The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0730.004 2000-2002 JNtY'OF M'q`p. O~ •~L Harry Kim Barbara Bell Mayor .;,n_z-,~ Direcaor tTF os•a~d+ ~8~.6~6.LL4y li~ .~$~C-i~Ai~l` DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON `MENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuul Street, Room 208 • Hilo, Hawale 96720-252 (808) 961-8083 • Fax (808} 961-8086 •~z; , MEMO : - , - / ~p,,~nty C4UnC~~ To: Council Members ,~N From: Barbara Dell, Directo Re: Comments on this rning's committee meeting Date: September 10, 2002 • Attached are three summary cost pages. One couples recycling at various levels with hauling and landfilling costs. Another compares the various waste reduction technologies and landfilling. The last compares waste reduction technologies and their capital, operating and costs per ton. • Attached is Landfill Pros and Cons. • Vendors invited to make presentations at Council. Other Notes: • Incentives for recycling are largely dependent on funding levels. Presently the State provides 12 cents/pound for glass, this is working at an acceptable level. The County provides $40/ton for all paper fibers (cardboard, newspaper, office paper). This is not working very well, as evidenced by poor recovery rates of paper and the fact that 23.5% of trash going to the landfills is paper. Island-wide to move to divert all the paper (approximately 100 tons/day) , by raising the diversion grant amount even $5 (if that were enough) would cost $1.6 Million annually. I've heard estimates from recyclers that the diversion grant would need to be as much as $55/ton to make it worthwhile for them to collect. This is still cheaper than operating any of the waste reduction technologies projected costs except that it is $2 Million annually. • The plan calls for re-configuring the transfer stations to encourage recycling. With no additional diversion grant funding this is estimated to cost $500,000 initially and $500,000 annually. This island-wide effort can reduce landfilled waste by up to 30%. t?oe Ns~ ~ 1<°il~ l~oe lie ~~~r~~~rt~~ i. D~~ ~E~' 1 ~t~~2 i ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ® ~ ~ ~ ® O If9 af3 ~ e+ N (0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r 46D N 4!~ l~D O C N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aa'i` E ~ ~ N ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ sus a~ ~ ~ N ~ N ° ~ ~ ~ N N ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ® N N N ~ -zs ~C ~a U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o _ ~ ~ N N N ~ ' U ~ .(D ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ _ - _ - ~ _ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ 3 ca O td5 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e. ~ N ~ ~ o - v N N ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ o~ ~ re ~ ~ ~ . _ rn; O V ~ N N ~ to • ~ cd - _ ~ - U - ~ ~ l6 ~ 3 3 ~ ~ ~ , ~ o ~ L C ,C !Q V ~ O C: m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 0 o ~ ~ ~ ' U m zs . t6 ® C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a^ ~ ZA 0,1 ~ U ~ C C ~ ~ ~ ~ m O C C ~ ~ V V U ~ ~ ~ ~ v, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi ~ E E? ~ ~ _ v v ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ a a ~ m~ m ~a 4s V cg > > _S ~ co ~ ~ ~ OC ~ O m m m C i~ ~ ~ 4®D! {}y C C N ~ ~ iD i~ ~ ~ to to N i _ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vs ~ ® cep ~ ~ ma ® ~a N m ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ L i#p .M3 O N ~ ~ O 1 ~ W • N ~ N N t9: N O ~ O "II M' ~ N N: ~ N C i 4d3 4~D ~ dR " N . QfD N O ~ N ~ O. 3 ~ O - _ N I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v'°. ~ m ai N ~ ® ~ N N N ~ C' C~6 V N, V8 ~ 9d9. e6F: ~ ~ 4 O; a ~ w_ QfD 60D V~ . ' ~ ` ~ Q - •3 ~ N p ~ O ~ N ~ ~ O' R5 ' ~ ~ ~4 ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 N e° to . _ ear ~ m ; ~ ~ ~ O` N ~ E0Q N . ~ ~ ~ ~ N N to ~ O ~ 44? EfD ` !A as L V ~ N 'e° ~ ~ . ~ 3 ~ U ~ : :a ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ m ~ ~ , c ~ v~ o ~ m~ m ~ ~ u ~ ad ~ . f1 - m V O ~ . 