055 Kino'ole Street, Ste#101 Hilo, HI 96720. 6. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 3:45p.m. Respectfully submitted: Tina DeMello Solid Waste Division, Clerk III SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII Meetint Minutes Wednesday, May 8, 2019 1:00 p.m. to 3:25 p.m. Aging and Disability Resource Center 1055 Kino`ole Street, Suite 101 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Committee members present: George Hayducsko, Chair Paul Buklarewicz Georjean Adams Adam Scharf Steven Araujo Staff present: Diana Mellon -Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel Tina DeMello, SWD Clerk Sanne Berrig, DEM SWD Recycling Specialist I Katherine Seckel, Parametrix by phone Dwight Miller, Parametrix by phone Not present: Barbara Bell, Member Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Public: Brain Moyer, Intergovernmental Support Agreements Gregory Fleming, U.S. Army Garrison Pohakuloa 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 13, 2019, Meeting Motion and Vote: Ms. Adams moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Scharf 2ndthe motion. All members preset voted aye to approve the minutes. Motion carries. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Gregory Flag - Discussion of Recycling Programs at P6hakuloa. Recycle, Repurpose, and Reuse @ PTA. Good stewards of the environment. Brian Moye - Discussion of intergovernmental support agreements and opportunities offered by the Federal Government to work with local government on managing solid waste and recyclables 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. Review, discuss and recommend cl 10 of the Integrated Solid Waste M Chapter 1 Goals: to Chapter 1 goals and Chapter lent Plan (ISWMP. Motion and Vote: Ms. Adams moves to accept edits, changes, and deletions for Chapter 1 goals as discussed; Mr. Buklarewicz 2nd the motion and all members present voted aye. Motion carries. Chapter 10: Motion and Vote: Mr. Buklarewicz moves to accept edits, changes, and deletions for Chapter 10 as discussed; Ms. Adams 2nd the motion and all members present voted aye. Motion carries. b. Review, discuss, and prioritize the ISWMP recommendations. Power Point presentation by Sanne Berrig on Recommended Prioritization of Programs. Chapter 8 #5.: Motion and Vote: Ms. Adams moved to accept to delete wording of "commercial recycling" and replace business with "businesses" in Chapter 8, #5 as discussed; Mr. Scharf 2nd the motion all members present voted aye. Motion carries. Review of ISWMP Rankings Summary - Grouped by Ranking. Review of Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score. c. Review the ISWMP schedule. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next meeting is scheduled for June 12, 2019 at the Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) Training Room at 1055 Kino`ole Street, Ste#101 Hilo, HI 96720. 6. ADIOURNMENT: Motion and vote: Ms. Adams moved to adjourn, Mr. Scharf 2nd and all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Tina DeMello Solid Waste Division, Clerk III SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, June 12, 2019 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. Aging and Disability Resource Center 1055 Kino`ole Street, Suite 101 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Committee members present: George Hayducsko, Chair Paul Buklarewicz Geodean Adams Adam Scharf Steven Araujo Staff present: Diana Mellon -Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel Tina DeMello, Solid Waste Division Clerk Sanne Berrig, Solid Waste Division Recycling Specialist I Katherine Seckel, Parametrix (by phone) Not present: Barbara Bell, Member Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Public: Nancy Cook Lauer, West Hawai `i Today 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MAY 8, 2019, MEETING Motion and vote: Ms. Adams moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Buklarewicz seconded the motion. All members present voted aye to approve the minutes. Motion carried. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None. 4. UNFIMSHED BUSINESS a. Review the ISWMP schedule. b. Review, discuss and recommend changes to the ISWMP. SWAG discussion on text handout: Consider recovery and treatment technology Motion and vote: Mr. Buklarewicz moved to accept edits, changes, and deletions text for handout on consider recovery and treatment technology; Mr. Scharf 2nd the motion and all members present voted aye. Motion carries. c. Review, discuss and prioritize the ISWMP recommended ranking. .Motion and vote: Ms. Adams moved to accept ISWMP Rankings Summary with edits and changes as discussed; Mr. Scharf seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. Motion carried. 5. Q ANNOUNCEMENTS a. No additional SWAC meetings are schedu b. The following two (2) ISNVMP public hearings have been scheduled: Kona: Monday, December 9, 2019 1 Community Hale at the West Hawali`i Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway 5:00 p.m. — 7.00 p.m. Hilo: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 Aupuni Center Conference Room 101 Pauahi Street, Ste# 1 5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Motion and vote: Mr. Buklarewicz moved to adj members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. Ms. Adams seconded, and all Respectfully ;submitted: Tina DeMell( Solid Waste 2 )ivision, Clerk III SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 21, 2020 5:05 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing Aupum Center Conference Room 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 1 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Committee members present: George Hayducsko, Chair Paul Buklarewicz Adam Scharf Staff present: Chris Chin -Chance, DEM SWD Recycling Specialist III San ne Berlig, DEM SWI) Recycling Specialist I Also present: George Nakamoto, Nancy Cook -Lauer, Cory Harden, Diana Leach, Melody Euaparadorn, Susan Hamilton, Claire Cea, Richard Pratt, Michele Mitstumori, Roy Kadota, Donna Herbst, Jan Cooper, Peter Sur, Tire Richards, Sue Lee Loy, Tiphame Olivier, Shelley Ogata, Kristine Kubat, Jennifer Navarra, Doug Adams, and several other members of the public. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to take testimony from the public regarding the draft Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. Informational meetings were held 'in December, where there was question and answer, but this meeting was the public's opportunity to provide feedback. He explained the testimony would be transcribed and provided to the Solid Waste Advisory Corm iussion for their review and would be used in fmalizing the plan. Chau Hayducsko introduced himself and the staff and SWAC members that were present. He explained that testifiers would have three minutes to provide testimony and that written testimony could also be provided through February 4, 2019. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE REVISED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN a. Testimony was given by the public and will be transcribed and provided to the Solid Waste Advisory Cornrmittee. 3. COMMENTS BY THE SOLID WASTE ADV: REVISED INTGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN a. Comments were made by the Solid Waste Advisory Committee members and will be transcribed and provided to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 23, 2020 *n Kona at the West Hawai i Civic Center Council Chambers, at 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A, Kailua- Kona., Hawaii. 5. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00p.m. Respectfully submitted: Tina. DeNlello Solid;Waste Division, Clerk III SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII Meeting Minutes Thursday, January 231 2020 5:03 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing West Hawaii Civic Center Council Chambers 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua- Kona., Hawaii 96740 Committee members present: George Hayducsko, Chair Geoljean Adams Staff present: Saone Berlig, DEM SWD Recycling Specialist I Also present: Jerry Chang, Chuck Barker, Jeff Hagan, Nana Kawasaki -Jones, Dan Sabo, Dan Gudgel, Harlan Miyoshi, Doug C., Mark Powell, R. Leasue, Riley Saito, Barbara Kossow, Kristen Kam, Rebecca Villegas, Monica Stone, and several other members of the public. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to take testimony from the public regarding the draft Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. Informational meetings were held in December, where there was question and answer, but this meeting was the public's opportunity to provide feedback. He explained the testimony would be transcribed and provided to the Solid Waste Advisory Connnission for their review and would be used in finalizing the plan. Chair Hayducsko introduced himself and the staff and SWAC members that were present. He explained that testifiers would have three minutes to provide testimony and that written testimony could also be provided through February 4, 2019. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE REVISED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN a. Testimony was given by the public and will be transcribed and provided to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. 3. COMMENTS BY THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THE REVISED INTGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN a. Continents were made by the Solid Waste Advisory Connnittee members and will be transcribed and provided to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 26, 2020 in Hilo at the Aging and Disability Resource Center at 1055 Kinoole Street, Suite 101, Hilo, Hawaii. S. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7.00p.m. Respectfiilly submitted: SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 26, 2020 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Aging and Disability Resource Center 1055 Kino `ole Street, Suite 101 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Committee members present: George Hayducsko, Chair Alan Okinaka, Vice Chair Barbara Bell Paul Buklarewicz Georjean Adams Adam Scharf Steven Araujo Staff Uresent: Diana Mellon -Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel Tula DeMello, SWD Clerk Sanne Beirig, DEM SWD Recycling Specialist I Katherine Seckel, Parametrix by phone Dwight Miller, Parametrix Uy phone Public: Jennifer Navarra 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hayducsko called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: a. June 12, 2019 b. January 21, 2020 c. January 23, 2020 Motion and vote to approve minutes listed above: Ms. Adams moved to approve the minutes; Ms. Bell 2nd the motion. All members present voted aye to approve all minutes. Motion carried. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: None 4. New BUSINESS: a. Review and summarize recommendation from the Hawaili Department of Health (D0111). i. General Comments and Recommendation: 1. Energy -Balance Component. Proposed document handed out to the SWAG; document will be included in the plan. 2. Facility Implementation Component. Is labeled appropriately. Parametr ix will b for the DOH. 3. A Complete Program Funding Comp documents handed out to the SWAC; dy in the plan, it just needs to be Y where the component can be found Capital Improvements. Proposed cents will be included in the plan. U. Review and summarize recommendations from ISWMP public hearings and submitted written testimony. i. Public Comments — Common Themes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 Public Education. Many people interested in expanding the program. This is probably the continent with the most occurrences. Why not Waste to Energy/New Technologies? Against Waste to Energy (Incineration) Why is the County limiting materials for recycling? Against Pay -As -You Throw, mostly becau a of illegal dumping. Composting. Want small facilities on other parts of the island, not just Hilo. Concerns with collection of materials (note: Zero Waste Big Island offered to help County develop a plan for this.) Waste Composition Study 8. Plastic Recycling Options 9. Reduced Hours at the Transfer Stations. 10. Electronic Recycling 11. Zero Waste ii. Addre 1. Cory Harden (continent 6) Clarification nen amount of waste generated went down, but SWAC recommends that Chair Haydu check the numbers for accuracy and ai 2. Heidi Jaworski (continent 5) Why are Occ drop offs in black plastic trash bags (even for one of the poorest communities on the unsound practice. Are we being discrimm l — one section of the plan says the then section says it went tip. and Parametrix will double d as needed. View residents required to put all, -dboard)? This is an added expense and to bear, and is an environmentally i against for some reason? SWAG stated that Ocean View residents are not being discriminated against. The disposal system in place requires mechanized transfer of trash by grappling hook from one container to the transport container. For this system, to prevent littering, it is required that materials be containerized — whether in a plastic bag or a box." We recognize a need for an upgrade and that site is scheduled for modification or upgrades that can be expected in a few years which would eliminate the need to containerize the trash. 3. Heidi Jaworski (comment 7) In my experience, this is typical of the serious lack of communication that takes place between county offices and concerned neighbors — it simply doesn't exist, and it should. We should be able to work together to make our communities a better place to live, and responsibly manage the envuolunent around us. See Chapter 112 1-2 Custof)Ter Ser -vice: To share aloha wid in{onilatio77. Rig SW,4C Will amend the ISWMP to include its positioi7 tl7nt all public inquiries be handled wit/7 die 7. wwst respect and thiie& coiwinlniCatlol"7. 4. Megan Lamson Leatherman (comment 3) In addition to changing the County code to allow small ,businesses to drop off recyclables at recycling and transfer stations SWAG recommends to add recommendation #84 - Allow non-profit organizations and community groups to dispose of non -recyclable waste from coastal cleanups and litter cleanups at Recycling and Transfer Stations without the need for individual daily transfer station tipping fee waivers and use permits. 5. Megan Lamson Leatherman (comment 4) In addition to Conduct additional HHWC events and provide additional locations on island for dropping off more common HHW items during standard working hours. SWAG recommends asking reuse center vendor to take certain materials i.e. household cleaning products (Ajax, soaps, shampoo etc.) with the intent of diverting them from the HHWCE to the reuse centers. Suggested developing a list of products and provisions to protect the environment and workers. 6. Lee McIntosh (comment 4) 3.6 — p 3-18 The county should avoid placing additional burdens on obtaining a building permit. SWAC comment and recommendation: The waste reduction plan is a valuable document and the SWAC recommends keeping the recommendation, and reword to apply to commercial building permits and not to residential building permits. 7. Paul Montague (comment 1) Page 4-7 The chart indicates that the Ocean View site recycles glass. It does not. SWAC recommends to correct that section. 8. Richard Pratt Does the Plan address additional waste resulting from natural disasters? SWAC Recommendation: to acid a sentence or two in Section 9.4 referring to the Civil Defense's Disaster Management Plan for debris management. Motion and vote: Ms. Adams rooves to accept adding ui sentence(s) to Chapter 9 referring to Civil Defense; Ms. Bell 2"d the motion and members voted aye. Motion carries. I i i 9. Dan & Marlene Sabo (comment 1) what is being done to fix the problem of last minute closures of transfer stations and green waste drop-off sites? SWAC recommends to add language in the Summary of Chapter 10 - Ensure County has resources commensurate with the needs of all current and future solid waste programs (add text as appropriate). c. Discuss and recommend changes to the ISWMP. No additional comments. d. Approve the ISWMP with proposed changes. Motion and vote: Ms. Bell moved to approve the changes to the ISV%7MP as discussed today; Mr. Okinaka 2dthe motion and all members present voted aye. Motion carried. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair Hayducsko thanked the committee members for all their time, effort and commitment. He also advised that we are not disbanding the SWAC' until the ISWMP is approved. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Motion and vote: Ms. Adams moved to adjourn, Mr., Okinaka 2nd and all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 3:54p.m. Respectfully submitted: Appendix B SWAC Recommendation Ranking Summary ISWMP Rankings Summary - Grouped by Rankings 1. Education & Outreach This item received priority rankings: 2-1s, 2-2s, 3-3s, and 1-4. �....-..._f......._----- 1 ; 3.4 -Expand public education and outreach & 4—Organics: Improve education and , - _ outreach programs that promote improved management of organics ` 1 I Education __......_....._............ _...... .... ........ _......_.........__..__....._..__..__..,. ....._..... _........._............._.............._..... _.__...._....._........... _.._....._...__.._......w_._............__............._.__.._....._._._....._......._._..._..�. 2 ; Education ` 2 Expand and improve public education and awareness programs ...........,....................._... ..... __ ..., ........... _ _ ............................... _- ...._......_._.__.._._......_. 3 ` 5.1 Education and marketing plan (rolling 3 year/update routinely to meet needs and program changes) p.........................._*....................__...__..........__._,._..........____.,,.._...._._..................._........_..,.............._..........................._.......___........................_..............._.._....._._............._....._.._...._............_.......»........_._..__................._.....,...............................,.,...... __._........_.... _...._......... 3j....___..Education ............ ............. ...... ............. ._...............................,....................................................................................................................._..__..........,........................................._..................._._...........,.............,..._...........__...._..........__....._ 1 3 3.1 - Organics -improve education and outreach programs that promote improved iI management of organics �._...._._.,.......,. _._.... _......-_.__..__......_.-......._.__ . _._.._.__ ........... ........... ......................_.....,................._........_...._..__..._. 4 ; Education - educate SWFAs to assist customers at R&TS 2. 3. Renegotiate Contract with Waste Management HI This item received priority rankings: 1-1, 1-3, and 1-4 ................ _..._..__..._....._................... __.._.._.._. _........_.... Regularly review and when appropriate, ren Regularly review and when appropriate, ren g Y ego_tiate WHSL contract eEotiate WHSL contract Renegotiate contract with Waste Management Additional HHW Collection Events This item received priority rankings: 3-4s �.................... ............ ............... _._..._..._..___..........._..........._._._.......... ..._...... ............... ............................. ..._............... ..................... .......... ......... ....... ........... _...... .................................................... ._...... ........... 4 Conduct additional HHW collection events (10 to 12 additional per year) ..............._._....._... _ ....._...__... __......._._....._..........__.._...._.._._..__.................. ..........................._._. ...... __ _ ._........................._..... ............ __..._.....-...__._._..... 4 ;Conduct additional HHW collection events (10 to 12 additional per year) 4 E Conduct additional HHW collection events (10 to 12 additional per year) 4.............................lf......._.............. ._...................... ....�. .... ............. _...�.. _.1 4. Change County Code to Allow Small Businesses to Drop Off Recyclables at Recycling and Transfer Stations. This item received priority rankings: 1-1 and 1-5. Also, when this item was discussed at the May 8, 2019 SWAC meeting, all members stated they [also] had misread item 8.5. (Item reads to allow recycling businesses to utilize R &TS) 1 1 Expand commercial recycling - first step: approve small businesses using Transfer Stations (8.5) ............._........_....i.................._................. ................ _..-...._.._.._............_....._.......,................. _._._......_...._......_._......._.............. _....................... ._.............. ........_..................... ............. ......... _..__......_....__-_...._.l !G......5........_._.,f Expand the opportunities for ..comme.... recycling ._ ..... .......... .......... _ ._ ........_.._ ... .. _____.-..____..___...._� Page 1 of 3 ISWIVIP Rankings Summary — Grouped by Rankings 5. Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts, in addition to tonnage -based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals. This item received priority rankings: 1-2 and 1-4 2 Chapter 4 - #5. Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental impacts Qe.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use] and consider full life cycle impacts, as opposed to (replace within addition to) tonnage -based �.... _..._,.....landfill diversion or waste recovery goals. Add Negative Emission Technologies ..__N....._.E.....T_._.S ].._)_• _..............._. .._: E 4 Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts, if as opposed to tonnage -based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals. (Chapter 4) _......_ .. __.._._....._.I 6. Develop County Policy and Ordinances Related to Source Reduction and Recycling These 2 items received priority rankings: 1-1 and 1-3. They were listed here as they are very similar and interrelated. _._..._m... ___...____........ _...... __-...... __...._--m..___.__-.. .......... ___-....._.....__........_.._.....-............ -_.__......_____ m._.....m....___.-_._........_........_............................ _......... ...,........._....................... ....... ................._._...........,.._.--_.._._........ _.__.._._...,.._.. 1 Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to reduce the source of waste currently entering landfills � .... .......... _....__.,.. . ........................................ 3 ' Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to improve Irecycling rates The rest of the SWAC recommendations are listed below, grouped by ranking given by SWAC member. Each of these only had a single (1) vote. Number 1s — i.e. a SWAC member gave this items a #1 in their individual ranking • 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 landfill diversion strategy. (Chapter 4) This would also cover the recommendation n in Chapter 9, Engage in dialog with the State/Counties about joint solutions (e.g., Discuss with City and County of Honolulu, the shipping of market-driven unrecyclable materials to their H -Power WTE plant). (Chapter 9) Number 2s — i.e. SWAC members gave these items a #2 in their individual ranking • 4.4 Organics Collection — management facilities and equipment. Page 2 of 3 ISWMP Rankings Summary — Grouped by Rankings • Thoroughly investigate mandates prior to implementation including assessment of markets (should be well-established), operational viability (solicit input from recycling and transfer station attendants, haulers, landfill operators), and implementation in other jurisdictions with an emphasis on other Hawaii counties. (Chapter 4) • Chapter 3 - #3 - Improve the current Reuse Facility Program. Number 3s — i.e. a SWAC member gave this items a #3 in their individual ranking • Chapter 9 - #2 - C&D sorting and reuse. Number 5s —i.e. SWAC members gave these items a #5 in their individual ranking • 3.2 PAYT — Pay As You Throw • Conduct an operational efficiency analysis to lower costs. (Chapter 8) • Chapter 8 - #3 - "Satellite" compaction units to cut down on full and overflowing roll -off bins. • Chapter 10 - #1 - Prepare a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis Comment from SWAC member — Landfill use by infrequent residential users is currently complicated: permit, waiting period, etc. Need to make process "...easier for people who want to do the right thing" Page 3 of 3 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score Low Medium High Priority Priority Priority Program 0-1.4 1.S-2.4 2.S-3.0 Ch 3 Source Reduction 1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain -- 2.4 actions be taken to reduce the source of waste currently entering landfills, including: • Develop a County ordinance that requires a waste reduction -- 1.8 -- plan be submitted to obtain a commercial or residential building permit. • Work with other counties to develop EPR policy statements -- 2.4 or resolutions. As a component of 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 - 2.2 -- policies, procedures, and incentive programs that will reduce waste streams currently being generated within various County departments and agencies. 2. Investigate a PAYT program or other funding method. -- 2.2 - 3. Improve the current reuse facility program. -- 2.4 -- • Work with contractor to create a list for public distribution, 2.2 which describes what items are preferable donations. • Work with the contractor managing the reuse centers to be 2.2 _ more selective about merchandise, emphasizing items that are lightly used, clean, and in good condition. Improve signage, organization, and display of merchandise. • Provide more covered space at reuse centers. -- j 2.8 • Collaborate with the volunteer -based Laupahoehoe Reuse 1.8 Center to increase participation of volunteers. • Continue public-private partnerships with organizations such ! 2.4 as Goodwill Industries to develop reuse centers at existing outlets within the County. • Consider expanding the program to other recycling and 2.2 ! -- transfer stations or upgrade the Laupahoehoe Reuse Center i 4. Expand and improve public education and awareness programs. _ -- 2.6 • Develop a business waste audit and education program to 2.2 -- foster source reduction within the local business community. 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawa?i Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score Low Medium High Priority Priority Priority Program 0-1.4 1.5-2.4 2.5-3.0 • Develop a visitor industry waste reduction education 2.6 program. • Continue reuse education, outreach, and public awareness 2.8 campaign to encourage public participation and use of the reuse centers. Ch 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets Recycling 1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain _ j 2.6 actions be taken to improve recycling rates. • Thoroughly investigate mandates prior to implementation -- -- 3.0 including assessment of markets (should be well-established), operational viability (solicit input from recycling and transfer station attendants, haulers, landfill operators), and implementation in other jurisdictions with an emphasis on i other Hawaii counties. • Establish a differential tip fee ordinance -- 2.2 -- • Investigate the feasibility of establishing a mandatory 2.2 _ curbside collection program for some single-family residences. • Establish mandatory source separation and recycling 2.4 ordinance, which would require all businesses and j institutions to recycle selected types of materials. This could include implementing landfill bans for select recyclables. • Develop legislation that requires owners and managers of 2.4 multi -family dwellings and multi -tenant commercial buildings to provide recycling • Conduct research and coordinate with legislators and waste 2.4 managers within Maui, Kauai, and Honolulu counties, to j evaluate the potential for combining efforts to develop a statewide landfill diversion strategy. • Lobby the State to change school waste collection contracts 2.6 to mandate that recycling services are included. 2. Complete capital projects to facilitate implementation of expanded 2.6 recycling programs. A common theme expressed during discussions with the SWAC is that the County needs improved facilities to manage recyclables. 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score Low Medium High Priority Priority Priority Program 0-1.4 1.5-2.4 2.5-3.0 • Modify infrastructure at recycling and transfer stations to __ __ 2.8 accommodate recycling processes. • Improve signage at recycling and transfer stations to __ 2.8 provide the public with comprehensive information about recycling opportunities and procedures. 3. Expand the opportunities for commercial recycling. - 2.6 • Allow small businesses to use the recycling and transfer - 2.6 stations to recycle selected materials. • Work with the HDOH Solid Waste Division to modify __ 3.0 recycling and transfer station operating permits to accommodate expanded recycling services. • Expand education and outreach programs for both large 2.8 and small businesses to foster participation in commercial recycling programs. 4. Expand opportunities to recycle in public areas and during public 2.8 events. • Install additional recycling bins in parks and other public 2.6 areas. • Conduct additional recycling events within the community 2.4 each year. S. Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of 2.4 environmental impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts, in addition to tonnage -based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals. 5. Annually or bi-annually assess existing local and regional markets 2.4 for materials across the waste stream; study service voids for missed opportunities to recover commodities. Organics 1. Improve education and outreach programs that promote 2.4 -- improved management of organics. • Ensure that the contractor responsible for administering the 2.8 organics program is meeting contractual requirements. • Expand and further develop a master composter program 1.4 __ -- (low priority). • Develop a training program and guidance materials for __ 2.0 farmers and gardeners. 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score Low Medium High Priority Priority Priority Program 0-1.4 1.5-2.4 2.5-3.0 • Implement a 'Stop Wasting Food' program that would benefit 2.4 programs such as local food banks. • Partner to establish compost demonstration gardens at 2.0 recycling and transfer stations or other visible locations in the community 2. Onsite composting program (subsidized bins and distribution to 2.0 residents and businesses) 3. Landfill organics ban implementation study 1.8 -- 4. Organics management facilities and equipment - 2.7 • Add food waste drop-off bins at recycling and transfer 2.2 -- stations that already collect green waste • Formulate compostable bag ASTM D6400 -compliance 2.0 -- legislation • Add organics/yard waste disposal to existing - 2.8 brochures/signage • Expand the number of drop-off locations for green waste 2.4 and/or food waste at recycling and transfer stations • Continue operation of mulch facilities at WHSL and SHSL - 2.7 • Investigate organics collection programs, including a - 2.6 residential curbside collection program and transfer station drop-off facilities. As part of this investigation, perform pilot food waste demonstration projects with the potential for eventual expansion into full-scale food waste management programs. Ch 5 Education, Outreach, and Public Awareness 1. Implement a 3 -year education and social marketing program to 2.8 educate the public and business community about landfill diversion initiatives and opportunities. 2. Conduct a waste management attitude residential survey. - 2.4 -- 3. Ensure County has staffing levels commensurate with the needs of 2.6 the public outreach program. Ch 6 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) / Electronic Waste (E -Waste) 1. Ensure enough staffing to operate HHW/ a -waste programs 2.8 successfully. 2. Implement HHW/ a -waste education, outreach, and public awareness program. 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaf'f Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score Low Medium High Priority Priority Priority Program 0-1.4 1.5-2.4 2.5-3.0 3. Research and evaluate elements of successful e -waste/ HHW 2.2 programs implemented in other jurisdictions and integrate those successes into the County's program 4. Explore a -waste take -back programs with State and 2.2 manufacturers/sellers • Conduct research to assess what legislation may be -- 2.0 -- required to mandate and manage take -back programs for specific types of e -waste. • Coordinate with other counties and the State to develop 2.2 and implement e -waste EPR take -back programs. • Coordinate with local retailers to facilitate implementation _ 2.4 _ of take -back programs for e -waste. ! • Assess legislative actions that may be necessary to -- 2.4 facilitate a -waste programs including demanufacturing, storage and handling at various types of collection locations, and funding equity. 5. Conduct additional HHW collection events (10 to 12 additional per -- j 2.6 year) 6. j Explore legislative actions for hazardous products and packaging 2.2 take -back programs. j • Conduct research to assess what legislation may be 2.2 required to mandate and manage take -back programs for j specific types of hazardous waste or packaging. • Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to -- 2.2 -- facilitate storage and handling of hazardous products and packaging at various types of collection locations, and funding equity. 7. Explore a public-private partnership for a local e -scrap campaign 2.6 (on -island demanufacturing). Ch77 Special Waste 1. Integrate a Do -It -Yourself Used Motor Oil program within the -- 2.8 County's public education and information program. 2. Increase the number of Recycling and Transfer Stations that _ 2.2 -- accept white goods. 3. Promote tire recycling best management practices within the-- 3.0 County's public education and information program. 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawai'i Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score Low Medium High Priority Priority Priority Program 0-1.4 1.5-2.4 2.5-3.0 4. Ensure that recycling facilities responsible for dismantling of white 2.4 - goods are trained properly for the recovery and recycling of Freon - containing appliances. Ch 8 Collection and Transfer 1. Retain the County's system of recycling and transfer stations, but -- -- 2.8 also explore alternative funding methods via a feasibility study as discussed in Chapter 3 recommendations (Recommendation #2). Until a decision is made on the best method of collection and transfer, the County will continue to maintain and upgrade I Recycling and Transfer Stations to address structural deficiencies and provide expanded services to divert waste from the landfill. 2. Reconstruct one or more recycling and transfer stations annually. 2.0 -- 3. Consider `Satellite' compaction units for recyclables at select 2.6 stations 4. Implement full-time staffing and reduced operating hours at 2.0 -- recycling and transfer stations and consider closing one or more stations. 5. Change County code to allow small businesses to drop off -- 3.0 recyclables at Recycling and Transfer Stations. 6. Conduct an operational efficiency analysis to lower costs. -- , 2.8 Ch 9 Residuals Management 1. Consider recovery and treatment technology (e.g., WTE) if: (1) 1.6 -- other waste diversion approaches (e.g., proposed compost facility in Hilo, shipping of market-driven unrecyclable materials to the 1 City and County of Honolulu) are unsuccessful or infeasible, (2) it can definitively be demonstrated that it is environmentally and economically feasible, and (3) the technology has a verifiable and viable commercial track record (successful operation>5 years) in the handling municipal solid waste. 2. Investigate the feasibility of a landfill with a sorting and reuse area - 2.6 for construction and demolition materials. 3. Update infrastructure at the WHSL and EHRS. 2.4 -- 4. ",' Engage in dialog with the State/Counties about joint solutions -- 2.6 (e.g., Discuss with City and County of Honolulu, the shipping of i1 market-driven unrecyclable materials to their H -Power WTE plant). E Ch 10 Administration and Funding 1. Prepare a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis. -- 2.2 -- 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update County of Hawaii Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score Low Medium High Priority Priority Priority Program 0-1.4 1.5-2.4 2.5-3.0 2. Regularly review and when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL 2.8 contract. Considerations for ranking Diversion Potential — What is the measure's tonnage diversion potential from landfill? Local Authority — How much control must the local government exert over the discard management system (e.g., service providers, infrastructure collection/transfer/disposal, and/or waste generators) in order to accomplish the measure? • Implied — indirectly through culture or practice — less likely to accomplish measure nfluenced — by policy, permit, license or ordinance — moderately likely to accomplish measure • Explicit - directly through contracts or operations — highly likely to accomplish measure Receptivity — What is the relative ease and level of effort to initiate and obtain local buy -in for the measure? For example, does it involve promotional activities, recognition, no requirements on waste generators, minor costs (generally easier), or does it involve setting mandatory requirements, restrictions, or higher costs (generally more difficult)? Environmental outcome — (e.g., ecological toxicity, human heath, greenhouse gas emissions generated by raw materials extraction and product manufacturing) Staff Knowledge — How much staff knowledge or specific expertise is needed to implement the measure? Can it be implemented by mid-level local agency staff without outside legal or contractor assistance? Community Led Initiatives — How easy or hard is it for individuals or groups to initiate adoption or implementation of the measure without actions required by the jurisdiction? Can a local non-profit or group of interested residents carry out the activity (e.g., develop a "how-to guide") or will it require initiation by local jurisdiction staff or elected bodies (e.g., adopt a local ordinance). Appendix C 20 -Year De Facto Population Recycling, Generation, and Disposal Projections 20 -Year De Facto Population Recycling, Generation, and Disposal Projections Year Projected De Facto Population' Average Annual Growth Rate' Disposal Tonnage (tons/ year) 3 Recycling/ Diversion Tons/Year4 Total Generation without Increased (80•6) Diversion/ Recycling Rate Increased Recycling/ Diversion Rate Total Disposal with Increased (8%) Diversion/ Recycling Rate 2016 222,485 1.60% 195,162 57,921 253,100 - 253,100 2017 226,045 224,196 64,309 288,500 - 288,500 2018 229,661 224,796 52,028 276,800 - 276,800 2019 233,336 212,900 55,360 268,300 - 268,300 2020 237,069 1.30°A 216,300 56,240 272,500 8.0°/0 252,300 2021 240,151 219,100 56,980 276,100 8.0% 255,600 2022 243,273 222,000 57,720 279,700 8.0% 259,000 2023 246,436 224,900 58,470 283,400 8.0°.6 262,400 2024 249,640 227,800 59,230 287,000 8.0% 265,700 2025 252,885 1.200A 230,800 60,000 290,800 8.0% 269,300 2026 255,919 233,500 60,720 294,200 8.0% 272,400 2027 258,990 236,300 61,450 297,800 8.0% 275,700 2028 262,098 239,200 62,180 301,400 8.0% 279,100 2029 265,244 242,000 62,930 304,900 8.0% 282,300 2030 268,426 1.10% 244,900 63,680 308,600 8.0°A 285,700 2031 271,379 247,600 64,380 312,000 8.0% 288,900 2032 274,636 250,600 65,160 315,800 8.00.6 292,400 2033 277,931 253,600 65,940 319,500 8.0°.6 295,800 2034 281,267 256,700 66,730 323,400 8.0°.6 299,400 2035 284,642 1.00°.6 259,700 67,530 327,200 8.0% 303,000 2036 287,488 262,300 68,210 330,500 8.0°.6 306,000 2037 290,938 265,500 69,030 334,500 8.0% 309,700 2038 293,847 268,100 69,720 337,800 8.0% 312,800 2039 296,786 270,800 70,410 341,200 8.006 315,900 Notes: - - 2016-2020 no percent increase in diversion and recycling Projected tonnage rounded to nearest 100 tons. 12016 base year de facto population is derived from the State of Hawai'i Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (2016). Table 01.09 De Facto Population, by County: 2000-2016 1 Average annual rate is derived from the Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (2018). Table A-3. Hawaii County Population Projection, Selected Components, 2010-2045. f Disposal tonnage is based on the 2016 disposal tonnage divided by the de facto population for 2016 (6 pounds per person). Recycling/Diversion Tons/Year is based on the median diversion rate for FY 2009-2010 through FY 2016-2017: 29 percent per County of Hawai'iDEM , Solid Waste Division. 