Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0389.000 2000-2002 COUNTY OF HAWAII _ ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 , ~ ~ n _ Hilo, Hawaii 96720 a ~ ~ i ~ 5 i , J 1_ i + ~ ~ (808) 961-8322 Fax: (808) 961-8630 r` r~ .~L,~., , ..-..;,1! In#~r~~fic~ ~1~8 Date: October 12, 2001 To: Environmental Management Commissioners From: Kristen, Temporary Environmental Management Secretary RE: Documents for 10/24/01 Meeting and Requested Information Please find enclosed the following for your review and information: 1. Agenda for October 24, 2001 Meeting 2. Minutes from September 26, 2001 Meeting 3. Minutes from September 26, 2001 Public Hearing 4. County of Hawaii Grease Disposal Study dated October 1998 5. Letter dated September 19, 2001 to the Environmental Management Commission from Dennis Tulang Re: Attendance at 10/24101 Meeting. 6. Memorandum dated September 26, 2001 to Mayor Harry Kim from Galen Kuba Re: FY 2001-2002 Budget Reduction 7. Letter dated October 5, 2001 to Mayor Harry Kim from Barbara Bell and Riley Smith Re: Solid Waste Advisory Committee Recommendation 8. County of Hawaii, Municipal Solid Waste Revenues/Expenditures/Assets for Fl' 1997-1998 9. October 2001 Solid Waste Division Report NOTE: Items No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 will be mailed to you. Cormm~. No. File No. _ Ref. ~o: . Ref. bate QCT ~ 5 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA DATE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2001 TIME: 9:00 A.M. -12:00 P.M. PLACE: KONA POLICE DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM 74-5221 QUEEN KA'AI3UMANU IIIGI~WAY, KAILUA-KONG, IiAWAI'I 96740 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 MEETING 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING 4. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC 5. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM AND/OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA 6. CORRESPONDENCE/REPORTS • Letter to Mayor Kim RE: Re-appointment of SWAC • Director's Report • Solid Waste Division Chief s Report • Wastewater Division Chief s Report • Dennis Tulang, State Department of Health, Wastewater Branch -Annual Operations and Maintenance Inspections of Wastewater Facilities • Denis Lau, State Department of Health, Clean Water Branch - NPDES Permitting 7. OLD BUSINESS • Creation of SWAC Subcommittee 8. NEW BUSINESS • Establish sewer user fees by the Environmental Management Commission 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS • Wednesday, October 24, 2001, 1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m., Solid Waste Advisory Committee, Kona Police Department Conference Room, 74-5221 Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 • Wednesday, November 28, 2001, 8:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m., Waimea Community Center (Park) Building, 65-1260 Kawaihae Road, Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 . Environmental Management Commission Agenda October 24, 2001 Page 2 10. ADJOURNMENT If you require an accommodation or auxiliary aid and/or services to participate in this meeting (i.e. sign language interpreter, large print), please call 961-8322. Hawaii Tribune Herald West Hawaii Today October 17, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Wednesday, September 26, 2001 9:31 a.m. State Office Building 75 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 PRESENT: Barbara Bell ALSO PRESENT: Galen Kuba, Acting Director for EM Riley Smith Gerald Takase, Corporation Counsel Hugh Ono Larry Capellas, SWD Peter Martin Peter Boucher, WWD Sam Kawamura James Isa, Abandoned Vehicle Coordinator Luana Jones Walter Iida, Legislative Auditors Jon Olson EXCUSED: Carolyn Witcher John Ray David Frankel Frederick Brunner Mack Asato Steve Cassulo Mike Allen Mike DuBois STAFF: Kristen Griffiths Debbie DuBois Margaret Pahio CALL TO ORDER Riley Smith called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 MEETING Barbara Bell motioned to approve the Minutes of the September 5, 2001 meeting. Sam Kawamura seconded. Motion was unanimously carried. STATEMENTS FROM TIIE PUBLIC ON ITEMS LISTED ON AGENDA John Ray submitted written testimony on behalf of the Big Island Business Council, the Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference, and the South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee. They feel that the SWAC is redundant and unnecessary given the creation of a Commission. The organizations feel comfortable that the process will be well served with the Commission dealing with these issues. They feel there will be adequate opportunity for input by the organizations through the Commission and really don't think the SWAC is necessary. Jon Olson concurs with John Ray. He believes the SWAC is redundant at this point and that the Commission is more than capable in dealing with the issues and probably far more expedient. He believes the decision making process should be with the Commission. Mike Allen's concern with disbanding the SWAC is that there is nobody from the recycling industry and the rubbish hauling industry on the Commission. Their businesses have the most experience as far as handling waste on the island. The Commission will be making decisions that are going to affect them. If the SWAC is going to be disbanded, the Commission should at least have a group of people from the industry that represent first hand experience in recycling.. and rubbish hauling as a group that the Commission can go to for advice, concerns and general input. He has had 17 years experience on this island in the recycling/rubbish hauling business. There have been instances where they have had no input in any of the ordinances and the decisions that are being made by the County government. They could add to the vision of where this County is going, especially with respect to the landfills and how to handle waste. There are a number of members from the recycling and the rubbish hauling industry that are members of the SWAC and he feels that is a real opportunity to provide input on the issues. He hopes Commission members will get advice from people who do the day-to-day work with respect to waste and recycling. That is real important. Mike DuBois has been on the Big Island for the past 5 years and is in the business of recycling and has a commercial business picking up glass bottles from hotels, bars, and restaurants. He has been embroiled in the harshness of politics through the County Administration who have created what has developed into a lot of mistrust as to how recycling programs need to be addressed and developed on this island. Upon his arrival in September 1995, and the first words out of the mouths of people that he had met were, "Do you really recycle that stuff or are you just throwing it away?" How is it that there is so much mistrust of what the recycling industry does to this day? Recycling is an absolute must. The County is constantly shutting down recycling programs. They shut down green waste programs after hundreds of people start to recycle their green waste saying there is no funding. They are constantly threatening the Diversion Grants Program. This creates an image to the public. This has created a real hardship for the businesses. He hopes that the Commission will work with the business industry. He has a tremendous background in recycling and waste disposal management. He hopes that the Commission recognizes the experience that the business people have on this island and to also understand the history of what has transpired so far and to make the corrections that are necessary. He hopes his future in recycling is not jeopardized and that the people of this County have the best possible waste management program without having any more mismanagement. He understands that the Commission is here in an advisory capacity to the new and established Environmental Department and certainly appreciates their time and effort. Riley Smith stated that one way to efficiently communicate with the Commission is to put everything in writing and get it to Kristen ahead of the meeting for distribution and review. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM AND/OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA Hugh Ono motioned that the Environmental Management Director's Report be added to the Agenda. Barbara Bell seconded. Motion was unanimously carried. INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Galen met with George How and Ron Soroos of Harding ESE to discuss changes to their scope of work. Because of the critical need to address the closure and replacement of the Hilo Landfill, this will now be their central focus rather than the entire Solid Waste Management Plan. The consultants will be required to use a facilitator and will provide a presentation to the Department before any meetings are conducted with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. We need to address what is happening in East Hawaii since we do have a 2004 deadline. -2- Riley commented that he did not attend any of the SWAG meetings, but the public comments he did get were that the meetings were very loose and there didn't seem to be a lot of organization or structure. We are trying to respond to some of those comments and have more structure and allow the comments that the public and the members of the SWAC have to be incorporated and clearly communicated to the Consultants. It is very important to have a professional facilitator to make sure the meetings are conducted in a professional, efficient and productive manner. FY 2001-2002 BUDGET REDUCTION Due to anticipated revenue shortfalls, the Department has been required to submit revised budgets. Finance Department is looking fora 10% reduction from the Solid Waste Division. We will be submitting a budget reduction package based on 3 levels of impacts. The first level is budgeted, but undelivered, equipment and vacant positions. The second level will impact optional programs such as recycling. The third level will impact mandatory programs such as landfill operations. The Departmental budget will also be reduced by 10%. Because Wastewater operations are funded by special revenues, no cost cutting measures are presently required. Galen stated there is a concern about the terrorist attack and its impact to our economy. Also real property taxes and Nansay are causing a negative impact to our overall budget. All departments funded by the general fund will be asked for a budget reduction. As a result, we have to make some proposals and budget cuts. These are the levels of cuts that we can make. That will be presented to administration and it will be up to them what level they want to cut. Mike Allen stated that what the Mayor is saying is that it is not okay to cut public jobs, but it is okay to cut private jobs. Riley stated that there is a large portion of money that the Mayor feels needs to be cut and Galen has been directed, within his two sections, to come up with that recommendation on the budget. Mike DuBois understands that the Diversion Grant Program costs $40/ton that goes to a certified recycling processor. It costs us over $80/ton to throw it away. Why is the Mayor making choices to spend more taxpayer's money to throw it away rather than recycle it if recycling costs less? Galen mentioned that $80/ton doesn't really involve any cash outlay on the part of the County. Peter Martin stated that the number came from a full cost accounting of the cost of dealing with municipal solid waste. That includes the tipping fee, transportation, administration, equipment, fuel and personnel. Three