41 ~ :n L O 3. ~ ~ ~ O U v) O ~ Q. ~ ~ 3 ~ N eC m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m. ~ ~ _ ~ ~ d4 ti3 ~ ~ a ~ p O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ a. O U ~ ~ ~ >a A _ vs m ~ ~ v v a~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ O O ~ v ~ ~ cn ~ io ® ~ ~ ~ ~ QC ~ ~ rn ~ ~ _ d~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ zas w ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ I N ~ ~q ~ z a ~ rC Q ~ii v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ - 4~ Y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 3 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y~ SFI~ ~ 4i 3-~ Ott I ~ _ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ DEPAI~T~4IENT ®F ENO/IR®NNIENTAL I~IANA~EI~tENT LANDFILL Pit®S AND C®NS September 3, 2002 PiZOS: • May be easier to site than an incinerator. • More receptive than waste-reduction technologies (incineration, thermal gassification, digestion) to fluctuation in waste flow. There is minimal need for a consistent feedstock. • Operation and liability can be assumed by private companies. (Generally maximum is 30 years after closure.) • Public has some comfort with the concept, due to familiarity. • Can have many years of non-mechanical life. • Compacting and trash-moving machinery is transportable and repairable • With aggressive recycling, life of a landfill can have increased lifespan. • Can plumb for some methane to generate revenue and/or power generation. • There is more methane produced in wet areas. C®NS: • If privately operated, the operator often controls the site. • Lowest form of waste disposal in State resource hierarchy. • Does not help with State goal of 50% of all waste being recycled. (Incineration doesn't help either.) • Public views landfills as a hazard when in proximity to their home and/or businesses. • New landfills must not be within 10,000 feet from Hilo (or Kailua) airport. (5,000 feet for non-jet airports.) • Water pollution concerns and EPA requirments (RCRA, Subtitle D landfill) dictate careful siting, copious testing, leachate pumping and testing, and other specific procedures. • Extremely poor solution for all organics, especially sewage sludge, dead animals, food scraps, greenwaste, and to a lesser extent, paper fiber. Organics in landfills create methane which is a potent greenhouse gas. • There is more methane produced in wet areas. • Heavy rainfall creates extra leachate, which creates much higher operating costs. Leachate cannot be deeper than 1 foot above the liner at any location. (How do you measure?) • Liners typically have a manufacturer's guarantee of 30 years. The County assumes liability for the landfill after any private operator's guarantee is extinguished. • Closure of the landfill is expensive and forever. (Waste-reduction technology plants can be dismantled at the end of their life.) • Closure requirements include financial assurance for monitoring and corrective actions for any releases. • Daily cover fills up airspace and can be an extra operating expense. ®~~>I!~ is~u~~: • Trucking: $20/ton is the best estimate of operational costs for trucking garbage from east Hawaii to west Hawaii. f Trash generation per capita, and projections. Some factors are: ~ Hawaii County de facto population will double from 1980 to around 2011. The proportion of transient population is increasing each year and they tend to throw away more trash per person than the resident population. ® The rate of increase of trash-has been rising faster than the rate of population growth. Our trash is increasing 5% by weight each year, and our population increased about 3.1 % from 1980-1990 and 2.36% from 1990 to 2000. We also presently generate 6.2 pounds/day/person in Hawaii County, which is .4 Ib. more on average than the rest of the State. • Business trash generation: Commercial establishments generate almost 5% more paper, 11 more construction and demolition debris, as well as 3% less metal, 8% less organics and 3% less special (mostly tires and bulky items). H~VNAI'I CO4JIVT1(--2001 C®mrr~ercial IResidential ®ifference between Comm~:rcial and Residential Paper 27.50% 22.60% 4.90% Glass 3.00% 3.80% -0.80% Metal 7.20% 10.50% -3.30% Plastic 10.00% 9.20% 0.80% Organics 26.20% 34.30% -8.10% Construction & Demolition 23.50% 12.40% 11.10% Household hazardous 0.10% 0..50% 0.40% Special 1.60% 4.90% -3.30% Mixed 0.90% 1.80% -0.90% TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% S®AVII~ RAC®I~M~~lDATIONS: • Compost organics. (30.4%, of waste, approx. 25% overall reduction) and compost/recycle paper/cardboard (23.5% of waste, approx. 