26 percent of 6 pounds is 1.7 pounds per day diversion on average. Appendix D 2008 Waste Composition Study Final Waste Composition Study County of Hawal i Prepared by 00 CH2MHILL Ow In Association with Sky Valley Associates September 2008 Contents Section Page 1 Introduction......................................................................................... 1.1 Sources of Disposed Waste.........................................................................................1-1 1.2 Methodolo...................................................1-2 gy.............................................................. 1.2.1 Sampling Procedures...................................................................................1-2 1.2.2 Calculations...................................................................................................1-4 2 Countywide Sampling Results............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Total County, West Hawai'i, and East Hawaii Composition ........................... 2-1 2.2 Comparison of Hawai'i Composition to U.S. Average.......................................2-2 2.3 Transfer Station, Cominercial, and Self -Haul Substreams,.................................2-2 2.4 Explosive and Hard -to -Process Items....................................................................2-3 3 West Hawaii Sampling Results.............................................................................................3-1 4 East Hawai'i Sampling Results...............................................................................................4-1 Attachments A Detailed Sampling Results B Detailed West Hawaii Commercial Substream Results C Waste Component Definitions D Sampling Methodology and Calculations E Field Sampling Fords Exhibits 1-1 Samples per Day by Substream 1-2 Number of Samples, Total and Average Sample Weight 1-3 Flow Diagram of Composition Calculations 2-1 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Total Comity 2-2 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Ha-v%Tai i 2-3 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawai'i 2-4 Top Ten Components: Total Comity 2-5 Top Ten Components: West Hawaii 2-6 Top Ten Components: East Hawai'i 2-7 Composition and Quantities for West Hawaii and East Hawaii Main Categories 2-8 Comparison of Hawaii County Composition to U.S. Average 2-9 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Transfer Stations 2-10 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Commercial 241 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Self -Haul 2-12 Top Ten Components: County Transfer Stations 2-13 Top Ten Components: County Commercial 2-14 Top Ten Components: County Self -Haul APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT-121709.DOC CONTENTS 3-1 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Hawaii Transfer Station 3-2 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Hawai'i Commercial 3-3 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Ha-nTai'i Self -Haul 3-4 Top Ten Components: West Hawaii Transfer Stations 3-5 Top Ten Components: West Hawaii Commercial 3-6 Top Ten Components: West Hawaii Self -Haul 3-7 Composition Estimates: West Hawaii Individual Transfer Stations 4-1 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawaii Transfer Stations 4-2 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawaii Commercial 4-3 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawaii Self -Haul 4-4 Top Teri Components: East Hawaii Transfer Stations 4-5 Top Ten Components: East Hawaii Commercial 4-6 Top Ten Components: East Hawaii Self -Haul A-1 Composition Estimates: Total County A-2 Composition Estimates: West Hawaii A-3 Composition Estimates: East Hawai'i A-4 Composition Estimates: Total County Transfer Stations A-5 Composition Estimates: Total County Commercial A-6 Composition Estimates: Total County Self -Haul A-7 Composition Estimates: West Hawaii Transfer Stations A-8 Composition Estimates: West Hawaii Commercial A-9 Composition Estimates: West Hawaii Self -Haul A-10 Composition Estimates: East Hawai'i Transfer Stations A-11 Composition Estimates: East Hawaii Commercial A-12 Composition Estimates: East Hawai'i Self -Haul B-1 Composition Estimates: West Hawaii Commercial Packer Trucks B-2 Composition Estimates: West Hawai'i Commercial Drop Boxes B-3 Composition Estimates: West Hawaii Commercial Other N APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC SECTION 1 Introduction The County of Hawaii is updating its Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. The plan will examine waste management options in the County. To aid in the evaluation of these options, CH2M HILL conducted this Waste composition study to provide statistically valid data on the types and quantities of waste currently being disposed of at the West Hawaii (Pu'uanahulu) Landfill. The field work for this study was performed by Sky Valley Associates. This report presents the results of the waste composition study, which include composition estimates, both for the overall Taste stream and for the transfer station, commercial, and self -haul wastes disposed at the landfill. The results are based on samples taken during May of 2008. A similar study was performed at the South Hilo Landfill in 20011. We have used the results of that study to represent the composition of waste that enters the East Hawaii landfill. The results are combined to provide waste composition estimates for total County disposal. There are four Major sections of this report. Section 1 briefly summar-izes the project, including a description of the sources of disposed waste and the project methodology. Sections two through four provide sampling results for the overall waste stream; results for the transfer station, commercial, and self -haul substreams; and substream estimates for West Hawaii and East Hawaii. Following the main body of the report are attaclunents that included detailed sampling results (Attachments A and B), descriptions of waste components (Attachment C), descriptions of the sampling methodology and calculations (Attachment D), and field sampling forms (Attachment E). 1.1 Sources of Disposed Waste For analysis and planning purposes, landfill disposal quantities can be divided into substreams. A waste substream is defined according to its source of generation, its means of collection and transport to the disposal facility, or both2. For the purposes of this study, the Taste disposed at the West Hawaii Landfill was divided into the following three substream categories: 1. Transfer Station - This is waste hauled from one of nine transfer stations on the west side of the Island. It is transported to the West Hawaii Landfill in transfer station compactor boxes. Transfer station loads are composed primarily of residential waste. 1 Cascadia Consulting Group, 2001 _ Waste Composition Study, South Hilo Landfill, County of Hawaii - 2 It should be noted that this study estimates the composition of waste disposed, not waste generated_ Waste generation is equal to the sum of both the disposed and recycled amounts_ APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC 1-1 SECTION 'I INTRODUCTION 2. Commercial - This is waste hauled by commercial hauling companies. Commercial haulers use a variety of vehicles to transport this waste to the West HauTai'i Landfill, including packer trucks (garbage trucks), roll -offs (primarily open boxes), and other vehicles (e.g. flatbeds, pickups, etc.). This waste is collected both from residences and businesses. 3. Self -Haul - This is waste that residents, contractors, businesses, and public entities haul directly to the West Hawaii Landfill. These loads are transported either in small vehicles (e.g. autos, pick-ups, etc.) or large vehicles (e.g. dump tricks, flatbeds, etc). As with waste in the commercial substrearn, self -haul waste comes from both residences and businesses. Waste from public agencies (such as the County of Hawaii Parks Department) is also included in this category. The waste stream was broken down hirther in the transfer station and conunercial substreams as follows: During field sampling, samples taken from the transfer station substream were also recorded by station so that information about the waste composition at individual stations could be recorded. Note, however, the relatively few number of samples taken at any llldividtral station make any resulting composition estimates highly uncertain: the results should be viewed accordingly. • Samples from the commercial substream were divided among the three main vehicle types (packers, rolloffs, and other). Each of the three substreanls contributed a portion of the approximately 128,500 total tons of waste disposed at the West Hawai'i Landfill from July 2007 -June 2008 (FY 2008). About 32 percent (or about 41,700 tons) of this waste was hauled from transfer stations. Commercial hatiling companies disposed of nearly 63 percent (81,000 toils), and the remaining 5,900 toils (approximately 5 percent) were transported to the landfill by Self -haulers. 1.2 Methodology This section presents a sununaiy of the sampling and calculation procedures used in this study. The complete sampling methodology including descriptions of the main calculations can be found in Attachment C. The procedures summarized in this section were used during the recent sampling event at the West Hawaii Landfill. Sky Valley Associates conducted both the recent sampling event at the West Hawaii Landfill arid the 2001 sampling event at the South Hilo Landfill; the same procedures were used during both events. 1.2.1 Sampling Procedures A sampling plan was developed to produce statistically valid composition data for the three substreams described above. A total of 100 samples were captured and sorted at the West Hawaii Landfill on May 15, 16, and 19 through 21, 20083. The allocation of these samples among the three substreams was determined according to each substreani s contribution to 3 Because all sampling occurred during May of 2008, these results do not account for any seasonal variation. 1-2 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION the total waste stream, with one exception. There is relatively little mixed Self -haul material delivered to the West Hawaii Landfill (1,200 of 128,000 tons in FY 2008, or less than 1 percent). Therefore, it was decided that overall sampling accuracy would be imlproved by using self -haul sampling results from the 2001 study to represent the composition of nixed self -haul loads in West Hawai i, and assigning samples that would have been obtained from the self -haul stream to the other two substreamis. The composition profile of mixed self -haul loads from the 2001 study was used to estimate the nixed self -haul composition for the West Hawai'i Landfill. In addition to the mixed self -haul loads delivered to the West Hawa1 i Landfill, there were about 4,700 tons of pure loads i.e., loads that could be assigned to a single waste component such as confidential documents or tires (or in the case of construction and demolition debris, assigned to a subset of the waste stream). The 2001 composition profile was applied only to the mixed self -haul loads: the pure loads were added to the mixed load profile resulting m a total self -haul profile. Finally, adjustments were Made so that a sufficient number of samples were taken from each substream and vehicle type to assure that sample data are representative of composition. The commercial substream was oversampled to account for the increased variability typically encountered in that substream. Exhibit 1-1 presents the number of samples taken per day. EXHIBIT 1-1 Samples Der Dav by Substream and Vehicle Type All loads were systematically selected for sanlpling4. From each selected load, a 200- to 300 -pound representative sample was hand -sorted into 58 prescribed component material categories, which were then weighed and recorded. Evidence of explosive or hard -to - process items was noted for each load. A listing and description of the component material categories is included in Attaclunent C. Exhibit 1-2 summarizes the number of samples and the total and average sample weight. 4 Systematic sampling is outlined in more detail in Attachment B_ In short, this procedure assures that the correct number of samples is taken randomly and throughout the day by selecting every "nth" vehicle from each substream (i -e. every 4th commercial packer truck)_ APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 -DOC 1-3 Transfer Station Number of Samples Commercial Commercial Commercial Packer Rolloff Other Total May 15, 2008 6 5 6 3 20 May 16, 2008 6 8 5 1 20 May 19, 2008 6 7 6 1 20 May 20, 2008 6 4 9 1 20 May 21, 2008 6 6 4 4 20 Total 30 30 30 10 100 All loads were systematically selected for sanlpling4. From each selected load, a 200- to 300 -pound representative sample was hand -sorted into 58 prescribed component material categories, which were then weighed and recorded. Evidence of explosive or hard -to - process items was noted for each load. A listing and description of the component material categories is included in Attaclunent C. Exhibit 1-2 summarizes the number of samples and the total and average sample weight. 4 Systematic sampling is outlined in more detail in Attachment B_ In short, this procedure assures that the correct number of samples is taken randomly and throughout the day by selecting every "nth" vehicle from each substream (i -e. every 4th commercial packer truck)_ APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 -DOC 1-3 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION EXHIBIT 1-2 Number of Samples, Total and Average Sample Weight 1.2.2 Calculations A weighted averaging process was used to prepare the waste composition estimates hi which composition percentages from substreams were multiplied by FY 2008 tons from that substream. The result is FY 2008 tons for each waste component in each substream. Exhibit 1-3 presents a flow chart that summarizes the calculation process for the waste composition estimates. For West Hawai'i, composition estimates were calculated for the sample groups, the three substreams, and the overall waste stream using the linked procedure shown. For the transfer station substream, composition percentages were calculated for each of the nine transfer stations. Sample loads that cause from each of the nine stations deternihied these composition percentages. The percentages were weighted according to the tons disposed by each station during FY 2008, and then pooled to produce an overall transfer station compositions. For the commercial haulers, separate composition percentages were calculated for three vehicle types: packer, roll -off, and other vehicles. These percentages were weighted according to the estimated tons disposed by each vehicle type during FY 2008. They were then combined to give composition percentages for the conunercial substream. For waste from East Hawaii delivered to the South Hilo Landfill, the waste quantities by component were determined by multiplying the 2001 waste composition percentages by FY 2008 deliveries from each substream (transfer stations, commercial loads, and self -haul loads. As described above, pure loads delivered to the South Hilo Landfill were assigned to specific waste components. The overall waste stream composition for West Hawaii and East Hawaii was calculated as an aggregate of the sample group compositions, which were weighted according to their toiunage contribution to the overall waste stream. Finally, a similar process is used to combine results from West Hawaii and East Hawaii into a total county waste composition profile. 5 Tonnages from the West Hawaii Landfill and the South Hilo Landfill provided all tonnages used to "weights each sample group for this study_ The weighting process is described in Attachment C_ 1-4 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 -DOC Sample Count Sample Weights (in pounds) Total for All Samples Average Transfer Station 30 6,986 232.9 Commercial Packer 30 6,724 224.1 Commercial Drop Box 30 6,902 230.1 Commercial Other 10 2,376 237.6 Total 100 22,988 231.2 1.2.2 Calculations A weighted averaging process was used to prepare the waste composition estimates hi which composition percentages from substreams were multiplied by FY 2008 tons from that substream. The result is FY 2008 tons for each waste component in each substream. Exhibit 1-3 presents a flow chart that summarizes the calculation process for the waste composition estimates. For West Hawai'i, composition estimates were calculated for the sample groups, the three substreams, and the overall waste stream using the linked procedure shown. For the transfer station substream, composition percentages were calculated for each of the nine transfer stations. Sample loads that cause from each of the nine stations deternihied these composition percentages. The percentages were weighted according to the tons disposed by each station during FY 2008, and then pooled to produce an overall transfer station compositions. For the commercial haulers, separate composition percentages were calculated for three vehicle types: packer, roll -off, and other vehicles. These percentages were weighted according to the estimated tons disposed by each vehicle type during FY 2008. They were then combined to give composition percentages for the conunercial substream. For waste from East Hawaii delivered to the South Hilo Landfill, the waste quantities by component were determined by multiplying the 2001 waste composition percentages by FY 2008 deliveries from each substream (transfer stations, commercial loads, and self -haul loads. As described above, pure loads delivered to the South Hilo Landfill were assigned to specific waste components. The overall waste stream composition for West Hawaii and East Hawaii was calculated as an aggregate of the sample group compositions, which were weighted according to their toiunage contribution to the overall waste stream. Finally, a similar process is used to combine results from West Hawaii and East Hawaii into a total county waste composition profile. 5 Tonnages from the West Hawaii Landfill and the South Hilo Landfill provided all tonnages used to "weights each sample group for this study_ The weighting process is described in Attachment C_ 1-4 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 -DOC SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION EXHIBIT 1-3 Flow Diagram of Composition Calculations Papaikou East Hawaii Totals Honomu Commercial Loads Packer Trucks Commercial Roll -offs Composition Other Vehicles Setf-Hauled Loads Mixed Waste Loads Self -Haul Composition Pure Loads Not sampled because quantities were small_ The 2001 composition was used for these loads. allo waste was sampled from the Laupahoehoe, Miloli'i and Ke ei stations_ Tons from these stations were assigned a waste composition prof0e from one of the other stations_ APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 -DOG 1-5 Substream West and East Hawaii Total County ISample Grou s Com osition Summaries Composition West Hawai i Transfer Station Boxesa Honoka'a Ka' u Kailua Keauhou Transfer Station Kohala Composition Pa'auilo Puako Waiea West Hawaii Totals Waimea Commercial Loads Packer Trucks Commercial Roll -offs Composition Other Vehicles Self -Hauled Loads fix7e7dWaste Loadsb Self -Haul Composition Pure Loads Total County East Hawaii (from 2001 study) Composition Estimates Transfer Station Boxes Hilo Kea'au Pahhoa Kalapana FTr ansfer Station rn r"iPumrt Com aosition Papaikou East Hawaii Totals Honomu Commercial Loads Packer Trucks Commercial Roll -offs Composition Other Vehicles Setf-Hauled Loads Mixed Waste Loads Self -Haul Composition Pure Loads Not sampled because quantities were small_ The 2001 composition was used for these loads. allo waste was sampled from the Laupahoehoe, Miloli'i and Ke ei stations_ Tons from these stations were assigned a waste composition prof0e from one of the other stations_ APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 -DOG 1-5 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION For the West Hawaii substreauis, low and high estil<ilates are shown that represent a 90 percent confidence level, meaning that there is a 90 percent certainty that the actual composition is within the calculated range6. In exhibits and charts throughout this report, the values graphed represent the mean component percentage, not the range. 6 The low and high estimates could not be calculated for any profile that blends information from more than one East Hawaii substream because the relative quantity of waste delivered to each substream has changed since 2001. 1-6 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC SECTION 2 Countywide Sampling Results This section presents a summary of countywide composition results for the total waste stream and the three substreams (transfer stations, commercial, and self -haul), and includes data for both West and East �Hawai'i. Most of this information is presented in one of the following two formats: • A bar chart that depicts the composition by rune main waste categories: paper, glass, metal, plastic, organics, construction and demolition, household hazardous, special, and mixed. • Ari exhibit that lists the ten largest of the 58 waste coils prn'cetffs, by -V%Teight. More comprehensive exhibits that details the full composition results for the 58 component categories are presented in Attachment A (Exhibits A-1 through A-6). 2.1 Total County, West Hawaii, and East Hawaii Composition Exhibits 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 are bar charts that show the overall composition results for the nine main waste categories of waste disposed for the entire Comity, for West Hawaii, and for East Hawaii, respectively. When combined, organics and paper comprise more than half of the waste stream. Construction and demolition waste accounts for another 22% by weight. The construction and demolition category includes such components as clean lumber and gypsum scrap. The organics main waste category contains such components as food, textiles, and pr-tuungs. The composition of waste disposed in West Hawaii is similar to the composition of disposed waste in East Hawafi-Twodifferences that mei it mention include: there are more organics disposed of in West Hawaii (35.3%) than in East Havvai'i (29.6%); and more special waste disposed of in East Hawaii (5.2%) than in West Hawaii (1.9%). The types of special wastes disposed most often in East Hawaii include industrial sludge, bulky items, and tires (see Exhibit A-3 in Attaclunent A). Exhibits 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 show the ten largest waste components for the entire County, for West Hawaii, and for East Hawai=i. In all three areas, the largest three components by weight are food, clean and treated himber7, and cardboard, which combined make up approximately a third of the total waste stream. Notable differences between West Hawaii and East Hawaii include: 0 One component in each area appears on the list in one area but not in the other: R/C metal8 is in the top ten for West Hawaii, and film plastic in East Hawaii. 7 Most of the disposed lumber in the waste stream is treated, and is not appropriate for composting - 8 The RIC components include waste that is made mostly of one component but contains significant amounts of other components, or waste that is part of a broad waste category but cannot be put into any of its component categories_ Examples of RIC organic waste includes carpet and disposable diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated milk cartons belong to R/C paper_ APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 12i709.DOC 2-1 SECTION 2 COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS • Clean and treated lumber accoiults for 8.8% by weight in West Hawaii versus 14.3% in East Hawaii. • Food accotuits for 17.7% by weight in West Hawaii versus 12.8% iii East Hawal i. Exhibit 2-7 shows a siunuiary comparison of composition and quantities for the Bine mann waste categories for West Hau7a1 i and East Hawai'i. 2.2 Comparison of Hawaii County Composition to U.S. Average Exhibit 2-8 provides an aggregated comparison of the Hawaii County disposed waste stream with the U.S. average, as compiled by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).. The data are shown in aggregated form because the EPA data is grouped somewhat differently and excludes construction and demolition debris. As shown, Hawaii County's disposed waste stream includes somewhat more paper, metal, and organics and somewhat less plastic and glass than U.S. averages. 2.3 Transfer Station, Commercial, and Self -Haul Substrearns Exhibits 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11 are bar charts that show the overall composition results of waste disposed countywide in the maxi waste categories for the transfer station, commercial, and self -haul substreams. The composition by category for transfer station and commercial substreams are similar with organics, paper, and construction and demolition waste accounting for 70-80% of the waste disposed. Construction and demolition waste is more pronounced in the commercial substream (24.0% vs. 14.4%) and organics is more pronounced in the transfer station substream (37.6% vs. 31.5%). In comparison, the self -haul substream is quite high in construction and demolition waste (45.6%) and special waste (21.6%). As shown in Attachment A (Exhibit A-6), most of the self -haul special waste consists of industrial sludge. Exhibits 2-12, 2-13, and 2-14 show the ten largest waste components for the transfer station, commercial, and self -haul substreams. The top ten components Make up 69%, 76%, and 87% of the transfer station, conuuercial, and self -haul substreams, respectively. Food, clean and treated lumber, and cardboard are each in the top 5 components in the transfer station and commercial substreams. The largest self -haul substream components include clean and treated lumber (20.5%), industrial sludge (15.1%), and green waste (11.4%). It is important to note that mwiy of the top ten components are good candidates for re -use or are potentially recyclable. For example, the estimates indicate that there is over 15,800 tons of cardboard disposed by the transfer station and commercial substreams: cardboard represents 5.9% of the transfer station substream, and 10.0% of the commercial substream. 2-2 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 -DOG SECTION 4 EAST HAWAII SAMPLING RESULTS EXHIBIT 41 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawaii Transfer Stations 50.0% 40.0% C as 30.0% a E 20.0% N 10.0% 0.0% 22.6% 34.3% 10 50'0 92 I 12.4%% �. ..0 7u 0.5°,% 1.8% F Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed EXHIBIT 42 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawaii Commercial 50.0% c 40.0% 30.0% d a E 20.0°ro ca 10.0% 0.0% L! .V i V 23.5% 01°-0 1.6% 0.9°o Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed EXHIBIT 43 rmmnncifinn Fcfimnfac by Wacfa (afannni• Facf N21A/al'i Calf_I-laid 42 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709DOC SECTION 4 East Hawaii Sampling Results This section presents summary composition results for the East Hawai'i transfer station, commercial, and self -haul substreams. More comprehensive exhibits that detail the full composition results for the 58 component categories are presented in Attachment A (Exhibits A-10, A-11, and A-12). As noted in Section 1, the composition percentages for the East Hawaii substreans were taken from the results of the 2001 study. The tons for waste components were calculated by multiplying FY 2008 tons for each substream by the 2001 study's composition percentages. Exhibits 4-1, 4-1, and 4-3 show the overall composition results of waste disposed of in East Hawaii via the three main substreams. Organics, paper, and construction and demolition debris account for 69%, 77% and 83% of the transfer station, commercial, and self -haul substreants, respectively. Other waste types that comprise large percentages of individual substreams include metal and plastic in the transfer station substream (10.5% and 9.2%, respectively), plastic ul the commercial substream (10.0%), and special waste (14.6%) in the self -haul substream. Exhibits 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 show the ten largest waste components in East Hawai' i for the three main substreams. Tluee of the top five components are the same for the transfer station and commercial substreams (food, cardboard, and R/ C paper). Cardboard comprises 6.8% of the transfer stations substream and 10.5% of the commercial substream. Several waste components appear in the top 10 of only one substream, including green waste, bulky items, and R/ C plastic, which are in the top 10 in the transfer station substream, and film plastic, durable plastic, and newspaper which are in the top 10 in the commercial substream. The self -haul substream composition differs from the transfer station and commercial substreams. nie top three self -haul substream components are clean and treated lumber, green waste, and industrial sludge. The only top 10 self -haul components that are also in the top 10 in one or both of the other substreams include green waste, R/ C organic, R/ C paper, and clean and treated lumber. APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709 DOC 4-1 m o� o% 46, cS% c5% oS" o" o� o" E c k T h h O O O O T co o o 0 0 0 m T 0p Op O O O (V T to T G O O M N N T T IT N O T7 T M $C O N (V c0 O cD T 0 0 0 a 0 T M Cn T T T (M T 6 i.� O O O m T N N r- N T a m` o"v r o ti L6 0 0 0 Y c O T mCi � : QC (V T T T Y vCV O 4-1 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 G N v T Ln T o 0 0 mti O c N T M T.- 0 O p o 4- •� �n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v. M v ri v cG 0 0 0 0 0 YM N T- r- c ca F- C, p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M VO T O T O M T O6 0 O cM N N T T M N O m c v 3 � � m c c q(!)1 ~ 8 ti c 15 v L ca ca. �� 0 i X (s d w a wI cn SECTION 3 - WEST HAWAII SAMPLING RESULTS EXHIBIT 3-4 Top Ten Components: West Hawaii Transfer Stations Cumulative Percent Cumulative Percent of Tons Disposed Tons Disposed Percent of Total Total Green Waste 6.007 14.4% 14.4% Food 5.311 12.7% 27.2% R/C Organic 3.721 8.9% 36.1% Clean and Treated Lumber 3,334 8.0% 44.1% R/C Demolition 2.859 6.9% 51.0% Miscellaneous Paper 2.333 5.6% 56.6% R/C Metal 2.230 5.4% 61.9% Cardboard 2.125 5.1% 67.0% Ferrous Metal 1.911 4.6% 71.6% Textiles 1,903 4.6% 76.2% EXHIBIT 3-5 Top Ten Components: West Hawaii Commercial Cumulative Percent Tons Disposed Percent of Total of Total Food 17,280 21.3% 21.3% Cardboard 7,945 9.8% 31.1% Clean and Treated Lumber 7,586 9.4% 40.5% R/C Demolition 6,835 8.4% 49.0% R/C Paper 4,936 6.1% 55.1% R/C Organic 4,468 5.5% 60.6% Miscellaneous 3,885 4.8% 65.4% Concrete 3,693 4.6% 69.9% Green Waste 3.467 4.3% 74.2% Film Plastic 2,774 3.4% 77.6% EXHIBIT 3-6 Top Ten Components: West Hawai' i Self -Haul Cumulative Percent Tons Disposed Percent of Total of Total Industrial Sludge 1.585 26.8% 26.8% Clean and Treated Lumber 921 14.5% 41.3% Rocks and Soil 792 13.4% 54.7% Green Waste 737 12.5% 67.2% R/C Demolition 478 8.1% 75.3% R/C Organic 384 6.5% 81.8% R/C Special Waste 299 5.1% 86.9% Food 212 3.6% 90.5% Cardboard 141 2.4% 92.8% Tires 116 2.0% 94.8% Note The abbreviation "R/C" stands for Remainder,'Composite. The RC components include waste that is made mostly of one component but contains significant amounts of other components, or waste that is part of a broad waste category but cannot be put into any of its component categories. Examples of R/C organic waste includes carpet and disposable diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated milk cartons belong to R/C paper Green waste includes leaves and grass, prunmgs, and stumps. APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709 DOC 3-3 SECTION 3 WEST HAWAf l SAMPLING RESULTS EXHIBIT 3-1 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Hawaii Transfer Station 50.0% 40.0% c es as d 30.0% a E 20.0% N 10.0% 0.0% Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D EXHIBIT 3-2 (`.mmrncifinn 1:cfim2fcc by Wacfo (:afcnnrv- Wccf Wnuuai'i (nmmcarrial HHW Special r,,; x ed EXHIBIT 3-3 t^.mmrsncifinn Fcfimafcc by Wacfe (.2fennrv- Weef W2uuai'i Qolf_Wmd :I-1 APPX 8 WAS I E GOMPOSI I ION REPOR 1111 /U9.U()L: SECTION 3 West Hawaii Sampling Results This section presents summary composition results for the West Hawai i transfer station, commercial, and Self -haul substreams. The information is presented using the same formats used in Section 2. More comprehensive exhibits that detail the full composition results for the 58 component categories are presented in Attachment A (Exl-dbits A-7, A-8, and A-9). Exhibits 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 shove the overall composition results for waste disposed of in West Hawai'i via the three substreams. Organics, paper, and construction and demolition debris account for 77% and 83% of the transfer station and commercial substreams, respectively. More than 90% of the Self -haul substream consists of three waste categories: special waste (mainly industrial sludge), construction and demolition debris, and organics. Exhibits 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 show the ten largest waste components in West Hawai' i for the three main substreams. Cardboard is a significant component in all three substreams: 5.1 % for transfer stations, 9.8% for commercial, and 2.4% for self -haul. Other components that appear in all three substreams include food, green waste, clean and treated lumber, and R/ C organic. Green waste (14.4%) is the largest component of the West Hawaii transfer station substream, and food (21.3%) is the largest component of the West Hawaii commercial substream. Food, clean and treated lumber and R/ C demolition are in the top 5 of both the transfer station and commercial substreams. Some components that appear in the top 10 of only one of the transfer station or commercial substreams include R/C metal, ferrous metal, and textiles, which are in the top 10 in the transfer station substream, and R/ C paper, concrete, and film plastic which are in the top 10 in the commercial substream. The Self -hath substream composition differs from the transfer station and commercial substreams. The top three components of the self -haul substream are industrial sludge, clean and treated lumber, and rocks and soil. Exhibit 3-7 shows FY 2008 tons, the number of samples taken, and composition results by category for West Hawai' i transfer stations. As discussed in Section 1, the small ll -Limber of samples taken from individual stations means that there is considerable uncertainty associated with these estimates. APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 -DOG 3-1 SECTION 2 COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS EXHIBIT 2-12 Top Ten Components: County Transfer Stations EXHIBIT 2-13 Cumulative Percent Top Ten Components: County Commercial Tons Disposed Percent of Total of Total Food 10,944 13.5% 13.5% Green Waste 9,839 12.1% 25.6% R/C Organic 6,711 8.3% 33.8% Clean and Treated Lumber 5,570 6.9% 40.7% Cardboard 4,822 5.9% 46.6% R/C Demolition 4,014 4.9% 51.6% Miscellaneous Paper 3,834 4.7% 56.3% R/C Paper 3,730 4.6% 60.9% Ferrous Metal 3,574 4.4% 65.3% R/C Metal 3,102 3.8% 69.1% EXHIBIT 2-13 Cumulative Percent Top Ten Components: County Commercial Tons Disposed Percent of Total of Total Clean and Treated Lumber 3,839 Cumulative Percent 20.5% Tons Disposed Percent of Total of Total Food 22,760 20.7% 20.7% Clean and Treated Lumber 13,576 12.3% 33.0% Cardboard 11,011 10.0% 43.0% R/C Demo 7,422 6.7% 49.7% R/C Paper 6,826 6.2% 55.9% R/C Organic 5,586 5.1% 61.0% Miscellaneous 4,764 4.3% 65.3% Green Waste 3,886 3.5% 68.9% Film 3,845 3.5% 72.4% Concrete 3,696 3.4% 75.7% EXHIBIT 2-14 Top Ten Components: County Self -Haul Notes: The abbreviation "R/C" stands for Remainder/Composite. The R/C components include waste that is made mostly of one component but contains significant amounts of other components, or waste that is part of a broad waste category but cannot be put into any of its component categories_ Examples of R/C organic waste includes carpet and disposable diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated milk cartons belong to R/C paper_ Green waste includes leaves and grass, prunings, and stumps. 2$ APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC Cumulative Percent Tons Disposed Percent of Total of Total Clean and Treated Lumber 3,839 20.5% 20.5% Industrial Sludge 2,826 15.1% 35.6% Green Waste 2,129 11.4% 47.0% R/C Organic 1,578 8.4% 55.5% R/C Demolition 1,383 7.4% 62.9% Concrete 923 4.9% 67.8% Rocks and Soil 921 4.9% 72.7% Asphalt Paving 897 4.8% 77.5% R/C Paper 888 4.7% 82.3% Treated Lumber 878 4.7% 87.0% Notes: The abbreviation "R/C" stands for Remainder/Composite. The R/C components include waste that is made mostly of one component but contains significant amounts of other components, or waste that is part of a broad waste category but cannot be put into any of its component categories_ Examples of R/C organic waste includes carpet and disposable diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated milk cartons belong to R/C paper_ Green waste includes leaves and grass, prunings, and stumps. 2$ APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC SECTION 2 - COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS EXHIBIT 2-9 !'�w..�.ww..:♦:ww Cni:..�.w�wn k- M-4- Pftiwnwnr Tr�nefnr C`1��innc : Commercial 50.0% 40.0% 31.5%, 30.0% —25.9°' --- - - 24.0% 20.0% -- - -- ----- 10.0%0 8.9% _ - -- 2.0%0.0% � ----r -F] -T- o 0 0.2 /0 0./0 7 0.2% Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed EXHIBIT 2-11 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Self -Haul APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 DOC o� 21.6% 0 0 2-1% 0 6o:a 0.1% 0-0% 50.0% c o 40.0% 30.0% '0 a E 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%0 0-1/o Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed 2-7 tJx1111311 L -1U Composition Estimates by Waste Category SECTION 2 COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS EXHIBIT 2-7 Composition and Quantities for West Hawaii and East Hawaii Main Categories Percent of Total FY 07-08 Tons West East West East Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawai'i Paper 22.6% 22.2% 29,031 18,099 Glass 1.7% 2.9% 2,234 2,359 Metal 7.7% 8.0% 9,861 6,526 Plastic 8.5% 8.1% 10,895 6,588 Organics 35.3% 29.6% 45,346 24,102 Construction and Demolition 22.1% 22.5% 28,405 18,298 Household Hazardous 0.2% 0.3% 267 260 Special 1.9% 5.2% 2,504 4,259 Mixed Residue 0.0% 1.2% 1 996 100.0% 100.0% 128,543 81,487 EXHIBIT 2-8 Comparison of Hawaii Countv Composition to U.S. Averaae 'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: facts and Figures for 2006. Accessed at httr)://www.er)a.aov/ei)aoswer/non- hw/muncpl/pubs/06data.pdf Note: Excludes construction and demolition debris. 2-6 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC Hawaii United Difference Material Category County States' HI -US Paper 28.9% 26.3% 2.6% Glass 2.8% 6.6% -3.8% Metal 10.0% 7.8% 2.2% Plastic 10.7% 17.5% -6.8% Organics 42.5% 37.3% 5.2% Other 5.1% 4.5% 0.5% 'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: facts and Figures for 2006. Accessed at httr)://www.er)a.aov/ei)aoswer/non- hw/muncpl/pubs/06data.pdf Note: Excludes construction and demolition debris. 