years ago it was $82.00 and it is now between $82.00 and $88.00. He will provide a detail of that to the Commission members. PRIVATIZATION OF T1FIE PU`UANAIIULU LANDFILL Galen stated that he is looking at this as a potential cost cutting measure, not only for the near future, but for the long term. Waste Management has indicated to us that they may be willing to operate the landfill at no additional cost to us preliminarily. That being the case, we can readjust the operations at Pu'uanahulu. Primary savings will revolve around the equipment and its operations, as well as some personnel. We do have some vacancies that we can shift existing personnel into. We have provisional hires that we could move permanent employees into or we -3- could establish a crew to clean up our transfer stations. We don't anticipate loosing any permanent personnel with the Solid Waste Division. Larry Capellas stated that when we reopened the contract with the security guards, it was very specific about turning away commercial loads and restricting all loads into transfer stations for residential refuse only. The security guards have personality conflicts. They let their neighbors come in and dump. This is exacerbated by the fact that the transfer stations are not gated. The transfer stations have to be gated. Larry states that we have no authority to fine them. We have asked the Police to issue citations, but that has not been done. Riley Smith reiterated that the security guards are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. If any of the haulers or recyclers are aware of abuses or improper conduct by the Security Guards, they can give Larry a name, date, and place Jon Olson stated that when you close the transfer stations, you increase illegal dumping. People illegally dump because they don't have the resources to haul it the distance it needs to be hauled or they are afraid to face the rejection at the transfer station due to the size of their load. You can't close people off to the option of getting rid of the trash because they are going to get rid of it one way or another. SWAG Mayor Kim's Memo to Galen stated that he recommends the consideration of disbanding the SWAC and having the Commission assume its responsibilities. However, since some members of the SWAC have been very involved in process to date, perhaps some would be interested in being assigned to a working group or task force of the Commission for this purpose. Galen concurs with Mayor Kim and is making the recommendation that the responsibilities of the SWAC should be turned over to the Environmental Management Commission. The nine Commission members represent all geographic areas of the island. It's diverse membership has business, environmental and community interests and involvement. Galen recommends, "The Commission shall authorize co-chairs to send a letter to Mayor Harry Kim recommending the disbanding of the existing Solid Waste Advisory Committee and in compliance with HRS 342G appoint the Environmental Management Commission as the County of Hawai`i's new Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The Commission shall also recommend that the Mayor include appropriate language that would invite former Committee members to continue the participation with the Commission in the continued development of the County's Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Mayor will make a final recommendation as to what to do with the SWAC. Hugh Ono feels that the input from the industry people is real germane to this matter. They are the stakeholders and it is important that they have their input. Barbara Bell mentioned that the language in Galen's recommendation states "disbanding". Should we say "reconfigure"? Or "reorganize"? Gerald stated that you should suggest in this what you want to have happen to the members of the SWAC. Are they going to now become a subcommittee of the Commission? -4- Riley stated that we are inviting them to participate in our meetings as members of the public, but the way our rules set us up, there are nine votes here. We are inviting the participation, but we are still the Commission. Gerald stated that the final vote will come from the Commission, but they can still have some form as a subcommittee or a special group task force. Larry Capellas stated that the SWAC was a loose committee with the intent of State Law to be advisory to the Consultants. The Consultants' duty was to bring input to the SWAC. In turn, the SWAC would take that input back to the community and then come in and provide the Consultants the input from the different community groups. Mike Allen commented that he would like to stay involved in the process on more of an advisory capacity rather than a general public capacity. At the meeting in Hilo, SWAG members sat in the audience with members of the public. It got confusing trying to identify who was in the SWAC and who was in the general public. Those SWAC members that want to still stay involved in the process, should be treated as somewhat of an official committee. Then we can go ahead, within that group, identify one or two spokespeople that we would like to have our ideas presented to the actual Commission. We have across-section of people in the industry that have more experience handling waste and doing recycling. He's afraid that the Commission will not have that important input. Riley suggested that Barbara Bell would head that subcommittee since her business is also affiliated with the SWAC. Mike Allen agreed. Barbara Bell stated that the SWAC meeting should be an agenda item. John Ray stated that the key is communication. If you continue to communicate in a timely fashion with members of the SWAC, make sure they have the information ahead of time, encourage their input, and it works fine. Stress the importance of putting things in writing and getting things out in a timely manner. He doesn't see the need for a separate committee. Just communicate with the SWAC members and invite their participation. Margaret Pahio, a member of the SWAC, who doesn't want to be just forgotten about. She put a lot into this. She does not want to be put on the side like they caused some problems at the SWAG meetings. She would appreciate if she could receive information before hand so she can give more intelligent input. Kristen will prepare a distribution list that has a title associated with the SWAC and make sure they get all information. Last minute information will not be received ahead of time, but will be available upon entering the meeting. Riley Smith stated that we still want to go through and acknowledge the proposed motion, but we should possibly have a committee that is comprised of members of the business community that are involved in this and identify them and that they participate in our meetings. Recognize them as a subcommittee. Need a new motion. Galen feels that as far as the Mayor is concerned, what you do with the old SWAC is up to the Commission now. All we are saying is don't forget them. What you do with them is your call. -5- Barbara Bell motioned that the Environmental Management Commission send a letter to Mayor. Harry Kim using the language that Galen has laid out. Peter Martin seconded. A suggestion was made that we change "disbanding" to "reorganization". Motion was unanimously carried. Barbara Bell moved that the Environmental Management Commission form a subcommittee to be titled SWAC Subcommittee. Luana Jones seconded. Motion was unanimously carried. DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON THE RELATIONSIIIP BETWEEN AND TIIE ROLES OF TIIE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Gerald Takase was asked to look at the two entities and to try and mesh the two. The SWAG is established through State Statute and are given the specific task of looking at the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. There is a statutory basis for them and they are prescribed certain duties to formally do. It is really going to be up to the Mayor if he is going to disband that group. The Commission could assume that duties by reappointing the Commission as the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and serving in that capacity. Right now, I think that if there is an option for the two to exist, it may be redundant in a lot of places, but listening to the recyclers, there is a different group of people sitting on both, so you may have different opinions. He recommended that body be allowed to continue to exist. The Commission will place itself in between the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and the Council so that whatever recommendations they make, which used to go straight to Council, will pass through the Commission fast and then onto Council. It may be redundant and we can't stop that right now, but the Commission, the SWAC, and the Mayor can decide what the future is. If you don't want that Committee, he recommended that the Mayor reappoint the members of the Commission as the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, also. He doesn't think they can be disbanded because there is a requirement for them to exist in the State Statute. Peter Martin questioned why we could not appoint the SWAC members as an ad hoc committee attached to this Commission. We are being redundant and very confused by having two separate bodies. Add them to the Commission for the duration and those people who had valuable input should be meeting with us. Gerald stated that the SWAC has a specific function and creation in State Statute already so they could exist independent of anything the Commission wants to do. They don't have to be ad hoc. It was not anticipated in State Statute that the Commission would be created. That is really the part we need to mesh in there. The position of this Commission and the Mayor was to do away with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. We would probably stop it from doing that by saying there is a requirement in State Statute that there be this body. Whether the body is constituted right now or he dismisses all of them and reappoints you folks as that body, there is still that requirement. Somebody has to perform that function. Bottom line is that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee cannot just disappear all together. • IN THE UPDATE OF THE INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Discussed with Director's Report. • OFFICIAL PARTICIPATION ON THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Discussed with Director's Report. -6- • ON THE EXISTING SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS A SUB- COMMITTEE OF THE COMMISSION Discussed with Director's Report. • ANY RELATED ISSUES No other issues discussed. UPDATES FROM SOLID WASTE DIVISION • DISCUSSION ON ABANDONED VEHICLE PROGRAM BY JAMES ISA1 ABANDONED VEHICLE COORDINATOR James Isa stated that in FY 2000-2001, there was a total of 1,411 abandoned vehicles reported islandwide. 