20% overall reduction) for over 50% reduction in our waste stream. • Additionally, a C&D recovery facility would get another 14% overall reduction. • More aggressive recycling of glass and scrap metal could reap another 10% overall reduction. • Confirm possible quantities to divert through an increase in the diversion grant program budget. Avoided costs of $20/ton for trucking plus $43.40/ton for tipping fee at Pu'uanahulu M $63/ton.. • Illegal dumping: 1. Provide bulky waste collections once/month at many or all transfer stations. An amnesty to start with. Rural anecdotal evidence suggests this is the most effective way to eliminate illegal dumping of mattresses, white goods, and furniture. 2. Provide a place for greenwaste at many transfer stations. 3. Provide a place for tires and batteries at many transfer stations. • Basically, reduce to a minimum the amount of trash needing a waste reduction facility, or landfilling. Keep just one landfill, and long-haul in the most efficient means possible. A~'PIEl~D~~X IQi Y~N~®~~ ~ 1~lA5Tll~ ~~~Ull~~ ~E~Ii~I~a~L~L~~IlES A~AER®1~~~ ~1G~S'T`I®I<d 1a. Canada Composting Inc. (CCI-US Corporation) Mailing Address: Phone: 408-298-0332 2 North First Street. 4`" Floor Fax: San Jose, Califomia 95113-1212 ` Website: vvww.canadacomposting.com Contact Sill Fowler, Business Development Manager E-mail: bill fiowler@cci.sjsbc.org 1b. Canada Corraposting Inc. (®ntario, Canada) Mailing Address: Phone: 905-830-1160 390 Davis ®rive, Suite 301 Fax: 905-830-0416 Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 7T8 Website: www.canadacomposting.com Contact: Kevin Matthews, President E-maik ccikevin@attglobal.net Z. EcoCorp Mailing Address: Phone: 626-405-1463 3360 E. Foothill Boulevard, Suite 111 Fax: 626-405-0550 Pasadena, Califomia 91107 Website: www.ecocorp.com Contact: dr. John G. Ingersoll, President E-mail: jgingersoll@ecocorp.com 3. MCX Environmental Energy Corporation Mailing Address: Phone: 404-504-7027 3355 Lenox toad, Suite 750 Fax: 404-504-7028 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Website: www.mxceec.com E-mail: info@mcxeec.com 4. McElvaney Associates Corporation Mailing Address: Phone: 31fl-576-1341 528 Arizona Avenue, Suite 209 Fax: 310-576-0968 Santa Monica, Califomia 90401 Website: vvww.bioconverter.com E-mail: mac@bioconverter.com 'TI~ERMAIi, ~ASt~`1CA°~!®!~ 5. 13rightstar l5nvironaraental (United States) Mailing Address: Phone: 713-781-5353 7700 San Felipe, Suite 480 Fax: 713-781-5303 Houston, Texas 77063-1613 Website: www.brightstarenvironmental.com Contact: Michael 0411. Rucks, Senior VP, Bus. Dev. E-mail: gape@brightenv.com 6. Future Energy tesources Corporation Mailing Address: Phone: 770-662-7800 3500 Parkway Lane, -Suite 440 Fax: 770-662-7807 Norcross, Georg_ is 30092 Website: w~ra.future-energy.com E-mail: ferco@future-ennergy.com , l' ~71oLA his, 3 i ~ I~ar~i~~ ~s~ ~P~EN®fX ~ VEtd®~I~~ WAS~~E ~~®6J~Ti®6~ ~'ECF311•9~L.®G6ES (Continued) ~`~fER~AIL ~ASlFl~A~'{t31~ (c®nt6nu~d) ~ 7. IET Energy Limited (United Itingdorr~ d~ Ireland) Mailing Address: Phone: 01626-834766 Teignbridge Business Centre Fax: 01626-835834 Cavalier Road, Heathfield Website: www.ietenergy.com New Abbot, Devon E-mail: enquiries@ietenergy.com 8. US Plasma Inc. ~Aailing Address: Phone: 613-831-0590 976 Houston Northcutt Boulevard Fax: 613-831-3876 Suite 3 Website: www.usplasma.com Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 F-mail: info@usplasma_com 9. Precision Energy Services, Inc. Mailing Address• Phone: 208-772-4457 Corporate Headquarters Fax: 208-762-1113 P.O. Box 1004 Website: www.pes-world.com Hayden Lake, Indiana B3835 Contact: Mike Oswald, President E-mail: oswaldmw@pes-world.com ~AS~E-7`I~-EE~~~f tN~SNE~A'Tlt®N 10. Consutech Systems LLC ~dlailing Address: Phone: 804-746-4120 P.O. Box 15119 Fax: 804-730-9056 Richmond, Vrginia 23227 Website: www.consutech.com !=-mail: mai!@consutech.com 11. Enerwaste International Corporation Flailing Address: Phone: 360-738-1254 P.O. Box 1194 Fax: 360-738-1376 ®ellingham, Washington 98227 Website: www.enerwaste.com E-mail: enerwaste@aol.com 12. I•li 'Temp Tech Corporation Mailing Address• Phone: 908-788-6999 P.O. Box 903 • Cell: 908-500-7500 Flemington, New Jersey 08822 Website: www.hitemptech.com B-mail hitemp@blast.net 13. T'herrn-tec lnc. l~flailing Address: Phone: 503-625-7575 20525 S.W. Cipole Road Fax: 503-625-6161 Sherwood, Oregon 97140 Website: www.cremators.com E-mail: thermtec@earthlink.net 14. (Precision las~ergy Services, Irtc. Flailing Address: Phone: 208-772-4457 Corporate Headquarters Fax: 208-762-1113 P.O. Box 1004 Website: www.pes-world.com Hayden Lake, Indiana 83835 Contact: Mike Oswald, President E-mail: oswaldmw@pes-world.com ~710LA tiar~i3ng ESE