2-6 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC SECTION 2 - COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS EXHIBIT 2-4 Top Ten Components: Total County EXHIBIT 2-5 Top Ten Components: West Hawaii Tons Disposed Percent of Total Cumulative Percent of Total Food 34,230 16.3% 16.3% Clean and Treated Lumber 22,984 10.9% 27.2% Cardboard 16,182 7.7% 34.9% Green v,,aste 15,858 7.6% 42.5% R/C Organic 13,875 6.6% 49.1% R/C Demolition 12,819 6.1% 55.2% R/C Paper 11,443 5.4% 60.7% Miscellaneous Paper 8,634 4.1% 64.8% Ferrous Metal 7.441 3.5% 68.3% Film Plastic 6.170 2.9% 65.4% EXHIBIT 2-5 Top Ten Components: West Hawaii EXHIBIT 2-6 Top Ten Components: East Hawaii Tons Disposed Percent of Total Cumulative Percent of Total Food 22,804 17.7% 17.7% Clean and Treated Lumber 11,363 8.8% 26.6% Cardboard 10.211 7.9% 34.5% Green Waste 10,211 7.9% 42.5% R/C Demolition 10,172 7.9% 50.4% R/C Organic 8,573 6.7% 57.1% R/C Paper 6,400 5.0% 62.0% Miscellaneous Paper 6,233 4.8% 66.9% Ferrous Metal 4,417 3.4% 70.3% R/C Metal 4,169 3.2% 69.0% EXHIBIT 2-6 Top Ten Components: East Hawaii Note The abbreviation "R/C" stands for Remainder/Composite. The R/C components include waste that is made mostly of one component but contains significant amounts of other components, or waste that is part of a broad waste category but cannot be put into any of its component categories Examples of R/C organic waste includes carpet and disposable diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated milk cartons belong to R!C paper. Green waste includes leaves and grass, prunings, and stumps. APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709 DOC 2-5 Tons Disposed Percent of Total Cumulative Percent of Total Clean and Treated Lumber 11,621 14.3% 14.3% Food 11.426 12.8% 12.8% Cardboard 5,970 6.8% 33.8% Green Waste 5,644 6.9% 40.8% R/C Organic 5,302 6.0% 46.7% R/C Paper 5,043 4.6% 51.4% Ferrous Metal 3,025 3.3% 54.7% R/C Demolition 2,647 3.2% 57.9% Miscellaneous Paper 2,401 2.5% 60.5% Film Plastic 2,157 2.3% 62.7% Note The abbreviation "R/C" stands for Remainder/Composite. The R/C components include waste that is made mostly of one component but contains significant amounts of other components, or waste that is part of a broad waste category but cannot be put into any of its component categories Examples of R/C organic waste includes carpet and disposable diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated milk cartons belong to R!C paper. Green waste includes leaves and grass, prunings, and stumps. APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709 DOC 2-5 SECTION 2 COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS EXHIBIT 2-1 i��rh r��e. i♦inn Ce1ir„.�4e�+ i�� lAl��+1s i��4nnnni• Tn�71 i�n��ni�r EXHIBIT 2-2 (.mmnncifinn Fcfimafcc by Wacfc (afannnr Wacf Wauiai'i EXHIBIT 2-3 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawaii 50.0% c 40.0% 2 30.0% as a E 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed 2-4 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC 29-6% 222°0 22.5% - 0-340F-11-2°0 8.0% 8.19'o 2 qo:o Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed 2-4 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC SECTION 2 - COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS 2.4 Explosive and Hard -to -Process Items During the process of capturing and sorting samples, the field supervisor noted loads that contained hard -to -process or potentially explosive items. Hard -to -process items include anything that Would be difficult or impossible to manually sort, automatically process, or transfer by conveyor belt due to Weight or size constraints. Examples of these items are appliances, mattresses, and carpet. Of the 100 loads sampled, 9 contained hard -to -process items: three With mattresses, three With bulky hu-nittue, and one each with large-sized demolition materials, large crates, and large plastic pipe. Five of the hard -to -process items came from the transfer station substream and four came from the commercial substream. No potentially explosive items Were identified during the 2008 and 2001 sampling events. APPX 8 WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -1 21709DOC 2-3 SECTION 4 - EAST HAWAI' I SAMPLING RESULTS EXHIBIT 4-4 Top Ten Components: East Hawaii Transfer Stations Cumulative Tons Disposed Percent of Total Percent of Total Food 5,633 14.2% 14.2% Green Waste 3,832 9.7% 23.9% R/C Organic 2,990 7.6% 31.5% Cardboard 2,696 6.8% 38.3% R/C Paper 2,303 5.8% 44.1% Clean and Treated Lumber 2,235 5.6% 49.8% Ferrous Metal 1,663 4.2% 54.0% Bulky Items 1,642 4.1% 58.1% Miscellaneous Paper 1,501 3.8% 61.9% R/C Plastic 1,291 3.3% 65.2% EXHIBIT 4-5 Top Ten Components: East Hawaii Commercial Cumulative Tons Disposed Percent of Total Percent of Total Clean and Treated Lumber 5,990 20.6% 20.6% Food 5,479 18.8% 39.4% Cardboard 3,066 10.5% 49.9% R/C Paper 1,889 6.5% 56.4% Ferrous Metal 1,207 4.1% 60.5% R/C Organic 1,118 3.8% 64.4% Film Plastic 1,072 3.7% 68.1% Miscellaneous Paper 879 3.0% 71.1% Durable Plastic 815 2.8% 73.9% Newspaper 734 2.5% 76.4% EXHIBIT 4-6 Top Ten Components: East Hawaii Self -Haul Cumulative Tons Disposed Percent of Total Percent of Total Clean and Treated Lumber 1,194 18.8% 18.8% Green Waste 1,392 10.9% 29.7% Industrial Sludge 1,241 9.7% 39.4% R/C Organic 1,194 9.3% 48.7% R/C Demolition 905 7.1% 55.8% R/C Paper 850 6.6% 62.4% Concrete 816 6.4% 68.8% Asphalt Paving 793 6.2% 75.0% Tires 514 4.0% 79.0% Gypsum Board 509 4.0% 83.0% Note: The abbreviation "R/C" stands for Remainder/Composite- The R/C components include waste that is made mostly of one component but contains significant amounts of other components, or waste that is part of a broad waste category but cannot be put into any of its component categories. Examples of R/C organic waste includes carpet and disposable diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated milk cartons belong to RIC paper_ Green waste includes leaves and grass, prunings, and stumps_ APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709.130C 43 ATTACHMENT A DETAILED SAMPLING RESULTS EXHBIT A-1 Composition Estimates: Total County APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC A-1 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% RIC 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 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC A-1 ATTACHMENT EAST HAWAII SAMPLING RESULTS EXHBIT A-2 Composition Estimates: Total West Hawaii Tons Percent of Tons Disposed Total Dispos Paper Cardboard Bags Newspaper White Ledger Colored Ledger Computer Office Magazines Directories Miscellaneous R/C Paper Glass Clear Containers Green Containers Brown Containers Other Containers Flat Glass R/C Glass Metal Aluminum Cans Tin Cans Ferrous Nonferrous White Goods R/C Metal Plastic #1 Containers #2 Containers Other Containers Film Durable R/C Plastic Organics Food Textiles Leaves and Grass Prunings Stumps Crop Residue Manure R/C Organic 29,031 10,211 360 2,313 726 190 62 1,090 1,410 36 6,233 6,400 2,234 590 615 401 294 98 236 9,861 224 800 4,417 250 1 4,169 10,895 580 483 566 4,013 2,632 2,621 45,346 22,804 3,755 4,833 4,085 1,293 3 0 8,573 22.6% 7.9% 0.3% 1.8% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% 1.1% 0.0% 4.8% 5.0% 1.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 7.7% 0.2% 0.6% 3.4% 0.2% 0.0% 3.2% 8.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 3.1% 2.0% 2.0% 35.3% 17.7% 2.9% 3.8% 3.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% Constructi )n and Demolition Concrete Asphalt Paving Asphalt Roofing Clean and Treated Lumber Gypsum Board Rocks and Soil R/C Demo Household ',Hazardous Paint Vehicle Fluids Oil Batteries; R/C Hazardous Special Ash Sewage Sludge Industrial Sludge Treated Medical Bulky Items Tires R/C Special Mixed Mixed Residue i Total Tons 128,543 Sample Count 100 28,405 3,800 616 165 11,363 829 1,460 10,172 267 117 2 54 29 65 2,504 93 0 1,585 20 392 116 299 1 1 Percent of Total 22.1% 3.0% 0.5% 0.1% 8.8% 0.6% 1.1% 7.9% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.9% 0.1% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% A-2 i APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC ATTACHMENT A DETAILED SAMPLING RESULTS EXHBIT A-3 Composition Estimates: Total East Hawai' i Total Tons 81,487 Sample Count (2001 study) 100 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709.130C A-3 Tons Percent Tons Percent Disposed of Total Disposed of Total Paper 18,099 22.2% Construction and Demolition 18,298 22.5% Cardboard 5,970 7.3% Concrete 1,328 1.6% Bags 362 0.4% Asphalt Paving 1,597 2.0% Newspaper 1,880 2.3% Asphalt Roofing 216 0.3% White Ledger 814 1.0% Clean and Treated Lumber 11,621 14.3% Colored Ledger 90 0.1% Gypsum Board 642 0.8% Computer 31 0.0% Rocks and Soil 247 0.3% Office 420 0.5% R/C Demo 2,647 3.2% Magazines 1,014 1.2% Household Hazardous 260 0.3% Directories 74 0.1% Paint 53 0.1% Miscellaneous 2,401 2.9% Vehicle Fluids 18 0.0% R/C Paper 5,043 6.2% Oil 0 0.0% Glass 2,359 2.9% Batteries 89 0.1% Clear Containers 886 1.1% R/C Hazardous 100 0.1% Green Containers 682 0.8% Special 4,259 5.2% Brown Containers 623 0.8% Ash 0 0.0% Other Containers 13 0.0% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% Flat Glass 62 0.1% Industrial Sludge 1,241 1.5% R/C Glass 92 0.1% Treated Medical 119 0.1% Metal 6,526 8.0% Bulky Items 1,785 2.2% Aluminum Cans 341 0.4% Tires 1,008 1.2% Tin Cans 725 0.9% R/C Special 105 0.1% Ferrous 3,025 3.7% Mixed 996 1.2% Nonferrous 254 0.3% Mixed Residue 996 1.2% White Goods 741 0.9% R/C Metal 1,442 1.8% Plastic 6,588 8.1% #1 Containers 487 0.6% #2 Containers 399 0.5% Other Containers 252 0.3% Film 2,157 2.6% Durable 1,370 1.7% R/C Plastic 1,923 2.4% Organics 24,102 29.6% Food 11,426 14.0% Textiles 1,730 2.1% Leaves and Grass 1,327 1.6% Prunings 2,972 3.6% Stumps 1,344 1.6% Crop Residue 0 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% R/C Organic 5,302 6.5% Total Tons 81,487 Sample Count (2001 study) 100 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709.130C A-3 ATTACHMENT A EAST HAWAI' I SAMPLING RESULTS EXHBIT A-4 Composition Estimates: Total County Transfer Stations Total Tons 81,230 Sample Count 70 A-4 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709 -DOG Tons Percent of Tons Percent of Disposed Total Disposed Total Paper 17,309 21.3% Construction and Demolition 11,699 14.4% Cardboard 4,822 5.9% Concrete 509 0.6% Bags 232 0.3% Asphalt Paving 803 1.0% Newspaper 2,109 2.6% Asphalt Roofing 102 0.1% White Ledger 503 0.6% Clean and Treated Lumber 5,570 6.9% Colored Ledger 69 0.1% Gypsum Board 249 0.3% Computer 24 0.0% Rocks and Soil 452 0.6% Office 826 1.0% R/C Demo 4,014 4.9% Magazines 1,136 1.4% Household Hazardous 258 0.3% Directories 26 0.0% Paint 46 0.1% Miscellaneous 3,834 4.7% Vehicle Fluids 16 0.0% R/C Paper 3,730 4.6% Oil 19 0.0% Glass 2,407 3.0% Batteries 84 0.1% Clear Containers 830 1.0% R/C Hazardous 94 0.1% Green Containers 666 0.8% Special 1,981 2.4% Brown Containers 563 0.7% Ash 0 0.0% Other Containers 155 0.2% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% Flat Glass 43 0.1% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% R/C Glass 150 0.2% Treated Medical 0 0.0% Metal 8,802 10.8% Bulky Items 1,699 2.1% Aluminum Cans 277 0.3% Tires 221 0.3% Tin Cans 790 1.0% R/C Special 60 0.1% Ferrous 3,574 4.4% Mixed 732 0.9% Nonferrous 320 0.4% Mixed Residue 732 0.9% White Goods 739 0.9% R/C Metal 3,102 3.8% Plastic 7,530 9.3% #1 Containers 481 0.6% #2 Containers 472 0.6% Other Containers 368 0.5% Film 2,301 2.8% Durable 1,752 2.2% R/C Plastic 2,156 2.7% Organics 30,511 37.6% Food 10,944 13.5% Textiles 3,017 3.7% Leaves and Grass 5,133 6.3% Prunings 4,243 5.2% Stumps 462 0.6% Crop Residue 0 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% R/C Organic 6,711 8.3% Total Tons 81,230 Sample Count 70 A-4 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709 -DOG ATTACHMENT A DETAILED SAMPLING RESULTS EXHBIT A-5 Composition Estimates: Total County Commercial APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC A-5 Tons Percent of Tons Percent of Disposed Total Disposed Total Paper 28,471 25.9% Construction and Demolition 26,466 24.0% Cardboard 11,011 10.0% Concrete 3,696 3.4% Bags 484 0.4% Asphalt Paving 512 0.5% Newspaper 2,019 1.8% Asphalt Roofing 279 0.3% White Ledger 1,034 0.9% Clean and Treated Lumber 13,576 12.3% Colored Ledger 210 0.2% Gypsum Board 646 0.6% Computer 69 0.1% Rocks and Soil 335 0.3% Office 684 0.6% R/C Demo 7,422 6.7% Magazines 1,286 1.2% Household Hazardous 253 0.2% Directories 84 0.1% Paint 117 0.1% Miscellaneous 4,764 4.3% Vehicle Fluids 0 0.0% R/C Paper 6,826 6.2% Oil 33 0.0% Glass 2,173 2.0% Batteries 32 0.0% Clear Containers 642 0.6% R/C Hazardous 71 0.1% Green Containers 630 0.6% Special 738 0.7% Brown Containers 459 0.4% Ash 0 0.0% Other Containers 152 0.1% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% Flat Glass 117 0.1% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% R/C Glass 173 0.2% Treated Medical 91 0.1% Metal 7,202 6.5% Bulky Items 330 0.3% Aluminum Cans 283 0.3% Tires 273 0.2% Tin Cans 735 0.7% R/C Special 45 0.0% Ferrous 3,654 3.3% Mixed 262 0.2% Nonferrous 181 0.2% Mixed Residue 262 0.2% White Goods 0 0.0% R/C Metal 2,348 2.1% Plastic 9,844 8.9% #1 Containers 583 0.5% #2 Containers 407 0.4% Other Containers 447 0.4% Film 3,845 3.5% Durable 2,242 2.0% R/C Plastic 2,319 2.1% Organics 34,691 31.5% Food 22,760 20.7% Textiles 2,460 2.2% Leaves and Grass 985 0.9% Prunings 2,790 2.5% Stumps 112 0.1% Crop Residue 0 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% R/C Organic 5,586 5.1% Total Tons 110,101 Sample Count 66 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC A-5 ATTACHMENT A EAST HAWAF I SAMPLING RESULTS EXHBIT A-6 Composition Estimates: Total County Self -Haul A-6 I APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709DOC Tons Disposed Percent of Total I Tons Disposed Percent of Total Paper 1,350 72% Construction and Demolition 8,537 45.7% Cardboard 349 1.9% Concrete 923 4.9% Bags 6 0.0% Asphalt' Paving 897 4.8% Newspaper 65 0.3% Asphalt Roofing 0 0.0% White Ledger 2 0.0% Clean and Treated Lumber 3,839 20.5% Colored Ledger 0 0.0% Gypsum Board 575 3.1% Computer 0 0.0% Rocks and Soil 921 4.9% Office 1 0.0% R/C Demo 1,383 7.4% Magazines 2 0.0% Household Hazardous 15 0.1% Directories 0 0.0% Paint 7 0.0% Miscellaneous 36 0.2% Vehicle Fluids 4 0.0% R/C Paper 888 4.7% Oil 2 0.0% Glass 13 0.1% Batteries 1 0.0% Clear Containers 5 0.0% R/C Hazardous 0 0.0% Green Containers 1 0.0% Special 4,043 21.6% Brown Containers 2 0.0% Ash 93 0.5% Other Containers 0 0.0% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% Flat Glass 0 0.0% Industrial Sludge 2,826 15.1% R/C Glass 5 0.0% Treated Medical 48 0.3% Metal 384 2.1% Bulky items 148 0.8% Aluminum Cans 5 0.0% Tires ' 630 3.4% Tin Cans 0 0.0% R/C Special 299 1.6% Ferrous 213 1.1% Mixed 1 3 0.0% Nonferrous 2 0.0% Mixed Residue 3 0.0% White Goods 3 0.0% R/C Metal 161 0.9% Plastic 108 0.6% #1 Containers 2 0.0% #2 Containers 3 0.0% Other Containers 2 0.0% Film 23 0.1% Durable 8 0.0% R/C Plastic 69 0.4% Organics 4,245 22.7% Food 526 2.8% Textiles 9 0.0% Leaves and Grass 42 0.2% Prunings 24 0.1% Stumps 2,063 11.0% Crop Residue 3 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% R/C Organic 1,578 8.4% i Total Tons 18,699 Sample Count 24 A-6 I APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709DOC ATTACHMENT A DETAILED SAMPLING RESULTS EXHBIT A-7 Composition Estimates: West Hawaii Transfer Stations Total Tons 41,655 Sample Count 30 Low and High are calculated at a 90°% confidence interval APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC A-7 Tons Percent Tons Percent Disposed of Total Low High Disposed of Total Low High Paper 8,359 20.1% Construction and Demolition 6,794 16.3% Cardboard 2,125 5.1% 4.1% 6.1% Concrete 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Bags 47 0.1% 0.00/a 02% Asphalt Paving 0 0.0°% 0.0% 0.0% Newspaper 1,001 2.4% 1.5% 3.3% Asphalt Roofing 102 02% 0.0°% 0.7% White Ledger 195 0.5°% 0.3% 0.7% Clean and Treated Lumber 3,334 8.0% 5.0°% 11.0°% Colored Ledger 31 0.1% 0.0°/a 0.1% Gypsum Board 165 DA% 0.0% 0.9% Computer 21 0.1% 0.00/0 0.1% Rocks and Soil 333 0.8% 0.3% 1.3% Office 532 1.3% 0.6% 2.0% RIC Demo 2,859 6.9% 3.5% 102% Magazines 632 1.5% 0.9% 2.1% Household Hazardous 48 0.1% Directories 15 0.0% 0.00/0 0-1% Paint 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Miscellaneous 2,333 5.6% 4.2% 7.0% Vehicle Fluids 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% RIC Paper 1,427 3.4% 2.70/6 4.1% Oil 19 0.0% 0.0% 0.1°% Glass 918 2.2% Batteries 15 0.0% 0.0°% 0.1% Clear Containers 309 0.7% 0.2% 12% RIC Hazardous 14 0.0% 0.0% 0-1% Green Containers 235 0.6°% 0.3% 0.9% Special 58 0.1% Brown Containers 130 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% Ash 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0°% Other Containers 142 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0°% 0.0% 0.0% Flat Glass 14 0.00/0 0.0°% 0.1% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% RIC Glass 87 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% Treated Medical 0 0.0°% 0.0% 0.0% Metal 4,630 11.1% Bulky Items 58 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% Aluminum Cans 75 0.2% 0.1% 02% Tires 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Tin Cans 268 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% R/C Special 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ferrous 1,911 4.6% 3.1% 6.0°% Mixed 0 0.0% Nonferrous 147 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% Mixed Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0°% White Goods 0 ' 0.00/0 0.00/0 0.0% RIC Metal 2,230 5.4% 3.1% 7.6% Plastic 3,907 9.4% #1 Containers 173 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% #2 Containers 222 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% Other Containers 217 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% Film 1,229 3.0% 2.5% 3.4% Durable 1,202 2.9% 1.60% 42% R/C Plastic 865 2.1% 1.6% 2.5% Organics 16,941 40.7°% Food ' 5,311 12.7°% 10.50/6 15.0% Textiles 1,903 4.6% 2.5% 6.6% Leaves and Grass 4,016 9.6% 5.3% 14.0°% Prunings 1,529 3.7% 1.0% 6.3% Stumps 462 1.1% 0.0% 2.3% Crop Residue 0 0.00/0 0.0% 0.0% Manure 0 0.0°% 0.00/0 0.0% RIC Organic 3,721 8.9% 72% 10.7°% Total Tons 41,655 Sample Count 30 Low and High are calculated at a 90°% confidence interval APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC A-7 U G. O 10 1J E O T9 a o co O p N N Ca cnW N 0 O. 2 E u U \o \o \o a \o \o \ \° \ \ \° \° \ \o \ \o \o \ \o \o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r• CD N O CO O r• M 0 7 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r. - O c=r- M 00 00 O 00000 00 O V- r- 0 O OI;r O O M 00666 0000000 O CO CD r� r ":r,:�cl 7000 rM OOOOM 0000 -�roOai6CDadooCDooCJ= 000000C==O to LN�Ln U'�MCON N OOOON0000 M f+ CO p O lCt CD _ O � f0 == co � � a) 0 a) aMD�So A) a�2i �-Bv vd� �u 0 =a=�>omay�(n 7- � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Or CO V - N CD [I- UO MCMNil NrMNOr co NrCDCo00 U) Mr CDM 00 LO MO N�OO�� dCD m 000 OC7O d Lri00Irr d C7ONrMM i` MN (flOOOCd r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CO r CDCyOOmm Oef; r c - Cy c- rC)q i-Nr;r C) cc Nm LO M00O,OOCp C D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M t7' 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O C14 O r LO r 0 0 0 0 0 C'4 T- 9 41 90 9 4 9 9 4 9 9\° o� 0 0 0 �o K 4 K 4 90 90 4 0 0 0 0 90 41 o o9 o o 9 9 9 -- aid �dddd,T--' dmt' CDT- aio�0000r'o�CDT- 0000000ddmddNwddbcd�Ngr-NrMdbdo N 8 C) N0 ems-�ug rz NE 2C"a NC) o cam -IC) O CJ1 N dNti0 N 00 L� 0O r 7 Ch V7 LO Nr� N r7N � r N et 4 (A 0 �2 ` 0 L N N CO — •C O C Q N CUN N «�. CU N N 0I mm2 �uaia 6c a) CD -so- 0, 88 t m c e �mz L)U oda E30co �a�a�=LTza R��❑a ML293 �nu�a C7 a 0 5 �U i a) CL 1 E B ATTACHMENT A DETAILED SAMPLING RESULTS FXHBIT A-9 Composition Estimates: West Hawaii Self -Haul Total Tons 5,907 Sample Count 0 Notes: Waste composition percent for mixed loads from 2001 study at South Hilo Landfill. Pure loads at the West Hawaii Landfill added to the mixed load composition. APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709DOC A-9 Tons Percent Tons Percent Disposed of Total Disposed of Total Paper 224 3.8% Construction and Demolition 1,989 33.7% Cardboard 141 2.4% Concrete 106 1.80/0 Bags 3 0.0% Asphalt Paving 103 1.8% Newspaper 26 0.4% Asphalt Roofing 0 0.0% White Ledger 1 0.0% Clean and Treated Lumber 443 7.50/6 Colored Ledger 0 0.0% Gypsum Board 66 1.1% Computer 0 0.0% Rocks and Soil 792 13.4% Office 0 0.0% R/C D"emo 478 8.1% Magazines 1 0.0% Household Hazardous 5 0.1% Directories 0 0.0% Paint 0 0.0% Miscellaneous 14 0.2% Vehide Fluids 2 0.0% R/C Paper 37 0.6% Oil 2 0.0% Glass 5 0.1% Batteries 1 0.0% Clear Containers 2 0.0% R/C Hazardous 0 0.0% Green Containers 0 0.0% Special 2,172 36.8% Brown Containers 1 0.0% Ash 93 1.6% Other Containers 0 0.0% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% Flat Glass 0 0.0% Industrial Sludge 1,585 26.8% RIC Glass 2 0.0% Treated Medical 20 0.3% Metal 128 2.2% Bulky Items 60 1.0% Aluminum Cans 2 0.0% Tires 116 2.0% Tin Cans 0 0.0% R/C Special 299 5.1% Ferrous 59 1.0% Mixed 1 0.0% Nonferrous 1 0.0% Mixed Residue 1 0.0% White Goods 1 0.0% R/C Metal 65 1.1% Plastic 44 0.7% #1 Containers 1 0.0% #2 Containers 1 0.0% Other Containers 1 0.0% Film 9 0.2% Durable 3 0.1% R/C Plastic 28 0.5% Organics 1,341 22.7% Food 212 3.6% Textiles 3 0'.1% Leaves and Grass 9 0.1% Prunings 10 0.2% Stumps 719 12.2% Crop Residue 3 0.1% Manure 0 0.0% R/C Organic 384 6.5% Total Tons 5,907 Sample Count 0 Notes: Waste composition percent for mixed loads from 2001 study at South Hilo Landfill. Pure loads at the West Hawaii Landfill added to the mixed load composition. APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709DOC A-9 ATTACHMENT A EAST HAWAII SAMPLING RESULTS EXHBIT A-10 Composition Estimates: East Hawaii Transfer Stations I otal Tons 39,575 Sample Count (2001 study) 40 Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval A-10 IAPPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 -DOC Tons Percent Tons Percent Disposed of Total Low High Disposed of Total Low High Paper 8,950 22.60% Construction and Demolition 4,905 12.4% Cardboard 2,696 6.8% 5.5% 8.2% Concrete 509 1.3% 0.3% 2.3% Bags 185 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% Asphalt Paving 803 2.0% 0.0% 52% Newspaper 1,108 2.8% 0.2% 3.6% Asphalt Roofing 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% White Ledger 308 0.8% 0.5% 1.0% Clean and Treated Lumber 2,235 5.6% 3.7% 7-5% Colored Ledger 37 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% Gypsum Board 85 02% 0.0% O4°10 Computer 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Rocks and Soil 119 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% Office 294 0.7% 0.1°x6 1.3% R/C Demo 1,154 2.9% 0.3% 5.6% Magazines 503 1.3% 0.8% 1.7% Household Hazardous 210 0.5% Directries 11 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Paint I 46 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Miscellaneous 1,501 3.8% 3.0% 4.6% Vehicle Fluids 16 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% R/C Paper 2,303 5.8% 4.5% 7.1% Oil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Glass 1,489 3.80/a Batteries 69 02% 0.1% 0.3% Clear Containers 520 1.3% 0.9% 1.7% RIC Hazardous 80 02% 0.0% O A% Green Containers 431 1.1% 0.8% 1.4% Special 1,923 4.9% Brown Containers 433 1.1% 0.7% 1.5% Ash 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other Containers 13 0.0% 0.0% 0-1% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Flat Glass 29 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% RIC Glass 63 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Treated Medical 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Metal 4,172 10.5% Bulky Items 1,642 4-1% 1.5% 6.8% Aluminum Cans 202 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% Tires ' 221 0.6% 0.0% 1.1 % Tin Cans 523 1.3% 1.0% 1.7% R/C Special 60 02% 0.0% OA% Ferrous 1,663 4.2% 22% 6.2% Mixed 732 1.8% Nonferrous 173 0.4% 0.3% 0.6% Mixed Residue 732 1.8% 0.9% 2.8% White Goods 739 1.9% 0.0% 4.7% RIC Metal 872 2.2% 0.8% 3.6% Plastic 3,623 9.2% #1 Containers 308 0.8% 0.5% 1.0% 42 Containers 250 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% Other Containers 151 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% Film 1,072 2.7% 22% 3.2% Durable 550 1.4% 0.9% 1.9% RIC Plastic 1,291 3.3% 24% 4.2% Organics 13,570 34.3°10 Food 5,633 14.2% 11.2% 17.3% Textiles 1,114 2.8% 1.9% 3.8% Leaves and Grass 1,118 2.8% 1.2% 4.4% Prunings 2,714 6.9% 3.4% 10.3% Stumps 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% RIC Organic 2,990 7.6% 4.3% 10.8% I otal Tons 39,575 Sample Count (2001 study) 40 Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval A-10 IAPPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 -DOC ATTACHMENT A DETAILED SAMPLING RESULTS EXHBIT A-11 Composition Estimates: East Hawai'i Commercial Total Tons 29,119 Sample Count (2001 study) 36 Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC A-11 Tons Percent Tons Percent Disposed of Total Low_ High Disposed of Total Low High Paper 8,023 27.6% Construction and Demolition 6,844 23.5% Cardboard 3,066 10.5% 7.4% 13.79/. Concrete 2 0.00/0 0.0% 0.0% Bags 174 0.6% 0.4% 0.8% Asphalt Paving 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0°% Newspaper 734 25% 1.5% 3.5% Asphalt Roofing 216 0.7% 0.0°x6 2.0°% White Ledger 504 1.7% 0.9% 2.6°% Clean and Treated Lumber 5,990 20.6% 12.5% 28.7% Colored Ledger 52 02% 0.1% 0.29/b Gypsum Board 48 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% Computer 28 0-1% 0.0% 020/6 Rocks and Soil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Office 125 0.4°% 0.3% 0.6% R/C Demo 587 2.0% 0.0°% 4.6°% Magazines 509 1.7% 0.8% 2.7% Household Hazardous 39 0.1% Directories 63 02% 0.0% 0.5% Paint 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Miscellaneous 879 3.0% 2.4% 3.7% Vehicle Fluids 0 0.0°% 0.0% 0.0% R/C Paper 1,889 6.5% 4.5% 8.50/o Oil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Glass 861 3.0% Batteries 19 0.1% 0.0% 02% Clear Containers 363 12% 0.8°x6 1.7% RIC Hazardous 20 0.1% 0.0°% 0.2% Green Containers 250 0.9°% 0.4% 1.3% Special 464 1.6% Brown Containers 189 0.6% 0.3°% 1.0% Ash 0 0.0% 0.0°% 0.0% Other Containers 0 0:0°% 0.0% 0.0% Sewage Sludge 0 0.00/0 0.0% 0.0% Flat Glass 33 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0°% 0.0% R/C Gass 26 0-1% 0.0% 02% Treated Medical 91 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% Metal 2,098 7.2% Bulky Items 56 02% 0.0% 0.5% Aluminum Cans 136 0.5% 0.3°% 0.6% Tires 273 0.91A 0.0°% 2.1% Tin Cans 202 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% RIC Special 45 02% 0.0°% 0.3% Ferrous 1,207 4.1% 0.30/6 8.0% Mixed 262 0.9% Nonferrous 79 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% Mixed Residue 262 0.9% 0.50/6 1.3% White Goods 0 0.0°% 0.0% 0.0% RIC Metal 474 1.6% 0.4% 2.9% Plastic 2,900 10.0% #1 Containers 177 0.6% 0.3% 0.9% #2 Containers 146 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% Other Containers 99 0.3% 020/6 0.4% Film 1,072, 3.7% 2.8°% 4.5°% Durable 815 28°% 0.3% 52% R/C Plastic 591 20% 1.0% 3.0°% Organics 7,627 26.2% Food 5,479 18.8°% 13.7°% 24.0°% Textiles 611 2-1% 0.4% 3.80% Leaves and Grass 176 0.6% 020/6 1.1% Prunings 243 0.8% 0.3°% 1.4% Stumps 0 0.0°% 0.0% 0.0% Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.00/0 Manure 0 0.0°% 0.0% 0.0°% RIC Organic 1,118 3.8°% 1.5°% 6.1% Total Tons 29,119 Sample Count (2001 study) 36 Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC A-11 ATTACHMENT A EAST HAWA I SAMPLING RESULTS EXHBIT A-12 Composition Estimates: East Hawai' i Self -Haul Total Tons 12,792 Sample Count (2001 study) 24 A-12 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC Tons Percent Tons Percent Disposed of Total Disposed of Total Paper 1,126 8.8% Construction and Demolition 6,549 51.2% Cardboard 208 1.6% Concrete 816 6.4% Bags 4 0.0% Asphalt Paving 793 6.2% Newspaper 39 0.3% Asphalt Roofing 0 0.0% White Ledger 1 0.0% Clean and Treated Lumber 2,619 20.5% Colored Ledger 0 0.0% Treated Lumber 776 6.1% Computer 0 0.0% Gypsum Board 509 4.0% Office 1 0.0% Rocks and Soil 129 1.0% Magazines 1 0.0% R/C Demo 905 7.1% Directories 0 0.0% Household Hazardous 11 0.1% Miscellaneous 21 0.2% Paint 7 0.1% R/C Paper 850 6.6% Vehicle Fluids 3 0.0% Glass 8 0.1% Oil 0 0.0% Clear Containers 3 0.0% -Batteries 1 0.0% Green Containers 1 0.0% R/C Hazardous 0 0.0% Brown Containers 1 0.0% Special 1,871 14.6% Other Containers 0 0.0% Ash 0 0.0% Flat Glass 0 0.0% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% R/C Glass 4 0.0% Industrial Sludge 1,241 9.7% Metal 256 2.0% Treated Medical 28 0.2% Aluminum Cans 3 0.0% Bulky Items 88 0.7% Tin Cans 0 0.0% Tires 514 4.0% Ferrous 154 1.2% RIC Special 0 0.0% Nonferrous 1 0.0% Mixed 2 0.0% White Goods 2 0.0% Mixed Residue 2 0.0% R/C Metal 96 0.7% Plastic 65 0.5% #1 Containers 1 0.0% #2 Containers 2 0.0% Other Containers 1 0.0% Film 14 0.1% Durable 5 0.0% R/C Plastic 41 0.3% Organics 2,905 22.7% Food 314 2.5% Textiles 5 0.0% Leaves and Grass 33 0.3% Prunings 15 0.1% Stumps 1,344 10.5% Crop Residue 0 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% R/C Organic 1,194 9.3% Total Tons 12,792 Sample Count (2001 study) 24 A-12 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC ATTACHMENT B Detailed West Hawaii Commercial Substream Results ATTACHMENT B DETAILED WEST HAWAII COMMERCIAL SUBSTREAM RESULTS EXHIBIT B-1 Composition Estimates: West Hawaii Commercial Packer Trucks i otai ions Ju,.sua Sample Count 30 Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC B-1 Tons Percent Tons Percent bb Disposed of Total Low High Disposed of Total Low High Paper 12,382 31.5% Construction and Demolition 2,904 7A% Cardboard 3,260 8.3% 6.8% 9.8% Concrete 0 O.Oo/0 0.0% 0.0% Bags 146 0.4% 02% 0.6% Asphalt Paving 512 1.31/16 0.0% 3.4% Newspaper 765 1.9% 1.3% 2.5% Asphalt Roofing 0 0.00/0 0.0% 0.0% White Ledger 466 1.2% 0.3% 2.0% Clean and Treated Lumber 713 1.8% 1.3% 2.3% Colored Ledger 153 0.4% OA% 0.8% Gypsum Board 112 0.311/o 0.0% 0.7% Computer 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Rocks and Soil 94 0.20/6 0.00/6 0.6% Office 540 1.4% 0.6% 2.2% RIC Demo 1,473 3.70/6 1.2% 6.3% Magazines 605 1.5% 0.5% 2.6% Household Hazardous 97 02% Directories 21 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Paint 0 0.00/0 0.00/0 0.0% Miscellaneous 3,148 8.0% 6-1% 9.9% Vehicle Fluids 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% R/C Paper 3,274 8.3% 6.3% 10.4% Oil 33 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Glass 712 1.8% Batteries 13 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Clear Containers 144 0.4% 02% 0.5% R/C Hazardous 51 0.1% 0.01/16 0.3% Green Containers 274 0.7% 0.4% 1.0% Special 274 0.7% Brown Containers 170 0.4% 02% 0.7% Ash 0 0.00/0 0.00/0 0.0% Other Containers 111 0.3% 02% 0.4% Sewage Sludge 0 0.00/0 0.0% 0.0% Flat Glass 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Industrial Sludge 0 0.011/0 0.00/0 0.0% RIC Glass 12 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Treated Medical 0 0.00/0 0.00/0 0.0% Metal 2,400 6.1% Bulky Items 274 0.7% 0.0% 1.8% Aluminum Cans 114 0.3% 02% 0.4% Tires 0 0.00/0 0.00/0 0.0% Tin Cans 253 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% RIC Special 0 0.00/0 0.00/0 0.0% Ferrous 907 23% 0.3% 4.3% Mixed 0 0.0% Nonferrous 97 0.2% 02% 0.3% Mixed Residue 0 0.00/0 0.00/0 0.0% White Goods 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% R/C Metal 1,029 2.6% 1.3% 4.0% Plastic 3,941 10.0% #1 Containers 312 0.8% 0.6% 1.0% #2 Containers 204 0.5% OA% 0.7% Other Containers 254 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% Film 1,803 4.6% 3.8% 5.4% Durable 372 0.9% 0.6% 1.3% R/C Plastic 996 25% 2.0% 3.1% Organics 16,599 42.2% Food 10,880 27.7% 22.6% 32.7% Textiles 1,677 4.3% 2.5% 6.0% Leaves and Grass 699 1.8% 0.0% 3.70/6 Pnmings 807 21% 0.6% 3.50/6 Stumps 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% RIC Organic 2,537 6.5% 4.3% 8.6% i otai ions Ju,.sua Sample Count 30 Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC B-1 I ATTACHMENT B EAST HAWAII SAMPLING RESULTS EXHIBIT B-2 Composition Estimates: West Hawaii Commercial Drop Boxes Total Tons 36,671 Sample Count 30 Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval Lumber Tons Percent Disposed, of Total Tons Percent n 13,562 37.0% Disposed of Total Low High 0 Paper 7,737 21.1% 4 0.0% Construction and Cardboard 4,443 12.1% 7.3°% 16.9% Concrete Bags 135 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% Asphalt Paving Newspaper 514 1.4% 0.0% 2.9% Asphalt Roofing White Ledger 57 02% 0-1% 0.3% Clean and Treat( Colored Ledger 6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Gypsum Board Computer 36 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Rocks and Soil Office 16 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% RIC Demo Magazines 167 0.5% 0.1% 0.8% Household kazar, Directories 0 0.0°k 0.0% 0.0% Paint Miscellaneous 715 2.0°x6 1.0% 2.9% Vehicle Fluids R/C Paper 1,648 4.50/6 22% 6.8% Oil Glass 587 1.6% 0 0.0% Batteries Clear Containers 134 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% R/C Hazardous Green Containers 98 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% Special Brown Containers 100 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% Ash j Other Containers 40 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Sewage Sludge Flat Glass 84 02% 0.0% 0.6% Industrial Sludge R/C Glass 131 0.4% 0.0% 0.8% Treated Me dcal Metal 2,422 6.6% Bulky Items Aluminum Cans 32 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Tires Tin Cans 142 0.4% 02% 0.6% RIC Special Ferrous 1,495 4.1% 1.3% 6.9% Mixed Nonferrous- 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mixed Residue White Goods 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% R/C Metal 749 2.0% 0.0% 4.3% Plastic 2,857 7.8% #1 Containers 92 0.30/o 0-1% 0.4% #2 Containers 56 02% 0.1% 0.3% Other Containers 94 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% Film 886 2.4% 0.9% 3.9% Durable 1,048 2.9% 0.5% 5.2% R/C Plastic 681 1.9% 0.6% 3-1% Organics 9,389 25.6% Food 6,380 17.4% 92% 25.6% Textiles 164 0.40A 02% 0.7% Leaves and Grass 29 0.1% 0.0% 02% Prunings 962 2.6% 0.0% 6.5% Stumps 0 0.0% 0.00/0 0.0% Crop Residue 0 0.00/0 0.0% 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% j RIC Organic 1,854 5.1% 12% 8.9% Total Tons 36,671 Sample Count 30 Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval Lumber Tons Percent Disposed, of Total Low High n 13,562 37.0% 3,652 10.0% 3.2% 16.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0°% 5,818 15.9% 8.3% 23.4% 371 1.0% 0.0% 2-1% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3,718 10-1% 3.5% 16.7% 117 0.3% 117 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% B-2 I APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC ATTACHMENT B DETAILED WEST HAWAII COMMERCIAL SUBSTREAM RESULTS EXHIBIT B-3 Composition Estimates: West Hawaii Commercial Other Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC B-3 Tons Percent Tons Percent Disposed of Total Low High Disposed of Total Low High Paper 330 6.6% Construction and Demolition 3,156 -63.1% Cardboard 242 4.8% 0.6% 9.1% Concrete 42 0.89/6 0.0% 1.8% Bags 29 0.6% 0.0% 1.3% Asphalt Paving 0 0.09/0 0.0% 0.0% Newspaper 7 0.1% 0.0% 0.49/6 Asphalt Roofing 59 1.2% 0.0% 3.0% White Ledger 7 0.1% 0.0% 0.36/6 Clean and Treated Lumber 1,055 21.19/6 9.2% 33.0% Colored Ledger 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Gypsum Board 115 2.39/6 0.4% 4.2% Computer 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.09/6 Rocks and Soil 241 4.89/6 0.0% 11.76/6 Office 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% RIC Demo 1,644 32.99/0 16.3% 49.5% Magazines 6 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Household Hazardous 0 0.0% Directories 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.09/0 Paint 0 0.09/0 0.0% 0.0% Miscellaneous 22 0.4% 0.0% 1.0% Vehicle Fluids 0 0.09/0 0.0% 0.0% RIC Paper 15 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% Oil 0 0.09/0 0.0% 0.0% Glass 13 0.30/6 Batteries 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Clear Containers 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% RIC Hazardous 0 0.09/0 0.0% X0.0% Green Containers 7 0.1% 0.o% 0.4% Special 0 0.0% Brown Containers 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ash - 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other Containers 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.09/6 Sewage Sludge 0 0.09/0 0.0% 0.0% Flat Glass 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% R/CGlass 4 0.1% 0.0% 0.29/6 Trued Medical 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Metal 281 5.69/0 Bulky Items 0 0.09/0 0.0% 0.0% Aluminum Cans 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Tires 0 0.09/0 0.0% 0.09/0 Tin Cans 138 2.8% 0.0% 6.9% RIC Special 0 0.09/0 0.0% 0.0% Ferrous 45 0.9% 02% 1.69/o Mixed 0 0.0% Nonferrous 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.09/0 Mixed Residue 0 0.09/0 0.0% 0.0% White Goods 0 0.0% 0.09/0 0.0% RIC Metal 96 1.9% 0.4% 3.4% Plastic 145 2.99/6 #1 Containers 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% #2 Containers 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.09/0 Other Containers 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.09/0 Film 85 1.7% 02% 3.29/6 Durable 7 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% R/C Plasti c 51 1.0% 0.0% 2.2% Organics 1,076 21.59/6 Food 20 0.4% 0.0% 1.1% Textiles 8 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% Leaves and Grass 81 1.6% 0.0% 3.3% Prunings 777 15.59/0 0.0% 31.7% Stumps 112 22% 0.0% 5.3% Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.09/o Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.09/0 RIC Organic 77 1.5% 0.0% 3.99/0 Total Tons 5,000 Sample Count 10 Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC B-3 ATTACHMENT C Waste Component Definitions ATTACHMENT C Waste Component Definitions The list and definitions of the Standard Material Categories were drawn from the California Integrated Waste Management Board's Uniform Waste Disposal Characterization Method. The component category "heated lumber' was added during the design of this study. Definitions of the component materials used in this report follow. Paper (1) Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard usually has three layers. The center wavy layer is sandwiched between the two outer layers. It does not have any wax coating on the inside or outside. Examples: Tl -ds component includes entire cardboard containers, such as shipping and moving boxes, computer packaging cartons, and sheets and pieces of boxes and cartons. This component Coes not include chipboard. (2) Paper Bags means bags and sheets made from kraft paper. Examples: This component includes paper grocery bags, fast food bags, department store bags, and heavyweight sheets of kraft packing paper. (3) Newspaper means paper used in newspapers. Examples: This component includes newspaper and glossy inserts, and all items made from newsprint, such as free advertising guides, election guides, and tax instruction booklets. (4) White Ledger means -uncolored bond, rag, or stationary grade paper. It may have colored ink on it. When the paper is torn, the fibers are white. Examples: This component includes white photocopy, white laser print, and letter paper. (5) Colored Ledger means colored bond, rag, or stationery grade paper. When the paper is torn, the fibers are colored throughout. Examples: This component includes colored photocopy and letter paper. This component does not include fluorescent dyed paper or deep -tone dyed paper such as goldenrod colored paper. (6) Computer Paper means paper used for computer printouts. This component usually has a strip of form feed holes along two edges. If there are no holes, then the edges show tear marks. This component can be white or striped. Examples: This component includes computer paper and printouts from continuous feed printers. Tills component does not include "white ledger" used in laser or impact printers, nor computer paper containing groundwood. (7) Other Office Paper means other kinds of paper used in offices. Examples: This component includes manila folders, manila envelopes, index cards, TAThite envelopes, white window envelopes, notebook paper, and carbonless forms. This component does not include "white ledger," "colored ledger," or "computer paper". APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -1 21709DOC G1 ATTACHMENT C WASTE COMPONENT DEFINITIONS (8) Magazines and Catalogs means items Made of glossy coated paper. This paper is usually slick, smooth to the touch, and reflects light. Examples: This component includes glossy magazines, catalogs, brochures and pamphlets. (9) Phone Books and Directories means thin paper between coated covers. These items are bound along the spine with glue. Examples: This component includes whole or damaged telephone books, "yellow pages," real estate listings, and some non -glossy mail order catalogs. (10) Other Miscellaneous Paper means items made mostly of paper