771 of those were towed. The other approximately 700 cars that were not towed were because the vehicles were either removed or sometimes stolen. We can tow only vehicles that the police make reports on. We need a police report. The reason the police are involved, is to check if the vehicle is stolen. They have access to that information. He can go into public roadways, County, State and Federal Parks, and private subdivision roads (Council made an ordinance in 1994 giving jurisdiction). Vehicles on private property are reported to the Department of Health or the Planning Department. Riley stated that he has worked with Mr. Isa extensively for a number of years and commended him on his diligence and responsiveness. Jon Olson feels that the problem is police resources. There needs to be a mechanism to get the Police out of the loop. He thought there was some legislation that did that. Gerald Takase stated that by the time the vehicle is found, it has been sold 10 times since the last person bothered to register it. The law does say the owner of the vehicle is required to report when it is sold, but the courts get upset with us hauling in otherwise good citizens on these kinds of cases. It is not worth the effort to chase them down. Mike Allen suggested that we educate the public. • UPDATE ON INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Discussed in the Director's Report. • UPDATE ON THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CONSULTANTS Discussed in the Director's Report. -7- • SHORT-TERM CHOICES FOIZ EXTENDING THE HILO LANDFILL Mike Allen stated that long-term approaches are very important; but we have a 2004 date for the Hilo Landfill closure. He has not seen anybody take the responsibility of putting together a short-term program on targeting items that are now entering the landfill that could easily be kept out and recycled. That should be critical for any decision making with the Solid Waste Management Plan because if we do not make the 2004 deadline, we are going to start hauling rubbish to Kona and people in the community will object to some of that. If the County focuses on trying to eliminate some of the items that are now entering the landfill so they won't have to be trucked over to Kona, the general public will be much more palatable. He offered his services and expertise in hopes to successfully put together a Solid Waste Management Plan that will be successful. Hopefully it will involve and be acceptable to everybody in the community because the backing of the community is important in preventing dumping on the sides of the roads. That can be eliminated if you take a thoughtful approach on how to move forward. There is no organization of solid waste business enterprises because there has been a covert or overt effort by the County government in the past to make sure that the industry is at each other's throats. The County needs to take a proactive approach and get the people in the industry together and show them that they are in this thing together and that they have a real opportunity to have an impact on the decisions that are going to be made in the future. It is very important that the people in the industry come together and decide what the focus is going to be and start talking together. Larry Capellas stated that there are two areas of extending the Hilo Landfill. One is a permit application for a vertical expansion which would add more capacity and has less of an impact. The other is horizontal expansion of the landfill which will require the expanded portions of the landfill to be lined and any leachate must be addressed. The end product is very expensive. Other methods available for maximizing diversion is expanding diversion credits to get most of this waste away from the landfill prior to being disposed of. This will be answered in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. We have added bins as a convenient means of disposal of certain materials that have a market value. We brought in a compactor which gets a higher density. Another method is that we re-specify the cover material. It is about twice as expensive, but covers a larger area and takes up less volume. Previously used six inch minus. The volume of voids in a large rock product is going to be occupied by air. The new cover material takes up less space. When working with the Consultants on the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, one of the efforts was to expand 4 or 5 of our larger transfer stations in the areas where the population is the greatest to give the public the convenient opportunity to divert what they could. This expanded operation would be provided by the County, but the marketing of those products would have to be turned over to private haulers and recyclers. Barbara Bell questioned a grant that was secured by Paula Helfrich of the Hawaii Island Economic Development Board in the amount of $400,000 of EPA money for a pilot project recycling center on the Big Island. Larry Capellas confirmed that a private group is attempting to secure a $400,000 grant and beyond that, the County is not involved at all. Barbara Bell will bring notes regarding this grant to next meeting. Wendell Hatada has been assigned to coordinate this effort. Hugh Ono moved that the Environmental Management Commission authorize the Director of the Department of Environmental Management to convey verbally our support for the continuation of Diversion funds and if they are to be cut, to be one of the last. Seconded by Sam Kawamura. -8- Barbara Bell abstained from the vote because of the affiliation of Recycle Hawaii. Motion was unanimously carried. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC NEARING ON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION'S RULES AND REGULATIONS Hugh Ono moved that the rules be adopted as amended. Peter Martin seconded. Motion was unanimously carried. SCIIEDULING OF NEXT MEETING DATES, TIMES AND LOCATIONS Wednesday, October 24, 2001, 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m., at the Kona Police Department Conference Room, 74-5221 Queen Ka' ahumanu Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai' i 96740. Wednesday, November 28, 2001, 8:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m., at the Waimea Community Center (Park) Building, 65-1260 Kawaihae Road, Kamuela, Hawai' i 96743 ADJOURNMENT Peter Martin motioned to adjourn the meeting. Sam Kawamura seconded. Motion was carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:06 a.m. Minutes Respectfully Submitted by: KRISTEN G IT Interim Environmental Management Secretary -9- PUBLIC HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION'S PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIONS Wednesday, September 26, 2001 9:04 a.m. State Office Building 75 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 PRESENT: Barbara Bell ALSO PRESENT: Galen Kuba, Acting Director for EM Riley Smith Gerald Takase, Corporation Counsel Hugh Ono Larry Capellas, SWD Peter Martin Peter Boucher, WWD Sam Kawamura James Isa, Abandoned Vehicle Coordinator Luana Jones Walter Iida, Legislative Auditors Jon Olson EXCUSED: Carolyn Witcher Steve Cassulo David Frankel Frederick Brunner Mack Asato STAFF: Kristen Griffiths CALL TO ORDER Riley Smith called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS SMITH: There are agendas up here. There are 11 sections of these proposed rules. There are copies of the proposed rules up here. We do have a quorum. We have six commission members present. Are there any comments from anyone in the public or from any of the commission members? BELL: I move that in Section 4a, we change the first Wednesday of each February, May, August and November to read the fourth Wednesday. SMITH: Gerald, that is something we can just note now and when we get into our regular meeting agenda, we can vote to accept all changes at one time? So we don't vote on them as they come along. TAKASE: Right. This is really just your public hearing. SMITH: So we are just getting input. When we have our meeting, that is when we adopt everything at one time. TAKASE: You can discuss the rules now. You have to wait for your regular meeting to adopt. KAWAMURA: Under Section I. Officers, instead of membership, why don't we put commission members? Membership can be anybody. SMITH: I agree. Commission members. Are there any other comments to the rules from any of the other Commission members or members of the public? Right now, we have suggestions to change the last word in Section I to delete membership and replace it with Commission members. In Section 4a, we had a suggestion in that first line to change the first Wednesday, delete #irst and replace it with fourth Wednesday of each February, May, August, and November. Is there ever going to be an instance in February when there may not be four Wednesdays? TAKASE: I don't think so. SMITH: You will always have four weeks, so that would be four Wednesdays. TAKASE: You could say the last. That is easier. SMITH: But there might be five Wednesdays. BELL: I think we said fourth Wednesday. If we say we are going to be having a Chair and a Vice Chair, but we have been operating on a temporary basis as Co-Chairs, when we finally adopt these rules, then does this mean we have to have a Chair and Vice Chair at a certain point? TAKASE: Typically, when you pass your rules...I am assuming you are going to stay in this arrangement until the end of this year, right? BELL: We haven't discussed it for a while. It is working. SMITH: I guess her question is if we adopt these, then we have to have a Chair and we have to have a Vice Chair? TAKASE: Yes, so I guess you need to have an election at some point. I don't think it is critical. BELL: Would it be worthwhile to put some disclaimer about if the group so chooses Co- Chairs is okay? `That way whatever we decided, we would not have to go to public hearing to change the rules. SMITH: So they say Chairperson and Vice Chairperson or Co-Chairs? ONO: That sounds great. I think that covers it all, right. BELL: Then we are not bound by a certain time frame. ONO: And we wouldn't be in violation and we would have lots of flexibility. SMITH: I kind of like this arrangement. -2- ONO: So what are we doing over here? Officers are Chair and Vice Chairperson or Go- Chairpersons. SMITH: Are there any other comments from any of the other commission members? KUBA: Wouldn't it confuse #3? BELL: Oh. TAKASE: No, because either one of them can assume the duties of the Chair and Vice Chair. KUBA: I was looking at the chain of command. So, if one Co-Chair is not here, then the next Co-Chair is in charge and if they are both not here, then the Vice Chair is in charge? TAKASE: Maybe for #2 we will say Chairpersons/Co-Chair and then for #3 we will say Vice/Co-Chair. It seems like both of them are presiding and it is cordial so it is not a big problem. If you get to one day where Riley wants to recognize, but Barbara doesn't, then you have a problem. When you have two that are at conflict, that is a potential problem. SMITH: So what is the change? TAKASE: Co-Chair. It only appears in the Title of #2. Then in #3 it is in the title and also in the body. BELL: Actually, can't #3 stay the same because if you elect a Chair and a Vice Chair, then the duties and the powers of the Vice Chair would be... #2 could be the duties and powers of the Chairperson/Co-Chair and they preside... TAKASE: Since you might have Co-Chairs, you should specify that these are their duties also because somebody could read it and say that you have duties for a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson, but it doesn't say what happens when you have a Co-Chair. ONO: So after #2, it is Chairperson/Co-Chairs? TAKASE: Yes. KUBA: So anytime Chairman shows up, put /Co-Chairs, right? TAKASE: Yes. SMITH: Gerald, when we get to our regular meeting, you can summarize all these changes so Kristen will know how to change the rules. TAKASE: Yes, I have written them in so I will help her revise it. SMITH: Any other suggestions or comments by anybody? Luana, do you have any? JONES: Good work. SMITH: So technically, we can't close this public hearing until 9:30? -3- TAKASE: Yes, since that is what you had listed. I would just say to recess if nobody is here to testify and if you are all finished talking. BELL: I just want to be clear that every time it says Chairperson, we are going to put Co- Chairperson? TAKASE: No, I will try to think of same language to fit in here so we don't have to keep adding that all throughout the body. SMITH: At our regular meeting we need to clearly understand what we are approving. Any other comments on the rules? Do we have a motion to close the public hearing or do we recess? TAKASE: Just recess until 9:30. SMITH: We will recess the public hearing unti19:30 and then at 9:30 we will be able to start the regular commission meeting. RECESS Public Hearing was recessed at 9:15 a.m. RECOloTVEleiE Reconvened at 9:29 a.m. There were no additional comments to the rules. ADJOURNIO~IENT Barbara Bell motioned to adjourn the hearing. Peter Martin seconded. Motion was carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:31 a.m. Minutes Respectfully Submitted by: KRISTEN FF S Interim Environmental Management Secretary -4_ •s L. I iii • ~ N Y s # $ ~ s ~ • ~epartrrient of public Works 8 s s • ®e 11~ ®ctobelR 199 Prepared for: County of Hawaii Depar~nent of Public Works Wastewater Division Prepared by: 1~ItOWN AND CALDdVELL 119 Merchant Street, Suite 200 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 ~~OUVN AND CAI~DWELL, 119 Merchant Street Suite 200 Honoiuw Hawa~~ 96813-4499 Te f9GE)E23-849 Fax 1808)533-C22c October 22, 1998 Mr. Peter Boucher, Chief Wastewater Division Envrronreen!