that do not .fit into any of the above components. Paper may be combined with minor amounts of other materials such as wax or glues. This component includes items made of chipboard, grotuldwood paper, and deep -toned or fluorescent dyed paper. Examples: This component includes cereal and cracker boxes, unused paper plates and cups, goldenrod colored paper, and hardcover and softcover books. (11) Remainder/Composite Paper means items made mostly of paper but combined with large amounts of other materials such as wax, plastic, glues, foil, food, and moisture. Examples: This component includes waxed corrugated cardboard, aseptic packages, wax coated milk cartons, waxed paper, tissue, paper towels, blueprints, sepia, onionskin, fast food wrappers, carbon paper, self-adhesive notes, and photographs. Glass (12) Clear Glass Bottles and Containers means clear glass beverage and food containers with or without a CRV label. Examples: This component includes whole or broken clear soda and beer bottles, frit juice bottles, peanut butter jars, and mayonnaise jars. (13) Green Glass Bottles and Containers means green -colored glass containers with or without a CRV label. Examples: This component includes whole or broken green soda and beer bottles, and whole or broken green wine bottles. (14) Brown Glass Bottles and Containers means brown -colored glass containers with or without a CRV label. Examples: This component includes whole or broken brown soda and beer bottles, and whole or broken brown wine bottles. (15) Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers means colored glass containers and bottles other than green or brown with or without a CRV label. Examples: This component includes whole or broken blue or other colored bottles and containers. (16) Flat Glass means clear or tinted glass that is flat. Examples: This component includes glass windowpanes, doors, and tabletops, flat automotive window glass (side windows), safety glass, and architectural glass. This component does not include wi ndsluelds, laminated glass, or any curved glass. (17) Remainder/Composite Glass means glass that cannot be put in any other component category. It includes items made mostly of glass but combined with other materials. Examples: This component includes Pyrex, Corniingware, crystal and other glass tableware, mirrors, and auto windshields. C-2 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC ATTACHMENT C WASTE COMPONENT DEFINITIONS Metal (18) Tin/Steel Cans means rigid containers made malady Of steel. These items will stick to a magnet and maybe till -coated. This component is used to store foot., beverages, paint, and a variety of other household and consumer products. Examples: This component includes canned food and beverage containers, empty metal paint cads, empty spray paint and other aerosol containers, and bimetal containers with steel sites and aluminum ends. (19) Major Appliances means discarded major appliances of any color. These items are often enamel -coated. Examples: This component includes washing nlachiles, clothes dryers, hot water heaters, stoves, and refrigerators. This component does not include electronics, such as televisions ant stereos. (20) Other Ferrous means any iron or steel that is magnetic or any stainless steel item. This component does not include "tin/steel cans". Examples: This component includes structural steel beams, metal clothes hangers, metal pipes, stainless steel cookware, security bars, and scrap ferrous items. (21) Aluminum Cans means any food or beverage container made mainly of altuninum. Examples: This component includes aluminum soda or beer cans, and some pet food cans. This component does not include bimetal containers with steel sides and alunnintun ends. (22) Other Non -Ferrous means any metal item, other than aluminum cans, that is not stainless steel ant that is not magnetic. These items may be made of aluminum, copper, brass, bronze, lead, zinc, or Other metals. Examples: This component includes aluminum window frames, aluminum siding, copper wire, shell casings, brass pipe, and aluminum toll. (23) Remainder/Composite Metal means metal that cannot be plat in any other component category. This coulponent includes items made mostly of metal but combined with other materials and items made of both ferrous metals and non-ferrous metal combined. Examples: This component includes brown goods (electronics and other small appliances), computers, televisions, radios, and electronic parts. Plastic (24) HDPE Containers cleans natural and colored HDPE containers. This plastic is usually either cloudy white, allowing light to pass through it (natural) Or a solid color, preventing light from passing through it (colored). When marked for identification, it bears the number "2" in the triangular recycling symbol. Examples: This component includes milk jugs, Water jugs, detergent bottles, some haircare bottles, empty motor, oil, empty antifreeze, and other empty vehicle and equipment fluid containers. (25) PETE Containers means clear or colored PETE containers. When marked for identification, it bears the number "1" in the center of the triangular recycling symbol and may also bear the letters "PETE" or "PET". The color is usually transparent green or clear. A PETE container usually has a small dot left from the manifactm-trig process, not a seam. It does not turn White when bent. Examples: This component Includes soft drink and water bottles, some liquor bottles, cooking oil containers, and aspirin bottles. APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC C-3 ATTACHMENT C WASTE COMPONENT DEFINITIONS (26) Miscellaneous Plastic Containers Means plastic containers made of types of plastic other than HDPE or PETE. Items may be made of PVC, PP, or PS. When marked for identification, these items may bear the number "3," 114,11115,11116," or "7" in the triangular recycling symbol. Examples: This component includes food containers such as bottles for salad dressings and vegetable oils, flexible and brittle yogurt cups and lids, syrup bottles, margarine tubs, microwave food trays, and clamshell -shaped fast food containers. This component also includes some shampoo containers and vitamin bottles. (27) Film Plastic Means flexible plastic sheeting. It is !made from a variety of plastic. resins including HDPE and LDPE. It can be easily contoured around an object by hand pressure. Examples: This component includes plastic garbage bags, food bags, dry cleaning bags, grocery store bags, packaging wrap, and food VATrap. ;This component does not include rigid bubble packaging. (28) Durable Plastic Items means plastic objects other than containers and film plastic. This component also includes plastic objects other than containers or film that bear the numbers 111" through 7" in the triangular recycling symbol. These items are usually made to last for more than one use. Examples: This component includes plastic outdoor furniture, plastic toys and sporting goods, and plastic housewares, such as plop buckets, dishes, cups, and cutlery. This component also includes building materials such as house siding, window sashes and flames, housings for electronics such as computers, televisions and stereos, and plastic pipes and fittings. (29) Remainder and Composite Plastic means plastic that cannot be put in any other component category. This component includes items Made mostly of plastic but combined with other materials. Examples: This component includes auto parts made of plastic attached to metal, plastic bubble packaging, drinking straws, foam drinking cups, produce trays, egg cartons, foam packing blocks, packing peaiiuts, and cookie and muffin trays. Other Organic (30) Food means food material resulting from the processing, storage,, preparation, cooking, handling or consumption of food. This component illcltldes material from industrial, commercial or residential sources. Examples: This component includes discarded meat scraps, daily products, eggshells, frit or vegetable 'eels, and other food items from houses, stores, and restaurants. This component includes grape pomace and other processed residues or material from canneries, wineries, or other industrial sources. (31) Leaves and Grass means plant material, except woody Material, from any public or private landscapes. Examples: This component includes leaves, grass clippings, and plants. This component does not include woody material or material from agricultural sources. (32) Prunings and Trimmings Means Woody plant material up to 4 inches in diameter from any public or private landscape. Examples: This component includes plu ni ngs, shrubs, and small branches with branch diameters that do not exceed 4 inches. This component does not include stumps, tree trunks, or branches exceeding 4' inches in diameter. This component does not include material from agricultural sources. C-4 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 -DOC ATTACHMENT C WASTE COMPONENT DEFINITIONS (33) Branches and Stumps means woody plant material, branches and sttunps that exceed 4 inches in diameter from any public or private landscape. (34) Agricultural Crop Residues means plant material from agricultural sources. Examples: This component includes orchard and vineyard piunings, vegetable by-products from farms ng, residual fruits, vegetables, and other crop remains after usable crop is harvested. This component does not include processed residues from canneries, wineries, or other industrial sources. (35) Manures means manure and soiled bedding.materials from domestic, farm, or ranch animals. Examples: This component includes manure and soiled bedding from animal production operations, racetracks, riding stables, animal hospitals, and other sources. (36) Textiles means items made of thread, yarn, fabric, or cloth. Examples: This component includes clothes, fabric trimmings, draperies, and all natural and synthetic cloth fibers. This component does not include cloth -covered fui-iutme, Mattresses, leather shoes, leather bags, or leather belts. (37) Remainder/Composite Organic cleans organic material that cannot be put in any other component category. This component includes items made mostly of organic materials but combined with other Materials. Examples: This component includes leather items, carets, disposable diapers, cork, hemp rope, garden hoses, rubber items, hail', and caret padding. Construction and Demolition (38) Concrete Means a hard material made from sand, gravel, aggregate, cement mix and water. Examples: This component includes pieces of building foundations, concrete paving, and cinder blocks. (39) Asphalt Paving means a black or brown, tar -like material mixed with aggregate used as a paving Material. (40) Asphalt Roofing means composite shingles and other roofing material Made with asphalt. Examples: This component includes asphalt shingles and attached roofing tar and tarpaper. (41) Clean Lumber means processed wood for building, manufacttu-ing, landscaping, packaging, Gild processed wood from demolition. Examples: This component includes untreated dimensional lumber, huunber cutoffs, engineered wood such as plywood and particleboard, wood scraps, pallets, wood fencing, wood shake roofing, and wood siding. Note that County of Hawaii building codes require the use of treated lumber for home construction, thus there is relatively little clean lumber in the waste stream. (42) Treated Lumber means new and used lumber that has been treated with any chemical preservative. Examples: This component includes railroad ties, marine timbers and pilings, some landscape timbers, and telephone poles. (43) Gypsum Board means interior wall covering made of a sheet of gypsum sandwiched between paper layers. Examples: This component includes used or tuiused, broken or whole APPX 8 WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC G5 ATTACHMENT C WASTE COMPONENT DEFINITIONS sheets of sheetrock, drywall, gypsum board, plasterboard, gypboard, gyproc, and wallboard. (44) Rock, Soil and Fines cleans rock pieces of any size and soil, dirt, and oilier platter. Examples: This component includes rock, stones, and sand, clay, soil and other fines. This component also includes non -hazardous contaminated soil. (45) Remainder/Composite Construction and Demolition gleans construction and demolition material that cannot be put in any other component category. This component play include items from different components combined, which would be very hard to separate. Examples: This component includes brick, ceramics, tiles, toilets, sinks, and fiberglass insulation. This component may also include demolition debris that is a mixture of items such as plate glass, wood, tiles, gypsum board, and aluminum scrap. Household Hazardous Waste (46) paint gleans, containers with paint in them. Examples: This component includes latex paint, oil-based paint, and tubes of pigment or fine art paint. This component does not include dried paint, empty paint cans, or empty aerosol containers. 47) Vehicle and Equipment Fluids means containers with fluids used in vehicles or engines, except used oil. Examples: This component includes used antifreeze and brake fluid. This component does not include empty Vehicle and equipment fluid containers. (48) Used Oil cleans the same as defiled in Health and Safety Code section 25250.1(a). Examples: This component includes spent lubricating oil such as crankcase and transmission oil, gear oil, and hydraulic oil. (49) Batteries means any type of battery including both dry cell and lead acid. Examples: This component Includes car, flashlight, small appliance, watch and hearing aid batteries. (50) Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous gleans household hazardous material that cannot be put In the "Paint", "Automotive Fluids", "Used Oil's, or "Batteries" component categories. This component also includes household hazardous material that is mixed. Examples: This component includes household hazardous Waste which if improperly put in the solid waste stream may present handling problems or other hazards. Special Waste (51) Ash means a residue from the combustion of any solid or liquid material. Examples: This component includes ash from fireplaces, incinerators, biomass facilities, waste -to - energy facilities, and barbecues. This component also includes ash and burned debris from structure fires. (52) Sewage Solids means residual solids and septi -solids from the treatment of domestic wastewater or sewage. Examples: This component includes biosolids, sludge, grit, screenings, and septage. This component does not include sewage or waste water discharged from the sewage treatment process. C-6 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT-121709DOC ATTACHMENT C WASTE COMPONENT DEFINITIONS (53) Industrial Sludge means sludge from factories, manufacturing facilities, and refineries. Examples: This component includes paper pulp sludge, and water treatment filter cake sludge. (54) Treated Medical Waste has the same meaning as treated medical waste in Section 25023.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (55) Bulky Items cleans large, hard -to -handle items that are not defined separately, including furniture, mattresses, and other large items. Examples: Tills component includes all sizes and types of furniture, mattresses, box springs, and base components. (56) Tires means vehicle tires. Examples: This component includes tires from trucks, automobiles, motorcycles, heavy equipments, and bicycles. (57) Remainder/Composite Special Waste means special waste that cannot be put in any other component category. Examples: This component includes asbestos -containing materials, such as certain types of pipe insulation and floor tiles, auto fluff, auto -bodies, trucks, trailers, truck cabs, and artificial fireplace logs. Mixed Residue (58) Mixed Residue cleans material that cannot be put in any other component categories. This component includes mixed residue that cannot be further sorted. Examples: This component includes residual material from a materials recovery facility or other sorting process that cannot be put in any of the previous remainder/composite component categories. APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709 -DOG C-7 ATTACHMENT D Sampling Methodology and Calculations ATTACHMENT D Sampling Methodology and Calculations Sampling Methodology Objective Thus study was intended to produce statistically valid data on the types and quantities of waste disposed at the West Hawai'i Landfill during FY 2008. The results of this study were combined with the results of the 2001 study conducted at the South Hilo Landfill resultlllg in a waste composition profile for the entire Cotinty. Substream Definition The waste hauled to the West Hawaii Landfill can be divided into the following three categories (called substreams): 1. Transfer Station - is composed of waste hauled frons nine transfer stations on the west side of the island. It is transported to the West Hawaii Landfill in transfer station compactor boxes. Transfer station loads are Made up primarily of residential waste. 2. Commercial - is composed of waste hauled by commercial hattling companies. Commercial haulers use a variety of vehicles to transport this waste to the West Hawai i Landfill, including: packer trucks (garbage trucks), roll -offs (primarily open boxes), and other vehicles (e.g. flatbeds, pickups, etc.). This waste is collected from both residences and businesses. Comulercial samples were allocated to each of these three vehicle types. 3. Self -Haul - is composed of waste that residents, contractors, businesses, and public entities haul directly to the West Hawaii Landfill. These loads are transported either in small vehicles (e.g. autos, pick-ups, etc.) or large vehicles (e.g. dump tricks, flatbeds, etc). As with waste in the commercial substream, self -haul waste comes froml both residences and businesses. Sample Allocation The total mmnber of samples allocated to each substream and sampled on each day of the study is provided in Exhibit D-1. Note that no samples were allocated to the self -haul substream. There is relatively little mixed self -haul material delivered to the West Hawai i Landfill (1,200 of 128,000 tons in FY 2008, or less than 1 percent). Therefore, it was decided that overall sampling accuracy would be improved by using self -haul sampling results from the 2001 study to represent the composition of mixed self -haul loads in West Hawai i, and assigning samples that would have been obtained from the self -haul stream to the other two substreams. The composition profile of mixed self -haul loads from the 2001 study was used to estimate the nixed self -haul composition for the West Hawaii Landfill. The project budget allowed for a total of 100 total loads to be sampled. The allocation of samples between the substreams was determined according to each substream's APPX B -WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -1 21709.DOG D-1 ATTACHMENT D SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS I EXHIBIT D-1 Samples per Day by Substream Number of Samples Transfer Commercial Commercial', Commercial Station Packer Rolloff I Other Total May 15, 2008 6 5 6 3 20 May 16, 2008 6 8 5 1 20 May 19, 2008 6 7 6 1 20 May 20, 2008 6 4 9 1 20 May 21, 2008 6 6 4 4 20 Total 30 30 30 10 100 i contribution to the total waste stream. Adjustments were made so that a sufficient number of samples were taken from each substream to ensure a representative composition. Thus, the commercial substream was slightly over sampled', and the transfer station substream was slightly under sampled. Vehicle Selection Sampling intervals for each substream and vehicle type were determined by dividing the day's expected number of arriving loads by the number of samples needed on that day. For example, if 20 commercial packer trucks were expected to arrive at the West Hawai i Landfill on a sampling day, and a total of 5 samples were needed, every 4th commercial packer truck would be selected for sampling. Prior to each sampling day, the Field Supervisor was given a sheet outlining specific sampling intervals per substreaul and vehicle type. Attachment E contains an example of the vehicle selection sheet used in this study. Field Procedures On each sampling day, the Field Supervisor identified sample loads as they arrived at the West Hawaii Landfill. The Supervisor assigned each selected load a tuuque sample identification number. Then, the Supervisor sullveyed'the driver of each vehicle to obtain "header information" which Was recorded on that sample's Waste sort sheet. The following information was collected for each sample load: 1. Load type a. Commercially Hauled loads only - the hauler nanie b. Transfer station loads only - name of transfer station the load came from D-2 APPX 8 -WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT -121709.130C ATTACHMENT D SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS 2. Generator type a. Commercially hauled loads only i. Loads that were 80% or more residential waste were recorded as "residential" ii. Loads that were 80% or more commercial waste were recorded as "conuliercial" iii. Other"rise, the generator type was recorded as "mixed" b. Transfer station loads only - always marked as "mixed" 3. Vehicle type a. Commercially hauled loads only - recorded as "packer," "roll -off," or "other vehicle" (e.g. flatbeds, dump trucks, pickups). b. Transfer station loads only - were always recorded as "transfer station box." As the load was emptied at the West Hawaii Landfill, the Field Supervisor observed the load for evidence of hard -to -process or potentially explosive items. Details regarding these items were noted on the sample's waste sort sheet. Hard -to -process items included anything that would be difficult or impossible to manually sort, automatically process, or transfer by conveyor belt due t0 weight or size, such as: appliances, mattresses, cabinets, carpet, asphalt or concrete, and large pieces of scrap metal or lumiber. Next, the selected load was visually divided into an imaginary 16 -cell grid. The supervisor then identified the randomly selected cell and approximately 200 to 300 pounds of waste was removed from that cell with a loader and placed on a tarpaulin. Samples were then tagged with a sample identifier labeled with their unique sample number and the date. Once the total weight of a sample was recorded, the material was sorted by hand into the 58 prescribed components, placed in plastic laundry baskets, weighed, and recorded. (See Attachment C for a list and definitions of the components.) Each sample was sorted by hand to the greatest reasonable level of detail, until 110 more than a small amtOtlllt of homogeneous fines (less than 1 square inch) remained. Tlie goal was to sort each sample completely into component categories. However, if fines did remain after sorting, they were weighed and the Supervisor classified them as "mixed residue." As the final step in collecting field data, the Supervisor reviewed, completed and organized the forms from each day's sampling activity. The Supervisor also prepared data summary sheets and sampling checklists at the end of each day. Completed data forts were then transmitted t0 the Project Manager at CH2M HILL for review and quality control prior to data entry. J Waste Composition Calculations The composition estimates represent the ratio of the components' weight to the total waste for each noted substream. They are derived by s- un ming each component's weight across all of the selected records and dividing by the stun of the total weight of waste, as shown in the following equation: APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709DOC D-3 ATTACHMENT D SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS where: c = weight of particular component w = sum of all component weights for i 1 to n where n = number of selected samples for j 1 to m where m = number of components The low and high, or confidence interval, for this estimate is derived from a nonparametric statistical teclmique called the Bootstrap (Efron, B. 1987. Hie JilClJ(11. fie, Hie Book;trilp, al -0 outer Rescautpli'i-q Maris. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics). Standard methods of calculating sample statistics are generally not applicable to waste composition results because each substream consists of multiple waste components that must sum to one for each substream. The distribution Of these components is a multinOlnial with unknown properties. As such, sample statistics other than the sample mean proportions cannot be calculated using standard parametric techniques without making unappealing assumptions that would invalidate the results. The Bootstrap method is a simulation technique that allows the calculation of the variance and other statistics of a parameter with wlknowTn distributional properties. In this study, the Bootstrap method was used to calculate the square root of the Bootstrap variance estimates of each sample mean (henceforth referred to as the stalidard error). The mean and standard error were then used to calculate confidence intervals,about sample mean estimates. The upper and lower confidence limits provide the boundaries of an interval within which we are 90 percent confident that the true mean proportion of a waste type will lie. They represent the high and low estimates shown in this study. Upper and lower confidence limits were calculated as follows: CIu = SMg + (1.645*SEd CI1= SMg - (1.645*SEg) where: CIu = upper confidence limit CI1= lower confidence limit SMg = sample mean proportion for waste component g 1.645 = standard normal deviate (two -tailed) at a 0.05 level D-4 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC ATTACHMENT D SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS SE,; = standard error for waste component g The overall waste composition estimates were calculated by performing a weighted average across the relevant sampling groups. For the transfer station substream, the estimates were calculated by performing a weighted average based on the tonnage disposed by each transfer station. For the commercial substream, the estimates were calculated by performing a weighted average based on the tonnage hauled by each vehicle type. For the self -haul substreaml, the estimates were calculated by multiplying total self -haul mixed loads by the waste component percentages from mixed loads from the 2001 sampling study. To that was added the tonnages disposed by 18 pure loads. Component percentages were then calculated based on the tons of mixed material and pure loads for each component. The weighting percentages that were used to perform the composition calculations are listed :in Exhibit D-2. This information was obtained frons scale records at the West Hawai'i Landfill for FY 2008. The composition estimates for both the overall waste streams and each substream were applied to the relevant tonnages to estimate the amount of waste disposed for each component category. The weighted average for an overall composition estimate is performed as follows: where: 0l = (PI * j jJ+ (P2 * r 2) + (PI * -I) + q = overall composition estimate for component j p = the production of tonnage contributed by the noted sample group r = ratio of component weight to total waste weight in the noted sample group for j =1 to M where m = number of components APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.DOC D-5 ATTACHMENT D SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT D-2 Weighting Percentages Transfer Stations Tons Disposed Percent of Total Kailua 7,860 6.1% Keauhou 5,017 3.9% Keei / Napoopoo 2,025 1.6% Waiea 2,968 2.3% Milolii 207 0.2% Waiohinu / Ka'u 3,447 2.7% Waimea 6,376 5.0% Puako 2,681 2.1% Kohala 4,145 3.2% Honoka'a 3,459 2.7% Pa'auilo 1,922 1.5% Laupahoehoe 1,547 1.2% Commercial Packers 39,309 ! 30.6% Rolloff 36,671 ; 28.5% Other Commercial 5,000 3.9% Self -Haul Ash 93 0.1% Crop residue 3 0.0% Industrial Sludge 1,585 1.2% Oil 2 0.0% R/C Demo 765 0.6% R/C Organic 294 0.2% R/C Paper 2 0.0% R/C Special 299 I 0.2% Rocks and Soil 786 0.6% Stumps 719 ! 0.6% Tires 116 ! 0.1% Treated Medical 20 0.0% Mixed waste Loads 1,224 1.0% Total 128,543 100.0% Waste was not sampled from the Laupahoehoe, Miloli'i, and Ke'ei transfer stations. When calculating composite results for the transfer station substream, the tons from those stations were assumed to have the composition profile of the following stations: Pa'auilo, Waiea, and Kohala, respectively. D-6 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709DOC ATTACHMENT E Field Sampling Forms' ATTACHMENT E Field Sampling Forms Two sampluig forms were used ul the field d -Luing the sampling event: • Vehicle Selection Sheet • Waste Sort Sheet Examples of those forms follow. APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709.000 E-1 ATTACHMENT E VEHICLE SELECTION FORM COUNTY OF HAWAI' I WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY Vehicle Selection Form Site: Pu'uanahulu Landfill Date: Thursday, May 15, 2008 Cross off one number for each type of vehicle entering the landfill. Continue for each block. beginning at #1, on the next line until the required number of vehicles is sampled. TRANSFER STATION BOXES: NEED 6 TOTAL - SAMPLE EVERY 2nd VEHICLE 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 COMMERCIAL PACKERS: NEED 5 TOTAL -SAMPLE EVERY 3rd VEHICLE 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 COMMERCIAL ROLL -OFFS: NEED 6 TOTAL - SAMPLE EVERY 5th VEHICLE 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 NEED 3 TOTAL - SAMPLE FIRST VEHICLE AFTER TIME INDICATED After 9:00 am After 11:00 am After 2:00 pm E-2 APPX B WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT 121709 DOC Sample ID:. Date: W IL a N N C� J Q w PWuanahulu Landfill Sampling Form Load Type: ❑ ❑ (Commercial Loads Only) TS Com Hauler: Route: Generator: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ (TS Boxes Only) Res Com Mix Const GW R/C Site/Origin: Vehicle Type: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Packer Roll Other TS Off Com Box Cardboard Bags Newspaper White Ledger Colored Ledger Computer Office Magazines Directories Miscellaneous R/C Paper Clear Containers Green Containers Brown Containers Other Containers Flat Glass RIC Glass Aluminum Cans Tin Cans Ferrous Nonferrous White Goods RIC Metal Ash Sewage Sludge Industrial Sludge Treated Medical Bulky Items Tires R/C Special Evidence of Explosive/Hard -to-Process Items in Load: Mixed Residue Yes 11, No 11 Explosives: (e.g., propane tanks) Hard -to -Process Items: Q H N Q J a Food Textiles Leaves and Grass Pruninas Stumps Crop Residue Manure R/C Oraanic Concrete Asphalt Paving Asphalt Roofing off Clean Lumber v Treated Lumber Gypsum Board Rocks and Soil R/C Demo Paint Vehicle Fluids Oil Batteries RIC Hazardous APPX 13—WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709_DOC E-3 Appendix E Chronology for Waste Reduction Technology for Hawaii County Chronology for Waste Reduction Technology for Hawai'i County Date EventlDocument 1995 3/19/1995 Notice to Proposers for RFP S-3227 (RFP #1) 1996 12/16/1996 Letters notifying RFP S-3227 proposers of non -selection 12/16/1996 Letter to Norton Environmental notifying them of selection 2000 8/6/2000 ffiNotice to Proposers for Solid Waste RFP (RFP #2) 11/30/2000 Administration Recommendation to Council 2001 1/1/2001 Department of Environmental Managementestablished� 1/2/2001 Administration Recommendation Withdrawal to Council 5115/2001 Contracted with Harding ESE, Inc. to update the County's Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan (IRSWMP) 5123/2001 Environmental Management Commission first meeting; meetings .held monthly until May 2004, bi- monthly thereafter. 7/3/2001a First Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG) meeting; meetings were held monthly through February 27, 2002 2002 1/23/2002 East Hawaii Regional Transfer Station drawings. submitted to Council 4/30/2002 Regional Transfer Station update provided to Council Parks and Environmental Management Committee 5/20/2002 Draft of IRSWMP submitted to Council 8/19/2002 Public Meeting held in Kona regarding IRSWMP _ 8/20/2002 -Y Public Meeting held in Waimea regarding IRSWMP 8/20/2002 Public Meeting held in Hilo regarding IRSWMP 10/15/2002 Two-day waste technology Vendor presentations to Council at Parks and Environmental Management Committee 11/6/2002 Final Draft of the Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan submitted to Council 11/20/2002 Council Resolution 238-02 to adopt Update to IRSWMP 11/29/2002 State released $1 M CIP For East Hawaii Regional Sort Station and waste diversion planning 12/30/2002 Tipping Fee Increase request submitted to Council 2003 1/8/2003 �- r Two-day- Comprehensive Planning & Visioning meeting for Solid Waste Division (1/8/2003- 1/10/2003) ~ 1/22/2003 �s Council Resolution 28-03. Setting landfill diversion goals with low-tech & high tech - 3/3/2003 Two-day planning meeting Discussion: identifying major issues and articulating possible solution; decision made to procure Sort station independent of waste reduction technology. 3/19/2003 2003 GO Bonds authorizes $4M for Sort Station construction 4/15/2003 y Executed Contract for design and EIS for Sort Station 4/23/2003 EIS Preparation Notice 6/30/2003 Design Forum for Recycling Services at EHRSS 9/22/2003 Sort Station Draft EIS published 10/9/2003 EMC and public tour of Oahu Solid Waste facilities, including Hpower 6/412003- Public meetings held regarding Sort Station EIS 12/17/2003 Date Event/Document 2004 _ } 1/22/2004 Two-day Solid Waste Vision meeting (1/2212004-2312004) 2/23/2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the East Hawai'i Regional Sort Station published by OEQC =g 5/2/2004 Notice of Request for Information for Solid Waste Reduction Technology 5/5/2004 Council Resolution 180-04 adopted 6/30/2004 RFI responses received _ 8/4/2004 Council approves Resolution that supports solid waste landfill diversion through waste reduction �y technology (WRT) with procurement criteria that matches Hawai'i County policies, needs and waste stream, and delineates next actions. 8/4/2004 Award of CDBG Grant to upgrade certain transfer stations 10/13/2004 EMC and public tour of Oahu Solid Waste facilities, including Hpower 10/28/2004 First RFP evaluation committee meeting 10/29/2004 Notice to Offerors published for RFP 2146 (RFP #3)I 12/7/2004 RFP for Waste Reduction Technology Hilo Landfill Site Tour & pre-proposal conference 12/10/2004 � RFP 2146, Addendum No. 1 12/30/2004 RFP 2146, Addendum No. 2 2005 s_ ty1/21/2005 ~ Response deadline for RFP 2146; Received Pacific �Waste Proposal 1/26/2005 RFP evaluation committee meeting 2/412005 RFP evaluation committee meeting 2/16/2005 Additional questions and comments sent to proposer's 3/10/2005 Pacific Waste response received to 2116105 questions z —� 4/11200_5_ _ _RFP evaluation committee_ meeting �- 4/12/20059 RFP evaluation committee meeting 4/20/2005 County Council Executive Session 4/22/2005 Evaluation committee request to Purchasing Agent to cancel RFP and notify responders _ m 4/28/2005 RFP 2146 solicitation cancelled by Purchasing Agent 4/29/2005 Letter from DEM to Council Chair requesting Executilve Session 4/29/2005 Letter from Council Chair Higa to Council members transmitting 4/28/05, 417105 and 4/26105 communications from County and Barlow relating to RFP No. 2146- 5/3/2005 Letter from DEM to Isbell submitting requested C&C of Honolulu's RFP dated 2/14103.6 �= Va 5/5/2005 Letter from Council member Jacobson to Stacy Higa, Council Chair, regarding open discussion of RFP process for Waste Reduction Technology, and Resolution 218-04. 5/9/2005 Council member Jacobson submitted a press release regarding the Waste Reduction Technology RFP 5/11/2005 Article regarding Solid Waste Reduction, West Hawai'i Today 5/16/2005 Letter from Mayor to Council relating to RFP cancellation and legal restrictions in the Procurement Code 12/28/2005 Issuance of Stage 1 Proposals - RFP#2210 (RFP #4) 2006 3/20/2006 Received responses & transmitted to Evaluation Committee 5/1/2006 Issuance of Short List to receive Stage 2 RFP 5/8/2006 EISPN published in State OEQC Bulletin 6/7/2006 End of EISPN Public Comment Period 10/6/2006 Issuance of Stage 2 Proposals - RFP#2210 Date Event/Document 2007 h�a 4/16/2007 Received responses & transmitted to Evaluation Committee 2008 2/25/2008 Received and reviewed Wheelabrator's BAFO 31412008 Awarded Contract to Wheelabrator Technologies _ 4/21/2008 Finance Committee forwarded Resolution 551-08 (authorizing payment for a multi-year contract for a WTE Facility) to Council with negative recommendation 4x3125/2008- Public hearings held around the island 4� 4/15/2008. 5/7/2008 Council votes 5-3 not to approve Resolution 551-08 2014-2020 Year 2014v TCounty issues third RFP issued for WTE facility proposals, withdrawn Year 2017 a Two organics management sites constructed in lieu of advanced technologies `y Year 2018 _ County issues RFP for construction of a compost and green waste processing facility, a compost facility is slated for operation in 2020 Appendix F Ordinance 18-5 — Solid Waste Fees frt es N� •4z COUNTY OF HAWAI `I :' r : STATE OF HAWAI `I BILL NO. 82 (DRAFT 2) ORDINANCE NO. IS 5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE 4, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO SOLID WASTE FEES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to increase disposal fees to cover costs incurred by the. Solid Waste Division of the Department of Environmental Management for services it provides to the residents of and visitors to Hawaii County. The County of Hawai`i's Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan complies with state mandates of waste reduction and provides a path to provide solid waste disposal services for all, including the operation of all transfer stations and recycling operations. The current plan requires capital improvements, new equipment, maintenance of existing equipment, as well as improved service. The County seeks a healthy economy that requires intelligent and efficient solid waste management and disposal. Presently, the General Fund subsidy is substantial. Adoption of these changes will reduce the Solid Waste Division's dependence on the General Fund as well as provide the groundwork for implementation of the updated plan. SECTION 2. Chapter 20, article 4, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 edition, as amended) is amended to read as follows: "Article 4. Solid Waste Fees. Section 2046. Disposal fees. (a) Any refuse, except for prohibited materials, delivered by a business, Federal or State agency, religious entity, nonprofit organization or private citizen to the working face of a County landfill or the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station shall be charged by the ton or fraction thereof at rates as set forth herein. (b) In addition to the per ton charge or volume charge, items which cannot be disposed in the working face of the landfill or the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station in accordance with usual disposal practices or which require special handling and/or arrangements by landfill or East Hawaii Regional Sort Station personnel shall be assessed a special handling charge at rates as set forth herein. Such items shall include but may not be limited to asbestos and confidential document destruction or other disposal requiring a witness. Tires, whether whole, cut, sliced, chipped or shredded, will not be accepted at any County landfill [-], the East Hawai `i Regional Sort Station, or transfer station. All wire or cable must be cut to four -foot lengths prior to disposal at any County landfill, the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station. or transfer station. (c) Administrative rules shall provide partial credit to commercial haulers for residential waste. The amount of the credit shall be no less than $2 per month for each single-family household from which the hauler collects refuse, provided the hauler's account is current. The annual credit shall be equal to the landfill disposal fee multiplied by one and one-half tons per year per single-family household. The residential credit shall not exceed the total landfill tipping fees charged to the residential hauler for the month for which the credit is being claimed. Commercial haulers who claim this credit shall provide documentation to the solid waste division including customer name, mailing address, and service address for each credit claimed. Claims for the residential ,credit must be submitted on or before the last day of the month following the month for which the credit is being claimed and the hauler's account must be current for the credit to be applied. Names, mailing addresses, and service addresses of customers of residential haulers are subject to the disclosure limitations in section 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes as disclosure would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained. (d) The mayor, with the approval of the council, may temporarily rescind the solid waste disposal fees for a specified period. (e) The mayor may waive solid waste disposal fees when it is in the best interest of the County. Fees may be waived for one-time events for community organizations, nonprofit organizations, or private property owners who are remediating illegal dump sites which were not of their creation. The mayor will give notice to the council when tip [fee4a] fees are waived. singlelfihmilAx heliseheld disposal at the • . n �- - - - -- 7 1- - - - ---�71 1- - - -- - - -- ----------� basis through jffimafy 1, 'J I Section 20-47. Collection of fees. (a) All charges shall be collected by the solid waste division of the department. Billings shall be made monthly. Payments are due before the end of the month following the month in which charges are incurred. A finance charge of one [and-en€J percent monthly (annual rate of [eighteen] twelve percent) shall be charged on all bialances which are [s;v* r ^,^F ea ;^tir. over -due ] asp t due. In addition to this, access to County solid waste facilities may be denied until the account is current. 