~! Ena:.neeong & Ccnsurong County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 Fax (808)961-8644 Subject: GREASE DISPOSAL STUDY Dear Mr. Boucher: We have completed our review of fats, oil, and grease (FOG) handling and disposal practices in Hawaii County. The attached report summarizes the findings and offers alternatives for the County to consider in managing the FOG disposal. FOG can be managed using only County facilities and staff or in partnership with the private sector County AP a-oacl~. The County could develop receiving sites for FOG processing in Hilo and Kona. Alternatives available to the County to handle FOG are: ¦ Create receiving sites at the sanitary landfills where the material can be collected, thickened with the solid waste and disposed of in the landfill. ¦ Construct processing facilities at the Hilo and Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) and dispose of processed FOG at County landfills. Public/Private Partnershia. A partnership between the County and the private sector to develop a private processing center for FOG should be considered. One of the private operators on Oahu (Bio-Care) expressed interest in expanding to Hawaii. Also, Pacific Biodiesel on Maui is interested in receiving the fryer oil from Hawaii. Based on the report findings, we recommend that the County: 1. Incorporate FOG disposal into its landfill operation to address its immediate FOG disposal needs. This alternative can be implemented quickly. h:~projects, active\7219 coh greaze disposal studyltransmittal Ietter.dodl0/21/98' Mr. Peter Boucher. Chief October 22. 1998 Page 2 2. Develop a Request for Proposals for private processors to undertake processing and disposal of FOG to meet the long term needs. The alternative that requires upgrading of the WWTP's to handle FOG waste is the most costly. This approach is proven, but would cost approximately $3,200,000 based on our pre-planning estimate for the two facilities. The report cost estimates are based on pre-planning concepts and would require refinement before proceeding to detailed design. The information gathered from the waste haulers indicates a need to reassess the existing approach used to manage FOG. The information from haulers was vague and incomplete and may indicate improper disposal practices are being used. We encourage the County to update its Sewer Code to incorporate pretreatment language that will provide the County with the enforcement and management tools to enhance its existing program. In addition to updating the Sewer Code, the County should seriously look into hiring the needed Wastewater System Investigators to provide field inspection and enforcement of the Sewer Code. We appreciate the opportunity to be part of your team in evaluating this important issue. Should you have any questions, please call me at 523-8499. Very truly yours, BROWN AND CALDWELL r~~ Eassie Miller, P.E. Managing Engineer EMM:jgf h:~projects, activeV219 coh grease disposal studyittansmittal lettecdoGl0/ZI/98/ . INT'ItODUCTION The handling, processing and disposal of fats. oil and grease (FOG) are a major challenge for all wastewater systems. The discharge of FOG into wastewater collection systems is typically prohibited. FOG increases system maintenance requirements and wastewater collection system spills if it is not managed and handled properly. FOG discharge into the wastewater collection system increases the potential for line blockages and collection system odors through the buildup of grease layers and flow constrictions in the pipeline. Also, FOG discharge into the wastewater system can create organic overload conditions and odor releases at the wastewater treatment facility and upset the biological system. For these reasons, most municipalities have created strict pretreatment laws to manage the handling and disposal of FOG. To properly manage this waste product, wastewater systems that do accept FOG only allow a control discharge at a specific point in their wastewater facility. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is very interested in how municipalities manage and process FOG. This interest is based on the known fact that FOG discharged into a wastewater collection system will cause wastewater spills. EPA and the State Department of Health (DOH) encourage and mandate, where applicable, the local wastewater agency to establish pretreatment laws that mitigate the discharge of FOG into the wastewater collection system. Hawaii County has restricted the discharge of FOG into its wastewater system. As a result, waste haulers have stated they are left with relatively few processing and disposal alternatives for the FOG they collect from their clients. To address this problem, Hawaii County contracted Brown and Caldwell to perform the following tasks: 1. Identify the extent of the grease disposal problem in the County. Develop estimates of the quantities requiring disposal. 2. Determine methods used by other Hawaii counties for grease disposal. Obtain information on methods used for grease disposal in selected areas on the Mainland. 3. Identify and compare alternatives for grease disposal. 4. Develop order of magnitude cost estimates for up to three alternatives. 5. Summarize results of analysis in a letter report. This report summarizes our analysis and includes information on the following subjects: • Regulations • Current FOG Practices • Processing and Disposal Alternatives • Coffiparison of Alternatives • Recoffia~endations County of Hawaii Grease Disposal Study BROWN AND C A L D W E L L October 22, 1998 REGULATIONS Fat, oil, and grease (FOG) generated by restaurants and other non-manufacturing industries are considered "commercial solid waste~~. in Hawaii. the disposal of solid waste is regulated at the state and county levels of government. Federal regulations and guidelines generally form the basis for state and local regulations. In some cases, portions of the state regulations contain language nearly identical to that of the corresponding federal regulations. The Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH) was contacted to determine applicable rules and regulations for the disposal of FOG. The majority of the information supplied by the DOH-Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch, in addition to information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the County of Hawaii, are summarized below. Federal Regulations The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives the EPA authority to control hazardous waste, and sets forth policy for the management of non-hazardous solid waste. The federal regulations and programs are administered by the individual states. The EPA requires states to submit for approval plans that identify the responsibilities of the state, local, and regional authorities for solid waste management. RCRA prohibits operation of "open dumps", disposal sites that do not conform with applicable standards or other requirements. Specific guidelines and criteria for solid waste management are given in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). State Regulations Title 11, Chapter 58.1 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR §11-58.1) directs solid waste management control, and is based on Title 40, Part 258 of the CFR (40 CFR 258). This chapter sets forth standards for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of systems for solid waste disposal, recycling, reclamation, and transfer. It clearly assigns responsibility for the removal of accumulated solid waste to an approved solid waste disposal facility to the owner or manager of the property where the waste has accumulated. This person is considered responsible regardless of whether removal is performed by a contractor or any other person (HAR § 11-58.1- 61 Incoming waste at the disposal facility must be able to pass the Paint Filter Liquids Test (EPA Method 9095). This test determines if a waste material contains "free liquids"; if the waste material contains free liquids, it is considered a liquid waste. There are specific restrictions on the disposal of liquids in municipal solid waste landfills (HAR §11-58.1-15(i), 40 CFR 258.28). Noncontainerized liquid waste cannot be deposited at municipal solid waste landfills unless it is household waste (other than septic waste), ar is leachate or gas condensate from the landfill itself. Containers holding liquid waste are limited to a size normally found in household waste, which would be impractical for the amount of FOG generated by a commercial operation. 2 County ojHawaii Grease Disposal5tudy BROWN AND C A L D W E L L October 22, 1998 For this reason. FOG is t}~pically mixed v~~ith dirt. wood chips, or other material to ahsurh the liquid: the resulting mixture can then be landfilled. Mixing can take place at the solid waste disposal facility, if there are operations available to accept the liquid and mix with the dry material. Otherwise. the FOG must be mixed «rith dr_v material before it is brou~~ht to the disposal facility. County Regulations The Hawaii County Code, Chapter 21 ("Sewer Code") regulates the use of public sewers in Hawaii. In order to prevent sewer blockages, the Sewer Code §21-7 prohibits the discharge of FOG to the sewer systems in concentrations that will result in adherence to structures and appurtenances. More specifically, the Sewer Code prohibits discharge into the public sewers of water or waste which contains more than 100 parts per million (by weight) of fat, oil, or grease (§21-9). Establishments that generate wastewater with FOG concentrations greater than 100 ppm are required to install a pretreatment device (grease trap/interceptor) to remove FOG from the waste water before discharging into the wastewater system. It is the owner's responsibility to provide and maintain the pretreatment device, and ensure that the captured materials are removed and disposed of in an appropriate manner. The owner must keep a record of the dates, amounts, and means of disposal for review by the County. Pretreatment Ordinance The City and County of Honolulu is the only county that has implemented an EPA approved pretreatment ordinance. Included in its pretreatment program are semiannual grease trap compliance evaluations and strict permit requirements for grease haulers. The City has realized a reduction in the number of wastewater spills caused by grease blockages since the inception of their program. The County of Maui's County Council is currently reviewing proposed EPA approved pretreatment language for inclusion into their County Code. As an interim action step, the County developed Department policies to manage and enforce FOG control. This program has reduced the OEM costs of the County's operations because of less FOG accumulation in the wastewater collection system and wastewater spills caused by FOG. The inclusion of appropriate pretreatment language into the County Code is essential to provide the County staff with the necessary enforcement tools to regulate the management of grease interceptor waste and mitigate wastewater spills caused by FOG. CIJRREI®iT FOC PRACTICES A survey of Wastewater Agencies found that the discharge of high concentrations FOG into the wastewater system is prohibited by all counties in Hawaii. The grease haulers are responsible for the disposal of the FOG removed from their clients' grease traps. The driving force for the 3 County ojNawaii Grease Disposal Study BROWN AND CALDWELL October 12, 1998 Agencies to prohibit disposal of FOG in the wastewater collection system is the mandate to protect the public health and environment by reducing the potential for wastewater spills from the collection system. The approach used by the counties in Hawaii is typical of what is occurring throughout the country. Wastewater facilities that do process FOG either process the waste through anaerobic digestion or drying and mixing with soil or other bulking material with final disposal at the sanitary landfill. This section stitrimarizes the FOG handling practices in selected locations on the mainland and in Hawaii. Santa Cruz, California The City of Santa Cruz accepts FOG at their wastewater facility. This WWTP processes approximately 10 mgd. They also process on the average of 7,000 - 10,000 gallons per day of FOG waste in conjunction with septage waste. To handle this waste, the City constructed a septage receiving station to collect and process the waste. The station includes pumps, grinders, an odor control system and two receiving tanks. The collected FOG and septage waste are processed with the facility's sludge (biosolids) in the anaerobic digesters. Phoenix, Arizona The City of Phoenix Arizona accepts FOG waste at its WWTP or sanitary landfill. The FOG received at the WWTP is blended in with the facility's incoming flow and treated. Tltere is some concern with this practice as the grease is plugging pipelines in the facility. The FOG received at the landfill is blended with the solid waste and covered daily. The City processed approximately 856,000 gallons of FOG waste during the period 1988-89. City and County of I-Ionolulu On Oahu, each grease hauler must obtain a grease interceptor Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit (IWDP), and can only discharge "clear water" at the Honouliuli Wastewater Treatment Plant. The management of processing and disposal of the FOG waste is done at the discretion of the grease hauler. The hauler has the option of drying -the FOG on their property and taking the end product to the landfill, or delivering the FOG to a private processor for handling and disposal. As of December 31, 1997, 25 grease interceptor IWDPs were currently active. Three private processors, Bio-Care, BTU, and HYL, were initially identified as acceptors of FOG waste on Oahu. However, BTU no longer provides that service. No contact could be made with HYL during the survey period. Bio-Care receives FOG from grease haulers at a processing fee of $60 per ton. The FOG is mixed in a holding tank and fed to filtration units. These units separate the FOG from the water. The dried product is then either burned at the H-power plant or taken to the landfill for disposal. The separated water is discharged to the wastewater collection system at FOG concentrations significantly lower than allowed. The company has shown strong interest in expanding its operations to the Island of Hawaii using treatment processes similar to those in their Oahu 4 County of Hawaii Grease Disposal Study BROWN AND C A L D W E L L October 22, 1998 operation. Bio-Care plans to initially landfill the dried end product. Other disposal alternatives may be looked at in the future. Recently Bio-Care has. investigated potential sites in both Hilo and Kona. The operation on Hawaii could be implemented with in six (6) months after a commitment is made (Dennis Wong. 672-6116). Kauai County On Kauai, the management of processing and disposal of FOG waste is done at the discretion of the grease hauler. It is believed that the haulers dry the FOG and dispose of the end product at the County sanitary landfill. Deep fryer oil collected by two grease haulers is shipped to Pacific Biodiesel on Maui for reprocessing. There is no private processing facility on Kauai at this time. Maui Courtty All grease haulers dispose of the FOG collected at the County Co-composting operation at the Central Maui Sanitary Landfill. The County has contracted with its composting contractor to accept and process the material collected. The waste haulers are assessed a tipping fee of $37 per ton by the County, and the County pays its contractor $73 per ton. The contractor receives approximately 133 tons per month of FOG at the rate of 1 - 3 truckloads per day. The contractor accepts the FOG at a soil pit where it is mixed with soil material daily and used as cover material for the landfill. The contractor attempted to integrate the FOG into the composting operation but they experienced flare-ups in the compost piles and ceased that practice. A private contractor, Pacific Biodiesel (Larry Zolezzi, 877-3144) has constructed a facility at the Central Maui Landfill to process deep fryer oil into a diesel oil by-product. Pacific Biodiesel processes approximately 321 tons per year of fryer oil. They currently process product from Maui and Kauai. Waste haulers from Kauai ship the fryer oil collected, via Young Brothers, to Pacific Biodiesel in 250 gallon plastic containers. The waste haulers pay the shipping cost to Maui. Pacific Biodiesel did express an snterest in receiving the fryer oil from Hawaii as their plant is operating only part time because of lack of product. >i€awaii County F®G Quantities. The quantity of FOG generated on the Island of Hawaii has been difficult to quantify. Two approaches were evaluated to provide a planning level estimate of FOG generated. The first approach entailed a phone survey of all known pumping contractors and haulers in an attempt to gauge the amount of FOG being pumped from grease traps. As a basis, the ten businesses that received a Waste Hauler permit, effective November 1, 1997, to pump, haul, and discharge waste products to the County wastewater treatment plants were initially surveyed. Private wastewater treatment facilities and other pumping contractors were also surveyed. 5 County oJNawaii Grease Disposal Study BROWN AND CALDWELL Oclober22,1998 Based on the survey results, three companies currentl~~ perform grease trap pumping services on a limited scale. The three companies' pumpage totaled roughly 2,250 gallons per month, with the majority of the total being pumped from the Waimea Shopping Center (-2000 gallons per month). This FOG volume equates to approximately 1 ] 0 tons of FOG per year. Only about 1 restaurants were identified as receiving regular grease trap pumping services. With approximately 550 food establishments on the Island of Hawaii, the quantities developed from this survey obviously reflect only a small fraction of the total quantity of FOG generated. The other pumping contractors surveyed either have never provided grease trap service or discontinued the service when the County treatment plants prohibited FOG disposal. The second approach to estimate quantities of FOG comprised of a comparative analysis with FOG data from Maui County. The Island of Maui has an estimated 550 Department of Health (DOH) permitted food service establishments of which 500-550 establishments that have grease traps. According to landfill scale logs, the County processed 1864 tons of FOG last year. The Island of Hawaii has roughly 350 food establishments on the west side of the island and about 200 food establishments on the east side that do generate FOG. Because the number of food establishments on both islands are similar, the Island of Hawaii is estimated to generate about the same amount of FOG, 1,864 tons per year, as the Island of Maui. Resort Practices. The major resorts, particularly ones along the Kohala coast, are served by private wastewater treatment facilities. The majority of these facilities do not accept FOG waste. According to resort personnel, private grease haulers pump and haul the contents of their grease traps. One wastewater treatment facility does accept and process FOG in their digesters. Two grease haulers haul the FOG waste to the Waimea wastewater treatment facility for processing. The waste pumped typically consists of very low concentrations of FOG, which is why the Waimea plant accepts the waste. It is unclear how or where the other grease haulers for other resorts dispose of FOG. F®od Establishaxients. Smaller food establishments rely on a number of FOG disposal methods, some of which are improper. Some methods cited include private grease haulers that clean and pump their grease traps, biological/chemical products to break down FOG for discharge to the wastewater system, and storage of FOG in drums for shipping and processing on Oahu. Most of these establishments do not have many options for FOG disposal, and do not want or can not afford to pay for the cost of proper disposal. Di~osal Practices. Because the County treatment facilities prohibit FOG disposal, some grease haulers have identified alternate means of FOG disposal. The use of biological, enzyme products to break down the grease in pumper trucks are being used by one grease hauler. A similar product is being incorporated by a second grease hauler. These products are relatively expensive, but allow the grease haulers to discharge the treated FOG waste at private treatment facilities such as the Waimea plant. According to one of the haulers, the product they use is EPA approved to be discharged to any wastewater facility. This claim, although not verified, has not caused any upset conditions at the Waimea facility. Another alternate disposal method, which was recently negotiated by one company, was to dispose 40,000 gallons per year of fryer oil at the Mauna Loa Macadamia Nut Farm. The farm is permitted to take 275,000 gallons per year, but was currently at 200,000 gallons per year. Another company is trying to get its customers to 5 County ojHawaii Grease Dasposa! Study BROWN AND CALDWELL October 22, 1998 dump FOG at the source in five-gallon buckets filled with absorbent. The buckets are picked up fora $75 fee and taken to the landfill for disposal. A non-profit organization also provides fryer oil hauling and disposal. Details of their business operations were not readily available, but the organization has recently been fined for storing used fryer oil on its property. The organization has proposed to develop a recycling operation, but has not had success. The Velest Hawaii landfill does not accept hazardous waste or liquid FOG, but accepts FOG that have been mixed with absorbent material or