2 Section 20-48. Solid waste fund designation. (a) There is hereby created and established a special fund to be known as the "solid waste fund." (b) All funds received from the collection of fees authorized by this chapter shall be deposited with the director of finance and shall be accounted for and be known as the "Solid Waste Fund" and shall be expended for the purpose of operating, maintaining, and administering the County's solid waste management, collection, and disposal systems. Section 20-49. Fee schedule. (a) Charge rates shall be established as follows: (1) Landfill disposal. (A) Rate by weight: Dollars per ton prorated accordingly. Year beginning on July 1 of each calendar year. [] [2004] [] [] [20P] 2018 2019 2020' 2021 2022 [W] [W] [] [$74] [] $108 $110 $112 $114 $116 (B) When and if it is impossible or impractical due to power outage, [ d issite disaster, or other emergency to determine an accurate weight, rates by vehicle size and volume shall be used: TYPE I: Light trucks or other vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 pounds with no more than three cubic yards of refuse charged as dollars per truck. Year beginning on July 1 of each calendar year. [1003 ] [] [2W] [] [2N7] 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 [$2-7-] [$34] [S39] [W] ['] $65 $66 $67 $68 $70 TYPE H: Medium trucks or other vehicles with a gross vehicle weight from 10,000 pounds to 19,999 pounds with no more than six cubic yards of refuse charged as dollars per truck. 3 Year beginning on July 1 of each calendar year. [] [] [20GS] [] [2W7] 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 [] [] [V76] [SI"] [-$96] $109 $111 $113 $115 i 117 TYPE III: Large trucks or other vehicles with a gross vehicle weight from 20,000 pounds to 25,999 pounds with no more than nine cubic yards of refuse charged as dollars per truck. Year beginning on July 1 of each calendar year. [1 [] [] [] [] 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 IM] [091 W471 10351 ["5-31 194 $198 202 005 $209 TYPE IV: All other trucks or vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 26,000 pounds including commercial refuse hauling trucks or all other vehicles not qualifying as a' Type I, II, or III: 1. Compacted. Dollars per cubic yard. Year beginning on July 1 of each calendar year. [1 [] [20W[1 [2(�*] 11 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 [$9] IS41 [W] [$2-4] [M] $36 $36 37 38 $38 2. Not compacted. Dollars per cubic yard. Year beginning on July 1 of each cailendar year. [] Com] [] [2(�*] [] 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 [$9] IS41 [W] [W] [S] $22 22 $22 $23 $23 4 (C) Special Handling: [W] Dollars per truck load or fraction thereof. Year beginningon July 1 of each calendar year. 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 $108 $110 $112 $114 $116 (2) Greenwaste and Organics Diversion. (A) All clean greenwaste and acceptable organics must be delivered to a permitted County greenwaste and organics collection facility. (B) The greenwaste and organics disposal fee is set at 25% of the landfill disposal fee as described in section 20-49(a)(1)(A). (C) The greenwaste and organics disposal fee is set at 65% of the landfill disposal fee as described in section 20-49(a)(1)(B) at a County greenwaste and organics collection facility without scales. These facilities are able to accept Type I and Type II trucks only. (D) Greenwaste and organics must be separated from other solid waste in order to qualify for the reduced greenwaste and organics disposal fee. (E) The greenwaste and organics disposal fee may be suspended by the director if the greenwate and organics facilities are not operating." SECTION 3. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed and stricken material, and underscoring need not be included. SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2018. Hilo , Hawai`i Date of Introduction: Date of i st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: INTRODUCED BY; COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII December 20, 2017 December 20, 2017 January 4, 2018 July 1, 2018 REFERENCE Comm. 606.5 5 I OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK County of Hawaii Hilo, Hawaii Introduced By: Maile David (B/R) Date Introduced: December 20, 2 017 First Reading: December 20, 2 017 Published: December 30, 2 017 REMARKS: Second Reading: January 4, 2018 To Mayor: January 12, 2018 Returned: January 17,L 2018 Effective: July 1, 2018 Published: January 27, 2018 REMARKS• - iTY Off' HAWA H 7R1A ifum 17 f 1,I 4: -4A ROLL CALL VOTE I AYES NOES ABS EX Chung X X David X Eoff X Kanuha X Lee Loy X O'Hara X X Poindexter X Richards X X Ruggles X 9 0 0 0 ROLL CALL VOTE AYES NOES ABS EX Chung X David X Eoff X Kanuha X Lee Loy X O'Hara X Poindexter X Richards X Ruggles X 6 0 3 0 1 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing BILL was adopted ,by the County Council published as indicated above. E ove Disapproved this Of 46 11) la Q Irl , 20— M4 Y 0_ MAY COUNTY AWA17 COU L CHAIRPERSON day D NTY CL ZRK Bill No.: 82 (Draft 2 ) Reference: C-606.5/FC-70 Ord No.: 1� 5 Appendix G Draft Plan Comments and Responses ��r•of ti!!� Harry Kim ��`P�.. a William A. Kucharski Mayor Director Roy Takemoto';;•.."r*�� Diane A. Noda Managing Director Deputy Director County of Hawail DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 345 Kekuanao`a Street, Suite 41 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Ph: (808) 961-8083. Fax: (808) 961-8086 Email: cohdeiii@tiawaiicounty.gov December 2, 2019 MEDIA RELEASE Contact: George Hayducsko, Recycling Coordinator, County of Hawaii Solid Waste Division, 808-961-8942 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS Every 10 years, the County of Hawaii Solid Waste Division (`Division") is required to update its Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP or the Plan). per Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 342G. The current planning cycle began in May of 2018, with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee holding monthly meetings which were open to the public. The committee worked with the Division and its consultant to develop the revised Plan. The draft Plan will be available to the public in pdf format on the Division's website on December 6, 2019 (www.HawaiiZeroWaste.org). The public comment period will be open for sixty (60) days, from December 6, 2019 through February 4, 2020, and we encourage all those interested in submitting comments to do so during that time period. Two informational meetings will be held for the public to learn more about the Draft Plan, the findings, recommendations and to answer any questions the public may have. We hope this will assist the public if they choose to provide testimony regarding the draft report. The dates, times. and locations of the informational meetings are below. Written testimony will be accepted throughout the entire public comment period, and oral testimony will be taken at public hearings which will be held on January 21 and 23. 2020. Details for the public hearings will be announced at a later date. County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS Kona Monday, December 9, 2019 5:00 - 7:00 pm NELHA Gateway Visitors Center 73-4460 Queen Ka`ahumanu Hwy, Suite 125 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 .nre.� Wednesday, December 11, 2019 5:00 — 7:00 pm Aupuni Center Conference Room 101 Pauahi Street. Suite 1 Hilo, HI 96720 For further information, please visit our website at www.hawaiizerowaste.orq or call the Solid Waste Division office at 961-8270. Harry Kim '��... 1 Mayor �•� Roy Takemoto �'o;-►.., Managing Director County of Hawaii DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 345 Kekuanao'a Street, Suite 41 - Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Ph: (808) 961-8083 • Fax: (808) 961-8086 Email: colidet-n@DtlaWaiiCOLinty.gov MEDIA RELEASE Release Date: January 15, 2020 Contact: George Hayducsko. Recycling Coordinator, County of Hawaii Solid Waste Division 808-961-8942 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update PUBLIC HEARINGS William A. Kucharski Director Diane A. Noda Deputy Director Every ten years the County of Hawaii Solid Waste Division is required to update its Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP or the Plan), per §HRS 342G. The Public Comment period is open for sixty (60) days, from December 6. 2019 through February 4, 2020 and we encourage all those interested in submitting comments to do so during that time period. Written testimony will be accepted throughout the entire public comment period and can be emailed to ISWMP(a-),hawaiicounty.gov Oral testimony will be taken at the Public Hearings in January as follows: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update PUBLIC HEARINGS Date: January 21. 2020 (Tuesday) Time: 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Place: Aupuni Center Conference Room 101 Pauahi St.. Suite 1. Hilo Date: January 23. 2020 (Thursday) Time: 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Place: Council Chambers West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A, Kailua-Kona County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer To testify at the Public Hearing, you must sign in upon arrival and fill out a small form. Speakers will be called in order of arrival and be limited to three minutes to testify. More information available at https://www.hawaiizerowaste.org/events/integrated-solid-waste- management-plan-2019-update-public-comment-period-open/?mc id=1023 A copy of the DRAFT Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update will be on file and open to inspection from December 6, 2019 through February 4, 2020, during office hours at the Department of Environmental Management, 345 Kekuanao,a St., Suite 41, Hilo, Hawaii. Additionally, DRAFT Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update as a pdf can be found on-line at https://hawalizerowaste.org/site-content/uploads/County- of-Hawai%E2%80%98i-Integrated-Solid-Waste-Management-Plan-Update-20190821- DRAFT.pdf For further information, please visit our website at www.hawaiizerowaste.org or call 961- 8942. Comity of Hawai' i is an Equal Opport uuty Prodder and Employer. County of Hawaii Draft 2019 ISWM Plan DOH comments November 25, 2019 General Comment The plan lacks an energy -balance component, facility implementation component and a complete program funding component. The facility implementation and program funding components are especially important towards making the plan complete. Specific Comments Sec. 4.3.1.2, pg. 4-7, paragraph 2. The statement -In FY 2015, the container fee dropped from 1.5 to 1 cent per container resulting in about 68 percent redemption rate..." suggests that the container fee amount affects the redemption rate is inaccurate. Statute allows the department to adjust the container fee based on the redemption rate. Sec. 4.3.1.3, pg. 4-8, paragraph 2. The CRC counts are not accurate and pertain to activity in other counties. We suggest focusing on the number of CRCs on Hawaii Island. Sec. 4.3.3.5, pg. 4-13, paragraph 4. The information regarding rates for on -island use and for remanufacturing is obsolete (and mixes descriptions of ADF and DBC program activities) and suggest it be removed. Sec. 4.5.4, pg. 4-21, bullet #1. The term 'waste mitigation" seems to be used interchangeably with "waste reduction" here and throughout the plan document. If these are references to waste reduction activities, we suggest the uniform use of "waste reduction". If the mitigation actions differ from reduction activities the difference should be explained. Sec. 4.6.1, pg. 4-34. Recommendation to establish a differential tip fee ordinance. Can more information be included? i.e. potential tiers for the differential tip fee and materials to be covered. Sec. 5.5.6, pg. 5-9 to 5-10. The discussion of reducing the toxicity of commercial discards to the landfill describes the management of hazardous wastes; which are prohibited from both county landfills. This section should be edited for clarity. Sec. 6.2.1, pg. 6-1. We recommend editing this section to clearly distinguish between hazardous wastes and solid wastes: and to clearly explain the household hazardous waste exemption. Sec. 6.5.5, pg. 6-10. We note that a solid waste and/or hazardous waste permit may be required for the activities described in this section. The permitting requirements would be dependent on the source of the material and type of process to be used at the prospective facility or facilities. Sec. 7.2.7.. pg. 7-4, paragraph 2. The statement that '...there are no required standard practices or documentation procedures." (for medical waste) is incorrect. Hawaii Administrative Rules Ch. 104.1 "Management of and Disposal of Infectious Waste" is an applicable regulatory requirement for the storage, transportation, and treatment of infectious waste. Responses to Hawai'i Department of Health Comments: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... HDOHComments provided November 25, 2019................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ..................... General :N/A n ........................................... :N/A : ............................................................. :The plan lacks an energy -balance component, facility :Prepared Energy Balance Component (Appendix H) and added a table Exhibit :implementation component and a :10-9 that outlines the 10 -year funding projections for the 10 -year planning :complete program funding component. The facility :timeframefor the recommendations identified throughout this Plan. :implementation and program funding :components are especially important towards making :the plan complete. ...........................................Z....................................................5............................................................ :Paragraph 2 ........................................................................................ ......... :Sec. 4.3.1.2, pg. 4-7, paragraph 2. The statement "In ;Container fee discussion was modified to omit the correlation between :FY 2015, the container fee dropped from 1.S to 1 cent ?container fee and redemption. :per container resulting in about 68 percent :redemption rate..." suggests that the container fee :amount affects the redemption rate is inaccurate. :Statute allows the department :to adjust the container fee based on the redemption :rate. 4...........................4-8....................Paragraph.2............................. Sec. 4.3.1.3, pg. 4-8, paragraph 2. The CRC counts are :Revised narrative to emphasize HI County only. :not accurate and pertain to activity in other counties. :We suggest focusing on the number of CRCs on :Hawaii Island. ...............................:............................................................................... 4 :4-13 Paragraph 4 ;. .. ................................................. ............................ paragraph........ ........................................... ;......................pg:...........paragraph :Sec. 4.3.3.5 4-13 ara ra h 4. The information :Removed entire of obsolete information. :regarding rates for on -island use and for :remanufacturing is obsolete (and mixes descriptions :of AN and DBC program activities) and suggest it be :removed. ................................:........................... 4 :4-21 :.................................................... :Bullet 1 ................................................ ..........................:.................................................... .. :..................................................................... ............................. :Sec. 4.5.4, pg. 4-21, bullet #1. The term "waste :Edited to refer to "waste mitigation" as "waste reduction." :mitigation" seems to be used interchangeably with "waste reduction" here and throughout the plan :document. If these are references to waste reduction : :activities, we suggest the uniform use of "waste :reduction". If the mitigation actions differ from :reduction activities the difference should be ................................:................................................................................................................................................................................:....................................................................................................................................... :explained. . ............................. Vi ................................................................................................. ............................................................. . ............................ Ln Ab OI ................................ ...... ........... ................................. ........................ ......... ................... ............................ V 014 CL ............................. ................................. ................................. ............................... ............... W..y ..... ............................ m m 'o ZA 0i r 0 m --j o ON, 0 IM: 0 =r 3 cu - 2. a m tu su CL 3 - : 3 m m -M 3 m r W -9 W: =r 0 tA CL GE 'o CU M aa - CL Ra 0 o cu Or an m CL 4A lo, Y, —A* CU =r3 w o M > 9 0 O° r- 6A 0 -0 CL CL CL S. w :3 0 3 CL -9 cx ;w M Ln - CL c m CL m cu an n CU 0 3 cu CX o 0 CL el -9 m CU ;t Ic 3 =r: M CL 0 cu cu ?NJ r+ cu 0 M 0 rA -1 m IA n 03 CL CL M :E cu o CU ti) o 4CAL 0 m c *a oM z 0 3 0 0 ? rLr 0 M CL lu e*t L., n cu CL 0 5 ;r ' :E LA a m M CL cu Opo: 6 &A IN 0 fu 3 15 -9 cu c r - CL m cx 3. 0. 5' Z o cu CW ....................... .............................. ...... ................................. ........................................................ . ............................ >: m:o M: CL: CL 3 m CL: aa ON CL eo a X lu UQ OQ fu ro 4A CL c. rr: OL OQ CL rr: m TL ................................................ ......................... ........................... ....................... I ................. ...... Berrig, panne From: arroya@protonmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 5:18 PM To: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) Subject: DOCUMENTARY SOLID WASTE IN HAWAII TO WHOM IT MAY,CONCERN: ON TUESDAY, 21 JANUARY, I ATTENDED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR COUNTY'S SOLID WASTE PLAN 2020. THE NEED FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION ON WASTE AND RECYCLING WAS A .RECURRING CONCERN BY PRESENTERS, AS SUCH, I AM WRITING TO ASK THATTHE COUNTY CONSIDER FILMING A DOCUMENTARY ON JUST HOW MUCH WASTE WE AS A COLLECTIVE PRODUCE IN HAWAII. THE DOCUMENTARY WOULD BRING TO LIGHT THE COLLECTIVE. EFFORT NEEDED TO ADDRESS THIS SOON TO BE AN OVERWHELMING TASK THAT WILL HARM NOT ONLY THE AINA AND OUR OCEANS, BUT THE HEALTH AND FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN AND NATURAL HABITAT. "A PICTURE PAINTS A THOUSAND WORDS," SAYS IT QUITE CLEARLY. THE POWER OF THE TRUTH ABOUT WASTE AND RECYCLING PRESENTED WITH A DOCUMENTARY WOULD HAVE A TREMENDOUS EFFECT IN BRINGING AWARENESS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PEOPLE OF HAWAII. IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE THAT YOU CONSIDER THIS REQUEST IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO ALREADY. MAY WE AWAKEN TO THE URGENT TRUTH ABOUT OUR COLLECTIVE WASTE, AND THROUGH OUR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS SUPPORT THE BEAUTY THAT IS HAWAII. THANK YOU, MAHALO, ARROYA Response to 'Arroya' Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated So lid Waste Management Plan Update. Education and Outreach is ranked as the highest priority by the Solid Waste Advisory Committee for the 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. A documentary would fall under this category. 2 Berrig, Sanne _ .r From: Chuck Austin tchuckaustin82@gmail.com5 Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2019 3:23 PM To: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) Subject: Garbage Aloha Hawaiian Islands. This should be a priority around the world not fust the iskands or the mainland. We are going to Mars!! We think were so " tech savvy" yet we cannot figure out a way to efficiently take care of our trash??? We collect Comet dust a billion miles away yet cant figure out what to do with a can???? Take on this problem please. If you can do this, we all can do this and for once we will be able to call ourselves intelligent. 1. What worked 2. What didnt work. 3 keep wotking. Thank you. A beautiful place I hope to visit someday. P.S not capping on anyone, capping on everyone. What a great opportunity to be a model for us all on this blue marble. 2020_01_23 Iona Public Hearing CHUCK BARKER: Good evening, I'm Chuck Barker, and 1'kn here with my business partner, Jeff Hagan. l had not planned to testify this evening, I'd really just come over to listen, because we t rissed the Hila meeting, but 1 couldn't help myself l really just wanted to mention in about two, perhaps three weeks, we are going to announce a p1roject which is a term—it's kind of a perfect match for a term that's somewhat overused, and it's a genuine public-private partnership. One thing that ! think we recognize, and It's probably not something that everybody in this room isn't aware of, is that it all seems to boil down to economics. And that's from the very outset of waste materials that we havedifficulty motivating people to, even at the drop-off point, to separate things if there isn't some monetary benefit. Obviously, the five -cent redemption program, since it's been in place for so long, you wouldn't see those bottles come back were it not for that. But taking it ail the way through the waste stream collection process and what can be separated and recycled, many of you know Roy Kadofa and Mr. K's. And they do a lot of work in recycling. But there are some waste s�ream elements that they have that we can put to good productive use. And that is what we plan to do. We'll make use of every available public program, like the Enterprise Zone and some of the job retraining programs without being any burden at all. Where's no—we're not looking for any participation or grant funding or anything like this, because we know that the only thing that can drive this is a product which is sufficiently valuable at that it pays for the facility and the equipment and the staff to be properly compensated, as they should be. Our guess is that we'll probably --this won't be giant—we'll probably employ something on the order of 20 people, but it will be productive and it will have an impact on what solid waste is going into the waste stream, and be a profoundly environmentally responsible undertaking. But it only works because it's internally self-sustaining and actually makes money. The funding will go through an SBA 7A program. We're doing that in stages. Anywa , 1 just wanted to kind of let everybody know a little bit about it. It's sort of still a secret, but it Won't be in just a couple of weeks. Thank you, that was all. And we hope to be some real, genuine help here that can be a real win for what we ail have in mind here. Response to Barker, Chuck Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. Mahalo for attending the Kona Public Hearing. The County of Hawai'i welcomes any program that, "will be productive,..., and be a profoundly environmentally -responsible undertaking.... internally self- sustaining and actually makes money." 2020_0._21 Nilo Public Nearing as a SWAG member PAUL BUKLAREWICZ (response to testimony): I wasn't just wanted to focus on one of the comments by Mr. Prt contingency plan for on earthquake. This is something Just to let you know that I spent 15 years on Recycle Ha handfed e -waste from about 2004 through 2010 or 11. have an earthquake in 2006. So we do have the experiE ideas and improving the way things were handled hack that. But just to let you know, we've got the experience background. That [spoken] was as a SWAG: )repared with a regular speech, but 1 tt of Mr. K's about the a -waste and the re can work out of the plan like that. vai'i as executive director, and we iome of us are still here. And we did Ice to help in terms of coming up with n 2006. We did get FEMA money to do and we've got the knowhow and the S_ Response to Buklarewicz, Paul Mr. Buklarewicz is a member of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. His comments were in response to a member of the public testifying on e -waste. Solid Waste Advisory Commitee Mr. ft's - Tran cripf of Testimonies on Jan. 21, 2020, Hilo CLAIRE CEA Mr. K's Reevele and Redemption Center Good evening, everyone. My name is Claire Cea. I supervise the logging of all the waste. Nve collect and process our invoices and counter subsidies for recycling and. e-tivaste at Mr. ICs Recycle and Redemption Center. In section 6.4.2 of the Integrated Solid Waste Flan, the County is suggesting that funding for e-Nvaste be limited to the Ruids coming f -orn the State, and that these State funds can be used only, to subsidize residential e -waste. Lixn.iting subsidies to residents doesn t shift the cast of recy-cling e -waste to only private businesses. It also impacts our iioaapa oflts and sclaool.s. In fiscal year 2017-201.8, ,vve held an event wbeu people and organizations could bring their e-ivaste at no cost due to the state and county ;ubsidies. A group of schools frons Kona trucked, in. a lumber trailer containing w tons of computers and other e -waste.. 10 tons. That's about $11,000. Why io tons? One reason vvas they waited for a day -~when the recycling fee Nvas subsidized. A second reason was another organization subsidized the trucking to bring the e --waste from Kona to .Hilo. The cost of recycling is a decisive disincentive for schools and nonprofits as well as businesses. HoweA!er, we believe State fLinds COUL� be used to help subsidize their fees. Under the Electronic Waste and Tele,\dsion Rearclic lg and Recover- Act of Zoog, each electronic manufacturer pars a registration fee of $�aa0 into a state Electronic DeArice Recycling Fond. The state then grants funds to counties. This plan proposes limiting the $16o,000 received from the state Electronic Device Recycling Fund to only residential e. -waste. I'd like to read from Chapter' 339D of the Electronics Waste and Television Recycling and Recovery Act, Part 1, which defines who is co-t-rered by the act and therefore eligible for fee subsidies. � I Solid Waste Advisory Committee Mr. K's - Transcript of Testimonies on Jan. 21, 2020, Nilo According to the Act, entities that are covered are "any household, gouerninent entity, business, or non-prrQfr't 01•gunizati077 exempt from taxation under sectiOn 501(cA regardless of size or place of operation within the state." In other words, state Electronic Device Recycling Funds COULD be used to help address e--Nl7aste generated by businesses, schools, and non -profits. There is too niuch e-i-vaste being generated by these valuable community organizations to risk disincentiAzing them by cutting their subsidy. ThaI1l-, you. Claire Cea Response to Cea, Claire Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated So id Waste Management Plan Update. Currently, the State of Hawaii's Grant Funding Program falls sort of our needs in the County of Hawai'i. This is addressed in Chapter 6, Recommendation 4: Assess legislative actions that may be necessary to improve a -waste programs including demanufactu ring, storage and handling, and funding equity. TESTIMONY TO THE COUNTY OF HAWAII DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT JANUARY 23, 2020 KONA, HAWAR My name is Jerry Chang. I have been following the issue of Hawaii Island's landfill problems for over 20 years to back when the EPA issued a mandate to close the Hilo landfill because it was built before the requirement that the landfill be lined to prevent seepage into our water table. There were several different companies and technologies awarded to the county's Requests for Proposals, but now we are forced to close the old Hilo landfill at a cost of over $20 million because none of the awardees could fulfill their proposals, either because we could not provide enough waste to maize It financially feasible, or not environmentally acceptable among other issues. At the added expense, including fuel, labor, maintenance and liability and detrimental effects on our environment from diesel emissions and wear and tearon our highways, we are now transporting eight county truckloads of residential thrash to this side of our island daily. T his does not include the commercial waste. Businesses are now burdened with an additional expense of transporting their waste as well as paying tipping fees at the landfill. I have attended several hearings where I have heard opposing testimony on waste to energy because of the environmental concerns of incineration which produces airborne contaminates and heavy fly ash. There Is a proven technology based on the principles of Gasification and Pyrolysis which is not considered incineration. Incineration is the burning of fuels in an oxygen rich environment, where the waste material combusts and produces heat, water and,carbon dioxide, along with a variety of other pollutants. Incineration is not a complete combustion which produces more ash that eventually will need to go into the landfill and requires longer pre-processing time. It's important to understand the advantage of gasification when compared to incineration. There is a significant difference between the two processes. Gasification is the conversion of feedstock such as biomass, and landfill wastes, including plastics, tires, sewage sludge, waste oil, medical waste and electronics into combustible gas molecules and ash. The gas consists of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane forming what is known collectively as Syngas, which can be burned to generate steam to run a combustion engine and usable forms of energy including steam, electricity and hydrogen. These systems are run at high temperatures of over 1500 Fahrenheit which ensure complete combustion to eliminate emissions. Furthermore, with batch gasification there is very little particulates produced which substantially reduces the risk of airborne contaminants and the remaining ash can have secondary value by adding into asphalt. The county is actively pursuing converting the mass transit bases and fleet to hydrogen. Using waste to create the energy to produce the hydrogen, which creates a (ower environmental footprint, would-be a perfect match by creating a fuel, as well as eliminating waste and reducing landfilling. f recommend the county consider putting out a Request for Proposal so companies can propose their technologies for consideration. The Request for Proposal should include requirements that it be EPA approved, proven and flexible enough to build to the county's specific size requirements. A facility should be built on both sides of the island to avoid transporting and additional expense to comm rcial users. I appreciate the county for taking the initiative to include t issue. Mahalo, Jerry L. Chang 2944 i(aurnana Drive Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: Bag 286-04.61 Email mastifa@gmaii.com gmaii.com community for input in this very important -7.2 Response to Chang, Jerry Please see Chapter 9, Section 9.8 Between 2006 and 2014, the County issued several RFPs to vendors who could potentially design, construct, and operate a waste to energy (WTE) facility. The County's evaluation of proposals during this time determined that a mass burn WTE facility was the most commercially and technically feasible option. The County rejected a proposal in 2008 due to higher than expected costs. The County will consider recovery and treatment technology for handling of municipal solid waste if all of the following criteria are met: 1) waste diversion approaches already in operation are ineffectual or cost prohibitive in meeting County waste reduction goals, 2) it can be demonstrated that the technology is environmentally sound and economically feasible, and 3) the technology has a verifiable and viable commercial track record (minimum of 5 years). S, ISWMP@hawaijcounty.gov In December, .i attended the first of two County of :Iawaii presentations its I}lilo on. the Dram ISWMR Mang kudos go to the SWD/Recyc inl; unit for a congenial olid informative presentation. With respect to the Plan, I eras particularly impressed with continuing the Zero Waste. philosophy, as well as the Recommendations for the next decade;. Like many residents, my concern is the Al recont-ti education and outreach. There seenis to be a disc disposal practices. I realize that county workers cooperation, but a lot of this is due to people not u thein to do. This is especially true when. it comes newspaper ads are great, but ton infrequent. Mori and visitors. As well, people need to be encotual thin;" when it comes to waste disposal. :t}dation by -Plan committee members: nnect with -the public on proper waste ften get complaints rather that derstanding just what It is you want D Reduce, .Meuse and Recycle. The information needs to get to residents 'd to be responsible and "do the right A substantial portion of SWD budget should go toublic education. And nowadays, there arc cost-effective ways to reach more people on the: Island than previously available. Suggestions: Create a Coli Recd►cling FaceBook mage. Post info oevents, update recycling news. ctc. Invite the public to post usehil ideas for Reusing items. This would be low cost, engages tate public, requires minimal employee time to monitor. Get TV and radio zrds back on a weekly basis. A4ake I'iessages short, clear and doable. Invite people to the Go.I Recycling l+'aceBuuk page tr ll�r•aii�'t'�}' c website. Use: small newspaper ads once a --xeek: provide tips o i disposal ideas. (Example, Got a backyard') Start a compost pile. Spee havaflzerowaatc.org for marc info. OR Recycle Clean - rinse out all food and resi, ue froill containerti.) Continue schools peesentations on ecru N-Vastc. Engage snicknts with recycling or reuse challenges. Provide information on prober S1 disposal., as tliGy will be the ones to inherit the: Island. Conduct n WM Attitude SLumrcy (Section .5.27) stiggcsis providing a survey by snail, telephone or (residential`) drop-off-. Sur%,ey Monkey is a�1 on-line option. Mail -in surveys can act as netivspaperinserts, or be put at stare clieckout stands, the Library or County 2 offices. Also, limiting a survey to 10 questions or less gets more response. In a different vein, in 4.3.3 seeping more Local Markets would be a strong move in the right direction. With clanging tunes, it's best to seek sustainability and find end-users close to home. 3 Assisting local recyclers in finding end-users would also add to waste reduction and be .in Be with the goals of the Plan. Overall, the Draft 1SWMP and Committee recommendations show forward thinking and good outcomes for handling the County's waste disposal needs for the next ten years. At the Hilo presentation, I was further impressed by the notion that another goal of S D is reducing .its carbon footprint. That coupled with Plan Recommendations can only bring good results for the County as a whole. Respectfully, .Linda Dainas PD Box 59-38 14 lo, Iii 96720 damas�t�a�vaii.ed 808-961-5951 Response to Damas, Linda Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated 1. 2. 3. Education and Outreach is ranked as the highest prior for the 2019 Plan. In 2018, before the global changes recycling programs, the County of Hawai'i (County) hi to assist with and expand existing waste diversion prc id Waste Management Plan Update (Plan). f by the Solid Waste Advisory Committee Agan to affect our local recyclers and just added a Recycling Specialist position rams. Since then, the Recycling/ Waste Diversion Section his created collaborative relationships with new and existing community groups / nonprofits such as Zero Waste Big Island, Recycle Hawai'i, and Habitat for Humanity ReStore; accepted more invitations and created more opportunities to interact with the community; is working with the State of Hawaii's Green Business Program to expand their program to Hawai'i Island; has sponsored a group of university students working on a feasibility study of a reusable take-out food service ware program for Hilo; is collaborating with Zero Waste Big Island on a Master Recycle r/ComlIposter program (modeled after Portland, Oregon's program); creating social media content; is working to develop a County Facebook page. Some of these are described in 5.3.1.1— 5.3.1.7 of the Plan. Local markets are a challenge on Hawaii Island. Besides the market discussion in Chapter 4, one small business, U,pcycle Hawaii, is successfully capturing plastic film and marine debris for their products. There is also a grass-roots effort to develop a small cottage -industry for capturing some of the plastic currently landfilled to make prodcts. Since the program cutbacks of October 2019, several entrepreneurs have reached out to the County with ideas for plastic recycling/reuse. Berritg, Sanne From: Mike Danks <milce.danl<s@americangypsum.coi-n> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 3:16 AM To: Integrated Solid Waste /Management Plan (ISWMP) Subject: Public Comment - Solid Waste Management Please make plastic waste a PRIORITY for Hawaii. E=limination of plastic waste and replacement with aluminum or glass recyclables should be the top priority of Hawaii's "Zero Waste" goal in the new 5 year plan. Source reduction is key to the reduction of plastic waste in Hawaii. o Practicality of elimination of plastic materials should be a key consideration. o For instance, since Hawaii Island and most others are tourist destinations, it is unreasonable to eliminate plastic food utensils from fast food restaurants for food to go. o However, for these same fast food restaurants it is not unreasonable to eliminate all plastic or Styrofoam drinking containers and plastic straws. These are easily replaced with cardboard that is recyclable or biodegradable or can easily be used for waste to energy fuel. Phasing in the elimination with gradual tax consequences should ensure success with this method. Source reduction is key to the reduction of plastic waste in Hawaii (I can't overstate this). o A high priority should be placed on the largest volume source of plastics. That would be liquid containers. Plastics are used for virtually every liquid today. ® Using the practicality model, there are some containers that should likely remain as plastic for safety. Liquids such as soap, bleach, corrosive chemicals (pool and laboratory chemicals), and other commercial liquids. o However, any consumer beverage that is currently bottled in plastic can easily be required to be bottled in aluminum cans or glass bottles that are much better recycling materials. Legislation to encourage replacement of plastics with aluminum or glass should be initiated starting with strong cash recycling incentives and then tapering off. Legislation can also be passed that will require a reduction in plastic bottling by beverage manufactures progressing to consequential taxes for plastic beverage containers. Michael and Karen Danks Oceanview, Hawaii NOTICE: This electronic mail message is intended exclusively for the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed_ This message, together with any attachment(s), may contain confidential, privileged and/or proprietary information. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, retention, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message. American Gypsum Company LLC disclaims all responsibility and liability for the accuracy and content of this attachment and for any damages or losses arising from any inaccuracies, errors. viruses (e.g., worms, trojan horses, etc.), or other items of a destructive nature, which may be contained in this email and its attachments and shall not be liable for direct, indirect, consequential or special damages in connection with this e-mail message or its attachments. Response to Danks, Mike and Karen Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated So id Waste Management Plan Update. One of the top recommendations of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) is to develop County policy and ordinances related to source reduction and recycling. As discussed in Chapter 3 — Source Reduction, reducing waste, is a significant component of the County's management plan. The abundance of plastic, its lack of mark tability for our island recyclers, and the increasing presence of it in our oceans, have brought the plas7ic problem to the forefront. The County did pass the Plastic Bag Reduction, implemented in 2013 and the Polystyrene Food Service Ware Ban, which was implemented in 2019. As this is not a problem specific to the County of Hawai'i, Senate Bill 522, passed last year, to address this on a state-wide level. The County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Manage�ent has a representative member in the State of Hawaii's Plastic Source Reduction Working Group —:hose tasks, per Act 254, are to: a. Formulate a plan for reducing and recovering plastic from the Hawaii waste stream; b. Develop strategies to encourage plastic reduction and reuse in the food service industry, such as reusable container incentive programs for customers; c. Provide recommendations to encourage reus'I , reduction, recycling, and recovery of waste and create value added products to in ovate and responsibly manage the life cycle of existing resources; d. Consult with each county that has already enacted ordinances related to single -use plastics such as plastic bags and polystyrene foam containers and develop recommendations for the implementation of a uniform, statewide policy for these items that can replace existing county ordinances and provide businesses with laws that are consistent throughout the State; e. Consult with stakeholders to develop appropriate exemptions to address concerns of health and safety, lack of suitable alternative roducts on the market, and lack of infrastructure; f. Evaluate potential life -cycle and environme packaging with alternative products; and g. Shall submit a report of its findings and recc for pilot projects for Hawaii business to pha reuse, and find sustainable alternatives for legislation, to the legislature no later than t regular session of 2021. I implications of replacing plastic mendations, including recommendations out single -use plastic packaging, promote :kaging, as well as any proposed my days prior to the convening of the All the counties in the State of Hawaii are seeking solutions and we believe that by working together we can conserve resources and not re -invent the wheel. Please also see our response to Linda Damas (8) as it describes what we are doing In the County with respect to education and outreach. 0,I Berrig, Sanne Subject: FW: 100% RECYCLE/FOOD WASTE/ORGANICS FREE HAWAII ISLAND WASTE STREAM From: Bob Ernst <rce1P1sp.co111> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 9:02 AM To: Hayducsko, George <George.Hayducskophawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Kucharski, William<Wiiliarn.Kucharski[?hawaiicounty.goy>; Goodale, Gregory <Gregory.Goodale2hawaiicounty.gov>; Kristinekubat < <Kristinekubat mail.com>; Adam Scharf <Adam.Scharf _ colostate,edu>; tyockerman@honsador.com Subject: 100% RECYCLE/FOOD WASTE/ORGANICS FREE HAWAII ISLAND WASTE STREAM Aloha George, Great meeting last night at Aupuni, good turnout of constituents ready to do the right thing, good ideas and good to see Council members Sue and Tim there. I wanted to review in more detail some of the things we spoke about and I have seen work in other jurisdictions and could be very easily implemented on Hawaii Island. My vision for Hawaii Island is that Hawaii Island will be the best managed 'Aina in the world and people will come here to see and learn how it should be done correctly. Before contact, 1778, Hawaii Island, Moku Keawe, had more inhabitants than today, were 100% sustainable and were 100% organic. 1. The goal of the Waste Management Plan is 100% recycle diversion including diversion of food waste and organics. 2. NO RECYCLABLES/FOOD WASTE/ORGANICS PERMITTED IN LANDFILL WASTE STREAM!! Setup pilot project to show how it works. PONO'ANO (the correct way) trash tray is set up at the transfer station trash sites and everyone would use a 32 gallon rubbish can or equivalent, no black plastic bags permitted, how dumb are we to purchase black plastic bags to then throw them away, and the 32 gallon rubbish vehicle is dumped on the trash tray to show no "not permitted items" and a pusher tool is used to push the allowable recycle/food waste/organics free trash in the transfer site compactor trailer. If not permitted items are present the Maka'ainana is educated and now we have a Hawaii Island populace that is proud they are doing the POND 'ANO. A WIN WIN FOR ALL, especially the'Ainall 3. No food waste permitted in waste stream. Backyard composting is best answer, easiest, least expensive. Do not need expensive $10.0.00 compost Earth Machines, use practical used or new inexpensive ( new $15.00 ) upside down 32 gallon cans or equivalent. Kits could be available from a non-profit. A Backyard Composting kit would Include 1 32 gallon metal or plastic rubbish can with cover, bottom removed from rubbish can to accept food waste upside down, hole in middle of cover to ID12- allow center rod to go through, 3' center rod, optional 2'x2' hardware cloth mesh ( To stop any rodents, not always necessary, also bury inches in the ground edges of the upside down can to bar entry. ) and a one page sheet of instructions. I suggested to prior Recycle Hawaii organization to offer Backyard Composting Kit to each Council Member and the Mayor, if they did not already have one, sae.decision makers could see how easy, inexpensive, passive backyard composting really is. 11 that is needed is 4 square feet, 2 feet by 2 feet. 3. Convenience must be part of voluntary (mandatory) con would also be located at supermarkets, where most of the everyday doing their shopping. In Hilo, Walmart, Safeway, areas that would be ideal. Individual containers would be L mobile or with pallets and the use of a manual forklift, whicli containers would be well signed with portable signs that ca store may offer to provide an employee to monitor and be i volunteers ) or volunteers or a rotating County employee. area and an empty replacement is put in place. munity recycling. Recycle drop off sites acyclables originate and where people are KTA, Foodland, all have covered sidewalk sed for each recycle item, either self all the stores have available. The i be transferred. Monitoring is a must. A n 'Elele Aupuni ( discussed later under Vhen a unit is full it is moved to the pickup All that is needed is to get the first store location approved and in operation and the others will eagerly follow. The sites must be clean and easily accessible. Shoppers would get a shopping cart in the parking lot, put recyclables in cart and drop off in correct recycle unit on way into store to shop, creating more recyclables. Someone asked George, "What is in the waste/recycle stream?", George said, "Go to Walmart and everything you see there will be recycled/trashed at some time. 4. Command Emphasis. Someone asked why Pohakaloa Chas such a high recycle %. Simple, the Commanding Officer said RECYCLE. Pohakaloa also is blessed with a very informed dedicated Recycie Manager in Adam Scharf. If the Mayor and Council Members could once per week/month/quarter announce they will be at a particular transfer station location supporting the recycle aort it would bring Command Emphasis to the program. It would also be a good time to interact with t e constituents, like a mini town hall. 5. 'Elele Aupuni ( Volunteers, ) The Maka'ainana like to K that Malama 'Aina. That is this. An 'Elele Aupuni program Kokua at the recycle sites at stores and transfer stations. , developed. George suggested Walmart type vests could t vests for the mention of there business name on the vest. Gardner volunteer program or the Volunteers in any opera kua in Pono experiences such as those -.ould be developed to help monitor and "job" description and training could be 31- offered_ A company may provide the 'his would be much like the Master on such as at the Hospital etc. 6. The current east Hawaii yard waste operator is doing arl excellent job and providing an excellent "Slack Gold" mulch. The separation of green yard waste, logs, pallets and the subsequent windrow composting heating is first class. The cooperation of loading the mulch for the Maka'ainana is very consumer friendly. Carry on! 7. Plastics appear to be the major issue to solve at this time. There are many local initiatives. This may also be a good area to coordinate with Pohakaloa and DOD to solve a mutual plastics issue. 3 I C),3 8. Business Services current drop off program should be encouraged and coordinated as it appears this operation is a win win for all. Waste management on Hawaii Island can and should be the best in the world, let's make it happen, Bob Ernst, Mauna Huihui Founder/Operator Florida Keys Recycle non-profit Response to Ernst, Bob Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. 1. This is addressed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1— the Co zero waste philosophy toward solid waste managemi Please also see our response to Linda Damas (8) as it building with local community groups and non-profit 2. To encourage diversion of organics from landfilling, it tip fee to incentivize the diversion of Greenwaste fro Greenwaste to the mulching facility is 25 percent of t successful program. The County continues to collabo profits to promote community education on compose The County is in the process of completing the planni Kea'au. 3. 4. 5. 6. nty, in 2007, adopted Resolution 356-07, a nt. See also Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2. lescribes what collaborations we are ;roups. 2005, the County adopted a differential i the landfill, i.e. tipping fee to drop off ie landfill tipping fee. This is a very ate with local community groups and non - ng and other organics diversion. ig phase for a Composting Facility in Although ideal to have recycling receptacles at many amore locations, currently the County is only providing opportunities for recycling on propert�i we own / manage. As for the volunteer programs, please refer to our Master Recycler program in development. Currently, there are no mandates in place which requires people to recycle. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee gave high recommendations to .3: Expanding opportunities for commercial recycling and 4.4: Expanding opportunities to recycle in public places and during public events. Please refer to the Master Recycler program currently in development. Please see response to Mike and Karen Danks (9). Berrig, Sanne From: Melody Euaparadorn <rnelodynyc a@hotmail.comy Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:23 PM To: Berrig, Sanne Subject: Re: Written testimony from 01/21/2020 My statement: My name is Melody Euaparadorn and I am with the community group Zero Waste Big island. Thank you to the SWAG committee for their time and energy in updating this plan and welcoming public comments. Out of the top six recommendations identified by the SWAG committee, I am in full accord with the recommendation to 1fconduct education, outreach, and public awareness" because a key approach to landfill waste reduction is to focus on public education. Our ZWBI organization hosts informational booths at various public events around the island, and a common criticism we hear from the public is that they are frustrated with the lack of information made available about what you can and cannot recycle. Often, residents have a general idea of what is accepted for recycling, but they are not clear on all the rules. This ongoing confusion undermines the success of our waste management system, and emphasizes the importance of public awareness. An educated and engaged public can become a critical part of the solution to our waste management problem. Therefore, I hope the county will make it a top priority to allocate funding to hire staff for a public outreach program. Second, I would really like to see recommendation 4 in Chapter 4 under the topic of organics move up as one of the top six recommendations. This recommendation suggests the county "add food and other organics to a residential curbside recycling and and green waste collection program," One of the greatest barriers to recycling, is a lack of accessibility to recycling programs. If we want to capture as much of the food, paper, and green waste as possible, let's make it really convenient for residents to participate in the program. I foresee a lack of public participation if we are going to rely on residents weary on having to transport their own rotting food waste to a transfer station. Third, the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan mentions there are a few various state programs for advanced disposal fees at the point of purchase such as for glass containers, tires, and beverage containers in the HI -5 program. In order to generate more funds to invest in solid waste infrastructure and education, advanced disposal fees should be tacked onto other types of products like plastic containers. And last, I would like to make it clear that the public has already spoken and we say absolutely no to proposals of building an incinerator as an answer to our waste disposal woes. Burning garbage to generate energy is neither clean or E"1 renewable and only encourages more waste. Thank you. On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:47 AM, Berrig, Sanne<Sanne.Berrig@,hawaiicounty.gov> wrote: Response to Euaparadorn, Melody Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste, Management Plan Update (Plan). 1. As noted, Outreach and Education is a top priority of (SWAC). In Exhibit ES -1 of the Plan, Prioritization of PI to ensure the County has staffing levels commensura- program. Please see County's response to Linda Dami 2. As the planning and construction of the County of Ha, collection of organics will be addressed. 3. Please see the response to Mike and Karen Danks (9). 4. Please see the response to Jerry Chang (7). he Solid Waste Advisory Committee in Recommendations, Chapter 5.3, notes with the needs of the public outreach s (8) for further discussion. /ai'i Composting Facility advances, the 12- Berrig, Sanne ,11 From; Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) Subject: FW: 2019 Draft Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update From: Gudgel, Daniel Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 11:00 AM To: Good ale,, Gregory <Gre or .Goodale hawaiicounty.eov> Subject: 2019 Draft Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update Hello Greg, I was reviewing the Draft SWMP and noticed the report mentions 100 years of life at the WHSL. Attached is a copy of the 2019 AOR that calculates a permitted life expectancy of 37.8 years. At the current run -rate, with Hilo volumes, this is now projected at 25 years of life remaining. We are pursuing the expansion, which would add an additional 7 years to the 25. In the past 12 months, the site has operated for nearly 6 months without a landfill compactor, and currently the site has not had a compactor since October 29t". As you know, compaction is critical, and being without a compactor for extended periods of time will shorten the life expectancy even more. As is it, the site is achieving a compaction rate of about 1,300 lbs/cubic yard, which is really low. If we could achieve just 1,600 lbs/cubic yard, we could add another 10 years of life to the site. My personal target for compaction would be 1,800 lbs/cubic yard, which I believe is achievable at this site, based upon my experience. This would add another 20 years of life from what we are seeing today. If it would be helpful to the County, I would like to offer mobilizing a spare landfill compactor that WM has on Oahu. We could prepare rental rates to help assist the County during these down times. Additionally, we can provide compaction training to the County Operators, if you want. Thanks Greg. Dan Gudgel District Manager dgudgel@wm.com Waste Management West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill 71-1111 Queen Ka'ahumanu Hwy Waikoloa, Hawaii 96738 (808) 886-0940 Office (808) 960-3899 Mobile Recycling is a good thing. Please recycle any printed emails. Table 3: West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill Airspace Evaluations Date of Survey. 2/2612014 2/12/2015 2/1/2016 2/3/2017 2/7/2018 4/3/2019 Tons Received Since prior Survey (tons): 99,211 98,106 109,393 130,939 129,58. 184,77. Volume Consumed (cy): 107,379 155,170 198,305 201,540 219,500 240,654 Airspace Utilization Factor (AUF) (tons/cy): 4.92 0.63 0.55 0.65 0.59 0.77 Annualized Tons (tons) 98,940 102,019 112,792 129,872 128,176 160,575 Annualized Volume Consumed (cy): 1070086 161,359 204,467 199,897 217,121 249,136 Average Monthly Tons Received: 8,245 8,502 9,399 10,523 10,681 13,381 AUF for Remaining Life Calculations (tons/cy): 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 Consumed Airspace (cy), cumrnufative: 3,746,940 3,902,110 4,100,415 4,301,955 4,521,455 4,762,105 Tons Disposed (tons), cummulative: 2,446,648 2,544,754 2,654,147 2,785,086 2,914,667 3,099,438 Cumrnulative AUF (tons/cy): 0.65 0.6S 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.65 Remaining Airspace (cy): 10,361,405 16,206,235 10,007,930 9,806,390 9,586,890 9,346,240 Remaining Capacity (tons) [airspace x AUF] 6,734,913 6,634,053 6,505,155 66374,154 6,231,479 6,0750056 Capacaity Reached (date) 3/6/2082 2/6/2080 9/19/2073 2/20/2066 9/8/2066 1/22/2057 Remaining Life (years) 68.1 65.0 57.7 49.1 48.6 37.8 ngineenng l:>. 5u i Response to Gudgel, Daniel Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. 2020_01_21 SUSAN HAMILTON: Hi, my name is Susan Hamilton, and have not had the opportunity to read the entire waste me however, sit on the advisory committee in the 1994 platy � years ---or was it actually twelve years—later. And 1, just consequences of inaction. And that's sincerely what has i might; quote, getting more recycling and whatever, we sl then. and at that point the big problem was shipping it a closing. Now we have the antithesis problem—shipping i And 1—there's a lot of good ideas and actually they're be, county. This county is actually responsible for the solid w stuff that it pays for, bort it is responsible for solid waste. action and implementation. Just like the two women bet more. i?) ilo Pubic Hearing ou guys can spell that, l think. And 1 iagement update plan. 1 did, 7d worked again on the one ten ere on this couple of page thing, xppened since their. Even though it I have way more waste than we did to Hilo because the Kona landfill was all to Kona because the Hilo landfill - 7 talked about since 1964 in this ste--not responsible for a lot of other nd l want to see the county take ,e me spoke, all of those things plus Response to Hamilton, Susi Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. Please see our responses to Melody Euaparadorn (11) and Cory Harden (14). Comments on 2019 Integrated Solid Waste 18riagement Plan U date from Sierra Club, Hawaii Island grnrJp, PQ Bax 1137, Hilo 96721 for hearing 5 PM Tuesday, January 21, 202 y c�Dgmalt.com P Aupuni Center, 333cHila We commend the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, the Department a Management (DEM), and the consultant for the tremendou amount of work plan. ork that went into this Many of the recommendations were excellent. We support these actions: xA disposal fee on all products at the point of purch to reduce packaging waste and provide some funding for DI We can See from recent transfer station closures and the fac objectives were not accomplished due to lack of funding. **Ate environmental impact fee on tourists to help fu agencies. New Zealand charges a $35 fee. It's unlikely this I afford hundreds of dollars for plane fare. *Negotiation L(already in the works) for an end date f, currently written to continue indefinitely. *More repair services so damaged and worn items s `Encouraging people to do less online shopping,to r Small local composting facilties, instead a,` one larg We have several concerns: *Clarification is needed-ene section of the plan says went down, but another section says it went up. (see notes be *It is unfortunate that because of Cost, data providing outdated --some 12 years old and some 19 years old. It's imp( old data. data. '"the plan should propose ways to track recycling by 1; se. This will encourage businesses M, That funding is sorely needed, as that many of the 2009 plan d DEM and other government vel of fee will deter tourists who can r the Waste Management contract, ly out Of the landfill a little longer. duce packaging waste. central facility he arnount of waste generated ....., is basis for the entire plan is sibie to do a sound pian with such nate entities, to obtain accurate '"The plan mentions using old tires for building, but the health risks should There are several actions we do not support: years. be evaluated. "incineration --the public has said no this, loud and *Pay -as -you -throw --this is likely to increase illegal dum, the first bag of trash can be discarded for free are a possibility. *Closures or reduced hours at transfer and recycling st€ notes CHAPTER 2 WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT 2.3 Generation, Disposal, and Recycling 2.3.1 Historical As reported in the 2009 plan, the 2008 resident and de facto pol 9.4 pounds and 8.3 pounds of solid waste per capita per day, re: methodology as the 2009 plan, comparatively, 2016 waste gene and 6.4 pounds per capita per day for respective resident -and do p. 2-5 The numbers above seem to contradict the numbers bel, tonnage grew about five tortes faster than the population 1 ;tear, twice in the past fourteen ing. However, programs where ions, elation of the County generated )ectively. Using the same ation dropped to 7.1 pounds facto populations. )ESV showing that disposal since the 2009 Zero Waste plan V 0 3 9 III was initiated Disposal increased 44`Y from FY 2009-2010 (955, 882 tons) to FY 2017-2016 (224,196 tons). Exhibit 2-5, p. 2-4 The Hawaii County population only increased by S. 6,Y6 from Aprit 2010 (185, 078) to July 2018 (200,983). ltUps.//wk4?w census goVj iiiokfaCtslilawaireoUD vfzawari Additional Comments on 2019 Integrated Solid Management Plan Update https.-Ilhawaiizerowaste.orglsite-content/uploadsICounty-of-Nawai f E2%80%98i-integrated-Solid-Waste- Management-Plan-Update-2019082?-DRAFT. pdf from Sierra Club, Hawaii Island group, PO Box 1137, Hilo 96721 333cory@gmail.com comments due February 4, 2020 to cohdam(&hawaiicountv_Qov Please add these to our comments submitted at the January 2�, 2020 hearing. Encourage use of biodegradable plastics Evaluate if plastics can be recycled by the PureGycle method. The company, now called PureCvcle Technologies, de)toyed the process at a commercial scale for the first time in July at its $300 million plant in Hanging Rock, Ohio, where it expects to be able to process 119 million pounds of plastic waste a year. PureCycle has signed contracts with P&G, Milliken, Nestle, and L'Oreal to produce the plastic and has presold more than 20 years of output from its Ifirst plant. PureCycle says it hopes to expand to other cities in the U.S. and Europe in the nevi few years. https.*1A ww.bloomberg.comfnewsJfeattrresf2499-09-25/polypro�ylene-plastic can -finally be -recycled We support an advanced disposal fee for hazardouswaste on manufacturers and/ or retailers. We support strategies to reduce the aniount of hazardous mat We are concerned by reports from Mr. Ks that DEM is violation of HRS Section 339-D 4, which reads: (c) By June 1, 2009, and annually thereafter, each shall submit a plan to the department to establish, c for the collection, transportation, and recycling of its in the State, which shall be subject to the following c (1) The plan SHALL NOT PERMIT THE CHARGING if the covered electronic device is brought by the coves location for recycling; provided that the plan may include a rea: electronic device manufacturer or electronic device ma covered electronic device from the owner's premises at the ow in conjunction with delivery of a new electronic device to [capitals added] electronic waste. The fee could be levied entering the County. a fee for electronics recycling, in possible tic device manufacturer and manage a program I electronic devices sold A FEE at the point of recycling electronic device owner to a cental ?able transportation fee if the facturer's agent removes the is request and if the removal is not the owner... I 13 `5 1 Response to Harden, Cory Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update (Plan). 1. The Plan addresses advanced disposal fees — in terms of Extended Producer Responsibility. See Chapter 3.5.10, and again, 4.5.13. In Exhibit ES -1: Prioritization of Plan Recommendation, Chapter 3.1 is categorized as a moderate level of priority as prioritized by the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). 2. Please see Section 10.3.1.2 with respect to funding. Although not an environmental tax, funds are received through tourism tax. See also response to Danks, Mike and Karen (9). 3. This is one of the top six recommendations of the SWAC, to regularly review and, when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract. 4. One of the top recommendations from the SWAC is to conduct education, outreach, and public awareness — across most categories. Please also see Section 5.3.1.4. The Master Recycler Program encompasses much more than recycling; it includes waste reduction education including the development of "repair cafes" — small community-based huis - where repair classes / events provide education, and the opportunity to have items repaired for free or a nominal fee with a social component. 5. The Hawai'i Department of Health (HDOH) does allow for smaller composting facilities, however, a permit is still required. The County encourages home composting through education — please see Section 4.3.2.3. The Master Recycler Program addresses not only recycling but waste reduction and composting as well. 6. You are referencing pounds/day waste generation for years 2007-2008 and 2016-2017. Total waste generation includes both recyclables and solid waste, not just what goes to the landfill. We have revised the document to reflect this, both in the paragraph you have identified, and in Exhibit 2-8 `to include pounds/day for both generation and what is landfilled, including further explanation. 7. Data used was found sufficient to draw conclusions and make recommendations. 8. Please see Section 2.3.1 wherein the Plan discloses that starting in FY2012-13, diversion rates from the private sector were no longer captured in their entirety. The Division of Solid Waste is developing strategies to capture the tonnage diverted by entities other than the County. 9. Construction projects and associated health risks go through the County's permitting processes. 10. Between 2006 and 2014, the County issued several RFPs to vendors who could potentially design, construct, and operate a waste to energy (WTE) facility. The County's evaluation of proposals during this time determined that a mass burn WTE facility was the most commercially and technically feasible option. The County rejected a proposal in 2008 due to higher than expected costs. See Exhibit 9-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management, Section 9.3.4, and Appendix E. The County will consider recovery and treatment technology for handling of municipal solid waste if all of the following criteria are met: 1) waste diversion approaches already in operation are ineffectual or cost prohibitive in meeting County waste reduction goals, 2) it can be demonstrated that the technology is environmentally sound and economically feasible, and 3) the technology has a verifiable and viable commercial track record (minimum of 5 years). -See Chapter 9, Section 9.8 11. Pay -As -You -Throw is one of the funding mechanisms the SWAC investigated. Please see Chapter 3 for a dedicated discussion on PAYT options. 12. This is discussed in detail in Chapter 8. 13. The Plan did not address the encouragement of using biodegradable plastics. 14. Please see above response to number 1. 15. Please see response to Claire Cea (6). 2020 01 21 _ Hilo Public Hearing DONNA HERBST, My name is Donna Herbst. I'm speaking today on recognition of the public sector that we have that is currently doing recycling through the island. It's a grassroots section, and we're hoping that that grassroots section would become a part of the public landfill, because we have various parts of the island where we"re collecting these things. We'd like to see it part of the landfill moving forward, where we can again put plastics and newspapers, but we'd like to see these plastics recycled. Were right now recycling them locally, and we'd like to see that as a place at the county landfill. We've seen that they have a supervisor in all places ---the dumpsters, the appliances, the scrap metal, the commercial dumping, the greenwaste, but there's never anyone at the section where we have recycles. So therefore we end up with things like sofas and baby car seats and the bins and things like that. So we'd like to see that there is a little bit more supervision over them if we are allowed to have our recycling at the dump. And 1 think that's all 1 really wanted to say. z Response to Herbst, Donna Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Sol ,Id Waste Management Plan Update. 1. Currently, the County is not equipped to collect plasti being recycled. In Exhibit ES -1: Prioritization of Plan R+ priorities: Expand opportunities to recycle in public ar 2. One of the top recommendations from the Solid Wasi conduct education, outreach, and public awareness — addressing this was Education — to educate Solid Was - at the recycling area. or any other commodities that are not :ommendations, Chapter 4.4 received top as and during public events. Advisory Committee (SWAC) is to cross most categories. Specifically Facility Attendants to assist customers 61 Ber'rig, Saone Frorn: Heidi <mskonasunshine@a gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2420 3:23 PM To; Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) Subject: Comments on ISWMP2019 Aloha Hawaii County, I am disgusted and dismayed to see yet another waste management plan, which historically, no one pays attention to in the future. Management of solid waste should not be such a huge issue that a new 300- page plan has to be drafted every ten years at the expense of how many taxpayer dollars? To start with, this plan is being based on a population growth of 1.3 —1.6%. The actual population growth is 5.52% island wide. Not off to a very good start are we? The Environmental Management folks seem to be doing less and less everyday. First is was to discontinue the collection of most recyclables', which were actually not being sorted or recycled anyway, because the 9.3 million dollar sort station in Hilo was full of tires (from the dengue fever outbreak of 2015 — 201.5). Now, we can recycle cardboard, glass, and some assorted other materials like green waste, electronics, and scrap metal, but only on severely limited days, in i various limited locations. Even the drop off of regular refuse is being limited in quantity. Some stations will not accept regular refuse on the days they are collecting green waste. Come on! The harder you mare it for people to get rid of what they need to, the more dumping on the roadside is going to occur. Try this on for size .... you toss a bag of household refuse into the trunk of your car.....you are driving into Kona for work, and you got an early start, so you plan to drop it at the transfer station near the 99 mile marker at Waiea..............you turn on your blinker and slow to turn in ...... but the gate is closed and locked.__ another unscheduled r-losure....ok, you think....l have one more chance to drop it off at the transfer station at Keahou.._.you divert off your route to drive to the Keahou transfer station. -but when you get there, there is a sign that says "Green Waste Only Today ....... fabulous....now you may be late for work and you have a trunk full of stinky trash that is going to have to sit in the trunk of your car for the next 8 -10 hours in the 90 degree temperatures.....you wonder to yourself if you'll ever get the baked -in stink out of your car, and how you're going to be able to get rid of the trash tonight on the way home, or maybe tomorrow on the way in to work. This is not a good way for a person to start the day, and we should not have to go through it! Why do places like Millolii (pop. 500) have a huge dumpster parked in their village at all times, and Ocean View (pop. 5,000) has a "temporary" transfer station that is only open limited hours on one Saturday per month? Why are Ocean View residents required to put all drop offs in }Mack �- plastic trash bags (even cardboard)? This is an added expense for one of the poorest communities on the island to bear, and is an environmentally unsound practice_ Are we being discriminated against for some reason? During an informal study that I did recently on social media - Big Island residents from all areas on the big island made numerous comments in regard to the poor job the Environmental Management Division is doing, while private groups are stepping forward to start new forums for sharing ideas of what to do with plastics, instead of tossing them in the landfill. Some groups have already organized collection sites with volunteers to help educate the public on how to clean and prepare materials for recycling. in the meantime, people who try to take only their household garbage to the transfer stations, often ask - why don't the people in the orange vests do anything? They ask why, if these are county employees, do they sit in their vehicles, sleep In their vehicles, or simply sit and play with electronic devices, and ignore the "customers"? Isn't it the job of these people to educate the public, possibility assist the public, maybe even enforce the rules for dumping, so that the right things go in the right places? Some transfer stations have no attendant at all, which is especially hard to understand, because I've been told that there should either be a security guard present, or a county employee present at all times. Sadly, since most of us have to use these facilities, we are all quite aware of who is doing their jobs and who is simply collecting a paycheck. f� A group of residents in the Ocean View/Ranchos subdivision area of th requesting more open hours and/or days at the "temporary transfer sl 7am-3pm on Saturdays only. Over 600 people signed that petition. LaL copied the petition and sent it via registered mail to Mayor harry Kim, and EM Solid Waste Division Chief Greg Goodale. At a community mei Division Chief Greg Goodale, if he had received the petition, and if he l View. Mr. Goodale said that he had received the petition, and that it "I for not replying to Ms. Foster directly. In my experience, this is typical place between county offices and concerned neighbors — it simply doe work together to make our communities a better place to live, and res My plan for 2019 would be, provide drop off bins for refuse, green wa<_ attendants at each site, who are committed to doing a valuable servicE to utilize recyclables here on island. Educate the public on how to com our landfills. Take a serious look at who the people are currently runnii better utilized in other areas. Get some folks with fresh new ideas to a some folks who know how to recruit, manage, and inspire employees i Sincerely, Heidi Jaworski PO Box 377251 Ocean View, Hawaii 96737 808-333-7834 z district of Ka'u recently circulated a petition, Won" in Ocean View. It is currently open from .a Foster, from Ocean View Roads Department -ounty Councilperson Maile David Mederios, ting on January 29, 2020 Ms. f=oster asked EM fanned to reply in any way to the people of Ocean ras being discussed". Mr. Goodale also apologized if the serious lack of communication that takes ,n't exist, and it should. We should be able to ! )onsibly manage the environment around us. te, as many recyclables as possible, and have to our communities. Aggressively seek out ways )ost green waste to lessen the amount going into ig this department, and question if they might be Idress the current challenges in recycling, and get o be part of a strong working department. Response to Jaworski, Heidi Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update (Plan). 1. The update to the Plan is required by law. Please see Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 342G (HRS 342G). 2. The reduction in the number of recyclable materials currently collected by the County is due to global market conditions. Please see Chapter 4, Section4.3.3. 3. The last Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)meeting was held on February 26, 2020. In Chapter 4, Recommendation 4 includes expanding the number of dropoff locations for green waste and/or food waste at recycling and transfer stations. Thank the commenter for sharing the idea. 4. Ocean View Transfer Station hours of operation are every Saturday 7:00 am – 3:00 pm. 5. Ocean View residents are not being, discriminated against. The disposal system in place requires mechanized transfer of trash by grappling hook from one container to the transport container. For this system, the Hawai'i Department of Health (HDOH) permit requires materials to be containerized – whether in a plastic bag or a box. For further discussions of the plans for Ocean View Transfer'Station, please see Executive Summary, page ES -3: Since 2009, the County performed major upgrades to seven recycling and transfer stations—the upgraded facilities are expected to operate sufficiently through 2029. The County is also in the process of constructing a permanent recycling and transfer station in Ocean View. Although great progress has been made, the need to improve facilities with major engineering deficiencies still remains. More detailed discussions are also in Chapter 8. 6. One of the top recommendations from the SWAC is to conduct education, outreach, and public awareness – across most categories. Specifically addressing this was Education – to educate Solid Waste Facility Attendants to assist customers at the recycling area. 7. Comment noted. 8. Increased access to recycling is addressed in Exhibit ES -1. Prioritization of Plan Recommendations 4.3: Expanding opportunities for commercial recycling, and 4.4: Expanding opportunities to recycle in public places and during public events. Increased education of facility attendants is discussed in number 6 above. On -island markets is addressed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3. One of the top recommendations from the SWAC is to conduct education, outreach, and public awareness – across most categories – including bioconversion. 9. Comment noted. I � Berricg, Sanne From. Gens Johnson <gensjohnson0gmai1. om> Seat: Monday, February 3, 2020 9:37 AM To: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP); Solid Waste Internet Email Subject; Comments on the Waste Manageme� t Plan Thank you for the opportunity to make comments. On an island, this island, we must manage waste before it becomes wastel and once it becomes waste to one of us, we should do what we can to see if it useful to someone else. I commend the Waste Management Plan in noting the various partnerships that could be established with business and non -profits to increase recycling and reduce garbage. Also, I am strongly in favor of a waste -to -energy (preferably propane, which is used a lot on the island, and is otherwise imported). Possibly this could also be a partnership with local business Some of the partnerships I would like to see fostered: Greater information to both business and residents on places to recycl . For example, Habitat for Humanity,for building 2— materials and furniture; the many thrift stores for clothing and househ Id items; green waste for county mulch; where to Hi -S redeem. Offering business free or reduced garbage service for clean recycling volume for volume. Is Seeding business development of neighborhood clean -guaranteed rec cling collection. `} Working with local energy production companies to develop garbage -i iput energy production facilities, guaranteeing a -� minimum rate of return for their investment — like a public utility arrangement. l would like to see Hawaii Island waste reused on the island by countygovernment: Propane, bus fuel, and/or electricity from biomass or garbage.} Glass used in county road construction materials. Shredded tires used in county construction materials. I would add to the plan a strategy tc work with state and local govern encs to discourage the waste that comes to our island as single use packaging — tax the items a merchant vendor sells that come in single use packaging. Yes, this will hit the big box stores the hardest, and they will resist, but they are the greatest source of consumer waste, and have the deepest pockets to take on the cost to residents of the island of their sales operations. I am against pay for toss as I think this will lead to damping garbage I am against reducing the hours for the transfer stations. Thanks for inviting comments, Marlyn Gens Johnson Kailua-Kana resident here else. Response to Johnson, Gens Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update (Plan). 1. Please see response to Jerry Chang (7). 2. One of the top recommendations from the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG) is to conduct education, outreach, and public awareness — across most categories. 3. One of the top priorities of the SWAC was to: Change County code to allow small businesses to drop off recyclables at recycling and transfer stations (Chapter 8, Recommendation 5). 4. Please see above response number 3. 5. Please see response to Jerry Chang (7). 6. On -island markets for commodities is addressed in Chapter 4. Regarding Waste to Energy (WTE), please see response to Jerry Chang. 7. The Plan addresses Extended Producer Responsibility in Section 3.5.10, and again, Section 4.5.13. In Exhibit ES -1: Prioritization of Plan Recommendation, a recommendation is Chapter 3.1 with a moderate level of priority from the SWAC. 8. Pay -As -You -Throw (PAYT) is one of the funding mechanisms the SWAC investigated. Please see Chapter 3 for a dedicated discussion on PAYT options. , Sanne From: Lea Kaahaaina <lea.kaahaaina@gmai Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 12:08 PM To: Integrated Solid Waste Management Subject: ISWMP Testimony Aloha mai k5kou, I am writing in support of the ISWMP, specifically Section 5, Public Edui Options for Improvement (5.5) and Recommendations (5.6). Public edu on how our county manages our solid waste. We need all citizens of Ha we are facing and how they as individuals can help solve these issues. " you fix it?" Public education can raise awareness as well as support act' I Plan (ISWMP) :ation and Information. I strongly support the cation and outreach can have a significant impact wai'i Island to understand the solid waste issues If you don't know about the problem, how can ons that help to better manage our solid waste. In particular, l would like to offer my support for Recommendation 3 "Ensure the County has the staffing available commensurate with the needs of the public outreach program." The County cannot implement the other recommendations or Options for Improvement without proper staff, of outlined in Section 5.2.2, 2009 ISWMP plan recommendations were no sincerely hope that the 2019 plan updates will be put into action. Than plant updates thus far. Mahalo, Lea Ka`aha'aina PO Box 31 Hawaii National Park, HI 96718 without proper furiding for that matter. As implemented due to funding constraints. I your for your time and all the effort put into the Response to Ka'aha'aina, Lea Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. 1°I Solid Waste Advisory Committee Mr. K's - Transcript of Testimonies on Jan. 21, 2020, Hilo ROY ICADOT Owner, Mr. K's Recycle and Redgmption Center Thant: you to the County for holding this forum. My name is Roy Kadota. I'm the owner of Mr. K's Recycle and Redemption Center. Mr. K's is a family--ovvized local business, established in 2009. We are a fall -ser -Oce recN;cler, including i II 5's, metals and batteries. Since 2012, Mr. K's has been the sole recycler of e- I ha --e a i -wonderful staff that help make my business and the state. That being; said, let me introduce my Pratt, Claire Cea, and Michele Mitsumori. Thank you. for the county of Haw-ai'i. sinoothly and serve the county N-N!ho are here today: Richard Response to Kadota, Roy Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. MARK KIYUNA mark kiyuna <kanakolu30(7gmail.coir 1779 KAI WIKI ROAD H I LO, HAWAII 96720 (808) 961-0087 RECYCLING Suggestion #1 Sell Scavenging license to the homeless and v extra money. They are able to make $100 a day. Need a badge while on the site. No badge. No can enter, You will need some kind of contro 1 more than just regulat things to maintain order. 2-0 [fare people, work furlough who desires )rk area. ns. Because they fight and all sorts of Suggestion #2 Set up sort stations at the dumpster to educate people how to separate garbage before it goes into the main sort station. Suggestion #3 There is a market for rags Suggestion #4 Maybe can raise pigs on the slop. Suggestion #5 Furnitures & repairable items can be sold at a reuse station just like Salvation Army this Owl can be rUnned by the workers Ior their income. When people move or die they throw away lots of good stuff. Stores throw out expired stuff, many still good items .that cannot sell. You will bet resistance ft•om stores on this one. Suggestion -96 Recycling rubber tires by dipping in liquid nitl�ogen. This will freeze the rubber so that You can crush it like glass and separate the steel belt & fabric.[ 1 was a 19 y/o sailor operating a 5,000 l0 lb air compressor on a submarine. Same as on scuba air compressor. 5,000 psi can sub -cool into cybernetics liquid oxygen & liquid nitrogen This ''rubber sand can be sold as rubber bumpers under building foundations for earthquake mitigation. Also it now becomes a valuable commodity for resale to tire companies. Suggestion #7 Plastics can be heated up and reshaped into di provide the plastics for this project. Suggestion # 8 look into hydrogen fuel as a cheap source of recovery. refurnishing, etc. Suggestion #9 A $, 10 recycle sticker (r the store on as man3 the scavenger & $.05 go to shipping it back the manufacture. plastic wraps, any trashy items like advertisement signs & lal local level. No need nobody's permission. Just dump it ontl problem. The recycle sticker will pay the expense. No need nt commodities. Recycling can t. & go beyond recycling into recyclable items as possible. $.05 go to You made it - you recycle it. Cans, els. This is a grass roots projects at the e company's door step now its your egislation for more money. -4 1; 9 Response to Kiyuna, Mark Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update (Plan). 1. Scavenging is prohibited — Hawai'i County Code, Section 20-42. 2. As noted, Outreach and Education is a top priority of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). In Exhibit ES -1 of the Plan, Prioritization of Plan Recommendations, Chapter 5.3, notes to ensure the County has staffing levels commensurate with the needs of the public outreach program. Please see County's response to Linda Damas (8) for further discussion. 3. Please see Exhibit ES -1: Prioritization of Plan Recommendations, Chapter 4.6 — Annually or bi- annually assess existing local and regional markets for materials across the waste stream; study service voids for missed opportunities to recover commodities. 4. Please see Exhibit ES -1: Prioritization of Plan Recommendations, Chapter 4, Organics: Develop a training program and guidance materials for farmers and gardeners. 5. Please see Chapter 3 — Source Reduction. Exhibit 3-2 displays tonnages diverted from landfilling at Reuse Centers FY 2009-10 to FY 2017-18. 6. Used tires are discussed in detail in Chapter 7 — Special Waste, specifically Section 7.2.8. 7. One of the top recommendations of the SWAC was to: Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts, in addition to tonnage -based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals (Chapter 4, Recommendation 5). 8. Please see response to Jerry Chang (7) regarding Waste to Energy (WTE). 9. The Plan addresses advanced disposal fees — in terms of Extended Producer Responsibility. See Section 3.5.10, and again, Section 4.5.13. In Exhibit ES -1: Prioritization of Plan Recommendation, a recommendation is Chapter 3.1 with a moderate level of priority from the SWAG. 1_1 2020 01_21 Hilo Public Hearing KRISTINE KUBAT: Aloha, my name is pristine Kubat, and I'm here to testify on behalf of Recycle Nawai'i. So we will be preparing an in-depth line by line commentary about the plan, but this evening, with the opportunity to make a public statement, we would like to say that we are very disappointed that this plan used the waste composition studies that were done in 200.E and 2008. And anyone who's taken the time to get into the weeds in the study, you're going to find things like computer paper, which we don't generate very much of if any, at all anymore; and if you're interested in certain specific items like diapers, whiff h I brought up the last time, you have to hunt for it. And you will find in a footnote that it is included under remainder composite organics, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because there's a lot of plastic beads in diapers these days. So if you're really focused on zero waste, which we are, you'll find the waste composition study that has been in 2005 virtually useless. So I did have a chance to speak with George about this, and George made the point that what teras most important to the county was sort of percentages of materials, and that you felt that there was enough information there. And that might be, but for us zero waste people, it's really important to have detailed lists that are accurate about what's in the waste stream. So there's nothing that can be done about that now, but moving forward, I would really like to see SWAC adopt and have some place in this implementation plan a commitment to do an in-depth, very good waste composition study for the next go-around..j1"hen besides that, what 1 would like io say is, when you read the document and you also look at county policy, there's a clear difference between the state policy regarding electronic waste and the county policy. And the state policy is very clear that anyone—and that word is actually in the county contract with the state, sot e county is legally obligated through this contract to provide a means to recycle e -waste for an one. And anyone by that definition includes commercial generators, agency generators, school generators, anyone. Thos's what anyone means. But then when you get into the county policy, the county policy is very clear that they're making a distinction between residential use and ommercial use. And the way it looks to us, there's a clear conflict between the state policy, the county policy, and also between — within the contractual agreement that the county has wit sI the state. And so l think it's very important for SWAC to address this and to look at this in the remaining time that they have. It didn't come up in this pian, but i think we can look at that in the some way that we're looking at --okay, now there's going to be a provision moving for and that's going to allow small businesses to take advantage of the recycling services, and would also allow commercial haulers of residential waste to use recycling programs or to take advantage of the recycling programs. And that's huge, and that's a big step forward, because we want everyone to recycle if they can. And so t think you need to look at the electronic waste program in that same way. The more the merrier, and if we need to get more money from the state,or we need to make changes to the program, those provisions, those ideas for doing that are in this plan as recommendations, and that will provide the impetus to do it. Response to Kubat, Kristine Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. 1. The data from the 2008 waste composition study was found sufficient to draw conclusions and make recommendations. 2. Currently, the State of Hawai'i's Grant Funding Program falls short of our needs in the County of Hawai'i. This is addressed in Chapter 6, Recommendation 4: Assess legislative actions that may be necessary to improve a -waste programs including demanufacturing, storage and handling, and funding equity (emphasis added). Berrig, Sanne From: Megan Lamson Leatherman <lamsoh1 @haw.vaii.edti� Sent: Tuesday; February 4, 2020 11:13 PM To: Integrated Solid Waste Managemen Subject: Comments on the 2019 DRAFT Inter Aloha and to Whoin It May Concern: Plan (ISWMP) rated Sold Waste Management Plan )� 1 Many thmiks for this opportunity to provide C0111I11C11tS 011 the 2619 DRAFT Integrated Solid Waste Managelnent Play. In brief, I am a marine biologist by training / career and resident'' of Hmvai`i Island since 2005. I ha -Te become more involved in the wvoriderful world of "solid waste management" or more preferable called "integrated resource management" since 2008 when I first began coordinating coastal cleanup events with the local non- profit organization, I-Iawvai'i Wildlife Fund (H"T). Since that til}ale, HN,1TTF has coordinated clearly 350 cleanup events aIld removed more that' 330,000 pounds of marine debI'IS (primarily plastic pollution) fi'o1n the shores of this island with the help of thousands of volunteers. I bring, up my affiliation w1-Ith MNF not because I ata writing this feedback on their behalf (although. 1 do ha-ve their support) but because the reality of the full "life -cycle' of plastic objects and their contribution to the global climate crisis (and carbon footprint) is just too large to ignore for any longer, especially if Haww�ai`i alms to be carbon neutral by 2045 (per the governor's 2016 Hawvai`i Stl stainability Initiative goals). See Ciel.c�rg_I�letsticai�ciclirneltc� for more specifics on the connection between plastics an(] climate change. As such, I was most pleased to see the full life -cycle impacts considered in ne of the top recommendations from the County's SAVAC teals related to this plan. Simply put, the 2009 ISWMP wvas superb and it clearly laid out a focused on reduction efforts, whereas this 2019 draft begins (ES. in the wrong direction first but aini for zero waste over the long -t "As stated in Resolution 356-07, the County of Hawaii recognizes "tha interim, programs may need to be implemented that may be counter i reach the long-term goal of zero waste and that such programs should of the long-term goal of zero waste." To this end, the components of t realistically achieved during the life span of this Plan, have been incori: Q, Is this not a To -year plan? So are you saving the bulk of the IS1,17J11P Plan? I understand this is a 2007 resolution but I think achieved" Burin- this Plan (and actually strive to reach these aspi \,Taste. As for your top 6 priority themes (of the 82 presented in the draft rani: the folloi,%ing as mY top 3: clear "pathway" towards zero waste that i) wvith excuses about wv11v we tacit/ take steps erm: I zero waste is a long-term goal and that in the o the zero waste philosophy and are necessary to not be prohibited by the embracing and adoption ie Zero Waste Implementation Plan, wvhich can be orated into the Plan'' vl'n-waste (reduction initiatives) fior the 029 eve need to aim higher than "realisticallh- rational goals) if we reallywant to get to zero I, T am supportive of all of thein and would Conduct education, outreach, and public awareness (multiple reconlhiendations). Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environ toxicity, energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts, in addition to, goals (Chapter 4, Recommendation 5). rental impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, :onnage-based landfill diversion or waste recovery Z2. Develop County policy and ordinances related to source reduction and recycling (Chapter 3, Recommendation 1, Chapter 4, Recommendation 1), However, I do feel like the remaining 3 (of your top 6) should be focused on, yet I would add the folloNving changes to the other bullets. Next 3 (-%vith suggested edits): Regularly review and, when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract (Chapter 10, Recommendation 2) and Recycling contract/s. - Change County code to allow small businesses to drop off recyclables at recycling and transfer stations (Chapter S, Recommendation 5) and non-profit organizations to dispose of non -recyclable waste from coastal cleanups without the need for individual daily transfer -station tipping fee waivers and use permits. Conduct additional household hazardous waste (HHW) collection events (Chapter 6, Recommendation 5) and provide additional locations on island for dropping off more common HHW items during standard working hours. General con!-nients / questions: - It was great to see that there are elements included about education in nearly every chapter. - Not so great that more of the action items under "Chapter 4: Recycling" are prioritized as high than in "Chapter 3: Source Reduction". In my opinion: more focus should be on reducing (#1), then reusing, (#2), and then recycling (#3) as the ada e goes. County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management staff (both the admin, maintenance works and the recycling specialists) are doing a fabulous jot) and I hope they aren't offended by any of my constructive criticism herein. Any shortcomings of past COH SWAI efforts (or things not achieved from the 2009 flan) are the combined fault of the County administration, local legislators, state laws, DEM, residents and businesses alike, however, I hope that these comments prove somewhat helpful to this process and can make the 2019 inore successftll (iii results achieved!) than the last one was. Specific comments: 1) Exhibit E2-5: o What happened from -o4t1i the County's higher redemption rates of 2009-2013 (29 — 37` 6) to the lover redemption rates of 2014-2018 (20.8-25.1`3x)? Mentioned in the report was they change in scrap metal but from my recollection of that period and using the Counh� recycling stations, our recycling options went front more of a source separated system into a inixed-bin sy stein that led to an increase in contamination and a decrease in product quality (and eventually the ability to recycle profitably, even before the world markets shifted in Dec 2018). 2) Exhibit 2-6: o Much of the Baine, shows a declining trend in recycling ,/ redemption ... and the opposite of a pathAvay tocwvards zero waste. 3) Exhibit 3-1: o The results section here. is really disappointing and I think we- wouldn't be in the problem we are today, had some more of these actions been achieved. 4) Section 3.5.6: c, Re: establishing a Pay-As-You-ThroNv (PAYT) System. This has worked in other parts of the world but might be a tough :sell here (especially, considering illegal dumping) blit Ws at: least worth a try to consider this as one of many ways you can encourage or e- en incentivize good behavior life i aste reduction and landfill diversion. 2 a r Thanks aa-0ain for your time and consideration and to gill the man has dedicated to this Plan. I'wish it much success and hope that recommendations come to fruition sooner than hater. T look foie, ISWMP. Ale ka mahalo, Afegan Larnson Leatherawn Honalo, HI Megan R. Lamson Leatherman, M.S. lanison(khawafi-edu Post Office Box 1127 KEALAKF KUA, III q6 ;,o (I'll 808/21'7-F)-,--7� . hours of time that the County's SWAC tearta 'e see many of the suggested 82 A to reading through the revised 2019 Response to Leatherman, Megan Lamson Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update (Plan). 1. Yes, this is a 10 -year plan, as discussed in the Executive Summary, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and elsewhere throughout the Plan. The County will continue to take incremental steps toward achieving zero waste in the long term with the understanding that the ability to truly achieve zero waste is realistically challenging for an island. With education, outreach, and public awareness receiving the highest recommendations, ongoing efforts by the County in collaboration with community groups will continue to work towards the goals of zero waste philosophy. The Plan discusses zero waste in the Executive Summary, and notably in Chapter 3, sections 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 3.5.11; Chapter 4, sections 4.2.1 and 4.5.13; and Chapter 5, sections 5.5.3 and 5.5.5. 2. The recycling contracts are reviewed regularly. The review of WHSL is one of the top six recommendations of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC): to regularly review and, when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract. 3. As describe in Chapter 1, Section 1.1, litter -free is one of the overarching goals used to develop the Plan: To eliminate illegal dumping on public and private lands, the Plan includes legislation, education, and outreach programs. A new recommendation has been added to Chapter 8 To decrease barriers for non -profits and community organizations, enable them to drop-off non recyclables at transfer stations without the need for daily waivers or permits. 4. To increase HHW collection on the island, discussions are currently taking place between the County and the vendor who manages the Reuse Centers regarding accepting limited types of household hazardous waste. 5. Outreach and Education is a top priority of the SWAG. In Exhibit ES -1 of the ISWMP, Prioritization of Plan Recommendations, Chapter 5.3, notes to ensure the County has staffing levels commensurate with the needs of the public outreach program. Please see County's response to Linda Damas (8) for further discussion. In addition, the Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 342G (HRS 342G), requires each county to consider solid waste management practices and processing methods in the following order of priority: 1. Source reduction, 2. Recycling and bioconversion (including composting), 3. Landfilling and incineration. 6. In prior years, more private recyclers shared their recycling data. Exhibits 2-5 and 2-6 do not account for non -County -sponsored (private) recycling or diversions. These include big -box stores (e.g., Costco, Walmart) that ship bales of cardboard and plastic to either the West Coast to third -party brokers or to the retailer's distribution center. Contractors or non-profit groups also sell recycled materials directly to brokers on the mainland. The County hopes to capture this data in the future for more accurate diversion rates. 7. Pay -As -You -Throw (PAYT) is one of the funding mechanisms the SWAC investigated. Please see Chapter 3 for a dedicated discussion on PAYT options. Berrig, Sanne From: Lee McIntosh <lee@leemcintosh.org-, Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 11:44 PM To: Integrated Solid Waste Management Subject: Integrated Solid Waste Management Aloha, my name is Lee McIntosh. I live in Discovery Harbour. Below are Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan: 3.5.4 Visitor Industry Air hand dryers use a lot of electricity and I feel are ineffective at quick) suggesting reusable napkins for public restrooms? The county shouldn' achieve their goals. Ian (ISWIV P) Ian my comments regarding the draft for the drying your hands. Why would anyone consider place the health of its residents at risk to 3.5.6 Establish Pay -As -You -Throw System for Residential Discards The statement "Implementing a pay -as -you -throw (PAYT) system creates a financial incentive for residents and businesses to reduce their waste." is based on wishful thinking. It will cause mass illegal durnping all over the island. Look at the illegal dumping we have with the current free services and multiple transfer stations that are offered. I can't imagine l n hat would happen if you start charging for trash. The county shouldn't implement curb side trash and recycling pickup, either, It was a nightmare when we lived on Oahu. We always had garbage laying around because we couldn't always fit it in two cans. Many times I would fill the cans up right after the trash truck emptied them. This will lead to increased long terra costs to the county because of pensions and allow pests to fester endangering the health of residents. 3.5.61 PAYT at County Recycling and Transfer Stations My personal experience with buying official garbage bags in Georgia to throw away trash was a headache! The stores couldn't keep the bags stocked to handle demand. We were always driving around looking for bags. We couldn't throw away our g lrbage sometimes because there were no bags available to purchase. It's also wasteful because we would place full generic garbage bags into these official bags because they were too big to use in our trash cans around the house. l do not recommend this option. 3.5.6.2 Universal Collection with PAYT Rates There is no shame in being unique in how the county operates recycling and transfer stations. Hawaii doesn't have to be like everyone else. 3.5 Recommendations The county should avoid placing additional burdens on obtaining a building permit. 4.3.1.1 County Recycling and Transfer Stations All transfer stations sha Id be open Monday -Saturday Gam-6prn and accept all kinds of trash for disposal, not just certain days. Doing so wil encourage residents to dispose of their trash properly in a timely manner. 4.3.2.4 Metals Recycling The county should allow residents to sift through and reuse items that have been dumped in these bins. Welders and blacksmiths would greatly benefit from this rule change. Currently employees discourage residents from taking anything. 4.3.1.6 Tire Program This program is inadequate. 256,O00 pounds of tires were collected in short amount of time by the county. That means that there are tires that fall'outside of the tire exchange program. No dne is going to pay their local tire business to z OR 6 dispose of tires that don't belong to them that don't qualify under the current program, The county should design a program to accept tires for disposal. 4.3.3 Current Material Markets and Market Development Initiatives The county needs to change their stance on incineration and contact H -Power to see if they will accept some of our waste. Even if it is more costly than what the county would prefer, that is the cost of extending the life of our only dump that much longer. Diversion from our only dump, rather than ideals, should be the county's top priority. 6.3.1 Household Hazardous Waste This program needs to be expanded to more locations and collected more often. Why is the county making residents store hazardous waste on their property for 6 months to a year? l 6.3.2 E -Waste i E -waste collection needs to be expanded to more days, preferably everyday. Space is a luxury in Hawaii, so storing trash I for a month is going to cause it to end up in the trash bin instead. 5.7.2 Change Permits to Allow Small Businesses to Recycle at Transfer Stations The county should pursue changing their permit to not only allow sma[I businesses to recycle, but to also dispose of their trash. 8.7.6 Reduce System Costs by Closing Select Stations and Reducing Operating Hours This is not a wise suggestion. The county shouldn't consider closing stations or reducing the times that they are open. Rather, the county should fully fund our transfer stations to keep our island clean and beautiful. Mahalo for allowing me the opportunity to comment on the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan draft. FN Response to McIntosh, Lee Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. 1. These waste reduction options are listed as alternatives used by others. 2. Pay -As -You -Throw (PAYT) is one of the funding mechanisms the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) investigated. Please see Chapter 3 for a dedicated discussion on PAYT options. 3. No island -wide or large-scale curbside recycling program is currently implemented in the County; however, several companies offer collection of trash in limited areas of the County for both business and residential customers. In addition t trash service, a few haulers are also providing recycling collection service to their customers. 4. Chapter 3, Recommendation 1 has been amended to rlIemove "residential building permit." 5. The County and the SWAC evaluate programs using se, teral goals. One is that they are Efficient and Affordable, i.e. to balance funds available for managing solid waste with other County priorities, the Plan identifies programs that get the be t value ('bang for the buck') for County ratepayers and taxpayers. Please see Chapter 1, Section 1.1. 6. Scavenging is prohibited — Hawai'i County Code, Secti n 20-42. 7. Used tires are discussed in detail in Chapter 7 — Specia Waste, specifically 7.2.8. 8. Please see response to Jerry Chang (7) regarding Wast le to Energy(WTE). 9. One of the top recommendations from the SWAC is tolk conduct additional household hazardous waste collection events (Chapter 6, Recommendation I5). 10. Currently, the State of Hawaii's Grant Funding Program falls short of our needs in the County of Hawaii. This is addressed in Chapter 6, Recommendation 4: Assess legislative actions that may be necessary to improve a -waste programs including remanufacturing, storage and handling, g and funding equity (emphasis added). 11. One of the SWAC's top six recommendations is to change County code to allow small businesses to drop off recyclables at recycling and transfer stations (Chapter 8, Recommendation 5). 2020 01 23 Kona Public Hearing HARLAN MIYOSHI: My name is Harlan Miyoshi, All -i -y -o -s -h -f. / haven't really prepared much of a kind of comment, but it's just i wanted to suggest another kind of technology that I've heard of that they're using in Japan. And they've used it also in the Philippines, where they use microbes to ferment organic material, and they bring it up to a temperature that is high enough where it does not melt the plastic, where you can go through the ferment process in about an hour or two, and then at the end, you can sort out the plastics and the metals and be able to reclaim some of the landfill. Seo I heard about it from a friend, and they provided me some information, so if you are interested, l'll leave this deck with you. It's just a kind of technology that maybe you could use here. Thank you. Response to Myoshi, Harlan Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. Although this technology was not specifically reviewed by the solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), the County of Hawaii is always interested in new technologies. The presentation you provided is available to the SWAC for their review. Please see Chapter 9, Section 9.8: the County will consider rec handling of municipal solid waste if all of the following criteria already in operation are ineffectual or cost prohibitive in meet be demonstrated that the technology is environmentally soun technology has a verifiable and viable commercial track recorc very and treatment technology for are met: 1) waste diversion approaches ng County waste reduction goals, 2) it can and economically feasible, and 3) the (minimum of 5 years). Berrig, Sanne From: Paul Montague <prnontague59@ginail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2019 5:01 PM To: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) Subject: 2019 draft Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Page 4-7 The chart indicates that the Ocean View site recycles glass. It does not. Paul Montague PO Box 6534 Ocean View, HI 95737 808-313-0700 f Berrig, Sanne From: Paul Montague <pmontague59@gm il.com> Sent_ Sunday, December 8, 2019 5:05 PM To: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan {ISWMP}, Subject: 2019 draft Solid Waste Integrated M nagement Plan The Ocean View facility should be open more than]. day per week and should allow for recycling of glass and cardboard. The Waiohinu facility should have the wall at the dump area to allow v hicles,to get closer to the compactor. There needs to be a plan for plastic recycling/reduction. Trash to ener y is a short term option. Recycling plastic to make building materials and for use in road paving projects should be gonsidered. Paul Montague PO Box 6534 Ocean View, HI 96737 808-313-0700 I Response to Montague, Paul Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update (Plan). 1. The County and Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)will review this and make appropriate change regarding Ocean View. 2. Please see Chapter 1— page 1-2. The County and the SWAC evaluate programs using several goals. One is that they are Efficient and Affordable, i.e. to balance funds available for managing solid waste with other County priorities, the Plan identifies programs that get the best value (`bang for the buck') for County ratepayers and taxpayers. Currently, the Ocean View hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays. This may change in the future as the programs are reassessed. 3. Wai'ohinu Recycling and Transfer Station is currently under construction. 4. Please see response to Mike and Karen Danks (9). 202001' 21 ilo Public Hearing � )_ Le- - . I JENNIFER NAVARRA: Hi, my name is Jennifer Navarra, and l'm here representing Zero Waste Big Island. So one of the things our group does is engage ulte a bit with the public. And there is a lot of frustration in general about the lack of signage t the transfer stations. So that's one area of improvement. And then also there's a lot of publifrustration about the recycling, which we all know. l think the public needs to—we need to learn ways to incentivize the public residents and commercial businesses to reduce their wast rather than, we can produce as much waste as we want and it's the county's responsibility to deal with it. l think engaging with the public to encourage them to reduce the amount of waste is something our group is doing, and we'd be happy to work with and collaborate more with the county in doing that. There's a lot of great stuff in this plan. 1 think some of the things th It ,mould be good starting points that would be high priorities is just getting organics out of the andfill. it's kind of low -hanging fruit in my opinion. And l think that having one central location —or one location to take organics --is not the best setup. And we'd realty love to see the county maybe start coming up with some pilot studies on how to collect food waste in particular. We know it's going to get stinky and smelly, and if you're collecting it in Kona and bringing it oiler to Kea tau, that's going to be a problem. l think that residential pickup and perhaps smaller scale composting for food waste might be a way to go. Also for restaurants. So maybe thinking a little bit more about other avenues rather than just having a single location. i think that single location could be great for compostable plates and the type of things that we distribute food in, but maybe for food waste we could do more community bases( as well. We have 4 and 4rchidland and schools and all of these organizations. We could incentivize them to do tt eir own composting and get those organics out of the landfill, would be great. 1 do have con�ern about the pay -as -you -throw suggestions in the plan, just because l think that might lead to more dumping on the island. And l understand the county needs revenue, and perhaps doing some collection of taxes at the point of sale might be a way to fund disposal of our wast . And I think that's the main things l wanted to say, so thank you. Berrig, Sanne fl From: Jennifer Navarra <jennifernavarra@grnail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:15 PM To: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWIVIP) Subject: INSWMP Comments Solid Waste Management Staff, I am writing as a representative of Zero Waste Big Island. These cornments and ideas were developed at a meeting to discuss and make suggestions for the County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. Members of the Sierra Club and Recycle Hawaii were in attendance at this meeting. Comments on ideas posed in the plan; 0 We would like to see an updated waste composition study and would be willing to help with the study in collaboration with Recycle Hawaii who could potentially secure funding. We like the idea of making recycling and composting mandatory for resident and commercial businesses. We do not support incineration. * We do not support pay -as -you throw for residents for fear it will lead to dumping. We would rather see disposal fee collected at the point of purchase to fund waste management. 0 We support the idea of curb -side pickup of waste, recycling and organics in High density population areas such as Hilo and Kona. The three Train areas discussed in the plan that Zero Waste Big island would like to see the county put focus are: ® Education, with a special focus on educating residence on removing organic waste from the landfill and composting_ Also, better signage at the transfer stations is a must. EPR — this will be an important step to reduce the amount of waste coming to the island Organic/food waste pilot collection program to keep organics out of the landfill. We are particularly concerned that the county does not have a plan on how to collect and separate organics from the waste stream ahead of completion of the industrial composting facility this year. We are eager to assist the county in developing such a plan and have ideas of how to implement organic waste collection. Education of the public will be a vital component of making this facility worth the investment. Training the public to think about and properly separate their waste will be a huge undertaking that the county will not be able to achieve without the help of organization such as Zero Waste Big Island and Recycle Hawaii. We look forward to working with the county to reduce our island's waste footprint and perhaps we could schedule a formal meeting to speak more specifically on how we can collaborate. Mahalo, Jennifer Navarra Coordinator Zero Waste Big Island 809 657-5972 a Response to Navarra, Jennifer / , Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. 1. Please see responses 1 and 2 to Linda Damas (8). Also addressed in Exhibit ES -1: Prioritization of Plan Recommendations, see Chapter 4.2 - Improve signage at recycling and transfer stations to provide the public with comprehensive information about recycling opportunities and procedures. 2. The County encourages home composting through education. The Master Recycler Program addresses not only recycling, but also waste reduction and composting. The Hawai'i Department of Health (HDOH) does allow for smaller composting f cilities, however, permitting is required. 3. Pay -As -You -Throw (PAYT) is one of the funding mechanisms the SWAC investigated. Please see Chapter 3 for a dedicated discussion on PAYT options. 4. The, data from the 2008 waste composition study was found sufficient to draw conclusions and make recommendations. 5. See Exhibit ES -1: Prioritization of Plan Recommendation, recommendation Chapter 4.1 Recycling — Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to improve recycling rates. And Chapter 4.1 Organics — Landfill organics ban implementation study. 6. Please see response to Jerry Chang (7) regarding Waste to Energy (WTE). 7. Please see response 3 above. 8. See Exhibit ES -1: Prioritization of Plan Recommendation, Chapter 4.1 Recycling and Chapter 4.1 Organics with recommendations that address mandatory curbside pick-up of recyclables and organics. 9. Please see responses 1 and 2 above. 10. See Section 3.5.10, and again, Section 4.5.13. In Exhibi Recommendation, recommendation Ch 3.1 is categori identified by the SWAC. 11. Please see responses 2 and 8 above. ES -1: Prioritization of Plan ed as a moderate level of priority as 2020 a1 Z1 Hila Public Hearing `EI PHAINE OLIVIER: So this is my first hearing, just so you know. So I'm going to spell my name. Tiphaine, T 1 -P -H -A -1 -1V -E, and I'm here on behalf of myself as a civilian who lives next to the transfer station in Pdhoa. Some of the notes I've just made—1 don't know if it aligns with your plan or not. i haven't looked at it, 1 haven't had the chance. But if it does, great. If it doesn't, more notes to make for a better future. The one thing I heard through the grapevine, through other locals, is that the transfer stations don't have enough drivers to take the trash from the dump and transfer it wherever they're going. In Pahoa l know we were locking in drivers. Our metal bin just piled and piled up to the point where people couldn't throw away their trash any more and were dumping it on private property along the road. And that tends to be a problem, mostly for the future owners of the properties. If they want to invest and build and create more jobs in the area, it makes it very difficult when you've got a bunch of trash on the land and they have to dispose of it somehow. And it costs the people more money, and it's less inviting for there to want to invest on the land for farming or industrial, whichever they want. So I was thinking maybe to have like people drive over and pick up the rubbish on the side of the road. That could create more job flow. /know it would cost more money, but maybe if there's a way to distribute the money in order to have like drivers just to pick up the trash alongside the road, that'd be great. And also it looks a lot better, it helps with the tourism, people are less likely to be tike---ew, that place is trash, I'm not going to go there. Also, there have been vandalism in the Pahoa Transfer Station, so I was thinking maybe to bring up security somehow, maybe fix the fencing, like small stuff, as well as tires. if there's away to use the recycled tires --1 know we can't recycle tires here, but if there's a way to like use those tires for parks, maybe to join up with Parks and Recreation to like make more parks and use those tire pieces to create like a bouncy sort of floor—you know you tend to see that infancy parks. And that was about it. If not the clean-up team, l was thinking of making groups of clean-up teams like with the schools, get the kids involved and volunteer to help pick up trash alongside the road. Some of the trash is too big to pick up, so that's where I was suggesting about having a team of drivers like pick up the heavier things. And that was about it, all the points I wanted to make. 3 Response to Olivier, Tiphaine Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid, Waste Management Plan Update. 1. 2. 3. The County and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee evaluates programs using several goals. One is that they are Efficient and Affordable, i.e. to balance funds available for managing solid waste with other County priorities, the Plan identifies programs that get the best value (`bang for the buck') for County ratepayers and taxpayers. Staffing evaluation is an ongoing process. Used tires are discussed in detail in Chapter 7 — Specia Waste, specifically Section 7.2.8. Illegal dumping / littering is addressed in Chapter 10, Section 10.5.5. I uct", Barrie, Sanne From: Larry Ostini <Iaostini@yahoo.corn> Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2019 2:52 PM To: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) Subject: _ Waste to Energy on the Big Island In todays West Hawaii Today newspaper [12/$/19] there was a article regarding how to handle the refuse and recyclables on the Big Island. Why is everyone trying to reinvent the wheel? Oahu is handling this issue with no problem, lets follow there lead and build a facility at the West Hawaii landfill. All the information can be found by Googling "Oahu's waste to energy system" It is working and they are generating energy and reducing what goes into their landfill. No brainer. Please look into this and consider it an alternative to our problem. Mahalo Larry 0stini Kailua-Kona laostini@yahoo.com 1 Response to Ostini, Larry Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. 1. Between 2006 and 2014, the County issued several Reuests for Proposals (RFPs) to vendors who could potentially design, construct, and operate a waste to energy (WTE) facility. The County's evaluation of proposals during this time determined that a mass burn WTE facility was the most commercially and technically feasible option The County rejected a proposal in 2008 due to higher than expected costs. See Exhibit 9-1 Sta us Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management, Sectior 9.3.4 Evaluation of SHSL Capacity Replacement, and Appendix E — Chronology of County Waste Reduction Technology Procurement. The County will consider recovery and treatment tech waste if all of the following criteria are met: 1) waste i are ineffectual or cost prohibitive in meeting County v demonstrated that the technology is environmentally the technology has a verifiable and viable commercial iology for handling of municipal solid iversion approaches already in operation aste reduction goals, 2) it can be pound and economically feasible, and 3) track record (minimum of 5 years). C19 Berrig, Sanne From: Doug Perrine <perrine@a hawaii.rr.com> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 1:56 PM To: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) Subject: comments on 20190821 -DRAFT Aloha I agree with the recommendations in the draft plan with the notable exception of Chap.3 No.2: Pay As You Throw. This is a real loser as it will encourage illegal dumping. Funds to manage the solid waste program should come from taxes n II residents and visitors and not b fees on only those who dispose of their waste responsibly while illegal levied o a y y dumpers get off scoff free. I would like to additionally emphasize the importance of Chap.6 Rec.No.5 to increase the HHW collection events by an additional 10-12 events per year. HHW is the most critical waste component to manage properly. Additional collection events are critical to improve compliance and avoid haphazard dumping with other waste, and also to reduce the hazards of long-term storage in the homes of those who do comply and save their HHW for the collection events. Finally I would like to make some comments with respect to disposal of paper waste, which is currently no longer accepted for recycling, and is needlessly filling up our WHSL. Section 9.5.2.1 on mass burn facilities makes no mention of the Ho Honua power generation facility under construction. Why is Hawaii County not negotiating a contract with Ho Honua to accept paper and wood waste for mass burning? Section 9.6.1.1 does mention that the possibility of shipping waste to the H -Power Plant on Oahu should be studied, but makes no mention of the fact that the City & County of Honolulu is currently in dire need of additional waste to burn there, as they are paying enormous fines for failing to ' meet their contractual quotas. The County of Hawaii should take advantage of this situation by immediately starting to accept paper and wood waste at recycling centers and immediately negotiating with Honolulu to pay shipping and perhaps an additional transfer cost fee to receive our burnable waste in order to meet their contractual quota. This section specifically mentions #5 plastic as suitable for that purpose, but I would like Hawaii County to obtain and publicly disseminate scientific evidence proving that burning of #5 plastic at H -Power does not emit toxic fumes such as dioxin into the atmosphere before it considers shipping plastic there for incineration. Mahalo for your consideration of my views, Doug Perrine, photojournalist 76-223 Haoa St. Kailua-Kona HI 96740 U.S.A. +1 (808) 3294523 please do not send any attachments larger than 1 MB without advance permission if your e-mail doesn't go through, try my travel account. douqlasoerritie _yahoo.ccm Response to Perrine, Doug Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solio Waste Management Plan Update. 1. Pay -As -You -Throw (PAYT) is one of the funding mecha isms the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) investigated. Please see Chapter 3 for a dedicated discussion on PAYT options. 2. One of the top recommendations from the SWAC is toff conduct additional household hazardous waste collection events (Chapter 6, Recommendation 5). Between 2006 and 2014, the County issued several RF design, construct, and operate a waste to energy (WTI proposals during this time determined that a mass bui and technically feasible option. The County rejected a expected costs. See Exhibit 9-1 Status Update of 2009 Management, Section 9.3.4 Evaluation of SHSL Capacii Chronology of County Waste Reduction Technology Pr The County will consider recovery and treatment techr waste if all of the following criteria are met: 1) waste d are ineffectual or cost prohibitive in meeting County w demonstrated that the technology is environmentally the technology has a verifiable and viable commercial s to vendors who could potentially facility. The County's evaluation of i WTE facility was the most commercially proposal in 2008 due to higher than 'Ian Recommendations for Residuals Replacement, and Appendix E — curement. iology for handling of municipal solid iversion approaches already in operation aste reduction goals, 2) it can be sound and economically feasible, and 3) :rack record (minimum of 5 years). 3� Solid Waste Advisory Committee Mr. K's - Transcript of Testimonies on Jan. 21, 2020, Nilo RICHARD PRATT Mr. Yd's Recycle and Redemption Center Good elrening, evei�,Qne. My naive is Rick Pratt, and I supervise the collections on Saturdays and deal %Ath commercial and other entities drop-offs at lir. Id's Recycle and Redemption Center. I'd like to speak on e -waste, which is Section 6.4.2 of the Plan. As Mr. Id's has beers the sole prov=ider of e -waste recycling for all of Piawai'i County, I'd like to give some context to the numbers. The report gives the amount spent on e--•-%Faste as $165,000 in FY2017-2018, and $16o,000 for the current year and for next year. That's $00,000 per year. However, these are the .numbers Mr. Ks actually invoiced for e-v%raste, both residential and commercial, over the past three years: FY '�'OZu-- F Was ,6 1��t�IGCC� Residential Commercial 16-17 S213Ji3 51G$.� c�l $44,792 17-18 S31o,018 S280,543 329,475 18-19 $264,809 5231,736 X33,073 So even if ONLY residential e -waste is subsidized, $:L60,00 ,"'ll not cover the actual amount of a -waste residents are bringing. In FY 201 -2018, the amount Nvas $280,543 because we had an earthquake in May 2oi8, N-N,hicll damaged hundreds of flat -screen t< -s as the earthquake shook then off the A\Tall. How is this plan acco'unting for the damage caused by earthqualkes, hurricanes, eruptions, thunder storms, and other natural disasters? Thank you. Response to Pratt, Richard Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. As shown on Exhibit 9-3, the West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill hash a disaster debris processing area. Disaster planning is mentioned in Chapter 5.5.6: County educa ion staff could collaborate with other agencies that interact with businesses about environmental iss jes such as air, energy, water, wastewater, and disaster planning to leverage resources and aivoid duplication of effort. The Plan has been updated to further address the additional waste and debris for natural disasters in Chapter 9, Section 9.4. Berrig, Sanne From Marlene Sabo <I<onasabo@hawaii.rr.com> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 0:30 AM To: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) Subject: Questions for Public Hearing at West Hawaii Civic Center Jan. 23 1. What is being done to fix the problem of last minute closures of transfer stations and green waste drop-off sites? 2. Why is our county the only one in the state that has changed its recycling program, cutting back to only HI -5s, glass f and cardboard? 3. Why can't one of the 4 cardboard recycling containers for cardboard at the Kealakehe recycling center be changed to scrap metal/tin cans, so residents don't have to drive across the road just to drop off cans? Make recycling easy for residents! f�. 4. New technology has made waste -to -energy plants safe and greener. Why is a waste -to -energy plant off the table? ro 5. Why can't Hawaii County ship its waste to Oahu for their waste -to -energy plant, which is working just fine? - D 1 2020_01_23 na Public Hearing .5 ) r DAN SABO: Aloha. My name is Dan Sabo, S -o -b -o. t came here tonight with questions which l had emailed in, and l didn't understand the format. But I would like to testify as well with my questions. We've lived here for almost 30 years in Kona, and what i've seen, corning from California initially, is --1 thought well, we could have a great little island here with lots of recycling and zero waste. And back in those days, there � ere —the County Council was doing that, or trying to do that. And what i see now in the last 310 years is we've gone backwards. It's very sad, because this island can be self-sustaining in manly different ways, and to me its gone in reverse. l have not read the 400 -page report that is oni1ne. I've read parts of it, but reading 400 pages online was kind of overwhelming. And 1 scanned through and read parts that I felt I'd answer or address some of my questions. My first question was, what's being done to fix the problems with the last-minute closures of transfer stations and the greenwaste drop-off stations? Making recycling and dropping off greenwaste and so forth should be easy for the residents, and it's become very difficult. To drive all the way out there to the transfer station and then find it closed at the last minute because they're Of ting for a container to come from Hilo --we have no empty containers on this side of the island? That's what I was toid. And the other excuses as well. These things need to be fixed. We eed to make recycling and greenwaste easier far the residents. Then 1 want to know why is our county the only one in the state that has changed its recycling programs, cutting ba k to only Hi -55, glass, and cordboard? My understanding is no one else—no other counties in th� state are doing that. And if so, why? I mean i know it has to do with the contract that we had on this island, which we knew was ending, and it wasn't addressed in a timely manner from Iy understanding. So why is that? The next question is why can't one of the four recycling containers for cardboard, which seems to be a bit much, at the ICealakehe Transfer Station be changed to scrap metal? Right now we have to take our scrap metal across the road to drop it ofj. Recycling should be made easy for the residents, and it's become more difficult and more tlrne-consuming. If you want us to recycle, you need to make it easier. The new technology, gasification, was mentioned in the previous testimony. The new technology has made waste -to -energy plants safer and greener than they were back in the 90s. So why is a waste-to-ene rgy plant, or gasification, whatever you want to coil it --why was that taken off the table? W y wasn't that ever addressed in this issue? From my understanding, it was not allowed to be aiked about, like that was just not to be done. And then since it is being done on d'ahu, why c n't Hawaii County ship its waste to O'ahu? Yes, 1 know it could be expensive, but so is what' going on right now on this island, transferring our waste to one landfill. So why can't the C unty of Hawaii arrange to ship its waste to a'ahu? And from my understanding, from the person in charge over there, they would love to have it, because they need it to burn their waste and to make it into energy. And that's really all I have to say. Thank you. �3 Response to Sabo, Dan & Marlene Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update. 1. The SWAC recommends the Division has adequate resources commensurate with the needs of all current and future programs. Language was added to Chapter 10, Section 10.6 of the Plan. 2. The County of Hawai'i has unique geographical characteristics when compared with the other counties in the State of Hawaii. Our solid waste and waste diversion programs are unique to this island. 3. Currently the two -bin program has been cut to cardboard and non Hi -5 container glass. The scrap metal recycler has allowed the County to accept metals in the existing scrap metal locations. Details like these are reviewed and addressed at the appropriate times. 4. Between 2006 and 2014, the County issued several RFPs to vendors who could potentially design, construct, and operate a waste to energy (WTE) facility. The County's evaluation of proposals during this time determined that a mass burn WTE facility was the most commercially and technically feasible option. The County rejected a proposal in 2008 due to higher than expected costs. See Exhibit 9-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management. The County will consider recovery and treatment technology (e.g., WTE, pyrolysis, etc.) if: (1) other waste diversion approaches (e.g., proposed compost facility in Hilo, shipping of market- driven unrecyclable materials to the City and County of Honolulu) are cost prohibitive, (2) it can be demonstrated that it is environmentally and economically feasible, and (3) the technology has a verifiable and viable commercial track record (a minimum of 5 -years) for handling municipal solid waste. See Chapter 9, section 9.8. 5. Please see Exhibit ES -1. Prioritization of Plan Recommendations, Chapter 9.4: engage in dialog with the State/Counties about joint solutions (e.g., Discuss with City and County of Honolulu, the shipping of market-driven unrecyclable materials to their H -Power WTE plant). See also Chapter 9 at 9.6.1.1. Scharf, Adam — testimony read at hearing — both as a SWAC me Public Hearing / SWAC Meeting January 21, 2020 Adam Scharf — Program Manager, Solid Waste & Recycling • Work at Pohakuloa Army Training Area • Employed by Center for Environmental Management Volunteered for Mayor Kim's SWAC ber then as a citizen f Military Lands - CSU 3 2: Shared experiences, techniques and approach that reduce our impact on landfills by diverting waste through Reduction, Re -use a nd Recycling. -- Over 506 of the waste generated at Hawaii County Military bases is diverted away from HC Landfills The Hawaii County Department of Environmental Managern nit & Solid Waste • Has dedicated and passionate public servants committed to improving our ability to reduce our Solid Waste and Hawaii Counties impact - on the West Hawaii Landfill. • On behalf of the SWAC 1 would like to thank: Mayor Harry Kim -- William (Bill) Kucharski Greg Goodale George Hayducsko -- Sanne Berrig — Tina Louise Demello For their commitment to this endeavor Take AwWs - What did I learn from being on the Inside with the SWM Team? • The Island is only so big. The Landfill is only so big. At the current rate of recycling/reduction and diversion of waste away from the landfill we have less than 150 years of space....This is not a legacy we want to leave to our Kelki and their I(eiki. • Your Environmental Management Team cannot recyc e for you....but they do recognize that they are accountable for helping us improve. They do rec gnize the seriousness of our current situation. Take Away's 0 188,000 residents on Big Island 3Z.2- • 250 Tons of waste is brought to the transfer stations daily. -- That's almost 3 pounds per man, woman and child per day • WE, the residents of Hawaii County are only recycling 21% - that's less than % of the household waste we bring to the transfer stations is going into bias other than the "chute". The National Average is 33% - We must do better! What can we, as residents do? 1. Educate yourself — Visit the County Solid Waste Web Site & www.Hawaiizerowaste.org — Learn DIY Projects that repurpose Post Consumer Waste — You Tube — Reach out to your Neighbors educate them and Lead by Example — Reach out to your elected officials and let them know you support programs that reduce the impact on our landfill and our Ina. What can we, as residents do? 2. Support the re-negotiaition of the Contract at West Hawaii Landfill operations —Waste Management HI —Save $$ - More $$ for program improvments 3. Participate in the increased HHW collections dates — Keep Haz Mat out of the landfills 4. Support the Change in County Code that allows small businesses to drop RECYCLABLES at transfer stations.... improved Diversion Rate What can we, a's residents do? 5. Hold our County Solid Waste and Environmental Managers accountable for establishing and posting Recycling goals and regular progress updates on those Goals..... Work at home to improve your Recycling rate— Diversion Rate. -- By measuring and tracking and through data analysis we will know where to focus and how to improve. What can we, as residents do? 6. Support County Policy and Ordinance changes that Promote Reduction of Solid Waste and Recycling efforts Reach out to your elected officials —Become more active —be part of the Solution Vote for/Support those, public officials that will allocate OUR MONEY into programs that protect the Ina by reducing, re -using and recycling Post Consumer Waste....Your Vote Counts.... Write your councilman/woman ask about their position. 11 That was me speaking as a SWAC member -- Now a change o • Exposed to industry experts all over the country in my — Federal Training Programs -- Emerging Technologies • Some proven and deployed • Some leading/bleeding edge • Colleagues operating SW facilities at Military bases wi Island hats role at PTA h populations larger Than that of Big I like to say..... • if you want something you never had.—you have to bE prepared to do something you've never dome. • Changing public behavior and implementing Technolo Yy — Takes Money — Comes with Risk — Must be managed • Tech must be applied - measured - adjusted Food Waste to Compost/Livestock Feed - 40% of a solid Waste stream • Dehydrators — heat/water separation Micro Digestors — Micro Biological Breakdown • Worm Bins —Mother Natures Compost tool • Traditional Composting - Wind rows, water and sunlight Would Love to see our Composting Operations in high gear with fuil public participation Conversion of Post Consumer Plastic to Usable Goods -- S-10bYD of Solid Waste Stream • Deployed Proven Technology • Accepts all plastics, Ocean waste and Polystyrene in mixed dirty form • Small Footprint • No hazardous emissions i • Creates usable Products from Post Consumer Plastics • Lumber—f=ence Posts — No Rot No Bugs Long Life cycle Future • Would like to see Hawaii County as a National Leader in Solid Waste Reduction — Achieve Near Zero Waste • Create new Tourism opportunity for Best Practice tours for other municipalities Increase Life expectancy of our landfill to SOO fears... • If you want something you never had ... you have to be prepared to do something you've never done.... Please support our County SW management team and those entrepreneurs that step up to protect the Ina and our legacy.... Thank You Response to Scharf, Adam Mr. Scharf is a member of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). Pages one and two of his remarks were as that of a SWAC member. Pages three and foyr reflect testimony as a citizen. 20200123 Dona Public Hearing 33 MONICA STONE: Nr, my name is Monica Stone, il/d-o-n-1-c-a S -t o -n -e. I'm a resident of Kona, and I'm a member of Zero Waste Big Island, although these are my own opinions that I'm about to say. I'm not really speaking for the whole group. So the lowest hanging fruit in landfill waste diversion is definitely composting food waste and other organic material, which 1 know you guys are aware of. 1 just feel that Hawaii County should fund small local composting facilities in addition to the large one that's planned. The large one can take care of the bioplastics and stuff like that, but by working with the Department of Health to remove the bureaucratic obstacles of—so if we do smaller focilities and work with the Department of Health to remove the obstacles of, the bureaucratic obstacles, and provide Infrastructure and education, 1 think we can empower communities to create small scale composting on their own. And then these operations will have a much smaller carbon footprint than trucking our compost over to the other side of the island. I'd also just like to—I'd also fust like to bring up kind of something that was not really talked about too much. So with the current state of our recycling system, most food packaging is plastic and it's unrecyclable, and it's straight to the landfill. I would like to see the county incentivize grocery stores and businesses to purchase and sell goods in bulk or sustainable packaging. Allowing residents to refill containers --this would eliminate, basically eliminate waste on the consumer end. As an example, the shipping containers go back to the mainland empty. i feel like they should be filled with food grade 55 -gallon barrels that are sent back to be washed, refilled, and sent back full of food. This technology already exists, to almost eliminate plastic packaging, and pretty much pockaging of all kinds. We have specific barriers here with our climate and stuff, and that we're an isolated island chain, but we just need to educate and incentivize our residents and businesses to close the loop, and I think that it can be done. I don't have any --you know, imagine if Costco sold food in bulk without packaging. It would completely revolutionize food supply on our island. And I just think that this conversation needs to be opened up, and l don't know how to incentivize the businesses to do this, but 1 think that's the direction that we need to go, and that is basically the future. So thank you for everyone's time. I don't support pay -as -you -throw and also any kind of waste -to -energy incineration ever, which I know has been covered a lot too. That was my notes. Thank you very much. 2 Response to Stone, Monica Mahalo for taking the time to participate in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update (Plan). 1. The County encourages home composting. The Masted Recycler Program addresses not only recycling but also waste reduction, reuse of resources as well as composting. The Hawai'i Department of Health (HDOH) does allow for smaller composting facilities, however, permitting is required. Please see Exhibit ES -1: Prioritization of Plan Recommendation: Chapter 4.1 Organics — Landfill organics ban implementation study. 2. Please see response to Mike and Karen Danks (9). Most aspects of a refillable container program are regulated by the HDOH at the state level! The Plan addresses advanced disposal fees — in terms of Extended Producer Responsibility. See Chapter 3, Section 3.5.10, and again, Chapter 4, Section 4.5.13. In Exhibit ES -1: Prioritizatio oof Plan Recommendation, a recommendation is Chapter 3.1 with a moderate level of priority from the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). 3. Pay -As -You -Throw (PAYT) is one of the funding mechanisms the SWAC investigated. Please see Chapter 3 for a dedicated discussion on PAYT options. Between 2006 and 2014, the County issued several R Ps to vendors who could potentially design, construct, and operate a waste to energy (WTE) facility. The County's evaluation of proposals during this time determined that a mass burn WTE facility was the most commercially and technically feasible option. The County rejected a proposal in 2008 due to higher than expected costs. See Exhibit 9-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management, Section 9.3.4 Evaluation of SHSL Capacity Replacement, and Appendix E — Chronology of County Waste Reduction Technology P The County will consider recovery and treatment tect waste if all of the following criteria are met: 1) waste are ineffectual or cost prohibitive in meeting County demonstrated that the technology is environmentally the technology has a verifiable and viable commercia urement. inology for handling of municipal solid diversion approaches already in operation waste reduction goals, 2) it can be sound and economically feasible, and 3) track record (minimum of 5 years). Appendix H Energy Balance ENERGY BALANCE This discussion provides information regarding the energy usage in the County's existing system (baseline) with the introduction of a new compost facility and the construction of a C&D reuse and recycling facility. ENERGY USE OF THE PROPOSED ISWMP UPDATE State regulations require that each county develop and maintain a solid waste management plan that includes an energy balance component. Per HRS Title 19 342G -26(d), the energy balance component of the plan shall: Describe the programs by which the county will investigate or incorporate ways of increasing the energy efficiency of the solid waste management process, including the assessment of energy and fuel -production options such as composting, anaerobic digestion, acid hydrolysis, production of liquid fuels, incineration, or a combination thereof. As discussed in this Plan, the County considered the procurement of a waste reduction facility between 2006 and 2014. During that time, the County issued several RFPs to vendors who could potentially design, construct, and operate a waste to energy (WTE) facility. The County's evaluation of proposals determined that a mass burn WTE facility was the most commercially and technically feasible option. However, the County rejected ensuing proposals for a WTE facility due to higher than expected costs. As recommended in Chapter 9, the County will consider recovery and treatment technology (e.g., WTE, pyrolysis) if: (1) other waste diversion approaches (e.g., proposed compost facility in Hilo, shipping of market-driven unrecyclable materials to the City and County of Honolulu) are cost prohibitive, (2) it can be demonstrated that it is environmentally and economically feasible, and (3) the technology has a verifiable and viable commercial track record (a minimum of 5 -years) for handling municipal solid waste. Because this is a 10 -year plan, only those waste management measures that are likely attainable during this timeframe are integrated into this discussion; therefore, the introduction of waste reduction technology is not included. If WTE is considered during this 10 -year timeframe of this Plan, the County will perform a comparative analysis of the options looking at several variables including that of energy use and emissions. The energy component shall identify and assess. (1) The amount of energy input, including, but not limited to, electrical power, gasoline, diesel fuel, coal, natural gas, propane, kerosene, and heating oil, required by the plan for the accomplishment of collection, recycling, composting, bioconversion, waste handling, disposal, and landfilling.- In andfilling; In FY 2018-19, the primary energy -using activities of the County's existing solid waste system consists of operating its network of recycling and transfer stations, and its two landfills. However, with the planned transition to hauling residuals exclusively to West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill (WHSL), the estimated fuel use for these components of the County system shown in Exhibit 1 accounts for this transition. As shown, it is estimated that 560,580 gallons of fuel are used to operate the County's solid waste system. Exhibit 1. Estimated Solid Waste System Fuel Use, Fiscal Year 2017-18 System Component Fuel Use (gallons) Recycling 109,250 Transfer 203,490 West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill (WHSL) 247,8401 Total 560,580 Note: Exhibit 1 is based on the estimated solid waste system fuel use from FY 2007-08 as described in the 2009 Plan and the percent increase in solid waste generation and disposal generated in 2017-18. 1 Waste hauling estimate includes fuel usage for the transition of residual haul exclusively to WHSL. (2) The amount of energy produced from the waste, including electricity, natural gas, hydrogen, and liquid fuels such as ethanol or methanol.- Multiple ethanol; Multiple haulers collect and bale tires and tire parts in the County for shipment to Oahu for processing into ground and crumbed materials for use as fuel at the H -Power waste -to -energy (WTE) facility. Used oil is either collected and recycled or used in an energy recovery facility. Since tires are also shipped to the West Coast and/or repurposed, and used oil is also collected and recycled with no understanding of how much of the waste stream is converted to energy, the amount of energy produced from these waste streams is unknown. (3) The net energy use or energy production attributable to the solid waste program. Where feasible, this assessment shall include energy used in the original manufacture of these goods. National averages of energy consumed may be incorporated in these estimates; and The Version 15 EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM) was used to evaluate the energy impact of the current waste system (data for FY 2017-18) and three scenarios: 1) the addition of the proposed compost facility that will accept food and yard waste, 2) the construction of a C&D landfill with a sorting and reuse area, 3) the addition of the compost facility that will accept food and yard waste and the construction of a C&D landfill with a sorting and reuse area. The WARM is a planning -level model used to calculate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy, and economic impacts for baseline and alternative waste management practices. It helps solid waste decision makers and planners track energy balances and greenhouse gas emissions associated with different waste management practices. The WARM model performs a lifecycle analysis for a given waste system and accounts for many of the processes required to support that waste system, including metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E), energy in millions BTUs (MMBTU), wage impacts, tax impacts, and labor hours. This analysis emphasizes energy but also describes MTCO2E (GHG emissions) for each of the three scenarios. The following inputs were utilized: • Recycling and disposal quantities for FY 2017-18 • Eight percent (8%) of the FY 2017-18 landfilled waste stream diverted to show an increase in composting of mixed organics • Fifty percent (50%) of the FY 2017-18 landfilled C&D waste, as identified in the Waste Characterization Study, diverted from the landfilled waste stream • Default mileage • Moisture conditions at landfill (dry) _ < 20"/year • Batteries and reuse materials were included in mixed recycling (WARM model does not account for these items) The following narratives and tables illustrate the change in energy use with each scenario. The difference in GHG emissions is also described for each. Scenario 1: Addition of compost facility that will accept food and yard waste This scenario uses more energy (5,663 million BTU) compared to baseline conditions for the transport of organic waste. GHG emissions recovered is the equivalent to 6,621 MTCO2r which translates to removing annual emissions from 1,406 passenger vehicles and 745,008 gallons of gasoline. Material Tons Recycled Tons Landfilled Tons Composted Total Million BTU Mixed Paper (general) 586.00 - NA (12,050.58) Yard Trimmings NA - 37,915.00 22,142.36 HDPE 275.00 - NA (13,814.79) Mixed Plastics 275.00 - NA (10,779.96) Desktop CPUs 49.30 - NA (1,049.80) Flat -Panel Displays 50.30 - NA (766.23) CRT Displays 50.30 - NA (406.77) Aluminum Cans 381.00 - NA (58,203.25) Steel Cans 100.00 - NA (1,996.62) Mixed Metals 8,184.00 - NA (544,644.17) Glass 3,048.00 - NA (6,47825) Asphalt Concrete - 1,233.00 NA (1,501.07) Concrete - 2,960.00 NA (316.19) Dimensional Lumber - 12,219.00 NA 7,184.05 Drywall - 784.00 NA (2,035.39) Tires - - NA (435.91) Mixed Recyclables 5,396.00 - NA (79,676.42) Mixed Organics NA - 17,936.00 10,474.62 Mixed MSW NA 189,064.00 NA 50,720.78 Scenario 2: Construction of a C&D landfill with a sorting and reuse area This scenario uses less energy (1,281 million BTU) compared to baseline conditions with the omission of organic waste and introduction of a C&D landfill with a sorting and reuse area. GHG emissions recovered is the equivalent to 18,054 MTCO2, which translates to removing annual emissions from 3,833 passenger vehicles and 2,031,451 gallons of gasoline. Material Tons Recycled Tons Landfilled Tons Composted Total Million BTU Mixed Paper (general) 586.00 NA (12,050.58) Yard Trimmings NA 37,915.00 22,142.36 HDPE 275.00 NA (13,814.79) Mixed Plastics 275.00 NA (10,779.96) Desktop CPUs 49.30 NA (1,049.80) Flat -Panel Displays 50.30 NA (766.23) CRT Displays 50.30 - NA (406.77) Aluminum Cans 381.00 - NA (58,20325) Steel Cans 100.00 - NA (1,996.62) Mixed Metals 8,184.00 - NA (544,644.17) Glass 3,048.00 - NA (6,478.25) Asphalt Concrete 1,233.00 - NA (1,501.07) Concrete 2,960.00 - NA (316.19) Dimensional Lumber 12,219.00 - NA 7,184.05 Drywall 784.00 - NA (2,035.39) Tires 121.00 - NA (435.91) Mixed Recyclables 5,396.00 - NA (79,676.42) Mixed Organics NA 17,936.00 - 4,811.75 Mixed MSW NA 189,064.00 NA 50,720.78 Scenario 3: Compost facility that will accept food and yard waste and the construction of a C&D landfill with a sorting and reuse area. This scenario uses more energy (4,381 million BTU) compared to baseline conditions, but less than Scenario 1, which only includes additional composting. GHG emissions recovered is the equivalent to 24,674 MTCO2, which translates to removing annual emissions from 5,239 passenger vehicles and 2,776,460 gallons of gasoline. Material Tons Recycled Tons Landfilled Tons Composted Total Million BTU Mixed Paper (general) 586.00 NA (12,050.58) Yard Trimmings NA 37,915.00 22,142.36 HDPE 275.00 NA (13,814.79) Mixed Plastics 275.00 NA (10,779.96) Desktop CPUs 49.30 NA (1,049.80) Flat -Panel Displays 50.30 - NA (766.23) CRT Displays 50.30 - NA (406.77) Aluminum Cans 381.00 - NA (58,203.25) Steel Cans 100.00 - NA (1,996.62) Mixed Metals 8,184.00 - NA (544,644.17) Glass 3,048.00 - NA (6,478.25) Asphalt Concrete 1,233.00 - NA (1,501.07) Concrete 2,960.00 - NA (316.19) Dimensional Lumber 12,219.00 - NA 7,184.05 Drywall 784.00 - NA (2,035.39) Tires 121.00 - NA (435.91) Mixed Recyclables 5,396.00 - NA (79,676.42) Mixed Organics NA - 17,936.00 4,811.75 Mixed MSW NA 189,064.00 NA 50,720.78 (4) Methods by which net energy use may be decreased or net energy or fuels production may be increased. As discussed in the Plan, of the 83 total recommendations, one of the top five recommendations identi- fies that the County will establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full life -cycle impacts, in addition to tonnage -based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals as a baseline for future improvements to the overall system. In response to this, the County expects to prepare an in-depth life- cycle assessment (LCA) for the capital development, maintenance, and operation of the Hawaii County solid waste system. The LCA would follow the recommendations of this Plan for facility development and operation and evaluate possible changes to the system that could reduce energy and environmental life -cycle costs. The primary system components that would likely be evaluated using the LCA are: • Transfer station development and operation (recyclables, compostables, waste) • Transfer station material haul (recyclables, compostables, waste) • East Hawaii facility development and operations (mulch, recyclables, composting, waste) • East Hawai'i Regional Sort Station — West Hawaii transfer (haul) • West Hawaii facility development and operations (mulch, waste disposal, landfill gas operations) • Urban -density residential collection (pick-up, short -haul, transfer)