bulking agents. A fee of $35 per ton is assessed. Installation of facilities for accepting liquid FOG is being considered (Joe Hernandez, ~Ml, 668-2985). PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES Generally, FOG waste has a high BOD; content, exhibits high heat value, and floats on a water surface. Typically a concentrating or dewatering step is needed to remove excess liquid and water which may be mixed with the FOG load before disposal. This separation is often done by drying or flotation (the FOG is induced to float on the liquid surface and then skimmed) methods. Ultimately, disposal of FOG is accomplished by the following various methods: • Recycling. FOG can be processed and recycled as various useful products (soap, animal feed, fuel, etc.). The most easily recycled, and therefore desirable, FOG is fryer oil, which can be used as a fuel with little processing. • Land Disposal. FOG is typically mixed with bulking material (soil and/or green waste) to obtain a mixture sufficiently dry for landfill disposal. • Co-treatment with Sewage Solids. FOG can be stabilized (anaerobic digestion) and dewatered for disposal along with wastewater treatment plant biosolids. Chemical stabilization is also possible but is not typically cost effective. Stabilization reduces odor potential, eliminates pathogens, -and reduces the volume. Private Processing Companies (Recycling) As described earlier, disposal of FOG by private enterprise is accomplished by a variety of methods. Predominately, these companies utilize some form of recycling method, either producing a useful product or a valuable fuel source. In this manner, these companies can charge the grease haulers for disposal and resell the processed material to cover the processing costs. Land disposal, although may be performed by a private company, is discussed as a separate alternative. This method is certainly the simplest solution for FOG disposal for the County. It frees the County from operation and maintenance requirements and legal liabilities. There are few costs ~ County ojHawaii Grease Disposal Study BROWN AND C A L D W E L L Ocrober 22, 1998 associated with this alternative, limited permitting and facility inspections, and no capital costs depending on the County's oversight role and inducements for establishing these enterprises. Some of the private disposal enterprises contacted on other islands have expressed an interest in establishing a disposal facility on the Big Island. particularly on the Kona side. Environmentally, recycling the waste FOG is beneficial because it saves resources and landfill space. Implementation of this option may be difficult because the FOG treatment enterprise must be induced to establish treatment facilities on Hawaii. Since this is a private enterprise the operation must be economically profitable. This may require a substantial quantity of FOG, a market for a processed FOG product, and/or a high cost to the grease haulers for disposal. A high disposal cost could trickle down to the grease trap owner and make it undesirable to utilize the haulers' services, which in turn could end the enterprise. Therefore, the County may need to subsidize the operating cost of a facility or provide regulations requiring the use of the disposal services. Land Disposal Land disposal must be performed at a regulated landfill or other permitted site. In order for the FOG to be acceptable to the landfill it must conform to the requirements described in the Regulations Section. In order to pass the paint filter test sufficient solids, such as soil and /or green waste must be added. It would then be suitable as cover material or for placement in the landfill. This option would require little additional capital costs and create a minor increase in operational costs. Processing at County dVastewater 'Treatment Facilities The following alternatives are provided should the County need to provide FOG disposal sites at County facilities. Due to the size of Hawaii and the density of grease generators, two disposal sites are identified (the Hilo WYT'TP and the Kealakehe WWTP) to service the west and east sides of the island. Because there are suitable treatment processes at the Hilo WWTP, FOG could be stabilized and disposed with the plant biosolids. The treatment processes at the Kealakehe WWTP are not suitable for treating FOG, so this material could be thickened (concentrated) and blended with bulking material (soil and/or green waste) until it was suitable for landfill disposal. Because this process is not dependent on the wastewater treatment facilities, it could be located elsewhere. In fact, this scheme could be incorporated at additional sites if there is a need for further geographical distribution. The preplanning cost estimates included in this report are based on the following conceptual schemes. These estimates need to be refined once a design approach is selected. Hilo Wastewater Treatment Plant. Anaerobic digestion can be used to stabilize FOG. The Hilo Wastewater Treatment Plant has existing anaerobic digestion facilities to stabilize the solids resulting from the wastewater treatment process. Because the quantity of FOG anticipated in the Hilo area is small, relative to the anaerobic digester volume, the digester should have sufficient capacity to treat this additional load. Due to the high BODS content of the FOG, gas production 8 County ojHawaii Grease Disposal Study BROWN AND C A L D W E L L October 11, ! 998 will increase significantly when added. A pH adjustment may be necessary because or~!anic acids are created as a result of the gas production, which can lead to acidification of the digester contents if there is insufficient buffering capacity. Therefor, the anaerobic digestion process must be carefully monitored during the startup stage of the oil and grease additian. FOG is rapidly broken down in a healthy anaerobic digestion process. It is important that the FOG is well mixed in the digester feed and the digester contents are continuously heated and thoroughly mixed. Fats tend to form large grease balls in the digester, making them extremely hard to digest, due to the reduced surface area. Therefore, it is important that the grease particles are well dispersed before entering the tank and are well mixed once inside the tank. Dispersion is aided by (1) heating the grease and digester contents, (2) sufficient mixing of the digester tanl: contents, and (3) emulsifying or hydrolyzing the grease. A sample schematic of a FOG processing and feed system that could be implemented at the Hilo WWTP is shown in Figure 1. This scheme would utilize the existing dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT) to concentrate the FOG with the plant solids before feeding it to the anaerobic digester far stabilization. We assumed the DAFT and anaerobic digestion process are operating well and are suitable for the added load. If not, some modifications or improvements to the facilities may be necessary to assure proper treatment. Odor control facilities may be needed for all or parts of the process train. Eecause the FOG could be mixed with septage and other pumpage, a pretreatment system is shown to remove large solids, grit, and other debris that may have been incorporated in the grease haulers load. This pretreatment facility could be in the form of a small packaged system (Lakeside, JWC Environmental) or custom designed system. The packaged pretreatment systems offer options that can compact and dewater the screenings and grit before landfill disposal. If it could be assured that there is no need for the pretreatment facilities (the FOG is not mixed with septage or other undesirable materials) this process could be eliminated. This facility would have substantial maintenance requirements. Frequent cleaning with steam and detergents would be required and odor control facilities may be necessary. Emulsifiers may need to be added to the liquid stream to keep the grease from hardening. The liquid stream, containing the FOG, should be well mixed with the treatment plant solids (sludge) before being added to the DAFT for thickening. The blended material would then be stabilized in the anaerobic digester as is currently practiced. Table 1 represents a preplanning cost estimate for the Hilo WWTP to process FOG. 9 County of Hawaii Grease Disposal Study BROWN AND CALDWELL October 12, 1998 existing process units are assumed adequate; however, may require modifications or improvements Grease Haulers Screenings and Grit Removal 2 ~ Pretreatment - Pumping existing existing Screenings and Station ®AFT Anaerobic i:~igester Grit Removal *Odor control facilities may be necessary for process units Figaare 1. ~Iil® WWTP F®G Pr®cessing Facility 10 County ojNawaii Grease Disposal Study BROWN AND CALDWELL October 11, 1998 Table 1. Preplanning Cost Estimate for Hilo WWTP FOG Processing Facilih ITEM COST i ~ 1 Pretreatment* _ $500,000 Pumping Station _ _$50,000 DAFT Iylodif cations _ $_50,000 Digester Modifications $25,000 Odor_Control* _ $200,00_0 Subtotal Process Units $825,000 Site Work . $25,000 Piping $25,000 Electrical $50,000 Subtotal -Miscellaneous $100,000 Subtotal $925,000 onttngency (30%) $277,500 _._.._'TOT'.~LL (roaancled)--- $1,200,000 *Note: "1"he need for pretreatment and odor control requires further study and may not be necessary, which would reduce costs by $650,000 and $260,000 respectively. Kealakebe Wastewater Treatanent Plant. Unlike the Hilo WWTP, the treatment processes at the Kealakehe WWTP are not suitable for treating FOG. In fact, these are nuisance materials for the treatment process which can cause plant upsets. This alternative is provided should the County need to provide a treatment facility on County property to handle the material from the grease haulers. This facility could be located elsewhere, with the limitation that the site selected can connect to the wastewater collection system for disposal of the liquid subnatant removed from the concentration process. A sample schematic of a feed system that could be implemented at the Kealakehe WWTP or other County property is shown in Figure 2. This scheme would require a concentration tank (or DAFT) to concentrate the FOG and remove excess liquid before blending it with bulking material (soil and green waste) and disposing of it at the landfill. Odor control facilities may be needed for all or parts of the process train. because the FOG would be coming from grease haulers, with the potential for mixed loads, a pretreatment system is shown to remove large solids, grit, and other debris which may have been mixed in with the grease and oil. This pretreatment facility could be in the form of a small packaged system or custom designed system. The screenings and grit would be compacted and dried before landfill disposal. If it could be assured that there is no need for the pretreatment facilities (the oil and grease is not mixed with septage or other undesirable materials) this could ~ 1 County ojHawaii Grease Disposal Study BROWN AND CALDWELL October 22. 1998 Sulking Material (Soil and Green Waste) Grease and bulking material mixed before landfill Grease Aeration Haulers air Knife valve nor Sluice gate Screenings and Grit Removal To WW Treatment Liquid Stream (Ponds) Pretreatment - Pumping Concentration! Dry Allix Tank Screenings and Station Dewatering Tank or Grit Removal (Imhoff Tank dlllanual 6411ixing or DAFT) on Concrete Slab '`Odor control facilities may be necessary for process units Figure 2. Kealakehe WWTP F®~ Processing Facility Coi~~ur of llaworr Greccsr Dr.c~~nsnl .tiriidr BROWN gnu CALO~A'I:LL Ucmht•r2? l9I8 be eliminated. This faciiii}~ would have substantial maintenance requirements. Frequent cleaning with steam and detergents would be required and odor control facilities may be necessary. The screened FOG would then be thickened or concentrated in a DAFT or concentrating tank. The liquid fraction (subnatant) would flow to the wastewater treatment facilities (ponds). The floating FOG would be skimmed from the process unit and mixed with bulking material (soil and/or green waste) to form a mixture suitable for landfill disposal. Mixing of the skimmed material and bulking material could be performed in large dry mixing tank (with paddle or screw blenders) or on a concrete pad using a small front-end loader. Ideally, the bulking mixing step could be performed at the landfill or the site where the bulking material originates to avoid double handling of this material. Table 2 represents a preplanning cost estimate for the Kealakehe WWTP to accept FOG. Table 2. Preplanning Cost Estipnate ffor ICealakel~e WWTP FOG Processing Facility ITEM COST Pretreatment* $500,000 _Pumping Station $50,000 DAFT/Concentration Tank $300,000 Dry Mixing $300,000 Odor Control* $200,000 Subtotal --Process Units $1,350,000 Site Work $50,000 Piping $25,000 Electrical _ $75,000 Subtotal -Miscellaneous $150,000 Subtotal $1,500,000 Contingency (30%) $450,000 TOTAL (rounded) $2,000,0®0 *Note: The need for pretreatment and odor control requires further study and may not be necessary, which would reduce costs by $650,000 and $260,000 respectively. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES The alternatives developed to address the grease handling and disposal challenges in I-Iawaii were evaluated based on several different factors. The factors used in the assessment of the alternatives were: ~ 3 County of Hawaii Grease Disposal Study BROWN AND CALDWELL October 21, 1998 • Relative Capital Cost • Ease of Implementation • Institutional Concerns • O & M Requirements • Environmental Concerns • Liability Concerns The evaluation factors were rated on a scale of 1 to 5 for each alternative, with 1 being the most desirable and 5 being the least desirable. The underlying basis of the rating was how the County would be impacted. Table 3 summarizes the results of the evaluation. 'T'able 3. Comparison of Alternatives Relative Ease of Institutional O&M Environmental Liabili Alternative Capital Implementation Concerns Regents Concerns Concerns TOTAL Cost Private Processing 1 3 4 I 1 2 12 (Recycling) Landfill Processing 2 1 3 3 5 2 15 and Disposal WWTP 5 5 5 5 2 3 25 Processing The results of the ranking indicate that the most viable altennative for the County to implement is Private Processing (Recycling) followed by Landfill Processing and Disposal and Wastewater Treatment Plant Processing. Private Processing ranks the highest because it has the least potential fiscal and coordination impact on the County. RECOMMENDATIONS The three alternatives developed to resolve the urgent grease challenges in Hawaii were: 1. Private Processing (Recycling) 2. Landfill Processing and Disposal 3. WWTP Processing The alternatives were ranked from the County's perspective based on several evaluation factors. The ranking results did indicate that the Private Processing alternative is the most viable. However, because of the urgency of the current situation it is recommended that the County implement the Landfill Processing alternative to meet the immediate short-term needs of the County. Facilities to initiate this alternative could be accomplished in a short period of time at the Hilo and West Hawaii Landfill. To meet the long-term needs of FOG handling and disposal the County is encouraged to pursue the Private Processing alternative. ~ 4 County oJHawaii Grease Disposal Study BROWN AND C A L D W E L L Oceober 22, 199 . 4 ~ O F H, .l 195g 9 e s. BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO BRUCE S. ANDERSON, Ph.D., M.P.H. GOVERNOR OF HAWAII a - DIRECTOR OF HEALTH s a~ 16iT~ V~ r`?C1~D'1~~ ®~PAR7~AEP1'~ O~ FlEAL~~ P.O. BOX 3378 In reply, please refer to: EMDlWB HONOLULU, HAWAII 96801 010809 September 19, 2001 Ms. Barbara Bell, Co-Chair Mr. Riley Smith, Co-Chair Environmental Management Commission County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 Dear Ms. Bell and Mr. Smith: Subject: Wastewater NPDES Permits and Inspection Reports In response to your letter of September 13, 2001, regarding your request to attend the next Environmental Management Commission meeting, Denis Lau, Program Manager of the Clean Water Branch and I are planning to attend. Should you need to contact us for any reason, please call us at 586-4294. Sincerely, DENNIS TUL-~I F Wastewater Branch DT:erm c: Galen Kuba, Department of Environmental Management Denis Lau, Clean Water Branch ON4q'OF yA~ O q 4,•• L _ ~j L41~~ Larry I{ian Gallen M. ICuba Mayor a~ f. , .~cdin~ DdrecPOr ,rf OR~NPy` V.%y1xXC~~ D~~ ~I~T~$tt DEPARTMENT ®F ENVIR®NMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupnnl Street, Room 202 • Hilo, Haeaaii 96720-4252 ' (808) 961-8323 • Fax (808) 961-8630 Date September 26, 2001 To MAYOR HARRY KIM From GALEN KUBA, Acting Director SUBJECT: FY 2001-2002 BUDGET REDUCTION At the September 26, 2001 Environmental Management Commission meeting, the issue relating to possible revenue shortfalls and the reduction in the budget for FY 2001-2002 was brought to our attention. Because the Commission is concerned with the possible cut of the Recycling Programs, a motion was passed directing me to convey their support for the continuation of Diversion funds. Further, if the Solid Waste budget is to be reduced, recycling programs should be one of the last to be considered. The motion was unanimously carried, with Barbara Bell abstaining due to her affiliation with Recycle Hawaii. cc: Environmental Management Commission JNtr'uc•"•9!:. Barbara Bell 40 . . Riley W. Smith Larry Kim C®-Chairs Mayor , „o ' A/ Gslen M. Kuba ~Tf pF'N~'~` Acting Director 't ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 October 5, 2001 MAYOR HARRY KIM COUNTY OF HAWAII 25 AUPUNI STREET HILO, HI 96720 SUBJECT: SOLID V6~ASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SV6VAC) MEETING At the September 26, 2001 meeting of the Environmental Management Commission, Galen Kuba presented your September 25, 2001 memorandum to the commission members. Based on your correspondence and Mr. Kuba's related report, the Commission unanimously approved that we submit the following recommendation to you: The Environmental Management Commission recommends that the Mayor re-organize the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, and in compliance with HRS 342G, appoint the Environmental Management Commission as the County of Hawaii's new Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The Commission also recommends that the mayor include appropriate language that would invite former Committee members to continue their participation with the Commission in the continued development of the County's Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Your implementation of our recommendation will be sincerely appreciated as we believe a re- organization of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee is not only appropriate but is necessary if we are to address the solad waste issues in a timely and efficient manner. Should you have any questions, please contact Barbara Bell at 961-6556 and/or Riley Smith at 885-2306. { Barbara Bell, Co-Chair Riley Smith, Co-Chair Environmental Management Commission Environmental Management Commission c: SWM cl~ Municipal Solid Waste, County Of ~Ia~vaii, OPW ~evenueslJExpenditures/Assets Fiscal Year 1997/199 Source ®f Revenues F`or Municig~al Solid 'Taste Public flax Source F`ee Source Transfer From Gen. Fund: $ 6,750,000 Indirect Fisnding: Less Current Year Equipment $ 1,838,356 State Grants- Used Oil Collection & $ 12,500 Glass Recycling Program $ 216,000 Landfill Tipping Fees: $ 2,374,766 Landfill Permit Fees: $ 10,175 Miscellaneous: $ 346 ~7ehicle Disposal Fund: Licenses ~ Permits $ 467,692 Towing Charges $ 2 6 6 Vehicle Storage Fees $ 619 Revenues $ 8,588,356 $ 3,082,364 Total Revenues $11,670,720 Total ~3awaii County MSTi~ Costs 1997/1998: Solid TnTaste Division Expenditures: $ 9,041,042 (Less Equipment) All County Department Allocations To MSTnT: $ 610,171 Capital Costs: $ 1,289,24.0 Annual Depreciation Of Asset: $ 555,267 Eack-End Costs: c2> (Landfill) $ 175,000 Total Costs $11,670,72.0 Created By Recycle Hawaii Page 1 of 6 Final Revisior. 3/17199 i Solid Waste Division ~~cpenditures: Landfill/Transfer Station Labor ~3~ $ 1,545,258 Landfill/Transfer Station Operations $ 5,562,033 Landfill/Transfer Station lquipment * ($592,069) $ 0 Recycling Programs $ 320,985 Glass Recycling Program $ 213,3°74 Vehicle Disposal Fund $ 675,394 Interdepartmental Charges $ 554,036 Miscellaneous lda~penses $ 179, 962 Total SWD Eacpenditures $ 9,041,042 * Current year equipment ezcpenditures are eliminated because equipment is included in the depreciation schedule. Allocation Of Budgets To Solid Waste cap Sudget Allocation Finance• Admin Budget $1,290,268 $ 80,771. Purchasing $ 654,886 $ 40,996 Accounts $ 577,582 $ 36,157 Treasury $ 772,085 $ 48,332 Data Processing $ 653,843 $ 40,930 Corporate Counsel: $2,186,470 $ 136,873 (less Family Support Services) Chief Engineer Office: $ 666,094 $ 200,361 Civil Service: $ 882,705 $ 25,751 ~ Of County ~np. 2,269 # Of Solid Waste Emp. 71 3.13 * A1].ocation Percentages Chief Engineer 30.08 Civil Service 3.13 All Others 6.26 Amounts Rounded to nearest whole dollar Total Allocation $ 61®,171 Created by Recycle Hawai `i Page 2 of 6 Final Revision 3/17/99 Capital Projects Expenditures For County MSW, 1988m1998 cs> Year Other Landfills Puuanahulu Only All Projects 1988 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 350,449 1989 $ 60,000 $ 48,700 $ 198,911 1990 $ 59,808 $ 8,550 $ 103,986 1991 $ 0 $ 0 $ 26,978 1992 $ 0 $ 266,240 $ 616,24® 1993 $ 830,088 $ 831,809 $ 1,661,897 1994 $2,478,917 $2,660,497 $ 5,859-,496 1995 $1,404,663 $ 257,234 $ 1,661,-897 1996 $1,456,345 $ 4,000 $ 1,511,441 1997 $ 128,245 $ 0 $ 161,537 1998 $ 92,873 $ 0 $ 125,652 Ten Year Costs $6,610,939 $4,177,030 $12,278,484 Ave. Cost/Yr. $ 661,094 $ 417,703 $ 1,227,848 Annual Eond Interest Debt Service: (5~xS1,227,e99) $ 61,3.92 Annual Capital Projects Total Expenditures $ 1,289,240 Solid Waste Division ~+,ssets: Vekaicles Depreciated Value Heavy ~'rucl~s (11) $ 7 87 , 66.9 ~Iediiar~ firucks (5) $ 157,025 Pickup 'rucks (18) $ 415,3.88 Tractors (4) $ 905,931 Trailers (40) $2,'139-,956 Loaders/Eackhoes (3) $ 179,747 E'orklifts (1) $ 21,791 Other ~ieavy Equipment $ 347,248 Light E~Sipment $ 31,767 Office/Cox~ications $ 306,149 Miscellaneous $ 3.488 Solid Waste~Division Total $5,896,159 Created by itecycle i-iawai`i Page 3 of 6 Final ~tevision 3/17/99 Asgnual DepreCi.atlon Of Assets (6) Heavy Trucks: (20 Years) $ 55,000 Mediuaa Trucks : (20 Years ) $ 6, 250 Light Trucks: (15 Years) $ 24,000 Tractors: (20 Years) $ 60,000 Trailers: (10 Years) $ 300,000 Passenger Vehicles: (7 Years) $ 11,000 Loaders/~ackhoes: (20 Years) $ 12,000 E'orklift: (20 Years) $ 1,250 Heavy Equipment: (20 Years) $ 20,000 Light Equipment: (7 Years) $ 4,538 Office/Communications: (5 Years) $ 61,229 Total Annual Depreciation $ 555,2.67 Landfill Annual post Closure Costs: cs) Kealakehe Post Closure Costs: $ 175,000 Total Annual Landfill Post Closures Costs $ 175,000 Total Municipal Solid Waste Costs: t~) ~ ~ ..,rv . Total MSW Operating Costs: $11,670,720 Total MSW Operating F%evenue: $ 3,082,364 Tar Source Annual MSW costs to FIawaii County $ 6,588 356 Tax e7~urae C~StS t'Cr fien: ($t,S~~,35G/3~6tons/day)= 5~.42/t~n Created by Recycle Hawaii Page 4 of 6 Final Revision 3/17/99 I ~ ddndn®tes 1) This document, designed and compiled by Recycle Hawaii, represents the first attempt at full cost accounting for the County of Hawaii, municipal solid waste. Data came from County Of Hawaii, DPTrY records of actual dollars expended or received. DST accountants have reviewed this data for accuracy. The summary does not include external, or true costs that incur due to the I~lSTrT management system in place . (e . g . , social , environmental, economic impact on smell businesses, etc.). 2) Costs are listed only for Kealakehe landfill, as estimated, based on current activities. Costs do not include any anticipated closing or yearly post-closure costs for the Hilo landfill, w3~ich are estimated to be $12 million and $75,000 respectively. 3) The use of the term landfill in county records reflects the combined costs of labor, operations and equipment for all landfills and transfer stations. 4) Allocation percentages for each department within the county administration are based on their best estimates of the time and resources devoted to solid waste issues and personnel. The D accountant determined the final allocation amount based on the department or divisions budget or number of employees. Solid waste employees represent 3.1.3$ of all civil service employees. The figures are based on the 98/99 fiscal year budget. 5) Capital Projects are those expenditures which are not Bart of the regular operating budget, but which are intended for development or improvement of the county's solid waste infrastructure (e.g., construction of a new transfer station, closure of a landfill, or major repairs to an existing facility). Annual capital projects expenditures were averaged over a ten- year period, as no single year's eenditures reflect a. Horan. Since capital expenditures are faand~d by general bonding. expenses for interest on the average yearly capital expenditures are estimated at 5~. The cost/value of land has not baste included in these calculations. 6) The County of Hawaii replaces equipment only on an as needed basis. There is no formal replacement schedule or equipment replacement reserve funding. ~quigment is purchased out of current operational funds, therefore, we have conservatively estimated annual depreciation costs for equipment and other assets based on information obtained from the county solid waste division and coasgarisons with other municipalities. 7) Total daily tonnage Of 1rIS6T for Hast ~ West Hawaii is 396. Currently the county tips 181 tons/day without fee at Hilo. There is a Disposal fee of $48.72/ton for the 215 tons a day of MSS which goes to Puuanahulu. This analysis shows that the present cost per ton to the county for MSW disposal is $80.'14. Created by Recycle Hawaii Page 5 of 6 Final Revision 3/17/99 i *Additional Cost Information If all the county MSY~ were hauled to Puuanahulu; the total MSTnT per/ton cost would increase, partially due to the nearly $1 million increase in the daily disposal fee expense (the actual disposal cost per ton will decrease). Additional costs will be incurred for tree expense of transporting the 181 tons/day from Hilo to Puuanahulu (the increased number of trucks and trailers needed, the additional employees ree~uired to drive and service the vehicles, etc.). For every one million dollars additional annual cost, there is an approximate increase of $7 per ton. It should be noted that the anticipated 1999 year Capital Projects Fund appropriation of $12,000,000 to finance the closing of the Hilo Landfill would increase county MST costs by an average of $710,000/yr. for 30 Years, assuming a 5~ rate of interest. Post closure costs of $75,000/yr have been estimated by the county, however, the annual post closure costs at the Kailua landfill are $175,000. According to the 199 Hilo Waste Coa~posataoz3 Analysis, tree waste stream entering the I3ilo landfill includes the following materials by percentage: metal (5.3~) , glass (2.38) , plastic (7.45) , cardboard (15.4$) , newsprint (2.68) , white paper (4.68) , greenwaste (9.a8) , wood (12.4) , (Totai 608) . even if only half of these materials were diverted from the waste stream at their source: through. recycling, MSTn~ tonnage and the associated costs to tYae county would be significantly reduced. According to the latest FPA figures, a Pay ails You ~hrov~r (PAYT) program wedded to an aggressive recycling caffipaign is reducing the voluaa?e of MSW by as much as 50~ in a growing number of L7S communities. Lr7ith an integrated approach to waste management, involving a complete recycling and marketing program, reuse, remaraufacturing industry, C&D reclamation, and organics recovery plant, the County of Hawaii could reduce its waste stream by 50~ or more. In addition to saving the county a great deal of money, such an approach would create jobs, while cleaning up the environment. Created by Recycle Hawaii Page 6 of 6 Final Revision 3/17/99 _ DEI'AIZTMENT O~ ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SOLID j'VAST'E DIVISION COUNTY OF HAWAII - 108 RAILROAD AVENUE - HILO, HI 96720 V HII.A (808) 961-8339 WAIlvIEA (808) 887-3018 KONA (808) 327-3507 DATE: October 24, 201 TO: ONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FROM: ence E, ellas, P.~. So d Waste vision Chief SUEJECT: OCTOEEIt 2001 ~ SOLID WASTE DIVISION REPORT 1. Hilo Laaadfill Caoaci Estimate A survey was made of the landfill in January 2001 and, based on the closure plan, an estimate of the remaining capacity was calculated at approximately 595,000 cubic yards. Operations prior to July 2001 consisted of two D-8 bulldozers. Although a landfall compactor was brought into the operatioa~ in March 2001, it was ineffective -due to the 20-foot height of tale lift and the operating cells. Approximately 190 tons of refuse is brought into the landfill every day. Compaction of this refuse with the dozers may have been 800 pounds per cubic yard (CY) or about 2.5 CY per ton. At this rate, approximately 475 CY of air space ,was used each day for refuse. Cover material consisting of `6" minus' rock averaging 156 CY per day was also brought in. The total airspace used per day was estimated at 630 CY or about 230,300 CY per year. At this rate the landfill life would have been used up in about 26 years or until mid 2003 or late 2003. Operations from January '01 to June 'O1 took up approximately 113,000 CY leaving 480,000 CY of airspace left to closing. A new 8-foot high lift was started in July along with utilization of new smaller cover material specified at `3" minus'. The advantage of this smaller cover material is the ease of handling and :greater area coverage o f the refuse. Also less air voids are left in the cover material and greater compaction can be attained. The landfill compactor is also better fitted for use and compaction on this lower lift height. The operation consists of a dozers) pushing refuse into the working face from the dulalping pad and the compactor n~nning over the refuse for maximum compaction. October 2001 -Solid Waste Report Page 2 Use~~fthe compactor brings the refuse compaction up to approximately I I00 pounds per cubic yard (1.8 CY per ton) or about 340 CY of space per day. The new cover material averages 108 CY per day for a daily air space use of approximately 450 CY. At this rate, about 164, 000 CY of the remaining 480,000 CY of airspace will be used each year. Estimated closure of the South Kilo Landfill, based on remaining capacity, is mid-2004. Although calculated savings in landfill space is approximately 5,400 CY per month, actual savings is still directly dependent upon the operational skills of our equipment operators at the landfill 2. I~al® Landfill Ezpan~iinn a. Vertical Expa~ion relates to an expansion of a landfill's capacity by increasing its height. The Kilo Landfill is under an approved operation and closure plan at present. Any deviation from that plan will require another study and necessary amendments to the existing operation and closure plan. We would also have to submit an application for a stew operating permit. These alterations would include studies on increased elevation and its effects on the stability of the landfill. Additionally, the FAA would need to approve any new height proposals since we are within the 10,000-foot `bird hazard' zone of Hilo Airport. It is not clear whether an EIS would be necessary with a vertical expansion. b. Horizontal ~Laterall,F.xpansion relates to a lateral expansion of an existing landfill to increase capacity. This type of expansion would trigger full Subtitle D requirements. (Reference to Federal Law -Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle D -referencing siting restrictions, design, operation and closure of landfills). See Attached. A lateral expansion would require impermeable ground liners and a long- term leachate collection and treatment system. A lateral expansion into one of our adjacent quarries would be considered a new landfill and would have to also follow all Subtitle D regulations. Lateral landfill expansions would trigger a full EIS document. The construction costs of a typical 10- acre site may run in the neighborhood of $4 to 5$ million dollars, not including a leachate treatment facility with a capacity of about 500,000 to 600,000 gallons per year. The time frame from siting to completion of a liner/treatment system may be 5 to 6 years, optimistically. c: Harding ESE Landfill must not pose bird hazard within 10,000 feet from turbo;et airports; and 5,000 feet from piston-driven airplane airports. If within 100-year flood plain operator must demonstrate that: ~ Landfill does not restrict flow ~ Landfill does not reduce temporary water storage capacity of flood plain ~ Floods will not cause washout of solid waste Landfills in potentially unstable areas must demonstrate that engineering features have taken this into account to prevent failure of structural components. Area is potentially unstable if: Soil conditions may result in significant differential settling ~ Geologic or geomorphologic features could cause instability ~ FEuman-made feature or events could cause instability New MSWLF units may not be located in wetlands unless: ~ No available alternative ~ Landfill will not violate water quality standards ~ MSWLF unit will not cause significant degradation of wetlands Steps taken to achieve no net loss of wetlands New MSWLF units may not be located in seismic zones unless all landfill structures are designed to withstand earthquakes. New MSWLF units may not be located within 200 feet of a fault that has had displacement in Holocene time, unless can show no damage to structural integrity of MSWLF unit. What ~nei/9 fcrtur~ lane/fills Note: 7`f~esa design standards apply to now MSW landfills and to lateral expansions to existing MSW landfills. Lateral expansions to existing landfills must moot design standards after October 9, 1993, unless less than toms per day and precipitation loss than 25 Inches per year. iU~. 1 a CC~tVf~®~IT L(~ ~TIUf Landfill shall be lined with 30-mil flexible membrane liner (FML) or 60-mil high-density polyethylene placed over 2 feet of low permeability soil. Soil shall have a permeability of less than 1x10 cm per sec. ~YS~ Landfill shall have leachate collection system that maintains less than a 30-cm (1 foot) depth of leachate over the liner. ra ~ ~ O1®O ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a..~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ca ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ _